Is Hunting Allowed?

Sept. 15, 2018: Is Hunting Allowed?

The real issue here is not really this difference of opinion, though it may be interesting to some. It is the translations from which teachers are deriving their conclusions. It is how they are testing their teachings or checking them out with the original texts. The controversy is simply an opportunity to excercise our skills of discernment, even if the dispute seems trivial to some, or has an obvious answer to most.

The short answer is yes. The controversy began when I listened to a video posted by Paul Nison in response to a video published by Zach Bauer. I will only be addressing the respective parties’ handling of the Scripture. Zach quotes Lev. 17:13 from a version which reads, “hunt and catch,” which reads about the same as the KJV, “hunteth and catcheth.” Zach does not analyze the meaning of these words closely in his video, but Paul Nison attempts to explain the words in such a way as to disallow Zach’s method of hunting, which is either by bow or gun. Let me make it clear that the only hunting I have ever done is fishing. I have no moral objections to hunting with a weapon so long as the blood is poured out and covered in the place where the animal dies. Furthermore, the Rabbinical rules for slaughter are not defined in Scripture, except to pour out the blood. They are only defined in tradition. So it is not a sin if these rules are not followed.

Paul Nison’s objection appears to be based on the words “hunt and catch” which he clearly interprets to mean hunting “by catching,” as opposed to being killed with a weapon at a distance. By catching, I suppose Paul means the animal must be somehow corralled, calmed down, and then killed by slitting the throat. This is how Paul interprets Lev. 17:13; it is not how Zach Bauer interprets Lev. 17:13 Which interpretation is legitimate?

Anyone who reads or knows Hebrew can spot from a mile away that neither party in this debate seriously consulted the Hebrew text, because they are relying on the English translation, “hunt and catch.” It is clear that in Zach’s case the exact sense of the Hebrew is of no consequence. But in Paul’s case his whole argument collapses when we take a look at the Hebrew.

Here is a literal translation of the Hebrew:

Or a man from the sons of Yisrael, or from the sojourner who sojourns in the midst of you, who shall hunt hunted wild beast or flying-creature which may be eaten, then he will have poured out its blood, and he will have made to be covered it in the dust (Lev. 17:13).

“Hunteth and catcheth any beast” is a faulty translation to begin with. Here are the issues:

The word “and” is not in the Hebrew
The word “any” is not in the Hebrew
The word “catch” derives from the same Hebrew root as “hunt”
The word for “beast” means “wild beast” in late Hebrew, not just beast.
The word “catch” is a noun
Nouns in Hebrew sometimes are used as adjectives, which was not realized here by most translators

Also, the translators are all over the map on this phrase, which may be seen by looking it up here. A literal word for word translation is: “he-will-hunt hunted-stuff wild-animal.” My use of the word “stuff” is merely an atempt to tell you that the word has the form of a noun. But it is used as an adjective. For example, if I were to refer to driving an RV (Recreational Vehicle) as “driving a driving house,” the second word “driving” is a participle verb used as an adjective. Hebrew often uses the same root in two senses, for example, the infinitive absolute, “dying you will die” (Gen. 2:17) or “death you will die.” Hebrew does this for emphasis, usually translated in English less literally as “surely die.” The difficulty with English syntax is that it is very rigid when it comes to words, except in a very few cases. For example the word “first” has a noun use, an adjective use, and an adverb use: “The first is good” (noun). “The first man was Adam” (adjective). “He came first” (adverb). This is just to show you that even though a dictionary or Hebrew lexicon may list a word as having a certain grammatical function, that it may not actually list all the possible grammatical functions of the words. So then, we have to reduce “hunted-stuff” to “hunted” to make it work as an adjective: “he-will-hunt hunted wild-animal.”

Clearly, when we strip away all the grammatical additions, “he shall hunt” simply means “hunt,” and “hunted stuff” also is based on “hunt.” I know it sounds redundant to the English ear, but Hebrew does this sort of thing all the time: “he will hunt hunted wild beast.” Finally, and this is fairly trivial: the word for beast is specifically one that means “wild” beast. You will see that some of the translations linked above have this part right.

One thing is very clear. The word “catch” is no more than an alternate word for “hunt,” because the English translator did not want to use a form of the word hunt twice. It is unfortunate that the English word “catch” introduced an implication as to how the hunting is done. Shooting with a bow or gun is not catching in English. But in Hebrew no such fine distinction exists between “Yatsood” and “Tsaed.”

The same root is used in both words: tsade-waw-daleth. I conclude then that the second word does not refer to a particular kind of “hunting,” i.e. hunting by catching, as opposed to hunting by shooting. Paul Nison’s interpretation of “hunt and catch” may in English refer to hunting by killing and another category of hunting by catching (in which case both would be legal). This would be so if the Hebrew “waw” were used in the text between the two words, which the English ought to imply. But the English use of a conjuction here is incorrect. So Nison’s interpretation is only one legitimate interpretation of the English, and perhaps not the most likely or obvious one either. When the Hebrew is considered, his explanation is clearly not a legitimate interpretation at all.

This brings me to some generalizations about teachers in the Torah-movement, and I am not commenting here on Zach or Paul in particular except as it may relate to this case. Most of them have the ability and access to the tools necessary to check out what the Hebrew says. They ought to at least learn how to use these tools properly. I suppose the reason that most do not is that they either are not aware how much mistranslation is in the English texts, or they prefer not to approach a difference of opinion by using an argument that questions the received English translations. I should point out that Torah teachers in the Messianic Faith are not the only ones with this problem. The Rabbis and Jewish translations have the same problem, and Christian preachers and their translations also have the same problems. Few of them want to end up as a minority opposition to recevied traditions, which entails hard word for the teacher, and means you have to teach the people the facts that matter.