Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>]

Yaakov,
I tend to think that VHKXDTYV of Exodus 23:20 refers to each of the  
listed nations, but I am possibly driven to bias by the present-day  
application of the act KAXAD which is mostly used now to refer to the  
deletion or extinction of entire groups of people, animals and  
plants. Yet HA-$MAD-AH is considered now more ferocious in its evil  
intentions, methinks, than HA-KXAD-AH, notwithstanding their pairing  
in 1 Kings 13:34.
Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Feb 6, 2008, at 1:45 PM, Yaakov Stein wrote:

> Exodus 23:20- talks about the messenger/angel that God plans sending
> to accompany the people into the promised land.
>
> Verse 23 ends with the word VHKXDTYV, literally and <and I will  
> destroy
> "him">.
> It is not obvious to what antecedent the suffix pronoun refers.
> All the translations and commentaries I have seen assume that this
> refers to destruction of each of the six nations mentioned, i.e.
>    When my messenger goes with you, and I bring you to the six nations
> and destroy THEM.
> Since each is mentioned as a collective noun in the singular,
> this COULD be the meaning, but it is strange that the six together
> are not considered plural. (Note that one of the seven nations is
> missing - the Girgashi)
>
> I would like to propose that the suffix actually refers to the
> messenger, i.e.
>    When my messenger goes with you, and I bring you to the six nations
> and destroy HIM.
>
> This destroying of he messenger/angel is not a strange idea.
> Rabbinic literature states that there are angels created for specific
> tasks,
> and once their task is completed they no longer exist.
> That is one reason they are reluctant to give their names
> (e.g. the angel that wrestled with Jacob).
>
> Also, we know from verse 29 that God does not intend wiping out
> the indigenous nations quickly. Verse 32 talks about the risk of the
> Israelites
> making covenants with them. This could not happen if they were wiped
> out.
> So the use of the word "LHKXYD" with respect to them seems
> inappropriate.
>
> Under this assumption the following verses make more sense.
> If the meaning were the detruction of the indigenous nations,
> why would the next verse express concerns about the people
> adopting the Gods of obliterated nations ?
> However, if it is the angel who will no longer be with the people,
> the concern makes perfect sense.
>
> Yaakov (J) Stein
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew