(18 in the KJV and the SRV, 17 in the Masoretic Hebrew text)
The entire sentence in Hebrew consists of 3 words:
The translation of each word is as follows:
= sorcerer
= no, not
= resurrection, revival
What then is the best translation into English? The King James Version
translates it as, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." This fit
King James' agenda. He believed that witches were "raising storms against
his ships," as he wrote in Newes from Scotland (1592). He also wrote a
tract called Daemonologie (1597), and was actively persecuting witches.
so his prejudices are clear.
Moreover, several arguments
can be made against his translation. There is no evidence that witches
were known to the writers of Exodus. To them a sorcerer would likely have
referred to a magician of the Egyptian court from which they had just escaped.
Exodus 7: 11 refers to Pharaoh's "sorcerers," using the same word in Hebrew. There
King James does not translate the Hebrew as "witches," probably because
"Pharaoh's witches" would have been too obvious an anachronism.
Those ancient Egyptian priests practiced embalming, and legend suggests they claimed
to be able to raise the dead, although they were forbidden to do so. Thus it
makes sense that the writer of Exodus 22: 18 would have been refuting this claim. Hence
we suggest, "A sorcerer cannot raise the dead," as a plausible translation.
However, the context of the line, coming in a series of lines listing punishments,
suggests another translation, "A sorcerer shall not be resurrected." Which would imply
that only Yahweh (Jehovah) had the power to resurrect, and the punishment for those
who thought they could raise the dead, was that they themselves would not
be resurrected. To combine the both senses, "A sorcerer cannot
raise the dead, neither will he be raised from the dead by Jehovah."
Had the author of Exodus intended to say in this line that sorcerers were "not
to live," other Hebrew constructions would have been less ambivalent. Instead
of a word which means revival or resurrection, the author might have used the
word for "live":
Or he might have used a construction which would translate as "kill a sorcerer":
Or he could have used words that meant, "condemn a sorcerer to death":
Thus we see other constructions would clearly have had the meaning King James took,
but those were not the constructions used in the Bible.
The Latin Vulgate translation, "maleficos non patieris vivere" suggests the origin of
the locution, "not suffer to live,"
maleficos
= evil-doer
non
= no, not
patieris
= patience, forbearance
vivere
= to live
Here "maleficios" suggests "evil-doer" rather
than "sorcerer," which could be "sortiarius" in Latin. Thus it appears that of the several possible translations
of this passage, King James' version is least accurate and most prejudiced, and yet the majority of extant biblical
translations follow this lead.