Doug Shaver

If you assume the stories are factual, I suppose it is possible that they did, but I see nothing in the narratives that implies any likelihood that they did. I don't consider it improbable that two heterosexal men could have a close platonic friendship of the sort described in the Bible.

However, I don't believe the stories have any connection with historical reality. In that case, if the stories don't say it happened, then it never happened.

Anat

spin, so what do you think Saul meant in 1Sam 18:21? Was David 'doubly married' into Saul's family?

Anyway, as I said in my first post to the thread, I think the D&J subplot was directed at Benjaminites and intended to support the legitimacy of the Davidic line. The author of Samuel makes an effort to distance David from acts against Saul and his family (for example the assasinations of Abner and Ish-bosheth) and emphasises his loyalty to Jonathan and later to Jonathan's son, Mephibosheth. The closeness between David and Jonathan is part of this line.

spin

It's a slightly twisty verse, but I think WYMR $)WL )L-DWD B$TYM means "and Saul said to David a second time", that he could become his son-in-law, having already said in 18:17 that he would give David his daughter.

It sounds reasonable to me.


spin

Anat

Wouldn't it have said B$NYT in that case? The cantilation has a 'zaqef qaton' on )L-DWD, which I take to mean that the massorets understood B$TYM to be part of Saul's speech.

Anat

And for another couple, though most probably Platonic, see Abraham & Yahweh - A case of male bonding.

seebs

Some people argue fairly plausibly that it refers to sexual arousal, at the very least:

http://epistle.us/hbarticles/saulinsultdaveloseit2.html

Correct? Incorrect? I couldn't say.

spin

I guess it should have been (though I can't find the form used anywhere -- it seems always B-{noun} H$NYT), but either one of the weird readings with $TYM that you've seen is correct and the text doesn't make sense and we are left to grasping at whatever meaning we read into it (you'll have seen the range of translations given), or a scribal error has confused the issue (JPS complains that the meaning is uncertain).

Saul has already made a marriage proposal about his daughter Merab to David. Now he's putting Michal up as a marriage candidate. Option number two is Michal.

Look at the use of B$TYM in Job 33:14. It's translated "again" in a liberal manner by JPS, accepting that it is literally "two".

I'll have to plead for the lateness of the cantilation, ie after the text has been disturbed, either lateness or ignorance. I always work with the bare consonants as a rule. That's how it was originally written.

If the cantilation marking is correct, it could be that Saul says to David that it's the second time.


spin

Solo

I think people get bent out of shape here because they have no cultural reference to anything other than the Anglo-saxon men's culture. For some of us born elsewhere, I mean where affectionate physical contact between men is absolutely ok and carries no copulatory connotations, this is definitely a non-issue. Deep, abiding, and profoundly erotically ambiguous, attraction between men has always existed. David and Jonathan are just one prototype of bosom buddies. Amis et Amiles are another.

Ayone noticed what Borat does with the Anglo-american lack of congeniality to Slavic low-grade greeting erotica ? Jagshemash :wave:

Jiri

blkgayatheist

I agree with Spin on this one, I dont think there is enough there to make a definitive call without reading modern notions into it