Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>]

Dear Jim,

> 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.

That makes sense to me. It depends on an old 
dating for Job, but many scholars give it an old 
date.

                                Yours,
                                Harold Holmyard

> 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_  ”˜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?>>Chris>
> Best,Jim
> -- D. Jim West
> Biblical Studies Resources - 
> http://web.infoave.net/~jwestBiblical Theology 
> Weblog -  http://biblical-studies.blogspot.com
> _______________________________________________b-hebrew 
> mailing 
> listb-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew