Will man rob God? Yet you are robbing me: The majority of translators and other scholars treat both the question and its answer as the words of the prophet, which together form the first Response element in the dispute. However, Jerusalem Bible and New Jerusalem Bible consider the question only (“Can a human being cheat God” in New Jerusalem Bible) to be a continuation of the words of the objectors at the end of verse 7. This view is attractive in that it would give the question a sarcastic tone that fits well with the interpretation of “How shall we return?” as a protest of innocence in verse 7. Nevertheless, there are two reasons for not accepting it. The first is that it has no support among ancient versions, and the second is that the Hebrew particle translated Yet in Revised Standard Version suggests a close link between the answer and the question. This is more appropriate if they are both the words of the same speaker, namely, the prophet.
Another issue arises from the rendering of New Jerusalem Bible, which uses “cheat,” where Revised Standard Version has rob. The traditional Hebrew text has a form of the root q-b-ʾ. This root occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament only in Pro 22.23, where it is translated “despoil” and is used in parallel with a verb in the previous verse which means “rob” (Revised Standard Version). The meaning is evidently something like “to seize forcefully,” and thus here in Malachi Revised Standard Version translates it as rob. (The verb is common in rabbinic literature.) The Septuagint on the other hand apparently used a Hebrew text with a slightly different root: ʿ-q-b, that is to say, the same three consonants, but in a different order. The meaning of this root is “to deceive” and it is the root from which the name Jacob (Hebrew yaʿaqob) is formed. If this were indeed the verb used, there would be an ingenious pun on the name of Jacob, which has already occurred in 1.2; 2.12 and 3.6. Textually it is easy to see how the consonants of a rare verb could be changed to those of a common one (that is to say, a change from q-b-ʿ to ʿ-q-b), but it is much more difficult to account for a change in the opposite direction (compare Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament and Hebrew Old Testament Text Project). The explanation given in the New Jerusalem Bible footnote that there was a deliberate change from ʿ-q-b to q-b-ʿ in order to remove a derogatory reference to Jacob is not convincing, and has no textual support.
The traditional Hebrew text is therefore more likely to be original, and moreover makes somewhat better sense: in the context of the tithes, which are mentioned in verses 8 and 10, it is easier to think of robbing God than of deceiving him. Nevertheless, a number of modern versions prefer to follow the Septuagint, and translate here as “cheat” (Moffatt, Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible, Good News Translation, New Living Translation) or “deceive” (Bible de Jérusalem, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Bible en français courant).
A neat solution to the problem is found in New English Bible/Revised English Bible and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, where the translation is “defraud.” This means to rob by deception rather than violence, and thus covers both of the possible meanings given above. In languages that have a word with similar meaning, translators should feel free to use it. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh in a footnote indicates that the translators retained the q-b-ʾ root of the traditional Hebrew text, but they still see a possible reference to Jacob, carried presumably by similarity of sound rather than repetition of the identical root. The verb occurs three more times in verses 8-9, and should be translated the same way each time.
The word translated man in Will man rob God? is not a word meaning a male, but a general term. Thus it is translated as “a person” (Good News Translation), “a human being” (New Jerusalem Bible), or “people” (Contemporary English Version, New Living Translation). The expansion of the question in Good News Translation to “I ask you, is it right for a person to cheat God?” hardly seems necessary. The expected answer to the question is “No,” and Good News Translation expresses this with “Of course not.” Some translators may need to do the same. Other possible models are “Could a human being rob God of [or, not let God have] what actually belongs to him?” and “Could a human being steal things from God’s hand?”
In Hebrew both the pronouns you (plural) and me are full forms and not just verbal affixes in the answer Yet you are robbing me. This puts emphasis on them. In many languages it will be difficult to emphasize both the pronouns you and me, but if a mechanism for doing this exists, it should be used. If only one pronoun can be emphasized, it should be you; for example, “But it is you who are robbing me” or “Yet you people are robbing me.” See the notes on the similar passage in verse 9. The form of the verb are robbing indicates habitual action.
But you say, ‘How are we robbing thee?’: These words form the second Objection element in the dispute. For But you say, see the comments on verse 7 above. The question How are we robbing thee? should if possible be translated in such a way as to carry an overtone of defiance, just like the question in the first Objection element in verse 7; for example, “How could we possibly be robbing you?”
In your tithes and offerings: These words begin the second Response element, which continues down to the end of the dispute in verse 12. In Hebrew this answer is very short and blunt, and translators should try to maintain the effect of this. However, in some languages it may be necessary to repeat a main verb and say “You are robbing me in your tithes and offerings” or “You are not giving me your tithes and offerings fully.” The words translated tithes and offerings are technical terms. The tithe was one-tenth of the people’s produce, and included both crops and animals. It was an obligation to present the tithe to the LORD each year (Lev 27.30-33; Num 18.21-24; Deut 14.22-29; 26.12-15). In cultures where such a practice is not known, there will be no technical term available, and translators may have to construct a longer expression (compare Contemporary English Version “the ten percent that belongs to me”). If translators have already translated books like Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, they should be careful to use the same term here as was used in those books.
The word translated offerings is used in such places as Exo 29.27-28 and Num 18.11, where Revised Standard Version translates it “wave offering.” It was separate from the tithes, and seems to have been a voluntary offering. It consisted of special portions of sacrificed animals. Since the exact nature of these offerings is not in focus in Malachi, a general term is acceptable in translation. However, if a satisfactory technical term has been found in books like Exodus and Numbers, it can be used here if it is not too long and complex. Many English versions have “offerings,” but other renderings include “contribution[s]” (New English Bible/Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh) and “dues” (Jerusalem Bible). Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch expands this to “the priests’ part of the offerings,” and some translators may find this example helpful.
Quoted with permission from Clark, David J. & Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on Malachi. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2002. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .