AmericanPapist Comments
That was a smack-down. Nicely done.
It is not they do not understand the interpretation, it is that they purposely mistranslate or leave out verses to fit their agenda.
It is the me generation in full regalia.
right, fh. It's the progeny of the Father of Lies at work.
More to the point, I think, theology reveals to us the difference between human need and human want. Without proper theology they cross one into the other at our every whim.
"Where does one begin to answer imputations that King David was a homosexual?"--
By giving an orthodox interpretation of 1 Samuel 18:1-4 (particularly startling in the Authorised Version, given below):
"And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.
Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle."
Sean L,
That's the first time I've seen 1 Samuel interpreted as a story of homosex.
About that, she writes:
"Here, the Bible praises enduring love between men. What Jonathan and David did or did not do in privacy is perhaps best left to history and our own imaginations."
Well, there you have it. She admits that it's her own [twisted] imagination that they had a homosexual affair.
I've seen it interpreted that way before, but never bought it. If you take love between two men to only mean sexual love then I could see how you would come to this conclusion. However not all love between men is sexually motivated, and so this would be a case of reading into the text what you want.
I think that a closer reading of the text is necessary than we are able to carry out.
My questions would be: what are the words used in this passage? Does the diction of these verses borrow from known erotic literature prior to this? Are Samuel's actions paralleled in any other Hebrew or Near Eastern text?
But, perhaps our answer lies simply in the fact that the Septuagint did not translate these verses.
Didn't Bl. Cardinal J. H. Newman say that to understand Theology properly one must study anthropology and to understand Anthropology properly one must study theology?
How is it that a science which has at its heart the concept of God entering into humanity be devoid of the study of humanity? Seriously, I am giving up talking to these people. It is like trying to discuss scripture with fundamentalists. I get farther beating my head against a concrete wall-- with that at least the pain begins to go away after a few hits.
Jonathan's actions are a recognition that God was with David and a sign of his dependence on and submission to the God-sent David. It should be noted that Saul, Jonathan's father, gave his tunic and military dress to David before the battle with Goliath (1 Sam 17:38-39). Johnathan is simply doing after the battle what his father did before it. The two events-saul and Johnathan giving their kingly/warrior regalia to David-serves to highlight Saul's latter change of mind/descent into insanity.
Interesting (and confusing) to me is that if we were to see homosexual love in this Scriptural passage (or in other undefined relationships between persons of the same gender) and be distressed, we would be labeled "homophobic bigots". But those who see homosexuality in every same gender relationship and approve of it are to be thought of as without prejudice.
This is the case with other issues of prejudice as well. Not that I am approving of racial discrimination, etc, of course, but it seems that a positive bias should also be recognized as a bias, otherwise aren't we living in an ideological dictatorship?
As this thread and many of the problems addressed on American Papist illustrate, I think that the greater crisis of our time is one of Reason, not of Faith. If one accepts that rational discourse can disclose universally-acceptable insights, debates over subjects such as Biblical exegesis can be productive: one could point out the inconsistencies in a "queer" read of the Bible by bringing in philology, formalist criticism, historical context, and theological significance, and present a persuasive conclusion. A queer theologian interested in rational debate may be induced to assent to a more orthodox reading based on such an argument.
If, however, one reduces a science (I'm using the term as in Latin "scientia" or German "Wissenschaft") to opinions based on feelings--"Well, that's how *you* see it, but I just feel differently"--no amount of dialogue will make any difference. It's not a question of truth, but of power--not what the text means, but what *I* feel the text means (to serve my own aims).
To build up Faith in the 21st century, we should turn our attention first to a return to Reason, since Faith divorced from Reason often leads to people like Miller. If you want to make Christians in this day and age, start by making noble pagans of the Aristotelian or Ciceronian stripe.
Without any knowledge of Hebrew, and thus an ability to truly get at what the passage really intended, the most telling piece of evidence is that the Septuagint did not translate these verses.
Why?
I suppose that in compiling and translating the text, the Septuagint translators saw what it said; it posed a problem for them because it contained direct or indirect references to homosexuality, and therefore it was cut from the Greek version. How else can we explain this refusal to translate?
Good question, Sidonius. The answer depends on the authority one attributes to the Septuagint: is it "merely" a translation, or does it represent an interpretation (as all translations are) that is somehow indicative of Revelation.
Put another way, is there a kind of Magisterial authority behind the Septuagint? What is the Magisterium of the Church if not community Divinely sanctioned to give authoritative interpretations of Scripture?
Ministry of Truth.
Doubleplusgood
"It's not a question of truth, but of power--not what the text means, but what *I* feel the text means (to serve my own aims)."
Well put.
It's a tough neighborhood.
Sean L.-
Very interesting. According to this article,
http://www.mercatornet.com/artic...itable_choices/
post-modern thought rejects reason as well as faith. It's been my experience that I can more easily talk to a rationalist (e.g. most of my coworker engineers) than I can to a post-modernist.
Jonathan repeats the same oath in Chapter 20. The pledge of clothing & goods is really an act of fealty. David was the hero of the battle with the Philistines and this passage has to be taken in context with Jonathan's relationship with Saul (his father). Jonathan knew Saul could be unpredictable, even to the point of killing someone. His admiration and acts toward David are a pledge of friendship and, more importantly, protection.
To interpret this any other way is simply adding an agenda to the text.
I was challenged by a trolling homosexual to read this Newsweek article (a trolling homosexual who peppers my blog with profanity and accusations of homophobia daily now for over 2 months.) So I did read it - and here's my response:
http://cheekypinkgirl.blogspot.c...-read-
this.html
Good job Charlotte.
Sean L, I am not sure what authority of any kind has to do with this issue. I think it is preferable to focus just on the text.
Though, I think that you are quite right that every translation is itself an interpretation.
The missing lines in the Septuagint have yet to be addressed by other people here. What else can it mean other than the Septuagint translators thought that 1 Sam 18:1-6 was talking about something they did not want in their translation, namely homosexuality?
Then why not delete Chapter 20 as well? It could be just as well that the only viable copy we have of the Septuagint did not have this verse. It means nothing. Lots of texts have deletions and additions.
Fh, I would prefer to see hard evidence before I make any further conclusions. There are several manuscripts of the Septuagint going back to the fourth century AD, and the Masoretic text has been shown to be accurate over nearly 10 centuries. So I'm not so sure that your argument holds up. Furthermore, your argument is one from silence.
Anyway, to "knit one's soul to another" seems like a likely candidate for a sexual euphemism. It does not seem to me that there is anything like that in Ch. 20. But I can not be totally sure in the absence of more precise knowledge. What are the words in Hebrew? Are they known to appear in erotic contexts, like the Song of Solomon?
What is the textual tradition of 1 Sam 18:1-6? I am not sure, and I would be surprised if any one else here was any more confident.
I think it is healthy to do this kind of exegesis on Scripture, and it is good to keep an open mind about the results you might get.
I agree about critically reviewing the text. However, why would any Jewish writer in the time of David or otherwise risk castigation at the pronouncement of such a passage if it had any connotation of homosexuality? Further, for the sake of argument, if this passage were actually to have meant this, would not Jonathan have been guilty of violating the Torah?
Commenting by HaloScan
