Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] qetseph in 2Ki 3:27

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peter.r.kirk AT ntlworld.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] qetseph in 2Ki 3:27
  • Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 08:53:05 -0700

On 03/07/2003 07:06, Liz Fried wrote:

Dear All,
You all sound like Spinoza!
This way of reading the text makes me awfully uncomfortable.
Do you look for natural causes of the splitting of the sea too?
Liz



-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org]On Behalf Of Peter Kirk
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 9:32 AM
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] qetseph in 2Ki 3:27


On 03/07/2003 03:33, Ben and Jo Crick wrote:


<snip>

Kings Ahaz and Manasseh of Israel later turned themselves to
the worship of

the "abomination of the Moabites", causing their sons to pass
through the fire

(obtulit holocaustum) to Molech (2 Kings 16:3; 17:17). This
caused YHWH to put

an end to the Ten Tribes (2 Kings 17:18). So did this sacrifice of the
heir-apparent win the spiritual battle, and turn the Ten Tribes
of Israel to

the worship of Chemosh/Molech?

Ben (only asking questions)


Interesting point at the end here. One can certainly imagine the animistically minded or "superstitious" Israelites expecting the wrath of Chemosh/Molech to come upon them at this point, falling into a panic because of the expectation, and then interpreting that panic as caused by that god's wrath. This, and the resultant defeat, would have weakened their faith in YHWH and encouraged them to believe in the efficacy of human sacrifice.

But could the author of 2 Kings have shared this popular understanding of the defeat? Possibly. Or could the text reasonably be interpreted as "the Israelites imagined that wrath had come upon them"? Probably not.

I am now wondering if "wrath" or "anger" is actually a correct translation of qetseph in such a context. It certainly doesn't seem to fit well in Esther 1:18 and Ecc/Qoh 5:16 (English 5:17), the two cases noted in BDB as "of man (late)". Something more like "anxiety" or "fear" would fit better in those contexts as well as in 2Ki 3:27. This seems to fit the sense of the Syriac cognate. And from a quick look at the usage of the noun and the verb throughout the Hebrew Bible, it looks as if in the earlier books this was not so much the active wrath of YHWH as some kind of automatic result of breaches of the rules of holiness etc, and bringing disastrous consequences - see e.g. Lev 10:16, Num 17:11. It would probably be helpful to reexamine this concept in the light of studies of anthropology and comparative religion.

--
Peter Kirk
peter.r.kirk AT ntlworld.com
http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/



Actually, Liz, my approach is not at all Spinoza-like in terms of my personal worldview. In fact I have no problem at all with the suggestion that Chemosh was (is?) a real spiritual being who was able in some way to affect the minds of the Israelites - though only because the almighty God allowed him to (contrast Mount Carmel where God didn't allow anything to happen despite the priests of Baal's expectations). But I have learned through bitter experience, quite a lot of it on this list, that in academic debate I am never taken seriously if I admit to my own beliefs in anything supernatural or spiritual, whereas it is quite acceptable to bring into the discussion the similar beliefs of biblical characters and authors.

As for the splitting of the Red Sea, maybe the miracle was more in the timing than in the actual event...

--
Peter Kirk
peter.r.kirk AT ntlworld.com
http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page