At La 0001587904 Relación de David y Jonatán

WTJ 69 (2007): 127-74
BIBLICAL STUDIES
OBSERVATIONS ON THE RELATIONSfflP
BETWEEN DAVID AND JONATHAN
AND THE DEBATE ON HOMOSEXUALITY
M A R K U S ZEHNDER
T his article aims at clarifying the nature of the relationship between David
and Jonathan, in response to new as well as older arguments that it involved
a homosexual aspect. The main focus is on textual and linguistic observations,
but historical, sociological, and psychological aspects are also addressed.1
Markus %hnder is Professor of Biblical Studies atAnsgar Schoolfbr Theology and Mission, Kristianscmd, Norw
and Privatdozentfor Old Testament at the University of Basel, Switzerland.
1
This article builds upon a previous study by the present writer on the David and Jonathan
saga; see Markus Zehnder, "Exegetische Beobachtungen zu den David-Jonathan-Geschichten/'
Bib 79 (1998): 153-79.
The inspiration for this article is a short study by Silvia Schroer and Thomas Staubli, "Saul, David
und Jonathan—eine Dreiecksgeschichte?," BK 51 (1996): 15-22. The article was translated into
English and published under the title "Saul, David and Jonathan—the Story of a Triangle?," in A
Feminist Companion to Samuel and Kings (ed. Athalya Brenner; A Feminist Companion to the Bible 2/7;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 22-36. However, the current article also takes account of
the more recent contributions to the debate. Among these the following may be specially mentioned:
Susan Ackerman, When Heroes Love (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005); Robert A. J. Gag-
non, The Bible and Homosexual Practice (Nashville: Abingdon, 2001); Thomas Naumann, "David und
die Liebe," in König David - biblische Schlüsselfigur und europäische Leitgestalt (ed. Walter Dietrich and
Hubert Herkommer; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag/Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2003), 51-83; Martti
Nissinen, "Die Liebe von David und Jonatan als Frage der modernen Exegese," Bib 80 (1999):
250-63; Saul M. Olyan, "Surpassing the Love of Women," in Authorizing Marriage (ed. Mark D.
Jordan; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005), 7-16; Thomas Römer and Loyse Bonjour,
L'homosexualité dans le Proche-Orient ancien et la Bible (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2005). I am very grateful
to S. Ackerman and S. M. Olyan for providing me with a draft of their articles before their final
publication.
My article "Exegetische Beobachtungen zu den David-Jonathan-Geschichten" has found a very
variegated echo. There were several positive reactions from scholars teaching at the Theological
Faculty in Basel and at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem; the literary reactions rangefromvery
positive (Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 146 n. 233) to moderately critical (Naumann,
"David und die liebe," 78 η. 28; Nissinen, "Die Liebe von David und Jonatan," 250-63) to polemi
cally negative (Schroer and Staubli, "Saul, David and Jonathan," 36 n. 24). Schroer's and Staubli's
criticism goes as follows: "Zehnder's contribution is another example of ideological abuse of word
statistics; this author seems not to appreciate our attempt to adduce new historical insights to the
discussion." What exactly is "ideological" about word statistics I do not know. There is certainly a
danger of misusing the results of word statistics by drawing unjustified conclusions; I hope, however,
127
128 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
I. Introduction
In recent years, several new publications have added to the debate on the
nature of David and Jonathan's relationship as presented in 1 and 2 Samuel
Arguments fall into three classifications, according to the results presented in the
respective studies:
(1) Those interpreting the relationship between David and Jonathan as
homosexual or at least homoerotic.2
(2) Those claiming a middle ground, on which the relationship is suggestive
of homosexual or homoerotic overtones or allows such an interpretation. In
this case, it is stated that the description of the relationship in 1 and 2 Samuel
does not openly speak of a homosexual encounter, but that it is more probable
than not that somehow the relationship shows a homoerotic touch or at least
bears witness to "homosociability."3
to have been as careful as possible in this respect. Besides, word statistics covered only 50 percent of
my 1998 article. As to the second element of the rebuke: I am certainly more than willing to appre-
ciate new historical insights; I just cannotfindthem in Schroer's and Staubli's article. I will attempt
to clarify this further by dealing here with those aspects of their contribution not covered in my first
article.
2
See, e.g., David M. Gunn, The Fate of King Saul (JSOTSup 14; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980),
93 (qualifying, however, the homosexual relationship as one-directional); Tom Horner, Jonathan Loved
David (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 26-39; Naumann, whose conclusions are not as outspoken
as, e.g., Horner's or Schroer's and Staubli's, but still show a clear tendency: "Anders als das komplexe
Verhältnis zu Michal spiegelt die Bindung Jonatans an David die leidenschaftlichste Liebesbe-
ziehung der Davidüberlieferung, der man 'homoerotische' Dimensionen nicht absprechen kann"
("David und die Liebe," 51); "[m].E. ist durch Textanalyse allein die Reichweite des Liebesverhält-
nisses von David und Jonatan nicht genau zu bestimmen, aber die Spannweite der Alternativen ist
doch eingrenzbar. So lässt sich der emotionale Tiefengehalt der Liebesmetaphorik in den einzelnen
Szenen nicht einfach auf die Ebene der Loyalität, der Gefolgschaftstreue unter Waffenbrüdern hin
verringern. Mit dem emotionalen Tiefengehalt ist eine erotische Spannung in der BindungJonatans
an David deutlich eingeschrieben" (63). For contributions that appeared before 1998, see Olyan,
"Surpassing the Love of Women," 165-66 n. 1.
3
Ackerman sharply detaches modern notions of homosexuality from same-sex erotic encoun-
ters in antiquity in general. Against this background, she claims, the relationship of David and
Jonathan can by no means be labeled "homosexual." On the other hand, she detects "eroticized and
perhaps even sexualized language and images" (When Heroes Love, xiii) in the stories on David and
Jonathan. See also p. 166: "Arguably, indeed, eroticized or sexualized language and imagery are
present in all four scenes in the book of 1 Samuel in which David and Jonathan interact." The verdict
presented by Römer and Bonjour is very similar: "H ne s'agit pas de présenter David et Jonathan
comme des 'icônes gays', car . . . l'emploi du concept d'homosexualité dans le cadre de la pensée
proche-orientale ancienne est inadéquat. Aucun témoin littéraire de cette culture . . . n'utilise un
terme qui corresponde au concept moderne et occidental d'homosexualité'" (L'homosexualité, 101);
"|T|e récit de David et Jonathan ne dit jamais explicitement que leur amitié avait une composante
erotique, mais il ne l'exclut pas non plus; de nombreux termes sont utilisés de sorte qu'ils laissent
planer le doute Que conclure alors? On ne peut que souligner d'abord l'ambiguïté du récit" (79).
But this ambiguity is resolved by the use of the noun "amant" (76, 78) which points to an erotic
understanding of the relationship. This is further corroborated by the following statements (100-
101): "Le registre des métaphores conjugales et des images erotiques signale la complémentarité
vitale des deux partenaires. Mais il implique apparemment aussi une connotation sexuelle"; " [c]e qui
DAVID AND JONATHAN 129
(3) Those maintaining that the relationship between David and Jonathan as
depicted in 1 and 2 Samuel is neither homosexual nor homoerotic, but an
extraordinary example of friendship and loyalty.4
The main proponents of these three views use similar tools in reaching their
conclusions: the canon of questions of the traditional historical-critical exegesis;
linguistic and narratological analysis; and historical, sociological, and psycho-
logical evaluations of the cultural background of the story.
There has emerged, in addition, a different approach, leading to a fourth
group of interpreters: the adherents of a so-called queer reading, who take
their own homosexual self-identification or experiences as the starting point of
their reading and interpreting of biblical texts.5 Not surprisingly, they would
almost entirely fall within thefirstgroup in the results of their analyses.6 This
approach is markedly different from the ones followed by the other scholars
estfiguré,c'est un acte singulier et précis, un rapport sexuel entre deux hommes souvent accompagné
de l'idée d'une transgression des rôles"; "[e]n conséquence,... il paraît logique de conclure à une
dimension homosexuelle ou au moins homoérotique dans la relation entre David et Jonathan."
According to DavidJobling, "Nothing in the text rules out, and much encourages the view that David
and Jonathan had a consummated gay relationship. The text does not force this conclusion on us;
there are obvious cultural reasons why it would not. But it is at least as valid as any other" (1 Samuel
[Berit Olam; Gollegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1998] ,161). Martti Nissinen claims that it is "con-
ceivable to interpret David's and Jonathan's relationship as homoerotic" (Homoeroticism in the Biblical
World [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998], 55). Some lines later he concedes that "the relationship of David
andJonathan can be interpreted alsofromanother perspective than that of homoeroticism" (55). He
continues: "It is also possible to interpret David's and Jonathan's love as an intimate camaraderie of
two young soldiers with no sexual involvement" (55). In his final remark on the story, Nissinen states:
"The relationship of David andJonathan can be taken as an example of ancient oriental homosocia-
bility, which permits even intimate feelings to be expressed" (56). In the subsequent sentences, the
ancient oriental homosociability is said to be "comparable with modern homosexual people's expe-
rience of themselves," (56) which means that the relationship of David and Jonathan would in fact
be classified as a homoerotic or even homosexual one in the modern sense of the word. There is a
certain tension or elusiveness in Nissinen's definition of "homosociability," since contrary to the
statement just quoted, he claims in the introduction of his study on homoeroticism in the biblical
world that "[e]rotic expressions of sexuality may or may not be included in homosociability" (17).
On the basis of such a definition, the present writer can probably accept labeling the relationship of
David and Jonathan as an example of homosociability. However, in his 1999 article "Die liebe von
David" published in Bib, Nissinen several times uses the word "erotisch" (see, e.g., 253-54), as more
a possible than a factual element of the David-Jonathan stories. On p. 255 he claims that "die Bear-
beiter der Aufstiegsgeschichte Davids offenbar keine Hemmungen hatten, die Beziehung von David
und Jonatan ausgesprochen als Liebesverhältnis darzustellen."
4
See, e.g., Shimon Bar-Efrat, TheJewish Study Bible (ed. Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler; New
York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 621; Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 146-54; Otto
Kaiser, "David und Jonathan," EIL 66 (1990): 281-96 (also printed in Otto Kaiser, Studien zur Litera-
turgeschichte des Alten Testaments \FB 90; Würzburg: Echter, 2000], 183-99); Steven L. McKenzie, King
Dfliw/(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 84-85; Eckart Otto, Kontinuum undProprium (Orientalia
biblica et Christiana 8; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1996), 329. For contributions that appeared before
1998 see again Olyan, "Surpassing the Love of Women," 166 n. 2.
5
See, e.g., the collection of articles in Ken Stone, ed., Queer Commentary and the Hebrew Bible
(JSOTSup 334; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001).
6
See, e.g, Theodore W.Jennings, Jr., "YHWH as Erastes," in Queer Commentary, 50-51,64-65.
mentioned thus far, in that it is more interested in using the text to define and
advance the agenda of one's own group than in trying to understand histori
7
cally what the original author(s) really wanted to convey. Generally speaking,
however, this does not mean that scholars outside the fourth group have no
agenda regarding the ongoing debate about the acceptability of homosexual
behavior.
II. Some Clarifications
1. Literary vs. Historical Analysis

Clearly, comprehensive investigation into the nature of the relationship
between David and Jonathan must involve both literary and historical analysis.
Most exegetes confine themselves to treating the issue on the literary level, letting
the question of how a real David and a real Jonathan actually related to one
another remain out of focus. What is analyzed, then, is only how the author(s)
shaped his depiction of this relationship. This self-limitation certainly recom
mends itself, since any subtleties involved in the stories are likely to escape any
attempt to be grasped historically. On the other hand, it is important to ask
whether and how the picture formed from studying the relevant texts reflects the
general historical background in which the original author(s) has to be placed.
2. Exegesis vs. Moral Evaluation

It is important to differentiate between the exegesis of the David-Jonathan
stories and other biblical texts associated with questions of same-sex relation
ship on one hand, and ethical assessments of modern issues related to the phe
nomenon normally labeled homosexuality on the other hand. This means that
a positive or negative answer to the question whether the relationship of David
and Jonathan can in any way be termed "(homosexual" or "(homo)erotic"
7
D.T. Spencer, referring to Timothy Koch, maintains that "the locus of authority for queer folks
must be intrinsic, where Ί seek to allow my own deep knowing, my own homoerotic power, to be the
light by which I do my reading, thinking, believing' " ("A Gay Male Ethicist's Response to Queer
Readings of the Bible," in Queer Commentary, 197; Gary David Comstock says that he "examines the
Bible and Christianity not with the purpose offittingin orfindinga place for them, but offittingthem
into and changing them according to the particular experiences of lesbian/bisexual/gay people"
(Gay Theology Without Apology [Cleveland: Pilgrim, 1993], 4). Very often a gay-liberationist approach
is combined with a traditional exegetical approach; see, e.g., Comstock's Gay Theology. The so-called
queer reading may perhaps be understood as a sub-branch of a deconstructionist approach. Some
of the problems connected with deconstructionism are pointed out, e.g., in William G. Dever, What
Did Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001).
The categorization proposed here is not intended as an accusation against queer readings, but as
an attempt to define some of the differences between the various approaches, an attempt which is of
course open to further clarification and modification. One may object to such a categorization on the
grounds that every exegete is in some way or another driven by some agenda. Such a response is,
however, not quite to the point since it does make a difference whether the personal experience or the
(however limited) attempt to understand an ancient text as much as possible within its own historical
and cultural setting is given absolute heuristic priority.
does not in itself determine the ethical evaluation of what is called in our cul-
tural setting "homosexual behavior" or even "homosexual inclination."8
3. "Homosexuality" "Homoeroticism/'and "Homosociability"

Recent discussions have placed considerable weight on differentiating the
terms "homosexual," "homoerotic," and "homosociable";9 it may well be that
further discussion will bring about an even more refined terminology. The dif-
ferentiation by the use of diverse terms is highly appreciated by the present
writer. The problem is, of course, to find common ground in the definition of
these terms.
4. The Historical Difference between Antiquity and the Present

It has also been pointed out that modern categories dealing with questions of
homosexuality, homoeroticism, and homosociability, no matter how refined the
terminology, can never simply and strictly be identified with patterns of behavior
and concomitant cultural valuations of such behavior in an ancient society like
biblical Israel.10 Indeed, a certain kind of kiss, for instance, seen as a mere sign
of friendship in one culture may be understood as a quasi "sexual" but accept-
able action in another culture and as a quasi "sexual" but totally unacceptable
action in a third culture. It may also be the case that a male person engaging
sporadically in same-sex actions as the active partner in an ancient society would
not define himself or be defined by other members of that same culture as a
"homosexual" in the sense of the word as it is used today, even if such a word had
existed at that time. This view has beenrightlystressed by the "social construc-
tionists."11
It is important not to overemphasize this point by ignoring that there really
are—as the "essentialists" point out—anthropological and social factors which
8
This boundary is not strictly respected in the article written by Schroer and Staubli as demon-
strated in the sentences at the beginning and at the end of their study. "Dass es heute notwendig ist,
über die liebe zweier Männer in der Frühzeit der israelitischen Monarchie mehr als ein paar Sätze
zu verlieren, hängt mit der immer noch herrschenden Tabuisierung der Homosexualität zusam-
men. Unsere Gesellschaft hält an der Ideologie einer 'natürlichen' Heterosexualität fest, und erst
seit kurzem ist in den (evangelischen) Kirchen zu diesem Thema überhaupt etwas in Bewegung gera-
ten"; "[s] icher ist jedenfalls eines: Es war in der Erzählzeit kein Skandal, dass ein König David in
solchen Beziehungen gross geworden war. In dieser Beziehung sind die Samuelbücher unserer
angeblich aufgeklärten Zeit voraus" ("Saul, David und Jonatan," 15, 20).
9
See, e.g., Nissinen, Homoeroticism, 16-17. One of the main problems of Nissinen's categoriza-
tion is its elusiveness with respect to the question whether homosociability does or does not contain
sexual or erotic elements. He introduces the term "homosociability" to define a relationship that is
different from "homoeroticism" with its erotic-sexual connotation. But then he states that the
"erotic-sexual aspect" is only "less emphasized"; "[e]rotic expressions of sexuality may or may not
be included in homosociability" (Homoeroticism, 16-17; similarly in "Die Liebe von David und Jona-
tan," 261). Why not use two different terms for the sexual and the asexual variants of the
homosociability, like "homosociability" vs. "male bonding" or simply "homosociability" and
"comraderie" or the like?
10
See, e.g., Nissinen, Homoeroticism, 4, 7-17, 123-34.
11
For the most recent defense of this position, see Ackerman, When Heroes Love, 3-30.
persist in (almost) any given society at (almost) any time. Obviously, the general
categories "(sexually expressed) love" and "friendship," however variegated the
specific ways of expressing such feelings, belong to these stable factors, including
a more or less clear distinction between the two phenomena.12 To claim that in
ancient societies sexual relations were defined only by the poles active/dominant
(normally male) and passive/subordinate/submissive (normally female), as fre-
quently done by constructionists, is an oversimplification that pays no—or not
enough—heed to the fact that in many (sexual) relationships feelings of attach-
ment and mutual love were at least as known and powerful as in the present era
and were much more important for the persons involved than merely concepts
of domination and "gender construction" (to use a trendy, but somewhat fuzzy
term). Consider, for example, accounts of Jacob and his two wives. On what
ground would one assume that such feelings as expressed in these stories might
not have been present in same-sex relations as well? An overly strict construc-
tionist position reveals certain fallacies: for example, even if it is true that in the
Aristophanes myth there is no room for same-sex couples of approximately the
same age, but only for relations between men and boys, this does not mean that
no such relationships between men of the same age could exist at all, but only that
they were not acceptable in the "mainstream" (?) view in classical Athens.13 It is
also wholly unwarranted to assume that no feelings of desire, attachment, and
gratification similar to those experienced by modern homosexual couples (say, of
roughly the same age) were involved in ancient homosexual encounters that
could well be classified as similar at least to some degree in both settings.14 Also,
it is misleading to assume a fully clear-cut distinction between older/active and
younger/passive roles, since an adolescent boy at some point would reach a limi-
nal zone where both roles would have been available to him and acceptable for
his partners. Furthermore, one also has to take into consideration that the idea
that in modern homosexual relations the partners normally belong to roughly the
same age group is wrong. The supposed gap between modern homosexuals and
12
This has to be maintained against Nissinen's overstressing the cultural and terminological
differences between ancient and modern times, as expressed, e.g., in the following statement: " . . .
es inzwischen durchaus fraglich geworden ist, ob von einer Zeit und Kultur unabhängigen Homo-
sexualität überhaupt die Rede sein kann" ("Die liebe von David und Jonatan," 251). Note that
with respect to other entities like "honor," "gender role," "homosociability," etc., Nissinen is less
hesitant to bring into contact ancient and modern categories, and probably rightly so. His question
"was macht denn eine Beziehung 'sexuell' " seems to be pressing the matter unduly and is probably
to be understood as a rhetorical device, since he does not attempt to answer it. Is it really impossible
to find an answer that contains the main elements that are valid not only with respect to one culture
and one period in history? An attempt at such an answer is made in the following paragraph of this
article.
13
Ackerman's claim that "[w]hat Aristophanes describes... is what Athenians were actually
doing sexually during the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.E." (When Heroes Ζιζν, 9) does not take into
consideration that the actual situation "on the ground" was probably much more complicated.
14
A study on gay men in the Swiss city of Zürich, for instance, published in 1999 (ZÜMS 98,
Institut fur Sozial- und Präventivmedizin der Universität Zürich) shows that same age coupling is
true only for roughly 50 percent of gay men; the age difference is much higher in relationships of
homosexual men younger than twenty and older than forty.
ancient practitioners of same-sex acts is also reduced by the observation that in

many modern homosexual encounters similar (or the same?) patterns of domi-
nation and subordination/submission are at work as they were, according to his-
torians, in ancient same-sex encounters.15
It is worthwhile pointing out a Babylonian Almanac of Incantations which
speaks favorably not only of the "love of a man for a woman" and the "love of
a woman for a man," but also of the "love of a man for a man."16 This may well
refer to a mutual sexual relationship of two men which is not in principle different
from a modern definition of an ideal homosexual relationship. It is also impor-
tant to note that in Plato's Symposium, speeches of Phaedros, Pausanias, and Aris-
tophanes give additional proof that even in antiquity a same-sex relationship was
not at all reduced to aspects of domination (or even exploitation) or active and
passive roles. They all speak of mutual, enduring love, even if it is true that at the
beginning of the relationship one of the partners was an adolescent and the other
an adult. Pausanias makes a distinction between exploitative and non-
exploitative forms of pederasty, and he only embraces the latter.17 There are
enough examples of same-sex relationships between young adult males, between
adult males of unequal or roughly the same age, and between adult males with
alternation in the roles of "lover" and "beloved" in Greco-Roman sources.18
Often, no distinction is made between active and passive roles, and no form of
domination is mentioned; on the contrary, the mutuality of the relationship,
often characterized as stable and enduring, is underlined.19
5. A Definition of "Homosexuality"
For the continuation of this study, the following working definition of a
"homosexual" relationship that tries to reach beyond the (possible) idiosyn-
cratic features of modern concepts of "homosexuality" is proposed: a homo-
sexual relationship, in any given society in any period in history, is minimally
defined as a relationship between two persons of the same sex who engage in
actions that in some way or another, consciously and willingly, include genital
stimulation.
Of course, such a relatively open definition is not able to cover adequately all
the possible facets of behavior that one could imagine, but only such a broad
definition will help to compare different kinds of actions within a given ancient
society and also enable us to make comparisons between that society and modern
societies. Due to the differences in terminology, it will perhaps never be possible
15
A fact that is often overlooked by persons who have a somewhat romantic picture of modern
homosexual relationships stressing unrealistically the elements of mutuality and caring love (see,
e.g, Ackerman, When Heroes Laoe, 9-10).
16
See Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 48.
17
For details see ibid., 351-54.
18
See Mark D. Smith, "Ancient Bisexuality and the Interpretation of Romans 1:26-27," JAAR
64 (1996): 236-37.
19
The same inference can be made also from NT witnesses like Rom 1:26-27 and 1 Cor 7:2-5
(here with a view to heterosexual relations).
to prove that members of ancient societies had similar categories of determining

what is "homosexual" behavior as we do; it is nevertheless very likely that one
may assume that they did and that the proposed definition could be embraced by
them as well. On the other hand, it has to be admitted that there is a liminal zone
of behaviors that will be understood and labeled differently by different societies.
The author welcomes any proposal that is more refined and more adequate
to the matter. It is, however, not enough to point out the terminological and
conceptual gaps between ancient and modern times, for anyone who engages in
the debate on the relationship of David and Jonathan willy-nilly operates with
a type of comparison at the basis of which one finds a definition of "homo
sexual" relationship that in some way or another is similar to the one proposed
here, but that normally is not made explicit.
6. The Limits of the Investigation
The aim of this study is mainly to try to answer the question whether the
author(s) of the David-Jonathan accounts showed them to be (however briefly
or sporadically) engaged in a "homosexual" relationship according to the
above definition. This means that we are not focusing on questions of possible
"homosexual inclinations" or "homoerotic feelings," questions that indeed
might be too heavily influenced by modern concepts of homosexuality and
dichotomic definitions of homosexual vs. heterosexual identities on one hand,
and which might be too subtle to decide on the basis of a very limited textual
corpus on the other. However, the domain of emotional attraction, as opposed
to manners of sexual stimulation defined above, will certainly be dealt with in
our study, as far as the texts provide a basis for doing so. The question remains
how such emotions can be labeled adequately.
7. Considering Further Biblical Texts Relating to Homosexuality (Lev 18:22 and 20:13)
Finally, we also need to address at least in passing the debate on the relevance
of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 for an assessment of the relationship of David and
Jonathan. The texts read as follows (translation according to ASV):
*nn r a n n new •'MUD 3DB?n vb - o r ran

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
03 orra-r inov mo ornara movrasnnrrara ODBD -orra M « P ΊΙΒΚ «mn
And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomin
shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
It has often been claimed that the prohibitions contained in Lev 18:22 and
20:13 refer only to cultic acts,20 which would of course mean that these pas
sages are not relevant for the present discussion of the relationship of David
See, e.g., Horner, Jonathan LovedDavid, 52, 70, 73, 85.

and Jonathan. The evidence available, however, does not suggest such a posi
tion, as has been rightly demonstrated by Nissinen:
|T|t is unwarranted to restrict the prohibition to a sacred sphere, and it is also unreal
istic to assume that the Holiness Code would assess other kinds of homoeroticism as
more acceptable Even if sexual offenses in the present context are linked with for
eign cult customs, the commands themselves may be older and may have originated
separately from the cultic context.21
Two reasons stand out that speak against a cultic interpretation. There is no
reason to assume that the other prohibitions concerning (heterosexual relations
are valid only in a cultic context. In particular, marriage prohibitions concern the
whole of one's life, not just its cultic dimension. That we are dealing with moral
issues going beyond cultic considerations is suggested also by the drastic sanction
of capital punishment in case of a transgression of the indictments, without
leaving room for any means of cleansing, which one would expect if the laws in
question deal with issues of therituallypure and impure. The consequence of a
restricted cultic interpretation would be that offenses like bestiality, incest, or
adultery would be punishable only if committed or conceived of as cultic acts,
which is clearly impossible. The second point is the fact that the interdictions are
binding for sojourners (131) as well (Lev 18:26; 20:2). Since they were not gener
ally full members of the cultic community of Israel, a merely cultic under
standing of the present interdictions does not commend itself. The Π3 in the
priestly laws is obliged to keep the Yahwistic cultic prescriptions or prohibitions
regularly only in those cases in which a non-observation would render it impos
sible for the Israelite society as a whole to fulfill God's commandment, as in the
case of the prohibition of γϋΠ during the Feast of Unleavened Bread or in the
case of work during Shabbat or Yom Kippur.22 Homosexual acts among
sojourners would clearly not fall into this category. This rules out, then, that the
cultic aspect is the sole or primary one informing the prohibition against (certain
kinds of) homosexual intercourse.
Relatively widespread is another interpretation of the injunctions found in
Lev 18:22 and 20:13, stating that the main rationale for prohibiting homo
sexual intercourse was to prevent the waste of "seed" and to ban behavior that
endangers procreation.23 However, Gagnon correctly observes that the various
acts prohibited in Lev 18 could "be linked under a common rubric only when
that rubric is stretched beyond 'failure to procreate.'... |T]f failure to procreate
were the central concern, it is puzzling that a number of other sexual acts that
21
Nissinen, Homoeroticism, 41. Cf. also Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 129-32; Saul M.
Olyan, "And with a Male You Shall Not l i e the Lying Down of a Woman," Journal of the History of
Sexuality 5 (1994): 198; Römer and Bonjour, L'homosexualité, 42; Donald J. Wold, Out of Order (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1998), 107-14,118-20.
22
For details see the study by the present writer on dealing with foreigners in Israel and Assyria,
Umgang mit Fremden in Israel und Assyrien (BWANT 168; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2005).
23
This argument is found, e.g, in Römer and Bonjour, L'homosexualité, 49, combined with the
assumption that for the authors of the texts the separation of the people of Israel from their neigh-
bors played a paramount role in denning their identity.
do not lead to procreation were left out." 24 And yet, it seems that at least in the
body of the prohibitions in Lev 18:19-23, this aspect plays a certain role.25
There are some more current explanations of the two verses in Lev 18:22
and 20:13 which have to be dealt with in this context. However, readers prefer-
ring not to delve into a rather explicit discussion of details of sexual behavior
may skip the two following paragraphs printed in reduced size.
Olyan has suggested understanding the injunctions of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 as an at-
tempt "to prevent two otherwise defiling agents—excrement and semen—from mingling
in the body of the receptive partner."26 This suggestion is not convincing. Among the
other prohibitions listed in Lev 18, there is only one that would correspond to this crite-
rion, and the criterion is nowhere explicidy stated, nor is there any mention of excre-
ments. One would also have to ask why there is no prohibition of heterosexual anal
intercourse. Further, it would not be clear why the mixing of semen and semen outside the
human body or the mixing of semen and saliva would not be covered by the lawgiver as
well, which would then mean that not only homosexual anal intercourse, but more or less
every homosexual act and also some heterosexual practices were forbidden.
According to several exegetes, the exact wording of the regulations prohibits male
anal intercourse only.27 The probable reason for the prohibition of anal male-male
intercourse is indicated by the assumption that "the penetrated partner lost his manly
honor, gender boundaries were transgressed, and gender roles mixed."28 This was con-
demned as a PQSTin, because it blurred the boundaries of the community with respect to
the pagan foreigners and it belonged to the things "that shook the internal peace of the
community and the coherence of its basic structures, interfered with the vital growth of
population, or caused problems in family relationships."29 Such a view is partly in accor-
dance with the text: the issues of the internal peace and coherence of the basic struc-
tures of the society in question are in fact paramount; they obviously play an important
role in providing a rationale for the combination of the prohibitions listed in Lev 18 and
20.30 Besides this general positive remark, however, at least two important modifications
need to be added: there is no compelling reason why it should be only anal intercourse
that is prohibited, nor why it should be only the loss of manly honor that is at stake. If
24
Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 133-34.
25
See Adrian Schenker, "What Connects the Incest Prohibitions with the Other Prohibitions
Listed in Leviticus 18 and 20?," in The Book of Leviticus (ed. Rolf Rendtorff and Robert A. Kugler;
VTSup 93; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 167-69.
26
"And with a Male," 203. Olyan's suggestion builds upon earlier interpretations of S. F. Bigger
and H. Eilberg-Schwartz.
27
See, e.g., Nissinen, Homoeroticism, 44; Olyan, "And with a Male," 185,204; Schroer and Staubli,
"Saul, David und Jonatan," 16. Gf. also Derrick Sherwin Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian
Tradition (New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1955), 58-59,156.
28
Nissinen, Homoeroticism, 44. On p. 258 of his article "Die Liebe von David und Jonatan,"
Nissinen contends that all the texts in the OT which are normally considered when investigating
issues of homosexuality (Lev 18:22; 20:13; Gen 19; Judg 19) are dealing with "Misshandlungen
und Schändungen männlicher Ehre"; none of these passages, according to Nissinen, had in view
"alle Arten gleichgeschlechtlichen Verhaltens, die dem modernen Leser vorstellbar sind," espe-
cially not those relations that are characterized by the mutual love of equal partners of the same
sex.
29
Nissinen, Homoeroticism, 42.
30
For details see Schenker, "What Connects the Incest Prohibitions," 169-70.
Olyan's assumption is right, one would have to ask again (a) why a corresponding pro
hibition of male-female anal intercourse is missing, (b) whether it is really likely that the
ΠΒ7Κ O3&D which implies vaginal intercourse suddenly comes to be used as a hint to
anal intercourse, and (c) whether other homosexual acts other than anal intercourse
would not be as likely to "interfere with the vital growth of population," to "cause prob
lems in family relationships," or to "mix gender roles." It is also worth noting explicitly
that anal intercourse between two men is not the precise "analog of male-female vaginal
31
intercourse," as Olyan's hypothesis has it, but rather of male-female anal intercourse.
A narrow interpretation of Lev 18:22 as referring only to anal intercourse would further
lead to the impossible assumption that the "giving" of one's seed to another pagan god
except Molech would be permitted, that sexual stimulation by contact with an animal
except by way of intercourse would be acceptable, that a woman might have sexual rela
tions with an animal provided she does not perform it in a standing position, etc.
Thus, a broader interpretation such as the following better corresponds to
the text: " T h e refrain in 18:22 and 20:13, 'as though lying with a woman,' is the
best indication we have of what the primary concern was; namely, behaving
toward another m a n as if he were a woman by making him the object of male
sexual desires." 3 2 This kind of sexual behavior is classified by the term Π3Ϊ71Π
as being against God's will and by the use of the term büD in the immediate
literary context (Lev 18:23 and 20:12) as a confusion of the created order. 33
T h e text does not restrict this evaluation to relationships that lack the "mutual
love of equal partners." 3 4 Wold sums up his view of the language of these pas-
sages thus:
Having come to a proper understanding of the legal vocabulary on homosexuality, we

may conclude that all same-gender sexual relations are categorically forbidden by the
Hebrew terms The term zäkär includes all males and all acts Under this lan-
guage, even consensual sexual relations between adults of the same gender must be
ruled out. We find no ambiguity in the expression miskebê *issâ; it denotes sexual inter-
course in general without reference to specific positions. The inference is clear: only
heterosexual intercourse is normal and normative.35
31
Ackerman, When Heroes Love, 195. ^
32
Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 135-36. For a similar view see Otto, Kontinuum und
Proprium, 326. Cf. also Karl Hoheisel, "Homosexualität," RAC16 (Stuttgart, 1994): 328; Römer and
Bonjour, L'homosexualité, 43.
33
The rationale of order violation is further specified by Wold: "|T|ncest violates the order of
kinship, homosexuality violates the order of gender (Gen. 1:27), and bestiality violates the order of
species" (Out of Order, 131). For a similar view see Otto, Kontinuum und Proprium, 326. He states that the
reason for the prohibition of homosexual practice is a theological one, and explains: "Die Be-
gründung des Verbots hat ihren sachlichen Gehalt in der Schöpfungsordnung.... Gen 1,27 [gibt]
den Horizont fur das Verbot der gleichgeschlechtlichen Liebe... a b . . . . Der gleichgeschlechtliche
Umgang verletzt die von Gott mit der Schöpfung gesetzte Ordnung, die dem Menschen zum Leben
dient" (329).
34
Pace Nissinen, "Die Liebe von David und Jonatan," 258; Schroer and Staubli, "Saul, David
und Jonatan," 17. It is interesting to note that the wide scope of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 covering
"homosexuality" in general is also admitted by authors with an openly gay agenda like Gomstock,
though it is of course heavily critized by him (see Gomstock, Gay Theology, 68).
35
Wold, Out of Order, 119.
ΙΠ. Remarks on the Relationship between David and Jonathan in the Story of
David's Ascent to Power
In this discussion, as previously mentioned, it is still highly controversial

whether the relationship of David and Jonathan is to be classified as a deep
friendship without any homoerotic or homosexual aspects or as a relationship
including such aspects. Note that the latter contention stands in opposition to
an exegetical consensus that was in force for millennia, on both the Jewish and
the Christian sides. This means that the burden of proof is more likely to be on
those who opt for an erotic or sexual interpretation.
Among those vehemently supporting the latter point of view we find Hor
ner's 1978 study as a paramount representative in the English speaking litera
ture and Schroer's and Staubli's 1996 article as a homologue in the German
speaking literature.
The position taken by Schroer and Staubli, to which we shall first turn, is
related—as far as the literary level is concerned—to the following arguments:36
• According to 1 Sam 18:1-3, Jonathan loved David as his own soul (ρΓΟΠίΡΙ] ΌΠΚ *!
1TOX) |ΓΙ3VP). The phrases found here closely parallel those used in Song 1:7 and 3:1-4
to describe the woman's attachment to her beloved.
•Jonathan's love of David is described in 1 Sam 19:1 with the phrase 3 f ö n ("to delight
in, to be fond of"): IKD Τ Π 3 f ö n ^ " p ]ΓΰΤη. In other contexts (Gen 34:19;
Deut 21:14) this phrase is used with respect to the man's desire of the woman, including
sexual connotations.
• In 1 Sam 20:11 Jonathan asks David to go out with him in thefield.The phrase used
here (ΓΠΒΓϊ N2Í31 îlD^) is found almost verbatim in Song 7:12, in a request of the
woman addressed to her beloved.
• In 1 Sam 20:41 it is stated that Jonathan and David kissed each other (ÍPK 'ψΦΛ
vnrrrw).
• In 1 Sam 20:30 Saul scorns his son Jonathan because of his liaison with David which
is said to bring shame both on Jonathan himself and on the "nakedness" of his mother
C]DK nritf).
• First Samuel 20:17,42 hint at acts of swearing an oath; this can be connected with
Song 2:7 and 8:3, two verses that also mention the theme of swearing an oath with
regard to the loving couple.
• Second Samuel 1:26 says that Jonathan's love was more wonderful for David than the
love of women and that Jonathan was very "dear" to him ("ÎKÛ *h Π0573). Again, this
can be compared to phrases found in Song of Songs: Song 1:16 and 7:7 contain the root
DS73, in thefirstcase with respect to the beloved man and in the second with respect to
the beloved woman.
36
Horner mentions similar points, but in a less elaborated way than found in Schroer's and
Staubli's article; for details see Horner, Jonathan LovedDavid, 26-39, especially 27-28 and 31-32. The
same goes for Ackerman; she is, however, generally more cautious in her assertions than Schroer
and Staubli (see When Heroes Love, 166f£). Some of the arguments presented by Schroer and Staubli
are also found in Römer and Bonjour, L'homosexualité, 72-78.
• The designation of Jonathan as "brother" by David in his lament (2 Sam 1:26) is

related to similar terminology found in Egyptian love poems and in Israel to designate
the beloved person.
The observations adduced by Schroer and Staubli are for the most part inter
esting and valuable. However, it is evident that they need to be expanded and
partially modified. Their arguments warrant close scrutiny at each point, and I
wish to add and discuss further exegetical observations not found in their
article.37
1. The Semantic Level30
1. The Semantics of the Noun ΓΏΠΚ {"love"). First Samuel 18:1,3; 20:17; and
2 Sam 1:26 use both nominal and verbal realizations of the root ΠΠΚ to
describe the relationship of David and Jonathan, with the (probable) exception
of 1 Sam 20:17, always with reference to Jonathan's attachment to David; only
in 1 Sam 20:17 does the root 3ΠΚ seem to refer to David's love of Jonathan.39
Regarding the noun ΓΟΠΚ ("love"), the following notes can be made: ΓΠΠΝ
is attestedfifty-threetimes in the HB, eleven times in Song of Songs.40 Outside
Song of Songs, the noun is mainly used to denote the relationship of YHWH
and Israel.41 There are only three instances outside Song of Songs where the
noun is used to denote intimate relationships between human beings.42 None of
the fourteen attestations of the noun that refer to an intimate human relation
ship deals with a homosexual or homoerotic relationship. Even in instances in
37
The observations adduced here only refer to die literary level of the David-Jonathan stories
and not to the question whether and how far the events related in those stories reflect historical
reality.
38
With respect to my 1998 article published in Bib, Nissinen maintains: "Im Zusammenhang
mit den David-Jonatan-Szenen entkräftet Zehnder die erotische Bedeutung der Wortfamilie 3ΠΚ
und anderer Liebesausdrücke insofern, als nicht nur die sexuelle Komponente verschwindet,
sondern auch die persönliche, emotionale Nähe zwischen David und Jonatan, wenn nicht ganz und
gar bestritten, so doch erheblich ausgedünnt wird und die liebe eher als Ausdruck einer
theologisch-politischen Korrektheit erscheint" ("Die liebe von David und Jonatan," 253).
Whereas thefirstpart regarding the lack of a sexual connotation is correct, it is evident that there is
no denial of the personal and emotional aspect of the relationship of David and Jonathan in my
1998 article; on the contrary, see, e.g., pp. 166,168,177-78 ("enge, nicht-erotische Freundschafts-
beziehungen"; "inniges Freundschaftsverhältnis"; "[cQass daneben die Beziehung auch einen
starken emotionalen Aspekt aufweist, ist nicht von der Hand zu weisen"). The term "Korrektheit"
is Nissinen's, not mine.
39
However, the verse needs more detailed clarification before this question can be answered in
a definitive way. In the Greek version, it is clear that the text speaks of Jonathan's love for David as
in the other cases.
40
This count includes the nineteen attestations of the infinitive constructs of 3ΠΚ with para-
gogic heh, following the pattern of Iisowsky's concordance.
41
Twenty-two attestations belong to this group; uses of Π3ΠΝ denoting YHWH's attitude
towards his people and uses of ΓΏΠΚ denoting the people's attitude towards YHWH are equally
frequent.
42
Gen 29:20; 2 Sam 13:15; Prov 5:19.
which ΓΟΠΚ refers to a relationship between human beings, no intimate or

sexual connotations are necessarily present (see, for example, 2 Sam 19:7; 1 Kgs
11:2; and Ps 109:4,5).
Thus, it is clear that the mere use of the noun ΓΟΠΚ does not by itself
include a sexual (or even a homosexual) component. On the contrary, the fre
quency with which the term Π3ΠΚ is used with respect to the relationship of
YHWH and his people leads to the question whether the use of this noun for
the description of Jonathan's relationship with David defines Jonathan's PQilK
as a reflection of the love relationship between YHWH and Israel or as a con
sequence43 or instrument of YHWH's (and the people's) love for David, which
would mean that Jonathan's love not only has a human dimension, but also a
theological one. If this dimension is affirmed, the assumption that the noun
ΓΠΠΚ includes a homosexual or homoerotic connotation is even less probable,
since outside the disputed case(s) of Jonathan and David (and Naomi and Ruth)
there is no explicit theological affirmation of "homosexuality" or "homoeroti
cism" in the HB and since the reference to the ΓΠΠΚ between YHWH and his
people relates to a covenant whose stipulations seem to rule out some—if not
all—homosexual acts.44
Jonathan's ΓΠΠΚ for David isfirstmentioned in 1 Sam 18:1. It is important
to note that the closest phraseological parallel is found in Gen 44:30, with
respect to Jacob's love for Benjamin, which uses the same combination of
ΓΠΠΚ, ma, and the verb ΊΟρ (qal).
Second Samuel 1:26 again speaks of Jonathan's ΓΠΠΚ. It is said that this
ΓΟΠΚ was more "wonderful" for David than the D^tW ΓΏΓΤΚ.45 In order to
understand this phrase correctly, it is important to note that we are dealing here
with poetic language. The comparison between the two kinds of Π3ΡΤΚ, there
fore, does not have to be understood in the literal or even erotic sense; rather,
one has to reckon with poetic hyperbole or ornamentation.46 One unequivocal
example of such hyperbole is found in v. 23: "Saul and Jonathan, the loved and
gracious in their lives, and in their deaths they were not parted" (my transla
tion). Also not to be ruled out in principle is the possibility that D^Ett Π3ΠΚ may
refer not only to the love between woman and man but also between a woman
and her children, which would mean that the expression does not necessarily
43
Gf. Hans Joachim Stoebe's remark on 1 Sam 18:1-4. He says that the root 3ΠΚ denotes more
than a mere friendship, namely "die durch den Segen Jahwes gewirkte persönliche Anziehungs-
kraft Davids" (Das erste Buch Samuelis [ΚΑΤ 8/1; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1973]).
44
The connection between ΓΏΠΚ and covenant or covenant stipulations can be seen especially
in Deuteronomy.
45
Among those scholars—besides Schroer and Staubli—who think that the expression has to
be understood in an erotic way, I mention Ackerman ( When Heroes Love, 192-93).
46
Gf. A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel(y¡BC 11; Dallas: Word, 1989); and Hans Joachim Stoebe, Dos
zweite Buch Samuelis (ΚΑΤ 8/2; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag, 1994). The notion that the verse
could be understood as a "Lobpreis" for same-sex love is explicitly rejected by Stoebe. In the same
vein, Fritz Stolz notes that the text must not be understood "im Sinne von Homosexualität"; what is
in view, according to him, is "die Zuneigung von Freunden, die das erste Mannesalter miteinander
erlebt haben" (Das erste und zweite Buch Samuel [ZBK 9; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1981).
contain an erotic component.47 Alternatively, and perhaps more convincingly,

one might argue that David is making a clear distinction between the relation
ship between women and men on one hand and his relationship with Jonathan
on the other hand, stressing the deep emotional element of this relationship,
but at the same time associating it with a level that is clearly different from his
erotic relationships with women. In this sense, the non-sexual character of the
relationship between Jonathan and David, the absence of erotic desire, com
bined at the same time with a deep emotional affection, would just be an—or
even the—outstanding feature of this relationship.
In a recent investigation of the syntactic structure of 2 Sam 1:26b, Olyan has
tried to prove that the comparison of Jonathan's love with the "love of women"
must be understood as a hint of the sexual character of Jonathan's love.48 He
observes that love comparisons in treaty contexts always have the element of
fidelity as the shared element of comparison.49 He further notes that in such
phrases of the type "the love of χ is like the love of y," "the love of χ is greater
than the love of y," or "the love of χ for y is greater than the love of χ for z" the
two types of love are similar.50 Since, according to Olyan, (a) the U^VIÏ ΓΟΠΝ
does not point to the element of covenantfidelity,and (b) the principle of the
fundamental similarity of the two kinds of love is still valid, Jonathan's love can
not be defined in the present context as a covenantal love, but as a sexual-
emotional love which corresponds to the love of a woman for a man.51 There
are, however, several problems with this line of argument: as already men
tioned, it is not fully clear that the D^ttJÍ ΓΠΠΚ has to be understood sexually.
Furthermore, even a love relationship between a man and a woman, in many
cases at least, also has an emotional dimension in addition to the sexual one.52 It
47
In n. 26 of his article "Surpassing the Love of Women," Olyan adduces valuable arguments
against such an interpretation. I agree with his deliberations to some degree. It would be much easier
to understand the phrase as a hint of the love of a mother for her children if instead of BfflM the plural
of the noun DK had been used. But it is also true that D"»E?3 can have the meaning "mothers," as can
be seen, e.g.,fromExod 1:19; in many cases, moreover, motherhood is implied in the use of the term
DTOa, as, e.g., in Gen 37:2; 45:19; 46:5, 26. The use of a plural noun does not in itself rule out that
David is talking about motherly love. He may be uttering a general statement about the love of
mothers for their children which does not confine itself to David's personal experience, or he may
be referring to other mother-like persons in the extended family besides his own mother who would
have been positive female companions during David's childhood. Also if ΟΉΜ does not point to
mothers, the plural D"*B73 does not compellingly point to a plurality of women with whom David had
sexual relations; it may again be interpreted as a general statement concerning the love of women
to men. From all the different possibilities of interpretation, a reference to David's wives seems to be
the most likely reading.
48
For details see Olyan, "Surpassing the Love of Women."
49
See ibid., 10-11.
50
See ibid.
51
See ibid., 12-13.
52
This is also true for many biblical depictions of male-female love relationships; see, e.g., Cren
24:67; 1 Sam 1:5, 8; Prov 31. The exclusive focus on the sexual aspect found in Olyan's article is
unwarranted. It is not surprising that, if emotional attachment and sexual relations are not distin
guished in principle, the relationship of David and Jonathan must be interpreted in a sexual way,
for the element of a deep emotional attachment is obvious. But it is an undeniable anthropological
may well be that it is exactly this aspect that is in view here and that functions as
the actual point of comparison between the two kinds of love. There is no reason
why there should be a transfer of ail the elements found in the love of a woman
for a man to the relationship of David and Jonathan, which leaves room for the
possibility that it is only an emotional attachment, an aspect also found in a deep
friendship, and not necessarily including the sexual element of such a relation-
ship, that is in view. One might also argue that it is not evident why the principle
of the strict similarity between the two sides of a love comparison in a covenantal
context should apply when one states—as Olyan does—that what is in view in
2 Sam 1:26b is not a covenantal relation. It has to be added here that even the
use of the term "brother" in 2 Sam 1:26a, though it may have a covenantal
overtone, does not unambiguously point to the covenantal sphere. The examples
adduced from the HB by Olyan, Jer 2:2 and Hos 3:1, further show that the
principle of the strict similarity between the two sides of a love comparison is
more complicated than mightfirstappear. Interestingly, in both examples the
sexual element of love is only present on one side of the comparison, not on both,
for neither Israel's love of YHWH (Jer 2:2) nor YHWH's love for the adulterous
Israel (Hos 3:1) contains a sexual element. This gives even more weight to the
argument developed above, according to which there is no need to see a sexual
element present in Jonathan's love for David spoken of in 2 Sam 1:26. After all,
there must be a difference in the two kinds of love spoken of in the colon, since
one is called more "wonderful" than the other, and why should that difference
not include the presence of sexual acts in one case and the absence of such acts
in the other, rather than merely replacing a female sexual organ with a male one?
There is an additional point to be mentioned: although there are no exact
parallels to the construction found in 2 Sam 1:26b in the HB, there are a num-
ber of passages that show a similar syntactical structure. It is primarily the com-
parative sentences that have to be mentioned here; among them there are many
instances where the two sides of the comparison disclose considerable differ-
ences. Second Chronicles 2:4, for instance, compares the almighty God of
Israel with the fully powerless pagan gods;53 Prov 3:14 compares the acquisition
of wisdom with the acquisition of money/silver; Prov 31:10 compares the high
value of a housewife with the value of a coral; Ps 19:10-11 compares the ordi-
nances of the Lord with gold and honey. Many more similar examples could be
listed where the two compared items are rather different.54 In at least two cases,
there is even a rather close linguistic connection with 2 Sam 1:26b in that it is
also indicated by the use of the preposition lamed to whom the respective com-
parison applies: 1 Sam 15:22b and Isa 56:5. In both cases, the two compared
items are of a very different type: in 1 Sam 15:22 it is obedience vs. sacrifices; in
and psychological fact that the two aspects, emotional attachment and sexual expression of love,
like the categories "friendship" and "intimate love," can and must be distinguished.
53
Cf. also 2 Chr 32:7.
54
See, e.g., Isa 13:12; Pss 55:22; 63:4; 76:5; 119:72,103; Job 11:7-9; 36:21; Prov 5:3; 8:11,19;
16:16; 18:19; 21:3; 22:1; 31:10; Song 1:2; 4:10; Eccl 7:1; 9:16, 18; Lam 4:7.
Isa 56:5 "memorial" and "name" in the house of God vs. offspring. Genesis
29:30a also has to be mentioned here, a verse that is discussed briefly in Olyan's
article as well. It is stated in the verse that "he [Jacob] also came to Rachel, and
he loved Rachel more than Leah." This sentence provides a rather close paral
lel to 2 Sam 1:26 by comparing the love of χ with the love of y, or more pre
cisely, the love of χ for y with the love of χ for z. Interestingly, however, although
the remark follows the statement that Jacob had intercourse with Rachel, the
context makes clear that it relates primarily to the emotional level, since it is
precisely the emotional attachment of Jacob to Rachel that surpasses his
attachment to Leah, and not so much the fulfillment of his sexual duties as is
shown by the multitude of children borne by Leah.55 This observation supports
the argument adduced above according to which the emotional and the sexual
level can—and indeed must—be distinguished.
If David's words are to be interpreted not only as a hint of the special value
of Jonathan's relation to him, but as a hint of the unreached value of this rela
tion, not matched by any relationships with women, this can very well—and in
fact best—be explained in the context of the sociological factors prevailing in
the ancient Near East: marriages were not entered into because of a preceding
emotional attachment which we would call "love" in our times, but were based
on other, far more practical and mundane reasons. It was therefore clear that
marriage was not the primary and certainly not the only realm for the develop
ment and cultivation of relationships characterized by friendship and emo
tional attachment. These psychological realities, however, by no means have to
be connected quasi-automatically with sexual acts, however deep the affection
may be. What David expresses, then, is that on the emotional level his relation
ship to Jonathan was much more important to him than his relationships with
women, though—in accordance with the prevalent standards of behavior in his
culture—it would only be the latter that included a sexual aspect. One must
also not forget that at the point in the biblical story in which the statement in
question is put into David's mouth, David had reportedly had intimate relation
ships with only three women, namely Michal, Abigail, and Ahinoam. This
means that David's (or the author's) comment in 2 Sam 1:26b may be less
sweeping than is commonly assumed: it is only with respect to the women thus
far encountered that DavidfindsJonathan's love to be more wonderful than the
love of women, and there is room that subsequent experiences might modify
David's claim uttered at the specific moment of Jonathan's and Saul's deaths.
In view of the relatively far-reaching parallelisms of Jonathan and Michal in
their relation with David, it would not be impossible to assume that of the three
women just mentioned it is Michal in particular whom the author of the verse
has in mind.56 Her love for David is explicitly mentioned in 1 Sam 18:20, but
after her brave action in 1 Sam 19 by which she rescues David from her father's
55
This is not to deny that Gen 30:15, 20 may subtlety hint at a possible preference of Jacob
given to Rachel also with respect to the sexual domain.
56
I am grateful to H. Rutledge for pointing me to this interpretation.
persecution, she takes on a more ambiguous role. No resistance is noted with

respect to her being given to Palli in 1 Sam 25:44, and in 2 Sam 6:16-23 she is
clearly depicted in a negative way. Her loyalty and her love for David, then,
appear to be less profound than Jonathan's, and it could be that the comparison
of 2 Sam 1:26b hints—at least inter alia—at this experience.
A final remark is in place here. For a male person with a predominantly or
exclusively homosexual orientation, the concept of "sexual love experienced in
a relationship with a woman" is void, something that lies outside the realm of
personal experience. Clearly then, according to 2 Sam 1:26, David cannot be
defined as a homosexual person in the sense of being sexually oriented predomi
nantly or exclusively towards persons of his own sex.
2. The Semantics of the Verb 3ΠΚ {"to love"). Rather complex conclusions
come out of an examination of the uses of the verb 3ΠΚ which goes beyond the
limits of 1 Sam 18:1 and 20:17. The verb 3ΠΚ is attested 141timesin the HB. 57
Eighty-one of the attestations deal with the relationship between man and God
or between human beings, the latter coveringfifty-fourof the eighty-one attes
tations. In thirty of thefifty-fourinstances a sexual component is included or at
least possible.58 In all of these cases59 it refers to relationships between a man
and woman, never to relationships between persons of the same sex. These
observations lead to the conclusion that from a purely statistical point of view
the verb 3ΠΚ as used in 1 Sam 18:1 and 20:17 may or may not include a sexual
component. In light of the fact that in all cases which actually do or at least may
contain a sexual component it is always male-female relationships that are
referred to, the probability that the verb 3Π Κ in 1 Sam 18:1 and 20:17 has to be
understood in a sexual way is very low.60
A further consideration: in the literary context of the attestations in 1 Sam
18:1 and 20:17 the verb 3ΠΚ is used in a setting that precludes any erotic impli
cations. In 1 Sam 18:16 it is "all Israel and Judah" which are said to "love"
David. Such an expression surely cannot be interpreted in a way that includes
the erotic dimension; rather, it suggests the inclusion of the political level. It is
very probable that such a political dimension—in addition to the emotional
one—is also present in the use of the verb 3ΓΤΚ in respect to the relationship of
David and Jonathan, specifically to Jonathan's support of David's throne aspi
rations. This is explicitly mentioned and underlined at various points of the
57
In this count neither infinitive constructs of 3ΠΚ with paragogic heh nor substantival parti
ciples are included.
58
Verses like Isa 57:8 and Ezek 16:37 in which the reverence given to foreign gods is referred to
by the metaphor of sexual relations could also be counted with this group.
59
The following verses are in view here: Gen 24:67; 29:18,30,32; 34:3; Deut21:15 (twice), 16;
Judg 14:16; 16:4,15; 1 Sam 1:5; 18:20,28 (MT); 2 Sam 13:1,4,15; 1 Kgs 11:1; Hos 3:1 (twice); Eccl
9:9; Esth 2:17; 2 Chr 11:21; moreover, there are seven additional attestations in Song of Songs.
60
A reference to Ruth 4:15 cannot change the verdict, since the assumption of a homoerotic
relationship between Ruth and Naomi which is occasionally proposed rests on rather dubious
grounds; there are no exegetical observations in favor of such an assumption which would be less
equivocal than in the case of David and Jonathan.
61
narrative: 1 Sam 18:4 (transmission of the royal insignia); 20:13 (parallelism
of YHWH's being with Saul and with David); 23:17 ("you shall be king over
62
Israel, and I will be second to you"). These observations tend to dismiss any
sexual component in the interpretation of 3ΠΚ and to fit with the element of
the political support of David by Jonathan. Such an understanding is supported
by the sentence structure of 1 Sam 18:1; for 3ΠΚ is structurally parallel with
"Wp, a verb which, in those cases in which it is used to describe human rela
63
tionships, normally has a political sense. The use of thè nominal participle
3ΠΚ Çohab, "friend") in the literary context of the David-Jonathan stories
points the same way. 3ΠΚ is found in 2 Sam 19:7 and 1 Kgs 5:15. In 2 Sam 19:7
David is confronted with the reproach uttered by Joab that the king hates those
who "love" him ("fSHK). The context makes it clear that the "love" that is
referred to here by 3ΠΚ has to be understood in the political sense, as an atti
tude of loyalty by royal subjects with respect to their king. In 1 Kgs 5:15 3ΠΚ
refers to Hiram's relationship with David. Here again the political dimension of
3ΠΚ is evident, with special reference to the covenant loyalty between the
regents of two neighboring kingdoms.64
We now have to deal with Schroer's and Staubli's claim that the phrase
WBID ]DW p r a n d i ] irirriPl which is found in 1 Sam 18:1, 3 is parallel to
formulations found in Song 1:7 and 3:1-4. A closer look at the passages in ques
tion leads to the observation that the parallelism is restricted to the syntagmatic
combination of 3ΠΚ and KfêM, whereas the syntactical relation of the two
words strongly differs in First Samuel and Song of Songs. In 1 Sam 18:1 (and
similarly 18:3) B7£)3 is connected with 3ΓΊΚ by the preposition kaph; 67&3 func
tions grammatically as an element of a syntactically facultative adverbial clause
in the form of a comparative determination. In Song 1:7 and 3:1-4, however,
B7S)3 functions as the subject of 3ΠΚ. Another difference is to be found in the
suffixation: in 1 Sam 18:1 ÜB3 is combined with a third person singular suffix,
whereas in Song 1:7 and 3:1 -4 UEtt is combined with afirstperson singular suf-
fix. Thus the only parallel between the two texts resides in the syntagmatic
closeness of the verb 3ΠΚ and the noun t&DD; such a relation is, however, also
found in Ps 11:5 and Prov 19:8. Therefore, it is not compelling to consider
1 Sam 18:1,3 as being dependent on the similar phrases in Song 1:7 and 3:1 -4.
It is also important to note that the relevant phrase in 1 Sam 18:1,3 is also paral
lel to another passage outside Song of Songs, namely Lev 19:18: in both cases
3ΓΓΚ is combined with the preposition kaph, which introduces the entity of
comparison (to love χ like [D] y); also, in both cases the indication of the entity
of comparison refers to the subject of the act of loving, the sole difference being
61
Cf. the comments in section 6, pp. 162-63 below.
62
Cf. Stoebe's objection in section 7, pp. 163-66 below.
63
For more detailed comments see below.
64
On the use of the root 3ΠΚ in 1 Kgs 15:5, see J. A. Thompson, "The Significance of the Verb
Love in the David-Jonathan Narratives in 1 Samuel," FT24 (1974): 334, 338. He notes—based on
observations adduced by W. L. Moran—that the political connotation of the root 3ΠΚ is broadly
attested in ancient Near Eastern texts, especially in Akkadian (334, 338).
that the subject is indicated in one case with UStò, in the other with the personal
suffix only. This shows that conceptually Lev 19:18 and 1 Sam 18:1, 3 are
closely connected, to such a degree that 1 Sam 18:1, 3 most probably must be
understood as deliberately referring to Lev 19:18; the slightly varying formula-
tions can be classified as stylistic variations. This connection further discourages
an interpretation of 3ΠΚ in 1 Sam 18 including an erotic component. It rather
depicts Jonathan as an ideal person who fulfills one of the central ordinances of
the Yahwistic law in an exemplary manner.
It has been observed that both the noun PQHK and the verb 3ΠΚ are used
almost exclusively with the person standing on a higher level of the social hier
archy in the role of the subject (male partner, parent, YHWH) and the inferior
person in the role of the object (female partner, child, Israel).65 It is therefore
not surprising to find—with the possible but textually ambiguous exception of
1 Sam 20:17—always Jonathan, the king's son, acting as subject of ΓΠΠΚ or
3ΠΚ, and David as object. This does not point to a one-way relationship, as is
often assumed;66 it is simply in keeping with the fact that Jonathan as the king's
son is socially higher ranking than David.
Special weight must be given to the fact that in ancient Near Eastern treaties
the term "love" is used frequently with clear reference to the political realm. For
example, one may point to Asarhaddon's succession treaty in which the vassals
are commanded to "love" Assurbanipal, the son of Asarhaddon who was des
ignated as heir to the throne, as themselves.67 The close parallel in the phrasing
of this command also suggests a political understanding of 1 Sam 18:1, S.68
3. The Semantics of the Root ]>ΟΠ ("desire"). Regarding the root f ö n attested
in 1 Sam 19:1 the following notes can be made: the verb )>£>Π, "to desire, to be
fond of," is found seventy-three times in the HB, the adjective ]>ΟΠ (hopes),
"desiring, being fond of," thirteen times, and the noun f ö n (hepes), "desire,
delight; affair," thirty-eight times; this adds up to a total of 124 attestations of
the root ]>ΟΠ. No usage of the adjective γ*ΟΠ and the noun f ö n shows a conno-
tation belonging to the erotic realm. Out of the seventy-three attestations of the
verb ]*ΟΠ, there are six containing an erotic component; three of them are
65
See Susan Ackerman, "The Personal is Political: Covenantal and Affectionate Love Çàneb,
*ahabâ} in the Hebrew Bible," FT 52 (2002): 435-58. An exception seems to be the love of Michal
(subject) for David (object) in 1 Sam 18:20, 28 (MT). But this case can well be explained by the
assumption that the political hierarchy is given priority over the gender hierarchy: though normally
it is the man who is said to "love" the woman and not the other way round, in this case it is the
woman who can be described as "loving" because Michal as the king's daughter is socially superior
to the shepherd David.
66
Pace, e.g., Gunn, The Fate of King Saul, 93; Jobling, 1 Samuel, 163.
67
"You shall love Assurbanipal, the great crown prince designate, son of Esarhaddon, king of
Assyria, your lord, like yourselves" (Simo Parpóla and Kazuko Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and
Loyalty Oaths [SAA 2; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1988], 39 6:266-68). The verb "love"
(jraïâmu) isfrequentlyused in the context of Assyrian vassal treaties; see Parpóla and Watanabe, Neo-
Assyrian Treaties, 37 6:207 (Asarhaddon); 66 9:32* (Assurbanipal).
68
Concerning the nature of Jonathan's relationship with David described with 3ΠΚ, J. Cheryl
Exum correctly notes: "This £love' is not eros but male bonding" (Tragedy and Biblical Nanative [Cam
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992], 73).
69
found in Song of Songs. From a merely statistical point of view, then, there is
relatively little probability to associate an erotic connotation with γ*ΟΠ in 1 Sam
19:1, though it is not excluded. However, all six "erotic" attestations refer to
man-woman relationships. Valuable information about the possible connota
tions of p s n in 1 Sam 19:1 is also provided by an investigation of its usage in
the immediate literary context: in 1 Sam 18:22, the verb f ö n is used in respect
to the relation of Saul to David, which is not very likely to be interpreted as a
homosexual or homoerotic relationship, though such a possibility may not be
ruled out in principle. Those adhering to such an interpretation, however,
would have to explain why it is possible to describe Saul's relation to David with
a homosexually or homoerotically connoted verb in a public context (namely, in
front of the servants).70 It is more probable, on the other hand, that the use of
γΏΠ in 1 Sam 18:22 functions as a negative background against which 1 Sam
19:1 is to be understood: whereas Saul lacks a true fondness for David, his son
Jonathan feels quite the opposite and shows the attitude that David deserves, as
the beloved one of YHWH. It is also noteworthy that in 2 Sam 20:11 ^ΒΠ is
used to express political and military loyalty towards Joab and, by the same
token, towards David. It does not seem improbable that such a political com
ponent is also present in Jonathan's "delight" in David. This would well match
the general picture of their relationship, for the episode transmitted in 1 Sam
20:13-17 cannot be understood in any other way than pointing to Jonathan's
resignation concerning his own right of succession to the throne and to his sup
port of David's claim to the throne. There is one final observation concerning
the verb fSÜ that has to be mentioned here:71 in the David and Solomon
accounts there are several passages that speak of YHWH's "delight" (^ΒΠ) in
David and Solomon.72 Against this background it has to be pondered how
Jonathan's delight in David is connected with YHWH's delight in David, h
Jonathan's delight to be understood as a consequence of YHWH's delight on
the human level? Perhaps the connection hinted at here can be described even
more specifically: YHWH's delight in David becomes effective in David's politi
cal success; Jonathan's delight in David is the means by which YHWH's delight
operates. This would mean that Jonathan's delight in David corresponds to the
will of YHWH; YHWH would even be its ultimate source. Alternatively,
Jonathan's delight could be understood as a correspondence to the divine
delight: David's way is smoothed by the double support given him both by God
69
The following attestations belong to this category: Gen 34:19; Deut 21:14; Song 2:7; 3:5; 8:4;
Esth 2:14. One might also include the attestations that are connected with the levirate (Deut 25:7,8;
Ruth 3:13).
70
What is presupposed here is that even if one has to reckon with a clandestine homosexual
relationship, people engaging in such a relationship could not publicly acknowledge it—a situation
which prevailed in ancient Israel no less than in later Judaism. Such a presupposition seems to be
justified given the fact that there is no ancient Israelite witness—apart from the disputed case of
David and Jonathan—which would testify to the contrary.
71
The fact that the passages just mentioned (with the exception of those referring to Solomon)
are found in literary layers close to the attestation in 1 Sam 19:1 must be given due weight.
72
David: 2 Sam 15:26; 22:20 (= Ps 18:20); Solomon: 1 Kgs 10:9; 2 Ghr 9:8.
and by men; thereby, the hint at David's status as "beloved" that is included in
73
his name is confirmed in a concrete manner. However one defines the con
nection between YHWH's delight and Jonathan's delight, it is clear that this
connection renders an interpretation of |*ΟΠ in 1 Sam 19:1 as having a homo
sexual or homoerotic component highly improbable, for there is no positive
indication in the HB that YHWH himself explicitly approves of homosexual or
homoerotic relationships.
4. The Semantics of the Phrase "to go out into thefield." Regarding the phrase in 1
Sam 20:11 a (ΡΠΒ7ΡΤ K231PD1?), it is true that the closest parallel is actually found
in Song 7:12. One has to ask, however, how much weight can be given to the
juxtaposition of three extremely common and frequent words describing an
everyday action. Even if the HB uses the phrase ΓΠΒ7Π K2&3T PD^ (or, without
wow and with the insertion of ΉΤΪ between \Tlh and Κ2Ή as in Song 7:12)
infrequently, one has to assume that the action described by this phrase occurred
innumerabletimesand that in everyday language a phrase that was identical or
similar to the one used in the two passages must have been frequent. It is note
worthy that there are no less than twenty instances in the HB where ITTO is
combined with Κ2Γ or "]^PT syntagmatically as in 1 Sam 20:11 and Song 7:12.74
Also to be taken into consideration is that the motif of the "field" appears
already in 1 Sam 19:3, indicating that the use of TVW in 1 Sam 20 can be inter
preted as a resumption of this motif. One can further inquire whether the motif
of the "field" was simply conditioned by the contents, for the "field" denotes a
place of secrecy which would be the only possible meeting place deemed appro
priate for the persons involved in the given situation. The context makes clear
that David and Jonathan were not seeking so secret a place in order to enjoy a
love relation, but rather because a public meeting would not be possible at that
time for political and security reasons:
To be sure that no one could overhear them, Jonathan took David out to the field.
That they were speaking in itself was not dangerous, because everyone knew they
were dear friends, but now that they were outlining their plan, they had to be very
careful not to jeopardize David's safety by being overheard.75
T h e s e observations d o n o t rule out completely the possibility that the analogy

in the formulations o f 1 S a m 20:11 a n d S o n g 7:12 could point to a textual
73
Concerning the possible connection between the name "David" and the designation
"beloved," see Johann Jakob Stamm, Beiträge zur hebräischen und altorientalischen Namenskunde (OBO
30; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980), 25-43.
74
Combination with η^Π: Gen 24:65; 27:5; 30:14; Num 22:23; 1 Kgs 2:26; Ruth 2:2, 8. It is
probable that also in Gen 4:8 the obviously broken text of MT has to be completed by the phrase
ΓΠΟΠ Γ0^35 in accordance with the majority of the old witnesses; this brings a close analogy of the
formulation with 1 Sam 20:11.
Combination with Κ 28*»: Gen 24:63; 27:3; Deut 14:22; 28:38; Jiidg 9:27,42; 1 Sam 20:35; 2 Sam
11:23; 18:6; 2 Kgs 4:39; Jer 6:25; 14:18; Mie 4:10.
1 Kgs 11:29 is related to 1 Sam 20:11 and Song 7:12 by the motif of two persons being in a field
alone, without use of the verbs K2P or "[^Π.
75
Nosson Scherman, The Prophets: The Early Prophets, Vol 2,1-II Samuel (ArtScroll Series; New
York: Mesorah, 2002), 131.
dependency. The question, however, as to what conclusions can be drawn from

such a dependency requires a separate treatment (which follows below). It is in
any case not compelling to conclude that the phraseological similarity auto-
matically tells the reader to understand the relationship between David and
Jonathan as being erotic, as is the relationship between the woman and her
beloved in Song of Songs.
5. The Semantics of Ote Verb ptf 3 ("to kiss9"). The verb pB73 "to kiss," which is
used in 1 Sam 20:41, is attested in Song of Songs as well, but only twice;76 con-
sidering that there are a total of thirty attestations of the verb in the qal and pi'el
conjugations,77 it is clear that the use of the verb in the context of the David-
Jonathan stories does not hint at a special closeness to Song of Songs. Out of the
thirty qal and pi'el attestations of the verb, only three refer to relationships that
unambiguously show an erotic component.78 All three cases deal with male-
female relationships. The majority of the attestations of pBH involve relations
between close relatives where any sexual connotation is excluded.79 It can be
maintained, then, that the largest group of attestations of the verb ptEH refer to
cases in which male relatives kiss each other; the kinship in these cases may also
be one based on intermarriage between the families involved. In addition, there
are cases in which pB73 refers to kisses among men who are not kindred, but
where the context makes it fully clear that erotic connotations may be ruled out.80
The occasion in which the kissing occurs in such cases has to do either with part-
ing, often combined with blessing, or with meeting, often after a long period of
separation.81
Against this background it is the most probable assumption that the use of
prca in the context of the relationship of David and Jonathan does not have
erotic connotations, all the more so since their relation is also one of kinship,
based on David's marriage with Jonathan's sister, Michal.82 The kisses ex-
changed by David and Jonathan can be explained as just another instance of the
partingritual,though the underlining of the mutuality of the action may stress
the intensity of the emotional bonding and also the social equality that the two
men attribute to each other by the end of theirfinalmeeting.
76
Song 1:2 and 8:1.
77
The attestation in Gen 41:40 must remain out of consideration, since it is highly dubious
whether the phrase speaks of a "kissing" of any kind.
78
Apart from the two attestations in Song of Songs, the attestation in Prov 7:13 belongs to this
group.
79
The following fifteen attestations should be mentioned here: Gen 27:26, 27 (Isaac-Jacob);
29:13 (Laban-Jacob); 31:28 and 32:1 (Laban-grandchildren and daughters); 33:4 (Esau-Jacob);
45:15 (Joseph-brothers); 48:10 (Jacobsons of Joseph); 50:1 (Joseph-Jacob); Exod 4:27 (Aaron-
Moses); 18:7 (Moses-Jethro); 2 Sam 14:33 (David-Absalom); 1 Kgs 19:20 (Elisha-parents); Ruth
1:9 (Naomir-daughters-in-law); 1:14 (Naomi-Orpah).
80
1 Sam 10:1 (Samuel-Saul); 2 Sam 15:5 (Absalom-"citizen"); 19:40 (David-Barzillai); 20:9
(Joab-Amasa).
81
The exception is 2 Sam 14:33, where David kisses Absalom as a sign of his pardon which in
turn is rooted in his deep love for his son. 2 Sam 15:5 also appears to be a special case, since here the
kisses given by Absalom are to people in no close relationship with him.
82
The use of the verb pBft in the context of the Davidjonathan story (1 Sam 20:41) follows
after the note on the marriage of David and Michal (1 Sam 18:27).
It is further striking that the attestation of the verb pB73 in 1 Sam 10:1, which
is literarily most closely related to 1 Sam 20:41, has a political connotation:
Samuel kisses Saul at the very moment when he anoints him to be T33 over
Israel in YHWH's commission. This raises the question whether one has to
reckon with such a political and theological component with regard to the attes
tation in 1 Sam 20:41 as well, given that the background of the passage also has
to do with the investiture of the future king. It also deserves to be mentioned
that there is no single attestation in which p(D3 is unequivocally used as an ele
ment of the description of a homoerotic or homosexual relationship.
6. TTuSemanticsof the Phrase "sham of the nafadness of your mo Afurther argu
83
ment relates to Saul's angry remark in 1 Sam 20:30 that Jonathan's behavior
brings upon him and upon the ΓΠΊΧ7 of his mother ΠΒΠ, "shame." The genital
or sexual connotation of the noun ΤΥΠΟ is evident. It is noteworthy, however, that
out of the thirty attestations of the noun DttD, there is only one (Hos 9:10) that
has any connection to the realm of sexuality, and then only in a very indirect way
by referring to Israel's idolatry which is metaphorically conceived of as har
lotry.84 According to the traditional Jewish interpretation of this phrase, the
shame lies in the fact that to the outside observer Jonathan simply seems to be
plotting with his father's enemies, and that after Saul's death his surviving son
Jonathan and Jonathan's mother will be alive as subjects of the new king, David.
This would be shameful since it was Jonathan who was destined to be king in his
father's stead.85 As far as the mention of the ΓΤΠ57 of Jonathan's mother is con
cerned, this may best be explained as a case of metonymy: Jonathan's behavior,
according to his father, brings shame not only on himself, but also on his mother,
who gave birth to such an offspring; it is the act of giving birth which is hinted
at by the use of the noun ΪΤΠ57, and this act at the same time is denounced as very
negative because of its negative result—the shameful son Jonathan—and there
fore a pejorative term is used to describe it. Were there to be a hint of shameful
homosexual behavior of Jonathan in Saul's words, the term ίΤΠ!7 would have to
be used with respect to Jonathan himself, not to his mother. Another way of
explaining the expression "]DK Γ\ΤΜ TWìhì is given by Radak:86 people seeing
Jonathan's support of his father's enemy will assume that he was born of an adul-
terous relationship and is not really Saul's son. Again, ΓΤΠ17 would not hint at a
sexual misconduct of Jonathan, but, following this line of explanation, at a
sexual misconduct of Jonathan's mother.
83
See Schroer and Staubli, "Saul, David und Jonatan," 19. The argument is also found in Ack
erman, When Heroes Love, 187-88; Jobling, 1 Samuel, 161; Naumann, "David und die Liebe," 61;
Nissinen, Homoeroticism, 55; Römer and Bonjour, L'homosexualité, 76.
84
Correspondingly, Horner's remark does not hold up at all: "Both 'shame' and 'nakedness'...
are associated in the mainstream of Israelite patriarchal society with sex" (Jonathan Loved David, 32).
Unfortunately, such ill-founded claims, which are not corroborated by any evidence, are found
often in Horner's study.
85
See, eg:, A. J. Rosenberg, Samuel 7(2d ed.; Judaica Books of the Prophets; New York: Judaica
Press, 1996), 175.
86
See Scherman, The Early Prophets, 137; Rosenberg, Samuel 1,175.
7. The Semantics of the Verb VÌVO ("to swear"). According to Schroer and
Staubli, the use of the verb IDE?, "to swear," also hints at a connection between
the DavidJonathan accounts and Song of Songs. Such a claim is rather surpris-
ing. The verb V2V is attested more than 180 times in the HB,fivetimes in Song
of Songs. This means that the attestations in Song of Songs amount to less than
3 percent of all the attestations of S73Ü. Against this background, one cannot
interpret each occurrence of the verb as a hint of a connection with Song of
Songs. It has to be admitted, however, that the numbers look different if the
conjugations are taken into consideration: the hif il conjugation which appears
in 1 Sam 20:17 is also used in allfiveattestations in Song of Songs and in a total
of only twenty-nine cases. Nevertheless, too hasty conclusions are out of place,
for the formulations in which the verb S7DÜ is used in Song of Songs differ
markedly from those in 1 Sam 20:17, and the two additional attestations of the
verb in the context of the David-Jonathan stories (1 Sam 20:3,42) are not in the
hifil, but in the more common nif al conjugation. It is also noteworthy that in
none of the twenty-six attestations87 of S73B7 within the literary context of the
Davidjonathan stories—i.e., the books of Samuel and Kings—the verb is used
in a way that would allow understanding the act of swearing as an act of affir-
mation of a love relationship. The swearing rather relates to matters that
belong to the political realm. The largest single group are those oaths that
affirm that the life of a certain person or the lives of a certain group of persons
would not be touched during any periods of political instability.88 The second-
largest group are those oaths that affirm the right to throne succession of a cer-
tain individual.89 This dually defined background forms the context within
which the oaths of 1 Sam 20 are embedded; and it can actually be seen that this
double political relation is valid with respect to the events taking place in 1 Sam
20. This is all the more evident since both the promise to spare the life and the
promise to transfer the throne succession occur explicidy in relation to David in
the literary context of the David-Jonathan accounts. It is also important to take
into consideration that swearing an oath is an integral part of concluding a
treaty in the ancient Near East.90 Thus it may be inferred that the use of
Ï7D12?—along with a number of other elements—points to the presence of an
important political element in the relationship of David and Jonathan.
8. The Semantics of the Root DS73 ("pleasantness; pleasant; to be pleasant"). An
investigation of the root DX73, which is attested in 2 Sam 1:23 and 26, also leads
87
The three attestations within the David-Jonathan stories are not included.
88
The following eight attestations belong to this group: 1 Sam 19:6 (Saul's promise to spare
David); 24:22-23; 30:15; 2 Sam 19:24; 21:2; 1 Kgs 1:51; 2:8. There is one further attestation in
which a "promise" is given not to spare the life of a political antagonist (1 Kgs 2:23).
89
The following six attestations belong to this group: 2 Sam 3:9 (YHWH's promise of David's
ascension to the throne); 1 Kgs 1:13, 17, 29-30; 2 Kgs 11:4.
90
Gf. Jerzy Wozniak, "Drei verschiedene literarische Beschreibungen des Bundes zwischen
Jonathan und David," BZ 27 (1983): 213-14. Concerning the oaths in Neo-Assyrian treaties, see
Parpóla and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, ΧΧΧνΠ-ΧΧΧνΊΠ.
to results that are more complex than those found in Schroer's and Staubli's
c
exposition. The adjective U^Vl (na im\ "pleasant, delightful, lovely," is attested
thirteen times, the verb DS73, "to be pleasant, delightful, lovely," eight times, and
c
the noun DSH (no am), "pleasantness, kindness, loveliness," seven times. This
adds to a total of twenty-eight attestations. Of these only two are found in Song
91
of Songs. This shows that the root DS73 cannot be classified as a characteristic
element of the language of Song of Songs; accordingly, there is no reason to
connect the presence of this root in 2 Sam 1 with Song of Songs. There is
another important observation that must be mentioned here: putting the two
attestations in 2 Sam 1 aside, there is no passage outside Song of Songs where
the root 0372 is related to an erotic relationship. Therefore, no reason can be
adduced why such a relation should be present in 2 Sam 1.
9. The Semantics of the Noun ΠΚ ("brother"). Schroer's and Staubli's interpre
tation of the designation "brother" in 2 Sam 1:26 as a hint to a love relationship
is found in other studies as well.92 I have several remarks to make concerning
this point. First, it is true that in Song 8:1 "brother" is used to designate the
lover; and in Song 4:9, 10, 12; 5:1, 2 the beloved woman is designated as "sis
ter." To deduce from one single clear instance that the term "brother" (ΠΚ)
might have been understood by an ancient Israelite audience as having erotic
overtones in 2 Sam 1:26 is taking word associations too far,93 since the contexts
of Song 8:1 and 2 Sam 1:26 are totally different. Also keep in mind that outside
David's lament, the terms "brother" and "sister," if used to designate the lover,
always refer to lovers of the opposite sex. Thus, there would certainly not have
been any quasi-automatic reckoning with an erotic connotation. Secondly,
"brother" is a term that often appears in the context of covenant language to
designate an equal partner in a covenant relationship. For examples in the HB
see 1 Kgs 9:13; 20:32-34; the same phenomenon is also found abundantly in
94
extra-biblical ancient Near Eastern writings. Even the combination of
"brother" and "lover" (3ΠΚ) does not necessarily point to the erotic sphere, as
shown by the conjunctive use of the two terms with reference to king Hiram of
Tyre as a covenant partner of David and Solomon in 1 Kgs 5:15 and 9:13.
Thirdly, the designation "brother" is also used as a means of expressing (true or
fake) honor, as in 1 Sam 25:6 (David with respect to Nabal) and 2 Sam 20:9
(Joab with respect to Amasa). Fourthly, the term "brother" may simply imply a
91
In Song 1:16 there is an attestation of the adjective; in Song 7:7 there is an attestation of the
verb.
92
See, e.g., Gomstock, Gay Theology, 88; Römer and Bonjour, L'homosexualité, 99.
93
Against Ackerman, When Heroes Love, 191.
94
See, e.g., EA 19.1: the Mittanian king Tushratta addresses the Egyptian king as "brother";
GTH 91: in a treaty, Ramses Π addresses the Hittite king, Hattusili ΠΊ, repeatedly as "brother";
GTH 169: the Egyptian prince Sutahapshap designates his father as the tcbrother" of the Hittite
king, Hattusili ΠΊ, in a letter sent to the latter (obv. 8-10); GTH 172: throughout the whole letter,
Hattusili ΠΊ of Hatti addresses Kadashman-Enlil Π of Babylon as "brother." For translations of the
texts, see William L. Moran, The Amarna Letters (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press,
1992), 43; Gary Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts (2d ed.; SBLWAW 7; Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1999), 96-99,128,139-43.
kinship relation, which in the case of David and Jonathan was in fact estab
lished by David's marriage with Jonathan's sister, Michal; for examples see Gen
13:8 (Abraham with respect to Lot); Josh 17:4 (the daughters of Zelophad with
respect to their relatives); Ruth 4:3 (Boaz with respect to Elimelech). It may be
that all the non-erotic aspects are present in the use of "brother" in 2 Sam 1:26,
but it is also possible that only one or two of them lie at the basis of the usage of
this term in the given phrasei
Summing up the discussion so far, we can conclude that the linguistic web
connecting the description of the relationship of David and Jonathan and Song
of Songs is not as tight as suggested by Schroer and Staubli and not strong
enough to argue compellingly an erotic understanding of this relationship. This
does not mean that contiguity between the two corpora does not exist; it can,
however, be easily explained by the fact that non-sexual friendship and sexual
love are domains that are closely related to one another.
10. The Semantics of the Verb T O ("to elect"). There are a number of other
arguments not found in Schroer's and Staubli's article brought forth by other
scholars to interpret the relationship of David and Jonathan as homoerotic.95
The first of these is the use of the verb ΊΓΠ in 1 Sam 20:30 which is said to
indicate "a permanent choice and a firm relationship." The verb "1ΓΠ I is
attested 162 times in the qal conjugation.96 Out of these 162 occurrences, only
ten relate to acts where both the subject and object are human beings. The larg
est single group are those cases in which YHWH is the one who chooses or
elects a human being (forty-nine attestations). Within cases dealing with human
choice/election of other human beings, the most important sub-group is
formed by those attestations in which men are elected to fight in a batde. In no
instance is there any connection with a love relationship. This renders an inter
pretation of "1Π3 in 1 Sam 20:30 that stresses the emotional or even erotic com
ponent rather unlikely. On the other side, it is interesting to note that among the
attestations that refer to YHWH's election of human beings, David plays a very
central role.97 This leads to the conclusion that again Jonathan's "election" or
"choice" of David reflects YHWH's election of David and works as an instru
ment in implementing the divine election. Such an interpretation is even more
probable since the mention of Jonathan's "election" of David appears between
1 Sam 16:8-10, which states that it is not David's brothers who are elected by
YHWH, and 2 Sam 6:21, which states that it is David whom YHWH has
elected.
11. The Semantics of the Noun ΓΪΗ3 ("covenant"). Römer and Bonjour tentatively
suggest that the use of the noun ΓΪΗ3, "covenant," might hint at a marriage-like
relationship between David and Jonathan: "Dans de rares cas où une 'alliance'
95
For thefirsttwo see Nissinen, Homoeroticism, 55. Thefirstargument is also found in Jobling,
1 Samuel, 161.
96
Isa 48:10 and Job 34:4, where T O has the meaning "to test," are not counted.
97
There are seven attestations where David is mentioned as the one elected by YHWH: 2 Sam
6:21; 16:18; 1 Kgs 8:16; 11:34; Ps 78:70; 1 Ghr 28:4; 2 Ghr 6:6.
lie deux individus, il s'agit d'un contrat de mariage. Faut-il rapprocher 1 Samuel
98
18,3 de cette signification?" Such an assumption is unwarranted, since there
are a great number of examples where ΠΉ 3 refers to covenants between two (or
more) individuals clearly outside a marriage context; see, e.g., Gen 14:13 (cove
nant between Abraham and the Amorites [Manure?], Eshcol, and Aner); 21:27
(covenant between Abraham and Abimelech); 31:44 (covenant between Laban
and Jacob); 2 Sam 3:12 (covenant between Abner and David); 1 Kgs 5:26 (cove
nant between Hiram and Solomon); 15:19 (covenant between Asa and Ben-
Hadad); 20:34 (covenant between Ahab and Ben-Hadad).
There are two further suggestions adduced by other interpreters that have to
be dealt with. Since they are of a rather explicit nature, those preferring not to
read this material may skip the two following points (12) and (13) printed in
reduced size.
12. The Enigmatic Phrase *?Ή2Π ΎΠ~"Τ57. It has been suggested that the enigmatic
phrase *?Ή2Π ΎΠ "1Ώ at the end of 1 Sam 20:41 should be understood as the hint of an
erection of David's penis and subsequent ejaculation in the context of a homosexual
encounter with Jonathan." This interpretation, however, fails on the following grounds:
The verb b"T2 in the hif il conjugation is attested twenty-two times besides 1 Sam 20:41,
and in no case is there any allusion to the sexual sphere. Moreover, why should only
David be said to have gone through a sexual experience, while in the rest of the verse the
mutuality of Jonathan's and David's actions is underlined? Gould one imagine that the
experiences mentioned above by the author(s), had they indeed taken place, should have
been ascribed to David alone, and not to Jonathan also, who normally appears strongly
emotionally related to David? If the text really suggests a sexual experience of the kind
described above, why is it mentioned after the weeping and not after the kissing, which
would have given a better context for sexual allusions? Finally, had the author(s) wanted
to hint at a sexual experience, why does the text state in a very general way only that
David ^ΉίΠ, without using the word "foot" or the like which would have been much
morefittingto prepare the reader's attention for a highly specialized sexual meaning of
the verb bin?
13. The Semantics of the Noun TWp ("bow"). The reference to Jonathan's rwp, "bow,"
in 2 Sam 1:22—in combination with 1 Sam 18:4; 20:20-22, 36-38—has been inter
preted as hinting at Jonathan's penis and his homosexual behavior.100 There are
seventy-five attestations of the noun TWp in the HB. In the overwhelming majority of
the attestations (fifty-six cases), the context makes it absolutely clear that TWp refers to a
real weapon, without sexual connotations. This is made clear in forty-four instances by
the parallelism with related terms like "sword," "spear," "shield," "arrow," etc., and in
twelve instances by a general military ambiance of the text. There are only three cases
where a sexual connotation could be considered, namely Gen 49:24; Job 29:20; and 1
Ghr 8:40. In the last of the three cases, it is the sequence of the phrases TWp ΌΎ1 and
D"03 D^aiD that could hint to a connection between ΠΒ7ρ and the procreative member
of the male body. However, the phrase rwp ^3"Π is syntactically bound up with the pre
ceding ^ΤΓ*Η2ΰ and separated from the subsequent DOS DO~1D by the insertion of
98
L'homosexualité, 73.
99
For instance, R. Hepner (personal communication 29 July 2004).
100
For instance, Ackerman, When HeroesL·™,183-84, and again Hepner (personal communi-
cation 29 July 2004).
the conjunction waw. It seems, therefore, that TWp ΌΊ"ΐ functions as an element that
further defines the phrase ^ΤΠΉΪΜ; the phrase DOS CP3"1D, in turn, introduces a new
aspect which is not directly related to the preceding phrase. Genesis 49:24 and Job 29:20
attest to a very similar use of the noun TWp as a poetic symbol for the vigor of Joseph
and Job respectively. In neither of the two cases, however, is there any clear indication of
a sexual reference. In Gen 49:20 such a reference can even be ruled out completely,
because in the immediate context mention is made of attacks by hostile archers which
assigns TWp a place in a battle scene, devoid of any sexual connotations. TWp may well
be assigned a symbolic meaning, but not of a sexual type; it rather symbolizes military
101
strength, as in many other instances.
In addition to the observations adduced so far, it has to be stated that the imagery
which is used in 2 Sam 1:22 is one of warfare and not of lovemaking, in keeping with the
wider context of the lament, with the partial exception of v. 26. In such a war-centered
scenario, however, there is no reason to reckon with a sexual innuendo hidden in a
wholly unexpected and nowhere clearly attested double meaning of TWp.
Actually, as Ackerman notes, it is not the TWp, but more precisely the ]Π, the arrow,
102
which could be interpreted as a phallic symbol. In the passages mentioned above,
however, the noun "ρπ appears only in 1 Sam 20:20-22,36-38, and always in the plural.
It is just simply not the case that wherever a text speaks of TWp and fTT, a "homoerotic
innuendo"103 is necessarily present. Of course it may not be ruled out completely, but a
reader who does not come to the text with a preconception that a homoerotic connota
tion lies in the text would not find it there, as long exegetical tradition shows. It would
almost be like interpreting William TelTs arrow shot directed to the apple on his son's
head as hinting of a sexual relationship between the two—a rather absurd hypothesis.
We must now turn to further exegetical observations dealing with facets of
the text not mentioned by the proponents of a sexual interpretation of the
relationship between David and Jonathan that continue to clarify the actual
nature of die relationship between them.
14. The Semantics of the Phrase "to bind one's soul to someone. " First Samuel 18:1
says that Jonathan's 87Ett bound itself or was bound (*Ί&ρ ni) to David's B7£tt.
This statement has to be given special weight, since it is the very first element in
the description of their relationship.
There are a total of forty-four attestations of the different conjugations of
the verb *1B7p; twenty-seven of these attestations refer to relationships between
human beings, with the remarkable number of twenty-five cases referring to
the political cooperation between two parties. In only one case 1 0 4 is the verb
1B7p used to denote a deep emotional relationship, with respect to a father-son
relationship. Of course, one cannot rule out the possibility that the attestation
of Ί ϋ ρ in 1 Sam 18:1 concerning Jonathan's relation to David also points to a
strong emotional attachment. But there is simply no hint of a homosexual or
homoerotic connotation, a connotation not found in any other attestation of
101
Gf. Othmar Keel, "Der Bogen als Herrschanssymbol," in Studien zu den Stempelsiegeln aus
Palästina/Israel III (ed. Othmar Keel, Menakhim Shuval, and Christoph Uehlinger; OBO 100; Fri-
bourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 172-75.
102
See Ackerman, When Heroes Love, 183.
103
Ibid., 184.
104
Gen 44:30.
the verb. Even if an emotional connotation may not be ruled out, on the basis of
the dominant usages of ΊΒ7ρ it is not probable that such a connotation would
be the main focus; what is underlined is the political connotation, the only con
notation that appears in the literary context of 1 Sam 18:1—that is, in the
105
books of Samuel and Kings. Special mention has to be made of the usages of
the root ~Wp in 1 Sam 22:8, 13, since they belong to the context of the Saul-
David stories; both attestations bear clear witness to the predominance of the
political connotation.
In addition, it is possible to suggest that the nif al conjugation which is used
with "IE7p in 1 Sam 18:1 may also point to a theological level: Jonathan's B7S3
does not simply bind itself to David's E7D3 and thereby initiate a political bond;
Jonathan's CEHD3 is really bound on a deeper level—by God's own plan and
intervention—to David's B7S3, because God wants to use this bond to imple
ment the transition of Israel's kingship from the house of Saul to David.
15. The Semantics of the Phrase "to bow down before someone." In 1 Sam 20:41,
the narrator tells his readers of a crucial moment when David bowed down
before Jonathan three times (D^DS7B BOB ΙΠΠίΠ Π2ΊΧ Y>BiÒ b&% This pic-
ture is highly suggestive of a court scene and does not evoke any sense of the
homoerotic. The courtly ambiance is highlighted by a comparison to 2 Kgs
13:18, where the Israelite king is said to have struck the ground three times with
his arrows infrontof Elisha.
16. The Directionality of the "bve-movement. " It is evident that overall, the inner
movements expressed by the roots 3ΠΚ, ]*ΟΠ, and IWp tend to be directed
towards David, whereas the aspect of the mutuality of the relationship between
David and Jonathan can hardly be detected. This observation also undergirds
the political (and theological) dimension of the relationship and deemphasizes
its emotional component. Against this background, a homosexual or homo
erotic interpretation is even less likely. Of course one could argue that we are
dealing here with a one-way erotic relationship, but David's lament for Saul and
Jonathan with its emotional wording is at odds with such a view.
The reason for the one-directionality can be sought in the social position of
the persons involved: as the king's son and designated heir to the throne,
Jonathan is socially far above David. It has been shown with respect to 3ΠΚ,
that it is only the superordinate person who is normally said to be the subject of
the "love" expressed by this root.106
17. The Absence of the Verbs 2DB7 ("to lie with") and BT 1 ("to know [someone sexu
ally] "). At no turn of the David-Jonathan stories are there any attestations of
105
Concerning "Wp, cf. also the comments in Peter R. Ackroyd, "The Verb Love—*ahib—in
the David-Jonathan Narratives—A Footnote," ΓΓ25 (1975): 213-14. The political interpretation is
also found in Ralph W. Klein, 1 Samuel (WBG 10; Waco: Word, 1983).
106
With the possible exception of 1 Sam 20:17. The situation seems to be similar with regard to
the verb fCn, again with one possible exception (2 Sam 20:11).
those verbs that regularly appear in the context of unambiguously sexual rela
tionships, namely MB7 and 17Ύ\ In all texts that refer to behavior that includes
homosexual acts, one or the other of the two verbs is found: 17"P in Gen 19:5
107
and Judg 19:22, M P in Lev 18:22 and 20:13. The fact that such verbs that
would clearly mark the relationship of David and Jonathan as a (homosexual
108
one are missing must be given due weight. The absence of these verbs cannot
be explained by an attempt of the narrator(s) to conceal the true character of
the relationship so as not to shed a negative light on David; the inclusion of the
story about David's adultery with Bathsheba and the subsequent murder of
Uriah in the narrative shows that there is no thorough or consistent plan to
exclude "negative" material about David in principle.109
2. The Nanatioe Level

1. The Pre-Text. Thefirstremark about the relationship of David and Jona
than is found in 1 Sam 18:1 -4, with an explicit link to David's conversation with
Saul, which itself is connected with David's killing of Goliath (David still has
Goliath's head in his hand when being introduced to Saul). It is noteworthy that
the first encounter of David and Jonathan with the subsequent binding of
Jonathan's K7Q3 is not combined with 1 Sam 16 where David's handsomeness is
noted, but rather with 1 Sam 17 which focuses on his cleverness, prowess, and
even cruelty. This creates an atmosphere probably less suggestive of homo
eroticism than would be the case had thefirstencounter between Jonathan and
David been linked to 1 Sam 16; rather, it is the political and military sphere that
is present in the description of their relationship from the very beginning.
2. A Comparison of the Roles of Jonathan and Michal. Ackerman claims that in
1 Sam 18:1-4 and 19:1-7 "David's relationship with Jonathan is somehow analo
gous to a marital relationship."110 She bases her argument on David's refusal to
accept Merab in 1 Sam 18:18, which in turn is explained by David's assumed
predilection for Jonathan over Merab, and on the virtual disappearance of
Michal soon after the mentioning of her marriage with David, to be replaced
107
That is not to claim that in Gen 19 and Judg 19 the sexual aspect is the focus of the problem
dealt with in the two texts. With respect to Gen 19, see the interesting study of Ken Stone, "Gender
and Homosexuality in Judges 19: Subject-Honor, Object-Shame?," JSOTW (1995): 87-107.
108
The modern question whether there might be a certain homoerotic-romantic dimension in
the relationship between Jonathan and David below or beyond the sexual level can hardly be
answered based on the texts. It is certainly clear, however, that possible stages in the psychological
development that are marked by intense feelings of admiration for persons of the same sex during
adolescence must be distinguished from the phenomenon of adult homosexuality in the strict sense
of the word. For a description of such homoerotic stages in the psychological development see, e.g.,
Hans-Friedemann Richter, Geschlechtlichkeit, Ehe und Familie im Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt (BBET
10; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1978), 62. For interesting remarks on the complexities and difficulties in
the definition of the term—and especially the phenomenon—"homosexuality," see Mary Stewart
Van Leeuwen, "To Ask a Better Question," Int 51 (1997): 144-46.
109
See 2 Sam 11. If one claims that an assumed homosexual behavior of David would not have
met with unanimous rejection in an ancient Israelite setting, the hypothesis of a conscious veiling
would be even less plausible and the lack of unambiguous hints even less explainable.
110
When Heroes Love, ΠΊ.
immediately afterwards byJonathan. Such an interpretation does not have much

to recommend it. David's remark in 1 Sam 18:18 and the subsequent note that
Merab was given to another man are not related to Jonathan's actions in 1 Sam
18:1 -4 by the text. It is not even made clear that the noncompletion of the mar-
riage with Merab really was in line with David's wishes, since his words in 1 Sam
18:18 are more likely to be understood as a polite form of expressing his sub-
ordination than as a simple refusal of the king's proposal—a thing which would
not be in line with what could be expected from a simple subject vis-à-vis his
suzerain. To suggest that Michal is somehow replaced as a marriage partner by
Jonathan only because Michal disappears after saving David's life from her
father's persecution also seems to read too much into the text. It is true that
Jonathan is mentioned after Michal has left the scene, but only in a sequence of
encounters in 1 Sam 20 and a very short meeting in 1 Sam 23:15-18; after that,
Jonathan and David never meet again. Moreover, David met a lot of other
people besides Jonathan after he left Michal. This is not to deny that there really
are points in the narrative in which Michal and Jonathan appear as acting in
close parallelism: both are said to "love" David (1 Sam 18:1 111 Sam 18:20); both
help David to escape from Saul by tricking their father (1 Sam 19:11-17 || 1 Sam
20). It is, however, not compelling to interpret these parallelisms stricüy as put-
ting Jonathan in Michal's role as David's new "wife." There might be other
explanations: David is loved and helped not only by a woman based on (erotic)
feelings, but also by a man based on feelings of friendship; David is loved and
helped not only by the one person who might be the biggest means of political
promotion (Michal as the king's daughter), but even by the one person who might
be the biggest obstacle to pursuing a political career leading to kingship
(Jonathan as the king's son and heir to the throne).
The fact that Jonathan plays a bigger part in the story than Michal can well
be explained by the crucial political importance of this figure. It has to be
recalled that in biblical storytelling what is worth focusing on is not the normal,
but the unexpected. This may well explain why we are not informed of the
details of David's parting from his wife Michal in 1 Sam 19, but instead we are
given an elaborate picture of the parting of Jonathan and David in 1 Sam 20;
for it is the loyalty and friendship of the king's son for his father's (and his own)
rival whom his father seeks to eliminate that is extraordinary, not so much the
love of a woman for her persecuted husband. The same goes for the imbalance
between descriptions of David's affection for and devotion to his wife Michal
on one hand, and Jonathan on the other: it is true that the narrator(s) never
explicidy speaks of David's affection and devotion to Michal, but does mention
a mutual devotion of Jonathan and David in 1 Sam 20:41 and 23:18. This
again can be explained by the author's (authors') interest in the unexpected and
unusual, without necessarily implying that there was no affection or devotion in
the relationship between David and Michal, and especially without implying
that Jonathan was understood as a kind of "wife."
It is also true, as Ackerman further observes,11x that Michal and Jonathan are
set in parallel by using the verb 3ΠΚ in both cases with respect to their relations
to David (1 Sam 18:1, 3 [Jonathan]; 1 Sam 18:20, 28 [Michal]). This certainly
points to similarities in their emotional attachment to David, but it does not by
itself suggest that this attachment was of the same kind or included erotic
aspects in the case of Jonathan. The differences in their relationships with
David may well be indicated by the different ways in which the verb 3ΠΚ is
used: in the case of Jonathan, it is combined with the expression 1B7DDD,
whereas such a qualification is missing in the case of Michal.
In any case, even if one accepts that structurally in the narrative sequence
Michal is replaced by Jonathan, which is in fact possible, this does not imply by
itself a sexual character of Jonathan's relationship with David. Such a far-
reaching claim would need more explicit and unequivocal corroboration. The
wider narrative context and especially the canonical context do not substantiate
such a claim, quite the opposite.
Another observation has to be noted here. Ackerman explicitly states that
Jonathan's narrative role as the real "wife" of David puts Jonathan in the role
of the feminized, passive partner in a same-sex erotic relationship.112 This
assumption, however, stands in sharp contrast with the fact that the initiative in
the relationship lies fully on the side of Jonathan; only in 1 Sam 20:41-42 and
23:18 do hints of mutuality appear. And it is—leaving aside the complicated
texture of 1 Sam 20:17—always Jonathan who is said to "love" David, and not
the other way round; this, however, puts Jonathan in the role of the dominant,
male partner, since—with the exception of Michal as the king's daughter and
thus the social superior with respect to the object of her love, David—it is
always the male, dominant partner who is said to "love" pHK) somebody. One
could argue that what is hinted at by the use of 3ΠΚ with respect to Jonathan's
relation to David is only his socially superior position, but this is by no means
sure. From this angle, it would seem that it is David rather than Jonathan who is
taking on the feminine role. Also the emphasis on Jonathan's prowess in his
military acts, which is noted both at the beginning and end of his appearance in
the succession-narrative, and the mentioning of his TWp in the context of his
encounters with David highlight the masculinity of Jonathan. Later in her
study,113 Ackerman addresses this problem, and explains it as the narrator's
wish to defend David against the charge of having forcibly feminized his male
partner, an act held condemnable as shown in passages like Gen 19 and Judg
19. Such an argument, however, is hardly convincing, since it has to postulate
yet another deviation of the narrative's stand compared to other topically
related passages in the Bible where the active role is linked with the male part
ner and the passive with the wife; moreover, the narratives of David in general
do not show a thorough whitewashing strategy, as can be seen, for example, in
the Nabal story or in the stories about Bathsheba and the disorder in David's
111
See ibid., 180-81.
112
See ibid., 194,222-23.
113
See ibid., 224-26.
own house. Furthermore, it is a totally unproven assumption that a David who

engages in a homosexual relation, even though not actually using force vis-à-vis
his partner, would have been an acceptablefigurefor an ancient Israelite audi-
ence at all.
Another problem connected with Ackerman's interpretation emerges: she
claims that because of his feminized role, Jonathan "has fallen so low, the nar-
rative's homoeroticized innuendo may imply, and has assumed so abjecdy sub-
servient a position in relation to David, that neither he nor his descendants can
ever rise again to advance a claim to the throne."114 At this point Ackerman's
analysis stands in gross contradiction to the picture a reader gets from the suc-
cession stories. On the whole, Jonathan is depicted not as a lowfigure,but as a
valiant warrior and a noble character, always in control of his actions, making
decisions according to his own free will. He does,finally,subordinate himself to
David, but willingly and in no way passively. Furthermore, the theological
motives that are connected to his behavior are all ignored in Ackerman's recon-
struction.
3. Jonathan's Relationship with Saul. It has beenrighdyobserved that according
to the narratives in First Samuel the relationship between Saul and Jonathan is
rather precarious, not at all an example of a loving father-son relationship. This
is clear even outside the conflict relating to David; see, for example, Jonathan's
reproach that his father brings trouble to the land (1 Sam 14:29), and especially
Saul's ready willingness to have his son put to death for a relatively minor reason,
the unwitting breaking of an oath of abstinence from food which was imposed
by Saul rather randomly (1 Sam 14:36-45).115
This background serves as a good basis to explain at least partially on a psycho-
logical level—in addition to the theological one—why Jonathan (and Saul!) is
attracted to David.116 It would appear, then, that for Jonathan, David is more
an emotional surrogate for the cold father than an emotional surrogate for a
woman. Admittedly, this does not in itself rule out a homoerotic or homosexual
dimension of the relationship between David and Jonathan.
The other side of the same coin consists in the closeness of Saul and David,
which at different turns is described as a kind of father-son relationship. This
114
Ibid., 224.
115
For details see Robert B. Lawton, "Saul, Jonathan and the 'Son of Jesse,' " JSOT58 (1993):
35-46, esp. 38-40.
116
Psychological attempts to explain at least in part Jonathan's behavior as presented in this
and the following paragraph are wholly differentfromJobling's assertion that Jonathan "represents
the extreme case of a character being emptied into plot" whose "attitudes and actions lack any nor-
mal motivation" and who basically has no other function than to fulfill a narrative role (1 Samuel,
98-99). However, later on in his commentary Jobling introduces a psychological explanation of
Jonathan's behavior, operating with the assumption that Jonathan is "cast in the image of the
women who love and marry David, who serve David and assist hisriseto power without expecting
anything in return other than being married to him To be the heir, and thus in a position to
abdicate, he must be male. To have the motivation to do so he must... be like the women who
empty themselves for David. The answer: a gay relationship in which Jonathan takes a female role"
(1 Samuel, 164). This is, of course, very close to the suggestions found in Ackerman's study already
discussed above.
closeness can be deduced from 1 Sam 16:21-23 and 17:55-58. Also, the fre
quent use of the phrase "the son of Jesse" instead of "David" in Saul's mouth
might be an indication that "Saul is jealous of Jesse, wishing that David were
117
his own son." Especially telling are the dramatic scenes depicted in 1 Sam
24:9-22 and 1 Sam 26:17-25, where in one case David addresses Saul as "my
father" and in four cases Saul calls David "my son." Against this background, it
is quite understandable that David in his lament over Jonathan's death speaks
of Saul's son as "my brother."
4. Jonathan's Political Shortcomings. Jonathan is not only depicted as being
emotionally separated from his father in many ways, but also as lacking the
qualifications of a leader able to guide his people successfully in a concentrated,
well-planned battle against the Philistines. His military exploits described in
1 Sam 13-14 testify of Jonathan's military prowess and impulsiveness, but at
the same time they make clear that Jonathan is not able to develop an encom
passing strategy that would permanendy rid the Israelites of the Philistine
threat. It is possible that Jonathan recognized that David was gifted with the
leadership and strategic qualities he himself lacked and therefore was drawn to
him by admiration (and was even willing to waive his right to the throne).118
5. David's Ascent to Power. The literary context in which the descriptions of
the relationship of David and Jonathan are embedded is the story of David's
ascent to power. Within this narrative complex, the relationship of David and
Jonathan forms one among several other elements that are of importance for
David's ascension to the throne. Both the "love" of Jonathan for David and the
"covenant" between the two are but one element in a wider network of similar
factors all integrated within an all-encompassing teleology. The story is told
from the perspective of its telos, David's ascension to the throne; all emotions of
attachment and actions of support experienced by David and all the covenants
made with him serve the accomplishment of this end. The description of the
relationship between David and Jonathan must not be detached from this gen
eral movement of the plot; rather, it has to be given its specific place within the
narrative line focused on die political aim of the whole story.
Thus, the covenant between Jonathan and David (1 Sam 18:3; 23:18) is fol
lowed by a covenant between Abner and David (2 Sam 3:12-13) and finally a
covenant between the elders of Israel and David (2 Sam 5:3), through which
David reaches thefirststage of his aspirations, the kingship over Judah. A simi
lar movement can be observed with respect to the "love" accorded to David:
first, it is Saul whose relation to David is described with the root 3ΠΚ (1 Sam
16:21); the next stage is formed by Jonathan's love for David (1 Sam 18:3;
20:17); Mowed by Michal's love (1 Sam 18:20 [28]119); the love of Saul's ser
vants (1 Sam 18:22); andfinally,the love of the people (1 Sam 18:16 [28]).
117
Lawton, "Saul, Jonathan and the 'Son of Jesse,' " 42.
118
This view is found in Gomstock, Gay Theology, 83.
119
The textual transmission of 1 Sam 18:28 is not clear. According to the reacting offered by the
MT, it is Michal who is the subject of the love for David; according to the reading found in the
LXX, however, Israel is the subject of this love.
6. The Political Dimension of Jonathan and David's Covenant. In addition to the

emotional connotations, Jonathan's relationship with David also bears strong
political connotations; this can be deduced from the setting within the larger
"love-movement" towards David just described, and alsofromthe connections
with covenant terminology. The political dimension of this terminology is evi-
dentfromits integration within the movement leading to David's ascension to
the throne on one hand, and from the parallelism that exists with respect to the
Jonathan-David covenant and Hittite, Aramaic, and Assyrian covenants or trea-
ties on the other hand. In Hittite treaties which contain provisions for the ascen-
sion to the throne by a vassal, there are stipulations that embed the throne
succession in theframeworkof afriendship.120It is exacdy thisframeworkthat
is found in 1 Sam 18:1 -4. Against this background, the covenant spoken of in this
passage can be understood as an analogy to a Hittite vassal treaty, with the pre-
ceding victory over Goliath being the basis for David appearing on the scene as
a worthy covenant partner in the eyes of Jonathan. In 1 Sam 20 one finds an
analogy to treaties between equal partners in some instances and to vassal trea-
ties in others. For the former category one may refer to w. 23 and 42 where the
aspect of mutuality is stressed; the formulations in v. 8 ("your servant") and v. 41
(David's bow) on the other side hint at a subordination of David in respect to
Jonathan, w. 14-16 at a subordination of Jonathan in respect to David. The
interpretation of swearing an oath mentioned in v. 17 with respect to the issues
treated in this paragraph depends on the understanding of the verse as a
whole.121 The function of YHWH as a witness to the covenant (w. 8,12,23,42)
provides another parallelism with ancient Near Eastern covenants and treaties,
in which gods are regularly called upon as witnesses.122 The covenant in 1 Sam
23:16-18, which is based on the supposition of a future kingship taken on by
David, is again analogous with Hittite and Assyrian succession treaties;123 as in
1 Sam 20, YHWH is mentioned as witness to the covenant.
There are additional elements in the narrative that point to a political dimen-
sion of the relationship between David and Jonathan. Among these elements
are the handing over of the robe, tunic, sword, bow, and belt (1 Sam 18:4). That
we are dealing here with an act that has political implications and not only with
a sign of friendship showing the receiver that the donor is ready to give his life
for him, is made clear by a comparison with 2 Kgs 11:10.124 The handing over
120
See Wozniak, "Drei verschiedene literarische Beschreibungen," 214.
121
According to Wozniak (ibid., 216), Jonathan's position here seems to correspond to the posi-
tion taken by a vassal in Hittite and Aramaic treaties (see also 213-14). This view is only tenable,
however, if it is actually Jonathan who swears, which is by no means clear.
122
Gf. ibid., 213-14; on the function of gods as witnesses in Neo-Assyrian treaties, see Parpóla
and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, XXXVII.
123
Gf. Wozniak, "Drei verschiedene literarische Beschreibungen," 217.
124
Gf. Thompson, "The Significance," 335. A differing view is found in Hans Wilhelm Hertz-
berg, Die Samuelbücher (ATD; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956). Römer and Bonjour
(L'homosexualité, 70-71,99-100) claim that the handing over of Jonathan's robe and tunic means that
Jonathan is denuding himself; hence, they come to the conclusion that the setting is erotic. The text,
however, does not speak of nakedness. Considering the use of the adjective D~IS7 in 1 Sam 19:24, the
silence about Jonathan's assumed nakedness is even more telling.
of Jonathan's insignia to David is paramount to the latter's investiture on a

125
symbolic level. It is also noteworthy that in all the encounters of David and
Jonathan described in 1 Sam 20 and 23, political issues always play an essential
role. First Samuel 20 is not concerned with a love affair, but with the protection
of David from the political persecution instigated by Saul. Crucial words that
are exchanged in this encounter reach far beyond the level of a merely personal
relationship: Jonathan's desire that YHWH might be with David as he has been
with his father (v. 13) points to the royal succession of David—in Jonathan's
stead. Verses 14-16 also presuppose a situation in which David succeeds Saul in
functioning as king. David's bowing before Jonathan, mentioned in v. 41, fur
ther points to the political dimension of their relationship. The range of the
covenant extending to include the descendants of David and Jonathan also
shows that their relationship reaches beyond the personal level. The encounter
of David and Jonathan related in 1 Sam 23findsits peak in Jonathan's political
prophecy according to which David and not Jonathan himself will be king over
Israel (v. 17). In this chapter, the personal-emotional aspect of the relationship is
totally absent. ι
7. Further Hints of the Political Dimension in the Rehtionship between David andJona
than. On the whole, the specific character of the political nature of the rela
tionship between Jonathan and David consists in Jonathan becoming the
transmitter of the kingship from Saul to David, which underlines the legitimacy
of David's ascension to the throne.126 Jonathan's role can be seen already in the
pericope in 1 Sam 18:1-4. The transfer of robe, tunic, sword, bow, and belt is
125
See, e.g., Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 148-49.
126
Gf. David Jobling, The Sense of Biblical Nanative (2d ed.; JSOTSup 7; Sheffield: JSOT Press,
1986), 14. The basic element of this political theme is very well summarized by Jobling in his mono
graph on 1 Samuel: " . . . in all his appearances Jonathan moves the story toward its goal of trans
ferring power to David. Jonathan's identification with Saul, as Saul's heir, provides him with the
royal authority to abdicate. His identification with David enables the emptying of his own heirdom
into David" (1 Samuel, 98).
That the transfer of kingship from Saul to David was perceived as a theological problem pre
supposes an understanding of kingship as hereditary. The sequence of events shows that this pre
supposition was regarded as valid for all persons involved. This becomes especially clear with a view
to the confident attitude with which Saul's son Ishbosheth claimed the right to succeed his father as
king and was accepted as such by the northern tribes. It is probable that—in addition to the con
veyance of the right to succession by Jonathan—David's marriage to Michal functioned as a further
element in the attempt to prove the legitimacy of David's succession to the throne after Saul's death.
Comstock denies that Jonathan was seen as the rightful successor who voluntarily waived his right
to Saul's throne and gave it to David, referring on the one hand to 1 Sam 13:13-15 and 1 Sam
15:11-35 where Samuel tells Saul that because of the latter's failure, his kingship will be given by
YHWH to another man, and claiming on the other hand that the task and responsibility for choosing
Israel's next king was not Jonathan's (see Gay Theology, 84,87). Similarly Horner claims: "It was by
no means determined that sons succeeded their fathers on the throne at this point in Israel's his
tory. . . . [E]ven a casual reading of the First Book of Samuel will reveal that there was never any
indication on Jonathan's part of an expectation that he would be king" {Jonathan hved David, 29).
Horner points to the influence of the "Egyptian matriarchate," adding that "the two most significant
cultural influences upon Israel locally around 1000 B.C. (the time of David) were the Philistines and
the Ganaanites, peoples who were both semi-matriarchal and matrilinear" (29-30). As a conse
quence, the natural heir to the throne would be the king's son-in-law rather than the king's son.
127
most likely understood as a symbol for the transfer of the kingship to David.
Jonathan plays the role of the superior party by handing over the insignia—
whereas David cannot offer anything in return—and by granting a covenant to
David in a manner which can only be ascribed to a superior party; at the same
time, Jonathan is identified in a certain way with the holder of the kingship
because the transfer of his insignia reminds the reader of the preceding transfer
of tunic, armor, helmet, and sword by Saul to David (1 Sam 17:38-39). Also
1 Sam 15:27-28 makes clear that the robe favti) especially can symbolize king
ship. Jonathan's elevation to the position of king, which can be seen implicitly
in 1 Sam 18:1-4, is already prepared in the preceding stories: 1 Sam 14:14-15
shows that YHWH stands by Jonathan as he previously stood by Saul, and
1 Sam 14:45 relates that the people also stand by Jonathan; in 1 Sam 13:22 and
14:21 Jonathan is mentioned as co-regent beside Saul. Also, by attacking the
Philistine outpost in 1 Sam 14, Jonathan is fulfilling the task previously assigned
to Saul as hisfirstcharge to confirm his designation as anointed king, a charge
which he had failed to fulfil (1 Sam 9:1-10:13).128
Jonathan's elevation to the position of king, as can be deduced from the texts
just mentioned, is conceptualized both as a supplement to or as an identifica
tion with Saul and as a replacement of Saul.129 By ascribing to Jonathan a
The view endorsed by Gomstock and Horner does not take into account the fact mentioned above
that in spite of Samuel's relation of YHWH's intentions concerning Saul, everyone expected
Jonathan to be the heir of the throne. 1 Sam 13:13 also must be understood as a clear reflection of
such an expectation outside Saul's own plans (which are unambiguously expressed in 1 Sam 20:31),
and the fact that the insignia that Jonathan hands over to David in 1 Sam 18:4 are royal insignia point
in the same direction. Moreover, Samuel's statements were not of a legal character and obviously not
taken by the politically decisivefigure,King Saul, as a legal stipulation forcing him to transfer the
succussionfromhis son to David. Gf. also Jobling, 1 Samuel, 93, 98. The argument of widespread
(semi-)matriarchal rights of throne succession is historically problematic. Since the role of son and
son-in-law often coincided in the Egyptian royal dynasties, one cannot really speak of a clear "matri-
archate" (not to mention the fact that the concentration of power in the hands of the male pharaoh
is not compatible with the concept of "matriarchate"), and not enough is known of Philistine throne
succession to build on a "semi-matriarchal and matrilinear" system. There is also no reason to
suggest that the Israelites would have simply copied the political institutions of their arch-enemies.
Furthermore, generally speaking, the most widespread form of inheritance to the throne in the
ancient Near East was from father to son. This model was evidently followed by the Canaanite kings
in Shechem and Jerusalem during the fourteenth century B.C., as is clearfromthe Amarna Letters.
LabJayu, king of Shechem, writes to the Pharaoh: "[Behold, I a]m a servant of the king [like] my
[fathejr and my [gr]andfa[th]er, a servant of the kingfroml[on]g a[g]o" (EA 253:11-15); and Abdi-
Heba, king of Jerusalem, mentions that it was the Pharaoh who had placed him in "my father's
house" (EA 286:9-13; 288:13-15). It is not unwarranted to assume that it is the example of those local
Canaanite dynasties that worked as a model for Saul's and the Israelites' conception of kingship with
regard to its hereditary character.
127
So, e.g., Klein (/ Samuel)', Exum (Tragedy, 74, 76); Gunn (The Fate, 80); and Jobling (The Sense,
20). This interpretation is rejected by Stoebe (Das erste Buch SamueUs) without giving specific reasons.
128
For details see Iain Provan, V Philips Long, and Tremper Longman ΙΠ, A Biblical History of
Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 212-13.
129
Jobling's comment hits the nail on the head: "The relationship between Saul and Jonathan
shows both role-identification between the two... on*/replacement of Saul by Jonathan" (The Sense,
16); cf. the similar remark in Jobling, 1 Samuel, 94. Jobling rightly notes that an analogical pattern of
identification and replacement is at work with respect to Jonathan's relation to David (/ Samuel, 96).
kingly position, the narrator enables Jonathan to fulfill his role as a transmittor
of the kingship from Saul to David. This transfer again is implemented by a
double move of identification with David and replacement; but in contrast to
the relation with Saul, Jonathan does not replace his friend, but allows himself
to be replaced by him. With respect to 1 Sam 18:1-4 the identification can be
observed in the phrase WÖ3D ]n 31ΓΡ ρΓυΠίΡΊ] ΌΠΚΉ, and the replacement
in the act of the transmission of garments and weapons. It is striking that both
acts are confirmed immediately afterwards by Saul, which gives additional
130
legitimacy to the political manoeuver that is symbolized by these events.
In 1 Sam 20:1-10 Jonathan again appears as the one fulfilling the role of the
co-regent who as such—as in 1 Sam 18:1-4—is the one who grants, whereas
David is the one who requests:
David comes before Jonathan as one comes before a sovereign, indeed, as David has
previously come before Saul (1 Sam 16:21; 17:57; 19:7) Moreover, as Jonathan
continues speaking in 1 Sam 20:2, he explicitly identifies himself with King Saul—
"My father does nothing great or small without revealing it to me"—and a few verses
later, David speaks of himself as "servant" to Jonathan (1 Sam 20:8), as elsewhere he
has called himself or been called "servant" to Saul (1 Sam 17:32, 34, 36; 19:4). In
addition, in this same verse, David, apparently in an allusion to 1 Sam 18:1-4, recalls
the covenant into which "you have brought your servant," which is similar to lan
guage used elsewhere to speak of a covenant relationship an overlord has entered into
with a subordinate.131
At the same time, there is an identification of David with Jonathan by the anal
ogy that exists between the dangerous situation in which Davidfindshimself and
that of Jonathan in 1 Sam 14 which was a result of the trespassing of Saul's com
mand not to eat food on the day of battle with the Philistines. The subsequent
paragraph, 1 Sam 20:11-17, brings about the transition from the identification
of David with Jonathan to the replacement of Jonathan by David: David is
described as the future king before whom Jonathan now appears as the one who
presents his request. By ascribing to David the divine support that so far had been
given to Saul, Jonathan implicitly renounces hisrightof succession and acknowl
edges the legitimacy of the transition of kingship to David (v. 13). It may well be
that Jonathan's willingness to fulfil any request that David might utter, found in
v. 4, already implicitly hints at the transfer of therightof succession to David.132
In w. 14-16 Jonathan already treats David as the future king, to whom he himself
as an inferior presents a humble petition. This linefindsits continuation in 1 Sam
23:16-18, with an essential new element: Jonathan expresses his conviction that
the transfer of therightof succession from him to David corresponds to the will
of YHWH.133 That means, however, that Jonathan's attachment to David is not
only based on friendship, but also on his knowledge of God's plans. In this sense,
130
Gf.Jobling,7Ä?Ä»w^l9.
131
Ackerman, When Heroes Love, 204.
132
Cf. Klein, 1 Samuel.
133
In his commentary on 1 Sam 23, Stoebe disagrees that this passage may be interpreted in
such a way "dass Jonathan sich selbst als präsumptiven Nachfolger seines Vaters ansieht, aber auf
seine Rechte verzichtet, um sich von vornherein mit einer zweiten Stelle zu begnügen."
Jonathan's relation to David is also theologically motivated. A homosexual or

homoerotic interpretation of the relationship between David and Jonathan
hardlyfitswith these observations.134
8. YHWH as the Ultimate Cause of the Events. According to the understanding
of the narrator(s) of the story of David's ascent to power in which the accounts
about Jonathan's relationship with David are embedded, David's rise is ulti-
mately caused by YHWH himself. At the veryfirststep of thisriseit is already
made clear that David is Saul's successor, elected by YHWH (1 Sam 16:1,
12-13); shortly afterwards, it is stated that YHWH was with David and no
longer with Saul (1 Sam 18:12, 14). At the point where David becomes king
over all of Israel and conquers Jerusalem, it is again stated that YHWH is with
him (2 Sam 5:10), and that it is YHWH himself who has confirmed him as king
over Israel and brought about his kingship (1 Sam 5:12). These remarks of the
narrator(s) show that the rise of David is interpreted theologically, as the result
of YHWH's personal intervention for David.135 Against this background it is
hard to believe that the narrator(s) would have inserted hints at a possible
homoerotic or homosexual relationship of David, for the narrator(s) presents
himself as an advocate of the official Yahwism, and there is no clear ground for
the assumption that this religion at any point in its history ever took a positive
stance on homoeroticism or homosexuality.136 For the same reason, the under-
lining of the fact that the relationship between Jonathan and David was con-
nected with the concept of a covenant and with oaths that were witnessed by
YHWH137 has to be taken as incompatible with the assumption of a homo-
erotic or homosexual nature of that relationship. How can one explain that it is
precisely YHWH who takes on the function of guarantor and witness to a cov-
enant if this covenant were connected with a kind of sexual relation for which
134
Identification of Jonathan and David and replacement of Jonathan by David can already be
seen in 1 Sam 17: as Jonathan is winning a battle against the Philistines from a hopeless military
position in 1 Sam 14, so David succeeds in overcoming the Philistine Goliath from a similarly disad-
vantaged position in 1 Sam 17. And as Jonathan's victory is interpreted theologically in 1 Sam 14
(v. 6: "Nothing can hinder the Lord from saving, whether by many or by few"), so David's victory is
explained in a similar vein by God's action in 1 Sam 17 (v. 37: "The Lord who delivered me from
the paw of the lion and the paw of the bear will deliver mefromthe hand of this Philistine"; v. 47:
"it is not by sword or spear that the Lord saves").
135
The implications of this point are described in Naumann's article in a way that is fully con-
gruent with the view outlined in this article: "Dahinter steht auch ein theologisches Konzept. Die
Erwählung durch Gott setzt sich auf der menschlichen und politischen Ebene fort, denn 'Gott ist
mit David.'... Der Erzähler will auf dieser Ebene nicht Beziehungen oder die Beziehungsfahigkeit
Davids beleuchten, sondern die Beliebtheit Davids als des kommenden Königs im Spiegel der
anderen sichtbar machen. Die Liebe, die ihm von allen Seiten begegnet, geschieht ihm. Sie ist Teil
seiner Erwählung" ("David und die Liebe," 57-58).
136
Whether the stipulations of Lev 18 and 20 or an earlier version of them can be regarded as
being known in David's time or in the time of the narrator(s) is not decisive with regard to the question
in view; for if the story about Sodom and Gomorrah in Gen 19, which to a certain extent deals with
homosexual behavior, has to be attributed to J and if J has to be dated to the period of Solomon, then
we already have a witness to a negative verdict on homosexual behavior in the view of Yahwism that
is situated in close proximity to the Davidic era. But even if none of the written attestations of a
rejection of homosexual behavior is dated to the period of the United Monarchy, one cannot avoid
the observation that there is no witness to a positive affirmation of homosexual behavior.
137
A covenant that is made before YHWH is mentioned in 1 Sam 20:8 and 23:18; YHWH as a
witness to a mutually binding oath is mentioned in 1 Sam 20:23 and 42.
no affirming evaluation can be found within the official documents of Yah-

wism, but (as shall be clarified in more detail below) only negative evaluations—
however disputed their range may be. Such an assumption is not probable,
neither with respect to the narrative's inner consistency nor with respect to the
historical situation that stands behind the narrative.
9. David's Lament as a Covenantal Mourning Rite. David's lament for Saul and
Jonathan, in which the comparison of Jonathan's love for David with the love of
women is found, can be understood as an example of a public mourningritein
which the person in mourning honors those mentioned in the lament. Such a
public display of honor fits the context of a covenant relationship well, which
includes an obligation of mutual honoring.138 Honoring a covenant partner
includes mourning over his death.139 Considering the shameful, dishonored
fate of Saul and Jonathan brought about by their defeat by the Philistines and
the public display of their dead bodies at the city wall of Beth-Shan, the public
conferring of honor by the Israelite leader was of special importance; by his
public lament David could restore honor to Saul and Jonathan in the eyes of
the people, acting vicariously for the people. At the same time, not only was the
honor of Saul and his sons restored by David's public lament (and by the
Gileadites' burial of Saul and his sons), but also the honor of the Israelite
people, which was "included" in the king and his sons as the representatives of
the people.
10. The Limits of Liminality. Ackerman's description of both David and
Jonathan as liminal characters in the succession story has certainly much to
recommend it.140 It is, however, not the case that the liminality by necessity
encompasses the realm of their sexuality, requiring the author(s) to depict then-
relationship as homoerotic.141 The Bible, after all, is full of liminal characters,
such as Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and to none of them is
ascribed by the authors—or can be ascribed by modern interpreters—homo-
sexual behavior or homoerotic inclinations.
IV The Canonical Context
1. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13

It is often assumed that the legal provisions of Lev 18:22 and 20:13, which
address (certain kinds of) homosexual behavior, were not known or not in force
during the time of David, or, more specifically, during the time of the compo-
sition or redaction of the story of David's ascent to power.142 Even more fre-
quent is the contention that the prohibitions of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 do not
apply to cases such as the relationship between David and Jonathan. On the
138
Gf. Saul M. Olyan, "Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations," JBL 115 (1996): 205, 208,
217.
139
See, e.g., 2 Sam 10:1-2.
140
For details see Ackerman, When Heroes Love, 200ff.
141
Against Ackerman, When Heroes Love, 210.
142
See, e.g., Horner, Jonathan Loved David, 77; and Nissinen, Homoeroticism, 38; however, a few
pages later Nissinen takes a different position, stating that "[t]he story of David and Jonathan was
being told at the time when the Holiness Code with its commands and prohibitions of sexual con-
tact between males regulated the Israelites' sexual morality" (Homoeroticism, 56).
basis of these assumptions, it is concluded that Jonathan's and David's behavior

cannot be evaluated according to these stipulations.
The question whether Lev 18:22 and 20:13 do in fact apply to relationships
of a kind that fits the description of David's and Jonathan's encounters with
one another has been dealt with earlier in this article.143 In addition to the
remarks found there, it is also important to note that if it is denied that Lev
18:22 and 20:13 are indicative of a negative evaluation of homosexual and
homoerotic practice in general, the question arises—and is likely to remain
unanswered—where the unequivocal negative stance against homosexual prac-
tices in Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity is rooted.
As to thefirstof the claims mentioned at the beginning of this section: even
if it is conceded that the stipulations of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 received their
present literary shape only after the events of which the story of David's ascent
to power informs its readers, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the basic
contents of these legal provisions were already known or in force earlier.144
There are at least two reasons that support such an assumption:firstly,there is
no positive evidence that—outside the David-Jonathan stories—there has ever
been a positive evaluation of homosexual behavior that would contradict the
stipulations of Lev 18:22 and 20:13. Even if the existence of those stipulations
hint at the factual occurrence of the behavior indicted by them,145 it is by no
means clear that such acts would have been congruent with official Yahwism. It
is much more probable that these regulations that deal with matters of sexual
behavior belong to an early phase of Yahwism and to an early phase of the his-
tory of what is later called "Israel."146 Secondly, it is interesting to note that
Saul's acceptance of David's one-day leave is based on a reference to a possible
one-day uncleanness of David. Such a reference probably points to the legal
categories of Lev 7:20-21 and 15:16-18.147 This indicates that (some of) the
stipuations of the Holiness Code must have been known—at least in an early
form possibly not identical with the present form—at the time of David or at
the time of the composition or redaction of the story of David's ascent to
power.
2. Hints of David's and Jonathan's Heterosexuality

Of both David and Jonathan it is said in the literary context of the story of
David's ascent to power that they had heterosexual relations. With respect to
David, suffice it to mention his relationship with Michal (e.g., 1 Sam 18:27) and
Abigail (1 Sam 25:42). Jonathan's heterosexual relationships are hinted at indi-
rectly by the mention of his son, Meribaal, in 2 Sam 9, but also directly in
143
See section 7, pp. 134-37 above.
144
Hoheisel assumes that the interdictions of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 are rooted in what could be
labeled as "vorstaatliche Sippenverfassung" ("Homosexualität," 332).
145
So Schroer and Staubli, "Saul, David und Jonatan," 15.
146
See Werner H. Schmidt, Die %hn Gebote im Rahmen alttestamentlicher Ethik (EdF 281; Darm-
stadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1993), 10, 117.
147
Gf. Klein, 1 Samuel This does not presuppose, however, that these stipulations were known
or in force in accordance with the presentfinalcodified version of the Holiness Code.
Jonathan's own words in 1 Sam 20:42 where he speaks of "his offspring." Against
this background, the interpretation of the relationship of David and Jonathan as
a homosexual one is not very likely, though of course the argument is not con-
clusive given the possibility that the two men might have engaged in erotic or
sexual relations with both sexes.
3. David as Ideal King

In many layers of the HB, David is understood as an ideal type of ruler and
the focal point of a messianic expectation that concerns a near or distant future;
in the NT, David is understood not only as one of the forefathers of Jesus, but
also as an exemplary man of God and as a proto-type of the Messiah.148 Such
a high esteem of David would be hard to understand against the background of
a narrative tradition that hinted at a homosexual or homoerotic relation with
Jonathan. Both Second Temple Judaism and the NT show a clearly and unani-
mously negative evaluation of such relations.149 The fact that the final redac-
tion transmitted the David-Jonathan stories in the form in which we have them
now implies that they did not find any problematic or inappropriate erotic con-
notations in the stories that had to be eliminated or veiled.
The frank description of David's adulterous relation with Bathsheba in
2 Sam 11 cannot be adduced as a counter-argument; there is a clear confession
of his guilt put in David's own mouth immediately following his crime (2 Sam
12:13), a sequence that finds no parallel with respect to David's relationship
with Jonathan.15°
148
Concerning the HB's image of David (outside the books of Samuel and Kings), see espe-
cially Isa 9:6; 16:5; 22:9,22; 55:3; Jer 13:13; 17:25; 22:2,4, 30; 23:5; 29:16; 30:9; 33:15,17,21-22,
26; 36:30; Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-25; Hos 3:5; Amos 6:5; 9:11; Zech 12:8, 10, 12; 13:1; Ezra 3:10;
8:20; Neh 12:24, 36-37, 45-46; in addition, one has to point to the mentioning of David in the
books of Chronicles and Psalms (seventy-three times in the context of superscriptions of individual
Psalms), and to indirect references like the "shoot from the stump of Jesse" in Isa 11:1.
Concerning the NT's portrayal of David, see especially Matt 1:6, 17, 20; 9:27; 12:3, 23; 15:22;
20:30-31; 21:9,15; 22:42-43, 45; Mark 2:25; 10:47-48; 11:10; 12:35-37; Luke 1:27; 2:4; 3:31; 6:3;
18:38-39; 20:41-42, 44; Acts 1:16; 2:25, 29, 34; 4:25; Rom 1:3; 4:6; 11:9; 2 Tim 2:8; Rev 3:7; 5:5;
22:16.
149
Lev 18:22 and 20:13 have to be counted among the later layers of the OT if one follows the
common dating of the Holiness Code. With respect to the attitude of postbiblical Judaism, see, e.g.,
b. Sank. 55a; 73a; b. Sukkah 29a; b. Tebam. 55b. General remarks and bibliographical indications are
found in Hoheisel, "Homosexualität," 333-37. As regards the NT, the following passages must be
mentioned: Rom 1:26-27; 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10. For a careful interpretation of these passages, see,
e.g:, Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 229-339; and Klaus Haacker, "Exegetische Gesich-
tspunkte zum Thema Homosexualität," ΤΒά 25 (1994): 173-80.
150
Another point has to be taken into consideration: even if it were granted that the relation
ship between David and Jonathan was homosexual, this would not provide a verdict on the ques
tion of the normativity of such a relationship. If one sets out to deduct a general, timeless allowance
concerning a behavior which is not explicitly critized by the narrator, one could, for instance, also
conclude that it is generallyrightto engage in wars of conquest and in the random killing of two-
thirds of the inhabitants of a conquered territory, based on 2 Sam 8:2. We have reason to guess that
those who would like to interpret the David-Jonathan stories as a justification for homosexual rela
tionships would not be prepared to take the second step, which they would have to take for reasons
of logical consistency.
Ackerman has brought forward another argument that seems to undermine

this reasoning. She concedes that in fact biblical authors would rather unani-
mously condemn certain kinds of homosexual acts, but adds that in the case of
a liminal setting, unacceptable patterns of behavior become acceptable and even
mandatory.151 In this vein, it is possible to claim that there might be a divergence
in different biblical authors' evaluations of homosexual acts, leaving room for
both negative evaluations as in Lev 18 and 20 on one hand, and positive evalua-
tions as in the David-Jonathan stories on the other. This argument is not com-
pelling, however, since it is clear that even with respect to liminal situations
biblical authors would not go so far as to justify any possible human behavior.
Even in liminal situations, there must be limits to what is acceptable, even if it is
granted that these limits may be somewhat extended or redefined as compared
to those in force in non-liminal settings. That homosexual behavior would lie
within such limits in the eyes of the author(s) of the succession narrative would
yet have to be proved, but Ackerman has failed to do this.
4. The Relation to Song of Songs

Concerning the specific issue of comparing the David-Jonathan stories with
Song of Songs, the following remarks are appropriate: parallels between the
two corpora do exist, though not in such a high degree as proposed by Schroer
and Staubli. Their interpretation of these parallels as indications of an erotic or
sexual relation between David and Jonathan in analogy to the love relationship
described in Song of Songs goes beyond the observable facts. It also presup-
poses a chronological precedence of Song of Songs, which cannot be simply
taken for granted without providing specific evidence. The parallels can be
explainedfirstlyby the fact that a deep emotional, non-erotic friendship and an
erotic relationship are domains that are more or less closely related to one
another. Linguistic points of contact between the two domains must not be
interpreted in a way that totally blurs the complex differences that exist
between the two categories in real life. Secondly, the phraseological parallels do
in fact hint at the possibility that there may be a literary dependency between
the two corpora. Such a dependency, however, may well run in the direction
that is opposed to the one proposed by Schroer and Staubli: the author(s) or
compilers) of Song of Songs could have used the David-Jonathan stories as one
source stemming from the religious tradition of Israel that describes a deep
emotionalfriendshipin a way not found elsewhere in that tradition. It appears
even more likely, however, that both oeuvres were composed or revised at a
similar time in the history of Israel ("Solomonic era"),152 which offers an expla-
nation for the phraseological and conceptual overlap.
V EvidencefiomOther Ancient Near Eastern Civilizations
Routinely either ancient Greek or Egyptian or Mesopotamian literary or pic-

torial sources are used as comparative material that enables the modern
151
See When HeroesL·^,200,210-11.
152
See, e.g., Gillis Gerleman, Rum -Das Hohelied(BKAT 18; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1965), 75-77.
researcher to draw conclusions concerning the relationship between David and

Jonathan.
It is well known that homoeroticsm of some sort or another played a relatively
important role in ancient Greek society, especially in the form of paiderastia,
understood as a kind of formational relationship in which an adult lover taught
and brought up a boy to help him mature into a man in both sexual and social
senses.153 The relationship between Patroklos and Achilles has often been men-
tioned as a parallel to that of David and Jonathan. Although the description of
this relationship in the TBûrfdoes not explicitly hint at any sexual connotations, the
use of the terms eromenos and erastes in Aeschylos's and Plato's reference to the
relationship seem to imply a homoerotic aspect.154
While some forms of homoeroticism were deemed acceptable in at least
some layers of the society of some ancient Greek city-states, and while it may
be assumed that a deep spiritual love was, at least in the eyes of many Greek
philosophers, connected with same-sex relationships rather than with the rela-
tionship between a man and his wife, the situation was different in Mesopota-
mia and Egypt.
Let us turn first to the Mesopotamian evidence. The relationship of Gil-
gamesh and Enkidu is often mentioned as a possible model of the David-
Jonathan relationship.155 Some passages in the Gilgamesh epic, alluded to by
Schroer and Staubli and others,156 though not being unequivocal and for the
most part reconstructed, can be interpreted as containing—perhaps only very
implicit—homoerotic or homosexual connotations, without negative evalua-
tion.157 The same is true for a passage of the oracle SummaÄlu (CT39,44).158 It
is also possible that the devotees of Istar called asnnnu, kurgarrû, and kultfu
engaged in sexual acts with men that were approved as a legitimate part of the
153
See Nissinen, Homoeroticism, 57-69.
154
See, e.g., Schroer and Staubli, "Saul, David und Jonatan," 22.
155
See, e.g., David Damrosch, The Narrative Covenant (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), 203;
Römer and Bonjour, L'homosexualité, 80-102; Schroer and Staubli, "Saul, David und Jonatan," 22.
156
For the relevant passages of the text, see Karl Hecker, Das akkadische Gilgamesch-Epos (TUAT
ΠΙ/4), 654,665,668, 679-80, 684, 691,693.
157
Nissinen, referring to the relationships of Gilgamesh and Enkidu, also speaks of "a homo
erotic aspect that expresses their deepfriendship";on the other hand, he states that "the epic neither
emphasizes nor idealizes the sexual aspect of the relationship Eroticism is important first and
foremost as the impetus to the transformation which leadsfirstfrom savage sexual behavior to mutual
love, andfinallyawayfromphysical sex" (Homoeroticism, 24). Ackerman rejects Schroer's and Staubli's
claims that there are "explicitly homosexual motifs in the description of the friendship between
Gilgamesh and Enkidu" ("Saul, David and Jonathan," 35); instead, she states that the erotic aspects
in the language are "far more implicit than explicit" and that the language is "full of... ambiguity"
( When Heroes Love, 165). Römer and Bonjour claim that "l'histoire de Gilgamesh et Enkidu est celle
d'un amour extraordinaire, exclusif et complexe. Leur relation inclut lafraternité,l'amitié, l'amour
passionnel et l'érotisme" (L'homosexualité, 93); "[lj'idée d'une relation sexuelle entre Gilgamesh et
Enkidu est... fortement suggérée, même si le récit n'en parle jamais ouvertement" (92). This verdict
is based primarily on Gilgamesh's lament for Enkidu: " [Ο] n voit dans cette litanie funèbre de Gilga-
mesh l'un des indices centraux du caractère homosexuel de la relation des deux amis. En effet, cette
élégie est imprégnée d'un langage sexuel et erotique" (90).
158
See Nissinen, Homoeroticism, 27-28; Otto, Konimuum und Proprium, 323; Gagnon, The Bible and
Homosexual Practice, 47-48.
cult associated with listar.159 Many texts show, however, that the people called
assinnu were looked upon with great disdain.160 On the other hand, the Middle
Assyrian Laws referring to homosexual practice (table A, §§19-20) reveal a
rejection of homosexual intercourse between a free born and a man of equal
social standing.161 Sanctions seem to be taken, however, only in the case of
forced intercourse.162 It is evident, moreover, that a man who by his own will
accepted penetration by another man was classified as strange and abnor-
mal.163 Notwithstanding this negative attitude, it is clear that the necessity to
mention homosexual acts at all shows that they most likely were part of reality,
though it cannot be deduced to what degree.
Pictorial material from Egyptian graves is more ambiguous. The first
example found in Schroer's and Staubli's article, concerning Niankhkhnum
and Khnumhotep, dates to 2350 B.C.,164 and the second, concerning Keshy and
his friend, dates to 1365 B.C. Several hints of sexual contact with a god and even
an unambiguous myth about an attempt of homosexual rape between gods
(Seth and Horus) exist,165 but as has been rightly observed by Nissinen, they
"give little information about attitudes towards human same-sex interac-
tion."166 On the other hand, there are explicit condemnations of (certain types
of) homosexual relations in taboo prescriptions and negative confessions, for
instance in chapter 125 of the Book of the Dead.167
Horner argues that since the Israelites "for two hundred years had lived in
the shadow of the Philistine culture, which accepted homosexuality,"168 one
159
The (male) person who had sexual contact with a (probably castrated) assinnu whose life was
fully dedicated to the goddess thereby had union with the goddess herself; see Nissinen, Homoeroti-
cism, 33-34. Nissinen thinks that the role of the people called assinnu was rather asexual than homo-
sexual and that it had not much to do with the modern concept of homosexuality (34). Gf. also
Römer and Bonjour, L'homosexualité, 19-20.
160
See Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 49.
161
The technical term used in the laws to designate the sex-partner is tappePu. According to
Nissinen, the rationale behind this negative attitude lies in the fact that a man who is penetrated by
another man is subject to a change from his active male role to a passive female role (see Homoeroticism,
26).
162
See Nissinen, Homoeroticism, 24-28; Olyan, "And with a Male," 192-94; Otto, ¡Continuum und
Proprium, 323-25.
163
See Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 46. Römer and Bonjour qualify this verdict by
stating that only those men engaging in homosexual acts who would not also have sexual relations
within a heterosexual marriage were classified as strange and abnormal; however, they do not pro-
vide positive evidence for their view.
164
Otto and Römer and Bonjour also mention the pictorial repesentation of Niankhkhnum
and Khnumhotep as an example of homosexual practice in Egypt (see Otto, Kontinuum und Proprium,
323, incl. η. 6; Römer and Bonjour, L'homosexualité, 33-34).
165
See, e.g., Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 52-53; Römer and Bonjour, L'homosexualité,
30-31.
166
Nissinen, Homoeroticism, 144 n. 2.
167
Chapter 125 A 20; Β 27. See "Egyptian Myths, Tales and Mortuary Texts," translated by
John A. Wilson (ANE% 3-36). Römer and Bonjour point to a text dating to the twenty-fourth cen-
tury B.C. concerning a meeting of Pepi Π and his general Sisene at night (see L'homosexualité, 34-35).
Whether the text really refers to a homosexual encounter is, however, not clear.
168
David Loved Jonathan, 27-28.
could assume that the same was true for Israelite society in David's time.169
How do we know that homosexuality was common practice among the Philis-
tines? And there is another problem: the relationship between Philistines and
Israelites, according to the available biblical sources, was extremely tenuous,
with boundary making much more important than simple copying. On the
whole, it is clear that the Israelites were not "Philistinized" to a considerable
degree, so one would need to prove why such a thing should be expected for the
realm of sexual behavior. On the other side, it is quite evident that in many
respects the Philistines underwent a thorough process of assimilation with their
Semitic environment.
The most important question in this respect, however, is whether and how
one may draw conclusions from comparative material stemming from outside
Israel. It seems that much more caution should be in place here than is often
encountered. For instance, directly comparing a twenty-fourth century B.C.
grave drawing from Egypt with a story describing the relationship of two per-
sons living more than thirteen hundred years later in Israel seems like drawing
conclusions from scenes depicted on Ravenna mosaics with regard to behav-
ioral patterns in post-modern Western Europe.
In more general terms, if certain kinds of sexual behavior were accepted in
neighboring cultures, this does not in itself mean that the same was true for
Israel, even if in other areas of life Israel may in fact have copied this or that
element of the foreign cultures. This can be seen, for instance, with respect to
the area of licit forms of worship or in the way the nation's deity was concep-
tualized; the differences in comparison to other neighboring cultures are evi-
dent, even if the specifics are historically fluid and open to debate. The
probability that the area of sexuality was just one of the fields in which Israel
was not simply receptive of other cultures is especially high, since this area is
closely connected with the concept of the relationship of YHWH and his
people in many segments of the HB.
VI. Conclusions
Based on observations adduced in this article, an understanding of the rela-
tionship between David and Jonathan implying a (homosexual element does
not correspond to the text. The narrative of David's ascent to power does not
provide clear, unambiguous indications of a sexual component in the relation-
ship between the two men, nor are the connections to Song of Songs or possible
ancient descriptions of homoerotic relationships strong enough to allow for the
suggestion of sexual connotations in the David-Jonathan stories. Moreover, the
termini technici that are used in other passages of the HB to refer to homosexual
behavior are missing in the description of this relationship. On the other hand,
it has become clear that the theological and especially the political level play a
central role in the relationship between David and Jonathan as described in
1 Samuel; this is evident from the connections with the literary context in the
169
For a similar vein of argument see Schroer and Staubli, "Saul, David und Jonatan," 21.
books of Samuel and Kings and with treaties from the ancient Near East. This
is not to say, however, that the relationship between the two men is not depicted
as also having a strong emotional element.170
With respect to a correct interpretation of the David-Jonathan stories, much
depends on the exegete's capability to sharpen his eye for the subtleties of the
text and to refrain from simplifications or imprecise generalizations that often
go hand-in-hand with current debates over controversial issues. It is of special
importance not to blur the distinction between sexual and nonsexual forms of
friendship. A sexual dimension in the relationship between David and Jonathan
can only be claimed if the biblical descriptions of this relationship are not taken
at face value, but expanded by having recourse to a presumed hidden message.
Such inferences, however, disregard the sound principles of a historically ori-
ented exegesis. It may be that the sexual interpretation of the relationship of
David and Jonathan that came up during the last three decades or so is related
to the wider phenomenon of the sexualization of life in Western societies. The
story of the deep friendship of David and Jonathan may act as a counter model
by showing how emotionally rich and profound a non-sexual relation between
two persons (of the same sex) may be—at times even richer and profounder
than sexual relationships. Second Samuel 1:26 may well be read in this vein,
and the vision of such relationships may work as a powerful remedy for some of
the deformations of our present age. The reality of such relationships lived by
many people shows that this vision is more thanfictionor wishful thinking.
170
The combination of political and personal aspects in the relationship of David and
Jonathan has also been acknowledged by Naumann, "David und die Liebe," 60.
My thanks go to Dr. Beat Weber for helpful remarks on an earlier draft of this article and to
Mabel Chin, Mary Potter, and Dr. Hugh Rntledge for a revision of the enlarged English version.
^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.

At La 0001587904 Relación de David y Jonatán

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

At La 0001587904 Relación de David y Jonatán

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

WTJ 69 (2007): 127-74

II. Some Clarifications

1. Literary vs. Historical Analysis

2. Exegesis vs. Moral Evaluation

3. "Homosexuality" "Homoeroticism/'and "Homosociability"

4. The Historical Difference between Antiquity and the Present

ancient practitioners of same-sex acts is also reduced by the observation that in

to prove that members of ancient societies had similar categories of determining

6. The Limits of the Investigation

*nn r a n n new •'MUD 3DB?n vb - o r ran

See, e.g., Horner, Jonathan LovedDavid, 52, 70, 73, 85.

Having come to a proper understanding of the legal vocabulary on homosexuality, we

In this discussion, as previously mentioned, it is still highly controversial

• The designation of Jonathan as "brother" by David in his lament (2 Sam 1:26) is

1. The Semantic Level30

which ΓΟΠΚ refers to a relationship between human beings, no intimate or

contain an erotic component.47 Alternatively, and perhaps more convincingly,

persecution, she takes on a more ambiguous role. No resistance is noted with

T h e s e observations d o n o t rule out completely the possibility that the analogy

dependency. The question, however, as to what conclusions can be drawn from

2. The Nanatioe Level

immediately afterwards byJonathan. Such an interpretation does not have much

own house. Furthermore, it is a totally unproven assumption that a David who

6. The Political Dimension of Jonathan and David's Covenant. In addition to the

of Jonathan's insignia to David is paramount to the latter's investiture on a

Jonathan's relation to David is also theologically motivated. A homosexual or

no affirming evaluation can be found within the official documents of Yah-

IV The Canonical Context

1. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13

basis of these assumptions, it is concluded that Jonathan's and David's behavior

2. Hints of David's and Jonathan's Heterosexuality

3. David as Ideal King

Ackerman has brought forward another argument that seems to undermine

4. The Relation to Song of Songs

V EvidencefiomOther Ancient Near Eastern Civilizations

Routinely either ancient Greek or Egyptian or Mesopotamian literary or pic-

researcher to draw conclusions concerning the relationship between David and

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

Anda mungkin juga menyukai