Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] 2 Sam 24 vs. 2 Chron 21 (was something else)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Heard, Christopher" <Christopher.Heard AT pepperdine.edu>
  • To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] 2 Sam 24 vs. 2 Chron 21 (was something else)
  • Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 14:18:04 -0700

Your sketch does make sense, Jim; it is historically plausible and logically coherent. But I think we should at least ask the question whether we can be sure that _satan_ in 1 Chronicles really _is_ being used as a proper name, rather than as a common noun, which is the conventional use of the term within the Tanakh. I have long _assumed_ the model you outline below, but have recently begun to question it, along the lines that I outlined earlier. Obviously, somehow, the word moved from being a common noun to a proper noun. The question is where Chronicles stands in that process. Certainly by the time the LXX Chronicles was translated, the passage had come to be read in such a way that Hebrew _satan_ was rendered by Greek _diabolos_. Anybody know what the Targums do here? I don't have easy access at this moment.

Chris

On Aug 4, 2005, at 2:02 PM, Jim West wrote:

Really interesting stuff Chris, and I have to admit, persuasive. But I wonder- has the fact that the definite article dropped out signalled something of a further development in terms of "satanology" (forgive me that) in the Hebrew Bible? That is- in older texts, Yahweh causes weal and woe. In Job, HaSatan causes woe. In the Chronicler Satan (as a full blown proper name) is given credit for inciting David to act against Yahweh's wishes. Does that make sense? In other words, we have, within the HB itself, a clear, temporally noticeable development of this theme.

Heard Christopher wrote:


Although 2 Samuel 24:1 vs. 1 Chronicles 21:1 is a _locus classicus_ in understanding the difference between the Chronicler's treatment of David and the Deuteronomistic Historian's treatment of David, and although I have often thought about the texts in question in the terms Jim expressed earlier, quoted above, in the last few times I have looked at these verses, I have begun to doubt its accuracy.

Specifically, in 1 Chronicles 21:1 it is _not_ השטן [H&+N] that incites David to count the people; it is merely שטן [&+N] (no definite article). Now the lack of a definite article is very important here, it seems to me. For the verse ought not be translated "Satan opposed [stood against] Israel, and incited David to count Israel," nor "The Adversary opposed ..." since there is no definite article, but rather, "_An_ adversary opposed ...," with an indefinite article. Now I wonder--I have not done the real legwork on this yet, so I'm thinking out loud-- whether the Chronicler thinks he is referring to YHWH, or an entity other than YHWH, by this word, indefinite שטן [&+N]. The Hebrew word שטן [&+N], of course, does not _inherently_ refer to some malignant supernatural entity; see 1 Kings 11:23-25, where the noun שטן [&+N] refers to a purely human opponent, though one who, importantly, was incited _by God_ to be such. Moreover, there is nothing semantically out of bounds about God being a שטן [&+N], or at least we can say that at least one writer had no trouble characterizing the מאלך יהוה [M)LK YHWH] "angel of YHWH" as a שטן [&+N] to someone (Numbers 22:22). Clearly, the Chronicler is altering his Deuteronomistic source text. But is he completely changing the referent, or just using a subtle circumlocution?

Chris



Best,
Jim

--
D. Jim West

Biblical Studies Resources - http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
Biblical Theology Weblog - http://biblical-studies.blogspot.com


--
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