Discovery BoxExodus 22:8-9 
Context22:8 If the thief is not caught, 1 then the owner of the house will be brought before the judges 2 to see 3 whether he has laid 4 his hand on his neighbor’s goods. 22:9 In all cases of illegal possessions, 5 whether for an ox, a donkey, a sheep, a garment, or any kind of lost item, about which someone says ‘This belongs to me,’ 6 the matter of the two of them will come before the judges, 7 and the one whom 8 the judges declare guilty 9 must repay double to his neighbor.
Exodus 22:28
Context22:28 “You must not blaspheme 10 God 11 or curse the ruler of your people.
1 tn Heb “found.”
2 tn Here again the word used is “the gods,” meaning the judges who made the assessments and decisions. In addition to other works, see J. R. Vannoy, “The Use of the Word ha’elohim in Exodus 21:6 and 22:7,8,” The Law and the Prophets, 225-41.
3 tn The phrase “to see” has been supplied.
4 tn The line says “if he has not stretched out his hand.” This could be the oath formula, but the construction here would be unusual, or it could be taken as “whether” (see W. C. Kaiser, Jr., “Exodus,” EBC 2:438). U. Cassuto (Exodus, 286) does not think the wording can possibly fit an oath; nevertheless, an oath would be involved before God (as he takes it instead of “judges”) – if the man swore, his word would be accepted, but if he would not swear, he would be guilty.
5 tn Heb “concerning every kind [thing] of trespass.”
6 tn The text simply has “this is it” (הוּא זֶה, hu’ zeh).
7 tn Again, or “God.”
8 tn This kind of clause Gesenius calls an independent relative clause – it does not depend on a governing substantive but itself expresses a substantival idea (GKC 445-46 §138.e).
9 tn The verb means “to be guilty” in Qal; in Hiphil it would have a declarative sense, because a causative sense would not possibly fit.
10 tn The two verbs in this verse are synonyms: קָלַל (qalal) means “to treat lightly, curse,” and אָרַר (’arar) means “to curse.”
11 tn The word אֱלֹהִים (’elohim) is “gods” or “God.” If taken as the simple plural, it could refer to the human judges, as it has in the section of laws; this would match the parallelism in the verse. If it was taken to refer to God, then the idea of cursing God would be more along the line of blasphemy. B. Jacob says that the word refers to functioning judges, and that would indirectly mean God, for they represented the religious authority, and the prince the civil authority (Exodus, 708).
