Gay History in School Textbooks

Post Reply New Topic

Dear Inuyasha:

Please try not to assume that you remember what other people said when it is clearly not the case. I believe Jesus existed and he was anti-establishment and nuts and stuff, mostly like the time's Che Guevara. I never, ever said Jesus did not even exist.

I was mostly trolling when I said he was a confirmed homosexual. However, there are tons and tons of speculation. The bible either points towards a guy that was at least 'eccentric' in regards to his sexual life or maybe his heterosexual life has been removed so that Christians don't begin to believe that sex is natural (ie: What if he did have children with Mary?) and a side effect is that it allows this sort of speculation.

What about that "The disciple Jesus loved" stuff? that's crazy.

The word in question is 'hig·dil', which just means an increase, more or greater. In 1 Samuel 20:41 it is combined with David. A one:one translation is impossible, as it is with many languages. The best approximations for the back of the verse is that; both wept, David more.



No, not likely at all, the language translation is actually pretty good. Any grey area left cannot be stretched so far as to allow what you are implying that it must be.



The Chronicle was not written as a play by play, rather as a reflection on what had happened already. Most historians think this entire discourse contains the desire of the author to illustrate that David's coming to power was smooth and that he was a legitimate ruler. Having the blessing of Johnathon, who had a better claim to the throne and the including some of Saul's family after he became King, shows us a David confident in his legitimate authority.



How it sounds to you is pretty much irrelevant unless you want to commit an aggressive amount of eisegesis. What is important to remember is that the context of the time and matters more than modern language. They have both sworn an oath and it is on their descendants. The language in the passage you quotes does not relate to sexual seed at all (there are other terms for that, not zar·'a·cha); that would be a horrible eisegesis.

Vexcalibur ax pandabear jith bir gurub ne.

Pipil yo da kam kamun.

Ladukes wap watem kam kaman-si?

ta pap:

http://www.everypoet.com/archive/poetry ... le_boy.htm

However you wish to interpret what was increasing or getting bigger, one thing is absolutely certain: that David and Jonathan were hot for each other.


It is still a "gray area."


David's coming to power was anything but "smooth." Jonathan did not bless David's royal pretensions.


We still don't know what that oath was. The author is being rather coy.

That is not what the Hebrew verse says.

Can you please translate for us? We're all stuck.

Samuel 20:41

.David rose from beside the stone heap and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. He bowed three times, and they kissed each other, and wept with each other; David wept the more.

This is the JPS translation so we know it is kosher. No KJV stuff there.

ruveyn

Okay. According to this translation, the sequence of events in I Samuel 20:41 is

1. The lad who had accompanied Jonathan leaves.

2. David gets up from beside a heap of rocks.

3. David lies down with his face on the ground.

4. David then bows 3 times (after getting up from the ground?).

5. David and Jonathan play kissy-face.

6. David and Jonathan cry.

7. David cries more than Jonathan.

If we go with King Jimmy's translation




1. The lad who had accompanied Jonathan leaves.

2. David gets up out of a place toward the South.

3. David falls down on his face.

4. David then bows 3 times (King Jimmy puts this in the same sentence with David falling on his face, which suggests that he didn't get up to bow).

5. David and Jonathan play kissy-face.

6. David and Jonathan cry.

7. David "exceeds", and then they stop crying.

Nonsense. This is just dramatic projection. The language being used here does not imply what you think it does. Even the word used for kissing is a platonic choice.



So is this the 'gay David of the gaps?' The language does not confer what you think it does, there is no sexual connotations, within the traditional language as used at the time, in the passage; yours is a distinctly modern grey area.



More supposition. Johnathon protected David from the attacks by Saul and David certainly lamented the death of his friend.



This is the same book that details just about every other sin David committed, from adultery through murder, the authors of Samuel are many things, coy is not one of them. As to the oath, we have a fair idea that it related to the protection of David and or the anointing of him as the next in line, ahead of Johnathon.

I think that soon some revisionist is going to attempt to read incest and homosexuality into the intrafamilial kissing that takes place at an Italian family's Christmas.

What term for "seed" is used in Genesis 38:9?



Is it zar·'a·cha? Or the other term?

You're the one supposing, now. Jonathan did protect David from Saul, which, in retrospect, might have been a bad move. And, yes, David did lament Jonathan's death, declaring that Jonathan's love was even better than that of women. David and Jonathan's little tryst did not make David's coming to power any smoother at all.


When you consider that theirs was a rather homophobic culture, and there were no witnesses, the author is leaving it for the readers to read between the lines. I think that the adultery bit is left to 2 Samuel.


More supposition. It is unlikely that their oath would have been along those lines.


More supposition.

Transliterated zarah. Spelled zion, resh, ayin

זרע

ruveyn

Thanks, Ruveyn.

That must be different from the zar·'a·cha of 1 Samuel. So, 91 wins the point.

We have good evidence to think the Jonathan was in a strong political relationship with David. The word the authors chose to describe the love between them in 1 Samuel 18. The word love is used to describe the political relationship that Israel and Tyre had (1 Kings 5:1). How David came to power is irrelevant to the language which clearly contains political connotations. Their political agreement can be found in 1 Samuel 20:16 'And Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, “May the Lord take vengeance on David’s enemies'. As to your claim that Jonathan did not bless David's 'royal pretensions', well the text is at odds with you here also, 1 Samuel 23:17 "And he said to him, “Do not fear, for the hand of Saul my father shall not find you. You shall be king over Israel, and I shall be next to you. Saul my father also knows this'. Jonathan's own abdication from the line of succession is in 1 Samuel 18:4.



The same word used to describe love in the verse you are quoting is used in 1 Samuel 16:21 to describe the love Saul had for David. Coincidentally the same word is used in the description of Jonathan's love for David.



Second Samuel also discusses the lament of David for the death of Jonathon. As to the reading between the lines, there is just no reason to see what you are seeing there unless you really really want to.

I wonder why Jonathan didn't want to be king?