yandex99
Kraken
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2023
- Posts
- 4,062
- Reputation
- 3,971
u/extispicy avatar
extispicy
•
2 yr. ago
I am only a student, but I can help make sense of the grammar. Of concern here is the verb translated pollute/defile/unclean and who is doing what to whom, and then to take a look at the inclusion of "fire". Here is the relevant portion of the verse:
וָאֲטַמֵּא אוֹתָם בְּמַתְּנוֹתָם בְּהַעֲבִיר
I defiled them through their very gifts, in their offering up ... (NRSVUE)
And I defiled them with their gifts when they passed (every womb-breach) in sacrifice ... (Alter)
First, I must say it is telling that your two alternate translations (NKJV and NLT) not only do not agree with these more critical translations, they do not even agree with one another, which is probably not a good sign.
So, first question is who is defiling whom? The root of the verb here is טמא, which is very often translated unclean/impure/defiled elsewhere in the text. In the BDB lexicon, this is piel conjugation is defined as 'to defile sexually/religiously/ceremonially', placing this verse under the 'religiously' umbrella.
The BDB does offer a fourth usage as 'pronounce or declare ceremonially unclean', which is used with only one exception regarding the issue of skin disease in Leviticus 13. While the BDB does allow for 'to pronounce unclean', I just want to make it clear there is no other word in the text that has any meaning of 'to pronounce/declare'. At issue here is this singular word variously translated "I defiled" or "I pronounced (someone) defiled" .
I will say I do not see any support for the NLT's "I let them pollute themselves". The grammar here just does not allow for this defiling to not be something that "I" am doing. There is a reflexive verb conjugation pattern (hithpael) that would be used if the people were doing the defiling to themselves, but that is not what we see here; this is unambiguously "I" doing the defiling/declaring defiled to someone else.
As for the 'fire', there is no word in the Hebrew text for specifically 'fire'. The verb here is עבר, which appears here in the in hiphil conjugation, which generally lends a causative meaning to the word. In the simple conjugation it would be 'to cross/pass over', but in this usage you are making something else pass or cross over. Of note the BDB has a sub definition of specifically offering up children to a deity, which is where they place this verse:
d. devote children to (לְ) heathen god Je 32:35 Ez 23:37 (+ לְאָכְלָה), Lv 18:21 (H), cf. Ez 16:21; + בָּאֵשׁ by fire 2 K 23:10; c. acc. alone devote Ez 20:26; c. acc. + בָּאֵשׁ alone, devote by fire Dt 18:10 2 K 16:3; 17:17; 21:6 = 2 Ch 33:6, Ez 20:31 (on the practice cf. NowArch. ii. 205 f. BenzArch. 433 f. Toy Ez:16:20; 20:26 GFMJBL xvi (1897), 161 ff.).
This same verb appears just a few lines ahead in verse 20:31, and that instance does include "in fire": "making your children pass through the fire" (JPS)
I would also point out that the NLT has embellished the text in ways I do not see supported in the Hebrew. For the portion "the very gifts I had given them", there is nothing in the text for "I have given them". In the Hebrew it is simply "their gifts", which other translation interpret as the people's offerings to the deity. Also, " to their gods" this phrase is missing in the Hebrew.
As for interpretation, I can share Alter's thoughts on this passage, referring to the prior verse And on My part gave them statutes that were not good:
This is a startling theological idea. In part it flows from the general assumption that since God is ultimately responsible for everything that happens, if Israel adopts perverse practices, it is because God has decreed it. A dynamic of punishment, however, is detectable here: if Israel stubbornly clings to pagan abominations, God will compound the guilt of the people by encouraging them to persist in their waywardness.
extispicy
•
2 yr. ago
I am only a student, but I can help make sense of the grammar. Of concern here is the verb translated pollute/defile/unclean and who is doing what to whom, and then to take a look at the inclusion of "fire". Here is the relevant portion of the verse:
וָאֲטַמֵּא אוֹתָם בְּמַתְּנוֹתָם בְּהַעֲבִיר
I defiled them through their very gifts, in their offering up ... (NRSVUE)
And I defiled them with their gifts when they passed (every womb-breach) in sacrifice ... (Alter)
First, I must say it is telling that your two alternate translations (NKJV and NLT) not only do not agree with these more critical translations, they do not even agree with one another, which is probably not a good sign.
So, first question is who is defiling whom? The root of the verb here is טמא, which is very often translated unclean/impure/defiled elsewhere in the text. In the BDB lexicon, this is piel conjugation is defined as 'to defile sexually/religiously/ceremonially', placing this verse under the 'religiously' umbrella.
The BDB does offer a fourth usage as 'pronounce or declare ceremonially unclean', which is used with only one exception regarding the issue of skin disease in Leviticus 13. While the BDB does allow for 'to pronounce unclean', I just want to make it clear there is no other word in the text that has any meaning of 'to pronounce/declare'. At issue here is this singular word variously translated "I defiled" or "I pronounced (someone) defiled" .
I will say I do not see any support for the NLT's "I let them pollute themselves". The grammar here just does not allow for this defiling to not be something that "I" am doing. There is a reflexive verb conjugation pattern (hithpael) that would be used if the people were doing the defiling to themselves, but that is not what we see here; this is unambiguously "I" doing the defiling/declaring defiled to someone else.
As for the 'fire', there is no word in the Hebrew text for specifically 'fire'. The verb here is עבר, which appears here in the in hiphil conjugation, which generally lends a causative meaning to the word. In the simple conjugation it would be 'to cross/pass over', but in this usage you are making something else pass or cross over. Of note the BDB has a sub definition of specifically offering up children to a deity, which is where they place this verse:
d. devote children to (לְ) heathen god Je 32:35 Ez 23:37 (+ לְאָכְלָה), Lv 18:21 (H), cf. Ez 16:21; + בָּאֵשׁ by fire 2 K 23:10; c. acc. alone devote Ez 20:26; c. acc. + בָּאֵשׁ alone, devote by fire Dt 18:10 2 K 16:3; 17:17; 21:6 = 2 Ch 33:6, Ez 20:31 (on the practice cf. NowArch. ii. 205 f. BenzArch. 433 f. Toy Ez:16:20; 20:26 GFMJBL xvi (1897), 161 ff.).
This same verb appears just a few lines ahead in verse 20:31, and that instance does include "in fire": "making your children pass through the fire" (JPS)
I would also point out that the NLT has embellished the text in ways I do not see supported in the Hebrew. For the portion "the very gifts I had given them", there is nothing in the text for "I have given them". In the Hebrew it is simply "their gifts", which other translation interpret as the people's offerings to the deity. Also, " to their gods" this phrase is missing in the Hebrew.
As for interpretation, I can share Alter's thoughts on this passage, referring to the prior verse And on My part gave them statutes that were not good:
This is a startling theological idea. In part it flows from the general assumption that since God is ultimately responsible for everything that happens, if Israel adopts perverse practices, it is because God has decreed it. A dynamic of punishment, however, is detectable here: if Israel stubbornly clings to pagan abominations, God will compound the guilt of the people by encouraging them to persist in their waywardness.
