Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT SIL.ORG]

Surely your amended version "And so it was that King Solomon ruled 
over all Israel." would not have used this consonantal text. You are 
apparently reading this as a wayyiqtol clause WAY:HIY followed by an 
X-qatal clause HAM.ELEK: $:LOMOH MFLAK: (AL-K.FL-YI&:RF)"L . This 
would, I think, be anomalous - one would expect a second wayyiqtol 
WAY.IMLOK: . Or if the WAY:HIY were not there, this could be an 
X-qatal flashback situation - but I don't think you want to make such 
a major change to the consonantal text. Perhaps there could originally 
have been a participle here MOLEK:, which might have been amended to 
avoid confusion with the god Molech. But then surely WAY:HIY ... 
MELEK: is synonymous with WAY.IMLOK: , so what is the problem?

Peter Kirk

______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Reading against the MT: 1 Kings 4:1
Author:  KirkLowery AT xc.org at internet
Date:    19/04/1999 07:16


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




---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org 
To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.