I completed my Ph.D. in Old Testament in May of 2016. I am available to teach in an adjunct role, and I currently work for a church in Weatherford, TX.
SW Region Evangelical Theological Society, Mar 1, 2013
This paper will attempt to prove that Zechariah 10:1-2 contains an intended inner-biblical allusi... more This paper will attempt to prove that Zechariah 10:1-2 contains an intended inner-biblical allusion to Deuteronomy 11:14-15, which changes the meaning of Zechariah 10:1-2 if the reader recognizes the allusion. In order to demonstrate the presence of a literary allusion, this paper will utilize several criteria for determining allusion, some of which have been used in previous works by other scholars such as Tracy McKenzie, Bernard Maurer, Michael Lyons, and David Klingler. Some of the criteria are: verbal similarities, same style, genre appropriate, same structure, and same themes. Any discussion of allusion must include a suggestion for which text is alluding to the other. Rather than employ debated discussions on the dating of completed Old Testament books, this paper will utilize textual arguments similar to text critical discussions in order to determine the direction of the allusion. Some of the criteria are: modification of context or vocabulary, interpretive expansion or summarization, conceptual dependence, conflation, and demonstration of imported meaning. Based upon an application of these criteria, one may conclude that the author of Zechariah 10:1-2 alluded to Deuteronomy 11:14-15 in order to communicate to his readers that if the people followed Yahweh’s ways that their return to Yehud would be like a return to Eden. But, if they did not follow Yahweh’s ways, then they would be punished again.
SW Region Evangelical Theological Society, Mar 2011
The text of 2 Samuel 12:26-31 receives little if any mention in most
commentaries or journals. I... more The text of 2 Samuel 12:26-31 receives little if any mention in most
commentaries or journals. It seems as if the text has been written off as merely the
conclusion of a section or act (David’s war with the Ammonites, 2 Sam 10-12) in the
larger whole. It certainly does that. Yet, for those who think there is something special
about the way the book is shaped, in its final form, the present text may indicate more
than just an end to a particular section or historical sequence.
In the present text, the narrator gives hints of disapproving of David’s action.
When examined with the act (ch. 10-12) it becomes obvious that the narrator makes
several remarks indicating weaknesses in David’s character. It may be that there is in fact
an intensification of this theme within the act. Perhaps the narrator is indicating that
David’s character is not in line with the “Davidic” ideal of 2 Sam 7. It might be that the
narrator is pointing out that while the “house of David” will be protected and prosper (as
is evidenced by David’s victory in this particular text), the full ideal of the Davidic King
will only be met in a future leader’s character.
Evidence for David’s character flaws in 2 Sam 12:26, which prompts the reader to
recall 2 Sam 11:1, that kings are supposed to be at battle not at home. Additionally, the
narrator tells the reader that the city will be named after Joab instead of King David.
Once David does arrive at the location of the battle, he appears to rush to the spoil, before
setting the inhabitants to forced labor. Several differences in David’s character traits in
this act and David’s character traits in the earlier acts exist. The narrator presents a
picture of a person who is not perfect, and is certainly capable of giving Solomon orders
to kill certain people (1 Kings 2:5-9).
David’s voice of counsel has changed, and is made evident in 2 Sam 12:26-31.
Rather than inquiring of YHWH as his present pattern has been, Joab gives a command to
King David – which he follows to the letter. The narrator no longer tells the reader that
YHWH is with David in battle. Furthermore, Joab is not presented as a good voice of
counsel, overall. Joab has already taken liberty with David’s instructions about Uriah.
Joab is not listed among David’s mighty men, a seemingly obvious omission. If one looks
at 2 Sam 28:10-14 (Absalom’s death), 2 Sam 20:8-13 (Joab’s murder of Amasa) and 2
Samuel 19:2-22 (the woman of Tekoa whom Joab uses to control David), then it seems
true that the author shows Joab to ultimately be a questionable character. In the present
text, if one takes these pictures of Joab’s character into account, then it seems that Joab is
basically telling the King what to do. In effect, Joab says, “Come over here and do what I
want, otherwise this will be my city.”
David has previously been presented positively in military terms, political terms,
and religious terms. But since he cannot rule forever, the question arises: Who will be the
successor? Can David, or his successor fully embody the promise of this relationship with
God (2 Sam 7:14-16)? Will David, or his successor, live in a father-son relationship with
YHWH in such a way that exhibits obedience and character which would be expected
from that relationship? Within the section of 2 Sam 10-12, the narrator seems to answer
the question in the negative.
The implication of the idea presented in this paper is that the act of 2 Sam 10-12
can be understood to show David’s character flaws in an elevating fashion, culminating
in 2 Sam 12:26-31. At the same time it should be noted that the present text demonstrates
just as positively that YHWH is committed to preserving the house of David. In this text
as well as the broader act, and even with the way David and Solomon are able to put
down revolts, the text of Samuel-Kings clearly presents YHWH as committed to
preserving the house of David. Yet, the father-son sort of relationship; a relationship of
obedience and honor, that will not be accomplished by David or any later David-ide, until
the NT presents Christ as the one who fulfills this role. All the kings after David will
ultimately fall short of the ideal king who will come later.
SW Region Evangelical Theological Society, Mar 1, 2013
This paper will attempt to prove that Zechariah 10:1-2 contains an intended inner-biblical allusi... more This paper will attempt to prove that Zechariah 10:1-2 contains an intended inner-biblical allusion to Deuteronomy 11:14-15, which changes the meaning of Zechariah 10:1-2 if the reader recognizes the allusion. In order to demonstrate the presence of a literary allusion, this paper will utilize several criteria for determining allusion, some of which have been used in previous works by other scholars such as Tracy McKenzie, Bernard Maurer, Michael Lyons, and David Klingler. Some of the criteria are: verbal similarities, same style, genre appropriate, same structure, and same themes. Any discussion of allusion must include a suggestion for which text is alluding to the other. Rather than employ debated discussions on the dating of completed Old Testament books, this paper will utilize textual arguments similar to text critical discussions in order to determine the direction of the allusion. Some of the criteria are: modification of context or vocabulary, interpretive expansion or summarization, conceptual dependence, conflation, and demonstration of imported meaning. Based upon an application of these criteria, one may conclude that the author of Zechariah 10:1-2 alluded to Deuteronomy 11:14-15 in order to communicate to his readers that if the people followed Yahweh’s ways that their return to Yehud would be like a return to Eden. But, if they did not follow Yahweh’s ways, then they would be punished again.
SW Region Evangelical Theological Society, Mar 2011
The text of 2 Samuel 12:26-31 receives little if any mention in most
commentaries or journals. I... more The text of 2 Samuel 12:26-31 receives little if any mention in most
commentaries or journals. It seems as if the text has been written off as merely the
conclusion of a section or act (David’s war with the Ammonites, 2 Sam 10-12) in the
larger whole. It certainly does that. Yet, for those who think there is something special
about the way the book is shaped, in its final form, the present text may indicate more
than just an end to a particular section or historical sequence.
In the present text, the narrator gives hints of disapproving of David’s action.
When examined with the act (ch. 10-12) it becomes obvious that the narrator makes
several remarks indicating weaknesses in David’s character. It may be that there is in fact
an intensification of this theme within the act. Perhaps the narrator is indicating that
David’s character is not in line with the “Davidic” ideal of 2 Sam 7. It might be that the
narrator is pointing out that while the “house of David” will be protected and prosper (as
is evidenced by David’s victory in this particular text), the full ideal of the Davidic King
will only be met in a future leader’s character.
Evidence for David’s character flaws in 2 Sam 12:26, which prompts the reader to
recall 2 Sam 11:1, that kings are supposed to be at battle not at home. Additionally, the
narrator tells the reader that the city will be named after Joab instead of King David.
Once David does arrive at the location of the battle, he appears to rush to the spoil, before
setting the inhabitants to forced labor. Several differences in David’s character traits in
this act and David’s character traits in the earlier acts exist. The narrator presents a
picture of a person who is not perfect, and is certainly capable of giving Solomon orders
to kill certain people (1 Kings 2:5-9).
David’s voice of counsel has changed, and is made evident in 2 Sam 12:26-31.
Rather than inquiring of YHWH as his present pattern has been, Joab gives a command to
King David – which he follows to the letter. The narrator no longer tells the reader that
YHWH is with David in battle. Furthermore, Joab is not presented as a good voice of
counsel, overall. Joab has already taken liberty with David’s instructions about Uriah.
Joab is not listed among David’s mighty men, a seemingly obvious omission. If one looks
at 2 Sam 28:10-14 (Absalom’s death), 2 Sam 20:8-13 (Joab’s murder of Amasa) and 2
Samuel 19:2-22 (the woman of Tekoa whom Joab uses to control David), then it seems
true that the author shows Joab to ultimately be a questionable character. In the present
text, if one takes these pictures of Joab’s character into account, then it seems that Joab is
basically telling the King what to do. In effect, Joab says, “Come over here and do what I
want, otherwise this will be my city.”
David has previously been presented positively in military terms, political terms,
and religious terms. But since he cannot rule forever, the question arises: Who will be the
successor? Can David, or his successor fully embody the promise of this relationship with
God (2 Sam 7:14-16)? Will David, or his successor, live in a father-son relationship with
YHWH in such a way that exhibits obedience and character which would be expected
from that relationship? Within the section of 2 Sam 10-12, the narrator seems to answer
the question in the negative.
The implication of the idea presented in this paper is that the act of 2 Sam 10-12
can be understood to show David’s character flaws in an elevating fashion, culminating
in 2 Sam 12:26-31. At the same time it should be noted that the present text demonstrates
just as positively that YHWH is committed to preserving the house of David. In this text
as well as the broader act, and even with the way David and Solomon are able to put
down revolts, the text of Samuel-Kings clearly presents YHWH as committed to
preserving the house of David. Yet, the father-son sort of relationship; a relationship of
obedience and honor, that will not be accomplished by David or any later David-ide, until
the NT presents Christ as the one who fulfills this role. All the kings after David will
ultimately fall short of the ideal king who will come later.
Uploads
Papers by Justin Allison
commentaries or journals. It seems as if the text has been written off as merely the
conclusion of a section or act (David’s war with the Ammonites, 2 Sam 10-12) in the
larger whole. It certainly does that. Yet, for those who think there is something special
about the way the book is shaped, in its final form, the present text may indicate more
than just an end to a particular section or historical sequence.
In the present text, the narrator gives hints of disapproving of David’s action.
When examined with the act (ch. 10-12) it becomes obvious that the narrator makes
several remarks indicating weaknesses in David’s character. It may be that there is in fact
an intensification of this theme within the act. Perhaps the narrator is indicating that
David’s character is not in line with the “Davidic” ideal of 2 Sam 7. It might be that the
narrator is pointing out that while the “house of David” will be protected and prosper (as
is evidenced by David’s victory in this particular text), the full ideal of the Davidic King
will only be met in a future leader’s character.
Evidence for David’s character flaws in 2 Sam 12:26, which prompts the reader to
recall 2 Sam 11:1, that kings are supposed to be at battle not at home. Additionally, the
narrator tells the reader that the city will be named after Joab instead of King David.
Once David does arrive at the location of the battle, he appears to rush to the spoil, before
setting the inhabitants to forced labor. Several differences in David’s character traits in
this act and David’s character traits in the earlier acts exist. The narrator presents a
picture of a person who is not perfect, and is certainly capable of giving Solomon orders
to kill certain people (1 Kings 2:5-9).
David’s voice of counsel has changed, and is made evident in 2 Sam 12:26-31.
Rather than inquiring of YHWH as his present pattern has been, Joab gives a command to
King David – which he follows to the letter. The narrator no longer tells the reader that
YHWH is with David in battle. Furthermore, Joab is not presented as a good voice of
counsel, overall. Joab has already taken liberty with David’s instructions about Uriah.
Joab is not listed among David’s mighty men, a seemingly obvious omission. If one looks
at 2 Sam 28:10-14 (Absalom’s death), 2 Sam 20:8-13 (Joab’s murder of Amasa) and 2
Samuel 19:2-22 (the woman of Tekoa whom Joab uses to control David), then it seems
true that the author shows Joab to ultimately be a questionable character. In the present
text, if one takes these pictures of Joab’s character into account, then it seems that Joab is
basically telling the King what to do. In effect, Joab says, “Come over here and do what I
want, otherwise this will be my city.”
David has previously been presented positively in military terms, political terms,
and religious terms. But since he cannot rule forever, the question arises: Who will be the
successor? Can David, or his successor fully embody the promise of this relationship with
God (2 Sam 7:14-16)? Will David, or his successor, live in a father-son relationship with
YHWH in such a way that exhibits obedience and character which would be expected
from that relationship? Within the section of 2 Sam 10-12, the narrator seems to answer
the question in the negative.
The implication of the idea presented in this paper is that the act of 2 Sam 10-12
can be understood to show David’s character flaws in an elevating fashion, culminating
in 2 Sam 12:26-31. At the same time it should be noted that the present text demonstrates
just as positively that YHWH is committed to preserving the house of David. In this text
as well as the broader act, and even with the way David and Solomon are able to put
down revolts, the text of Samuel-Kings clearly presents YHWH as committed to
preserving the house of David. Yet, the father-son sort of relationship; a relationship of
obedience and honor, that will not be accomplished by David or any later David-ide, until
the NT presents Christ as the one who fulfills this role. All the kings after David will
ultimately fall short of the ideal king who will come later.
commentaries or journals. It seems as if the text has been written off as merely the
conclusion of a section or act (David’s war with the Ammonites, 2 Sam 10-12) in the
larger whole. It certainly does that. Yet, for those who think there is something special
about the way the book is shaped, in its final form, the present text may indicate more
than just an end to a particular section or historical sequence.
In the present text, the narrator gives hints of disapproving of David’s action.
When examined with the act (ch. 10-12) it becomes obvious that the narrator makes
several remarks indicating weaknesses in David’s character. It may be that there is in fact
an intensification of this theme within the act. Perhaps the narrator is indicating that
David’s character is not in line with the “Davidic” ideal of 2 Sam 7. It might be that the
narrator is pointing out that while the “house of David” will be protected and prosper (as
is evidenced by David’s victory in this particular text), the full ideal of the Davidic King
will only be met in a future leader’s character.
Evidence for David’s character flaws in 2 Sam 12:26, which prompts the reader to
recall 2 Sam 11:1, that kings are supposed to be at battle not at home. Additionally, the
narrator tells the reader that the city will be named after Joab instead of King David.
Once David does arrive at the location of the battle, he appears to rush to the spoil, before
setting the inhabitants to forced labor. Several differences in David’s character traits in
this act and David’s character traits in the earlier acts exist. The narrator presents a
picture of a person who is not perfect, and is certainly capable of giving Solomon orders
to kill certain people (1 Kings 2:5-9).
David’s voice of counsel has changed, and is made evident in 2 Sam 12:26-31.
Rather than inquiring of YHWH as his present pattern has been, Joab gives a command to
King David – which he follows to the letter. The narrator no longer tells the reader that
YHWH is with David in battle. Furthermore, Joab is not presented as a good voice of
counsel, overall. Joab has already taken liberty with David’s instructions about Uriah.
Joab is not listed among David’s mighty men, a seemingly obvious omission. If one looks
at 2 Sam 28:10-14 (Absalom’s death), 2 Sam 20:8-13 (Joab’s murder of Amasa) and 2
Samuel 19:2-22 (the woman of Tekoa whom Joab uses to control David), then it seems
true that the author shows Joab to ultimately be a questionable character. In the present
text, if one takes these pictures of Joab’s character into account, then it seems that Joab is
basically telling the King what to do. In effect, Joab says, “Come over here and do what I
want, otherwise this will be my city.”
David has previously been presented positively in military terms, political terms,
and religious terms. But since he cannot rule forever, the question arises: Who will be the
successor? Can David, or his successor fully embody the promise of this relationship with
God (2 Sam 7:14-16)? Will David, or his successor, live in a father-son relationship with
YHWH in such a way that exhibits obedience and character which would be expected
from that relationship? Within the section of 2 Sam 10-12, the narrator seems to answer
the question in the negative.
The implication of the idea presented in this paper is that the act of 2 Sam 10-12
can be understood to show David’s character flaws in an elevating fashion, culminating
in 2 Sam 12:26-31. At the same time it should be noted that the present text demonstrates
just as positively that YHWH is committed to preserving the house of David. In this text
as well as the broader act, and even with the way David and Solomon are able to put
down revolts, the text of Samuel-Kings clearly presents YHWH as committed to
preserving the house of David. Yet, the father-son sort of relationship; a relationship of
obedience and honor, that will not be accomplished by David or any later David-ide, until
the NT presents Christ as the one who fulfills this role. All the kings after David will
ultimately fall short of the ideal king who will come later.