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 496
496 JOHN MAKUJINA
owners thereof†61. A related but more adventurous proposal comes
from M. Girard, who understands tacwy !ya and #rp-!ya as signifying a
lack of aggression in the cattle when they bring produce to the market-
place 62. Even more exotic is M. Cimosa’s version, which takes the
same terms as describing prosperity in the following manner: the mer-
chandise, loaded on cattle, will find it difficult to penetrate the hustle
and bustle of shoppers in the marketplace 63.
The question of whether or not missing livestock would induce
the type of plaintive cries recorded in v. 14c (hxwc), nevertheless, re-
mains 64. It could be answered in the affirmative, if the psalmist had
in mind runaway cattle on a scale comparable to the widespread de-
vastation of Isa 24,11 and Jer 14,2, where hxwc also surfaces. (Out-
cries of distress are certainly fitting for cattlemen who have just lost
everything [Jer 25,36].) An escape of this magnitude, however, is un-
likely and unprecedented in the biblical tradition, although Judg 6,3-
4 and Job 1,14-15.17 testify that heavy losses by raid could certainly
occur. Furthermore, the solution of herd depredation, whether by es-
cape or robbery, does not have the luxury of direct lexical parallels
or corresponding word pairs — vis-à -vis the martial option 65.
61
GILL, Gill’s Commentary, 407. Likewise JACQUET, Psaumes 101 à 150,
685; EWALD, Die poetischen Bücher, 417, 418; KISSANE, Psalms, 317. Cfr.,
Exod 21,37; 22,3.9.11; Deut 28,31; Jud 6,3-4; Job 1,14-15.17.
62
GIRARD, Psaumes 101-150, 490-491.
63
CIMOSA, Salmi 101-150, 333.
64
Such grief over miscarrying livestock seems even less appropriate. The
prospect that hxwc refers to the “gémissements des bêtes†(Jacquet) or is the
personification of animals lamenting (Allen) — on the witness of Joel 1,18,
where animals “groan†(hx'n>a,n) — seems to me to be the least plausible of the
options. Although additional examples of personification could be cited (Zech
11,2; Jonah 3,8), they scarcely improve the prospects of Allen’s proposal.
JACQUET, Psaumes 101 Ã 150, 685; ALLEN, Psalms 101-150, 360.
Extrabiblical evidence does, however, exist. The Akkadian as£u‚ means
65
“escape†in the following clause, “on account of the eight sheep which es-
caped from the foldâ€, YOS 8 1:5. CAD A I.2:359. Also suggestive is the
following passage from the Mishnah, “If the fold was broken through
[hcrpn] in the night, or if robbers broke into it [hwcrpX], and the flock came
out [hacyw] and caused damage, he is not culpable†(m. B. Qam. 6:1). H.
DANBY, The Mishnah. Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and
Brief Explanatory Notes (London 1933) 339. Bracketed material was added
by the present author.