Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 01/10/2004 18:59, C. Stirling Bartholomew wrote:

> On 9/30/04 3:06 PM, "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT qaya.org> wrote:
>
>  
>
> > One ambiguity which I remember, and which is much discussed by
> > commentators, is at 2 Kings 6:33. It can be more-or-less resolved if you
> > realise (as the author of the Word commentary did not) that the chapter
> > break after this is secondary and unfortunate. This makes almost
> > impossible the view that the last part of 6:33 is the words of Elisha.
> >    
>
> Peter,
>
> But why isn't it considered the voice of the messenger? Seems like the
> obvious choice from the syntax. The problem arises because the words are not
> appropriate except in the mouth of the King? The messenger seems to have
> arrived before Elisha's command to bar the door was implemented. That is how
> I would read (wdnw mdbr (mM at the beginning of 6:33.
>
> In 7:2 King's Chief of Staff is speaking and and the king is there with him
> (7:17) but I don't see how we can find the king speaking in 6:33 where the
> normal pattern of anaphora would put the words in the mouth of hml)K  the
> messenger since he is the most recently active agent in the previous clause.
>  

I don't remember the details of the argument in the commentary, but part 
of it was that the words at the end of 6:33 were most appropriate on the 
lips of Elisha. But this sudden despair doesn't fit the character of 
Elisha, and certainly not the following words. However, I got the 
impression that the commentator hadn't even looked at chapter 7 until he 
had written his comments on chapter 6. Such are the perils of taking 
chapter (and verse) boundaries seriously.

> 2kg 6:33 (wdnw mdbr (mM whnh hml)K yrd )lyw wy)mr
>
> Textual emendation, reading hmlk for hml)k, changes everything. Then we have
> the King doing the talking. So this isn't really a problem of ambiguous
> anaphora, is it? It is a question with reading or removing aleph from hml)k.
>  

Well, that is certainly one solution. But there is still some 
uncertainty. Did the king actually arrive, or was there just a messenger 
who spoke this message from the king? Was the officer of 7:2 actually 
supporting the king at that moment, or was that his customary role, and 
was he the messenger? I agree that the problem is more than ambiguous 
anaphora, but it does include that.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/