Compositry and Creativity in 2 Samuel 21:1-14

Abstract

3 Jan Fokkelman has in fact dissected 2 Sam 21:1-14 in his exhaustive structuralist manner, but having postulated the homogeneous character of the piece and the sufficiency of the MT as a matter of interpretive principle, he did not venture beyond the confines of synchronic analysis, which on occasion compelled him to scale the heights of hermeneutic ingenuity rather than delve into a diachronic analysis when faced with incongruity (

The Sanctuary of the Gibeonites Revisited

“…10 For the suggestion, see Schunck 1963: 131-138;Demsky 1971;Blenkinsopp 1972: 63-64;Mettinger 1976: 245-246;Edelman 2001;Finkelstein 2002: 122-129;2006: 171-179. 11 In addition to the commentaries, see Cazelles 1955: 165-175;Kapelrud 1959: 298-301;Grintz 1966: 113-126;Thiel 1994;Hentschel 1994: Chavel 2003, with earlier literature in p. 24 n. 4. 12 Contra Hentschel 1994Chavel 2003: 26-34.…”

“…11 In addition to the commentaries, see Cazelles 1955: 165-175;Kapelrud 1959: 298-301;Grintz 1966: 113-126;Thiel 1994;Hentschel 1994: Chavel 2003, with earlier literature in p. 24 n. 4. 12 Contra Hentschel 1994Chavel 2003: 26-34. 13 Thiel 1994, with earlier literature in p. 254 n. 14.…”

Polemical propaganda of the Golah community against the Gibeonites: Historical background of Joshua 9 and 2 Samuel 21 in the early Persian Period

“…63 Other scholars have noted the complexity of 21.12-14 regarding the identity of those who took Saul and Jonathan's bones-'David', or 'they'-thereby attributing 21.12-13a and 14aα to the later interpolation. 64 Relying on the divergence of the name YHWH and Elohim as a criterion of the source criticism, Frolov and Orel have attempted to divide 21.1-14 into two sources, J (21.1-9) and E (21.10-14). 65 Rejecting these arguments, Fokkelman and Van Seters have insisted that 21.1-14 constitutes a congruently unified unit.…”