Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 138, 1 (2006), 27–33

DAVID’S ‘HATRED’ FOR THE LAME AND THE BLIND

(2 SAM. 5.8A)
John C. Poirier

Scholars have often dismissed the rendering of veyigga’ batsinnor (2 Sam. 5.8) as ‘get up the water shaft’
or ‘get up the water canal’ on the grounds that it has no natural connection with David’s expressed ‘hatred’ for
‘the lame and the blind’. This article argues that such a dismissal is perhaps hasty, and that David’s reference
to the physically afflicted alludes to the custom of their gathering at pools and springs (which were widely held
to possess healing powers).

The reference to David’s ‘hatred’ for ‘the lame and the blind’ in 2 Sam. 5.6–8 has under-
standably attracted a good deal of attention, yet it has withstood the efforts of numerous
(ancient and modern) interpreters to unpack a meaning that universally satisfies. Happily,
it may be said that some progress has been made in the way of scholarship’s openness to
redactional theories, which in this case has helped to isolate the second reference to the blind
and lame in these verses (v. 8a) as the original kernel of the offending element in the text
(with the first and third references being uncomprehending or otherwise immaterial glosses
— see McCarter 1984, 137; Floss 1987, 39–40). Yet even this has not removed the problem
altogether. The present note attempts another solution.
2 Sam. 5.6–8 tells the story of David’s conquest of the city of Jebus (later ‘Jerusalem’),
and includes no less than three references to violence (or exclusion) aimed at the blind and
the lame:
(6) The king and his men marched to Jerusalem against the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land,
who 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.’
(7) Nevertheless David took the stronghold of Zion, which is now the city of David.
(8) David had said on that day, ‘Whoever would strike down the Jebusites, let him get up the water
shaft (veyigga’ batsinnor) 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.’ [NRSV]
There have been principally two avenues by which interpreters have sought a solution: (1)
they have peeled away later redactional accretions, and (2) they have sought to revise our
understanding of the meaning of tsinnor. For the sake of convenience, I take P. K. McCarter’s
analysis as my point of departure, both because of the superb quality of his discussion and
because he makes good use of both avenues. Having said this, I should state that I accept
avenue (1) but not (2): the present article bypasses those explanations that take their bearing
from the present wording of 5.6.
McCarter is right, I believe, in suggesting that the problems with vv. 6–8 ‘were com-
pounded when an old account, which had become obscure to a later audience, was enlarged
epexegetically’ (1984, 137). This enlargement accounts for the first and the third references to
‘the blind’ and ‘the lame’ (‘even the blind and the lame will turn you back’ in 6b, and ‘There-
fore it is said, “The blind and the lame shall not come into the house”’ in 8b).1 I have already
stated my agreement with this first avenue of approach. But McCarter (following a sugges-
tion by Wellhausen) goes on to suggest that tsinnor does not mean ‘water shaft’ or ‘canal’ at
all, but rather refers to the windpipe (gullet), so that ‘strike at the tsinnor’ means essentially ‘do
a proper job of killing’. This interpretation, he notes, has the advantage of explaining the
reference to David’s ‘hat[ing] the lame and the blind’. According to McCarter’s suggestion,

© Palestine Exploration Fund 2006 doi: 10.1179/003103206x92103

28 palestine exploration quarterly, 138, 1, 2006

David’s express hatred for the disabled was ‘originally an explanation of the command to
deliver only fatal blows (“strike at the windpipe”)’ (1984, 137). David’s troops were to avoid
merely maiming the enemy.
As a solution to the ‘the lame and the blind’ problem, McCarter’s reading certainly
succeeds, and it admittedly has a tightness of explanation. Yet it succeeds at the cost of
adjusting our understanding of tsinnor, and we must ask whether the adjustment has been
warranted. McCarter suggests that it has, as he cannot see that the traditional meaning of
tsinnor can account for the reference to ‘the lame and the blind’. He is willing to admit that
‘[t]he assumption that Dsinnôr refers to Warren’s shaft [. . .] is entirely plausible in itself,’ but
he finds a problem with this line of interpretation in that he thinks ‘it leaves the succeeding
reference to the lame and the blind meaningless’ (1984, 139). I suggest below that the tradi-
tional understanding of tsinnor does nothing of the sort, and that the image of David’s troops
climbing up a water shaft (e.g. Warren’s Shaft) or sneaking through an enclosed canal (e.g.
the Siloam Channel) is in fact closely related to a rhetorical ‘hatred’ for the blind and lame.2
The correct solution, I submit, accepts that tsinnor meant for the author of our text
what it meant for later Hebrew writers (viz. a water shaft or canal [Ps 42.8; cf. Zech. 4.12]).3
Although interpreters have not considered it, there is in fact a likely connection between an
incursion through the waterworks and ‘hating’ the blind and lame. That connection consists
of the fact that spring-fed pools, especially those connected with sacred waters,4 seem to have
functioned cross-culturally as a regular (daily) gathering point for those suffering from illness
or disability. In this light, David’s claim to ‘hate’ ‘the lame and the blind’ is merely a rhetori-
cal spur, connecting with the fact that one who enters a city through a pool of healing water
will typically emerge in the city’s nearest thing to an infirmary. David did not hate the blind
and the lame of Jebus any more than he hated the rest of its inhabitants, but by expressing
himself in terms of hatred for this group (with ‘blind and lame’ standing synecdochically for
all those struck with physical maladies), he put the challenge to his men in terms that would
evoke their competition to please their leader. In other words, David’s rhetoric of ‘hatred’ is
similar to his staged wish for ‘a drink of the water from the well in Bethlehem’ in 2 Sam.
david’s ‘hatred’ for the lame and the blind 29
23.13–17, a ‘wish’ that spurred his men to one of their amazing exploits for their leader.
David’s men took his wish as their command, and David played upon their competitive
loyalty through a rhetoric of pretended wishes and hatreds.
How old and how cross-cultural is the custom of the afflicted gathering at sacred
springs? Epidauros, the most famous healing centre in the ancient world, was founded on the
site of healing springs, and was in business at least as early as the fifth century b.c.e. (A well
at the site dates to the sixth century b.c.e.)5 W. W. G. Baudissin discusses a number of sacred
springs in the Near East, many of which were associated with nymphs (1876–78, 2.148–85,
esp. 153–65; see Canaan 1920, 164–66; Reymond 1958, 208–12; Amar 1997). (Although their
legends are much later, Zamzam in Mecca and the spring at Paneas are of special note for
their reputed healing properties.)6 As for the pool in John 5, we cannot really testify to its
reputation as a healing pool in Old Testament times, but by moving in the other direction
chronologically we can testify to the longevity and transreligiosity of that reputation: the
Pilgrim of Bordeaux visited its traditional site in 333 c.e. and (apparently) reports that the
sick were still healed there, and an anonymous visitor reported the same thing in the sixth
century c.e.7 Lucian refers to a sacred pool visited by the goddess Hera (de Syria dea 45–48).
It should further be noted that knowledge of the health benefits of certain springs tran-
scended the mythologies that were woven about them: Vitruvius writes in the first century
b.c.e. (De Architectura 1.2.7 [quoted in Avalos 1995, 49]),
[I]t shall be much more naturally suitable if, for all temples in the first place, the most healthy sites be
chosen and suitable springs of water in those places in which shrines are to be set up, and for
Asclepius in particular and for Salus and for those gods by whose medical power a great many of the
sick seem to be healed. For when sick persons are moved from a pestilent to a healthy place and the
water supply is from salubrious fountains, they will recover with more speed. So will it happen that
the divinity from the nature of the site will gain a greater and higher reputation and authority.
Although none of these examples of healing springs is perhaps as ancient as the account in
2 Sam. 5.6–8, similarities between later uses of water for healing can be found in much
earlier accounts from the Bible. For example, as Avalos notes (1995, 264), Elisha’s telling
Naaman to dip himself seven times in the Jordan is similar to certain healing prescriptions
associated with Asclepius.8 Admittedly, evidence for the practice of seeking healing at spring-
fed pools comes mainly (but not exclusively) from Second-Temple times and later, yet the
constancy of this practice across religious and cultural settings, its durability during the inter-
vening centuries, and its rootedness in anthropological constants all speak for some measure
of heuristic usefulness. As far as I can tell, there is little variation in this practice across the
cultures of the Mediterranean and Near Eastern worlds. One final note on these parallels
should be registered: in connection with my proposal that a synecdochic reference to the
blind and lame in 2 Sam. 5.8 has to do with gatherings at a spring, it is worth pointing out
that the same synecdoche appears in a testimony from the Asclepian temple in Pergamum,
which ‘was reputed to heal the blind and lame’ (Avalos 1995, 60 [based on T. 409 in
Edelstein 1945]).
McCarter correctly noted that the text of 2 Sam. 5.6–8 has been ‘enlarged epexe-
getically’, but it should be pointed out that his interpretation requires an expansion to have
taken place in two steps — that is, by two different hands:

The original account is found in vv. 6aba +7–8a. The expansions in 6bb and 8b appear here in paren-
theses. The first of these (6bb) arose because of confusion over the meaning of the word Dsinnôr in v. 8.
The meaning intended was ‘windpipe’ or ‘gullet, throat’ (see below), but this was forgotten in later
times, as the witnesses to the text demonstrate (. . .). With the loss of the meaning of Dsinnôr David’s com-
mand to ‘strike at the windpipe’ became obscure; it may have been reinterpreted as ‘strike at the water
30 palestine exploration quarterly, 138, 1, 2006
channel’, an understanding reflected in some of the ancient witnesses and the studies of many modern
commentators (. . .). But at this point the clause ‘for David hates the lame and the blind’, originally an
explanation of the command to deliver only fatal blows (‘strike at the windpipe’), seemed inexplicable.
What did David have against the lame and the blind? Verse 6bb represents an ancient attempt at a
solution to the problem. David hated the lame and the blind because it was they who had incited (hēsîtû
. . .) the Jebusites against him. (McCarter 1984, 137)

Although I accept that the text has been expanded in two places, my interpretation does
not require this expansion to be the product of two different hands. It therefore has the
advantage of building on a simpler redactional theory.9 (It is worth pointing out, in this
connection, that the first and the third references to ‘the blind’ and ‘the lame’ state their
terms in that order [i.e., ‘the blind and the lame’], while the second reference [that is, the
oldest part of the text] states the same terms in the reverse order [i.e., ‘the lame and the
blind’ — see Floss 1987, 39–40].)

the historicity of the account

All that remains to round off this discussion is to comment on how it relates to the question
of the historicity of 2 Sam. 5.6–8 (a separate issue from what the author intended), and on
how it relates to the present state of knowledge regarding the waterworks of pre-Israelite and
monarchical Jerusalem. It is well known that ancient Jerusalem’s waterworks consisted of
three distinct projects — the Warren’s Shaft System, the Siloam Channel (not to be confused
with the ‘Siloam Tunnel’), and Hezekiah’s Tunnel (a.k.a. the ‘Siloam Tunnel’) — all of
which were designed to convey or access the waters of the Gihon Spring situated on the east
side of the hill of Ophel (see figure). The vertical part of the Warren’s Shaft system is prob-
ably not really a part of the waterworks per se, although the horizontal tunnels associated with
Warren’s Shaft appear to be pre-Israelite access tunnels to the Pool Tower, which stood over
the Gihon Spring.10 The Siloam Channel is a channel, partially hewn in stone, which carries
water from the Gihon Spring along the east side of the hill of Ophel to a pool on the south
side of the city. According to the recent excavations of Reich and Shukron, this channel
dates from the same time as the Pool Tower (viz. eighteenth–seventeenth centuries b.c.e.),
and it was not used to irrigate the Kidron Valley (as formerly thought). The Hezekiah Tunnel
was built much later (ca. 705–701 b.c.e.). It joined the same two endpoints as the Siloam
Channel (viz. the Gihon Spring and the southern pool), but it did so by a more northerly
route beneath the hill of Ophel.11 It is widely accepted that the route of the Hezekiah Tunnel
was to some degree determined by karstic fissures in the rock, but there is no agreement on
how much this was the case.12 Any attempt to understand 2 Sam. 5.8 from the standpoint of
a traditional understanding of tsinnor must take stock of these basic archaeological facts.
The original author of 2 Sam. 5.8a was no doubt familiar with the Jerusalem of his day,
and he would have been aware that Jerusalem’s waterworks were at that time interconnected,
regardless of whether he wrote before or after Hezekiah’s project. Anyone who had breached
the water system at any point could have emerged through a pool inside the city’s walls, a not
unlikely gathering point of ‘the blind and the lame’. It is equally true that anyone entering
the system through the southern pool (which was outside the walls of Jebus) could have
arrived at the recently excavated ‘Spring Tower’ (built ca. eighteenth–seventeenth century
b.c.e.), and from thence could have made it to street-level Jebus through either Warren’s
Shaft13 or (more probably) the newly discovered incline connecting the Tower with the top
of Warren’s Shaft.14 The former scenario represents a historically possible scenario (that is,
what might have happened given the actual position of the walls of Jebusite Jerusalem), while
the latter represents what one might have imagined if he/she assumed that the wall protect-
ing the Siloam Channel (probably built by Hezekiah [see 2 Chron. 32.5]) had existed during
the Jebusite period. It is not unlikely that the author of 2 Samuel supposed that one of these
david’s ‘hatred’ for the lame and the blind 31
scenarios represents how David took the city. It is difficult to judge the historicity of the basic
account: it may be that 1 Chron. 11.4–9, which leaves out the water shaft and the ‘hatred’ of
the blind and the lame, is more historical than that in 2 Sam. 5.6–8, yet it may also be that
2 Samuel preserves a historical kernel regarding an incursion through the water system.
Whether the details of David’s rhetoric are a part of that kernel should be treated as another
question.15

conclusion
The best rendering of veyigga’ batsinnor in 2 Sam. 5.8 will be one that can explain both that
phrase and the reference to ‘the lame and the blind’ in a single swoop. A further ideal in any
search for a solution is that it will let us make do with as little philological revision as possible.
This article has suggested a way in which both of these conditions might be met. If we inter-
pret David’s ‘hatred’ for ‘the lame and the blind’ as a rhetorical spur to his men, urging them
to emerge from the water system at a point where the gathering of the city’s afflicted would
have been a familiar sight, then David’s command to ‘get up the tsinnor’ fits perfectly with the
rhetoric that seals his command. This explanation allows tsinnor to retain a meaning consis-
tent with its other biblical uses, as well as the Ugaritic use uncovered by Kleven — a not
inconsiderable advantage.
What the original account behind 2 Sam. 5.6–8 intends to relate is a different question
from how the historical David took Jebus, but the former is probably the best starting point
for understanding the latter. Where the specifics of the archaeological data are concerned,
the above interpretation of 2 Sam. 5.6–8 allows for a number of scenarios (e.g., concerning
where David’s men breached the water system, which tunnels they used, where they
emerged, etc.), which we can test for how well they fit with the author’s understanding and
with historical possibility.
notes
1 See also Floss 1987, 39–40. McCarter proposes that quite possibly by way of a survival of a pre-Israelite
the words ‘thinking, “David cannot come in here”’ (6b) custom.’
are also part of this enlargement, but I cannot see that 5 See Tomlinson 1983, 67; LiDonnici 1995, 8–9.
this is necessary. Healing through spring water was especially connected
2 As we will see, translating tsinnor in line with its with Asclepius. According to Avalos (1995, 60), ‘Bathing
meaning elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible does not mean in springs, rivers or the sea was also prescribed by the
that Warren’s Shaft must be the water conveyance in god. Water from the well in Pergamum was reputed to
question. On tsinnor as ‘water canal’, see Stoebe 1957; heal the blind and lame (T. 409). One could drink
Mazar 1975, 168–69. T. Kleven has now added philo- it or bathe in it. Encomia intended for the well are
logical support for the traditional meaning of tsinnor also extant (e.g., T. 804).’ (‘T.’ refers to the testimony
from a Ugaritic tablet in the Ras Shamra texts (1994b). numbering of Edelstein 1945.)
3 A convenient list of suggestions for tsinnor can be 6 Rivers were also thought to have healing powers
found in Kleven 1994a, 35; Oeming 1994, 409. Kleven (Thompson 1971, lii–liv). Barren women have often
elsewhere (1994b, 198) rightly laments that ‘the value of sought out reputed sources of running water to cure
the Hebrew usage has been diminished in favour of their condition (ibid., 79–80; Curtiss 1902, 117). Mention
comparative philological hypotheses’. See the discussion might also be made of the Dead Sea’s long-lived reputa-
in Bressan 1944, 370–74. Bressan’s suggestion that the tion for healing, although its source might be consid-
meaning of tsinnor had fallen out of currency by the time ered more natural than supernatural (see Kreiger 1998,
Chronicles was written (ibid., 353) does not line up with 200–01).
Kleven’s demonstration that the root ts.n.r referred to 7 See Jeremias 1966, 17, 20. That the Pool of Bethesda
water channels in both the time of 2 Samuel and the was fed by a periodic spring is the most natural inter-
time of Psalm 42 and Zechariah. pretation of the reference to the stirring of the waters
4 On the suggestion that the Jebusites regarded Gihon in John 5.4, 7.
as a sacred spring, cf. J. Simons (1952, 163–64): ‘To the 8 For sevenfold dipping in a river as a healing
early settlers on the S. E. Hill the intermittent issue of prescription in Near Eastern texts, see Avalos 1995, 182.
their spring may have seemed sufficiently inscrutable to 9 That 2 Samuel is a layered writing is rather appar-
lend Gihon a sacred character, and it is not unnatural ent. Admittedly, it has sometimes been suggested that
to believe with Dalman, that this was the reason why 2 Samuel is a three-layer writing (e.g., Caquot and
Solomon was anointed king precisely at this spring, de Robert 1994), but it seems to me that, even if we
32 palestine exploration quarterly, 138, 1, 2006
presuppose such a scheme, economy in a redactional these reconstructions from the parallel passage in 1
explanation of an individual passage still counts for Chronicles) is for others to decide, but that it was nearly
something. On the date of 2 Samuel, see now Halpern so should not have been doubted: as Kenyon (1967, 30)
2001, 73–77. writes, ‘The great reward that David offered, which was
10 According to D. Gill’s geological analysis, Warren’s won by Joab, showed how perilous the route in fact was
Shaft is a natural sinkhole whose ‘crust is older than and the reward commensurate with the peril’. Shiloh
40,000 years’ (1991, 1469). Gill’s dating of the Shaft is employed experienced rock climbers to scale the Shaft
a corrective to that of Y. Shiloh (for whom he worked): (1981, 32), which puts the feat in a more understandable
not realizing that the Shaft was a natural phenomenon, perspective. (Holm-Nielsen [1993, 45 n. 21] notes, ‘Joab
Shiloh dated it on typological grounds to ‘no earlier will hardly have had either such training or such assis-
than the tenth century b.c.’ (1981, 39). On Warren’s tants!’) According to Y. Yadin (1963, 268), the idea of
Shaft in general, see Shiloh 1981; 1994. David’s men ‘storm[ing] the city through this tunnel
11 On Jerusalem’s waterworks in general, see Simons [. . .] is hardly feasible, for the tunnel was narrow and
1952, 157–94; Amiran, 1975; Issar 1976; Grewe 1998, vertical’.
45–52. 14 On the ‘Spring Tower’ and the connecting tunnel,
12 On the karstic aspects of both Warren’s Shaft and see Reich and Shukron 1999. Reich’s and Shukron’s
Hezekiah’s Tunnel, see the maximalist view of Gill discovery began with clearing away a great pile of
1991; 1994. Reservations about Gill’s theory are found debris that earlier excavators had left in place (viz. what
in Lancaster and Long 1999; Reich and Shukron 2002, Kenyon [1967, pl. 9] had described as a ‘terrible tumble
75–80. of rocks [. . .] in places [. . .] as much as 5 metres deep’).
13 Frequent references to the extreme difficulty (or 15 G. W. Buchanan has now published three articles
‘impossibility’) of scaling Warren’s Shaft (see Fischer (2003; 2004; 2005) in the Expository Times challenging the
2004, 239 n. 106) do not inveigh against supposing that traditional site of the first and second Jewish Temples.
the author of 2 Sam. 5.8a had such a feat in mind: for He locates the Temple(s) on top of the Warren Shaft
the author of 2 Samuel, the exploits of David’s heroic System’s uppermost exit, which he believes served as
warriors are supposed to push the limits of human possibil- the spout of a pressurized system that brought the
ity. If the author can believe that one of David’s mighty waters of the Gihon Spring to the top of the Ophel
men slew 800 men at one time (2 Sam. 23.8), then expe- hill. Although Buchanan’s case brims with difficulties
rience alone provides no ground for dismissing that he (esp. in connection with the archaeology of the Second
thought that David’s troops could scale Warren’s Shaft. Temple), we should register what he thinks ‘get at
As Simons writes (1952, 170), ‘it is [. . .] an exaggeration the tsinnor’ might mean for a pressurized water system:
to exclude [that tsinnor refers to a water shaft] on the he proposes that yigga’ should be rendered ‘get at’, and
ground that Joab’s ascent through the vertical cistern- that it means to breach the system for purposes of
shaft was impossible.’ Whether such a feat would have draining it. See Murphy-O’Connor’s response (2005) to
been ‘impossible’ for Joab (whose name is supplied to Buchanan.

bibliography
Amiran, R., 1975. ‘The water supply of Israelite Jerusalem’, in R. Grafman (ed.), Jerusalem Revealed: Archaeology in the
Holy City 1968–1974 (Jerusalem), 75–78.
Amar, Z., 1997. ‘The preservation of sacred healing sites in Jerusalem’, in Y. Eshel (ed.), Judea and Samaria Research
Studies: Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Meeting 1997 (Kdeumim-Ariel), 207–22 (Hebrew).
Avalos, H., 1995. Illness and Health Care in the Ancient Near East: The Role of the Temple in Greece, Mesopotamia, and Israel
(Atlanta).
Baudissin, W. W. G., 1876–78. Studien zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte, 2 vols (Leipzig).
Bressan, G., 1944. ‘L’espugnazione di Sion in 2 Sam 5, 6–8 || 1 Cron 11, 4–6 e il problema del “Dsinnôr”’, Biblica,
25, 346–81.
Buchanan, G. W., 2003. ‘The tower of Siloam’, ExpT, 115, 37–45.
Buchanan, G. W., 2004. ‘Running water at the temple of Zion’, ExpT, 115, 289–92.
Buchanan, G. W., 2005. ‘The area of the temple at Zion’, ExpT, 116, 181–89.
Canaan, T., 1920, ‘Haunted springs and water demons in Palestine’, JPOS 1, 153–70.
Caquot, A., and P. de Robert, 1994. Les Livres de Samuel (Geneva).
Curtiss, S. I., 1902. Primitive Semitic Religion Today: A Record of Researches, Discoveries and Studies in Syria, Palestine and the
Sinaitic Peninsula (Chicago).
Edelstein, E. and L., 1945. Asclepius: Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies, 2 vols (Baltimore).
Fischer, A. A., 2004. Von Hebron nach Jerusalem: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zur Erzählung von König David in II Sam
1–5 (Berlin).
Floss, J. P., 1987. David und Jerusalem: Ziele und Folgen des Stadteroberungsbericht 2 Sam 5, 6–9 literaturwissenschaftlich
betrachtet (St Ottilien).
Gill, D., 1991. ‘Subterranean waterworks of biblical Jerusalem: adaptation of a karst system’, Science, 254, 1467–71.
Gill, D., 1994. ‘How they met’, BAR, 20/4, 20–33.
Grewe, K., 1998. Licht am Ende des Tunnels: Planung und Trassierung im antiken Tunnelbau (Mainz am Rhein).
Halpern, B., 2001. David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King (Grand Rapids).
Holm-Nielsen, S., 1993. ‘Did Joab climb “Warren’s shaft”?’ in A. Lemaire and B. Otzen (eds), History and Traditions
of Early Israel: Studies Presented to Eduard Nielsen, May 8th 1993 (Leiden), 38–49.
david’s ‘hatred’ for the lame and the blind 33
Issar, A., 1976. ‘The evolution of the ancient water supply system in the region of Jerusalem’, IEJ, 26, 130–36.
Jeremias, J., 1966. The Rediscovery of Bethesda: John 5:2 (Lexington).
Kenyon, K. M., 1967. Jerusalem: Excavating 3000 Years of History (London).
Kleven, T., 1994a. ‘Up the waterspout: how David’s general Joab got inside Jerusalem’, BAR, 20/4, 34–35.
Kleven, T., 1994b. ‘The use of Dsnr in Ugaritic and 2 Samuel V 8: Hebrew usage and comparative philology’, VT,
44, 195–204.
Kreiger, B., 1998. Living Waters: Myth, History, and Politics of the Dead Sea (New York).
Lancaster, S. P., and G. A. Long, 1999. ‘Where they met: separations in the rock mass near the Siloam tunnel’s
meeting point’, BASOR, 315, 15–26.
LiDonnici, L. R., 1995. The Epidaurian Miracle Inscriptions: Text, Translation and Commentary (Atlanta).
Mazar, B., 1975. The Mountain of the Lord (Garden City).
McCarter, P. K., Jr, 1984. II Samuel (Garden City).
Murphy-O’Connor, J., 2005. ‘The temple and the Antonia’, ExpT, 116, 325–29.
Oeming, M., 1994. ‘Die Eroberung Jerusalems durch David in deuteronomistischer und chronistischer Darstellung
(II Sam 5, 6–9 und I Chr 11, 4–8): ein Beitrag zur narrativen Theologie der beiden Geschichtswerke’, ZAW, 106,
404–20.
Reich, R., and E. Shukron, 1999. ‘Light at the end of the tunnel: Warrens’ shaft theory of David’s conquest
shattered’, BAR, 25/1, 22–33, 72.
Reich, R., and E. Shukron, 2002. ‘Reconsidering the karstic theory as an explanation to the cutting of Hezekiah’s
tunnel in Jerusalem’, BASOR, 325, 75–80.
Reymond, P., 1958, L’Eau, sa vie, et sa signification dans l’Ancient Testament (Leiden).
Shiloh, Y., 1981. ‘The rediscovery of Warren’s shaft’, BAR, 7/4, 24–39.
Shiloh, Y., 1994. ‘The rediscovery of the ancient water system known as “Warren’s shaft”’, in Hillel Geva (ed.),
Ancient Jerusalem Revealed (Jerusalem), 46–54.
Simons, J., 1952. Jerusalem in the Old Testament: Researches and Theories (Leiden).
Stoebe, H. J., 1957. ‘Die Einnahme Jerusalems und der “Sinnôr”’, ZDPV, 73, 73–99.
Thompson, R. C., 1971. Semitic Magic: Its Origins and Development (New York).
Tomlinson, R. A., 1983. Epidauros (Austin).
Yadin, Y., 1963. The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of Archaeological Discovery (London).