מן and the Sinner in Leviticus
The exchange between Jacob Milgrom and Roy Gane on the proper meaning of the preposition מן (usually translated in its privative sense from) in some passages of Leviticus gives us an opportunity to take a look at the semantic possibilities of מן that may escape the notice of a student beginning to learn Hebrew.
To be more specific, the question is whether the meaning of מן in the חטאת pericopes in Leviticus– passages concerning purification offerings (traditionally translated as sin offerings)–should be translated as from (privative) or as for, on account of, because of (causitive). My goal in this post is not to summarize the arguments for and against the position of each scholar, but to show how important the right understanding of מן, and prepositions in general, may be for reconstructing whole systems or even getting behind the theology of a book.
But, before we talk about Leviticus, let’s take a look at an example from HALOT where מן is causitive:
וַיָּנֻעוּ אַמּוֹת הַסִּפִּים מִקּוֹל הַקּוֹרֵא וְהַבַּיִת יִמָּלֵא עָשָׁן
The doorposts would shake at the sound of the one who called, and the House kept filling with smoke. (Isaiah 6:4 JPS)
In this verse, מִקּוֹל is translated as at the the sound (voice), and the reason why this translation is possible is because it essentially says that the doorposts (or whatever this means) would shake because of (מן) the voice of the one who called.
There are times, however, when determining how מן functions can be tricky. Students starting to read the Hebrew Bible will most likely encounter a challenge translating Ruth 1:13:
הֲלָהֵן תְּשַׂבֵּרְנָה עַד אֲשֶׁר יִגְדָּלוּ הֲלָהֵן תֵּעָגֵנָה לְבִלְתִּי הֱיוֹת לְאִישׁ אַל בְּנֹתַי כִּי-מַר-לִי מְאֹד מִכֶּם כִּי-יָצְאָה בִי יַד-יְהוָה
What is Naomi saying here? Is she saying that her lot is far bitter than (comparative) Ruth and Orpah’s, à la JPS, NRSV and NIV, or that it is exceedingly bitter to her for their sake that the Lord struck out against her, à la KJV and ESV? Or, even the less likely translation that it is exceedingly bitter to her because of them?
As you can see, the translation hangs on how one understands מן.
It is this type of dilemma that one encounters when looking at the meaning of מן in the book of Leviticus. Take a look at Leviticus 14:19:
וְעָשָׂה הַכֹּהֵן אֶת-הַחַטָּאת וְכִפֶּר עַל-הַמִּטַּהֵר מִטֻּמְאָתוֹ וְאַחַר יִשְׁחַט אֶת-הָעֹלָה
Is the priest to make expiation for the one being cleansed from his impurity or for his impurity?
Roy Ganes contends that this verse should read from his impurity in his book Cult and Character which implies that one of the functions of the purification offering was to remove sin from the offender. This view goes againt Jacob Milgrom’s understanding of the purification offering who thinks that the verse should read for his impurity. This is because Milgrom believes that the purifcation offering purges the sanctuary and its sancta of inadvertent moral fault or ritual impurity when the impurity or sin occurred. According to Milgrom, the mark that human sin leaves on the sanctuary has to be quickly expunged if God’s presence is not to depart. Therefore, the understanding of מן as causative makes sense within this reconstruction. That’s why Milgrom said that “the precise rendering of this preposition is critical, for on it hangs the fundamental understanding of the modus operandi of the pollution caused by sin and its purification” (Milgrom 2007: 161).
That does not mean that Milgrom does not think that מן cannot be privative. As a matter of fact, both Gane and Milgrom take Leviticus 16:16 to be an example of that:
וְכִפֶּר עַל-הַקֹּדֶשׁ מִטֻּמְאֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמִפִּשְׁעֵיהֶם לְכָל-חַטֹּאתָם וְכֵן יַעֲשֶׂה לְאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד הַשֹּׁכֵן אִתָּם בְּתוֹךְ טֻמְאֹתָם
Milgrom tanslates that part of the verse as “Thus he shall purge the adytum of (מן) the pollution and transgressions of the Israelites, including all of their sins.”
The difference is that Gane agrees that the sanctuary and its sancta are purged by the blood of the purification offering on Yom Kippur, but, during the year, these violations only defile the sinner, not the sancta. Milgrom doesn’t think so. About this, Gane says, “Milgrom and I have already agreed that, on Yom Kippur, purification offerings purge the sanctuary (16:16,18-20, 33a), thereby secondarily purifying the people (w. 6,11, 30, 33a, 34). A further question, then, is: Do purification offerings on days other than Yom Kippur purge parts of the sanctuary in addition to purifying the offerers?” (Gane 2008: 215).
I tend to favor Milgrom’s reading of the purification offerings because it seems to make more sense of the data, but Gane does have strong arguments and points out that even Milgrom is not completely consistent in his translation of מן (cf. Leviticus 12:7). On the other hand, Milgrom levels the same type of criticism against Gane when he translates Leviticus 15:15b in terms of the priest effecting expiation on behalf of (מן) the offerer from his discharge. Although one can say that context is key, what is one to do when both options are equally valid? This may show us that, when all is said and done, מן may not fit perfectly the reconstruction of any system.
I need to warn those not familiar with the intricacies of the book of Levitucs that the way I am presenting things in this post is a bit simplistic. The truth is that מן is only part of the consideration. Perhaps a more pressing question is how one understands the function of kipper (usually translated as expiate, propitiate or atone), and the way it uses different prepositions or even direct objects (which is curiously never used of a person). But the point still remains that the semantic range of מן allows such debates to take place.
It is also worth asking about the theological implications of saying that purification offerings have nothing to do with the removal of a person’s sins. Although I think that Gane bases his conclusions on his exegesis of the text, it may not be a coincidence that it is the Christian scholar who is seeking to defend this position. However, if Milgrom is correct, how much would that affect, if at all, the Christian doctrine of the atonement? Or, to put it in a different way, how important is מן for this doctrine?
This once again reminds us that the work of a translator is arduous, and, if we are to honor the text, we need to pay close attention to the manifold nuances that words can have within different contexts. This is true not only of theologically pregnant words, but also small, deceivingly straightforward, words like מן.
References
Roy Gane, Leviticus, Numbers (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2004); idem, Cult and Character: Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement, and Theodicy (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005);idem, “Privative preposition in MN in purification offering pericopes and the changing face of “Dorian Gray,” Journal of Biblical Literature 127 no 2 (2008) 209-222; Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus (Minneapolis: Augsberg Fortress, 2004); idem, “The preposition MIN in the HT‘T pericopes,” Journal of Biblical Literature 126 no 1 (2007) 161-163.
Related Posts:
2 Comments
Other Links to this Post
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
By Charles, December 6, 2009 @ 9:35 pm
Thanks for the post. It is quite interesting. I linked to it at my blog.
By Maer, December 7, 2009 @ 9:32 am
Charles – Thank you for bringing your fine blog to my attention.