Talk:David and Jonathan/Archive 1

This article seems problematic
A couple of points: 1) the summary of the story is highly weighted towards the "they were lovers" perspective - saying that Jonathan "fell in love" with David on first sight, and so forth. This is not an NPOV presentation of the story.  2) the analysis on the "they were lovers" front has some dubious claims. It says that "some theologians" believe they were lovers, and, to support this, quotes...a fourteenth century life of Edward II of England. Furthermore, it does a lot of close reading of the Biblical account, but with no context - so it simply states straight out, for example, that it would be highly unusual for one man to be naked in front of another, with absolutely no proof of this. I'm going to put a POV marker on the article for now. john k 20:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * John, you are splitting hairs on "falling in love" since the biblical quote is rendered in full in the article showing that Jonathan, immediately upon seeing and hearing the boy, loved him with his whole soul. As for the rest, I think you are on firm ground, the piece needs a lot of work. Haiduc 22:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with John. I changed "fell in love" to "was immediately struck with", which can be interpreted variably and is more neutral in tone. Also, since the "highly unusual for one man to be naked in front of another" part was removed, your POV concerns have been addressed and I'm going to remove the POV tag. Incidentally, does this sort of nudity happen anywhere else in the Bible, what is the socio-historical context? If you can provide such context, please do. Queerudite 01:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

It does give the whole quote, but also gives a (possibly tendentious) gloss on text that it then quotes. I think this is a problem. Why not just give the Biblical quote and let people draw their own conclusion? BTW, is there any convention as to which version of the Bible to quote for wikipedia? john k 22:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * If you look at similiar wikipedia articles Christian views of homosexuality, Christian views of women, etc., passages are almost always supplied with additional context. Plus, just quoting the passages without filling in the gaps somewhat, would be lengthy and rather dull for a wikipedia entry. Queerudite 01:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If your philosophy was followed religiously, all academic writing would grind to a halt. Falling in love does not presume a sexual relationship, but it does consist of a sudden and overwhelming rush of emotion, as described in the texts. I do not think there is a convention, I assume that people use translations as they see fit, to illustrate whatever point they are discussing. Haiduc 23:36, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, in this article,, Jeramy Townsley, a PhD candidate at Berkeley, presents the topic in the same terms. Haiduc 11:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Academic writing is not bound by the strictures of POV. The summary of the story is supposed to give a neutral account of the story, in order to facilitate explication of the two points of view.  If you want to say in the "romantic interpretation" section that some scholars think this description indicates that Jonathan and David fell in love.  The way it is done now is begging the question.  To "fall in love" with someone is different than "to love someone as his own soul," or whatever the translation says exactly.  A parent might come to love their child with their whole heart, but we wouldn't normally describe this as "falling in love," because that term implies romantic love.  As to translations, it seems to me that if we are trying to determine the meaning of the Biblical passage, we should be sure to use a translation that is trying to hold closely to the original Hebrew meaning.  The New King James, whose purpose seems to be to hew as closely as possible to the King James, but to correct its most glaring errors, would seem a poor choice.  I would add that many of the less literal translations give "Jonathan loved him as himself."  rather than "as his own soul."  We can't simply presume the truth of the controversial position that the article is trying to discuss in what is supposed to be a neutral summary. john k 14:05, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * All wikipedia is a gloss, but it needs to be an honest and accurate gloss, representing all sides in the discussion. As for the love issue, I see it differently. In the "romantic" interpretation the sense is not that they "fell in love," instead of "just being friends," but that their love is of an erotic nature. (Actually, this discussion illustrates the problem with the term "romantic," which can be used for either erotic or chaste love, as in "romantic friendship". It needs to go.) But to return to the topic - unless I am mistaken, the debate here is not whether or not D & J were in love - it clear on all sides that they were in love. The question is simply whether their love was chaste or erotic. To my eye, the quick description of the story simply points out the principal elements of the biblical account, and does not lean one way or the other on the erotic aspect. If the biblical account itself is strongly focused on beauty and youth, and on powerful emotions, is out of our hands. As for choosing a translation, what do you recommend? Haiduc 15:05, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that we are implying a modern understanding of emotional relationships depicted in the Bible. "Falling in love" has a specific modern connotation that isn't necessarily present in the text. In modern meanings, for instance, you can't "fall in love" with your brother (which would be, I would imagine, the kind of relationship that most traditional Christians would impute to David and Jonathan). Can you love your brother "as your own soul"? I don't know - it seems potentially plausible, but would depend on an actual knowledge of ancient Hebrew that I certainly do not have. As to translations, I'm not sure - the problem with Biblical translations is that the purpose of most of them is not to translate the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek in the most accurate way possible, but to provide a tool for evangelization or for modern ideas about religion. It's also to find anything useful, on the web, at least, about what scholars think about the relationship - most sites that discuss this issue are going to be sites that are trying to promote the view that they were lovers, so it's hard, again, to find neutral scholarship. john k 22:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

BTW, here's an interesting anti-article:. On the other hand, it appears to come from a conservative Christian website, and I'd prefer not to have to choose between conservative christian and gay revisionist views. Nevertheless, I think it brings up some decent points. john k 22:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that link. I actually agree with him - the argument that David will become son in law through two, with Jonathan being the first, is pretty pathetic and perhaps just a tad dishonest. Reading the KJV pretty much put that to rest for me, from a contextual point of view, and Holding has a good argument by quoting David's comments to the servants. But I find it interesting that Holding does not engage other, more problematic, passages.


 * As a side note, Holding's comments on Townsley's "emotive language" argument actually support my view that we are looking at a loving relationship no matter how you cut it. I agree with him that Rihbany's description of "intimate friendship" is the model which should guide us. People can love people even when they do not go to bed with them. Which brings us to your refutation of the non-sexual use of falling in love. First of all, it is not fair for you to choose as example a relationship where the two partners have known each other all their lives. The sense of "falling in love" is that it happens with someone new. Which opens the door to an interesting counterexample: when adoptees meet their natural siblings (or parents) for the first time they frequently experience overwhelming feelings of falling in love. It seems that you have to have spent a certain early formative period in the company of your immediate family in order to be immunized against falling in love in non-adaptive ways. So you can fall in love with your brother after all.


 * But, more to the point: I cannot speak about the Biblical incidence of "falling in love," I am not a Biblical scholar. But it is not a modern phenomenon. It can be found in many example in Greek mythology, which can be argued to have arisen contemporaneously with Biblical goings-on. Haiduc 01:49, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. I think your comments generally make a lot of sense, and I mostly agree with you in terms of the substance.  That said, I still think that the term "falling in love" is so strongly associated with romantic/sexual love that it would be best to avoid using the term.  I understand that arguably, the feelings can be compared, and the example of adoptees meeting natural siblings and parents is an interesting one, but I still think that the primary use of "to fall in love" implies a sexual kind of love, which should be avoided.  Does that make sense? john k 01:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I get your point. The only problem is that in trying to convey that something really powerful and sudden came over Jonathan, anything short of that phrase short-changes the story. How about this: We say that J fell in love with D, but mention in the same breath that there is a debate about the nature of that love, "see xzy." And we know it was love - David said so. (As an aside, I had an amusing couple of moments exploring the kinds of things people fall in love with. As per Yahoo: with countries - 7890, books - 989, cars - 740, babies - 142 (That was a surprise - more cars than babies?!), and goats - only three.) Haiduc 02:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This article is in need of a retitle or much reworking to make it at least an objective encyclopedic entry on David and Jonathan, rather than a wishful promotion of homoeroticism, or a lesson on how to read the Bible through anachronistic modern western eyes. I am surprised, or should i be, that this article has been such for so long.


 * As regards the disrobing aspect, and as added, this is best understood as partial in the Hebrew, that of his robe and garments, that of his sword, bow and “girdle," the latter denoting part of a soldiers armor in and . In addition, this action is evidenced as having a clear ceremonial precedent under Moses, in which God commanded, "And strip Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son", ( cf. Esther 3:6) in transference of the office of the former upon the latter.

In addition, see additions under the beginning, which original language and brevity manifested an evidence antagonism toward the opposing traditional view.

Great Emphasis?
"great emphasis is placed upon David's beauty and youth, and upon the effect that his beauty has upon those he encounters, Saul and Jonathan."


 * What is the great emphasis? Do you have passages to back it up. It mentions his beauty when he meets Saul, not when he meets Jonathan; so it seems pretty tangential to the topic of this article. And I'm not convinced that it connotes "great emphasis".

The "great emphasis" is in the various biblical passages which repeatedly point out David's youth and beauty, ad nauseam (Samuel, passim). Haiduc 03:10, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Hebrew word
"The Hebrew word in the passage,  'ahabah, is typically translated elsewhere as love in the context of a marriage or sexual desire."


 * Can you point out what passages specifically? I've heard others claim the word in the passage can only be translated as friendship. Queerudite 01:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I was not the source of this statement, I first came across it in the caption (by now edited out) to the David and Jonathan miniature in the Homosexuality article. I think it was Apollomelos' contribution. Haiduc 03:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * As for "typically translated elsewhere," I would not make such an unqualified suggestion. Relying on Strong’s lexicon (Hebrew word #160), 'ahabah (אהבה) occurs 40 times across 37 versus. As in English, this word can express many forms of devotion, affection, or attraction (but the Hebrew term as used in the Old Testament does not encompass the English sense of loving an activity or inanimate object).


 * Roughly half of the instances of this word in the Old Testament express G-d’s love for creation.


 * All of the remaining uses involve a human being expressing love for other human beings. This group is also subdivided roughly in half by the object of the love. Slightly more than half of the time, the object is collective (e.g., a king’s love for his people, the love of humanity, an emotion without a specific object [love is better than hate].). The other half of the non-divine usages describes love between two individuals. Outside of the story of David and Jonathan, all of these references clearly involve [heterosexual] romance or [heterosexual] sex. (N.B. there is one reference that involves the emotion that drove one man to rape his half sister, but for the purposes of this discussion, I’ll lump that into the sex category.)


 * Here are the occurrences of 'ahabah (n.f. form of the root verb) describing an emotion held by one person for another person:


 * Gen 29:20 (Jacob laboring to marry Rachel); 1Sa 20:17, 1Sa 20:17, 2Sa 1:26 (David and Jonathan); 2Sa 13:15 (Amnon contrasting his post coital disgust with the emotion that led to the rape of Tamar); Pro 5:19 (a rather steamy allegory involving body parts, breasts and whatnot); Sgs 2:4 et seq. (a romantic poem, again allegorical, in which the word appears ten times over nine verses).


 * There are also a couple of instances of a masculine noun variant, 'ahab (אהב), always in the plural and unambiguously romantic /erotic, i.e. "lovers" in the English sense. With only two references in the text I would hesitate to generalize about its usage here but in other vaguely contemporaneous texts the masculine plural form often has a pejorative sexual overtone.


 * The root verb ‘ahab (אהב) occurs more than 200 times and includes the usual range of divine/human applications, including familial relations with no suggestion of a romantic or erotic context. Wonderbreadsf 00:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Some changes
Made these changes:
 * David's being brought to play the lyre to Saul wasn't previous to his slaying of Goliath, it's a separate story - presumably stories about 2 originally separate heroes were conflated under David's name. PiCo
 * Care to offer any evidence of that, besides your a priori conceit that we can't take the Bible at its word? Besides, notice that after David killed Goliath, Saul did not ask his name, but his father's name. Perhaps the king who was always seeking valiant men for the army wanted to find out if there were more like this one. Mdotley 03:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, in 1Sam18:2, it says that Saul would let him go home "no more", which tells me that he used to let David go home, but stopped at this point. So, he must have been around, already, commuting periodically, lending credence to the idea that he had already been established at the court. Mdotley 03:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Jonathan was't a general in Saul's army - he was about David's age, and nowhere does the Bbile say he held military command (he's ultimately killed fighting the Philistines beside Saul, but even then it doesn't say he was a commander). PiCo
 * 1 Samuel 14 implies that Jonathan held some sort of military command, I think. john k 05:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoops. 1 Samuel 13 says Jonathan had 'command over a thousand' at Michmash, and won a battle. Which makes him older than I'd assumed, too - but I wonder what the relative ages of the three were? I still get rather confused as to how old David is meant to be at various points - when he defeats Goliath he's evidently too young to be with Saul's army, but not so young as to sent home immediately. Maybe the Caravaggio painting(s) are correct - about 15. PiCo 23:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * David was under 20, or he would have been with the army in his own right, but he was old enough for the prospect of marrying the king's daughter to not be completely laughable, and big enough that Saul offered him his own armor, (remember, Saul was, literally, head & shoulders above most of the men in the kingdom), and David eventually refused, not b/c it didn't fit, but b/c he was unused to wearing it. Jonathan, as pointed out, had held military command years before this, so was well over 30, making their age difference potentially 20 years. Mdotley 02:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "...thou hast chosen the son of Jesse [David] to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness." I think this is the KJV. And I think modern translations (I use the RSV) say "shame" instead of "confusion", which makes a little more sense. Interesting also that in Genesis a very similar phrase is used when Ham sees Noah naked - but what it means exactly, no-one knows. I haven't changed this, but I think a more modern Bible translation should be used throughout. (It would get rid of that "until David exceeded", which would be to the good). PiCo
 * I would suggest that, in general, for Bible quotations we should use the Revised Standard Version as the default, since it is usually in clear English, and tends to have less of an agenda than other translations. john k 05:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Blatant original issue, trivia, "in popular culture" sections
This crap needs to go. Find sources before reinserting this cruft. Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I make a plea for a little civility and moderation in language? Some of the material IS sourced. Perhaps you should read it carefully before deleting as a block. And perhaps you should give people time to reference the rest rather than simply taking out - this goes against the spirit of wikipedia which is essentially to add rather than to take away. Contaldo80 (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant - great. Thanks for taking that approach - I think it gives us something better to work with now. I will try myself to improve some of the material. Contaldo80 (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good luck. I believe you're going to need it. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Romantic section
There are a number of points that need to be addressed in these few paragraphs.

1. "Other scholars, however, interpret the love between David and Jonathan as more intimate than friendship." Which scholars? Are there many?

2. "The relationship between the two men is addressed with the same words and emphasis as loving mixed-sex relationships in the Hebrew Testament". This needs examples.

3. "Throughout the passages, David and Jonathan consistently affirm and reaffirm their love and devotion to each other. Jonathan is willing to betray his father, family, wealth, and traditions for David". This is argumentitive.

4. "At their first meeting, Jonathan strips himself before the youth, handing him his clothing, remaining naked before him". There is no indication that Jonathon was naked. A couple of commentaries on the verse:


 * Jamieson, Faucett & Brown Commentary: To receive any part of the dress which had been worn by a sovereign, or his eldest son and heir, is deemed, in the East, the highest honor which can be conferred on a subject (see on Est_6:8). The girdle, being connected with the sword and the bow, may be considered as being part of the military dress, and great value is attached to it in the East.


 * Adam Clarke Commentary: Presents of clothes or rich robes, in token of respect and friendship, are frequent in the East. And how frequently arms and clothing were presented by warriors to each other in token of friendship, may be seen in Homer and other ancient writers.


 * Treasury of Scripture Knowledge: Presents of clothes or rich robes, as tokens of respect or friendship, are frequent in the East. Gen 41:42; Est 6:8, Est 6:9; Isa 61:10; Luk 15:22.

5. ''"Brother" was often used as a term of romantic, even erotic, affection in ancient Mediterranean societies. For instance, "brother" is used to indicate long-term homosexual relationships in [x, y, z]'' Maybe so, but not in the Bible.

6. Furthermore, social customs in the ancient Mediterranean basin, did not preclude extramarital homoerotic relationships. See point 5. BenC7 00:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Re points 5 and 6: Are we to understand that everything in the Bible is only interpretable with reference to other things in the Bible? I would not think that this would be Wikipedia's editorial position. MIchael (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Re point 3: What about the assertion that "Throughout the passages, David and Jonathan consistently affirm and reaffirm their love and devotion to each other" is argumentative? The sentence about Jonathan's willingness to betray, etc., is to my eye at "worst" interpretive, not argumentative. In any event we are talking about three possible interpretations of the same passages; how are interpretive assertions to be excluded from such a discussion? To my mind, the sentence immediately following is much more problematic: "However, this may be due to Jonathan's acceptance that David was God's anointed king of Israel." This is not only argumentative and extraneous to this section, it is speculative, theological, and utterly unsupported by any of the texts under consideration. Best to all, 71.198.110.186 (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Reuben exposed his father's nakedness by sleeping with his father Jacob's conubine. His father's nakedness is his wife's body.

Same thing here with Saul saying that Jonathan had exposed his mother's nakedness, which is Saul's loins.

Since the kingdom went from father to son, Jonathan would "no longer excel" in the eyes of Saul, like Reuben.

In a society where there is no affection, people might not understand that Jonathan and David are family-- brothers. --No938 (talk) 06:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Romantic & Erotic
"unless I am mistaken, the debate here is not whether or not D & J were in love - it clear on all sides that they were in love. The question is simply whether their love was chaste or erotic. To my eye, the quick description of the story simply points out the principal elements of the biblical account, and does not lean one way or the other on the erotic aspect."


 * I think the primary question is whether the love between David and Jonathan was romantic or platonic. Certainly, two people can have a romantic but chaste relationship. I have found it argued more often that the relationship between J&D was romantic and MAY have been physical, rather than that it was definately sexual. Likewise, it isn't "clear on all sides they were in love"; not everyone agrees that the love was romantic. Queerudite 01:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

See discussion below about how being in love is not necessarily sexual, but is nonetheless "being in love". Haiduc 03:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

As one who leans toward the erotic interpretation, I'm also looking at the "Erotic" and "Platonic" [sic] sections as they now stand and finding them weak in evidence and expression. The strongest evidence for an erotic interpretation is here termed "Romantic", and I wonder if we are well-served by this trifurcation. Perhaps the erotic and Platonic sections are really no more than variants, distinctions, or controversies within a general discussion of varying interpretations. The "Romantic" section already takes some pains to note ambiguity on the question of eroticism. The present division seems to set up areas for special pleading, and to serve as a lightning rod for partisan disputation. Michael (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Wilde: lengthy quote trimmed for relevance
I've removed the following from the (end of the) Wilde quote: "It is that deep, spiritual affection that is as pure as it is perfect. It dictates and pervades great works of art like those of Shakespeare and Michelangelo, and those two letters of mine, such as they are. It is in this century misunderstood, so much misunderstood that it may be described as the 'Love that dare not speak its name,' and on account of it I am placed where I am now. It is beautiful, it is fine, it is the noblest form of affection. There is nothing unnatural about it. It is intellectual, and it repeatedly exists between an elder and a younger man, when the elder man has intellect, and the younger man has all the joy, hope and glamour of life before him. That it should be so, the world does not understand. The world mocks at it and sometimes puts one in the pillory for it."

Whatever one thinks of Wilde's equivocation in the witness box, I don't see the relevance of the cut portion to the discussion at hand. Best to all, Michael (talk) 10:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this is sensible - and agree with cut made. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Very strange article. Why would the bible talk about a romantic link between David and Johnathan if the Bible is against gayness? This makes no sense. Bolinda (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)B

Yes, thanks for that uneducated comment. The Bible isn't against 'gayness' and nor is there one writer of the Bible. Can we have a bit more sophisticated understanding of the issues please if we're going to engage in debate? Contaldo80 (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Bible is distinctly against active homosexuals. I can recall at least two occasions where they were stoned, heavenly-fire burns Sodom/Gomorrah, the law of Moses forbids it, etc. I'm not taking a personal stand here. I'm pointing out that you're actually the uneducated one here. Please read the Bible before attempting to make pronouncements on what it contains. Hgills (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I found Bolinda's comments deeply offensive and extremely ill-informed. Not least in describing the Bible's antipathy to 'gayness'. And I'm afraid I find your views equally as disturbing. I am familiar with the old and new testaments of the Bible and also with the use of Biblical arguments against and in support of homosexual relationships. While many frequently cite the story of the destruction of Sodom to affirm God's 'hatred' for homosexuality; many modern Biblical critics and exegetes are equally convinced that the crime being perpertrated at Sodom was actually inhospitality to visits (a grave insult in pre-modern societies). And what do you think happened at Gomorrah? Likewise it is possible to read the levitical prohibition in the light of cultural practice against temple prostitution. The jury is not out. But the Bible was not written by one person, nor is it literally the word of God (evolution rather than 7-day creation is accepted by scientists today), it is a set of stories that help us reach a better understanding of God. What is remarkable about David and Jonathan (and Ruth and Naomi) is that same-sex relationships were actually on occassions celebrated in the Bible if they were spriritually fulfilling. The Bible is more wonderful and subtle than many people give it credit for - and I would encourage you to ask more questions and delve a bit deeper rather than accept eberything simply on face value. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't [http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Debatepedia]. With respect, can we please keep the commentary relevant to improving the quality of the article as per WP:Talk? Queerudite (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I didn't start it, but wanted a space to respond. Happy now. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion
This page was voted on for deletion at Votes for deletion/Jonathan and David on 17 Jan 2005. The consensus was to keep it. (9 keep, 3 merge, 0 delete.) dbenbenn | talk 21:39, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Why are my informative additions to an article on the plain topic of two Biblical charters which is in dire need of objectively, repeatedly deleted while the POV on the Platonic section are left to stand?


 * Besides the near total one sided presentation, the author's scorn for opposing views and zeal to present only his own is quite evident in his tone and choice of words.


 * Scholars of this "trend"...


 * Since when is a historical position a "trend." Perhaps the authors has history in reverse,


 * They .. "write off" David and Jonathan as a case of male bonding and homosociality. It must be said, however, that the clear preference expressed by David in 2 Sam 1:26 for Jonathan's 'love' (for him) over the 'love' of women (for him) remains a thorn in the side of the mainstream interpretation.


 * Is this is an encyclopedia entry to a letter an editor? The writing off here is not done by the more objective editor. I restored most it. Daniel1212 (talk) 03:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy a Non-Issue
This article doesn't state that any of the three interpretations is correct, but rather offers them each as a various way of reading 1 and 2 Samuel. We might find one of these interpretations more compelling than the others, and it is relevant to note where the bulk of Biblical scholarship weighs in on the issue, but concerns about the "accuracy" of the Romantic and the Erotic sections is misplaced. Neither section is making factual claims about the relationship between David and Jonathan, but rather each is interpreting the story and various Biblical passages from an explicitly one-sided POV. The Platonic section does this, as well. Any decision about the best or most accurate interpretation is left to the reader. This seems entirely appropriate given the disagreement inherent in the issue.


 * If this is the purpose of the article, then it should be plainly renamed, "Homosexual perceptions of David and Jonathan." Or how to work sex into places in Scripture. Is the purpose of WP to host blatant POV's under the standard topic headings? I doubt if this would even be done to Batman and Robin! At least i added some balance, I pray that is allowed.Daniel1212 (talk) 06:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't [edit - initially, some of which was warranted] except with beneficial labor.Daniel1212 (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

An ironic statement on the efficacy of prayer perhaps. Contaldo80 (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually i was wrong, Thank you. And if i may respond to your remark re answered prayer, be assured in over 30 years as a Christian, and as one who does in fact live "by faith," that God does indeed answer prayer when asked in Jesus name, which is not merely appending His name to the end of a petition (which i have also been guilty of), and which He must answer in my case. and for which i could provide personal and honest cause and effect testimony that defies naturalistic explanation, as far as we know nature, but which corresponds to the claims of Scripture and are contingent upon obedience to it. But the main priority is to change me, including the working of more patience and perseverance, and that takes time! Daniel1212 (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Applicability of Jewish law
Just a brief note that the law-code of Deuteronomy dates from some 400 years after David's time - David lived c.1000 BC, D was written in the reign of king Josiah, about 600 BC. (See Documentary Hypothesis). We have no way of knowing what rules and attitudes prevailed in David's time, although Saul certainly seems to show contempt for his son's erlationship, and David himself places a curse on one of his followers which includes the phrase that his descendants will never lack "one who holds the spindle," presumably a reference to effeminancy. But the main point is, it's anachronistic to apply Deuteronomy to the David/Jonathan story.PiCo 02:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * where's the "spindle" curse mentioned?? please, make reference ~kp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.124.0 (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

French gay social movement
There is also a French gay social movement of the same name, this should perhaps be noted somewhere. ADM (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Better to either create a new article page I think or include the detail under the LGBT rights in France article. I think this article needs to remain quite focused on the biblical characters. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV
Some of the wording of the "Homoerotic interpretation" section was comparably non-NPOV to the previous section, so I attempted to fix this with minimal changes to certain sentences that would make the section more cohesive for the argument as a whole. Hopefully this is fair enough.

I thought I should mention, though, that last sentence about Saul's accusation in 1 Samuel 20:30 was a misreading of the original text. (Whereas the first quote of this passage near the beginning of the section is correct.) However, since the passage can indeed be cited along with the various arguments around Saul's reaction to Jonathan's loyalty to David in this passage, I did not think it should be removed; I have instead corrected the basic quote, which literally is a slur, saying that Jonathan has not only shamed himself in siding with David (who could take the throne from Saul's family, with Jonathan himself being the heir), he has in the most extreme way degraded the family in the worst way possible, according to the livid king. As the last sentence correctly states, a parent's 'nakedness' is a reference in these ancient biblical cultures as total humiliation and disgrace (i.e. story of Noah's drunken episode in Gen 9:20-23). Efrafra (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Usage of "brother" in Romantic section
I've not been around this page long enough to feel right about unilaterally removing a paragraph, or a point being made in general (hopefully a consensus can be reached); that said, here's what's got me making a comment:

I'll grant that the term "brother" may have been used by some in Ancient Rome between 100 B.C.E. and 200 C.E. -- not about to try and fight that, as I'm no Latin scholar.

Even so, how does the usage of 4 separate sources from that era as proof, and a fifth that references the development of that usage over time in Roman society, possibly act as any sort of support for the usage of the term "brother" in a homoerotic context from a document that by all accounts was written by 538 B.C.E. (that's one of the latest suggested dates for the writing of Kings)?

I guess what I'm getting at is: at the least, this paragraph/argument is unfounded (even if argued in the literature); as it stands, the sources provided don't actually argue the point at all, at least in the context of a Hebrew text from pre-500 B.C.E. (as opposed to "the time of Christ" in Rome) --by my view, the paragraph should be zapped, or heavily rewritten/resourced so as to provide some academically-based justification for the inclusion of the "brother" argument.

But again, as I said before, I leave it to the masses to form a consensus on this before imposing my will in some drive-by fashion. Cheers! JasonDUIUC (talk) 10:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right - the sentence does sit oddly and makes odd links. You have my agreement to remove it if you think best. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Homo Romantic Hijacking
We are dealing with an article under a basic topic heading about 2 important Biblical characters, in which to be consistent with an encyclopedic format, would normally be primarily about who they actually were, and what they did as warriors, place in history, etc., provided in a neutral informational sense. Controversy about their relationship would be in a separate section, in a balanced and basically neutral manner. Instead, this subject was used as a pretense to promote a particular POV, and in which the historical view was clearly marginalized and basically scorned and dismissed. Attempts to add balance find daily rejection, and perhaps most incredibly, under the Platonic section, in which all material for the historical position was deleted en toto as being "original research", a short paragraph, from Middle eastern native Abraham Rihbany (The Syrian Christ), relative to cultural platonic expression, was deleted as irrelevant! In addition, deletion of concise overview of the traditional position and it's foundation is rejected due to "wandering into bible and homosexuality territory", as if that is not what this article is about (and which WP article i noted). Robert Gagnon is disallowed as a scholar, while Halperin is invoked and Ackerman is trumpeted, though Gagnon's contributions in this areas are more impressive (http://www.robgagnon.net). Attempts to note erroneous statements such as "found grace...is a phrase normally referring to Romantic or physical attraction" are not tolerated (perhaps because the author reads Romantic or physical attraction into most of them? Gen 6:8;  19:19; 33:10;  50:4; 33:12-13; Ex  33:16-17; 34:9; Num 32:5); Judg 6:17; 1 Sam 27:5; 2 Sam 14:22; Jer 31:2).Daniel1212 (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed the Ribhany section as I believe it to be irrelevant. Happy for you to demonstrate otherwise. I have no idea who he is or whether he has any respectable standing. Inclusion of his comments, however, seem to me to based on his own observations on a visit to Syria that middle-eastern men like to hug and show affection in public. Interesting perhaps but not clear how this relates to an article whose subjects are at least 3 to 4000 years old, and in a different context? There are articles on David and Jonathan separately who say who they are, what they did - this article is about the relationship between the two and how it is interpreted. As far as I can see the whole article is grounded in historic evidence of one kind or another so it is incorrect to suggest that one interpretation is the correct 'historical' one. I've also had the great pleasure of looking at Gagnon's work - page after page is filled with partisan and un-academic nonsense, so really feel we are doing him too much of a kindness by referring him to a 'scholar' of any kind. I donät think this article is the right place to go into the detail of does the Bible/ does it not condemn homosexuality. Let's keep it to a couple of sentences to support the arguments and leave the rest for elsewhere otherwise we will quickly find this article turns into a lecture rather than a resource. Contaldo80 (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I see you have no idea on who Abraham Rihbany is, yet you can go to an actual WP article on him, in which you will see that he was a native of the Middle East, whose first book "A Far Journey" (1913), was an account of his life in Syria and America. His ideas about the importance of East-Mediterranean culture to an understanding of the Gospels were developed in a series of articles for The Atlantic Monthly, and in 1916 published in book form as The Syrian Christ (1916), was highly influential in its time in explaining the cultural background to some situations and modes of expression to be found in the Gospels. It is still cited in both Biblical Studies[  and Sociolinguistics.


 * One of the reasons it is cited is because cultural expressions can not only be quite different, but they can remain much the same through generations. And in any case, what Rihbany states serves to provide an example of the kind of strong but platonic emotive language that David is seen as expressing under that position. Rather than being "absolutely irrelevant," as the controversy of D+J's sexuality, which ought to be the article's title, as much centers around David's emotive responses toward Jonathan - which the article labors to promote as Romantic and or Erotic - then a few words relative to Middle Eastern platonic displays of affection by Rihbany is fitting. Perhaps just " Middleastern native Abraham Rihbany (author, The Syrian Christ), commenting on similar type of expression in John 21:20, states that such a custom is "in perfect harmony with Syrian customs."


 * As far as the whole article being grounded in historic evidence of one kind or another...", this was hardly the case, as the Platonic view was indeed minimized and presented much as a POV. In re to your statement that it is "incorrect to suggest that one interpretation is the correct 'historical' one", by "historical" we are not speaking about what some recent pro homosexual scholars apologists derived from ancient sources, but what has been the historic understanding of D+J's relationship from Jewish and Christian sources, long before the modern authors were born.


 * As regards Gagnon's work, your opinion of him is countered by others (http://www.robgagnon.net/Reviews/homoblurbs.pdf), while much of what he refutes is manifestly just that, from sources who see sex in most any close relationship, and or employ a hermeneutic that effectively disallows any moral laws that had idolatry as a backdrop.


 * Finally, I understand that this article is not the place to get into the extended Bible and homosexuality issue, but it is inexorably linked to such, and the Platonic versus Romantic positions basically belong to two different positions. I provided more balance in that context, in which was one was much deficient in content.Daniel1212 (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying re Ribhany. I would rather that we include some text that talks about the nature of relationships between men in the period being covered; otherwise it's rather anachronistic to select one middle eastern culture around today to try and draw comparisons. That's the only point I'm making really - and my objection to Ribhany. One could easily draw an example from Syria or the Ottoman empire or north africa in the 13th or 14th century which would have demonstrated, for example, that parts of the culture were actually relaxed about same-sex expressions of love in a romantic or erotic sense; with the wide circulation of love poetry. Things don't stay the same I'm afraid.

With regard to the rest - the platonic section is just as long as the other sections. I have no problem with expanding - indeed would encourage you to do just that. I think what you have to add is quite interesting and helps develop the sense of the article - I just don't think you need to over-labour some of the points. Take it as read that there is a big debate on homosexuality and Biblical inerrancy, without the need to rehearse it all in this article again.

And again I reterate that there is no one historical 'truth' - there are simply different interpretations based on aspects of evidence. Many modern scholars are examining the relationship between D and J in the light of new academic thinking and modern interpretation - this will sometimes and inevitably be different to that view presented over centuries by Jewish and Christian writers who will of course want to approach it from a different standpoint (ie that the Bible as the word of God is consistent and without error. We do not all have to accept that today, however). So by all means let's cover all the interpretations clearly and with balance - and let's please avoid accusations of a pro-homosexual conspiracy to cover things up or hide things away. I'm afraid I don't retract my view of Gagnon though - the man is poisonous and hopelessly prejudiced. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * RE "it's rather anachronistic"; that is exactly the point. While WP is available world wide, the romantic/erotic position which this article seeks to convey much depends upon western readers understanding strongly emotive words and actions in the light of American culture, in which a man kissing another man's neck is not the same in Russia, for instance. (One study classified noncontact-prone cultures as Asia, North America, and northern Europe, with contact-prone cultures being the Middle East, Latin America, and southern Europe. (contact as being general and not specifically applied to romantic, affectionate touching.) ). There is far more reason to believe that the culture of D+J would have been more like that of the Middle East than in the West. Ribhany would have served to illustrate differences in cultural displays of affection. The aspect of what manner this was of in D + J's case is also linked to the overall issue of the Bible and homosexuality.


 * As for the platonic section being just as long as the other sections, this was not true, as the former was very brief (approx. 175 words, versus almost 1,000 for the Romantic), and provided little as a basis for it, but it now basically provides a concise summary of the position and it's exegetical reasons, and includes the interpretative foundations. The Romantic is still far more extensive in presenting it's position, and is linked the proceeding sections which stand in contrast the the Platonic.


 * As for "one historical 'truth', my specific word was 'position,' and while i believe that to be the right one, it is presented as understanding there are different positions and interpretive foundations represented here, and my section added more to the Platonic position.


 * As for "pro-homosexual conspiracy to cover things up or hide things away," when one view is marginalized and it's reasons hardly represented, while the rest of the article labors to present the opposing position, then one may assume it is due to either poor scholarship or bias.


 * As for your charge that Gagnon "is poisonous and hopelessly prejudiced," that again, is your opinion, and the charges are found on both sides, while the reasons he presents in regards to D+J's platonic relationship are sound. Left to the erotic/Romantic view, one would never know things such as that the disrobing of Jonathan to give his clothes to David was most likely partial and had an explicit ceremonial basis which easily corresponds to. Etc. As it is now, at least there is some degree of balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel1212 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

My main objection to Gagnon is his nasty and ill-informed work which presents homosexuals as socially 'damaged', prone to disease and illness, and living 'sad' lives. He's not a scholar but an annoying little self-publicist pushing a hate-filled POV, who has a post at a highly partisan and non-neutral religious institution (Pittsburgh theological). And have I missed the point or something but is Syria geographically the same place as Israel, or indeed Assyria the locale of Judea? What has Ribhany's observations in early 20th century Syria to do with anything?! Imagine he'd based his scholarship on the ancient near east after a visit to Tel Aviv in 1999? Either get a proper source or leave the whole thing out. Finally, you get to have your say and haven't been marginalised and the viewpoint you're supporting certainly has had plenty of opportunity for broadcast time over the past 2000 years so let's not pretend someone's being hard done-by. I also note that the platonic section actually comes first before the romantic section and is about 5 times longer than the erotic section. No point trying to call up bias when the sources you cite - Gagnon - are so unreedemingly poor. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the works of academic scholars should normally refrain from occasional "nastiness," as well as the practice of resorting to attributing opposing views to homophobia, but if Gagnon evidences much of that, it was not i who first listed Gagnon as a resource, but the original(?) did as the prime one in the Platonic sec. I have only ref. Dr. Gagnon twice, as one along with others, and in any case, his extensive contributions on the subject and debates with the contrary position make him a notable resource, as the prior editor noted.


 * Back to Ribhany, the point, as is now worded, is that cultures differ in the way they show platonic emotion, and Ribhany's observations of that in his native area would have served to illustrate that.


 * Re "your say and haven't been marginalised," the context of such remarks was the condition of the article prior to my accepted additions, as well as your belief that there was even now equal representation. The erotic section is basically a formal extension of the Romantic one, and has the same interpretive foundation, as with an encrypted homosexual romance and even marriage then the erotic is much implied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel1212 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I replaced "At the other end of the spectrum of Biblical scholarship would be those who hold a view of the Bible that allows a broader range of metaphorical interpretation, and or of interpretation of moral commands and their immutability." from being under the Romantic section (where it had been moved to by Contaldo80), as it manifestly does not belong there and makes no sense. It is not the traditionalists/literalists who see things such as Jonathan's divestiture of his clothing as sexual, anymore than they see Moses doing that to Aaron as rape. (Num. 20:8) Or Jonathan offering his bow, shooting arrows, and David praising his archery as a sexual proposition, followed by coitus and then a fulfilled lover’s words of gratitude. (Ackerman) Or see a staff representing a phallus Elisha and the dead boy in a historical narrative, and more extreme exhibits of imagination (Jennings). Or conclude that the Bible offers no coherent sexual ethic (Wink), or that “The gospel allows no rule against the following, in and of themselves:. .. bestiality, polygamy, homosexual acts,” or “pornography.”. The paragraph that was moved originally was part of the section explaining the two interpretive grids overall representative of the traditional position and the modern view. While this article does not deal directly with that issue, it is a pertinent aspect and is not out of place.

Just a note as regards using the word "scholar." Such a title does not necessarily impress God or me, and should not really be a big issue, except as regards the refusal to allow the term being applied to those who hold to the traditional position here, (see edit 10:18, 17 March 2009 Contaldo80), while those on the opposing side are referenced as such from the beginning. There is no precise established definition for such, though the editors may apply one, but the general meaning ranges from "A learned person," or "a specialist in a given branch of knowledge," to even a student. I would require the second one here. Apart from the deletion editor's antipathy towards Gagnon, i do think some of the people who disagree with the Romantic position may warrant the title scholar.

As for Gagnon, well, he does have a B.A. degree from Dartmouth College, an M.T.S. from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary, and is author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001; 520 pgs.), and which has received numerous peer reviews. http://www.robgagnon.net/RevPraise.htm. And co-authored (with Dan O. Via) Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003; 125 pgs.), as well as numerous other articles as well as many substantial exchanges with those on the opposing side. He is a member both of the Society of Biblical Literature and of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, and has published scholarly articles on biblical studies in Journal of Biblical Literature, New Testament Studies, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Novum Testamentum, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Horizons in Biblical Theology, and The Christian Century.

I do understand such a resume may not change one's opinion of his work, or the lack of esteem such a one may have for those who disagree with them (and who imagine only secular or religiously liberal publications and colleges are unbiased and worthy of esteem) but perhaps the title of scholar could be allowed for them in a secular article.Daniel1212 (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Attributing the JEDP theory to traditionalists is problematic, and was thus revised to signify that. Also, the statement that the platonic view is "particularly advocated by some Christian writers for theological and methodological reasons" is partly true, if by methodology it means traditional exegesis which precludes deriving such extreme ideas (as noted above) out of historical narratives, and which ideas militate against plain injunctions and cultural probability. But at least the theological aspect of the statement at issue seems aimed at inferring that the conclusions of the authors named were mainly or solely the result of bias, which is not evident as causative, rather than allowing that they could be the result of objective and sound textual analysis. I reworded it slightly to convey some neutrality to this as an analysis. Daniel1212 (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think some academics with religious or theological backgrounds (or at such institutions) can produce some excellent academic literature and analysis - I think in particularly of Dominican and Jesuit writers who have taken forward Biblical exegisis or archaeology in an exemplary way. I just don't believe Gagnon is one of them - he let's his personal beliefs and prejudices colour his work detrimentally (ie that homosexuality is an abomination censured by God, and the Bible is the inerrant word of God). As such I can't regard him as a true scholar. But if that's how you see him, then it's up to you.

My real concern in trying to tidy up this article is that we make a clear disctinction between academics and scholarship that argues either for or against homo-eroticism (or indeed the platonic interpretation) based on proper academic and cultural-historical analysis, sources etc. And those writers - who we might describe as religious apologists - who will argue for a specific interpretation of the tale of David and Jonathan purely on the grounds of religious belief. I think the arguments of the former group are valid and need to be covered in detail; while I think the arguments of the latter group are of interest, but don't need to be covered in too much detail (although I agree some). It's evidence that's critical in an encyclopaedia, not so much "beliefs".

At the moment there is still too much interchange between the two. I'm particularly concerned about the use of the term "traditional" for example, which attempts to give legitimacy or credibility to a particular viewpoint because it's the one that most people have tended to adopt (for whatever reason). We use to "traditionally" burn witches, but that doesn't mean necessarily that it's the right or proper way to think about something. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In a professed quest for objectivity, it must be considered that our own estimation of whose position is the result of bias is influenced by our own. In which it is held that a person who holds to a particular view cannot judge objectively, and that only those who hold to the modern revisionist school are capable of so doing, as if they did not hold a certain bias as well. In this case, it seems disallowed that the conclusions of those who hold that the Bible teaches that homosex is a moral abomination can actually be the result of sound exegesis, that such could not possibly substantiate that position. "Proper academic and cultural-historical analysis, sources etc." can easily mean one must assume that ancient Israel was morally like its cultural setting, rather than being set in contrast to it, and that only the hypothesis of modern revisionists are tenable. I myself seek to look at the Bible objectively, and examine the possible validity of an argument (and may even expand upon them) which stands in opposition to my convictions, with a willingness to change my own (which has happened sometimes) or refute it if warranted. In this issue, i see the conclusions prohomsex (homoerotic) polemics as unwarranted, as well as requiring a disallowance of the Bible as the Divinely inspired and coherent moral authority it claims and manifest itself to be, analogical attempts to equate laws against illicit sexual partners to issues like slavery notwithstanding. Wink for one, recognizes "that the issue is  one of  hermeneutics, and that efforts to twist the text to mean what it clearly does not say are  deplorable. Simply put, the Bible is  negative toward same-sex behavior, and there is no getting around it." He (and Spong, etc.) therefore engage in a divestiture of the moral authority of the Bible (for Wink, at least as re. sex), in essentially advocating that sexual ethics are best determined by one's own subjective understanding of Christian love.


 * Related to the above, you may be adverse to the use of the term "traditional" because of the veracity it may possibly infer, but it is entirely fitting, as in fact at this point in history the prohibition of homosex (at least male) has been the Jewish and Christian historical position, as well as the platonic position re D+J, even if this reflected the position of inerrantists (which most hold only refers to the original autographs). This section is supposed to be expressing the platonic position, not judging its warrant as you seem inclined to do, and as such it does not necessarily violate the ethos of neutrality. Nor would the use of the term "revisionist" to describe the post modern postulations or assertions of homoeroticism.71.174.195.94 (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The "traditional" point of view has been that the Bible is the word of God, that the Talmud is authored by Moses, and that only a small number of divinely-inspired authors have helped to put the work together. Modern historical analysis has blown all of this apart. The Bible is a web of additions and deletions, of multiple authors, of contradictions and ommissions. So we shouldn't always assume that "traditional" means true. That's the only point I'm making. I'm not disputing that traditional interpretations can frequently be the right ones, however. Despite this I have taken pains to make sure the article is balanced and set out the arguments clearly for both the platonic and homoerotic camps.

We, of course, know more now about the Davidic period (by using archaelogy, historical documentation, cultural anthropology etc) than we would have done 500 years ago. My concern remains, nevertheless, that we make a clear distinction between those that argue for a platonic relationship on evidenced or rational grounds; and those that argue for a platonic relationship purely on the basis of religious belief. The latter group are entitled to their beliefs - and we should record them for completeness sake - but they have little validity because they argue a priori that scripture is divine and unerring, and this is of course unproveable.Contaldo80 (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I see both your scorn for traditionalists and against Scripture being Divine and thus authoritative, and which conclusion i see as necessary for the often contradictory and unwarranted prohomosex position, while contrary to your view, I see much to authenticate the Divine inspiration as originally penned, along with archaeology, historical documentation, cultural anthropology, etc. not negating and often favoring the traditional position on homosex. Regarding the JEDP theory, if you go to the provided link, you will see its has its problems, though your most mentioned adversary holds to it.


 * Re. Your cited objection, "This may or may not have been true - it depends on the individual surely?" to "Though the editors of Deuteronomistic history would have held negative attitudes towards homoerotic contact, is simply a rewording of part of what you (I assume) had recently placed,


 * "However, those who added to the story have augmented its intensity by making the men meet one another again and again. This was hardly considered particularly inappropriate. The editors of the Deuteronomistic history, in spite of the negative attitudes towards homoerotic contact expressed in Leviticus found nothing to be censored in the story of the relationship between the two men. Their mutual love was certainly regarded by the editors as faithful and passionate, but evidently without unseemly allusions to forbidden practices. Emotional and even physical closeness of two males does not seem to concern the editors of the story, nor was such a relationship prohibited by Leviticus. Homosociality was not part of the sexual taboo in the biblical world. "


 * All of the above was wholly unsourced, and uncited as such, but came from Nissinens work. I provided the actual quote, and source (though without the link).


 * My only offense was assuming Nissinen was assuming that the presumed editors would be contrary to male homosex, as they left the Lev. injunctions intact.


 * As for your cited, "Some traditionalists who subscribe to the Documentary Hypothesis," I presumed that you knew that Gagnon holds to that Hypothesis, nor is he "a biblical fundamentalist or inerrantist", (The Authority of Scripture in the “Homosex” Debate) and his quote follows as source.Daniel1212 (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Happy with the bulk of improvements you have made to the text. With regard to "Though the editors of Deuteronomistic history would have held negative attitudes towards homoerotic contact" where I added a fact tag I was simply concerned that this para-phrased too much, and lost the sense of what was being said. I think having the complete Nissinen quote gives a more helpful balance.

I don't think we're probably going to agree on the divinity of the Bible issue. I think the argument you and others are making is that God inspired (wrote?) the Bible and that is clearly against homosexual activity, therefore the characters of David and Jonathan could not have been homosexually active. Full stop. I think where I'm coming from is that while there might be a Divine hand behind aspects of the Bible, the authors of the text were a mixed bunch who would probably have had differing views on the nature of relationships, and as such have captured an example of specific individuals that are sexually orientated to the same gender (which in any case does not contradict levitical injunctions). Recognising that such individuals have always existed throughout history. But let's not get over-excited because we don't even know if David and Jonathan ever really lived, and are not semi-fictional representations...

The point I have repeatedly made is that wikipedia is a secular encyclopaedia, for use by people of faith and those with none, and so must reflect all arguments fairly. We cannot I'm afraid assume an event or action happened simply because a person or group of persons believe that has to have happened on the grounds of religious belief. Otherwise we're on tricky ground. By all means let's present the religious viewpoint, but let's be clear that there can be little or no proof for divine engagement. It's disappointing that you see this as little more than "scorn" though.Contaldo80 (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Re. the rejection of the Bible as having "little or no proof for divine engagement", and that supposes that the Bible is full of actual contradictions, (truly problematic ones makes up a very small percentage, and do not change doctrines), i am familiar with that charge, and many who have made such also demonstrate a lack of openness, objectivity, and engagement in this realm of apologetics. However, even this position need not result in interpretations that the text, etc, does not demonstrably warrant.


 * I am glad you see some improvements. As for the issue of the Platonic view being driven by theological considerations over textual, they both have a part. When considering meanings of a story one must consider what is manifested in the larger context. When Dt. 7:16 (cf. Ezek. 36:14) states that Israel "shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee," one could understand this to be cannibalism, as the word for consume ('âkal) almost always means literal eating, and there is no unconditional command against cannibalism, such as "thou shalt not eat the flesh of men." But while such might be allowed in life and death circumstances (Andes survivors), as any sort of practice (even by consensual arraignment) is contrary to the Genesis statement of purpose in 9:2,3, in which plants and animals are stated to be the food of man, and which positive arraignment is consistently confirmed. Additionally, no positive sanction exists for cannibalism in the Bible, but such is only seen as evil where explicitly dealt with. (Lv. 26:27-29; 2Ki. 6:28,29; Lam. 4:10) As this is analogous to homosex, and as the Bible demonstrates no real problem in either conveying when sexual relations do take place (with descriptions which are not seen in the story of D+J) or in explicitly providing the necessary sanction of marriage, or manifesting basic covenantal changes, or in being counter cultural, then as the language offers nothing definitive of eroticism, then the most warranted understanding is that of love between two battle tested comrades and like minded consecrated servants of the living God.


 * Of course, the homoerotic view much depends upon seeing the Levitical injunction against male homosex as being unlike their formal heterosexual equivalents, which consistently prohibit illicit sexual partners from the time of their institution, and instead render them as applicable only to formal idolatry (which is separately specifically dealt with). But which relegation much depends upon a heremeneutic that would place most moral commands as ceremonial, including the ten commandments, as most have "aggravating factors," or use the contrary culture as examples of what not to do. In addition, Rm. 1 is subject to various and conflicting interpretations, from Scroggs to Countryman, in seeking to disallow its censure of male and female homosex.


 * In the light of such, and even apart from such, it is critical to find the positive sanction of marriage for homosex, and thus the homoerotic view is driven by a theological need, and seeks to fufil that using a methodology that allows a wide variety of interpretations, and conforms Israel morally in his regard to the nations it censures.


 * As for WP being secular, i am cognizant of that, and your presentation of the homoerotic sections shows little or no editing by me, while i have worked to enable the platonic section, however brief, to be far more fair balanced then it originally was. However, it is one thing to fairly present religious and secular positions, and it is another to present extreme interpretations as viable, such as renders historical narratives to mean something which otherwise is clearly perverse to its doctrines (Elisha committing pedophilia, etc.) which is the result of fairness on steroids and a rejection of the Bible as a coherent moral authority.


 * Incidentally a problem with the quote by Nissinen is to what degree he actually supports the platonic position.Daniel1212 (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I've had a change of heart on this issue. After reading Nissinen's footnote I think his argument is compelling where he states that Biblical editors had ample opportunity to remove references to the relationship if they thought it had strong homo-erotic overtones. There is little evidence, however, that anything has been removed (the story survives in a fairly consistent form), and as such we can only really conclude that contemporaries did not see the relationship as sexual and did not regard it as contravening levitical injunctions, and so sought no need to tamper.

My own hypothesis - for what it's worth - is that within the contemporary cultural context there still existed the prevailing view that penetrative sexual acts were ultimately about submission of the passive partner. Therefore what the writers might have been metaphorically trying to convey was that David (as the 'active' partner) had exercised his dominance over the 'passive' or feminine Jonathan - and had thus assumed the mantle of "kingship" which should have rightly gone to Jonathan as the son of Saul. Thus the outburst by Saul on "uncovering your mother's nakedness" makes more sense. But the writers stopped short of actually documenting a physical relationship because this ran counter to levitical concerns that the israelite race take pains to procreate in order to expand the tribe and populate the land.

Therefore I think we need to make sure the article documents the story of David and Jonathan from the Bible, while setting out the "traditional" interpretation. But then state that in medieval times the story was often used as hook to highlight real same-sex relationships (in the absence of better biblical examples) while modern authors have expanded on the theme. It would not be a bad thing to reduce this section somewhat to avoid giving it undue weight.

The does not, however, change my view that we should not confuse arguments based on rational or evidence with those made purely because they are driven by religious or faith needs. Personally I remain sceptical about the divine hands behind all of the Bible - having read the Book of Kings for example where "God" continually calls for the death of men, women and children so that the Israelite need for land be satisfied frankly turns my stomach; and is not very far from ethnic-cleansing. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The presentation of the story followed by the two views is not in question, but regarding confusing arguments based on rational or evidence with those made purely because they are driven by religious or faith needs, the two are not necessarily opposed, as it seems you infer here. Basic Christian can be evidenced as being the result of examination of not only the immediate text but the Bible as whole, which offers uniquely comprehensive revelation. Meanwhile your own hypothesis is one that influences what you feel is "rational." If you see penetrative sexual acts are ultimately driven by the need to dominate, and that the laws against homosex are based upon such (or other theories), or that Israel's conquests were driven by a need for land, then it likely renders alternative positions as being marginalized as theologically driven, while esteeming radical alternative views as more viable.


 * As for such, much evidence can be provided to show that sex in the totality of the Bible is not dealt with as being purposed to assert dominion, though that may have been the case in other nations, which Israel was NOT to be like. Rather, the Bible describes the women being created as the uniquely complementary and compatible helper for man (which word is also used for God) before the fall. And while the Bible consistently teaches the headship of the man (and thus greater accountability) sex is not presented as a means of effecting submission (a usual term is "lay with," never"lay on") but as a means of procreation and pleasure. The Song of Solomon magnifies erotic love between a man and his wife, while (Prv. 5:15-19) speaks about the same. And in the N.T. regular sex is actually commanded btwn man and wife, except when fasting, and is based upon the depth of their martial union, in which both own" the body of the opposite spouse. Submission itself is not treated as an inherently bad thing, much less a license to abuse, as the man is to love his wife as Christ loved the church and have himself for it. (Eph. 5:25)  But both the Lord and Paul reference Gn. 1:26,37; 2:24, in which male and female are the "what" of what God joined together (Mt. 19:4)  And as this union alone is clearly established and consistently affirmed, while the only explicit mentions of homosex are dealt with negatively, then one should allow that a view that seeks to isolate an ambiguous passage and make it homoerotic is the one that may be more driven by exegetically unwarranted theology, or ideology.

Rather than making more sense to see sex btwn D+J, in "uncovering your mother's nakedness" (1Sam. 20:30,31, i see that the immediate and larger context shows that the act of Jonathan's divestiture of some his garments to place them upon David was no more erotic than its precedent, (Numbers 20:26) signifying here the transference of the kingship, as Jonathan likely knew of his father's loss of the kingdom, and for his "house" (1Sam. 13), and David's prior anointing to be king, which he later indicated. (1Sam. 20:15).

Saul's later use of “Thy mother's nakedness” does indeed Biblically denote something sexual, but contextually here it is the shame of his mother's intercourse, by which she normally would have conceived a future king. It had become obvious that Jonathan's friendship and political alliance was with his (Saul's) enemy instead of him, and thus he called his son a "son of perverse rebellion”, (like today, “son of a b....”,  an expression of contempt: Job. 30:8).

Sex btwn D+J would also require marriage, which is not what "covenant" best denotes (once out of of 285 occurrences) and it is incongruous that if this purported marriage existed, that Jonathan would not go with David when it was made clear that he must depart, and Jonathan indicated would not see him again. (1Sam. 20)


 * The idea of sex between D+J is even more untenable in the light of the fact Saul feared David's ascension to the throne, yet friendship itself was not immoral, and Saul he had no moral power to end such, but if there was indeed a homoerotic relationship btwn them, then that would be all Saul needed to eliminate the Davidic threat, and possibly even his life. (Lv. 20:13)


 * As regards the wars of conquest, today's idea that these were really about real estate is not what my study of the Bible shows, but rather that these nations were morally wicked, and had been for a long time, and thus God used Israel to drive them out. And which served to let other nations know who really was the true God, in "language" they respected, and which was to their long term benefit.


 * As for the charge of ethnic-cleansing, the Bible does not teach racism, but rather that strangers in Israel where to be treated well, and could even own Hebrews as servants.  But what is seen is that God is long suffering, and gives sinful man space to repent, but finally if they do not, then "the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things." (Rm. 2:2)


 * In the case of the Canaanites it could be asked, given that these nations were morally corrupt, and corrupting, then what should be done? While it is the trend today to use our "enlightened" moral judgments to judge God, it is not unjust that the Creator and righteous judge of the universe would destroy such a people from the earth, (Jer. 18:7-10) while saving those who were not accountable from being another immoral generation, (which is another aspect). Perhaps Israel could save the children, but the people God redeemed from bondage were hardly fit for such extensive social work yet. Or God could have let them continue, and carved out a spot for Israel someplace in Africa, but this would perpetuate an ongoing and deleterious problem. Or perhaps God could have overruled the will of the Canaanites, but He is not into making man into robots, nor did He give laws because Hr needed worship or anything; (Acts 17:25) rather they work towards our benefit.  Of course, today it is also fashionable to consider the moral laws of God as unduly harsh, but i would contend that these laws actually would have saved more lives and ensured better families and future generations then today. Though the civil and judicial type of laws often require the manifestly God-ordained theocracy of the O.T. to implement and must be dealt with in the light of foundational principals.Daniel1212 (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * With all due respect I don't have the desire to sit through a lecture - much of which is clearly based on original research. From my perspective this debate is over. The argument for sexual domination can be drawn from Nissinen, and clearly makes sense in the context of pre-classical middle eastern society (see the epic of gilgamesh for example), to provide a rational reading of the David and Jonathan narrative.


 * I only want to concentrate from now on in improving the content of the article. I (along with the majority of others) do not accept that the Bible is literally the word of god, and as such will not accept arguments based solely on a faith perspective. I find this anachronistic. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I also sought to improve the article, and it is much improved as it stands. But as regards the opposition in so doing, your position can hardly be construed as "rational", as you are dealing with a source which is presented as the Word of God, and can be shown to be internally consistent in its censure of homosex wherever it is explicitly dealt with, and with marriage only being established for heterosexuals, while Israel was commanded not be like the pagans in sexual morality. In contrast, your ideological constraints requires you to marginalize this traditional position in favor of one that would have D+J engaging in marital homosex, by relying upon pro-homosex interpretations of pagan tales and editorial hypothesis, and which also presumes Israel would be acting like their pagan neighbors, contrary to what was decreed it was to do. It can be well demonstrated that it is for the absence of Biblical warrant for sanctioned homosex that the latter source is resorted to, which is even problematic with the JEPD theory as its basis, with it inferences of homophobic scribes, which is a standard pro-homosex argument.

Grammatically, no words or descriptions in this story here can be found that are uniquely used for eroticism, yet the Bible is abundantly evidenced as making eroticism evident, and which stands contrary to the descriptions here even on that basis, let alone being theologically inconsistent in the light of the whole of the Bible. As far as being based upon male dominance, this would have Jonathan acting like a women, which again makes him acting contrary to the well-substantiated doctrine.

The argument here is not about faith versus evidence, but the evidential basis upon which the traditional position is based. And which also deals with the parroting of "contradictions arguments" and such which prefers ignorance over answers. But regardless of whether you accept the Bible as being Divinely inspired, to favor those who hijack it to promote a hypothesis that is not warranted except by imposing an external morality, and speculative redaction theory, is neither warranted nor in the interests of neutrality. Daniel1212 (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I said the Bible is a book written by men rather than god. So while I appreciate the intention may have been to make it look consistent so that it all ties up, more often that not the people writing it frequently tied themselves in knots and ended up with a mish-mash of cultural influences. Slavery good, slavery bad etc. But this is turning into a debate about and issue rather than the article so suggest we draw a line. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The debate was pertinent to your opposition of the presentation of the traditional position. While ostensibly being the more reasonable position, in reality your revisionist school basically allows historical Biblical narratives to be reduced to Alice in Wonderland tales, out of which most anything can be held as viable interpretation. Except the tradition interpretation, as the revisionist positions are ultimately ideologically driven. The charge of inconsistency is specious, which the resortion to the old slavery polemic reveals, and those who make it usually manifest that they are largely ignorant, by choice, of the academics behind the traditional school, as we have and do take such things seriously, and work by sound exegesis to untangle the knots revisionism supposes. May i suggest you take your objections to men like Miller or Holdings for a beginning. http://www.christian-thinktank.com/ http://www.tektonics.org/Daniel1212 (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent removal of cited information
I don't understand the recent deletions. What in the recent removals was incorrect or uncited? Weren't both men under the code of law contained in Leviticus? Weren't David and Jonathon both fathers? Didn't David seat Jonathon's crippled son Mephibosheth at his own table after becoming king? Why was a Cambridge-educated theologian's calculation from his book on Samuel, that Jonathon was about 30 years older than David, removed after being properly cited? Aren't these cited facts and scholarly opinions important to this article?Sweetmoose6 (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (i) The reference to Mephibosheth is still in. (ii) The reference to leviticus in the summary was a little heavy handed I think (and also probably assuming too much about human nature); as was I think the reference to them being fathers (which is included later on in the text). (iii) the Cambridge education theologian is highly partisan (it's not as if he teaches at Cambridge, which would carry more weight). I'm not saying it isn't true but rather that guesswork like this needs a bit more mainstream support before inclusion.

I understand that some people don't like the suggestion of a homosexual relationship; I think the evidence for this is in any case inconclusive and down to interpretation. There is inevitably a tension in this article between a literal reading of the Bible which makes manifest the will of God (and thus must be in line with the teaching of God); and a modern socio-historical interpretation of the Bible which treats it simply as a book that captures cultural practice. However we need to remain fair-minded and allow the case to be put (for and against so that readers can make up their mind).Contaldo80 (talk) 09:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Naked?
One last thing: who says Jonathan was naked? He gave David his robe, weapons, tunic, and girdle/belt/sash. That surely cannot be all he had been wearing! Mdotley 03:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have read several websites that they did not wear undergarments beneath their tunics. I have also read that they wore a subligaculum underneath their tunics. I haven't been able to find a definitive academic source on the subject. Even if David did strip himself naked before Jonathan, I'm not sure if that would have been unusual or not. Social customs have changed considerably, and there are other passages in the Bible involving nonsexual nudity that seems strange or even homoerotic today. For instance, Abraham asks his servant to "place your hand under my thigh" and swear on Abraham's genitals (Gen. 24:2). I'm sure there must be research on this somewhere... Queerudite 01:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I know in Exodus 20:26 it mentions this "26 And do not go up to my altar on steps, lest your nakedness be exposed on it.' (this is basically saying the people down below the alter would be able to see up their tunics or whatever they wore when they went up steps). This suggests that the people at this time did not wear undergarments, the book of Exodus is estimated traditionally to have been written about 1400 BC and David ruled starting in 1040BC I think, so I don't know how fast customs change but I guess it would be the same, however you have to take loads of things into account to draw a proper conclusion about this, for instance it could have just been on the alter where it was seen wrong to be naked. So, this suggests that the people did not wear undergarments, however that was an estimated 400 years before David's time, so things could have changed by then. 78.149.103.240 (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Material from LGBT topics and Judaism
The following is more relevant here and should be merged into the text if necessary. Chesdovi (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In Samuel (I and II), the Biblical text described the relation between David and Jonathan in terms of love, comparing it to the love between man and woman. Some modern scholars have ascribed sexual significance to these passages, while traditional interpretations overwhelmingly reject any such interpretation. For example, after David killed Goliath and spoke with Saul, the Bible relates:

"Jonathan's soul became bound to David's soul, and Jonathan loved him as [he loved] his own soul. Saul took him that day and did not allow him to return home. Jonathan and David made a covenant because he loved him as [much as] himself. Jonathan removed the coat that was on him and gave it to David, and his suit and even his sword and even his bow and even his belt. David went wherever Saul sent him, and would be successful. Saul put him in charge of the soldiers. He was good in the eyes of the entire nation and in the eyes of the Saul's ministers." Even though Jonathan was the crown prince, he was able to allow David to assume authority that was rightfully his own because of his great love for him. On Jonathan's passing King David eulogized him: "I have great pain over you, my brother Jonathan, you were very pleasant to me, your love for me was more wondrous than the love of women." (II Samuel 1:26)

The sensual connotation seen here by certain modern authors is countered by the observation that "stripped himself...even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle" may best indicate a limit, that of his outer garments and ending with “girdle, which means armor in. And that this had a clear ceremonial precedent under Moses, in which God commanded, "And strip Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son", in transference of the office of the former upon the latter. In like manner, Jonathan would be symbolically and prophetically transferring the kingship of himself (as the normal heir) to David, which would come to pass. It is also known that strong emotive language was normal in Ancient Near Eastern societies in describing their relationships, and in platonic respects, such as sacrificial loyalty and zeal for the kingdom, Jonathan's love surpassed that of the women David had known.

There is, however, no evidence that Biblical passages about the relationship between David and Jonathan, or the sexual significance some modern academic scholars have ascribed to it, influenced either historical or contemporary Jewish views on the subject of homosexuality, or were thought of as having a homoerotic character in Jewish religious thought.


 * Thanks. I think the article as currently drafted rather reflects all the points above. You're certainly welcome to tweak here and there if there is a certain nuance you want to bring out - particularly around Judaism (as there is a lot from the Christian viewpoint) - but I don't think we're looking at a whole-scale redrafting. I certainly don't see the value in merging the whole lot as it will just end up duplicating what we already have there. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Extra material
I removed some of the material in the biblical description section as I feel it is superfluous. We must ensure this article remains really tightly focused on the relationship between David and Jonathan. There are separate articles on David and Jonathan as individuals where we can say more - but here we need to include only those bits that relate directly. Other pieces of information - such as the number of David's wives - are interesting but irrelevant. Otherwise this article will repeat articles elsewhere or grow out of control. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Brothers-in-law
I removed the sentence which claimed the fact of David being married to Jonathan's sister Michal as alleged proof that they could not have been involved with one another romantically or sexually. It was unsourced, unencyclopedically casual in tone, and moreover relied on an argument more logically applied to supoort for the homosexual or bisexual theory: It was relatively common in Biblical times for a man to marry two sisters, as for example in the case of Jacob marrying both Leah and Rachel, and this was not considered incestuous. --76.209.175.51 (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the edit you made. But after looking at the whole paragraph I think it best to be removed completely as it is wrong - scripture had been changed over time. The edit argued that "Since the original Old Testament book that this relationship is mentioned in has never been changed (as a mandatory rule amongst publishers of the full text)..." Contaldo80 (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Romanticism Isn't the Issue
Does anyone else find this article highly lacking? The whole article is talking about the relationship between Jonathan and David; there's no section for what we know of Jonathan's history, achievements or family. Half of the article talks about David. Jonathan had sons of his own, and fought in wars, etc. The 'Jonathan' disambiguation page calls the link Jonathan(Samuel), but then the whole article descends into "Were they gay?" instead of trying to present a usable overview of the person in question. It's a fine question, but that's not all there is to Jonathan. Hgills (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had the same feeling. --Ephilei (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the point of this particular article the relationship between David and Jonathan. There are separate article pages for each that set out biographical detail etc. So article seems sensible in that context. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem, which is abundantly evident on the Internet, is that there is a widespread predisposition to a Da Vince code type belief of how the Bible came to be, and that the Bible can now be be validly reinterpreted to support most anything, that is, that goes along with the times, and that opposing traditional scholarship of centuries must be marginalized. The tone, and content of this article, manifests such (worse before i added some balance.Daniel1212 (talk) 07:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Jonathan (Samuel) is not a separate article which sets out biographical detail on Jonathan. It is a redirect to David and Jonathan.  A minor figure like from Judges like Barak gets a standalone article, and a for more historically significant figure like Jonathan gets none except this one focusing on his relationship to David.


 * The deconstruction of that is a consideration of due weight given to Jonathan by Wikipedia editors exclusively to the speculation that he and David had homosexual relations, or other aspects of the relationship in the 23,000 character David and Jonathan article. The question I have is if there is enough material apart from that starting in 1 Samuel 13 where Jonathan is introduced, and 1 Samuel 16 where David is first referenced even indirectly for a 1000 or 2000 character article on Jonathan's basic biography and his campaigns against the Philistines without touching the David and Jonathan article? patsw (talk) 01:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I would support a separate article on Jonathan, I think there would be enough to say aside from the relationship with David. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I too was surprised when I tried to go to an article on Jonathan and got redirected here. He should have his own article, even if it's relatively short. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * ...and now the Jonathan article exists! Hurrah! Thanks, StAnselm! 65.213.77.129 (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing in it. Merge it into this article. Obviously not enough content for its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.69.125 (talk) 03:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan
Shouldn't there be a separate article on Jonathan? Yonatan talk 05:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nearly everything we know about him is bound up in the story of his father Saul and covenant-brother David, so there's not enough left for an independent article. That said, I doubt anyone would object if you wanted to pull it all together into an article. Mdotley 03:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

- I don't see why we can't have some repeat information. We can talk about his relationship with David and his father, but also his military feats and fall on Mt. Gilboa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.227.80 (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The article now exists: Jonathan (1 Samuel). StAnselm (talk) 05:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)