Internal Focalization in 1 Samuel – a new perspective on Jonathan’s love for David

Abstract

The narratological instrument of internal focalization offers a hitherto unexplored perspective on the narratives in 1 Samuel, in general, and on the Jonathan narratives, in particular. Internal focalization means that, in the narrative, the viewpoint of a character in the story is chosen, though not necessarily that of the main character. It appears that in contrast to most of the Old Testament (OT) prose, the book of 1 Samuel is abundant in the varying use of internal focalization. Applied to the David-Jonathan narratives, it is Jonathan who is the internal focalizer. This means we read about Jonathan’s thoughts, emotions, and perceptions instead of David’s. David, however, acts as focalized object, which means the focus of attention of the internal focalizer (Jonathan) is on David. This new perspective on the David-Jonathan narratives leads to fresh insights into the issue of the seemingly one-sided love of Jonathan for David. This may very well be explained by the fact that Jonathan is the internal focalizer. Hence, we read about his feelings for David. It does not necessarily mean that David has no similar feelings for Jonathan, but the narrator simply does not highlight these.

Keywords

Books of Samuel narratology focalization perspective Jonathan David

1. Introduction: Internal Focalization

In narratology, a distinction is made between author and narrator. In the words of Bar Efrat¹:

‘The narrator within the narrative should not be identified with the writer as a real person.’

In 1 Samuel, the narrator is omniscient, as indicated by Fokkelman,² among others. The omniscient narrator, by definition, knows everything about the thoughts and motives of all the people in the storyline.

Sternberg³ mentions further concepts he considers relevant, including author, narrator, audience, and characters in the story:

‘Briefly, as I argued elsewhere, narrative communication involves no fewer than four basic perspectives: the author who fashions the story, the narrator who tells it, the audience or reader who receives it, and the characters who enact it.’

These, and other narrative analyses of 1-2 Samuel, consistently ignore one key concept in narratology: focalization. In this paper, it will be shown that this concept of focalization is of utmost importance for the interpretation of 1 Samuel, in general, and the David-Jonathan narratives, in particular.

Focalization, as defined and explained by Bal,⁴ is the viewpoint from which the events in the story are described. The focalizer – the person whose viewpoint is brought forward in the story – should be distinguished from the narrator, as they are not necessarily the same. This is the distinction between ‘telling’ (narrator) and ‘viewing (focalizer). The narrator chooses a focalizer:⁵

- This can be the narrator himself/herself, in which case there is ‘external focalization’.

- This can also be one of the characters in the story in which case there is ‘internal focalization’. The focus of observation is then supplied by this character in the story.

Perhaps the concept of focalization is best illustrated by a small example. Consider the following two stories:

i. John is sitting in the garden. The birds are singing in the trees. He drinks a cup of hot tea and burns his tongue.

ii. John is sitting in the garden. He listens to the birds singing in the trees and thinks about the freedom these birds enjoy. He is thirsty and takes a sip of his tea. He feels his tongue burning, the tea is too hot.

Story i. applies external focalization. Story ii, basically the same story, applies internal focalization. In cases of internal focalization, the internal focalizer is the character from whose viewpoint the reader learns about the events in the story. The reader looks through the eyes of the focalizer, feels what they feel and follows the thoughts of the focalizer. That is why the internal focalizer in a story can be recognized from words such as ‘see’, ‘think’, ‘hear’, ‘be afraid’, ‘remember’, ‘feel’. These verbs point to inner thoughts, emotions or sensory perception.

The internal focalizer does not need to be the main character in the story but can be a secondary character on the periphery. Additionally, the focalizer is not necessarily the same person throughout the story but can change as the story unfolds.

In addition to the object of focalization (the focalizer), there is the subject of focalization, which is also referred to as the object of observation or focalized object.⁶ The focalized object is another character or event or object viewed by the focalizer. In the second example, the singing birds are the focalized object.

Determining the (internal) focalizer is crucial to understanding the message the narrator attempts to convey. The other characters and story events are subjectively viewed by the character of the internal focalizer. As Bal⁷ states:

‘A choice is made from among the various points of view from which the elements can be presented. The resulting focalization, the relation between who perceives and what is perceived, colours the story with subjectivity.’

As mentioned before, the distinction between author and narrator is generally recognized in the commentaries on 1 Samuel. The distinction between focalizer (who views or observes) and narrator (who tells) is not.⁸ This paper attempts to address this discrepancy.

In section 2, the use of internal focalization in 1 Samuel is discussed and set in contrast to its use elsewhere in Old Testament (OT) prose. In section 3, it is shown that ‘knowledge’ is a common theme in the use of internal focalization in 1 Samuel. In section 4, the internal focalization in the David-Jonathan stories is investigated. In section 5, the findings are applied to the interpretation of Jonathan’s seemingly one-sided love for David.

2. Internal Focalization in 1 Samuel

In general, the prose⁹ sections in the Old Testament have external focalization, although sometimes internal focalization occurs. In the latter case, the internal focalizer is generally the main character in the narrative.¹⁰ In 1 Samuel, however, internal focalization is very common. Moreover, the internal focalizer is often not the main character in the narrative. A few examples to substantiate this are the following:

In 1.12-17, Eli is the internal focalizer. This can be concluded from the fact that the reader learns about the inner thoughts of Eli, 1.12,13: ‘Eli observed (שֹׁמֵר‎) her mouth. Hannah was praying in her heart, and her lips were moving but her voice was not heard. Eli thought (וַיַּחְשְׁבֶהָ‎) she was drunk.’ In 4.12-18 again Eli is the internal focalizer, as the reader learns about his observations and emotions, 4.13: ‘There was Eli sitting on his chair by the side of the road, watching, because his heart feared (לִבּוֹ חָרֵד‎) for the ark of God.’ The story unfolds from the viewpoint of the internal focalizer, Eli.

In 3.1-21, it is the young Samuel who is the internal focalizer. He is lying down and hears the voice of Yahweh, although he does not recognize it as such. And later, ‘he was afraid (יָרֵא‎) to tell Eli the vision.’ In 16.1-13, Samuel is again the internal focalizer. In 16.6 we read about his inner thoughts: ‘Samuel saw (וַיַּרְא‎) Eliab and thought (וַיֹּאמֶר‎), “Surely the LORD’s anointed stands here before the LORD.”’ And he hears the voice of God telling him: ‘The LORD does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.’ (16.7)

In 27.5-28.2 and 29.1-11, King Achish of Gath is the internal focalizer, as the reader is informed about his inner thoughts, 27.12: ‘Achish trusted David (וַיַּאֲמֵן אָכִישׁ בְּדָוִד‎) and said to himself (לֵאמֹר‎), “He has become so obnoxious to his people, the Israelites, that he will be my servant for life.”’ In this case, David acts as the focalized object, as Achish focuses his attention on David and reveals what he thinks about him.

These are just a few examples. A more detailed analysis shows that internal focalization plays a key role in each of the narratives in 1 Samuel. Internal focalizers are:

- Hannah¹¹ (1.1-11), Eli (1.12-17)

- Yahweh¹² (2.17)

- Samuel (3.1-21)

- Eli (4.12-18)

- the Philistines (5.1-6.16)

- Samuel (7.1-8.22)

- Saul (9.1-14), Samuel (9.15-17)

- Saul’s uncle (10.14-16)

- Samuel (12.1-25)

- Saul (13.1-15)

- Jonathan (14.1-15, 27-30)

- Samuel (15.10-31, 33-35), Yahweh and Samuel (15.11), King Agag (15.32), Samuel and Yahweh (15.35)

- Samuel (16.1-13), Saul (16.14-23)

- David (17.1-58), switching to Eliab (17.28), Goliath (17.42) and Saul (17.55)

- Jonathan (18.1-4), Saul (18.5-30), switching to Michal (18.20, 28)

- Saul (19.9-24)

- Jonathan (20.1-43)

- Ahimelech (21.1-9), David (21.10-15)

- Saul (22.6-11, 23.19-28)

- David (24.1-23)

- Alternating between David, Abigail and Nabal (25.2-44)

- David (26.1-27.4)

- Achish (27.5-28.2)

- Saul (28.3-8), the medium at Endor (28.9-14), Saul (28.15-25)

- Achish (29.1-11)

- David (30.1-31)

- David (2 Samuel 1.1-27)

This list might appear incomplete but serves to show that in each and every chapter of 1 Samuel, variation in internal focalization plays a crucial role in the narratives, to a much larger extent than in the other prose of the Old Testament.¹³ This pattern continues until 2 Samuel 1 wherein David is the internal focalizer. He displays intense emotions in his grief for Saul and, in particular, Jonathan, expressing this in a dirge or lament for the dead (2 Sam. 1.17-27).

While often someone else, such as Saul, Michal or Jonathan, is the internal focalizer in 1 Samuel, David does play a role in the focalization as focalized object. We read about people around David who act as internal focalizers and express an opinion about David. For example, Saul (initially love, in 16.21, but later hatred, 18.6-30), Jonathan (love, in 18.1, 20.17), and Michal (initially love, in 18.20, 28, but later disgust, 2 Sam. 6.16, 20). But so too people such as Nabal (25.2-44) and Achish (27.5-28.2, 29.1-11) who think about David and form an opinion of him, either positive or negative.

After 2 Samuel 1, the pattern of internal focalization more or less comes to an end. In the remainder of 2 Samuel, internal focalization plays much less of a role. One could argue that the way internal focalization is applied in 2 Samuel is very similar to the way it is done in the other books of the Old Testament. This is particularly evident from chapters 2 Sam. 2-10 wherein there is very little internal focalization. The only exception seems to be 6.16 wherein Michal is the internal focalizer. In the remainder of 2 Samuel, the internal focalizer is, in the instances in which internal focalization does play a role, generally the main character of the narrative (e.g. David, Absalom or Ahithophel in 2 Sam. 17). As mentioned before, the way internal focalization is applied in 1 Samuel is rather unusual among the books of the Old Testament.¹⁴

3. Knowledge as focalization theme in 1 Samuel

One may wonder why this narrative tool of internal focalization is so extensively applied in 1 Samuel. Analysis of the occurrences of internal focalization shows that there seems to be a close link with the theme of ‘knowledge’ or its opposite ‘lack of knowledge’ or ‘ignorance’. Reverting to the three examples given above:

We see Eli as internal focalizer in 1.12,13, where he is ignorant of the fact Hannah is praying rather than being drunk. In 4.12-17, Eli is ignorant about the outcome of the war with the Philistines and is eager to know what happened to the ark and his sons.

Initially, Samuel, the internal focalizer in 3.1-21, is ignorant of the voice of Yahweh. But Yahweh is very much willing to make himself known to Samuel and give him the knowledge he needs. Similarly, in 16.1-13, initially, Samuel does not know whom to anoint, but Yahweh reveals to him that David is his elected one.

King Achish (27.5-28.2, 29.1-1) is ignorant of David’s real actions and intentions and mistakenly considers David a loyal servant.

Apparently, in each of these three examples the internal focalizer is the one who is deprived of knowledge or ignorant about something. In the cases of Eli and Achish, they lack crucial information, as they have no access to the knowledge of Yahweh. Additionally, Samuel is ignorant, though only initially, as later on, Yahweh gives him the information he needs.

The connection between internal focalization and ignorance shows up elsewhere in 1 Samuel.¹⁵ In 5.1-6.16, the Philistines do not know what the ark can do to them and, later, do not know what to do with it. In 9.1-27, Saul is the internal focalizer, and he does not know where his father’s donkeys are. The very short intermezzo in 10.14-16 supplies Saul’s uncle as internal focalizer, who remains unaware of ‘what Samuel had said about the kingship’ (10.16). In 25.2-44, there is even a word play on the name of Nabal who is a fool, as he does not understand who David is and how to treat him well. Finally, in 2 Sam. 1, David, the internal focalizer in this chapter, is initially ignorant about the outcome of the war and Saul’s and Jonathan’s fate.

There is no strict correlation between internal focalization and ignorance. This can already be observed from the fact that sometimes Yahweh is the internal focalizer in 1 Samuel (15.11, 35), but one can hardly say that Yahweh is ignorant or lacks information. Indeed, when Yahweh is internal focalizer in 1 Samuel, He has full knowledge of even the greatest secrets. This becomes particularly apparent in the central verse of 1 Samuel: ‘But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart. (הָֽאָדָם יִרְאֶה לַעֵינַיִם וַיהוָה יִרְאֶה לַלֵּבָב‎)” (16.7). Or, in Hannah’s words: for the ‘LORD is a God who knows (אֵל דֵּעוֹת יְהוָה‎).’ (2.3)

Next, it can be observed that people close to Yahweh and obedient to his will obtain access to the knowledge of Yahweh (particularly, Hannah, Samuel and David). On the other end of the spectrum, unbelievers or people disobedient to Yahweh are ignorant or deprived of the knowledge of Yahweh (Achish, Eli, Saul). Two key characters stand out concerning the knowledge they have, Saul and David.

Saul, the first character to be considered, is the internal focalizer in large portions of 1 Samuel. Because of his disobedience, Saul has been rejected by Yahweh and, henceforth, has to go without the knowledge of Yahweh. Saul is described as someone continuously looking for knowledge but not receiving it. This has also been noticed by Alter:¹⁶

‘Saul, from first to last, is a man deprived of the knowledge he desperately seeks. At the outset, he has to turn to the seer Samuel in order to find his father’s asses. In subsequent episodes, he has no luck with oracles and divination in guiding him on his military way, and he tries to coerce fate by imposing a rash vow of fasting on his troops in the midst of battle. He seizes on the report of informers in his pursuit of David, but David continues to elude him. At the very end, on the eve of his last battle, he tries oracle and prophecy and dreams in order to find out what the impending future will be, but all fail, and he is compelled to resort to the very art of necromancy that he himself had made a capital crime. The knowledge he then receives from the implacable ghost of Samuel is nothing but the news of his own imminent doom.’

David, on the contrary, has access to the knowledge of Yahweh, as Alter¹⁷ phrases it:

‘David, on the other hand, at first seems peculiarly favored with knowledge. The position that he is brought to the court to fill is for a man “skilled in playing” (the literal meaning of the Hebrew is “knowing to play”) and “prudent in speech.” In what follows, David demonstrates impressive prudence and agile resourcefulness. It also emerges that once he has become a fugitive, he is rapidly equipped with an oracular ephod and a priest to use it and so, in contrast to Saul, has a direct line of communication with God in making his key decisions.’

These quotations show how important the theme of ‘knowledge’ is in 1 Samuel. The narrative tool of internal focalization appears to give additional weight to this core theme.

4. Internal focalization in the David-Jonathan narratives

Having discussed the concept of internal focalization and its usage in 1 Samuel, we now investigate how this applies to the David-Jonathan account. First, we notice that Jonathan is the internal focalizer in the story where he enters the scene, 1 Sam. 14. This is also connected to the theme of ‘knowledge’ or its counterpart ‘ignorance’, as Jonathan, being the internal focalizer, appears unaware of the oath of his father (14.27).

The internal focalization in the narratives in which both Jonathan and David play a role (1 Sam. 18-20, 23.16-18) requires further analysis. The following table gives an overview of instances in which the reader is notified of inner thoughts, emotions or perceptions by either Jonathan or David, indicative of internal focalization.^18,19

Verse	Indications for Jonathan as internal focalizer	Indications for David as internal focalizer
18:1	Jonathan loves David as himself¹⁸ (וַיֶּאֱהָבֵוּ יְהוֹנָתָן כְּנַפְשֹׁו‎)
18.3	Jonathan made a covenant with David (וַיִּכְרֹת יְהוֹנָתָן וְדָוִד בְּרִית‎)
18:3	Jonathan loves David as himself (בְּאַהֲבָתֹו אֹתֹו כְּנַפְשֹׁו‎)
19:1	Jonathan had taken a great liking to David (וִיהֹונָתָן בֶּן־שָׁא֔וּל חָפֵץ בְּדָוִד מְאֹד‎)
19.1-7	The story is told from the viewpoint of Jonathan.
20.1-40	The story is told from the viewpoint of Jonathan. The reader follows the meetings that Jonathan has with David and Saul. In the meantime, nothing is said about Saul’s or David’s actions when Jonathan is not present.
20.16	Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David (וַיִּכְרֹת יְהוֹנָתָן עִם־בֵּית דָּוִד‎)
20:17	Jonathan loved David as he loved himself (כִּי־אַהֲבַת נַפְשֹׁו אֲהֵבֹו‎)
20:33	‘Then Jonathan knew that …’ (וַיֵּ֨דַע֙ יְהֹ֣ונָתָ֔ן כִּֽי‎)
20:34	Jonathan is angry (בָּחֳרִי־אָף‎) and grieved (נֶעְצַב‎)
20:35	Jonathan went out to the field in the morning (וַיְהִי בַבֹּקֶר וַיֵּצֵא יְהוֹנָתָן הַשָּׂדֶה‎). Nothing is mentioned about David’s whereabouts.
20:39	‘Only Jonathan and David knew’ (אַךְ יְהֹונָתָן וְדָוִד יָדְעוּ אֶת־הַדָּבָר‎)
20:41	Then they kissed each other and wept together (וַיִּבְכּוּ אִישׁ אֶת־רֵעֵהוּ‎) …	… until David made (his voice) magnified (עַד־דָּוִד הִגְדִּיל‎) ¹⁹
23:16		Jonathan helps David to find strength in God (וַיְחַזֵּק אֶת־יָדֹו בֵּאלֹהִים‎)
23:17		Jonathan encourages David not to be afraid (אַל־תִּירָא‎)
23.18	The two made a covenant (וַיִּכְרְתוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּרִית‎)

This table shows that in the David-Jonathan stories, Jonathan is consistently the internal focalizer.²⁰ Each time a thought, perception or emotion is mentioned in the interaction between David and Jonathan, it is always related to Jonathan. This is the case until the moment their paths diverge in 20.39. From that point onwards, David takes over the role of internal focalizer.

After their final goodbye, 23.18, Jonathan is no longer the internal focalizer. David, however, clearly is the internal focalizer in his lament for the dead Jonathan in 2 Sam. 1.17-27 when he uses words to express his feelings he never expressed before: ‘I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.’ (1.26).

Another observation to be made is that the line of action coincides with the internal focalization. It is Jonathan, being the internal focalizer, who made a covenant with David in 18.3 and 20.16. But in the short story in 23.16-18, where the internal focalization switches to David, Jonathan and David together made the covenant.

5. A new perspective on Jonathan’s love for David

Quite a few interpreters discuss the love (אהב‎) of Jonathan for David, 1 Sam. 18.1 (see Zehnder for an overview).²¹ Moran,²² Fleming²³ and Thompson²⁴ make the connection to the Deuteronomic covenant of love and discern a political dimension, supported by the use of the same word (אהב‎) for the relation between king Hiram and David (1 Kings 5:1). Peleg offers a homosexual explanation for the love between the two,²⁵ a position refuted by Rowe.²⁶ Smith takes a different position by proposing the Jonathan-David relation is a deep but asexual bond, founded on their shared experiences as brothers-in-arms.²⁷ Nissinen qualifies the Jonathan-David relationship as ‘homosocial’ rather than homosexual.²⁸ Additionally, he argues that the qualification of this relationship is a hermeneutical question rather than a historic-literary question.²⁹

In this article, we wish to follow Harding’s example and drop this matter.³⁰ We instead focus on the question of the perceived one-sidedness in the love between Jonathan and David. It has often been observed that Jonathan’s love for David is repeatedly mentioned (18.1,3; 19.1; 20.17) but not vice versa.³¹ Only after Jonathan’s death does David express his feelings about him in his dirge (2 Sam. 1.26).³²

Possible explanations have been proposed: (i) A one-way relationship³³ or (ii) Jonathan’s higher status.³⁴

Keren advocates the first explanation, unrequited love of Jonathan for David:³⁵

‘… if there was love between Jonathan and David, it was primarily Jonathan’s love for David; or at least, that it was a relationship based on both parties’ personal interests. Jonathan, under the guise of this love, seeks to obtain guarantees for private interests associated with his own future and that of his family and descendants. David, in turn, is concerned about his public image. He never expresses any sentiment for Jonathan; nowhere does the book of Samuel even hint that David returns Jonathan’s love. Even when David, after Jonathan’s death, pours out his soul in his lament and says: “1 am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me” (2 Sam. 1.26), he is not expressing sincere grief. Instead, the purpose of the lament is to enhance Jonathan’s image after his death, in keeping with custom (de mortuus nil nisi bonum). It is also plausible that his mourning is a calculated pose, intended to impress the people and persuade them that he is deeply grieved by the death of the previous king’s son, with all this implies.’

On the other hand, Zehnder prefers the second explanation, Jonathan’s higher rank³⁶:

‘It has been observed that both the noun אהאב‎ and the verb אהב‎ are used almost exclusively with the person standing on a higher level of the social hierarchy in the role of the subject (male partner, parent, YHWH) and the inferior person in the role of the object (female partner, child, Israel). It is therefore not surprising to find – with the possible but textually ambiguous exception of 1 Sam 20.17 – always Jonathan, the king’s son, acting as subject of אהאב‎ and the verb אהב‎, and David as object. This does not point to a one-way relationship, as is often assumed; it is simply in keeping with the fact that Jonathan as the king’s son is socially higher ranking than David.’

Nevertheless, both explanations are unsatisfactory. Explanation i. seems to be in conflict with the interpretation of 2 Sam. 1.26, where David expresses his deepest feelings for Jonathan. Is this merely a politically motivated charade? Or do we attribute sincere grief to David?

Explanation ii. seems to be in conflict with the interpretation of 1 Sam. 18.20: ‘Now Saul’s daughter Michal was in love with David (וַתֶּאֱהַב מִיכַל בַּת־שָׁאוּל אֶת־דָּוִד‎).’ It seems unlikely in the male-dominated Ancient Near East (ANE) that this implies that the loving person, Michal, had a higher rank than David, even though she was the king’s daughter.

We propose a new explanation, dealing with the objections to the other two explanations, based on the theory of focalization as explored before. If only Jonathan is said to love David and not vice versa, this is not necessarily because of David’s lower status or an imbalance in the relation between the two but simply because Jonathan is the internal focalizer in the story until at least 20:39.³⁷ The narrative is told from Jonathan’s perspective and it is his feelings, thoughts and perceptions which are revealed. It does not necessarily mean that David does not have similar feelings towards Jonathan. It does however mean that these feelings are not revealed by the narrator, as David is not the internal focalizer in the story.

That is why we only read about Jonathan’s feelings for David in 18.1,3, 19.1, 20.17. This also explains why we learn about David’s feelings for Jonathan in 2 Sam. 1.26, as at that point in the narrative David is the internal focalizer.³⁸ In addition, it offers an elegant explanation for the expression of Michal’s love for David in 18.20, as she then is the internal focalizer. Again, in 2 Sam. 6.16 we read about Michal, being the internal focalizer, who watches David and despises him in her heart.

6. Conclusion

The narratological instrument of internal focalization offers a hitherto unexplored perspective on the narratives in 1 Samuel, in general, and the Jonathan narratives, in particular. Internal focalization means that, in the narrative, the viewpoint of a character in the story is chosen. This is not necessarily the main character’s viewpoint. It appears that, in contrast to most of the Old Testament (OT) prose, the book of 1 Samuel is abundant in the varying use of internal focalization. This has apparently been overlooked by virtually all interpreters of 1 Samuel.

It is recommended that this concept of internal focalization be taken into account in future studies of OT prose, in general, and of 1 Samuel, in particular. New insights can be gained by doing so, as shown in this paper. For example, we have highlighted the connection with the theme of ‘knowledge’ or its counterpart ‘ignorance’ in 1 Samuel. Similar new insights may be obtained when analysing other OT prose, such as the narratives of Genesis, Judges, Esther and Daniel, in terms of internal focalization.

Applied to the David-Jonathan narratives, it has been shown that it is Jonathan who is the internal focalizer. This means that we read about Jonathan’s thoughts, emotions and perceptions instead of David’s. David, however, acts as focalized object, which means that the focus of attention of the internal focalizer (Jonathan) is on David.

This new perspective on the David-Jonathan narratives leads to fresh insights into the issue of the seemingly one-sided love of Jonathan for David. This may very well be explained by the fact that Jonathan is the internal focalizer. Hence, we read about his feelings for David. It does not necessarily mean that David has no similar feelings for Jonathan, but simply that these are not highlighted by the narrator in 1 Samuel.

Footnotes

This article depends on the following work: Hakvoort, R.G. (2021). Interne Focalisatie in 1-2 Samuel: Toegepast op de narratieve interpretatie van de Jonatan verhalen. MA Thesis, Theological University Kampen, The Netherlands, Department of Old Testament Studies (in Dutch).

ORCID iD

Richard G. Hakvoort

1.

:14)

2.

:389)

3.

:130)

4.

:132-153)

5.

Niederhoff, Burkhard: “Focalization”. In: Hühn, Peter et al. (eds.): The living handbook of narratology. Hamburg: Hamburg University. URL = [visited at February 28, 2022]

6.

:260).

7.

:7).

8.

Harding (2013:121, 170-171, 209-210, 227, 266) is one exception. He mentions the concept of focalization a couple of times in his discussion of the David-Jonathan narratives. However, Harding does so only incidentally and not consistently as in the current paper. :54) highlights the importance of the ‘viewpoint, the vantage point from which the narrator is seeing the actions on the stage’. However, by this he means the location rather than the character from whose viewpoint the story is told.

9.

In poetry, such as the Psalms, internal focalization is generally intrinsically present. Poetic texts in the genres of lament, thanksgiving, praise, etc. often express personal thoughts and emotions and therefore have, almost by definition, internal focalization from the viewpoint of the poetic first person.

10.

In, for example, OT books like Ezra, Nehemiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, the internal focalizers are the main characters of the narrative, i.e. Ezra, Nehemiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, respectively.

11.

This shows not only men but also women can be internal focalizers in 1 Samuel. Further discussion of this is, however, beyond the scope of this article.

12.

Even Yahweh acts as internal focalizer in 1 Samuel where we read about his inner thoughts. Further discussion of this is, however, beyond the scope of this article.

13.

The books of Esther and Daniel are possible exceptions. Interestingly, in the book of Esther, it is not the main characters Esther or Mordecai who are the internal focalizers but rather the pagan king Xerxes and his adviser Haman. In 1.12 we read the inner emotion of the king: ‘Then the king became furious and burned with anger.’ And in 6.6 we read about the inner thoughts of Haman: ‘Now Haman thought to himself, “Who is there that the king would rather honour than me?”’ Similarly, in the book of Daniel, it is not Daniel (except perhaps in chapter 1) who is the internal focalizer but the pagan kings: Nebuchadnezzar in chapters 2, 3 and 4; Belshazzar in chapter 5; and Darius in chapter 6. Although fascinating in its own right, further discussion of the use of internal focalization in Esther and Daniel is beyond the scope of this article.

14.

The book of Genesis is interesting in this respect. It starts with God as internal focalizer (‘God saw that the light was good’, 1.4). In many other instances in Genesis, God is the internal focalizer, e.g. 6.6: ‘The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.’ Still, in most cases there is external focalization. From time to time there is internal focalization, but it is mainly restricted to either God or the main character of the story, e.g. Abraham in 18.1-15, followed by God in 18.16-21, Lot in 19.1-26 and Abraham again in 19.28. It looks like 1 Samuel still stands out, as there the internal focalization rapidly shifts from one character to another, not necessarily being restricted to the main character in the narrative. Nevertheless, it may be worthwhile to make a separate study of the use of internal focalization in Genesis because as is the case with 1 Samuel, this has not been taken into proper consideration before. Such a study is, however, beyond the scope of this paper.

15.

In fact, this same correlation occurs in Genesis, e.g. in 37.29 when Reuben is unaware of what his brothers had done to Joseph in his absence. And, also, 38.15 when the internal focalizer Judah is unaware of the identity of the prostitute he visits.

16.

:xix)

17.

:xx)

18.

The Lucianic recension is even clearer in translation: ‘When David had come to Saul and finished speaking to him, Jonathan saw David and his soul was bound to David’s soul.’ (:168).

19.

For reflections on the translation of this verse see Tsumura (2007:524): ‘Here “his voice” is omitted as a result of brachylogy.’ Brachylogy is the ‘omission of keywords in “idiomatic” expressions’ (:64).

20.

This insight is generally overlooked. :94) comes close, saying: ‘There are two other notable differences that we should touch upon. First, an obvious difference – and yet, I have seen no one discuss its rhetorical significance or impact – is that the Hittite apologies are in the first-person voice, whereas HDR occurs in a third-person narrative.’ However, the point made here is that Jonathan is the internal focalizer in the HDR (History of David’s Rise) which – in many respects – is similar to the first-person voice in a narrative.

21.

:127-174)

22.

:77-87)

23.

:19-34)

24.

:334-338)

25.

:171-189)

26.

:183-193)

27.

28.

:250-263)

29.

:262-263)

30.

:32): ‘A few words are in order about what this book is not. Most obviously, it is not an attempt to determine the nature of the relationship between David and Jonathan.’

31.

For example, :350)

32.

:135) notes there may be reasons to assume 18.1-4 and, perhaps even, 2 Sam. 1.26 are later insertions in the text. These diachronic text critical considerations are not further dwelled upon here, as in the current paper, a synchronic approach to the Masoretic Text is adopted.

33.

:41-51)

34.

:115-131)

35.

:3)

36.

:146)

37.

The new explanation given, internal focalization from Jonathan’s viewpoint, is actually not in conflict with either Keren’s or Zehnder’s view. It may well be that either Keren or Zehnder are still right in their view of the matter, but it is of less importance to explain the seemingly one-sided love of Jonathan for David. Here it is argued that the core explanation is found in the way internal focalization is applied in the narrative.

38.

One might argue that it is evident that Jonathan, being dead, cannot be the internal focalizer anymore in 2 Sam. 1.26. However, the narrator could also have opted for external focalization. The fact that the narrative presents David as internal focalizer in 2 Sam. 1.26 is, hence, still significant.

References

Ackroyd

P. R.

(1975). Verb love–’Āhēb in the David-Jonathan narratives: A footnote. Vetus Testamentum, 25(2), 213–214.

Alter

Robert

(1999). The David Story – a Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel. New York: Norton Press.

Angel

(2012). When love and politics mix: David and his relationships with Saul, Jonathan, and Michal. Jewish Bible Quarterly, 40(1), 41–51.

Arnold

B.T.

(2005). “Samuel, Books of” in: Dictionary of the Old Testament Historical Books. Eds. Arnold

B.T.

Williamson

H.G.M.

Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 866–877.

Bakon

(1995). Jonathan. Jewish Bible Quarterly, 23(3), 143–150.

Bal

Mieke

(2017). Narratology: An Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. 4th edition. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Bar

(2019). Saul and Jonathan. Jewish Bible Quarterly, 47(2), 93–102.

Bar-Efrat

Shimon

(1989). Narrative Art in the Bible. Sheffield Academic Press.

Barr

(1995). “The Synchronic, the Diachronic and the Historical”, in: Synchronic or Diachronic? Ed. de Moor

J.C.

Leiden: Brill., pp. 1–14.

10.

Bodner

Keith

(2009). 1 Samuel: A Narrative Commentary. Hebrew Bible Monographs 19. Sheffield Phoenix Press.

11.

Borgman

Paul

(2008). David, Saul, and God: Rediscovering an Ancient Story. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

12.

Darshan

(2013). The reinterment of Saul and Jonathan’s bones (II Sam 21,12-14) in light of ancient Greek hero-cult stories. Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 125(4), 640–645.

13.

Fleming

E. E.

(2016). Political favoritism in Saul’s court: נעם ,חפץ‎, and the relationship between David and Jonathan. Journal of Biblical Literature, 135(1), 19–34.

14.

Fokkelman

Jan

(1981). Narrative Art and Poetry in the books of Samuel, volume 1: King David (2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2). Leiden: Brill.

15.

Fokkelman

Jan

(1986). Narrative Art and Poetry in the books of Samuel, volume 2: The Crossing Fates (1 Samuel 13-31 and 2 Samuel 1). Leiden: Brill.

16.

Fokkelman

Jan

(1990). Narrative Art and Poetry in the books of Samuel, volume 3: Throne and City (2 Samuel 2-8 and 21-24). Leiden: Brill.

17.

Fokkelman

Jan

(1993). Narrative Art and Poetry in the books of Samuel, volume 4: Vow and Desire (1 Samuel 1-12). Leiden: Brill.

18.

Gordon

R. P.

(1987). Saul’s meningitis according to Targum 1 Samuel 19:24. Vetus Testamentum, 37(1), 39–49.

19.

Gunn

D.M.

(1978). The Story of King David: Genre and Interpretation. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 6. Sheffield: JSOT press.

20.

Gunn

D.M.

(1980). The Fate of King Saul: an Interpretation of a Biblical Story. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 14. Sheffield: JSOT press.

21.

HAL. (1967–95) Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, 3. L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, Aufl. neubearb. v. W. Baumgartner und J.J. Stamm. Brill: Leiden.

22.

Harding

James E.

(2013). The Love of David and Jonathan: Ideology, Text, Reception. Lancaster: Equinox.

23.

Holladay

W. L.

(1970). Form and word-play in David’s lament over Saul and Jonathan. Vetus Testamentum, 20(2), 153–189.

24.

Jobling

(1976). Saul’s fall and Jonathan’s rise: tradition and redaction in 1 Sam 14:1-46. Journal of Biblical Literature, 95(3), 367–376.

25.

Jobling

(1998). 1 Samuel. Berit Olam Studies in Hebrew Narrative and Poetry. Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press.

26.

Johnson

Benjamin J.M.

(2012). The Heart of YHWH’s Chosen One in 1 Samuel. Journal of Biblical Literature, no. 3, 455–466.

27.

Jones

B.A.

(2004). 1 Samuel 20:1-17. Interpretation, 58(2), 172–174.

28.

Kaiser

(1990). David und Jonathan: Tradition, Redaktion und Geschichte in I Sam 16-20: Ein Versuch. Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, 66(4), 281–296.

29.

Keren

(2012). David and Jonathan: a case of unconditional love? Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 37(1), 3–23.

30.

Kleven

(1991). Reading Hebrew poetry: David’s lament over Saul and Jonathan. Proceedings, 11, 51–65.

31.

Lawton

R.B.

(1993). Saul, Jonathan and the “Son of Jesse.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 18(58), 35–46.

32.

Leithart

Peter J.

(2003). A Son to Me: An Exposition of 1 & 2 Samuel. Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press.

33.

Linafelt

(2008). Private poetry and public eloquence in 2 Samuel 1:17-27: Hearing and overhearing David’s lament for Jonathan and Saul. The Journal of Religion, 88(4), 497–526.

34.

Morgenstern

(1959). David and Jonathan. Journal of Biblical Literature, 78, 322–325.

35.

Moran

William L.

(1963). The Ancient Near Eastern Background for the Love of God in Deuteronomy. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 25, no. 1, 77–87.

36.

Nissinen

(1999). Die Liebe von David und Jonatan als Frage der modernen Exegese. Biblica, 80(2), 250–263.

37.

Patrick

James

(2016). The Prophetic Structure of 1-2 Samuel. PhD. Thesis. Mansfield College, University of Oxford.

38.

Peleg

(2005). Love at first sight?: David, Jonathan, and the biblical politics of gender. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 30(2), 171–189.

39.

Rowe

J. Y.

(2009). Is Jonathan really David’s “wife”? A response to Yaron Peleg. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 34(2), 183–193.

40.

Rowe

Jonathan Y.

(2012). Sons or Lovers. An Interpretation of David and Jonathan’s Friendship. New York: Bloomsbury.

41.

Short

Randall

(2010). The Surprising Election and Confirmation of King David. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

42.

Silverman

L. M.

(1979). Was Jonathan Guilty? A Study of I Samuel Chapter 14. Dor Le Dor, 7(4), 153–159.

43.

Smith

Mark

(2014). Poetic Heroes: Literary Commemorations of Warriors and Warrior Culture in the Early Biblical World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

44.

Spero

(1991). An Elegy of David: To Teach the Sons of Judah the Bow. Jewish Bible Quarterly, 19(3), 155–163.

45.

Stansell

(2011). David and his friends: Social-scientific perspectives on the David-Jonathan friendship. Biblical Theology Bulletin, 41(3), 115–131.

46.

Sternberg

Meir

(1987). The Poetics of Biblical Narrative - Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

47.

Taggar-Cohen

(2005). Political loyalty in the biblical account of 1 Samuel XX-XXII in the light of Hittite texts. Vetus Testamentum, 55(2), 251–268.

48.

Wolf

(2009). “Samuel, Books of” in: The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible. Eds. Tenney

Merrill C.

Silva

Moisés

. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, pp. 302–314.

49.

Thompson

J. A.

(1974). Significance of the verb love in the David-Jonathan narratives in 1 Samuel. Vetus Testamentum, 24(3), 334–338.

50.

ThWAT. (1970–2000) Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Vols. 1–15. Eds. H. Ringgren, H-J. Fabry, G.J. Botterweck and H. Gzella. Stuttgart Kohlhammer Verlag.

51.

Tsumura

D.T.

(2007). The First Book of Samuel. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

52.

Tsumura

D.T.

(2019). The Second Book of Samuel. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

53.

Van Bekkum

Koert

(2018). How the mighty have fallen. In: Sola Scriptura - Biblical and Theological Perspectives on Scripture, Authority and Hermeneutics, eds. Burger, Huygens and Peels. Leiden: Brill, 159–182.

54.

Van Boven

Erica

Dorleijn

Gillis

(2018). Literair Mechaniek: Inleiding tot de analyse van verhalen en gedichten. Bussum: Publisher Coutinho.

55.

Van Dam

Cornelis

(1997). The Urim and the Thummim: A Means of Revelation in Ancient Israel. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

56.

Zehnder

(1998). Exegetische Beobachtungen zu David-Jonathan-Geschichten. Biblica, 79(2), 153–179.

57.

Zehnder

(2007). Observations on the relationship between David and Jonathan and the debate on homosexuality. The Westminster Theological Journal, 69(1), 127–174.