This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the David and Jonathan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
By my count the article has 1840 words out of a 3214 word article (57%) that discuss whether or not David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship. In particular, the "Traditional Christian interpretation" section, despite millions of words written on other aspects of David and Jonathan, paints a picture of bible scholars only discussing whether they were gay.
"It is my intention to remove all material not sourced to reputable scholars."
Tom Horner and John Boswell are reputable scholars as mentioned in the article. Or... are you saying that no scholar which thinks that David and Jonathan were gay are reputable, because you only accept scholars that agree with the conservative ideas about their relationship? 2601:152:4C7C:1D0:7CFB:53E9:A2BF:11C0 (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article makes the assertion that "covenants were common", which appears to be ignoring the fact that David and Jonathan explicitly made their covenant to unite both of their houses, of which there is no other example. Secondly this covenant was made "upon their Zera", the hebrew word for "semen". There is no other covenant in the Bible that unite two male houses, and no other covenant in the Bible that is sworn upon men's semen." (1 Samuel 20). Was removed, not sure why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:152:4C7C:1D0:D138:70E8:2FE:FF10 (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New threads goes at the bottom at the talkpage. This [1] was removed because as written, you're adding your own comments based on your own reading of the Bible, and per WP:OR we don't do that on this website. The goal is to summarize WP:RSand cite them. Bible-text can and has been read in many ways. What scholarly source do you have about "Secondly this covenant was made "upon their Zera", the hebrew word for "semen"."? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way to read Bible text in any other way except that there is no other covenant made upon "Zara" which is the hebrew word for semen. There is also no other way to read the Biblical text other than that this is a covenant between two men who join their houses.
This is the word "zera". Do you want me to cite this source? I would be happy to.
The reason this merits inclusion, is because the statement in "counterarguments" states that "covenants are common".
However, this covenant has no parallel in any other biblical reference, there are no other covenants where two men make a covenant on their man-seed (semen) or upon their houses. Thus the idea that this was just a common covenant is completely distortive opinion.
The reader should know that the Biblical text plainly states that David and Jonathan became familiarly related through this covenant, and further that the covenant was made on their semen/man-seed. That's what the text states and there's no way to interpret it differently. It is not therefore, as the previous statement claims a "common covenant". 2601:152:4C7C:1D0:D138:70E8:2FE:FF10 (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some other readings: [2]. Sure, seed can mean semen, but there are less literal meanings too, "Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates" etc. The Bible is an enormously well-researched text, and if you're right about "this covenant has no parallel in any other biblical reference", there will be plenty of good WP:RS you can cite on that aspect.
You are giving your interpretation of meaning/significance of Biblical text. That is not what is wanted here, what scholarly sources do you have that talk about this couple and the meaning of zera and it's uniqueness covenant-wise? As a Wikipedian, your "job" is not to read Biblical text and interpret it, it's to read the WP:RS scholarship about the pairing David and Jonathan and summarize that, with citations. Other stuff is off-topic for this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned about the counterarguments stating "covenants were common", which is the complete opposite of what is plainly on the page. That is whitewashing the situation, and is distortive of the text. This is the oddest, most strange covenant in biblical history and it's covered up by bias saying "Well you know, covenants are common, so David and Jonathan uniting through their houses and their seed isn't strange at all." How utterly preposterous! I think that the statement is deliberately distortive about the reality of the text which is an incredibly strange reference to man seed, uniting two males in a covenant and so on. It seems like heteronormative biased whitewashing of the situation. I'm unsure how to proceed at this point. I will think about it.
>If you're right about "this covenant has no parallel in any other biblical reference", there will be plenty of >good WP:RS you can cite on that aspect.
Btw, I think you might be misreading "It is also known that covenants were common". I don't think that means in the Bible, it refers to society at the time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But saying that "covenants are common" as a counterargument isn't actually a counterargument. Of course covenants were common all over the Ancient Near East. That in no way justifies a secret covenant made by two men uniting their houses by invoking their man seed! 2601:152:4C7C:1D0:803D:EBD2:D2FB:43C5 (talk) 04:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}