Nice set of verses, Esprix. Here’s an interesting quote from the Talmud, the section called “Ethics of the Fathers,” Chapter 5, Teaching 19, that relates:
“Any love that is dependent on a specific material matter, once the matter is gone, the love is gone. Any love that is not dependent on a specific material matter endures forever. What is an example of love that is dependent on a specific matter? The love of Amnon and Tamar (Amnon had been sexually attracted to his half-sister Tamar, eventually raped her and then refused to ever see her again.). What is an example of love that is not dependent on a specific matter? The love of David and Jonathan.”
and Esprix, I really did have a pretty good guess what you were getting at, but none-the-less, yours is a point debated by serious Biblical Scholars.
And CMK, none doubt that David was also a pretty masculine guy, and that his love for Jonathan was true, but it could have been physical also. David was not exactly a poster boy for the Law. Personally I doubt it, but…
I’m not sure what “specific material matter” means in this context. Obviously they’re saying that David and Jonathan’s love was true, but are they or are they not implying that the relationship was true love and/or physical love?
Once again, The Church™ says it’s ok to be gay, just not to do those gay things. How interesting that they should vilify the act of love, yet at the same time hold it up as true.
CMK: I am not one of those who always look for the bad in our historical heroes, and I look with distain on those who commit “presentism”. David was a great man, and a hero of the first order. That said, the killing of the descendants of Saul, for the supposed sins of their father, was pretty raw. And then saying “Are there any left of the house of Saul, that I may shew him kindness”… well.
If that’s the order it had happened in, that would have indeed been odd behavior. But it’s not.
Saul and his oldest three children were killed in battle against the Philistines (I Samuel Chapter 31). His fouth and last child, Ish-Boshet, was killed by two people seeking to ingratiate themselves to David (thinking that as the aspiring new king he’d be happy to hear that the last surviving claimant to the old throne was dead); David had them put to death as murderers (II Samuel Chapter 4). It was after that that he sought any survivors of the family of Saul in order to do them kindness, due to his friendship with Jonathan (II Samuel Chapter 9). It was after that that there was a famine, and David asked G-d why the people were being punished thusly, and G-d answered that it was due to the mistreatment of the Gibeonites at the hands of Saul. David had to appease the Gibeonites before the divine decree of famine would be lifted, and the Gibeonites demanded that seven descendants of Saul be handed over to them. David complied, and the Gibeonites killed the seven (II Samuel 21).
So assuming that it’s that last event you’re referring to as David’s killing the descendants of Saul, it happened after he sought out a remnant of Saul’s house to do kindness to. And only because it was the only way to appease the Gibeonites and end the famine.
Actually, I think he was referring to my earlier post, about Shakespeare/modern English and the languages of the bible (but thank you Andros.)
Rousseau, my point was twofold - first part was to correct your statement about Shakespeare not being written in Modern English; the last thing we need is more people who think they won’t be able to understand Shakespeare. Second, if you’re going to nitpick Esprix’s OP, then for g-d’s sake be right in your information.
