It is apparent from certain verses in the Pentateuch that during the time of Israel’s experience in the wilderness, there were two separate structures for meeting God, both of them temporary, each properly designated as a “tent.” While the Hebrew word mishkan is used exclusively to refer to the elaborate Tabernacle containing the altars and other furniture, the Hebrew expression ’ohel mo‘ed (literally “tent of meeting”) in a few places alludes to a smaller structure. This second “tent” was placed outside the camp, perhaps pitched there by Moses himself.
The reader is referred to an article by Noel Osborn, entitled “Tent or Tabernacle? Translating Two Traditions.” The following is extracted from Osborn’s conclusions:
It is fairly clear that there are two different traditions in the book of Exodus concerning the way in which the people of Israel were equipped to move on from their encounter with Yahweh at Mount Sinai. Both traditions describe a portable shrine that would have been necessary for the years of wilderness wandering that lay ahead. Both provide a means for ensuring the presence of Yahweh and the continuing covenant relationship as they begin their journey into the future. But the differences between these traditions may still be recognized in the text as we have it—significant “voices” that need to be heard if we are to understand and appreciate how Yahweh actually did work with these people through succeeding generations.
So I feel that the translator must be sensitive to the voices which can be heard through the text. In the case of the terminology of these traditions, therefore, I would propose the following guidelines:
1) Since both traditions refer to a portable shrine, the terms selected in translation should themselves suggest the idea of a tent or a portable dwelling. It may be possible in many languages to speak of a “tent of meeting” and a “tent of dwelling.” In most contexts, then, the use of the single word “tent” should be adequate, without unnecessary confusion to the reader.
2) In EXO 33:7; EXO 33:8; EXO 33:9; EXO 33:10; EXO 33:11, it should be clear in the terms used that the tent outside the camp where Moses met with Yahweh from time to time is not the same tent that was constructed with all its parts and equipment in the following chapters.
3) In most cases, where the wider context clearly suggests the elaborate tabernacle, and the immediate context does not include conflicting characteristics of the simple tent of meeting, I see no problem in using a single term referring to the tabernacle. But where there are traces of those earlier voices in the text, there should be a way to preserve them in translation. A last resort would be a footnote giving a literal translation of the Hebrew.
4) In the four cases [EXO 26:7, EXO 26:14; EXO 35:10; EXO 35:11; EXO 39:32; EXO 39:33; EXO 40:34; EXO 40:35 ] discussed in detail above, however, I feel that every effort should be made to distinguish between “tent of meeting” and “tabernacle.” But if this means that the translation draws too much attention to competing ideas at the expense of a natural flow in the story, then adjustment will be necessary.