Special Issue IOSOT 2013 - Books and Journals

34 M. Kessler / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 32-35
two parts of the oracle in closer harmony, as follows: “Fear not, Abram, I am
about to give you your very great reward”. In turn, it would lend better sense to
Abraham’s retort: “O Lord God; what wilt thou give me . . .” (v. 2) and be wholly
in line with the prevalence of the idea of “giving” in this section.
The vocalization of the MT (magen) seems to stem from a time when the
verbal force of mgn (Qal active participle) was no longer understood. On
the other hand, Yahweh’s designation as magen (shield) is well attested in
the Psalms.
Another objection, pointed out by Gunkel,12 is that where mgn occurs it is
always in the Piel elsewhere. But verbs which occur predominantly in the Piel,
sometimes appear in Qal particularly as active participles, as e.g. in the case
of dbr.13
Ehrlich14 has some illuminating comments to offer in his discussion of this
phrase. He begins by saying that ʾanoki is used here because it is more emphatic
than ʾani. ʾAnoki here, as elsewhere, emphasizes a verbal form containing a
personal pronoun; for the emphasis of a verbal suffix expressing an object,
however, ʾani must be used. Ehrlich further makes the important point that
in light of the context of Gn. xiv Abraham did not need any assurance of the
protection of Yahweh. On the other hand, Abraham, after his first generous
impulse of refusing any of the booty, might have had some second thoughts
on the matter. Thus, Ehrlich proposes to read mogen (poetic equivalent of
natan) and understands śekarka as an accusative of material, while lak represents
an accusative of person.15
Considering the context, Ehrlich’s comment is well taken when he points
out that God’s offer of military protection is irrelevant after Abraham’s successful
campaign narrated in the previous chapter; on the other hand, Abraham
returns (voluntarily) with empty hands from the battle!
The use of ʾanoki (emphatic: containing three syllables) rather than ʾani is
significant here. The fact is, that it is too emphatic to stand before magen, the
predicate, which naturally attracts emphasis because it is the new element in
the clause. We may compare the divine self-revelations: ʾani ʾel šadday, etc.,
where likewise the predicate is the new factor, needing emphasis, so that the
12) Op. cit., p. 179. Gunkel would read memaggen (Piel participle) instead of Winckler’s miggen.
13) The places where dbr occurs in Qal are almost exclusively active participles (31 times). Likewise,
kzb occurs most frequently in Piel, but once in Qal, again an active participle, as pointed out
by Ehrlich, op. cit., p. 58.
14) Op. cit., pp. 57 f.
15) The same construction is found in Gn. xvii 19: śarah išteka yoledet leka ben (emphatic subject,
followed by an active participle, and two objects, one personal and one material).