Special Issue IOSOT 2013 - Books and Journals

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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).
M. Kessler / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 32-35 35 pronoun, which receives ample attention by its position at the beginning of the phrase, must be (less emphatic) ʾani. But in the MT both ʾanoki and magen are emphatic: a highly unlikely situation. On the other hand, the proposed reading ʾanoki mogen has scores of syntactic parallels. To mention but a few examples: ʾanoki holek (Gn. xv 2); ʾanoki boraḥat (xvi 2); ʾanoki mebiʾ . . . ʾanoki dober ( Jr. xxxii 42), etc. etc. Because we have here a participial form without a suffix, the subject needs to be expressed separately, and this is virtually always done by the emphatic pronoun ʾanoki rather than ʾani.16 If mogen was indeed the original reading, the change to magen must have taken place at some time prior to the Massoretes, undoubtedly under the strong influence of magen in cultic language. The LXX rendering of mgn as a verb (ʿuperaspἰzo=to cover with a shield) may reflect an intermediate stage between mogen and magen. 16) Stated formally, the proposed reading would change the “incomplete synonymous parallelism with compensation” to “synthetic or formal parallelism”. See N. K. Gottwald, “Poetry, Hebrew”, Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, K-Q, New York - Nashville 1962, pp. 829-838.
Page 1 and 2: VETUS TESTAMENTUM
Page 3 and 4: Vetus Testamentum A quarterly publi
Page 5 and 6: Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 1 Ve
Page 7 and 8: Rückblick / Vetus Testamentum IOSO
Page 9 and 10: Prospect / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT
Page 11 and 12: A. Alt / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2
Page 29 and 30: Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 25-2
Page 31 and 32: H. L. Ginsberg / Vetus Testamentum
Page 35 and 36: P. Winter / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT
Page 37: M. Kessler / Vetus Testamentum IOSO
Page 41 and 42: S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT
Page 47 and 48: C. Hif ʿil The same rules apply he
Page 83 and 84: W. Zimmerli / Vetus Testamentum IOS
Page 89 and 90:
W. Zimmerli / Vetus Testamentum IOS
Page 91 and 92:
Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 87-9
Page 93 and 94:
A. Lemaire / Vetus Testamentum IOSO
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 99-1
Page 105 and 106:
D. Pardee / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 109-
Page 115 and 116:
J. A. Emerton / Vetus Testamentum I
Page 117 and 118:
Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 113-
Page 119 and 120:
D. T. Tsumura / Vetus Testamentum I
show all

Special Issue IOSOT 2013 - Books and Journals

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?