A Plague of Texts? A Text-Critical Study of the So-Called Plagues Narrative in Exodus 7.14–11.10 (Oudtestamentische Studien, Old Testament Studies)

A Plague of Texts?

Oudtestamentische Studiën Old Testament Studies published on behalf of the Societies for Old Testament Studies in the Netherlands and Belgium, South Africa, the United Kingdom and Ireland

Editor

B. Becking Utrecht Editorial Board

H.G.M. Williamson Oxford

H.F. Van Rooy Potchefstroom

M. Vervenne Leuven

VOLUME 56

A Plague of Texts? A Text-Critical Study of the So-Called ‘Plagues Narrative’ in Exodus 7:14–11:10

By

Bénédicte Lemmelijn

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2009

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Lemmelijn, Benedicte. A plague of texts? : a text-critical study of the so-called ‘plagues narrative’ in Exodus 7:14–11:10 / By Benedicte Lemmelijn. p. cm. — (Oudtestamentische studien = Old Testament studies) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-17235-7 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Bible. O.T. Exodus VII, 14-XI, 10—Criticism, Textual. 2. Plagues of Egypt. I. Title. II. Series. BS1245.52.L46 2009 222’.1204046—dc22 2008052346

ISSN: 0169-7226 ISBN: 978 90 04 17235 7 Copyright 2009 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

CONTENTS Abbreviations .................................................................................... Preface ..............................................................................................

vii ix

Chapter One: Prolegomena ............................................................. Introduction ................................................................................. Terminology ................................................................................. Collecting variants ............................................................... Evaluation of variants .......................................................... Criteria for the evaluation of textual variants .................. Translation character ........................................................ Categories of variants ....................................................... Development of a dedicated working model for text-critical research ................................................................................ Presentation of the textual material .........................................

1 1 13 14 15 15 18 20

Chapter Two: The Textual Material of the ‘Plagues Narrative’ ...... Synopsis of the textual witnesses to the ‘Plagues Narrative’ ..... Registration and description of the textual variants found in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ .........................................................

29 29

Chapter Three: Text-Critical Evaluation of the Variants in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ .................................................................... The study of the translation character of LXX Exodus ............ The relevance of research into translation technique for text-critical evaluation ...................................................... The characterisation of a translation .................................... The difference between ‘literal’ and ‘free’ translations ....... Two methodological approaches ...................................... Preliminary conclusion and further research perspectives .................................................................. The translation technique of the book of Exodus ................ General characterisation of LXX Exodus ......................... Implications for the evaluation of text-critical variants .... A relevant cross-section of the translation technique evident in LXX Exod. 7:14–11:10 ...................................

22 27

33

96 96 96 108 108 115 124 126 126 129 136

vi

contents Consistency and non-consistency in the choice of translation equivalents .................................................. Different sequence/word order ......................................... Greek linguistic idioms .................................................... The Text-Critical Evaluation of ‘Text-Relevant’ Variants in the Textual Witnesses to the ‘Plagues Narrative’ in Exod. 7:14–11:10 ................................................................... Discussion of the larger plusses or major expansions in the Hebrew textual witnesses to the ‘Plagues Narrative’ of Exod. 7:14–11:10 ................................................................... Exod. 7:18b: SamP4Qm ....................................................... Exod. 7:29b: SamP4Qm4Qj ................................................. Exod. 8:1b: SamP4Qj .......................................................... Exod. 8:19b: SamP4Qm ....................................................... Exod. 9:5b: SamP4Qm ......................................................... Exod. 9:19b: SamP4Qm ....................................................... Exod. 10:2b: SamP4Qm ....................................................... Exod. 11:3b1: SamP ............................................................. Exod. 11:3b2: SamP ............................................................. Conclusion ...........................................................................

197 201 201 202 202 203 203 204 205 205 206

General Conclusion .........................................................................

209

Appendix: Synopsis of the Textual Witnesses of Exod. 7:14–11:10 ..................................................................................

219

Bibliography .....................................................................................

359

Index of Authors .............................................................................. Index of Textual References .............................................................

373 377

136 139 141

150

ABBREVIATIONS AASF ABD AIBI ALGHL

Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae Anchor Bible Dictionary Association Internationale Bible et Informatique Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des Hellenistischen Judentums ASTI Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute (in Jerusalem) BETL Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium BIOSCS Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies BN Biblische Notizen BWANT Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament BZ Biblische Zeitschrift BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft CB OT Coniectanea biblica. Old Testament Series CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CBSC The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges CNEB The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert ETL Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament HKAT Handkommentar zum Alten Testament HSS Harvard Semitic Studies HThR Harvard Theological Review HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual IOSCS International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSS Journal of Semitic Studies JTS Journal of Theological Studies KHCAT Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament KVHS Korte verklaring der Heilige Schrift MSU Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis OTE Old Testament Essays

viii OTS POT RB RQ SBL RBS SBL SCS SBS SBTS SEÅ SJOT SJSJ StB StOr STDJ TOTC TRE TSHLRS TvT VT VTS WC ZAW

abbreviations Oudtestamentische Studiën De prediking van het Oude Testament Revue Biblique Revue de Qumran Society of Biblical Literature, Resources for Biblical Study Society of Biblical Literature, Septuagint and Cognate Studies Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Sources for Biblical and Theological Study Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism Studia Biblica Studia Orientalia Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries Theologische Realenzyklopädie Texts and Studies in the Hebrew Language and Related Subjects Tijdschrift voor Theologie Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Westminster Commentaries Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

PREFACE The textual criticism of the Old Testament has undergone recent improvement, primarily under the impulse of the unearthing of multiple text fragments among the discoveries around the Dead Sea. The exploration of this textual material has given rise to a number of new hypotheses concerning the origins and growth of the Old Testament text and has occasioned the elaboration and refinement of text-critical methodology. The manner with which text-critical elements are often employed in literary and exegetical studies, however, stands in sharp contrast to this evolution. The tendency in fact is to pay little if any attention to textual criticism as a discipline.1 Where reference is made to one or other textcritical problem nonetheless, this is often limited to the extent to which the text-critical elements ‘fit’ or can be manipulated to ‘fit’ within the framework of the literary-critical or redaction-critical hypothesis of the scholar in question. The text is then ‘improved’ in function of the exegetical reading. The exercise is limited, in other words, to (often irresponsible) conjectural-criticism.2 It should be noted in this regard that several studies relating to the ‘Plagues Narrative’ pay little if any attention to text-critical research into the text of Exod. 7:14–11:10, and where they do so their findings are frequently unseasoned and inadequate. A number of commentaries follow the procedure outlined above.3 The shorter contributions found in academic journals tend to pay no attention whatsoever to textual criticism, and the two monographs available to us on the topic, those of R. Friebe

1 The same observation is to be found in M. Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal (Exodus 13,17– 14,31): Een literaire studie (unpublished doctoral dissertation Theology, K.U. Leuven), Leuven 1986; Idem, ‘Tekst en teksten’, in: H. Jagersma, M. Vervenne (eds), Inleiding in het Oude Testament, Kampen 1992, 25–39, p. 36. 2 Cf. also infra the first section of the introduction in chapter 1, esp. n. 25. 3 See, for example, B. Baentsch, Exodus. Levitikus. Übersetzt und erklärt (HKAT), Göttingen 1900, 64-65, 66, 69, 74; H. Holzinger, Exodus (KHCAT, 2), Tübingen 1900, 24, 25, 27, 29, 31; A.H. McNeile, The Book of Exodus with Introduction and Notes (WC), London 1908, 51; S.R. Driver, The Book of Exodus (CBSC), Cambridge 1911, 68; W.H. Gispen, Het boek Exodus (KVHS), Kampen 1932, 93; G. Beer, Exodus: Mit einem Beitrag von K. Galling (HAT, 1,3), Tübingen 1939, 50; R.E. Clements, Exodus (CNEB), London 1972, 52; R.A. Cole, Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC), London 1973, 94.

x

preface

and L. Schmidt, likewise appear to ignore its significance.4 Many authors simply restrict themselves to the Masoretic Text of Exod. 7–11 without exploring the other textual material by way of preparation. It remains our opinion, however, that such a methodological approach is ill-founded.5 Indeed, prior to any attempt to study a text at the literary level, the textual material or the so-called ‘physical product’ has to be carefully established.6 It is for this reason that the present volume is devoted to a detailed text-critical study of the text of the ‘Plagues Narrative’ in Exod. 7:14–11:10. Within the framework of this study, we will endeavour to collect, examine and determine the significance of all the textual material that has come to the fore as part of recent developments in the discipline of textual criticism, and particularly the relevant textual fragments found at Qumran. In the first chapter of the present volume, we will formulate a number of introductory remarks relating to textual criticism as a discipline, the textual material at our disposal, the terminology employed and the methodological model that will serve as the basis of our study. In the second chapter, data provided by the various text forms of the ‘Plagues Narrative’ in Exod. 7:14–11:10,7 namely MT, LXX, SamP, 4QpaleoExodm, 4QpaleoGen-Exodl, 2QExoda, 4QExodc, 4QGen-Exoda and 4QExodj, will be registered and described. The extant textual versions themselves will be presented in the form of a synopsis, added as an appendix to this volume. The third and final chapter is devoted to a text-critical evaluation of the relevant textual variants.8 4 R. Friebe, Form und Entstehungsgeschichte (dissertation Halle/Wittenberg) 1967; L. Schmidt, Beobachtungen in der Plagenerzählung in Exodus VII,14–XI,10 (StB, 4), Leiden/New York/ Kopenhagen/Köln 1990. 5 See, in this respect, also B. Lemmelijn, ‘What Are We Looking for in Doing TextCritical Research?’, JNSL 23/2 (1997), 69–80, esp. 69–71; Idem, ‘The So-Called “Major Expansions” in SamP, 4QPaleoExodm and 4QExodj in Exod. 7:14–11:10: On the Edge between Textual Criticism and Literary Criticism’, in: B. Taylor (ed.), X Congress of the IOSCS. Oslo 1998 (SBL SCS, 51), Atlanta 2001, 429–439, esp. 429–433. 6 The designation ‘physical product’ is borrowed from M. Vervenne. See, for example, M. Vervenne, ‘Current Tendencies and Developments in the Study of the Book of Exodus’, in: Idem (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction—Reception—Interpretation (BETL, 126), Leuven 1996, 21–59, p. 33. 7 See also the presentation of the textual material infra, in the third paragraph of chapter one. 8 The designation ‘relevant textual variants’ refers to those variants that give rise to significant degrees of difference. This means that smaller language specific variants relative to Hebrew and Greek that do not influence or change the meaning of the text in any fashion will not be treated in detail in the third chapter. The said variants will be registered, described and/or explained in the context of the second chapter.

preface

xi

The present study is the result of a considerable amount of planning and labour. To affirm the ancient words of Qoheleth: “There is no end to the writing of books, and much study is wearisome” (Qoh. 12:12). This book has indeed taken much time and effort to accomplish, slowly growing from childhood into maturity and benefiting from the enrichment of the process. Concretely speaking, the book is based on my previous studies of the ‘Plagues Narrative’ in Exod. 7:14–11:10, which resulted in two MA theses—Religious Studies in 1991 and Theology in 1993—and in my Ph.D. dissertation in Theology in 1996.9 In addition to the text-critical study of Exod. 7:14–11:10, the studies in question also included a status quaestionis of research into the ‘Plagues Narrative’ and a redaction-historical study of the text. Against the same background, moreover, a number of specific elements treated in the said studies have been published separately as articles in journals and/or read as papers at international congresses, references to which can be found in the bibliography. The revision, elaboration and translation of the results of the text-critical analysis of Exod. 7:14–11:10, presented in the present volume, have been realised within the framework of a research project of ‘bilateral scientific cooperation’ organised between the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium) and the University of Stellenbosch (SouthAfrica), entitled Textual Studies in Early Judaism —The Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls (BIL/04/43, promoter: F. García Martínez; co-promoters: M. Vervenne, H. Ausloos, B. Lemmelijn, J. Cook). Sincere gratitude is due in this regard to the Research Fund (Bijzonder Onderzoeksfonds) of the K.U.Leuven for providing favourable financial conditions. It is the author’s hope that the support received, and reflected in this book, may contribute to a better understanding of this most intriguing biblical narrative. A work of this kind could never have been completed without the ongoing support and encouragement of a number of individuals. In this respect, my thanks are due to my colleague Prof. Dr. Brian Doyle for his translation of

9 Cf. B. Lemmelijn, De ‘plagen’ van Egypte (Ex 7,14–11,10): Materialen voor een exegetische studie, vol. 1: Tekstvormen: Geschiedenis van het onderzoek in de Exoduscommentaren (unpublished master’s thesis Religious Studies, K.U. Leuven), Leuven 1991 (promoter M. Vervenne), XXVII p. + 285 p.; Idem, De ‘plagen’ van Egypte (Ex 7,14–11,10): Materialen voor een exegetische studie, vol. 2: Geschiedenis van het onderzoek: Tekstkritische studie (unpublished master’s thesis Theology, K.U. Leuven), Leuven 1993 (promoter M. Vervenne), XIX p. + 286 p.; Idem, Het verhaal van de ‘Plagen in Egypte’ (Exodus 7,14–11,10): Een onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de compositie van een Pentateuchtraditie (unpublished doctoral dissertation Theology, 4 vols., K.U. Leuven), Leuven 1996 (promoter M. Vervenne), LVI p. + 629 p. + 172 p. of appendices.

xii

preface

the Dutch text and to both my doctoral student/research assistant, Hans Debel (Ph.D. Fellow of the Research Foundation—Flanders: FWO) and my graduate student Valérie Kabergs for their technical and redactional assistance in putting together the final manuscript. As I noted above, moreover, the present author is also aware that the process of bringing this book from childhood to maturity has gone hand in hand with a similar personal journey—I was a mere 19 years of age when I was first introduced to ‘Plagues research’. The entire process has taken place under the attentive and caring guidance of one and the same promoter, a Doktorvater in the most literal and comprehensive sense of the term, Prof. Dr. Marc Vervenne. Prof. Vervenne taught me how to think, how to write, and perhaps even how to live. For all these things, I am forever in his debt. I also owe a debt of gratitude to my parents, in particular for the many opportunities and chances they made possible for me through the years, even at times when it was not self-evident. Final thanks are due to another individual who has accompanied me on this journey from the very beginning and has followed his own parallel path in Old Testament studies, my husband Prof. Dr. Hans Ausloos. To him and our children, Matthias, Elke and Ruben, I dedicate this book, in the hope that the God behind the text we study will bless them every day of their lives.

CHAPTER ONE

PROLEGOMENA Introduction 1. The literary study of biblical texts tends to consider the Masoretic Text to be a ‘definite’ and ‘safe’ textual basis, as if it were in fact dealing with the original text.1 The Masoretic Text, however, is simply one textual form among many textual forms that have been passed down to us, although it has come to occupy a dominant position in the course of history as the so-called textus receptus.2 Nevertheless, those who wish to engage in serious literary research cannot do so without making a detailed prior study of the textual material available with respect to the passage in question.3 The collection and evaluation of this material is the task of textual criticism. Textual criticism does not aim, in the first instance, at a reconstruction of the original (autograph) text.4 Indeed, some scholars question whether 1 See also A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Übersetzung als Schlüssel zum Original’, in: Idem, On the Trail of Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays, Kampen 1993, 150–165, p. 155: ‘Obwohl die Biblia Hebraica, die den MT bietet, in der Praxis fast für das Original oder den Urtext gehalten wird, ist es doch klar, daß der MT nur eine—obwohl oft gut erhaltene—Textform vertritt.’ 2 Cf. e.g. F.M. Cross jr., ‘Problems of Method in the Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible’, in: W. Doniger O’Flaherty (ed.), The Critical Study of Sacred Texts (Berkeley Religious Studies Series, 2), Berkeley 1979, 31–32; M. Vervenne, ‘Tekst en teksten’, 25; E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research: Revised and Enlarged Second Edition ( Jerusalem Biblical Studies, 8), Jerusalem 1997, 6; A. van der Kooij, ‘Tekstkritiek en tekstoverlevering van het Oude Testament’, in: A.S. van der Woude (ed.), Inleiding tot de studie van het Oude Testament, Kampen 1986, 87–101, p. 91; D. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, vol. 1: Josué, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther (OBO, 50/1), Göttingen 1982, *107–*108, *111–*112. See, in this respect and more generally, also E. Tov, ‘The History and Significance of a Standard Text of the Hebrew Bible’, in: M. Saebo (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of its Interpretation, vol. 1: From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (Until 1300), Göttingen 1996, 49–66. 3 Cf., for example, N. Rabe, ‘Zur synchron definierten alttestamentlichen Textkritik’, BN 52 (1990), 64–97, p. 69. See also B. Lemmelijn, ‘What Are We Looking for in Doing Text-Critical Research?’, 69–71; Idem, ‘As Many Texts as Plagues: A Preliminary Report of the Main Results of the Text-Critical Evaluation of Exod 7:14–11:10’, JNSL 24/2 (1998), 111–125; and especially Idem, ‘The So-Called “Major Expansions” in SamP, 4QPaleoExodm and 4QExodj in Exod 7:14–11:10’, 429–439. 4 The complexity of the debate should not be underestimated. Scholars are far from

2

chapter one: prolegomena

such an original and unique text of the Old Testament ever existed. 5 Many scholars are inclined to argue that a multiplicity of texts was in circulation from the very beginning, all of which already bore their own characteristic features from the outset.6 Textual criticism endeavours rather to explore the history and development of the text of the Hebrew bible in its various textual forms, paying particular attention to the period from the 4th to the 3rd centuries BCE.7 The text of the bible in its current form was determined by two achieving consensus on the matter and their positions and hypotheses are often inadequately explained. In some instances, moreover, a significant degree of evolution is evident within the vision of one single author. I refer here, by way of example, to the position held by E. Tov, which I have discussed extensively in B. Lemmelijn, ‘What Are We Looking for in Doing Text-Critical Research?’, 71–75. 5 With respect to the discussion surrounding the Urtext of the biblical texts see, e.g.: F.M. Cross, ‘Problems of Method’, 50–51; M.H. Goshen-Gottstein, ‘Theory and Practice of Textual Criticism: The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint’, Textus 3 (1963), 130–158, pp. 135–136; M. Greenberg, ‘The Use of the Ancient Versions for Interpreting the Hebrew Text’, in: J.A. Emerton et al. (eds), Congress Volume Göttingen 1977 (VTS, 29), Leiden 1978, 131–148, pp. 140–142; M. Vervenne, ‘Tekst en teksten’, 33; S. Talmon, ‘The Old Testament Text’, in: P.R. Ackroyd, C.F. Evans (eds), The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1: From the Beginnings to Jerome, Cambridge 1970, 159–199, pp. 193–199; Idem, ‘The Textual Study of the Bible: A New Outlook’, in: F.M. Cross, S. Talmon (eds), Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, Cambridge 1975, 321–400, pp. 323–326; E. Tov, ‘Criteria’, 431–432; Idem, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible: Second Revised Edition, Minneapolis/ Assen 2001, 17–18, 177, 313–319; Idem, ‘Textual Criticism (Old Testament)’, 394; N. Rabe, ‘Zur synchron definierten alttestamentlichen Textkritik’, 64; J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll from Qumran: 4QpaleoExod m and the Samaritan Tradition (HSS, 30), Atlanta 1986, 42–43, 109; and B. Lemmelijn, ‘What Are We Looking for in Doing Text-Critical Research?’, 69–80. 6 Cf. M. Vervenne, ‘Tekst en teksten’, 34; E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 204–212; Idem, ‘A Modern Textual Outlook Based on the Qumran Scrolls’, HUCA 53 (1982), 11–27, pp. 23–26 [See also B. Chiesa’s critique of the primary tenet of this article: B. Chiesa, ‘Textual History and Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Old Testament’, in: J. Trebolle Barrera, L.V. Montaner (eds), The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Madrid 18–21 March, 1991, vol. 1 (STDJ, 11,1), Leiden/New York/Köln/ Madrid 1992, 257–272]; E. Tov, Textual Criticism, 156–163; J. Lust, ‘David and Goliath in the Hebrew and Greek Texts’, in: D. Barthélemy et al., The Story of David and Goliath: Textual and Literary Criticism. Papers of a Joint Research Venture (OBO, 73), Freiburg/Göttingen 1986, 121–128, pp. 122–123, 126; and Idem, Epilogue, in: D. Barthélemy et al., The Story, 156. See also Idem, ‘The Use of Textual Witnesses for the Establishment of the Text: the Shorter and Longer Texts of Ezekiel’, in: Idem (ed.), Ezekiel and his Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation (BETL, 74), Leuven 1986, 7–20, pp. 16, 19; N. Rabe, ‘Zur synchron definierten alttestamentlichen Textkritik’, 64. 7 Cf. M. Vervenne, ‘Tekst en teksten’, 33; E. Tov, ‘De tekst van het Oude Testament’, in: A.S. van der Woude (ed.), Bijbels handboek, vol. 1, Kampen 1981, 217–218; Idem, ‘Criteria for Evaluating Textual Readings: The Limitations of Textual Rules’, HThR 75 (1982), 429–448, pp. 431–432; Idem, The Text-Critical Use, 1, 6; Idem, Textual Criticism, 287–290; N. Rabe, ‘Zur synchron definierten alttestamentlichen Textkritik’, 69–75; A. van der Kooij, ‘Tekstkritiek en tekstoverlevering’, 87, 91; and especially Idem, ‘Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible: Its Aim and Method’, in: S.M. Paul, R.A. Kraft, L.H. Schiffman,

introduction

3

significant processes: the literary development and growth of the text on the one hand, and the process of transmission of the text on the other. Intentional and unintentional variants that arose in the course of the transmission of the text may have changed the latter to a considerable degree.8 Where literary criticism ignores this fact, its results are based of necessity on extremely infirm text-critical foundations. We are immediately confronted with the question concerning the relationship between literary criticism and textual criticism.9 Up until recently—and often very recently—the generally held opinion was that textual criticism as the study of the transmission of the complete literary work began where literary criticism as the study of the history of origin and literary formation of the text ended. In line with recent text-critical research (i.a. D. Barthélemy, J. Lust and especially J. Trebolle Barrera), however, I am inclined to argue that a clear distinction between these two processes cannot be made with any degree of satisfaction.10 As a

W.W. Fields (eds), Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls. FS E. Tov (VTS, 94), Leiden/Boston 2003, 729–739. 8 Cf. M. Vervenne, ‘Tekst en teksten’, 33, 34–35. 9 Cf. M. Vervenne, ‘Tekst en teksten’, 34–35; Idem, Het Zeeverhaal, 64; S. Talmon, ‘The Textual Study’, 327–332; E. Tov, ‘Criteria’, 431–432; Idem, The Text-Critical Use, 5; Idem, ‘De tekst van het Oude Testament’, 217–218; Idem, Textual Criticism, 313–350; Idem, ‘Textual Criticism (Old Testament)’, ABD 6 (1992), 393–412, esp. 410–411; A. van der Kooij, ‘Tekstkritiek en tekstoverlevering’, 91; Idem, ‘Zum Verhältnis von Textkritik und Literarkritik: Überlegungen anhand einiger Beispiele’, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume, Cambridge, 1995 (VTS, 66), Leiden/New York/Köln 1997, 185–202; N. Rabe, ‘Zur synchron definierten alttestamentlichen Textkritik’, 86–88; and J. Werlitz, Studien zur literarkritischen Methoden: Gericht und Heil in Jesaja 7,1–17 und 29,1–8 (BZAW, 204), Berlin/New York 1992, 69–79. 10 Cf., for example, D. Barthélemy, ‘Problématique et tâches de la critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament hébraïque’, in: Idem, Études d’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament (OBO, 21), Fribourg/Göttingen 1978, 365–381, pp. 369, 371–372. See also J. Lust, ‘David and Goliath’, 123: ‘Theoretically, literary criticism deals with the formation of the text and textual criticism with the finished compositions and their transmission. In practice, the borderline between both areas tends to blur. Moreover the methods used on both levels largely coincide, once the probability of accidental errors is outruled.’; and Idem, The Use, 12, 17. See especially J. Trebolle Barrera, The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible: An Introduction to the History of the Bible, Leiden/New York/Cologne 1998, 370–388, in particular 370: ‘Textual criticism studies the process of transmission of the text from the moment it is put into writing or its first edition. Its aim is to determine the oldest biblical text witnessed by the manuscript tradition. Literary criticism (in the sense of the German term Literarkritik) studies instead the process before the formation of the biblical writings in order to determine their author and date. Even though in theory the domains and methods of these two disciplines are quite separate, in practice they often overlap. The meeting point causing friction between them is in the editorial process where the previous process of collecting material and of composition and of editing the text ends and the next process, textual transmis sion, begins’, and more elaborately 390–404, see e.g. 390 very explicitly: ‘In theory the

4

chapter one: prolegomena

matter of fact, it is highly likely that the textual transmission of certain biblical texts was already underway prior to the literary completion of the composition in question.11 Particular reference should be made in this regard to the work of H.-J. Stipp.12 Stipp points out that the question of the relationship between textual criticism and literary criticism has resurfaced, particularly in light of the renewed interest in textual criticism under the influence of the discoveries at Qumran, in spite of the fact that the given status of both component disciplines was the subject of little discussion in the past.13 Stipp first discusses the hypotheses of a number of prominent scholars in this regard, namely E. Tov,14 the Comité pour l’analyse textuelle de l’Ancien Testament hébreu,15 H. Barth and O.H. Steck,16 and finally L. Schwien-

distinction between these disciplines (Textual Criticism and Literary Criticism, BL) is clear, but in practice the boundary separating them is very movable making necessary the use of both methods in combination.’ Cf. in this respect also Idem, ‘The Story of David and Goliath (1 Sam 17–18): Textual Variants and Literary Composition’, BIOSCS 23 (1990), 16–30; Idem, ‘A Canon within a Canon: Two Series of Old Testament Books Differently Transmitted, Interpreted and Authorized’, RQ 19 (1999–2000), 383–399 and very recently Idem, ‘A Combined Textual and Literary Criticism Analysis. Editorial Traces in Joshua and Judges’ in: H. Ausloos, B. Lemmelijn, M. Vervenne (eds), Florilegium Lovaniense. Studies in Septuagint and Textual Criticism in Honour of Florentino García Martínez (BETL, 224), Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA 2008, 437–463. 11 Cf. e.g. E. Tov, ‘De tekst van het Oude Testament’, 218; Idem, The Text-Critical Use, 5, 239; Idem, Textual Criticism, 315–316; Idem, ‘Criteria’, 431, n. 6; A. van der Kooij, ‘Tekstkritiek en tekstoverlevering’, 91; M. Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 64; and Idem, ‘Tekst en teksten’, 35: ‘. . . In de praktijk is deze stelregel evenwel niet gemakkelijk door te voeren. Want de tekstoverlevering van een bijbelboek begon vaak al vóórdat de compositie van het werk voltooid was. Vandaar dat tekstgetuigen soms verschillende stadia van de ontwikkeling van een boek weergeven, zodat ze niet alleen tekstkritische maar buitendien literaire relevantie hebben.’ 12 Cf. H.-J. Stipp, ‘Das Verhältnis von Textkritik und Literarkritik in neueren alttestamentlichen Veröffentlichungen’, BZ 34 (1990), 16–37; and Idem, ‘Textkritik—Literarkritik—Textentwicklung. Überlegungen zur exegetischen Aspectsystematik’, ETL 66 (1990), 143–159. 13 H.-J. Stipp, ‘Das Verhältnis’, 16–17. 14 See H.-J. Stipp, ‘Das Verhältnis’, 18–22. Stipp discusses Tov’s standpoint on the basis of E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research ( Jerusalem Biblical Studies, 3), Jerusalem 1981 (i.e. the first edition, not the second referred to elsewhere in this study); Tov’s contribution to D. Barthélemy et al., The Story and E. Tov, ‘The Composition of 1 Samuel 16–18 in the Light of the Septuagint Version’, in: J.H. Tigay, Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism, Philadelphia 1985, 97–129. 15 Cf. H.-J. Stipp, ‘Das Verhältnis’, 22–33. Stipp refers for the most part at this juncture to D. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle, vol. 1. 16 See H.-J. Stipp, ‘Das Verhältnis’, 33–35. Stipp relies here on H. Barth, O.H. Steck, Exegese des Alten Testaments: Leitfaden der Methodik, Ein Arbeitsbuch für Proseminare, Seminare und Vorlesungen, Neukirchen/Vluyn, 101984.

introduction

5

horst.17 In Stipp’s opinion, the scholars in question are unable to distance themselves completely from the classical distinction between textual criticism and literary criticism, in spite of the highly nuanced positions they are inclined to adopt in the discussion. After presenting a survey of the said hypotheses, Stipp arrives at a number of negative conclusions.18 Stipp argues that every hypothesis that maintains a clear distinction between two phases in the history of the text, namely textual growth and textual transmission, and then directly or indirectly associates this in one way or another with the distinction between the domain of the literary critic and that of the text critic is open to criticism. Furthermore, the so-called ‘status difference’ evident in evaluative judgements concerning the results of textual criticism on the one hand and those of literary criticism on the other, whereby reconstructions and preferential options based on text-critical research are considered legitimate and those supported by literary-critical research are not, can no longer be maintained. It is likewise undesirable, he insists, that the distinction between textual criticism and literary criticism should be made to depend on a particular understanding of the task of the textual critic, the latter being restricted to serving the needs generated by the preparation of text editions, translations, commentaries and so forth. This would result in the measurement of the scope of textual criticism against the goals of the work in question whereby all further reconstructions and considerations would be considered literary critical. Finally, the criterion that maintains that textual criticism should focus its attention on unintentional variations in the text and literary criticism on intentional variations cannot be upheld, according to Stipp, in confrontation with practical reality. If all this can be confirmed, Stipp argues, then there is no longer any reason to affirm a strict distinction between the two component exegetical disciplines. At the very least, the facile appeal to scientific tradition is no longer sufficient. Against this background, therefore, one is inclined to wonder whether, and if so how, a dividing line can be drawn between textual criticism and literary criticism. According to Stipp, it is no longer a question of how one can determine such a dividing line but whether such a dividing line is possible in principle. Based on a number of examples, Stipp goes on to demonstrate that the difference between textual criticism 17

Cf. H.-J. Stipp, ‘Das Verhältnis’, 35–36. In this regard Stipp refers for the most part to L. Schwienhorst, Die Eroberung Jerichos: Exegetische Untersuchung zu Josua 6 (SBS, 122), Stuttgart 1986. 18 H.-J. Stipp, ‘Das Verhältnis’, 37; Idem, ‘Textkritik’, 143–144.

6

chapter one: prolegomena

and literary criticism is often blurred by the overlapping use of both component disciplines.19 It is often impossible to correctly evaluate a particular textual problem without relating the perspectives, arguments and methodology of textual criticism and literary criticism to one another, whereby the one serves to confirm the other and vice versa. Bearing this in mind, a division between textual criticism and literary criticism based on the nature of the information derived from either the textual transmission phase or the stage of textual growth is no longer meaningful. Such a strict distinction between both disciplines can thus no longer be justified and, as a consequence, is no longer desirable. Stipp, for his part, proposes the idea of an ‘aspect of exegetical unity’ in the course of textual development.20 As he understands it, the concept ‘textual development’ refers to every phase in the textual history of the biblical text in as far as it was committed to writing. As such, and in principle, this development remains open and embraces every new translation or paraphrase. When the interests of research focus themselves on the stages prior to a particular manuscript, it would be better to refer to such a methodological measure as the ‘reconstruction of previous written stages’ or Vorstufenrekonstruktion.21 If one understands textual development in this way, then one is obliged to admit that it also embraces the redaction and composition of the text. Within this framework, therefore, the expressions textual criticism, literary criticism, composition criticism and redaction criticism continue to serve as designations for the analysis of specific types of information and characteristic features, but they are understood against the background of the ‘aspect of exegetical unity of textual development’ as component disciplines with very boundaries. They study specific textual problems bearing the information provided by other component disciplines in mind at every juncture.22 Against such a background, it is evident that a strict distinction between textual criticism and literary criticism is difficult to maintain in practice and, at the very least, open to question.

19

Cf. H.-J. Stipp, ‘Textkritik’, 144–154. See H.-J. Stipp, ‘Textkritik’, 156: ‘Es erscheint daher angezeigt, die Trennung von Text- und Literarkritik aufzugeben und einen einheitlichen exegetischen Aspekt der Textentwicklung anzunehmen. Er umfasst alle Stadien der Geschichte biblischer Texte im Bereich der Schriftlichkeit.’ 21 Stipp includes conjecture criticism as part of his methodological Vorstufenrekonstruktion. See H.-J. Stipp, ‘Textkritik’, 157. 22 See further H.-J. Stipp, ‘Textkritik’, 157–159. Stipp introduces additional arguments at this juncture in support of his view on the ‘aspect of exegetical unity in the textual development’ and against the strict division of textual criticism and literary criticism. 20

prolegomena

7

Textual criticism itself consists of two important phases.23 In the first instance one collects and reconstructs textual variants (based on the versiones); in the second instance one evaluates the said variants. A third aspect, so-called ‘conjecture criticism’, can only be applied infrequently and with the utmost care.24 The biblical texts are not simply open to ‘correction’ on the basis of the literary solutions we are inclined to support for one reason or another.25 The biblical texts enjoy an integrity that deserves our respect. 2. In the preceding paragraph, we offered a concise sketch of the way in which textual criticism tends to be described and practiced in classical terms. For the sake of completeness, however, it should also be noted that one can approach textual criticism in an entirely different way, whereby the relationship between textual criticism and literary criticism, among other things, can be presented in a radically different manner, in contrast to recent perspectives on the matter as a whole and to that of Stipp in particular.26 I refer in this regard to the study of N. Rabe, who defines textual criticism in a synchronic way.27 ‘Synchronic textual criticism’ bases itself on the study of a single extant (i.e. not reconstructed) manuscript as the object of research. Limitation to

23 Cf. e.g. M.H. Goshen-Gottstein, ‘The Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: Rise, Decline, Rebirth’, JBL 102 (1983), 365–399, pp. 397–398; M. Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 65; Idem, ‘Tekst en teksten’, 36; E. Tov, ‘Criteria’, 430–431; Idem, The Text-Critical Use, 2, 6; Idem, Textual Criticism, 291; A. van der Kooij, ‘Tekstkritiek’, 96–97. 24 Cf. D. Barthélemy, ‘Problématique’, 368; M.H. Goshen-Gottstein, ‘The Textual Criticism’, 373, 397–398; M. Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 65; Idem, ‘Tekst en teksten’, 36; E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 5; Idem, Textual Criticism, 290, 351–369; Idem, ‘Textual Criticism (Old Testament)’, 410; A. van der Kooij, ‘Tekstkritiek’, 99. Reference can be made once again to a degree of evolution within the opinion of E. Tov. While Tov was initially dismissive when it came to conjecture criticism, it would appear from Textual Criticism that his opinion on the matter has been nuanced. Although he continues to emphasise the secondary character of conjecture criticism, he maintains nevertheless that it clearly has a value in certain cases. 25 This occurs on occasion in the methodological approach of C.J. Labuschagne, for example, who emends the text or interprets it in such a fashion as to facilitate his logotechnical analysis. Cf. C.J. Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, vol. 1A (POT), Nijkerk 1987, 86; and Idem, Deuteronomium, vol. 2 (POT), Nijkerk 1990, 30, 49–51, 95–96, 149. See in this respect also B. Lemmelijn, ‘What Are We Looking for in Doing Old Testament Tex-Critical Research?’, 69–71. 26 Cf. supra pp. 4–6. 27 Cf. N. Rabe, ‘Zur synchron definierten alttestamentlichen Textkritik’, 76–94. It should be noted at this juncture that the method of synchronic textual criticism outlined in the present paragraph was also employed by Rabe’s teacher and mentor H. Schweizer. Cf. H. Schweizer, Die Josefsgeschichte (Textwissenschaft—Hermeneutik—Linguistik—Informatik 4,1/2), Munich 1990.

8

chapter one: prolegomena

one well defined textual witness, Rabe argues, is not simply determined by the fact that the text in question actually exists, but rather by the meaningfulness, in principle, of synchronic research into a single text or a single manuscript. The text that becomes the object of study is considered to be the expression of a real communicative situation from the past and an effort is made, with the help of literary analyses, to determine the historical and cultural backgrounds against which the text came into existence and to establish the point of departure of the author(s). Rooted in the textual material as such and in the literary independence of a manuscript, Rabe upholds the methodological postulate that only one single manuscript can function as the research object of textual criticism and the exegesis that follows thereafter in preparation for synchronic and text-immanent analysis. Textual criticism limits itself in particular to its ‘practical’ dimension in studying this single manuscript, in other words to the recognition and discussion of scribal errors and the comparison of the various textual witnesses. This provides the foundation for a number of additional postulates. In the first instance, Rabe argues, there is no such thing as a manuscript that does not contain error or textual corruption. Furthermore, and until the opposite is confirmed, we must presume that the texts in question were once grammatically intact textual entities, at least in the original intention of the author, and that they were once understood by their audience. Finally, Rabe maintains, many textual errors are frequently open to explanation and indeed correction. The necessity to correct a text as a given object of research thus has its roots in the presupposition that the said text was once intact and coherent and in the hypothesis that problems should be solved where possible and not carried forward into later stages of exegetical research as completely intractable. The so-called ‘target text’ (‘Zieltext’) of Rabe’s synchronic textual criticism is not the ‘original text’ or the Urtext, but rather the ‘presently legible textual form’ of the chosen textual witness. Against the background of a straightforward model of communication, Rabe explains synchronic textual criticism as follows: ‘Die synchrone Textkritik prüft, ob zwischen Sender und Empfänger einer schriftlichen Nachricht der Übertragungskanal selbst, also das material der Handschriften, ihr umfang usw. defekt ist und/oder ob über diesen Kanal alle gegebenen Signale für den (heutigen) Adressaten nach seinem Erkenntnisstand dechiffrierbar und nötigenfalls restituierbar sind.’28

28

Cf. N. Rabe, ‘Zur synchron definierten alttestamentlichen Textkritik’, 78–79.

introduction

9

In Rabe’s opinion, ‘synchronic textual criticism’ has three primary tasks. In the first instance it must compare the textual witnesses that render the text being studied in parallel with the chosen manuscript. This consists of an independent description of the various manuscripts based on an inquiry into the way in which the text was transmitted. The goal of such a procedure is twofold: first, endeavour to establish more consciously one’s preference for a specific textual witness with respect to other texts that bear witness to the same material; second, endeavour to determine the peculiar features and characteristics of the chosen textual version. The second task of synchronic textual criticism is the study of the external characteristics evident in the textual transmission of the chosen textual witness, based on which the relationship with the remaining manuscript traditions of the Old Testament should then become apparent. Such information on the characteristic features of the chosen textual witness can clarify the latter’s genealogical position in the manuscript families and strands of tradition, its age, linguistic usage, the completeness of the text etc. The third task of textual criticism, understood in this way, is the observation and discussion (and, where possible, correction) of passages that are considered illegible. The criteria for establishing illegible passages in a text are based on the grammars, lexica and concordances. In the first instance, certain words or even whole passages may not correspond to our current knowledge of ancient Hebrew (or Greek). Second, it is possible that one or more words might appear to lack any sense in a specific context. Third, questionable vowel signs and punctuation marks may occur, in instances of ketib/qere, which are difficult to reconcile with the consonantal text. Such scribal errors can be explained on the basis of classical text-critical designations such as haplography, dittography, omission due to homoioteleuton, interchange similar consonants, incorrect subdivision of words in the context of scriptio continua or where the space between words is negligible etc. Rabe also determines three criteria for the correction of these illegible passages. First, the establishment and explanation of the passage concerned must already indicate the direction that the potential correction should follow. Second, the correction should fit the context of the textual witness read synchronically. Third, the proposed correction must always be directly related to the error that led to the corrupt reading. According to Rabe, the danger of arbitrary textual emendation can be significantly mitigated if these three criteria are maintained. The presence of variant readings for a specific segment of a manuscript being studied synchronically fulfils a twofold function. The variants in question help in the discovery of errors and simultaneously offer advice with respect to proposed corrections. It

10

chapter one: prolegomena

is important to note at this juncture, however, that arguments based on the three criteria remain text-immanent arguments. From the methodological perspective, however, prudence should be exercised in order to moderate the fundamental attitude of synchronic textual criticism towards textual correction. A manuscript should only be corrected after every other avenue of explanation has been explored without contribution to the legibility of the text and the three criteria outlined above have been respected. Such restrictions ensure that the textual material remains intact and, even in the case of correction, burdened with only a modest number of hypothetical arguments. The manuscript thus serves as an improved basis for the exegesis that follows. Secondly, its particular features and literary development are likewise preserved. Finally, the limitation whereby only mechanical scribal errors and material textual corruption are subject to potential correction leaves every other change that may have emerged at the stage of textual composition or growth to literary criticism, whereby a clear distinction is to be observed between the text-critical domain and the literary-critical domain as a sign of their strict methodological distinction. Synchronic textual criticism defined in this way can give rise to two sorts of text. If no scribal errors or textual corruptions are evident, then the chosen textual witness goes on to serve unemended and unburdened by hypothetical arguments as the object of study of the exegetical analysis that follows. If textual corruption is discovered, the manuscript thus bears an increased burden of hypothesis. In contrast to textual criticism applied in a diachronic fashion, however, the said hypothetical character can be indicated with greater accuracy and illegible passages with greater precision. The criteria employed for the determination of scribal errors remain relatively undisputed. Moreover, the hypothetical character of a textual correction based on internal criteria is much less significant than that arising from a compilation based on several textual witnesses. Synchronic textual criticism nevertheless contains a diachronic element. The text-critical result ultimately reveals a text that must have appeared slightly different prior to it being committed to writing in the chosen manuscript. The text-critical procedure thus brings it closer to this earlier version. Rabe explicitly argues, however, that the goal of such textual criticism is not the development of a new (original) text, but rather the establishment of a legible text accessible to exegetes and contemporary readers of the bible. Based on an analysis limited by such strict criteria, the most one can expect to achieve is the suspicion that an older and more original stage in the transmission of the text once existed.

introduction

11

Rabe concludes with a discussion on the relationship between synchronic textual criticism and literary criticism. In his opinion, a strict separation exists between both methodological steps, although they also exhibit limited points of contact. One particular similarity would appear to be the most important: the primary criterion, the legibility of the text to be interpreted, is the same for both synchronic textual criticism as for literary criticism. The differences between the two, however, are much more numerous. In the first instance, when confronted with problems of legibility, synchronic textual criticism seeks for solutions by tracing and correcting scribal errors whereas literary criticism tends to explain such difficulties in light of the redactional background of the text. Second, the results of literary criticism are based on an extremely broad and global research context, whereas synchronic textual criticism tends to be limited to the immediate environment in its analysis of single words, clauses or expression. Third, the primary focal point of each methodology differs. Problems raised by literary criticism with respect to internal tensions, terminology or style characteristics are rarely solved on the basis of a potential scribal error, whereas textual criticism often limits itself to specifically orthographical or lexical-grammatical categories. A fourth and final difference is to be found in the fact that literary criticism no longer draws attention to the orthographical, lexical and grammatical intelligibility of the text under analysis, but rather presupposes its legibility and studies it in relation to a wider range of contextual elements. Based on our study so far it has become apparent that textual criticism can be approached in two entirely different ways, whereby completely different methodological implications are created.29 ‘Synchronic textual criticism’ clearly draws our attention to essential aspects of the textual criticism of biblical texts. The present author is particularly taken by the emphasis placed on the fact that a well-founded textual point of departure is necessary before one submits the text to literary-critical analysis. In other words, the choice of a working text must be a conscious one. The proposal that a text is an entity functioning in itself and that it should be understandable as such likewise contains a considerable degree of truth. The formulation of a few critical observations, however, seems appropriate at the present juncture. 29

See also in this regard J. Cook, ‘Questions of Textual Criticism. To Reconstruct or Not?’, in: AIBI, Bible et Informatique: Interprétation, herméneutique, compétence informatique. Tübingen 1991, Paris/Geneva 1992, 515–522.

12

chapter one: prolegomena

First of all, one is left with the impression that the chosen manuscript employed as the research object of this approach is considered as an isolated datum, as if it developed in complete detachment from all other textual material. In our opinion, however, it is important to note that, with respect to Old Testament texts, we are often dealing with a textual form that has been preserved by accident and that has also been transmitted in other textual witnesses. Moreover, the various textual witnesses and textual forms cannot simply be considered of equal value. While the conscious choice of one single text as a basis for exegetical research may be a positive element in the approach, the choice must nevertheless be justified. For this reason, the sequence followed by the said approach would appear to be incorrect. A manuscript is first chosen and only then compared with other manuscripts, and merely with a specific view to correcting the chosen manuscript on a text-internal basis. In our opinion, it would seem more appropriate to first make an objective study and comparison of all the textual material available with respect to a specific text and only then take the practical step of opting for a single working text, bearing in mind the various marginal observations that have been formulated in this regard and accounting for the valuable preferable or synonymous variants found in other textual forms.30 In short, first compare and then choose rather than the other way round. In addition, the value of the so-called ‘target text’ that synchronic textual criticism strives to obtain, namely the ‘presently legible textual form’ of the chosen textual witness, seems to the present author to be relative if not slight. As a matter of fact, such a ‘legible’ textual form can be created for every individual textual witness, without contributing to the establishment of the value of the said witness as such and its relationship with other textual witnesses. In other words, the establishment of a ‘presently legible textual form’ tells us nothing about the originality of the text under analysis. Furthermore, synchronic textual criticism’s emphasis on the ‘correction’ of errors within the manuscript ought to take place with the utmost prudence. The text we have before us may appear to contain ‘errors’ open to correction from our modern perspective, but it is possible that they were not originally interpreted as such. The application of contemporary standards of logic to extremely ancient texts ultimately lacks objectivity and cannot be justified.31

30 31

The terms ‘preferable’ and ‘synonymous’ will be further explained below. See pp. 20, 21. Cf. also in this regard n. 82 below.

terminology

13

In our opinion, moreover, Rabe’s strict distinction between textual criticism and literary criticism cannot be maintained. It is only in light of the fact that Rabe defines textual criticism in the narrow sense as the process of orthographical correction and the establishment of a single legible manuscript that the research domains of textual criticism and literary criticism can be contrasted to such a degree. Finally, in maintaining that the hypothetical character of a textual correction based on internal criteria is much less than that associated with the classical compilation of various textual witnesses, Rabe leaves one with the impression that his understanding of diachronic textual criticism is incorrect. Classical textual criticism also employs internal criteria as the first stage in the process of evaluating textual variants.32 In addition, the result of text-critical analysis need not always be a compilation of various textual witnesses. In light of what we have said so far, it seems preferable to begin with the comparison and evaluation of the preserved textual material before one opts for a single working text that can serve as the point of departure for literary research, bearing in mind all the relevant variants available to us from other textual witnesses. Against this background, the present text-critical study of the ‘Plagues Narrative’ will give preference to the more ‘classical’ or, if the term is preferred, ‘diachronic’ understanding of textual criticism. Having offered some brief introductory observations with respect to textual criticism in general, the following pages will focus concretely on the terminology to be employed in our text-critical approach to the ‘Plagues Narrative’, the working model we have developed for the present textcritical study and the concrete textual material that will constitute the object of the said study of Exod. 7:14–11:10. Terminology In line with the two primary phases of text-critical research, we will divide our methodological procedure into two parts: the collection of variants and the evaluation thereof.

32

Cf. infra pp. 15–18.

14

chapter one: prolegomena

Collecting variants Before one can begin with the collection of ‘variants’, it is important that we have a clear definition of what we mean by the term ‘variant’ in the first place. According to Tov, the term ‘variant’ includes every element evident in the textual witnesses that deviates from a specific text which is taken as the standard. Where the study of the Old Testament text is concerned, the Masoretic Text generally serves as the basis for every comparison.33 This standard text is thus understood as the central textual witness,34 and every deviation from a specific form of MT is referred to as a ‘variant’ in relation to the latter.35 Scholars insist, however, that MT is taken as the point of departure because it represents the textus receptus of the Old Testament and because it provides the best preserved and most complete text thereof, not because the content of MT should be preferred above other textual traditions. On the contrary, a ‘variant’ reading from another text tradition may indeed be better and more original than MT itself. Textual criticism collects (and reconstructs) variants, which are then compared with MT in the evaluation phase, in order to determine the preferable reading.36 The reading in question is considered to be closest to the ‘original form of the text’, defined as the final textual form at the end of the literary growth process and prior to the beginning of the process of textual transmission of the said complete text.37 A great deal of discussion, however, surrounds both the question of a possible ‘original’ text and the transition from textual growth to textual transmission.38 J.E. Sanderson, who has made a text-critical study of 4Qpaleo-Exodm, offers a contrasting definition of the term ‘variant’ to the conventional definition outlined above. Sanderson defines a ‘variant’ as every difference

33

Cf. E. Tov, ‘Criteria’, 430; Idem, The Text-Critical Use, 6; Idem, Textual Criticism, 18. Cf. M. Vervenne, ‘Tekst en teksten’, 36: ‘In dit verband willen we beklemtonen dat MT opgevat wordt als één van de vele tekstgetuigen van het Oude Testament, en dus niet als de toonaangevende tekst. Omdat MT evenwel de meest complete en toegankelijke tekstvorm is, worden alle varianten ermee vergeleken. Het doel van de beoordeling is na te gaan of er lezingen voorkomen die mogelijkerwijs oorspronkelijker zijn dan die van MT. In de hedendaagse tekstkritiek van het Oude Testament doet men daarvoor een beroep op exegetische, literaire en taalkundige criteria, die variante lezingen beoordelen in hun context.’ 35 Cf. E. Tov, Textual Criticism, 18: ‘The details of which texts are composed (letters, words) are “readings”, and accordingly, all readings which differ from a text presented or accepted as central are usually called “variant readings” or “variants”.’ 36 Cf. E. Tov, Textual Criticism, 290–291, 310–311. 37 Cf. E. Tov, Textual Criticism, 164–180; A. Van der Kooij, Tekstkritiek, 91. 38 Cf. supra pp. 1–6. 34

terminology

15

between the textual witnesses in every place preserved by 4QpaleoExodm. The determination of variants is thus no longer based on a point of difference with the MT but rather on every point of difference evident between one of four texts (in casu MT, LXX, SamP, 4QpaleoExodm) and one of the three other texts.39 Sanderson’s choice in this regard is based on a conscious opposition to the traditional approach that takes the MT as the standard, even when the latter is only referred to as the ‘basic’ text without any implied value judgement. In the present study we will follow Sanderson’s advice and consider every different reading evident between the textual witnesses as a ‘variant’, without insisting on comparison with the MT as ‘standard’ text. In other words, we consider a ‘variant reading’ to be ‘variant’ with respect to any other textual witness and not only when compared with the MT. It should be noted at this juncture the purely orthographic differences are not included as ‘variants’. Evaluation of variants Criteria for the evaluation of textual variants A great deal of prudence is necessary when evaluating textual variants evident among the various textual witnesses.40 As a matter of fact, the process of evaluation tends as such to be a rather subjective affair.41 In order to confront the difficulties that accompany this tendency, scholars have formulated a number of criteria for the evaluation of variants.42 Classically speaking a division tends to be made between external and internal criteria, whereby the former allude to the ‘document’ in which the variant was found and the latter have to do with the intrinsic value of

39

J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 39: ‘A variant is defined in this dissertation as any disagreement among the four texts Qm, SamP, M, G of Exodus in any passage where Qm is extant. The determination of variants is not based simply on disagreement with M, but rather on any disagreement on the part of any one of the four texts with any of the other three texts.’ Cf. also P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, Qumran Cave 4, vol. 4: PalaeoHebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts (DJD, 9), Oxford 1992, 65. 40 Cf. E. Tov, Textual Criticism, 293–311. 41 Cf. E. Tov, Textual Criticism, 291. 42 Cf. P. Kyle McCarter, Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible, Philadelphia 1986, 71–74; E. Tov, ‘Criteria’, 434–448; N. Rabe, ‘Zur synchron definierten alttestamentlichen Textkritik’, 71–74.

16

chapter one: prolegomena

the variant itself.43 External criteria include the following information:44 the unequal status of the textual sources, preference for MT, the presence of a particular reading in a number of textual witnesses and the age of the textual witness. Fundamental criticism can be formulated with respect to each of these criteria, so much so that their application ultimately becomes a problem for the evaluation of individual variant readings. Tov considers the criteria impractical for use in Old Testament textual criticism.45 Internal criteria are formulated according to the classical principles: lectio difficilior praeferenda and lectio brevior potior.46 According to Tov, however, these criteria are equally impractical and can only be applied to an extremely small number of cases. Two additional internal criteria mentioned in this regard—assimilation to or harmonisation with other parallel passages and ‘interpretive modification’—are not ipso facto reliable either. Tov warns against the idea that basing oneself on textual rules would somehow imply that the conclusions of one’s research are thus correct. At the same time, however, one’s results are not automatically incorrect if one does not implement such criteria. Tov notes the following shortcomings with respect to the classical criteria:47

43

Cf. E. Tov, ‘Criteria’, 434; Idem, Textual Criticism, 297. Cf. E. Tov, ‘Criteria’, 434–438; Idem, The Text-Critical Use, 222–225; Idem, Textual Criticism, 298–302. 45 Cf. the critique of M. Silva, ‘Internal Evidence in the Text-Critical Use of the LXX’, in: N. Fernández Marcos (ed.), La Septuaginta en la Investigación Contemporánea (V Congreso de la IOSCS) (Textos y Estudios ‘Cardenal Cisneros’, 34), Madrid 1985, 151–167. M. Silva argues that the employment of external criteria, by analogy with the use thereof in New Testament textual criticism, is practical and delivers good results. In his opinion, Old Testament textual criticism should function according to the same principles as that of New Testament textual criticism, given the fact that the textual transmission of both followed the same general rules, whatever the language in which it developed. Cf. however in this regard A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint?’, ZAW 99 (1987), 58–89, esp. 88–89. A. Aejmelaeus, who also alludes to this debate, defends Tov’s position. Aejmelaeus is of the opinion that the situation of Old Testament textual criticism cannot be compared with that of the New Testament because the preserved textual material is extremely limited and fragmentary. There are very few textual witnesses older than and independent of MT. According to Aejmelaeus, the establishment of such a scarcity of material makes it impossible to evaluate the textual witnesses in se, i.e. on the basis of external criteria. In concrete terms, this means that one cannot engage in the process of text-critical evaluation based on the authority of a particular textual witness such as MT. All one can do is evaluate individual variants, and only then on the basis of internal criteria. 46 Cf. E. Tov, ‘Criteria’, 438–444; Idem, The Text-Critical Use, 226–232; Idem, Textual Criticism, 302–310. 47 E. Tov, ‘Criteria’, 444; Idem, The Text-Critical Use, 231; Idem, Textual Criticism, 308. 44

terminology

17

a. the logic that underpins certain rules is sometimes open to question.48 b. the application of abstract rules does not make the procedure objective. The evaluation of variants remains the most subjective aspect of textcritical analysis. c. the textual rules can only be applied to a small portion of the readings that call for evaluation. d. textual rules have to be limited to internal information; there are no valid external rules. Tov’s critique of the classical criteria is not intended to suggest that we should abandon such procedures altogether. They can be of assistance but they do not serve to guarantee the accuracy of our text-critical judgement. The evaluation of textual variants remains a subjective matter, an art and a practice, governed by intuition as well as rules.49 One can conclude that according to Tov the internal criteria enjoy the highest degree of validity when one is engaged in the evaluation of variant readings. The guiding rule in this regard is the reading’s appropriateness in the context, understood in both the immediate and in the broader sense.50 J. Lust argues in this regard that it is better to appeal to formal rather than content based criteria in one’s evaluation of variants.51 In addition to the determination of disruption to established patterns and structural schemes and the study of the early or late character of the Hebrew language usage, among other things, Lust underlines the importance of the embeddedness of the variant in its context,52 which he maintains can also provide objective information for the evaluation of variants. J.E. Sanderson likewise dwells on the criteria for evaluating variant readings and points in this regard to the distinction between external and internal criteria.53 She agrees with Tov’s fundamental intuition that the use of such rules does not make subjective text-critical evaluation objective

48 Cf. also A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Übersetzung als Schlüssel zum Original’, 158: ‘Die alten Regeln “lectio difficilior potior” oder “lectio brevior potior” nimmt man in solchen Fällen gern zur Hilfe, ohne zu merken, daß Fehler oft sehr schwierige Lesarten zur Folge haben und daß Auslassungen gewöhnliche Fehler sind.’ 49 Cf. E. Tov, ‘Criteria’, 445; Idem, Textual Criticism, 309–310. 50 Cf. E. Tov, ‘Criteria’, 445–447; Idem, The Text-Critical Use, 231–232; Idem, Textual Criticism, 309–310. 51 See J. Lust, ‘David and Goliath’, 123–126; and Idem, ‘The Use’, 17–18, 19. 52 See J. Lust, ‘David and Goliath’, 123, 124–125. 53 Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 42–49.

18

chapter one: prolegomena

and similarly underlines the importance of the context of a reading as it is given expression in language, style and content. Sanderson admits that she has borne the said traditional criteria in mind in her own research although she has not applied them blindly.54 She prefers to understand them as general principles that have to be kept in balance with the specific characteristics of each individual variant reading. The present author concurs that the text-critical evaluation of textual variants ought to account for the classical internal criteria, especially appropriateness to the immediate and wider context,55 on the one hand, and with the individual characteristics and demands of every individual textual variant on the other. The process is a delicate one, calling for a balanced evaluation of a variety of possibilities. In spite of everything, however, it remains to a large extent subjective. Translation character In addition to the Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch and the textual witnesses stemming from Qumran, the present study will also focus attention on the Greek text of the Septuagint.56 The variants observed in

54 Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 45. See also Idem, ‘The Old Greek of Exodus in the Light of 4QpaleoExodm’, Textus 14 (1988), 87–104, esp. 91, n. 13. 55 For this reason, our own evaluation of the variants found among the textual witnesses to the ‘Plagues Narrative’ will pay particular attention to the context of the said readings. While our study will focus specifically on the immediate context found in Exod. 7–11, the wider context, i.e. the entire book of Exodus, will be included in the equation where necessary. 56 It should be noted at this juncture that prior to its use in the text-critical analysis of the Hebrew biblical text, the Greek text of LXX must itself be subjected to an internal text-critical study. As with the Hebrew biblical text, LXX is not represented by one single textual version but is available, rather, in a variety of different Greek textual forms that likewise require comparison and study. Given the fact that such a work amounts on its own to a separate and extensive study, we will base ourselves in the present text-critical study of the ‘Plagues Narrative’ on the LXX version of J.W. Wevers, who put together an eclectic text on the basis of a thorough study of the various Greek textual witnesses. Cf. J.W. Wevers (ed.), Exodus (Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum, II,1), Göttingen 1991. See also in this regard A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 60–62. Aejmelaeus argues that the textual criticism of the Septuagint, the study of Septuagint translation technique and the use of the Septuagint in the context of Old Testament text-critical study are three inextricably linked research elements that ought to be studied according to the given sequence. For the textual criticism of the Septuagint, Aejmelaeus also makes reference to the eclectic text editions of the ‘Göttingen Akademie’. Cf. Ibidem, 62: ‘A good solution to this dilemma is to take advantage of the work done by experts in this field and published in the critical edition of the Septuagint, issued by the Göttinger Academy of Sciences. The aim of a critical edition is to offer the nearest possible approach to the original text, presented by the editor after weighing all the manuscripts and other textual witnesses available to him.’ See likewise S. Olofsson, The LXX Version: A Guide to the Translation Technique of the Septuagint (CB OT, 30), Lund 1990, 79: ‘Among the published critical editions of the

terminology

19

the LXX when comparing the different textual forms, however, are not always rooted in a variant in the consonantal text of the Vorlage.57 When employing the Septuagint in the text-critical study of the Hebrew Old Testament one is obliged, therefore, to bear in mind its translation character.58 A variety of factors may serve to explain the origins of a ‘deviation’ in the Greek text. First, it should be remembered that the Greek translators simultaneously engaged in both linguistic and contextual exegesis of their Hebrew Vorlage.59 Second, a detailed study of the translation technique and translation character of the Greek Septuagint remains essential.60 As a matter of fact, the translation character in question varies from book to book,61 sometimes word for word and sometimes highly paraphrased. Some scholars make a distinction in this regard between ‘literal’ and ‘free’ translations while others speak of ‘formal’ and ‘nonformal’ translations. A ‘formal’ translation is one that strives to provide an extremely literal, almost mechanical rendering of its Hebrew Vorlage. A ‘non-formal’ translation treats its Hebrew original with enormous flexibility. Such passages often contain extensive additions (plusses), omissions (minuses) and substitutions. Bearing this in mind, the text-critical evaluation of variants must first establish whether a particular difference between LXX and the Hebrew texts was due to free translation technique or to a different Hebrew Vorlage. Our evaluation of the Greek textual variants with regard to the ‘Plagues Narrative’ will endeavour to account for the aforementioned factors.62

LXX it is a matter of course to employ the Göttingen Septuagint for scholarly work (. . .) The Göttingen Septuagint is to be preferred, since it is an eclectic version, with the ultimate goal of recovering the text as it left the hands of the translators, i.e. the Old Greek (. . .) This makes the Göttingen Septuagint by far the most useful edition of the LXX.’ Cf. also J.W. Wevers, ‘The Use of Versions for Text Criticism: The Septuagint’, in: N. Fernández Marcos (ed.), La Septuaginta, 15–24, pp. 19–20. 57 Cf. M. Vervenne, ‘Tekst en teksten’, 28. 58 Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 58–65, 66–71, 71–87; M. Vervenne, ‘Tekst en teksten’, 28–30; E. Tov, ‘De tekst van het Oude Testament’, 238–240; Idem, The Text-Critical Use, 17–29, 39–45; Idem, ‘The Septuagint’, in: M.J. Mulder, H. Sysling (eds), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, Assen/Maastricht/Philadelphia 1988, 161–188, pp. 168–174; J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 247–246. See also infra pp. 96–150. 59 Cf. M. Vervenne, ‘Tekst en teksten’, 28–29. 60 Cf. M. Vervenne, ‘Tekst en teksten’, 29–30. 61 Cf. infra pp. 103–104. 62 See infra in Chapter III.

20

chapter one: prolegomena

Indeed, it has become already apparent in our earlier studies that the differences between LXX and MT were often due to the grammatical and linguistic demands of the Hebrew or the Greek respectively.63 Thus, this fact will also be dealt with in our discussion of the variants. Categories of variants Variant readings in text-critical research can be evaluated in different ways and according to different categories.64 ‘Preferable readings’ Preferable readings or variants are those considered to be ‘better’ or ‘more original’ than other variants after thorough text-critical analysis.65 However, such ‘preferability’ can only be ascribed to a particular variant on the basis of considerable probability.66 Greenberg defines the best reading in a different fashion,67 arguing that it represents the reading that has the capacity to explain other readings. In his opinion, the search for such readings restricts the results of textcritical research. At the same time, however, it sets the question of the ‘original’ text to one side.68 In any case, these readings are ultimately granted priority over others on the basis of preferability, whatever terms are used to define it.

63 Cf. B. Lemmelijn, De plagen van Egypte I, 44–50; and Idem, De plagen van Egypte II, 235–242. 64 Cf. also P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 65. 65 Cf. E. Tov, Textual Criticism, 168, 310–311; J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 41, 48–49, 53–54. J. Cook insists in this regard that the labels ‘better’ or ‘superior’ should not be used in the qualitative sense. The expression ‘more original’ is more neutral than ‘better’. Cf. J. Cook, ‘Questions of Textual Criticism’, 521: ‘The definition “more original” is a more neutral term. It acts only as an indication that a reading is older and could be used in order to describe variants. The statement that the Septuagint is the earlier text, therefore does not mean that it is a better, or superior text or tradition. It simply means that it is historically older than for instance the Massoretic text and consequently its voice should also be listened to by the interpreter.’ 66 Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 41, 48–49, 53–54. See esp. 49: ‘Despite all the effort that has been taken to determine the “contextually most appropriate reading”, it is possible to state the preferable reading only as a matter of probability. Varying degrees of confidence will be expressed, ranging from “almost certainly” to “probably”.’ Sanderson adopts an expression employed by Tov (with footnote reference) with respect to the appropriateness of a reading in its context. Cf. E. Tov, ‘Criteria’, 446. 67 Cf. M. Greenberg, ‘The Use’, 148. 68 Cf. M. Greenberg, ‘The Use’, 148: ‘This is, to be sure, a relative gain only, and it leaves the “lost original” beyond the scope of text-critical inquiry, where it belongs.’

terminology

21

‘Synonymous variants’ Synonymous readings or variants emerge when no ‘preferable variant’ can be established. They represent different legitimate ways of expressing the same idea and enjoy an equal claim to originality where there is reference to an Urtext.69 For scholars who maintain that a variety of parallel texts were in circulation from the beginning,70 such ‘synonymous readings’ represent a trace of two (or more) of the said ‘original’ texts.71 The scholars in question are inclined to refer to virtually every variant as a ‘synonymous reading’, given the fact that they reject the notion of an Urtext and opt by way of preference for a variety of parallel texts.72 Some variants cannot be designated as ‘preferable’ because of their unusual Hebrew usage (and our defective knowledge thereof ) or because of the fact that both the longer and shorter textual versions are considered acceptable without being able to determine whether the variant in question has its roots in an ‘expansion’ or an ‘omission’.73 In the case of variant readings whereby it is possible to determine that the textual differences arose during the phase of the text’s literary growth,74 Tov maintains that we should also speak of ‘synonymous readings’.75 In his opinion, the label ‘preferable variant’ should not be employed in such instances.

69 Cf. E. Tov, Textual Criticism, 170, 241, 260–261; J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 41, 54, 109–110. 70 Cf. supra p. 2. 71 See J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 110. 72 Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 109–110; E. Tov, Textual Criticism, 170, 291. For Tov’s perspective see supra, n. 4. 73 Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 41. 74 Problems frequently arise in this regard, however, on account of the fact that it is often difficult to determine the stage in the development of the text from which the variant text reading stems. Tov himself draws attention to this difficulty. See E. Tov, Textual Criticism, 350. Sanderson likewise makes explicit reference to the problem. Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 48: ‘This brings up the issue again whether there can be a distinction made between “literary” and “transmissional”, or “creative” and “mechanical”, or “redactional” and “scribal”.’ See also Ibidem, 109: ‘Even if there was one Urtext which left the final editor’s table to meet its fate at the hands of successive scribes, there remains the difficulty of establishing the moment in time that distinguishes editorial work from scribal work. The book of Exodus is full, for example, of repetition in all four witnesses under scrutiny here. Which instances of repetitiousness are to be attributed to an original composer, whether in oral or written form, which are to be attributed to one of the several redactors through the centuries, and which to scribes and translators? How would repetition at a literary stage look different from repetition at a transmissional stage?’ 75 Cf. E. Tov, Textual Criticism, 348–350; Idem, The Text-Critical Use, 239–242. See also J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 48. Compare likewise J. Lust, ‘Epilogue’, 156; Idem, ‘David and Goliath’, 121; and Idem, ‘The Use’, 16–17, 19.

22

chapter one: prolegomena

‘Unique readings’ A ‘unique reading’ is a variant that renders the only witness to a particular reading from among the preserved textual forms.76 Such unique readings can be ‘preferable’, ‘synonymous’ or secondary.77 It should be noted at this juncture, however, that judgements meted out with respect to such ‘unique’ readings are extremely contingent. The textual material we have at our disposal is exceedingly fragmentary and pertains only to the textual witnesses that have survived the vicissitudes of history and nature. As a consequence, it is important to bear in mind that results of research into ‘unique readings’ remain relative and provisional.78 Development of a dedicated working model for text-critical research79 Anyone planning to engage in serious text-critical research into a particular biblical pericope must begin by determining his or her methodological strategy.80 How do I approach the text? Biblical scholars are at odds in this regard, as to whether the study of a text should begin with literary criticism or textual criticism.81 In the present author’s opinion, however, serious literary criticism cannot be done without a detailed prior study of the textual material available to us with reference to the passage in question. As a consequence, this immediately locates us within the domain of textual criticism, which is responsible for the collection and evaluation of the textual data. We thus prefer to begin our research with the material form of the text, the text as ‘physical product’, before moving on to the literary study thereof.82 76

Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 41–42. Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 156. 78 See J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 41–42. 79 This working model has been presented briefly in B. Lemmelijn, ‘What Are We Looking for in Doing Text-Critical Research?’, JNSL 23/2 (1997), 69–80. 80 Within the context of what we have said above concerning the theoretical framework surrounding textual criticism as a discipline and based on particular methodological and terminological options that have already been made, either directly or indirectly, with regard to the present text-critical study of the ‘Plagues Narrative’, the following pages endeavour to explain our working model for text-critical study. Possible repetitions should be understood against this background. 81 Cf., for example, D. Barthélemy et al., The Story. The present author is inclined to agree with the positions adopted by J. Lust and E. Tov in the said book. See D. Barthélemy et al., The Story, 5–46, 87–94, 121–137, 155. 82 See also B. Lemmelijn, ‘The So-Called “Major Expansions” in SamP, 4QPaleoExodm and 4QExodj in Exod 7:14–11:10’, 429–439. Cf. similarly M. Vervenne, ‘Tekst en teksten’, 38; Idem, ‘Current Tendencies’, 33. Cf. also E. Tov, ‘The Story of David and Goliath in 77

dedicated working model for text-critical research

23

As a matter of fact, the textual data ultimately represent the factual basis upon which research as such is based. The collation and registration of this data must serve, in our opinion, as the primary point of departure for any well-founded textual study. Literary criticism has to base itself on a ‘critical’ text that can only be determined after painstaking text-critical analysis. For this reason, the present author favours the close examination of the formal and factual characteristics of the text as an initial step in the methodological process. The evaluation of the said textual phenomena must ultimately be postponed at this juncture.83 This necessarily implies, however, that text-critical research should focus attention not only on the major plusses and/or minuses evident in the text,84 but should also examine the minor, often minute details, or at least take note of them.85 To this end, a synoptic survey of the textual versions under analysis would seem useful and appropriate.86 Whenever the textual forms employed in a text-critical study include one or other of the so-called Versiones, as will be the case in the present study of the ‘Plagues Narrative’ with respect to the Septuagint, a comprehensive study must also be made of the translation technique of the text

the MT and LXX’, in: D. Barthélemy et al., The Story, 129–137, pp. 132–134. Those who begin immediately with literary analyses, moreover, run the risk of appealing to the internal dynamics of the narrative and the generally accepted principles of logic whereby a particular narrative is branded as ‘illogical’ or ‘inconsistent’. The use of such arguments, however, has its limits. Our modern understanding of ‘logicality’ needs not square with that of the biblical authors and can often be extremely subjective. For this reason, it seems better to begin with the textual evidence of the narrative in question. Strange and apparently ‘illogical’ passages should first be accepted as they are without any endeavour to explain them on the basis of the context. In addition, no single solution can be offered that covers every problem. A text-critical decision must be made on the basis of pre-established priorities. It is thus advisable to begin with the solution to textual problems before one endeavours to explain potential literary problems. 83 Cf. also J. Lust, ‘David and Goliath’, 121–122. 84 It should be noted that the terms ‘minus’ and ‘plus’ are purely descriptive. They simply state that a verse or verse segment has been added or omitted without implying any evaluation thereof. Cf. also E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 127–133, esp. 130; and Idem, ‘Criteria’, 430, n. 4. 85 Cf. also E. Tov, ‘The Nature of the Differences between MT and the LXX in 1 Sam. 17–18 [1]’, in: D. Barthélemy et al., The Story, 22–23. 86 See, for example, the method of E. Tov, ‘The Nature of the Differences’, 24–33; and that of P.-M. Bogaert, ‘Les deux rédactions conservées (LXX et MT) d’Ezéchiel 7’, in: J. Lust (ed.), Ezekiel and his Book, 21–47, pp. 26–27, 35–36. A synoptic survey offers a number of advantages. In the first instance, it provides an excellent introduction to and exploration of the textual material. Second, it provides a convenient arrangement of the textual material, making it immediately accessible. Third, it allows for all the variants, however small, to be noted and registered.

24

chapter one: prolegomena

in question.87 This implies that an analysis is made of the contribution of the translator where variants present themselves. Not all of the variants in LXX, registered on the basis of a comparison of the textual forms, came into existence on the basis of a variant in the consonantal text of the Vorlage.88 As a matter of fact, variants in the textual forms might be the result of the conscious or unconscious activities of the translator. The study of translation technique, which is necessary in order to trace the various factors that lie at the origins of textual ‘deviations’, includes, among other things, research into the linguistically and contextually exegetical renderings the translator may have brought about, the study of word sequence, a detailed analysis of the quantitative representation of the various words in the differing versions and the consistency of translation equivalents.89 At the same time, a systematic survey also has to be made on the basis of typically Hebrew grammatical constructions in order to determine the extent to which the Greek translator exercised his freedom as a translator.90 In so doing, one remains grounded in a textual basis that offers objective facts and having studied the latter one can endeavour to make a judgement about the nature of the textual version in question as well as an evaluation of the individual variants. The point of departure is thus to be found at the textual level. Once conclusions have been drawn at this level, further evaluation can take place at the literary level.91 Having collected and registered the objective evidence and textual variants, thereby establishing the point of departure upon which our research will be based, we are now ready to make a careful transition to the discussion and evaluation of text-critical issues based on the material at hand, such as

87 See, for example, E. Tov, ‘The Nature of the Differences’, 23; Idem, ‘Response’, in: D. Barthélemy et al., The Story, 93; and Idem, ‘The Story’, 135. Cf. also the studies published by the scholars of the so-called ‘Finish School’, especially I. Soisalon-Soininen, A. Aejmelaeus and R. Sollamo. See also infra n. 90, chapter III’s n. 92, and, in particular, pp. 108–125. 88 Cf. supra pp. 18–19. 89 Cf., for example, E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 20–24; Idem, ‘The Nature of the Differences’, 33–39. 90 See, in particular, the collected contributions of A. Aejmelaeus in A. Aejmelaeus, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators. Collected Essays. Revised and Expanded Edition, Leuven/ Paris/Dudley MA, 2007; the most prominent contributions of I. Soisalon-Soininen, collected in A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen: Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax. Zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 4. Juni 1987 (AASF Series B, 237), Helsinki 1987; and the contributions of R. Sollamo, including R. Sollamo, Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions in the Septuagint (AASF Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum, 19), Helsinki 1979; and Idem, ‘The LXX Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute Used with a Paronymous Finite Verb in the Pentateuch’, in: N. Fernández Marcos (ed.), La Septuaginta, 101–113. 91 Cf. E. Tov, ‘Response’, 94.

dedicated working model for text-critical research

25

questions relating to textual corruption, expansion or abbreviation.92 The present author is of the opinion that the text-critical evaluation of variant readings ought to pay due attention to the classical internal criteria, with the emphasis firmly focused on the appropriateness of a reading in its immediate and broader context, and to the distinctive characteristics and demands of each individual textual variant.93 Other formal criteria, such as the study of established narrative patterns and of the early or late character of the Hebrew usage, can also facilitate the evaluation of textual variants.94 A balanced evaluation of the various possibilities remains, nevertheless, a complex and delicate task leading to tentative decisions that ultimately involve a high degree of subjectivity. The evaluation of the variants to be undertaken in the present study must take place in full awareness of the fact that consensus has not been reached with respect to the potential existence of an Urtext and that the latter, even if one can demonstrate its existence, is no longer accessible to us.95 All we can establish is that a variety of texts and textual forms were in circulation at a given moment in history. Whether the texts and textual forms in question had their roots in one single so-called Urtext or whether a variety of textual versions existed from the outset is another question. If one is inclined to support the idea that an Urtext once existed, one is obliged to accept, nevertheless, that it is no longer immediately recognisable. Indeed, even if one were to follow the hypothesis of E. Tov and argue that such an Urtext was the precise text in circulation at the point of transition from textual growth to textual transmission, one still has to face a number of unresolved issues. In the first instance, Tov himself already states that the period in which this text held sway must have been either very short or non-existent, given the probability that earlier versions were in circulation at the same time.96 It seems to the present author that one can no longer

92 Cf. J. Lust, ‘The Story of David and Goliath in Hebrew and in Greek’, in: D. Barthélemy et al., The Story, 5–18, pp. 6, 8–11. Cf. also B. Lemmelijn, ‘What Are We Looking for in Doing Text-Critical Research?’, 75–77. 93 Cf. supra pp. 15–18. 94 See J. Lust, ‘The Use’, 17–18, 19; and Idem, ‘David and Goliath’, 123–126. 95 Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 42. See also supra pp. 1–2 and the evolution in Tov’s perspective described in n. 4. 96 See E. Tov, ‘Textual Criticism (Old Testament)’, 406: ‘The finalized literary product which incorporated the last recognizable literary editing of the book should be considered the “Ur-text” (archetypal copy) of the biblical books, elements of which textual criticism attempts to reconstruct. This formulation, which necessarily remains conjectural, thus agrees with the views of de Lagarde though not in all details. The period of textual unity reflected in the copies which we named the “Ur-text” was short, and possibly never existed, since at the same time there also circulated additional copies of the biblical books incorporating

26

chapter one: prolegomena

speak of a single text in this instance. At the same time, the strict division between the phase of textual growth and that of textual transmission in this hypothesis remains problematic (see supra). To seek exclusive support in the so-called ‘logical principle’ that it is more acceptable that variety emerged from unicity than vice versa seems to me to be an inadequate procedure. Should one be inclined to uphold the alternative possibility, however, and insist that several different texts and textual forms existed from the outset, having emerged, for example, within the different religious communities, then one is confronted with an entirely different set of problems. The presupposed variety of texts, which nonetheless exhibit significant point of agreement, must have had their roots somewhere! It is difficult to imagine that several different texts simply emerged out of nothing without having enjoyed any form of common contact, even if one limits such contact to a common (possibly oral) tradition. For this reason, it seems desirable to consider the entire question as a phase concerning which we can say little if anything without venturing into the extremely hypothetical and engaging in pure guesswork. We prefer to take our point of departure in the observation that various texts were in circulation at a given moment in history (scholars tend to refer to the fourth and third centuries BCE) without endeavouring to hypotheses concerning their origin or prior textual history. We opt to describe this period as a sort of ‘prehistory’ about which we currently know precious little. As a consequence, I prefer to avoid reference to one or more Urtexts. When determining ‘preferable variants’, however, and specifically within the context of a methodical text-critical study of the textual witnesses, I consider it reasonable, nevertheless, to argue that one variant might be ‘more original’ than another, without making claims thereby with respect to the text involved or the precise stage it has achieved in the process of literary growth.97 The claim that one or other variant reflects the text at the precise moment of transition from textual growth to textual transmission

remnant of previous literary stages.’ Cf. also Idem, ‘Criteria’, 431, n. 6. Compare S. Talmon, ‘The Old Testament Text’, 198. 97 Text-critical evaluation understood in this way endeavours to explain the relationships between the textual forms available to us without thereby postulating or reconstructing an Urtext, not even in the case of individual variants (cf. Tov). See also J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 43. ‘My attempts along this same line (the determination of “preferable” readings with respect to individual variants, BL) should not be interpreted primarily as an argument for or against in the theoretical debate about the existence of an Urtext. I would need a much broader base of evidence before I would personally be in a position to make such a general decision. I am seeking to determine only whether in individual variants a preferable reading can be established.’

presentation of the textual material

27

seems too hypothetical, especially when one accounts for the fact that the development of each individual biblical book took place in such a variety of ways that it is impossible to establish a clear image thereof. If one insists on the evaluation of variants within such a relative framework, then both the question of the so-called Urtext and that of the complex relationship between textual criticism and literary criticism (against the background of the disputed distinction between the phase of textual growth and the phase of textual transmission) can be set to one side. As we noted above, the maintenance of general propositions in this regard leads one into an exaggeratedly hypothetical domain that we prefer to consider as a sort of ‘prehistory’. Presentation of the textual material The textual material employed in the present text-critical study of the Plagues Narrative in Exod. 7:14–11:10 will be based on the following text editions: For the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint the CATSS Data Base (R. Kraft en E. Tov) (Computer Assisted Tools for Septuagint Studies) was kindly placed at our disposal.98 For the Greek textual version, however, we finally opted for the eclectic Göttingen edition of LXX edited by J.W. Wevers.99 For the Samaritan Pentateuch we made use of the (provisional) edition edited by A. Tal, which is based on Ms 6(C) from the Samaritan synagogue at Shekhem.100

98 The CATSS Data Base was acquired under the auspices of the Leuven LXX-Lexicon Project (currently LEH) under the leadership of my predecessor, Prof. Em. Dr. J. Lust. I am grateful to J. Lust and his colleagues for providing ample access to this material. 99 Cf. J.W. Wevers (ed.), Exodus. Cf. supra n. 56. 100 Cf. A. Tal, The Samaritan Pentateuch: Edited According to Ms 6(C) of the Shekhem Synagogue (TSHLRS, 8), Tel-Aviv 1994. Although we have opted for an eclectic text of LXX (cf. supra n. 56), we have opted for Tal’s diplomatic text edition of the Samaritan Pentateuch in preference to the eclectic text of Von Gall (Cf. A. von Gall (ed.), Der Hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner, vol. 2: Exodus, Giessen, 1914). Von Gall’s textual reconstruction is dated and has been subject, in addition, to considerable critique on account of the methodology employed. Cf., for example, J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 38: ‘The standard critical edition of SamP, or the Samaritan Pentateuch, is still that published by von Gall in 1918. It is an eclectic text and has been much criticized for its methodology. Von Gall clearly enunciated his own principles for selection among variants in the MSS: he generally preferred defective orthography, he followed exactly the grammatical rules of (Tiberian?) Hebrew, he gave preference to the older grammatical forms, and he compared SamP constantly with G and M. Since full orthography and updating of grammatical features are precisely two of the major characteristics of SamP and can be expected to have given rise to grammatical phenomena other than those known to us from the Massoretes, such a procedure was clearly

28

chapter one: prolegomena

A variety of textual fragments preserved in several different manuscripts from Qumran relating to the ‘Plagues Narrative’ have been employed: 4QpaleoExodm, a scroll providing one of the best preserved Exodus texts from Qumran and exhibiting a number of unusual ‘plusses’ in the ‘Plagues Cycle’.101 For this text, we made use of the DJD edition of the Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek biblical manuscripts from Cave 4 of Qumran.102 The same DJD edition also provided the manuscript 4QpaleoGen-Exodl, which has preserved five passages from Exod. 7–11103 and 2QExoda with two preserved fragments of the ‘Plagues Narrative’.104 The DJD series also provided manuscript editions of 4QGen-Exoda (three fragments), 4QExodc (thirty fragments) and 4QExodj (two identified fragments).105 Where it was considered necessary we also examined the photographs of the said manuscripts on microfiche.106

misleading.’ The same critique can be found in P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 64; and F.M. Cross jr., ‘Problems of Method’, 35. A. Tal, by contrast, has opted for a diplomatic edition of Ms 6(C) from the Samaritan synagogue at Shekhem, one of the most important still extant manuscripts. This option is not based on the advanced age of the manuscript (1204 CE) nor a claim to superiority with respect to Ms 6(C) when compared with other manuscripts, but simply because it is the most complete manuscript among those copied prior to the 14th century. Tal also insists that his publication is not intended as an alternative to a critical edition, which continues to be necessary. According to Tal, the latter is being prepared by Prof. A.D. Crown of Sydney University (cf. A. Tal, The Samaritan Pentateuch, VII). He is of the opinion, nevertheless, that the reproduction of a reliable text can serve scholarly needs in the meantime as a substitute for the eclectic edition of von Gall. Tal likewise maintains that the older edition of von Gall no longer satisfies the demands of modern philology. See Ibidem, VI: ‘This publication is by no means intended as an alternative to a critical edition, which is still a desideratum. Unfortunately, the extant edition, produced by August von Gall many years ago (Der hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner, Giessen, 1914–18) does not fulfil the requirements of modern philology. Not only is the text he created an eclectic composition, but von Gall even altered the character of Samaritan Hebrew by giving priority to what he called “the rules of Hebrew Grammar”, recte Masoretic Hebrew. Consequently, the only “authoritative” and universally recognized edition of the Samaritan Pentateuch defaces its individuality.’ 101 The ‘plusses’ in question exhibit numerous similarities with the Samaritan Pentateuch. Cf. infra Chapters Two and Three. 102 Cf. P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 53–71, 72–85 and plates VII–XI. 103 Cf. P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 17–26, 28–33 and plate II. 104 See M. Baillet, J.T. Milik, R. De Vaux, Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumrân : Exploration de la falaise. Les grottes 2Q, 3Q, 5Q, 6Q, 7Q à 10Q. Le rouleau de cuivre, vol. 1: Textes (DJD, 3/1), Oxford 1962, 50–51; and Idem, Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumran: Exploration de la falaise. Les grottes 2Q, 3Q, 5Q, 6Q, 7Q à 10Q. Le rouleau de cuivre, vol. 2: Planches (DJD, 3/2), Oxford 1962, plate X. 105 Cf. E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., Qumran Cave 4, vol. 7: Genesis to Numbers (DJD, 12), Oxford 1994, 7–10, 28, 97–113, 149–150 and plates IV, XVI, XVII. 106 See E. Tov, S. Pfann (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche: A Comprehensive Facsimile Edition of the Texts from the Judean Desert, Leiden/New York/Cologne 1993; and Idem (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche: A Comprehensive Facsimile Edition of the Texts from the Judean Desert. Companion Volume, Leiden/New York/Cologne 1993.

CHAPTER TWO

THE TEXTUAL MATERIAL OF THE ‘PLAGUES NARRATIVE’ Reflecting the methodological framework and working model described in the previous pages, the present chapter offers—prior to any textcritical evaluation—a detailed registration and description of the textual variants found in the extant material of the ‘Plagues Narrative’ in Exod. 7:14–11:10. Thereby, it bases itself on an exhaustive synoptic survey of the textual material. However, even though the synoptic collection (and comparison) of the textual material constitutes de facto the very first phase of the text-critical study, it is, due to practical, typographical and editorial reasons, presented in appendix at the end of this volume. When intending to fully understand the registration and description of the text-critical variants in Exod. 7:14–11:10, presented below, it should nevertheless be consulted simultaneously. Synopsis of the textual witnesses to the ‘Plagues Narrative’ The synoptic survey presented in appendix is subdivided as follows: the first column contains the Hebrew Masoretic Text; the second column the eclectic Greek LXX text of J.W. Wevers (Göttingen Edition);1 the third one the text of the Samaritan Pentateuch based on the diplomatic text edition of A. Tal;2 the fourth column offers 4QpaleoExodm based on DJD 9;3 the fifth column presents 4QpaleoGen-Exodl, likewise based on DJD 9;4 the sixth column 2QExoda following the text edition of DJD 3;5 the seventh column the text of 4QExodc based on DJD 12; the eigth column

1

Cf. J.W. Wevers (ed.), Exodus. Cf. A. Tal, The Samaritan Pentateuch. 3 Cf. P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 53–71, 72–85 and plates VII–XI. 4 Cf. P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 17–26, 28–33 and plate II. 5 Cf. M. Baillet, J.T. Milik, R. De Vaux, DJD 3/1, 50–51; DJD 3/2, plate X. 2

30

chapter two: the textual material

contains 4QGen-Exoda and finally, the ninth column presents 4QExodj, both likewise based on DJD 12.6 A number of remarks should be made on the rendition of problematic textual fragments from Qumran in this synoptic survey. 1. Exod. 7:29b–8:1b 4QExodj: cf. E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 149–150. The two identified fragments from 4QExodj can be interpreted in two different ways. They represent either Exod. 7:28–8:2 if the manuscript agrees with MT, or Exod. 7:29b–8:1b if the manuscript agrees with SamP. According to DJD 12, the latter of the two possibilities is most probable, see p. 149: ‘Frgs. 1–2 have been presented in two ways, reconstructed according to SamP and to MT, respectively, though differences involve only line 5, since the text of MT in 7:29 is virtually identical to that of SamP in 7:29b, and 8:1 is also identical with 8:1a in SamP. There is no direct evidence to show whether this manuscript contained the major expansions of the 4QpaleoExodm-SamP tradition or lacked them with MT-LXX. While both reconstructions are possible, the placement of the text favours the expansion. The interval at the end of line 4 is not surprising in SamP, since SamP often has an interval before and/or after interpolations. The presence of any interval between vv. 1 and 2 in the unexpanded text of MT would be less expected, however, and the fact that an additional interval at the beginning of line 5 is required (unless a longer reading is to be posited) is even more unusual.’ I have followed this option in the synoptic presentation of the text and located the text fragment adjacent to the expansion in SamP and 4QpaleoExodm. Within these verses we are confronted with an additional problem, namely the location of the existing letters ]· ‫ ו[בכל‬in the manuscript. See in this regard DJD 12, p. 150: ‘The final ink traces could either be taw, or be yod/waw followed by a space and a possible bet (‫)?בכלי בתיך‬. If taw, the only possible word in M or SamP is ‫ו[בכל ת]נוריך‬, in which case the spacing would suggest that the order of the items in the list differed from that in SamPM.’ The synopsis presents both possibilities. It is to be noted that the divine name ‫( יהוה‬Exod. 8:1a) is underlined in the synopsis on account of the fact that it is rendered in Palaeo-Hebrew

6 For the last three manuscripts referred to in the text, see E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 7–10, 28, 97–113, 149–150 and plates IV, XVI, XVII.

synopsis of the textual witnesses

31

script at this juncture in 4QExodj. See DJD 12, p. 150: ‘The tetragrammaton was written in the Palaeo-Hebrew script with letters somewhat larger than those in the Jewish script.’ 2. Exod. 8:8 4QExodc: cf. E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 104, 106. In Exod. 8:8 4QExodc we encounter a supralinear correction inserting the word ‫ פרעה‬where it would seem to have been omitted from the main text. According to DJD 12, this addition was the work of a later scribe.7 3. Exod. 8:21 4QpaleoGen-Exodl: Cf. P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 29. The letters ]‫ [·י‬are located in DJD 9 in verse 21, although without specification of their precise situation. For this reason I have rendered both possibilities in relation to v. 21.8 In our opinion, however, the ‫ י‬in the first word (‫ )ויאמר‬of verse 22 ought not to be excluded. A count of the letters in the transition from the last word of line 1 (‫ )וב]ין‬to the first word of line 2 (‫ )[ערב‬comes to a total of 31. If one then adds an additional nine letters in line 3 (after ]‫)מפני‬, one arrives at the level of the end of line 1 (‫ )וב]ין‬so that one can count 31 letters anew from this point to the extant beginning of line 4 at the level of the beginning of line 2 (‫)ערב‬. The thirty-first letter would then be the second ‫ ל‬in ‫לאלהיכם‬. If one then adds roughly ten letters from this point one arrives at ]‫[·י‬. This ]‫ [·י‬is then the ‫ י‬in ‫ ויאמר‬at the beginning of verse 22. 4. Exod. 9:34 4QExodc: cf. E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 107, 109. Although the word ‫ המטר‬in Exod. 9:34 4QExodc has not been preserved, DJD 12 is of the opinion that 4QExodc exhibits the same sequence as MT in this context, namely ‫ המטר והברד והקל)ו(ת‬and not ‫הברד והמטר‬ ‫ והקולות‬as in SamP. DJD 9 expresses the same opinion with respect to Exod. 9:34 4QpaleoGen-Exodl, in spite of the fact that the word ‫ המטר‬is likewise not 7 See E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, p. 106: ‘‫פרעה‬: Since the scribe omitted this word, it was added supralinearly. The depth of the pe and the difference in ink suggest that this insertion was made by a later hand. The pe does, however, somewhat resemble that in ‫ הפסת‬v. 13.’ 8 The first ‫ י‬in the first word of v. 21 (namely ‫ )ויקרא‬is excluded because it is considered much too close to ‫מפני‬. According to DJD 9, moreover, verse 21 begins on the same line, while the letters ]‫ [·י‬are located on the following line.

32

chapter two: the textual material

preserved in the location in question. Cf. P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich & J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 30: ‘Letter count favours the order ‫ המטר והברד‬with MT rather than ‫ הברד והמטר‬with SamP.’ 5. Exod. 10:1–2 4QExodc: cf. E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 110–111. A supralinear correction is evident in 4QExodc in relation to Exod. 10:1–2, replacing what appears to have been lost by parablepsis. DJD 12 states in this regard: ‘The scribe omitted text which was later written in supralinearly, perhaps by a second hand; it cannot be determined whether or not the ink is different. Though only two words are preserved, spacing and the likelihood of parablepsis (‫ אתתי‬v. 1–v. 2) suggest that the scribe omitted ‫אלה בקרבו ולמען תספר באזני בנך ובן‬ ‫בנך את אשׁר התעללתי במצרים ואת אתתי‬. The correction may have begun above the left of line 1, where the omission occurred, and then continued above line 2 from the right margin, in which case all of the omitted text would have fit.’ 6. Exod. 10:4 4QpaleoExodm: cf. P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 81. According to DJD 9, the ‫ה‬- reflects a variant in 4QpaleoExodm: ‘The ‫ה‬- requires a variant since neither ‫ אתה‬or ‫ ארבה‬fits the letter count; M would give either ‫ עמי‬or ‫ הנני‬in this position. Perhaps read ‫הנה‬, with ‫ אנכי‬to follow on line 33; cf. 7:17, 27; 8:25; etc., and Jer 6:19.’ 7. Exod. 10:9 4QExodc: cf. E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 110, 112. As was the case with respect to Exod. 8:8 and Exod. 10:1–2, 4QExodc exhibits a supralinear correction in relation to Exod. 10:9, which supplies the words omitted on account of parablepsis, in casu homoioarchton. DJD 12 states this as follows: ‘Both letter count and the probabilities of parablepsis indicate that the scribe omitted three words by homoioarchton (‫)בבנינו—בנערינו‬, which had to be supplied supralinearly. Though it is difficult to decide on the basis of the script, to judge by the difference in ink, this addition was probably made by a later hand.’ 8. Remark concerning 4QExodc: cf. E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 102, 105, 108, 109. Besides the three aforementioned cases of supralinear correction, which insert words that had formerly been omitted, DJD 12 suggests that we account for three additional cases of parablepsis in 4QExodc in relation to the

registration and description of the text variants

33

‘Plagues Narrative’, although no correction or insertion as been preserved in this regard. The verses in question are 7:18;9 9:110 and 9:22–23.11 Registration and description of the textual variants found in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ 10 11 On the basis of the synoptical collection of the extant textual material of Exod. 7:14–11:10, the present paragraph aims at offering a list and a description of the textual differences evident when comparing the various textual forms of the ‘Plagues Narrative’. For each variant, we begin with a biblical reference followed by a typification of the relationship between the textual witnesses as far as the respective variant is concerned. Thereafter, we make note of the variant

Cf. E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 105: ‘L. 12–13 (7:17–19) ‫ונ[הפכו לד]ם‬. The two horizontal bottom strokes in line 12 belong to pe-kap, with the vertical stroke of waw touching kap. These words at the end of v. 17 are the only two words in the vicinity of ‫( ]ע[ל מימי מצרעם על‬in line 13, from v. 19) which fit the remaining ink traces, but reconstruction according to M-SamP would call for 119 letters to the line, whereas frgs. 2–3, just one verse later, have lines of 73–77 letters. It appears that the text has suffered from parablepsis within v. 18 (‫היור‬-‫[ ביור‬for this spelling of ‫ היאר‬see lines 16 and 17]), causing all but the first three words of v. 18 to have been lost. This would account for the loss of 44 letters, bringing the line total to 75. A numerically less satisfying proposal would also be within v. 18 (‫היור‬-‫)היור‬, which would account for the loss of only 30 letters, for a line total of 89 letters. The first reconstruction would allow the space of about 5–8 letters for an interval at the end of line 12 after ‫ביור‬, with v. 19 beginning at the right margin of line 13 (minor interval after 7:18 and major interval after 7:18b 4QpaleoExodm, ‫ ס‬between 7:18 and 19 M, ‫ קצה‬after 7:18 and 7:18b SamP). This reconstruction would make it very unlikely that the MS had space for either occurrence of ‫ את‬found in v. 19 in SamP. While this particular fragment could come either from 7:17–19, according to M, or from 7:18b–19, according to the 4QpaleoExodm-SamP tradition, with the same instance of parablepsis, it has been reconstructed as 7:17–19 because of the evidence of frg. 4 (see note above).’ 10 Cf. E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 108: ‘L. 25–26 (9,16) According to the text of M-SamP, line 25 would be about 15 letters too long. Parablepsis (‫ בעבור‬1°–2°) would account for the loss of 17 letters. ‫ בעבור‬1° was at the end of line 25, and the scribe made the error during the transition to the beginning of line 26 where, having skipped to ‫ בעבור‬2°, he began with the extant ‫]הרא[תך‬.’ 11 Cf. E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 109: ‘L. 31–32 (9:22–23) Frg. 16 also presents a problem regarding textual arrangement. The text of M-SamP calls for 80 letters both between lines 32 and 33 and between lines 33 and 34, but 124 letters between lines 31 and 32. Despite the appearance of the photograph, inspection of the leather makes it certain that this is one unbroken piece of leather. To achieve uniformity in length of line, two candidates for parablepsis present themselves. The more obvious of these is ‫בכל ארץ‬ ‫( בארץ מצרים—מצרים‬v. 22), which consists of 46 skipped letters, yielding 78 letters between lines 31 and 32. Alternatively, the omission may have been (22) ‫(—הבהמה ועל‬23) ‫מטהו על‬, yielding 82 letters. The likelihood of the second may be somewhat increased by the fact that ‫ על‬probably occurred at the beginning of line 32, and moving from the end of one line to the beginning of another sometimes occasions parablepsis.’ 9

34

chapter two: the textual material

itself whereby, with respect to the so-called smaller textual differences, the nature of the said variant is described in brief.12 In the event that a given variant represents a plus with respect to one or more of the other textual versions, a plus sign is placed next to the sigla designating the text in which the variant in question is found.13 In the following survey, the Hebrew, Masoretic text is designated with the letter M, the Greek Septuagint with the letter G, and the Samaritan Pentateuch with the siglum SamP. 4QpaleoExodm is referred to as 4Qm, 4QpaleoGen-Exodl as 4Ql, 2QExoda as 2Qa, 4QExodc as 4Qc, 4QGenExoda as 4Qa, and 4QExodj as 4Qj. The Hebrew text is presented in its unvocalised form and the Greek text without accents.14 Exod. 7:14 MG ≠ SamP4Qm Exod. 7:14 G ≠ MSamP Exod. 7:15 4Qm ≠ MGSamP Exod. 7:15 M ≠ GSamP4Qm

Exod. 7:15 MSamP4Qa ≠ G Exod. 7:17 MSamP4Qc4Qa ≠ G Exod. 7:18 MGSamP ≠ 4Qm

‫ויאמר‬, εἰπεν δε—‫וידבר‬: different Hebrew verb form15 του μη is placed as the equivalent of ‫מאן‬ with the infinitive construct ‫ לשׁלח‬16 ‫ = ו‬4Qm+: conjunction αὐτος / ‫ = הוא‬GSamP4Qm+: personal pronoun. Wevers observes that the expression αὐτος with a verb form in the present indicative (c.q. ἐκπορευεται) only occurs here in Exodus. Given the fact that SamP also locates the personal pronoun ‫ הוא‬prior to the participle, Wevers presupposes that this Greek expression has a textual basis in the Vorlage.17 Wevers does not refer to 4Qm, which supports the reading of SamP. ‫—נהפך‬στραφεισαν: different translation (cf. 7:17, 20; 10:19)18 ‫—ונהפכו‬και μεταβαλει: different translation19 ‫ב‬, ἐν—‫בתוך‬: different preposition

12 The more ‘text-relevant’ variants are described and evaluated in greater detail in the following chapter, §2 and 3 (pp. 121–164) 13 For definitions of plus and minus cf. Chapter One, n. 84. 14 Only the spiritus asper and lenis are employed. 15 Cf. infra in relation to the study of translational technique, p. 110. 16 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus (SBL SCS, 30), Atlanta 1990, 99. 17 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 99. 18 See the discussion of translation technique infra p. 137. 19 Cf. n. 18. See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, L’Exode (La Bible d’Alexandrie, 2), Paris 1989, 120: ‘Μεταβαλλειν, «se changer», traduit le même verbe que στρεφεσθαι en 7,15. La variation, en grec, souligne la distinction entre les divers prodiges, et μεταβαλλειν, en outre, convient mieux à la modification d’un élément liquide.’ N.B. Our quotations from A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie render their Greek transcriptions in Greek characters.

registration and description of the text variants

35

Exod. 7:18b MG4Qc4Qa ≠ SamP4Qm 7:18b = SamP4Qm+: larger plus20 Exod. 7:18b SamP ≠ 4Qm ‫ויאמר—ויאמרו‬: different number in the verb form Exod. 7:18b SamP ≠ 4Qm ‫בתוך—ב‬: different preposition Exod. 7:19 MSamP ≠ G ‫ = אל‬MSamP+: preposition Exod. 7:19 MSamP ≠ G τῳ ἀδελφῳ σου = G+ Exod. 7:19 M ≠ GSamP4Qa την—‫ = את‬GSamP4Qa+: nota accusativi, G defined (in relation to ‫—מטך‬ῥαβδον) την—‫ = את‬GSamP4Qa+: nota accusativi, Exod. 7:19 M ≠ GSamP4Qa G defined (in relation to ‫—ידך‬χειρα) Exod. 7:19 MSamP ≠ G ‫ ך‬in ‫ = ידך‬MSamP+: possessive suffix Exod. 7:19 MSamP4Qc ≠ G και = G+: conjunction Exod. 7:19 M ≠ GSamP4Qa και, ‫ = ו‬GSamP4Qa+: conjunction Exod. 7:19 MSamP ≠ G ‫—היה‬εἰναι and γιγνεσθαι : different translation21 Exod. 7:19 M ≠ GSamP ‫—והיה‬και ἐγενετο, ‫ויהי‬: different verb form22 Exod. 7:19 MG ≠ SamP ‫ = ה‬SamP+: definite article Exod. 7:20 MSamP ≠ G αὐτοις = G+: personal pronoun Exod. 7:20 MSamP ≠ G αἀρων = G+ Exod. 7:20 M ≠ GSamP αὐτου, ‫( ו‬in ‫ = )במטהו‬GSamP+: possessive pronoun, possessive suffix23 Exod. 7:20 MSamP ≠ G ‫ = ו‬MSamP+: conjunction Exod. 7:20 MSamP ≠ G ‫—לעיני‬ἐναντιον: different formulation for the same semantic datum24 Exod. 7:20 MSamP ≠ G ‫—לעיני‬και ἐναντιον: different formulation for the same semantic datum25 Exod. 7:20 MSamP ≠ G ‫—ויהפכו‬και μετεβαλεν: different translation26 Exod. 7:21 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫—הדגה‬οἱ ἰχθυες: difference in number, singular—plural Exod. 7:21 MSamP ≠ G ‫—מתה‬ἐτελευτησαν: difference in number, singular—plural Exod. 7:21 MGSamP ≠ 4Qc ‫ה‬, το = MGSamP+: definite article Exod. 7:22 MSamP ≠ G και = G+: conjunction. Compare with Exod. 7:11: ‫גם‬. 20 The so-called major expansions or larger pluses of the SamP-4Qm tradition are discussed separately in the following chapter as part of the evaluation of the textual variants. Cf. infra pp. 197–207. 21 Cf. infra on translation technique, p. 137. 22 Cf. also supra n. 21. 23 See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 120–121: ‘«Aaron» n’est pas nommé comme sujet de l’action elle-même, mais la présence du génitif αὐτου montre qu’il s’agit de «son» bâton et qu’il l’a en main, ce qui est moins sûr en hébreu, où le sujet peut être Aaron, Moïse ou même YHWH.’ 24 Cf. the study of translation technique, infra p. 141. 25 Cf. supra n. 24. 26 Cf. n. 18.

36

chapter two: the textual material

Exod. 7:22 MSamP4Qc ≠ G Exod. 7:23 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 7:23 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 7:24 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 7:24 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 7:24 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 7:26 MG ≠ SamP Exod. 7:27 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 7:28 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 7:28 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 7:28 M ≠ GSamP Exod. 7:28 M ≠ GSamP

27

‫—דבר‬εἰπεν: different translation (cf. supra, also ‫)אמר‬27 ‫ = ו‬MSamP+: conjunction ‫—לב‬νουν: different translation (elsewhere also καρδια or διανοια)28 ‫—מים‬ὑδωρ: different location ‫—כי‬και: different meanings29 ‫—ממימי היאר‬ὑδωρ ἀπο του ποταμου: different location of the preposition ‫ מ‬and ἀπο.30 Moreover, difference in number. The Hebrew ‫ מימי‬is a plural form while the Greek ὑδωρ is singular. ‫ואמרת‬, και ἐρεις — ‫ודברת‬: different translation (cf. supra)31 ‫—גבול‬τα ὁρια: difference in number, singular—plural32 ‫—ושׁרץ‬και ἐξερευξεται: difference in meaning. The Hebrew verb form means ‘to crawl’, ‘to teem’ while the Greek equivalent points more in the direction of ‘to spit out’, ‘to vomit’.33 ‫ = ו‬MSamP+: conjunction ‫—בביתך‬εἰς τους οἰκους σου, ‫בבתיך‬: difference in number, singular—plural34 ‫—ובחדר‬και εἰς τα ταμιεια, ‫ובחדרי‬: difference in number, singular—plural

Cf. n. 15. See the study of translation technique, infra p. 137. Cf. also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 121: ‘Pour la seule fois dans l’Exode, νους, «esprit, intelligence», correspond au mot hébreu désignant le «coeur» et rendu le plus souvent soit par καρδια, soit par διανοια («pensée, réflexion»). Le traducteur a distingué une opération intellectuelle, conformément à l’usage grec, de l’endurcissement du «coeur» exprimé dans le contexte, avec καρδια.’ 29 See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 121: ‘La logique de la LXX, avec l’emploi de «et» entre les deux propositions, paraît légèrement différente de celle du TM (dépourvu de waw), qui fait de la seconde l’explication de la première. D’après la LXX, l’eau s’infiltre et c’est encore elle, dénaturée, que les Égyptiens trouvent en creusant autour du fleuve.’ 30 Cf. also Z. Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta, Leipzig 1841, 170. 31 Cf. n. 15. 32 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 106–107. With the exception of three instances in Deut. 3,16–17 in which reference is made to a specific boundary, the occurrences of τα ὁρια in the Pentateuch are always plural, in spite of the fact that ‫ גבול‬is always singular. 33 Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 122: ‘LXX: «vomira (ἐξερευξεται)»—ΤΜ: «pullulera». Il y a transposition d’image.’ 34 According to Wevers, the Greek plural forms in Exod. 7:28 correctly render the collective singular forms in M. Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 107. 28

registration and description of the text variants

37

‫—משׁכבך‬των κοιτωνων σου, ‫משׁכביך‬: difference in number, singular—plural35 Exod. 7:28 M4Qc ≠ GSamP ‫—מט)ו(תך‬των κλινων σου, ‫מטתיך‬: difference in number, singular—plural Exod. 7:28 M4Qc ≠ GSamP ‫—ובבית‬και εἰς τους οἰκους, ‫ובבתי‬: difference in number, singular—plural Exod. 7:28 MSamP ≠ G ‫ = ב‬MSamP+: preposition. Difference in meaning. Due to the lack of an equivalent for the preposition ‫ ב‬and the genitive του λαου σου, which is determined by τους οἰκους, G narrates that the frogs entered the houses of the people, while MSamP states that the frogs descended on the people themselves by attaching the ‫ ב‬to ‫עמך‬. Exod. 7:28 MSamP ≠ G ‫( ובתנוריך‬oven)—και ἐν τοις φυραμασιν σου (dough): difference in meaning36 Exod. 7:28 MSamP ≠ G ‫( ובמשׁארותיך‬kneading trough)—και ἐν τοις κλιβανοις σου (oven): difference in meaning Exod. 7:29 MSamP ≠ G ‫—עם‬λαον: different location Exod. 7:29 MSamP ≠ G ‫ = כל‬MSamP+: adjective Exod. 7:29b MG4Qc ≠ SamP4Qm4Qj 7:29b = SamP4Qm4Qj+: larger plus Exod. 7:29b SamP ≠ 4Qj ‫ = כל‬4Qj+: adjective37 m j or SamP4Q ≠ 4Q Exod. 8:1 MSamP4Qc4Qj ≠ G ‫ = אל‬MSamP4Qc4Qj+: preposition Exod. 8:1 MSamP4Qj ≠ G τῳ ἀδελφῳ σου = G+ Exod. 8:1 MSamP4Qj ≠ G ‫ ך‬in ‫ = ידך‬MSamP4Qj+: possessive suffix m j Exod. 8:1 MSamP4Q 4Q ≠ G ‫—את ידך במטך‬τῃ χειρι την ῥαβδον σου: different sequence of object (c.q. Greek accusative; Hebrew ‫ )את‬and instrumental (c.q. Greek dative; Hebrew ‫)ב‬ Exod. 7:28 M4Qc ≠ GSamP

35 According to DJD 12, the readings found in 4Qc with respect to Exod. 7:28 agree with M but not with SamP. Cf. E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 105. 36 Wevers is of the opinion that φυραμα (dough) stands here for the recipient of the dough or the kneading trough. Κλιβανος thus refers to the oven. Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 107. If this is correct, then MSamP and G have a different sequence of words. MSamP speaks first about ovens and then about baking troughs, while the Greek mentions the baking troughs first (called to mind by the term φυραμα) and then the ovens (κλιβανος). See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 122: ‘Les deux derniers termes du verset sont inversés dans la LXX, selon un ordre qui suit mieux les étapes de fabrication du pain; mais φυραμα ne peut signifier «pétrin», d’où la traduction proposée: «la pâte de (tes) pains».’ 37 The location of the variant and the relationship between the textual witnesses vary according to where one places the preserved letters ]· ‫ו[בכל‬. Cf. Remark 1 in relation to problematic text fragments from Qumran, supra pp. 30–31.

38

chapter two: the textual material

Exod. 8:1 M ≠ GSamP4Qj Exod. 8:1 MSamP4Qj ≠ G Exod. 8:1b MG4Qc ≠ SamP4Qj Exod. 8:2 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:2 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:3 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:3 MG ≠ SamP Exod. 8:3 M ≠ GSamP Exod. 8:4 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:5 MG ≠ SamP Exod. 8:5 M ≠ SamP Exod. 8:5 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 8:5 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:5 M ≠ GSamP Exod. 8:5 G ≠ SamP Exod. 8:5 MSamP ≠ G

και, ‫ =ו‬GSamP4Qj+: conjunction

‫ = על ארץ מצרים‬MSamP4Qj+ 8:1b = SamP4Qj+: larger ‘plus’ ‫ ו‬in ‫ = ידו‬MSamP+: possessive suffix και ἀνηγαγεν τους βατραχους = G+38 και = G+: conjunction39 ‫ה‬, οἱ = MG+: definite article των αἰγυπτιων, ‫ = מצרים‬GSamP+40 περι ἐμου = G+: preposition with personal pronoun ‫אעתיר‬, εὐξωμαι—‫העתיר‬: different verb form ‫אל—ל‬: different preposition. The Greek προς can serve as an equivalent for both. ‫—התפאר‬ταξαι: difference in meaning. G endeavours to render the Hebrew polite formula in an analogous manner in Greek.41 ‫ = ל‬MSamP+: preposition και ἀπο του λαου σου , ‫= ומעמך‬ GSamP+42 και ἀπο του λαου σου—‫ומעמך‬: different location ‫—ומבתיך‬και ἐκ των οἰκιων ὑμων: difference in number in the possessive suffix/possessive pronoun, second person singular—second person plural43

38 See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 123: ‘Le grec répète dans le récit l’ordre donné à Aaron («et fit monter les grenouilles»); cette reprise est absente du TM. On peut être en présence soit d’une haplographie du TM, soit d’un développement (ou d’une dittographie?) du grec.’ 39 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 103, 108. See in particular 103: ‘Though the και before οἰ ἐπαοιδοι has no basis in MT it makes good sense in the context with the meaning “also”.’ 40 See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 123: ‘Le grec ajoute «des Égyptiens» (cf. 7,11).’ 41 See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 123: ‘LXX: «Fixe-moi le moment où», «Indique-moi quand . . .»—TM: «Félicite-toi à mon sujet; quand . . .?» Le grec a transposé la formule de politesse de l’hébreu. C’est le seul exemple dans la LXX d’un tel emploi de τασσειν, «fixer».’ 42 See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 123: ‘Le grec reprend la mention «de ton peuple» (cf. 8,4), absente du TM.’ 43 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 116. Wevers offers the following explanation with respect to Exod. 8:17 where we encounter the same phenomenon. Moreover, he refers explicitly to similar variants in verses 8:5 and 7: ‘The four prepositional objects are: you, your servants, your people, your houses. As in vv. 9 [5] and 11 [7] only the last “your” is plural, ὑμων, since Pharaoh hardly needed more than one house, although in v. 24 [20] οἰκους Φαραω does occur.’ ([ ] = B.L.)

registration and description of the text variants

39

Exod. 8:5 MG ≠ SamP Exod. 8:6 MSamP ≠ G

‫ = ומעבדיך‬SamP+44 ‫—ויאמר‬ὁ δε εἰπεν = G+: explicite sub-

Exod. 8:6 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:6 MSamP ≠ G

οὐν = G+: particle ‫—אמר‬λεγειν (twice) and ‫—דבר‬λεγειν

ject

Exod. 8:6 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 8:6 M ≠ SamP Exod. 8:6 Exod. 8:6 Exod. 8:6 Exod. 8:6 Exod. 8:6

MSamP4Qc MSamP4Qc MSamP4Qc MSamP4Qc MSamP4Qc

≠ ≠ ≠ ≠ ≠

Exod. 8:7 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:7 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:7 MSamP ≠ G

G G G G G

(once): different translation (cf. supra).45 ‫כדברך‬, ‫—כדבריך‬ὡς εἰρηκας: the Hebrew employs the noun ‫ דבר‬twice, which is rendered in Greek by way of a verb (λεγειν).46 ‫כדבריך—כדברך‬: difference in number, singular—plural ἐστιν = G+ ἀλλος = G+: adverb, adjective ‫—כ‬πλην: difference in meaning47 ‫ = אלהינו‬MSamP4Qc+ ‫—אין כיהוה אלהינו‬οὐκ ἐστιν ἀλλος πλην κυριου: difference in meaning48 ‫—סרו‬περιαιρεθησονται: active verb form in Hebrew in contrast to a passive verb form in Greek49 ‫—ומבתיך‬και ἐκ των οἰκιων ὑμων: difference in number with respect to the possessive suffix/possessive pronoun50 και ἐκ των ἐπαυλεων = G+51

44 DJD 12 is of the opinion that the location of the preserved letters in the manuscript 4Qc reveals that 4Qc did not have the longer reading ‫ ומעבדיך ומעמך‬found in SamP. Cf. E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 106. 45 Cf. n. 15. 46 Cf. also n. 15. 47 Cf. Z. Frankel, Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik, Leipzig 1851, 87, in which he suggests that the said difference in formulation is rooted in theological concerns. The translator apparently wanted to underline the incomparability of YHWH. 48 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 110–111: ‘In MT the object clause of “know” is “that there is no one like Yahweh our God,” i.e. Yahweh is incomparable, whereas Exod. has a monotheistic statement: ὁτι οὐκ ἐστιν ἀλλος πλην κυριου. The attributive “our God” [see preceding variant—B.L.] is omitted since that detracts from the absoluteness of the statement.’ 49 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 111: ‘In MT ‫ סרו‬makes the frogs turn away, but Exod has a future passive περιαιρεθησεται which involves a divine agent; it is after all a “sign” from the Lord; the frogs “shall be removed”.’ Wevers writes a singular form of the verb at this juncture, although he uses the plural form in the Göttingen edition of the LXX. In any way, the subject οἱ βατραχοι is equally plural. This is probably due to a printing error. 50 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 116. See supra in Exod. 8:5, n. 43. 51 See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 124: ‘La mention des «enclos (ἐπαυλεις)» est absente du TM; elle provient de 8,9. Le mot est situé entre «maisons» et «champs» au v. 9 et doit désigner une réalité intermédiaire, comme en hébreu: entre la bâtisse couverte et les plaines non clôturés, il y a les espaces clos non couverts. Or ἐπαυλις,

40

chapter two: the textual material

Exod. 8:7 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:8 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:8 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:8 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:8 MSamP ≠ G

‫מ‬, ἀπο and ἐκ: different translation52 ‫ —דבר‬ὁρισμος : different translation (ῥημα in 9:5, 6, 20, 21)53 and difference in nuance with respect to meaning54 ‫—אשׁר‬ὡς: different translation. ‫ אשׁר‬is mostly rendered elsewhere with a Greek relative.55 ‫ = ל‬MSamP+: preposition ‫—אשׁר שׂם לפרעה‬ὡς ἐταξατο φαραω: different construction and difference in meaning.56 In the Hebrew textual versions we find a relative clause in which YHWH is the subject of ‫ שׂם‬and Pharaoh the indirect object ‫לפרעה‬. In the Greek, by contrast, Pharaoh appears to be the subject of ἐταξατο, unless one interprets the indeclinable substantive φαραω as a

en grec, peut avoir cette acception, dès Hérodote («parc, enclos»). Ailleurs dans la LXX ἐπαυλις nomme soit une zone d’habitat campagnard, par opposition à la ville entourée de murs (Lv 25,31; Jos 13,23.28 et 19,23, avec la variante κωμαι, «villages»), soit le «campement» d’une troupe (Gn 25,16), selon un sens bien attesté dès Platon.’ 52 Cf. infra on translation technique, pp. 137, 142. See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 111: ‘In the prepositional phrases which modify the verb Exod has been careful to distinguish between people and places. The frogs are to be removed ἀπο, “from” you, people, servants, but ἐκ, “out of ” houses, villages; comp also vv. 8 and 9.’ 53 Cf. infra on translation technique, p. 137 and supra n. 15. See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 124: ‘«Pour la limitation (περι του ὁρισμου)» des grenouilles: la formule correspond à la locution prépositive ‫על דבר‬, «à cause de»; la traduction décompose celle-ci et donne à ‫ דבר‬son sens de «mot, parole, décision», au lieu du sens «chose», «fait» (la locution est simplement rendue par ἐνεκεν en Gn 20,11.18; Nb 31,16; Ps 45,5; par δια en Nb 25,18). L’interprétation est particulièrement appuyée, avec l’emploi de ὁρισμος (et non de ῥημα, attendu pour ‫)דבר‬. Aussi paraît-il légitime de donner au mot un sens plus fort que «décision, mesure», en retenant «limitation», nuance attestée en grec classique, d’autant que nulle part dans la LXX ὁρισμος au sens de «décision» n’est construit avec un génitif objectif.’ 54 According to Wevers, there is an observable difference in meaning. G is evidently more specific in this instance than M. See J.W. Wevers, Notes, 111: ‘Exod is much more specific than is MT as to the subject of Moses’ call to the Lord. Exod defines MT’s “concerning the matter of ” by a concrete περι του ὁρισμου “concerning the limitation of, the setting up of boundaries for”; Exod recalls the specifics of vv. 9 and 11—the frogs are to be kept in bounds, “only in the river will they be left”.’ 55 Cf. infra on translation technique, p. 137. 56 For the interpretation of the Greek ὡς ἐταξατο φαραω, see A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 124: ‘Dans la dernière proposition du verset, la construction la plus plausible consiste à faire de «Pharaon» le sujet, en excellente position grammaticale et logique pour cela. Cette solution suppose que la LXX diffère ici du TM, qui a «à cause des grenouilles qu’il (YHWH) avait envoyées à Pharaon». L’autre solution, moins vraisemblable, mais qui coïnciderait avec le TM, serait de donner à φαραω, indéclinable, la valeur d’un datif et de comprendre: «pour la limitation des grenouilles, telles que (le Seigneur) (les) avait imposées à Pharaon (ὡς ἐταξατο φαραω)».’

registration and description of the text variants

Exod. 8:9 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 8:9 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:9 M ≠ GSamP Exod. 8:10 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 8:10 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 8:11 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 8:11 MSamP4Qc ≠ G Exod. 8:11 Exod. 8:11 Exod. 8:11 Exod. 8:12 Exod. 8:12

57

MSamP ≠ G MSamP ≠ G MSamP4Qc ≠ G MSamP4Qc ≠ G GSamP4Qc ≠ M

41

dative and YHWH is understood as the implicit subject of ἐταξατο. ‫—כ‬καθαπερ: different translation. In 8:11, for example, ‫ אשׁר‬is also translated as καθαπερ, while the same ‫ כ‬is rendered by ὡς in 8:6.57 ‫—כדבר‬εἰπεν: while both Hebrew texts have a substantive (‫)דבר‬, the Greek opts for a verb form (εἰπεν).58 και, ‫ = ו‬GSamP+: conjunction ‫—ויצברו‬συνηγαγον: difference in meaning. The Hebrew verb means ‘to pile up’ while the Greek equivalent stands for ‘to collect’.59 ‫—חמרם‬θημωνιας: difference in meaning, nonetheless appropriate equivalent. The Greek θημωνια means ‘heap’ or ‘pile’ and is employed in this verse as the equivalent of ‫חמר‬, a significant measure of volume (450 litre).60 In MSamP, ‫ פרעה‬is the subject of the entire sentence in v. 11. In G, by contrast, φαραω is first the subject of ἰδων , followed by ἡ καρδια αὐτου as the subject of the passive ἐβαρυνθη, and finally φαραω is once again subject of εἰσηκουσεν.61 ‫—היה‬γιγνεσθαι: different translation (also εἰναι elsewhere)62 ‫ = ו‬MSamP+: conjunction ‫—כאשׁר‬καθαπερ: different translation63 ‫—דבר‬ἐλαλησεν: different translation64 ‫ = אל‬MSamP4Qc+: preposition τῃ χειρι, ‫ = את ידך‬GSamP4Qc+65

Cf. infra on translation technique, p. 137. Cf. nn. 15 and 53. 59 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 112. 60 See A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 125: ‘Θιμωνιας θιμωνιας: «des monceaux et des monceaux». Le mot θιμωνια (ou θημωνια) a le même sens que θημων, «tas», «monceau». C’est le seul exemple du Pentateuque et il traduit ici ‫חמר‬, qui est une mesure importante (450 litres).’ 61 See J.W. Wevers, Notes, 113. 62 Cf. supra n. 21 in relation to Exod. 7:19. 63 Cf. supra n. 57. 64 Cf. supra nn. 15 and 53. 65 See A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 125: ‘La mention «de la main», calquée sur 8,1 et 8,13, absente du TM, renforce l’allure «formulaire» du texte.’ 58

42

chapter two: the textual material

Exod. 8:12 G ≠ SamP4Qc

τῃ χειρι—‫ = את ידך‬SamP4Qc+: posses-

Exod. 8:12 G ≠ SamP4Qc

τῃ χειρι την ῥαβδον σου—‫את ידך במטך‬:

sive suffix

Exod. 8:12 MG ≠ SamP Exod. 8:12 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 8:12 MSamP4Qm ≠ G

66 67 68

different sequence of object (c.q. Greek accusative; Hebrew ‫ )את‬and instrumental (c.q. Greek dative; Hebrew ‫)ב‬66 ‫והיה‬, ἐσονται — ‫ויהי‬: different verb form67 ‫והיה‬, ‫—ויהי‬ἐσονται: difference in number, singular—plural. According to J. Wevers, the singular το χωμα should count as the subject of the plural verb form ἐσονται because ‘dust’ is understood as consisting of a multitude of particles, which is congruous with the plural form ἐσονται.68 While it is possible to defend this explanation, the present author is more inclined to opt for an alternative thereto. It seems to me that the Hebrew and Greek texts exhibit different grammatical and syntactic structures at this juncture. The Hebrew text in translation runs as follows: ‘Strike the dust of the earth and it shall turn into lice’ (‫יהי לכנים‬/‫)עפר—היה‬. In other words, ‫ עפר‬is the subject of the verb ‫ היה‬with the preposition ‫( ל‬twice singular). The Greek text, on the other hand, sounds different: ‘Strike the dust of the earth. And lice shall be on . . . ’ In our opinion, ἐσονται in the Greek text agrees with the plural word immediately following, σκνιφες (twice plural), and not with χωμα . Compare, moreover, with the following verse (Exod. 8:13) in which precisely the same phenomenon occurs (και ἐγενοντο οἱ σκνιφες). In the latter instance, οἱ σκνιφες in the nominative is clearly the subject of the plural verb ἐγενοντο. ‫ = ל‬MSamP4Qm+

Cf. also supra p. 37 in relation to Exod. 8:1. Cf. also supra p. 35 in relation to Exod. 7:19. Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 113.

registration and description of the text variants

43

Exod. 8:12 M ≠ GSamP4Qm

‫—כנם‬σκνιφες, ‫כנים‬: there would appear to be a difference in number here. However, the orthographic ‫ כנם‬of M is vocalised by the Masoretes at this juncture as a plural form.69

Exod. 8:12 MSamP ≠ G

ἐν τε τοις ἀνθρωποις και ἐν τοις τετραποσιν = G+ και = G+

Exod. 8:12 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:13 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:13 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:13 MSamP4Qc ≠ G Exod. 8:13 MSamP4Qm4Qc ≠ G Exod. 8:13 G ≠ MSamP4Qm4Qc

Exod. 8:13 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:13 MSamP ≠ G

69

‫ = ויעשׂו כן‬MSamP+ οὐν = G+: particle70 ‫—את ידו‬τῃ χειρι = MSamP4Qc+: pos-

sessive suffix ‫—במטהו‬την ῥαβδον = MSamP4Qm4Qc+: possessive suffix71 τῃ χειρι την ῥαβδον— ‫את ידו במטו‬: different sequence of object (c.q. Greek accusative; Hebrew ‫ )את‬and instrumental (c.q. Greek dative; Hebrew ‫)ב‬.72 ‫—היה‬γιγνεσθαι: different translation (elsewhere also εἰναι)73 ‫—ותהי‬και ἐγενοντο: difference in number, singular—plural. The plural form of the Greek verb can be accounted for on the basis of the explanation above.74 The subject, clearly in the nominative, is the immediately following οἱ σκνιφες (‘And the lice were upon . . .’). The Hebrew verb forms, on the other hand, would appear to be less easy to explain. The Hebrew texts contain a verb in the third person feminine singular ( ‫)ותהי‬. The subject

In this instance, we do not have absolute certainty with respect to the number of

‫כנם‬. Based on the ‫ לכנים‬present in 4Qm, DJD 9 also maintains that it is not clear whether

we are dealing with an orthographical matter or a textual variant. Cf. P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 77. 70 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 114: ‘Aaron accordingly (οὐν) carries out the divine orders mediated through Moses.’ The particle οὐν establishes the connection between the command and its execution. 71 See in this regard J.W. Wevers, Notes, 114: ‘Neither suffix of ‫ ידו‬or of ‫ מטהו‬is translated, since in the context such repetitions of σου would be otiose.’ 72 Cf. also supra pp. 37, 42. 73 Cf. supra n. 21. See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 114: ‘It might be noted that Exod. carefully distinguishes between εἰμι and γινομαι; in v.16[12] the future existence, ἐσονται, of the σκνιφες is predicated, but in vv.17[13] and 18[14] they have become, ἐγενοντο, an itching reality.’ [ ] = B.L. 74 Cf. supra p. 42 in relation to Exod. 8:12.

44

chapter two: the textual material

Exod. 8:13 M ≠ GSamP Exod. 8:13 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 8:13 MSamP ≠ G

75

of this verb is nevertheless a masculine noun, namely the plural ‫ כנים‬of SamP and the singular ‫ כנם‬of M vocalised as a collective. The solution to this apparent problem, however, is relatively simple. We would appear to be dealing with a familiar grammatical phenomenon at this juncture, whereby plural forms of the names of animals or things and of abstract entities are constructed with verb forms in the feminine singular, whether the forms in question are masculine or feminine.75 When we return to the variant reading under analysis, therefore, we see that reference is indeed being made to animals (‫כנם‬/‫כנים‬: masculine noun). SamP ‫ כנים‬contains a plural while M contains a collective singular with the same plural meaning. The associated verb form is set in the feminine singular (‫)ותהי‬. ‫—כנם‬σκνιφες, ‫כנים‬: difference in number, collective singular—plural ‫—באדם ובבהמה‬ἐν τε τοις ἀνθρωποις και ἐν τοις τετραποσιν: difference in number, collective singular—plural και ἐν = G+: conjunction and preposition. At first sight this appears to be a minor, relatively insignificant variant. Upon closer inspection, however, the variant in question betrays an entirely different presentation of the content of Exod. 8:12–15 in the Greek text when compared with the Hebrew texts. As we already noted supra and will make clear once again infra at the end of 8:13, the Greek text continues to employ the plural σκνιφες as subject of ἐσονται and ἐγενοντο, where the Hebrew texts use

Cf. A.E. Cowley (ed.), GESENIUS’ Hebrew Grammar as Edited and Enlarged by the Late Second English Edition Revised in Accordance with the Twenty-Eighth German Edition (1909), Oxford 151980, 464, §145k: ‘Plurals of names of animals or things, and of abstracts, whether they be masculine or feminine, are frequently construed with the feminine singular of the verbal predicate.’ See also P. Joüon, T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Subsidia Biblica, 27), Rome, 2006, 518, §150g: ‘Plural (especially fem.) nouns of things or of animals may be regarded as equivalent to collectives; the verb then takes the fem. sing.’ E. KAUTZSCH.

registration and description of the text variants

Exod. 8:13 MSamP4Qm ≠ G

76

45

the singular ‫ עפר‬as the subject of ‫היה‬.76 Now, if one observes that the present text relates that the lice (σκνιφες as subject of ἐγενοντο) came on humans and animals and in all the dust of the earth (και ἐν παντι χωματι της γης), then it becomes evident that το χωμα—as equivalent of ‫—עפר‬in the Greek version of the narrative cannot possibly be the subject, given that it functions with ἐγενοντο as an adjectival stipulation following the conjunction and the preposition και ἐν .77 This means that the Greek text does not state that the dust of the earth itself changed into lice, as we find in M and SamP, but rather that the lice came and crawled in the dust of the earth.78 Moreover, the variant in question implies in the Hebrew and the Greek versions a completely different sentence structure with respect to the immediately following verse, and this in spite of the fact that all the elements are quantitatively represented in the synopsis.79 The Greek και ἐν παντι χωματι της γης constitutes the end of the sentence that commenced with και ἐγενοντο, while ‫כל עפר הארץ‬ begins a new sentence that concludes at the end of verse 13. The Greek concluding sentence only begins with the second και ἐγενοντο and likewise continues to the end of the verse. ‫—היה‬ἐγενοντο: difference in number; singular—plural. Once again we see here

See supra pp. 42, 43. This variant, with its implications with respect to grammar and content, confirms the present author’s alternative explanation to that of Wevers. Cf. supra p. 42. 78 Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 114: ‘The last clause involves a reinterpretation of MT. According to MT and all the other ancient witnesses all the dust of the land became gnats in all the land of Egypt. But if all the dust had become gnats there would be no dust left (to one living in Egypt quite inconceivable!); far more dramatic and far more believable would be for all the dust of the land to be crawling with insects; so Exod renders this as “and in all the dust of the land there were gnats in all the land of Egypt”.’ 79 The degree of quantitative representation describes the extent to which the different texts provide an equivalent in one text for each element in another. Cf. infra, pp. 112, 115, 122, 128. 77

46

chapter two: the textual material

Exod. 8:14 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:14 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 8:14 MSamP4Ql ≠ G Exod. 8:14 MSamP ≠ G ≠ 4Qm

80

that the Hebrew texts employ ‫ עפר‬as the subject of the singular ‫היה‬, where the Greek text offers a verb form in the plural with the plural subject οἱ σκνιφες.80 In the Hebrew text, ‫ היה‬continues the sentence while the Greek text starts a new sentence with the verb ἐγενοντο. και = G+: conjunction81 ‫—להוציא‬ἐξαγαγειν: difference in meaning. The Hebrew ‫ להוציא‬means ‘to bring forth’ or ‘to produce’ while the Greek ἐξαγαγειν suggests the connotation ‘to chase/drive off ’ or ‘to lead away from’.82 ‫—הכנים‬τον σκνιφα: difference in number, plural—singular ‫—ותהי‬ἐγενοντο—‫ויהי‬: difference in verb forms. The Hebrew texts have a verb in the third person singular, although the subject in SamP and 4Qm would appear to be the plural ‫ הכנים‬and in M the singular ‫ הכנם‬vocalised as a collective (cf. also Exod. 8:13). The Greek text contains a third person plural with the subject σκνιφες. Moreover, M and SamP contain a third person feminine singular (although ‫ הכנים‬would appear to be a masculine noun), while 4Qm has a third person masculine singular. The Greek verb form requires little if any further explanation at this juncture. As a matter of fact, the Greek verb ἐγενοντο corresponds without irregularity with the plural subject σκνιφες. In M and SamP, the Hebrew verb in the third person feminine singular can be explained grammatically in the same way as in Exod. 8:13.83 The masculine form of the verb in 4Qm in the third person singular, however, remains unusual. While the

Cf. supra pp. 42–43. Cf. supra Exod. 7:22 and 8:3. 82 See A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 126: ‘Le texte grec paraît signifier non pas que les magiciens cherchent à «produire» aussi des moustiques, mais qu’ils ne peuvent pas les «chasser».’ 83 Cf. supra pp. 43–44. 81

registration and description of the text variants

Exod. 8:14 M ≠ GSamP4Qm Exod. 8:14 MSamP4Qc ≠ G Exod. 8:15 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:15 M ≠ G ≠ SamP

47

verb form in 4Qm is set in the singular in relation to the plural noun for animals (‫)הכנים‬, as is the case in other Hebrew textual versions, the masculine character of the noun ‫ הכנים‬appears to have led to the choice of a masculine verb form in this instance.84 ‫—הכנם‬οἱ σκνιφες, ‫הכנים‬: difference in number, collective singular—plural ‫—באדם ובבהמה‬ἐν τε τοις ἀνθρωποις και ἐν τοις τετραποσιν: difference in number, collective singular—plural ‫—ו‬οὐν: conjunction—particle ‫—הוא‬τουτο—‫היא‬: demonstrative pronoun with difference in gender.85 M appears to have a masculine demonstrative while ‫ אצבע‬is a feminine noun. As a matter of fact, however, a feminine pronoun is evident at this juncture,86 given that the qere perpetuum ‫( הוא‬ketib) is to be read as ‫( היא‬qere) in the Masoretic Pentateuch.87 In line with the feminine ‫אצבע‬, SamP has a feminine demonstrative pronoun written in the normal fashion.88 G contains a neuter equivalent, which can be explained on the basis of the difference in Greek syntax. Where

84 Cf. also J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 144–145: ‘According to Gesenius plurals of names of animals (here “gnats”) frequently take feminine singular verbs as collectives. If this is a Massoretic convention it seems also to have been followed by SamP at least in this case; however, given the uncertainties of our knowledge of non-Massoretic Hebrew, it seems wise to consider the variation in this verb a synonymous variant. The point is that Qm stands alone against the other two.’ 85 As a matter of fact, the Hebrew texts contain a personal pronoun that functions as a demonstrative. Cf. Freund, Marx, Präparationen zum Alten Testament. Pentateuch, vol. 1: Genesis. Exodus, Kap. 1–13, Stuttgart 1885–1893, 85; and J.P. Lettinga, T. Muraoka, W.T. Van Peursen, Grammatica van het Bijbels Hebreeuws, Leiden/Boston/Köln, 112000, 37, §17e. 86 Cf., for example, Freund, Marx, Präparationen, 85; and J.J. Owens, Analytical Key to the Old Testament, vol. 1: Genesis-Joshua, Grand Rapids 21992, 270. 87 See in this regard A.E. Cowley (ed.), GESENIUS’ Hebrew Grammar, 107, §321; P. Joüon, T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 66, §16f2; and furthermore 111–112, §39c. See also in this regard J.P. Lettinga, T. Muraoka, W.T. Van Peursen, Grammatica, 22, §8b and 35, §16e. 88 Cf. P. Joüon, T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 111, §39c: ‘In the consonantal text of the Pentateuch (but not in the Samaritan Pentateuch) we find the spelling ‫ הוא‬not only for the masculine, but almost always (18 exceptions) for the feminine, for which the Naqdanim write ‫ ִהוא‬.’ [italics = B.L.]

48

chapter two: the textual material

Exod. 8:15 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:15 Exod. 8:15 Exod. 8:15 Exod. 8:16 Exod. 8:16

MSamP ≠ G MSamP4Qm ≠ G MSamP ≠ G MGSamP ≠ 4Qm MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 8:16 M ≠ GSamP4Qc Exod. 8:16 M ≠ G ≠ SamP

Exod. 8:16 M ≠ SamP4Qc Exod. 8:17 M ≠ SamP4Qc Exod. 8:17 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:17 MSamP ≠ 4Qm Exod. 8:17 MSamP4Qm ≠ G

89

the Hebrew texts have ‫ אצבע‬as the subject of a nominal clause, Greek syntax makes τουτο the subject of the auxiliary verb ἐστιν and δακτυλος the predicate. Τουτο then relates to the facts that the magicians see taking place before their very eyes. ἐστιν = G+: copulative verb, in contrast to the Hebrew nominal clause with ellipsis of ‫היה‬. ἡ = G+: definite article ‫—כאשׁר‬καθαπερ: different translation89 ‫—דבר‬ἐλαλησεν: different translation90 ‫ = לאמור‬4Qm+ ‫—לפני‬ἐναντιον: different formulation for the same semantic datum; also different translation.91 ’Εναντιον also functions as the equivalent of ‫ לעיני‬elsewhere. αὐτος , ‫ = הוא‬GSamP4Qc+: personal pronoun92 ‫—המימה‬ἐπι το ὑδωρ—‫המים‬: direction expressed in three different ways. M attaches a locative ‫ ה‬to the substantive ‫ מים‬and G places a preposition before the noun ὑδωρ. SamP requires the reader to determine the direction entirely on the basis of the context. ‫ = את‬SamP4Qc+: nota accusativi 93 ‫משׁלח—משׁליח‬: different verb form. M has a hiphil participle; SamP4Qc contains a similar form in the piel. ‫—ובבתיך‬και ἐπι τους οἰκους ὑμων: difference in number with respect to the possessive suffix/possessive pronoun94 ‫ = את‬MSamP+: nota accusativi ‫ = ה‬MSamP4Qm+: definite article95

Cf. supra n. 57. Cf. supra nn. 15 and 53. 91 Cf. supra n. 24. 92 Cf. the reconstruction found in DJD 12. See E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 106: ‘There would have been room for the two longer readings found in SamP: ]‫]הנה הוא יו[צא‬ and ]‫]את ע[מי‬.’ 93 Cf. supra n. 92. 94 Cf. supra in relation to Exod. 8:5 and 7, n. 43. See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 116. 95 See J.W. Wevers, Notes, 117: ‘The word κυνομυιαν is unarticulated the first time since it is generic; thereafter it is always articulated.’ 90

registration and description of the text variants Exod. 8:17 MSamP4Qc ≠ G Exod. 8:17 MSamP4Qc ≠ G

Exod. 8:17 MSamP ≠ 4Qm4Qc

Exod. 8:17 MSamP4Qm4Qc ≠ G Exod. 8:18 MSamP4Qc ≠ G

Exod. 8:18 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:18 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:18 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:18 MSamP ≠ G

49

‫—וגם‬και: difference in conjunction and particle96 ‫—אדמה‬γην: different translation. The term γη is also found elsewhere as the equivalent of ‫( ארץ‬see, for example, the following verse, Exod. 8:18)97 ‫המה—הם‬: different personal pronoun. Both forms have precisely the same meaning. The most frequent form is ‫המה‬.98 εἰσιν = G+: copulative verb ‫—לבלתי היות‬ἐφ’ ἡς οὐκ ἐσται: different construction. According to Wevers, ἐφ’ ἡς . . . ἐπ’ αὐτης in 8:18 (see also 8:17) is a Greek imitation of the Hebrew ‫אשׁר עליה‬. The second ἐφ’ ἡς in 8:18, however, is an adaptation to the preceding Greek constructions, although the Hebrew structure ‫ לבלתי היות‬is different in this instance. The Greek version nevertheless renders the intention of the Hebrew.99 ‫—היות‬ἐσται: different verb form, namely a Hebrew infinite in contrast to a Greek finite verb in the third person singular ἡ = G+: definite article εἰμι = G+: copulative verb ὁ κυριος = G+100

96 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 117: ‘MT has ‫ וגם הארמה‬after “the houses of the Egyptians shall be filled with the insect swarms”, in which the ‫ וגם‬shows that the word ‫ הארמה‬stands on the same level as “the houses”, so “even the land”, or “namely, the land”. Exod interprets this differently by και εἰς την γην, “even within the land (on which they are)”, probably because the plague is to affect only that part of Egypt not occupied by the Israelites.’ 97 Cf. infra on translation technique, p. 138. 98 Cf. P. Joüon, T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 111, §39a. See also in this regard: A.E. Cowley (ed.), GESENIUS’ Hebrew Grammar, 107–108, §32m; and L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, vol. 1: ‫טבח—א‬, Leiden 31967, 239–240. 99 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 117: ‘The phrase ἐφ’ αὐτης within the first ἐφ’ ἡς clause is in imitation of MT’s ‫ עליה‬. . . ‫אשׁר‬. . . . The second ἐφ’ ἡς is an adaptation to the first one; the construction of MT is quite different: ‫לבלתי היות‬, but Exod’s ἐφ’ ἡς οὐκ ἐσται brings out what MT intends: “where (on which . . .) there will be no (dog flies)”.’ 100 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 118: ‘Exod ends the verse with an attributive phrase ὁ κυριος πασης της γης modifying κυριος 1°, i.e. it is not Pharaoh but the Lord who is master of all Egypt. This interprets MT’s ‫“ בקרב הארץ‬in the midst of all the land”, in that being κυριος in the midst of the land means his complete mastery; when κυριος, Israel’s God, is present he is automatically in charge.’

50

chapter two: the textual material

Exod. 8:18 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:19 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:19 MSamP4Ql ≠ G

Exod. 8:19 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:19 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:19 Exod. 8:19b Exod. 8:20 Exod. 8:20 Exod. 8:20 101

MSamP ≠ G MG4Ql4Qc ≠ SamP4Qm MSamP4Ql ≠ G MSamP4Qm4Ql ≠ G MG ≠ SamP4Qm

‫—בקרב‬πασης: difference in translation. The term πας is also found elsewhere as the equivalent of ‫כל‬.101 ‫—ושׁמתי‬και δωσω: different translation. The Greek διδοναι is mostly used as the equivalent of the Hebrew ‫נתן‬.102 ‫—פדת‬διαστολη: difference in meaning. ‫ פדת‬means ‘redemption’, where διαστολη tends more to express a ‘distinction’.103 ‫—ל‬ἐν: different preposition ‫—למחר‬ἐν δε τῃ αὐριον: different expression104 ἐπι της γης = G+105 8:19b = SamP4Qm+: larger plus106 ἡ = G+: definite article ‫—כבר‬πληθος: difference in meaning107 ‫ = מאד‬SamP4Qm+: adverb108

Cf. infra on translation technique, p. 138. Cf. infra on translation technique, p. 138 and see also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 126. 103 Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 118: ‘Exod states that the Lord will set a distinction, διαστολην, between the two peoples. The word in MT is ‫ פדת‬which usually means “redemption”, but this is ill-fitting in the context.’ Compare, however, A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 127–128: ‘La présence de διαστολη, «séparation», est liée à une aporie textuelle: le mot conviendrait pour traduire ‫( פלת‬racine ‫פלה‬, «distinguer»); or le TM a ici une forme ‫פדת‬, avec un u bref, qui est particulière (au lieu du mot ‫פדת‬, «rachat», d’où «libération», qui se trouve en tout 3 fois dans le TM). Certains la traduisent «libération» (ainsi les Targums, déjà), d’autres corrigent en ‫פלת‬, d’après la LXX («distinction»).’ 104 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 118: ‘The adverbial αὐριον is uninflected but is treated as a feminine noun “the morrow”.’ 105 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 118: ‘Exod uniquely among the ancient witnesses adds ἐπι της γης at the end of the clause, thereby avoiding what would otherwise be a case of ἐσται being used absolutely.’ 106 Based on reconstruction of 4Ql and 4Qc it was decided that neither of the two scrolls contained the so-called major expansions of the SamP-4Qm tradition. For 4Ql see P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 29: ‘It cannot be determined from the preserved text whether this MS contained the major expansion 8:19b with 4QpaleoExodmSamP or lacked it with MG, but the overall reconstruction of the MS suggests that it lacked it (see ‘Textual Character’ in the Gen-Exodl introduction)’; cf. also p. 24: ‘The clues for reconstruction of the quantity of text indicate that the scroll agreed with M and did not contain the major expansions of the ExodmSamP tradition.’ For 4Qc see E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 108: ‘According to this reconstruction, col. II contained the text from the end of Exod 8:18 through 9:35 and lacked the major expansions of the 4QpaleoExodmSamP tradition: 8,19b, 9,5b, and 9,19b.’ 107 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 119: ‘Πληθος is used adverbially modifying the verb, thus “came in great numbers”.’ 108 Whether 4Ql contained the word ‫ מאד‬can no longer be determined with certainty. Cf. P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 29: ‘The ink traces after ‫ כ]ב[ד‬are insufficient to determine confidently whether they agree with ‫( ביתה פרעה‬M), ‫מאד ביתה‬ ‫( פרעה‬4QmSamP), or εἰς τους οἰκους φαραω (G).’ [abbreviated texts = B.L.] 102

registration and description of the text variants Exod. 8:20 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 8:20 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:20 MG ≠ SamP Exod. 8:20 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:20 MSamP4Qm4Ql ≠ G Exod. 8:21 M ≠ G ≠ SamP Exod. 8:21 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:21 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:21 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:21 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:22 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:22 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 8:22 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:22 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:22 MSamP ≠ G

51

‫—ביתה‬εἰς τους οἰκους: difference in number, singular—plural109 ‫—ובית‬και εἰς τους οἰκους: difference in number, singular - plural110 ‫ו‬, και = MG+: conjunction και = G+: conjunction ‫—מפני‬ἀπο: different formulation for the same semantic datum111 ‫ל—אל‬: different preposition M—SamP; MSamP+: preposition ‫ = ל‬MSamP+: preposition ‫ = ו‬MSamP+ ‫—ויאמר‬λεγων: different verb form; finite verb form—participle ‫—לכו‬ἐλθοντες: different verb form; imperative—participle ‫—נכון‬δυνατον: difference in meaning112 ‫—לעשׂות‬γενεσθαι: difference in meaning (to do—to become, to happen)113 and different translation. ‫ עשׂה‬is frequently rendered elsewhere by the Greek ποιειν.114 Cf., for example, in Exod. 8:27. τα = G+: definite article ‫ —תועבת‬βδελυγματα : difference in number, collective singular—plural115 των = G+: definite article. The Greek translation with the definite article refers to the Egyptians as a people, while the Hebrew ‫( מצרים‬if one sets the vocalisation to one side) can refer to both Egypt as a people and as a country.116

109 Cf. supra Exod. 8:5, 7, 17 and n. 43. See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 119: ‘‫ בית‬twice occurs as singular, but Exod has the plural τους οἰκους for both even though the plural is fitting only for the second; cf. note at v. 21’ [= 8,17, B.L.] 110 See remarks in relation to the preceding variant. 111 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 119: ‘ἀπο here designates the cause, i.e. the land was destroyed because of the dog flies.’ 112 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 120: ‘οὐ δυνατον “is impossible” vs ‫“ לא נכון‬is not upright, correct”. But to Exod acting in a not upright fashion is not quite the point; rather to Exod for the suggestion of Pharaoh to take place in such a context is simply not possible.’ 113 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 120: ‘The subject of the introductory statement made is γενεσθαι οὑτως “to take place thus”, but in MT it is ‫“ לעשׂות כן‬to do thus”.’ 114 Cf. infra on translation technique, p. 138. 115 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 120: ‘The word ‫ תועבת‬in MT is intended as a collective.’ 116 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 6 (remark in relation to Exod. 1:13): ‘Exod tends to distinguish between ‫ מצרים‬as people and as land or nation. The Masoretes consistently render the last syllable of ‫ מצרים‬in Exodus as -rayim, but Exod presupposes -rim whenever it fits as here.’ See also 7 (remark in relation to Exod. 1:15): ‘The word ‫ מצרים‬occurs 176 times in Exodus

52 Exod. 8:22 Exod. 8:22 Exod. 8:22 Exod. 8:22 Exod. 8:22

chapter two: the textual material MSamP4Qm ≠ G MSamP ≠ G MSamP ≠ G MSamP ≠ G MSamP ≠ G

‫ = ל‬MSamP4Qm+: preposition τῳ = G+: definite article ‫—הן‬ἐαν γαρ: different translation γαρ = G+: particle των = G+: definite article. Cf. supra in

the same verse. Exod. 8:22 MSamP ≠ G c

Exod. 8:22 MSamP4Q ≠ G Exod. 8:22 MSamP4Qc ≠ G

Exod. 8:23 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:24 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:24 MSamP ≠ G

‫—לעיניהם‬ἐναντιον αὐτων: different formulation for the same semantic datum117 ‫ = ולא‬MSamP+: conjunction and particle, Hebrew idiom, rhetorical question118 ‫—יסקלנו‬λιθοβοληθησομεθα: different verb form, active—passive; different person, 3rd singular—1st plural. In the Hebrew text, ‘us’ is the direct object expressed in the form of an object suffix attached to the active verb in the 3rd person plural, while the Greek 1st plural passive form has ‘we’ as the subject.119 ‫—כאשׁר‬καθαπερ: different translation120 ‫—אשׁלח‬ἐξαποστελω: different translation.121 ‫—רק‬ἀλλ’: difference in meaning, restrictive—adversative122

and is always vocalized as “Egypt” by the Masoretes. Exod disregards the vocalic tradition in 66 cases where he uses “Egyptians” and in 106 cases correctly uses Αιγυπτος, with four instances being omitted. On the other hand, Exod has two instances of Αιγυπτιοι as a plus (cf. v. 12 supra), and four of Αιγυπτος, for a total of 178 occurrences. The only generalizations which can be made are that “land of Egypt” is usually “Egypt” but with “hand of ”, “eyes of ”, “heart of ”, “camps of ” it is always the “Egyptians”. In other words, when the reference is geographic (note also “border of ”, “waters of ”, “midst of ”) Exod uses “Egypt”, but when the term refers to peoples he uses “Egyptians”.’ 117 Compare also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 120. Wevers notes that: ‘Aq in his usual literalistic fashion has τοις ὀφθαλμοις αὐτων, and Theod, προ ὀφθαλμων αὐτων.’ The translations of Aquila and Theodotion are in more literal agreement with the Hebrew expression ‫לעיניהם‬. Cf. also supra n. 24. 118 See A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 128: ‘LXX: «nous serons lapidés»—TM: «ils ne nous lapideront pas». La négation manque dans la LXX, la traduction syriaque et la Vulg. On résout généralement la difficulté propre au TM en lisant le texte comme une interrogation: «Ne nous lapideront-ils pas?»’ 119 According to Z. Frankel, moreover, the question found in the Hebrew text is rendered categorically in the Greek. Cf. Z. Frankel, Vorstudien, 171; and Idem, Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese, 76. 120 Cf. supra n. 57. 121 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 121: ‘The compound ἐξαποστελω is regularly used for the Piël of ‫שׁלח‬, whereas ἀποστελω occurs for the Qal’. Cf. infra on translation technique, p. 138. 122 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 121: ‘Exod has idiomatically avoided potential Hebraisms in his translation of the ‫ רק‬clause; ‫ רק‬has been translated by the adversative ἀλλ’, and the cognate free infinitive plus negated finite verb has lost all traces of the cognate construction

registration and description of the text variants Exod. 8:24 Exod. 8:24 Exod. 8:24 Exod. 8:25

MSamP MSamP MSamP MSamP

≠ ≠ ≠ ≠

G G G G

Exod. 8:25 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:25 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:25 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:25 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 8:25 M ≠ GSamP Exod. 8:25 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:25 MSamP ≠ G

53

‫—לא‬οὐ: different location οὐν = G+: particle προς κυριον = G+123 ‫—הנה‬ὁδε: different translation. The deictic ‫ הנה‬is usually translated as ἰδου.124 ‫—אנכי יוצא‬ἐγω ἐξελευσομαι: different

verb form, participle—finite form.125 ‫—יהוה‬τον θεον: different translation. ‫יהוה‬ is usually translated as κυριος.126 ‫—וסר‬και ἀπελευσεται: different translation. In 8:27, ‫( ויסר‬from the same verb ‫ )סור‬is translated by και περιειλεν.127 ‫ —מפרעה‬ἀπο σου : different grammatical construction. The Hebrew names Pharaoh and refers to him in the third person, even though the words in question are located within direct speech in which Pharaoh was already addressed in the second person. The Greek consistently maintains the direct speech and addresses Pharaoh in the second person.128 και, ‫ = ו‬GSamP+: conjunction ‫—מעבדיו‬και ἀπο των θεραποντων σου: third person singular—second person singular ‫ = מ‬MSamP+: particle

in Exod’s “not far away shall you extend (your) going”. Exod has expressed the intent of MT in good Greek fashion.’ 123 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 121: ‘MT’s final instruction: “pray for me” is enhanced in Exod by the logical particle οὐν as well as by προς κυριον at the end. The former ties the clause to its context, whereas the prepositional phrase makes Pharaoh recognize once again that the Lord is in control.’ See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 128: ‘La mention «au Seigneur» est absente du TM (cf. 8,4; 9,28).’ 124 Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 121: ‘Exod sharpens the narrative by using ὁδε “right now, immediately” for ‫ הנה‬rather than the usual ἱδου.’ Cf. infra on translation technique, p. 138. 125 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 122: ‘The pattern: pronoun + future verb sensibly interprets the Hebrew: pronoun + participle as “I shall be leaving you forthwith and”. ’Εγω is lexically otiose and is conditioned by the Hebrew.’ 126 See J.W. Wevers, Notes, 122: ‘Moses accedes to Pharaoh’s request to pray for him, though not to κυριον as requested but to τον θεον.’ Cf. infra on translation technique, p. 138. 127 Cf. infra on translation technique, p. 138. 128 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 122: ‘The remainder of the verse is in third person in all other ancient witnesses, and Exod alone continues with the more consistent and from the point of view of the narrative the more direct and personal second person.’

54

chapter two: the textual material

Exod. 8:25 MSamP ≠ G

‫—ומעמו‬και του λαου σου: third person

Exod. 8:25 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:25 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:26 MSamP ≠ G

‫ = רק‬MSamP+: adverb

singular—second person singular

Exod. 8:27 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:27 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:27 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:27 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 8:27 Exod. 8:27 Exod. 8:28 Exod. 9:1

M ≠ GSamP MSamP ≠ G MSamP ≠ G MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:2 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:2 MSamP ≠ G

129

ἐτι = G+: adverb ‫—יהוה‬τον θεον: different translation. ‫יהוה‬ is mostly translated as κυριος.129 Com-

pare, for example, with the following verse Exod. 8:27. ‫—כ‬καθαπερ: different translation130 ‫—דבר‬εἰπεν: different translation131 ‫—ויסר‬και περιειλεν: different meaning, to yield—to remove132 ‫—ויסר הערב‬και περιειλεν την κυνομυιαν: different construction. In the Hebrew textual versions, the horseflies ( ‫)הערב‬ are the subject of the verb (‫)ויסר‬, while in the Greek text, την κυνομυιαν in the accusative is the direct object of περιειλεν, of which YHWH is the subject.133 και, ‫ = ו‬GSamP+: conjunction και = G+: conjunction ἠθελησεν = G+134 ‫—בא אל‬εἰσελθε προς: the Greek equivalent renders the Hebrew preposition ‫אל‬ twice, once with the preposition προς and then with the preposition εισ- contained in the verb εἰσιεναι. ‫ = אתה‬MSamP+: personal pronoun clarified τον λαον μου = G+

See J.W. Wevers, Notes, 122: ‘Though Moses remains the subject he now leaves Pharaoh’s presence and prays to τον θεον instead of to ‫ יהוה‬as all other ancient witnesses attest, probably because he had promised Pharaoh εὐξομαι προς τον θεον in v. 29 [25], and so here he uses the identical phrase.’ [ ] = B.L. Cf. also supra n. 126. 130 Cf. supra n. 57. 131 Cf. supra nn. 15 and 53. 132 Cf. supra in relation to Exod. 8:25 and n. 127. 133 See A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 129: ‘LXX: «et il ôta la mouche . . .»—TM: «et les mouches se détournèrent . . .». Les Targums insistent comme la LXX sur l’action divine.’ 134 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 123: ‘The final clause in MT is a simple statement of fact: “and he did not send away the people.” Exod on the other hand stresses Pharaoh’s attitude by οὐκ ἠθελησεν ἐξαποστειλαι “he did not want to send away”, which is particularly fitting in the context.’

registration and description of the text variants Exod. 9:2 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:2 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:2 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:3 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:3 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:3 Exod. 9:3 Exod. 9:3 Exod. 9:3 Exod. 9:3

M ≠ GSamP M ≠ GSamP MSamP ≠ G MSamP ≠ G MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:3 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:3 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:3 MSamP ≠ G

55

‫ך‬- in ‫ = ועודך‬MSamP+: pronominal suffix. The Greek renders this second person singular in the following finite verb ἐγκρατεις. ‫—מחזיק‬ἐγκρατεις: different verb form, participle—finite verb in the 2nd person singular135 ‫ —בם‬αὐτου : difference in number, plural—singular. The Hebrew ‫ בם‬is a constructio ad sensum related to the preceding ‫ עמי‬whereby the following verb ‫ ויעבדני‬is also constructed in the plural. The Greek αὐτου is related to the plus in G, τον λαον μου, and maintains the singular form. ‫—במקנך‬ἐν τοις κτηνεσιν σου: difference in number, collective singular—plural.136 Note also the literal translation of the Hebrew ‫ ב‬by the Greek ἐν, while under normal circumstances the preposition ἐπι is to be expected with the verb ἐσται.137 ‫—בשׂדה‬ἐν τοις πεδιοις: difference in number, collective singular—plural και, ‫ = ו‬GSamP+: conjunction και, ‫ = ו‬GSamP+: conjunction και = G+: conjunction ‫ = ב‬MSamP+: preposition ‫—בקר‬βουσιν: difference in number, collective singular—plural ‫ = ב‬MSamP+: preposition ‫—צאן‬προβατοις: difference in number, collective singular—plural ‫—דבר‬θανατος: difference in meaning. The Hebrew ‫ דבר‬means ‘plague’ or

135 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 124: ‘The verb in the adversative clause, ἐγκρατεις, a hapax legomenon in LXX, means “hold on to, retain control over” with the genitive. When it is modified by an accusative it means “master, overpower”.’ 136 With respect to the collective singular see J.P. Lettinga, T. Muraoka, W.T. Van Peursen, Grammatica, 46, §24j; and B.K. Waltke, M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Winona Lake 1990, 113–114, §7.2.1. 137 See J.W. Wevers, Notes, 125: ‘ἐσται is modified by an ἐν phrase which is a Hebraistic rendering of MT’s ‫ ב‬phrase. More idiomatic would have been ἐπι, and the ἐν must be translated “upon, on” throughout. The generic term ‫ מקנך‬is correctly interpreted by the plural τοις κτηνεσιν (σου), since it includes the various species that follow. Similarly ‫ בשׁדה‬within the relative clause is taken as collective: ἐν τοις πεδιοις.’

56

chapter two: the textual material

Exod. 9:3 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:4 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:4 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:4 MSamP ≠ G

‘pestilence’; the Greek θανατος by contrast means ‘death’.138 In addition, different translation. ‫ דבר‬is also translated differently elsewhere.139 ‫ —כבד‬μεγας : difference in meaning (heavy—big) and different translation.140 Cf. Exod. 8:20 in which ‫ כבד‬is translated by πληθος. In these two verses, namely 8:20 and 9:3, the Hebrew offers a parallel formula,141 which is not recognisable as such in the equivalent Greek texts.142 ‫—והפלה‬και παραδοξασω: difference in meaning. The Hebrew ‫ והפלה‬means ‘to make a distinction’, while the Greek παραδοξασω means ‘to do something miraculous’143 ‫—והפלה יהוה‬και παραδοξασω ἐγω: different construction.144 The Hebrew has a verb in the third person singular with ‫ יהוה‬as subject, while the Greek continues the direct speech started in 9:1 and has YHWH in the first person as speaker.145 This stands in contrast to χειρ κυριου in 9:3 which, in parallel with the Hebrew texts, is also rendered in the third person. If G had intended to maintain direct speech at this juncture, χειρ μου should also have been in the first person singular. ‫—מקנה‬των κτηνων: difference in number, collective singular—plural

138 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 125–126, n. 7: ‘The Hebrew ‫ דבר כבד‬is more literalistically rendered by Aq and Sym as λοιμος βαρυς “a heavy plague”.’ See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 129: ‘Comme en Ex 5,3 et ailleurs, θανατος, «mort», correspond à un mot hébreu plus précis, «peste». Les commentateurs hellénophones n’ont pas manqué cependant de réintrodire, en raison de la nature de ce fléau, le terme grec usuel, λοιμος (ainsi Théodoret, QE 12, p. 107, l. 19; cf. Philon, Mos. I, 133).’ 139 Cf. supra n. 53. 140 Cf. infra on translation technique, p. 138. 141 Cf. in Exod. 8:20: (‫ מאד‬SamP4Qm) ‫ ערב כבד‬and in Exod. 9:3 ‫דבר כבד מאד‬. 142 See Exod. 8:20 ἡ κυνομυια πληθος and in Exod. 9:3 θανατος μεγας σφοδρα. 143 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 125: ‘Obviously MT’s “make a distinction” fits better than Exod’s παραδοξασω “I will set up something wonderful” (between the cattle, etc.).’ 144 Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 129: ‘LXX: «Je ferai un prodige»—TM: «YHWH distinguera».’ 145 Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 125: ‘Exod makes the verse continue as speech of the Lord instead of the third person with ‫ יהוה‬as subject of MT and the other ancient witnesses.’

registration and description of the text variants Exod. 9:4 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:4 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:4 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:4 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:4 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:4 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:4 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:4 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:4 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:4 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:5 MSamP ≠ G

146

57

των in relation to των κτηνων = G+:

definite article. The Hebrew, however, is also determined on account of the status constructus ‫מקנה ישׂראל‬. ‫ישׂראל‬, ἰσραηλ— ‫מצרים‬, αἰγυπτιων: different location, reversed sequence των in relation to των αἰγυπτιων = G+: definite article.146 των in relation to των κτηνων = G+: definite article. Once again the Hebrew is also determined on account of the status constructus ‫מקנה מצרים‬. των υἱων = G+. Wevers suggests that ‫מצרים‬ is frequently understood as ‘the Egyptians’ (as people rather than country). Parallel to this, he maintains, ‫ ישׂראל‬is interpreted at this juncture in the same manner as the people of Israel: των υἱων ἰσραηλ.147 ‫ = ו‬MSamP+: conjunction ‫—בני‬υἱων: different location ‫—לבני ישׂראל‬των του ἰσραηλ υἱων: different grammatical construction. The Hebrew has a preposition ‫ל‬, while the Greek employs a genitive construction.148 του = G+: definite article. The Hebrew is also determined on account of the status constructus ‫לבני ישׂראל‬. ‫—דבר‬ῥητον: different translation and difference in meaning.149 Compare also with the following verse (9:5), in which ‫ דבר‬is translated by ῥημα. ‫—וישׁם‬και ἐδωκεν: different translation. The Greek διδοναι is mostly used as the equivalent of the Hebrew ‫נתן‬.150

See remark in relation to Exod. 8:22. Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 125–126. 148 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 126: ‘The pattern of the noun phrase των του ’Ισραηλ υἱων is excellent Greek but nowhere else in the Pentateuch is the article and the noun υἱος ever separated by a genitive modifier. . . . The unusual pattern of Exod does place strong stress on του ’Ισραηλ—it is Israel and not the Egyptians who will escape the plague.’ 149 Cf. supra n. 53. See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 126: ‘Changes of the subject ῥητον to οὐδεν or μηδεν in the tradition are instances of simplification.’ See also Ibidem, n. 9: ‘Samariticon apparently has ῥημα instead of ῥητον; this is a far more common rendering of ‫ דבר‬than ῥητον.’ 150 Cf. supra n. 102 in relation to Exod. 8:19 and see also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 126. 147

58

chapter two: the textual material

Exod. 9:5 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:5 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:5 Exod. 9:5b Exod. 9:5b Exod. 9:6

MSamP ≠ G MG4Qc ≠ SamP4Qm SamP ≠ 4Qm MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:6 MSamP4Qm ≠ G

Exod. 9:7 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:7 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 9:7 Exod. 9:8 Exod. 9:8 Exod. 9:8

151

M ≠ GSamP4Qm MSamP4Qm ≠ G MSamP ≠ G4Qm MSamP4Qm ≠ G

‫—יהוה‬ὁ θεος: different translation.151 The Hebrew ‫ יהוה‬is normally rendered by κυριος. Cf., for example, in the remainder of the present verse. ‫—מחר‬ἐν τῃ αὐριον: different expression. Cf. supra in relation to Exod. 8:19. ‫—הדבר‬το ῥημα: different translation152 9:5b = SamP4Qm+: larger plus153 ‫ = את‬SamP+: nota accusativi ‫—ממחרת‬τῃ ἐπαυριον: different expression. See 8:19 and 9:5. In order to distinguish between ‫ מחר‬and ‫ממחרת‬, the Greek employs two different equivalents, ἐν τῃ αὐριον and τῃ ἐπαυριον respectively.154 ‫—לא אחד‬οὐκ οὐδεν: different expression. Nonetheless, both expressions are negative. In Greek, negation is further reinforced in a double negative, when the second is compound. ‫—וישׁלח‬ἰδων δε: different verb form, finite form in the 3rd person singular— participle. Also a difference in meaning, to send—to see.155 ‫—לא עד אחד‬οὐκ οὐδεν: different expression. Cf. supra in the previous verse (9:6). των υἱων = GSamP4Qm+ (cf. 9:4)156 ‫ = אל‬MSamP4Qm+: preposition λεγων, ‫ = לאמור‬G4Qm+157 ‫ ל‬in ‫ = לכם‬MSamP4Qm+: preposition. Different grammatical formula. The Greek ὑμεις in the nominative is the subject; the Hebrew ‫ לכם‬is an ethical dative.158

Cf. supra n. 126. Cf. supra n. 53. Compare also with the preceding verse, Exod. 9:4. 153 For 4Qc see E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 108: ‘According to this reconstruction, col. II contained the text from the end of Exod 8:18 through 9:35 and lacked the major expansions of the 4QpaleoExodmSamP tradition: 8,19b, 9,5b, and 9,19b.’ 154 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 127. 155 According to Wevers, G introduced a simplification at this juncture. Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 127: ‘Exod has simplified the opening part of the Hebrew “And Pharaoh sent and behold” to ἰδων δε φαραω ὁτι “but when Pharaoh saw that”; this shows up the relation of the two parts of the verse more clearly.’ 156 See J.W. Wevers, Notes, 127. 157 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 127: ‘The direct speech marker is attested in 4QpaleoExodm, and its origin may well be textual.’ 158 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 127. 152

registration and description of the text variants Exod. 9:8 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 9:8 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 9:8 MSamP4Qm ≠ G

Exod. 9:8 MSamP4Qm ≠ G

Exod. 9:8 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:8 M4Qa ≠ G ≠ SamP4Qm

Exod. 9:8 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 9:8 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 9:9 MSamP4Qm ≠ G

159

59

‫כם‬- in ‫ = חפניכם‬MSamP4Qm+: possessive suffix τας in relation to χειρας = G+: definite article. The Hebrew is also determined on account of the possessive suffix. ‫—ח)ו(פנ)י(כם‬χειρας: difference in meaning. The Hebrew is a dual form meaning ‘fists’. The Greek χειρ is usually employed as the equivalent of ‫ יד‬and means ‘hand’.159 ‫—פיח‬αἰθαλη: difference in meaning. The Greek equivalent αἰθαλη of the Hebrew hapax ‫ פיח‬actually means ‘soot’ rather than ‘ash’.160 ‫ ו‬in ‫ = וזרקו‬MSamP+: object suffix, refers to ‫פיח‬. ‫—השׁמימה‬εἰς τον οὐρανον— ‫השׁמים‬: different expression of direction. M and 4Qa have a locative ‫ה‬. G employs a preposition of direction (εἰς) while SamP and 4Q m read a simple substantive, whereby the direction must be derived from the context. ‫—לעיני‬ἐναντιον: different formulation for the same semantic datum.161 και ἐναντιον των θεραποντων αὐτου = G+ ‫—והיה‬και γενηθητω: different translation.162 In addition, a different grammatical structure is evident at this juncture. In the Hebrew texts ‫( פיח‬soot from the oven) is subject of ‫ היה‬followed by the preposition ‫ל‬. The soot from the oven ( ‫ = פיח‬subject) shall become as ( ‫היה‬ ‫ )ל‬dust (‫)אבק‬. In the Greek, however, κονιορτος (the dust) is itself subject of γενηθητω: ‘and the dust came’ or ‘and there was dust’.

Cf. infra on translation technique, p. 138. Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 130: ‘Αἰθαλη désigne en grec la «suie», et non la «cendre»; ici et en 9,10, c’est le seul emploi du mot dans la LXX, correspondant à un hapax du TM. Le choix de αἰθαλη a été déterminé probablement par la rareté du terme hébreu, les noms de la «cendre», plus courants, étant traduits par σποδος. Les lecteurs ont cependant compris qu’il s’agissait de «cendre», à cause de la «poussière» de 9,9.’ 161 Cf. supra n. 24. 162 Cf. supra n. 21. 160

60

chapter two: the textual material

Exod. 9:9 MSamP4Qm ≠ G

Exod. 9:9 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:9 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 9:9 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 9:9 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 9:9 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 9:9 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 9:10 MSamP ≠ G

‫—והיה‬ἐσται: different translation.163 Here also, both verb forms have different subjects. The grammatical construction is different. In the Hebrew texts, ‫אבק‬ is taken up again as subject of ‫ היה‬with the preposition ‫ ל‬later in the verse (to become as). In other words, the Hebrew text states the following: the soot of the oven shall become as dust (first usage ‫ )היה ל‬in all the land of Egypt and the dust (subject) shall become as boils (second usage ‫ )היה ל‬on people and animals. In the Greek text, by contrast, ἑλκη (the boils) is the subject of ἐσται. The verb associated with a neuter plural subject (ἑλκη) can be in the singular. As a consequence, the Greek text states that the soot from the oven became dust (κονιορτος is subject of γενηθητω) in all the land of Egypt and that boils (ἑλκη is subject) came (ἐσται) on the people and the animals.164 ‫—האדם‬τους ἀνθρωπους: difference in number, collective singular—plural ‫—הבהמה‬τα τετραποδα: difference in number, collective singular—plural ‫ —לשׁחין‬ἑλκη : difference in number, collective singular—plural ‫—פ)ו(רח אבעבע)ו(ת‬φλυκτιδες ἀναζεουσαι: different sequence (in contrast to 9:10)165 ἐν τε τοις ἀνθρωποις και ἐν τοις τετραποσιν = G+ και = G+: conjunction ‫—ויקחו‬και ἐλαβεν: difference in number,

singular—plural166

163

Cf. supra n. 21. Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 128: ‘In MT the next clause has a ‫ היה‬+ ‫ ל‬construction and the clause means “and it (the dust cloud) shall become boils”. In Exod the preposition is disregarded and ἑλκη “festering sores” is the subject of ἐσται.’ 165 Cf. also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 131: ‘Φλυκτις: «cloque», «ampoule» ou «pustule». C’est le seul emploi (ici et au v. 10) du mot dans la LXX, correspondant à un hapax du TM. Le bouillonnement décrit par le participe ἀναζεουσαι est soit celui de l’inflammation suppurante, soit celui de l’éruption des cloques elles-mêmes.’ 166 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 129: ‘Exod also changes the subject from plural to the singular, which is inconsistent over against the λαβετε of v. 8.’ See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 131. 164

registration and description of the text variants Exod. 9:10 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 9:10 MSamP4Qm ≠ G

Exod. 9:10 M ≠ G ≠ SamP

Exod. 9:10 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:10 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:10 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:10 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 9:11 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:11 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:11 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:11 MSamP ≠ G

61

‫ = ויעמדו‬MSamP4Qm+167 ‫—לפני‬ἐναντιον: different formulation for the same semantic datum.168 In addition, different translation. ’Εναντιον is also employed elsewhere as the equivalent of ‫( לעיני‬cf. supra, for example, in 9:8). ‫—השׁמימה‬εἰς τον οὐρανον— ‫השׁמים‬: different expression of direction. M has a locative ‫ה‬. G employs a preposition of direction (εἰς) and SamP reads the substantive alone whereby the direction must be derived from the context. ‫ —ויהי‬και ἐγενετο : different translation169 ‫—ויהי שׁחין‬και ἐγενετο ἑλκη: the Hebrew has a plural verb form with the collective singular ‫שׁחין‬, while the Greek employs a singular verb with a subject in the neuter plural (ἑλκη).170 ‫—באדם‬ἐν τε τοις ἀνθρωποις: difference in number, collective singular—plural ‫—ובבהמה‬και ἐν τοις τετραποσιν: difference in number, collective singular— plural ‫—החרטמים‬οἱ φαρμακοι: different translation. Elsewhere also ἐπαοιδοι171 ‫—לפני‬ἐναντιον: different formulation for the same semantic datum.172 In addition, different translation. ’Εναντιον is also used elsewhere as the equivalent of ‫לעיני‬ (cf. supra, for example, in 9:8). ‫—מפני‬δια: different formulation for the same semantic datum. In addition, different translation. Supra in 8:20 we find the same ‫ מפני‬translated by ἀπο.173 ‫—השׁחין‬τα ἑλκη: difference in number, collective singular–plural

167 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 129: ‘The instructions given by the Lord are being now carried out. Exod., however, abbreviates the MT account by making the first two clauses into a single one by omitting ‫ויעמדו‬.’ 168 Cf. supra n. 24. 169 Cf. supra n. 21. 170 See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 129: ‘In the last clause a popular variant changed ἐγενετο into the plural because of the plural subject ἑλκη, but a neuter plural is in order.’ 171 Cf. infra on translation technique, p. 138. 172 Cf. supra n. 24. 173 Cf. infra on translation technique, p. 141.

62

chapter two: the textual material

Exod. 9:11 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:11 MSamP ≠ G

‫—כי‬γαρ: different location ‫—היה‬ἐγενετο: different translation.174

Exod. 9:11 MSamP ≠ G

In addition, different verb form: qatal. In 9:10, for example, ἐγενετο was the equivalent of ‫ ( ויהי‬yiqtol ).175 ‫—השׁחין‬τα ἑλκη: difference in number, collective singular - plural ‫ —בחרט ) ו ( מים‬ἐν τοις φαρμακοις : different translation. Elsewhere also

Exod. 9:11 MSamP4Qm4Qc ≠ G c

Exod. 9:11 MSamP4Q ≠ G Exod. 9:12 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:12 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 9:12 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:13 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:14 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:14 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:14 MSamP ≠ G

ἐπαοιδοι176 γῃ = G+ ‫—כאשׁר‬καθα: different translation177 ‫—דבר‬συνεταξεν: different translation.178

Difference in nuance with respect to meaning. ‫ = אל‬MSamP+: preposition, rendered by Greek dative. ‫—לפני‬ἐναντιον: different formulation for the same semantic datum.179 Also different translation. ’Εναντιον is also found elsewhere as the equivalent of ‫( לעיני‬cf. supra, for example, in 9:8). ‫—ב‬ἐν τῳ: different location ‫—כי בפעם הזאת‬ἐν τῳ γαρ νυν καιρῳ: different formulation for the same semantic datum180 τα = G+: definite article. The Hebrew is also defined, however, on account of the possessive suffix.

174 Cf. supra n. 21. According to Wevers, the construction ἐγενετο with the preposition ἐν is a Hebraism that agrees with ‫היה ב‬. In Greek one would be more inclined to expect ἐπι. Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 129. 175

Cf. supra also pp. 35, 42. Cf. supra n. 171. 177 Cf. supra n. 57. 178 Cf. supra n. 15. See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 130: ‘In the καθα clause Exod uses the verb συνεταξεν though all other old witnesses support ‫ דבר‬of MT.’ See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 131: ‘LXX: «en ce que le Seigneur avait ordonné»—TM: «comme l’avait dit YHWH à Moïse». Il paraît exclu de traduire καθα συνεταξεν κυριος par: «comme le Seigneur l’avait ordonné», d’après le sens pris ailleurs dans la LXX par des transcriptions semblables («dire» en hébreu, «préscrire» en grec): Ex 1,17; 12,35; Nb 27,23; Jos 4,8; Jb 42,9. La proposition principale étant négative, la signification est différente (= «il ne leur obéit pas, en ce que . . .»).’ 179 Cf. supra n. 24. 180 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 130: ‘The phrase ἐν τῳ νυν καιρῳ is Exod’s rendering of ‫בפעם הזאת‬. The phrase may well originate with Gen 29:24, 30:20; in the former case it renders ‫עתה הפעם‬, and presents a striking phrase for “at the present time”.’ 176

registration and description of the text variants Exod. 9:14 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:14 Exod. 9:14 Exod. 9:15 Exod. 9:15 Exod. 9:15

MSamP ≠ G MSamP ≠ G MSamP4Qm4Qc ≠ G MSamP ≠ G MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:15 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:15 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:16 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 9:16 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:16 MSamP ≠ G

63

‫ —מגפתי‬συναντηματα : difference in meaning. The Hebrew means ‘plague’, while the Greek by contrast points more in the direction of ‘encounter’ or ‘event’. According to Wevers, we should interpret the combination in the present context as ‘plague–encounters’.181 ἐστιν = G+ ἀλλος = G+: adverb, adjective182 ‫—כי‬γαρ: different location ‫ י‬in ‫ = ידי‬MSamP+: possessive suffix την = G+: definite article. The Hebrew is also defined, however, by the possessive suffix. ‫ = ב‬MSamP+: preposition. The Greek expresses this via the dative. ‫—בדבר‬θανατῳ: difference in meaning. Cf. supra Exod. 9:3. The Hebrew word ‫ דבר‬means ‘plague’ or ‘pestilence’, while the Greek θανατος by contrast means ‘death’.183 Also different translation. ‫דבר‬ is also translated differently elsewhere.184 ‫ = אולם‬MSamPQm+185 ‫—בעבור‬ἑνεκεν: different translation. Later in the same verse, ‫ בעבור‬is translated by ἱνα.186 ‫—העמדתיך‬διετηρηθης: different grammatical construction, active—passive, with different semantic nuance.187

181 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 130. Wevers also makes reference to Greek translations that render ‫ מגפתי‬more literally at this juncture. Cf. Ibidem, n. 20: ‘Aq followed by Theod translates by θραυσεις which according to Hesych has the same meaning as Sym’s πληγας “plagues”.’ 182 Compare with Exod. 8:6. See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 131: ‘The ὁτι clause stresses the incomparableness of the Lord, and may be compared to 8:10[6].’ [ ] = B.L. Cf. also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 132: ‘La mention «un autre (ἀλλος)», propre à la LXX, est un léger écart par rapport au TM et peut faire écho à la formule d’Ex 8,6.’ 183 Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 131, n. 22: ‘Aq has ἐν λοιμῳ for MT’s ‫בדבר‬.’ 184 Cf. supra n. 53. 185 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 131: ‘Exod joins this verse to the preceding by και whereas MT shows the adversative relationship much more clearly by its ‫ואולם‬. One might well have expected Exod to have had ἀλλα.’ 186 Cf. infra on translation technique, p. 138. 187 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 131–132: ‘The verb διετηρηθης “have you been spared” is a clear rendering of MT’s ‫“ העמדתיך‬have I let you stand”; though it puts the idea in the passive there is no doubt that it is the Lord who alone is responsible; he alone is the active actor in vv. 14–16.’

64

chapter two: the textual material

Exod. 9:16 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:16 MSamP4Qc ≠ G Exod. 9:17 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:17 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:18 MSamP4Qc ≠ G Exod. 9:18 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:18 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:18 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:18 MSamP4Qc ≠ G Exod. 9:19 MSamP4Qc ≠ G

‫—בעבור‬ἱνα: different translation. Cf. supra. Later in the same verse, ‫ בעבור‬is translated by ἐνεκεν. ‫—הראתך‬ἐνδειξωμαι ἐν σοι: difference in meaning188 οὐν= G+ particle189 ‫ = ב‬MSamP+: preposition. The Greek expresses this function via the genitive in conjunction with the verb ἐμποιειν.190 ‫—כבד‬πολλην: difference in meaning (heavy—many).191 Compare with Exod. 8:20 and 9:3. ‫—ממטיר‬ὕω: different translation. Similar to 9:33–34 (‫מטר‬/‫—ה‬ὁ ὑετὸς), but different from 9:23 where the same root ‫ מטר‬has been translated by βρεχω (‫ימטר‬/‫—ו‬καὶ ἔβρεξεν). ‫—כמהו‬τοιαυτη: difference in location ‫—היה‬γεγονεν: different translation192 ‫—עתה‬της ἡμερας ταυτης: difference in meaning (now—this day).193 ‫—שׁלח העז‬κατασπευσον συναγαγειν: difference in meaning (send, bring to safety—hurry to gather up)194

188 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 132: ‘The first clause “that I might display in you my power” differs from MT which has “to show you my power”. The Hebrew again reflects the theme of Pharaoh’s forced recognition of Yahweh; it is Pharaoh who is to see God’s power. In Exod Pharaoh is simply the occasion, the arena, where God displays his power.’ See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 132. 189 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 132: ‘The particle οὐν leads from the general statement to the specifics of the present situation: “Moreover you are still holding on to”.’ 190 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 132. 191 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 133: ‘The plague is to consist of a divinely given rain of very much hail. The Hebrew describes the hail(stones) as being ‫כבד‬. Since the hail was to be extremely destructive either their large size of that they were πολλην makes good sense.’ See also Ibidem, n. 26: ‘Aq and Sym have βαρειαν instead of πολλην (cf. also v. 3 where they translate similarly).’ 192 Cf. supra n. 21. 193 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 133: ‘The last phrase is slightly different in MT which has “until now”.’ 194 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, p. 133: ‘The command “Hurry to gather up” is a free rendering of MT’s rather ambiguous “send (out), bring to safety”. The point of ‫ שׁלח‬is not fully luminous; does it mean “send out instructions”, or “send your servants”, or is it simply used as an idiom ordering action? Exod has a clearer order with its κατασπευσον. The second Hebrew imperative ‫ העז‬occurs rarely; it is the Hiphil of ‫“ עוז‬to seek refuge”, hence “to bring to safety”. For Exod this was expressed by συναγαγειν.’ See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 133: ‘LXX: «hâte-toi de rassembler (κατασπευσον συναγαγειν)»—TM: «envoie mettre en sûreté». Le Targum traduit aussi par «rassembler». Le contexte pouvait dicter une telle interprétation. La LXX reprend le verbe συναγειν en 9,20, de même que le TM répète «mettre à l’abri». Le choix de κατασπευδειν est une interprétation du verbe

registration and description of the text variants Exod. 9:19 M4Qc ≠ SamPG Exod. 9:19 Exod. 9:19 Exod. 9:19 Exod. 9:19

MSamP ≠ 4Qc MGSamP ≠ 4Qc MSamP4Qc ≠ G MSamP4Qc ≠ G

Exod. 9:19 MSamP4Qc ≠ G

Exod. 9:19 MSamP4Qc ≠ G Exod. 9:19 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:19 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:19 MSamP = G

Exod. 9:19 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:19 MG ≠ SamP Exod. 9:19 MSamP ≠ G

65

‫מקניך—מקנך‬, κτηνη: difference in number, collective singular—plural ‫ = את‬MSamP+: nota accusativi ‫ו‬, και—‫ו‬: different location ‫ = כל‬MSamP4Qc+: adjective ἐστιν = G+, in contrast to the Hebrew ellipsis of the verb ‫היה‬. The Greek verb is in the singular in relation to the subject τα κτηνη in the neuter plural with which the relative ὁσα also agrees. ‫—לך‬σοι: The Hebrew contains a construction employing the preposition ‫ל‬, while the Greek expresses this via the dative of the personal pronoun. γαρ = G+: particle ‫—אדם‬ἀνθρωποι difference in number, collective singular—plural ‫—בהמה‬κτηνη difference in number, collective singular—plural. Also different translation. Hebrew ‫ בהמה‬is normally translated by τετραποδα (cf., for example, in Exod. 9:9 and 10) and ‫מקנה‬ is the equivalent of κτηνη (cf. supra in the same verse and in 9:20).195 ‫—ימצא‬εὑρεθῃ: both verbs are in the singular. The Hebrew agrees with a collective singular subject (‫)בהמה‬. The Greek verb, by contrast, is in the singular in relation to the subject τα κτηνη in the neuter plural with which the relative ὁσα also agrees.196 ‫—בשׂדה‬ἐν τοις πεδιοις difference in number, collective singular—plural. ‫ו‬, και = MG+: conjunction ‫—יאסף‬εἰσελθῃ : difference in meaning (to collect—to come home/enter a dwelling).197 The Greek verb is once again

hébreu «envoyer» analogue à celle qu’on trouve en 9,7 et inspirée cette fois peut-être par le tour d’Ex 10,16.’ 195 Cf. infra on translation technique, p. 138. 196 Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 134: ‘The verbs within the ὁσα clause are singular, congruent to a neuter plural τα κτηνη, the nearer of the compound subject.’ 197 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 134: ‘For the passive ‫ יאסף‬Niphal “be collected” Exod has an active εἰσελθῃ in “and has not entered a dwelling” (i.e. “come home”).’ See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 133: ‘LXX: «tout ce qui . . . ne sera pas rentré (εἰσελθῃ)»—TM: «n’aura pas été ramené». Ce passage du passif à l’actif, avec l’emploi de εἰσερχεσθαι, est exceptionnel. Le seul texte parallèle est Nb 12,14.’

66

chapter two: the textual material

Exod. 9:19 MSamP4Qc ≠ G Exod. 9:19 MSamP4Qc ≠ G

Exod. 9:19b MG4Qc ≠ SamP4Qm Exod. 9:20 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:20 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:20 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 9:20 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 9:21 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:21 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:21 Exod. 9:21 Exod. 9:21 Exod. 9:21 Exod. 9:21 Exod. 9:21

MSamP ≠ G MG ≠ SamP MSamP ≠ G MSamP ≠ G MSamP ≠ G MSamP4Qm ≠ G

Exod. 9:21 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 9:21 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 9:22 MSamP ≠ G

in the singular in relation to the subject κτηνη in the neuter plural (cf. supra). ‫ = ו‬MSamP4Qc+: conjunction ‫—מתו‬τελευτησει: difference in number, plural—singular. The Hebrew verb agrees with its combined subject (twice collective singular ‫ אדם‬and ‫)בהמה‬ which is summarised in ‫עלהם‬. The Greek verb remains singular in relation to the subject in the neuter plural, which is recapitulated in ἐπ’ αὐτα. 9:19b = SamP4Qm+: larger plus198 ‫—דבר‬ῥημα: different translation199 ‫—הניס‬συνηγαγεν: difference in meaning (cause to flee—collect)200 ‫ = את עבדיו‬MSamP4Qm+201 ‫—מקנה‬κτηνη: difference in number, collective singular—plural ‫—לב‬διανοιᾳ: different translation202 τῃ = G+: definite article. The Hebrew is also defined, however, on account of the possessive suffix. ‫ ו‬in ‫ = לבו‬MSamP+: possessive suffix ‫אל‬, εἰς—‫על‬: different preposition ‫—דבר‬ῥημα: different translation203 το = G+: definite article ‫ = את עבדיו‬MSamP+204 ‫ ו‬in ‫ = מקנהו‬MSamP4Qm+: possessive suffix τα = G+: definite article ‫—מקנה‬κτηνη: difference in number, collective singular—plural ‫—אדם‬ἀνθρωπους: difference in number, collective singular—plural

198 For 4Qc see E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 108: ‘According to this reconstruction, col. II contained the text from the end of Exod. 8:18 through 9:35 and lacked the major expansions of the 4QpaleoExodmSamP tradition: 8,19b, 9,5b, and 9,19b.’ 199 Cf. supra n. 53. 200 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 134: ‘MT used the verb ‫“ הניס‬caused to flee”; they made their servants and cattle to flee into houses. Exod in line with v. 19 has “collected”— συνηγαγεν.’ 201 Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 133. 202 Cf. supra n. 28. 203 Cf. supra n. 53. 204 Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 133.

registration and description of the text variants Exod. 9:22 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:22 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:22 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:22 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:22 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:22 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:23 MSamP ≠ G

67

τε = G+: particle

‫ = על‬MSamP+: preposition205 ‫—בהמה‬κτηνη: difference in number, collective singular—plural, and different translation206 ‫—שׂדה‬γης: different translation, see also in Exod. 10:5.207 The usual equivalent of ‫ שׂדה‬is πεδιον (see, for example, Exod. 9:25), while γης on the other hand mostly represents the translation of ‫ארץ‬ (cf. for example, Exod. 9:23, 25). ‫—עשׂב השׂדה‬βοτανην την ἐπι της γης: different construction. The Hebrew has a status constructus (or a so-called genitive), while the Greek offers a description in the form of a relative clause. Compare with the parallel Hebrew ‫אשׁר‬construction in Exod. 9:25, the location of a Greek minus. It is possible that the Greek construction in 9:22 is rooted in such a Vorlage. ‫ = בארץ מצרים‬MSamP+. Note that we consider the expression βοτανην την ἐπι της γης, parallel with the construction βοτανην την ἐν τῳ πεδιῳ as translation of the same ‫ עשׂב השׂדה‬in Exod. 9:25, as the equivalent of ‫( עשׂב השׂדה‬cf. also in Exod. 10:5: γης as translation of ‫)שׂדה‬. This implies that ἐπι της γης is not identified as the translation of ‫בארץ‬. This perspective runs counter to that proposed by A. Le Boulluec and P. Sandevoir, who detect two minuses in the text of Exod. 9:22.208 In our opinion, there is only one minus, namely the entire expression ‫בארץ מצרים‬. There is no minus evident, however, at the level of ‫שׂדה‬. ‫ ו‬in ‫ = מטהו‬MSamP+: possessive suffix

205 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 135: ‘By adding the particle τε after the first ἐπι and omitting a preposition before “cattle” Exod has made a bipartite distinction between animate life and plant life.’ 206 Cf. supra n. 195. 207 Cf. supra n. 97. 208 Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 133: ‘Deux absences dans le texte grec: «de la plaine» après «herbe», et «l’Égypte» après «dans le pays».’

68

chapter two: the textual material

Exod. 9:23 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:23 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:23 Exod. 9:23 Exod. 9:24 Exod. 9:24 Exod. 9:24 Exod. 9:24

MSamP ≠ G MSamP ≠ G M ≠ GSamP MSamP ≠ G MSamP ≠ G MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:24 Exod. 9:24 Exod. 9:24 Exod. 9:24

MSamP ≠ G MSamP4Qc ≠ G MSamP ≠ G M4Qc ≠ GSamP

Exod. 9:24 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:24 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:24 MSamP ≠ G

‫—מטה‬χειρα: different presentation at the level of content.209 In MSamP, Moses stretches out his staff, in G his hand (agrees with MGSamP in Exod. 9:22). ‫—על‬εἰς: different preposition and different translation. The term ‫ על‬is mostly translated by ἐπι (cf. 9:22) and εἰς represents the translation of ‫( אל‬cf. 9:21).210 το = G+: definite article πασαν = G+: adjective ἡ, ‫ = ה‬GSamP+: definite article το = G+: definite article ἡ χαλαζα = G+211 ‫—כבד‬πολλην: difference in meaning (heavy—many).212 σφοδρα = G+ ‫—כמהו‬τοιαυτη: different location ‫—היה‬γιγνεσθαι: different translation213 ‫ = כל ארץ‬M4Qc+. GSamP exhibits here the same formulation as M, SamP and G in Exod. 9:18.214 ‫—היה‬γιγνεσθαι: different translation215 ἐπ’ αὐτης = G+. In this plus, it would appear that G understands Egypt to be a geographical territory upon which (ἐπ’ αὐτης) a nation comes to dwell. M and SamP on the other hand speak of the nation of Egypt that became a people (‫)לגוי‬.216 ‫ ל‬in ‫ = לגוי‬MSamP+: preposition, whereby a difference of meaning also emerges at the level of content.

209 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 136. According to Wevers, there is evidence in this instance of the harmonisation of v. 23 with v. 22: ‘Exod has levelled the text to make it agree with v. 22, where Moses was ordered to stretch out his hand heavenward, not his staff as in MT.’ See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 133: ‘La mention de la «main», conforme à 9,22, et non du «bâton» (TM), renforce la cohérence du récit en grec.’ 210 Cf. infra on translation technique, p. 139. 211 According to Frankel, G has translated the Hebrew term ‫ ברד‬twice. See Z. Frankel, Vorstudien, 172. 212 Cf. supra in relation to Exod. 8:20; 9:3 and 9:18. 213 Cf. supra n. 21. 214 Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 137. 215 Cf. supra n. 21. 216 Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 137. See likewise A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 134: ‘LXX: «depuis qu’une nation s’y trouvait»—TM: «depuis que (le pays) était devenu en une nation». La présence de ἐπ’ αὐτης, «y», empêche de lire le texte grec comme un décalque de l’hébreu.’

registration and description of the text variants Exod. 9:25 Exod. 9:25 Exod. 9:25 Exod. 9:25

MG ≠ SamP MSamP ≠ G M ≠ GSamP MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:25 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:25 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:25 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:25 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:25 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:25 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:26 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:26 MSamP4Ql ≠ G Exod. 9:27 MSamP4Ql ≠ G Exod. 9:27 MSamP4Ql ≠ G Exod. 9:28 Exod. 9:28 Exod. 9:28 Exod. 9:28

217

MSamP2Qa ≠ G MGSamP ≠ 2Qa MSamP2Qa4Qc ≠ G MSamP ≠ G2Qa

69

‫כל‬, πασῃ = MG+: adjective ‫ = את כל אשׁר בשׂדה‬MSamP+ ‫ ו‬in ‫ = ועד‬M+: conjunction ‫—בהמה‬κτηνους: difference in number, collective singular—plural. Different translation.217 ‫—עשׂב השׂדה‬βοτανην την ἐν τῳ πεδιῳ: different construction. The Hebrew has a status constructus (the so-called genitive), while the Greek offers a description in the form of a relative clause. Compare with the parallel Hebrew ‫אשׁר‬construction supra in this verse at the location of a Greek minus. τα in relation to ξυλα = G+: definite article ‫—עץ‬ξυλα: difference in number, collective singular—plural ‫—עץ השׂדה‬τα ξυλα τα ἐν τοις πεδιοις: different construction. The Hebrew has a status constructus (the so-called genitive), while the Greek offers a description in the form of a relative clause. ‫—שׂדה‬πεδιοις: difference in number, collective singular—plural ἡ χαλαζα = G+ ἡσαν = G+: ellipsis of the Hebrew ‫היה‬. ‫—היה‬γιγνεσθαι: different translation218 ‫—שׁלח‬ἀποστελω: different translation219 ‫—הפעם‬το νυν: different formulation for the same semantic datum οὐν περι ἐμου = G+220 ‫אל יהוה‬, προς κυριον = MGSamP+ ‫—היה‬γιγνεσθαι: different translation221 και πυρ, ‫ = ואשׁ‬G2Qa+. Compare with Exod. 9:23–24.222

Cf. supra n. 195. Cf. supra n. 21. 219 Cf. supra n. 121. 220 Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 134: ‘La LXX ajoute «donc» et «pour moi» (cf. 8,4.24).’ 221 Cf. supra n. 21. 222 Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 139. 218

70

chapter two: the textual material

Exod. 9:28 MSamP2Qa ≠ G

‫—שׁלח‬ἐξαποστελω: different translation.223

Exod. 9:28 MSamP2Qa4Qc ≠ G

‫—לא‬οὐκετι: ἐτι in οὐκετι = G+: par-

Exod. 9:29 MGSamP ≠ 2Qa Exod. 9:29 M2Qa ≠ SamP4Qc Exod. 9:29 MSamP2Qa4Qc ≠ G

‫אליו‬, αὐτῳ: different location ‫ = את‬M2Qa+: nota accusativi ‫—כפי‬χειρας: different translation.224 The

Compare also with Exod. 9:27. ticle

Hebrew equivalent of χειρ is usually

‫יד‬. Exod. 9:29 M2Qa4Qc ≠ GSamP Exod. 9:29 MSamP4Ql2Qa4Qc ≠ G c

Exod. 9:30 MSamP4Q ≠ G

Exod. 9:30 M ≠ G ≠ SamP4Qc Exod. 9:31 MSamP4Qc ≠ G Exod. 9:31 MGSamP ≠ 4Qc Exod. 9:31 MSamP4Qc ≠ G Exod. 9:31 MSamP4Qc ≠ G Exod. 9:32 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:32 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:32 Exod. 9:33 Exod. 9:33 Exod. 9:33

223

MSamP ≠ G MSamP ≠ G MSamP4Qc ≠ G MSamP4Qc ≠ G

και, ‫ = ו‬GSamP+: conjunction και ὁ ὑετος = G+. Compare with Exod.

9:34.225 ‫ = מפני‬MSamP4Qc+: different grammatical construction. The Hebrew employs a prepositional clause where the Greek uses the accusative. ‫—יהוה אלהים‬τον κυριον—‫אדני יהוה‬: different divine names ‫—ה‬ἡ: definite article, different location ‫השׁערה אביב‬, κριθη παρεστηκυια— ‫השׁ]ערה [·ב‬: different location ‫—אביב‬παρεστηκυια: difference in meaning: ear (of corn)—ripe/mature226 ‫—גבעל‬σπερματιζον: difference in meaning: budding—seeding227 ‫—כי‬γαρ: different location ἠν = G+: The verb εἰναι is rendered in contrast to the ellipsis of the Hebrew ‫היה‬. ‫ = הנה‬MSamP+: personal pronoun ἐκτος = G+: preposition228 ‫ ו‬in ‫ = כפיו‬MSamP4Qc+: possessive suffix ‫—כפי‬χειρας: different translation.229 Cf. also Exod. 9:29.

Cf. supra n. 121. Cf. supra n. 159. 225 See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 140: ‘The parallel clause states that “the hail and the rain will no longer obtain”, Exod adding ὁ ὑετος from v. 34 thereby making the account complete.’ 226 Cf. also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 135: ‘LXX: «à maturité» (παρεστηκυια)—TM: «en épi».’ 227 Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’ Alexandrie, 135: ‘LXX: «en graines»— TM: «en fleur».’ 228 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 142: ‘The difficult ‫ ויצא‬plus ‫ את‬is clarified by Exod ἐξηλθεν . . . ἐκτος: “Moses departed from Pharaoh outside the city”, which reflects the ἐξελθω την πολιν of v. 29.’ 229 Cf. supra n. 159. 224

registration and description of the text variants Exod. 9:33 Exod. 9:33 Exod. 9:33 Exod. 9:33 Exod. 9:34

MSamP4Qc ≠ G MSamP4Qc ≠ G M ≠ GSamP MSamP ≠ G MG4Ql4Qc ≠ SamP

Exod. 9:34 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:35 MSamP4Ql ≠ G Exod. 9:35 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:35 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 9:35 MSamP4Qc ≠ G

Exod. 10:1 Exod. 10:1 Exod. 10:1 Exod. 10:1 Exod. 10:1

MSamP ≠ G MSamP ≠ G MSamP4Ql4Qc ≠ G MSamP ≠ G MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 10:1 MSamP ≠ G

230

71

‫—יחדלו‬ἐπαυσαντο: different location ‫—ו‬και: different location ὁ, ‫ = ה‬GSamP+: definite article ἐτι = G+: preposition ‫המטר‬, ὁ ὑετος—‫והמטר‬: different loca-

tion of substantive and conjunction ‫ = הוא‬MSamP+: personal pronoun ἡ = G+: definite article ‫—שׁלח‬ἐξαπεστειλεν: different translation.230 Compare also with Exod. 9:27 and 28. τους = G+: definite article ‫ = ביד‬MSamP4Qc+. The Hebrew ‘instrumental’ formulation ‫ ביד משׁה‬is rendered in the Greek by a dative with the definite article, τῳ μωυσῃ. This dative is then understood as an instrumental dative.231 As a consequence, we are not so much confronted with a minus in G as with an idiomatic Greek translation of a Hebrew expression.232 λεγων = G+ ‫—כי‬γαρ: different location ‫ = את לב‬MSamP4Ql4Qc+ ἑξης = G+: adverb233 ‫—שׁתי‬ἐπελθῃ: difference in person and number. The Hebrew has 1st person singular of which YHWH, who is engaged in direct speech, is the subject. The Greek, by contrast, has a 3rd person singular in relation to the subject τα σημεια in the neuter plural.234 ‫ י‬in ‫אתתי‬, ‫ = אותתי‬MSamP+: possessive suffix

Cf. supra n. 121. Compare, however, with the interpretation offered by A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 135: ‘LXX: «à Moïse» (de même Targ. N)—TM: «par l’intermédiaire de Moïse».’, in which τῳ μωυσῃ would appear to have been understood as a dative of the indirect object. 232 Cf. also infra on translation technique, p. 143. 233 See A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 135: ‘la précision ἑξης, «à la suite», «les uns après les autres», annonce plus clairement l’ensemble de «signes» accomplis et à venir (cf. Dt 2,34; 3,6)’ 234 Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 135: ‘le sujet n’est pas le Seigneur, mais les «signes», avec le tour ἐπελθειν ἐπι et l’accusatif, qui évoque un assaut (cf. Gn 42,21, où le grec concorde avec l’hébreu).’ For the variants in the Greek text of the end of Exod. 10:1, see also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 144. 231

72

chapter two: the textual material

Exod. 10:1 MSamP ≠ G

τα = G+: definite article. The Hebrew

‫ אתתי‬and ‫ אותתי‬is also defined, however, on account of the possessive suffix. Exod. 10:1 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 10:2 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:2 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 10:2 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 10:2 MSamP4Ql ≠ G

Exod. 10:2 MSamP4Ql ≠ G Exod. 10:2 MSamP4Ql ≠ G

235 236

‫—בקרבו‬ἐπ’ αὐτους: different formulation for the same semantic datum; difference in number, singular—plural ‫ ו‬in ‫ = ולמען‬MSamP+: conjunction ‫—למען‬ὁπως: different translation. At the end of Exod. 10:1, and in the same grammatical clause type as we see continued here in Exod. 10:2, ‫ למען‬is translated by ἱνα. By employing different equivalents of ‫ למען‬in one and the same sentence, the symmetry of the Hebrew sentence structure is rendered differently in the Greek.235 ‫—תספר‬διηγησησθε: difference in number. The verb is in the 2nd person singular in the Hebrew and in the 2nd person plural in the Greek. ‫ —בנך ובן בנך‬των τεκνων και τοις τεκνοις των τεκνων ὑμων: difference in number.236 The Hebrew addresses the addressee in the 2nd person singular, the Greek in the 2nd person plural. των, τοις, των = G+: definite articles. The Hebrew is also defined, however, on account of the possessive suffixes. ‫—ובן‬τοις τεκνοις: different grammatical construction. The Hebrew runs as follows: ‘Speak to the ears of your son and (to the ears of ) the son of your son’. A twofold status constructus of ‫ באזני‬with ‫ בנך‬and once again implicitly with ‫ובן‬ ‫ בנך‬comes into play. The Greek, by contrast, renders the first more or less literally (albeit in the 2nd person plural), but then uses a dative, τοις τεκνοις, to render the second. In other words, the Greek states: ‘Speak to the ears of your children and to (dative) the children of your children.’

Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 145. See also infra on translation technique, p. 139. Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 136.

registration and description of the text variants

73

Exod. 10:2 MSamP ≠ G

‫—את אשׁר‬ὁσα: different translation.237

Exod. 10:2 MSamP ≠ G

‫—אשׁר‬ἁ. ‫ —התעללתי‬ἐμπεπαιχα : difference in

Compare further in the same verse:

Exod. 10:2 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:2 MG4Qc ≠ SamP Exod. 10:2b MG4Qc ≠ SamP4Qm Exod. 10:3 MSamP = G

Exod. 10:3 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:3 MGSamP ≠ 4Qc Exod. 10:3 MSamP ≠ G

meaning238 ‫—אשׁר‬ἁ: different translation239 ‫ = אלהיכם‬SamP+240 10:2b = SamP4Qm+: larger plus241 ‫—ויבא‬εἰσηλθεν δε: the verbs are singular on account of attraction to the closest element of the plural subject: ‫ משׁה‬and μωυσης242 ‫—אל‬ἐναντιον: different translation243

··‫ =[· במצר‬4Qc+244 ‫—מאנת‬οὐ βουλει: different construction. The Hebrew verb has a negative meaning in se (to refuse), while the Greek employs

237

Cf. supra n. 55. See J.W. Wevers, Notes, 145: ‘. . . ἐμπεπαιχα, “I have mocked” makes the divine arbitrariness even more marked than MT’s ‫“ התעללתי‬I acted ruthlessly with”.’ 239 Cf. supra n. 55. See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 147. 240 For 4Qc see E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 111: ‘Spacing favours the shorter reading of M at the end of 10:2: ‫ אני יהוה‬rather than ‫ =( אני יהוה אלהיכם‬SamP).’ 241 For 4Qc see E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 103: ‘Frg. 20 is somewhat problematic but has been placed at its most likely spot, which if correct precludes Exod 10:2b.’ . . . ‘Because of the evidence of these two fragments [frg.4: Ex 7,29b and frg.20: Ex 10,2b], the entire manuscript was reconstructed without the major expansions, yielding excellent results for the format of all eight columns. Thus on the basis of these two fragments plus the reconstruction, Exodc is judged to have lacked the major expansions found in 4QpaleoExodmSamP.’ [ ] = B.L. See also Ibidem, 111: ‘On the basis of this reconstruction of col. III, in which the expansions of the 4QpaleoExodmSamP tradition (Exod 10:2b and 11:3b) are lacking, the text of Exod 10:1–11:8 can fill exactly 43 lines.’ For 4Qm see P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 81: ‘Lines 23–26 are not extant, but the Exod mSamP major expansion 10:2b would have begun on line 24 and continued, with the extant fragment resuming on line 27, on to line 30.’ 242 See J.W. Wevers, Notes, 145. 243 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 145: ‘Exod has Moses and Aaron go in ἐναντιον Pharaoh as at 7:10, rather than προς Pharaoh as 5:1 7:15 and MT’s ‫אל‬. The notion of going in before may well represent a zeugma for “go in and stand before”; compare 8:20 9:13.’ See also supra n. 24. 244 See E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 111: ‘]··‫] [· במצר‬. After the reš the leather is split; on the following tiny fragment are traces of two letters, but the relative position of the fragment is too uncertain to determine what the letters are. There is another very tiny piece stuck in the mounting of the leather, the positioning of which is slightly different from that in the photograph. The word ‫ במצרים‬does not occur in MSamP in 10:3. Spacing suggests that it was preceded by ‫ אל פרעה‬in this MS, and the ink stroke before would allow he.’ 238

74

chapter two: the textual material

Exod. 10:3 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:3 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:3 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:3 M4Qc ≠ SamP4Ql Exod. 10:4 MSamP4Qc ≠ G Exod. 10:4 MSamP4Qc ≠ G Exod. 10:4 MSamP4Qc ≠ G Exod. 10:4 MSamP ≠ 4Qm

Exod. 10:4 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:4 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:4 MSamP4Ql ≠ G

245

a positive verb (to desire) with a particle of negation (οὐ).245 ‫—לענת‬ἐντραπηναι: difference in nuance, to humiliate oneself—to show respect or to be ashamed.246 ‫—מפני‬με: different expression. ‫—שׁלח‬ἐξαποστειλον: different translation.247 Compare also with Exod. 9:27, 28 and 35. ‫ = את‬SamP4Ql+: nota accusativi 248 ‫—מאן‬μη θελῃς: different translation.249 Compare with the translation of ‫ מאן‬in Exod. 10:3. ‫ = אתה‬MSamP4Qc+: personal pronoun ‫—שׁלח‬ἐξαποστειλαι: different translation.250 Compare also with Exod. 9:27, 28, 35 and 10:3. ]‫[ה‬: according to DJD 9, the ‫ה‬- reflects a variant in 4QpaleoExodm. Read in this regard: ‘The ‫ה‬- requires a variant since neither ‫ אתה‬nor ‫ ארבה‬fits the letter count; M would give either ‫ עמי‬or ‫הנני‬ in this position. Perhaps read ‫הנה‬, with ‫ אנכי‬to follow on line 33; cf. 7:17, 27; 8:25; etc., and Jer. 6:19.’251 ‫—מביא‬ἐπαγω: different verb form, participle—finite verb 1st person singular ταυτην την ὡραν = G+ πολλην = G+: adjective

Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 146: ‘The use of a negative particle and βουλομαι to render

‫ מאן‬is common in Exod. (4:23 8:2 9:2 16:28 22:17); in fact, only twice is ‫ מאן‬not so

translated (7:14 by του μη; 10:4 μη θελῃς).’ 246 Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 136: ‘’Εντρεπεσθαι, avec un accusatif dans la koinè, signifie «montrer du respect» à quelqu’un, ou bien, employé absolument ou avec un complément, «éprouver de la honte». C’est ici le seul cas de correspondance dans la LXX entre ce verbe et l’hébreu ‫ענה‬, qui a un sens fort: être dans une condition basse, misérable. Le grec affaiblit donc l’hébreu. Cependant, le fait que ἐντρεπεσθαι traduit en majorité dans la LXX trois verbes connotant l’humiliation (‫חפר‬, «être couvert de confusion», ‫כלם‬, «être frappé d’ignominie», ‫כנע‬, au passif, «s’humilier») incite à retenir en français un terme assez rude.’ 247 Cf. supra n. 121. 248 For 4Qc see E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 111: ‘Spacing favours the shorter reading ‫ =( שׁלח עמי‬M) rather than ‫ =( שׁלח את עמי‬SamP).’ 249 Cf. infra on translation technique, p. 139. 250 Cf. supra n. 121. 251 Cf. P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 81. See also supra, marginal n. 6, p. 32.

registration and description of the text variants Exod. 10:4 MSamP4Ql ≠ G Exod. 10:4 MSamP4Ql ≠ G Exod. 10:5 MSamP4Ql ≠ G Exod. 10:5 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:5 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 10:5 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 10:5 MG ≠ SamP4Qm Exod. 10:5 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:5 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 10:6 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 10:6 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 10:6 MSamP4Qm ≠ G

75

‫—ב‬ἐπι: different location παντα = G+: adjective ‫—עין‬ὀψιν: different nuance in meaning,

eye—sight252 ‫—יוכל‬δυνησῃ: difference in person, 3rd person singular—2nd person singular253 παν = G+: adjective254 ‫ = מן‬MSamP+: preposition. Different construction. In the Hebrew textual versions, the preposition ‫ מן‬functions in the same way as the English ‘by’ in relation to the acting subject in passive constructions (cf. the niphal form ‫)נשׁארת‬.255 As a consequence, the meaning of the Hebrew sentence is as follows: ‘what is left for you by the hail’. In the Greek sentence, the word χαλαζα serves as the subject in an active construction: ‘what the hail left for you’. The preposition in relation to the acting subject is thus unnecessary. ‫ = עשׂב הארץ ואת כל פרי‬SamP4Qm+ ‫—מן‬ἐπι: different translation.256 ’Επι is usually the equivalent of the Hebrew ‫על‬. See, for example, in Exod. 9:22; 10:6. ‫—שׂדה‬γης: different translation.257 The standard equivalent of ‫ שׂדה‬is πεδιον. On the other hand, γης is mostly used as the equivalent of ‫( ארץ‬cf., for example, in Exod. 9:23, 25). ‫ = כל‬MSamP4Qm+: adjective ‫—ו‬και: different location πασαι = G+: adjective258

252 Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 136: ‘Οψις «vue», «aspect», rend le mot hébreu pour «oeil» (cf. 10,15; Nb 22,5.11), employé au sens dérivé de «ce qui se voit», c’est-à-dire la surface de la terre.’ 253 Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 136: ‘Le tour impersonnel de l’hébreu est rendu par une 2e personne du singulier, «tu ne pourras pas . . .», qui renvoie à Pharaon.’ 254 Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 136. 255 Cf. B.K. Waltke, M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 213, §11.2.11d. 256 Cf. supra n. 210. 257 Cf. supra n. 97. 258 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 147: ‘Exod differs from MT which has ‫ כל‬before ‫עבדיך‬ instead of before ‫ )ו(בתי‬2°, but the tradition is unanimous in supporting Exod., and it may well have had a textual basis.’

76

chapter two: the textual material

Exod. 10:6 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 10:6 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:6 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:6 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 10:6 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:6 MSamP4Qm ≠ G

Exod. 10:6 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:6 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:7 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:7 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 10:7 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:7 MSamP4Qc ≠ G

259

ἐν = G+: preposition. Different construction. The Hebrew employs a status constructus (so-called genitive): the houses of all Egypt. The Greek employs an adverbial locative after the preposition ἐν: the houses in all the land of Egypt. γῃ = G+ ‫—לא‬οὐδεποτε: the Greek negation ‘never’ is stronger than the Hebrew ‘not’. ‫—אבתיך ואבות אבתיך‬πατερες σου οὐδε οἱ προπαπποι αὐτων: different description with the same meaning, however, in terms of content. The Hebrew alludes to your fathers and the fathers of your fathers. The Greek renders this as your fathers and their forefathers. Moreover, the Hebrew and the Greek employ a different possessive suffix / pronoun (‫—ך‬αὐτων): 2nd person singular—3rd person plural. ‫—היה‬γιγνεσθαι: different translation259 ‫—אדמה‬γης: different translation (compare with Exod. 8:17).260 Γης, however, is mostly employed as the equivalent of ‫( ארץ‬cf., for example, in Exod. 9:23, 25). μωυσης = G+ ‫—מעם‬ἀπο: different translation261 ‫—ויאמרו‬λεγουσιν δε: The Greek contains a historical present instead of an aorist as equivalent of the Hebrew wayyiqtol.262 ‫—זה‬τουτο: different meaning. The Greek τουτο alludes to the situation, whereas the Hebrew ‫ זה‬can refer to both the situation and to Moses.263 Compare also with Exod. 10:11 in which τουτο is employed as the equivalent of the Hebrew ‫אתה‬. ‫ ל‬in ‫ = למוקשׁ‬MSamP+: preposition ‫—שׁלח‬ἐξαποστειλον: different transla-

Cf. supra n. 21. Cf. supra n. 97. Cf. also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 136. 261 Cf. supra n. 52. 262 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 148. 263 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 148. See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 137. 260

registration and description of the text variants

Exod. 10:7 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:7 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:8 MSamP4Qc ≠ G

Exod. 10:8 MSamP4Qm4Qc ≠ G Exod. 10:9 MSamP4Qm4Qc ≠ G Exod. 10:9 MSamP4Qc ≠ G Exod. 10:9 MSamP4Qc ≠ G Exod. 10:9 MSamP4Qc ≠ G Exod. 10:9 MSamP4Qc ≠ G Exod. 10:9 MSamP4Qc ≠ G Exod. 10:9 MSamP4Qc ≠ G Exod. 10:9 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 10:9 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 10:9 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 10:9 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 10:9 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 10:9 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 10:9 MSamP ≠ G

264

77

tion.264 Compare also with Exod. 9:27, 28, 35 and 10:3, 4. ‫ = טרם‬MSamP+: particle βουλει = G+.265 ‫—וי)ו(שׁב‬και ἀπεστρεψαν: difference in number, singular—plural. The servants from Exod. 10:7 would appear to be the subject of the Greek plural form,266 while Moses and Aaron are subject of the Hebrew hophal form.267 εἰσιν = G+: in contrast to the ellipsis of the Hebrew verb ‫היה‬ ‫—ויאמר‬και λεγει: the Greek has a historic present instead of an aorist as equivalent of the Hebrew wayyiqtol.268 τοις = G+: definite article ‫ נו‬in ‫ = בנערינו‬MSamP4Qc+: possessive suffix ‫ ב‬in ‫ = בזקנינו‬MSamP4Qc+: preposition ‫ נו‬in ‫ = בזקנינו‬MSamP4Qc+: possessive suffix τοις = G+: definite article ‫ נו‬in ‫ = בבנינו‬MSamP4Qc+: possessive suffix ‫ ב‬in ‫ = ובבנותנו‬MSamP4Qm+: preposition ‫ נו‬in ‫ = ובבנותנו‬MSamP4Qm+: possessive suffix και = G+: conjunction ‫ ב‬in ‫ = בצאננו‬MSamP4Qm+: preposition ‫ נו‬in ‫ = בצאננו‬MSamP4Qm+: possessive suffix ‫—צאן‬προβατοις: difference in number; collective singular—plural ‫ ב‬in ‫ = ובבקרנו‬MSamP+: preposition

Cf. supra n. 121. See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 137: ‘Le «veux-tu» (βουλει) est propre à la LXX et souligne l’interrogation ironique qui exprime aussi en hébreu un vif reproche.’ See also infra on translation technique, p. 139. 266 Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 137; and J.W. Wevers, Notes, 148. 267 For the subject introduced by ‫ את‬in relation to a passive verb (Hophal ), see B.K. Waltke, M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 182, §10.3.2. See also their reference to the example from Exod. 10:8, Ibidem, 384, n. 18 and 449, §28.2b, example 2c. 268 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 149. 265

78

chapter two: the textual material

Exod. 10:9 MSamP ≠ G

‫—בקר‬βουσιν: difference in number;

Exod. 10:9 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:9 MSamP ≠ G

‫ = נלך‬MSamP+269

Exod. 10:9 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:9 MSamP ≠ G

του θεου = G+270 ‫—לנו‬ἡμων: different construction and

collective singular—plural ἐστιν = G+: in contrast to the ellipsis of

the Hebrew verb ‫היה‬

Exod. 10:10 MG4Qm ≠ SamP Exod. 10:10 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:10 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:10 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:10 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 10:10 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 10:11 MG4Qm ≠ SamP Exod. 10:11 MG4Qm ≠ SamP Exod. 10:11 MSamP ≠ G

269

meaning. The Hebrew has a status constructus ‫ הג יהוה‬with an indirect object and preposition ‫לנו‬. The Greek, on the other hand, alludes to a ‘feast for YHWH our God’ (objective genitive), whereby ἡμων does not serve as an indirect object (otherwise this would be ἡμιν in the dative), but functions rather as a possessive pronoun in relation to κυριου του θεου.271 ‫יהי‬, ἐστω—‫יהיה‬: different verb forms ‫—כאשׁר‬καθοτι: different translation272 ‫—שׁלח‬ἀποστελλω: different translation.273 Compare also with Exod. 9:27, 28, 35 and 10:3, 4, 7. την = G+: definite article. The Hebrew is also defined, however, on account of the nota accusativi. ‫—נגד‬προκειται: preposition—verb ‫—פניכם‬ὑμιν: different expression, ‘before your face’—‘before you’ (personal pronoun in the dative) ‫לא כן‬, μη οὑτως = MG4Qm+ ‫ = לכן‬SamP+ ‫—לכו הגברים‬πορευεσθωσαν οἱ ἀνδρες: different grammatical construction. The Hebrew textual versions have an imperative in the 2nd person plural with the

Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 149. See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 137: ‘La LXX développe ici κυριος en ajoutant «notre Dieu»; c’est Moïse qui parle; au contraire, dans la bouche des Égyptiens, κυριος est remplacé par θεος (10,7.8.11). Si κυριος est maintenu en 8,4.24; 9,27.28; 10,10.16.17.24, c’est qu’il est indispensable à la clarté du dialogue et de l’affrontement qui s’y déploie entre Pharaon et «Seigneur», le Dieu des Hébreux.’ 271 Cf. also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 137: ‘La LXX («. . . c’est la fête du Seigneur notre Dieu») se distingue du TM («. . . c’est pour nous fête de YHWH»).’ 272 Cf. supra n. 57. 273 Cf. supra n. 121. 270

registration and description of the text variants

Exod. 10:11 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 10:11 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:11 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 10:11 M ≠ GSamP4Qm Exod. 10:12 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:12 M4Qc ≠ SamP Exod. 10:12 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 10:12 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:12 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:12 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:12 M4Qc ≠ GSamP

274

79

vocative ‫הגברים‬. The Greek, on the other hand, has an imperative 3rd person plural with οἱ ἀνδρες (nominative plural) as subject.274 ‫—יהוה‬θεος: different translation. The term ‫ יהוה‬is mostly rendered by κυριος and ‫ אלהים‬by θεος.275 See, for example, the following verse Exod. 10:12. ‫—כי‬γαρ: different location ‫—אתם‬αὐτοι: personal pronoun in the 2nd person plural—personal pronoun in the 3rd person plural. According to Wevers, however, the 3rd person plural is employed here with the meaning of the 2nd person plural.276 ‫—ויגרשׁ‬ἐξεβαλον δε, ‫ויגרשׁו‬: difference in number, 3rd person singular—3rd person plural ‫ ך‬in ‫ = ידך‬MSamP+: possessive suffix ‫ = את‬SamP+: nota accusativi 277 ‫—בארבה‬ἀκρις: different location and different function. The Hebrew ‫בארבה‬ is still part of the imperative clause ‫נטה‬, while the Greek makes ἀκρις subject of the following verb ἀναβητω.278 την = G+: definite article279 ‫ = מצרים‬MSamP+ και = G+: conjunction τον καρπον των ξυλων , ‫= פרי העץ‬ GSamP+280 Compare with Exod. 10:5.

Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 150. Cf. supra n. 126. 276 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 150: ‘The use of αὐτοι as a substitute for the second personal pronoun . . .’ 277 For 4Qc see E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 112: ‘The spacing in line 14 somewhat favours the shorter reading ‫ =( נטה ידך‬M) rather than ‫ =( נטה את ידך‬SamP).’ 278 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 151; A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 138. See also Z. Frankel, Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese, 76. 279 See J.W. Wevers, Notes, 151: ‘Γην Αἰγυπτου is never articulated after its first occurrence at 8:6; on the other hand, when γην has no modifier it always has the article; thus ἐπι γην Αἰγυπτου and ἐπι την γην always contrast as in this verse. Incidentally γης Αἰγυπτου is never articulated in Exod either, nor is γῃ Αἰγυπτῳ (or Αἰγυπτου).’ 280 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 151; A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 138. For 4Qc see E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 112: ‘The spacing in line 15 suggests the shorter reading ‫ =( כל אשׁר‬M) rather than ‫ =( כל פרי העץ אשׁר‬SamP).’ 275

80

chapter two: the textual material

Exod. 10:12 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 10:13 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:13 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:13 MG ≠ SamP Exod. 10:13 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:13 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:13 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:13 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:13 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:14 MSamP ≠ G

‫—השׁאיר‬ὑπελιπετο: different translation. Compare with Exod. 10:5 in which the same verb ‫ שׁאר‬is translated by κατελιπεν.281 ‫—ויט‬και ἐπηρεν: different translation.282 ‫ ו‬in ‫ מטהו‬and ‫ = ידו‬MSamP+: possessive suffix ‫מטה‬, ῥαβδον— ‫יד‬: difference in content ‫—על ארץ מצרים‬εἰς τον οὐρανον: difference in content283 ‫—קדים‬νοτον: difference in content, east wind as opposed to south wind284 ‫—היה‬γιγνεσθαι: different translation285 ὁ = G+: definite article ‫—קדים‬νοτον: difference in content, east wind as opposed to south wind286 ‫ —ויעל הארבה‬και ἀνηγαγεν αὐτην : different construction. In the Hebrew, a new clause unit begins with the words ‫ויעל הארבה‬, in which locusts (‫)הארבה‬ are the subject of ‫ויעל‬. In English translation, therefore, the Hebrew texts runs as follows: ‘and the locusts went up . . .’ The Greek expression και ἀνηγαγεν αὐτην, by contrast, constitutes the beginning of the second part of a compound clause, the first part of which in the preceding verse (Exod. 10:13) runs as follows: και ὁ ἀνεμος ὁ νοτος ἀνελαβεν την ἀκριδα. Και ἀνηγαγεν αὐτην continues this

sentence. The subject of the first part, ἀνεμος, continues to fulfil the same func-

281

Cf. infra on translation technique, p. 139. Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 152: ‘Unique is the use of ἐπαιρεω to render the Hiphil of ‫נטה‬.’ See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 138: ‘Le verbe fréquent ‫« נטה‬étendre», rendu habituellement par ἐκτεινειν, est rendu ici, cas unique dans la LXX, par ἐπαιρειν, «lever».’ Cf. infra on translation technique, p. 139. 283 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 151–152. See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 138. 284 Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 138: ‘La direction du vent n’est pas la même dans la LXX et dans le TM: pour des observateurs placés en Égypte, ce n’est pas de l’est, mais du «sud» (ou du sud-ouest) que peuvent venir les criquets.’ See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 152. 285 Cf. supra n. 21. 286 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 152. See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 138. 282

registration and description of the text variants

Exod. 10:14 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 10:14 MSamP4Qc ≠ G Exod. 10:14 MSamP4Qc ≠ G

Exod. 10:15 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:15 MSamP ≠ G4Qc Exod. 10:15 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:15 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:15 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:15 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 10:15 MSamP ≠ G

81

tion with respect to the verb ἀνηγαγεν, of which αὐτην, referring to την ἀκριδα, is the object.287 The respective verbs ‫ויעל‬ and ἀνηγαγεν have a different meaning. ‫—וינח‬και κατεπαυσεν: in the Greek version, the subject of κατεπαυσεν (with which a new clause begins) now becomes the αὐτην (locusts) from the end of the previous clause. This is evident from the nominative feminine singular of πολλη in the expression πολλη σφοδρα.288 The textual versions thereby run parallel again. ‫—היה‬γιγνεσθαι: different translation289 ‫—כן כמהו‬τοιαυτη: different location. The Greek has simplified the compound Hebrew formula ‫ כן כמהו‬in the singular τοιαυτη.290 ‫ = כל‬MSamP+: adjective ‫—ותחשׁך‬και ἐφθαρη, ‫ותשׁחת‬: different meaning ‫ —פרי‬καρπον : difference in number, plural—collective singular ‫—העץ‬των ξυλων: difference in number, collective singular—plural ‫—הותיר‬ὑπελειφθη: different translation. Elsewhere also the equivalent of ‫שׁאר‬.291 ‫—אשׁר הותיר הברד‬ὁς ὑπελειφθη ἀπο της χαλαζης: different construction. The Hebrew clauses are active, with ‫הברד‬ as subject and the antecedent of ‫אשׁר‬, being ‫פרי העץ‬, as object. The Greek verb ὑπελειφθη is passive. The subject is the relative ὁς in the nominative and ἀπο της χαλαζης is the agent.292 ’Απο = G+: preposition that designates the agent in the genitive. The verbs are parallel nevertheless in the remainder of the verse: ‫—נותר‬ὑπελειφθη. ‫ ו‬in ‫ = ולא‬MSamP+: conjunction

287 Cf. also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 138. See likewise J.W. Wevers, Notes, 152. 288 Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 153. 289 Cf. supra n. 21. 290 Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 153. 291 Cf. supra n. 281. 292 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 153–154.

82

chapter two: the textual material

Exod. 10:15 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:15 MSamP4Qc ≠ G Exod. 10:15 MSamP4Qc ≠ G Exod. 10:15 MSamP4Qc ≠ G Exod. 10:15 MSamP4Qc ≠ G Exod. 10:15 MSamP4Qc ≠ G Exod. 10:15 MSamP4Qc ≠ G Exod. 10:16 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:16 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:16 MSamP4Qc ≠ G Exod. 10:16 MSamP4Qc ≠ G Exod. 10:17 MSamP4Qc ≠ G Exod. 10:17 M ≠ GSamP4Qc Exod. 10:17 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:17 MG ≠ SamP Exod. 10:17 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 10:17 M ≠ G ≠ SamP Exod. 10:17 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:18 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:18 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:18 MSamP4Qc ≠ G

293

‫—נותר‬ὑπελειφθη: different translation. Elsewhere also the equivalent of ‫( שׁאר‬in 10:12 for example).293 ‫—ירק‬χλωρον: different location ‫ = כל‬MSamP4Qc+ οὐδεν = G+: reinforcement of the first negation οὐχ294 ‫—בעץ‬ἐν τοις ξυλοις: difference in number, collective singular—plural ‫—וב‬και ἐν: different location πασῃ = G+: adjective295 ‫ ל‬in ‫ = למשׁה‬MSamP+: preposition ‫ ל‬in ‫ = לאהרן‬MSamP+: preposition ‫ ל‬in ‫—ליהוה‬ἐναντιον: different translation296 ‫ ל‬in ‫—ולכם‬εἰς: different translation297 ‫ = ועתה‬MSamP4Qc+: particle298 ‫ —שׂא‬προσδεξασθε , ‫שׂאו‬: difference in number, 2nd person singular—2nd person plural ‫—הפעם‬νυν: different expression, this time—now ‫ו‬, και = MG+: conjunction ‫—עתר‬προσευχεσθαι: different translation. In the same verse, ‫ עתר‬is also translated by εὐχεσθαι.299 The preposition προς employed in relation to προσευχεσθαι at this juncture is nevertheless repeated in relation to κυριον. ‫—ל‬προς—‫אל‬: different prepositions ‫ = רק‬MSamP+: particle μωυσης = G+ ‫—מעם‬ἀπο: different translation300 ‫—עתר‬εὐχεσθαι: different translation.301 Cf. supra in the same verse.

Cf. supra n. 281. Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 154. 295 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 154: ‘Exod has πασῃ before βοτανῃ over against all other ancient witnesses, but this is consistent with his practice elsewhere (9:22,25 10:12).’ 296 Cf. supra n. 24. See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 139: ‘LXX: «devant Seigneur» (cf. Targum: «devant YHWH»)—TM: «contre YHWH».’ 297 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 154. According to Wevers, the different prepositions serve to emphasis the difference between YHWH and his emissaries. 298 Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 139. 299 Cf. infra on translation technique, p. 139. 300 Cf. supra n. 52. 301 Cf. supra n. 299. 294

registration and description of the text variants Exod. 10:18 MSamP4Qc ≠ G Exod. 10:19 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:19 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:19 M ≠ G ≠ SamP

Exod. 10:19 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:19 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:19 MSamP4Qm4Qc ≠ G Exod. 10:20 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:21 Exod. 10:21 Exod. 10:21 Exod. 10:21

MGSamP ≠ 4Qm M ≠ SamP MSamP ≠ G MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 10:21 MGSamP ≠ 4Qm Exod. 10:21 MG ≠ SamP Exod. 10:22 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 10:22 MSamP ≠ G

302

83

‫—יהוה‬τον θεον: different translation. The term κυριος serves for the most part as the equivalent of ‫יהוה‬.302 ἀπο = G+: preposition303 ‫—חזק מאד‬σφοδρον: different description, very strong—mighty.304 ‫—ימה סוף‬εἰς την ἐρυθραν θαλασσαν— ‫ים סוף‬: different expression for designating direction. M employs a locative ‫ה‬-. G uses the preposition εἰς. SamP does not indicate direction. και = G+: conjunction305 ‫—נשׁאר‬ὑπελειφθη: different translation. Elsewhere (e.g. Exod. 10:15) also the equivalent of ‫יתר‬.306 ‫—גבול‬γῃ: different translation.307 ‫—שׁלח‬ἐξαπεστειλεν: different translation.308 Compare also with Exod. 9:27, 28, 35 and 10:3, 4, 7, 10. ‫ויאמר‬, εἰπεν δε—‫וידבר‬: different verb ‫ = את‬SamP+: nota accusativi ‫ ך‬in ‫ = ידך‬MSamP+: possessive suffix ‫—על‬εἰς: different translation;309 ἐπι is generally employed as the equivalent of ‫( על‬see further in the same verse). ‫וימשׁ )ה (חשׁך‬, ψηλαφητον σκοτος = MGSamP+ ‫ ה‬in ‫ = החשׁך‬SamP+: definite article ‫ ו‬in ‫ = ידו‬MSamP4Qm+: possessive suffix ‫—על‬εἰς: different translation310 ’Επι is generally employed as the equivalent of ‫( על‬cf., for example, Exod. 10:21).

Cf. supra n. 126. Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 155: ‘MT simply refers to a “west wind”, but Exod renders ‫ ים‬as ἀπο θαλασσης. This makes sense to an Alexandrian: a wind from the sea is either north or west; such a wind towards the ἐρυθραν θαλασσαν would have to be from the west and slightly north.’ 304 See J.W. Wevers, Notes, 155. 305 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 156. 306 Cf. supra n. 281. 307 Cf. supra n. 97. See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 156: ‘Exod repeats v. 15 in ἐν πασῃ γῃ Αἰγυπτου, whereas MT uses ‫“ גבול‬border(s)” rather than ‫ארץ‬.’ 308 Cf. supra n. 121. 309 Cf. supra n. 210. 310 Cf. supra n. 210. 303

84

chapter two: the textual material

Exod. 10:22 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:22 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:23 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 10:23 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:23 MSamP4Qc ≠ G Exod. 10:23 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 10:23 MSamP4Qm ≠ G

Exod. 10:23 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:23 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:24 MSamP4Qm ≠ G4Qc Exod. 10:24 M ≠ SamP4Qm Exod. 10:24 M4Qc ≠ GSamP4Qm Exod. 10:24 G ≠ SamP4Qm Exod. 10:24 MGSamP4Qc ≠ 4Qm

311

‫—היה‬γιγνεσθαι: different translation311 θυελλα = G+312 και = G+: conjunction ‫ —ראו‬εἰδεν : difference in number,

plural—singular313 ‫—קמו‬ἐξανεστη: difference in number, plural—singular ‫—מתחתיו‬ἐκ της κοιτης αὐτου: semantic agreement at the level of content without literal equivalent. The Hebrew has ‫‘ מתחתיו‬from what is under him’, in other words a place to sit, rest or lie down. The Greek, on the other hand, employs a more specific term, namely κοιτη (bed or place of rest).314 ‫ ל‬in ‫ = ולכל‬MSamP4Qm+: preposition. The meaning of this preposition is rendered in the Greek, however, with the dative πασιν. ‫—ב‬ἐν: different location πασιν = G+: adjective315 ‫אל‬, ‫ = ל‬MSamP4Qm+: preposition ‫ל—אל‬: different preposition και αἀρων, ‫ = ולאהר)ו(ן‬GSamP4Qm+ ‫ = ל‬SamP4Qm+: preposition ‫ויאמר‬, λεγων — ‫ויאמרו‬: difference in number, singular—plural. According to DJD 9, this difference should not be counted as a variant because the waw in question is not clearly legible.316

Cf. supra n. 21. Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 156. See likewise A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 140: ‘La LXX comporte une formule à trois termes dont le dernier, θυελλα, («ouragan»), n’a pas de correspondant dans le TM. Il semble que la traduction grecque ait subi l’influence subséquente du Dt LXX (4,11; 5,22), dont les expressions rendent d’autres termes de l’hébreu.’ 313 See J.W. Wevers, Notes, 157: ‘The first two clauses have plural verbs, ‫ ראו‬and ‫קמו‬, which Exod renders by the singular in congruence with οὐδεις.’ 314 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 157. See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 140: ‘La traduction par «lit (κοιτη)» précise une localisation plus vague en hébreu.’ 315 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 157: ‘The πασιν renders explicit what is only implicit in MT.’ See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 140: ‘L’addition de «partout» souligne le privilège des «fils d’Israël».’ 316 Cf. P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 83: ‘‫ ויאמרו‬is not included as a variant because the distinctive final letter is uncertain.’ 312

registration and description of the text variants Exod. 10:24 MSamP4Qm4Qc ≠ G Exod. 10:24 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:24 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:24 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:24 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 10:24 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 10:24 MSamP4Qm ≠ G

Exod. 10:24 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:25 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:25 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:25 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 10:25 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 10:25 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 10:25 MSamP ≠ G

85

(‫—ויאמר)ו‬λεγων: different verb form τῳ θεῳ ὑμων = G+.317 Compare with Exod. 10:26. ‫—צאן‬προβατων: difference in number, collective singular—plural ‫ כם‬in ‫ = צאנכם‬MSamP+: possessive suffix ‫—בקר‬βοων: difference in number, collective singular—plural ‫ כם‬in ‫ = בקרכם‬MSamP4Qm+: possessive suffix ‫—יצג‬ὑπολειπεσθε: difference in number, singular—plural,318 and different translation.319 ὑπολειπειν is also employed elsewhere as the equivalent of ‫ שׁאר‬and ‫( יתר‬cf. Exod. 10:12, 15, 19, 26). ἡ = G+: definite article ἀλλα = G+: adversative particle ‫—בידנו‬ἡμιν: different expression, parallel meaning. ‫ —זבחים ועלות‬ὁλοκαυτωματα και θυσιας: different location, reverse order320 ἁ = G+: relative in the neuter plural because the two antecedents ὁλοκαυτωματα και θυσιας are of different gender.321 ‫ ו‬in ‫ = ועשׁינו‬MSamP4Qm+: conjunction ‫ ל‬in ‫ = ליהוה‬MSamP+: preposition. In the Greek, however, this word is expressed by the dative. The term κυριῳ is also found elsewhere as the equivalent of ‫את‬ ‫יהוה‬. Cf., for example, Exod. 10:24, 26 (twice).

317 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 157: ‘MT has ‫ את יהוה‬modifying the imperative, whereas Exod amplifies κυριῳ by τῳ θεῳ ὑμων as in vv. 25, 26; in fact Exod always has “worship the Lord” with the accompanying modifier “your (or their) God”.’ See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 140: ‘LXX: «Seigneur votre Dieu» (cf. 10,25.26)—TM: «YHWH»’ 318 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 157–158: ‘In MT ‫ צאנכם‬and ‫ בקרכם‬constitute the compound subject of the Hophal ‫יצג‬, singular by attraction to the nearer unit: “your sheep and your cattle will be detained”. Exod has quite a different construction. The pronouns are omitted both for προβατων and for βοων, . . ., and the genitive nouns modify the verb ὑπολειπεσθε, a present plural imperative: “only the sheep and the cattle leave behind”.’ 319 Cf. supra n. 281. 320 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 158. 321 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 158.

86

chapter two: the textual material

Exod. 10:25 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:26 M4Qm ≠ GSamP

Exod. 10:26 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 10:26 MSamP ≠ G4Qm

Exod. 10:26 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 10:26 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 10:26 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 10:26 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:27 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 10:27 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:28 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:28 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:28 MG ≠ SamP

τῳ = G+: definite article. MSamP is also

defined, however, on account of the possessive suffix. ‫—מקננו‬τα κτηνη ἡμων, ‫מקנינו‬: difference in number, singular—plural. The Greek verb form πορευσεται is in the singular because the subject (τα κτηνη) is a neuter plural.322 και = G+: conjunction ‫—תשׁאר‬ὑπολειψομεθα, ‫נשׁאר‬: different person, 3rd person feminine singular (in relation to ‫—)פרסה‬1st person plural.323 Different translation.324 ‫—כי‬γαρ: different location ‫—ממנו‬ἀπ’ αὐτων: difference in number, singular—plural. M agrees with the singular ‫מקננו‬, G with the plural τα κτηνη ἡμων. SamP, which employs the singular ‫ ממנו‬at this juncture in line with M, does not agree with its preceding plural ‫מקנינו‬. τῳ = G+: definite article. MSamP4Qm is also defined, however, on account of the possessive suffix. τῳ θεῳ ἡμων = G+. Compare with Exod. 10:24. ‫—ולא אבה‬και οὐκ ἐβουληθη: different translation.325 ‫—שׁלח‬ἐξαποστειλαι: different translation.326 Compare also with Exod. 9:27, 28, 35 and 10:3, 4, 7, 10, 20. ‫—ויאמר‬και λεγει: different verb form. The Greek employs a historical present. ‫ = לו‬MSamP+: preposition with 3rd person masculine singular suffix ‫ = לך‬SamP+: preposition with 2nd person singular suffix. Reflexive meaning. Cf. further in the present verse where MSamP

322 Cf. in this regard I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Die Konstruktion des Verbs bei einem Neutrum Plural im Griechischen Pentateuch’, in A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, 189–199, esp. 196. 323 Cf. also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 140. 324 Cf. supra n. 281. 325 Cf. supra n. 249. 326 Cf. supra n. 121.

registration and description of the text variants

Exod. 10:28 M ≠ G ≠ SamP

Exod. 10:28 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 10:28 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:28 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:28 MSamP ≠ G

327

87

have ‫ לך‬and G employs the reflexive pronoun σεαυτῳ as equivalent. ‫— ֶאל‬ἐτι— ‫ ַאל‬: wrong vocalisation. M (Codex Leningradensis) vocalises ‫ ֶאל‬as the preposition ‘to’, although this interpretation does not fit the context, which appears to expect a command (negation ‫ ַאל‬in association with the verb ‫)תסף‬. According to the text-critical apparatus of BHS, several other M-manuscripts have precisely this meaning and vocalise ‫ ַאל‬as a negation. From the contextual perspective such a reading is clearly more appropriate. On the basis of this observation, we presuppose that SamP also understood ‫ ַאל‬as a negation. The Greek text employs ἐτι. According to Wevers, G also read ‫ ַאל‬as a negation, in spite of the fact that the use of the particle ἐτι does not offer a literal equivalent thereof.327 το in μου το προσωπον = G+: definite article. The Hebrew is also defined, however, on account of the possessive suffix. ‫—כי‬δε: parallel meaning, although ‫ כי‬is frequently rendered elsewhere by γαρ. ‫—כי ביום ראתך‬ᾑ δ’αν ἡμερᾳ: different construction, infinitive construct— relative clause.328 ‫—ראתך פני‬ὀφθῃς μοι: different construction. The Hebrew has a qal infinitive construct with a 2nd person masculine singular as subject and ‫ פני‬as object. The Greek, on the other hand, employs a passive aorist 2nd person masculine singular with the dative μοι as agent. In terms of content, this means that in the first instance (MSamP) it is a question of Moses seeing Pharaoh, and in the second instance (G) of Pharaoh seeing Moses (Moses being seen by Pharaoh).329 It is

Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 159–160. Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 160: ‘The relative clause which follows is a translation of a preposition with infinitive in MT; it is introduced in MT by a causal ‫כי‬, but Exod uses δε.’ 329 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 160. See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 140. 328

88

chapter two: the textual material

Exod. 10:29 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:29 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:29 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 10:29 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:29 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:29 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 11:1 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 11:1 M ≠ GSamP Exod. 11:1 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 11:1 MSamP ≠ G

330

probably because of this content related difference in interpretation that G likewise does not translate the Hebrew ‫פני‬ in the same way as it did earlier in the same verse where ‫ פני‬is rendered literally by μου το προσωπον. In the passive construction employed here, however, ‫פני‬ is translated by the dative μοι. ‫—ויאמר‬λεγει δε: different verb form. The Greek employs a historical present. ‫ = כן‬MSamP+: particle ‫—דברת‬εἰρηκας: different translation. For the most part, λεγειν serves as the equivalent of ‫ אמר‬and λαλειν as the equivalent of ‫דבר‬.330 ‫—לא עוד‬οὐκετι: different location ‫ = א)ו(סף‬MSamP+ ‫—לא א)ו(סף ראות פניך‬οὐκετι ὀφθησομαι σοι εἰς προσωπον: different construction. According to Wevers, respectively parallel with v. 28.331 ‫—אחד‬μιαν: different location και, ‫ = ו‬GSamP+: conjunction ‫—ישׁלח‬ἐξαποστελει: different translation.332 Compare also with Exod. 9:27, 28, 35 and 10:3, 4, 7, 10, 20, 27. ‫—כשׁלחו‬ὁταν δε ἐξαποστελλῃ: different construction. The Hebrew employs an infinitive construct with the 3rd person masculine singular suffix as subject. The Greek, by contrast, contains a finite verb in the 3rd person masculine singular in relation to the conditional ὁταν. Moreover, again a different translation.333 Compare also with Exod. 9:27, 28, 35; 10:3, 4, 7, 10, 20, 27 and supra in the present verse.

Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 160. See also supra n. 15. Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 160: ‘The ὀφθησομαι σοι of the last clause parallels ὀφθῃς μοι of v. 28. So too MT with its ‫ לא אסף עוד ראות פניך‬parallels the ‫אל תסף ראות פני‬ of v. 28 except for the added ‫עוד‬, which may be the source for the peculiar ἐτι of v. 28. Over against v. 28 Exod abbreviates considerably. The verb “to repeat” is omitted in favor of the ἐτι in οὐκετι, admittedly a much better rendering. But the σοι εἰς προσωπον is also peculiar, and the clause probably means “I will not again appear to you in person”, i.e. visually.’ 332 Cf. supra n. 121. 333 Cf. supra n. 121. 331

registration and description of the text variants Exod. 11:1 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 11:1 MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 11:1 Exod. 11:1 Exod. 11:2 Exod. 11:2

MSamP MSamP MSamP MSamP

≠ ≠ ≠ ≠

G G G G

Exod. 11:2 Exod. 11:2 Exod. 11:2 Exod. 11:2

MSamP ≠ G MSamP ≠ G MSamP ≠ G M ≠ GSamP

Exod. 11:2 G ≠ SamP Exod. 11:3 MSamP2Qa ≠ G Exod. 11:3 MSamP2Qa ≠ G Exod. 11:3 MG2Qa ≠ SamP

334

89

ὑμας = G+: personal pronoun in the accusative, object of ἐξαποστελλω. ‫—גרשׁ יגרשׁ‬ἐκβαλει ἐκβολῃ: the Greek

endeavours to offer a literal equivalent of the Hebrew text although it nevertheless employs a different construction. The Hebrew repeats the same verb, once in finite form and once in the infinitive. The Greek also repeats the same verbal root, but once in the form of a finite verb and once in the form of a related substantive.334 ‫—אתכם‬ὑμας: different location ‫ = מזה‬MSamP+ κρυφῃ = G+335 ‫—וישׁאלו‬και αἰτησατω: difference in number, 3rd person plural—3rd person singular ‫ ו‬in ‫ = רעהו‬MSamP+: possessive suffix ‫ ה‬in ‫ = רעותה‬MSamP+: possessive suffix ‫ = כלי‬MSamP+ και ἱματισμον, ‫ = ושׁמלות‬GSamP+ (compare with Exod. 3:22 and 12:35!)336 και ἱματισμον—‫ושׁמלות‬: difference in number, (collective) singular—plural ‫ ו‬in ‫ויתן‬, ‫—ונתתי‬δε: different location ‫ויתן‬, ‫—ונתתי‬ἐδωκεν: different location337 ‫ויתן‬, ἐδωκεν—‫ונתתי‬: different verb form, 3rd person singular—1st person singular. The 3rd person singular in MG2Qa agrees with the account of the ‘despoiling motif ’ in Exod. 12:36. The 1st person singular of SamP is parallel with the version of Exod. 3:21.

Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 162. Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 162: ‘Exod also adds κρυφῃ, i.e. “speak secretly”, though MT simply has ‫דבר נא‬. The translator thereby makes explicit what is implicit in MT.’ See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 141. 336 Cf. also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 141: ‘Selon sa tendance harmonisante, la LXX introduit ici les «vêtements» (και ἱματισμον): cf. Ex 3,22 et 12,35.’ 337 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 162: ‘Exod has changed the usual order: verb—subject, with κυριος standing first, thereby paralleling the second clause pattern where ὁ ἀνθρωπος Μωυσης also precedes the predicate.’ 335

90

chapter two: the textual material

Exod. 11:3 MG2Qa ≠ SamP

Exod. 11:3 MSamP4Qa ≠ G Exod. 11:3 M2Qa ≠ G ≠ SamP Exod. 11:3 MSamP2Qa ≠ G Exod. 11:3 M2Qa ≠ GSamP Exod. 11:3 MG2Qa ≠ SamP

Exod. 11:3 MSamP2Qa ≠ G Exod. 11:3 MSamP ≠ 2Qa ≠ G Exod. 11:3 MSamP2Qa ≠ G Exod. 11:3 MSamP2Qa ≠ G

‫יהוה‬, κυριος = MG2Qa+: the subject of the 3rd person singular is expressed, while SamP had already implied the 1st person singular as subject in the form of the verb. Parallel once again with Exod. 12:36 and 3:21 respectively. την = G+: definite article. The Hebrew, however, is also defined on account of the nota accusativi. αὐτου = G+: possessive pronoun (‘his people’);338 ‫ = הזה‬SamP+: demonstrative pronoun (‘this people’) ‫—בעיני‬ἐναντιον: different formulation for the same semantic datum339 και ἐχρησαν αὐτοις , ‫= והשׁאילום‬ GSamP+ (cf. Exod. 12:36)340 The second part of verse 3, from ‫גם האישׁ‬ to ‫ ובעיני העם‬and in the Greek from και ὁ ἀνθρωπος to των θεραποντων αὐτου, is in a different location in SamP, namely at the end of the larger plus Exod. 11:3b. The text of this expansion (SamP Exod. 11:3b) is identical to the textual versions M and 2Qa in Exod. 11:3 and exhibits the same differences with respect to G.341 ἐγενηθη = G+: G expresses the verb γιγνεσθαι in contrast to the Hebrew nominal clause. ‫ = בארץ‬MSamP+, ‫ = בתוך ארץ‬2Qa +. MSamP and 2Qa contain different prepositions: ‫( ב‬MSamP) and ‫( בתוך‬2Qa). ἐναντιον = G+: preposition ‫—מצרים‬των αἰγυπτιων: The Hebrew ‫ מצרים‬would appear to be geographical (‫ בארץ מצרים‬and ‫)בתוך ארץ מצרים‬,

338 Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 142: ‘La LXX précise: «son peuple».’ 339 Cf. supra n. 24. 340 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 163: ‘The clause και ἐχρησαν αὐτοις is based on ‫והשׁאלום‬: see Sam and 12:36.’; and Ibidem, 162–163: ‘The fact is that all of v. 3a is based on a parent text equalling 12:36a.’ See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 142: ‘La LXX précise: «son peuple», et insère dans ce contexte la formule, absente ici du TM, d’Ex 12,36: «et ils leur prêtèrent» (και ἐχρησαν αὐτοις).’ 341 For this reason, the variants—including those in relation to SamP—have already been registered here.

registration and description of the text variants

Exod. 11:3 MSamP2Qa ≠ G Exod. 11:3 MSamP2Qa ≠ G Exod. 11:3 MSamP2Qa ≠ G Exod. 11:3 MSamP2Qa ≠ G Exod. 11:3b MG2Qa ≠ SamP4Qm

Exod. 11:4 MGSamP ≠ 2Qa Exod. 11:4 MG2Qa ≠ SamP Exod. 11:5 MSamP2Qa ≠ G Exod. 11:5 MSamP2Qa ≠ G

342

91

while the Greek employs των αἰγυπτιων to refer to the inhabitants of Egypt. Cf. also the preposition ἐναντιον, a plus that arises from this variant interpretation.342 και ἐναντιον φαραω = G+ παντων = G+: adjective ‫—פרעה‬αὐτου: substantive—possessive pronoun ‫ = ובעיני העם‬MSamP2Qa+343 11:3b = SamP4Qm+: larger plus.344 From the beginning, ‫ וכחצית הלילה‬to ‫ובין‬ ‫ישׂראל‬, Exod. 11:3b SamP agrees with Exod. 11:4b–7 MGSamP4Ql2Qa. What follows, from ‫ וגם האישׁ‬to ‫ובעיני העם‬, agrees with the end of Exod. 11:3 MG2Qa which is in a different location in SamP. Finally, the last part of the larger plus Exod. 11:3b, from ‫ויאמר‬ ‫ משׁה‬to the end ‫את בנך בכורך‬, exhibits much similarity with Exod. 4:22–23 MGSamP.345 ‫ = אל פרעה‬2Qa+ ‫ = ארץ‬SamP+ ‫ ו‬in ‫ = כסאו‬MSamP2Qa+: possessive suffix ‫—הי)ו(שׁב‬ὁς καθηται: different construction. The Hebrew employs a participle while the Greek offers a relative clause with a finite verb.

Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 142. Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 142: ‘Un écart plus important par rapport au TM est l’absence dans la LXX de toute mention du «peuple», comme si la célébrité de Moïse était limitée à la cour de Pharaon: il est peu vraisemblable que cela soit intentionnel; c’est peut-être le témoin d’une lecture ancienne, plus brève, déjà inconnue du Targum.’ 344 The text of Exod. 11:3b has not been preserved in 4Qm. On the basis of a reconstruction of 4Qm, however, it has been suggested that 4Qm, in line with SamP, contained such an expansion. Cf. P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 67, 84–85. With respect to 4Ql, which has not preserved a text of Exod. 11:3, it has been suggested nonetheless on the basis of information gleaned from Exod. 11:4 that the manuscript in question did not contain the larger plus in Exod. 11:3b. See in this regard Ibidem, 32: ‘The fact that 11:4 begins on the right margin suggests that the preceding line ended with an interval, a possible indication that the major expansion 11:3b of 4QpaleoExodm and SamP was not present in this MS.’ 345 The Qumran manuscripts (4Qm, 4Ql, 2Qa, 4Qc, 4Qa and 4Qj) have not preserved the text of Exod. 4:22–23. 343

92

chapter two: the textual material

Exod. 11:5 MSamP2Qa ≠ G Exod. 11:5 M2Qa ≠ GSamP Exod. 11:5 M2Qa ≠ GSamP Exod. 11:5 M2Qa ≠ GSamP

Exod. 11:5 Exod. 11:6 Exod. 11:6 Exod. 11:6

MSamP2Qa ≠ G MG4Ql2Qa ≠ SamP MSamP2Qa ≠ G MSamP2Qa ≠ G

Exod. 11:7 Exod. 11:7 Exod. 11:7 Exod. 11:7

MSamP2Qa ≠ G MSamP2Qa ≠ G MSamP4Ql2Qa ≠ G M4Ql2Qa ≠ GSamP

Exod. 11:7 MSamP4Ql2Qa ≠ G Exod. 11:7 MSamP2Qa ≠ G

του with θρονου = G+: definite article.

The Hebrew, however, is also defined on account of the possessive suffix.346 ‫ = כל‬M2Qa+: adjective ἑως—‫ = עד‬GSamP+: particle παντος— ‫ = כל‬GSamP+: adjective. As such, M2Qa and GSamP exhibit the reversed order. M2Qa speaks of ‘all the firstborn of the livestock’, while GSamP speaks of ‘the firstborn of all livestock’.347 ‫—בהמה‬κτηνους: different translation348 ‫כל ארץ‬, πασαν γην = MG4Ql2Qa+ ‫—אשׁר‬ἡτις: different rendition of ‫ אשׁר‬349 ‫—לא‬οὐκετι: ἐτι in οὐκετι = G+. The repetition is thereby emphasised.350 ‫ ו‬in ‫ = ועד‬MSamP2Qa+: conjunction351 ‫—בהמב‬κτηνους: different translation352 ‫—למען‬ὁπως: different translation353 ‫—תדעון‬εἰδῃς, ‫תדע‬: difference in number. M4Ql2Qa have a 2nd person plural in contrast to G and SamP which have a 2nd person singular. ‫ —אשׁר‬ὁσα : different rendition of

‫אשׁר‬354 ‫—מצרים‬των αἰγυπτιων: the Hebrew ‫ מצרים‬represents a geographical reference to the land of Egypt while the Greek

346

See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 164. See J.W. Wevers, Notes, 164. Cf. also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 142: ‘Le fait qu’en règle générale πας («tout») précède le nom qu’il détermine amène à traduire «premier-né de tout bétail», ce qui diffère du TM: «tout premier-né du bétail» (de même en 12,29, où l’Alexandrinus comporte une correction d’après l’hébreu). Le Pent. sam. s’accorde avec la LXX, qui dépend donc probablement d’un texte différent du TM.’ 348 Cf. supra n. 195. 349 Cf. supra n. 55. 350 See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 164: ‘For MT’s ‫ לא תסף‬Exod not only uses the negative οὐκ and the verb but adds ἐτι to the negative to reinforce the notion of repetition as at 8:29 10:28.’ There would appear to be an error in Wevers’ text with respect to the verse references. In the present author’s opinion, verses 9:28 and 10:29 are intended. As a matter of fact, neither Exod. 8:29 (25) or Exod. 10:28 contain any trace of the term οὐκετι. 351 Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 164: ‘The word ‫ עד‬can be rendered either by ἑως or by και ἑως, but in the pattern: “from x up to y” Exod only uses και ἑως when a coordinate ἑως phrase obtains, i.e. “up to y και ἑως z”.’ 352 Cf. supra n. 195. 353 Cf. supra n. 235. 354 Cf. supra n. 55. 347

registration and description of the text variants

Exod. 11:7 MSamP2Qa ≠ G Exod. 11:7 MSamP2Qa ≠ G Exod. 11:8 MSamP4Ql ≠ G

Exod. 11:8 MSamP4Ql ≠ G Exod. 11:8 M ≠ SamP(G)

Exod. 11:8 MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 11:8 MSamP4Ql ≠ G

93

των αἰγυπτιων alludes to the inhabitants of Egypt. Cf. also των = G+: definite article. ‫ = בין‬MSamP2Qa+: particle355 του = G+: definite article ‫—עבדיך‬παιδες σου: different translation. The term θεραποντες is frequently employed as the Greek equivalent of ‫עבדים‬.356 Cf., for example, Exod. 11:3. οἱ = G+: definite article. The Hebrew is also defined, however, on account of the possessive suffix. ‫וישׁתחוו—והשׁתחוו‬: different verb forms, hištaph’al qatal—hištaph’al yiqtol 357 As a future form, the Greek προσκυνησουσιν is probably closer to the yiqtol of SamP than to the qatal of M.358 σου = G+: possessive pronoun359 ‫—אשׁר ברגליך‬οὑ συ ἀφηγῃ: different construction. After the ‘relative’ ‫אשׁר‬, the Hebrew textual versions employ a nominal clause without verb (‫ )ברגליך‬of which the people (‫ )העם‬are the subject. According to Wevers, the Greek οὑ by contrast should not be understood as a relative but rather as the adverbial ‘there where’.360 A finite verb form (ἀφηγῃ) follows the said adverbial οὑ with συ (Moses) as subject.361

355 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 165: ‘Exod does not repeat the “between” before the second noun as MT does. . . . Actually Exod otherwise always repeats the ἀνα μεσον before a second noun!’ 356 Cf. infra under translation technique, p. 139. 357 Cf. J.P. Lettinga, T. Muraoka, W.T. Van Peursen, Grammatica, 80, §42q, esp. 132–133, §58x. 358 See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 165: ‘Somewhat unusual is the use in the second clause of προσκυνησουσιν με. It would normally mean “shall worship me” but it can hardly mean that here. It translates the Hebrew ‫ ;השׁתחוה‬in fact, that Hebrew verb is only rendered by προσκυνεω in LXX (except for the Aramaic part of Daniel where the verb translates ‫)סגד‬. Obviously here “bowing down” does not mean “doing obeisance”, but rather “begging, pleading, imploring”, as the context makes fully clear.’ 359 See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 166. 360 Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 166: ‘The imperative is modified by a οὐ clause, whereas MT has ‫אשׁר ברגליך‬, an idiomatic phrase meaning “who are in your train”, i.e. “who are following you”. Exod makes something different; after the adverbial οὑ he has συ ἀφηγῃ, a subjunctive from ἀφηγεομαι “to lead away from”, thus “where you might lead away”.’ 361 It is perhaps possible, nevertheless, to understand the Greek οὑ as a relative in parallel

94

chapter two: the textual material

Exod. 11:8 MSamP ≠ G Exod. 11:8 MSamP4Qm ≠ G c

Exod. 11:9 MSamP4Q ≠ G Exod. 11:9 MSamP4Qm4Qc ≠ G

Exod. 11:9 MSamP4Qm4Qc ≠ G Exod. 11:10 MSamP4Ql ≠ G Exod. 11:10 MSamP ≠ G

μωυσης = G+ ‫—בחרי אף‬μετα θυμου: different expres-

sion362 ‫—למען‬ἱνα: different translation363 ‫—רבות‬πληθυνω: different verb form: infinitive—finite verb, 1st person singular. Different construction. In the Hebrew text we observe an infinitive construct ‫ רבות‬of which ‫ מופתי‬is the subject: ‘in order that my wonders may be multiplied’. In the Greek text, the 1st person singular of the finite verb πληθυνω is the subject (God) and the signs are the object: ‘in order that I may multiply my signs and wonders’.364 τα σημεια και = G+365 τα σημεια και = G+ ἐν γῃ αἰγυπτῳ = G+ (cf. Exod. 11:9)366

with the Hebrew texts (‫)אשׁר‬. The relative οὑ agrees in gender and number with the antecedent (ὁ λαος σου) and in this instance also adopts the case of its antecedent (relative attraction). However, the difficulty with this interpretation lies in the fact that the relative in this instance has to adopt the case of the possessive pronoun in the antecedent (σου: genitive), since ὁ λαος is in the nominative. The rule of attraction does not apply to a nominative. In this respect, the relative is obliged to adopt the case relevant to its function in the clause (in casu direct object) and as a consequence should be ὁν. Note that a number of Greek manuscripts also contain a relative. Reference can be made in this regard to J.W. Wevers (ed.), Exodus, 162 in the text-critical apparatus: ‘οὑ] ὁν 799; οὑς 376 129 84 Syh’. Compare also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 143: ‘LXX: «que toi tu conduis»—TM: «qui est dans tes pieds».’ In this translation, the authors would likewise appear to have interpreted the Greek lemma οὑ as a relative. 362 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 166: ‘Moses’ departure was μετα θυμου, a simplification of but just as effective a phrase as MT’s ‫בחרי אף‬.’ 363 Cf. supra n. 235. 364 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 166: ‘The divine purpose underlying Pharaoh’s continued refusal to listen is stated in the ἱνα clause, “that I may multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt”. MT has a slightly more neutral statement, with ‫ למען‬governing the infinitive ‫ רבות‬whose subject is ‫מופתי‬, i.e. “that my wonders may abound in the land of Egypt”. [. . .] Exod also used a first person verb which makes κυριος the subject, and “signs and wonders” the object of the verb.’ 365 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 166 in which Wevers alludes to his observation in relation to Exod. 7:3. See Ibidem, 93: ‘The divine promise to multiply his signs (cf. also 11:9) is particularly appropriate at the beginning of the narrative of the plagues here called τα σημεια (μου) και τα τερατα (only elsewhere in 11:9,10). The double designation is appropriate since the plagues were not only signs accompanying the communicated orders to release the people but were in themselves “portents, wonders” displaying the divine power.’ See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 143: ‘Selon la tendance harmonisante, la LXX introduit les «signes» et la mention «au pays d’Égypte».’ 366 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 167: ‘Exod was intent on a close parallel with the preceding

registration and description of the text variants Exod. 11:10 MSamP ≠ G

95

‫—לפני‬ἐναντιον: different formulation

for the same semantic datum. Different translation.367 m l c Exod. 11:10 MSamP4Q 4Q 4Q ≠ G την with καρδιαν = G+: definite article. The Hebrew is also defined, however, on account of the nota accusativi. Exod. 11:10 MSamP4Ql ≠ G ἠθελησεν = G+368 l Exod. 11:10 MSamP4Q ≠ G ‫—שׁלח‬ἐξαποστειλαι: different translation.369 Compare also with Exod. 9:27, 28, 35; 10:3, 4, 7, 10, 20, 27 and 11:1. Exod. 11:10 MSamP4Ql ≠ G ‫—מארצו‬ἐκ γης αἰγυπτου: Instead of the Hebrew possessive suffix associated with ‫ארץ‬, the Greek employs the epexegetical genitive αἰγυπτου in relation to γης.

verse where the phrase follows “signs and wonders”.’ See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 143. 367 Cf. supra n. 24. 368 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 167: ‘MT simply makes the blunt statement “he did not send away (the Israelites)”, but Exod expands this to “he was unwilling to send away” by which Pharaoh’s wilfulness is stressed.’ See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 143: ‘Le thème du consentement est absent du TM (cf. 8,28).’ 369 Cf. supra n. 121.

CHAPTER THREE

TEXTCRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE VARIANTS IN THE ‘PLAGUES NARRATIVE’ The comparison of the various textual witnesses to the ‘Plagues Narrative’ of Exod. 7:14–11:10 gave rise to a large number of variants of differing character. The goal of the present chapter is to submit the said variants to a text-critical evaluation. The first paragraph will be devoted to a study of the translation technique of the Septuagint of Exodus, bearing in mind the relevance of insight into translation character for the text-critical evaluation of the variants. The second paragraph constitutes the actual evaluation of the most important, ‘text-relevant’ variants from Exod. 7:14–11:10. The third paragraph concludes the chapter with a text-critical evaluation of the so-called major expansions or larger pluses in the ‘Plagues Narrative’. The study of the translation character of LXX Exodus The relevance of research into translation technique for text-critical evaluation1 The variants registered and described in the process of comparing the Septuagint with the Hebrew textual witnesses cannot all be traced back to the Vorlage of the Greek text. Indeed, there can be little doubt that many of the observed differences have their roots in the conscious or unconscious intervention of the translator.2 If we intend to involve the

1

For a definition of what we understand by ‘translation technique’ see also supra, p. 24. Cf. supra, pp. 18–19, 24. See also, for example, J.E. Sanderson, ‘The Old Greek of Exodus in the Light of 4QPaleoExodm’, 87, 90–91; Idem, An Exodus Scroll, 247–256; J. Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament, Winona Lake 21987, 245; E. Tov, ‘The Nature of the Hebrew Text Underlying the LXX. A Survey of the Problems’, JSOT 7 (1978), 53–68, p. 60; Idem, The Text-Critical Use, 8, 9, 17, 33, 39, 128, 130–131, 154; Idem, ‘De tekst van het Oude Testament’, 238–240; Idem, ‘On “Pseudo-variants” Reflected in the Septuagint’, JSS 20 (1975), 165–177, pp. 165–168; Idem, ‘The Contribution of the Qumran Scrolls to the Understanding of the LXX’, in G.J. Brooke, B. Lindars (eds), Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings: Papers Presented to the International Symposium on the Septuagint and Its Relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Writings (Manchester, 1990) (SBL SCS, 33), Atlanta 1992, 11–47, pp. 16, 22; Idem, ‘Some Reflections on the Hebrew Texts from which the Septuagint Was Translated’, 2

study of the translation character of lxx exodus

97

Septuagint in text-critical research, we are obliged as a consequence to submit its associated translation technique to a detailed study in the course of our text-critical evaluation in an endeavour to determine the role of the translator in the unearthed variants.3 A. Aejmelaeus is of the opinion, in this regard, that the employment of the Septuagint in Old Testament textual criticism implies a correlation of three conditions.4 In the first instance, we must be assured, on the basis of a text-critical analysis of the Septuagint itself, that the text we have at our disposal approaches the original Greek text to the highest degree. In this regard, and as noted elsewhere in the present volume,5 one can appeal to the work of a number of experts in the domain. Aejmelaeus makes explicit reference to the text editions of the ‘Göttingen Akademie’.6 JNSL 19 (1993), 107–122, pp. 107, 116; E. Tov, B.G. Wright, ‘Computer-Assisted Study of the Criteria for Assessing the Literalness of Translation-Units in the LXX’, Textus 12 (1985), 149–187, pp. 149–150; M. Vervenne, ‘Tekst en teksten’, 28–30; G. Marquis, ‘Word Order as a Criterion for the Evaluation of Translation Technique in the LXX and the Evaluation of Word-Order Variants as Exemplified in LXX-Ezekiel’, Textus 13 (1986), 59–84, p. 67; C. Rabin, ‘The Translation Process and the Character of the Septuagint’, Textus 6 (1968), 1–26, p. 1; A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Übersetzung als Schlüssel zum Original’, 156–157, 165; Idem, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors in the Syntactical and Translation-Technical Study of the Septuagint’, in: C.E. Cox (ed.), Sixth Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Jerusalem, 1986 (SBL SCS, 23), Atlanta 1987, 361–380, p. 362; Idem, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 66, 67, 73, 77, 86–87; Idem, ‘Septuagintal Translation Techniques: A Solution to the Problem of the Tabernacle Account’, in: G.J. Brooke, B. Lindars, Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings, 381–402, pp. 381, 387, 398; Idem, Parataxis in the Septuagint: A Study of the Renderings of the Hebrew Coordinate Clauses in the Greek Pentateuch (AASF Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum, 31), Helsinki 1982, 169. 3 Cf., for example, J.W. Wevers, ‘The Use of Versions’, 20–24; E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 9, 17–19; A. Aejmelaeus, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 361–363; Idem, ‘Übersetzung als Schlüssel zum Original’, 156–157: ‘Die beiden Aufgaben, einerseits die Übersetzungsweise der Übersetzer kennenzulernen und andererseits Abweichungen der Vorlage der Übersetzer von der uns überlieferten masoretischen Form des hebräischen Textes festzustellen, kann man methodisch nicht voneinander trennen. Bei jedem kleineren und größeren Unterschied, auf den man beim Vergleich der Texte stößt, muß man beide Möglichkeiten abwägen: Entweder hat der Übersetzer den Unterschied auf die eine oder andere Weise, absichtlich oder unabsichtlich, verursacht, oder die Vorlage des Übersetzers hatte einen anderen Wortlaut. Wenn man textkritisch arbeitet, wird der abweichende Wortlaut der Vorlage dann weiter gegen die masoretische Lesart abgewogen und auf seine Ursprünglichkeit hin überprüft. In der Abwägung zwischen den beiden Möglichkeiten—ob ein Unterschied von dem Übersetzer oder von der Vorlage stammt—ist die Kenntnis der persönlichen Neigungen des jeweiligen Übersetzers, die man durch Vergleich der Texte in unproblematischen Textabschnitten gewonnen hat, von entscheidender Wichtigkeit.’ See also infra, n. 39. 4 See A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 60–65. See also Idem, ‘Übersetzung als Schlüssel zum Original’, 156–157. 5 Cf. also supra chapter I, n. 56. 6 See in this regard also S. Olofsson, The LXX Version, 79.

98

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

In the second instance, it is essential that we make a thorough analysis and characterisation of the nature and particularities of the translation in question.7 It is only in this fashion that the distinction between a variant that came into existence in the Vorlage and one that developed as a result of translation technique can lay claim to any degree of certitude, thereby allowing one to form a judgement concerning the Vorlage of the Greek text. In the third instance, therefore, and based on one’s knowledge of translation technique and one’s observation of the context, it is possible to arrive at a text-critical evaluation with respect to a particular variant that would appear to be evident in the Septuagint. J. Wevers likewise emphasised the aforementioned three conditions, adding that a good understanding of the different language systems, that of Hebrew and that of Greek, should be included as an essential prerequisite.8 The Greek and Hebrew verbal and nominal grammatical systems differ considerably from one another. It is only when one is aware of the difficulties and limitations that this implies for the translator that one is able to evaluate certain differences, which appear at first sight to be relevant text-critical variants, in the correct manner. A variety of factors can be distinguished at the origins of variants in the text of the Septuagint. These include the aforementioned distinction between variants taken over by the translator from his Vorlage and variants that came into existence at the point of translation. This latter category requires further subdivision into three sub-categories. 1. The first group of variants consists of those formed by textual differences resulting from the ‘linguistic exegesis’ introduced by the translators.9 The said exegesis embraces both the grammatical identification and the semantic interpretation of all the words in the source text and represents an inherent element in every translation. As already noted, the language system of Hebrew and Greek differ considerably from one another.10 This

7 See in this regard also E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 45: ‘Thus, a detailed knowledge of the textual condition of the LXX as well as of the translator’s exegesis is a conditio sine qua non for the text-critical use of the LXX.’ 8 Cf. J.W. Wevers, ‘The Use of Versions’, 15–24. 9 Cf., for example, E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 45–50; Idem, ‘The Septuagint’, 173; M. Vervenne, ‘Tekst en teksten’, 28–29; J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations (MSU, 15), Göttingen 1979, 290–291. 10 See, for example, J.W. Wevers, ‘The Use of Versions’, 15–19; C. Rabin, ‘The Translation Process’, 9; E. Tov, ‘The Septuagint’, 175; Idem, ‘The Nature and Study of the Translation Technique of the LXX in the Past and Present’, in: C.E. Cox (ed.), Sixth Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Jerusalem, 1986 (SBL SCS, 23), Atlanta 1987, 337–359, esp. 337–338; J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 291–292;

study of the translation character of lxx exodus

99

fact obliged the translators, who had few if any examples of translation technique at their disposal,11 to interpret the Hebrew text in their own fashion and to render it in Greek.12 As a result of this, translations came into existence that differed slightly, and on occasion significantly, from the Hebrew text. 2. The second category of textual differences is a consequence of the ‘contextual exegesis’ of the translator.13 Contextual exegesis is expressed in the freedom the translator permitted himself in his treatment of the source text, a freedom that often resulted in explanatory interpolations, omissions and various other changes in the Greek text. Against the background of linguistic and contextual exegesis, and together with E. Tov, it is important to draw attention to the fact that the Septuagint translators most probably did not always understand their Hebrew Vorlage.14 This question is significant for the correct characterisation of translation technique as well as the appropriate text-critical evaluation of variants.15 As is the case up to the present day, the Septuagint translators encountered problems in understanding the Hebrew text they had at their disposal.16 Lexica or word lists were rare if not completely

S. Olofsson, The LXX Version, 11–12; A. Aejmelaeus, Introduction, in: Idem, On the Trail. Revised Edition, xiii–xviii, xiv; Idem, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 364; Idem, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 63; Idem, ‘Übersetzung als Schlüssel zum Original’, 151. 11 See, for example, C. Rabin, ‘The Translation Process’, 20–21; E. Tov, ‘The Septuagint’, 169; Idem, ‘The Nature and Study of the Translation Technique’, 337; S.P. Brock, ‘The Phenomenon of the Septuagint’, in: M.A. Beek et al., The Witness of Tradition: Papers Read at the Joint British-Dutch Old Testament Conference Held at Woudschoten, 1970 (OTS, 17), Leiden 1972, 11–36, pp. 11–12; S. Olofsson, The LXX Version, 5–7; A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Übersetzung als Schlüssel zum Original’, 150, 152, 154. 12 Much has been debated in the past with respect to the specific linguistic character of the Greek of the Septuagint. Generally speaking, it is now possible to discern a degree of consensus among scholars which maintains that the language of the Septuagint is the koinè Greek of its day. Under the influence of its Vorlage, however, the latter took on a number of Hebrew characteristics in places, especially with respect to syntax and style. Cf. in this regard, for example, H.St.J. Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint, vol. 1, Cambridge 1909, 16–25; S.P. Brock, ‘The Phenomenon of the Septuagint’, 31–36; E. Tov, ‘The Septuagint’, 178–181; S. Olofsson, The LXX Version, 34–40; J.A.L. Lee, A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch (SBL SCS, 14), Chico 1983, 1–30, 145–149. 13 Cf., for example, E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 45–50; Idem, ‘The Septuagint’, 173– 174; M. Vervenne, ‘Tekst en teksten’, 28–29; J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 291. 14 Cf. E. Tov, ‘Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand their Hebrew Text?’, in: A. Pietersma, C. Cox (eds), De Septuaginta. Studies in Honour of J.W. Wevers on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, Missisauga 1984, 53–70; Idem, ‘The Septuagint’, 171. 15 See E. Tov, ‘Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand’, 53. 16 See as early as Z. Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta, 191–203, who refers to etymological renderings, untranslated words, contextual guesses, proper names translated

100

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

unavailable.17 The option for a particular translation equivalent was based for the most part on existing knowledge of the Hebrew language or inspired by the exegetical traditions current at the time.18 In addition, the translators frequently turned to the literary context for assistance, and with respect to later translations, it would appear that the translators also with prepositions and locative ‫ה‬-endings included, interchange of verbal roots and the influence of others Semitic languages and of Greek in the rendering of difficult Hebrew words. Cf. also Idem, Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese, 78–82. See in addition C. Rabin, ‘The Translation Process’, 8, 23–24 who speaks of ‘translations of embarrassment’; J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 254–255 makes note of ‘an error in translation’; E. Tov, ‘The Septuagint’, 169–171; S. Olofsson, The LXX Version, 7, 28–32; Idem, ‘Consistency as a Translation Technique’, SJOT 6 (1992), 14–30, pp. 20–21, 22, 23; A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Übersetzung als Schlüssel zum Original’, 157; and Idem, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 66–67 which refers to the possibility of ‘mistranslation’ and p. 86 which speaks of ‘difficult words, the meanings of which were unknown to the translator’. Compare in particular with J. Barr, Comparative Philology, 245, 272 and esp. 266–267: ‘The first thing to realize is that many passages which are difficult for us today were difficult for the ancient translators also. In such a position of difficulty these translators had to make what they could out of the context and out of such indications as the text (i.e., primarily, the unpointed written text) had to offer. These indications might include “etymological” similarities to other words, especially to words which were more familiar; they might occasionally include suggestions and influences from the vocabulary of other languages known to the translators; and they quite commonly included a practice in which the letters were taken in a different sequence or otherwise jumbled, or arbitrary word-divisions were implied.’ Cf. in this regard the question of the so-called ‘Hebraisms’ in the Greek text. See, for example, H.St.J. Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament, 25–55; A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Translation Technique and the Intention of the Translator’, in: C.E. Cox (ed.), Seventh Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leuven, 1989 (SBL SCS, 31), Atlanta 1991, 23–36, p. 30; E. Tov, ‘The Septuagint’, 178–180; Idem, ‘Three Dimensions of LXX Words’, RB 83 (1976), 529–544, pp. 532–540; Idem, The Text-Critical Use, 22–23, 83–85; G. Marquis, ‘Consistency of Lexical Equivalents as a Criterion for the Evaluation of Translation Technique as Exemplified in the LXX of Ezekiel’, in: C.E. Cox (ed.), Sixth Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, 405–424, p. 409; S.P. Brock, ‘The Phenomenon of the Septuagint’, 32; S. Olofsson, The LXX Version, 6; I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Einleitung’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, 11–18, pp. 12–13, 16; R. Sollamo, Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions, 287–288, 302–303. 17 See, for example, E. Tov, ‘Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand’, 54; Idem, ‘The Septuagint’, 169; Idem, ‘The Impact of the LXX Translation of the Pentateuch on the Translation of the Other Books’, in: P. Casetti, O. Keel, A. Schenker (eds), Mélanges Dominique Barthélemy: Etudes bibliques offertes à l’occasion de son 60E anniversaire (OBO, 38), Freiburg/Göttingen 1981, 579–590, p. 587; S. Olofsson, The LXX Version, 7. Reference should also be made to the general hypothesis maintained by Aejmelaeus in ‘Translation Technique and the Intention’, 23–36. Note that Marquis, in contrast to the aforementioned scholars—including his mentor E. Tov—argues in favour of the existence of such lexica and lists, at least as a working hypothesis. Cf. G. Marquis, ‘Word Order as a Criterion’, 59–84; and Idem, ‘Consistency of Lexical Equivalents’, 405–424, esp. 406–408. 18 E. Tov, ‘Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand’, 54. Cf. also Idem, ‘The Septuagint’, 170–171; Idem, ‘The Impact of the LXX Translation of the Pentateuch’, 587–588.

study of the translation character of lxx exodus

101

made use of existing translations, particularly the Septuagint translation of the Pentateuch.19 In a number of Greek translations it is quite clear that the translators simply did not understand their Vorlage.20 Many such instances are a result of hapax legomena or difficult Hebrew words with which the translator was not familiar.21 The words in question are often simply transcribed into Greek characters.22 Other translation equivalents clearly reveal the translators’ guessing.23 A number of problematic words are translated in different locations and in different contexts with different Greek equivalents. Tov speaks in this regard of ‘contextual guesses’, which are to be found with respect to frequently recurring word combinations and oneoff, isolated words alike.24 In order to avoid the difficulties introduced by the Hebrew Vorlage, the translators sometimes introduced ‘contextual changes’25 in which they consciously manipulated the Hebrew basic text,26 sometimes on the basis of palaeographical similarities which they also knew could be interchanged by mistake (palaeographical manoeuvring).27 When the Greek translator was confronted with one or more Hebrew words, the meaning of which he did not completely understand, he also sought

19

E. Tov, ‘Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand’, 54. Cf. also Idem, ‘The Impact of the LXX Translation of the Pentateuch’, 579–590; Idem, ‘The Septuagint’, 171; Idem, ‘The Nature and Study of the Translation Technique’, 351; S. Olofsson, ‘The LXX Version’, 26–28; A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 72. 20 E. Tov, ‘Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand’, 55–56. 21 See, for example, T. Muraoka, ‘Hebrew Hapax Legomena and Septuagint Lexicography’, in: C.E. Cox (ed.), Seventh Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, 205–222. 22 However, some tranlators seem to have really tried to render these hapaxes in meaningful Greek, which could point at some degree of freedom in their translation. Cf. in this respect also H. Ausloos, B. Lemmelijn, ‘Rendering Love: Hapax Legomena and the Characterisation of the Translation Technique of Song of Songs’, in: H. Ausloos, J. Cook, F. García Martínez, B. Lemmelijn, M. Vervenne (eds), Translating a Translation: The Septuagint and its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism (BETL, 213), Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA 2008, 43–61. More information, see infra n.124. 23 See also E. Tov, ‘The Septuagint’, 171. 24 E. Tov, ‘Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand’, 56–61. 25 E. Tov, ‘Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand’, 61–64. 26 Alternatively, however, A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 66–67, n. 17: ‘Tov seems to go too far in suggesting that the translators deliberately manipulated their Vorlage in order to create words that would better suit the context.’ 27 E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 100–103. With respect to the interchange of Hebrew consonants see also Idem, ‘Interchanges of Consonants between the Masoretic Text and the Vorlage of the Septuagint’, in: M. Fishbane, E. Tov (eds), ‘Sha’arei Talmon’: Studies in the Bible, Qumran and the Ancient Near East. FS S. Talmon, Winona Lake 1992, 255–266; and Idem, The Text-Critical Use, 135–142.

102

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

a solution from time to time in parallel passages.28 In such instances, one can speak of contextual guesses of an extraordinary nature, which have points of anchor in the text itself. In other instances, the translator was inclined to seek refuge in words with a general meaning, such that the precise content of the word he did not understand is left uncertain.29 Tov speaks further of ‘etymological renderings’,30 in which he makes a distinction between ‘root-linked renderings’ and ‘etymological guesses’.31 The former can be compared with the stereotypical and consistent translation of one specific Hebrew root by the same Greek stem.32 The latter type of translation equivalents are based on the etymology evident in the respective words. Tov concludes on the basis of these data that the translators certainly did not always understand their Vorlage and that the awareness of this fact is of particular importance for the process of evaluating text-critical variants.33 Not everything that appears at first sight to be a variant in the Greek text has its roots in a distinct Vorlage.34 While it is widely known 28 E. Tov, ‘Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand’, 64–65. See also J. Barr, Comparative Philology, 267. 29 E. Tov, ‘Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand’, 66–67. 30 Cf. also J. Barr, Comparative Philology, 253–255, 266–267. 31 E. Tov, ‘Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand’, 67–69. 32 See also Idem, ‘Three Dimensions of LXX Words’, 532–535; S. Olofsson, ‘Consistency as a Translation Technique’, 20–21. It should be noted together with Olofsson that it is extremely difficult in practice to distinguish between a stereotype rendering that has its roots in a lack of expertise in the Hebrew language and a similar equivalent that came into existence as a result of a conscious option for a consistent translation technique. 33 E. Tov, ‘Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand’, 69–70. 34 Cf. also in this regard the distinction made by Tov between ‘variants’, ‘non-variants’ and ‘pseudo-variants’. While Tov includes under the term ‘variant’ all the elements in the textual witnesses that deviate from a particular text that serves as a standard, in casu MT (cf., for example, E. Tov, ‘Criteria’, 430; Idem, The Text-Critical Use, 6, 8; and Idem, Textual Criticism, 18), he makes a terminological distinction elsewhere between ‘variants’ that arose on the basis of a different Vorlage, and variant readings, ‘non-variants’, that did not arise from a different Vorlage, e.g. as a result of the activities of the translator. In addition, Tov also distinguishes ‘pseudo-variants’. ‘Pseudo-variants’ are ‘variants’ in so far as they are deviations that can easily be retroverted to the Hebrew on the basis of Greek-Hebrew equivalents that occur elsewhere. Nevertheless, they are also ‘non-variants’ in the sense that such retroverted readings were probably not to be found de facto in the Vorlage of the translation but only existed in the mind of the translator (Cf. Idem, The Text-Critical Use, 88–89, 123–146, 154–162, 162–171; Idem, ‘Interchanges’, 255–257; Idem, ‘On “Pseudo-variants” ’, 165–177). While Tov considers this a methodologically important distinction (cf. Idem, ‘On “Pseudo-variants” ’, 169), Aejmelaeus nuances its importance to a degree. See A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 67: ‘There is also a possibility that the error never existed in writing, in other words, that the translator read incorrectly what was correct in the Vorlage. However, needless to say, a misreading by the translator always produces a secondary reading. Whether a secondary reading was present in the

study of the translation character of lxx exodus

103

that many variants came about on account of the exegetical activity of the translator, it is also important to be aware of the fact that a number of differences are due to conjecture and guesswork on the part of the translator, especially in relation to passages in which he ultimately did not understand the meaning of the Hebrew. 3. Finally, a significant number of variants arose on account of the manner with which the translator dealt with his Vorlage.35 One can state in principle that the translators of the Septuagint intended to render their Hebrew Vorlage as faithfully as possible.36 The way in which the various different translators of the Septuagint achieved this goal, however, exhibits variation. A translator who wanted to maintain the word order and syntax of the Hebrew Vorlage in his Greek text, for example, was less likely to treat the text he had at his disposal freely than a colleague translator who, while equally concerned with the careful transmission of the content of the text, was nonetheless more flexible in his approach to language and thus rendered his Hebrew Vorlage in fluent Greek. An even greater degree of freedom was exercised by those translators who paraphrased the Hebrew ground text.37 Each of these approaches had the potential to introduce variants in the Greek text which, at first sight, are not easy to distinguish from variants that arise on the basis of a different Vorlage. It is for this reason, therefore, that the analysis of the translation technique of the Septuagint, and more specifically each book thereof independently,38 is of

Vorlage or merely in the mind of the translator is not of any great practical importance. More important is to distinguish the original from the secondary.’ And n. 19: ‘The problem of variants existing merely in the minds of the translators is again and again taken up by Tov, in Text-Critical Use 140–141, 183, 200, 228–229. Since there is no way to distinguish between real variants and those existing in the minds of the translators, this cannot affect the decision concerning the original text.’ 35 See in this regard, for example, E. Tov, ‘The Nature and Study of the Translation Technique’, 337–359. 36 Cf., for example, J. Lust, ‘Translation-Greek and the Lexicography of the Septuagint’, JSOT 59 (1993), 109–120, p. 115: ‘Indeed, the translator appears to have first of all wished to render his Vorlage as faithfully as possible. He wanted his translation to communicate the same message as that intended by the original text.’; R. Hanhart, ‘The Translation of the Septuagint in Light of Earlier Tradition and Subsequent Influences’, in: G.J. Brooke, B. Lindars (eds), Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings, 339–379, pp. 341–342; G. Marquis, ‘Consistency of Lexical Equivalents’, 406; A. Aejmelaeus, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 361; Idem, ‘Septuagintal Translation Techniques’, 382; Idem, ‘Übersetzung als Schlüssel zum Original’, 152; Idem, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 63; I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Einleitung’, 16; Idem, ‘Die Auslassung des Possessivpronomens’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, 86–103, p. 88. 37 Cf. in this regard, for example, J. Barr, Comparative Philology, 255–259 on ‘free rewriting’. 38 It is generally proposed that each book of the Septuagint was the responsibility of a

104

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

essential importance for a correct evaluation of the text-critical variants that arise therein.39 If it can be argued with respect to a specific book of the Septuagint that it was translated literally, it becomes difficult as a consequence to argue that a potential presence of a larger plus or minus should be ascribed to the translator. On the other hand, one is at liberty to argue that paraphrastic translations are likely to include exegetical additions or omissions on the part of the translator.40 It is likewise important to note in this regard that the expression ‘translation technique’ ought not to be understood in the contemporary sense of the word. Although the literature tends to use the label ‘translation technique’ to designate the collection of methods employed by the Septuagint translators to render their Hebrew Vorlage in Greek,41 one

different translator who can also be characterised in a variety of different ways. Cf., for example, E. Tov, ‘Some Reflections’, 115; S. Olofsson, ‘Consistency as a Translation Technique’, 21, 29; Idem, The LXX Version, 7, 33, 65; H.St.J. Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament, 6–7, 10–12 (even two translators in some books); J.W. Wevers, ‘The Use of Versions’, 20–24; R. Hanhart, ‘The Translation of the Septuagint’, 341; A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Oti causale in Septuagintal Greek’, in: Idem, On the Trail. Revised Edition, 11–29, p. 26; Idem, ‘Oti recitativum in Septuagintal Greek’, in: Idem, On the Trail. Revised Edition, 31–41, p. 48; Idem, ‘Übersetzung als Schlüssel zum Original’, 152–153, 157; Idem, Parataxis in the Septuagint, 159–169 (counters Thackeray’s multiple translators), 176–181; Idem, ‘Septuagintal Translation Techniques’, 388; Idem, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 63, 65, 71; Idem, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 370 and esp. 377: ‘I regard it as the highest aim of the study of translation technique to describe the translations as the work of individuals, beginning with the biblical books as the units.’; I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Einleitung’, 17; Idem, ‘Methodologische Fragen der Erforschung’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, 40–52, pp. 41, 42–43; R. Sollamo, Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions, 280–289, 306–307; Idem, ‘The LXX Renderings’, 103, 110–113. 39 Cf. E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 17–19; Idem, ‘The Nature and Study of the Translation Technique’, 352; E. Tov, B.G. Wright, ‘Computer-assisted Study of the Criteria’, 149–151; G. Marquis, ‘Consistency of Lexical Equivalents’, 419; Idem, ‘Word Order as a Criterion’, 59, 83–84; S. Olofsson, The LXX Version, 65–74; J.W. Wevers, ‘The Use of Versions’, 20–21, 24; A. Aejmelaeus, Introduction, xv; Idem, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 361–363 and esp. 377–378: ‘The utilization of the results of translationtechnical research in textual criticism of the OT and in editorial work of the Septuagint is possible only insofar as we have exact knowledge of the translation technique of the book we are dealing with . . .’; Idem, ‘Übersetzung als Schlüssel zum Original’, 156–157; Idem, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 60–61, 62–65, 66, 77, 87 and esp. 86: ‘Acquaintance with the translation technique of the book in question is a decisive factor in the evaluation.’ 40 See also, for example, E. Tov, B.G. Wright, ‘Computer-assisted Study of the Criteria’, 150; E. Tov, ‘The Nature and Study of the Translation Technique’, 352; G. Marquis, ‘Word Order as a Criterion’, 67. 41 Cf. E. Tov, ‘The Nature and Study of the Translation Technique’, 337–359, esp. 339: ‘What is translation technique? In the professional literature that term has become a terminus technicus denoting the special techniques used by translators when transferring the message of the source language into the target language.’

study of the translation character of lxx exodus

105

should not understand these ‘techniques’, certainly with respect to the Pentateuch, as a conscious strategy or methodological tactic.42 When the Septuagint translators translate one segment of text literally and another with more freedom, it is because they have tried, in a rather intuitive way, to render the Hebrew text faithfully in Greek.43 The frequently encountered word-for-word translations and the maintenance of Hebrew word order would appear to have been the simplest solution in many instances.44

42 See, for example, A. Aejmelaeus, Introduction, xiv: ‘What one needs as a point of departure for the study of Septuagint translation technique is a general understanding of the problems of translation and an understanding of the way these translators in particular proceeded in their work. They had no translation technique in the sense of a conscious method to be employed consistently. It was more of a human process of intuitive trial and error and of finding ways to express in the target language—their mother tongue— what was understood to be the meaning in the source text.’; Idem, ‘Translation Technique and the Intention’, 25: ‘Their work is characterized by intuition and spontaneity more than conscious deliberation and technique.’; and Ibidem, 27: ‘Translation technique cannot be anything more than a collective name for all the different renderings used by a translator. Study of translation technique aims at describing what the result of the work of a translator turned out to be like. It cannot be a question of discovering the system used by the translator, because there was none.’; together with I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Die Auslassung des Possessivpronomens’, 88: ‘Übersetzung ohne Theoretisierung und ohne Systematisierung’. 43 Cf., for example, J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 280–281: ‘Many ancient translators of the Bible seem not to have had any clear or definite policy for a literal or a free rendering of the text, and this is true particularly of many of the earlier strata of biblical translation, as represented in the earlier books of the LXX. Rather than follow a definite policy, translators often seem to have worked in an ad hoc manner and at any particular point to have opted for a literal or a free rendering, whichever seemed to work out according to the character of the original text and its immediate context . . . The tendency of many early translators was not to be consistently literal or consistently free, but to combine the two approaches in a quite inconsequential way.’; and Ibidem, 300: ‘The following of the Hebrew word order—not strictly but in large measure—is probably to be attributed to habit and the quest for an easy technique rather than to any literalist policy.’ See also A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Übersetzung als Schlüssel zum Original’, 152: ‘Bei den ersten Übersetzern ist das “Wort-für-Wort” noch kein Prinzip, höchstens eine Gewohnheit. Sie hatten kein bewußtes Prinzip, dem sie gefolgt wären. Eher scheint es, daß sie nur allgemein ihren Original treu sein wollten, das für sie ja als Heilige Schrift galt, in Einzelheiten aber ihrer Intuition gefolgt sind.’; I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Die Auslassung des Possessivpronomens’, 102 (‘instinctiv’); Idem, ‘Renderings of Hebrew Comparative Expressions with ‫ מן‬in the Greek Pentateuch’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, 141–153, p. 153 (‘by instinct’); Idem, Die Infinitive in der Septuaginta (AASF Series B, 132,1), Helsinki 1965, 157–158, 159 (‘natürlichste’) and R. Sollamo, ‘The LXX Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute’, 103 (‘instinctively’). 44 Cf., for example, S. Olofsson, The LXX Version, 7: ‘The main factor behind the adoption of a literal translation technique in the LXX Pentateuch was presumably the convenience of this approach since the translators had no instruments that could facilitate the, in many respects, more complicated free translation process.’; I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Beobachtungen zur Arbeitsweise der Septuaginta-Übersetzer’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, 28–39, p. 28: ‘Diese Erscheinung kann man nicht

106

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

Against this background and inspired by J. Barr, A. Aejmelaeus describes the method of the Septuagint translators as ‘easy technique’.45 I. SoisalonSoininen points out, moreover, that the translators consistently limited themselves to a small portion of text without concerning themselves to any significant degree with the broader context.46 While they may have remembered what they had just translated, they paid little attention to what followed. This approach serves once again to illustrate the intuitive manner with which the translators dealt with the text and explains a large number of so-called literal translations that as a consequence can no longer be ascribed to one or another conscious translation technique. In addition, Soisalon-Soininen insists that the influence exercised by the Hebrew language and the character of the Hebrew Vorlage on the Greek translation should only be understood as natural and obvious.47 Neverthe-

damit erklären, daß die Übersetzer bewußt danach gestrebt haben, den Text möglichst getreu Wort für Wort wiederzugeben. Dagegen könnte man sich vorstellen, daß ihnen gewisse Ausdrücke Schwierigkeiten bereitet haben, und daß sie mehr zufälligerweise gelegentlich zu freieren Wiedergaben, gelegentlich dagegen zu wortgetreueren wiedergaben gekommen sind.’ 45 Cf. supra n. 43 and, for example, A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Translation Technique and the Intention’, 25–26: ‘As I see it, the general intention of the translators was thus concerned with the meaning of the original, or meanings of words and phrases in the original. Their general intention was not directed towards the formal representation of items in the original. They did not consciously aim at word-for-word translation. Retention of the original word-order or consistency in lexical choices was not striven after. For the Septuagint translator’s literalism was, as Barr expresses it, no “policy” but rather an “easy technique”. It was only later, in the times of the recensions and Aquila, that literalism became a conscious method of translation.’ See also Ibidem, 34 and esp. 30: ‘Hebraisms and the use of expressions not idiomatic in Greek are precisely the outcome of the “easy technique” of translation word-for-word by standard equivalents, without consideration of their suitability in the context, without intention.’ 46 Cf. I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Beobachtungen’, 29–30, 33, 38–39; Idem, ‘Verschiedene Wiedergaben der Hebräischen Status-Constructus-Verbindung im Griechischen Pentateuch’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, 62–70, p. 70; Idem, ‘Die Auslassung des Possessivpronomens’, 88; Idem, ‘Renderings of Hebrew Comparative Expressions’, 153. See also in this regard M. Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 101: ‘stuksgewijs’. 47 I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Einleitung’, 16: ‘Wenn man an die Syntax einer Übersetzung denkt, darf man nicht vergessen, daß dabei drei Faktoren von Bedeutung sind, nämlich die Syntax der Ausgangsprache, die Anforderungen der Zielsprache und das Verhältnis des Übersetzers zu beiden. . . . Es ist nur natürlich, daß die Übersetzer der Septuaginta—obwohl sie von der Übersetzungsmethode Aquilas weit entfernt sind— stark von der Ausgangsprache beeinflußt sind. Eine andere Übersetzungsweise kann man von ihnen noch nicht erwarten.’; Idem, ‘Methodologische Fragen der Erforschung’, 41–42; Idem, ‘Die Wiedergabe des partitiven ‫ מן‬im Griechischen Pentateuch’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, 154–171, p. 171; Idem, ‘Der Gebrauch des Genetivus Absolutus in der Septuaginta’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, 175–180, pp. 175, 180; Idem, ‘Die

study of the translation character of lxx exodus

107

less, the impact of the Hebrew did not appear to dominate every aspect of the translation, as is apparent from various idiomatic Greek renderings of the Hebrew original.48 Opposed to this vision of things, but far less convincing, is the approach of G. Marquis. The latter sketches a picture of translation technique that one can describe as conscious and methodical. He makes references to hypothetical indexes and word lists, which he maintains were employed by the translators.49 In Marquis’ opinion, this is most evident in the consistency with which certain translation equivalents were chosen.50 It should be clear from what we have said so far that a correct appreciation of the translation technique of the Septuagint, in function of the text-critical evaluation of variants, is of essential importance bearing in mind the different contexts in which the textual differences found in the Greek biblical text came into existence. In what follows, we shall endeavour to determine the extent to which the Septuagint translations can be characterised methodically and how they can steer text-critical decisions in the context of the evaluation of variants.

Wiedergabe des Hebräischen Personalpronomens als Subjekt im Griechischen Pentateuch’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, 71–85, p. 71. See also A. Aejmelaeus, Parataxis in the Septuagint, 182: ‘It is only natural . . .’ 48 Cf., for example, I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Die Konstruktion des Verbs’, 198; Idem, ‘Der Gebrauch des Genetivus Absolutus’, 180: ‘Wenn man die gen. abs. der Septuaginta betrachtet, muß man die Geschicklichkeit und das feine Sprachgefühl der Übersetzer bewundern. In der Übersetzungstechnik der Septuaginta hat man das Augenmerk zunächts nur auf die wörtlichen Wiedergaben gerichtet und gefragt, ob die entstandenen Ausdrücke vom Griechischen aus gesehen anwendbar sind oder nicht. Und es is durchaus wahr, daß die Sprache der Septuaginta im ganzen gesehen stark vom Hebräischen beeinflußt ist. Die sporadisch vorkommenden, feinen Wiedergaben geben aber einen Einblick in die andere Seite.’; A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Übersetzung als Schlüssel zum Original’, 152. 49 Cf. G. Marquis, ‘Consistency of Lexical Equivalents’, 405–424, esp. 406–408. It should be noted that Marquis’ mentor, E. Tov, completely denies the existence of such word lists. See, for example, E. Tov, ‘Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand’, 54; Idem, ‘The Septuagint’, 169; Idem, ‘The Impact of the LXX Translation of the Pentateuch’, 587. See also supra, n. 17. 50 Cf. in this regard S. Olofsson, ‘Consistency as a Translation Technique’, 21, 26 who suggests that the stereotypical use of certain translation equivalents can be understood to a certain degree as conscious technique. E. Tov likewise appears to characterise consistency as the conscious intention of the translators, although he notes at the same time that such an approach would have made the process of translation considerably easier. Cf. E. Tov, ‘Three Dimensions of LXX Words’, 533, 535.

108

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

The characterisation of a translation51 The difference between ‘literal’ and ‘free’ translations52 When an attempt is made in the course of research to characterise the Septuagint translation of a particular book, reference is usually made to the classical distinction between ‘literal’ and ‘free’ translations.53 A translation is characterised as literal when it remains very close to its Vorlage, endeavouring to render the latter in an almost mechanical, often wordfor-word manner. On the other hand, a translation is characterised as ‘free’ when it does not do the latter,54 in other words when it treats its Hebrew Vorlage with greater linguistic and exegetical liberty. It is also argued in this regard that the goal of a literal translation is to bring the reader to

51 This paragraph presents a revised edition of B. Lemmelijn, ‘Two Methodological Trails in Recent Studies on the Translation Technique of the Septuagint’, in: R. Sollamo, S. Sipilä (eds), Helsinki Perspectives: On the Translation Technique of the Septuagint (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society, 82), Helsinki 2001, 43–63. 52 ‘Literal’ and ‘free’ translations are also referred to as ‘formal’ and ‘non-formal’ respectively. Cf. supra p. 19. 53 All the studies referred to here make either implicit or explicit reference to the distinction between ‘literal’ and ‘free’ translations. Cf., for example, E. Tov, ‘The Septuagint’, 173; Idem, The Text-Critical Use, 17–29; Idem, ‘Computer Assisted Alignment of the Greek-Hebrew Equivalents of the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint’, in: N. Fernández Marcos (ed.), La Septuaginta, 221–242, pp. 225, 237–238; E. Tov, B.G. Wright, ‘Computer-Assisted Study of the Criteria’, 150–152, 181–185; B.G. Wright, ‘The Quantitative Representation of Elements: Evaluating “Literalism” in the LXX’, in: C.E. Cox (ed.), Sixth Congress of the IOSCS, 311–335, pp. 311–314, 332–333; S. Olofsson, The LXX Version, 12–13; G. Marquis, ‘Consistency of Lexical Equivalents’, 405–406, 410, 413; Idem, ‘Word Order as a Criterion’, 59–63; Z. Frankel, Vorstudien, 163–168; Idem, Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese, 73–82; S.P. Brock, ‘The Phenomenon of the Septuagint’, 16–17; J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 279–325; A. Aejmelaeus, Introduction, xiii–xv; Idem, ‘Übersetzung als Schlüssel zum Original’, 154; Idem, Parataxis in the Septuagint, 176, 182–183; Idem, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 361–363, 377–378; Idem, ‘Septuagintal Translation Techniques’, 388–389; Idem, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 63–64, I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Methodologische Fragen der Erforschung’, 41, 44–45; Idem, ‘Die Wiedergabe des Hebräischen Personalpronomens’, 84–85; Idem, ‘Die Auslassung des Possessivpronomens’, 103; Idem, ‘Die Wiedergabe einiger Hebräischer Zeitangaben mit der Präposition ‫ ב‬in der Septuaginta’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, 107–115, p. 107; Idem, ‘Die Wiedergabe des ‫ ב‬Instrumenti im Griechischen Pentateuch’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, 116–130, p. 130; Idem, ‘Die Wiedergabe des partitiven ‫’מן‬, 163; Idem, ‘Der Gebrauch des Verbs ἐχειν in der Septuaginta’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari SoisalonSoininen, 181–188, p. 188; Idem, ‘Die Infinitive in der Septuaginta’, 157–159, 190; R. Sollamo, ‘The LXX Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute’, 111–113; Idem, Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions, 280–283, 284–287, 302–303. 54 Cf., for example, J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 281: ‘It is the various kinds of literalism that we seek to analyse and define: for each of them “free” means that which is opposite to this particular literalism.’ and p. 282: ‘. . . the concept of freedom in translating will always be there as a contrast . . .’

study of the translation character of lxx exodus

109

the text while that of a free translation is to bring the text to the reader.55 Within this approach, the ‘literalness’ of the translation is mostly used as the point of departure for the study of translation technique because of the fact that the degree of ‘freedom’ of a translation is said to be more difficult to gauge.56 On this basis then, scholars are inclined to organise the translations of the Septuagint according to the following categories: ‘very free’ and ‘relatively free’ to ‘very literal’ or ‘relatively literal’.57 The distinction between ‘literal’ and ‘free’ translations outlined above would appear at first sight to be clear and functional in practical terms. On closer inspection, however, it becomes clear that the different translation character of the various Septuagint translations is not as easy to determine as one might be led to believe. In the past, the characterisation of a translation as ‘literal’ or ‘free’ was often nothing more than an act of intuition, and often based on little more than vague impressions.58 The 55 Cf. in this regard, for example, S.P. Brock, ‘The Phenomenon of the Septuagint’, 16–17: ‘Translations can be either free, or literal; the former treat the phrase or sentence as the unit to be translated, the latter the individual word. They can aim to convey the general sense at the expense of the individual word, or render the words individually at the expense of the sense. . . . The psychological reasoning underlying the difference between these two types of translation is obvious: the free translation aims at bringing the original to the reader, while the literal one the reader to the original.’; A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Übersetzung als Schlüssel zum Original’, 153–154: ‘Anscheinend haben die frühen jüdischen Korrektoren gemeint, eine Übersetzung solle den Leser zum Original bringen, so daß er Wort für Wort durch die Übersetzung dem Original folgen oder sogar mit Hilfe der Übersetzung das sonst unverständliche Original lesen kann. . . . Eine eher dynamische Übersetzung dagegen ist bestrebt, den Inhalt des Originals zum Leser zu bringen, ohne von dem Leser besondere Vorkenntnisse zu verlangen.’ 56 Cf. E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 19–20: ‘When analyzing translation techniques from the point of view of the translators’ attitudes towards the Hebrew text, it is probably best to start from the criteria for literalness, not because literalness formed the basis of most translations, but rather because these criteria can be defined more easily than those for free renderings.’; J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 281: ‘. . . the idea of literality, rather than the idea of free translation, can properly form our base line of definition. . . . it seems good to take literalism as the aim of our study. Its methods are to be analysed and defined. Freedom in translation is not a tangible method’. 57 Cf., for example, E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 19–20, 27; E. Tov, B.G. Wright, ‘Computer-Assisted Study of the Criteria’, 150, 181, 185–186. 58 See E. Tov, B.G. Wright, ‘Computer-assisted Study of the Criteria’, 151: ‘The systems used in the past as a basis for the description of the translation character of the LXX are not satisfactory, and, in fact, one can hardly speak about a system since the majority of the analyses are based on the scholar’s intuitive understanding of the translation character.’; and Ibidem, 152: ‘scholars have had to rely too much on mere impressions.’; E. Tov, The TextCritical Use, 25, n. 39; B.G. Wright, ‘The Quantitative Representation of Elements’, 311: ‘. . . traditionally the categories “literal” and “free” have been described in much the same way one U.S. Supreme Court Justice described obscenity, «I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.»’; G. Marquis, ‘Consistency of Lexical Equivalents’, 406: ‘one cannot work with a broad or intuitive idea of what one means’; A. Aejmelaeus, Introduction, xv: ‘our forerunners in Septuagint studies actually possessed few tools other than the human intellect.’

110

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

various aspects of literalness were never made more precise and interest in the freedom of a translation remained extremely ephemeral. Against this background, contemporary scholars have endeavoured to devote greater attention to these questions and to subject them to further research. With respect to the literalness of a translation, scholars suggest that the concept is unusable in se, and that one would be better served to determine the various sorts of literalness that exist and the extent to which a translation exhibits one or the other. Reference should be made in this regard to the authoritative work of J. Barr.59 Countering the classical distinction between ‘literalness’ and ‘freedom’, this scholar has stressed the fact that there are many different aspects of literalness as well as many kinds of freedom.60 When one argues that a particular translation is literal or free, one is thus obliged to specify in which way it is either literal or free. A translation can simultaneously be literal and free from different perspectives.61 The goal of Barr’s study, therefore, is not only to describe the extent to which literalness and freedom contrast with one another in a given text, but equally to determine the way in which they coincide. In this respect, he discerns different aspects of literalness, to wich the distinctive ways of freedom correlate as their opposites.62 Barr

59 Cf. J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism. See also S. Olofsson, The LXX Version, 12–28. 60 See J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 279–284. 61 Cf. J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 280: ‘For—and this is my principal argument— there are different ways of being literal and of being free, so that a translation can be literal and free at the same time but in different modes or on different levels.’ and 323–324: ‘It has been shown, I think, that “literal” and “free” are not clear and simple terms in the world of ancient biblical translation. There are numerous ways in which a version could be both at the same time. It could be literal, by one of the ways in which one may be literal, while by another of the ways it was simultaneously free.’ See also R. Sollamo, ‘The LXX Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute’, 111: ‘It is very difficult to draw a distinction between literal and free renderings in this field. The rendering which in one respect is slavish may be free in another.’; B.G. Wright, ‘The Quantitative Representation of Elements’, 313: ‘Consequently, when measured by different indicators a translation could be both “free” and “literal” at the same time.’; S. Olofsson, The LXX Version, 12: ‘Literal and free types of translations were not fundamentally contradictory tendencies in ancient biblical translation, because they could be used together and by the same translator, even in the same passage.’ 62 J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 294–323. Cf. also Ibidem, 281: ‘A sophisticated study of the LXX, at least in many books, rather than dealing with the contrast between free and literal, has to concern itself much of the time with variations within a basically literal approach: different kinds of literality, diverse levels of literal connection, and various kinds of departure from the literal. For this reason the idea of literality, rather than the idea of free translation, can properly form our base line of definition. It is the various kinds of literalism that we seek to analyse and define: for each of them “free” means that which is opposite to this particular literalism.’

study of the translation character of lxx exodus

111

distinguishes a division into elements or segments and the sequence with which the said elements were represented,63 the quantitative addition or omission of elements,64 consistency or non-consistency in the rendering of the vocabulary of the Vorlage,65 accuracy in the transmission of semantic information in translation equivalents,66 and the manner in which the Hebrew is imitated in the Greek translation both formally (similarity of words) and etymologically (similarity of roots).67 Barr concludes by observing in addition that the distinction between the translator who based his choice of translation equivalents exclusively on the consonantal text of his Vorlage and the translator who employed the text in conjunction with the tradition of pronunciation/vocalisation created a greater or smaller margin of freedom respectively.68 Barr ends by repeating that the concepts ‘literal’ and ‘free’ should not per se be understood as each other’s opponents.69 It is always important to distinguish the level at which a particular translation is literal and in what respect one should characterise it rather as free. Based on the same concern and aware of the inadequacy of the general categories ‘literal’ and ‘free’, E. Tov has likewise produced pioneering work in this domain. In line with Barr, Tov distinguishes different facets of literalness and freedom. He proposes five aspects, which he employs as criteria for determining the literalness of a translation:70 consistency in the choice of translation equivalent,71 the representation of constituents of Hebrew words by individual Greek elements (also referred to as 63

Cf. J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 294–303. Cf. J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 303–305. For a description of the distinction between segmentation and quantitative representation see, for example, B.G. Wright, ‘The Quantitative Representation of Elements’, 314–319. See Ibidem, 315: ‘Quantitative representation can be thought of as the division by the translator of multi-word Hebrew units into their constituent parts producing a one-to-one representation in Greek.’ and Ibidem, 316: ‘Segmentation, properly speaking, is actually a sub-category of quantitative representation because it involves a type of one-to-one representation albeit of a very specific type. Segmentation, as Barr and Tov present it, is the one-to-one representation of each element of a Hebrew word. . . . Thus, segmentation can only be present when there is more than one element or segment in the Hebrew word.’ 65 Cf. J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 305–314. 66 Cf. J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 314–318. 67 Cf. J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 318–322. 68 Cf. J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 322–323. 69 Cf. J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 323–325. 70 See, for example, E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 17–29; Idem, ‘The Nature of the Differences between MT and the LXX in 1 Sam. 17–18 [1]’, 33–39; E. Tov, B.G. Wright, ‘Computer-Assisted Study of the Criteria’, 152. See also B.G. Wright, ‘The Quantitative Representation of Elements’, 311; S. Olofsson, The LXX Version, 12. 71 Cf. also the further evolution of this criterion in S. Olofsson, ‘Consistency as a Translation Technique’, 14–30 and G. Marquis, ‘Consistency of Lexical Equivalents’, 405–424. 64

112

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

segmentation),72 word sequence,73 quantitative representation,74 and the linguistic adequacy of lexical options. According to Tov, the first four criteria can be expressed in statistical terms. Freedom in a translation, in Tov’s opinion, is not only characterised on negative grounds based on the partial or complete absence of the aforementioned characteristics of literalness (cf. Barr), but equally on the basis of a positive criterion that cannot be measured in statistical terms.75 Tov speaks in this regard of the study of the nature and frequency of the exegetical elements that come to the fore in the translation under analysis.76 Parallel to this more nuanced approach to the literalness of translations and likewise based on an awareness of the inadequacy of the general labels ‘literal’ and ‘free’, attention has also been focused on a more accurate characterisation of the freedom evident in Septuagint translations. Particular reference can be made in this regard to the scholars of the so-called ‘Finnish School’, including i.a. I. Soisalon-Soininen, A. Aejmelaeus and R. Sollamo. In contrast to the approach that mainly emphasises the detailed analysis of the various aspects of a translation’s literalness and that understands these as more accessible to definition and quantification, the latter scholars insist that a careful description of the freedom of a translation is likewise of very great importance.77 While the fact that every Septuagint translation

72 Cf. also in this regard B.G. Wright, ‘The Quantitative Representation of Elements’, 311–335. 73 Cf. also G. Marquis, ‘Word Order as a Criterion’, 59–84. 74 Cf. B.G. Wright, ‘The Quantitative Representation of Elements’, 311–335. 75 See E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 20. 76 See E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 25–27. 77 Cf., for example, A. Aejmelaeus, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 362: ‘Free renderings are like fingerprints that the translators left behind them. By these fingerprints it is possible to get to know them and to describe their working habits, their actual relationship with the original, and their talent as translators.’; and Ibidem, 378: ‘Exact percentages of literalness are of little help if nothing is known of the actual renderings used. Importance should be attached to the description of the freedom of the individual translators.’; Idem, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 65: ‘It is naturally easier to trace the Vorlage of a literal translation. Even in difficult passages one may discern the line of thought of a literal translator. It is all the more important, then, to study more closely the freer translations, with regard to their relationship to the Vorlage and the kind of freedom applied.’; I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Der Gebrauch des Genetivus Absolutus’, 180: ‘In der Übersetzungstechnik der Septuaginta hat man das Augenmerk zunächts nur auf die wörtlichen Wiedergaben gerichtet und gefragt, ob die entstandenen Ausdrücke vom Griechischen aus gesehen anwendbar sind oder nicht. Und es is durchaus wahr, daß die Sprache der Septuaginta im ganzen gesehen stark vom Hebräischen beeinflußt ist. Die sporadisch vorkommenden, feinen Wiedergaben geben aber einen einblick in die andere Seite. Und man darf nicht vergessen, daß die eingangs verwähnten, hemmenden Faktoren die Ursache dafür sind, daß die wirklichen Sprachkenntnisse der Übersetzer

study of the translation character of lxx exodus

113

can be characterised in general terms as more or less literal cannot be denied, the Finnish scholars argue that it is precisely the deviations from this literal manner of working in favour of a more free, idiomatic Greek usage that expose the difference between individual translators and at the same time illuminate the particular characteristics of each individual translator.78 This aspect of the freedom evident in a translation is likewise of primary importance for the textual criticism of the Old Testament.79 As a matter of fact, the established percentage of literalness observed in a translation offers no indications when one is obliged to decide whether an individual variant is due to a different Vorlage or to translation technique. However, a precise awareness of the freedom employed by a particular translator can help us to recognise and distinguish textual differences from the Vorlage. In like fashion to the characterisation of literalness, however, the freedom employed by translators must also be precisely characterised. Indeed, freedom in translation also consists of a number of different facets whereby a translator can exercise his translational freedom in a variety of ways. A distinction can be shown, for example, between freedom with respect to the word order of the original, freedom in the choice of translation equivalents for single words and freedom with respect to the rendering of longer text segments as a whole.80 Based on the evident developments in recent research in this domain, it has become apparent that the precise characterisation of a particular translation is essential, both at the level of its literalness and its freedom. While

nur so selten zum Vorschein kommen. Wenn wir etwas Näheres über die Übersetzer erfahren wollen, müssen wir das Gewicht eben auf diese seltenen Fälle legen. Gerade daraus sind wertvolle Erkenntnisse zu gewinnen.’; R. Sollamo, ‘The LXX Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute’, 111–112, whose study is focused on the freedom in translations. By way of supplement to the results of the study of literal translations (‘slavish renderings’), she emphasises research into free translations (‘free renderings’) as well as the degree of consistency criterion (‘stereotyping’). See Ibidem, 111: ‘The distribution of the freest renderings may serve as a counterpoint to the most slavish renderings.’ and p. 112: ‘The third criterion which I use for evaluating the freedom of the translation technique followed by different translators is the degree of stereotyping.’ [italics = B.L.] 78 A. Aejmelaeus, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 361–362. 79 A. Aejmelaeus, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 362. 80 See A. Aejmelaeus, Parataxis in the Septuagint, 180: ‘It must be stressed, however, that different criteria may really bring out different aspects of the translations. Since the various free renderings and idiomatic Greek expressions impose different requirements on the translators, they may have been free in different ways. It is a different thing to be free as regards word order than as regards the equivalents of individual words, and even more is required to be free in renderings involving the mastery of larger units of text.’ Cf. also Idem, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 65.

114

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

a general evaluation may be necessary,81 it is nevertheless insufficient.82 To conclude, we consider it important to emphasise the fact that the classical distinction between ‘literal’ and ‘free’ translations must also be nuanced in a supplementary manner. Together with A. Aejmelaeus, we are of the opinion that the analysis of translations must be fully aware of the difference between ‘literalness’ and ‘faithfulness’.83 An extremely literal translation need not necessarily imply a particular faithful translation, just as a free translation need not be understood per se as less faithful. A good free translation may in fact be very faithful with respect to its Vorlage,84 while a literal translation may be less faithful on account of an extremely consistent selection of translation equivalents that do not always do justice to the demands of semantics.85

81 Cf., for example, E. Tov, B.G. Wright, ‘Computer-Assisted Study of the Criteria’, 150–151. 82 Cf. likewise B.G. Wright, ‘The Quantitative Representation of Elements’, 311–313: ‘Given the complex make-up of what has been called “literalism”, it simply is not sufficient to use the terms “literal” and “free” as blanket descriptions of translations. In fact, the terms “literal” and “free” may be as much of a hindrance as a help when used as generalizing descriptions. . . . Thus, in order to have as accurate a picture as possible of the Vorlage of any given translation scholars need to know more than whether a translation is “literal” or “free”. They need to know in what ways and to what degree translators are consistent in their approach to particular aspects of their source texts.’ 83 Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 378: ‘A distinction should be made between literalness and faithfulness.’ See also I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Die Auslassung des Possessivpronomens’, 88: ‘Sie haben den Text möglichst getreu wiedergeben wollen, nicht aber wortwörtlich.’ 84 Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 378: ‘Changing the structure of a clause or a phrase, and by so doing replacing an un-Greek expression by a genuine Greek one closely corresponding to the meaning of the original, is quite a different thing from being recklessly free and paying less attention to the correspondence with the original. . . . A good free rendering is a faithful rendering.’; Idem, ‘Septuagintal Translation Techniques’, 389, 391; I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Renderings of Hebrew Comparative Expressions’, 152: ‘Now and again very free renderings of the whole sentence occur. For the most part they are skilful translations and correspond to the original meaning very well.’ 85 Cf. also S. Olofsson, ‘Consistency as a Translation Technique’, 16, 18; E. Tov, ‘Three Dimensions of LXX Words’, 535: ‘Since the consistent representation of Hebrew words by one Greek equivalent often was more important to the translators than contextually plausible renderings, their technique was bound to do injustice to several Greek words. For the translators also often used a stereotyped equivalent of a Hebrew word when the meaning of the Hebrew did not suit that of the Greek.’; Idem, The Text-Critical Use, 22: ‘The majority of stereotyped renderings do not adequately cover all meanings of a given Hebrew word.’ and G. Marquis, ‘Consistency of Lexical Equivalents’, 408–409: ‘However, the moment one refers to the semantic level, to the meaning of words, it immediately becomes clear that the method of automatic and fixed translations was not successful in every case. The reason for this is that the ranges of meanings of words and their function in two different languages is far from identical, and as a result the fixed translation may not be appropriate in certain contexts.’

study of the translation character of lxx exodus

115

Two methodological approaches 86 As could have already been inferred from the above given description of the scholarly views regarding the difference between literal and free translations, studies into the translation technique and the translation character of Septuagint translations reveal—generally speaking—two different methodological trails.87 On the one hand, one can observe an approach that takes the various aspects of literalness as its point of departure. Based on the study of consistency, quantitative representation, segmentation and word order, employed as criteria in support of the literalness of a translation, some scholars endeavour to make a detailed study of a given text’s translation character. This is the method initiated by J. Barr in particular and further developed by E. Tov and the scholars that have followed in his tracks (e.g. B.G. Wright and G. Marquis).88 Based on the so-called CATSS Data Base,89 in which Hebrew and Greek texts are arranged in parallel columns, and with frequent use of computers,90 the degree of literalness of a translation is analysed and even expressed in statistical terms.91 Thus, the above described

86

Particular attention to this issue is paid extendedly in B. Lemmelijn, ‘Two Methodological Trails in Recent Studies on the Translation Technique of the Septuagint’, 52–61. 87 Cf. also S. Olofsson, ‘Consistency as a Translation Technique’, 27–30. 88 Cf., for example, J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 279–325; E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 20–24; Idem, ‘The Nature of the Differences’, 33–39; Idem, ‘The Nature and Study of the Translation Technique’, 349; Idem, ‘Computer Assisted Alignment’, 221–242; E. Tov, B.G. Wright, ‘Computer-Assisted Study of the Criteria’, 149–187; B.G. Wright, ‘The Quantitative Representation of Elements’, 311–335; G. Marquis, ‘Consistency of Lexical Equivalents’, 405–424; Idem, ‘Word Order as a Criterion’, 59–84 and to a degree also S. Olofsson, ‘Consistency as a Translation Technique’, 14–30. 89 CATSS: Computer Assisted Tools for Septuagint Studies (ed. R. Kraft and E. Tov). 90 On the disadvantages and risks associated with excessive reliance on the capacity of computers see, for example, A. Aejmelaeus, Introduction, xv–xvi and I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Die Wiedergabe des partitiven ‫’מן‬, 171. 91 Cf., for example, E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 17, 20–24 and 25: ‘The first four of the five criteria for literalness can be expressed statistically, and in this way it should be possible to describe the degree of literalness of individual translation units.’; Idem, ‘Computer Assisted Alignment’, 221–242; Idem, ‘The Nature and Study of the Translation Technique’, 349; E. Tov, B.G. Wright, ‘Computer-Assisted Study of the Criteria’, 152; B.G. Wright, ‘The Quantitative Representation of Elements’, 311–335; G. Marquis, ‘Consistency of Lexical Equivalents’, 405–424; and Idem, ‘Word Order as a Criterion’, 59–84. See also J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 324, who already gave an initial impetus in this regard: ‘It might be possible to devise a scheme by which the various different modes of literality might be formally designated and marked. If this were done one could then go through any particular book in a Greek or other version and give for each verse a percentage notation or something similar, quantifying the degree of literality on each of several levels. It might then be possible to produce a more systematic and final assessment of the degree of freedom or literality to be found in a book.’

116

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

approach intends to quantitatively express, and therefore also compare, the degree of literalness of the LXX translation of various books. On the other hand, there are scholars who maintain, from a rather qualitative approach, that the freedom of the Septuagint translation deserves greater emphasis, among other things in function of the distinction between textual variants that came into existence in the Vorlage and those that can be ascribed to the conscious or unconscious activities of the translator. Particular reference can be made in this regard to the so-called ‘Finnish School’, with scholars such as I. Soisalon-Soininen, A. Aejmelaeus and R. Sollamo.92 The latter are of the opinion that the study of the translation character of Septuagint translations should take the way in which certain Hebrew grammatical features are rendered in the Greek text as its point of departure.93 In this way it becomes possible to establish a clear distinction between the equivalents that are particularly literal in relation to the Hebrew original and as a consequence non-idiomatic and the renderings in which the translator offers a fluent and idiomatic Greek equivalent. Such a distinction creates a better insight into the way in which a particular translator related to his Vorlage (translation technique) and facilitates the evaluation of the variants in a given translation (textual criticism). However, the Finnish scholars insist in this regard that the nature of the Hebrew basic text should equally be taken into consideration, if

92 Cf., for example, the contributions of A. Aejmelaeus, collected in A. Aejmelaeus, On the Trail. Revised Edition; the most important articles of I. Soisalon-Soininen, collected in A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen; and the contributions of R. Sollamo in, for example, R. Sollamo, Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions and Idem, ‘The LXX Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute’, 101–113. 93 See, for example, A. Aejmelaeus, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 361–363; Idem, ‘Participium Coniunctum as a Criterion of Translation Technique’, VT 32 (1982), 385–393, p. 385; Idem, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 76: ‘Typically Hebrew expressions, the literal rendering of which produces poor Greek, thus serve as tests by which may be measured a translator’s ability to free himself from the original and to choose a rendering which suits the context best.’; R. Sollamo, ‘The LXX Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute’, 101, 103; I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Einleitung’, 13: ‘Wichtig ist hierbei die Methode, die Syntax der Septuaginta so zu erforschen, daß man vom Hebräischen ausgeht, die verschiedenen Übersetzungsweisen untersucht, dann den Gebrauch der verschiedenen Möglichkeiten bei verschiedenen Übersetzern ins Auge faßt und so zu ihren Unterschieden vorstößt.’ and Ibidem, 18: ‘In den meisten Fällen ist es am besten, von bestimmten hebräischen grammatischen Kategorien auszugehen und zu untersuchen, wie diese von den Septuaginta-Übersetzern wiedergegeben sind. Nur so wird deutlich, welche Unterscheide zwischen den verschiedenen Büchern bereits im Hebräischen bestehen und welche den Übersetzern zuzurechnen sind.’; Idem, ‘Methodologische Fragen der Erforschung’, 43, 47, esp. 41: ‘Die einzige mögliche Arbeitsweise ist, daß man von den hebräischen grammatischen Kategorien und Ausdrücken ausgeht, und deren verschiedene—freiere oder wörtlichere—Wiedergaben untersucht.’; Idem, ‘Verschiedene Wiedergaben’, 62.

study of the translation character of lxx exodus

117

one intends to compare the translation technique in the various books of the Septuagint on the basis of the results of a specific study.94 Against this background, Finnish researchers have studied the Greek renderings of several Hebrew linguistic phenomena in a qualifying way, whereby the Hebraising and/or idiomatic Greek renderings functioned as the criteria for distinguishing between the various Septuagint translators.95 It should be noted, however, that the scholars in question consistently point out that the results of one specific study cannot be taken as decisive or final. In combination with and complemented by the concurrent results of other research, the conclusions from such an investigation nevertheless acquire considerably more and better founded persuasiveness.96 94 Cf., for example, I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Methodologische Fragen der Erforschung’, 41; Idem, ‘Die Wiedergabe einiger Hebräischer Zeitangaben’, 108; Idem, ‘Die Wiedergabe des partitiven ‫’מן‬, 171; A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Participium Coniunctum as a Criterion’, 393; Idem, Parataxis in the Septuagint, 170–173, 183; Idem, ‘Oti recitativum in Septuagintal Greek’, 40–41. See also S. Olofsson, ‘Consistency as a Translation Technique’, 22–23. Compare also S.P. Brock, ‘The Phenomenon of the Septuagint’, 17–20, who maintains that the literary genre of the basic text may have exercised an influence in this regard. Legal texts are translated more literally while narrative sections allow for greater freedom. See also in this regard A. Aejmelaeus, Parataxis in the Septuagint, 165–167. 95 Reference can be made here to a few important contributions concerning the Greek rendition of various Hebrew linguistic phenomena: A. Aejmelaeus, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’; Idem, Parataxis in the Septuagint; Idem, ‘Oti causale in Septuagintal Greek’; Idem, ‘Oti recitativum in Septuagintal Greek’; Idem, ‘Participium coniunctum as a Criterion’; Idem, ‘The Function and Interpretation of ‫ כי‬in Biblical Hebrew’, in: Idem, On the Trail, 166–185; R. Sollamo, Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions; Idem, ‘The LXX Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute’; I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘The Rendering of the Hebrew Relative Clause in the Greek Pentateuch’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, 55–61; Idem, ‘Verschiedene Wiedergaben der Hebräischen Status-Constructus-Verbindung’; Idem, ‘Die Wiedergabe des Hebräischen Personalpronomens’; Idem, ‘Die Auslassung des Possessivpronomens’; Idem, ‘Die Wiedergabe einiger Hebräischer Zeitangaben’; Idem, ‘Die Wiedergabe des ‫ ב‬Instrumenti’; Idem, ‘ἐν für εἰς in der Septuaginta’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, 131–140; Idem, ‘Renderings of Hebrew Comparative Expressions’; Idem, ‘Die Wiedergabe des partitiven ‫ ;’מן‬Idem, ‘Der Gebrauch des Genetivus Absolutus’; Idem, ‘Der Gebrauch des Verbs ἐχειν’; Idem, ‘Die Konstruktion des Verbs’; Idem, ‘Der infinitivus constructus mit ‫ ל‬im Hebräischen’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, 203–211; and Idem, Die Infinitive in der Septuaginta. 96 Cf., for example, A. Aejmelaeus, Parataxis in the Septuagint, 184: ‘The picture arrived at through any one study must and will be completed and corrected by further studies.’; Idem, ‘Participium Coniunctum as a Criterion’, 393: ‘To get closer to the truth about them [the various Septuagint translators, B.L.], we need both as many criteria as possible to evaluate them, and a due attention to the influence of the Hebrew text.’; Idem, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 377: ‘. . . , in any case the results from this area of study should be complemented by those from other areas, in order that the picture of the quality and character of each individual translator should be as perfect as possible.’; R. Sollamo, ‘The LXX Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute’, 113: ‘The body of material discussed here is too limited to be of much value if used alone for drawing a picture of the translation techniques followed in the Pentateuch, but together with other studies of

118

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

Besides the theoretical development and practical application of their own working model, which generally places the freedom of Septuagint translators at the centre of interest from a qualitative perspective, the scholars of the ‘Finnish School’ also point to a number of problems concerning the starting points and results of the first described approach, which mainly accentuates (statistical) literalness. Firstly, it would appear that the proponents of the first, rather quantitative approach presuppose a sort of fixed norm of comparison for every translation of which they seek to determine the degree of literalness, namely perfect literalness.97 A. Aejmelaeus, among others, has argued that such a 100% literal translation never existed and cannot exist, bearing in mind that literalness in all its aspects is not rooted in conscious strategy but is the result rather of ‘easy technique’.98 Secondly, some observations need to be made with respect to the use of statistical-numerical data.99 Statistics can indeed present objective results in an easily interpretable format, as is in fact the case in the Finnish approach,100 but mistakes are far from infrequent. Percentages translation technique it qualifies and amplifies our notions.’; Idem, Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions, 288, 306–307. 97 By way of example, explicit reference can be made to G. Marquis, ‘Consistency of Lexical Equivalents’, 405: ‘Literalness in a translation is the degree of adherence to the source language reflected in the language of the translation, measured relative to a perfectly literal translation.’ 98 Cf., for example, A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Übersetzung als Schlüssel zum Original’, 154, n. 12: ‘Sie [die völlig wortgetreue Übersetzung, B.L.] ist faktisch unmöglich, obwohl manche, besonders computerorientierte Forscher die völlig wortgetreue Übersetzung zum Ausgangspunkt ihrer Analyse der Übersetzungstechnik der Septuaginta machen.’; Idem, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 361: ‘From this angle [first approach, B.L.] perfect literalness would naturally be ideal. . . . It is true that all the Septuagintal translations are more or less literal. But none of them is perfectly literal.’; Idem, ‘Translation Technique and the Intention’, 27; Idem, Introduction, xiv: ‘Indeed, there is no ideal percentage by which the performance of the translators could be measured. One hundred percent—total literalness—is surely not the proper point of comparison, although one sometimes gets the impression that this is the viewpoint of some writers. It did eventually become the conscious ideal of the later recensors—more so than of the translators—, but nonetheless it is a perversion of the idea of translation. The original translators had—to a varying degree—an intuitive sense of the need for idiomatic rendering. The scholar who wishes to describe their work should have no other point of departure.’ 99 Cf., for example, A. Aejmelaeus, Introduction, xiii–xv; Idem, ‘Oti Recitativum in Septuagintal Greek’, 39; Idem, ‘Translation Technique and the Intention’, 27–28; Idem, Parataxis in the Septuagint, 169; I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Methodologische Fragen der Erforschung’, 45–47; S. Olofsson, ‘Consistency as a Translation Technique’, 16, 29. 100 Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, Introduction, xiv–xv; Idem, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 362–363; R. Sollamo, Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions, 280–281, 289; I. SoisalonSoininen, ‘Methodologische Fragen der Erforschung’, 41, 43, 47. This approach consistently presupposes a precise and concretely measurable object that can be studied in detail against the background of the various factors that stimulated its creation. Moreover, attention is also consistently drawn to the various factors that can influence the statistics. Where necessary

study of the translation character of lxx exodus

119

have little significance when they are related to the aforementioned contestable norm of perfect literalness (100%). The comparison of acquired percentages determining the grade of literalness in different translations offers little realistic perspective if it is impossible to estimate how large a difference of one percent actually is.101 Moreover, and here we touch the main problem associated with the use of statistics in this context, the study of the linguistic phenomena associated with the respective language systems of the basic text and the translation is given insufficient attention.102 Statistical-numerical data concerning the degree of consistency in a given translation do not account, for example, for the need to vary the use of translation equivalents on account of the potentially different meanings called for by the semantic situation.103 Bearing in mind that individual books always exhibit a different relationship between the so-called consistent translation equivalents and the so-called non-consistent renderings, which came into existence nevertheless on the basis of the required idiom, it is impossible to establish an ideal percentage for the degree of literalness with respect to a particular aspect, and certainly not when a variety of different phenomena are combined in the said percentage. For this reason, percentages determining the degree of literalness of a translation are difficult to interpret and as a consequence often misleading, in spite of the fact that they give the impression of precision and accuracy.104 Scholars who themselves employ the first approach are likewise aware of certain problems with regard to its use. E. Tov has argued, for example, that the degree of literalness itself cannot in fact be expressed in terms and possible, the latter are even eliminated in order to present the final results as correctly as possible. Finally, the so-called absolute validity of the statistical-numerical data is then held up against a detailed and precise study of the concrete information in the text. Statistics are thus never employed on their own to determine the degree of literality or freedom in se of a text. Cf. Ibidem, 47: ‘Ich habe Statistiken immer erst nach einer gründlichen und vielseitigen Behandlung des Materials gegeben. Und ich würde hoffen, daß sie erst dann eingesehen und benutzt werden, wenn der Leser sich mit dem Material vertraut gemacht hat. Dann kann er die Relativität der Statistiken sehen.’ 101 A. Aejmelaeus, Introduction, xiii–xiv. 102 A. Aejmelaeus, Introduction, xiv. 103 A. Aejmelaeus, Introduction, xiv. See also I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Methodologische Fragen der Erforschung’, 45; S. Olofsson, ‘Consistency as a Translation Technique’, 16, 17–27, esp. 24: ‘One way to study consistency which overcomes some of the weaknesses in an ordinary statistical treatment is to investigate the different meanings of a word separately. In that way one can eliminate at least the problem with the different semantic range of Hebrew words. This is in line with the approach of the investigators of translation technique of the LXX in Finland, I. Soisalon-Soininen, A. Aejmelaeus and R. Sollamo.’ 104 A. Aejmelaeus, Introduction, xiv. Cf. also I. Soisalon-Sioninen, ‘Methodologische Fragen der Erforschung’, 47: ‘Wie genau die Statistiken auch sein mögen, den wirklichen Charakter der Übersetzungen können sie nicht wiederspiegeln.’

120

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

of a statistical percentage. Indeed, it is not the degree of literalness one is expressing in statistical terms, but rather—and de facto—the degree of consistency, a phenomenon that is considered the most important exponent of literalness.105 This position is criticised, however, by S. Olofsson,106 who argues in line with Barr and Sollamo that consistency is not per se a criterion of literalness.107 A considerable number of so-called consistent renderings constitute in fact nothing more than the semantically most appropriate translation equivalent, such that the translation in these instances exhibits a high degree of consistency. It would be incorrect to argue in such cases that the translator in question had intentionally set literalness as his goal.108 According to Olofsson, such consistent renderings should be excluded when one employs consistency as a criterion for literalness.109 G. Marquis’s attempt to mathematically calculate the degree of literalness based on the degree of consistency in a translation,110 would likewise appear

105 Cf. E. Tov, B.G. Wright, ‘Computer-Assisted Study of the Criteria’, 153: ‘Strictly speaking, we measure consistency and not literalness, but that consistency is taken as one of the main exponents of literalness. The more literal the translator was, the more consistent he was in his translation, even at the cost of the Greek language.’ See also E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 22: ‘The degree of stereotyping apparent in the translation units of the LXX reflects their literalism. This characteristic can be expressed statistically on the basis of different gradations of consistency.’ 106 Cf. S. Olofsson, ‘Consistency as a Translation Technique’, 16: ‘Consistency is hardly per se a criterion of literality.’; and Ibidem, 22: ‘To take consistency generally as a sign of literality can be misleading. Thus consistency cannot be treated in a purely statistical way as an aspect of literality if one disregards important factors which can influence the validity of the statistics.’ 107 Cf. S. Olofsson, ‘Consistency as a Translation Technique’, 16. Olofsson refers to J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 306–307; and to R. Sollamo, Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions, 284. 108 Cf. S. Olofsson, ‘Consistency as a Translation Technique’, 16; and J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 306: ‘Consistency in the use of vocabulary equivalences is not in itself a sign of literalism. Sometimes translators achieved a high degree of consistency, not because they were particularly trying to do so, but because a particular word was the really natural one in their language and could be used repeatedly without strain.’ 109 Cf. S. Olofsson, ‘Consistency as a Translation Technique’, 17. In line with the scholars of the Finnish School, Olofsson also makes reference to a number of other factors that have to be taken into account when one employs the notion of consistency as a criterion for literality: the semantic scope of the Hebrew words, the nature and requirements of the target language (Greek), the genre and specific (inc. contextual) characteristics of the Hebrew basic text, the frequency of the Hebrew word in question, the translator’s knowledge of Hebrew, the units upon which the translation is based (words or clauses) and the Vorlage of the Greek word. Cf. Ibidem, 17–27. 110 Cf. G. Marquis, ‘Consistency of Lexical Equivalents’, 405–424. Marquis endeavours to make a similar calculation, likewise on the basis of the word sequence followed in a translation. See in this regard Idem, ‘Word Order as a Criterion’, 59–84.

study of the translation character of lxx exodus

121

to imply that the degree of literalness itself could not be expressed in statistical terms up to that point. Marquis argues that the degree of consistency does not coincide ipso facto with the degree of literalness.111 On the basis of a mathematical construction intended to give his theory an impression of objectivity and credibility, Marquis calculates the degree of literalness in a translation as the latter is reflected in the degree of consistency. In the present author’s opinion, Marquis’ mathematical constructions are based on a number of highly questionable hypotheses that are taken as axiomatic. In the first instance, he suggests that consistency is a consequence of the fact that the Septuagint translators employed vocabulary lists and lexica that provided an established Greek equivalent for every Hebrew word.112 If the translator would have followed this list very consistently and if he would not have used additional equivalents, then his translation would have reflected a formally perfect rendering of the Hebrew text. If such a list were still available to us, the reconstruction of the Vorlage of the LXX would no longer constitute a problem. In Marquis’ opinion, the amount of deviation from the equivalents found in this hypothetical glossary (i.e. the degree on non-consistency) represents the degree of deviation from the literal translation (i.e. the degree of non-literalness). In addition—and this provides the basis for his mathematical formula for calculating the degree of literalness—, Marquis siphons the relationship that exists between the consistent renderings, which he maintains to be a clear reflection of the source text and to be based on the hypothetical word list, and the nonconsistent translations, which he argues do not formally reflect the source 111 Cf. G. Marquis, ‘Consistency of Lexical Equivalents’, 413: ‘Such a deductive step from the concrete data to the abstract is necessary because the degree of consistency is not identical with the degree of literalness. If literalness, as we have defined it, is the reflection of the language of the source in the language of the translation, the language (or words, in the case of consistency) of the source can be reflected in the translation regardless of the question of consistency. The notion of consistency is simply a tool enabling a practicable measurement of the degree of subservience to the source which can be discovered from the translation. But since we are interested here not in the degree of consistent translations found in the translation, but in the degree of literalness reflected in the degree of consistency—which cannot be directly measured in this case—it is necessary to define the relationship of consistency to literalness.’ Cf. also Marquis’ definition of literalness, Ibidem, 405: ‘Literalness in a translation is the degree of adherence to the source language reflected in the language of the translation, measured relative to a perfectly literal translation.’; and that of consistency, Ibidem, 406: ‘Consistency is the degree to which a word in the source text is translated by one word in the translation (lexical equivalent), relative to the total number of occurrences of the word in the source text. A translation of a word in the source text which occurs only once in the translation is called a singular translation.’ 112 Cf. G. Marquis, ‘Consistency of Lexical Equivalents’, 406–408. Compare also supra with his definition of consistency, n. 111.

122

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

text and which he refers to as ‘singular translations’, without further ado onto the relationship between the ‘singular translations’ which, albeit in an abstract way, reflect the Hebrew text and those which do not reflect the source text.113 On the basis of the given deduction, Marquis goes on to create a mathematical formula that is said to be able to determine the degree of literalness of a particular translation in ‘precise’ statistical percentages. The present author is of the opinion that such hypothetically laden constructions cannot function as the basis for a well-founded judgement concerning the translation technique of the Septuagint. When one compares Marquis’ abstract procedures with the concrete methodological approach of the ‘Finnish School’, one would indeed be correct to argue that the latter clearly and concretely reveal the ‘fingerprints’ of the translators and thereby clarify and illuminate the difference between and the characterisation of the various translators to a large extent.114 By way of conclusion, one can argue together with A. Aejmelaeus that everything depends on the way one approaches the translation technique of the Septuagint.115 One can view translation technique as an object of study in itself or as a methodological step in the research of linguistic phenomena in a translation. If one perceives of translation technique as an object of study itself, this implies that the translators of the Septuagint employed a specific technique or conscious methodology that can be detected in their translations. This presupposition constitutes the point of departure for all studies that collect the available material and examine it in the first instance on the basis of the literalness of the translators in it, taking into account of all its aspects: word order, consistency and quantitative representation. With the help of the computer, precise results that give expression to the literalness of the various translators are rendered statistically. This method coincides with what we characterised in the present discussion as the ‘first’ or ‘quantitative’ approach.116 As has become evident, however, this approach requires correction and fine tuning with respect to both its presuppositions and its methodology.117

113

Cf. G. Marquis, ‘Consistency of Lexical Equivalents’, 412–413. Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 362. 115 Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, Introduction, xiii–xvi and, very recently, also R. Sollamo, ‘Translation Technique as a Method’, in H. Ausloos et al. (eds), Translating a Translation, pp. 35–41. 116 Cf. supra p. 115. 117 Cf. supra pp. 118–122. 114

study of the translation character of lxx exodus

123

Translation technique, however, can equally be viewed as a methodological step in the study of linguistic phenomena of the translation. When such an approach is used, the results are easier to interpret and more reliable. Moreover, they can be employed more fruitfully in other subdisciplines, in particular the textual criticism of both the Greek and the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Percentages that render the results of analysis in statistical terms can also be employed in such an instance, to facilitate the comparison of different books for example, but, in this regard, such statistics are never employed in se as an indication of the degree of literalness or freedom of a translation. This methodology appropriately accounts of the various factors that may have influenced the translation process and thereby offers reliable explanations of specific linguistic phenomena in the Greek text. This latter method, which we characterised above as the ‘second’ or ‘qualitative’ method118 and which can be identified grosso modo with the method of the so-called ‘Finnish School’, is described somewhat poetically by Aejmelaeus as ‘the following of the trail of the translators’ . . . Against this background, the Finnish scholars do not completely reject the first approach but they emphasise the fact—and personally, I agree—that the exercise thereof must always go hand in hand with careful linguistic and grammatical research into the literal and free renderings of various linguistic phenomena.119 There would be no point,

118

Cf. supra pp. 116–117. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 378: ‘As for the methodology, the most ideal way of studying the translation technique is to combine it with linguistic research using the translation-technical method, as described above. Actually, translation technique cannot be adequately described without this connection to language usage. Barr’s Typology of Literalism is an excellent analysis of the theoretical aspects of translation technique, but it cannot be used, and was hardly meant to be used, as a program for studying the translation technique in concrete translations. The various aspects of translation, segmentation of the text, word order, consistency, and others, can hardly be examined as such disconnected from concrete linguistic phenomena. It is not meaningful to study the changes in word order without paying attention to the cases requiring a different order in Greek. It is not meaningful to study the consistency in word equivalences without paying attention to the meaning of the alternatives and the need for different renderings in Greek. Translation technique must remain a question of methodology within the study of Septuagintal Greek. The two are inseparable.’ Compare, on the other hand, with B.G. Wright, ‘The Quantitative Representation of Elements’, 313: ‘In other words, each of the components of literalism set out by Barr and Tov need to be examined individually for each translation.’ For a concrete example of the combination of both approaches, reference can be made for example to the method of R. Sollamo whose linguistic study of the literal and free translation of Hebrew semiprepositions also explores the degree to which the latter are consistently translated (‘stereotyping tendency’). Cf. R. Sollamo, Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions in the Septuagint, 280–289. 119

124

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

for example, to study the word order of a translation and draw statistical conclusions on the basis thereof without bearing in mind that the two language systems in question, the Hebrew and the Greek, frequently and of necessity demand a different word order for grammatical reasons. It would likewise be pointless to study the consistency of word equivalents without paying attention to the semantic meaning of the alternative choices and the need for different Greek translations.120 Therefore, once again, the (statistically expressed) ‘quantitative’ characterisation of the literalness of a translation cannot be used adequately, if it is not combined with and adjusted by a ‘qualitative’ detailed grammatical research into the literal and free renderings of different linguistic phenomena.121 Preliminary conclusion and further research perspectives Yet, it may have become clear that both the ‘quantitative’ and the ‘qualitative’ aproach can offer valuable insights—although they should complement each other—with regard to the translation technique of the LXX translators. However, based on this insight and moreover, against the background of a seemingly lacking interest to content-orientated analyses of the Septuagint translation technique, the present author and H. Ausloos are actually developing a third methodical way, somehow in line with the qualitative approach, but complementing it from a very specific angle. Whereas the qualitative approach mainly restricts itself to linguistic and grammatical features in the text, Ausloos and I have tried to take into account specific criteria related to the content of the text. By way of illustration, reference can be made to the Greek rendering of so-called aetiologies,122 to the question of Greek semantic adequacy in jargon-defined vocabulary,123 and more 120 See also in this regard, for example, I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Methodologische Fragen der Erforschung’, 45–47; and S. Olofsson, ‘Consistency as a Translation Technique’, 17–27. 121 Remark that A. Aejmelaeus equally makes use of the terms ‘quantitative’ and ‘qualitative’ in this respect. See e.g., A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Characterizing Criteria for the Characterization of the Septuagint Translators: Experimenting on the Greek Psalter’, in R.J.V. Hiebert, C.E. Cox, P.J. Gentry (eds), The Old Greek Psalter. FS A. Pietersma ( JSOT SS, 332), Sheffield 2001, 54–73. 122 See H. Ausloos, ‘LXX’s Rendering of Hebrew Proper Names and the Characterization of the Translation Technique’, in A. Voitila, J. Jokiranta (eds), Scripture in Transition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls. FS R. Sollamo (SJSJ, 126), Leiden 2008, pp. 53–71. 123 See B. Lemmelijn, ‘Flora in Cantico Canticorum: Towards a More Precise Characterisation of Translation Technique in the LXX of Song of Songs’, in: A. Voitila, J. Jokiranta (eds), Scripture in Transition, 27–51. With respect to considering ‘lexical accu-

study of the translation character of lxx exodus

125

elaborately, to the Greek rendering of Hebrew hapax legomena.124 Since this (theoretical) development of new so-called ‘content-related’ criteria in characterising the Septuagint’s translation technique would lead us too far in the context of the present study of Exod. 7:14–11:10, this issue will not be dealt here extensively.125 Nevertheless, what is of importance here is the basic statement that a well-founded assessment with regard to the characterisation of the translation of the Septuagint is really necessary to function as a substantiated criterion in the evaluation of individual text-critical variants of the LXX text. In what follows, due attention will be paid therefore to the characterisation of the translation technique of LXX Exodus.

racy’ among the criteria of the ‘qualitative’ study of the translation technique, and more specifically as one of the ‘content-related’ criteria, see also a forthcoming contribution of my doctoral student (Ph. D. fellowship of the Research Foundation—Flanders [FWO]), H. Debel, ‘Amalgamator or Faithful Translator? A Translation-Technical Assessment of Psalm 151’, in: E. Zenger (ed.), The Composition of the Book of Psalms. Proceedings of CBL 2008 (BETL). 124 Cf. in this respect H. Ausloos, B. Lemmelijn, ‘Rendering Love’ Hapax Legomena and the Characterisation of the Translation Technique of Song of Songs’, in: H. Ausloos, J. Cook, F. García Martínez, B. Lemmelijn, M. Vervenne (eds), Translating a Translation: The Septuagint and its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism (BETL, 213), Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA 2008, 43–61. This article demonstrated that the study of the Greek rendering of the Hebrew hapax legomena is a relevant content-related criterion in the characterisation of the translation technique of LXX Song of Songs. Against that background, Ausloos and Lemmelijn have recently initiated a research project, aiming at functionally broadening and deepening the above described pilot contribution by studying the abovementioned facet in the whole of the Greek translation of the Ancient Hebrew bible. It is entitled: Once-only Hebrew and Uniquely Greek. The Greek Rendering of Hebrew Hapax legomena as a Significant Indication for the Characterisation of the Septuagint Translation. This project (FWO G.0334.08; 2008–2011; promoter B. Lemmelijn; co-promoter H. Ausloos) is financed by the Research Foundation—Flanders (FWO-V) and is currently being carried out at the Louvain Centre for Septuagint Studies and Textual Criticism with Dra. Elke Verbeke as a doctoral student and research assistant. Within the scope of this research project, an exploring contribution on methodology has been published recently: E. Verbeke, ‘The Use of Hebrew Hapax Legomena in Septuagint Studies. Preliminary Remarks on Methodology’, in H. Ausloos, B. Lemmelijn, M. Vervenne (eds), Florilegium Lovaniense. Studies in Septuagint and Textual Criticism in honour of Florentino García Martínez (BETL, 224), Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA 2008, 507–521. More information on http://theo.kuleuven.be/lxxtc/en/. 125 A presentation of this new ‘content-related’ criteriology has been offered at the occasion of the LXX.D-congress: Die Septuaginta: Texte, Theologien und Einflüsse. Internationale Fachtagung, Wüppertal (Germany), 23–27 July 2008, in a lecture entitled Content-Related Criteria in Characterising the LXX Translation Technique (H. Ausloos & B. Lemmelijn). This paper will be published in the proceedings of the said congress.

126

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

The translation technique of the book of Exodus126 General characterisation of LXX Exodus The Septuagint translation of the book of Exodus is generally characterised as (one of ) the most free translation(s) of the Pentateuch.127 It is important to note in this regard that the characterisation ‘free’ should not be understood as arbitrarily ‘paraphrased’. The translator of the Septuagint translates with great care,128 and is also faithful, even in his free renderings, to his original.129 However, he is free in the extent to which he endeavours to render the Hebrew Vorlage in grammatically correct Greek,130 whereby

126 See, in this respect, also B. Lemmelijn, ‘Free and Yet Faithful: On the Translation Technique of LXX Exod 7,14–11,10’, JNSL 33 (2007), 1–32, pp. 2–13. 127 Cf., for example, Z. Frankel, Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese, 73–122, esp. 73–82; J.W. Wevers, ‘The Use of Versions’, 21; H.St.J. Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament, 6–16, esp. 9: ‘At the head stands the Pentateuch, distinguished from the rest by a fairly high level of style (for κοινη Greek), combined with faithfulness to the original, rarely degenerating into literalism.’; A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Oti causale in Septuagintal Greek’, 19–20, 23; Idem, ‘Oti recitativum in Septuagintal Greek’, 37–38, 39; Idem, Parataxis in the Septuagint, 164, 166, 175, 177, 178, 179 and 180: ‘Assembling the evidence of the various translation-technical characterizations and classifications, the translator of Ex appears to be the most competent of the Pentateuchal translators. His competence does not always produce high figures for the statistics, but we have adequate evidence of his consideration of the demands of the Greek language and mastery of large units of text. In questions of word order he is fairly free of the original.’; Idem, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 370, 371; Idem, ‘Septuagintal Translation Techniques’, 388–391; Idem, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 65, 71–77 and 86–87: ‘one of the freest Septuagintal translators’ and ‘one of the most freely rendered books in the Septuagint’ respectively; I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Die Wiedergabe des Hebräischen Personalpronomens’, 80, 83, 85; Idem, ‘Die Auslassung des Possessivpronomens’, 92–95, 103; Idem, ‘Die Wiedergabe des partitiven ‫’מן‬, 163, 170; Idem, ‘Der Gebrauch des Verbs ἐχειν’, 183; Idem, Die Infinitive in der Septuaginta, 176–190, 192, 194; R. Sollamo, ‘The LXX Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute’, 110–113; Idem, Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions, 281–283 and 284–285: ‘In our field of research Ex is the most freely translated book in the Pentateuch.’ 128 The fact that the book of Exodus is translated with care is likewise confirmed, according to Tov, by the relative paucity of variants rooted in the interchange of consonants. See the table in E. Tov, ‘Interchanges’, 263, together with his conclusion, Ibidem, 264. 129 Cf., for example, A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Septuagintal Translation Techniques’, 389: ‘He [the translator of Exodus, B.L.] could add and omit words and grammatical items, but he obviously did not do so out of indifference or carelessness. Even in the free renderings he mostly proves to be faithful to the original.’; Idem, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 63, 65 and 77: ‘It seems that even the free renderings follow the original very closely. Actually, even small details of the Hebrew text have been rendered faithfully.’ 130 Cf., for example, Z. Frankel, Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese, 228: ‘Exodus wurde von einem Manne übertragen, der mehr mit der griechischen als mit der hebräischen Sprache vertraut gewesen zu sein scheint.’; J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 252: ‘for the sake of idiomatic Greek.’ and Ibidem, 253: ‘Often he exercised the freedom to render the Hebrew into good Greek while maintaining the thought.’; E. Tov, ‘The Nature and Study of the Translation Technique’, 351; A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Oti recitativum in

study of the translation character of lxx exodus

127

a significant number of smaller and larger differences have arisen with respect to the Hebrew text.131 The present author considers it of vital importance that the distinction described above between ‘faithfulness’ and ‘literalness’ is borne in mind in this regard.132 Indeed, it is possible to argue that the Septuagint translation of Exodus is an extremely faithful translation in relation to its Vorlage, while insisting at the same time that it is a particularly free translation, especially in its creation of a relatively good Greek text. In terms of content, the translation of Exodus remains close to its Hebrew Vorlage,133 but when one examines the word order, for example, the consistent use

Septuagintal Greek’, 39: ‘Within the Pentateuch, the translator of Exodus often proves to have a special talent in finding genuine Greek equivalents for Hebraistic expressions.; Idem, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 371: ‘Ex succeeds in omitting the superfluous conjunction in about 80% of the cases . . . Ex comes so near to perfectly correct usage, leaving the others far behind’; and Ibidem: ‘The special position of Gen and Ex is further emphasized by occasional free renderings which replace coordination by various kinds of subordination, showing both good command of the Greek idiom and excellent consideration of the larger context.’; Idem, ‘Septuagintal Translation Techniques’, 388: ‘In the various translation-technical studies which describe the translators’ way of handling typically Hebrew syntactical phenomena, Exodus has proved to be one of the most freely translated books in the LXX and one of those in which the requirements of Greek idiom have been best taken into account.’; and Ibidem, 391: ‘Free renderings like these should not be taken as examples of the carelessness of the translator—no more here than in the case of a modern translator—but rather as evidence of his striving towards natural Greek expressions, expressions that are accurate and appropriate in their context but formally diverge from the original. This very same striving towards idiomatic Greek is characteristic of the whole book of the Greek Exodus.’; Idem, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 72: ‘He [the translator of Exod., B.L.] was the one who of all the Pentateuchal translators paid most attention to the requirements of the Greek language. This is manifested in his numerous excellent free renderings.’; I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Die Wiedergabe des Hebräischen Personalpronomens’, 74–75. 131 Cf., for example, A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 73: ‘In cases like these [a few examples, including Exod. 10:7, B.L.], there is no doubt that the translator knew the exact meaning of the Hebrew words in question, but he preferred a natural Greek expression, formally diverging from the original but all the more accurate with respect to content. The free renderings often either add or omit words as compared with the MT. Nevertheless, the type of expression used frequently makes it clear that no variant of the Vorlage is responsible for these changes. This is particularly obvious in the case of typically Greek phrases and words with no exact equivalent in Hebrew.’ 132 Cf. supra p. 114. 133 See also H.M. Orlinsky, ‘The Septuagint and its Hebrew Text’, in: W.D. Davies, L. Finkelstein (eds), The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 2: The Hellenistic Age, London/ New York/Port Chester/Melbourne/Sydney 1989, 534–562, p. 550. See also A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 86–87: ‘Even if the translator of Ex is one of the freest Septuagintal translators, it seems to me that he did not deliberately alter the information contained in his Vorlage. . . . The changes resulting from the free mode of translation are for the most part structural, and anyway do not essentially affect the contents of the passage.’

128

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

of translation equivalents or lack thereof, quantitative representation and segmentation,134 it quickly becomes apparent that Exodus treated the said Vorlage with considerable freedom in function of a linguistically and grammatically correct Greek.135 If one does not account for the aforementioned distinction between ‘literal’ and ‘faithful’, it becomes possible to characterise the translation of Exodus in what would appear to be contradictory ways. J. Sanderson, for example, has argued that the translation of Exodus exhibits ‘a high degree of literalness’,136 while the majority of other scholars would be more inclined to characterise the said translations as ‘extremely free’. Given that Sanderson simultaneously demonstrates that a significant number of variants are a result of the book’s free translation technique,137 it would seem that she intends to argue that Exodus is on the whole a ‘faithful’ translation and that her evaluation thereof conforms to the characterisation of Exodus described above.138 134 Cf., for example, A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 65: ‘Freedom of word-order is in the Greek Pentateuch most evident in Gen and Ex.’; Ibidem, 73: ‘This survey thus revealed in the translator of Ex a tendency towards natural Greek usage and freedom with regard to the word-order of the original.’ and Ibidem, 76: ‘Obviously, Ex is not literal in the sense of word-for-word correspondence.’ See also Idem, Parataxis in the Septuagint, 180: ‘In questions of word order he [translator of Exod., B.L.] is fairly free of the original.’ 135 Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Septuagintal Translation Techniques’, 388–389. While the translator of Exodus employed free renderings that fit extremely well in their context, he also uses literal equivalents from time to time. He is capable of altering grammatical constructions and their word sequence in order to meet the demands of the Greek idiom although he does not do so on every occasion. He exhibits enough freedom to change the word order of the original, yet he frequently follows the original word order nevertheless. He could add and omit words and grammatical details, but never did so out of indifference or sloppiness. See Ibidem: ‘He [translator of Exod., B.L.] may be characterized as a competent translator, one of the best, but still not perfect.’; Idem, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 77: ‘The translator of Ex may thus be characterized as a competent translator, mindful of genuine Greek expressions, free in his relationship to the original, but still exact in reproducing his original relatively faithfully.’ 136 See J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 248: ‘. . . most of Exodus is rendered with a high degree of literalness . . .’ 137 See J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 247–256. 138 This is more explicit in the formulation she employs in J.E. Sanderson, ‘The Old Greek of Exodus’, 103: ‘It should be emphasized that this study has confirmed that for the book of Exodus the Old Greek is generally a faithful [italics B.L.] translation of its Vorlage.’ See likewise Idem, An Exodus Scroll, 255: ‘In general, then, G in Exodus gives evidence of being a faithful [italics B.L.] translation of its Hebrew Vorlage.’ See, however, Ibidem for the simultaneous use of the adjective ‘literal’ in the sense of ‘faithful’, indicating that Sanderson did not consciously maintain this distinction: ‘A few readings seem so literal as to have produced wooden, “Semitic Greek” (e.g. “to fill the hands”), but most seem relatively literal [italics B.L.] but without being “translation Greek” (e.g., not repeating a pronoun when it was required in Hebrew but not in Greek). A few suggest greater concern for the thought than for the actual words, and thus greater freedom which still successfully renders the ideas (e.g. “glory” and “above all”).’

study of the translation character of lxx exodus

129

One can conclude as a consequence that the Septuagint of the book of Exodus is a faithful translation of its Hebrew basic text, which has exercised freedom with respect to the said Vorlage in order to acknowledge the linguistic characteristics of the Greek language and to provide a final result that represents grammatically correct Greek. Implications for the evaluation of text-critical variants If one is inclined to argue that the Septuagint of Exodus aimed at being a faithful translation of its Hebrew Vorlage while maintaining its freedom to provide an idiomatic Greek text, then such an insight will have to be accounted for in one’s evaluation of the Greek text-critical variants. Indeed, it will be important in this regard to determine in every case whether the variant in question has its roots in a different Vorlage or is a consequence rather of the translation technique employed by the translator. The establishment of such a distinction and the text-critical decision upon which it is based is not always easy. A correct appreciation of the translation character of the text under analysis is thus of essential importance. With respect to the issue at hand, one can observe differences in accent in the initial attitude of E. Tov on the one hand and A. Aejmelaeus on the other. Tov is of the opinion that the evaluation of Septuagint variants must always endeavour to explore and assess every possible explanation that might point in the direction of translation technique before accepting—at a later stage—that there is evidence of a different Vorlage.139 Aejmelaeus corrects this perspective and suggests that one would be better advised to presuppose the existence of a different basic text—at least with respect to larger Septuagint variants—, bearing in mind that the translators of the Septuagint and the book of Exodus in particular were particularly careful and attentive to detail in their work and that they reveal their desire to faithfully render their Vorlage in a variety of ways. Only when one can produce sufficient and well-founded arguments should one ascribe the larger Septuagint variants to the translators.140

139

Cf., for example, E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 44–45, esp. 40: ‘When analyzing the LXX translation for text-critical purposes, one should first attempt to view deviations as the result of inner-translational factors. Only after all possible translational explanations have been dismissed should one turn to the assumption that the translation represents a different reading from MT.’ 140 Cf., for example, A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 68: ‘Now, knowing that the translators considered the text they translated to be authoritative Scripture and, on the other hand, that most of them, after all, were fairly literal, it would seem to be a good rule of thumb to start with the assumption that larger divergences from the MT mainly come from the Vorlage, and only exceptionally and with

130

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

The distinction described above with respect to the points of departure taken by Tov and Aejmelaeus, however, has been further nuanced by the respective scholars themselves. On the one hand, Aejmelaeus argues that in the case of smaller variants—also referred to as ‘word-variants’—Tov’s advice can be followed, at least if one has a correct assessment of the translation technique of the text in question and if one accounts for the latter in one’s evaluation of the variants.141 In this regard, Aejmelaeus briefly explains the difference between variants that can be ascribed to the translator and those that came into existence on the basis of a different Vorlage.142 In her opinion, some variants—albeit only the smaller—may indeed be a result of the increased liberty enjoyed in terms of translation technique of certain translators (cf. Tov); she nevertheless confirms her belief that the larger plusses are best ascribed to the Vorlage. In order to determine the difference between both types of variants, Aejmelaeus holds that one is first obliged to study the language of these variants. When we encounter good idiomatic Greek that does not appear to be the result of a translation or so-called ‘translation-Greek’, then it is possible that the translator or even a later Greek reworking is responsible. If the language in the variant in question is more Hebraising and can be easily retroverted imperative reasons to attribute them to the translator.’; Ibidem, 71, esp. 87: ‘Tov stresses that one should always first attempt to regard a divergence from the MT as caused by the translator and only as a last resort accept the possibility of a variant reading in the Vorlage. This holds good with regard to word-variants. In the case of quantitative divergences, however, it is methodologically more correct to start with the assumption that the translator found the larger text in his Vorlage. If plusses are unnecessarily attributed to the translator, this creates a false picture of the translation technique employed, and furthermore, this may in turn prevent one from discovering original readings behind the plusses. Thus Tov’s warning against exaggeration of the literalness of the translators in the form of too quick retroversions must be balanced by another warning, viz. against exaggeration of the freedom of the translators in the form of too ready an acceptance of additions as originating with the translation.’; Idem, ‘Septuagintal Translation Techniques’, 381: ‘It is no longer possible for a scholar to assume off-hand that a divergence between the MT and the LXX was caused by the translator—either his carelessness or free rewriting— without serious consideration of the possibility of a different Hebrew Vorlage.’ and Idem, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 378. See also J.E. Sanderson, ‘The Old Greek of Exodus’, 103: ‘It should be emphasized that this study has confirmed that for the book of Exodus the Old Greek is generally a faithful translation of its Vorlage. Thus it appears that the variations between the Masoretic text and the Greek are at least for the most part to be attributed to the period of the transmission of its Hebrew Vorlage.’; R. Hanhart, ‘The Translation of the Septuagint’, 341–343, esp. 342: ‘This [the fact that the primary goal of the LXX is to offer a faithful rendering of its original, B.L.] means that deviations from the MT must be noticed but should only in the rarest cases be taken as the peculiar expression of the translator by means of which he wants to interpret—let alone reinterpret—his Vorlage.’ 141 A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 87. 142 Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 86–87.

study of the translation character of lxx exodus

131

into Hebrew, then the variant would appear to reflect a reading present in its Vorlage. In such contexts, familiarity with the translation technique of the book in question becomes a decisive factor in the evaluation of its variants. In addition to language usage, however, the content of the various texts is likewise important. The translator of Exodus, no matter how free he was with respect to his Vorlage, never changed the information the Vorlage contained. The content of the basic text was thus faithfully rendered. As a consequence, when a Greek variant offers something completely different in terms of content to the Hebrew text(s), this should not simply be ascribed to the translator. Tov, on the other hand, who is inclined to emphasise the responsibility of the translator, likewise nuances his position by stating that the possibility of a different Vorlage, especially when it comes to larger variants, cannot be ruled out and may even be probable. In line with Aejmelaeus, he also underlines the importance of a correct understanding of the translation technique in function of an accurate evaluation of the text-critical variants in the Septuagint.143 By analogy with the opinions concerning the evaluation of text-critical variants in the Greek text of Exodus, scholars likewise differ with respect to the evaluation of the so-called ‘harmonisations’ in the text.144 A correct 143 Cf., for example, E. Tov, ‘The Nature and Study of the Translation Technique’, 352, in which the author strongly underlines the importance of the study of translation technique; cf. also Idem, ‘Some Reflections’, 115–117, where he points to the fact that larger differences are not infrequently to be ascribed to a different Vorlage. 144 For a definition of harmonisation and a classification of the various types thereof and their text-critical evaluation see E. Tov, ‘The Nature and Background of Harmonizations in Biblical Manuscripts’, JSOT 31 (1985), 3–29. Cf. also in this regard S. Olofsson, The LXX Version, 27–28. In the aforementioned contribution, which focuses for the most part on harmonisations within the Hebrew textual versions, Tov nevertheless makes a distinction between harmonisations that came into existence at the compositional level (i.e. the phase of a text’s literary growth, prior to it being perceived as final text) and harmonisations that came into existence at the textual level (i.e. during the process of textual transmission). The latter enjoy the lion’s share of Tov’s attention. As a provisional definition he maintains that a harmonisation brings details in harmony with one another, whereby detail a from text A, for example, is brought into harmony with detail b from text B. Such harmonisation can take place between different books, within a single text, within a single chapter or even within a single sentence. Tov also distinguishes between intentional and unintentional harmonisations. In function of a classification of harmonisations, Tov makes a further double distinction. Based on the distance between the differences between texts A and B, Tov proposes three major types of harmonisation: those within the same context, those within the same book and those between different books. In addition, he maintains, one can likewise distinguish between harmonisations at the level of content: (a) harmonisation of syntactical differences; (b) harmonisation of smaller contextual differences that may have come into existence at the level of textual transmission; (c) harmonisation of passages that narrate the giving of command and the realisation thereof; (d) harmonisation of references to earlier mentioning,

132

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

assessment of the origin of harmonisations in the Greek text is text-critically of major significance but remains far from simple.145 According to Tov, it can even be very difficult in some instances to determine whether the harmonisation stems from the translator or the Vorlage.146 Tov is of the

(e) harmonisation of differences relating to larger details; (f ) harmonisation of schematic descriptions that frequently have their origins in the compositional stage. The various harmonisation types are the same in the translations as in the original Hebrew texts. With respect to the technique of harmonisation, Tov distinguishes between harmonisations that came about on the basis of ‘changes’ and other harmonisations that quantitatively alter the text on the basis of the addition or omission of certain elements. The question of the direction of a harmonisation (is a harmonised with b or vice versa?) is often difficult to answer. With respect to the background against which such harmonisations came into being, Tov argues in general terms that the context must have been one in which the biblical text was not yet sacrosanct, given the fact that the harmonised text in question is always emended in one way or another. Likewise with respect to unconscious or unintentional harmonisations, which often embraces external harmonisation between two already similar texts and the background of which is obscure or even unknown, one must argue in any event that the scribe or copyist has not followed his Vorlage closely. Indeed, a harmonisation always implies a change in the text. In principle, Tov maintains, every text can contain every type of harmonisation. Nevertheless, a distinction has to be made between harmonisations of type a and b (minor adaptations) and harmonisations of type c-f (major changes). The latter categories, which cannot be understood as accidental changes, are more frequent in the Pentateuch. This might suggest that a greater sensitivity towards irregularities was present with respect to the Pentateuch and that the text thereof was intentionally changed from a formalistic point of view. It is possible that such harmonisations took place against the background of a scribal tradition which stimulated the said phenomenon. Tov maintains in addition, however, that reference should also be made to the possibility of influence from other already existing literary compositions in which texts were already associated with one another. To conclude, Tov also discusses the text-critical evaluation of harmonisation. Without wasting words he argues that all harmonisations are in se secondary. The recognition of a harmonisation implies, according to Tov, the rejection thereof as a non-original reading. 145 See E. Tov, ‘The Nature and Background of Harmonizations’, 19–20: ‘As expected, the ancient versions contain a sizable number of harmonizing details. It is, however, difficult to assess the text-critical value of these harmonizations for they may have derived from either the translator or his Vorlage. The difference between these two possibilities is crucial, since harmonizations on the Hebrew level do bear on the issue under investigation, while the same phenomenon on the inner-translational level does not. Inner-translational harmonizations are part of the nature of the translation and its transmission, and not of its Hebrew source.’ 146 Cf., for example, E. Tov, ‘The Nature and Background of Harmonizations’, 4: ‘Translations contain many harmonizations, but often it cannot be determined whether these harmonizations derived from the translator himself or from his Hebrew source.’ Supplemented in n. 5: ‘However, sometimes it can be shown that a given harmonization (or a group of harmonizations) derived from the translator’s Vorlage.’; and in particular the appendix of this contribution on the harmonisations in ancient translations, Ibidem, 19–23. See also Idem, ‘The Nature of the Hebrew Text Underlying the LXX’, 60; and S. Olofsson, The LXX Version, 28: ‘Often it is hard to decide if the translator harmonized the text or if the harmonization had taken place in the Hebrew text the translator had at his disposal.’

study of the translation character of lxx exodus

133

opinion, nevertheless, that it is possible to set up a comparative study into the translation equivalents in the harmonised texts (or textual fragments) in function of determining the difference between a harmonisation stemming from the translator and a harmonisation stemming from the Vorlage.147 If one can presuppose that the passage containing the harmonisation and the passage upon which the harmonisation was rooted are the work of the same translator, and if the said translator opted with care in both passages for the same translation equivalents whereby at least a small number thereof are unique to the parallel passages, then one is at liberty, according to Tov, to argue that the harmonisation is a creation of the translator. Where the translation equivalents in both translations differ, this can serve as an indication that the harmonisation had already come into existence in the Hebrew Vorlage. In principle at least, therefore, one can observe a degree of openness towards ascribing harmonisations to the translator in Tov’s position. The same basic position is even more evident in the work of J. Cook who, while he considers the genesis of harmonisations in the Vorlage to be theoretically possible,148 nevertheless argues in his study of Gen. 1–2:4 that the harmonisation of discrepancies in the text and the explanation of ambiguous passages constitute an integral element in the work of the translator of Genesis.149 In other words, Cook ascribes the harmonisations in the Greek text of Gen. 1–2:4 to the translator.150

147

See E. Tov, ‘The Nature and Background of Harmonizations’, 20. Cf. J. Cook, ‘The Translator of the Greek Genesis’, in: N. Fernández Marcos (ed.), La Septuaginta, 169–182, p. 171: ‘It is also theoretically possible for these deviations to be ascribed to (a) diverging Hebrew Vorlage(n).’ 149 Cf. J. Cook, ‘The Translator of the Greek Genesis’, 171: ‘These discrepancies are harmonized on internal and/or external grounds in the LXX.’; and p. 182: ‘I have demonstrated that the harmonization of discrepancies and the explication of ambiguous passages formed an integral part of the approach of the translator of Genesis.’ 150 Cf., however, E. Tov, ‘The Nature and Background of Harmonizations’, 21–22, who argues that the harmonisations in Gen. 1 should be ascribed to the Hebrew Vorlage. See p. 22: ‘All or most harmonizing changes and additions in ch. 1 derive from a Hebrew text rather than the translator’s harmonizing tendencies.’ See also A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 69–70, in which she criticises Cook’s argument that the harmonisations in Genesis should be ascribed to the translator. According to Aejmelaeus, it is correct to characterise Genesis as a free translation, but the freedom in question never extends beyond the framework of the original. Moreover, the manner with which the first chapters of the book are translated, in which harmonisations are most numerous, is more literal than the latter chapters of the book. In her opinion it is highly improbable that the translator set about correcting the texts he was translating from the very outset. Aejmelaeus argues in addition that it is unlikely that a translator would harmonise with parallel passages that were located a considerable distance further along in the text. Indeed, it would be difficult for a translator to harmonise with a text he had not yet translated. Aejmelaeus maintains, therefore, that the greater the distance between parallel text fragments, the less likely the translator was responsible for the harmonisation. 148

134

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

A. Aejmelaeus represents a different position in this regard. Within the framework of her vision concerning the evaluation of larger variants, she has argued that harmonisations should not be ascribed to the translator but rather to the copyists of the Vorlage of the Greek text.151 She insists, therefore, that the creation of harmonisations fits better in the modus operandi of a copyist or scribe than that of a translator.152 Copyists often knew their text by heart, thus allowing them to relate parallel passages with relative ease to the text they were copying. Their working practice was often fast and mechanical, whereby it was easy for them to think of other passages at the same time or to discover inconsistencies. Translators, on the other hand, had to concentrate on the portion of text they were translating.153 In many instances they would not even have been aware of the immediate context of the passage they were translating. Structural inconsistencies could emerge, for example, that they did not even correct at a later moment.We likewise cannot be sure that translators compared the text they were translating with the text they had previously translated, given the fact that variation is also found in the translation equivalents employed in paralleled texts. One can conclude on this basis that the horizon of the translator was extremely limited. When one adds to this the fact that the translator had already ascribed a degree of Scriptural authority to the text he was translating,154 which as a consequence he desired to render as faithfully as he could, one can likewise conclude that harmonisations were more likely to have been the work of scribes than of translators,155 and that they were taken up into the Greek text via the The most one can argue is that a translator was responsible for the harmonisation of two expressions within the same immediate context, and even then this may in fact have been due to a different Vorlage as can be demonstrated, for example, by the presence of the same phenomenon in another Hebrew textual version (e.g. SamP). 151 Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 69–71. 152 Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 70: ‘It seems to me that harmonization is a practice that far better suits the working habits of a copyist than of a translator.’ See also Idem, ‘Übersetzung als Schlüssel zum Original’, 161. 153 Cf. also supra p. 106. 154 Cf., for example, A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Übersetzung als Schlüssel zum Original’, 152: ‘Eher scheint es, daß sie nur allgemein ihren Original treu sein wollten, das für sie ja als Heilige Schrift galt.’; and Idem, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 68: ‘The translators considered the text they translated to be authoritative Scripture’, in contrast to the situation of the copyists of the Hebrew text in which the latter was still in development in compositional terms (in terms of literary growth) and was not yet considered sacrosanct. Cf. supra n. 144. 155 In contrast to the opinion of A. Aejmelaeus, who maintains a sharp distinction between the working practices of scribes and translators, J.E. Sanderson appears to ascribe similar freedoms to both groups, whereby variants and harmonisation can equally well be

study of the translation character of lxx exodus

135

Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint in like fashion to other larger text-critical variants. Aejmelaeus concludes that ‘All in all, the scholar who wishes to attribute deliberate changes, harmonizations, completion of details and new accents to the translator is under the obligation to prove this thesis with weighty arguments and also to show why the divergences cannot have originated with the Vorlage. That the translator may have manipulated his original does not mean that he necessarily did so. All that is known of the translation techniques employed in the Septuagint points firmly enough in the opposite direction.’156 If one specifically relates this issue to the Septuagint of the book of Exodus and if one describes the translation technique employed therein according to the terms outlined above, namely faithful to its Vorlage and free in its endeavour to provide idiomatic Greek, then such a characterisation must be allowed to play an important role in the evaluation of the harmonisations. The translation character of the Greek text of Exodus would appear to suggest that larger variants and harmonisation should be ascribed in the first instance to the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint of Exodus rather than the translator. If such variants are also present in other Hebrew textual witnesses (such as SamP or particular Qumran scrolls), this fact can function as an additional argument in support of the suggestion that the reading in question did indeed exist as a Hebrew reading and as a consequence may have been present in the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint.157 In what follows, we will endeavour to determine, on the basis of concrete textual data from the ‘Plagues Narrative’ in Exod. 7:14–11:10, whether the characterisation of the translation technique of the Greek text of the

ascribed to a translator. Sanderson points in addition to the possibility of variants coming into existence during the transmission of the Greek text, since the scribes or copyists that passed down the Greek text enjoyed the same freedom. See J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 255: ‘If scribes copying biblical texts in Hebrew exercised the freedom to expand or alter as they wrote, then presumably the translator and the copyists in Greek did as well.’ When one bases oneself on the working hypothesis that the Göttingen edition of the Septuagint text represents a reconstruction of the original Greek text, however, and as a consequence one hands over the textual criticism of the Greek text, which was characterised earlier in the present chapter as the primary condition for employing the Septuagint in the textual criticism of the Hebrew Old Testament (cf. supra p. 97), to specialists, then from the practical perspective one should not account for the latter type of variant. 156 Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 71. 157 Cf., for example, E. Tov, ‘The Contribution of the Qumran Scrolls to the Understanding of the LXX’, 11, 12–22.

136

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

book of Exodus outlined above can also function as a point of departure for the text-critical evaluation of the pericope under analysis. A relevant cross-section of the translation technique evident in LXX Exod. 7:14–11:10158 In the preceding pages, the Greek translation of Exodus was characterised as a faithful rendition of its Hebrew Vorlage, which nevertheless took the liberty to deal freely with its basic text in striving to achieve a grammatically correct Greek text while exhibiting a clear concern for idiomatic Greek usage. In this sense one can argue that the Septuagint of Exodus is both faithful and free at one and the same time.159 Based on a brief analysis of the different aspects of literalness and freedom, we will endeavour in the following pages to demonstrate that the characterisation of the translation technique employed by the Greek text of Exodus as a whole also applies to the Septuagint text of the ‘Plagues Narrative’ of Exod. 7:14–11:10 in particular. For the concrete textual data to be discussed below, the reader is referred to the synoptic presentation of the textual material.160 Consistency and non-consistency in the choice of translation equivalents An extremely literal translation would normally exhibit a high degree of consistency in its choice of translation equivalents. When one examines the text of Exod. 7:14–11:10, however, one encounters a significant number of non-consistent renderings in which options have been made for different translation equivalents on the basis of the context and with a view to semantic precision or stylistic variation. The following pages summarise a number of noteworthy examples in this regard.

158 See, in this respect, also B. Lemmelijn, ‘Free and Yet Faithful’: On the Translation Technique of LXX Exod 7,14–11,10’, JNSL 33 (2007), 1–32, pp. 13–26. 159 See in this respect, e.g., the same conclusion that has been reached concerning the LXX translator of Song of Songs in H. Ausloos, B. Lemmelijn, ‘Rendering Love’: Hapax Legomena and the Characterisation of the Translation Technique of Song of Songs’, in: H. Ausloos, J. Cook, F. García Martínez, B. Lemmelijn, M. Vervenne (eds), Translating a Translation: The Septuagint and its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism (BETL, 213), Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA 2008, 43–61, p. 60: “. . . it has nevertheless become evident that the large majority of the explained Greek equivalents picture a Greek translator who can be characterised as faithful to his Vorlage, but relatively ‘free’ in rendering it” and p. 61: “At least on the basis of the study of his renderings of the Hebrew hapax legomena, he presents himself as a ‘faithful’, but relatively ‘free’ translator: faithful to the content and message of his Vorlage, but free in rendering it in his own Greek way.” 160 Cf. the appendix at the end of the present volume.

study of the translation character of lxx exodus – – – –

137

‫ אמר‬and ‫ = דבר‬λεγειν (Exod. 7:14, 22, 26; 10:21, 29) ‫ = דבר‬λαλειν (Exod. 8:11, 15) and συντασσειν (Exod. 9:12) ‫ = הפך‬στρεφειν (Exod. 7:15) and μεταβαλλειν (Exod. 7:17, 20; 10:19) ‫ = היה‬εἰναι and γιγνεσθαι (Exod. 7:19; 8:11, 13, 14; 9:9, 10, 11, 18,

24, 26, 28; 10:6, 13, 14, 22) – ‫ = לב‬mostly καρδια, but also νους (Exod. 7:23) and διανοια (Exod. 9:21) – ‫ = מן‬ἀπο (for people) ἐκ (for places) (Exod. 8:7, 8, 9). Also ‫ = מעם‬ἀπο (Exod. 10:6, 18). Reading the same Hebrew word, the translator shows himself capable of nuancing the meaning according to the semantic context (people or places). – ‫ = ב‬mostly ἐν (see, for example, Exod. 8:5, 7, 21, 24; 9:3, 10, 11, 14, 19, 21, 26; 10:2, 15, 19; 11:5, 9), but also ἐπι (cf., for example, Exod. 8:17, 28; 9:5, 22; 10: 1, 4, 13, 14, 22), εἰς (e.g. Exod. 7:28; 10:2; 11:2, 4), συν (Exod. 10:9) and κατα (Exod. 11:6). In addition, ‫ ב‬is also rendered with the use of an idiomatic Greek (instrumental) dative (cf., for example, Exod. 7:17, 20, 22, 27; 8:1, 3, 13, 14; 9:15, 35; 10:2, 25, 28) in agreement with the demanded or appropriate semantic nuance.161 – The Hebrew expression ‫ בפעם הזאת‬is rendered in a variety of ways. The Greek text renders ἐπι του καιρου τουτου (ἐπι with the genitive) in Exod. 8:28 and literally ἐν τῳ νυν καιρω| (ἐν with the dative) in Exod. 9:14. – ‫( דבר‬as substantive) = λεγειν (Exod. 8:6, 9, 27), ὁρισμος (Exod. 8:8), θανατος (Exod. 9:3, 15),162 ῥητον (Exod. 9:4), but mostly ῥημα (Exod. 9:5, 6, 20, 21). Also here, the translator demonstrates the freedom to interpret the same Hebrew consonants in two different ways, reading deber or dabar, thereby taking the context into account. – The Hebrew ‫ אשׁר‬is mostly rendered by a Greek relative, but also by an indeterminate relative pronoun such as ἡτις in Exod. 11:6 or a correlative adjective such as ὁσα in Exod. 9:19; 10:2; 11:7.163 In addition, one observes the rendering of ‫ אשׁר‬by ὡς (Exod. 8:8) and καθαπερ (Exod. 8:11).

161 Cf. also in this regard I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Methodologische Fragen der Erforschung’, 49; Idem, ‘Die Wiedergabe einiger Hebräischen Zeitangaben’, 107–115; Idem, ‘Die Wiedergabe des ‫ ב‬Instrumenti’, 116–130. 162 In contrast to the more literal λοιμος found in Aquila and Symmachus. See in this regard J.W. Wevers, Notes, 125–126, n. 7 and Ibidem, 131, n. 22. 163 Cf. also I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘The Rendering of the Hebrew Relative Clause’, 55–61.

138

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

– ‫כ‬, ‫ כאשׁר‬en ‫ = כדבר‬καθαπερ (Exod. 8:9, 11, 15, 23, 27), ὡς (Exod. 8:6), καθα (Exod. 9:12) and καθοτι (Exod. 10:10)164 – The Greek word γη mostly represents the equivalent of ‫( ארץ‬e.g., Exod. 8:18; 9:23, 25), although it is also employed as a parallel of ‫אדמה‬ (Exod. 8:17; 10:6), ‫( גבול‬Exod. 10:19) and ‫( שׂדה‬Exod. 9:22; 10:5). The term πεδιον represents the standard equivalent of ‫שׂדה‬. – Πας = mostly ‫כל‬, but also ‫( בקרב‬Exod. 8:18) – ∆ιδοναι = mostly ‫נתן‬, but also ‫( שׂים‬Exod. 8:19; 9:5) – ‫ = עשׂה‬ποιειν, but also γενεσθαι (Exod. 8:22, 27) – ‫ = שׁלח‬ἀποστελλειν and ἐξαποστελλειν (Exod. 8:16, 17, 24; 9:27, 28, 35; 10:3, 4, 7, 10, 20, 27; 11:1, 10), and also ἐπαποστελλειν (Exod. 8:17) – ‫ = הנה‬mostly ἰδου, but also ὁδε (Exod. 8:25) – The translation equivalent of the Hebrew tetragrammaton ‫ יהוה‬is usually κυριος, although θεος is also found in a number of places (Exod. 8:25, 26; 9:5; 10:11, 18); θεος tends to function as a rule as the equivalent of ‫( אלהים‬cf., for example, Exod. 8:15, 21; 9:28; 10:16). – The Hebrew ‫( וסר‬from ‫ )סור‬is translated in Exod. 8:25 by ἀπελευσεται. In Exod. 8:27, ‫( ויסר‬from the same verb ‫ )סור‬is rendered by περιειλεν. – ‫ כבד‬is rendered in Exod. 8:20 by πληθος, in Exod. 9:3 by μεγας,165 and in Exod. 9:18, 24 by πολλην.166 – Χειρ = mostly ‫יד‬, but also ‫( חפנים‬Exod. 9:8) and ‫( כפי‬Exod. 9:29, 33) – ‫ = החרטמים‬mostly οἱ ἐπαοιδοι (Exod. 7:22; 8:3, 14, 15), but also οἱ φαρμακοι (Exod. 9:11) – ‫ עמד‬is rendered in Exod. 9:11 by ἱσταναι and in Exod. 9:28 by μενειν. In addition, ἱσταναι in Exod. 9:13 is also the equivalent of the Hebrew ‫יצב‬. – ‫ = בעבור‬ἑνεκεν (Exod. 9:16) and ἱνα (Exod. 9:16) – ‫ = מטר‬ὑω and ὑετὸς (Exod. 9:18, 33–34) but also βρεχω (Exod. 9:23). – While the Hebrew ‫ בהמה‬is mostly rendered by the semantic equivalent τετραποδα (cf., for example, Exod. 8:13, 14; 9:9, 10), it is also translated on occasion as κτηνη (Exod. 9:19, 22, 25; 11:5, 7), although κτηνη mostly represents the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew ‫( מקנה‬cf., for example, Exod. 9:19, 20, 21). 164

See also A. Aejmelaeus, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 375–377. In contrast to the more literal βαρυς found in Aquila and Symmachus. See in this regard J.W. Wevers, Notes, 125–126, n. 7. 166 Once again in contrast to Aquila and Symmachus which likewise do not translate ‫כבד‬ as πολλην, but appear to prefer the more literal βαρυς. Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 133, n. 26. 165

study of the translation character of lxx exodus

139

– For the most part, ‫ על‬is rendered by ἐπι (cf. Exod. 9:22; 10:6, 21) and ‫ אל‬by εἰς (cf. Exod. 9:21). In Exod. 9:23; 10:21, 22, however, εἰς represents the equivalent of ‫ על‬and in Exod. 10:3, ἐναντιον is the equivalent of ‫אל‬. In addition, ἐπι is also the equivalent of ‫ מן‬in Exod. 10:5. In Exod. 10:16, ἐναντιον also functions as the equivalent of ‫ל‬ and the same ‫ ל‬is also rendered by εἰς. – ‫ = למען‬ἱνα and ὁπως (Exod. 9:16, 29; 10:1, 2; 11:7, 9)167 – ‫ = ספר‬διαγγελειν (Exod. 9:16) and διαγειν (Exod. 10:1) – The Hebrew ‫ מאן‬is rendered by both οὐ βουλει (Exod. 9:2; 10:3) and μη θελῃς (Exod. 10:4), but sometimes merely by a simple negation, for example μη in Exod. 7:14. In Exod. 10:27, moreover, the Hebrew ‫ ולא אבה‬is rendered by και οὐκ ἐβουληθη and in Exod. 8:17, ‫אינך‬ is translated as μη βουλῃ. – The Hebrew ‫ שׂם לבו‬is translated as προσεσχεν τῃ διανοιᾳ in Exod. 9:21 (cf. the current Greek expression προσεχειν τον νουν: ‘to draw attention to’, here however with the dative τῃ διανοιᾳ). In Exod. 10:2, ‫ שׂם‬is rendered by ποιειν. – The Hebrew ‫ שׁאר‬is rendered by both ὑπολειπειν (Exod. 10:12, 19, 26) and καταλειπειν (Exod. 10:5). In addition, ὑπολειπειν also functions as the equivalent of ‫( יתר‬Exod. 10:15) and ‫( יצג‬Exod. 10:24). – ‫ = נטה‬mostly ἐκτεινειν, but also on one occasion in the Septuagint ἐπαιρειν (Exod. 10:13) – ‫ = עתר‬εὐχεσθαι and προσευχεσθαι (Exod. 10:17) – The Hebrew verb ‫ הלך‬is rendered by βαδιζειν (Exod. 10:24) as well as ἀποτρεχειν (Exod. 10:24), πορευεσθαι (Exod. 10:26) and ἀπιεναι (Exod. 10:28), leaving the impression that the Greek translator endeavoured to account for various shades of meaning. – ‫ = עבד‬mostly θεραπων (cf., for example, Exod. 7:28, 29; 8:5, 17, 20; 11:3), but also παις (Exod. 11:8) Different sequence/word order With respect to word order, one can generally presume that a translator aiming at a very literal rendering of the Vorlage would likewise endeavour to maintain the same sequence of words where possible. Our analysis of this aspect in relation to Exodus 7:14–11:10 confirms our earlier findings, namely that the translator of Exodus faithfully rendered the basic

167

See also A. Aejmelaeus, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 374–375.

140

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

text without going to extremes of literalness. As a matter of fact, the word order in numerous verses would appear to be changed primarily for grammatical reasons and the particularities of Greek language usage. The following list offers some striking examples of such a change in word order within Exod. 7:14–11:10. In order to acquire a clear perspective on the textual situation, however, the information provided here should be seen within the framework of the synoptic overview of the textual material of Exod. 7:14–11:10.168 – – – – – –

‫—מים‬ὑδωρ in Exod. 7:24 ‫—עם‬λαον in Exod. 7:29 ‫—את ידך במטך‬τῃ χειρι την ῥαβδον σου in Exod. 8:1, 12, 13 ‫ישׂראל‬, ἰσραηλ—‫מצרים‬, αἰγυπτιων in Exod. 9:4 ‫—לא‬οὐ in Exod. 8:24 ‫—לשׁחין פרח אבעבעת‬ἑλκη φλυκτιδες ἀναζεουσαι in Exod. 9:9 (in

contrast to the parallel sequence in Exod. 9:10) – ‫—כי‬γαρ in Exod. 9:11, 15, 32; 10:1, 11, 26 (due to Greek idiom and syntaxis, cf. infra) – ‫—ב‬ἐν τῳ in Exod. 9:14 – ‫—כמהו‬τοιαυτη in Exod. 9:18, 24; 10:14 (cf. also Exod. 11:6, however, where a parallel sequence is maintained) – ‫—אליו‬αὐτῳ in Exod. 9:29 – ‫—יחדלו‬ἐπαυσαντο in Exod. 9:33 – ‫—ו‬και in Exod. 9:33 (respectively before ‫ יחדלו‬and ἐπαυσαντο) and in 10:6 (respectively before ‫ בתי‬and πασαι) – ‫—ב‬ἐπι in Exod. 10:4 – ‫—ארבה‬ἀκρις in Exod. 10:12 – ‫—ירק‬χλωρον in Exod. 10:15 – ‫—וב‬και ἐν in Exod. 10:15 – ‫—ב‬ἐν in Exod. 10:23 – ‫—זבחים ועלות‬ὁλοκαυτωματα και θυσιας in Exod. 10:25 – ‫—אחד‬μιαν in Exod. 11:1 – ‫—אתכם‬ὑμας in Exod. 11:1 – ‫—ו‬δε in Exod. 11:3 (before ‫ יתן‬and κυριος) – ‫—ויתן‬ἐδωκεν in Exod. 11:3

168

Cf. the appendix at the end of the present volume.

study of the translation character of lxx exodus

141

Greek linguistic idioms It has already been noted above that the Septuagint translator of Exodus paid due attention to the use of idiomatic Greek. This can be observed in several details. The following salient examples serve to confirm this observation. – The Hebrew ‫ לעיני‬is not translated literally as ‘before the eyes’,169 nor is ‫ לפני‬translated as ‘before the face’. Use is made rather of a specific Greek preposition that correctly renders the meaning, namely ἐναντιον (Exod. 7:20; 8:16, 22; 9:8, 10, 11, 13; 11:10). See also ‫ בעיני‬parallel with ἐναντιον in Exod. 11:3.170 – The Hebrew ‫ מפני‬is not literally translated as ‘from before the face’. Use is made rather of an appropriate preposition, namely ἀπο (Exod. 8:20) or δια (Exod. 9:11), or by a personal pronoun με in Exod. 10:3. The term ‫ פניכם‬in Exod. 10:10 is likewise given an idiomatic translation, rendered as a personal pronoun in the dative, ὑμιν. In Exod. 10:28, the Hebrew term ‫ פני‬is rendered literally on one occasion by μου το προσωπον and more idiomatically on another by the dative μοι. Compare also with Exod. 10:11 and 29.171 – The Hebrew preposition ‫ אל‬in Exod. 8:1 is not translated in LXX, because the peculiarities of the Greek language consider it redundant.172 – Possessive suffixes are not always translated explicitly in Greek with possessive pronouns because the emphatic nuance introduced by a Greek possessive is not always considered necessary. Indeed when the ‘possessor’ is also the subject in Greek, the definite article can also have a possessive significance without intending any particular emphatic nuance.173 For this reason, a definite article in such instances is sufficient in Greek. According to I. Soisalon-Soininen, even the definite article is sometimes unnecessary given the fact that the context also— and primarily—determines the possessive relationship.174 Examples of the omission of the possessive suffix in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ can be 169 In contrast, for example, to Aquila (τοις ὀφθαλμοις αὐτων) and Theodotion (προ ὀφθαλμων αὐτων). See in this regard J.W. Wevers, Notes, 120. 170

Cf. also R. Sollamo, Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions, 302–307. Cf. also R. Sollamo, Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions, 302–307. 172 Cf. also Z. Frankel, Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese, 81. 173 Cf. also I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Die Auslassung des Possessivpronomens’, 86–103, esp. 87: ‘Vor allem, wenn das Subjekt des Satzes der Possessor ist, kann das Pronomen weggelassen werden.’ 174 Cf. also I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Die Auslassung des Possessivpronomens’, 87. 171

142

–

– –

–

–

–

–

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

found in Exod. 8:1, 2, 12, 13; 9:8, 15, 21, 23, 33; 10:1, 2, 9, 12, 13, 21, 22, 24; 11:2, 5).175 Compare also with a literal translation such as those found in Exod. 9:22 or Exod. 10:26. The Hebrew ‫ ל‬in Exod. 8:5 is rendered by περι twice in sequence instead of three times. The third object is linked therewith via a simple conjunction. The Greek translator evidently considered this to be sufficiently comprehensible. In Exod. 8:6, the Greek version makes the subject of ‫ ויאמר‬explicit in the equivalent expression ὁ δε εἰπεν. In contrast to the Hebrew nominal clause, the Greek text occasionally employs the verb ‘to be’ εἰναι or γιγνεσθαι; cf. Exod. 8:6, 15, 17, 18; 9:14, 19, 26, 32; 10:8, 9; 11:3. The Hebrew preposition ‫ב‬, with a temporal meaning, is rendered in the Septuagint in a variety of ways. The formal translation is provided by the Greek preposition ἐν with the dative (see, for example, in Exod. 8:18; 9:14). A freer, idiomatic Greek translation expresses the indication of time in a dative without preposition (cf. Exod. 10:28) or in the genitive (Exod. 8:28).176 The Hebrew preposition ‫ ב‬in its instrumental usage has a variety of equivalents in Greek. In the first instance, we find translations employing the preposition ἐν, which is also employed in koinè Greek and as such cannot be simply considered a ‘hebraism’. In addition, we find freer, more idiomatic Greek renderings employing an instrumental dative. Cf., for example, in the ‘Plagues Narrative’: Exod. 7:17, 20, 22, 27; 8:3, 14; 9:15.177 The Hebrew preposition ‫ מן‬can be translated literally as ἀπο or ἐκ (see, for example, Exod. 7:24; 8:7, 8, 9; 9:4, 6, 7; 10:26), but also by a free Greek rendering using a partitive genitive (Exod. 9:20).178 In Exod. 9:2; 10:4, the Greek does not have an equivalent of the Hebrew personal pronoun ‫אתה‬, because the person in Greek is contained in the conjugated verb forms βουλει and θελῃς respectively.

175

Cf. also I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Die Auslassung des Possessivpronomens’, 92–95. Cf. in this regard I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Die Wiedergabe einiger Hebräischen Zeitangaben’, 107–115. 177 Cf. I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Die Wiedergabe des ‫ ב‬Instrumenti’, 116–130. 178 Cf. I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Die Wiedergabe des partitiven ‫’מן‬, 154–171. Reference should be made to the fact that the ratio of the given six partitive genitives with respect to the thirteen translations with the prepositions ἀπο/ἐκ (13/6) makes Exodus at this level one of the freest translations in the Pentateuch. By way of comparison see: Gen. 25/5, Lev. 48/6, Num. 13/3, Deut. 15/0. See Ibidem, 163. 176

study of the translation character of lxx exodus

143

– The Greek equivalent των του ἰσραηλ ὑιων in Exod. 9:4 represents an excellent translation of the Hebrew ‫לבני ישׂראל‬. – The Hebrew expression ‫ ביד משׁה‬in Exod. 9:35 is not literally translated as ‘by the hand of Moses’ but rendered rather according to its meaning by a Greek instrumental dative, namely τῳ μωυσῃ. Compare also Exod. 10:25 ‫בידנו‬, translated by the dative ἡμιν. – In Exod. 10:6, the Hebrew clause ‫ אבות אבותיך‬is rendered by a single Greek word οἱ προπαπποι αὐτων.179 – Likewise in Exod. 10:6, the Hebrew infinitive ‫היותם‬, in which the subject is expressed via a third person plural suffix, is rendered in the Greek in an idiomatic way by a conjugated verb γεγονασιν, which makes the subject explicit in a third person plural ending.180 – In Exod. 10:7, the Hebrew expression ‫ הטרם תדע‬is rendered smoothly by a Greek parallel construction, namely ἠ εἰδεναι βουλει. In this instance, the translator must have been familiar with the precise meaning of the Hebrew words he found in his basic text, although he chose to render them in idiomatic Greek. While the latter departs in formal terms from the Vorlage, it nevertheless expresses the content of the Hebrew with greater accuracy.181 – In Exod. 10:13, the Hebrew status constructus ‫ רוח קדים‬is rendered on two occasions by a substantive with accompanying adjective ἀνεμος νοτος rather than literally in the form of a genitive.182 – In Exod. 10:16, the Greek does not render the Hebrew preposition ‫ל‬ attached to ‫ למשׁה‬and ‫ לאהרן‬because proper nouns in the accusative (clear at least with respect to μωυσην) are sufficient to clarify function and significance in the sentence. Cf. also the parallel in Exod. 10:24 with the prepositions ‫ ל‬and ‫אל‬, and Exod. 10:25 where the preposition ‫ ל‬attached to ‫ ליהוה‬does not have a translation equivalent because the expression is rendered by a dative, namely κυριῳ. See also, for example, Exod. 8:23 in which the Hebrew prepositional expression ‫ אלינו‬is translated by the Greek dative ἡμιν, whereby further explicitation provided by the preposition becomes redundant. 179 Cf. I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Verschiedene Wiedergaben der Hebräischen StatusConstructus-Verbindung’, 69–70. 180 Cf. I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Die Wiedergabe des Hebräischen Personalpronomens’, 84. 181 Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 73. See also Z. Frankel, Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese, 73. 182 Cf. I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Verschiedene Wiedergaben der Hebräischen StatusConstructus-Verbindung’, 65.

144

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

– In Exod. 10:23, the Greek text does not offer a literal equivalent for the Hebrew ‫‘( מתחתיו‬from what is under him’) but employs rather a more idiomatic Greek expression with a specific substantive that means ‘bed’ or ‘place of rest’: ἐκ της κοιτης αὐτου.183 – In Exod. 10:23, the expression ‫ לכל‬is not translated with an equivalent preposition and the adjective but rather by the dative of the Greek adjective πας, namely πασιν. – In Exod. 10:29, the Hebrew formulation ‫ לא אסף עוד ראות‬is rendered by the idiomatic Greek οὐκετι ὀφθησομαι. – In Exod. 11:1, the Hebrew paronomastic construction ‫ גרשׁ יגרשׁ‬is translated by the verb ἐκβαλλειν in combination with the dative of a substantive of the same verbal root, namely ἐκβολῃ. The translation of paronomastic constructions by a verb in combination with the dative of a related substantive is understood by R. Sollamo, in line with Thackeray,184 as a freer rendering than the non-idiomatic Greek translation employing a participle and a finite form of the same radix.185 In addition, however, even freer translations exist (striving for better Greek) that translate paronomastic constructions on the basis of a finite verb form with an adverb or an adverbial clause or an alternative form of free translation. One of the seven such cases in the entire Pentateuch is to be found in Exod. 8:24 in which the paronomastic construction ‫ רק הרחק לא תרחיקו ללכת‬is rendered in Greek by ἀλλ’ οὐ μακραν ἀποτενειτε πορευθηναι.186 – In Exod. 11:8, the Hebrew expressions ‫ אשׁר ברגליך‬and ‫בחרי אף‬ are both rendered by an idiomatic, content related, Greek equivalent, namely οὑ συ ἀφηγῃ and μετα θυμου respectively.187 In addition to the concrete examples described above, reference should also be made to a number of supplementary linguistic details which reveal that the translator of Exodus paid due attention to the peculiarities of the

183

Cf. also Z. Frankel, Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese, 73. Sollamo refers to H.St.J. Thackeray, ‘Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute in the LXX’, JTS 9 (1908), 597–601, esp. 597–598. See also Idem, A Grammar of the Old Testament, 47–50. 185 Cf. R. Sollamo, ‘The LXX Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute’, 100–113. 186 Cf. R. Sollamo, ‘The LXX Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute’, 109. The remaining six instances are Gen. 32:13; Exod. 15:1, 21; 22:3; Num. 22:17; 13:30. 187 Cf. also in this regard I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Die Wiedergabe des Hebräischen Personalpronomens’, 83; Z. Frankel, Vorstudien, 166; and Idem, Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese, 74. 184

study of the translation character of lxx exodus

145

Greek language whether he was aware of it or not. In order to show that the characterisation of the translation technique of Exodus as a whole is also applicable to the Greek text of the ‘Plagues Narrative’ in particular, a few examples will be discussed below in this regard without endeavouring to be exhaustive. The verses from the ‘Plagues Narrative’ referenced in illustration of the given grammatical peculiarities likewise do not pretend to be a complete list of examples to be found in Exod. 7:14–11:10. The Hebrew conjunction ‫ ו‬can be rendered in a variety of ways in Greek.188 The translator is at liberty to translate it literally using και thereby producing a rather awkward Greek text. He is also at liberty—in addition to a number of less frequent alternatives such as οὐν, ἀλλα, γαρ, ἱνα, ει0, ὁτι and the use of a participium coniunctum—to opt for a translation of ‫ו‬ by the Greek δε. In the latter instance, his choice will produce a smoother Greek equivalent although it also implies a change in word order with respect to the Vorlage. Aejmelaeus notes that Exodus renders 16% of the cases of the Hebrew conjunction ‫ ו‬with δε,189 and as a consequence, has opted for a freer translation in each instance. In other words, when one observes that a translator has employed the conjunction δε instead of the literal και, one can conclude that he was alert to the use of idiomatic Greek and as a consequence freer with respect to his Vorlage. Examples of such translations can be found in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ in Exod. 7:14, 19, 23, 24, 26, 27; 8:1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27; 9:1, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34; 10:1, 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29; 11:1, 3, 8, 9, 10. The particle οὐν is also employed as an equivalent for the Hebrew conjunction ‫ ו‬in Exod. 8:13, 15, for example. The same is also true for ἱνα in Exod. 7:16; 10:3 among other places.190

188 Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 370. See also Idem, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 73–74. 189 For the sake of comparison: Gen. 25%; Lev., Num. and Deut. less than 3%. Aejmelaeus thus concludes that Gen. and Exod. are clearly freer in their use of δε. See A. Aejmelaeus., ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 370. 190 In these two cases, the translator seems to have understood his Vorlage quite well and has indeed interpreted the conjunction ‫ ו‬correctly with a final meaning. In both 7:16 and 10:3, ‫ ו‬is used within the context of a typical pattern for final constructions in Hebrew: directive (here imperative ‫ )שׁלח‬in the protasis and weyiqtol (‫ )ויעבדני‬in the apodosis. Thus, his rendering of ‫ ו‬by ἱνα is a very adequate option. See e.g. C.H.J. Van der Merwe, J.A. Naudé, J.H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (Biblical Languages: Hebrew, 3), Sheffield 1999, 171, §21.5. Note, however, that the Greek renders the ‫ ו‬in a similar Hebrew construction in Exod. 8:4 by και.

146

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

It is customary in Hebrew to introduce the apodosis following a conditional or temporal clause with the conjunction ‫ו‬.191 The literal translation of the said ‫ ו‬in the apodosis by the Greek conjunction και, however, would produce a faulty Greek text. In such instances, the translator is once again faced with a choice. Either he translates the ‫ ו‬literally with και and ends up as a consequence with a poor Greek text or he drops the conjunction. Where the translator opts for the latter, it would thus appear that he had detected a problem and had sought to avoid linguistically unacceptable Greek. Aejmelaeus points out in this regard that in no less than 80% of the relevant instances, the translator of Exodus has opted for the latter solution,192 revealing once again that he preferred a correct Greek translation of his basic text. Several examples of the second option can be found in the ‘Plagues Narrative’, including Exod. 7:20, 23, 28; 8:11; 9:7, 15, 19, 21, 27, 34; 10:6, 16, 24. A similar example is to be found with respect to the use of the Greek term γαρ, which functions as an explanatory or slightly causal conjunction, thereby closely approaching the Hebrew ‫כי‬-causalis.193 As with the Greek δε, the use of γαρ as a parallel for ‫ כי‬requires a change in word order, whereby translators more inclined to literalness (i.e. those who wished to maintain the Hebrew word order) sought refuge in the often overly intense ὁτι causale that once again led to awkward Greek.194 In Exodus, however, it would appear that 85% of the causal ‫’כי‬s have been rendered by γαρ,195 revealing anew that the translator of Exodus was concerned with idiomatic Greek language usage and thus freer in his treatment of his Vorlage. Examples hereof in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ can be found in Exod. 8:22; 9:11, 14, 15, 31, 32; 10:1, 9, 11, 26. According to Aejmelaeus, the use of the Greek participium coniunctum represents an indication of the way in which the translator worked with his Vorlage and the extent to which he strove to produce idiomatic Greek.196

191

Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 370–371. See also Idem, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 76. 192 For the sake of comparison: Gen. 55%, Lev., Num. and Deut. 40–30%. Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 371. 193 Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 371. See also Idem, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 74. 194 See also A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Oti Causale in Septuagintal Greek’, 11–29. 195 For the sake of comparison: Gen. 55%, Lev. 35%, Num. 27% and Deut. 26%. Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Oti Causale in Septuagintal Greek’, 20; and Idem, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 371. 196 On the use of the participium coniunctum, see A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Participium Coniunctum as a Criterion’, 385–393. Cf. also Idem, ‘Septuagintal Translation Techniques’,

study of the translation character of lxx exodus

147

It should be noted in the first instance that no single Hebrew expression or construction exists that corresponds precisely to the Greek participium coniunctum. As a consequence, it will be clear that a translation that wishes to follow its Vorlage literally will be likely to employ such a construction rarely if ever. A translator who takes a freer approach to the basic text and attaches importance to idiomatic Greek usage, on the other hand, will likely be more inclined to use such a construction. One can thus observe a significant number of uses of the participia coniuncta in the Greek Pentateuch that serve as a parallel for a variety of Hebrew grammatical categories.197 In this respect, the rendering of Hebrew coordinate clauses by a Greek participium coniunctum is of special interest.198 In these cases, The Greek combines two Hebrew coordinate clauses, connected by ‫ו‬, into a single Greek clause whereby one of the verbs in participial form is subordinate to the other in finite form. The majority of the participia coniuncta in the Pentateuch are of this nature. Closer inspection reveals, however, that we are dealing here with frequently recurring forms of a limited number of verbs. The main participia in question are λαβων (70), ἰδων (43), ἐλθων (36), ἀναστας (24) and λεγων (20), the latter probably influenced by the pleonastic λεγων employed for the Hebrew ‫ לאמר‬as an introduction to direct speech.199 It is striking, moreover, that where Greek participia coniuncta can have a modal, temporal, conditional, concessive, final or causal function substituting subordinate clauses, the Septuagint tends to employ the participium in the first instance in order to render a sequence of two Hebrew coordinate clauses that are closely related to one another and thereby in fact describe the same activity (or aspects of the same activity), the first verb indicating the start or the continuation of the activity in question. According to Aejmelaeus, expressions and constructions of this nature are typical of the Hebrew way of speaking—also

389–390; and Idem, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, p. 75. See likewise I. Soisalon-Soininen, Die Infinitive in der Septuaginta, 177–179. 197 Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Participium Coniunctum as a Criterion’, 386–389. Aejmelaeus distinguishes the use of the P.C. in order to render a Hebrew paronomastic construction, the P.C. λεγων as equivalent of the Hebrew ‫לאמר‬, the P.C. rendering asyndetically related verb pairs, the P.C. as parallel for a Hebrew participle, the P.C. rendering temporal constructions and the Hebrew infinitive construct with the preposition ‫ב‬. The greatest importance is attached, however, to the use of participia coniuncta rendering two coordinate Hebrew clauses by a single Greek clause with a subordinate verb (P.C.) and a finite main verb. 198 Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Participium Coniunctum as a Criterion’, 389–391. 199 See also in this regard I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Methodologische Fragen der Erforschung’, 46, who suggests that the use of λεγων to render the Hebrew infinitive construct ‫ לאמר‬represents a smooth, free translation.

148

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

referred to as enumerative Redeweise—in which an action is split into its component parts and expressed in different coordinate verbs. The Greek participium coniunctum, which reflects this manner of speaking, exhibits few similarities with the actual Greek use of this construction. For this reason, Aejmelaeus refers to this usage of the participium as pleonastic (35% instances). Of the same kind, similarly not rendering a subordinate clause, are the modal participia coniuncta (37%). Taken together, both these groups constitute three-quarters of the global number of participia coniuncta, an extremely large number when compared with other Greek texts. Nevertheless, and in like fashion to originally Greek texts, a number of participia coniuncta have a temporal (25%), causal, conditional and concessive (together 3%) function.200 Aejmelaeus formulates a conclusion on the basis of these observations.201 The participium coniunctum as such is a typical characteristic of good Greek style. The use thereof in the Septuagint, however, deviates from its original Greek use. The participia coniuncta in the Septuagint exhibit little variation in form and word order. They tend to be employed for the most part with respect to a limited number of verbs and tend to function in a manner not common in Greek. For this reason, Aejmelaeus argues that ‘a genuine Greek structure is here used as a disguise for a Hebraistic idiom’.202 Nevertheless, the use of a participium coniunctum to render Hebrew parataxis can function as a criterion to characterise the translation technique of the Septuagint translators because it reveals how the translators dealt with larger units of text. The frequent occurrence of the participium coniunctum might point us by way of suggestion in the direction of free translation technique. A significant number of participia coniuncta can be found in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ of Exod. 7:14–11:10, more specifically in Exod. 7:16, 20, 23; 8:11, 21, 28; 9:5, 7, 8, 15, 20, 27, 34; 10:1, 6, 16, 24 and 11:8, whereby even a single example of the rare participia that serve to replace a concessive clause can be recognised in Exod. 9:7.203 Once again, and on the basis of all these examples, it would appear that the Greek text of Exodus, and in particular the one of Exod. 7:14–11:10, can be characterised as a free translation to the extent that an effort is made to work with idiomatic Greek, thereby often implying that the original text cannot be followed too literally.

200 Cf. also A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 75: ‘Renderings of this kind are rarely employed and only by the most skilful translators.’ 201 Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Participium Coniunctum as a Criterion’, 392–393. 202 Cf. also A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Participium Coniunctum as a Criterion’, 392. 203 Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Participium Coniunctum as a Criterion’, 391.

study of the translation character of lxx exodus

149

Related to the above is the infrequent use of the Greek genetivus absolutus to render the Hebrew ‫ ב‬with the infinitive construct instead of a literal, Hebraising ἐν τῳ with the infinitive.204 Other Hebrew infinitive constructions are likewise rendered by idiomatic Greek infinitive constructions, by various subordinate clauses that represent a good, free translation thereof, or by the participium coniunctum described above, as alternatives to a literal translation.205 Examples of the smooth Greek translation of Hebrew infinitive constructions in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ can be found, for example, in Exod. 7:15, 16, 24; 8:5, 14, 22, 24, 25; 9:2, 11, 16, 18, 28, 29; 10:3, 4, 5, 6, 16, 26, 27, 28, 29; 11:1, 8, 9, thus making it clear that the translator of Exodus dealt freely with his Vorlage in so far as he aimed at producing an idiomatic Greek text. Clausal constructions that tend to exchange the numerous Hebrew coordinate clauses with Greek subordinate clauses point in the same direction.206 See, for example, Exod. 7:16, 20, 23, 26, 28; 8:11, 16, 21; 9:1, 7, 13, 15, 19, 25, 27, 34; 10:3, 6, 7, 16, 24, 25, 28; 11:1. Moreover, the translation of the Hebrew relative clause with ‫ אשׁר‬by a Greek nominal expression with the use of a participle confirms this tendency.207 An example of the latter in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ can be found in Exod. 7:15. Reference should be made, in addition, to the fact that Hebrew always locates pronominal suffixes after the verb, while idiomatic Greek usage tends to place the enclitic personal pronoun before the verb.208 In a significant number of cases, the Septuagint reflects the Hebrew construction, whereby the word order of the original is maintained, while only a few translators appear to be capable of changing the word order and locating the Greek pronoun before the verb. Although one among the few, Exodus contains 30 instances (out of 350) in which the pronoun is located before the verb. The same freedom is also to be noted in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ in Exod. 7:16, 26; 8:16; 9:1 (in contrast to Exod. 9:13; 10:3, 19).209 204 Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Septuagintal Translation Techniques’, 389–390; and especially I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Der Gebrauch des Genetivus Absolutus’, 175–180. See likewise Idem, Die Infinitive in der Septuaginta, 177–179. 205 Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 74–75; as well as I. Soisalon-Soininen, Die Infinitive in der Septuaginta, 176–190. 206 Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Septuagintal Translation Techniques’, 390. 207 Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Septuagintal Translation Techniques’, 390. 208 Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 73, which is based on a study by A. Wifstrand entitled A. Wifstrand, Die Stellung der enklitischen Personalpronomina bei den Septuaginta (Kungl. Humanistiska Vetenskapssamfundets i Lund arsberättelse 1949–1950, II), Lund 1950, 44–70. 209 Cf. also the change with respect to the Hebrew word order in the location of a possessive pronoun in relation to a substantive, for example in Exod. 8:19; 9:34; 10:1, 6, 17, 29.

150

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

Finally, the rendering of a singular verb form reflecting a subject in neuter plural represents a characteristic of smooth Greek language usage.210 Research has shown that the Hebrew Vorlage of Exodus has not prevailed in this regard and that the translator has instead opted for a singular form where he considered it appropriate. Thus, it has been noted, for example, that Exod. 10:26 employs a singular verb πορευσεται with a subject in the neuter plural, namely τα κτηνη.211 See also, for example, Exod. 9:6, 9, 10, 11, 19. All of the free renderings described against the background of the characterisation of the translation technique of Exodus are in no way the result of the carelessness or nonchalance of the translator thereof. They bear witness rather to an endeavour on the part of the translator to employ natural Greek expressions that are accurate in their meaning and appropriate within their context although deviating in formal terms from the Vorlage.212 The concern to provide idiomatic Greek is evident throughout the book of Exodus and can also be particularly observed in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ of Exod. 7:14–11:10. As a consequence, the translator of Exodus can and may be characterised as a competent translator who was attentive to the idiomatic use of the Greek language. While his relation to his original Vorlage can thus be described as free, he nevertheless remains exact in the faithful rendering thereof.213 The text-critical evaluation of the textual variants in the texts of the ‘Plagues Narrative’ in the following pages will thus be obliged to pay due attention to the results that have emerged from the present paragraph. The Text-Critical Evaluation of ‘Text-Relevant’ Variants in the Textual Witnesses to the ‘Plagues Narrative’ in Exod. 7:14–11:10 The text-critical comparison of the textual witnesses to the ‘Plagues Narrative’ in Exod. 7:14–11:10 (Masoretic Text, Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch and a variety of manuscripts from Qumran) has exposed a

210 Cf. I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Die Konstruktion des Verbs bei einem Neutrum Plural’, 189–199. 211 Cf. I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Die Konstruktion des Verbs bei einem Neutrum Plural’, 196. 212 Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Septuagintal Translation Techniques’, 391. 213 Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 77. It should be noted in this regard that M. Vervenne reaches a similar conclusion with respect to the translation character of the ‘Sea Narrative’ of Exod. 13:17–14:31. See M. Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 101–102.

text-critical evaluation of ‘text-relevant’ variants

151

significant number of textual variants representing a wide spectrum of characteristics. The majority of variants exhibit only minor differences that frequently possess little if any text-critical relevance.214 It is difficult to determine with respect to such variants which is to be taken as the ‘preferable’ reading. Where variants in the Greek text are concerned, one is often embroiled in a ‘perennial discussion’215 on whether they should be traced back to a different Vorlage or understood as stemming from the translator.216 Such so-called ‘minor’ variants will not be the subject of discussion or evaluation in the present paragraph. A detailed registration and description thereof is provided in chapter II of the present volume. They can often be explained, against the background of the beginning of the present chapter, as a question of translation technique or on the basis of the grammatical demands of the Hebrew and Greek language systems. In addition to the ‘minor’ variants, there are also a number of more extensive or more striking differences. Some of the latter change aspects of the narrative at the level of content, others reveal significant expansions. The present paragraph will focus on these ‘major’ or ‘text-relevant’ variants and endeavour to study and evaluate them. In this context we will try to establish whether the ‘preferred variant’ of ‘preferable’ reading can be determined or whether we are dealing with ‘synonymous’ readings.217 From the practical perspective, we will discuss the variants in a sequence that runs parallel to the registration thereof in chapter II. The so-called ‘major expansions’ will be discussed separately at the end of the present chapter. 1. MSamP ≠ G MSamP ≠ G MSamP4Qj ≠ G M4Qc ≠ GSamP4Qm

214

Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod.

7:19 7:20 8:1 10:24

τῳ ἀδελφῳ σου = G+ ἀαρων = G+ τῳ ἀδελφῳ σου = G+ και ἀαρων, ‫ולאהר)ו(ן‬ = GSamP4Qm+

See A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 68: ‘On the whole, however, it is often unimportant to make text-critical decisions on such small details. Since the OT textual criticism does not aim at a critically edited text, but only at the original meanings of the text, it is not necessary to reach certainty in the minor questions.’ 215 C. Rabin, ‘The Translation Process’, 1. 216 See A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 67–68. 217 For the terminology ‘preferable variants’, ‘synonymous readings’ and ‘unique readings’ cf. supra pp. 20–22.

152

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

For the evaluation of these variants we will take our appraisal of the variant in Exod. 10:24 as our point of departure. In Exod. 10:24 G, SamP and 4Qm agree with respect to the reference to Aaron while M and 4Qc have a minus at this juncture. According to J. Sanderson, M (and thus also 4Qc, although she makes no reference thereto) should be considered the ‘preferable’ variant in this instance. Sanderson is in fact of the opinion that reference to Aaron is based on a later addition.218 This is evident, she argues, from the fact that the verb forms in other verses in which both names—Moses and Aaron—are mentioned nevertheless continue to be in the singular (cf. Exod. 10:3, 8, 16). According to Sanderson, the interpolation of Aaron has given rise to a syntactical irregularity. In his discussion of the said variant in Exod. 10:24, J. Wevers likewise speaks of the reference to Aaron as a later interpolation.219 M refers to Moses alone, although the imperatives addressed to him are formulated in the plural. According to Wevers, however, the said plural forms were originally related to Moses and the people. The later interpolation of Aaron represents an attempt to make the text more understandable by creating a plural subject. Wevers also maintains with respect to Exod. 7:20 that the explicit mention of Aaron as subject of the participle ἐπαρας represents a harmonising interpolation with Exod. 7:19.220 If one accepts along with Sanderson and Wevers that the mention of Aaron in the text represents a later interpolation, then MSamP in Exod. 7:20 and M4Qc in Exod. 10:24 offer the ‘preferable’ variant. If one maintains this line of reasoning, one is obliged to conclude that the variant τῳ ἀδελφῳ σου in Exod. 7:19 and Exod. 8:1, which functions as an appositional clause in relation to the reference to Aaron, likewise should not be considered to offer the ‘preferable’ variant. Based on the available evidence, the present author is inclined to conclude that MSamP in Exod. 7:19 and MSamP4Qj in Exod. 8:1 have preserved the ‘preferable’ variant. 218 Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 90–91, 201–203, 276–277. The interpolations of Aaron into the text of Exodus took place in two phases, in the first instance during the compositional growth or literary development of the texts and also in a second, much later phase of textual transmission, in Sanderson’s textual hypothesis particularly during the period in which the textual tradition behind SamP and 4Qm had separated themselves from the main group (MGSamP4Qm still together) but still continued to develop as a single text. In relation to Sanderson’ theory concerning the textual evolution of Exodus, see Ibidem, 256–259, 311–312; Idem, ‘The Contributions of 4QPaleoExodm to Textual Criticism’, RQ 13 (1988), 547–560, pp. 552–554; Idem, ‘The Old Greek of Exodus’, 100–102. See also infra, p. 166. 219 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 157. 220 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 103.

text-critical evaluation of ‘text-relevant’ variants 2. MSamP4Qj ≠ G

Exod. 8:1

MSamP4Qc ≠ G MSamP ≠ G M4Qc ≠ GSamP MSamP4Qc ≠ G MSamP ≠ G MSamP ≠ 2Qa ≠ G

Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod.

MG2Qa ≠ SamP MG4Ql2Qa ≠ SamP

Exod. 11:4 Exod. 11:6

MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 11:10

9:11 9:22 9:24 10:6 10:12 11:3

153

‫= על ארץ מצרים‬ MSamP4Qj+ γῃ = G+

‫ = בארץ מצרים‬MSamP+ ‫ = כל ארץ‬M4Qc+ γῃ = G+ ‫ = מצרים‬MSamP+ ‫ = בארץ‬MSamP+, ‫בתוך ארץ‬ = 2Qa+ ‫ = ארץ‬SamP+ ‫כל ארץ‬, πασαν γην = MG4Ql2Qa+ ἐν γῃ αἰγυπτῳ = G+

The variants listed above each relate to the partial or complete absence of a rendering or translation of the expression ‫( ארץ מצרים‬-‫ב‬, ‫)על‬. Allusion to Egypt in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ is usually made on the basis of the full expression ‫( ארץ מצרים‬cf. Exod. 7:19, 21; 8:2, 3, 12, 13, 20; 9:9, 22, 23, 25; 10:12, 13, 14, 15, 21, 22; 11:6, 9).221 Instead of the expression ‫ארץ מצרים‬, however, it is also possible to have ‫גבול‬ ‫מצרים‬, as is apparent from Exod. 10:14 and 19.222 In Exod. 8:20, 21 and 9:14, 16, the expression is abbreviated.223 The absence of ‫ מצרים‬in the latter instances implies that the word ‫ ארץ‬already refers in the given context to Egypt. Based on the fact that, in the majority of instances, the expression ‫ארץ‬ ‫ מצרים‬is rendered in all the extant textual witnesses, one can conclude that ‫ ארץ מצרים‬represents the complete expression. With regard to the evaluation of the variants listed above this might imply that the textual version that reflects the fuller expression should be given preference to the text that exhibits minuses. One would then conclude that such textual versions represent the ‘preferable’ variant.

221 Exod. 7:19: MGSamP4Qa; 7:21: MGSamP4Qc; 8:2: MGSamP; 8:3: MGSamP; 8:12: MGSamP; 8:13: MGSamP4Qm4Qc; 8:20: MGSamP; 9:9: MGSamP4Qm (twice); 9:22: MSamP; 9:23: MGSamP; 9:25: MGSamP4Ql; 10:12: MGSamP4Qc; 10:13: MSamP; 10:14: MGSamP; 10:15: MGSamP4Qc; 10:21: MGSam4Qm; 10:22: MGSamP4Qm; 11:6: MG4Ql2Qa; 11:9: MGSamP4Qm4Ql4Qc. 222 Exod. 10:14: MSamP4Qc, where G offers the equivalent ὁρια for ‫ ;גבול‬10:19: MSamP4Qm4Qc, where G has the equivalent γης. 223 Exod. 8:20: MGSamP4Ql; 8:21: MGSamP4Qm; 9:14: MGSamP4Qm; 9:16: MGSamP and probably also 4Qc.

154

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

Nevertheless, one is obliged to be careful with respect to such conclusions. In the first instance, it is possible that the abbreviated expressions in Exod. 8:20, 21 and 9:14, 16 exhibit equal textual originality, given the fact that various textual witnesses employ a similar formulation in the same location. Furthermore, one is also obliged to account for the so-called ‘harmonisations’ that may have synchronized full or abbreviated expressions with their immediate context.224 In such instances, a complete or abbreviated expression brought about by harmonisation could not be considered more original and as a consequence could not represent the ‘preferable’ variant. Reference can be made in this context, for example, to Exod. 11:10 (MSamP ≠ G: ἐν γῃ αἰγυπτῳ = G+). In the rendering of this full expression found in Exod. 11:10, it would appear that the Vorlage of G has harmonised with Exod. 11:9,225 where one encounters the Greek plus from Exod. 11:10 in M, G, SamP, 4Qm, 4Ql and 4Qc. In this case, therefore, the variant containing the full expression is secondary (based on harmonisation) and thus cannot be the ‘preferable’ variant. A similar example can be found in Exod. 9:24 (M4Qc ≠ G: ‫ = כל ארץ‬M4Qc+). In 9:24, G and SamP only read ἐν αἰγυπτῳ, ‫ במצרים‬while M4Qc have the full expression ‫בכל ארץ מצרים‬. In such instances one might argue that the textual versions with the full expressions contain the ‘preferable’ variant and that the variant found in G came about on the basis of a harmonisation (of the Vorlage) with the formulation found in Exod. 9:18 in which M, G and SamP all contain this expression (‫במצרים‬, ἐν αἰγυπτῳ). Given the different possible explanations of the variants listed above and the uncertainty they introduce, the present author is inclined to consider the said differences between the textual witnesses to the ‘Plagues Narrative’ as ‘synonymous’ variants. 3. MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:2

και ἀνηγαγεν τους βατραχους = G+

In G of Exod. 8:2 one can observe a double reference to the arrival of the frogs while the Hebrew text of M and SamP by contrast relate the event only once. A closer study of the terminology employed in this regard reveals that the arrival of the frogs is expressed three times in the present context by the 224

In this instance, and with respect to the Septuagint, I would opt for the methodological point of departure maintained by A. Aejmelaeus who argues that such harmonisations were the work of scribes at the level of the Vorlage of G. Cf. supra, p. 134. 225 Cf. also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 143; and J.W. Wevers, Notes, 167.

text-critical evaluation of ‘text-relevant’ variants

155

verb ἀναβαινειν (Exod. 7:28, 29; 8:2) with the frogs as subject and three times by the verb ἀναγαγειν (Exod. 8:1, 2, 3) with Aaron or the magicians as subject. The Hebrew equivalent of these verbs is always ‫עלה‬. If one examines the word order of the said verbs in 7:29 and 8:1–2 one observes a chiastic formation (ἀναβαινειν 7:29, ἀναγαγειν 8:1, ἀναγαγειν 8:2, ἀναβαινειν 8:2). It is probable that the repetition in 8:2 was intended to obtain the said style figure.226 Another possible explanation, which the present author considers more plausible, would separate the twofold reference to the arrival of the frogs in 8:2. The first reference (the variant under analysis) would then be understood to belong to the first half of 8:2, in which Aaron’s execution of the command from 8:1 is related in harmonising fashion (parallel in command and execution: holding out the rod and causing the frogs to arrive). The second reference would then apply to the beginning of the account of the event itself. Aaron’s actions would appear to have had some effect. In this instance, the author or redactor of the Hebrew text, who has a minus with respect to the first reference, probably considered it sufficient to describe Aaron’s gesture with the rod as execution of the command in 8:1, after which immediately account is given of the effect thereof in the event itself. In this perspective, G, or its Vorlage, is more harmonising and repetitive at this juncture than M and SamP. If the explanation offered above is correct,227 and one takes harmonising repetition to be a secondary intervention in the text,228 I would consider

226 Compare with J.W. Wevers who is of the opinion that και ἀνηγαγεν τους βατραχους is an interpolation on the part of G. According to him, G thus created an alternation in the immediate context between two singular verb forms (with a collective singular as subject) and two plural forms. The explanation coincides to a degree with the chiasm observed by the present author in 7:29 and 8:1–2. Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 108. 227 Compare, however, with A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 123, who argue that the said plus in 8:2 may also be the result of haplography in the Masoretic Text. I would suggest that this option be rejected on the basis of the fact that—presuming that M also had the said plus—there are no similar sounding endings to be found in 8:2 that might explain the haplography. As a matter of fact, the result of retroversion in this instance (in parallel with 8:1) would be ‫ צפרדעים‬in the first reference and ‫צפרדע‬ in the second cf. also 8:3, 4, 5). Based on the context, moreover, a retroverted Hebrew translation would always employ one and the same verb for the Greek verbs ἀναγαγειν and ἀναβαινειν, namely ‫עלה‬, which, in the event of the presence of the said plus in the Hebrew text, would be used twice in a row. This is hardly probable from a stylistic point of view. For this reason, and by way of exception, I am inclined to ascribe the harmonisation in G to the translator and not to his Vorlage. The fact that SamP exhibits the same minus as M serves to support this option. 228 Cf. E. Tov, ‘The Nature and Background of Harmonizations’, 19: ‘By implication, all harmonizing readings are secondary, and whenever a harmonization is recognized, it is rejected as a non-original part of the textual transmission.’ Cf. supra n. 144.

156

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

it necessary to designate the Hebrew reading of M and SamP as more original and consequently as the ‘preferable’ variant. 4. M ≠ GSamP

Exod. 8:3

των αἰγυπτιων, ‫ = מצרים‬GSamP+

The description of the magicians represents a plus in the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch of Exod. 8:3 in relation to the Masoretic Text. Where M speaks in short of ‘the magicians’, G and SamP further characterise them as ‘the magicians of the Egyptians’. A brief review of the references to the Egyptian magicians in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ and its immediate context reveals that the full expression ‘the magicians of Egypt’ (‫—חרטמי מצרים‬οἱ ἐπαοιδοι των αἰγυπτιων) is to be found in Exod. 7:11, 22 in M, G and SamP. In the three remaining verses—Exod. 8:14, 15 (MGSamP4Qm) and 9:11 (MGSamP)—one finds only ‘the magicians’ (‫—חרטמים‬ἐπαοιδοι, φαρμακοι). The variant in Exod. 8:3 is located between Exod. 7:22 and 8:14, 15; 9:11. The present author is of the opinion that it would be fairly normal for the magicians to be explained to the reader to some degree when they appear for the first time in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ as such. When the magicians appear for the second time in Exod. 8:3, however, G and SamP would appear to consider the additional explanation still necessary. In the rest of the narrative, all of the textual versions—including the preserved fragments of 4Qm—speak exclusively of ‘the magicians’ without further explanation. The evaluation of the variant found in 8:3 is far from easy. On the one hand, M is in agreement with all the other verses (8:14, 15; 9:11). On the other hand, the explanation given a second time by G and SamP does not appear completely redundant. One is at liberty to argue, however, that the variant in G probably stems from the Vorlage, given the fact that SamP also bears witness to an existing Hebrew reading of the same nature.229 It remains difficult, nevertheless, to determine which of the two readings is the more original. If one takes the fact that G and SamP have a tendency to be harmonising and repetitive as one’s point of departure, then one might be inclined to consider M as containing the ‘preferable’ reading. The lack of precise supportive indications in the immediate context, however, 229

The perspective maintained in A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 123, namely that the Greek text adds the explanatory genitive (‘ajoute’), needs to be nuanced. In the present author’s opinion, one cannot argue that the Greek text is responsible for the said plus since SamP has the same reading in Hebrew.

text-critical evaluation of ‘text-relevant’ variants

157

leaves such argument without adequate foundations. For this reason we are more inclined to caution and prefer to designate both readings in 8:3 as ‘synonymous’ variants. 5. MSamP ≠ G MSamP2Qa ≠ G

Exod. 8:4 Exod. 9:28

περι μου = G+ οὐν περι ἐμου = G+

In both Exod. 8:4 and Exod. 9:28, the Greek text has a plus in the form of the mentioning of a preposition with a personal pronoun, relating in both instances to the identity of the one to be prayed for. If one compares this information with Exod. 8:24, one observes that in this verse the Hebrew textual witnesses also have this expression, in addition to G (G: περι ἐμου; MSamP: ‫)בעדי‬.230 On the basis of this verse, it would appear that a Hebrew equivalent is conceivable for the Greek plusses in Exod. 8:4 and 9:28. As a consequence, one can argue that the Greek plus in Exod. 8:4 and 9:28 was not a creation of the translator but that it was probably already present in the Vorlage of G. This does not yet allow to argue that the Greek readings found in Exod. 8:4 and 9:28 should be considered more original. Indeed, the plusses in question may have arisen on the basis of harmonisation with Exod. 8:24 in the said Vorlage. In the latter case, they would thus be secondary.231 Bearing these difficulties in mind, we prefer to designate the variants in Exod. 8:4 and 9:28 as ‘synonymous’ readings. It is impossible to determine whether G’s Vorlage originally exhibited this variant in all three locations, including Exod. 8:24, or whether the plusses arose on account of harmonisation. 6. M ≠ GSamP

Exod. 8:5

και ἀπο του λαου σου, ‫ = ומעמך‬GSamP+

In Exod. 7:28–29 (MGSamP), the plague of frogs is presented to Pharaoh as a threefold threat to himself, his servants and his people. In Exod. 8:4 (MGSamP), Pharaoh pleads for the frogs to be removed from himself and

230 In like fashion to Exod. 9:28, G also has a plus in the particle οὐν. The text-critical evaluation of such a minor element, however, would be extremely hypothetical and of little relevance. 231 Cf. in the same direction, the explanation of A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 134: ‘La LXX ajoute «donc» et «pour moi» (cf. 8,4.24).’, which, however, posits an ‘addition’ in G without further argumentation. Along similar lines see also: J.W. Wevers, Notes, 138: ‘addition’.

158

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

his people. In the first half of Exod. 8:5 (MGSamP4Qc), Moses promises to pray on behalf of Pharaoh, his servants and his people. In the remainder of Exod. 8:5, the reference to Pharaoh and his people is repeated in G and in SamP (albeit in a different sequence, cf. infra), while M only makes mention of Pharaoh. In the continuation of this part of the narrative, especially in Exod. 8:7 (MGSamP), one can observe a return to the threefold reference: Pharaoh, his servants and his people.232 The present author is of the opinion that the plus in G and SamP of Exod. 8:5 represents an endeavour to maintain the sequence of victims as described in the context and, indeed, in the first half of the same verse.233 This need not imply per se, however, that M omitted this part of the verse. The texts of G and SamP probably represent an example of harmonisation. The fact that SamP contains a Hebrew reading in line with G might suggest that the harmonisation in question was not a creation of the translator but was more likely to have been present already in his Vorlage. If one is correct in speaking of harmonisation at this juncture, then the plus in G and SamP must be understood as a secondary development. For this reason, we consider it appropriate to designate M as the ‘preferable’ variant while maintaining the usual caution in this regard. 7. G ≠ SamP MG ≠ SamP

Exod. 8:5 Exod. 8:5

και ἀπο του λαου σου—‫ומעמך‬: different location ‫ = ומעבדיך‬SamP+

The plus found in SamP Exod. 8:5 can be evaluated in association with the preceding variant. M makes reference to Pharaoh and his houses in Exod. 8:5. G, by contrast, adds the people to the list while SamP includes both the people and the servants. If one compares the SamP text of the second half of Exod. 8:5 with its context, and in particular with Exod. 8:7, one observes that the said text in 8:5 contains the same list of victims as M, G and SamP in 8:7 and, furthermore, in the same sequence. In addition, the list found in the first half of Exod. 8:5 is the same in M, G and SamP, although houses are not mentioned there. Reference should also be made to the fact that in the wider context, in particular Exod. 8:17, 25, 27 (MGSamP and, with respect to verse 17, also 4Qc), the servants are consistently mentioned. 232 Compare also with Exod. 8:17: MGSamP4Q c, 8:25: MGSamP and 8:27: MGSamP. 233 Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 123: ‘Le grec reprend la mention «de ton peuple» (cf. 8,4), absente du TM.’

text-critical evaluation of ‘text-relevant’ variants

159

Based on the given information, one is at liberty to suggest that the plus in the second half of SamP Exod. 8:5 is a result of harmonisation with the context, i.e. with the first half of Exod. 8:5 and in particular Exod. 8:7. The difference in sequence between G and SamP, discussed above in relation to the reference to the people, can likewise be explained on this basis. Against this background, the present author considers it advised with respect to the said variant in SamP to designate the reading of MG as the ‘preferable’ variant. 8. MSamP4Qc ≠ G

Exod. 8:6

‫—אין כיהוה אלהינו‬οὐκ ἐστιν ἀλλος πλην κυριου

A number of differences are evident when one compares the Hebrew expression ‫ אין כיהוה אלהינו‬with its Greek parallel οὐκ ἐστιν ἀλλος πλην κυριου. First, the Greek employs the verb εἰναι where the Hebrew has a nominal clause. Such a difference, however, can be traced back to the linguistic particularities of Hebrew and Greek. Second, the Greek adjective ἀλλος represents a plus. Furthermore, there is a difference in meaning evident between the Hebrew ‫ כ‬and the Greek πλην. Finally the Hebrew texts contain a plus, namely ‫אלהינו‬. Taken together, all the aforementioned variants make it clear that we are not dealing with a few independent, minor differences but rather with the fact that the entire expression in Greek exhibits a different emphasis when compared with the formulation found in the Hebrew texts. The Hebrew texts (M, SamP and 4Qc) state that there is ‘no (god) like YHWH, our god’. In other words, the said texts affirm that YHWH is greater than the other gods, so much so that he is ultimately beyond comparison. The Greek text on the other hand is more radical. YHWH is beyond comparison because there are no other gods. From the theological perspective, the Greek text emphasises monotheistic faith in YHWH to such an extent that the appositional ‫ אלהינו‬need not be added.234 YHWH is the only god. As a consequence, there is no need to add the expression ‘our god’ to the name YHWH. Where the Hebrew texts state that ‘there is no (god) like YHWH our god’, the Greek text affirms that ‘there is no (god) other than YHWH’. Bearing these differences in mind, it is clear that the variant in Exod. 8:6 is of a different nature when compared with textual variants we

234 Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 144 and Z. Frankel, Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese, 87.

160

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

have considered so far. Exod. 8:6 does not represent a harmonising or complementing variant that makes little if any difference to the meaning of the text, rather it represents a theological shift of accent that states something fundamentally different about YHWH. Given the fact that the three Hebrew texts exhibit no trace of a formulation similar to that found in the Greek and given the fact that the Greek text is difficult to retrovert, the present author is obliged to maintain that the theological shift in accent does not stem from the Greek Vorlage but should be ascribed rather to the Greek translator. If one argues that the Greek variant stems from the translator, then it is highly likely that its Hebrew Vorlage had the same reading as the other three preserved Hebrew texts, namely M, SamP en 4Qc. For this reason one is at liberty to argue that the latter contain the more original reading and as a consequence represent the ‘preferable’ variant. 9. MSamP4Qc ≠ G Exod. MSamP ≠ G Exod. MSamP ≠ G Exod. MGSamP ≠ 2Qa Exod. M ≠ G ≠ SamP4QcExod. MG4Qc ≠ SamP MSamP ≠ G MSamP ≠ G MSamP ≠ G

Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod.

8:6 8:18 8:24 9:28 9:30 10:2 10:9 10:24 10:26

‫ = אלהינו‬MSamP4Qc+ ὁ κυριος = G+ προς κυριον = G+ ‫אל יהוה‬, προς κυριον = MGSamP+ ‫—יהוה אלהים‬τον κυριον—

‫אדני יהוה‬ ‫ = אלהיכם‬SamP+ του θεου = G+ τῳ θεῳ ὑμων = G+ τῳ θεῳ ἡμων = G+

Although the plus ‫ אלהינו‬in Exod. 8:6 constitutes a part of the difference in meaning between the Hebrew and Greek texts described above, it is nevertheless important that we examine the term more closely in conjunction with similar variants that likewise relate to the use of the divine name in the ‘Plagues Narrative’. A survey of the naming of god in Exod. 7:14–11:10 reveals six different expressions that function as divine names. The most frequently used is ‫יהוה‬, parallel to the Greek κυριος.235 In the second place we find the use

235 Cf. Exod. 7:14 (MGSamP4Qm), 17 (MGSamP4Qa), 19 (MGSamP4Qm), 20 (MGSamP), 22 (MGSamP), 25 (MGSamP), 26 (MGSamP4Qc); 8:1 (MGSamP4Qc4Qj), 4 (MGSamP), 8 (MGSamP), 9 (MGSamP), 11 (MGSamP4Q c), 12 (MGSamP), 15 (MGSamP), 16 (MGSamP), 20 (MGSamP), 27 (MGSamP); 9:3 (MGSamP), 5 (MGSamP), 8 (MGSamP4Qm4Qa), 12 (MGSamP), 13 (MGSamP), 20 (MGSamP), 21

text-critical evaluation of ‘text-relevant’ variants

161

of the twofold name ‫( יהוה אלהים‬with suffix) with its Greek equivalent κυριος ὁ θεος (with possessive pronoun).236 A third expression with the threefold characterisation of god as ‫ יהוה אלהי העברים‬has its Greek equivalent in the expression κυριος ὁ θεος των ἐβραιων.237 A fourth expression, which only occurs three times, is the singular ‫ אלהים‬with its Greek equivalent θεος.238 On the other hand, one observes that θεος is also used as the equivalent of ‫יהוה‬.239 Finally, attention also deserves to be focused on the use of the expression ‫אדני יהוה‬.240 The variants in Exod. 8:6; 10:2, 9, 24 and 26 each reflect the double formula ‫( יהוה אלהים‬with suffix) or κυριος ὁ θεος in one (set of ) textual version(s) where the other (set of ) textual version(s) have a minus on account of the fact that they only employ the most common term ‫ יהוה‬or κυριος. It should be noted with respect to Exod. 10:24 and 26, moreover, that the use of the same complete formula in the immediate context, namely in 10:25 and in the first half of verse 26,241 may have led to harmonisations in 10:24 and the second half of 26. Likewise with respect to Exod. 10:9 attention should be drawn to the fact that the immediately preceding verse 8 employs the complete expression—in all the textual versions (MGSamP)—thus introducing the possibility of harmonisation in verse 9. As noted above, however, both formulations— the singular ‫ יהוה‬/ κυριος and the compound ‫( יהוה אלהים‬with suffix) / κυριος ὁ θεος (with preposition)—are employed with some frequency in the ‘Plagues Narrative’. In our opinion, therefore, they are both to be considered legitimate readings whereby the ‘preferability’ of one over the other is extremely difficult to determine. Consequently, we choose to

(MGSamP), 22 (MGSamP), 23 (MGSamP), 27 (MGSamP4Ql2Qa), 28 (MGSamP), 29 (MGSamP2Qa), 33 (MGSamP4Qc), 35 (MGSamP4Qc); 10:1 (MGSamP), 2 (MG), 12 (MGSamP4Qm), 13 (MGSamP), 19 (MGSamP), 20 (MGSamP), 21 (MGSamP4Qm), 27 (MGSamP4Qm); 11:1 (MGSamP), 3 (MG2Qa), 4 (MGSamP2Qa), 9 (MGSamP4Ql), 10 (MGSamP4Qm4Ql4Qc). 236 Cf. Exod. 8:22 (MGSamP), 23 (MGSamP), 24 (MGSamP); 10:2 (SamP), 7 (MGSamP4Qm), 8 (MGSamP), 16 (MGSamP4Qc), 17 (MGSamP), 25 (MGSamP), 26 (MGSamP4Qm). The twofold name ‫ יהוה אלהים‬without suffix is only found in the variant of Exod. 9:30(M), under analysis at this juncture. See also infra p. 163. 237 Cf. Exod. 7:16 (MGSamP); 9:1 (MGSamP), 13 (MGSamP4Q m ); 10:3 (MGSamP4Ql). 238 Cf. Exod. 8:15 (MGSamP), 21 (MGSamP4Qm); 9:28 (MGSamP4Ql2Qa). 239 Cf. Exod. 8:25 (MGSamP), 26 (MGSamP); 9:5 (MGSamP); 10:11 (MGSamP), 18 (MGSamP4Qc). 240 See Exod. 9:30 (SamP4Qc). 241 Cf. also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 140; J.W. Wevers, Notes, 157.

162

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

designate the different readings found in Exod. 8:6; 10:2, 9, 24 and 26 as ‘synonymous’ variants. The plus in the Greek text of Exod. 8:18 is of a different nature. It gives rise to an uncommon formulation: instead of the common κυριος ὁ θεος, Exod. 8:18 has κυριος ὁ κυριος. M and SamP exhibit a minus in the location of the second κυριος. Two explanations would appear to be possible with respect to the variant in question. In the first instance, it is possible that we are dealing here with a formulation unique to the ‘Plagues Narrative’. Secondly, one should also consider the possibility of a simple, grammatical/syntactical explanation. One could imagine a ‘comma’ placed after the first κυριος, whereby the second ὁ κυριος constitutes an appositional clause up to and including the genitive της γης, where a second ‘comma’ could be placed.242 In this way, the second κυριος is understood as a simple repetition of the first and need not represent a unique double formula. Whether this Greek variant is ‘preferable’ to the singular Hebrew ‫ יהוה‬is, in our opinion, impossible to determine, especially if one considers the possibility that the Greek variant may equally have been the result of the Greek translator’s concern to render the Hebrew ‫ יהוה בקרב הארץ‬in more fluent Greek. As a result we prefer to designate the variant reading in Exod. 8:18 as ‘synonymous’. With respect to the variants in Exod. 8:24 and 9:28, one could argue that they do not have a direct association with the question of the use of the divine name since the Hebrew ‫ יהוה‬and the Greek κυριος represent the customary and most frequently employed terms. The plus in G of Exod. 8:24, however, explicitly identifies the addressee of the prayer where M and SamP do not.243 If one compares this situation with Exod. 8:4, one immediately notes that in the latter verse M, G and SamP each make reference to the one to whom the prayer is to be addressed. In Exod. 9:28, M, G and SamP similarly express the identity of the addressee, in contrast at this juncture to 2Qa. It would thus appear that such identification is not unusual. It remains difficult nevertheless to make an evaluation of the variants in question. Based on both the absence and the presence of the said identification (in Exod. 9:28 2Qa and in 8:4 MGSamP; 9:28 MGSamP respectively) in the Hebrew texts, one can conclude that the plus in G was more than likely already present at the level of its Vorlage. However, this does not make it any easier to determine which of the readings is

242 243

128.

See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 118. See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 121; A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie,

text-critical evaluation of ‘text-relevant’ variants

163

‘preferable’. Based on the textual material, both readings would seem to be plausible and equally legitimate. For this reason we designate the variants in Exod. 8:24 and 9:28 as ‘synonymous’. The final variant requiring our attention with respect to the use of the divine name is to be found in Exod. 9:30, which contains three different formulations thereof. M has the ‘double formula’ ‫ יהוה אלהים‬without suffix, the only occurrence in the ‘Plagues Narrative’.244 In G one reads the singular κυριος, as usual probably as the equivalent of the Hebrew ‫יהוה‬. SamP and 4Qc refer to god as ‫אדני יהוה‬. When the variants in M and G are evaluated, one is obliged to designate them as ‘synonymous’, based on the fact that both expressions are in frequent use in the ‘Plagues Narrative’. With respect to the formula ‫ אדני יהוה‬it would appear to be equally legitimate to conclude that this represents an original expression,245 given the fact that two independent—till further notice—textual witnesses (SamP en 4Qc) have preserved the same formula. As a consequence, one can conclude that all the various readings of Exod. 9:30 represent ‘synonymous’ variants. 10. MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 8:7

και ἐκ των ἐπαυλεων = G+

The comparison of Exod. 8:7 and Exod. 8:9 reveals that in contrast to 8:7, where M and SamP have a minus in the place of the Greek και ἐκ των ἐπαυλεων, M, SamP and G of 8:9 do have the words in question. It would appear that the various textual witnesses were familiar with this expression and that a Hebrew Vorlage exists for the Greek ἐκ των ἐπαυλεων, namely ‫מן החצרת‬. In this instance, it is possible to speak of a harmonisation of the prediction (8:7) with the formulation of the realisation (8:9).246 As a consequence one can designate M and SamP of Exod. 8:7 as ‘preferable’ variants. 11. GSamP4Qc ≠ M

Exod. 8:12 τῃ χειρι—‫ = את ידך‬GSamP4Qc+

G, SamP and 4Qc exhibit a plus in Exod. 8:12, namely the expression τῃ χειρι and ‫את ידך‬. When one compares Exod. 8:12 with verse 13, however, it appears that the latter verse has also preserved the words in 244

Cf. also supra n. 236. I use the expression ‘original’ at this juncture in the sense that the variant does not owe its existence to harmonisation or scribal error. 246 Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 111; A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 124: ‘La mention des «enclos (ἐπαυλεις)» est absente du TM; elle provient de 8,9.’ 245

164

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

question in G, SamP and 4Qc but moreover equally in M and most likely in 4Qm.247 As will be evident with respect to the description of the following variant, there would appear to have been a tendency in 8:12 to harmonise with 8:13,248 a harmonisation one can characterise as command and execution. In our opinion, the said change in the text already manifested itself at the level of the Hebrew Vorlage, given the fact that, apart from the Greek plus, a number of textual witnesses exhibit a Hebrew version of the same variant. If one is at liberty to argue that Exod. 8:12 in GSamP4Qc most likely represents harmonisation with Exod. 8:13, one is obliged to conclude that the textual version of M in 8:12 is the more original reading or, in other words, the ‘preferable’ variant. 12. MSamP ≠ G MSamP4Qm ≠ G

Exod. 8:12 Exod. 9:9

ἐν τε τοις ἀνθρωποις και ἐν τοις τετραποσιν = G+ ἐν τε τοις ἀνθρωποις και ἐν τοις τετραποσιν = G+

It was evident from our discussion of the plus τῃ χειρι/‫ את ידך‬in Exod. 8:12 G, SamP and 4Qc that G 8:12 represents a harmonisation with 8:13. Similarly with respect to the Greek plus ἐν τε τοις ἀνθρωποις και ἐν τοις τετραποσιν, G 8:12 would appear to have adapted itself to G 8:13. In the latter verse, M, G, SamP and 4Qm have preserved the given formulation. In addition, M, G, SamP and 4Qc also employ this expression in 8:14. When one compares this textual information with the variant in Exod. 9:9 it becomes apparent that precisely the same procedure has been followed. The Greek text of Exod. 9:9 has a plus in the presence of the same expression ἐν τε τοις ἀνθρωποις και ἐν τοις τετραποσιν, which is lacking in M, SamP and 4Qm. G would thus appear to have harmonised at this juncture with the following verse Exod. 9:10, in which all the preserved textual versions (M, G, SamP and 4Qm) once again employ the given formulation. In both instances there is harmonisation of the formulation of the command with that of the execution. According to J. Sanderson, the textual tradition preserved in G in these verses seems to have maintained

Moreover, the expression χειρ/‫ יד‬is also to be found in Exod. 7:17 and 19. Compare in particular with Exod. 8:1. 248 Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 113; A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 125. 247

text-critical evaluation of ‘text-relevant’ variants

165

the said procedure more consistently than the other texts.249 Nevertheless, she is of the opinion that there is no clear indication to suggest that the said harmonisations between command and execution emerged either in the translation or rather in the transmission phase of the Greek text. The other textual versions are likewise to be characterised to a significant degree by the procedure of repetition and expansion, which Sanderson argues is a feature of the activities of redactors and scribes in both languages. In other words, the harmonisation in the Greek text of 8:12 and 9:9 may also have its roots in the Hebrew Vorlage. Based on the observation described above and on the proposed hypothesis of harmonisation between command and execution in G, the present author is inclined to conclude that Exod. 8:12 M and SamP and Exod. 9:9 M, SamP and 4Qm have preserved the ‘preferable’ variant.250 13. MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 8:13

‫ = ויעשׂו כן‬MSamP+

At first sight, the plus ‫ ויעשׂו כן‬in M and SamP at the beginning of Exod. 8:13, following the command in Exod. 8:12, appears to function as an introduction to the description of Aaron’s execution of the said command in the remainder of 8:13. The plus, however, is in the plural and probably relates to Moses and Aaron together. If this is the case, then the plus in M and SamP represents a secondary expansion of the text, coupling command to execution. G has thus preserved the ‘preferable’ variant. However, in our opinion, an alternative, more plausible explanation can be offered at this juncture. If one compares the end of verse 12 (‫לכנם‬ ‫ )בכל ארץ מצרים‬and the beginning of verse 13—the plus in question (‫—)ויעשׂו כן‬on the one hand with the end of verse 13 (‫כנים בכל ארץ‬ ‫ )מצרים‬and the beginning of verse 14 (‫ )ויעשׂו כן‬on the other, two very similar formulations become apparent. Bearing this observation in mind, it is possible that the scribe, having written the end of verse 12, continued to write with the words that followed after the identical end of verse 13 (parablepsis). After a moment of distraction, however, he then returned to the correct place in the text at the beginning of verse 13. This explains how it was possible for the plus ‫ ויעשׂו כן‬to be located

249

Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 67. Within the framework of her discussion of Exod. 9:9, Sanderson equally maintains that M, SamP and 4Qm have preserved the ‘preferable’ variant. Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 67: ‘Thus QmSamPM appear to preserve the original here, and G a typical addition.’ 250

166

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

after the ‫ ארץ מצרים‬of verse 12, as was similarly the case with respect to the end of verse 13 and the beginning of verse 14. According to this explanation, therefore, the plus in Exod. 8:13 is the result of a scribal error, namely dittography. In addition, the fact that the plus in question is in the plural—in like fashion to the beginning of verse 14 with the plural subject ‫ החרטמים‬251—while the command in verse 12 (addressed to Aaron via Moses) and the continuation of the execution in verse 13 (Aaron) are both in the singular—further suggests that the said plus does not fit really well the context of the beginning of verse 13 but does fit at the beginning of verse 14. If the plus had arisen on the basis of harmonisation or expansion it would have been adapted to its context. If this explanation is correct then one will be obliged to explain how it is possible that the ‘error’ in question has not been preserved in one single text, M for example, but also in SamP. If one accepts, within the framework of Sanderson’s theory with respect to the textual development of Exodus,252 that the textual traditions behind M and SamP continued to develop together for a considerable period of time after G had taken leave (the first to do so) of the common text behind M, G, SamP and 4Qm, then it is indeed probable that the dittography alluded to above took place at this stage. This explains why (the Vorlage of ) G, which had already gone its own way, does not have the variant, while (the texts behind) M and SamP, which continued to develop together, both bear witness to the said scribal error. As a consequence, and on the basis of this second explanation too, we are obliged to argue that G has preserved the ‘preferable’ variant at the beginning of Exod. 8:13. 14. MGSamP ≠ 4Qm MSamP ≠ G4Qm MSamP ≠ G MSamP4Qm4Qc ≠ G

Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod.

8:16 9:8 10:1 10:24

‫ = לאמור‬4Qm+ λεγων, ‫ = לאמור‬G4Qm+ λεγων = G+ (‫—ויאמר)ו‬λεγων

While Exod. 8:16 M, G and SamP immediately follow the clause introducing direct speech (‫ ויאמר יהוה אל משׁה‬and εἰπεν δε κυριος προς μωυσην respectively) with the words of YHWH, 4Qm has a typical Hebrew infinitive construct ‫ לאמור‬at this juncture. Precisely the same can be said 251 Cf. also the use of the same expression in relation to the activities of the magicians in Exod. 7:22; 8:3. 252 J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 256–259, 311–312; Idem, ‘The Contributions of 4QPaleoExodm’, 552–554; Idem, ‘The Old Greek of Exodus’, 100–102. See also supra n. 218.

text-critical evaluation of ‘text-relevant’ variants

167

with respect to Exod. 9:8. M and SamP announce direct speech as follows: ‫ויאמר יהוה אל משׁה ואל אהרן‬, followed by the words of YHWH, while G and 4Qm only introduce the words of YHWH after the participle λεγων and the infinitive construct ‫לאמור‬. The fact that a Hebrew textual witness to Exod. 9:8 (4Qm) has the same reading as G thus suggests that the variant in G can probably be traced back to its Vorlage.253 According to Sanderson, the interpolation of ‫ לאמור‬in this function is also a frequent occurrence with respect to the other textual witnesses. It represents a typical repetitive phenomenon and, as such, it is often the result of secondary text development. Based on this information, the present author is inclined to agree with Sanderson who claims that M, G and SamP of Exod. 8:16 and M and SamP of 9:8 should be considered the ‘preferable’ variant.254 A similar textual situation is also to be found in Exod. 10:1. Once again M and SamP introduce direct speech with the words ‫ויאמר יהוה‬ ‫אל משׁה‬, followed immediately by the said direct speech, while G adds a participle λεγων after the introductory formula εἰπεν δε κυριος προς μωυσην. Bearing in mind that such a pleonastic participle cannot be characterised as typical of idiomatic Greek usage,255 and given the fact that a Hebrew equivalent with the same function frequently occurs in other locations, we would argue that the participle is probably based on a Hebrew infinitive ‫ לאמור‬in the Vorlage of G. In this instance also, therefore, we can agree with the view of Sanderson described in relation to Exod. 8:16 and 9:8, namely that M and SamP should be designated the ‘preferable’ variant. To conclude, the variant readings in Exod. 10:24 deserve some attention in this regard. It should be noted in the first instance that the reading of 4Qm (‫ )ויאמרו‬does not count as a variant with respect to the other Hebrew textual witnesses because it is barely possible to determine on the basis of the manuscript whether the waw of the third person plural is a genuine letter or an inkblot. For this reason DJD does not include the said reading as a variant.256 If one accounts for this palaeographic uncertainty and reads ‫ ויאמר‬in 4Qm, then the Hebrew textual witnesses can thus be said to represent one and the same reading, namely a finite verb form in contrast to the Greek text which has a participle. The translation of the Hebrew ‫ ויאמר‬by the Greek participle λεγων occurs with relative frequency 253 254 255 256

See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 127; and J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 85–86. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 85–86 and 89. Cf. also supra in the section dealing with translation technique, pp. 147–148. Cf. P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 83.

168

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ (e.g. 8:21 and 10:16). The finite form ‫ וירא‬of the verb ‫ ראה‬is likewise translated by a participle ἰδων (e.g. Exod. 8:11). The differences in question, which ultimately exhibit little text-critical relevance, should probably be understood as an endeavour to establish grammatical variation.257 For these reasons, therefore, we are inclined to designate the variant readings in Exod. 10:24 as ‘synonymous’. 15. MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 8:19

ἐπι της γης = G+

The plus in the Greek text of Exod. 8:19 represents an adverbial locative expression (‘in/on the land’), where M and SamP simply state that the sign is to take place ‘tomorrow’. A decision as to the ‘preferability’ of one textual version over the other is difficult at this juncture. One might argue that (the Vorlage of ) G was being explanatory, providing more detail, yet at the same time it is also possible to suggest that the text behind M and SamP simply did not notice the locative expression. Nevertheless, clues to an explanation of this variant are to be found in Exod. 9:5 at the end of the announcement of the following plague. As a matter of fact, Exod. 9:5 of M, G and SamP have a similar expression in a similar context—the announcement of a sign the following day— namely ‫ בארץ‬and ἐπι της γης. It is probable that G’s Vorlage adapted the formulation found in Exod. 8:19 by way of harmonisation. If our explanation is correct, this would imply that the reading of M and SamP in Exod. 8:19 is more original and as a consequence should be considered the ‘preferable’ variant. 16. MSamP ≠ G MSamP4Ql ≠ G

Exod. 8:28 Exod. 11:10

ἠθελησεν = G+ ἠθελησεν = G+

A plus is evident in the Greek text of both Exod. 8:28 and Exod. 11:10. Pharaoh’s refusal to let the people go is expressed in the form of a verbum volendi. A brief examination of Pharaoh’s refusal to let the people go in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ reveals two main expressions. Exod. 7:22; 8:11, 15 and 9:12 (MGSamP) state that Pharaoh ‘did not listen’, thus implying refusal (‫לא‬ ‫—שׁמע‬οὐκ εἰσηκουσεν). Exod. 9:7, 35 and 10:20 (MGSamP) simply

257 It is also possible, however, that G’s Vorlage already had a participle ‫ לאמור‬at this juncture.

text-critical evaluation of ‘text-relevant’ variants

169

make reference to the fact that Pharaoh did not let the people go (‫—לא שׁלח‬ οὐκ ἐξαπεστειλεν). In neither instance is reference made to the will of Pharaoh. However, when one examines the passages in which YHWH announces the plague to Pharaoh (via Moses), reference can be found to the will of Pharaoh. A few examples: ‫—אם מאן‬εἰ δε (μεν) μη βουλει in Exod. 7:27 and 9:2 (MGSamP); ‫—כי אם אינך‬ἐαν δε μη βουλῃ in Exod. 8:17 (MGSamP) and ‫—אם מאן אתה‬ἐαν δε μη θελῃς in Exod. 10:4 (MGSamP4Qc). Based on the information outlined above, one might conclude that the textual witnesses generally make reference to an aspect of will in Pharaoh’s refusal when the latter is found in the context of an announcement from YHWH (or from YHWH via Moses) in discursive passages (direct speech), while Pharaoh’s will is not spoken of in relation to his refusal in narrative passages that simply relate the course of events. The variants in the Septuagint of Exod. 8:28 and 11:10 are an exception to this ‘rule’ in so far as they make explicit reference to an aspect of will in Pharaohs refusal within the framework of an announcement, i.e. in a narrative context. The reading found in the verses in question is only to be found elsewhere in Exod. 10:27: ‫( ולא אבה לשׁלחם‬MSamP4Qm) and και οὐκ ἐβουληθη ἐξαποστειλαι αὐτους (G). The fact that a Hebrew equivalent of the same character as that found in 8:28 and 11:10 exists for the Greek textual version of 10:27, opens up the possibility that these variants stem from the Vorlage of G. The situation described above does not tend to facilitate the text-critical evaluation of the Greek variants found in Exod. 8:28 and 11:10 and, as a consequence, it is difficult to determine the ‘preferable’ reading. The variants in question are probably rooted in the theological intention of the scribes of the Vorlage of G, or perhaps the translator himself, to place the accent of YHWH’s greatness by emphasising Pharaoh’s wilful stubbornness.258 This would imply that the textual version under analysis was based on a text that did not place the accent on YHWH in this way, making the emendation ipso facto a secondary one. For this reason one might argue that M and SamP of Exod. 8:28 and M, SamP and 4Ql of Exod. 11:10 represent the ‘preferable’ reading. On the other hand, the reading found in Exod. 10:27 bears witness to the fact that the Hebrew text behind G may have originally sounded the same. We opt, therefore,

258

143.

Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 123, 167; A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie,

170

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

to designate the different readings found in Exod. 8:28 and 11:10 as ‘synonymous’ variants. 17. MSamP ≠ G MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:2 Exod. 11:1

τον λαον μου = G+ ὑμας = G+

The plus in the Greek text of Exod. 9:2 is formed by the explicit designation of the object of ἐξαποστειλαι in the same way as the variant in Exod. 11:1 is constituted by the expression of the object ὑμας in relation to the same verb. If one examines those places in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ in which the verbs ‫ שׁלח‬and ἐξαποστειλαι are followed by an object, then it becomes clear that the accusatives in question are expressed in a variety of ways. The great majority of cases employ the object ‫את העם‬ (or ‫ )את עמי‬and τον λαον (μου) with ‫ שׁלח‬and ἐξαποστειλαι.259 In other instances, ‫ שׁלח‬and (ἐξ)αποστειλαι are combined with an object expressed in the form of a personal pronoun.260 In three other verses, ‫שׁלח‬ and ἐξαποστειλαι are followed by the expression ‫ בני ישׂראל‬and τους υἱους ἰσραηλ.261 Lastly, one finds ‫ שׁלח‬and ἐξαποστειλαι in the speech of the servants in Exod. 10:7 (MGSamP4Qc) with the object ‫את האנשׁים‬ and τους ἀνθρωπους respectively. In addition to the variants under analysis, ‫ שׁלח‬and ἐξαποστειλαι are also found elsewhere without an object in Exod. 7:27 (M, G and SamP). When one compares the variant in 9:2 with the latter verse—Exod. 7:27—one can observe that both Exod. 7:26–27 and 9:1–2 exhibit the same word order. It is clear in both instances that τον λαον μου is already made explicit in the respective preceding verses, namely 7:26 and 9:1. The textual situation in Exod. 11:1 represents an analogous situation in which the object ὑμας is already expressed in the first half of the verse. While no single textual version considered it necessary to repeat the said object in Exod. 7:26–27, repetition of the object is found nevertheless in Exod. 9:2 and 11:1. Based on this information, one might suggest that the variants in Exod. 9:2 and 11:1 are a result of harmonisation with the immediate context.

259 Cf. Exod. 7:14 (MGSamP4Qm), 16 (MGSamP4Qa), 26 (MGSamP); 8:4 (MGSamP), 16 (MGSamP4Qc), 17 (MGSamP4Qm4Qc), 25 (MGSamP), 28 (MGSamP); 9:1 (MGSamP), 7 (MGSamP4Qm), 13 (MGSamP); 10:3 (MGSamP4Ql) and 4 (MGSamP). 260 Cf. Exod. 8:24 (MGSamP); 9:17 (MGSamP), 28 (MGSamP2Qa); 10:10 (MGSamP), 27 (MGSamP); 11:1 (MGSamP). 261 Cf. Exod. 9:35 (MGSamP); 10:20 (MGSamP4Qm); 11:10 (MGSamP4Ql).

text-critical evaluation of ‘text-relevant’ variants

171

G appears to repeat the already mentioned object, where M and SamP do not. Given the fact that a similar harmonising repetition can be found in Exod. 8:16–17 (MGSamP4Qm4Qc) and 10:3–4 (MGSamP4Ql) in all the preserved textual versions, however, one could suggest that the said harmonisation may have taken place at the level of the Vorlage of G. If one can agree that the Greek plusses found in Exod. 9:2 and 11:1 are indeed the result of harmonisation, then one is obliged to conclude that M and SamP contain the ‘preferable’ variant at this juncture. 18. MSamP ≠ G M ≠ GSamP4Qm

Exod. 9:4 Exod. 9:7

των υἱων = G+ των υἱων, ‫ = בני‬GSamP4Qm+

The Israelites in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ are mostly referred as ‫ העם‬or ‫עמי‬, ὁ λαος or ὁ λαος μου respectively. In addition, the expression ‫בני ישׂראל‬ and υἱοι ἰσραηλ also occurs.262 The abbreviated form of this formula— ‫ ישׂראל‬and ἰσραηλ—can be found in Exod. 11:7 (MGSamP2Qa). In Exod. 9:4, G has the full expression των υἱων ἰσραηλ in contrast to M and SamP. In Exod. 9:7, G together with SamP and 4Qm have the fuller reading in contrast to M. It is possible that G in Exod. 9:4 and GSamP4Qm in 9:7 set out to harmonise the short formula with the most frequently used expression, which also happened to occur in the immediate context (cf. the continuation of Exod. 9:4 and Exod. 9:6), namely ‫בני ישׂראל‬ and υἱοι ἰσραηλ. Based on the fact that not merely G but also the Hebrew textual versions of SamP and 4Qm provide this reading in Exod. 9:7, it is reasonable to assume that the said harmonisation should not be ascribed to the translator but rather to the Vorlage of G. In any event, the observation of harmonisation, which is in se secondary, obliges us to conclude that M and SamP in Exod. 9:4 and M in Exod. 9:7 have preserved the ‘preferable’ variant, which is similar to the reading found in all the extant texts of Exod. 11:7. 19. MSamP4Qm ≠ G

Exod. 9:8 και ἐναντιον των θεραποντων αὐτου = G+

A survey of combined references to Pharaoh, his servants and his people in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ reveals the following. Pharaoh is sometimes

262 Cf. Exod. 9:4 (MGSamP), 6 (MGSamP4Qm), 26 (MGSamP), 35 (MGSamP4Qm); 10:20 (MGSamP4Qm), 23 (MGSamP4Qm); 11:7 (MGSamP4Ql2Qa), 10 (MGSamP4Ql).

172

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

referred to on his own,263 on occasion together with his servants,264 at times together with his people265 and, finally, together with his servants and his people.266 With respect to the variant under analysis, Pharaoh is referred to on his own in M, SamP and 4Qm, while the Greek text of Exod. 9:8 also makes mention of his servants. Bearing in mind the information outlined above, however, it is clear that both formulations are to be found in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ and that one is at liberty to designate the readings in question as ‘synonymous’ variants. Nevertheless, the present author is of the opinion that the reference to the servants in G is an addition. In addition to Exod. 9:8, precisely the same phenomenon also occurs outside the ‘Plagues Narrative’ in Exod. 7:9, 10a, 10b; 14:5, 8,267 verses in which G differs from the remaining textual versions by making explicit reference to Pharaoh’s servants. For this reason, it is probable that G added in Exod. 9:8 the reference to the servants—mentioned in the majority of cases in the context of the narrative268—with a view to harmonisation of the text. It remains difficult to determine the level at which the said harmonisation took place. In light of the fact that the Hebrew textual versions employ exactly the same formula elsewhere, one certainly cannot exclude the possibility that the Vorlage of G was responsible for the harmonisation. Based on the available information, therefore, we opt to designate the reading of Exod. 9:8 found in M, SamP and 4Qm the ‘preferable’ variant. 20. MSamP4Qm ≠ G

Exod. 9:10

‫ = ויעמדו‬MSamP4Qm+

J. Sanderson considers the plus ‫ ויעמדו‬in M, SamP and 4Qm as an addition in the Hebrew textual witnesses.269 She suggests that the verb ‫עמד‬ was made more explicit at this juncture in order to give greater emphasis to the defeat of the magicians in the following verse. Moses and Aaron are presented as standing proud in front of Pharaoh. The magicians, on the other hand, are unable to remain standing in front of Moses and 263

Cf. Exod. 8:16 (MGSamP); 9:13 (MGSamP); 10:3 (MGSamP). Cf. Exod. 7:20 (MGSamP); 8:20 (MGSamP); 9:34 (MGSamP); 11:3 (G). 265 Cf. Exod. 9:15 (MGSamP). 266 Cf. Exod. 7:28 (MGSamP); 8:5 (MGSamP, 4Qc?), 7 (MGSamP), 17 (MGSamP, 4Qc?), 25 (MGSamP), 27 (MGSamP); 9:14 (MGSamP). 267 See J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 67–68. 268 Compare nn. 264 and 266. 269 Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 105–106. 264

text-critical evaluation of ‘text-relevant’ variants

173

Aaron on account of their ‘boils’. Furthermore, the same verb is employed elsewhere in the narrative, namely in Exod. 9:16, in which Pharaoh is told that the only reason he is still standing is to allow YHWH to reveal His power to him. The verb ‫ עמד‬is employed three times in this context. As a consequence, the addition of the same verb in M, SamP and 4Qm of Exod. 9:10 would bring about a greater contrast between the defeat of the magicians and the victory of Moses and Aaron. The sentence in question in Exod. 9:10, however, functions equally well without this verb. Sanderson therefore maintains that the plus in Exod. 9:10 (MSamP4Qm) is an addition and designates the reading found in G as the ‘preferable’ variant. The Vorlage of G was apparently unfamiliar with this reading and did not exhibit the slightest trace of the emphasis described above in the Hebrew texts. G even translates the verb ‫ עמד‬in Exod. 9:11 and 9:16 in two different ways, in the first instance with στηναι, in the second with διετηρηθης. In contrast to Sanderson, J. Wevers appears to presuppose, albeit without argumentation, that (the Vorlage of ) G ‘abbreviated’ the Hebrew text and ‘omitted’ the Hebrew plus.270 According to Sanderson, however, there is no indication to be found that suggests accidental omission as a consequence, for example, of parablepsis. She also excludes the possibility of intentional omission because, in her opinion, the effect of the Hebrew word ‫ עמד‬was so clear that no scribe would ever have simply omitted it. One could add at this juncture that the translator of G, characterised in the first paragraph of the present chapter as faithful to his Vorlage, would certainly not have omitted such text elements. Bearing this information in mind, and in line with Sanderson, the present author is inclined to consider the plus in Exod. 9:10 as a secondary addition in M, SamP and 4Qm. Within the framework of Sanderson’s theory with respect to the textual development of Exodus,271 the emendation in question must have arisen in the period in which the text behind G had already taken its leave of the collective, while the texts behind M, SamP and 4Qm continued to develop together.272 Based on the given information, we can conclude that G has preserved the ‘preferable’ variant in Exod. 9:10.

270

Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 129: ‘abbreviates’, ‘omitting’. Cf. supra p. 166 together with n. 218. 272 Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 106: ‘Hence the word appears to have been added: late enough in the history of the text so that the Vorlage of G lacked it, but early enough so that all three Hebrew witnesses have it.’ 271

174

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

21. MSamP4Qm ≠ G MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:20 Exod. 9:21

‫ = את עבדיו‬MSamP4Qm+ ‫ = את עבדיו‬MSamP+

In Exod. 9:20 (MSamP4Qm) and Exod. 9:21 (MSamP), the servants who fear YHWH call their labourers and livestock back from the field, while G only makes mention of the livestock. The Hebrew plusses bring the narratives of MSamP4Qm and MSamP respectively into line with the warning issued to animals and humans in Exod. 9:19, in which both M and SamP together with G speak of the people (‫אדם‬, ἀνθρωποι) in the field. The plusses in Exod. 9:20 and 21 align themselves in this fashion (compare also with Exod. 9:25 MGSamP). Based on this information, and in line with J. Sanderson, the present author is of the opinion that the Hebrew plusses in Exod. 9:20 and 21 should be understood as additions resulting from internal harmonisation within the narrative.273 The alternative possibility of an accidental omission as a result of parablepsis on the part of the Greek text seems highly improbable if one bears in mind that precisely the same phenomenon occurs in two consecutive verses. The Hebrew text of Exod. 9:20 and 21 is brought into line and thus harmonised with its immediate context, resulting in a secondary text development. Once again, it would appear that the said emendation of the text arose—within the framework of Sanderson’s theory—during the phase in which the Hebrew texts continued to develop together while the text behind the Vorlage of G had already gone its own way. One can conclude with Sanderson that the Greek text of both Exod. 9:20 and 9:21 represents the ‘more original’ reading and as a consequence can be designated the ‘preferable’ variant. 22. MSamP ≠ G MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:24 Exod. 9:24

ἡ δε χαλαζα = G+ σφοδρα = G+

In M and SamP, Exod. 9:24 can be read as a single sentence in which ‫ כבד מאד‬functions as a hinge. ‫ כבד מאד‬serves to determine that which precedes it (the hail and the fire were very heavy: ‫)כבד מאד‬, although it is also connected to the relative clause that follows (Egypt had never experienced such a storm: ‫)כבד מאד‬.

273

Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 103.

text-critical evaluation of ‘text-relevant’ variants

175

The Greek text of Exod. 9:24, however, has to be split into three clauses, in contrast to the announcement in Exod. 9:18 where all the textual witnesses are parallel to one another. The first clause relates that there was hail and fire (ην δε χαλαζα και το πυρ φλογιζον ἐν τῃ χαλαζῃ), the second that the hail and fire were heavy (ἡ δε χαλαζα πολλη σφοδρα) and the third that such a storm had never been seen in Egypt (σφοδρα ἡτις τοιαυτη οὐ γεγονεν ἐν αἰγυπτῳ). This threefold sentence structure obliges G to repeat an element from the preceding clause on two occasions, on account of the syntax and in order to clarify the content of the following clause.274 The second clause thus repeats the hail from the first clause, making the subject of the second clause explicit: ἡ δε χαλαζα πολλη σφοδρα. Given the fact that πολλη σφοδρα consequently becomes the predicate of the second clause, the Greek text is prevented from simply making the transition to a relative clause in parallel with the Hebrew text. G repeats an element from the preceding clause (σφοδρα), therefore, in order to clarify the antecedent being determined by the relative clause that follows. Based on this analysis, which considers the (Vorlage of ) the Greek text as a derivative of a Hebrew text similar to the extant text of M and SamP, one might conclude that M and SamP represent the ‘preferable’ variant in Exod. 9:24. Bearing in mind that the variant in question is purely grammatical, however, we prefer to side with caution and designate the variants in Exod. 9:24 as ‘synonymous’. 23. MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:24

ἐπ’ αὐτης = G+

In the final part of Exod. 9:24, reference is made in M, SamP and G to Egypt. M and SamP employ the expression ‫ארץ מצרים‬, while G speaks succinctly of αἰγυπτῳ. In the remainder of the sentence, G refers once again to Egypt in the form of an adverbial locative via the plus ἐπ’ αὐτης. M and SamP, by contrast, do not repeat ‫ארץ מצרים‬, preferring to allow the latter to serve as the subject of ‫היה‬. The said differences, and in particular the plus in G, may have arisen as a result of differing interpretations of ‫ מצרים‬and αἰγυπτῳ. The Hebrew 274 See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 136–137. Wevers likewise explains the Greek plus Exod. 9:24 ἡ δε χαλαζα as a syntactical variant. The expression ἡ δε χαλαζα is necessary in order to make clear that το πυρ is no longer the subject. Cf. also Z. Frankel, Vorstudien, 171: ‘Noch ist ein sonderbarer Umstand bei den LXX. zu erwähnen: sie scheinen manches Wort zum vorhergehenden und folgenden Stichos zugleich zu nehmen und übersetzen es doppelt’ with a reference to Exod. 9:24 by way of example on 172.

176

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

texts consider ‫ מצרים‬as a designation to be applied to Egypt as a nation.275 G, on the other hand, sees ἐν αἰγυπτῳ (as the translation of ‫בכל ארץ‬ ‫ )מצרים‬rather as a geographical location. M and SamP are thereby able to state that Egypt as a nation became a people, while G, in line with the beginning of the sentence, relates that a people came into existence in Egypt as a geographical territory. For this reason, G was obliged to place a preposition with a personal pronoun after the verb, thereby giving rise to the variant in question.276 I am inclined to consider both readings as equally legitimate and prefer, therefore, to designate MSamP and G in Exod. 9:24 as ‘synonymous’ variants. 24. MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:25

‫ = את כל אשׁר בשׂדה‬MSamP+

In Exod. 9:23–26, the execution of what was announced in Exod. 9:18–19, 22 is related in parallel fashion. In the description of the said execution, however, one can observe a plus in the Hebrew texts (MSamP) of Exod. 9:25: ‫( את כל אשׁר בשׂדה‬everything in the field). If one examines the plus in question in its immediate context one is struck by the fact that the announcement in Exod. 9:19 contains a similar, almost identical formula in all the preserved textual witnesses: ‫)את( כל אשׁר לך בשׂדה‬ (MSamP4Qc) and ὁσα σοι ἐστιν ἐν τῳ πεδιῳ (G). Bearing in mind that the remainder of Exod. 9:25 runs parallel to the announcement in 9:19 and 22, the present author considers it possible to speak of a harmonising adaptation of the narrative of the event to that of the announcement in regard to the Hebrew plus in 9:25. As a consequence, therefore, the plus in this verse (MSamP) should be considered secondary. G, by contrast, has preserved the ‘more original’ reading at this juncture, probably because the text behind the latter—at least within Sanderson’s theory—was first to take its leave of the common group of texts. Since M and SamP bear witness to the same secondary reading, this must have arisen at a time when both text traditions were still developing together. Based on the aforementioned considerations, therefore, we prefer to designate the reading found in G as the ‘preferable’ variant.

275 It is unfortunate in this regard that 4Qm has not been preserved at this point in the text. As a matter of fact, 4Qm makes an orthographic distinction between Egypt as a country (‫ )מצרים‬and Egypt as a nation or the Egyptians (‫)מצריים‬, whereby the interpretation of ‘Egypt’ becomes unambiguous. Cf. P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 64. 276 Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 137; A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 134.

text-critical evaluation of ‘text-relevant’ variants 25. MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 9:25

177

ἡ χαλαζα = G+

Both the Hebrew texts (M and SamP) and the Greek text (G) of Exod. 9:25 are made up of three paratactic clauses containing the verbs forms ‫ ויך‬/ ἐπαταξεν, ‫ הכה‬/ ἐπαταξεν and ‫ שׁבר‬/ συνετριψεν respectively. The subject ‫ הברד‬/ ἡ χαλαζα is given in each instance with respect to the first two verbs. In the third clause, however, only G repeats the subject ἡ χαλαζα, thereby giving rise to the variant in question. The plus ἡ χαλαζα in G is a repetitive, explicit formulation of a subject already mentioned on two previous occasions and clear on the basis of the context without further repetition. One is thus at liberty to characterise the said variant as a harmonising addition in (the Vorlage of ) G,277 whereby it should be evaluated as secondary. The readings found in M and SamP contain the ‘preferable’ variant. 26. MSamP ≠ G2Qa

Exod. 9:28

και πυρ, ‫ = ואשׁ‬G2Qa+

The announcement of the plague only makes reference to hail, both in M, SamP, 4Qm, 4Qc and in G (cf. Exod. 9:18–19, 22). In the account of the event itself, however, the Hebrew texts and the Greek text speak of hail and fire in Exod. 9:23–24 but merely of hail in Exod. 9:25. In the entreaty of Pharaoh that follows (Exod. 9:26–28), only G and 2Qa return to the reference to ‘fire’ in Exod. 9:28. No single textual witness makes reference to fire in Moses’ response (Exod. 9:29–30), although all textual versions speak of hail and G, in addition, of rain (cf. infra). At the end of the plague account (Exod. 9:33–35), to conclude, all of the textual witnesses speak of hail and rain and none of them makes reference to fire. The motif of fire that flashes back and forth through the hail does not appear to have stemmed from the Greek translator since 2Qa also bears witness to the same reading. It should be noted, in addition, that all the textual witnesses mention this phenomenon in Exod. 9:23–24 without sign of irregularity. For these reasons, the present author is inclined to argue that the plus in the Vorlage of G and in 2Qa of Exod. 9:28 arose as a result of internal harmonisation of the entreaty of Pharaoh with the event of the plague itself recounted in the preceding verses (Exod. 9:23–24).278 277

J.W. Wevers likewise speaks in this regard of an addition in G. Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 137: ‘The subject ἡ χαλαζα is added though it would have been obvious from the context.’ 278 Wevers also alludes to the similarity between the variant in Exod. 9:28 and the readings of 9:23–24. However, without argumentation and moreover without any reference

178

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

G and 2Qa should thus be considered secondary variants and the reading found in M and SamP designated the ‘preferable’ variant. 27. MSamP4Ql2Qa4Qc ≠ G

Exod. 9:29

και ὁ ὑετος = G

Mention of rain in relation to the plague in question is to be found in none of the textual witnesses within the framework of Pharaoh’s entreaty. In the announcement of the plague in Exod. 9:18, however, rain is referred to by way of the verbs ‫ממטיר‬, and ὑω respectively. The execution of the announcement in Exod. 9:23 similarly employs ‫ וימטר‬from the same root, although in this instance the Greek uses a different equivalent, namely και ἐβρεξεν, which also means ‘to rain’. The rain is also mentioned at the end of the given plague account in Exod. 9:33–34 as ‫ מטר‬/ ὑετος. The Greek variant found in Exod. 9:29, which, in contrast to the Hebrew textual witnesses, also makes reference to rain at this juncture (in Moses’ response to Pharaoh’s entreaty) can be explained in a manner analogous to the explanation of the previous variant. Bearing in mind that the Hebrew textual witnesses employ the same motif in Exod. 9:18, 23, 33–34, it would be incorrect to suggest that 9:29 is a creation on the part of G. Rather, the Greek reference to rain in this verse would appear once again to be an endeavour to harmonise the response of Moses to Pharaoh with both the announcement of the plague in Exod. 9:18 and the execution thereof in 9:23 as well as with the account of the end of the plague as such in 9:33–34.279 In this fashion, the presentation of the announcement of the end of the plague is adapted to the announcement and the execution of the plague and at the same time to the description of the end thereof. Consequently, the Greek variant in Exod. 9:29 would appear to be the result of harmonisation.280 It follows, therefore, that the Hebrew reading should be designated the ‘preferable’ variant at this juncture.

to the fact that 2Qa has the same variant in Hebrew, he describes this variant as an addition in G. See J.W. Wevers, Notes, 139: ‘To God’s thunders and hail there is added “and lightning”, for which see vv. 23 and 24.’ [italics B.L.] 279 Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 140. Wevers is likewise of the opinion that the variant in question came about as a result of harmonisation with the end of the plague. However, he speaks once again of an ‘addition’ in G without further explanation: ‘. . ., Exod adding ὁ ὑετος from v. 34 thereby making the account complete.’ [italics B.L.] 280 Bearing the translation technique evident in the book of Exodus in mind, one can argue that the harmonisation in question probably took place at the level of the Vorlage.

text-critical evaluation of ‘text-relevant’ variants 28. MSamP ≠ G MSamP4Ql4Qc ≠ G

Exod. 9:34 Exod. 10:1

179

‫ = הוא‬MSamP+ ‫ = את לב‬MSamP4Ql4Qc+

In all the textual witnesses of Exod. 9:34, reference is made to the hardening of Pharaoh and his servants. In addition to the subject that was already clear in the third person verb form (‫)ויכבד‬, in the possessive suffix associated with the substantive (‫ )לבו‬and made explicit at the beginning of the verse as ‫פרעה‬, the Hebrew texts repeat the subject ‫ הוא‬once again in this context and add the servants ‫ ועבדיו‬as a supplement. The Greek, by contrast, does not repeat the subject and as a consequence offers a slightly different construction. Where the Hebrew texts speak of Pharaoh and his servants as subject, G avoids ‫ הוא‬and thereby relates both elements to the substantive καρδια, such that the reference then speaks of Pharaoh’s heart and that of his servants. Where the Hebrew makes ‫ הוא ועבדיו‬the subject of the hardening, the Greek αὐτου την καρδιαν (accusative) και των θεραποντων αὐτου is the object of ἐβαρυνεν.281 A similar reference is made in the textual witnesses of Exod. 10:1 to the obduracy of Pharaoh and his servants. On two occasions, the Hebrew texts make explicit mention of the substantive ‫לב‬, where G only employs the equivalent καρδια once. The word in question nevertheless determines both the genitives that follow—Pharaoh and his servants—in like fashion to 9:34. However, it remains difficult to determine which of the readings should be designated the ‘preferable’ variant with respect to Exod. 9:34 and 10:1. It is possible to argue that in each instance the minus in G is a result of the Greek translator’s concern to produce good, idiomatic Greek.282 This is evident in both verses, for example, from the fact that he locates the personal pronoun before the substantive καρδια rather than after it as in the Hebrew.283 By avoiding repetition of the subject (‫ )הוא‬and of the second ‫לב‬, the translator seems to have been intent on avoiding unnecessary repetition, most likely for stylistic reasons. In terms of content, however, the different readings found in Exod. 9:34 and in 10:1 say precisely the

281

Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 143: ‘MT defines the subject of the verb in larger detail as “he and his servants”; what MT means is that Pharaoh and his servants hardened their hearts, but Exod has και των θεραποντων αὐτου joining it to αὐτου 1°, which αὐτου precedes την καρδιαν in good Greek style.’ 282 Cf. supra pp. 126–150. 283 Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 143: ‘good Greek style’.

180

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

same thing. For this reason we are inclined to designate the variants in Exod. 9:34 and Exod. 10:1 as ‘synonymous’. 29. MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 10:4

ταυτην την ὡραν = G+

A review of the introductory formulas preceding the individual plagues reveals that no temporal indicator is employed in Exod. 7:19, 27; 8:12, 17 and 9:3. In Exod. 9:14, by contrast, the Hebrew textual witnesses have ‫ בפעם הזאת‬and the Greek text has ἐν τῳ νυν καιρῳ.284 In Exod. 10:21, reference is made to the duration of the plague (‫שׁלשׁת ימים‬, τρεις ἡμερας). In Exod. 11:4, we read ‫ כחזת הלילה‬and περι μεσας νυκτας respectively. In Exod. 9:18, the Hebrew textual witnesses employ the expression ‫ כעת מחר‬while the Greek text employs the formula ταυτην την ὡραν αὐριον. It is this latter formulation that we find reflected in Exod. 10:4 in G, while the Hebrew texts (M and SamP) only have ‫מחר‬, without ‫ כעת‬as equivalent for the Greek ταυτην την ὡραν. It is striking in this regard that the temporal references are all to be found in the announcement of the final plagues. Exod. 10:4, the variant under treatment, likewise functions in the context of the account of one of the final disasters. Against this background, one can suggest that (the Vorlage of ) G probably took the plus in Exod. 10:4 from its immediate context, namely the preceding announcement in Exod. 9:18, in which the Hebrew textual witnesses and the Greek text employ the same formula. If this hypothesis is correct, then the Greek text of Exod. 10:4 (or its Vorlage) must have been harmonised with Exod. 9:18, and as a consequence, the Hebrew textual witnesses (M and SamP) have clearly preserved the ‘preferable’ variant.285 30. MG ≠ SamP4Qm

Exod. 10:5

‫= עשׂב הארץ ואת כל פרי‬ SamP4Qm+

With respect to the variant in Exod. 10:5, a plausible explanation can also be found in the immediate context, which is to be found within

284 Cf. the same formula in Exod. 8:28, albeit not within the framework of an announcement. 285 Nevertheless, it also remains theoretically possible that the Vorlage of G originally had the same formulation as Exod. 9:18 at this juncture and that this had been lost in M and SamP. The Hebrew text, however, offers no indication of the possibility of a scribal error, nor indeed is it likely that the said text simply omitted something.

text-critical evaluation of ‘text-relevant’ variants

181

the framework of the plague of locusts. This pericope is structured as follows. Exod. 10:3–6 contains the announcement and 10:7–11 relates the negotiations that follow and their negative result. In 10:12, YHWH commands Moses to instigate the plague, combining his instruction with a short prediction concerning the consequences. Finally, Exod. 10:13–15 narrates the execution of YHWH’s command and a description of the effect of the plague. The plus in Exod. 10:5 (SamP4Qm) is in agreement with the text of 10:15 (MGSamP4Qc), in which we are told, in identical words, about the damage inflicted by the locusts on the crops in the field and the fruit on the trees. Given the fact that all the extant textual witnesses of 10:15 are equivalent at this juncture, it is possible that the text of 4Qm also shared this reading, but the latter has not been preserved. We note once again, therefore, that SamP and 4Qm would appear to have harmonised the announcement in Exod. 10:5 with the account of the execution in 10:15 (cf. also partly 10:12). Based on this observation one can argue that the reading found in SamP and 4Qm is the result of a secondary text development whereby M and G are to be considered the ‘preferable’ variant in Exod. 10:5.286 31. MSamP ≠ G MSamP ≠ G MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 10:6 Exod. 10:18 Exod. 11:8

μωυσης = G+ μωυσης = G+ μωυσης = G+

In the Greek text of Exod. 10:6, the subject μωυσης is stated explicitly at the end of a segment of direct speech. The subject of the latter is already mentioned, however, in the introduction (Exod. 10:3) in M, G, SamP and 4Qm, namely Moses and Aaron. The verb that follows is likewise in the plural: ‫ ויאמרו‬/ εἰπαν. At the end of the said direct speech in Exod. 10:6, however, all the textual witnesses have singular verb forms: ‫ ויפן‬/ ἐκκλινας. With respect to the variant under analysis, it is probable that (the Vorlage of ) G adapted the subject to the singular verbs by only making explicit reference to μωυσης. A similar instance can be found in Exod. 10:18. A segment of direct speech begins in Exod. 10:16 in which Pharaoh addresses Moses and Aaron. After this direct speech, however, the verb forms are suddenly

286 J. Sanderson likewise designates M and G as the ‘preferable’ variant on the basis of a similar line of argument. Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 97–98.

182

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

singular. M, G and SamP of Exod. 10:18 have ‫ ויצא‬/ ἐξηλθεν and the verbs that follow are also in the singular. Once again, it would appear that (the Vorlage of ) G is making explicit reference to an adapted (singular) subject, namely μωυσης. The question is slightly different in the case of Exod. 11:8, although a similar explanation can be proposed in this regard nevertheless. A segment of direct speech with Moses as speaker begins in 11:4. The said text also contains an embedded segment of direct speech, however, with YHWH as subject. At the end of this direct speech in Exod. 11:8 G clearly sees the need to identify the subject of ἐξηλθεν once again and thereby makes explicit reference to μωυσης. This explanation has the potential to shed a degree of light on the emergence of the plus μωυσης in the three instances under analysis. It remains to be seen, however, which of the readings has preserved the ‘preferable’ reading. Given the fact that references to Aaron are mostly understood as later interpolation,287 the plural verb forms referring to Moses and Aaron are to be considered less original than the singular verb forms with Moses as subject. The singular verb forms in Exod. 10:6 and 10:18 are, as a consequence, more original than the preceding introductions in the plural. If one thus presumes that G explicitly related the subject μωυσης to the singular verb forms in order to clarify the situation with respect to the preceding context—which had changed to the plural on account of the interpolation of Aaron—, then one is obliged to consider the Greek text to be less original than the Hebrew textual witnesses in which the subject is not added. G (or its Vorlage) has thus adapted itself in Exod. 10:6 and 18 to the secondary emendations that have been introduced into the text while the Hebrew texts exhibit no adaptation. For this reason we can consider M and SamP in both instances as representing the ‘preferable’ variant. The present author is also of the opinion that the latter can also be said with respect to Exod. 11:8, namely that M and SamP have preserved the ‘preferable’ variant. As a matter of fact, the narrative simply continues in the Hebrew textual witnesses. ‫ ויצא‬returns to the subject Moses from Exod. 11:4 without providing any further clarification. G (or its Vorlage), on the other hand, considered it necessary to repeat the subject. In our opinion, the very fact of this repetition implies that G is less original than

287

Cf. supra the discussion of textual variant 1 on pp. 151–152.

text-critical evaluation of ‘text-relevant’ variants

183

M and SamP. As a consequence, we likewise prefer to designate M and SamP as the ‘preferable’ variant with respect to Exod. 11:8. 32. MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 10:9

‫ = נלך‬MSamP+

In the Hebrew textual witnesses to Exod. 10:9 (M and SamP) one finds two summary lists in response to Pharaoh’s question ‘But which ones are to go?’ (10:8). Both enumerations end with the verb form ‫נלך‬. The verse is thus symmetrical in construction. The second verb form ‫ נלך‬rounds off the second list and simultaneously concludes the verse as a whole. While the Greek text contains the same two lists, it only places a verb at the end of the first: πορευσομεθα, parallel with ‫נלך‬. The verb πορευσομεθα in G thus serves both groups and exercises a hinge function between the two lists. The ‘preferable’ variant is difficult to determine in the case of Exod. 10:9. One might suggest that the minus in G with respect to the Hebrew ‫ נלך‬is a result of the Greek translator’s concern to write good, idiomatic Greek. It is probable that he wanted to avoid unnecessary repetition for stylistic reasons. Indeed, in terms of content, the various readings of Exod. 10:9 say exactly the same thing. A confirmation for this explanation is to be found, we maintain, in the fact that the Hebrew preposition -‫ב‬, which is consistently repeated in MSamP4Qm4Qc, is only rendered where necessary in the Greek text, namely in two instances by συν, the second because the list was interrupted by the verb πορευσομεθα.288 Moreover, in contrast to the frequent use of the possessive suffix in the Hebrew texts, the possessive pronoun ἡμων is only found once in the Greek text. For these reasons we are inclined to designate the variants in Exod. 10:9 as ‘synonymous’. 33. MG4Qm ≠ SamP Exod. 10:11 MG4Qm ≠ SamP Exod. 10:11

‫לא כן‬, μη οὑτως = MG4Qm+ ‫ = לכן‬SamP+

Our explanation of the variants in Exod. 10:11 is based on the suggestion proposed by J. Sanderson who maintains that the readings in question are ‘synonymous’.289 The fact that the reading of the Vorlage of G, which is apparently in line with M and 4Qm, cannot be established with certainty

288 289

Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 149. Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 120–121.

184

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

remains a problem, however. Sanderson points out that ‫ לא כן‬as well as ‫ לכן‬are rendered in G by οὐχ οὑτως, in particular when the preceding idea is given a negative evaluation and the following has to be introduced in a positive manner. She refers in this regard to Gen. 4:15; 30:15; 1 Kgs 22:19; 2 Kgs 1:4, 6; Judg. 8:7; 11:8. Of the four instances in which M has ‫ לא כן‬in the Pentateuch (Gen. 48:18; Num. 12:7; Deut. 18:14 and Exod. 10:11), SamP agrees with M in three, with the exception being precisely Exod. 10:11. In all four instances, G translates with οὐχ (μη) οὑτως. In each of these four passages—in like fashion to the passage in which ‫ לכן‬occurs—a preceding idea is refuted and the following is introduced. Sanderson concludes that, on the basis of this information, it is impossible to reach a decision with respect to the determination of the ‘preferable’ variant neither is one able to make a statement in relation to the Vorlage of G. For this reason she designates the readings under analysis as ‘synonymous’ variants. In the context of Exod. 10:11, both ‫ לא כן‬and ‫ לכן‬can function in the same manner. 34. M4Qc ≠ GSamP

Exod. 10:12

τον καρπον των ξυλων, ‫ = פרי העץ‬GSamP+

The plus in G and SamP of Exod. 10:12 is to be found within the framework of YHWH’s command to Moses to instigate the plague of locusts. Exod. 10:13–15 thus relates the execution of this command and the onset of the plague. A comparison of the command in Exod. 10:12 with the execution in 10:15 reveals identical expression. The words of the plus in G and SamP of Exod. 10:12—‘the fruit of the trees’—can be found in Exod. 10:15 in all the textual witnesses.290 Bearing this observation in mind, it seems clear that (the Vorlage of ) G and SamP in Exod. 10:12 set about harmonising the formulation of the command with the account of the execution in Exod. 10:15.291 Given the fact that harmonisation must be understood as a secondary text development, it follows that M and 4Qc have preserved the more original reading with respect to Exod. 10:12 and as a consequence should be considered the ‘preferable’ variant.

290 Le Boulluec and Sandevoir likewise note the similarity between the plus in Exod. 10:12 and Exod. 10:15. Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 138. 291 Cf. also supra the discussion of variant 30 on pp. 180–181, in which harmonisation was also observed between the announcement of the plague in Exod. 10:5 and the execution thereof in Exod. 10:15, in part even with the same words.

text-critical evaluation of ‘text-relevant’ variants 35. MG ≠ SamP

Exod. 10:13

185

‫מטה‬, ῥαβδον—‫יד‬

A variant reading is apparent in Exod. 10:13 between MG and SamP, the former stating that Moses stretched out his staff, the latter that he stretched out his hand. An explanation for the variant in question, which immediately orientates the evaluation thereof, can be found in the fact that the description of the command in both MG and SamP of Exod. 10:12 speaks of Moses stretching out his hand (‫ יד‬/ χειρ). Once again, it seems clear that SamP intended to harmonise the execution of the command in Exod. 10:13 with the command itself, such that both verses make reference to the stretching out of the ‘hand’.292 On the basis of this information one can argue that M and G have preserved the ‘preferable’ reading. 36. MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 10:13

‫—על ארץ מצרים‬εἰς τον οὐρανον

The different reading evident between MSamP and G with respect to Exod. 10:13 does not turn around the presence of a minus or a plus, but offers rather two entirely different presentations of the event. In MSamP, Moses stretches out his hand/staff over the land of Egypt (‫)על ארץ מצרים‬, while in G he points his staff towards the heavens (εἰς τον οὐρανον). A survey of the references to the stretching out of the hand/staff in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ reveals that in Exod. 7:17, 19, 20; 8:1, 2 this is done over water and/or rivers, in Exod. 8:12, 13 over the dust, in Exod. 9:22, 23; 10:21, 22 towards the heavens, and in Exod. 10:12 over the land of Egypt. The variants under analysis reflect that last two possibilities. M and SamP of Exod. 10:13 would appear to continue the presentation of events as it is found in Exod. 10:12. In the latter passage, all the textual witnesses (MGSamP4Qc) have ‫—על ארץ מצרים‬ἐπι γην αἰγυπτου. G, by contrast, recapitulates events in Exod. 10:13 as they are found in the wider context. As a matter of fact, all the textual witnesses to Exod. 9:22 (MGSamP4Qc), 23 (MGSamP), 10:21 (MGSamP), and 22 (MGSamP), make reference to the stretching out of the hand/staff towards the heavens.293

292

Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 152: ‘probably due to the influence of v. 12.’ Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 152; and A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 138, who also make reference to the connection with Exod. 9:22, 23 and 10:21, 22. 293

186

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

Both presentations of events are possible and indeed appropriate within the context of the ‘Plagues Narrative’. This makes it difficult to establish an explanation for the variant readings in question. It is possible that the texts behind M and SamP harmonised the execution in Exod. 10:13 with the command in Exod. 10:12, after G’s Vorlage had separated itself from the common group (cf. Sanderson’s theory). In such an instance, G would then have preserved the more original reading on the basis of its Vorlage, which is somewhat surprising in a context in which (the Vorlage of ) G has a tendency to harmonise between command and execution as was evident from our analysis of the previous variants. Nevertheless, the present author would suggest that G has preserved the ‘preferable’ variant at this juncture. 37. MSamP ≠ G4Qc

Exod. 10:15

‫—ותחשׁך‬και ἐφθαρη, ‫ותשׁחת‬

The variant readings in Exod. 10:15 exhibit a difference in meaning. M and SamP read ‫( ותחשׁך‬to be dark), G and 4Qc by contrast και ἐφθαρη and ‫( ותשׁחת‬to ruin or to destroy). J. Wevers is of the opinion with respect to this variant that G has simply endeavoured to better fit the context and he considers the presupposition of a possible Vorlage ‫ תשׁחת‬unnecessary.294 On the basis of the material present in 4Qc, however, Wevers’ conclusion must be contradicted, since the said textual witness reflects precisely the same Greek variant in a Hebrew textual version.295 For this reason we are inclined to conclude that G’s variant does indeed stem from its Vorlage. As a consequence, it would appear that we are dealing with two different Hebrew readings at this juncture, namely ‫ ותחשׁך‬and ‫ותשׁחת‬. One can immediately observe that the variants in question are very similar given the fact that two of the three basic consonants are identical. Reference can also be made in this regard to the perspective adopted by A. Le Boulluec and P. Sandevoir who point to the possibility of metathesis of the shared consonants in the roots ‫ חשׁך‬and ‫שׁחת‬, and possible confusion between two forms closely resembling one another.296 294

Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 153: ‘Instead of MT’s “and the land was darkened” Exod has “and the land was destroyed”, ἐφθαρη. That the land was wasted is then explicated in the rest of the verse; in the context ἐφθαρη fits much better than MT, though it is useless to suppose a parent ‫ תשׁחת‬instead of ‫ ;תחשׁך‬Exod was simply trying to make sense.’ 295 For 4Qc see E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 112: ‘This is one clear instance where Exodc agrees with G (ἐφθαρη, “was ruined”) against the variant in MSamP (‫תחשׁך‬, “became dark”).’ 296 Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 138: ‘LXX: «fut dévastée»—

text-critical evaluation of ‘text-relevant’ variants

187

Establishing the ‘preferable’ variant at this juncture, however, remains difficult. If one takes metathesis and confusion as one’s point of departure, one still has to admit ignorance as to the direction of the emendation in question. Did ‫ ותחשׁך‬come about on the basis of ‫ ותשׁחת‬or vice versa? In terms of content and context, the reading found in G and 4Qc would appear to fit more appropriately in the narrative, but certainty as to the ‘preferability’ of one reading over the other is impossible to establish. For this reason we prefer to designate the readings in Exod. 10:15 as ‘synonymous’ variants. 38. MGSamP ≠ 4Qm Exod. 10:21

‫וימשׁ )ה(חשׁך‬, ψηλαφητον σκοτος = MGSamP+

Reference is made in M, G and SamP of Exod. 10:21 to ‘darkness that can be felt’ while 4Qm, by contrast, has a minus at this juncture. In order to explain and evaluate the variant in question we turn to the hypothesis proposed by J. Sanderson who maintains that the variant in 4Qm may have occurred on account of parablepsis.297 It is clearly possible to move from the ‫ וי‬in ‫ וימשׁ‬to the ‫ וי‬in ‫ ויט‬omitting what lies between. On the other hand, Sanderson suggests that the plus ‫—וימשׁ )ה(חשׁך‬ ψηλαφητον σκοτος in MGSamP may have been influenced by Job 12:25 and Deut. 28:29 in which similar expressions are employed. She maintains, nevertheless, that even if such influence can be established, it may have already taken place during the phase of the literary development of Exodus, such that the expression in question already belonged to the ‘preferable’ text when 4Qm omitted it by parablepsis. Given the lack of certitude surrounding the evaluation of the variant under analysis, however, Sanderson opts to designate the readings in MGSamP and 4Qm of Exod. 10:21 as ‘synonymous’ variants. 39. MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 10:22

θυελλα = G+

In Exod. 10:21, M, G and SamP make reference for the first time to darkness with the words ‫ חשׁך‬and σκοτος. In the second half of Exod.

TM: «fut obscurcie». 11 fois sur 20, φθειρειν correspond à l’hébreu ‫שׁחת‬, et non pas (c’est ici le seul cas) à une forme de la racine ‫חשׁך‬. Les deux verbes hébreux comportent deux consonnes communes ‫ שׁ‬et ‫ ח‬en ordre inversé. L’écart entre la LXX et le TM peut résulter d’une métathèse et d’une confusion entre deux formes assez proches l’une de l’autre. La lecture faite par la LXX paraît mieux adaptée à la logique du texte.’ 297 Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 147–148.

188

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

10:21, darkness is alluded to once again in the expression ‫ ימשׁ חשׁך‬and ψηλαφητον σκοτος, darkness that can be felt. In Exod. 10:22, the variant under consideration, we encounter a third reference: M and SamP speak of ‫ חשׁך אפלה‬and G of σκοτος γνοφος θυελλα. One can observe a climactic process in the vocabulary at this juncture. The narrative begins by speaking about ‘darkness’ as such, then of ‘darkness that can be felt’, and finally in both MSamP and in G the darkness is emphasised in a pleonastic expression. Furthermore, G adds a supplementary element that reinforces the expression: θυελλα (stormy wind, storm). The Greek thus speaks of ‘darkness, pitch darkness, storm’. Given the fact that the term θυελλα is not to be found elsewhere in the ‘Plagues Narrative’, we cannot thereby appeal to the immediate context in order to investigate the origin of the word. Although the Greek expression σκοτος γνοφος θυελλα can also be found in the Septuagint of Deut. 4:11 and 5:22, in these instances it represents a translation of the Hebrew words ‫)חשׁך( ענן וערפל‬.298 According to Wevers, the plus in Exod. 10:22 may have been based on the aforementioned texts from Deuteronomy.299 Le Boulluec and Sandevoir likewise claim that G of Exod. 10:22 was influenced by the said verses.300 The present author is inclined in this regard to locate the proposed influence, if it could be confirmed, at the level of the Vorlage of G. Bearing in mind our characterisation of the translation technique employed in the book of Exodus,301 it seems unlikely that the translator himself would have added elements of this kind. Moreover, if one accepts that the translator of Exodus only worked with small segments of text simultaneously,302 then it would be strange for him to have allowed himself to be influenced by the text of Deuteronomy and certainly not by the translation thereof,

298

While Deut. 5:22 contains the full Greek expression σκοτος γνοφος θυελλα, the Hebrew equivalent ‫ חשׁך‬for σκοτος is lacking at this juncture. In contrast to Exod. 10:22, where γνοφος is the equivalent of ‫אפלה‬, γνοφος in Deut. 4:11 and 5:22 would appear to be the equivalent of ‫ענן‬. The term constituting the plus in Exod. 10:22, θυελλα, represents the equivalent of ‫ ערפל‬in Deut. 4:11 and 5:22. For a comprehensive and detailed discussion of the entire expression σκοτος γνοφος θυελλα and its individual components, but moreover of the Hebrew terms that may have constituted the Vorlage of the expression, see M. Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 153–161, especially 155–159. 299 Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 156. 300 Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 140. 301 Cf. supra pp. 126–150. 302 Cf. supra pp. 106, 134.

text-critical evaluation of ‘text-relevant’ variants

189

since it is argued that the translation of Exodus took place before that of Deuteronomy.303 If one argues that θυελλα in Exod. 10:22 came about on the basis of harmonisation with Deuteronomy, then the variant in question must be considered ipso facto secondary. As a consequence, we opt to designate the reading found in M and SamP as the ‘preferable’ variant. 40. MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 10:29

‫אסף‬, ‫ = אוסף‬MSamP+

In Exod. 10:29, both MSamP and G recount that Moses may/shall no longer see Pharaoh’s face. The Hebrew expression ‫ א)ו(סף ראות‬is rendered in Greek with the singular verb form ὀφθησομαι and the negation οὐκετι, while the same text has a more literal equivalent in 10:28—προσθειναι ἰδειν—for the same Hebrew expression. When one compares 10:29 with 10:28, one might suggest that M and SamP harmonised 10:29 with 10:28, whereby G would thus have preserved the ‘preferable’ variant, offering an expression parallel with the end of 10:28 (‫ ראתך פני‬and ὀφθῃς μοι). It is equally possible and perhaps even more likely, however, that the Greek translator found the same expression in his Vorlage of 10:29 as M and SamP, namely ‫לא אסף עוד ראות‬, but preferred to render the latter in idiomatic Greek with οὐκετι ὀφθησομαι. In this instance, both readings must be understood as ‘synonymous’ variants. Both expressions relate precisely the same content: Moses is no longer permitted to see the face of Pharaoh.

303 The hypothesis claiming that Deuteronomy was probably translated later than Exodus is based on the research of the Finnish scholars A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo and I. SoisalonSoininen, who observe on the basis of different independent criteria that the translation of Deuteronomy is strikingly more literal (in the word-for-word sense) than that of Exodus. According to the scholars in question, the preference for translating word-for-word gradually became more pronounced over time, reaching its climax in the reworking of Aquila. The fact that the translator of Deuteronomy appeared to have considered this aspect of translation more important than the translator of Exodus leads them to suspect, therefore, that Deuteronomy was translated later than Exodus. Cf., for example, A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Oti Causale in Septuagintal Greek’, 20; Idem, Parataxis in the Septuagint, 174–175, 178, 183–184; Idem, ‘Translation Technique and the Intention’, 25–26; R. Sollamo, ‘The LXX Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute’, 113; I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Die Wiedergabe des Hebräischen Personalpronomens’, 80, 85; Idem, ‘Die Auslassung des Possessivpronomens’, 88, 103; Idem, ‘Die Wiedergabe des partitiven ‫’מן‬, 163; Idem, ‘Der Gebrauch des Verbs ἐχειν’, 183–184 and Idem, Die Infinitive in der Septuaginta, 159. Cf. also E. Tov, ‘The Nature and Study of the Translation Technique’, 351, in which Genesis and Exodus are likewise considered to be the oldest translations.

190

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

41. MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 11:1

‫ = מזה‬MSamP+

In the second half of Exod. 11:1, YHWH announces that when Pharaoh lets the people go, he will drive it away ‘from here’ (‫)מזה‬. G has a minus with respect to this expression when compared with M and SamP. If one compares the second half of the verse with the first, in which YHWH announces the same thing without reference to ‘driving away’, one observes that all the textual witnesses (MSamP and G) have ‫מזה‬ and ἐντευθεν. Bearing this in mind, it seems reasonable to speak once again of a harmonisation in M and SamP with regard to the variant in question, more specifically the synchronisation of the same words within two halves of the same verse. Given the fact that G lacks an equivalent for ‫מזה‬, and if we follow Sanderson’s theory with respect to the text development of Exodus,304 the harmonisation in question probably took place during the phase in which the texts behind M and SamP continued to develop together but the text behind G had already commend its own development. G would thus appear to have preserved the ‘preferable’ variant on the basis of a more original Vorlage. The contrary hypothesis, namely that G’s Vorlage may have omitted the word in question, is unlikely, especially when one considers the fact that the said Vorlage exhibits traces of harmonisation elsewhere in the same verse,305 and would evidently not have missed an existing harmonisation. 42. MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 11:2

κρυφῃ = G+

No evidence can be found in the context of the ‘Plagues Narrative’ that can explain the presence of the Greek plus in Exod. 11:2, κρυφῃ. Given the lack of a contextual explanation for the variant, and bearing in mind that scribal error, in our opinion, is equally unlikely at this juncture, one might be inclined to conclude that this plus in G reflects a different Vorlage to that of M.306 Nevertheless, as J. Wevers argues, it is also possible that G’s more elaborate expression simply represents an endeavour on its part to give explicit

304

Cf. supra p. 166 and n. 218. With regard to the harmonisation in Exod. 11:1 (G), cf. also the discussion of variant 17 on pp. 170–171. 306 See, for example, N.L. Collins, ‘Evidence in the Septuagint of a Tradition in Which the Israelites Left Egypt without Pharaoh’s Consent’, CBQ 56 (1994), 442–448, pp. 444–445, 447, 448. 305

text-critical evaluation of ‘text-relevant’ variants

191

formulation to what is already implicit expressed in ‫דבר נא באזני העם‬ (‘speak now to the ears of the people’).307 As a matter of fact, the modern English expression ‘whisper something in someone’s ear’ also connotes a degree of secrecy. In this case, the plus κρυφῃ should be understood to stem from the translator and his desire to write fluent and idiomatic Greek, which led him to explain the Hebrew expression. Given the fact that both readings ultimately relate the same content and that any attempt to determine the origin of the Greek plus in Exod. 11:2 would be nothing more than guesswork, we prefer to designate the Hebrew and Greek readings as ‘synonymous’ variants. 43. MSamP ≠ G

Exod. 11:2

‫ = כלי‬MSamP+

In Exod. 11:2, reference is made to the loaning and borrowing of silver and gold objects. The Hebrew text of M and SamP explicitly states the same subject ‫ כלי‬twice, in each instance in a status constructus with the material nouns ‫ כסף‬and ‫זהב‬. The Greek, by contrast, only mentions the substantive σκευη once, in combination with two adjectives agreeing in gender and number, linked by the conjunction και. A minus is thus evident in G where the Hebrew texts repeat the substantive ‫כלי‬. In the present author’s opinion, the variant in question has its roots in grammar and linguistic feeling. The Greek translator of Exodus sought to provide fluent and idiomatic Greek.308 This is evident from the fact that he avoided the unnecessary repetition of the substantive σκευη as equivalent for the twofold ‫כלי‬. For this reason we are inclined to designate the variant readings in Exod. 11:2 as ‘synonymous’ variants. 44. M ≠ GSamP

Exod. 11:2 και ἱματισμον, ‫ = ושׁמלות‬GSamP+

Where M speaks only of the exchange of gold and silver objects in Exod. 11:2, G and SamP refer in addition to clothing (ἱματισμον, ‫)שׁמלות‬ thereby giving rise to a plus in the said textual versions. One might be inclined to imagine at first sight that we are dealing here with a variant stemming from a different Vorlage, since there does not seem to be an explanation for the plus in question in the immediate context. However, a closer analysis of the wider context and, in particular, a study of the way in which the so-called ‘despoiling motif ’ is referred to elsewhere

307 308

Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 162. Cf. supra pp. 126–150.

192

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

in Exodus, reveal that M also makes reference to clothing in both Exod. 3:22 and in 12:35.309 In other words, the plus under analysis appears to be a harmonisation of the present narrative with other instances in which the ‘despoiling motif ’ is narrated, namely in Exod. 3 and 12.310 If this explanation is correct and we are in fact dealing with a harmonisation in SamP and in the Vorlage of G (bearing in mind that the translator would not have introduced such terms indiscriminately) it follows that M in the present instance has preserved the more original reading and as a consequence should be designated the ‘preferable’ variant. 45. M2Qa ≠ GSamP

Exod. 11:3

και ἐχρησαν αὐτοις, ‫ = והשׁאילום‬GSamP+

With the words και ἐχρησαν αὐτοις and ‫והשׁאילום‬, G and SamP set themselves apart once again with a remarkable plus unparalleled in the ‘Plagues Narrative’. M and 2Qa also make mention of the fact that YHWH grants favour, but G and SamP are alone in relating the purpose thereof: the Egyptians hand over their objects of silver and gold. In line with the discussion of the preceding variant, much can be learned in the present instance from Exod. 12. Indeed, the plus in G and SamP of Exod. 11:3 is identical to the words found in Exod. 12:36,311 in which allusion was made to the ‘despoiling motif ’. Once again, it would appear that the Vorlage of G and SamP harmonised with Exod. 12 with respect to Exod. 11:3. For this reason it seems reasonable to argue that M and 2Qa have preserved the ‘preferable’ variant. 46. MSamP2Qa ≠ G MSamP2Qa ≠ G

Exod. 11:3 Exod. 11:3

και ἐναντιον φαραω = G+ ‫ = בעיני העם‬MSamP2Qa+

One encounters further differences in the final part of Exod. 11:3 when the Hebrew and Greek textual witnesses are compared. With the help of the prepositions ‫ ב‬and ‫ בעיני‬M and 2Qa state that Moses was great ‘in

309 Cf. also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 141; J.W. Wevers, Notes, 162 and N.L. Collins, ‘Evidence in the Septuagint’, 443, esp. n. 6. 310 On the harmonisations in the textual witnesses of Exod. 11:1–10 with Exod. 3:21–22; 4:22–23 and 12:35–36, see also B. Lemmelijn, ‘Setting and Function of Exod. 11,1–10 in the Exodus Narrative’, in: M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction— Reception—Interpretation (BETL, 126), Leuven 1996, 443–460, pp. 455–456. 311 Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 162–163; A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 142; and N.L. Collins, ‘Evidence in the Septuagint’, 443–444.

text-critical evaluation of ‘text-relevant’ variants

193

the land of Egypt, in the sight of Pharaoh’s servants and in the sight of the people’. SamP relates precisely the same thing and in precisely the same fashion but in a different location, namely towards the end of the ‘major expansion’ in Exod. 11:3b.312 With the help of the preposition ἐναντιον, G, by contrast, also speaks of the Egyptians (quasi-parallel with ‫ )ארץ מצרים‬and then refers to Pharaoh and the servants of Pharaoh (equivalent of ‫)עבדי פרעה‬. In this text fragment, the Hebrew texts thus have a minus with respect to the Greek text’s και ἐναντιον φαραω and the Greek text has a minus with respect to the Hebrew text’s ‫בעיני העם‬. With respect to the Hebrew minus, one might suggest that Pharaoh is intentionally not mentioned in MSamP2Qa for theological reasons. The Hebrew text thus shows that all Egypt, the servants of Pharaoh and the people, recognised Moses and YHWH. Pharaoh himself, however, does not capitulate, refusing to recognise either Moses or YHWH. The Hebrew text makes no reference to Pharaoh in order to show the extent of his uncompromising obduracy.313 While such an explanation is attractive, it nevertheless remains speculative. An alternative is possible, however. The plus in G is not unusual in the context of the ‘Plagues Narrative’. When similar summarising statements in the narrative are compared,314 it is remarkable that Pharaoh is often if not always included.315 As a consequence, it is possible that the Vorlage of G harmonised with the context and made explicit reference to Pharaoh on the basis of the formulation frequently employed in the ‘Plagues Narrative’.316 If this explanation is correct, then the Hebrew textual witnesses should be understood as having preserved the ‘preferable’ variant in the present instance. With respect to the minus in the Greek by contrast to the Hebrew ‫בעיני העם‬, reference should be made to the fact that G has already made explicit reference to the Egyptians in this verse and even placed them in the first position: ἐναντιον των αἰγυπτιων. The latter formula is parallel with the same expression a little earlier in the same verse in both G (ἐναντιον των αἰγυπτιων) and MSamP2Qa (‫)בעיני מצרים‬. It is probable 312

This ‘major expansion’ is discussed in more detail infra p. 205. Cf. also Exod. 11:10: the final words of the ‘Plague Narrative’ continue to describe Pharaoh’s hardening. 314 Cf. the discussion of variant 19 on pp. 171–172. 315 Cf., by way of example, Exod. 7:20 (MGSamP), 28 (MGSamP); 8:5 (MGSamP), 7 (MGSamP), 17 (MGSamP4Qc), 25 (MGSamP), 27 (MGSamP); 9:14 (MGSamP). 316 J. Wevers likewise suggests that the Vorlage of G is responsible for this plus in the Greek text. Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 163: ‘only explicable on the basis of a different parent text’. 313

194

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

that G’s Vorlage harmonised with this expression, perhaps even consciously. As a consequence, given the fact that the Egyptian people had already been mentioned, the Vorlage of G saw no reason to mention them again. However, given the fact that the Hebrew ‫ בארץ מצרים‬has geographical significance (in contrast to the abovementioned ‫)בעיני מצרים‬, the explicit formulation of ‫ בעיני העם‬in the Hebrew text, an element that occurs with relative frequency in the context of the ‘Plagues Narrative’, is not superfluous. Bearing this in mind, one can argue that the Vorlage of G manipulated its text and that the existing Hebrew textual witnesses probably preserved the ‘preferable’ variant in this instance. 47. MGSamP ≠ 2Qa

Exod. 11:4

‫ = אל פרעה‬2Qa+

A review of the references in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ in which the addressee in direct speech is explicitly mentioned, reveals a number of different possibilities. When YHWH addresses Moses we read ‫;אל משׁה‬317 when Pharaoh addresses Moses and Aaron we occasionally find no further specification,318 but elsewhere we read ‫; אלהם‬319 when Pharaoh’s servants address Pharaoh we read ‫;אליו‬320 when the magicians address Pharaoh we read ‫;אל פרעה‬321 when Moses speaks to Aaron we read ‫אל אהרן‬.322 In the variant under analysis—namely when Moses addresses Pharaoh—three possibilities can be distinguished. In a few cases everything can be understood on the basis of the context and no further specification is necessary.323 In other instances we find ‫אליו‬,324 and in a single instance we find ‫לפרעה‬.325 In Exod. 11:4, no further specification is evident in M, G and SamP; 2Qa reads ‫אל פרעה‬. Based on the information outlined above, one observes that the said expression occurs nowhere else in exactly the same form in the ‘Plagues Narrative’. Parallels such as ‫ אליו‬and especially ‫לפרעה‬, however, are in frequent evidence. Nevertheless, the reading

317

Cf. Exod. 7:14 (MGSamP4Q m), 19 (MGSamP), 26 (MGSamP4Q c); 8:1 (MGSamP4Qc4Qj), 12 (MGSamP), 16 (MGSamP4Qm); 9:1 (MGSamP), 8 (MGSamP4Qm), 13 (MGSamP), 22 (MGSamP); 10:1 (MGSamP), 12 (MGSamP4Qm), 21 (MGSamP4Qm); 11:1 (MGSamP), 9 (MGSamP4Ql). 318 Cf. Exod. 8:4 (MGSamP), 24 (MGSamP). 319 Cf. Exod. 9:27 (MGSamP) and Exod. 10:8 (MGSamP). 320 Cf. Exod. 10:7 (MGSamP4Qm). 321 Cf. Exod. 8:15 (MGSamP4Qm). 322 Cf. Exod. 10:3 (MGSamP4Ql4Qc). 323 Cf. Exod. 8:22 (MGSamP), 25 (MGSamP); 10:9 (MGSamP4Qm4Qc). 324 Cf. Exod. 7:16 (MGSamP4Q a), 26 (MGSamP); 8:16 (MGSamP4Q m); 9:1 (MGSamP), 13 (MGSamP). 325 Cf. Exod. 8:5 (MGSamP).

text-critical evaluation of ‘text-relevant’ variants

195

found in MGSamP—i.e. without further specification—is also found. For this reason we are obliged to conclude that both possibilities are legitimate readings, such that the variants in question can be designated as ‘synonymous’. 48. MSamP4Qm4Qc ≠ G MSamP4Ql ≠ G

Exod. 11:9 Exod. 11:10

τα σημεια και = G+ τα σημεια και = G+

In both Exod. 11:9 and 11:10, reference is made in all the extant textual witnesses to ‫מופתי‬, and τερατα respectively. The plus found in G, τα σημεια, is found in both Exod. 11:9 and 11:10 and is actually the equivalent of the Hebrew ‫אות‬. It is striking that references to YHWH’s miraculous deeds elsewhere in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ employ precisely these terms (cf. Exod. 8:19MGSamP; 10:1MGSamP, 2MGSamP: ‫—אתת‬σημεια). Nevertheless, the terminology ‫—מופתים‬τερατα employed in the verses under analysis is original since all the extant texts bear witness to it. By employing the term σημεια in Exod. 11:9 and 10, it would appear that the Vorlage of G wanted to maintain the use of the terminology employed in the preceding context of the ‘Plagues Narrative’, whereby the double formula σημεια και τερατα was created in both instances. Moreover, reference should also be made to the fact that Exod. 11:9–10 functions as a conclusion to the ‘Plagues Narrative’. If one compares these verses to Exod. 7:3,326 in which we find a sort of prologue to the plagues, one observes that precisely the same double formula is also employed in the Hebrew text (M: ‫ )והרביתי את אתתי ואת מופתי בארץ מצרים‬in the same context. As a consequence, it is possible that the Vorlage of G harmonised its conclusion to the ‘Plagues Narrative’ with the prologue thereto.327 If this is correct, the readings found in the Hebrew textual witnesses are more original than G. As a consequence M, SamP, 4Qm and 4Qc should be designated the ‘preferable’ variant with respect to Exod. 11:9 and M, SamP and 4Ql with respect to Exod. 11:10. 49. MSamP4Ql ≠ G

Exod. 11:10 ‫—מארצו‬ἐκ γης αἰγυπτου

Where M, SamP and 4Ql allude to the land of Pharaoh (‘his land’), G speaks explicitly of ‘the land of Egypt’ in Exod. 11:10. As we noted above,

326

Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 93, 166. Cf. also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 143, who likewise point to harmonisation in G. 327

196

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

the formula ‫ ארץ מצרים‬and γη αἰγυπτου is employed most frequently for references to Egypt in the ‘Plagues Narrative’.328 In 11:10, therefore, G is in line with this standard usage. The Hebrew textual witnesses, by contrast, have a possessive suffix in the third person singular instead of the genitive (or the nomen rectum in the status constructus). The suffix in question refers to Pharaoh who is mentioned in the immediately preceding context.329 The variant in the Hebrew textual witnesses to Exod. 11:10 may be a question of stylistic variation. Indeed, the standard formula ‫—ארץ מצרים‬ γη αἰγυπτου is already employed at the end of verse 9. It is probable therefore that Hebrew textual witnesses wanted to avoid repetition. Furthermore, the reference to Pharaoh serves to underline his ‘obduracy’. On the other hand, it is also possible that the Hebrew texts employed the possessive suffix with reference to Pharaoh because the said texts no longer make reference to Egypt in Exod. 11:10 but only to Pharaoh. G, by contrast, which found a reference to Egypt in its harmonising plus ἐν γῃ αἰγυπτου in Exod. 11:10 (based on 11:9),330 continued along the same lines and repeats γη αἰγυπτου. If the first explanation is correct and we are dealing with a stylistic variation in the Hebrew texts, then the readings under analysis are ‘synonymous’ in Exod. 11:10. If the second explanation is correct, however, this would imply that the reading found in G at the end of Exod. 11:10 is based on the secondary, harmonising reading earlier in the verse, whereby one would likewise be obliged to designate the variant under analysis as secondary. In such an instance, the Hebrew textual witnesses would be considered to have preserved the ‘preferable’ variant. Given the lack of certainty in this regard and the fact that neither explanation is conclusive, we prefer to err on the side of caution and designate both readings as ‘synonymous’.

328

Cf. the discussion of variant 2 on pp. 153–154. Cf. precisely the same formulation in Exod. 7:2: ‫מארצו‬. The Greek also offers an equivalent at this juncture: ἐκ της γης αὐτου. 4Qm has a minus in this location, leading Sanderson to consider it the ‘preferable’ variant over M, G and SamP. Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 56: ‘‫ מארצו‬is not necessary to the context, while being a typical expansion.’ See also Ibidem, 180. 330 Cf. the discussion of variant 2 on pp. 153–154. 329

major expansions in the hebrew textual witnesses

197

Discussion of the larger plusses or major expansions in the Hebrew textual witnesses to the ‘Plagues Narrative’ of Exod. 7:14–11:10 331 In SamP, 4Qm and 4Qj we encounter a number of passages in Exod. 7:14–11:10 that one can characterise as ‘larger plusses’ in relation to the other textual witnesses. SamP contains nine such major expansions, six of which are to be found in 4Qm. According to J. Sanderson, 4Qm originally contained the remaining three also.332 4Qj, by contrast, has only preserved two major expansions.333 The major expansions are to be found in Exod. 7:18b (SamP4Qm), Exod. 7:29b (SamP4Qm4Qj), Exod. 8:1b (SamP4Qj), Exod. 8:19b (SamP4Qm), Exod. 9:5b (SamP4Qm), Exod. 9:19b (SamP4Qm), Exod. 10:2b (SamP4Qm) and in Exod. 11:3b (SamP), a twofold expansion. Three types of larger plusses can be distinguished. The first is to be recognised in Exod. 7:18b, 29b; 8:1b; 8:19b; 9:5b and 9:19b.334 All of the textual witnesses recount a command given by YHWH to Moses. On the basis thereof, the textual versions without major expansion leave the reader to presuppose that Moses in fact executes the given command. The narrative continues with an account of the consequences of the said execution. SamP, 4Qm and 4Qj, however, make specific reference to the latter by repeating the words from YHWH’s command and making the necessary changes to the substantives, pronouns and verb forms. One can conclude in this regard, therefore, that this first type of larger plus supplements a command with a description of the execution thereof. A second type of major expansion can be observed in the plus found in Exod. 10:2b and the first expansion in Exod. 11:3b.335 In these larger plusses, the expansion precedes the execution of the command, the latter equally being recounted in the other textual witnesses. The larger plusses

331 These ‘major expansions’ are also discussed in B. Lemmelijn, ‘The So-Called “Major Expansions” in SamP, 4QpaleoExodm and 4QExodj in Exod 7:14–11:10: On the Edge between Textual Criticism and Literary Criticism’, in: B. Taylor (ed.), X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Oslo 1998 (SBL SCS, 51), Atlanta 2001, 429–439. 332 Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 96–97, 196–207. 333 Sanderson does not mention these expansions in 4Qj, but it will be evident from what follows that they are of the same type as those in SamP and 4Qm. On the presence of these larger plusses in 4Qj, cf. also marginal note 1 supra pp. 30–31 in the presentation of the problematic text fragments from the Qumran scrolls. 334 Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 197–198. 335 Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 198.

198

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

in question repeat words from the execution in the same manner, but in this instance with a view to demonstrating that what is being executed was de facto commanded by YHWH. As a consequence, larger plusses of this type can be characterised as the rendering of a command in the preceding context of its narrated execution. The third type of major expansion is to be found in the second expansion of Exod. 11:3b.336 In this passage, YHWH’s command from Exod. 4:22–23 is recapitulated. In the latter text segment, YHWH commands Moses to announce to Pharaoh that all the firstborn of Egypt will die if he refuses to let Israel—described as YHWH’s firstborn—go. In the second expansion of Exod. 11:3b, Moses executes the said command of YHWH in precisely the same terminology. What is announced in Exod. 11:4–7 and executed in Exod. 12 is thus explicitly related, precisely via the expansion of Exod. 11:3b, to Exod. 4:22–23. While we are dealing, once again, with the harmonisation of command and execution, the major expansion in question distinguishes itself by harking back to a considerably earlier text rather than repeating words from its immediate context as is the case with the other types of major expansion. Sanderson poses three questions with respect to the first two types of major expansions, namely the harmonising expansion of a command by the execution thereof and vice versa based on the immediate context. In the first instance, she examines the extent to which the scribe changed the text and how he went about his work.337 Sanderson observes in this regard that the text fragments, that all the textual witnesses share, are virtually identical. In the larger plusses, therefore, it is clear that the scribe intentionally expanded his Vorlage (the text he had at his disposal). His methodology can be described as the precise word-for-word repetition of terms from the command or the execution respectively. At the same time, the same scribe allowed himself the freedom to omit by providing summarising statements and to emend by introducing other information (such as the reference to Aaron and the pronouns and verb forms adapted thereto). Sanderson suggests in addition that the expansions in question were probably introduced by one and the same scribe over a short period of time, given the uniformity of the information and the relatively limited context of the ‘Plagues Narrative’. At the same time, however, she also suggests the possibility that the scribe created the said emendations in response to the wishes of his community.

336 337

Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 198, 206–207. Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 198–203.

major expansions in the hebrew textual witnesses

199

Secondly, Sanderson reflects on the scribe’s motivation for introducing the said emendations.338 It is frequently argued that the driving force behind the expansions should be located in a theoretical a priori refusal to render a command of YHWH without explicitly rendering the execution thereof. Sanderson is of the opinion, however, that the real reason has more to do with the dramatic and/or liturgical dimension. According to her, the expansions are not per se intended to emphasise Moses’ obedience to YHWH, given the fact that details from the command are frequently summarised in the execution. Rather, she maintains, the larger pluses under analysis are intended to underline the magnitude of YHWH’s threat with respect to Pharaoh. It thus becomes clear that YHWH’s power is greater than that of Pharaoh and that he is a god who saves his people. This message is of crucial importance in the liturgy. Bearing this in mind, it is probable that the scribe expanded the ‘Plagues Narrative’ in response to the dramatic and liturgical demands of his community in order to facilitate the functioning of the narrative. The third question to which Sanderson endeavours to formulate a response surrounds the matter of the scribes’ decision only to expand the account of certain plagues and not all of them.339 Indeed, one observes that the preparatory sign in Exod. 7:8–14, the plague of gnats in 8:12–15, the plague of boils in 9:8–12 and the plague of darkness in 10:21–27 have not been expanded.340 What the pericopes have in common is the fact that none of them contain an address by YHWH to Pharaoh. The plagues in question are brought about by Aaron or Moses. If one studies the text closely, moreover, one observes that a similar phenomenon occurs elsewhere. Within the account of the individual plagues, there is often more than one command and as a consequence more than one opportunity for the scribe to introduce a larger plus. In spite of this, one encounters no expansions in Exod. 7:19; 9:22 and 10:12, in which YHWH commands Moses to do something himself or to commission Aaron to do something. These verses likewise make no reference to direct address by YHWH to Pharaoh. According to Sanderson, therefore, the scribe paid no attention to them. Moreover, if one can argue on the basis of the fact that all the preserved texts do the same, it would then appear

338

Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 203–204. Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 204–205. 340 From a redaction-historical point of view, it is remarkable that the said pericopes are all either P or redactional (R) or, on the basis of my own research and in a more adequate formulation: P as redaction. See, in this respect, B. Lemmelijn, ‘The So-Called “Priestly” Layer in Exod. 7:14–11:10: “Source” and/or/nor “Redaction”?’, RB 109 (2002), 481–511. 339

200

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

that the Vorlage already made reference to the execution in the respective following verses—Exod. 7:20; 9:23 and 10:13. Sanderson summarises her observations with respect to the selection of expanded passages as follows. It is clear on the one hand that every command on the part of YHWH to speak to Pharaoh or the passages containing Moses’ address to Pharaoh have been subject to expansion. On the other hand, passages in which Moses is commanded to commission Aaron to do something or to do something himself are not expanded (probably in part because they already related the execution of the command). There is only one exception in this regard, namely the larger plus in Exod. 8:1b. In this case, the command to speak to Aaron is repeated in an expansion. Based on these observations, Sanderson concludes that the scribes concentrated their interest on the words of YHWH to Pharaoh. The repetition of the said words underlined once again the dramatic effect of the struggle in which they were engaged. With respect to the first two types of expansion one can conclude as a consequence that they came into existence as a result of the precise copying of existing verses from the immediate context in the Vorlage, together with the interpolation of a number of minor emendations or adaptations. The goal of the expansions in question was to repeat the words of YHWH addressed to Pharaoh in order to increase the dramatic effect of the narrative. It seems plausible, moreover, that the said expansions were the work of one and the same scribe who, according to Sanderson, should be situated in the period in which the texts behind G and M had already separated themselves independently from the main group, while the texts behind 4Qm and SamP continued to develop together.341 With respect to the third type of expansion—namely the second expansion in Exod. 11:3b—Sanderson is of the opinion that we are dealing here once again with a harmonisation of command and execution, on the understanding that the passages being related to one another are further apart in terms of context.342 The larger plus in 11:3b copies from a passage seven chapters earlier in the text, namely 4:22–23. It thus becomes apparent that the scribes responsible for the expansions had a broader horizon of interest. They did not only desire to harmonise the ‘Plagues Narrative’ internally, they were also concerned about the literary unity and structure of the Exodus narrative as a whole. The scribes in question

341 342

Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 206. Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 206–207.

major expansions in the hebrew textual witnesses

201

were aware of parallels in the narrative and were successful in accentuating them, even when they were further apart in the text. Bearing in mind the fact that SamP and 4Qm share the expansion in question, Sanderson maintains that it must have come into existence in the same period as the larger plusses of the first and second types. In the remainder of the present paragraph we will provide a brief description and evaluation of each of the major expansions in the ‘Plagues Narrative’. Exod. 7:18b: SamP4Qm If one compares the larger plus found in Exod. 7:18b in SamP and 4Qm in closer detail with its immediate context, it becomes evident that the words ‫ וילך‬up to and including ‫ אל פרעה‬in SamP are a recapitulation of the first words of Exod. 7:15. They would appear to be a summary of the latter. The place and hour of the encounter are not repeated, nor is anything further said of the staff. When one compares the beginning of the said expansion with 7:15, moreover, it becomes clear that Aaron has been added. The continuation of the text in question, which is also preserved in 4Qm, leads us to believe that Aaron was probably not present in 4Qm, given the fact that it employs a singular verb form ‫ ויאמר‬in contrast to the plural ‫ ויאמרו‬of SamP.343 The words in question, namely (‫ ויאמר)ו‬up to and including the end of the expansion, represent a literal repetition in SamP and in 4Qm of 7:16–18. The different preposition at the end of the expansion—‫ ב‬in SamP and ‫ בתוך‬in 4Qm—is in agreement with the respective prepositions in 7:18. One observes, therefore, that the scribe indeed offers an almost wordfor-word repetition of the command from Exod. 7:15–18 in order to make explicit reference to the execution thereof in the same terms. It should be noted, nevertheless, that Exod. 7:15 is summarised in Exod. 7:18b and that Aaron is added in SamP together with the adapted verb forms (cf. ‫ ויאמרו‬as well as the plural suffix in ‫)שׁלחנו‬. Exod. 7:29b: SamP4Qm4Q j The major expansion found in Exod. 7:29b appears in SamP to be a literal recapitulation of the preceding verses 7:26–29. Once again, however, Aaron is added and the verb forms are adapted where necessary as

343

Cf. P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 75.

202

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

is apparent from the plural verb form ‫וידברו‬. The words that have been preserved from the expansion in question in 4Qm and 4Qj are in agreement with SamP and thus likewise appear to be a repetition from Exod. 7:28 and 29. Once again, the expansion under analysis clearly wishes to render the execution of the command of YHWH in Exod. 7:26–29. The words YHWH commands to be addressed to Pharaoh are de facto addressed to Pharaoh in the expansion. Exod. 8:1b: SamP4Q j 344 The larger plus found in Exod. 8:1b bears evidence of the same procedure. In 8:1, YHWH commands Moses to commission Aaron. The execution of Aaron’s commission follows immediately in Exod. 8:2, while the expansion of v. 1b also makes explicit reference to Moses’ execution of the command to speak to Aaron.345 The words of 8:1b in SamP and 4Qj employ the same formulation as the command in 8:1 to recount the execution thereof. One observes identical phraseology, with the exception that 8:1 is summarised to a certain extent. It does not repeat the location over which Aaron is to stretch out his staff. As a consequence, one can conclude that the expansion in Exod. 8:1b also concerns an explicit formulation of the execution of a command in the immediately preceding context. Exod. 8:19b: SamP4Qm The beginning of the major expansion Exod. 8:19b in SamP represents a summarising repetition of the commission given by YHWH to Moses in 8:16. The clause ‫ ויבא משׁה ואהרן אל פרעה‬is not, however, a literal repetition. The location and time of the encounter are once again left aside and the verb ‫ בוא‬is employed instead of ‫ השׁכם‬in 8:16. Moreover, the interpolation of Aaron with the adaptation of the verb forms is also evident in the remainder of the expansion (cf. ‫)ויאמרו‬. The text under analysis has not been preserved in 4Qm. The continuation of the expansion in SamP and in the preserved fragments of 4Qm, namely from ‫ ויאמרו‬to the end, represents a literal repetition of 8:16–19. 344

4Qm has not been preserved at this juncture although it would have contained the same expansion. Cf. P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 77. 345 As noted above, Exod. 8:1b is thus the only larger plus to offer a repetition outside the context of an address to Pharaoh.

major expansions in the hebrew textual witnesses

203

Once again it would appear that the scribe related the command of Exod. 8:16–19 in the form of its execution in 8:19b. The words Moses (and Aaron) were commanded to address to Pharaoh in 8:16–19 are in fact addressed to him in 19b. Exod. 9:5b: SamP4Qm Immediately after YHWH’s command to Moses to go to Pharaoh and bring him his message in Exod. 9:1–5, M, G and 4Qc continue with the account of the arrival of the given plague and its consequences (9:6–7). SamP and 4Qm, by contrast, would appear to consider it necessary to repeat explicitly the execution of YHWH’s command by Moses (and Aaron) in the expansion of 9:5b. The beginning of the expansion in 9:5b is thus a recapitulation of the words found at the beginning of 9:1. Once again we observe the interpolation of Aaron in SamP with the adapted plural verb forms ‫ויאמרו‬. Both in SamP and the preserved text fragments of 4Qm, the remainder is a literal repetition of 9:1–5, with the exception that the words ‫וישׂם‬ ‫ יהוה מועד לאמר‬have been omitted so that the text of 9:5b immediately follows with ‫ מחר‬after ‫דבר‬. As a consequence of the explicit recapitulation of the execution of YHWH’s command to speak to Pharaoh, the larger plus under analysis once again offers an almost literal repetition of the words addressed by YHWH to Pharaoh. Exod. 9:19b: SamP4Qm346 Parallel with the situation in Exod. 8:19b, the beginning of the larger plus 9:19b in SamP represents a summarising recapitulation of the commission given by YHWH to Moses in 9:13. As with 8:19b, however, the formulation ‫ ויבא משׁה ואהרן אל פרעה‬is not a literal repetition. The time and circumstances of the encounter are omitted and the verb ‫ בוא‬is employed (cf. also 8:19b) instead of the verb ‫ השׁכם‬as found in 9:13 and 8:16. Once again, Aaron has been added at this juncture and the verb forms have been adapted in the remainder of the expansion (cf. ‫)ויאמרו‬. Both in SamP and in the extant textual fragments of 4Qm, the

346 In addition to the words mentioned in the synopsis (cf. appendix), a few traces of ink have been preserved in 4Qm, which according to DJD probably stem from ‫בעבור‬ ‫הראתיך‬. See P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 80.

204

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

text that follows in Exod. 9:19b, namely from ‫ ויאמרו‬to the end, is a literal repetition taken from 9:13–19. As a consequence, one can conclude that the scribe repeated the command of 9:13–19 in the form of its execution in 9:19b, using almost identical terminology. In other words, the expansion under analysis is thus likewise an explicitation of the execution of the command YHWH addressed to Moses in 9:13–19. Once again we encounter repetition of the words addressed by YHWH to Pharaoh. By contrast, M, G and 4Qc relate the impact of the warning Moses was commanded to give to Pharaoh immediately after 9:19. Exod. 10:2b: SamP4Qm As already noted at the beginning of the present paragraph,347 the scribe has worked in reverse with respect to the expansion of Exod. 10:2b found in SamP and 4Qm when compared with the major expansions discussed up to this point. The larger plus in 10:2b, which renders a command, precedes the execution thereof that is also related in 10:3–6 of M, G, SamP, 4Qm, 4Ql and 4Qc. The expansion found in 10:2b repeats the words of the execution as the already mentioned expansions did with the words of the command. In the present instance, the larger plus is intended to show that YHWH had indeed commanded what was being executed. Against this background, one observes that the beginning of 10:3 represents the execution of the command given at the beginning of 10:1. Once again, there is evidence that the common text (MGSamP4Qc) added Aaron and an adapted plural verb form ‫ ויאמרו‬and εἰπαν. The remainder of 10:3 and the verses that follow, namely 10:4 up to and including ‫היום‬ ‫ הזה‬in 10:6, however, appears to be the execution of a command formulated in the larger plus of 10:2b. Indeed, Exod. 10:2b and Exod. 10:3–6 appear to agree with one another word-for-word. Nevertheless, minor differences are observable upon closer inspection. First, one notes that where 10:3 makes reference to Aaron and sets the verb form in the plural, the expansion in 10:2b offers a singular form ‫ואמרת‬. Second, where 10:2b makes an explicit reference ‫אל פרעה‬, the execution in 10:3 speaks of ‫אליו‬. The expansion found in 10:2b thus intends to demonstrate that the words addressed to Pharaoh in 10:3–6 were genuinely commanded by YHWH. Exod. 10:2b formulates a command in exactly the same words as the execution of 10:3–6.

347

Cf. supra p. 197.

major expansions in the hebrew textual witnesses

205

Exod. 11:3b1: SamP 348 One encounters a similar procedure in the first expansion of Exod. 11:3b. Once again, we are dealing here with an expansion that formulates a command prior to the execution thereof related in the other textual witnesses. The larger plus repeats the words of the execution in precisely the same fashion in order to demonstrate that YHWH de facto commanded what was being executed. Against this background, one notes that the expansion found in 11:3b1, from the beginning ‫ וכחצית הלילה‬up to and including ‫ובין ישׂראל‬, agrees word-for-word with the text 11:4–7 (MGSamP4Ql2Qa). In this way, the expansion demonstrates that the words addressed by Moses to Pharaoh in 11:4–7 are from YHWH. Exod. 11:3b1 thus formulates a command prior to the execution thereof in 11:4–7. On the other hand, the continuation of Exod. 11:3b1, from ‫וגם האישׁ‬ up to and including ‫ובעיני העם‬, is identical to the end of 11:3 (MG2Qa), to which SamP does not bear witness at that location. In other words, the expansion would appear to hark back at this juncture to that which precedes it, although the textual basis of the expansion found in SamP (and 4Qm) remains unclear. Given the fact that M, G and 2Qa have preserved identical phraseology in 11:3, however, it is clear that the words found in 11:3b1 are not an ‘invention’ of SamP4Qm and it is probable that this segment of the expansion came about as a result of harmonisation. Exod. 11:3b2: SamP The concluding portion of the expansion found in Exod. 11:3b, which we refer to here as Exod. 11:3b2, is very special. The portion of 11:3b in question repeats the command of YHWH from Exod. 4:22–23 with exactly the same words.349 In Exod. 4:22–23, YHWH commands Moses to announce to Pharaoh that all the firstborn of Egypt will die if he refuses to let Israel, YHWH’s firstborn, go. In the expansion of 11:3b2, Moses addresses Pharaoh with the words commanded him in 4:22–23.

348 As has been said in the introduction to the present paragraph (see supra p. 197), 4Qm originally bore witness to both expansions in Exod. 11:3b. However, they have not been preserved in the text fragments we have at our disposal. 349 Cf. also E.L. Greenstein, ‘The Firstborn Plague and the Reading Process’, in: D.P. Wright, D.N. Freedman, A. Hurvitz (eds), Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature. FS J. Milgrom, Winona Lake 1995, 555–568, p. 561.

206

chapter three: text-critical evaluation

One observes in this regard that both passages employ precisely the same words, with the exception that the command ‫ ואמרת‬becomes narrative ‫ ויאמר‬in the execution and the subject ‫ משׁה‬is made explicit where this was not necessary in the context of YHWH’s address to Moses in 4:22–23. In addition, where YHWH speaks in the first person singular (‫ )אנכי‬before the verb ‫ הרג‬in 4:22–23, Moses, who repeats these words to Pharaoh, speaks of ‫ יהוה‬in the third person. Nevertheless, suffixes in the first person singular are maintained a little earlier in the text. Against this background, it is also clear that the structure of the beginning of Exod. 11 in SamP is different from the one in the other textual witnesses. In the various textual witnesses, Exod. 11:1 begins with a direct address of YHWH which continues to the end of 11:2. In 11:3, we then find a narrative passage concerning the people and Moses. In 11:4–7, Moses then announces YHWH’s words concerning the death of the firstborn of Egypt to Pharaoh, without making any reference to a command in the same words. In SamP, by contrast, YHWH’s direct address does not end after 11:2. By analogy with 3:21, Exod. 11:3 continues in the first person singular, such that YHWH’s direct address is continued. The expansion found in 11:3b1 continues the said address in which YHWH commands Moses to announce the death of the firstborn to Pharaoh in precisely the same words as those found in 11:4–7. After YHWH’s direct address in which the command is formulated, the remainder of 11:3b1 continues with the narrative passage concerning Moses, which the other textual witnesses relate at the end of 11:3. Exod. 11:3b2 then begins with the account of the execution of YHWH’s commands. The second expansion found in 11:3b relates the execution of the command from Exod. 4:22–23 in precisely the same terms. Exod. 11:4–7 then recapitulates the command given in 11:3b1. SamP thus constructs a parallelly corresponding pattern of command and execution via the two expansions found in 11:3b. Where the other textual witnesses begin the execution (of a command not explicitly mentioned) in 11:4, SamP begins the execution of YHWH’s commands in 11:3b2 and shapes the remainder of the execution in agreement with the harmonised expansion of the command in 11:3b1. One thus observes a harmonisation of command and execution in Exod. 11:3b2, albeit based on words that are not found in the immediate context but hark back rather to a much earlier pericope. Conclusion Based on Sanderson’s study, we already stated at the beginning of this paragraph, dealing with the larger plusses in the ‘Plagues Narrative’,

major expansions in the hebrew textual witnesses

207

that the expansions in question should be characterised as additions or interpolations. The individual discussion of each expansion has confirmed this hypothesis and demonstrated that all of them came about as a result of harmonisation and more or less literal repetition of passages from the context. Eight of the nine larger plusses were borrowed from the immediate context, while Exod. 11:3b2 based itself exceptionally on the wider context, namely 4:22–23. On the basis of the discussion thus far, one can conclude that the non-expanded reading deserves to be designated the ‘preferable’ variant in each instance. This means in concreto that MG4Qc4Qa in Exod. 7:18, MG4Qc in 7:29, MG4Qc in 8:1, MG4Ql4Qc in 8:19, MG4Qc in 9:5, MG4Qc in 9:19, MG4Qc in 10:2 and MG2Qa in 11:3 have preserved the ‘preferable’ variant.

GENERAL CONCLUSION The goal of the present volume is to offer a text-critical study of the ‘Plagues Narrative’ of Exod. 7:14–11:10. Our point of departure is based on the observation that little if any attention is paid to textual criticism in conventional exegesis of the said narrative. Where scholars draw attention to text-critical issues, nevertheless, their conclusions are generally premature, made to ‘fit’ or manipulated within the framework of their literary or redaction-critical hypotheses. The fundamental need to provide a text-critical foundation for literary analysis tends, on the whole, to be ignored. In other words, scholars simply focus their attention on the Masoretic text of Exod. 7–11 without first engaging in an exploration of other text material. The present author is of the opinion that such a procedure is methodologically irresponsible. As a matter of fact, prior to engaging in the literary analysis of the text, the text material as such or the so-called ‘physical’ product has to be carefully established.1 The material aspect of the text constitutes the actual foundation upon which further research can establish its point of departure. Literary criticism must be based on a ‘critical’ text, a text that can only be achieved on the basis of reliable text-critical analysis. The text-critical working model developed in this volume can be summarised as follows (cf. chapter 1). The collation of the extant textual material and the careful registration of textual differences must serve as the point of departure for any well-founded textual study. In this initial phase of text-critical research, attention must not only be paid to the larger plusses and/or minuses in the textual witnesses but also to the minor and perhaps even minute details. It has been useful to this end to provide a synoptic presentation of the textual versions under analysis whereby every textual difference can be observed no matter how small it might be. In

1 The expression ‘physical product’ is borrowed from M. Vervenne. See, for example, Idem, ‘Current tendencies’, p. 33.

210

general conclusion

this regard, we have defined the term ‘variant’ as referring to every different reading evident between the textual witnesses, without giving priority per se to MT as the ‘standard’ text with which the remaining witnesses should be compared. In other words, we considered a ‘variant reading’ to be a ‘variant’ with respect to any other extant textual witness and not only when compared with MT. Once the variants have been registered and described, one must then subject the different readings to a process of evaluation. The evaluation of the variants found in the present study is rooted in an awareness of the fact that consensus has not been achieved with respect to the eventual existence of an Urtext and that the latter, even if it once existed, is not accessible to us. As a consequence, we prefer to avoid reference to one or several Urtext(s). This implies that the goal of our text-critical evaluation is not to establish the original reading but rather, and against the background of thorough text-critical analysis, to determine whether one variant can be said to be more original than another, without daring to suggest which text or stage in textual evolution or transmission has been reached thereby. Understood as such, the text-critical evaluation found in the present volume endeavours to expose and explain the relationship between the various textual forms available to us within a relative framework, without proposing or trying to reconstruct—not even with respect to individual variants—a so-called Urtext. The text-critical evaluation is based on conventional internal criteria, whereby the accent is placed in the first instance on the appropriateness of a reading in its literary context—in both the immediate and wider sense—and on the specific features and demands of each individual variant. The result of the said evaluation makes a distinction between ‘preferable’ variants and ‘synonymous’ variants. It should also be noted at this juncture that prior to any evaluation of the variants found in the versiones—in the present instance the Septuagint—a thorough analysis of LXX translation technique is necessary. Indeed, it is evident that not every variant registered in the LXX when compared with the other textual witnesses came about on the basis of a variant in the consonantal text of the Vorlage. Textual differences in the Greek text may also be the result of the conscious and/or unconscious activities of the translator. For this reason, an evaluation of the role of the translator is essential where variants occur.

general conclusion

211

Our text-critical study of the ‘Plagues Narrative’ in Exod. 7:14–11:10 produced the following results.2 We observed at the level of the collection and interpretative description of the variants (cf. chapter II) that MT was not the only text to have preserved the narrative found in Exod. 7–11. This implied ipso facto that MT should not be considered as the text without a prior critical study of the other textual material at our disposal. MT is merely a text. In addition to MT, there is a completely preserved text of Exod. 7:14–11:10 in LXX and in SamP, and fragments of the narrative in question in 4QpaleoExodm, 4QpaleoGen-Exodl, 2QExoda, 4QExodc, 4QGen-Exoda and 4QExodj. A significant number of textual differences were registered when these textual witnesses were compared with one another. Many variants could be explained on the basis of grammatical and linguistic characteristics peculiar to the Hebrew and Greek languages. We provided a detailed description and explanation of this category of grammatical or stylistic variants. In addition, however, a number of other textual differences became apparent which we referred to as ‘text-relevant’ variants. In this regard, we can speak of variants that expand the text with a single word or a few words and variants that abbreviate the text in the same fashion. Other text-relevant differences reveal variant presentations of content. Especially the so-called ‘major expansions’ in SamP, 4Qm and 4Qj are of particular interest in this regard. Larger plusses of this sort are to be found in Exod. 7:18b (SamP4Qm), 7:29b (SamP4Qm4Qj), 8:1b (SamP4Qj), 8:19b (SamP4Qm), 9:5b (SamP4Qm), 9:19b (SamP4Qm), 10:2b (SamP4Qm) and a twofold expansion in 11:3b (SamP). Within the framework of the second phase of our text-critical analysis— the text-critical evaluation of text-relevant variants in Exod. 7:14–11:10 (chapter III)—a study of the translation character of the Greek text of Exodus and of Exod. 7:14–11:10 in particular was made, prior to the assessment of the registered Greek textual differences and functioning as the basis for an adequate interpretation and correct evaluation thereof. This study revealed that the Greek translator of Exodus should be characterised as a competent translator with a concern for the provision of idiomatic Greek. He can thus be described as free in his relationship to

2 A preliminary survey of these results has been published earlier in B. Lemmelijn, ‘As Many Texts as Plagues’, 111–125.

212

general conclusion

his Vorlage, although he remains precise in providing a faithful rendering of his original. With the aforesaid characterisation of the translation technique of LXX Exodus in the background, the present study then proceeded to the concrete text-critical evaluation of the text-relevant variants in Exod. 7:14–11:10. This evaluation gave rise to a number of findings. In the first instance, it became clear that the majority of variants in the textual witnesses to the ‘Plagues Narrative’ could be explained on the basis of contextual arguments. The different readings in Exod. 7:14–11:10 mostly came into existence via recapitulation of or harmonisation with the (immediate or wider) context in which they were encountered. A review of the concrete results of the evaluation reveals that a ‘preferable’ variant is suggested in 54 instances, while the different readings in the remaining instances are designated as ‘synonymous’ variants. It is striking that M—together with or without other textual witnesses—was found to have preserved the ‘preferable’ variant in 47 of these 54 instances. The remaining 7 ‘preferable’ variants have been preserved by G—likewise together with or without other textual witnesses but in contrast to M. We have provided a schematic representation of the said variants below. The first column designates the location (page) in the previous chapter in which the variant in question was discussed, the second provides the biblical reference, the third contains the sigla/siglum associated with the textual witness(es) considered to contain the ‘preferable’ variant and the fourth provides a list of textual versions considered to have preserved a secondary variant. Page 201 151–152 151–152 201–202 151–152 202 154–156 157–158 158–159 159–160 163 163–164

Reference Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod.

7:18b 7:19 7:20 7:29b 8:1 8:1b 8:2 8:5 8:5 8:6 8:7 8:12

‘Preferable’ variant c

a

MG4Q 4Q MSamP MSamP MG4Qc MSamP4Qj MG4Qc MSamP M MG MSamP4Qc MSamP M

Secondary variant SamP4Qm G G SamP4Qm4Qj G SamP4Qj G GSamP SamP G G GSamP4Qc

general conclusion

213

Table (cont.) Page

Reference

‘Preferable’ variant

Secondary variant

164–165 165–166 166–167 168 202–203 170–171 171 203 171 166–167 171–172 164–165 172–173 203–204 174 174 176 177 177–178 178 166–167 204 180 180–181 181–182 184 185 185–186 181–182 187–189 151–152 190 170–171 191–192 192 192–193 193–194 205 205–206 182–183 195 195

Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod. Exod.

MSamP G MGSamP MSamP MG4Ql4Qc MSamP MSamP MG4Qc M MSamP MSamP4Qm MSamP4Qm G MG4Qc G G G MSamP MSamP MSamP4Ql2Qa4Qc MSamP MG4Qc MSamP MG MSamP M4Qc MG G MSamP MSamP M4Qc G MSamP M M2Qa MSamP2Qa MSamP2Qa MG2Qa MG2Qa MSamP MSamP4Qm4Qc MSamP4Ql

G MSamP 4Qm G SamP4Qm G G SamP4Qm GSamP4Qm G4Qm G G MSamP4Qm SamP4Qm MSamP4Qm MSamP MSamP G G2Qa G G SamP4Qm G SamP4Qm G GSamP SamP MSamP G G GSamP4Qm MSamP G GSamP GSamP G G SamP SamP G G G

8:12 8:13 8:16 8:19 8:19b 9:2 9:4 9:5b 9:7 9:8 9:8 9:9 9:10 9:19b 9:20 9:21 9:25 9:25 9:28 9:29 10:1 10:2b 10:4 10:5 10:6 10:12 10:13 10:13 10:18 10:22 10:24 11:1 11:1 11:2 11:3 11:3 11:3 11:3b1 11:3b2 11:8 11:9 11:10

214

general conclusion

Based on these results, it has become apparent that the customary use of textual variants from other text witnesses as a means to ‘correct’ (by way of conjecture) Exod. 7:14–11:10 M is seldom justifiable.3 Indeed, the vast majority of the textual variants in which a ‘preferable’ variant could be established are to be found in M, albeit together with other textual witnesses. The Septuagint, on the other hand, appears to have preserved the ‘preferable’ variant in twenty instances, of which only seven instances in contrast to M. These seven variants could only be evaluated as ‘preferable’ on the basis of a thorough text-critical analysis. The ‘preferable’ variants found exclusively in G are given precedence on the basis of scribal error (parablepsis) in M and SamP (Exod. 8:13), an addition for the purposes of emphasis in M, SamP and 4Qm (Exod. 9:10) and the observation of harmonisations in M and SamP (Exod. 9:20, 21, 25; 10:13 en 11:1). As a consequence, one is clearly not at liberty to make use of the textual variants arbitrarily or when one considers it appropriate. The fact that the majority of ‘preferable’ variants are to be found in M, however, need not imply that M should immediately be considered the ‘best text’ without reserve. It is only on the basis of a detailed text-critical study of the individual variants in M of Exod. 7:14–11:10 that the epithet ‘best text’ or ‘more original text’ can be applied thereto.4 Each evaluation focuses attention on one specific, individual variant, whereby—strictly speaking—only the variants in question can be described as ‘preferable’. Nevertheless, taken as a whole, the readings evaluated as ‘preferable’ variants on the basis of text-critical evaluation ultimately make it possible to provide a global appreciation of the entire text.5 The emphasis on ‘preferable’ variants, however, should not gloss over the presence of ‘synonymous’ variants and even ‘secondary’ variants in the various textual witnesses. In spite of the fact that they often turn around textual minutiae, such readings should not be ignored. While the variants in question are frequently based on textual details that may not be particularly

3

Cf. supra p. 209. Cf. also A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 88: ‘It is generally thought that the MT represents a well preserved and in most cases the original text. It must, however, be realized that a generalization like this is only valid if it is based on observations made on the details of the text.’ 5 See A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 88: ‘The general probability of a text preserving original readings is the sum of individual cases of original readings. Before the details have been studied, there can hardly be any reliable general idea of the value of a certain textual witness.’ 4

general conclusion

215

relevant for the evaluation of one or another textual witness as such, they nevertheless have an important value in themselves.6 In some places they betray the intention of the author or scribe; in others they bear witness to the creativity of the biblical authors. This fact should likewise encourage scholars to be cautious in granting monopoly status to a particular text whereby many significant minutiae are simply ignored. In the evaluation provided here, we have therefore endeavoured to approach each variant in itself and evaluate it in the first instance on the basis of contextual clues and indications and not on the purported value of the manuscript as a whole. Moreover, even if M ultimately appears to contain the majority of ‘preferable’ variants, thus allowing us to describe it as the ‘best text’ with respect to Exod. 7:14–11:10, one should not forget that M frequently shares these ‘preferable’ variants with various other textual witnesses, which, as a consequence, can be designated as equally original. In function of the literary study of the ‘Plagues Narrative’,7 it is important that a single working text be established. Theoretically speaking, one might argue that the extreme consequence of a text-critical evaluation of the variants in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ should lead, of necessity, to a ‘new’, eclectic text containing all of the ‘preferable’ variants from the various textual witnesses. In such an instance, however, one would be basing oneself on a text that does not factually exist, a text that would be based on a hypothetical reconstruction of a number of fortuitously surviving manuscripts and of which the evaluation of the variants has been unable to avoid a degree of subjectivity. The alternative is to opt for one single well-defined, albeit imperfect textual witness that is objectively extant. In such an instance one is obliged to take the available material as one’s point of departure, bearing in mind the marginal observations associated therewith. Based on the evaluation of the textual material of the ‘Plagues Narrative’ provided in the present text-critical study, we are of the opinion that the Masoretic text of Exod. 7:14–11:10 can function in this regard as a

6

Cf. also, for example, E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 9. As has been mentioned in the introduction to the present volume, this study is based on my previous studies of the ‘Plagues Narrative’ in Exod. 7:14–11:10. In addition to the text-critical analysis of Exod. 7:14–11:10, the studies in question also included a status quaestionis of research into the ‘Plagues Narrative’ and a redaction-historical study of the text. It is the author’s hope that the reworking and elaboration of the results of these two approaches will equally be published in the near future. 7

216

general conclusion

practical working text for the literary study of this intriguing narrative. In the first instance, only three complete texts are available to us, namely M, G and SamP. While the materials stemming from Qumran are informative and interesting for the study of individual variants, they cannot serve as the point of departure of a literary study of the text in question on account of their fragmentary character. Of the three aforementioned complete textual witnesses, we have demonstrated that M contains the ‘preferable’ variant in 47 of the 54 registered cases, although not always as the only textual witness thereto. M, in addition, exhibits a number of ‘synonymous’ variants. In the seven instances in which G provided the ‘preferable’ reading in contrast to M (Exod. 8:13; 9:10, 20, 21, 25; 10:13; 11:1) the literary analysis of the text in question will be obliged to bear this in mind and include it as part of the literary discussion. Finally, it has become apparent that the text-critical analysis of Exod. 7:14–11:10 has produced results that are of essential importance for the literary study of the ‘Plagues Narrative’.8 The textual variants are of potential relevance in the recognition and explanation of irregularities in the final text of the said narrative. The most important results of our analysis are provided here in a concise survey. 1. The harmonisations of command (or announcement) and execution that were more explicitly sought after and implemented in various textual witnesses than in M draw attention to this structural design of the ‘Plagues Narrative’. 2. The harmonising variants that were uncovered in various textual witnesses to Exod. 11 reveal contextual relationships between the ‘Plagues Narrative’ and Exod. 3:21–22; 4:22–23; 7:2–4, 6 and 12:35–36. 3. Content related and structural irregularities in the literary final text of Exod. 7:14–11:10 are marked by variant readings, which endeavour iron them out with the help of supplementary additions and harmonisations. Particular reference should be made in this regard to the major expansions found in Exod. 7:18b, 29b; 8:1b, 19b; 9:5b, 19b; 10:2b and 11:3b, each of which renders a command or execu-

8

439.

Cf. in this respect also B. Lemmelijn, ‘The So-Called “Major Expansions” ’, 429–

general conclusion

4.

5.

6.

7.

8. 9. 10.

217

tion where this has not been related and where the narrative becomes uneven. The secondary character of the reference to Aaron in some places in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ (cf., for example, 8:4, 8, 21; 9:27, 28; 10:3, 8–11, 16) is confirmed by the addition thereof in Exod. 7:29b (SamP4Qm); 9:5b (SamP); 9:19b (SamP4Qm) and 10:24 (GSamP4Qm), for example, where the verb forms are also adapted. Variations with respect to the command to stretch out the hand and/ or staff, which lead to unevenness between command and execution (see, for example, Exod. 7:19; 8:1, 2, 12, 13), are harmonised in a variety of textual witnesses. G, SamP and 4Qc adapt Exod. 8:12 on the basis of 13. G harmonises Exod. 9:23 with 9:22. SamP brings Exod. 10:12 into agreement with 13. These textual emendations provide evidence of the observation of (literary) irregularities. The content related irregularities found in Exod. 8:12 with respect to 8:13 are harmonised in G via an adaptation of the command in Exod. 8:12 to the command in 8:13 and 14. The irregularities that arise from the lack of complete agreement between the announcement and the description of the consequences of the given plague in Exod. 9:9 and 9:10 are disguised in G by way of harmonisation. The variant ‫ ויעמדו‬in MSamP4Qm, which likewise disrupts agreement between the various elements of 9:9 and 9:10, appears on the basis of text-critical evaluation to be secondary. In this instance, G is taken to represent the ‘preferable’ variant. The evaluation of G as ‘preferable’ variant in 9:20, 21 is of importance for distinguishing the layers of the verses in question. The harmonisation of Exod. 9:28–29 with 9:18 and 23 emphasises and confirms the relationship between them. The association between Exod. 10:5 and 10:15 is likewise underlined by harmonisations in SamP and 4Qm. Indeed, it becomes evident on the basis thereof that the description of the consequence of the given plague in Exod. 10:14–15 does not only tie up with 10:12–13, but also with the announcement of the plague in 10:3–6.

We can conclude, therefore, that the primary result of the text-critical analysis of the ‘Plagues Narrative’ is the provision of a critically evaluated textual basis for the literary study of Exod. 7:14–11:10, namely the Masoretic Text. In addition thereto, the analysis of the text-critical

218

general conclusion

variants in the various textual witnesses to Exod. 7:14–11:10 has already drawn attention to a significant number of literary irregularities. Thus, the text-critical study of the ‘Plagues Narrative’, preceding the literary and/or redaction-historical analysis thereof, has provided a sound basis for the further analysis and interpretation of this strange but highly fascinating narrative.

APPENDIX

SYNOPSIS OF THE TEXTUAL WITNESSES OF EXOD. 7:1411:10 The following pages contain a synoptic survey of the textual material of the ‘Plagues Narrative’ of Exod. 7:14–11:10. It is subdivided as follows: the first column contains the Hebrew Masoretic text; the second column the eclectic Greek LXX text of J.W. Wevers (Göttingen Edition); 1 the third one the text of the Samaritan Pentateuch based on the diplomatic text edition of A. Tal;2 the fourth column offers 4QpaleoExodm based on DJD 93; the fifth column presents 4QpaleoGen-Exodl, likewise based on DJD 9;4 the sixth column 2QExoda following the text edition of DJD 3;5 the seventh column the text of 4QExodc based on DJD 12; the eighth column contains 4QGen-Exoda and finally, the ninth column presents 4QExodj, both likewise based on DJD 12.6 In the synoptic survey, a few symbols are used. A combination of three short hyphens (---) designates a minus. Exclamation marks (!) point to a different location of words in the respective columns. Slashes (/) divide the distinctive segments in Hebrew words. Finally, interrogation marks (?) are added to the rendition of a number of problematic textual fragments from Qumran, as already discussed in the first paragraph of chapter Two.

1

Cf. J.W. Wevers (ed.), Exodus. Cf. A. Tal, The Samaritan Pentateuch. 3 Cf. P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 53–71, 72–85 and plates VII–XI. 4 Cf. P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 17–26, 28–33 and plate II. 5 Cf. M. Baillet, J.T. Milik, R. De Vaux, DJD 3/1, 50–51; DJD 3/2, plate X. 6 For the last three manuscripts referred to in the text, see E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 7–10, 28, 97–113, 149–150 and plates IV, XVI, XVII. 2

Exod. 7:15

Exod. 7:14

ἐκπορεύεται

ἐπὶ τὸ ὕδωρ

‫יצא‬

‫ה‬/‫מימ‬/‫ה‬

--- ἰδοὺ

αὐτὸς

‫ הנה‬---

---

τὸ πρωί

‫בקר‬/‫ב‬

πρὸς

‫אל‬

φαραὼ

βάδισον

‫לך‬

‫פרעה‬

τὸν λαόν

‫עם‬/‫ ה‬---

! ἐξαποστεῖλαι

µὴ

‫מאן‬

‫שׁלח‬/‫ל‬

τοῦ

φαραὼ

ἡ καρδία

!

‫פרעה‬

‫לב‬

βεβάρυνται

‫כבד‬

πρὸς

‫אל‬

µωυσῆν

κύριος

‫יהוה‬

‫משׁה‬

εἶπεν δὲ

LXX

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

MT

]‫הוא‬

‫מים‬/‫ה‬

‫יצא‬

‫הנה‬/‫ו‬

‫הוא‬

‫בוקר‬/‫ב‬

‫פרעה‬

‫אל‬

‫לך‬

‫ע[ם‬/‫ ה‬---

] ‫] מ[שׁה‬

‫אל‬

‫יהוה‬

‫ ידבר‬v[acat/‫ו‬

4QpaleoExodm

‫ הנה‬---

‫בקר‬/‫ב‬

‫פרעה‬

‫אל‬

‫לך‬

‫עם‬/‫את ה‬

‫שׁלח‬/‫ל‬

‫מאן‬

!

‫פרעה‬

‫לב‬

‫כבד‬

‫משׁה‬

‫אל‬

‫יהוה‬

‫ידבר‬/‫ו‬

SamP

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

220 appendix

Exod. 7:16

Table (cont.)

καὶ ἐρεῖς

πρὸς αὐτόν

κύριος

ὁ θεὸς

‫אמרת‬/‫ו‬

‫יו‬/‫אל‬

‫יהוה‬

‫אלהי‬

‫יך‬/‫אל‬

‫ני‬/‫שׁלח‬

πρὸς σὲ

ἀπέσταλκέν µε

τῶν ἐβραίων

ἐν τῇ χειρί σου

‫עברים‬/‫ה‬

] ‫[יהוה‬

‫נהפך‬

4QGenExoda

‫יך‬/‫אל‬

‫ני‬/‫שׁלח‬

‫עברים‬/‫ה‬

‫אלהי‬

‫יהוה‬

‫יו‬/‫אל‬

‫אמרת‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫יד‬/‫ב‬

‫יך‬/‫אל‬

]‫יהוה‬

‫יו‬/‫אל‬

[ ‫אמרת‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫יד‬/‫ב‬

‫ת]קח‬

4QExodc

‫תקח‬

2QExoda

λήµψῃ

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

‫נחשׁ‬/‫ל‬

‫ך‬/‫יד‬/‫ב‬

‫תקח‬

]‫אשׁר‬

[‫מ]טה‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬

‫יאר‬/‫ה‬

‫[שׂפת‬

4QpaleoExodm

‫נחשׁ‬/‫ל‬

‫נהפך‬

‫אשׁר‬

‫מטה‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬

‫יאר‬/‫ה‬

‫שׂפת‬

‫על‬

‫ו‬/‫קראת‬/‫ל‬

‫נצבת‬/‫ו‬

SamP

εἰς ὄφιν

στραφεῖσαν

‫נהפך‬

‫נחשׁ‬/‫ל‬

τὴν

‫אשׁר‬

καὶ τὴν ῥάβδον

τοῦ ποταµοῦ

‫יאר‬/‫ה‬

‫מטה‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬

τὸ χεῖλος

ἐπὶ

συναντῶν αὐτῷ

καὶ στήσῃ

LXX

‫שׂפת‬

‫על‬

‫ו‬/‫קראת‬/‫ל‬

‫נצבת‬/‫ו‬

MT

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 221

Exod. 7:17

Table (cont.)

ἵνα µοι λατρεύσωσιν

ἐν τῇ ἐρήµῳ

‫ני‬/‫יעבד‬/‫ו‬

‫מדבר‬/‫ב‬

‫לא‬

τάδε

λέγει

κύριος

ἐν τούτῳ

‫כה‬

‫אמר‬

‫יהוה‬

‫זאת‬/‫ב‬

κύριος

ἐγὼ

‫אני‬

‫יהוה‬

ὅτι

‫כי‬

γνώσῃ

τούτου

‫כה‬

‫תדע‬

ἕως

εἰσήκουσας

οὐκ

‫עד‬

‫שׁמעת‬

καὶ ἰδοὺ

τὸν λαόν µου

‫י‬/‫את עמ‬

‫הנה‬/‫ו‬

ἐξαπόστειλον

λέγων

‫אמר‬/‫ל‬

‫שׁלח‬

LXX

MT

‫יהוה‬

‫אני‬

‫כי‬

‫תדע‬

‫זאת‬/‫ב‬

‫יהוה‬

‫אמר‬

‫כה‬

‫כה‬

‫עד‬

‫שׁמעת‬

‫לא‬

‫הנה‬/‫ו‬

‫מדבר‬/‫ב‬

‫ני‬/‫יעבד‬/‫ו‬

‫י‬/‫את עמ‬

‫שׁלח‬

‫אמר‬/‫ל‬

SamP

]···[ ‫ז]את‬/‫ב‬

‫ני‬/‫יע]בד‬/‫ו‬

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

4QExodc

] ‫יהוה‬

[‫] אני‬

‫כי‬

‫תדע‬

‫זאת‬/‫ב‬

‫יהוה‬

[ ‫]אמר‬

‫כה‬

]‫מדבר‬/‫ב‬

‫ני‬/‫יעב[ד‬/‫ו‬

‫י‬/‫את ע]מ‬

‫שׁלח‬

‫אמר‬/‫ל‬

4QGenExoda

4QExodj

222 appendix

Exod. 7:18

Table (cont.)

ἐγὼ

τύπτω

‫אנכי‬

‫מכה‬

] ‫תמות‬

‫תמות‬

τελευτήσουσιν

καὶ ἐποζέσει

ὁ ποταµός

‫תמות‬

‫באשׁ‬/‫ו‬

‫יאר‬/‫ה‬ ‫יאר‬/‫ה‬

‫באשׁ‬/‫ו‬

‫יאר‬/‫בת]וך [ה‬

‫יאר‬/‫ב‬

ἐν τῷ ποταµῷ

‫יאר‬/‫ב‬

‫אשׁר‬

‫דגה‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬

‫דם‬/‫ל‬

οἱ

καὶ οἱ ἰχθύες

εἰς αἷµα

‫א]שׁר‬

‫מים‬/‫ה‬

‫על‬

[ ‫י‬/‫יד‬/]‫ב‬

4QpaleoExodm

‫אשׁר‬

‫דגה‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬

‫דם‬/‫ל‬

‫יאר‬/‫ב‬

καὶ µεταβαλεῖ

‫נהפכו‬/‫ו‬

ἐν τῷ ποταµῷ

‫יאר‬/‫ב‬

‫נהפכו‬/‫ו‬

‫מים‬/‫ה‬ ‫אשׁר‬

τὸ ὕδωρ

‫על‬

‫י‬/‫יד‬/‫ב‬

‫אשׁר‬

‫מטה‬/‫ב‬

‫מכה‬

‫אנכי‬

‫הנה‬

SamP

τὸ

‫אשׁר‬

‫מים‬/‫ה‬

ἐπὶ

ἐν τῇ χειρί µου

‫על‬

τῇ

‫אשׁר‬

‫י‬/‫יד‬/‫ב‬

τῇ ῥάβδῳ

ἰδοὺ

‫הנה‬

‫מטה‬/‫ב‬

LXX

MT

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

‫ד]ם‬/‫ל‬

‫נ[הפכו‬/‫ו‬

4QExodc

‫דם‬/]‫ל‬

[ ‫נהפ]כו‬/‫ו‬

‫יאר‬/‫ב‬

‫אשׁר‬

‫מים‬/‫ה‬

[‫על‬

‫י‬/‫יד‬/‫]ב‬

4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 223

‫‪224‬‬ ‫‪appendix‬‬

‫‪4QExodj‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫מ]ים‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫יה]וה‬

‫אל‪/‬יו‬

‫ו‪/‬י]א[ומר‬

‫יהוה‬

‫אל‪/‬יו‬

‫ו‪/‬יאמרו‬

‫פרעה‬

‫אל‬

‫ו‪/‬אהרן‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫אל‪/‬יך‬

‫שׁלח‪/‬נו‬

‫ה‪/‬עברים‬

‫אלהי‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫ו‪/‬ילך‬

‫ה‪/‬יאר‬

‫מן‬

‫משׁה‬

‫ה‪/‬יאר ‪va]cat‬‬

‫מן‬

‫מים‬

‫מים‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪τοῦ ποταµοῦ‬‬

‫מן‬

‫ה‪/‬יאר‬

‫‪ἀπὸ‬‬

‫‪ὕδωρ‬‬

‫מים‬

‫מצרים‬ ‫ל‪/‬שׁתות‬

‫מצרים‬ ‫ל‪/‬שׁתות‬

‫‪πιεῖν‬‬

‫‪οἱ αἰγύπτιοι‬‬

‫מצרים‬

‫ו‪/‬נלאו‬

‫ל‪/‬שׁתות‬

‫]ו‪[/‬נלאו‬

‫ו‪/‬נלאו‬

‫‪καὶ οὐ‬‬ ‫‪δυνήσονται‬‬

‫‪4QGen‬‬‫‪Exoda‬‬

‫‪4QExodc‬‬

‫‪2QExoda‬‬

‫‪4Qpaleo‬‬‫‪Gen-Exodl‬‬

‫‪4Qpaleo‬‬‫‪Exodm‬‬

‫‪SamP‬‬

‫‪LXX‬‬

‫‪MT‬‬

‫‪Exod. 7:18b‬‬

‫)‪Table (cont.‬‬

Table (cont.)

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

LXX

MT

‫י‬/‫את עמ‬ ]‫יעבד‬/‫ו‬

‫י‬/‫את עמ‬ ‫ני‬/‫יעבד‬/‫ו‬

‫אמר‬ ‫יהוה‬ ‫ז]את‬/‫ב‬

‫אמר‬ ‫יהוה‬ ‫זאת‬/‫ב‬

---------

‫תדע‬ ‫כי‬ ‫אני‬ ‫יהוה‬

---

---

---

---

‫עד‬

---

---

‫שׁמעת‬

‫כה‬

---

‫לא‬

‫כה‬

---

‫הנה‬/‫ו‬

‫כה‬

-----

‫מדבר‬/‫ב‬

---

---

---

4QExodc

‫שׁלח‬

2QExoda

‫שׁלח‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl ---

4QpaleoExodm

‫אמר‬/‫ל‬

SamP

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 225

‫‪226‬‬ ‫‪appendix‬‬

‫‪4QExodj‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪4QGen‬‬‫‪Exoda‬‬

‫אשׁר ]‬

‫ב‪/‬מטה‬

‫מ]כ[ה‬

‫אשׁר‬

‫ב‪/‬מטה‬

‫מכה‬

‫אנכי‬

‫בת]וך ה‪/‬יאר‬

‫אשׁר‬

‫ו]‪/‬ה‪/‬ד[גה‬

‫ב‪/‬יאר‬

‫אשׁר‬

‫ו‪/‬ה‪/‬דגה‬

‫ל‪/‬דם‬

‫ו‪/‬נהפכו‬

‫ב‪/‬יאר‬

‫אשׁר‬

‫ה‪/‬מים‬

‫על‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫ה‪/‬יאר‬

‫ו‪/‬באשׁ‬

‫תמות‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫ב‪/‬יד‪/‬י‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫הנה‬

‫‪4QExodc‬‬

‫‪2QExoda‬‬

‫‪4Qpaleo‬‬‫‪Gen-Exodl‬‬

‫‪4Qpaleo‬‬‫‪Exodm‬‬

‫‪SamP‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪LXX‬‬

‫‪MT‬‬

‫)‪Table (cont.‬‬

Exod. 7:19

Table (cont.)

καὶ ἔκτεινον

τὴν χεῖρα ---

‫נטה‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫ יד‬---

τὴν ῥάβδον σου

λάβε

‫קח‬

‫ך‬/‫ מט‬---

τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου

ἀαρὼν

---

‫אהרן‬

---

εἶπον

‫אמר‬

‫אל‬

µωυσῆν

‫משׁה‬

πρὸς

---

---

---

---

‫אל‬

---

---

κύριος

---

---

‫יהוה‬

---

---

εἶπεν δὲ

---

---

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

LXX

MT

‫מן‬ ‫יאר‬/‫ה‬

‫מן‬ ‫יאר‬/‫ה‬

‫ך‬/‫את יד‬

‫נטה‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫את מט‬

‫קח‬

---

‫אהרן‬

‫אל‬

‫אמר‬

‫משׁה‬

‫אל‬

‫יהוה‬ ]‫יהוה‬

‫[י]או[מר‬vacat/‫ו‬

‫מים‬

‫מים‬

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫שׁ]תות‬/‫ל‬

‫שׁתות‬/‫ל‬

---

---

---

---

---

4QExodc

‫מ]צ[ריים‬

2QExoda

‫מצרים‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl ---

4QpaleoExodm

‫נלאו‬/‫ו‬

SamP

]‫את‬

‫נטה‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫את מט‬

‫קח‬

---

---

---

---

---

---

4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 227

Table (cont.)

‫ על‬---

‫היה‬/‫ו‬

‫דם‬

καὶ ἐγένετο

αἷµα

καὶ ἔσται

ὕδωρ αὐτῶν

‫הם‬/‫מימי‬

‫יהיו‬/‫ו‬

συνεστηκὸς

πᾶν

καὶ ἐπὶ

τὰ ἕλη αὐτῶν

καὶ ἐπὶ

τὰς διώρυγας αὐτῶν

καὶ ἐπὶ

‫מקוה‬

‫כל‬

‫על‬/‫ו‬

‫הם‬/‫אגמי‬

‫על‬/‫ו‬

‫הם‬/‫יארי‬

τοὺς ποταµοὺς αὐτῶν

ἐπὶ

‫ם‬/‫נהרת‬

καὶ

‫על‬

αἰγύπτου

‫מצרים‬

---

τὰ ὕδατα

ἐπὶ

‫על‬

‫מימי‬

LXX

MT

‫יהי‬/‫ו‬

‫דם‬

‫יהיו‬/‫ו‬

‫הם‬/‫מימי‬

‫מקוה‬

‫כל‬

‫על‬/‫ו‬

‫הם‬/‫אגמי‬

‫על‬/‫ו‬

‫הם‬/‫יארי‬

‫על‬/‫ו‬

‫ם‬/‫נהרות‬

‫על‬

---

‫מצרים‬

‫מימי‬

‫על‬

SamP

‫מק]וה‬

‫כל‬

‫על‬/‫[ו‬

‫מ]צרים‬

‫מימי‬

‫על‬

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

]‫על‬

---

‫מצרים‬

‫מימי‬

‫ע[ל‬

4QExodc

] ‫כל‬

‫על‬/‫ו‬

‫הם‬/‫אגמי‬

‫[על‬/‫]ו‬

4QGenExoda

4QExodj

228 appendix

Exod. 7:20

Table (cont.)

κύριος

καὶ ἐπάρας

‫יהוה‬

‫ירם‬/‫ו‬

--- ‫מטה‬/‫ב‬

τῇ ῥάβδῳ αὐτοῦ

ἀαρὼν

αὐτοῖς

---

---

ἐνετείλατο

καθάπερ

‫צוה‬

καὶ ἀαρών

‫אהרן‬/‫ו‬

µωυσῆς

οὕτως

‫אשׁר‬/‫כ‬

‫משׁה‬

‫כן‬

καὶ ἐποίησαν

καὶ ἐν τοῖς λίθοις

‫אבנים‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫יעשׂו‬/‫ו‬

ἔν τε τοῖς ξύλοις

‫עצים‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

γῇ

‫ארץ‬

αἰγύπτου

ἐν πάσῃ

‫כל‬/‫ב‬

‫מצרים‬

--- αἷµα

LXX

‫ דם‬---

MT

‫ו‬/‫מטה‬/‫ב‬

---

‫ירם‬/‫ו‬

‫יהוה‬

---

‫צוה‬

‫אשׁר‬/‫כ‬

‫אהרן‬/‫ו‬

‫משׁה‬

‫כן‬

‫יעשׂו‬/‫ו‬

‫אבנים‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫עצים‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫מצרים‬

‫ארץ‬

‫כל‬/‫ב‬

‫דם‬/‫ה‬

SamP

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

4QExodc

]‫ירם‬/‫ו‬

‫אבנים‬/]‫ב‬/‫ו‬

[ ‫עצ]ים‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫מצרים‬

4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 229

Exod. 7:21

Table (cont.)

εἰς αἷµα

‫דם‬/‫ל‬

οἱ

ἐν τῷ ποταµῷ

ἐτελεύτησαν

‫אשׁר‬

‫יאר‬/‫ב‬

‫מתה‬

καὶ οἱ ἰχθύες

ἐν τῷ ποταµῷ

‫דגה‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬

τὸ

‫אשׁר‬

τὸ ὕδωρ

‫יאר‬/‫ב‬

‫מים‬/‫ה‬

πᾶν

καὶ µετέβαλεν

‫יהפכו‬/‫ו‬

‫כל‬

τῶν θεραπόντων αὐτοῦ

φαραὼ

‫פרעה‬

‫ו‬/‫עבדי‬

ἐναντίον

‫עיני‬/‫ל‬

καὶ ἐναντίον

ἐν τῷ ποταµῷ

‫יאר‬/‫ב‬

‫עיני‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬

τὸ

‫אשׁר‬

τὸ ὕδωρ

--- ἐπάταξεν

‫יך‬/‫ו‬

‫מים‬/‫את ה‬

LXX

MT

‫]כל‬

4QExodc

‫מתה‬

‫יאר‬/‫ב‬

‫אשׁר‬

‫דגה‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬

‫דם‬/‫ל‬

‫יאר‬/‫ב‬

‫דגה‬/‫ה‬/]‫ו‬

‫דם‬/‫ל‬

‫יור‬/‫ב‬

‫אשׁר‬

2QExoda

‫אשׁר‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

‫[מים‬/‫ה‬

4QpaleoExodm

‫מים‬/‫ה‬

‫כל‬

‫יהפכו‬/‫ו‬

‫ו‬/‫עבדי‬

‫עיני‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬

‫פרעה‬

‫עיני‬/‫ל‬

‫יאר‬/‫ב‬

‫אשׁר‬

‫מים‬/‫את ה‬

‫יך‬/‫ו‬

SamP

4QGenExoda

4QExodj

230 appendix

Exod. 7:22

Table (cont.)

καὶ οὐκ

ἠδύναντο

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

‫יכלו‬

οἱ ἐπαοιδοὶ

καὶ

‫חרטמי‬

ὡσαύτως

‫כן‬

---

ἐποίησαν δὲ

γῇ

‫ארץ‬

‫יעשׂו‬/‫ו‬

ἐν πάσῃ

‫כל‬/‫ב‬

αἰγύπτου

τὸ αἷµα

‫מצרים‬

καὶ ἦν

‫יהי‬/‫ו‬

τοῦ ποταµοῦ

‫דם‬/‫ה‬

‫יאר‬/‫ה‬

ἐκ

ὕδωρ

‫מים‬

‫מן‬

πιεῖν

‫שׁתות‬/‫ל‬

οἱ αἰγύπτιοι

ὁ ποταµός

‫יאר‬/‫ה‬

‫מצרים‬

καὶ ἐπώζεσεν

LXX

‫יבאשׁ‬/‫ו‬

MT

‫חרטמי‬

---

‫כן‬

‫יעשׂו‬/‫ו‬

‫מצרים‬

‫ארץ‬

‫כל‬/‫ב‬

‫דם‬/‫ה‬

‫יהי‬/‫ו‬

‫יאר‬/‫ה‬

‫מן‬

‫מים‬

‫שׁתות‬/‫ל‬

‫מצרים‬

‫יכלו‬

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

‫יאר‬/‫ה‬

‫יבאשׁ‬/‫ו‬

SamP

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

‫מצ]רים‬

‫ארץ‬

‫כל‬/‫ב‬

‫דם‬/---

‫יהי‬/‫ו‬

‫יור‬/‫ה‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 231

Exod. 7:23

Table (cont.)

τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ

καὶ οὐκ

ἐπέστησεν

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

‫שׁת‬

εἰς

‫ו‬/‫בית‬

‫אל‬

--- εἰσῆλθεν

‫יבא‬/‫ו‬

ἐπιστραφεὶς δὲ

‫יפן‬/‫ו‬

φαραὼ

κύριος

‫יהוה‬

‫פרעה‬

εἶπεν

‫דבר‬

καθάπερ

‫אשׁר‬/‫כ‬

εἰσήκουσεν

‫שׁמע‬

αὐτῶν

καὶ οὐκ

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

‫הם‬/‫אל‬

φαραώ

ἡ καρδία

καὶ ἐσκληρύνθη

ταῖς φαρµακείαις αὐτῶν

τῶν αἰγυπτίων

LXX

‫פרעה‬

‫לב‬

‫יחזק‬/‫ו‬

‫הם‬/‫לטי‬/‫ב‬

‫מצרים‬

MT

‫שׁת‬

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

‫ו‬/‫בית‬

‫אל‬

‫יבא‬/‫ו‬

‫פרעה‬

‫יפן‬/‫ו‬

‫יהוה‬

‫דבר‬

‫אשׁר‬/‫כ‬

‫יהם‬/‫אל‬

‫שׁמע‬

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

‫פרעה‬

‫לב‬

‫יחזק‬/‫ו‬

‫הם‬/‫להטי‬/‫ב‬

‫מצרים‬

SamP

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

]‫שׁת‬

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

‫ו‬/‫בי[ת‬

]‫דב[ר‬

]‫הם‬/‫ל[הטי‬/‫ב‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

232 appendix

Exod. 7:24

Table (cont.)

τοῦ ποταµοῦ

‫יאר‬/‫ה‬

ὕδωρ ἀπὸ

τοῦ ποταµοῦ

‫יאר‬/‫ה‬

ἠδύναντο

‫יכלו‬

‫מימי‬/‫מ‬

οὐκ

‫לא‬

πιεῖν

καὶ

‫כי‬

‫שׁתת‬/‫ל‬

ὕδωρ

ὥστε πιεῖν

!

‫שׁתות‬/‫ל‬

!

κύκλῳ

‫סביבת‬

‫מים‬

οἱ αἰγύπτιοι

‫מצרים‬

πάντες

ὤρυξαν δὲ

‫יחפרו‬/‫ו‬

‫כל‬

ἐπὶ τούτῳ

‫זאת‬/‫ל‬

οὐδὲ

τὸν νοῦν αὐτοῦ

‫ו‬/‫לב‬

‫גם‬

LXX

MT

‫יאר‬/‫ה‬

‫מימי‬/‫מ‬

‫שׁתות‬/‫ל‬

‫יכלו‬

‫לא‬

‫כי‬

!

‫שׁתות‬/‫ל‬

‫מים‬

‫יאר‬/‫ה‬

‫סביבת‬

‫מצרים‬

‫כל‬

‫יחפרו‬/‫ו‬

‫זאת‬/‫ל‬

‫גם‬

‫ו‬/‫לב‬

SamP

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 233

Exod. 7:26

Exod. 7:25

Table (cont.)

ἡµέραι

µετὰ

τὸ πατάξαι

κύριον

‫ימים‬

‫אחרי‬

‫הכות‬

‫יהוה‬

τάδε

λέγει

‫כה‬

‫אמר‬

πρὸς αὐτόν

καὶ ἐρεῖς

‫אמרת‬/‫ו‬

‫יו‬/‫אל‬

φαραὼ

πρὸς

‫אל‬

‫פרעה‬

εἴσελθε

‫בא‬

πρὸς

‫אל‬

µωυσῆν

κύριος

‫יהוה‬

‫משׁה‬

εἶπεν δὲ

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

τὸν ποταµόν

ἑπτὰ

‫שׁבעת‬

‫יאר‬/‫את ה‬

καὶ ἀνεπληρώθησαν

LXX

‫ימלא‬/‫ו‬

MT

‫אמר‬

‫כה‬

‫יו‬/‫אל‬

‫דברת‬/‫ו‬

‫פרעה‬

‫אל‬

‫בא‬

‫משׁה‬

‫אל‬

‫יהוה‬

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫יאר‬/‫את ה‬

‫יהוה‬

‫הכות‬

‫אחרי‬

‫ימים‬

‫שׁבעת‬

‫ימלאו‬/‫ו‬

SamP

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

‫ב]א‬

‫משׁה‬

‫א[ל‬

‫יהוה‬

‫יאמר‬/‫]ו‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

234 appendix

Exod. 7:28

Exod. 7:27

Table (cont.)

‫ך‬/‫גבול‬

ὁ ποταµὸς

βατράχους

‫יאר‬/‫ה‬

‫צפרדעים‬

καὶ ἀναβάντες

καὶ ἐξερεύξεται

‫שׁרץ‬/‫ו‬

‫עלו‬/‫ו‬

τοῖς βατράχοις

‫עלו‬/‫ו‬

‫צפרדעים‬

‫יאר‬/‫ה‬

‫שׁרץ‬/‫ו‬

‫צפרדעים‬/‫ב‬

τὰ ὅριά σου

‫צפרדעים‬/‫ב‬

‫ך‬/‫גבול‬

‫את כל‬

πάντα

‫את כל‬

‫נגף‬

‫אנכי‬

τύπτω

ἐγὼ

‫אנכי‬

‫הנה‬

‫שׁלח‬/‫ל‬

‫אתה‬

‫מאן‬

‫אם‬/‫ו‬

‫ני‬/‫יעבד‬/‫ו‬

‫י‬/‫את עמ‬

‫שׁלח‬

‫יהוה‬

SamP

‫נגף‬

ἰδοὺ

ἐξαποστεῖλαι

‫הנה‬

‫שׁלח‬/‫ל‬

σὺ

‫אתה‬

ἵνα µοι λατρεύσωσιν

‫ני‬/‫יעבד‬/‫ו‬

µὴ βούλει

τὸν λαόν µου

‫י‬/‫את עמ‬

‫מאן‬

ἐξαπόστειλον

‫שׁלח‬

εἰ δὲ

κύριος

‫יהוה‬

‫אם‬/‫ו‬

LXX

MT

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

‫את כ]ל‬

‫נוגף‬

‫א[נכי‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 235

Table (cont.)

--- εἰσελεύσον-

‫באו‬/‫ו‬

τῶν κοιτώνων σου

‫ך‬/‫משׁכב‬

τῶν θεραπόντων σου

‫ך‬/‫עבדי‬

καὶ ἐν τοῖς φυράµασίν σου

καὶ ἐν τοῖς κλιβάνοις σου

‫ך‬/‫תנורי‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫משׁארותי‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

καὶ --- τοῦ λαοῦ σου

καὶ εἰς τοὺς οἴκους

‫בית‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫עמ‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

τῶν κλινῶν σου

‫ך‬/‫מטת‬

καὶ ἐπὶ

καὶ εἰς τὰ ταµιεῖα

‫חדר‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫על‬/‫ו‬

εἰς τοὺς οἴκους σου

‫ך‬/‫בית‬/‫ב‬

ται

LXX

MT

‫ך‬/‫משׁארתי‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫תנורי‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫עמ‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫עבדי‬

‫בתי‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫מטתי‬

‫על‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫משׁכבי‬

‫חדרי‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫בתי‬/‫ב‬

‫באו‬/‫ו‬

SamP

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

]‫בית‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫מטות‬

‫על‬/‫ו‬

‫[ך‬/‫]משׁכב‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

236 appendix

Exod. 7:29b

Exod. 7:29

Table (cont.)

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

οἱ βάτραχοι

‫צפרדעים‬/‫ה‬

---

ἀναβήσονται

‫יעלו‬

καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν λαόν σου

τοὺς θεράποντάς σου

‫ך‬/‫עבדי‬

!

καὶ ἐπὶ ---

!

καὶ ἐπὶ σὲ

LXX

‫כל‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫עמ‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫כה‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

MT

-----------------

‫אהרן‬/‫ו‬ ‫אל‬ ‫פרעה‬ ‫ידברו‬/‫ו‬ ‫יו‬/‫אל‬ ‫כה‬ ‫אמר‬ ‫יהוה‬

4QExodc

---

2QExoda

‫משׁה‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

---

4QpaleoExodm

‫יבא‬/‫ו‬

‫צפרדעים‬/‫ה‬

‫יעלו‬

!

‫ך‬/‫עבדי‬

‫כל‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫עמ‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

SamP

4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 237

Table (cont.)

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

LXX

MT

---------

‫יאר‬/‫ה‬

‫עלו‬/‫ו‬ ‫באו‬/‫ו‬

---

‫שׁרץ‬/‫ו‬

‫צפרדעים‬

---

‫צפרדעים‬/‫ב‬

---

‫אנכי‬

---

---

‫הנה‬

‫ך‬/‫גבול‬

---

‫שׁלח‬/‫ל‬

---

---

‫אתה‬

---

---

‫מאן‬

‫נגף‬

---

‫אם‬/‫ו‬

‫את כל‬

---

‫ני‬/‫יעבד‬/‫ו‬

4QExodc

---

2QExoda

‫י‬/‫את עמ‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl ---

4QpaleoExodm

‫שׁלח‬

SamP

4QGenExoda

4QExodj

238 appendix

‫‪synopsis of the textual witnesses‬‬ ‫‪239‬‬

‫ה‪[/‬צפרדעם‬ ‫‪vacat‬‬

‫יעלו‬

‫עבד‪/‬יך‬

‫]ו‪/‬ב‪/‬כל‬

‫ו[‪/‬ב‪/‬כל ·] )?(‬

‫ו[‪/‬ב‪/‬כל ·] )?(‬

‫‪4QExodj‬‬

‫‪4QGen‬‬‫‪Exoda‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫ה‪/‬צפרדעים‬

‫יעלו‬

‫עבדי‪/‬ך‬

‫ו‪/‬ב‪/‬כל‬

‫ו‪/‬ב‪/‬עמ‪/‬ך‬

‫ו‪/‬ב‪/‬ך‬

‫ו‪/‬ב‪/‬משׁארתי‪/‬ך‬

‫ה‪/‬צ[פרדעי]ם‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫ו‪/‬ב‪/‬עמ‪/‬ך‬

‫עבד‪/‬יך‬

‫ו‪/‬ב‪/---/‬בתי )?(‬

‫מטתי‪/‬ך‬

‫ו‪/‬על‬

‫[ ו‪/‬ב‪/---/‬תנ]ור‪/‬יך ו‪/‬ב‪/---/‬תנורי‪/‬ך‬ ‫)?(‬ ‫)?(‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫משׁכבי‪/‬ך‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫ו‪/‬ב‪/‬חדרי‬

‫[ ו‪/‬ב‪/‬ח]דרי‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫ב‪/‬בתי‪/‬ך‬

‫‪4QExodc‬‬

‫‪2QExoda‬‬

‫‪4Qpaleo‬‬‫‪Gen-Exodl‬‬

‫‪4Qpaleo‬‬‫‪Exodm‬‬

‫‪SamP‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪LXX‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪MT‬‬

‫)‪Table (cont.‬‬

‫‪240‬‬ ‫‪appendix‬‬

‫ו‪/‬ה[על‬

‫ה‪/‬אגמ]ים‬

‫ו‪/‬ע[ל‬

‫ה‪/‬יארים‬

‫]ו‪/‬על‬

‫ה‪/‬נהרות[‬

‫על‬

‫ב‪/‬מט‪/‬ך‬

‫את יד‪/‬ך‬

‫נטה‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫אהרן‬

‫] אל‬

‫אמור‬

‫מושׁ]ה [‬

‫אל‬

‫יהו[ה‬

‫]ו‪/‬יאמר‬

‫‪4QExodj‬‬

‫‪4QGen‬‬‫‪Exoda‬‬

‫אל]‬

‫יהוה‬

‫ו‪/‬יא]מ[ר‬

‫‪4QExodc‬‬

‫‪2QExoda‬‬

‫‪4Qpaleo‬‬‫‪Gen-Exodl‬‬

‫[ב‪/‬מט‪/‬ך]‬

‫‪4Qpaleo‬‬‫‪Exodm‬‬

‫ו‪/‬העל‬

‫ה‪/‬אגמים‬

‫ו‪/‬על‬

‫ה‪/‬יארים‬

‫ו‪/‬על‬

‫ה‪/‬נהרות‬

‫על‬

‫ב‪/‬מט‪/‬ך‬

‫את יד‪/‬ך‬

‫נטה‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫אהרן‬

‫אל‬

‫אמר‬

‫משׁה‬

‫אל‬

‫יהוה‬

‫ו‪/‬יאמר‬

‫‪SamP‬‬

‫‪καὶ ἀνάγαγε‬‬

‫ה‪/‬אגמים‬

‫ו‪/‬העל‬

‫‪τὰ ἕλη‬‬

‫‪καὶ ἐπὶ‬‬

‫ה‪/‬יארים‬

‫‪ ---‬על‬

‫ה‪/‬נהרת‬

‫ו‪/‬על‬

‫‪τὰς διώρυγας‬‬

‫‪καὶ ἐπὶ‬‬

‫‪τοὺς ποταµοὺς‬‬

‫‪ἐπὶ‬‬

‫על‬

‫‪τὴν ῥάβδον σου‬‬

‫‪τῇ χειρὶ ---‬‬

‫ב‪/‬מט‪/‬ך‬

‫נטה‬

‫את יד‪/‬ך‬

‫‪ἔκτεινον‬‬

‫‪τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου‬‬

‫אהרן‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪ἀαρὼν‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫אל‬

‫‪εἶπον‬‬

‫‪µωυσῆν‬‬

‫אמר‬

‫אל‬

‫יהוה‬

‫משׁה‬

‫‪πρὸς‬‬

‫‪κύριος‬‬

‫‪εἶπεν δὲ‬‬

‫ו‪/‬יאמר‬

‫‪LXX‬‬

‫‪MT‬‬

‫‪Exod. 8:1‬‬

‫)‪Table (cont.‬‬

‫‪synopsis of the textual witnesses‬‬ ‫‪241‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫מצרים‬

‫ארץ‬

‫על‬

‫ה‪/‬צפרדע‬

‫ו‪/‬תעל‬

‫ב‪/‬מט‪/‬ך‬

‫את יד‪/‬ך‬

‫נטה‬

‫אהרן‬

‫אל‬

‫משׁה‬

‫את יד]‪/‬ך‬

‫נטה [‬

‫אהרן‬

‫אל‬

‫מושׁה‬

‫]ו‪/‬יאמר‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫ו‪/‬יאמר‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫ארץ‬

‫ארץ‬

‫מצרים ‪[vacat‬‬

‫ארץ‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫מצרים‬

‫מצרים‬

‫על‬

‫על‬

‫על‬

‫את ה‪/‬צפרד]ע[‬ ‫י]ם‬

‫את ה‪/‬צפרדעים‬

‫‪τοὺς βατρά‬‬‫‪χους‬‬

‫את ה‪/‬צפרדעים‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫א]ת ה‪/‬צפרדעים‬

‫‪4QExodj‬‬

‫‪4QGen‬‬‫‪Exoda‬‬

‫‪4QExodc‬‬

‫‪2QExoda‬‬

‫‪4Qpaleo‬‬‫‪Gen-Exodl‬‬

‫‪4Qpaleo‬‬‫‪Exodm‬‬

‫‪SamP‬‬

‫‪LXX‬‬

‫‪MT‬‬

‫‪Exod. 8:1b‬‬

‫)‪Table (cont.‬‬

Exod. 8:3

Exod. 8:2

Table (cont.)

καὶ ἀνεβιβάσθη

‫תעל‬/‫ו‬

---

---

‫חרטמים‬/‫ה‬

τῶν αἰγυπτίων

‫מצרים‬

‫ חרטמי‬---

---

οἱ ἐπαοιδοὶ

καὶ

‫יעשׂו‬/‫ו‬ ‫כן‬

ἐποίησαν δὲ

‫יעשׂו‬/‫ו‬

‫מצרים‬

‫את ארץ‬

‫תכס‬/‫ו‬

‫צפרדע‬/‫ה‬

‫תעל‬/‫ו‬

---

---

‫מצרים‬

‫מימי‬

‫על‬

‫ו‬/‫את יד‬

‫אהרן‬

‫יט‬/‫ו‬

SamP

ὡσαύτως

αἰγύπτου

‫מצרים‬

‫כן‬

τὴν γῆν

καὶ ἐκάλυψεν

‫את ארץ‬

‫תכס‬/‫ו‬

ὁ βάτραχος

τοὺς βατράχους

---

‫צפרדע‬/‫ה‬

καὶ ἀνήγαγεν

αἰγύπτου

---

τὰ ὕδατα

‫מימי‬

ἐπὶ

τὴν χεῖρα ---

‫מצרים‬

‫על‬

‫ו‬/‫את יד‬

ἀαρὼν

καὶ ἐξέτεινεν

‫יט‬/‫ו‬

‫אהרן‬

LXX

MT

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

242 appendix

Exod. 8:4

Table (cont.)

κύριον

καὶ περιελέτω

‫יהוה‬

‫יסר‬/‫ו‬

‫י‬/‫מנ‬/‫מ‬

ἀπ’ ἐµοῦ

τοὺς βατράχους

πρὸς

‫צפרדעים‬/‫ה‬

περὶ ἐµοῦ

εὔξασθε

‫העתירו‬

---

καὶ εἶπεν

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫אל‬

καὶ ἀαρὼν

µωυσῆν

‫אהרן‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬

‫פרעה‬

φαραὼ

‫פרעה‬

‫משׁה‬/‫ל‬

‫י‬/‫מנ‬/‫מ‬

‫צפרדעים‬/‫ה‬

‫יסר‬/‫ו‬

‫יהוה‬

‫אל‬

---

‫העתירו‬

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫אהרן‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬

‫משׁה‬/‫ל‬

‫יקרא‬/‫ו‬

ἐκάλεσεν δὲ

‫יקרא‬/‫ו‬

‫מצרים‬

‫ארץ‬

αἰγύπτου

γῆν

‫ארץ‬

‫על‬

‫צפרדעים‬/‫ה‬

‫יעלו‬/‫ו‬

‫הם‬/‫להטי‬/‫ב‬

SamP

‫מצרים‬

ἐπὶ

‫על‬

τοὺς βατράχους

καὶ ἀνήγαγον

‫יעלו‬/‫ו‬

‫צפרדעים‬/‫את ה‬

ταῖς φαρµακείαις αὐτῶν

LXX

‫הם‬/‫לטי‬/‫ב‬

MT

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 243

Exod. 8:5

Table (cont.)

‫אשׁלח‬/‫ו‬

‫משׁה‬

µωυσῆς

περὶ σοῦ

‫ך‬/‫ל‬

καὶ --- τοῦ λαοῦ σου

ἀφανίσαι

‫ך‬/‫עמ‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬

‫הכרית‬/‫ל‬

καὶ περὶ τῶν θεραπόντων σου

εὔξωµαι

‫אעתיר‬

‫ך‬/‫עבדי‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬

πότε

‫מתי‬/‫ל‬

πρός µε

τάξαι

‫התפאר‬

‫י‬/‫על‬

πρὸς φαραώ

‫פרעה‬/‫ל‬

‫משׁה‬

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

εἶπεν δὲ

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫הכרית‬/‫ל‬

‫ך‬/‫עמ‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫עבדי‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫ל‬

‫העתיר‬

‫מתי‬/‫ל‬

‫י‬/‫על‬

‫התפאר‬

‫אל פרעה‬

‫יהוה‬/‫ל‬

κυρίῳ

‫יזבחו‬/‫ו‬

‫עם‬/‫את ה‬

‫יהוה‬/‫ל‬

τὸν λαόν

καὶ θύσωσιν

καὶ ἐξαποστελῶ

‫אשׁלחה‬/‫ו‬

‫עם‬/‫את ה‬

‫י‬/‫עמ‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬

SamP

‫יזבחו‬/‫ו‬

καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐµοῦ λαοῦ

LXX

‫י‬/‫עמ‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬

MT

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

‫הכרי]ת‬/‫ל‬

‫ך‬/‫עמ‬/‫ל‬/‫[ו‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

244 appendix

Exod. 8:6

Table (cont.)

πλὴν

ὅτι

‫כי‬

ὡς εἴρηκας

‫ך‬/‫דבר‬/‫כ‬

εἰδῇς

εἶπεν οὖν

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

ἵνα

εἰς αὔριον

‫מחר‬/‫ל‬

‫תדע‬

ὁ δὲ εἶπεν

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫מען‬/‫ל‬

ὑπολειφθήσονται

‫תשׁארנה‬

ἐν τῷ ποταµῷ

!

---

‫רק‬

‫יאר‬/‫ב‬

---

καὶ ἐκ τῶν οἰκιῶν ὑµῶν

‫ך‬/‫בתי‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬

---

καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ λαοῦ σου

ἀπὸ σοῦ

τοὺς βατράχους

LXX

---

‫ך‬/‫מ‬/‫מ‬

‫צפרדעים‬/‫ה‬

MT

‫כי‬

‫תדע‬

‫מען‬/‫ל‬

‫ך‬/‫דברי‬/‫כ‬

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫מחר‬/‫ל‬

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫תשׁארנה‬

‫יאר‬/‫ב‬

‫רק‬

‫ך‬/‫עמ‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫עבדי‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫בתי‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬

!

‫ך‬/‫מ‬/‫מ‬

‫צפרדעים‬/‫ה‬

SamP

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 245

Exod. 8:7

Table (cont.)

‫תשׁארנה‬

‫יאר‬/‫ב‬

‫רק‬

‫ך‬/‫עמ‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫עבדי‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬

---

‫ך‬/‫בתי‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫מ‬/‫מ‬

‫צפרדעים‬/‫ה‬

ὑπολειφθήσονται

ἐν τῷ ποταµῷ

πλὴν

καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ λαοῦ σου

καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν θεραπόντων σου

καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἐπαύλεων

καὶ ἐκ τῶν οἰκιῶν ὑµῶν

ἀπὸ σοῦ

οἱ βάτραχοι

καὶ περιαιρεθήσονται

---

‫נו‬/‫אלהי‬

‫סרו‬/‫ו‬

πλὴν κυρίου

ἄλλος

---

‫יהוה‬/‫כ‬

οὐκ ἔστιν

LXX

‫אין‬

MT

‫תשׁארנה‬

‫יאר‬/‫ב‬

‫רק‬

‫ך‬/‫עמ‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫עבדי‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬

---

‫ך‬/‫בתי‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫מ‬/‫מ‬

‫צפרדעים‬/‫ה‬

‫סרו‬/‫ו‬

‫נו‬/‫אלהי‬

‫יהוה‬/‫כ‬

---

‫אין‬

SamP

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

‫נו‬/‫א]להי‬

‫יהוה‬/‫כ‬

---

‫א[ין‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

246 appendix

Exod. 8:9

Exod. 8:8

Table (cont.)

µωυσῆς

‫משׁה‬

καὶ ἐβόησεν

‫יצעק‬/‫ו‬

‫דבר‬

κύριος

‫יהוה‬

καθάπερ εἶπεν

ἐποίησεν δὲ

‫יעשׂ‬/‫ו‬

‫דבר‬/‫כ‬

--- φαραώ

ἐτάξατο

ὡς

τῶν βατράχων

τοῦ ὁρισµοῦ

‫פרעה‬/‫ל‬

‫שׂם‬

‫אשׁר‬

‫צפרדעים‬/‫ה‬

περὶ

κύριον

‫יהוה‬

‫על‬

πρὸς

‫אל‬

µωυσῆς

φαραώ

‫פרעה‬

‫משׁה‬

ἀπὸ

‫עם‬/‫מ‬

καὶ ἀαρὼν

ἐξῆλθεν δὲ

‫יצא‬/‫ו‬

‫אהרן‬/‫ו‬

LXX

MT

‫דבר‬/‫כ‬

‫יהוה‬

‫יעשׂ‬/‫ו‬

‫פרעה‬/‫ל‬

‫שׂם‬

‫אשׁר‬

‫צפרדעים‬/‫ה‬

‫דבר‬

‫על‬

‫יהוה‬

‫אל‬

‫משׁה‬

‫יצעק‬/‫ו‬

‫פרעה‬

‫עם‬/‫מ‬

‫אהרן‬/‫ו‬

‫משׁה‬

‫יצא‬/‫ו‬

SamP

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

]‫משׁה‬

‫יצעק‬/‫ו‬

‫פרעה‬

sup

‫ע[ם‬/‫מ‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 247

Exod. 8:11

Exod. 8:10

Table (cont.)

καὶ ἐτελεύτησαν

‫ימתו‬/‫ו‬

θηµωνιάς

καὶ ὤζεσεν

‫תבאשׁ‬/‫ו‬

ὅτι

φαραὼ

‫פרעה‬

‫כי‬

ἰδὼν δὲ

‫ירא‬/‫ו‬

ἡ γῆ

θηµωνιὰς

‫חמרם‬

‫חמרם‬

‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬

αὐτοὺς

καὶ συνήγαγον

‫יצברו‬/‫ו‬

‫ם‬/‫את‬

τῶν ἀγρῶν

καὶ ἐκ

τῶν ἐπαύλεων

καὶ ἐκ

τῶν οἰκιῶν

ἐκ

‫שׂדת‬/‫ה‬

‫מן‬/‫ו‬

‫חצרת‬/‫ה‬

‫ מן‬---

‫בתים‬/‫ה‬

‫מן‬

οἰ βάτραχοι

µωυσῆς

‫משׁה‬

‫צפרדעים‬/‫ה‬

LXX

MT

‫כי‬

‫פרעה‬

‫ירא‬/‫ו‬

‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬

‫תבאשׁ‬/‫ו‬

‫חמרים‬

‫חמרים‬

‫ם‬/‫את‬

‫יצברו‬/‫ו‬

‫שׂדות‬/‫ה‬

‫מן‬/‫ו‬

‫חצרות‬/‫ה‬

‫מן‬/‫ו‬

‫בתים‬/‫ה‬

‫מן‬

‫צפרדעים‬/‫ה‬

‫ימתו‬/‫ו‬

‫משׁה‬

SamP

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

‫כי‬

‫פרע[ה‬

‫בתים‬/]‫ה‬

‫מן‬

‫צפרדעים‬/‫ה‬

‫ימ[תו‬/‫ו‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

248 appendix

Exod. 8:12

Table (cont.)

εἶπεν δὲ

κύριος

πρὸς

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫יהוה‬

‫אל‬

ἔκτεινον

‫נטה‬

---

ἀαρών

‫אהרן‬

‫אל‬

εἶπον

κύριος

‫יהוה‬

‫אמר‬

ἐλάλησεν

‫דבר‬

µωυσῆν

καθάπερ

‫אשׁר‬/‫כ‬

‫משׁה‬

αὐτῶν

‫הם‬/‫אל‬

‫שׁמע‬

‫ו‬/‫את לב‬

‫נטה‬

‫אהרן‬

‫אל‬

‫אמר‬

‫משׁה‬

‫אל‬

‫יהוה‬

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫יהוה‬

‫דבר‬

‫אשׁר‬/‫כ‬

‫יהם‬/‫אל‬

‫שׁמע‬

ἡ καρδία αὐτοῦ

‫ו‬/‫את לב‬

‫יכבד‬/‫ו‬

εἰσήκουσεν

--- ἐβαρύνθη

‫הכבד‬/‫ו‬

‫רוחה‬/‫ה‬

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

ἀνάψυξις

‫רוחה‬/‫ה‬

‫היתה‬

SamP

καὶ οὐκ

γέγονεν

‫היתה‬

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

LXX

MT

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

‫נטה‬

[ ‫אה]רן‬

‫א[ל‬

‫יה]וה‬

‫דב[ר‬

] ‫רוחה‬/‫ה‬

‫היתה‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 249

Exod. 8:13

Table (cont.)

ἔν τε τοῖς ἀνθρώποις

καὶ ἐν τοῖς τετράποσιν

καὶ ἐν πάσῃ

---

---

‫כל‬/‫ ב‬---

---

‫כן‬

‫אהרן‬

‫ו‬/‫את יד‬

τῇ χειρὶ ---

ἀαρὼν

ἐξέτεινεν οὖν

---

‫יעשׂו‬/‫ו‬

--- ‫יט‬/‫ו‬

αἰγύπτου

‫מצרים‬

γῇ

--- σκνῖφες

‫כנם‬/‫ל‬

‫ארץ‬

καὶ ἔσονται

τῆς γῆς

‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬

‫היה‬/‫ו‬

τὸ χῶµα

καὶ πάταξον

τὴν ῥάβδον σου

τῇ χειρὶ ---

LXX

‫את עפר‬

‫הך‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫את מט‬

---

MT

‫ו‬/‫את יד‬

‫אהרן‬

--- ‫יט‬/‫ו‬

‫כן‬

‫יעשׂו‬/‫ו‬

‫מצרים‬

‫ארץ‬

‫כל‬/‫ ב‬---

---

---

‫כנים‬/‫ל‬

‫יהי‬/‫ו‬

‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬

‫את עפר‬

‫הכה‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫מט‬/‫ב‬

‫ך‬/‫את יד‬

SamP

]‫א[הרון‬

‫כני]ם‬/‫[ל‬

] ‫ע[פר‬

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

‫ו‬/‫[את יד‬

‫מטך‬/‫] ב‬

‫ך‬/‫את יד‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

250 appendix

Table (cont.)

καὶ ἐγένοντο

οἱ σκνῖφες

ἔν τε τοῖς ἀνθρώποις

καὶ ἐν τοῖς τετράποσιν

‫תהי‬/‫ו‬

‫כנם‬/‫ה‬

‫אדם‬/‫ב‬

‫בהמה‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

ἐν πάσῃ

γῇ

‫כל‬/‫ב‬

‫ארץ‬

αἰγύπτου

οἱ σκνῖφες

‫כנים‬

‫מצרים‬

ἐγένοντο

τῆς γῆς

‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬

‫היה‬

χώµατι

‫עפר‬

καὶ ἐν παντὶ

τῆς γῆς

‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬

‫ כל‬---

τὸ χῶµα

καὶ ἐπάταξεν

τὴν ῥάβδον ---

LXX

‫את עפר‬

‫יך‬/‫ו‬

‫ו‬/‫מטה‬/‫ב‬

MT

‫מצרים‬

‫ארץ‬

‫כל‬/‫ב‬

‫כנים‬

‫היה‬

‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬

‫עפר‬

‫ כל‬---

‫בהמה‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫אדם‬/‫ב‬

‫כנים‬/‫ה‬

‫תהי‬/‫ו‬

‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬

‫את עפר‬

‫יך‬/‫ו‬

‫ו‬/‫מטה‬/‫ב‬

SamP

]‫מ[צרים‬

‫הי]ה‬

‫אר[ץ‬/‫ה‬

]‫בהמה‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫אד[ם‬/‫ב‬

]‫ו‬/‫[מטה‬/‫ב‬

4QpaleoExodm

‫[ם‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

‫מצ[רים‬

‫ו‬/‫מט]ה‬/‫ב‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 251

Exod. 8:15

Exod. 8:14

Table (cont.)

εἶπαν οὖν

‫יאמרו‬/‫ו‬

τῷ φαραώ

καὶ ἐν τοῖς τετράποσιν

‫בהמה‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫אל פרעה‬

ἔν τε τοῖς ἀνθρώποις

‫אדם‬/‫ב‬

οἱ ἐπαοιδοὶ

οἱ σκνῖφες

‫כנם‬/‫ה‬

‫חרטמים‬/‫ה‬

καὶ ἐγένοντο

ἠδύναντο

‫תהי‬/‫ו‬

καὶ οὐκ

‫יכלו‬

τὸν σκνῖφα

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

‫כנים‬/‫את ה‬

ἐξαγαγεῖν

ταῖς φαρµακείαις αὐτῶν

‫הם‬/‫לטי‬/‫ב‬

‫הוציא‬/‫ל‬

οἱ ἐπαοιδοὶ

καὶ

---

‫חרטמים‬/‫ה‬

ὡσαύτως

ἐποίησαν δὲ

LXX

‫כן‬

‫יעשׂו‬/‫ו‬

MT

‫אל פרעה‬

‫חרטמים‬/‫ה‬

‫יאמרו‬/‫ו‬

‫בהמה‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫אדם‬/‫ב‬

‫כנים‬/‫ה‬

‫תהי‬/‫ו‬

‫יכלו‬

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

‫כנים‬/‫את ה‬

‫הוציא‬/‫ל‬

‫הם‬/‫להטי‬/‫ב‬

‫חרטמים‬/‫ה‬

---

‫כן‬

‫יעשׂו‬/‫ו‬

SamP

‫אל פרעה‬

‫חרטומי[ם‬/‫ה‬

] ‫כ[נים‬/]‫ה‬

‫יהי‬/‫ו‬

‫י[כלו‬

]· ‫[חרטומים‬/‫ה‬

4QpaleoExodm

‫כנים‬/‫[ה‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

‫בה]מה‬/‫[ב‬/‫ו‬

‫י]עשׂו‬/‫ו‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

252 appendix

Exod. 8:16

Table (cont.)

κύριος

πρὸς

‫יהוה‬

‫אל‬

‫השׁכם‬

---

ὄρθρισον

---

µωυσῆν

εἶπεν δὲ

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫משׁה‬

‫דבר‬

κύριος

‫השׁכם‬

---

‫משׁה‬

‫אל‬

‫יהוה‬

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫יהוה‬

ἐλάλησεν

‫דבר‬

‫יהוה‬

‫יהם‬/‫אל‬

‫שׁמע‬

‫אשׁר‬/‫כ‬

εἰσήκουσεν

‫שׁמע‬

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

‫פרעה‬

καθάπερ

καὶ οὐκ

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

‫אשׁר‬/‫כ‬

φαραώ

‫פרעה‬

‫ לב‬---

αὐτῶν

ἡ καρδία

‫ לב‬---

‫יחזק‬/‫ו‬

‫היא‬

‫אלהים‬

‫אצבע‬

SamP

‫הם‬/‫אל‬

καὶ ἐσκληρύνθη

‫יחזק‬/‫ו‬

ἐστιν τοῦτο

θεοῦ

‫אלהים‬

‫הוא‬

δάκτυλος

LXX

‫אצבע‬

MT

]‫אמיר‬/‫ל‬

[‫משׁה‬

‫אל‬

‫אשׁ]ר‬/‫כ‬

‫יהם‬/‫א[ל‬

]‫אצבע‬

4QpaleoExodm

vacat [

‫א[צבע‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 253

Table (cont.)

‫פרעה‬

καὶ ἐρεῖς

‫אמרת‬/‫ו‬

τάδε

λέγει

κύριος

ἐξαπόστειλον

τὸν λαόν µου

ἵνα µοι λατρεύσωσιν

‫כה‬

‫אמר‬

‫יהוה‬

‫שׁלח‬

‫י‬/‫ עמ‬---

‫ני‬/‫יעבד‬/‫ו‬

πρὸς αὐτόν

ἐπὶ το ὕδωρ

‫ה‬/‫מימ‬/‫ה‬

‫יו‬/‫אל‬

ἐξελεύσεται

‫יוצא‬

ἰδοὺ αὐτὸς

φαραώ

--- ‫הנה‬

‫פרעה‬

‫פני‬/‫ל‬

ἐναντίον

‫פני‬/‫ל‬

‫ני‬/‫יעבד‬/‫ו‬

‫י‬/‫את עמ‬

‫שׁלח‬

‫יהוה‬

‫אמר‬

‫כה‬

‫יו‬/‫אל‬

‫אמרת‬/‫ו‬

‫מים‬/‫ה‬

‫יצא‬

‫הנה הוא‬

‫התיצב‬/‫ו‬

καὶ στῆθι

‫התיצב‬/‫ו‬

‫בקר‬/‫ב‬

SamP

τὸ πρωὶ

LXX

‫בקר‬/‫ב‬

MT

]‫יו‬/‫[אל‬

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

]‫י‬/‫]את ע[מ‬

]‫יו[צא‬

‫]הנה הוא‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

254 appendix

Exod. 8:17

Table (cont.)

µὴ βούλῃ

ἐξαποστεῖλαι

τὸν λαόν µου

‫ך‬/‫אינ‬

‫משׁלח‬

‫י‬/‫את עמ‬

--- κυνόµυιαν

καὶ πλησθήσονται

‫ערב‬/‫את ה‬

‫מלאו‬/‫ו‬

τῶν αἰγυπτἱων

τῆς κυνοµυίας

‫מצרים‬

‫ערב‬/‫את ה‬

αἱ οἰκίαι

καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς οἴκους ὑµῶν

‫ך‬/‫בתי‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫בתי‬

καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν λαόν σου

καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς θεράποντάς σου

ἐπὶ σὲ

ἐπαποστέλλω

‫ך‬/‫עמ‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫עבדי‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫ב‬

‫משׁליח‬

ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ

ἐὰν δὲ

‫כי אם‬

‫ני‬/‫הנ‬

LXX

MT

‫ערב‬/‫את ה‬

‫מצרים‬

‫בתי‬

‫מלאו‬/‫ו‬

‫ערב‬/‫את ה‬

‫ך‬/‫בתי‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫עמ‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫עבדי‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫ב‬

‫משׁלח‬

‫ני‬/‫הנ‬

‫י‬/‫את עמ‬

‫משׁלח‬

‫ך‬/‫אינ‬

‫כי אם‬

SamP

‫מלא]ו‬/‫ו‬

‫ער[וב‬/‫ ה‬---

‫י‬/]‫את עמ‬

‫משׁ[לח‬

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

‫ערב‬/‫א[ת ה‬

‫מצרים‬

‫בת]י‬

‫[מלאו‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫עבדי‬/]‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫ב‬

‫משׁלח‬

‫ני‬/‫הנ‬

‫י‬/‫את עמ‬

‫[משׁלח‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 255

Exod. 8:18

Table (cont.)

--- εἰσὶν

ἐπ’ αὐτῆς

--- ‫הם‬

‫יה‬/‫על‬

ἐφ’ ἧς οὐκ

‫בלתי‬/‫ל‬

‫ ערב‬---

ἡ κυνόµυια

ἐκεῖ

ἐπ’ αὐτῆς

‫יה‬/‫על‬

‫שׁם‬

ἔπεστιν

‫עמד‬

ἔσται

ὁ λαός µου

‫י‬/‫עמ‬

‫היות‬

ἐφ’ ἧς

‫אשׁר‬

τὴν γῆν

‫את ארץ‬

γέσεµ

ἐκείνῃ

‫גשׁן‬

‫יום‬/‫ב‬

ἐν τῇ ἡµέρᾳ

‫יום‬/‫ב‬

‫הוא‬/‫ה‬

‫ ערב‬---

‫שׁם‬

‫היות‬

‫בלתי‬/‫ל‬

‫יה‬/‫על‬

‫עמד‬

‫י‬/‫עמ‬

‫אשׁר‬

‫גשׁן‬

‫את ארץ‬

‫הוא‬/‫ה‬

‫הפליתי‬/‫ו‬

‫יה‬/‫על‬

--- ‫הם‬

‫אשׁר‬

‫אדמה‬/‫ה‬

‫גם‬/‫ו‬

SamP

καὶ παραδοξάσω

‫הפליתי‬/‫ו‬

ἐφ’ ἧς

‫אשׁר‬

εἰς τὴν γῆν

καὶ

‫גם‬/‫ו‬

‫אדמה‬/‫ה‬

LXX

MT

‫הפליתי‬/]‫ו‬

‫יה‬/‫על‬

--- ‫[המה‬

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

‫]ב[ל]תי‬/‫ל‬

[ ‫יה‬/]‫ע[ל‬

‫א]שׁר‬

‫ג[שׁן‬

‫יה‬/]‫] ע[ל‬

--- ‫המה‬

‫אשׁר‬

‫אדמה‬/[‫]ה‬

‫גם‬/‫ו‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

256 appendix

Exod. 8:19

Table (cont.)

‫בין‬

ἀνὰ µέσον

τὸ σηµεῖον

τοῦτο

‫זה‬/‫ה‬

ἐν δὲ τῇ αὔριον

‫מחר‬/‫ל‬

ἔσται

τοῦ σοῦ λαοῦ

‫ך‬/‫עמ‬

‫יהיה‬

καὶ ἀνὰ µέσον

‫בין‬/‫ו‬

‫את‬/‫ה‬

τοῦ ἐµοῦ λαοῦ

‫י‬/‫עמ‬

‫זה‬/‫ה‬

‫אות‬/‫ה‬

‫יהיה‬

‫מחר‬/‫ל‬

‫ך‬/‫עמ‬

‫בין‬/‫ו‬

‫י‬/‫עמ‬

‫שׂמתי‬/‫ו‬

‫וב]ין‬

‫י‬/‫עמ‬

‫בין‬

διαστολὴν

‫פדת‬

‫בין‬

‫[·] [ת‬

‫פדות‬

καὶ δώσω

‫שׂמתי‬/‫ו‬

‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬

τῆς γῆς

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬

--‫קרב‬/‫ב‬

4QpaleoExodm

πάσης

ὁ κύριος

---

‫יהוה‬

--- ‫אני‬

‫כי‬

‫תדע‬

‫מען‬/‫ל‬

SamP

‫קרב‬/‫ב‬

κύριος

ὅτι

‫כי‬

‫יהוה‬

εἰδῇς

‫תדע‬

ἐγώ εἰµι

ἵνα

‫מען‬/‫ל‬

--- ‫אני‬

LXX

MT

2QExoda

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 257

Exod. 8:19b

Table (cont.)

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

τῆς γῆς

---

---

ἐπὶ

---

---

LXX

MT

---------

‫ני‬/‫יעבד‬/‫ו‬ ‫כי‬ ‫אם‬ ‫ך‬/‫אינ‬

-----

‫כה‬ ‫אמר‬

---

---

‫יו‬/‫אל‬

‫י‬/‫את עמ‬

---

‫יאמרו‬/‫ו‬

---

---

‫פרעה‬

‫שׁלח‬

---

‫אל‬

---

---

‫אהרן‬/‫ו‬

‫יהוה‬

---

‫משׁה‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

---

‫[אמ]ר‬

4QpaleoExodm

‫יבא‬/‫ו‬

---

---

SamP

2QExoda

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

258 appendix

‫‪synopsis of the textual witnesses‬‬ ‫‪259‬‬

‫‪4QExodj‬‬

‫‪4QGen‬‬‫‪Exoda‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪4QExodc‬‬

‫‪2QExoda‬‬

‫הנ‪/‬ני]‬

‫[עמ‪/‬י‬

‫הנ‪/‬ני‬

‫את עמ‪/‬י‬

‫מצרי]ים‬

‫בתי‬

‫ו‪/‬מל[או‬

‫מצרים‬

‫בתי‬

‫ו‪/‬מלאו‬

‫את ה‪/‬ערב‬

‫ו‪/‬ב‪/‬בתי‪/‬ך‬

‫ו‪/‬ב‪/‬עמ‪/‬ך‬

‫ו‪/‬ב‪/‬עבדי‪/‬ך‬

‫ב‪/‬ך‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫על‪/‬יה‬

‫הם‬

‫אשׁר‬

‫ה‪/‬אדמה‬

‫ו‪/‬גם‬

‫את ה‪/‬ערב‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫משׁלח‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫משׁלח‬

‫‪4Qpaleo‬‬‫‪Gen-Exodl‬‬

‫‪4Qpaleo‬‬‫‪Exodm‬‬

‫‪SamP‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪LXX‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪MT‬‬

‫)‪Table (cont.‬‬

‫‪260‬‬ ‫‪appendix‬‬

‫‪4QExodj‬‬

‫‪4QGen‬‬‫‪Exoda‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪4QExodc‬‬

‫‪2QExoda‬‬

‫את ארץ]‬

‫ה‪/‬הוא‬

‫ב‪/‬יו[ם‬

‫את ארץ‬

‫ה‪/‬הוא‬

‫ב‪/‬יום‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫כי‬

‫יהוה‬ ‫ב‪/‬קרב‬

‫יה]וה‬

‫אני‬

‫כי‬

‫תדע‬

‫אני‬

‫תדע‬

‫[ל‪/‬מען‬

‫ל‪/‬מען‬

‫ערב‬

‫שׁם‬

‫היות‬

‫ל‪/‬בלתי‬

‫על‪/‬יה‬

‫עמד‬

‫אשׁר עמ‪/‬י‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫גשׁן‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫ו‪/‬הפליתי‬

‫‪4Qpaleo‬‬‫‪Gen-Exodl‬‬

‫‪4Qpaleo‬‬‫‪Exodm‬‬

‫‪SamP‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪LXX‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪MT‬‬

‫)‪Table (cont.‬‬

Exod. 8:20

Table (cont.)

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

‫כבד‬

‫ ערב‬---

‫יבא‬/‫ו‬

---

πλῆθος

ἡ κυνόµυια

καὶ παρεγένετο

οὕτως

---

---

‫כן‬

---

---

κύριος

---

---

‫יהוה‬

---

---

ἐποίησεν δὲ

---

---

‫יעשׂ‬/‫ו‬

LXX

MT

-----------

‫מחר‬/‫[ ל‬ ‫יהיה‬ ‫אות‬/]‫ה‬

‫בין‬ ‫י‬/‫עמ‬ ‫בין‬/‫ו‬ ‫ך‬/‫עמ‬ ‫מחר‬/‫ל‬ ‫יהיה‬ ‫אות‬/‫ה‬

[‫כבד‬ ‫מאד‬

‫כבד‬ ‫מאד‬

‫ ערב‬---

‫יבא‬/‫ו‬

‫כן‬

‫יהוה‬

‫יעשׂ‬/‫ו‬

‫זה‬/‫ה‬

---

‫פדות‬

]·· ··

[ ] ‫כ]ב[ד‬

‫ [ערב‬---

---

---

---

---

‫שׁמתי‬/‫ו‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl ---

4QpaleoExodm

‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬

SamP

2QExoda

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 261

Exod. 8:21

Table (cont.)

καὶ εἰς τοὺς οἴκους

τῶν θεραπόντων αὐτοῦ

καὶ εἰς πᾶσαν

‫בית‬/‫ו‬

‫ו‬/‫עבדי‬

‫כל‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

φαραὼ

‫פרעה‬

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

--- λέγων

καὶ --- ἀαρὼν

ἐκάλεσεν δὲ

‫יקרא‬/‫ו‬

‫אהרן‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬

τῆς κυνοµυίας

‫ערב‬/‫ה‬

--- µωυσῆν

ἀπὸ

‫פני‬/‫מ‬

‫אל משׁה‬

ἡ γῆ

καὶ ἐξωλεθρεύθη

αἰγύπτου

‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬

‫ תשׁחת‬---

‫מצרים‬

γῆν

φαραὼ

‫פרעה‬

‫ארץ‬

εἰς τοὺς οἴκους

LXX

‫ה‬/‫בית‬

MT

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫אהרן‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬

‫משׁה‬/‫ל‬

‫פרעה‬

‫יקרא‬/‫ו‬

‫ערב‬/‫ה‬

‫פני‬/‫מ‬

‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬

‫תשׁחת‬/‫ו‬

‫מצרים‬

‫ארץ‬

‫כל‬/‫ ב‬---

‫ו‬/‫עבדי‬

‫בית‬/‫ו‬

‫פרעה‬

‫ה‬/‫בית‬

SamP

]‫ו‬

‫ערוב‬/‫ה‬

‫[פני‬/‫מ‬

]‫פרעה‬

‫ה‬/‫בית‬

4QpaleoExodm

(?)]‫[·י‬

]‫פני‬/‫מ‬

‫אר[ץ‬/‫ה‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

4QExodc

‫יקר]א‬/‫ו‬

‫ערב‬/‫[ ה‬

4QGenExoda

4QExodj

262 appendix

Exod. 8:22

Table (cont.)

θύσατε

‫זבחו‬

γὰρ

‫כי‬

‫ הן‬---

‫נו‬/‫ אלהי‬---

‫יהוה‬/‫ל‬

‫נזבח‬

‫ מצרים‬---

‫יהוה‬/‫ל‬

ἐὰν γὰρ

‫ הן‬---

‫נו‬/‫ אלהי‬---

--- κυρίῳ

τῷ θεῷ ἡµῶν

‫נזבח‬

‫ מצרים‬---

‫תועבת‬

‫כי‬

---

‫כן‬

‫עשׂות‬/‫ל‬

‫נכון‬

‫לא‬

‫משׁה‬

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬

‫כם‬/‫אלהי‬/‫ל‬

‫זבחו‬

‫לכו‬

SamP

θύσωµεν

τῶν αἰγυπτίων

βδελύγµατα

τὰ

---

‫תועבת‬

οὕτως

γενέσθαι

‫עשׂות‬/‫ל‬

‫כן‬

δυνατὸν

‫נכון‬

µωυσῆς

‫משׁה‬

οὐ

καὶ εἶπεν

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫לא‬

ἐν τῇ γῇ

‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬

τῷ θεῷ ὑµῶν

ἐλθόντες

‫לכו‬

‫כם‬/‫אלהי‬/‫ל‬

LXX

MT

] ‫י[הוה‬/]‫[ל‬

]‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬

‫כם‬/‫אלהי‬/‫[ל‬

4QpaleoExodm

(?)]‫[·י‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

]‫כ[ן‬

4QExodc

‫ל]א‬

‫משׁה‬

‫[יאמר‬/‫ו‬

4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 263

Exod. 8:23

Table (cont.)

ἐναντίον αὐτῶν

‫הם‬/‫עיני‬/‫ל‬

ἡµῖν

καθάπερ

‫אשׁר‬/‫כ‬

‫ינו‬/‫אל‬

τῷ θεῷ ἡµῶν

‫נו‬/‫אלהי‬

εἶπεν

κυρίῳ

‫יאמר‬

καὶ θύσοµεν

‫יהוה‬/‫ל‬

πορευσόµεθα

‫נלך‬

‫זבחנו‬/‫ו‬

ἡµερῶν

‫ימים‬

εἰς τὴν ἔρηµον

τριῶν

‫מדבר‬/‫ב‬

ὁδὸν

‫דרך‬

λιθοβοληθησόµεθα

‫שׁלשׁת‬

‫יסקלנו‬

---

τῶν αἰγυπτίων

‫ מצרים‬---

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

τὰ βδελύγµατα

θύσωµεν

‫נזבח‬

‫את תועבת‬

LXX

MT

‫ינו‬/‫אל‬

‫יאמר‬

‫אשׁר‬/‫כ‬

‫נו‬/‫אלהי‬

‫יהוה‬/‫ל‬

‫נזבחה‬/‫ו‬

‫מדבר‬/‫ב‬

‫נלכה‬

‫ימים‬

‫שׁלשׁת‬

‫דרך‬

‫יסקלנו‬

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

‫הם‬/‫עיני‬/‫ל‬

‫ מצרים‬---

‫את תועבת‬

‫נזבח‬

SamP

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

‫יסקלנ]ו‬

‫[לא‬/‫ו‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

264 appendix

Exod. 8:24

Table (cont.)

εὔξασθε

‫העתירו‬

‫י‬/‫עד‬/‫ב‬

περὶ ἐµοῦ

οὖν

πορευθῆναι

‫לכת‬/‫ל‬

---

ἀποτενεῖτε

!

‫תרחיקו‬

‫לא‬

µακρὰν

οὐ

!

‫הרחק‬

ἀλλ’

ἐν τῇ ἐρήµῳ

‫מדבר‬/‫ב‬

‫רק‬

τῷ θεῷ ὑµῶν

κυρίῳ

καὶ θύσατε

‫כם‬/‫אלהי‬

‫יהוה‬/‫ל‬

‫זבחתם‬/‫ו‬

ὑµᾶς

‫כם‬/‫את‬

ἐγὼ

‫אנכי‬

ἐξαποστελῶ

φαραώ

‫פרעה‬

‫אשׁלח‬

καὶ εἶπεν

LXX

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

MT

‫י‬/‫עד‬/‫ב‬

---

‫העתירו‬

‫לכת‬/‫ל‬

‫תרחיקו‬

‫לא‬

‫הרחק‬

!

‫רק‬

‫מדבר‬/‫ב‬

‫כם‬/‫אלהי‬

‫יהוה‬/‫ל‬

‫זבחתם‬/‫ו‬

‫כם‬/‫את‬

‫אשׁלח‬

‫אנכי‬

‫פרעה‬

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

SamP

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 265

Exod. 8:25

Table (cont.)

ἐγὼ

ἐξελεύσοµαι

‫אנכי‬

‫יוצא‬

ἡ κυνόµυια

‫ערב‬/‫ה‬

‫ו‬/‫עמ‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬

‫ו‬/‫עבדי‬/‫ מ‬---

καὶ --- τοῦ λαοῦ σου

καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν θεραπόντων σου

ἀπὸ σοῦ

καὶ ἀπελεύσεται

‫סר‬/‫ו‬

‫פרעה‬/‫מ‬

τὸν θεόν

πρὸς

καὶ εὔξοµαι

‫יהוה‬

‫אל‬

‫העתרתי‬/‫ו‬

ἀπὸ σοῦ

ὅδε

‫הנה‬

‫ך‬/‫עמ‬/‫מ‬

µωυσῆς

‫משׁה‬

κύριον

---

εἶπεν δὲ

πρὸς

---

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

LXX

MT

‫ו‬/‫עמ‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬

‫ו‬/‫עבדי‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬

‫פרעה‬/‫מ‬

‫ערב‬/‫ה‬

‫סר‬/‫ו‬

‫יהוה‬

‫אל‬

‫העתרתי‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫עמ‬/‫מ‬

‫יצא‬

‫אנכי‬

‫הנה‬

‫משׁה‬

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

---

---

SamP

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

266 appendix

Exod. 8:26

Table (cont.)

προσθῇς

ἔτι

‫יסף‬

---

‫זבח‬/‫ל‬

καὶ ηὔξατο

πρὸς

‫פרעה‬

φαραώ

‫פרעה‬

‫יעתר‬/‫ו‬

‫אל‬

‫עם‬/‫מ‬

ἀπὸ

‫עם‬/‫מ‬

‫אל‬

‫יעתר‬/‫ו‬

‫משׁה‬

µωυσῆς

‫משׁה‬

‫יצא‬/‫ו‬

‫יהוה‬/‫ל‬

ἐξῆλθεν δὲ

κυρίῳ

‫עם‬/‫את ה‬

‫שׁלח‬

‫בלתי‬/‫ל‬

‫התל‬

‫פרעה‬

---

‫יסף‬

‫אל‬

‫רק‬

‫מחר‬

SamP

‫יצא‬/‫ו‬

θῦσαι

‫זבח‬/‫ל‬

τὸν λαὸν

ἐξαποστεῖλαι

τοῦ µὴ

ἐξαπατῆσαι

‫יהוה‬/‫ל‬

‫עם‬/‫את ה‬

‫שׁלח‬

‫בלתי‬/‫ל‬

‫התל‬

φαραώ

µὴ

‫אל‬

‫פרעה‬

---

αὔριον

‫מחר‬

‫רק‬

LXX

MT

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 267

Exod. 8:28

Exod. 8:27

Table (cont.)

ἐποίησεν δὲ

κύριος

‫יעשׂ‬/‫ו‬

‫יהוה‬

‫ו‬/‫את לב‬

τὴν καρδίαν αὐτοῦ

φαραὼ

‫פרעה‬

οὐδεµία

‫אחד‬

καὶ ἐβάρυνεν

κατελείφθη

‫נשׁאר‬

‫יכבד‬/‫ו‬

καὶ οὐ

καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ

‫ו‬/‫עמ‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬

‫ לא‬---

καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν θεραπόντων αὐτοῦ

‫ו‬/‫עבדי‬/‫ מ‬---

τὴν κυνόµυιαν

‫ערב‬/‫ה‬

ἀπὸ φαραὼ

καὶ περιεῖλεν

‫פרעה‬/‫מ‬

µωυσῆς

‫משׁה‬

‫יסר‬/‫ו‬

καθάπερ εἶπεν

τὸν θεόν

‫יהוה‬

‫דבר‬/‫כ‬

LXX

MT

‫ו‬/‫את לב‬

‫פרעה‬

‫יכבד‬/‫ו‬

‫אחד‬

‫נשׁאר‬

‫ לא‬---

‫ו‬/‫עמ‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬

‫ו‬/‫עבדי‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬

‫פרעה‬/‫מ‬

‫ערב‬/‫ה‬

‫יסר‬/‫ו‬

‫משׁה‬

‫דבר‬/‫כ‬

‫יהוה‬

‫יעשׂ‬/‫ו‬

‫יהוה‬

SamP

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

268 appendix

Exod. 9:1

Table (cont.)

καὶ οὐκ

ἠθέλησεν

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

---

αὐτῷ

τάδε

λέγει

‫כה‬

‫אמר‬

καὶ ἐρεῖς

‫דברת‬/‫ו‬

‫יו‬/‫אל‬

φαραὼ

πρὸς

‫אל‬

‫פרעה‬

εἴσελθε

πρὸς

‫אל‬

‫בא‬

κύριος

‫יהוה‬

µωυσῆν

εἶπεν δὲ

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫משׁה‬

τὸν λαόν

‫עם‬/‫את ה‬

ἐξαποστεῖλαι

τούτου

‫זאת‬/‫ה‬

‫שׁלח‬

ἐπὶ τοῦ καιροῦ

καὶ

‫גם‬

‫פעם‬/‫ב‬

LXX

MT

‫אמר‬

‫כה‬

‫יו‬/‫אל‬

‫אמרת‬/‫ו‬

‫פרעה‬

‫אל‬

‫בא‬

‫משׁה‬

‫אל‬

‫יהוה‬

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫עם‬/‫את ה‬

‫שׁלח‬

---

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

‫זאת‬/‫ה‬

‫פעם‬/‫ב‬

‫גם‬

SamP

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 269

Exod. 9:3

Exod. 9:2

Table (cont.)

ἔσται

‫הויה‬

χεὶρ

‫יד‬

κυρίου

ἰδοὺ

‫יהוה‬

αὐτοῦ

‫ם‬/‫ב‬

‫הנה‬

ἐγκρατεῖς

‫מחזיק‬

τὸν λαόν µου

---

ἀλλ’ ἔτι ---

ἐξαποστεῖλαι

‫שׁלח‬/‫ל‬

‫ך‬/‫עוד‬/‫ו‬

µὴ βούλει ---

‫מאן אתה‬

εἰ µὲν οὖν

ἵνα µοι λατρεύσωσιν

‫כי אם‬

‫י‬/‫את עמ‬

τὸν λαόν µου

‫י‬/‫את עמ‬

‫ני‬/‫יעבד‬/‫ו‬

‫היה‬

‫יהוה‬

‫יד‬

‫הנה‬

‫ם‬/‫ב‬

‫מחזיק‬

‫ך‬/‫עוד‬/‫ו‬

---

‫שׁלח‬/‫ל‬

‫מאן אתה‬

‫כי אם‬

‫ני‬/‫יעבד‬/‫ו‬

‫שׁלח‬

ἐξαπόστειλον

‫עברים‬/‫ה‬

‫אלהי‬

‫שׁלח‬

ὁ θεὸς

‫אלהי‬

‫יהוה‬

τῶν ἐβραίων

κύριος

‫יהוה‬

SamP

‫עברים‬/‫ה‬

LXX

MT

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

270 appendix

Exod. 9:4

Table (cont.)

σφόδρα

‫מאד‬

‫בין‬

‫יהוה‬

ἀνὰ µέσον

ἐγὼ

καὶ παραδοξάσω

µέγας

‫כבד‬

‫הפלה‬/‫ו‬

θάνατος

καὶ --- προβάτοις

‫צאן‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫דבר‬

καὶ --- βουσὶν

καὶ ἐν ταῖς καµήλοις

‫גמלים‬/‫ ב‬---

‫בקר‬/‫ ב‬---

καὶ ἐν τοῖς ὑποζυγίοις

ἔν τε τοῖς ἵπποις

‫סוסים‬/‫ב‬

‫חמרים‬/‫ ב‬---

ἐν τοῖς πεδίοις

τοῖς

ἐν τοῖς κτήνεσίν σου

LXX

‫שׂדה‬/‫ב‬

‫אשׁר‬

‫ך‬/‫מקנ‬/‫ב‬

MT

‫בין‬

‫יהוה‬

‫הפלא‬/‫ו‬

‫מאד‬

‫כבד‬

‫דבר‬

‫צאן‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫בקר‬/‫ ב‬---

‫גמלים‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫חמורים‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫סוסים‬/‫ב‬

‫שׂדה‬/‫ב‬

‫אשׁר‬

‫ך‬/‫מקני‬/‫ב‬

SamP

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 271

Exod. 9:5

Table (cont.)

‫בני‬/‫ל‬

ὅρον

λέγων

‫אמר‬/‫ל‬

ἐν τῇ αὔριον

ὁ θεὸς

‫יהוה‬

‫מועד‬

‫מחר‬

καὶ ἔδωκεν

ῥητόν

‫דבר‬

‫ישׂם‬/‫ו‬

υἱῶν

!

τοῦ ἰσραὴλ

τῶν !

‫ ישׂראל‬---

‫בני‬/‫ל‬

‫כל‬/‫מ‬

ἀπὸ πάντων

‫כל‬/‫מ‬

‫מחר‬

‫אמר‬/‫ל‬

‫מועד‬

‫יהוה‬

‫ישׂם‬/‫ו‬

‫דבר‬

!

‫ ישׂראל‬---

‫ימות‬

τελευτήσει

‫ימות‬

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

! ‫מצרים‬

--- οὐ

! ἰσραήλ

! ‫מצרים‬

---

‫ מקנה‬---

‫בין‬/‫ו‬

! ‫ ישׂראל‬---

‫ מקנה‬---

SamP

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

τῶν υἱῶν

---

τῶν κτηνῶν

καὶ ἀνὰ µέσον

‫בין‬/‫ו‬

‫ מקנה‬---

! τῶν αἰγυπτίων

τῶν κτηνῶν

LXX

! ‫ ישׂראל‬---

‫ מקנה‬---

MT

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

272 appendix

Exod. 9:5b

Table (cont.)

κύριος

‫יהוה‬

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς

τοῦτο

---

‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬

‫זה‬/‫ה‬

τὸ ῥῆµα

ποιήσει

‫יעשׂה‬

‫דבר‬/‫ ה‬---

LXX

MT

---

---

‫שׁלח‬

---

‫יהוה‬

---

---

‫אמר‬

‫אלהי‬

---

‫כה‬

‫עברים‬/‫ה‬

-----

---

‫פרעה‬

‫יו‬/‫אל‬

---

‫אל‬

‫יאמרו‬/‫ו‬

---

‫אהרן‬/‫ו‬

4QExodc

---

2QExoda

---

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

‫משׁה‬

4QpaleoExodm

‫יבא‬/‫ו‬

‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬

‫זה‬/‫ה‬

‫דבר‬/‫את ה‬

‫יהוה‬

‫יעשׂה‬

SamP

4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 273

‫‪274‬‬ ‫‪appendix‬‬

‫‪4QExodj‬‬

‫‪4QGen‬‬‫‪Exoda‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫ו‪/‬ב‪/‬גמלים‬

‫ו‪/‬ב‪/‬חמורים‬

‫ב‪/‬סוסים‬

‫ב‪/‬שׂדה‬

‫אשׁר‬

‫ב‪/‬מקני‪/‬ך‬

‫היה‬

‫יהוה‬

‫יד‬

‫הנה‬

‫ב‪/‬ם‬

‫מחזיק‬

‫ו‪/‬עוד‪/‬ך‬

‫ו‪/‬ב‪/‬גמל[ים‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫ל‪/‬שׁלח‬

‫כי אם‬

‫ו‪/‬יעבד‪/‬ני‬

‫מאן אתה‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫את עמ‪/‬י‬

‫‪4QExodc‬‬

‫‪2QExoda‬‬

‫‪4Qpaleo‬‬‫‪Gen-Exodl‬‬

‫‪4Qpaleo‬‬‫‪Exodm‬‬

‫‪SamP‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪LXX‬‬

‫‪MT‬‬

‫)‪Table (cont.‬‬

‫‪synopsis of the textual witnesses‬‬ ‫‪275‬‬

‫‪4QExodj‬‬

‫‪4QGen‬‬‫‪Exoda‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫מ‪/‬כל]‬

‫ימות‬

‫ו‪/‬לא‬

‫מצריים‬

‫[מקנה‬

‫מ‪/‬כל‬

‫ימות‬

‫ו‪/‬לא‬

‫מצרים‬

‫מקנה‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫ישׂראל‬

‫ל‪/‬בני‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫ו‪/‬בין‬

‫מקנה‬ ‫ישׂראל‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫מאד‬

‫בין‬

‫ו‪/‬הפלא‬

‫כבד‬

‫דבר‬

‫ו‪/‬ב‪/‬צאן‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫ו‪/‬ה]‬

‫מאד‬

‫כבד‬

‫דבר‬

‫ו‪/‬ב‪/‬צאן‬

‫ב‪/‬בקר‬

‫ב‪/‬בקר‬

‫יהוה‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪4QExodc‬‬

‫‪2QExoda‬‬

‫‪4Qpaleo‬‬‫‪Gen-Exodl‬‬

‫‪4Qpaleo‬‬‫‪Exodm‬‬

‫‪SamP‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪LXX‬‬

‫‪MT‬‬

‫)‪Table (cont.‬‬

Exod. 9:6

Table (cont.)

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

‫מקנה‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬

‫מצרים‬

‫מקנה‬

‫כל‬

‫ימת‬/‫ו‬

‫מחרת‬/‫מ‬

‫זה‬/‫ה‬

‫דבר‬/‫את ה‬

‫זה‬/‫ה‬ ‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬

‫זה‬/‫ה‬ ‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬

‫מצריים‬ ‫מקנה‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬

‫מצרים‬ ‫מקנה‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬

τῶν αἰγυπτίων

ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν κτηνῶν

‫מקנה‬

‫]כ[ל‬

‫יהו]ה‬

‫מקנה‬

‫כל‬

‫ימת‬/‫ו‬

‫מחרת‬/‫מ‬

‫זה‬/‫ה‬

‫דבר‬/‫את ה‬

‫יהוה‬

‫יעשׂ‬/‫ו‬

‫דבר‬/‫ ה‬---

‫דבר‬/‫את ה‬

‫יעשׂ‬/‫ו‬

---

‫יה[וה‬

‫יהוה‬

---

---

---

---

‫יעשׂה‬

4QExodc

---

2QExoda

‫מחר‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl ---

4QpaleoExodm

‫דבר‬

SamP

τὰ κτήνη

πάντα

καὶ ἐτελεύτησεν

τῇ ἐπαύριον

τοῦτο

τὸ ῥῆµα

κύριος

---

---

‫יהוה‬

---

---

καὶ ἐποίησεν

---

---

‫יעשׂ‬/‫ו‬

LXX

MT

4QGenExoda

4QExodj

276 appendix

Exod. 9:7

Table (cont.)

φαραὼ

ὅτι

οὐκ

ἐτελεύτησεν

‫פרעה‬

‫הנה‬/‫ו‬

‫לא‬

‫מת‬

φαραώ

καὶ οὐκ

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

ἡ καρδία

‫לב‬

‫פרעה‬

ἐβαρύνθη

οὐδέν

‫עד אחד‬

‫יכבד‬/‫ו‬

ἰσραὴλ

τῶν υἱῶν

‫ישׂראל‬

---

ἀπὸ τῶν κτηνῶν

ἰδὼν δὲ

‫ישׁלח‬/‫ו‬

‫מקנה‬/‫מ‬

οὐδέν

ἐτελεύτησεν

‫מת‬

‫אחד‬

οὐκ

ἰσραὴλ

τῶν υἱῶν

LXX

‫לא‬

‫ישׂראל‬

‫בני‬

MT

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

‫פרעה‬

‫לב‬

‫יכבד‬/‫ו‬

‫עד אחד‬ ]‫יכבד‬/‫ו‬

‫עד אחד‬

‫ישׂראל‬

‫בני‬

‫ישׂראל‬

‫מקנה‬/‫מ‬

‫בני‬

‫מת‬

‫לא‬

‫הנה‬/‫ו‬

‫]פר[עה‬

] ‫לא‬

‫ישׂראל‬

‫בני‬

4QpaleoExodm

‫מקנה‬/‫מ‬

‫מת‬

‫לא‬

‫הנה‬/‫ו‬

‫פרעה‬

‫ישׁלח‬/‫ו‬

‫אחד‬

‫מת‬

‫לא‬

‫ישׂראל‬

‫בני‬

SamP

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 277

Exod. 9:8

Table (cont.)

καὶ πασάτω

‫ו‬/‫זרק‬/‫ו‬

‫ה‬/‫שׁמימ‬/‫ה‬

εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν

µωυσῆς

καµιναίας

‫כבשׁן‬

‫משׁה‬

αἰθάλης

‫פיח‬

τὰς χεῖρας ---

πλήρεις

‫מלא‬

‫כם‬/‫ חפני‬---

λάβετε

--- ὑµεῖς

λέγων

---

‫קחו‬

ἀαρὼν

‫אהרן‬

‫כם‬/‫ל‬

καὶ ---

πρὸς

‫אל‬

‫אל‬/‫ו‬

κύριος

‫יהוה‬

µωυσῆν

εἶπεν δὲ

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫משׁה‬

τὸν λαόν

ἐξαπέστειλεν

‫שׁלח‬

‫עם‬/‫את ה‬

LXX

MT

‫עם‬/‫[ ה‬

4QpaleoExodm

‫שׁמים‬/‫ה‬

‫משׁה‬

‫ו‬/‫זרק‬/‫ו‬

‫כבשׁן‬

‫פיח‬

‫כם‬/‫ חופני‬---

‫מלוא‬

‫כם‬/‫ל‬

‫קחו‬

---

‫אהרן‬

‫אל‬/‫ו‬

‫משׁה‬

‫אל‬

‫יהוה‬

‫שׁ]מ[ים‬/‫[ ה‬

[‫פי]ח‬

‫כם‬/‫ חפנ‬---

‫מלא‬

‫כם‬/‫ל‬

‫קחו‬

‫אמור‬/‫ל‬

‫אהרון‬

‫אל‬/‫ו‬

‫משׁה‬

‫א[ל‬

‫יהוה‬

‫יאמר‬/‫ ]יאומר ו‬vacat [/‫]ו‬

‫עם‬/‫את ה‬

‫שׁלח‬

SamP

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

4QExodc

]‫ה‬/‫[שׁמימ‬/‫ה‬

‫י]הוה‬

‫יא[מר‬/‫ו‬

4QGenExoda

4QExodj

278 appendix

Exod. 9:9

Table (cont.)

‫אבעבעת‬

‫פרח‬

‫שׁחין‬/‫ל‬

‫בהמה‬/‫ה‬

‫על‬/‫ו‬

‫אדם‬/‫ה‬

φλυκτίδες

!

--- ἕλκη

τὰ τετράποδα

καὶ ἐπὶ

τοὺς ἀνθρώπους

ἐπὶ

καἰ ἔσται

‫היה‬/‫ו‬

‫על‬

αἰγύπτου

‫מצרים‬

γῆν

πᾶσαν

‫כל‬

‫ארץ‬

ἐπὶ

κονιορτὸς

‫על‬

‫אבק‬/‫ל‬

καὶ γενηθήτω

τῶν θεραπόντων αὐτοῦ

---

‫היה‬/‫ו‬

καὶ ἐναντίον

φαραὼ

‫פרעה‬

---

ἐναντίον

LXX

‫עיני‬/‫ל‬

MT

‫אבעבעות‬

‫פרח‬

‫שׁחין‬/‫ל‬

‫בהמה‬/‫ה‬

‫על‬/‫ו‬

‫אדם‬/‫ה‬

‫על‬

‫היה‬/‫ו‬

‫מצרים‬

‫ארץ‬

‫כל‬

‫על‬

‫אבק‬/‫ל‬

‫היה‬/‫ו‬

---

---

‫פרעה‬

‫עיני‬/‫ל‬

SamP

‫אבעבעות‬

‫פורח‬

‫שׁ[חין‬/]‫ל‬

‫בה[מה‬/‫ה‬

[‫מצ]רים‬

‫ארץ‬

---

‫על‬

‫אבק‬/‫ל‬

‫היה‬/‫ו‬

---

---

‫פרעה‬

‫עיני‬/‫ל‬

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 279

Exod. 9:10

Table (cont.)

καὶ ἐν τοῖς τετράποσιν

καὶ ἐν πάσῃ

---

‫כל‬/‫ ב‬---

µωυσῆς

‫משׁה‬

‫יהי‬/‫ו‬

καὶ ἐγένετο

εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν

αὐτὴν

‫ו‬/‫את‬

‫ה‬/‫שׁמימ‬/‫ה‬

καὶ ἔπασεν

‫יזרק‬/‫ו‬

---

‫יעמדו‬/‫ו‬

φαραώ

τῆς καµιναίας

‫כבשׁן‬/‫ה‬

‫פרעה‬

τὴν αἰθάλην

‫את פיח‬

ἐναντίον

καὶ ἔλαβεν

‫יקחו‬/‫ו‬

‫פני‬/‫ל‬

αἰγύπτου

‫מצרים‬

γῇ

ἔν τε τοῖς ἀνθρώποις

---

‫ארץ‬

ἀναζέουσαι

LXX

!

MT

‫ארץ‬

‫יהי‬/‫ו‬

‫שׁמים‬/‫ה‬

‫משׁה‬

‫ו‬/‫את‬

‫יזרק‬/‫ו‬

‫פרעה‬

‫פני‬/‫ל‬

‫יעמדו‬/‫ו‬

‫כבשׁן‬/‫ה‬

‫את פיח‬

‫יקחו‬/‫ו‬

[‫מ]שׁה‬

‫ו‬/‫אות‬

‫יזרק‬/‫ו‬

[ ‫פרעה‬

‫פנ]י‬/‫ל‬

‫יעמדו‬/‫[ו‬

[‫מצר]ים‬

‫ארץ‬ ‫מצרים‬

‫כל‬/‫ ב‬---

---

---

!

4QpaleoExodm

‫כל‬/‫ ב‬---

---

---

!

SamP

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

280 appendix

Exod. 9:11

Table (cont.)

‫שׁחין‬/‫ה‬

!

‫היה‬

‫כי‬

τὰ ἕλκη

γὰρ

ἐγένετο

!

τὰ ἕλκη

διὰ

‫שׁחין‬/‫ה‬

‫משׁה‬

µωυσῆ

‫משׁה‬

‫פני‬/‫מ‬

‫שׁחין‬/‫ה‬

!

‫היה‬

‫כי‬

‫שׁחין‬/‫ה‬

‫פני‬/‫מ‬

‫פני‬/‫ל‬

ἐναντίον

‫פני‬/‫ל‬

‫עמד‬/‫ל‬

στῆναι

‫חרטמים‬/‫ה‬

‫יכלו‬

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

‫בהמה‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫אדם‬/‫ב‬

‫פרח‬

‫אבעבעית‬

‫שׁחין‬

SamP

‫עמד‬/‫ל‬

οἱ φάρµακοι

ἠδύναντο

‫חרטמים‬/‫ה‬

καὶ οὐκ

καὶ ἐν τοῖς τετράποσιν

‫בהמה‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫יכלו‬

ἔν τε τοῖς ἀνθρώποις

‫אדם‬/‫ב‬

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

ἀναζέουσαι

‫פרח‬

φλυκτίδες

ἕλκη

‫שׁחין‬

‫אבעבעת‬

LXX

MT

] ‫יכלו‬

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

‫בהמ[ה‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 281

Exod. 9:12

Table (cont.)

‫משׁה‬

τῷ µωυσῇ

---

κύριος

‫יהוה‬

‫אל‬

συνέταξεν

‫דבר‬

καθὰ

εἰσήκουσεν

‫שׁמע‬

‫אשׁר‬/‫כ‬

καὶ οὐκ

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

αὐτῶν

φαραώ

‫פרעה‬

‫הם‬/‫אל‬

τὴν καρδίαν

‫את לב‬

κύριος

ἐσκλήρυνεν δὲ

‫יחזק‬/‫ו‬

‫יהוה‬

αἰγύπτου

γῇ

καὶ ἐν πάσῃ

ἐν τοῖς φαρµάκοις

LXX

‫מצרים‬

---

‫כל‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫חרטמם‬/‫ב‬

MT

‫משׁה‬

‫אל‬

‫יהוה‬

‫דבר‬

‫אשׁר‬/‫כ‬

‫יהם‬/‫אל‬

‫שׁמע‬

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

‫פרעה‬

‫את לב‬

‫יהוה‬

‫יחזק‬/‫ו‬

‫מצרים‬

---

‫כל‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫חרטמים‬/‫ב‬

SamP

]‫יהוה‬

‫דב[ר‬

]‫חרטומים‬/‫[ ב‬

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

[‫מ]צרים‬

---

‫כל‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫חר[טמים‬/‫ב‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

282 appendix

Exod. 9:13

Table (cont.)

καὶ στῆθι

ἐναντίον

φαραὼ

καὶ ἐρεῖς

‫פני‬/‫ל‬

‫פרעה‬

‫אמרת‬/‫ו‬

ἐξαπόστειλον

ὁ θεὸς

‫אלהי‬

τῶν ἐβραίων

κύριος

‫יהוה‬

‫שׁלח‬

λέγει

‫אמר‬

‫עברים‬/‫ה‬

τάδε

‫כה‬

πρὸς αὐτόν

τὸ πρωὶ

‫בקר‬/‫ב‬

‫התיצב‬/‫ו‬

‫יו‬/‫אל‬

ὄρθρισον

‫השׁכם‬

πρὸς

‫אל‬

µωυσῆν

κύριος

‫יהוה‬

‫משׁה‬

εἶπεν δὲ

LXX

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

MT

‫שׁלח‬

‫עברים‬/‫ה‬

‫אלהי‬

‫יהוה‬

‫אמר‬

‫כה‬

‫יו‬/‫אל‬

‫אמרת‬/‫ו‬

‫פרעה‬

‫פני‬/‫ל‬

‫התיצב‬/‫ו‬

‫בקר‬/‫ב‬

‫השׁכם‬

‫משׁה‬

‫אל‬

‫יהוה‬

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

SamP

‫אל]הי‬

‫י[הוה‬

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 283

Exod. 9:14

Table (cont.)

‫תדע‬

εἰδῇς

ἵνα

καὶ τοῦ λαοῦ σου

‫ך‬/‫עמ‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫עבור‬/‫ב‬

καὶ τῶν θεραπόντων σου

τὴν καρδίαν σου

εἰς

τὰ συναντήµατά µου

πάντα

ἐξαποστέλλω

ἐγὼ

‫ך‬/‫עבדי‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫לב‬

‫אל‬

‫י‬/‫ מגפת‬---

‫את כל‬

‫שׁלח‬

‫אני‬

νῦν καιρῷ

γὰρ

‫כי‬

‫זאת‬/‫פעם ה‬/‫! ב‬

ἐν τῷ

ἵνα λατρεύσωσίν µοι

‫ני‬/‫יעבד‬/‫ו‬

!

τὸν λαόν µου

LXX

‫י‬/‫את עמ‬

MT

] ‫את‬

‫את כל‬

‫תדע‬

‫עבור‬/‫ב‬

‫ך‬/‫עמ‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫עבדי‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫לב‬

‫על‬

‫י‬/‫ מגפת‬---

‫שׁ[ולח‬

4QpaleoExodm

‫שׁלח‬

‫אני‬

‫זאת‬/‫פעם ה‬/‫! ב‬

‫כי‬

!

‫ני‬/‫יעבד‬/‫ו‬

‫י‬/‫את עמ‬

SamP

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

284 appendix

Exod. 9:15

Table (cont.)

‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬

τῆς γῆς

ἀπὸ

καὶ ἐκτριβήσῃ

‫תכחד‬/‫ו‬

‫מן‬

--- θανάτῳ

καὶ τὸν λαόν σου

σε

‫דבר‬/‫ב‬

‫ך‬/‫את עמ‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫אות‬

πατάξω

τὴν χεῖρα ---

‫אך‬/‫ו‬

ἀποστείλας

‫שׁלחתי‬

γὰρ

!

‫י‬/‫את יד‬

νῦν

!

‫עתה‬

‫כי‬

‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬

‫מן‬

‫תכחד‬/‫ו‬

‫דבר‬/‫ב‬

‫ך‬/‫את עמ‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫את‬

‫אכה‬/‫ו‬

‫י‬/‫את יד‬

‫שׁלחתי‬

!

‫עתה‬

‫כי‬

‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬

‫כל‬/‫ב‬

τῇ γῇ

ἐν πάσῃ

‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬

‫כל‬/‫ב‬

---

ἄλλος

‫ני‬/‫מו‬/‫כ‬

‫אין‬

---

οὐκ ἔστιν

‫אין‬

‫כי‬

ὡς ἐγὼ

ὅτι

‫כי‬

SamP

‫ני‬/‫מ‬/‫כ‬

LXX

MT

!

‫כ]י‬

‫[ארץ‬/‫ה‬

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

]‫את‬

‫שׁלחתי‬

!

‫עת[ה‬

‫כי‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 285

Exod. 9:17

Exod. 9:16

Table (cont.)

ἕνεκεν

τούτου

‫עבור‬/‫ב‬

‫זאת‬

τὴν ἰσχύν µου

καὶ ὅπως

διαγγελῇ

τὸ ὄνοµά µου

ἐν πάσῃ

‫י‬/‫את כח‬

‫מען‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬

‫ספר‬

‫י‬/‫שׁמ‬

‫כל‬/‫ב‬

ἔτι οὖν σὺ

ἐµποιῇ

--- τοῦ λαοῦ µου

τοῦ µὴ

‫ך‬/‫ עוד‬---

‫מסתולל‬

‫י‬/‫עמ‬/‫ב‬

‫בלתי‬/‫ל‬

τῇ γῇ

ἐνδείξωµαι ἐν σοὶ

‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬

ἵνα

‫עבור‬/‫ב‬

‫ך‬/‫הראת‬

διετηρήθης

καὶ ---

‫אולם‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫העמדתי‬

LXX

MT

‫בלתי‬/‫ל‬

‫י‬/‫עמ‬/‫ב‬

‫מסתולל‬

--- ‫ך‬/‫עוד‬

‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬

‫כל‬/‫ב‬

‫י‬/‫שׁמ‬

‫ספר‬

‫מען‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬

‫י‬/‫את כח‬

‫ך‬/‫הראתי‬

‫עבור‬/‫ב‬

‫ך‬/‫העמדתי‬

‫זאת‬

‫עבור‬/‫ב‬

‫אולם‬/‫ו‬

SamP ]‫[אולם‬/‫ו‬

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

‫כל‬/]‫ב‬

‫י‬/‫שׁמ‬

‫ס[פר‬

‫מען‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬

‫י‬/]‫את כח‬

‫ך‬/‫הרא[ת‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

286 appendix

Exod. 9:18

Table (cont.)

χάλαζαν

πολλὴν

σφόδρα

ἥτις

‫ברד‬

‫כבד‬

‫מאד‬

‫אשׁר‬

‫עד‬/‫ו‬

‫הוסדה‬

‫יום‬/‫מן ה‬/‫ל‬

‫מצרים‬/‫ב‬

ἕως

ἔκτισται

ἀφ’ ἧς ἡµέρας

ἐν αἰγύπτῳ

!

γέγονεν

‫הו‬/‫מ‬/‫כ‬

οὐ

‫לא‬

‫היה‬

τοιαύτη

αὔριον

‫מחר‬

!

ταύτην τὴν ὥραν

ὕω

ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ

ἐξαποστεῖλαι αὐτούς

LXX

‫עת‬/‫כ‬

‫ממטיר‬

‫ני‬/‫הנ‬

‫ם‬/‫שׁלח‬

MT

‫עד‬/‫ו‬

‫היסדה‬

‫יום‬/‫מ‬/‫ל‬

‫מצרים‬/‫ב‬

‫הו‬/‫מ‬/‫כ‬

‫היה‬

‫לא‬

!

‫אשׁר‬

‫מאד‬

‫כבד‬

‫ברד‬

‫מחר‬

‫עת‬/‫כ‬

‫ממטיר‬

‫ני‬/‫הנ‬

‫ם‬/‫שׁלח‬

SamP

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

]‫כבד‬

‫ברד‬

‫]מח[ר‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 287

Exod. 9:19

Table (cont.)

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

‫שׂדה‬/‫ב‬

καὶ µὴ

ἐν τοῖς πεδίοις

εὑρεθῇ

‫ימצא‬

καὶ τὰ κτήνη

‫בהמה‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬

ὅσα ἂν

οἱ ἄνθρωποι

‫אדם‬/‫ה‬

‫אשׁר‬

πάντες γὰρ

σοί ἐστιν

‫ך‬/‫ל‬

‫ כל‬---

ὅσα

‫אשׁר‬

ἐν τῷ πεδίῳ

---

‫כל‬

‫שׂדה‬/‫ב‬

καὶ

‫את‬/‫ו‬

τὰ κτήνη σου

συναγαγεῖν

‫העז‬

‫ך‬/‫את מקנ‬

κατάσπευσον

‫שׁלח‬

νῦν οὖν

τῆς ἡµέρας ταύτης

‫עתה‬

‫עתה‬/‫ו‬

LXX

MT

‫ לא‬---

‫שׂדה‬/‫ב‬

‫ימצא‬

‫אשׁר‬

‫בהמה‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬

‫אדם‬/‫ה‬

‫ כל‬---

‫שׂדה‬/‫ב‬

‫ך‬/‫ל‬

‫אשׁר‬

‫כל‬

‫את‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫את מקני‬

‫העז‬

‫שׁלח‬

‫עתה‬/‫ו‬

‫עתה‬

SamP

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

]‫ כ[ל‬---

‫שׂדה‬/‫ב‬

‫ך‬/‫]ל‬

[ ]‫אשׁר‬

‫כל‬/‫ו‬

---/ !

‫ך‬/‫את] מ[קנ‬

‫העז‬

‫שׁלח‬

‫עתה‬/‫ו‬

‫[עתה‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

288 appendix

Exod. 9:19b

Table (cont.)

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

--- τελευτήσει

‫מתו‬/‫ו‬

---

ἡ χάλαζα

‫ברד‬/‫ה‬

---

ἐπ’ αὐτὰ

‫הם‬/‫על‬

---

πέσῃ δὲ

‫ירד‬/‫ו‬

εἰς οἰκίαν

εἰσέλθῃ

‫יאסף‬

‫ה‬/‫בית‬/‫ה‬

LXX

MT

-----------------------

‫משׁה‬ ‫אהרן‬/‫ו‬ ‫אל‬ ‫פרעה‬ ‫יאמרו‬/‫ו‬ ‫יו‬/‫אל‬ ‫כה‬ ‫אמר‬ ‫יהוה‬ ‫אלהי‬ ‫עברים‬/‫ה‬

‫ברד‬/]‫ה‬

‫]י[הם‬/‫ע[ל‬

‫יר]ד‬/‫ו‬

‫ה‬/‫[בית‬/‫ה‬

4QExodc

---

2QExoda

‫יבא‬/‫ו‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

‫מ[תו‬/‫ו‬

4QpaleoExodm

‫מתו‬/‫ו‬

‫ברד‬/‫ה‬

‫יהם‬/‫על‬

‫ירד‬/‫ו‬

‫ה‬/‫בית‬/‫ה‬

‫יאסף‬

SamP

4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 289

Table (cont.)

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

LXX

MT

---------------

‫י‬/‫מגפת‬ ‫על‬ ‫ך‬/‫לב‬ ‫ך‬/‫עבדי‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ ‫ך‬/‫עמ‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ ‫עבור‬/‫ב‬ ‫תדע‬

---

---

‫את כל‬

‫ני‬/‫מו‬/‫כ‬

---

‫שׁלח‬

---

---

‫אני‬

---

---

‫זאת‬/‫פעם ה‬/‫ב‬

‫כי‬

---

‫כי‬

‫אין‬

---

‫ני‬/‫יעבד‬/‫ו‬

4QExodc

---

2QExoda

‫י‬/‫את עם‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl ---

4QpaleoExodm

‫שׁלח‬

SamP

4QGenExoda

4QExodj

290 appendix

Table (cont.)

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

LXX

MT

---

-----

‫ך‬/‫העמדתי‬ ‫עבור‬/‫ב‬

---

‫אולם‬/‫ו‬

---

---

‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬

‫זאת‬

---

‫מן‬

‫עבור‬/‫ב‬

---

---

‫ך‬/‫את עמ‬/‫ו‬

---

---

‫ך‬/‫את‬

‫דבר‬/‫ב‬

---

‫אכה‬/‫ו‬

‫תכחד‬/‫ו‬

-----

‫שׁלחתי‬

---

‫עתה‬

‫י‬/‫את יד‬

---

‫כי‬

4QExodc

---

2QExoda

‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl ---

4QpaleoExodm

‫כל‬/‫ב‬

SamP

4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 291

‫‪292‬‬ ‫‪appendix‬‬

‫‪4QExodj‬‬

‫‪4QGen‬‬‫‪Exoda‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫הנ‪/‬ני‬

‫שׁלח]‪/‬ם [‬

‫ל‪/‬בלתי‬

‫ב‪/‬ע[מ‪/‬י‬

‫הנ‪/‬ני‬

‫שׁלח‪/‬ם‬

‫ל‪/‬בלתי‬

‫ב‪/‬עמ‪/‬י‬

‫מסתולל‬

‫עוד‪/‬ך‬

‫ה‪/‬ארץ‬

‫ב‪/‬כל‬

‫שׁמ‪/‬י‬

‫ספר‬

‫ו‪/‬ל‪/‬מען‬

‫את כח‪/‬י‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫כבד‬

‫ברד‬

‫כ‪/‬עת‬ ‫מחר‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫ממטיר‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫הראתי‪/‬ך‬

‫‪4QExodc‬‬

‫‪2QExoda‬‬

‫‪4Qpaleo‬‬‫‪Gen-Exodl‬‬

‫‪4Qpaleo‬‬‫‪Exodm‬‬

‫‪SamP‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪LXX‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪MT‬‬

‫)‪Table (cont.‬‬

Table (cont.)

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

LXX

MT

---

]‫יום‬/‫מן ה‬/‫ל‬

‫יום‬/‫מ‬/‫ל‬

-------------------

‫אשׁ[ר‬ ‫ך‬/‫ל‬

‫עד‬/‫ו‬ ‫עתה‬ ‫עתה‬/‫ו‬ ‫שׁלח‬ ‫העז‬ ‫ך‬/‫את מקני‬ ‫את‬/‫ו‬ ‫כל‬ ‫אשׁר‬ ‫ך‬/‫ל‬

---

---

‫היסדה‬

---

--‫[מצרים‬/‫ב‬

‫הו‬/‫כמ‬

---

‫היה‬

‫מצרים‬/‫ב‬

---

‫לא‬

4QExodc

---

2QExoda

‫אשׁר‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl ---

4QpaleoExodm

‫מאד‬

SamP

4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 293

‫‪294‬‬ ‫‪appendix‬‬

‫‪4QExodj‬‬

‫‪4QGen‬‬‫‪Exoda‬‬

‫ה‪/‬אדם‬

‫כל‬

‫]ו‪/‬מתו‬

‫ה‪/‬ברד‬

‫[על‪/‬יהם‬

‫ו‪/‬מתו‬

‫ה‪/‬ברד‬

‫על‪/‬יהם‬

‫ו‪/‬ירד‬

‫ה‪/‬בית‪/‬ה‬

‫יאסף‬

‫ו‪/‬לא‬

‫ב‪/‬שׁדה‬

‫ה‪/‬ירא ]‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫מ‪/‬עבדי‬

‫יהוה‬

‫את דבר‬

‫ה‪/‬ירא‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫אשׁר‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫ימצא‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫ה‪/‬אדם‬

‫כל‬

‫ב‪/‬שׂדה‬

‫ב‪/‬שׂדה‬

‫ו‪/‬ה‪/‬בהמה‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪4QExodc‬‬

‫‪2QExoda‬‬

‫‪4Qpaleo‬‬‫‪Gen-Exodl‬‬

‫‪4Qpaleo‬‬‫‪Exodm‬‬

‫‪SamP‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪τῶν θεραπόντων‬‬

‫‪κυρίου‬‬

‫‪τὸ ῥῆµα‬‬

‫‪ὁ φοβούµενος‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫מ‪/‬עבדי‬

‫יהוה‬

‫את דבר‬

‫ה‪/‬ירא‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪LXX‬‬

‫‪MT‬‬

‫‪Exod. 9:20‬‬

‫)‪Table (cont.‬‬

Exod. 9:21

Table (cont.)

συνήγαγεν

‫הניס‬

ἀφῆκεν

‫יעזב‬/‫ו‬

τὰ κτήνη ---

ἐν τῷ πεδίῳ

‫הו‬/‫את מקנ‬/‫ו‬

‫שׂדה‬/‫ב‬

---

κυρίου

‫יהוה‬

‫ו‬/‫את עבדי‬

τὸ ῥῆµα

‫דבר‬

τῇ διανοίᾳ ---

‫ו‬/‫לב‬

εἰς

προσέσχεν

‫שׂם‬

‫אל‬

µὴ

ὃς δὲ

τοὺς οἴκους

εἰς

τὰ κτήνη αὐτοῦ

‫לא‬

‫אשׁר‬/‫ו‬

‫בתים‬/‫ה‬

‫אל‬

‫הו‬/‫את מקנ‬/‫ו‬

---

φαραὼ

‫פרעה‬

‫ו‬/‫את עבדי‬

LXX

MT

‫שׂדה‬/‫ב‬

‫הו‬/‫את מקנ‬/‫ו‬

‫ו‬/‫את עבדי‬

‫יעזב‬/‫ו‬

‫יהוה‬

‫דבר‬

‫על‬

‫ו‬/‫לב‬

‫שׂם‬

‫לא‬

‫אשׁר‬/‫ו‬

[‫שׂ]דה‬/‫ב‬

‫ה[ו‬/‫מקנ‬

‫אל‬

‫אל‬ ‫בתים‬/‫ה‬

[‫ה]ו‬/‫את מקנ‬/‫ו‬

[ ‫ו‬/‫את עבדי‬

4QpaleoExodm

‫הו‬/‫את מקנ‬/‫ו‬

‫ו‬/‫את עבדי‬

‫הניס‬

‫פרעה‬

SamP

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 295

Exod. 9:22

Table (cont.)

‫נטה‬

‫בהמה‬/‫ה‬

‫על‬/‫ו‬

‫אדם‬/‫ה‬

‫על‬

τὰ κτήνη

καὶ ---

τε τοὺς ἀνθρώπους

ἐπί

αἰγύπτου

γῆν

‫ארץ‬

‫מצרים‬

]‫ברד‬

‫ברד‬

ἐπὶ πᾶσαν

‫בהמה‬/‫ה‬

‫על‬/‫ו‬

‫אדם‬/‫ה‬

‫על‬

‫מצרים‬

‫ארץ‬

‫כל‬/‫ב‬

χάλαζα

‫ברד‬

‫שׁ[מים‬/‫ה‬

4QExodc

‫כל‬/‫ב‬

2QExoda

‫יהי‬/‫ו‬

‫שׁמים‬/‫ה‬

‫על‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

‫יהי‬/‫ו‬

τὸν οὐρανόν

εἰς

‫ך‬/‫את יד‬

‫נטה‬

τὴν χεῖρά σου

ἔκτεινον

4QpaleoExodm

καὶ ἔσται

‫יהי‬/‫ו‬

‫שׁמים‬/‫ה‬

‫על‬

‫ך‬/‫את יד‬

‫אל‬ ‫משׁה‬

πρὸς

‫אל‬

‫יהוה‬

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

SamP

µωυσῆν

κύριος

‫יהוה‬

‫משׁה‬

εἶπεν δὲ

LXX

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

MT

4QGenExoda

4QExodj

296 appendix

Exod. 9:23

Table (cont.)

‫ברד‬/‫ו‬

καὶ χάλαζαν

καὶ διέτρεχεν

τὸ πῦρ

ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς

‫ברד‬/‫ו‬

‫תהלך‬/‫ו‬

‫ אשׁ‬---

‫ה‬/‫ארצ‬ ‫ה‬/‫ארצ‬

‫ אשׁ‬---

‫תהלך‬/‫ו‬

‫קולות‬

φωνὰς

‫קלת‬

‫נתן‬

‫יהוה‬/‫ו‬

ἔδωκεν

καὶ κύριος

‫יהוה‬/‫ו‬

‫שׁמים‬/‫ה‬

‫על‬

‫ו‬/‫את מטה‬

‫משׁה‬

‫יט‬/‫ו‬

‫מצרים‬

‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬

‫שׂדה‬/‫ה‬

‫עשׂב‬

‫כל‬

‫על‬/‫ו‬

SamP

‫נתן‬

τὸν οὐρανόν

εἰς

‫שׁמים‬/‫ה‬

‫על‬

τὴν χεῖρα ---

µωυσῆς

‫משׁה‬

‫ו‬/‫את מטה‬

ἐξέτεινεν δὲ

---

‫יט‬/‫ו‬

---

‫מצרים‬

βοτάνην

‫עשׂב‬

‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬

πᾶσαν

‫כל‬

τὴν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς

καὶ ἐπὶ

‫על‬/‫ו‬

‫שׂדה‬/‫ה‬

LXX

MT

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

‫ה‬/‫[ארצ‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 297

Exod. 9:24

Table (cont.)

σφόδρα

---

ἥτις

σφόδρα

‫מאד‬

‫אשׁר‬

πολλὴ

ἡ δὲ χάλαζα

‫כבד‬

---

τῇ χαλάζῃ

‫ברד‬/‫ה‬

φλογίζον

ἐν

καὶ τὸ πῦρ

‫אשׁ‬/---/‫ו‬

‫מתלקחת‬

‫תוך‬/‫ב‬

ἡ χάλαζα

ἦν δὲ

αἰγύπτου

‫ ברד‬---

‫יהי‬/‫ו‬

‫מצרים‬

γῆν

πᾶσαν

---

‫ארץ‬

ἐπὶ

χάλαζαν

‫ברד‬

‫על‬

κύριος

καὶ ἔβρεξεν

LXX

‫יהוה‬

‫ימטר‬/‫ו‬

MT

‫אשׁר‬

---

‫מאד‬

‫כבד‬

---

‫ברד‬/‫ה‬

‫תוך‬/‫ב‬

‫מתלחקת‬

‫אשׁ‬/---/‫ו‬

‫ברד‬/‫ה‬

‫יהי‬/‫ו‬

‫מצרים‬

‫ארץ‬

---

‫על‬

‫ברד‬

‫יהוה‬

‫ימטר‬/‫ו‬

SamP

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

]‫ברד‬

‫יה]ו[ה‬

‫ימטר‬/‫ו‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

298 appendix

Exod. 9:25

Table (cont.)

αἰγύπτου

---

---

‫את כל‬

‫אשׁר‬

γῇ

‫ארץ‬

‫מצרים‬

ἐν πάσῃ

ἐπάταξεν δὲ

‫יך‬/‫ו‬

‫כל‬/‫ב‬

--- ἔθνος

ἡ χάλαζα

ἐπ’ αὐτῆς

---

‫גוי‬/‫ל‬

‫ברד‬/‫ה‬

γεγένηται

ἀφ’ οὗ

‫מאז‬

‫היתה‬

αἰγύπτῳ

---

‫ארץ‬

‫מצרים‬

ἐν ---

‫כל‬/‫ב‬

!

γέγονεν

‫היה‬

‫הו‬/‫מ‬/‫כ‬

οὐ

τοιαύτη

LXX

‫לא‬

!

MT

‫אשׁר‬

‫את כל‬

‫מצרים‬

‫ארץ‬

---/‫ב‬

‫ברד‬/‫ה‬

‫יך‬/‫ו‬

‫גוי‬/‫ל‬

---

‫היתה‬

‫מאז‬

‫מצרים‬

---

---/‫ב‬

‫הו‬/‫מ‬/‫כ‬

‫היה‬

‫לא‬

!

SamP

4QpaleoExodm

]‫מצר[ים‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

‫] מצרים‬

‫ארץ‬

‫[כל‬/‫ב‬

]‫הו‬/‫מ‬/‫[כ‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 299

Exod. 9:26

Table (cont.)

ἐπάταξεν

ἡ χάλαζα

καὶ πάντα

τὰ ξύλα

τὰ ἐν τοῖς πεδίοις

συνέτριψεν

ἡ χάλαζα

πλὴν

ἐν γῇ

γέσεµ

‫ברד‬/‫ה‬

‫את כל‬/‫ו‬

‫ עץ‬---

‫שׂדה‬/‫ה‬

‫שׁבר‬

---

‫רק‬

‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬

‫גשׁן‬

τὴν ἐν τῷ πεδίῳ

βοτάνην

καὶ πᾶσαν

‫הכה‬

‫שׂדה‬/‫ה‬

‫עשׂב‬

‫את כל‬/‫ו‬

κτήνους

‫בהמה‬

ἀπὸ ἀνθρώπου

‫אדם‬/‫מ‬

--- ἕως

---

‫שׂדה‬/‫ב‬

‫עד‬/‫ו‬

LXX

MT

‫גשׁן‬

‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬

‫רק‬

---

‫שׁבר‬

‫שׂדה‬/‫ה‬

‫ עץ‬---

‫את כל‬/‫ו‬

‫ברד‬/‫ה‬

‫הכה‬

‫שׂדה‬/‫ה‬

‫עשׂב‬

‫את כל‬/‫ו‬

‫בהמה‬

‫ עד‬---

‫אדם‬/‫מ‬

‫שׂדה‬/‫ב‬

SamP

4QpaleoExodm

] ‫את‬/‫ו‬

‫בר[ד‬/‫ה‬

‫]הכה‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

]‫[את כל‬/‫ו‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

300 appendix

Exod. 9:27

Table (cont.)

καὶ ἀαρὼν

καὶ εἶπεν

αὐτοῖς

ἡµάρτηκα

τὸ νῦν

ὁ κύριος

δίκαιος

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫הם‬/‫אל‬

‫חטאתי‬

‫פעם‬/‫ה‬

‫יהוה‬

‫צדיק‬/‫ה‬

µωυσῆν

‫אהרן‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬

‫יקרא‬/‫ו‬

ἐκάλεσεν

‫יקרא‬/‫ו‬

‫משׁה‬/‫ל‬

‫צדיק‬/‫ה‬

‫יהוה‬

‫פעם‬/‫ה‬

‫חטאתי‬

‫יהם‬/‫אל‬

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫אהרן‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬

‫משׁה‬/‫ל‬

‫פרעה‬

φαραὼ

‫ישׁלח‬/‫ו‬

‫ברד‬

‫פרעה‬

ἡ χάλαζα

‫ברד‬

‫לא‬ ‫היה‬

ἀποστείλας δὲ

ἐγένετο

‫ישׂראל‬

‫בני‬

---

‫אשׁר שׁם‬

SamP

‫ישׁלח‬/‫ו‬

οὐκ

ἰσραήλ

‫ישׂראל‬

‫לא‬

οἱ υἱοὶ

‫בני‬

‫היה‬

ἦσαν

οὗ

LXX

---

‫אשׁר שׁם‬

MT

4QpaleoExodm

‫צדי]ק‬/‫ה‬

‫יה]ו[ה‬

‫פע[ם‬/‫]ה‬

‫י]שׁלח‬/‫[ו‬

‫] ברד‬

‫]הי[ה‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

‫צ[דיק‬/‫ה‬

‫]יהוה‬

2QExoda

‫צד[יק‬/‫ה‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 301

‫‪302‬‬ ‫‪appendix‬‬

‫‪4QExodj‬‬

‫‪4QGen‬‬‫‪Exoda‬‬

‫תספון‬

‫ו‪/‬לא [‬

‫קלות]‬

‫] מ‪/‬הי[ות‬

‫]ו[‪/‬רב‬

‫ו‪/‬א]ני‬

‫‪4QExodc‬‬

‫תוספון[‬

‫ו‪/‬לוא‬

‫את‪/‬כם‬

‫]ו‪/‬אשׁלחה‬

‫ו‪/‬אשׁ‬

‫ו‪/‬ברד‬

‫אלו[הים‬

‫]קולות‬

‫מ‪/‬היות[‬

‫ו‪/‬רב‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫העתירו‬

‫] ה‪/‬ר[שׁ]עים‬

‫ו‪/‬עמ‪/‬י‬

‫ו‪/‬אני‬

‫‪2QExoda‬‬

‫ו‪/‬ב]רד‬

‫אלהים‬

‫קלות‬

‫‪4Qpaleo‬‬‫‪Gen-Exodl‬‬

‫‪4Qpaleo‬‬‫‪Exodm‬‬

‫תוסיפון‬

‫ו‪/‬לא‬

‫את‪/‬כם‬

‫ו‪/‬אשׁלח‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫ו‪/‬ברד‬

‫אלהים‬

‫קולות‬

‫מ‪/‬היות‬

‫ו‪/‬רב‬

‫יהוה‬

‫אל‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫העתירו‬

‫ה‪/‬רשׁעים‬

‫ו‪/‬עמ‪/‬י‬

‫ו‪/‬אני‬

‫‪SamP‬‬

‫‪προσθήσεσθε‬‬

‫‪καὶ οὐκέτι‬‬

‫‪ὑµᾶς‬‬

‫‪καὶ ἐξαποστελῶ‬‬

‫‪καὶ πῦρ‬‬

‫ו‪/‬ברד‬

‫אלהים‬

‫תספון‬

‫ו‪/‬לא‬

‫את‪/‬כם‬

‫ו‪/‬אשׁלחה‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪καὶ χάλαζαν‬‬

‫‪θεοῦ‬‬

‫‪φωνὰς‬‬

‫‪τοῦ γενηθῆναι‬‬

‫מ‪/‬הית‬

‫ו‪/‬רב‬

‫יהוה‬

‫אל‬

‫קלת‬

‫‪καὶ παυσάσθω‬‬

‫‪κύριον‬‬

‫‪πρὸς‬‬

‫‪περὶ ἐµοῦ‬‬

‫‪οὖν‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫העתירו‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪εὔξασθε‬‬

‫‪ἀσεβεῖς‬‬

‫ה‪/‬רשׁעים‬

‫‪καὶ ὁ λαός µου‬‬

‫ו‪/‬אני‬

‫ו‪/‬עמ‪/‬י‬

‫‪ἐγὼ δὲ‬‬

‫‪LXX‬‬

‫‪MT‬‬

‫‪Exod. 9:28‬‬

‫)‪Table (cont.‬‬

‫‪synopsis of the textual witnesses‬‬ ‫‪303‬‬

‫‪4QExodj‬‬

‫‪4QGen‬‬‫‪Exoda‬‬

‫יה]יה‬

‫לא‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫]ו‪[/‬ה‪/‬ברד‬

‫יחדלו‬

‫‪ ---‬ה‪/‬קלות‬

‫יהוה‬

‫אל‬

‫‪ ---‬כפ‪/‬י‬

‫א]פר[שׂ‬

‫א[ת ה‪/‬עיר‬

‫ל]‪/‬עמד‬

‫‪4QExodc‬‬

‫!‬

‫]אל‬

‫עוד‬

‫יהיה‬

‫לוא‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫ו‪/‬ה‪/‬ברד‬

‫יח]דלון‬

‫‪ ---‬ה‪/‬קולות‬

‫יהוה [‬

‫לא‬

‫‪ἔτι‬‬

‫עוד‬

‫לא‬

‫עוד‬

‫יהיה‬

‫לא‬

‫‪ἔσται‬‬

‫‪οὐκ‬‬

‫יהיה‬ ‫עוד‬

‫יהיה‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫ו‪/‬ה‪/‬ברד‬

‫יחדלון‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪καὶ ἡ χάλαζα‬‬

‫‪παύσονται‬‬

‫‪καὶ αἱ φωναὶ‬‬

‫אל‬

‫‪ ---‬ה‪/‬קלות‬

‫‪κύριον‬‬

‫‪πρὸς‬‬

‫יהוה‬

‫‪τὰς χεῖράς µου‬‬

‫אפרשׂ‬

‫את כפ‪/‬י‬

‫‪ἐκπετάσω‬‬

‫‪τὴν πόλιν‬‬

‫כ‪/‬צאת‪/‬י‬

‫את ה‪/‬עיר‬

‫‪ὡς ἂν ἐξέλθω‬‬

‫!‬

‫משׁה‬

‫!‬

‫‪µωυσῆς‬‬

‫‪αὐτῷ‬‬

‫ו‪/‬יאמר‬

‫אל‪/‬יו‬

‫‪εἶπεν δὲ‬‬

‫‪µένειν‬‬

‫ל‪/‬עמד‬

‫‪καὶ ὁ ὑετὸς‬‬

‫ו‪/‬ה‪/‬ברד‬

‫יחדלון‬

‫ו‪/‬ה‪/‬קולות‬

‫יהוה‬

‫אל‬

‫אפרשׂ‬

‫את ה‪/‬עיר‬

‫כ‪/‬צאת‪/‬י‬

‫את כפ‪/‬י[‬

‫ו‪/‬ה]‪/‬ב[רד‬

‫את ה]‪/‬עיר‬

‫כ‪/‬צאת‪/‬י‬

‫משׁה‬

‫משׁה‬

‫אל‪/‬יו‬

‫ו‪/‬יאמר‬

‫ל‪/‬עמד‬

‫‪ ---‬כפ‪/‬י‬

‫אפרושׂ‬

‫את ה‪/‬עיר‬

‫כ‪/‬צאת‪/‬י‬

‫] אל‪/‬יו‬

‫מושׁה‬

‫!‬

‫ו‪/‬יואמר‬

‫ל‪/‬עמוד [‬

‫‪2QExoda‬‬

‫‪4Qpaleo‬‬‫‪Gen-Exodl‬‬

‫‪4Qpaleo‬‬‫‪Exodm‬‬

‫‪SamP‬‬

‫‪LXX‬‬

‫‪MT‬‬

‫‪Exod. 9:29‬‬

‫)‪Table (cont.‬‬

‫‪304‬‬ ‫‪appendix‬‬

‫‪4QExodj‬‬

‫‪4QGen‬‬‫‪Exoda‬‬

‫ו‪/‬ה‪/‬פ]שׁתה‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫יהוה‬

‫ו‪/‬ה‪/‬שׂערה‬

‫ו‪/‬ה‪/‬פשׁתה‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫יהוה‬

‫אדני‬

‫מ‪/‬פני‬

‫תיראון‬

‫טרם‬

‫כי‬

‫ידעתי‬

‫ו‪/‬עבדי‪/‬ך‬

‫ו‪/‬אתה‬

‫אדני‬

‫ה‪/‬אר]ץ‬

‫ל]‪/‬י[הוה‬

‫ל‪/‬יהוה‬ ‫ה‪/‬ארץ‬

‫כי [‬

‫תדע‬ ‫כי‬

‫]תדע‬

‫ל‪/‬מען[‬

‫ל]‪/‬מען‬

‫ל‪/‬מען‬

‫מ‪/‬פני‬

‫תי[ראו‬

‫טרם‬

‫כ]י‬

‫ידעת]י [‬

‫ו‪/‬עבדי‪/‬ך‬

‫] ו‪/‬א[תה‬

‫‪4QExodc‬‬

‫‪2QExoda‬‬

‫‪4Qpaleo‬‬‫‪Gen-Exodl‬‬

‫‪4Qpaleo‬‬‫‪Exodm‬‬

‫‪SamP‬‬

‫‪καὶ ἡ κριθὴ‬‬

‫‪τὸ δὲ λίνον‬‬

‫ו‪/‬ה‪/‬שׂערה‬

‫אלהים‬

‫ו‪/‬ה‪/‬פשׁתה‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪τὸν κύριον‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫מ‪/‬פני‬

‫יהוה‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪πεφόβησθε‬‬

‫טרם‬

‫כי‬

‫ידעתי‬

‫תיראון‬

‫‪οὐδέπω‬‬

‫‪ὅτι‬‬

‫‪ἐπίσταµαι‬‬

‫‪καὶ οἱ θεράπον‬‬‫‪τές σου‬‬

‫ו‪/‬אתה‬

‫ו‪/‬עבדי‪/‬ך‬

‫‪καὶ σὺ‬‬

‫‪ἡ γῆ‬‬

‫‪τοῦ κυρίου‬‬

‫ל‪/‬יהוה‬

‫כי‬

‫תדע‬

‫ל‪/‬מען‬

‫ה‪/‬ארץ‬

‫‪ὅτι‬‬

‫‪γνῷς‬‬

‫‪ἵνα‬‬

‫‪LXX‬‬

‫‪MT‬‬

‫‪Exod. 9:31‬‬

‫‪Exod. 9:30‬‬

‫)‪Table (cont.‬‬

Exod. 9:32

Table (cont.)

‫אביב‬

!

‫כי‬

!

--- ‫הנה‬

--- ἦν

γὰρ

ὄψιµα

ἐπλήγη

‫נכו‬

‫אפילת‬

οὐκ

καὶ ἡ ὀλύρα

‫לא‬

ὁ δὲ πυρὸς

‫חטה‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬

!

!

‫כסמת‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬

!

σπερµατίζον

τὸ δὲ λίνον

παρεστηκυῖα

!

‫גבעל‬

‫פשׁתה‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬

! κριθὴ

γὰρ

‫כי‬

‫שׂערה‬/‫ה‬

ἡ

ἐπλήγη

‫נכתה‬

!

LXX

MT

4QExodc

--- ‫הנה‬

!

‫אפלות‬

‫כי‬

‫נכו‬

‫לא‬

‫כסמת‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬

‫חטה‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬

!

!

‫גבעל‬

‫פשׁתה‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬

]‫[לות‬

‫נ]כו‬

‫לא‬

‫כסמת‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬

[ ‫ח]טה‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬

‫[·ב‬

‫שׂ]ערה‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬

‫]גב[על‬

[‫פשׁתה‬/‫ה‬

!

2QExoda

‫אביב‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

!

4QpaleoExodm

‫שׂערה‬/‫ה‬

‫כי‬

!

‫נכו‬

SamP

4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 305

Exod. 9:33

Table (cont.)

µωυσῆς

ἀπὸ

φαραὼ

‫משׁה‬

‫עם‬/‫מ‬

‫פרעה‬

οὐκ

ἔσταξεν

ἔτι

‫לא‬

---

καὶ ὁ ὑετὸς

καὶ ἡ χάλαζα

‫נתך‬

‫מטר‬/---/‫ו‬

‫ברד‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬

ἐπαύσαντο

! καὶ αἱ φωναὶ

‫קלות‬/‫ה‬

!

!

---

‫נתך‬

‫לא‬

‫מטר‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬

‫ברד‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬

!

‫קולות‬/‫ה‬

‫יחדלו‬/‫! ו‬ ‫קול[ות‬/‫ה‬

] ‫ברד‬/‫[ה‬/‫ו‬

!

‫קלות‬/‫ה‬

‫[יחד]לו‬/‫! ו‬

‫י]הוה‬

‫ו‬/‫כפי‬

‫יפרשׂ‬/‫ו‬

4QExodc

‫יהוה‬

2QExoda

κύριον

‫יחדלו‬/‫! ו‬

‫יהוה‬

‫י[צא‬/‫ו‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

‫] א[ל‬

4QpaleoExodm

‫אל‬

‫ו‬/‫כפי‬

‫יפרשׂ‬/‫ו‬

‫עיר‬/‫את ה‬

---

‫פרעה‬

‫עם‬/‫מ‬

‫משׁה‬

‫יצא‬/‫ו‬

SamP

πρὸς

τὰς χεῖρας ---

‫ו‬/‫כפי‬

‫אל‬

καὶ ἐξεπέτασεν

τῆς πόλεως

‫יפרשׂ‬/‫ו‬

‫עיר‬/‫את ה‬

ἐκτὸς

ἐξῆλθεν δὲ

‫יצא‬/‫ו‬

---

LXX

MT

4QGenExoda

4QExodj

306 appendix

Exod. 9:34

Table (cont.)

‫חדל‬

καὶ τῶν θεραπόντων αὐτοῦ

---

‫הוא‬

‫ו‬/‫עבדי‬/‫ו‬

αὐτοῦ τὴν καρδίαν

καὶ ἐβάρυνεν

‫יכבד‬/‫ו‬

‫ו‬/‫לב‬

τοῦ ἁµαρτάνειν

προσέθετο

καὶ αἱ φωναί

!

! καὶ ἡ χάλαζα

ὁ ὑετὸς

πέπαυται

‫חטא‬/‫ל‬

‫יסף‬/‫ו‬

‫קלת‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬

!

‫ברד‬/‫ה‬/‫! ו‬

‫מטר‬/‫ה‬

ὅτι

φαραὼ

‫פרעה‬

‫כי‬

ἰδὼν δὲ

ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν

LXX

‫ירא‬/‫ו‬

‫ה‬/‫ארצ‬

MT

‫ו‬/‫עבדי‬/‫ו‬

‫הוא‬

‫ו‬/‫לב‬

‫יכבד‬/‫ו‬

‫[חט]א‬/‫] ל‬

‫יס[ף‬/‫] ו‬

‫חטא‬/‫ל‬

‫יסף‬/‫ו‬

(?) !

! ‫ברד‬/‫ה‬/‫[ו‬

4QExodc

‫קלות‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬

2QExoda

‫קולות‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬

(?) !

‫מטר‬/‫ה‬/‫! ו‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

‫[·] [רד‬

4QpaleoExodm

‫ברד‬/‫! ה‬

!

‫חדל‬

‫כי‬

‫פרעה‬

‫ירא‬/‫ו‬

‫ה‬/‫ארצ‬

SamP

4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 307

Exod. 10:1

Exod. 9:35

Table (cont.)

φαραώ

καὶ οὐκ

ἐξαπέστειλεν

‫פרעה‬

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

‫שׁלח‬

λέγων

---

πρὸς

‫אל‬

µωυσῆν

κύριος

‫משׁה‬

εἶπεν δὲ

---

‫יד‬/‫ב‬

‫יהוה‬

κύριος

‫יהוה‬

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

ἐλάλησεν

‫דבר‬

τῷ µωυσῇ

καθάπερ

‫אשׁר‬/‫כ‬

‫ משׁה‬---

ἰσραήλ

‫ישׂראל‬

τοὺς υἱοὺς

ἡ καρδία

‫ לב‬---

‫ בני‬--- ‫את‬

καὶ ἐσκληρύνθη

LXX

‫יחזק‬/‫ו‬

MT

‫י]שׂראל‬

‫[את בני‬

4QpaleoExodm

---

‫משׁה‬

‫אל‬

‫יהוה‬

‫יאמר‬/‫יאומר ו‬/ vacat] ‫[ ו‬

‫ משׁה‬---

‫יד‬/‫ב‬

‫יהוה‬

‫דבר‬

‫אשׁר‬/‫כ‬

‫ישׂראל‬

‫ בני‬--- ‫את‬

‫שׁלח‬

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

‫פרעה‬

‫ לב‬---

‫יחזק‬/‫ו‬

SamP

‫ משׁה‬---[ [vacat]

‫פרעה‬

‫ לב‬---

‫יח[זק‬/‫ו‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

]‫ משׁה‬---

‫יד‬/‫ב‬

‫י[הו]ה‬

‫דב]ר‬

‫[אשׁר‬/‫]כ‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

308 appendix

Table (cont.)

‫ו‬/‫קרב‬/‫ב‬

ἐπ’ αὐτούς

ταῦτα

τὰ σηµεῖα ---

--- ‫י‬/‫אתת‬

‫אלה‬

ἑξῆς ἐπέλθῃ

ἵνα

‫מען‬/‫ל‬

‫ שׁתי‬---

τῶν θεραπόντων αὐτοῦ

καὶ ---

‫את לב‬/‫ו‬

‫ו‬/‫עבדי‬

αὐτοῦ τὴν καρδίαν

‫ו‬/‫את לב‬

γὰρ

!

ἐβάρυνα

ἐγὼ

‫אני‬

‫הכבדתי‬

!

‫כי‬

φαραώ

πρὸς

‫אל‬

‫פרעה‬

εἴσελθε

LXX

‫בא‬

MT

‫ו‬/‫קרב‬/‫ב‬

‫אלה‬

‫י‬/‫אותת‬

‫ שׁתי‬---

‫מען‬/‫ל‬

‫ו‬/‫עבדי‬

‫את לב‬/‫ו‬

‫ו‬/‫את לב‬

‫הכבדתי‬

!

‫אני‬

‫כי‬

‫פרעה‬

‫אל‬

‫בא‬

SamP

‫ו‬/‫קר]ב‬/‫[ב‬

‫פ]רעה‬

‫אל‬

‫[בוא‬

4QpaleoExodm

]‫את לב‬/‫ו‬

[ ‫ו‬/‫א[ת ל]ב‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

‫ו‬/‫עב]די‬

‫[את לב‬/‫ו‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 309

Exod. 10:2

Table (cont.)

ἐν αὐτοῖς

‫ם‬/‫ב‬

ὅτι

ἐγὼ

‫כי‬

‫אני‬

καὶ γνώσεσθε

ἐποίησα

‫שׂמתי‬

‫ידעתם‬/‫ו‬

ἃ

καὶ τὰ σηµεῖά µου

‫י‬/‫את אתת‬/‫ו‬

‫אשׁר‬

τοῖς αἰγυπτίοις

τῶν τέκνων ὑµῶν

‫ך‬/‫בנ‬

‫מצרים‬/‫ב‬

καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις

‫בן‬/‫ו‬

ἐµπέπαιχα

τῶν τέκνων ὑµῶν

‫ך‬/‫בנ‬

‫התעללתי‬

εἰς τὰ ὦτα

‫אזני‬/‫ב‬

ὅσα

διηγήσησθε

‫תספר‬

‫את אשׁר‬

--- ὅπως

LXX

‫מען‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬

MT

‫אני‬

‫כי‬

‫ידעתם‬/‫ו‬

‫ם‬/‫ב‬

‫שׂמתי‬

‫אשׁר‬

‫י‬/‫את אותת‬/‫ו‬

‫מצרים‬/‫ב‬

‫התעללתי‬

‫את אשׁר‬

‫ך‬/‫בנ‬

‫בן‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫בנ‬

‫אזני‬/‫ב‬

‫תספר‬

‫מען‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬

SamP

4QpaleoExodm

‫כי‬

‫יד[עתם‬/‫[·] ו‬

]‫ך‬/‫בנ‬

‫בן‬/‫[ו‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

]‫י‬/‫א[ת אתת‬/‫ו‬

sup

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

310 appendix

Exod. 10:2b

Table (cont.)

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

κύριος

‫יהוה‬

---

LXX

MT

---------------------------

‫כה‬ ‫אמר‬ ‫יהוה‬ ‫אלהי‬ ‫עברים‬/‫ה‬ ‫עד‬ ‫מתי‬ ‫מאנת‬ ‫ענות‬/‫ל‬ ‫פני‬/‫מ‬ ‫שׁלח‬ ‫י‬/‫את עמ‬ ‫ני‬/‫יעבד‬/‫ו‬

---

‫פרעה‬

4QExodc

---

2QExoda

‫אל‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

---

4QpaleoExodm

‫אמרת‬/‫ו‬

‫כם‬/‫אלהי‬

‫יהוה‬

SamP

4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 311

Table (cont.)

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

LXX

MT

-------------------------------

‫שׁלח‬/‫ל‬ ‫י‬/‫את עמ‬ ‫ני‬/‫הנ‬ ‫מביא‬ ‫מחר‬ ‫ארבה‬ ‫ך‬/‫גבול‬/‫ב‬ ‫כסה‬/‫ו‬ ‫את עין‬ ‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬ ‫לא‬/‫ו‬ ‫יכל‬ ‫ראות‬/‫ל‬ ‫ארץ‬/‫את ה‬ ‫אכל‬/‫ו‬

---

‫אתה‬

4QExodc

---

2QExoda

‫מאן‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl ---

4QpaleoExodm

‫כי אם‬

SamP

4QGenExoda

4QExodj

312 appendix

Table (cont.)

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

LXX

MT

‫מלא[ו‬/‫ו‬

---

---

‫מלאו‬/‫ו‬

---

‫כם‬/‫ל‬

---

---

‫צמח‬/‫ה‬

‫מן‬

---

‫עץ‬/‫ה‬

‫שׂדה‬/‫ה‬

-----

‫פרי‬

---

‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬ ‫את כל‬/‫ו‬

---

---

‫אכל‬/‫ו‬

‫עשׂב‬

---

‫ברד‬/‫ה‬

---

---

‫מן‬

‫את כל‬

---

‫כם‬/‫ל‬

‫א[כל‬/‫ו‬

---

‫נשׁארת‬/‫ה‬

4QExodc

---

2QExoda

‫פלטה‬/‫ה‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl ---

4QpaleoExodm

‫את יתר‬

SamP

4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 313

Table (cont.)

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

LXX

MT

‫אבו[ת‬/‫ו‬

---------

‫על‬ ‫אדמה‬/‫ה‬ ‫עד‬

---

‫יום‬/‫מ‬ ‫ם‬/‫היות‬

---

‫ך‬/‫אבותי‬

---

‫לא‬

‫אבות‬/‫ו‬

---

‫אשׁר‬

---

---

‫מצרים‬

---

---

‫כל‬

‫ראו‬

---

‫בתי‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫אבותי‬

-----

‫ך‬/‫עבדי‬

---

‫כל‬

4QExodc

---

2QExoda

‫בתי‬/‫ו‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl ---

4QpaleoExodm

‫ך‬/‫בתי‬

SamP

4QGenExoda

4QExodj

314 appendix

Exod. 10:3

Table (cont.)

λέγει

κύριος

ὁ θεὸς

‫יהוה‬

‫אלהי‬

οὐ βούλει

ἐντραπῆναί

‫ענת‬/‫ל‬

τίνος

‫מתי‬

‫מאנת‬

ἕως

‫עד‬

τῶν ἐβραίων

τάδε

‫כה‬

‫אמר‬

‫עברים‬/‫ה‬

αὐτῷ

καὶ εἶπαν

‫יאמרו‬/‫ו‬

‫יו‬/‫אל‬

φαραὼ ---

ἐναντίον

καὶ ἀαρὼν

--- ‫פרעה‬

‫אל‬

‫אהרן‬/‫ו‬

µωυσῆς

‫משׁה‬

---

---

εἰσῆλθεν δὲ

---

---

‫יבא‬/‫ו‬

LXX

MT

‫ענות‬/‫ל‬

‫מאנת‬

‫מתי‬

‫עד‬

‫עברים‬/‫ה‬

‫אלהי‬

‫יהוה‬

‫אמר‬

‫כה‬

‫יו‬/‫אל‬

‫יאמרו‬/‫ו‬

--- ‫פרעה‬

‫אל‬

‫אהרן‬/‫ו‬

‫משׁה‬

‫יבא‬/‫ו‬

‫[עד‬

‫מ[שׁה‬

‫א[להי‬

‫י]הוה‬

‫אמר‬

‫כה‬

‫יו‬/‫[אל‬

4QExodc

‫יו‬/]‫אל‬

‫יא[מרו‬/‫] ו‬

··‫מצר‬/‫[· ב‬

---

2QExoda

‫זה‬/‫ה‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl ---

4QpaleoExodm

‫יום‬/‫ה‬

SamP

4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 315

Exod. 10:4

Table (cont.)

ἐξαπόστειλον

τὸν λαόν µου

ἵνα λατρεύσωσίν µοι

‫שׁלח‬

‫י‬/‫ עמ‬---

‫ני‬/‫יעבד‬/‫ו‬

πολλὴν

---

ἐπὶ

ἀκρίδα

‫ארבה‬

!

αὔριον

‫מחר‬

ταύτην τὴν ὥραν

ἐπάγω

‫מביא‬

---

ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ

τὸν λαόν µου

‫ני‬/‫הנ‬

ἐξαποστεῖλαι

‫שׁלח‬/‫ל‬

---

‫אתה‬

‫י‬/‫את עמ‬

µὴ θέλῃς

‫מאן‬

ἐὰν δὲ

µε

‫פני‬/‫מ‬

‫כי אם‬

LXX

MT

!

---

‫ארבה‬

‫מחר‬

---

‫מביא‬

‫ני‬/‫הנ‬

‫י‬/‫את עמ‬

‫שׁלח‬/‫ל‬

‫אתה‬

‫מאן‬

‫כי אם‬

‫ני‬/‫יעבד‬/‫ו‬

‫י‬/‫את עמ‬

‫שׁלח‬

‫פני‬/‫מ‬

SamP

(?) ‫[ה‬

4QpaleoExodm

[

!

---

‫א[רבה‬

‫ני‬/‫י]עבד‬/‫ו‬

‫י‬/‫[את עמ‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

]‫שׁ[לח‬/‫ל‬

‫את]ה‬

‫מאן‬

‫[כי אם‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

316 appendix

Exod. 10:5

Table (cont.)

καὶ οὐ

δυνήσῃ

κατιδεῖν

τὴν γῆν

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

‫יוכל‬

‫ראת‬/‫ל‬

‫ארץ‬/‫את ה‬

ἡ χάλαζα

καὶ κατέδεται

‫אכל‬/‫ו‬

---

ὑµῖν

ὃ κατέλιπεν

τὸ καταλειφθέν

τὸ περισσὸν

‫ברד‬/‫ה‬

‫מן‬

‫כם‬/‫ל‬

‫נשׁארת‬/‫ה‬

‫פלטה‬/‫ה‬

‫יתר‬

πᾶν

τῆς γῆς

‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬

καὶ κατέδεται

τὴν ὄψιν

‫את עין‬

‫אכל‬/‫ו‬

καὶ καλύψει

‫כסה‬/‫ו‬

--- ‫את‬

τὰ ὅριά σου

πάντα

---

‫ך‬/‫גבל‬/‫ב‬

LXX

MT

‫אכל‬/‫ו‬

‫ברד‬/‫ה‬

‫מן‬

‫כם‬/‫ל‬

‫נשׁארת‬/‫ה‬

‫פלטה‬/‫ה‬

‫יתר‬

--- ‫את‬

‫אכל‬/‫ו‬

‫ארץ‬/‫את ה‬

‫ראות‬/‫ל‬

‫יכל‬

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬

‫את עין‬

‫כסה‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫גבול‬/‫ב‬

---

SamP

‫י]תר‬

--- ‫את‬

‫אכל‬/‫ו‬

‫ארץ‬/‫]את[ ה‬

‫רא[ות‬/‫ל‬

4QpaleoExodm

‫ע[ין‬

‫ך‬/‫ג]בול‬/‫ב‬

---

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

‫א]רץ‬/‫את ה‬

‫ראו[ת‬/‫ל‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 317

Exod. 10:6

Table (cont.)

---

---

---

---

σου αἱ οἰκίαι

καὶ αἱ οἰκίαι

‫ך‬/‫בתי‬

‫בתי‬/‫ו‬

---

!

‫ך‬/‫עבדי‬

πᾶσαι

καὶ

τῶν θεραπόντων σου

---

καὶ πλησθήσονταί

‫כל‬

τῆς γῆς

‫מלאו‬/‫ו‬

ἐπὶ

ὑµῖν

τὸ φυόµενον

‫שׂדה‬/‫ה‬

‫מן‬

‫כם‬/‫ל‬

‫צמח‬/‫ה‬

ξύλον

---

---

‫עץ‬/‫ה‬

---

πᾶν

‫את כל‬

---

LXX

MT

‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬ ‫את כל‬/‫ו‬ ‫] פרי‬

‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬ ‫את כל‬/‫ו‬ ‫פרי‬

! ---

! ---

‫ך‬/‫עבדי‬

‫כל‬

‫ך‬/‫עבדי‬

‫כל‬

‫בתי‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫בתי‬

‫מלאו‬/‫ו‬

‫שׂדה‬/‫ה‬

‫מן‬

‫כם‬/‫ל‬

‫צמח‬/‫ה‬

‫בתי‬/‫[ו‬

‫עשׂב‬

‫עשׂב‬

‫עץ‬/‫ה‬

[‫כ]ל‬

4QpaleoExodm

‫את כל‬

SamP

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

318 appendix

Table (cont.)

ἐν πάσῃ

‫ כל‬---

τῆς ἡµέρας

ταύτης

καὶ ἐκκλίνας

‫זה‬/‫ה‬

‫יפן‬/‫ו‬

ἕως

τῆς γῆς

ἐπὶ

γεγόνασιν

ἀφ’ ἧς ἡµέρας

οὐδὲ οἱ πρόπαπποι αὐτῶν

‫יום‬/‫ה‬

‫עד‬

‫אדמה‬/‫ה‬

‫על‬

‫ם‬/‫היות‬

‫יום‬/‫מ‬

‫ך‬/‫אבות אבתי‬/‫ו‬

οἱ πατέρες σου

ἑωράκασιν

‫ך‬/‫אבתי‬

οὐδέποτε

‫לא‬

ἃ

αἰγύπτου

‫ראו‬

‫אשׁר‬

‫מצרים‬

γῇ

! αἱ οἰκίαι

‫בתי‬/‫ו‬

---

LXX

MT

‫עד‬

‫יפן‬/‫ו‬

‫זה‬/‫ה‬

‫י]ום‬/‫ה‬

‫עד‬ ‫יום‬/‫ה‬

‫אד[מה‬/]‫ה‬

‫]ע[ל‬

‫ב]תי‬/‫ו‬

4QpaleoExodm

‫אדמה‬/‫ה‬

‫על‬

‫ם‬/‫היות‬

‫יום‬/‫מ‬

‫אבות‬/‫ו‬ ‫ך‬/‫אבותי‬

‫ך‬/‫אבותי‬

‫ראו‬

‫לא‬

‫אשׁר‬

‫מצרים‬

---

‫ כל‬---

‫בתי‬/‫ו‬

SamP

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 319

Exod. 10:7

Table (cont.)

‫פרעה‬

φαραὼ

πρὸς αὐτόν

‫פרעה‬

‫יו‬/‫אל‬

τοῦτο

ἡµῖν

‫זה‬

‫נו‬/‫ל‬

τοὺς ἀνθρώπους

ὅπως λατρεύσωσιν

‫יעבדו‬/‫ו‬

ἐξαπόστειλον

‫אנשׁים‬/‫את ה‬

‫שׁלח‬

σκῶλον

ἔσται

‫מוקשׁ‬/‫ל‬

‫מתי‬

τίνος

‫מתי‬

‫יהיה‬

‫יעבדו‬/‫ו‬

‫אנשׁים‬/‫את ה‬

‫שׁלח‬

‫מוקשׁ‬/‫ל‬

‫נו‬/‫ל‬

‫זה‬

‫יהיה‬

‫עד‬

‫יו‬/‫אל‬

‫פרעה‬

‫עבדי‬

‫יאמרו‬/‫ו‬

ἕως

‫עד‬

οἱ θεράποντες

‫עבדי‬

λέγουσιν δὲ

φαραώ

‫יאמרו‬/‫ו‬

‫פרעה‬

‫עם‬/‫מ‬

ἀπὸ

‫עם‬/‫מ‬

‫יצא‬/‫ו‬

ἐξῆλθεν

‫יצא‬/‫ו‬

---

SamP

µωυσῆς

LXX

---

MT

] ‫יו‬/‫אל‬

‫פרעה‬

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

‫אנשׁ]ים‬/‫את ה‬

‫[ שׁלח‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

320 appendix

Exod. 10:8

Table (cont.)

κυρίῳ

λατρεύσατε

‫את יהוה‬

πορεύεσθε

αὐτοῖς

‫הם‬/‫אל‬

‫לכו‬

καὶ εἶπεν

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫עבדו‬

φαραὼ

πρὸς

καὶ ἀαρὼν

‫פרעה‬

‫אל‬

‫את אהרן‬/‫ו‬

τόν τε µωυσῆν

καὶ ἀπέστρεψαν

‫יושׁב‬/‫ו‬

‫את משׁה‬

αἴγυπτος

‫מצרים‬

ὅτι

‫כי‬

ἀπόλωλεν

βούλει

---

‫אבדה‬

εἰδέναι

‫תדע‬

ἢ ---

τῷ θεῷ αὐτῶν

‫הם‬/‫אלהי‬

‫טרם‬/‫ה‬

κυρίῳ

LXX

‫את יהוה‬

MT

4QExodc

‫את יהוה‬

‫עבדו‬

‫לכו‬

‫יהם‬/‫אל‬

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫פרעה‬

‫אל‬

‫את אהרן‬/‫ו‬

‫פ]רעה‬

‫אל‬

]‫אל‬

‫את אהרן‬/‫ו‬

[ ‫את משׁ]ה‬

2QExoda

‫את משׁה‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

‫יושׁ[ב‬/‫ו‬

‫א[ת אהרון‬/]‫ו‬

‫הם‬/]‫אלהי‬

‫את יהוה‬

4QpaleoExodm

‫ישׁב‬/‫ו‬

‫מצרים‬

‫אבדה‬

‫כי‬

---

‫תדע‬

‫טרם‬/‫ה‬

‫הם‬/‫אלהי‬

‫את יהוה‬

SamP

4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 321

Exod. 10:9

Table (cont.)

εἰσὶν

---

σὺν τοῖς υἱοῖς

‫נו‬/‫בני‬/---/‫ב‬

καὶ --- θυγατράσιν ---

καὶ --- προβάτοις ---

καὶ --- βουσὶν ἡµῶν

‫נו‬/‫בנות‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫נו‬/‫צאנ‬/‫ ב‬---

‫נו‬/‫בקר‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

---

πορευσόµεθα

καὶ --- πρεσβυτέροις ---

‫נו‬/‫זקני‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫נלך‬

σὺν τοῖς νεανίσκοις ---

µωυσῆς

‫משׁה‬

‫נו‬/‫נערי‬/---/‫ב‬

καὶ λέγει

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

οἱ πορευόµενοι

καὶ τίνες

‫מי‬/‫ו‬

‫הלכים‬/‫ה‬

τίνες δὲ

τῷ θεῷ ὑµῶν

LXX

‫מי‬

‫כם‬/‫אלהי‬

MT

‫נו‬/‫בקר‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫נו‬/‫צאנ‬/‫ ב‬---

‫נו‬/‫בנת‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫נו‬/‫בני‬/---/‫ב‬

‫נלך‬

‫נו‬/‫זקני‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫נו‬/‫נערי‬/---/‫ב‬

‫משׁה‬

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫הלכים‬/‫ה‬

---

‫מי‬/‫ו‬

‫מי‬

‫כם‬/‫אלהי‬

SamP

] ‫נו‬/‫בקר‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫נו‬/‫צאנ‬/‫ ב‬---

‫נו‬/‫בנותי‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

] ‫יא]מ[ר‬/‫ו‬

‫הולכים‬/‫ה‬

---

‫מי‬/‫ו‬

‫מי‬

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

[ ‫משׁה‬

‫נו‬/‫בנ]י‬/---/‫ב‬

‫נלך‬

sup

‫נו‬/‫זקני‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

sup

‫נו‬/‫נערי‬/---/‫ב‬

sup

‫יא]מר‬/‫ו‬

‫הולכים‬/‫ה‬

---

‫[מי‬/‫ו‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

322 appendix

Exod. 10:10

Table (cont.)

ἔστιν

γὰρ

ἑορτὴ

---

‫כי‬

‫חג‬

πρὸς αὐτούς

‫הם‬/‫אל‬

ἀποστέλλω

ὑµᾶς

µὴ καὶ

‫אשׁלח‬

‫כם‬/‫את‬

‫את‬/‫ו‬

‫ראו‬

ἴδετε

τὴν ἀποσκευὴν ὑµῶν

καθότι

‫אשׁר‬/‫כ‬

--- ‫כם‬/‫טפ‬

µεθ’ ὑµῶν

‫כם‬/‫עמ‬

‫כן‬

κύριος

‫ראו‬

‫כם‬/‫ טפ‬---

‫את‬/‫ו‬

‫כם‬/‫את‬

‫אשׁלח‬

‫אשׁר‬/‫כ‬

‫כם‬/‫עמ‬

‫כ]ם‬/‫עמ‬

‫יהוה‬

‫כן‬

οὕτως

‫כן‬

‫יהוה‬ ‫יהוה‬

‫יהי‬

‫יהם‬/‫אל‬

4QpaleoExodm

‫יהיה‬

‫יהם‬/‫אל‬

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫נו‬/‫ל‬

--- ‫יהוה‬

‫חג‬

‫כי‬

---

‫נלך‬

SamP

ἔστω

‫יהי‬

καὶ εἶπεν

ἡµῶν

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫נו‬/‫ל‬

κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ

---

‫נלך‬

--- ‫יהוה‬

LXX

MT

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 323

Exod. 10:11

Table (cont.)

---

πορευέσθωσαν

δὲ

---

‫לכו‬

‫נא‬

‫יגרשׁ‬/‫ו‬

‫מבקשׁים‬

‫אתם‬

!

‫ה‬/‫את‬

‫כי‬

‫את יהוה‬

‫עבדו‬/‫ו‬

ἐξέβαλον δὲ

ζητεῖτε

αὐτοὶ

γὰρ

τοῦτο

!

τῷ θεῷ

καὶ λατρεύσατε

οἱ ἄνδρες

οὕτως

‫כן‬

‫גברים‬/‫ה‬

µὴ

‫לא‬

ὑµῖν

πρόκειται

‫נגד‬

‫יכם‬/‫פנ‬

πονηρία

ὅτι

‫כי‬

‫רעה‬

LXX

MT

‫יגרשׁו‬/‫ו‬

‫מבקשׁים‬

‫אתם‬

!

‫ה‬/‫את‬

‫כי‬

‫את יהוה‬

‫עבדו‬/‫ו‬

‫גברים‬/‫ה‬

‫נא‬

‫יג]רשׁו‬/‫ו‬

‫מבק]שׁ[ים‬

‫אתם‬

---

‫לכן‬ ‫לכו‬

]‫כן‬

‫לא‬

‫יכם‬/‫פנ‬

‫נגד‬

‫]ר[עה‬

4QpaleoExodm

---

---

‫יכם‬/‫פנ‬

‫נגד‬

‫רעה‬

‫כי‬

SamP

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

324 appendix

Exod. 10:12

Table (cont.)

‫מצרים‬

‫ ארץ‬---

‫על‬

!

‫יעל‬/‫ו‬

‫ארבה‬/‫ב‬

---

τὴν γῆν

ἐπὶ

ἀκρὶς

καὶ ἀναβήτω

!

αἰγύπτου

γῆν

‫מצרים‬

ἐπὶ

‫על‬

τὴν χεῖρα ---

‫ארץ‬

‫ך‬/‫ יד‬---

ἔκτεινον

πρὸς

‫אל‬

‫נטה‬

κύριος

‫יהוה‬

µωυσῆν

εἶπεν δὲ

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫משׁה‬

φαραώ

‫פרעה‬

ἀπὸ προσώπου

αὐτοὺς

‫ם‬/‫את‬

‫את פני‬/‫מ‬

LXX

MT

‫מצרים‬

‫ ארץ‬---

‫על‬

!

‫יעל‬/‫ו‬

‫ארבה‬/‫ב‬

‫מצרים‬

‫ארץ‬

‫על‬

‫ך‬/‫את יד‬

‫נטה‬

‫משׁה‬

‫אל‬

‫יהוה‬

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫פרעה‬

‫את פני‬/‫מ‬

‫ם‬/‫את‬

SamP

‫משׁ]ה‬

‫אל‬

[‫יהו]ה‬

‫יא[ומר‬/vacat ‫ו‬

‫פרעה‬

‫מאת פני‬

‫ם‬/‫את‬

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

‫מצרי]ם‬

‫אר[ץ‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 325

Exod. 10:13

Table (cont.)

καὶ ἐπῆρεν

µωυσῆς

‫יט‬/‫ו‬

‫משׁה‬

---

‫נהג‬

‫יהוה‬/‫ו‬

ἐπήγαγεν

καὶ κύριος

τὸν οὐρανόν

‫ארץ מצרים‬

---

εἰς

‫על‬

τὴν ῥάβδον ---

ἡ χάλαζα

‫ברד‬/‫ה‬

‫ו‬/‫את מטה‬

ὑπελίπετο

‫השׁאיר‬

ὅν

τῶν ξύλων

---

‫אשׁר‬

τὸν καρπὸν

τῆς γῆς

‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬

---

βοτάνην

‫עשׂב‬

καὶ πάντα

πᾶσαν

‫את כל‬

‫ את כל‬---

καὶ κατέδεται

LXX

‫יאכל‬/‫ו‬

MT

‫נהג‬

‫יהוה‬/‫ו‬

---

‫ארץ מצרים‬

‫על‬

‫ו‬/‫את יד‬

‫משׁה‬

‫יט‬/‫ו‬

‫ברד‬/‫ה‬

‫השׁאיר‬

‫אשׁר‬

‫עץ‬/‫ה‬

‫פרי‬

‫ואת כל‬

‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬

‫עשׂב‬

‫את כל‬

‫יאכל‬/‫ו‬

SamP ] ‫יאכ[ל‬/‫ו‬

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

]‫מ]שׁ[ה‬

‫יטה‬/‫ו‬

‫ברד‬/‫[ה‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

326 appendix

Exod. 10:14

Table (cont.)

νότον

‫קדים‬

‫הי]ה‬

‫היה‬

ἐγενήθη

ἐπὶ

πᾶσαν

‫כל‬

αὐτὴν

καὶ ἀνήγαγεν

τὴν ἀκρίδα

ἀνέλαβεν

ὁ νότος

‫על‬

‫ארבה‬/‫ה‬

‫יעל‬/‫ו‬

‫ארבה‬/‫את ה‬

‫נשׂא‬

‫קדים‬/‫ה‬

‫רוח‬/---/‫ו‬

καὶ ὁ ἄνεµος

τὸ πρωὶ

‫בקר‬/‫ה‬

‫היה‬

‫בקר‬/‫ה‬

‫בקר‬/‫ה‬

τὴν νύκτα

‫לילה‬/‫ה‬

‫כל‬

‫על‬

‫ארבה‬/‫ה‬

‫יעל‬/‫ו‬

‫ארבה‬/‫את ה‬

‫נשׂאה‬

‫קדים‬/‫ה‬

‫רוח‬/---/‫ו‬

‫לילה‬/‫ה‬

‫כל‬/‫ו‬

] ‫את‬

‫נשׂא‬

‫ק[דים‬/‫ה‬

‫רוח‬/---/‫ו‬

‫לילה‬/‫ה‬

καὶ ὅλην

‫כל‬/‫[ו‬

4QExodc

‫כל‬/‫ו‬

‫הוא‬/‫ה‬

‫יום‬/‫ה‬

2QExoda

ἐκείνην

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

τὴν ἡµέραν

‫כל‬

4QpaleoExodm

‫יום‬/‫ה‬

ὅλην

‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬

‫קדים‬

‫רוח‬

SamP

‫הוא‬/‫ה‬

‫כל‬

ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν

ἄνεµον

‫רוח‬

‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬

LXX

MT

4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 327

Table (cont.)

τοιαύτη

ἀκρὶς

!

! ‫כן‬

‫ארבה‬

‫הו‬/‫מ‬/‫כ‬

οὐκ

ἔσται

οὕτως

‫לא‬

‫יהיה‬

‫כן‬

καὶ µετ’ αὐτὴν

γέγονεν

‫יו‬/‫אחר‬/‫ו‬

οὐ

‫לא‬

προτέρα αὐτῆς

‫היה‬

‫ו‬/‫פני‬/‫ל‬

σφόδρα

αἰγύπτου

‫מצרים‬

‫מאד‬

τὰ ὅρια

‫גבול‬

πολλὴ

ἐπὶ πάντα

‫כל‬/‫ב‬

‫כבד‬

καὶ κατέπαυσεν

‫ינח‬/‫ו‬

αἰγύπτου

γῆν

‫ארץ‬

‫מצרים‬

LXX

MT

‫כן‬

‫יהיה‬

‫לא‬

‫יו‬/‫אחר‬/‫ו‬

‫הו‬/‫מ‬/‫כ‬

‫ארבה‬

! ‫כן‬

‫היה‬

‫לא‬

‫ו‬/‫פני‬/‫ל‬

‫מאד‬

‫כבד‬

‫מצרים‬

‫גבול‬

‫כל‬/‫ב‬

‫ינח‬/‫ו‬

‫מצרים‬

‫ארץ‬

SamP

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

]‫ארבה‬

! ‫כן‬

‫[היה‬

‫מ]צרים‬

‫גבול‬

‫כל‬/‫[ב‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

328 appendix

Exod. 10:15

Table (cont.)

ὑπελείφθη

‫הותיר‬

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

‫ברד‬/‫ה‬

--- οὐχ

τῆς χαλάζης

ἀπὸ

ὃς

‫אשׁר‬

---

τῶν ξύλων

‫עץ‬/‫ה‬

τῆς γῆς

‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬

τὸν καρπὸν

βοτάνην

‫עשׂב‬

‫פרי‬

πᾶσαν

‫את כל‬

καὶ πάντα

καὶ κατέφαγεν

‫יאכל‬/‫ו‬

‫את כל‬/‫ו‬

ἡ γῆ

καὶ ἐφθάρη

τῆς γῆς

---

‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬

‫תחשׁך‬/‫ו‬

‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬

‫כל‬

τὴν ὄψιν

καὶ ἐκάλυψεν

‫יכס‬/‫ו‬

‫את עין‬

LXX

MT

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

‫ברד‬/‫ה‬

---

‫הותיר‬

‫אשׁר‬

‫עץ‬/‫ה‬

‫פרי‬

‫את כל‬/‫ו‬

‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬

‫עשׂב‬

‫את כל‬

‫יאכל‬/‫ו‬

‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬

‫תחשׁך‬/‫ו‬

‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬

‫כל‬

‫את עין‬

‫יכס‬/‫ו‬

SamP

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

‫א]רץ‬/‫ה‬

‫[עשׂב‬

]‫תשׁחת‬/‫ו‬

‫[ארץ‬/‫ה‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 329

Exod. 10:16

Table (cont.)

--- χλωρὸν

!

µωυσῆν

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

λέγων

καὶ ἀαρὼν

‫קרא‬/‫ל‬

καλέσαι

‫קרא‬/‫ל‬

‫משׁה‬/‫ל‬

‫אהרן‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬

‫פרעה‬

φαραὼ

‫פרעה‬

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫אהרן‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬

‫משׁה‬/‫ל‬

‫ימהר‬/‫ו‬

κατέσπευσεν δὲ

‫ימהר‬/‫ו‬

‫מצרים‬

‫ארץ‬

‫כל‬/‫ב‬

αἰγύπτου

γῇ

‫שׂדה‬/‫ה‬

‫עשׂב‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

---

!

‫עץ‬/‫ב‬

‫כל ירק‬

---

!

‫נותר‬

SamP

‫מצרים‬

ἐν πάσῃ

‫ארץ‬

τοῦ πεδίου

‫כל‬/‫ב‬

‫שׂדה‬/‫ה‬

! βοτάνῃ

πάσῃ

---

‫עשׂב‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

καὶ ἐν

ἐν τοῖς ξύλοις

!

!

‫עץ‬/‫ב‬

‫כל ירק‬

οὐδὲν

ὑπελείφθη

‫נותר‬

---

LXX

MT

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

‫אר]ץ‬

‫כל‬/‫ב‬

‫שׂ[דה‬/‫] ה‬

‫עשׂב‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

---

!

‫עץ‬/‫ב‬

‫כל ירק‬

---

!

‫[נותר‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

330 appendix

Exod. 10:17

Table (cont.)

---

‫עתה‬/‫ו‬

‫רק‬

‫זה‬/‫ה‬

‫מות‬/‫את ה‬

τοῦτον

τὸν θάνατον

---

ἀπ’ ἐµοῦ

καὶ περιελέτω

‫יסר‬/‫ו‬

‫י‬/‫על‬/‫מ‬

τὸν θεὸν ὑµῶν

πρὸς κύριον

‫יהוה‬/‫ל‬

‫כם‬/‫אלהי‬

καὶ προσεύξασθε

νῦν

‫פעם‬/‫ה‬

‫העתירו‬/‫ו‬

ἔτι

µου τὴν ἁµαρτίαν

‫אך‬

‫י‬/‫חטאת‬

οὖν

καὶ εἰς ὑµᾶς

‫כם‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬

‫נא‬

τοῦ θεοῦ ὑµῶν

‫כם‬/‫אלהי‬

προσδέξασθε

ἐναντίον κυρίου

‫יהוה‬/‫ל‬

‫שׂא‬

ἡµάρτηκα

LXX

‫חטאתי‬

MT

‫זה‬/‫ה‬

‫מות‬/‫את ה‬

‫רק‬

‫י‬/‫על‬/‫מ‬

‫יסר‬/‫ו‬

‫כם‬/‫אלהי‬

‫אל יהוה‬

‫ העתירו‬---

‫פעם‬/‫ה‬

‫אך‬

‫י‬/‫חטאת‬

‫נא‬

‫שׂאו‬

‫עתה‬/‫ו‬

‫כם‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬

‫כם‬/‫אלהי‬

‫יהוה‬/‫ל‬

‫חטאתי‬

SamP

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

‫נ]א‬

‫שׂאו‬

‫עתה‬/‫ו‬

[‫כם‬/]‫ל‬/‫ו‬

‫כם‬/‫אלהי‬

‫י[הוה‬/‫ל‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 331

Exod. 10:19

Exod. 10:18

Table (cont.)

ἀπὸ

θαλάσσης

---

‫ים‬

τὴν ἀκρίδα

καὶ ἐνέβαλεν αὐτὴν

εἰς τὴν ἐρυθρὰν θάλασσαν

‫הו‬/‫יתקע‬/‫ו‬

‫ה סוף‬/‫ימ‬

καὶ ἀνέλαβεν

‫ארבה‬/‫את ה‬

‫ישׂא‬/‫ו‬

σφοδρόν

ἄνεµον

‫רוח‬

‫חזק מאד‬

κύριος

καὶ µετέβαλεν

τὸν θεόν

‫יהוה‬

‫יהפך‬/‫ו‬

‫יהוה‬

πρὸς

καὶ ηὔξατο

‫אל‬

‫פרעה‬

φαραώ

‫פרעה‬

‫יעתר‬/‫ו‬

‫ים סוף‬

‫הו‬/‫יתקע‬/‫ו‬

‫ארבה‬/‫את ה‬

‫ישׂא‬/‫ו‬

‫חזק מאד‬

‫ים‬

---

‫רוח‬

‫יהוה‬

‫יהפך‬/‫ו‬

‫יהוה‬

‫אל‬

‫יעתר‬/‫ו‬

‫עם‬/‫מ‬

---

‫יצא‬/‫ו‬

SamP

ἀπὸ

‫עם‬/‫מ‬

µωυσῆς

ἐξῆλθεν δὲ

‫יצא‬/‫ו‬

---

LXX

MT

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

]‫י[הפך‬/‫ו‬

‫יהוה‬

‫א]ל‬

‫יעתר‬/‫ו‬

‫פר[עה‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

332 appendix

Exod. 10:21

Exod. 10:20

Table (cont.)

ἐν πάσῃ

γῇ

‫כל‬/‫ב‬

‫גבול‬

ἰσραήλ

εἶπεν δὲ

κύριος

πρὸς

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫יהוה‬

‫אל‬

ἐξαπέστειλεν

‫שׁלח‬

‫ישׂראל‬

καὶ οὐκ

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

τοὺς υἱοὺς

φαραώ

‫את בני‬

τὴν καρδίαν

‫פרעה‬

κύριος

‫את לב‬

‫יהוה‬

καὶ ἐσκλήρυνεν

µία

‫אחד‬

‫יחזק‬/‫ו‬

ἀκρὶς

‫ארבה‬

αἰγύπτου

ὑπελείφθη

‫נשׁאר‬

‫מצרים‬

καὶ οὐχ

LXX

‫ לא‬---

MT

‫אל‬

‫יהוה‬

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫ישׂראל‬

‫את בני‬

‫שׁלח‬

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

‫פרעה‬

‫את לב‬

‫יהוה‬

‫יחזק‬/‫ו‬

‫מצרים‬

‫גבול‬

‫כל‬/‫ב‬

‫אחד‬

‫ארבה‬

‫נשׁאר‬

‫ לא‬---

SamP

‫אל‬

‫יהוה‬

‫[ ידבר‬vacat] /‫ו‬

‫ישׂ[ראל‬

‫מ]צרים‬

‫גבול‬

[ ‫כל‬/‫]ב‬

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

] ‫ג[בול‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 333

Exod. 10:22

Table (cont.)

ἔκτεινον

‫נטה‬

‫על‬

τὸν οὐρανόν

καὶ ἐγένετο

‫יהי‬/‫ו‬

εἰς

‫שׁמים‬/‫ה‬

‫על‬

τὴν χεῖρα ---

µωυσῆς

‫משׁה‬

‫ו‬/‫את יד‬

ἐξέτεινεν δὲ

‫יט‬/‫ו‬

--- σκότος

ψηλαφητὸν

‫ חשׁך‬---

αἰγύπτου

‫ימשׁ‬/‫ו‬

γῆν

‫ארץ‬

‫מצרים‬

ἐπὶ

σκότος

‫חשׁך‬

‫על‬

καὶ γενηθήτω

τὸν οὐρανόν

εἰς

‫יהי‬/‫ו‬

‫שׁמים‬/‫ה‬

τὴν χεῖρα ---

µωυσῆν

‫משׁה‬

‫ך‬/‫ יד‬---

LXX

MT

‫יהי‬/‫ו‬

‫שׁמים‬/‫ה‬

‫על‬

‫ו‬/‫את יד‬

‫משׁה‬

‫יט‬/‫ו‬

‫חשׁך‬/‫ה‬

‫ימשׁ‬/‫ו‬

‫מצרים‬

‫ארץ‬

‫על‬

‫חשׁך‬

‫יהי‬/‫ו‬

‫שׁמים‬/‫ה‬

‫על‬

‫ך‬/‫את יד‬

‫נטה‬

‫משׁה‬

SamP

‫ו‬/‫את י]ד‬

‫משׁה‬

‫יט‬/‫ו‬

---

---

‫מצ[רים‬

‫נט]ה‬

‫משׁה‬

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

334 appendix

Exod. 10:23

Table (cont.)

οὐδεὶς

‫אישׁ‬

‫שׁלשׁת‬

τρεῖς

ἐκ τῆς κοίτης αὐτοῦ

ἐξανέστη

‫יו‬/‫תחת‬/‫מ‬

καὶ οὐκ

‫קמו‬

τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

‫יו‬/‫את אח‬

οὐδεὶς

καὶ οὐκ

‫ לא‬---

εἶδεν

ἡµέρας

‫ימים‬

‫ראו‬

τρεῖς

‫שׁלשׁת‬

‫אישׁ‬

αἰγύπτου

‫מצרים‬

γῆν

θύελλα

---

‫ארץ‬

γνόφος

‫אפלה‬

ἐπὶ πᾶσαν

σκότος

‫חשׁך‬

‫כל‬/‫ב‬

LXX

MT

‫שׁלשׁת‬

‫יו‬/‫תחת‬/‫מ‬

‫אישׁ‬

‫קמו‬

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

‫יו‬/‫את אח‬

‫אישׁ‬

‫ראו‬

‫ לא‬---

‫ימים‬

‫שׁלשׁת‬

‫מצרים‬

‫ארץ‬

‫כל‬/‫ב‬

---

‫אפלה‬

‫חשׁך‬

SamP

‫שׁלשׁת‬

]‫ לא‬---

‫ימים‬

‫שׁלשׁת‬

‫מצ[רים‬

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

‫אי]שׁ‬

‫קמו‬

‫ל[א‬/‫ו‬

‫יו‬/‫]את אח‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 335

Exod. 10:24

Table (cont.)

πᾶσιν δὲ

τοῖς υἱοῖς

‫כל‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬

‫בני‬

µωυσῆν

‫אל משׁה‬

‫את יהוה‬

‫עבדו‬

‫לכו‬

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

κυρίῳ

λατρεύσατε

βαδίζετε

λέγων

καὶ ἀαρὼν

φαραὼ

‫פרעה‬

---

καὶ ἐκάλεσεν

! οἷς κατεγίνοντο

πᾶσιν

‫יקרא‬/‫ו‬

‫ם‬/‫מושׁבת‬/‫ב‬

---

ἐν

φῶς

‫אור‬

!

ἦν

‫היה‬

ἰσραὴλ

ἡµέρας

‫ימים‬

‫ישׂראל‬

LXX

MT

‫את יהוה‬

‫עבדו‬

‫לכו‬

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬ ]‫יאמרו‬/‫ו‬

‫משׁה‬/‫ל‬ ‫אהרון‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬

‫משׁה‬/‫ל‬

‫פרעה‬

]‫בני‬

‫כל‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬

‫ימים‬

4QpaleoExodm

‫אהרן‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬

‫פרעה‬

‫יקרא‬/‫ו‬

‫ם‬/‫מושׁבת‬/‫ב‬

---

!

‫אור‬

‫היה‬

‫ישׂראל‬

‫בני‬

‫כל‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬

‫ימים‬

SamP

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

‫ל]כו‬

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

---

‫ מ[שׁה‬---

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

336 appendix

Exod. 10:25

Table (cont.)

σὺ

δώσεις

‫אתה‬

‫תתן‬

!

ἀλλὰ καὶ

‫ גם‬---

‫זבחים‬

µωυσῆς

‫משׁה‬

ἡµῖν

καὶ εἶπεν

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫נו‬/‫יד‬/‫ב‬

µεθ’ ὑµῶν

ἀποτρεχέτω

‫ילך‬

‫כם‬/‫עמ‬

ἡ ἀποσκευὴ ὑµῶν

καὶ

‫כם‬/‫ טפ‬---

ὑπολείπεσθε

‫גם‬

---

καὶ τῶν βοῶν

‫יצג‬

‫כם‬/‫בקר‬/‫ו‬

---

τῶν προβάτων

πλὴν

‫רק‬

‫כם‬/‫צאנ‬

τῷ θεῷ ὑµῶν

LXX

---

MT

‫זבחים‬

‫נו‬/‫יד‬/‫ב‬

‫תתן‬

‫אתה‬

‫ גם‬---

‫משׁה‬

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫כם‬/‫עמ‬

‫ילך‬

‫כם‬/‫ טפ‬---

‫גם‬

‫יצג‬

‫כם‬/‫בקר‬/‫ו‬

‫כם‬/‫צאנ‬

‫רק‬

---

SamP

‫זב]ח[ים‬

]‫י[לך‬

] ‫גם‬

‫יצג‬

‫כם‬/‫ב[קר‬/‫ו‬

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 337

Exod. 10:26

Table (cont.)

τῷ θεῷ ἡµῶν

‫נו‬/‫אלהי‬

ὁπλήν

‫פרסה‬

ληµψόµεθα

λατρεῦσαι

‫עבד‬/‫ל‬

γὰρ

ἀπ’ αὐτῶν

‫נקח‬

!

‫ו‬/‫מנ‬/‫מ‬

!

ὑπολειψόµεθα

‫תשׁאר‬

‫כי‬

‫נו‬/‫עמ‬

‫עבד‬/‫ל‬

‫נקח‬

!

‫ו‬/‫מנ‬/‫מ‬

‫כי‬

‫פרסה‬

‫תשׁאר‬

]‫כי‬

‫] פרס[ה‬

‫נשׁאר‬

‫ לא‬---

‫נו‬/‫עמ‬

καὶ οὐχ

‫ לא‬---

µεθ’ ἡµῶν

‫נו‬/‫עמ‬

‫ לא‬---

‫נו‬/‫מק[נ‬ [‫י]לך‬

‫נו‬/‫מקני‬

‫[עשׂינ]ו‬/‫ו‬

---

!

‫עלות‬/]‫ו‬

4QpaleoExodm

‫ילך‬

τὰ κτήνη ἡµῶν

‫גם‬/‫ו‬

‫נו‬/‫אלהי‬

‫יהוה‬/‫ל‬

‫עשׂינו‬/‫ו‬

---

!

‫עלות‬/‫ו‬

SamP

πορεύσεται

‫ילך‬

‫נו‬/‫מקנ‬

καὶ

κυρίῳ

‫גם‬/‫ו‬

--- ποιήσοµεν

‫יהוה‬/‫ל‬

ἃ

καὶ θυσίας

ὁλοκαυτώµατα

LXX

‫עשׂינו‬/‫ו‬

---

!

‫עלות‬/‫ו‬

MT

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

338 appendix

Exod. 10:27

Table (cont.)

ἐσκλήρυνεν δὲ

‫יחזק‬/‫ו‬

τὴν καρδίαν

φαραώ

καὶ οὐκ

ἐβουλήθη

‫את לב‬

‫פרעה‬

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

‫אבה‬

κύριος

ἐκεῖ

‫ה‬/‫שׁמ‬

‫יהוה‬

τοῦ ἐλθεῖν ἡµᾶς

ἕως

‫עד‬

‫נו‬/‫בא‬

τῷ θεῷ ἡµῶν

κυρίῳ

---

‫את יהוה‬

λατρεύσωµεν

τί

‫מה‬

‫נעבד‬

οἴδαµεν

‫נדע‬

ἡµεῖς δὲ

‫אנחנו‬/‫ו‬

οὐκ

τῷ θεῷ ἡµῶν

‫נו‬/‫אלהי‬

‫לא‬

κυρίῳ

LXX

‫את יהוה‬

MT

‫אבה‬

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

‫פרעה‬

‫את לב‬

‫יהוה‬

‫יחזק‬/‫ו‬

‫ה‬/‫שׁמ‬

‫נו‬/‫בא‬

‫עד‬

---

‫את יהוה‬

‫נעבד‬

‫מה‬

‫נדע‬

‫לא‬

‫אנחנו‬/‫ו‬

‫נו‬/‫אלהי‬

‫את יהוה‬

SamP

]‫אבה‬

‫[לא‬/‫ו‬

‫]פרעה‬

‫] את [לב‬

‫יהוה‬

‫יחזק‬/‫[ ו‬

]‫את‬

‫נ[עבוד‬

‫] מה‬

‫נדע‬

‫לא‬

‫אנחנו‬/‫ו‬

[‫נ]ו‬/‫אלהי‬

‫יה[וה‬

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 339

Exod. 10:28

Table (cont.)

! ἡµέρᾳ

ὀφθῇς

‫ך‬/‫ראת‬

δ᾽ ἂν

ᾗ

µου τὸ πρόσωπον

‫יום‬/‫ב‬

‫כי‬

!

‫י‬/‫פנ‬

ἰδεῖν

ἔτι

‫אל‬

‫ראות‬

σεαυτῷ

‫ך‬/‫ל‬

προσθεῖναι

πρόσεχε

‫תסף‬

ἀπ᾽ ἐµοῦ

---

---

‫השׁמר‬

ἄπελθε

‫לך‬

‫י‬/‫על‬/‫מ‬

φαραώ

---

καὶ λέγει

ἐξαποστεῖλαι αὐτούς

LXX

‫פרעה‬

‫ו‬/‫ל‬

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫ם‬/‫שׁלח‬/‫ל‬

MT

‫ך‬/‫ראות‬

‫יום‬/‫ב‬

‫כי‬

!

‫י‬/‫פנ‬

‫ראות‬

‫תוסף‬

‫אל‬

‫ך‬/‫ל‬

‫השׁמר‬

‫י‬/‫על‬/‫מ‬

‫לך‬

‫לך‬

‫פרעה‬

‫ו‬/‫ל‬

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫ם‬/‫שׁלח‬/‫ל‬

SamP

[‫י‬/]‫על‬/‫מ‬

‫[ לך‬

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

340 appendix

Exod. 11:1

Exod. 10:29

Table (cont.)

µωυσῆς

‫משׁה‬

πρὸς

‫אל‬

!

‫עוד‬

µίαν

ἔτι

µωυσῆν

κύριος

‫יהוה‬

‫משׁה‬

εἶπεν δὲ

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

σοι εἰς πρόσωπον

!

‫עוד‬

ὀφθήσοµαί

---

‫אסף‬

‫ך‬/‫פני‬

οὐκέτι

! ‫לא‬

‫ראות‬

εἴρηκας

‫דברת‬

---

λέγει δὲ

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫כן‬

ἀποθανῇ

µοι

‫י‬/‫פנ‬

‫תמות‬

LXX

MT

!

‫עוד‬

‫משׁה‬

‫אל‬

‫יהוה‬

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫פני‬

‫ראות‬

‫עוד‬

‫אוסף‬

! ‫לא‬

‫דברת‬

‫כן‬

‫משׁה‬

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫תמות‬

‫י‬/‫פנ‬

SamP

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 341

Table (cont.)

αἴγυπτον

‫מצרים‬

‫יגרשׁ‬

ἐκβολῇ

ὑµᾶς

ἐκβαλεῖ

‫גרשׁ‬

!

σὺν παντὶ

ὑµᾶς

ὅταν δὲ ἐξαποστέλλῃ

ἐντεῦθεν

ὑµᾶς

ἐξαποστελεῖ

‫כלה‬

---

‫ו‬/‫שׁלח‬/‫כ‬

‫זה‬/‫מ‬

‫כם‬/‫את‬

‫ישׁלח‬

καὶ µετὰ ταῦτα

καὶ ἐπ’

‫על‬/‫ו‬

‫ אחרי כן‬---

φαραὼ

‫פרעה‬

ἐπὶ

ἐπάξω

‫אביא‬

‫על‬

!

πληγὴν

‫נגע‬

‫אחד‬

LXX

MT

‫יגרשׁ‬

!

‫גרשׁ‬

‫כלה‬

---

‫ו‬/‫שׁלח‬/‫כ‬

‫זה‬/‫מ‬

‫כם‬/‫את‬

‫ישׁלח‬

‫אחרי כן‬/‫ו‬

‫מצרים‬

‫על‬/‫ו‬

‫פרעה‬

‫על‬

‫אביא‬

‫אחד‬

‫נגע‬

SamP

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

342 appendix

Exod. 11:2

Table (cont.)

καὶ γυνὴ

παρὰ

‫אשׁה‬/‫ו‬

‫את‬/‫מ‬

σκεύη

ἀργυρᾶ

καὶ ---

χρυσᾶ

‫כלי‬

‫כסף‬

‫כלי‬/‫ו‬

‫זהב‬

τῆς πλησίον ---

τοῦ πλησίον ---

‫ה‬/‫רעות‬

παρὰ

‫את‬/‫מ‬

ἕκαστος

καὶ αἰτησάτω

‫הו‬/‫רע‬

‫אישׁ‬

‫ישׁאלו‬/‫ו‬

τοῦ λαοῦ

‫עם‬/‫ה‬

‫זהב‬

‫כלי‬/‫ו‬

‫כסף‬

‫כלי‬

‫ה‬/‫רעות‬

‫את‬/‫מ‬

‫אשׁה‬/‫ו‬

‫הו‬/‫רע‬

‫את‬/‫מ‬

‫אישׁ‬

‫ישׁאלו‬/‫ו‬

‫עם‬/‫ה‬

‫אזני‬/‫ב‬

---

εἰς τὰ ὦτα

κρυφῇ

‫אזני‬/‫ב‬

---

‫דברו‬ ‫נא‬

λάλησον

‫דבר‬

‫זה‬/‫מ‬

‫כם‬/‫את‬

SamP

οὖν

---

‫זה‬/‫מ‬

‫נא‬

!

LXX

‫כם‬/‫את‬

MT

4QpaleoExodm

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 343

Exod. 11:3

Table (cont.)

ἐγενήθη

σφόδρα

---

‫מאד‬

---

µέγας

‫גדול‬

‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬

µωυσῆς

‫משׁה‬

ὁ ἄνθρωπος

καὶ

‫גם‬

‫אישׁ‬/‫ה‬

καὶ ἔχρησαν αὐτοῖς

τῶν αἰγυπτίων

‫מצרים‬

---

ἐναντίον

‫עיני‬/‫ב‬

αὐτοῦ

τῷ λαῷ

‫עם‬/‫ה‬

---

τὴν χάριν

ἔδωκεν

κύριος δὲ !

!

καὶ ἱµατισµόν

LXX

‫את חן‬

!

‫יהוה‬

‫יתן‬/‫! ו‬

---

MT

!

!

---

!

!

!

‫בתו[ך ארץ‬

‫מאד‬

---

‫]גדול‬

[‫מושׁה‬

‫אישׁ‬/‫ה‬

‫גם‬

---

‫השׁאילום‬/‫ו‬ !

‫מצרים‬

‫עיני‬/‫ב‬

‫מצרים‬

‫עיני‬/‫ב‬

---

‫את חן‬

!

‫יהוה‬

‫יתן‬/‫] ! ו‬

2QExoda

‫זה‬/‫ה‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

‫עם‬/‫ה‬

4QpaleoExodm

‫עם‬/‫ה‬

‫את חן‬

!

---

‫נתתי‬/‫! ו‬

‫שׁמלות‬/‫ו‬

SamP

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

344 appendix

Exod. 11:3b

Table (cont.)

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

‫עם‬/‫ה‬

τῶν θεραπόντων αὐτοῦ

πάντων

‫עיני‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫עבדי פרעה‬

---

καὶ ἐναντίον

φαραὼ

---

‫עיני‬/‫ב‬

καὶ ἐναντίον

τῶν αἰγυπτίων

ἐναντίον

LXX

---

‫מצרים‬

---

MT

-----------------

‫לילה‬/‫ה‬ ‫אני‬ ‫יצא‬ ‫תוך‬/‫ב‬ ‫ארץ‬ ‫מצרים‬ ‫מת‬/‫ו‬

‫עיני‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫עבדי פרעה‬

---

‫עיני‬/‫ב‬

---

---

‫] מצרים‬

---

2QExoda

‫חצית‬/‫כ‬/‫ו‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

[‫עם‬/‫ה‬

4QpaleoExodm

!

!

!

---

!

---

---

!

---

SamP

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 345

Table (cont.)

LXX

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

MT

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

-----------------------------------

‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬ ‫מצרים‬ ‫בכור‬/‫מ‬ ‫פרעה‬ ‫ישׁב‬/‫ה‬ ‫על‬ ‫ו‬/‫כסא‬ ‫עד‬/‫ו‬ ‫בכור‬ ‫שׁפחה‬/‫ה‬ ‫אשׁר‬ ‫אחר‬ ‫רחים‬/‫ה‬ ‫עד‬/‫ו‬ ‫בכור‬ ‫כל‬

2QExoda

‫בכור‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl ---

4QpaleoExodm

‫כל‬

SamP

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

346 appendix

Table (cont.)

LXX

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

MT

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

-----------------------------------

‫צעקה‬ ‫גדלה‬ ‫מצרים‬/‫ב‬ ‫אשׁר‬ ‫וה‬/‫כמ‬ ‫לא‬ ‫נהיתה‬ ‫וה‬/‫כמ‬/‫ו‬ ‫לא‬ ‫תוסף‬ ‫כל‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬ ‫בני‬ ‫ישׂראל‬ ‫לא‬ ‫יחרץ‬ ‫כלב‬

2QExoda

‫היתה‬/‫ו‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl ---

4QpaleoExodm

‫בהמה‬

SamP

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 347

Table (cont.)

---

---

---

---

---

---

! ---

---

---

---

---

---

---

! ---

!

---

---

!

---

---

!

---

---

!

---

---

!

---

---

!

---

---

!

---

---

!

LXX

MT

--------! ---

‫בין‬ ‫מצרים‬ ‫בין‬/‫ו‬ ‫ישׂראל‬ ‫גם‬/‫ו‬

!

---

‫יהוה‬

‫מאד‬

---

‫יפלא‬

!

---

‫אשׁר‬

‫גדל‬

---

‫תדע‬

!

---

‫מען‬/‫ל‬

!

---

‫בהמה‬

‫משׁה‬

---

‫עד‬/‫ו‬

‫אישׁ‬/‫ה‬

---

2QExoda

‫אישׁ‬/‫מ‬/‫ל‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl ---

4QpaleoExodm

‫ו‬/‫לשׁנ‬

SamP

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

348 appendix

Table (cont.)

---

!

!

!

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

!

!

!

!

!

!

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

LXX

!

MT

! ! ! ! ! ! -----------------------

‫עיני‬/‫ב‬ ‫עבדי‬ ‫פרעה‬ ‫עיני‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ ‫עם‬/‫ה‬ ‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬ ‫משׁה‬ ‫אל‬ ‫פרעה‬ ‫כה‬ ‫אמר‬ ‫יהוה‬ ‫בני‬ ‫בכורי‬ ‫ישׂראל‬ ‫אמר‬/‫ו‬

2QExoda

‫מצרים‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl !

4QpaleoExodm

‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬

SamP

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 349

‫‪350‬‬ ‫‪appendix‬‬

‫‪4QExodj‬‬

‫‪4QGen‬‬‫‪Exoda‬‬

‫‪4QExodc‬‬

‫יהוה‬

‫אמר‬

‫כה‬

‫פרע]ה‬

‫אל‬

‫מושׁה‬

‫] ו‪/‬יואמ[ר‬

‫ו‪/‬יא]מר‬

‫בכור‪/‬ך‬

‫את בנ‪/‬ך‬

‫הרג‬

‫יהוה‬

‫הנה‬

‫ל‪/‬שׁלח‪/‬ו‬

‫ו‪/‬תמאן‬

‫ו‪/‬יעבד‪/‬ני‬

‫את בני‬

‫שׁלח‬

‫יהוה‬

‫אמר‬

‫‪κύριος‬‬

‫‪λέγει‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫יהוה‬

‫אמר‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪--‬‬‫כה‬

‫‪τάδε‬‬

‫כה‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫משׁה‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪µωυσῆς‬‬

‫‪καὶ εἶπεν‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫ו‪/‬יאמר‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫משׁה‬

‫ו‪/‬יאמר‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫אל‪/‬יך‬

‫‪2QExoda‬‬

‫‪4Qpaleo‬‬‫‪Gen-Exodl‬‬

‫‪4Qpaleo‬‬‫‪Exodm‬‬

‫‪SamP‬‬

‫‪LXX‬‬

‫‪MT‬‬

‫‪Exod. 11:4‬‬

‫)‪Table (cont.‬‬

Exod. 11:5

Table (cont.)

‫עד‬

‫ו‬/‫כסא‬

‫על‬

ἕως

τοῦ θρόνου

ἐπὶ

ὃς κάθηται

‫ישׁב‬/‫ה‬

ἀπὸ πρωτοτόκου

‫בכור‬/‫מ‬

φαραώ

αἰγύπτῳ

‫מצרים‬

‫פרעה‬

ἐν γῇ

πρωτότοκον

πᾶν

καὶ τελευτήσει

αἰγύπτου

---

‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬

‫בכור‬

‫כל‬

‫מת‬/‫ו‬

‫מצרים‬

---

εἰς µέσον

εἰσπορεύοµαι

‫יוצא‬

‫תוך‬/‫ב‬

ἐγὼ

νύκτας

‫לילה‬/‫ה‬

‫אני‬

περὶ µέσας

LXX

‫חצת‬/‫כ‬

MT

‫עד‬/‫ו‬

‫עד‬

‫[ו‬/‫כסא‬

‫על‬

‫ו‬/‫כסא‬

‫על‬

[‫פרעה‬

‫בכור‬/‫מ‬

‫מצרים‬

‫ארץ‬/‫] ב‬

‫בכור‬

‫כל‬

‫מת‬/‫ו‬

‫יושׁב‬/‫]ה‬

‫עד‬

]‫כל‬

[‫מת‬/‫]ו‬

‫מ[צרים‬

‫ישׁב‬/‫ה‬

‫פרעה‬

‫בכור‬/‫מ‬

‫מצרים‬

‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬

‫בכור‬

‫כל‬

‫מת‬/‫ו‬

‫מצרים‬

---

‫]יוצא‬

[‫אני‬

‫לילה‬/‫ה‬

‫חצות‬/‫כ‬

2QExoda

‫תוך‬/‫ב‬

‫מצר]י[ם‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

‫ארץ‬

4QpaleoExodm

‫תוך‬/‫ב‬

‫יצא‬

‫אני‬

‫לילה‬/‫ה‬

‫חצית‬/‫כ‬

SamP

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 351

‫‪352‬‬ ‫‪appendix‬‬

‫‪4QExodj‬‬

‫‪4QGen‬‬‫‪Exoda‬‬

‫‪4QExodc‬‬

‫אחר‬

‫כמ‪/‬והו‬

‫אשׁר‬

‫מצרים‬

‫ארץ‬

‫ב‪/‬כל ]‬

‫גדולה‬

‫ארץ‬ ‫] מצרים‬

‫כמ‪/‬וה‬

‫אשׁר‬

‫ב‪/‬מצרים‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫גדלה‬

‫צעקה‬

‫‪τοιαύτη‬‬

‫‪ἥτις‬‬

‫‪αἰγύπτου‬‬

‫‪γῆν‬‬

‫ארץ‬

‫ב‪/‬כל‬

‫גדלה‬

‫צעק[ה‬

‫ב‪/‬כ]ל[‬

‫‪κατὰ πᾶσαν‬‬

‫‪µεγάλη‬‬

‫‪κραυγὴ‬‬

‫צעקה‬

‫בהמה‬

‫ו‪/‬היתה‬

‫]בהמה‬

‫בהמה‬

‫‪καὶ ἔσται‬‬

‫‪κτήνους‬‬

‫ו‪/‬היתה‬ ‫ו‪/‬היתה‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫כל‬

‫כמ‪/‬הו‬

‫אשׁר‬

‫מצרים‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫‪παντὸς‬‬

‫‪πρωτοτόκου‬‬

‫בכור‬

‫‪--‬‬‫בכור[‬

‫ו‪/‬עד‬

‫‪καὶ ἕως‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫ו‪/‬כל‬

‫ה‪/‬רחים‬

‫אחר‬

‫אשׁר‬

‫ה‪/‬שׁפחה‬

‫בכור‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫ו‪/‬כל‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫ה‪/‬רחים‬

‫אחר‬ ‫ה‪/‬רחים‬

‫‪παρὰ‬‬

‫‪τὸν µύλον‬‬

‫] אשׁר‬

‫ה‪/‬שׁפחה‬

‫‪τῆς θεραπαίνης‬‬

‫אשׁר‬

‫גדולה‬

‫ה‪/‬שׁפח]ה‬

‫]בכ[ור‬

‫בכור‬

‫‪πρωτοτόκου‬‬

‫בכור‬

‫‪τῆς‬‬

‫ה‪/‬שׁפחה‬

‫בכור‬

‫‪2QExoda‬‬

‫‪4Qpaleo‬‬‫‪Gen-Exodl‬‬

‫‪4Qpaleo‬‬‫‪Exodm‬‬

‫‪SamP‬‬

‫‪LXX‬‬

‫‪MT‬‬

‫‪Exod. 11:6‬‬

‫)‪Table (cont.‬‬

Exod. 11:7

Table (cont.)

--- ἕως

κτήνους

ὅπως

εἰδῇς

‫בהמה‬

‫מען‬/‫ל‬

‫תדעון‬

ἀπὸ ἀνθρώπου

‫עד‬/‫ו‬

‫אישׁ‬/‫מ‬/‫ל‬

τῇ γλώσσῃ αὐτοῦ

κύων

‫ו‬/‫לשׁנ‬

γρύξει

‫כלב‬

οὐ

ἰσραὴλ

τοῖς υἱοῖς

ἐν δὲ πᾶσιν

προστεθήσεται

οὐκέτι

καὶ τοιαύτη

‫יחרץ‬

‫לא‬

‫ישׂראל‬

‫בני‬

‫כל‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬

‫תסף‬

‫לא‬

‫הו‬/‫כמ‬/‫ו‬

γέγονεν

οὐ

‫לא‬

‫נהיתה‬

LXX

MT

‫תדע‬

‫מען‬/‫ל‬

‫בהמה‬

‫עד‬/‫ו‬

‫אישׁ‬/‫מ‬/‫ל‬

‫ו‬/‫לשׁנ‬

‫כלב‬

‫יחרץ‬

‫לא‬

‫ישׂראל‬

‫בני‬

‫כל‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬

‫ת]דע[ון‬

‫מען‬/‫ל‬

‫ישׂ]ראל‬

‫בני‬

‫תדעון‬

‫ל]מען‬

[ ‫בהמה‬

‫עד‬/‫ו‬

‫אישׁ‬/‫מ‬/‫ל‬

‫ו‬/‫לשׁונ‬

‫]כלב‬

[‫יחרץ‬

‫לוא‬

‫] ישׂראל‬

‫בני‬

‫כל‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬

[ ‫תוסף‬

‫והו‬/‫כמ‬/‫ו‬

‫]נהיתה‬

[‫לוא‬

2QExoda

‫תוסף‬ ‫כל‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

‫לוא‬

4QpaleoExodm

‫לא‬

‫וה‬/‫כמ‬/‫ו‬

‫נהיתה‬

‫לא‬

SamP

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 353

Exod. 11:8

Table (cont.)

παραδοξάσει

κύριος

‫יפלה‬

‫יהוה‬

‫אתה‬

‫צא‬

‫אמר‬/‫ל‬

‫י‬/‫ל‬

‫השׁתחוו‬/‫ו‬

‫י‬/‫אל‬

‫אלה‬

‫ך‬/‫ עבדי‬---

‫כל‬

‫ירדו‬/‫ו‬

‫ ישׂראל‬---

‫בין‬/‫ו‬

‫ מצרים‬---

‫י‬/]‫אל‬

‫י‬/‫אל‬

σὺ

ἔξελθε

λέγοντες

µε

‫אתה‬

‫צא‬

‫אמר‬/‫ל‬

‫י‬/‫ל‬

‫ישׁתחוו‬/‫ו‬

πρός µε

καὶ προσκυνήσουσίν

‫אלה‬

‫ך‬/‫ עבדי‬---

‫אלה‬

‫ך‬/‫ עבדי‬---

‫כל‬

‫ירדו‬/‫ו‬

‫ ישׂראל‬---

‫בין‬/‫ו‬

‫ מצרים‬---

‫ ישׂראל‬---

‫בין‬/‫ו‬

‫ מצרים‬---

‫]בין‬

‫יפלה‬

‫אשׁר‬

2QExoda

‫בין‬

‫כל‬

]‫אשׁר‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

[‫יהוה‬

‫[אתה‬

4QpaleoExodm

‫יהוה‬

‫יפלא‬

‫אשׁר‬

SamP

οὗτοι

οἱ παῖδές σου

πάντες

καὶ καταβήσονται

τοῦ ἰσραήλ

καὶ ---

τῶν αἰγυπτίων

ἀνὰ µέσον

ὅσα

‫אשׁר‬

‫בין‬

LXX

MT

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

354 appendix

Exod. 11:9

Table (cont.)

‫פרעה‬

πρὸς

‫אל‬

‫לא‬

‫יכם‬/‫אל‬

‫ישׁמע‬

ὑµῶν

εἰσακούσεται

οὐκ

µωυσῆν

κύριος

‫יהוה‬

‫משׁה‬

εἶπεν δὲ

‫יכם‬/‫אל‬

‫ישׁמע‬

‫לא‬

‫משׁה‬

‫אל‬

‫יהוה‬

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫חרי אף‬/‫ב‬

φαραὼ

µετὰ θυµοῦ

‫עם‬/‫מ‬

---

‫יצא‬/‫ו‬

‫אצא‬

‫אחרי כן‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫רגלי‬/‫ב‬

‫אשׁר‬

--- ‫עם‬/‫ה‬

‫כל‬/‫ו‬

SamP

ἀπὸ

‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫חרי אף‬/‫ב‬

‫פרעה‬

‫עם‬/‫מ‬

µωυσῆς

ἐξῆλθεν δὲ

‫יצא‬/‫ו‬

---

ἐξελεύσοµαι

καὶ µετὰ ταῦτα

‫אחרי כן‬/‫ו‬

‫אצא‬

σὺ ἀφηγῇ

οὗ

‫ך‬/‫רגלי‬/‫ב‬

‫אשׁר‬

ὁ λαός σου

καὶ πᾶς

‫כל‬/‫ו‬

--- ‫עם‬/‫ה‬

LXX

MT

]‫אחרי כן‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫רגלי‬/‫ב‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

‫משׁ]ה‬

‫אל‬

‫יהוה‬

] ‫יאמר‬/vacat ‫יאמר ו‬/[‫[ ]ו‬vac]at

‫[אף‬

--- ]‫עם‬/‫ה‬

‫כל‬/‫ו‬

4QpaleoExodm

2QExoda

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 355

Exod. 11:10

Table (cont.)

καὶ ἀαρὼν

‫אהרן‬/‫ו‬

ταῦτα

ἐν γῇ

αἰγύπτῳ

ἐναντίον

φαραώ

---

---

‫פני‬/‫ל‬

‫פרעה‬

καὶ τὰ τέρατα

τὰ σηµεῖα

πάντα

‫אלה‬/‫ה‬

‫מפתים‬/‫ ה‬---

---

‫את כל‬

ἐποίησαν

µωυσῆς δὲ

‫משׁה‬/‫ו‬

‫עשׂו‬

αἰγύπτῳ

‫מצרים‬

καὶ τὰ τέρατα

ἐν γῇ

µου τὰ σηµεῖα

! ---

! ‫י‬/‫ מופת‬---

‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬

! ---

! ---

πληθύνω

‫רבות‬

‫פרעה‬

‫פני‬/‫ל‬

---

---

‫אלה‬/‫ה‬

‫מופתים‬/‫ ה‬---

---

‫את כל‬

‫עשׂו‬

‫אהרן‬/‫ו‬

‫משׁה‬/‫ו‬

‫מצרים‬

‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬

! ‫י‬/‫ מופת‬---

‫מען‬/‫ל‬

]‫מצרים‬

‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬

! ‫י‬/‫ מופת‬---

‫[רבות‬

‫רבות‬

ἵνα

‫מען‬/‫ל‬

‫פרעה‬

φαραώ

4QpaleoExodm

‫פרעה‬

SamP

LXX

MT

‫]פר[עה‬

‫מפ]תים‬/‫ ה‬---

---

‫[את כל‬

‫מ]שׁה‬/‫ו‬

‫מצרים‬

‫[ארץ‬/‫ב‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

[ ]‫מצרים‬

[‫אר]ץ‬/‫ב‬

! ‫י‬/‫ מופת‬---

! ---

‫רבות‬

‫מען‬/‫ל‬

‫פר[עה‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

356 appendix

Table (cont.)

ἠθέλησεν

---

τοὺς υἱοὺς

ἰσραὴλ

ἐκ γῆς ---

αἰγύπτου

‫את בני‬

‫ישׂראל‬

‫ו‬/‫ארצ‬/‫מ‬

---

ἐξαποστεῖλαι

καὶ οὐκ

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

‫שׁלח‬

φαραώ

τὴν καρδίαν

κύριος

ἐσκλήρυνεν δὲ

LXX

‫פרעה‬

‫ לב‬--- ‫את‬

‫יהוה‬

‫יחזק‬/‫ו‬

MT

---

‫ו‬/‫ארצ‬/‫מ‬

‫ישׂראל‬

‫את בני‬

‫שׁלח‬

---

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

‫פרעה‬

‫ לב‬--- ‫את‬

‫יהוה‬

‫יחזק‬/‫ו‬

SamP

‫פר]עה‬

‫ לב‬--- ‫את‬

‫יהוה‬

‫יחזק‬/‫[ו‬

4QpaleoExodm

---

[‫ו‬/‫ארצ‬/‫מ‬

‫] ישׂראל‬

‫את ב]נ[י‬

‫שׁלח‬

---

‫לא‬/‫ו‬

‫פרע[ה‬

‫ לב‬--- ‫את‬

‫י]הוה‬

‫יחזק‬/‫ו‬

4QpaleoGen-Exodl

2QExoda

[‫פ]רעה‬

‫ לב‬--- ‫את‬

[ ‫יה]וה‬

‫י[חזק‬/‫ו‬

4QExodc 4QGenExoda

4QExodj

synopsis of the textual witnesses 357

BIBLIOGRAPHY Adair, J.R., ‘“Literal” and “Free” Translations: A Proposal for a More Descriptive Terminology’, JNSL 23/1 (1997), 181–209. ——, ‘Light from Below: Canonical and Theological Implications of Textual Criticism’, OTE 11/1 (1998), 9–23. Aejmelaeus, A., Parataxis in the Septuagint: A Study of the Renderings of the Hebrew Coordinate Clauses in the Greek Pentateuch (AASF Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum, 31), Helsinki 1982. ——, ‘Participium Coniunctum as a Criterion of Translation Technique’, VT 32 (1982), 385–393 [= Idem, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays. Revised and Expanded Edition, Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA 2007, 1–10]. ——, ‘Oti causale in Septuagintal Greek’, in: N. Fernández Marcos (ed.), La Septuaginta en la Investigación Contemporea (V Congresso de la IOSCS) (Textos y Estudios ‘Cardenal Cisneros’, 34), Madrid 1985, 115–132 [= Idem, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays. Revised and Expanded Edition, Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA 2007, 11–29]. ——, ‘The Function and Interpretation of ‫ כי‬in Biblical Hebrew’, JBL 105 (1986), 193–209. ——, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors in the Syntactical and Translation-Technical Study of the Septuagint’, in: C.E. Cox (ed.), Sixth Congress of the IOSCS, Jerusalem, 1986 (SBL SCS, 23), Atlanta 1987, 361–380 [= Idem, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays. Revised and Expanded Edition, Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA 2007, 43–57]. ——, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint?’, ZAW 99 (1987), 58–89 [= Idem, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays. Revised and Expanded Edition, Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA 2007, 71–106]. ——, ‘Oti recitativum in Septuagintal Greek’, in: D. Fraenkel, U. Quast, J.W. Wevers (eds), Studien zur Septuaginta. FS R. Hanhart (MSU, 20), Göttingen 1990, 74–82 [= Idem, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays. Revised and Expanded Edition, Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA 2007, 31–41]. ——, ‘Translation Technique and the Intention of the Translator’, in: C.E. Cox (ed.), Seventh Congress of the IOSCS, Leuven, 1989 (SBL SCS, 31), Atlanta 1991, 23–36 [= Idem, On the Trail of the Septuaginta Translators: Collected Essays. Revised and Expanded Edition, Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA 2007, 59–69]. ——, ‘Septuagintal Translation Techniques: A Solution to the Problem of the Tabernacle Account’, in: G.J. Brooke, B. Lindars (eds), Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings: Papers Presented to the International Symposium on the Septuagint and Its Relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Writings (Manchester, 1990) (SBL SCS, 33), Atlanta 1992, 381–402 [= Idem, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays. Revised and Expanded Edition, Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA 2007, 107–121]. ——, ‘Übersetzung als Schlüssel zum Original’, in: Idem, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays. Revised and Expanded Edition, Kampen 1993, 150–165. [= Idem, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays. Revised and Expanded Edition, Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA 2007, 143–156]. ——, ‘What We Talk about When We Talk about Translation Technique’, in: B.A. Taylor (ed.), X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Oslo, 1998 (SBL, 51), Atlanta 2001, 531–552. [= Idem, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays. Revised and Expanded Edition, Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA 2007, 205–222].

360

bibliography

——, ‘Characterizing Criteria for the Characterization of the Septuagint Translators: Experimenting on the Greek Psalter’, in R.J.V. Hiebert, C.E. Cox, P.J. Gentry (eds), The Old Greek Psalter. FS A. Pietersma ( JSOT SS, 332), Sheffield 2001, 54–73. ——, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators. Collected Essays. Revised and Expanded Edition, Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA 2007. ——, Introduction, in: Idem, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators. Collected Essays. Revised and Expanded Edition, Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA 2007, XIII–XVIII. Aejmelaeus, A., Sollamo, R. (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen. Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax. Zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 4. Juni 1987 (AASF Series B, 237), Helsinki 1987. Ausloos, H., ‘LXX’s Rendering of Hebrew Proper Names and the Characterization of the Translation Technique’, in A. Voitila, J. Jokiranta (eds), Scripture in Transition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls. FS R. Sollamo (SJSJ, 126), Leiden 2008, pp. 53–71. Ausloos, H., Lemmelijn, B., Vervenne, M. (eds), Florilegium Lovaniense. Studies in Septuagint and Textual Criticism in Honour of Florentino García Martínez (BETL, 224), Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA 2008. Ausloos, H., Cook, J., García Martínez, F., Lemmelijn, B., Vervenne, M. (eds), Translating a Translation: The Septuagint and its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism (BETL, 213), Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA 2008. Ausloos, H., Lemmelijn, B., ‘“Your Only Son, Your Beloved One” (Genesis 22): When Septuagint and Messianism Meet’, in: F. García-Martínez, M. Vervenne (eds), Interpreting Translation: Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust (BETL, 192), Leuven 2005, 19–31. ——, De bijbel, een (g)oude(n) gids: Bijbelse antwoorden op menselijke vragen, Leuven/ Voorburg 2005, especially 38–43. ——, ‘Rendering Love: Hapax Legomena and the Characterisation of the Translation Technique of Song of Songs’, in: H. Ausloos, J. Cook, F. García Martínez, B. Lemmelijn, M. Vervenne (eds), Translating a Translation: The Septuagint and its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism (BETL, 213), Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA 2008, 43–61. ——, ‘Eine Neue Interpretation des Hoheliedes 8,5ab’, ZAW 119 (2007), 556–563. ——, ‘Canticles as Allegory? Textual Criticism and Literary Criticism in Dialogue’, in: H. Ausloos, B. Lemmelijn, M. Vervenne (eds), Florilegium Lovaniense. Studies in Septuagint and Textual Criticism in Honour of Florentino García Martínez (BETL, 224), Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA 2008, 35–48. Baentsch, B., Exodus. Levitikus. Übersetzt und erklärt (HKAT), Göttingen 1900. Baillet, M., Milik, J.T., De Vaux, R., Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumrân: Exploration de la falaise. Les grottes 2Q, 3Q, 5Q, 6Q, 7Q à 10Q. Le rouleau de cuivre, vol. 1: Textes (DJD, 3/1), Oxford 1962; vol. 2: Planches (DJD, 3/2), Oxford 1962. Barr, J., The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations (MSU, 15), Göttingen 1979. ——, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament, Winona Lake 21987. Barth, H., Steck, O.H., Exegese des Alten Testament. Leitfaden der Methodik: Ein Arbeitsbuch für Proseminare, Seminare und Vorlesungen, Neukirchen/Vluyn, 101984. Barthélemy, D., ‘Problématique et tâches de la critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament hébraïque’, in: Idem, Études d’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament (OBO, 21), Fribourg/ Göttingen 1978, 365–381. ——, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, vol. 1: Josué, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther (OBO, 50/1), Göttingen 1982. Barthélemy, D. et al., The Story of David and Goliath: Textual and Literary Criticism. Papers of a Joint Research Venture (OBO, 73), Freiburg/Göttingen 1986. Beck, J.A., Translators as Storytellers: A Study in Septuagint Translation Technique (SBL, 25), New York 2000. Beer, G., Exodus: Mit einem Beitrag von K. Galling (HAT, 1/3), Tübingen 1939.

bibliography

361

Bogaert, P.-M., ‘Les deux rédactions conservées (LXX et MT) d’Ezéchiel 7’, in: J. Lust (ed.), Ezekiel and his Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation (BETL, 74), Leuven 1986, 21–47. Brenton, L.C.L. (ed.), The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament with an English Translation; and with Various Readings and Critical Notes, London 1851; repr. 1976. Brock, S.P., ‘The Phenomenon of the Septuagint’, in: M.A. Beek et al., The Witness of Tradition: Papers Read at the Joint British-Dutch Old Testament Conference Held at Woudschoten, 1970 (OTS, 17), Leiden 1972, 11–36. Brock, S.P., Fritsch, C.T., Jellicoe, S., A Classified Bibliography of the Septuagint (ALGHL, 6), Leiden 1973. Büchner, D.L., ‘Exegetical Variants in the LXX of Exodus: An Evaluation’, JNSL 22/1 (1996), 35–58. Camilo dos Santos, E., An Expanded Hebrew Index for the Hatch-Redpath Concordance to the Septuagint, Jerusalem 1973. Chiesa, B., ‘Textual History and Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Old Testament’, in: J. Trebolle Barrera, L. Vegas Montaner (eds), The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March, 1991, vol. 1 (STDJ, 11/1), Leiden/New York/Köln/Madrid 1992, 257–272. Clements, R.E., Exodus (CNEB), London 1972. Cole, R.A., Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC), London 1973. Collins, N.L., ‘Evidence in the Septuagint of a Tradition in Which the Israelites Left Egypt without Pharaoh’s Consent’, CBQ 56 (1994), 442–448. ——, The Library in Alexandria and the Bible in Greek (VTS, 82), Leiden 2000. Cook, J., ‘The Translator of the Greek Genesis’, in: N. Fernández Marcos (ed.), La Septuaginta en la Investigación Contemporánea (V Congreso de la IOSCS) (Textos y Estudios ‘Cardenal Cisneros’, 34), Madrid 1985, 169–182. ——, ‘Questions of Textual Criticism. To Reconstruct or Not?’, in: AIBI, Bible et Informatique: Interprétation, herméneutique, compétence informatique, Tübingen 1991, Paris/ Geneva 1992, 515–522. ——, ‘Following the Septuagint Translators’, JNSL 22/2 (1996), 181–190. Cowley, A.E. (ed.), GESENIUS’ Hebrew Grammar as Edited and Enlarged by the Late E. KAUTZSCH. Second English Edition Revised in Accordance with the Twenty-eighth German Edition (1909), Oxford 151980. Cross, F.M., ‘Problems of Method in the Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible’, in: W. Doniger O’Flaherty (ed.), The Critical Study of Sacred Texts (Berkeley Religious Studies Series, 2), Berkeley 1979. ——, ‘The Fixation of the Text of the Hebrew Bible’, in: Idem, From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel, Baltimore/London 1998, 205–218. Crown, A.D., ‘Samaritan Scribal Habits with Reference to the Masorah and the Dead Sea Scrolls’, in: S.M. Paul, R.A. Kraft, L.H Schiffman, W.W. Fields (eds), Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls. FS E. Tov (VTS, 94), Leiden/ Boston 2003, 159–177. De Troyer, K., ‘Qumran Research and Textual Studies: A Different Approach’, RSR 28 (2002), 115–122. ——, Rewriting the Sacred Text. What the Old Greek Tells Us about the Literary Growth of the Bible (SBL Text-Critical Studies, 4), Atlanta 2003. Dogniez, C., Bibliography of the Septuagint (1970 –1993) (VTS, 60), Leiden/New York/ Köln 1995. Dorival, G., ‘Dire en grec les choses juives: Quelques choix lexicaux du Pentateuque de la Septante’, REG 109 (1996), 527–547. Driver, S.R., The Book of Exodus (CBSC), Cambridge 1911. Elliger, K., Rudolph, W. (eds), Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, Stuttgart 1984. Fernández Marcos, N., The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Versions of the Bible, transl. W.G.E. Watson, Leiden 2000.

362

bibliography

Frankel, Z., Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta, Leipzig 1841. ——, Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik, Leipzig 1851. Friebe, R., Form und Entstehungsgeschichte (dissertation Halle/Wittenberg), 1967. Freund, Marx, Präparationen zum Alten Testament: Pentateuch, vol. 1: Genesis. Exodus, Kap. 1–13, Stuttgart 1885–1893. García Martínez, F., Trebolle Barrera, J., ‘Qumran Scholarship: A European Perspective’, in: R.A. Kugler, E.M. Schuller (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls at Fifty: Proceedings of the 1997 Society of Biblical Literature Qumran Section Meetings (Early Judaism and its Literature, 15), Atlanta 1999, 129–141. Gispen, W.H., Het boek Exodus (KVHS), Kampen 1932. Goshen-Gottstein, M.H., ‘Theory and Practice of Textual Criticism: The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint’, Textus 3 (1963), 130–158. ——, ‘The Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: Rise, Decline, Rebirth’, JBL 102 (1983), 365–399. Greenberg, M., ‘The Use of the Ancient Versions for Interpreting the Hebrew Text’, in: J.A. Emerton et al. (eds), Congress Volume Göttingen 1977 (VTS, 29), Leiden 1978, 131–148. Greenspoon, L.J., ‘Hebrew into Greek: Interpretation In, By, and Of the Septuagint’, in: A.J. Hauser, D.F. Watson, A History of Biblical Interpretation, vol. 1: The Ancient Period, Grand Rapids/Cambridge 2003, 80–113. Greenstein, E.L., ‘The Firstborn Plague and the Reading Process’, in: D.P. Wright, D.N. Freedman, A. Hurvitz (eds), Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature. FS J. Milgrom, Winona Lake 1995, 555–568. Hanhart, R., ‘The Translation of the Septuagint in Light of Earlier Tradition and Subsequent Influences’, in: G.J. Brooke, B. Lindars (eds), Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings: Papers Presented to the International Symposium on the Septuagint and Its Relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Writings (Manchester, 1990) (SBL SCS, 33), Atlanta 1992, 339–379. Harl, M., ‘La place de la Septante dans les études bibliques’, EV 112 (2002), 3–13. Hatch, E., Redpath, H.A., A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books), 2 vols., Oxford 1897, repr. Graz 1954. Holladay, W.L. (ed.), A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament: Based on the First, Second and Third Editions of the Koehler-Baumgartner Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, Grand Rapids/Leiden 2000. Holzinger, H., Exodus (KHCAT, 2), Tübingen 1900. Jagersma, H., Vervenne, M. (eds), Inleiding in het Oude Testament, Kampen 1992. Jastram, N., ‘A Comparison of Two “proto-Samaritan” Texts from Qumran: 4QpaleoExod m and 4QNum b’, DSD 5 (1998), 264–289. Jobes, K.H., Silva, M., Invitation to the Septuagint, Carlisle/Grand Rapids 2000. Joosten, J., ‘Elaborate Similes: Hebrew and Greek, a Study in Septuagint Translation’, Biblica 77 (1996), 227–236. ——, ‘On the LXX Translators’ Knowledge of Hebrew’, in: B.A. Taylor (ed.), X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Oslo, 1998 (SBL SCS, 51), Atlanta 2001, 165–179. Joüon, P., Muraoka, T., A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Subsidia Biblica, 27), Rome, 2006. Koehler, L., Baumgartner, W., Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, 5 vols., Leiden 31967–1995. König, F.E., Historisch-kritische Lehrgebäude der hebraïschen Sprache, Leipzig 1897. Kyle McCarter, P., Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible, Philadelphia 1986.

bibliography

363

Labuschagne, C.J., Deuteronomium, vol. 1A (POT), Nijkerk 1987; vol. 2 (POT), Nijkerk 1990. Le Boulluec, A., Sandevoir, P., L’Exode (La Bible d’Alexandrie, 2), Paris 1989. Lee, J.A.L., A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch (SBL SCS, 14), Chico 1983. Lemmelijn, B., De ‘plagen’ van Egypte (Ex 7,14–11,10): Materialen voor een exegetische studie, vol. 1: Tekstvormen: Geschiedenis van het onderzoek in de Exoduscommentaren (unpublished master’s thesis Religious Studies, K.U.Leuven), Leuven 1991 (promoter M. Vervenne). ——, De ‘plagen’ van Egypte (Ex 7,14–11,10): Materialen voor een exegetische studie, vol. 2: Geschiedenis van het onderzoek: Tekstkritische studie (unpublished master’s thesis Theology, K.U.Leuven), Leuven 1993 (promoter M. Vervenne). ——, Het verhaal van de “Plagen in Egypte” (Exodus 7,14–11,10): Een onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de compositie van een Pentateuchtraditie (unpublished doctoral dissertation Theology, 4 vols., K.U.Leuven), Leuven 1996 (promoter M. Vervenne). ——, ‘Setting and Function of Exod 11,1–10 in the Exodus Narrative’, in: M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction—Reception—Interpretation (BETL, 126), Leuven 1996, 443–460. ——, ‘Transformations in Biblical Studies: the Story of the History of Research into the “Plague Narrative” in Exod 7,14–11,10’, JNSL 22/2 (1996), 117–127. ——, ‘Zoals het nog nooit geweest was en ook nooit meer zou zijn (Ex 11,6): De plagen van Egypte volgens Ex. 7–11: historiciteit en theologie’, TvT 36 (1996), 115–131. ——, ‘What Are We Looking for in Doing Text-Critical Research?’, JNSL 23/2 (1997), 69–80. ——, ‘As Many Texts as Plagues: A Preliminary Report of the Main Results of the TextCritical Evaluation of Exod 7:14–11:10’, JNSL 24/2 (1998), 111–125. ——, ‘The Phrase ‫( ובעצים ובאבנים‬ûba’esîm ûba’abanîm) in Ex 7,19’, Biblica 80 (1999), 264–268. ——, ‘The So-Called “Major Expansions” in SamP, 4QpaleoExodm and 4QExodj in Exod 7:14–11:10: On the Edge between Textual Criticism and Literary Criticism’, in: B. Taylor (ed.), X Congress of the IOSCS. Oslo 1998 (SBL SCS, 51), Atlanta 2001, 429–439. ——, ‘Two Methodological Trails in Recent Studies on the Translation Technique of the Septuagint’, in: R. Sollamo, S. Sipilä (eds), Helsinki Perspectives: On the Translation Technique of the Septuagint (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society, 62), Helsinki 2001, 43–63. ——, ‘The So-Called “Priestly” Layer in Exod 7:14–11:10: “Source” and/or/nor “Redaction”?’, RB 109 (2002), 481–511. ——, ‘Free and Yet Faithful: On the Translation Technique of LXX Exod 7,14–11,10’, JNSL 33 (2007), 1–32. ——, ‘Not Fact, Yet True: Historicity versus Theology in the “Plague Narrative” (Ex. 7–11)’, OTE 20 (2007), 395–417. ——, ‘Flora in Cantico Canticorum: Towards a More Precise Characterisation of Translation Technique in the LXX of Song of Songs’, in: A. Voitila, J. Jokiranta (eds), Scripture in Transition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible and Dead Sea Scrolls. FS R. Sollamo (SJSJ, 126), Leiden 2008, 27–51. ——, Review of E. Kellenberger, Die Verstockung Pharaos: Exegetische und auslegungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Exodus 1–15 (BWANT, 171; Stuttgart 2006), Biblica, in press. Lettinga, J.P., Muraoka, T., Van Peursen, W.T., Grammatica van het Bijbels Hebreeuws, Leiden/Boston/Köln 112000. Lisowski, G., Konkordanz zum Hebraïschen Alten Testament, Stuttgart 21981. Lust, J., ‘The Story of David and Goliath in Hebrew and in Greek’, in: D. Barthélemy et al., The Story of David and Goliath: Textual and Literary Criticism. Papers of a Joint Research Venture (OBO, 73), Freiburg/Göttingen 1986, 5–18.

364

bibliography

——, ‘David and Goliath in the Hebrew and Greek Texts’, in: D. Barthélemy et al., The Story of David and Goliath: Textual and Literary Criticism. Papers of a Joint Research Venture (OBO, 73), Freiburg/Göttingen 1986, 121–128. ——, ‘Epilogue’, in: D. Barthélemy et al., The Story of David and Goliath: Textual and Literary Criticism. Papers of a Joint Research Venture (OBO, 73), Freiburg/Göttingen 1986, 155–156. ——, ‘The Use of Textual Witnesses for the Establishment of the Text: the Shorter and Longer Texts of Ezekiel’, in: Idem (ed.), Ezekiel and his Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation (BETL, 74), Leuven 1986, 7–20. ——, ‘Translation-Greek and the Lexicography of the Septuagint’, JSOT 59 (1993), 109–120. ——, ‘Textual Criticism of the Old and New Testaments: Stepbrothers?’, in: A. Denaux (ed.), New Testament: Textual Criticism and Exegesis. FS J. Delobel (BETL, 161), Leuven 2002, 15–31. Lust, J., Eynikel, E., Hauspie, K., Chamberlain, G., A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, Stuttgart 2003. Marquis, G., ‘Word Order as a Criterion for the Evaluation of Translation Technique in the LXX and the Evaluation of Word-Order Variants as Exemplified in LXX-Ezekiel’, Textus 13 (1986), 59–84. ——, ‘Consistency of Lexical Equivalents as a Criterion for the Evaluation of Translation Technique as Exemplified in the LXX of Ezekiel’, in: C.E. Cox (ed.), Sixth Congress of the IOSCS, Jerusalem, 1986 (SBL SCS, 23), Atlanta 1987, 405–424. McLain, C.E., ‘Variants: villainous or validating?’, CBTJ 12 (1996), 88–104. McNeile, A.H., The Book of Exodus with Introduction and Notes (WC), London 1908. Muraoka, T., ‘Hebrew Hapax Legomena and Septuagint Lexicography’, in: C.E. Cox (ed.), Seventh Congress of the IOSCS, Leuven, 1989 (SBL SCS, 31), Atlanta 1991, 205–222. Oesch, J.M., ‘Skizze einer synchronen und diachronen Gliederungskritik im Rahmen der alttestamentlichen Textkritik’, in: M.C.A. Korpel, J.M. Oesch (eds), Delimination Criticism: A New Tool in Biblical Scholarship (Pericope, 1), Assen 2000, 197–229. Olofsson, S., The LXX Version: A Guide to the Translation Technique of the Septuagint (CB OT, 30), Lund 1990. ——, ‘Consistency as a Translation Technique’, SJOT 6 (1992), 14–30. ——, ‘Qumran and LXX’, in: F.H. Cryer, T.L. Thompson (eds), Qumran between the Old and New Testaments ( JSOT SS, 290), Sheffield 1998, 232–248. Orlinsky, H.M., ‘The Septuagint and its Hebrew Text’, in: W.D. Davies, L. Finkelstein (eds), The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 2: The Hellenistic Age, London/New York/ Port Chester/Melbourne/Sydney 1989, 534–562. Owens, J.J., Analytical Key to the Old Testament, vol. 1: Genesis-Joshua, Grand Rapids 2 1992. Pearson, B.W.R., ‘Remainderless Translations? Implications of the Tradition Concerning the Translation of the LXX for Modern Translational Theory’, in: R.S. Hess, S.E. Porter (eds), Translating the Bible ( JSOT SS, 173), Sheffield 1999, 63–84. Pietersma, A., ‘A New Paradigm for Addressing Old Questions: The Relevance of the Interlinear Model for the Study of the Septuagint’, in: J. Cook (ed.), Bible and Computer: The Stellenbosch AIBI-6 Conference, Proceedings of the Association Internationale Bible et Informatique ‘From Alpha to Byte’. University of Stellenbosch 17–21 July, 2000, Leiden/Boston 2002, 337–364. Polak, F.H., ‘Pluses and Minuses of the LXX on the Pentateuch: Textual Transmission and Gradual Expansion’, in: J. Cook (ed.), Bible and Computer: The Stellenbosch AIBI-6 Conference, Proceedings of the Association Internationale Bible et Informatique ‘From Alpha to Byte’. University of Stellenbosch 17–21 July, 2000, Leiden/Boston 2002, 395–412. Postma, F., Talstra, E., Vervenne, M., Exodus: Materials in Automatic Text Processing. Part I. Morphological, Syntactical and Literary Case Studies; Part II. Concordance (Instrumenta Biblica, 1), Amsterdam/Turnhout 1983.

bibliography

365

Pummer, R., ‘The Greek Bible and the Samaritans’, REJ 157 (1998), 269–358. Rabe, N., ‘Zur synchron definierten alttestamentlichen Textkritik’, BN 52 (1990), 64–97. Rabin, C., ‘The Translation Process and the Character of the Septuagint’, Textus 6 (1968), 1–26. Radday, Y.T., Levi, Y., An Analytical Linguistic Key-Word-in-Context Concordance to the Book of Exodus (Computer Bible, 28), Wooster OH 1984. Rahlfs, A., Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX interpretes, Stuttgart 1943. Reed, S.A., Lundberg, M.J., Phelps, M.B., The Dead Sea Scrolls Catalogue: Documents, Photographs and Museum Inventory Numbers (SBL RBS, 32), Atlanta 1994. Rofé, A., ‘The Historical Significance of Secondary Readings’, in: C.A. Evans, S. Talmon (eds), The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality. FS J.A. Sanders, Leiden/New York/Köln 1997, 393–402. Sanders, J.A., ‘The Task of Text Criticism’, in: H.T.C. Sun (ed.), Problems in Biblical Theology. FS R. Knierim, Grand Rapids 1997, 315–327. ——, ‘The Judaean Desert Scrolls and the History of the Text of the Hebrew Bible’, in: J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), Caves of Enlightenment: Proceedings of the American Schools of Oriental Research Dead Sea Scrolls Jubilee Symposium (1947–1997), North Richland Hills 1998, 1–17. Sanderson, J.E., An Exodus Scroll from Qumran. 4QpaleoExodm and the Samaritan Tradition (HSS, 30), Atlanta 1986. ——, ‘The Contributions of 4QpaleoExodm to Textual Criticism’, RQ 13 (1988), 547–560. ——, ‘The Old Greek of Exodus in the Light of 4QpaleoExodm’, Textus 14 (1988), 87–104. Schenker, A., Hugo, P., ‘Histoire du texte et critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament dans la recherche récente’, in: Idem (ed.), L’enfance de la Bible hébraïque: Histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament (Le monde de la Bible, 52), Fribourg 2005, 11–33. Schmidt, L., Beobachtungen in der Plagenerzählung in Exodus VII,14–XI,10 (StB, 4), Leiden/ New York/Kopenhagen/Köln 1990. Schweizer, H., Die Josefsgeschichte (Textwissenschaft—Hermeneutik—Linguistik—Informatik 4,1/2), Munich 1990. Schwienhorst, L., Die Eroberung Jerichos: Exegetische Untersuchung zu Josua 6 (SBS, 122), Stuttgart 1986. Silva, M., ‘Internal Evidence in the Text-Critical Use of the LXX’, in: N. Fernández Marcos (ed.), La Septuaginta en la Investigación Contemporánea (V Congreso de la IOSCS) (Textos y Estudios ‘Cardenal Cisneros’, 34), Madrid 1985, 151–167. Skehan, P.W., Ulrich, E., Sanderson, J.E., Qumran Cave 4, vol. 4: Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts (DJD, 9), Oxford 1992. Soisalon-Soininen, I., Die Infinitive in der Septuaginta (AASF Series B, 132,1), Helsinki 1965. ——, ‘Der infinitivus constructus mit ‫ ל‬im Hebräischen’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen: Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax. Zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 4. Juni 1987 (AASF Series B, 237), Helsinki 1987, 203–211 [= VT 22 (1972), 82–90]. ——, ‘Der Gebrauch des Genetivus Absolutus in der Septuaginta’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen: Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax. Zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 4. Juni 1987 (AASF Series B, 237), Helsinki 1987, 175–180 [= Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies, vol. 4, Jerusalem 1973, 131–136]. ——, ‘Verschiedene Wiedergaben der Hebräischen Status-Constructus-Verbindung im Griechischen Pentateuch’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen: Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax. Zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 4. Juni 1987 (AASF Series B, 237), Helsinki 1987, 62–70 [= SEÅ 41–42 (1976–1977), 214–223].

366

bibliography

——, ‘The Rendering of the Hebrew Relative Clause in the Greek Pentateuch’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen: Studien zur SeptuagintaSyntax. Zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 4. Juni 1987 (AASF Series B, 237), Helsinki 1987, 55–61 [= Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies, vol. 1, Jerusalem 1977, 401–406]. ——, ‘Die Wiedergabe einiger Hebräischer Zeitangaben mit der Präposition ‫ ב‬in der Septuaginta’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen: Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax. Zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 4. Juni 1987 (AASF Series B, 237), Helsinki 1987, 107–115 [= ASTI 9 (1978), 138–146]. ——, ‘Der Gebrauch des Verbs ἐχειν in der Septuaginta’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen: Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax. Zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 4. Juni 1987 (AASF Series B, 237), Helsinki 1987, 181–188 [= VT 28 (1978), 92–99]. ——, ‘Die Konstruktion des Verbs bei einem Neutrum Plural im Griechischen Pentateuch’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen: Studien zur SeptuagintaSyntax. Zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 4. Juni 1987 (AASF Series B, 237), Helsinki 1987, 189–199 [= VT 29 (1979), 190–200]. ——, ‘Renderings of Hebrew Comparative Expressions with ‫ מן‬in the Greek Pentateuch’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen: Studien zur SeptuagintaSyntax. Zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 4. Juni 1987 (AASF Series B, 237), Helsinki 1987, 141–153 [= Bulletin IOSCS 12 (1979), 27–42]. ——, ‘ἐν für εἰς in der Septuaginta’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari SoisalonSoininen: Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax. Zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 4. Juni 1987 (AASF Series B, 237), Helsinki 1987, 131–140 [= VT 32 (1982), 190–200]. ——, ‘Beobachtungen zur Arbeitsweise der Septuaginta-Übersetzer’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen: Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax. Zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 4. Juni 1987 (AASF Series B, 237), Helsinki 1987, 28–39 [= A. Rofé, Y. Zakovitch (eds), Isac Leo Seeligmann Volume: Essays on the Bible and the Ancient World, vol. 3, Jerusalem 1983, 319–329]. ——, ‘Die Wiedergabe des ‫ ב‬instrumenti im Griechischen Pentateuch’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen: Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax. Zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 4. Juni 1987 (AASF Series B, 237), Helsinki 1987, 116–130 [= J. Kiilunen, V. Riekkinen, H. Räisänen (eds), Glaube und Gerechtigkeit: In Memoriam Rafael Gyllenberg (Schriften der Finnischen Exegetischen Gesellschaft, 38), Helsinki 1983, 31–46]. ——, ‘Die Wiedergabe des Hebräischen Personalpronomens als Subjekt im Griechischen Pentateuch’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen: Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax. Zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 4. Juni 1987 (AASF Series B, 237), Helsinki 1987, 71–85 [= A. Pietersma, C. Cox (eds), De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, Missisauga 1984, 115–128]. ——, ‘Die Auslassung des Possessivpronomens im Griechischen Pentateuch’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen: Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax. Zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 4. Juni 1987 (AASF Series B, 237), Helsinki 1987, 86–103 [= Studia Orientalia memoriae Jussi Aro dedicato (StOr, 55), Helsinki 1984, 277–294]. ——, ‘Die Wiedergabe des partitiven ‫ מן‬im Griechischen Pentateuch’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen: Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax. Zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 4. Juni 1987 (AASF Series B, 237), Helsinki 1987, 154–171 [= N. Fernández Marcos (ed.), La Septuaginta en la Investigación Contemporanea (V Congreso de la IOSCS) (Textos y Estudios ‘Cardinal Cisneros’, 34), Madrid 1985, 83–100]. ——, ‘Einleitung’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen: Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax. Zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 4. Juni 1987 (AASF Series B, 237), Helsinki 1987, 11–18. ——, ‘Methodologische Fragen der Erforschung der Septuaginta-Syntax’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen: Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax. Zu

bibliography

367

seinem 70. Geburtstag am 4. Juni 1987 (AASF Series B, 237), Helsinki 1987, 40–52 [= C. Cox (ed.), Sixth Congress of the IOSCS, Jerusalem, 1986 (SBL SCS, 23), Atlanta 1987, 425–444]. Sollamo, R., Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions in the Septuagint (AASF Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum, 19), Helsinki 1979. ——, ‘The LXX Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute Used with a Paronymous Finite Verb in the Pentateuch’, in: N. Fernández Marcos (ed.), La Septuaginta en la Investigación Contemporánea (V Congreso de la IOSCS) (Textos y Estudios ‘Cardenal Cisneros’, 34), Madrid 1985, 101–113. ——, ‘The Origins of LXX Studies in Finland’, SJOT 10 (1996), 159–168. ——, ‘The Significance of Septuagint Studies’, in: S.M. Paul, R.A. Kraft, L.H. Schiffman, W.W. Fields (eds), Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls. FS E. Tov (VTS, 94), Leiden/Boston 2003, 497–512. ——, ‘Translation Technique as a Method’, in: H. Ausloos, J. Cook, F. García Martínez, B. Lemmelijn, M. Vervenne (eds), Translating a Translation: The Septuagint and its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism (BETL, 213), Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA 2008, pp. 35–41. Sperber, A., A Historical Grammar of Biblical Hebrew: A Presentation of Problems with Suggestions to Their Solution, Leiden 1966. Stipp, H.-J., ‘Das Verhältnis von Textkritik und Literarkritik in neueren alttestamentlichen Veröffentlichungen’, BZ 34 (1990), 16–37. ——, ‘Textkritik—Literarkritik—Textentwicklung: Überlegungen zur exegetischen Aspectsystematik’, ETL 66 (1990), 143–159. Tal, A., The Samaritan Pentateuch: Edited According to Ms 6(C) of the Shekhem Synagogue (TSHLRS, 8), Tel-Aviv 1994. ——, ‘The Hebrew Pentateuch in the Eyes of the Samaritan Translator’, in: J. Krašovec (ed.), Interpretation of the Bible: The International Symposium in Slovenia ( JSOT SS, 289), Sheffield 1998, 341–354. ——, ‘Le Pentateuque Samaritain’, in: A. Schenker, P. Hugo (eds), L’enfance de la Bible hébraïque: Histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament (Le monde de la Bible, 52), Fribourg 2005, 77–104. Talmon, S., ‘The Old Testament Text’, in: P.R. Ackroyd, C.F. Evans (eds), The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1: From the Beginnings to Jerome, Cambridge 1970, 159–199. ——, ‘The Textual Study of the Bible: A New Outlook’, in: F.M. Cross, S. Talmon (eds), Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, Cambridge 1975, 321–400. ——, ‘Textual Criticism: The Ancient Versions’, in: A.D.H. Mayes (ed.), Text in Context: Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study, Oxford 2000, 141–170. Teshima, I., Textual Criticism and Early Biblical Interpretation, in: J. Krašovec (ed.), Interpretation of the Bible: The International Symposium in Slovenia ( JSOT SS, 289), Sheffield 1998, 165–179. Thackeray, H.St.J., ‘Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute in the LXX’, JTS 9 (1908), 597–601. ——, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint, vol. 1, Cambridge 1909. Tov, E., ‘On “Pseudo-variants” Reflected in the Septuagint’, JSS 20 (1975), 165–177. ——, ‘Three Dimensions of LXX Words’, RB 83 (1976), 529–544. ——, ‘The Nature of the Hebrew Text Underlying the LXX: A Survey of the Problems’, JSOT 7 (1978), 53–68. ——, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research ( Jerusalem Biblical Studies, 3), Jerusalem 1981. ——, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research: Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged ( Jerusalem Biblical Studies, 8), Jerusalem 1997.

368

bibliography

——, ‘De tekst van het Oude Testament’, in: A.S. van der Woude (ed.), Bijbels handboek, vol. 1, Kampen 1981. ——, ‘The Impact of the LXX Translation of the Pentateuch on the Translation of the Other Books’, in: P. Casetti, O. Keel, A. Schenker (eds), Mélanges Dominique Barthélemy: Etudes bibliques offertes à l’occasion de son 60e anniversaire (OBO, 38), Freiburg/ Göttingen 1981, 579–590. ——, ‘Criteria for Evaluating Textual Readings: The Limitations of Textual Rules’, HThR 75 (1982), 429–448. ——, ‘A Modern Textual Outlook Based on the Qumran Scrolls’, HUCA 53 (1982), 11–27. ——, ‘Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand their Hebrew Text?’, in: A. Pietersma, C. Cox (eds), De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of J.W. Wevers on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, Missisauga 1984, 53–70. ——, ‘The Composition of 1 Samuel 16–18 in the Light of the Septuagint Version’, in: J.H. Tigay, Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism, Philadelphia 1985, 97–129. ——, ‘Computer Assisted Alignment of the Greek-Hebrew Equivalents of the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint’, in: N. Fernández Marcos (ed.), La Septuaginta en la Investigación Contemporánea (V Congreso de la IOSCS), (Textos y Estudios ‘Cardenal Cisneros’, 34), Madrid 1985, 221–242. ——, ‘The Nature and Background of Harmonizations in Biblical Manuscripts’, JSOT 31 (1985), 3–29. ——, ‘The Nature of the Differences between MT and the LXX in 1 Sam. 17–18 [1]’, in: D. Barthélemy et al., The Story of David and Goliath: Textual and Literary Criticism, Papers of a Joint Research Venture (OBO, 73), Freiburg/Göttingen 1986, 19–46. ——, ‘Response’, in: Ibidem, 92–94. ——, ‘The Story of David and Goliath in the MT and LXX’, in: Ibidem, 129–137. ——, ‘The Nature and Study of the Translation Technique of the LXX in the Past and Present’, in: C.E. Cox (ed.), Sixth Congress of the IOSCS, Jerusalem, 1986 (SBL SCS, 23), Atlanta 1987, 337–359. ——, ‘The Septuagint’, in: M.J. Mulder, H. Sysling (ed.), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, Assen/ Maastricht/Philadelphia 1988, 161–188. ——, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Minneapolis/Assen/Maastricht 1992. ——, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible: Second Revised Edition, Minneapolis/Assen 2001. ——, ‘Textual Criticism (Old Testament)’, ABD 6 (1992), 393–412. ——, ‘The Contribution of the Qumran Scrolls to the Understanding of the LXX’, in: G.J. Brooke, B. Lindars (eds), Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings: Papers Presented to the International Symposium on the Septuagint and Its Relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Writings (Manchester, 1990) (SBL SCS, 33), Atlanta 1992, 11–47. ——, ‘Interchanges of Consonants between the Masoretic Text and the Vorlage of the Septuagint’, in: M. Fishbane, E. Tov (eds), ‘Sha’arei Talmon’: Studies in the Bible, Qumran and the Ancient Near East. FS S. Talmon, Winona Lake 1992, 255–266. ——, ‘Some Reflections on the Hebrew Texts from which the Septuagint Was Translated’, JNSL 19 (1993), 107–122. ——, ‘The History and Significance of a Standard Text of the Hebrew Bible’, in: M. Saebo (ed.), Hebrew Bible / Old Testament: The History of its Interpretation, vol. 1: From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (Until 1300), Göttingen 1996, 49–66. ——, ‘The Accordance Search Program for the MT, LXX, and the CATSS Database’, Bulletin IOSCS 30 (1997), 36–44. ——, ‘Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible 1947–1997’, in: F. García-Martínez, E. Noort (eds), Perspectives in the Study of the Old Testament and Early Judaism. FS A.S. van der Woude (VTS, 73), Leiden/Boston/Köln 1998, 61–81.

bibliography

369

——, ‘Sense Divisions in the Qumran Texts, the Masoretic Text, and Ancient Translations of the Bible’, in: J. Krašovec (ed.), Interpretation of the Bible: The International Symposium in Slovenia ( JSOT SS, 289), Sheffield 1998, 121–146. ——, ‘The Significance of the Texts from the Judean Desert for the History of the Text of the Hebrew Bible: A New Synthesis’, in: F.H. Cryer, T.L. Thompson (eds), Qumran between the Old and New Testaments ( JSOT SS, 290), Sheffield 1998, 277–309. ——, ‘Rewritten Bible Compositions and Biblical Manuscripts, with Special Attention to the Samaritan Pentateuch’, DSD 5 (1998), 334–354. ——, ‘The Nature of the Large-Scale Differences between the LXX and MT S T V, Compared with Similar Evidence in Other Sources’, in: A. Schenker (ed.), The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered (SBL, 52), Atlanta 2003, 121–144. ——, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (STDJ, 54), Leiden/Boston 2004. ——, ‘La nature du texte massorétique à la lumière des découvertes du désert de Juda et de la littérature rabbinique’, in: A. Schenker, P. Hugo (eds), L’enfance de la Bible hébraïque: Histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament (Le monde de la Bible, 52), Fribourg 2005, 105–131. ——, ‘The Use of Computers in Biblical Research’, in: P.W. Flint, E. Tov, J.C. Vanderkam, Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran and the Septuagint FS E. Ulrich (VTS, 101), Leiden/Boston 2006, 337–359. Tov, E., Wright, B.G., ‘Computer-Assisted Study of the Criteria for Assessing the Literalness of Translation-Units in the LXX’, Textus 12 (1985), 149–187. Tov, E., Pfann, S. (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche: A Comprehensive Facsimile Edition of the Texts from the Judean Desert, Leiden/New York/Cologne 1993; Companion Volume, Leiden/New York/Cologne 1993. Trebolle Barrera, J., ‘Redaction, Recension and Midrash in the Book of Kings’, BIOSCS 15 (1982), 12–35. ——, ‘From the “Old Latin” through the “Old Greek” to the “Old Hebrew” (2 Kings 10:23–25)’, Textus 11 (1984), 17–36. ——, ‘Old Latin, Old Greek and Old Hebrew in the Books of Kings (1 Ki 18:27 and 2 Ki 20:11)’, Textus 13 (1986), 85–94. ——, ‘The Story of David and Goliath (1 Sam 17–18): Textual Variants and Literary Composition’, BIOSCS 23 (1990), 16–30. ——, The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible: An Introduction to the History of the Bible, Leiden/New York/Cologne 1998. ——, ‘A Canon within a Canon: Two Series of Old Testament Books Differently Transmitted, Interpreted and Authorized’, RQ 19 (1999–2000), 383–399. ——, ‘Qumran Evidence for a Biblical Standard Text and for Non-standard and Parabiblical Texts’, in: T.H. Lim (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context, Edinburgh 2000, 89–106. ——, ‘Redaction, Recension, and Midrash in the Books of Kings’, in: G.N. Knoppers, J.G. McConville (ed.), Reconsidering Israel and Judah. Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History (SBTS, 8), Winona Lake 2000, 475–492. ——, ‘A Combined Textual and Literary Criticism Analysis. Editorial Traces in Joshua and Judges’ in: H. Ausloos, B. Lemmelijn, M. Vervenne (eds), Florilegium Lovaniense. Studies in Septuagint and Textual Criticism in Honour of Florentino García Martínez (BETL, 224), Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA 2008, 437–464. Ulrich, E., Cross, F.M. et al., Qumran Cave 4, vol. 7: Genesis to Numbers (DJD, 12), Oxford 1994. ——, ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Biblical Text’, in: P.W. Flint, J.C. Vanderkam (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment, vol. 1, Leiden/Boston/ Köln 1998, 79–100.

370

bibliography

——, ‘The Canonical Process, Textual Criticism, and Latter Stages in the Composition of the Bible’, in: Idem, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible, Grand Rapids/ Leiden/Boston/Köln 1999, 51–78 [= M. Fishbane, E. Tov (eds.), ‘Sha’arei Talmon’: Studies in the Bible, Qumran and the Ancient Near East. FS S. Talmon, Winona Lake 1992, 267–291]. ——, ‘The Palaeo-Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts from Qumran Cave 4’, in: Idem, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible, Grand Rapids/Leiden/Boston/Köln 1999, 121–147 [= D. Dimant, L.H. Schiffman (eds.), Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness. Papers on the Qumran Scrolls by Fellows of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989–1990 (STDJ, 16), Leiden/New York/Köln 1995, 103–129]. Van der Kooij, A., ‘Tekstkritiek en tekstoverlevering van het Oude Testament’, in: A.S. van der Woude (ed.), Inleiding tot de studie van het Oude Testament, Kampen 1986, 87–101. ——, ‘Zum Verhältnis von Textkritik und Literarkritik: Überlegungen anhand einiger Beispiele’, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume, Cambridge, 1995 (VTS, 66), Leiden/ New York/Köln 1997, 185–202. ——, ‘Perspectives on the Study of the Septuagint: Who Are the Translators?’, in: F. García-Martínez, E. Noort (eds), Perspectives in the Study of the Old Testament and Early Judaism. FS A.S. van der Woude (VTS, 73), Leiden/Boston/Köln 1998, 214–229. ——, ‘The Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible before and after the Qumran Discoveries’, in: E.D. Herbert, E. Tov (eds), The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries, London/New Castle/Grand Haven 2002, 167–177. ——, ‘Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible: Its Aim and Method’, in: S.M. Paul, R.A. Kraft, L.H. Schiffman, W.W. Fields (eds), Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls. FS E. Tov (VTS, 94), Leiden/Boston 2003, 729–739. ——, ‘Textual Criticism’, in: J.W. Rogerson, J.M. Lieu, The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies, Oxford 2006, 579–590. Vanderkam, J., Flint, P., ‘The Biblical Scrolls and the Text of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament’, in: Idem, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus and Christianity, San Francisco 2002, 103–153. Van der Merwe, C.H.J., Naudé, J.A., Kroeze, J.H., A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (Biblical Languages: Hebrew, 3), Sheffield 1999. Vervenne, M., Het Zeeverhaal (Exodus 13,17–14,31): Een literaire studie (unpublished doctoral dissertation Theology, K.U.Leuven), Leuven 1986. ——, ‘Tekst en teksten’, in: H. Jagersma, M. Vervenne (eds), Inleiding in het Oude Testament, Kampen 1992, 25–39. ——, ‘Current Tendencies and Developments in the Study of the Book of Exodus’, in: Idem (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction—Reception—Interpretation (BETL, 126), Leuven 1996, 21–29. Voitila, A., ‘What the Translation of Tenses Tells about the Septuagint Translators’, SJOT 10 (1996), 183–196. ——, Présent et imparfait de l’indicatif dans le Pentateuque grec: Une étude sur la syntaxe de traduction (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society, 79), Göttingen 2001. Von Gall, A. (ed.), Der Hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner, vol. 2: Exodus, Giessen 1914. Waltke, B.K., O’Connor, M., An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Winona Lake 1990. Werlitz, J., Studien zur literarkritischen Methoden: Gericht und Heil in Jesaja 7,1–17 und 29,1–8 (BZAW, 204), Berlin/New York 1992. Wevers, J.W., ‘The Use of Versions for Text Criticism: The Septuagint’, in: N. Fernández Marcos (ed.), La Septuaginta en la Investigación Contemporánea (V Congreso de la IOSCS) (Textos y Estudios ‘Cardenal Cisneros’, 34), Madrid 1985, 15–24. ——, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus (SBL SCS, 30), Atlanta 1990.

bibliography

371

——, (ed.), Exodus (Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum, II,1), Göttingen 1991. ——, ‘The Interpretative Character and Significance of the Septuagint Version’, in: M. Saebo (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of its Interpretation, vol. 1: From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (Until 1300), Göttingen 1996, 84–107. Wifstrand, A., Die Stellung der enklitischen Personalpronomina bei den Septuaginta (Kungl. Humanistiska Vetenskapssamfundets i Lund arsberättelse 1949–1950, II), Lund 1950. Wright, B.G., ‘The Quantitative Representation of Elements: Evaluating “Literalism” in the LXX’, in: C.E. Cox (ed.), Sixth Congress of the IOSCS, Jerusalem, 1986 (SBL SCS, 23), Atlanta 1987, 311–335. ——, ‘∆ουλος and Παις as Translations of ‫עבד‬: Lexical Equivalences and Conceptual Transformations’, in: B.A. Taylor, IX Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Cambridge, 1995, Atlanta 1997, 263–277. ——, ‘The Jewish Scriptures in Greek: The Septuagint in the Context of Ancient Translation Activity’, in: F.W. Knobloch, Biblical Translation in Context (Studies and Texts in Jewish History and Culture, 10), Maryland 2002. Young, I., ‘The “Archaic” Poetry of the Pentateuch in the MT, Samaritan Pentateuch and 4QExodc’, Abr-Nahrain 35 (1998), 74–83. Zipor, M.A., ‘The Use of the Septuagint as a Textual Witness: Further Considerations’, in: B.A. Taylor (ed.), X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Oslo, 1998 (SBL, 51), Atlanta 2001, 553–581.

INDEX OF AUTHORS Ackroyd, P.R. 2 Aejmelaeus, A. 1, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, 86, 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 133, 134, 135, 138, 143, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 154, 189, 214 Aquila 52, 63, 64, 106, 137, 138, 141, 189 Ausloos, H. xi, 4, 101, 122, 124, 125, 136 Baentsch, B. ix Baillet, M. 28, 29, 219 Barr, J. 96, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 115, 120, 123 Barth, H. 4 Barthélemy, D. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 22, 23, 24, 25, 100 Baumgartner, W. 49 Beek, M.A. 99 Beer, G. ix Bogaert, P.-M. 23 Brock, S.P. 99, 100, 108, 109, 117 Brooke, G.J. 96, 97, 103 Casetti, P. 100 Chiesa, B. 2 Clements, R.E. ix Cole, R.A. ix Collins, N.L. 190, 192 Cook, J. xi, 11, 20, 101, 125, 133, 136 Cowley, A.E. 44, 47, 49 Cox, C.E. 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 108, 124 Cross, F.M. 1, 2, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 37, 39, 48, 50, 58, 66, 73, 74, 79, 186, 219 Crown, A.D. 28 Davies, W.D. 127 Debel, H. 125 De Vaux, R. 28, 29, 219

Doniger O’Flaherty, W. Driver, S.R. ix

1

Emerton, J.A. 2, 3 Evans, C.F. 2 Fernández Marcos, N. 16, 19, 24, 108, 133 Fields, W.W. 3 Finkelstein, L. 127 Fishbane, M. 101 Frankel, Z. 36, 39, 52, 68, 79, 99, 100, 108, 126, 141, 143, 144, 159, 175 Freedman, D.N. 205 Freund 47 Friebe, R. ix, x García Martínez, F. xi, 4, 101, 125, 136 Gentry, P.J. 124 Gispen, W.H. ix Goshen-Gottstein, M.H. 2, 7 Greenberg, M. 2, 20 Greenstein, E.L. 205 Hanhart, R. 103, 104, 130 Hesychius 63 Hiebert, R.J.V. 124 Holzinger, H. ix Hurvitz, A. 205 Jagersma, H. ix Jokiranta, J. 124 Joüon, P. 44, 47, 49 Keel, O. 100 Koehler, L. 49 Kraft, R.A. 2, 27, 115 Kroeze, J.H. 145 Kyle McCarter, P. 15 Labuschagne, C.J. 7 Le Boulluec, A. 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 46, 50, 52, 53, 54, 56, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82,

374

index of authors

84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 161, 162, 163, 164, 169, 176, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 192, 195 Lee, J.A.L. 99 Lemmelijn, B. x, xi, 1, 2, 4, 7, 20, 22, 25, 101, 108, 115, 124, 125, 126, 136, 192, 197, 199, 211, 216 Lettinga, J.P. 47, 55, 93 Lindars, B. 96, 97, 103 Lust, J. 2, 3, 17, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 103 Marquis, G. 97, 100, 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 111, 112, 114, 115, 118, 120, 121, 122 Marx 47 McNeile, A.H. ix Milgrom, J. 205 Milik, J.T. 28, 29, 219 Montaner, L.V. 2 Mulder, M.J. 19 Muraoka, T. 44, 47, 49, 55, 93, 101 Naudé, J.A.

145

O’Connor, M. 55, 75, 77 Olofsson, S. 18, 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 107, 108, 110, 111, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 124, 131, 132 Orlinsky, H.M. 127 Owens, J.J. 47 Paul, S.M. 2 Pfann, S. 28 Philo of Alexandria 56 Pietersma, A. 99, 124 Rabe, N. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15 Rabin, C. 97, 98, 99, 100, 151 Saebo, M. 1 Sanderson, J.E. 2, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 43, 47, 50, 73, 74, 84, 91, 96, 100, 126, 128, 130, 134, 135, 152, 164, 165, 166, 167, 172, 173, 174, 176, 181, 183, 186, 187, 190, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 206, 219 Sandevoir, P. 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 46, 50, 52, 53, 54, 56, 59, 60,

62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 161, 162, 163, 164, 169, 176, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 192, 195 Schenker, A. 100 Schiffman, L.H. 2 Schmidt, L. x Schweitzer, H. 7 Schwienhorst, L. 4, 5 Silva, M. 16 Sipilä, S. 108 Skehan, P.W. 15, 20, 28, 29, 31, 32, 43, 50, 73, 74, 84, 91, 167, 176, 201, 202, 203, 219 Soisalon-Soininen, I. 24, 86, 100, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 124, 126, 127, 137, 141, 142, 143, 144, 147, 148, 150, 189 Sollamo, R. 24, 86, 100, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 110, 112, 113, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 122, 123, 124, 126, 141, 144, 189 Steck, O.H. 4 Stipp, H.-J. 4, 5, 6 Symmachus 63, 64, 137, 138 Sysling, H. 19 Tal, A. 27, 28, 29, 219 Talmon, S. 2, 3, 26, 101 Taylor, B. x, 197, 216 Thackeray, H.St.J. 99, 100, 104, 126, 144 Theodoretus of Cyrrhus 56 Theodotion 52, 63, 141 Tigay, J.H. 4 Tov, E. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 111, 112, 114, 115, 119, 120, 123, 126, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 135, 155, 189, 215 Trebolle Barrera, J. 2, 3, 4 Ulrich, E. 15, 20, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 37, 39, 43, 48, 50, 58, 66, 73, 74, 79, 84, 91, 167, 176, 186, 201, 202, 203, 219 Van der Kooij, A. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 14 Van der Merwe, C.H.J. 145 Van der Woude, A.S. 1, 2

index of authors Van Peursen, W.T. 47, 55, 93 Verbeke, E. 125 Vervenne, M. ix, x, xi, 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 14, 19, 22, 97, 98, 99, 101, 106, 125, 136, 150, 188, 192, 209 Voitila, A. 124 Von Gall, A. 27, 28 Waltke, B.K. 55, 75, 77 Werlitz, J. 3 Wevers, J.W. 18, 19, 27, 29, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70,

375

71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 99, 104, 126, 137, 138, 139, 141, 152, 154, 155, 157, 159, 161, 162, 163, 164, 167, 169, 173, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 183, 185, 186, 188, 190, 191, 192, 193, 195, 219 Wifstrand, A. 149 Wright, B.G. 97, 104, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 115, 120, 123 Wright, D.P. 205 Zenger, E.

125

INDEX OF TEXTUAL REFERENCES Hebrew Bible Genesis 4:15 20:11 20:18 25:16 29:24 30:15 30:20 32:13 42:21 48:18

184 40 40 40 62 184 62 144 71 148

4:23 5:1 5:3 7–11 7:2–4 7:2 7:3 7:6 7:8–14 7:9 7:10 7:11 7:14–11:10

7:15–18 7:15 7:16–18 7:16 7:17

Exodus 1:12 1:13 1:15 1:17 3 3:21–22 3:21 3:22 4:22–23

7:14

52 51 51 62 192 192, 216 89, 90, 206 89, 192 91, 192, 198, 200, 205, 206, 207, 216 74 73 56 x, 18, 28, 209, 211 216 196 94, 195 216 199 172 73, 172 35, 38, 156 ix, x, xi, 13, 27, 29, 33, 96, 125, 135, 136, 139, 140, 145, 148, 150, 160, 197, 209, 211, 212,

7:18 7:18b 7:19

7:20

7:21 7:22

7:23 7:24 7:25 7:26–29

214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219 34, 74, 137, 139, 145, 160, 170, 194, 220 201 34, 73, 137, 149, 201, 220–221 201 145, 148, 149, 161, 170, 194, 221–222 32, 34, 74, 137, 142, 160, 164, 185, 222–223 34, 201, 207, 223–224 33, 35, 197, 201, 211, 212, 216, 224–227 35, 41, 42, 137, 145, 151, 152, 153, 160, 164, 180, 185, 194, 199, 212, 217, 227–229 34, 35, 137, 141, 142, 146, 148, 149, 151, 152, 160, 172, 185, 193, 200, 212, 229–230 35, 153, 230–231 35, 36, 46, 137, 138, 142, 156, 160, 166, 168, 231–232 36, 137, 145, 146, 148, 149, 232–233 36, 140, 142, 145, 149, 233 160, 234 201, 202

378 Exodus (cont.) 7:26–27 7:26 7:27 7:28–29 7:28

7:29 7:29b 8:1–2 8:1

8:1b 8:2

8:3

8:4

8:5

8:6

index of textual references 170 36, 137, 145, 149, 160, 170, 194, 234–235 32, 36, 74, 137, 142, 145, 169, 170, 180, 235 157 36, 37, 137, 139, 146, 149, 155, 172, 193, 202, 235–236 37, 139, 140, 155, 202, 207, 237 37, 197, 201, 211, 212, 216, 217, 237–239 155 37, 38, 41, 42, 137, 140, 141, 142, 145, 151, 152, 153, 155, 160, 164, 185, 194, 202, 207, 212, 217, 240–241 38, 197, 200, 202, 211, 212, 216, 241 38, 74, 142, 153, 154, 155, 185, 202, 212, 217, 242 38, 46, 137, 138, 142, 145, 153, 155, 156, 157, 166, 242–243 38, 53, 69, 78, 145, 155, 157, 158, 160, 162, 170, 194, 217, 243–244 38, 39, 48, 51, 137, 139, 142, 145, 149, 155, 157, 158, 159, 172, 193, 194, 212, 244–245 39, 41, 63, 79, 137, 138, 142, 145, 159, 160,

8:7

8:8 8:9

8:10 8:11

8:12–15 8:12

8:13

8:14

8:15

8:16–19 8:16–17 8:16

8:17

161, 162, 212, 245–246 38, 39, 40, 48, 51, 137, 142, 158, 159, 163, 172, 193, 212, 246 40, 137, 142, 145, 160, 217, 247 38, 39, 40, 41, 137, 138, 142, 145, 160, 163, 247–248 41, 63, 248 38, 40, 41, 137, 138, 145, 146, 148, 149, 160, 168, 248–249 44, 199 41, 42, 43, 140, 142, 145, 153, 160, 163, 164, 165, 166, 180, 185, 194, 212, 213, 217, 249– 250 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 137, 138, 140, 142, 145, 153, 163, 164, 165, 166, 185, 213, 214, 216, 217, 250–251 46, 47, 137, 138, 142, 145, 149, 156, 164, 165, 166, 217, 252 47, 48, 137, 138, 142, 145, 156, 160, 161, 168, 194, 252–253 202, 203 171 43, 48, 138, 141, 145, 149, 160, 166, 167, 170, 172, 194, 202, 203, 213, 253–254 38, 43, 48, 49, 51, 76, 137, 138, 139, 142, 145, 158, 169, 170,

index of textual references Exodus (cont.) 8:18

8:19

8:19b

8:20

8:21

8:22

8:23 8:24

8:25

8:26 8:27

8:28

8:29(25)

172, 180, 193, 255–256 43, 49, 50, 58, 66, 138, 142, 160, 162, 256–257 50, 57, 58, 138, 149, 168, 195, 207, 213, 257–258 50, 58, 66, 197, 202, 203, 211, 213, 216, 258–261 50, 51, 56, 61, 64, 68, 73, 138, 139, 141, 145, 153, 154, 160, 172, 261–262 51, 137, 138, 145, 148, 149, 153, 154, 161, 168, 217, 262–263 51, 52, 57, 138, 141, 146, 149, 161, 194, 263–264 52, 138, 143, 161, 264 38, 52, 53, 69, 78, 137, 138, 140, 144, 149, 157, 160, 161, 162, 163, 170, 194, 265–266 32, 53, 54, 74, 138, 145, 149, 158, 161, 170, 172, 193, 194, 266–267 54, 138, 145, 161, 267–268 51, 53, 54, 137, 138, 145, 158, 160, 172, 193, 268 54, 95, 137, 142, 148, 168, 169, 170, 180, 268–269 54, 92

9:1–5 9:1–2 9:1 9:2

9:3

9:4

9:5

9:5b

9:6–7 9:6 9:7

9:8–12 9:8

9:9

9:10

9:11

379 203 170 54, 56, 145, 149, 161, 170, 194, 203, 269–270 54, 55, 74, 139, 142, 149, 169, 170, 171, 213, 270 55, 56, 63, 64, 68, 137, 138, 160, 180, 270–271 56, 57, 58, 137, 140, 142, 143, 171, 213, 271–272 40, 57, 58, 137, 138, 148, 160, 161, 168, 207, 272–273 50, 58, 66, 197, 203, 211, 213, 216, 217, 273–276 203 40, 58, 137, 142, 145, 150, 171, 276–277 58, 65, 142, 145, 146, 148, 149, 168, 170, 171, 213, 277–278 199 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 138, 141, 142, 145, 148, 160, 166, 167, 171, 172, 194, 213, 278–279 59, 60, 65, 137, 138, 140, 150, 153, 164, 165, 213, 217, 279–280 59, 60, 61, 62, 65, 137, 138, 140, 141, 150, 164, 172, 173, 213, 214, 216, 217, 280–281 61, 62, 137, 138, 140, 141,

380

index of textual references

Exodus (cont.)

9:12 9:13–19 9:13

9:14–16 9:14

9:15 9:16 9:17 9:18–19 9:18

9:19

9:19b

9:20

9:21

9:22

146, 149, 150, 153, 156, 173, 281–282 62, 137, 138, 145, 160, 168, 282 204 62, 73, 138, 141, 145, 149, 160, 161, 170, 172, 194, 203, 283–284 63 62, 63, 137, 140, 142, 146, 153, 154, 172, 180, 193, 284–285 63, 137, 140, 142, 146, 148, 149, 172, 285 63, 64, 138, 139, 149, 153, 154, 173, 286 64, 170, 286–287 176, 177 64, 68, 137, 138, 140, 149, 154, 175, 178, 180, 217, 287–288 64, 65, 66, 137, 138, 142, 145, 146, 149, 150, 174, 176, 204, 207, 288–289 50, 58, 66, 197, 203, 204, 211, 213, 216, 217, 289–294 40, 64, 65, 66, 137, 138, 142, 148, 160, 174, 213, 214, 216, 217, 294–295 40, 66, 68, 137, 138, 139, 142, 145, 146, 160, 174, 213, 214, 216, 217, 295 66, 67, 68, 75, 82, 137, 138, 139, 142, 145, 153, 161, 176,

9:23–26 9:23–24 9:23

9:24

9:25

9:26–28 9:26 9:27

9:28–29 9:28

9:29–30 9:29

9:30 9:31 9:32 9:33–35 9:33–34

177, 185, 194, 199, 217, 296–297 176 69, 177 64, 67, 68, 75, 76, 138, 139, 142, 145, 153, 161, 178, 185, 200, 217, 297–298 68, 137, 138, 140, 145, 153, 154, 174, 175, 176, 178, 298–299 67, 69, 75, 76, 82, 138, 145, 149, 153, 174, 176, 177, 213, 214, 216, 299–300 177 69, 137, 142, 171, 300–301 69, 70, 71, 74, 77, 78, 83, 86, 88, 95, 138, 145, 146, 148, 149, 161, 194, 217, 301–302 217 53, 69, 70, 71, 74, 77, 78, 83, 86, 88, 92, 95, 137, 138, 149, 157, 160, 161, 162, 163, 170, 177, 213, 217, 302–303 177 70, 138, 139, 140, 145, 149, 161, 178, 213, 303–304 70, 160, 161, 163, 304 70, 145, 146, 304–305 70, 140, 142, 145, 146, 305 177 64, 138, 178

index of textual references Exodus (cont.) 9:33 9:34

9:35

10:1–11:8 10:1

10:2

10:2b 10:3–6 10:3–4 10:3

10:4

10:5

10:6

70, 71, 138, 140, 142, 145, 161, 306–307 70, 71, 145, 146, 148, 149, 172, 178, 179, 180, 307 50, 58, 66, 71, 74, 77, 78, 83, 86, 88, 95, 137, 138, 143, 161, 168, 170, 171, 308 73 71, 72, 137, 139, 140, 142, 145, 146, 148, 149, 161, 166, 167, 179, 180, 194, 195, 204, 213, 308–309 72, 73, 137, 139, 142, 160, 161, 162, 195, 207, 310–311 73, 197, 204, 211, 213, 216, 311–315 181, 204, 217 171 73, 74, 77, 78, 83, 86, 88, 95, 138, 139, 141, 145, 149, 152, 161, 170, 172, 181, 194, 204, 217, 315–316 74, 75, 77, 78, 83, 86, 88, 95, 137, 138, 139, 140, 142, 145, 149, 169, 170, 180, 204, 213, 316–317 67, 75, 79, 80, 138, 139, 149, 180, 181, 184, 213, 217, 317–318 75, 76, 137, 138, 139, 140, 143, 146, 148, 149, 153, 181,

10:7–11 10:7

10:8–11 10:8 10:9

10:10 10:11

10:12–13 10:12

10:13–15 10:13

10:14–15 10:14 10:15

10:16

10:17

381 182, 204, 213, 318–320 181 76, 77, 78, 83, 86, 88, 95, 127, 138, 143, 145, 149, 161, 170, 194, 320–321 217 77, 78, 142, 152, 161, 183, 194, 321–322 77, 78, 137, 142, 146, 160, 161, 162, 183, 194, 322–323 78, 83, 86, 88, 95, 138, 141, 170, 323–324 76, 78, 79, 138, 140, 141, 145, 146, 161, 183, 184, 324–325 217 79, 80, 82, 85, 139, 140, 142, 145, 153, 161, 181, 184, 185, 186, 194, 199, 213, 217, 325–326 181, 184 80, 137, 139, 142, 143, 153, 161, 185, 186, 200, 213, 214, 216, 217, 326–327 217 80, 81, 137, 140, 153, 327–328 75, 81, 82, 83, 85, 137, 139, 140, 153, 181, 184, 186, 187, 217, 329–330 65, 78, 82, 138, 139, 143, 145, 146, 148, 149, 152, 161, 168, 181, 217, 330–331 78, 82, 139, 149, 161, 331

382 Exodus (cont.) 10:18 10:19

10:20 10:21–27 10:21

10:22

10:23 10:24

10:25 10:26

10:27

10:28

10:29 11 11:1–10

index of textual references 11:1 82, 83, 137, 138, 145, 181, 182, 213, 332 34, 83, 85, 137, 138, 139, 149, 153, 161, 332–333 83, 86, 88, 95, 138, 161, 168, 170, 171, 333 199 83, 137, 139, 142, 145, 153, 161, 180, 185, 187, 188, 194, 333–334 83, 84, 137, 139, 142, 145, 153, 185, 187, 188, 189, 213, 334–335 84, 140, 144, 145, 171, 335–336 78, 84, 85, 86, 139, 142, 143, 146, 148, 149, 151, 152, 160, 161, 162, 166, 167, 168, 213, 217, 336–337 85, 86, 137, 140, 143, 149, 161, 337–338 85, 86, 139, 140, 142, 145, 146, 149, 150, 160, 161, 162, 338–339 86, 88, 95, 138, 139, 145, 149, 161, 169, 170, 339–340 86, 87, 88, 92, 137, 139, 141, 142, 149, 189, 340–341 88, 92, 137, 141, 144, 145, 149, 189, 341 206, 216 192

11:2 11:3

11:3b

11:4–7 11:4

11:5 11:6 11:7 11:8

11:9–10 11:9

11:10

12 12:29 12:35–36 12:35 12:36

88, 89, 95, 138, 140, 144, 145, 149, 161, 170, 171, 190, 194, 206, 213, 214, 216, 341–343 89, 137, 142, 190, 191, 206, 213, 343–344 89, 90, 91, 93, 139, 140, 141, 142, 145, 153, 161, 192, 205, 206, 207, 213, 344–345 73, 90, 91, 193, 197, 198, 200, 205, 206, 207, 211, 213, 216, 345–350 91, 198, 205, 206 91, 137, 153, 161, 180, 182, 194, 206, 350–351 91, 92, 137, 138, 142, 351–352 92, 137, 140, 153, 352–353 92, 93, 137, 138, 139, 171, 353–354 93, 94, 139, 144, 145, 148, 149, 181, 182, 183, 213, 354–355 195 94, 137, 139, 145, 149, 153, 154, 161, 194, 195, 196, 213, 355–356 94, 95, 138, 141, 145, 153, 154, 161, 168, 169, 170, 171, 193, 195, 196, 213, 356–357 192, 198 92 192, 216 62, 89, 192 89, 90, 192

index of textual references Exodus (cont.) 13:17–14:31 14:5 14:8 15:1 15:21 16:28 22:3 22:17

383

Joshua 150 172 172 144 144 74 144 74

4:8 13:23 13:28 19:23

62 40 40 40

Judges 8:7 11:8

184 184

Leviticus 25:31

1 Kings

40

22:19

184

Numbers 12:7 12:14 13:30 22:5 22:11 22:17 25:18 27:23 31:16

2 Kings

184 65 144 75 75 144 40 62 40

1:4 1:6 Job 12:25 42:9

187 62

Psalms

Deuteronomy 2:34 3:6 3:16–17 4:11 5:22 18:14 28:29

184 184

45:5 71 71 36 84, 188 84, 188 184 187

40

Qohelet 12:12

xi

Jeremiah 6:19

32, 74

Qumran 4QpaleoExodm

7:18b–19 7:18b 10:4 4QpaleoGen-Exodl 8:21 8:22 9:34 2QExoda

x, 14, 15, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 50, 58, 66, 73, 74, 91, 211, 219 33 33 32 x, 28, 29, 34, 91, 211, 219 31 31 31 x, 28, 29, 34, 91, 211, 219

4QExodc 7:17–19 7:17 7:18 7:19 7:29b 8:8 8:12 9:1 9:16 9:22–23 9:22 9:34 10:1–2

x, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 73, 91, 211, 219 33 33 33 33 73 31, 32 31 33 33 33 33 31 32

384 4QExodc (cont.) 10:2b 10:9 4QGen-Exoda

index of textual references 4QExodj 73 32 x, 28, 30, 34, 91, 211, 219

7:28–8:2 7:29b–8:1b 7:29 7:29b 8:1 8:1a

x, 28, 30, 31, 34, 91, 211, 219 30 30 30 30 30 30