Yitzhak also wrote:
You might be confused because your translation mistakenly has "when
one incited"
END QUOTE
Yes. The translation is pragmatic and probably largely influenced by the
larger context of the situation which the 'chronicler' throws more light
on.
However, linguistically, there is no conclusive evidence that the subject
of the verb is Yah's anger. This is only one interpretation, which is logically
inferred by the presence of an explicit subject in the first clause.
However, this interpretation is largely influenced by our modern understanding
and usage of language and does not take into account the finer points of ancient
expression which we are not in a position to be experts on.
The chronicler, however, was in such a position and clearly did not understand
Yah's anger to be the subject of the verb.
However, he does acknowledge the ambiguity and clears up this ambiguity by making
the subject explicit to us.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.