Donald F. Murray, «Under Yhwh’s Veto: David as Shedder of Blood in Chronicles», Vol. 82 (2001) 457-476
As grounds for Yhwh’s veto on David’s building the temple, the charge of shedding blood, in Chronicles made against David alone (1 Chr 22,8; 28,3), poses questions both about what is being referred to, and how the charge explains the veto, given that in the Hebrew Bible no other Israelite warrior incurs the charge for killing in warfare. This article explicates the charge, highlights how surprising it is, and then develops a line of argument, drawn principally from Num 31 and 35, that can explain how the Chronicler understood the charge both to be warranted, and to justify Yhwh’s veto.
inclusio around his prohibition to David (22,8ba). Moreover, the two references are quantified in hyperbolic terms: ‘blood in plenty’ (brl Md 22,8ab), ‘copious blood’ (Mybr Mymd 22,8bb). In the more restrained rhetoric of 28,3 the veto is given first (28,3ab), followed by its ground in a yk clause. The latter cites both warfare and bloodshedding (28,3b), but in that order, thus putting the bloodshed into the more stressed final slot of the sentence, though here without quantification. Hence both pragmatically and rhetorically Yhwh’s discourse in 22,8 and 28,3 makes quite clear that the core of his objection to David’s building the temple is the fact that he has shed much blood6.
But this said, the two references to David’s warfare (22,8ag; 28,3b) are each so closely juxtaposed with those to his shedding blood as to induce the pragmatic inference that the former define and delimit the occasions of the bloodshed. Transparently, warfare involves violent killing and, as we shall see in a moment, the expression Md Kp# denotes violent killing. Hence, in discourse logic, to juxtapose Md Kp# and twmxlm in the way both 22,8 and 28,3 do is to associate the warfare with the bloodshed as cause and effect. Moreover, natural discourse logic in 1 Chr 22,8 leads the reader to see in the quantification of the wars David fought (twldg twmxlm ‘great wars’) the explanation for the amount of blood he is alleged to have shed (brl ‘in plenty’, Mybr ‘copious’)7. Thus Chronicles makes quite clear that, whilst the essence of Yhwh’s veto lies in the fact that David shed blood, the ‘blood in plenty’ that David shed was in the course of his ‘great wars’.
We should also notice the fact that Chronicles gives an exposition of why Yhwh did not permit David to build the temple, not once but twice.