The first 25 verses in this chapter are concerned with the direct aftermath of the events following David's murder of Uriah so that he could marry his widow. I have said a lot about this whole incident in other posts, so instead I would like to concentrate on the remainder of the chapter which treats an entirely different story. Here in II Samuel 12:26-29 is narrated one of the exploits of David's general Joab in battling the Ammonites.
As J.D. Douglas says, “Joab proved himself a skillful general who greatly helped the establishment of the monarchy, but his character was a strange mixture.” For example, on the one hand it was Joab who carried out David's plan to assassinate Uriah. But then, it was this same Joab who on another occasion (II Samuel 24:3) warned David against numbering the people.
Two other contrasting lows and highs in Joab's career are seen in II Samuel 2:12-32 and II Samuel 12:26-29, respectively (see their parallel placement in the figure below). On the first occasion, Joab feigns a truce with Abner, the man who had killed Joab's brother, only to assassinate him soon afterward when his guard is down. But in the parallel passage of II Samuel 12:26-29 Joab unselfishly pauses at a critical point in a battle with the Ammonites and purposely waits until David can show up so that the king can take credit for the victory.
Concerning this latter action of Joab, Kennedy says, “Joab's self-abnegation in this case should not be forgotten in our estimate of the character of this truculent but loyal subject.” However, D.R. Davis is not so sure that Joab's action is unusually self-effacing. He points out: “Proper convention calls for the king to strike the finishing blows.” I would prefer to give Joab more credit than merely obeying standard protocol.
Organization of II Samuel 2-12
1. David anointed king of Judah (2:1-11)
2. Joab and Abner battle (2:12-32)
3. David’s sons (3:1-5)
4. David uses Abner to get Michal (3:6-21)
5. Joab kills Abner (3:22-39)
6. Saul’s son Mephibosheth introduced (II Sam. 4)
7. Various battles (II Sam. 5)
8. God's House (II Sam. 6)
8'. David's House (II Sam. 7)
7'. Various battles (II Sam. 8)
6'. Kindness to Jonathan’s son Mephibosheth (II Sam. 9)
5'. Joab defeats Syrians and Ammonites (II Sam. 10)
4'. David uses Joab to get Bathsheba (II Sam. 11)
3'. David’s sons (12:1-12:25)
2'. Joab and Ammonites battle (12:26-29)
1'. David is crowned (12:30-31)
In terms of the context of the last part of chapter 12, Payne points out that this episode is actually a continuation of the campaign against Ammon interrupted at 11:1. Davis further elaborates: “The story of David's sin had begun with the note about Joab's foray against Ammon (11:1). Now the writer returns to Rabbah, which Joab has brought to the brink of capitulation.”
A more thorough understanding of II Samuel 12:6-31 requires a consideration of the Hebrew words employed as well as a familiarity with archeological findings, as demonstrated below:
A good place to start is with Domeris' summary of studies done in areas held by the Ammonites: “Archeological surveys of the area point to the existence of a pre-Israelite settlement in Bashan..., subsequently incorporated with other parts of the Transjordan into the kingdom of David,” thus confirming the general tenor of the biblical narrative.
II Samuel 12:26-27
The first issue in this passage concerns the fact that in v. 26, the narrator says that Joab captured the “royal city” or “Royal Citadel.” But in the very next verse, Joab informs David that he has captured the “city of water” (literal rendering). Payne says, “The city of water refers not to the whole city of Rabbah, but to the covered passage connecting the city with its water-supply.” McCarter similarly feels that there is no reason to emend the Hebrew text to eliminate the “contradiction” between these two designations: “Perhaps 'the Royal Citadel' was the official name used by the narrator and 'the citadel of the water supply' was not a name...but rather Joab's descriptive way of identifying its strategic significance.”
By the way, the Hebrew word 'ir can mean “city.” But as Price in his word study points out, it can also refer to a fortress or even other construction within the walk of another city.”
II Samuel 12:28
Next Joab informs David that he better show up for the mopping-operations or his own name will be pronounced over the city instead of the king's. Chisholm says that “when a name is 'called over' an object, it means the object belongs to the owner of the name.” Hartman and DiLella point to a similar use of this Hebrew idiom in Daniel 9:19. We could go back to the opening chapters of Genesis to see examples of a similar thought process behind Adam naming all the animals in the garden.
Jonker's word studies lead him to state, “The technical construction qr' sem'al is used to indicate the judicial right of possession; e.g. when property is transferred from one party to another (cf. 2 Sam 12:28; Isa 4:1).”
II Samuel 12:29-30
It is with the final conquest of the city in these verses that the real problems of interpretation begin. David is said to take the gold crown of Milcom. At least, that is how some translations read, compared to others which say it was the crown of the king. So which is correct? Those opting for “their king” (malkam in Hebrew) include commentators such as R.J. Way, Tsumura, and Payne, just to name a few.
In support of this understanding, Younker reports, “Samples of such a crown have been found on numerous stone busts of Ammonite kings found in the Ammonite region.
A contrasting view is represented in the Septuagint version of this passage which understood malkam to be the name of the Ammonite god Milcom (see Zephaniah 1:5).
Thus, McCarter disputes Younker's archeological argument since it is not known whether the crowned statues found near Rabbah represented early kings or deities instead.
Hadley also quotes Zeph. 1:5 and says, “Milcom is the god of the children of Ammon (1 Kgs 11:5,33; 2 Kgs 23:13). The name was probably also spelled malkam (2 Sam 12:30).”
If these opinions are correct, then malkam refers to an outsized statue of the Ammonite god Milcom which was topped with a large gold crown.
Supporting this latter view is the very weight of the crown itself, one talent of gold. Now Domeris and Hess do note that archeological findings indicate that the weight of a talent is uncertain since “more than one system [of weights and measures] was in operation in biblical times.” Therefore the scholarly opinions vary anywhere from 60 to 130 pounds. In any case, “It is doubtful...that the usual royal crowns were of such a weight.” R.J. Way adds that “it was too heavy for wear,” and McCarter states that it was “far too heavy for a human being to wear.”
But if it was too heavy for a man to wear, why does verse 30 add that the crown was placed on David's head? Actually, it doesn't say that at all. The Hebrew just states that it was placed on his head. And the previous noun is not “crown,” but the precious stone on the crown. Therefore McCarter is one of several scholars who feel that David only wore the stone itself, not the whole crown.
II Samuel 12:31
As if the above uncertainties were not enough, D.R. Davis says, “Verse 31 is difficult.” But one of the difficulties is easily put to rest. Critics have sometimes latched on to the mention of iron implements in this verse as an anachronism since the ancient Jews did not have the knowledge of metallurgy necessary to fashion them. However, Konkel notes that at first “the Philistines withheld iron technology from the Israelites so their weapons would be inferior (I Sam 13:19)” but later under David, iron became plentiful and the “farmers had access to iron axes, mattocks, plowpoints, pruning hooks and sickles.”
The next problem in adequately understanding this verse is the fact that the verb translated as “put” in the King James Version in the phrase “put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron” really has no direct object, and the pronoun “them” has been added in an attempt to make sense of the sentence. This gave rise to the understanding, shared by the NASB translators, that David took all the captured Ammonites and subjected them to cruel torture.
The author of the article on “Torture” in the Dictionary of Biblical Imagery also subscribes to this theory and writes that David's “vicious treatment of Ammon was probably a response to the nation's own cruelty in warfare.” He cites I Samuel 11:2 in which the Ammonites would only agree to a peace treaty if his army could gouge out the eyes (or right eyes) of all the Israelites first. Also cited are Amos 1:3,13. The latter may provide an especially close parallel with its mention of “sharp iron implements.”
Despite the above opinions, most modern translations and commentators opt for a more humane understanding of David's actions. For example, among the two possible translations of the verse, torture or hard labor, Porter says that “the latter is supported by the grammar and the lexicon, and is the view now generally accepted.” Regarding the “lexicon,” Hulst explains that the verb in this text, sim, can mean “set to” (i.e. “work with” saws and picks) as well as “put under.”
Even the ancient Syriac version refused to understand David's action as an eye-for-an-eye retribution on the Ammonites for their cruelty. Instead, it says, “and he put them into iron collars and chains.” However, this translation is unlikely in view of the accepted meaning of the various metal implements mentioned. Thus, Jonker notes that in v. 31, “The magzera was a type of axe and used together with the megera...a saw for cutting blocks of limestone, which is relatively soft when first quarried. David put Ammonites to this kind of labor, but Solomon conscripted native Israelites (1 Ks 5:13-18).” Because these tools are related to masonry, rather than agricultural, work it is probable that the third implement, called a haris, may refer to an iron pick instead of a plow point.
As to why David needed so many conscripted laborers for such a type of work, both McCarter and Davis are probably correct in saying that their job, at least at first, was not to build new buildings, but to tear down the city of Rabbah stone by stone until nothing was left.
The only factor placing this interpretation in doubt is found in the next portion of the verse in which the Ammonites, according to the “torture” hypothesis, forced the captured Ammonites to “pass through the brick kiln.” But as McCarter points out, it is physically impossible for a person to “pass through” the relatively small brick kilns, much less “repeatedly” as the verb form indicates. Instead, it must refer to setting the people to work with the brick molds. But that is a construction job, not one of destruction. Therefore, that may have been the slaves' subsequent activity after Rabbah had been reduced to rubble.
In addition, Heller lists the various alternative translations for the verb “to pass through” according to the context in which it appears. These include spread, bring, transfer, put away, send, or take away.
The only way most of us can recognize when the proper understanding of a Scripture passage is somewhat in doubt is to have at least two or three different English translations for comparison. In that way, it is harder to be dogmatic concerning points on which even sincere and Bible-believing experts disagree.
I will close with another of my paper collage creations, this time incorporating themes from the whole chapter under consideration.
II Samuel 12 (1992)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments