Okay, here’s the context: You are the boss of a subsidiary to a big company. Some of the officers under you don’t know all the details of the relationship, and think that they too have direct access to the parent company. As a result, they staged a revolt against your authority. The leader of the revolt has come in to speak with you. You know that the big boss who put you in that place of authority will be present the next day, further you want all of the rebels and another loyal official to be present, so how do you answer the leader of those who have staged the revolt?
Do you give a command? The whole revolt was saying that you didn’t have the authority to give commands, so wouldn’t his response be to flip you the bird and leave? With such an answer, have you accomplished your goal that all parties be present? After all, you had already given a command to some of the group to be present, and they refused to follow your command because they didn’t recognize your authority to give commands, so how would another command be effective? Do you speak softly to the rebels, “Why don’t you, your followers and my assistant be here tomorrow, and we can ask the big boss directly?” After all, the revolt wasn’t against you directly, but against the big boss who had placed you in that position of authority. Which response do you think would be more effective? Which one will make it more likely that the rebels are all present the next day? Which one is more likely to establish your authority? This is the context of Numbers 16—Qorach and his followers had staged a revolt against Moses, saying that he didn’t have the authority to boss them around. When Moses gave a command that all of the rebels be present, they refursed. So in verse 16, how do you think Moses responded? What form of HYW היו do you think he used? If he simply gave a command, using an imperative form, do you think Qorach would have obeyed? Or is it possible that Qorach or one of his followers would respond by drawing his sword and running Moses through? Or is it possible that Moses answered softly, that this form is possibly a Qal Qatal, a plural that includes second (singular) and third (plural) persons? So which form do you think it is? What are your reasons? One reason that doesn’t count is the Masoretic points, so your answer must be based on context or other linguistic clues. What do you think? Karl W. Randolph.
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
