1

Exegesis of 1 Kings 2:5-9

Sungjin Kim

Box #320A

OT 646

Dr. Stuart

December 18, 2012

2

1

1 I have written in the Hebrew writing style of the middle period (between 1500 B.C. and 500 B.C.) since I have dated the passage somewhere between monarchy to exilic period (See “6. Historical Context”). Jeff A. Benner, "Charts of Ancient Semitic/Hebrew Script," http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/6_home.html.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/6_home.html

3

1. Text

From a text critical point of view, some of the witness to 1 Kings has been widely

disputed, particularly concerning the LXX (Old Greek). Compared to other books of the LXX, 1

Kings (or 3 Reigns) is notorious for its vast discordance with the MT.2 Scholars have come up

with different diagnoses for this: For example, J.W. Wevers 3 , D.W. Gooding 4 , W.M.

Schniedewind5 and A.S. Turkanik6 tend to prioritize the MT over the LXX and credit the LXX

merely as a translator's innovative work or a reviser's interpretational exegesis. Therefore, for

them, existence of a different Hebrew Vorlage for the LXX is less likely and they simply regard

the LXX as an aberration from the MT.

Some others, however, claim the opposite: they think a Hebrew Vorlage did exist for 1

Kings of the LXX. For instance, T.M. Law argues 1 Kings of the LXX may reflect a true Hebrew

Vorlage, in which this Vorlage was subsequently "revised and edited for literary and theological

reasons" and finally became the source of the MT around the second century BCE.7 Somewhat

differently, E. Tov sees that both the MT and the LXX had its own Hebrew Vorlage, in which the

MT represents the earlier Vorlage, while the LXX reflects the later one. He insists this later

Vorlage had reshaped the earlier Hebrew Vorlage with "repetition, omission, reordering, and

changes." Thus he considers the later Hebrew Vorlage (and its LXX translation) as midrashic

2 Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. (Fortress Press, 2011), 306. 3 J. William Wevers, “A Study in the Exegetical Principles Underlying the Greek Text of 2 Sam 11:2 - 1 Kings 2:11,” CBQ15, no. 1 (Ja 1953): 30–45. 4 e.g., David W. Gooding, “Septuagint’s Version of Solomon’s Misconduct,” VT 15, no. 3 (1965): 325–335. 5 William M. Schniedewind, “Textual Criticism and Theological Interpretation : The Pro-Temple Tendenz in the Greek Text of Samuel-Kings,” HTR 87, no. 1 (Ja 1994): 107–116. 6 Andrzej Turkanik, “Issues in Text and Translation Technique in the Gamma-Gamma Section of 3 Reigns (1 Kings),” Tyndale Bulletin 55, no. 1 (2004): 157–160. 7 T. Michael Law, “How Not to Use 3 Reigns: a Plea to Scholars of the Books of Kings,” VT 61, no. 2 (2011): 296.

4

rewriting, which has less value than the former one.8

I think Law's argument needs more scrutiny since he provides no good evidence. On the

other hand, the arguments by the rest of scholars -- though slightly different in details -- consent

to the point that the text of the LXX of 1 Kings should be used with care in textual criticism,

since some parts of it are marred by its exegetic or midrashic nature.

Another issue concerning the Greek text involves one of the LXX's recension. After F.M.

Cross showed 4QSama,b usually agrees with the LXXL (Lucian recension, borc2e2) against the

MT and the LXXB (Codex Vaticanus), 9 much discussion has been brought forth on the

importance of LXXL of the Historical Books. For example, S.J. DeVries regards the LXXL

highly and sometimes prioritizes the LXXL over the MT without any good reasons.10

Tov seems to be correct, however, to warn not to "overstate the significance of the

LXXL." It is true that 4QSama,b and LXXL match in many cases, but also in numerous occasions

4QSama,b and LXXL show different "independent readings."11 Furthermore, we should realize

that Cross's finding is limited to 4QSama,b. In fact the Dead Sea Scroll found for 1 Kings, though

scanty in numbers12, is known to be generally supportive of the MT.13 Therefore, the weight of

LXXL for 1 King should not be underestimated, but it also should not be overstated.14

8 Emanuel Tov, “Three Strange Books,” in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible and Qumran: Collected Essays (Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 289–290. 9 Frank Moore Cross, “The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in the Judaean Desert,” HTR 57, no. 4 (O 1964): 281–299. 10 Simon J. DeVries, 1 Kings, WBC (Thomas Nelson, 1985), 1vi. 11 Emanuel Tov, “The Nature of the Hebrew Text Underlying the LXX: a Survey of The Problems,” JSOT no. 7 (May 1978): 58–59. 12 For 1 Kings, only three fragments are available (5QKgs, 6QpapKgs, 4QKgs) and they barely cover chapter 1, 3, 7, 8, 12, 22. Emanuel Tov, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert: Volume XXXIX: Introduction and Indexes (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002), 192. 13 A. Wolters, “Text and Textual Criticism,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books, 958. 14 Keith, from his study on LXXL of Jer. 1-3, concludes: "1) Among all the Greek versions, LXXL is the least authentic witness to the quantity of the original Hebrew. 2) However, for questions of vocabulary and of the form

5

In sum, for our textual study, witnesses such as the MT, LXXB and LXXL will be

considered. Among these, the MT and Mss will be considered as the standard texts of our study.

The LXXB and LXXL will be attentively used since we've discussed the strength and weakness of

these texts. Unfortunately the DSS is not included in our study since no passages survived for

our text.15 Finally, the Peshitta, Vulgate and TargumJ (Targum Jonathan) will be consulted for

this study as well.

5a: ַוֲאֶׁשר ָעָׂשה ִלְׁשֵני־ָׂשֵרי ִצְבאֹות While the MT omits ַו before ֲאֶׁשר (so do LXXB, TargumJ and

Vulgate), some Mss, LXXL and Syriac have ַו before ֲאֶׁשר. I think the latter evidence is more

convincing for three reasons: 1) The weight of Mss that are equally important as MT, 2)

Importance of the LXXL for 1 Kings and 3) The Peshitta's unusual deviation from the MT.15F16 For

these reasons I chose ַוֲאֶׁשר as the better reading.

5b: ַאְבֵנר Unlike the MT's reading as "Abner", 1 Sam 14:50 spells the name as ֲאִביֵנר (Abiner).

In the MT, ַאְבֵנר appears four times (2 Sam 3:9; 20; 30, 1King 2:5) while ֲאִביֵנר surfaces only

once. 16F17 The preponderance of the number validates that ַאְבֵנר is probably the right orthography.

and meaning of words, the LXXL is a more reliable witness and throws valuable light upon textual study." Royden Keith Yerkes, “The Lucianic Version of the Old Testament as Illustrated from Jeremiah 1-3,” JBL 37, no. 3–4 (S-D 1918): 163–192. 15 For 1 Kings, only three fragments are available (5QKgs, 6QpapKgs, 4QKgs) and they barely cover chapter 1, 3, 7, 8, 12, 22. Tov, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, 192. 16 Peshitta is generally regarded as a daughter translation of the Hebrew text. Some, however, argues Aramaic Targums' influence on Syriac translation. Ellis R. Brotzman, Old Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 1993), 81.. 17 Bibleworks 8.0, “Word Search” on “ַאְבנֵר” and "ֲאִבינֵר."

6

5c: �םַוָּיֶׂשם ְּדֵמי־ִמְלָחָמה ְּבָׁש While the MT, Aleppo Codex, LXXB and Vulgate17 F18 generally hold

the same reading (he shed/brought blood of battle during the peace time), other texts display

wide aberration. 1) The LXXL replaces ἐξεδίκησεν (to avenge [ויקמ]) in place of ַוָּיֶׂשם (avenging

the blood of war in peace time), 2) The Peshitta reads wḥšb 'nwn 'yk dbqrb' (and he considered

them as though they were in the battle)18F19 and 3) The TargumJ writes ְוַדִמי ְדִיתְחֵׁשיב ְדִמתְחֵׁשיב

and my blood which is regarded their blood (is) upon him like) ַדמהֹון ְעלֹוִהי ְכַדם לדם ְתִביֵרי ְקָרָבא

the blood of the blood of battle). Agreement of the LXXB and the Vulgate on the MT is not so

decisive since we know they are mainly from the Hebrew text. 19F20 Furthermore, the LXXL,

Peshitta and TargumJ all have distinctive readings which shed no clues in deciding the original

text.

All in all, I think the MT is the preferred reading since it retains lectio difficilior. Some

commentators prefer the LXXL over the MT, since they claim ויקמ might have been mistakenly

written as ַוָּיֶׂשם. But their argument stands on weak ground: no other texts support the LXXL.

From the sheer evidence we have, I think the LXXL, Peshitta and TargumJ can be best

understood as later revisions that attempted to facilitate the difficult reading of ַוָּיֶׂשם ְּדֵמי. For this

18 Vulgate use effudit (to shed) in place of ׂשים. These two words can be considered identical, as van Dijk identified :(can mean "to shed." H. J. van Dijk, “Neglected Connotation of Three Hebrew Verbs,” VT 18, no. 1 (Ja 1968 ׂשים16–30. 19 George M. Lamsa, Holy Bible: From the Ancient Eastern Text (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 376. 20 Paul D. Wegner, A Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2006), 95–97, 274. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 152.

7

reason, that DeVries came to choose the LXXL as original is unconvincing, since there is no

evidence to substantiate his choice.21

5d: ְּבָׁש�ם ַוִּיֵּתן ְּדֵמי ִמְלָחָמה Some Mss and the LXXB omit ְּבָׁש�ם ַוִּיֵּתן ְּדֵמי ִמְלָחָמה. Conversely, the

MT, Aleppo Codex, LXXA, LXXL, Vulgate, Peshitta and TargumJ retain it, although some of the

wordings are slightly different from the MT. Besides this, I find other crucial evidence to support

the MT over other Mss (and LXXB). I think the scribe of the MSS might have accidently skipped

a few words (i.e., haplography) while he was copying the text. The evidence is shown as below.

MT ַוָּיֶׂשם ְּדֵמי־ִמְלָחָמה ְּבָׁש�ם ַוִּיֵּתן ְּדֵמי ִמְלָחָמה ַּבֲחֹגָרתֹו

ַּבֲחֹגָרתֹו> ---haplography---< ַוָּיֶׂשם ְּדֵמי־ִמְלָחָמה Mss

5e: ְּדֵמי ִמְלָחָמה While the MT, Aleppo Codex and Vulgate read ְּדֵמי ִמְלָחָמה (blood of battle),

the rest of the variants show different readings: 1) Some Mss and the LXXB omit the wording (as

result of haplography), 2) She LXXA,L,O reads αἷμα ἀθῷον (innocent blood, perhaps Deu] ָּדם ָנִקי

27:25]) and 3) The TargumJ and Peshitta read "their blood with the strap (ְבִאסָפִניֵקי) / "their blood

with the sword (syp')" respectively.

Although it seems quite perplexing, I think the MT is the better reading over all since it

holds to lectio difficilior. As for the LXXA,L,O, the scribe(s) might have smoothed out the

wording to make the meaning clear. The TargumJ and Peshitta might be explained with the same

reason.

5f: ַּבֲחֹגָרתֹו ֲאֶׁשר ְּבָמְתָניו ּוְבַנֲעלֹו ֲאֶׁשר ְּבַרְגָליו The LXXL and Old Latin each attach the suffix 1sg to

21 DeVries, 1 Kings, 23–26.

8

every noun and read "on the girdle of my loins and on my sandals which are on my feet." On the

other hand, the MT, Aleppo Codex, LXXB, Peshitta, TargumJ and Vulgate affix 3ms to every

noun. DeVries takes the LXXL as the original reading since he claims 1sg renders a more

reasonable interpretation.22 But I think DeVries' argument is less likely since the LXXL is

supported by the Old Latin only. The majority of texts, on the other hand, prove that the MT is

the better reading.

9a: ְוַעָּתה While the LXXL and Vulgate read ְוַאָּתה, the MT, Aleppo Codex, Peshitta and

TargumJ read ְוַעָּתה. The LXXB has neither ְוַאָּתה nor ְוַעָּתה. I think the evidence for the LXXL

and Vulgate are not sufficient to claim the original reading was ָּתהְוַא . I choose the MT as the

preferred reading here.

22 Ibid.

9

2. Translation

(5) Moreover you also know5a what5b Joab the son of Zeruiah did to me, that is5c, what he did to

the two commanders of the armies of Israel, Abner the son of Ner, and Amasa the son of

Jether.5c Namely,5d he killed and shed blood of battle during the peace time and put the blood

of battle on the belt around his waist and on the sandals on his feet.5e

(6) Therefore6a you shall act according to your wisdom6b, and do not let his grey hair go down to

Sheol in peace.

(7) But as for the sons of Barzillai the Gileadite, you shall show loyalty7a and let them be among

the ones who eat at your table: for they drew near to me when I fled from Absalom your

brother.

(8) And behold, there is with you Shimei the son of Gera, the Benjaminite from Bahurim, and

"he"8a cursed me with a grievous curse8b on the day I went to Mahanaim. But when he came

down to meet me at the Jordan, I swore to him by the Lord8c, saying "I will not put you to

death with the sword."8c

(9) Now therefore9a do not hold him guiltless, for you are a wise man. You shall know what you

ought to do to him, and you shall bring his gray hair down with blood to Sheol.

5a: ְוַגם ַאָּתה ָיַדְעָּת Logically, ְו introduces a new segment of thought (vv.5-9) that follows the

first unit of speech in vv.2-5. So ְו is used here with adjunctive nuance (moreover). 22 F23 Together

with ַּגם (also), the proper translation would be "Moreover, you also know ~." ESV, NKJV and

NRSV consent to this translation while others deviate from this: e.g., NASB (Now you also

23 John C. Beckman, Williams' Hebrew Syntax, 3rd ed. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007), § 441.

10

know), NIV (Now you yourself know) and NLT (And there is something else).

5b: ַוֲאֶׁשר ָעָׂשה ...ֵאת ֲאֶׁשר־ָעָׂשה While often begins a clause, the two ֲאֶׁשר that are used ֲאֶׁשר

here can be seen introducing "independent relative clauses" since there is no antecedent before

.ֲאֶׁשר 23F24 So by translating ֲאֶׁשר as "what", we get "what (ֲאֶׁשר) Joab son of Zeruiah did to me...

what ( רֲאֶׁש ) he did to the two commanders of the armies of Israel." Most English versions closely

consent to this translation except the NLT which paraphrased somewhat uniquely (You know

what Joab son of Zeruiah did to me when he murdered my two army commanders~.)

5c: ְלַאְבֵנר ֶּבן־ֵנר ְוַלֲעָמָׂשא ֶבן־ֶיֶתר Although two ְלs are used here to introduce a direct object,

they are also functioning as an apposition to Therefore it is unnecessary . ִלְׁשֵני־ָׂשֵרי ִצְבאֹות ִיְׂשָרֵאל

to translate ְל as "to" in this context. Some translations such as the KJV, NKJV, NASB and

NKJV, however, insert "to" and read "to Abner... to Amasa..." which diminish the appositional

sense of the sentence. I follow the ESV, NIV and NRSV as they aptly omitted "to" in the

sentence.

5d: ַַוִּיֵּתן ...ַהְרֵגם ַוָּיֶׂשם ַוּי As observed by grammarians, three consecutive ְו function as waw

explicativum that expounds the main verb 24.ָעָׂשהF25 Almost all English versions, however, fail to

write this explicative nuance to the sentence: e.g., "whom he killed, avenging ... and putting..."

(ESV), "He killed... shedding... and stained..." Therefore, a better translation would be "namely,

he killed and shed blood of battle during the peace time and put..."

24 Ibid., § 436b. 25 Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1990), § 33.2.2. Paul Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 2nd ed. (Roma: Biblical Institute Press, 2006), § 118. J.

11

5e: ֶׁשר ְּבַרְגָליוַּבֲחֹגָרתֹו ֲאֶׁשר ְּבָמְתָניו ּוְבַנֲעלֹו ֲא The Literal translation "on the belt that is on his waist

and on the sandals that is on his feet" makes the sentence a bit wordy. Conversely, the ESV, NIV

and NRSV seem much more efficiently written: "on the belt around his waist and on the sandals

on his feet." So I follow this translation.

6a: ְוָעִׂשיָת Contextually, waw consecutive ְו is introducing a result clause by stating "the

outcome, effect or consequence" of the previous clause. 25F26 Thus I employ "therefore" as other

English versions have done.

6b: ְוָעִׂשיָת ְּכָחְכָמֶת� ְולֹא־תֹוֵרד Waw consecutive + perfect can be used to connect "a series of

directives with one another" if there are any preceding imperative, infinitive absolute or even

jussive/cohorative.26F27 V.6 is unusual in that the imperative (לֹא + second-person jussive) appears

after the waw consecutive + perfect.

Many English versions translate ְוָעִׂשיָת (waw consecutive + perfect) as an imperative

mood (e.g., Act! [ESV, NIV, NRSV], Deal with! [NIV]). Grammatically, however, I find no

ground to validate this translation since there is no preceding imperative mood before ְוָעִׂשיָת.

Thus I translate it as "therefore you shall act according to your wisdom and do not let~."

7a: ־ֶחֶסדְוִלְבֵני ַבְרִזַּלי ַהִּגְלָעִדי ַּתֲעֶׂשה The word order is reversed here. The direct object is

preceding the verb in order to draw attention to the direct object. Most English versions, however,

26 Beckman, Williams' Hebrew Syntax, § 525. 27 Christo H. J. van der Merwe, Jackie A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze, Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar, 1st ed. (T&T Clark, 1999), 170. Beckman, Williams' Hebrew Syntax, § 179.

12

neglect conveying such a nuance and translate the sentence as if were in normal word order.

Only the NJB follows such order and reads "as regards the sons of Barzillai the Gilead, treat

them with faithful love." But the NJB fails to see that ְו is nuanced adversatively. As a result, I

suggest the following translation: "But as for the sons of Barzillai the Gileadite, you shall show

loyalty..."

8a: ְוהּוא־ָיַרד ...ְוהּוא ִקְלַלִני The pronoun הּוא is used as the subject of the verb to draw attention

to the subject. Among many translations, the NASB excels in this regard by translating "it was he

who." However, it sounds too wordy and so I suggest translating it simply as "and 'he' cursed

me~."

8b: ִקְלַלִני ְקָלָלה The phrase is translated as "with a grievous curse" since it functions as an

"accusative of manner" or "adverbial accusative."27 F28

8c: ּוא־ָיַרד ִלְקָראִתי ַהַּיְרֵּדן ָוֶאָּׁשַבע לֹו ַביהָוהְוה Two translations are possible depending on how we

view the structure of the sentence. First, as seen from 8a, we can simply regard the pronoun הּוא

as a subject of the verb that draws attention to the subject. Then the translation will yield "but 'he'

came down ... and I swore to him ..."

Another view is to see this as a temporal clause that is introduced by a simple waw. In

this case the independent pronoun הּוא is regarded not as the subject of the verb, but as a "buffer

word" that separates the verb from the waw and so has no "emphatic force" in it. 28F29 Then the

translation would render "but when he came down to meet me at the Jordan, I swore to him by

28 Beckman, Williams' Hebrew Syntax, § 60. 29 Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, § 166.

13

the Lord." I think this translation renders a better meaning as it is also attested by most English

translations.

9a: ְוַעָּתה Contextually, waw consecutive ְו introduces a result clause (therefore).

3. Grammatical Data

5a: ַאָּתה ָיַדְעָּת The independent personal pronoun (ַאָּתה) is used as the subject of the verb.

Usually, the verb doesn't necessarily require such a pronoun since the verb already signifies the

person, number and gender of the subject. According to Williams, an independent personal

pronoun can come before the verb for four reasons: "1) to clarify the subject, 2) to contrast the

subject with someone else, 3) to indicate emotion or 4) to focus attention on the subject."29 F30

For our sentence, the fourth reason is the most plausible. In the first half of David's last

words (vv 2-4), where the deuteronomic theme is introduced, no such independent personal

pronoun exists. But at the outset of the second half, the pronoun is employed probably to

emphasize the subject (Solomon).

5b: ָעָׂשה ִלי יֹוָאב While the normal word order for a Hebrew clause is "verb + subject + direct

object", our clause is sequenced as "verb + direct object + subject." As our passage shows, direct

object can sometimes antecede the subject, particularly when the direct object is in pronoun

form.30F31

6a: �ְוָעִׂשיָת ְּכָחְכָמֶת The usage of waw consecutive + perfect is controversial as Williams’

30 Beckman, Williams' Hebrew Syntax, § 106. 31 Ibid., § 572a, d.

14

summarization shows. It may be used either 1) "to refer to an action without having the

completion of the action in view" (cf. incomplete-action imperfect), 2) "to form a temporal

sequence in a future-time narrative", 3) "to have nuances as being the result of a previous clause"

or 4) "to continue the imperatival sense of a preceding imperative or infinitive absolute."32

As for ְוָעִׂשיָת, the third category seems to fit well. In v.5, reasons for Joab's execution are

stated and as a result a directive was introduced ( ְוָעִׂשיָת) in v.6. Similar usage of waw consecutive

+ perfect is found in a number of places in vv.2-9.

"I am going to the way of all the earth" (v.2a) => v.2b ְוָחַזְקָּת / ְוָהִייָת

v.3 ְוָׁשַמְרָּת "Moreover you know what Joab did to me... what he did to the two commanders..."(v.5) => v.6 ְולֹא־תֹוֵרד .cf ְוָעִׂשיָת "But as for the sons of Barzillai the Gileadite" (v.7a) => v.7b .cf ְוָהיּו ּתֲעֶׂשה "And behold, there is with you Shimei... who cursed me" (v. 8) => v.9 ְוהֹוַרְדָּת / ְוָיַדְעָּת cf. ַאל־ְּתַנֵּקהּו

As seen above, some introductory sentences are given (vv.2a, 5, 7a, 8) and subsequent

results are stated (waw consecutive + perfect) in requirement or exhortation forms (vv.2, 3, 6, 7b,

9). Some exceptions, however, are noticed in v.6 (ְולֹא־תֹוֵרד), v.7 (ּתֲעֶׂשה) and v.9 (ַאל־ְּתַנֵּקהּו). As

some grammarians point out, although waw consecutive + perfect form can sometimes be

interrupted likewise when Hebrew syntax requires it (e.g., insertion of a negative or conjunction),

32 Ibid., § 179.

15

this minor deviation wouldn't hurt the backbone of the general nuance.33

6b: ְולֹא־תֹוֵרד Two grammatical issues should be noted here. First, jussive is often negated with

.ַאל 33F34 Even in the sentence where one would assume ַאל ,לֹא ;; would appear since the verb is

jussive. 34F35 In this regard, לֹא־תֹוֵרד is one of the very rare cases in the OT where לֹא comes with

a jussive. 35F36 Second, when a second-person jussive is negated, it often can be substituted as

"negative imperative."36F37 Thus, לֹא־תֹוֵרד should be translated with this force. 37F38

7a: ְוִלְבֵני ַבְרִזַּלי ַהִּגְלָעִדי ַּתֲעֶׂשה־ֶחֶסד This clause breaks the normal word order and is sequenced as

"direct object + verb + subject." The purpose of it is probably to emphasize the direct object. 38F39

8a: ְוהּוא ִקְלַלִני The independent personal pronoun (הּוא) is again used as the subject of the verb.

As discussed previously, the pronoun is used to draw attention to the subject. 39F40

8b: ְוהּוא־ָיַרד ִלְקָראִתי ַהַּיְרֵּדן ָוֶאָּׁשַבע לֹו ַביהָוה This is a case where a temporal clause is introduced

33 Merwe, Naudé, and Kroeze, Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar, 170. 34 Wilhelm Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. A. E. Cowley and E. Kautzsch, 2nd ed. (Clarendon Press, 1909), § 109.d. Waltke and O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, § 34.2.1.d. 35 Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §114.k. 3636 Normally, “א� with imperfect” denotes “a permanent prohibition of a general nature”, while “ַאל with the jussive” expresses “a prohibition that applies to a specific situation and that is not permanent.” Beckman, Williams' Hebrew Syntax, § 396. 37 Ibid., § 188, 402. 38 E.J. Revell distinguishes nuance of "imperative + imperative" from "imperative + waw consecutive + perfect." In the former form, the sentence often signifies "the command is urgent, or is addressed to someone who is inferior in status." In the latter case, on the other hand, denotes "the situation is not urgent and the command is given to someone who is esteemed." Preponderance of "waw consecutive + perfect" in vv.2-9 implies our passage if more of latter case. E J. Revell, “The System of the Verb in Standard Biblical Prose,” Hebrew Union College Annual 60 (1989): 23–24. 39 Beckman, Williams' Hebrew Syntax, § 572a, d. 40 Ibid., § 106.

16

by a simple waw. In the sentence, הּוא might not be functioning as the subject of the verb but as

a "buffer word" that separates the verb from the waw. 40F41

8c: ִאם־ֲאִמיְת� ֶּבָחֶרב The ִאם is used as "privative ִאם." This kind of usage is often in oaths or

exclamation formulae. 41F42 When ִאם is used in this way, as "declaration", the interpreter must

invert its positive sense to a negative one (or vice versa). For example, the literal translation of

our clause would be "If I will put you to death with sword." By inverting this protasis into a

negative tone, we render "I will not put you death with the sword."

9a: ִאיׁש ָחָכם ָאָּתה This is a verbless clause in which the predicate precedes the subject. The

predicate here "classifies or describes" the subject. 42F43

4. Lexical Data

5a: ַוָּיֶׂשם ְּדֵמי While the usual meaning for ׂשים is "to put, place, set, appoint, make", H.J. Van

Dijk claims ׂשים (along with ָנַתן and ׁשית) can also denote a meaning of "to shed, cast, bring

upon", especially when these words come along with "abstract nouns or with liquid words like (a)

spirit, (b) blood, rain, hail, (c) fear, jealousy, shame, (d) wonders, portents, signs and (e) sins."43 F44

As for our passage, ׂשים comes with a liquid word ָּדם and Dijk translates it as "he

shed~." Here are some other examples showing how liquid words are combined with ָנַתן ,ׂשים

41 Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, § 166. 42 Beckman, Williams' Hebrew Syntax, § 456. 43 Ibid., § 579. 44 Dijk, “Neglected Connotation of Three Hebrew Verbs,” 16–30.

17

and ׁשית to covey such a meaning.44 F45

Dt 21:8 ָנִקי ְּבֶקֶרב ַעְּמ� ִּתֵּתן ָּדםְוַאל־

And do not bring innocent blood over your people.

Dt 22:8 ְּבֵביֶת� ָתִׂשים ָּדִמיםְולֹא־

That you may bring no blood over your house.

Ps 105:32 ת ְּבַאְרָצםֵאׁש ֶלָהבֹו ָנַתן ִּגְׁשֵמיֶהם ָּבָרד

He poured out rains of hail over them, flaming fire over their land.

5b: ּדֵמי־ִמְלָחָמה ְּבָׁש�ם The word ָּדם is used in diverse ways in the OT such as: 1) to indicate

"human and animal blood (e.g., blood spilled in sacrifice, war or some other violence)", 2) to

denote some concepts such as "bloody deed or bloodguilt (Num 35:33; Deut 17:18; 19:10; 21:8;

22:8; Judg 9:24; 1 Sam 25:26, 33; Hos 1:4; 4:2; 12:15; Prov 28:17)" or 3) to describe colors (2

Kgs 3:22), though this is rare.45 F46

The reading ּדֵמי־ִמְלָחָמה ְּבָׁש�ם alludes that the blood Joab shed belongs to blood-guilt.

Bloodshed during war time was not regarded as a crime. Exod 22:2-3 even prescribes accidental

killing of a thief breaking in the darkness as justifiable. However, Joab's case was different in

that it was during peace time that he murdered two generals and thus this gives him no

justification .

Once blood-guilt is incurred, the community partakes of the guilt until the murderer is

found and put to death (Deut 21:1-9).46F47 And nothing -- even sacrifice -- could be substituted in

place of the murderer (Num 35:33; Deut 21:8–9). The OT uses expressions like "his blood be

upon him" or "upon his head" (Lev 20:9, 11, 12, 13, etc) to indicate the responsibility of blood-

45 Ibid., 21–24. 46 G. Gerleman, “ָּדם,” in TLOT, Vol. 1, 337–338. 47 Benjamin E. Scolnic, “David’s Final Testament : Morality or Expediency?,” Judaism 43, no. 1 (1994): 22–25.

18

guilt.48 Unless the criminal was completely avenged, the ground remained polluted (Num 35:33;

Ps 106:38) and constantly cried out for vengeance (Gen 4:10). Finally God himself became the

avenger (Gen 9:5; 2 Sam 4:11).49 Even worse, murderer's offspring had to suffer on behalf of

this unsettled matter (2 Sam. 21:1-11).50 In this respect, Joab's execution was inevitable and

necessary since he not only shed two innocent bloods but also imposed the burden of guilt on the

house of David (1 Kgs 2:31).

6a: �ְּכָחְכָמֶת In vv.5-9, David uses the word ḥkm twice: In v.6 in the noun form (�ְוָעִׂשיָת ְּכָחְכָמֶת

[you shall act according to your wisdom]) and in v.9 in an adjectival form (ִּכי ִאיׁש ָחָכם ָאָּתה [for

you are a wise man]).50F51

As a noun (ָחְכָמה), it can mean: "1) technical expertise and other professional

capabilities of various types (e.g., of temple construction [Exod 28-36]), 2) court skill of political

advising, 3) special gifts of the regent (Deut 34:9; 2 Sam 14:20), 4) wisdom introduced in

Wisdom Literature"51F52, "5) wisdom expressed in shrewdness, either in good ways (2 Sam 20:22)

or bad ways (Isa 47:10)"52F53 or "6) wisdom associated with experience, maturity and advanced

years (Job 12:12)."53F54 When used as an adjective (ָחָכם), it signifies "1) wise (person), sage, 2) fit,

48 Dale Patrick, “Bloodguilt,” in NIDB, Vol. 1, 482. 49 Haifa Kedar-Kopfstein, “ָּדם,” in TDOT, Vol 3, 241–244. In OT, God is described as the one who avenges individuals (Judg 11:36; 1 Sam 24:12), "blood of his prophets and servants" (2 Kgs 9:7, Dt 32:43) and even "Himself upon Israel" (Jer 5:9, 29). F. B. Knutson, “Avenge,” in ISBE, Vol. 1, 371. 50 S. David Sperling, “Bloodguilt,” in ABD, Vol. 1, 764. 51 In 1 Kings, ָחָכם appears three times and ָחְכָמה seventeen times. In OT general, ḥkm words are most frequent in Proverb (102) followed by Ecclesiastes (53), Job (28) and 1 Kings (21). M. Saebo, “םכח,” in TLOT, Vol. 1, 418. 52 Saebo, “423–421 ,”םכח. 53 TWOT, § 647a. 54 Gerald H. Wilson, “םכח,” in NIDOTTE, Vol. 3, 130–134.

19

skilled, able, experienced, or even 3) in less positive traits of cunning or shrewdness."55

As DeVries points out, ָחְכָמה (v.6) and ָחָכם (v.9) might differ from the "wisdom" that

God gave to Solomon in 1 Kgs 3:11-12, since such "wisdom" was granted in much later days.55F56

Thus commentators endeavored to assign meaning to these words, but no consensus has been

made yet: some see negatively (shrewdness)56F57 while the others regard it more neutrally (political

skill). 57F58 I think at least the latter view is right and this will be thoroughly discussed in subsequent

chapters.

6b: ְׁשאֹול This word appears 66 times in the OT and mostly in Psalm (16), Isaiah (10), Proverb

(9), and Job (8).58F59 The word is from uncertain etymology and thus has puzzled scholars to come

up with different definitions. For example, B.L Wachter defines it as a "place of nothingness,

belongs to nothingness", 59F60 while G. Gerleman sees it as a "place of desolation and noise."60F61 At

any rate, they consent that ְׁשאֹול symbolizes "the realm of death."

The OT states once a person dies, the "spirit of the dead (Job 26:5; Prov 9:18; Isa 14:9)"

enters the Sheol -- "realm of darkness (Job 10:21; Ps 88:7,13)", 61F62 which is a place of gloom

(Ezek 10:21–22) and decay (Isa 14:11).62F63 Sheol is depicted as a place both for the unrighteous

(Ps. 31:17) and the righteous (Ezek. 32:21, 27), but Ps 49:15 says God is capable of delivering

55 Ibid. 56 DeVries, 1 Kings, 36. 57 Iain W. Provan, 1 and 2 Kings, NIBC (MA: Hendrickson, 2000), 40. 58 Jeffrey S. Rogers, “Narrative Stock and Deuteronomistic Elaboration in 1 Kings 2,” CBQ50, no. 3 (1988): 410. 59 G. Gerleman, “ְׁשאֹול,” in TLOT, Vol. 3, 1280. 60 Berlin L. Wachter, “ְׁשאֹול,” in TDOT, Vol 14, 241. 61 Gerleman, “1280 ,”ְׁשאֹול. 62 Wachter, “242–241 ,”ְׁשאֹול. 63 Jim West, “Sheol,” in EDB, 1206–1207.

20

the righteous from Sheol, although no alternative to Sheol has been yet identified in the OT.64

R.L. Routledge, however, claims that the concept of "final resurrection" was already embedded

"in the earlier OT faith" which makes Sheol only as a temporal destiny for all of the dead.65

R.L. Harris, after studying the entire usage of ְׁשאֹול in the OT, maintains that in the

biblical point of view, the meaning of Sheol should be restricted solely to "grave" (e.g., parallel

words would be "death, pit or sepulcher.")65F66 Thus he distinguishes a notion that portrays the

"dead as shades wandering in a place of Sheol" or even the concept of a dead soul found in

"Babylonian cosmology."

7a: �ֻׁשְלָחֶנ A table (ֻׁשְלָחן) was often used in temple and palace. In the temple, a table was

utilized as a "cultic table" where bread was put. 66F67 In the royal palace, a table was used for dining.

Diverse people were invited to the royal table such as those of districts (1 Kgs 5:7), subjugated

kings (Judg 1:7), servants (1 Kgs 2:7), prophets of idols (1 Kgs 18:19), family (1 Sam 20:34),

royalties (e.g., Mephibosheth, 2 Sam 9) and foreign rulers (e.g., the queen of Sheba, 1 Kgs

10:5)."67F68

64 Ibid. 65 Robin L. Routledge, “Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament,” Journal of European Baptist Studies 9, no. 1 (S 2008): 22–39. 66 R Laird Harris, “The Meaning of the Word Sheol as Shown by Parallels in Poetic Texts,” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 4, no. 4 (D 1961): 129–135. 67 I. Cornelius, “ ְָחןֻׁשל,” in NIDOTTE, Vol. 4, 123–114. 68 Ibid.

21

5. Form

While the genre of vv.2-9 is "speech" or "saying", commentators generally specify its

literary type as "farewell speech."69 According to B.O. Long, "farewell speech" often contains "1)

mention of his advanced age or approaching death, 2) voicing admonitions and 3) enjoining of

directives upon his audience (Josh 23:2b-16; Gen 49:29-32)."70

All of these three elements can be found in our passage. First, David's last word begins

with him alluding to his death: "When David's time to die drew near" (v.1), "I am about to go the

way of all the earth." (v.2). Secondly, David's admonitions are found here: "Be strong, and show

yourself a man." (v.2), "Keep the charge of the LORD your God... that (ְלַמַען) you may prosper...

that (ְלַמַען) the LORD may establish..." (v.3-4). Third, David's three directives are noticed in

vv.5-9: "you shall act according to..." (v.6), "But as for the sons of Barzillai, you shall..." (v.7),

"Do not hold him (Shimei) guiltless... you shall..." (v.9). 70F71

Then, is there a similarity observed when compared to other farewell speeches in the OT?

N.P. Lunn's study shows in many instances where David's speech does resemble that of the

Patriarch's farewell speech forms: 1) The final words of Jacob (Gen 49:29-33) and Joseph (Gen

50:24-26a) are composed in "concentric chiastic configuration" (A-B-C-B'-A'); likewise, David’s

is in a similar structure (See, 6. Structure), 2) All three last testaments begin and end with an

identical frame: with an introduction statement such as "Ί am about to be gathered to my people" 69 Burke O. Long, 1 Kings: With an Introduction to Historical Literature, FOTL (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1984), 43. Matthew J. Suriano, The Politics of Dead Kings: Dynastic Ancestors in the Book of Kings and Ancient Israel, Forschungen Zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe (Tubingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 80–81. 70 Long, 1 Kings, 43. 71 R.W. Klein classified David's last words into ten: 1) 2 Sam 23:1-7, 2) 1 Kgs 2:2-4, 3) 1 Kgs 2:5-9, 4) 1 Chr 22:7-16, 5) 1 Chr 22:17-19, 6), 1 Chr 28:2-10, 7) 1 Chr 28:20-21, 8) 1 Chr 29:1-5, 9) 1 Chr 29:10-19, and 10) 1 Chr 23:27. Here we cannot extend our study in evaluating his classification, but we can see how dispersed his last testaments are. Ralph W. Klein, “The Last Words of David,” Currents in Theology and Mission 31, no. 1 (F 2004): 17, 23.

22

(Gen 49:29a) / "Then Joseph said to his brothers, Ί am about to die" (Gen 50:24a) / " I am about

to go the way of all the earth" (1 Kgs 2:2), and with closing remarks like "Jacob ... breathed his

last and was gathered to his people." (Gen 49:33) / "So Joseph died at the age of a hundred and

ten." (Gen 50:26a) / "Then David slept with his fathers and was buried in the city of David" (1

Kgs 2:10).72 So this evidence suggests that David's last words follow a typical farewell speech

formula.

D.J. McCarthy, on the other hand, defines vv.1-9 as "installation speech." While

acknowledging 1 Kgs 2:1-9 as a last testament, he notices how the speech prepares the future

leader by giving all the detail instructions and directives to follow.73 To corroborative his view,

he compares 1 Kgs 2:1-9, 1 Chr 28:10, 2 Chr 19:5-7, 2 Chr 32:6-8 and so on, and shows how

these passages all fit into "installation speech formula" by having three components, namely 1)

encouragement, 2) description of the task and 3) assurance of divine act.74

1 Kings 2:1-9 1 Chr 28:10 2 Chr 19:5-7 2 Chr 32:6-8

Whose installment? David appoints Solomon David appoints Solomon Jehoshaphat

appoints new Judges Hezekiah appoints army commanders

1) Encouragement Be strong, and show yourself a man (v.2) Be brave and active (v.10)

Keep your eyes open and be active (v.7)

Be brave and of stout heart (v.7)

2) Description of the Task

a. observe the Law (v.3) b. directives concerning Joab, sons of Barzillai, and Shimei (v.6-9)

Build the temple (v.10)

Judge over your land (v.6) Generals (v.6)

3) Assurance of Divine Act

Observe the Law, and you'll be assured of the

divine assistance (vv.3-4)

He has chosen Solomon (v.10)

He is with you in giving judgment

(v.6)

With us is the LORD our God, to help us and to fight

our battles (v.8) Although his view cannot be totally denied, I think "farewell speech" fits better for our passage.

72 Nicholas P. Lunn, “The Last Words of Jacob and Joseph: a Rhetorico-Structural Analysis of Genesis 49:29-33 and 50:24-26,” Tyndale Bulletin 59, no. 2 (2008): 166–168. 73 Dennis J. McCarthy, “Installation Genre,” JBL 90, no. 1 (March 1971): 34. 74 Ibid., 31–34.

23

The other evidence he provides -- 1 Chr 28:10, 2 Chr 19:5-7 and 2 Chr 32:6-8 -- do not have any

reference to "advanced age or approaching of death." Thus this slightly distinguishes 1 Kgs 2:1-9

from other passages and make it more of a "farewell speech" rather than an "installation speech."

An innovative attempt has been made by W.T. Koopmans who sees the genre of vv.1-10

as poetry. Pointing out succession narratives found in Egyptian, Phoenician and Assyrian texts

usually wrote in poetry or have many poetic elements, he endeavors to show vv.1-10 could also

be a poetic unit (See 6. Structure). Although his study requires more scrutiny, he opens a way to

see our passage possibly as poetry and more specifically as "succession poetry."75

Concerning vv.5-9, no specific formula can be identified. As B.O. Long correctly

mentions, since vv.5-9 is structured by three directives that are related to a "particular situation in

the wider narrative context", no such "special formulas" can be observed.76

Then, what is the life setting (Sitz im Leben) of the passage? As our passage alludes,

David, in his impending death, passed on his parting words to his successor, Solomon.

Supposedly the farewell speech is to be noble and solemn, and is to be cherished and treasured.

But is this last word also one of a platitude deathbed speech?

Interestingly, farewell speech is very rarely introduced in the OT. Here we have David's

word, but none can be seen of his "royal successors."77 Furthermore, very limited figures such as

Jacob (Gen 49), Moses (Deuteronomy), Joshua (Jos 23), Samuel (1 Sam 12) and so on had their

testament written down in the text. Then what does this imply? I think B.O. Long rightly

comments that "last word texts" must be "pivotal in longer accounts of theologically and

75 William T. Koopmans, “The Testament of David in 1 Kings 2:1-10,” VT 41, no. 4 (O 1991): 432–433. 76 Long, 1 Kings, 44. 77 Klein, “The Last Words of David,” 23.

24

historically demarcated epochs in the collective memory of those in ancient Israel."78 Then we

can conjecture that David's last word conveyed a very crucial message for Solomon, his kingdom

and even for subsequent generations (See 10. Theology).

One last thing to consider is whether vv.1-9 have a broken form or not. A number of

critical scholars argue that vv.3-4 were later additions by Deuteronomic Historians while vv.1, 2,

5-9 belong to "old pre-Deuteronomistic material" (For the authorship issue, see 8. Literary

Context).79 They claim vv.1, 2, 5-9 were an original historical account in which later DtrH had

inserted deuteronomistic themes and idioms in vv.3-4.

However, such a hypothesis, which in initiated by M. Noth,80 is hard to substantiate.

Most critically, these scholars themselves show no consensus on the issue.81 So I conclude that

vv.1-9 are not a fabricated unit but rather a skillfully and articulately composed independent

whole. A subsequent chapter on structure will shed more light on this by showing how coherently

vv.1-9 were structured.

78 Long, 1 Kings, 45. 79 Leonhard Rost, The Succession to the Throne of David (Sheffield, England: Almond Press, 1982), 89ff. Martin Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, JSOT Supplement (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1981), 405, 412. Mordechai Cogan, I Kings, AB (Anchor Bible, 2001), 181. Mark A. O’Brien, The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), 141–142. Gwilym H. Jones, 1 And 2 Kings, Vol. I, NCBC (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1984), 49–50. 80 Noth, The Deuteronomistic History. 81 For example, B.O. Long regards vv. 1-9 as one unit which was written by single DtrH. Long, 1 Kings, 43.

25

6. Structure

Commentators generally have outlined David's last testament (1 Kgs 2:2-9) as having

been composed of two units: 1) spiritual recommendation (vv.2-4) and 2) the enjoining of three

directives (vv.5-9). R.D. Nelson's point is also noteworthy, which states "David's testament

begins with generalities (vv.2-4) and ends with specifics (vv.5-9)."82 B.O. Long suggests a

detailed outline of 1 Kgs 2:1-9 as follows:83

I. Introductory setting 1 II. Farwell speech 2-9 A. Reference to advanced age 2a B. Formula of encouragement: "Be strong" 2b C. Admonition 3-4 D. Directives 5-9 1. Concerning Joab 5-6 2. Concerning sons of Barzillai 7 3. Concerning Shimei 8-9

Accordingly, the first part (vv.2-4) is composed of three parts (2a, 2b, 3-4) and the

second part (vv.5-9) is structured with three directives (5-6, 7, 8-9). While some scholars hold to

the unity of the text, a great number of others view the first part (vv.2-4) as DtrH's later insertion.

Therefore, it would be worthwhile to introduce some of the scholarly attempts to demonstrate the

unity of our text, namely that of W.T. Koopmans and L.M. Eslinger, while at the same time

investigating the structure of our passage.

To begin with, Koopmans endeavors to show vv. 1-10 is "a carefully constructed poetic

narrative."84 Pointing out that vv.1-10 contains "many repetitions and parallelisms" and also

82 Richard D. Nelson, First and Second Kings, Interpretation (Atlanta, Georgia: Westminster John Knox Press, 1987), 25. 83 Long, 1 Kings, 43. 84 Koopmans, “The Testament of David in 1 Kings 2,” 445.

26

succession narratives found in Egyptian, Phoenician and Assyrian texts which usually come with

this poetic element, Koopmans pioneers to reconstruct vv. 1-10 as follows.85

85 Ibid., 434–436.

A.i.1 (1A) ַוִּיְקְרבּו ְיֵמי־ָדִוד ָלמּות B.i.1 (5aA) ְוַגם ַאָּתה ָיַדְעָּת (1B) 5) ַוְיַצו ֶאת־ְׁש�ֹמה ְבנֹו ֵלאֹמרaB) ֵאת ֲאֶׁשר־ָעָׂשה ִלי A.ii.1 (2aA) �5) ָאֹנִכי הֵֹלaC) יֹוָאב ֶּבן־ְצרּוָיה (2aB) �5) ָּכל־ָהָאֶרץ ְּבֶדֶרbA) ֲאֶׁשר ָעָׂשה ִלְׁשֵני־ָׂשֵרי ִצְבאֹות ִיְׂשָרֵאל (2bA) 5) ְוָחַזְקָּתbB) ְלַאְבֵנר ֶּבן־ֵנר (2bB) 5) ְוָהִייָת ְלִאיׁשbC) ְוַלֲעָמָׂשא ֶבן־ֶיֶתר ַוַּיַהְרֵגם A.ii.2 (3aA) ֱא�ֶהי� ְוָׁשַמְרָּת ֶאת־ִמְׁשֶמֶרת ְיהָוה B.i.2 (5cA) ַוָּיֶׂשם ְּדֵמי־ִמְלָחָמה ְּבָׁש�ם (3aB) 5) ָלֶלֶכת ִּבְדָרָכיוcB) ַוִּיֵּתן ְּדֵמי ִמְלָחָמה (3bA) 5) ִלְׁשֹמר ֻחּקָֹתיוcC) ּבֲחֹגָרתֹו ֲאֶׁשר ְּבָמְתָניו (3bB) 5) ומְצֹוָתיו ּוִמְׁשָּפָטיו ְוֵעְדֹוָתיcD) ּוְבַנֲעלֹו ֲאֶׁשר ְּבַרְגָליו (3bC) 6) ַּכָּכתּוב ְּבתֹוַרת ֹמֶׁשהA) �ְוָעִׂשיָת ְּכָחְכָמֶת A.iii.1 (3cA) 6) ְלַמַען ַּתְׂשִּכילB) ְולֹא־תֹוֵרד ֵׂשיָבתֹו ְּבָׁש�ם ְׁשֹאל (3cB) ֲעֶׂשהֵאת ָּכל־ֲאֶׁשר ַּת B.ii.1 (7aA) ְוִלְבֵני ַבְרִזַּלי ַהִּגְלָעִדי (3cC) 7) ְוֵאת ָּכל־ֲאֶׁשר ִּתְפֶנה ָׁשםaB) ַּתֲעֶׂשה־ֶחֶסד (4aA) 7) ְלַמַען ָיִקים ְיהָוה ֶאת־ְּדָברֹוaC) �ְוָהיּו ְּבֹאְכֵלי ֻׁשְלָחֶנ (4aB) 7) ָעַלי ֵלאֹמרֲאֶׁשר ִּדֶּברbA) ּכי־ֵכן ָקְרבּו ֵאַלי A.iv.1 (4bA) 7) ִאם־ִיְׁשְמרּו ָבֶני� ֶאת־ַּדְרָּכםbB) �ְּבָבְרִחי ִמְּפֵני ַאְבָׁשלֹום ָאִחי (4bB) ָלֶלֶכת ְלָפַני ֶּבֱאֶמת B.iii.1 (8aA) �ְוִהֵּנה ִעְּמ (4cA) 8) ְּבָכל־ְלָבָבםaB) ִׁשְמִעי ֶבן־ֵּגָרא (4cB) 8) ּוְבָכל־ַנְפָׁשםaC) ֶבן־ַהְיִמיִני ִמַּבֻחִרים A.iv.2 (4dA) �8) לאֹמר לֹא־ִיָּכֵרת ְלbA) ְוהּוא ִקְלַלִני ְקָלָלה ִנְמֶרֶצת (4dB) 8) ִאיׁש ֵמַעל ִּכֵּסא ִיְׂשָרֵאלbB) ְִּתי ַמֲחָנִיםְּביֹום ֶלכ (8cA) ְוהּוא־ָיַרד ִלְקָראִתי ַהַּיְרֵּדן (8cB) ָוֶאָּׁשַבע לֹו ַביהָוה ֵלאֹמר (8cC) ִאם־ֲאִמיְת� ֶּבָחֶרב B.iii.2 (9aA) ְוַעָּתה ַאל־ְּתַנֵּקהּו (9aB) ִּכי ִאיׁש ָחָכם ָאָּתה (9bA) ְוָיַדְעָּת ֵאת ֲאֶׁשר ַּתֲעֶׂשה־ּלֹו (9bB) ְוהֹוַרְדָּת ֶאת־ֵׂשיָבתֹו ְּבָדם ְׁשאֹול B.iv.1 (10A) ַוִּיְׁשַּכב ָּדִוד ִעם־ֲאבָֹתיו (10B) ַוִּיָּקֵבר ְּבִעיר ָּדִוד

27

Although space does not allow me to introduce all of his studies, some of his findings are

noteworthy to be introduced. According to his poetic rearrangement, vv.1-10 is surrounded by a

narrative frame (vv.1, 10), particularly with inclusion (ָדִוד) and wordplays (קרב [v.1], קבר [v.10]

ָלמּות / [v.1], ְִׁשַּכב ִעם־ֲאבָֹתיוַוּי [v.10]/ ְבנֹו [v.1], ֲאבָֹתיו [v.10]). Furthermore, vv.1-10 is

composed of "two sub-units of direct discourses (vv.2-4 and 5-9)", which are quite similar to

each other in form. That is, they both have five strophes and are arranged with a "2/1/2

concentric structure."85F86

A significant contribution of his study would be in discovering how closely these two

sub-units (vv.2-4 and 5-9) are interrelated. These are summaries of some of his findings: 1) ָאֹנִכי

in A.ii.1 is responded by in ַם ַאָּתהְוג in B.i.1, 2) Precatives are used both in A.ii and B.i, 3) The

central strophes, namely A.iii.1 and B.ii.1, are related by several responsions (ַּתֲעֶׂשה ,ַּתֲעֶׂשה /

v.3] echoes Prov] ַּתְׂשִּכיל v.7] and] ֶחֶסד and particularly (ִּכי־ֵכן ,ְלַמַען / ֵאַלי ,ָעַלי / ִמְּפֵני ,ִּתְפֶנה

3:3-4, 4) Similar responsions exist between canticles A.iv and B.iii and 5) The divine promise

(A.iv) is paralleled with David's oath.86F87

As De Hoop stated 87F88, his study might require further scrutiny. However, we cannot deny

his contribution in many respects: he opened a way to see vv.1-10 possibly as poetry and as a

"carefully constructed poetic narrative." Contrary to wide belief that vv.2-4 and vv.5-9 are not 86 This is a feature of the first sub-unit: 1) it is surrounded by inclusion (2 ,(ִאיׁש ,ְוָהיִיָת ְלִאיׁש) the first two and last two strophes respectively form a canticle in which they are in parallelism and surround the central strophe (A. iii.1). Likewise, the second sub-unit (vv. 5-9) is similar in form: 1) the first two strophes focus on Joab and the last two on Shimei, 2) they together surround Barzillai, the central strophe (B.ii.1). Ibid., 442–443. 87 Ibid., 443–445. 88 For example, R. De Hoop substantially modifies his view and suggests other poetical structure. See Raymond De Hoop, “The Testament of David : a Response to W T Koopmans,” VT 45, no. 2 (Ap 1995): 270–279.

28

harmonized pieces, his study shows these two sub-units indeed could be closely related with

stylistic unity.

In addition to Koopmans, another attempt, though from a critical standpoint, has been

made to show the unity of 1 Kgs 2:1-10. L.M. Eslinger suggests a structure of 1 Kgs 2:1-10 as

follows:89

v.1 (narratorial summary), David's death approaches v.2 (David), strengthen yourself; be a man vv.3-4 (David), keep the conditional covenant vv.5-9 (David), settle old accounts with my enemies v.9 (David), you are a wise man v.10 (narratorial summary), David is dead

In this model, vv.1-10 is in a symmetrical construction which centers on vv.3-4 and vv.5-9. What

is his rationale to structure it likewise? According to him, David, in his last word, purposely

changed the unconditional covenant of 2 Sam 7 into a conditional one and spoke such in vv.3-4.

Why? David, by exploiting Solomon's sense of insecurity, wanted his son "to settle old accounts"

with his foes. In other words, David wanted his son to believe that carrying out the directives in

vv.5-9 would be to fulfill the conditional covenant in vv.3-4. Thus, the conditional covenant

introduced by David in vv.3-4 was nothing more than "coercion or allurement" to manipulate his

son to execute his enemies.90

However, his argument cannot be justified at all; the presumption that David would plot

such contradictory words cannot be proved from anywhere. Then does this mean his proposed

structure should be discarded? I think not, because some of his concentric structure still holds its

89 Lyle Eslinger, Into the Hands of the Living God, Library of Biblical Studies (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 126–128. 90 Ibid.

29

validity (e.g., v.1/10 and v.2/9). If some of his assumptions are modified correctly and his model

is further studied, this structure might turn out to be a valuable one.

Now, let's turn to the smaller unit of the passage. What can be specifically noticed within

vv.5-9? B.O. Long and R.D. Nelson have noticed notable literary patterns in which each

directive is associated with background information. Accordingly, this background information

functions as a "justification" for the directive.91

- Joab (vv.5-6)

Background (v.5)

Directive (v.6) You also know what Joab the son of Zeruiah did to me... he killed and shed blood of battle during

the peace time...

Therefore ( ְו introduces relative clause) ... do not let his grey hair go down to Sheol in peace.

- Sons of Barzillai (v.7) Directive (v.5)

Background (v.6)

As for the sons of Barzillai the Gileadite, you shall show kindness...

For (ִּכי־ֵכן) they drew near to me when I fled from Absalom your brother

- Sons of Barzillai (vv.8-9)

Background (v.8)

Directive (v.9) There is with you Shimei... he cursed me with a

grievous curse... Now therefore ( and you shall bring his ...( ְוַעָּתה

gray hair down with blood to Sheol.

As seen, each directive is followed by background information (vv.5-6 and v.8-9) except v.7 that

is sequenced in reverse. Why did such a change of pattern occur? I think it is to distinguish

Barzillai from two other opposite characters, namely Joab and Shimei. By employing such a

literary anomaly and by placing Barzillai in the center (v.7) of the narrative, our text attempts to

contrast Barzillai from Joab and Shimei. As E.A. Seibert rightly said, this "structural contrast"

intensifies the evil deeds of Joab and Shimei more conspicuously, thus making their execution

91 Long, 1 Kings, 44. Nelson, First and Second Kings, 25.

30

"even more justifiable."92

What then makes Barzillai so special in vv.5-9? As S.J. DeVries and De Hoop

insinuate,92F93 the focus seems to be the word (ֶחֶסד) "in v.7. This word alludes to the "loyalty ֶחֶסד

that Barzillai had shown to David when he fled from Absalom. And in the same way, Barzillai's

son will be loyally (ֶחֶסד) rewarded by David's house.

Then what does this contrast say about Joab and Shimei? I think the focal point is the

"disloyalty" that Joab and Shimei had displayed toward David and his kingship. Unlike Barzillai

who remained "loyal" even in the time of David's adversity, Joab and Shimei acted against David

and his dynasty. Thus they were not only harming the kingship but indeed were standing as

enemies of the king and his dynasty. This point will be further enunciated as our discussion

continues in the subsequent chapters.

92 Eric A. Seibert, Subversive Scribes and the Solomonic Narrative: A Rereading of 1 Kings 1-11, Library of Biblical Studies (T&T Clark, 2006), 136. 93 DeVries, 1 Kings, 36. De Hoop suggests the following structure: - David's death at hand (vv.1-2) -Joab's execution (vv.5-6) - ֶחֶסד to the sons of Barzillai (v.7) -Shimei's execution (vv.8-9) -David's death (v.10) De Hoop, “The Testament of David,” 273.

31

7. Historical Context

Our text suggests the last word was given at the deathbed of David. Since David reigned

during 1,010-970 BCE and Solomon in 971-931 BCE, the actual event of 1 Kgs 2:5-9 might

have taken place around 970 BCE. What then were the historical circumstances of these days? J.

Bright summarizes the last days of David's reign as follows:94

His declining years were not peaceful, but were marred by incessant intrigue and

violence, and even outright armed rebellion, which placed the future of the state in

doubt. The causes of these troubles were various. But at the bottom lay the question of

the throne succession.

Bright sees four figures -- Absalom (2 Sam 13-19), Sheba (2 Sam 13-19), Sauldies and

Adonijah (1 Kgs 1) -- were substantial threats for throne succession.95 By the time David's

farewell speech was given, however, Absalom and Sheba were no more and the menace of

Adonijah and Sauldies still remained.

At this very decisive moment, David now brings out new issues concerning Joab,

Barzillai and Shimei. Who were they and why were they mentioned in this last moment? What

was their historical background and foreground? Now we will explore each character to see their

import and contribution in our passage.

1. Joab

Joab was the oldest son of Zeruiah, the sister of David (2 Sam 2:13). As a nephew and

military commander of David, he was a dominant figure in David's reign. Among Joab's various

94 John Bright, A History of Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000), 207. 95 Ibid., 207–211.

32

accomplishments, his engagement with Abner-- the military commander of Ishbosheth – in the

battle at Helkath-hazzurim requires our attention (2 Sam 2). Joab fought successfully against

Abner, but Joab had to lose his brother Asahel, as his brother was killed while pursuing Abner (2

Sam 2:23). Some scholars argue that Abner killed Asahel out of jealousy96, but the text doesn't

support this view: accordingly, Abner killed Asahel in self-defense (2 Sam 2:20-22).

As war between the north and south continued, the house of David became stronger and

the house of Saul became weaker (v.3:1). In the latter days, Abner shifted his allegiance from

Ishbosheth to David. But when he went to Hebron in support of David's kingship, he was

assassinated by Joab (2 Sam 3:22-27). D.M. Gunn and I.W. Provan justify Joab's killing by

insisting that Joab not only adequately avenged his brother's blood, but also prevented Abner's

possible war plan.97

However, such an evaluation cannot be substantiated by the text: the passages from 2

Sam 2:20-22 and 2 Sam 3:27, 30 clarify that Joab's action was out of an ignoble purpose. He

avenged his brother by shedding innocent blood. Furthermore, W. Kaiser points out his fear of

losing his position might have been another driving force to kill Abner.98 David's subsequent

action further fortifies this: his public announcement that his house was innocent with this blood-

guilt and his curse which said "May it fall upon the head of Joab and upon all his father's house."

(2 Sam 3:29).

Another story to note of Joab’s is his assassination of Amasa. Amasa, as an army

commander, supported Absalom when Absalom rebelled against David (2 Sam 17:25). After the

96 Michael A. Eschelbach, Has Joab Foiled David?, SBL (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2005), 25. 97 David M. Gunn, “David and the Gift of the Kingdom (2 Sam 2-4, 9-20, 1 Kgs 1-2),” Semeia no. 3 (1975): 17. Provan, 1 and 2 Kings, 33. 98 Walter C. Kaiser, History of Israel (Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Publishing Group), 223. Also Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, NAC (Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Publishing Group, 1996), 311–312.

33

revolt was quenched, David installed Amasa as his army commander in place of (ַּתַחת) Joab (2

Sam. 19:13). Shortly after, however, the revolt of Sheba broke out and Amasa failed to mobilize

the army in three days as David requested. So David dispatched the standing army under Abishai

and when the army met Amasa near the great stone in Gibeon, Joab approached him and

murdered him (2 Sam 20:1-13).

Now, J.W. Wesselius and M.A. Eschelbach applaud Joab's killing by insisting his

decisive action helped to effectively stop Sheba's revolt. In other words, they think the killing of

Amasa and Joab's taking over of Amasa's position were necessary. 98 F99 However, there is no

support for such a view in the text. Conversely, the text actually states it was the "wise woman"

who expedited quelling the revolt (2 Sam 20:14-22),99F100 a statement that weakens the argument of

Wesselius and Eschelbach.

Later on, Joab sided with Adonijah, who conspired to become a king, but the attempt

turned out to be a failure (1 Kgs 1). After Solomon's succession to the throne, Joab was charged

with shedding the blood of two innocents and was finally executed, as David had requested in his

last words (1 Kgs 2:28-34).

2. Barzillai

The second figure to look at is Barzillai the Gileadite, who showed constant loyalty to

David while David and his retinue fled from Absalom (2 Sam 17:27–29). DeVries claims that

"the name (with Aramaic son])" alludes that Barzillai was a foreigner who dwelled in "the] בר

99 J W. Wesselius, “Joab’s Death and the Central Theme of the Succession Narrative (2 Samuel 9-1 Kings 2),” VT 40, no. 3 (1990): 338. Eschelbach, Has Joab Foiled David?, 72. 100 Ronald F. Youngblood, 1 & 2 Samuel, EBC (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1992), 1046.

34

unstable border region between Israel and Syria."101

C.L. Seow, by pointing out that his name derives from the word "my iron" (ַּבְרִזַּלי),

further suggests he could have been a wealthy iron man. According to him, not only Gilead was

rich with iron ores, but archaeologists also have unearthed evidence of an "extensive and

technologically advanced iron industry at the end of the second millennium BCE at various sites"

of that province. Furthermore Mahanaim, where David and Barzillai met, has been discovered

with "iron-rich Telul edh-Dhahab." From this evidence, Seow conjectures that David’s purpose

in inviting Barzillai to Jerusalem was to secure an iron supply, since iron was vital in producing

military weapons. 101F102

However, despite its noteworthy archaeological evidence, Seow's conclusion cannot be

justified since the text doesn't state that the "iron" was the reason for the invitation; rather,

Barzillai's kindness (or "loyalty") was the cause of a reward according to 1 Kgs 2:7. Furthermore,

we cannot infer he had iron business just because his name alludes to such. In fact, 2 Sam 19:33

describes him as ִאיׁש ָּגדֹול ְמאֹד (a very great man) and this leads us to think he could have been a

gentry or elite of the region rather than a wealthy business man.

In fact, M.W. Hamilton argues that Barzillai was not just an ordinary rich man, but

"estate elite and gentry" of the northern Transjordan. 102F103 He calls our attention to the "furniture

.(he provided to David among all the provision lists of Barzillai (2 Sam 17:27-29 "(ִמְׁשָּכב)

Accordingly, the furniture, along with other food items, "figure as tribute in Assyrian reliefs."

101 DeVries, 1 Kings, 36. 102 Choon-Leong Seow, 1 and 2 Kings, NIB (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1999), 28. 103 Mark W. Hamilton, “At Whose Table? Stories of Elites and Social Climbers in 1-2 Samuel,” VT 59, no. 4 (2009): 513–514.

35

For this reason, he conjectures all the provision lists might not have been simply a "temporary

solution to a logistical problem", but a sign of "permanent provisions." In other words, the

provisions would serve as "a sign of the magnates' loyalty (as ally) to the struggling regime."104

Though some of his arguments might require more scrutiny, the fact that he saw the

central theme of Barzillai story as "loyalty" to David's dynasty is noteworthy. His focal point fits

well with theme found in 1 Kgs 2:7. Furthermore his contrast of loyalty of Barzillai to that ֶחֶסד

of Absalom and Joab (i.e., "Absalom the rebel and Joab the counter-insurgency leader") is very

insightful. 104F105

At any rate, once Absalom's revolt ended, David offered Barzillai the chance to return

with him to Jerusalem as a permanent guest at the King's table. But referring to his advanced age,

Barzillai declined the offer and asked instead that his son Chimham would receive the reward (2

Sam 19:31–40). Before his death, David reminded Solomon to loyally (ֶחֶסד) carry out the

promise (1 Kgs. 2:7). Some commentators point out that eating at the king's table is the "ancient

equivalent to a pension."105F106

3. Shimei

Shimei was a Benjaminite who was a relative of Saul. When David fled from Absalom

and arrived at Bahurim, Shimei threw a stone at and cursed David, claiming the Lord is

punishing David for his evil against Saul's house (2 Sam 16:5–13). R.D. Bergen points out that

Shimei's act of "throwing of stones" is reminiscent of "carrying out a Torah-style execution"

104 Ibid., 529. 105 Ibid. 106 Nelson, First and Second Kings, 24.

36

described in the Pentateuch (Lev 20:2, 27; Deut 13:10).107

Commentators are not certain why Shimei accused David of being a "man of blood"

( Sam 16:8]). Accordingly, Shimei might have thought that David was the cause of 2] ִאיׁש ַהָּדִמים

either the "death of Saul, Ishbosheth and (or) Abner" or the "demise of seven men of Saul's

family" (2 Sam 21:1-14).107 F108

Once the uprising of Absalom was quelled, Shimei came back to David with a thousand

Benjamites and pleaded for forgiveness. Abishai, who saw all of this from the beginning, asked

David for the execution by insisting Shimei had cursed the "Lord's appointed." However, David

would not allow it and even forgave Shimei with an oath (2) (ׁשבע Sam 19:23), perhaps because

David did not want to darken the festive occasion 108F109 or because he accepted his plea as sincere.

However, David changed his mind on his deathbed by ordering Solomon to execute

Shimei (1 Kgs 2:9). (See "9. Biblical Context" for detail.) Solomon thus required Shimei not to

leave Jerusalem lest he should be executed, but in just three years, Shimei violated the command

and was executed (1 Kgs 2:36–46).

Since we have investigated the brief historical grounds of these three characters, now let

us turn to the date of 1 Kgs 2:1-9. When was this last testament written? Unfortunately, no

consensus has been yet established. Although the actual event of 1 Kgs 2:1-9 might have taken

place around 970 BCE (David's reign: 1,010-970 BCE, Solomon's reign: 971-931 BCE), scholars

107 Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 408. 108 Youngblood, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1001. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 408–409. However, J.C. Vandercam limits the scope to "death of Ishbosheth and Abner." James C. VanderKam, “Davidic Complicity in the Deaths of Abner and Eshbaal: a Historical and Redactional Study,” JBL 99, no. 4 (D 1980): 535–539. cf. W. Brueggemann: "death of Saul, Ishbosheth and Abner." Walter Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, Interpretation (Westminster John Knox Press, 1990), 307. 109 Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 429.

37

differ in dating the composition of the passage.

For example, M. Noth contends that Deut-Kings were all written by a single

Deuteronomistic author, shortly after 561 BCE.110 On the other hand, F.M. Cross and I.W.

Provan claim Deut-Kings were shaped throughout two stages: the first edition was composed

during the reign of King Josiah (648–609 BCE), while the second edition at about 550 BCE.111

Other scholarships suggest an even far more complex composition history and argue that the

Book of Kings grew out of several layers.112

As these diverse opinions well attest, it is difficult to pin down the actual date of

composition. It might have been written after the exilic period, or sometime in the monarchic

period or even could have grown throughout Israel's history. So at this moment, it seems best to

just conjecture that it was composed sometime between the monarchy and the exilic period.

110 Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 4–25. 111 Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), 287–288. Iain W. Provan, Hezekiah and the Books of Kings : A Contribution to the Debate About the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History (New York: Walter De Gruyter, 1988), 171–173. 112 For comprehensive review, refer to Jung Ju Kang, The Persuasive Portrayal of Solomon in 1 Kings 1-11, European University Studies (Peter Lang, 2003), 39–44.

38

8. Literary Context

The Book of Kings is composed of three main sections: 1 Kgs 1-11 (Solomon), 1 Kgs

12 - 2 Kgs 17 (the two kingdoms) and 2 Kgs 18-25 (Judah alone). In the Solomon narrative, 1

Kgs 1-2 portrays the transition period of kingship from David to his son Solomon and often is

called the "succession narrative." Among many events in the "succession narrative", 1 Kgs 2:5-9

introduces David's last testament, which anticipates the stage for subsequent events in the rest of

the succession narrative.

Concerning Joab (2:5-6) => Job's execution (2:28-35) Concerning Barzillai (2:7) => ?113 Concerning Shimei (2:8-9) => Shimei's execution (2:36-46)

Scholars are divided whether 1 Kgs 1–2 is supposed to be grouped with 2 Sam 9-20, as a

concluding narrative, or with 1 Kgs 3-11, as the beginning of the Solomon narrative. The former

thought was developed by L. Rost, whose monograph The Succession to the Throne of David

(1926) impacted a group of scholarship.114 Accordingly, 2 Sam 9-20 and 1 Kgs 1-2 form a

unified literary whole of "succession narrative" in which 1 Kgs 1-2 stands as "the conclusion of

succession narrative" while 2 Sam 9-20 positions as "the background of the succession story."115

His argument can be summarized as follows:116

113 E.A. Seibert insists lack of corresponding passages for 2:7 alludes that "subversive message" the scribe intended to draw on new king Solomon. Seibert, Subversive Scribes and the Solomonic Narrative, 136–138. His view, however, is merely one of possible scenarios which cannot be fully substantiated. 114 e.g., James A. Wharton, “A Plausible Tale : Story and Theology in 2 Samuel 9-20, 1 Kings 1-2,” Interpretation 35, no. 4 (O 1981): 341–354. These are some of students who partially object to Rost's hypothesis but generally consent to his idea. James W. Flanagan, “Court History or Succession Document : A Study of 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2,” JBL 91, no. 2 (Je 1972): 172–181. Gunn, “David and the Gift of the Kingdom (2 Sam 2-4, 9-20, 1 Kgs 1-2),” 14–36. 115 Rost, The Succession to the Throne of David, 65–87. 116 Ibid., 84.

39

1) 1 Kgs 1 and 2 contains the conclusion, Solomon's accession to the throne.

2) 2 Sam 10-12 recounts the background story of the successor himself; this is embedded

in an account of David's war with the Ammonites.

3) 2 Sam 9 and 13.1 - 20.22 presents the story of the background to the succession (e.g.,

Barzillai's help, Shimei's flight and Joab's killing of Amasa).

Other scholars, however, disagree with Rost's hypothesis. For example, G. Keys, in her

monograph, disapproves of Rost's idea by demonstrating the notable differences between 2 Sam

9-20 and 1 Kgs 1-2. Here are some of her arguments: 1) "Neither chronologically nor

stylistically", the relationship between 2 Sam 9-20 and 1 Kgs 1-2 fits together, 2) Careful

comparison of "the style, language, content, outlook and position" of 2 Sam 9-20 and 1 Kgs 1-2

clearly reveals that they are very distinctive units, 3) A purposeful placement of the appendix of

book of Samuel (2 Sam 21-24) between 2 Sam 9-20 and 1 Kgs 1-2 further supports that the two

units are not a coherent whole "succession narrative."117

J.J. Kang also questions the validity of Rost's idea by pointing out the different opinions

the followers of Rost have in assigning "the extent of succession narrative", particularly

allocating a beginning of the narrative (e.g., Rost [2 Sam 9], Gunn [2 Sam 2-4], Blenkinsopp [2

Sam 12]).118

The monograph by H.H. Klement further supports this view. After examining the

appendix of the book of Samuel (2 Sam 21-24), he concludes that 2 Sam 21-24 functions as the

conclusion of the Samuel corpus. By noticing "patterns of parallelism and chiasmus structure"

found in 2 Sam 21-24 closely mimics that found in the rest of corpus, he insisted 2 Sam 21-24 is

a miniature unit that functions both as a key in understanding the rest of book of Samuel and as 117 Gillian Keys, The Wages of Sin: Reappraisal of the Succession Narrative, JSOT Supplement (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 43–70. 118 Kang, The Persuasive Portrayal of Solomon in 1 Kings 1-11, 111–112.

40

the conclusion of the whole book.119 Therefore his study undermines the claim that 2 Sam 9-20

and 1 Kgs 1-2 are an unified literary whole.

As a result, the arguments of Keys, Kang and Klement open a way to question Rost's

view and to see 1 Kgs 1-2 as more related to 1 Kgs 3-11, but not to 2 Sam 9-20. K.I. Parker's

structural analysis of 1 Kgs 1-11 further corroborates this view. He frames the schema of 1 Kgs

1-11 as follows:120

Frame Story (chs. 1-2) Favorable to Solomon 1. Dream 1 (3:1-15) A. Domestic 2. Women and Wisdom (3:16-28) Policy 3. Administration and Wisdom (4:1-5:14) B. Labor 4. The Contract with Hiram (5:15-27) Relations 5. The Corvée (5:28-33) 6. Solomon's Attitude Towards God (chs. 6-8) Hostile to Solomon 1. Dream 2 (9:1-10a) B'. Labor 2. The Contract with Hiram (9:10b-14) Relations 3. The Corvée (9:15-28) A'. Foreign 4. Woman and Wisdom (10:1-13) Policty 5. Wealth and Wisdom (10:14-29) 6. Solomon's Attitude Towards God (11:1-13) Frame Story (11:14-43)

According to him, the two frame stories (chs. 1-2 and 11:14-43) parallel each other by forming

an introduction and conclusion that surrounds two "contrasting sections (chs 3-8 and 9-11)" of

the narrative. Furthermore, while chs. 1-2 narrates Solomon's elimination of "three power

political opponents" -- Joab, Shimei and Adonijah -- to establish the royal throne, 11:14-43

describes God's raising of "three powerful enemies to plague" Solomon, namely Hadad the

119 Herbert H. Klement, “Structure, Context and Meaning in the Samuel Conclusion (2 Sa 21-24),” Tyndale Bulletin 47, no. 2 (N 1996): 367–370. 120 Kim Ian Parker, “Repetition as a Structuring Device in 1 Kings 1-11,” JSOT no. 42 (1988): 27.

41

Edomite, Rezon and Jeroboam.121

Much ink has been shed after Parker's study. For instances, M. Brettler, while mostly

agreeing with Parker, claimed that the unit of "hostile to Solomon" is not all of chapters 9-11 but

simply 1 Kgs 9:26-11:10 since he noticed Deut 17:14-17, a pericope warning about the ways of

the kings, closely matches with 1 Kgs 9:26-11:10.122 A. Frisch, on the other hand, challenged

Parker's view. By insisting that the scope of Solomon's record also includes chapter 12, he

framed the concentric structure of chs. 1-12 as one centering on the theme of "the building and

dedication of the temple (6:1-9:9)".123 He further suggested chs. 1-2 are not connected with

11:14-43 but with chs. 11-12.124

1. 1:1-53 1. 11:14-25 2. 2:1-9 2. 11:26-40 3. 2:10-12 3. 11:41-43 4. 2:13-46 4. 12:1-24

Accordingly, he relates 2:1-9 with 11:26-40, an account of Jeroboam's betrayal. This point is

slightly different from Parker. While Parker associates Joab, Shimei and Adonija with Hadad,

Rezon and Jeroboam, Frisch relates these three persons only with Jeroboam.

The debate on the structure of Solomon narrative continued: while one group of scholars

saw it as two parallel stories (e.g., Noth, Parker, Brettler), the other group regarded it as a

concentric structure with a notable center (Frisch, Walsh).125 Although examining this issue is

121 Ibid., 21–22, 24. 122 Marc Zvi Brettler, “The Structure of 1 Kings 1-11,” JSOT no. 49 (F 1991): 87–97. 123 Amos Frisch, “Structure and Its Significance : the Narrative of Solomon’s Reign (1 Kings 1-12:24),” JSOT no. 51 (S 1991): 3–14. 124 Ibid., 11. 125 Kim Ian Parker, “The Limits to Solomon’s Reign : a Response to Amos Frisch,” JSOT no. 51 (S 1991): 15–21. Amos Frisch, “The Narrative of Solomon’s Reign: a Rejoinder,” JSOT 16, no. 51 (September 1, 1991): 22–24. Kim Ian Parker, “Solomon as Philosopher King : The Nexus of Law and Wisdom in 1 Kings 1-11,” JSOT no. 53 (1992):

42

out of the scope for our study, we can conclude that regardless of the various structural models

proposed -- whether that of Parker, Frisch or others -- these models generally consent to the fact

that 1 Kgs 1-2 stands as a vital part of the entire Solomonic narrative found in 1 Kgs. Therefore,

a careful conclusion can be drawn that 1 Kgs 1-2, together with 1 Kgs 3-11, forms a one literary

unit.

For this reason, G.N. Knoppers seems to be right when he says the writer of 1 Kings

depicted the first period of Solomon's regime (chs. 1-10) as a progression: from "accession and

consolidation" (chs. 1-2) to "efficient administration and judicious diplomacy, temple and palace

construction, international commendation and untrammeled prosperity" (chs. 3-10).126

Concerning authorship of the passage, various suggestions have been made. The first

group argues that the Book of Kings was composed by a single author. For example, M. Noth

contends that Deut-Kings were written by a single anonymous DtrH, shortly after 561 BCE.127

Experiencing exile to Babylon, the author purposely wrote the history of Israel (Deuteronomistic

History) based on the Deuteronomic Law (Deut 4:44-30:20) to explain the divine retribution.128

The DtrH author, however, did not create something by himself but carefully selected from

various sources (e.g., Book of the Acts of Solomon) and painstakingly "compiled, arranged and

interpreted" the material."129

The second group holds that two or more authors might have been involved in the

composition. For example, F.M. Cross maintains that Deut-Kings was edited by two different 75–91. Jerome T. Walsh, ed., 1 Kings, Berit Olam (Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1996), 373. David S. Williams, “Once Again : The Structure of the Narrative of Solomon’s Reign,” JSOT no. 86 (D 1999): 49–66. 126 Gary N. Knoppers, Two Nations Under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies, Vol. 1 (Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1994), 59–60, 87–90. 127 Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 4–25. 128 Thus the history was more of "negative thrust" rather than description of bright future. Ibid., 79, 89. 129 Ibid., 77. Noth claims that 1 Kgs 2: 1, 2, 5-9 belong to original source or "the old pre-Deuteronomistic material", while vv. 3-4 reflect later addition of the Dtr. Ibid., 127, n30.

43

historians. The first part was composed by Dtr1 during the reign of King Josiah (2 Kgs 22-23) in

order to support the "King's reform and his revival of the Davidic state."130 Then the Dtr2, in

about 550 BCE, revised the first document to update subsequent historical events of experiencing

exile to Babylon.131 I.W. Provan accepts this thought except that the first edition document

written during the reign of King Josiah only covers up until the narrative of King Hezekiah.132

Furthermore, some other scholars even suggest a more complex multiple authorships hypothesize,

in which they believe the text has been developed throughout several time periods.133

From this discussion, we notice it is hard to pinpoint the specific author of our passage.

However, old Jewish tradition thought differently. According to the Talmud (Baba' Bathra 15a),

Jeremiah was reported to be the writer of the Book of Kings. However this claim is not also

without a blind point. As T. Longman III and R.B. Dillard pointed out, this Jewish thought lacks

support since Jeremiah was known to have gone to Egypt after the destruction of Jerusalem (Jer

43:1-8) and nothing is disclosed of what he did there.134 Therefore, the authorship of 1 Kings

still remains veiled and the best guess could be to say it was anonymous writer(s). As G.H. Jones

well capitulated, the author might have been someone from the priesthood, prophets or wise man

of the court circle.135

130 Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 287. 131 Concerning our passage, Cross insists 1 Kgs 2:4 reflects the hand of Dtr2 at work. Ibid., 287–288. 132 Provan, Hezekiah and the Books of Kings, 171–173. 133 For comprehensive review, refer to Kang, The Persuasive Portrayal of Solomon in 1 Kings 1-11, 39–44. 134 Tremper Longman III and Raymond B. Dillard, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2006), 168. 135 Jones, 1 And 2 Kings, Vol. I, 45–46.

44

9. Biblical Context

Interpretational differences with regards to 1 Kgs 2:5-9 seem to be sharpest among

commentators. Supposedly the farewell speech is to be noble, something that is to be cherished

and treasured, but a cold-blooded type of counsel has puzzled scholarship about what the real

intention and purpose was behind the scene. As some commentators wonder, is it mainly about a

"brutal political retribution"?136

One will find, however, our passage itself sheds a little light in settling such a dispute.

As a consequence, I will try to elucidate the import of 1 Kgs 2:5-9 by investigating other relevant

passages found elsewhere.137 Special attention to the passages germane to Joab (vv.5-6) and

Shimei (vv.8-9) will help our interpretation.

1. Joab

A number of scholars question the validity of David's word to execute Joab in vv.5-6.

For example, I.W. Provan claims that the real purpose for executing Joab was not clearing out

David's house from the blood-guilt that Joab shed (cf. 1 Kgs 2:5-6, 31) but to prevent Joab from

being a potential threat to Solomon's kingship. To support hi