How is "king" a European concept? Monarchies have existed all over the world.

I would assume precisely the opposite. If anything, European monarchies might have attempted to base themselves on the biblical paradigm. Now that would be an interesting question: did european monarchs fashion their kingship after the biblical kings?

What aspects of kingship do you think are unique to Europe? I've never heard anyone ever posit such a thing. Ever.

I'm pretty sure that the original commenter would have meant the English word 'king' - there were even kings in Rome before the Roman Republic, in addition to the biblical kings, and their title rex was used throughout the Middle Ages with reference to European kings.

With regards to comparing the functions of ancient kings to medieval kings (modern kingship is obviously rather different), they would likely have been quite similar. By the sheer nature of kingship - ultimately the ruler of a defined territory, funded by their subjects to be able to devote time to rule and warfare - kings appear to have had two basic functions. The first was to defend the realm both externally through warfare, and internally through justice. Secondly, as they often had spare resources to do so, kings engaged in building works or other large-scale projects that even richer individuals would have found difficult to achieve. This enhanced their prestige, but was less essential than the first.

Obviously some other functions are added, especially in more complicated polities, such as support for religion, taxation, and other bureaucratic endeavours. In Late Medieval England, for example, kings were also expected to listen to council, and to act according to the common will of the people. The evidence for biblical kings is quite scant, but David seems to have fulfilled these basic roles: he conquered Jerusalem and intended to build a temple for the Ark of the Covenant.

Later kings used the example of biblical kings extensively in ceremonial purpose. The rulers of the Byzantine Empire (or, as they would call themselves, the Roman Empire) used biblical imagery extensively until the state's collapse in 1453, when its capital, Constantinople, fell to Ottoman Turks. This is an image from the Paris Psalter, a 10th century illustrated manuscript, displaying king David in imperial robes: continuity is thus established between the Byzantine Empire and his kingship, and king David is linked to a symbol of the emperor's power, his robes. Indeed, Constantinople was called new Jerusalem as well as new Rome. Similarly, the Capetians ruling over France in the Middle Ages were compared to David and the other biblical kings. An example is Louis IX (1226-70) who was canonised after his death. These are only two examples: the biblical kings were utilised frequently by European monarchs, and they were useful as they were both models of kingship and a way of linking an individual king more strongly to the Christian faith, something that was integral to legitimising monarchs in the first place. Similar use was made of other prestigious figures such as Charlemagne or even Julius Caesar.

I realise this does not answer your question entirely, but as I stated above the primary sources for biblical kings are very scarce. I would argue that biblical depictions of kingship probably had a greater influence on medieval kings because of this, as they provided an example and a model that could be imposed on individuals to emphasise their good characteristics and used for ceremonial purposes.

In Chinese history, the concept of a king "王,“ which is distinct from an emperor "帝," has existed for a very long time. The premise of this questions is quite flawed.

That comment was wrong.

The title of king is a European concept and came from the Germanic tribal (word: Koenig) system

This is incorrect. While the word (title) "king" did come from the Germanic word "Koenig", the concept of a king existed long before this word even existed.

As moderators, we apologise for not having spotted this misinformation and removed it earlier.

There is an important misconception that seems to be the base of this post. I think it's been mentioned, but it's worthwhile looking at the origins. The word könig, a close approximation of the Germanic base, is where English gets it's term for king, but the concept of "kingship"dates back as we can recall. The earliest references to kingship, which in this context, would be fair to define as, "The rule over a given territory by a single person, providing defense and administration, backed by a deity," occur in Mesopotamia, almost as early as we can consider city-states to exist.

There is an important distinction between pre-Sargon and post-Sargon kignship. Until Sargon of Akkad, the individual cities of Mesopotamia were believed to have existed as a home for individual gods. These states were both founded by the gods and nominally ruled over by them. This created tension between theocratic and non-theocratic ruling elites. This is evidenced far more in Southern Mesopotamia, among the Sumerians, than it is in Northern Mesopotamia, which seems to have developed along a different, as yet undetermined, path. This changed with Sargon.

Sargon the Great was of the Semetic speaking Akkadian, and was able to extend his rule over much of Mesopotamia, and it is theorized that he may have extended his control to the Mediterranean sea, near Syria. More importantly to what we're talking about here, he established a capital city at Agade. This poses a large problem for the Sumerians, whose concept of rule was based around gods. After Sargon died, his successor, Naram-Sin, claimed to be ruling through divine power, but reinforcing it through military might and protection of his land, thus bringing the Northern and Southern Mesopotamian concepts of kingship together. This is by and large the closest thing to the origin of Western kingship.

This connects to David through thousands of years of this type of rule in Mesopotamia, coupled with much more literal divine kingship that spreads in Egypt around the idea that the pharaoh is very literally the physical embodiment of the god Horus, or at least possessing his "ba" which is the part of the soul that is disconnected from the body. David and the other biblical kings, which are the most well evidenced parts of the Old Testament, would have ruled through a similar notion as other Early Iron Age kingships. After the rise of Christianity, the concepts of kingship in Europe continued a trend that had been building for thousands of years, but viewed through a different lens.

Putting aside the issue that monarchy is not a concept exclusive to Europe, there were some considerable differences between what kingship looked like in Biblical Israel versus Medieval Europe. The laws for what a king (מלך) was supposed to be were recorded in Deuteronomy 17:14-20:

יד כִּי-תָבֹא אֶל-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ, וִירִשְׁתָּהּ, וְיָשַׁבְתָּה בָּהּ; וְאָמַרְתָּ, אָשִׂימָה עָלַי מֶלֶךְ, כְּכָל-הַגּוֹיִם, אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבֹתָי.

When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein; and shalt say: 'I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are round about me';

טו שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ, אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בּוֹ: מִקֶּרֶב אַחֶיךָ, תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ--לֹא תוּכַל לָתֵת עָלֶיךָ אִישׁ נָכְרִי, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-אָחִיךָ הוּא

thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose; one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee; thou mayest not put a foreigner over thee, who is not thy brother.

טז רַק, לֹא-יַרְבֶּה-לּוֹ סוּסִים, וְלֹא-יָשִׁיב אֶת-הָעָם מִצְרַיְמָה, לְמַעַן הַרְבּוֹת סוּס; וַיהוָה, אָמַר לָכֶם, לֹא תֹסִפוּן לָשׁוּב בַּדֶּרֶךְ הַזֶּה, עוֹד.

Only he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses; forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you: 'Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.'

יז וְלֹא יַרְבֶּה-לּוֹ נָשִׁים, וְלֹא יָסוּר לְבָבוֹ; וְכֶסֶף וְזָהָב, לֹא יַרְבֶּה-לּוֹ מְאֹד.

Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away; neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

יח וְהָיָה כְשִׁבְתּוֹ, עַל כִּסֵּא מַמְלַכְתּוֹ--וְכָתַב לוֹ אֶת-מִשְׁנֵה הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת, עַל-סֵפֶר, מִלִּפְנֵי, הַכֹּהֲנִים הַלְוִיִּם.

And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book, out of that which is before the priests the Levites.

יט וְהָיְתָה עִמּוֹ, וְקָרָא בוֹ כָּל-יְמֵי חַיָּיו--לְמַעַן יִלְמַד, לְיִרְאָה אֶת-יְהוָה אֱלֹהָיו, לִשְׁמֹר אֶת-כָּל-דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת וְאֶת-הַחֻקִּים הָאֵלֶּה, לַעֲשֹׂתָם.

And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life; that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them;

כ לְבִלְתִּי רוּם-לְבָבוֹ מֵאֶחָיו, וּלְבִלְתִּי סוּר מִן-הַמִּצְוָה יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאול--לְמַעַן יַאֲרִיךְ יָמִים עַל-מַמְלַכְתּוֹ הוּא וּבָנָיו, בְּקֶרֶב יִשְׂרָאֵל. {ס}

that his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left; to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children, in the midst of Israel. {S}

There's no doubt that the king's powers were, at least in principle. much more restricted than European monarchies - partially because the institution of kingship was suspect from the start (see Samuel), and also because the king was beholden to the religious power-structure, whether prophet or priest.

there was a king david ?

even the old testament books say that the supposed king david ruled in israel, not judah