Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Read, James C" <K0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>]

Peter wrote:
But YHWH's anger is often personified and used as an agent. This is of 
course a metonymy for YHWH himself, when angry.
END QUOTE

Yes. You are quite right here.

Peter also wrote:
Wrong, James. The subject of a following verb, if not specified or ruled 
out e.g. by gender, is implicitly the same as that of the preceding 
verb. So, in this case, the grammatical subject of the second verb is 
the anger of YHWH.
END QUOTE

I disagree here. While, you can be conclusive that the subject is different
if the gender is different, you cannot be equally conclusive just because the 
gender is the same.
This is not the only case in scripture where the agent is ambiguous and it is 
clear that the chronicler, whose hebrew was better than ours, did not 
understand
the agent to be Yah's anger but 'an adversary' or Satan himself.
Your interpretation of the verse does not make sense.

Yah got angry because David obeyed him?????

The chronicler, evidently, was not led to understand such a thing and so his 
version of events clears the ambiguity by making the agent of the second 
clause
explicit.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Kirk [mailto:peterkirk AT qaya.org]
Sent: Fri 8/5/2005 1:29 PM
To: Read, James C
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Is.45:7 God created evil?
 
On 05/08/2005 10:37, Read, James C wrote:

>In 2Sam24:1 there are two clauses
>
>In the first clause, Yahowah's anger grows hot against Isreal.
>Why?
>In the second clause, someone incites David to make a census of Isreal.
>
>The verb in question in the second clause is WaYYaSeTH and the subject 
>of the verb is not implicit. ...
>  
>

Wrong, James. The subject of a following verb, if not specified or ruled 
out e.g. by gender, is implicitly the same as that of the preceding 
verb. So, in this case, the grammatical subject of the second verb is 
the anger of YHWH.

>... This entire discussion is based on the assumption that the subject for
>the second clause is the same as that of the first clause. This does 
>not make sense. Yahowah's anger is not a person!
>  
>

But YHWH's anger is often personified and used as an agent. This is of 
course a metonymy for YHWH himself, when angry.

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/


This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.


This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.