2993Re: [ANE-2] weavers
- Dec 5, 2006Jean-Fabrice Nardelli wrote:
> Those unconvinced by the erotic dimension of David's and Jonathan's 'aheb in 1 Sam 18 ff. have to explain us how it is possible for a simple bind of friendship or homosociality to contain so many discrepancies with the Biblical norms [snip]KP Edgecomb writes:
But this is depicted not as just a homosocial or homosexual relationship between two private citizens, but between the heir assumptive and a later usurper, in a wider narrative context in which David's usurpation of the monarchy, taking it from the line of Saul via Jonathan and sons, is being justified. The rational gymnastics of such ex post facto justifications and their relationship to the events distorted by such justifications often simply don't correlate easily, particularly when it is the usurpers produce the narrative evidence. Witness Darius the Great's Behistun inscriptions: something unusual went on, but the precise details of his coup and usurpation are overlaid with a patriotic and religious sheen.
Regardless, no sexual acts are described between the two, despite the eisegesis. The gay nineties are over. We can move on.
Kevin P. Edgecomb
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>