Observations On The Relationship Between David And Jonathan And The Debate On Homosexuality

By Markus Zehnder

[Markus Zehnder is Professor of Biblical Studies at Ansgar School for Theology and Mission, Kristiansand, Norway, and Privatdozent for Old Testament at the University of Basel, Switzerland.]

This 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]

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]
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 psychological 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 the first group in the results of their analyses.[6] This approach is markedly different from the ones followed by the other scholars 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 historically what the original author(s) really wanted to convey.[7] 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 recommends 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 relationship on one hand, and ethical assessments of modern issues related to the phenomenon 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 “(homo)sexual” or “(homo)erotic” does not in itself determine the ethical evaluation of what is called in our cultural setting “homosexual behavior” or even “homosexual inclination.”[8]

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.

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 differentiation 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 acceptable 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 been rightly stressed by the “social constructionists.”[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 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 frequently done by constructionists, is an oversimplification that pays no—or not enough—heed to the fact that in many (sexual) relationships feelings of attachment 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 constructionist 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 liminal 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 ancient practitioners of same-sex acts is also reduced by the observation that in many modern homosexual encounters similar (or the same?) patterns of domination and subordination/submission are at work as they were, according to historians, 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 important to note that in Plato’s Symposium, speeches of Phaedros, Pausanias, and Aristophanes 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) idiosyncratic features of modern concepts of “homosexuality” is proposed: a homosexual 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 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 “homosexual” 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):

ואת־זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה תועבה הוא 

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. 

בם ואיש אשר ישכב את־זכר משכבי אשה תועבה עשו שניהם מות יומתו דמיהם 

And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they 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 passages are not relevant for the present discussion of the relationship of David and Jonathan. The evidence available, however, does not suggest such a position, as has been rightly demonstrated by Nissinen:

[I]t is unwarranted to restrict the prohibition to a sacred sphere, and it is also unrealistic 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 foreign 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 (hetero)sexual 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 the ritually pure 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 (גר) as well (Lev 18:26; 20:2). Since they were not generally full members of the cultic community of Israel, a merely cultic understanding of the present interdictions does not commend itself. The גר 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 impossible for the Israelite society as a whole to fulfill God’s commandment, as in the case of the prohibition of חמחּ 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 homosexual 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.’.. . [I]f failure to procreate were the central concern, it is puzzling that a number of other sexual acts that 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 preferring 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 attempt “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 criterion, and the criterion is nowhere explicitly stated, nor is there any mention of excrements. 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 condemned as a תועבה, 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 accordance with the text: the issues of the internal peace and coherence of the basic structures 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 Olyan’s assumption is right, one would have to ask again (a) why a corresponding prohibition of male-female anal intercourse is missing, (b) whether it is really likely that the משכבי אשה 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 problems 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 intercourse,”[31] 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 relations 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: “The 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 man as if he were a woman by making him the object of male sexual desires.”[32] This kind of sexual behavior is classified by the term תועבה as being against God’s will and by the use of the term תבל in the immediate literary context (Lev 18:23 and 20:12) as a confusion of the created order.[33] The text does not restrict this evaluation to relationships that lack the “mutual love of equal partners.”[34] Wold sums up his view of the language of these passages 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 zākār includes all males and all acts.. .. Under this language, even consensual sexual relations between adults of the same gender must be ruled out. We find no ambiguity in the expression mis̆kĕbê ʾis̆s̆a; it denotes sexual intercourse in general without reference to specific positions. The inference is clear: only heterosexual intercourse is normal and normative.[35]

III. 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 Horner’s 1978 study as a paramount representative in the English speaking literature 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 (יהונתן כנפשו [ויאהבהו] ויאהבו). 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 חפחּ ב (“to delight in, to be fond of”): ויהונתן בן־שאול חפחּ בדוד מאד. 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 the field. The phrase used here (׃לכה ונצא השדה 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 (וישקו איש את־רעהו).
• 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 (ערות אמך).
• 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 (נעמת לי מאד). Again, this can be compared to phrases found in Song of Songs: Song 1:16 and 7:7 contain the root נעם, in the first case with respect to the beloved man and in the second with respect to the beloved woman.
• 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 interesting 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 Level[38]

1. The Semantics of the Noun אהבה (“love”). First Samuel 18:1, 3; 20:17; and 2 Sam 1:26 use both nominal and verbal realizations of the root אהב 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 אהב seem to refer to David’s love of Jonathan.[39]

Regarding the noun אהבה (“love”), the following notes can be made: אהבה is attested fifty-three times 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 relationship deals with a homosexual or homoerotic relationship. Even in instances in which אהבה 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 אהבה does not by itself include a sexual (or even a homosexual) component. On the contrary, the frequency with which the term אהבה 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 אהבה as a reflection of the love relationship between YHWH and Israel or as a consequence[43] 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 אהבה 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 “homoeroticism” in the HB and since the reference to the אהבה between YHWH and his people relates to a covenant whose stipulations seem to rule out some—if not all—homosexual acts.[44]

Jonathan’s אהבה for David is first mentioned 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 אהבה, נפש, and the verb קשר (qal).

Second Samuel 1:26 again speaks of Jonathan’s אהבה. It is said that this אהבה was more “wonderful” for David than the אהבת נשים.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 אהבה, therefore, 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 5:23: “Saul and Jonathan, the loved and gracious in their lives, and in their deaths they were not parted” (my translation). Also not to be ruled out in principle is the possibility that נשים אהבת 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 contain an erotic component.[47] Alternatively, and perhaps more convincingly, one might argue that David is making a clear distinction between the relationship 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, combined 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 x is like the love of y” “ the love of x is greater than the love of y” or “the love of x for y is greater than the love of x for z” the two types of love are similar.[50] Since, according to Olyan, (a) the אהבת נשים does not point to the element of covenant fidelity, and (b) the principle of the fundamental similarity of the two kinds of love is still valid, Jonathan’s love cannot 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 mentioned, it is not fully clear that the אהבת נשים 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 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 all 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 relationship, 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 might first appear. 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 number of passages that show a similar syntactical structure. It is primarily the comparative sentences that have to be mentioned here; among them there are many instances where the two sides of the comparison disclose considerable differences. 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 ordinances 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 comparison 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 Isa 56:5 “memorial” and “name” in the house of God vs. offspring. Genesis 29:30a also has to be mentioned here, averse 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 parallel to 2 Sam 1:26 by comparing the love of x with the love of y or more precisely, the love of x for y with the love of x 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 relation, 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 development and cultivation of relationships characterized by friendship and emotional 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 relationship 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 relationships 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 David finds Jonathan’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 persecution, she takes on a more ambiguous role. No resistance is noted with respect to her being given to Palti 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 predominantly or exclusively towards persons of his own sex.

2. The Semantics of the Verb אהב (“to love”). Rather complex conclusions come out of an examination of the uses of the verb אהב which goes beyond the limits of 1 Sam 18:1 and 20:17. The verb אהב is attested 141 times in the HB.[57] Eighty-one of the attestations deal with the relationship between man and God or between human beings, the latter covering fifty-four of the eighty-one attestations. In thirty of the fifty-four instances a sexual component is included or at least possible.[58] In all of these cases[59] 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 אהב 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 אהב 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 אהב is used in a setting that precludes any erotic implications. 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 אהב in respect to the relationship of David and Jonathan, specifically to Jonathan’s support of David’s throne aspirations. This is explicitly mentioned and underlined at various points of the narrative: 1 Sam 18:4 (transmission of the royal insignia);[61] 20:13 (parallelism of YHWH’s being with Saul and with David); 23:17 (“you shall be king over Israel, and I will be second to you”).[62] These observations tend to dismiss any sexual component in the interpretation of אהב 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 אהב is structurally parallel with קשר, a verb which, in those cases in which it is used to describe human relationships, normally has a political sense.[63] The use of the nominal participle אהב (ʾohab, “friend”) in the literary context of the David-Jonathan stories points the same way. אהב is foundin 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 (אהביך). The context makes it clear that the “love” that is referred to here by אהב has to be understood in the political sense, as an attitude of loyalty by royal subjects with respect to their king. In 1 Kgs 5:15 אהב refers to Hiram’s relationship with David. Here again the political dimension of אהב 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 יהונתן כנפשו ויאהבו [ויאהבהו] 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 question leads to the observation that the parallelism is restricted to the syntagmatic combination of אהב and נפש, 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) נפש is connected with אהב by the preposition kaph; נפש functions 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, נפש functions as the subject of אהב. Another difference is to be found in the suffixation: in 1 Sam 18:1 נפש is combined with a third person singular suffix, whereas in Song 1:7 and 3:1–4 נפש is combined with a first person singular suffix. Thus the only parallel between the two texts resides in the syntagmatic closeness of the verb אהב and the noun נפש; 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 parallel to another passage outside Song of Songs, namely Lev 19:18: in both cases אהב is combined with the preposition kaph, which introduces the entity of comparison (to love x like [כ] 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 that the subject is indicated in one case with נפש, 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 formulations can be classified as stylistic variations. This connection further discourages an interpretation of אהב 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 אהבה and the verb אהב are used almost exclusively with the person standing on a higher level of the social hierarchy 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 אהבה or אהב, 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 designated 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, 3.[68]

3. The Semantics of the Root חפחּ (“desire”). Regarding the root חפחּ attested in 1 Sam 19:1 the following notes can be made: the verb חפחּ, “to desire, to be fond of,” is found seventy-three times in the HB, the adjective חפחּ (ḥapeṣ), “desiring, being fond of,” thirteen times, and the noun חפחּ (ḥapeṣ), “desire, delight; affair,” thirty-eight times; this adds up to a total of 124 attestations of the root חפחּ. No usage of the adjective חפחּ and the noun חפחּ shows a connotation belonging to the erotic realm. Out of the seventy-three attestations of the verb חפחּ, there are six containing an erotic component; three of them are found in Song of Songs.[69] From a merely statistical point of view, then, there is relatively little probability to associate an erotic connotation with חפחּ 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 connotations of חפחּ 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 חפחּ 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 חפחּ 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 חפחּ 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 component 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 support of David’s claim to the throne. There is one final observation concerning the verb חפחּ that has to be mentioned here:[71] in the David and Solomon accounts there are several passages that speak of YHWH’s “delight” (חפחּ) 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. Is 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 political 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 and by men; thereby, the hint at David’s status as “beloved” that is included in his name is confirmed in a concrete manner.[73] However one defines the connection between YHWH’s delight and Jonathan’s delight, it is clear that this connection renders an interpretation of חפחּ in 1 Sam 19:1 as having a homosexual 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 the field.” Regarding the phrase in 1 Sam 20:11a (לכה ונצא השדה), 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 לכה ונצא השדה (or, without waw and with the insertion of דודי between לכה and נצא as in Song 7:12) infrequently one has to assume that the action described by this phrase occurred innumerable times and 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 noteworthy that there are no less than twenty instances in the HB where שדה is combined with יצא or הלך 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 שדה in 1 Sam 20 can be interpreted 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 appropriate 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]

These observations do not rule out completely the possibility that the analogy in the formulations of 1 Sam 20:11 and Song 7:12 could point to a textual 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 automatically 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 the Verb נשק (“to kiss”). The verb נשק “to kiss,” which is used in 1 Sam 20:41, is attested in Song of Songs as well, but only twice;[76] considering 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 נשק 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 נשק 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 נשק 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 parting, 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 נשק 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 exchanged by David and Jonathan can be explained as just another instance of the parting ritual, 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 their final meeting.

It is further striking that the attestation of the verb נשק 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 נשק 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 attestation 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 נשק is unequivocally used as an element of the description of a homoerotic or homosexual relationship.

6. The Semantics of the Phrase “shame of the nakedness of your mother.” A further argument[83] relates to Saul’s angry remark in 1 Sam 20:30 that Jonathan’s behavior brings upon him and upon the ערוה of his mother בשת, “shame.” The genital or sexual connotation of the noun ערוה is evident. It is noteworthy, however, that out of the thirty attestations of the noun בשת, 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 harlotry.[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 ערוה of Jonathan’s mother is concerned, 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 nouni ערוה, and this act at the same time is denounced as very negative because of its negative result—the shameful son Jonathan—and therefore 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 ערוה would have to be used with respect to Jonathan himself, not to his mother. Another way of explaining the expression ולבשת ערות אמך is given by Radak:[86] people seeing Jonathan’s support of his father’s enemy will assume that he was born of an adulterous relationship and is not really Saul’s son. Again, ערוה would not hint at a sexual misconduct of Jonathan, but, following this line of explanation, at a sexual misconduct of Jonathan’s mother.

7. The Semantics of the Verb שבע (“to swear”). According to Schroer and Staubli, the use of the verb שבע, “to swear,” also hints at a connection between the David-Jonathan accounts and Song of Songs. Such a claim is rather surprising. The verb שבע is attested more than 180 times in the HB, five times in Song of Songs. This means that the attestations in Song of Songs amount to less than 3 percent of all the attestations of שבע. 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 all five attestations 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 שבע 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 hif’il, but in the more common nif’al conjugation. It is also noteworthy that in none of the twenty-six attestations[87] of שבע within the literary context of the David-Jonathan 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 affirmation 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 certain 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 explicitly 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 שבע—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 נעם (“pleasantness; pleasant; to be pleasant”). An investigation of the root נעם, which is attested in 2 Sam 1:23 and 26, also leads to results that are more complex than those found in Schroer’s and Staubli’s exposition. The adjective נעים (naʿim), “pleasant, delightful, lovely,” is attested thirteen times, the verb נעם, “to be pleasant, delightful, lovely,” eight times, and the noun נעם (noʿam), “pleasantness, kindness, loveliness,” seven times. This adds to a total of twenty-eight attestations. Of these only two are found in Song of Songs.[91] This shows that the root נעם 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 נעם 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 אח (“brother”). Schroer’s and Staubli’s interpretation 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 “sister.” To deduce from one single clear instance that the term “brother” (אח) 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 extra-biblical ancient Near Eastern writings.[94] Even the combination of “brother” and “lover” (אהב) 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 kinship relation, which in the case of David and Jonathan was in fact established 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 phrase.

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 בחר (“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 בחר in 1 Sam 20:30 which is said to indicate “a permanent choice and a firm relationship.” The verb בחר 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 largest 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 battle. In no instance is there any connection with a love relationship. This renders an interpretation of בחר in 1 Sam 20:30 that stresses the emotional or even erotic component 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 instrument 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 ברית (“covenant”). Römer and Bonjour tentatively suggest that the use of the nounr ברית, “covenant,” might hint at a marriage-like relationship between David and Jonathan: “Dans de rares cas ou une ‘alliance’ lie deux individus, il s’agit d’un contrat de mariage. Faut-il rapprocher 1 Samuel 18, 3 de cette signification?”[98] Such an assumption is unwarranted, since there are a great number of examples where ברית refers to covenants between two (or more) individuals clearly outside a marriage context; see, e.g., Gen 14:13 (covenant between Abraham and the Amorites [Mamre?], 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 (covenant 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 עד־דוד הגדיל. It has been suggested that the enigmatic phrase עד־דוד הגדיל 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.[99] This interpretation, however, fails on the following grounds: The verb גדל 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? Could 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 הגדיל, without using the word “foot” or the like which would have been much more fitting to prepare the reader’s attention for a highly specialized sexual meaning of the verb שגדל.

13. The Semantics of the Noun קשת (“bow”). The reference to Jonathan’s קשת, “bow,” in 2 Sam 1:22—in combination with 1 Sam 18:4; 20:20–22, 36–38—has been interpreted as hinting at Jonathan’s penis and his homosexual behavior.[100] There are seventy-five attestations of the noun קשת in the HB. In the overwhelming majority of the attestations (fifty-six cases), the context makes it absolutely clear that קשת 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 Chr 8:40. In the last of the three cases, it is the sequence of the phrases דרכי קשת and

מרבים בנים that could hint to a connection between קשת and the procreative member of the male body. However, the phrase דרכי קשת is syntactically bound up with the preceding גברי־חיל and separated from the subsequent מרבים בנים by the insertion of the conjunction waw. It seems, therefore, that דרכי קשת functions as an element that further defines the phrase גברי־חיל; the phrase מרבים בנים, 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 קשת 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 קשת a place in a battle scene, devoid of any sexual connotations. קשת may well be assigned a symbolic meaning, but not of a sexual type; it rather symbolizes military strength, as in many other instances.[101]

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 5:26. 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 קשת.

Actually, as Ackerman notes, it is not the קשת, but more precisely the חחּ, the arrow which could be interpreted as a phallic symbol.[102] In the passages mentioned above, however, the noun חחּ 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 קשת and חחּ, 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 connotation lies in the text would not find it there, as long exegetical tradition shows. It would almost be like interpreting William Tell’s 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 the relationship between them.

14. The Semantics of the Phrase “to bind one’s soul to someone.” First Samuel 18:1 says that Jonathan’s נפש bound itself or was bound (קשר ni) to David’s נפש. 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 קשר; 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[104] is the verb קשר 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 קשר 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 the verb. Even if an emotional connotation may not be ruled out, on the basis of the dominant usages of קשר it is not probable that such a connotation would be the main focus; what is underlined is the political connotation, the only connotation that appears in the literary context of 1 Sam 18:1—that is, in the books of Samuel and Kings.[105] Special mention has to be made of the usages of the root קשר 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 קשר in 1 Sam 18:1 may also point to a theological level: Jonathan’s נפש does not simply bind itself to David’s נפש and thereby initiate a political bond; Jonathan’s נפש is really bound on a deeper level—by God’s own plan and intervention—to David’s נפש, because God wants to use this bond to implement 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 (ויפל לאפיו ארצה וישתחו שלש פעמים). This picture 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 in front of Elisha.

16. The Directionality of the “love-movement.” It is evident that overall, the inner movements expressed by the roots אהב, חפחּ, and קשר 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 אהב, that it is only the super ordinate person who is normally said to be the subject of the “love” expressed by this root.[106]

17. The Absence of the Verbs שכב (“to lie with”) and ידע (“to know [someone sexually] “). At no turn of the David-Jonathan stories are there any attestations of those verbs that regularly appear in the context of unambiguously sexual relationships, namely שכב and ידע. In all texts that refer to behavior that includes homosexual acts, one or the other of the two verbs is found: ידע in Gen 19:5 and Judg 19:22,[107] שכב in Lev 18:22 and 20:13. The fact that such verbs that would clearly mark the relationship of David and Jonathan as a (homo)sexual one are missing must be given due weight.[108] 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 Narrative Level

1. The Pre-Text. The first remark about the relationship of David and Jonathan 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 נפש 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 the first encounter 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 analogous 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 immediately afterwards by Jonathan. 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 non-completion of the marriage 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 subordination 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-a-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 || 1 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 strictly as putting 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 explicitly 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,[111] that Michal and Jonathan are set in parallel by using the verb אהב 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 אהב is used: in the case of Jonathan, it is combined with the expression כנפשו, 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” (אהב) somebody. One could argue that what is hinted at by the use of אהב 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 קשת 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 partner 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 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-a-vis his partner, would have been an acceptable figure for an ancient Israelite audience at all.

Another problem connected with Ackerman’s interpretation emerges: she claims that because of his feminized role, Jonathan “has fallen so low, the narrative’s homoeroticized innuendo may imply, and has assumed so abjectly subservient 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 succession stories. On the whole, Jonathan is depicted not as a low figure, 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 reconstruction.

3. Jonathan’s Relationship with Saul. It has been rightly observed 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 psychological 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 closeness can be deduced from 1 Sam 16:21–23 and 17:55–58. Also, the frequent 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 his own son.”[117] 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 encompassing strategy that would permanently 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 general movement of the plot; rather, it has to be given its specific place within the narrative line focused on the political aim of the whole story.

Thus, the covenant between Jonathan and David (1 Sam 18:3; 23:18) is followed 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 the first stage of his aspirations, the kingship over Judah. A similar 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 אהב (1 Sam 16:21); the next stage is formed by Jonathan’s love for David (1 Sam 18:3; 20:17); followed by Michal’s love (1 Sam 18:20 [28][119]); the love of Saul’s servants (1 Sam 18:22); and finally, the love of the people (1 Sam 18:16 [28]).

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 also from the connections with covenant terminology. The political dimension of this terminology is evident from its 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 treaties on the other hand. In Hittite treaties which contain provisions for the ascension to the throne by a vassal, there are stipulations that embed the throne succession in the framework of a friendship.[120] It is exactly this framework that 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 preceding 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 treaties in others. For the former category one may refer to vv. 23 and 42 where the aspect of mutuality is stressed; the formulations in 5:8 (“your servant”) and 5:41 (David’s bow) on the other side hint at a subordination of David in respect to Jonathan, vv. 14–16 at a subordination of Jonathan in respect to David. The interpretation of swearing an oath mentioned in 5:17 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 (vv. 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 dimension 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 of Jonathan’s insignia to David is paramount to the latter’s investiture on a symbolic level.[125] 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 5:41, further 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 23 finds its 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.

7. Further Hints of the Political Dimension in the Relationship between David and Jonathan. On the whole, the specific character of the political nature of the relationship between Jonathan and David consists in Jonathan becoming the transmittor 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 most likely understood as a symbol for the transfer of the kingship to David.[127] 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 (מעיל) especially can symbolize kingship. 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 his first charge 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 identification with Saul and as a replacement of Saul.[129] By ascribing to Jonathan a 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

יהונתן כנפשו [ויאהבהו] ויאהבו, 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 legitimacy to the political manoeuver that is symbolized by these events.[130]

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 language 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 analogy that exists between the dangerous situation in which David finds himself and that of Jonathan in 1 Sam 14 which was a result of the trespassing of Saul’s command 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 his right of succession and acknowledges 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 5:4, already implicitly hints at the transfer of the right of succession to David.[132] In vv. 14–16 Jonathan already treats David as the future king, to whom he himself as an inferior presents a humble petition. This line finds its continuation in 1 Sam 23:16–18, with an essential new element: Jonathan expresses his conviction that the transfer of the right of 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, Jonathan’s relation to David is also theologically motivated. A homosexual or homoerotic interpretation of the relationship between David and Jonathan hardly fits with 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 ultimately caused by YHWH himself. At the very first step of this rise it 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 underlining of the fact that the relationship between Jonathan and David was connected with the concept of a covenant and with oaths that were witnessed by YHWH[137] has to be taken as incompatible with the assumption of a homoerotic 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 covenant if this covenant were connected with a kind of sexual relation for which no affirming evaluation can be found within the official documents of Yahwism, 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 mourning rite in 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 their 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—homosexual 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 composition or redaction of the story of David’s ascent to power.[142] Even more frequent 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 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 practices in Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity is rooted.

As to the first of 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 history 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 indirectly by the mention of his son, Meribaal, in 2 Sam 9, but also directly in 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 conclusive 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 unanimously negative evaluation of such relations.[149] The fact that the final redaction 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 connotations 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.[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 question 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 generally right to 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 relationships 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 unanimously 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 evaluations as in the David-Jonathan stories on the other. This argument is not compelling, 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 presupposes a chronological precedence of Song of Songs, which cannot be simply taken for granted without providing specific evidence. The parallels can be explained firstly by 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 compiler(s) 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 emotional friendship in 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 explanation for the phraseological and conceptual overlap.

V. Evidence From Other Ancient Near Eastern Civilizations

Routinely either ancient Greek or Egyptian or Mesopotamian literary or pictorial sources are used as comparative material that enables the modern 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 mentioned as a parallel to that of David and Jonathan. Although the description of this relationship in the Iliad does 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 relationship between a man and his wife, the situation was different in Mesopotamia and Egypt.

Let us turn first to the Mesopotamian evidence. The relationship of Gilgamesh 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 evaluation.[157] The same is true for a passage of the oracle Šumma lu (CT39, 44).[158] It is also possible that the devotees of Istar called assinnu, kurgarrû, and kuluʾu engaged in sexual acts with men that were approved as a legitimate part of the cult associated with Istar.[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 abnormal.[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 interaction.”[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 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 Philistines? 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 persons living more than thirteen hundred years later in Israel seems like drawing conclusions from scenes depicted on Ravenna mosaics with regard to behavioral 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 conceptualized; the differences in comparison to other neighboring cultures are evident, 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 relationship between David and Jonathan implying a (homo)sexual 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 relationship 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 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 oriented 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 than fiction or wishful thinking.

Notes

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 range from very positive (Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 146 n. 233) to moderately critical (Naumann, “David und die Liebe,” 78 n. 28; Nissinen, “Die Liebe von David und Jonatan,” 250–63) to polemically 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, 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 appreciate new historical insights; I just cannot find them 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 Liebesbeziehung der Davidüberlieferung, der man ‘homoerotische’ Dimensionen nicht absprechen kann” (“David und die Liebe,” 51); “[m].E. ist durch Textanalyse allein die Reichweite des Liebesverhältnisses 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 Bindung Jonatans 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 encounters 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: “Il ne s’agit pas de présenter David et Jonathan comme des ‘icones 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’homosexualite’ “ (L’homosexualité, 101); “[l]e récit de David et Jonathan ne dit jamais explicitement que leur amitié avait une composante érotique, 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’abordl’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 érotiques signale la complémentarité vitale des deux partenaires. Mais il implique apparemment aussi une connotation sexuelle”; “[c]e qui est figuré, c’est un acte singulier et précis, un rapport sexuel entre deux hommes souvent accompagné de l’idée d’une transgression des roles”; “[e]n consequence,. .. il paraît logique de conclure à une dimension homosexuelle ou au moins homoérotique dans la relation entre David et Jonathan.” According to David Jobling, “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; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1998], 161). Martti Nissinen claims that it is “conceivable 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 and Jonathan can be interpreted also from another 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 and Jonathan can be taken as an example of ancient oriental homosociability 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 experience 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, The Jewish 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,” ETL 66 (1990): 281-96 (also printed in Otto Kaiser, Studien zur Literaturgeschichte des Alten Testaments [FB 90; Würzburg: Echter, 2000], 183–99); Steven L. McKenzie, King David (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 84–85; Eckart Otto, Kontinuum und Proprium (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.
7. D. T. Spencer, referring to Timothy Koch, maintains that “the locus of authority for queer folks must be intrinsic, where ‘I 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 of fitting in or finding a place for them, but of fitting them 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).
8. This boundary is not strictly respected in the article written by Schroer and Staubli as demonstrated 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 zusammen. Unsere Gesellschaft halt an der Ideologie einer ‘natürlichen’ Heterosexualität fest, und erst seit kurzem ist in den (evangelischen) Kirchen zu diesem Thema überhaupt etwas in Bewegung geraten”; “[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 categorization 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 Jonatan,” 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.
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 Homosexualität 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 Love, 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 Zurich, for instance, published in 1999 ( ZUMS 98, Institut fur Sozial- und Praventivmedizin der Universitat Zurich) 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.
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 Love, 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).
20. See, e.g., Horner, Jonathan Loved David, 52, 70, 73, 85.
21. Nissinen, Homoeroticism, 41. Cf. also Gagnon, T he Bible and Homosexual Practice, 129-32; Saul M. Olyan, “And with a Male You Shall Not Lie 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 neighbors played a paramount role in defining their identity.
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. Cf 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,” especially 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.
31. Ackerman, When Heroes Love, 195.
32. Gagnon, T he Bible and Homosexual Practice, 135-36. For a similar view see Otto, Kontinuum und Proprium, 326. Cf. also Karl Hoheisel, “Homosexualität,” RAC 16 (Stuttgart, 1994): 328; Römer and Bonjour, L’homosexualité, 43.
33. The rationale of order violation is further specified by Wold: [I]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 Begründung des Verbots hat ihren sachlichen Gehalt in der Schöpfungsordnung.. .. Gen 1, 27 [gibt] den Horizont für das Verbot der gleichgeschlechtlichen Liebe. .. ab.. .. Der gleichgeschlechtliche Umgang verletzt die von Gott mit der Schopfung 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 Comstock, though it is of course heavily critized by him (see Comstock, Gay Theology, 68).
35. Wold, Out of Order, 119.
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 Loved David, 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, 166ff). Some of the arguments presented by Schroer and Staubli are also found in Römer and Bonjour, L’homosexualité, 72–78.
37. The observations adduced here only refer to the 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 אהב 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 the first part 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 Freundschaftsbeziehungen”; “inniges Freundschaftsverhältnis”; “[d]ass 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 אהב with paragogic heh, following the pattern of Lisowsky’s concordance.
41. Twenty-two attestations belong to this group; uses of אהבה denoting YHWH’s attitude towards his people and uses of אהבה denoting the people’s attitude towards YHWH are equally frequent.
42. Gen 29:20; 2 Sam 13:15; Prov 5:19.
43. Cf. Hans Joachim Stoebe’s remark on 1 Sam 18:1–4. He says that the root אהב denotes more than a mere friendship, namely “die durch den Segen Jahwes gewirkte persönliche Anziehungskraft Davids” (Das erste Buch Samuelis [KAT 8/1; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1973]).
44. The connection between אהבת 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. Cf. A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel (WBC 11; Dallas: Word, 1989); and Hans Joachim Stoebe, Das zweite Buch Samuelis (KAT 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; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag 1981).
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 נשים the plural of the noun אם had been used. But it is also true that נשים can have the meaning “mothers,” as can be seen, e.g., from Exod 1:19; in many cases, moreover, motherhood is implied in the use of the term נשים, 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 נשים does not point to mothers, the plural נשים 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., Gen 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 distinguished 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 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; 6:5; 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.
55. This is not to deny that Gen 30:15, 20 may subtlely 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.
57. In this count neither infinitive constructs of אהב with paragogic heh nor substantival participles 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; Deut 21:15 (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. 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 אהב in 1 Kgs 15:5, see J. A. Thompson, “The Significance of the Verb Love in the David-Jonathan Narratives in 1 Samuel,” VT 24 (1974): 334, 338. He notes—based on observations adduced by W. L. Moran—that the political connotation of the root אהב is broadly attested in ancient Near Eastern texts, especially in Akkadian (334, 338).
65. See Susan Ackerman, The Personal is Political: Covenantal and Affectionate Love (ʾāheb, ʾahăbâ) in the Hebrew Bible,” VT52 (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, T he 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 Parpola and Kazuko Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths [SAA 2; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1988], 39 6:266–68). The verb “love” (raʾāmu) is frequently used in the context of Assyrian vassal treaties; see Parpola 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 אהב, J. Cheryl Exum correctly notes: “This ‘love’ is not eros but male bonding” (Tragedy and Biblical Narrative [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992], 73).
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 Chr 9:8.
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 הלד: 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 נלכה השדה, in accordance with the majority of the old witnesses; this brings a close analogy of the formulation with 1 Sam 20:11. Combination with יצא: Gen 24:63; 27:3; Deut 14:22; 28:38; Judg 9:27, 42; 1 Sam 20:35; 2 Sam 11:23; 18:6; 2 Kgs 4:39; Jer 6:25; 14:18; Mic 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 יצא or הלך.
75. Nosson Scherman, T he Prophets: T he Early Prophets, Vol. 2, 1-2 Samuel (Art Scroll Series; New York: Mesorah, 2002), 131.
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 (Jacob–sons 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 (Naomi–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: (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 נשק in the context of the David-Jonathan story (1 Sam 20:41) follows after the note on the marriage of David and Michal (1 Sam 18:27).
83. See Schroer and Staubli, “Saul, David und Jonatan,” 19. The argument is also found in Ackerman, 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, e.g., A. J. Rosenberg Samuel I (2d ed.; Judaica Books of the Prophets; New York: Judaica Press, 1996), 175.
86. See Scherman, The Early Prophets, 137; Rosenberg Samuel I, 175.
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. Cf. 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 Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, 37–38.
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., Comstock, Gay Theology, 88; Römer and Bonjour, L’homosexualité, 9.
93. Against Ackerman, When Heroes Love, 191.
94. See, e.g., EA 19.1: the Mittanian king Tushratta addresses the Egyptian king as “brother”; CTH 91: in a treaty, Ramses II addresses the Hittite king, Hattusili III, repeatedly as “brother”; CTH 169: the Egyptian prince Sutahapshap designates his father as the “brother” of the Hittite king Hattusili III, in a letter sent to the latter (obv 8–10); CTH 172: throughout the whole letter, Hattusili III of Hatti addresses Kadashman-Enlil II 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.
95. For the first two see Nissinen, Homoeroticism, 55. The first argument is also found in Jobling, 1 Samuel, 161.
96. Isa 48:10 and Job 34:4, where "1113 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 Chr 28:4; 2 Chr 6:6.
98. L’homosexualité, 73.
99. For instance, R. Hepner (personal communication 29 July 2004).
100. For instance, Ackerman, When Heroes Love, 183-84, and again Hepner (personal communication 29 July 2004).
101. Cf. Othmar Keel, ‘Der Bogen als Herrschaftssymbol, 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.
105. Concerning קשר, cf. also the comments in Peter R. Ackroyd, “The Verb Love—ʾāhēb—in the David-Jonathan Narratives—A Footnote,” VT 25 (1975): 213-14. The political interpretation is also found in Ralph W. Klein, 1 Samuel (WBC 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 חפחּ, again with one possible exception (2 Sam 20:11).
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?,” JSOT 67 (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, 177.
111. See ibid., 180-81.
112. See ibid., 194, 222-23.
113. See ibid., 224-26.
114. Ibid., 224.
115. For details see Robert B. Lawton, “Saul, Jonathan and the Son of Jesse,’” JSOT 58 (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 different from Jobling’s assertion that Jonathan “represents the extreme case of a character being emptied into plot” whose “attitudes and actions lack any normal 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 his rise to 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.
117. Lawton, “Saul, Jonathan and the ‘Son of Jesse,”’ 42.
118. This view is found in Comstock, Gay Theology, 83.
119. The textual transmission of 1 Sam 18:28 is not clear. According to the reading 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.
120. See Wozniak, ‘Drei verschiedene literarische Beschreibungen, 214.
121. According to Wozniak (ibid., 216), Jonathan’s position here seems to correspond to the position 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. Cf. ibid., 213-14; on the function of gods as witnesses in Neo-Assyrian treaties, see Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, XXXVII.
123. Cf. Wozniak, ‘Drei verschiedene literarische Beschreibungen, 217.
124. Cf. Thompson, The Significance,” 335. A differing view is found in Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg, Die Samuelbücher (ATD; Gottingen: 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 ערם in 1 Sam 19:24, the silence about Jonathan’s assumed nakedness is even more telling.
125. See, e.g., Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 148–49.
126. Cf. David Jobling, The Sense of Biblical Narrative (2d ed.; JSOTSup 7; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986), 14. The basic element of this political theme is very well summarized by Jobling in his monograph on 1 Samuel: “.. . in all his appearances Jonathan moves the story toward its goal of transferring 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 presupposes an understanding of kingship as hereditary The sequence of events shows that this presupposition 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 conveyance 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 history. .. [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 Loved 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 Canaanites, peoples who were both semi-matriarchal and matrilinear” (29–30). As a consequence, the natural heir to the throne would be the king’s son-in-law rather than the king’s son. The view endorsed by Comstock 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 decisive figure, King Saul, as a legal stipulation forcing him to transfer the succussion from his son to David. Cf. 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 “matriarchate” (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 clear from the Amarna Letters. Labʾayu, king of Shechem, writes to the Pharaoh: “[Behold, I a]m a servant of the king [like] my [fathe]r and my [gr]and fa[th]er, a servant of the king from l[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 (1 Samuel); Exum (Tragedy, 74, 76); Gunn (The Fate, 80); and Jobling (The Sense, 20). This interpretation is rejected by Stoebe (Das erste Buch Samuelis) without giving specific reasons.
128. For details see Iain Provan, V. Philips Long, and Tremper Longman, A Biblical History o Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 212–13.
129. Jobling’s comment hits the nail on the head: T he relationship between Saul and Jonathan shows both role-identification between the two. .. and 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 (1 Samuel, 96).
130. Cf. Jobling, The Sense, 19.
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.”
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 disadvantaged 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 me from the hand of this Philistine” 5:47: “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 congruent 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 Beziehungsfähigkeit 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.
138. Cf. 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 contact between males regulated the Israelites’ sexual morality” (Homoeroticism, 56).
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 Zehn Gebote im Rahmen alttestamentlicher Ethik (EdF 281; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1993), 10, 117.
147. Cf. Klein, 1 Samuel. This does not presuppose, however, that these stipulations were known or in force in accordance with the present final codified version of the Holiness Code.
148. Concerning the HB’ s image of David (outside the books of Samuel and Kings), see especially 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.
149. 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.
150. 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 post biblical Judaism, see, e.g, b. Sanh. 55a; 73a; b. Sukkah 29a; b. Yebam. 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,” TBei 25 (1994): 173-80.
151. See When Heroes Love, 200, 210–11.
152. See, e.g., Gillis Gerleman, Ruth – Das Hohelied (BKAT 18; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965), 75–77.
153. See Nissinen, Homoeroticism, 57–69.
154. See, e.g., Schroer and Staubli, “Saul, David und Jonatan,” 22.
155. See, e.g., DavidDamrosch, TheNarrative 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 III/4), 654, 665, 668, 679–80, 684, 691, 693.
157. Nissinen, referring to the relationships of Gilgamesh and Enkidu, also speaks of “a homoerotic aspect that expresses their deep friendship”; 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 leads first from savage sexual behavior to mutual love, and finally away from physical sex” (Homoeroticism, 24). Acker man 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 la fraternité, l’amitié, l’amour passionnel et l’érotisme” (L’homosexualité, 93); “[l]’idée d’une relation sexuelle entre Gilgamesh et Enkidu est.. . fortement suggérée, même sile récit n’enparle jamais ouvertement” (92). This verdict is based primarily on Gilgamesh’s lament for Enkidu: “[O]n voit dans cette litanie funebre de Gilgamesh l’un des indices centraux du caractre homosexuel de la relation des deux amis. En effet, cette élégie est imprégnée d’un langage sexuel et érotique” (90).
158. See Nissinen, Homoerotiasm, 27–28; Otto, Kontinuum und Proprium, 323, Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 47–48.
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, Homoeroticism, 33–34. Nissinen thinks that the role of the people called assinnu was rather asexual than homosexual and that it had not much to do with the modern concept of homosexuality (34). Cf 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 tappāʾu. 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, Kontinuum 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 provide positive evidence for their view.
164. Otto and Ro¨mer 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, in150:n. 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; B 27. See “Egyptian Myths, Tales and Mortuary Texts,” translated by John A. Wilson (ANET, 3–36). Römer and Bonjour point to a text dating to the twenty-fourth century B.C. concerning a meeting of Pepi II 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.
169. For a similar vein of argument see Schroer and Staubli, “Saul, David und Jonatan,” 21.
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 Rutledge for a revision of the enlarged English version.