Deuteronomy 12: Not an exception to unclean meats

[TWTY-Admin]

I was contacted by a reader of TWTY and Facebook friend with regards to a new 'translation' of Deuteronomy 12 that the ever popular CW has done, which apparently shows that in Deuteronomy 12, we have an exception to when people would be able to eat the 'unclean' meats (pig, shellfish).

She asked me to go through it to see whether CW was correct, and, well, ended up producing the following for them to read.

As such, I shall share it with the forum, and anyone else who wants to read it.

I've posted it here in the "For All" section, to allow anyone to come in and post their thoughts/ask any further questions that require clarification.

Let's see how well this goes...

Deuteronomy 12: Commentary

[osito]

I'm sorry I dont really understand your commentary,could you please expound upon it.Thank you

[TWTY-Admin]

HI Osito,

Is your question with regards to what the commentary was done for, or is there something I need to go through more thorough?

[osito]

yes in regards as to why it was done

[TWTY-Admin]

Ah righty.

Well, as I mentioned in the initial post, I was contacted to go through a translation of Deuteronomy 12 (produced by C. Winn, owner of http://anintroductiontogod.com/, a person I've had many dealings with previously), that apparently showed that there would be a time where we would be allowed to eat unclean and clean animals, contrary to what YHWH had said regarding what foods could be eaten.

The request was to determine whether the translation a) was correct in its interpretation; b) accurately translated Deuteronomy 12; and to c) provide comments as to when it was or wasn't correct.

This was so that the person who contacted me could then share it with their friends, several of whom appeared to have become quite enthralled with what CW had been saying, to the point that they were believing every word that he said.

So walla - here is the completion of that request. As I'd seen numerous discussions (I say 'discussions'; seemed more like a berating of those whom disagreed with CW's position) on it, I felt it was worth sharing for those who would like to see what translating Hebrew entails (or any language for that matter).

Hopefully that has answered your question, Osito. Please let me know if it hasn't!

[TWTY-Admin]

Due to a few constructive comments, I've updated the initial document.

Still at the same link as before: Deuteronomy 12 Commentary

[sestir]

Nice paper! It is very helpful to read explanations of a translator's decisions.

A question about 12:7:
ואכלתם שם לפני יהוה אלהיכם ושמרתם בכל משלח ידכם אתם ובתיכם אשר ברכך יהוה אלהיך
Why should ואכלתם be taken as a command? What I see is Qal-perfect of eat with waw-consecutive, making it imperfective — there you will eat...and you will rejoice...

[TWTY-Admin]

Hi sestir, thanks for the kind words

As with regards to ואכלתם, I took ואכלתם as indicating a command due to the context going back to v5, where we have the initial imperfect verb starting the command (תדרשו - you shall seek), then followed by the usual strings of waw+perfect (and you shall go...and you shall bring...and you shall eat...and you shall rejoice) - the entirety of v5-7 appear as a list of consecutive commands in the way I was reading it.

It could be that the "and you shall seek" is the command, and the following waw+perfects are therefore just the logical consequence of the Yisra'elites completing the command: they shall seek this place where Yahuweh has chosen to place His name, and upon finding it, therefore as a consequence they shall go there, and they shall bring their offerings, and they shall eat, and they shall rejoice.

We see similar situation in v3, where we have the initial imperfect verb ("and you shall chop down") followed by the waw+perfect ("and you shall blot out"). From the context, I don't see either of these verbs being anything other than commands.

Do you see anything in the context that determines that the waw+perfects are any less a command than the imperfects?

[sestir]

Do you see anything in the context that determines that the waw+perfects are any less a command than the imperfects?

Nope.
I was wondering if it was just the verbs ending with ן (nun) and the verbs in imperative form that represented commands. The author may have wished to avoid filling the entire book with commands and preferred to express visions, in the same way as we might say to a family member: "At a quarter past five, you will call the pizza shop and order, and at half past five I will be there to fetch them." (Actually I don't know if this is a common way to put it in English but it's common in Swedish.)
If it needs to be determined from context, it's too advanced for me to grasp a.t.m. but if you have time, it would be interesting to know what is required in a waw-consecutive narrative in order to indicate that the verbs are no longer commands.

[TWTY-Admin]

Hi sestir,

I've been racking my brains trying to remember if there was a place off the top of my head that may be able to give a clear cut example of this, but couldn't think of any, nor have I been able yet to find one.

Usually the prophetical books contain a change of command to non-command, but they're quite large so it may be a while until I find one suitable

I'll get back to you on that