Women at Work in the Deuteronomistic History - International Voices ...

156 | WOMEN AT WORK IN THE DTRH
have had different religious traditions than David is also likely. Where Porter’s
and Carlson’s arguments are unconvincing to me is in the connection between
the sukkot festival and Michal’s barrenness as the main argument of the chapter;
and for that purpose making the תוהמא of 2 Sam 6:20 sacred prostitutes! 112
The תוהמא Michal refers to are not sacred prostitutes. But are they slaves
or not? The reader can only know Michal’s intended connotation, namely, these
וידבע תוהמא are lowly. McCarter implies the ideological character of the text
by speaking of “Princess Michal” as an “aristocrat” who looks at these women
from high above her. “As one king’s daughter and another’s wife she does not
hesitate to refer to all the young women of Israel, whether slave or free, as the
‘maidservants’ or ‘wenches’ of the king’s subjects; thus there is no reason to
suppose that ‘the noblewomen of the free Israelites are excluded from the
offensive remark’ (Cruesemann, 1980: 226).” 113 What matters in Michal’s eyes
is that the king of Israel should behave according to a certain protocol, which
includes not “making an exhibition of himself under the eyes of his servantmaids,
making an exhibition of himself like a buffoon!” (v. 20, JB). 114 Michal’s
problem is not that David did so in front of women, since he had a whole harem
already, and there is no instance in which a woman confronts her husband about
his sexual affairs. Michal’s criticism is that David danced in front of “servants,”
improperly flirting in front of lowly persons. David, on the other hand, perceives
as the main issue not any possible sexual connotation of his behavior, but that he
is humbling himself in the presence of YHWH, a fact Michal is unwilling to see
or to accept. David has Dtr’s and YHWH’s support—Dtr’s by his initial
comment against Michal (“she despised him in her heart”), and YHWH’s
indirectly, since opening wombs is YHWH’s prerogative in the Bible, and those
are the final words about Michal. 115
All that can be stated on the social location of these תוהמא is that, since in
the end they are a pawn in a chess game between Saul’s falling dynasty and
win ‘honour’ with these has similar implications.”
112 It is an unsustainable position for these reasons among others: a. It lacks evidence in the biblical
texts; תוהמא never has the meaning of sacred prostitute, and in any event וידבע תוהמא requires
explanation, which they do not provide. b. השׁדק,
the term usually—and wrongly—translated
“sacred prostitute,” does not appear in 2 Sam 6:20–23; and, as McCarter, 2 Samuel, 189, points out,
“the context and details of 6:1–15, 17–19 reflect not a cultic reenactment but a historical ceremony
of the sort that traditionally marked the introduction of a national god into a new capital city. Sacred
marriage had no part in such a ceremony.”
113 McCarter, 2 Samuel, 187.
114 Several commentaries highlight the difference in expectations between Michal’s ךלמ and
David’s דיגנ; see A. Campbell, Of Prophets and Kings: A Late Ninth-Century Document (1 Samuel
1–2 Kings 10) (CBQMS; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 1986), 57; H. Hertzberg, I & II
Samuel (OTL. London: SCM, 1964), 281.
115 Indirectly because YHWH does not speak directly, but Dtr, so to say, co-opts YHWH by stating
that Michal remained barren.