David & Jonathan - Friends with or without benefits?

A reader writes in, "The question we have is what was the nature of david and Jonathan's relationship? Was it platonic, romantic but chaste, or sexual?"

The short answer is, "We don't know." The text is unclear and we don't have a window onto typical same-gendered relationships of the time. There are several texts that people refer to on this issue:

"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. Saul took him that day and would not let him return to his father’s house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt." (1 Sam 18:1-4)

"As soon as the boy had gone, 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, forever.’” He got up and left; and Jonathan went into the city. (1 Sam 20:41-42)

"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." (2 Sam 1:26)

In Jonathan Loved David, author Tom Horner suggests that an unbiased reading of the story indicates a homoerotic relationship. However, the problem is that texts cannot be read in an unbiased manner. We ALWAYS bring our hopes, dreams and expectations to a text when we engage it. I will admit that from the vantage point of a 21st-century American, whose culture is obsessed with sex in general and is coming to grips with homosexuality, the text reads pretty erotic. However, note the context of the reader. When Americans see men holding hands or kissing on the mouth, we usually jump to a homoerotic interpretation whether we are "pro" or "anti" gay. In other cultures, hand-holding or kissing as a greeting are normal activities by men and are not seen as homoerotic. There is no evidence in the history of Biblical interpretation that Jewish or Christian commentators have ever interpreted the relationship between Jonathan and David as being sexual, so I tend to chalk this impression up to our modern, sexually-obsessed culture. When my Old Testament professor, Ellen Davis, was asked about this issue, she said (to paraphrase), "I think it says as much about our devaluation of friendship between men as it does about our obsession with sex."

Indeed, throughout history you find descriptions of the brotherly love between men in flowery terms from Gilgamesh and Enkidu to the Inklings. It's not uncommon to hear people talk about "Marrying their Best Friend" these days, but it used to be rare for husbands and wives to really be "close" in friendly terms. Men were expected to form close bonds with other men in war and work, and such bonds have been written about in poetry and prose. One of the most interesting stories in the history of the Inklings was how C.S. Lewis' marriage to Joy Davidson brought up serious feelings of jealousy in JRR Tolkien. This was probably because Davidson was not only becoming Lewis' wife, but was fulfilling part of his life as a friend that Tolkien had previously held. You can also see such love in the bonds formed between veterans. Watch Band of Brothers sometime. So while Jonathan and David's relationship COULD have been sexual, I think there are many non-sexual male relationships in history that could be described as "wonderful, passing the love of women."

So does that mean that Jonathan and David have no value to the GLBT community as role models? Not unless you buy into the American cultural premise that relationship is all about sex. What is definitely modeled in the story without any stretch of the narrative is a close, loving relationship between two people of the same sex. The language is beautiful and the drama is palpable. We tend to want to drive a wedge between friendship and romance, but I think we have to admit that such a division is a bit artificial and often unhelpful. In many ways, I think the story is more helpful to heterosexuals in helping us get over our homophobic fears of "getting too close" to someone of the same sex.

David loved Jonathan, and Jonathan loved David. I'm not sure much needs to be said beyond that....

David+

"Jonathan Loved David: Homosexuality in Biblical Times" (Thomas Marland Horner)

Technorati Tags: anglican, bible, C.S. Lewis, episcopal, homosexuality, religion, tolkien

Comments

[*Christopher]

Excellent posting. I think for many same-sex coupled folk, the text of David and Jonathan reads our relationships. We juxtaposed this text with the Cain and Abel text, the Gospel text in John in which Jesus calls us friends and gives us a new commandment, and Psalm 133 in our union rite. The texts say a lot about what it means to love just as the text of Ruth and Naomi reads the marriage of a man and woman in our traditional matrimonial rite. The reduction of relationships of self-giving with their joys, sufferings, and everthing else-- the undergoing of passion, to sex is perhaps our great problem and gets in the way of looking at the whole.

Thanks.

[Tobias Haller]

Interesting review of a rather dated book. The whole friend/lover issue is difficult; but the text itself is revelatory in that it uses the language of love and not the language of friendship. The Hebrew for "friend" only appears (with its other meaning "mate") in the idiom "each other" in the midst of the tearful farewell scene. The vexed passage at the beginning of 1 Sam 18, rather explicitly describes love at first sight. Is there such a thing as friendship at first sight?

Given the tendency to seek to amplify all of the possibly anti-same-sex texts in Scripture, it seems odd to seek to minimize what is plainly a love story -- whether it is sexually acted upon or not. As Lewis said about lovers and friends, Lovers look at each other, friends at a common interest. There is no indication that Jonathan was interested in anything other than David; and it may be that David eventually came to reciprocate.

[FrDavid]

Thanks Tobias,

I think the whole problem may be an artificial distinction between "Friendship" and "Love." What if they are really pretty much the same and only homophobia requires that we make a distinction? There is certainly a distinction between sexual and non-sexual love, but the text does not take us in that direction.

In our popular culture, you will often see the term "man-crush" or "girl-crush" for a friendly relationship that has emotional attachment. I think it points to the fact that the difference between friendship and love is rather arbitrary, artificial and culturally defined.

David+

[Josh Indiana]

This article is one of the most tortured bits of reasoning on D&J I've ever seen. Some heterosexuals will go to any length to deny Gayness in their heroes and loved ones.

Fr. David's bias is, "If Jonathan didn't come out to me in my own hearing, I'm going to cook up every reason I can think of to say these guys weren't Gay."

So let me offer a suggestion. I would think a wise priest, keeping in mind that homosexuality is a serious pastoral issue for millions of people, might advise this way:

"If you're not Gay and you want to deny that any blessed person in the Bible could possibly be Gay, you can. The fact is, we just don't know. The Episcopal Church doesn't make people interpret this relationship in a particular way.

"If you're Gay and you want to interpret this passage as affirming the holiness of same-sex love, you can. The fact is, we just don't know. The Episcopal Church doesn't make people interpret this relationship in a particular way."

And let it go at that.

[FrDavid]

Josh,

I think my point is this: Hetero or homo, it doesn't matter - that's applying modern scientific labels to something in ancient history. D&J is a story about the love between two men, period. To have to ascribe homoerotic tendencies is in itself a product of a (reaction to) homophobic culture. The reasoning that says "David and Jonathan must have been Gay because we see two men showing affection in a way that in modern American society would only be seen between two gay men" shows how truly homophobic our culture is.

It's very unlikely that the devout Jews who redacted the OT would have left anything in the accounts that looked like homoerotic activity, which was associated with Greek immorality. Therefore, those redactors must have seen something else in the portrayals of David & Jonathan - something like the kind of affection I see between male Sundanese refugees all the time.

I happen to believe, from the evidence of text and tradition, that D&J did not have a homoerotic relationship. If it were suddenly revealed to me that they did, it wouldn't matter to me one whit.

David+

[Tobias Haller]

Catching up after a long delay...

David, the evidence (such as it is) shows exactly what you are describing at work. The Greek version of the Scripture does in fact eliminate the "covenant" established between Jonathan and David (1 Sam 18:1-6), and the explicit language concerning their love (or, at least, Jonathan's love for David). I have long suspected that this passage was omitted in a Hellenistic setting precisely because Hellenistic Jews saw what was going on.

Similarly, Jerome amended the line "You love for me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women" by adding "for their children."

Clearly some among the ancients saw what was going on and wanted to cover it up. (The devout Jews of the Hebrew redaction likely were as blind to the homosexuality among themselves as present day Africans. Closets can be very well maintained, and people can live in denial as well.)

None of this "proves" anything -- on that I agree with you. But the text itself uses the language of love, not friendship.