Edit ExegeticalNote: Psalm 100/Notes/Grammar.V. 3a.resumptive

Layer: GrammarLexicalPhrasalVerbalTextualStory BehindSummary

Verse Range:

Specific diagram (if any): V-1-NoneV-2-NoneV-3-NoneVv-4-5-None

Specific Hebrew Word (if any):

Description: (if desired):

Text:

'''הוּא as resumptive pronoun or copula''' * There are two main ways of reading the הוּא in words "דְּע֗וּ כִּֽי־יְהוָה֮ ה֤וּא אֱלֹ֫הִ֥ים" of v. 3. ** '''Resumptive pronoun''': The first way is to read the clause with יהוה dislocated as a ''casus pendens'', and with הוּא functioning as a resumptive pronoun representing the subject of the verbless clause. This is reflected in the following translations: *** Know that the LORD, he is God! (ESV, NKJV, TLV) *** Know that the LORD Himself is God (NASB) *** LXX: γνῶτε ὅτι κύριος, αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ θεός... **** NETS: Know that the Lord, he is God... *** Jerome: scitote quoniam Dominus ipse est Deus... **** The Lord alone/himself is God... ** '''Copula''': The second way to read הוּא is as a copula, reinforcing the predication that "YHWH '''is''' God". The copular reading technically leaves הוּא untranslated, although functionally it corresponds to the word "is" in the following translations (note that even if the clause simply read "יְהוָה֮ אֱלֹ֫הִ֥ים", without ה֤וּא, one would still supply the word "is" to complete the predication implied by the Hebrew verbless clause). This copular reading is reflected in the following translations: *** Know that the LORD is God (NIV, NLT, NRSV, JPS) *** Acknowledge that the LORD is God (NET, REB) * '''Issue in scholarship''': ** This issue must be seen in light of a long running dispute amongst scholars between the resumptive and copular readings of הוּא in verbless clauses. Some have argued that all occurrences are copular (e.g. Albrecht 1888, Ewald 1879, Brockelmann 1913, Bendavid 1971, Sappan 1981, see Holmstedt and Jones 2014, 54-55, 86-89 for complete bibliography). Others have argued that all occurrences are resumptive (e.g. Driver 1892, Davidson 1901, GKC 1910, Joüon 1923, Muraoka 1985, 1999, 2006, Waltke and O'Connor 1990, and more. See Holmstedt and Jones 2014, 54-55, 86-89 for complete bibliography). ** It is most plausible, however, that both copular and resumptive readings are possible, and the function of הוּא must be determined case by case (Holmstedt and Jones 2014, esp 76-77, Sappan 1982, Khan 1988, 2006). * '''Arguments''': In this case, it is more plausible that הוּא functions as a resumptive pronoun, with יהוה dislocated as the topic of the clause. The main reasons for this reading are as follows: ** '''Discourse Function''': Reading this verse as a casus pendens coheres with the discourse flow and rhetorical thrust of this psalm far more than a copular reading. *** The copular reading would make this an unmarked clause simply saying that "Acknowledge that YHWH is God". *** In contrast, the ''casus pendens'' reading establishes YHWH as the marked topic in order to identify him "as the sole entity to whom following predications could be attributed" (BHRG §48.2.2b). In other words, this construction specifically emphasises that "YHWH, and YHWH alone, is God, there is no other", and furthermore "YHWH, and YHWH alone, created us, there is no other". ** '''Hebrew usage''': *** This reading coheres with at least 5 other similar constructions declaring that YHWH (and no other god) is God (Deut 4:35, 39; 1 Kgs 8:60; 18:39; 2 Chr. 33:13). Deut 4:35 brings this rhetorical thrust out clearly: **** לָדַ֔עַת כִּ֥י יְהוָ֖ה ה֣וּא הָאֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ין ע֖וֹד מִלְבַדּֽוֹ׃ **** "...that you might know that YHWH, he is God; there is no other besides him." ** '''Ancient Support''': Although the evidence is not conclusive, ancient versions, especially LXX and Jerome, seem to reflect a dislocation/resumption reading of this clause. *** LXX: γνῶτε ὅτι κύριος, αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ θεός. **** NETS: "Know that the Lord, he is God." *** Jerome: scitote quoniam Dominus ipse est Deus. **** "Know that the Lord himself is God."

Save page Cancel