Thread by @MrGoldstein7

Saul and David, the first two Israelite kings, were both chosen by the LORD from among the people. It seems these kings were picked for their good looks: both are described as particularly handsome.

There also seems to be a very special relationship between king David, and Jonathan, son of the incumbent king Saul. At David’s first audience with Saul, Jonathan sort of falls in love with him, told with a word for soul, nephesh, (נפש), which also means “passion” or “desire”.

Jonathan has this “desire” , strips his clothes and hands them to David. Is there platonic love on first sight like that? What’s left if you strip both robe and dress? What do sword, bow and girdle point to?

This very close relationship seems to incite some sort of jealousy in king Saul, who regularly has David “play the harp with his hand”, while Saul has a “spear in his hand”, and then gets excited and wants to “pin David to the wall” ( 1 SAM 18:11 , 1 SAM 19:10 ).

More double-meanings are found in Jonathan and David’s farewell scene: The kissing, nashaq ( נשק), is shortened to shaq, same root as chashaq and chesheq (חשק), meaning “to love” or “to desire”. The weeping, bakah (בכה), plus direction means “embrace”.

The word for “another”, rea ( רע) also means “husband” or “lover”. The last word higdil is a form of gadal (גדל), which means “enlarge”. Not sure if that means what I think it means. Here’s the farewell:

This time, we know how spooks interpret these characters, because we know how later aristocrats had their artists interpret them.

Is there anything wrong with having some hinted homo-eroticism in a story? I’d say No, not really. Many texts are written to mean different things to different target audiences. It’s done skillfully and subtly here, and no one has complained or even noticed for millennia.

My only criticism is that it’s hypocritical if, at the same time, Biblical authors denigrate male temple prostitutes ( 1 KING 14:24 ), and have the scripture stipulate the death penalty for homosexual practices ( LEV 20:13 ).

While relationships like that of Saul, Jonathan and David may be found in Greek epics, there is something else that troubles me here, also found in Greek epics. Remember, the LORD picked David for his looks. Things get more strange once David becomes king.

When he triumphantly enters Jerusalem, he dances before the LORD:

Why would they stress whether it was linen? There’s much speculation if David was wearing only an ephod, what constituted an ephod at the time, and whether it, by itself, covered your naughty parts appropriately.

But no one mentions that this is simply a pun again: The word bad (בד) means both “linen”, and “alone, by itself”. If David wore the ephod “alone by itself”, it would explain why he’s getting in trouble with one of his wives:

There’s a lot of hasty explanation that priestly clothing was “inappropriate” because Levites were a lowly class. But that’s absurd if you read about the gold and jewelry woven into ephods and priestly robes ( EX 28 ).

It’s really about some sort of uncovered-ness. The term galah (גלה) is often used for “uncovering” of private parts ( EX 20:26 , LEV 18:6 , LEV 20:11 ). How then does David answer his wife?

He was half-naked, and intends to become even more undignified. Then he says he’ll humiliate himself, even in his own eyes. Though it won’t be with those slave girls, who’ll hold him in honor.

What’s that supposed to mean? If this was written by an honest author, it feels weird. It gets more worrying if you assume, like I do, that spooks are not religious and are giving hints to their own relations here. Is that how kings related to higher-ups? It looks like it.

Psalm 139 is also attributed to David. It is very good poetry and contains some inspiring verses, but also more strange allusions:

Also, in the verses PSALM 139:2 and PSALM 139:17 the word rea (רע) is translated as “thoughts”, but these are the only 2 attestations of that meaning, all other occurrences meaning “friend” or even “lover”, as we saw in Jonathan’s farewell scene.

There’s one final passage of this kind, which gives us a clue for later: In 2 SAM 7 , after having built a palace for himself, David offers to build a house for the LORD.

However, the LORD answers that he doesn’t want David to build a house for him. Quite the opposite: The LORD wants to build David’s house. And the LORD wants to be a father to David’s son, and raise that son in David’s stead. That son then will build the LORD’s house:

We don’t need to analyze the Hebrew here, since the pun works in English: “house” means “household”, “family”, even “dynasty”. The text is literally about a temple. But in that other sense, David is here forbidden to build his dynasty himself. Someone else will build it for him.

How does David react? His answer is called a “thanksgiving”, but between the lines you can read that he feels offended.

David seems to develop a split personality: He refers to himself in the first person in a self-denigrating way, and in the third person to the one whose dynasty is to be founded, calling that person the “servant” (עבד).

“Servant” is a common name component and even a name by itself. Are David and the “servant” referring to the same person, or is this a clue that they’re different people?

On one single occasion, this “servant” is also called “David” by David. Maybe the wordplay was originally more clear-cut, and muddled by later editors.

In 2 SAM 11 , the scene follows where David impregnates his absent officer’s wife Bathsheba, and covers it up by sending the man to the front into his death. To punish David, God strikes the child dead ( 2 SAM 12:15 ).

But David later begets another child with the same woman, and God then loves that second child ( 2 SAM 12:25 ). God is not being very logical, as usual, telling us we are not dealing with God or gods, but with “gods”.

And if the “house” and the “servant” have a double-meaning, then there may be something special about that child’s parentage. We all know his name: Solomon. But we know little of his reign.

For every other king in the Book of Kings, there’s a reference to the Chronicles of Kings. Not so Solomon: he had an entire book dedicated to him: the Book of the Acts of Solomon. Sadly, this book has been lost and its contents are unknown.

It’s been so lost that it’s not even mentioned on Solomon’s Wiki page. This is all very suspicious, as I think you will agree. en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti…

It seems that even in ancient times, the succession of kings was decided by someone else. If these kings were not allowed to make certain decisions on their own, what personality would such a king develop?

I’d say he might become a manic-depressive egomaniac, who oscillates between extravagance and decadence, and then frustration and nihilism.

There is a Biblical book narrated by an unspecified king that I think expresses just such a split personality: the Book of Ecclesiastes. The narrator endlessly repeats that “all is in vain”.

Apart from that, he switches between boasting of his life in luxury—giving tips for a humble lifestyle enjoying little things like eating and drinking— and complaining that you cannot change the way things are run.

If that comes from an ancient king, then I’d find it quite troubling, though it might be more honest and closer to the truth than other records that simply list “great deeds”.

This “king” narrator, whether historical or not, was based on someone from wealthy ruling elites, and his speech reads like the utter and complete capitulation of an office holder, who states he cannot change anything and then calls this “wisdom”.

The text of Ecclesiastes has positive and negative verses. I’ll list only the negative ones here to make this aspect more visible. You can read the full text in a Bible of your choice. I will also be nitpicking at the text, criticizing the author’s indifference.

You may think that I’m unfairly mistaking a religious text for something it’s not meant to be, but I feel this book is not at all religious. Judge for yourself:

If this is supposed to come from a king, does then a king have no “advantage” from his “work”? Or is this king referring to his subjects?

I can understand that knowledge of unhappy truths results in grief. But what would be so painful about wisdom? Not having the chance to apply it, as a king?
Note how he lists homeborn slaves with cattle. He seems to have had it all, luxury-wise.

So you might as well be a foolish king, and reign foolishly, since all will be forgotten? I can understand rulers might think that way now and then, but why would Biblical editors include this?

If the narrator is a king, wouldn’t he have a say in which man will come after him, say one of his sons, and have influence on whether it will be a wise man or a fool? If not, who decides this?

When would be a time to be silent for a king? When his superiors give him commands? Shouldn’t a king be able to avert this time for killing, tearing down, hate and war?

Shouldn’t a king have some power to reward the just and punish the wicked, so that their fate is not exactly the same, and so that we’re not all like beasts? If that’s not possible, then why not?

That is terrible! But he’s a king. He’ll fix the worst excesses of this oppression, right? So, the ruler cannot do anything about oppression? Nihilism is the answer of a governor? That’s very honest and matches my modern experience, but I’d still like him to spell out the reasons

From whom then does such a king receive his instructions?

Then comes an interesting passage. He talks of visits to God, using the word Elohim, which can also mean high-ranking human “lords”. Is he visiting God, or some lords? You can read it both ways. He talks of obtaining “dreams” (חלם), which also means “ leniency ” in Arabic.

Are these tips for future kings-to-be on how to deal with their superiors? Be careful what topics you bring up? Don’t promise too much? Don’t admit mistakes beforehand?

And a king apparently cannot do anything about oppression of the poor, or denial of justice? Good thing that this reliable chain of officials takes care of the oppression and injustice business. Just who exactly are those people who are stronger than a king?

There’s another passage about proper behavior towards superiors. It’s translated as applying to the king’s subjects, but could again have a double-meaning as the king himself obeying the command of “lords”. The “king” isn’t in the Hebrew original for ECC 8:5 .

Again, can’t a king do anything against wicked people doing evil deeds and lengthening their lives? Again, can’t a king do anything against wicked people doing evil deeds and lengthening their lives? Again a tip about how to deal with superiors.

It sure seems that way.

Apparently the kings and rich folk have their little birdies everywhere, so watch your mouth.

Much as I’d like to believe that the author believes this, he’s been saying exactly the opposite until now. It’s a pity, because he was an honest man.