|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: David and Jonathan
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
Starting a fresh thread to discuss the interesting tangent that arose on the "Most Inappropriate Bible Verses" thread: The relationship between David and Jonathan is the one most often suggested when people ask whether the Bible contains any portrayals of homosexual relationships. Some people are quite convinced that the relationship had a sexual element: others don't see that in the text at all. I'm intrigued by it and thought the David and Jonathan relationship might be worth a closer look (with the caution that this is a thread about D&J and what the specific texts about them say, not about homosexuality in the Bible in general, as that would clearly be a Dead Horse thread).
As a start I'm copying Gramps49's post on D&J for further analysis, as it lays out the main Scriptural source for the story in 1 Samuel 18 - 20 and presents an interpretation of that passage which suggests a sexual relationship. It seems to me that every single point made in this post can be supported from the passage, but also, that every text that can be used to support it is also open to other interpretations.
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Ken, you might want to read 1 Samuel 18 through 20 a little more closely. When David and Jonathan meet, we are told their souls were knit together. We find Jonathan disrobing before David, in essence giving over his manhood to David. Saul offers David two of his daughters, but David shows no interest in the daughters, even though we are told the youngest daughter loved David very much--there is no reciprocal love from David even though David does marry Saul's youngest dauther. David loves only Jonathan. David and Jonathan look for ways they can be together alone. When Jonathan is killed David goes into deep mourning, saying his relationship with Jonathan was deeper than that with any woman.
We find Saul very upset with the relationship between Jonathan and David. Saul becomes concerned that Jonathan has no interest in producing an heir because Jonathan loves only David
What do you think? Does this passage say what Gramps49 says it says? And do you think David and Jonathan were lovers, or just very good friends...?
[ 19. November 2013, 02:22: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Just good friends.
Considering the disapproval at the time of gay relationships it is hard to believe that one would be portrayed in such a positive way.
Over the thousands of years that this story has been in print it has seldom if ever been read that way.
The details mentioned speak more of a culture that would have been innocent of this possible interpretation. Like the way that men in West Africa hold each others hands while walking together, free of the connotations that Europeans might read into it.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I think it can be read either way, and have sympathy for both readings on their own merits. But what I don't believe is that you can say "there's just nothing there to suggest it." That's either naïve or intentionally self-deluded.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
The Old Testament writers often used metaphors to get their story across--metaphors that are hard to understand after thousands of years.
I think the clearest suggestions that the relationship was more than a close friendship is the part were it says Jonathan disrobed before David and gave David his armament. This indicates Jonathon is giving David his manhood, where Jonathan loses his virginity, as it were. Then too, when David finds out Jonathon had died in battle he states that Jonathan's love was greater than that of a woman. If you can accept these two verses as suggesting a same sex relationship, the other examples I gave are just back fill.
But I would hasten to add, let.s not get all that hung up on the relationship between these two young men and miss how God chooses David to do great things for the people of Israel. Don't miss the forest because of just one tree.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
.............snorerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
I have to admit I've never heard a sexual reading of Jonathon giving his clothing to David. I can see how that could seem appealing, but the transfer of clothing is such an important part of succession narratives in ANE texts in general and in the Hebrew Bible that that seems the much more straightforward reading to me.
I don't have a Hebrew dictionary with me (travelling for Christmas), so I can't look up the word translated "robe" by the NRSV: m`il. It's not a word I know. I don't think the undress here is sexual or romantic. It is, however, very loving. Jonathan freely gives up his clothing that defines his social role as soldier and heir and figures himself bodily as non-person in order that David might become king. This is one of the greatest acts of loving self-sacrifice in the David-Saul cycle.
It is not surprising that David mourns and laments over so loving and genuinely good a person as Jonathan so passionately at his death. To me, to sexualize their relationship is to take away from this witness to the power and beauty of the true love which can exist between friends. They were not "just" good friends; they were good friends and there's nothing 'mere' about true and good friendship.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
All right, I can see that we shouldn't miss the Davidic forest for the possibly homosexual tree, but we are here in Kerygmania, the home of close tree analysis, so I think we can afford to take the time for a closer look at D&J's relationship.
Looking more closely at the analysis provided by Gramps49 above with the relevant texts (all NASB):
quote:
When David and Jonathan meet, we are told their souls were knit together.
"Now it came about when he had finished speaking to Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as himself."(1 Samuel 18:1).
No argument there; only the observation that "love" and having your soul "knit to" the soul of someone else could include, but certainly would not be limited to, romantic or sexual love.
quote:
We find Jonathan disrobing before David, in essence giving over his manhood to David.
"Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, with his armor, including his sword and his bow and his belt." (1 Samuel 18:4).
I, too, had never seen the disrobing here as having a sexual connotation -- I read it not as Jonathan stripping for David but as Jonathan giving David priceless gifts that would give David an equal or higher status to that which Jonathan held as the son of the king.
quote:
Saul offers David two of his daughters, but David shows no interest in the daughters, even though we are told the youngest daughter loved David very much--there is no reciprocal love from David even though David does marry Saul's youngest dauther. David loves only Jonathan.
The relevant texts here are in 1 Samuel 18:17-29. Both times David turns down the offered daughter on the grounds of his own unworthiness to be the king's son-in-law: in the case of Merab (vs 18) he says, “Who am I, and what is my life or my father’s family in Israel, that I should be the king’s son-in-law?” He uses similar words when offered Michal, who loves him (vs 23), but when Saul sets her dowry at 100 Philistine foreskins, suddenly (vs 26) "it pleased David to become the king's son in law." And of course he's such an overachiever that instead of getting killed as Saul hopes he will, David comes back with 200 foreskins and gets the girl.
It seems to me that you can read from these texts that David has either genuine or fake humility over the idea of being elevated to a member of the royal family, that Michal loves David but David doesn't necessarily love her, and that David gets much more excited about killing Philistines than about marrying Michal. What these verses lack is any mention of Jonathan whatsoever. You can speculate that David was unenthused about Merab and Michal because he was in love with their brother but it's certainly not in the text. And from later evidence in David's story you certainly couldn't broaden that to say that he's not interested in women generally.
quote:
David and Jonathan look for ways they can be together alone.
When Saul threatens David, David and Jonathan certainly cook up the most needlessly convoluted plan of all time to get a few minutes alone together (1 Samuel 20 -- I have never understood the point of the whole schtick with the boy and the arrows if Jonathan was just going to send the boy back and talk to David afterwards anyway). There's some kissing and weeping here (vs 41).
quote:
When Jonathan is killed David goes into deep mourning, saying his relationship with Jonathan was deeper than that with any woman.
“How have the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle!
Jonathan is slain on your high places.
I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan;
You have been very pleasant to me.
Your love to me was more wonderful
Than the love of women." (2 Samuel 1:25, 26)
Undeniably true that David mourns deeply and says that Jonathan's love was better than the love of women. But again, does this necessarily mean sexually? Seems to me this is a key passage for anyone who wants to see a sexual element to the relationship, but note that in the same breath he calls Jonathan his "brother," so if there's use of metaphor here, it might be that he is comparing Jonathan both to a brother and to a love to signify the intensity of the relationship between them, which was not literally that of brothers and might not have been that of lovers either.
Jumping back in the story to address Gramps49's last point:
quote:
We find Saul very upset with the relationship between Jonathan and David. Saul becomes concerned that Jonathan has no interest in producing an heir because Jonathan loves only David.
"Then Saul’s anger burned against Jonathan and he said to him, “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you are choosing the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth, neither you nor your kingdom will be established. Therefore now, send and bring him to me, for he must surely die.”
This is where I think Gramps49's interpretation is the most farfetched, because your suggestion is that Saul is saying Jonathan won't marry and father an heir because he's in love with David (hence "choosing the son of Jesse to your own shame"). But it seems the more obvious reading would be "you're choosing to side with the son of Jesse and support his claim to the throne over mine, even though this will take away your own right to be king someday."
It seems clear that Jonathan loves David so much that he believes David has a better right to the throne than his father (or by extension himself) and thus is willing to step aside and waive his own presumed hereditary right to the throne (actually, since Saul was the first king of Israel, would there even be any expectation that Saul's son would succeed him?). It's Jonathan's loyalty to his father and interest in preserving the family right to the throne that Saul seems to be questioning here, not Jonathan's manhood.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
As a gay person I'm sympathetic to reading as if they had a romantic (sexual) relationship, but after travelling around the Middle East and East Asia and watching heterosexual men hold hands, hug, kiss, cuddle and profess love for each other it's obvious that assuming that professions of love and affection between men are romantic/sexual in nature is a Western cultural bias.
They may have gone to 4th base on occasion. Who knows? These things were, and still are, pretty common in traditional Middle Eastern cultures and most people looked the other way as long as it wasn't "in your face." (I've been hit on my male locals in Muslim countries far more often than in the West.) Also, the criteria that led to Levitical conviction and punishment were extremely difficult to meet: Under Jewish law one had to be told that what one is about to do is a sin/crime just prior to the act and had to acknowledge what they were about to do is a sin, the perpetrator then had to do it, and it had to be witnessed by 2 men and their testimonies had to perfectly match down to the smallest detail. So no doubt quite a bit happened under the radar.
But there isn't enough in the text to go on.
What I found most problematic (when this comes up in same sex blessings) is the idea that D&J were a "gay" couple. The idea of sexuality as identity is modern and western. There were no gay couples in the ancient world. The economic system couldn't support such an arrangement.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Male comradeship and love but not 'gay'
'Gay' is a modern term. Our sexualised culture reads sexuality into many situations which aren't so - we find it hard to envisage anything that doesn't involve sex somewhere.
Dead Horses contains a thread: Bible passages that are pro-homosexuality - I posted on this story on 28 January, 2011 and am repeating some here - it's a sermon of mine from a long time ago. None of it is direct quotation but all of it relies heavily on New Adam 1992 by Philip Culbertson p.74f and on two other sources mentioned in the text:
we might suspect that David and Jonathan’s relationship was a sexual one despite the fact that David was very much ‘into’ women. I think we’d be wrong. Wrong because we are reading our gender roles back into history. The male role for a long time was thus: Whatever women do is what a real man mustn’t do; Be successful. Don’t be liked, be envied, . . . Don’t be part of a group, stinguish your from others. Be aggressive - be tough, fight and don’t run away. Competitive sport emphasises these values, military training reinforces them. Men are supposed to be sexually experienced. Sex isn't a free choice when you have to perform to be a man.' Be self-reliant. 'Men are supposed to be confident, independent and autonomous. . A "real man" doesn't need others, particularly women.
David seems to fit this male role: He’s described as a mighty man of valour: he fights the Philistines, kills Goliath. David’s body count is something like 140,000. The language of strength is pervasive. David ‘prevails’ 'overpowers'
It was also an important male role in Israel to be articulate. David is described as 'intelligent in speech;' He persuades Saul that he is capable of withstanding Goliath; explains to Saul why he did not kill him in the cave of Adullam; words are an instrument of control
David has eight principal wives and at least ten others but the males of the David story are so casual about women, There are no love stories, no romances, no wooing; rather it’s a matter of pride for David and his men that they have kept themselves 'clean' from women. When David has to satisfy his lust, he does so by trickery, incest and rape. He doesn’t seem to like women very much. As if a real man can get along without women; has nothing to gain from them except children, and he owes them nothing. The only appreciative thing he says about love sounds homoerotic: ‘I am desolate for you, Jonathan my brother. Very dear you were to me, your love more wonderful to me than the love of a woman'
There is nothing natural or God-given about the masculine role. Masculinity, like femininity, is a social construction and it’s all too easy to read the bible in the light of our presumptions and to render it as undisturbing as possible, http://prophetess.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/masc.pdf David the Man: The Construction of Masculinity in the Hebrew Bible*
Some American theologians understand this passage as affirming committed homosexual relationships. But is that because we have such a limited sense of the nonsexual possibilities of passionate same-sex friendship? Rabbinic tradition insists adamantly that their relationship was platonic. In the ancient Near East covenants were agreements or oaths made to resolve differences between conflicting parties, vassal and lord, or conqueror and conquered. The word love used in covenant making denoted the kind of attachment people had to a king more than interpersonal affection.’ Jonathan covenanted to waive his right as Saul’s successor so the moral majority types can stress that this is about rugged male bonding and supports family values.
I think our story actually disturbs both camps – if you’ll pardon the word camp. Feminist theologians talk of texts of terror for women. This could be a text of terror for men. Why? It’s about a young man whose father is trying to force him to go into “the family business,” - monarchy. Jonathan has no desire to be king. He keeps throwing away the opportunity through making impetuous moves on the battlefield, arguing with his father, stripping off all his symbols of office and handing them to David, making repeated efforts to save the life of the only person who can overthrow the throne.
Saul’s behavior is erratic and irrational. He often tries to kill whoever happens to be at hand, including his own heir apparent. Jonathan feels an intense amount of loyalty to a mentally ill father. He never abandons him; at the beginning of the story, before meeting David, he is Saul’s military commander-in-chief. Towards the end of the story. he resumes those duties. He has no ambition of his own, does not know how to do anything other than what is expected of him.
Some scholars rationalise Jonathan’s abdication to David because they cannot understand a noncompetitive, intimate, loving relationship between men. Gay men more readily recognise and credit human love and not politics as the most important arena of life. Jonathan puts personal affection before social and family approval.
Saul is quick to judge, just as our society is quick to judge. Saul seems to assume that Jonathan’s relationship with David is sexual. He lashes out at Jonathan: “You son of a crooked whore, do you think I can’t see that you have chosen the son of Jesse, to the shame of your mother’s nakedness?
The two young men meet in a field, where they kiss and then collapse in tears into each other’s arms, sobbing. This story makes friendship look dangerous. The men get hurt emotionally: men today are so unsure about emotions that they avoid them whenever possible, especially the ones that hurt.
Jonathan appears to foul up his career by feeling for David. Since male identity comes from what we do for a living and from success; the threat of emotions destroying a career is frightening.
In many societies, male friendship was a source of emotional support that couldn’t be provided within a system of arranged marriages and in warfare; warriors needed likeminded and equally isolated men; male friendship contained loyalty to one another, commitment to a common cause, and a valuing of the friendship above all other relationships.
Adult males today have few, if any, intimate friends of either sex. When men do identify someone as a close friend, it tends to be one of only two types: their wife or their best male friend from a number of years whom they no longer see regularly. But we live with a continuing high divorce rate. When a man’s only friend is his wife, a divorce means loss of his entire support system during the traumatic period when he needs it most. The primary difficulty in male-male friendship is how to handle the scary potential for intimacy, combined with the general male mistrust of making oneself vulnerable by telling the whole truth.
At first sight, “the soul of Jonathan was knotted to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.” Jonathan makes himself vulnerable to him. He strips and hands over all his weapons of self-defense; discarding whatever sense of competition may exist between them; laying yourself open is not something contemporary men do (A Love Surpassing the Love of Women? Jonathan and David)
When David receives the news of the defeat at Mount Gilboa and the death of Saul and Jonathan. He has the messenger murdered, and then bursts into one of the most poignant and piercing laments in the Scriptures: My Jonathan lies shattered on his back in death. I ache for you Jonathan, my dear brother, you have been so deeply beloved by me, and your love for me was so wonderful, far surpassing the love of women. David is willing to embrace his sorrow. He doesn’t play the strong and silent role that so many men feel is appropriate in intensely emotional situations. Instead, he tears his clothes and he mourns…. he weeps…and he fasts…
[ 27. December 2012, 18:19: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
1 Samuel 20:41
And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.
I would be interested in knowing what the literal translation of "until David exceeded" is.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
1 Samuel 20:41
And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.
I would be interested in knowing what the literal translation of "until David exceeded" is.
For what it's worth, NRSV translates it as "and they kissed each other, and wept with each other; David wept the more." So it seems to be "until David exceeded (in the sense that his tears exceeded Jonathan's)."
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Yes, but, translations are very coloured by what people are expecting to see. I would like to know exactly what the original text said.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
I have to admit I've never heard a sexual reading of Jonathon giving his clothing to David. I can see how that could seem appealing, but the transfer of clothing is such an important part of succession narratives in ANE texts in general and in the Hebrew Bible that that seems the much more straightforward reading to me.
I don't have a Hebrew dictionary with me (travelling for Christmas), so I can't look up the word translated "robe" by the NRSV: m`il. It's not a word I know. I don't think the undress here is sexual or romantic. It is, however, very loving. Jonathan freely gives up his clothing that defines his social role as soldier and heir and figures himself bodily as non-person in order that David might become king. This is one of the greatest acts of loving self-sacrifice in the David-Saul cycle.
It is not surprising that David mourns and laments over so loving and genuinely good a person as Jonathan so passionately at his death. To me, to sexualize their relationship is to take away from this witness to the power and beauty of the true love which can exist between friends. They were not "just" good friends; they were good friends and there's nothing 'mere' about true and good friendship.
Succinctly put.
Basically that was the read I have had since I first heard the story (I remember being really annoyed when I read "The Living Bible" as a kid and they bowdlerized the story to have David and Jonathan shaking hands sadly in parting. By then I had read Tolkien and I knew that passionate male friendships were good and wonderful. When Frodo awoke in Rivendell, Sam kissed the hell out of his hand.This is why I love Sam.)
The only thing that had me questioning was references I had heard the the transfer of clothing-- which reads a a ceremony of sort, and I can't see it as being a reference to "stripping down"-- mimicked the current ceremony for the equivalent to crowning a queen. Same items of clothing, in other words. But if that is not the case, then the rest of the story doesn't present an iron-clad case for them being a couple.
So yeah, maybe by trying to make it about a passionate sexual relationship, we bypass the gift of passion by trying to shift it to a context that is comfortable to us. This does not in any way undercut gay relationships to me, or any kind of sexual relationships. In fact, maybe if we use this story to learn how to be more passionate lovers in all our relationships, it would all the more enrich those that just happen to be sexual.
One of my oldest friends had girlfriend for about five years before he finally came out-- everybody, including him thought they were going to get married, because they were just so crazy about each other. Maybe if it was common knowledge that you could be totally crazy about someone without necessarily wanting to have sex with them, he wouldn't have put himself-- or her-- through all that.
To paraphrase Hart, I am much more philosophically comfortable with the phrase "just sex" than "just friends." Not that I'm comfortable with either, but if I had to pick, the second would disappear forever.
An orgasm lasts 3 seconds, maybe. What David and Jonathan had was-- eternal. Transcendent. Their being separated until the day Jonathan died did nothing to touch it.To me, whether or not sex is involved, that is the real pearl of great price.
Also-- leo, have to say, beautiful post. Hart's was just easier to quote.
[ 27. December 2012, 21:13: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
...until David exceeded." What does this mean? The Hebrew word used here is Gadal and is an interesting word to use. It literally means "to grow, become great or important, promote, make powerful, praise, magnify, do great things." Now, this was one of the low points in David's life. His mentor, King Saul, was seeking his death, Jonathan had just come into the woods where he was hiding to tell David he needed to flee for his life. As in English, the context in which a word is used can alter its meaning. In this case, David obviously didn't remain hidden in the woods until becoming the great leader he eventually became. The meaning of the word Gadal here is surely that as they embraced and kissed David had "grown great" or become erect, until he, and obviously Jonathan, became erect and made physical love. This is the only conceivable meaning. After this touching scene, David fled from Saul's wrath, kissing his lover good-bye.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
The meaning of the word Gadal here is surely that as they embraced and kissed David had "grown great" or become erect, until he, and obviously Jonathan, became erect and made physical love. This is the only conceivable meaning.
How on earth is that "the only conceivable meaning"? Are you really unable to conceive of a different interpretation that your own? That makes it rather difficult to have a conversation with you. But, let's get to the Hebrew.
Simply on philological grounds, your reading might be plausible if gdl were used in the Niphal, but we see it here in the Hiphil. The niphal is the construction used as a middle, when someone does something to (a part of) themself. The Hiphil is the causative, so as gdl means to be(come) great, the hiphil of it means to make something great.
The question is, what is being made great? Gramps49 thinks it's David's penis, which I think is unlikely on purely linguistic grounds as when the object is part of the subject, we'd expect the Niphal construction. Most English translations seemed to take the object of the verb to be "his weeping" -- they kept weeping until David made his weeping great. Eg. NETS "Then they kissed each other and they both wept, especially David." They seem to be taking "great" to have an implicit comparative ("greater than Jonathan"). This seems plausible (scalar adjectives often have a comparative sense).
I'd actually suggest an alternative, what David is making great is Jonathan: David magnifies Jonathan, like Mary magnifies the Lord in Luke 2.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Found reference. Is there something in the sentence structure / cases or whatever - that led translators to think that gadal referred to weeping ?
[Crosspost]
So hart is there anything in the structure of the sentence that tells us definitively to what the verb refers ? Or is the translator having to make an informed guess ?
[ 28. December 2012, 10:44: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
Edit: Double cross-posting! Somewhat of a guess, it is a pretty strange way to put it (whatever 'it' is!), but the language does narrow down the options.
In a nut shell, it's because the construction is hiphil. If it meant that David became great, that would be qal; if he made (part of) himself great, niphal; if he made something else great, hiphil. (And David must be subject, not object, as this is prose and we lack an 'et-).
[ 28. December 2012, 10:48: Message edited by: Hart ]
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Well, yes but to be blunt - it could refer to part of Jonathan. And people often talk of parts of themselves and others as if they were separate entities.
I am not going to nail my colours to the mast and die for them hear, I just wonder to what extent this translation is coloured by the view that homosexuality was simply not a credible rather than being defined by the actual text.
We also have the difficulty of not knowing much about casual speech of the time.
Imagine a future translator trying to make sense of:
"Mark hugged and kissed Stephen, his relief was so intense he came."
[ 28. December 2012, 10:53: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
[Triple crosspost ! We should have some sort of award !]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
I guess linguistically, it could be Jonathan's penis. The word order doesn't suggest it, though. Hebrew doesn't have many advanced ways for making clear how different parts of sentences relate to each other, so relies a lot on word order to do that. What we have here is "they kissed each other and then they wept (over) each other and David made (something?) great." If this is erotic, I'd expect it to be much more likely for the kissing and making great to be next to each other (the erection being the result of the kissing).
As it is, it seems more likely that the making great is something to do with the kissing. A good guess (followed by many English translations) is that the relationship is that it's the weeping that's being made great. Or, another reading, is that the weeping results in David extoling ('making great') Jonathan.
[ 28. December 2012, 13:11: Message edited by: Hart ]
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
It seems clear that Jonathan loves David so much that he believes David has a better right to the throne than his father (or by extension himself) and thus is willing to step aside and waive his own presumed hereditary right to the throne (actually, since Saul was the first king of Israel, would there even be any expectation that Saul's son would succeed him?). It's Jonathan's loyalty to his father and interest in preserving the family right to the throne that Saul seems to be questioning here, not Jonathan's manhood.
Agree. On the issue of 'love' a writer who whom one would expect to argue for gay love between the two goes out of his way to deny such: quote:
The word love used in covenant making denoted the kind of attachment people had to a king more than interpersonal affection.’° Such a covenant would read, for example, as “A vassal must love his sovereign. . . . ‘You will love as yourselves Assurbanipal.'
- Gay Theology without apology – D. Comstock ch.5
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
I have presented the arguments showing that Jonathan and David may have been lovers. Note: the operative word in previous sentence is "may." I am not necessarily going to discount any other interpretation. But I do think the discussion goes to show how difficult it is for many people to look at nontraditional views.
Gadal, btw, can be translated as "become enlarged".
Shall we move on?
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Yeah, it's kind of like Jesus's wife, if there was one-- maybe, but the Bible ain't really helping us out on that one.
This is where applying the idea of midrash might help. Why can't their be a midrash for each possibility?
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
I think the reason I'm so curious about it is that if there were a credible case for David and Jonathan being lovers, it could function as a sort of "exception clause" to the anti-homosexuality texts. Sort of like the Hosea/Gomer story does -- it's clearly stated several times in Torah that for a man to take his wife back after she's left him for another man is an abomination and Simply Not Done. But then you can look at Hosea and say, "Well, in one place God said it was an abomination and yet here He tells His prophet to do that very thing, so how much of an abomination can it be?"
Even then, of course, it wouldn't be as clear-cut a case, because there's certainly no suggestion that God commanded David and Jonathan to be lovers, but then, on the other hand, if you accept that they were, there's no evidence of God condemning it as a sin as he does David's adultery with Bathsheba (and subsequent murder of Uriah). So it would, at the very least, make the question more problematic.
But I'm not convinced so far.
While we're awaiting more news on Hebrew erections (OK, Hebrew words for erection), can anyone explain the thing with the boy and the arrows to me? What was the point of the whole subterfuge if Jonathan was just going to send the arrow-boy back and chat to David anyway?
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
I have been looking at the LXX rendition of 1 Samuel 20:41.
41 καὶ ὡς εἰσῆλθεν τὸ παιδάριον καὶ Δαυιδ ἀνέστη ἀπὸ τοῦ εργαβ καὶ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ καὶ προσεκύνησεν αὐτῷ τρίς καὶ κατεφίλησεν ἕκαστος τὸν πλησίον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔκλαυσεν ἕκαστος τῷ πλησίον αὐτοῦ ἕως συντελείας μεγάλης
The LXX is older than the current Hebrew text.
I am thinking that the last phrase also can be translated "he became enlarged." Correct me if I am wrong.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
A quick Google has sunteleias as "completion, finishing" and the adjective megales (great) is attached to it. So we have "until great completion" but that's not all that helpful, since we are left to infer what exactly was being completed. And from the context, I have to think it means the weeping, and suspect it would be most idiomatically translated "until he/they could weep no more."
ETA: to the best of my knowledge there are no descriptions of the erection process (dear me, how prissy I sound) in the Bible. So any Hebrew vocabulary will have to be found in some other document. (the "hung like horses" verse is referring to the size of the genitalia but not to erection in particular, so is of no use)
And "gadol" is one of those all purpose "became big/great/exalted/large" words, so is really not safe at all to take in a very specific way (e.g. male erection) without very clear context to guide it.
[ 29. December 2012, 02:53: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Tried to ETA (crappy preparation on my part)--but sunteleias is a noun, not a verb, and grammatically has no clear connection with either David of Jonathan. The adjective megales modifies sunteleias. So "he became enlarged" is a shot in the dark. Sorry.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
I think the reason I'm so curious about it is that if there were a credible case for David and Jonathan being lovers, it could function as a sort of "exception clause" to the anti-homosexuality texts. Sort of like the Hosea/Gomer story does -- it's clearly stated several times in Torah that for a man to take his wife back after she's left him for another man is an abomination and Simply Not Done. But then you can look at Hosea and say, "Well, in one place God said it was an abomination and yet here He tells His prophet to do that very thing, so how much of an abomination can it be?"
Even then, of course, it wouldn't be as clear-cut a case, because there's certainly no suggestion that God commanded David and Jonathan to be lovers, but then, on the other hand, if you accept that they were, there's no evidence of God condemning it as a sin as he does David's adultery with Bathsheba (and subsequent murder of Uriah). So it would, at the very least, make the question more problematic.
Yeah, totally where I'm at. I find it frustrating.
I do find the conversation we have been having about the varieties of passion quite fruitful, though.
[ 29. December 2012, 03:07: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
On the Torah thing--the only bit I can recall is the one that says you can't divorce a wife, have her marry some other guy, then HE divorces her, and you marry her again. Probably to prevent men treating divorce even more casually than they already did ("Hey, I can always get her back later").
But I don't recall anywhere where it says that you can't take back an unfaithful wife after adultery. In fact, I'm pretty sure there is no such passage, because in the time of Moses, an unfaithful wife would have been executed, making the whole question moot. But by Hosea's time it was obviously not being enforced at all (which I'm glad of, but still. . . )
If I'm remembering correctly, then, there is no law that clearly applies to Hosea's situation. Gomer is a prostitute, not a remarried woman. Though Jeremiah 3 makes a kind of parallel between the two situations . . . but there, too God decides ultimately to take his unfaithful wife Israel back. So if Hosea is breaking the law (any law?) so is God.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
I think you're probably right though I'd have to check -- the law I'm thinking of is the one prohibiting remarriage to the same wife after she's been divorced by another man. But I interpreted the reason for it differently -- that she would be unacceptably tainted by having been with another man. But of course properly Hosea should have had Gomer put to death.
None of which gets us anywhere much with David and Jonathan, I'll admit.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
I am far from sure that Gomer was a prostitute before Hosea married her. Hebrew thought does not distinguish between purpose and consequence, Hence what subsequently happened was spoken of in terms of having been purposed from the beginning.
Nor do I think that God uses people as "walking parables".
My view is that Hosea married Gomer simply because he loved her deeply. She later went off the rails. Hosea loved her enough to forgive and take her back.
God does likewise for un unfaithful people.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Very interesting thread and contributions; made the neurons fire across a number of interfaces. A couple of linguistic (and translational) rules came to mind that are worth remembering in discussions on the connotations of a word: firstly the need to avoid reading into a host language a semantic domain associated with a receptor language, and secondly the need to avoid taking denotations derived etymologically and forcing them into a specific use of a word (sometimes called the illegitimate totality transfer).
With regard to the first rule, a Hebrew word in use in a context (including not just the co-text, but also the social and worldview setting surrounding it) carries a range of meaning – a semantic domain – that rarely carries over nicely into the corresponding word chosen by a translator. There is a risk that something important may be missed by a reader and this explains to need for footnotes, commentaries, and acreage of text type in articles. There is also a second risk: that the translated word carries its own semantic domain that unwittingly is imported into the text by a reader. I know I've banged on about this before, but the English word 'love' is notoriously prone to this danger. It carries a welter of meanings in English that are not carried by the equivalent Hebrew word. Equally, there are connotations associated by the Hebrew word that are missed by 'love', e.g., covenant loyalties. It follows that just because the Hebrew text is translated 'Jonathan loved David' it does not of itself mean 'Jonathan had a sexual relationship with David.' It sounds obvious, but sometimes discussions stray over the obvious boundaries when there are many issues to consider.
The second rule applies where a word is examined according to its use in every text. There is nothing particularly risky about that, but the danger is that a reader is tempted to assume that just because 'Gazornosplot' means 'x', 'y', and 'z' across its use in a language, so therefore it must mean 'x', 'y', and 'z' in any particular instance. This may be a danger with 'great / exceeded' in 1 Sam. 20:41. As always, context rules.
With respect to that particular text, it's worth noting that we are not in the realm of literal language. The text doesn't say literally that David had an erection, it would have to be implied. If this is metaphorical language, then for it to work there would need to be a metaphor to work with. At the moment all the text says is something like “...until David was made great.” There's no independent noun to act as a carrier for the metaphor.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Nigel You posted
firstly the need to avoid reading into a host language a semantic domain associated with a receptor language, and secondly the need to avoid taking denotations derived etymologically and forcing them into a specific use of a word (sometimes called the illegitimate totality transfer).
I am of a simple mind.
Can you please explain (without using the technical vocabulary) just what it is you are on about?
Either you mean something profound or else you are indulging in an excessive exuberance of linguistic gymnastic verbalisation which is mentally exhausting to anyone who has eyes to read if not ears to hear.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Quick note correction--neither in the Hebrew nor in the LXX is it "David was made great" (an English passive or reflexive) One is "David made great (something unspecified, but not himself, whatever it was)" or Until great completion" (of what is unspecified). And I really have some difficulty in seeing this as a covert sexual ref since the OT doesn't seem to me to do covert, at least in sex matters--far too TMI is usually more like it.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And I really have some difficulty in seeing this as a covert sexual ref since the OT doesn't seem to me to do covert, at least in sex matters--far too TMI is usually more like it.
That is my thought, too. The OT is pretty damn blunt when it comes to sex.
I also find it interesting that, at the same time we are going through all these grammatical calisthenics to make "exceeded" a dick reference, we suddenly have a comment that a prostitute isn't necessarily a prostitute. Not picking on anyone, it's just puzzling for a bunny of little theological brain.
[ 30. December 2012, 19:13: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Shamwari,
Roughly...
Rule one: Be careful of assuming that one word in English (e.g., the word 'love') has exactly the same range of meanings as the word in Hebrew it is often used to translate. And of course, ditto for every word that is used to translate any word from one language to another.
Rule two: Be careful of assuming that what one word means in one sentence can automatically be the same as the meaning it might have in different sentence.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Nigel
I do find it interesting how any number of English translators wish to keep the phrase vague. They seem to what to dance around what it could be saying.
I don't think I am reading into the story anything that isn't there. To me, it seems modern translators, depending on their theological view points, want to look the other way.
A word about Jonathan and David making a covenant with each other. The language actually suggests something like a marriage covenant, but again most of the translators and commentators don't seem to want to go there.
In any case, we do have a story of two young men who have a very close relationship with each other, unlike any other recorded in the Bible. Just how intimate it was may be a matter of debate. I am sure it was much more than "shaking hands" as the Living Word Bible paraphrases it.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Thanks for your clarification Nigel.
I have followed these 'rules' for years. Never once did I suspect that I was avoiding the 'illegitmate totality transfer' trap.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
We've got James Barr (The Semantics of Biblical Language,1961) to thank for dragging that concept into biblical studies. Sermons used to be denounced using theological language (such as “You son of Beelzebub who preaches from the mouth of the Harlot!”), but since 1961 young exegetes in training have been leaping up and down bellowing “Etymological fallacy!” “Semantic obsolescence fallacy!” “Prescriptive fallacy!” and the like.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
I read some of James Barr in the late 50's and 60',s
Never did I come across the hyperbolic acclamations
you mention
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And I really have some difficulty in seeing this as a covert sexual ref since the OT doesn't seem to me to do covert, at least in sex matters--far too TMI is usually more like it.
That is my thought, too. The OT is pretty damn blunt when it comes to sex.
I also find it interesting that, at the same time we are going through all these grammatical calisthenics to make "exceeded" a dick reference, we suddenly have a comment that a prostitute isn't necessarily a prostitute. Not picking on anyone, it's just puzzling for a bunny of little theological brain.
I guess my query about what the Hebrew actually said - and to what extent we could be certain about that is due to two things I have come across re the ability of academics to miss otherwise likely interpretations.
1) Male animals having sex with other male animals had been observed for centuries by farmers and latterly by scientists. It was always noted as aberrant behaviour - but the world was persistently told that homosexual behaviour (note behaviour, not trying to anthropomorphise here) did not occur in the animal kingdom and was unnatural (in the sense of being present in disordered humans only).
It was not until the 20th century this data was rethought in any systematic way. (And at this point the idea of 'natural' in theology got a rather hasty rework.)
2) The scenes in egyptian pyramids show people at parties with the flower of the
blue lotus - for a long time egyptologists wrote explaining how this was symbolic and flatly denying it might be a psychadelic substance (like mushrooms) - then toward the end of the 29th century someone actually did a scientific study, and low and behold it is.
I wouldn't put it past a translator who didn't want to think about it, to bias the translation. Nor do I think the fact that people suggest this now, but not two hundred years ago really undermines the possibility.
Some parts of the bible are indeed very coarse, some make use of a load of imagery - the Song of Solomon springs to mind.
Out of interest - does anyone even know what the common Hebrew expression for ejaculation in a non-masturbation context even was ?
I know it would be damn hard to work out from modern english - "he came" "he spent himself" - in french a condom is known colloquially as a little hat for the rain, there are various sexual practices that use semen related terms such as 'pearl' and 'shower'.
If we were going to really push the interpretation, we could argue 'weeping' is a metaphor. (This latter I think is probably taking too far though.)
It is obviously difficult to make a statement about their relationship from one passage. It is clear that it was unusual, either as a friendship or an intimate relationship. But I find it difficult to see how the text makes it more likely that they were friends than they were lovers - what specifically makes people think that ?
I lay you a challenge. The default is usually to assume they were straight and then we argue from small pieces of text why that might not be true. Reverse that; if I assume they were having a homosexual relationship (regardless of how they saw their orientation - the Spartans wouldn't recognise a modern gay identity) - what pieces of text can you point to that explicitly support your contention that they were solely platonic friends ?
[ 31. December 2012, 18:35: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
then toward the end of the 29th century someone actually did a scientific study, and low and behold it is.
I take it you saw this on Star Trek? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
Out of interest - does anyone even know what the common Hebrew expression for ejaculation in a non-masturbation context even was ?
זִרְמָה?
(cf. Ezekiel 23:20)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
And that would be what literally ? The english translations vary a lot !
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
A few years ago I saw a Lubavitch commentator, Michael Kigel, speaking about David and Jonathan. From his point of view, the worlds of women and men were so strictly separated - as God had ordained - that one could only expect to find a soulmate from within one's own gender. Of course, he hastened to add, there was marriage, and it was very good, as God also ordained. But the kind of relationship that existed between David and Jonathan was the kind of intense friendship that could only exist between two men. (Or I suppose two women, such as Naomi and Ruth but he didn't comment on that.)
Now, I'm a suspicious sort, and would naturally expect that Mr Kigel was deeply closeted (and he may be). But I don't think so. I think we have such culturally different concepts of the possible relationships between men and women that we are in danger of imposing, not only cultural differences in terminology, but in the concepts of relationships.
You are no doubt all familiar with the social science work of Malina and Rohrbaugh. I'm new to it. But it was very striking for me to read of different perceptions in relationship between NT Mediterranean culture and our own.... for example, differences in the intensity of relationships between father-daughter*, between siblings, between spouses, etc.
I'm not saying that the intense relationship between Jonathan and David excluded sex. It wouldn't trouble me whether sex was included or excluded in their relationship. I just don't think we can know either way. To me, the more interesting shift is the cultural expectation from same-gender to opposite-gender "soulmates".
* for example, intense father-daughter relationships: her fidelity must to be him or to his designated successor, the chosen groom. If she chooses someone other, that is a form of rage-inducing infidelity to the father. This shed light on "honour killings" for me; not that they are legally or morally defensible, but on the father's expectations about his relationship with his daughter and his emotional reaction when those expectations are challenged. Essentially, from his point of view, she has been unfaithful to him. However we see women as autonomous and free to make those sorts of choices.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I read some of James Barr in the late 50's and 60',s
Never did I come across the hyperbolic acclamations
you mention
p.218 of his Semantics introduces the 'illegitimate totality transfer' concept. P.107 introduces the 'etymological fallacy'.
Other categories have been finessed by biblical linguists since, though the concepts have their origin in general linguistics from earlier decades.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
And that would be what literally ? The english translations vary a lot !
Hasn't the linguistic discussion on this thread gone on long enough to show that asking for the "literal" translation of a word from one language to another is a fool's errand?
Anyway, if it is at all enlightening, it is apparently derived from this word.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
While I was not the one to open this thread, it was started because of something I had said on another thread. I did not give permission for the quote attributed to me to be used at the beginning of this thread, but I did reply to it, continuing the discussion. I have tried three times to close the discussion. This is the fourth. I think it is time to either close the thread all together or have it assigned to the Dead Horse Board.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I have tried three times to close the discussion. This is the fourth. I think it is time to either close the thread all together or have it assigned to the Dead Horse Board.
As long as we are discussing the meaning of the text, the thread belongs here.
Moo, Kerygmania Host
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
And that would be what literally ? The english translations vary a lot !
Hasn't the linguistic discussion on this thread gone on long enough to show that asking for the "literal" translation of a word from one language to another is a fool's errand?
Anyway, if it is at all enlightening, it is apparently derived from this word.
Thanks for that MT.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
