Homosexuality in the Bible: David and Jonathan

[BuddhaRhubarb]

Sounds like the first Bromance to me.

[Syt]

Sounds like the first Bromance to me.

Oddly, the fifth search result for bromance is:

[The Brain]

Bad Bromance?

[BuddhaRhubarb]

[citizen k]

Sounds like the first Bromance to me.

Oddly, the fifth search result for bromance is:

"Dammit David, you always get to hold the head."

[Malthus]

Sounds like the first Bromance to me.

Oddly, the fifth search result for bromance is:

And now we have a pic of David giving Jonathan head. What more proof does anyone need? 

[Martinus]

This thread delivers.

[grumbler]

Bas reliefs or it didn't happen.

[crazy canuck]

Malthus, the interesting thing about those passages is that they were written long after the events.  Why did the authors write text that could potentially be considered contrary to the Law?  One answer might be that in the oral traditions David did a lot of things that were contrary to the Law.  Killed, coveted a wife etc.  What is one more transgression? Without including those people would know the written account was incomplete. It is one of the things that fascinates me most about the OT.  The characters are made to feel very human.  As opposed to the NT which is the story of a God made flesh. 

[Malthus]

Malthus, the interesting thing about those passages is that they were written long after the events.  Why did the authors write text that could potentially be considered contrary to the Law?  One answer might be that in the oral traditions David did a lot of things that were contrary to the Law.  Killed, coveted a wife etc.  What is one more transgression? Without including those people would know the written account was incomplete. It is one of the things that fascinates me most about the OT.  The characters are made to feel very human.  As opposed to the NT which is the story of a God made flesh.

Well, that's very true, the Bible certainly isn't reticent about the wrongdoings of the house of David! Quite unlike most other civilizations of the near east, whose official chronicles about their own rulers tend to be more in the nature of pangyrics.

For example, the dying David's instructions to his son Solomon reads exactly like those you would imagine a mafia don issuing (in essence, 'kindly have all my enemies killed after I'm gone')

OTOH, I think that what is at work is two very different situations: the "abomination" of (male) homosexuality in Leviticus may have been specific to imitating the ritual practices of Judea's neighbours. That's the framing of the passage, where it says 'don't do the filthy practices of the horrible Egyptians and Caananites'. What they may have been warning folks against was acting like Elgabalus - not specifically about what young warriors get up to in army camp. The latter may have been perhaps tolerated - evidence of ancient practice outside of the priestly writings of the OT is lacking. Certainly, the Greeks saw nothing wrong with that sort of thing, and the Israelites were in pretty close contact with them via the Philistines.

Now, that being noted, it is clear that generations of believers have held that homosexualty is wrong, based on Leviticus. But the same people have no problem accepting that (say) shaving off their beards is okay, because that was a mere ritual matter ...

[The Minsky Moment]

There is no concrete evidence that David existed.  If he did exist, there is little reason to believe that the stories about David and Jonathan are accurate biographical details, as opposed to a literary trope as part of an effort to explain away a dynastic change (and David's apparent betrayal of his liege, Saul).  If the question is whether the liteary character of David as portrayed in the Bible is gay, I suppose it could be a matter for discussion, but only if one realizes that is a profoundly anachronistic effort. 

[garbon]

If the question is whether the liteary character of David as portrayed in the Bible is gay, I suppose it could be a matter for discussion, but only if one realizes that is a profoundly anachronistic effort. 

I thought it was more like whether or not the literary character had homosexual relations (i.e. relations with members of his own sex).

[Malthus]

There is no concrete evidence that David existed.  If he did exist, there is little reason to believe that the stories about David and Jonathan are accurate biographical details, as opposed to a literary trope as part of an effort to explain away a dynastic change (and David's apparent betrayal of his liege, Saul).  If the question is whether the liteary character of David as portrayed in the Bible is gay, I suppose it could be a matter for discussion, but only if one realizes that is a profoundly anachronistic effort.

It doesn't matter whether the characters of the OT actually existed or not, for the question of how the writers of the OT felt about certain social or sexual practices portrayed. 

Also, it seems odd to me to have produced so profoundly ambiguous a literary character as David, if the intent was to create a mythology to explain or justify the reign. He's certainly not portrayed as a faultless hero - far from it.

[jimmy olsen]

As ever the bourgeois fuck everything up.

I was told that my apt looks bougie.

People who use bourgeois in casual everyday conversation should be punched in the face.

[garbon]

I was told that my apt looks bougie.

People who use bourgeois in casual everyday conversation should be punched in the face.

I think people who ever use bougie should be kicked in the nuts.