zaw whos in who’s out ii sam 5,8b and narrative reversal

8/10/2019 ZAW Whos in Whos Out II Sam 5,8b and Narrative Reversal

1/12

ZAW 122. Bd., S. 546557 DOI 10.1515/ZAW.2010.038

Walter de Gruyter 2010

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

Craig W. Tyson

(University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA 48109)

At the heart of the account of Davids capture of Jerusalem in IISam 5,610 is a verbal sparring match that the author concludes inv. 5,8b with, Therefore they say, Blind and lame shall not enter thehouse. Compared to the many studies of II Sam 5,610, this proverb

has received little attention.1This study attempts to correct that imbal-

* I would like to thank Professor Douglas Stuart of Gordon-Conwell Theological Sem-

inary for his guidance on this topic in its form as an M.A. thesis. I would also like to

thank Professor Brian Schmidt of the University of Michigan, Dr. Eric Reymond of Yale

Divinity School, and an anonymous reviewer for their comments on earlier versions of

this study. All faults with the study remain my own.1 W. F. Albright, The Sinnrin the Story of Davids Capture of Jerusalem (2 Sam 5:69),

JPOS 2 (1922), 286290; G. Bressan, Lespugnazione di Sion in 2 Sam 5, 68, 1 Cron 11,

46 a il Problema del Sinnr, Biblica 25 (1944), 346381; G. Brunet, David et lesin-nr, in: J. A. Emerton (ed.), Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament,

VTSup 30, 1979, 7386; G. Brunet, Les aveugles et boiteux jbusites, in: J. A. Emerton

(ed.), Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament, VTSup 30, 1979, 6572;

J. Derby, Davids Conquest of Jerusalem, JBQ 25 (1997), 3539; J. Feather, How Joab

Took Jerusalem, ExpTim 41 (192930), 140141; J. P. Floss, David und Jerusalem: Ziele

und Folgen des Stadteroberungsberichts 2 Sam 5,69 literaturwissenschaftlich betrach-

tet, 1987; S. Frolov and V. Orel, David in Jerusalem, ZAW 111 (1999), 609615;

R. Gelio, Davide conquista la Rocca di Sion, Lateranum 61 (1995), 1177; R. Gelio,

Davide e la mesudat Siyyn: chi gli avversari?, RSB 7 (1995), 129155; H. L. Ginsberg,

Lexicographical Notes, ZAW 51 (1933), 308; J. J. Glck, The Conquest of Jerusalem inthe Account of II Sam. 5:68a with special reference to the blind and the lame and

the phrase weyigga^bassinr, Biblical Essays 1966: Proceedings of the Ninth Meeting

of Die Ou-Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika, 1966, 98105; J. Heller,

David und die Krppel, CV 8 (1965), 251258; T. Hentrich, The Lame in

Lev 21,1723 and 2 Sam 5,68, AJBI 29 (2003), 530; E. D. Herbert, 2 Samuel v 6:

An Interpretative Crux Reconsidered in the Light of 4QSama1, VT 44 (1994), 340348;

S. Holm-Nielsen, Did Joab Climb Warrens Shaft?, in: A. Lemaire and B. Otzen (eds.),

History & Traditions of Early Israel: Studies Presented to Eduard Nielsen, 1993, 3849;

I. Kalimi, The Capture of Jerusalem in the Chronistic History, VT 52 (2002), 6679;

T. Kleven, Up the Waterspout: How Davids General Joab Got Inside Jerusalem,

BARev 20, no. 4 (1994), 3435; T. Kleven, The Use ofsnrin Ugaritic and 2 Samuel v 8:

Hebrew Usage and Comparative Philology, VT 44 (1994), 195204; S. Loffreda, Ancora

sul sinnrdi 2 Sam 5,8, LASBF 32 (1982), 5972; B. Mazar, Davids Reign in Hebron

Bereitgestellt von | Libraries Learning Res Ctr (Thomas Cooper Library)

Angemeldet | 172.16.1.226

Heruntergeladen am | 22.01.12 17:02


2/12

Who's In? Who's Out? II Sam 5,8b and Narrative Reversal 547

ance by extending two recent approaches to the interpretation of thisproverb. I argue that II Sam 5,610 combines the rhetoric of disabilityand an insider/outsider motif within a chiastically structured narrativereversal whereby David ends up in Jerusalem and the Jebusites end updisabled and outside Jerusalem. The author effects the reversal usinga large repertoire of repeated vocabulary and syntactical structures inwhich II Sam 5,8b is an integral component. The exclusionary and dis-ability elements of the proverb make it ideal for communicating the de-mise of the Jebusites and linking II Sam 5,610 to the larger discoursetracking the rise and demise of the Saulide and Davidic houses.

I. Recent Approaches to the Interpretation of II Sam 5,8b

The recent studies of Ceresko and Schipper go a long way towards ad-dressing the function of II Sam 5,8b by underscoring its role within a setof narrative themes and motifs in DtrH.2Ceresko builds upon a remarkby Carlson, who argues that the house in II Sam 5,8b refers to sacral

and the Conquest of Jerusalem, in: S. B. Freehof (ed.), In the Time of Harvest, 1963,

235244; J. M. Miller, Jebus and Jerusalem: A Case of Mistaken Identity, ZDPV 90

(1974), 115127; M. Oeming, Die Eroberung Jerusalems durch David in deuteronomis-tischer und chronistischer Darstellung (II Sam 5, 69 und 1 Chr 11, 48): Ein Beitrag

zur narrativen Theologie der beiden Geschichtswerke, ZAW 106 (1994), 404420;

S. M. Olyan, Anyone Blind or Lame Shall Not Enter the House: On the Interpretation

of Second Samuel 5:8b, CBQ 60 (1998), 218227; J. C. Poirier, Davids Hatred for the

Lame and the Blind (2 Sam 5.8a), PEQ 138 (2006), 2733; C. Schfer-Lichtenberger,

David und Jerusalem Ein Kapitel biblischer Historiographie, EI 24 (1993), 197211;

V. Scippa, Davide Conquista Gerusalemme, BeO 27 (1985), 6576; H. J. Stoebe, Die

Einnahme Jerusalems und der Sinnr, ZDPV 73 (1957), 7399; E. L. Sukenik, The Ac-

count of Davids Capture of Jerusalem, JPOS 8 (1928), 1216; L.-H. Vincent, Lesinnr

dans la prise de Jrusalem (II Sam. v, 8), RB 33 (1924), 357370; W. G. E. Watson, DavidOusts the City Ruler of Jebus, VT 20 (1970), 501502; Y. Yadin, The Art of Warfare in

Biblical Lands In the Light of Archaeological Study, 1963, 2,267270.2 A. R. Ceresko, The Identity of the Blind and the Lame (^iwwer pisseah) in 2 Sa-

muel 5:8b, CBQ 63 (2001), 2330, 2330; J. Schipper, Disability Studies and the He-

brew Bible: Figuring Mephibosheth in the David Story, LHBOTS 441, 2006, 104107;

J. Schipper, Reconsidering the Imagery of Disability in 2 Samuel 5:8b, CBQ 67 (2005),

422434, 422434. Vargons study considers II Sam 5,8b as part of a narrative testing

of David to see whether he would keep his covenant with Jonathan and Jonathans

lame son Mephibosheth (S. Vargon, The Blind and the Lame, VT 46 [1996], 498514,

498514). While his article usefully highlights one possible way II Sam 5,8b may func-

tion in the larger narrative, Ceresko and Schipper present a more compelling view of

how it functions within DtrH. See also the brief comments of J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative

Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel III, SSN 27, 1990, 164165.





3/12


4/12


climax of the interplay between the imagery of disability and that of in-sider/outsider comes in II Reg 25 where the author marks the final demiseof the Davidic dynasty by portraying Zedekiah as both blind and outsideof Jerusalem, while the Babylonians go in.12

The attention these scholars draw to the literary and rhetorical shap-ing of this passage within the Deuteronomistic History is a significantadvance in the interpretation of this text. However, what Ceresko andSchipper have not worked out in detail is how II Sam 5,8b functions in itsimmediate context. I build on these approaches by a close analysis of theproverbs role in the literary and rhetorical structure of the passage.

II. Structure and Translation of II Sam 5,610

This passage has a very small skeleton onto which is grafted a significantamount of descriptive material. The structure of the action is straight-forward and begins with Davids march to Jerusalem where the Jebusitesreside. They speak against David and he then captures the city, reversesthe situation by speaking against the Jebusites, and then takes up resi-dence in Jerusalem. The clear back and forth of the action suggests achiastic structure with the axis being the capture of the city in v. 7.

A David marches to Jerusalem where the Jebusites reside (v. 6a).B The Jebusites speak against David (v. 6b).

C David captures the fortress of Zion (v. 7).B David speaks against the Jebusites (v. 8a).

A David takes up residence in the city and builds it up (vv. 910).

With the chiastic structure in mind, I suggest the following translation.

,l>vry vy>nXv lmh lyv 6a/rXh b>vy ycbyh lX 6a

hnh Xvbt Xl rmXl dvdl rmXyv 6b,yxcphv ,yrvih rych ,X yk 6b

hnh dvd Xvby Xl rmXl 6bdvd ryi Xyh ]vyj tdjm tX dvd dklyv 7

rvnjb igyv ycby hkm lk Xvhh ,vyb dvd rmXyv 8advd wpn vXn> ,yrvih tXv ,yxcph tXv 8a

tybh lX Xvby Xl xcpv rvi vrmXy ]k li 8

htybv Xvlmh ]m bybc ryi hnbyv dvd ryi hl Xrqyv hdjmb dvd b>yv 9vmi tvXbj hvhy v lvdg v vlh dvd lyv 10

12 Schipper, Reconsidering, 432433.





5/12


6/12


7/12

552 Craig W. Tyson

III. Literary and Rhetorical Organization

Despite the brevity of the action, a large set of literary and rhetorical el-ements organize the narrative. By literary and rhetorical organization,

I mean the way the author uses style, setting, characterization, and otherdevices to communicate the story and give it shape and meaning.21Theseelements are as follows:

1. Repetition of and play onlh (vv. 6a, 10)2. Mention of Zion (v. 7)3. Repetition ofdvd ryihdjmtwice (vv. 7, 9)4. Repetition ofrvi andxcpthree times (vv. 6b, 8a, 8b)5. Repetition ofrmX+Xl+Xvb+ locality three times

(v. 6b twice, v. 8b)

6. Repetition oftyb three times (vv. 8b, 9b, and 11b)7. Repetition of the rootb>y twice (vv. 6, 9)8. The saying Blind and lame shall not enter the house (v. 8b)

Although none of these elements is crucial to the plot of the story, theycontribute to its literary and rhetorical organization. This becomes plainwhen one considers that within five verses, six elements (most of whichare compound) occur two or three times each. The heavy use of repetitionbinds the story together and moves it along with a crisscrossing web ofsyntactical structures and vocabulary. Taking these repetitions and thechiastic structure in mind, a fuller analysis of the literary and rhetoricalorganization of the text and the proverbs role is possible.

The story is framed by paronomasia. It begins with Davids march toJerusalem (lmh lyv; v. 6a) and ends with a note on his waxing power(vlh dvd lyv; v. 10).22Verse 6a introduces the Jebusite inhabitantswho dwell (b>y) there. In v. 6ba, the Jebusites say to David, You shallnot come in here! Verse 6bprovides the reasoning behind this, Surelythe blind and the lame shall turn you away! Here, the Jebusite defendersstate that disabled persons will inhibit Davids ability to enter, tempor-arily inverting the motif that portrays outsiders as disabled. Verse 6bre-

inforces the Jebusites statement with a reiteration of the prohibition thatobjectifies David in the third person, David shall not come in here!23

21 See P. J. van Dyk, The Function of So-Called Etiological Elements in Narratives, ZAW

102 (1990), 1933, for an explication of literary and rhetorical organization and

how they apply to biblical texts.22 Fokkelman, NAPS III, 164. In a similar vein, Youngblood sees the rootlh as forming

an inlcusioaround vv. 610 (R. F. Youngblood, 1, 2 Samuel, in: F. E. Gaebelein [ed.], The

Expositors Bible Commentary: Volume 3, 1992, 5511104, 853).23 Glck suggests thatrmXlcould mean id est, that is to say (Glck, Conquest, 99), and

represent the thinking or self-talk of the Jebusites. Regardless, the repetition of the pro-

hibition makes it clear that the Jebusites are firmly entrenched and unwilling to sur-





8/12


Verse 7 shows, not by action, but by simple report, that the Jebusites as-surance that David would not get in has been undone. Davids capture ofthe fortress of Zion is reported in v. 7a, while v. 7b gives a prolepticreport of what the audience is already familiar with and what v. 9 de-scribes, that David renames the fortress. As the narrative moves to v. 8,the second half of the chiastic structure begins with a speech by David.Here, a reversal of positions is apparent: David is the subject of thespeech, and he turns the Jebusites taunt back on them. Whereas theblind and the lame initially indicated that David was too weak toconquer the stronghold, David now characterizes the Jebusites as thelame and the blind, and thus those who are on the outside (v. 8a).After Davids speech, the proverb appears in nearly identical form andposition to the taunt of the Jebusites (v. 6b), here objectifying the blind

and the lame in a way similar to the objectification of David. In bothcases, we can understand the prohibition (vv. 6band 8b) as the outcomeof the actions described in the speech: the enemy is excluded. RecallingSchippers observation that disability regularly marks the outsider,24theirony of the Jebusite taunt becomes visible. If the imagery is to hold up,the blind and lame must end up on the outside, and that is precisely whathappens.

The structure of the three iterations of the prohibition (vv. 6b, 6b,8b) also helps effect the narrative reversal. I portray this graphically as

follows:hnh Xvbt Xl rmXl v. 6bhnh dvd Xvby Xl rmXl v. 6b

tybh lX Xvby Xl xcpv rvi vrmXy ]k li v. 8bThe main differences between the prohibitions are their subjects and theplaces from which the subjects are prohibited. In vv. 6band 6b, Davidis the subject andhnh, here designates the place from which he is pro-hibited. Sincehnh designates the location of the speaker in direct speech,it necessarily refers to the fortress of Zion where the Jebusites made theirstand in v. 6band 6b. In v. 8b,hnh is not included because there is noparticular speaker in view in a proverbial saying. Instead, the proverbspecifies the locality astybh, the house. The correspondence betweenhnh andtybhin terms of position (within the chiasm and the prohibition)and function (indicating the place from which the subject is prohibited)within the narrative reversal is crucial. Given this correspondence, hnhandtybhshould refer to the same locality: the fortress of Zion/City of

render. On the use ofrmX to introduce thought see Gen 20,11; 26,9; Num 24,11;Ruth 4,4; I Sam 20,26; II Sam 12,22; II Reg 5,11.

24 Schipper, Reconsidering, 106.





9/12

554 Craig W. Tyson

David, that is to say, Davids residence or house.25This is not to say thatthis proverb always refers to exclusion from the City of David even if wewere to find it in another literary context. On the contrary, it is a contextspecific reference gained through the association of the proverb with thesurrounding narrative. Likewise, the subject of the prohibition in v. 8b,blind and lame, does not always refer to Jebusites. Rather, the contextspecific referent of blind and lame becomes the Jebusites.26

The narrative reversal continues in v. 9 where David is the one whodwells (b>y) there. Here the formal renaming of the City of Davidechoes back to v. 7, and the notation of Davids building projects in v. 9concludes with a wordplay ontyb , house. Verse 10 closes the scene bymeans of paronomasia that connects it to v. 6a. In v. 6a, the authoruses the rootlhto describe Davids march to Jerusalem, while in v. 10the author uses the same root twice to describe Davids growing prosper-ity. This same root, which has to do with walking, contrasts David withthe disabled Jebusites.

If the foregoing analysis is correct, the proverbs role in communi-cating the narrative reversal becomes clear. The author incorporated theproverb within the chiastic structure of the passage using a carefullycomposed set of repetitions, and the interplay of disability with the in-sider/outsider motif to effect the narrative reversal. The proverbs exclu-sionary and disability elements made it ideal for communicating the de-

mise of the Jebusites and linking II Sam 5,610 to the larger discoursetracking the rise and demise of the Saulide and Davidic houses. In addi-

25 Schipper, Disability, 105 n. 110; Vargon, Blind, 499500. Such a focus on Davids house

is in keeping with the focus on houses in II Sam 57 (R. Polzin, David and the Deute-

ronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History: Part Three, 2 Samuel, 1993,

5487). This proverb is frequently discussed in connection with the cultic restrictions in

Lev 21,18 (e.g., H. Avalos, Illness and Health Care in the Ancient Near East: The Role of

the Temple in Greece, Mesopotamia, and Israel, HSM 54, 1995, 319320; A. Caqout

and P. de Robert, Les Livres de Samuel, CAT 6, 1994, 403; Floss, David, 39; Frolov andOrel, David, 610; Hentrich, Lame; McCarter, II Samuel, 140; Olyan, Blind or Lame,

220222; S. M. Olyan, Disability in the Hebrew Bible: Interpreting Mental and Physical

Differences, 2008, 2932, 141142 n. 147; Sukenik, Account, 1415). Lev 21,18 pro-

hibits blind and lame priests from making offerings, but allows them to eat the sanctified

food. The similarity may suggest a common origin to the cultic restrictions and II

Sam 5,8b. If a concern for cultic purity is represented in this proverb, it would add an-

other layer of exclusionary meaning to this passage.26 The polysemous nature of proverbs and their tendency to gain meaning from context

make this use of the proverb possible. On these characteristics of proverbs see C. R. Fon-

taine, Traditional Sayings in the Old Testament: A Contextual Study, 1982, 64;

G. Hasan-Rokem, And God Created the Proverb Inter-generic and Inter-textual As-

pects of Biblical Paremiology or the Longest Way to the Shortest Text., in: S. Niditch

(ed.), Text and Tradition: The Hebrew Bible and Folklore, 1990, 107120, 108.





10/12


tion, the use of a proverb with its timeless quality lends permanence tothe exclusion. In a word, the Jebusites downfall becomes proverbial.

IV. Implications

The results of this study, and those on which it builds, have implicationsfor the long tradition of treating this proverb as secondary or as anexplanatory gloss.27 This tradition is entrenched in scholarly practiceand literature, and so it seems appropriate to address it here. In largemeasure, this tradition persists because most studies of II Sam 5,610have focused on reconstructing the events that are supposed to lie behindthe narrative, or on reconstructing the supposed original text or earlierredactions. We can illustrate this by the comments of Glck whose essay

focuses on understanding pre-battle taunting. He writes:The rest of v. 8 is addendum [sic] of later redactors. The expression those who are

hateful unto David has no conceivable effect and its being expressed in reported

speech may well point to later scribes who might possibly have believed that the ban on

the physically defective from serving in the Temple originated with that particular inci-

dent at the conquest of Jerusalem. They supported their argument by repeating v. 8b,

idem, wherefore they said, The Blind and the Lame shall not come into the house.28

Having ruled out II Sam 5,8b as of value for discussing pre-battle taunt-ing, Glck simply moves on to discuss other features of the text that are

apparently closer to the real events. More recently, Poirier has com-mented on II Sam 5,68. He notes the difficulty scholarship has had inreaching any kind of consensus about this passage and then writes,

Happily, it may be said that some progress has been made in the wayof scholarships openness to redactional theories, which in this casehas helped to isolate the second reference to the blind and lame in

27 Anderson, 2 Samuel, 8485; Caqout and Robert, Livres de Samuel, 403; Driver, Notes,

261; Floss, David, 3740; Frolov / Orel, David; Glck, Conquest, 99100; F. W. Golka,The Aetiologies in the Old Testament: Part 2, VT 27 (1977), 3647; Hentrich, Lame, 28;

Herbert, Crux, 348; Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 269; Mauchline, 1 and 2 Samuel, 218;

McCarter, II Samuel, 140; Poirier, David, 27. The tendency to see it as an explanatory

gloss or addition of a later redactor is linked to ideas about etiology. An etiological el-

ement is an element thought to explain or legitimize something (a geological formation,

a name, a present set of circumstances, etc.) by reference to something that happened in

the past (van Dyk, Function, 19; F. W. Golka, The Aetiologies in the Old Testament:

Part 1, VT 26 [1976], 410428, 410). Following van Dyk, I think that the preoccupation

with the idea that etiologies only explain or legitimize has meant that other possible

functions of these elements have been overlooked (van Dyk, Function). For a discussion

of some of the ways etiological elements have been analyzed see P. J. van Dyk, The Prob-

lem of Etiological Narrative, OTE 3 (1985), 8089, 8087.28 Glck, Conquest, 99100.





11/12

556 Craig W. Tyson

these verses (v. 8a) as the original kernel of the offending element inthe text (with the first and third references [i.e. vv. 6band 8b] beinguncomprehending or otherwise immaterial glosses).29

Once Poirier has eliminated vv. 6b and 8b from the discussion, he isthen able to move on with his proposed solution for explaining Davidshatred for the lame and blind.

Efforts at uncovering the history of the text and the historical eventspossibly behind them have a venerable tradition in biblical studies, butthe approach has left a blind spot in the analysis of this proverb. By de-fining II Sam 5,8b as secondary or as a later gloss, the proverb automati-cally becomes irrelevant for interpreting the passage. However, as thisstudy shows, one cannot delete the proverb from analysis without dim-

inishing the literary and rhetorical structure and hence the meaning of thepassage. Moreover, the set of repetitions and the chiastic structure indi-cate that one cannot easily separate the proverb from its context in termsof redactional layers. In this respect, I suggest two possible solutions forunderstanding the linkage of the proverb with the battle account. First,there is the possibility that the author had an earlier account to which headded this saying. If this be the case, he thoroughly reworked the accountto fit with the syntax and vocabulary of the proverb. Given such thor-ough reworking, it is questionable whether one can reconstruct the ear-lier or original account with any degree of certainty. Second, there

is the possibility that there was no earlier text and that the authorcomposed the passage with the proverb in mind. In this case, there is nohistorical events nor original text to recover. Either way, the inclusion ofthe proverb most likely took place at the same time that the author usedthe imagery of disability and the insider/outsider motif to structure thelarger DtrH narrative. To judge from the final occurrence of these mo-tifs in the Zedekiah narrative of II Reg 25, this took place sometime after586 BCE.

This study builds on recent analyses of the proverb in II Sam 5,8b that emphasize its literary

and rhetorical function within II Sam 5,610 and DtrH. I argue that II Sam 5,610 combines

the rhetoric of disability and an insider/outsider motif within a chiastically structured nar-

rative reversal whereby David ends up in Jerusalem and the Jebusites end up disabled and

outside Jerusalem. The reversal is effected by a large repertoire of repeated vocabulary and

syntactical structures in which II Sam 5,8b is an integral component. The exclusionary and

disability elements of the proverb make it ideal for communicating the demise of the Jebu-

sites and linking II Sam 5,610 to the larger discourse tracking the rise and demise of the Sau-

lide and Davidic houses.

29 Poirier, David, 27. He cites Floss, David, 3940 and McCarter, II Samuel, 137.





12/12


Cette tude se base sur des rcentes analyses du dicton en II Sam 5, 8b, qui mettent en vi-

dence la fonction littraire et rhtorique du passage dans lensemble II Sam 5, 610 et Dtr.

Lauteur soutient la thse que II Sam 5,610 combine une rhtorique du handicap avec un

motif intrieur extrieur dans le cadre dun rcit invers et structur en chiasme: tandis

que David se trouve lintrieur de Jrusalem, les Jbusites se trouvent lextrieur, han-dicaps. Cette inversion sopre dans le cadre dun large rpertoire rptitif de termes et de

structures syntaxiques dont II Sam 5,8b fait partie intgrante. Les lments dexclusion et de

handicap de ce dicton le rendent particulirement apte reprsenter le dclin des Jbusites, et

relier ainsi II Sam 5,610 lascension et au dclin des maisons de Sal et de David.

Der Beitrag fut auf neueren Untersuchungen zum Sprichwort in II Sam 5,8b, in denen die li-

terarische und rhetorische Funktion der Stelle innerhalb von II Sam 5,610 und DtrH

hervorgehoben wird. Der Verfasser vertritt die Auffassung, dass II Sam 5,610 die Rede

von Behinderung mit einem Drinnen-Drauen-Motiv in einer chiastisch aufgebauten Umkeh-

rungserzhlung verbindet. Im Ergebnis finden sich David innerhalb Jerusalems und die

Jebusiter behindert und auerhalb Jerusalems vor. Diese Umkehrung erfolgt unter Zuhilfe-nahme zahlreicher Begriffsanspielungen und mittels der syntaktischen Strukturen, zu denen

II Sam 5,8b als ein integraler Bestandteil zu rechnen ist. Dieser Spruch mit seiner Ausschlie-

ungs- und Behinderten-Motivik eignet sich vorzglich dazu, den Niedergang der Jebusiter

darzustellen, und II Sam 5,610 mit dem Aufstieg und Niedergang der Huser Sauls und Da-

vids zu verbinden.


zaw whos in who’s out ii sam 5,8b and narrative reversal

Documents