235
236

The issue with David's tissue (self.badhistory)

Llort2 が 投稿

Today I want to bring up a historical BadHistory perpetrated by Michelangelo.

Exhibit A

Ah yes, the famous statue of David. A classic in the art world, how can anyone have any problems with this? I do...

Going into battle naked would have been a very interesting tactic, this wasn't inside an amphitheater or a Greek games, this was war and in war you kind of try not to die. We know from the source material that the shepherd king did not use any armor but I think it is a safe assumption that he kept his clothes on unless he wanted his opponents to die of laughter at the size of that thing.

But that is not my issue. It is time for me to bring up one of the most dead horse issues on Reddit.

Circumcision

Yes, that word. If you look closely (as closely as you are willing to at another man's penis) you will notice that there is extra junk on his junk. Being Jewish, we can assume that they would have lobbed the knob at eight days of age... it would have been scandalous if it were found out that the royal head was unshaven. I would say that there is no chance in Gehanna that King David was not circumcised.

全 62 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]The740Rommel was more honorable than Grove, less than Earnshaw 148 ポイント149 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Who's to say that when David referred to "this uncircumcised Philistine", he wasn't actually referring to himself? And then David himself was actually a Philistine sleeper agent who worked to bring down Israel from within?

Quick, get Dan Brown on the phone!

[–]PenisdenapoleonJason Unruhe is Cassandra of our time. 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Tangent: has DB ever been on record about the numerous...inaccuracies in his works? Like, has he admitted that he just doesn't give a shit or does he genuinely believe what he writes?

[–]WhyCantIQuitReddit16 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

IIRC, he's claimed that everything except the existence of Robert Langdon is true.

[–]theamazingmrmaybe 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

His quote on the matter is that he believes (regarding the Da Vinci Code) "the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist." The book includes a page titled FACT, that, again using Brown's words, "makes no statement whatsoever about any of the ancient theories discussed by fictional characters." So he leaves it up to interpretation about the theories, but he doesn't seem to recognize the factual inaccuracies (such as the Priory of Sion not being a thing at all). Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20080325062025/http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/faqs.html

[–]Jiketi 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Dawud bin Talut: Palestinian hero!

[–]friskydongo 102 ポイント103 ポイント  (6子コメント)

unless he wanted his opponents to die of laughter at the size of that thing.

Hey bro he just got out of the pool no need to dongshame

[–]The740Rommel was more honorable than Grove, less than Earnshaw 75 ポイント76 ポイント  (1子コメント)

It says that he took five smooth stones from a stream, so he was definitely in the water.

In he story of David and Bathsheba, spring is referred to as "when kings go off to war", so it's also likely that the fight against Goliath took place in the spring. And since springtime will still have cool nights, with water temperatures cooler than the ambient temperature, shrinkage among kings and men would still be an issue.

[–]ThoctarTool of the Baltic Financiers 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Especially if you stride around naked.

[–]Llort2[S] 35 ポイント36 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hey, he got 8 wives with that thing...

[–]Jeroknite 47 ポイント48 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ｃ Ｉ Ｖ Ｉ Ｌ Ｉ Ｚ Ｅ Ｄ Ｇ Ｒ Ｅ Ｅ Ｋ Ｐ Ｅ Ｎ Ｉ Ｓ

[–]Puggpu 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (1子コメント)

He's a grower.

[–]DragonsandmanStalin was a Hanzo main and Galileo was two geese in a costume 74 ポイント75 ポイント  (12子コメント)

I think this post proves once and for all that nothing is safe from this sub.

[–]NotExistorIf it villifies the United States it must be true 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (11子コメント)

Your flair is a little harsh on the guy, dontcha think?

[–]DragonsandmanStalin was a Hanzo main and Galileo was two geese in a costume 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (10子コメント)

Nah, it fits perfectly. Now if I said Stalin plays Torbjörn on attack, on the other hand...

Now I'm curious. Which historical figure was enough of a jackass to play attack Torb?

[–][deleted] 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (9子コメント)

Pol Pot?

[–]DragonsandmanStalin was a Hanzo main and Galileo was two geese in a costume 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (8子コメント)

He'd throw games for sure.

[–]AGuyWithARaygun 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Not familiar with the game, but what's wrong with Hanzo and Torbjorn?

[–]Jebediah_Blasts_offShitposting, the underappreciated artform 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Hanzo = very powerful hero that requires high skill, something 99% of hanzo mains lack.

Torbjorn = builds turrets and is very good on defence, generally garbage on attack

[–]yourplotneedsworkThe creation of the European knight begins with the snail 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Firstly, Overwatch is a game where "maining" a hero, while common among pros, is not recommended for most players, due to the ability to change heroes mid-game meaning that being able to switch to counters against enemies and switch away from heroes when the enemy switches to counters is a very important skill. When someone "mains" a hero, it implies that they will never switch away from that hero, regardless of how much it is hurting them and their team.

However, there are some heroes which are considered okay to main. These are heroes which are always useful and frequently present in lineups. Tanks such as Reinhardt and Roadhog, as well as supports like Ana and Mercy are almost always welcome additions to a team. You can main these heroes and go whole games having no one notice. But the more niche the hero is, the more likely your team is to notice, and the more likely they are to get annoyed. Hanzo and Tornjorn can be reasonably described as "niche", albeit on different levels.

Torbjorn is a short Swede who has a large beard and builds a turret. This makes him suited to area control and defense. When someone plays Torbjorn on attack, they're considered to be trolling. And remember, they're not just lowering their chances of victory, they're also lowering their team's chances. For someone to exclusively play Torbjorn on attack implies a callous disregard for the opinions of their teammates, who are most certainly yelling at them to switch. Obviously, comparing people who do this to one of history's worst murderers is hyperbole.

Hanzo is a skinny Japanese man who wields a bow and controls the dragons. He is also a bit of a sniper. These qualities combine to make him a common main for weaboos. Hanzo is also a hard character to play well, with his inherently inconsistent damage and tendency to get dived on. This means people who main Hanzo are usually doing quite badly. However, the possibility of getting a great Hanzo player who lands all his arrows and annihilates the enemy team is large enough so as to not make this stereotype as negative in people's minds. And once again, there is a bit of hyperbole in comparing mid-20s body-pillow-owning men with neckbeards to a dictator who, directly and indirectly, caused the deaths of tens of millions and instituted mass repression of dissent.

[–]AGuyWithARaygun 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thank you for an elaborate response!

[–]taxable1 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Out of curiosity, where on the dictator scale does playing pre-rework Symmetra on attack?

[–]DragonsandmanStalin was a Hanzo main and Galileo was two geese in a costume 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

That goes straight past mortal dictators and straight into the circles of hell. Try searching for a suitable demon there.

[–]taxable1 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ah yes, the Tenth Circle reserved for AFKer and ragequitters.

[–]exatron 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (4子コメント)

but I think it is a safe assumption that he kept his clothes on unless he wanted his opponents to die of laughter at the size of that thing.

The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe had an explanation for that during a Science or Fiction segment earlier this year. Small penises were preferred at the time because large ones were considered a sign of being savage and uncivilized.

[–]P-01SGod made men, but RSAF Enfield made them civilized. 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Preferred by the ancient Greeks, specifically.

Well, the Ancient Greek men. Usual "men wrote the history and made the art" bias applies.

[–]rmric0 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

But as a patriarchal conspiracy, shouldn't men of the modern age also push for this view? Or at least get porn dongs back to reasonable levels.

[–]P-01SGod made men, but RSAF Enfield made them civilized. 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Or at least get porn dongs back to reasonable levels.

Being the most enlightened culture ever, Ancient Greeks knew that venerating modest dongs would lead to social stability, hence the blossoming of democracy. The Greek virtue of "justice" - that everyone take their role in life and accept it as deeply as they could - worked best in the absence of dong envy. By presenting the "ideal" dong as slender, Greek philosophers ensured that the lower classes would not feel resentful and the upper classes would not feel compelled to slap the lower classes across the face to prove how big and girthy their power was.

Of course, this sort of harmonious coexistence of men, based on a fabricated perception that the vast majority of them were better endowed than "ideal", faded over the years... We do see the basic premise show up in Rome, which demonstrated that it was not the size of the gladius but how one thrust with it, but the concept was lost over the years. The Romans started using longer and longer swords, which was unsurprisingly accompanied by a decline in the Empire.

Which brings us to the modern era of porn dongs. The late 20th century to now has been a period marked by an incredible uptick in unrest, as we all know because we see it more often in the news. It is no coincidence at all that such unrest has risen along with the rise of the internet. The spread of the internet has brought massive porn dongs into the view of men the world over like never before. And now there are free porn sites turgid with massive porn dongs in HD!

Voclano's magma I'm bored...

[–]khalifabinalithe western god, money 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Would the Israelites though. Also that statue is not hairy enough.

[–]SnapshillBotPassing Turing Tests since 1956 29 ポイント30 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's just like, your opinion, man.

Snapshots:

  1. This Post - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, snew.github.io, archive.is

  2. Exhibit A - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, archive.is

I am a bot. (Info / Contact)

[–]redfricker 25 ポイント26 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Did you just say David had a small dick? Are you dick shaming, bro?

[–]Llort2[S] 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Sorry, I am just used to statues like these

[–]ScrabCrab 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm terrified of heights and even though I know that's just a movie it gave me so much anxiety ;-;

[–]brigantusTheovolcanologist 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (16子コメント)

Putting aside the fact that David is mythological figure who quite possibly never existed, the prescription that Jews must be circumcised (Genesis 17) wasn't added to the Torah until the 6th century. David (supposedly) reigned over 400 years prior to that, so there's no reason to assume the Israelites were practicing circumcision at that point.

[–]Llort2[S] 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Source please

[–]brigantusTheovolcanologist 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Glick, L. B. 2005. Marked in Your Flesh: Circumcision from Ancient Judea to Modern America. Oxford University Press, pp. 13–34.

[–]derdaus 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Anywhere I can read more on the history of circumcision in the Torah? Google isn't being helpful.

[–]brigantusTheovolcanologist 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

My source is Marked in Your Flesh: Circumcision from Ancient Judea to Modern America by Leonard Glick. The first chapter deals with the origin and context of ritual circumcision in ancient Judaism.

[–]ReverandT 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Just to be clear, youre saying it was added in 6th Century BCE, correct? With the hypothesis that the particular segment of Genesis more accurately matches the writing of Deuteronomy rather than one of the other Torah styles?

[–]brigantusTheovolcanologist 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

BCE, yeah. But it's associated with the Priestly writer rather than Deuteronomy.

[–]ReverandT 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

If it's priestly it would pre-date David with the rest of the first four books of the Torah. At least that's what I had been lead to believe

[–]brigantusTheovolcanologist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't think so. P is supposed to be Exilic or post-Exilic, so the 6th or early 5th century. It's the most recent of the sources. David reigned in the 10th century.

[–]kurokame 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Except for the fact that the Philistines were the only ethnic group referred to as "uncircumcised" and circumcision was also practiced in the Old Kingdom of Egypt. Point being, circumcision was not a peculiarly "Jewish" practice in antiquity.

[–]brigantusTheovolcanologist 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (5子コメント)

That's also a late insertion, likely from the same source as Genesis 17. Many ancient Near Eastern societies practised circumcision―the Israelites didn't pluck the idea from nowhere―but that doesn't mean it was universal. The idea that circumcision made one ritually clean and was part of a covenant with God (i.e. Genesis 17), and therefore that all Jews must be circumcised, is an innovation of the 6th century Priestly writer. It was part of a raft of similar ideas regarding the ritual cleanliness, purity and unique monotheistic faith of the Jewish people that arose around the time of the Babylonian exile. Once that idea was established, it made sense to make a big deal of the Philistines not being circumcised. Before that, not so much.

I'm not saying that David definitely wasn't circumcised; only that saying he definitely was is anachronistic thinking. Also, that being pedantic over the foreskin of a mythological figure is silly.

[–]whatismooElders of Zion 2, Jewgalectric JewgaJew: Part I, The Jewening 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Rule 4. Nothing is off limits.

[–]DirishJudyism had one big God named Yahoo[M] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'll allow it since their other points are solid and interesting.

[edit] pun not intended

[–]The740Rommel was more honorable than Grove, less than Earnshaw 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Also, that being pedantic over the foreskin of a mythological figure is silly.

I disagree; I don't think it goes far enough.

[–]Llort2[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I am aware of the four source theory, I thought the first two were from the Davidian era, one from the era of King Josiah and the fourth was simply a priestly one.

Wouldn't the majority of the information be from the Davidian era?

[–]brigantusTheovolcanologist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't think there's a solid consensus on when the earliest material (the Jahwist and Elohist sources) was put together. The Deutoronomist material is associated with Josiah. It was put together with the J and E around the time of the Exile, and the editing and additions of the Priestly writer probably date to just after the Exile.

[–]twenty_seven_owls 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Also, didn't David go hunting Philistines by request of Saul and bring back some foreskins to prove he really killed a bunch of them?

[–]glow_ball_list_cook 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Michelangelo really put the "art" into "artistic license".

[–]ryca13 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I thought the shrinkage was meant to illustrate David's fear.

[–]TheyMightBeTrollsLenin wasn't a true Lenninist 23 ポイント24 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Thus began and ended Michelangelo's brief artistic experimentation with Freudian expressionism.

[–]yoshiKUncultured savage since 476 AD 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

And it would have worked, if not for the meddling King Edwards and his scheming navy.

[–]princetonwu 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I appreciate the high res image so I can adequately fill my screen with his junk while at work

[–]Raltie 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Is there any non biblical proof that David or Solomon existed?

[–]Llort2[S] 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Besides an entire temple... there is the Tel Dan inscription in the northern end of the country, as well as recognition by some inscriptions in historic Aram of a "house of David".

[–]Raltie 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Oh damn, I forgot all about the temple. What's the earliest Hebrew leader we can prove existed?

[–]brigantusTheovolcanologist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Certainly not David, see my reply to the OP.

[–]brigantusTheovolcanologist 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

What? The existence of the temple doesn't mean it was built by the biblical David. Does the existence of Rome prove Romulus existed? Does the London Stone prove Brutus of Troy existed?

Aside from the bible, the Tel Dan stele is the only widely accepted reference to David in an ancient source. It also postdates his reign by several centuries and it only refers to the house of David, which would also be consistent with the hypothesis that he was a mythological founding figure or patriarch rather than a historic king.

[–]EquinoxActualAll hail Obama, the Waterlord. 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The existence of the temple doesn't mean it was built by the biblical David.

I believe that was in reference to Solomon. It's kinda reasonable to surmise that if there was a temple someone had it built.