Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

Chris, Ireland, wrote:
> 2 Kings 18:16  --  Pillars, doorpost (in Niv)
> 
> Since this word carries with it the concept of support (as 
> well as being the root behind trust and faithfulness) I was 
> wondering if there might be an  explanation as to why the 
> writer has employed this word instead of the more
> frequent word that is used for pillar.  It is the ONLY 
> occurence in the scripture.  Any suggestions please?

First, this passage has related passages in Isaiah 36 and
in Chronicles.  So for this passage, we have not two witnesses,
but three witnesses in different documents that were preserved
independently (although some cross-copying and harmonization
is bound to happen).   In Chronicles, Hezekiah prepares for war 
against Sennacherib.  In Isaiah, the whole addition is missing.  
Here, in Kings, he pays tribute to Sennacherib.  So which is it?
Did he pay tribute (Kings), prepare for war (Chronicles), or do 
nothing (Isaiah)?

The next issue, is that the spelling of the name here in this
passage is xzqyh whereas in Isaiah it is xzqyhw and in 
Chronicles it is yxzqyhw.  I think the most accurate rendering
is the one in Isaiah - xzqyhw, and it is this that appears in
various inscriptions mentioning him from his time (including
an Assyrian prism).  Also, after the part with this "addition",
when we go back to the part that is also in Isaiah, the name
is spelled again as xzqyhw.  All of this suggests that the 
Isaiah passage contains the "original" while the other two
contain additions, Kings contains an addition describing
tribute, while Chronicles contains an addition describing
preparation for war.

Now, there is a curious point, these "omnot" are listed as
having been plated by Hezekiah king of Judah.  This second
mention of the king is redundant.  Why is it mentioning the
name twice?  Perhaps, the author of the addition copied
these from somewhere.  A text describing a list of tributes
paid by kings to Assyria would explain this: And these
are the tributes paid: the doors that Hezekiah cut, and
the omnot that Hezekiah plated.  Of course, such a text
is conjectural at best but it does explain well the phrase
"In that time," which appears to refer to some external
knowledge whose relative time in events is unknown.  It
also explains the second mention of Hezekiah's name as
an attempt by the author of the addition passage to
conform it from a list to his story.

We may conclude that the section describing tributes paid
by Hezekiah is an addition, but the actual tributes paid
are taken from an earlier source (relative to this addition)
and independent of a court history, even though it may be
from some royal library.

We are still no closer to understanding what "omnot" 
means. However, the term is used to refer to craftsmanship,
and specifically scultpure, although I'm unsure if that's the 
meaning in the Song of Songs passage that you brought up.
In Jewish Aramaic, the term is specifically applied to a 
sculptor sculpting a stele or an image of a person (according 
to the Dictionary of NW Semitic Inscriptions).  The word may
also be an early word refering to craftsmanship that had gone
out of use by the late First Temple period.  

In 2 Kings 12:16, the term is used to describe the "faith" 
with which the restoration men worked.  However, the phrase 
also appears in 2 Kings 22:7, in the exact same phrasing 
("because they work in faith [emunah]").  What is different 
is that in the earlier passage, there is a long unwieldy 
description of the people giving the donations while whereas 
in the later passage it flows naturally since they are
the subject of the previous verse so "they" suffices.  A major
opinion in scholarship holds that the book of Kings was
authored by a contemporary of Josiah who based himself
on other sources.  Perhaps, the person editing the book of
Kings, and also authoring the description of Josiah used
some earlier description of Jehoash.  However, in the
Jehoash passage he used, he add "but no gold or silver
will be made of the money because they work in emunah."
That is, the entire unwieldy part of verse 16 and the final
part of verse 15 were added by the contemporary of Josiah.
Why?  Perhaps he didn't understand this use of "emunah,"
which in this way would refer to some type of sculpture.
This is easily understandable as the work that the 
restorers do is done in tree and stone.  In the Josianic
reform passage there is no similar statement to which
we can tie "they do it in emunah" that will suggest
sculpture instead of faithful workers.  But as I stated, the
Josianic era (or later) author who authored the passage
on Josiah probably didn't understand such use of
"emunah."

It seems reasonable, in light of all this, to suggest that
omnot refers to some type of sculpture work, which would
be a proper parallel to the doors, and which can be plated.
I would also consider it an attractive possibility to suggest
that in some early past of the language, in Northwest 
Semitic or Proto-Semitic, the two roots "truth" and 
"sculpture" developed out of a basic root meaning 
"steadfast."  I note that "pillars" is a good example of
such sculpture although there may be less chances
that a pillar would be plated than, say, a stele.  It is 
very unlikely that it referred to "shields" that Peter
suggested, and it works well with what Peter mentioned
is the translation of the LXX: "strengthened things."  And
we know Hezekiah wrote royal inscriptions although the
one main surviving inscription happens to have been at
a well hidden location (ie, the Siloam inscription).
Maybe the other steles found their way to Assyria as
tribute.  But that's getting really carried away.  I'd be
content to say that the word probably referred to some
type of sculpture work and not necessarily a doorpost
or pillar, and that the author used it here because, while
this word might have been phasing out in his vocabulary,
it was part of an additional historical source that he
integrated into his work.

Yitzhak Sapir