|
|
|
|
David and Jonathan
|
| |
|
| |
- David and Jonathan is also the name adopted by recording duo Roger Cook and Roger Greenaway.
- David et Jonathan is also a French duo.
David and Jonathan were heroic figures of the Kingdom of Israel, whose intimate relationship was recorded favourably in the Old Testament books of Samuel. There is debate amongst religious scholars whether this relationship was platonic, romantic but chaste, or sexual. Medieval literature occasionally drew upon the Biblical relationship between David and Jonathan to underline strong personal 'friendships' between men.
relationship between David and Jonathan is mainly covered in the Old Testament First Book of Samuel, although elements are to be found also in the Second Book.
David the handsome, ruddy-cheeked youth and the youngest son of Jesse, was brought before Saul, the king of Israel, having slain the giant Philistine warrior Goliath with only a stone and sling.
Discussion
Ask a question about 'David and Jonathan' Start a new discussion about 'David and Jonathan' Answer questions from other users |
Encyclopedia
- David and Jonathan is also the name adopted by recording duo Roger Cook and Roger Greenaway.
- David et Jonathan is also a French duo.
David and Jonathan were heroic figures of the Kingdom of Israel, whose intimate relationship was recorded favourably in the Old Testament books of Samuel. There is debate amongst religious scholars whether this relationship was platonic, romantic but chaste, or sexual. Medieval literature occasionally drew upon the Biblical relationship between David and Jonathan to underline strong personal 'friendships' between men.
Story of David and Jonathan
The relationship between David and Jonathan is mainly covered in the Old Testament First Book of Samuel, although elements are to be found also in the Second Book.
David the handsome, ruddy-cheeked youth and the youngest son of Jesse, was brought before Saul, the king of Israel, having slain the giant Philistine warrior Goliath with only a stone and sling. Jonathan, the eldest son of Saul, was immediately struck by this first encounter: "When David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul." That same day, "Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul"; then he " stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armour, and even his sword and his bow and his belt."
The Israelite people were quick to accept David amongst them. However, this provoked the ire and jealousy of Saul, who made several attempts to kill David. Learning of one of these attempts, Jonathan warned David to hide because he "took great delight in David." David eventually fled; seeking solace with Jonathan and is forced to flee more of Saul's attempts to kill him. In a moment when they find themselves alone together, David says to Jonathan, "Your father knows well that you like me...."
Then Jonathan said to David, 'Whatever you say, I will do for you.' [...] Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, 'May the LORD seek out the enemies of David.' Jonathan made David swear again by his love for him; for he loved him as he loved his own life."
David agrees to hide, until Jonathan can confront his father and ascertain whether it is safe for David to stay. Jonathan approaches his father to plead David's cause: "Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan. He said to him, 'You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother's nakedness?'"
Jonathan is so grieved that he does not eat for days. He goes to David at his hiding place to tell him that it is unsafe for him and he must leave. "...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. Then Jonathan said to David, 'Go in peace, since both of us have sworn in the name of the LORD, saying, "The LORD shall be between me and you, and between my descendants and your descendants, for ever."' He got up and left; and Jonathan went into the city."
As Saul continues to pursue David, David and Jonathan renew their covenant and eventually Saul and David reconcile. When Jonathan is slain on Mt Gilboa by the Philistines, David laments his death saying, "I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."
Platonic interpretation
The platonic interpretation of David and Jonathan's relationship is mainly advocated by some Christian scholars for theological and methodological reasons. Two advocates are Robert A. J. Gagnon, and the Assyriologist Markus Zehnder.
Scholars of this position understand that the relationship between David and Jonathan, though strong and close, is ultimately a platonic friendship. This interpretation views the covenant made between the two men as a political, rather than an affectionate, committed marriage (the latter being necessary in order for it to be Biblically sanctioned). They argue that the books of Samuel do not actually document physical intimacy between the two characters, and consistent with their position on Biblical legislation regarding same sex relations, such commentators eschew the issue of homosexuality and understand David and Jonathan as a case of male bonding and homosociality.
Those who hold to this view most typically work from the theological foundation of Biblical infallibility and a more literalistic approach to exegesis, so that while interpretations are understood within the context of their particular literary genres, a wide range of metaphorical meanings of the historical narratives, in particular, are disallowed.
At the other end of the spectrum of Biblical scholarship would be those who hold a view of the Bible that allows a much broader range of metaphorical interpretation, and or of interpretation of moral commands and their immutability.
David's clear praise of David in 2 Samuel 1:26 for Jonathan's 'love' (for him) over the 'love' of women (for him) are seen by proponents of homosexual relations as strong evidence contrary to the mainstream interpretation. However, traditional apologists, particularly evangelicals, point out that neither the books of Samuel nor Jewish tradition documents sanctioned romantic or erotic physical intimacy between the two characters, which the Bible elsewhere makes evident when between heterosexuals, most supremely in the Song of Solomon. It is also known that covenants were common, and that the word is never used to denote marriage between man and women. The disrobing aspect is seen as partial (especially in the Hebrew), that of his robe and outer garments, his sword, bow and “girdle," which denotes part of a soldiers armor in 2Samuel 20:8 and 2Kings 3:21. In addition, this action is evidenced as having a clear ceremonial precedent under Moses, in which God commanded, "And strip Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son", in transference of the office of the former upon the latter. In like manner, Jonathan would be symbolically and prophetically transferring the kingship of himself (as the normal heir) to David, which would come to pass.
In platonic respects, such as in sacrificial loyalty and zeal for the kingdom, Jonathan's love is seen as surpassing that of romantic or erotic affection, especially that of the women David had known up until that time. The strong emotive language expressed by David towards Jonathan is seen to be akin to that of platonic expressions in more expressive cultures
Romantic interpretation
Other scholars, however, interpret the love between David and Jonathan as more intimate than friendship. That approach was first pioneered by Horner, then briefly rehearsed by Boswell and Halperin. This interpretation views the bonds the men shared as romantic love, regardless of whether or not the relationship was physically consummated. Jonathan and David cared deeply about each other in a way that was arguably more tender and intimate than a platonic friendship.
That there is more than mere homosociality in the dealings of David and Jonathan is confirmed by two recent studies from the gender-studies (neither Gagnon nor Zehnder did work according to that paradigm) : the Biblical scholar Susan Ackerman, When Heroes Love. The Ambiguity of Eros in the Stories of Gilgamesh and David (New York & Chichester, Columbia University Press, 2005), pp. 165-231, and the Orientalist Jean-Fabrice Nardelli, Homosexuality and Liminality in the Gilgamesh and Samuel (Amsterdam, Hakkert, 2007), pp. 28-63, both of whom analyse as well, in the original documents (Akkadian for Ackerman, Sumerian, Akkadian, Ugaritic, Egyptian and Greek for Nardelli), what evidence for homosexuality there is in the other quarters of the ancient Near East ; this gives their conclusions further weight. Though their models are somewhat at variance, Ackerman and Nardelli agree that the narrators of the books of Samuel encrypted same-sex allusions in the texts where David and Jonathan interact so as to insinuate that the two heroes were lovers. Ackerman explains this as a case of liminal, viz. transitory, homosexuality, deployed by the redactors as a textual means to assert David's rights against Jonathan's : the latter willingly alienated his princely status by bowing down, sexually speaking, to the former - so Sam insinuates. This is unlikely for Nardelli, according to whom the various covenants Jonathan engaged David into as the superior partner gradually elevated David's status and may be seen as marriage-like :
"all other things being equal, the suggestion that Jonathan engaged David into a marriage covenant which did not have to be explicit, for any exterior eyes, about its precise nature and the specifics it entailed but could masquerade as an alliance of brotherly coexistence, does not obviously tamper with what the text says, or rather implies, regarding the several renewals or re-enactments in a row this berît passed through and what we know about Near Eastern treaties in general , whilst making good sense of the life-long attachment, intriguing behaviour toward Michal and Saul, who conversely act weirdly apropos of them, and erotic overtones the two men are given in Sam" (pp. 56-57).
Together, Ackerman and Nardelli entail considerable expertise and authority : the stature of the former as an historian of Biblical religion and civilisation is undisputed (Under every green tree. Popular religion in sixth-century Judah, 1992 ; Warrior, dancer, seductress, queen. Women in Judges and biblical Israel, 1998), while the former contributed a journal article, "Orientalisme et homophilie héroïque : autour de deux couples d’‘amis’", Scripta Classica Israelica 22 (2003), pp. 1-29, and a large part of a study of heroic, homosexual-looking twosomes in the ancient Near East (Le motif de la paire d’amis héroïque à prolongements homophiles. Perspectives odysséennes et proche orientales [Amsterdam, Hakkert, 2004], pp. 60-91 and 204-226), to the David-Jonathan affair.
The relationship between the two men is addressed with the same words and emphasis as loving heterosexual relationships in the Hebrew Testament: e.g. 'ahavah or ???? (see Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon,). When they are alone together, David confides that he has "found grace in Jonathan's eyes", a phrase normally referring to Romantic or physical attraction. Throughout the passages, David and Jonathan consistently affirm and reaffirm their love and devotion to each other. Jonathan is willing to betray his father, family, wealth, and traditions for David.
The covenant made between the two men strengthens a romantic rather than political or platonic interpretation of their relationship. At their first meeting, Jonathan strips himself before the youth, handing him his clothing, armor, and weapons, remaining naked before him. This is when they first make their covenant, not long after their first meeting. Each time they reaffirm the covenant, love (though not necessarily sexual in nature) is the only justification provided. Additionally, it should be observed that the covenants and affectionate expressions were made in private, like a personal bond, rather than publicly as would a political bond.
The fact that David refers to Jonathan as "brother" does not necessarily signify a platonic relationship. "Brother" was often used as a term of romantic, even erotic, affection in some ancient Mediterranean societies, and the word "sister" is used many times in the bible to represent a bride or a loved woman. For instance, "brother" is used to indicate long-term homosexual relationships in the Satyricon (eg. 9, 10, 11, 13, 24, 25, 79, 80, 91, 97, 101, 127, 130, 133), in the poetry of Catullus (Poem No. 100) and Martial (ie. 2.4, 7.24, 10.65), and in Apuleius' The Golden Ass (8.7). "From the middle of the second millennium B.C.E. ... it became usual for commoner husbands [in parts of the Mediterranean] to call their wives 'sister'" when they were in fact not siblings.
Although David was married, David himself articulates a distinction between his relationship with Jonathan and the bonds he shares with women. David is married to many women, one of whom is Jonathan's sister Michal, but the Bible does not mention David loving Michal (though it is stated that Michal loves David). He explicitly states, on hearing of Jonathan's death, that his love for Jonathan "passes the love of women." Furthermore, social customs in the ancient Mediterranean basin, did not preclude extramarital homoerotic relationships. The Epic of Gilgamesh, which predates the Books of Samuel, depicts a remarkably similar homoerotic relationship between Gilgamesh and Enkidu.
Erotic interpretation
Though sex is never explicitly depicted, much of the Bible's sexual terminology is shrouded in euphemism. Numerous passages allude to a physically intimate relationship between the two men: Jonathan's disrobing, his "delighting much" in David, and the kissing before their departure. Saul accuses Jonathan of "confusing the nakedness of his mother" with David. Allusions to the nakedness of one's parents are common in the Bible.
Medieval and modern day allusions
Medieval literature occasionally drew upon the Biblical relationship between David and Jonathan to underline strong personal 'friendships' between men.
The anonymous Life of Edward II, ca. 1326 AD, wrote: "Indeed I do remember to have heard that one man so loved another. Jonathan cherished David, Achilles loved Patroclus." We are also told that King Edward II wept for his dead lover Piers Gaveston as:"...David had mourned for Jonathan." Roger of Hoveden, a twelfth century chronicler, also deliberately drew comparisons in his description of "The King of France (Philip II Augustus) [who] loved him (Richard the Lionheart) as his own soul."
At his 1895 trial, Oscar Wilde cited the example of David and Jonathan in support of "the love that dare not speak its name": Such a great affection of an elder for a younger man as there was between David and Jonathan, such as Plato made the very basis of his philosophy, and such as you find in the sonnets of Michelangelo and Shakespeare.
In modern times, in his Lambeth essay of December 2007, James Jones the Bishop of Liverpool, drew particular attention to the relationship between David and Jonathan, describing their friendship as:
...emotional, spiritual and even physical. There was between them a deep emotional bond that left David grief-stricken when Jonathan died. But not only were they emotionally bound to each other they expressed their love physically. Jonathan stripped off his clothes and dressed David in his own robe and armour. With the candour of the Eastern World that exposes the reserve of Western culture they kissed each other and wept openly with each other. This intimate relationship was sealed before God - it was not just a spiritual bond it became covenantal. He concludes by affirming: Here is the Bible bearing witness to love between two people of the same gender
See also
|
| |
|
|
