Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Is.45:7 God created evil?

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] Is.45:7 God created evil?
  • Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 14:28:43 -0700

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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page