Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] 1 Chronicles 21 - &+N revisited

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] 1 Chronicles 21 - &+N revisited
  • Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:49:31 -0500

Dear Chris,

Not too long ago, we had a conversation here about ˜ËÔ &+N in 1 Chronicles 21. The most common reading of this word in that verse is as a proper noun, a point on the way toward the later, full-blown concept of Satan/the Devil. Most (professional) interpreters apparently think that the Chronicler could not abide the idea of YHWH inciting David to do something that David later characterizes as sin and that YHWH later punishes David for having done as per 2 Samuel 24. During that conversation, I suggested an alternate possibility: that the Chronicler uses ˜ËÔ &+N in 1 Chron 21 as a typical common anarthrous noun, and does not mean to tell a fundamentally different story from 2 Sam 24, but is using (anarthrous) ˜ËÔ &+N "an adversary" as a kind of circumlocation referring to 2 Sam 24's "the anger of YHWH," much as the "angel of YHWH" stands as (anarthrous) ˜ËÔ &+N "an adversary."
At the CBA meeting recently I had a conversation about this with a couple of folks over lunch, one of whom suggested that ˜ËÔ &+N could also be read in 1 Chron 21 as a common noun with a purely non- supernatural referent. That is, this individual agreed with the usual consensus that the Chronicler was uncomfortable with what he read in the Deuteronomistic version, but instead of substituting a different supernatural force, substituted a completely generic, human "adversary," a vague military threat, which incited David to take the census. I have not yet thought very much about whether Ò™ SWT could be used in quite this way, but I found the thought intriguing enough to share with all of you who followed that earlier thread.


HH: Thanks. One immediate thought is that a military adversary would be a legitimate reason for a census. The original census in Numbers was a sort of military muster. So if David was facing a military foe, I don't see why mustering his troops would have been a sin.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page