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).
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.