GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

From: <Michelle.Murphy%>
Subject: Accuracy of Davidic genealogies
Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2000 16:41 +0100 (BST)

, King David, by his actions, should have been
> put
> to death by the law, for his affair with Bathsheba.
> He avoided this action by his being the supreme
> commander of the State. He was held accountable
> by God, but not by the general population at large.


Why did Henry VIII not cite this as a precedent (or did he?) for a King breaking
laws which nevertheless ordinary people were
bound to keep, on pain of death?

I suppose, though, if Henry had been permitted the numerous wives David had, the
issue of divorce would never have come up.
By a strange coincidence, one of David's few wives who was childless was Michal,
daughter of King Saul. His grand royal
alliance (he won Michal's hand by slaying Goliath) bore no fruit (you can't miss
the parallel with Catherine of Aragon),
but this did not matter because he had dozens upon dozens of other wives, and
hundreds of sons. I'm surprised that the
learned Henry did not even mention the precedent of David, unless he realised
the stigma attached to the relationship with
Bathsheba and sought a cleaner means of defending his own actions. And there
was no Uriah the Hittite to muddy the waters
in Henry's time, unless you count the Wyatts, Breretons and Culpeppers, who
thought they were in with a chance with the
young women Henry would choose to be his Queens.

Incidentally, though, if the Old Testament is held to be largely parable, how
can the genealogies be correct? Just because
adultery was illegal does not mean that the genealogies were not mythical, even
so.

regards

Michelle

mailto:

This thread:

• Accuracy of Davidic genealogies by <Michelle.Murphy%>