Numbers 4:20
Today I'm looking through a team's translation of Numbers 4 and stumbled on a difficult expression in Hebrew. I was scratching my head and found out that that all the commentaries were scratching their heads, too. Moses, what were you thinking here, when you wrote verse 20?
The translation issue is apparent for English readers by comparing the ESV and JPS:
1. Metaphor for packaging?
Some commentators and Bible translations (e.g., NET, JPS, CJB) find warrant to extend the sense of "engulf" to "cover," since in the preceding verses of Numbers 4, the Kohathites were instructed to cover certain holy things with special cloths. The Aramaic Targum ("when covering the vessels") and Syriac Peshitta ("when covering the holy things") seem to have this reading.
2. Figure of speech for something ephemeral?
However, some commentators and translations interpret the root sense as "to swallow," and find warrant in interpreting this as a figure of speech for something momentary: "even for a moment" (e.g., ESV, NIV, NLT). I don't know about you, but it only takes a brief moment for me to do the action of swallowing! An akin English expression would be, "in the blink of an eye." The Greek Septuagint ("immediately") and another OT verse with a time limitation (Job 7:19) provide further evidence for this position.
3. "When communicating": Not listed in digital tools!
The two above interpretations are the only two that I have seen discussed in literature. But I would like to propose a third possibility which brings up a limitation with using digital tools (e.g., Logos, BibleWorks, Accordance) for exegetical research. To put it simply, the editors of Bible software programs had to make choices in regard to which Hebrew root words to assign and tag in a given verse, and they had to exclude some possibilities. Often times this is straightforward, but other times there is debate. Standard print Hebrew lexicons had to make similar choices (NB: Bible software programs largely follow a certain lexicon's decisions, so both print and digital resources might seem to correspond), but the digital resources do not easily make available to you the other possible options.
For example, the Hebrew root word tagged in BibleWorks follows the assignment given in the standard Hebrew lexicon (HALOT): I בלע: Piel "to engulf" or to "destroy." But the keen eye will observe that there is an I at the front of the supposed root, which tips you off to knowing that there are other roots with the same consonants/letters based on parallels with other related languages. If you pull up the full lexicon of HALOT, you will notice that there are two other entries for these same consonants, and the second entry is based on an Arabic word meaning "to be eloquent, to report." Proverbs 19:28; 2 Samuel 17:16; and Job 37:20 are cited as possible occurrences with this meaning.
Could v20 then be translated as, "but they shall not go in to see the holy things while they are talking, lest they die"? Taking that possible reading up in the context, Numbers 4:19 refers to Aaron and his sons assigning tasks to the sons of Kohath, and verse 20 then provides the precision that the verbal conversation must take place outside the tent. Aaron and his sons oversee the assignments inside (v19), having already verbally designated who does what before entering the tent (v20).
My major hesitations with this proposal are that it lacks ancient manuscript (though I have not done an extensive search of this) and modern translation support. That modern commentators have also not picked up on this possibility does not bother me too much, since we are all scratching our heads on this one!
Explaining the unusual Hebrew word choice
I agree with certain commentators that one reason for the unusual Hebrew word choice here might be to prepare the reader for Numbers 16 and 26, when the rebellious sons of Korah are "engulfed" (same word) by the earth.1 I would not advocate for translating the action verbs in Numbers 4, and 16 and 26 the same way, since chapter 4 does not refer to the earth gobbling up people. But it is an important observation that the only times that this Hebrew verb occurs in Numbers, it is always in association with the Kohathites, in Number 4 and in the later chapters.
Translating Numbers 4:20 in a language in Africa
A translation in Africa that I am consulting seems to follow interpretation #2 above, which--as I indicated above--is a viable interpretation of the Hebrew expression:
__________________________
1 See Dale A. Brueggemann, “Numbers,” in Cornerstone Biblical Commentary: Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, ed. Philip W. Comfort, vol. 2 (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1996), 251–252.
Today I'm looking through a team's translation of Numbers 4 and stumbled on a difficult expression in Hebrew. I was scratching my head and found out that that all the commentaries were scratching their heads, too. Moses, what were you thinking here, when you wrote verse 20?
The translation issue is apparent for English readers by comparing the ESV and JPS:
"but they shall not go in to look on the holy things even for a moment, lest they die." (ESV)In the MT (Hebrew) text, there is a grammatical expression called an infinitive construct here (כְּבַלַּ֥ע), which could be woodenly translated as "when swallowing/engulfing." The verb form (Piel stem) occurs 23 times in the OT, and seems to only refer to either engulfing (eating/swallowing/consuming) or destroying, neither of which seems to happen in this verse. So what can the expression mean? Options:
"but they shall not go in to see the holy things as they are being covered, lest they die." (JPS)
1. Metaphor for packaging?
Some commentators and Bible translations (e.g., NET, JPS, CJB) find warrant to extend the sense of "engulf" to "cover," since in the preceding verses of Numbers 4, the Kohathites were instructed to cover certain holy things with special cloths. The Aramaic Targum ("when covering the vessels") and Syriac Peshitta ("when covering the holy things") seem to have this reading.
2. Figure of speech for something ephemeral?
However, some commentators and translations interpret the root sense as "to swallow," and find warrant in interpreting this as a figure of speech for something momentary: "even for a moment" (e.g., ESV, NIV, NLT). I don't know about you, but it only takes a brief moment for me to do the action of swallowing! An akin English expression would be, "in the blink of an eye." The Greek Septuagint ("immediately") and another OT verse with a time limitation (Job 7:19) provide further evidence for this position.
3. "When communicating": Not listed in digital tools!
The two above interpretations are the only two that I have seen discussed in literature. But I would like to propose a third possibility which brings up a limitation with using digital tools (e.g., Logos, BibleWorks, Accordance) for exegetical research. To put it simply, the editors of Bible software programs had to make choices in regard to which Hebrew root words to assign and tag in a given verse, and they had to exclude some possibilities. Often times this is straightforward, but other times there is debate. Standard print Hebrew lexicons had to make similar choices (NB: Bible software programs largely follow a certain lexicon's decisions, so both print and digital resources might seem to correspond), but the digital resources do not easily make available to you the other possible options.
For example, the Hebrew root word tagged in BibleWorks follows the assignment given in the standard Hebrew lexicon (HALOT): I בלע: Piel "to engulf" or to "destroy." But the keen eye will observe that there is an I at the front of the supposed root, which tips you off to knowing that there are other roots with the same consonants/letters based on parallels with other related languages. If you pull up the full lexicon of HALOT, you will notice that there are two other entries for these same consonants, and the second entry is based on an Arabic word meaning "to be eloquent, to report." Proverbs 19:28; 2 Samuel 17:16; and Job 37:20 are cited as possible occurrences with this meaning.
Could v20 then be translated as, "but they shall not go in to see the holy things while they are talking, lest they die"? Taking that possible reading up in the context, Numbers 4:19 refers to Aaron and his sons assigning tasks to the sons of Kohath, and verse 20 then provides the precision that the verbal conversation must take place outside the tent. Aaron and his sons oversee the assignments inside (v19), having already verbally designated who does what before entering the tent (v20).
My major hesitations with this proposal are that it lacks ancient manuscript (though I have not done an extensive search of this) and modern translation support. That modern commentators have also not picked up on this possibility does not bother me too much, since we are all scratching our heads on this one!
Explaining the unusual Hebrew word choice
I agree with certain commentators that one reason for the unusual Hebrew word choice here might be to prepare the reader for Numbers 16 and 26, when the rebellious sons of Korah are "engulfed" (same word) by the earth.1 I would not advocate for translating the action verbs in Numbers 4, and 16 and 26 the same way, since chapter 4 does not refer to the earth gobbling up people. But it is an important observation that the only times that this Hebrew verb occurs in Numbers, it is always in association with the Kohathites, in Number 4 and in the later chapters.
Translating Numbers 4:20 in a language in Africa
A translation in Africa that I am consulting seems to follow interpretation #2 above, which--as I indicated above--is a viable interpretation of the Hebrew expression:
"But if the Kohathites enter in the tent and see the dedicated holy things, even if it is small, they will die."I do need to make sure, however, that "it is small" refers to a short amount of time (not tiny holy things!):
__________________________
1 See Dale A. Brueggemann, “Numbers,” in Cornerstone Biblical Commentary: Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, ed. Philip W. Comfort, vol. 2 (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1996), 251–252.
No comments:
Post a Comment