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 translates וְשָׁאֲלָ֨ה אִשָּׁ֤ה as “but every woman shall borrow.” To a modern reader, “borrow” is potentially misleading, because the verb שׁאל normally means to ask or request. The women are instructed to ask their Egyptian neighbors for valuables, and Exodus 3:21 says that the Egyptians will look favorably on the Israelites. The final verb, וְנִצַּלְתֶּם, comes from נצל. Although forms of this root can mean “deliver” or “rescue” in other stems and contexts, in the Piel stem used here it can carry the sense “strip” or “plunder.” That makes the traditional rendering “spoil/plunder the Egyptians” lexically defensible, even though the valuables are given in response to a request. J. H. Hertz argued for a different understanding of the construction:
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
Why did the KJV translators render Exodus 3:22 the way they did? The KJV was not the first English translation, and earlier English Bibles had already established several ways of expressing the verse. Wycliffe’s translation used “nakid,” while later versions such as Matthew’s Bible (1537), the Great Bible (1539), and the Bishops’ Bible (1568) used language such as “robbe the Egyptians.” The Coverdale Bible (1535), Geneva Bible (1560), and Douay-Rheims Bible (1582) also used forms of “spoil.” This history helps explain the traditional English wording, even though the underlying Hebrew should still be evaluated on its own terms.
“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: the KJV’s “borrow” is potentially misleading in modern English; “ask” or “request” better represents שׁאל here. Its “spoil,” however, is defensible: נצל in this stem can mean “strip” or “plunder.” The interesting tension in Exodus 3:22 is therefore that the Israelites ask for valuables that the Egyptians willingly give, while the resulting transfer of wealth is characterized as the despoiling of Egypt.
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