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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Blessings, Jerry Jerry Shepherd Taylor Seminary Edmonton, Alberta [email protected]
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
