Jewish interpretation The sages characterized the relationship between Jonathan and David in the following
Mishnah: “Whenever love depends on some selfish end, when the end passes away, the love passes away; but if it does not depend on some selfish end, it will never pass away. Which love depended on a selfish end? This was the love of Amnon and Tamar. And which did not depend on a selfish end? This was the love of David and Jonathan. (Avot 5:16)"
Rabbi Shimon ben Tzemach Duran (Spain, North Africa 14th–15th century) delineated the significance of this mishnah: “Anyone who establishes a friendship for access to power, money, or sexual relations; when these ends are not attainable, the friendship ceases…love that is not dependent on selfish ends is true love of the other person since there is no intended end.” (Magen Avot – abridged and adapted translation) David's abundance of wives and
concubines is emphasized, alongside his adulterous affair with
Bathsheba. In response to the argument that homoeroticism was edited out, some traditionalists who subscribe to the
Documentary Hypothesis note the significance of the lack of censoring of the descriptions at issue, in spite of the Levitical injunctions against homoerotic contact. Gagnon states, "The narrator’s willingness to speak of David’s vigorous heterosexual life (compare the relationship with Bathsheba) puts in stark relief his (their) complete silence about any sexual activity between David and Jonathan." Presuming such editing would have taken place, Martti Nissinen comments, "Their mutual love was certainly regarded by the editors as faithful and passionate, but without unseemly allusions to forbidden practices ... Emotional and even physical closeness of two males did not seem to concern the editors of the story, nor was such a relationship prohibited by
Leviticus."
Homosociality is not seen as being part of the sexual
taboo in the biblical world.
Medieval and Renaissance allusions 's (1712)
Medieval literature occasionally drew upon the biblical relationship between David and Jonathan to underline strong personal, intimate friendships and homoerotic relationships between men. The anonymous , , wrote: "Indeed I do remember to have heard that one man so loved another. Jonathan cherished David,
Achilles loved
Patroclus." And thus,
King Edward II wept for his dead lover
Piers Gaveston as: "... David had mourned for Jonathan.". Similarly,
Roger of Hoveden, a twelfth-century chronicler, deliberately drew comparisons in his description of "The King of France (
Philip II Augustus) [who] loved him (
Richard the Lionheart) as his own soul." The Renaissance artists
Donatello and
Michelangelo both brought out strong
homoerotic elements in their sculptural depictions of the youthful David, which were
bronze and
marble, respectively. This was first pioneered by Tom Horner, then adopted by
John Boswell. The story of David and Jonathan is introduced in
Samuel 1 (18:1), where it says that "Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself", something that modern scholars have described as
philia or
love at first sight. For
Theodore Jennings, it is clear that Jonathan's "immediate" attraction to David was caused by his beauty:"As we have noticed, the attraction of Jonathan to David begins almost immediately as Saul is delighted in his new companion. This attraction is given extravagant expression. In the first place it appears to be love at first sight. We are told: "When David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David" (1 Sam 18:1). Is it something David has said? Not likely. For what David has said to Saul is "I am the son of your servant Jesse the Bethlehemite" (17:58). It is not something David has said. Instead, the reader's gaze has twice been directed to David's extraordinary beauty." The relationship between David and Jonathan has also been compared more explicitly to other homoerotic relationships in Near Eastern literature, including by
Cyrus H. Gordon, who noted the instance in the
Book of Jashar, excerpted in
Samuel 2 (1:26), in which David "proclaims that Jonathan's love was sweeter to him than the love of a woman", as being similar to both
Achilles' comparison of
Patroclus to a girl and
Gilgamesh's love for
Enkidu "as a woman". David's praise in for Jonathan's love (for him) over the love of women has been read as evidence for same-sex attraction, along with Saul's exclamation to his son at the dinner table, "I know you have chosen the son of Jesse – which is a disgrace to yourself and the nakedness of your mother!" According to some biblical scholars, the "choosing" () indicates a permanent choice and firm homoerotic relationship, and the mention of "nakedness" () is to convey a negative sexual nuance, which would give the impression that Saul saw something indecent in Jonathan and David's relationship. Some also point out that the relationship between the two men is addressed with the same words and emphasis as other love relationships in the Hebrew Testament, whether heterosexual or between God and people, such as or . There is more than mere homosociality in the dealings of David and Jonathan, as asserted by two 21st century studies: the biblical scholar
Susan Ackerman, and the Orientalist Jean-Fabrice Nardelli. Ackerman and Nardelli argue that the narrators of the books of Samuel encrypted same-sex allusions in the texts where David and Jonathan interact so as to insinuate that the two heroes were lovers. Ackerman explains this as a case of liminal, viz. transitory, homosexuality, deployed by the redactors as a textual means to assert David's rights against Jonathan's: the latter willingly alienated his princely status by bowing down (), sexually speaking, to the former. Nardelli disagrees and argues that the various covenants Jonathan engaged David into as the superior partner gradually elevated David's status and may be seen as marriage-like. Susan Ackerman also argues that there is highly eroticized language present in six different sections in the Hebrew Bible in regards to the relationship of David and Jonathan. The six sections she mentions are: • David and Jonathan's first meeting in 1 Sam. 18:1–4 • the description of David and Jonathan's first few meetings in 1 Sam. 19:1–7 • the incident of Saul berating Jonathan for his friendship with David in 1 Sam. 20:30–34 • David fleeing from the court of King Saul in 1 Sam. 20:1–42 • the description of David and Jonathan's final meeting in 1 Sam. 23:15–18 • David's lament (the Song of the Bow) for Saul and Jonathan in 2 Sam. 1:17–27 Of these six examples, Ackerman identifies the most important example being the last one (the Song of the Bow) due to David's assertion that Jonathan's love to David "was more wonderful than the love of women". Perhaps these homosocial relationships, based on love and equality, are more comparable with modern homosexual people's experience of themselves than those texts that explicitly speak of homosexual acts that are aggressive, violent expressions of domination and subjection. A number of groups made up of gay Roman Catholics trying to reconcile their faith with their sexuality have also adopted the names: Davide e Gionata (Italy), and David et Jonathan (France).
Counter-arguments Other interpreters point out that neither the books of Samuel nor Jewish tradition documents sanctioned romantic or erotic physical intimacy between the two characters, which the Bible elsewhere makes evident when between heterosexuals, most supremely in the
Song of Solomon. It is also known that covenants were common, and that marriage was a public event and included customs not seen in this story. The platonic interpretation of David and Jonathan's relationship is advocated by the religious writer
Robert A. J. Gagnon and the Assyriologist Markus Zehnder and is consistent with commonly held theological views condemning same sex relations. The removal of the robe is seen as a ceremonial act following the precedent of Aaron, of whom God commanded, "And strip Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son", in transference of the office of the former upon the latter. In like manner, Jonathan would be symbolically and prophetically transferring the kingship of himself (as the normal heir) to David, which would come to pass. Even if the mention of "nakedness" in 1 Samuel 20:30 could be interpreted to convey a negative sexual nuance, it is related to Jonathan's mother
Ahinoam rather than Jonathan ("to the shame of the nakedness of your mother").
Jon Levenson and
Baruch Halpern suggest that the phrase suggests "David's theft of Saul's wife", and that the verse supports the construction that Ahinoam, the wife of Saul is the same Ahinoam who became David's wife. This event, however, is never described in the Bible, and this particular interpretation has been disputed by Diana V. Edelman, who remarked that, "Such a presumption would require David to have run off with the queen mother while Saul was still on the throne, which seems unlikely." In platonic respects, such as in sacrificial loyalty and zeal for the kingdom, Jonathan's love is seen as surpassing that of romantic or erotic affection, especially that of the women David had known up until that time. The grammatical and social difficulties are pointed out in respect to 1 Samuel 18:21, as well as the marked difference in the Bible between sensual kissing (as in
Song of Songs) and the social kiss of Near Eastern cultures, whether in greeting, or as expression of deep affection between friends and family (as found throughout the Old and New Testaments). Orly Keren of the
Kaye Academic College of Education additionally posits that the relationship between Jonathan and David was not without
enlightened self-interest on both sides: Jonathan in obtaining guarantees for his own future and that of his family, and David in creating and maintaining a public image. Keren suggests that David's lament for Jonathan may have been a calculated pose for a people mourning a popular prince. == Cultural references ==