And the LORD was with Judah
and he took possession of the hill [country]
but he could not drive out those living in the valley...
The pronoun "he" in the final line is of interest. In fact, the Hebrew has no pronoun, nor does it have a form of "could". Technically, there is neither subject nor finite verb in the clause at all. The MT would be more formally translated using a dummy subject: "it was not possible to drive out...", as both Gesenius (§ 114l) and Jouon-Muraoka (§ 160, n. 14) have it.1
The question remains: not possible for whom? There are at least two helpful comments that can be made from the Hebrew text that are not evident in English:
- Line 3 is a dependent clause, subordinated to line 2 and constituting a concession ("...although it was not possible to drive out"); and
- the English "took possession" and "drive out" are actually the same word: hôrish (~"dispossess").
For both reasons, the one who dispossesses in line 2 must be the same one who dispossesses in line 3.
The identity of the subject of line 2 is best derived from the context:
v. 17: And Judah...defeated the Canaanites
v. 18: Judah also captured Gaza
v. 19: And the LORD was with Judah... and ? took possession but ? could not drive out...
v. 20: And [Caleb] drove out from [Hebron] the three sons of Anak...
v. 21: But the people of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites...
v. 22: The house of Joseph also went up against Bethel, and the LORD was with them.
No comments:
Post a Comment