My wife and I recently finished watching our way through the second season of House of David. It is well done overall and is quite respectful to the source material, though in my opinion it suffers from the same malady as The Chosen, in that it is often more interested in its interpretation of the events rather than in the facts of the events. But it is Hollywood and you shouldn’t get your theology from Hollywood, for they are in the entertainment business, not on the interpretation business.
However, one of the things that has annoyed me the most about the series is the amount of anachronism found in the interpretation. An anachronism is something or someone that is applied outside of its proper chronological order. It is a practice, an idea, or a person that comes much later that is interpolated back into the past, changing how events are viewed. Let me give two concrete examples from the TV show:
- In the first season David states that Israelites do not say the name of YHWH. This is not attested to in Scripture. It is a tradition that was established in the intertestamental period over six hundred years later when the Hasidim did their best to protect the honor of God from being dishonored. Indeed, Scripture shows the opposite. In the Psalms David lovingly speaks with YHWH on a first-name basis, as do all the prophets.
- Throughout the series, Hebrew is written in the Aramaic block script, which by both tradition and archaeology could not have been used during David’s period. Indeed, the earliest it could have been used is with Ezra in the fifth century BC; and this is according to rabbinic tradition. The earliest archeological evidence comes from the third century BC. David thus would likely have written with the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet.
Now, Josh, you may say, you’re just nitpicking. No, I am not. Because points like these have a bearing on the interpretation of Scripture. If David did not say the name of YHWH, rather calling him “Hashem” (the Name), then how are we to interpret all of David’s psalms in which he pours out his heart to his beloved God using the name YHWH in the text? The rabbinic tradition about Israelite history comes from centuries later, reading prejudices and understandings of later times back into Scripture. If we follow them we are likely to end up with false understandings of role distribution in the culture, especially those of females and males. If we accept modern sensibilities like equity and diversity and read Scripture through that lens, we end up with heretical movements like liberation theology.
The Bible must be read in its proper context; and this includes historical context. The foremost source for biblical times is the Bible itself. We must allow it to speak first and then supplement it first with materials from the same time period. Only after this should we look at later interpretations. For there are truths in later interpretations, they are just not as clear as the truths in the Bible.
The one thing I want you to take away from this brief discussion is this: people who have a deep respect for the Word of God will treat it as the ultimate authority. They will not allow anachronism to affect their interpretation. They will guard against it, taking the text as it is first. If they do not understand it, they will seek clarity in the Word and only go outside to the opinions of man after they have exhausted the facts provided by God.
For example, the Bible itself shows us a picture of a generally literate society in David’s day and age, and even before. Perhaps two hundred years earlier, Gideon was able to grab a young man off the street and get him to write down a list of names (Jdg. 8:14). Both the young man and Gideon were literate. Such widespread literacy in a society that revered the written Word of God disappearing by the time David was roaming the hills as a shepherd may be possible, but it is not probable. Thus, Michal teaching David to read as is suggested in House of David is another anachronism backported by haughty modern scholars who think that any plebeian born before the Enlightenment was an uneducated rube. Indeed, it is my contention that we today are far more stupid than our forebears, for we think we are wise when we are foolish, and trust in our own wisdom rather than God’s.
So, take your time to study the Word and the world it describes first. Then supplement it with the oldest finds relating to that period; but be aware that even these are tainted by worldviews and interpretations that do not line up with Scripture. God has given us wisdom and good minds. As much as it is to his glory to conceal a matter, it is to our glory, as children of the King, to uncover it (Pr. 25:2). Let us just do it respectfully and in full cognizance of our limitations.