Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Kirk Lowery <KirkLowery AT xc.org>]

I have a huge respect for the Massoretes, and I usually do everything I can to
deal with the text as given. But here is a situation which seems to require
reading against the MT, even though textually it the passage seems secure:

1 Kings 4:1

WAY:HIY HAM.ELEK: $:LOMOH MELEK: (AL-K.FL-YI&:RF)"L

The problem comes with the apparaently needless redundancy of MELEK. Here are 
a
couple ways of understanding the text as it stands:

Traditional: "And so it was that King Solomon (was) king over all Israel."

We could interpret $:LOMOH as an apposition to MELEK: 
       "And so it was that the king, Solomon, (was) king over all Israel."

OR

we could make a change in the vocalization of the second MELEK, from a noun 
to a
verb, MFLAK:, and translate this way:
   "And so it was that King Solomon ruled over all Israel."

Exegetically, the first two options emphasize (via the function of the 
verbless
clause) the identity of Solomon as king. But this identification is already
handled by the HAM.ELEK: in the subject noun phrase. Why do it twice?

In third option, the finite verbal clause shifts attention to Solomon's secure
status as king of the entire nation. This is a fitting introduction to the
description of his administration, and a nice recapitulation of the previous
chapter's conclusion: that Solomon is now secure on his throne, having dealt
with all potential rivals.

Did I get it right? Is there sufficient justification here to read against the
massoretic vocalization?

Blessings,

Kirk
-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________
Kirk E. Lowery, Ph.D.                              voice: (215) 572-3845
Associate Director of Academic Computing             fax: (215) 887-5404
Adjunct Professor of Old Testament                 email: <KirkLowery AT xc.org>
Westminster Theological Seminary              
Philadelphia, PA 19118