Whedon's Commentary on the Bible
- Korah was a Levite of the family of the Kohathites, whose service was the transportation of the sacred furniture of the tabernacle. He
was probably a first cousin of Moses and Aaron. See Exodus 6:18, and
Numbers 4:18, note. The prince who stands next to the throne is most
tempted to supplant the king.
Dathan and Abiram — Reubenites of the family of Pallu. Numbers 26:8-9.
On, also a Reubenite, is not mentioned again. The rabbinical tradition
is, that he was prevailed upon by his wife to withdraw from his
accomplices after Moses spoke with them. Josephus omits the name of
On, but retains that of his father in the form of Phalous, thus
identifying him with Pallu. Numbers 26:5, note. These may have felt
sore because the birthright and headship of Israel had been taken away
from their ancestor on account of his crime. See Numbers 2:3, note.
Took men — In the original the verb “took” has no object. “There is an anakolouthon rather than an ellipsis, and not merely a copyist’s
error in these words, ‘took and rose up against Moses with two hundred
and fifty men,’ for they took two hundred and fifty men, that
is, gained them over to the conspiracy, and rose up with them,” etc.
Dr. A. Clarke forgets a plain principle of Hebrew syntax when he makes
Dathan, etc., the objects and Korah the sole subject of “took” because
it is singular. When the verb stands before several subjects it often
agrees only with the first.
"The word anacoluthon is a transliteration of the Greek ἀνακόλουθον (anakólouthon), which derives from the privative prefix ἀν- (an-) and the root adjective ἀκόλουθος (akólouthos), "following". This, incidentally, is precisely the meaning of the Latin phrase non sequitur in logic. However, in Classical rhetoric anacoluthon was used both for the logical error of non sequitur and for the syntactic effect or error of changing an expected following or completion to a new or improper one."
Really interesting question. While the search result from Whedon was satisfying, there remained a niggle - because most of the anacolutha definitions stated an 'incoherent' statement follows the first. If Whedon's interpretation is correct, then the 'follow-up' is coherent.
Anyway, the second find from Tamar Zewi may resolve the terminology question:
https://tinyurl.com/ydar3q8s (Google Books)
Parenthesis in Biblical Hebrew (2007) By Tamar Zewi
p. 22 - ""...rejects the possibility of including anacoluthon uner the
title of parenthetical clauses: "The difference between PCs and
anacolutha is this that the former follow a clear and relative
predictable pattern, whereas the later fall into the category of
performance error, caused by working memory limitations."
As to the second question, in an earlier paper I tried to show that
interrupted relative clauses in the Hebrew Bible are not anacolutha
but systematic Biblical Hebrew patterns. Interrupted relative clauses
in Biblical Hebrew, in my opiinion, are only one type of a general