Did David and Jonathan have a gay relationship? What about Ruth and Naomi?

[gnosis92]

Sure seems that way to me

[WishboneDawn]

As much as I'd love a good gay relationship in the Bible I have to say I couldn't see it with David and Jonathon. It seems to have to be a modern, western reading that gets that out of the story. They were that close? They HAD to being sleeping together! There was an acceptence of close and loving platonic male relationships in the past (and still in other parts of the world) that we don't acknowledge today and that seems more likely. As for Ruth and Noami, that didn't occur to me. I'll have to reread it.

[Anat]

The David and Jonathan story may have been a work of propaganda intended to appease bitter Benjaminites. But the resulting picture is that of a dramatic love story.

[Anat]

Wishbone, here (http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/faith/jt_add4.htm) is an article that finds similarity in language use to the language used to describe marriage.

[Clivedurdle]

Face to faith

Lesbians and gays are the Bible's greatest lovers, says Trevor Dennis

Saturday October 14, 2006
The Guardian

The Bible is often appealed to on issues of sexuality, and those who use it to condemn homosexuality often turn to it in support of heterosexual marriage. Here, though, the Bible is against them, for nowhere do we find an exemplary marriage explored in depth; nobody to whom a parish priest could point a young couple in a marriage interview and say: "Be like them."
Almost everywhere in the Bible it is assumed that men are worth more than women; the book presumes that power and authority lie with men, including that over women, and asserts openly that men must exercise such authority.


Article continues

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...922480,00.html

Quote:
The Song of Songs, a series of erotic poems, composed almost certainly by women, celebrates the subversive, pre-marital sexual love of a pair of teenagers, where the girl has escaped the confines of the family - and the brothers who would board her up to protect her virginity - and has run into the arms of the boy she loves.
It contains some of the most beautiful love poetry ever written, but not quite what those who insist sex be confined within heterosexual marriage are looking for. The Bible also celebrates same-sex relationships, despite what those persuaded by a few verses in Leviticus and the epistles might believe.

Theodore W Jennings Jr describes the meeting of Jonathan with David in the first book of Samuel as "love at first sight" - at least on Jonathan's part. We are dealing, he says, "with no platonic friendship, but with all the elements of passionate romance". If we see Jonathan and David as two men passionately in love with one another - Jonathan from the first, and David once he has transferred his affections and loyalty from his wife, Michal, to Jonathan - then many details in the text, including the precise Hebrew terms it uses, which are drawn from erotic love poetry such as the Song of Songs, fall into place.

[WishboneDawn]

Wishbone, here (http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/faith/jt_add4.htm) is an article that finds similarity in language use to the language used to describe marriage.

Oh neat. We had discussed this in my bible course last year with some favouring a homosexual relationship and some against but I think when 1st years cover that THIS year I'll come armed with that article. It completely contradicts my thoughts on the issue. :) Thanks Anat

[Apikorus]

Let's just say that the Book of Ruth might be called "Obed has Two Mommies".

[seebs]

I find the argument for David and Jonathan much more persuasive than the argument about Ruth and Naomi. There's a lot of overlap with the marriage language and practices there.

[Laura D.]

Sure seems that way to me

I also read David and Jonathon as having had an intimate, physical, loving relationshop.

God bless,

Laura

[Clivedurdle]

the conceptual parallel of marriage between 1 Samuel 18:1-2 and Genesis 2:24, the intensity and type of language used in 1 Samuel 18:1-4 and subsequent covenant between Jonathon and David, and David's comparison of his love to that of women certainly leads me to the conclusion that their relationship could have been one of marriage.

OK, looks like a clear love story between two men, including sex.

But, when was it written? Is it not an Arthurian type legend, instead of Guinevere falling for Lancelot, what if Gawain had or even Arthur?

Do we have a Biblical erotic romantic literature genre - is there a Middle Eastern kama sutra around that did not get into the not so holy Bible?

If we compare Ruth and Naomi with other literature, could it be lesbian? What other male love stories are there from the surrounding cultures?

[Anat]

Gilgamesh and Enkidu?

[Clivedurdle]

http://www.gatewaystobabylon.com/gods/partnerships/gilgaenk1.html

The first meeting between Enkidu and Gilgamesh will set up a pattern for other great literary meetings of soul siblings. Our heroes meet first as contenders, fight hard, but instead of a kill at the end of the combat, the winner, Gilgamesh, takes the loser, Enkidu, as a friend for life. There is a deep meaning in the way they face each other as challengers before the fight, and then surrender their weapons, emotional, physical and mental to embrace each other in friendship. The same pattern will be repeated by Arthur and Lancelot in the Grail Cycle or Robin Hood and Little John. It is as if they all needed to test the true value of the opponent before accepting him as complement.

The above writer probably avoids the direct issue of male sexuality by the use of the tern "soul sibling".

I had not realised how much we avoid issues by this pretence that true love should not be consummated.

[The Evil One]

On the other hand, it is faulty logic to assume that, because a gay relationship would have been described in terms of a strong friendship, therefore every description of a strong friendship must indicate a gay relationship. Presumably even ancient Hebrews had bessy mates sometimes.

[Toto]

Might as well throw this in: Archeological evidence of same sex couples in early Christianity (http://atheistalliance.org/jhc/articles/Samesex.htm)

[Clivedurdle]

Down in Africa, Augustine's boyfriend Alypius died in 386, and Augustine repented of his love for him which had once been more intense than his love for God. He ceased being a Manichaean, converted to Christianity, sublimated his homoerotic emotions and redirected them toward Christ, and exhorted everyone else to do likewise.

http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/homopho3.htm

Monastic Vigilance

The most interesting development of homophobia during this period was the Penitential System, which incidentally indicates a better awareness of exactly what homosexuals to in bed, even though the disapproval of such activity is still blinded by prejudice. The authors of the handbooks of penances — written mostly in the puritanical Celtic Churches of Ireland and Wales, then spreading their influence to England, France and Germany from about 569 to 1008 — seem to know what they are talking about, and clearly specify the previously ambiguous "sins" of Sodom.
Every act is ranked according to its degree of sinfulness. The basic penance consists of exclusion from the sacraments, self-mortification (though younger boys were beaten with rods at the hands of older clerics), fasting on bread and water on holy days (which included most days), and general discomfort. The major difference between the penances was the amount of time they were required.

The Penitential of Theodore the Archbishop of Canterbury in 670 required 1 year for inter-femoral contact (penis between thighs); 3 years for all lesbian activity, undifferentiated; 7 to 15 years for anal intercourse; 7 to 22 years for fellatio; and, for comparison, 7 to 10 years for murder; 15 years for infanticide (reduced to 7 years if the mother was a pauper).

If caught kissing, boys under the age of 20 were subject to 6 special fasts; 8 fasts if it was "licentious kissing"; 10 fasts if it was "kissing with emission"; more if it involved mutual masturbation; and much longer if the partners were over the age of 20. Sometimes the penance was greater for the insertor than for the receptor. It should be emphasized that all of these penances are for acts between mutually consenting adults.

It is interesting that the penances were usually greater for "those who befouled their lips" (as Columban described fellatio in 600) than for those who used their or others' bums. When Theodore says that fellatio is "the worst of all evils," he quite literally means just that — that it is worse than murder (maximum 15 years' penance) and deserves up to 22 years of penance and even a lifetime for the habitual offender. Probably this severity is due to the belief that the mouth was ordained to receive the eucharist, whereas the arse plays no special role in Christian ritual. Or perhaps it is just a regional Celtic oddity, for it seems that even twentieth-century British men had a greater aversion to fellatio than did American men, and felt that anal intercourse was more normal.

[blastula]

Toned abs and flowing robes set off my gaydar.

You wonder ever why Jesus never condemned gays?

[NatSciNarg]

Toned abs and flowing robes set off my gaydar.

You wonder ever why Jesus never condemned gays?

Jerry Springer's way ahead of you...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4161109.stm

Christian Voice national director Stephen Green said: "If Jerry Springer - The Opera isn't blasphemous then nothing in Britain is sacred."

He said the show was "much worse" than he expected when he saw it and said it portrayed Jesus as a "coprophiliac sexual deviant". A coprophiliac is someone sexually aroused by faeces.

"[Jesus] proclaims he is a bit gay, he has this shouting match with the devil - it's just foul-mouthed tirades against the devil and against his blessed mother," Mr Green said.

"The damage that must have done to impressionable young people is incalculable."

[spin]

To try to put a damper on this little affair, the last time we had a similar discussion -- I think also involving David and Jonathan --, I pointed to the normal relationship between males in Arab countries. These relations are normally not homosexual relationships but when homophobic Anglo-Saxons see men walking the street holding hands, the h.A.S.'s brains run on overdrive, because they are trained not to have the same sort of intimacy that is available to these young men. We can usually only find this sort of intimacy between women in our countries.

This Arab male example is from a very different society from our own, yet it is contemporary. We need to be very careful when projecting our modern understandings onto the far past. I doubt that we can make sense of the relationship, though it was probably closer to a modern Semitic culture than an Anglo-Saxon one.


spin

[Dean Anderson]

One verse that has always puzzled me in the David and Jonathan story is this one:

1Sa 20:41 And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.

"Exceeded"? What is being translated here? What are we supposed to understand as happening here?

[spin]

One verse that has always puzzled me in the David and Jonathan story is this one:

1Sa 20:41 And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.

"Exceeded"? What is being translated here? What are we supposed to understand as happening here?
David wept more.


spin

[Doug Shaver]

Sure seems that way to me
If you assume the stories are factual, I suppose it is possible that they did, but I see nothing in the narratives that implies any likelihood that they did. I don't consider it improbable that two heterosexal men could have a close platonic friendship of the sort described in the Bible.

However, I don't believe the stories have any connection with historical reality. In that case, if the stories don't say it happened, then it never happened.

[Anat]

spin, so what do you think Saul meant in 1Sam 18:21? Was David 'doubly married' into Saul's family?

Anyway, as I said in my first post to the thread, I think the D&J subplot was directed at Benjaminites and intended to support the legitimacy of the Davidic line. The author of Samuel makes an effort to distance David from acts against Saul and his family (for example the assasinations of Abner and Ish-bosheth) and emphasises his loyalty to Jonathan and later to Jonathan's son, Mephibosheth. The closeness between David and Jonathan is part of this line.

[spin]

spin, so what do you think Saul meant in 1Sam 18:21? Was David 'doubly married' into Saul's family?
It's a slightly twisty verse, but I think WYMR $)WL )L-DWD B$TYM means "and Saul said to David a second time", that he could become his son-in-law, having already said in 18:17 that he would give David his daughter.

Anyway, as I said in my first post to the thread, I think the D&J subplot was directed at Benjaminites and intended to support the legitimacy of the Davidic line. The author of Samuel makes an effort to distance David from acts against Saul and his family (for example the assasinations of Abner and Ish-bosheth) and emphasises his loyalty to Jonathan and later to Jonathan's son, Mephibosheth. The closeness between David and Jonathan is part of this line.
It sounds reasonable to me.


spin

[Anat]

It's a slightly twisty verse, but I think WYMR $)WL )L-DWD B$TYM means "and Saul said to David a second time", that he could become his son-in-law, having already said in 18:17 that he would give David his daughter.
Wouldn't it have said B$NYT in that case? The cantilation has a 'zaqef qaton' on )L-DWD, which I take to mean that the massorets understood B$TYM to be part of Saul's speech.

[Anat]

And for another couple, though most probably Platonic, see Abraham & Yahweh - A case of male bonding (http://members.bib-arch.org/nph-proxy.pl/000000A/http/www.basarchive.org/bswbSearch.asp=3fPubID=3dBSBR&Volume=3d11&Issue=3d4&ArticleID=3d8&UserID=3d0&).

[seebs]

One verse that has always puzzled me in the David and Jonathan story is this one:

1Sa 20:41 And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.

"Exceeded"? What is being translated here? What are we supposed to understand as happening here?

Some people argue fairly plausibly that it refers to sexual arousal, at the very least:

http://epistle.us/hbarticles/saulinsultdaveloseit2.html

Correct? Incorrect? I couldn't say.

[spin]

Wouldn't it have said B$NYT in that case?
I guess it should have been (though I can't find the form used anywhere -- it seems always B-{noun} H$NYT), but either one of the weird readings with $TYM that you've seen is correct and the text doesn't make sense and we are left to grasping at whatever meaning we read into it (you'll have seen the range of translations given), or a scribal error has confused the issue (JPS complains that the meaning is uncertain).

Saul has already made a marriage proposal about his daughter Merab to David. Now he's putting Michal up as a marriage candidate. Option number two is Michal.

Look at the use of B$TYM in Job 33:14. It's translated "again" in a liberal manner by JPS, accepting that it is literally "two".

The cantilation has a 'zaqef qaton' on )L-DWD, which I take to mean that the massorets understood B$TYM to be part of Saul's speech.
I'll have to plead for the lateness of the cantilation, ie after the text has been disturbed, either lateness or ignorance. :( I always work with the bare consonants as a rule. That's how it was originally written.

If the cantilation marking is correct, it could be that Saul says to David that it's the second time.


spin

[Solo]

I think people get bent out of shape here because they have no cultural reference to anything other than the Anglo-saxon men's culture. For some of us born elsewhere, I mean where affectionate physical contact between men is absolutely ok and carries no copulatory connotations, this is definitely a non-issue. Deep, abiding, and profoundly erotically ambiguous, attraction between men has always existed. David and Jonathan are just one prototype of bosom buddies. Amis et Amiles are another.

Ayone noticed what Borat does with the Anglo-american lack of congeniality to Slavic low-grade greeting erotica ? Jagshemash :wave:

Jiri

[blkgayatheist]

To try to put a damper on this little affair, the last time we had a similar discussion -- I think also involving David and Jonathan --, I pointed to the normal relationship between males in Arab countries. These relations are normally not homosexual relationships but when homophobic Anglo-Saxons see men walking the street holding hands, the h.A.S.'s brains run on overdrive, because they are trained not to have the same sort of intimacy that is available to these young men. We can usually only find this sort of intimacy between women in our countries.

This Arab male example is from a very different society from our own, yet it is contemporary. We need to be very careful when projecting our modern understandings onto the far past. I doubt that we can make sense of the relationship, though it was probably closer to a modern Semitic culture than an Anglo-Saxon one.


spin

I agree with Spin on this one, I dont think there is enough there to make a definitive call without reading modern notions into it