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.
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 theBest,Jimterms Jim expressed earlier, quoted above, inthe 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] (nodefinite article). Now the lack of a definitearticle is very >important here, it seems to me. For the verse ought not be translated"Satan opposed [stood against] Israel, andincited 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 ÓýÏÍÝÈÂ [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 hecompletely changing the referent, or justusing a subtle circumlocution?>>Chris>
-- 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
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.