What translation philosophies have caused such a wide variation in the translation of *tachash* skins?

Question

In Exodus (e.g. 26:14), we learn one of the coverings for the tabernacle is to be made of "תחש" (tachash) skins. The translation of this term appears to be especially difficult or contentious as there is little consensus between translations as to how to translate this word.

E.g., some various translation of this covering:

• "a covering of porpoise skins" (NASB)
• "a covering of hides of sea cows" (NIV 1984)
• "a covering of badger skins" (NKJV)
• "a covering of sealskins" (ASV)
• "a covering of goatskins" (ESV)
• "the other of fine leather" (GNT)
• "blue skins as coverings" (Brenton)

Why, in this case, bother trying to translate the uncertain word at all? I have seen other cases in the Bible where uncertain words were left as a transliteration of the Hebrew. But here, translators seem to have enough clues (presumably from the word roots?) to make conjectures that are completely dissimilar—what translation philosophies would cause them to come to such different conclusions as to what tachash might be?

Answer 1

In this particular case, the translator's note from the NET Bible is helpful:

The meaning of the word תְּחָשִׁים (tÿkhashim) is debated. The Arabic tuhas or duhas is a dolphin, and so some think a sea animal is meant – something like a dolphin or porpoise (cf. NASB; ASV “sealskins”; NIV “hides of sea cows”). Porpoises are common in the Red Sea; their skins are used for clothing by the bedouin. The word has also been connected to an Egyptian word for “leather” (ths); see S. R. Driver, Exodus, 265. Some variation of this is followed by NRSV (“fine leather”) and NLT (“fine goatskin leather”). Another suggestion connects this word to an Akkadian one that describes a precious stone that is yellow or ornge[sic] and also leather died with the color of this stone (N. M. Sarna, Exodus [JPSTC], 157-58).

It also includes a handful of other translations:

"fine leather" (NET)

"fine goatskin leather" (NLT)

"dolphin skins" (MSG)

"leather" (BBE)

"fine leather" (NRSV)

The New King James Version preserved the King James rendering of "badger skins", which probably has its own history that might be lost to time.

"Brenton" refers to:

The English translation of The Septuagint by Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton, originally published in 1851.

So it seems that even the earliest translators (the LXX) didn't really know what to make of the word.

---

This is the speculative portion of the answer wherein I attempt to read the minds of the translators. Caveat lector!

At an absolute minimum, we know from context that the word signifies some sort of skin. (The word it modifies is "skin" or "hide".) It could be a type of animal and, since it was used in the tabernacle, it would make sense that the skin be luxurious. The most conservative translation (in terms of not overstating the meaning of the text) would be to either not modify the word "leather" (BBE) or to modify it with a very general indication of quality (NET, NRSV, GN: "fine").

On the other end of the spectrum, its likely the word being used here was somewhat exotic and possible that some early readers wouldn't have any better idea what it means than we do. To convey the sense of wonder and strangeness that may have been carried by the word, just about any exotic animal, say "ocelot skin", would serve. Since there are etymological and cultural clues that point to a specific animal type, other translators take their best shot at rendering the unusual nature of the skins (NASB: "porpoise", NIV: "sea cows", RV: "seal", MSG: "dolphin").

Somewhere in between are translations that preserve the luxurious but downplay the exotic connotations. It seems they are taking the Egyptian etymology and generalize it to goatskin (ESV and NLT). My reading of these translation is that they presume the word was common (if perhaps technical), but dropped out of use over time.

In any case, I hope all the translations include a note explaining the difficulty with this word and perhaps propose one or two other options.

Your suggestion of transliterating the word is both very conservative (it doesn't say anymore than the original), but also pushes the "exotic" sense of the word. What could be more exotic than tachash skin? I like the suggestion. Perhaps translators don't like admitting they don't know everything about these ancient texts?

Answer 2

See the Encyclopedia Judaica on taḥash for the earliest ancient translations—"blue", "purple", "violet" (Volume 19, page 435), and the reference links at Wikipedia's tachash article (e.g. Living Torah on Exodus 25:5 footnotes "blue-processed" citing ancient sources; and Natan Slifkin's Sacred Monsters on "The Tachash" also citing the ancients "leather dyed"). See also some of the speculative and historical material in an older version of the Wikipedia page. Look at Adam Clarke's Bible Commentary on Exodus (blue, azure, black, violet, purple). Josephus in Antiquities 3:6:4 (132) says the outer curtains of the tabernacle were not unlike the color of the sky (which is indigo).

The ancient sources cited in these all indicate colored skins before A.D. 300. Written speculation on specific animals as the meaning of tachash begins with the Talmud c. 350-500. Rashi's commentary on Ezekiel 16:10 sets forth both glory and badger as the meaning; and Martin Luther saw a linguistic relationship between the Hebrew tachash, Latin taxus, and German dachs, although Latin, German and Hebrew are not related linguistically. Nevertheless, the Catholic translators of the Latin Vulgate and the Douay-Rheims Bible preferred the interpretation violet. Indigo (between blue and violet) seems most likely; on this there is among the ancients a general consensus of scholarly opinion.

This is supported by 20th century researchers Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan and Rabbi Natan Slifkin, among others. The apparent answer to what has been the more recent "philosophy of translation" (since 5th century) is that it tends to be a rejection of the most ancient authors' interpretation of tachash/taḥash as a color process or dye in favor of the more recent Rabbinic Talmudic tradition and Protestant academic opinion that tachash specifies a particular animal, but there is no consensus on what animal it could have been. The most recent 21st century Jewish, Catholic and Protestant translations favor the interpretation of a colored leather/skin as the most likely ancient meaning of tachash.

Answer 3

John Parkhurst, in his Hebrew lexicon entry for תחש, points out that the ancient translations all agree that it is not an animal but a color:

Before the Tabernacle was constructed, God told Moses and the elders to come worship Him:

¹ Now He said to Moses, “Come up to the Lord, you and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and worship from afar.”
[...]
⁹ Then Moses went up, also Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, ¹⁰ and they saw the God of Israel. And there was under His feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and it was like the very heavens in its clarity. -Exodus 24:1, 9-10 (NKJV)

The pavement under God's feet was like a sapphire, which is deep blue in color, or, as Michael Paul Heart says in his answer, indigo (between blue and violet):

Exodus 25 begins with Moses receiving instructions on what offerings the Israelites are to bring for the construction of the Tabernacle:

¹ Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: ² “Speak to the children of Israel, that they bring Me an offering. From everyone who gives it willingly with his heart you shall take My offering. ³ And this is the offering which you shall take from them: gold, silver, and bronze; ⁴ blue, purple, and scarlet thread, fine linen, and goats’ hair; ⁵ ram skins dyed red, badger skins [tachash skins], and acacia wood; ⁶ oil for the light, and spices for the anointing oil and for the sweet incense; ⁷ onyx stones, and stones to be set in the ephod and in the breastplate. ⁸ And let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them. ⁹ According to all that I show you, that is, the pattern of the tabernacle and the pattern of all its furnishings, just so you shall make it.” -Exodus 25:1-9 (NKJV)

Not only do the ancient translations have "blue skins" instead of "badger skins" in verse 5, Josephus also mentions that among the acceptable offerings were skins dyed either blue or scarlet:

HEREUPON the Israelites rejoiced at what they had seen and heard of their conductor, and were not wanting in diligence according to their ability; for they brought silver, and gold, and brass, and of the best sorts of wood, and such as would not at all decay by putrefaction; camels' hair also, and sheep- skins, some of them dyed of a blue color, and some of a scarlet.... -Antiquities of the Jews, Book 3, Chapter 6, Section 1

The Tabernacle is referred to in the Psalms as God's footstool:

¹ The Lord reigns;
Let the peoples tremble!
He dwells between the cherubim;
Let the earth be moved!
[...]
⁵ Exalt the Lord our God,
And worship at His footstool—
He is holy. -Psalm 99:1, 5 (NKJV)

---

⁶ Behold, we heard of it in Ephrathah;
We found it in the fields of the woods.
⁷ Let us go into His tabernacle;
Let us worship at His footstool. -Psalm 132:6-7 (NKJV)

and as such the outer covering of "tachash skins" would appropriately be of a blue color, much like the color of the sapphire pavement Moses and the elders saw beneath God's feet in Exodus 24.

Badgers, porpoises, sea cows, and seals are all unclean animals. In order to get the skin of any of these animals you would obviously have to kill it first. However, touching the carcass of an unclean animal is specifically called a sin and required a trespass offering:

¹‘If a person sins in hearing the utterance of an oath, and is a witness, whether he has seen or known of the matter—if he does not tell it, he bears guilt.

² ‘Or if a person touches any unclean thing, whether it is the carcass of an unclean beast, or the carcass of unclean livestock, or the carcass of unclean creeping things, and he is unaware of it, he also shall be unclean and guilty. [...]

⁵ ‘And it shall be, when he is guilty in any of these matters, that he shall confess that he has sinned in that thing; ⁶ and he shall bring his trespass offering to the Lord for his sin which he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats as a sin offering. So the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his sin.’ -Leviticus 5:1-6 (NKJV)

It doesn't make much sense that God would command His people not to touch the carcasses of unclean animals, while at the same time requiring skins of unclean animals for the outer covering of the Tabernacle which itself was constructed as the means for atoning for sins. This is perhaps in part why some of the more modern Bible translations such as the English Standard Version (ESV) and Good News Translation (GNT) tend to go with "goatskins" or "fine leather," respectively, in addition to the Egyptian word for leather as Jon Ericson mentions in his answer.

The New American Standard Bible (NASB) goes with "porpoise" because of the very similar sounding Arabic word دُخَس (du-has), as Jon Ericson also mentions in his answer. Gesenius talks about this in his lexicon entry for תַּחַשׁ but goes on to say that it "has a wider extent, and also comprehends seals, which in many respects resemble the badger, and which were of frequent occurrence in the peninsula of Sinai...." This is most likely why the American Standard Version (ASV) went with sealskins, as seals would be much easier to trap or catch than dolphins/porpoises, and would also be more numerous, thus providing greater amounts of skins that could be sewn together.

"Sea cows" is basically a compromise between seals and dolphins, as they are of a larger size than seals and also inhabit the waters of the Red Sea.

As for "badger," the NKJV retains what the KJV translated for "tachash," as Jon Ericson points out in his answer. The KJV translators most likely yielded to the authority of the Rabbi's and Talmudists when they decided to go with "badger." See Gesenius under תַּחַשׁ where he says he has no hesitation in acceding to the opinion of the Talmudists who take it to be an animal such as the badger or weasel.

Conclusion

Personally, I am quite convinced that the ancient translations were correct in that "tachash" was not an animal but a color (deep blue, like a sapphire). The Septuagint (LXX), Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, Jerome, and Josephus are, in my opinion, of greater authority than the Talmudists, especially when combined with the fact that badgers, porpoises, sea cows, and seals are all unclean.

Answer 4

This is in no way dissimilar to the translation of other words that in Hebrew cannot be judged a common noun or a proper noun. Without Capital letters this is a judgment call. And a couple comments : "not an animal but a color" --yet we have coral where one is hard-pressed to say which is the primary comparand.

as to variation in the versions. Any word of flora or fauna that does not occur in the object language will cause difficulty. Look at the multitude of terms in Joel for what most Americans would just call "locust" , because we just don't care to distinguish or have to distinguish.

Finally there is the vexing question of etiological terms, where we wonder whether the name is interpreted because we know its source or because we want to give some connection to what we otherwise know.