TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible

[ttf_MoominDave]

2 Samuel 5 text

Highlights

 - David becomes king of a united kingdom and defeats the Philistines. Twice.

Summary

 - The tribes of Israelites all pledge allegiance to David after Ish-bosheth's death.
 - David captures Jerusalem from the Jebusites, a task that has hitherto been beyond the Israelites.
 - David kits the place out, building a palace, and taking even more concubines and wives.
 - Various new sons of David are listed, among them Solomon.
 - The Philistines attack - David defeats them.
 - The Philistines attack again - David defeats them again, coming at them from an unexpected angle.

Questions and Observations

1) David became king when he was 30 and reigned 40 years. 70 is a much more sensible-sounding age for a man to live to, though pretty extreme still for such a savage and medically primitive time and place. However, round numbers attract my distrust, and we have two here. Beginning to wonder if we'll ever get any trustworthy chronological numbers out of this.
2) The Jebusites are a puzzle. The Bible tells us that Jerusalem was called "Jebus" before this capture, but external sources document the name "Jerusalem" as in use hundreds of years earlier than this. Indeed, its etymology would seem impossible to reconcile with this account - "Foundation of the deity Shalim". So perhaps Jebus wasn't Jerusalem? But then it clearly states that they are they same... A puzzle indeed. It occurs to me that "Jebus" and "Jerus" are not so very different letter combinations - maybe it is the same name.
3) Solomon does not seem to have any special place in this list of David's children.
4) The Philistines will be aware that David is no longer on their side now...

[ttf_MoominDave]

2 Samuel 6 text

Highlights

 - The AotC is brought to Jerusalem.

Summary

 - David and his men travel to fetch the AotC.
 - They bring it from the house of Abinadab at Kiriath-jearim, drawn on a new cart driven by Abinadab's sons Uzzah and Ahio.
 - David and his men make a proper procession of it, with musical instruments and singing.
 - One of the oxen stumbles, and Uzzah puts out a hand to steady the AotC. Big mistake! God strikes him dead for his presumption in touching it. David is cross and frightened and refuses to let it into his city.
 - It goes instead to the house of Obed-edom the Gittite, where it spends three tranquil months.
 - David, reassured, fetches it from there to Jerusalem, sacrificing en route.
 - He dances vigorously in front of it as it comes.
 - David brings the AotC to its place, makes offerings, and distributes gifts to the populace.
 - Michal rebukes him for acting in an undignified manner with his dancing.
 - David is not sorry for it, and Michal is to have no children.

Questions and Observations

1) After being lost to the Philistines, the AotC ended up at Kiriath-jearim (1 Samuel 6:21-7:2), which is apparently the same Baale-judah named here. It was taken to the house of Abinadab there and placed in the care of his son Eleazar.
2) Slightly surprising that Eleazar is not referenced here in that case - two other sons of Abinadab, Uzzah and Ahio transport it.
3) Uzzah struck dead on the spot for touching the AotC, to keep it secure? This is not good behaviour by God. Particularly when various Philistines have had their non-kosher mitts all over it without being punished nearly as severely. The OT God really is not a consistent character.
4) That said, a rationalisation of the passage might wonder if the oxen stumbled, the AotC slipped and crushed Uzzah, or something similar, and the credulous onlookers interpreted it as divine displeasure.
5) We might expect, given past form and the apparent ability of the two to communicate, God to tell David off in no uncertain terms for a lack of faith in diverting the AotC for personal safety. But he doesn't.
6) Was David permitted to offer sacrifice? God has been extremely pernickety in the past about who is and isn't allowed to sacrifice (cf. Aaron's sons).
7) David's miscalculation of Michal becomes concrete - she plainly dislikes him now (and who can blame her?).
8) Skipping ahead, 2 Samuel 21:8 seems to contradict the listed barrenness, ascribing her five sons.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: MoominDave on May 26, 2016, 03:41AM
2) The Jebusites are a puzzle. The Bible tells us that Jerusalem was called "Jebus" before this capture, but external sources document the name "Jerusalem" as in use hundreds of years earlier than this. Indeed, its etymology would seem impossible to reconcile with this account - "Foundation of the deity Shalim". So perhaps Jebus wasn't Jerusalem? But then it clearly states that they are they same... A puzzle indeed. It occurs to me that "Jebus" and "Jerus" are not so very different letter combinations - maybe it is the same name.

I might be lazy but I was happy thinking that Jebus was the name that the Israelites used for the city because the Jebusites lived there.  The fact that there was another name in use doesn't really worry me.  Similar to the French calling Germany Allemagne or the multiple names for Indian cities.

I guess that David kept the name Jerusalem, even though salim referred to a Canaanite deity because it is related to Salim/salem/shalom which means peace.

Quote4) The Philistines will be aware that David is no longer on their side now...

Achish may not have worked it out yet.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: MoominDave on May 26, 2016, 08:20AM3) Uzzah struck dead on the spot for touching the AotC, to keep it secure? This is not good behaviour by God. Particularly when various Philistines have had their non-kosher mitts all over it without being punished nearly as severely. The OT God really is not a consistent character.

And don't forget the men of Beth-shemesh (1 Sam 6) who got the same treatment.

I don't think God is being inconsistent in character, but he's allowing the Philistines some leniency because they hadn't been told about the danger of touching the things of God like the Israelites had in Numbers and Exodus.

Quote4) That said, a rationalisation of the passage might wonder if the oxen stumbled, the AotC slipped and crushed Uzzah, or something similar, and the credulous onlookers interpreted it as divine displeasure.

or that may have been how God administered his punishment, and told a prophet, so that the onlookers could know why it happened without being credulous.  (Would that make them incredulous?)

[quoite]
5) We might expect, given past form and the apparent ability of the two to communicate, God to tell David off in no uncertain terms for a lack of faith in diverting the AotC for personal safety. But he doesn't.
[/quote]

I wouldn't expect that.  God knows that he's dangerous and has told the Israelites that its dangerous to treat him with disrespect and shown that bad things can happen when he's displeased.  So David is treating God with respect.  It would have been different if God had told David that he could safely continue on the journey and he didn't.

Quote6) Was David permitted to offer sacrifice? God has been extremely pernickety in the past about who is and isn't allowed to sacrifice (cf. Aaron's sons).

It seems as though he was permitted to do this.  I guess it was allowed by his role as God's annointed aka Messiah.

Saul was punished for doing this, but I think that was because he he had been told to wait for Samuel to make the sacrifice.

Its amusing that David waited until those carrying the ark had safely taken 6 steps before he thought it was safe.

Quote7) David's miscalculation of Michal becomes concrete - she plainly dislikes him now (and who can blame her?).

Michal despised David because he put his joyfulness that God had "arrived", ahead of the dignity that she thought he should have.  I can understand that you wouldn't think that David was right, but in the context of the story and her role in it, its pretty obvious that she hasn't got the right attitude.

Quote8) Skipping ahead, 2 Samuel 21:8 seems to contradict the listed barrenness, ascribing her five sons.

I'm not sure what's going on there. 

[ttf_MoominDave]

2 Samuel 7 text

Highlights

 - David gets his own version of Abraham's covenant.

Summary

 - David asks Nathan the prophet if he should build a fancy house for the AotC, rather than the tent it is stored in.
 - Nathan at first assents, but later God tells him that the AotC has always been kept in a tent, and needs no more.
 - God also tells him to tell David that his kingdom will last forever.
 - David prays some elegant prose of thanks.

Questions and Observations

1) The AotC lived in a house for 20 years immediately before this, with Abinadab and his sons at Kiriath-jearim. Seems a pretty clear contradiction for literalists to need to be sore over - although the sense of the passage actually isn't hurt at all, for those that take a softer line.
2) Spoilers: David's throne doesn't last forever. In its then current form it lasts two kings (David and Solomon). In its divided form it lasts for a substantial period of time, but there is no King of the Jews today, and hasn't been for millennia. What does Christianity make of the inaccuracy of God's forecast here?

[ttf_MoominDave]

2 Samuel 8 text

Highlights

 - David builds an empire.

Summary

 - David defeats various nations, who submit to various indignities (usually paying tribute and garrisoning):
  - Philistines again
  - Moab
  - Two Syrian kingdoms
  - Edom
  - Amalekites
  - Ammonites
 - Officials are listed.

Questions and Observations

1) The listed area under Israelite control has now become rather large, stretching from the Red Sea to modern Syria. If this was real, it is strange that the archaelogical record and the records of neighbouring civilisations do not record it in any clear way.
2) I see we passed 1000 thread posts yesterday...

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: MoominDave on May 27, 2016, 01:48AM1) The AotC lived in a house for 20 years immediately before this, with Abinadab and his sons at Kiriath-jearim. Seems a pretty clear contradiction for literalists to need to be sore over - although the sense of the passage actually isn't hurt at all, for those that take a softer line.

I think you're being a bit hard on the literalists.  1 Sam 7 says the ark was brought to Abinadab's house but doesn't specifically say that it was kept inside the house.  Given that it had been traditionally kept in a tent and was so even in Judges, it was likely still kept in the tent while it was at Abinadab's.  So I don't think those literalists would be too concerned about this passage.

Quote2) Spoilers: David's throne doesn't last forever. In its then current form it lasts two kings (David and Solomon). In its divided form it lasts for a substantial period of time, but there is no King of the Jews today, and hasn't been for millennia. What does Christianity make of the inaccuracy of God's forecast here?

Well this is a very significant topic and topic for Christians.  If you look at v12-15 God says that when David dies he will raise up his offspring, and he will establish his kingdom ... I will be a father to him ... and I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men.  Christians (even literal ones) see that Jesus is the fulfillment of this promise.  He will reign forever (you can sing the Hallelujah chorus here if you like) as the son of David.  And that's how David's throne is to be made sure and be established forever.  When we get to the gospels we'll see references to this.  I bet you can't wait.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: MoominDave on May 27, 2016, 02:40AM
1) The listed area under Israelite control has now become rather large, stretching from the Red Sea to modern Syria. If this was real, it is strange that the archaelogical record and the records of neighbouring civilisations do not record it in any clear way.

the "Empire" only lasted for a couple of generations I think.  So do we have enough data to know if the lack of evidence for that period is significant evidence?

Quote2) I see we passed 1000 thread posts yesterday...

 

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: drizabone on May 27, 2016, 05:07AMI think you're being a bit hard on the literalists.  1 Sam 7 says the ark was brought to Abinadab's house but doesn't specifically say that it was kept inside the house.  Given that it had been traditionally kept in a tent and was so even in Judges, it was likely still kept in the tent while it was at Abinadab's.  So I don't think those literalists would be too concerned about this passage.
Hm. Okay, it doesn't specifically say that it went inside the house. But it isn't the first reading of the passage that came to mind. But you're right, on reflection - definitely arguable.

Quote from: drizabone on May 27, 2016, 05:07AMWell this is a very significant topic and topic for Christians.  If you look at v12-15 God says that when David dies he will raise up his offspring, and he will establish his kingdom ... I will be a father to him ... and I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men.  Christians (even literal ones) see that Jesus is the fulfillment of this promise.  He will reign forever (you can sing the Hallelujah chorus here if you like) as the son of David.  And that's how David's throne is to be made sure and be established forever.  When we get to the gospels we'll see references to this.  I bet you can't wait.

Ah, right okay. This should have come to mind - hence all the fuss about "born of David's line". Though that said - does the Babylonian exile and consequent lapsing of the kingship cause a problem?

And I am keen to reach the NT, but not so keen that I'm not also keen to take in all the little byways en route. On which subject, before too long we're going to have to decide whether or not we're going to include those books that are in the Catholic Bible, but not the Protestant or Hebrew ones. My inclination is to want to include them, even though it's a fair bit extra - how about you, Martin? Maybe if we did we could persuade Billy to lend the odd hand, too, as he was the one to suggest the idea...

Quote from: drizabone on May 27, 2016, 05:22AMthe "Empire" only lasted for a couple of generations I think.  So do we have enough data to know if the lack of evidence for that period is significant evidence?

I don't entirely know. It was a very long time ago, and a lot of societal cataclysms have blown over that land in the intervening years. But a great number of highly motivated searchers have pored over it for a very long time. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But continued absence of evidence in the face of searching becomes increasing probability of absence. It's at the least suspicious.

On a total tangent, while poking around educating myself on what there is, I saw something that sparked a possible thought about how to reconcile aspects of the Exodus legend with its apparent lack of historicity... Look how large Egypt was at a date in the general ball-park of that for the legend... The whole of the territory we have been talking about was found within its borders. Hmm. Could there be lurking in the story of Moses, the Judges, and the Kings a story about the local tribes learning to fend for themselves as the stabilising strong influence of the Egyptian New Kingdom crumbled in the 12th century BC? A parallel I am thinking of is King Arthur, the probably-legendary tribal leader that arose to restore order in a chaotic Dark Age Britain after the Romans left. Both appear in tales as mighty leaders recalling the quasi-parental authority of empire so discomfortingly withdrawn shortly beforehand. This could also fit with Robert's book that lays out how Israelite culture grew from nothing in situ. Not directly relevant to 2 Samuel, but made me think...

This list is an interesting one, again totally btw.

[ttf_MoominDave]

2 Samuel 9 text

Highlights

 - David takes in Jonathan's son Mephibosheth

Summary

 - David wishes to show kindness to any surviving members of Saul's family, so asks who survives.
 - Jonathan's crippled son Mephibosheth does, and is brought to David.
 - David offers him a place in his household, and various servants that had come from Saul, which he gladly accepts.

Questions and Observations

1) Mephibosheth as a name looks similar to Ish-bosheth - both are recorded later (in Chronicles) with "baal" instead of "bosheth" - a theory is that they were named for the deity Ba'al (and did Ba'al maintain popularity in the Northern kingdom for a long time?), but that the Judahite scribe replaced the "baal" element with an element meaning "shameful one" in a partisan fashion.
2) Do we think that David maybe knew the answer to his initial question before he asked it?

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: MoominDave on May 27, 2016, 06:02AMAnd I am keen to reach the NT, but not so keen that I'm not also keen to take in all the little byways en route. On which subject, before too long we're going to have to decide whether or not we're going to include those books that are in the Catholic Bible, but not the Protestant or Hebrew ones. My inclination is to want to include them, even though it's a fair bit extra - how about you, Martin? Maybe if we did we could persuade Billy to lend the odd hand, too, as he was the one to suggest the idea...

I'm happy to do the Apocrypha.  It would be interesting.  Hey Billy, are you in?

QuoteOn a total tangent, while poking around educating myself on what there is, I saw something that sparked a possible thought about how to reconcile aspects of the Exodus legend with its apparent lack of historicity...

that sounds a reasonable idea and the topic is interesting. I enjoy reading about it, but I don't tend to go into it extensively.  It seems that there are so many gaps that its hard to know for sure (evidence wise) exactly how those things happened.

Quotedoes the Babylonian exile and consequent lapsing of the kingship cause a problem?

only if you want to argue that the "forever" should have started with David.  If you accept the argument that the kingdom started with Jesus then that's not a problem.  Although you should note that Jesus said to Pilate at his trial before the crucifixion that his kingdom was a heavenly one and not an earthly one, in which case you could argue that Jesus is shifting the goal posts.


Quote from: MoominDave on May 27, 2016, 06:31AM
 - David wishes to show kindness to any surviving members of Saul's family, so asks who survives.
 - Jonathan's crippled son Mephibosheth does, and is brought to David.
 - David offers him a place in his household, and various servants that had come from Saul, which he gladly accepts.

see David is a nice guy, even if he does let his emotions get the better of him and he embarrases his family by dancing inappropriately dressed.

Quote1) Mephibosheth as a name looks similar to Ish-bosheth - both are recorded later (in Chronicles) with "baal" instead of "bosheth" - a theory is that they were named for the deity Ba'al (and did Ba'al maintain popularity in the Northern kingdom for a long time?), but that the Judahite scribe replaced the "baal" element with an element meaning "shameful one" in a partisan fashion.
2) Do we think that David maybe knew the answer to his initial question before he asked it?

Maybe.  We can if we like.


PS  We're moving along fairly briskly at the moment, which seems good to me.  Are you happy with the way things are going?

[ttf_drizabone]

2 Samuel 10 text


Highlights

 - David sends envoys to Ammon but they are humiliated
 - The Ammonites attack Jerusalem and are defeated
 - The Ammonites gather allies and try again and are defeated again.

Summary

- David's allies, the Ammonites, get a new king named Hanun, after his father dies. David sends envoys to console Hanun about his dad's death, but the Ammonite princes become convinced that they're actually spies bent on overthrowing their city. So yeah, this is a great plan.
- The princes convince Hanun to take action. He captures the envoys, cuts off their garments at their hips, and shaves off their beards halfway, before sending them back to David, totally humiliated.
- When David sees how his envoys have been treated, he tells them to recoup in Jericho in order to re-grow their beards.
Crack Troops
- The Ammonites, seeing how they've managed to annoy David, get ready for a fight—they get tens of thousands of Arameans (and some other people) to march against the Israelites. They mass at the gates of Jerusalem and in the country beyond, surrounding the city in front and behind.
- Joab—the head general of the army, now—decides to take some crack troops under his command, while putting the others under the command of his brother, Abishai.
- Joab's special forces successfully beat back the Ammonites, causing the Arameans and everyone else to flee, as well.
Aramean Armies Redux
- The Arameans and their king (still Hadadezer), gather together even more Arameans to try and defeat David.
- They all get together at a place called Helam, under the leader of a commander named Shobach.
- David personally leads out an army to defeat them, killing forty thousand of their men, destroying seven hundred chariot teams, and also killing Shobach.
- In the end, the Arameans are forced to make peace with Israel and pay tribute to the Israelites.


Questions and Observations

Seems pretty straightforward to me.  What do you think?

[ttf_robcat2075]

Quote from: MoominDave on May 27, 2016, 06:02AM
On a total tangent, while poking around educating myself on what there is, I saw something that sparked a possible thought about how to reconcile aspects of the Exodus legend with its apparent lack of historicity... Look how large Egypt was at a date in the general ball-park of that for the legend... The whole of the territory we have been talking about was found within its borders. Hmm. Could there be lurking in the story of Moses, the Judges, and the Kings a story about the local tribes learning to fend for themselves as the stabilising strong influence of the Egyptian New Kingdom crumbled in the 12th century BC?

Possibly , but of course doesn't explain the core geographic assertions of Exodus, that they physically left slavery and moved elsewhere and that they spent 40 years wandering to get to the Promised Land.

Maybe up and leaving places had some special importance to the writers. 

Abraham left Ur to go to the Promised land.
His descendants leave the Promised Land to live with Joseph
Moses and his crowd leave Egypt to return to the Promised Land.
Israel and Judah leave the Promised Land, as Babylonian captives.
Judah returns from Babylon to the Promised Land.


Exile. Return. Exile. Return.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: drizabone on May 27, 2016, 03:36PMI'm happy to do the Apocrypha.  It would be interesting.  Hey Billy, are you in?
Great! These are completely new to me, so I'm looking forward to them. I suggest we follow the Catholic scheme and follow Nehemiah with Tobit, Judith, Esther, and 1/2 Maccabees before we get to Job?

Which version should we use? We've sited ourselves with the ESV more at the literal translation end of things, which has proven generally helpful to comprehension, but there is no with-Apocrypha version of the ESV on the Bible Gateway site. Trav1s previously suggested the NRSV, which I see has a version with Apocrypha for Catholic use - would that one be a good idea?

Quote from: drizabone on May 27, 2016, 03:36PMPS  We're moving along fairly briskly at the moment, which seems good to me.  Are you happy with the way things are going?

Enjoying it right now. There is after all a lot of material to work through yet, and these stories are rather readable by the standards of earlier books.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: MoominDave on May 28, 2016, 03:55AMGreat! These are completely new to me, so I'm looking forward to them. I suggest we follow the Catholic scheme and follow Nehemiah with Tobit, Judith, Esther, and 1/2 Maccabees before we get to Job?

That sounds like a good idea.  You'll need to remind me when we need to swap versions.


QuoteWhich version should we use? We've sited ourselves with the ESV more at the literal translation end of things, which has proven generally helpful to comprehension, but there is no with-Apocrypha version of the ESV on the Bible Gateway site. Trav1s previously suggested the NRSV, which I see has a version with Apocrypha for Catholic use - would that one be a good idea?

The NRSV would be fine.

QuoteEnjoying it right now. There is after all a lot of material to work through yet, and these stories are rather readable by the standards of earlier books.
Good. I was just looking at the chapter counts of some of the books still to go in the Old Testament

Psalms :    150
Job    :    42
Isaiah :    60
Jerimiah:   52
Ezekial :   48

are the larger ones.

Psalms has a lot, about as many as the Penteteuch, but there are a lot of small Psalms.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: robcat2075 on May 27, 2016, 04:28PMPossibly , but of course doesn't explain the core geographic assertions of Exodus, that they physically left slavery and moved elsewhere and that they spent 40 years wandering to get to the Promised Land.
Slavery could be taken to mean being a subjugated people? Maybe they made a smaller movement and bigged it up later in campfire stories? Maybe there was no movement but somehow one got invented to make the story more dramatic? It's only a germ of an idea to ponder on - it doesn't provide anything like an explanation.

Quote from: robcat2075 on May 27, 2016, 04:28PMMaybe up and leaving places had some special importance to the writers. 

Abraham left Ur to go to the Promised land.
His descendants leave the Promised Land to live with Joseph
Moses and his crowd leave Egypt to return to the Promised Land.
Israel and Judah leave the Promised Land, as Babylonian captives.
Judah returns from Babylon to the Promised Land.


Exile. Return. Exile. Return.


Romans dissipate Jews.
Zionists return 2,000 years later.

The persistence of mind required to maintain a dream within a group of people over two millennia of exile I find simply mind-boggling to consider. Is it meaningful to extend a dream so far? I would struggle to find it so, but evidently others are of different mind...

[ttf_MoominDave]

2 Samuel 11 text

Highlights

 - David and Bathsheba

Summary

 - Joab and the army fight the Ammonites
 - David remains at Jerusalem and spys a comely woman bathing; this is Bathsheba, wife of Uriah the Hittite, a soldier in David's army.
 - David sends for her; they have sex; she becomes pregnant.
 - David sends for Uriah and orders him to go to his house, but Uriah prefers to sleep at David's door in a show of ostentatious humility. This happens twice.
 - David sends Uriah back to the fighting along with an order for Joab - Joab is to expose Uriah to risk to cause him to be killed.
 - Joab sends Uriah to a dangerous spot, and he is killed in battle, along with some others.
 - Joab sends David news, offering Uriah's death as excuse for the others.
 - David is happy and sends back encouragement.
 - After Bathsheba has finished mourning Uriah, David takes her as another wife.
 - God doesn't like what David has done here.

Questions and Observations

1) Was David's intention in ordering Uriah to go to his wife to provide a convincing alibi for her pregnancy? If he had gone, perhaps he would not been made to die.
2) This is not the first time we've seen David dispose of a husband in order to satisfy his libido with his wife; in 1 Samuel 25 we saw the story of Nabal and Abigail, which ended with Nabal dead and David marrying Abigail.
3) God doesn't like this - is there any rule against this kind of abuse of authority? God's been fairly capricious thus far; nice to see him coming down in a way that looks unarguably morally right.

[ttf_MoominDave]

2 Samuel 12 text

Highlights

 - David's son by Bathsheba is killed by God in judgement.
 - David captures the Ammonite city Rabbah.

Summary

 - Nathan tells David a story about a rich man stealing from a poor man. David judges the rich man harshly.
 - The reveal! David is the rich man and Uriah the poor one. Nathan tells him that God has judged him for this, and that he will always have to fight, that there will be evil in his house, and that his wives will be taken by others.
 - David replies that he has sinned, and Nathan gives up on the strongest admonitions, saying only that God will make the child die.
 - The child sickens and dies. While the child lives, David fasts and weeps for it, but once it is dead, he is calm and eats.
 - David impregnates Bathsheba again, and they have a son, Solomon.
 - Joab sends word to David that Rabbah is nearly taken, urging David to take it himself; David does so. Then repeats with other Ammonite cities.

Questions and Observations

1) Nathan knows how to poke David's sensitive spot - his wives will be taken by others. David can't have liked that thought, given how jealously he has acted on the subject.
2) Seems unfair on the newborn child punished for David's sin. What do Christians make of this blame transferrence to the innocent?
3) The narrator seems concerned that David should have mourned the child properly. David does seem to get away with a lot of unendorsed behaviour.
4) All in all, David isn't really punished for this; he loses one of his many sons but immediately replaces him with another from the same mother.
5) V31: "iron picks and iron axes" - I read the other day that this is anachronistic - that these would have been commonplace in the time that these books were written, at a later Judah king's court, but were not in the supposed time of David (c.1000 BC).

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: MoominDave on May 28, 2016, 03:02PM2 Samuel 11 text

 - Joab and the army fight the Ammonites
 - David remains at Jerusalem and spys a comely woman bathing;
....
 - David sends for Uriah and orders him to go to his house, but Uriah prefers to sleep at David's door in a show of ostentatious humility. This happens twice.

Did you notice the contrast between David and Uriah.  David, the king, was supposed to be leading his troops in battle, but was instead enjoying ostentatious comfort:  resting on his couch until after lunch and strolling around on his rooftop checking out the scenery.  Uriah on the other hand was pictured as the good guy, wanting to be doing his duty, refusing comfort while his brothers in arms were on the battle field.

David is not the idealised good guy any more.

Quote 
 - David sends Uriah back to the fighting along with an order for Joab - Joab is to expose Uriah to risk to cause him to be killed.
 - Joab sends Uriah to a dangerous spot, and he is killed in battle, along with some others.
 - Joab sends David news, offering Uriah's death as excuse for the others.
 - David is happy and sends back encouragement.
 - After Bathsheba has finished mourning Uriah, David takes her as another wife.
 - God doesn't like what David has done here.

Questions and Observations

1) Was David's intention in ordering Uriah to go to his wife to provide a convincing alibi for her pregnancy? If he had gone, perhaps he would not been made to die.

Yes and yes.

Quote2) This is not the first time we've seen David dispose of a husband in order to satisfy his libido with his wife; in 1 Samuel 25 we saw the story of Nabal and Abigail, which ended with Nabal dead and David marrying Abigail.

I think the last time David was acting honourably,  This time he's a scumbag.

Quote3) God doesn't like this - is there any rule against this kind of abuse of authority? God's been fairly capricious thus far; nice to see him coming down in a way that looks unarguably morally right.


Will "Thou shalt not murder" do? How about "Thou shalt not covert your neighbour's wife"?

But if you're looking for rules that kings should follow,  Deuteronomy 17:14-20 has them.

[ttf_robcat2075]

Quote from: MoominDave on May 28, 2016, 03:18PM
 - David's son by Bathsheba is killed by God in judgement.
 
Rather misdirected punishment unless the culture regards children as property rather than people in their own right.


Quote5) V31: "iron picks and iron axes" - I read the other day that this is anachronistic - that these would have been commonplace in the time that these books were written, at a later Judah king's court, but were not in the supposed time of David (c.1000 BC).
I think Wikipedia notes some scholar as saying there are so many anachronisms in the two Samuel books that it's impossible take them credibly as history. On the other hand, the very earliest known iron artifacts do predate this period.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: MoominDave on May 28, 2016, 03:18PM
2) Seems unfair on the newborn child punished for David's sin. What do Christians make of this blame transferrence to the innocent?

My thoughts :
- the gospel is centred around this idea: that the innocent (ie Jesus) bears the blame and the consequences for our sin.  And it is unfair that this happened and we get off not having to bear the consequences.  But I'm not going to argue with it.  (as an aside, we tell our kids that if they are asked a question in Sunday School that they don't know the answer to, then just say "Jesus" and they will most likely be right )
- I don't see the baby as taking the blame that is always David's.  But he does bear consequences.   I'm not sure if that is a significant difference to you but seems to be to me.
- In this case the baby missed out on earthly life but arguably still received eternal life. So really he didn't suffer any signifcant loss - the most you could get out of this life is pretty inconsequential when compared to what you would experience in the next.
- at a more general level lots of people through history have had to bear the consequences of other peoples sin.  I'm optimistic and look forward to the time when it doesn't happen any more.

Quote3) The narrator seems concerned that David should have mourned the child properly. David does seem to get away with a lot of unendorsed behaviour.

His behaviour is definitely unusual.  I think that its based on his acceptance that he deserved it.

Quote4) All in all, David isn't really punished for this; he loses one of his many sons but immediately replaces him with another from the same mother.

In a sense David himself wasn't pusished : his repentance earned his forgiveness.  So I agree with you.
But it was not just the death of this child that was the consequences of his action, but the evil in his family.  See vv 10-12

Quote
5) V31: "iron picks and iron axes" - I read the other day that this is anachronistic - that these would have been commonplace in the time that these books were written, at a later Judah king's court, but were not in the supposed time of David (c.1000 BC).

Are you saying they were uncommon at David's time or didn't exist?

If they were uncommon then it would be worth mentioning that they were iron.  But if they were common it would have just been reported as picks and axes.

Question

Did you notice the juxtaposition of David's sinning and punishment with the continued success of the Israelite army still conquering?  Why do you think the writer is doing this?

[ttf_drizabone]

2 Samuel 13 text


Highlights

 - The moral disintegration of David's family
 - David shown as a pathetic parent

Summary

 - David's son Amnon is in lust with his half sister, Tamar who is Davids daughter and Absalom's full sister. David's nephew Jonadab tells Amnon how he can get to be alone with her.  Tamar rejects Amnon's lust so Amnon rapes her.
 - David gets angry but doesn't do anything.
 - Absalom kills Amnon in revenge.
 - David hears that Absalom has killed all David's sons and is very upset.  Jonabad says that its only Amnon that was killed so don't take it to heart
 - Absalom flees to Geshur for 3 years. David wanted to be reconciled to Absalom because he had got over Amnon's death.


Questions and Observations

1) What a pathetic family: incestual rape, plotting, fratricide, an inefectual father that is not in control of what his kids do, and lets his feelings of the moment control him.  Its like reading a Shakespearean tragedy.
2) This is God's punishment for David. Do you think that God is making the kid's behave like this or is it a result of David's pathetic parenting, or both or is there something else involved.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Tamar was evidently not a propitious name to have... Recall from Genesis 38 the sordid tale of another Tamar's troubled doings with Judah and his sons Er and Onan.

My inclination is to think that the bad example that David has been setting is more than sufficient to produce results like these - he arranges to shag anything that takes his fancy, regularly abusing the stature of his office to do so; and he is comfortable killing people or having them killed if they stand in the way of his ambitions. He acts like a spoiled child that never grew up. And his family is now a vast sprawling network of wives and competing half-siblings - David is notionally in command, but he is more interested in sowing further confusion than in tidying up the confusion he's already produced, and so the natural tendencies of such a situation to erupt in problems are not suppressed.

Basically, David has bitten off far more than he can chew, led by the brain that appears to be in his crotch, and he doesn't appear to realise this at all.

[ttf_MoominDave]

2 Samuel 14 text

Highlights

 - Absalom returns

Summary

 - Joab sees that David wishes to be reunited with Absalom.
 - He primes a wise woman to approach David with a story:
  - She had two sons, who fought - one died
  - Her clan now call for the other to be executed for the crime
  - But she does not wish for her husband to be left without heir
 - David swears to protect her son, offering a religious oath
 - The woman then points out the parallels with Absalom's position, asking David to bring him back to Jerusalem
 - David realises the game - he asks if Joab put her up to this, and she confirms this
 - David asks Joab to bring Absalom back, but to keep him separate from David
 - Absalom lives separate for two years, but grows weary
 - He twice sends for Joab, to ask for an audience with David, but Joab will not come
 - Impatient, he sets fire to Joab's barley field, then talks with Joab on the subject when he is forced to come
 - Joab tells David, and David sends for and receives / is reconciled with Absalom

Questions and Observations

1) A shekel was 11 grams, the footnote says. 200 shekels = 2.2 kg. That's a lot of hair - about 20 feet in length, at an estimate... Perhaps the handsome Absalom had super-gnarly dreads? But even that doesn't seem to get us anywhere near the weight quoted.
2) Absalom has learned well from David the power of ruthless direct action. And has learned from no-one much in the way of moral self-regulation.
3) It was perhaps ambitious of Joab to suppose that David would fall for the same rhetorical trick as he did not many chapters earlier.

[ttf_MoominDave]

2 Samuel 15 text

Highlights

 - Absalom conspires against David

Summary

 - Absalom gathers fighting men, and hangs out with them in front of the city gates, where he waylays new arrivals seeking David's justice, telling them that David will not see them, but that he would if he were in charge.
 - He is charming and affectionate with those that he so treats, and he gains a beloved reputation.
 - He asks David for permission to travel to Hebron to offer worship, which David grants.
 - But he plans to be declared king at Hebron.
 - David is warned of this, and gathers his forces to chase Absalom.
 - David and his forces ascend the Mount of Olives, where he receives good and bad news about allegiances.

Questions and Observations

1) Absalom stood outside the gate four years - but the footnote tells us that the Hebrew says forty. Further evidence that "forty" is Bible code for "lots"?
2) Why does David ascend the Mount of Olives? Was this en route? It isn't clear to me.
3) I remember finding Absalom a particularly distasteful character from reading this stuff as a child - a shallow privileged narcissist who expects his good looks to smooth his path. All coming back now.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: MoominDave on May 30, 2016, 04:07AM2 Samuel 15 text
...

2) Why does David ascend the Mount of Olives? Was this en route? It isn't clear to me.

The Mt of Olives as part of a ridge that lies immediately to the East of Jerusalem.  So it would be en route to the wilderness.

Quote3) I remember finding Absalom a particularly distasteful character from reading this stuff as a child - a shallow privileged narcissist who expects his good looks to smooth his path. All coming back now.

Not trying to clear Absalom's character but he seem's to have had good people skills, shown in schmozing the people and generating enough loyalty to keep his activities secret from the court for 4 years. He was able to manage a secure operation for that time too.

[ttf_drizabone]

2 Samuel 16 text


Highlights -

 - David flees
 - Absalom takes power

Summary

 - Ziba the servant of Mephibosheth brings food for David and tells him the Mephibosheth is hoping to be crowned king.  David gives all Mephibosheth's belonings to Ziba
 - As David tavels through a small town, Shimei cursed David and thrw stones at him.  Abishai wants to kill the man but David says to leave him alone because he may be cursing him because the Lord has told him to.
 - David makes it to the Jordan.
 - Absalom enters Jerusalem and is acclaimed king.
 - He questions Hushai's loyalty.
 - Ahithophel tells him to "go into" Davids concubines to make David hate him.  Ahithophel was reputed to give good advice.

Questions and Observations

1) Its interesting that David seems to have accepted that Shimei's curses may have been true.
2) I think Ahithophel's advice was to make it clear to Israel that there wasn't going to be a reconciliation between David and Absalom.  If there had been then it may not have gone well for the people that supported Absalom.  What do you reckon.

[ttf_drizabone]

I've thinking and have a question.

Back in Judges we read of the failure of the "Judges" system of leadership and that "everyone did as they wanted because there was no king".  It seemed like that writer was writing in support of the monarchy.

Now in Samuel we've read of 2 failed kings and have just been introduced to a third who is a particularly distasteful character, a shallow privileged narcissist.

But there is a theory that Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings were written by the same person aka "The Deuteronomist". 

If that's the case then the same guy is not really a supporter of the monarchy. 

What's going on?  It may become clearer after we've read Kings too, but let me know when you think you know what he's doing.

It may be worth noting that the writer was fairly optimistic about Joshua's rule, but there were signs that under the surface all was not as rosy as the text made out.

I'm not sure if its related to my question but there also seems to be a large theme around Israel's taking possesion of the land:

- Deuteronomy : Israel prepares, gets the founding laws sorted out.
- Joshua      : Israel is obedient, united and conquers
- Judges      : Israel is disobedient, disunited and losing
- Samuel      : it seems to depend on the leader
              - initially under Eli they lose
              - under Saul sometimes conquers,
              - David always conquers even when he is being personally punished (I can't think of him losing, but may be wrong)

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: drizabone on May 30, 2016, 08:40PMThe Mt of Olives as part of a ridge that lies immediately to the East of Jerusalem.  So it would be en route to the wilderness.
Reading it again this morning, I realise I'd formed a misapprehension yesterday - I'd thought that David was chasing Absalom, but in fact he's hiding out from him (the clue's in the paragraph heading: "David Flees Jerusalem", oops...)

Quote from: drizabone on May 30, 2016, 08:40PMNot trying to clear Absalom's character but he seem's to have had good people skills, shown in schmozing the people and generating enough loyalty to keep his activities secret from the court for 4 years. He was able to manage a secure operation for that time too.

Yes, that's part of it. We've all known people totally in love with themselves, people for whom other people are only game pieces, to be manipulated as convenient. Part of their natural skillset is a false but convincing charm. Such people I endeavour to have as little to do with as possible in life - but it isn't always easy to pick them out on first meeting - the most accomplished ones try very hard not to be obviously diagnosable. Often such people end up in professional leadership roles...

Quote from: drizabone on May 30, 2016, 08:55PM2 Samuel 15 text
I think you mean 2 Samuel 16?

Quote from: drizabone on May 30, 2016, 08:55PM - Ziba the servant of Mephibosheth brings food for David and tells him the Mephibosheth is hoping to be crowned king.  David gives all Mephibosheth's belonings to Ziba
David is quick to believe ill of this person who has been presented as harmless, dependent, and not easily mobile.

Quote from: drizabone on May 30, 2016, 08:55PM1) Its interesting that David seems to have accepted that Shimei's curses may have been true.
Sounds like David feels guilty about what he's done?

Quote from: drizabone on May 30, 2016, 08:55PM2) I think Ahithophel's advice was to make it clear to Israel that there wasn't going to be a reconciliation between David and Absalom.  If there had been then it may not have gone well for the people that supported Absalom.  What do you reckon.
Sounds reasonable. Interesting that it's the assertion of power over David's women that is seen as the most immediately significant indicator. There's some peculiar ancient gender power stuff going on there, but I'm not sure exactly what it is at root. There's probably a library shelf of PhDs somewhere exploring the concept from various angles.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: drizabone on May 30, 2016, 09:33PMI've thinking and have a question.

Back in Judges we read of the failure of the "Judges" system of leadership and that "everyone did as they wanted because there was no king".  It seemed like that writer was writing in support of the monarchy.

Now in Samuel we've read of 2 failed kings and have just been introduced to a third who is a particularly distasteful character, a shallow privileged narcissist.

But there is a theory that Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings were written by the same person aka "The Deuteronomist". 

If that's the case then the same guy is not really a supporter of the monarchy. 

What's going on?  It may become clearer after we've read Kings too, but let me know when you think you know what he's doing.
It may be a question of the source material that he had available. I don't think they were just making it up out of their head(s) - it would all flow much more smoothly if so. It seems clear to me that the writer must have been working from ancient collections of stories. The material prior to the events of Samuel has been pretty sparse - each leader gets at most a few chapters, events violate our basic intuitions more, and decades (in earlier books sometimes centuries) are skated over routinely. The story of David (and to a slightly lesser extent Saul) is the first time we've really been presented with a large number of stories about one individual. If they're mostly unflattering, what can the writer do? If they change them substantially, people will know straight away - tribal oral histories would have been widely known.

To me it seems that with the start of the Book of Samuel, the writer has (perhaps consciously) switched from 'story-teller mode' to 'historian mode'. We are having a much less hard time taking stories near their face value now than we were previously.

[ttf_MoominDave]

2 Samuel 17 text

Highlights

 - Absalom's bad judgement leads him to make a misstep

Summary

 - Ahithophel proposes a plan to Absalom to kill David only and bring back his men.
 - Hushai advises that this won't work and proposes a battle to wipe out David's army.
 - Absalom takes Hushai's advice over Ahithophel's, and the text calls this a bad decision.
 - But Hushai is a fifth column - he sends word to David of Absalom's intentions.
 - Bearing this news, the sons of Abiathar and Zadok, Jonathan and Ahimaaz, hide in a well to escape Absalom's spies.
 - David hears the news and retreats to safe place (beyond the Jordan).
 - Ahithophel takes the failure to follow his advice to heart; he goes home and hangs himself.
 - David arrives at Mahanaim, where local make him comfortable; meanwhile Absalom crosses the Jordan.

Questions and Observations

1) They cross the Jordan without much fuss here. Quite a contrast to earlier crossings.
2) I suspect Ahithophel's suicide had more to do with knowing the likely consequences of his betrayal of David than of feeling ignored in his advice.
3) Mahanaim is a location we've seen before: this is where Ish-bosheth was crowned in opposition to David. The locals welcoming him perhaps wished to emphasise their loyalty at this point.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: MoominDave on May 31, 2016, 01:20AM
1) They cross the Jordan without much fuss here. Quite a contrast to earlier crossings.

Do you think its significant?  ISTM the first crossing had significant meaning  just like there's a big ceremony when a bridge is opened, but David was just crossing over, like we cross over a bridge to and from work without any fuss (unless there's a traffic jam).

But it did remind me that David declined the opportunity to take the AotC with him.  He doesn't see it as a magic talisman that will guarantee him victory, and maybe he thought it would be dangerous for him to take it seeing as the whole situation was about God punishing him.

Quote2) I suspect Ahithophel's suicide had more to do with knowing the likely consequences of his betrayal of David than of feeling ignored in his advice.

I wonder if he would have done the same thing if he knew how David would treat those who welcomed him back.  Did he know that David would treat him differently? or that he wouldn't welcome David back?

[ttf_drizabone]

2 Samuel 18 text

Highlights

 - David wins. Absalom dies.

Summary

 - David organises his troops. David is urged not to fight so he doesn't.  He tells his commanders to be kind to Absalom.
 - The battle is waged. Davids troops and the forest defeat Isreals army.
 - Joab kills Absalom!  Israel flees.
 - Ahimaaz the son of Zadok wanted to tell David the news of the victory but Joab chose a foreigner to tell the bad news that Absalom had died.
 - After the foreigner had left Ahimaaz was told he could go now.
 - Ahimaaz arrived first and said that they had won the battle, not admitting that Absalom had died
 - The Cushite arrives and tells David that Absalom had died.  David was deeply moved and said that he wished that he had died instead.

Questions and Observations

1) Ents!?
2) Absalom would have looked impressive riding his mule, with his hair streaming behind him.
3) Davids advisors were more sensible than Absaloms. David stayed out of the battle.
4) Joab had a more realistic view of the situation, knowing that Absalom had to be killed, despite David's sentimentality.
5) The story of the two messengers:
   - shows that Joab again could appreciate the implications of the situation.
   - its strange the even though Ahimaaz got there first, he only told the good news.
6) David shows that he is controlled by his feelings again.

[ttf_drizabone]

2 Samuel 19 text


Highlights -

 - Joab rebukes David
 - David returns to Jerusalem.

Summary

 - David spends the whole day blubbering about Absaloms death.  So the people have to mourn too.
 - Joab tells David that he is shaming all his loyal servants who saved his life. His attitude makes it clear that his commanders and servants are not important and that if he doesn't wake up to himself they will all leave him.
 - David went out and started behaving like a king and the people responded.
 - Israel thinks that they should restore David. David asks Judah to because they are his tribe.
 - Lots of people that had been against David in the rebellion come to David to seek forgiveness.  David pardons them all including Mephibosheth.
 - David rewards Barzillai the Gileadite who had supported him.
 - The men of Israel complain that David is favouring Judah and that it isn't fair.  But the men of Judah win the argument.

Questions and Observations

1) Joab is a pretty good and pragmatic advisor.
2) David is being led by his heart, again.

[ttf_drizabone]

2 Samuel 20 text


Highlights

 - Israel rebels : Sheba and Amasa are killed

Summary

 - Sheba leads Isreal in a rebellion against David as he returns to Jeusalem
 - David tells Amasa (his new CiC) to gather the troops from Judah and get back in 3 days.
 - Amasa delayed: Joab killed him.
 - Joab and Amasa pursued Sheba who holes up in Beth-maachah, as far north as you could get.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Israel_location_map_with_stripes.svg
 - The people of Beth-maachah were wise and didn't want a fight so they killed Sheba and threw his head over the wall to Joab.
 - Everyone went home and Joab became commander of the army again.


Questions and Observations

1) Although Israel rebelled, Sheba doesn't seem to have had much support, does he?  But it shows that there was tension between the North and the South.
2) This is another example of where the death of one man won the battle (Goliath and Absalom were the others)

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 01, 2016, 04:10PM2 Samuel 19 text
1) Joab is a pretty good and pragmatic advisor.
2) David is being led by his heart, again.

We seem to see Joab saving David repeatedly from making bad decisions.

Couple of other points I'd pull out from this chapter:
3) The exchange with Mephibosheth is interesting. Ziba betrayed Mephibosheth and profited thereby from David, who was quick to change his trust. Now Mephibosheth explains that Ziba took advantage of him, deceiving David, and David decrees that what was previously all Mephibosheth's is now divided between the two of them. Then Mephibosheth says 'Ah, don't worry, he can have it all'. Perhaps, as Martin implies, Mephibosheth wasn't being completely honest with David here, and perhaps David knew that - that would make the outcome seem more just; on the face of the narrative, it is an unjust outcome.
4) Barzillai was "a very aged man, eighty years old". Has the day finally come on which we can trust a Biblical age?

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 02, 2016, 03:04PM2 Samuel 20 text

I note that Sheba was from the hill country of Ephraim, a region that we've seen before associated with troublemaking, in two of the final stories of Judges.

[ttf_MoominDave]

2 Samuel 21 text
2 Samuel 22 text

Highlights

 - God commands David to avenge the Gibeonites killed by Saul.
 - Israel and Philistines fight.
 - David hymns his thanks to God.

Summary

Ch 21
 - In the face of a famine, David seeks God's advice.
 - God gives an unexpected answer: Saul's killing of the Gibeonites has incurred an outstanding blood debt, and must be avenged.
 - David asks the (remaining) Gibeonites what they require to be avenged. They ask for seven of Saul's sons to hang, which David gives them, sparing Mephibosheth.
 - The bones of the two hanged sons and five hanged grandsons of Saul are collected together with the bones of Saul and Jonathan, and buried together.
 - Israelites and Philistines fight again.
 - It is decided that David is too valuable a token to continue risking in battle.
Ch 22
 - David sings a lengthy paean.

Questions and Observations

1) What was the mechanism by which David and God were communicating?
2) It isn't stated explicitly, only implied, but presumably the avenging of the blood debt was to lift the famine.
3) I can't find the episode of Saul and the Gibeonites in the text anywhere apart from this chapter. This link gives what seems a complete accounting of the dealings of the Gibeonites with the Israelites in the Bible, and does not find it either. Btw, I find the moral this page draws extremely questionable - yes, it seems that the Gibeonites were a slave class to the Israelites, but to draw the moral that sparing them in Joshua stored up problems for the Israelites later on in distinctly bad taste - according to the story, these people were subjugated and then killed by the Israelites, and this chapter goes out of its way to say that it was Saul's fault, mentioning no fault of theirs.
4) v8: Five sons of Merab, with the footnote saying that this is Michal. But Michal was earlier described as barren after criticising David's flamboyance. And then they are sons to Adriel, which was not the name of the other man she married. Some confusion here.
5) Philistines are again described as descended from giants. The idea that they were perhaps related to seafaring incomers (e.g. the Mycenaeans) could tally - a taller ethnic group?
6) Another giant called Goliath? Maybe a description rather than a name, but the etymology is obscure. Maybe a duplication.
7) As with other included songs, David's song in chapter 22 doesn't entirely feel of a piece with the narrative. Is it perhaps older preserved material as with the Song of Deborah?

[ttf_MoominDave]

2 Samuel 23 text

Highlights

 - The Last Words of David.
 - Strongmen of David are listed.

Summary

 - David's Last Words: 'I am good in God's eyes, and God judges others'.
 - David's three chief mighty men: Josheb-basshebeth, Eleazar, Shammah; some of their deeds listed.
 - Thirty sub-mighty men are listed, along with some deeds.

Questions and Observations

1) Last words of David's life or of his hymn? If the former, they seem narratively misplaced.

[ttf_MoominDave]

2 Samuel 24 text

Highlights

 - David takes a census but then takes punishment for it

Summary

 - God, angry with Israel, asks David to perform a census. 800,000 in Israel; 500,000 in Judah.
 - David claims to God that he has sinned in performing the asked duty, and the prophet Gad, through whom David apparently speaks to God, offers him on God's behalf three choices: three years of famine, three months of military disaster, or three days of pestilence. David doesn't make a choice.
 - Pestilence is what comes, with 70,000 dying.
 - David pleads for mercy.
 - In response, Gad instructs David to build an altar at the place he pleaded. David pays fair price for the place and materials.
 - The pestilence ends.

Questions and Observations

1) This chapter makes little sense to me. God was angry with Israel (apparently not Judah), so he ordered David to perform a census. Firstly, this makes little sense as a motivation - how does performing a census punish people? Secondly, he was angry with Israel, but Judah was also numbered. Thirdly, David then goes to God claiming that obeying his will was a sin. Fourthly, God agrees, and decrees a choice of properly Biblical punishments. It's just a big casserole of nonsense.
2) 1.3m population of this area in 10th century BC - do we believe this number?

[ttf_MoominDave]

In preface, recap of the story so far:
Quote from: MoominDave on May 24, 2016, 06:11AMQuote from: MoominDave on Apr 06, 2016, 02:58PMGenesis

• [li]Big picture stuff
  • [li]Creation; Adam & Eve[/li][li]Humans, take 1; Cain & Abel, Noah[/li][li]The Flood; Wash everything away, start again[/li][li]Humans, take 2[/li]
  [/li][li]Abraham; extensive travels, original covenant, Lot, not sacrificing Isaac[/li][li]Jacob; conflict with twin Esau, banishment, wives, 12 sons[/li][li]Joseph; betrayal to Egypt, rise, saving of family, supposed origins of 12 tribes[/li]

Exodus

• [li]New scene, three generations on - Israelites now of low status in Egypt[/li][li]Moses grows up, fights battle of wills with Pharoah over plagues, leads Israelites to depart[/li][li]Wandering, take 1; through the desert to Mt. Sinai, where they make a long camp and...[/li]

Leviticus

• [li]...many laws are given[/li]

Numbers

• [li]Wandering, take 2; they reach their destination, but are too weak to attempt the task, and so...[/li][li]Wandering, take 3; more pootling around, building up military prowess over the years in the preparation for invasion; new leaders emerge, and they finish on the brink of their destination again[/li]

Deuteronomy

• [li]Moses orates; recap of terms and conditions, forward planning[/li][li]Moses dies[/li]

Joshua

• [li]Conquest
  • [li]Joshua appointed leader, to cross Jordan, conquer Canaan[/li][li]Spies report back that the time is ripe[/li][li]Jericho is the first city to fall. Then Ai, at the second attempt.[/li][li]The Gibeonites talk them into an alliance.[/li][li]Southern Canaan all conquered (sudden shift of narrative gear)[/li][li]Ditto the North[/li]
  [/li][li]Division of conquered land between the tribes
  • [li]The East bank land that Moses took[/li][li]West bank land[/li][li]Remaining land[/li][li]Cities of refuge and Levite cities nominated[/li]
  [/li][li]Joshua dies[/li]

Judges

• [li]Prologue: Messy details of attempted not-always-successful conquest[/li][li]An intermittent sequence of Judges leads:
  • [li]Othniel - defeated Mesopotamia[/li][li]Ehud - kills Eglon[/li][li]Shamgar - killed 600 Philistines with an ox-goad[/li][li]Deborah - defeated Jabin of Hazor[/li][li]Gideon - defeated Midian[/li][li]Tola, then Jair[/li][li]Jephthah - defeated the Ammonites[/li][li]Ibzan, then Elon, then Abdon[/li][li]Samson - killed Philistines, made trouble[/li]
  [/li][li]The Dan tribe take territory in the North[/li][li]The Benjamin tribe are defeated by the other tribes[/li]

Ruth

• [li]Intermezzo: Heartwarming tale of a family coming through hard times[/li]

1 Samuel

• [li]Samuel born and given to the church, in the care of the Judge Eli[/li][li]Philistines defeat Israel, taking the Ark of the Covenant, but they are divinely afflicted with tumours and give it back[/li][li]Israelites defeat Philistines, and Samuel becomes the leader[/li][li]Samuel ages, and his sons prove unworthy. Saul is appointed to the new role of king.[/li][li]Saul defeats the Ammonites[/li][li]Saul and Jonathan defeat the Philistines, but Saul usurps Samuel's function[/li][li]Saul defeats the Amalekites at Samuel's command, but does not obey the divine command to kill all; he is marked for failure from this point[/li][li]Samuel anoints David as a replacement king, but doesn't tell Saul[/li][li]David becomes an Israelite military hero, particularly beloved to Saul's son Jonathan, and Saul becomes jealous of him[/li][li]Saul resolves to kill David, and with Jonathan's assistance, he flees[/li][li]Saul pursues and they play a game of cat and mouse in which David finds Saul in his hands and spares him twice[/li][li]Samuel dies[/li][li]David seeks refuge with the Philistines[/li][li]Philistines and Israelites fight once again; Saul and all his sons die and the Philistines are victorious; David is sent home from the Philistine side before the battle.[/li]

2 Samuel

• [li]News of Saul's death arrives; Ish-bosheth crowned in the North, David in the South: civil war[/li][li]David wins, aided by high profile defection, and also defeats the Philistines[/li][li]David retrieves the Ark of the Covenant, receives his own covenant, and defeats all and sundry militarily, building his territory[/li][li]Ammonites rebel unsuccessfully[/li][li]David's domestic doings: takes in Mephibosheth, takes Bathsheba immorally. Incest (Amnon on Tamar) and murder (Absalom on Amnon) amongst his children[/li][li]Absalom returns, forgiven, but plots against his father, leading a rebellion, which is defeated, with Absalom dying[/li][li]Sheba rebels unsuccessfully[/li]

[ttf_MoominDave]

1 Kings 1 text

Highlights

 - David is now old, and the succession is dealt with

Summary

 - David was old and couldn't get warm. A beautiful young woman, Abishag, was sent to tend and cuddle him.
 - David' son by Haggith, Adonijah, sets himself up in David's place as functional monarch. He is described as handsome and spoilt, like Absalom. However, he does not have the support of Nathan, Solomon, or David's mighty men from 2 Samuel 23.
 - Nathan and Bathsheba bring to David's attention that he has been usurped and that the apparent agreed order of succession to Solomon has been usurped too.
 - David has Zadok and Nathan anoint Solomon king, much to the joy of G. F. Handel.
 - Solomon is paraded before the people, who rejoice.
 - Adonijah recognises that he has lost this game, and submits to Solomon.

Questions and Observations

1) I once saw Abishag in a list of unfortunate names given to Victorian children...
2) David "knew her not" - not clear to me whether this references sexual function or more general senility.
3) Was the kingship promised to Solomon previously? I missed that.
4) Surprising how easily Adonijah gave in, no? He had some powerful allies at his disposal, not least Joab.
5) What does the grasping the horns of the altar mean?

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: MoominDave on Jun 04, 2016, 02:56AM2 Samuel 21 text
2 Samuel 22 text

...

Questions and Observations

1) What was the mechanism by which David and God were communicating?

I don't know for sure but expect that it was probably a prophet.

Incidentally this and the rest of the book are thought to be not chronological, but rather a thematic treatment of things that had gone wrong during David's reign and how they were fixed.

Quote2) It isn't stated explicitly, only implied, but presumably the avenging of the blood debt was to lift the famine.

I think so too

Quote3) I can't find the episode of Saul and the Gibeonites in the text anywhere apart from this chapter. This link gives what seems a complete accounting of the dealings of the Gibeonites with the Israelites in the Bible, and does not find it either. Btw, I find the moral this page draws extremely questionable - yes, it seems that the Gibeonites were a slave class to the Israelites, but to draw the moral that sparing them in Joshua stored up problems for the Israelites later on in distinctly bad taste - according to the story, these people were subjugated and then killed by the Israelites, and this chapter goes out of its way to say that it was Saul's fault, mentioning no fault of theirs.

What moral do you think is drawn? I wasn't sure what you meant.

It seems to me that God is punishing Israel because they (through their king) broke the treaty with the Gibeonites and earned blood guilt.  So David asked the Gibeonites how to make atonement for the blood guilt.  They wanted to hold Saul's sons responsible and punish them. So David agreed to the deal.

This story requires the concept of blood guilt which wasn't just the responsiblity of the person committing the crime but the collective responsibility of the man and his descendants.  This is not how we work today but seemed to be how they saw justice then. 

Is that how you see it?

So are you going back to Joshua for you moral? where God told the Israelites to kill all the Canaanites because if they don't they will cause them trouble?  If so I don't think that that is the point of this story, as you say, Saul is at fault for breaking the treaty (promise), and its his family that is punished. I think its significant to this, that the writer mentions that David protects Mephibosheth because of his promise to Jonathon. 

ISTM that the writer is:
 -  using the principals that its really important not to break promises and of a families collective responsibility for blood guilt.
 - showing that David kept his promise to protect Mephibosheth.

Quote4) v8: Five sons of Merab, with the footnote saying that this is Michal. But Michal was earlier described as barren after criticising David's flamboyance. And then they are sons to Adriel, which was not the name of the other man she married. Some confusion here.

But most Hebrew manuscripts have Merab, so it is probably not a problem that Michal was barren.  Neither would it be a problem if Michal hadn't married Adriel if it was talking about Merab.

Quote5) Philistines are again described as descended from giants. The idea that they were perhaps related to seafaring incomers (e.g. the Mycenaeans) could tally - a taller ethnic group?

its saying that specific Philistines were descended from giants, but you're point may be correct anyway.

Quote7) As with other included songs, David's song in chapter 22 doesn't entirely feel of a piece with the narrative. Is it perhaps older preserved material as with the Song of Deborah?

This part of the book isn't chronological.  This was written when he was young, hiding from Saul, before he became king.

I would be older if it was a song that David wrote and the narrative was being written after the events.

It would also be different as it was written by David and not the narrator.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 04, 2016, 04:11PMWhat moral do you think is drawn? I wasn't sure what you meant.

The moral at the link I shared that laid out the story: "Though the Gibeonites were enemies of the Israelites, they serve as an important lesson for readers today. Their deception was effective because Joshua and his people did not first consult God for wisdom. As a result, this group of people was spared and continued as enemies of Israel for hundreds of years, causing much harm in the process. Joshua 9 certainly reveals the need for believers in Christ to pray concerning all major decisions and to seek His will before moving forward. Making a few bad choices today can cause many future problems."

"Continued as enemies of Israel" is quite a propaganda way to describe "existed as a subjugated slave class under the Israelites". It's a flip and shallow interpretation of the text, some classic victim-blaming.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: MoominDave on Jun 04, 2016, 05:09AM2 Samuel 24 text

...

Questions and Observations

1) This chapter makes little sense to me. God was angry with Israel (apparently not Judah),

Yeah its confusing. 

Sometimes Israel means the Northen tribes, sometimes it means the whole nation.  It seems as though the writer is using it in both senses in the same sentence.  Definitely confusing.

So he was angry with Israel the nation, and David numbered Israel the northern tribes and Judah in the south.  I think.

Quote...so he ordered David to perform a census. Firstly, this makes little sense as a motivation - how does performing a census punish people?

The way I think of it is that God is planning things 3 moves in advance, like how I would like to play chess.  So the census set things up.

But we don't know for sure, why taking a census was wrong or why it resulted in the famine.

Confusing.

I think that the writer is making the point that God is in control.  But that doesn't help you at all.

And despite David being blamed for the census he seems to come out positively in the chapter: confessing his sin, throwing himself on God's mercy and then buying the land for and building an alter to God, which led to the plague being averted.

QuoteSecondly, he was angry with Israel, but Judah was also numbered. Thirdly, David then goes to God claiming that obeying his will was a sin. Fourthly, God agrees, and decrees a choice of properly Biblical punishments. It's just a big casserole of nonsense.

As above, he was angry with Israel the nation, and David numbered Israel the northern tribes and Judah in the south.  I think.

Quote2) 1.3m population of this area in 10th century BC - do we believe this number?

1000 still means companies. I think.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: MoominDave on Jun 04, 2016, 05:23AM
2 Samuel

• [li]News of Saul's death arrives; Ish-bosheth crowned in the North, David in the South: civil war[/li][li]David wins, aided by high profile defection, and also defeats the Philistines[/li][li]David retrieves the Ark of the Covenant, receives his own covenant, and defeats all and sundry militarily, building his territory[/li][li]Ammonites rebel unsuccessfully[/li][li]David's domestic doings: takes in Mephibosheth, takes Bathsheba immorally. Incest (Amnon on Tamar) and murder (Absalom on Amnon) amongst his children[/li][li]Absalom returns, forgiven, but plots against his father, leading a rebellion, which is defeated, with Absalom dying[/li][li]Sheba rebels unsuccessfully[/li]

I think that the last 4 chapters of 2 Samuel have been arranged thematically rather than chronologically.

- The section starts and finishes with stories that emphasise problems caused by the kings (Saul (21:1-14) and then David ch 24)
- The next layer has military stuff: victorious battles against the Philistines (21:15-22) and Davids "mighty men" (23:8-39)
- In the centre are 2 song's summarising the 2 books of Samuel: the first one (ch 22) praising God for his part in Davids rise to power, and the second one (23:1-7) describing the ideal king of Israel, who rules wisely based on God's oracles and covenant.  Was this David?  He didn't always rule justly in the fear of God.

So its sort of like:

- Problem Saul caused
  - Victories over the Phillistines
    - Theological summary of 1 and 2 Samuel
    - Ideal king of Israel
  - Davids Mighty Men
- Problem David caused.

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: MoominDave on Jun 04, 2016, 05:43AM1 Kings 1 text

...

Questions and Observations

1) I once saw Abishag in a list of unfortunate names given to Victorian children...

It doesn't strike you as a name for a hot babe does it?

Quote2) David "knew her not" - not clear to me whether this references sexual function or more general senility.

It's the authorised biblical term for sex.  Except in Song of Songs.

Quote3) Was the kingship promised to Solomon previously? I missed that.

You need to pay more attention.  Actually we don't read about that until 1 Chronicles 22:6...

(Chronicles overlaps the same time as Samuel and Kings, but from a different perspective.)

Quote5) What does the grasping the horns of the altar mean?

The horns of the alter were pointy bits on each corner.

I guess its a bit like a man killer claiming sanctuary as we read in the Pentateuch (which is a general term I use when I can't remember which book).  So I'd say he's claiming the same sort of protection and hoping Solomon agrees.

[ttf_MoominDave]

1 Kings 2 text

Highlights

 - David dies and Solomon succeeds him

Summary

 - David feels death close, and counsels Solomon:
  - Follow Yahweh.
  - Value Joab.
  - Remember the loyalty of Barzillai.
  - Work out what to do about Shimei, who cursed David.
 - David dies, having reigned 40 years. Solomon takes over.
 - Adonijah asks for Abishag for a wife, via Solomon's mother Bathsheba.
 - Solomon is enraged by the request, comparing it to Adonijah wanting the whole kingdom; he orders Adonijah killed by Benaiah, and it is done.
 - Solomon expels Abiathar for his part with Adonijah, sparing him death for the sake of his service to David.
 - Solomon orders Joab killed for the same. Joab claims sanctuary, and there is exchange of messages. But ultimately he is killed the same way, by Benaiah.
 - The assassin Benaiah is put in charge of the army, and Zadok in charge of the priesthood.
 - Shimei however is spared for a time - he is told to build himself a house in Jerusalem and stay there, on pain of death.
 - But he has to retrieve runaway servants, and by doing so forfeits his life. Solomon has Benaiah kill him also.

Questions and Observations

1) We'd previously concluded that "forty" is Bible for "lots". It seems a reasonably intuitive number here, but probably the meaning is still the same?
2) Solomon's ordered killing of Adonijah - strong leadership or emotion-driven instability?
3) Whichever it is, it is now plain that Solomon had not forgiven the attempted usurpation at all; bloody reprisals now afoot. This bit didn't catch Handel's imagination so much...
4) Solomon flagrantly disregards David final request to value Joab. It is justified by Solomon in terms of murders past by Joab.
5) Solomon doesn't mind Shimei's insult to David as much as the threats to his power.
6) The chapter ends "So the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon". Which reads rather as a condemnation to me?

[ttf_drizabone]

Quote from: MoominDave on Jun 06, 2016, 08:09AM1 Kings 2 text

...

  - Value Joab.

I get the impression that David was telling Solomon to punish Joab for avenging war deaths in times of peace.
"Do not let his grey head go down to Sheol in peace" doesn't sound like a reward.

Quote
Questions and Observations

2) Solomon's ordered killing of Adonijah - strong leadership or emotion-driven instability?
3) Whichever it is, it is now plain that Solomon had not forgiven the attempted usurpation at all; bloody reprisals now afoot. This bit didn't catch Handel's imagination so much...

I think that taking the kings concubine was often considered to be effectively claiming the crown, so even though Abishag wasn't really a concubine it was close enough for Solomon to think that Adonijah was still thinking about the crown.

Quote4) Solomon flagrantly disregards David final request to value Joab. It is justified by Solomon in terms of murders past by Joab.

as above I disagree.

Quote6) The chapter ends "So the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon". Which reads rather as a condemnation to me?

Solomon was decisive and did what he had to do to establish the kingdom.  I think its a statement of fact rather than an evaluation of it.

[ttf_robcat2075]

QuoteBut we don't know for sure, why taking a census was wrong or why it resulted in the famine.

Confusing.

I think that the writer is making the point that God is in control.  But that doesn't help you at all.

And despite David being blamed for the census he seems to come out positively in the chapter: confessing his sin, throwing himself on God's mercy and then buying the land for and building an alter to God, which led to the plague being averted.
Writers trying to unify random historical fragments into some "it's all God's will" whole.


QuoteQuote1) I once saw Abishag in a list of unfortunate names given to Victorian children...
It doesn't strike you as a name for a hot babe does it?
I thought "The Spy Who Abishagged Me" was Mike Myers weakest movie.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 06, 2016, 02:54PMI get the impression that David was telling Solomon to punish Joab for avenging war deaths in times of peace.
"Do not let his grey head go down to Sheol in peace" doesn't sound like a reward.

You're quite right. Perhaps I am going through these too quickly at the moment - I keep making silly mistakes.