Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Reading against the MT: 1 Kings 4:1

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: peter_kirk AT SIL.ORG
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu, KirkLowery AT xc.org
  • Subject: Re: Reading against the MT: 1 Kings 4:1
  • Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 19:33:34 -0400


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.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page