FAREWELL TO THE “BLIND AND LAME”
(2 SAMUEL 5:6–10)
Łukasz Niesiołowski-Spanò
The biblical passage concerning the siege of Jerusalem by David (2 Sam
5:6–10) has drawn scholarly attention numerous times over the years.
The formula of exclusion of the blind and lame from the Hebrew cult,
which became popular in biblical literature, made this story particularly
attractive. Despite the voluminous commentary devoted to this passage,
there still remain alternative explanations and interpretations of the phrase
that have not been sufficiently explored. To whit, it is possible that the
passage contains words the original meaning of which have been forgotten. The present study aims to explore the possibility of re-interpreting
the saying about blind and lame in Jerusalem and its role anew.
Leviticus 21:18–20 is linked to 2 Sam 5:8, which refers to exclusion
from the faith-community and the prohibition from sacrificial offerings
by the physically disabled: “For no one who has a blemish shall draw
near, one who is blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb
too long, or one who has a broken foot or a broken hand, or a hunchback,
or a dwarf, or a man with a blemish in his eyes or an itching disease or
scabs or crushed testicles.” Among the “physical blemishes” mentioned
are those referred to in the story of David’s conquest of Jerusalem:
“blind” ( )עורand “lame” ()פסח.1 Connecting these two physical disabilities is quite common in biblical texts; for example, it suffices to cite Job
29:15; Jer 31:8; Matt 11:5 and Luke 14:31. There is no doubt that the
exclusion of “the disabled” from the temple service was well known, and
very likely practiced in the world of the Ancient Hebrews. However,
such a cultic restriction – regardless of its origin and the degree to which
it was observed – in no way explains the reference to “blind and lame” at
the walls of Jerusalem, during the attack of David’s forces.
Recently, a fresh attempt to deal with the difficulties created by the
passage in 2 Sam 5 was undertaken by Craig W. Tyson.2 Tyson’s argument focuses on the concept of insider/outsider opposition, and its role in
exclusion, as seen in 2 Sam 5:8b. This study shows that with all our
NIESIOŁOWSKI-SPANÒ Farewell to the “Blind and Lame”
117
knowledge and previous studies, there are still biblical passages whose
meanings remain obscure. Certainly this is the case with the passage in
question.
2 Samuel 5:6–10 relates the story of David’s conquest of Jebusiteinhabited Jerusalem. This well-known story includes the intriguing
detail: “[The Jebusites] said to David, ‘You will not come in here, even
the blind and the lame will turn you back’ – thinking, ‘David cannot
come in here’” (2 Sam 5:6). This phrase, often underlined in previous
scholarship, expresses loathing and disdain towards David and his army
ruling from Hebron, combined with confidence in the strength of Jerusalem’s defences – which were presumably so strong that even the disabled
would suffice to defend it.3 However, in the next phrase the situation can
no longer be interpreted in this manner: “David had said on that day,
‘Whoever would strike down the Jebusites, let him get up the water shaft
to attack the lame and the blind, those whom David hates.’ Therefore it is
said, ‘The blind and the lame shall not come into the house’” (2 Sam
5:8). Despite the textual difficulties and lexical obstacles,4 the sense of
David’s expression remains clear – the king put some sort of difficult
task before his soldiers. This difficulty is openly stated in 1 Chronicles,
where David’s words are reported: “Whoever attacks the Jebusites first
shall be chief and commander” (1 Chr 11:6). It would be rather nonsensical to interpret this task to have been a battle against the disabled.
There are widely different explanations proposed in scholarship for
the presence of the blind and lame at Jerusalem’s walls. Apart from the
literal interpretations, accepting the text prima facie, commentators have
sought a religious key to the scene. Religious rituals, during which
soldiers took an oath in which they swore they should be blemished if
they acted unfaithfully, have been suggested; the presence of disabled
people would remind the soldiers of their oath.5 Even if such an explanation is hard to disprove, though equally hard to prove, one might look for
a simpler solution requiring fewer hypothetical constructs – for example,
that there were in fact real soldiers at the Jerusalem wall, instead of
disabled people. Posting a well-armed, high-quality force on the city
walls during the siege would have been the most logical defence manoeuvre. Even should any religious ceremonies have taken place alongside
the military action, their role and importance would have been secondary
to fending off the attacking army. The presence of competent defenders
would have been important to both sides; by providing hope to defenders,
and real enemies, true obstacles to be surmounted, for the besiegers. The
efficacy of a lame and blind military is questionable to say the least.
1
118
Finding Myth and History in the Bible
Perhaps the reason this passages has caused so many interpretative
problems lies in our presuppositions concerning the very words used. As
seen above, the lame and blind turned out to be proverbial, and yet the
presence of the lame and blind themselves in the battle scene are not
fundamentally questioned. In fact, these words may be key to understanding the passage. The possibility should not be excluded that the
meaning of the words in 2 Sam 5:6–8 meant something else altogether at
the time they were written, only acquiring their present meaning at a later
date.
The blind mentioned above are referred to in the MT as העורים, from
the root >wr. “The lame,” הפסחים, derives from the root psḥ. The verb
>wr is used very often in the Bible and its meaning is not disputed.
Therefore, any challenges to the lexical consensus, supported by ancient
versions, proposed emendations of the text or suggestions of alternate
meaning should be based on a reinterpretation of the nouns used. The
textual difficulties alone, without any support in ancient translations,
make any emendation doubtful. However, one may look for different
meanings of the words.
A hint may be found in the meaning of the root >wr, “to awake,”
“to rouse.” This verb is used in the description of the heroic acts of
David’s soldiers, and its very meaning may shed light on our text. “Now
Abishai son of Zeruiah, the brother of Joab, was chief of the Thirty. With
his spear ( )חניתhe fought ( )עוררagainst three hundred men and killed
them, and won a name beside the Three” (2 Sam 23:18). Similar use of
the verb is to be found in the description of the acts of another hero:
“Jashobeam, son of Hachmoni, was chief of the Three; he wielded ()עורר
his spear ( )חניתagainst three hundred whom he killed at one time”
(1 Chr 11:11).6
Abishai’s and Jashobeam’s act are described as הוא עורר את־חניתו, in
2 Sam 23:18 and 1 Chr 11:11, respectively. The verb >wr primarily
means “to rouse oneself,” “awake”; in Poel it has the meaning “to rouse”
and “to incite to activity.” This allows the phrase to be interpreted as:
“He brandished the spear”7 thus potentially lending the verb >wr a
meaning linking it to military action. The verb is used in such a manner
in Isa 10:26 where specifically a whip is wielded with God as the subject.
Similarly, Zech 9:13 and 13:7, where the verb >wr refers to the sword
()חרב, a military context is provided.8 This usage of the verb in a military
context, where >wr refers to a weapon and means “to brandish” or
“to wave,” links it with the noun העורים. If this is accepted, then the noun
in 2 Sam 5:6–8 could be understood as “the brandishers” or “the wavers
(of a weapon).” Such an interpretation of העוריםsuggests the existence of
a certain category of military unit whose name reflected the fact that it
1
NIESIOŁOWSKI-SPANÒ Farewell to the “Blind and Lame”
119
was an armed unit, or of the particular kind of weapon with which it was
equipped. This understanding would better suit the context of a siege and
the need for the best soldiers to take part in the defence of the city.
It stands to reason that if a term describing a specific unit or its arms was
coined, their particular function, importance and skills could likewise be
defined. The עוריםmay have been a highly prestigious military unit
consisting of the best soldiers, armed with a particular weapon or using it
in a particular way. Using this interpretation David was not fighting the
blind but rather against specialized military units armed with spears or
swords.
An alternate explanation of the meaning of עוריםcould be based on
the Ugaritic verb >r/>rr, meaning “to guard”; in some instances, such as
Deut 32:11; Job 8:6 and Mal 2:12, the verb >wr in the Bible have been
interpreted as “to guard” or “to protect.”9 In Deuteronomy God’s protection over Israel is compared to an eagle’s care of its chicks and nest –
כנשׁר יעיר קנו. The translation of this phrase as “like an eagle protecting
its nest” seems most appropriate to the context. The phrase in Job 8:6 is
more ambiguous, leaving it open to speculation whether the sense of
protection should be rather than “to arouse.” The interpretation of Mal
2:12 remains similarly inconclusive. In sum, the arguments for verb >wr’s
meaning “to protect,” are rather weak. The strongest argument remains
the Ugaritic verb, the influence of which on Hebrew remains possible
though not incontrovertible. However, proving such a meaning would
establish the link between the protection described by the verb >wr and
the function of the military protectors mentioned in 2 Sam 5:6–8.
Whatever the case may be, both these interpretations provide alternative
ways of understanding the term in question and eliminate the unfortunate
blind from the siege of Jerusalem.
Larger difficulties arise when interpreting the noun הפסחים. Usually
this noun is linked to the root psḥ, and its primary meaning “to lame.”
Passover is supposedly linked to the same root, though no scholarly
consensus has been reached regarding this etymology.10 The link
between Passover (the feast and the sacrifice) and the verb “to lame” is
far from straightforward.11 Even if dictionaries univocally claim the
meaning of this verb as “to lame” or “to be lame,” other Semitic
languages hardly make use of such a verb in this way.12 The primary
meaning of the word derived from the root psḥ, and its understanding, is
obviously conditioned by the name of Passover – the main Jewish feast.
The connection between the verb and the name of the feast is explicitly
stated: “It is the Passover sacrifice ( )זבח־פסחto the Lord, for he passed
over ( )פסחthe houses of the Israelites in Egypt, when he struck down the
Egyptians but spared our houses” (Exod 12:27; cf. Exod 12:23).
1
120
Finding Myth and History in the Bible
The abovementioned sentence from Exodus mentions the act of God
“passing over” the houses of the Hebrews. However, the meaning of
passing over, is – in a way – derived from the primary meaning of the
verb and within this context the expression could be understood as
“protected” or “saved.”13 This was probably the original meaning of the
sacrifice, which served as protection and guaranteed shelter under God’s
protection. This definition agrees with the LXX version of Exod 12:27,
where the Hebrew verb psḥ is rendered in Greek as σκεπάσζω –
“to protect, to cover, to hide, to shelter.”14 Setting aside the concept of
the lame and concentrating on the Passover sacrifice as the price for
God’s protection and salvation, this particular element made Passover
the most important feast for the Jews. This very meaning underlies the
importance of this feast for the Jews, as well as the Christian understanding of Christian sacrifice, where Jesus – as the proper Passover
sacrifice – protects (and saves) humankind.15
This is the sense in which the verb psḥ is used in the following
passage from Isaiah: “Like birds hovering overhead, so the Lord of hosts
will protect Jerusalem; He will protect and deliver it, He will spare ()פסח
and rescue it” (Isa 31:5). In this verse the verb psḥ is used in conjunction
with the verbs gnn (“to cover, surround, defend”), nṣl (“to snatch away,
rescue, recover, deliver from”) and mlṭ (“to slip away, escape, deliver”),
to which it is probably semantically close. This interpretation of the
phrase is supported by the Targum and the LXX. The Targumic version
reads יגין וישׁיזיב יציל ויעדי. The verb psḥ from MT is here rendered as the
Aramaic verb ṭll (“to cover”; cf. Hebrew and Aramaic ṣl, “shade,”
“protection”). The Greek version, however, may indicate a lack of understanding of this expression. Instead of four verbs in the MT, the Greek
version uses only three: ἐξελεῖται (“to rescue”), περιποιέω (“to keep
alive,” “to preserve”) and σώζω (“to save,” “to keep alive,” “to protect”).
It would be appropriate to point out as well the existence of the proper
name derived from the same root: Paseaḥ, mentioned in the Bible at
Neh 3:6; Ezra 2:49 and 1 Chr 4:12, as well as in a seal dated to the
seventh/sixth century BCE (CWSSS, 323). It is not impossible that someone would be named “lame”; however, consequently one is led to
suppose that the name actually had a different meaning. This again
points to the words deriving from psḥ having a broader meaning.
Accepting “to protect” as the meaning of the verb psḥ, instead of the
commonly assumed meaning “to be lame,” advances an alternate
hypothesis concerning the usage of the term in 2 Sam 5:6–8. The פסחים
used in the passage does not necessarily refer literally to the lame;
1
NIESIOŁOWSKI-SPANÒ Farewell to the “Blind and Lame”
121
instead, it could refer to protectors or defenders of the city. In the light
of the above, I am inclined to advance the hypothesis that there were
neither blind nor lame people at the Jerusalem walls as referred to in
2 Sam 5:6–8, but rather a highly specialized military unit called “the
brandishers” or “the protectors.” Moreover, if the noun “( העוריםthe
protectors, the guards”) were preferred, both terms, העוריםand הפסחים,
would match close semantic parallelism. In either case, they have a
similar meaning, referring to people devoted to protection in the strict
military sense of the word. Another possible explanation of the term
הפסחיםtakes into account the context of Passover. The people called
פסחיםmay have been soldiers designated as Passover victims. This
explanation, however, lacks any solid foundation even if the connection
between Passover and the first-born can easily be established. I find this
explanation unlikely. I would posit that the verb psḥ meant “to protect”
and referred to a certain kind of soldier.
This proposal concerning the original meaning of the name of Passover is obviously not new. However, scholars still believe in the presence
of the “lame” and “blind” at Jerusalem’s walls. The suggested understanding of terms העוריםand הפסחיםin 2 Sam 5:6–8 as “brandishers”
and “protectors,” which may be technical terms for a kind of military
unit, suits the context well. It may also adequately explain the phrase:
“Therefore it is said, ‘The blind and the lame shall not come into the
house,’ ” which now may be well seen as the gloss, aiming to explain
terms the meaning of which were already obscure to the editors.16
How should one explain the fact that these military terms were already
unfamiliar to biblical editors and later ancient translators? Some
hypothetical reconstruction is needed in order to answer. First, the
addition of the gloss in 2 Sam 5:8b, containing the saying establishing
the exclusion of the “lame and blind” from the temple service, and
linking 2 Sam 5:8 to Lev 21:18–20 (and other cultic prohibition laws),
may be both the result of the terms’ obscurity as well as its reason.
Second, the military terms were apparently not used in later times. One
may even speculate whether such military terminology was part of the
heritage of Jerusalem’s pre-Judean society, whether it was Canaanite,
Jebusite or Philistine. That would explain the presence of these terms in
an old text and their subsequent obscurity. The other explanation would
point to an intentional “hiding” of the original meaning, which is less
likely, unless the reason for such manipulation can be found.
1
122
Finding Myth and History in the Bible
Notes
1. S. Olyan, “ ‘Anyone Blind or Lame Shall Not Enter the House’: On the
Interpretation of 2 Samuel 5:8b,” CBQ 60 (1988), pp. 218–27.
2. C. W. Tyson, “Who’s In? Who’s Out? II Sam 5,8b and Narrative Reversal,”
ZAW 122 (2010), pp. 546–57, with updated bibliography.
3. Samuel R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books
of Samuel (Oxford: Clarendon, 2nd edn, 1913), p. 258; Baruch Halpern, David’s
Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2nd
edn, 2004), pp. 319–20.
4. P. Kyle McCarter, II Samuel (Anchor Bible 9; Garden City: Doubleday,
1984), pp. 135–40.
5. Yigael Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands: In the Light of Archaeological Study (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), pp. 267–70; cf. the comments and
further bibliography in McCarter, II Samuel, p. 138.
6. This verse allows scholars to change the text in 2 Sam 23:8: “Joshebbasshebeth a Tahchemonite; he was chief of the Three; he wielded ( )עורר → עדינוhis
spear against eight hundred whom he killed at one time.”
7. McCarter, II Samuel, pp. 488–90.
8. Cf. TDOT, vol. 10, p. 571.
9. TDOT, vol. 10, p. 569.
10. Cf. TDOT, vol. 12, pp. 1–29.
11. Giovanni Garbini, Note di lessicografia ebraica (Brescia: Paideia, 1998),
pp. 105–11.
12. Cf. Garbini, Note di lessicografia, pp. 105–106.
13. W. H. Irwin, Isaiah 28–33: translation with philological notes (Biblica et
Orientalia 30; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1977), p. 114; T. F. Glasson, “The ‘Passover’, a Misnomer: The Meaning of the Verb Pasach,” JTS 10 (1959), pp. 79–84.
14. William H. C. Propp, Exodus 1–18 (AB 2; Garden City: Doubleday, 1999), p.
401.
15. About the link between Passover and molk sacrifice, see Ł. NiesiołowskiSpanò, “Child Sacrifice in Seventh-Century Judah and the Origins of Passover,”
Przegląd Humanistyczny 437, no. 2 (2013), pp. 161–70.
16. TDOT, vol. 12, p. 27.
1
Finding Myth and History in the Bible
SCHOLARSHIP, SCHOLARS AND ERRORS
ESSAYS IN HONOR OF GIOVANNI GARBINI
EDITED BY
ŁUKASZ NIESIOŁOWSKI‐SPANÒ, CHIARA PERI AND JIM WEST
Equinox Publishing Ltd
Sheffield, UK
Oakville, CT
Published by
UK: Office 415, The Workstation, 15 Paternoster Row, Sheffield, South Yorkshire S1 2BX
USA: ISD, 70 Enterprise Drive, Bristol, CT 06010
www.equinoxpub.com
First published 2016
© Łukasz Niesiołowski-Spanò, Chiara Peri, Jim West and contributors 2016
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system,
without prior permission in writing from the publishers.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
ISBN
978 1 78179 126 4 (hardback)
978 1 78179 127 1 (paperback)
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
Typeset by Forthcoming Publications Ltd (www.forthpub.com)
Printed and bound in the UK
CONTENTS
Abbreviations
Editorial Preface
ix
xi
GIOVANNI GARBINI AND MINIMALISM
Thomas L. Thompson
1
GIOVANNI GARBINI AND THE POETRY OF LEAH GOLDBERG
Francesco Bianchi
5
“TO EACH HIS OWN JOB”: ON JOB 42:1–6
Thomas M. Bolin
18
THE SILOAM TUNNEL REVISITED
Philip R. Davies
30
HOSEA 2:2 AND THE DATING OF THE BOOK OF HOSEA
Giovanni Deiana
51
BEYOND GARBINI’S ANTI-MOSAIC PENTATEUCH:
NEHUSHTAN AS LITERARY TIE BETWEEN THE TORAH
AND THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
Philippe Guillaume
61
“WHEN DREAMS COME TRUE”:
JERUSALEM/HIEROSOLYMA AND JEWISH NATIONALISM
IN THE HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS
Ingrid Hjelm
72
THE SAME OLD STORY
Niels Peter Lemche
85
TOPONYMY RIDDLES
Mario Liverani
96
viii
Finding Myth and History in the Bible
DIVIDING THE IMAGE OF GOD:
THE CREATION OF MAN AND WOMAN IN GENESIS
Caterina Moro
103
FAREWELL TO THE “BLIND AND LAME” (2 SAMUEL 5:6–10)
Łukasz Niesiołowski-Spanò
116
FROM MOSES TO THE ESSENES
Étienne Nodet, O.P.
123
A VIEW FROM THE WEST:
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PHOENICIA AND
“COLONIAL” WORLD IN THE PERSIAN PERIOD
Ida Oggiano
147
A COUPLE OF STONE DISKS OR SIMPLY A PAIR OF DISKS?
ABOUT THE HEBREW WORD OBNAYIM
(EXODUS 1:16; JEREMIAH 18:3)
Fabrizio A. Pennacchietti
181
JONAH AND THE TRIFFID:
A SUGGESTION FOR THE QIQAYON
Chiara Peri
188
ON FINDING MYTH AND HISTORY IN THE BIBLE:
EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS
Emanuel Pfoh
196
“HISTORICAL” ISRAEL AND “BIBLICAL” ISRAEL,
OR ETHNICITY AS A SYMBOL
Gian Luigi Prato
209
ETHNICITY AND THE BIBLE: MULTIPLE JUDAISMS
Thomas L. Thompson
223
CORRESPONDENCE
Jim West
233
Index of References
Index of Authors
244
251
1