The Blind and the Lame:

An Exegetical Study of the Meaning Behind 2 Samuel 5:8b

A thesis submitted to the faculty of the

Mount St. Mary’s Seminary & School of Theology

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

Master of Arts (Biblical Studies)

By

Aaron C. Hess

Cincinnati, Ohio

April 2021

Abstract

The end of 2 Samuel’s Jerusalem conquest posits a challenge for modern

Scripture scholars. 2 Sam 5:8b contains a puzzling reference to the blind and the lame being banned from a house. It seems that this line was added into the narrative due to similarity in vocabulary utilized in the pericope, referencing an idea or a mindset that the author or the author’s culture had at large at the time of writing. This thesis attempts to answer the question as to the identity of the blind and the lame referenced, as well as what “house” they are not allowed to enter. After engaging in the scholarship surrounding this passage, I hope to show that this addition into the Samuel narrative continues a theme of disability and role reversal by the author. The blind and the lame correspond to the families of David and Saul. The kings of Israel and their descendants are found unworthy of the kingship through their unfaithfulness and are thus removed from the role in the Deuteronomistic narrative.

This thesis by Aaron C. Hess fulfills the thesis requirement for the master’s degree in

Biblical Studies and is approved by:

Advisor: Dr. Matthew Genung, S.S.D.

Readers: Rev. Timothy Schehr, Ph.D.

Rev. Ryan Ruiz, S.L.D.

iii

Table of Contents

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..1 Status Quaestionis…………………………………………………………………1 Aims……………………………………………………………………………….2 Objectives ………………………………………………………………………3 Limits of the Research ………………….……………………………………….4

Chapter One: Analysis of the Pericope …………………………………………………5 Position in the Overarching Narrative …………………………………………..5 The Structure of the Pericope …………………………………………………...9 Vocabulary Utilized……………………………………………………………...12 The Identity of the Blind and Lame in vv. 6 and 8a……………………………..15 The Issues Surrounding V. 8b ………………………………………………….20

Chapter Two: Sanctions Against Temple Worship..……...……………………………..24 Scriptural References Supporting the Temple Reading………………………….24 The Identity of Those Banned from the Temple…………………………………27 Issues……………………………………………………………………………..32

Chapter Three: The Royal and Dynastic Reversal of Fortunes …………………………35 The integrity of the Narrative ………………………………………………….36 House as the Royal Dwelling…………………………………………………….38 Mephibosheth, the Lame Heir of Saul …………………………………………43 Disability Reversals Throughout the Narrative ………………………………..46 Davidic Family’s Weakness …………………………………………………...48 Blindness as the End of David’s Heirs …………………………………………50

Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………….55

Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………..57

iv

Introduction

Status Quaestionis

2 Samuel 5:6-8 provides an interesting challenge for Scripture readers today.

Occurring right after David was crowned king of the unified 12 Tribes of Israel, the conquest of Jerusalem was a vital moment in his ascent to power. The city becomes a symbol both of David’s reign and, with the building of the first Temple by his son

Solomon, of the Jewish faith. 1 Chronicles 11 presents the same conquest narrative, though the focus of the Chronicler appears to be on the ascendance of Joab. In 2 Samuel

5:6-10, however, we are presented not with Joab’s rise but with a challenging dialogue about the blind and the lame:

6 And the king and his men went to Jerusalem against the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, who said to David, “You will not come in here, but the blind and the lame will ward you off”—thinking, “David cannot come in here.” 7 Nevertheless David took the stronghold of Zion, that is, the city of David. 8 And David said on that day, “Whoever would smite the Jebusites, let him get up the water shaft to attack the lame and the blind, who are hated by David’s soul.” Therefore it is said, “The blind and the lame shall not come into the house.” (Italics added) 9 And David dwelt in the stronghold, and called it the city of David. And David built the city round about from the Millo inward. 10 And David became greater and greater, for the Lord, the God of hosts, was with him.1

It is uncertain why 2 Samuel’s author focuses on the blind and the lame. It can be assumed that he does not emphasize the role of Joab because Joab has already introduced in Chapters Two and Three. Thus, unlike the narrative in Chronicles, Joab’s prominence in David’s kingdom does not need to be provided further explanation. The author decides instead to draw something out by mentioning the blind and the lame. “This puzzling phrase, together with its even more enigmatic occurrence in verse 8 is a

1 All biblical citations in this paper are taken from the Revised Standard Version- Catholic Edition. (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2005), unless otherwise noted.

1

notorious crux. The most disparate theories have been proposed for how to read the words of the text and how to reconstruct what is said to go on in the conquest of the city.”2 The challenge at hand is that scholars are unsure who is referenced as the blind and the lame in v. 8b, and what the house is from which they are banned. Its placement in the overall narrative of David’s rise to power as well as the integrity of the passage itself leads to a discussion in contemporary scholarship about the purpose behind this pericope. There are multiple theories put forth about the identity of the “blind and lame” and the meaning of “house” in 8b. Two primary readings have gained the most prominence in recent decades. The first, led by the work of Saul Olyan, posits that this passage is about ritualistic exclusion from the Temple.3 The other, led by Anthony

Ceresko and Jeremy Schipper, believes that v. 8b points the reader to the end of the reign of Saul’s family. It also may look ahead to the downfall of David’s descendant,

Zedekiah, at the end of the historical books.4

Aims

My intention for this thesis is to evaluate the different positions that scholars take in approaching this passage, so as to come to a better understanding of the passage’s meaning. After looking at two primary interpretations, I will show that the internal evidence in the passage and the historical books lends credence to the argument put forth by Schipper and Ceresko.5 Thus, the blind and the lame are most likely references to

2 Robert Alter, ed., The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel (New York: W.W. Norton, 1999), 221. 3 Saul M Olyan, “‘Anyone Blind or Lame Shall Not Enter the House’: On the Interpretation of Second Samuel 5:8b,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 60, no. 2 (April 1998): 218–227. 4 Anthony R. Ceresko, “The Identity of ‘the Blind and the Lame’ (...Iwwer Upisseah) in 2 Samuel 5:8b,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 63, no. 1 (January 2001): 23–30; Jeremy Schipper, “Reconsidering the Imagery of Disability in 2 Samuel 5:8b,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 67, no. 3 (July 2005): 422–434. 5 Ceresko, “The Identity of ‘the Blind and the Lame’ (...Iwwer Upisseah) in 2 Samuel 5”; Schipper, “Reconsidering the Imagery of Disability in 2 Samuel 5:8b.”

2

figures in the lines of Saul and David, while the house in question is best understood as a palace, thus referencing the role of king in Israel and a royal dynasty.

Objectives

This thesis will approach the question at hand by evaluating different positions currently held on the meaning of v. 8b. By doing so, the focus will be on discovering the author’s purpose for this line. I will attempt this through historical study of some cultural aspects of the time of writing, linguistic discussion of the text and its comparison to other

Scripture passages, and narrative exegesis. In Chapter One, I will first lay out where this passage fits in the overall narrative in the historical works before looking at the structure of this specific pericope on its own. I will also explain how the usage of “the blind and the lame” in v. 6 seems to convey traditional battle taunting from the Jebusites. Their recurrence in 8a most likely constitutes a response from David to this taunting. Finally, I will show why v. 8b seems to be an addition of some kind into the writing, one that hints at the author’s purpose for the pericope. Chapter Two will explore the possibility that the house references the Temple and Jewish worship in Jerusalem. This would mean that v.

8b encapsulates a view that some were excluded from Jewish worship in Jerusalem based upon a disability. While this position is commonly held by scholars, there is an intriguing train of thought that has been picked up in the last few decades that I will explore in

Chapter Three. There, I will lay out the argument that the meaning of the word “house” closer signifies a palace. It thus has connotations of a royal dynasty and the kingly office of Israel. In this line of thought, the blind and the lame refer to the last heirs in the lines of David and Saul, respectively. I will conclude by showing how the latter position seems to be the most likely held by the author when he utilized this phrase in v. 8b.

3

Limits of the Research

This passage from 2 Samuel is filled with quandaries that have been explored and debated by Scripture scholars over the last few decades. My focus is particularly on the meaning of v. 8b, and thus I only intend to engage in the scholarship that pertains to this

(ṣinnôr) רֹוּנצ verse. Therefore, I will not look at the widely discussed meaning of the term in v. 8a. I proceed with the understanding that the meaning is “water shaft,” referencing the method by which David’s army takes the city. I also will not engage in the grammatical questions around the verb “to hate” in v. 8a, as the nuances in this conversation have little bearing on the topic at hand. Nor will I enter into the question of whether David conquered the city peacefully, a theory that has gained some intriguing speculation among select scholars. I will instead assume, as the text seems to most literally state, that David conquered the city by use of his army. As far as the authorship of the historical books are concerned, I will not engage in the theories being presented within the last centuries about who wrote 2 Samuel and the rest of the historical books.

Instead, I take the assumption, along with many scholars, that the books of Joshua,

Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings, make up what is called the Deuteronomistic history, and that these books were written by one figure, the “Deuteronomist.” While the majority of resources on this topic are available in English, there are some background works utilized by scholars found primarily in German and French. Due to my lack of proficiency in these languages, I will rely upon the English rendering of these sources as cited by the English scholars. Additionally, due to not knowing Biblical Hebrew, my work will rely upon an understanding of the Hebrew language provided by the scholarly sources.

4

Chapter One: Analysis of the Pericope

The conquest of Jerusalem as depicted in 2 Samuel 5 is built up as an important moment to the Deuteronomist. To understand the reason behind this, it is beneficial to study the details surrounding the passage. Thus, I will take time in this Chapter to look at

2 Samuel 5’s textual location in the overall Samuel narrative. I will also look at why scholars believe that this passage, from vv. 6 to 10, constitutes a narrative whole.

Primary to this evaluation is the repetition of key words and phrases that occur and the possible clues they give to the overall meaning of the passage. I will then lay out the general understanding of the identity of the blind and the lame in the first two instances that they occur, in vv. 6 and 8a. Finally, I will conclude by providing why many scholars believe that verse 8b has an origin separate from this passage, even if it does have some solid linguistic connections to the rest of the pericope. By doing this, my goal is to set the groundwork from which the remainder of my evaluation of v. 8b can proceed.

Position in the Overarching Narrative

Conquering Jerusalem follows the death of those in Saul’s lineage, the most obvious threat to David’s kingship. Saul’s death is portrayed in the concluding chapter of the first book of Samuel. In 2 Samuel 4, the chapter preceding the one at hand, David is mourning the death of Ishbosheth, Saul’s son and the king of northern Israel.6 These verses, as the last in chapter 4, directly lead into David’s coronation as king of Israel in chapter 5. Saul’s line is not completely out of the picture, though, for he still has a living grandson: Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan. However, Mephibosheth is crippled in the legs, a trait that seems to exclude him from the realistic possibility of becoming

6 2 Sam 4:9-12.

5

king.7 Therefore, Saul’s line seems to finally be out of the picture, and David is seen as the inevitable ruler of a united Israel: “The shepherd boy has now become shepherd over the nation.”8 In 2 Sam 5:4-5, the author foreshadows David’s reign in Jerusalem for 33 years before introducing the city’s conquest: “David was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned forty years. In Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months, and in Jerusalem he reigned over all Israel and Judah thirty-three years.” What comes next is of “tremendous historical and theological significance.”9 Led by the Lord,

David’s first move after being made king is to establish a new capital. After the division of the 12 tribes and the war between them, consolidating his influence is a smart move both for governance and religious motives.

Much of the Old Testament up to this point has been devoted to the Promised

Land and its eventual conquest. For how important the city is to the Jewish faith, it is interesting that Jerusalem has little if any bearing on the Pentateuch writings. This further emphasizes that it is David’s city, as its name in the passage at hand suggests.10 Unlike many of the other cities that were conquered by the Israelites,

Jerusalem remained with the Jebusites and was only conquered by David.11 This gives the

7 2 Sam 4:4. 8 Greger Andersson, Untamable Texts: Literary Studies and Narrative Theory in the Books of Samuel, Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 514 (New York: T & T Clark, 2009), 105. 9 Robert Barron, 2 Samuel (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2017), 43. 10 Nili Wazana, “The Chosen City: Conquest and Sanctification Traditions of Jerusalem,” Biblica 98, no. 3 (2017): 358. 11 This point is not without its own challenges. In Joshua 15, there is a list of the villages that the tribe of Judah inherits. It ends with v. 63: “But the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the people of Judah could not drive out; so the Jebusites dwell with the people of Judah at Jerusalem to this day.” In the beginning of Judges, after the death of Joshua, Judah rises and conquers the territory of the Canaanites and Perizzites. In v. 1:8, “the men of Judah fought against Jerusalem, and took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and set the city on fire.” It seems that the city of Jerusalem had already been conquered, so how can it be conquered now by David and his troops? Scholars believe a distinction is made between the fortified city of Jerusalem and the surrounding countryside of Jebusites. While this countryside is what was conquered in Judges 1, it is not until David that the stronghold of Jerusalem was conquered in 2 Samuel 5. For a more thorough explanation of this understanding, see Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The

6

city another point of prominence for the people of Israel: their most important king was the one responsible for its capture.12 This begins Jerusalem’s importance to the people of

Israel, as it becomes both the political and spiritual center of the entire Kingdom.

If we look at the passage with a wider lens, it is believed that the capture of

Jerusalem is towards the end of a larger narrative section in the historical writings. This

“Apology of David,” depicting the history of David’s rise to power, is commonly delineated from 1 Sam 16 to 2 Sam 5:10.13 It depicts David’s persecution at the hands of

Saul for years, all the while gaining followers and growing in prestige and the favor of

God. David is finally crowned king of all 12 tribes of Israel at the beginning of 2 Samuel

5. A capital city was vital to the consolidation of this unified kingdom. David’s current capital in Judah was Hebron, a southern city. This would have been unacceptable to those living in the northern kingdom, as would any other city chosen in the southern kingdom, especially after a war.14 Jerusalem was ideally situated on the border of the northern and southern kingdoms, and it belonged to neither kingdom when David took the city. Thus, it was perfectly positioned to become the political center of the newly unified 12 tribes.15 David also acts according to the will of God here, as immediately after the city’s conquest, we hear that “David became greater and greater, for the Lord,

Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Tremper Longman and David E. Garland, Rev. ed, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 348. 12 Wazana, “The Chosen City,” 354. 13 Hans Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, trans. J.S. Bowden, 2nd ed., Das Alte Testament Deutsch 10 (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1964), 266; Walter Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1990), 236; Andersson, Untamable Texts, 107. 14 Jerry M. Landay, The House of David (New York: Saturday Review Press, 1973), 106. 15 Bruce C. Birch, “The First and Second Books of Samuel,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. Leander E. Keck, vol. 2 (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1999), 1236.

7

the God of hosts, was with him.”16 Thus, the establishment of Jerusalem is the moment where David has reached his highest power and favor with God.

We can see a logic behind the structure of chapter 5 on its own as well. It is focused on the establishment of David as king. After his coronation in vv. 1-5, he establishes a capital in vv. 6-10 and builds a palace there in vv. 11 and 12. He has children to establish his line of succession in vv. 13-16 for the security of his familial line. He then builds a sense of security from outside forces when he repulses two attacks from the Philistines in vv. 17-25.17 Looking forward in the narrative, David’s establishment as the king can be seen as the beginning of a new, large section in the

Historical Books focused on his time as king of Israel.18 If this passage is seen as the beginning of a new section, it is interesting to note that there is an inclusio that begins here and ends at the conclusion of David’s reign.19 In our passage, David and his forces wrest the city of Jerusalem from the hands of the Jebusites. In 2 Sam 24:21-24, David builds the first altar in Jerusalem as his last act as king. This altar is built upon land purchased from a Jebusite, Araunah. The Jebusites’ presence in the Davidic narrative surrounds his royal rule. This passage is thus set up as a hinge between the fulfillment of

David’s rise to power and the beginning of his reign as king over a united Israel.

Whether seen as the end of David’s rise to power or as the beginning of his rule as king of Israel, this conquest passage is placed in a significant location by the

Deuteronomist. It emphasizes how important Jerusalem was for the Jewish people, a

16 2 Sam 5:10. 17 Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 240. 18 Andersson, Untamable Texts, 107; Antony F. Campbell, 2 Samuel, The Forms of the Old Testament Literature v. 8 (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2005), 56. 19 Craig E. Morrison, 2 Samuel, ed. Jerome T. Walsh, Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2013), 73.

8

point of little contention today. Jerusalem was the sign of unity and power for King

David, the greatest of Israel’s monarchs. In chapter 6, it will become the home of the Ark of the Covenant and eventually the Temple, the most important place for the Jewish faith. Even Christianity, picking up on her Jewish roots, would speak of the Kingdom that is to come as the “New Jerusalem.”20 However, it is odd that the conquest of this city, seemingly so important to the people of Israel, would be relegated to merely three verses that are fraught with confusing references to the blind and the lame. While placed in a prominent location in the overall narrative, the question remains as to why this pericope takes the form and focus that it does.

The Structure of the Pericope

Looking at the structure of 2 Samuel 5:6-10, it is evident that this passage makes a unified whole. This is seen in the usage of vocabulary and in the structure set up by the author. Most prevalent when looking at the repetition of words is the name David, which

yšb), meaning to) בׁשי is repeated 10 times throughout verses 6-10.21 The Hebrew verb inhabit or take up residence in, is found in vv. 6 and 9. Interesting for our discussion at hand is the fact that an alternative meaning of this verb is “to rule.”22 One also finds the

bwʾ), meaning to get in or enter, twice in v. 6 and once in v. 8. The noun for) ,בוא verb

mĕṣûdâ), is found in vv. 7 and 9. And finally we are faced) הָרּוצְמ ,fortress or stronghold

bayit), meaning house, in) בַּיִת with the three words in question: the repetition of the root

20 See, for example, its use in Rev. 3:12 and 21:2. 21 Wazana, “The Chosen City,” 355. 22 Ceresko, “The Identity of ‘the Blind and the Lame’ (...Iwwer Upisseah) in 2 Samuel 5,” 24.

9

pissēaḥ), which) ֵַּ֣חוסִ ʿiwwēr) and) ֵּ֣ר וִּוצ ,vv. 8 and 9, and the terms for blind and the lame are found three times in vv. 6 and 8, each time followed by a verb for “to say.”23

This repetition also provides an opportunity to notice a chiastic structure in the writing, begun and ended with a rhyming set of Hebrew phrases.

”…And the king and his men went to Jerusalem“ :”מִלַיַו ְךִלויַו“ :A. v. 6a

B. The Jebusites speak against David “. . . the blind and the lame will

ward you off.” (v. 6b)

C. v. 7: “Nevertheless, David took the stronghold of Zion, that is,

the city of David.”

B’. David speaks against the Jebusites: “. . . attack the lame and the blind,

who are hated by David’s soul.” Therefore it is said, “The blind and

the lame shall not come into the House.”

for the Lord, the ,( ְמ ִיּנו ְד ְֵָּּ֣ךצ ְִך ול ַיו) A’. v. 10: “And David became greater and greater

God of hosts, was with him.”24

,meaning, “the king went.” Then in 6b ”,מִלַיַו ְךִלויַו“ V. 6a begins with the Hebrew we are given the first instance of the blind and the lame, which is mirrored twice in v.

which more literally means, “David ”, ְמ ִיּנו ְד ְֵָּּ֣ךצ ְִך ול ַיו Finally in verse 10, we are given .8 went on” and became great. This rhyme with the opening line establishes a structure emphasizing to the reader the importance of the central part of the passage: the new names of Zion and the City of David. 25 This is the first time these significant names are

23 Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Tremper Longman and David E. Garland, Rev. ed., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 346. 24 Craig W. Tyson, “Who’s in? Who’s Out? Ii Sam 5,8b and Narrative Reversal,” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 122, no. 4 (December 2010): 549. 25 Ceresko, “The Identity of ‘the Blind and the Lame’ (...Iwwer Upisseah) in 2 Samuel 5,” 24.

10

given to the city of Jerusalem.26 They will not be used together again until Solomon has built the Temple in Jerusalem in 1 Kgs 8:1.

This repetition of vocabulary seems to confirm that this passage has more to say than just the narrative of David’s conquest of Jerusalem. If one looks only at the narrative, the meaning is fairly straightforward: David and his men come to the city and after some verbal sparring, captures it without much fanfare. It must be remembered, however, that this is not the only account of Jerusalem’s conquest by David. 1

Chronicles also presents the same passage, but with decidedly different focuses:

And David and all Israel went to Jerusalem, that is Jebus, where the Jeb′usites were, the inhabitants of the land. The inhabitants of Jebus said to David, “You will not come in here.” Nevertheless David took the stronghold of Zion, that is, the city of David. David said, “Whoever shall smite the Jeb′usites first shall be chief and commander.” And Jo′ab the son of Zeru′iah went up first, so he became chief. And David dwelt in the stronghold; therefore it was called the city of David. And he built the city round about from the Millo in complete circuit; and Jo′ab repaired the rest of the city. And David became greater and greater, for the Lord of hosts was with him.27

There do not seem to be any glaring contradictions between these two accounts.

The Chronicler seems to have added more details to fill out the story. Also, his emphasis on the role of Joab makes sense considering the fact that the man becomes such a prevalent figure in his narrative. The difference between this passage and 2 Samuel’s account is intriguing, though, particularly in what Chronicles is missing. The focus in 2

Samuel, in contrast, is on the blind, the lame, and the house. It is through understanding the meaning behind these words that the role of Samuel’s conquest narrative can be discovered.

26 Morrison, 2 Samuel, 72. 27 1 Chr 11:4-9.

11

Vocabulary Utilized

To aid in understanding, one can look at the use of these specific terms in the

Hebrew Scriptures to get a sense of how they are normally used. Primary to

bayit), translated) תִבֵּ֣ב understanding the whole of the passage is the meaning of the word in the Revised Standard Version as “house.” This noun’s usage in Hebrew is quite varied, to the point that there is no adequate synonym available to convey its meaning.28 It certainly portrays some building or location of dwelling, as it is often translated as “tent,” “home,” or “dwelling.”29 In Ancient Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and the Asia Minor cultures, their respective words for “house” almost always denoted a variety of meanings as well, including “house, dwelling, temple, sanctuary, or palace.”30

When we look at the entirety of the Old Testament, Harry Hoffner points out four primary uses for the word in relation to a building.31 It can simply designate a house, a building in which a family would live, as seen in Amos 5:11: “Therefore because you

,תִבֵּ֣ב) trample upon the poor and take from him exactions of wheat, you have built houses bayit) of hewn stone, but you shall not dwell in them.” The second meaning is that in a

bayit). The third) תִבֵּ֣ב large home, each room inside could be viewed as its own understanding of this noun relates to the dwelling place of the king, a palace. An example of this is in Genesis 12:15, where the home of Pharaoh is spoken of as beth hammelekh, “the king’s house.” Finally, the fourth understanding of this word is

“temple,” the house of God. This is seen in numerous instances in the Pentateuch, as

28 Harry Hoffner, “Bayith,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, trans. John T. Willis, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1975), 108. 29 Ibid. 30 Ibid., 108–109. 31 Ibid., 111–113.

12

well as in 1 Samuel 5:2, 5 and 31:10.32 Solomon will use this word in his dedication of the Temple of the Lord in 1 Kings 8: “And when the priests came out of the holy place, a cloud filled the house of the Lord, so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud; for the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord.”33 The word is also often used throughout the Psalms for the dwelling place of the Lord.34 Hoffner, however, holds that “the meaning “temple” seems to be secondary. It arose from the idea that the deity was a king (or a queen) and thus was supposed to live in a palace.”35 He then points out the only other occurrence of this word in 2 Samuel, when David originally plans to build a Temple for the Lord in chapter 7. David feels that he should not live in a palace

bayit), a house for the royal) תִבֵּ֣ב while God dwells in a tent. Thus, he believes that a

Deity, should be built for him to live in.36

bayit) can also) תִבֵּ֣ב Outside of a physical structure, Hoffner continues to write that reference the abode of the dead, Sheol.37 It can be a term meaning the inside of something or somewhere.38 The final meaning that he expounds upon, though, is

תִבֵּ֣ב bayit) is utilized frequently to signify a family, clan, or tribe. This) תִבֵּ֣ב .intriguing

(bayit) would include the father of the household, his wife, his children, as well as any slaves or dependents that he may have.39 This use is seen in the Deuteronomic laws as well as in Exodus for the Passover and Sabbath laws.40 And, “if the ancestor after whom

32 See also Gen 12:8; Ex 23:19; 34:26; and Dt 23:18. 33 1 Kgs 8:10-11. 34 For examples, see Ps 66:5, 93:5, 118:26. 35 Hoffner, “Bayith,” 111. 36 Ibid., 114. 37 Ibid., 113. 38 Ibid. 39 Ibid. 40 See Ex 12:3; 20:10; Dt 12:7; 14:26; 15:20.

13

the house was named was a king, we should translate the word bayith ‘dynasty.’”41 This is used in relation to both of Israel’s first two kings. The House of Saul is referenced throughout 2 Samuel, and the House of David elsewhere in the historical books.42

חוסִ ֵַּ֣ ʿiwwēr) and) ֵּ֣ר וִּוצ ,The other two terms in question are the blind and lame

ʿiwwēr) occurs 26 times in the Old Testament and always means) ֵּ֣ר וִּוצ .(pissēaḥ)

“blind.”43 In most of these occurrences, it is considered as one physical defect among a number of others. This is seen in Lev 19:14, Deut 27:18, and in a passage that has important relevance to our discussion, Lev 21:18: “For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, a man blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long.” Blindness is utilized as imagery in the Old Testament for spiritual blindness, as seen particularly in the book of Isaiah.44 Additional forms of the Hebrew root for blindness are referenced as a punishment from God’s wrath as well as the verbal usage of

“making blind.”45 This latter usage is seen in 2 Kings 25:7, when David’s last descendant

pissēaḥ), the Hebrew term for) ֵַּ֣חוסִ .Zedekiah is blinded by the king of Babylon lameness, has a more literal meaning, the quality of not being able to walk or run in a normal fashion. It seems that the adjective has a consistent meaning throughout its usage in the Scriptures and in other Hebrew documents.46

41 Hoffner, “Bayith,” 114. bayit) for the House of Saul, see 2 Sam 3:1-10; 9:1-3; 19:17. For) תִבֵּ֣ב For examples of 42 examples for the House of David, see 1 Sam 20:16; 1 Kings 12:16; 13:2. 43 L. Wächter, W. von Soden, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, “Iwwer,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, trans. Douglas Stott, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1986), 575. 44 See Isa 35:5, 42:7-19, 43:8, 56:10. 45 Wächter, von Soden, and Fabry, “Iwwer,” 576. 46 R. E. Clements, “Pisseah,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, trans. Douglas Stott, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2003), 25.

14

Blindness and lameness are also seen as blemishes that prevent an animal from being acceptable for ritual sacrifice.47 Deut 15:21, in laying out its prescription against impure animals, is the only time in the Historical Books besides 2 Sam 5 that the blind and the lame are used as a phrase together.48 The Lord desires a pure sacrifice, and He desires priests without blemish to offer this sacrifice. An interesting point brought out by looking at the Qumran texts shows that blindness as well as lameness prevents a man from “participating in (holy) war.”49 This connects the ancient cultural rules for soldiers and Israel’s rules about the priesthood. The blind and the lame are seen as “among those not admitted to the community of respected men.50

The Identity of the Blind and Lame in vv. 6 and 8a

The blind and the lame, when found together in the Old Testament, are often found prohibited from some place or action. Here, they are not allowed to enter a house.

So, who is the author banning? To answer this question, each of the three times that “the blind and the lame” occur in this short pericope should be considered. The first use of these two words is in v. 6. When faced with the incoming forces of King David, the

Jebusites call out to David and his troops, “You will not come in here, but the blind and the lame will ward you off.” The Hebrew seems to be more than a little ambiguous; consequently, the meaning of the taunt is muddy.51

Some believe that this Jebusite statement takes a religious connotation. The blind and the lame could represent something of the Davidic soldiers that goes against the

47 Lev 1:3, 10; 3:1; 4:32; 22:17-25, Deut 15:21; 17:1; Mal 1:8, 13. 48 A. Graeme Auld, I & II Samuel: A Commentary, 1st ed., The Old Testament Library (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 397. 49 Wächter, von Soden, and Fabry, “Iwwer,” 577. 50 Ibid. 51 Barron, 2 Samuel, 44.

15

Jebusites’ native religious practices. They believe that the Israelite people would defile their city or sanctuary since they are viewed as blemished people. Therefore, the blind and the lame here would reference the soldiers of David because they are not meant to enter the city.52 Another view from the Rabbinic tradition states that the “blind and the lame” are taken as Canaanite idols meant to mock the Israelite soldiers. “The Jewish exegetes of the Middle Ages concluded that ‘the lame and the blind’ were two idols, depicting images of Jacob and Isaac placed on the walls by the Jebusites to remind the

Israelites of a covenant they allegedly had broken.”53 The taunts could actually connect to these Jewish patriarchs. After wrestling with an angel, Gen 32:31 states that, “The sun rose upon him [Jacob] as he passed Penu’el, limping because of his thigh.” Meanwhile,

Isaac is blind at the end of his life: “When Isaac was old and his eyes were dim so that he could not see…”54 The Jebusites’ actions seem to be provoking the Israelite troops by slandering two of their most prominent patriarchs.

There is an intriguing belief that v. 6 references an ancient Hittite oath ceremony for soldiers that involved a blind woman and a deaf man. This practice was found written out as The Soldiers’ Oath in an ancient Hittite ritual:

[Just as this . . . cou]ld [see] and was able to find [food], and they have now blinded it at the place of the oath,-- whoever breaks these oaths, betrays the king of the Hatti land, and turns his eyes in hostile fashion upon the Hatti land, let these oaths seize him! Let them blind this man’s army and make it deaf! Let them not see each other, let them not hear each other! Let them make a cruel fate their lot! Below let them fetter their feet, and above let them bind their hands just as the gods of the oath bound the hands and feet of the army of the Arzawa country and made them unable to move, even so let them bind that mans’ army and make

52 Serge Frolov and Vladimir E Orel, “David in Jerusalem,” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 111, no. 4 (1999): 610. 53 P. Kyle McCarter, ed., II Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary, 1st ed., The Anchor Bible v. 9 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), 138. 54 Gen 27:1.

16

them unable to move… They parade in front of them a [blind woman] and a deaf man and [you speak] as follows: “See! Here is a blind woman and a deaf man. Whoever does evil to the king and queen, let the oaths seize him! Let them make him blind! Let them [ma]ke him [deaf!] Let them [blind] him like a blind man! Let them [deafen] him like a deaf man!”55

If this is the case, then v. 6 is the beginning quote of the Hittite ritual. The

Jebusites think that David would not dare an assault against the power of the oath and the magic therein. Their taunt is a warning of the possible repercussions of any foolish actions from David and his men. If we look again at Chronicle’s rendition of this passage, we are possibly given further proof of this theory. “David said, ‘Whoever shall smite the Jeb′usites first shall be chief and commander.’ And Jo′ab the son of Zeru′iah went up first, so he became chief.”56 David offers to give a reward not to the one who breaches the wall or captures the city, but rather to the one who does just one thing: be the first to rise and go forward, the first to strike the Jebusites, and demonstrate thereby to the whole army that they need not fear the power of the oaths of the Jebusites.57

The historian Josephus took v. 6’s quote literally, stating that the Jebusites mocked David by placing actual blind and lame people on the walls of Jerusalem as a further taunt. Christopher Begg translates Josephus’s account of Jerusalem’s conquest, looking for clues as to why the historian presents it the way he does. His translation of

Josephus goes as follows:

But the Jebusites who inhabited the city and were of the Canaanite race shut their gates against him and placed on the wall those who had lost an eye or a leg or who were crippled in any way, to mock at the king; these

55 James Pritchard, ed., “Hittite Rituals, Incantations, and Description of Festivals,” in Ancient Near East Texts Relatin to the Old Testament, trans. Albrecht Goetze, Third. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969), 353–354. 56 1 Chr 11:6. 57 Yigael Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of Archaeological Study, vol. 2 (London: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1963), 269–270.

17

cripples, they said, would prevent him from entering, and they so acted because of their sublime confidence in the strength of the walls.58

Based on this expansion on the biblical text, Josephus puts forth that the blind and the lame were real people used to keep the Israelite troops from advancing. It was meant to instill fear in David’s soldiers that they too would become crippled in some fashion if they struck down the blind and lame.59 Relatedly, it could mean that the Jebusites intended to fight to the last man, even if it meant calling upon the weakest members of the society.60

The clearest understanding of the text, however, is to take the passage in a literal sense instead of relying on extra-biblical references to oaths or idols. “It is less speculative to assume that the Jebusites were simply overconfident, especially if the size of David’s troops, at this point, was comparatively small.”61 There were no actual blind and lame involved in the conquest of Jerusalem. Rather, the Jebusites, most likely knowing David’s successful military history, still felt that they could hold Jerusalem from conquest. Geographically, the city lay on the top of a line of mountains enhancing its defenses. While this meant that Jerusalem was separated from major trade routes from the time period and prevented it from growing in wealth, its defenses made up for this shortcoming. To the west, south, and east, there were steep ravines that made it difficult to approach from those sides.62 Many scholars point out that the ancient world viewed

58 Christopher T Begg, “David’s Capture of Jebus and Its Sequels According to Josephus: Ant 7,60b-70,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 74, no. 1 (April 1998): 95. 59 A. A Anderson, 2 Samuel, vol. 11, World Biblical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 83. 60 Roger L. Omanson and John Ellington, A Handbook on the First and Second Books of Samuel, vol. 2, UBS handbook series (New York: United Bible Societies, 2001), 717. 61 Anderson, 2 Samuel, 11:83. 62 Landay, The House of David, 106.

18

Jerusalem as impregnable.63 V. 6b most likely means that getting into Jerusalem would be equivalent to achieving a miraculous cure of blindness and lameness.64 There is also proof of this overconfidence textually. One would expect the Hebrew word for “to ward off” used in v. 6 to be in the imperfect tense. However, here it is in the perfect tense, expressing the certainty with which the Jebusites were speaking these words.65 And this would not be the only time this style of speech is seen in the historical books, as there is a similar exchange between the Rabshakeh, troops of the king of Assyria, and the besieged city of Jerusalem.66 It certainly seems like a feasible opinion to assume this is part of ancient pre-battle taunting.67

The response to this taunt comes in v. 8a: David commands his soldiers to kill the blind and the lame. It is assumed that this is a direct reference to the taunts that had come from the Jebusites in v. 6, as “the blind and the lame” are written in the same form.68 Thus, David’s hatred is provoked against those that have taunted him and failed to keep him from Jerusalem. The short length of the conquest emphasizes that David and his troops had little trouble taking the city. Because of this, “the spear point of the

63 John Mauchline, ed., 1 and 2 Samuel, New Century Bible (London: Oliphants, 1971), 217; Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 240; Anderson, 2 Samuel, 11:82–83; C.F. Keil and D.D. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, trans. James Martin, 5th ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1967), 315; Landay, The House of David, 107; Birch, “The First and Second Books of Samuel,” 1236; Gwilym H. Jones, The Nathan Narratives, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 80 (Sheffield, United Kingdom: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 123. 64 Baruch Halpern, David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King, The Bible in Its World (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2001), 319. 65 K. Kautzsch, ed., Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, trans. A. E. Cowley, Second English Edition. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956), 310. 66 2 Kgs 18:19-27. 67 Birch, “The First and Second Books of Samuel,” 1236; McCarter, II Samuel, 137; Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 269; Keil and Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, 315; Omanson and Ellington, A Handbook on the First and Second Books of Samuel, 2:717; Steven L. McKenzie, King David: A Biography (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 133. 68 Ceresko, “The Identity of ‘the Blind and the Lame’ (...Iwwer Upisseah) in 2 Samuel 5,” 25.

19

derision can be turned around.”69 David calls the Jebusite defenders of the city “blind and lame” in response to their earlier claims and declares his anger for them.70 He is echoing the words thrown at him by the Jebusites themselves in v. 6.71 It seems, then, that this taunting and battle are reasons given for the ending of this pericope in v. 8b:

“Therefore it is said, “The blind and the lame shall not come into the house.”

The Issues Surrounding V. 8b

However, while the previous occurrences seem to indicate the blind and the lame being one particular group of people, v. 8b does not seem to fit with the rest of the passage. While it utilizes the same vocabulary, there is evidence of it originally being separated from the narrative. A. A. Anderson suggests that there is a lacuna in the text after David challenges his soldiers to attack through the water shaft and before the claim that David’s soul hates the blind and the lame.72 This information might have provided more of an understanding behind the text, but if it existed at one point, it is lost to us today. And Walter Brueggemann states that there is “no necessary connection with the statement in v. 6. . .The three references to the blind and the lame (vv. 6, 8) are strung together without a visible connection.”73

When we look at this passage textually, there are several glaring issues that hint that 8b was added into the narrative. A primary reason is that this is the first mention of a

“house” in the passage.74 The actual use of “blind and lame” also varies between the first

69 J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel: A Full Interpretation Based on Stylistic and Structural Analyses, vol. 3, Studia Semitica Neerlandica 27 (Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1981), 160. 70 Birch, “The First and Second Books of Samuel,” 1237. 71 David Toshio Tsumura, The Second Book of Samuel, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2019), 98. 72 Anderson, 2 Samuel, 11:85. 73 Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 240. 74 Olyan, “Anyone Blind or Lame Shall Not Enter the House,” 219.

20

two instances and this one. In vv. 6 and 8a, “the blind and the lame” are plural and contain a definitive article. In contrast, v. 8b is singular and has no definite articles. Also, the ordering of them is reversed, as the lame are listed first, a point often missed in English translations.75

With these challenges presented, some believe the author used Jerusalem’s capture as an etiology to explain the origin of an old proverb, found in verse 8b.76 This would not be the first time an etiology appears in the Samuel narratives. 1 Sam 7:12 gives the reader an explanation of the name Eben-ezer: “And each caught his opponent by the head, and thrust his sword in his opponent’s side; so they fell down together.

Therefore, that place was called Hel′kath-hazzu′rim, which is at Gibeon.” There are many other examples throughout the Old Testament. Circumcision is given a basis in

Gen 17:9-14 and Ex 4:24-26, while the Sabbath rest is explained in Gen 2:2-3. These explanations are not always historically accurate. Instead, they can be a popular explanation of a name or idea that connects itself to a story in some way.77 An etiology of another proverb is also found in 1 Sam 10:12. Saul is inspired by God to prophesy to a group of prophets who are amazed at what he says. The author then writes, “Therefore it became a proverb, ‘Is Saul also among the prophets?’” Later in 1 Samuel, Saul is trying to hunt down David. The Spirit of God comes upon him, and the king prophesies, leading people to state again the phrase, “Is Saul also among the prophets?”78 The setup

75 Ibid. 76 Anderson, 2 Samuel, 11:84–85; Ceresko, “The Identity of ‘the Blind and the Lame’ (...Iwwer Upisseah) in 2 Samuel 5,” 26; Peter Runham Ackroyd, The Second Book of Samuel: Commentary, The Cambridge Bible Commentary New English Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 56. 77 Ackroyd, The Second Book of Samuel, 37. 78 1 Sam 19:24

21

is parallel with 2 Sam 5:8b. Most likely, the phrase about Saul was a common one used at the time, and the author added it into the context of Saul’s history to give it a reason.

The same can be said about 2 Sam 5:8b. The saying, “The blind and the lame shall not come into the house,” was likely current in Jerusalem in some capacity. Therefore, when the history of the conquest of Jerusalem was being written with its references to the blind and lame, it seems reasonable for the author to connect the well-known phrase to this story.79 This explains the phrase’s absence in the 1 Chronicles account. 2 Samuel’s author had some intention in adding this line at the end of

Jerusalem’s conquest narrative. This view is commonly held today.80 “Though there is a consensus among scholars that the aphorism was originally independent from its present context, in the final casting of the biblical text the narrative in which the adage is embedded serves as an etiological purpose.”81

Ultimately, this proverb was attracted to the narrative precisely because of the literary connections that can be seen. It utilizes the words “blind and lame” as well as the idea of entrance into a location.82 By bringing in a phrase that seems to have been well known at the time of writing, the Deuteronomist is trying to make a connection between the saying and the conquest of Jerusalem. The question still remains, though, as to what the meaning of this proverb was. Who are “the blind and the lame” referenced in v. 8b, and what is the “house” into which they are not allowed to enter? Two primary mindsets

79 Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 269. 80 Anderson, 2 Samuel, 11:80, 85; Mauchline, 1 and 2 Samuel, 218; McCarter, II Samuel, 137; Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 269; Auld, I & II Samuel, 397; Andersson, Untamable Texts, 105; Birch, “The First and Second Books of Samuel,” 1237; Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 351; Alter, The David Story, 222; Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, 3:158; Ackroyd, The Second Book of Samuel, 56. 81 Olyan, “Anyone Blind or Lame Shall Not Enter the House,” 218. 82 Ibid., 219.

22

have become common in today’s literature, the first of which will entail the Temple of

Jerusalem and the laws that govern worshipping practices.

23

Chapter Two: Sanctions Against Temple Worship

A legacy of the family of David and his son Solomon is the building of the first

Temple. This achievement leads many scholars to read 2 Samuel 5 with this future feat

bayit) in v. 8b references the Temple. This) תִבֵּ֣ב in mind. They will often posit that

bayit) does occur in other places in the Old Testament as well as in) תִבֵּ֣ב understanding of the surrounding ancient cultures. A temple was seen as the house of a god. The

Septuagint utilizes this understanding, translating the term as οίκον κύριου, the House of

bayit) is the Temple, then the entire Jerusalem Conquest) תִבֵּ֣ב the Lord. If the meaning of is written to explain the origin of the concluding proverb.83 Here would be Scriptural proof, according to the author, for a ban of the blind and the lame from entering the

Temple. The future restrictions against those disabled would thus have a foundation in the moment of the city’s capture. In this Chapter, I will explore who these “blind and lame” individuals may be with this understanding and whether a Temple reading can be adequately held.

Scriptural References Supporting the Temple Reading

There are certainly some solid reasons for one to hold to the Temple

bwʾ) with the) ,יְךב understanding of this passage. Related terminology, such as

b) are found in idioms in the Old Testament. These idioms) י ʾel) and) בַי prepositions are found throughout Ex 28 and Lev 16. Each occurrence refers directly to religious places and practices. One also finds the words used in direct reference to worshipers entering into a sacred complex. Lamentations speaks about the profanation of the

Temple: “Yea, she has seen the nations invade her sanctuary, those whom thou didst

83 Ibid., 218.

24

forbid to enter thy congregation.”84 Ezekiel explicitly uses this word to exclude a group of people from worshiping in the Temple. “Therefore thus says the Lord God: No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the people of Israel, shall enter my sanctuary.”85 The use of these related idioms in these passages may give hints that there are Scripture connections to a Temple ban.

2 Samuel 5 contains the first Scriptural use of the names “Zion” and “the city of

David” for Jerusalem.86 Because of the chiastic structure of the pericope, these two names are given a place of prominence. Jerusalem was to be the future dwelling place of the Lord. These names can be read as an allusion to the meaning of “house” as the

Temple, the place where the Lord makes his dwelling on earth. The name Zion eventually gains a prevalent religious understanding in Judaism. “Zion” is seen in the

Psalms to reference God’s dwelling place on earth. For example, Ps 9:11 reads, “Sing praises to the Lord, who dwells in Zion! Tell among the peoples his deeds!” One can also see this usage in Ps 20:2, 50:2, and 65:2. Additionally, the next time that Zion and the City of David are used together after 2 Sam 5 happens to be in 1 Kgs 8:1: “Then

Solomon assembled the elders of Israel and all the heads of the tribes, the leaders of the fathers’ houses of the people of Israel, before King Solomon in Jerusalem, to bring up the ark of the covenant of the Lord out of the city of David, which is Zion.” This is the moment when the Lord is about to make his dwelling in the Temple. The passage’s usage of these two names together again harkens back to their use in 2 Sam 5, connecting the two passages and allowing a possible correlation to be seen.

84 Lam 1:10. 85 Ezek 44:9. 86 2 Sam 5:7.

25

In 2 Samuel, the title “City of David” provides further evidence of a Temple understanding. The only time that this name is used for Jerusalem is here and in chapter

6, while David is bringing the Ark of the Covenant into the city:

So David was not willing to take the ark of the Lord into the city of David; but David took it aside to the house of O′bed-e′dom the Gittite. And the ark of the Lord remained in the house of O′bed-e′dom the Gittite three months; and the Lord blessed O′bed-e′dom and all his household. And it was told King David, “The Lord has blessed the household of O′bed-e′dom and all that belongs to him, because of the ark of God.” So David went and brought up the ark of God from the house of O′bed-e′dom to the city of David with rejoicing… As the ark of the Lord came into the city of David, Michal the daughter of Saul looked out of the window, and saw King David leaping and dancing before the Lord; and she despised him in her heart.87

As Craig Morrison points out, “The narrator’s foreknowledge that the ark of the

Lord will be transferred to Jerusalem explains the seemingly obtuse details in our passage in [chapter 5].”88 While confusing to a modern reader, a way to understand these details is to look ahead to the Jewish worship that develops under David and his son Solomon.

This passage, then, foreshadows the holy actions that would occur on the Mount of Zion after the Temple had been built. Additionally, when exploring how to delineate this passage from the surrounding narrative, it was mentioned that the passage most likely ends at v. 10: “David became greater and greater, for the Lord, the God of hosts, was with him.” This line can give insight into the intended meaning: just as the Lord was with David as he begins his reign in Jerusalem, so too will the Lord’s presence be seen in the Temple to which this passage is referencing.

87 2 Sam 6:10-12, 16. 88 Morrison, 2 Samuel, 74.

26

The Identity of Those Banned from the Temple

bayit) is in fact referencing the Temple. If) תִבֵּ֣ב Let us assume for the moment that this is the case, the next point of inquiry is to turn to the identity of the blind and lame. Who is not allowed to enter the Temple? Based on the meaning of vv. 6 and 8a, it could be the author is forbidding the Jebusites, or all Gentiles, from entering the Temple.

V. 8b would then be the conclusion of this verbal and military antagonism between the

Jebusites and David. However, as previously detailed, v. 8b seems to have an independent origin from the rest of the narrative. Thus, the phrase presumably did not originally refer to the Jebusites. It also seems odd that the author would attach such a ban to a narrative of extraordinary historical and cultural importance. There seems to have been little controversy around the practice of keeping non-Jews from entering parts of the

Temple area. The author would not have had to make such a strong emphasis on this point. Because of this, many scholars believe that the blind and lame in question must be a segment of the Jewish population. If this is the case, then there are two possible identities based on Scriptural evidence. The blind and the lame could either be priests with disabilities or all disabled Jewish worshipers.

In the Pentateuch, Leviticus 21:18 clearly states that disabled people were disqualified from priestly duties: “For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, a man blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long…” This line is commonly used as the foundation that the parable is a ban on entrance to the Temple.

There is a connection, as Leviticus clearly shows a prohibition against a group of people called the blind and lame. In Leviticus, the meaning seems to be that any type of disability would keep a man from being able to perform priestly actions at the altar of

27

God in the Temple, including being blind or lame.89 This universal meaning to the term

“lame and blind” is backed by Josephus. He writes that, “the Jebusites who inhabited the city…. placed on the wall those who had lost an eye or a leg or who were crippled in any way, to mock at the king…”90 The blind and the lame are representative of all disabilities.

It is important to note, however, that this Levitical rule does not prohibit these men from eating the sanctified foods. Only a few verses later, Lev 21:22 states that “He may eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy and of the holy things.” Therefore, disabled priests must have had some access to the Temple, for “if they had been entirely excluded from the sanctuary, how would they gain access to the holy things and the most holy things, which are offerings brought to the sanctuary by Israelites? A priest is entitled to eat of any of these offerings as long as he is ‘clean’.”91 The priestly clan was not entirely excluded based on their physical deformities, and the Temple does not seem to be defiled by their presence. It is possible that the parable quoted in 2 Samuel shows a belief and practice current to the author’s time. There may have been a group of Jews promoting a stricter ruling on priestly disabilities, that all disabled priests were not to enter the Temple. However, because this is merely speculative, it seems unlikely for the blind and the lame to reference only the priests of the Jewish people.

The other possible identity of the blind and the lame could be all disabled Jewish worshipers. The most natural Scriptural connection in this consideration would be Deut

23:1: “He whose testicles are crushed or whose male member is cut off shall not enter the assembly of the Lord.” The Hebrew expression “enter the assembly of the Lord” found

89 Ibid. 90 Begg, “David’s Capture of Jebus and Its Sequels According to Josephus,” 95. 91 Olyan, “Anyone Blind or Lame Shall Not Enter the House,” 220–221.

28

here occurs four times in the 23rd chapter of Deuteronomy and sounds quite similar to 2

Sam 5:8b. While in Deuteronomy’s context we do not get an exact understanding of what “entering the assembly” means, one can look at other locations in the Old

Testament for parallels. As seen in Lam 1:10, Isa 56:3-7, and Ezek 44:7 and 9, this

תִבֵּ֣ב phrase means to “enter the sanctuary sphere,” and uses idioms with related words to

(bayit). Lamentations uses the same phrase, to “enter thy congregation,” as Deut 23:1.

In this context, there is a clear parallel between this congregation, this house, and the sanctuary. Additionally, when we look at Is 56:3-7, there is an implication that eunuchs were restricted in some way from entering the Temple for worship.

For thus says the Lord: “To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name which shall not be cut off….these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.92

Though Isaiah is promising an end to these restrictions, one can see in this an allusion to the law found in Deut 23 prohibiting disfigured men from entering the sanctuary. Saul Olyan makes a further connection to Ezek 44:7-9, where the prophet speaks of the law against uncircumcised foreigners from entering the sanctuary.93

In admitting foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, to be in my sanctuary, profaning it, when you offer to me my food, the fat and the blood. You have broken my covenant, in addition to all your abominations . . . therefore thus says the Lord God: No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the people of Israel, shall enter my sanctuary.94

92 Is 56:4-5, 7. 93 Olyan, “Anyone Blind or Lame Shall Not Enter the House,” 222. 94 Ezek 44:7-9.

29

Ezekiel is focused more on keeping non-Jews out of the Sanctuary rather than those with disabilities. However, a connection can still be made to the text at hand: there is clearly a prohibition against the entrance of some people into the sanctuary.

All of this lends credence to the idea that the blind and the lame reference not exclusively priests, but all worshipers who are disabled. This is the conclusion Olyan makes in his article.95 Priests are never explicitly mentioned in this passage in 2 Samuel, pointing to a more general understanding of the teaching. Additionally, as explained in the first chapter, it can be strongly held that 8b is a saying of some common use that was attracted to this passage due to textual connections. Olyan states, that, “at minimum, we can assume that according to some circles in Israel, worshipers with bodies damaged in at least some respects were excluded from the Temple sphere.”96 He again emphasizes that this exclusion may have been a belief being promoted at the time of writing by a portion of the Jewish population.

The regulations against disfigured priests in Lev 21 and against blemished offerings in Lev 22 contained extensive lists of disfigurements. In contrast, it seems odd that only blind and lame worshipers could be unworthy of worship. However, it could be that the blind and the lame stand in for all disabilities. “The epithet blind and lame…has the general signification of repulsive persons.”97 As a synecdoche, they represent all blemished worshipers excluded from worship.98 This is seen elsewhere in Mal 1:8, and

13 in reference to sacrificial offerings, and, more explicitly, in Deut 15:21: “But if it has any blemish, if it is lame or blind, or has any serious blemish whatever, you shall not

95 Olyan, “Anyone Blind or Lame Shall Not Enter the House,” 224. 96 Ibid. 97 Keil and Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, 316. 98 Olyan, “Anyone Blind or Lame Shall Not Enter the House,” 225.

30

sacrifice it to the Lord your God.” The use of blind and lame by the Deuteronomist here at least makes it plausible that a similar function is at work in 2 Sam 5:8b. Returning to

Lev 21:18, the lame and blind stand at the beginning of a long list of issues that excludes a man from becoming a priest. A possible reason for blindness and lameness being the two explicitly stated disabilities can be seen by looking at what these defects affect. With blindness being of the eyes at the top of the body and lameness affecting the feet at the bottom, the two encompass the entire human being. This style of idiom, called a merism, is not uncommon in the Hebrew Bible. One can look at “Dan to Bersheeba”99 which is used frequently in the historical books, primarily in 2 Sam, as well as “native and alien”,

“good and evil”, and others as examples.100 Each of these pairs stand for a much wider array of people and ideas.

“A lame person was not considered to be a whole, a condition understood as a kind of impurity preventing the person from entering the sanctuary. Hence declaring a person to be ‘lame’ not only disqualified the person liturgically, but also passed an ethical-moral judgment on the person.”101 This last part is important to our study.

“Blemished people are excluded from the sacred sphere and divine encounters, whether due to the implied sin which brought their infliction upon them, or because of their inherent potential to defile.”102 The disability seen in the person was a physical manifestation of some sort of spiritual or moral condition that the person had to deal with.

Whether this is from their own sins or the sins of their forefathers, the Jewish people believed that it was a punishment for their actions. In the context of this narrative, the

99 See Judg 20:1; 1 Sam 3:20; 2 Sam 3:10; 17:11; 24:2, 5, 15; 1 Kgs 4:25; 1 Chr 21:2; 2 Chr 30:5. 100 Olyan, “Anyone Blind or Lame Shall Not Enter the House,” 226. 101 Clements, “Pisseah,” 26. 102 Wazana, “The Chosen City,” 348–349.

31

use of blind and lame in reference to the Jebusites can show a moral judgment against the

Gentile people. It would be easy then for the author of the book to take this judgment and apply it to a larger population of people.

Issues

bayit) references the) תִבֵּ֣ב Up until now in this chapter, it has been assumed that

Temple. In this framework, the blind and the lame mentioned in v. 8b indicate all disabled worshipers of Israel. This parable could be a common idea at the time held by a group, indicating that there was a desire to strengthen the regulations on who could enter the Temple. Thus, the author took this proverbial rule, familiar to him at the time of writing, and attached it to the conquest narrative of Jerusalem because of textual connections. It thus acquires a strong historical and Scriptural grounding for its belief.

However, outside of Deut 23 and possibly this passage in 2 Sam, there is no further clear proof, Scriptural or otherwise, that there was ever a ban on disfigured members from worship. There does not even seem to be a push for such a regulation.

Saul Olyan himself makes this claim in his article.103 So what was the Deuteronomist’s purpose for adding this proverb at the end of the Jerusalem narrative? There is no mention of a house or a Temple from which the blind and lame are excluded before this pericope, and the only thing people are excluded from seems to be the city, or the stronghold, of Zion. In fact, while the title of Zion would pick up religious significance in the historical future, here it seems to refer only to the fortress or citadel.104

Even when one looks at Leviticus 21:18, the most frequently referenced verse

bayit), the text is merely about priests offering) תִבֵּ֣ב supporting the Temple reading of

103 Olyan, “Anyone Blind or Lame Shall Not Enter the House,” 223. 104 Omanson and Ellington, A Handbook on the First and Second Books of Samuel, 2:717.

32

sacrifices. It is a regulation keeping disabled persons from becoming priests, or at the very least from performing sacrifices. While there are a few Scriptural passages that do hint at the exclusion of disabled people from entering the Temple,105 nowhere is there an actual ban against the lame and blind priests from entering the Temple that this could be based upon.106 In fact, there is biblical evidence that the disabled, and more specifically, the blind, were indeed able to serve as priests in some capacity. In 1 Samuel, Eli serves in the “Temple of Yhwh” despite the fact that he is going blind. “Now the boy Samuel was ministering to the Lord under Eli… At that time Eli, whose eyesight had begun to grow dim, so that he could not see, was lying down in his own place.”107 Historically, there is no such regulation known to us that forbid the blind and lame from worship.108

Therefore, the prohibition against the entrance of the blind and lame may point to some other “house.”

The Temple was also not in existence at the time of this narrative. While David is the one who initially desired to build the Lord a permanent location for the Ark, it was not even planned during his lifetime; it would not be until Solomon his son that the

House of the Lord would be built.109 Faced with this point, even Olyan admits this fact:

“The following verse (v. 9) mentions a house, which is probably the royal palace in this instance . . . No temple (“house”) existed in Jerusalem before Solomon built one.”110

Textually, there is little surrounding evidence that the Temple was in the mind of the

Deuteronomist.

105 Deut 23:2; 2 Chr 26:21. 106 Schipper, “Reconsidering the Imagery of Disability in 2 Samuel 5:8b,” 422–423. 107 1 Sam 3:1-2. 108 Birch, “The First and Second Books of Samuel,” 1237; Tsumura, The Second Book of Samuel, 99. 109 1 Kgs 5. 110 Olyan, “Anyone Blind or Lame Shall Not Enter the House,” 219.

33

One final point to consider is that the number of people who suffered from blindness or lameness was presumably extremely small during the time of writing.

Because of this, it seems odd that there would be a push amongst the Jewish people to exclude them from more than what Scriptures required of them. “They probably constituted such a small group that no special measures were developed to deal with their specific problems.”111 It would seem unnecessary to attach a prescription aimed at a small group of the population to a passage of such historical and cultural importance as the conquest of Jerusalem.

All of this shows that the Temple may not have been on the mind of the author when he added 2 Sam 5:8b. There are connections one could make to the Temple and to

bayit) is used elsewhere in the) תִבֵּ֣ב worship practices, particularly when looking at where

Old Testament. However, there seems to be no definitive connection between any of the references discussed and v. 8b. Thus, while commonly held, I believe that the Temple reading of this passage is insufficient. Faced with this realization, one must look at the

bayit), one that emphasizes the newly crowned) תִבֵּ֣ב other possible understanding of

David himself.

111 Clements, “Pisseah,” 26.

34

Chapter Three: The Royal and Dynastic Reversal of Fortunes

bayit) had numerous meanings for the Hebrews related to a) תִבֵּ֣ב The term dwelling place. While it can reference the dwelling place of God, the Temple, there is strong evidence textually and in the narrative that emphasizes the royal dwelling place, the palace. If this was the interpretation in the back of the mind of the Deuteronomist, then it seems that the blind and lame are not able to enter David’s palace. There are examples of this not being the case in the Scriptures though. So, can this interpretation be held? Through looking at the overarching narrative in Samuel and in the

Deuteronomistic history, prominent motifs are discovered that build upon disability imagery and exclusion, pointing to the worthiness of the kings of Israel. It is to this that the line in v. 8b is referencing.

There are several commentators who will mention this royal line of thought in passing as a possible interpretation of v. 8b.112 However, few of them are willing to discuss it at much length. Often, they view the parable as a later gloss added in because of the textual connections the phrase has to the Jerusalem conquest. Thus, they view the conquest pericope as being used to justify some sort of Temple exclusion. Those who defend the Temple theory and believe 8b to be a later addition will thus ignore the verse and not take it into account when exploring the meaning of the passage in its entirety.113

However, by doing this, they fail to emphasize the importance that the verse has in the textual and structural make-up of the passage and in the overall Deuteronomistic narrative. Instead, they view 8b as something added later that is not integral to the passage. This line of reasoning does face challenges. “The explanation of 8b being a

112 Alter, The David Story, 222; Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, 3:164; Tsumura, The Second Book of Samuel, 99; Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” 349. 113 Tyson, “Who’s in? Who’s Out?,” 556.

35

proverb from which the Jerusalem conquest was an etiological statement seems rather forced even if ‘house’ in this context is not the Temple but David’s palace.”114 It is difficult to argue this theory effectively when looking at the structural integrity of the entire passage.

The Integrity of the Narrative

To fully understand what the Deuteronomist intended when he included this proverb, v. 8b should be studied in its immediate context. There is the chiastic structure that forms the frame for this conquest narrative, revolving around v. 7, the capture of the stronghold of Zion. Included in this framework is the repetition of the exclusion of the blind and the lame, once from the mouth of the Jebusites, another from the perspective of

David, and the third occurring in 5:8b. While the chiastic structure emphasizes the capture of the city, repeating these phrases and lines also shows an ironic reversal of positions between David and the Jebusites. At the beginning of the passage, it is David who is on the outside of Jerusalem, not able to enter. However, after the city is taken, the roles are reversed. It is David who is within the city while the Jebusites are on the outside. In this way, the blind and the lame reference the Jebusites in an ironic twist of their earlier taunt towards David. The “blind and lame” used together may not always historically refer to the Jebusites, and the proverb “the blind and the lame shall not enter the house” certainly does not seem to universally represent them either. However, it is utilized in this way by the author in this immediate context to help set up the ironic reversal of positions. The proverb, though originating outside of the conquest of

Jerusalem, becomes Scriptural by being placed on the lips of David at this point to

114 Anderson, 2 Samuel, 11:84–85.

36

emphasize his rise to power. Craig Tyson clearly outlines his thesis on the importance of v. 8b in the overall narrative:

If the foregoing analysis is correct, the proverb’s 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 proverb’s exclusionary and disability elements make it ideal for communicating the demise of the Jebusite.115

While it may not have originated with 2 Samuel, the saying certainly was intended by its author to be in this book due to the fact that it fits so well textually in the passage.

Unlike what many defenders of the “Temple” interpretation claim, the verse does not seem to be an explanatory gloss added later to give a reason for the proverb. If we remove the proverb and look at the remaining parts of the passage, a significant portion of the literary coherence is immediately lost. This gives strong evidence that the proverb was an integral part of this passage; to remove it would be to damage the integrity of the whole.

This does not discount the points explicated in the first chapter. V. 8b still seems to have an origin separate from and prior to this work. If 8b must be viewed as a necessary piece in understanding the Jerusalem conquest, two possibilities are left for how the author drew the proverb seamlessly into the narrative. One option is that the author took an earlier account of the conquest at his disposal and connected this proverb to it. This would require him to rework the entire syntax and vocabulary of the narrative so that it would better fit the proverb. The alternative possibility is that the author originally composed the passage with this proverb in mind, thus allowing its vocabulary to

115 Tyson, “Who’s in? Who’s Out?,” 554.

37

influence the way that he presented it.116 Whichever possibility historically occurred, it seems clear that the parable was vital to the original version of the work. The author was trying to convey a further meaning using the imagery of the blind, the lame, and the house. It is also important to remember that this passage was not composed on its own; it is part of the larger narrative of 2 Samuel and the Deuteronomistic history. This means that the author had the entire story of David and his descendants in mind as he wrote the passage. 2 Sam 5, so crucial to the development of the nation of Israel and its most prominent king, would have to be seamlessly woven into the author’s overall work.

Thus, if this parable is an integral part of the pericope’s original writing, as evidenced textually, then the reason behind its inclusion can be seen by how it deepens our understanding of the entirety of the historical narrative surrounding David. To do this, the repetition of vocabulary must once again be revisited.

House as the Royal Dwelling

bayit) may) תִבֵּ֣ב The new names given to Jerusalem here are the first clue that mean something different than the Temple. The reference to the “City of David” in v. 7 is a precursor to the name actually given to the city in v. 9. Here is given important information regarding this title: “And David dwelt in the stronghold and called it the city of David.” This is significant. Immediately after v. 8b, we are given the location of

David’s physical dwelling place. Remember that the other new title for Jerusalem introduced here is the Stronghold of Zion. But immediately after this, the stronghold becomes the dwelling place, the house, of David! By making David’s house the

bayit) picks up royal and political undertones. Additionally, by) תִבֵּ֣ב ,stronghold renaming Jerusalem to the “City of David” in v. 9, it seems that a focus of the author is

116 Ibid., 556.

38

on identifying the “house,” the place where the Jebusites are not welcome anymore, with the governing and temporal power of the young king himself.

This title of the “City of David” is not used commonly for Jerusalem proper in the

Deuteronomistic narrative; outside of Solomon’s lifetime, it is only used in reference to royal burials. An example of such usage is found at the end of Solomon’s life: “And the time that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was forty years. And Solomon slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David his father; and Rehoboam his son reigned in his stead.”117 This title finds prolific use outside of this example in the remainder of the Deuteronomistic History texts specifically in relation to the burial site of the kings.118 From this, it can be asserted with some degree of confidence that its first mention here in 2 Sam 5 would lead readers to naturally connect it to later mentions of the royal necropolis. Here is a further connection then to the idea that the passage is more interested in the kingship of David than the sacral, Temple worship of the Jewish people.119

bayit) as a royal dwelling is not uncommon in the Old) תִבֵּ֣ב The understanding of

Testament. One primary example is found in Gen 12, while Abram was journeying through Egypt and had his wife Sarai pretend to be his sister. “When Abram entered

Egypt the Egyptians saw that the woman was very beautiful. And when the princes of

Pharaoh saw her, they praised her to Pharaoh. And the woman was taken into Pharaoh’s

.bayit) can reference the dwelling of the Egyptian ruler) תִבֵּ֣ב ,Here 120”.(תִבֵּ֣ב) house

However, it can also be seen as the household of Pharaoh that Sarai enters into. By

117 1 Kgs 11:42-43. 118 See also 1 Kgs 14:31; 15:18, 24; 22:50; 2 Kgs 8:24; 12:21; 14:20; 15:7, 38; 16:20. 119 Auld, I & II Samuel, 395. 120 Gen 12:14-15.

39

becoming a concubine, she enters into the family of the Pharaoh.121 Additionally, as seen

”,bayit) as “Temple) תִבֵּ֣ב in exploring the meaning of the word, even when we understand there is an underpinning of a royal dwelling understood. The Temple is the home of the divine king, and the meaning of “Temple” is often secondary.122

The strongest evidence for this line of thought comes from looking at the narrative connections in the overarching book of Samuel. In contrast to Chronicle’s account of David, focused primarily on him leading a unified Israel, Samuel emphasizes

“the glory of David in his capacity and abilities as king.”123 Immediately preceding this pericope, David is crowned king over all of Israel. He is then introduced here merely as

“the king,” a title that will not be used again until chapter 7. This title cues the reader into the focus of the remainder of this passage. Another emphasis on David’s personal role is the fact that the city is not conquered by the national army of Israel, but rather by his own men that has followed him during his rise to power. Up to this point, David has built up a band of loyal soldiers while fleeing Saul and gaining power. V. 6 specifically states that it is “the king and his men,” not the army of Judah or Israel. This leads to part of the reason why David can name the city after himself, as it is directly under his authority that it is conquered. The author of Samuel intentionally focuses on David and credits him with the deeds of his men.124 The city-state, previously belonging to Jebusite rulers, now became David’s own holding or property, and he rightly renamed it in his own honor, customary with captured capital cities at the time.125 With the renaming of

121 Hoffner, “Bayith,” 113. 122 Ibid., 111. 123 Rachelle Gilmour, “Who Captured Jerusalem? Reading Historiography and/or Collective Memory in Samuel,” in The Books of Samuel: Stories–History–Reception History, ed. Walter Dietrich, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (Louvain: Peeters, 2016), 68. 124 Tsumura, The Second Book of Samuel, 96. 125 Jones, The Nathan Narratives, 123.

40

Jerusalem focused upon David himself and not the role that the city would play in the future, further proof is given that it is not the religious aspect of the city in question but rather the political, Davidic connection that it takes on.

Based on this pericope’s position in the overarching Davidic narrative, many view the conquest of Jerusalem as a hinge point at the end of his rise to power and the beginning of his reign as king. Here, David leaves his simple story of trust in the Lord and enters into the more complex role of leading the people of Israel, a task that grows challenging and will eventually find him fail in his faithfulness to God and His commands. Here, though, David becomes a man of power and authority, completely changing his way of life.126

Verse 10 pronounces a theological verdict on the entire history of David’s rise. David became greater and greater for the Lord the God of hosts was with him. God’s presence with David throughout the trials of his rise to the throne of Israel has been a major theological theme since it was first sounded in first Samuel 16:18. It now stands almost as a benediction on all that has transpired in the story of David to this point. Beyond this point we encountered traditions on the manner in which David consolidated and conducted his rule of Israel.127

Immediately after the conquest is the building of the palace of David in

Jerusalem. “And Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers to David, and cedar trees, also carpenters and masons who built David a house.”128 Immediately after conquering

Jerusalem, after the author cites this parable at the end of the account, the narrative leads immediately into the building of David’s palace. This seems to be further strong

126 Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 241. 127 Birch, “The First and Second Books of Samuel,” 1235. 128 2 Sam 5:11

41

bayit).129 As David’s blessings from the Lord) תִבֵּ֣ב evidence to a royal understanding of further manifest, he continues to establish his reign by rapidly growing his family in vv.

13-16: “And David took more concubines and wives from Jerusalem, after he came from

Hebron; and more sons and daughters were born to David.” David’s familial house, his lineage, continues to grow.

This dynasty is referenced in the prophecy of Nathan found in chapter 7. This chapter is important to consider in the present discussion, for it finds the king desiring to make a house for the Lord, a Temple. Some may see this as evidence for the “Temple”

bayit). Nathan receives a message from the Lord that David is not to) תִבֵּ֣ב reading of build a house for God. Instead, God blesses David’s house and lineage:

Moreover the Lord declares to you that the Lord will make you a house When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I .(תִבֵּ֣ב) will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your for (תִבֵּ֣ב) body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. When he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men; but I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I and your kingdom shall ( ותב ָב ֵּי ) put away from before you. And your house be made sure for ever before me; your throne shall be established for ever.130

Chapter 7 was the primary evidence within 2 Samuel itself to point to a Temple

תִבֵּ֣ב .bayit). There is some textual merit to this line of thought) תִבֵּ֣ב understanding of

(bayit) is used in v. 13 as a link to the Temple that Solomon will build. In contrast, however, the first use of “house” in this passage is in v. 11, when the Lord is clearly speaking of raising up descendants after David, through whom He will “establish his

129 R. A. Carlson, David, the Chosen King: A Traditio-Historical Approach to the Second Book of Samuel, trans. Eric J. Sharpe and Stanley Rudman (Stockholm, Sweden: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1964), 55; Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, 3:164. 130 2 Sam 7:11b-17.

42

bayit). The ending of chapter 7) תִבֵּ֣ב kingdom.” The Hebrew word used for this house is

which has the same etymological base and again , ותב ָב ֵּי also has the Hebrew word

bayit) in) תִבֵּ֣ב references David’s familial line. Thus, even though the passage does utilize reference to the Temple, it begins and ends with an emphasis on David’s familial dynasty

bayit) is utilized outside of chapter 7, it) תִבֵּ֣ב and his kingship. On the other occasions that refers specifically to David’s palace131 or to the city of Jerusalem in general.132 In the

,bayit) more often refers to the royal palace) תִבֵּ֣ב wider sense of 2 Samuel, then, the term the kingship, and a familial dynasty.

bayit) is focused on is that the blind and) תִבֵּ֣ב Returning to the proverb, the reason the lame are excluded from it. One of the primary drawbacks from utilizing an understanding of “Temple” was the fact that there was no known prohibition of people entering the Temple. The same can be said about the palace; there is no known regulation found among historians of something like this practiced in ancient Israel.

However, it is not necessarily entrance into David’s palace, his physical dwelling, that is being forbidden. Rather, it is the kingship of Israel that is being kept from some people.

This becomes further apparent with the intended identity of the blind and lame. The verse, “the blind and the lame shall not enter the house,” develops a deeper exclusionary meaning that connects to the entirety of the Samuel and Deuteronomistic narratives.

Mephibosheth, the Lame Heir of Saul

For those commentators who take “the house” to mean palace, there is almost a

ֵַּ֣חוסִ universal agreement that the lame refers to Mephibosheth, the grandson of Saul.133

131 See 2 Sam 5:11; 7:1, 2; 11:2, 8; 15:16; 16:21; 19:6, 12, 31. 132 2 Sam 20:3. 133 Alter, The David Story, 222; Auld, I & II Samuel, 398; Ceresko, “The Identity of ‘the Blind and the Lame’ (...Iwwer Upisseah) in 2 Samuel 5,” 27; Carlson, David, the Chosen King, 54.

43

(pissēaḥ), the Hebrew word meaning “to limp, be lame,” occurs in only four passages in 2

Samuel, including the one we are looking at. Its three uses directly reference

Mephibosheth. This son of Jonathan is first mentioned in 2 Sam 4:4. The boy is five when his father Jonathan and grandfather Saul die. The narrative recounts that the child’s nurse attempts to flee with Mephibosheth, but “as she fled in her haste, he fell, and became lame.” When looking at the narrative surrounding this verse in chapter 4,

Mephibosheth’s entrance into the Biblical scene feels quite out of place. Both the beginning of chapter 4 as well as what follows these verses recounts the end of Saul’s son, Ishbosheth, at the hands of Ba’anah and Rechab. Mephibosheth seems shoehorned in to break up the narrative. While it may not flow naturally, there is a possible narrative connection that brings further clarity to what the Deuteronomist is attempting. “The purpose of the data concerning Jonathan’s son Mephibosheth seems to make clear that because of his physical disability he could not even be considered as a fit successor of

Saul.”134 As the acting Saulide king loses more and more power and is about to lose his life, Mephibosheth is introduced to further emphasize that this is the end of Saul’s line.

Because of his lameness, Mephibosheth is unfit to lead as the king of Israel.

The middle of these three occurrences gives further evidence to what the

Deuteronomist is doing with Mephibosheth. In chapter 9, David desires to show kindness to a member of Saul’s family for the sake of his friendship with Jonathan. He finds the servant Ziba, who introduces the king to Mephibosheth, stating that the heir of

Saul is “crippled in his feet.”135 This sentence uses a different Hebrew word for his

134 Anderson, 2 Samuel, 11:67. 135 2 Sam 9:3.

44

disability: nakeh, which has a meaning closer to crippled than lame.136 However, the passage ends with an interesting change of vocabulary: “So Mephibosheth dwelt in

pissēaḥ) in both ,ֵַּ֣חוסִ ) Jerusalem; for he ate always at the king’s table. Now he was lame his feet.”137 Scholars see this as the end of the pericope,138 an unnatural place to insert a reminder of Mephibosheth’s lameness. The connection, though, is in the narrative itself.

Mephibosheth is now living in David’s dwelling, his house in Jerusalem. Astute readers will see the irony at work here. The blind and the lame shall not enter the house, but here is Mephibosheth, who has only been described as the lame son of Saul, living in the palace. He is still unfit for the kingship of Israel, but he now dwells in Jerusalem and the king’s house.

Towards the end of 2 Samuel, David ironically finds himself outside of Jerusalem.

His son Absalom has driven him and his family out of the city. Fear of his son

Absalom’s rise to power has driven him and his house away from the capital city and into exile. When he is finally able to return, who else was allowed to stay in Jerusalem, in the house of the king, but Mephibosheth? The lame descendant of Saul uses the same word to describe himself in addressing David: “For your servant is lame.”139 The ironic reversal has reached its highest point. The physically unfit Mephibosheth has been able to stay in Jerusalem, while David, the one who had found favor with God, is exiled from the city that bears his name.

It seems that Mephibosheth is an odd character in the narrative. None of his three appearances seem to build the narrative in which they are inserted. He himself never

136 Ceresko, “The Identity of ‘the Blind and the Lame’ (...Iwwer Upisseah) in 2 Samuel 5,” 25. 137 2 Sam 9:13 138 2 Sam 10:1-5. 139 2 Sam 19:27.

45

does anything major, and his presence often feels out of place. The author even introduces him at inopportune times, reminding the reader repeatedly that the man is lame. Yet his lameness confirms that the favor of God has left Saul and has passed on to

David. Mephibosheth stands in as the alternative to the Davidic throne. He is a reminder that David has not always ruled as king, though his disability keeps him from being a threat to the throne.

Disability Reversals Throughout the Narrative

This is not the only disability imagery that the Deuteronomist utilizes in his writing. It is found in other areas of Samuel and Kings to show the downfall of certain men. There is an irony in how Saul is initially introduces to us: “There was not a man among the people of Israel more handsome than he; from his shoulders upward he was taller than any of his people.”140 After he is anointed king, however, he is gradually brought low through his failures to remain faithful to God, showing a reversal of fortunes from his initial physical prowess. This further emphasizes the physical difference shown between Saul’s line and David’s developed throughout 2 Samuel. This desire for David’s family to be portrayed as physically superior is also developed between David and his general Joab. After Joab kills Abner in 2 Sam 3, David distances himself from the actions of Joab, going so far as to curse Joab’s house with physical disabilities:

Afterward, when David heard of it, he said, “I and my kingdom are for ever guiltless before the Lord for the blood of Abner the son of Ner. May it fall upon the head of Joab, and upon all his father’s house; and may the house of Joab never be without one who has a discharge, or who is leprous, or who holds a spindle, or who is slain by the sword, or who lacks bread!141

140 1 Sam 9:2. See also 1 Sam 10:23. 141 2 Sam 3:28-29.

46

2 Sam 3:1 is another clear example of the usage of strength and weakness. “There was a long war between the house of Saul and the house of David; and David grew stronger and stronger, while the house of Saul became weaker and weaker.” While David has been already crowned king of Judah, Saul’s general Abner has crowned the former king’s son Ishbosheth as king of Israel. This leads to the war between the two parties.

dal), often means social or economic weakness in the) צִ ֵַּ֣ ,The term for weak used here

Bible.142 However, there are instances in the Old Testament where it suggests physical states, such as in Gen 41:19. In Pharaoh’s dream described to Joseph, the cows are

dal). The word only finds its way into) צִ ֵַּ֣ described as “gaunt and very thin,” utilizing the Samuel narrative one other time, in chapter 13, the tragic story of Amnon and Tamar.

Amnon feigns physical illness to take advantage of Tamar and is described with the word

wedalim). This) ְךָצִ ֵּ֣ ַבְו :dal).143 Another point is that the word is plural in 2 Sam 3:1) צִ ֵַּ֣ gives further evidence to a reading of the text with the household of the kings in mind. It is not just Saul who is growing steadily weaker, but also the rest of his family. Thus, the phrase in 3:1 can be seen as the overall thesis of the first part of Samuel: David and his household continues to grow strong, while Saul and his house grows weaker and weaker.

By chapter 4, the war between the houses of Saul and David draws to an end.

Abner, the one who crowned Ishbosheth king of the northern tribes of Israel, has been killed. In 2 Sam 4:1, Ishbosheth heard of Abner’s death and “his courage failed.” The accurate translation for this is actually “his hands became feeble.”144 This was an idiom commonly found in Hebrew and the comparative ancient Near Eastern writings, often in

142 See for example Ex. 30:15, Lev 14:21, or Ruth 3:10. 143 2 Sam 13:1-6a. 144 Schipper, “Reconsidering the Imagery of Disability in 2 Samuel 5:8b,” 425.

47

relationship to receiving some sort of bad news.145 This is given to us right before we are introduced to Mephibosheth, whose primary trait is his lameness. “In the space of four verses, the narrative depicts Saul’s descendants as having feeble hands and crippled feet.

This type of physical imagery seems to affirm David’s supplanting of Saul’s house.”146

In contrast to the failing Saulide line, chapter 6 shows David “leaping and dancing before the Lord” as he enters Jerusalem before the Ark of the Covenant.147 David is shown as the alternative to the feeble-handed Ishbosheth, the lame Mephibosheth, and from the Jebusites, all of whom have been cast out from ruling in Jerusalem. The Lord

God was truly with David. He now enters into his kingship, the royal “house,” from which the family of Saul is banned. The agile young king dances into Jerusalem and will begin to dwell in his palace, the royal “house.”

Davidic Family’s Weakness

With all of this considered, it seems that the author has been quite intentional with his use of the parable in v. 8b. Just as David reversed roles with the Jebusites, going from the outsider to the one inside the city, so too has he gone from the one exiled by

Saul and his kin to being king of the twelve tribes of Israel. The Deuteronomist shows this primarily by consistently describing Mephibosheth as lame. By showcasing the decline of Saul’s descendants through the language of disability, the Deuteronomist builds up the figure of David as a man of strength and favor with God, one who is set to effectively rule the newly-unified nation. However, the lameness of Mephibosheth further highlights the future fall of the Davidic rule in Israel. Even though his lameness keeps him from the kingly rule, he is invited into and dwells in the house of David in

145 Ibid. 146 Ibid., 426. 147 2 Sam 6:16.

48

Jerusalem, even while the king is driven from the city. Mephibosheth thus serves as an ironic reference to the future decay of David’s fortunes.

The previously-mentioned tragedy of Amnon and Tamar also shows that David’s family is not immune to growing weak. David’s son desires to have relations with his sister Tamar. Thus, he feigns being ill so Tamar would wait upon him in his room. The passage utilizes words for physical illness repeatedly in a story that describes a sinful moment in the family of David. After Amnon’s actions, he grows in hatred for Tamar and has her thrown out of his house: “He called the young man who served him and said,

‘Put this woman out of my presence, and bolt the door after her.’”148 Here, then, is also an expulsion from a dwelling place. This act of sin shows the further downfall of

David’s house. It will lead to Absalom, the brother of Amnon, plotting and eventually killing Amnon. This in turn drives Absalom away from his father and his father’s house, resulting in Absalom vying for power over his father David and driving him out of

Jerusalem.

Based on these passages, it seems that the narrative of the Deuteronomist is set up to emphasize these reversals of fortune. While one person, family, or group may be considered strong or unconquerable, they are ultimately brought to their downfall and left on the outside because of their sin. We see this quite clearly with Saul’s disfavor and death. But the author is also using disability passages to show the downfall of David’s line, a point further emphasized by the possible identity of the blind, the other group in 2

Sam 5:8b.

148 2 Sam 13:17.

49

Blindness as the End of David’s Heirs

ʿiwwēr), only occurs in three passages in the) ֵּ֣ר וִּוצ ,The Hebrew word for blind

Deuteronomistic history. The first is in the previously-mentioned verse at Deut 15:21:

“But if it has any blemish, if it is lame or blind, or has any serious blemish whatever, you shall not sacrifice it to the Lord your God.” This is the only other place in the historical books that the blind and lame make an appearance together as one phrase. It is clearly referencing the necessity for sacrificial animals necessity to be pure and acceptable to

God. While it makes a Temple connection to 2 Sam 5:8b, both of these passages also presumably say something deeper about purity and worthiness. It is the worthiness of

Mephibosheth that is questioned by describing him as lame. The blind may also make reference to those who lack God’s favor.

ʿiwwēr), there is a connection that) ֵּ֣ר וִּוצ While it does not utilize the same word can be made to the high priest Eli from the beginning of 1 Samuel. Chapter 2 finds the author describing the sinfulness of the sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas. They would greedily take from the meat sacrificed to God for themselves as well as lay with women who served at the entrance to the tent of meeting.149 In response, a man of God approaches Eli and delivers this message to him about his future household:

Behold, the days are coming, when I will cut off your strength and the strength of your father’s house, so that there will not be an old man in your house. Then in distress you will look with envious eye on all the prosperity which shall be bestowed upon Israel; and there shall not be an old man in your house for ever. The man of you whom I shall not cut off from my altar shall be spared to weep out his eyes and grieve his heart; and all the increase of your house shall die by the sword of men. And this which shall befall your two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, shall be the sign to you: both of them shall die on the same day. And I will raise up for myself a faithful priest, who shall do according to what is in my heart and in my mind; and I will build him a sure house, and he shall go in and out

149 1 Sam 2:12-17, 22-25.

50

before my anointed for ever. And every one who is left in your house shall come to implore him for a piece of silver or a loaf of bread, and shall say, “Put me, I pray you, in one of the priest’s places, that I may eat a morsel of bread.”150

There are a number of connections made between the passage in question and the fall of Eli’s family. The sons of Eli have sinned and thus bring about the loss of God’s favor for the family. The lineage of Eli thus grows weaker and weaker, and God promises that he will raise another, a faithful priest, who will grow stronger. There is even another example of the Deuteronomist inserting a short passage into the middle of a story to break up the flow of the narrative. Samuel is presented as a young boy, ministering at the Temple, and his mother has found further favor with God by having more children.151 After all of these similarities, Eli is found failing in sight at the beginning of the next chapter. As his family line falls from favor with God, Eli physically weakens as well.

The moment that the brilliance of the Deuteronomist comes to the forefront is

ʿiwwēr) in the Deuteronomistic History. This is found) ֵּ֣ר וִּוצ seen at the last use of the term at the end of the Davidic monarchy found in 2 Kings 25. The Babylonian forces are laying siege upon the city of Jerusalem, which should immediately raise connections in our mind to Jerusalem’s conquest by David. Dramatically, instead of David rising to power and entering into the city, his descendent Zedekiah is driven out: “Then a breach was made in the city; the king with all the men of war fled by night by the way of the gate between the two walls…”152 Once again, the author is providing a narrative reversal involving the city of Jerusalem and a king. Just as David was driven out of Jerusalem by

150 1 Sam 2:31-36. 151 1 Sam 2:18-21. 152 2 Kgs 25:4.

51

Absalom, so too was his final reigning descendant driven out of the city. Zedekiah is captured by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and is punished severely: “They slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, and put out the eyes of Zedekiah, and bound him in fetters and took him to Babylon.”153 This is the verse that reveals the brilliance of the

Deuteronomist throughout the history books. The descendant of David, driven out of

Jerusalem and his house, is made blind! Just as Saul’s descendants are described as lame to show their unworthiness to rule the kingdom of Israel, so too is Zedekiah, now blind, shown to be cast out of the “house,” the kingly office of the nation.

There are other links between 2 Kings 25 and 2 Sam 5:6-8 that help confirm this

bayit) occurs four times: “And he burned the house) תִבֵּ֣ב theory. In 2 Kgs 25:9, the word of the Lord, and the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; every great house he burned down.” Both the Temple and the palace are alluded to here, but the emphasis of

-bayit) focuses on physical and familial meanings. And the mere over) תִבֵּ֣ב the final

bayit) connects to the overwhelming use of the word in reference to the) תִבֵּ֣ב repetition of kingship. Just as the Lord removed His favor from the house of Saul because of his sinfulness, so too does David’s line fall into sin and are taken out of the royal role of

Israel at the Babylonian exile due to their sins and the sins of the people. “The blinding of the Davidic heir also renders him unfit, as was Mephibosheth earlier, for ‘filling the function of the sacral king in the palace and in the temple.’”154

As 2 Kings 25 is the end of the entire Deuteronomistic history, one would assume that it would be wrapped up in a conclusive way. Instead, it ends with another odd detail of added irony similar to the inserts concerning the life of Mephibosheth. The author has

153 2 Kgs 25:7. 154 Ceresko, “The Identity of ‘the Blind and the Lame’ (...Iwwer Upisseah) in 2 Samuel 5,” 24.

52

explained the entire capture of Jerusalem, the pillaging of the Temple, and the new

Babylonian-appointed leaders of Judah. Jehoiachim, who is the nephew of Zedekiah, is freed from prison by the new Babylonian king:

And he [Evilmerodach] spoke kindly to him [Jehoiachim], and gave him a seat above the seats of the kings who were with him in Babylon. So Jehoiachim put off his prison garments. And every day of his life he dined regularly at the king’s table; and for his allowance, a regular allowance was given him by the king, every day a portion, as long as he lived.155

This ending of the history marks a dramatic connection to Saul’s last descendant,

Mephibosheth. David overcame the family of Saul’s rule to become king and then invited his only remaining heir, Mephibosheth, into his home to dine at his table. The same thing is happening here. The king of Babylon, the nation that ended David’s reign in Judah, invites David’s remaining heir, Jehoiachim, to dine in his house at his table.

“Jehoiachin’s rueful fate echoes hauntingly the fate of Mephibosheth, the last of the house of Saul, which David replaced. He, too, was to end his days in virtual house arrest, a pensioner at the royal court.”156 Here is a clear echo by the Deuteronomist at the end of his work to Mephibosheth’s fate in 2 Sam 9. Both in turn harken back to the important moment in David’s and Israel’s history, when Jerusalem is captured in 2 Sam 5.

With all of these connections in mind, we can return to the question at hand: what was the purpose of including the phrase in 2 Sam 5:8b? By focusing on the passage’s coherence, the verse is seen to be necessary for the understanding of the immediate pericope and the overarching narrative of the author. In the immediate context, the

Deuteronoimist is connecting a well-known phrase from his time to this narrative through the repetition of vocabulary. It thus takes on an aspect of David’s response to the

155 2 Kgs 25:28-30. 156 J. Cheryl Exum, Tragedy and Biblical Narrative: Arrows of the Almighty (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 199.

53

Jebusite taunting. More importantly, though, it continues to develop a theme throughout the Deuteronomist’s work surrounding disabilities. It plays with the irony of role- reversals. “The saying about ‘the blind and the lame’ of v. 8b holds special significance.

It foreshadows the eventual failure of both dynasties and thus the failure of monarchy in general.”157 It is with this foreshadowing in mind that the author takes the phrase and writes the Jerusalem narrative in such a way that it can cohesively connect with it, thus showing even at the height of David’s power and favor with God that there were dark days ahead.

157 Ceresko, “The Identity of ‘the Blind and the Lame’ (...Iwwer Upisseah) in 2 Samuel 5,” 24.

54

Conclusion

In the face of all of this evidence, it seems that the more reasonable understanding of 2 Sam 5:8b is related to the narrative reading of the whole Deuteronomistic history.

There is evidence that the verse originated outside of 2 Samuel. The author inserted it into the Jerusalem Conquest narrative due to the similarity in vocabulary and thematic references. He also builds up the passage with a coherent integrity. The author does not merely add v. 8b into a completed narrative; instead, he has it in mind as he is writing the entirety of 2 Sam 5 and the overarching Deuteronomistic history. Connection to Saul’s and David’s family, to the priest Eli, and to the Babylonian Exile help support this.

It is important to note that this does not leave out the possibility that the Temple has no bearing on v. 8b. It may have been the intended reference to the saying as it occurred outside of 2 Samuel. Thus, it could still be the case that the origin of the statement was based upon some practice or belief at the time of writing that excluded a group from Temple worship. However, the author does not seem utilize the phrase in that exact way. He makes no other Scriptural references to a ban from ritual worship and no mention explicitly of a house prior to this pericope. When read considering the entire

Deuteronomistic history, it does not seem feasible to hold that Temple worship was on the mind of the author when writing this critical scene in his work.

Instead, the Deuteronomist’s intention seems to have been to further emphasize the disability reversals built up throughout the Deuteronomistic history. Saul, having been described as taller and more handsome than any other of his kin, is brought low.158

His descendants, particularly Ishbosheth and Mephibosheth, are shown to have lost the favor of God through their physical deformities and weaknesses. David then rises in the

158 1 Sam 9:2.

55

favor of God, seen physically in his dancing before the Ark in 2 Sam 6. However, through his sins and the sins of his descendants, his family also falls out of favor with

God. David is driven out of Jerusalem by his son, and his heir is later driven out and blinded at the Babylonian Exile. This reading is further strengthened by the integrity of the overall pericope, seen in its chiastic structure and repetitive vocabulary.

Ultimately, the Deuteronomist realizes the importance of Jerusalem to his readers.

By adding a phrase to the end of its conquest and constructing the passage the way he does, the author provides us with an overarching theme in his writings. Just as each person is blessed by the Lord based on how faithful they have been, so too are each of the

Israelite kings and their dynasties. While both Saul and David have found favor with

God at some point in their lives and reign as king over His chosen people, they ultimately lose the kingship through their faults and the faults of their children. The Deuteronomist utilizes disability imagery throughout his work to emphasize this point. The blind and the lame shall not enter into the house: those families who have lost favor with God shall not continue as king over God’s chosen people.

56

Bibliography

Ackroyd, Peter Runham. The Second Book of Samuel: Commentary. The Cambridge Bible Commentary New English Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Alter, Robert, ed. The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel. New York: W.W. Norton, 1999.

Anderson, A. A. 2 Samuel. Vol. 11. World Biblical Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000.

Andersson, Greger. Untamable Texts: Literary Studies and Narrative Theory in the Books of Samuel. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 514. New York: T & T Clark, 2009.

Auld, A. Graeme. I & II Samuel: A Commentary. 1st ed. The Old Testament Library. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011.

Barron, Robert. 2 Samuel. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2017.

Begg, Christopher T. “David’s Capture of Jebus and Its Sequels According to Josephus: Ant 7,60b-70.” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 74, no. 1 (April 1998): 93– 108.

Birch, Bruce C. “The First and Second Books of Samuel.” In The New Interpreter’s Bible, edited by Leander E. Keck. Vol. 2. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1999.

Brueggemann, Walter. First and Second Samuel. Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1990.

Campbell, Antony F. 2 Samuel. The Forms of the Old Testament Literature v. 8. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2005.

Carlson, R. A. David, the Chosen King: A Traditio-Historical Approach to the Second Book of Samuel. Translated by Eric J. Sharpe and Stanley Rudman. Stockholm, Sweden: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1964.

Ceresko, Anthony R. “The Identity of ‘the Blind and the Lame’ (...Iwwer Upisseah) in 2 Samuel 5:8b.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 63, no. 1 (January 2001): 23–30.

Clements, R. E. “Pisseah.” In Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, translated by Douglas Stott. Vol. 12. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2003.

57

Exum, J. Cheryl. Tragedy and Biblical Narrative: Arrows of the Almighty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Fokkelman, J. P. Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel: A Full Interpretation Based on Stylistic and Structural Analyses. Vol. 3. 4 vols. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 27. Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1981.

Frolov, Serge, and Vladimir E Orel. “David in Jerusalem.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 111, no. 4 (1999): 609–615.

Gilmour, Rachelle. “Who Captured Jerusalem? Reading Historiography and/or Collective Memory in Samuel.” In The Books of Samuel: Stories–History–Reception History, edited by Walter Dietrich, 63–82. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium. Louvain: Peeters, 2016.

Halpern, Baruch. David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King. The Bible in Its World. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2001.

Hertzberg, Hans. I & II Samuel. Translated by J.S. Bowden. 2nd ed. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 10. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1964.

Hoffner, Harry. “Bayith.” In Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, translated by John T. Willis. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1975.

Jones, Gwilym H. The Nathan Narratives. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 80. Sheffield, United Kingdom: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990.

Kautzsch, K., ed. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Translated by A. E. Cowley. Second English Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956.

Keil, C.F., and D.D. Delitzsch. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. Translated by James Martin. 5th ed. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1967.

Landay, Jerry M. The House of David. New York: Saturday Review Press, 1973.

Mauchline, John, ed. 1 and 2 Samuel. New Century Bible. London: Oliphants, 1971.

McCarter, P. Kyle, ed. II Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary. 1st ed. The Anchor Bible v. 9. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984.

McKenzie, Steven L. King David: A Biography. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

58

Morrison, Craig E. 2 Samuel. Edited by Jerome T. Walsh. Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2013.

Olyan, Saul M. “‘Anyone Blind or Lame Shall Not Enter the House’: On the Interpretation of Second Samuel 5:8b.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 60, no. 2 (April 1998): 218–227.

Omanson, Roger L., and John Ellington. A Handbook on the First and Second Books of Samuel. Vol. 2. 2 vols. UBS handbook series. New York: United Bible Societies, 2001.

Pritchard, James, ed. “Hittite Rituals, Incantations, and Description of Festivals.” In Ancient Near East Texts Relatin to the Old Testament, translated by Albrecht Goetze. Third. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969.

Schipper, Jeremy. “Reconsidering the Imagery of Disability in 2 Samuel 5:8b.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 67, no. 3 (July 2005): 422–434.

Tsumura, David Toshio. The Second Book of Samuel. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2019.

Tyson, Craig W. “Who’s in? Who’s Out? Ii Sam 5,8b and Narrative Reversal.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 122, no. 4 (December 2010): 546–557.

Wächter, L., W. von Soden, and Heinz-Josef Fabry. “Iwwer.” In Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, translated by Douglas Stott. Vol. 10. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1986.

Wazana, Nili. “The Chosen City: Conquest and Sanctification Traditions of Jerusalem.” Biblica 98, no. 3 (2017): 339–362.

Yadin, Yigael. The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of Archaeological Study. Vol. 2. 2 vols. London: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1963.

Youngblood, Ronald F. “1, 2 Samuel.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, edited by Tremper Longman and David E. Garland. Rev. ed. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary 3. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006.

59