Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

2994Re: [ANE-2] weavers

Expand Messages
  • Jean-Fabrice Nardelli
    Dec 5, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Precisely : Ackerman went at great lengths to demonstrate that there is an "erotic apologetic" in the latter part of Sam : no man sexually submissive to another was qualified to be king, and so David was legitimate enough to succeed to Saul. Thus, by "loving" David, Jonathan may well have been pictured by the narrator (echoeing no doubt some Davidic propaganda) as having renounced his masculinity and every right he possessed to inherit the throne of his father. I am not convinced that this is the right explanation, but it throws much light on a narrative which is crabbed, elliptic and obscure, and as such no one can afford to ignore it as if it were mere hariolations.

      If 1 Sam 18 ff. were as crystal-clear and straigthforward as some want to have it, why on earth burden its account of David's rise to the power with a covenant with Jonathan whose terms are exceedingly difficult to understand and a whole complex of affective notations between the heir and its putative rival, notations wich are so far from being devoid of sensuous overtones that they disrupt the well-established societal order of ancient Israel ? These pointers make a male, Jonathan, seem more important to David than his own wife and the one woman in the whole of the Bible who is described as having desired her husband, Michol : cui bono ?

      It is not by shutting one's eyes to interpretative difficulties that they are likely to disappear. To charge with dragging-in homosexuality and reading ancient texts through modern lens and prejudices interpreters who tentatively introduce a controlled amount of male-male affect in the affair of David with Jonathan because they consider that this hypothesis and only it resolves otherwise aporetic questions, is sheer nonsense. Homosexuality in the Old Testament remains as problematic as ever ; like it is the case for Homer (experto credite), it requires observation, more observation and yet more observation, certainly not apodictic proclamations pro or cons.

      J.-F. Nardelli.

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Kevin P. Edgecomb
      To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 9:09 PM
      Subject: Re: [ANE-2] weavers

      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.
    • Show all 30 messages in this topic