Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>]

Yitzhak,
> Your reading of kly as "tool" and not as "weapon" is based on a
> mistaken interpretation of Hebrew.  In Hebrew some words, such
> as byt or kly, have a wide variety of particular meanings.  For byt,
> for example, you can have "house", "temple", "palace", "dynasty",
> "kingdom", "receptacle", "family".  For kly, "tool", "instrument",
> "ornament", or "garment" as well as "weapon" are all particular
> meanings that could be taken by the word.  The word weapon
> even has its phrases including n&) klym - "arms-bearer" as in
> Ju 9:54.  (Also, according to some translations, byt klym -
> "arsenal/armory" Is 39:2).
>
> Now, if the author of Num 35 wanted to describe murder with an
> iron weapon, "kly brzl" is the phrase he would use.  Additionally,
> the simplest meaning of Num 35 is that it describes the results
> of murder by various kinds of weapons rather than various kinds
> of objects that are not generally meant to cause harm.  (This
> also has relevance in terms of the law, since using a weapon to
> kill someone conveys intent whereas if someone is killed as a
> result of accidentally being hit by the kitchen sink, or a bed, that
> is not necessarily intent to murder and may be accidental.  In
> your views, such accidental deaths would be reason to put to
> death the person responsible).  Taken together these two facts
> mean that on its own, based on context and linguistics, the
> word "kly" in the verse means "weapon."  Your argument appears
> to rather say, "well, although the linguistics and context point
> to the reading 'kly' = 'weapon', I'd rather not read this equation
> into the verse because the only way to substantiate such an
> equation is in the late Iron Age, when I believe the verse was
> authored much earlier."  But this is wrong methodologically just
> like it would be wrong to read in 1 Sam 5:2 "house of Dagon"
> without realizing it is a temple, not a simple house.
>   

HH: You write as if I dreamed up this "misinterpretation" of kly in 
order to counter your view of things. But it is you who are open to the 
accusation of giving a particular interpretation to a word in a context 
in order to sustain a view that is not the norm. For I simply gave the 
interpretation of the word found in my Bible, and in many Bibles. 
Actually the use of kly in verse 18 suggests that in verse 16 it also 
means "instrument" or "tool" rather than "weapon." For in verse 18 kly 
is modified with the words "of wood in hand which he can die by it." If 
kly meant "weapon" there would be no need to add the words "which one 
can die by it." It seems probable that kly means "instrument" or "tool" 
and so needs further definition to show that it is being used as a 
weapon. It is obvious from the context that the person has malicious 
intent when he strikes another, for he is described as a murderer.

Here is the Christian Standard Bible:

16  "If anyone strikes a person with an iron object and death results, 
he is a murderer; the murderer must be put to death. 17 If a man has in 
his hand a stone capable of causing death and strikes another man and he 
dies, the murderer must be put to death. 18 If a man has in his hand a 
wooden object capable of causing death and he dies, the murderer must be 
put to death. 19 The avenger of blood himself is to kill the murderer; 
when he finds him, he is to kill him.

HH: The person in verse 16  is compared with other people who similarly 
have murderous intent (vv. 16-19).  He is also compared with someone who 
attacks another with malicious intent, and the word "malicious" is 
explicit:. This person is similarly to be put to death by the avenger of 
blood (vv. 20-21). 

20 Likewise, if anyone in hatred pushes a person or throws an object at 
him with malicious intent and he dies, 21 or if in hostility he strikes 
him with his hand and he dies, the one who struck him must be put to 
death; he is a murderer. The avenger of blood is to kill the murderer 
when he finds him.

HH: Finally, he is contrasted with someone who acts similarly but 
without intent to harm (vv. 22-24). So it is obvious that even if the 
person in verse 16 does not have a weapon in his hand, he is using the 
iron instrument in a malicious way as a weapon.

22 "But if anyone suddenly pushes a person without hostility or throws 
any object at him without malicious intent 23 or drops a stone without 
looking that could kill a person and he dies, but he was not his enemy 
and wasn't trying to harm him, 24 the assembly is to judge between the 
slayer and the avenger of blood according to these ordinances.

HH: The Christian Standard Bible is not unique in this interpretation, 
for it is the norm for Numbers 35:16:

KJV: 16  And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, 
he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.
NAS: 16 'But if he struck him down with an iron object, so that he died, 
he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death.
NIV: 16  "'If a man strikes someone with an iron object so that he dies, 
he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death.
NRSV: 16  But anyone who strikes another with an iron object, and death 
ensues, is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death.
NLT 16  "But if someone strikes and kills another person with a piece of 
iron, it is murder, and the murderer must be executed.
NJB 16  "But if he has struck the person with an iron object so as to 
cause death, he is a murderer. The murderer will be put to death.
ESV 16  "But if he struck him down with an iron object, so that he died, 
he is a murderer. The murderer shall be put to death.
NET 16  "But if he hits someone with an iron tool so that he dies, he is 
a murderer. The murderer must surely be put to death.

HH: And just to be sure, I checked the Jewish Publication Society Bible, 
and they agree with the ones above:

http://www.hareidi.org/bible/Numbers35.htm#16

<../ref/Numbers35.htm#16>
   But if he smote him with an instrument of iron, so that he died, he
   is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. 


> The basic concept in both the above conclusions is that the
> Bible is taken a priori to be true and correct and to fit a particular
> theological reading.  If that's what you're doing, I don't understand
> why evidence matters at all.  For even if evidence does exist,
> you would rather try to explain it away, even if the explanation
> ends up being very very forced.  Before, I accepted your reading
> of Num 35 as possible, but noted that in my opinion it is very
> forced.  Now, we have direct examples of disputing scientific
> assessments based on the Bible.  I really have no problem with
> an explanation based on the belief that the Bible is a priori taken
> to be true and to fit certain theological readings of it.  I only have
> a problem when that explanation is dressed as based on an
> analysis of archaeological or historical or linguistic evidence, as
> if given other evidence, other conclusions would be achieved.
>   

HH: Who is being forced about Numbers 35? No translation I checked has 
"weapon" there where you want it to be. The Bible is primary evidence 
from the ancient world, and it has been held by your own people to be 
the word of God. Yes, I accept what it says as true, and it is wonderful 
when science seems to validate it. And when science does not seem to do 
that, I wait for science to get more information, as has occurred over 
and over again in places where the Bible has proved true after people 
raised points of doubt about it.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard