Talk:David

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

O david so diz coco, é gay, e gosta de apanhar por de de traz um na boka e por vezes nas orelhas. Se alguem o kiser enrrabar façam-no agora por k ele esta sozinho a ler esta carta. bjs david Ps: mete uma rolha nu cu e nas orelhas, para tipos como o issac

Contents

[edit] David and Jonathan

I find it rather curious that one of the most known and controversial aspects of David's life is only mentioned in this article in relation to fiction based on the character of David, and that is the topic of David's allegedly homosexual relations with Jonathan, son of King Saul. It deserves at least a section, as there has been much debate and literature written on the subject.

[edit] Who is editing this page? A cause for concern...

Where is the substantial evidence that David has modern day descendent(s)? Some serious renovation needs to take place. This erroneous article seems marbled with invalidity.

"Talut" is understood to be a rendering of David's predecessor Saul in such a way that it would rhyme with "Jalut". This sounds like an opinion, so I think we need citation here XoXo 03:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Just a note: 212.219.92.189 is the IP of a very large educational insitution in belfast. There are thousands of students here, one of these users has been responsible for the vandalism. It would be a shame to punish the entire student body with a ban for the actions of one.

[edit] David's elegy for Saul

David's elegy for Saul and Jonatahn is not called "The Bow." The Bow is a weapon, the use of which was to be taught to the Children of Israel in order to defend themselves against the Philistines. - Nahum

[edit] Historical evidence

This entry makes the story of David look like 100% historical. I think it should me more NPOV, just like many other biblical entries. Ausir 23:20, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at a historicity discussion/disclaimer at the beginning, it could probably use some work though. Surprised no one had already mentioned Tel Dan here. DopefishJustin 04:44, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Most mentioned man in the Bible?

The current article states that:

David was one of the most well known kings of ancient Israel, as well as the most-mentioned man in the Bible.

However I can find 895 verses containing 'David' in the King James Bible, 942 verses containing 'Jesus', and 1216 verses that contain either 'Jesus' or 'Christ' (or both). This would suggest that Jesus is the most mentioned man in the Bible, and David is the most mentioned man in the Old Testament. I'm updating the article to reflect this.

David may also be the most mentioned man in the Tanakh, but I cannot verify this myself.

--PJF (talk) 23:55, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Statue of David Picture

The link to the thumbnail apparently is broken.

[edit] When did David live?

Can someone estimate when David was alive? Fred

  • While I'm not sure when David was born, his reign as king ran from approximately 1005 to 965 B.C. I have noted this in the article. Since I discovered that this article borrows so extensively from Easton Bible Dictionary entry (almost word-for-word in some places), I've added a link to the original article at the bottom. [In any case, Easton's dictionary was written well over a century ago, so I think it's probably public domain by now.] -- Stephenw77 9 July 2005 05:46 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance -- Where in Scriptures is the club with which David struck the wild animals mentioned? According to the source mentioned, he seized the lion by its jaw and slew it with his bare hands, or with an unspecified weapon -- Scripture isn't that clear about that. - Nahum

[edit] Psusennes? Please.

What on earth is the support for the lengthy sections Psusennes II as the basis for David and David as a god personified, both of which were originally added on 30 April 2005 by user 81.156.177.21 of Authentic Matthew infamy? Both sections reek of the very worst sort of pseudo-scholarship, pseudo-etymology, and numerology. There is nothing on this Talk page or in the article citing any source, let alone a credible scholarly one, for this stuff. I'm tempted to just excise it outright but before I do I invite anyone including the original editor to support it, by reference to something other than Ralph Ellis. -EDM 04:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree- the Psusennes stuff is really one of the most ridiculous things I've seen today (the author can't even get Psusennes' geneaology correct). I'll delete it (the Psussenes part). --Rob117 19:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Error in the article re 1st/2nd Kings

The article says David's life and rule are discussed in amongst others, Kings II. As David died quite near the begining of Kings I, this would seem odd. Menachem

1st Kings has obviously been confused with 2nd. If you see something like this, correct it please. PiCo 00:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Census?

Doesn't the Bible mention that David attempted to do a census at some point during his reign? And that he got reprimanded by God? If so that should be mentioned in the article. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 22:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

--Yes, the books of Samuel & I Chron. both say that David took a census of Israel and Judah, recording 500,000 men of Judah, and 800,000 of Israel = 1.3 million able bodied men "who can draw the sword". God then sent a famine as punishment.

Most scholars now recognize the symbology of these old military stats. That they are exaggerated up to 100-fold seems quite clear as was custom in many ancient records, whether intentional or scribal error. This suggests a more plausible 5000 men of Judah and 8000 of Israel, indicating that Judah and Israel had a combined army of around 13,000 trained men, and a total population of perhaps c. 150,000 for Judah and Israel together--excluding the major population zones of Philistia/coastal Canaan, Phonecia, Edom, Moab and Ammon, which would then push the total number to over one quarter million souls.--71.222.48.14 14:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Range of opinion

Biblical minimalists hold that David and his united kingdom never existed, and that the stories told about his life were made up much later by Jewish nationalists. Others consider him a real historical figure but, as with King Arthur, consider most of the traditions relating to him to have more myth than substance.

Is this really an accurate statement of the scholarly divide? It seems to me that at least some scholars must still hold to the idea that parts of the Books of Samuel are derived from real historical traditions of the period of David (the "court history" theory), even if much of it is embellished or added later. john k 03:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

That, of course, should be mentioned. Did you notice the addition about him being a mesopotamian? JFW | T@lk 03:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

That was absurd, but seems to have been removed. john k 04:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Necessary?

The phrase: "David, believing that men should not be murdered no matter how evil they were, had the murderers executed." Is highly confusing and denotes a negetive bias. As it does not add to the content of the article It should be changed.

[edit] Statue Picture?

While searching for the statue of David, i stumbled across this page and got thouroughly confused! Is it necessary to put a picture of the statue on here? Arent there some other nice drawings which are less confusing? -- The Minister of War(Peace) 10:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

  • The statue is probably the most well known interpretation of David. If a drawing is found, that could be added and the statue moved to an interpretions of David section. 12.220.47.145 22:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] timeline

As far as I can tell, this article does not even mention what century David lived in. I assume others are much more familiar with the subject than I am, so I'm hoping someone else can put that in. I recall there is not hard historical evidence, so it might need some good references. Cuñado - Talk 02:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arabic Dawud

I changed the transcription of Arabic "داود" from "Dāwūd" to "Dāūd". Every Arab I've heard say this word, says it this way (i.e. the waw indicates a long vowel in this case, not a /w/). I guess it's a matter of whether you want to follow the spelling or the pronunciation. PiCo 07:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually the "waw" has a hamza over it. I added it to the Arabic part and added the apostrophe in transliteration. Cuñado - Talk 07:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tightened up the introduction

Did the following to the Introduction:

Original:

David (דָּוִד "Beloved", Standard Hebrew Davíd, Tiberian Hebrew Dāwíd; Arabic داود Dāwūd), was the second and one of the best-known kings of ancient Israel, as well as the most mentioned man in the Hebrew Bible. There is disagreement about whether David, or a model for him, ever actually existed.
The successor to King Saul, who was the first official king of a united Kingdom of Israel, David's forty-year reign lasted from roughly 1005 BCE to 965 BCE (primary based on Ussher dating, though records from Ebla suggest that he might have existed long before that period, perhaps even a thousand years before that period). The account of his life and rule are recorded in the Old Testament Books of Samuel and the first of the two Books of Chronicles.
Despite the fact that he is said to have displeased God on a few occasions, he is regarded by the Bible - and most Jews and Christians - as having been the most righteous of all the ancient kings of Israel. He is also unusual in that he was an acclaimed warrior, monarch, musician and poet; David is traditionally credited with the authorship of many of the psalms recorded in the Old Testament book of Psalms.
The Bible states that God was ultimately so pleased with David, that He promised that the Davidic line would endure forever (2 Samuel 7:12-16). Judaism believes that the Jewish Messiah will be a direct descendant of King David, and Christians trace the lineage of Jesus back to him.

Edited version:

David (דָּוִד "Beloved", Standard Hebrew Davíd, Tiberian Hebrew Dāwíd; Arabic داود Dāūd "Beloved"), was the second king of the united kingdom of Israel (c. 1005 BC - 965 BC) and successor to King Saul. His life and rule are recorded in the Old Testament Book of Samuel and the first of the two Books of Chronicles, where he is depicted as having been the most righteous of all the ancient kings of Israel, as well as an acclaimed warrior, musician and poet (he is traditionally credited with the authorship of many of the psalms). 2 Samuel 7:12-16 states that God was so pleased with David that He promised that the Davidic line would endure forever; Jews therefore believe that the Messiah will be a direct descendant of King David, and Christians trace the lineage of Jesus back to him. While the nature his reign and even his existence have been questioned, the account given in the Bible remains widely accepted by conservative Jews and Christians.

My aim has been simply to tighten up the text. I believe this reads more smoothly, and doesn't lose anything vital. I did, however, cut material that I considered either POV/unencyclopediac (e.g. edited out the passage about his being regarded "by most Jews and Christians" as as the most righteous of kings - a hard one to give citations for - and the piece about his existing "maybe" a thousand years before 1005 BC, which sounds to me like a fringe belief). For consideration. PiCo 07:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I think your modifications are very good, PiCo. Thanks for tightening up this article (esp. the introduction) and adding more than just what Easton's article says on the subject. Also, does anyone know why many of the illustrations on this page have disappeared (especially the dead link to a picture at the top of the article)? Stephenw77 02:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Glad you approve :). I've added some more images. PiCo 07:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Folks, sorry to jump in a little late. I have a bit of an issue with the phrasing of "Old Testament" vs. "Hebrew Bible". The "old testament" is the way CHristians refer to the Hebrew Bible, but not the way Jews refer to it. Could we use "Hebrew Bible" as a less ethnocentric term? Elizmr 14:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Could we go back to Pico's version of the introduction? It seems much simpler than the present version, and doesn't lose any essential information (at least in my estimation). Carl.bunderson 23:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Life of David

I've started re-writing the section on the life of David. The existing section is simply cut and paste from Easton's - it's embarrassing that Wiki shouldn't take the effort to have it's own work. Ive tried to cover all the best-known incidents from David's life - the ones everyone knows and that are familiar from art and literature, plus enough to give some of the flavour from the original accounts. For comment. PiCo 08:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The big galoot

I see that in Arabic, David killed a giant named Jalut. In egyptian at least this would become Galut, pronounced Galoot. Could this be...? PiCo 10:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It was actually Saul who killed this particular galoot. -- Zimriel 15:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC) I was wrong. D'oh. -- Zimriel 16:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I looked up the Engish word "galoot", and it has quite a different origin. Nice thought while it lasted, though :). PiCo 00:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historicity of David

Tried re-writing this to make it shorter and to simply summarise current knowledge. I think I've done a pertty good job on the archaeological evidence, but not so sure about the Biblical side. Anyone who wants to amend this is most welcome. But one I do want, is to avoid re-hashing the perfectly good articles already on Wiki about the general reliability etc of Biblical texts. So we have the references to articles on Bible as history adn Dating the Bible. Anything in this article should be about David himself, and there's actually very little to say. PiCo

At PiCo's request, I worked on the Historicity of David section today. It's tricky, because the historicity of David has been a battleground for scholars since 1993, so a NPOV and balanced presentation is crucial. In the future, I would like to add a "For Further Reading" subsection within this section. Lawrencemykytiuk 19:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Lawrence - it's good to have an editor who's also a scholar in the actual area under scrutiny. I do just query your very last sentence: "Other scholars--and archaeologists, most notably William G. Dever--point to similar architecture in the massive, fortified gates of several cities built during what would have been Solomon's realm as evidence that they were built by a powerful Hebrew king during the period that the Bible assigns to the reign of Solomon." Whatever the pros and cons of that point (hink Finklestein disagrees?), this is an article about David, not Solomon - it might belong in the Solomon article, but not here, in my opinion. I'm not deleting it, but I'd ask you to consider its relevance to the article. PiCo 01:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point about the apparent irrelevance of Solomon in this article. I was trying to balance the observation that Josiah might have caused the book of 1 Kings to be modified in order to justify an extension of his realm to include the northern kingdom of Israel—though in the power vacuum as the Assyrian Empire collapsed, it could be questioned whether Josiah needed to present any justification for the expansion of his realm to anyone. Since the city gates that Dever uses as archaeological evidence date to Solomon's rule but are located in David's expanded home realm (notably Megiddo up north), it's difficult to avoid bringing Solomon in. In my revisions of today, I tried to present the biblical treatment of David and Solomon in a single view, in order to show the relevance of Dever's evidence for the extent of David's realm, as well. Finkelstein disagrees with Dever and, characteristically, presents his own distinctive analysis. Lawrencemykytiuk 22:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The new edit looks fine. If you have doubts about the paragraph as it stood before you came on the scene, please feel free to re-write completely - I for one would have no objection to genuine scholarship being brought to the article. PiCo 22:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Still working on it. Today I put in the latest installment. Lawrencemykytiuk 02:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Almost done (is it ever done?). Will need to add a bibliography or refer to the bib. in the "Tel Dan Stele" article, which probably needs some work. Thank you, PiCo, for your encouragement and inviation. Please have a look. Lawrencemykytiuk 18:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


Thank you Lawrence, a most impressive piece of work. If this isn't comprehensive, nothing ever will be! I just have a few questions and suggestions:

  • I suggest that citations (books and journals) be done by adding a footnote - a number in the text, linking to a footnote in the "footnotes" section" (which doesn't exist - you'll have to create it).
  • The tone at the beginning is a bit defensive, as if you're pre-empting anticipated attacks. There's no need, just state your case.

Otherwise, my congratulations and thanks to you. PiCo 03:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

PiCo, your editorial comments are very helpful! Many thanks for your critique of the beginning; I have adjusted it to strike a positive note. I will have to postpone the creation of footnotes until next week. I appreciate your kind remarks and your most helpful criticism. You have a refreshing balance of the two. Lawrencemykytiuk 18:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
PiCo, the footnotes are completed. Good suggestion. Lawrencemykytiuk 23:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This section is very well-done.--Rob117 03:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] conservative

Someone deleted the word "conservative" from the last line of the intro, making it read that the Biblical account is widely accepted "by Jews and Christians." This reads rather oddly, so I've made a slight edit to (I hope) molify our editor while still making the point that Biblical scholars increasingly doubt the OT account - the new edit reads that the traditionasl account is accpeted by "many (possibly most) Jews and Christians). PiCo 13:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David and Saul

David did not infact fight saul, but spared his life. He said "I will not touch the Lord's anointed." I changed the title form David "revolts" to "the end of Saul's reign" to properly covey that David did not actually fight Saul.

[edit] Page length problem?

Here is a slightly modified excerpt from my "talk" page:

I would _like_ to add the following pared-down . . . [paragraph at the end of the section on "Historicity of David," but when I attempt to do so, the bottom of the article gets deleted, beginning at the footnote following "Cogan and Tadmor." There was a warning against excessive page length, so that seems to be the reason the bottom of the page was getting chopped off. A]ny advice you may have is most welcome [I was mentioning the problem to Humus sapiens on my talk page]:
The question of whether the biblical portrayal of David and his successors amounts to royal propaganda must take into consideration whether the books of 1-2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings contain prophetic rebukes of the monarchs of Israel and Judah, even an indictment for leading their kingdoms into disobedience and apostasy, resulting in the ultimate defeat and exile of both Hebrew kingdoms, as observed in standard Bible commentaries, such as that of Cogan and Tadmor[1]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lawrencemykytiuk" Lawrencemykytiuk 00:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have now successfully inserted a modified version of the above paragraph at the end of the "Historicity of David" section. Lawrencemykytiuk 20:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David's Sons

The list of David's sons is incomplete. Missing are Absalom, Amnon, and Adonijah (there may be others).216.90.56.122 20:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of "mythological"

I've relabeled the section on David's life to make it clear that it's a scriptural account. I also mention that the life blends historical and mythological elements, but to avoid any misunderstanding, I want to make it clear that I'm not using the adjective "mythological" to claim that any part of it is not true; instead, I mean to indicate that it's a deeply-held set of beliefs that cannot be tested using normal historical and scientific methods. If anyone can think of a better adjective to indicate that much of this section is not conventional history, I'll be happy to use it. David 13:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Good luck - you're walking into minefield. Yahweh only knows where the various incidents making up the biblical account of David's life come from. Certainly there was more than one source - most famously, the two conflicting accounts of David's first meeting with Saul are powerful evidence of two originally separate stories, quite possibly relating to two different people (or two different mythological heroes?) Similarly, the multiple Goliaths suggest that this story originally belonged to someone else and was later given to David. But you can get burnt at the stake for suggesting such things round here :). PiCo 23:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 22:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

David→ King David – Most common usage appears to be 'King David' and the article is already heavily linked as such. We also need to move towards a more consistent treatment of all first name articles such that they all become disambig pages with a history of the origin of the name. But this one also needs input from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) - guidelines for monarchs there suggest the article should perhaps be something like 'David of Israel', but perhaps it is also covered by their Clerical names guidelines.

[edit] Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Oppose. This is the primary sense. Septentrionalis 20:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Non-Judeo-Christian religious person does not refer/know David as King David. They know David as simply a common name (a disambig).
    • Comment: The proposal is to make this article into King David. If that is what you intend, I do not see how your argument supports it. Septentrionalis 21:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Reply: This is about moving the current David to King David and making the blank David, a disambig. And I support it also due to other reasons; and what do you mean my argument does not supports it? Monkey Brain(talk) 21:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Why should a non-Judeo-Christian want David, son of Jesse, to be called King David? Is he offering allegiance to the King? Recognizing his authority? Septentrionalis 23:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
          • There is no recognition other than the title. The non-judeo-christian person may simply want to find an info on the name david. Do you think someone new to wikipedia will type in ".../David_(Disambiguation)" or ".../David" to find out the article on David? Monkey Brain(talk) 23:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
              • A reader may be interested to learn where the name originates from, or may click on the first link in the first line for the disambig. BTW, I don't know where ".../" came from. Speaking of "non-judeo-christian person": what's next, Buddha? ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
              • If the users want to learn of David's(name) orgin, then this article is what they're gonna look for. Or are you saying Biblical David is the origin of the name David. If that's the case, then it's reasonable. Buddha is what? Who is buddha? Monkey Brain (Jul 27 2006) UTC
  • Strongest possible oppose. Compare with Abraham, Moses, Solomon, Sarah, Jesus, etc. Shall I continue the list of "simply names"? ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I did a comparasion here. Jesus is not known as (super jesus or king jesus) therefore Jesus = Jesus justified. Abraham, Moses, and Solomon are refered as Abraham(non king/saint), Moses, and Solomon(not sure about that one). King David is more known as King David, not David. Search google for the term "david", gives you about 1.8 billion results. And not one of the result on the first page is about king david). Now search for "king david", and compare the results on the first page. David itself is simply a disambig. Monkey Brain(talk) 23:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Your answer only proves my point: no need for extra qualifiers. That said, it is proper for King David to redir here and for the first line to link to the disambig. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Hm? How did that prove your point? I don't see that. I used the google as an example to show that David is known to most as a name. And David of Israel(king david) is commonly known as king david and not david. Monkey Brain(talk) 01:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
          • You have shown that extra qualifiers would only intoduce confusion and inconsistency. The David (as in Michelangelo's David or Donatello's David) is a preeminent historical/biblical personage, important enough to be listed in a serious encyclopedia under his name unqualified. Don't bother to bring googletest again: it is not a good evidence. The same applies to other names I listed: each of them is not simply "known to most as a name". FYI, an attempt to introduce a qualifier to article Solomon did not go well: Talk:Solomon#Survey, so if I may I suggest don't waste time. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
            • These "extra qualifiers" are in no way meant to confuse anyone but simply show that the common usage(a name; a disambig due to many similar) for David is simply for names (not specifically the biblical ones).
            • And if there are to be no "extra qualifiers", then how can it be proven that Biblical David should occupy David? These "extra qualifiers" (or datas/sources) are the main thing that determines whether this should be moved or not. And also define what would qualify/be "qualifiers."
            • And further more, Biblical David is not important enough for the rest of the non-christians general public, for the David article to stay about Biblical David. It is important to note that David refering to king david is only important in Bible, however wikipedia is not about christian ideas, but a general collection of ideas, which in this case David becomes a disambig name. Monkey Brain(talk) 04:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
              • I believe that you are acting in a good faith and are trying to improve WP. I think that adding extraneous qualifiers such as "king" or "saint" or "savior", etc. is a bad idea. The undeniable fact is, we are dealing with a classic personage here. All the other Davids were just that: others, named after him. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
                • All this discussion should really go in the section. But thanks for pointing to Talk:Solomon#Survey, it shows that the same issue has come up before. Interestingly that discussion cited the article at David as a precedent for keeping articles on the individual. We are at risk of running in circles. To reiterate, this is not just about this article, but how we treat most firstname articles. No one is trying to say that this David is not the most significant David, just that the name itself is the more natural subject of the article and in any case many (most?) people are linking here as King David which is a good indication that the article isn't where people expect. If you think this article should be kept here, you should also explain why many other firstnames aren't treated the same way or why David, Sarah, Abraham and Jacob should be special cases. I have less trouble with Jesus because it is a very uncommon name in English (more of an issue on the Spanish wiki though). -- Solipsist 11:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
                    • All four cases have two things in common:
                      • There is a single person whom all the others are named after.
                      • These predominant eponyms are not themselves predominantly known by an epithet, like Alexander the Great or Charlemagne. Septentrionalis 15:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
                        • Note the inconsistencies: Patriarch Abraham, Matriarch Sarah, Judge Deborah, King David, Prophet Isaiah, Adam (first man), etc. I assure you that the next moment, someone would object that David was indeed a king, or that Isaiah was indeed a Prophet, and I'll be the first to question whether Adam was indeed the first man. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'd say he's notable enough to stand on his own; especially given that he is (directly or indirectly) the namesake of all the other Davids/Dawits/Daouds out there. --SigPig 04:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the name is notable enough on its own; this David is the forebearer to all subsequent Davids. Also, the term "David HaMelech" (the Hebrew original) has particular religious connotations that may cause controversy. Conversely, the psalms attributed to David are simply signed "by David." --Leifern 12:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Leifern and Humus. Elizmr 14:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - primary and most famous usage. Any others can be handled by the usual {{about}} template up top leading to the David (disambiguation) page. Jayjg (talk); 15:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't agree that "King David" is a more common usage. Deb 16:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
And I forgot to say, King David ought in my opinion to be a disambiguation page. Deb 16:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Humus and others. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jay et al.Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per several above. 6SJ7 17:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Humus and Jayjg. "David" as a name should be covered at David (name). Pecher Talk 19:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - it is easy from an internal perspective in the culture to say that "David" automatically means "King David of ancient Israel". In fact, David should be what currently exists at David (disambiguation), and this article should be at something like David (Biblical). Same with the other single-name articles, with the exception of Augustus and Socrates, which have not caught on in modern parlance. -- nae'blis 20:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Hm.. that too will work. If not King David, then David (Biblical) Monkey Brain(talk) 22:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
      • First, why not move Jesus to Biblical Jesus and Muhammad to Koranic Muhammad? ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
        • AFAIK, Jesus was the founder of the christianity, as well as Muhammad being founder of Islam, so there is no need to label them what they created/founded. David, the biblical (See? I need to put the biblical to David or else this becomes confusing to me), on the other hand is part of the Biblical accounts. Monkey Brain(talk) 22:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all above. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. – Axman (☏) 10:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Discussion

Sorry, this one is a bit of a big page move request. The main issue is that we currently have a rather inconsistent attitude towards the treatment of firstname articles. Many of them are disambig pages, listing many significant people who have that first name and many of them are articles on the most common person who holds that name with a link to a related disambig page (in other words Primary topic disambiguation). For example, consider the following, more or less random, selection of first names (well not that random, I've mostly been looking at the handling of well known monarchs and leaders as well as common biblical names)

In many of these cases, there is one person who is significantly more notable than any others but the article is still a disambig. In others they are treated as primary topics even though the individual concerned is somewhat obscure. We also have a potential POV issue in that to some extent the names most likely to be treated as primary topics tend to be Old Testament Biblical names. My own preference would be to make nearly all first name articles disambig pages, but it probably won't be sensible in every case.

In the particular case of this article, there are many well known Davids in history and indeed quite a number of King Davids. I would quite agree that this David is the most well known in English, but in general he is frequently refered to as 'King David' and is only refered to as just 'David' once context has been established. Whenever considering a page move its a good idea to consult the 'What links here' links. There are currently about 730 links coming in to 'David', however some 250 of them are already links redirected from 'King David'. Many other links were originally links to 'King David' that have already been dab'd. Of the remaining links for just 'David' a large number of them actually derive from the inclusion of templates such as Template:Adam to David and Template:Prophets in the Qur'an. As such I suspect most editors are actually trying to link to this article as 'King David' and that would be its natural place. -- Solipsist 05:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If Solipsist's speculation is correct, and I would be surprised if it were, this is not a problem. King David redirects here. Septentrionalis 15:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The "David" should redirect to "David (disambiguation)" and this one be created "King David". Gryffindor 10:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, yes. I should have been more explicit that the intention would then be to then make 'David' link to David (disambiguation) -- Solipsist 10:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Much of WP:NC (names and titles) is not intended to apply here. If it did, without an exception for usage, the result would be David of Israel. Sovereigns are marked by having no title; David is the most common name of the king; Israel the most common name of the Davidic kingdom; no numeral is customarily used for him.

What that policy does do is make sure that David I of Scotland has no claim to this article. Again, Jacques-Louis David, the painter, is under that name, not here. WP does not use King X as an article title; why start? King David is an easy link to make, and I see no reason to have a mask in David and Jonathan. Septentrionalis 20:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the primary sense - well no its not. I would contend that the primary sense is David (name), and that should be true of nearly all first names. I'm happy enough with moving this article to David of Israel, the only reason to suggest King David is because that is what most existing editors are already using and it seems to be the most common reference to the King of the Israelites. In other words, we are simply applying the most basic level of Wikipedia:Naming conventions
Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity
Stop anyone in the street and ask them what 'David' means and they will say its a name. -- Solipsist 21:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Ask them who David is and you may get a very different answer. --SigPig 04:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
And how do you feel about Sarah and Canute? -- Solipsist 07:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I would be tempted to move Canute the Great to Canute (strict policy would be Canute of England); Harthacanute and the Knuts are disambiguated from him. I'm not quite sure Sarah needs her own article. Septentrionalis 15:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The David we are talking about here is really the first David in our collective history as humans, and all the other Davids are really named after him. (this has been said above many times by others) That would seem to be enough to let the name stand unqualified despite it being one of a bit of a big page move request. I don't want to open a can of worms here, but I don't see any evidence of Jesus Moses or Muhammed being part of this big page move request and there are plenty of other notable figures in history who have those first names too. Why not qualify those names as well? Elizmr 15:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've no argument that this is the David that most other Davids are named after. But that is also the reason why the names of the disciples of Jesus routinely feature in the top ten first names in the UK and America (and probably several other territories). However, on the whole the first names of the diciples are disambiguations (the surprise for me here was Judas which isn't terribly popular as a first name). The main issue is that the primary meaning of David is as a firstname. So the article should be about the name not the person. And in this case it is further backed up by the fact that the most common reference to the person is actually King David, as evinced by the existing links. The primary meaning being the firstname is also true of Sarah, Matthew, Jacob, Alexander and several of the other examples, but we don't treat them all in the same way. In the case of uncommon English firstnames such as Jesus and Socrates (not totally sure Socrates is technically a firstname) it is more reasonable that people would expect the article to be on the individual. There will still be borderline cases, for me those would be Muhammad, Adam and Eve, which are all fairly popular as firstnames as well canonical figures (oh but look, Eve is a disambiguation - why is that? In fact does she even have an article.). At least in the case of Muahammad, there is the alternative of Prophet Muhammad which is also heavily linked. -- Solipsist 18:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Adam and Eve make up one article; Eve quite properly disambiguates it from the commen noun appearing in Eve of Saint Agnes. Septentrionalis 00:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that King David is not the right place for this article. But to say that David (or Sarah, or Jacob) belongs to the Biblical personage is to ignore hundreds and thousands of years of common usage. Relatively common names (and I'm excluding things like Socrates and Augustus here) should be at their plain title, and the ancient persons disambiguated parenthetically. A half-dozen exceptions to a widely followed precedent does not convince me, sorry. -- nae'blis 20:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Known as David? - No he's not

Lets return to one of the basic issues here. Is the David King of the Israelites most commonly refered to as just 'David' or 'King David' or something else. Many of the editors voting oppose here, seem to be asserting that is most commonly refered to as just 'David'. However I would strongly assert no he is not. It is true that once a context has been established he may be refered to as 'David', but without context, as is the case in an encyclopedia, 'King David' is far more common. Throughout the Old Testament I would expect him to be refered to as just 'David' but in that instance context has already been established or is implied. Perhaps this is a source of confusion. Elsewhere and in the modern world you have to use additional qualifiers to avoid being ambiguous and in this case 'King David' would be the most popular choice.

Its just one example, but as chance would have it I was reading Irshad Manji's The Trouble With Islam this weekend and one passage caught my eye. In chapter 4 she describes a trip she took from Toronto to Israel, flying El-Al. After clearing security she says;

Michelle then took my photo in front of a sign for the King David Lounge (a name I found deliciously kitschy). (p86)

In many ways you would think that the courtesy lounge for El-Al would already have established some context as to which David they were talking about, but they still use the 'King David Lounge' not the 'David Lounge'.

The example of Alexander is similar. Septentrionalis asserts that the case of Alexander is different and today he is known by the epithet Alexander the Great. That's true. But one of the primary sources on the life of Alexander are the writings of Plutarch. Now, for example, look at this translation of Plutarch. Apart from one mention of 'Alexander the King' at the start, all further references are to just 'Alexander'. Just as King David is refered to as David throughout the Old Testament.

So where is the evidence that King David is most commonly refered to as just 'David'? -- Solipsist 20:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you still look for "the evidence" if the vote above went the way you prefer? ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bathsheba

I deleted this from the "Bathsheba" subsection of the Narrative section:

The prophetic Talmud view adamantly asserts that David committed no sin in his taking of Bathsheba. According to the Talmud, it was the custom of Israelite soldiers to leave their wives with a bill of divorce, so as to avoid the possibility of a woman being unable to remarry if her husband went missing in action. For this reason, Bathsheba was legally unmarried at the time she was summoned to David, and there was no act of adultery. Furthermore, according to the Talmud, the death of Uriah is also not to be held against David. It was David's right as king to execute traitors to the throne, to which category Uriah belonged due to a technicality. David's only sin, then, was the improper and disgraceful manner in which he handled the whole affair.[citation needed]

The irony of David's adultery can be observed through simple reflection. David, a monarch, impregnated Bathsheba even though he was already married to Abigail. If David's monarchy wasn't blessed from God it would've been usual for him to impregnate and kill anyone he chose, this was a popular practice in antiquity. Polygamy for men was seen as a way to increase the chances of having an heir; women polygamists were classified as harlots because the chances for fertilization were not increased. David's transgressions from God relate more so to his murder of Uriah and attempt to cover it up rather the adultery itself (Solomon had many wives). Uriah, a Hittite, would not succumb to David's cajolery and sleep with his wife because it was against the Mosaic covenant to sleep with a woman 5 days before battle. David, who was blessed from God, ignored the rules of covenantal fidelity by leaving Uriah stranded in battle to die. The punishment for David's crime was incest and murder among his own children.


The info in the 2 paras is quite good, but it doesn't fit with the purpose of the section, which is to give a straightforward precis of the major events in David's life as presented in the OT narrative. In other words, what the later Talmudic commentators had to say on the questions raised by the narratiuve is interesting, but not part of the narraive itself.

Nevertheless, as I mentioned alreasdy, these paras are well-written and probably worth keeping - but in anaother part of the article. PiCo 07:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I very much agree. I will insert the irony paragraph back in order to promote various viewpoints. Reading the passage without it leaves the impression that David committed no transgressions at all.

68.58.71.152 05:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I am replacing the paragraph including the Talmud’s interpretation of the occurrence with Bathsheba. With David being the Jewish king, and the Talmud, according to orthodox Jews, being the explanation of the Old Testament, it is only fair to include it. Does it say explicitly in the OT that David “committed adultery”? It is only implied. Many Jews find it offensive that he is accused of such a misdeed and the majority opinion of the oral tradition removes any doubt of his wrongdoing. It is important that this view held by many people is not ignored here. Chesdovi 13:25 31 Aug 2006 (UTC))

"David's only sin, then, was the improper and disgraceful manner in which he handled the whole affair." Good call and well argued point. In fact you could probably call it a misdeed rather than sin to avoid putting a strike against Dave's name. I guess there's no commandment that says "thou shalt not blatantly misuse technicalities". I'm just glad I live by a new covenant.

[edit] Curious George

Dear Someone out there, Greetings. My name is George and I am a curious person. I was wondering why you didn't apply many pictures? I also read the information and some was not grammatically correct, thus, my son, Norman would of used your grammar and would of been marked down on his project. Luckily, I was proof reading and correct these errors.

The manly fuzzy duckling

Thank you for helping out! Not all edits are perfect the first time they go in, but a wiki-based system allows people to come along and fix them quickly and easily, as you did. Welcome to the project! -- nae'blis 16:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes thank-you George. Please remember that "would have" is more correct than "would of".

[edit] Two accounts of Saul meeting David

Note: Citations for this section are pending - thanks Chrismon for the correction

From article:

They contain, for example, two different accounts that both seem to describe David's first meeting with Saul. In the first of these, Saul sends for David as one known for his skill on the lyre and makes him his armour-bearer, while in the second Saul first meets David when he defeats Goliath. Observations such as this serve to underline the likelihood that the narrative is drawn from numerous originally independent source

Since there is actually no direct internal evidence in 1 Samuel 17 that this was a "first" meeting of Saul and David, there is at least one other interpretation of this text, based primarily on the internal evidence of the Bible itself with some bolstering by observations of modern Bedouin and Arabic cultures. I'm not a scholar, so I will need to dig out the citations again. Much of the following comes from "The World May Know" DVD set, recording lectures of archaeologist and biblical scholar Ray Vanderlaan, and some is inferenced from various military history texts.

The only reference that causes some people to interpret this as an account of a first meeting is 1 Samuel 17:55. Taken at face value, Saul's question "whose son is that young man" at the end of the text indicates only unfamiliarity with the family of David, not necessarily unfamiliarity with David himself.

The nomadic and semi-nomadic israelite tribes were poor, verging on destitute (Judges), but their situation was slowly improving over time. As nomads, their livlihood was dependent on heavy physical labor. In this context, the productive young men that formed that backbone of any military effort were also the backbone of the tribal economy. Soldiers would need to be free to come and go as their families needed them or the tribes would fail to function.

In 1 Samuel 18:2 we find that, after this incident, David was no longer allowed to return to his father. In context, this may indicate that an arrangement had existed before the incident where David came and went as needed. However, it is certainly not conclusive of such an arrangement.

Very simply, Saul, as "king", was little more than a jumped up nomadic chieftain at this point. His army was more of a lightly armed mob than what we would call an army today. David, as armor bearer, was a strong healthy teenager or young adult, and he was added to the king's retinue. But he had family duties that took precedence, at least until David became a national hero. This is a still characteristic of bedouin and arabic culture today.

From the text of 1 Samuel 17 we actually learn a lot about David:

1. He was fascinated by violence, and this was well known to his brothers and other people around him.

2. He was held in sufficiently high repute as a fighter that Saul was convinced to gamble everything on his ability, too easily for an unknown in a first meeting.

3. He was young, but not necessarily small. Based on the responsibilites he was given, and modern Bedouin culture, he could have been as young as 13. However, In modern arabic cultures, a young man who cannot grow a beard is still called a child, so David could have been in his early 20's at this point in time. Modern American football players in that age bracket tend to be well above the average size of adults in general. Saul was quite large for the Hebrew tribes (1 Samuel 9:2), yet David was able to wear his armor. David's only complaint was that he was not accustomed to wearing armor (1 Samuel 17:39), which given the general poverty of the Israelite tribes at the time, would have been the case for almost any Israelite warrior.

Given David's choice of primary and backup weapons, he felt that agility was mor important than armor in this situation. Modern soldiers, likewise, will often eschew armor when the situation is such that agility is more important for survival. (Strategy page: http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htinf/articles/20060512.aspx, end of paragraph 1)

From a miltary perspective, the text of 1 Samuel 17 also indicates a difference in David's mind set as compared to his contemporaries. Goliath's question "Who will fight me?", was a call for a macho "toe-to-toe" slug fest typical of the "heroic" period of military leadership. David's response was "I will kill him", a pragmatic approach more typical of the modern western approach to warfare, or to the slaughter of a dangerous carnivore.

David's primary weapon in this conflict was a sling. Although effective, to a warrior of the time, any ranged weapon was considered "unmanly". Archers and slingers were among the least likely to receive any sort of battlefield recognition, even though they were the most effective soldiers in the battlefield. David was an anachronism in that he generally valued military effectiveness over machismo. The report of the forces of his army when he became king reflects a more balanced view, in modern terms, of the relative value of the different classes of soldier as compared to his contemporaries (1 Chronices 12:2).

Goliath's mistake was one that would have been common to a warrior of his culture time - he was incensed that he was being considered little more than a dangerous animal, and he did not recognize the value of a ranged weapon over a close combat weapon.

By knocking Goliath out at long range, then using Goliath's own sword to behead his helpless enemy, David changed the rules of the conflict that had been going on for generations.

The philistines had come prepared for a bit of bullying and a riot control situation, but instead were faced with a "no quarter expected or given" battle where they could expect no better treatment than animals. In effect, in one action, David turned the low-level insurrection that had been a continuous feature of Philistine/Israelite relations for generations (Judges) into a war of genocide.

David's treatment of Uriah the Hittite (listed among the chief leaders of his army in 1 Chronicles 11:41) is a multiple aberration. On the one hand, he gave command to a foreigner in a theocratic state, demonstrating that he valued military effectiveness over political correctness. On the other hand, it shows that David was capable of putting personal issues ahead of military ones while he was at war (the entire Bathsheba incident).

At one point in his life, while he was on the run from Saul, David was given command of the Philistine city of Ziklag (1 Samuel 27:6). Some scholars believe that this may be how the israelites obtained the secret of working iron. Ironworking upset the military balance that had existed until this point in time, and the philistines were essentially eliminated as a military factor within a generation. (Vanderlaan) Swift99

[edit] Historical evidence

Can anyone put any historical evidence on this article?

Positions on Jerusalem cites 1004 BCE and King David as crucial in determining Israel's right to Jerusalem. Is there any evidence for the year 1004 BCE?

Johnbibby 21:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The section "Historicity of David" gives a good overview of the non-Biblical information on David. It doesn't amount to much - a disputed inscription mentioning the "House of David" is about the most solid evidence we have for the very existence of David (outside the Bible itself), but it dates from some centuries after the supposed lifetime of David and can't be used to obtain a date. The 1004 date comes from counting backwards from various other dates in the Bible - reigns of various kings, mostly. The trouble with that is that there are too many things happening in periods of 40 years to be credible (David himself is said to have reigned 40 yerars, for example - one of many times this period of years crops up). PiCo 02:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The hebrew words for "many" and "forty" were very similar, and would often be used interchangably. Hebrew is a language that is generally strong in metaphor but weak in precision. ("The World May Know" DVD set, Vanderlaan) Swift99 06:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In Christianity

This section does not fit its title. Not only does it begin with an anthropological, as opposed to a theological or historical, perspcetive which no Christian (or Jewish) beliver would maintain (i.e. that both stem from the "Jebusite Zion cult"), but the only reference given is from a strongly Messianic website. To head the section with "In Christianity" means that the section should, at the least, be formed around the union of common perspcetives of primary Christian sects (e.g. Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholicism or mainline Protestantism). This needs to be drastically altered to reflect, not an athropological or myopically Messianic view, but one that is much more indicative of historic christian theology. Otherwise, the section needs to be re-titled. I'm willing to do this myself, but would appreciate input from others on the validity of my comments here and if you agree then what the content should be.

This section is essentially a summary of the relevant part of the article on King David in the current edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica - definitely not a Messianic website. Did you actually look at the reference? PiCo 12:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
It appears that I clicked on the wrong note by accident. My bad. The actual link is relevant... except for that it is still true that the current text in this section is a conjecture-based, athropological understading of David as someone who "took over the Zion cult" which has nothing to do with his image within Christianity (or Judaism) as to how his person and life fit into their understanding of history and theology. The biblical account, which I might add is the only extant account, speaks absolutely nothing to the adoption of the cultus of another people, but that David becomes established as king under the same same Hebrew religion that came out of Egypt. While the current text might be appropriate for the historicity section - perhaps even to show how the biblical account theologically meets up at this point with the Zion cult - it just doesn't fit in "David In Christianity".

I am going to submit an example of how I would like this to be rewritten sometime this weekend and would like some review...

I wish you'd sign your posts (four tildes, the snake-like objects just under the Esc key on the keyboard). If you're the same person who objects to the boiled-down EB paragrpah describing Christianity and David, I can only point out that the theme or point of that para is that Christians see David as the beginning of a divine bloodline leading to Jesus (and that this concept of a divine king was taken by David from the Jebusites of Salem - an idea I personally doubt, but who am I to argue with the EB). Anyway, edit away and let's see. PiCo 09:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the section title should simply be changed to "In the Encyclopedia Brittanica" or perhaps "Contemporary academic perspectives" or similar. That would seem to solve the problem. If this is the current edition or any edition under copyright we should make sure the content isn't simply being plagiarized --Shirahadasha 04:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
"In Christianity" is fine. So is the use made of the EB - it's an attributed summary of the idea contained in a few paras of a far longer article, not a long and unattributed quote. And we have to have sources, we can't just make things up or put down personhal thoughts. What would be nice would be (a) more things toi say about Christian ideas on David, and (b) more sources. As for the first, I'm afraid that, apart from the messianic descent of Jesus, there's not much to say. But if you can find it, say away. PiCo 08:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

lead image was replaced, but I moved it back. The section where David's statue appeared mentioned it explicitly and it's more appropriate there. Pico, the reason I added LMLK seal is because this dates to the first Temple and it means "KING", seems very interesting for a see also in the article of Israel's most famous king of roughly the same era. Amoruso 18:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't have any strong objection to the LMLK seal, so put it back if you want. PiCo 02:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I had a look at the LMLK article and didn't see any mention of David. Was this actually used when David was king or later?-Crunchy Numbers 16:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Nobody knows, since no seals from David's time have been discovered. PiCo 01:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/v/Talk%7EDavid_8776.html"