Free Essays - Religion Essays
The Cultural David
This work represents the collective effort of a group of divinity students examining the ‘Cultural David’. It begins with an examination of David in the biblical text and seeks to understand the text utilising contemporary knowledge from the field of biblical studies, literary criticism, social psychology and the arts. However, we as writers, also form part of a faith community and acknowledge this as a real influence on the way we interpret the world. We have on occasions had to ‘bracket off’ as Heidegger suggested those understandings to allow us to engage in new ways with the texts we examined. This has not been easy at times. The essay work continues along a timeline beginning in the Renaissance with an examination of the cultural David using two sculptures representative of the period. The early 20th century is then examined in terms of the holocaust, the rise of Zionism, the establishment of the State of Israel and how a cultural David is utilised during this period. David in Pop Culture is explored followed by David in film in the mid 1980’s. The work culminates with an examination of a contemporary artist in Israel who has spent most of his life exploring David through his art. He sees David dancing nearly everywhere he goes! We are now having a similar experience. It is concluded that all cultural representations (yes even those in the bible), are ideological; they represent conduits of power, economic relations, and codify diverse identities. These identities are used as a means of organising and sustaining human relations. Disadvantage and abuse when it is experienced, can therefore be seen as contained in identities, in how they are constructed and communicated. We conclude that challenging oppressive representations of people requires to be explored by bible students of the contemporary period.
As the project has grown it has been discovered that the identities revealed, developed and mobilised are done so within Discourses (Foucault 1972, p 21-49). Contradictions and points of tension develop between discursively operationalised characters within texts. For example, there is a tension between David as king and father, moral example and lover, his heterosexual identity and at least subliminal feelings of attraction towards a male friend. These contradictions within discourses lead to conflict and dispute. It is amazing to think that we are debating the representations of a life lived at the end of the Bronze Age and feel committed to finding out the ‘truth’. That is the power of art, literature and discourse! Finally, it may be argued that based on the examination of the Cultural David it can be asserted that all texts are problematical. They facilitate a series of disputed meanings and not a singular uncontested truth. Thus the individual reader must be made responsible and has to finally decide what they will believe and act upon. The focus in our contemporary period has shifted to the reader (Clines 2005, p 11-30). What will we as readers make of this series of stories and how they are represented today? This shift in emphasis within contemporary culture is known as the post modern shift. It makes you and me as readers of art, symbols and the indeed the Bible responsible for discerning the meaning of the text. We are indeed in exciting times!
In introducing the cultural David from the perspective of the biblical narrative, the main biblical sources will be 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel. This work will also make reference to texts in Chronicles and other books as will be required to emphasise points and demonstrate argument. The biblical text will be examined using a variety of approaches in biblical studies (Clines 2005, p 11-30). The central argument that will be developed is that David represents elements of the Collective Unconscious (Fordham 1966, p 22-23, 25-26) known as Archetypes (ibid). It will be demonstrated that the cultural David represents a series of these types. Archetypes gain their importance when they are used consciously or unconsciously to guide the behaviour and attitudes of readers of texts, art and images. As with ancient texts, art and so on, contemporary representations of David continue to utilise Archetypal imagery. This allows us to compare both sets of archetypes highlighting similarities and differences. Approaches such as these offers us a means of uncovering tacit meanings contained within cultural artefacts such as: art, literature, film and national symbols. These uncovered meanings can be used as a source of knowledge to broaden our understanding of complex cultural issues and identities.
Bar-Efrat (1999, p 558) argues that 1 and 2 Samuel were originally one document that were divided into two for the convenience of the producers of the Septuagint. This is a Koine Greek version of the TANAKH. In this work the writers are therefore examining these two books together as one entity. It is noted that the editors of the Bible and TANAKH made the break in the books at a natural closing namely the death of Israel’s first king Saul. 1 Samuel has three distinct phases: the influence of Eli, Samuel and Saul. 2 Samuel deals with the life and times of David our central concern in this work.
The personal lives of the main characters in the story from the focus for exploring the issues of the text. God is relatively absent, although He passes judgement based on the obedient behaviour of the characters. This is demonstrated in: 1 Samuel 15 (New International Version).
The central characters are a Judge cum Prophet called Samuel, an initially and reluctantly appointed unstable king Saul and the hero of the story, the flawed yet adored warrior king of mixed race, David (Crystal 1999,p 253-254).
David is generally seen as a man with many talents. He is a: musician (1Sam 16V18), a poet (2 Samuel 1 Vs 19 – 27), successful warlord (1 Samuel 30, 2 Samuel 8), politically astute (Samuel 5 1-16) and very religiously conscious (2 Samuel 6). His sense of justice and loyalty to Saul makes the reader feel that he has a death wish but this would be too simplistic. He believes and is committed to several key recurrent themes throughout the TANAKH. These recurrent themes are: redemption is of Yaweh and covenant obedience to Yaweh as the only basis of a sustainable relationship with Him (2 Samuel 7). David will not kill the Lord’s anointed. These principles highlight what (Bar-Efrat 1999, p 559) argues as a new type of kingship in the ancient Near East. That is to say, the kings of Israel were not singular rulers with free reign to do as they pleased. They were to rule according to the law and with guidance from the prophet(s). David knew that he was to be an example in morality (he tries to hide his one night stand with Bathsheba and when he can’t, he arranges her husband’s murder; 2 Samuel 11). The tenure of kinship was always reviewable by Yaweh; Israel’s only real and eternal king. The long term practical success of an earthly king was always going to be problematic as outlined in 1 Samuel 8.
It is worth noting that David was successful in several key areas of uniting the diverse tribes of Israel around a tenuous notion of one nation under one God with a capital city in Jerusalem (2 Samuel 5 Vs 1-16 and 6). He brought with this sense of nationhood the possibility of creating a monotheistic centred state based on a set of values (Decalogue) and that if stability could be obtained long enough then security, if not peace, may be achievable. On reflection this narrative sounds quite modern in tone. It brings to mind the modern state of Israel which is explored later.
Most academic authorities are agreed that the Books of Samuel are a literary achievement more than a historical one (Benjamin 2004, p 1, 4-6). There is historical and archaeological evidence for the tribal settlements of the Hebrew people, the city of Jerusalem and the cultures of the Philistines along the eastern coast and the Mesopotamian cultures of the north. This evidence lacks the serious detail and verification with the biblical text required to establish Samuel as History. In fact, in terms of text, there are several problems evident regarding the sources used for our contemporary stories. This is highlighted in: 1 Samuel 13.
The New International Version has felt is plausible to include numbers in verse one with footnotes to say that the text used for translation does not contain the numbers. Macarthur (1995, p 369) highlights that the Masoretic text has been poorly preserved and that there are discrepancies between it and the LXX. Number inconsistencies are highlighted as a problem with accuracy. The New Revised Standard Version of the above text notes that the numbers are lacking in the Hebrew text and the verse is missing from the Septuagint (1 Samuel 13 v 1 NRSV 2007, p 273). This highlights the need for care in claiming literal or historic significance to these ancient texts in light of their source quality. There may be more positive lines of enquiry still available to us by cross referencing stories and incidents with passages to be found in the Psalms and the book of Chronicles (a benefit provided to us by the redactors supplying more that one account of a story). Further positive help lies in the examination of the ancient texts found at Qumran where several passages of Samuel have been found which obviously predate the Masoretic text.
Bar-Efrat (1999, p 560) highlights that there are numerous “doublets” (Riches 2000, p 15-19) in the books of Samuel. Let us examine one of these, the killing of Goliath. In one account it is David (1 Samuel 17 vs. 40-51) who kills him and in the another it is Elhanan (2 Samuel 21 vs. 19) Clearly someone is of the opinion that David did not kill Goliath.
Different versions of the same story are often found in folktales. Several reasons for this are asserted. They are the same story from two different experiences. One could be eyewitness account the other passed on oral communication and recorded later. There is the possibility of conspiracy. Consider, a young man goes out to battle, kills the main champion of a hostile nation while the brave boys back at camp hide and wait for the news that the “wee boy” didn’t make it. Only he did. How embarrassing! There must be the temptation in these circumstances to tell a different story. We know that David did upset important and influential people by his subsequent popularity. 1 Samuel 18 (New International Version): 1 Samuel 18 vs. 6 -9. It can be seen therefore, that redactors may in fact be trying to satisfy competing demands and pressures and therefore include various versions. In this instance, 1 Chronicle 20 v 15 seems to settle the debate in favour of our Hero David.
Lastly, let us consider the love story between Jonathan and David. David told Jonathan in 2 Samuel 1vs 26 that his love was more wonderful than that of a woman. Does this represent a deep platonic or sexual friendship? This question is very contemporary.
In terms of the literary qualities of the books David occupies the role of the archetypal hero in this sense he embodies a spiritual personality as the conqueror over evil. This conquering of evil is represented in: in the slaying of Goliath, suppressing the belligerent surrounding nations, his dealings with individuals notably Saul refusing to harm the Lord’s anointed, in the mercy towards some of his sons and in his dealings with the rebellious northern tribes. All rebel against him (David) the Lord’s anointed. David is frequently presented as being offered two options, the right and wrong choice. Mostly David chooses right with some notable exceptions where murder is chosen over losing face and a blind eye is turned to some vile behaviour by his son. This again demonstrates an archetypal characteristic described as the Shadow by Jung. It is asserted that within each of us there are positive and negative characteristics. We are all a morally mixed bag. The cultural David certainly demonstrates this. One final characteristic is worth noting before the contemporary cultural David is sought for contrast. In Jung’s work David represents a complex experience of Anima and Animus. He has a complex and often confusing relationship with Jonathan the son of Saul in terms of his sexuality. It seems incredible that the orator, writer, and redactor not to mention translators and interpreters all fail to recognise that they leave a question mark over this aspect of David’s life. If they have, then why have they? and what are the implications of it? As Fordham (1966, p 27) states “Central figures in all religions are archetypal”. David appears to be the Archetypal Hero, who wrestles with his sense of right and wrong, projecting his own Shadow characteristics on to others. We now turn to see how these images are represented in Western culture.
The Cultural David: In the Renaissance and On the Fridge
The image of David has been portrayed in Western Culture for nearly one thousand years. David lived one of the most interesting and exciting lives we can read about in the Bible and this dynamism has inspired many artists to represent aspects of his life.
In this essay I shall focus on two sculptures of David from the Italian Renaissance movement. The first piece, a bronze statue, was created by Italian artist Donatello in the years between 1430 and 1450. Commissioned by Cosimo Medici, the ruler of Florence, it was “the first life sized nude statue in the round for a thousand years and is therefore revolutionary.”(Olsen 1992 : 84)The second piece, sculpted in marble by Michelangelo around 1504, was commissioned by Pier Soderini, an eminent member of the new Republic.
At the time of the Renaissance, there was an increased interest in portraying man in all his splendour and emotional states. These were often depictions of Biblical characters and events since, “Renaissance religious art…has to be seen as part of an elaborate insurance policy…taking many forms…the artistic embellishment of places of worship; the provision of charity. Such works bought time off in purgatory,” (The Open University)
Whilst these works showed religious scenes, they were full of political symbolism and communicated these ideas successfully because society at this time had a much better understanding of art and its meaning.
“To have credibility a person had to demonstrate at least some acquaintance with classical learning.” (The Open University)
Donatello’s David was commissioned at a time when Florence was in conflict with Milan, Naples and the Papacy, and it is likely that Donatello was making a statement of who Florentines saw as the victor in this situation.
“The key to the meaning of the statue is the helmet of Goliath, with its visor and wings…[is] that the helmet is a reference to the dukes of Milan, who had threatened Florence about 1400, since the new duke, Filippo Maria Visconti (1392-1477), was warring against it once more in the mid-1420s. The statue thus is a patriotic monument identifying David – weak but favoured by the Lord – with Florence, and Goliath with Milan.” (Jansen 2006 : 95)
David is depicted as an adolescent underdog, naked except for a hat and a pair of boots and holding Goliath’s oversized sword, whilst standing over the head of his defeated foe. His physique ensures we are clear David could not have triumphed in this own strength and highlights his innocence “the nudity refers to Christian purity, virtue and innocence.” (Olsen 1992 : 84)His smile, however, suggests he knows where his strength comes from, namely the Lord.
Later, Michelangelo’s David was also used in the political struggle Florence faced against the south and particularly the Papacy. The statue was originally seen front on and when looking at it from this angle it strikes a very threatening pose. The positioning of the statue came under great debate and in 1504 an extraordinary meeting took place to decide where exactly the statue should be located. Amongst the more famous present were Michelangelo’s contemporaries Botticelli, Leonardo Da Vinci and Filippino Lippi.
So, how could the angle one views the statue make such an important difference? “The…frontal view of David, as he coolly yet menacingly awaits Goliath, his sling at the ready over his shoulder and his face full of disdain… actually appears to be sneering at the giant. The message of the sculpture is clearly, "You [Goliath, and by extension, Caesar Borgia and any other potential enemy of the Florentine Republic] are dead meat!" (McCulloch : 2007)
After much debate it was finally decided the statue would stand in front of the Palazzo Vecchio, symbolically facing Florence’s opponents. Here, “David did indeed engage its Goliath to the south. Its head constitutes its most meaningful and expressive feature, full of symbolic political associations that had significance for contemporary viewers. The placement of the figure obviously determined the direction of its gaze, and as a result the orientation of head and face was undoubtedly a factor influencing the choice of site.”(McCulloch : 2007)
During the Renaissance, artists could rely on the public being able to read the symbolism within a piece, as visual art was a significant means of communication, “where in fifteenth century Florence…did you get your information about the world and how to interpret it?...the spoken word…and visual images – painting and sculpture.”(Hughes 1991 : 372) Today however, art is seen as a playground for the elite and not used as a form of communication. “Before 1880, the idea that every work of art contains and talks to its own history, and that this conversation is part of its meaning, was taken more of less for granted as the background to aesthetic experience. With modernism it moved to the foreground, influencing most ideas of what was, and was not, artistically advanced…Advanced art was solitary. It claimed…the right not to be grasped too soon by too many.”(Hughes 1991 : 372)
Inevitably therefore, the meaning and interpretation of both sculptures has changed, Donatello’s David evolving as a symbol of homoeroticism, fuelling the debate as to the nature of David’s relationship with Jonathan. Many believe Donatello was homosexual as his work “includes figures of beautiful male youths imbued with homoerotic sensuality.” (Simons : 2004)It is therefore possible Donatello was partly inspired by their intimacy, a view further supported by Guy Shaked’s in Master’s of Italian Sculpture.
“Having feminine body serves both as a possible explanation of Jonathan's love for him (because he was beautiful like a woman) as well as to show that his accomplishment in tossing the stone at Goliath was not a result of his feminine like physic [sic] but rather of God's will.” (Shaked : 2007)
The homoeroticism lies in David appearing almost naked, however an alternative explanation for this can be found in 1 Samuel 17:39b we read, “I cannot go in these,” he said to Saul, “because I am not used to them.” So he took them off.”(Yhwh 1980 : 289) The interpretation here is that David took the armour and clothes off but, since Biblical text does not recount him putting any clothes back, he remained naked.
The statue’s androgynous nature has also been used to support transgenderism, “to the curvaceous feminine waistline and abdominal muscles, to the feminine positioning of the hands, to the feminine hips and legs…But then the mysterious appearance of male genitalia…David as a Shemale!” (Utopia Springs Museum : 1999)
Michelangelo’s statue is to some the perfect male body. Standing at 17ft, the statue depicts David as he is about to enter into battle with Goliath. Here again the figure is naked and is leaning against a tree stump, sling over his left shoulder, but unlike Donatello’s, the body here is one of strength with a toned, muscular body on show.
The interpretation of Michelangelo’s piece has also changed through time. The image of the statue has become a popular culture icon, being seen everywhere from postcards to fridge magnets but without meaning. The original political message and strength the statue stood for has totally disappeared and it is now viewed almost exclusively for its aesthetic value.
A decision was made in 1873 to move the statue to the Academia and it is interesting that, since its move, it is now almost impossible to view the statue from the front as originally intended and therefore very difficult to identify the object over David’s left shoulder as his sling. To the casual observer it almost takes on the appearance of an item of clothing or some other harmless object draped casually there. This eradicates any threatening meaning and perhaps “Removing David from the Piazza and turning his hostile gaze out of public sight altogether might…have been a deliberate gesture of reconciliation toward Rome, in the spirit of the New Italy.” (McCulloch : 2007)
In conclusion, the two examples I have looked at in this essay, both initially served the same purpose. Each was used very politically to represent the city of Florence against their greater enemies of the time. Donatello’s David gives the impression of someone who is outwardly weak but behind the exterior there lies a much greater strength.
We can see that Davids’ portrayal in Western Culture has changed dramatically in time from their original meaning, whether through mass consumerism, by moving the way it faces or by presenting the subject as being mainly a homoerotic image.
Michelangelo’s David, in particular has been both popularised and trivialised, yet the stories and images of David are engrained into our psyche. Michelangelo’s David is now seen as the embodiment of the perfect specimen of manhood in both the heterosexual and homosexual male worlds.
“We can recover the political David, merely by substituting a head. Same body, new head, new politics. But more than that, we can bring David's head home, in parts…Just as modernist biblical critics…fragmented the biblical text in which David lived…so postmodernist decorators of refrigerators or filing cabinets can carefully relocate a member of David. So we have David in fragments - arrange them as you please!” (Gunn : 2002)
In the two examples I have looked at, how David has been portrayed has changed dramatically. How we now choose to see David is entirely our choice. It may however not be the choice either Donatello or Michelangelo would have hoped for.
The Cultural David: The Shield of Israel, Contradiction from the Heart of God
This section will examine the “Cultural David” in contemporary society as represented by the flag of the State of Israel (See appendix). The symbolism of the commonly referred to “Star of David” will also be examined with references to biblical text as sources of imagery. The origins of the symbols contained in the flag will be briefly described. It will be argued that there is a “Discourse of David” mobilised by contemporary representations which demonstrate the power of discourses to call into being cultural identities which are used within cultures as conduits of power relations with those societies. This analysis draws on the work of post modern theorists in particular the work of Michael Foucault (Foucault 2000). The writer will use conventional literature sources but will also consult general internet sources in an attempt to trawl for cultural artefacts in the virtual world of cyberspace.
The origin of the Star of David is not fully clear. The Jewish Virtual Library (2007) argues that even the name is unreliable preferring to use the term Magden David or “Shield of David”. They acknowledge the widespread association of the symbol with Judaism and the modern nation of Israel. They suggest several unsubstantiated mythological interpretations of the star and in particular referring to the work of Franz Rosenzweig (The Jewish Virtual Library 2007) as a source of theological explanation. However, it is maintained that there is little historical evidence to support such assertions. The symbol appears in variant forms all over the Middle East and North Africa while within Europe it begins to have a significant presence in the Middle Ages as a sign adopted by Jews for mutual identification. By the 17th century it is noted outside places of religious worship. Significantly, it is used as a marker on a stone with a Christian cross on the other side of the stone demarcating Christian and Jewish quarters in the city of Vienna. A division that the star will be used to violently underline in the 20th century. None of these references to the Magden of David appear to have any link to the biblical David. Yet it has to be noted that the in the popular consciousness of the Jewish people (especially Zionists) a link exists that gives the symbol a longevity and religious importance it does not seem to deserve historically.
In 1935 the Nazi party in Germany introduced laws in Nuremberg that stripped Jews of their citizenship. On November 16th 1939 in the occupied city of Lodz Poland, the authorities past the rule that Jews must wear an armband with a yellow triangle. In the months that followed there were daily round-ups of Jews for forced labour with associated random beatings and killings on the streets. The armband meant it was easy to distinguish between Pole and Jew. The armband was the forerunner to the Yellow Star of David, which was introduced on 12th December 1939. This sign has been recognised as both a sign of oppression to the Jewish nation, and in part a sign of resilience by the Jewish people during the butchery of the Holocaust.
On the 14th May 1948 the state of Israel was established under the national flag of the Blue Star of David. The flag of the State of Israel incorporated the Magden of David, superimposing it on the symbol of a Tallit (Prayer Shawl). Symbolically this is very significant. The shield of the warrior king representing Israel’s determination to defend itself and the prayer shawl representing a people rooted in prayerful lives who seek only peace and coexistence. These images are highly contested and disputed as we will examine. However, the Star of David is now the symbol of a proud nation. It is a sign of a new nation with its own land. The history of the flag of Israel has its beginnings in the Zionist movement. The Zionist movements objective was to seek the reinstallation of a home in Israel for the Jews. This is the land God promised to them in the biblical text (“The Lord said to Abram after lot had parted from him “Lift up your eyes from where you are and look north and south, east and west. All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring for ever.” (Genisis 13:14-15, New International Version (NIV)), P 14). Land and children are regularly juxtaposed in the biblical text as a blessing from God. This is noted by Benjamin (2004 p 171) with reference to Ruth the great-grand mother of King David. She had no land and no children. The women in the story were very vulnerable but stuck together in an act of female defiance. Ruth 1 records the words of Naomi and her feeling that God had deserted her seen in the loss of children and land.
The period of the Second World War underlined the vulnerability of a people with no land. The Jewish people needed land and security and they took it by force. This is quickly associated with the Promised Land of Joshua's time. However, the establishment of the State of Israel by the United Nations in 1948 raises many questions about that relationship. Palestine already was populated in 1948 as it was in Joshua’s time. In Joshua 6 (New International Version) it is recorded:
20 When the trumpets sounded, the people shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the people gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so every man charged straight in, and they took the city. 21 They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.
By 1948 Jewish settlers had been arriving for many years. They had purchased large sections of the land from Palestinian landowners. By 1948, Palestine was a patchwork of Jews and Palestinians, most of whom were Arabs. That changed dramatically after Israel became a nation state. War broke out immediately between the new country and surrounding Arab nations.
As with all war injustice is the main hallmark of the so called liberation struggle. One of the most documented atrocities is that of the Israeli army assault on the Arab village of Deir Yassin (Chapman 1983). It is claimed by Palestinians that on 9th April 1948 the Israeli army entered the village of Deir Yassin and slaughtered 254 men, women and children. Chapman (1983) records the story of a survivor:
“Twelve–year-old Fahmi Zidan survived the first mass killing of about thirty-five villagers. He recalled: ‘The Jews ordered all our family to line up against the wall and they started shooting us, I was hit in the side, but most of us children were saved because we hid behind our parents. The bullets hit my sister Kadri (four) in the head, my sister Sameh (eight) in the cheek, my brother Mohammad (seven) in the chest…..” (Chapman, 1983, page 67)
This war on the people is certainly not new. The killing of conquered peoples to subdue them by Israeli’s is also recorded in the biblical record and provides some of the most disturbing images of the warrior king (see 2 Samuel 8). David and his people are cast in a new light in the modern age. On this occasion and cultural context the possibility exists to see them not as a man or a people after God’s own heart but as perpetrators of crimes against humanity. Crimes and injustices they themselves have suffered.
Brenner (2003) argues that the war has resulted in over 725,000 Palestinians seeking refuge in nearby lands, mainly Lebanon. Following the war, the Israeli government in their refusal to assimilate or mix with other peoples, forcibly expelled the Palestinians from their lands. It also severely restricted Palestinian civil liberties and participation in the national economy. Between 1948 and 1967, nearly 400 Palestinian villages were completely raised to the ground. Almost all farmland owned by Palestinians was confiscated. Palestinian farmers were left with only small parcels of land. Brenner continues: “The David who had fought to survive was now evolving into a Goliath in the eyes of the world, and this Goliath lost much moral credibility as an occupier” (Brenner 2003, Page 161)
Brenner (2003) goes on to describe how following the "Six Day War" in 1967, religious arguments for Israel's occupation of the land were central. Israel's quick, military victory stimulated a series of highly visible and influential religious movements aimed at "redeeming" the land. For Israel, the question of land was a matter neither of economics nor of national security. The reason for taking and keeping the "occupied territories" was a religious obligation. These territories rightfully belonged only to the Jews and should not be returned. The act of acquiring this land by military force further reinforced the belief by some countries that Israel was becoming an oppressive state, their political credibility for this act was criticised by the philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz, who claimed “Israel lost the Six-Day War on the seventh day” quoted in (Brenner 2003 Page 161)
By going back to biblical texts, the parts of the Bible that defined the Promised Land and told the people to conquer it, the religious purpose of the Israeli people was declared to be the same as the purpose of the state. The discourse of the “Promised Land” became justifications for expelling thousands of Palestinians (See Deuteronomy 1.8 ) It could be argued that the Jewish settlers believed that they had in some way been chosen to 'redeem the Land' and to displace the modern equivalent of the Philistines and Canaanites.
In response, attacks from Palestinian military sources and from human bombers, Israel has constructed a physical barrier, which runs for approximately 436 miles along the West Bank. The barrier is commonly referred to as the ‘Separation Wall’ in Israel and in Palestine as the ‘Racial Segregation Wall’. 17km2 of confiscated Palestinian land has been used to build the barrior, islolating small villages and severing communites. Crossing points are limited and thus restricting individuals access to services and hospitals. In 2003 the ‘Pakmaz’ a military central command responsible for the West Bank issued a new directive stating any male Palestinian of 12 years or over must obtain a residents permit to allow them to continue to live in their homes. This oppressive mind-set is familiar to that in 1935 Germany where the Nazi party oppressed the Jewish communities.
The symbols of David are of the warrior king and hero dedicated to the liberation of some and of distilled evil and oppression of others. This is because the discourse of supremacy casts protagonists in mind sets and roles of suspicion, hatred and apartheid with divine approval. This results in conflict not peace. Resistance to oppression is a key characteristic observed within discourses in this study. A holy people require an antithesis. Human failure results in condemnation and victory for the merciless. The old Biblical Davidic kingdom did not last, neither did Rome, The British Empire or The Third Reich. In the end the Heart of God is not so easily appropriated by narrow national self interest.
David may well be an archetype. But it is dangerous to make heroes out of clay. David is represented in the bible a complex multifaceted character full of love and at the same time capable of the worst forms of human behaviour. Sadly this has been interpreted as “licence to practice similarly” by some. God on the other hand is attributed all sorts of characteristics by simply reading the text literally. Does God condone murder, genocide and crimes against humanity? The writer suggests not. It is too simplistic; to simply accept a surface, literal meaning from biblical texts. We do the characters including God a great disservice. The challenge is to read from a variety of vantage points. These vantage points may be: race, class, gender, able-bodied-ness and sexuality. This appears to offer greater hope in finding “the author and perfecter of our faith” (Hebrews 12:2 (NIV) and may be then we will catch a glimpse of an alternative cultural David.
The Cultural David: It Was Never a Hollywood Great!
The importance of the visual to religion has long been recognized. Within historical Christianity, religious images have given a focus for the people regarding: piety, the story of god and salvation their duty to the church and so on. This has been especially useful to those with limited access to the written word especially in pre mass education times. Visual communication in the form of illustrations, for example: the highly illustrated Book of Kells (see appendix), a ninth century manuscript now in the charge of Trinity College Dublin, Orthodox icons (see appendix, Hill 2007 p141), and stained glass windows are well recognised as effective means of engaging with and representing the spiritual experience. Although the bible has been available in common languages for several hundred years there has been a consistent demand and exploration of the visual, auditory, olfactory and tactile in the religious experience. All these art forms produce a cultural repository of religious experience that intercedes between the individual, the spiritual, the social and the cultural. The art form explored here is cinema it is continuous with this long tradition in which images and sound have been used to generate emotion, to secure attachment, and to encourage simulation of religious type behaviour.
After film was invented by the Episcopal preist,Hannabal Goodwin, it began a strong relationship with film which remains as strong in modern days. Obermmergau’s the passion of Christ was the first shown in 1898. It was shown with a characteristic thirteen sceens of about one minute each culminating in the trial and death of Jesus.
The first decades of the twentieth century seen film as a medium become widely recognised both as a way of communication and also as a way to educate the general public. Forshey (1992 pp1-13) asks where do we as contemporary society receive our values, our images of ourselves, of one another, of our social world, and of our relation to the natural world? As a society, we no longer only get our informing images from the walls of churches as historical Christians did. We get them from the media culture in which we live. Movies, television, magazines, and billboards saturate us with images. Just as examining historical religious art can reveal a great deal about the society from which it came, exploring media images tells us something about the preoccupations of our society. Forshey (1992) argues that media images are one of the most pervasive means by which to receive representations of identity and diversity, relationships, social arrangements and institutions. Although religion is not a preoccupation of contemporary film, images of religion and religious commitment circulate in the public sphere through this medium. Every time a religious comment is made, an image offered a moral suggested, a trust encouraged the activity of religion and faith is being presented latently to a consuming audience.
In 1985 Richard Gere starred in a film about David king of Israel. The film itself opened to critical approval as the “most human portrayal of King David.” (Interview with director Bruce Beresford by Time Life magazine June 1986). The film is reasonably biblically accurate as far as the story goes. The images of the landscape appear authentic. The viewer is taken to Judea visually. Edward Woodward as Saul is one of the best performances in the film due to his aptitude for the portrayal of the mental illness of Saul. Gere's representation is of our archetypal hero with the expected angst of the stereotypical view of a man failing to resist Bathsheba. However ‘love’ makes murder and deception a forgivable sin. The film failed to examine the ‘other’ ego of David and any ambiguity in his sexuality in relation to Jonathan is ignored. This was a low point and a real blind spot in the film. Donatello and Michelangelo showed greater insight in more difficult times. When the director Bruce Beresford was asked why he had portrayed David as he had, he answered ‘I wanted to portray a real man rather than a holy man.’ At the end of the film we see David losing his faith in his God because God told him he was not allowed to build the temple. It could be argued that Beresford by his own admission sees holiness as unrealistic. Turning away from faith is seen by Beresford as being more reasonable even more desirable. This reflects quite accurately the time in which this film was made. The 1980’s both in America and Britain was dominated by the rise of the New Right (Dean 2002 p164). Faith in collective social solutions to social and personal problems was under attack. Faith in the old social democratic order of getting rid of poverty and economic failure through the New Deal America (Clasen 2002 p1612) and Welfare State Britain (Page 2002 p274) had it was argued at the time produced nothing but: dependency, deindustrialisation and demoralisation. This could be argued to be reflected in this film. David the great hero fails to meet the standards demanded of him by God and his ultimate plan of building the Temple a place for God to dwell was handed to someone else namely Solomon his son. David failed not because his heart was wrong but because his means were wrong. The 1980’s are replete with this. This is the social theme of the 1980’s. There was a purer truth, one rooted in a better wisdom, a higher reality, that of the free market and standing on your own two feet. The temple of society, a place for god to dwell required a new king related to the old but based on a new ideology.
Film like other art can be seen as just a form of entertainment. However it can also be seen as a process of critically examining the personal, social and political themes of the time. However this is a bit like viewing biblical studies just in terms of historical criticism. The task is to either get into the mind of a writer or to unravel the cultural meanings of a time past. Audiences are not fettered to their seats in this way (neither are bible students) in the cinema (or at home, on the internet or indeed in church). They are not ignorant of the fact that the film they see on the screen is an illusion, a two dimensional image of reality utilising story telling for some other purpose. The reader of any cultural artefact can only make sense of it from the cultural space that they occupy (Clines 2005 pp15-15). Thought and identity is made from discourses, not the other way round (Jevtic & Horrocks 1997 p87).
The cultural David portrayed in the film examined portrays the socio-political context of the late 20th century not the biblical David as outlined in the first section of this work. This is what is expected. Art is not created in a vacuum and the bible is not read in one. ‘We should treat these documents not for their reference to historical validity, but for themselves’ argues Michael Foucault in: Rules of Discourse, (Jetvic and Horrocks, 1997 p87). Our job is not just to discover the history of the biblical past but rather to discover the history of the present, our own history. This is why we are bible students.
The Cultural David Dancing Before the Lord and the Holocaust
This section will examine the Cultural David Dancing before the Lord. It will examine the challenging history of the Holocaust and how the archetype of David can be reconciled with the image of a people apparently deserted by God and crying out for justice. It will begin by examining the Biblical narrative and contrasting this with the representation of the story of the dance before the Lord within the depictions in the art of Ivan Schwebel who states…
“David is the eternal symbol of survival. He whirls before the deportation trains, over the Auschwitz arrival platform and alongside its barbed wire together with El Greco's Jesus.” (Schwebel 2007). Schwebel makes the familiar strange in an attempt to challenge us to see beyond the narrow stereotypes of David. This section attempts to participate in that challenge.
Michal, David’s wife will be introduced as a key figure in understanding David in terms of his failing to see the contradiction of dancing before a Lord who, apparently always reserves the right to reject his own anointed. Michal offers the opportunity to see the relationship between God, King and People in a different way, that is, through the gaze of a woman living in ancient Israel. Michal has been bartered, betrayed and rejected in the name of patriarchal honour and power. This theme has consistently been ignored in traditional male dominated examinations of David. Continuing to see David as a historical hero figure in the history of ancient Israel will be argued to deprive the contemporary period of novel themes of weakness and fallibility tinged with hope. The incongruence and contradiction within the bible narrative is not a mistake or oversight. It is deliberate; it’s a challenge to us to recognise the complexity and diversity of the world and the people in it. It results in the recognition of the “Self” in David as a multiplicity of contradictory characters. It challenges us to look at our own complexities and therefore one’s own limitations. Most importantly it cries out of the need for reconciliation in personal, social and spiritual worlds.
Bar-Efrat (1999, p 630) points out that Michal was the daughter of Saul. 1 Samuel 18. In this passage we see the Saul King of Israel using his daughter and her natural affection for David as a weapon against David. She on the other hand saves Davids life in 1 Samuel 19.
No doubt as a punishment and as a means of flushing David out of hiding and into a confrontation, Saul gives David wife Michal to Palti son of Laish. He evidently loves her, at least he cries when David eventually demands her back as recorded in 2 Samuel 3.
Bar-Efrat (1999, p 630) goes on to argue that David’s dancing before the Lord offends Michal who prefers to see David act like a king as opposed to commoner. This point is supported by Jones ( 2007 p 218-219). However, it could be argued that David was a commoner. He was now a king but he came from humble origins. It is also worth noting and remembering he was of mixed race. In David’s culture this was not to be desired. It can suggested that his low status within the esteem of his brothers and even in his father’s sight would have left a lasting impression on him. Perhaps he needed to be seen as one of the people and knew how it felt to be an outsider. Saul certainly commented on his commoner status to Jonathan. Michal was the daughter of a king, she had lived the life of a nobel perhaps her sensitivities were offended, but the writer considers this too shallow an analysis. Michal no doubt had heard of her father’s “dancing” before the Lord. Saul was apparently possessed by the spirit and prophesied this is seen in 1 Samuel 19.
Saul betrayed his kingship by allowing jealousy, impatience and eventual paranoia to destroy him. He too was a man after God’s own heart but he allowed his ego to be overwhelmed by self importance. He lost his vision and lost his throne. Michal was making a much more serious point than simply expressing jealousy. She was making a feminist statement about the cycle of male conflict, triumphalism and ambition. She did despise what she saw. It was not David the person she loved that was in focus at this point it was the king and what he represented. Her fear, expressed in her sarcasm was that David would sacrifice not only his dignity, but, she would no doubt predict his many other positive personal qualities in pursuit of ambition. This was in fact what happened after David’s son Solomon’s reign the kingdom falls apart and the people are eventually taken into captivity. The central lesson that David and his contemporaries missed was that violence and oppression even of your enemies can never bring lasting peace.
David in return treated Michal with contempt, as Bar-Efrat (1999, p 631) notes, the house of Saul and David would now not ever unite. Michal touched a nerve by challenging David’s externalism and public show. She challenged him to be the king that God wanted – One after His own heart. David knew this but preferred to play the populist king dancing behind a spiritual facade.
Schwebel’s (2007) work as depicted in the painting David whirls / Auschwitz arrival platform and David and Jesus (after El Greco) Auschwitz barbed wire (Schwebel 2007) challenge us to view David dancing before the Lord in a new way. The style is impressionist based on the assertion that “Total realism is not acceptable.” and “History is compressed and tragedies are fused on the canvas.” Words represent more than their literal meaning therefore total realism is not acceptable because it is not achievable. Whose reality is to be total and totally what?
Schwebel (2007) goes on to assert that the process he as an artist is engaged in is a “desperate game devoid of rules”. The only thing that is left according to Schwebel is intuition. The form of the art is expressive, by which is meant the paint on canvas is an elaborate code, a complex play of human interaction.
The painting represents a politics emanating from the sufferings of all the peoples of Palestine. Schwebel uses a classification of acting out “The Situation”. His work has the self confessed aim of "Stop the Killing!”
The most challenging phrase on his website is “conflict cannot be resolved verbally”. His visual art is therefore not best communicated verbally but sensually and two examples are given in the appendix.
However, written words are all we have in this medium and so a brief look at David and how he is represented is offered.
In the painting “David whirls / Auschwitz arrival platform” (see appendix) David is dancing above a pair of trains at the World War 2 concentration camp of Auschwitz. Auschwitz Birkenau is a German Nazi Concentration and Extermination Camp (1940-1945). It was made up of three main camps surrounded by around 40 satellite camps. It’s purpose was the mass extermination of Jews and other people thought not to fit the characteristics of a white male supremacist ideology. It was a mission of dehumanisation and violence dedicated to the worship of the false gods of eugenics in cathedrals of death offering daily burnt offerings of human dignity and human decency. Around 1.1 million human beings were murdered and around 90% of them were Jews. The Shield of David did not protect on this occasion. What could David possibly have to dance about? The painting is highly kinetic forcing the gaze of the onlooker’s eye up through David’s body, then along the black trains. David is dancing and the crowds of people on this occasion following David are silently groaning. The slave girls referred to in the biblical texts are now slaves of a far harsher master. One who will destroy them! They cannot see David nor would they look if they could. They are deserted and in despair an exiled people without hope. David is not dancing a feverish dance of joy uttering the heavenly tongues of sublime prayer. He is crying for the living God to awaken and save His people. His body is contorted in the agony of a loving parent mourning the loss of a child. David has a good heart but he remembers treating life cheaply, failing to build for peace and not ending the miserable bravado of the glory of war. The painting is shocking to the senses and crushing to human pride. It compels embarrassment and shame for the guilt of silence of saying nothing in defence of the vulnerable and the tolerance of war. Perhaps this is what Michal meant when she stated to David: "How the king of Israel has distinguished himself today, disrobing in the sight of the slave girls of his servants as any vulgar fellow would!"
Religion Essays - Find your free religion essays...
We have a large assortment of free religion essays available to use as research material. Visit our religion essays from our free essays section.
All of the essays in the free essays section were written by students and then submitted to us to display and help others. Thanks to all the students who have submitted their essays to us. You should not hand in our essays as your own. We do not condone plagiarism!
