ZAW Whos in Who's Out II Sam 5,8b and Narrative Reversal

Whos In? Whos Out?
II Sam 5,8b and Narrative Reversal*

Craig W. Tyson
(University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA 48109)
At the heart of the account of Davids capture of Jerusalem in II

Sam 5,610 is a verbal sparring match that the author concludes in
v. 5,8b with, Therefore they say, Blind and lame shall not enter the
house. Compared to the many studies of II Sam 5,610, this proverb
has received little attention.1 This study attempts to correct that imbal* I would like to thank Professor Douglas Stuart of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary for his guidance on this topic in its form as an M.A. thesis. I would also like to
thank Professor Brian Schmidt of the University of Michigan, Dr. Eric Reymond of Yale
Divinity School, and an anonymous reviewer for their comments on earlier versions of
this study. All faults with the study remain my own.
1 W. F. Albright, The Sinnr in the Story of Davids Capture of Jerusalem (2 Sam 5:69),
JPOS 2 (1922), 286290; G. Bressan, Lespugnazione di Sion in 2 Sam 5, 68, 1 Cron 11,
46 a il Problema del Sinnr, Biblica 25 (1944), 346381; G. Brunet, David et le sinnr, in: J. A. Emerton (ed.), Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament,
VTSup 30, 1979, 7386; G. Brunet, Les aveugles et boiteux jbusites, in: J. A. Emerton
(ed.), Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament, VTSup 30, 1979, 6572;
J. Derby, Davids Conquest of Jerusalem, JBQ 25 (1997), 3539; J. Feather, How Joab
Took Jerusalem, ExpTim 41 (192930), 140141; J. P. Floss, David und Jerusalem: Ziele
und Folgen des Stadteroberungsberichts 2 Sam 5,69 literaturwissenschaftlich betrachtet, 1987; S. Frolov and V. Orel, David in Jerusalem, ZAW 111 (1999), 609615;
R. Gelio, Davide conquista la Rocca di Sion, Lateranum 61 (1995), 1177; R. Gelio,
Davide e la mesudat Siyyn: chi gli avversari?, RSB 7 (1995), 129155; H. L. Ginsberg,
Lexicographical Notes, ZAW 51 (1933), 308; J. J. Glck, The Conquest of Jerusalem in
the Account of II Sam. 5:68a with special reference to the blind and the lame and
the phrase weyigga^ bassinr, Biblical Essays 1966: Proceedings of the Ninth Meeting
of Die Ou-Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika, 1966, 98105; J. Heller,
David und die Krppel, CV 8 (1965), 251258; T. Hentrich, The Lame in
Lev 21,1723 and 2 Sam 5,68, AJBI 29 (2003), 530; E. D. Herbert, 2 Samuel v 6:
An Interpretative Crux Reconsidered in the Light of 4QSama1, VT 44 (1994), 340348;
S. Holm-Nielsen, Did Joab Climb Warrens Shaft?, in: A. Lemaire and B. Otzen (eds.),
History & Traditions of Early Israel: Studies Presented to Eduard Nielsen, 1993, 3849;
I. Kalimi, The Capture of Jerusalem in the Chronistic History, VT 52 (2002), 6679;
T. Kleven, Up the Waterspout: How Davids General Joab Got Inside Jerusalem,
BARev 20, no. 4 (1994), 3435; T. Kleven, The Use of snr in Ugaritic and 2 Samuel v 8:
Hebrew Usage and Comparative Philology, VT 44 (1994), 195204; S. Loffreda, Ancora
sul sinnr di 2 Sam 5,8, LASBF 32 (1982), 5972; B. Mazar, Davids Reign in Hebron
ZAW 122. Bd., S. 546557
Walter de Gruyter 2010
DOI 10.1515/ZAW.2010.038
Bereitgestellt von | Libraries & Learning Res Ctr (Thomas Cooper Library)
Angemeldet | 172.16.1.226
Heruntergeladen am | 22.01.12 17:02
Who's In? Who's Out? II Sam 5,8b and Narrative Reversal
547
ance by extending two recent approaches to the interpretation of this

proverb. I argue that II Sam 5,610 combines the rhetoric of disability
and an insider/outsider motif within a chiastically structured narrative
reversal whereby David ends up in Jerusalem and the Jebusites end up
disabled and outside Jerusalem. The author effects the reversal using
a large repertoire of repeated vocabulary and syntactical structures in
which II Sam 5,8b is an integral component. The exclusionary and disability elements of the proverb make it ideal for communicating the demise of the Jebusites and linking II Sam 5,610 to the larger discourse
tracking the rise and demise of the Saulide and Davidic houses.
I. Recent Approaches to the Interpretation of II Sam 5,8b
The recent studies of Ceresko and Schipper go a long way towards addressing the function of II Sam 5,8b by underscoring its role within a set
of narrative themes and motifs in DtrH.2 Ceresko builds upon a remark
by Carlson, who argues that the house in II Sam 5,8b refers to sacral
and the Conquest of Jerusalem, in: S. B. Freehof (ed.), In the Time of Harvest, 1963,
235244; J. M. Miller, Jebus and Jerusalem: A Case of Mistaken Identity, ZDPV 90
(1974), 115127; M. Oeming, Die Eroberung Jerusalems durch David in deuteronomistischer und chronistischer Darstellung (II Sam 5, 69 und 1 Chr 11, 48): Ein Beitrag
zur narrativen Theologie der beiden Geschichtswerke, ZAW 106 (1994), 404420;
S. M. Olyan, Anyone Blind or Lame Shall Not Enter the House: On the Interpretation
of Second Samuel 5:8b, CBQ 60 (1998), 218227; J. C. Poirier, Davids Hatred for the
Lame and the Blind (2 Sam 5.8a), PEQ 138 (2006), 2733; C. Schfer-Lichtenberger,
David und Jerusalem Ein Kapitel biblischer Historiographie, EI 24 (1993), 197211;
V. Scippa, Davide Conquista Gerusalemme, BeO 27 (1985), 6576; H. J. Stoebe, Die
Einnahme Jerusalems und der Sinnr, ZDPV 73 (1957), 7399; E. L. Sukenik, The Account of Davids Capture of Jerusalem, JPOS 8 (1928), 1216; L.-H. Vincent, Le sinnr
dans la prise de Jrusalem (II Sam. v, 8), RB 33 (1924), 357370; W. G. E. Watson, David
Ousts the City Ruler of Jebus, VT 20 (1970), 501502; Y. Yadin, The Art of Warfare in
Biblical Lands In the Light of Archaeological Study, 1963, 2,267270.
A. R. Ceresko, The Identity of the Blind and the Lame (^iwwer pisseah) in 2 Samuel 5:8b, CBQ 63 (2001), 2330, 2330; J. Schipper, Disability Studies and the Hebrew Bible: Figuring Mephibosheth in the David Story, LHBOTS 441, 2006, 104107;
J. Schipper, Reconsidering the Imagery of Disability in 2 Samuel 5:8b, CBQ 67 (2005),
422434, 422434. Vargons study considers II Sam 5,8b as part of a narrative testing
of David to see whether he would keep his covenant with Jonathan and Jonathans
lame son Mephibosheth (S. Vargon, The Blind and the Lame, VT 46 [1996], 498514,
498514). While his article usefully highlights one possible way II Sam 5,8b may function in the larger narrative, Ceresko and Schipper present a more compelling view of
how it functions within DtrH. See also the brief comments of J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative
Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel III, SSN 27, 1990, 164165.
548
Craig W. Tyson
kingship.3 The proverb provides a retrospective and prospective glance

showing the eventual failure of the Saulide and Davidic houses.4 Ceresko
argues that the notice of Mephibosheths lameness in II Sam 4,4 shows
that the only legitimate Saulide king left is Ishbosheth; Mephibosheth
was not a fit successor to Saul because he was lame.5 With the death
of Ishbosheth, David alone remains the logical option for king. However,
the saying in v. 8b foreshadows the downfall of Davids dynasty by hinting at the fate Zedekiah will suffer at the hands of the Babylonians
(II Reg 25,7). The blinding of Zedekiah renders him unfit for kingship
and thus marks the demise of the Davidic dynasty.6
Schipper takes Cereskos argument and expands it by showing
how physical disability functions within Samuel-Kings as a means of
heightening the irony of David and his dynastys changing fortunes when
read in the light of the house of Sauls fate.7 For example, Schipper argues that the enfeebling of Ishbosheths hands (vydy vpry, literally, his
hands grew slack) when he hears the news of Abners death (II Sam 4,1)
underscores his lack of courage and military leadership.8 Later, the
same enfeebling strikes David after having been run out of Jerusalem
by Absalom (II Sam 17,2). Within a few chapters, David is described
as [yi , faint (II Sam 16,14; 17,29; 21,15), indicating his demise as one
fit to lead his men to war.9 Schipper goes on to note how disability tends
to mark outsiders, and specifically those excluded from Jerusalem.10
At the beginning of II Sam 5,610, David is on the outside and taunted
with the imagery of disability, Surely the blind and the lame shall turn
you away! (v. 6bb), but the situation is quickly reversed when David
captures Jerusalem and excludes the blind and lame (v. 8b). The play of
who is in and who is out takes on an ironic note when we find
Mephibosheth, Jonathans lame (xcp ) son, dwelling in Jerusalem and
eating at Davids table (II Sam 9,13) despite the exclusion of the blind and
lame in II Sam 5,8b. Furthermore, after Absalom ousts David from
Jerusalem, David finds out that Mephibosheth is dwelling in Jerusalem
(II Sam 16,3) and hence on the inside while David is on the outside.11 The
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
R. A. Carlson, David, the Chosen King: A Traditio-Historical Approach to the Second

Book of Samuel, 1964, 57.
Ceresko, Identity, 24.
Ceresko, Identity, 27. Ceresko adopted this idea from A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel,
WBC 11, 1989, 67.
Ceresko, Identity, 24.
Schipper, Reconsidering, 423424.
549
climax of the interplay between the imagery of disability and that of insider/outsider comes in II Reg 25 where the author marks the final demise
of the Davidic dynasty by portraying Zedekiah as both blind and outside
of Jerusalem, while the Babylonians go in.12
The attention these scholars draw to the literary and rhetorical shaping of this passage within the Deuteronomistic History is a significant
advance in the interpretation of this text. However, what Ceresko and
Schipper have not worked out in detail is how II Sam 5,8b functions in its
immediate context. I build on these approaches by a close analysis of the
proverbs role in the literary and rhetorical structure of the passage.
II. Structure and Translation of II Sam 5,610
This passage has a very small skeleton onto which is grafted a significant
amount of descriptive material. The structure of the action is straightforward and begins with Davids march to Jerusalem where the Jebusites
reside. They speak against David and he then captures the city, reverses
the situation by speaking against the Jebusites, and then takes up residence in Jerusalem. The clear back and forth of the action suggests a
chiastic structure with the axis being the capture of the city in v. 7.
A David marches to Jerusalem where the Jebusites reside (v. 6a).
B The Jebusites speak against David (v. 6b).
C David captures the fortress of Zion (v. 7).
B David speaks against the Jebusites (v. 8a).
A David takes up residence in the city and builds it up (vv. 910).
With the chiastic structure in mind, I suggest the following translation.
,l>vry vy>nXv lmh lyv
/rXh b>vy ycbyh lX
hnh Xvbt Xl rmXl dvdl rmXyv
,yxcphv ,yrvih rych ,X yk
hnh dvd Xvby Xl rmXl
dvd ryi Xyh ]vyj tdjm tX dvd dklyv
6b
6b
6b
rvnjb igyv ycby hkm lk Xvhh ,vyb dvd rmXyv

dvd wpn vXn> ,yrvih tXv ,yxcph tXv
tybh lX Xvby Xl xcpv rvi vrmXy ]k li
8a
8a
8
htybv Xvlmh ]m bybc ryi hnbyv dvd ryi hl Xrqyv hdjmb dvd b>yv
vmi tvXbj hvhyv lvdgv vlh dvd lyv
12
6a
6a
9
10
550
Craig W. Tyson
6a Now, the king and his men went to Jerusalem,
6a to the Jebusites who were inhabiting the land.
6b And they said to David, You shall not come in here!
6b Surely13 the blind and the lame shall turn you away!14
6b Saying, David shall not come in here!
7
But David captured the fortress of Zion, which is the City of David.
8a And David said on that day, Whoever would smite the Jebusites, let him
strike15 the water supply16
13
14
15
16
I understand ,X yk as a strengthened form of yk introducing an asseveration (following

Herbert, Crux, 342; Schipper, Disability, 105 n. 109). 4QSama has only yk , but as Herbert argues it is less likely that ,X would be added to a relatively clear use of yk than to
be dropped. Hebert shows that ,X yk is used immediately following an oath, or where
an oath is implied, and follows direct speech (Herbert, Crux, 345; cf. BDB, 475;
HALOT, 471; GKC 149, especially 149d; See Ruth 3,12; I Sam 21,6; 25,34; II
Sam 3,35; 15,21; I Reg 20,6; II Reg 5,20; Prov 23,18; Jer 51,14).
4QSama has [v ]tvch a hiphil from tvc , to incite, mislead, allure, instigate (BDB, 694;
HALOT, 749) instead of the MT rych , a hiphil of rvc , to remove, take away (BDB,
694; HALOT, 748) with second masculine singular object suffix. The LXX has
to resist, oppose, which Herbert argues more closely approximates the
idea of opposition in the hiphil of rvc than that of tvc (Herbert, Crux, 345). If the MT
Fr: y cI h E is accepted as correct, the logical subject ycbyh , the Jebusite may account for
the singular (Anderson, 2 Samuel, 80; cf. GKC 145o). The perfect can best be explained as indicating the certainty of the speaker (Anderson, 2 Samuel, 80; H. W. Hertzberg, I & II Samuel: A Commentary, 1964, 268; cf. GKC 106m). This solution makes
sense of the text without positing emendations lacking textual evidence. For further discussion see S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and Topography of the Books of Samuel, 1913, 258; Herbert, Crux, 346347; P. K. McCarter, Jr., II Samuel, AB 9, 1984,
136.
Ginsberg, following Sukenik, prefers a piel from igy rather than a qal from ign (Ginsberg, Notes; Sukenik, Account, 13). The LXX translates igy with 4, a third person imperative from meaning, to fasten oneself to, grasp; to fasten upon, attack (LSJ, 231). regularly translates ign in the LXX (Gen 3,3; 20,6; 26,11;
32,26; 32,33; Ex 19,12.13; 29,37; 30,29; Lev 5,2.3; 6,11.20; 7,19.21; 11,8.24.26.27,
etc.), but never translates igy, suggesting that the LXX translators thought the Hebrew
root was ign . Moreover, ign regularly uses b to mark the object touched (e.g., I Sam 6,9;
10,26; II Sam 5,8; 14,10; 23,7; I Reg 6,27; 19,5; 19,7; II Reg 13,21, et passim) as seems
to be the case here. This makes it unlikely that the verb is igy and could mean to torture as Ginsberg asserts. See also Oeming, Eroberung, 408.
rvnj occurs only here and in Ps 42,8. The most common understanding of rvnj is that it
refers to some part of the Jerusalem water system. This position is adopted by many
translations, including the NRSV, RSV, NIV, KJV, NASB, and many commentators (Anderson, 2 Samuel, 79; Fokkelman, NAPS III, 161; Kleven, snr, 195204; J. Mauchline, 1
and 2 Samuel, NCB, 1971, 217218; Poirier, David, 28). For other interpretations see
Frolov and Orel, David, 610, 613614; McCarter, II Samuel, 139140.
551
8a for17 the lame and the blind are hated of Davids soul.18
8b
Therefore they say, Blind and lame shall not come into the house.
9
10
17
18
19
20
So David lived in the fortress and called it the city of David, and he built a city19 all
around from the Millo and inwards.20
David became greater and greater because the Lord of hosts was with him.
This waw introduces a subordinate clause that gives the reason why the Jebusites should
be struck (cf. GKC 158a).
The text traditions provide us with another difficulty in understanding vXn>. The Kethib
(VXn0 s a ) is a Qal third masculine plural perfect of Xn> meaning they hate, apparently taking the lame and the blind as the logical subject. If this were the case, one could construe the accusative particles before the lame and the blind as notae subjecti (On this
see Fokkelman, NAPS III, 375; See also B. K. Waltke and M. OConnor, An Introduction
to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 1990, 10.13.12; BDB, 85; GKC 117im; I Sam 17,34; II
Reg 6,5; Isa 57,12; Ez 17,21; 44,3; Dan 9,13; Neh 9,19.34). On the other hand, both tX s
could be taken as the preposition with and then Davids speech in v. 8a could be translated, Whoever would smite the Jebusites, let him strike the water supply, for with the
blind and with the lame they [i.e. the Jebusites] hate Davids soul (cf. Frolov and Orel,
David, 613, though they take it in a different direction). The Qere (yX" n 3 >: ) is a passive masculine plural participle in construct which can be translated as who are hated of. The
Qere provides the reason for striking the rvnj , namely the lame and the blind are
Davids enemies. In this case, the accusative markers are marking the subject of a passive
verb (GKC 121ab). 4QSama has hXn> , a third feminine singular perfect. This reading
takes the soul of David as the subject and may be translated as, for the soul of David
hates the blind and the lame. The LXX has the substantivized present active participle in
the accusative, those who hate, and adds before it. This adds
those who hate to the lame and blind as those that ought to be struck. Hence, the LXX
of v. 8a may be translated, Everyone that smites a Jebusite, let him strike with a dagger
both the lame and the blind and those who hate the soul of David. This interprets b on
rvnj instrumentally, which is less likely since the b marks the object of ign (above n. 15).
The Kethib, Qere, and 4QSama are all variations on a theme, providing the reason for the
smiting, whether the blind and the lame are the subject of the hating or whether it is
David. The Kethib and 4QSama may have been attempts to clarify the passive of the Qere,
and for this reason I follow the Qere. However, this is only a slight preference and the
choice of the Kethib or 4QSama would not change the meaning appreciably (cf. E. C. Ulrich, Jr., The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus, HSM 19, 1978, 136).
I Chr 11,8 has ryih the city as the first object of Davids building. This reading is supported by 4QSama which has ryi hnbyv, as well as Greek and other versions (Ulrich,
Qumran Text, 7071) and is probably the best reading (McCarter, II Samuel, 136).
The last word, htyb may be taken adverbially with the locative h on the end, meaning inwards (BDB, 110; HALOT, 124). The LXX renders this word as the accusative
, his house, and thus as the object of Davids building. h is infrequent as a third
masculine singular ending, but does occurs some fifty times, including seven times in DtrH
(Deut 34,7; Jos 11,16; Jdc 9,49; II Sam 2,9; II Reg 19,23; 20,13; 22,5). It is difficult to
know which reading is original. However, given the focus on houses in II Sam 57, such
a reference to Davids palace would fit well and anticipate v. 11, which relates the building
of his palace. Regardless of how one translates it, the play on tyb is clear in the Hebrew.
552
Craig W. Tyson
III. Literary and Rhetorical Organization

Despite the brevity of the action, a large set of literary and rhetorical elements organize the narrative. By literary and rhetorical organization,
I mean the way the author uses style, setting, characterization, and other
devices to communicate the story and give it shape and meaning.21 These
elements are as follows:
1. Repetition of and play on lh (vv. 6a, 10)
2. Mention of Zion (v. 7)
3. Repetition of dvd ryi hdjm twice (vv. 7, 9)
4. Repetition of rvi and xcp three times (vv. 6b, 8a, 8b)
5. Repetition of rmX + Xl + Xvb + locality three times
(v. 6b twice, v. 8b)
6. Repetition of tyb three times (vv. 8b, 9b, and 11b)
7. Repetition of the root b>y twice (vv. 6, 9)
8. The saying Blind and lame shall not enter the house (v. 8b)
Although none of these elements is crucial to the plot of the story, they
contribute to its literary and rhetorical organization. This becomes plain
when one considers that within five verses, six elements (most of which
are compound) occur two or three times each. The heavy use of repetition
binds the story together and moves it along with a crisscrossing web of
syntactical structures and vocabulary. Taking these repetitions and the
chiastic structure in mind, a fuller analysis of the literary and rhetorical
organization of the text and the proverbs role is possible.
The story is framed by paronomasia. It begins with Davids march to
Jerusalem (lmh lyv ; v. 6a) and ends with a note on his waxing power
(vlh dvd lyv ; v. 10).22 Verse 6a introduces the Jebusite inhabitants
who dwell (b>y ) there. In v. 6ba, the Jebusites say to David, You shall
not come in here! Verse 6b provides the reasoning behind this, Surely
the blind and the lame shall turn you away! Here, the Jebusite defenders
state that disabled persons will inhibit Davids ability to enter, temporarily inverting the motif that portrays outsiders as disabled. Verse 6b reinforces the Jebusites statement with a reiteration of the prohibition that
objectifies David in the third person, David shall not come in here!23
21
22
23
See P. J. van Dyk, The Function of So-Called Etiological Elements in Narratives, ZAW
102 (1990), 1933, for an explication of literary and rhetorical organization and
how they apply to biblical texts.
Fokkelman, NAPS III, 164. In a similar vein, Youngblood sees the root lh as forming
an inlcusio around vv. 610 (R. F. Youngblood, 1, 2 Samuel, in: F. E. Gaebelein [ed.], The
Expositors Bible Commentary: Volume 3, 1992, 5511104, 853).
Glck suggests that rmXl could mean id est, that is to say (Glck, Conquest, 99), and
represent the thinking or self-talk of the Jebusites. Regardless, the repetition of the prohibition makes it clear that the Jebusites are firmly entrenched and unwilling to sur-
553
Verse 7 shows, not by action, but by simple report, that the Jebusites assurance that David would not get in has been undone. Davids capture of
the fortress of Zion is reported in v. 7a, while v. 7b gives a proleptic
report of what the audience is already familiar with and what v. 9 describes, that David renames the fortress. As the narrative moves to v. 8,
the second half of the chiastic structure begins with a speech by David.
Here, a reversal of positions is apparent: David is the subject of the
speech, and he turns the Jebusites taunt back on them. Whereas the
blind and the lame initially indicated that David was too weak to
conquer the stronghold, David now characterizes the Jebusites as the
lame and the blind, and thus those who are on the outside (v. 8a).
After Davids speech, the proverb appears in nearly identical form and
position to the taunt of the Jebusites (v. 6b), here objectifying the blind
and the lame in a way similar to the objectification of David. In both
cases, we can understand the prohibition (vv. 6b and 8b) as the outcome
of the actions described in the speech: the enemy is excluded. Recalling
Schippers observation that disability regularly marks the outsider,24 the
irony of the Jebusite taunt becomes visible. If the imagery is to hold up,
the blind and lame must end up on the outside, and that is precisely what
happens.
The structure of the three iterations of the prohibition (vv. 6b, 6b,
8b) also helps effect the narrative reversal. I portray this graphically as
follows:
hnh
hnh dvd
tybh lX
Xvbt Xl
Xvby Xl
Xvby Xl
xcpv rvi
rmXl
rmXl
vrmXy
]k li
v. 6b
v. 6b
v. 8b
The main differences between the prohibitions are their subjects and the
places from which the subjects are prohibited. In vv. 6b and 6b, David
is the subject and hnh , here designates the place from which he is prohibited. Since hnh designates the location of the speaker in direct speech,
it necessarily refers to the fortress of Zion where the Jebusites made their
stand in v. 6b and 6b. In v. 8b, hnh is not included because there is no
particular speaker in view in a proverbial saying. Instead, the proverb
specifies the locality as tybh , the house. The correspondence between
hnh and tybh in terms of position (within the chiasm and the prohibition)
and function (indicating the place from which the subject is prohibited)
within the narrative reversal is crucial. Given this correspondence, hnh
and tybh should refer to the same locality: the fortress of Zion/City of
24
render. On the use of rmX to introduce thought see Gen 20,11; 26,9; Num 24,11;
Ruth 4,4; I Sam 20,26; II Sam 12,22; II Reg 5,11.
554
Craig W. Tyson
David, that is to say, Davids residence or house.25 This is not to say that
this proverb always refers to exclusion from the City of David even if we
were to find it in another literary context. On the contrary, it is a context
specific reference gained through the association of the proverb with the
surrounding narrative. Likewise, the subject of the prohibition in v. 8b,
blind and lame, does not always refer to Jebusites. Rather, the context
specific referent of blind and lame becomes the Jebusites.26
The narrative reversal continues in v. 9 where David is the one who
dwells (b>y ) there. Here the formal renaming of the City of David
echoes back to v. 7, and the notation of Davids building projects in v. 9
concludes with a wordplay on tyb , house. Verse 10 closes the scene by
means of paronomasia that connects it to v. 6a. In v. 6a, the author
uses the root lh to describe Davids march to Jerusalem, while in v. 10
the author uses the same root twice to describe Davids growing prosperity. This same root, which has to do with walking, contrasts David with
the disabled Jebusites.
If the foregoing analysis is correct, the proverbs role in communicating the narrative reversal becomes clear. The author incorporated the
proverb within the chiastic structure of the passage using a carefully
composed set of repetitions, and the interplay of disability with the insider/outsider motif to effect the narrative reversal. The proverbs exclusionary and disability elements made it ideal for communicating the demise of the Jebusites and linking II Sam 5,610 to the larger discourse
tracking the rise and demise of the Saulide and Davidic houses. In addi25
26
Schipper, Disability, 105 n. 110; Vargon, Blind, 499500. Such a focus on Davids house
is in keeping with the focus on houses in II Sam 57 (R. Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History: Part Three, 2 Samuel, 1993,
5487). This proverb is frequently discussed in connection with the cultic restrictions in
Lev 21,18 (e.g., H. Avalos, Illness and Health Care in the Ancient Near East: The Role of
the Temple in Greece, Mesopotamia, and Israel, HSM 54, 1995, 319320; A. Caqout
and P. de Robert, Les Livres de Samuel, CAT 6, 1994, 403; Floss, David, 39; Frolov and
Orel, David, 610; Hentrich, Lame; McCarter, II Samuel, 140; Olyan, Blind or Lame,
220222; S. M. Olyan, Disability in the Hebrew Bible: Interpreting Mental and Physical
Differences, 2008, 2932, 141142 n. 147; Sukenik, Account, 1415). Lev 21,18 prohibits blind and lame priests from making offerings, but allows them to eat the sanctified
food. The similarity may suggest a common origin to the cultic restrictions and II
Sam 5,8b. If a concern for cultic purity is represented in this proverb, it would add another layer of exclusionary meaning to this passage.
The polysemous nature of proverbs and their tendency to gain meaning from context
make this use of the proverb possible. On these characteristics of proverbs see C. R. Fontaine, Traditional Sayings in the Old Testament: A Contextual Study, 1982, 64;
G. Hasan-Rokem, And God Created the Proverb Inter-generic and Inter-textual Aspects of Biblical Paremiology or the Longest Way to the Shortest Text., in: S. Niditch
(ed.), Text and Tradition: The Hebrew Bible and Folklore, 1990, 107120, 108.
555
tion, the use of a proverb with its timeless quality lends permanence to
the exclusion. In a word, the Jebusites downfall becomes proverbial.
IV. Implications
The results of this study, and those on which it builds, have implications
for the long tradition of treating this proverb as secondary or as an
explanatory gloss.27 This tradition is entrenched in scholarly practice
and literature, and so it seems appropriate to address it here. In large
measure, this tradition persists because most studies of II Sam 5,610
have focused on reconstructing the events that are supposed to lie behind
the narrative, or on reconstructing the supposed original text or earlier
redactions. We can illustrate this by the comments of Glck whose essay
focuses on understanding pre-battle taunting. He writes:
The rest of v. 8 is addendum [sic] of later redactors. The expression those who are
hateful unto David has no conceivable effect and its being expressed in reported
speech may well point to later scribes who might possibly have believed that the ban on
the physically defective from serving in the Temple originated with that particular incident at the conquest of Jerusalem. They supported their argument by repeating v. 8b,
idem, wherefore they said, The Blind and the Lame shall not come into the house.28
Having ruled out II Sam 5,8b as of value for discussing pre-battle taunting, Glck simply moves on to discuss other features of the text that are
apparently closer to the real events. More recently, Poirier has commented on II Sam 5,68. He notes the difficulty scholarship has had in
reaching any kind of consensus about this passage and then writes,
Happily, it may be said that some progress has been made in the way
of scholarships openness to redactional theories, which in this case
has helped to isolate the second reference to the blind and lame in
27
28
Anderson, 2 Samuel, 8485; Caqout and Robert, Livres de Samuel, 403; Driver, Notes,
261; Floss, David, 3740; Frolov / Orel, David; Glck, Conquest, 99100; F. W. Golka,
The Aetiologies in the Old Testament: Part 2, VT 27 (1977), 3647; Hentrich, Lame, 28;
Herbert, Crux, 348; Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 269; Mauchline, 1 and 2 Samuel, 218;
McCarter, II Samuel, 140; Poirier, David, 27. The tendency to see it as an explanatory
gloss or addition of a later redactor is linked to ideas about etiology. An etiological element is an element thought to explain or legitimize something (a geological formation,
a name, a present set of circumstances, etc.) by reference to something that happened in
the past (van Dyk, Function, 19; F. W. Golka, The Aetiologies in the Old Testament:
Part 1, VT 26 [1976], 410428, 410). Following van Dyk, I think that the preoccupation
with the idea that etiologies only explain or legitimize has meant that other possible
functions of these elements have been overlooked (van Dyk, Function). For a discussion
of some of the ways etiological elements have been analyzed see P. J. van Dyk, The Problem of Etiological Narrative, OTE 3 (1985), 8089, 8087.
Glck, Conquest, 99100.
556
Craig W. Tyson
these verses (v. 8a) as the original kernel of the offending element in
the text (with the first and third references [i.e. vv. 6b and 8b] being
uncomprehending or otherwise immaterial glosses).29
Once Poirier has eliminated vv. 6b and 8b from the discussion, he is
then able to move on with his proposed solution for explaining Davids
hatred for the lame and blind.
Efforts at uncovering the history of the text and the historical events
possibly behind them have a venerable tradition in biblical studies, but
the approach has left a blind spot in the analysis of this proverb. By defining II Sam 5,8b as secondary or as a later gloss, the proverb automatically becomes irrelevant for interpreting the passage. However, as this
study shows, one cannot delete the proverb from analysis without diminishing the literary and rhetorical structure and hence the meaning of the
passage. Moreover, the set of repetitions and the chiastic structure indicate that one cannot easily separate the proverb from its context in terms
of redactional layers. In this respect, I suggest two possible solutions for
understanding the linkage of the proverb with the battle account. First,
there is the possibility that the author had an earlier account to which he
added this saying. If this be the case, he thoroughly reworked the account
to fit with the syntax and vocabulary of the proverb. Given such thorough reworking, it is questionable whether one can reconstruct the earlier or original account with any degree of certainty. Second, there
is the possibility that there was no earlier text and that the author
composed the passage with the proverb in mind. In this case, there is no
historical events nor original text to recover. Either way, the inclusion of
the proverb most likely took place at the same time that the author used
the imagery of disability and the insider/outsider motif to structure the
larger DtrH narrative. To judge from the final occurrence of these motifs in the Zedekiah narrative of II Reg 25, this took place sometime after
586 BCE.
This study builds on recent analyses of the proverb in II Sam 5,8b that emphasize its literary
and rhetorical function within II Sam 5,610 and DtrH. I argue that II Sam 5,610 combines
the rhetoric of disability and an insider/outsider motif within a chiastically structured narrative reversal whereby David ends up in Jerusalem and the Jebusites end up disabled and
outside Jerusalem. The reversal is effected by a large repertoire of repeated vocabulary and
syntactical structures in which II Sam 5,8b is an integral component. The exclusionary and
disability elements of the proverb make it ideal for communicating the demise of the Jebusites and linking II Sam 5,610 to the larger discourse tracking the rise and demise of the Saulide and Davidic houses.
29
Poirier, David, 27. He cites Floss, David, 3940 and McCarter, II Samuel, 137.
557
Cette tude se base sur des rcentes analyses du dicton en II Sam 5, 8b, qui mettent en vidence la fonction littraire et rhtorique du passage dans lensemble II Sam 5, 610 et Dtr.
Lauteur soutient la thse que II Sam 5,610 combine une rhtorique du handicap avec un
motif intrieur extrieur dans le cadre dun rcit invers et structur en chiasme: tandis
que David se trouve lintrieur de Jrusalem, les Jbusites se trouvent lextrieur, handicaps. Cette inversion sopre dans le cadre dun large rpertoire rptitif de termes et de
structures syntaxiques dont II Sam 5,8b fait partie intgrante. Les lments dexclusion et de
handicap de ce dicton le rendent particulirement apte reprsenter le dclin des Jbusites, et
relier ainsi II Sam 5,610 lascension et au dclin des maisons de Sal et de David.
Der Beitrag fut auf neueren Untersuchungen zum Sprichwort in II Sam 5,8b, in denen die literarische und rhetorische Funktion der Stelle innerhalb von II Sam 5,610 und DtrH
hervorgehoben wird. Der Verfasser vertritt die Auffassung, dass II Sam 5,610 die Rede
von Behinderung mit einem Drinnen-Drauen-Motiv in einer chiastisch aufgebauten Umkehrungserzhlung verbindet. Im Ergebnis finden sich David innerhalb Jerusalems und die
Jebusiter behindert und auerhalb Jerusalems vor. Diese Umkehrung erfolgt unter Zuhilfenahme zahlreicher Begriffsanspielungen und mittels der syntaktischen Strukturen, zu denen
II Sam 5,8b als ein integraler Bestandteil zu rechnen ist. Dieser Spruch mit seiner Ausschlieungs- und Behinderten-Motivik eignet sich vorzglich dazu, den Niedergang der Jebusiter
darzustellen, und II Sam 5,610 mit dem Aufstieg und Niedergang der Huser Sauls und Davids zu verbinden.

ZAW Whos in Who's Out II Sam 5,8b and Narrative Reversal

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

ZAW Whos in Who's Out II Sam 5,8b and Narrative Reversal

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Whos In? Whos Out?

II Sam 5,8b and Narrative Reversal*

At the heart of the account of Davids capture of Jerusalem in II

Who's In? Who's Out? II Sam 5,8b and Narrative Reversal

ance by extending two recent approaches to the interpretation of this

kingship.3 The proverb provides a retrospective and prospective glance

R. A. Carlson, David, the Chosen King: A Traditio-Historical Approach to the Second

Who's In? Who's Out? II Sam 5,8b and Narrative Reversal

rvnjb igyv ycby hkm lk Xvhh ,vyb dvd rmXyv

Schipper, Reconsidering, 432433.

I understand ,X yk as a strengthened form of yk introducing an asseveration (following

Who's In? Who's Out? II Sam 5,8b and Narrative Reversal

III. Literary and Rhetorical Organization

Who's In? Who's Out? II Sam 5,8b and Narrative Reversal

Who's In? Who's Out? II Sam 5,8b and Narrative Reversal

Who's In? Who's Out? II Sam 5,8b and Narrative Reversal

Anda mungkin juga menyukai