1. Some commentators suggest that what is referred to here is a sarcophagus or a dolmen, possibly of basalt, which when struck, gives off a metallic ring not unlike that from an iron object. Nelson (52f.) notes that the "word eres is only used for a bed, or couch; it never means a sarcophagus." Inexplicably, he goes on to suggest that a dolmen is probably intended here. A thirteen feet dolmen would have been too common an affair to provide the apologetic fodder that the narrator obviously made of it. While the use of iron has been attested as far back as the 3rd Mill B.C., it became widespread in the Levant only with the arrival of the Philistines (ca.13th Cent). Their monopoly on its metallurgy and supply helped them keep a military and economy edge over Israel (see, e.g., 1 Sam.13:19f.). Whether Og's bed was made entirely of iron, or only a bed decorated with iron parts, such a bed would have been a symbol of high social rank, and a metaphor of power. See, A. R. Millard, "King Og's Bed and Other Ancient Ironmongery," in Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical and Other Studies in Memory of Peter C. Craigie, ed. by L. Eslinger and G. Taylor (JSOTSS, 67: Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), 481-92.
2. To read the introduction again click ☰ .
3. Unfortunately this rhetorical question is turned into a statement in many modern translations, e.g., NIV, NASB, NRS, NKJ, and the alternative is posted in the marginal notes if at all. RSV keeps the question.