Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
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
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.
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
The textual criticism of the Old Testament has undergone recent improve-
ment, primarily under the impulse of the unearthing of multiple text frag-
ments 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 text-
critical 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 fol-
low 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), Göt-
tingen 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
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 Text-
Critical 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 chap-
ter one.
8
The designation ‘relevant textual variants’ refers to those variants that give rise to sig-
nificant 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
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 exege-
tische 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
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 mate-
rial 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 tek-
stoverlevering 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 gener-
ally, 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 develop-
ment of the text of the Hebrew bible in its various textual forms, pay-
ing 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/Göt-
tingen 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
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 bor-
derline 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 disci-
plines 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
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 ontwikkel-
ing 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 alttesta-
mentlichen Veröffentlichungen’, BZ 34 (1990), 16–37; and Idem, ‘Textkritik—Literarkri-
tik—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
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 com-
ponent disciplines.19 It is often impossible to correctly evaluate a parti-
cular 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 trans-
mission 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, liter-
ary 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.
20
See H.-J. Stipp, ‘Textkritik’, 156: ‘Es erscheint daher angezeigt, die Trennung von
Text- und Literarkritik aufzugeben und einen einheitlichen exegetischen Aspekt der Textent-
wicklung 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 develop-
ment’ and against the strict division of textual criticism and literary criticism.
prolegomena 7
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 Criti-
cism (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 logo-
technical 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 consid-
ered 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 wit-
nesses. 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 criti-
cism is not the ‘original text’ or the Urtext, but rather the ‘presently leg-
ible 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 Übertragungska-
nal 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
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 observa-
tions, 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 posi-
tive 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 tex-
tual 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 establish-
ment 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 ‘correc-
tion’ 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
The terms ‘preferable’ and ‘synonymous’ will be further explained below. See pp. 20, 21.
31
Cf. also in this regard n. 82 below.
terminology 13
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.
34
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 lez-
ingen 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.
terminology 15
Evaluation of variants
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: Palaeo-
Hebrew 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 reli-
able 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.
44
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 Con-
greso 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 mate-
rial 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.
terminology 17
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
Translation character
In addition to the Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch and the tex-
tual 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, pre-
sented 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 transla-
tion 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 ‘non-
formal’ 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 flex-
ibility. 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 Testa-
ment’, 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 dif-
ferences 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 text-
critical 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 ‘bet-
ter’. 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’ rep-
resent 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 edi-
tor’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
76
Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 41–42.
77
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 Look-
ing 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
dedicated working model for text-critical research 23
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 sim-
ply 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
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 Dif-
ferences’, 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
92
Cf. J. Lust, ‘The Story of David and Goliath in Hebrew and in Greek’, in: D. Barthé-
lemy 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 frame-
work, then both the question of the so-called Urtext and that of the com-
plex 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’.
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) edi-
tion 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 Syna-
gogue (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
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
1
Cf. J.W. Wevers (ed.), Exodus.
2
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.
30 chapter two: the textual material
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 tetragram-
maton 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
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 4Qpa-
leoGen-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 con-
sidered 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.’
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.’
9
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.’
34 chapter two: the textual material
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
20
The so-called major expansions or larger pluses of the SamP-4Qm tradition are dis-
cussed 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
27
Cf. n. 15.
28
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 opéra-
tion 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.
registration and description of the text variants 37
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
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 ser-
vants, 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
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 formula-
tion 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 mono-
theistic statement: ὁτι οὐκ ἐστιν ἀλλος πλην κυριου. The attributive “our God” [see preced-
ing 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
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 «campe-
ment» 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 Boul-
luec, 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 “con-
cerning 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. Sand-
evoir, 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 grammati-
cale 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 41
57
Cf. infra on translation technique, p. 137.
58
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.’
42 chapter two: the textual material
66
Cf. also supra p. 37 in relation to Exod. 8:1.
67
Cf. also supra p. 35 in relation to Exod. 7:19.
68
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 113.
registration and description of the text variants 43
69
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 com-
mand 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
75
Cf. A.E. Cowley (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, 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.’
registration and description of the text variants 45
76
See supra pp. 42, 43.
77
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.
46 chapter two: the textual material
80
Cf. supra pp. 42–43.
81
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.
registration and description of the text variants 47
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 conso-
nantal 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
89
Cf. supra n. 57.
90
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.’
registration and description of the text variants 49
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
101
Cf. infra on translation technique, p. 138.
102
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 “redemp-
tion”, 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 4Qpaleo-
ExodmSamP 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.]
registration and description of the text variants 51
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 chapter two: the textual material
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 general-
izations 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 traduc-
tion 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 ren-
dered 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 53
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 lexi-
cally 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
129
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 55
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 Hebra-
istic 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
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 57
146
See remark in relation to Exod. 8:22.
147
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.
58 chapter two: the textual material
151
Cf. supra n. 126.
152
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 reconstruc-
tion, 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.
registration and description of the text variants 59
159
Cf. infra on translation technique, p. 138.
160
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.
60 chapter two: the textual material
163
Cf. supra n. 21.
164
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, corre-
spondant 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.
registration and description of the text variants 61
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
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.
176
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”.’
registration and description of the text variants 63
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
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 render-
ing 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 65
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
198
For 4Qc see E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 108: ‘According to this reconstruc-
tion, 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 67
205
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 135: ‘By adding the particle τε after the first ἐπι and omit-
ting 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
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 69
217
Cf. supra n. 195.
218
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.
70 chapter two: the textual material
223
Cf. supra n. 121.
224
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.
registration and description of the text variants 71
230
Cf. supra n. 121.
231
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.
72 chapter two: the textual material
235
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 145. See also infra on translation technique, p. 139.
236
Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 136.
registration and description of the text variants 73
237
Cf. supra n. 55.
238
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 reconstruc-
tion, 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 dif-
ferent 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.’
74 chapter two: the textual material
245
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 cor-
respondance 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 75
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 imperson-
nel 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
259
Cf. supra n. 21.
260
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.
registration and description of the text variants 77
264
Cf. supra n. 121.
265
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.
78 chapter two: the textual material
269
Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 149.
270
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.
registration and description of the text variants 79
274
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 150.
275
Cf. supra n. 126.
276
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 150: ‘The use of αὐτοι as a substitute for the second per-
sonal pronoun . . .’
277
For 4Qc see E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 112: ‘The spacing in line 14 some-
what 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 occur-
rence 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).’
80 chapter two: the textual material
281
Cf. infra on translation technique, p. 139.
282
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.
registration and description of the text variants 81
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
293
Cf. supra n. 281.
294
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.
registration and description of the text variants 83
302
Cf. supra n. 126.
303
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.
84 chapter two: the textual material
311
Cf. supra n. 21.
312
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.’
registration and description of the text variants 85
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 “wor-
ship 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 com-
pound 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
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 87
327
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 159–160.
328
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.
88 chapter two: the textual material
330
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 160. See also supra n. 15.
331
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.
registration and description of the text variants 89
334
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 162.
335
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 ten-
dance 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.’
90 chapter two: the textual material
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 91
342
Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 142.
343
Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 142: ‘Un écart plus impor-
tant 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 recon-
struction 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.
92 chapter two: the textual material
346
See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 164.
347
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.
registration and description of the text variants 93
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
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 (rela-
tive 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 par-
ticularly 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 95
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
1
For a definition of what we understand by ‘translation technique’ see also supra, p. 24.
2
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’,
study of the translation character of lxx exodus 97
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
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 Transla-
tion Process’, 9; E. Tov, ‘The Septuagint’, 175; Idem, ‘The Nature and Study of the Transla-
tion 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 characterisa-
tion of translation technique as well as the appropriate text-critical evalu-
ation 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 Ver-
sion, 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
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 dif-
ficult 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
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 Lexicogra-
phy’, 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 Vor-
lage’, 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
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. Aejme-
laeus, ‘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
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 prob-
lem 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. Mar-
quis, ‘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
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 Trans-
lation 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 translation-
technical 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 Crite-
ria’, 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
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 can-
not 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 prob-
ably 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 Auslas-
sung des Possessivpronomens’, 102 (‘instinctiv’); Idem, ‘Renderings of Hebrew Compara-
tive 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. Sol-
lamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, 28–39, p. 28: ‘Diese Erscheinung kann man nicht
106 chapter three: text-critical evaluation
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 gele-
gentlich 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 Expres-
sions’, 153. See also in this regard M. Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 101: ‘stuksgewijs’.
47
I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Einleitung’, 16: ‘Wenn man an die Syntax einer Überset-
zung 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 Erfor-
schung’, 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. Aejme-
laeus, 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 methodi-
cal. 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 appre-
ciation 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 endea-
vour 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.
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 (Publica-
tions 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 dis-
tinction 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, ‘Com-
puter-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 Soisalon-
Soininen, 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 trans-
lation 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 jüdis-
chen 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 Text-
Critical 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 deter-
mine 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 dis-
tinction 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 Ele-
ments’, 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 vari-
ous 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
63
Cf. J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 294–303.
64
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.
112 chapter three: text-critical evaluation
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 dis-
cern 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
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 transla-
tions. 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 tech-
nique 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
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 Expres-
sions’, 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
86
Particular attention to this issue is paid extendedly in B. Lemmelijn, ‘Two Meth-
odological 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 Transla-
tion 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
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 Hebräis-
chen 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 Erforsc-
hung’, 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
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 Render-
ings 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 Com-
parative 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
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 Aus-
gangspunkt 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 Erforsc-
hung’, 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. Soisalon-
Soininen, ‘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 con-
testable 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 consis-
tent 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 literal-
ness 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
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 Semipreposi-
tions, 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 statis-
tical 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 non-
consistent 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 con-
sistency—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
113
Cf. G. Marquis, ‘Consistency of Lexical Equivalents’, 412–413.
114
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.
study of the translation character of lxx exodus 123
118
Cf. supra pp. 116–117.
119
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 study-
ing 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 pay-
ing 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, refer-
ence 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.
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
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 Char-
acterization 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 Characteriza-
tion 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 Char-
acterisation 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
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 Transla-
tion. 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 occa-
sion 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
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, accord-
ing 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
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 super-
fluous 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 mani-
fested 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
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 indif-
ference 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’, indicat-
ing 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 repeat-
ing 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
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 Vor-
lage’, 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
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 diver-
gences, 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 further-
more, 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 vari-
ous 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 com-
pletely 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 Harmoniza-
tions 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 harmonisa-
tions 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 main-
tains 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
147
See E. Tov, ‘The Nature and Background of Harmonizations’, 20.
148
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 demon-
strated 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 argu-
ment 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.
134 chapter three: text-critical evaluation
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
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
161
Cf. also in this regard I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Methodologische Fragen der Erfor-
schung’, 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 equiva-
lent 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.
165
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.
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 func-
tions 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 endea-
voured 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)
167
See also A. Aejmelaeus, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 374–375.
140 chapter three: text-critical evaluation
168
Cf. the appendix at the end of the present volume.
study of the translation character of lxx exodus 141
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.
171
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.
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 suf-
ficiently 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 indica-
tion 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.
176
Cf. in this regard I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Die Wiedergabe einiger Hebräischen Zeit-
angaben’, 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.
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 trans-
lated 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 mean-
ing 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 trans-
lated by the Greek dative ἡμιν, whereby further explicitation provided
by the preposition becomes redundant.
179
Cf. I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Verschiedene Wiedergaben der Hebräischen Status-
Constructus-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 Status-
Constructus-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.
184
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.
study of the translation character of lxx exodus 145
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
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 Coni-
unctum as a Criterion’, 385–393. Cf. also Idem, ‘Septuagintal Translation Techniques’,
study of the translation character of lxx exodus 147
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 construc-
tions 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 Erfor-
schung’, 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
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 abso-
lutus 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 construc-
tions, 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 coor-
dinate 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 sig-
nificant 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
All of the free renderings described against the background of the charac-
terisation 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.
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
214
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 read-
ings’ cf. supra pp. 20–22.
152 chapter three: text-critical evaluation
For the evaluation of these variants we will take our appraisal of the vari-
ant 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 origi-
nally 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 153
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
224
In this instance, and with respect to the Septuagint, I would opt for the methodologi-
cal 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 harmonisa-
tion 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
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 respon-
sible for the said plus since SamP has the same reading in Hebrew.
text-critical evaluation of ‘text-relevant’ variants 157
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.
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 remain-
der 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 narra-
tive, 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 sug-
gest 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.
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.
234
Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 144 and Z. Frankel, Ueber den Einfluss der palästini-
schen Exegese, 87.
160 chapter three: text-critical evaluation
Although the plus אלהינוin Exod. 8:6 constitutes a part of the differ-
ence 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 ) tex-
tual 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
242
See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 118.
243
See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 121; A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie,
128.
text-critical evaluation of ‘text-relevant’ variants 163
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.
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.
245
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.’
164 chapter three: text-critical evaluation
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 fol-
lowed. 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
247
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.
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 hypothe-
sis 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
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 com-
mand 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.
250
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.’
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 harmoni-
sation 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.
While Exod. 8:16 M, G and SamP immediately follow the clause intro-
ducing 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 fol-
lows: 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
See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 127; and J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 85–86.
254
J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 85–86 and 89.
255
Cf. also supra in the section dealing with translation technique, pp. 147–148.
256
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’.
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.
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 announce-
ment 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
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 123, 167; A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie,
143.
170 chapter three: text-critical evaluation
The plus in the Greek text of Exod. 9:2 is formed by the explicit desig-
nation 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 analy-
sis, 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
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.
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
263
Cf. Exod. 8:16 (MGSamP); 9:13 (MGSamP); 10:3 (MGSamP).
264
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.
text-critical evaluation of ‘text-relevant’ variants 173
270
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 129: ‘abbreviates’, ‘omitting’.
271
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.’
174 chapter three: text-critical evaluation
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 wit-
nesses 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, mak-
ing 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’.
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
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 177
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.
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 read-
ings 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.
to the fact that 2Qa has the same variant in Hebrew, he describes this variant as an addi-
tion 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 179
In all the textual witnesses of Exod. 9:34, reference is made to the hard-
ening 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 sec-
ond 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’.
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
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 mak-
ing 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 introduc-
tions 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
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’.
288
Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 149.
289
Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 120–121.
184 chapter three: text-critical evaluation
The plus in G and SamP of Exod. 10:12 is to be found within the frame-
work 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 develop-
ment, 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 harmonisa-
tion 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 185
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.’
293
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.
186 chapter three: text-critical evaluation
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
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
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 discus-
sion 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.
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. Soisalon-
Soininen, 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 gradu-
ally 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
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.
304
Cf. supra p. 166 and n. 218.
305
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.
text-critical evaluation of ‘text-relevant’ variants 191
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
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 162.
308
Cf. supra pp. 126–150.
192 chapter three: text-critical evaluation
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.
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 conse-
quence, 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 paral-
lel 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.
313
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 par-
ent text’.
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 geographi-
cal 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.
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
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 equiva-
lent of the Hebrew אות. It is striking that references to YHWH’s miracu-
lous 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.
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.
327
Cf. also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 143, who likewise point
to harmonisation in G.
196 chapter three: text-critical evaluation
328
Cf. the discussion of variant 2 on pp. 153–154.
329
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 expan-
sion.’ See also Ibidem, 180.
330
Cf. the discussion of variant 2 on pp. 153–154.
major expansions in the hebrew textual witnesses 197
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 expan-
sion 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 consider-
ably 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 virtu-
ally 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
Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 198, 206–207.
337
Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 198–203.
major expansions in the hebrew textual witnesses 199
338
Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 203–204.
339
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.
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 copy-
ing 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 nar-
rative. 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 expan-
sion 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 pas-
sage 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
Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 206.
342
Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 206–207.
major expansions in the hebrew textual witnesses 201
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 agree-
ment 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.
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.
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 com-
mand 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.
347
Cf. supra p. 197.
major expansions in the hebrew textual witnesses 205
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 Bib-
lical, 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 nar-
rative 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 begin-
ning 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 first-
born 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 expan-
sion 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 agree-
ment 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
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 differ-
ent 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 evalu-
ation 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 frame-
work, 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
2
A preliminary survey of these results has been published earlier in B. Lemmelijn, ‘As
Many Texts as Plagues’, 111–125.
212 general conclusion
Table (cont.)
Page Reference ‘Preferable’ variant Secondary variant
164–165 Exod. 8:12 MSamP G
165–166 Exod. 8:13 G MSamP
166–167 Exod. 8:16 MGSamP 4Qm
168 Exod. 8:19 MSamP G
202–203 Exod. 8:19b MG4Ql4Qc SamP4Qm
170–171 Exod. 9:2 MSamP G
171 Exod. 9:4 MSamP G
203 Exod. 9:5b MG4Qc SamP4Qm
171 Exod. 9:7 M GSamP4Qm
166–167 Exod. 9:8 MSamP G4Qm
171–172 Exod. 9:8 MSamP4Qm G
164–165 Exod. 9:9 MSamP4Qm G
172–173 Exod. 9:10 G MSamP4Qm
203–204 Exod. 9:19b MG4Qc SamP4Qm
174 Exod. 9:20 G MSamP4Qm
174 Exod. 9:21 G MSamP
176 Exod. 9:25 G MSamP
177 Exod. 9:25 MSamP G
177–178 Exod. 9:28 MSamP G2Qa
178 Exod. 9:29 MSamP4Ql2Qa4Qc G
166–167 Exod. 10:1 MSamP G
204 Exod. 10:2b MG4Qc SamP4Qm
180 Exod. 10:4 MSamP G
180–181 Exod. 10:5 MG SamP4Qm
181–182 Exod. 10:6 MSamP G
184 Exod. 10:12 M4Qc GSamP
185 Exod. 10:13 MG SamP
185–186 Exod. 10:13 G MSamP
181–182 Exod. 10:18 MSamP G
187–189 Exod. 10:22 MSamP G
151–152 Exod. 10:24 M4Qc GSamP4Qm
190 Exod. 11:1 G MSamP
170–171 Exod. 11:1 MSamP G
191–192 Exod. 11:2 M GSamP
192 Exod. 11:3 M2Qa GSamP
192–193 Exod. 11:3 MSamP2Qa G
193–194 Exod. 11:3 MSamP2Qa G
205 Exod. 11:3b1 MG2Qa SamP
205–206 Exod. 11:3b2 MG2Qa SamP
182–183 Exod. 11:8 MSamP G
195 Exod. 11:9 MSamP4Qm4Qc G
195 Exod. 11:10 MSamP4Ql G
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’ vari-
ants 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.
4
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.’
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.
6
Cf. also, for example, E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 9.
7
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.
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 infor-
mative 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.
8
Cf. in this respect also B. Lemmelijn, ‘The So-Called “Major Expansions” ’, 429–
439.
general conclusion 217
tion where this has not been related and where the narrative becomes
uneven.
4. 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 (GSamP-
4Qm), for example, where the verb forms are also adapted.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. The evaluation of G as ‘preferable’ variant in 9:20, 21 is of importance
for distinguishing the layers of the verses in question.
9. The harmonisation of Exod. 9:28–29 with 9:18 and 23 emphasises
and confirms the relationship between them.
10. 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.
1
Cf. J.W. Wevers (ed.), Exodus.
2
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.
MT LXX SamP 4Qpaleo- 4Qpaleo- 2QExoda 4QExodc 4QGen- 4QExodj
220
אשׁר οἱ אשׁר
יאר/ב ἐν τῷ ποταµῷ יאר/ב יאר/בת]וך [ה
תמות τελευτήσουσιν תמות ] תמות
באשׁ/ו καὶ ἐποζέσει באשׁ/ו
יאר/ה ὁ ποταµός יאר/ה
223
)Table (cont.
224
]בית/ב/ו
οἴκους
καὶ ἐν τοῖς
appendix
--- ---
τετράποσιν
θρεύθη
αὐτοῦ
שׁלח/ל שׁלח/ל
--- τὸν λαόν µου ---
ך/עוד/ו ἀλλ’ ἔτι --- ך/עוד/ו
מחזיק ἐγκρατεῖς מחזיק
ם/ב αὐτοῦ ם/ב
Exod. 9:3 הנה ἰδοὺ הנה
יד χεὶρ יד
יהוה κυρίου יהוה
הויה ἔσται היה
Table (cont.)
MT LXX SamP 4Qpaleo- 4Qpaleo- 2QExoda 4QExodc 4QGen- 4QExodj
Exodm Gen-Exodl Exoda
ך/מקנ/ב ἐν τοῖς κτήνε- ך/מקני/ב
σίν σου
Exod. 9:14 ! ἐν τῷ !
כי γὰρ כי
זאת/פעם ה/! ב νῦν καιρῷ זאת/פעם ה/! ב
אני ἐγὼ אני
שׁלח ἐξαποστέλλω שׁלח שׁ[ולח
את כל πάντα את כל ] את
τὰ συναντή-
appendix
הו/מ/כ ! הו/מ/כ
מצרים/ב ἐν αἰγύπτῳ מצרים/ב
יום/מן ה/ל ἀφ’ ἧς ἡµέρας יום/מ/ל
הוסדה ἔκτισται היסדה
עד/ו ἕως עד/ו
287
Table (cont.)
288
כי ! כי
אפילת ὄψιµα אפלות ][לות
! γὰρ !
--- הנה --- ἦν --- הנה
305
Table (cont.)
306
καρδίαν
את לב/ו καὶ --- את לב/ו ]את לב/ו [את לב/ו
ו/עבדי τῶν θεραπόντων ו/עבדי ו/עב]די
αὐτοῦ
אשׁר ἃ אשׁר
שׂמתי ἐποίησα שׂמתי
ם/ב ἐν αὐτοῖς ם/ב
ידעתם/ו καὶ γνώσεσθε ידעתם/ו יד[עתם/[·] ו
כי ὅτι כי כי
אני ἐγὼ אני
Table (cont.)
MT LXX SamP 4Qpaleo- 4Qpaleo- 2QExoda 4QExodc 4QGen- 4QExodj
Exodm Gen-Exodl Exoda
יהוה κύριος יהוה
--- --- כם/אלהי
Exod. 10:2b --- --- אמרת/ו ---
--- --- אל ---
--- --- פרעה ---
--- --- כה ---
--- --- אמר ---
--- --- יהוה ---
--- --- אלהי ---
--- --- עברים/ה ---
--- --- עד ---
--- --- מתי ---
--- --- מאנת ---
synopsis of the textual witnesses
! καὶ ! !
--- πᾶσαι --- ---
Table (cont.)
MT LXX SamP 4Qpaleo- 4Qpaleo- 2QExoda 4QExodc 4QGen- 4QExodj
Exodm Gen-Exodl Exoda
בתי/ו ! αἱ οἰκίαι בתי/ו ב]תי/ו
כל--- ἐν πάσῃ כל---
--- γῇ ---
מצרים αἰγύπτου מצרים
אשׁר ἃ אשׁר
לא οὐδέποτε לא
ראו ἑωράκασιν ראו
ך/אבתי οἱ πατέρες σου ך/אבותי
ך/אבות אבתי/ו οὐδὲ οἱ πρόπαπ- אבות/ו
ποι αὐτῶν ך/אבותי
יום/מ ἀφ’ ἧς ἡµέρας יום/מ
ם/היות γεγόνασιν ם/היות
על ἐπὶ על ]ע[ל
synopsis of the textual witnesses
לא οὐ לא
היה γέγονεν היה [היה
! כן τοιαύτη ! כן ! כן
ארבה ἀκρὶς ארבה ]ארבה
הו/מ/כ ! הו/מ/כ
יו/אחר/ו καὶ µετ’ αὐτὴν יו/אחר/ו
לא οὐκ לא
יהיה ἔσται יהיה
כן οὕτως כן
Table (cont.)
MT LXX SamP 4Qpaleo- 4Qpaleo- 2QExoda 4QExodc 4QGen- 4QExodj
Exodm Gen-Exodl Exoda
Exod. 10:15 יכס/ו καὶ ἐκάλυψεν יכס/ו
את עין τὴν ὄψιν את עין
כל --- כל
ארץ/ה τῆς γῆς ארץ/ה [ארץ/ה
תחשׁך/ו καὶ ἐφθάρη תחשׁך/ו ]תשׁחת/ו
ארץ/ה ἡ γῆ ארץ/ה
יאכל/ו καὶ κατέφαγεν יאכל/ו
את כל πᾶσαν את כל
עשׂב βοτάνην עשׂב [עשׂב
ארץ/ה τῆς γῆς ארץ/ה א]רץ/ה
את כל/ו καὶ πάντα את כל/ו
פרי τὸν καρπὸν פרי
עץ/ה τῶν ξύλων עץ/ה
synopsis of the textual witnesses
אשׁר ὃς אשׁר
הותיר ὑπελείφθη הותיר
--- ἀπὸ ---
ברד/ה τῆς χαλάζης ברד/ה
לא/ו --- οὐχ לא/ו
329
Table (cont.)
330
! ᾗ !
כי δ᾽ ἂν כי
יום/ב ! ἡµέρᾳ יום/ב
ך/ראת ὀφθῇς ך/ראות
Table (cont.)
MT LXX SamP 4Qpaleo- 4Qpaleo- 2QExoda 4QExodc 4QGen- 4QExodj
Exodm Gen-Exodl Exoda
י/פנ µοι י/פנ
תמות ἀποθανῇ תמות
Exod. 10:29 יאמר/ו λέγει δὲ יאמר/ו
משׁה µωυσῆς משׁה
כן --- כן
דברת εἴρηκας דברת
! לא οὐκέτι ! לא
אסף --- אוסף
עוד ! עוד
ראות ὀφθήσοµαί ראות
ך/פני σοι εἰς πρόσω- ך/פני
πον
י/ל µε י/ל
אמר/ל λέγοντες אמר/ל
צא ἔξελθε צא
אתה σὺ אתה [אתה
Table (cont.)
MT LXX SamP 4Qpaleo- 4Qpaleo- 2QExoda 4QExodc 4QGen- 4QExodj
Exodm Gen-Exodl Exoda
כל/ו καὶ πᾶς כל/ו כל/ו
--- עם/ה ὁ λαός σου --- עם/ה --- ]עם/ה
אשׁר οὗ אשׁר
ך/רגלי/ב σὺ ἀφηγῇ ך/רגלי/ב ך/רגלי/ב
אחרי כן/ו καὶ µετὰ ταῦτα אחרי כן/ו ]אחרי כן/ו
אצא ἐξελεύσοµαι אצא
יצא/ו ἐξῆλθεν δὲ יצא/ו
--- µωυσῆς ---
עם/מ ἀπὸ עם/מ
פרעה φαραὼ פרעה
חרי אף/ב µετὰ θυµοῦ חרי אף/ב [אף
Exod. 11:9 יאמר/ו εἶπεν δὲ יאמר/ו ] יאמר/vacat יאמר ו/[[ ]וvac]at
יהוה κύριος יהוה יהוה
synopsis of the textual witnesses
Adair, J.R., ‘“Literal” and “Free” Translations: A Proposal for a More Descriptive Termi-
nology’, 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 Coor-
dinate 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 Transla-
tors: 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
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 Transla-
tion; 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 Sep-
tuaginta 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 Infor-
matique: 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
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 Text-
Critical 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 Transla-
tion 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 “Redac-
tion”?’, 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 Transla-
tion 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 auslegungsge-
schichtliche 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 Sep-
tuagint, 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 Com-
puter: 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—Infor-
matik 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 Mar-
cos (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. Sol-
lamo (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 Septuaginta-
Syntax. 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. Sol-
lamo (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 Septuaginta-
Syntax. 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 Septuaginta-
Syntax. 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 Soisalon-
Soininen: 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. Aejme-
laeus, 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. Aej-
melaeus, 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. Aejme-
laeus, 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 Aspect-
systematik’, 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 Cam-
bridge 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 Stu-
dies, 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 Barthé-
lemy: 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 Investi-
gación 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 Transla-
tions 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 Literal-
ness 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 Trans-
mitted, Interpreted and Authorized’, RQ 19 (1999–2000), 383–399.
——, ‘Qumran Evidence for a Biblical Standard Text and for Non-standard and Para-
biblical 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 Deuterono-
mistic 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 Wilder-
ness. 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 Discover-
ies’, 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 Testa-
ment’, 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 Testa-
ment, 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 Sep-
tuagint and Cognate Studies, Cambridge, 1995, Atlanta 1997, 263–277.
——, ‘The Jewish Scriptures in Greek: The Septuagint in the Context of Ancient Transla-
tion 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
84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71,
154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 161, 162, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82,
163, 164, 169, 176, 184, 185, 186, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95,
187, 188, 192, 195 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 161, 162,
Lee, J.A.L. 99 163, 164, 169, 176, 184, 185, 186,
Lemmelijn, B. x, xi, 1, 2, 4, 7, 20, 22, 187, 188, 192, 195
25, 101, 108, 115, 124, 125, 126, Schenker, A. 100
136, 192, 197, 199, 211, 216 Schiffman, L.H. 2
Lettinga, J.P. 47, 55, 93 Schmidt, L. x
Lindars, B. 96, 97, 103 Schweitzer, H. 7
Lust, J. 2, 3, 17, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, Schwienhorst, L. 4, 5
103 Silva, M. 16
Sipilä, S. 108
Marquis, G. 97, 100, 103, 104, 107, Skehan, P.W. 15, 20, 28, 29, 31, 32,
108, 109, 111, 112, 114, 115, 118, 43, 50, 73, 74, 84, 91, 167, 176, 201,
120, 121, 122 202, 203, 219
Marx 47 Soisalon-Soininen, I. 24, 86, 100, 103,
McNeile, A.H. ix 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 112, 113,
Milgrom, J. 205 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 124,
Milik, J.T. 28, 29, 219 126, 127, 137, 141, 142, 143, 144,
Montaner, L.V. 2 147, 148, 150, 189
Mulder, M.J. 19 Sollamo, R. 24, 86, 100, 103, 104,
Muraoka, T. 44, 47, 49, 55, 93, 101 105, 106, 107, 108, 110, 112, 113,
116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 122, 123,
Naudé, J.A. 145 124, 126, 141, 144, 189
Steck, O.H. 4
O’Connor, M. 55, 75, 77 Stipp, H.-J. 4, 5, 6
Olofsson, S. 18, 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, Symmachus 63, 64, 137, 138
104, 105, 107, 108, 110, 111, 114, Sysling, H. 19
115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 124, 131,
132 Tal, A. 27, 28, 29, 219
Orlinsky, H.M. 127 Talmon, S. 2, 3, 26, 101
Owens, J.J. 47 Taylor, B. x, 197, 216
Thackeray, H.St.J. 99, 100, 104, 126,
Paul, S.M. 2 144
Pfann, S. 28 Theodoretus of Cyrrhus 56
Philo of Alexandria 56 Theodotion 52, 63, 141
Pietersma, A. 99, 124 Tigay, J.H. 4
Tov, E. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 14, 15, 16, 17,
Rabe, N. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,
15 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103,
Rabin, C. 97, 98, 99, 100, 151 104, 107, 108, 109, 111, 112, 114,
115, 119, 120, 123, 126, 129, 130,
Saebo, M. 1 131, 132, 133, 135, 155, 189, 215
Sanderson, J.E. 2, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, Trebolle Barrera, J. 2, 3, 4
20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32,
43, 47, 50, 73, 74, 84, 91, 96, 100, Ulrich, E. 15, 20, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32,
126, 128, 130, 134, 135, 152, 164, 33, 37, 39, 43, 48, 50, 58, 66, 73, 74,
165, 166, 167, 172, 173, 174, 176, 79, 84, 91, 167, 176, 186, 201, 202,
181, 183, 186, 187, 190, 196, 197, 203, 219
198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 206,
219 Van der Kooij, A. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 14
Sandevoir, P. 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, Van der Merwe, C.H.J. 145
40, 41, 46, 50, 52, 53, 54, 56, 59, 60, Van der Woude, A.S. 1, 2
index of authors 375
Van Peursen, W.T. 47, 55, 93 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80,
Verbeke, E. 125 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92,
Vervenne, M. ix, x, xi, 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 99, 104, 126, 137,
14, 19, 22, 97, 98, 99, 101, 106, 125, 138, 139, 141, 152, 154, 155, 157,
136, 150, 188, 192, 209 159, 161, 162, 163, 164, 167, 169,
Voitila, A. 124 173, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 183,
Von Gall, A. 27, 28 185, 186, 188, 190, 191, 192, 193,
195, 219
Waltke, B.K. 55, 75, 77 Wifstrand, A. 149
Werlitz, J. 3 Wright, B.G. 97, 104, 108, 109, 110,
Wevers, J.W. 18, 19, 27, 29, 34, 36, 111, 112, 114, 115, 120, 123
37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 48, 49, Wright, D.P. 205
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60,
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, Zenger, E. 125
INDEX OF TEXTUAL REFERENCES
Hebrew Bible
Qumran
4QpaleoExodm x, 14, 15, 28, 29, 4QExodc x, 28, 29, 31, 32,
30, 32, 33, 34, 34, 73, 91, 211,
50, 58, 66, 73, 219
74, 91, 211, 219 7:17–19 33
7:18b–19 33 7:17 33
7:18b 33 7:18 33
10:4 32 7:19 33
7:29b 73
4QpaleoGen-Exodl x, 28, 29, 34, 91, 8:8 31, 32
211, 219 8:12 31
8:21 31 9:1 33
8:22 31 9:16 33
9:34 31 9:22–23 33
9:22 33
2QExoda x, 28, 29, 34, 91, 9:34 31
211, 219 10:1–2 32
384 index of textual references