Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Numberup AT worldnet.att.net]

Or another possibility, drawing on the subtle differences in meaning 
sometimes posited
between the several Hebrew words for "man," is pursued by some classic 
commentators
such as Radak (Rabbi David Kimhi).  They see "adam" here, rather than "ish," 
as
indicating a "great man" (Artscroll Tanach) or "a man of status" (Everett 
Fox).  Thus,
Fox gives us:

And still this was too small in your eyes, my Lord YHWH --
you have also spoken of your servant's house far (into the future)!
This is the rule for a man of status, my Lord YHWH!

As for Kaiser's suggestion, it requires understanding "torah" in an unusual 
sense.
Whereas David may indeed have been aware of a key role for him/his dynasty in 
a
Messianic way -- as the Psalms indicate -- to apply it to 1 Chron 17 appears 
long on
interpretation but short on grammatical exegesis, IMO.

Solomon Landers

David Stabnow wrote:

> The last phrase of 2 Sam 7:19 reads, _WZ)T TWRT H)DM )DNY YHWH_ "And this
> is the law of mankind, Lord YHWH."

> Some English versions say that God's graciousness to David is His usual 
> manner of
> dealing with mankind, or that "this," what ever this is, is the custom of 
> man.  This
> is stated either as an assertion or as a rhetorical question.  Other 
> versions emend
> and try to make sense.  Still others give up on Samuel and translate 
> according to 1
> Chron 17:17.  But LXX supports the 1 Sam Vorlage exactly as we have it.

> W. Kaiser says that this phrase says the Davidic promise is a "Charter for
> Humanity" (in *The Law and the Prophets*, P & R, 1974).  (He says that
> Torah never means "usual manner.")  He translates 1 Chron 17:17b something
> like, "You are regarding me according to the upbringing outline of
> mankind," that is, You see me as the charter for raising/lifting mankind.
> Kaiser goes on to say that this shows that David was aware of the key role
> for him and his dynasty in the progression of the Messianic promise -- he
> did not speak more than he knew.
>
> My main question is whether Kaiser's position is tenable, and whether it
> has been established or demolished since 1974.
>
>
>