604 TRANSLATION, NOTES, AND COMMENTS
(ha'elleh), which should be added to the reading of the MT The LXX omits
"in the hearing."
- And the king sent Jehudi to take the roll, and he took it from the chamber
of Elishama, the scribe. Jehudi is the one sent earlier by the princes to fetch
Baruch (v 14). He may just be a palace servant rather than one of the princes,
but still an important person. Duhm thinks that he was a scribe. Jehudi is able
to read, and the scribe's knife used to cut the scroll may have been his. The
LXX again omits "the scribe" after Elishama.
and Jehudi read it aloud in the hearing of the king and in the hearing of all the
princes who were standing beside the king. This is the third reading of the scroll
in one day. Duhm wonders if the reading could have taken more than an hour.
- And the king was sitting in the winter house. The "winter house" (bet
ha~orep) may simply be palace quarters exposed to winter sun but more shel-
tered than the airy summer quarters (Harper 1905: 78; Hyatt; Holladay). See
"the winter house" and "the summer house" in Amos 3: 15. But Paul ( 1978;
1991: 125-26) argues for the older view, that the winter house is a separate
building. This finds support in extrabiblical texts, among which is the Inscrip-
tion of Barrakub, the Aramaean King of Sam'al (ca. 730 B.C.), who says that the
old palace of Kilamu had to suffice for both a summer and winter house, but
now Barrakub has built an additional abode (ANET^3 655; CS II 161).
in the ninth month. I.e., Kislev (November/December); cf. v 9. The LXX
omits the reference. Many commentators (Giesebrecht; Duhm; Peake; Cornill;
Holladay; McKane) therefore delete, but its presence in other Yrs (GL, S, T, and
Vg) argues for retention. Duhm does not like the repetition after v 9. The refer-
ence can certainly be retained (so Volz; .Rudolph; Weiser; Bright).
and a fire in the stove was burning before him. This reading follows the LXX
(see footnote), except for its omission of "was burning." The T also omits the
participle. In defense of MT's 'et, it is possible for an accusative to depend on
a preceding verbal idea; the reading could therefore be "and he had the brazier
before him" (GKC § 1171).
the stove. Hebrew ha' a~. The noun 'a~ is another loanword from Egyptian
'b, meaning "brazier" (Kelso 1948: 16 #34; Lambdin 1953: 146; cf. KB^3 ). Kelso
says that these stoves were either metal or ceramic ware, but since this one was
being used by a king in the palace, it was probably made of metal.
- And it happened as Jehudi proclaimed three or four columns, he would tear
it with the scribe's knife and would throw it into the fire that was in the stove, until
the entire roll was consumed on the fire that was in the stove. The Hebrew imper-
fect and perfect with waw consecutive are both used here with frequentative (it-
erative) force to express repeated action in the past, thus: "he would (repeatedly)
tear it ... he would (repeatedly) throw" (GKC § 107b; § l 12e). For the same us-
age, see v 18. Rashi notes too that the imperfect verb must be translated past
tense. It is not specified who tears the scroll and throws it into the fire. It could
have been the king, but it could also have been Jehudi on orders from the king.
In either case, the king is carrying out a symbolic action, on which see Note for
13: 1. The intent, as Blank ( 1950-51: 93) points out, is to neutralize the words of
