Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Heard, Christopher" <Christopher.Heard AT pepperdine.edu>]

Dear Harold,

Such a change might seem useless _to you_. But what about _to the  
Chronicler_? By substituting the common noun "an adversary" for  
"YHWH," and dropping the direct quotation, wouldn't this allow the  
Chronicler to "soften the blow" a little bit? He maintains the story  
he has received in the (written!) tradition, but now avoids depicting  
God as giving David a _direct order_ to do something for which God  
then punishes David. _If_ the Chronicler is using _satan_ as a common  
noun, he can "spin" this as a "test" (the Chronicler does not use  
that word, AFAICR) which David could potentially have "passed" by  
resisting the temptation. But in Samuel, David cannot get out of the  
census without _disobeying_ God flatly, so David is in an absolute  
bind. Now again, I want to repeat, I don't _know_ that this is what  
is going on, and I don't think I have done the groundwork to even  
start to _demonstrate_ it. I am just thinking "out loud" (well, er,  
visually in this medium I guess).

Best wishes,

Chris

On Aug 4, 2005, at 2:20 PM, Harold R. Holmyard III wrote:

> Dear Chris,
>
>
> > Specifically, in 1 Chronicles 21:1 it is _not_
> > ”˜ËÔ [H&+N] that  incites David to count the
> > people; it is merely ˜ËÔ [&+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 ˜ËÔ [&+N]. The Hebrew
> > word ˜ËÔ [&+N], of course, does  not
> > _inherently_ refer to some malignant
> > supernatural entity; see 1  Kings 11:23-25,
> > where the noun ˜ËÔ [&+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 ˜ËÔ [&+N], or at least we can
> > say that at least one writer  had no trouble
> > characterizing the ÓýÏÍÝȔ” [M)LK YHWH] "angel
> > of YHWH" as a ˜ËÔ [&+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?
>
> HH: It seems to me that it would be a useless change unless it were  
> to "Satan."
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

--
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