Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Ken and Jerry:

On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 12:46 AM, Jerry Shepherd <jshepherd53 AT gmail.com> wrote:

Numbers 16:16

 

1. First of all, the Masoretic vowel pointing cannot be dismissed, discounted, or ruled out of court. The Masoretes were preservers, not innovators, and their pointing of the text is a witness to how the text was understood to have been vocalized.  We have no pointed Hebrew manuscripts that take the verb under question as anything other than an imperative.

I have found that the Masoretic points are wrong, not just indicating an incorrect pronunciation (Tiberian, not Biblical), but incorrect meaning often enough that I don’t trust them. Even if only one percent are wrong, that averages out to one error every three to four verses. Incorrect pointings are concentrated in difficult to read verses, in fact are sometimes the reason those verses are difficult to read. Therefore, I don’t trust them and do not count them as evidence. That’s also why I stopped using them when reading Tanakh.

On a related note, my seat-of-the-pants guesstimate of the Kethiv / Qere pairs is that the Qere is wrong 90% of the time. Possibly more.

 

2. All the versional evidence must be taken into account (LXX, Vulgate, etc.).  There are no ancient versions that understand the verb in question to be anything other than an imperative.

These reflect the understanding of the translators. I question whether their understanding is correct, why, or why not? Further, I want an answer from within Biblical Hebrew, not what some translator(s) said.

The above two points show that I’m a true son of the Lutheran Reformation—direct observation takes precedence over even a cloud of human opinion, and that one person who is accurate counts more than an army who isn’t. While I don’t always succeed, I strive to be that one person who is accurate.

 

3. The verbs that Moses uses in the rest of his direct address to Korah have to be taken into account.  Verse 17 continues Moses' address to Korah.  The verse begin with a mp imperative, and it cannot be mistaken as a qatal.  The proposed explanation, that Moses would not have used an imperative in v. 16, does not explain why he does use a definite imperatival form in v. 17 in the continuation of his direct address.  That an imperative could be used in v. 17 demonstrates that there is no reason to understood the verb in question in v. 16 as anything other than an imperative.  This also demonstrates that there is no reason to psychologize Moses as not being in a position to use an imperatival form, since he definitely does so in v. 17.

This is the only verse in Tanakh where it’s claimed that an imperative addressed to )TH W- other person(s) is in plural. all other cases that I found the imperative is singular, e.g. Isaiah 7:3, Jeremiah 36:19. That includes the imperative uses of the Yiqtol conjugation.

 

4. There are several other mp imperatival forms on Moses' lips in this chapter in vv. 6, 7, and 8.  Indeed, the syntax of v. 6 is comparable to the syntax of v. 16.  Following vv. 16-17 there are more mp imperatival forms on Yahweh's lips in vv. 21, 24, and 26.  Ancient readers would naturally have understood the verb in question in v. 16 to be an imperative, having the same form as the other mp imperatival forms in the chapter – and the ancient versions corroborate that this is in fact what they did.

That fits the context that I gave. 

 

5. There is no precedent for a verbal form, used in direct address, that combines the second person singular and third person plural into one third person plural form.  Verse 16 is direct address; a 3cp qatal form would make no sense in that context and would not be used.  There is no justification for understanding the verb in question to be a 3cp qatal rather than a mp imperative.

Which leads to the question, is this a scribal error, a copyist mistake? Is there any evidence from the DSS that could answer this question? 

 

6. Even if it was the case that Moses "answered softly," the form would still not be a 3cp qatal; it would be an imperative.  The imperative has various nuances, and while the primary usage is that of giving a command, lesser "imperatival" nuances are giving permission, making a request, expressing a wish, etc.  The qatal would not be used to express these nuances; they are all within the range of the imperative.  I don't believe Moses did answer "softly," but if he did, the imperative still would have been the verb form to use.

This brings up another question that I thought of, but forgot to include in my original question—was the imperative conjugation used for applications other than direct commands? In other words, some of the conjugation’s uses are for subjunctive or even optative uses?

What your paragraph above says is that this conjugation is not a true imperative, rather that imperative is just one of its more common uses.

Could the Biblical Hebrew “imperative” really be a sort of a verbal vocative case, a type of modality? In other words, this is a grammaticalization of speaking directly to a person?

 

7. Finally, the proposed scenario does not provide a credible scenario of what is happening in this chapter.  Korah and his followers are not unaware of the details of Moses' authority.  They have seen the plagues in Egypt, the Red Sea Crossing, the plagues in the wilderness, the smoking and thundering Sinai, etc.

True. But also before this event came to QD$ BRN( and refused to go up against the Canaanites who were relatively weak compared to Egypt whom God had defeated.

 

  They are not rising up in ignorance; rather they are stubbornly and wickedly rebelling against a known authority.  When they first confront Moses, the man who was more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth, fell face down in front of them.  As far as his own person was concerned, he "gave his back" to the rebels.  But as far as his position was concerned, he still acted with all the authority that Yahweh had invested in him.  There is no need to understand him as "softening" his language in v. 16.

Softening his language in a tactical, not strategic sense. Moses was angry. But he didn’t lose his head to his anger. Assuming that the imperative indicates command, Moses had already given a command, and it was pointedly refused. A new command would only elicit more refusal. So as a tactical maneuver, he spoke softer to the rebels, inviting them to their destruction when he couldn’t command it.

 

Blessings,

 

Jerry

Jerry Shepherd

Taylor Seminary

Edmonton, Alberta

jshepherd53 AT gmail.com

 

In closing, the reason I brought this up as a question is that nowhere else, as far as I’ve been able to find, is there an imperative with this form in this syntax as in this verse. I don’t feel comfortable calling this a Qatal because it’s not normal for that use either. Perhaps the DSS can show that we have a copyist error similar to our recent discussion of Deuteronomy 32:43, perhaps not.

The second reason is the context as outlined in my original post.

 

Karl W. Randolph.