Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Dear Yaakov:
First of all, we are making the assumption that the consonantal text that we
have is accurate to the original.

Secondly, is this a verb, or a noun? If a noun, would it not refer to an
action that the messenger is doing, rather than to what is done to him?

Of course, if this is a noun, then the Masoretic points are wrong (as they
are often enough).

Words from this root are found in over 30 verses, and as far as I can tell
have the meaning of "to trim off, pare away and throw away that which is
pared or trimmed off so that it is prevented from being presented (as an act
of concealment, destruction)" If this is a noun, then would not the
translation be "even those who he pares away" where the English uses a verb
while the Hebrew is a noun?

Karl W. Randolph.

On Feb 6, 2008 10:45 AM, Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s AT rad.com> wrote:

> Exodus 23:20- talks about the messenger/angel that God plans sending
> to accompany the people into the promised land.
>
> Verse 23 ends with the word VHKXDTYV, literally and <and I will destroy
> "him">.
> It is not obvious to what antecedent the suffix pronoun refers.
> All the translations and commentaries I have seen assume that this
> refers to destruction of each of the six nations mentioned, i.e.
>   When my messenger goes with you, and I bring you to the six nations
> and destroy THEM.
> Since each is mentioned as a collective noun in the singular,
> this COULD be the meaning, but it is strange that the six together
> are not considered plural. (Note that one of the seven nations is
> missing - the Girgashi)
>
> I would like to propose that the suffix actually refers to the
> messenger, i.e.
>   When my messenger goes with you, and I bring you to the six nations
> and destroy HIM.
>
> This destroying of he messenger/angel is not a strange idea.
> Rabbinic literature states that there are angels created for specific
> tasks,
> and once their task is completed they no longer exist.
> That is one reason they are reluctant to give their names
> (e.g. the angel that wrestled with Jacob).
>
> Also, we know from verse 29 that God does not intend wiping out
> the indigenous nations quickly. Verse 32 talks about the risk of the
> Israelites
> making covenants with them. This could not happen if they were wiped
> out.
> So the use of the word "LHKXYD" with respect to them seems
> inappropriate.
>
> Under this assumption the following verses make more sense.
> If the meaning were the detruction of the indigenous nations,
> why would the next verse express concerns about the people
> adopting the Gods of obliterated nations ?
> However, if it is the angel who will no longer be with the people,
> the concern makes perfect sense.
>
> Yaakov (J) Stein
>