6 ms·

I have to disagree with the assumptions here that there are no ancient good guy/bad guy narratives. David vs Goliath. Samson and the Philistines. Jesus agains

I have to disagree with the assumptions here that there are no ancient good guy/bad guy narratives. David vs Goliath. Samson and the Philistines. Jesus against Death in Revelation. And that's just the Bible. People's stories going through history follow all sorts of narratives, some that are hero/villain, some that are proverbial, some where some virtue is being exemplified by one or more people, and some evil exemplified by people or elemental forces and nature. There's nothing modern about it, it's just that you can make anything seem hazier or more opaque or you reduce it to a binary, depending on just how much you want to over analyze it.

badestrand 9y ago
I don't know the other stories well and Christianity is a big good-bad theme in itself with its hell and heaven but in David versus Goliath the giant never was the bad guy. He was just fighting for the other side and David killed him, that's it as far as I know.
- dragontamer 9y ago
  I think that's a fair point. But otherwise, David is very much a "good guy" in virtually all of his stories. King David's famous "Slice the baby in half, so that both 'mothers' can have half of it" is clearly a fight of good vs evil. The Evil mother doesn't care for the child, while the good mother cares deeply for the child. And that's how King David solved one child-custody problem... (not actually killing the baby, but by judging the reactions of the two 'mothers' to the potential act). ----------- The story of "Sodom and Gomorrah" is implicitly about evil. The town faces divine punishment because 10 good people couldn't be found. Its perhaps not "good guy vs bad guy", bit the concepts of "bad guy" are definitely explored.
  - hacknat 9y ago
    David wasn’t the king who proposed to slice the baby in half it was Solomon, and the whole point of that story is to illustrate how wise Solomon is not to belabor some point about an evil mother.
  - phaemon 9y ago
    That was Solomon, not David.
    - dragontamer 9y ago
      Ugggh, so easy to get the various kings confused. Ah well.
  - valine 9y ago
    The “cut the baby in half” was Solomon. If you’re looking for stories in the Bible where David is the bad guy, check out 2 Samuel 11. It’s all about how David murders a dude so he can commit adultery with the dudes wife.
  - bobcostas55 9y ago
    >David is very much a "good guy" in virtually all of his stories. The whole Bathsheba incident portrays him in a very negative light.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      He also comes across as a fairly bad father (his kids rape, murder, and commit treason). That goes all the way back to taking multiple wives against explicit instructions. 1 Chronicles 21 describes David as being responsible for the death of 70,000 of his people.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > He was just fighting for the other side and David killed him, that's it as far as I know. The Philistines in the Bible were generally military aggressors. Goliath was at the head of that aggression. He provoked and tried to dishonor Israel. You could read everything he said about Israel as so much smack-talking, but the fact that he was there to conquer is hard to hand-wave around.
  - kstenerud 9y ago
    Except that Israel did the same kind of conquering of its neighbors as its neighbors did do Israel. There was no "evil" in it; that was just the way of things. In fact, Yahweh encouraged Israel to conquer her neighbors. All he cared about was who gets the credit (him). Furthermore, there is much dispute in what gets translated to Philistines, as the wording often referred to Israel's warring neighbors in general. We often make the mistake of looking at these stories through a modern lens, and ascribing morality to them that simply didn't exist at the time.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      The Bible describes the conquest of the Holy Land as being both a fulfillment of promises to Israel and a consequence for the behavior of the conquered. Earth and everything in it is God's so the authority of Israel wasn't in military power but fiat by the creator of the universe. Of course, most don't follow Biblical theology, which more or less amounts to "Trust God. He wouldn't have told them to take the Israel if it was unfair." The Philistines taking Israel simply because they want it, in contrast, would be sinful. > We often make the mistake of looking at these stories through a modern lens, and ascribing morality to them that simply didn't exist at the time. Right. The "everyone's just conquering stuff" morality isn't accurate either, though.
      - kstenerud 9y ago
        While this is technically correct within the confines of the biblical narrative itself, I was referring to the parent poster's depiction of the Philistines as aggressors outside of any historical context. It was common for a conqueror to say that he had favor with his gods and/or the conquered were on his gods' hit list, which was more than sufficient justification for attacking a neighbor. Actually, the bar for attacking was much, much lower, but adding a spiritual purpose was always a nice touch.
- krapp 9y ago
  >but in David versus Goliath the giant never was the bad guy. He was just fighting for the other side and David killed him, that's it as far as I know. Remember the context in which this story exists, where it's written and for whom. Goliath is the "bad guy" for two simple reasons. 1) he was a Gentile, and, therefore, unclean in the sight of God, 2) he stood against God's chosen people, and by extension, the will of God.
SubiculumCode 9y ago
It is a well written thesis, and finds lots of evidence for his thesis. However, you are exactly right. Evidence that could contradict the thesis is unexplored, and leaves his/her rather sweeping claims unjustified.
dragontamer 9y ago
Looking a few things up: Grendel from Beowulf apparently is a descendant of Cain (from the Bible), the first murderer. Perhaps its not so much that "bad guys weren't in these ancient stories", its that "bad guys weren't human anymore". If you were a bad guy, you literally turn into a monster, or a demon, or a devil, or an Oni... or a troll. Today, we have stories where humans can play the bad guy.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  Cain was a human bad guy, right?
  - HarryHirsch 9y ago
    It's more subtle than that. According to the Bible, Cain was the first human born on Earth. It think that's meaningful, we are all human and all of us have Cain's nature in ourselves.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      He murdered his brother out of raw jealousy. Aesthetically and poetically there's plenty to draw from, but I think it's hard to argue that Cain's behavior was in any sort of grey area.
      - HarryHirsch 9y ago
        But what happens next, after the murder, isn't what you see with comic book villains. God says to Cain the farmer "If you till the ground, it shall no longer give you its produce." Cain replies "My punishment is too great to bear" and "Anyone may kill me at sight." God relents, assuring him "If anyone kills Cain, Cain shall be avenged seven times", and he becomes the ancestor of blacksmiths. This is odd, Cain isn't even sent on a quest to make up for his deed, like Hercules and Orestes were.
    - goatlover 9y ago
      Yes, but in the story God warned Cain not to give into sin, but Cain did anyway and killed his brother out of jealousy. So God cursed Cain. We would have tried him for premeditated murder. There's nothing gray about killing someone out of jealousy. Sure, it's a human emotion, and we can all feel jealous at times. Doesn't make the act of murder a moral gray area.
kstenerud 9y ago
None of those are good guy/bad guy narratives (and the last example is just silly). David vs Goliath and Samson vs the Philistines are both examples of warring nations, each gaining the upper hand at various times. The point of the Goliath story was that pitting David against him AND making him win was both a humiliation of the opposing army, and an affirmation of whose god was more powerful. The primary point of the Samson story was the preservation of one's vows. Good vs evil doesn't enter into it anywhere.
- natecavanaugh 9y ago
  Okay so what qualifies in your opinion? How about David vs Saul? I mean, are you contending than any story that isn't purely one man against another man individually and without reference to nationalism or collective pursuit are the only narratives that count as dualistic? I'm lost as to why none of those count, but somehow Star Wars fits the bill? Also, in Revelation, Death is personified, and if you don't believe that's good vs. evil, I'm not sure where we'll agree. Death seems to be pretty universally considered bad.
  - kstenerud 9y ago
    Star Wars (and pretty much all modern tales) splits good and evil along ideological lines, as in the "baddies" are all about oppression and rule by fear, whereas the "goodies" are all about the power of love. It's so universal and ingrained in modern society that nobody seems to recognize it anymore. In modern story telling, you have the following major "good" and "evil" types: - The pure good - The good who is tempted by the dark side, but is eventually redeemed. - The good who is tempted by the dark side and is forever corrupted. - The rogue who does good by shady means so that the major characters can have a clear conscience. - The evil who is redeemed by love and turns to the good side. - The evil who is irredeemable. You'll also notice over the past few decades how the "goodies" eventually stopped killing, and eventually even harming others, even in self defense (Remember the 80s, when Han shot first?). It's always the evil one hoisted on his own petard. So in modern stories, the goodies live by a code of zen-like purity as a means to prove that goodness always defeats badness without sullying itself (except in side-stories about the rogue characters). So what do you have in Saul vs David? A jealous and envious brother whose neuroses drive him to the edge. Is he evil? Does he revel in his evilness? Does he pat himself on the back for doing his share of evil this day like Darth Vader? No. He considers himself inherently good, but hard done by, and wants to even the scale. Now let's look at Death: I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him. They were given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth. So, Death is a heavenly being, given power (by Yahweh) to kill. Is he evil? He's there for a very specific purpose, and as far as I can remember from the texts, expresses no opinion, nor does the text ascribe any morality to him.

badestrand 9y ago

I don't know the other stories well and Christianity is a big good-bad theme in itself with its hell and heaven but in David versus Goliath the giant never was the bad guy. He was just fighting for the other side and David killed him, that's it as far as I know.

dragontamer 9y ago
I think that's a fair point. But otherwise, David is very much a "good guy" in virtually all of his stories. King David's famous "Slice the baby in half, so that both 'mothers' can have half of it" is clearly a fight of good vs evil. The Evil mother doesn't care for the child, while the good mother cares deeply for the child. And that's how King David solved one child-custody problem... (not actually killing the baby, but by judging the reactions of the two 'mothers' to the potential act). ----------- The story of "Sodom and Gomorrah" is implicitly about evil. The town faces divine punishment because 10 good people couldn't be found. Its perhaps not "good guy vs bad guy", bit the concepts of "bad guy" are definitely explored.
- hacknat 9y ago
  David wasn’t the king who proposed to slice the baby in half it was Solomon, and the whole point of that story is to illustrate how wise Solomon is not to belabor some point about an evil mother.
- phaemon 9y ago
  That was Solomon, not David.
  - dragontamer 9y ago
    Ugggh, so easy to get the various kings confused. Ah well.
- valine 9y ago
  The “cut the baby in half” was Solomon. If you’re looking for stories in the Bible where David is the bad guy, check out 2 Samuel 11. It’s all about how David murders a dude so he can commit adultery with the dudes wife.
- bobcostas55 9y ago
  >David is very much a "good guy" in virtually all of his stories. The whole Bathsheba incident portrays him in a very negative light.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    He also comes across as a fairly bad father (his kids rape, murder, and commit treason). That goes all the way back to taking multiple wives against explicit instructions. 1 Chronicles 21 describes David as being responsible for the death of 70,000 of his people.
humanrebar 9y ago
> He was just fighting for the other side and David killed him, that's it as far as I know. The Philistines in the Bible were generally military aggressors. Goliath was at the head of that aggression. He provoked and tried to dishonor Israel. You could read everything he said about Israel as so much smack-talking, but the fact that he was there to conquer is hard to hand-wave around.
- kstenerud 9y ago
  Except that Israel did the same kind of conquering of its neighbors as its neighbors did do Israel. There was no "evil" in it; that was just the way of things. In fact, Yahweh encouraged Israel to conquer her neighbors. All he cared about was who gets the credit (him). Furthermore, there is much dispute in what gets translated to Philistines, as the wording often referred to Israel's warring neighbors in general. We often make the mistake of looking at these stories through a modern lens, and ascribing morality to them that simply didn't exist at the time.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    The Bible describes the conquest of the Holy Land as being both a fulfillment of promises to Israel and a consequence for the behavior of the conquered. Earth and everything in it is God's so the authority of Israel wasn't in military power but fiat by the creator of the universe. Of course, most don't follow Biblical theology, which more or less amounts to "Trust God. He wouldn't have told them to take the Israel if it was unfair." The Philistines taking Israel simply because they want it, in contrast, would be sinful. > We often make the mistake of looking at these stories through a modern lens, and ascribing morality to them that simply didn't exist at the time. Right. The "everyone's just conquering stuff" morality isn't accurate either, though.
    - kstenerud 9y ago
      While this is technically correct within the confines of the biblical narrative itself, I was referring to the parent poster's depiction of the Philistines as aggressors outside of any historical context. It was common for a conqueror to say that he had favor with his gods and/or the conquered were on his gods' hit list, which was more than sufficient justification for attacking a neighbor. Actually, the bar for attacking was much, much lower, but adding a spiritual purpose was always a nice touch.
krapp 9y ago
>but in David versus Goliath the giant never was the bad guy. He was just fighting for the other side and David killed him, that's it as far as I know. Remember the context in which this story exists, where it's written and for whom. Goliath is the "bad guy" for two simple reasons. 1) he was a Gentile, and, therefore, unclean in the sight of God, 2) he stood against God's chosen people, and by extension, the will of God.

SubiculumCode 9y ago

It is a well written thesis, and finds lots of evidence for his thesis. However, you are exactly right. Evidence that could contradict the thesis is unexplored, and leaves his/her rather sweeping claims unjustified.

dragontamer 9y ago

Looking a few things up: Grendel from Beowulf apparently is a descendant of Cain (from the Bible), the first murderer. Perhaps its not so much that "bad guys weren't in these ancient stories", its that "bad guys weren't human anymore". If you were a bad guy, you literally turn into a monster, or a demon, or a devil, or an Oni... or a troll. Today, we have stories where humans can play the bad guy.

humanrebar 9y ago
Cain was a human bad guy, right?
- HarryHirsch 9y ago
  It's more subtle than that. According to the Bible, Cain was the first human born on Earth. It think that's meaningful, we are all human and all of us have Cain's nature in ourselves.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    He murdered his brother out of raw jealousy. Aesthetically and poetically there's plenty to draw from, but I think it's hard to argue that Cain's behavior was in any sort of grey area.
    - HarryHirsch 9y ago
      But what happens next, after the murder, isn't what you see with comic book villains. God says to Cain the farmer "If you till the ground, it shall no longer give you its produce." Cain replies "My punishment is too great to bear" and "Anyone may kill me at sight." God relents, assuring him "If anyone kills Cain, Cain shall be avenged seven times", and he becomes the ancestor of blacksmiths. This is odd, Cain isn't even sent on a quest to make up for his deed, like Hercules and Orestes were.
  - goatlover 9y ago
    Yes, but in the story God warned Cain not to give into sin, but Cain did anyway and killed his brother out of jealousy. So God cursed Cain. We would have tried him for premeditated murder. There's nothing gray about killing someone out of jealousy. Sure, it's a human emotion, and we can all feel jealous at times. Doesn't make the act of murder a moral gray area.

kstenerud 9y ago

None of those are good guy/bad guy narratives (and the last example is just silly). David vs Goliath and Samson vs the Philistines are both examples of warring nations, each gaining the upper hand at various times. The point of the Goliath story was that pitting David against him AND making him win was both a humiliation of the opposing army, and an affirmation of whose god was more powerful. The primary point of the Samson story was the preservation of one's vows. Good vs evil doesn't enter into it anywhere.

natecavanaugh 9y ago
Okay so what qualifies in your opinion? How about David vs Saul? I mean, are you contending than any story that isn't purely one man against another man individually and without reference to nationalism or collective pursuit are the only narratives that count as dualistic? I'm lost as to why none of those count, but somehow Star Wars fits the bill? Also, in Revelation, Death is personified, and if you don't believe that's good vs. evil, I'm not sure where we'll agree. Death seems to be pretty universally considered bad.
- kstenerud 9y ago
  Star Wars (and pretty much all modern tales) splits good and evil along ideological lines, as in the "baddies" are all about oppression and rule by fear, whereas the "goodies" are all about the power of love. It's so universal and ingrained in modern society that nobody seems to recognize it anymore. In modern story telling, you have the following major "good" and "evil" types: - The pure good - The good who is tempted by the dark side, but is eventually redeemed. - The good who is tempted by the dark side and is forever corrupted. - The rogue who does good by shady means so that the major characters can have a clear conscience. - The evil who is redeemed by love and turns to the good side. - The evil who is irredeemable. You'll also notice over the past few decades how the "goodies" eventually stopped killing, and eventually even harming others, even in self defense (Remember the 80s, when Han shot first?). It's always the evil one hoisted on his own petard. So in modern stories, the goodies live by a code of zen-like purity as a means to prove that goodness always defeats badness without sullying itself (except in side-stories about the rogue characters). So what do you have in Saul vs David? A jealous and envious brother whose neuroses drive him to the edge. Is he evil? Does he revel in his evilness? Does he pat himself on the back for doing his share of evil this day like Darth Vader? No. He considers himself inherently good, but hard done by, and wants to even the scale. Now let's look at Death: I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him. They were given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth. So, Death is a heavenly being, given power (by Yahweh) to kill. Is he evil? He's there for a very specific purpose, and as far as I can remember from the texts, expresses no opinion, nor does the text ascribe any morality to him.