Question: In Exodus chapter 3 What does borrowing from one’s neighbor have to do with spoiling or plundering of the Egyptians?
But every woman shall borrow of her neighbour, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: and ye shall put them upon your sons, and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians (Exodus 3:22).
KJV (public domain in the U.S.A)
The KJV curiously translates וְשָׁאֲלָ֨ה אִשָּׁ֤ה as ” but every woman shall borrow” yet the verb שׁאל means to ask or to make a request of someone and in this case of ‘her neighbor’. I suppose “borrow” and “ask are close enough if the KJV is producing a ‘dynamic equivalent’ translation and that may very well be the case if the KJV is actually presenting an original translation. But, now who is this “neighbor”? From the context, it seems that this neighbor is not another Hebrew, but is rather the Egyptians who appear immediately before in this pericope in verse 21 who are by providence now favorably disposed toward the Hebrews. This makes it highly unlikely or at least odd that Hebrew women are now plundering the particular Egyptians who are willingly helping them. And, interestingly נָצַל (natzal) the lexeme that KJV translates here as ‘spoil’ elsewhere means to deliver or to save( for example see Exodus 6:6, 18:4, 18:8, Numbers 35:25, Joshua 2:13, 9:26, and 24:19). Concerning the meaning of נָצַל Dr. J. H. Hertz comments that:
its direct object is never the person or the thing from whom the saving or the rescuing or snatching has taken place, but always the person or thing being rescued… “ye shall spoil the Egyptians,” is, therefore, unwarranted, for two reasons. it takes the persons from whom things are snatched as the direct object; and furthermore, it necessitates an entire reversal of the meaning נָצַל from save into despoil!
Hertz, J.H., 2nd ed.The Pentateuch and Haftorahs. London: Soncino press, 1981
Okay, so why did the KJV translators render Exodus 3:22 the way they did? Was it an original translation or was it something else? Since the KJV was hardly the first English translation available a number of other translations had already started a tradition. In 1384 John Wycliffe’s translation read “nakid” amd later number of Bible translations like Matthew Bible (1537), The Great Bible (1539), The Bishops Bible (1568) agree at the following reading “and shall robbe the Egyptians”. At first sight, this might appear to be where the KJV is getting its translation from however if you check the coverdale bible 1535, Geneva Bible of 1560, Douay Rheims Bible (1582) you will find that it reads thus:
“and shall spoyle the Egyptians/Egypt.” which is the same as the modernized spelling KJV (1611) ‘s ‘spoil’ .
So, back to the question In Exodus chapter 3 What does borrowing from one’s neighbor have to do with spoiling or plundering of the Egyptians?
Answer: nothing at all, the KJV mistranslation is borrowed from older English Bible translations most notably the Coverdale translation of the OT that was based much more on the latin Vulgate and German translations than on the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible.
Wait a minute! Are, you saying that you don’t believe the KJV is inspired and inerrant?
No, I do not believe in the inerrancy of any translation of the scriptures (nor of any translation of anything else for that matter!). Frankly speaking, the KJV was a revision of older English translations of the Bible rather than a new translation on its own. I think my post hints at that idea seeing as how the KJV uncritically borrowed the exact wording from the older translations of Exodus 3:21 ~ 22 as well many other passages.
Of course, translations can be useful and helpful for getting a gist of the overall message of a text, speech, or discourse.
Thank you Brian!
Amen and Amen! translations no matter how useful nor how eloquent should never been confused with the original language texts. I always keep in mind that the translation I’m reading is someone else best understanding of the text and not the original nor an Urtext.
Thank you for your comments! I am very grateful that various translations of the Bible, the dead sea scrolls, and other ancient/modern writings are widely available in English as well as other languages. However, much like you stated it is important to keep in mind the limitation of translation.
Σας ευχαριστώ! Τα γραπτά σας είναι πολύ διαφωτιστικά και κατανοητά. Απολαμβάνω πραγματικά το ιστολόγιό σας. Συνεχίστε την καλή δουλειά!
Είναι καλό που έχουμε μεταφράσεις της Βίβλου, αλλά δεν υπάρχει καμία εμπειρία που να ταιριάζει με την ανάγνωση της Βίβλου στην πρωτότυπη γλώσσα. Χάρη και ειρήνη σε σας!
I am trying to figure out what you are doing. Are you attacking and dismissing the KJV? We, need a standard and I believe the KJV is that standard it is the only authorized version both in name and practice! It is the only translation that has lasted 411 years and still going strong. Other translations have come and gone by the KJV still stands today. So, Brian tell us what translation you promote?
Greetings Jack,
QUESTION ONE:”are you attacking and dismissing the Kjv?”
ANSWER ONE: No, I am neither attacking nor dismissing the KJV. What I did do was to show that the KJV simply reused an already established translation. The KJV replaced and supplanted all the English translations that came before largely in part because the KJV took much of the good from all the previous translations. The KJV made a number of improvements over the translation that had come before it, too.
The KJV is an heirloom and a treasure for all speakers of English and for all people from the Anglosphere!
QUESTION TWO: “So, Brian tell us what English translation you promote?”
ANSWER TWO: (a) None at all. Since I do not live in an English-speaking country and have not for the last 20 years when I am offline it is impossible to recommend any English translation and when I am online I promote immersion-based language aquistion for modern languages and Ad fontes. (b) Two, this blog was created for the promotion of Ad Fontes in mind