Jonathan and daivd - ACU Blogs | Abilene Christian University



Jonathan and daivdThe Bible describes few friendships that compare with the friendship of David and Jonathan. The relationship between David and Jonathan is an example of steadfast friendship and loyalty despite difficult circumstances. However, recent scholarship has questioned a na?ve reading that this relationship was merely a friendship of legendary fidelity. Many critics believe that this relationship was either farce or a homosexual relationship. The text indicates that Jonathan knew that David would be the next king after Saul, but was completely at peace with this and worked to bring it about. It was Jonathan’s right as the first-born of Saul in the newly established Kish dynasty to take the throne of Israel, but Samuel’s prophesy indicated that this would not happen. The text identifies David as the eventual usurper of the throne of Israel, but this has no adverse effects on their friendship. Many doubt Jonathan’s ability to be genuinely cordial to David, who represented his own downfall. Other scholars cast the relationship in a completely different light portraying it as erotic. The text affirms that Jonathan “loved” David, and there is some incriminating language in David’s lament for Jonathan in 2 Samuel 1. Despite some of the strong language regarding David and Jonathan, one cannot assume anything about the two that text does not explicitly say, and thus the most likely nature of their relationship was normal friendship.A difficulty in reconstructing the historical Jonathan is that there is no ancient text other than the Hebrew text, which deals with Jonathan son of Saul. Jonathan’s role in the Samuel narrative is too minor to make any specific claims about him from archeology or sociology. One can neither confirm nor deny his existence and subsequently his relationship with David based on another source. One may make general claims about ancient Near Eastern men who were the heir to a throne of a minor kingdom. However, one cannot ascribe specific attributes to Jonathan that the Hebrew Bible does not ascribe. One may only know the things about Jonathan that one can deduced from the text.jonathan’s covenants with davidThe most striking feature of David and Jonathan’s relationship is the theme of covenant. The covenants that they swear are the distinguishing marks of their relationship. 1 Sam 18:1 records Jonathan’s first interaction with David. David had just killed the Philistine giant, and Jonathan went to David and made a covenant with him. Covenants bookend their relationship, marking its beginning and ending. When David feared for his life, because Saul was trying to kill him, Jonathan made a covenant with David (1 Sam 20:15). The term covenant (??????) is a theologically loaded term in the Hebrew Bible. The authors of the Hebrew Bible frequently used the term “covenant” to describe God’s relationship with Israel. Covenants usually involved a lesser party and a greater party. The logical choice for the greater party would be Jonathan; he was the king’s son and David was a shepherd. However, as the narrative progresses David appears to be the stronger of the two, because he is YHWH’s anointed one. The authors of the Hebrew Scriptures use a very common Hebrew idiom, to cut ((?????, to talk about making covenants. Interestingly Jonathan is the instigator of the first two covenants, but the last is mutual. The verb to cut is singular in 1 Sam 18:3 and 20:15, but plural in 23:18. The covenants that they made were not as substantial as other covenants that the biblical texts record, and they made these covenants with no ceremonial rituals. Additionally, the first covenant was not sufficient for Jonathan, and they made two covenants subsequently when the narrative reached climactic points. The reasons that the text gives for the first covenant Jonathan made with David are that Jonathan loved David as his own life and was one with him. The text does not mention any specific stipulations or requirements for this covenant. One would usually expect some obligatory agreement to come with a covenant. Jonathan gave his sword, armor, cloak and bow to David in conjunction with the covenant, which indicated David’s automatically elevated position within the kingdom (1 Sam 18:3). These items had great significance, because they were difficult to acquire and a member of the royal house owned them. 1 Sam 13:22 says that there were no spears among the Israelites, except that Jonathan and Saul had a spear and a sword. The text appears to be referring to the transfer of the right to the throne to David in this exchange. David moved up the chain of command rather quickly after fighting the Philistine giant, and likely used Jonathan’s weapons in combat. The text indicates that Jonathan was the sole instigator of this covenant, and David appeared to be the only beneficiary. The text describes David as more passive in this covenant, but clearly reaps the benefits.The second covenant that Jonathan made with David specified some stipulations for David. Jonathan’s part in the deal required him to find out what Saul’s opinion of David was; David’s part was to show steadfast love to Jonathan if he survived. This is foreshadowing the events of 1 Samuel 31; Jonathan was not in impending danger, but he asked for David’s steadfast love and qualified it with “If I am still alive.” (1 Sam 20:14) The author of the text knew that Jonathan would not survive the events leading to David’s assumption of the throne, but Jonathan would not have known this at the time. It is possible that Jonathan was referring to the David becoming king and eliminating all the other contenders to the throne, because he also says, “that I may not die.” (1 Sam 20:14) Jonathan may have recognized his own threat to a Davidic monarchy. This is possible, but Jonathan did not openly admit that David would be king until the covenant that he made with David in 1 Sam 23:18. Jonathan implied that God would wipe out Saul stating that the YHWH will wipe out all of David’s enemies, and therefore Jonathan’s own life would have been at risk. (1 Sam 20:15) Jonathan made David swear to him by his love for him to assure that David would follow through with the stipulations of the covenant, which were rather minor. Jonathan was aware that there will be great calamity on his own house, and the text implies that he knew that David would be the king of Israel in the future. This covenant went to a deeper level than the previous covenant in 18:3. Jonathan cut the previous covenant with David, but Jonathan cut this covenant with the house of David. This implies that the covenant would not break at the end of David’s life, but would continue with his decedents. The text does not mention the house of Jonathan, but implies it, and this covenant sets up the David and Merib-baal story. David completed the covenant with the house of Jonathan by his steadfast love to Merib-baal (2 Sam 9). However, that text does not mention anything about this covenant, and David’s motivation to show Merib-baal loving kindness was for the sake of Jonathan. Presumably, the covenant did not end at the end of Jonathan’s life, but Jonathan’s house is not in the covenant. David showed kindness to Merib-baal a second time continuing the covenant by not handing him over to the Gibeonites as a payment for Saul’s bloodguilt (2 Sam 21:7). Again, David is passive in this covenant and Jonathan initiates cutting the covenant. However, the text makes certain that David fulfilled his obligations to this covenant and depicts him as exceeding the stipulations of the covenant.The location for the final covenant is at the most climactic scene of the David and Jonathan narrative. In 1 Samuel 23, Saul pursued David and had nearly found him, but the text has an interlude where Jonathan found David, and they made a third covenant. Like the first covenant, the text states no stipulation for this covenant. Jonathan told David for the first time that he knows David will be king, and that his father knows he will be king. This is the only covenant that the text portrays as reciprocal. The Jonathan made the first two covenants with David, but this time they both cut the covenant before YHWH. This event will be the last time that the two will have any significant contact with one another. Jonathan takes an inexplicable hiatus from the Samuel narrative, and he does not appear again in the text until his death along with his father on mount Gilboa. David lamented Jonathan’s death, but never again met him in life. jonathan as david’s second in commandThe text portrays Jonathan as having been in complete harmony with the will of God and working to bring David to the throne, despite that hereditary succession of the monarchy, a well-established tradition in the ancient Near East, would indicate Jonathan should have been the next king. Despite the tradition of hereditary succession, there was little precedent for the Israelite kingship under Saul. Saul was the first king, and thus there was no precedent for the kingdom. There was hereditary succession for high priest (Num 20:28). In 1 Sam 23:17, Jonathan states that David will be king and he would be second to him. Jonathan seems to have been envisioning himself as a co-ruler or vizier under David. This represents an enormous amount of humility and respect for the implied will of God. Some people find it doubtful that Jonathan would have been this willing to give up the kingdom, and others have determined that 1 Sam 23:16-18, when Jonathan went to David at Horesh, is a later addition by the Deuteronomistic compiler. It is unlikely that Jonathan was able to find David so easily when Saul could not, but this does flow with the rest of the Samuel narrative. Saul was not able to harm David, because of the hand of YHWH, not because of his own inadequacies. YHWH would not have prevented Jonathan from finding David. The material would fit with an apologetic source. The last part of verse 17 says that Saul also knew that David would be king over Israel. This indicates that no one was ignorant of the will of YHWH, and that Saul was rebelling against the LORD by not allowing David to rule. This emphasizes the innocents of David concerning the demise of Saul. Saul verbally says that David will be king later in the narrative (1 Sam 24:20). This section is consistent with the rest of the Samuel narrative in both form and content. Although this section may not be historical, it flows with story as the Deuteronomist records it. Discrediting this section as a redaction by a later hand only uses weak internal evidence, and thus one must consider the material from this episode.Jonathan’s language about being next to David is somewhat vague. He says, “I will be second to you.” The text implies that Jonathan will be the second in command of Israel. The term he uses is ??????????)) lemishneh, which means second place or secondary. The biblical texts frequently use this word to denote some type of position of power, and it can refer to the son of the king. The world Jonathan envisioned was not one that elevated his status; it was one that lowered his place. Jonathan already occupied the position second to the king, but he was also the heir. By becoming second to David instead of his father, Jonathan was losing the position as heir to the throne. The text implies Jonathan was serving the will of YHWH, not seeking his own gain. The world that Jonathan was envisioning seems to be out of place. The person who was second to the king was traditionally younger than the king was. Jonathan was likely an older man than David was, as he was fighting wars before the account of David fighting the Philistine giant when Saul described him as a youth (1 Sam 17:33). He demonstrates superb humility and radical devotion to his friend, David, in this section of the narrative. This is the point that McKenzie finds implausible. He argues that Jonathan could not have wanted to give up his right to be king. His argument here is flawed. One cannot know the mind of Jonathan, and there have been people throughout history who have been unwilling or reluctant to rule a nation. To assume that every person in the ancient Near East was power hungry would be a massive over generalization and a faulty assumption. It is possible that Jonathan wished to be David’s right hand man in the new Davidic kingdom, however unlikely one might find it. A greater possibility is that Jonathan did not know that David was going to be king, and the Deuteronomistic complier added the sections that indicated that Jonathan was privy to this information. Jonathan’s motives for defending David were his friendship and the tremendous asset that David represented to Israel. Samuel did not reveal to Saul that David was going to be king until 1 Sam 28, when Saul asked the witch of En-dor to raise Samuel’s spirit. However, both Jonathan and Saul knew that David would be king after Saul according to the text. The text which speaks about Saul’s rejection as king (1 Sam 15:28) gave no indication that David would be king; he had not even entered the story. When God rejected Saul, it was equally likely that the prophesy referred to Jonathan replacing Saul as it did to another man taking the kingship. There are no narratives indicating that David or Samuel told Jonathan or Saul that David would be the next king. The text likely portrays the relationship of David and Jonathan in optimistic ways, as the author of the text likely composed it many years after the events of David and Jonathan’s life. The author was likely using an oral tradition that may have inflated their relationship, but the tradition probably still held a kernel of truth. It is highly plausible that the text has an inaccurate description of David and Jonathan, but it is unlikely that the text depicts their relationship opposite from reality.response to queer readings of David and jonathanIn recent years, some scholars have begun to look at David and Jonathan’s relationship as homosexual or homoerotic. The supporting evidences for these readings come from the handful of passages that talk about David and Jonathan entering covenants. The most notable occurrence of David and Jonathan entering a covenant comes from 1 Sam 20. In that chapter, David asked Jonathan to discover whether Saul intended to kill him. The text affirms that Jonathan “loved” David as his own life (1 Sam 18:1). One might construe this passage and others as evidence for Jonathan and David’s relationship being homoerotic, but it is not necessary to read the text in this manner. Hebrew is not a very vocabulary rich language, and each word in Hebrew has multiple translation possibilities in English or another modern language. J. A. Thompson believes that the verb (?????) that the text uses to describe Jonathan and David’s relationship does not carry an erotic connotation in this narrative, but a political one. An erotic or romantic sense of the word is within the semantic range of this verb, but it is not its sole meaning. Thompson compares this text with 1 Kgs 5:1, which reports that Hiram loved David. These two kings were political alleys and certainly not lovers. 1 Sam 16:21 reports that Saul loved David, but Saul’s interest in David was clearly for his musical ability. The text’s use of the verb to love in the narrative about David and Jonathan is not evidence for or against a homoerotic relationship between David and Jonathan. One should expect the text to use this word concerning two close friends in Hebrew.Perhaps the most notable evidence for a homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan comes from David’s lament in 2 Sam 1. “I have distress concerning you, my brother Jonathan; you were very pleasant to me. Your love was more wonderful than the love of women” (2 Sam 1:26). Numerous scholars have used this verse to determine that Jonathan and David were homosexually involved with one another. However, a reader of this text needs to be aware of the genre of the text and should notice that this is poetic language. Hebrew poets frequently made hyperbolic comparisons between things that the reader should not understand literally. One cannot take literally the language earlier in the lament concerning the strength and swiftness of Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam 1:23). The writer described things as much greater than they were. The language of the lament is honorific and meant to cast the ones who died in the best possible light. The language of the lament is not good evidence for a homoerotic relationship between David and Jonathan. Another possibility concerning this lament is that David intended it to be sarcastic, thus undercutting any notion of a homosexual undertone. Much of the language of the lament is highly hyperbolic and may be criticism, and one could understand it as a mockery of Saul and Jonathan. David language paints himself as the superior in his friendship with Jonathan and does not speak of his love for Jonathan. One would expect a reciprocal depiction of their relationship if it were homoerotic. If one reads the text in this manner, it implies a more negative understanding of Jonathan and David’s relationship than the text implies in other places. It opens the possibility that David used Jonathan’s friendship for purely positional gain. While this may be uncomfortable, it is not inconsistent with David’s character in the greater Samuel narrative. This text does not support a homosexual reading of the two men.Horner argued that homosexuality was an acceptable practice in the Philistine culture, which dominated the Israelite culture for nearly two hundred years prior to the David and Jonathan narratives. While there was certainly a large amount of Philistine culture in Israel, Israel was still autonomous from Philistia. While the Torah may not have existed in its current form until later, the laws forbidding men to lie with other men (Lev 18:22) certainly came out of cultural detest for homosexuality. Horner also refers to the covenants that the two make as life pacts. A homosexual marriage would not have been parallel to a normal marriage in the biblical texts. The biblical text seldomly uses the language of covenant with marriage. A description of these covenants as “life pacts” is incorrect. None of the covenants is sufficient for life. They make their first covenant when they meet each other for the first time, and they could not have been making any type of homosexual life pact. The second covenant was specifically between Jonathan and David’s house. Their last covenant is the focus of the last time they see each other, and cannot be a homosexual life pact. Horner makes the point that the relationship between David and Jonathan is unusual regardless of a homosexual reading. Friendship usually happened between equals, and David and Jonathan were clearly not equals. There is something out of the ordinary regarding the relationship of David and Jonathan. Horner is correct in saying that Jonathan probably felt inner tension between helping his friend and serving his father, but this does not mean that they were homosexual.Some point out that Jonathan and David do some things typically associated with homosexuality. David and Jonathan kiss each other and they weep together (1 Sam 20:41). These things might be indicators of Homosexuality in a western culture, but they are common practices in an eastern culture. It is normal for two men to kiss each other in non-western cultures as a form of greeting. The writers of the text were not concerned with any type of homosexual understanding, which would have marred on David character, and were not trying to hide anything. Furthermore, one cannot make the claim that David and Jonathan were purely homosexual, because they pursued heterosexual relationships. If one maintains that these two men were erotically involved with one another, one is claiming that they were bisexual rather than homosexual. David had numerous other wives and sired many children. There is no indication in the text that David ever sought a different male companion. The actions of David and Jonathan do not indict them as being homosexual. Honor argues for an alternative reading of 1 Samuel 20:31 based on the LXX. The Greek translators read the word “bocher” (?????), translated it as if it were “bacher” (?????) and rendered it as μ?τοχο?, which means companion. Horner argues that Saul was referencing a homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan. The LXX, although different from the Masoretic text, does not support a spurious reading, but neither does it support a homoerotic relationship between Jonathan and David. The sense of μ?τοχο? is like a business partnership and not an erotic companion. Saul became angry with Jonathan in this passage, because he was in league with Saul’s enemy, not because of a homoerotic relationship. Horner believes that the nakedness and shame of his mother also refers to Jonathan being homosexual, because these words have sexual connotation. This is also poor evidence that Jonathan was a homosexual. Nakedness clearly has a sexual connotation, but shame (??????) does not carry the sexual connotation, which Horner claims. Saul mentions the nakedness of Jonathan’s mother insinuating that he brings shame on his mother along with himself. This is a much more plausible conclusion than assuming that Jonathan was homoerotic. Yaron Peleg appropriated a different type of queer reading by arguing not that Jonathan and David were homoerotic, but that Jonathan was actually a female. His reasoning is that Jonathan takes a very passive role in the narrative after the appearance of David. He believes that this is part of the narratives attempt to disqualify Jonathan from eligibility to be king. Peleg says that Jonathan takes the feminine role in the relationship, and that one should not read the relationship a homosexual, but as heterosexual. After Jonathan meets David in 1 Sam 18, he does not go out to fight anymore. The only places he appears are in domestic settings until 1Sam 31. Jonathan is strangely absent from the Samuel narrative between his last meeting with David (1 Sam 23:16-18) and his death in the battle on mount Gilboa (1 Sam 31:6), but in that final story the texts only mentions him in passing. There are no accounts of a heroic death or a suicide like that of Saul. The text portrays Jonathan as incredibly submissive to David. The narrative draws parallels between Jonathan and his sister, Michal, who both “loved” David. One of the ironies of the text is that the house of Saul loved David, but Saul hated David. Both Michal and Jonathan helped David escape from Saul their father in divisive ways. David showed kindness to all the house of Saul and they returned the favor with the exception of Saul himself. David’s character clearly has a profound effect on Jonathan’s character. The text does draw parallels between Jonathan and Michal, however Peleg’s reading of the text is irresponsible. The narrative leaves little room for Jonathan being a woman, and the text only uses masculine pronouns and other words to describe him. Peleg’s reading is the product of a deliberate search for an alternative queer reading. Additionally, the verse that many use to construe David and Jonathan as being homoerotic (2 Sam 1:26) contrasts the love of women and the love of Jonathan and indicates that these were two different types of love. Most of the places in the narrative where one might find Jonathan’s absence perplexing are the places where Jonathan would not be. Jonathan was an unfortunate casualty of Saul’s sin, but he was in line with the will of YHWH. Jonathan would not help Saul find David, and neither would he accompany him to the home of the witch of En-dor. His affinity for David is what caused Jonathan’s apparent estrangement from Saul. This reading has very little credence. Yaron Peleg needs to find better evidence before making such astounding claims. ConclusionThere are many ways one may understand Jonathan and David’s relationship, but since there is no other credible witness to David and Jonathan there is only one logical conclusion concerning that relationship. The only way one can construe David and Jonathan as being homosexual or homoerotic is to interpret them based solely on a western modern perspective. David and Jonathan’s actions are indicative of two men who were close friends in the ancient Near East. There are certain things that the reader of ancient texts cannot fully comprehend, but this should not lead to wide ranging speculation. Scholars may cast this relationship as a spurious fabrication, or a homosexual affair, but there is insufficient evidence to make any of these claims. The only responsible conclusions about David and Jonathan are that they are similar to what the text portrays them. Bibliography Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3d ed. Chicago, 1999.Brueggemann, Walter. First and Second Samuel, Interpretation 10, Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990.Edelman, Diana. “Jonathan, Son of Saul.” Pages 944-46 in volume 3 of Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman, 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.Gagnon, Robert A. J. The Bible and Homosexual Practice, Abingdon: Nashville, 2001.Garcia-Treto, Francisco. “Jonathan” Pages 379-80 in Volume 3 of The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Edited by Katherine Doob Sackenfield, 5 vols. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2008.Horner, Tom. Jonathan Loved David, Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978. Jobling, David. 1 Samuel, Berit Olam 10, Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1998.Klein, Ralph W. “1 Samuel, Second Edition” Word Biblical Commentary 10, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008.Lawton, Robert. “Saul, Jonathan and the ‘Son of Jesse’” pages 35-46 in The Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 58 (1993).Linafelt, Tod. “Private Poetry and Public Eloquence in 2 Samuel 1:17-27: Hearing and Overhearing David's Lament for Jonathan and Saul,” Journal of Religion 88 (2008) 497-526.McKenzie, Steven L. King David: A Biography, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.Mendenhall, George and Gary Herion. “Covenant” pages 1179-1202 in volume 1 of Anchor Bible Dictionary, Edited by David Noel Freedman, 6 Volumes, New York: Doubleday, 1992.Peleg, Yaron. “Love at First Sight? David, Jonathan, and the Biblical Politics of Gender.” Pages 171-89 in the Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 30 (2005).Thompson, J. A. "The Significance of the Verb LOVE in the David-Jonathan Narratives in 1 Samuel" Pages 334-38 in Vetus Testamentus 24 (1974).Tsumura, David. The First Book of Samuel, volume 10 of New International Commentary on the Old Testament, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.Wallis, Gerhard. “Ahabh,” Pages 99-118 in Volume 1, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, 15 Volumes, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.Weinfeld, Jerusalem. “Berith,” Volume 2, Pages 258-279, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, 15 Volumes, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.Zehnder, Markus. “Observations on the Relationship between David and Jonathan and the Debate on Homosexuality.” Westminster Theological Journal 69 (2007): 127-74. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download