This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
There is no reason to spell David name in Arabic at the opening-it's have nothing with the language of the article, history and etc. More, in modern Hebrew it pronounced David and not Dawid.--Gilisa (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Seems odd that above it is emphasized that wikipiedia just aims to tell what is written, yet David's name appears not as written, but in Arabic.Tuvia613 (talk) 22:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I've left is as it seems relevant to the article (do a search), but restored earlier text that someone had removed. Dougweller (talk) 06:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I see - a few edits ago, a vandal removed the other versions of the name and replaced it with a silly comment. An IP then came along and instead of undo, just took out the comment, which didn't replace the text that had been removed. Dougweller (talk) 07:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
David versus the second giant
David fought a giant. Goliath. But what about the encounter with the second giant? I was reading this in the Bible today. I found this text on a Wikipedia user's page, and I wonder why it isn't in the main article text? RK (talk) 02:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
During David's battle with the Philistine giant Ishbi-benob, who threatened David's life; depending on the exact reading, Abishai either saved David by slaying the giant, or else helped David slay him (2 Sam. 21:15-17). Some Jewish sources interpret this latter option as meaning Abishai's prayers saved David. (need Talmud citation) He was the chief of the second rank of the three "mighties" (2 Sam. 23:18, 19; 1 Chr. 11:20,21). On another occasion, Abishai is said to have withstood 300 men and slew them with his own spear (2 Sam. 23:18).
Emnity of Saul
Just thought I would try to clarify my thoughts on this issue that's come up a couple of times. Information on the platonic or sexual relationship (existent or non-existent) between the two is covered in great detail in the cited article David and Jonathan. This sets out the parameters of the debate - traditional interpretation, and modern discourse. This has references and sources covered also in detail. It's been a subject of interest at least since the medieval period; although I've been careful to avoid backing any clear conclusion. My view is that it would duplicate if we put references into this biographical article on David as well - but happy to do so if others think important. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Controversial interpretations are confined to special article, according to principle of due weight. If you read modern gay writers, one may think that there have not ever been such thing as strong male friendship. Due to this twisted thought it is today impossible to hug a friend without getting dirty look and jokes. Please be advised that in some cultures it has been normal to kiss between two males without any sex thought. In the same bible Judas kissed christ. This does not mean that there was allusion of sex between Judas and Christ. Therefore I see no reason to propagate modern speculations all over various pages.
The issue is "controversial" if you insist on pushing POV. Otherwise it's just an "issue". The debate is not confined to "modern gay writers" either if it's the intention to discredit the discussion ( - as if they can't be objective or accurate!) No one disputes the existance of strong male friendships. However, at the same time some people seem to think it impossible that erotic relationships existed historically between men either. However, I'm not even making this claim. The simple issue is that a separate article deals with both platonic and erotic interpretations of the relationship between David and Jonathan. Such interpretations have been going on for many centuries. I'm making sure the article can be cross-referenced; the only issue was whether we should again repeat and cite the references (to avoid duplication). Personal and political views need to be kept out of the discussion, and original research such as cultural kissing and 'dirty looks' needs to be avoided rather than presented as fact. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Since this is obviously a controversial issue, please disregard your concern about duplicate references, and included them in this entry as well. If they are reliable sources, then this should be a long way toward resolving this issue. Thank you. Wperdue (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)wperdue
Ok - will take your advice. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is emblematic and symptomatic of the problems with the wikipedia worldview of scholarship. Wikipedia brings a new frame of reference, one that believes, although I am paraphrasing, that the existence of published material is an indicator of something. What it indicates as well as the weight of that indication may vary, but it indicates something. While thejg obvious problem with this is that in the last 200 years technology has created an ease of publication thatkoool h leads to proliferation of "published" material, there is a much bigger problem.
The much bigger problem is that this worldview alleviates one of having to be a responsible scholar. Let's say that for over two thousand years, no scholar, let alone one of stature, considered idea X as having merit. Many of those scholars published on a breadth unknown in our times. Now, let's say for example in 1941, somebody who is a professor of history at a college somewhere publishes a book in which he claims idea X is pretty strong. Said author himself has violated every rule of responsible scholarship by ignoring the thousands of years of past material because he is "re-evaluating" something. This is known in philosophy as dishonest scholarship. But because he teaches history and/or has advanced degrees in history -- neither of which is an indicator of scholarship -- his publication is placed on the shelves of libraries and academies.
Along comes Wikipedia with its unique frame of reference and says, hey folks, look -- there are two approaches to idea X. The traditional and modern approach. (Never mind that modern is subjective and changes every generation.) Sources are quoted, including our example professor, and poof - by the magic of veltungschang, wikipedia has made a new window onto the world where thousands of years of expertise is condensed into one sliver, and a hundred years of speculative writing made into another sliver. Thus is born a controversy, birthed solely by the invention of a new frame of reference called wikipedia. Tuvia613 (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
But scholarship evolves. Before the 1950s no-one would have touched the issue of homosexuality with a barge-pole. It was seen as a distasteful subject, against morality and cultural norms. In that sort of environment it is impossible to expect commentary to be balanced. Because someone says something for a very long time, it does not mean it is right; it just means that it has been easier to say. You really do overplay 'tradition' - as if something old has an inherent truth in it. But we know, for example, that someone writing on religious issues in the 8th or 9th century had a very clear agenda to push and was not always being balanced and objective. I for one am glad that modern scholarship gives us a chance to take a fresh look again, switch on our brains, and drop some of our cultural baggage. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Completely inaccurate and simply your POV with no supporting "facts." The issue was discussed by scholars for thousands of years. Perhaps in your limited example of English books between 1800 and 1950 discussion may have been limited. Who is the "we" that knows that 8th century scholars were not objective but 20th century ones are? That idea is not only absurd, it fails your own tests - it has not one shred of supporting evidence. You use your prejudiced POV again with "switch on our brains". Since you have never studied scholarly work of the 8th century, how do you know they did not have their brains switched on a lot higher than yours? Every point you make is supposition and opinion with not one fact.Tuvia613 (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
This article isn't really about me, but since you ask yes I have an academic degree in 8th century literature and religious writing so I do actually know what I'm talking about. Might I suggest that it is you that has a POV to push - and that anything that doesn't fit neatly into your perceived understanding of the Bible must be wrong and perhaps a little scary. I can't really be bothered to continue this discussion further if it's going to be focused on me rather than the article. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Any reference to a homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan is in violation of WP:UNDUE
Male to male love is not the exclusive domain of homosexuality and any attempt to read a sexual expression of their love into the description of Jonathan and David's relationship is revisionist and places modern values on ancient Jewish values. Bear in mind homosexuality was punishable by death in that culture, that David had a load of wives and obviously procreated with them, and most of all, that LOVE is used all over the bible to describe much more than sex. To try and limit that love to mere sex is not the place of this Wikipdeia article.
Finally, as a personal anecdote, I love my brother like my own soul. I have love for numerous other men like my own soul. I've never had sex with them, and am very much in a heterosexual monogamous relationship with my wife. Homosexuality is not the only vehicle for men to love each other. Thus any reading between the lines on Jon and David's relationship also ignores that simple reality. Love is not sex. We have two words for a reason. --Benson Verazzano (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not terribly interested in the question of the "love" relationship between David and Jonathon - it's the other part of the edit that I'm concerned with. You say, for example, that there's an incorrect use of the word "theological" (where the section says that there's a theological implication to the fact that Jonathon recognises David as rightful king). You seem to be unaware that the entire message of the Primary History (not my term - this is basic biblical scholarship) is theological, and that it all culminates in the establishment of David and his line as YHWH's chosen king(s) over His chosen people, Israel. In other words, the usage of "theological" in this context is standard in scholarly treatments of Kings/Samuel. If you want to discuss this and promote your edit, please do so with proper references. PiCo (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I am interested in the 'love' element. And I think we need to take a step back. The text does not suggest or assert that the relationship between David and Jonathan was a sexual one. What it does do is simply flag up that there is some element of debate - and thus cross-refers to the main article on David and Jonathan where all the issues are looked at and discussed in some detail. The conclusions of which, I would agree, are most likely non-sexual. If you argue that it's a violation of WP:UNDUE then I think you'll need to set out a bit more clearly why that is the case.
As an aside it might also be helpful to clarify that homosexuality is not always based on sex, but is equally about love. That to have children does not mean that someone cannot also be sexually attracted to men. And because homosexuality was punishable by death in Jewish law, it does not mean that homosexuals did not exist. That does not mean that the relationship was homosexual; but it does mean that we shouldn't get too sensitive about bringing the subject up.Contaldo80 (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
If it said "sexual attraction" fair enough. It does not. It says "love". Love and sexual attraction are very different. Brothers who love each other are not sexually attracted to each other. Furthermore, ones sexuality is defined by ones actions, not ones attractions. One can be attracted to celibacy, but it one has sex, is not celibate. One can be attracted to many women, but if they stay faithful to one, are monogamous, and if they act on their attractions, are an adulterer or polygamous. So, a homosexual relationship is one that is expressed sexually no matter what attractions may or may not exist. In any case, as I said earlier, it's moot, as "love" doesn't mean "sexual attraction. Considering that the entire Anglican church priesthood are trained as Biblical scholars, each versed in Hebrew and Koine Greek, the existence of a few published works attempting to revisionisticaly read modern relational implications into an ancient text are extremely minor and as such UNDUE.
As for the theological issue, the issue of their friendship is important for MORE than just any theological implications. Are we studying God, or history, or David, or a nation: Israel? Any of those reasons make the friendship - the lack of competition and jealousy between the men - important. Yes the Bible leads us to understand who God is: theology. But it also is contains historical books, such as Samuel. Having the word "theological" as much as I may like theology, narrows the importance of the friendship IMO. Better to leave it broad.--Benson Verazzano (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Just a matter of clarity, Hebrew, like Koine Greek, uses many words for "love". The one used between David and Jonathan, in describing their covenant is "Hesed"--Benson Verazzano (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the word used to describe their love is "ahavah". Fred Talle (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I've restored the sentence about the debate over the nature of their relationship. A single sentence mentioning different views, which has six references, can hardly be undue weight. carl bunderson(talk)(contributions) 16:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Six references against the mountain of current and past learned individuals? It's UNDUE. Pointess. Gives credence to a fringe view with no understanding of Hebrew.--Benson Verazzano (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Something that appears in the Westminster Theological Journal is not fringe. You can't choose to censor views that aren't to your liking. carl bunderson(talk)(contributions) 16:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Even the Anglican Archbishop of Liverpool has made references to the relationship. Is he fringe - where do we draw the line?! Can I suggest to talk that when you assert that "ones sexuality is defined by ones actions, not ones attractions" and a "homosexual relationship is one that is expressed sexually" then you are well out of your depth. Sexuality is innate, and not something simply expressed physically in the sexual act. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, yes, he would be fringe. You are using "fring" to mean fringe to the rest of the world, but he is certainly fringe to Biblical knowledge. Before you jump, read my post above about wikipedia. Then come back here and consider this: opinions, and the right to state them, should be earned. If a person is stating an opinion on the text of the Hebrew Bible, he or she must be able to state an informed an educated opinion. Rank, position, are not relevant. Can this person actually read the text, or is he relying on a translation? Has this person researched the significant body of scholarship on the subject? Does this person know the relevant weights given to the various classical commentators? We can derive more criteria, but the point is that if a person has accomplished this, then that person has expertise and is entitled to an opinion. If not, then it matters not whether he is an Archbishop or an illiterate person, he has not earned the right to an opinion. Until the last century, this was an accepted principle, and is still an accepted principle in many societies, and thus his opinion would be quite fringe and irrelevant. I say this with no idea what his opinion is. Before getting an opinion, best to see if the person is qualified to be issuing opinions in the first place. In other words, when somebody replies here and says "well, everybody is entitled to their opinion", the answer is "no, they are not." Having an opinion is not an entitlement, it is a privilege. Tuvia613 (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
This is not a forum for debate so let's keep focused on the article please, and avoid having a rant. The issue of sexuality had been considered by a number of mainstream academics and religious writers/ leaders. And as such is notable for inclusion. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The issue is 100% relevant to the article. Wikipedia considers published authors "mainstream", which is very subjective. Not one of the "mainstream" authors under discussion even knows the correct Hebrew translation. But because they wrote books, suddenly their opinions matter. You are failing to make the key distinction between a person who is in the "mainstream" of modern society and whether that person's writings have credibility. An Archbishop may be personally mainstream, but if he does not have command of the basic source material, then his opinions are not mainstream. The nerve! Because the Westminster Theological Journal, with not an iota of source knowledge, wants to create a discussion about a person in the Jewish Bible, you decree it has validity. Unbelievable. Tuvia613 (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
What is "unbelievable" is that you're dedicating reams of opinion when in fact the article doesn't even say anything about homosexuality!! Even more "unbelievable" that I've risen to the bait... Can I suggest you find a forum elsewhere if you want to debate the rights and wrongs of wikipedia editorship guidelines. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems from your response you might have taken my comments personally; they were not meant as derogatory to you, and if they appeared so, I apologize. If you would read the last section on this page, you will see what gives rise to my frustration. Besides the philisophical issue of wikipedia guidelines, which I would love to comment on if I could find the right forum to do so, wikipedia tries to maintain a strong stance against articles that are just POV masquerading as facts. Yet here is an entire section written almost completely as POV, and when I try and point that out, I get no responses. I do not know what to do to change that -- should I go ahead and make edits with the proper citations? Is there some procedure I should follow to allow the person to defend their writing? Tuvia613 (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
But which section of text do you mean in this article on David? It's not evident to me that any section at all deals with the issue of sexuality. I don't understand the point you are making on POV. Apologies if I've missed. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I jumped tracks a bit. Look at the lasts section on this page "Extensive POV in David in Judaism" for what I was referring to.Tuvia613 (talk) 04:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Nor do I suspect you fully appreciate the fundamentals of heterosexual behaviour either in the Christian context. Can I point out that it doesn't matter that you are "attracted to many women, but stay faithful to one". You could still be described as adulterous if one takes Matthew literally:"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart". But I fear this is rather to go off the point.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
God withdraws his favour from Saul, king of Israel, and sends the prophet Samuel to seek a new king for his people from the sons of Jesus of Bethlehem. Seven of Jesus' sons pass before Samuel, but Samuel says "The LORD has not chosen these." He then asks "Are these all the sons you have?" and Jesus answers, "There is still the youngest but he is tending the sheep." David is brought to Samuel, and "the LORD said, "Rise and anoint him; he is the one.""[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.99.123 (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The Old Age of David: How old?
We're told that "David ... ruled forty years over Israel, seven in Hebron and thirty-three in Jerusalem." We're also told that he was 30 when he conquered Jerusalem from the Jebusites. That seems to make him 63 when he died, but the impression is of someone much older. Or have I got my sums wrong? PiCo (talk) 06:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Assuming David the man actually lived 3,000-4,000 years ago then life expectancy for most people would have been pretty low (and no health care!) - so with most dying in their 20s and 30s, then someone of 63 would be positively ancient. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Let's assume he really lived. The dates of birth and death given in the shield on our article are 1037-970 BCE, which makes his age at death 67. I assume those are Thiele's dates, tho it doesn't say (anyone know?) It still seems too young for the physical deterioration described in the first few chapters of Kings I - apparently bedridden, unable to keep warm. And Thiele's (maybe) dates seem to be out of synch with the internal dates by 5 years in any case. Intriguing. Can anyone explain? PiCo (talk) 03:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
David recovered from his bedridden illness, and Jewish tradition has him living 70 years. But Contaldo80 is using life expentancy figures from what the secular world calls the Dark Ages and Middle Ages. In Psalms David himself says the typical life of a man is 70-80 years.Tuvia613 (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
If David does indeed say that then I would suggest that he is incorrect. And by the "secular world" do you mean the real empirical world? The life expectancy figures above do not just relate to the dark ages but earlier than that. Man's life expectancy until fairly recently would have been very low. It was a violent world with little understanding of disease and relatively poor nutrition. It would have been uncommon to have lived for 70-80 years and archaeological finds for burials backs this up. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
A few points I's like to make :
- @Tuvia613 a small correction: the psalm citing a typical lifespan of 70 or 80 years (psalm 90) is attributed to Moses (who is recorded to have reached 120), not to David.
- @Contaldo80: A life expectancy of around 30 does not imply that it was common to die in one's 20s or 30s. Much of these numbers come from young children/infants dying. Even in the Middle Ages, if you survived childhood, you could exect to become 50 or 60. You can see this by the ages of these random medieval people: Charlemagne (died 714): 72; Charled Martel (died 741): 52; Pope Stephen III: (died 772): 52; Henry I of Franc (died 1060): 52; Saladin (died 1193): 55; Richard the Lionheart (died 1199): 42 (killed by an arrow); William the Conqueror: (died 1087): 58/59; William of Ockham: (died 1348): 60; Jan Hus (died 1415): 46 (burnt at the stake). Also I can imagine life expectancy having been considerably higher in ancient times than in the middle ages due to better hygiene. (e.g. Nebuchadnezzar was 72, Solon was 80, Plato was 84, Herod the Great was 70)
About David's old age: David was quite possibly 70 years old at his death according to the bible: 2 Samuel 5:4-5: David was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned forty years. In Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months, and in Jerusalem he reigned over all Israel and Judah thirty-three years. Furthermore, it is told that Solomon was crowned king when David was still alive, so he may have become even older than 70. And his bedridden condition may have been a combination of his age and some chronic disease or something. I'm just speculating of course. Anyway some people really look and feel very old and weak at 70. It varies a lot between individuals. Lindert (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I understand the point you're making that life-expectancy-at-birth is a mean, not a median. High infant mortality conceals the susbstantial number of people who will live well past this age. Nor do broad estimates allow us to account for possible variation across areas, socio-economic classes, or sex. The examples you cite above are all royalty or senior clergy which might suggest perhaps that kings etc lived longer than the general population at large because they had access to better food, health care, living conditions etc. I think the points I make are still valid (i) that David's claim that the typical life of a man is 70-80 is poetic licence; and (ii) that even if some survived into their 70s then their quality of life was likely to have been poor thus the appearance of old age. I think it's spurious to suggest that Biblical times were more "hygenic" than medieval ones.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I largely agree. You're probably right about (ii), and it is indeed likely that common people lived shorter lives than royalty and nobility. About (i), like I said, David never claimed a typical life of 70-80, Moses did. Anyway, people in ancient Israel likely did live more hygienic that medieval people. It is recorded in history that Jewish populations in medieval Europe were significantly less likely to fall victim to the plague (which is one of the reasons they were accused of being the cause of it). This indicated that living according to Jewish laws and customs, as described in the Torah, does give health benefits. This might be expected, because the Torah, among other things, forbids the eating of pork (contains much more dangerous bacteria than beef/sheep), commands cleansing (with running water) and prohibits bodily contact after e.g. menstruating, having sex, touching a dead animal, etc. Lindert (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Life expectancies of young ages in ancient times does not mean people did not live into their 70's or even 80's, it just wasn't as common as it is today. For example Augustus from Ancient Rome lived during terrible plagues, and caught several illnesses, yet lived into his late 70s. Augustun84 (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Removal of sourced material contrary to WP editing policy
The recent removal of sourced material with no more justification than the "lead section is getting quite long" was unwarranted, contrary to wikipedia policy to preserve sourced information, and apparently spurious since a 2 paragraph lead section for a 47 kilobyte article is well under manual of style guidelines. Even if the section needed trimming, removing all the sourced material from that section while retaining all the unsourced material seems quite the opposite of good scholarship in striving for reliably sourced, encyclopedic content.Pasteur1967 (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
actually the justification was that the lead was getting quite repetitive. There's no need for back and forth about whether David was portrayed as good or bad. Such back and forth, and personal opinions do not belong in the lead section.ReaverFlash (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Pasteur, reaverflash makes an excellent point here. The lead is a place for giving the bare essentials of the article, not for point-scoring. I might add that your edits are cherry-picking - I could portray David as a polygamous adulterer, mass-murderer, and blasphemer on the evidence in Samuel, but it's better not to go down that path. PiCo (talk)
May I suggest a different article on the different interpretations of David's character?Augustun84 (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Spelling the name in Hebrew
The name is pronounced "David" in modern Hebrew (and Biblical as well). You may verify it with other users whose mother tongue, like me, is Hebrew (see for the D in this list of Hebrew native speakers [1]). "Dawid" is the Arabic pronouncing.--Gilisa (talk) 06:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Extensive POV in David in Judaism section
Based on other Wikipedia articles, it was my understanding that when presenting how group X views item Y, one should do so without disparaging remarks. In this section, we have: <<the failure of this "eternal" Davidic dynasty after some four centuries>> is heavily sarcastic, especially with the word eternal in quotes. Jewish reference to David's eternal dynasty is that all future kings will be descended from him, not that his direct descendants will never cease ruling. So the statement is not only sarcastic, it is incorrect.
Then we have the POV <<led to the later elaboration of the concept of the Messiah>>, where in the world is that from? And POV and inaccurate <<at first a human descendant of David who would occupy the throne of a restored kingdom, later an apocalyptic figure who would usher in the end of time>> The Jewish messianic concept is still that the Messiah will be a human descendant of David who will occupy the throne of a restored kingdom.
More unsourced POV <<In modern Judaism David's descent from a convert (Ruth) is taken as proof of the importance of converts within Judaism.>> What does the author mean by the word modern? He implies that previously converts were not considered important. On and on, we get to <<David is also viewed as a tragic figure; his acquisition of Bathsheba, and the loss of his son are viewed as his central tragedies.>> Says who? And where in Judaism is he viewed as a tragic figure? David had many more tragedies befall him than those two, and if this is to stay in the part about David and Judaism, it needs elaboration.
It gets even worse: <<Many legends have grown around the figure of David.>> Vague, but let's continue - <<According to one Rabbinic tradition, David was raised as the son of his father Jesse and spent his early years herding his father's sheep in the wilderness while his brothers were in school. Only at his anointing by Samuel - when the oil from Samuel's flask turned to diamonds and pearls - was his true identity as Jesse's son revealed.>> There is no such Rabbinic tradition, or rather the author has mangled one. A tradition that he was raised by his father? Sort of a weird thing to need a tradition about. And the part about it being a secret does not exist anywhere. The verses themselves describe Samuel as asking Yishai if he had any other sons and Yishai replying about David.
The author continues << David's adultery with Bathsheba was only an opportunity to demonstrate the power of repentance>>. If he is implying that David comitted adultery but only did so for the purpose of teaching about repentance, there is no such Rabbinic statement. Then he disparages wit << quoting a supposed Jewish practice of divorce on the eve of battle.>> The Talmud does not quote a supposed source, rather the author is trying to say that he thinks little of this quote. Nonetheless, presenting it accurately is what should be done.
Sign. And on: <<according to David's apologists>>. Now he labels the Talmudic Rabbis as apologists, implying they were making some sort of excuses. POV and disparaging.
And here is how people subtly insert their POV while trying to claim otherwise: <<His piety was said to be so great that his prayers could bring down things from Heaven.>> Of all the tnings said about David, the author chooses one sort of vague sounding one that attributes supernatural powers of an undisclosed nature, and does not explain what that means, nor does he quote anything else about David's character or piety. Why not quote that he arose in the middle of the night to study Jewish law and thought? Sounds too reasonable and rational, I suppose. Tuvia613 (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure what to make of the lack of responses. Perhaps I should go ahead and make changes.Tuvia613 (talk) 12:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Image
Not sure I'm totally convinced over the main image debate yet. Agree that the Guercino is more "middle-eastern" - sort of. But the Barraguente does show David with a harp, and this is certainly the image I'm more familiar with in terms of Western painting. A young man with a harp composing the psalms. In fact I can think of few portraits or representations showing David as an older man or mighty king. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The image used right now is not the typical portrayal of David. I recommend changing it to the harp picture. MovieOutcast (talk) 04:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
We have to first start with this: there is no perfect picture of David. Few portraits remain of anyone from 3,000 years ago. So what do have left? Devoted reconstructions? The Guercino portrait is of an old, tired, bearded man dressed in an obviously reconstructed near-eastern fashion. The harpist is a young, fragile boy gazing into the sky. I do not oppose its inclusion in the article as an example of how David has been portrayed, perhaps under the art section, but as the captioned visual summary it seems far fetched for a few reasons. Would anyone looking at the picture of the youth think that this man could make a claim to Saul of having killed a lion and bear or later to have defeated a Philistine in single combat, who would later go on to defeat the Amalekites or conquer the Jebusites? I think the picture of the old, grizzled, perhaps sad warrior by Guercino conveys much more emotion and much more of the story than the fragile boy with the harp.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 04:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
But to be honest if you ask most people I doubt many of them would know of David as slayer of the Jebusites. But they would have heard of the boy with the sling that killed the giant Goliath and the talented youth that composed the psalms. The picture suggests an old grizzled warrior - but that's the least interesting aspect of David I would argue. Sure it shows him as a king, but there are so many middle-eastern kings. David is different. My vote is for the Barraguante was main image. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I looked at the image file and it said, correctly (I checked) the statue was by Nicolas Cordier, not Guercino. Dougweller (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
David in Islamic culture
Id really appreciate it if someone can add a not to this page stating that David is considered a prophet and an Important Quranic Character in the Quran and Hadiths ,Thanks !93.188.199.38 (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
It would be best for you to create an account and do this yourself. This is the heart of Wikipedia. You must understand that others might disagree with you or change what you say (including me) but most will do it in a polite way, although there is always a battle for ideas. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me and I will do my best to help you get started.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
To be honest sir I don't have any Idea how but all i know is that i should edit the summary then write in the (edit summary line) see tall page ? no offense sir but are you a Muslim because I'am not talking or pronouncing this information I'am reciting it from the Qur'an where David is considered a prophet,King and the warrior who slayed Goliath Highdeeboy (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Read the article. Paul B (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
the article is fine and great all i want is the that sentence where it says David us a holy warrior in the Quran it shud be change to a prophet in the Quran because no man is holy in the Quran and David is known mostly in the Quran as the king of Israel and the Prophet thats all :) just add and take a bunch of words 88.201.1.220 (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Headline text
In Fact let mme just edit that sentence to make you understand what I mean, Its just a basic edit ... here is my source
004.163
YUSUFALI: We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him: we sent inspiration to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms
034.010
YUSUFALI: We bestowed Grace aforetime on David from ourselves: "O ye Mountains! Sing ye back the Praises of Allah with him! and ye birds (also)! And We made the iron soft for him;-
002.251
PICKTHAL: So they routed them by Allah's leave and David slew Goliath; and Allah gave him the kingdom and wisdom, and taught him of that which He willeth. And if Allah had not repelled some men by others the earth would have been corrupted. But Allah is a Lord of Kindness to (His) creatures.
88.201.1.220 (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
10th century Hebrew pottery shard
I'm unhappy with the inclusion of this and am going to remove it. There is no obvious connection with David, ie in no way is it evidence for a historical David and the possible time period is too wide. I don't see any reliable sources suggesting that this proves the historicity of David and that issue certainly isn't being discussed on the academic mailing lists I'm on, although the translations are. Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually it is since many "scholars" would contend Hebrews weren't in the region at all during the 10th century (time of David's reign). Since evidence is something that tends to prove or disprove a fact in question, here this writing tends to prove that a Hebrew culture like that described in the Bible existed in this area at the time in contention. Since this was found near where David is said to have fought Goliath it shows there were Hebrew speaking people in the area. Also since the inscription closely matches biblical phrases it shows that those phrases reported in the Bible existed during David's time and were not later inventions. It is not absolute proof, of course, we do not yet have a "David was here" carving with clay hardened fingerprint beside it, but little bits of evidence form bigger pictures.74.250.13.142 (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
How is there no obvious connection to David? What authority do the academic mailing lists have? Other than that I think the reason for its inclusion is self-explanatory. Here is what was deleted: The Khirbet Qeiyafa pottery shard dated to 10th Century BC is an early Hebrew inscription that dates from the reign of King David and contains lines "similar to some Biblical scriptures, such as Isaiah 1:17, Psalms 72:3, and Exodus 23:3..." leading to the conclusion "that at least some of the biblical texts were written hundreds of years before the dates presented in current research." The discovery was made at excavations near Israel's Elah valley.[1][2] Recently Khirbet Qeiyafa is proposed as the biblical Sha'arayim. It is in a key location along the main road from Philistia and the Coastal Plain to the eastern Hill Country. It is dated by pottery styles and carbon-14 between 1050 and 970 BCE dating to the time of King David. There biblical Hebrew has been found. Prof. Galil's deciphering of the ancient writing testifies to its being Hebrew, based on the use of verbs particular to the Hebrew language, and content specific to Hebrew culture and not adopted by any other cultures in the region. The text is very similar to biblical text found in the bible.[3]
The mailing list thing was just a comment, I wouldn't use it in the article (I've removed your use of a mailing list on the shard article). The point is simple, there is no evidence provided by a reliable source that this says anything about the historicity of David. Including it in the article is original research (I hope you have read WP:OR. Even if it does show the existence of a culture like that described in the Bible, it's still a big jump to suggesting it shows the historicity of David. Find some reliable sources saying that this is evidence for the historicity of David, then you can mention it with appropriate attribution. Dougweller (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
This is wrong. If these scholars think the fort and the Hebrew writing supports the idea of King David and shows that strong centralized government existed in this era we do not have the right to reject this evidence
Reargun (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
But as far as I've read it the scholars don't say anything about David - they just talk about possible Hebrew settlement earlier than originally thought. It is a hypothesis which may or may not be valid. But it is peripheral to the David discussion - it proves nothing either way about whether or not he existed. I don't see why we should include it in the article. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Correct, they don't say anything about David or about, so far as I know, strong centralized government. Not that that matters, we'd have to have reliable sources linking it with David. There's another issue about the relationship between language and ethnicity but until we have sources for it that doesn't really matter. Dougweller (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The link they talk about is the dating. At a time when David's empire is claimed to exist they have proof of a strong centralized state with probably Hebrew scribes.
122.107.221.110 (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Where does it say they have proof of a strong centralized state? Please provide the link. Dougweller (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Who said we have the right to question them, we can record their argument.
Prof. Galil is in the wikipedia and is a notable source. He states
"It can now be maintained that it was highly reasonable that during the 10th century BCE, during the reign of King David, there were scribes in Israel who were able to write literary texts and complex historiographies such as the books of Judges and Samuel." He adds that the complexity of the text discovered in Khirbet Qeiyafa, along with the impressive fortifications revealed at the site, refute the claims denying the existence of the Kingdom of Israel at that time.
Reargun (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
In which case I think that is sufficient text for inclusion. We don't need reams of stuff that starts to wander off track. I suggest we replace what's there under the shard sub-section with a re-write of Galil's comments above. That should suffice. Although it should be clear that 10th century BCE is the supposed reign of David, not the actual reign of David as we don't know for sure. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
That's right. And we need to attribute it to Galil clearly, so it is clear that it his his opinion, not a fact. Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I am busy at the moment but may do this myself, using [2] which gives other viewpoints, which we need. Dougweller (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I've rewritten this a couple of times, trying to stay close to the sources. This is not the appropriate article for a lot of detail on this, so I revised Reargun's edit again (which in part was based on his own ideas, not the sources). I've also changed the section heading, we can't take sides on the language. And I've added another reference. Reargun wanted to change 'generally' to some, although the sources say 'current research', etc., and suggested that 'many' think something about the fortification. Again, we need to stick to what our sources say and observe WP:UNDUE as well. Dougweller (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Since my edit has been reverted yet again, this time with accusations of vandalism, to a badly written (see the 3rd sentence) POV (in my opinion of course) version, I've raised the issue at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#NPOV in DavidDougweller (talk) 08:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
No way should this be included in the article. As Rollaston says, "at this time the interpretation of this inscription is at a preliminary stage." I.e., no scholar would dare put the interpretations on it that are being put on it in Wikipedia. Even Galil didn't say these things - the press release that contains the interpretations came from the University of Haifa, not from him. All Galil has done is give a proposed decipherment and translation - but a very slightly earlier one gives a totally different reading. It's all in the relevant Wiki-article. In other words, leave it out or else Wiki looks silly again. PiCo (talk) 12:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Obviously there is a neutral point of view argument to be made here. Augustun84 (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Arabic?!
I really dont understand why Was the Arabic Name removed,Its a semitic language and I really dont see any big deal by having it kept there to represent itself.... 88.201.1.220 (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Move?
This article should be moved to "King David", and the disambiguation page should become "David". It is inexplicable why the search for such a common name should direct to a biblical figure rather than to a list of possible Davids. CUSH 18:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Typical Pedantry
It's a small point, but, in the first-section sentence "In these passages Saul is presented as a type of anti-Gideon", the word "type" seems ill-chosen. The phrase "a type of X", in discussions of the Old Testament, generally means "a historical foreshadowing of X", as in "Hagar and Sarah are types of the Old and New Covenants". It might be better to say "a kind of anti-Gideon" or "a sort of anti-Gideon". -Agur bar Jacé (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Edit request
{{editsemiprotected}}
There is a mistake on this page regarding King David's wife, Michal. Under the subheading "David in the wilderness" this article currently reads "... Michal died without having had children with David, which the Book of Samuel[22] suggested was a punishment for her criticism. She did, however, have five sons from her previous marriage whom David later handed over to the Gibeonites to be killed to avenge their grandfather, King Saul's attack on that tribe.[23]"
Both sentences are incorrect. Michal never had any children, as stated in 2 Samuel 6:23. The young men sacrificed to the Gibeonites included five brothers, but they were the sons of Michal's sister Merab, as stated in 2 Samuel 21:8. This entire passage should instead read "Michal died without having had children, which the Book of Samuel [22] suggested was a punishment for her criticism."
When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured here.
I'm referring this request to WikiProject Bible / WikiProject Christianity (because I can't interpret the source) - I'm sure someone will respond soon. I have therefore cancelled out the template for now, but I will check back and ensure it gets processed. Cheers, Chzz ► 06:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Apologies that this has not yet been processed. I asked on those project groups, but to date, there has been no response. I have now asked others to look at this, and hopefully there will be some feedback within the next few days; again, I will check back and make sure that it is dealt with. Best, Chzz ► 08:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Done. You were right! Thanks for letting us know about that. JamieS93❤ 19:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Bible Reference Typo
Reference 13 should say (Psalm 115:1-8) before it, NOT (Psalm 155:1-8)
You are right, I corrected it. Thank you. Lindert (talk) 07:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Im aware of the guidelines, this is not original research, and it's on talk page so it should not be problem. The hyksos were hebrews and hebrews rose in power in Egypt. This is not original research. All this can be backed up by university sources, but at this point I only leave this to the talk page.WillBildUnion (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Putting it on the talk page does not make it "not original research." Provide those sources with proper citations, or else it remains in the realm of original research. Also, the identification between the Hebrews and the Hyksos is not universally accepted among scholars. At most, you would be able to put "John Smith in This is my book on history, believes that..." Ian.thomson (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no place on Wikipedia for original research. Sure, some people believe what you believe, but until you come up with mainstream reliable sources there's no room for it, and I know it is not the majority view. Dougweller (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
David versus the second giant
David fought a giant. Goliath. But what about the encounter with the second giant? I was reading this in the Bible today. I found this text on a Wikipedia user's page, and I wonder why it isn't in the main article text? RK (talk) 02:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
During David's battle with the Philistine giant Ishbi-benob, who threatened David's life; depending on the exact reading, Abishai either saved David by slaying the giant, or else helped David slay him (2 Sam. 21:15-17). Some Jewish sources interpret this latter option as meaning Abishai's prayers saved David. (need Talmud citation) He was the chief of the second rank of the three "mighties" (2 Sam. 23:18, 19; 1 Chr. 11:20,21). On another occasion, Abishai is said to have withstood 300 men and slew them with his own spear (2 Sam. 23:18).
That's partially correct, but the current version of the article is right in stating that he was the second king of the 'united' Kingdom of Israel, meaning the kingdoms of Judah and Israel combined. He was the second king of Judah and the third of Israel. (Ish-Bosheth did rule over Israel after Saul's death, but not over Judah) Lindert (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually , (Ish-Bosheth's official position was that of kong over all Israel, including Judah. David was only ruler of Hebron.
As for the numbering: don't forget Abimelech. ≡ CUSH ≡ 14:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
No, David was not ruler of Hebron, he was ruler in Hebron and he ruled over 'The house of Judah'.
"Ishbosheth Saul's son was forty years old when he began to reign over Israel, and reigned two years. But the house of Judah followed David. And the time that David was king in Hebron over the house of Judah was seven years and six months. " (2 Sam. 2:10-11)
Of course, the later Kingdom of Judah consisted of more than just the Tribe of Judah, but still, Ish-bosheth never ruled over Judah.
EDIT: also, Abimelech was not a king, nor the son of a king (see Judges 8:23,30-31) and therefore irrelevant to the numbering. Lindert (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
King David in Judaism
It seems to me that there should be a separate article for treatment of King David in Judaism. For example, the Talmud quotes a Rabbi who says that anybody who says that King David committed adultery is making a mistake. Which means that a headline which states that King David committed adultery is mistaken according to the talmud. In any case this is a problem with all articles which touch on subjects that are important to Judaism as well as other religions. Ezra Wax (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
First of all, there is already a section David in Judaism. Maybe this section can be expanded, or, if there is enough relevant material, a new section can be added with the Talmudic view of David (similar to the Quranic account section), or even a new article. However, the Talmud is of course not a primary source on the life of David, and therefore Talmudic interpretations do not belong in the main biography in this article (titled Biblical Narrative). Anyway it amazes me that any Rabbi can say that David committed no adultery without total disregard of the Tanakh, which is after all the sacred text of Judaism. Which part does he dispute: that Bathseba became pregnant by David, that she was married to Uriah at that time, or that this behaviour constitutes adultery? All three seem pretty clear to me. Anyway, feel welcome to add relevant Talmudic material to the article. Lindert (talk) 09:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
It is not at all certain that the talmud is not a primary source. There are certain stories for which there is a tradition that goes back to the time of King David that were not recorded in the book of Samuel. Otherwise, how can you consider Chronicles to be a primary source since it was written much later than Samuel. Even for those things that it is a secondary source, the talmud integrates knowledge of Jewish law and tradition into interpreting primary sources so that its interpretation is authoritative.
If there is going to be only one version of the story of David, then that version cannot categorically state that David committed adultery. So either there have to be two versions, or it must be taken out of the general version.
The reason why the Talmud says that King David did not technically commit adultery is because Batsheba was not married to Uriah at the time. King David had instituted that all soldiers divorce their wives before going into battle, because if they were lost during battle their wives would not be able to remarry (she would be an agunah) without solid proof that her husband was dead, something that could not be guaranteed to exist during a war. Ezra Wax (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't think the Book of Chronicles is a primary source, which the author(s) even seem(s) to admit and which is to be expected considering it spans a time of several centuries. Surely it was based on earlier books that are now lost. And I would think that is a lot more reliable than oral tradition over 1200-1500 years from the time of David, which is the Talmud. The information therein is historically of the same value as oral stories that may at this very time circulate concerning Muhammad (~600 CE), Charlemagne (~800 CE) or king Arthur (~500 CE).
And if Uriah had divorced Batsheba, why did David try to cover up his affair with her, even to the point of killing her ex-husband? Doesn't Uriah's statement: "How could I go to my house to eat and drink and lie with my wife?" (2Samuel 11:11) demonstrate that Batsheba still lived in Uriah's house and that he considered her his wife? Why did God by means of Nathan rebuke David saying "Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own." (2Samuel 12:10)
However, it is not up to me to judge the reliability or motives of the Talmud. If you can provide modern scholars who use the Talmud as a historical source on the life of David, I'm sure that the article can be adjusted accordingly. Lindert (talk) 07:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Although they were technically divorced, the divorce was only intended to be in case the husband never returned, so King David was legally in the clear, but not morally in the clear.
Orthodox Jewish scholars are pretty much required by virtue of our religion to believe in the historical accuracy of the Talmud. And therefore all modern Orthodox Jewish scholars believe in its historicity, although in some cases certain scholars might have some reason to say that some statements should not be taken at face value. Ezra Wax (talk) 04:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
That is simply incorrect. What Ezra Wax means to say is that his own personal rabbi has this opinion. In point of fact, many Orthodox jews strenuously disagree with Ezra's claims. Many Orthodox Jews do not hold that they must view all of the Talmud as having historical accuracy. Also, even if some some/many/most/all Orthodox Jews do hold this view, it would have no relevance at all as far as Wikipedia's reliable sources policy is concerned. RK (talk) 13:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Just as an afterthought to this discussion that took place regarding King David within Judaism - within the first paragraph of the article, it states "In Judaism, David, or Melekh David..". The grammar with regards to the Hebrew title is incorrect. "King David" in Hebrew is "David HaMelekh". sjc613 (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2010 (GMT)
Done Thanks, Sjc613. I fixed it. ------ 00:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Adultery and King David
It seems to me that there should be a separate article for treatment of King David in Judaism. For example, the Talmud quotes a Rabbi who says that anybody who says that King David committed adultery is making a mistake. Which means that a headline which states that King David committed adultery is mistaken according to the talmud. In any case this is a problem with all articles which touch on subjects that are important to Judaism as well as other religions. Ezra Wax (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
That is simply incorrect. That is only your own personal opinion. In point of fact, many Orthodox Jews strenuously disagree with this claim; they doopenly admit that King David committed adultery and sinned. You may not be aware of these points of view within the Orthodox community, but they are mainstream and do exist. RK (talk) 13:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Please provide proof that such a point of view exists within the Orthodox community. ------ 23:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
"A headline which states that King David committed adultery is mistaken according to the Talmud." Have you considered the possibility that it might be the Talmud which is mistaken? Anyway, this article already has a section on David in later Jewish tradition, and I think it mentions this idea. A separate article is only needed if this section becomes too long to fit in the article, which it isn't at the moment. PiCo (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The page is already 54 kilobytes long. ------ 01:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Quite long enough then. I don't see any reason to go into details on this did-David-sin business - it first arose in the time of Chronicles (maybe 4th century BCE), when David was made into the icon of Jewish righteousness. David in Chronicles has no flaws - the Bathsheba incident isn't even mentioned. The picture in Samuel is quite different. Bathsheba has to be seen as adultery there on theological grounds - if David didn't sin, there's no point in Nathan's confronting him with his act or Yahweh's killing of the child in punishment. I do wish people would read their bibles. PiCo (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Quite right about the Bathsheba incident, but if you tell people they should 'read their bibles', don't come with nonsense like 'David in Chronicles has no flaws'. Read 1 Chronicles 21, an entire chapter devoted to David's sin and God's punishment of it.
1 Chr. 21:8 "and David said unto God, I have sinned greatly, because I have done this thing: but now, I beseech thee, do away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly".
Exactly like in the case of Bathsheba, God sends a prophet (Gad) to David to confront him with his sin. And of course Chronicles is not intended to be a complete account; it refers among others to the book of Samuel to find the rest of David's deeds. Lindert (talk) 11:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The "great sin" of which David repents in Chronicles 1:28 is taking a census of Israel - hardly up there with adultery and murder by modern standards, yet certainly the Chronicler thought it was pretty serious. The adultery with Bathsheba doesn't get mentioned. PiCo (talk) 06:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
No argument there, although modern standards are quite irrelevant when considering what picture the author paints of David. That David was a sinner who needed to repent as opposed to an 'icon of Jewish righteousness without any flaws' is a consistent image in Samuel, Chronicles and the Psalms. Lindert (talk) 09:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I feel that including the Islamicview's of prophets on the main page is a fantastic idea, so that one page covers the figure's full scope. Would it not be better if the info from Islamic view of David was copied here?--Imadjafar (talk) 09:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you mean all of it? If we did that it would be an effective merge so we'd turn the Islamic view article into a redirect. It may depend on what it does to the length of the article. If it makes it too large, then we'd just add a summary to this article. If it doesn't, then we probably don't have to worry unless it gets too large. Dougweller (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Cool, so how about it? Should I bring the information here?--Imadjafar (talk) 10:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
NO REFERENCES
Without any Biblical references this part of the article
"David conquers the Jebusite fortress of Jerusalem, and makes it his capital, and "Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers to David, and cedar trees, also carpenters and masons who built David a house." David brings the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem, intending to build a temple, but God, speaking to the prophet Nathan, forbids it, saying the temple must wait for a future generation. God makes a covenant with David, promising that he will establish the house of David eternally: "Your throne shall be established forever."'
is useless and mere speculation, there is no proof offered of it's authenticity.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.177.20 (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Note 65
Some of the materials in Samuel I and II, notably the lists of officers, officials, and districts are believed to be very early, possibly even dating to the time of David or Solomon. These documents were probably in the hands of the Deuteronomists when they started to compile the material three centuries later.""King David and Jerusalem: Myth and Reality", Israel Review of Arts and Letters, 2003, Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
However well written, a government document, or an essay of synthesis hosted by a government agency, should not be used for historical matters. I'm troubled by the use of that 'probably' several times in the source. There are no 'probables' here. There is just a huge amount of fabulation, and almost zero correlation with external histories or internal archeological results. The perspective mentioned is legitimate, but it should not carry implicitly an official endorsement. Nishidani (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
We have dozens of books and hundreds of articles by scholars on the lists, and you prefer a government pamphlet that has a lot of 'probablys' in it, when no one in the real world can agree about the basic assertions?Nishidani (talk) 08:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I would presume the Israel Review of Arts and Letters is based on good scholarship. I don't see why the text attributed to it should be suspect. carl bunderson(talk)(contributions) 22:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
It's neither personal nor political. One should not go to novelists and political websites for archeological theories, when material abounds on the subject, written by competent scholars. One should not 'presume' an amateur's article is based on good scholarship to endorse it, esp. when good scholarship abounds, and is easily accessed.Nishidani (talk) 06:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
No. Generally, It sums up one minority position within scholarship, one that says that, notwithstanding the improbability that detailed administrative lists would have been conserved for 3 centuries from the dawn of an inchoate statelet whose leader was illiterate, and which probably lacked a scribal class, these lists might ('probably') conserve the truth. A lot of this smacks of imitation of what Israel's elite learnt in exile from the Persians (David's seven counselors in Chronicles happen to be exactly the same number as the 7 counselors in the Persian king's privy council in the 7-6 century, when this section of the Bible was redacted, etc.) So since this is a conservative view it requires representation directly from a scholarly source, but should not be written as though it were probable, rather, as one perspective on King David's reign. I don't object to the idea: my procedure is, wherever, to seek a reliable academic source when writing up anything historical in wikipedia. Nishidani (talk) 09:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, hope you don't mind if I just go ahead and illustrate the point with the edit here I thought necessary. Take a look at the new ref, which holds the same view, and the source is not subject to dispute. This is what I mean about trying, always, to give a direct academic source for stuff otherwise just googled up from the great wash of thir-hand versions of history available on websites. Nishidani (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
On one hand, some scholars say he never existed. Then others, apparently believing in some of the biblical text but not all, say he existed but only up to point x. Therefore this would make him a "bandit leader?" I can appreciate that the archeological record is blurry. But it seems to me, that a reliable source should stick to what he knows best. If it is archeological, great. If it is examining scriptural text, that's fine, too. But there are few experts who are tops in both fields. I think we should stick to quoting experts in their best (and maybe only) field. Student7 (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Of course there is no archaeological evidence that David was merely a bandit leader. That's simply speculation. The only possible evidence (Tel Dan Stele etc.) indicates that David was regarded at least from the ninth century BC onwards, to have been the first in a dynasty of Israelite kings. I can appreciate your idea of sticking to the facts, but if reliable sources speculate, there's nothing we can do about it. Wikipedia relies on published reliable sources. If prominent archaeologists describe David as 'possibly a bandit leader', then that's what Wikipedia has to go by, even if they have zero evidence to back up this claim. At least the quote is properly attributed. Lindert (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
We frequently encounter media presentations (think "tv") where the production has wandered off topic or their supposed field of expertise in order to grab "attention." While we may want to use the "good" parts of the publication, we really need to avoid what is clearly pov. Most lengthy publications contain some pov. Often easy to ignore. Like here, for example. Student7 (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Have you read the source? See [3] - the chapter starting on page 31 titled "Tales of the Bandit" where they describe the beginning of David's career as a classical bandit's tale. Maybe we should explain the description. Dougweller (talk) 05:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
From my experience, the modern Hebrew pronunciation is closer to dʌvɪd
From my experience, the modern Hebrew pronunciation is closer to dʌvɪd, as in dove-id. Drsmoo (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Present tense is "chatty." It's intent is to "draw the reader in." It is very useful as a literary style. It is also used in Wikipedia for fiction. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Check_your_fiction It seems out of place in an article which is supposed to be describing an actual historical event that really took place. The style assumes that it is fictional which would appear, under the guidelines, to be pov. Student7 (talk) 13:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, I think we should use the past tense. Lindert (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
It's not the present tense but the historical present. This is used to write about history, fiction, and "hot news". PiCo (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Technically, historical present is the present tense, but used for past events. According to WP:TENSE: (...) discussion of history is usually written in the past tense and thus 'fictional history' may be presented in that way as well. History books are normally written in the past tense, and the historical books of the Hebrew Bible do the same. What this article does when telling the story of David is basically summarizing the account in Samuel (and Chronicles). All these narratives are written in past (or perfect) tense. So while it is not necessarily wrong to use the historical present, I think we should have a good reason not to follow the conventional past tense, especially when all primary sources are written in this way. Lindert (talk) 09:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The Book of Samuel isn't a history book, it's a form of theology. Using the historical present alerts readers to that. Also, more practically, it serves to mark the biblie-summaries off from the surrounding article. PiCo (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
May we assume that there is no separate policy to show for that? And that your stand is that it is fiction and therefore subject to the policy regarding fiction?
This is the second time lately that I've read someone referring to Biblical history as "theology." I'm not sure what would lead anyone to think that. Student7 (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't really care all that much about the tense, but I feel the use of historical present sets the summary of the bible-text off from our own article-text.
It's theology in a form that looks to us like history. In fact it's neither, as neither form had been developed at the time. The theology part is in the role played by God - everything that happens in the biblical history is people and kings showing their faithfulness to God (not many) or their apostasy (most of them); this pattern of some faith and much apostasy is the explanation the bible gives for the rise of kingship (Saul proves unworthy in God's eyes and God chooses David) and the fall of Israel and Judah (God withdraws his protection when the kings fail to enforce the worship of him alone). Explanations based on the will and the anger of God aren't what we recognise as history-writing today, but were the norm back then.
There's another way in which the biblical history isn't history as we know it: modern historians are expected to stick to certain standards in gathering the facts they put in their stories. Ancient writers, up to Herodotus, had quite different standards. One was: old is better than new. The older a source was, the more trustworthy it was. Another was: the historian must not exercise an opinion. He was a collector of sources, preferably old and venerable ones, and it would be presumptuous to judge them. A third was: All sources are equal. So everything goes in. The story of Goliath is clearly a folktale, maybe based on an epic about the great David. The author treats it as being exactly equal to what seem to have been some documentary sources from palace archives. To us, epic ballads are literature and lists of officials are much more respectable as sources, but not to the ancients. PiCo (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, we aren't the first ones to encounter this biblical "stories" vs "history" in Wikipedia. If all the other Books/Figures use it, then fine. But I suspect that the books are mostly treated as history where history was intended by the author, as it is with David. BTW, David is treated as a historic figure in the Goliath story, by many. To say nothing of Jonah, Esther, and Joseph of the many coats. Student7 (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't like to use the word "fiction" in relation to the biblical books or to David, certainly not on Wikipedia. Far too easy for pov warriors to say "it's fiction therefore it isn't fact." That's using modern categories. Getting into the heads of ancient people is far more difficult. PiCo (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Reverts by Harizotoh9
Harizotoh9 recently reverted a few edits I made. I'm puzzled by this, as he gives no explanation (for which reason I've restored the edits). So far as I can see the edits were mostly minor - like changing "chief" to "fief" (how can David accept a "chief"?), or deleting a comma and replacing it with the word "is". What's the problem there? The biggest was deleting the reference to Colin Thiele dating David's reign. The fact is he didn't - you can check the book, he doesn't mention dates for David. So unless Harizotoh9 can give an explanation we'll stay with my edits. PiCo (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Not sure about other changes, but, to me, "chief(dom)" makes more sense in the biblical age, than the term fief which is associated with feudalism. Student7 (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I see your point. But what happened in that part of the story was that Achish gave a town to David in return for David's support in battles - which is very close to a fiefdom. But if you can find another word, sure. PiCo (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Ref. 41
Reference number 41 is a broken link. Should it (and the accompanying quote) be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.134.169 (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Reference 41 seems to be "David" article from Encyclopædia Britannica Online, link is http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/152497/David. The link does work for me, maybe it is not available at your location? Anyway, when a link is broken, the first thing we should try is to fix the link or find another source. --Lindert (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Ancestor of Jesus
It's a bit misleading to state, as this article does in the first sentence, that Matthew and Luke claim Jesus was descended on both sides from David. Both genealogies terminate with Joseph, but the fact that they are mutually incompatible has led many Christian readers to conclude that Luke's is actually the genealogy of Mary (the idea being that since Mary's father would also be Joseph's father-in-law, he could be listed as Joseph's father). See the Wikipedia article "Genealogy of Jesus." I recommend taking out the phrase "through both Saint Joseph and Mary" since that's dependent on a particular interpretation and is certainly not what the gospels explicitly claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.42.81.164 (talk) 05:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I added citation needed tags to that yesterday. I doubt anyone will actually *provide* citations since to my knowledge there are no citations that demonstrate this -- merely citations to scholars who argue it, to which could be responded citations to scholars who hold a different viewpoint -- but it would be good if someone can dig something out. It might be worth adding something like "was described as an ancestor of Jesus by two routes, which some scholars (cited) hold to be through both Saint Joseph and through Mary".80.203.20.94 (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Page move?
I don't think this David is the primary topic. --> article should clearly be moved to a disambiguation page. Not sure why this hasn't been done already, no way should a common name with lots of notable articles be used like this. --Nutthida (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
If you don't think this is the primary topic, which other topics are commonly known as simply 'David'? -- Lindert (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Wha-? i'm not saying ANY "David" is a primairy topic, that's the point - there are plenty of notable Davids out there, this should go to a Disimg page!--Nutthida (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
There are plenty of notable people called David, that is not in dispute. However, as far as I know, none of these is commonly known only as David. For example, it is unlikely that someone looking for the article Larry David will type in 'David'. That is the criterion we use for determining if something is a primary topic. So the question remains, what topics do you think people are looking for when they type in 'David'? -- Lindert (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Christians had (and have) the same problem with John of Patmos, John the Evangelist, and John the Apostle. Many Christians want these to be the same person. Having said this, there is, perhaps a century (or even millenia) or more of discussion about the "different/identical" Johns. And, having separate articles wasn't much help, since the material still slops over from one to another. "Other researchers believe that..." That various Biblical/archeological "Davids" might not have been the same, is a relatively novel thought. Splitting (or dab-ing) the article at this point seems premature. Student7 (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think Nutthida was talking about Biblical/archeological "Davids", but rather notable people throughout history with the name 'David', including modern Davids. -- Lindert (talk) 13:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Either way, unless Nutthida or someone else can propose a more notable "David" than this one, since I have seen no concrete argument besides "I don't think it should be the primary one", I don't see the point of disamb. Ckruschke (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
Unclear
In the titles section at the bottom, it says "Rebellion from Israel under Ish-bosheth". This is unclear: Is israel or the rebellion under Ish-bosheth? 24.191.87.42 (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Ish-Bosheth was the son of Saul. He was crowned King of Israel (the northern 10 tribes) upon the death of his father. The southern two tribes, however, crowned David King in 1010 BC. Later, two of Ish-Bosheth's own men killed him while he slept and cut off his head (2 Samuel 4) and David was soon crowned king of all the Jews. So the text you are referring to is somewhat confusing, but that's what happened. Ckruschke (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
"Strong" and Arabic?
I don't quite see the need, or relevance, of giving David's name according to Strong, or the Arabic version of his name, as official versions. David is called several different names in different languages, but on English Wikipedia I would argue that the English version and the original Hebrew version are the only that are relevant in the lead.Jeppiz (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
AgreeCkruschke (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
As David is a major figure in Islam and mentioned in the Quran wich is written in Arabic, it should be logical to input the Arabic translation. Saying that this is a English wikipedia does not mean that we will remove all non-english words. The need;as it is explained in the article, David is a major figure in Islam. The relevance;Just like the Hebrew translation of the Bible, should be an Arabic translation of the Quran. "David is called several different names in different languages", yes but what is the native language of the scriptures? It is needed to add the Arabic translation, as it is added in all articles wich is discussing people that are claimed as Prophets of Islam. What kind of linguistic cleaning is this? If you want to remove the Arabic translation, then you should remove the Hebrew too. Runehelmet (talk) 11:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, David is a major figure in Islam, but that in itself is not a reason to include the Arabic. There is a big difference between Islamic and Arabic. Most Muslims do not speak or understand the Arabic language, and this is even more true for readers of the English Wikipedia. I am not aware of any policy requiring to use the 'native language of the scriptures'. The reason for including the Hebrew is not because of the (small minority of) people who read ancient Hebrew, nor because of its significance in Judaism, but because this is the original language of the person the article is about. This cannot be said about Arabic, even from an Islamic perspective. I do realize Arabic is very important in Islam, and am not categorically against the use of Arabic where appropriate, but I think it is important to realize the use of Hebrew and of Arabic in such articles is not equivalent or parallel. - Lindert (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Arabic should not be included because it's regarded a Prophet by Muslims, but because he is described in the Qur'an, and the native language of the Qur'an is Arabic. We should keep the Arabic translation for the same reasons as the Hebrew one. Both scriptures are describing him, if they had exactly the same description, then yes we could remove the Arabic version, but that is not the case here. They have a different description, in a different language of the same person. Runehelmet (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
But why is the native language of scriptures a criterion? We don't use Hebrew for David because the Hebrew Bible is written in Hebrew, but because David himself was a Hebrew, both according to the Bible and according to the Quran. Consider as parallel cases the Persian kings Darius I and Artaxerxes I, or the Assyrian Tiglath-Pileser III and Sargon II. All are named in the Hebrew Bible, but they weren't Hebrew, so their Hebrew names are not included in those pages. - Lindert (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
For Artaxerxes I the Hebrew version of the name is given in the article. For the other three you mention, if you edited their articles to discuss their role in the Bible, giving the Hebrew versions of their names, nobody would object. The purpose of wp articles is to inform the reader, not to make some point or other, and I see no reason to exclude any translation of any name where documents in that language are relevant to the person concerned. For David the Greek and Latin, at least, ought to be added. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
First of all, one doesn't need a reason to exclude anything on Wikipedia, on the contrary there must be a good reason to include. I object to adding Latin and Greek (and other languages) names for David (beside the Latin being identical to English anyway), for the reason that a long list of names make the first sentence hard to read and violates the purpose of the lead, i.e. to give a quick summary for people while excluding non-essential information. The Manual of Style for lead sections states "Consider footnoting foreign-language and archaic names if they would otherwise clutter the opening sentence.". In the case of the Arabic, I think it is appropriate to include the Arabic name in the 'Islam' section of the article. - Lindert (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
@Lindert:Actually yes it is. I checked the Wiki-rules regarding the use of non-english words, and it is not not prohibited to use the native languages of the scriptures describing men considered to be a prophet by different groups of people. And I have no objection if you put the Hebrew version of Darius and Artaxerxes, as these figures played a role in the Jewish history mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. Even the Hebrew Bible is translated into Latin. The ethnic background of the person is not major criterion. For example;Jesus, he was not a Greek nor Roman, but we have those translations in the corresponding article. You know why? Because those languages were describing him, in the Latin and the Greek Testament. Regards. Runehelmet (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any 'Latin Testament', and translations are quite irrelevant. There are also Chinese translations of the Bible, yet we do not include Chinese names for biblical characters. The Latin and Greek names for Jesus are included because the English form derives, via Latin, from the Greek form. The Arabic form of David however, is not related to the English form. I never suggested any prohibition of using the language of religious texts, but can you quote any policy recommending such usage? Still, as I said above, I would support including the Arabic name in the 'Islam' section, where it does not clutter the lead sentence. - Lindert (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The vulgate was the main medium of transmission of all Christian doctrine to Western Europe, so Latin has been the main factor in the English form of all biblical personal names. But on the main point, I agree that it isn't necessary to shove too much into the lead, and putting the Arabic in a later section is acceptable. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
"There are also Chinese translations of the Bible, yet we do not include Chinese names for biblical characters", we were speaking of native languages, so it would make no sense to put the Chinese translation. And I said I did not find any rule that is against adding the translation of Arabic in this case. "The Arabic form of David however, is not related to the English form", yes Arabic is not related to English(actually it is if you look very deep), but Hebrew either, nevermind you said that it is only allowed if the person spoke the same language. Runehelmet (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I know that the English language is not related to Hebrew or Arabic (even if you look very deep), my point was that while the English form is derived via Latin/Greek from the original Hebrew name, it is not in any way derived from the Arabic, therefore making the Arabic less relevant on an English Wikipedia. I find the absence of a specific prohibiting rule quite irrelevant. You simply need a good reason to clutter the opening sentence with a whole list of translations if it can be avoided. The ethnic background, or rather the native language of a person is indeed very important. the Manual of Style states "Relevant foreign-language names, such as in an article on a person who does not themselves write their name in English, are encouraged." David would certainly have written his name in Hebrew, not any other language. - Lindert (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I really don't see the case for Arabic. Yes, David is a figure in Islam as well, just as in Christianity. So what? We don't add the Lithuanian, Latvian or Finnish versions of his name, just because Lithuanians, Latvians and Finns are Christians. David was a Hebrew, that's why we have his name in Hebrew. This is English Wikipedia, so of course we use the English version in the text. As for Arabic, Finnish, Lithuanian, Latvian or any other version of the name, I really do not see the reason.Jeppiz (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
"I know that the English language is not related to Hebrew or Arabic (even if you look very deep), my point was that while the English form is derived via Latin/Greek from the original Hebrew name, it is not in any way derived from the Arabic, therefore making the Arabic less relevant on an English Wikipedia". You are forgetting the case, it should be added because he is regarded as a prophet in the Qur'an, wich has it own version of David. This is not a Christian-Judeo Wikipedia, so your views that he is the only prophet in Hebrew Bible and only that version of the name should be used is against the fundament of this Wiki; to give a neutral view. Muslims, Bahai, Ahmediyya's do not use the Hebrew name as they believe that God named David, Dawud."As I see Runehelmet is inserting Arabic versions into articles about other Biblical persons as well," And they are not Biblical figure, as they are present in other religios books, so you are trying to erase other religious views of those men? Perphas you forget that they are views as prophets not only in Christianity and Judiasm?
Yes, the Quran has a slightly different version of David, but I think you are wrong to think that Muslims believe David was actually called 'Dawud'. Muslims believe that David was a Jew (ethnically), so he would not have used the Arabic form of the name. Anyway, if anyone types in Dawud, they are referred to the Islamic view of David (that page btw does not include the Hebrew), so I don't see a problem there. In addition, the Arabic name is already used in the 'Islam' section on this page. There is no reason to talk about 'erasing religious views', as there is both an Islamic section on this page and a seperate page on the Muslim views. You confuse language with religion. - Lindert (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
"I really don't see the case for Arabic. Yes, David is a figure in Islam as well, just as in Christianity. So what? We don't add the Lithuanian, Latvian or Finnish versions of his name, just because Lithuanians, Latvians and Finns are Christians." Because he is a figure in the Qur'an. The same reason why we use Hebrew, Latin and Greek. The native language of the Qur'an is Arabic, and not because some Muslims speak Arabic, as Arabic is not an Islamic language. Runehelmet (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
@Lindert, Muslims believe that Arabic is the language of Heaven, and that the Qur'an is the word of God, thus God named David, Dawud. Yes you are right that the Islamic views of Davi soes not include the Hebrew one, because it is the Islamic view(but I have no objection if you added the Hebrew translation). This article is not named David in Judiasm or in Christianity, if it was, then it would be logical to exclude the Arabic translation, but that is not the case here, the article is a general one and the lead should contain the views of different groups. "You confuse language with religion", Arabic is the religious language of Muslims, Baha'i, Druze and others. Just like Latin is the liturgical language of the Catholic branch of Christianity. So there are also Latin translations of men regarded as a prophet or major religious figures by Catholics, e.g; jesus, Ishmael, Hagar, where they ethnically Latin? Ethnicity is not the norm for people regarded as a major(or minor) religious figure, but also the native language where they were mentioned, if they were mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, Qur'an and the New Testament then it should be translated respectively into Hebrew, Arabic and Greek. And I'm not adding it but trying to keep it, the Arabic translation was always present in these kind of articles, just like the Latin, Greek and Hebrew. I know Islam is not the most beloved religion in the world, but in this Wiki we should keep that ideas behind and work together to maintain the values of this encyclopedia; Neutrality, Verifiability and to act in Good Faith. Runehelmet (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
And like we should act in good faith, we should also assume good faith. There is no foundation to assume that people who oppose including Arabic do so from a dislike of Islam if none of the arguments presented have pointed in that direction. I would likewise oppose including the Hebrew name of Cyrus the Great in the opening sentence of that article, even though he is prominently featured in the Hebrew Bible (even called 'the annointed' and 'shepherd' of God), because he was simply not a Hebrew/Jew. The Hebrew name from the Bible is used later in the article, just like the Arabic name for David is used later in this article. In my opinion, that is the way it should be, minimizing the number of alternative names in the opening sentence. - Lindert (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
This is essentially a description for English readers of a figure derived from Judaism. It's fine if other language Wikipedias wish to include their derivations, as well. For the English Wikipedia, this should be confined to Hebrew, English, Greek (because of the Septuagint, thought frankly I could do without the latter). In other words, languages from which English (or the scripture) was derived. This would not include Arabic, in the English Wikipedia. Student7 (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Recent edits
I've made some recent edits that may be controversial. I moved the "Psalmist" material to the article on the Pslams, as I felt it overbalanced this article. I have no objection to having something about the subject in this article - ion fact I feel it's a must - but a sentence, in my opinion, would be quite enough. Anyway, as I continue to edit, please feel free to revert, alter, or query anything I do. PiCo (talk) 09:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I think it needs a whole section, since "David the Psalmist" is a prominent portrayal in both the Bible, religious devotion, and art. I'm OK with the paragraph at the moment, though perhaps its placement could be better - it looks a bit strange coming after "old age". I have problems with the designation of Dillard and Longman as "extreme conservative", and their statement was fairly uncontroversial ("there is no textual evidence that the psalms ever lacked titles"). But I appreciate that this is what achieving a consensus is all about. Good work. StAnselm (talk) 10:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Personally I'd say Dillard and Longman are extreme Evangelicals, while bearing in mind that I'm not using "extreme" as a pejorative. I simply mean that their views are on one end of the spectrum of opinion, from minimalists to, well, themselves.
Perhaps David and the psalms shouldn't be part of that summary of the story in Samuel - but it's a bit short for a complete section. Never mind, we'll find a home for it yet :) PiCo (talk) 11:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deletionist needs to stop or be stopped
Editor Nahk7 is removing Christian references. Please stop, Nahk7; you are deleting information very pertinent to the article. Thank you. Yopienso (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Editor Nahk7, please discuss before making further edits. Your edit summary, Jesus was the son of a Priest (Kohen), David from the tribe of Judah. There cannot be a relation. may be true, but what the article claims is that according to the New Testament, Jesus was David's descendant. This article does not decide whether the New Testament is factual or not, but reports its claims. David is a very important figure in Christianity, regardless of actual genealogy. Yopienso (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted the latest round of edits. I think these proposed deletions will need to be discussed first. I personally think it's quite appropriate to mention Jesus in the lead. StAnselm (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Spelling of David's Name
David is spelled as "Dvd" with or without diacritics. Diacritics are marks over existing letters, deleting them yields the exact same set of letters, regular or not. The word "through" is not written as "thru" just because the pronunciation is irregular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.48.42.65 (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Changes in Judaism section to remove non-neutral pov and technical errors.
I changed "talmudic authors" to the Talmud, as there is no such phrase as "talmudic authors." It implies some sort of controversy over the content of the Talmud, when in fact the Talmud is unanimous ion the subject. All traditional Jewish follows the Talmud, thus it is a firm belief in traditional Judaism that Dovid did not commit adultery, but rather a different sin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuvia613 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Also, I changed the wording of the Talmud (I forgot the exact orignal wording) in regards to the divorces; it was extremely prejudicial and derogatory language for a section on Judaism. The Talmud records a tradition in several places of soldiers giving their wives condtional bills of divorce prior to leaving for a battle. This enabled the wives to be divorced should their husbands not return from battle. Without that, it would be necessary to ascertain the husband's exact status - living or nor -- after the battle to determine if the wife was a widow. This was not always an easy task, and rhe wife could be in limbo for some time. Hence the conditional bills of divorce.
Arabic transliteration redirects
I noticed that Daud and Dāwūd redirect to David, while Dawood and Dawud redirect to Islamic view of David. This does not strike me as very consistent or logical. Does anyone know if there is a reason behind this, or is this just a coincidence? I would propose that we redirect all these to either David or Islamic view of David. Personally I think the latter is more appropriate, because transliterations of the Arabic name are rarely used in English sources with the exception of Islamic writings. So I think when someone types 'Dawud', they are likely thinking about the Islamic 'version' of David. Please tell me what you guys think. - Lindert (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Agree with latter:Islamic view of David. Student7 (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually, why is there not an Christian view of David? Or is this article filled with the Biblical views that it isn't a good idea to separate it? The same with the Jewish and Bahá'í views. I'm just suggesting. Runehelmet (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps sufficiently covered here with (for example) David#Christianity. And you're right, we don't want to separate (fork) material unless we are, more or less, forced to. Christians and Jews have, up to a point, "pretty much" the same perspective of David. Christians employ the same background information found in Samuel, Chronicles, and Kings. Muslims use the Qu'ran, which has different material. Student7 (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Samuel 2:9-13, David's Punishment
I'm not sure which article should incorporate these quotations from the holy bible. The quotes refer to Israel's military strength under David and due to his concentration on war, he and Israel are severely punished by God.
9 Joab reported the number of the fighting men to the king: In Israel there were eight hundred thousand able-bodied men who could handle a sword, and in Judah five hundred thousand.
10 David was conscience-stricken after he had counted the fighting men, and he said to the Lord, “I have sinned greatly in what I have done. Now, Lord, I beg you, take away the guilt of your servant. I have done a very foolish thing.”
11 Before David got up the next morning, the word of the Lord had come to Gad the prophet, David’s seer: 12 “Go and tell David, ‘This is what the Lord says: I am giving you three options. Choose one of them for me to carry out against you.’”
13 So Gad went to David and said to him, “Shall there come on you three[b] years of famine in your land? Or three months of fleeing from your enemies while they pursue you? Or three days of plague in your land? Now then, think it over and decide how I should answer the one who sent me.”
I think you just made this up. What makes you think that was the sin? The text doesn't suggest his army was too large - the sin was not having the army, but counting it. The 2 Samuel 24:15-17 also doesn't say what you are suggesting. StAnselm (talk) 08:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok, #1. God requested the Census. #2. Joab did not want to conduct a census, but David forced it to occur on the basis of God's will. #3. In 2 Samuel 24:9, David receives the report. The VERY NEXT LINE is the first mention of any wrongdoing in the eyes of God. In response to the report, David now believes he committed a sin against God. In dialogue, a person's answer to a question often contains a piece of the question within it. I believe the sin of conducting a census would have been defined far earlier, and God himself ordering the census means the command must be obeyed. David was responding to the numerical portion of the report, not the act of developing a report.
Now, I will ask you to review 2 Samuel 23, and answer the question below:
What you are doing is engaging in original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. You will need to find a reliable source to back up your opinion. However, there will be other reliable sources that disagree with you, and so the paragraph will need to be written in a neutral way. The heading should be something like "Census" - that seems to be the generally accepted designation of the incident. StAnselm (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
That's correct. The article can't argue about this, it can only report what reliable sources (see WP:RS say about this. Dougweller (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's a very helpful article. I see he opts for possibility #3 ("personal ambition to expand his kingdom and feel falsely secure because of his great numbers of potential soldiers") which is not quite what you were arguing. The difference between Samuel and Chronicles (especially with God or Satan being behind it) is also worth mentioning. StAnselm (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Quote boxes
I was asked to discuss my removal of the quote boxes here. From WP:Quotations, "As a matter of style, quoteboxes should generally be avoided as they draw special attention to the opinion of one source, and present that opinion as though Wikipedia endorses it." If you scroll through the whole article, you'll see that these are the only two quote boxes there are, which is bad from a stylistic point of view. I also disagree that we should have quotations from LDS scripture in an article, since scripture is generally considered a primary source, and we're supposed to be using secondary sources. Instead of putting the scriptural passages up front in quote boxes, why not briefly summarize/paraphrase them, leaving out the stuff like "prophets who had the keys of this power" and "exaltation" and the "saith the Lord" business. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought about it and I can see your point about the desire to avoid flourishes like "saith the Lord" in an encyclopedia. I've pared down the section to be more of a summary, and I hope that it is worded in a more understandable way now also. By the way, the policy that you linked to says that primary sources may be used to state facts, they just have to be used carefully because interpretation of the facts should come from secondary sources. In this case my attempt was to objectively present what the LDS scriptures say and then move on to the interpretation which hinges on the meaning of the word "many". Anyway, thanks for the feedback, and happy editing! —Remember the dot(talk) 02:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Much better, thank you. That sure beat my bandaid approach. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Physical description
Is it a coincidence that we have two new editors adding the same material to two different articles? See this edit[4] to British Israelism. Sock/meat puppets? Same edits, probably same agenda. Dougweller (talk) 07:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't know, but I think it's altogether appropriate for the encyclopedia to include how the Bible describes a biblical character. Yopienso (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Not the biblical descriptions, the addition of Josephus to two articles using the same wording. Dougweller (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh. I was referring to the edits by PiCo and TilEulenspiegel. Looking further back, regardless of what agenda Levialtman may (or may not) have, what is the objection to quoting Josephus? Yopienso (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Both edits are pushing a description that defines David as blonde. The edits don't just use Josephus's description, they try to define what he meant. And why would we use Josephus's description? Maybe a discussion of it, if it's significant, but I can't see why we'd use it. Dougweller (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I think we would want to include all pertinent information, and Josephus is certainly recognized as a significant ancient scholar, even if often erroneous. Excluding Josephus would seem POV. I would suggest moving The word 'yellow' here is translated for the Greek word xanthos. The Greek to English Kypros Lexicon defines xanthos ξανθός = blond, fair. to the footnotes and getting rid of the reference to an online dictionary. I'm unaware of any ancient references to David's having had a swarthy appearance, but if you have any, please include them. Yopienso (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
See [5]. We shouldn't be trying to define what Josephus meant using even a footnote, but should be using what reliable sources say. Anything else is OR/POV. See also [6]Dougweller (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Late to the discussion here, but, of course, Josephus is using second-hand information (from the Bible) as we are. He has no sources that we don't have. Being Jewish wouldn't stop the "historical" David from being (say) red-haired. It would rather prevent him from being blond. And we can't interpret Josephus anyway. This should be left to WP:RS.
Josephus is a WP:RS for the Jewish Revolt of 70 CE, sometimes, the only source, but hardly for ancient biblical history. Student7 (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Doug, I've always thought you were level-headed, and still do, which makes it even harder for me to follow your logic on this. You link to a long WP discussion and to a blog reiterating what Levialtman added to the article. Students of antiquity often turn to Josephus; you haven't presented any reason for excluding him except you don't like what he says. I see no reason not to say the word he used for "yellow" was "xanthos." The claim, as Levialtman made it, was not that David was blond, but that Josephus referred to his skin as "yellow" (or "golden blonde," per your blog). Wikipedia typically reflects what recognized scholars say, even if they are wrong. Wikipedia doesn't assert what they say is so, but merely reports their assertions. Yopienso (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
@Yopienso, when you start looking up Greek dictionaries to interpret an ancient Jewish author, you're doing original research. We avoid OR because of the dangers it presents - in this case, your lack of awareness of ancient nuances and social conventions. If you're so interested in 1 Samuel 16, you need to consult a genuine reliable source, meaning a modern biblical scholar. One of the best is David Tsumura, and this is what he says (I'll paraphrase): admoni in the ancient near east was the ideal colour for men, and meant reddish-brown; the description of David as "admoni" thus indicates his heroic nature. (See page 423 of Tsumura's commentary on 1Samuel) So you see, the word used of David's complexion means dark, not light, and has more meaning than just a colouring. Joseph is irrelevant. PiCo (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm too busy right now in RL to respond properly or to edit the article. Thank you for introducing recent scholarship. Yopienso (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Central to doctrine?
"David is central to Jewish, Christian, and Islamic doctrine and culture."
I think this is a serious over-statement. He is a central figure in Jewish history, but how is he central to the doctrine of Judaism? As for Christianity and Islam, I can't see that he has anything to do with their doctrines at all. What doctrines did he promulgate? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps a better way to word this might be: "David is an important figure to members of the Jewish, Christian and Islamic faiths." I agree with your observation fully. - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
A tense situation!
The tense of the article varies. Present tense is used for some of it. Present tense is used in Wikipedia for works of fiction. Past tense for history. Sometimes past tense is used in the article (see "Family"). I would prefer past tense myself. But either way, it should be standard throughout the article. (exceptions may be for events that occurred prior to the scripture recording it). Student7 (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I see what you mean. I think it should be past tense. Perhaps we could have: "According to the biblical narrative, the prophet Samuel sought a new king from the sons of Jesse of Bethlehem." StAnselm (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
The article states as fact that he was born in Bethlehem. On what basis? If it's in the Bible, that needs to be made explicit. If it's not, why isn't that mentioned? Dougweller (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the Bible is explicit that he was born there, but it's strongly implied since he lived there with his family (father and brothers, 1 Samuel 16:1-5), tended his father's sheep in Bethlehem (1 Samuel 17:15) and his great-grandparents also lived there (Ruth 2:4, 4:11). Anyway, academic secondary sources seem to take it for granted that Bethlehem is intended as David's birthplace in the biblical narrative (see e.g. [7] and [8]). - Lindert (talk) 11:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
If you read Luke ch 2 Joseph went from Nazareth to Bethlehem because he was of the lineage of David since luke refers to Bethlehem as the city of David and that Joseph is of the lineage and house of David. 1 Samuel ch 17 verse 12 says David is the son of an Ephrathire of Bethlehem named Jess. Since his father and family lived and tended sheep in Bethlehem it is pretty safe to say he is from Bethlehem. 2001:5B0:24FF:3EF0:0:0:0:3C (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
In other words, it seems pretty likely but we have no proof - it's simply assumed or taken for granted. So we need to state it in such a way that Wikipedia isn't saying that it is a fact. How about 'traditionally considered to be Bethlehem'? Dougweller (talk) 11:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
BC/E
I changed some BCE's to BC's so the article is consistent. If someone wants to change back to BCE, fine, but please change them all so we don't have the mixed-style problem that lingered for years at Jesus. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the article was created with "BC" dating. StAnselm (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
In that case, it should probably remain "BC", absent a compelling reason to change it. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I would think all articles on Jewish topics would use BCE. The compelling reason seems self-evident to me. Aristophanes68(talk) 22:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Saul rejected?
Why is the section called 'Saul rejected' called Saul rejected? If there is not some fault with my browser that puts a picture over part of the text, I'm pretty sure Saul is not mentioned in it at all. Also the next section starts with 'As punishment', which raises the question: as punishment for what? Certainly not for something in the previous section, since, as I pointed out before, Saul is not in there. Can someone please clarify? Thanks in advance! Octonion (talk) 01:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
This section definitely needed some work. I've fixed it up to take care of the concerns that you raised; take a look and tell me if this addresses them adequately. Cheers! - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Infobox
On my talk page you will find this text (not mine): "A box promises to contain, and things that can't be neatly contained can't be put in boxes. A box suggests "this is the real deal," and if the real deal could be put in a box, then there would be no need for articles. A box says, "Here is your PowerPoint bullet point list, so you can find all the world reduced to a reductive summary; please do not strive to understand complexity, for that is for suckers." A box says, "Wikipedia is just like your primary school text book: full of colors and 'bites' of infotainment." A box says, "I, the box maker, have just pissed all over this article and written a counter-article, and it's short, so read it instead." A box may be found useful by some people, indeed. We call those people "non-readers."
Infoboxes have their purposes, but they become problematic when used for articles where the subject matter is controversial or disputed. This infobox presented specific details as though they were undisputed fact, a violation of our core NPOV policy. We aren't sure he was king, we certainly can't state his year of birth or death with any certainty at all, etc. Nor does it suggest that the basis of this information is the Bible. As it stood it was an NPOV violation. If we can use it to present the information to make the controversies clear, fine. Dougweller (talk) 12:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I originally removed the infobox per this discussion on Saul. This issue could be resolved if an infobox such as "Biblical character" or "Biblical monarch" were created.--¿3family6contribs 14:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I was just getting ready to suggest that very thing--we need an infobox on "Biblical character" that could cover all Biblical characters such as prophets, kings, etc. It would not contain any kind of statement about their historicity or alleged lack thereof, simply a general infobox that would be NPOV for both sides. I know nothing about creating infoboxes; I'm rather surprised that one hasn't been done, already. But it would definitely be a welcome and useful addition. - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
So how would such an infobox look different? StAnselm (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment: I have restored the infobox. There should be a discussion and consensus here. The bold edit to remove it was fine, but then it was added back in. Anyway, I seem to recall this issue coming up previously with biblical battles. I don't see a problem with the infobox and I see it as a useful summary and navigational aid to the reader. StAnselm (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Editors ignoring BRD are not an excuse for saying there was no consensus to remove it - there was certainly no consensus to add it. I agree with Ecjmartin, we need an infobox for biblical characters. And User:StAnselm, you've ignored the NPOV issues. Dougweller (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, the infobox was there for several years - it was added in 2008. Personally, I think we need a broader RfC on this - it's been removed from Saul, but is still in Solomon. I'm not opposed to a "biblical character" infobox - perhaps that would address the NPOV issues - but I'm not sure how it would look different. StAnselm (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps it could have a "biblical books" field, so that it says "Described in: 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 1 Chronicles", for example. That would be the equivalent of the "According to the Hebrew Bible" qualifier at the start of the article text. StAnselm (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm just getting back home... To me, the production of a "Biblical Character" infobox isn't so much about looking 'different' from the box we have now, as it is about the perception of NPOV. Personally, as a born-again Christian, I believe in the historicity of all Biblical characters--but I recognize (and respect) the fact that others out there disagree. The box we have now not only gives info on the person in question, but equally implies that that person is a true historical character whose existence is not disputed (hence, I understand the objections some have raised, since they don't believe that historicity has been proven in the case of certain Biblical characters like David). To me, simply creating a "Biblical Character" infobox (including the "biblical books" field you mentioned, Anselm) would be a "best of both worlds" solution that would allow both sides to feel good about it. That's my take on it, at least, for whatever that may be worth. - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I echo Ecjmartin's sentiments. I too am a Christian, but I respect that mainstream scholarly opinion does not accept all of the Bible as historically accurate. Jytdog, who is the user who objected to the use of the infobox in Saul, did not seem averse to the idea of a "Biblical monarch" template.--¿3family6contribs 04:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. The other issue, and this one applies to clearly historical characters, is dates and birth and death places - these are often unknown or uncertain. That needs to always be made clear (and is a source of edit-warring on some articles on subjects whose historicity is not in doubt but, for instance, ethnicity and/or birthplace is debated). Dougweller (talk) 08:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
So what are we all thinking here, now: do we create a "Biblical Character" infobox that can cover kings, prophets, patriarchs, etc.? One that would incorporate Anselm's suggestion about providing Bible references (at least the books, but I would suggest the chapters as well) as well as allowing for Dougweller's suggestion about uncertainties as to birth, death, places, etc. (which I think could be simply handled by putting "unknown" or "uncertain" in the appropriate fields of the box)? We could put some kind of hidden user-note (I know there's a WP name for those, but I don't know what it is, LOL) in there that would tell editors that unless they have definite, historically-verified (independent of Scripture) info on birthdates, etc., they are to use "unknown" or "uncertain," "uncertain; believed to be xx century," or something like that instead... I'd cast my vote in favor! What do you guys think of that? - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
But the dates aren't as disputed as all that. There would be broad consensus that there was someone called David, and AFAIK, there would be general agreement that he lived c. 1000 BC. "Unknown" is over-stating it, and requiring something "independent of Scripture" is going beyond the scholarly consensus. That is to say, many (but not all) scholars conclude that we can conclude certain objective facts from the biblical narrative, even if these scholars do not believe all the details given in the Bible. So I wouldn't want to drive a wedge between the Bible and history at this point. Having said that, it might be easiest to have a single date, perhaps in a field called "time period". StAnselm (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
You don't mean I hope saying "X was born in the year nnnn" in cases where we don't know that as a certainty, do you? Dougweller (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
And this is the issue--we have no independent confirmation as to David's birthdate; even Scripture offers us only an approximate range. When I said "independent of Scripture" I wasn't saying "ignoring Scripture;" I was merely saying that for the sake of NPOV and agreement between the two sides in this dispute (each of which has valid concerns!), we shouldn't cite any specific date in the absence of an extra-Scriptural source--unless the Bible gives us a specific date. In the case ofJehoiakim, for instance, Babylonian records and the Bible combine to give us an exact two-year range for his death. In other cases, where such independent records aren't available (such as with David) perhaps we could say: "Circa 1000 BC" (or BCE; whichever we're using in that article). We could even say "Circa 1020-1000 BC," thus providing a range. In every circumstance, I would suggest adding a footnote indicating either a specific external/Biblical reference, or that these dates are assumed based solely on the Biblical narrative, and are not necessarily confirmed in third-party sources. There are several ways to work around this and accommodate the concerns and desires of both sides. - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I note that the dates are the only field in the infobox currently with a citation. StAnselm (talk) 04:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
And? You don't see that as an NPOV violation to add one set of dates with a citation? Sorry, but I would have thought you would know that the dates are disputed. Here's what John Bright (biblical scholar) wrote: ",§ Dates for David’s reign are approximate. II Samuel 5:4 and I Kings 11:42 allow David and Solomon forty years each. This is, of course, a round figure. But both had long reigns, and forty years for each is probably not far wrong. Placing the death of Solomon in 922 (cf., below, note 61) and taking the forty years literally, we have ca. 961-922 for Solomon, 1000-961 for David. Cf. Albright, ARI, p.232; idem in Melanges Isidore Levy (Brussels, 1955 [Annuaire de Nnstitut de Philologie et (THistoire Orientates et Slaves, XIII, 19531), pp.7f." A History of Israel.[9] That's a perfect example of the problem with infoboxes. And we should be suspicious of anythting that says forty years:This refers to Solomon:"22. The precise date of Solomons accession to the throne of Israel is impossible to establish. If the division of the kingdom of Israel took place at some point around 930 B.C., and this is also the assumed year of Solomons death, then a forty-year reign (1 Kgs. 11:42) would place his accession around 970 B.C. “Forty years” is likely not meant literally, however; forty is a round figure that is often used in the Old Testament. Further, the date of 930 B.C. depends on a correlation of a campaign in Palestine of the Egyptian ruler Shoshenq I around 925 B.C. with the campaign mentioned in 1 Kgs. 14:25 as occurring in Rchoboam of Judahs fifth year; and this correlation is uncertain (see further below)."[10]
David, Solomon and Egypt: A Reassessment By Paul S. Ash: Every attempt to date the kings of Israel and Judah rests ultimately on the Hebrew Bible and the figures it provides for their reigns.2 No epi-graphical evidence gives precise data, and archaeology cannot help. The Tel Dan inscription can perhaps corroborate the biblical claims that Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah died the same year,3 although its vagueness limits its usefulness. Although Assyrian records mention a few kings of Israel and Judah, they provide no specific lengths for their reigns. At most, the Assyrian references can provide a broad framework for the chronology of the kings of Israel and Judah.
"The chronological data supplied by Kings and Chronicles can be divided into four categories: (1) regnal lengths for the kings of Judah, (2) regnal lengths for the kings of Israel, (3) miscellaneous notes regarding the dates of major events, which are often valuable for correlating the data to the ancient Near East, and (4) synchronisms correlating the reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah. The origin of all these data is uncertain. Generally, the data in category 4 are regarded as the product either of the editors of the DtrH (the Deuteronomistic History) or its sources, while those in categories 1-3 are generally considered to have come from various sorts of records."(read on for more discussion of the problems, including transmission errors, problems with dates adding up, problems with correlation with Assyrian records, etc, followed by "Consequently, most scholars who have attempted to establish a chronology for the kings of Israel and Judah have hypothesized several co-regencies or abdications, varying systems of dating, and outright emendations of the biblical data to make a fit. Nevertheless, despite these problems, a broad, relatively precise chronology can be established, since the majority of the numbers given do not appear to be overtly schematic.")[11]
Finally, The Oxford History of the Biblical World "Not until the late sixth century BCE can a date in Israelite history be securely established by comparing biblical and nonbiblical sources. But the books of Kings’ chronologies for the Israelite and Judean kings do permit us to calculate, with an error factor of about ten years, the regnal spans of all the monarchs in question. These calculations place the death of Solomon at about 928 BCE. Working back from that date, it would seem simple to use the biblical information about the reigns of David and Solomon, were it not that these two kings are each said to have ruled for forty years (1 Kings 2.11; 11.42), a suspiciously round and symbolic figure. In the absence of other data, and because both kings apparently had long and eventful reigns, the date of David’s ascension to kingship is generally placed at about 1005 BCE. Estimating the duration of the reign of the preceding king, Saul, presents a different kind of problem—textual corruption.[12]
Until this is sorted I've tagged the article as NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 11:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Rahab (David's great-grandmother)
Under the section Family David's great-grandmother is stated to be "the former prostitute Rahab". While this great-grandmother is named in the Matthew Gospel genealogy of Christ (Chapter 1), there is no biblical evidence she and the prostitute rescued from the battle of Jericho are the same woman. I would in that inconclusive light qualify the statement with 'allegedly' or similar words.Cloptonson (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman
Why are these archeologist who theories are considered far from mainstream given such an important place in this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BernardZ (talk • contribs) 16:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
That's called begging the question. We're not likely to agree on your basic assumption. Doug Weller (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
!?! Hw... what? Where is a question being begged? What “basic assumption”? — I see no assumption (that could be called into question), I see an assertion (whose rejection calls for the mention of sources, of which no trace in the above dummdreistig pronouncement)
The wikilogic at work here is impenetrable.
And yet the matter is quite simple:
Either: the views attributed to those two authors are generally accepted and reflect an overwhelming scholarly consensus — in which case they are to be stated and sourced as such
Or: they are one set of views (however influential) and must be treated as such — other views must be mentioned as well (with due weight) — all of which is probably best done somewhere other than the article’s lede.
Finkelstein and Silberman are mainstream, but they are not the only scholarly position. There are positions like maximalism and minimalism. Finkelstein considers himself centrist (in-between those two positions). Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
readability
Reworked much of David's life for readability. Hope it meets with approval. SereneRain (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Done StAnselm (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)