Talk:David and Jonathan/Archive 2

undue weight
this article focuses on the minority opinion, that is mostly held and put forward by activists. What we know about the two is that they were best friends. were they more than friends? I admit it is not certain, but this view finds little support, outside of the gay community. yet this article only states the motives of those arguing against it. this is obviously an area where people well interpret the text based on their preconceived ideas. 76.224.126.61 (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Talking of preconceived ideas... Welcome to the debate. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree 100% with IP; seems to be a predominate opinion? There is no reason this minority opinion which is biased towards modern western ideas should be taking up half the article. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I wonder if we should fork it into another article; it is notable enough for its own article. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it might be worth better explaining yourself. You refer to "this minority opinion which is biased towards modern western ideas". What's the modern western idea you're referring to. In addition are you sugegsting that there is undue weight to the nature of the relationship, or just the side of the discussion that suggests it may have been homo-erotic? Contaldo80 (talk) 10:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No, just to the homoerotic part of the relationship. The modern western idea that I'm referring to is a homosexual relationship described in such terms: with all due respect to all sides, there is no question that ancient Middle Eastern norms about homosexuality were different from modern ones. These norms are not entirely irrelevant - the society in which the book was written is an important key to understanding the book (to use another example, trying to understand the Book of Revelation without understanding Jewish apocalyptic literature).


 * Now please understand, I'm not saying one interpretation or the other is necessarily the right one... that's not my job. Our job is to give due weight to authoritative interpretation on the issue. Ideally, it should be as global as possible, and for a matter with a long history, to include ancient as well as modern interpretations. I don't think that homosexuality interpretation deserves to be taking up 30% of the article. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see that the text does at any point make the claim that the relationship occured in the same way as a modern homosexual relationship? It simply examines the romantic and physical elements. By giving "due weight to authoritative interpretation on the issue" - basically what you're saying is that we give the bulk of the article over to the "traditional" religious view that homosexuality is bad because that's the majority standpoint. However, that is really to misunderstand the point of the article - which is to explain why some people throughout history have looked upon the example of David and Jonathan as a cipher for same-sex love and to explain why they might have thought that. Trying to align all stories within the Bible with a strict code of behaviour is a particularly modern thing in itself - fine for religious thought, but bad for historical analysis; and it's not out job simply to repeat the majority view of everything. The text on homoeroticism is not very long - it only takes up so much space because the rest of the article is so short. But that rather proves my point in that the relationship between David and Jonathan is notable only because of its intimacy. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect emphasis
This wikipage seems to have become dominated by a discussion of sexuality. The David and Jonathan story needs to be told for the point of view of Mr Average, who I would guess is simply interested in the story as told. If David and Jonathan have a particular icon staus for parts of the gay community, this could be documented elsewhere. I guess there is already a gay icon page or something similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan.mark.lingard (talk • contribs) 07:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The nature of the relationship is the point of this article. It's not a case of being "gay icons" - but rather interpretation of the Bible in a historical and cultural context. Contaldo80 (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As "[t]he nature of the relationship is the point of this article", a portion of the first line of the last section is now reiterated at the top, since that appears to be the crux of the matter. If it had been "explicitly depicted" there would be no point to this article. -- But then, the biblical text doesn't seem to explicitly depict the relationship of anybody very often.Mannanan51 (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)mannanan51

Dave & John: "Bi-curious jack-off buddies"?
It's amusing, and also a little frustrating, when the possibility of occasional physical homoeroticism between men who were known to be primarily heterosexual is treated like an "Extraordinary Claim Requiring Extraordinary Evidence," as though we were talking about UFO sightings or a golden retriever that can tap dance and sing Cole Porter.

Clearly, David had enormous heterosexual energies, and presumably Jonathan did too (or at least, he was married to a woman and had a son with her). It's also clear that ancient Jewish culture had a particularly strong revulsion towards male/male anal penetration, since it's prohibited in Lev. 18:22 and Lev. 20:13 as an abomination worthy of capital punishment for both men involved. So David and Jonathan, as G-d-fearing Jews, would never ever have crossed the grassy divider and taken a ride up Hershey Highway.

However, it's also abundantly clear (in my experience-informed opinion, anyway) that when two soldiers who trust each other intimately are sharing a blanket on a cold, lonely night, far away from female company, and both of them wake up with "morning wood," well... sometimes things are gonna happen. That is, the friendship goes temporarily into "bi-curious jack-off buddies" territory. (Indeed, in my view, that's a major part of why "Don't Ask Don't Tell" continues to drag on as a political controversy in the U.S. -- it's the messy reality of male bisexual potential. If there were truly a stark hetero/homo dichotomy, with 98% of men being totally hetero and 2% being totally homo, DADT would've long since been resolved in favor of a policy that allowed the homo 2% to serve "openly" so long as they were very discreet and low-key about it.)

In short, there is most definitely a logical third option between the timidly prudish "David and Jonathan were just really super close Platonic friends" of Biblical dogmatists and "David and Jonathan were butt-bangin' out-and-proud Gay men who challenged received patriarchal gender norms," as some Queer Theorists would have us believe.

To be clear, I'm not claiming that Dave and John, on some cold lonely nights, necessarily kissed and cuddled and played with each other's dicks and enjoyed some harmless "swordfighting" until they both had excellent orgasms; I'm just saying that there's no Scriptural basis whatsoever to completely exclude that possibility -- for Christianity teaches that only Jesus was entirely without sin, and Judaism doesn't make that claim about any mortal man.

Re: Those who never sinned There is a definitive and accepted viewpoint amongst traditional Jewry based on Talmud page 55b that "Whoever says that David sinned is in error; whoever says that Reuven sinned is in error". The same page specificies definitively that these 4 people are among those who never sinned: Amram (Moshe's father), Binyamin (Jakob's son), Ishai (David's Father), Kalev (David's Son).

There is another opinion by Rabbi Yonatan that lists others- "Whoever says that the sons of Eli sinned is in error." The opinions of those included in the list include King Shaul and others.

The holy Zohar includes Yehoshua in the list of those who never sinned and this view is accepted. Volume 2 Bereishit B 298

16:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC) Symbiosis776 (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, human nature hasn't changed since Biblical times, and we all know that when horny straight guys are desperate for something more fun than solo masturbation because there aren't any willing ladies around even if the dudes are offering cash, "circle jerks" have once in a while been the time-honored pragmatic solution, and this has been the case throughout the history of human males. Peace out! Throbert McGee (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely right - the relationship is probably more nuanced than we give it credit for. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely the issue here is not whether David and Jonathan had a homoerotic relationship. Given the sparsity of our sources (basically, there's only the First Book of Samuel) there's absolutely no way to know.  The question is whether or not the author of Samuel is trying to suggest that the relationship between David and Jonathan was a sexual one, or whether this is a plausible interpretation of the text.  This isn't like the question of whether, say, Frederick the Great was gay (yes!), where we have tons of evidence about the guy that we can use to try to understand him.  Analyzing whether David and Jonathan had a gay relationship is ultimately essentially a literary question, not a historical one. john k (talk) 02:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree. Seeing as we're not sure these people even existed (at least not in the way they are covered in the Bible) then the issue is more about literary interpretation. But I think the article does, to be fair, address it in that way. Drawing upon contemporary customs and practice to shed light on what has been written down. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it disappointing that this article is more about bizarre homosexual innuendoes that people read into the biblical text, rather than about the actual text. This is drifting away for the encyclopedic scope of wikipedia, into the domain of tabloids. Their friendship was a excellent ancient example of deep friendship based on mutual respect and congruent beliefs. It is fairly clear to me that this focus is wishful thinking by those who have already decided in their minds that the bible should be less 'anti-gay'. You can't possibly arrive at the conclusion that they were homosexual by straightforward reading of the text without a huge helping of creativity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccooeye (talk • contribs) 18:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I find it disappointing that there are still people around that assume the Bible must be read literally and nothing or no-one should diverge from their personal held opinions. I mean how do you know with certainty that "Their friendship was a excellent ancient example of deep friendship based on mutual respect and congruent beliefs"? Please. Were you there to be able to speak with such confidence? The article as it stands is pretty balanced I feel. If you think it's not then I suggest you make specific comments on where it might be improved.Contaldo80 (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Traditional Jewish approach does not necessarily require absolute literal translation - that's only the top layer of "Pshat" or simple meaning. There are many layers of traditional biblical criticism including a spoken tradition, Talmudic tradition, cultural perspective and others.. A core, fundamental principle of Judaism is that homosexuality is an abominable sin.  The Torah states so explicitly in text and the text is certifiably unchanged for at least 2 millenia.  There are but a few letters difference between all the different Torah approaches.  Additionally there is ample evidence that the spoken and Talmudic traditions have always shunned homosexuality as an abomination.  Upon the re-creation of the State of Israel, all the various Torah approaches to Judaism were united for the first time in 2 millenia, with an almost identical set of Jewish laws and approach to history.  Yemenite Jews who are accepted to be from the first Babylonian exile, also hold this view.  All the fundamentals, based on the codification of laws by Maimonides, were completely in tact including the ban on homosexuality.  A cultural perspective also seems to indicate this was always the case as Jews have been known throughout the world - for millenia - to have a basic, fundamental value of 'being fruitful and multiplying' (first commandment), as well as an outright rejection of homosexuality (negative commandment).  Culturally speaking, the modern novelty that King David was 'not straight', God forbid, is about as bunk a theory as saying that Greek culture did not have inherent homosexual tendencies.

Symbiosis776 (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation Contaldo80. I suggest that the section presenting the discussion on their homosexuality be reduced to one small paragraph. Isn't the goal of wikipedia to stay as close to the truth as possible? In answer to your question - "were you there...?": Obviously neither you nor I were there, nor was anyone editing this page. So we do our best to understand from primary and secondary texts what was reported and its veracity, subjecting it to internal and external evidence. You could try that instead of dreaming up something you find more 'exciting'. The bible is the primary source here - at least be fair to it. The bible's silence is not a carte blanche for our imaginations. "It doesn't say they weren't gay" - is not sufficient to present the suggestion, especially for two men so devoted to their religious law and their God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccooeye (talk • contribs) 03:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't think your suggestion of reducing to one paragraph is a particularly sensible one. If you want to add to the article by drawing upon respected modern academic sources to support an argument then please do so. Thankfully we've moved on a little from the approach that says that one person's 'safe' reading of the Bible is the "truth". Instead the Bible is a book - like any other book - that reflects its time and will inevitably be interpreted in different ways. In fact it doesn't actually tell us very much at all about David and Jonathan, so a bit risky to say with confidence that these were "two men so devoted to their religious law and their God". Perhaps, perhaps not - we only have a couple of lines to go on. Certainly the article sets out that in the medieval and renaissance period, many writers interpreted the story in their way to underline same-sex friendships and relationships. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps there is not a huge volume on Jonathan in the bible, although there is significantly more than seen here (1 Sam 14 among others show his character in some depth), but it seems strange that you would suggest that there is 1. little data on David, and 2. little to suggest that he was devoted to his religious law and his God. Very few people in the bible have more written about and by them than David. Thankfully there is plenty of information about David, and yes, it is clear that he was (as Samuel said in 1 Sam 13) "a man after God's own heart". Countless biblical commentaries will agree on this. If you wish, I can provide some references. This is the primary reason that suggestion of his homosexuality should be rejected flat out. Not only is there no data to suggest it or back more modern interpretations to this effect, the data is very clear: he respected and honored the law and his God. When he failed (eg with Bathsheba) he was very penitent and understood that he sinned against God (see Psalm 51). He was grieved about his sin, but he rejoiced about the friendship with Jonathan. He would have seen as sinful if it were homosexual in nature, since he was concerned about the law. Since you have made comments about Gagnon below, I would like to make it clear that my goal is not to slam or insult homosexuals, or to treat them as living 'sad' lives. The goal is simply to evaluate interpretations based on the data given, which cannot support the conclusion that they were homosexual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.232.68.202 (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "He would have seen as sinful if it were homosexual in nature, since he was concerned about the law." Wasn't David an adulterer according to the Bible? Again this is a storm in a tea cup. The article does not conclude that David was homosexual nor that he and Jonathan enjoyed a homosexual relationship. It's not even clear that these people actually existed in the real sense - they could be mythical creations or amalgamations of other figures. It simply states that some people (in both the christian age and in the modern age) have (intentionally or not) drawn out elements of homo-sociality and homo-eroticism. I have stated elsewhere that I think there is strong evidence to suggest in reading the account that the writers deliberately used allusions to virility and passivity in order to essentially underline the transference of kingship from Jonathan's line to David's - thus parallels to the epic of Gilgamesh (although this should not be confused with homosexuality in the modern sense). Contaldo80 (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Contaldo80 the person with whom you were debating mentions davids adultery, infact that was there key point. the fact that you did not know what he was referring to when he said "When he failed (eg with Bathsheba) he was very penitent and understood that he sinned against God"leads me to question whether or no you have even read the bible as you are clearly very unfamiliar with it. david commited adultery with bathsheba the bible is very clear that this in his only sin as is stated  in the verse I King 15:5, “because David did what was right in the sight of the LORD, and had not turned aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.18.29 (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm familiar with the Bible, thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Changes to Counter-arguments
I made some changes to the Counter-arguments section. Some of the wording seemed to be written to discredit the counter-arguments while explaining them - most notably the paragraph about biblical infallibility. The references at the end of that sentence were to two articles that don't even mention David and Jonathan and so were deleted. And the majority of us who accept the counterarguments have no trouble with metaphorical language in biblical narrative, so it seemed that I should delete the statement that for those who hold this position a wide range of metaphorical readings are disallowed. I also added direct responses to the arguments in the previous section, and I reworded the statement about 1 Samuel 20:30 so that it's not just that it "could be referring to Ahinoam"; the statement is clearly related to Ahinoam. A proponent of the romantic love argument may argue that this alludes to nakedness of Jonathan - I think such an argument would be incorrect, but the argument could be made - but to say that it "could be referring to Ahinoam" when the text itself says, "the nakedness of your mother," is problematic. I hope my contributions help the discussion and demonstrate the strengths of my side of the debate while not detracting from the strengths of the other side of the debate (which is why I made my edits where I did rather than immediately after the arguments of the previous section). Davidancf (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect Biblical Note
Note 13, in regards to David and Johnathan kissing, is incorrect. It says (and links to) "1 Sam 21:41" but the kiss between David and Jonathan occurs in 1 Sam 20:41. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.20.188 (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Checked and fixed. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

CSD
moved David and Jonathan to Views on David and Jonathan and then turned the redirect into a new a duplicate article about David and Jonathan, creating a WP:POVFORK, without any discussion. The new David and Jonathan page needs to be deleted so that the original article and it's history can be moved back to that title. - MrX 00:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, whether or not the fork should be created, it shouldn't have been done via a page move. StAnselm (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE
The article itself claims that the vast majority of scholarship on David and Jonathan either have nothing to say whatsoever about homosexuality or actively reject it. A small minority of authors have suggested that there's a homosexual element to the relationship. We can present that claim, certainly, but we must be careful to not give it undue weight. We must also avoid citing any particular authors' viewpoints as fact (e.g., "Both the Renaissance artists Donatello and Michelangelo brought out strong homoerotic elements in their respective sculptures depicting the youthful David" -- really?? We know this? Or did one author one time just suggest it?) The article before I got to it spent 2,000+ characters discussing one authors assertions - and this about a friendship that has been written about thousands of times by thousands of authors throughout thousands of years. This is undue weight. (I will admit one error--I changed "fictionalised" to "fictionalized" in violation of WP:ENGVAR. My bad.) Red Slash 02:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

See also a Google books search: - note how once you get past the first few pages, the large majority of results have nothing to do with homosexuality. Yet that's what most of the article, as I found it, talks about. Red Slash 03:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point of this article somewhat. It's about the relationship between David and Jonathan and sets out why sometimes that relationship is cited as a homosexual one. Indeed if people talk about David and Jonathan in literature, religious discource or politics, it's normally to explore the closeness of that relationship. It's not just a random article about how a couple of people in the Bible got on with one another eg "Adam and Cain". So I wouldn't be surprised that much of it explores the nature of that relationship and so calling the emphasis UNDUE is somewhat of a misunderstanding. This includes the view that the relationship was a "bromance" (anachronistic term) and that is presented in the article, but to suggest that no-one is interested in any other dimension to that relationship is unfair. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Contaldo80. Even though the subject has been greatly blow up, that is nevertheless a fact that Wikipedia should reflect. And that is the raison the etre of this article, after all. Debresser (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The fact that the article is quite long reflects the history of the article. Some editors did not accept that a homoerotic description of the relationship was a valid one and so insisted on a lot of supporting material, detail and references to make the case (which they got). In terms of ensuring "balance" it was then agreed to put in substantive counter-arguments to cover the traditional view of the relationship as platonic. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No, this article is about the friendship/relationship/everything between David and Jonathan. It is not about the hypothesized homosexual relationship. This is not to say that Wikipedia couldn't have one (I'm sure there's easily enough RS's to have a stand-alone article about that) but there's more than enough to write about the two of them as an example of friendship, which again is what most of the RS's in Google books talk about once you get past the first few pages of results. Red Slash 01:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Can we please avoid yet another confrontation between religious beliefs and the subject of homosexuality. As if on has to trump the other. There is room for both - and thi article does indeed reflect both viewpoints. I have no doubt that the majority of religious books on the Bible will emphasise the platonic relationship between David and Jonathan, as that is the view that predominates in traditional Christian and Jewish thought. However, we have to accept that in art, politics and most religious discourse today when people speak about David and Jonathan then they are speaking about a homosexual or intimate homosocial relationship. To ignore this would be extremely odd and render the article rather pointless. We also need to be aware that in the historical context - certainly from the medieval period onwards in the west - the parallel drawn with David and Jonathan was code for contemporary homosexual relationships. The article doesn't state categorically that the relationship was homosexual (this would be hard to do in any case because neither man probably existed in reality) but allows readers to examine how diferent people have viewed the relationship at different time - and use it to understand references in art and literature. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, most reliable sources about David and Jonathan discuss a deep friendship with no homosexual component at all. (I readily grant that not all sources take this perspective.) There is a dearth of sourcing for the things you are saying. Doubtlessly some people at some time have used "David and Jonathan" as a sort of codeword. But there's no sourcing that the most notable thing about their relationship was the homosexuality or the lack thereof. If you are looking to talk about the different views of David and Jonathan, that's another article. And in fact, almost certainly should be. Red Slash 19:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Now that the article has been restored to the status quo version, I would like to ask Red Slash to validate the statement "most reliable sources about David and Jonathan discuss a deep friendship with no homosexual component at all". Are there sources that make that statement, and if not, what methodology was used to to exhaustively search and tally all available sources on the subject to come arrive at that conclusion? - MrX 14:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... It does not in fact duplicate an existing English Wikipedia topic. I recently branched out an article from this article, but these two articles are rather different, with one discussing the relationship in terms of most scholarship, with the other more devoted to the minority interest in a possible homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan. -- Red Slash 00:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You moved David and Jonathan to Views on David and Jonathan and then turned the remaining redirect into a new a duplicate article about David and Jonathan, creating a WP:POVFORK, without any discussion. This page needs to be deleted so that the original article and it's history can be moved back to this title. - MrX 00:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The brunt of reliable sources refer to it as a friendship. An article that strives to highlight allegations or suppositions or inferences of homosexuality needs to be forked off, just like how September 11 attacks has a 9/11 conspiracy theories page that it links to, but which is not very prominently mentioned in the article. Red Slash 01:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * See also most (not all, but most) Google Books results once you get past the first few pages:  Red Slash 01:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see the note I left on your talk page. - MrX 01:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Saw it. Responded, and if you care to respond there you may, but if it's relevant to this article, let's keep it here. Red Slash 01:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Quoting directly from WP:NPOV -


 * "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views."
 * I don't see any assertion against this, yet. Red <b style="color:#460121;">Slash</b> 01:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the fork should be created, it shouldn't have been done via a page move. The page needs to be moved back. StAnselm (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My point exactly. Irrespective of the merits of creating a new (POV fork) article without consensus, one simply can't do it the way Red Slash did. For one thing, it contravenes Creative Commons attribution requirements. - MrX 01:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Red Slash - you may well be right that in traditionalist religious sources on the occassions that David and Jonathan are discussed the emphasis is always on the platonic nature of the friendship. And I am sure that there is lots and lots of traditionalist religious literature. This is not surprising considering the hostile view of homosexuality by traditionalist religious groups. But to insist that the discussion of the homosexual dimension of the relationship is fringe or akin to a conspiracy theory is to ignore quite an important dimension to this issue. This article is not the grounds upon which to wage a war in order to prove one theory right and one theory wrong. It is simply to reflect the fact that there has been interest - and this remains the case - in the nature of the relationship between the two men. A simple Google search shows that the majority of hits deal in some way with whether the two were lovers or not. It is incredibly odd to ignore this. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Additional evidence
Right off the bat, I do not speak/read Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic or Koine Greek nor do I have any theolgical degree that would allow me to claim any expertise. As a hobby, I have studied and read commentaries by others, hopefully, more qualified and the following is no exception. It is an extract from an article at http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm.

Any kudos (or blame ;D ) go to them. That being said, I was surprised that the wiki article did not mention 1 Samuel 18:20-21, which, IMHO provides further/stronger "evidence" that the relationship must have had a romantic element.

If someone more competent on Biblical and Wikipeia issues agrees that this passage is significant and would include it, I would be grateful.

1 Samuel 18:20-21 "Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. 'I will give her to him', he thought, 'so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him'. Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law" (NIV)

In the King James Version, the end of Verse 21 reads:

"Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the one of the twain." (KJV)

The rather obvious implication is that he was already a, or something akin to a, son in law through his relationship with David. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.105.25 (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It's far more likely if you're reading straight through 1 Samuel 18 that you would see this as a reference back to the preceding paragraph, in which Saul offers his oldest daughter Merab. David refused the offer, and so here is a "second opportunity" (NIV) or according to KJV, he will be Saul's son-in-law in one of the twain (two); i.e. if he did not become son-in-law by Merab then he will by Michal for at least there there is romantic interest whereas the first was purely political and David refused it. Davidancf (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

A More Complete Story of David and Jonathan [Sourced Directly from The Bible, with the King James Version. "And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. "And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. "Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. "And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle. "And David went out whithersoever Saul sent him, and behaved himself wisely: and Saul set him over the men of war, and he was accepted in the sight of all the people, and also in the sight of Saul's servants." ~ 1 Samuel 18: 1-5.

[Fast-Forward. . .] "And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul [as a test], and he prophesied in the midst of the house: and David played with his hand, as at other times: and there was a javelin in Saul's hand." ~ 1 Samuel 18:10. "And Saul was afraid of David, because the Lord was with him, and was departed from Saul." ~ 1 Samuel 18:12. "And Saul commanded his servants, saying, 'Commune with David secretly, and say, 'Behold, the king hath delight in thee, and all his servants love thee: now therefore be the king's son in law.'' "And Saul's servants spake those words in the ears of David. And David said, 'Seemeth it to you a light thing to be a king's son in law, seeing that I am a poor man, and lightly esteemed?' (As if saying, "I'm already the King's son, though such is not officially recognized, and I'm tired of your assumptions, which the King has forbade me to speak of.") "And the servants of Saul told him, saying, 'On this manner spake David.' "And Saul said, 'Thus shall ye say to David, 'The king desireth not any dowry, but a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king's enemies.'' But Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines. "And when his servants told David these words, it pleased David well to be the king's son in law: and the days [that David and Jonathan were married] were not expired." "Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife. "And Saul saw and knew that the Lord was with David, and that Michal, Saul's daughter loved him. "And Saul was yet the more afraid of David; and Saul became David's enemy continually." ~ 1 Samuel 18:22-29. [After David is expelled from Saul's court, and after he is given protection by the Prophet Samuel with Spirit of God, King Saul relents, and Prince David returns to his husband, Prince Jonathan. (Remember: they were married by grant of Saul's promise from the battle of Goliath, and spiritually, that marriage was recorded.)] "And David sware moreover, and said, "Thy father certainly knoweth that I have found grace in thine eyes; and he saith, 'Let not Jonathan know this [omitted plot], lest he be grieved: but truly as the Lord liveth, and as thy soul liveth, there is but a step between me and death.' "Then said Jonathan unto David, 'Whatsoever thy soul desireth, I will even do it for thee.' "And Jonathan spake good of David unto Saul his father... "And Saul hearkened unto the voice of Jonathan: and Saul sware, 'As the Lord liveth, he shall not be slain.' "And Jonathan called David, and Jonathan showed him all those things. And Jonathan brought David to Saul, and he was in his presence, as in times past." "And Jonathan said, 'Far be it from thee: for if I knew certainly that evil were determined by my father to come upon thee, then would not I tell it thee?'" ~ 1 Samuel 20:3-7,9. "So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, 'Let the Lord even require it at the hand of David's enemies.' And Jonathan caused David to swear again, because he loved him: for he loved him as he loved his own soul." ~ 1 Samuel 20:16-17. "Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, 'Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?'" ~ 1 Samuel 20:30. "So Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger, and did eat no meat the second day of the month: for he was grieved for David, because his father had done him shame." ~ 1 Samuel 20:34.

[Fast-Forward to the Incident in the Field] "And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded. "And Jonathan said to David, 'Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the Lord, saying, The Lord be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever. And he arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city."' ~ 1 Samuel 20:41-42. [Fast-Forward. . .]

"And David saw that Saul was come out to seek his life: and David was in the wilderness of Ziph in a wood. "And Jonathan Saul's son arose, and went to David into the wood, and strengthened his hand in God. "And he said unto him, Fear not: for the hand of Saul my father shall not find thee; and thou shalt be king over Israel, and I shall be next unto thee; and that also Saul my father knoweth.' "And they two made a covenant before the Lord: and David abode in the wood, and Jonathan went to his house." ~ 1 Samuel 23:15-18.

[Fast-Forward. . .] "Now the Philistines fought against Israel: and the men of Israel fled from before the Philistines, and fell down slain in mount Gilboa. "And the Philistines followed hard upon Saul and upon his sons; and the Philistines slew Jonathan, and Abinadab, and Melchishua, Saul's sons." ~ 1 Samuel 31:1-2. "And when the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead heard of that which the Philistines had done to Saul; "All the valiant men arose, and went all night, and took the body of Saul and the bodies of his sons from the wall of Bethshan, and came to Jabesh, and burnt them there. "And they took their bones, and buried them under a tree at Jabesh, and fasted seven days." ~ 1 Samuel 31:11-13.

[Fast-Forward. . .] "Saul and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant in their lives, and in their death they were not divided: they were swifter than eagles, they were stronger than lions." "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."How are the mighty fallen, and the weapons of war perished!" ~ 1 Samuel 1:23,26-27. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlightPrince (talk • contribs) 08:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Title question
Why has this title been changed form "David and Jonathan" (which returns 55k hits on Yahoo) to the less common "Jonathan and David" which returns half that number? Haiduc 23:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Removed the last paragraph
I removed the last paragraph entirely, because it was vague, slightly hard to follow, and seemingly nonsensical. Witness this sentence: "Some early translations of other passages mention David and Jonathan kissing with David becoming sexually aroused." WHAT translations? WHAT passages? Moreover, why reference translations when we have access to the Hebrew text.

Enforced "Leaps of faith"
neutrality in its very essence requires one to report as things are and not as one would want to interpret them. and leaving the deduction to the reader remains an excuse best described as feeble given the convenient manner in which one absolves oneself of the accountability of factual reasoning. the manner in which the "commentators" "allude" to the interpretations they refer to do not stop short of "accusation" as long as the individuals involved did not publicly declare their relation as such. if they did not there is no reason for anyone hiding behind a title of "commentator" and their own personal leanings to force or even suggest a view as to the nature of their honorable relation. this would be nothing short of criminal if in spite of a lack of factual evidence one would resort to judge based on views that are not first hand rather based centuries later. King David was a King and effectively a conduit of law and since it was not a party based democratic republic he did not require public opinion to be favorable, therefore having no reason to hide what is being unjustifiably alluded to him. the sections of "Romantic Interpretation", "Erotic interpretation" and "Allusions to Jonathan and David" are therefore a real case of "historical vandalism" and fanatical leaps of faith to force a skewed and very weasel inference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.174.237 (talk)

Halperin
I support the removal of Halperin from the first paragraph of the homoeroticism section. The cited source didn't support it - Halperin emphasises the fraternal nature of the relationship, and concludes that it is both fraternal and conjugal. That falls far short of the classic homoerotic interpretation. StAnselm (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The content in the article states "Some modern scholars and writers have interpreted the love between David and Jonathan as more intimate than platonic friendship." and "This interpretation views the bonds the men shared as romantic love, regardless of whether or not the relationship was physically consummated. Jonathan and David cared deeply about each other in a way that was arguably more tender and intimate than a platonic friendship." This is supported by page 82-83 of Halpering, specifically:


 * The second sentence in particular is directly supported by the cited passage. If it were any more so, it would be a WP:COPYVIO. I think the word tender can be omitted though. We could also include this direct quote from Halperin, if it helps.- MrX 21:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No - Halpern is saying that it is stronger than sexual love, not that it is stronger than platonic love. They are two very different things. StAnselm (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Dare I say this is what happens when those with little familiarity with a scholar and a subject attempt to make proclamations regarding either? I guess I just did, regardless.

For the uninitiated: David M. Halperin is the scholar outside of biblical studies most identified with the flat out denial of any erotic component to the "heroic couples" he discusses in his famous essay cited here--i.e., Achilles and Patroclus, Gilgamesh and Enkidu, and David and Jonathan. Not only is that abundantly clear in the work cited, including on the cited page, but he is incredibly famous among scholars for that position, presented in the famous essay. He has never retreated even one millimeter from it, and has repeated it in passing in other works. This is not something of which contributors to this article should be or remain ignorant. Just saying.

Btw, and this is interesting, Halperin does nonetheless believe that Homer reveals a pederastic sensibility, in the ancient sense--just not in the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus. See OCD4, s.v. homosexuality, written by him. Antinoos69 (talk) 09:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on David and Jonathan
Cyberbot II has detected links on David and Jonathan which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/D/DAVID/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 21:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Response to conservative arguments
I realise that I've removed a large chunk of text but I'm worried that it's not properly supported by the sources. I'm not against using some of this material but I would like us to be more specific and link it to a particular reference point. I also think it should be on the section with the rest supporting a homo-erotic meaning - otherwise we end up "he said, she said". Does that sound sensible? Contaldo80 (talk) 08:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the guy that made the section "Response to conservative arguments". There's no problem reformatting the arguments presented in the above section or having a second section. The problem is bias. When the liberal view is espoused and the conservative view is stated after, it appears as if "The conservative view won", as opposed to being a controversial topic, where there are opposing views on a number of points. Stating the liberal view and then a refutation with the conservative view is unfair. Both sides, and scholars from both sides should be given a chance to explain how they see the data, rather than simply "Here's what liberals say, and conservatives have refuted it".

It would be more helpful if all the points on either side were brought up with references and then the reader can see both sides. The main thust is that the liberal side sees the gay explanation as "parsimonious" that is explaining all the confusing passages with one simple explanation.

I'm sorry I didn't do a very good job citing sources, and I can try again with specific quotes from specific scholars.
 * No sorry I don't agree with this. We already have the traditional version - which implies no homosexuality. Then two modern interpretations about why it could and could not be homosexual. I don't think the order suggests either side has "won". And it will just make the article long and tedious if we refute the refutations. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

But the problem is that the liberal side states its case badly, then the conservative side successfully refutes it with no response. Should we instead try to edit the first liberal side better.

As well the conservative side might want to come first as the more popular view usually gets pride of placement first.

Two sides aren't being represented well when one side starts and the other then completely obliterates them. Allowing one side to make new points and to refute old points with no chance at response is really biased.

Should we just reformat the liberal side and switch places with the conservative side?

The whole article rings of "Well, modern interpreters have suggested X but conservative scholars have proven them wrong."

Perhaps each point in the conservative side should be paralleled in the Modern/Liberal Side?

In Reading the "Modern" interpretation again, the case doesn't make the stronger points in research that liberal scholars suggest and doesn't cite much stronger textual evidence discussed by Boswell and many other scholars. I suggest a rewrite with specific evidence rather than the sort of "vague allusion" proposition by the author.
 * I don't read it like this. Personally I see the conservative argument as clasping at straws. By all means strengthen the so-called "liberal" section. If you want to change the sequencing then you can too. But the point is there is no ultimate answer to this issue - no-one knows for sure what was meant by the biblical narrative and whether these (probably imaginary figures) felt for one another anyway. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

"graciously"?
This from the lead: "The covenant the two men had formed eventually led to David, after Jonathan's death, graciously seating Jonathan's son Mephibosheth at his own royal table instead of eradicating the former king Saul's line." However, 2 Samuel 21:8-9 says David sent 7 of Saul's grandson's to the Gibeonites to be executed. It would appear that David did, in fact, effectively wipe out Saul's line with the apparently inadvertent exception of Jonathan's crippled son, thus giving him an opportunity to appear magnanimous towards someone who could never be a serious rival. Eerdmans suggests a type of house arrest while his restored lands are used to buy the loyalty of the clan of Saul's steward. Soooo, my question is did the source actually say this, or is it the editor's interpretive paraphrasing? and does it belong in the lede as written? Mannanan51 (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be inclined to take it out of the lede as it's not a particularly significant point. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David and Jonathan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091126014202/http://www.uscj.org/israelcenter/haftarah/Toldot5765.html to http://www.uscj.org/israelcenter/haftarah/Toldot5765.html
 * Added tag to http://blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?word=0160

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Is Homosexual Interpration classifed as "queer theory"?
Would a homosexual interpretation of David and Jonathan's relationship be considered part of "queer theory" or some other postmodern school of interpretation? If so what school would that be? If this is the case I feel its important to point out as a famous example of that sort of interpretation and to further distinguish that interpretation from historic, even historical-grammatical or historical-critical interpretations of the biblical text. Superdadsuper (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You're assuming a homosexual reading of the story isn't the historical one? I don't like your approach. What you're effectively trying to do is to suggest that the "original" reading of the story was never about a homosexual or homosocial relationship between the two men; but rather that today these queer theorists have come along and they see things in a way that's different from the original intention. It's possible that when people from thousands of years ago told the story of these two men they wanted to capture a special sort of relationship - and maybe subsequent religious dogma downplayed that. That may be true, that may not. But won't I'm not keen on is projecting modern day religious doctrines and beliefs onto much older texts to imply some sort of continuity in belief/ practice. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, and you are assuming a homosexual reading of the story is the historical one. And I am not keen on projecting modern day sexual mores onto much older text to imply some sort of legitimization of a certain practice. Debresser (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Lead BRD
For the interested. I changed this

were heroic figures of the Kingdom of Israel, who formed a covenant recorded in the books of Samuel.

to this

''according to the Hebrew Bible, were figures of the Kingdom of Israel. Their story is narrated in the books of Samuel.''

And was reverted on that, ES "Less informative.". I think my version is the better of the 2, partly because WP:SAID, my reading is that "recorded" falls on the "Yup, that happened" side. Also, while David did heroic things, he was also a bit of a dick. Opinions? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Come to think of it, one of his heroic acts included him collecting... Nevermind, I digress. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * As the editor who reverted this change, I repeat the explanation I gave in the edit summary, that I find the old version to contain more information. I have no problem with adding the "according to the Hebrew Bible" part, though. Debresser (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * ok? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality
Crossroads you jump too quickly to accusations of edit-warring. You over-turned a set of my edits even though they are not the same issue. The text gives examples of where others have used the story of David and Jonathan as an exemplar of romantic love for example King James and the Duke of Buckingham. Do you or do you not agree? Some historians have seen elements of homo-eroticism. If you think we need to add "their perceived view" there then I will insist that we insert in "their perceived view" at every point in the article where a writer or historian has expressed an opinion. Finally the categories are there as indicators - many people believe the story of David and Jonathan is about LGBT characters in the Bible. We do not have to prove they were LGBT. Just like we don't have to prove they were real people. It is enough to say that they can be categorised in this way. Your exclusion shows bias. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you keep edit warring to your preferred version, and you keep improperly shifting the WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS on to me. I've already explained the issues in edit summaries regarding WP:V, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and WP:CATEGRS, but you won't listen. Your response above does not engage with that at all. Crossroads -talk- 04:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , since you commented at Contaldo80's talk page about this, don't you think that this edit should be reverted? Crossroads -talk- 04:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Leaving aside the edit warring here, I agree with Crossroads here. Adding the words "what they see" or "what they perceive" is necessary to add neutrality of what are disputed interpretations of the biblical text. Likewise, WP:CAT clearly says that "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial". I have no problem with the sentence "some of which involved romantic love" which he removed. Debresser (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but the phrase "some of which involved romantic love" is completely unsourced and does not appear supported by the body. Saying that such friendships involved romantic love is just another way of saying they involved sexual attraction between men. This paragraph is about the platonic interpretation. Bottom line, it fails WP:V. Crossroads -talk- 17:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Look I'm sorry but I just don't get this. There is an inherent bias towards a conservative reading of biblical texts. Anything that suggests an acceptance of homosexuality is a "disputed interpretation". Likewise "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial" basically means that because a conservative reading of the texts predominates then anything that suggests an alternative perspective is ultimately "controversial". Christians (and many Jews) don't like homosexuality and so will always try to marginalise it. On the other hands if secular academics cover this issue then it is reasonable to argue that it is valid as a tool to categorise. We can't even include "The Bible and sexuality"?! I think there is bias and double standards here. On the issue of "what they see" I still think these are weasel words which effectively imply "we all agree that David and Jonathan weren't in love with one another but there are these awkward commentators who insist on reading into the story something we all know isn't really there". All of the secondary sources that are cited will have someone or the other giving their perception or view. None of it is fact. It is all conjecture. I do not understand why we cannot say in the lead that some medieval and early modern commentary used the story as a parallel for romantic love? It was NOT just used to refer to platonic love as has been asserted. I also find it tiring that whenever someone dislikes some aspect of a discussion then they immediately shout "edit war" as a way to discredit so can we avoid doing it unless it genuinely escalates to warfare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contaldo80 (talk • contribs)
 * None of this rebuts the policy-based reasons I gave earlier. When it comes to historical stuff like this, we can't right great wrongs, whether those wrongs were because the people who compiled the Bible didn't include the gay people who lived at the time (which seems very plausible) or because they are in there but many (not all) Christian commentators deny it. I'm not advocating to remove the sources which give those interpretations. My changes were quite modest and reasonable. Crossroads -talk- 04:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Crossroads on this. Debresser (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I saw the dispute via Crossroads's talk page. And I've reverted per arguments above opposing the text. The onus is indeed on Contaldo80. Contaldo80, you should stop edit warring on this.

Also, per Talk page guidelines, the above "Crossroads" heading is inappropriate and should be changed. The guideline used to explicitly state that a heading with an editor's name should not be used, but it's still implied that it should not be done. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Again can you just not lecture about "edit warring". I have raised a valid reasonable argument and am not being disruptive for the sake of it. Contaldo80 (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody thinks that you are being disruptive for the sake of it. You are being disruptive because you are trying to paint people from the past as being LGBTQ when there is no actual evidence for that other than the sort of speculation PinkNews specializes in. We went through this already on the Anne Frank page. You say "We do not have to prove they were LGBT". Yes. We do. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Guy Macon on this. As I have said above, I have seen this happen a few times already, that editors speculate about historical people being LGTB, and it just is not sourced. Part of it is also misinterpretation, based on wishful thinking. Debresser (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)