John Makujina, «The Interpretation of Ps 144,14: Applying a Pluralistic Approach to a Manifold Difficulty», Vol. 92 (2011) 481-502
The interpretation of Ps 144,14 remains unsettled, due primarily to the difficulty of identifying an overall context for the colon. Of the two major positions dominating the debate, one contends that the topic of the entire verse is bovine fecundity, whereas the other considers part of the colon (v. 14b-c) to be about national security. The author finds both views to be problematic and proposes another solution, which retains attractive elements from each position: Ps 144,14 promises the prosperity of livestock, by assuring that they will not become the spoils of war.
Biblica_1_Layout 1 20/01/12 11:44 Pagina 494
494 JOHN MAKUJINA
times in Semitic literature (Hebrew, Phoenician, Ugaritic, Akka-
dian) 54. M. Dahood, moreover, considers the pair to be a merism
that encapsulates all types of domestic cattle 55.
dwt[, “male goatâ€, and lya, “ramâ€, present a tantalizing possi-
bility, since both have secondary meanings that denote human lead-
ers or rulers dwt[, Isa 14,9; Zech 10,3; lya, Exod 15,15; Ezek 17,13;
31,11; 32,21. Could it be, then, that “chief†and “ox†belong to the
same lemma, @wla, with “ox†serving as the archaic, primary sense
and “chief†the derivative, metaphorical sense? 56
Finally, any analysis that is excessively speculative and reliant
on conjectural emendations — e.g., Ziegler’s — can be accused of
circularity.
IV. Unity Preserved: Pastoral Orientation
Another option, which also circumvents the difficulty cited by
Allen, is to understand v. 14 as entirely pastoral, without, however,
making reference to fecund cattle. M. Held translates v. 14 as, “Our cat-
tle are well cared for; (there is none that breaks out [#rp-!ya], and none
that stampedes [!ya tacwy], and there is no alarm on our ranges)†57.
Held’s version, or something like it, preserves the agricultural imagery,
while removing some of the difficulties involved with the miscar-
riage interpretation. Nevertheless, Ziegler’s criticism, that Held is
guilty of imposing the massive ranching enterprises of the American
west (“cowboysâ€) on an ancient society, is echoed by others, and the
translation has failed to gain a following 58.
54
AVISHUR, Word-Pairs, 579-581, 599-600; DAHOOD, Psalms 101-150,
333; ZIEGLER, “Ps 144â€, 194. For biblical examples see Deut 7,13; Ps 8,8.
55
DAHOOD, Psalms 101-150, 333; M. DAHOOD, Psalms I, 1-50 (AB 16;
New York 1966) 51-52.
56
For this possibility, cfr., P.D. MILLER, JR., “Animal Names as Designa-
tions in Ugaritic and Hebrewâ€, UF 2 (1970) 181; F.M. CROSS, JR. ‒ D.N.
FREEDMAN, “The Song of Miriamâ€, JNES 14 (1955) 248. For the standard
etymologies for these terms see NIDOTTE I, 406-410, 415-418.
57
HELD, “The Root Zbl/Sblâ€, 92, n. 49. Bracketed material was added by
the present author.
58
ZIEGLER, “Ps 144â€, 192; ALLEN, Psalms 101-150, 360; DAHOOD, Psalms
101-150, 333. But consider Nabal’s 3,000 sheep and 1,000 goats (1 Sam
25,2), as well as Job’s abundant livestock (Job 1,3; 42,12). See also 2 Sam
12,2 and 2 Chr 32,29.