Reconsidering the imagery of disability in 2 Samuel 5:8b

Catholic Biblical Quarterly

Volumn 67, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 422-434

  Schipper, Jeremy ^a  

^a PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 67650351480     PISSN: 00087912     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Anthony R. Ceresko, "The Identity of 'the Blind and the Lame' ('iwwēr ûpissēah) in 2 Samuel 5:8b," CBQ 63 (2001) 23-30. All biblical translations are my own.
2. Ceresko takes the primary meaning of "the house" () as "palace" but also sees allusions to "temple" and "kingship." Following the LXX or the Vg, other scholars take "the house" to mean "the temple" and understand this clause as an etiology for the exclusion of the lame and the blind from the temple. See, e.g., Peter R. Ackroyd, The Second Book of Samuel: A Commentary (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977) 56-57;
3. Hector Avalos, Illness and Health Care in the Ancient Near East: The Role of the Temple in Greece, Mesopotamia, and Israel (HSM 54; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995) 319-20;
4. Serge Frolov and Vladimir Orel, "David in Jerusalem," ZAW 111 (1999) 609-15;
5. P. Kyle McCarter, II Samuel: A new translation with introduction and commentary (AB 9; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984) 136, 140;
6. Ceresko, "Identity of 'the Blind and the Lame,'" 24, 30.
7. As Baruch Halpern (David's Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001] 102) observes: "The most common technique for justifying the seizure of power [in the ancient Near East] is to admit to usurpation, but then explain that a god elected a new king because one's predecessors were weak, sinful, or corrupt."
8. See, e.g., Halpern, David's Secret Demons, 73-103;
9. P. Kyle McCarter, "The Apology of David," JBL 99 (1980) 489-504;
10. Steven L. McKenzie, King David: A Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) 32-34.
11. Scholars dispute the exact meaning of. It may also mean "crutch," which would fit in with the images of disability earlier in the verse (McCarter, II Samuel, 118). On this debate, see Steven W. Holloway, "Distaff, Crutch, or Chain Gang: The Curse of the House of Joab in 2 Samuel III 29," VT 31 (1987) 370-75;
12. Scott Layton, "A Chain Gang in Samuel iii 29? A Rejoinder," VT 39 (1989) 81-86.
13. This image of enfeebled hands appears elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible and comparative ancient Near Eastern literature as an element in idiomatic reactions to bad news (see Jer 6:24; 50:43; Ezek 21:12; Zeph 3:16). For a discussion of this convention in the Hebrew Bible and comparative literature, see Delbert Hillers, "A Convention in Hebrew Literature: The Reaction to Bad News," ZAW 77 (1965) 86-90.
14. Several scholars connect 2 Sam 5:6-8 with David's first encounter with Mephibosheth in 2 Samuel 9. See, among others, R. A. Carlson, David, the Chosen King: A Traditio-Historical Approach to the Second Book of Samuel (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1964) 57;
15. Kenneth R. R. Gros Louis, "The Difficulty of Ruling Well: King David of Israel," Sem 8 (1977) 15-33, here 27;
16. Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987) 255;
17. Vargon, "Blind and the Lame," 511, 512;
18. Ronald F. Youngblood, "1, 2 Samuel," in The Expositor's Bible Commentary with the New International Version of the Holy Bible (ed. Frank Gaebelein; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992) 3. 553-1104, here 856.
19. McCarter, II Samuel, 135-36.
20. Olyan, "'Anyone Blind or Lame Shall Not Enter the House,'" 218-19;
21. Eveline Van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel (Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 1; Leiden: Brill, 2002) 511;
22. Eugene Ulrich, The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus (HSM 19; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978) 136.
23. Like Ceresko, Robert Alter The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel [New York: W. W. Norton, 1999] 243) also contrasts Mephibosheth with David in 6:16, but does so while commenting on 2 Sam 9:13.
24. Ceresko, "Identity of 'the Blind and the Lame,'" 28-29.
25. David and Zion play an important part in the network of motifs that form the "royal theology" tradition. J. J. M. Roberts ("The Enthronement of Yhwh and David: The Abiding Theological Significance of the Kingship Language of the Psalms," CBQ 64 [2002] 675-86, here 676) summarizes the major themes of royal theology in the three following points: "(1) Yahweh is the great king, or suzerain, not only over Israel but over all the nations and their gods; (2) Yahweh has chosen the Davidic house as his human agents for the divine rule and has confirmed that choice with an eternal covenant; and (3) Yahweh has chosen Zion as his royal city, as the earthly dais of his universal rule." For examples of ancient Near Eastern parallels, consider the imperial ideologies of the god Marduk, the king Hammurabi, and the city Babylon; or the god Inanna, the king Sargon, and the city Akkad. On these parallels as well as royal theology in Isaiah, see the primary texts and secondary literature cited and discussed in J. J. M. Roberts, "Solomon's Jerusalem and the Zion Tradition," in Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period (ed. A. Vaughn and A. Killebrew; SBLSymS 18; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003) 163-70.
26. Fora more detailed analysis of royal theology in Israel and ancient Near Eastern parallels, see Jon D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (New Voices in Biblical Studies; San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1985);
27. Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Tlieologies (Uppsala: Gleerup, 1982);
28. Ben C. Ollenburger, Zion the City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult (JSOTSup 41; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987);
29. Edzard Rohland, "Die Bedeutung der Erwählungstraditionen Israels für die Eschatologie der alttestamentlichen Propheten" (Th.D. diss., University of Heidelberg, 1956);
30. J. J. M. Roberts, "The Davidic Origin of the Zion Tradition," JBL 92 (1973) 329-44;
31. idem, "Zion in the Theology of the Davidic-Solomonic Empire," in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays: Papers Read at the International Symposium for Biblical Studies, Tokyo, 5-7 December, 1979 (ed. T. Ishida; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1982) 93-108;
32. Moshe Weinfeld, "Zion and Jerusalem as Religious and Political Capital: Ideology and Utopia," in The Poet and the Historian: Essays in Literary and Historical Biblical Criticism (ed. R. E. Friedman; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983) 75-115.
33. To be sure, there is good reason to be suspicious of David's motives, since "showing kindness" to Mephibosheth (cf. 2 Sam 9:1, 3, 7) could have benefited David both politically and economically. See David M. Gunn, The Story of King David: Genre and Interpretation (JSOTSup 6; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978) 96-97;
34. Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg, I and II Samuel (trans. J. S. Bowden; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964) 300-301;
35. J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel (Assen: VanGorcum, 1981 ) 1. 31. In 9:13, the participle is spelled defectively.
36. Carlson (David, the Chosen King, 147) connects the phrases in 9:13b and 11:1 b and suggests that this connection holds "ominous significance . . . for the fateful events of ch. 15ff."
37. Tomoo Ishida ("Solomon's Succession to the Throne of David - A Political Analysis," in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays, 175-87) argues that the criticisms of David in the succession narrative reflect the political standpoint of those who helped Solomon establish his kingship in place of David. Furthermore, one should note that various forms of the idiom "to do good in one's eyes" occur six times during David's exile from Jerusalem (2 Sam 15:26; 18:4; 19:19, 28, 38, 39). Each occurrence is connected to David, and four of these occurrences take place in contexts where others challenge or modify his royal judgments. This is suggestive, considering that one also sees this idiom used as a refrain earlier in the Deuteronomistic History when it occurs with the statement "there was no king in Israel" in Judges 17-21 (see 17:6; 21:25; cf. 18:1; 19:1).
38. Although 2 Sam 9:10 reiterates the fact that Mephibosheth will eat from the king's table, it is not entirely clear from where his food will come. The MT suggests that his daily portion comes from Saul's own estate rather than the king's table. See Anson Rainey, "The Samaria Ostraca in Light of Fresh Evidence," PEQ 99 (1967) 39;
39. idem, "The Sitz im Leben of the Samaria Ostraca," Tel Aviv 6 (1979) 91. Yet the LXX suggests that it comes directly from the king's estate. One should follow the LXX, since the MT, by ending the verse with a disjunctive clause with the subject (Mephibosheth) placed before the verb for emphasis, seems to imply a distinction between Mephibosheth and the consumers of the food that Ziba provides.
40. See Mordecai Cogan, 1 Kings: A new translation with introduction and commentary (AB 10; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 156;
41. John Gray, I and II Kings (OTL; 2nd ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970) 77;
42. Choon-Leong Seow, "The First and Second Books of Kings," NIB, 3. 1-295, here 14.
43. For a more detailed treatment of the connections between Mephibosheth and 2 Kings 25, see my article "'Significant Resonance' with Mephibosheth in 2 Kings 25:27-30: A Response to Donald F. Murray," JBL (forthcoming). Cf. Jeremy Schipper, "'Why Do You Still Speak of Your Affairs?' Mephibosheth, Disability, and Identity in the David Story" (Ph.D. diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 2005).
44. Ceresko, "Identity of 'the Blind and the Lame,'" 29, but see Deut 16:19; 27:18; 28:29.
45. Earlier in 2 Kings, outside armies are not able to come into Jerusalem. The Assyrians tried to come into Jerusalem () during Hezekiah's reign (18:17). (Scholars debate the exact location of the Assyrians in this verse. For a survey of opinions, see T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings [WBC 13; Waco: Word, 1985] 260-62.) Yet, in 19:32, Yhwh promises Hezekiah that the king of Assyria "will not come into this city" (cf. v. 33). In 19:35-37, an angel of Yhwh decimates the Assyrian army. Yet this divine defense of Jerusalem also heightens the tragedy of the Babylonians' entrance into Jerusalem a few chapters later.
46. Several scholars have noted the resonance between the respective depictions of the fates of Jehoiachin and Mephibosheth. In addition to Ceresko, see also Birch, "First and Second Books of Samuel," 1273;
47. J. Cheryl Exum, Tragedy and the Biblical Narrative: Arrows of the Almighty (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) 149;
48. Jan Jaynes Granowski, "Jehoiachin at the King's Table: A Reading of the Ending of the Second Book of Kings," in Reading between Texts: Intertextuality and the Bible (ed. Danna Nolan Fewell; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992) 173-88, here 183-84;
49. Hertzberg, I and II Samuel, 300;
50. Robert Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History Part Three: II Samuel (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993) 103-4. Yet there are possible differences between Jehoiachin's situation and that of Mephibosheth. If one reads with the MT, 2 Sam 9:10 suggests that Mephibosheth's daily portion, unlike that of Jehoiachin (2 Kgs 25:30), comes from his own estate rather than the king's table (see n. 23 above).
51. See, e.g., Exum, Tragedy and the Biblical Narrative, 149;
52. Robert Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History, part 2, I Samuel (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989) 213.
53. Reading the imagery of disability in this manner foregrounds the fact that it is not simply a transparent and value-free means of depicting a given character but rather is encoded with ideologies that are not inherent properties of the disability itself. Scholars who emphaize disability have studied how disability frequently becomes a metaphor for social downfall in other literature throughout the world. For example, David T. Mitchell and Sharon L. Snyder (Narrative Prosthesis: Disability and the Dependencies of Discourse [Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001] 47-48) observe: "[Disability] serves as a metaphorical signifier of social and individual collapse.
54. Physical and cognitive anomalies promise to lend a 'tangible' body to textual abstractions." Elsewhere they write, "disability's psychological and bodily variations have been used to metaphorize nearly every social conflict outside its own ignoble predicament in culture" ("Introduction: Disability Studies and the Double Bind of Representation," in The Body and Physical Difference: Discourses of Disability [ed. D. Mitchell and S. Snyder; Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1997] 1-31, here 12).