Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Jerry:

On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Jerry Shepherd <jshepherd53 AT gmail.com> wrote:

Re Numbers 16:16

 

1. The Masoretes and the translators of the ancient versions certainly may have made mistakes.  We all do.  But that does not at all mean that they should not be consulted, and it certainly does not mean that they were not engaged in “direct observation.”  The work of modern-day scholars is to sift through and analyze the available data.  Refusal to take these ancient sources into consideration, refusal to be open to all the available evidence, and adopting an “It’s just me and the Bible; I don’t care what anyone else says” attitude – these are not descriptors of true sons of the Reformation.  The Reformers were far better scholars than that.

In the book “The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science” by Peter Harrison (August 13, 2001), the history is told of Luther teaching a class on the Psalms. When he handed out the workbooks, the students were surprised to find the text, just the text, and empty space for them to write their notes. The medieval practice, carried through the Renaissance, was to consider the commentaries of “experts” as equal, if not more important, than the text itself. But Luther emphasized the text.

The reason that was important for science was because medieval practices before Luther had scientists studying the writings of “experts” who preceded them, the epitome being Aristotle. But the “text” for scientists was and is nature itself. If what they observed was different than what the “experts” claimed, that scientists are to follow observation instead of the “experts”.

In this question, the “experts’ commentary” is the Masoretic points. Those points are their commentary on how they thought the text should be pronounced, and how it should be understood. Their pronunciation was Tiberian, not Biblical. Their meanings were based on Jewish tradition from the Mishnah, Gemerrah and so forth. Other commentary are the ancient translations, but that’s still commentary.

Like Luther above, I want to strip away the commentaries and concentrate on the text. If an analysis of the text agrees with what ancient commentators said, well and good. But if it differs, which takes precedence?

 

2. There are other places where there is either an imperative or imperatival yiqtol in the plural with )TH W-.  For example, in Num 1:3, an imperatival yiqtol is used in the latter part of the verse: “you will list them for the army, you and Aaron.”  This also follows a mp imperative in v. 2 that anticipates that it is not Moses who will do the mumbering alone, but Moses and Aaron.

The computer I’ve been using for years has a program (now orphaned) that had some rather good search abilities, but it’s out of commission (hopefully temporarily) and I haven’t found another program that has the same search abilities (that I can afford). So I wouldn’t surprised if more are found, just that I didn’t find them with what I have. That’s why I wrote “…that I found.” 

 

3. It is not valid to look only at )TH W- occurences.  Basically the same formulation can be achieved without the use of the pronoun, but using the addressed person’s name instead.  This happens with a mp imperative in 2 Chron 13:4 – “hear me, Jeroboam and all Israel.”  It happens again in 2 Chron 15:2 – “hear me, Asa and all Judah and Benjamin” (cf. 2 Chron 20:15; Jer 2:4).

I wanted to do a quick search, so concentrated on )TH W-. Your point taken.

(However, Jer 2:4 two plurals are addressed. same with 2 Chron 20;15.)

 

4. It is true that the normal pattern when giving an imperative to multiple subjects, and a singular subject is given first, is to use a singular imperative.  However, as noted above, there are exceptions.  One other thing that needs to be taken into account is that the usual syntax is imperative, then addressees.  One of the unique features about the occurrence in Num 16:16 is that the usual pattern is reversed and what we have there is addressees first and then the imperative.  This may account for the use of the plural rather than singular imperative there.

What is also interesting in this case that who is being addressed are people who are not present, in other words third person plural. 

 

5. One interesting occurrence where both singular and plural imperatives are used to address the same group is Hag 2:4 – “ ‘be strong all the people of the land,’ declaration of Yahweh, ‘and work.’ ”  The first imperative is singular and the second one is plural. It could, however, be argued for this one that the plural imperative is directed not just toward “all the people” but also to Zerubbabel and Joshua. 

 

6. Keep in mind the original point – there are no examples whatsoever (zilch, nada, nil, none, zero, zippo) of a group being addressed and either told or being asked to do something by the use of a 3cp qatal form.

So you include also third parties who were not present but asked to follow certain suggestions as “a group being addressed”? 

 

7. The only DSS manuscript that contains Numbers 16 is 4QNum^b, and unfortunately the relevant part of v. 16 is either missing or unreadable.  And, no, there is absolutely no reason to surmise that there has been a scribal error or copyist’s mistake in the MT of Num 16:16.

I didn’t surmise, I merely raised that question based on the fact that we have here an unusual construction. 

 

8. The fact that the Hebrew imperative has other nuances (i.e., making a request, giving permission, expressing a wish) does not mean that it is not a true imperative conjugation.

I’m not questioning that the conjugation exists, just is it accurate to call it an “imperative”? In the same way it’s inaccurate to call a Qatal a “perfect” or “perfective”?

“Imperative” means command, and you’re saying that, as Ruth Mathys might say, this conjugation is not an imperative in action. Is that what you’re saying?

In other words, are we dealing with, like in the case of the Wayyiqtol and tense, that it is the context that carries whatever imperative action where the conjugation is used, rather than the conjugation itself?

 

  The English imperative has these same nuances as well, among others, but is nonetheless a true imperative.

It’s been many years since I was taught English grammar in grade school, and there they taught that the imperative mood meant only command. And the only examples given were of commands.

 

Blessings,

 

Jerry

Jerry Shepherd

Taylor Seminary

Edmonton, Alberta

jshepherd53 AT gmail.com

Karl W. Randolph.