Homosexuality in the Bible: David and Jonathan

[Capetan Mihali]

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

Come over here and try. 

[citizen k]

There is no concrete evidence that David existed.

Joan: Self-loathing Jew?

[jimmy olsen]

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.

Then we agree.

[garbon]

Scary.

[Martinus]

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 ...

That's most likely more a case of a selective retrospection than an actual tradition - after all the prejudice against homosexuality (or, more precisely, any sexual behaviour that does not turn us on) is a psycho-biological phenomenon. So it is not inconceivable that the successor generations simply put a greater emphasis on practices they found repulsive than something that does not inspire a visceral reaction like this (like mixing fabrics, or shaving beards).

[crazy canuck]

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.

Exactly the point.  I started a thread over on the server a couple years back after reading Finkelstein's book http://books.google.ca/books?id=uH7Kg9yEc7AC&dq=david+and+solomon&source=bl&ots=h_sU1FmVqw&sig=PiiXrXn0GXzjMXglAAzIyx3i3j8&hl=en&ei=R2iMS6ysJpOuswOBifi_Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CCAQ6AEwBg so I wont retrace those steps.

But it does seem odd that if David is largely a creation of later authors to suite their then political needs it is intriguing that they would create such a hero with so many warts. 

[Malthus]

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 ...

That's most likely more a case of a selective retrospection than an actual tradition - after all the prejudice against homosexuality (or, more precisely, any sexual behaviour that does not turn us on) is a psycho-biological phenomenon. So it is not inconceivable that the successor generations simply put a greater emphasis on practices they found repulsive than something that does not inspire a visceral reaction like this (like mixing fabrics, or shaving beards).

I'm a bit skeptical of assigning overmuch uniformity to human sexual behavior over time. There is so much cultural variation that it seems what is considered visceral to one cultural background means nothing to another.

Consider the visceral reaction of repulsion re: eating pigs, common in some places - because pigs are associated with filth. It is understandable but, obviously, not shared by all cultures.

I'm not convinced that a 'repulsion' of homosexuality is any more natural or inevitable; certainly it was not shared by ancient cultures existing at the same time as the OT (the OT states as much! Though certainly not an unimpeachable source, it is true that other ancient cultures did not find homosexuality an 'abomination' as stated in Leviticus - which states 'don't do what the filthy foreigners do'):

And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, I am the LORD your God.  You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes.

...

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
...

"Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean, and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.
...

So keep my charge never to practice any of these abominable customs that were practiced before you, and never to make yourselves unclean by them. I am the LORD your God."

[The Minsky Moment]

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

Sex is a physical act, and hence cannot be engaged in by literary constructs.
There is no sex scene between the two in the narrative if that is the question.

[The Minsky Moment]

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. 

If that is the question, however, then that requires making an attempt to understand the mental world and cultural presuppositions of those writers.  That can't be done by applying a straight textual reading, shaded by our own understanding of same sex relationships in the 21st century.

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. 

That is typical of all ancient mythology and legend literature - think of the origin and antics of the Greek gods, or the stories of Hercules or Gilgamesh.  Even where ancient literature has a propagandistic purpose, it doesn't and can't be expected to operate like modern propaganda.  David is a kind of archetype, and the narrative associated with him follows certain patterns: e.g., the young man who is popular and full and promise ousts the legitimate heir, bringing about a golden age - however, eventually he falls into sin (due to involvement with a woman or women), and finally he ages into decrepitude as the kingdom falls into strife (this is story of both David and Solomon - there are other parallels in the two narratives as well)

[Razgovory]

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.

There's no concrete evidence that a lot of people existed though we generally believe they did.

[crazy canuck]

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.

There's no concrete evidence that a lot of people existed though we generally believe they did.

Correction.  You generally believe they did.  Most others are either indifferent or accept all the stories as myth.

[Malthus]

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. 

If that is the question, however, then that requires making an attempt to understand the mental world and cultural presuppositions of those writers.  That can't be done by applying a straight textual reading, shaded by our own understanding of same sex relationships in the 21st century.

Which is why I'm discussing the issue, rather, in the context of the known types of relationships that existed between young warriors in the cultures we know about that were contempraneous - such as those of the Greeks. The David-figure, real or construct, existed in a world where the Israelites were quite familiar with this, via contact and conflict with the Philistines.

That is typical of all ancient mythology and legend literature - think of the origin and antics of the Greek gods, or the stories of Hercules or Gilgamesh.

Not necessarily figures used for ancient propaganda, though.

Even where ancient literature has a propagandistic purpose, it doesn't and can't be expected to operate like modern propaganda.  David is a kind of archetype, and the narrative associated with him follows certain patterns: e.g., the young man who is popular and full and promise ousts the legitimate heir, bringing about a golden age - however, eventually he falls into sin (due to involvement with a woman or women), and finally he ages into decrepitude as the kingdom falls into strife (this is story of both David and Solomon - there are other parallels in the two narratives as well)

Sounds like a variation on Joseph Campbell's "hero with a thousand faces". However, your reading of the narrative is too simple on exactly the point under discussion - in the narrative, David does not "oust" the legitimate heir, but is his best friend (or lover, or both). He takes the throne after the heir is offed by Philistines. Moreover, the "golden age" is more associated with Solomon than David (David's reign was more a time of strife), and even then, the narrative is profoundly ambiguous about how "golden" that age really was; remember Rehoboham's 'my father chastised you with whips ..." speech.

In short, as a canned narrative or archetype, it seems to closely mirror a plausible reality; the story of David and his family would not look out of place if you attributed it to the Ceasars or indeed many a real, existing ruling clan (no doubt one highly coloured or exaggerated in many ways - no way was the kingdom of David anything like as prominent as alleged in the OT, assuming it even existed).

[garbon]

Come over here and try. 

Oh it's already been broughten.

[garbon]

Sex is a physical act, and hence cannot be engaged in by literary constructs.
There is no sex scene between the two in the narrative if that is the question.

[Razgovory]

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.

There's no concrete evidence that a lot of people existed though we generally believe they did.

Correction.  You generally believe they did.  Most others are either indifferent or accept all the stories as myth.

I'm talking about widely accepted historical figures.  For instance, Catullus. There's no grave of Catullus.  There are no artifacts.  There are his own works and a few references to him in the surviving works of others.  In short no concrete evidence.