Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Ambiguous Reference

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: "C. Stirling Bartholomew" <jacksonpollock AT earthlink.net>
  • Cc: hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Ambiguous Reference
  • Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 18:55:33 +0100

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/






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page