Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Regnal resume variation in Kings

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Heard, Christopher" <Christopher.Heard AT pepperdine.edu>
  • To: Ben Crick <ben.crick AT argonet.co.uk>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Regnal resume variation in Kings
  • Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 00:03:08 -0500

On Jul 15, 2005, at 3:46 PM, Ben Crick wrote:

On Thu 14 Jul 2005 (15:25:46), christopher.heard AT pepperdine.edu wrote:

I suppose this is more of an exegetical, form-critical, or text-
critical question than a linguistic one, but does anyone on the list
know of any particular reason why these five cases should depart from
the "standard" (meaning "more frequently attested") formula?


IMHO this is simply the writer quoting his sources, as scholars do when
citing passages from other works. The "Chronicles of the Kings of Israel"
is certainly not the Biblical book(s) Chronicles DiB:ReY HaYYaMiYM.
Another source referred to is the book of Jashar (Joshua 10:13; 2 Samuel
1:18).

Ben, your opinion is shared by every commentator I've read on the subject (for whatever that "consensus" is worth, Jim) and I've little doubt that it's correct or close to correct. However, what remains unexplained (Karl considers it only a minor variation, and that may be all it is) is the reason why five such references read "behold them written" and all other such instances of the formula read "are they not written?" It's not the phenomenon of referencing other books that has piqued my curiosity; it is the verbal variance in the quotation in only these few cases.

For example, if Karl is correct to date the composition of the book of Kings to the Persian era, could it be that the archives were so badly damaged that only tiny fragments survived? Could the phrase "behold them written" suggest that the author could actually lay eyes on those documents, while "are they not written?" is the author's extrapolation from the fact that "he" had a few fragments of annals actually available? That probably doesn't hold water, but it's an example of the sort of thing I'm wondering about: is there an actual reason for the "behold them written" vs. "are they not written" variation in the formula(e)?

--
R. Christopher Heard
Assistant Professor of Religion
Pepperdine University
Malibu, California 90263-4352
http://faculty.pepperdine.edu/cheard
http://www.iTanakh.org
http://www.semioticsandexegesis.info




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page