The biblical book of 1 Samuel lays out the foundation of some of ancient Israelis most famous and influential kings, describing in detail the rise of king David, and the reign of his predecessor Saul. However, while presented as Israeli history, the tales of Samuel possess a clear bias in favor of King David, as the text attempts to exonerate him of any wrongdoing during his rise to king. 1 Samuel 25, a small excerpt from this larger kingship narrative, possesses important social and literal conflicts, as it broaches the notions of honor and shame, two principles of upmost importance in ancient Israeli society. The narrative tells of David’s positive challenge to a rich land owner, Nabal, requesting an offer of hospitality in exchange for his
…show more content…
With the literary cues depicting David as humble and disadvantaged, it would seem logical that when he requests hospitality from someone above him on the social ladder, in this case Nabal, that the higher up would be delighted to extend the formality. The extension of hospitality would be seen as both a kind gesture in the ancient culture, but it would build the honor of the host, as they demonstrate ability to care for their houseguest. However, in Samuel 25 Nabal breaks this custom, and refuses to even acknowledge David’s request of hospitality. Instead in an act of extreme insult to David, Nabal claims to have never heard of “David, son of Jesse” before. If the honor and shame social model of ancient Israeli is applied to the text though, it reveals that Nabals actions would have been entirely …show more content…
This clash of perceptions, results in a story that is difficult for the modern audiences to interpret. While the literary context makes it evident that David will rise to king, and gain the upmost honor, social interpretations of the text provide us with a much different view of David. Applying both to 1 Samuel 25, the actions of Nabal can be interpreted in two distinctly different ways. The literary model portrays a foolish image of Nabal, while the social model provides a scenario in which his actions are entirely justified. This conflict highlights the importance of understanding that both viewpoints are generated from models which serve merely as methods to synthesize the text into a comprehensible form, and that neither model can actually portray the narrative in the way in which the original ancient Israeli audience did. While the social context model provides a justifiable reason for Nabals positive rejection of David’s challenge for hospitably, the usefulness of this data remains limited by our current ability to fully understand the text as originally
With the literary cues depicting David as humble and disadvantaged, it would seem logical that when he requests hospitality from someone above him on the social ladder, in this case Nabal, that the higher up would be delighted to extend the formality. The extension of hospitality would be seen as both a kind gesture in the ancient culture, but it would build the honor of the host, as they demonstrate ability to care for their houseguest. However, in Samuel 25 Nabal breaks this custom, and refuses to even acknowledge David’s request of hospitality. Instead in an act of extreme insult to David, Nabal claims to have never heard of “David, son of Jesse” before. If the honor and shame social model of ancient Israeli is applied to the text though, it reveals that Nabals actions would have been entirely …show more content…
This clash of perceptions, results in a story that is difficult for the modern audiences to interpret. While the literary context makes it evident that David will rise to king, and gain the upmost honor, social interpretations of the text provide us with a much different view of David. Applying both to 1 Samuel 25, the actions of Nabal can be interpreted in two distinctly different ways. The literary model portrays a foolish image of Nabal, while the social model provides a scenario in which his actions are entirely justified. This conflict highlights the importance of understanding that both viewpoints are generated from models which serve merely as methods to synthesize the text into a comprehensible form, and that neither model can actually portray the narrative in the way in which the original ancient Israeli audience did. While the social context model provides a justifiable reason for Nabals positive rejection of David’s challenge for hospitably, the usefulness of this data remains limited by our current ability to fully understand the text as originally