Expanding Ezekiel: The Hermeneutics of Scribal Addition in the Ancient Text Witnesses of the Book of Ezekiel 9783666540332, 9783525540336

Citation preview

Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Edited by Jan Christian Gertz, Dietrich-Alex Koch, Matthias Köckert, Hermut Löhr, Joachim Schaper, David Andrew Teeter and Christopher Tuckett

Volume 257

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

Timothy P. Mackie

Expanding Ezekiel The Hermeneutics of Scribal Addition in the Ancient Text Witnesses of the Book of Ezekiel

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.d-nb.de. ISBN 978-3-525-54033-6 You can find alternative editions of this book and additional material on our Website: www.v-r.de © 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen/ Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht LLC, Bristol, CT, U. S. A. www.v-r.de All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Typesetting, printed and bound in Germany by

Hubert & Co, Göttingen

Printed on non-aging paper.

Table of Contents Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 I.

Introduction: The Aims and Outline of This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

II. Identifying Scribal Expansion: The Text of Ezekiel in the MT and OG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 1. Quantitative Differences between MT and OG Ezekiel: The Context of the Current Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2. The OG as a Textual Witness – Current Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2.1 The Translation Character of OG Ezekiel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 2.2 Word-Level Variants and Quantitative Variants . . . . . . . . . . 38 3. The Original Text of OG Ezekiel: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 3.1 The Textual History and Main Witnesses to OG Ezekiel . . . 40 3.2 Multiple Translator Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 4. The Index of Quantitative Differences: Criteria for Identifying Scribal Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Quantitative Divergences Not Included in the Index . . . . . . . 4.2 Alignment of Textual Witnesses (B-Text: B, 967) . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Translation Technique Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Text-Critical Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Literary-Critical Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

43 44 45 45 46 47 49

III. Categorizing Scribal Expansion: A Descriptive Typology of Textual Expansions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Clarifying the Typology and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Glosses, Expansions, or Additions? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. A Descriptive Typology of Scribal Expansions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 The Purpose of Scribal Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 The Source of Scribal Expansions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Conclusion – A Bi-Level Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

50 50 50 53 53 67 69

6

Table of Contents

IV. Expansions That Focus on the Immediate Co-Text: Explicitation and Elaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 1. Scribal Explicitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 1.1 Clarification of Semantic Ambiguity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 1.2 Clarification of Grammatical Ambiguity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 1.3 Clarification of Syntactic Ambiguity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 1.4 Clarification of Conceptual Incongruities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 1.5 Explicitation of What Is Already Explicit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 2. Expansions that Elaborate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 2.1 Adjectival Intensification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 2.2 Additional Titles/Designations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 2.3 Elaborative Expansions that Mimic the Co-text . . . . . . . . . . . 95 2.4 Elaborative Expansions that Do Not Mimic the Co-text . . . . 107 3. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts: Harmonization and Assimilation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 1. Expansions that Coordinate Multiple Co-texts within Ezekiel . . 122 1.1 Harmonization among the Vision Scenes (Ch. 1, 3, 8, 10, 40, 43) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 1.2 Assimilation of Phraseology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 1.3 Assimilation of Related Texts within a Narrative Unit . . . . . 146 1.4 Assimilation of Related Texts within Ezekiel as a Whole . . . . 156 2. Expansions that Coordinate Related Texts in Ezekiel and Other Scriptural Books . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 2.1 Assimilative Explicitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 2.2 Assimilative Elaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 2.3 Cross-Reference/Allusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 VI. Conclusions and Prospects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 1. Technique and Presentation of Jewish Scribal Interpretation . . . . 206 2. Scribal Expansion in Other Literary Traditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 3. The Scope of Scribal Expansion in Ezekiel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 4. Coordinating Scribal Additions and the Emerging Scriptural Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 Appendix I: Index of Scribal Additions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 Appendix II: Categorized List of Scribal Additions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314 Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 Index of Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334 Index of Biblical References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335

Acknowledgements A work of scholarship, no less than a work of art, always belongs to more than one person. This study of Ezekiel’s textual history is the fruit of many years of friendship, learning, and conversation with a wide range of teachers and friends. From Ray Lubeck, Karl Kutz, John Sailhamer, and Jan Ver­ bruggen I received the spark of imagination and excitement for reading the Hebrew Scriptures. From an outstanding circle of colleagues I received inspiration, and opportunity for dialogue about the ideas presented here: Andrew Teeter, Travis Bott, Jake Stromberg, Michael Lyons, Kent Rey­ nolds, and Bill Tooman. To my doctoral advisor Michael V. Fox and gradu­ ate professor Cynthia L. Miller I owe many thanks. They are models of thorough and excellent scholarship, and from their great learning they invested in me an enourmous amount of time and energy, providing invalu­ able feedback and dialogue throughout my graduate career. Above all, I owe the greatest debt of gratitude to my wife Jessica, who has supported and encouraged me throughout my entire graduate school experience. Without her I simply could not have finished, or had the endur­ ance to continue through the intensity of my years at UW. She is a rare gem, and I have been incredibly privileged to journey alongside her through these years.

Abstract This is a study of the ancient manuscript witnesses of the biblical book of Ezekiel. My aim is to explore the interrelationships between the production, transmission, and interpretation of scriptural scrolls by Jewish scribes dur­ ing the late Second Temple period (third century BCE-first century CE). A comparison of the oldest and most important textual witnesses of Ezekiel provides a large body of evidence for the phenomenon of “scribal expan­ sion,” instances where scribes added words and phrases into the body of the text. I begin by laying out a methodology for identifying scribal additions in Ezekiel by assessing its multiple text-forms, namely the ancient Hebrew texts and the Old Greek translation. In order to identify cases of scribal expansion among the vast number of large-scale quantitative differences between the witnesses, certain criteria need to be developed and applied. Having compiled a database of examples, I propose a descriptive typology for categorizing and analyzing the different types of additions in order to understand their purpose and significance. The body of the dissertation is a commentary on all the various types of scribal expansion. The scribal additions in Ezekiel give concrete expression to certain pre­ suppositions about the nature of Scripture held by Jewish scribes. They show an awareness of an emerging collection of scriptural scrolls in the post-exilic Judean community, and represent attempts to coordinate Ezekiel with other parts of that collection. They also demonstrate how scribes expressed reverence for the text’s divine authority: they not only preserved the sacred text, but supplemented it in order to increase its coherence and clarity for future readers. Ultimately, the scribal expansions in Ezekiel provide a glimpse into the intersection of scriptural interpretation and scribal production and trans­ mission of these texts. Thus, the conclusions of this study are relevant not only for text-critical scholarship on the Hebrew Bible, but also for research on the early history of Jewish scriptural exegesis and scribal culture.

Abbreviations AB AOS AV ARG ASTI BDB BBR BIOSCS BJRL BWAT CahRB CATSS CC CBQ CBQMS DJD DSD DSS ETL FAT GKC HAT HALOT

HTR HUCA IOSCS JAOS JBL JJS JETS JM

JNSL JPS JQR JSOT

Anchor Bible American Oriental Studies Authorized English Version, 1611 Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte Annual for the Swedish Theological Institute Brown, Francis, S.R. Driver, and Charles Briggs. Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1907. Bulletin of Biblical Research Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten Testament Cahiers de la Revue biblique Computer Assisted Tools for Septuagint Study Continental Commentaries Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Discoveries in the Judean Desert Dead Sea Discoveries Dead Sea Scrolls Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses Forschungen zum Alten Testament Kautzsch, E., ed. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. 2nd edn. Translated and revised by A.E. Cowley. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910. Handbuch zum Alten Testament Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner and J.J. Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of M.E.J. Richardson. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994–99. Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Joüon, Paul and Takamitsu Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 2nd rev. edn. Subsidia Biblica 27. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico. 2006. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Jewish Publication Society Jewish Quarterly Review Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

12 JSPSup JSS JTS KAT HKAT OG LHBOTS LXX NASB NCB NICOT NRSV NTS OLZ PAAJR PTA MT RHR RQ SBLMS SBLSCS STDJ SVT TSAJ VT VTSup WBC WMANT ZAW

Abbreviations Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Kommentar zum Alten Testament Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament Old Greek Translation Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies Septuagint New American Standard Bible New Century Bible New International Commentary on the Old Testament New Revised Standard Version New Testament Studies Orientalistische Literaturzeitung Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen Masoretic Text Revue de l’histoire des Religions Revue de Qumran Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Series Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum Supplements Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

I. Introduction: The Aims and Outline of This Study This is a study of the ancient manuscript witnesses of the book of Ezekiel which explores the interrelationships between the production, transmission, and interpretation of scriptural scrolls by Jewish scribes during the late Sec­ ond Temple period. Specifically, I focus on the techniques employed by these scribes as they passed down, and contributed to, the scriptural texts they were preserving. A comparison of the oldest and most important tex­ tual witnesses of Ezekiel provides a large body of evidence for the phenom­ enon of “scribal expansion,” instances where scribes added words and phrases to the text. These data have immense significance for our under­ standing of the mechanics of text production and preservation among Jew­ ish scribes, and how these scribes interpreted the book of Ezekiel and embedded their exegetical reflections in the text itself. The study proceeds in three steps, each one building on the previous. First, I lay out a methodology for identifying scribal additions in the text of Ezekiel (Chapter One). This will involve an assessment of the primary wit­ nesses of the Ezekiel text, which has been passed down to us in multiple forms: (a) the Hebrew text attested among the scrolls found in the Judean Desert (dating to the second-first centuries BCE and the first century CE) and the medieval Masoretic manuscripts (dating roughly to the ninthtwelfth centuries CE), and (b) the Old Greek translation of the Hebrew text (produced in the second-first centuries B.C.E). Scholars have long wrestled with the large amount of quantitative divergences between these witnesses (i. e., large-scale differences, in which words, phrases, or sentences present in one witness are not represented in the other). I will engage with scholars who have offered partial or preliminary attempts to understand the significance of these textual differences, and provide criteria for ascer­ taining when a quantitative divergence is most likely an instance of scribal expansion. The second step builds upon the first. According to the criteria provided in Chapter One, I have compiled an index of some 340 potential instances of scribal expansion in Ezekiel (displayed in full in Appendices I and II). In Chapter Two I propose a descriptive typology for categorizing and analyz­ ing the examples. A handful of Ezekiel scholars have attempted to categor­ ize smaller groups of scribal additions in the book, but there has been no effort to construct a typology that is both descriptive and comprehensive in nature. Based upon a close study of all the examples, I propose a dual-level description of the expansions. (a) Analyzing the purpose of these expansions allows one to isolate com­ mon features based on function:

14

Introduction

Explicitation: The addition makes explicit what was otherwise implicit in the context, usually in order to clarify potential ambiguities. Elaboration: The scribe augments the passage by intensifying and filling out the existing language of the passage by adding synonyms, new concepts, or images. Harmonization: Differences or discrepancies between two or more representations of the same object or event are ameliorated by harmonizing additions. Assimilation: Two or more passages already associated on the basis of uniquely shared vocabulary are further connected by introducing terminol­ ogy from one passage into the other. (b) Another distinguishing criterion of the proposed typology is based on the source of the expansion’s vocabulary. Some additions are attuned only to the immediate context, and so employ terminology from the sur­ rounding sentences, or introduce new vocabulary altogether. In other cases, scribes had two or more scriptural passages in mind and supplemented one text in light of another. This is evident when the vocabulary of the expan­ sion itself is borrowed from another scriptural text, demonstrating that mul­ tiple passages are being coordinated. The third step of this study involves a selective commentary on examples of scribal expansion in Ezekiel (Chapters Three and Four). In Chapter Three I will explore the dynamics of additions where scribes addressed mat­ ters relating to the immediate context of the additions. Here we will con­ sider a range of purposes evident in the additions, though in every case the source of the vocabulary shows that the scribe was attending to some issue relevant only to the surrounding sentences. In Chapter Four, I survey addi­ tions in which the source of the expansion is some other passage in Ezekiel or another scriptural book, showing that the scribe was attempting to coor­ dinate multiple texts. While a variety of purposes are evident in these exam­ ples, their unifying feature is the coordination of language and/or ideology from two or more scriptural texts. The aim of these chapters is not to offer a comprehensive commentary on all of the additions to MT or OG Ezekiel, and thus not all the texts assembled in the index are discussed. Rather, I have chosen examples that best illustrate the unique features of each typological category. As I move through the selected texts, I will note common features and distinctive traits of the various types of scribal expansion, as well as typologically similar examples found elsewhere in Old Greek translations or in the scriptural scrolls from Qumran. In Chapter Five I will consolidate the observations made in Chapters Three and Four and explore their implications for understanding (a) the nat­ ure and purpose of scribal expansion and (b) the development and transmis­ sion of the scriptural texts during this period. Our examination of these additions in the Ezekiel text illuminates much more than the processes of textual production and preservation. The data presented in Chapters Three

The Aims and Outline of This Study

15

and Four show an awareness of an emerging collection of scriptural scrolls in the Second Temple Judean community, and these additions represent attempts to coordinate Ezekiel with other parts of that collection. Addition­ ally, this study deepens our understanding of how scribes expressed their reverence for the text’s religious authority. The motivation to carefully pre­ serve the text for future generations is a manifestation of the same impetus that generated hundreds of additions to the text to increase its clarity and coherence for future readers. Preservation and supplementation are not con­ flicting, but rather complementary ways that scribes responded to the scrip­ tural texts. Ultimately, the scribal expansions in Ezekiel provide us a unique glimpse at the intersection of scriptural interpretation and scribal production and transmission of these texts during the late Second Temple period (third cen­ tury BCE-first century CE). Embedded in the ancient Ezekiel manuscripts, we find a deposit of scribal exegesis that is attuned to the details and ideol­ ogy of the text in ways similar to that of Jewish exegesis known from the Qumran scrolls and later Rabbinic midrash. In this way, studying the involved and often complex phenomenon of scribal expansion in Ezekiel places us deep into the seedbed of what will become the large, variegated growth of Jewish scriptural interpretation. The production of scriptural texts and their interpretation were not always distinct activities in this per­ iod, and in the case of Ezekiel text we see both of these overlapping in unique and creative ways. Thus, the conclusions of this study are relevant not only for text-critical scholarship on the Hebrew Bible, but also for understanding the phenomenon of “inner-biblical” interpretation and the early history of Jewish scriptural exegesis and scribal culture.

II. Identifying Scribal Expansion: The Text of Ezekiel in the MT and OG The goal of this study is to understand the nature and purpose of scribal additions in Ezekiel. I recognize, however, that not all readers share the assumption that such additions exist in manuscript witnesses of Ezekiel or that we can identify them. Therefore, in this chapter I make the argument that our current text witnesses to Ezekiel provide ample evidence of scribal expansion. I will first show how the textual problems in Ezekiel are not unique, and how they fit within current scholarship on the history and development of the biblical text, especially as it pertains to the Old Greek translation (Section 1.1). I will then address the problems of method when using the Old Greek as a witness to the Hebrew text of Ezekiel (1.2), as well as the text-critical issues relating to the Old Greek translation itself (1.3). Having established a case for using the translation as a reliable text-witness, I will conclude by proposing a broad set of criteria for identifying scribal expansions in the MT and OG plusses in the Ezekiel text (1.4). The conclu­ sions of this chapter, namely that there are scribal additions in the Ezekiel text and that we can identify at least some of them, will serve as a foundation as we go on to examine and explore the nature and purpose of scribal expan­ sion.

1. Quantitative Differences between MT and OG Ezekiel: The Context of the Current Discussion The Old Greek translation of Ezekiel (= OG Ezek)1 is characterized by two features which stand in apparent tension with one another. When the text of the translation is compared with the few Hebrew Ezekiel manuscripts from 1

I will use the term “Old Greek” instead of “Septuagint,” a term which originally referred specifically to the Greek translation of the Torah produced in Egypt in the third century B.C.E. It was only later in the Christian tradition that “Septuagint” came to designate the entire corpus of Greek translations of the Torah, Prophets, Writings, and Apocryphal works. For a much needed clarification of the terms “Septuagint,” “LXX,” and “Old Greek,” see L.J. Greenspoon, “The Use and Abuse of the Term “LXX” and Related Ter­ minology in Recent Scholarship”, BIOSCS 20 (1987) 21–29. In this study the phrase “OG Ezek” refers to the earliest reconstructed form of the Greek translation of Ezekiel from the available manuscripts, as found in the second revised edition of J. Ziegler, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Acamadiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum XVI, 1: Ezechiel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977).

Quantitative Differences between MT and OG Ezekiel

17

the Judean desert2 and the much later medieval Masoretic manuscripts (= MT) of the book,3 there are an unusually large number of quantitative dif­ ferences between the Greek and Hebrew witnesses. Whole words, phrases, and sentences that are present in the Hebrew Ezekiel sometimes have no representation at all in the OG, and vice-versa.4 In contrast, where the OG and MT of Ezekiel attest the same text, the translation is extremely consis­ tent in its quantitative representation of the Hebrew text so that it precisely mimics even its word order and uniquely Hebraic sentence structures. There are two explanations for this state of affairs, and either may be correct for any given passage. (1) The OG translator had before him a Hebrew text similar or even identical to that attested by the Qumran, Masada, and later MT manuscripts, but chose to engage in a large-scale project of abbreviation in order to present a shortened Greek edition. In this view the MT plusses (= OG minuses) represent material that was purposefully left unrepresented by the translator. (2) The OG translator had before him a Hebrew Vorlage of Ezekiel that did not contain the material present in our Hebrew text wit­ nesses. According to this explanation, the Hebrew plusses could represent (2a) words lost by scribal error or (2b) scribal additions that resulted in an

2

3

4

The Qumran caves yielded very few fragments of Ezekiel: for 1QEzek which contains Ezek 4: 16–17 and 5: 1 cf. D. Barthelémy/J.T. Milik, Qumran Cave I (DJD I; Oxford: Clar­ endon, 1955) 68–69; for 3QEzek which contains 16: 31, 33; cf. M. Baillet/J.T. Milik/R. de Vaux , Les “petites grottes” de Qumran (DJD III; Oxford: Clarendon, 1962); for 4QEzeka, b, c which contains 1: 10–13, 16–17, 19–24; 10: 6–22; 11: 1–11; 23: 14–18, 44–47; 24: 2–3; 41: 3–6; cf. E. Ulrich/F.M. Cross/R. Fuller (ed.), Qumran Cave 4: The Prophets (DJD XV; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 209–20; for 11QEzek which contains 1: 8–10; 4: 3–6, 9–10; 5: 11–17; 7: 9, 11–12; 10: 11; cf. E. Herbert, “11QEzekiel” in F. García-Martínez/E.J.C. Tig­ chelaar (ed.), Qumran Cave 11 (DJD XXIII; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 15–28. For the Masada fragments which contain 35: 11–15; 36: 1–10, 13–14, 17–35; 37: 1–14, 16, 23, 28; cf. S. Talmon/C. Newsom/Y. Yadin, Hebrew Fragments from Masada (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1999), 59–75. These manuscripts attest no major variants from the medieval Masoretic manuscripts. For a discussion of the relationship between the Qumran, Masada, and Masoretic text forms of Ezekiel, see J. Lust, “The Ezekiel Text” in Y.A.P. Goldman/A. van der Kooij/R.D. Weis (ed.), Sôpher Mahîr: Essays in Honor of Adrian Schenker (Leiden: Brill, 2006) 153–68. By Masoretic Text (= MT), I mean the Hebrew text of codex Leningrad (B19a) in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, and the Aleppo codex in the Hebrew University Bible Project edi­ tion; see M.H. Goshen-Gottstein/S. Talmon/G. Marquis, The Hebrew University Bible: Ezekiel (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2004). The text-critical terms for such quantitative differences are “plus” and “minus,” which indicate that a given quantitative element (a word, phrase, clause, etc.) in one text witness is not represented in another. The MT plusses in Ezekiel are more numerous than those of the OG. According to one estimate (see M.H. Goshen-Gottstein/S. Talmon/G. Marquis, The Hebrew University Bible: Ezekiel, 188) there are roughly 530 MT plus readings over against the OG, making it about 4–5% longer; cf. E. Tov, “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 of the MT and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2003) 121–44, on p. 126. There are also, however, occasional plusses in the OG itself over against the MT.

18

Identifying Scribal Expansion

expanded edition of the book. Deciding between these options must begin with a case by case evaluation of the text-critical evidence. However, because this is such a widespread phenomenon throughout the OG and Hebrew witnesses of Ezekiel, and because similar text-critical situations obtain in other scriptural texts, the entire question must also be framed within the larger context of scholarship on the history of the biblical text. The large-scale quantitative differences between the Greek and Hebrew texts of Ezekiel are not unique. They fit into a pattern of evidence supplied chiefly by the scriptural scrolls from Qumran and other OG translations, which all date from roughly the same time period, 250 BCE-100 CE. While many of the Qumran scriptural texts attest to the antiquity of the text-form known from later medieval MT manuscripts (labeled proto-MT5), there are other Qumran Hebrew manuscripts that have large-scale quantitative diver­ gences from the proto-MT, sometimes in agreement with the OG, other times independent of both. The better known examples are the textual agreements between OG Jeremiah and 4QJerb,d as well as OG Samuel and 4QSama, both over against the text found in (proto-)MT manuscripts.6 In both cases, the OG and Qumran Hebrew manuscripts contain major quan­ titative differences with the MT, and supply evidence of a shorter and sequentially earlier edition of these books, while the MT form represents a revised literary edition.7

5

6

7

The term “proto-MT” refers specifically to a group of texts that existed in the Second Tem­ ple period and that are (mostly) identical to the consonantal base of the medieval MT manuscripts. For details see E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis/ Assen: Fortress/Van Gorcum, 22001), 22–23, 114, and most recently the essays in A. Schen­ ker (ed.), The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible. For a basic summary of the entire issue, see E. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999) and A. Schenker, “Der Ursprung des massor­ etischen Textes im Licht der literarischen Varianten im Bibeltext”, Textus 23 (2007) 51–67. For discussion of the 4QJer manuscripts and the OG, see J.G. Janzen, Studies in the Text of Jeremiah (HSM 6; Cambridge, MT: Harvard University Press, 1973), E. Tov “The Lit­ erary History of the Book of Jeremiah in the Light of Its Textual History” in J.H. Tigay (ed.), Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985) 211–37, and P.M. Bogaert, “Le livre de Jérémie en perspective: Les deux rédac­ tions selon les travaux en cours”, Revue Biblique 101 (1994) 363–406. For the relationship between 4QSama and the OG, see D. Barthelemy/D.W. Gooding/J. Lust/E. Tov, The Story of David and Goliath: Textual and Literary Criticism (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), and Tov, Textual Criticism, 334–44. So Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 99, “The scrolls of the Scriptures from Qumran provide manuscript evidence for the latter stages of the lengthy compositional process … for the various books. The books of the Scriptures were developing and expanding, primarily through new, revised literary editions and secondarily through small-scale scribal develop­ ment.”

Quantitative Differences between MT and OG Ezekiel

19

In these cases of “variant versions” of biblical books,8 the textual wit­ Edition 1 nesses allow us to identify scribal errors and additions from the early transmission history and also to see the final stages of the compositional 4QJerb,d / Vorlage Edition 2 of OG Jeremiah and editorial formation of these texts. This overlap between textual and lit­ erary criticism has been the subject of much discussion in recent years,9 and a,c has generated a new paradigm for 4QJer / MT Jeremiah understanding the development of the biblical text in the Second Temple Per­ iod. In the well-known case of Jere­ miah, manuscripts such as 4QJerb,d and OG Jeremiah reflect an editorial stage of the book prior to the expansions and sequential rearrangements reflected in the MT edition. The following diagram, although an abstraction, illustrates the basic point (for further discussion of the genetic or stemmatic nature of this approach to textual scholarship, see the discussion below).10

8

The term is from M.N. van der Meer, Formation and Reformulation: The Redaction of the Book of Joshua in the Light of the Oldest Textual Witnesses (SVT 102; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 1–6. E. Ulrich has labeled these variant text forms as “double literary editions” (The Dead Sea Scrolls, 34–51) and “revised literary editions” (in Ulrich, “The Text of the Hebrew Scriptures at the Time of Hillel and Jesus” in A. Lemaire (ed.), Congress Volume: Basel, 2001 (Leiden: Brill, 2002) 85–108, on p. 99). 9 See the helpful overview of E. Tov, “The Nature of the Large-Scale Differences between the LXX and MT S T V, Compared with Similar Evidence in Other Sources” in A. Schen­ ker (ed.), The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship of the MT and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2003) 121–44, and the copious bib­ liography there. N.F. Marcos, The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Ver­ sions of the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 70–83, discusses this issue within the context of the use of the OG for textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. For earlier methodological discus­ sions see Z. Talshir, “Double Translations in the Septuagint” in C.E. Cox (ed.), VI Con­ gress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Jerusalem, 1986 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1987) 21–63, and H.J. Stipp, “Textkritik-LiterarkritikTextentwicklung-Überlegungen zur exegetische Aspektsystematik”, ETL 66 (1990) 143– 159. 10 The logic of the diagram is based largely on E. Tov’s discussion of the original shape of the biblical text (Textual Criticism, 177–80) and E. Ulrich’s nine-point overview of the signifi­ cance of the Qumran scrolls for understanding the development of the scriptural text (“The Text of the Hebrew Scriptures,” 105–7). See also the summaries and diagrams of both Tov and Ulrich’s models in van der Meer, Formation and Reformulation, 9–13. R.D. Weis, “The Textual Situation in the Book of Jeremiah” in Y.A.P. Goldman/A. van der Kooij/R.D. Weis (ed.), Sôfer Mahîr: Essays in Honour of Adrian Schenker Offered by Edi­ tors of Biblia Hebraica Quinta (Leiden: Brill, 2006) 269–93, has summarized the most recent scholarship on the relationship between the OG and MT of Jeremiah, and notes that the two-edition hypothesis now represents a majority scholarly consensus. The most thor­ oughly articulated dissenting view was offered by S. Soderlund, The Greek Text of Jere­

20

Identifying Scribal Expansion

Edition 1 is reflected in the Hebrew Vorlage on which the OG Jeremiah was based and finds unique support from 4QJerb,d. These texts stem from a period when the book was considered “finished” (at least by some scribes) and was circulated among groups that carried it to Qumran and Egypt. At a subsequent stage, further editorial changes were made to the book, in the form of scribal expansion and rearrangement, which resulted in the edition found in the proto-MT manuscripts (also attested at Qumran in 4QJera,c). Tov’s delineation of this process is clear and helpful: At some stage, the literary growth [of a given scriptural book] was necessarily com­ pleted. … At a certain point in time the last formulations were accepted as final from the point of view of their content and were transmitted and circulated as such. But sometimes this process recurred. Occasionally a book reached what appeared at the time to be its final form, and as such was circulated. However, at a later stage another revised edition was prepared, which was intended to take the place of the preceding one. This new edition was also accepted as authoritative, but the evidence shows that it did not always succeed in completely eradicating the texts of the earlier edition which survived in places which were geographically or socially remote. So it came about that these earlier editions reached the hands of the Greek translators in Egypt and remained among the scrolls at Qumran.11

The evidence provided by OG Jeremiah and 4QJer4b,d is paralleled in many different ways in different scriptural books during this same period.12 This general framework provided by the Qumran biblical scrolls and the Old Greek translations is corroborated by scholarship on textual traditions elsewhere in the Ancient Near East. Tigay’s important work on the devel­ opment of the Gilgamesh Epic has provided an important analogy for the

miah – A Revised Hypothesis (JSOTSup 47; Sheffield: Sheffield, 1985), who argues that the MT form of Jeremiah is primary, and so he attributes many of the quantitative differences between MT and OG to the translator, not to preceding editorial activity. His views were thoroughly critiqued by J.G. Janzen, “A Critique of Sven Soderlund’s The Greek Text of Jeremiah – A Revised Hypothesis”, BIOSCS (1989) 16–47, and have not been widely accepted. As Weis (“The Textual Situation”, 270) notes, “Today the preponderant view is that as far back as our witnesses to the text of Jeremiah reach, there were two distinct Hebrew text forms.” 11 Tov, Textual Criticism, 181. A. Aejmelaeus’s articulation of the textual situation in Jere­ miah is similar, “Jeremiah at the Turning-Point of History: The Function of Jer. XXV 1– 14 in the Book of Jeremiah”, VT 52 (2002) 459–82, on p. 461: “The existence of two so dif­ ferent editions of the [Jeremiah] text side by side may be explained by the fact that the Vor­ lage of the Septuagint, having been brought to Alexandria, remained there in geographical isolation and was largely untouched by the final Palestinian edition.” 12 Tov has devoted an entire chapter (Textual Criticism, chapter 7) to discussing the evidence for revised literary editions attested in the text witnesses of Jeremiah, Joshua, Ezekiel, 1 Sam 16–18, Proverbs, and the chronological systems in Genesis and Kings. See also the excellent overview of E. Ulrich on this point, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 25–31. Even P. Gentry, “The Septuagint and the Text of the Old Testament”, BBR 16 [2006] 193–218, on pp. 213– 18, who questions the “canonical” (i. e., religious) authority of such variant editions, recog­ nizes that these large-scale differences point to solid evidence for revised Hebrew editions.

Quantitative Differences between MT and OG Ezekiel

21

literary development of biblical literature.13 The epic is attested by textual sources from four different chronological periods and in various languages (Sumerian, Akkadian, Hurrian).14 When these sources are compared, they show the same types of variation and development found in the textual tra­ ditions of the Hebrew Bible. The late Babylonian version of the epic (ca. ninth through seventh centuries BCE) shows that although the epic had achieved something of a fixed form, it was still open to addition and adapta­ tion, resulting in the revised editions attested by the later text witnesses.15 Thus, the development of the epic can be isolated by comparing chronologi­ cally separate text witnesses, precisely analogous to the differences between the Hebrew text traditions found in the MT, the OG, and the Qumran scriptural texts. This model of revised literary editions provides a context for understand­ ing the nature and significance of the quantitative differences between MT and OG Ezek that both clarifies and broadens earlier scholarship. The con­ ceptual framework for textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible before the dis­ covery of the Qumran scrolls is commonly referred to the Urtext model, associated with Paul de Lagarde.16 In de Lagarde’s succinct statement of the text-history of the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint, he claimed that because the vast majority of MT manuscripts share not only the same base text, but also common errors and para-textual details (e. g. the puncta-extra­ ordinaria, the ‘raised letters’), they must therefore all stem from a common archetype (“archetypus des masoretischen texts”).17 He also argued, on ana­ logy, for one original source for the OG manuscript tradition.18 Both Tov and Ulrich, who have done the most to articulate the “revised literary edi­ tion” model, make it very clear that they presuppose the basic outline of an Urtext view, namely that there was one basic text form which split into

13 J.H. Tigay The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982), and “Conflation as a Redactional Technique” in J.H. Tigay (ed.), Empirical Models for Textual Criticism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985) 53–96. 14 Tigay divides the textual sources into four periods: (1) Early Sumerian tales (ca. twenty first century BCE); (2) Old Babylonian version in Akkadian (ca. 2000–1600 BCE); (3) Middle Babylonian versions in Akkadian, Hittite, and Hurrian (ca. 1600–1000 BCE); (4) Late Babylonian Version (ca. ninth through seventh centuries BCE); see his “Conflation as a Redactional Technique,” 34–44. 15 Tigay, The Evolution, 51–85. 16 As Tov notes in Textual Criticism, 164–65, Lagarde’s role in the development of the Urtext view was that of consolidation. The basic components of this text-development model had been established by J.G. Eichhorn, G.L. Bauer, and E.F.C. Rosenmüller. Tov’s distillation of this basic view (Textual Criticism, 167) is that “the extant textual witnesses derived from one literary composition which, at a certain stage, existed as a single textual entity from all texts of that book have derived.” 17 P. de LaGarde, “Anmerkungen zur griechischen übersetzung der Proverbien” in idem. (ed.), Mittheilungen (Göttingen: Dieterichsche Sortimentsbuchhandlung, 1884) 19–26. 18 For further discussion of de LaGarde’s view of the OG’s textual history, see Marcos, Sep­ tuagint in Context, 53–65.

22

Identifying Scribal Expansion

many divergent forms.19 However, de Lagarde’s formulation did not address the issue of the relationship between the MT and OG, especially when they diverge, nor did he envision the existence of earlier and later edi­ tions preserved in the mansucript tradition. Most Ezekiel scholarship of the early modern period did not seek to explore the relationship between the OG and MT editions. The OG was primarily used to identify plusses in the MT, which were on the whole viewed as “corruptions” introduced during the transmission process after the book’s final shape had been reached. The massive work of C.H. Cornill represented the most comprehensive evaluation of the Ezekiel text to date,20 and he most often interpreted MT plusses (and occasionally OG plusses) as scribal errors or interventions that obscured the original text of the pro­ phet’s oracles. Likewise, many scholars of this period saw the MT plusses as intentional, if not ill-intended, manipulations or corruptions of the pro­ phet’s message.21 They were relegated specifically to the transmission process of the book, distinct from its history of composition or editorial forma­ tion.22 19 E. Ulrich, “The Text of the Hebrew Scriptures,” 93–94, states that he is more concerned with a misapplication of an Urtext view that by default identifies the MT form with “the original.” E. Tov (Textual Criticism, 183) also notes that “our argumentation [about revised literary editions] in connection with the original form of the biblical text is also very close to the opinion of de Lagarde.” 20 Cornill, Das Buch des Propheten Ezechiel (Leipzig: J.C. Heinrich, 1886). As Goshen-Gott­ stein notes (“The Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: Rise, Decline, Rebirth”, JSOT 102 [1983] 365–399, on p. 382), “Cornill’s commentary on Ezekiel stands out as an almost unique case of a valiant attempt to combine the old exegetical aim in the commentary itself with a major introduction according to the new Lagardian ideal that full-fledged textual stemmatic analysis–i. e., a full-scale textual evaluation of each source and its manuscript evidence–is the prerequisite for the critical treatment of a biblical book.” 21 This view of the MT plusses is best represented by F. Jahn’s impassioned remarks, “Es gibt in der ganzen Weltliteratur kaum ein Buch, welches so gemisshandelt worden ist, wie Eze­ chiel von dem Soferim” (Das Buch Ezechiel auf Grund der Septuaginta hergestellt [Leip­ zig: E. Pfeiffer, 1905], iii). C.H. Cornill’s remark also reflects this perspective (Das Buch, 4), “Der Text Ezechiels in besonders schlechtem und verderbtem Zustande auf uns gekom­ men sei.” See also G.A. Cooke’s more positive evaluation: “We may blame the scribes; yet the very state of the text, with all its corruptions and inaccuracies, bears witness to the eager handling of those who studied it,” A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1936), xxvii. 22 It should not go unnoticed that this approach to Ezekiel’s textual witnesses was closely connected to the particular model of the book’s composition history that was prominent in the early modern period, namely that the general structure, shape, and content of the oracles in the book derived entirely from the prophet himself. The total literary and com­ positional unity of Ezekiel was first argued in detail by Eichhorn, in his classic Einleitung in das Alte Testament. He dedicated a whole section of his discussion of Ezekiel to arguing why “Alle Abschnitte im Ezechiel erkennen einerlei Verfasser” (Einleitung, Vol. 4, 241– 47), and he concluded that “Vom Anfang bis ans Ende haucht alles einerlei Geist” (ibid., 246). He did, however, think that the narrative material and the poetic oracles likely origi­ nated as separate collections which were later interwoven by the prophet himself (248–49). This view of the book’s composition was followed in German scholarship of the nine­

Quantitative Differences between MT and OG Ezekiel

23

Credit goes to W. Zimmerli for showing a new way forward.23 He char­ acterized the entire process of Ezekiel’s composition, from its earliest stages right down to the longer readings represented in the MT, as one of For­ tschreibung, “expansion.” In contrast to the distinct lines between authorial composition and scribal transmission supposed by earlier scholars, Zim­ merli identified in each literary unit a core of earliest material, which was subsequently commented upon and expanded, sometimes by the prophet himself, other times by scribes of a later period.24 In contrast to the approaches of J. Herrmann and Hölscher,25 he often highlighted the posi­ tive and creative nature of these editorial supplements.26 Thus Zimmerli

23 24

25

26

teenth century (H. Ewald, Die Propheten des Alten Bundes erklrt: II Jeremja und Hezeqiel [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1868]), and was classically stated at the beginning of the twentieth century by S.R. Driver: “No critical question arises in connexion with the authorship of the book, the whole from beginning to end bearing unmistakably the stamp of a single mind” (Introduction to the Literature of the Old Teestament [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910], 279). For a compact history of early modern scholarship on Ezekiel, see O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), 367–72. Ezekiel 1 (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979); Ezekiel 2 (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983). Ezekiel 1, 69–74. Zimmerli also dedicated an entire essay to this topic, “Das Phänomen der ‘Fortschreibung’ im Buch Ezechiel” in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Prophecy: Essays Presented to Georg Fohrer on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (BZAW 151; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1980) 174–191. The studies on Ezekiel by J. Herrmann (Ezechielstudien [BWAT 2; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrich, 1908], Ezechiel [KAT; Leipzig: Deichert, 1924]) and G. Hölscher (Hesekiel: Der Dichter und das Buch: Eine literarkritische Untersuchung [Giessen: Töpelmann, 1924]), were influ­ ential in challenging the earlier view of Ezekiel’s compositional and literary unity. They argued that the book not was a planned literary whole, but the hodge-podge result of a complicated process in which narrative and oracle materials were amalgamated, supple­ mented and expanded by the prophet himself (Hermann) and later generations of scribes (Hölscher). Hölscher’s own evaluation attributed to the prophet Ezekiel only 144 verses out of the 1,273 that make up the book, while the majority of the book came from a fifth century scribal editor. While Hölscher still held to a genuine “Ezekielian” core (albeit a small one), his theory was taken one step further by C.C. Torrey, Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Original Prophecy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1930), who argued that the entire book was a pseudepigraph, written by a prophet in Jerusalem in the mid-third century BCE. Bernhard Lang, Ezechiel: der Prophet und das Buch (Ertrage der Forschung 153; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1981), in his helpful discussion of the spec­ trum of views on Ezekiel’s composition, distinguishes between the “radical” views of J. Herrmann (Ezechiel) and J. Garscha (Studien zum Ezechielbuch: Eine redaktionskritische Untersuchung von 1–39 [Europäische Hochschulschriften 23; Bern/Frankfurt: Herbert/ Peter Lang, 1974]), who attribute very little of the book’s material to Ezekiel, the “mediat­ ing” view of Zimmerli (Ezekiel 1, Ezekiel 2), and the “moderate” views of G. Fohrer, Eze­ chiel (HAT; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1955), and M. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20 (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1983), and Ezekiel 21–37 (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1997). As B. Childs noted in his discussion of scholarly models of composition-history for the prophetic books (“Retrospective Reading of the Old Testament Prophets”, ZAW 108 [1996] 362–377), “The basic concern expressed by Zimmerli was that of continuity between the text and its subsequent expansion. Only rarely did Zimmerli evaluate an

24

Identifying Scribal Expansion

viewed the MT plusses as the latter part of a long trajectory, and showed how they shared the same nature and character as the interpretive expan­ sions that occurred earlier in the book’s composition. Although Zimmerli demonstrated how the longer MT readings fit into the book’s development, he did not offer detailed articulation about the relation of the OG and MT editions of Ezekiel. It was the seminal essay by Greenberg that brought this issue into the spotlight.27 He leveled a massive critique against scholars who used the shorter readings of the OG to “improve” or “restore” the text of the MT.28 He argued that the OG and MT represent “two versions, each with its own quality and its own coher­ ence.”29 Concerning the relationship between them, he claimed that the idea of one being more “original” than the other is simply a wrongheaded way to frame the issue: The Septuagint … does not, ipso facto, reflect an ‘older’ text form. The age of the text is not determined by the time their vehicles were produced, but by their lineage and characteristics. Judging by these, the MT … represents a text form at least as old as that of the Vorlage of the Septuagint. But this means that in the third century BCE … several text forms were extant and considered authoritative. … Is it not pos­ sible, nay probable, that within a couple of generations of the prophet’s death there were already in existence not only the ancestors of the various text forms of Jeremiah and Ezekiel that underlie our MT and G, but other texts and forms?30

Greenberg is making two points here: one is very helpful, the other less so. His view of the two distinct editions of Ezekiel attested by the OG and MT aligns with the larger picture of the development of the biblical text gar­ nered by the Qumran biblical scrolls. Each has its own literary integrity and at some point was put forward as a discrete edition. Thus, one must take great care not to “correct” the edition of MT to read more like the OG as though they can be conflated into one entity. However, Greenberg fuses the distinctiveness and integrity of each edition with the concept of authenticity or originality. According to Greenberg, since both editions likely date from an early period, both have an equal claim to be “original.”31

27

28

29 30 31

expansion as an unfortunate misunderstanding of the author’s original intent” (from pp. 363–64). “The Use of the Ancient Versions for Interpreting the Hebrew Text: A Sampling from Ezekiel 2: 1–3: 11” in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume, Göttingen 1977 (Leiden: Brill, 1977) 131–48. The scholars whose works he contested were Cornill (Das Buch der propheten Ezechiel), W. Eichrodt (Ezekiel: A Commentary [OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970]), G. Fohrer (Ezechiel), J.W. Wevers (Ezekiel [NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982]), and Zimmerli (Ezekiel 1, Ezekiel 2). “The Use of the Ancient Versions,” 217. “The Use of the Ancient Versions,” 218–20. “The Use of the Ancient Versions,” 220: “Does not this probability militate against the working assumption of ‘the single hypothetical original’ from the fourth century onward from which all our witnesses derive and toward the reconstruction of which all text criti­ cism must aspire?”

Quantitative Differences between MT and OG Ezekiel

25

It is true that the text-forms from which OG and MT editions derive must logically predate the earliest witnesses we have.32 The Qumran and Masada manuscripts of Ezekiel attest a text which, apart from a very few incidental variants, is identical to the later Masoretic texts.33 Thus, it is rea­ sonable to conclude that the proto-MT text of Ezekiel was already ancient by the second century BCE, as was the Vorlage attested by the OG.34 But to treat each edition as a distinct entity and to recognize the antiquity of both does not mean that they are equally “original.”35 They did both derive 32 The earliest Qumran Hebrew witnesses to the proto-MT edition of Ezekiel date from the second and first centuries B.C.E. (1QEzek, 3QEzek, 4QEzeka,b,c, 11QEzek) and the Masada fragments date to the first century C.E. (see S. Talmon/C. Newsom/Y. Yadin, Hebrew Fragments from Masada [Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1999]). The ear­ liest witnesses to OG Ezek are papyrus 967 (see A.C. Johnson/H.S. Gehman/E.H. Kase, The John H. Scheide Biblical Papyri. Ezekiel [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1938]) and the Antinopolis papryi (on which, see C.H. Roberts, The Antinopolis Papyri. Part I [London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1950]), which date to the late second and early third centuries C.E. The place of OG Ezek’s origin is likely Egypt, and can be dated roughly to the first century B.C.E. (for details, see H.B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914], 23–27). Thus, the Vorlage of the OG must have been in existence for some time before this. 33 In a handful of instances, the Qumran and Masada manuscripts attest an MT plus over against a shorter OG reading: 11QEzek agrees with the MT’s longer text in three places (Ezek 5: 16, 7: 9–10, 11), and the Ezekiel fragments from Masada agree with the MT against the OG in 35: 14–15 (see the discussion in Talmon (et al.), Hebrew Fragments from Masada, 69–73). These examples do provide evidence of the ancient character of the MT, but are not prima facie evidence that the OG has abbreviated a longer text-form. That must be established on separate grounds. 34 This is evidence enough to dispel claims that all the features of the MT edition can be linked directly to events and persons of the Hasmonean period. For example, Lust argues that the OG’s number of years in Ezek 4: 4–6 (190 instead of MT’s 430) places the MT edition after the time of the Maccabean revolt (see J. Lust/K. Hauspie/A. Ternier, “Ezekiel 4 and 5 in Hebrew and in Greek: Numbers and Ciphers”, ETL 77 [2001] 132–152, on pp. 134–35). Additionally, P.-M. Bogaert’s work on the OG and MT of Ezekiel and Jeremiah, while extremely valuable, is riddled with attempts to coordinate the editorial features of the MT plusses with ideological groups and movements mentioned in texts of the Maccabean per­ iod (“Les deux rédactions conserves (LXX et TM) d’Ézéchiel 7” in J. Lust (ed.), Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation [Leuven: Peeters, 1986] 21–47; “Jeremie 17,1–4 TM, oracle contre ou sur Juda propre au texte long, annonce en 11,7–8.13 et en 15,12–14 TM” in Y. Goldman/C. Uehlinger (ed.), La Double Transmis­ sion du Texte Biblique : Etudes d’histoire du Texte Offertes en Hommage a Adrian Schen­ ker [Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitatsverlag, 2001], 59–74). The one compelling example of textual alteration generated by events in the second century is found in the MT plusses in Ezekiel 7, on which see pages 203–7 below, as well as Bogaert “Les deux redactions.” 35 The more recent study by Patmore, “The Shorter and Longer Texts of Ezekiel: The Impli­ cations of the Manuscript Finds from Masada and Qumran”, JSOT 32 (2007) 231–242, suf­ fers the same weakness as that of Greenberg. He claims that the “two different texts of Ezekiel must have been in circulation concurrently for a prolonged period of time and that the historical precedence of either text cannot be established legitimately” (p. 231). But his evidence for this conclusion is simply that the Qumran and Masada manuscripts, which attest a proto-MT text-form, predate the earliest witnesses of the shorter OG form. How­ ever, as Greenberg even noted (“The Use of the Ancient Versions,” 218), the age of the

26

Identifying Scribal Expansion

from some common predecessor, and we can detect a genetic relationship between them. This assumption of a genetic or stemmatic relationship between two wit­ nesses in the case of a quantitative divergence is built on the genealogical model of textual criticism, long associated with the work of Karl Lach­ mann,36 and articulated in the standard handbook by Paul Maase.37 The method works from the principle that manuscripts sharing common errors share a common origin. That is, if two witnesses have a number of errors in common, it may be presumed that they were derived from a common inter­ mediate source, called a hyparchetype. From these witnesses, one may begin to critically reconstruct a theoretical archetype, our closest approximation to the hypothetical “original” text.38 The method has of course been consis­ tently evaluated, critiqued, and refined by textual and bibliographic scholars throughout the twentieth century,39 but it still forms a basic starting point for text-critical discussion of the Hebrew Bible. At this point, M.V. Fox’s more recent work on the textual history of Pro­ verbs for the Oxford Hebrew Bible Project offers some crucially important clarifications.40 While the heuristic goal of the Oxford edition is to recon­ struct the earliest inferable textual state of a given book, usually associated with the notion of an Urtext or archetype, a book like Proverbs was com­ posed entirely by means of additions made to additions. What “original” form are we to isolate? The same could be said of Ezekiel. Are we trying to isolate the message he presumably announced on the street corner? The first literary crystallizations of that message? The subsequent editorial reshaping, or compositional additions made by Ezekiel or later scribes? Instead of using the concept of the “original text,” Fox adopts and shar­ pens Paul Maase’s discussion of the hyparchetype, defined as a “‘recon­ structed variant carrier,’ that is to say, deviating text-forms that derive from a single non-extant source text (at some remove), but not from each other. Their relation is horizontal.”41 He goes on to argue, along similar lines as

36

37 38 39

40 41

text-form is not determined by the age of the manuscript witness. Patmore does not address the foundational question of the genetic relationship between the OG and proto-MT, which is where the primary evidence lies. The most recent evaluation and discussion of Lachmann’s contribution to the field of tex­ tual criticism is that of S. Timpanaro, The Genesis of Lachmann’s Method (Chicago: Uni­ versity of Chicago Press, 2005). He argues that the idea of reconstructing the history of gen­ ealogical relations that link extant manuscripts was inherited by Lachmann from the work of F. Ritschl, and that the notion of an archetype in the specific sense of a lost textual ances­ tor was borrowed from J. N. Madvig (for details see Timpanaro, The Genesis, 115–18). Textkritik (Leipzig: Teubner, 1927). Textkritik, 2–8. See G.T. Tanselle, A Rationale of Textual Criticism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsyl­ vania Press, 1989), and W.P. Williams/C.S. Abbot, An Introduction to Bibliographical Stu­ dies (New York: The Modern Language Association of America, 42009). “Editing Proverbs: The Challenge of the Oxford Hebrew Bible”, JNSL 32 (2006) 1–22. “Editing Proverbs,” 5–6.

Quantitative Differences between MT and OG Ezekiel

27

Greenberg, that distinct hyparchetypes such as the OG and MT “not only can not be collapsed into a single text but should not be, at least when they represent different additions and deliberate innovations rather than just an accumulation of errors, glosses, etc.”42 However, in contrast to Greenberg, Fox argues that in situations where additions or corruptions have entered one text-stream (e. g. the MT) after diverging from another (e. g. the OG), we are in a position to reconstruct what the common source text must have read. This accords with Tov’s basic characterization of quantitative differ­ ences between the MT and OG: “The majority of the differences between the textual witnesses, that is, omissions, additions, and changes, may be explained as genetic differences deriving from linear developments.”43 Thus, while a synchronic picture of the biblical text during the late Second Temple period is accurately described as “pluriform,”44 this pluriformity resulted not just from the proliferation of scribal errors and small-scale changes, but from the preservation and simultaneous existence of editorially distinct edi­ tions of certain scriptural books. The two scholars who have done the most to integrate the evidence of OG Ezek into the larger textual scenario provided by the Qumran scrolls are E. Tov45 and J. Lust.46 As the latter has noted, “M and G of Ezekiel appear to reflect two different redactional stages of the book. M is longer

42 “Editing Proverbs,” 6. 43 Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 175. 44 So E. Ulrich, “The Text of the Hebrew Scriptures,” 99: “The reason why the scrolls fit into the general textual picture attested by the MT, the SP, the LXX, the NT, and Josephus is that such pluriformity was the nature of the biblical text while the Temple stood”. Note also the title of A.S. van der Woude’s study, “Pluriformity and Uniformity: Reflections on the Transmission of the Text of the Old Testament” in J.N. Bremmer/F.G. Martinez (ed.), Sacred History and Sacred Texts in Early Judaism (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1992) 151–69. 45 “Recensional Differences Between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint of Ezekiel”, ETL 62 (1986) 89–101. 46 Most recently, “The Ezekiel Text” in Y.A.P. Goldman/A. van der Kooij/R.D. Weis (ed.), Sôpher Mahîr: Essays in Honor of Adrian Schenker (Leiden: Brill, 2006) 153–68. Lust’s works on the OG and MT of Ezekiel are many: “The Use of Textual Witnesses for the Establishment of the Text – The Shorter and Longer Texts of Ezekiel, An Example: Ez 7” in J. Lust (ed.), Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrela­ tion (Leuven: Peeters, 1986) 7–20; “The Final Text and Textual Criticism: Ez 39,28” in J. Lust (ed.), Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation (Leuven: Peeters, 1986) 48–54; “Ezekiel Manuscripts in Qumran: Preliminary Edition of 4Q Eza and b” in J. Lust (ed.), Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation (Leuven: Peeters, 1986) 96–100; “Exegesis and Theology in the Septua­ gint of Ezekiel: The Longer ‘Pluses’ and Ezek 43: 1–9” in C.E. Cox (ed.), Sixth Congress of the IOSCS, Jerusalem, 1986 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 1987) 201–32; “The Septuagint of Ezekiel according to Papyrus 967 and the Pentateuch”, ETL 76 (1996a) 131–37. His essay on “Major Divergences between LXX and MT in Ezekiel” 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 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2003) 85–92, summarizes his research.

28

Identifying Scribal Expansion

and many of its “plusses” are probably due to the hand of an editor.”47 Tov advances a similar claim in his text-critical handbook, but with one addi­ tional argument,48 “The plus elements of M should be taken in their totality as representative of a literary layer, added in the edition of M to a shorter and earlier edition as represented by G.” Both scholars argue that the OG and MT split off from a common ancestor, and then each experienced cer­ tain amounts of scribal and editorial expansion and reshaping. Tov adds one more claim in arguing that the plusses in MT Ezek represent a literary layer. These two parts of Tov’s argument should be kept separate. That the MT plusses represent a redactional layer will not be supported by the evidence of this study. However, this does not undermine the more basic claim that the OG preserves a sequentially earlier and shorter edition of the book in relation to the MT.

2. The OG as a Textual Witness – Current Perspectives The above discussion about the evidence from the Qumran scriptural scrolls and the issue of double literary editions has immense significance for Eze­ kiel and other scriptural texts in which the OG is the only remaining wit­ ness for a shorter or differently arranged edition. As Tov has noted, “The LXX is the single most important source preserving redactionally different material relevant to the literary analysis of the Bible, often earlier than MT … while a limited amount of redactionally different material has been pre­ served in some Hebrew biblical texts from Qumran.”49 The character of the quantitative divergences between OG and MT Ezek are similar to those between OG Jer/4QJerb,d and (proto-)MT Jeremiah. The key difference is the nature of the text witness. In Ezekiel our primary attestation to the sequentially earlier and shorter edition is a Greek translation (and, some­ times, the Syriac Peshitta translation), not a Hebrew text. This obviously complicates the matter, because any quantitative difference between OG and MT could hypothetically be attributed to the translator, and would thus provide no evidence of scribal additions. In order to use the OG Ezek as a witness to an edition that is shorter and sequentially prior to the MT, we must first consider some methodological issues that will ground the discus­ sion.50 47 Lust, “The Ezekiel Text,” 158–59. 48 Textual Criticism, 334. 49 “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 of the MT and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2003) 121–44, on p. 143. 50 P. Gentry’s caution on this point is sound, “The Septuagint and the Text of the Old Testa­ ment”, BBR 16 (2006) 193–218, on p. 194: “Before we can assess the value of the Septuagint

The OG as a Textual Witness – Current Perspectives

29

Within biblical text-critical scholarship, there are two contrasting tenden­ cies in dealing with divergences of any type between the OG and MT. In some books (e. g., OG Pentateuch, Isaiah) scholars have detected the proac­ tive role of the translators in interpreting and “actualizing” the text in light of their own historical circumstances. In this view, the translators assumed the prerogative to lengthen, shorten, change, and interpret the text.51 In other books (e. g., OG Samuel-Kings, Jeremiah) scholars have studied the great consistency of the OG translators in representing their Hebrew Vor­ lage, and maintain that large-scale textual variants attested by the OG lead back to a Hebrew text different from the MT.52 Regarding some OG trans­ lations, such as Proverbs, scholarship is often divided between those who view the translator as responsible for most of the divergences (e. g., J. Cook53), and those who see the translator sometimes augmenting the text, but other times preserving genuine variants.54

51

52

53

54

as a witness to the text of the OT, an issue of fundamental importance must be addressed: the Septuagint is not a Hebrew text … but rather a translation made from a Hebrew parent text. … In order, therefore, to discover the value of the Septuagint as a witness of the text of the OT, we must first delineate how one can and may use a version as a witness to its parent text.” This view of the OG translators has been common since the origin of modern Septuagintal studies. It was methodically argued in the classic works of Z. Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta (Leipzig: Franz Christian Wilhelm Vogel, 1841), Ueber den Einfluss der paläs­ tinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik (Leipzig: Johann Ambrose Barth, 1851), alongside J. Prijs, Jüdische Tradition in der Septuaginta (Leiden: Brill, 1948). Con­ temporary scholars who frequently appeal to this type of explanation, in OG Genesis for example, are J.W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993); J. Cook, “The Exegesis of the Greek Genesis” in C.E. Cox (ed.), VI Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Jerusalem, 1986 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1986) 91–125; M. Rösel, Übersetzung als Vollendung der Auslegung: Studien der Septuaginta Genesis (BZAW 223; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994); A.van der Kooij, “Perspectives on the Study of the Septuagint: Who are the Translators?” in F. Garcia-Martinez/E. Noort (ed.), Perspectives in the Study of the Old Testament and Early Judaism: Festscrift fur A. van der Woude (Leiden: Brill, 1998) 214–29. Those who advocate this view of course recognize that not every divergence leads to a Hebrew variant. Rather they emphasize that the methodological possibility of a genuine variant is just as, if not more likely than positing a deliberate change by the translator. Among the proponents of this view are M. Zipor, Tradition and Transmission: Studies in Ancient Biblical Translation and Interpretation (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad Pub­ lishing House, 2001); A. Aejmelaeus, “What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint?” in A. Aejmelaeus (ed.), On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators (Kam­ pen: Kok Pharos, 1993) 77–115, E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (Jerusalem: Simor, 21997), and M.V. Fox, “LXX-Proverbs as a Text-Critical Resource”, Textus 22 (2005) 95–125. “The Exegesis of the Greek Genesis” in C.E. Cox (ed.), VI Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Jerusalem, 1986 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1986) 91–125. M.V. Fox, “LXX-Proverbs”; E. Tov, “Recensional Differences between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint of Proverbs” in H.W. Attridge (ed.), Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies

30

Identifying Scribal Expansion

Moshe Zipor has offered a keen evaluation of the methodological issues in this discussion,55 and lays out some basic possibilities when evaluating divergences between the OG and MT. When one encounters a textual dif­ ference between these two witnesses, (1) certain factors may make it more likely that the divergence can be attributed to the work of the translator, or (2) other factors may show that the divergence most likely existed in the Hebrew Vorlage of the OG. (3) Sometimes, however, the evidence may not allow us to establish the probability of one option over against the other. Zipor’s basic critique of much contemporary scholarship on this issue is that scholars who advocate option (1) generally treat as primary evidence for their view examples that in reality belong to category (3). In other words, scholars often use ambiguous or insufficient data to support their case that the translator introduced substantial changes into the work. The assumption is used as evidence.56 Moreover, scholars sometimes even take examples that can be empirically shown to lead back to a genuine Hebrew variant (cate­ gory 2), yet still claim that these variants are the result of the translator (category 1).57 Zipor critiques this type of reasoning from two angles. When an OG divergence from the MT is also attested in Hebrew (Qumran manu­ scripts or the Samaritan Pentateuch), a substantial line of supporting argu­ mentation is needed before supposing it is the work of the translator.58 This

55 56

57

58

on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian Origins Presented to J. Strugnell (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1990) 43–56. Tradition and Transmission, 33–35. For example, in Gen 2: 4 the MT reads ‫ אלה תולדות‬, while the OG reads αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως, identical to the MT and OG of Gen 5: 1 (‫ = זה ספר תולדת‬αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέ­ σεως). In his discussion of Gen 2: 4, Wevers (Notes on the Greek Text, 22) simply asserts that the OG translator substituted the Greek phrase from 5: 1 into this location in 2: 4. He even notes that every other occurrence of this formula in Genesis (6: 9; 10: 1, 32; 11: 10, 27; 25: 12, 13, 19; 36: 1, 9; 37: 2) is translated literally in the OG, but claims that in this case, the OG translator “takes an independent stance over against the Hebrew” (ibid.). However, it is just as possible that the OG reflects a genuine Hebrew variant here, but this is not even considered by Wevers. This type of argumentation permeates the works of J. Cook on OG Genesis (“The Exegesis of Greek Genesis”) and OG Proverbs (The Septuagint of Proverbs: Jewish or Hellenistic Proverbs [VTSup 69; Leiden: Brill, 1997]), and A. van der Kooij on Isaiah, The Oracle of Tyre: The Septuagint of Isaiah XXIII as Version and Vision (VTSup 51; Leiden: Brill, 1998). In his treatment of Gen 1: 9, Wevers (Notes on the Greek Text, 5) notes that the MT reads ‫אל־מקום אחד‬, while the OG reads εἰς συναγωγὴν μίαν. This certainly reflects a different Vorlage, ‫אל מקוה אחד‬i (cf. OG Lev 11: 36 for this equivalence), a reading that is explicitly attested in a Qumran biblical manuscript (see 4QGenh in E. Ulrich/F.M. Cross, Qumran Cave 4.VII: Genesis to Numbers ([DJD XII; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994], 61). Wevers, however, asserts that it is “highly unlikely” that the OG reflects a Vorlage that read ‫מקוה‬. He is either unaware or ignores the fact that this variant exists in 4QGenh, a text from the same time-period as the OG. The evidence makes it much more likely that the OG is based on a variant Hebrew text (category 2), and cannot be used as evidence of the translator’s adaptation of the text. M. Zipor recounts numerous examples of this type of argumentation in the works of Wevers, Cook, and Rösel, Tradition and Transmission, 1–25. While it is theoretically possible that the OG translator and a scribe of a Hebrew manu­

The OG as a Textual Witness – Current Perspectives

31

is usually not provided by those who make this argument. Secondly, the evi­ dence of the Qumran scrolls should make us think twice before attributing variants to the translator, even in cases where the OG is the only witness to a divergence with the MT. In any particular instance it is just as possible that the OG reflects a different Vorlage. In many situations we can only deal in terms of greater or lesser probability, but one’s conclusion often depends on presuppositions about the history of the biblical text. Zipor offers wise caution here: The fact that we do not have in our hands a Hebrew witness to the different text which is reflected in the Septuagint does not deny the possibility that such a text existed. As long as the different text is logically possible from the point of view of language and context, the fact that we have not seen a textual version like this is no proof at all. It is better to say that we have not yet seen it.59

Let us now apply this discussion to the OG of Ezekiel. When analyzing a quantitative difference between the MT and OG Ezek, how can one gain leverage to argue that it is more likely the result of scribal addition than translator abbreviation or omission? In order to establish criteria for making such a decision three basic issues must be addressed. We must first consider the translation character of OG Ezek, for all claims about the OG’s rela­ tionship to the MT must depend on an accurate view of the translation’s character. Secondly, the crucial distinction between small-scale variants and quantitative variants must be established. Finally, one has to consider the text-history of OG Ezek itself to assure that in any given instance one is in fact working with the best available text of the Greek translation. We will now consider these three issues, and then move on to the methodological conclusions that lie at the basis of this study.

script independently produced the same secondary reading (unless, of course, the Hebrew reading is original), there must be evidence to support such a connection. The convergence of different witnesses to the same variant over against the MT happens quite often, for example, in the relationship between the OG and the Syriac Peshitta translation. M. Weitz­ man, The Syriac Version of the Old Testament (University of Cambridge Oriental Publica­ tions; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 69–70 calls this polygenesis: “A given difficulty in the biblical text may have elicited identical but independent responses from LXX and P[eshitta].” This explanation, however, cannot simply be appropriated wholesale in discussing the relationship between the OG and the Samaritan Pentateuch or the Qumran biblical manuscripts. The relationship between the Peshitta and the OG is complex, and often the former shows evidence of dependence upon the latter. No such direct relationship exists between the OG and any of the Qumran manuscripts. 59 Tradition and Transmission, 49 (my translation above): ‫ המשתקפת‬,‫ שבאופן עקרוני העובדה שאין בידינו עדות עברית על גרסה אחרת‬,‫מכאן‬ .‫ שגרסה כזו הייתה קיימת‬,‫ אינה יכולה לשלול את האפשרות‬,‫לכאורה בתרגום השבעים‬ ‫ ”לא ראינו” )גרסה כזו בעין( – אינה‬.‫ובלבד שגרסה כזו סבירה מבחינת הלשון וההקשר‬ .”‫ מוטב לומר ”לא ראינו עדיין‬.‫ראיה‬

32

Identifying Scribal Expansion

2.1 The Translation Character of OG Ezekiel The OG is not a homogenous corpus, and the character of each translation unit varies greatly. The first step in evaluating the text-critical value of the OG is to establish the character of the particular translation unit in ques­ tion.60 This is essentially a descriptive analysis of the results of a translator’s working habits, techniques, and patterns of operation that can be detected when the translation is compared to the source text.61 This description is focused on discerning a translation’s character for text-critical purposes. The inter-disciplinary field of translation theory offers a wide array of approaches for analyzing the purpose, method, or effects of a translation in a given cultural context.62 While many of these theoretical models are help­ ful for analyzing the linguistic and cultural mileu of a given translation (for example, Descriptive Translation Studies63), they are not all of equal value in employing a translation for text critical use.64

60 Properly defined, translation technique denotes the “techniques used by translators when transferring the message of the source language into the target language. This includes the choice of equivalents, the amount of adherence to the Hebrew text, the equivalence of Greek and Hebrew grammatical categories, and etymological exegesis” (E. Tov, “The Nat­ ure and Study of the Translation Technique of the Septuagint” in E. Tov (ed.), The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint [Leiden: Brill, 1999] 239–46, on p. 240). 61 As such, the study of translation technique is not an attempt to reconstruct the purposes or aims of a translation. As Aejmelaeus wisely notes (“Translation Technique and the Inten­ tion of the Translator” in A. Aejmelaeus (ed.), On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators [Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993] 66–76, on pp. 69–70), “Translation technique cannot be any­ thing more than a collective name for all the different renderings used by a translator. Study of translation technique aims at describing the end product of a translator’s work. … The description of translation technique can only be description of the results of transla­ tion, not of the aims and intentions of the translator.” 62 For helpful overviews of the field, see K. Malmkjær, Linguistics and the Language of Translation (Edinburgh Textbooks in Applied Linguistics; Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univer­ sity Press, 2005, ch. 2 “Mapping and Approaching Translation Studies”), and J. Munday, Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications (London: Routledge, 2012). 63 Descriptive Translation Studies, associated with the work of Gideon Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies-and Beyond (Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2012), represents a shift in translation studies. In Toury’s view, the primary focus of translation studies should not be on how precisely a translator represents his source text, as though the ideal was a maximal representation. He argues that the focus should instead be on the acceptability of a transla­ tion within a particular target culture (pp. 13, 36–39), and all study of equivalencies between source and target text should be considered in that light. For a discussion of Toury’s work in comparison with other approaches to translation studies, see Munday (Introduction, 111–17). 64 Of particular importance here is Corpus Based Translation Studies, associated with the work of M. Baker, “Corpora in Translation Studies: An Overview and Some Suggestions for Future Research”, Target 7: 223–243; for a more recent summary and evaluation see S. Laviosa, Corpus Based Translation Studies: Theories, Findings, Applications (New York: Rodopi, 2002), especially chapter 3. By analyzing different bodies of translation corpora (for definition of a linguistic ‘corpus,’ along with examples see Olohan, Introducing Cor­

The OG as a Textual Witness – Current Perspectives

33

Recently the work of van der Louw (2006) has helpfully integrated the insights of modern translation studies into research on the translation char­ acter of the Septuangint. His primary goal is to provide a sound theoretical basis for establishing a full-orbed description of a translation unit’s charac­ ter. As opposed to simply quantifying how literal or non-literal a translation might be, van der Louw provides a comprehensive inventory of transla­ tional “transformations,” i. e., he categorizes the various techniques employed when a translator opts for a non-literal rendering (57–59). In doing so, he attempts to “explain more precisely which ‘free renderings’ result from linguistic demands and which are the result of the translator’s exegesis” (ibid., 9). In contrast to attempts to provide a full descriptive analysis of translation technique, studies on the character of the Old Greek translations for the purposes of text-criticism have been more focused on the issue of quantita­ tive relationships between the source and target text and typically focus on the the degree of linguistic equivalence.65 More precisely, before using a translation for text-critical purposes, one needs to understand the ways in which the translation either “mimics” or deviates from the linguistic struc­ ture of the source text.66 In other words, we are here most interested in the

pora in Translation Studies [London: Routledge, 2004], 24–34), one can compare and con­ trast their various features. This research has resulted in the offering of a series of “univer­ sals of translation” (see M. Baker “Corpora in Translation Studies”, 243), features of trans­ lations which are posited as being the inevitable by-product of the translation process regardless of the language pair involved (for a succinct summary and discussion of transla­ tion universals, see M. Shuttleworth/M. Cowie (ed.), Dictionary of Translation Studies [Ann Arbor, MI: St. Jerome Press, 1997], 193–94). For example, translations tend to be longer and more explicit than their source texts (for more discussion, see M. Shuttleworth/ M. Cowie, Dictionary, 55–56). These two features in particular are notable in the context of this study, because it is precisely the OG translation of Ezekiel that is much shorter than the MT, and the Hebrew text of the MT is much more explicit than than the OG transla­ tion. Thus, these translation universals must be applied with great care and integrated with the text-critical dimensions of the sources. 65 Within the larger field of translation studies, the notion of “equivalence” has been the sub­ ject of intense discussion (see the summary of M. Shuttleworth/M. Cowie, Dictionary, 49– 51). There are multiple types of equivalence which one may analyze between the source and target text: equivalence of syntactic or linguistic elements, of pragmatic function, or of paradigmatic elements. The text-critical use of the Septuagint translations has typically been based upon the notion of “linguistic equivalence,” which focuses on the “homogene­ ity of elements on the linguistic (phonetic, morphological, and syntactic) levels of the origi­ nal and the translation” (Dictionary, 93). 66 The concept of mimesis in describing translation models is taken from M.V. Fox, “Transla­ tion and Mimesis” in F.W. Knobloch (ed.), Bible Translation in Context (Bethesda: Uni­ versity Press of Maryland, 2002) 207–21. In this essay Foxhas drawn upon the discussions of translation theory in J.S. Holmes, Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Trans­ lation Studies (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1988), 25–28. I will use the terminology of “mimesis” and “linguistic equivalence” instead of the common but imprecise term “literal” (which can also be an antonym of “metaphorical,” a concept that fits nowhere in this discussion). As Fox notes (“LXX-Proverbs”, 97), “Mimetic translation attempts to map the maximal

34

Identifying Scribal Expansion

source-oriented data on the relationship between the Greek translation and its Hebrew Vorlage. Generally speaking, the degree of formal (or linguistic) equivalence between the source text and the translation67 has a close rela­ tionship to the likelihood that large-scale quantitative differences should or should not to be attributed to the translator. If a translator consistently mimics the linguistic structures of the source text, then quantitative diver­ gences between the translation and the source are less likely to be attributed to the translator.68 As Tov states in his handbook on the text-critical use of the OG, “In general, if a certain book is rendered literally, it is not to be assumed that the translator omitted large sections which were found in his Vorlage. … On the other hand, if a translation unit is free or even paraphras­ tic, exegetical omissions (even long ones) may be expected.”69 This point is in need of clarification, particularly Tov’s claim that less mimetic translations are more likely to contain large-scale divergences pro­ duced by the translator. As a general rule it may seem plausible, but when applied to specific OG translations, the reality is more complicated. As Fox has shown in relation to OG Proverbs, the fact that a translation sometimes shows characteristics which can be called “free” or “interpretive” does not mean that all divergences from the source text should be attributed to the translator.70 He cites Aejmelaeus’ insightful comments, “A distinction should be made between literalness and faithfulness. A good free rendering is a faithful rendering. If a translator uses free renderings that are faithful to

67

68

69

70

number of linguistic features of the source onto the receptor text and aims at consistency in correspondences between the vocabulary of the source and the target.” As already noted, the whole idea of “equivalence” between the source and target text has been at the centre of discussion in contemporary translation theory. The term “formal equivalence” is connected with Eugene Nida’s classic work on translation theory, Toward a Science of Translating (Leiden: Brill, 1964). A translation that exhibits formal equivalence “is basically source-oriented; that is, it is designed to reveal as much as possible of the form and content of the original message” (Nida, Toward a Science, 165). Many other “sourceoriented” translation models use a similar concept. See the discussion of Malmjkjaer, Lin­ guistics, 20–32. The comments of R. Hendel, “The Oxford Hebrew Bible: Prologue to a New Critical Edi­ tion”, VT 58 (2008) 324–51, on pp. 327–28 are apt: “There is always a residue of uncertainty when retroverting the Greek translation into its Hebrew Vorlage. Nonetheless, in most books of the Hebrew Bible the Greek translation technique is discernible and reliable, allowing a good measure of confidence in many retroversions. The degree of confidence varies depending on the literalness of the translation technique in each book.” Tov, Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint, 18–19. So also Aejmelaeus, “Jeremiah at the Turning-Point of History: The Function of Jer. XXV 1–14 in the Book of Jeremiah”, VT 52 (2002) 459–82, on p. 461, argues in relation to Jeremiah: “The proper recognition of the work of the translator naturally presupposes acquaintance with the translation techniques of the Septuagint in general. The translator of Jeremiah can be characterized as one of the most literal in the Septuagint. It is not permissible to argue that some of the theological content of the Hebrew text was unacceptable to the translator and was thus left out. Such manipulation of the text would not be in accordance with the overall translation technique observed in this book.” Fox, “LXX-Proverbs”, 95–99, 120–21.

The OG as a Textual Witness – Current Perspectives

35

the meaning of the original, this is no justification for attributing to this translator all kinds of additions and omissions that occur in the book.”71 While the degree of mimesis between source text and translation can provide one set of criteria, it is not a silver bullet. This particular argument functions as one among a larger set of factors which need to be considered when ana­ lyzing any given text. So then, to the degree that it is possible, our individual decisions about large-scale differences between source and translation must always be correlated with an analysis of the character of the translation as a whole. Thus, the establishment of a clear and accurate profile of the transla­ tion technique of OG Ezek forms the presupposition of this entire study. The most commonly discussed criteria for establishing the degree of for­ mal equivalence in a translation have been thoroughly explored in the important works of Barr, Tov, and van der Louw.72 (1) Quantitative Representation:73 This category is used to examine how the translator sought “to represent each element in Hebrew by a corre­ sponding element in Greek.”74 It is useful to distinguish here between the translator’s “quantitative representation” and “segmentation” of the text. The latter describes more precisely “the translator’s technique of dividing Hebrew words into their constituent parts in order to represent each part in the Greek translation.”75 Because Greek and Hebrew are structurally dis­ similar, there will inevitably be segmentation differences between OG and MT that have no bearing on the text-critical issues in this study.76 Quantita­ tive representation, on the other hand “concerns the one-to-one representa­ tion (or lack of it) of multi-word Hebrew phrases, clauses, and sentences.”77

71 Fox, “LXX-Proverbs”, 97 citing A. Aejmelaeus, “Translation Technique”, 64. 72 J. Barr, “The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations”, Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens 15 (1979) 279–325; E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Sep­ tuagint in Biblical Research (Jerusalem: Simor, 21997), 17–31; T.A.W. van der Louw, Transformations in the Septuagint: Towards an Interaction of Septuagint Studies and Translation Studies (Leiden: Brill, 2006). 73 See the discussions of this category in Barr, “Typology”, 294–97, Tov, Text-Critical Use, 23–24; and especially B.G. Wright, “The Quantitative Representation of Elements: Evalu­ ating ‘Literalism’ in the LXX” in C.E. Cox (ed.), VI Congress of the IOSS: Jerusalem, 1986 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987) 311–35. 74 Wright, “Quantitative Representation”, 315. 75 B.G. Wright, No Small Difference: Sirach’s Relationship to Its Hebrew Parent Text (SBLSCS 26; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 55–56. For example, in Sirach 14: 4 all the con­ stituent parts of the Hebrew word ‫ ובטובתו‬are represented in the Greek translation και εν τοις αγαθοις αυτου. Thus, segmentation is a subset of quantitative representation, in that segmentation involves dividing up the morpheme units in one Hebrew word. This point is developed by Wright, “Quantitative Representation”, 315–17. 76 Thus, the presence of additional Greek particles or conjunctions, the various uses of nega­ tive particles and clauses, and differences in active and passive voice will all lead to minor quantitative differences between the OG and its Hebrew source. For a discussion of these “non-variants” see Wright, “Quantitative Representation”, 322–27 and Tov, Text-Critical Use, 123–30. 77 Wright, “Quantitative Representation”, 56.

36

Identifying Scribal Expansion

The relevance of this category for identifying scribal expansions in OG or MT Ezek is obvious, but requires qualification. How does one evaluate an OG translator’s consistency in quantitative representation if this is the very phenomenon in dispute? In other words, if the OG Ezek is character­ ized by consistent minuses in relation to the MT, how does one indepen­ dently establish a profile of translation technique by which to judge these cases? There are a few factors to be considered here. (1) For the vast major­ ity of the book, the MT and OG attest identical texts and so supply reliable material for translation technique analysis. (2) Texts which use parallel or similar idioms or turns of phrase offer independent evidence by which to evaluate divergences.78 (3) The nature and/or difficulty of the Hebrew text in view also need to be factored into the discussion.79 If the passage in ques­ tion poses special difficulties, then it must be considered that the divergence could result from the translator’s attempt to present a coherent Greek ren­ dering. With these qualifications in mind, we are in a better position to eval­ uate quantitative divergences. (2) Word Order:80 The strict representation of Hebrew word order in the Greek translation can reveal important data about the translator’s methods. Since Greek allows for a greater freedom in word order, the translator could mimic the Hebrew syntax quite easily, though this could sometimes result in less than typical Greek constructions.81 A high degree of adherence to the 78 For example, in 26: 21, the OG does not represent the material in brackets. Within the Tyre oracles, this line is repeated two other times (27: 36 and 28: 19). In these cases the OG ren­ ders the phrase literally, and it poses no particular translation difficulties. Thus, on the basis of the parallel texts, we can say more confidently that the MT plus in 26: 21 is a scribal addition: 26: 21 ‫↓ בלהות אתנך ואינך ]ותבקשי ולא־תמצאי[ עוד לעולם‬ = ἀπώλειάν σε δώσω καὶ οὐχ ὑπάρξεις ἔτι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα 27: 36 ‫עד־עולם‬ ‫ = בלהות היית ואינך‬ἀπώλεια ἐγένου καὶ οὐκέτι ἔσῃ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα 28: 19 ‫עד־עולם‬ ‫ = בלהות היית ואינך‬ἀπώλεια ἐγένου καὶ οὐχ ὑπάρξεις ἔτι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα 79 This is especially so for the extremely complicated architectural descriptions found in Ezek 40–48. It is clear that very often the translator did not understand the meaning of the rare words or arcane design descriptions, and so improvised. For example, see how the OG deals with the description of the side-chambers in the temple (41: 7), or the windows and lattice chambers (41: 16–17). For a detailed examination of how OG dealt with these chap­ ters, see the older study of H. Gese, Der Verfassungsentwurf des Ezechiel (Kap. 40–48) – Traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1957), and the recent work of D. O’Hare,“Have You Seen, Son of Man?” A Study of the Translation and Vorlage of LXX Ezekiel 40–48 (SBLSCS 57; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010). 80 On which, see Tov, Text-Critical Use, 23 and Wright, No Small Difference, 35–54, and the older study of J.M. Rife, “The Mechanics of Translation Greek”, JBL 52 (1933) 244–52. 81 For older studies on the unique character of “translation Greek” in antiquity see D.W. Riddle, “The Logic of the Theory of Translation Greek”, JBL 51 (1932) 13–30 and Rife, “The Mechanics of Translation Greek,” 245: “Probably no language has such complete flexibility, but Greek and Latin, whose syntactical relations are so largely indicated by inflection, have a far more flexible word-order than such languages as English and Chinese, whose syntactical relations are largely indicated by word-order.”

The OG as a Textual Witness – Current Perspectives

37

Hebrew word order in the OG, then, provides us with a means by which to characterize the formal equivalence or degree of “mimesis” in the transla­ tion. If a translator consistently maps the word order of the Hebrew text onto the structure of the Greek (and, given our qualifications at the begin­ ning of this section, even if he does not), this should be taken into considera­ tion when analyzing a quantitative divergence. It does not provide conclu­ sive evidence by itself, but can and should be factored into our understand­ ing of the translator’s working methods. (3) Lexical Equivalence: This category, sometimes called “stereotyp­ ing,”82 describes the tendency of translators to use consistently the same Greek term to render a given term in Hebrew. It is subject to a wider num­ ber of variables than the previous two, in that a translator may render one Hebrew term in a number of different ways depending on the semantic con­ text, the frequency of the term, or the lexical inventory of Greek vis-à-vis the Hebrew. However, it can be usefully factored into the profile of a trans­ lation’s formal equivalence alongside the other categories. These three factors aid us significantly in gauging the degree to which a translator may have adhered to or deviated from the linguistic structure of the source text, and in the case of Ezekiel, they are important for our under­ standing of the OG and its relationship to its Hebrew Vorlage. In recent decades, G. Marquis has employed these controlled criteria of measurement and produced a series of studies on the translation technique of OG Ezek that are the most comprehensive to date.83 The results of his work provide the foundation for the text-critical use of OG Ezek in this study. Regarding word order agreement between OG and MT Ezek, Marquis examined Ezek 1–39 (1,013 verses) and found that only 9.9% of the Greek text (100 verses) contained some sort of word order variation from the Hebrew, while 90.1% (913 verses) displayed total word order agreement.84 With regard to the

82 The term “stereotyping” to talk about lexical equivalence in the OG was first coined by M. Flaschar, “Exegetische Studien zum Septuagintapsalter”, ZAW (1912) 161–89, on p. 105, as noted by R.T. McLay, The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 40. Other terms used to speak of the same phenomenon have been “verbal linkage” (C. Rabin, “The Translation Process and the Character of the Sep­ tuagint”, Textus 6 [1968] 1–26) and “systematic representation” (Rife, “The Mechanics”), or “consistency of vocabulary equivalences” (Barr, “Typology of Literalism,” 306). 83 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; “Consistency of Lexical Equivalents as a Criterion for the Evalua­ tion of Translation Technique in the LXX of Ezekiel” in C.E. Cox (ed.), VI Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987) 405–24. 84 Marquis, “Word Order,” 63–64. Because of the nature of OG Ezek’s consistent minuses in relation to the MT, only those places where the OG and MT attest the same text were taken into consideration, so as to gain independent evidence for making judgments about their quantitative differences. This same point is made by Fox in his analysis of the OG translation of Proverbs (“LXX-Proverbs”, 107): “There are many verses in LXX-Prov that

38

Identifying Scribal Expansion

translator’s consistent use of lexical equivalents for certain Hebrew words, Marquis found that there is a 95.6% consistency in translator’s rendering of nouns, and an 89.6% consistency in verbal equivalents.85 In a separate study, Tov and Wright examined certain elements of smallscale, linguistic formal equivalence in OG Ezek along with other OG texts.86 They found examples of both variation and strict consistency in how OG Ezek rendered these syntactic constructions. However, in relation to other books of the OG, they include OG Ezek within the grouping of extremely literal translations, over against those that show less consistency in their quantitative representation of the Hebrew (e. g., the OG of Job).87 Soisalon-Soininen, in his older study on the representation of Hebrew infi­ nitival clauses in the OG, included OG Ezek in his group termed “slavishly literal.”88 Thus, the older studies on the translation technique of OG Ezek combined with the comprehensive analysis of Marquis overwhelmingly confirm that the OG Ezek is consistently “mimetic” and displays formal equivalence with its Hebrew text to a particularly high degree.89

2.2 Word-Level Variants and Quantitative Variants The above characterization of OG Ezek does not, however, address the heart of the issue. The vast majority of textual differences between MT and OG Ezek involve not simply divergences in word order or lexical consis­ tency, but quantitative divergences. As Aejmelaeus has convincingly argued, differences of sequence and quantity are categorically different than

85

86

87 88 89

have nothing corresponding in the MT. These cannot be factored into the book’s transla­ tion technique–they do not show translational ‘freedom.’” The lower percentage of lexical equivalency for verbs is to be expected. For example, the OG Ezek translator’s rendering of the verb ‫ נשא‬varies widely. The verb can be used in the sense of physical lifting (ἐξαιρω, 1: 19), of metaphorical “bearing” of guilt (λαμβανω, 4: 5) or disgrace (κομιζω, 16: 52), of producing fruit (φερω, 17: 8) or prideful exaltation (ὑψόω, 29: 15). Such an example does not show the translator’s inconsistency in rendering the word ‫נשא‬, but rather his sensitivity to the semantic nuances of the verb depending on the co-text (see Marquis, “Consistency of Lexical Equivalents,” 1987, 410–11). E. Tov/B.G. Wright. “Computer-Assisted Study of the Criteria for Assessing the Literal­ ness of the Translation Units in the Septuagint” in E. Tov (ed.), The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (Leiden: Brill, 1999) 219–37. In particular they studied the consistency of the rendering of (1) the preposition -‫ ב‬with εν, (2) the particle ‫ כי‬with οτι or διοτι, (3) the representation of the third masculine singular suff (‫ו‬- or ‫יו‬-) with αυτος or εαυτος, (4) the presence of prepositions added by the translator in accor­ dance with the linguistic constraints of Greek, (5) the relative frequency of post-positive particles (δε, μεν, ουν, τε) in relation to και. Tov and Wright, “Computer-Assisted Study”, 236–37. Die Infinitive in der Septuaginta (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeaketemia, 1965), 177–78, 284–86. For discussion of the unique character and profile of OG Ezek 40–48, see O’Hare, “Have You Seen” and the discussion on pp. 311–312 in Appendix 1 of this study.

The OG as a Textual Witness – Current Perspectives

39

what she calls smaller scale “word-variants” (i. e., word order and lexical equivalence).90 Even in a less mimetic translation, it does not follow that a translator who deviated from Hebrew word order or syntax in order to pro­ duce smoother Greek would therefore feel free to omit or add large amounts of material or rearrange the contents of the text. Such differences are not the result of the translation process, but are of an editorial nature.91 The relevance of Aejmelaeus’s point for this study is clear: it must be demonstrated and not assumed that the translator of OG Ezek was an editor as well as a translator.92 The nature of the OG’s translation technique does not by itself exclude the possibility that the translator was involved in largescale reorganization and consistent shortening of his Vorlage. It does, how­ ever, provide a wider set of factors that mitigate against assuming such a position. A contrasting example may be found in the OG of Job, in which there are also major quantitative divergences. The OG is shorter by some 350 lines (or one-sixth) vis-à-vis the MT. However, the translation technique of OG Job displays very little degree of mimesis between the Hebrew and Greek, and in fact it has been called a “paraphrase” by some scholars.93 Thus, the explanation that the quantitative divergences are to be attributed to the translator dovetails perfectly with the analysis of OG Job’s transla­ tion technique, as well as the fact that the quantitative differences increase in the latter portions of the book. The relationship between the MT and OG

90 A. Aejmelaeus, “What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint?” in A. Aejmelaeus (ed.), On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993) 77–115, on pp. 111–12. 91 The same point is made by Fox (“LXX-Proverbs”, 120–21), “Appeal to “interpretation” should not be used as a magic wand to vanish Hebrew variants. … If scholars have tended to ascribe most of the MT-LXX differences to translation techniques, that may be because LXX-Prov is a translation. But we may weigh another hypothesis–that a significant per­ centage of the substantive differences arose in Hebrew scribal transmission. … It should be noted that all the types of variation found between these two versions, other than language dependent ones, are well-attested in single language redaction and transmission.” 92 Aejmelaeus, in fact, gives logical priority to the OG in cases of quantitative differences. In her study of plusses in the OG of Exodus, she concedes that “one should always first attempt to regard a divergence from the MT as caused by the translator and only as a last resort accept the possibility of a variant reading in the Vorlage. This holds good with regard to word-variants. In the case of quantitative divergences, however, it is methodolo­ gically more correct to start with the assumption that the translator found the longer text in his Vorlage”, “Septuagintal Translation Techniques – A Solution to the Problem of the Tabernacle Account” in A. Aejmelaeus (ed.), On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993) 116–130, on p. 112. The application of her point to the plusses in Ezekiel is poignant. Regardless of whether the OG or MT has the longer read­ ing, it is more methodologically sound to assume that the longer reading is the result of an addition on the level of the Hebrew than to assume a translator expanded or shortened the text. 93 For example, H. Heater, A Septuagint Translation Technique in the Book of Job (CBQMS 11; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1982), 1–10.

40

Identifying Scribal Expansion

in the case of Ezekiel is precisely the opposite. Certainly, each individual case in any book of the OG must be examined on its own merits, but this larger methodological point plays an important role to play in determining probability in any given example. Unless there are reasons to think other­ wise, large-scale MT and OG plusses in Ezekiel are most likely the result of instances of scribal expansion. Tov’s conclusion summarizes the issue well: Evidence from translation technique [of OG Ezek] thus supports the view that the short text of the LXX reflects a short Hebrew Vorlage which is not known from other manuscripts. … Rather than taking the LXX as a short text, we should thus take MT as an expanded text.94

3. The Original Text of OG Ezekiel: 3.1 The Textual History and Main Witnesses to OG Ezekiel Another major factor in the text-critical use of the OG is the establishment of the original text of the translation itself. The question of the original text of the OG is complicated due to the fact that (1) as with the transmission of any text, scribal errors have entered the various manuscript traditions and (2) the OG underwent a particularly high degree of revision between the second century BCE and the fourth century CE. These combined factors produce an extremely complex state of affairs when it comes to establishing the original text of the OG.95 The production of the Göttingen Septuaginta series has begun to ameliorate the issue by providing critical editions with a comprehensive apparatus of the textual history for each book.96 In the case of OG Ezek we have the excellent edition produced by J. Ziegler, revised and updated by D. Frankel in the light of recent manuscript discoveries rele­ vant to Ezekiel, namely Papyrus 967 and the Antinopolis papyri.97 These 94 “Recensional Differences Between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint of Ezekiel”, ETL 62 (1986) 89–101, on p. 100. 95 H. B. Swete’s classic introduction to the Septuagint remains a standard description of the text-critical issues raised by the OG’s revision history An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914), 59–86, 122–70, 478–97. For more contemporary surveys of the issues see S. Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968), 74–157, and N. F. Marcos, The Septuagint in Con­ text: Introduction to the Greek Versions of the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 109–90, who has incorporated the most recent evidence of the OG manuscripts found in the Judean Desert. 96 Jellicoe’s discussion of the different editions of the OG that have culminated in the Göttin­ gen series is succinct and most helpful (Septuagint and Modern Study, 1–24). 97 Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Acamadiae Scientiarum Gottingen­ sis editum XVI, 1: Ezechiel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977). Papyrus 967 has been published in multiple editions, as more of the manuscript has come to light. The first two publications of the manuscript (F.G. Kenyon, The Chester Beatty Papyri. Descriptions and Texts of Twelve Manuscripts on Papyrus of the Greek Bible. VII. Ezekiel, Daniel, Esther [London: Emery Walker Limited, 1937], and A.C. Johnson, H.S. Gehman, and E.H. Kase, The John H. Scheide Biblical Papyri. Ezekiel [Princeton: Princeton University

The Original Text of OG Ezekiel:

41

manuscripts, along with codex B, provide us with the most ancient and reli­ able witnesses to OG Ezek.98

3.2 Multiple Translator Theories The question of whether more than one translator is responsible for the pro­ duction of OG Ezek raises potential complications in our reliance upon “the” OG Ezek. If the translation was produced by more than one person, perhaps the translator of one section did not practice the same method of consistent quantitative representation as another. Since this potentially affects any employment of OG Ezek as a text-critical witness, it is impor­ tant to acquaint ourselves with the issues involved in this debate.99 At the beginning of the twentieth century, H.J. Thackeray argued that the OG Ezek could be divided into three translation units (labeled α, β, and γ)100 which could be attributed to two separate translators (α and γ were the same person, β was a collaborator; 399). He established his claim by show­ ing patterns of unity and diversity in the translation equivalents of certain Hebrew words throughout the translation. For example, in ch. 27 the proper name “Tyre” (‫ )צור‬is rendered Σορ, while in ch. 28 one finds Τυρος. The prophetic speech formula “Prophesy and say” (‫ )ואמרת‬is rendered as Press, 1938]) contained portions of Ezek 11–17, 19–32, 34–39. New sections of the papyrus were later discovered and published by Fernández Galiano, “Neuvas páginas del códice 967 del A.T. griego (Ez 28, 19–43, 9)”, Studia papyrologica 10 (1971) 7–76, containing sec­ tions from Ezek 28: 19–43: 9. The material presented by L.G. Jahn, Der griesche Text des Buches Ezekiel nach den Kölner Teil des Papyrus 967 (PTA 15; Bonn: Habelt, 1972) con­ tained new material from Ezek 17–19, 20, 35–36, 43–48). The Antinopolis papyri were published by C.H. Roberts, The Antinopolis Papyri. Part I (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1950), and contained sections from Ezek 33: 27–33: 31; 34: 1–34: 5; 34: 18–24, 26– 30. 98 Ziegler’s conclusions about the relationship of Papyrus 967, B, and the OG Ezek are worth summarizing (“Die Bedeutung des Chester Beatty-Scheide Papyrus 967 für die Textüber­ lieferung der Ezechiel Septuaginta”, ZAW 61 [1945–48] 76–94): (1) Pap 967 now stands in the place of B in providing the oldest, pre-Hexaplaric witness to OG Ezek. Thus, where B and 967 agree, we have the OG in its most ancient available form. (2) In several places, Pap 967 alone has preserved the OG, over against codices B and A. (3) Pap 967 does show sporadic evidence of a pre-Hexaplaric revision towards a proto-MT Hebrew text. (4) Pap 967 occasionally agrees with codex A against B, showing that A sometimes preserves OG readings as well. Ziegler’s conclusions confirm the earlier claims of H. Gehman, who also studied the textual character of Papyrus 967 and concluded that the manuscript represents the oldest and best witness available to the original OG Ezek (Gehman, “The Relations between the Hebrew Text of Ezekiel and that of the John H. Scheide Papyri”, JAOS 58 [1938] 92–102; “The Relations between the Text of the John H. Scheide Papyri and that of the other Greek Mss. of Ezekiel”, JBL 57 [1938] 281–287). 99 For the most thorough discussion of the history of scholarship on this issue, see L.J. McGregor, The Greek Text of Ezekiel: An Examination of Its Homogeneity (SBLSCS 18; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), chapter 1. 100 H.S.J. Thackeray, “The Greek Translators of Ezekiel”, JTS 4 (1902–03) 398–411. In his dis­ cussion, α = ch. 1–27, β = ch. 28–39, and γ = ch. 40–48.

42

Identifying Scribal Expansion

προφήτευσον καὶ ἐρεῖς in ch. 1–27, but as προφήτευσον καὶ εἰπόν in ch.

28–39. By examining such patterns of lexical diversity, Thackeray believed that the most common junctures where the patterns of lexical renderings shifted were between chapters 1–27, 28–39, and 40–48. This was the basis of his argument for multiple translators. Thackeray’s thesis was taken one step further by Herrmann, who highlighted the difference between ch. 1–27 and 40–48 (Thackeray’s α and γ) in renderings of the divine name, and so con­ cluded that these sections were not the work of the same translator. Thus, he proposed a three-translator theory.101 The discovery and publication of Papyrus 967 in the late 1930’s led Geh­ man and Kase to reconsider the issue.102 They drew the conclusion that OG Ezek was produced by only one translator, but that it had been divided into two scrolls (ch. 1–27, 28–48), and that only the first one had been revised and then recombined with the unrevised version of the second. This thesis of a single translator was later supported by Ziegler, who argued that a sin­ gle translator may vary in his renderings of certain vocabulary items, and that differences in translation equivalents is a thin basis on which to build a theory of multiple translators.103 In more recent years, the theory of a single translator of OG Ezek has been supported by Tov and Marquis, who both argue, in line with Kase and Gehman, that the lexical diversity in the three sections designated by Thack­ eray is to be attributed to a revision of these sections, not differences in the original translation.104 On the other side of the debate, McGregor has con­ tinued to support the two translator theory.105 He argues this on the basis of a sophisticated methodology of analyzing diversity in lexical rendering in different parts of the book.106 101 J. Herrmann/F. Baumgärtel, Beiträge zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Septuaginta (Berlin: W. Kohlhammer, 1923), 1–23. The issue of the double divine name (‫ )אדני יהוה‬in Ezekiel and its rendering in the OG manuscripts is extremely complicated, and has been central to the debate about multiple translators of OG Ezek. It has, however, been mostly settled in light of the Greek Judean Desert manuscripts, and should no longer be incorporated into the separate discussion about the homogeneity of OG Ezek. For the comprehensive treat­ ments of the issue, see McGregor, The Greek Text, 57–92, and more recently, J. Lust, “’dny yhwh in Ezekiel and Its Counterpart in the Old Greek”, ETL 76 (1996b) 138–45, and J.W. Olley, “Divine Name and Paragraphing in Ezekiel: Highlighting Divine Speech in an Expanding Tradition”, BIOSCS 37 (2004) 87–105. 102 John H. Scheide Biblical Papyri, 52–73. 103 Ziegler, “Die Bedeutung des Chester Beatty-Scheide Papyrus 967”, 93–94. He was sup­ ported in this view by P. Katz “Zur Textgestaltung der Ezechiel-Septuaginta”, Biblica 35 (1954) 29–39. 104 E. Tov, The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discussion of an Early Revi­ sion of the LXX of Jeremiah 29–52 and Baruch 1: 1–3: 8 (HSM 8; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976), 135–151; G. Marquis, “Review of Leslie McGregor, The Greek Text of Eze­ kiel: An Examination of Its Homogeneity”, JQR 83 (1993) 440–44. 105 The Greek Text, 97–182, especially 193–97. 106 Marquis, however, has offered a thorough critique of the partiality and inadequacy of McGregor’s working methods and categories (Marquis, “Review of Leslie McGregor”). He concludes that although McGregor’s work provides an important angle on the ques­

The Index of Quantitative Differences

43

For the purposes of this study, the question of a one- or two-translator view does not directly affect the issue of OG Ezek’s text-critical value. In McGregor’s methodical study of the translation technique of OG Ezek, he sought to distinguish between translation units by differences of lexical equivalents only, not differences of quantitative representation. As McGre­ gor notes, all of the (what he considers distinct) translation sections of OG Ezek follow “the Hebrew word order as closely as possible, regardless of how the individual words are rendered.” Thus, no matter which of the three translation units are examined, “we can be fairly certain that in most cases each word in Greek corresponds to what we have in the Hebrew.”107 He makes this same observation later in his book, “There is no marked change in the ‘literalness’ of the sections. In both parts [of OG Ezek] the Hebrew word order is followed closely, and the majority of changes which take place between the sections consist of replacing one word with a syno­ nym.”108 As discussed above in section 1.2.2, this study is concerned parti­ cularly with quantitative differences between the MT and OG Ezek, whereas the entire discussion about multiple translators has revolved around the consistency (or lack thereof) of lexical equivalencies in different parts of the book. Whether the Hebrew proper name “Tyre” (‫ )צור‬is ren­ dered by Σορ or Τυρος, the Hebrew word is always represented in the OG. For the purposes of this study, the text-critical value of the shorter edition attested by OG Ezek lies in its quantitative differences from the MT, which do not figure in any of the different theories on OG Ezek’s homogeneity. Every part of the translation displays its characteristic feature, namely the consistent quantitative representation of its Vorlage.

4. The Index of Quantitative Differences: Criteria for Identifying Scribal Expansion We can now use the conclusions of the above discussion to formulate a methodology for identifying instances of scribal expansion in both OG and MT Ezek. tion, it does not offer anything like a definitive solution. Specifically, he critiques McGre­ gor’s imbalance in selecting examples to support his case. McGregor offers samples of unique lexical renderings in common between units (e. g. ‫ סביב‬is rendered κυκλω/κυκ­ λωθεν in ch. 1–27 and 40–48, but περικυκλω in ch. 28–39), but does not pay equal atten­ tion to renderings that oppose his view, or to unique agreements between the separate units (for examples, see Marquis “Review of Leslie McGregor”, 441–42). Moreover, McGregor (The Greek Text of Ezekiel, 132–36) simply dismisses Tov’s proposal that OG Ezek 26–39 differs from the other units because it was subjected to a revision, without taking into con­ sideration the impressive data to support this view (again, see Marquis “Review of Leslie McGregor”, 441). 107 The Greek Text, 96. 108 The Greek Text, 133.

44

Identifying Scribal Expansion

4.1 Quantitative Divergences Not Included in the Index This study is built upon a index compiled in tandem with the CATSS data­ base,109 which has identified every quantitative divergence (i. e., textual plus/minus) between OG and MT Ezekiel. I have chosen to bracket out of this study the following divergences that may technically register as a quan­ titative difference, but in fact represent what Tov has called “pseudo-var­ iants” or “non-variants.”110 These variants more than likely do not lead back to a variant Vorlage: (1) the presence or absence of the conjunctions waw or και or δε, (2) variants between a plural or single morpheme, (3) the presence or absence of pronouns, (4) the presence or absence of independent or pre­ fixed prepositions, (5) the presence or absence of pronominal suffixes, (6) the presence or absence of the definite article, (7) the presence or absence of the word “all” (‫כל‬/πας). All of these types of variants are extremely com­ mon in both the Greek and Hebrew manuscript traditions, and do not represent the large-scale quantitative differences examined in this study. By bracketing these types of variants, the quantitative divergences regis­ tered in the index (see the Appendices) include the following types of quan­ titative variants: the presence or absence of (1) nouns and noun phrases, (2) adjectives, (3) verbs and verbal clauses. In other words, the index catalogues independent word-units, clauses, and sentences that are textual plusses. While scribal changes certainly took place on lower levels (changing mor­ phemic units, e. g., making a singular noun into a plural, etc.) this study is focused on scribal expansions and additions.111 While every example is a potential instance of scribal expansion, many surely arose from scribal errors in the transmission processes of both Greek and Hebrew traditions. I have applied the following criteria in analyzing each textual plus so that only those examples that are most likely scribal additions have been included in the main discussion in Chapters Three and Four.

109 The CATSS (Computer Assisted Tools for Septuagint Studies) database is accessible at a public domain website: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak/catss.html 110 Tov, Text-Critical Use, 154–79; he also discusses certain classes of OG/MT variants that can only be attributed to a Hebrew variant underneath the OG with a high level of uncer­ tainty on 154–16. 111 For a comprehensive listing of all the variances between OG and MT, not just quantitative variants listed in the CATSS database, see M.H. Goshen-Gottstein/S. Talmon/G. Marquis, The Hebrew University Bible: Ezekiel (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2004), and pp. xvii-xxviii for their discussion of the presentation of these variants in the edition.

The Index of Quantitative Differences

45

4.2 Alignment of Textual Witnesses (B-Text: B, 967) Because the OG manuscript tradition has itself been subject to corruption and errors, every quantitative divergence between the MT and OG of Eze­ kiel must be based on a reading of the OG that is textually sound. If the OG reading can with any likelihood be attributed to an inner-Greek transmis­ sion error, the level of certainty decreases considerably. As discussed above, the B-text preserves the best manuscript evidence available for reconstruct­ ing the original OG Ezek. This includes codex B, papyrus 967, the Antino­ polis papyri, the Old Latin and Coptic translations, quotations from the Old Latin, and a handful of Greek minuscules. Together, these comprise the B-text in Ziegler’s 1977 Göttingen Septuaginta edition.112 All the examples in the index fit the requirements of a sound textual reading and have been marked by Ziegler as such by inclusion in the main text of the Göttingen edition.

4.3 Translation Technique Criteria In addition to the analyses of the translation technique of OG Ezek dis­ cussed, we will continually need to evaluate quantitative divergences in light of the translator’s rendering of similar examples elsewhere. The translator’s consistency in rendering a certain phrase or syntactic construction provides leverage when analyzing divergences. However, such consistency only pro­ vides probable supporting evidence. It is always possible that a translator was consistently mimetic in one place, but not in another. Again, it is important to remember the distinction between word-level variants and quantitative variants. Even if a translator is not totally consistent in render­ ing certain Hebrew phraseology, this does not necessarily mean he also felt free to omit significant portions of the source text. Given the evidence sup­ plied by the Qumran biblical scrolls, it is just as, if not more, likely that large-scale, quantitative divergences between the MT and OG originated on the level of the OG’s Hebrew Vorlage. Each case must be judged on its own merits, and translation technique can provide important corroborating data. However, the decision will often come down to a matter of greater or lesser probability. For example, the group of MT plusses that provide additional synonyms could also be interpreted as a condensation of synonyms by the translator (see Chapter Three, section 3.2.3). On the other hand, MT plusses that lift entire clauses or phrases from other parts of Ezekiel or other scrip­ tural texts (intertextual expansion, Chapter Four, sections 4.1–4.2) have a very high level of probability of being scribal additions, because this is sim­ ply not a feature of the OG Ezek’s translation technique. Each case must be evaluated individually. 112 Ziegler, Septuaginta, 23–28.

46

Identifying Scribal Expansion

4.4 Text-Critical Criteria Another factor in analyzing textual plusses is the recognition of commonly attested scribal errors that produce quantitative divergences in the wit­ nesses. We are dealing here with cases of parablepsis, haplography, dittogra­ phy, conflation, and, specific to the transmission of the OG, double render­ ings (for listings of these, see the Appendices).113 In such cases, the error is generated by the graphic similarity of a word or letter sequence, which causes either its omission or reproduction, or simply by the lapse of atten­ tion to detail that is to be expected in the course of such precise, detailed work. The end result, whatever the particular cause, is a textual plus, which means that on the surface scribal expansion and certain scribal errors look the same. Thus, all such examples have been included in the index, but cate­ gorized according to the most likely text-critical explanation. The context of every example must be examined for potential factors that could have facilitated scribal error, namely, the repetition of graphically similar words or letters. Where no such mechanism exists, it is most likely not a scribal error. Again, this factor cannot function on its own, but must be taken into consideration with the others. Each case must be decided on its own merits. Additionally, I have collated all the MT and OG plusses with the Syriac Peshitta version of Ezekiel found in the Leiden critical edition (Mulder

113 Properly defined, haplography describes instances in which a scribe overlooks some por­ tion of a sequence of graphically similar letters. Parablepsis refers to cases where the scribe’s eye skips from one section of text to another, resulting in the loss of the interven­ ing text. This happens especially when a similar grouping of words or letters occurs at the beginning of a unit (homoioarcheton) or the conclusion of a unit (homoioteleuton). Ditto­ graphy refers to cases where a particular sequence of letters is accidentally written twice. Conflation results from variant readings that have been included into the main text, result­ ing in a double reading. For examples of all of these scribal phenomena, see P.K. McCarter, Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 29–43, and Tov, Text-Critical Use, 127–33. Double renderings are more complex. They refer to instances where the OG contains two alternative Greek words to represent one Hebrew word. In these cases, multiple explanations are possible: (1) The OG is reflecting a conflate reading in its Vorlage; (2) The OG translator is preserving a variant known from another Hebrew manuscript, so that a doublet is created in the OG; (3) The OG doublet was produced by another scribe of the Greek text who added a translation doublet to revise or correct the first. This kind of doublet is an inner-Greek phenomenon only, and has no bearing on the Vorlage. Talmon’s studies on doublet and conflate readings in both Hebrew and Greek manuscript traditions remain the standard analysis: “Double Readings in the Masoretic Text”, Textus 1 (1960) 144–84; “Synonymous Readings in the Textual Traditions of the Old Testament”, Scripta Hierosolymitica 8 (1961) 335–85; “Aspects of the Textual Transmission of the Bible in the Light of Qumran Manuscripts”, Textus 4 (1964) 95–132. See also Z. Talshir’s 1987 study dedicated to type (3) translation doublets in the OG, “Double Translations in the Septuagint” in C.E. Cox (ed.), VI Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Jerusalem, 1986 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1987) 21–63.

The Index of Quantitative Differences

47

1985).114 There are 26 cases where an MT plus is absent in the OG and the Peshitta, and 9 cases where an OG plus is attested also in the Peshitta over against the MT (see Appendix I for the data). As van Rooy and Mulder have also argued,115 these examples show that the Peshitta can function as an independent witness to the text of Ezekiel and lend support to an evaluation of an MT or OG plus as a later addition.116

4.5 Literary-Critical Criteria I argued in section 1.1 that the OG and MT Ezek represent distinct editions, which nonetheless have retained traces of a genetic relationship and com­ mon source. The revised literary editions text model views examples of large-scale quantitative divergences in the witnesses as evidence of the lit­ erary growth of these books. While some may theoretically create a division between a book’s composition or editorial history and its transmission (i. e., copying) history, the evidence of the OG and the scrolls shows us a more fluid process of development. Tov notes the difficulties raised at this point: It is assumed that large-scale differences displaying a certain coherence were created at the level of the literary growth of the books by persons who considered them­ selves actively involved in the literary process of composition. It is probably a mere semantic issue to find an appropriate term for the persons involved in this process. There were the last of the editors of the biblical books, but at the same time they also formed a transitional group to the next stage, that of textual transmission, and hence they may also be named authors-scribes.117

In Tov’s view, the distinction between the two phases relates to the scope of the editorial activity.118 Large-scale editorial additions (sentences, entire lit­ 114 M.J. Mulder, The Old Testament in Syriac: According to the Peshitta Version-Ezekiel (Lei­ den: Brill, 1985). 115 H.F. van Rooy, “Agreement between LXX and Peshitta versus MT in Ezekiel: Some Important Examples” in H. Ausloos/J. Cook/F. Garcia-Martinez,/B. Lemmelijn/M. Verv­ enne (ed.), Translating a Translation: The LXX and Its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism (Leuven: Peeters, 2008) 213–227, especially p. 227; M.J. Mulder, “Some Remarks on the Peshitta Translation of the Book of Ezekiel” in P.B. Dirksen/M.J. Mulder (ed.), The Peshitta: Its Early Text and History. Papers read at the Peshitta Symposium held in Leiden 30–31 August 1985 (Leiden: Brill, 1988) 169–82, especially p. 180. 116 In Mulder’s estimation, “Some Remarks on the Peshitta,” 180, the Vorlage attested by the Syriac Peshitta of Ezekiel is, after the Old Greek, the most important ancient text witness available. 117 Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 314. 118 As R. Hendel notes, “The Oxford Hebrew Bible”, 330: “At some point in time, the process of textual production became the process of textual transmission. … The difference between these two phases is a historical transition from major to minor textual interven­ tion, rather than a change from all to none. Some scribes became major partners once again, when the changes were so thoroughgoing as to create a new edition. In these cases, new textual production occurs after the period of textual transmission has begun.”

48

Identifying Scribal Expansion

erary units) are on the earlier side of the divide, whereas smaller-scale addi­ tions (words, phrases) belong to the later phase. We know this shift did take place throughout the late Second Temple period (third century BCE-first century CE), but before this time the distinction between the two phases is very hazy. What the evidence of quantitative divergences between MT and OG Ezek shows us is a transitional period in the process of the book’s development. The largest- scale additions available in the OG/MT diver­ gences are in Ezek 7 (a layer of additions spanning Ezek 7: 1–14; see Chapter Four, section 4.2.3) and a few places where whole sentences have been added (see Ezek 10: 14, 24: 14 in Appendix I). The vast majority of scribal expansions consist of shorter phrases and individual words. Because the evidence of quantitative divergences relates to the latter end of the literary growth of Ezekiel, we will expect to apply not only the meth­ ods of text-criticism, but those of literary criticism,119 and more specifically redaction criticism. Redaction-critical methods trace the literary and scribal activity by which pre-existing literary materials were combined, expanded, adapted, and rearranged into a new compositional form.120 The typical means by which redactional activity are identified are the presence of lin­ guistic or conceptual inconsistencies and tensions that might betray the han­ diwork of a compiler or redactor.121 In many cases the textual plusses in OG/MT Ezek will fit these criteria, which will add support to their identifi­ cation as scribal expansions. However, such a dependence upon inconsistencies or tensions within the text is problematic. Scribes were perfectly capable of weaving their own material into the source in a way that is undetectable. In Fox’s study on the redactional history of Esther, based on a comparison of the OG (and Alpha text) and the MT, he has made this very point: Too much has been made of the importance of contradictions in the study of com­ posite texts. Contradictions are only one means of discriminating among composi­ tional layers; they are not the essence of redaction. Their absence does not prove sin­

119 The term “literary criticism” is a general one, and does not define a particular method as such. In biblical studies the term typically describes the methods by which one investigates the literary integrity and unity (or disunity) of a particular text. This is to be distinguished from “literary criticism” in the general study of literature and poetics, which is the most common use of the term in the humanities (for this distinction, see O.H. Steck, Old Testa­ ment Exegesis: A Guide to the Methodology [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998], 51–53). 120 J. Barton, “Source Criticism” in D.N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vol. (New York: Doubleday, 1992) 6: 162–65, on pp. 646–47. 121 Note, for example, the “indications of literary disunity” listed in Steck, Old Testament Exegesis, 54–57: doublets, tensions in vocabulary, differences in manner of speech, linguis­ tic peculiarities, conceptual or content tensions. The list offered in Richter’s handbook on exegetical methodology (Exegese als Literaturwissenschaft [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971], 50–70) is much the same: doublets, repetitions, contradictions or concep­ tual tensions.

Conclusion

49

gle authorship, nor their presence multiplicity. … Furthermore, redactors can, prob­ ably without great difficulty, cover their tracks, if they are so inclined.122

This point is relevant in two ways for this study. Many of the textual plusses examined in Ezekiel exhibit tensions with the surrounding context and so betray the fact that they are scribal additions. This is to be expected. How­ ever, the absence of such features from a textual plus cannot be used as an argument against its identification as a scribal addition. Many of the expan­ sions in this study show that the scribes were very attentive to the literary and linguistic features of the text so that their insertions fit perfectly into the context. Therefore, the categories of redaction criticism may prove use­ ful in identifying some scribal expansions, but not all.

5. Conclusion In this chapter I have described how the relationship between OG and MT Ezek has been understood in scholarship past and present, and where this study fits into that discussion (section 1.1). Older approaches to the Ezekiel text tended to conflate the OG and MT editions, and assume that their quantitative divergences belong strictly to the period of the book’s trans­ mission (copying) history. The model put forth in this study could be called a “modified Urtext” approach123 that is supported by the massive evidence of multiple literary editions attested in the OG and the Qumran biblical scrolls. While both OG and MT editions stem from a common ancestor, each was subject to different processes of expansion and revision after their archetypes parted ways. The methodological implication is that both edi­ tions have independent literary integrity. However, the fact that they differ quantitatively means that we can identify processes of scribal expansion in both editions. In sections 1.2 and 1.3 I argued for a positive view of OG Ezek’s text-critical value and addressed the complex issues of the composi­ tion and transmission history of OG Ezek itself. Finally, in section 1.4 I laid out a methodology for identifying scribal additions among the mass of MT and OG plusses. It remains, however, to develop and propose a descriptive typology for categorizing and analyzing the scribal additions in a way that increases our understanding of their nature and purpose. We turn to this task in Chapter Two.

122 M.V. Fox, The Redaction of the Books of Esther: On Reading Composite Texts (SBLMS 40; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 141. 123 The term is derived from the discussion of E. Ulrich, “The Text of the Hebrew Scriptures”, 93–94, on the erroneous application of the Urtext view to mean that the MT is equated with the Urtext.

III. Categorizing Scribal Expansion: A Descriptive Typology of Textual Expansions 1. Clarifying the Typology and Terminology The goal of this study is to understand the nature and dynamics of scribal additions in Ezekiel. In the previous chapter, I proposed criteria for identi­ fying scribal expansions in the OG and MT editions of Ezekiel. In this chapter, I will put forward a descriptive typology that illuminates their func­ tion and significance. However, proposing categories for analysis requires precise terminology, and this has been the most deficient aspect of scholar­ ship on scribal additions in the scriptural texts. This chapter is dedicated to sorting out the terminological impasse that exists in the current discussion and responding to it by the proposal of more nuanced vocabulary and cate­ gories for analysis.

1.1 Glosses, Expansions, or Additions? The scholarly work devoted to what I have been calling “textual plusses” or “scribal expansions” has suffered from an immense amount of terminologi­ cal confusion. This is primarily due to the infelicitous use of the word “gloss” to designate a very diverse set of phenomena. Scholarship on Eze­ kiel is of special relevance here and has contributed much to the problem. As Tov has noted, “The history of the scholarly discussions of interpola­ tions is closely linked with the book of Ezekiel, although it should be noted that in the literature the textual phenomena under discussion are usually named glosses.”1 Tov has proposed a stricter set of terminology which I will discuss here and then use as a starting point for a new proposal. In Tov’s discussion about scribal additions made to the biblical text,2 he distinguishes between two types of scribal expansions, namely “glosses” and “interpolations.” A “gloss,” precisely defined, is “a word inserted between the lines or in the margin as an explanatory equivalent of a foreign 1 2

E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis/Assen: Fortress/Van Gor­ cum, 22001), 282–83. Tov, Textual Criticism, 275–85. This section on scribal additions is a revision and expan­ sion of his older article on the topic: “Glosses, Interpolations, and Other Types of Scribal Additions in the Text of the Hebrew Bible” in S.E. Balentine/J. Barton (ed.), Language, Theology, and the Bible – Essays in Honour of James Barr (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994) 53–74.

Clarifying the Typology and Terminology

51

or otherwise difficult word in the text.”3 The distinguishing factor of a gloss, according to Tov, is that it was “not meant to be integrated into the syntax of the running text.”4 Interpolations, on the other hand, were designed to be added into the main text.5 This distinction brings important methodological clarity to the discussion. The problem begins when the sense of the word “gloss” is broadened to refer to any level of scribal, redac­ tional or compositional supplements. For example, in Freedy’s study of the glosses in Ezekiel 1–24 he embraces what he calls a “broader definition” of the word “gloss,” namely “a brief comment, explanation, or interpretation of a passage or section.”6 Likewise, Dijkstra employs “a somewhat extended definition of the gloss; not only as an addition inserted between the lines or in the margin of a manuscript, but also elements of textual growth inserted in the text-base, whether intentionally or unintentionally.”7 While the term gloss is useful to a certain degree, it has been used to describe additions with a broad range of purposes, and of widely differing length (one word, a sen­ tence, a paragraph). The word lacks the semantic nuance needed to encom­ pass and distinguish the various phenomena we find in Ezekiel. In this study, I will avoid using the term “gloss” and propose a new set of nomenclature. The most neutral term available on the level of text-critical discussion is textual plus, which refers simply to quantitative elements in a particular text witness that are not represented in another.8 This designation 3

4

5 6 7

8

“Gloss” in Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon, 32010). See also the definition of “glosses” offered by L.D. Reynolds/N.G. Wilson. Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), 227, in their discussion of scribal techniques in Greek and Latin manuscripts: “Brief interlinear notes explaining rare or difficult words.” As the description goes on they make it clear that these notes were not meant to be integrated into the syntax or grammatical structure of the sen­ tence, which is why their presence in the main text can sometimes be detected by syntactic irregularities. Tov, Textual Criticism, 277. The only direct evidence of such a gloss in biblical manu­ scripts, according to Tov, is one example from the 1QIsaa scroll, column 7, line 16 (= Isa 7: 25): ‫ברזל שמיר ושית‬, “iron thornbush and briar.” The word “iron” is a lexical explanation of the ambiguous ‫שמיר‬, which is used most often to refer to a metal (e. g. Jer 17: 1), but has a rare nuance in reference to a bush of some kind (cf. Isa 32: 13, see the discussion in HALOT, 1562–63). Similar examples are more abundant in the Hebrew text witnesses of Ben Sira, manuscript B in particular. See P.C. Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts (VTSup 68; Atlanta: SBL Press, 1997), 102–8. Tov, Textual Criticism, 281. K.S. Freedy, “The Glosses in Ezekiel i-xxiv”, VT 20 (1970) 129–152, on p. 129. M. Dijkstra, “The Glosses in Ezekiel Reconsidered: Aspects of Textual Transmission in Ezekiel 10” in J. Lust (ed.), Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation (Leuven: Peeters, 1986) 55–77, on p. 55. For this definition of the text-critical terms “plus” and “minus” see F. Polak, “A Classified Index of the Minuses of the Septuagint” in L.J. Greenspoon/O. Munnich (ed.), VIII Con­ gress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (Atlanta: Scho­ lars Press, 1995) 335–347, on pp. 335–38: “Our definition of a ‘minus’ is quantitative. If the MT contains ‘x’ units but the LXX ‘x-1,’ this ‘1’ unit consistutes a minus vis-à-vis the MT.

52

Categorizing Scribal Expansion

does not imply an evaluation of a particular reading’s status vis-à-vis the other witness(es), and so one must determine whether a given plus reflects a genuine textual difference between the Hebrew Vorlage of the OG and the MT.9 If evaluation of a textual plus leads to the conclusion that it (a word, phrase, or sentence) is a secondary addition to the text, two main possibili­ ties present themselves. (1) The plus could have arisen through a process of scribal error (e. g., dittography, haplography, etc.). I have bracketed out of this study all examples of MT or OG plusses that are the likely result of scri­ bal error. (2) The plus could have arisen by what I will call either expansion or addition. These terms are preferred to the words “gloss” or “interpola­ tion” for a number of reasons. They implicitly evaluate the textual status of a plus (an addition is by nature “secondary”10), but say nothing about its purpose, or whether it was intended to be incorporated into the main text. Whereas a gloss was not designed to be integrated into the text, an expan­ sion or addition may or may not have been intended for integration into the text; the terms are neutral enough to allow for other functions.11 These are the most useful umbrella terms, and further vocabulary will be needed to subdivide them into finer categories of purpose and function.

This definition does not relate to the question whether a shorter reading of the LXX reflects a Hebrew Vorlage or the translator’s activity.” I will use these terms, specifically the word “plus,” in relation to the MT and OG witnesses. An “OG plus” is material in the OG translation which has no corresponding quantiative elements in the MT. The term “MT plus,” obviously, refers to the opposite phenomenon. 9 Many differences between the OG and MT do not reflect differences between the OG’s Hebrew Vorlage and the MT (or other Hebrew witnesses such as the Qumran biblical scrolls). They may represent a translation issue, or a textual error (parablepsis, dittography, etc.) in the translation or its Vorlage. For discussion of these categories of “non-variants” see E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (Jerusalem: Simor, 2 1997), 154–71 and my discussion on page 44 above. 10 It should be noted here that the term “secondary” can be used to refer to multiple levels of textual production and transmission. One could argue, on the level of composition history, that a section of the book is secondary, i. e., that it was produced and integrated into the book of Ezekiel after it had already achieved a certain compositional shape. One can also use the term “secondary” to describe textual elements (sentences, words, phrases) that arose in the overlapping transition period between text’s final compositional shape and its transmission history. The use of the word “secondary” in this study applies mostly to this latter category. 11 This is why I also prefer the terms expansion and addition to the word “interpolation,” which is used by Tov (Textual Criticism, 277) to designate scribal additions which are “meant to be part of the running text.” For the same reason I am not using “gloss” because it refers to elements not meant to be part of the text, “interpolation” is limited in that it cannot (or at least should not) refer to expansions which are proper glosses.

A Descriptive Typology of Scribal Expansions

53

2. A Descriptive Typology of Scribal Expansions A clear desideratum in studies of scribal expansion is the establishment of precise terminology that fits within an overall evaluative framework–a typology. Typologies by their nature imply a classification according to a specific set of chosen attributes. While a taxonomy represents an attempt to classify a given phenomenon in light of a comprehensive listing of its parti­ cularities, typologies highlight a particular feature or attribute of the object under investigation.12 In the same way, scribal additions can be categorized in different ways, depending on the features highlighted in the analysis. One could simply analyze the grammatical or syntactic form of the expansions: the addition provides an explicit subject for a verb; it supplies a relative clause, a pronoun, or an adjective. One could peruse the comprehensive list of scribal additions in Appendix I and easily cull this kind of information. While this kind of raw data is useful to the degree that it shows how scribes integrated additions into the existing base-text, it is a rather ‘thin’ descrip­ tion. It leaves too many other features of the expansions unexamined. On another level, one could address the content or ideological function of an addition by labeling it a “Deuteronomistic” or “Theologizing” addition.13 Scribal additions can also be described in terms of their function or purpose: it was added in order to explain something or to harmonize the passage with another text. What is needed is a set of typological categories that will supply the most helpful diagnostic questions. I propose here two basic evaluative categories that will best aid us in examining the nature of scribal expansion in the Eze­ kiel text, namely purpose and source. What is the purpose of any given scribal addition (inasmuch as we can detect it), and what is the source of its vocabu­ lary? These two categories function simultaneously, and specify two impor­ tant facets of the phenomena. The remainder of this chapter will be dedi­ cated to developing a typology based on these two categories.

2.1 The Purpose of Scribal Expansion Scribes annotated and supplemented their texts for a reason. Any scribal addition is the embodiment of an intention. The question, of course, is 12 “[Typological] groupings set up to aid demonstration or inquiry by establishing a limited relationship among phenomena. A type may represent one kind of attribute or several and need include only those features that are significant for the problem at hand. … Classifica­ tions [i. e., taxonomies], on the other hand, deal with “natural classes”—i. e., with groupings that differ from other groupings in as many particulars as one can discover” (“Typology” in Encyclopedia Brittanica Online, Encyclopedia Brittanica Inc., accessed on 1 Oct 2013). 13 E. Tov, “Recensional Differences Between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint of Eze­ kiel”, ETL 62 (1986) 89–101, on pp. 97–98.

54

Categorizing Scribal Expansion

whether it is possible for us to discern those reasons by looking at the texts before us. In an ultimate sense, a scribe’s purpose in supplementing a text is hidden from us, and we must recognize that our understanding is limited in this way. However, we can always examine the results of the addition, and make informed inferences about its purpose. It is, of course, possible that the result does not always supply reliable information about the scribe’s purpose, but we can narrow the possibilities by means of disciplined infer­ ence. An example will be useful at this point: Ezek 10: 7 – MT: ‫“ – וישלח ]הכרוב[ את־ידו‬And he [the cherub] stretched out his hand.”

The word in brackets, “the cherub,” is not represented in the OG transla­ tion, and is certainly a scribal addition (see the discussion of this example in Chapter Three). We have before us, then, the result of a scribal expansion: a subject has been provided for the verb in the MT. We can infer its purpose by examining the co-text14 and asking some diagnostic questions. What would motivate a scribe to add an explicit subject to this verb? Is there more than one possible subject in the surrounding co-text? It turns out that there is, for the subject of the verb in the previous sentence (10: 6 “and he stood beside the wheel”) is the “man clothed in linen.” But this man cannot be the subject of “and he stretched out” in 10: 7 because the hand is outstretched “to the palms of the man clothed in linen” (10: 7). The third masculine sin­ gular subject of the verbs has changed, but has not been marked by an expli­ cit subject. Thus, the expansion both presupposes and embodies an exegesis of the sentence on the part of a scribe, and shows that the purpose was to clarify a potential ambiguity (Who is performing the action?). The addition narrows down the interpretive possibilities of the text by bringing out what is implicit in the passage. While this is a relatively simple example, it demon­ strates the pathway between examining the result (the “raw data,” as it were) of an addition and making an inference as to its purpose (i. e., an inter­ pretation of the data on our part).15 14 By “co-text” I mean the sentences and literary units surrounding the text in question which constrain the possibilities of its interpretation. I use this in distinction from the word “context” which can refer to the textual environment, but also more broadly to the socio-historical setting of the text. This linguistic tool is derived from the field of discourse analysis; for a discussion of co-text, see G. Yule/G. Brown. Discourse Analysis (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics; Cambridge-New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 46– 50, especially p. 49. 15 The discussion of inference within the field of discourse analysis is helpful here: “Since the discourse analyst, like the hearer, has no direct access to a speaker’s intended meaning in producing an utterance, he often has to rely on a process of inference to arrive at an inter­ pretation for utterances or for the connections between utterances, ” Yule/Brown, Dis­ course Analysis, 33. Yule and Brown also discuss the different types of inference that hearers make, ibid., 256–70. Sometimes it involves providing a logical connection (a “miss­ ing link”) between two or more utterances, or filling in logical gaps or discontinuities in an

A Descriptive Typology of Scribal Expansions

55

In Samely’s brilliant analysis of the nature and function of interpretive expansions in Targumic exegesis, he lays out a series of methodological questions for discerning the purpose of a given expansion, and they are help­ ful for this discussion.16 The first step, obviously, is to examine the point of difference between the two texts (for him, the Targum and the MT; for us, the OG and the MT). Second, one must attend to the change that the expan­ sion brings about within the co-text (i. e., the resulting text). Both the loca­ tion (in terms of grammar and syntax) and the form (in terms of morphol­ ogy) of a given expansion offer clues as to which elements in the co-text that are being modified.17 By gauging the semantic difference between the unmodified co-text and the expanded text, we lay the basis for inferring why new material has been added. Thirdly, we ask what exegetical purposes were presupposed by the addition of this material. We are actually in a very good position to infer purpose from result, for the entire operation of the exegetical process lay before us. We have the starting point (the unmodified, or pre-expanded text), and the end point (the expanded text), which allow us to target and analyze which elements in the co-text generated the expan­ sion.18 The category of purpose (inferred from our interpretation of the result) provides us with the broadest and most useful set of diagnostic questions in examining scribal additions: we gather the why from the what that lay before us in the expanded text. Having examined the body of scribal addi­ tions in the MT and OG Ezek, I propose three main types of purpose for analyzing the nature and significance of the expansions: Explicitation, Ela­ boration, and Coordination. Each of these has a unique set of distinguishing traits that can be briefly summarized (a more detailed description will fol­ low). (1) Explicitation: By bringing out what, in the scribe or translator’s view, is implicit in a passage, the semantic possibilities of a text are narrowed in order to avoid an incorrect interpretation.

utterance. In every case, however, the explicit mental effort involved in making such infer­ ences depends upon the receiver’s familiarity with the content and context of the utterance, ibid., 233–40. The clever saying of R. de Beaugrande, Text, Discourse and Process (London: Longman, 1980), 30, captures this basic point: “The question of how people know what is going on in a text is a special case of the question of how people know what is going on in the world at all.” 16 A. Samely, The Interpretation of Speech in the Pentateuchal Targums: A Study of Method and Presentation in Targumic Exegesis (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1993), 4–5. 17 To use the above example from Ezek 10: 7, the syntactical location (verbal subject) and grammatical form of the addition “the cherub” (singular noun with a definite article) allow us to infer that the interpretive issue in this text involved identifying who was the subject of the verbal action. 18 Samely, Interpretation of Speech, 175–76.

56

Categorizing Scribal Expansion

(2) Elaboration: Scribes sometimes went a step beyond explicitation by isolating particular words, ideas, or images in a passage and developing them in a new direction, enhancing the rhetorical or stylistic features of the text. (3) Coordination: Many scribal expansions in Ezekiel are concerned with multiple scriptural texts, and ameliorate contradictions or tensions between two passages (harmonization), or create new associations between multiple passages. Each of these scribal impulses (to explicate, elaborate, and coordinate) manifests itself in different ways, but broad distinguishing features are detectable. The following table summarizes the results of my study, and provides the basic template for the analysis of scribal expansion in Chapters Three and Four. The Result column represents the wide variety of situations that result from the scribal expansions found in MT and OG Ezekiel. These are not theoretical categories, but are based on patterns evident in the index of examples (see Appendices I and II). The Purpose column corresponds to the three categories described above. Based on the type of result achieved by the scribal addition, I have inferred the expansion’s basic purpose. Purpose

Result Clarification of a perceived semantic ambiguity Clarification of a perceived grammatical ambiguity

Explicitation

Clarification of potentially ambiguous syntax Clarification of a conceptual ambiguity Explicitation of what is already explicit Addition of new adjectives Addition of titles

Elaboration

Addition of associated words and images Addition of parallel line Addition of new concepts Harmonization with another text Assimilation of phraseology

Coordination Assimilation of related texts Cross-Reference/Allusion to another text

A Descriptive Typology of Scribal Expansions

57

In what follows, I will further describe the distinguishing traits of these three main types of scribal expansion, and situate my proposal within cur­ rent scholarship. 2.1.1 Explicitation This term is a technical one, borrowed from the field of translation studies. It refers to the “technique of making explicit in the target text information which is implicit in the source text.”19 More precisely, it is “the process of introducing information into the target language which is present only implicitly in the source language, but which can be derived from the con­ text” (ibid.). This is a useful category for describing scribal additions, for while they do not derive from the translation process,20 they do represent how a scribe sought to clarify the text by supplying information to avoid possible misunderstandings.21 These additions draw out and make explicit ideas or images that, in the scribe’s view, lay implicit in the pre-expanded text. They ‘unfold’ the text. Most often the purpose of explicitation is to narrow down the interpretive possibilities of a given word or phrase. Some­ times the pre-expanded text is entirely clear, but more often it presents some equivocal element that is capable of more than one interpretation. By isolat­ ing the word or phrase in the co-text that has been augmented by the addi­ tion, we can infer both the pre-existing problem in the passage, as well as the scribe’s solution. These types of scribal additions have sometimes been called “explana­ tory,”22 “exegetical,”23 or “interpretative.”24 While such expansions presup­ pose an exegesis or interpretation of the text, it is imprecise to call the addi­ 19 K. Klaudy, “Explicitation”, in Mona Baker (ed.), Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (Lon­ don: Routledge, 1998), 80–85, on p. 80. 20 The dynamics of explicitation in translation are subject to a much wider range of factors. For example, some languages require more explicit use of pronouns than others, requiring “obligatory explicitation.” For a typology of explicitation in translation studies see Klaudy, “Explicitation,” 82–84. 21 The term “explicitation” has been independently proposed by two scholars to describe this type of scribal addition. In his introduction to textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible, P. K. McCarter proposes “explicitation” to describe how “scribal activity tended to make the implicit explicit. Explicitation is a type of expansion that gives expression to something that was only implied in the original context” Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 34-36, on p. 36. Additionally, T. A. W. van der Louw, in his analysis of translation technique of the OG within the context of descrip­ tive translation studies, employs the term “explicitation” to describe the same process on the level of the translation process. “An explicitation is a transformative element whereby elements that are linguistically implicit in the source text are made explicit in the target text” Transformations in the Septuagint: Towards an Interaction of Septuagint Studies and Translation Studies (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 81. 22 G. Fohrer, “Die Glossen im Buche Ezechiel”, ZAW 63 (1951) 33–53, on p. 40. 23 Dijkstra, “Glosses in Ezekiel,” 60. 24 P. Pulikottil, Transmission of Biblical Texts in Qumran: The Case of the Large Isaiah Scroll 1QIsaa (JSPSup; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 81.

58

Categorizing Scribal Expansion

tion itself an “interpretation” or an “exegesis.” More precisely, these kinds of expansions, generated by the potential ambiguities in the original text, are added to make explicit what the scribe sees as implicit, to narrow down the interpretive possibilities of the text so as to avoid misunderstanding. A word should be said here about what constitutes a “difficulty” in the text. One common way of referring to these potential ambiguities in the text is to call them conceptual or semantic “gaps.”25 But we must be careful here, as Samely warns: “The usefulness of explanations which speak of ‘gaps’ as if they were independent, objective things that every reader must perceive in the same way, is … quite restricted. The same holds true for other ‘inherent’ problems in the Hebrew text.”26

This warning is important. There are many scribal expansions generated by potential ambiguities (“gaps”) that may not be viewed as such by modern scholars. Vice-versa, there may be “gaps” or “discontinuities” a modern scholar may find in Ezekiel that were not perceived as such by ancient scribes. All readers carry out their work within a conceptual world and with a particular mental apparatus that shapes one’s conception of what is or is not a “gap” in the biblical text. This examination will seek to be descriptive in speaking of such “discontinuities” and to uncover the reading and inter­ pretive sensibilities of the scribes who expanded the Ezekiel text.

2.1.2 Elaboration This is one of the largest over-arching types of scribal expansion in Ezekiel. While elaborative additions take many forms, there are a handful of defining characteristics that distinguish these from explicitation. Elaborative addi­ tions are attuned to the vocabulary and imagery of the co-text and contri­ bute new concepts, images, or terminology to the passage, adding to its rhetorical or stylistic features. They go a step beyond what is merely impli­ cit, and make a creative advance by developing the passage in a new direc­ tion. Examples of scribal elaboration highlight the creative role of ancient scribes in the blurry transition between the composition and transmission of each biblical book. Scribes in the Second Temple period did not have anything like our neat division between “author” and “copyist,” and the lat­ ter were certainly capable of contributing to the biblical text in ways consis­ tent with what scholars call “biblical style” or “poetics.”27 25 Yule and Brown, Discourse Analysis, 265–66. describe the reading process as an exercise in “filling in gaps and discontinuities” in a text. This is precisely the feature of Rabbinic mid­ rash highlighted by D. Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1990), 16–17: “The biblical narrative is gapped and dialogical. The role of midrash is to fill in the gaps.” 26 Samely, Interpretation of Speech, 169. 27 This point was the burden of Talmon’s important study, “The Textual Study of the Bible –

A Descriptive Typology of Scribal Expansions

59

These additions take many forms: a synonym is added to develop the sense of a phrase; a parallel stich is supplied to create a paired set of A-B lines; an adjective or hinneh clause is provided to heighten the rhetorical impact of a poetic image. Instances of elaboration show that the scribe was not just a responder to the scriptural text (improving its coherence or clarity) but also a contributor to it (elaborating its sense or embellishing its rheto­ ric).

2.1.3 Coordination This is by far the most common category of scribal expansion in evidence for the text witnesses of Ezekiel, and identifies a process that was at work in the production and transmission of scriptural literature from first to last. It will be useful first to provide a broad definition of this type of scribal expan­ sion and then present the categories employed in this study. Coordinating additions are the result of a scribe holding multiple (at least two) scriptural texts in view, the expanded text and a distant co-text (or cotexts), and augmenting the relationship between them. This relationship can vary widely. The two (or more) co-texts may be separate accounts of the same event; they may be distinct oracles or narratives that simply share similar vocabulary or unique imagery; they may be a series of repeated for­ mulae or phrases. No matter the nature of the relationship, the purpose of a coordinating expansion is to augment or nuance this pre-existing association in some way. This type of scribal addition is usually labeled “harmonization” or “assimilation.”28 It has been widely discussed in text-critical handbooks for the Hebrew Bible,29 and in independent textual studies,30 especially on the

A New Outlook” in F.M. Cross/S. Talmon (ed.), Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975) 321–400. He studied examples of “scribal technique which most probably [were] employed already in the biblical setting on different levels of the creative literary process, and persisted in the same duality of employ­ ments in post-biblical writings. … Authors and copyists were not clearly separable classes of literary practitioners. One rather may presume that a unio personalis was the rule. … It surely must be agreed that [an author/scribe’s] literary techniques would not automatically change whenever he turned from one task to another” (ibid. 335–36). 28 Fohrer, “Die Glossen,” 43; Dijkstra, “Glosses in Ezekiel,” 61; Tov, “Recensional Differ­ ences,” 97. 29 R.W. Klein, Textual Criticism of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 81; P.K. McCarter, Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible (Philadelphia: For­ tress, 1986), 60; Tov, Textual Criticism, 261–62. 30 J. Koenig, L’herméneutique analogique du judaïsme antique d’après les témoins textuels d’Isaïe (VTSup 33; Leiden: Brill, 1982); E. Tov, “The Literary History of the Book of Jere­ miah in the Light of Its Textual History” in J.H. Tigay (ed.), Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985) 211–37; Pulikottil, Trans­ mission of Biblical Texts in Qumran, 45–77.

60

Categorizing Scribal Expansion

Samaritan Pentateuch and the pre-Samaritan texts from Qumran.31 The most comprehensive treatment of the subject was offered by Tov, who examined the “Nature and Background of Harmonizations in Biblical Manuscripts.”32 His definition of the phenomenon incorporates any textual changes or additions that “bring elements of the text into harmony with each other,” and which constitute a “secondary approximation of details” in one text to those of another.33 The most common type occurs when two passages that recount the same event or speech diverge from each other in minor details. These types of differences are often ameliorated in various manuscripts (e. g., the two versions of the Decalogue34), as are larger scale divergences between parallel accounts of narrative (e. g., Kings/Chronicles, the wilderness narratives in Exodus/Deuteronomy). The self-same event or speech is represented in two separate texts, and to some scribes differences between them constitute disharmony. This state of affairs required reconci­ liation. Samely’s description of harmonization in the Targums offers a help­ ful analogy here:35 harmonizing expansions accomplish the removal of inconsistencies between two accounts of the same event or topic. There is, however, another distinct type of scribal expansion that has more often than not received the same label of “harmonization,” but which is quite different in purpose and orientation. In Pulikottil’s study of scribal activity in the 1QIsaa scroll, he uses the term “harmonization” to describe “any change where the changed elements can be traced back to another text.”36 For example, at the end of Isaiah 1: 15 in the 1QIsaa scroll we find the following scribal addition (the bracketed words): [‫“ – ידיכם דמים מלאו ]אצבעותיכם בעון‬your hands are filled with blood, [your fingers with iniquity]”

31 R. Weiss, Mechqere miqra’ be-chinot nosach we-lashon (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1981), 63–189; J.H. Tigay, “Conflation as a Redactional Technique” in J.H. Tigay (ed.), Empirical Models for Textual Criticism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985) 53–96. The pre-Samaritan texts are Qumran biblical manuscripts of the Pentateuch which share particular readings or typological features with the Samaritan Pentateuch, but do not con­ tain the later ideological changes made by Samaritan scribes. These typological features include “the appearance of harmonizing additions within Exodus and of harmonizing additions in Exodus and Numbers taken from Deuteronomy” (Tov Textual Criticism, 98). The manuscripts include 4QpaleoExodm, 4QNumb, and 4QDeutn, as well 4QReworked­ Pentateucha (= 4Q158). For further discussion of these manuscripts and their harmonizing features, see Tov, Textual Criticism, 97–100. 32 JSOT 31 (1985) 3–29. 33 “Nature and Background,” 3–5. 34 For example, the first line of the Decalogue in Exod 20: 8 reads, “Remember (‫ )זכור‬the day of Shabbat,” while the version in Deut 5: 12 reads, “Keep (‫ )שמור‬the day of Shabbat.” The Samaritan Pentateuch of Exod 20: 8 reflects a harmonization with the Deuteronomy pas­ sage, as it reads “Keep” (‫שמור‬i). For a study of other harmonizations between these two versions of the Decalogue, see Tigay, “Conflation as a Redactional Technique.” 35 Samely, Interpretation of Speech, 101–2. 36 Transmission of Biblical Texts in Qumran, 45.

A Descriptive Typology of Scribal Expansions

61

The words of the expansion, “your fingers with iniquity” have been lifted directly out of Isa 59: 3, “for your hands are fouled with blood, and your fin­ gers with iniquity” (‫)כי כפיכם נגאלו בדם ואצבעותיכם בעון‬. Pulikottil labels this addition as “harmonization,” and explains it thus: “The scribe tries to amplify a given passage in the light of the conceptuality of another, by borrowing words or phrases from the latter.”37 Thus, according to his analysis, harmonization includes any scribal expansion which borrows lan­ guage from one text and inserts it into another.38 There is, however, a crucial distinguishing feature between this type of scribal addition and the examples of harmonization discussed above. In cases of harmonization, it is the self-same event or speech-event that is being described in two different texts (e. g., the Decalogue in Exod 20 and Deut 5), and differences imply a disharmony in the two representations of that one event. However, in Pulikottil’s example from the Isaiah scroll, the two pas­ sages (Isa 1: 15 and 59: 3) are not recounting the same event or speech-event. The goal of the addition was to further establish a pre-existing connection between the two passages based on their common vocabulary (“hands,” “blood”). The difference is important: Harmonization is an attempt to avoid contradiction between two texts that recount the same event; the expansion in 1QIsaa is an attempt to create or deepen an association between two texts that share similar language. A more appropriate term to describe the phenomenon illustrated by the Isaiah scroll is “assimilation”: Locutions from a passage with similar termi­ nology are introduced into another. This phenomenon is also evident in the tradition and composition history of the scriptural text. Y. Zakovitch’s study, “Assimilation in Biblical Narratives,”39 isolates and discusses the dis­ tinct features of this editorial and scribal technique and the dynamics that generate it. Precisely defined, assimilation “arises when a traditionist or edi­ tor increases the affinity of stories already similar in themselves by adding to one of them material borrowed from the parallel tradition or composed by him under the influence of the parallel tradition.”40 In the examples he explores, the “parallel tradition” refers not to separate texts that recount the same event or speech, but rather to similar narratives. For example, the stor­ ies of Abraham’s purchase of the cave of Macpelah (Gen 23: 8–20) and David’s purchase of land in Jerusalem (2 Sam 24: 21–24) have many similari­ ties in form and vocabulary. In the Chronicler’s account of David’s pur­

37 Transmission of Biblical Texts in Qumran, 56. 38 This same definition is found in Tov’s description of harmonization (Textual Criticism, 261–62): “Scribes adapted many elements in the text to other details in the same verse, in the immediate context or in a similar one, in the same book and in parallel sections else­ where in the Bible.” 39 Published in J.H. Tigay (ed.), Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (Philadelphia: Uni­ versity of Pennsylvania Press, 1985) 175–96. 40 Zakovitch, “Assimilation,” 176; emphasis mine.

62

Categorizing Scribal Expansion

chase (1 Chron 21: 22–26), he assimilated the story to the Abraham narrative by inserting language from Genesis 32 into the narrative about David.41 Zakovitch also explores a different example of this phenomenon that he connects to issues of composition history. The narratives of the rape of Dinah by Shechem (Gen 34) and the rape of Tamar by Amnon (2 Sam 13) share many similar features in form and unique vocabulary.42 Zakovitch contends that multiple sections of the present form of Gen 34 represent a secondary layer of composition which incorporated phrases from 2 Sam 13.43 Thus, whether we are dealing with scribal expansions on the level of textual transmission or the actual composition of a narrative, the same dynamic is at work: Scribes and/or authors often expanded texts “to further assimilate two stories which were already somewhat similar even before any interpolations.”44 The difference between harmonization and assimilation, then, is one of purpose and impetus. Harmonization avoids and ameliorates inconsisten­ cies and contradictions between parallel passages; assimilation creates and furthers associations between distinct passages which already share similar vocabulary or imagery. The issue of scribal assimilation has been thoroughly studied, particularly the ways in which scribes and exegetes in the Second Temple period con­ nected distinct scriptural passages that share common vocabulary. The issue has relevance not only for the textual transmission of the Hebrew Bible,45 41 For example, 2 Sam 24: 21 reads: “And David said, ‘To purchase from you the threshing floor’” (‫ויאמר דוד לקנות מעמך את הגרן‬i). The parallel account in 1 Chron 21: 22 reads: “And David said to Ornan, ‘Give me the place of the threshing floor’” (‫ויאמר דויד אל‬ ‫ארנן תנה לי מקום הגרן‬i). This change of wording was made in light of Abraham’s words to Heth in Gen 23: 4, “Give me a burial site among you” (‫תנו לי אחזת קבר עמכם‬i). In the same verse, 2 Sam 24: 21, David continues, “… to build an altar to YHWH” (‫לבנות מזבח‬ ‫ליהוה‬i), but the parallel in 1 Chron 21: 22 has an added line, “… and I will build on it an altar to YHWH, give it to me for the full price” (‫ואבנה בו מזבח ליהוה בכסף מלא תנהו‬ ‫)לי‬. This additional phrase is taken directly from Abraham’s words in Gen 23: 9, “For the full price let him give it to me” (‫בכסף מלא יתננה לי‬i). For a fuller discussion of the Chronicler’s editorial work in this passage see I. Kalimi, The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 311–12. 42 Listed in “Assimilation,” 188–89. 43 Specifically, Zakovitch (“Assimilation”, 189–91) argues that the original story about Dinah in Gen 34 did not contain the rape scene, but only the story of Jacob’s sons slaughtering the Shechemites. The author/editor of the story (1) noted the glaring lack of any motive for the slaughter and (2) the already existing similarities between Shechem’s love for Dinah and Amnon’s love for Tamar (cf. the similar language in Gen 34: 1–4 and 2 Sam 13: 1–2). Thus, the specific language in Gen 34: 2 (“he lay with her and raped her”), 7 (“when they heard they were distressed and very angry,” “he had committed an outrage”) was entered into the story on the basis of 2 Sam 13: 14 (“and he raped her and lay with her”), 13 (“Do not commit this outrage”), 21 (“when king David heard … he was very angry”). 44 Zakovitch, “Assimilation,” 196. 45 The study of such coordinating activities was part of A. Geiger’s early tour de force, Urs­ chrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der inneren Entwicklung des Judentums (Breslau: Julius Hainauer, 1857), on the relationship between the history of

A Descriptive Typology of Scribal Expansions

63

but also for understanding the phenomenon known as “inner-biblical inter­ textuality/interpretation.”46 More specifically, Koenig argues that the prac­ tice of textual association and coordination is rooted in the scribal techni­ ques used in the composition and redaction of the scriptural texts in the post-exilic period.47 This scribal and interpretive phenomenon is often dis­ cussed in connection with the later Rabbinic exegetical technique, gezerah shewa (‫גזרה שוה‬, “equal decision”), used in legal exegesis.48 The collocation of scriptural passages sharing common vocabulary and imagery is also per­ the biblical text and the development of theological and religious beliefs in early Judaism. Also relevant are the early studies of Z. Frankel on the exegetical features evidenced in the LXX translation: Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta (Leipzig: Franz Christian Wilhelm Vogel, 1841); Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik (Leipzig: Johann Ambrose Barth, 1851). The discussion of “additions based on parallel texts” in Prijs’ study of “Jewish Traditions in the Septuagint” (Jüdische Tradition in der Septuaginta [Leiden: Brill, 1948], 84–99) is also valuable. 46 For the term “inner-biblical” see Sarna’s article, “Psalm 89: A Study in Inner-Biblical Exegesis” in A. Altmann (ed.), Biblical and Other Studies (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni­ versity Press, 1963) 29–46. The foundation for this topic was laid by I. Seeligmann’s study of the “presuppositions of midrash exegesis” (“Voraussetzungen der Midraschexegese”, SVT 1 [1953] 150–181), furthered by the programmatic article of R. Bloch, “Midrash” in W.S. Green (ed.), Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Practice (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978) 29–49. This line of scholarship culminated in M. Fishbane’s, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985). For a more recent introduction to this topic, see Y. Zakovitch, An Introduction to Inner Biblical Interpretation (Eben Yehudah: Rekhes hotsa’ah le-or, proyyektiym chinukhiyim, 1992). 47 J. Koenig, L’herméneutique analogique, 50–51, 379–428. “Lieberman admette sans diffi­ cultè le principe de la parentè de l’hermeneutique de G [= LXX] et de celle du rabbinisme, i n’en tire aucune consèquence historique efficace … pour considèrer les origines de cette mèthode. Celles-ci remontent, comme nous le verrons encore à une èpoque antèrieure à la Septante, et il convient de les rattacher à la compilation littéraire des écrits bibliques, en considérant cette derniére dans sa phase la plus importante, lors de l’exil et de la haute péri­ ode postexilique,” (Ibid., 50–51). 48 For a very general discussion of gezerah shewa, see H.L. Strack/G. Stemberger. Introduc­ tion to the Talmud and Midrash (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 18–19. For the classic defi­ nition and discussion of the meaning of the term, see W. Bacher, Die exegetische Termino­ logie der jüdischen Traditionsliteratur: I – Der Tannaiten; II – Der Amoräer (Leipzig: Wis­ senschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1899–1905), Vol. I, 13–16 and Vol. II, 27. There has been debate as to whether the origin of this method is to be located in the homiletical techniques of Hellenistic rhetoric (so D. Daube, “Rabbinic Methods of Interpretation and Hellenistic Rhetoric”, HUCA 22 [1949] 239–264), or whether the Rabbis borrowed merely the term, gezerah shewa (the Hebrew equivalent to the Greek phrase συγκρισις προς ισον), while the method was indigenous to Jewish scribal and exegetical traditions (so S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine [New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1950], 57–62 especially p. 61, “We have no grounds to assume that the method itself of both logical and verbal analogy was borrowed by the Jews from the Greeks. However, the method and the definition of the method, i. e., the terminology, are two different things.”). For a summary and fresh evaluation of the whole debate, see P.S. Alexander, “Quid Athens et Hierosoly­ mus? Rabbinic Midrash and Hermeneutics in the Graeco-Roman World” in P.R. Davies/ R.T. White (ed.), A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History (JSOTS 100; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990) 101–124, especially pp. 116–17. For the most recent, descriptive analysis of the use of analogy and textual coor­

64

Categorizing Scribal Expansion

vasive in the exegetical literature from Qumran49 (e. g. 4QFlorilegium = 4Q17450). It is important to note that this scribal technique is also attested outside the Jewish scriptural tradition in the textual transmission of Greek and Latin manuscripts of the Classical and Late Antique periods as well.51 The scholar who has most thoroughly explored what I designate “assimi­ lation” is Jean Koenig. His work has focused on the hermeneutical dynamics of textual variants and scribal expansion in the OG of Isaiah and in the 1QIsaiaha scroll.52 He uses the phrase “analogical hermeneutic” (her­ méneutique analogique) to describe scribal activity that is distinct from har­ monization.53 More specifically, he examines two particular techniques, that of “scriptural borrowing” (emprunts scripturaires) and “verbal analogy” (analogies verbales). We have already seen a case of scriptural borrowing in the Isaiah 1: 15/59: 3 example discussed above. A phrase from one scriptural text is inserted into another, generated by a pre-existing similarity of lan­ guage or imagery. “Verbal analogy,” on the other hand, involves smallerscale changes or adaptations made to one text on the basis of another pas­ sage.54 Both techniques share one feature: they presume that similar lan­

49

50

51

52

53

54

dination in Rabbinic legal exegesis, see A. Samely, Rabbinic Interpretation of Scripture in the Mishnah (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 194–225. For early discussions of this method in Qumran exegesis see W.H. Brownlee, “Biblical Interpretation among the Sectaries of the Dead Sea”, The Biblical Archaeologist 14 (1951) 54–76, and E. Slomovic, “Toward an Understanding of the Exegesis in the Dead Sea Scrolls”, RQ 7 (1969) 3–15. 4Q174 is the best example of this type of exegetical text at Qumran. It provides commen­ tary on the divine promises to David found in 2 Sam 7: 10–14, but does so by juxtaposing quotations of other scriptural texts which share key words with 2 Sam 7: Exod 15: 17–18 (the common word is ‫ )מקום‬and Amos 9: 11 (the common word is ‫דויד‬i). For the most thorough study of 4Q174 and the exegetical techniques it displays, see G.J. Brooke, Exeg­ esis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context (JSOTSup 29; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985). Reynolds/Wilson, Scribes and Scholars, 229, offer two examples of scribal assimilation in the Greek and Lation manuscript tradition. (1) In the margin of the Medicean catalogue of Aeschylus’ plays (Persae, line 253) a line from Sophocles’ play Antigone (ln. 277) has been written. In later copies of the Medicean catalogue, the line was incorporated into the Aeschylean text. (2) In manuscript M of Vergil’s Aenid (ii.76) a line is added at the foot of the page. It has been taken from a later passage in the Aenid (iii.612) and added here because of the similarity between these two passages in Books ii and iii. “L’activité herméneutique des scribes dans la transmission du texte de l’Ancien Testa­ ment”, RHR 161 (1962) 141–74; L’herméneutique analogique du judaïsme antique d’après les témoins textuels d’Isaïe (VTSup 33; Leiden: Brill, 1982). In Tov’s review of Koenig’s L’herméneutique analogique (published in Biblica 65 [1984] 118–21), he notes this terminological issue, namely that Koenig is studying the same phe­ nomenon called “harmonization” or “assimilation” by other scholars (Tov, “Review,” 119). For example, in Isa 6: 10 the MT reads “make the hearts of this people dull (lit. fat)” (‫השמן‬ ‫לב העם הזה‬i), while 1QIsaa reads “horrify the hearts of this people” (‫השם לב העם הזה‬i). Koenig argues (L’hermneutique analogique, 316–19) that the 1QIsaa reading represents an intentional scribal change made on the basis of Ezek 20: 26, “… in order that I may horrify them” (‫)למען אשמם‬.

A Descriptive Typology of Scribal Expansions

65

guage or imagery in two passages is a sufficient warrant for scribal activity to further or nuance that relationship.55 Koenig’s category of “scriptural borrowing” is particularly valuable for this study on scribal expansions in Ezekiel, as it accurately describes the dynamics of a large portion of textual plusses in Ezekiel discussed in Chap­ ter Four. As Skehan noted long ago, such assimilative scribal expansions (especially in evidence in 1QIsaa) illustrate for us that “an exegetical process was at work within the transmission of the text itself.”56 That we should find such techniques in evidence for the early textual history of Ezekiel is not surprising, and comports with this larger picture of the composition and transmission of the scriptural text in the Second Temple period. I will conclude this section on scribal coordination by briefly outlining the four main types of coordinating additions that occur in Ezekiel. (1) Harmonization in Ezekiel As discussed above, harmonization proper is a particular kind of scribal coordination, namely the avoidance and amelioration of inconsistencies and contradictions between parallel passages which recount the same event or speech-event. The most abundant examples of scribal harmonization in Ezekiel involve coordinating divergent details between the multiple appear­ ances of the divine chariot mobile in the prophet’s visions (chapters 1, 3, 8, 10–11, 40, 43). In these chapters, there are harmonizing additions which contain wording and imagery adopted from the other vision scenes. Since it is ostensibly the self-same divine chariot that Ezekiel is seeing at different points in his prophetic career, their diverging representations were harmo­ nized.

55 See Koenig, L’herméneutique analogique, 27–30. It should be noted here that the most common critique of Koenig’s work by reviewers is that his final conclusions overreach the evidence. He extrapolates from his examples in OG Isa and 1QIsaa what he calls a “hermé­ neutique méthodique souvraine” (ibid., 30), which, he believes, was pervasive throughout the entire scribal culture of Second Temple Judaism. However, it is an overstatement to make such general claims about Jewish scribal culture based on select variant readings in two particularly complex textual witnesses (OG Isaiah, 1QIsaa). His examples certainly show that this kind of scribal activity did take place, but not that it was widespread or per­ vasive among Jewish scribes. As Fishbane put it (“Review of Jean Koenig, L’herméneu­ tique analogique du Judaïsme antique d’après les témoins textuels d’Isaïe”, CBQ 46 [1984] 761–63, on p. 763), “I find it hard to look at the evidence of the LXX of Isaiah or 1QIsaa and agree with Koenig’s conclusion that it reflects a systematic working-out of exegetical issues rather than occasional textual reflexes of a serious hermeneutical tradition.” This is exactly the critique of Tov (“Review of Koenig,” 120–21), who argues that Koenig has iso­ lated scribal “tendencies” in two particular text witnesses (OG Isa and 1QIsaa) but not a pervasive “exegetical system” that was carried out in any sort of programmatic way by Sec­ ond Temple scribes. 56 P.W. Skehan, “The Qumran Manuscripts and Textual Criticism” in G.W. Anderson (ed.), Volume du Congrès, Strasbourg, 1956 (Leiden: Brill, 1957) 148–60, on p. 151.

66

Categorizing Scribal Expansion

(2) Assimilation of Related Texts in Ezekiel A unique feature of Ezekiel’s collected oracles is frequent repetition of certain motifs and rhetorical themes.57 This provided scribes with numerous opportunities to coordinate different parts of the collection. Such examples of assimilation appear in a wide range of genres, and the relationship between the two texts involved (source text, expanded text) can vary widely. All that is required to warrant a perceived association or relationship between two texts is similar vocabulary or related subject matter. In each case, we will consider the larger co-text of the expanded text and the source text in order to understand the basis for the perceived relationship. We will also note how the assimilative expansion augments the sense of the immedi­ ate co-text. (3) Assimilation of Phraseology Another type of textual coordination functions on a more superficial level, namely, the leveling out of differences between frequently occurring speech formulae. One of the characteristic features of Ezekiel’s diction is the repetition of formulaic phraseology.58 This feature has been variously accounted for in Ezekiel scholarship, but it is a distinctive feature of the book.59 There is a clear tendency in the OG and MT plusses to homogenize frequently occurring terminology.60 (4) Cross-Reference/Allusion There are a handful of examples in which the expansion does not simply adopt the language of a related passage from another scriptural text, but actually involves an intentional allusion to that related passage. Inner-bibli­

57 The most comprehensive listing and analysis of the language and imagery unique to Eze­ kiel is that of W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1 (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 21–40. Moreover, there are multiple motifs that occur twice or more in the book–for example, the two depictions of Israel as a prostitute (Ezek 16 and 23), the two promises of the internal reconstitution of the Israelites (Ezek 11 and 36), the two descriptions of Ezekiel as a watch­ man (Ezek 3: 17–21 and ch. 33). 58 This includes the prophetic speech formulae which introduce each literary unit (“The word of YHWH came to me saying”), markers of internal structure (“says YHWH”), or fre­ quently occurring phrases (“son of man, speak to Israel, saying,” “hear the word of YHWH,” etc.). 59 Scholarship in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries tended to attribute the repeti­ tive nature of the book’s diction as much to later generations of scribal corruption or sup­ plementation as to Ezekiel himself. G.A. Cooke’s comments (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel [ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1936], xxviii) are exemplary: “The text [of Ezekiel] has been so much damaged by editors and readers that the prophet himself cannot be held responsible for all the tedious repetitions; yet we must admit that Ezekiel’s style, even at its best, lacks the picturesque quality of Isaiah and Nahum, the sensitive fervor of Jeremiah, and the fine rhetoric of Deuteronomy; it belongs to the silver, not the golden age of Hebrew Literature.” 60 I adopt the word “homogenize” from Tov’s description of a certain category of scribal expansion in Jeremiah (“Nature and Background of Harmonization,” 227). He uses the word in a more general sense of “filling in of details that are mentioned elsewhere in the context.”

A Descriptive Typology of Scribal Expansions

67

cal allusion may be defined as “the strategic reuse of an antecedent biblical text (the evoked text) in a later biblical text (alluding text).”61 It assumes that the reader has access to or memory of the evoked text, and that the recogni­ tion of the allusion “will influence their understanding of both the evoked and alluding texts, maximizing the scope and complexity of an allusion’s effects.”62 More particularly, the allusions evident in the expansions in Eze­ kiel fit the profile of what is called “marked allusion.” These are additions whose locutions are determined by the vocabulary of the evoked text, and so serve as markers pointing to that text.63 This constitutes the most subtle type of textual coordination, for it assumes a thorough knowledge of the scriptural texts being evoked in order to understand the purpose of the scri­ bal expansion.

2.2 The Source of Scribal Expansions The three categories discussed above, along with their sub-divisions, are framed in terms of their purpose: explicitation, elaboration, coordination. There is, however, another feature of scribal addition that contributes to our understanding of its nature and purpose, namely, the source of an expansion’s vocabulary. Whence comes the language of any given expan­ sion? There are four logical possibilities and I will provide a categorical label for each type. The wording of the addition can be (1) drawn from the nearby co-text (In-Text), (2) taken from a distant co-text in the same book, i. e., from another text within Ezekiel (Inner-Text), (3) from a distant cotext in another scriptural book (Inter-Text), or (4) entirely new language is introduce into the co-text (New). These four potential sources of an addi­ tion’s vocabulary can be depicted graphically as follows: 61 W.A. Tooman, Gog of Magog: Reuse of Scripture and Compositional Technique in Ezekiel 38–39 (FAT 52; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 51. Tooman’s model for inner-biblical allusion (ibid., 23–34) is in many ways similar to that of R.L. Schultz, The Search for Quo­ tation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets (JSOTSS 180; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999). Both integrate the discussion of literary allusion laid out by Z. Ben-Porat, “The Poe­ tics of Literary Allusion”, PTL: A Journal of Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature 1 (1976) 105–28, on pp. 107–8, who defines it as “a device for the simultaneous activation of two texts. The activation is achieved through the manipulation of a special signal: a sign (simple or complex) in a given text characterized by an additional larger ‘referent.’ The referent is always an independent text. The simultaneous activation of the two texts thus connected results in the formation of intertextual patterns whose nature cannot be prede­ termined.” 62 Tooman, Gog of Magog, 26. 63 Whether or not the markers are detected by every reader, the allusion still functions mean­ ingfully within the co-text, but an element of meaning is in fact missed. As C. Perri (“On Alluding”, Poetics 7 [1978] 289–307) discusses, all allusions have a double referent. The words can have a non-allusive meaning within the text, but additionally “the alluding text directs our attention to one or more aspects of the source text necessary to comprehend the meaning of the allusion” (ibid., 295–96).

68

Categorizing Scribal Expansion

The question of source illuminates two interrelated aspects of scribal InnerInterexpansion. First, it tells us something New In-Text Text Text about the literary resources that informed the work of the scribe. The majority of scribal additions in Ezekiel adopt language taken either from the immediate co-text (In-Text), or from a distant co-text (Inner-Text or Inter-Text). In other words, a scribe would clarify or elaborate the text at hand with the language of Ezekiel itself or with the language of another scriptural text.64 There are, however, a sizeable portion of examples where the expansion does not depend on a co-text known to us, and so must be deemed as the scribe’s own creation. Second, tracking the source of an expansion’s vocabulary also gives us insight into the boundaries of the relevant co-text when scribes explicated or elaborated a text in Ezekiel. This is especially important in examples of assimilating additions. While scribes have drawn upon diverse and distant co-texts as a resource for their expansions, there were certain constraints. Not just any other scriptural text was relevant to any other.65 The sourcetext needed to have a pre-existing relationship (i. e., shared vocabulary or Source

64 Pulikottil’s discussion (Transmission of Biblical Texts in Qumran, 72–73) of the implica­ tions of inner-scriptural assimilation (he calls it “harmonization”) is helpful here: “Textual and intertextual harmonization shows how intimately the scribe knows the texts other than the one he is dealing with. … This suggests that the scribe’s is a mind that is very much steeped in the phraseology and idioms of the Bible. These assimilations thus indicate the literary resources that he possessed and that have given shape to his thinking.” 65 The notion that any part of a scriptural text is relevant to any other has been called “ato­ mistic exegesis,” and used to describe the interpretive techniques of Rabbinic midrash. According to G.F. Moore’s classic definition, atomistic exegesis “interprets sentences, clauses, phrases and even single words independently of the context … [and] combines them with other similarly detached utterances and makes use of analogy of expression, often by purely verbal association, ” G.F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era (2 vol.; Cambridge, 1927–30; repr. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997), 1: 248. In his classic exposition of the interpretive methods of Rabbinic midrash, Y. Heinemann, Darkei ha-Aggadah (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1970), 100, explains how midrash presup­ poses “the independence of the component parts of speech” (‫העצמאות חלקי הדיבור‬i), and so any part of any textual level of Scripture (a letter, word or sentence) can be com­ bined with any other for mutual illumination. More recent studies on Rabbinic midrash have perepetuated this view as well, particularly D. Instone-Brewer, Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before 70 CE (TSAJ 30; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 1– 5, and D. Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash, 16, emphasis mine: “Were I to attempt to define midrash at this point, it would perhaps be radical intertextual reading of the canon, in which potentially every part refers to and is interpretable by every other part.” However, this characterization has been recently challenged by A. Yadin, Scripture as Logos: Rabbi Ishmael and the Origins of Midrash (Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania, 2004, especially ch. 3 “Freedom and Restraint in Midrash Halakhah: Hermeneutic Mark­ edness”), who has demonstrated that the Rabbi Ishmael midrashim actually employ remarkable restraint in coordinating various scriptural texts. There must be certain textual markers that allow exegetical coordination between multiple cotexts.

69

A Descriptive Typology of Scribal Expansions

imagery) with the text at hand. This kind of connection provided warrant for coordinating expansions, and marked the distant co-text as a potentially relevant passage.

2.3 Conclusion – A Bi-Level Analysis I have proposed in this chapter two complementary frameworks for cate­ gorizing and analyzing scribal expansions in Ezekiel, purpose and source. These can be combined into a descriptive typology that consists of two axes, and this will aid us in organizing the mass of scribal additions in Ezekiel. The following componential diagram will illustrate how the data can be coordinated into a bi-level framework, as well as show how Chapters Three and Four of this study will organize and present the material. Source Purpose

Result New

InText

InnerText

InterText

Clarification of a semantic ambiguity Clarification of a grammatical ambi­ guity Explicitation

Clarification of ambiguous syntax

ChapterThree

Explicitation of what is already explicit Addition of new adjectives Additional titles Elaboration

Addition of synonyms Addition of parallel lines Addition of new concepts

Coordination

Harmonization with another text

NA

Assimilation of phraseology

NA

Assimilation of related texts

NA

Cross-Reference/Allusion to another text

NA

NA

ChapterFour

Clarification of a conceptual ambi­ guity

70

Categorizing Scribal Expansion

Chapter Three will catalogue and discuss the dynamics of explicitating and elaborating scribal additions in which the source of the language is found within the immediate co-text itself (In-Text) or is entirely new (New). While the purpose of the expansion may vary, the implied scope is the same: the focus is on some feature in the immediate co-text. The index contains a comprehensive list of all the additions that fit this profile, and I have selected for discussion examples that best illustrate these features. In Chap­ ter Four, we will consider the larger body of scribal expansions which attempt to coordinate multiple and related co-texts, whether by harmoniza­ tion or assimilation of phraseology to related texts. The source of these additions may come from the immediate co-text (In-Text) or from a distant co-text within Ezekiel (Inner-Text), or from another Scriptural book alto­ gether (Inter-Text). As in the previous chapter, the index contains a com­ prehensive list of all harmonizing and coordinations expansions, and I have chosen for discussion texts that best illustrate the unique dynamics of this type of scribal expansion.

IV. Expansions That Focus on the Immediate Co-Text: Explicitation and Elaboration In this chapter I will discuss scribal expansions which focus entirely on mat­ ters within the immediate co-text. While the expansions examined in Chap­ ter Four attempt to coordinate multiple co-texts, these additions were gen­ erated by textual factors that are limited to the immediately preceding and following sentences. I will organize the examples according to the two main purposes evident in the additions. (1) Some additions serve to mark explicit what is implicit and have been triggered by potential or perceived ambiguities in the adjoining textual environment. These function as an aid for subsequent readers/scribes to bet­ ter understand difficult passages, or to increase the text’s coherence. (2) On the opposite end of the spectrum are elaborative additions. These are not generated by any perceived difficulties in the co-text, but express a creative impulse that takes up some element in the passage and elaborates it in a new direction, or adds a new flourish to the poetic or narrative rhetoric. These two categories are distinguished from one another in terms of the expansion’s generative cause, and will be dealt with separately. In each example, I will highlight the particular textual details that have triggered the addition and identify those common features that contribute to the broader profile for each category. In this chapter, I have selected forty-two textual examples for analysis that best illustrate these particular features.1 We begin with additions added to make the text more explicit.

1

For the complete list of Explicating and Elaborating additions, see the Appendices. They catalog the following examples. Explicitation: 1: 3; 1: 13; 1: 15; 3: 8–9; 3: 14; 3: 21; 3: 22; 4: 4; 4: 6; 5: 2; 5: 4; 5: 16; 6: 12; 8: 1; 8: 3; 8: 6; 8: 12; 8: 17; 9: 8; 10: 7; 11: 2; 11: 5; 12: 7; 12: 12; 16: 4; 20: 40; 20: 44b; 21: 8; 23: 38–39; 24: 2; 24: 9; 24: 10; 24: 11; 25: 16; 26: 17a; 28: 13; 29: 4; 29: 14b–15a; 30: 5a; 30: 5b–6; 31: 15; 32: 30; 33: 8; 33: 15; 33: 22; 33: 24; 33: 30; 33: 31; 34: 4; 34: 5–6; 34: 16; 34: 20; 35: 14b; 36: 8; 37: 9; 37: 12b; 37: 21; 39: 9; 39: 14; 40: 1b–2; 41: 4; 43: 12; 44: 7; 44: 13; 44: 27 Elaboration: 1: 14; 2: 3a; 2: 9; 4: 13a; 5: 11; 5: 13; 5: 14; 5: 15; 5: 16; 6: 4; 6: 6; 6: 13; 7: 16; 7: 20; 7: 24; 7: 27; 8: 2b; 8: 3; 8: 7; 10: 1; 12: 27; 13: 5; 13: 11; 13: 22; 16: 13; 16: 22; 17: 17; 17: 22; 18: 10; 18: 18; 18: 32; 19: 9; 19: 13; 20: 18; 20: 21b–22; 20: 26; 20: 28; 20: 37; 21: 12; 21: 28; 22: 6; 22: 12; 22: 18; 22: 20; 22: 20–21; 22: 27; 23: 33; 23: 32; 23: 34; 24: 13; 24: 14a; 24: 16; 24: 18; 24: 27; 25: 7; 25: 8; 25: 10; 26: 17–18; 26: 21; 27: 12; 27: 16; 27: 24; 27: 31; 27: 32; 27: 33; 28: 12; 28: 19; 28: 22b–23a; 28: 25b; 28: 26; 29: 3; 29: 19; 29: 20; 30: 4; 30: 9; 30: 12; 30: 13b; 30: 13c; 31: 2; 31: 8b–9; 31: 11; 31: 18; 32: 20; 32: 21; 32: 26; 31: 29; 32: 29; 32: 31a; 33: 20; 34: 21–22a; 34: 25a; 35: 9; 36: 17–18; 37: 1; 37: 2; 37: 9; 37: 23; 37: 25; 38: 13; 39: 28; 43: 3; 43: 26–27a; 44: 6; 44: 8; 44: 10; 44: 12; 45: 15; 45: 16; 46: 14

72

Expansions That Focus on the Immediate Co-Text:

1. Scribal Explicitation 1.1 Clarification of Semantic Ambiguity 1.1.1 Clarification of Lexemes [3.1] Ezek 6: 12 ‫ הרחוק בדבר ימות והקרוב בחרב יפול ]והנשאר[ והנצור ברעב ימות‬MT

OG ὁ ἐγγὺς ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ πεσεῖται ὁ δὲ μακρὰν ἐν θανάτῳ τελευτήσει καὶ ὁ περιεχόμενος ἐν λιμῷ συντελεσθήσεται

MT The one who is far off will die by the plague, and the one who is near will fall by the sword, [and the one who remains] and the one who is preserved will die by famine.

The phrase “and the one who remains” (‫ )והנשאר‬is not only absent in the OG, but also disturbs the tight parallel structure of the three lines, each of which has only two items: (a) far off + plague, (b) near + sword, (c) pre­ served + famine. Moreover, there is a conspicuous feature of the text which would have generated precisely this kind of explicitating addition: the con­ sonants of the word ‫ והנצור‬are capable of two divergent interpretations. The word could be (1) a Niphal participle of ‫ צור‬meaning “besieged” (though the Niphal of this root is not clearly attested in Biblical Hebrew)2 or (2) it could be a Qal passive participle of ‫ נצר‬meaning “preserved” (cf. Isa 49: 6 [Qere] ‫אל‬ ֵ ָ‫רי י ִשר‬ ֵ ‫ וּנ ְצוּ‬, “and the preserved ones of Israel”).3 The MT plus narrows the semantic possibilities of the ambiguous word by offer­ ing a synonym “the one who remains,” which makes it clear that the second meaning mentioned above (“preserved”) is intended.4 Accordingly, the line refers not to those Judeans within the besieged city of Jerusalem, but to those who are left over after the plague and sword have done their worst. Of interest is the OG’s rendering of ‫ והנצור‬as καὶ ὁ περιεχόμενος, “and the one who is besieged.” The OG Vorlage did not contain the clarifying addition, and so the translator rendered the word in precisely the sense that was excluded by the scribal addition in the (proto-)MT tradition.5 This last point may also explain why the explicating expansion is placed before the potentially ambiguous word. Because it is semantically unambiguous it pre­ vents any possible misinterpretation of the following synonym. 2

3

4 5

HALOT, 1015, lists only one other possible occurence of a Niphal of ‫צור‬, namely Isa 1: 8 ‫כּ ְע ִיר נ ְצוּרָה‬, which would be differently vocalized if this were the case (it would be ‫נ ְצֹורָה‬, cf. JM §80l). This poses semantic problems in the other two putative occurrences of the Qal passive of ‫נצר‬, Isa 1: 8 and Jer 4: 16 (where ‫ ֹנצ ְר ִים‬was rendered as συστροφαι “enemies” in the OG, perhaps by consonantal association with ‫צר‬i), which are taken in the sense of blockaded, i. e., kept close; cf. BDB, 666. Thus, the standard Biblical Hebrew lexica register this word as a Qal passive particple of ‫נצר‬, cf. BDB, 655–56; HALOT, 718. Also noted by W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1 (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 181.

Scribal Explicitation

73

This initial example is helpful in illustrating the text-critical issues that we will continually face throughout this study. Is this MT plus the result of scribal expansion, or abbreviation by the OG translator? One could poten­ tially argue that the OG translator condensed the two verbs into one “because the translator regarded it [‫ ]והנשאר‬as an otiose synonym of the following term.”6 However, the great majority of scholars have argued that this MT plus does, in fact, represent a explicating scribal expansion.7 What factors enable us to argue that one explanation is more probable than another? (1) We can appeal to what we know about the profile of the transla­ tion technique of OG Ezek (cf. my discussion on pp. 28–40 above), namely that this translator held to a consistent principle of quantitative representa­ tion in dealing with his Hebrew Vorlage. A subset of this argument can appeal to other similar cases to show that the translator does not demonstrate a pattern of condensing synonyms.8 While this is a general argument and cannot alone suffice as a line of evidence, it should be considered.9 (2) We can also appeal to the merits of each particular case. Because the word repre­ sented in both the MT and OG (‫ )והנצור‬is semantically ambiguous and diffi­ cult to construe in its other occurrences (Isa 1: 8; Jer 4: 16), we are not dealing with a simple case of synonym reduction by the translator. The word in question poses problems of semantic interpretation, evidenced by the diverse translations of this word found elsewhere in the OG.10 (3) Contrary to 6

L.C. Allen, Ezekiel 1–19 (WBC; Dallas: Word Books, 1994), 83. M. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1– 20 (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1983), 136 argues that ‫ והנצור והנשאר‬form a hendiadys, meaning “the one who remains under siege.” D.I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1– 24 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 234 n. 76, follows this interpretation, and so presumes that the OG translator has condensed the two Hebrew verbs into one Greek phrase. 7 F. Hitzig, Der Prophet Ezechiel (KHAT; Leipzig: Weidmann, 1847), 43; M. Bertholet, Das Buch Hesekiel erklärt (Freiburg: J.C.B. Mohr, 1897), 36; G.A. Cooke, A Critical and Exe­ getical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1936), 71; Zim­ merli, Ezekiel 1, 181; J.W. Wevers, Ezekiel (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 61. 8 For example, the vocabulary Ezekiel uses to describe the ruined state of the land of Israel after the Babylonian assault is expansive and repetitive. These texts represented frequent opportunities for the translator to condense multiple synonyms, but there is no evidence for this: cf. 6: 14, ‫ – שממה ומשמה‬εἰς ἀφανισμὸν καὶ εἰς ὄλεθρον; 29: 9, ‫– לשממה וחרבה‬ ἀπώλεια καὶ ἔρημος; 29: 10, ‫ – לחרבות חרב שממה‬εἰς ἔρημον καὶ ῥομφαίαν καὶ ἀπώ­ λειαν; 32: 15, ‫ – שממה ונשמה‬εἰς ἀπώλειαν καὶ ἐρημωθῇ; 33: 29, ‫שממה ומשמה‬- ἔρημον καὶ ἐρημωθήσεται; 35: 3, ‫שממה ומשמה‬- ἔρημον καὶ ἐρημωθήσῃ; 35: 7, ἔρημον καὶ ἠρη­ μωμένον. 9 The argument is general in the sense that there are possible exceptions. Just because the translator does not always condense synonyms, it does not follow that he never did. 10 In OG Isa 1: 8 ‫ נצורה‬is rendered as “besieged” (πολιορκουμένη, cf. also Isa 27: 3), and in Jer 4: 16 ‫ נצרים‬is rendered as “bands, coalitions” (συστροφαι, on which, see OG Hos 4: 19 where ‫ צרר‬is also rendered by συστροφη; see also OG Hos 13: 12). The verbs labeled “geminate,” “double-weak,” and “middle-weak” created a unique set of challenges for ancient translators in their lexicographical interpretation of the Hebrew text. For a fasci­ nating treatment of “analogical” lexicography of the verbs ‫ חול – חיל – חלל‬in the OG, see D. Weissert, “Alexandrian Analogical Word-Analysis and Septuagint Translation Techni­

74

Expansions That Focus on the Immediate Co-Text:

Allen’s claim above that the OG translator has condensed synonymous terms,11 the words were not viewed as synonyms. The translator had ade­ quate lexical resources to render “remains” (Niphal ‫ = שאר‬καταλείπω in Ezek 17: 21, 36: 36), and it is clear that the word ‫ והנצור‬was not interpreted as “preserved” but rather “besieged.” These words are not amenable to syno­ nym condensation. (4) As noted above, the expansion disturbs the tightly paired structure of the line, and so sticks out as an additional element. The second factor, namely the inherent difficulty of the word’s interpre­ tation, made this text a prime candidate for scribal explicitation. Combined with points (1), (3), and (4) we can argue that this is more likely a case of scribal expansion, and not translator abbreviation. I have spelled out the line of reasoning here in some detail because these types of factors (translation technique, translator’s lexical resources, the merits of each particular case) will be drawn upon again as we encounter particularly difficult texts. [3.2] Ezek 26: 17 ‫ איך ]אבדת[ נושבת מימים העיר ההללה‬MT ‫נשבת מימים העיר ההללה‬ ‫ = איך‬OG

OG πῶς κατελύθης ἐκ θαλάσσης ἡ πόλις ἡ ἐπαινεστὴ MT Oh how [you have perished] O inhabited one from the seas, O city of renown! OG Oh how you have been brought to an end from among the seas, O city of renown!

In this case, the potential semantic ambiguity in the MT would not be evi­ dent were it not for the shorter OG witness. The only hint that something is amiss in this line is the awkward phrase in the MT, “inhabited one from the seas” (‫נושבת מימים‬i).12 With the plene spelling of ‫נושבת‬, the word can only mean “inhabited one” (Niphal participle of ‫ישב‬i). However, the clue to the word’s original ambiguity is preserved for us in the OG which translated the word κατελύθης (“you have been brought to an end/destroyed”), reflecting an original defective spelling, ‫נשבת‬i(Niphal perfect of ‫שבת‬i).13 As in the previous example, the consonants permit more than one interpreta­ tion. The MT plus provides a word with a certain semantic overlap (‫אבדת‬, “you have perished”), but its position before the unclear word secures one particular meaning for ‫נשבת‬, though it is interesting to note that no coordi­ nating conjunction was added.14 In the MT, the syntax of the two asyndetic

11 12 13 14

que”, Textus 8 (1973) 31–44. His conclusions are that the OG translators often employed a “heuristic principle of analogy or form-association” with verbs that use similar consonants (44). Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 83. The verb “to sit, dwell” (‫ )ישב‬is used in conjunction with the preposition “from” (‫ )מ ִן‬only when the latter is joined with another preposition, cf. BDB, 442–43. Note the syntactically parallel phrase (‫ נשבת‬+ ‫ )מן‬in Isa 17: 3‫רי ִם‬ ַ ְ ‫אפ‬ ֶ ֽ‫מ‬ ֵ ‫בּת מ ִב ְצָר‬ ַ ְ ‫ו ְנ ִשׁ‬, “and the fortified city will disappear from Ephraim.” Such an example of syntactically unrelated synonyms is formally similar to the preserva­

Scribal Explicitation

75

verbs has been relieved by the plene spelling of the second word as “inhab­ ited one” (‫נושבת‬i), converting it into a vocative noun and leaving only one main verb in the sentence. The possibility of synonym condensation by the translator is rendered unlikely because the verb ‫ אבד‬is rendered with a dif­ ferent word consistently throughout the entire work (= ἀπόλλυμι in 7: 26; 12: 22; 19: 5; 25: 7, 16, 30: 13; 32: 13; 34: 4, 16; 37: 11). Moreover, the word used by the OG translator here (κατελύθης, “you have been brought to and end”) was employed earlier in the passage to render the same word, ‫שבת‬i (26: 13, ‫בּתּ ִי‬ ַ ְ ‫ = ו ְה ִשׁ‬καὶ καταλύσει). Thus, the translator saw in the conso­ nants ‫ נשבת‬the very sense excluded by the expansion and the plene spelling in the MT tradition. [3.3] Ezek 39: 9 ‫ ויצאו ישבי ערי ישראל ובערו ]והשיקו[ בנשק… ובערו בהם אש שבע שנים‬MT

OG καὶ ἐξελεύσονται οἱ κατοικοῦντες τὰς πόλεις Ισραηλ καὶ καύσουσιν ἐν τοῖς ὅπλοις… καὶ καύσουσιν ἐν αὐτοῖς πῦρ ἑπτὰ ἔτη MT And those who inhabit the cities of Israel will go out and will burn [and set fire to] the weapons… And they will burn them with fire for seven years.

This example provides a methodological contrast to the previous two. Like the above examples, the word ‫ ובערו‬is capable of two distinct semantic interpretations. The Piel of ‫ בער‬is used in the precise sense “to burn, set on fire,”15 and in a more general sense “to purge, remove,”16 a distinction that was noticed by the OG translators.17 The MT plus consists of a synonym which corresponds to the first meaning, “and they will set on fire,” clarify­ ing that the activity in view is not simply the removal, but the actual incin­ eration of the weapons.18 However, unlike the first two examples of scribal

15 16

17

18

tion of synonymous variants in ancient biblical manuscripts, see S. Talmon, “Double Read­ ings in the Masoretic Text”, Textus 1 (1960) 144–84. This is in fact the interpretation that Greenberg proposes for this example, Ezekiel 21–37 (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1997), 536–37. Cf. Lev 6: 5 ‫עצ ִים‬ ֵ ‫הן‬ ֵ ‫כּ‬ ֹ ‫ה‬ ַ ָ ‫לי ה‬ ֶ ָ ‫ער ע‬ ֵ ִ ‫וּב‬, “and the priest will burn the wood upon it.” Cf. Deut 19: 13 ‫אל‬ ֵ ָ‫הנָּק ִי מ ִיּ ִשר‬ ַ ‫ד ֽם־‬ ַ ָ‫ער ְתּ‬ ַ ֽ ִ ‫וּב‬, “and you shall purge the guilt of innocent blood from Israel.” There is debate regarding the exact distinction of these two senses. BDB (128–29) regards these two uses of Piel ‫ בער‬as two nuances of one and the same word, whereas HALOT (145–46) lists two different roots which share the same consonants: ‫בער‬ I “to burn, set on fire” and ‫ בער‬II “to graze, devastate, purge.” The distinction makes little difference for the present discussion, for all that is important is that a scribe sensed the semantic ambiguity and sought to clarify the word’s meaning. For a standard discussion of the existence and distribution of such homonyms and homographs in biblical Hebrew, see J. Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968; repr. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1987). For example, in OG Deuteronomy the uses of this verb meaning “burn” are rendered with καίω (Deut 5: 23; 9: 15), while its meaning “purge, remove” is rendered by καθαρίζω (Deut 19: 13; 26: 13) or ἐξαίρω (Deut 17: 7, 12; 19: 19; 21: 9, 21, 22; 22: 24; 24: 7). Of interest is Isaiah 44: 15, which uses both verbs (Piel ‫ בער‬and Hiphil ‫ )שלק‬as synonyms in the context of making a fire:‫חם‬ ֶ ָ֑‫אף־ַישּׂ ִיק ו ְאָפָה ל‬ ַ ‫הם ַויָּחָם‬ ֶ ‫מ‬ ֵ ‫קּח‬ ַ ִ ‫ער ַויּ‬ ֵ ָ‫ ו ְהָיָה ל ְאָדָם ל ְב‬,

76

Expansions That Focus on the Immediate Co-Text:

explicitation, the evidence of the OG is less clear. The translator of OG Ezek consistently renders the word ‫ בער‬with forms of the word καίω (1: 13; 5: 2; 21: 4; 39: 10). The other main word for “burning” employed by the OG translators was ἀνάπτω, used elsewhere to render both words that occur here in Ezek 39: 9 (= ‫ בער‬in Jer 21: 12; Ps 18: 9; 2 Chron 13: 11; and ‫ שלק‬in Ps 78: 21 ). This verb was known and used elsewhere by OG Ezek (ἀνάπτω renders Hiphil ‫ יצת‬in 21: 3). However, in the previous two exam­ ples of scribal explicitation the ambiguous word and the expansion were not wholly synonymous; they were semantically distinct enough that the OG translator would have had to employ different Greek words for each. That is not the case here because the semantic difference between the two words (‫ בער‬and ‫ )שלק‬is slight. While the translator could have employed καίω and ἀνάπτω, he also could have condensed the two Hebrew words into one. Despite the considerations of translation technique and the potential semantic ambiguity of this text, the evidence is ultimately equivocal. This example shows how the mere presence of an MT plus does not guarantee the existence of scribal expansion. Without multiple converging factors pointing in a single direction, we must withhold judgment.

Clarification of Idioms The above examples demonstrate the most basic type of scribal explicita­ tion: narrowing down the semantic possibilities of a word to avoid erro­ neous interpretations. The following cases are formally similar, except that it is not just a word, but a unique phrase or potentially ambiguous idiom that is being clarified. [3.4] Ezek 3: 14 ‫ ורוח נשאתני ותקחני ואלך ]מר[ בחמת רוחי ויד־יהוה עלי חזקה‬MT

OG καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα ἐξῆρέν με καὶ ἀνέλαβέν με καὶ ἐπορεύθην ἐν ὁρμῇ τοῦ πνεύ­ ματός μου καὶ χεὶρ κυρίου ἐγένετο ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ κραταιά [Syriac Peshitta = OG] MT And the spirit lifted me up and took me, and I left [embittered] in the heat of my spirit, and the hand of YHWH was heavy upon me.

As Zimmerli notes the phrase “in the heat of my spirit” (‫ )בחמת רוחי‬is without parallel in biblical Hebrew, and he argues that the adverb “embit­ tered” was added to clarify the nature of the prophet’s agitation.19 While the phrase “heat of my spirit” could describe an angry disposition (cf. Dan 8: 6 ‫כּחֹו‬ ֹ ‫מת‬ ַ ‫ח‬ ֲ ‫בּ‬ ַ , “in the heat of his strength”), it could also refer to the dazzling “and it becomes fuel for burning, and he takes from them and warms himself, indeed he sets it on fire and bakes bread.” 19 Ezekiel 1, 94.

Scribal Explicitation

77

effect of Ezekiel’s ecstatic visionary experience.20 The MT plus is most likely a scribal addition (it is absent not only in the OG, but also in the Peshitta), and shows that the phrase was later understood in a negative sense of angry resentment, perhaps due to the next sentence’s description of Eze­ kiel’s “horrified” state after the vision (‫משמים‬i, 3: 15). Either way, we have here an example of a semantically opaque idiom that has been clarified by scribal expansion. [3.5] Ezek 34: 4 ‫ ואת־הנדחת לא השבתם ואת־האבדת לא בקשתם ובחזקה רדיתם ]אתם ו[בפרך‬MT ‫ = ואת־הנדחת לא השבתם ואת־האבדת לא בקשתם ובחזקה רדיתם בפרך‬OG

OG καὶ τὸ πλανώμενον οὐκ ἐπεστρέψατε καὶ τὸ ἀπολωλὸς οὐκ ἐζητήσατε καὶ τὸ ἰσχυρὸν κατειργάσασθε μόχθῳ

MT … and the banished you did not return, and the lost you did not seek, and with strength you subdued [them and] with severity. OG … and the wandering you did not return, and the lost you did not seek, and the strong you subdued with hardship.

The phrase under scrutiny in this example is ‫ובחזקה‬, which, depending on how one understands its function in the sentence, could mean “with strength” or “over the strong.” The MT plus has secured one particular interpretation, and the alternative is discernible in the shorter text attested by the OG. A number of factors point towards the conclusion that the MT plus is an explicating scribal addition. The structural unity of the sentence before the expansion is clear: in each clause the object of the verb (referring to the maltreated sheep) comes first, followed by the verb itself which describes the shepherds’ misbehavior. However, there is one semantic shift in the last line. In all of the previous lines, the maltreated sheep are depicted as hapless victims (sick, diseased, broken, scattered, lost), but the last line shifts to a more positive description as it includes “the strong” (‫ובחזקה‬i). Again, in each of the verbs the shepherds are characterized by the lack of activity (they have not strengthened, healed, bound up, returned, or sought after the sheep), but the last line reverses this litany of inactivity by describ­ ing them as “ruling” the sheep in a brutal manner. This is a common rhetori­ cal structure in Ezekiel’s oracles, as one often finds long, structurally similar sentences with small variations. Moreover, it is the shorter text of the OG that corresponds to the source texts in Leviticus 25 from which Ezekiel derived the idiom.21 In the preexpanded version of Ezek 34: 4 and also in Lev 25: 43, 46, the object of the 20 So Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 139, and Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 43. 21 The phrase ‫לא תרדה בו בפרך‬, “you shall not rule over him with brutality” occurs twice in Lev 25 (vv. 43, 46; cf. also v. 53). In his study of Ezekiel’s use of language from the Holi­ ness Code, M.A. Lyons notes that this idiom is found only in Lev 25 and Ezek 34: 4, and argues that Ezekiel has adopted the idiom from there; From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code (LHBOTS 507; New York; T&T Clark, 2009), 103–4.

78

Expansions That Focus on the Immediate Co-Text:

verb ‫ רדה‬is governed by the bet preposition (Ezek 34: 4 ‫ובחזקה‬, Lev 25: 43, 46 ‫בו‬i), whereas the MT plus has provided a pronominal accusative (‫אתָם‬ ֹ i). All of these points of evidence argue for the originality of the OG tradition, in which the original idiom is preserved. The expansion in the MT tradition changed the basic structure of the sen­ tence by adding a new object for the verb (‫אתם‬, “them”) which changes the syntactic role of ‫ ובחזקה‬from an object to an adverbial modifier of ‫רדיתם‬, resulting in, “with strength you ruled.” Zimmerli and Greenberg both think that the pronoun ‫ אתם‬is a dittography of the final consonants of 22,‫רדיתם‬ and that this dittography necessitated a further scribal intervention in the addition of a conjunctive waw to tidy up the syntax. Toy and Delitzsch, however, argued that the addition was made on the basis of an interpreta­ tion which construed ‫ ובחזקה‬as an adverb, in which case the verb had no direct object.23 Thus, it was supplied with one (‫אתם‬i), as well as a means to integrate it into the sentence’s syntax (the addition of the waw). The latter interpretation is surely the more economic (it posits only one step, instead of two), and fits the type of scribal modification that I.L. Seeligmann called “fertile misinterpretation.”24 The OG preserves the original form of the pas­ sage, while the MT attests a different interpretative tradition that sought to explicate the text and even introduce that tradition into the text itself. [3.6] Ezek 34: 16 ‫ ולנשברת אחבש ואת־החולה אחזק ]ואת־השמנה[ ואת־החזקה אשמיד‬MT ‫ארענה במשפט‬

MT … and the broken I will bind up, and the sick I will strengthen, [and the fat] and the strong I will destroy, I will shepherd it with justice. ‫ואת־החזקה אשמר‬

‫ = ולנשברת אחבש ואת־החולה אחזק‬OG ‫ארענה במשפט‬

OG καὶ τὸ συντετριμμένον καταδήσω καὶ τὸ ἐκλεῖπον ἐνισχύσω καὶ τὸ ἰσχυρὸν φυλάξω καὶ βοσκήσω αὐτὰ μετὰ κρίματος 22 W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2 (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 205; Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 698. 23 C.H. Toy, The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel: Criticial Edition of the Hebrew Text with Notes (The Sacred Books of the Old Testament; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1899), 94; F. Delitzsch, Die Lese- und Screibfehler im alten Testament (Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter, 1920), 142. 24 “Indications of Editorial Alteration and Adaptation in the Massoretic Text and the Septua­ gint”, VT 11 (1961) 201–221, on p. 203. In this important article, Seeligmann traces exam­ ples of “alteration and adaptation” in the biblical text that likely date to the late Second Temple period. After listing examples of scribal adaptation still evident in the Rabbinic midrashim of the second and third centuries C.E., he argues that “in earlier periods the approach to the text was even freer, and corrections, which took the form of actual textual revision, were more numerous.” He argues that “many of the revisions grew out of a ‘fer­ tile misinterpretation’ that lead to the text being understood in a new light, often at var­ iance with the intention of the original author” (ibid.).

Scribal Explicitation

79

OG … and the broken I will bind up, and the sick I will strengthen, and the strong I will guard, I will shepherd it with justice.

In the MT version, the structural and semantic dissimilarity of the final clause from what precedes is immediately apparent. This section of the ora­ cle depicts YHWH’s rescue and care for the oppressed sheep, but all of the sudden, YHWH identifies a group within the oppressed sheep (the fat and the strong) whom he will destroy for no apparent reason. Greenberg’s description of the incongruence here is apt: “The plain sense is so unexpect­ edly excessive as to cast doubt on [its] authenticity.”25 Moreover, the OG tradition has no representation of ‫ואת השמנה‬, and in place of the MT’s ‫אשמיד‬, “I will destroy” we find φυλάξω (“I will guard”) which represents the graphically similar 26.‫ אשמר‬We have in the MT tradition not only an instance of scribal expansion, but also a case of the graphic interchange of a similar letters, resulting in a very different sentence. The root of this textual puzzle is the curious concluding phrase ‫ארענה‬ ‫במשפט‬, “I will shepherd it with justice.” This could be understood in two ways: (1) YHWH will shepherd the sheep in a fair and just manner, or (2) YHWH will shepherd them “with judgment,” i. e., punishment. The first sense is certainly the one intended, for the oracle then shifts into an indict­ ment of the aggressive goats (preserved in the OG version). Morever, the meaning “with judgment” was likely suggested by the language of the next sentence, where YHWH says that he will “render judgment” (‫שפט‬i, 34: 17) between the sheep and the rams and the goats. Once the phrase was taken in a negative sense (i. e., punitive judgment), the two textual changes evident in the MT follow in course. The change from ‫ אשמר‬to ‫ אשמ)י(ד‬was certainly facilitated by the interpretation of the phrase as negative, and the addition of “the fat one” (‫ )את השמנה‬was added to clarify and heighten the negative depiction of those sheep deserving of judgment.27 Similar to the previous example, the MT embodies a different interpretive tradition that became textual reality, and this was accomplished by small explicating changes. [3.7] Ezek 32: 30 [‫ שמה נסיכי צפון כלם וכל־צדני אשר־ירדו את־חללים בחתיתם מגבורתם ]בושים‬MT OG ἐκεῖ οἱ ἄρχοντες τοῦ βορρᾶ πάντες στρατηγοὶ Ασσουρ οἱ καταβαίνοντες τραυματίαι σὺν τῷ φόβῳ αὐτῶν καὶ τῇ ἰσχύι αὐτῶν

MT There are the princes of the North, all of them, and all of the Sidonians who went down with the slain, in their dismay at their strength [they are ashamed].

25 Ezekiel 21–37, 701. 26 The verb φυλασσω occurs 24 times in OG Ezek and renders the Hebrew verb ‫ שמר‬in all but 6 cases (18: 27; 33: 4, 5, 6, 8, where it renders ‫זהר‬, “to warn”). Thus, in 34: 16 ‫ אשמר‬is the most certain retroversion of the OG. 27 Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 701; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 208.

80

Expansions That Focus on the Immediate Co-Text:

The final phrase of this line in the MT is especially difficult, as it literally reads “they go down, with the slain, in their fear, from their strength, they are ashamed.” As Greenberg has observed,28 the problem here is that Eze­ kiel has used a word repeated often in the preceding context, ‫“ חתיתם‬their fear,” but in a new and entirely different sense. The phrase “their fear” reoc­ curs throughout the poem describing the strength and power of the mighty rulers now in Sheol (32: 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 32). In these instances, the pronoun suffix has a clear objective sense, “someone else’s fear of the ruler.” How­ ever, here in 32: 30, Ezekiel employs the key phrase in a new way: “they will go down, in their (own) dismay at their (own) strength,” i. e., the Sidionian kings will descend to Sheol in total disbelief that their own strength cannot deliver them. Thus, Ezekiel cleverly reverses the sense of ‫חתיתם‬, no longer meaning someone else’s fear of the ruler, but of the rulers’ own dismay at their impending doom. This stylistic shift on Ezekiel’s part was sensed by later scribes, as was the potential ambiguity created by his innovative usage of the phrase. This is the most plausible way to explain the fact that the OG has no representation of the MT’s ‫בושים‬, “they (i. e., the Sidionian rulers) are ashamed.” It is a clarifying scribal explicitation that was added to secure the unique sense of the dense phrase (“their dismay at their strength”), mak­ ing clear that the fear refers to the shameful dismay of the Sidonians them­ selves, not to the fear of those whom the they oppressed.29

1.2 Clarification of Grammatical Ambiguity The following examples of scribal expansion illustrate the same purpose of explicating potentially ambiguous texts in order to clarify them, but focus on difficult grammatical and syntactic constructions in Ezekiel’s diction.

1.2.1 Clarification of Verbal Voice [Active/Passive] [3.8] Ezek 12: 12 ‫ והנשיא אשר־בתוכם אל־כתף ישא בעלטה ויצא… פניו יכסה‬MT [‫יען אשר לא־יראה לעין ]הוא את־הארץ‬ OG καὶ ὁ ἄρχων ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν ἐπ᾽ ὤμων ἀρθήσεται … τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ συγκαλύψει ὅπως μὴ ὁραθῇ ὀφθαλμῷ 28 Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 667. 29 The vocabulary of the expansion, ‫בושים‬, is uniquely related to another, very similar idiom which occurs elsewhere in Biblical Hebrew (noted by Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 667): Isa 20: 5 ‫וחתו ובשו מכוש מבטם‬, “And they will be dismayed and ashamed at Cush, the object of their hope”; Mic 7: 16 ‫ יראו גוים ויבשו מכל גבורתם‬, “Nations will see and will be ashamed of all their strength.”

Scribal Explicitation

81

MT And the prince who is among them will carry on his shoulder at dusk, and he will go out … he will cover his face, so that he cannot see with (his) eyes [he, the land]

The syntactically awkward MT plusses at the end of the line stand outside of the sentence, and are certainly an effort to clarify the potentially ambigu­ ous final words of the verse, ‫פניו יכסה יען אשר לא יראה לעין‬. The mean­ ing of this sentence can be construed in two ways: (1) Zedekiah will cover his face so that he cannot see the land with his own eyes (active sense of ‫ )יראה‬as he exits the city; (2) He will cover his face as a disguise so that he will not be seen (passive sense of ‫ )יראה‬by others. The latter interpretation is reflected by the OG tradition (represented by Papyrus 967),30 where the final verb is rendered as a passive ὅπως μὴ ὁραθῇ ὀφθαλμῷ, “so that he will not be seen with eye(s)” (i. e., the verb is construed as a Niphal ‫אה‬ ֶ ָ‫ֵיר‬i).31 The additions found in the MT tradition were meant to provide both a subject and object for the verb, and safeguard the active sense of the verb in parallel with Ezekiel’s sign act described in 12: 6 (‫)פניך תכסה ולא תראה את־הארץ‬. This latter view was first suggested by Hitzig,32 and has been followed by most modern commentators.33

1.2.2 Clarification of Verbal Time Reference [3.9] Ezek 5: 16 ‫ בשלחי את־חצי הרעב ]הרעים[ בהם אשר היו למשחית‬MT [‫]אשר־אשלח אותם לשחתכם ורעב אסף עליכם‬ OG ἐν τῷ ἐξαποστεῖλαί με τὰς βολίδας μου τοῦ λιμοῦ ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς καὶ ἔσονται εἰς ἔκλειψιν καὶ συντρίψω στήριγμα ἄρτου σου

MT When I send the arrows of the famine [the terrible ones] on them, which were for destruction [which I will send to destroy you, and I will increase famine upon you]

This example introduces us to a fascinating feature of scribal expansion in Ezekiel. Often the pre-expanded text possesses features that are incongruent with the co-text, as is the case here. The surrounding verses (5: 14–15, 17) all contain a second person addressee (5: 14 “I will make you a desolation,” 5: 17 “I will send famine against you”), yet the first line in 5: 16 has a third person plural object, “I will send the arrows of famine on them (‫בהם‬i).” Moreover, the clause which describes the purpose of the “arrows of famine” is cast in a past time-frame, “they were for destruction” (‫אשר היו למשחית‬i), 30 Codex B represents the final MT clause as καὶ αὐτὸς τὴν γῆν οὐκ ὄψεται, a clear attempt to construe the MT text in a meaningful way. 31 The interpretation of the verb as a Niphal passive is taken up by C.H. Cornill, Das Buch des Propheten Ezechiel (Leipzig: J.C. Heinrich, 1886), 243. 32 Hitzig, Der Prophet Ezechiel, 83. 33 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 267; Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 215; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 173.

82

Expansions That Focus on the Immediate Co-Text:

in contrast to the temporal scope of the entire oracle which is oriented towards a future judgment. If one supposed that the OG translator omitted the redundant mention of famine and destruction, it would have to be explained why precisely those elements which bring the passage into harmony with the co-text were omitted, and those that stand in tension were allowed to remain. If a process of editorial omission were taking place, surely the phrases with the out­ standing third masculine plural suffix and past time verbs were the prime candidates.34 Conversely, the MT plusses address precisely these incon­ gruencies, but instead of replacing the original text, they were set alongside it. We should also note how the wording of the original has been adopted in the expansions, but recast in a more contextually appropriate manner. The first clause of the MT expansion clearly mimics the structure of the original: Original: ‫ – אשר היו למשחית‬Expansion: ‫אשר־אשלח אותם לשחתכם‬

The exegetical difficulty of the past time-frame in the original text is thus solved by rewriting the text with a future verb (‫אשלח‬, “I will send”). The oddity of the third plural pronoun (“on them” ‫ )בהם‬is addressed by the addition of the two second person plural suffixes in the expansions (‫לשחתכם‬i; ‫עליכם‬i). While there are other dynamics to the additions in this passage,35 those discussed above are clearly attuned to the co-textual diffi­ culties represented in the time reference of the verbs and the pronouns. It is these very problems that are ameliorated by the expansions.36 The particular feature worth noting here is that the semantically difficult elements in the text were not removed, but were instead neutralized by explicating addi­ tions which brought out what the scribe saw as the true sense of the origi­ nal.

1.3 Clarification of Syntactic Ambiguity [3.10] Ezek 10: 7 ‫ וישלח ]הכרוב[ את־ידו ]מבינות לכרובים[ אל־האש אשר בינות הכרבים‬MT ‫וישא ויתן אל־חפני לבש הבדים ויקח ויצא‬

OG καὶ ἐξέτεινεν τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ εἰς μέσον τοῦ πυρὸς τοῦ ὄντος ἐν μέσῳ τῶν χερουβινκαὶ ἔλαβεν 34 Granted, the OG construes ‫ היו‬as a future verb (εσονται), but this is surely a matter of contextual rendering. Regardless, rendering a perfect verb with a future verb does not bear on the matter of such large quantitative divergences. 35 The final addition ‫ורעב אסף עליכם‬, “and I will increase famine upon you” is likely reflecting the curious double mention of the impending famine in 5: 16 (“when I send arrows of famine”) and 5: 17 (“and I will send famine against you”). The addition of the adjective ‫ הרעים‬could be the result of a conflate reading in the MT, i‫הרעב הרעים‬i(so Zim­ merli, Ezekiel 1, 153). 36 This explanation was proposed by Hitzig (Der Prophet Ezechiel, 39) and has been followed many others (Cornill, Das Buch, 206–7; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 153; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 54).

83

Scribal Explicitation

καὶ ἔδωκεν εἰς τὰς χεῖρας τοῦ ἐνδεδυκότος τὴν στολὴν τὴν ἁγίαν καὶ ἔλα­ βεν καὶ ἐξῆλθεν

MT And he [the cherub] put out his hand [from among the cherubim] to the fire which was among the cherubim, and he lifted some and put it into the hands of the man clothed in linen.

In the narrative sequence of this passage, YHWH addresses the “man clothed in linen” (‫האיש לבש הבדים‬i), directing him to “take fire from among the wheels, from among the cherubim (‫מבינות לכרובים‬i).” A com­ mand which the man follows: “and he went and he stood beside the wheel.” In the shorter text of 10: 7, represented by the OG, the masculine third per­ son verbs continue, “And he stretched out his hand to the fire and he lifted some.” The verbal action could be attributed to the man clothed in linen, but the following sentence makes this interpretation problematic, “and he put it into the hands of the man clothed in linen.” Obviously, the subject of the verb “and he put” cannot be the man clothed in linen, since he receives the action of the verb, and therefore the whole string of narrative verbs in 10: 7 cannot be attributed to him. The only other previously mentioned sub­ ject is YHWH, who spoke in 10: 6a. The additions found in the MT tradi­ tions are the result of contextual interpretation, for whoever is the subject of the verbs on 10: 7 has a hand (“and he stretched out his hand”). In 10: 8 we are told the cherubim of the divine throne chariot “had the semblance of a human hand,” and so a scribe inferred that the subject of the verbs in 10: 7 is one of the cherubs. Moreover, because the fire that is to be given to the man is located “among the cherubim” (10: 6) the second expansion makes explicit that the cherub took the fire “from among the cherubim.” Thus, we can see behind the additions a process of exegetical inference that resulted in explicating additions that address the potential ambiguities within the text. [3.11] Ezek 39: 14 ‫ ואנשי תמיד יבדילו עברים בארץ מקברים ]את־העברים[ את־הנותרים‬MT ‫לטהרה על־פני הארץ‬

OG καὶ ἄνδρας διὰ παντὸς διαστελοῦσιν ἐπιπορευομένους τὴν γῆν θάψαι τοὺς καταλελειμμένους ἐπὶ προσώπου τῆς γῆς καθαρίσαι αὐτὴν [Syriac Peshitta = OG]

MT And they will set apart permanent teams who pass through the land, burying [the travelers] those remaining on the surface of the ground, in order to purify it.

The narrative in Ezek 39: 11–16 describes how the exposed corpses of Gog and his horde are buried over a period of seven months in order to purify the land (39: 14b). The process of retrieval and burial is arduous, requiring the efforts of “all the people of the land” (39: 13), as well as full-time teams (39: 14a). However, the description of these full-time Israelite burial teams (‫אנשי תמיד‬, “permanent teams”) is obscured by their designation as ‫עברים‬ ‫בארץ‬, “those passing through the land” in 39: 14–15. This title is also given

84

Expansions That Focus on the Immediate Co-Text:

to a distinct group of people in the same oracle, namely the hordes of Gog, who are called “the travelers” (‫ )את העברים‬in the difficult verse 11. As Tooman has cogently argued,37 there are in the MT two different groups described as ‫עברים‬i: (1) the Israelites who “pass through the land” burying the corpses (39: 14, 15a), and (2) the foreign armies of Gog who are called “the travelers” (‫את העברים‬i, 39: 11), a term which describes those who mock exiled Judah in Ezekiel’s earlier oracles.38 Thus, in the MT edition of this passage, “those remaining on the surface of the ground” (i. e., the corpses of Gog’s armies which are being buried), receive an additional epithet (absent in the OG and Syriac Peshitta), “the travelers” (‫את‬ ‫העברים‬i), taken directly from 39: 11. In this way, a scribe has clarified the different referents of “the travelers” in this one sentence.39

1.4 Clarification of Conceptual Incongruities While the preceding categories focused on the grammatical or semantic ele­ ments of particular words, phrases, or sentences, the following examples widen their scope to encompass the larger co-text. These expansions play a structural role in tying together components of an oracle which may have a rather loose or unclear relationship. The result of these expansions is greater conceptual or structural cohesion.40 In Chapter Two (section 2.2.1) I dis­ cussed the process by which one can infer the purpose of an addition by examining the semantic difference between the resulting text and the preexpanded version. In such examples, we can infer that these additions were 37 Tooman, Gog of Magog, 172–75. 38 As Tooman has noted (Gog of Magog, 172–73) the Gog oracles have borrowed the termi­ nology of “the travelers” from Ezekiel’s depiction of Israel’s enemies who traverse the land after the Babylonian incursions: 5: 14–15 (‫ואתנך לחרבה ולחרפה בגוים אשר סביבותיך‬ ‫ ) לעיני כל־עובר‬and 33: 28 (‫)ושממו הרי ישראל מאין עובר‬. 39 Whether or not the phrase ‫ את העברים‬is original to 39: 11 is a matter of some debate. The entire phrase in the MT ‫ וחסמת היא את־העברים‬is represented in the OG as καὶ περιοικο­ δομήσουσιν τὸ περιστόμιον τῆς φάραγγος (“they will build up the edge/wall of the val­ ley”) which some have taken to represent a text different from the MT (‫)וחמסו את הגיא‬ that was later changed to the MT’s reading on the basis of 39: 14 (so Cornill, Das Buch, 428; J. A. Bewer, “Textual and Exegetical Notes on Ezekiel”, JBL 72 [1953] 158–68, on p. 165. L.C. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48 (WBC; Dallas: Word Books, 1990), 201, thinks that ‫את‬ ‫ העברים‬is a misplaced gloss on “the house of Israel”: in v. 12. However, this does not affect Tooman’s point or mine in the present context. All that is necessary to explain the vocabulary of the addition in MT 39: 14 is the existence of the MT form of 39: 11. 40 I am using the concept of cohesion here in its technical sense, namely to refer to the degrees and kinds of internal connections that link distinct units or sentences in a text. Cohesion between one textual unit and another may be established by sound-patterns, pronominal back-reference (she, those, etc.), the use of similar syntactical constructions, conjunctions and similar linking phrases (nor, however, consequently, etc.), or repeated lexical items or phrases. See M. Langleben’s insightful, “Latent Coherence, Contextual Meanings, and the Interpretation of a Text,” Text 1 (1981) 279–313.

Scribal Explicitation

85

motivated by the perception of a certain lack of cohesion in the preexpanded edition evidenced by the OG. Ezekiel’s oracles on occasion appear erratic in their conceptual flow and line of argument. This is some­ times due to our lack of familiarity with the conceptual and symbolic world within which the prophet’s words were intelligible. However, on other occasions literary or logical inconsistencies are the result of the composi­ tional processes by which individual oracles were bound together and edited by the prophet himself or later scribes.41 Either way, when textual or con­ ceptual incongruities, apparent or real, appeared in the text they attracted the attention of ancient scribes just as they do modern commentators.42 A great many MT plusses appear to be aimed at supplying greater cohesion in difficult passages. Some scholars have described these as “editorial glosses,”43 or “redactional glosses,”44 for their purpose is to increase the cohesion in a literary unit which (1) shows signs of being a composite unit, or (2) which contains perceived conceptual problems for ancient scribes. [3.12] Ezek 24: 9–11 ‫ לכן כה אמר אדני יהוה ]אוי עיר הדמים[ גם־אני אגדיל המדורה‬i9 [‫ הרבה העצים הדלק האש התם הבשר והרקח המרקחה ]והעצמות יחרו‬i10 ‫ והעמידה על־גחליה ]רקה[ למען תחם וחרה נחשתה‬i11 ‫ונתכה בתוכה טמאתה תתם חלאתה‬

OG

9 10

διὰ τοῦτο τάδε λέγει κύριος κἀγὼ μεγαλυνῶ τὸν δαλὸν καὶ πληθυνῶ τὰ ξύλα καὶ ἀνακαύσω τὸ πῦρ ὅπως τακῇ τὰ κρέα καὶ ἐλαττωθῇ ὁ ζωμὸς

41 The book of Ezekiel is particular in this respect, since very few of the literary units of the book seem to have arisen out of an oral address. Many of the book’s literary components almost certainly had their origin in written form from the beginning. This has been most recently argued by M. Haran, “Observations on Ezekiel as a Book Prophet” in R.L. Troxel/K.G. Friebel/D.R. Magary (ed.), Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005) 3–19, on p. 9: “Ezekiel’s character as a book prophet is con­ firmed by features of his prophecies that should only be interpreted as expressions of an essentially literary work.” Thus we can envision the prophet himself compiling and revis­ ing collections of his own oracles, as well as later scribes who inherited his work and sup­ plemented it in new ways” (i. e., Zimmerli’s “school of the prophet,” cf. Ezekiel 1, 70–71; an idea itself based on the work of S. Mowinckel, Prophecy and Tradition: The Prophetic Books in the Light of the Study of the Growth and History of the Tradition [Oslo: Dyb­ wad, 1946]). 42 We do well to remember that one does not detect a “conceptual incongruency” in a text as though it were a static or objective object. Rather, any person’s perception of “incongru­ ity” is shaped by the conceptual and linguistic tradition in which they are trained to read. What may be considered logically incongruent to a modern scholar was not necessarily so for ancient scribes, and vice-versa. There may be occasions where our sensibilities may overlap with the scribes, but our goal in this section of the chapter is descriptive, so that we become aware of what exactly the scribes of Ezekiel sensed as conceptual “gaps” in need of filling. See the discussion of this point in section 2.2.1.1 in Chapter Two. 43 K.S. Freedy, “The Glosses in Ezekiel i-xxiv”, VT 20 (1970) 129–152, on pp. 144–46. 44 G. Fohrer, “Die Glossen im Buche Ezechiel”, ZAW 63 (1951) 33–53, on p. 44.

86

MT

Expansions That Focus on the Immediate Co-Text: 11

καὶ στῇ ἐπὶ τοὺς ἄνθρακας ὅπως προσκαυθῇ καὶ θερμανθῇ ὁ χαλκὸς αὐτῆς καὶ τακῇ ἐν μέσῳ ἀκαθαρσίας αὐτῆς καὶ ἐκλίπῃ ὁ ἰὸς αὐτῆς

9

Therefore, thus says the Lord YHWH: [Woe to the city of bloodshed!] I will make the wood pile high. Heap on the wood, kindle the fire, finish the flesh and mix in the spices [and let the bones be scorched]. And set it upon the coals [empty], so that it gets hot, and its bronze is scorched, and its filthiness is melted inside of it, its rust consumed.

10

11

In Ezek 24: 3–5, the prophets spins a “parable” (‫משל‬i, 24: 3) about a pot that is to be filled with meaty bones, and placed over a large fire in preparation for a stew. In vv. 6–8 the parable is applied to Jerusalem (“Woe! O city of bloodshed” 24: 6), which is all of a sudden described as pot covered in rusty scum (‫ )חלאה‬that symbolizes the city’s permanently impure status due to bloodshed. The point of this description, especially in v. 8, is that the rust needs to be removed from the pot. In vv. 9–10 we encounter new commands to heap the pile with wood fuel in order to cook the stew, i. e., the meat stew mentioned in vv. 3–5. In vv. 11–13 yet another new imperative is given to place the pot upon the coals; but now the pot is all of a sudden empty, and is to be heated to an extreme temperature to melt off the encrustations of rust within and without. The alternations between the stew pot (vv. 3–5) to rusty pot (vv. 6–8), back to stew pot (vv. 9–10), and then back to an empty, rusty pot (vv. 11–13), have compelled scholars to think that two originally distinct “cooking pot” scenes have been combined in this chapter: one in which a pot is filled with meat and bones to prepare a stew, and another where an empty pot is heated up to get rid of the rust.45 The scribal expansions within vv. 9–11 are attempts to tighten the cohe­ sion of the larger unit and address the incongruencies mentioned above. The first addition, in v. 9, (“woe to the city of bloodshed!” ‫ )אוי עיר הדמים‬is a verbatim restatement of the introductory section in v. 6. Thus, vv. 6–8, which were placed in between the original connection between vv. 5 and 9, are securely integrated into the unit by matching introductions.

45 The fine details of exactly what segments belong to each of the two scenes is discussed thoroughly by Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 496–98, but the basic view that there are two scenes combined here is agreed upon by most scholars: Bertholet, Das Buch Hesekiel, 127–28; Wevers, Ezekiel, 139–40; Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 264; Freedy, “The Glosses,” 139. Even Greenberg agrees, who usually eschews such discussions about the text’s composition history; Ezekiel 21–37, 503–6. L.C. Allen, “Ezekiel 24: 3–14: A Rhetorical Perspective”, CBQ 49 (1987) 404–14, has provided a rhetorical analysis of this complex unit, but admits that his arguments are not a proof of the larger unit’s “original unity,” Ezekiel 20–48, 57.

Scribal Explicitation

87

The addition in v. 10b (“let the bones burn up” ‫ )והעצמות יחרו‬is addres­ sing the discordant relationship between vv. 10 and 11. In v. 10 the pot is full of meat (‫התם הבשר‬, “finish the meat!”), but then in v. 11 it is suddenly said to be empty (“set it empty upon the coals”). This expansion in v. 10b solves the problem by stating that the meat is disintegrated off of the bones into the stew, which itself burns away leaving only charred bones. This makes it possible for the pot to be (virtually) empty in v. 11.46 Moreover, this addi­ tion knits the concluding rusty pot section to the preceding stew pot sec­ tions by speaking of the “bones” in the pot, which were mentioned at the beginning of the stew pot unit in vv. 4–5. Thus, this expansion not only solves a conceptual problem in the immediate co-text, but also unites the various sections of the composite parable. The addition in v. 11 (“place it over the coals [empty]”) follows from the developing logic of the combined sections: to clean the pot of its rust (the topic of vv. 11–12) the pot needed to be empty so that the encrustations could be melted away.47 In summary, then, all three additions are interrelated, and represent an attempt to bring greater conceptual and structural cohesion to the unit by increasing internal self-references (“Woe! City of blood!” “bones”) as well as solving problems in the unit’s conceptual development (full/empty pot). [3.13] Ezek 23: 37b–39 ‫ ואת־גלוליהן נאפו וגם את־בניהן אשר ילדו־לי העבירו להם לאכלה׃‬i37 ‫ עוד זאת עשו לי טמאו את־מקדשי ]ביום ההוא[ ואת־שבתותי חללו׃‬i38 ‫ ובשחטם את־בניהם לגלוליהם ויבאו אל־מקדשי ]ביום ההוא[ לחללו‬i39 ‫והנה־כה עשו בתוך ביתי׃‬

OG

37

MT

37

τὰ ἐνθυμήματα αὐτῶν ἐμοιχῶντο καὶ τὰ τέκνα αὐτῶν ἃ ἐγέννησάν μοι διήγαγον αὐτοῖς δι᾽ἐμπύρων 38 ἕως καὶ ταῦτα ἐποίησάν μοι τὰ ἅγιά μου ἐμίαινον καὶ τὰ σάββατά μου ἐβεβήλουν 39 καὶ ἐν τῷ σφάζειν αὐτοὺς τὰ τέκνα αὐτῶν τοῖς εἰδώλοις αὐτῶν καὶ εἰσεπορεύοντο εἰς τὰ ἅγιά μου τοῦ βεβηλοῦν αὐτά καὶ ὅτι οὕτως ἐποίουν ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ οἴκου μου

And they committed adultery with their idols, and even their sons, whom they bore for me, these they offered to them (i. e., the idols) for food. 38 More­ over, they did this to me: they defiled my sanctuary [on the same day] and they profaned my sabbaths. 39 And when they slaughtered their sons to their idols, then they came into my sanctuary [on the same day] to profane it, and they even did this in the midst of my temple!

In these verses the prophet describes two ways the people of Israel have defiled the temple and its precincts: child sacrifice (23: 37, 39) and Sabbath desecration (23: 38). The unexpected mention of Sabbath desecration in v. 38 within a larger description of child sacrifice seems to interrupt the con­ nection between vv. 37 and 39. This has led some scholars to posit that v. 38 46 Noted by Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 506. 47 Noted by Wevers, Ezekiel, 141.

88

Expansions That Focus on the Immediate Co-Text:

in its entirety is a secondary compositional addition.48 Regardless of one’s view of the compositional status of v. 38, the temporal relationship between the many verbs in vv. 37–39, and the two actions they describe, is left utterly ambiguous. Verse 37 states that the Israelites burned their children in cultic offerings, but no location is specified. Verse 38 says they defiled the temple and desecrated the Sabbath (presumably by not observing it), though the relation between the two is unclear: are they separate activities, or does one cause the other? Then v. 39 goes back to the child sacrifice, and makes clear that these activities were happening in the temple, resulting in its defilement. The verses have a lot in common (child sacrifice, temple defilement), but the sequence and temporal relationship of the events is not at all clear. This is precisely the issue addressed by the two MT plusses. They coordinate the various activities into one single day. Cooke asserts that the scribe responsi­ ble for the additions had a certain past event in mind.49 But the majority of medieval Jewish interpreters,50 along with a handful of modern scholars,51 believe that the additions were meant to coordinate the temporal reference of the various events, showing that they took place simultaneously. In so doing, the temporal relationship between the two actions achieves a level of cohe­ sion that was previously unclear.52 There is no evident motive for the transla­ tor to have omitted just these phrases, as they are neither difficult nor super­ fluous. The best explanation is that they are explicating additions, meant to clarify the timing and relationship of an otherwise unclear series of events. [3.14] Ezek 8: 17 ‫ בן־אדם הנקל לבית יהודה מעשות את־התועבות אשר עשו־פה‬MT ‫כי־מלאו את־הארץ חמס ]וישבו להכעיסני[ והנם שלחים את־הזמורה אל־אפם‬

OG υἱὲ ἀνθρώπου μὴ μικρὰ τῷ οἴκῳ Ιουδα τοῦ ποιεῖν τὰς ἀνομίας ἃς πεποιή­ κασιν ὧδε διότι ἔπλησαν τὴν γῆν ἀνομίας καὶ ἰδοὺ αὐτοὶ ὡς μυκτηρίζοντες

MT “Son of man, is it not bad enough that the house of Judah has done the abom­ inable things they have done here, that they fill the land with violence? [And then they went further to provoke me] And look, they are shoving the stick in their nose! 48 See the discussion in Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 491–92. Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 485, also notes that v. 38 is itself simply a compilation of phrases that appear elsewhere in the book: “this too they have done to me” (= 20: 27); “they have defiled my sanctuary” (= 5: 11); “they have defiled my Sabbaths” (= 22: 8). 49 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 257. 50 Rashi, for example, “On the day, i. e., when they sacrificed their sons to foreign gods, they came before me in my sanctuary to produce abominations to provoke me. And they defiled my Sabbaths, by slaugthering their sons on the Sabbath,” see M. Cohen, Mikra’ot Gedolot Haketer: Ezekiel (Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2004), 156–67. 51 See the discussion in Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 478, 491–92. 52 This is the interpretation of the additions given by Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 478; Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 485; K.L. Wong, “The Masoretic and Septuagint Texts of Ezekiel 39, 21– 29”, ETL 78 (2002) 130–47, on pp. 134–35. Less likely is F. Jahn’s explanation that they are added to “distinguish between human sacrifice and the Yahweh cultus, ” Das Buch Eze­ chiel auf Grund der Septuaginta hergestellt (Leipzig: E. Pfeiffer, 1905), 169.

Scribal Explicitation

89

This passage contains a number of interpretive difficulties, not the least of which concerns the logical relationship of these two accusations in 8: 17 (violence, and shoving the stick in their nose) to the description of the men worshipping the sun in the preceding verse (8: 16). Zimmerli has isolated three exegetical problems in this passage and its relationship to what pre­ cedes,53 and understanding these will help us grasp the significance of the MT plus. (1) The mention of social injustice in v. 17b (‫ )חמס‬is unexpected, given that the entirety of Ezekiel’s temple vision has been concerned with matters of cultic deviance and idolatry (8: 1–16). (2) The meaning of the phrase “they are shoving the branch in their nose” is unclear. (3) The rela­ tionship between these two accusations and the previous description of the men bowing down to the sun is also unclear. The second issue is crucial to understanding the passage and rationale of the MT plus. Is the final phrase in v. 17b (“they are shoving the stick in their nose”) describing yet another act of the Jerusalemites’ cultic practice,54 which is meant to be the fifth and climactic act in the series of “abomina­ tions” Ezekiel has seen in the temple (8: 6, 9, 13, 15)? Those who follow this interpretation hold that the MT plus is not a scribal expansion, but rhetori­ cally necessary as it introduces this pinnacle scene of cultic deviance.55 However, it is by no means clear that the idiom, “shoving the stick in their nose,” is describing any kind of ritual. The structural flow of Ezekiel’s entire temple vision is punctuated by the repeated phrase, “you will see even more abominations” (‫ועוד תשוב תראה תועבות‬, vv. 6, 13, 15), as YHWH shows the prophet each new scene. There is no such structural introduction to v. 17 that would indicate this as a new cultic activity, for the iterated phrase does not appear. Rather, v. 17 introduces a climactic accusation that looks back over all the previous cultic acts in the narrative (“the abomina­ tions which they have done here,” v. 17a). As N. Sarna has noted, the strange phrase is “not a reversion to the list of idolatrous practices, but [refers] to a particularly blatant demonstration of the ‘violence’ of the pre­ ceding clause.”56 It is significant that the word in the MT “their nose”

53 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 221–22, 224. 54 So Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 100, argues that the phrase refers to “some offensively idolatrous rite, the nature of which is unknown.” Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 244–45, surveys the range of cultic interpretations given to this phrase, namely that it describes some sort of rite in which a vine or flower was held up to the sun. He finds all of these interpretations unverifiable and wanting. 55 Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 121, states that the phrase describes a gesture of holding a flower to one’s nose, which is to be interpreted as a symbol of commitment to whatever deity was involved (ibid., 145–46). He appeals to iconographic images of Syrian kings holding flow­ ers while facing a deity. This is, however, a questionable parallel to “shoving a branch” into someone’s nose. 56 “Ezekiel 8: 17: A Fresh Examination”, HTR 57 (1964) 347–52, on pp. 348–49. Sarna goes on (pp. 350–52) to derive the word ‫זמורה‬, from Ugaritic dmr, which he takes to mean “strong warriors,” and concludes that the idiom refers to a scene of violence in Jerusalem.

90

Expansions That Focus on the Immediate Co-Text:

(‫ )אפם‬is marked as a Tiqqune Sopherim in the list of scribal corrections mentioned in Mekhilta to Exodus 15: 7.57 Thus, Zimmerli (1979, 244–45) and Gordis (1936) argue that the original reading was “my nose” (‫אפי‬i), and that the phrase is some kind of euphemism (“they are farting,” so Zim­ merli58) or idiom (“they pester/annoy me,” so Gordis). Whichever interpre­ tation is taken (my/their nose), it is clearly some kind of idiomatic descrip­ tion of either YHWH’s vexation, or the “violence” taking place among the Judeans (which is mentioned again in the next scene of Ezekiel’s vision, cf. 9: 9).59 This general confusion about the relationship between the social injustice in v. 17a and the obscure idiom in v. 17b provides a compelling rationale for the presence of the MT plus in between them, “and then they went further to provoke me” (‫וישובו להכעיסני‬i). Zimmerli’s observation is surely cor­ rect that the addition of this clause was meant to provide a clearer logical connection between the two parts of the accusation.60 However the mean­ ing of the idiom about the branch was perceived by the scribe, the plus pro­ vides its general sense in relation to the “violence” just mentioned in v. 17a: the Judeans are goading YHWH to fury. Thus, both the unclear idiom and its logical relationship to the mention of violence generated an opportunity for scribal explicitation. This proposal has the benefit of explaining the otherwise puzzling absence of the phrase in the OG (there is no apparent reason for it to have been omitted), as well as fitting into the general pattern of scribal expansions we have seen so far in this chapter. In order make a text more coherent, they will explicate and narrow down the interpretive possiblities in a text to clarify potential ambiguities between the different elements of a single passage.

57 For a broad discussion of the Tiqunne Sopherim, see Tov, Textual Criticism, 64–67. Along with M. Zipor, “Some Notes on the Origin of the Tradition of the Eighteen Tiqqune Sopherim”, VT 44 (1994) 77–102, Tov argues that these lists do not directly allude to a col­ lection of scribal corrections. The early lists employ the phrase “Scripture uses a euphe­ mism” (‫כינה הכתוב‬, Sifre 84 to Num 10: 35; Mekhilta to Exod 15: 7), while the later med­ ieval lists use the phrase “corrections of the scribes.” Most likely, “the tradition originally referred to mere ‘euphemisms’ (substitutions) and only afterwards were taken as correc­ tions,” Tov, Textual Criticism, 65. 58 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 244–45, thinks the Targum’s rendering as “stench” ‫בחתא‬, is a clue to the phrase’s meaning, and that it is a sarcastic pun about the men whose backs are facing the inner sanctum of the temple as they worship the sun. 59 Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 172, also supports this latter interpretation: “The obscure expres­ sion at the end of the verse is not connected with the temple abominations, which are superseded in vs. 17a, but with the social wrongdoing of vs. 17b…. Its specific sense is beyond us, but it is noteworthy that Jewish tradition regards the suffix of ’appam “their nose” as a euphemism for ’appi “my nose.” This suggests some provocative gesture.” 60 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 221.

91

Scribal Explicitation

1.5 Explicitation of What Is Already Explicit In this section we consider a type of explicitative addition that fulfills the same function as the above examples: the additions are aimed at bringing out implicit elements of the passage to maximize clarity and avoid misun­ derstanding. In contrast, the following examples involve passages where there is no real possibility of misunderstanding; the text is already quite clear. Nonetheless, we find a body of MT/OG plusses that fill the same role as the above examples. [3.15] Ezek 33: 14–15a ‫ ובאמרי לרשע מות תמות ושב מחטאתו ועשה משפט וצדקה׃‬i14 ‫ חבל ישיב ]רשע[ גזלה ישלם‬i15

OG

14

MT

14

καὶ ἐν τῷ εἶπαί με τῷ ἀσεβεῖ θανάτῳ θανατωθήσῃ καὶ ἀποστρέψῃ ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας αὐτοῦ καὶ ποιήσῃ κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην. 15 καὶ ἐνεχύρασμα ἀποδῷ καὶ ἅρπαγμα ἀποτείσῃ

And when I say to the wicked man, “You will surely die,” and he turns from his sin, and does what is right and just, 15if he [the wicked man] gives back what he took as a pledge for a loan, if he restores what he stole….

In this passage, there is no question that the subject of the verbs in v. 15 is anyone other than the wicked man of v. 14. Yet the MT version has a repeti­ tion of “the wicked man” at the beginning of v. 15. One could argue that “wicked man” is absent in the OG because the translator omitted a super­ fluous element. However, this passage presented the translator with other opportunities to do the same, but none of them were taken. • 33: 8 ‫ ולא דברת להזהיר רשע מדרכו הוא רשע בעונו ימות‬MT OG καὶ μὴ λαλήσῃς τοῦ φυλάξασθαι τὸν ἀσεβῆ ἀπὸ τῆς ὁδοῦ αὐτοῦ αὐτὸς ὁ ἄνομος τῇ ἀνομίᾳ αὐτοῦ ἀποθανεῖται

And if you do not speak to warn the wicked man of his way, he the wicked man, will die in his sin. • 33: 11 ‫ אם־אחפץ במות הרשע כי אם־בשוב רשע מדרכו‬MT OG οὐ βούλομαι τὸν θάνατον τοῦ ἀσεβοῦς ὡς τὸ ἀποστρέψαι τὸν ἀσεβῆ ἀπὸ τῆς ὁδοῦ αὐτοῦ

I am not pleased with the death of the wicked man, but rather that a wicked man turn from his way.

Given the prolixity of the passage, and the fact that the OG translator did not abbreviate superfluous elements elsewhere in the co-text, it is just as possible that the MT plus represents an expansion. Its purpose, however, is not clear. It is obviously making explicit the subject of “gives back” (‫ישיב‬i), but it was already clear in the first place. The presence of other, similar types of additions makes it more likely that we are dealing with an (over)explicat­ ing type of scribal expansion.

92

Expansions That Focus on the Immediate Co-Text: [3.16] Ezek 3: 21

‫ ואתה כי הזהרתו צדיק לבלתי חטא ]צדיק[ והוא לא־חטא חיו יחיה כי נזהר‬MT ‫ = ואתה כי הזהרתו צדיק לבלתי חטא והוא לא־חטא] צדיק[ חיו יחיה כי נזהר‬OG

OG σὺ δὲ ἐὰν διαστείλῃ τῷ δικαίῳ τοῦ μὴ ἁμαρτεῖν καὶ αὐτὸς μὴ ἁμάρτῃ ὁ δίκαιος ζωῇ ζήσεται ὅτι διεστείλω αὐτῷ [Syriac Peshitta = OG] MT And you, if you have warned the righteous man, so that [the righteous man] does not sin, and he does in fact not sin, he will surely live, for he was warned. OG And you, if you have warned the righteous man to not sin, and he does not sin [the righteous man] he will surely live, for you warned him.

The variant location of the word “righteous man” in both OG/Peshitta and MT requires explanation. Many scholars think that the word was a supra­ linear scribal note61 which, after the predecessors of the MT and OG/ Peshitta Vorlage parted ways, was integrated into the main text at two dif­ ferent locations.62 This is a compelling explanation for the difference in location, but the purpose of such a scribal note is not entirely clear. There is no other possible subject for the verbs “sin” or “live” except the righteous man in the first part of the verse. There is no ambiguity which the expansion addresses, nor does it add anything new to the passage. Its most basic func­ tion is to make explicit what is already explicit, similar to the previous example. This is also an important text in that the OG translator did not leave the word unrepresented just because it is otiose or superfluous. [3.17] Ezek 44: 7 [‫ בהביאכם בני־נכר ערלי־לב וערלי בשר להיות במקדשי לחללו ]את־ביתי‬MT OG τοῦ εἰσαγαγεῖν ὑμᾶς υἱοὺς ἀλλογενεῖς ἀπεριτμήτους καρδίᾳ καὶ ἀπεριτ­ μήτους σαρκὶ τοῦ γίνεσθαι ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις μου καὶ ἐβεβήλουν αὐτὰ

MT When you brought foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and body, to be in my sanctuary so as to defile it [namely, my house]…

Here we find an MT plus that provides a superfluous object for the verb “to defile” (the third masculine singular object suffix on ‫ לחללו‬clearly refers back to “my sanctuary”). It is also interesting that the terminology of the plus is not derived from the sentence itself, but from earlier in the oracle (44: 5 ‫בית יהוה‬i). Note also the use of ‫ את‬to mark the addition, a common scribal technique that M. Fishbane explores in his study of scribal practice in the Ancient Near East.63 61 The addition of supralinear words is a commonly attested scribal technique in the Qumran scrolls; see the many examples listed in E. Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 226–28, and, for the 1QIsaa scroll, E.Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa-a) (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 522–36. 62 Cornil, Das Buch, 193; Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 46; Zimmerli, Eze­ kiel 1, 143. 63 Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 48–51.

Expansions that Elaborate

93 [3.18] Ezek 9: 8

‫ ויהי כהכותם ]ונאשאר אני[ ואפלה על־פני ואזעק‬MT

OG καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ κόπτειν αὐτοὺς καὶ πίπτω ἐπὶ πρόσωπόν μου καὶ ἀνε­ βόησα

MT And while they were slaying them [and I myself was left remaining]64 then I fell on my face and I cried out.

Here the MT plus supplies a rather obvious fact: if Ezekiel was standing (during his vision) in the midst of the temple courts when the divine mes­ sengers began their slaughter of the idolaters, and if he was alive to fall down and cry out in intercession, then, logically, he was spared. The addition makes this obvious fact explicit, but note that it does so using vocabulary related to Ezekiel’s intercessory cry in the next sentence (9: 9): “Ah, Lord YHWH! Will you destroy the entire remnant (‫ )שארית‬of Israel?” Zimmerli described the MT plus as an addition made by “a tidy-minded reader.”65 However, this condescending description is not entirely justified. Rather, as we are seeing, one facet of scribal tendency was explicitation, making certain details or expression more obvious, even if they were not confusing in the first place.

2. Expansions that Elaborate While the generative cause of scribal explicitation discussed in section 3.1 consisted of potential ambiguities in the text, or a desire to bring out what is implicit so as to avoid erroneous interpretations, instances of elaborative addition address no problems or equivocal elements in the co-text. They go a step beyond what is merely implict, and make a creative advance by devel­ oping the passage in a new direction. Their basic purpose is to embellish the passage by heightening its rhetorical or aesthetic features, or to elaborate upon a particular image or phrase found within the co-text. We will con­ sider some basic examples first.

2.1 Adjectival Intensification One of the most basic means of embellishment employed by scribes is the enhancement or intensification of an image by adding adjectives. This tech­ nique is very common among the MT plusses in Ezekiel. 64 The impossible verb form attested in the MT tradition,‫אר‬ ַ ‫שׁ‬ ֲ ‫ו ְֵנא‬, is itself a conflation of two variant readings of the word (a forma-mixta according to GKC §64i), a Niphal participle (‫ )נ ִשׁ ְאָר‬and a Niphal wayyiqtol (‫אר‬ ֵ ָ‫אשּׁ‬ ֶ ָ‫ו‬i). 65 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 225.

94

Expansions That Focus on the Immediate Co-Text: [3.19a] Ezek 17: 17 [‫ בשפך סללה ובבנות דיק להכרית נפשות ]רבות‬MT

OG ἐν χαρακοβολίᾳ καὶ ἐν οἰκοδομῇ βελοστάσεων τοῦ ἐξᾶραι ψυχάς MT … when he cast up a siege ramp and built siege walls to cut off lives [many]. [3.19b] Ezek 27: 33 ‫ השבעת עמים ]רבים[ ברב הוניך‬MT

OG ἐνέπλησας ἔθνη ἀπὸ τοῦ πλήθους σου MT You satisfied nations [many] with your abundance. [3.19c] Ezek 38: 13 [‫ הקהלת קהלך לשאת כסף וזהב לקחת מקנה וקנין לשלל שלל ]גדול‬MT OG συνήγαγες συναγωγήν σου λαβεῖν ἀργύριον καὶ χρυσίον ἀπενέγκασθαι κτῆσιν τοῦ σκυλεῦσαι σκῦλα

MT Have you assembled your company to take away silver and gold, to seize cat­ tle and goods, to plunder wealth [much]. [3.19d] Ezek 5: 16 ‫ בשלחי את־חצי הרעב ]הרעים[ בהם‬MT

OG ἐν τῷ ἐξαποστεῖλαί με τὰς βολίδας μου τοῦ λιμοῦ ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς MT When I send my arrows of famine [terrible ones] on them.

In each of these cases, the addition of the adjective simply heightens the rhetorical effects of the texts. There is no apparent reason for the OG trans­ lator to have omitted these words in such a random and unsystematic way. In contrast, the occasional addition of such adjectives is a well-known tech­ nique of scribal expansion among the Qumran biblical manuscripts,66 and these MT plusses in Ezekiel conform to this profile.

2.2 Additional Titles/Designations The filling out of titles or designations is a common form of scribal expan­ sion. Tov has identified numerous examples in the textual witnesses of Jere­ miah,67 and other examples abound in the Qumran biblical manuscripts.68 66 For example, in Dan 8: 3 the MT reads, “a ram” (‫איל אחד‬i), while an expanded reading “a great ram” is attested by 4QDana,b (‫ )איל אחד גדול‬and the OG Papyrus 967 (κριον ενα μεγαν). In Ps 92: 15 the MT reads, “they will bear fruit in old age” (‫ינובון בשיבה‬i), while the expanded reading, “good old age” is attested by 4QPsb (‫)בשיבה טובה‬. 67 E. Tov, “The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in the Light of Its Textual History” in J.H. Tigay (ed.), Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985) 211–37, on pp. 229–30 68 For example, in Num 22: 16, the title “Balak, son of Zippor” (MT ‫ )בלק בן צפור‬has been expanded in 4QNumb to “Balak, son of Zippor, king of Moab” (‫)בלק בן צפור מלך מואב‬.

Expansions that Elaborate

95

There are relatively few examples of this in the MT or OG of Ezekiel, but they do occur. [3.20] Ezek 29: 3 MT [‫הנני עליך פרעה ]מלך־מצרים‬ OG ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐπὶ Φαραω MT Behold, I am against you Pharaoh [king of Egypt] One very common plus occurs in designations for Israel.69 [3.21a] OG Plus: Ezek 22: 6 ‫ישראל‬ ‫נשיאי‬ MT ‫ = נשיאי ]בית[ ישראל‬OG OG οἱ ἀφηγούμενοι οἴκου Ισραηλ

MT Plus: Ezek 28: 25 ‫ בקבצי את] בית[ ישראל מן־העמים‬MT OG καὶ συνάξω τὸν Ισραηλ ἐκ τῶν ἐθνῶν

MT The rulers of Israel. MT When I gather [the house of] Israel OG The rulers of [the house of] Israel. from the nations. MT Plus: Ezek 44: 22 ‫ מזרע בית ישראל‬MT OG ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος Ισραηλ MT … from the seed [of the house of] Israel.

Another occurs two times where there MT contains a beth preposition affixed to the noun “Israel,” while the OG reads “house of Israel” (12: 23; 20: 5). [3.21b] Ezek 12: 23; 20: 5: 70 MT ‫בישראל‬ OG ‫ = בית ישראל‬οικος του Ισραηλ

2.3 Elaborative Expansions that Mimic the Co-text 2.3.1 Addition of Associated Words and Images These types of elaborative additions show how scribes were attuned to a particular word or image in the text and developed its sense by adding a synonym or associate term. One could also call them embellishments, in 69 The MT or OG plus “house” occurs in designations for Israel in these two locations, but more often there is a variant between “sons of Israel” (‫בני ישראל‬i) and “house of Israel” (‫בית ישראל‬i): 3: 1; 12: 24; 35: 5; 37: 16, 21; 43: 7; 44: 9, 15. 70 This is most likely an instance of scribal abbreviation (`‫ב = בית‬i), similar to numerous other instances preserved in the OG (e. g. Jonah 1: 9: MT ‫עברי‬, OG δουλος κυριου = (‫יהוה`עבד‬ ‫י‬i). For the classic discussion of abbreviation notes in the history of the biblical text, see F. Perles, Analekten zur Textkritik des alten Testaments (Munich: Theodor Ackerman, 1895), 4–35.

96

Expansions That Focus on the Immediate Co-Text:

that they add to the rhetorical or poetic force of the line by extending the image in a new direction. It should be acknowledged that some of the MT plusses among these examples could also be explained as the condensation of synonyms by a translator who abbreviated or bundled together semanti­ cally similar words. While such a practice is not a widespread translation technique in OG Ezek (i. e., there are far more examples when synonyms are not condensed), it is not impossible that he could have done so. Thus, in this category particularly, some examples will have a higher or lower level of probability of being scribal additions. Each text must be evaluated on its own. [3.22] Ezek 19: 13 [‫ ועתה שתולה במדבר בארץ ציה ]וצמא‬MT OG καὶ νῦν πεφύτευκαν αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ ἐν γῇ ἀνύδρῳ MT And now it is planted in the wilderness, in a land dry [and thirsty].

In the allegory of the vine in chapter 19, Ezekiel depicts Israel in exile as a vine that had been lush in the past, but is now transplanted to an isolated desert wasteland. While the first term used to describe the desert (“dry land,” ‫ )ארץ ציה‬is quite common in Biblical idiom (cf. Isa 41: 8; Jer 2: 6; Joel 2: 20; Ps 107: 35), the associate term which heightens the image (‫צמא‬, “thirsty”) is a plus in the MT. This word is only rarely applied to land (only Isa 44: 3 and Jer 48: 18),71 whereas it is more commonly used to describe human thirst that occurs in desert regions (cf. Hos 2: 5) or during a famine (Lam 4: 4; Amos 8: 11). While the two words share a certain semantic over­ lap (dry land is, metaphorically, “thirsty”), they are not proper synonyms,72 and the OG translators had adequate lexical resources to distinguish between “dry” and “thirsty.”73 Thus, the final word in the MT is not super­ fluous, for it adds a new element to the description of the land. There is no evident motive for it to have been omitted.74 It is more likely an example of 71 Isa 44: 3: ‫אצק־מים על־צמא‬, “I will pour out water on the thirsty (land)”; Jer 48: 18 ‫ושבי‬ ‫בצמא ישבת בת־דיבון‬, “And sit on the thirsty (ground), O inhabitant of Dibon!” 72 There are multiple other synonyms of ‫ ציה‬that share significant semantic overlap: “dry land” (‫ַיבָּשָׁה‬, or ‫ )חָ ֽרָבָה‬or “parched” (‫ צָיֹון‬,‫צח ְצָחָה‬ ַ ,‫חה‬ ֶ ִ ‫צ‬i). 73 The word “thirsty” (‫ )צמא‬is most commonly rendered as δίψος (“thirst” Exod 17: 3; Deut 28: 48; Judg 15: 18; Isa 5: 13; 41: 17; 50: 2; Lam 4: 4; Hos 2: 5; Amos 8: 11; 2 Chron 32: 11), while the word “dry” (‫ )ציה‬is rendered by either ἔρημος (Isa 35: 1; Jer 27: 12; Ps 63: 2) or ἄνυδρος (Jer 2: 6; Ps 78: 17; 105: 41; 107: 35). 74 There are cases where OG Ezek will condense identical or cognate words that occur in the same sentence. For example: Ezek 13: 16 ‫“ – והחזים לה חזון שלם‬And those who see for it a vision of peace” OG καὶ οἱ ὁρῶντες αὐτῇ εἰρήνην – “And those who see for it peace” Ezek 38: 13 ‫“ – עשה מקנה וקנין‬A producer of cattle and goods” OG πεποιηκότας κτήσεις – “Having acquired possessions” For similar examples see 1: 12 (35: 12 ;(‫ )שפלה‬15–29: 14 ;(‫ )יבש‬17: 10 ;(‫ )לעין‬12: 4 ;(‫הלך‬ (‫אמר‬i). These, however, stand in contrast to the above example where the MT plus is an associated term, not a cognate, and the translator had the lexical resources to render both terms.

97

Expansions that Elaborate

scribal elaboration. Morever, it displays a key feature of such additions: They are always grounded in some specific element in the co-text (in this case, “dry ground”) which provides the basis for the expansion. It takes the existing image and fills it with a related but distinct turn of phrase. [3.23] Ezek 13: 5 ‫ לא עליתם בפרצות ותגדרו גדר על־בית ישראל לעמד ]במלחמה[ ביום יהוה‬MT

MT You did not go up into the broken parts of the wall and build up the wall for the house of Israel, so that it would stand [in the war] on the day of YHWH. OG οὐκ ἔστησαν ἐν στερεώματι καὶ συνήγαγον ποίμνια ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον τοῦ Ισραηλ οὐκ ἀνέστησαν οἱ λέγοντες ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κυρίου

OG They did not stand in steadfastness, and they gathered the flock to the house of Israel. Those who speak did not stand in the day of the LORD.

In Ezek 13, the prophets of Israel are rebuked for not fulfilling their role as protectors and watchmen of the people. The metaphor of Israel as a city with broken walls is introduced here in 13: 5, and the prophets have failed to rebuild its broken sections so that it can stand on the “day of YHWH”. The OG translator did not know the meaning of “broken parts” (‫ )בפרצות‬and filled the lexical slot with “steadfastness” and replaced “go up” (‫)עליתם‬ with “stand” (ἔστησαν) from later in the verse.75 Neither did he know the meaning of “build a wall” (‫ותגדרו גדר‬i), so he improvised with a different image altogether, “gather the flock” (συνήγαγον ποίμνια).76 Moreover, the OG’s rendering at the end of the verse is puzzling: MT ‫“ – לעמד במלחמה ביום יהוה‬to stand in the war, on the day of YHWH” OG οὐκ ἀνέστησαν οἱ λέγοντες ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κυρίου – “they did not stand, those who speak on the day of the Lord”

Regarding the first verb (“they did not stand”), Cornill compellingly argued that because the translator artificially rendered ‫ ותגדרו גדר‬as “they gath­ ered the flock,” he had to turn the dependent infinitive “to stand” (‫)לעמד‬ into an independent clause, and so construed the consonants as a defective spelling of “they did not stand” (‫]ו[לא עמד‬i).77 The next phrase is curious, 75 In the one other occurrence of this idiom in Ezek 22: 30 the translator also improvised: MT ‫“ – ואבקש מהם איש גדר־גדר ועמד בפרץ לפני‬And I sought among them a man, a repairer of the wall, and one to stand in the broken part before me.” OG καὶ ἐζήτουν ἐξ αὐτῶν ἄνδρα ἀναστρεφόμενον ὀρθῶς καὶ ἑστῶτα πρὸ προσώπου μου ὁλοσχερῶς – “And I sought among them a man behaving rightly and standing before me blamelessly.” 76 Cornill, Das Buch, 247, wonders if this represents etymological exegesis on the part of OG, so that the gimel letters in ‫ ותגדרו גדר‬were interpreted as gutturals ‫ותעדרו עדר‬, “to shepherd the flock.” While this verb does not occur in Biblical Hebrew, Cornill states that the translator likely inferred the meaning from the noun. For a discussion of such etymolo­ gical guesses on the part of the OG translators, see E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (Jerusalem: Simor, 21997), 172–80. 77 Cornill, Das Buch, 247. In one other text OG Ezek has rendered a lamed preposition as a

98

Expansions That Focus on the Immediate Co-Text:

for instead of “in the war,” the OG reads “those who speak” (οἱ λέγοντες). Cornill argued that this reflects “to say” (‫לאמר‬i), a conflate variant of “to stand” (‫לעמד‬i). More cogently, Cooke suggested that the translator bor­ rowed the phrase from the next clause (13: 6, ‫ = האמרים‬οἱ λέγοντες) to pro­ vide a subject for the verbs in v. 5.78 According to either explanation, how­ ever, the absence of the MT plus “in the war” (‫ )במלחמה‬in the OG’s ren­ dering is still unaccounted for. The second prepositional phrase “in the day of YHWH” was represented, and “in the war” would have posed no gram­ matical or lexical difficulties for the translator. If the goal of the translator was to omit from the verse any mention of a day of crisis, he could just as well have omitted “in the day of YHWH.” The fact that the translator had difficulty in grasping the Hebrew, and made a handful of guesses and inter­ pretive modifications in his Greek rendering is not an adequate explanation for the wholesale omission of “in the war.” As Fox has noted in relation to OG Proverbs, “Interpretive motives in the rendering of a verse do not dis­ qualify it as evidence for textual variants.”79 In this case, nothing in the translation provides a satisfying explanation for the phrase’s absence. On the other hand, there are reasons for seeing the MT plus as an ela­ borative scribal addition. The adjacent word-pair “war” (‫ )מלחמה‬and “the day of YHWH” (‫ )יום יהוה‬occurs nowhere else in the Bible, although the general association of the day of YHWH with a great battle is quite com­ mon (cf. Isa 13: 5–6, Joel 2: 1–11; 4: 9–14). The particular phrase “stand in battle” (‫ )עמד במלחמה‬is not found anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible, while the locution remaining without the MT plus “stand in the day” (‫עמד‬ ‫ )]ב[יום‬is well attested (cf. Deut 4: 10; Obad 11, Zech 14: 4, Mal 3: 2). It seems likely, then, that the phrase is an elaborative expansion. Cornill’s dis­ paraging description of the phrase as an “awkward gloss” (plumpe Glosse) is unwarranted;80 there is nothing awkward about it. A scribe was attentive to the “day of YHWH” theme within the oracle and interpreted the subse­ quent imagery of a violent storm destroying the wall (vv. 11, 13–14) as a reference to war. [3.24a] Ezek 5: 11 ‫ יען את־מקדשי טמאת ]בכל־שקוציך ו[בכל־תועבתיך‬MT

OG ἀνθ᾽ ὧν τὰ ἅγιά μου ἐμίανας ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς βδελύγμασίν σου MT … because you defiled my sanctuary [with all your detestable idols and] with all your abominations.

defective spelling of a negative particle: 23: 43 ‫ = לבלה‬οὐκ ἐν τούτοις (as though the Hebrew text read ‫לא באלה‬i). 78 Cornill, Das Buch, 247; Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 143. 79 M.V. Fox, “LXX-Proverbs as a Text-Critical Resource”, Textus 22 (2005) 95–125, on p. 116. 80 Cornill, Das Buch, 247.

Expansions that Elaborate

99 [3.24b] Ezek 7: 20

‫ וצבי עדיו לגאון שמהו וצלמי תועבתם ]שקוציהם[ עשו בו‬MT

OG ἐκλεκτὰ κόσμου εἰς ὑπερηφανίαν ἔθεντο αὐτὰ καὶ εἰκόνας τῶν βδελυγμά­ των αὐτῶν ἐποίησαν ἐξ αὐτῶν

MT And they made their beautiful ornaments into a object of pride, and they made in it the statues of their abominations [namely, their detestable idols].81

There are a number of expansions where Ezekiel’s description of the peo­ ple’s sin is elaborated by the addition of synonymous word pairs. Apart from these two passages, the combination of the words “abomination” and “detestable thing” (‫ שקוץ‬,‫ )תועבה‬occurs only two other times in Ezekiel (11: 18, 21), and two times outside Ezekiel (2 Kings 23: 13; Jer 16: 18), and in every case the OG translator represents both words.82 Of the two words, “detestable thing” (‫ )שקוץ‬is less common in Ezekiel’s oracles than “abomi­ nation.”83 In 11: 18, 21 the word pair describes specifically the idol statues produced by the Judeans living in Jerusalem after the first deportation to Babylon, which is exactly the topic of the oracle in 5: 11 and 7: 20. The ela­ borative additions intensify the image in each case by employing terminol­ ogy derived from descriptions of ritual impurity and idolatry elsewhere in Ezekiel. [3.25] Ezek 16: 22 ‫ ואת כל ]תועבתיך ו[תזנתיך לא זכרתי את־ימי נעוריך‬MT

OG τοῦτο παρὰ πᾶσαν τὴν πορνείαν σου καὶ οὐκ ἐμνήσθης τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς νηπιότητός σου

MT And in all [your abominations and] your prostitution you did not remember the days of your youth. 81 The English translation above construes the singular suffix on ‫“ עדיו‬his ornament,” and the singular verb ‫“ שָׂמָהוּ‬he made it,” as collectives, in line with the plural suffixes and verbs in the preceding line (v. 19) and the following clause (v. 20b). The versions render plurals (OG ἔθεντο αὐτὰ, so also Peshitta), but are likely adapting to the context (so Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 153). Additionally, this MT plus could be interpreted as a conflate variant, given that it has no conjunction that joins the word into the context. However, the apposi­ tional relationship between the second and first noun is probably meant to be construed as an appositional one, the images of their abominations, (namely) their detestable things. For other examples of this type of construction, see GKC §131b. 82 Ezek 11: 18 (‫ = הסירו את־כל־שקוציה ואת־כל־תועבותיה‬καὶ ἐξαροῦσιν πάντα τὰ βδε­ λύγματα αὐτῆς καὶ πάσας τὰς ἀνομίας αὐτῆς); 11: 21 (‫ = שקוציהם ותועבותיהם‬τῶν βδε­ λυγμάτων αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν ἀνομιῶν αὐτῶν); 2 Kings 23: 13 (‫לעשתרת שקץ צידנים ולכמוש‬ ‫ = שקץ מואב ולמלכם תועבת בני־עמון‬τῇ Ἀστάρτῃ προσοχθίσματι Σιδωνίων καὶ τῷ Χαμως προσοχθίσματι Μωαβ καὶ τῷ Μολχολ βδελύγματι υἱῶν Αμμων); Jer 16: 18 (‫על‬ ‫ = בנבלת שקוציהם ותועבותיהם מלאו את־נחלתי‬ἐν τοῖς θνησιμαίοις τῶν βδελυγμάτων αὐτῶν καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἀνομίαις αὐτῶν ἐν αἷς ἐπλημμέλησαν τὴν κληρονομίαν μου). 83 The word ‫ שקוץ‬occurs eight times in MT Ezekiel (5: 11; 7: 20; 11: 18, 21; 20: 7, 8, 30; 37: 23), but is absent in the OG in three of these cases (5: 11; 7: 20; 37: 23, for a discussion of the lat­ ter instance, see example in ch. 5). The word ‫ תועבה‬occurs forty one times in MT Ezekiel, and is absent in the OG in 6 of these cases (16: 22, on which, see later in this chapter).

100

Expansions That Focus on the Immediate Co-Text:

The dominant motif in the judgment oracle of Ezekiel 16 is the metaphorical depiction of Israel as a prostitute, and so the key word used in the indict­ ment is “lewdness” (verb ‫זנה‬, nouns ‫זנות‬, ‫תזנות‬i).84 When the prophet describes the realities to which the metaphors refer, it is clear he is con­ demning Israel’s cultic practices adopted from neighboring cultures (see especially 16: 17–22). The combination of “lewdness” and “abomination” (‫ )תועבה‬occurs elsewhere in the oracle (16: 36, 43, 58), and so it is not unex­ pected that an expansion which produces the word pair should have been added at earlier location in the oracle. In the three preceding examples, a parallel element was added to create a word pair that occurs elsewhere in Ezekiel. However, the word pairs gener­ ated by scribal expansion do not always pick up terminology found else­ where in the book. Some are entirely unique, as in the following examples. [3.26] Ezek 21: 12 ‫כל־רוח וכל־ברכים תלכנה מים‬ ‫ ונמס כל־לב ורפו כל־ידים וכהתה‬MT ‫ = ונמס כל־לב ורפו כל־ידים וכהתה ]כל בשר ו [כל־רוח וכל־ברכים תלכנה מים‬OG

OG καὶ θραυσθήσεται πᾶσα καρδία καὶ πᾶσαι χεῖρες παραλυθήσονται καὶ ἐκψύξει πᾶσα σὰρξ καὶ πᾶν πνεῦμα καὶ πάντες μηροὶ μολυνθήσονται ὑγρασίᾳ

OG And every heart will melt, and all hands will go limp, and [all flesh and] every spirit will grow faint, and every knee will run with water.

The additional phrase in the OG translation has been noted by some scho­ lars,85 but none address whether it reflects a plus in the OG’s Vorlage. The combination of “flesh” and “spirit” as a way of referring to all living people is unique. It occurs nowhere else in Ezekiel, although the word pair is attested in a few other Biblical Hebrew expressions.86 The rationale for the addition must be connected to the fact that the phrase “all flesh” (‫)כל בשר‬ occurs three times in the preceding co-text to describe either the witnesses of YHWH’s judgment (21: 4, “all flesh will see that I YHWH will burn it up”; 21: 10, “all flesh will know that I YHWH brought my sword out of its sheath”) or recipients of that judgment (21: 9, “my sword will come out of 84 From the attested Biblical Hebrew words for “lewdness” the related terms ‫ זנה‬and ‫תזנות‬ are used more often throughout the oracle (16: 15, 16, 17, 20, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, 33, 34, 36), than the synonym ‫זמה‬i(16: 27, 43, 58). 85 Both Zimmerli (Ezekiel 1, 421) and Cooke (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 237) note the the OG plus, though neither gives any explanation for it, nor do they explore whether it reflects a different Vorlage than the proto-MT. 86 The combination occurs in the distinct expressions “the spirits of all flesh” (‫הרוחות לכל‬ ‫בשר‬, Num 16: 22; 27: 16), “all flesh in which there is the breath of life” (‫כל־בשר אשר־בו‬ ‫רוח חיים‬, Gen 6: 17; 7: 15), and “the breath of all flesh” (‫רוח כל־בשר‬, Job 12: 10). Less similar is Psalm 78: 39 ‫ ויזכר כי־בשר המה רוח הולך ולא ישוב‬, “And he remembers that they are flesh, a wind that passes on and does not return.” Of interest is the fact that the phrase “all flesh” (‫ )כל בשר‬is a very common idiom in biblical Hebrew referring to humanity in general (it occurs twenty four times), while the phrase “all/every spirit” (‫כל‬ ‫ )רוח‬is unique to this passage in Ezekiel.

Expansions that Elaborate

101

its sheath against all flesh”). Thus in 21: 12, as the oracle concludes, we find that the response to the coming judgment will be the dissolution of every human feature, namely hearts, hands, breath, and knees. The addition of “all flesh” is understandable in light of its similarity to the other items in the list, although it resulted in the unique idiom “all flesh and every spirit will grow faint.”87 While it is possible that the OG translator added the phrase here, it is more likely that he is reflecting an expanded Vorlage. The addition fits per­ fectly the profile of scribal expansion we have covered in this section: a marked attentiveness to the language and imagery of the co-text. In this case, the addition of the thrice-repeated phrase to the final sentence of the oracle provides a fitting rhetorical climax to the whole chapter.

2.3.2 Addition of Parallel Phrases One of the characteristic features of Ezekiel’s diction is the repetition of synonyms and formulaic phrases. The scribes who passed on his oracles were obviously attuned to this, and embellished this stylistic trait by the addition of entire clauses or sentences that mimic the syntactic structure of the original. [3.27] Ezek 24: 14a [‫ אני יהוה דברתי באה ועשיתי לא־אפרע ולא־אחוס ]ולא אנחם‬MT OG ἐγὼ κύριος λελάληκα καὶ ἥξει καὶ ποιήσω οὐ διαστελῶ οὐδὲ μὴ ἐλεήσω MT I, YHWH, have spoken. It is coming, and I will act. I will not desist, and I will not show pity [and I will not relent].

Here we find in the MT a triple statement of the divine purpose to bring irreversible judgment upon Israel. The repeated denial of divine aid or com­ passion is a rhetorical device used by both Ezekiel (7: 4, 9; 8: 18; 9: 10)88 and Jeremiah (Jer 4: 28; 13: 14; 21: 7).89 The third and final item in this verse is certainly an addition. Not only is it absent in the OG, but Ezekiel never 87 The idiom created by the addition, “all flesh and all spirit grow faint” is semantically mean­ ingful in Hebrew. The verb ‫כהה‬, “to grow dim, faint, to expire” is used of fading eyesight (with “eyes” as the subject of the verb, Gen 27: 1; Deut 34: 7; 1 Sam 3: 2; Job 17: 7; Zech 11: 7), of the faded spot of a former infection (with “wound/infected spot” as the subject, Lev 13: 6, 21, 26, 28, 39, 56), of a dim candle wick (Isa 42: 3), or a person’s fading endurance (Isa 42: 4) or energy (Isa 61: 3 “a spirit of fainting” ‫רוח כהה‬i), or of giving relief to a wound (Nah 3: 19). Equally, the grammatical relationship between the singular feminine verb and the two related subject nouns is common in biblical Hebrew; see the discussion in JM §150p–q. 88 The most common form in Ezekiel is “My eye will not pity, nor will I show compassion” (‫לא־תחוס עיני ולא אחמל‬i, 7: 4, 9; 8: 18; 9: 10). 89 The examples in Jeremiah are very similar to Ezek 24: 14: Jer 13: 14‫לא־אחמול ולא־אחוס‬ ‫ולא ארחם‬i; 21: 7 ‫ לא־יחוס עליהם ולא יחמל ולא ירחם‬. Note also in Jer 4: 28 where the Piel of ‫ נחם‬is used in this formula: ‫זמתי ולא נחמתי ולא־אשוב‬.

102

Expansions That Focus on the Immediate Co-Text:

uses the verb ‫ נחם‬to describe how YHWH relents from judgment.90 The verb occurs only when he speaks of how the exiles will experience “sorrow” when they see the behavior and the fate of the Judeans subject to the Baby­ lonian siege (Ezek 14: 22–23; 16: 54; 31: 16; 32: 31). Thus, the addition mimics the syntactic form of the previous two verbal clauses and intensifies the irre­ versible nature of the judgment. [3.28] Ezek 20: 28 ‫ ויראו כל־גבעה רמה וכל־עץ עבת‬MT [‫ויזבחו שם את־זבחיהם ]ויתנו שם כעס קרבנם‬ ‫וישימו שם ריח ניחוחיהם ויסיכו שם את־נסכיהם‬

OG καὶ εἶδον πᾶν βουνὸν ὑψηλὸν καὶ πᾶν ξύλον κατάσκιον καὶ ἔθυσαν ἐκεῖ τοῖς θεοῖς αὐτῶν καὶ ἔταξαν ἐκεῖ ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας καὶ ἔσπεισαν ἐκεῖ σπον­ δὰς αὐτῶν

MT And they saw every high hill and every leafy tree, and there they sacrificed their sacrifices [and they set there their provoking offering] and there they placed their fragrant incense, and there they poured out their drink offerings.

In Ezekiel’s description of the people’s idolatrous offerings on the hilltop shrines, we find a three-part list in the OG corresponding to four in the MT. The three lines common to both the MT and OG are structurally iden­ tical: a plural wayyiqtol verb + ‫ שם‬+ a plural noun phrase describing the offering + a third masculine plural suffix. The second element in the MT is likely a scribal addition, and has been recognized as such by many scho­ lars.91 Not only is it absent in the OG (and there is no mechanical reason why it should have been omitted),92 it also deviates from the consistent pat­ tern of the other three lines. While the first, third, and fourth items are plural noun phrases of all basic types of cultic offerings (animal sacrifices, aromatic offerings, libations), the second is a singular noun phrase which consists of a type of offering and a moral evaluation, “a provoking offering.” Moreover, this noun phrase is utterly unique in Ezekiel and the Hebrew Bible,93 though the verb ‫כעס‬i (in the Hiphil) is used in Ezekiel to describe 90 The only other occurrence of ‫ נחם‬in this way is Ezek 5: 13,‫והנחותי חמתי בם והנחמתי‬, which is also a plus in the MT. It also stands in tension with the entire co-text, which speaks of how YHWH will not be appeased until he has spent his wrath on Israel. It is most likely a corrupted dittograph of the first word in the sentence (so Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 61) or a marginal or supralinear variant that was incorrectly incorporated into the text (so Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 152). 91 Cornill, Das Buch, 296; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 402; Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 4. 92 If one posits that the word fell out by parablepsis (in the OG’s Vorlage or by the translator overlooking the clause), there are only slim graphic similarities at the beginning (-‫ )וי‬or ending (final mem to final mem) to which one can appeal. 93 The three times “provocation” (‫ )כעס‬occurs in a construct phrase, the following noun is the agent of the implied action: Deut 32: 19‫ מכעס בניו‬, “because of the provocation of (= caused by) his sons” (so also Deut 32: 27, Prov 27: 3). Here in Ezek 20: 28, the construct noun is an attribute of the following noun, “a provoking offering.”

Expansions that Elaborate

103

specifically Israel’s provocation of YHWH by their worship of other deities (Ezek 8: 17; 16: 26, 42). This expansion represents an attempt to elaborate and heighten the negative evaluation of the people’s idolatry, and it does so in a way that mimics the syntactic structure in the co-text. While the origi­ nal oracle provided the syntactic mold within which the addition was shaped, the semantic content of the expansion provides a more negative eva­ luation of their offerings than the other three parallel lines. [3.29] Ezek 30: 13 ‫ אדני יהוה ]והאבדתי גלולים[ והשבתי אלילים מנף ונשיא מארץ־מצרים‬MT ‫לא יהיה־עוד כה־אמר‬

OG ὅτι τάδε λέγει κύριος κύριος καὶ ἀπολῶ μεγιστᾶνας ἀπὸ Μέμφεως καὶ ἄρχοντας ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου καὶ οὐκ ἔσονται ἔτι

MT Thus says the Lord YHWH: “[I will destroy idols,] I will bring the idols from Memphis to an end, and there will no longer be a prince from the land of Egypt.”

This example shows how an expansion is sometimes related to other scribal changes (or mistakes), so that the sense of a passage can be significantly altered. This line of the judgment oracle in the MT tradition depicts the era­ dication of idols and leaders from Egypt, and the resulting chaos that will follow. However, the mention of idols in this context is entirely unexpected, and in place of the MT reading ‫“ אלילים‬idols,” the OG reads μεγιστᾶνας “leaders” which most certainly reflects a Vorlage that read ‫איל ִים‬ ֵ , “great ones, leaders.” This term is common in Ezekiel’s diction (17: 13; 31: 11; 32: 21),94 and in contrast, the MT’s ‫ אלילים‬is not found anywhere in Eze­ kiel’s vocabulary about idols.95 Moreover, the shorter reading attested by the OG retains a perfect synonymous pair for ‫נשיא‬, “prince,” in the follow­ ing phrase: “I will bring the rulers to an end, and there will no longer a prince from the land of Egypt.” Thus, the MT reading ‫ אלילים‬is the result of a scribal change or mistake96 (dittography of lamed-yod) that shifted the topic of this line from judgment on Egypt’s leader to their idols.97 94 In the three occurrences of ‫איל ִים‬ ֵ in Ezekiel the OG translates ἡγουμένος (17: 13), ἄρχων (31: 11), and γίγαντες (32: 21, appropriate in the context). In other OG translations μεγισ­ τᾶνας represents the Hebrew words ‫שר‬i (Prov 8: 16; Isa 34: 12; Jer 24: 8), ‫אדיר‬i (Nah 2: 5; Zech 11: 2), or ‫גדול‬i(Jonah 3: 7; Nah 3: 10). 95 Ezekiel’s word for “idols” is ‫גלולים‬i(36 times), and never ‫אלילים‬. 96 This example fits the profile of Seeligmann’s description of “fertile mis-interpretation” (1961, 203) that led to scribal adaptation. 97 This explanation of the OG’s reading μεγιστᾶνας was first proposed by Cornill (Das Buch, 370), and has been followed by Toy (The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, 88), Zimmerli (Ezekiel 2, 125), Wevers (Ezekiel, 164), and Allen (Ezekiel 20–48, 113). This view was chal­ lenged by A.B. Ehrlich (Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel: Textkritisches, Sprachliches, und Sachliches – Fünfter Band, Ezechiel und die kleinen Propheten [Leipzig: Druckerei Lokay, 1912], 115) and by Greenberg (Ezekiel 21–37, 624–25) who argued that the OG actually represents the first phrase ‫והאבדתי גלולים‬, that μεγιστᾶνας represents a Vorlage that read ‫גדולים‬i (the translation equivalent of μεγιστᾶνας in Jonah 3: 7 and Nah 3: 10),

104

Expansions That Focus on the Immediate Co-Text:

The addition of a parallel phrase (‫ )והאבדתי גלולים‬that matches the ori­ ginal in both syntactic form and semantic content suggests two possible explanations: either the graphic shift generated the addition of a parallel line about idols, or the addition of a syntactically parallel phrase about idols generated the graphic shift. Either is theoretically possible. The expansion employs Ezekiel’s characteristic terminology for idols (‫ )גלולים‬as a synon­ ymous pair for the unique term ‫אלילים‬, as well as a verb depicting divine judgment that occurs elsewhere in Ezekiel’s oracles against the nations (‫האבדתי‬i: 25: 7, 16; 32: 12)98. The resulting poetic line conforms exactly to type of synonymous word pair additions we have seen already. [3.30] Ezek 6: 4, 6 ‫ …ונשמו מזבחותיכם ו]נשברו[ חמניכם‬i4 MT ‫והבמות תישמנה למען יחרבו ]ויאשמו[ מזבחותיכם‬i… 6 [‫ונשברו ]ונשבתו[ גלוליכם ונגדעו חמניכם ]ונמחו מעשיכם‬

OG

4

MT

4

καὶ συντριβήσονται τὰ θυσιαστήρια ὑμῶν καὶ τὰ τεμένη ὑμῶν… 6 καὶ τὰ ὑψηλὰ ἀφανισθήσεται ὅπως ἐξολεθρευθῇ τὰ θυσιαστήρια ὑμῶν καὶ συν­ τριβήσονται τὰ εἴδωλα ὑμῶν καὶ ἐξαρθήσεται τὰ τεμένη ὑμῶν

And they will be desolated, your altars and [they will be broken] your incense pillars. 6 … and the high places will be desolated, so that your altars are devastated [and desolated], and your idols will be broken [and brought to an end], and your incense pillars will be cut down [and what you’ve made will be wiped out].

The many MT plusses in these verses have been the subject of some debate between commentators. Even among those scholars who generally see the MT of Ezekiel as a heavily expanded tradition, many think that the OG translator has condensed this repetitious section by leaving three verbs and the final clause unrepresented.99 Others, however, have argued that the OG and that the phrase ‫ והשבתי אלילים‬is the scribal addition. This is unlikely. The OG read­ ing of the phrase in question is καὶ ἀπολῶ μεγιστᾶνας, which structurally fits either of the MT phrases: ‫ והאבדתי גלולים‬or ‫והשבתי אלילים‬. Just three verses earlier (30: 10), we find an identical verbal phrase ‫והשבתי את־המון מצרים‬, rendered by the OG in precisely the same way as 30: 13: καὶ ἀπολῶ πλῆθος Αἰγυπτίων. While Greenberg’s evidence for the translation equivalence of μεγιστᾶνας in Jonah and Nahum is interesting, the Greek Minor Prophets translation is different in character and consistency from OG Ezekiel. The fact that we have an identical rendering in the immediate context (30: 10, 13) supports and confirms Cornill’s explanation. 98 The pairing ‫ אבד‬and ‫ שבת‬in parallel lines occurs elsewhere in Ezekiel only elsewhere in 26: 17, where ‫ אבד‬is a scribal addition; see example 3.3 above. Note the discussion of Avishur (1984, 661) on the relation of these two verbs in Jeremiah: 7: 34 – ‫כּלָּה‬ ַ ‫בּתּ ִי … קֹול ששֹון ו ְקֹול שמ ְחָה קֹול חָתָן ו ְקֹול‬ ַ ‫ו ְה ִש‬ 25: 10 – ‫כּלָּה‬ ַ ‫בד ְתּ ִי … קֹול ששֹון ו ְקֹול שמ ְחָה קֹול חָתָן ו ְקֹול‬ ַ ‫א‬ ֲ ‫ה‬ ַ ְ‫ו‬ 99 Cornill (Das Buch, 208) argued that the presence of ‫ ונשברו‬in 6: 6 provided textual support for it’s originality in 6: 4, and that the rest of the passage was condensed by the OG transla­ tor. Although he offered no basis for his claims, he has been followed in this opinion by R.

Expansions that Elaborate

105

preserves a Hebrew Vorlage that actually lacked this material, though opi­ nions differ about its originality in relation to the MT.100 It is noteworthy that chapter six of Ezekiel contains a higher density of MT plusses than any other oracle in the book. Thus, one’s view of the textual differences in 6: 4, 6 cannot be isolated from the textual status of the longer readings of the MT throughout the entire chapter. Everything depends on how one weighs the possible explanations. Which is more likely? (1) The OG translator, in view of the repetitious prose in the oracle of ch. 6, engaged in a large-scale abbre­ viation of the material, omitting verbs, relative clauses, adjectives, and whole sentences.101 (2) The MT tradition results from extensive scribal expansion, and all of these additions were generated from certain peculiar features of the original oracle. An important initial observation about the prosaic form of this oracle is that it is no more repetitious or formulaic than any other in Ezekiel,102 and the many MT plusses are neither superfluous nor otiose. If the OG transla­ tor was in the habit of condensing wordy or repetitious language, we must ask why it was done on such a large scale in just a few chapters, but not in others. We must also ask why the translator would have abandoned his strict adherence to that principle which characterizes his translation every­ where else: rigid and consistent quantitative representation of his Vorlage (see Section 1.2 in Chapter One). When the issue is framed in this way, the evidence tips the scales in favor of the view that the MT edition of Ezekiel chapter six represents an expanded edition. In the end, however, each exam­ ple must be considered individually. The plus in 6: 4 (‫ )ונשברו‬has an identical parallel in 6: 6b, and upon closer inspection we can discern a possible motive for its addition. In the litany of verbal clauses in 6: 4–6, not one has two subjects; each clause has just one

Kraetzschmar (Das Buch Ezekiel [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900], 67), Cooke (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 73), Zimmerli (Ezekiel 1, 179), and Allen (Ezekiel 1–19, 82). 100 Wevers (Ezekiel, 60), for example, thinks the OG preserves a shorter and more original text than the MT, while Cooke (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 74) thought that there were two editions of these verses, a shorter and longer one, preserved by the OG and MT respectively (though he was of the opinion that the MT was the original edition, he does not explain why). 101 See the Appendix for a comprehensive presentation of the numerous MT plusses in this chapter. 102 For example, in Ezek 4: 2 the description of Ezekiel’s symbolic siege on his model city con­ tains five consecutive verbal clauses in short succession, all of which are semantically simi­ lar. In the OG translation, each of them is quantitatively represented. The same situation obtains in the wordy condemnation of the false prophets in 13: 14 (five similar verbal clauses in one verse), or the repetitious description of punishment for the rebellious woman in 16: 39–41 (ten similar verbal clauses in quick succession). It simply will not do to assume that the OG translator viewed a particular oracle (ch. 6) as repetitious, and there­ fore engaged in large-scale abbreviation of the material. One must argue for such a claim based on the study of OG Ezek’s translation technique in this chapter and elsewhere.

106

Expansions That Focus on the Immediate Co-Text:

explicit subject.103 However, the OG of 6: 4 attests a shorter text with pre­ cisely this feature, one verbal clause with two subjects.104 The presence of the MT plus, “and they will be broken” (‫ונשברו‬i), creates a new verbal clause that is parallel in syntactic structure to the following sentences. As we have above, mimesis of neighboring syntactic structures is a characteris­ tic feature of elaborative expansion. This argument could be reversed, how­ ever, and one could say that the syntactic regularity was original, and dis­ turbed by the OG translator’s omission of the verb.The fact that the word­ ing of the expansion is identical to that of 6: 6b, which Cornill took as evi­ dence for the word’s originality, could also be construed as evidence that 6: 6b was the source of the language used in the addition of 6: 4. Thus the arguments for or against scribal addition are equivocal in this particular case. The following examples help us gain more clarity. Of the three MT plusses in 6: 6, the textual status of the first two (,‫ויאשמו‬ ‫ )ונשבתו‬permit more than one interpretation. They could be corrupted or variant readings that were incorporated into the main text, creating the dou­ ble verb sequence for each individual noun subject,105 or they could be examples of scribal elaboration via the addition of synonymous, and, in the case of ‫ונשבתו‬, alliterative additions.106 The final clause of 6: 6 in the MT, “and your works will be wiped out” (‫ונמחו מעשיכם‬i), is almost certainly a scribal addition,107 and the evidence for this conclusion is more substantial than the texts discussed above. The plus follows the same pattern we have traced in the preceding examples: expansion via synonymous expressions which mimic the syntactic shape of the co-text. In this case, the addition contains vocabulary that is utterly unique in Ezekiel. The noun “works” (‫ )מעשה‬is used nowhere else in the book to refer to idols,108 nor does the term “wipe out” (‫ )ונמחו‬occur else­ where in the prophet’s vocabulary for divine punishment. It is most likely that this clause has introduced semantically parallel language to heighten the rhetorical intensity of the pronouncement. This series of examples from Ezekiel 6 shows how even within a single context, the level of certainty regarding scribal additions may vary. 103 A few of the clauses in 6: 6 have two verbs for one subject (‫יחרבו ויאשמו מזבחותיכם‬ ‫ונשברו ונשבתו גלוליכם‬i), but in both cases one of the verbs is a plus in the MT (the under­ lined words). 104 Ezek 6: 4 OG καὶ συντριβήσονται τὰ θυσιαστήρια ὑμῶν καὶ τὰ τεμένη ὑμῶν. 105 Regarding ‫ויאשמו‬, both Cornill (Das Buch, 208) and Zimmerli (Ezekiel 1, 179) argued that it is a marginal variant of ‫ונשמו‬, in 6: 4 (the verb in the MT is a plene spelling of ‫ו ְֵישמּוּ‬, Qal imperfect of ‫שמם‬i; for a discussion of this unique morphological form, see GKC §69p note 2). Regarding ‫ונשבתו‬, it could be a conflate variant reading of the adjacent ‫ונשברו‬. 106 As Zimmerli (Ezekiel 1, 179) notes, the sequence of ‫ ונשברו ונשבתו‬is a clever alliteration, which if it is a variant, perhaps motivated its retention, or if it is an expansion, perhaps motivated its creation. 107 So Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 179, and Wevers, Ezekiel, 60. 108 Noted by Zimmerli (Ezekiel 1, 179). The use of this “works of the hands” to refer to idols is a common Deuteronomistic idiom (cf. Deut 4: 28; 27: 15; 2 Kings 19: 18; 22: 17; Jer 10: 3).

107

Expansions that Elaborate

2.4 Elaborative Expansions that Do Not Mimic the Co-text In the previous section the elaborative additions developed some word or image in the passage at hand, but their form was always determined by the semantic content and syntactic form of the immediate co-text. In what fol­ lows we will examine expansions that have the same purpose, to elaborate, but their syntactic form was not constrained by the original passage. The scribes sometimes used vocabulary from within the passage, though in a new and innovative way. In other instances we find new terminology alto­ gether. [3.31a] Ezek 23: 32 ‫ כוס אחותך תשתי העמקה והרחבה ]תהיה לצחק וללעג[ מרבה להכיל‬MT

OG τὸ ποτήριον τῆς ἀδελφῆς σου πίεσαι τὸ βαθὺ καὶ τὸ πλατὺ τὸ πλεονάζον τοῦ συντελέσαι

MT You will drink your sister’s cup, deep and wide, [she will become an object of laughter and derision] containing much. [3.31b] Ezek 23: 34 [‫ ושתית אותה ומצית ואת־חרשיה תגרמי ]שדיך תנתקי‬MT MT And you will drink it (i. e., the cup) and you will drain it and you will gnaw/ break its shards [and you will tear off your breasts]. OG καὶ πίεσαι αὐτό καὶ τὰς ἑορτὰς καὶ τὰς νεομηνίας αὐτῆς ἀποστρέψω OG And you will drink it, and her feasts and new moon festivals I will take away.109

These lines occur in the “cup of judgment” oracle against Oholibah, the sis­ ter who represents rebellious Judah (Ezek 23: 31–35). In both cases the MT plusses deviate from the description of the cup itself, and introduce new material. In vv. 32–33 we find a poetic description of the cup itself: it is deep and wide; it contains much, and is full of grief and desolation. In the middle of this description of the cup (v. 32), the MT contains a line which breaks out of the second person direct address and describes what the sister will experi­ ence when she drinks the cup: she will become an object of scorn and mock­ ery.110 None of the vocabulary in this addition appears anywhere else in the passage. 109 The OG translation shows three small variations from the MT: “feasts” (τὰς ἑορτὰς) reflects a waw/yod variation (‫מצות‬i), and “new moon festivals” (τὰς νεομηνίας) reflects a daleth/resh variation (‫חדשׁיה‬i). It also seems that the final verb “gnaw” (‫ )תגרמי‬was unknown to the translator (it occurs only here and Num 24: 8), and so he provided a slot translation that fit with his understanding of the passage. 110 There is some debate on the grammatical form of ‫ תהיה‬in this MT plus. Some scholars have argued that this is an extremely rare instance of a second feminine singular imperfect (the standard form would be ‫תהיי‬, cf. Ezek 16: 8, Hos 3: 3) which is formally identical to the

108

Expansions That Focus on the Immediate Co-Text:

It is two verses later (23: 34) where we find the effects of the cup on the sister. She will drain its contents and smash it to pieces.111 Subsequent to this scene we find the MT plus, “she will tear at her breasts,” depicting a scene of (apparently) remorseful self-flagellation. It is a dreadful and ironic reversal of the role her breasts played in the love scenes earlier in the chapter (23: 3, 21). Greenberg asserts the OG omitted the clause due to its shocking nature, though he offers no other examples where OG Ezek has done so.112 According to the studies of OG Ezek’s translation technique surveyed in Chapter One, abbreviation of the Vorlage due to theological or moral objection is simply not a documented characteristic of OG Ezek. The vast majority of commentators take the clause’s absence in the OG as evidence that it is a scribal addition.113 These two examples are distinct from one another in the type of vocabu­ lary they employ. The first addition (in v. 32) introduces entirely new termi­ nology into the sentence (‫לצחק וללעג‬i), while the second (in v. 34) picks up a key word from earlier in the chapter (“breasts”, cf. vv. 3, 21). This distin­ guishing feature will provide us with an organizational principle for the remainder of the chapter. We will first consider passages where the scribe adopted the vocabulary of the co-text in making his own literary contribu­ tion to the oracle. This feature is important to isolate and examine on its own, for it will allow us to see how particular items in the passage were understood by a scribe, sometimes at variance from their original meaning. We will then consider examples where the purpose of the addition is the same but the vocabulary used is innovative and not derived from the immediate co-text. third feminine and second masculine singular imperfect verb (so D.I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24 [NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997], 753, who appeals to GKC §47k). However, none of the examples appealed to by Block occur in a text with similar text-critical dynamics as the OG/MT Ezek, and cannot be accurately compared. More plausibly, Greenberg (Ezekiel 21–37, 483) argues that the verb is a third feminine sin­ gular, describing the cup itself (“It will result in laughter and scorn”), although one must still then explain why it would have been added, when the cup itself, and not the effects of its contents, are being described. The explanation of Cooke (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 255), Wevers (Ezekiel, 137), and Zimmerli (Ezekiel 1, 477) is most likely. This is a third person description of the state of the sister after she drinks the cup: she will be an object of mockery in her drunken state. This interpretation makes the most sense of the language of the addition, ‫תהיה לצחק וללעג‬, which describes neither the cup nor its effects, but rather the public status of the sister herself after drinking from it. See the paral­ lel phrase in Ezek 36: 4, ‫ולערים הנעזבות אשר היו לבז וללעג‬. 111 The obscure image described the clause ‫ואת־חרשיה תגרמי‬, “and you will gnaw at its pot­ sherds” (cf. Num 24: 8, the only other occurrence of the Piel of ‫ ועצמעותיהם יגרם‬,‫גרם‬, “and he will gnaw their bones”), seems to envision that after draining the earthenware cup the sister will smash it to pieces on the ground to suck out the liquid absorbed into the clay (cf. the philological discussion of Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 484). 112 Ezekiel 21–37, 484. 113 Cornill, Das Buch, 324; Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 256; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 477; Wevers, Ezekiel, 138.

Expansions that Elaborate

109

2.4.1 Additions with Vocabulary Derived from the Co-text 8

OG

8

MT

8

[3.32] Ezek 31: 8b–9 MT‫ יפה עשיתיו[ ברב דליותיו‬9] ‫כל־עץ בגן־אלהים לא־דמה אליו ביפיו׃‬

πᾶν ξύλον ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐχ ὡμοιώθη αὐτῷ ἐν τῷ κάλλει αὐτοῦ 9 διὰ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν κλάδων αὐτοῦ

No tree in God’s garden could be likened to it in its beauty [I made it beauti­ ful], 9 with its many branches.

Ezekiel 31: 2–9 contains a lengthy, developed parable about the power and position of the king of Egypt. He is described as a large cedar tree (31: 3),114 which flourished alongside a river stream and provided sustenance and shade for all the creatures of the forest (31: 5–6).115 The entire description is framed as the prophet’s word about the king of Egypt (31: 2, “Son of man, say about Pharaoh”), and is thus cast as a third person narrative depiction of the tree. In 31: 8 the scene shifts as the tree is now located in the “divine gar­ den” (‫גן אלהים‬i), where it has no equal in comparison to its beauty. At just this point (v. 9a), a first person comment by YHWH unexpectedly appears in the MT: “I made him beautiful” (‫יפה עשיתיו‬i). This short assertion picks up the key word of the previous sentence (31: 8b “No tree … is like it in its beauty,” ‫ )ביפיו‬and then attributes the tree’s beauty to YHWH. The addi­ tion transforms the pre-expanded co-text into a new sentence structure,116 and more importantly it introduces a theological concept that is latent in the parable, but nowhere stated: Egypt’s power and success is entirely deriva­ tive, given only by YHWH’s authority. There are different interpretations of the exact motivation for this scribal expansion,117 but the sudden appear­ ance of a first person divine statement in the middle of a third person para­ 114 Or, possibly as a box-tree, a type of cedar (so HALOT, 1677). This depends on the inter­ pretation of the first line, in which the MT reads ‫הנה אשור ארז בלבנון‬, “Behold, Assyria was a cedar in Lebanon.” The altogether unexpected mention of Assyria in this oracle against Egypt has compelled some to emend ‫ אשור‬to ‫תאשור‬i(Cornill, Das Buch, 374; Zim­ merli Ezekiel 2, 141–42), while Greenberg (Ezekiel 21–37, 637) maintains that Assyria is being held up as a archetypal abuser of imperial power. 115 This image of a flourishing tree representing a successful monarch was already developed in Ezek 17 and 19, and has close parallels to Daniel 4. For a discussion of the ancient lit­ erary predecessors of this image of the “world tree,” see Zimmerli (Ezekiel 2, 146–47). 116 Without the addition, the end of 31: 8 joins with the first words of 31: 9 in a dual statement describing the tree’s incomparability: ‫לא דמה אליו ביפיו ברב דליותיו‬, “No (tree) was like it in its beauty, with its many branches.” A syntactically identical sentence is used in the parallel description of the flourishing vine in 19: 11 ‫וירא בגבהו ברב דליתיו‬, “And it appeared in its height, with its many branches.” 117 Zimmerli (Ezekiel 2, 150–51) suspects that the addition is an instance of theological polemic, avoiding the notion that the mythical waters of Tehom were responsible for empowering Egypt (cf. 31: 4 ‫מים גדלוהו תהום רממתהו‬i). It is perhaps more likely that this addition is attuned to the mention of Assyria in 31: 3, which, in Isaiah’s oracles against the nations, is often depicted as a nation that abused its divinely given power and success, cf. Isa 10: 13–15.

110

Expansions That Focus on the Immediate Co-Text:

bolic narrative also provides literary-critical warrant that we are dealing with an expansion. [3.33] Ezek 24: 13 ‫ בטמאתך זמה ]יען טהרתיך ולא טהרת מטמאתך[ לא תטהרי־עוד עד־הניחי‬MT ‫את־חמתי בך‬

OG ἀνθ᾽ ὧν ἐμιαίνου σύ καὶ τί ἐὰν μὴ καθαρισθῇς ἔτι ἕως οὗ ἐμπλήσω τὸν θυμόν μου

MT On account of your lewd filthiness, [because I tried to cleanse you, but you would not be cleansed from your filthiness] you will never be purified again, until I have spent my wrath upon you.

Here the MT plus occupies a difficult place within the line’s syntax, result­ ing in a complicated, though not impossible, sentence.118 This line comes near the end of the parable of the rusty pot in which a stew is prepared (24: 9–14). The oracle ends with YHWH’s frustration that the pot’s rust, which corresponds to Israel’s moral impurity, cannot be removed by extreme heat. The harsh pronouncement of 24: 13 is that judgment is now irreversible because Israel “can no longer be made pure.” The expansion introduces an explanatory clause which provides a rationale for this hope­ less announcement of Israel’s destruction:119 YHWH has indeed tried to purify the nation, but the effort proved futile and now unavoidable judg­ ment is the result. Note how the language of the explanatory addition is cast within purity/impurity opposition of the immediate co-text and uses it to provide a justification for the unalterable sentence of Israel’s destruction. [3.34] Ezek 28: 12 ‫ כה אמר אדני יהוה אתה חותם תכנית ]מלא חכמה[ וכליל יפי‬MT

OG τάδε λέγει κύριος κύριος σὺ ἀποσφράγισμα ὁμοιώσεως καὶ στέφανος κάλ­ λους 118 Block asserts (Ezekiel 25–48, 768) that “the LXX smoothes out the MT by omitting ya‘an … mittum’ātēk.” The logic, then, is that the MT is a syntactically difficult sentence which compelled the translator not simply to “smooth,” but to omit altogether the problematic phrases. He does not offer parallel examples, nor does he explain why the translator would suddenly adopt a practice that goes against everything we actually know of his technique: consistent quantitative representation. Such an assertion not only begs the question instead of explaining the textual witnesses, it actually controverts the available evidence that we do have about OG Ezek. 119 In contrast to Block, cited in the previous note, many scholars see the clause as an addition precisely because it so thoroughly scrambles the syntax of the existing sentence (Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 269; Wevers, Ezekiel, 142). Cornill (Das Buch, 332) argued that the first two words of 24: 13 ‫ בטמאתך זמה‬are secondary through a process of scribal corruption, which allows him to reshape the syntax of the sentence so that he regards the clause absent in the OG as original to the oracle. He provides no rationale for this procedure other than his claim that the image of the purity/impurity of the pot is origi­ nal to the context.

Expansions that Elaborate

111

MT Thus says the Lord YHWH: “You are a proportioned seal [full of wisdom] and complete in beauty.”

The final oracle against the king of Tyre in Ezek 28 consists of two distinct literary units. Verses 1–10 are an accusation against the hubris and wisdom of the king, and vv. 11–17 are described as a “lament” (‫קינה‬i, 28: 12), which concludes with an announcement of judgment (vv. 18–19).120 In the first oracle, the charges leveled against the king depict his arrogance in assuming the place of El in the divine pantheon (‫אל אני מושב אלהים ישבתי‬i, 28: 2b). They also lay out a sustained polemic against his claim to superior wisdom, “are you wiser than Dan(i)el?” (‫חכם אתה מדנאל‬i, 28: 3),121 “by your wis­ dom and understanding you have produced wealth for yourself” (‫בחכמתך‬ ‫ובתבונתך עשית לך חיל‬i, 28: 4), “with your great wisdom…” (‫ברב חכמתך‬i, 28: 5). YHWH then announces the king’s imminent destruction, “They (for­ eigners) will draw their swords against the beauty of your wisdom (‫על יפי‬ ‫ )חכמתך‬and they will defile your splendor” (‫וחללו יפעתך‬i, 28: 7b). In the second oracle, the “lament” (28: 11–19), Ezekiel sustains the accu­ sation in a mythical tale of a beautiful creature in Eden who is banished because of hubris against God. Much of the vocabulary is connected to the previous oracle, “you exalted your heart in your beauty, you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor” (‫גבה לבך ביפיך שחת חכמתך‬i, 28: 17). Within the mythological image, the MT of 28: 12 describes the king in his pristine state with three phrases, “a perfect/measured seal” (‫חֹותָם‬ ‫תכנית‬i),122 “full of wisdom” (‫מלא חכמה‬i), and “perfect in beauty” (‫כליל‬

120 For a further form-critical discussion of the boundaries and internal composition of these two units, see Zimmerli (1983, 76, 87–89). 121 On the whole question of whether Ezekiel is referring to the Daniel known from biblical traditions or to Dan’el of Phoenician and north Canaanite mythology (connected to the dnil of the Ugaritic Aqhat epic), see J. Day, “The Daniel of Ugarit and Ezekiel and the Hero of the Book of Daniel”, VT (1980) 174–84; H.H.P. Dressler, “The Identification of the Ugaritic Dnil with the Daniel of Ezekiel”, VT 29 (1979) 152–61; and the thorough dis­ cussion of Block (Ezekiel 25–48), 444–47. 122 The meaning of this obscure expression is difficult to ascertain. The MT reads “a sealer of measurement” (‫תם תָּכ ְנ ִית‬ ֵ ‫חֹו‬i), which Greenberg (Ezekiel 21–37, 580–81) construes as “you consummated perfected measurement,” i. e., “you were perfectly proportioned.” While he admits that the Qal of ‫ חתם‬does not have the meaning “to perfect, consummate” anywhere in Biblical Hebrew, he appeals to comparable usages in the Syriac and Arabic cognates. The OG and later Greek traditions imply a different vocalization, namely a noun (‫)חֹותָם‬ “seal”: OG ἀποσφράγισμα, Aquila σφραγις, (cf. Ziegler, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamen­ tum Graecum Auctoritate Acamadiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum XVI, 1: Ezechiel [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977], 222–23). The second word, “measurement” (‫תכנית‬i), occurs only here and Ezek 43: 10 (“and let them measure out the plan/measure­ ment,” ‫ומדדו את־תכנית‬i), but it clearly entails a sense of having a correct or appropriate proportion. Thus, the image is of a “measured, correctly apportioned seal,” a phrase semantically similar to the description of Israel’s kings as a “seal, signet ring” which repre­ sents YHWH (Jer 22: 24, “Konyahu… king of Judah a seal/signet ring on my right hand,” i‫כניהו בן־יהויקים מלך יהודה חותם על־יד ימיני‬i; Hag 2: 23, “Zerubbuabel … I will make you like a seal/signet ring, for I have chosen you,” … ‫שמתיך כחותם כי־בך בחרתי‬

112

Expansions That Focus on the Immediate Co-Text:

‫יפי‬i). The second of these phrases is absent in the OG. There is no evident motive or scribal mechanism for it to have been omitted, and most scholars have rightly recognized it as an addition.123 The purpose of the expansion has been pointed out by Zimmerli,124 who observed that it is borrowing the wisdom theme and vocabulary from the preceding oracle in 28: 3–7, and weaving it into the lament. More specifically, the MT plus results in a pair of phrases (“[full of wisdom] and complete in beauty”) which are clearly modeled on 28: 7 (“on account the beauty of your wisdom,” ‫על יפי‬ ‫חכמתך‬i). Thus, in adopting the wording from earlier in the co-text, the description of the mythical king in the lament is heightened. [3.35] Ezek 44: 10 ‫ כי אם־הלוים אשר רחקו מעלי בתעות ישראל ]אשר תעו[ מעלי אחרי גלולי‬MT ‫ונשאו עונם‬

OG ἀλλ᾽ ἢ οἱ Λευῖται οἵτινες ἀφήλαντο ἀπ᾽ἐμοῦ ἐν τῷ πλανᾶσθαι τὸν Ισραηλ ἀπ᾽ἐμοῦ κατόπισθεν τῶν ἐνθυμημάτων αὐτῶν καὶ λήμψονται ἀδικίαν αὐτῶν [Syriac Peshitta = OG]

MT But as for the Levites, who were far from me when Israel strayed [who went astray] from me after their idols, and they will bear their punishment.

In this long diatribe against the Levites (44: 4–27), numerous accusations are leveled at their past violations of the temple’s cultic sanctity. Here in 44: 10 the aberrant activities of the Levites are connected to the general apostasy of the people. By means of a clever turn of phrase, the Levites are depicted as “being far from” YHWH (even though they were physically present in the temple precincts) and correspondingly the people as a whole are said to “have gone astray.” The MT plus (absent in the OG and Syriac Peshitta) is a relative clause (‫ )אשר תעו‬the antecedent of which is unclear, as it could refer (awkwardly) to the Israelites (“when Israel went astray, who went astray”), or to the Levites. As Zimmerli notes,125 it is a further description of the Levites that attempts to make their sin correspond more closely to that of the entire people. Thus, the Levites were not only “far from” YHWH, but had also “strayed away from” him just as the entire nation did. Thus, the expansion reshapes the sentence into a long casus pendens clause, as the Levites are introduced, described with two long relative clauses, and then finally given a main verbal clause at the end, “they will bear their punish­ ‫זרבבל‬i). Thus, within the mythical framework this phrase marks the king of Tyre as one who was chosen to be a royal representative for YHWH; see the further discussion in Call­ ender, “The Primal Human in Ezekiel and the Image of God” in M. Odell/J.T. Strong (ed.), The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000) 175–93. 123 Cornill Das Buch, 360; Bertholet, Das Buch Hesekiel, 148; Toy, The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, 85; Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 315–16. 124 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 81–82; see also Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 581. 125 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 449.

Expansions that Elaborate

113

ment.” For our purposes here, it is important to note that the vocabulary of the addition is taken from the directly preceding clause, and then applied in a new way. [3.36] Ezek 18: 28 ‫ ]ויראה[ וישב מכל־פשעיו אשר עשה חיו יחיה‬MT

OG καὶ ἀπέστρεψεν ἐκ πασῶν τῶν ἀσεβειῶν αὐτοῦ ὧν ἐποίησεν ζωῇ ζήσεται οὐ μὴ ἀποθάνῃ

MT [And he considered] and he turned from all of his transgressions which he had done; he will surely live.

In the description of the wicked man’s repentance, we are told he “consid­ ered/took thought” and then turned away from his immoral actions, with the result that he preserves his life. The MT plus is most likely an addition, and is based on the earlier statement in 18: 14, “And when he (the wicked man) has a son, and he (the son) sees (‫ )וירא‬all the sins of his father which he has done, and when he sees (‫ )ויראה‬them, he will not do things like them.” In this example, it is the “seeing” that motivates the son to turn from his generational heritage of wickedness. In the MT of 18: 28 a similar moti­ vation has been added to the scene of the wicked man’s repentance. Thus, this example shows how an element from a conceptually similar juncture earlier in the co-text can be used to supplement a later and different point in the argument.

2.4.2 Additions which Introduce New Vocabulary These examples are functionally similar to those in the previous section in that they are attuned to some concept or element in the co-text, and they introduce new ideas into the passage. They do not, however, adopt termi­ nology from the co-text, but rather employ new vocabulary. [3.37] Ezek 26: 21 ‫ בלהות אתנך ואינך ]ותבקשי ולא־תמצאי[ עוד לעולם‬MT

OG ἀπώλειάν σε δώσω καὶ οὐχ ὑπάρξεις ἔτι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα λέγει κύριος κύριος MT I will make you an object of horror and you will not exist [and you will be sought and you will not be found] any more ever again.

At the conclusion of Ezekiel’s first oracle against Tyre, it is announced that the prominent merchant city will be turned into a perpetual and horrifying desolation. The same exact statement occurs two other times in the Tyre oracles: 26: 21 ‫ עוד לעולם‬i[‫בלהות אתנך ואינך ]ותבקשי ולא־תמצאי‬i 27: 36 ‫עד־עולם‬ ‫בלהות היית ואינך‬ 28: 19 ‫עד־עולם‬ ‫בלהות היית ואינך‬

114

Expansions That Focus on the Immediate Co-Text:

The MT plus in 26: 21 stands out as a scribal addition due to its absence in the OG and in the two parallel sentences.126 Note how the preposition ‫ עד־עולם‬has been turned into an adverbial modifier of the verb (‫ולא‬ ‫תמצאי עוד‬, “you will no longer be found”) as a result of the expansion. Of importance for this discussion is that the new statement is semantically anchored in the image “you will be no more.” This becomes the basis for an elaboration which introduces a new statement altogether and heightens the rhetorical force of the pronouncement: “you will be sought, and will not be found.”127 [3.38] Ezek 29: 20 ‫ פעלתו אשר־עבד בה נתתי לו את־ארץ מצרים ]אשר עשו לי[ נאם אדני יהוה‬MT

MT As for his labor which he (i. e., Nebuchadrezzar) carried out, I have given him the land of Egypt [a thing which they did for me], utterance of YHWH. OG ἀντὶ τῆς λειτουργίας αὐτοῦ ἧς ἐδούλευσεν ἐπὶ Τύρον δέδωκα αὐτῷ γῆν Αἰγύπτου τάδε λέγει κύριος κύριος [Syriac Peshitta = OG] OG Due to his service which he performed against Tyre, I have given to him the land of Egypt. Thus says the Lord God.128

In Ezek 29: 17–20, we find a description of how the king of Babylon will be rewarded for his long and arduous (thirteen year) siege of Tyre which left the city subjected but intact, contrary to Ezekiel’s expectations.129 Instead of collecting booty from Tyre, the prophet now assures that Nebuchadrez­ zar will be compensated when he conquers Egypt, a promise that also failed to materialize. In 29: 20 we find an MT plus (absent in the OG and Syriac Peshitta) that displays theological reflection on the nature of Babylon’s attack on Egypt. Nebuchadrezzar’s army slaved away in the long siege against Tyre, referred to in the two relative clauses in vv. 18b and 20a: • 29: 18b, ‫ושכר לא־היה לו ולחילו מצר על־העבדה אשר־עבד עליה‬, “and he and his army had no reward from Tyre, for the labor which they performed against it.” • 20a, ‫ פעלתו אשר־עבד בה‬, “his labor which he carried [it] out.” 126 Almost all commentators recognize the material as an expansion: Cornill, Das Buch, 344; Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 296; Wevers, Ezekiel, 150; Zimmerli, Eze­ kiel 2, 32. 127 The addition consists of what Cooke (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 296) calls a “commonplace” idiom. See the other occurrences of this phrase in 1 Sam 10: 21; 2 Sam 17: 20; Isa 41: 12. 128 The OG’s rendering “against Tyre” is an exegetical inference regarding the referent of the Hebrew prepositional phrase “for/with it” (‫בה‬i), which is actually a resupmptive pronoun referring back to “his work” (‫פעלתו‬i). In both English and Greek, such resumptive (or “retrospective,” cf. JM §158h) pronouns, common in Hebrew, are superfluous in transla­ tion. 129 See the excellent discussion of the rhetorical force and historical setting of this oracle in Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 616–18.

115

Expansions that Elaborate

The burden of the scribal comment in 29: 20b is related to these statements, and is lucidly explained by Greenberg: “It declares … that Nebuchadnezzar was working for God in pursuing the siege; the event, despite its disaccord with the prophecy, was thus under God’s aegis and his agent would therefore be rewarded, even if not as originally foretold.”130 Curiously, the addition does not adopt the terminology for “work” (‫ )עבד‬or “reward” (‫ )פעלה‬from the co-text, but uses a more neutral description (‫ )עשה‬to make the point. [3.39] Ezek 13: 22 ‫ יען הכאות לב־צדיק ]שקר[ ואני לא הכאבתיו‬MT

OG ἀνθ᾽ὧν διεστρέφετε καρδίαν δικαίου καὶ ἐγὼ οὐ διέστρεφον αὐτὸν MT Because you struck the hearts of the righteous [treacherously], when I did not cause him grief…

Cornill identified this noun as a scribal addition, arguing that it stands out­ side of the sentence’s syntax, which is not precisely true,131 for it does stand in a “loose relation to the verbal clause.”132 The sentence is not particularly difficult to translate, nor is the word superfluous; there is simply no evident motive for the translator to have omitted just this word. On the other hand, it makes good sense as a scribal elaboration that offers a moral evaluation of the prophetess’ activities. What is noteworthy for this discussion is that the word (‫שקר‬, “treachery”) is wholly unique in Ezekiel’s vocabulary, but very common as a negative evaluation of divination and prophecy elsewhere in the prophetic literature.133 In this addition, a new evaluative element has been added to Ezekiel’s condemnation of opposing prophetesses. [3.40] Ezek 7: 16 ‫ ופלטו פליטיהם והיו אל־ההרים ]כיוני הגאיות[ כלם המות איש בעונו‬MT

MT And their refugees will escape, and they will be on the mountains [like doves of the valleys] all of them moaning, each in his own sin.134 130 Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 615. This is also the interpretation of the scribal addition put forward by Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 117. Cornill (Das Buch, 367–68) and Fohrer (“Die Glos­ sen im Buche Ezechiel”, ZAW 63 [1951] 33–53, on p. 40) describe it as a “variant gloss” to the relative clauses in vv. 18b and 20a. 131 See Cornill, Das Buch, 252, and Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 289, who calls it a “clarifying addi­ tion.” Allen (Ezekiel 1–19, 189–90) thinks it is a misplaced lexical gloss on ‫ קסם‬in 13: 23. Block (Ezekiel 1–24, 411) and Greenberg (Ezekiel 1–20, 234) construes the noun as an adverbial accusative (cf. the examples in GKC §118q). 132 See the discussion in Gesenius-Kautsch-Cowley, “The Looser Subordination of the Accu­ sative to the Verb,” GKC §118, or the “Indirect Accusative,” JM §126. 133 The word is featured most often in Jeremiah’s accusations against his prophetic opposition. See Jer 14: 14 ‫שקר הנבאים נבאים בשמי‬i; cf. also Jer 5: 31; 20: 14; 23: 25–26; 27: 10; 29: 21. See also Isa 9: 14 (‫ונביא מורה־שקר‬i), Zech 10: 2 (‫והקוסמים חזו שקר‬i). 134 Greenberg (Ezekiel 1–20, 151–52) notes that the “conflict between the masculine suffix of kullam “all of them” and the feminine participle homot “moaning” indicates vascillation between doves and men as the subject.” This kind of fluctuation between metaphor and reality is common in Ezekiel’s elaborate imagery. For example, in ch. 6 the oracle opens by addressing the “mountains of Israel” (vv. 2–3), but then subtly shifts to addresss the Judeans themselves by sudden reference to “your corpses” and “your bones” in vv. 5 ff.

116

Expansions That Focus on the Immediate Co-Text:

OG καὶ ἀνασωθήσονται οἱ ἀνασῳζόμενοι ἐξ αὐτῶν καὶ ἔσονται ἐπὶ τῶν ὀρέων πάντας ἀποκτενῶ ἕκαστον ἐν ταῖς ἀδικίαις αὐτοῦ

OG And the delivered ones among them will be delivered, and they will be on the mountains. I will kill all, each in his own sin.

In this example, the MT plus elaborates the existing imagery, whereas the OG, without the elaboration, ends up with a different interpretive result altogether. Ezekiel is describing the Judeans who will flee besieged Jerusa­ lem as escaped refugees who run for the mountains begin “moaning” (‫המֹות‬ ֹ ) over their sins.135 The MT plus contains a creative elaboration of the image of moaning refugees, now depicting them as “doves of the valleys” (‫יוני הגאיות‬i). As Greenberg has noted,136 the word “valleys” (‫הֵגּאָיֹות‬ ַ ) con­ tains a subtle evocation of “cooing, moaning” (‫הג ְיֹות‬ ֹ i), a verb used to describe the sound of doves elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (cf. Isa 38: 14), and is used similarly in Isa 59: 11–12 to describe the exiles moaning over their sins.137 Alternatively, the phrase is not present in OG even though the translator had adequate lexical resources to render both “doves” (‫ = יונה‬περιστερά, a standard equivalent in the OG translations) and “valleys” (‫ = גיא‬φάραγξ in OG Ezek 31: 12, 32: 5, 39: 11). Most scholars recognize that the MT plus is a scribal addition,138 but the important role of the variant attested later in the verse has not been recognized. In place of the MT’s “moaning” (‫המות‬i), we find in the OG “I will kill” (ἀποκτενῶ). This reading almost certainly represents a variant Vorlage which contained the graphically similar (‫המ ִית ִ)י‬ ֵ i (in Hebrew script of the late Second Temple period the difference would be slight).139 Whether the translator construed a graphically similar waw as a yod, or whether this interchange had taken place in his Vorlage, the con­ strual is entirely understandable, given the occurence of the verb “die” (‫ )מות‬in the previous verse (7: 15).140 Without the elaborative statement in 135 The image of refugees of war fleeing like birds occurs elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (Jer 48: 28 ‫ עזבו ערים ושכנו בסלע ישבי מואב והיו כיונה תקנן בעברי פי־פחת‬, “Abandon the cities and dwell in the rocky crevices, O inhabitants of Moab, and be like a dove that nests near the mouth of a chasm”; cf. also Isa 16: 2, Ps 11: 1). The verb “moan” (‫ )המה‬is used to depict the growling of animals (dogs, Ps 59: 7; Isa 59: 15; bears, Isa 59: 11), the whispering of prayer (Ps 55: 17), or the thrum of a musical instrument (Cant 5: 4; Isa 16: 11). 136 Ezekiel 1–20, 151. 137 Isa 59: 11–12: ‫וכיונים הגה נהגה … כי־רבו פשעינו נגדך וחטאותינו ענתה בנו‬, “for our transgressions are many before you, and our sins testify against us … and like doves, we moan incessantly.” 138 So Cornill, Das Buch, 216–17; Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 81; Zim­ merli, Ezekiel 1, 198–99; Wevers, Ezekiel, 64; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 102. 139 For details about waw/yod interchanges in Hebrew manuscripts of this period, see E. Tov, Textual Criticism, 246–47. The verb ἀποκτείνω is used to represent the Hiphil verb ‫מות‬ elsewhere in OG Ezek (13: 19 and 33: 27), and it is the most common lexical equivalent in the other OG translations as well (cf. Gen 42: 37; Exod 16: 3; Deut 13: 10; Jer 26: 21; Hos 2: 5; Ps 104: 29; Prov 21: 25; 2 Chron 25: 4). 140 Ezek 7: 15: ‫החרב בחוץ והדבר והרעב מבית אשׁר בשׂדה בחרב ימות ואשׁר בעיר רעב ודבר‬

Expansions that Elaborate

117

the MT plus, the word was open to a different set of interpretive possibili­ ties, and the OG edition represents just such a tradition. [3.41] Ezek 20: 21b–22a

‫ואמר לשפך חמתי עליהם לכלות אפי בם במדבר׃‬i21 MT [‫והשבתי את־ידי] ואעש למען שמי לבלתי החל לעיני הגוים‬i22 MT

OG

21

καὶ εἶπα τοῦ ἐκχέαι τὸν θυμόν μου ἐπ᾽αὐτοὺς ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ τοῦ συντελέ­ σαι τὴν ὀργήν μου ἐπ᾽αὐτούς 22καὶ ἐποίησα ὅπως τὸ ὄνομά μου τὸ παρά­ παν μὴ βεβηλωθῇ ἐνώπιον τῶν ἐθνῶν [Syriac Peshitta = OG]

MT And I said I would pour out my wrath upon them, to spend my anger on them in the wilderness, [and I withheld my hand] and I acted on account of my name, so that it would not be defiled in the eyes of the nations.

In Ezekiel’s retelling of the story of Israel’s covenantal relationship with YHWH, we are told of three times when YHWH purposed to destroy the people for apostasy before entering the land of Israel (in Egypt, vv. 5–8; in the wilderness, vv. 11–13, and 18–21). In each cycle we meet repeated line, YHWH decides to spare the people, “so as not to exhaust my wrath on them” (20: 8, 13, 21). Rather, “I acted on account of my own name, so that it would not be defiled,” a step in the narrative that is also iterated three times (20: 9, 14, 22) before the people enter the land. This triple sequence of YHWH relenting from wrath, followed by a rationale (for the sake of YHWH’s name) builds up to the climatic scene in which the people enter the land and defile it by their idolatrous practices (vv. 28 ff). In the MT edi­ tion of the third cycle, however, the transition between YHWH sparing the people and the rationale is interrupted by a plus in which YHWH explicitly expresses his repentance from judgment, “and I withheld my hand” (v. 22a). Many scholars are in agreement that this phrase is a scribal addition to the cycle.141 Moreover, Zimmerli has noted that Ezekiel nowhere else uses this vocabulary to describe YHWH’s repentance from judgment.142 Even Greenberg admits that there is no reason this clause should have been omitted by the OG translator (it is absent in the Syriac Peshitta as well), and that it was likely not in its Hebrew Vorlage.143 This elaborative expansion supplies a statement of YHWH’s repentance within the narrative sequence, whereas it was only implied the first two times (in vv. 8–9, 13–14). It is also important to note that the phrase was not ‫יאכלנו‬, “The sword outside, and the plague and famine within. The one in the field will die by the sword, and the one in the city, famine and plague will consume him.” 141 So Cornill, Das Buch, 294, and Wevers, Ezekiel, 118. 142 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 401. The idiom is also found in Lam 2: 8 describe YHWH relenting from judgment. Zimmerli (1983, 401) also argued that the waw + qatal verb, ‫והשבתי‬, is out of place in the syntax of the wayyiqtol verbs in 20: 21–22. Greenberg (1983, 368) refuted this by citing many examples where the waw + qatal interrupts a chain of wayyiq­ tol verbs (e. g. 13: 6; 19: 12b; 25: 12). 143 Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 368.

118

Expansions That Focus on the Immediate Co-Text:

added in the two other identical points earlier in the narrative, so that its presence here heightens the climatic and rhetorical force of the third sequence. [3.42] Ezek 39: 28–29a ‫וידעו כי אני יהוה אלהיהם בהגלותי אתם אל־הגוים‬i28 MT [‫]וכנסתים על־אדמתם ולא־אותיר עוד מהם שם‬i28 MT ‫…ולא־אסתיר עוד פני מהם‬i29 MT

MT

28

OG

28

And they will know that I am YHWH their God, although I exiled them to the nations [and I will gather them to their land and I will no longer leave any of them there], 29 and I will no longer hide my face from them… καὶ γνώσονται ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι κύριος ὁ θεὸς αὐτῶν ἐν τῷ ἐπιφανῆναί με αὐτοῖς ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν 29καὶ οὐκ ἀποστρέψω οὐκέτι τὸ πρόσωπόν μου ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν…

OG And they will know that I am the Lord their God, when I appear to them among the nations, and I will no longer turn my face away from them…

This text provides an important but also complex example of the issues at stake in this study. Numerous scholars argue that the long MT plus, despite its inexplicable absence in the OG, must be original to the passage because the content is (or seems to be) necessary to the oracle’s progression of thought. For example, Wevers thinks that “recognition of Yahweh by the nations is based in this context by the full cycle of action: exile and restora­ tion.”144 Although the regathering of the exiles to the land has already been mentioned in this section of the salvation oracle (39: 27), in Wevers’ view, this particular statement in v. 38 cannot function without a full reiteration of exile and restoration. Cornill appeals to similar arguments,145 and Zim­ merli, although he admits that the material was likely absent in the OG’s Vorlage, still asserts that “these words can scarcely be dispensed with from the point of subject matter.”146 In an important article, Lust argued that the absence of the two sentences in the OG cannot be dismissed, given the relationship between the OG and 144 Wevers, Ezekiel, 206. 145 Das Buch, 432–33. 146 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 295. He also notes that difference between the MT and OG in their construal of the consonants in the word ‫בהגלותי‬. The MT vocalization construes the verb as a Hiphil infinitive construct of ‫גלה‬, which yields a very difficult syntactic structure. In the MT the verb “I made them go into exile” must be temporally prior to the next clause which is obviously future, “and I will gather them.” But the construction of a bet preposi­ tion with an infinitive construct usually, though not always, denotes simultaneity of action (cf. the discussion of the infinitive construct in GKC §114d, q). The OG, on the other hand, reflects a vocalization of the infinitive as a Niphal: ἐν τῷ ἐπιφανῆναί με αὐτοῖς (= Niphal infinitive ‫בּ ְה ִגָּלֹות ִי‬i), “they will know that I am YHWH, when I reveal myself to them.” This flows naturally into the next sentence in the OG, “and I will no longer hide my face from them.” Thus, the MT plus is most likely an addition not only because of its absence in the OG, but because the plus introduces a difficult, though not impossible, sen­ tence structure.

Expansions that Elaborate

119

MT throughout the entire book.147 To assert that the material is logically necessary and use this point as an argument against the textual evidence that we do have is a kind of methodological special pleading. Moreover, Lust has mounted a series of arguments about the vocabulary and content of the pas­ sage to argue that the MT plus is in fact an example of scribal expansion. First of all, the lexical item ‫ כנס‬is unique to Late Biblical Hebrew,148 and is never used in Ezekiel’s language about the restoration of Israel to the land.149 This word occurs in Ezekiel only here and 22: 21, where it is also an MT plus.150 Second, Lust notes that the use of the verb ‫ יתר‬in the Hiphil (‫ולא אותיר‬, “and I will not leave behind”) is used by Ezekiel two other times, and in both instances it describes judgment:151 YHWH will leave some survivors from destruction of Jersualem to “confess all their abomina­ tions among the nations to which they go” (12: 16, cf. also 6: 8). Here in 39: 28, however, it has the opposite meaning, as it promises a universal restoration of the entire diaspora that will leave none behind. Lust also notes that the idea of such a complete, universal restoration of the Judean diaspora appears nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible (except the OG transla­ tion of Zech 10: 10152), but is widely attested in Jewish literature of the Sec­ ond Temple Period.153 Lust’s arguments were later evaluated by Wong in a detailed study of the relationship between the OG and MT of Ezek 39: 1– 28, and he added his voice in support of this view.154 The arguments for the originality of the MT plus do not provide any account for its absence in the OG, whereas Lust and Wong provide exten­ sive support for its status as a scribal addition. These two sentences high­ light in dramatic new terms the extent of the ingathering mentioned earlier in v. 27: not only will there be a regathering, it will be universal in scope.

147 Lust, “The Final Text and Textual Criticism: Ez 39,28” in J. Lust (ed.), Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation (Leuven: Peeters, 1986) 48– 54. 148 See A. Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel (CahRB 20; Paris: Gabalda, 1982), 124. 149 As Tooman, Gog and Magog, 235–36, Ezekiel’s vocabulary for the return from exile is ‫קבץ‬, “gather” or the Hiphil of ‫שוב‬, “return,” but never ‫כנס‬. 150 Ezek 22: 21: MT = [‫ ; וכנסתי אתכם[ ונפחתי עליכם באש עברתי‬OG καὶ ἐκφυσήσω ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς ἐν πυρὶ ὀργῆς μου. 151 Lust, “The Final Text,” 50. 152 Zechariah 10: 10 ‫והשיבותים מארץ מצרים ומאשור אקבצם ואל־ארץ גלעד ולבנון אביאם‬ ‫ = ולא ימצא להם‬OG καὶ ἐπιστρέψω αὐτοὺς ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου καὶ ἐξ Ἀσσυρίων εἰσδέξ­ ομαι αὐτοὺς καὶ εἰς τὴν Γαλααδῖτιν καὶ εἰς τὸν Λίβανον εἰσάξω αὐτούς καὶ οὐ μὴ ὑπολειφθῇ ἐξ αὐτῶν οὐδὲ εἷς. 153 He notes Ben Sirah 36: 13; 51: 12 [in Hebrew]; Ps. Sal 11; Baruch 4: 36–37. 154 K.L. Wong, “The Masoretic and Septuagint Texts of Ezekiel 39, 21–29”, ETL 78 (2002) 130–47.

120

Expansions That Focus on the Immediate Co-Text:

3. Conclusions In this chapter, I have examined instances of scribal expansion that focus on interpretive issues within the immediate co-text of the sentence. The pur­ pose behind the additions ranged from explicitation to elaboration. Within these two main types of addition, there can be a diversity of form (some mimic the syntax of the original, others do not), or technique (some adopt vocabulary from the co-text, others do not). But the common feature that distinguishes these additions from those in the next chapter is that the rele­ vant co-textual boundaries consisted of the immediately preceding or fol­ lowing sentences. This limited scope is considerably widened as we step into Chapter Four, where the additions are generated not simply by triggers within the immediate co-text, but by one or more distant passages within Ezekiel or another scriptural text altogether.

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts: Harmonization and Assimilation

In this chapter, I will survey and classify the most numerous and expan­ sive category of additions in Ezekiel, what I have called scribal coordina­ tion. As discussed in Chapter Two, these are additions which were intro­ duced into the text to create, nuance, or augment the relationship between two texts that are already related in some way. In contrast to the material surveyed in Chapter Three (expansions focused upon the immediate context), coordinating scribal additions relate not simply to the passage in which they are found, but also to another co-text that shares identical or similar phraseology. This description provides the pri­ mary formal marker of scribal coordination: When the vocabulary of an expansion has been lifted out of a passage elsewhere in Ezekiel or another scriptural text and inserted into another, we are dealing with scribal coor­ dination. While this broad definition of scribal coordination encompasses all the material in this chapter, the various subcategories are differentiated in terms of the relationship between the various co-texts. Harmonization: The two (or more) passages may be describing the same event or object, in which case the additions remove inconsistencies between the representations. Assimilation: The related texts may simply share particular terminology, and so the expansions are added to increase or create a more nuanced rela­ tionship between the two passages. The many expansions that fit the profile of this latter category can themselves be sub-divided according to a handful of consistent features. (2a) One large group of assimilations in Ezekiel has occurred among the formulaic phraseology that appears so often in Ezekiel’s diction. These assimilations are, in a sense, superficial, in that their aim is to homogenize the small variations between phrases that occur multiple times throughout the book. Their concern is with formulaic language as such. (2b) Much different is the larger body of assimilations that have taken place among what I have called related texts. These are assimilations that show awareness of two passages related by common vocabulary and con­ tent, and create a more nuanced relationship by inserting language from one text into another. These expansions represent a sophisticated awareness of the textual details and ideology of the various scriptural passages involved, and they often display a subtle exegetical imagination.

122

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts:

In this chapter, I have selected examples which best illustrate the features of scribal coordination,1 and their presentation in divided into two large sections. I will begin with passages where the multiple co-texts involved are all found within Ezekiel (Section 4.1), and then consider cases where scribes sought to coordinate texts in Ezekiel with other scriptural books (4.2). Within each of the two sections, I will treat the examples in subsections dealing with Harmonization and Assimilation separately. The outline of the chapter is as follows: 1. Expansions that Coordinate Multiple Co-texts within Ezekiel 1.1 Harmonization among the Vision Scenes in Ezekiel 1.2 Assimilation of Phraseology 1.3 Assimilation of Related Texts within a Literary Unit 1.4 Assimilation of Related Texts within Ezekiel as a Whole 2. Expansions that Coordinate Multiple Co-texts within Ezekiel and other Scriptural books. 2.1 Explicitation by Means of Assimilation 2.2 Elaboration by Means of Assimilation 2.3 Cross-Reference/Allusion by Means of Assimilation

1. Expansions that Coordinate Multiple Co-texts within Ezekiel 1.1 Harmonization among the Vision Scenes (Ch. 1, 3, 8, 10, 40, 43) [4.1] Ezek 1: 22 [Harmonized with 10: 1] ‫ ודמות על־ראשי החיה רקיע כעין הקרח ]הנורא[ נטוי על־ראשיהם מלמעלה‬MT

OG καὶ ὁμοίωμα ὑπὲρ κεφαλῆς αὐτοῖς τῶν ζῴων ὡσεὶ στερέωμα ὡς ὅρασις κρυστάλλου ἐκτεταμένον ἐπὶ τῶν πτερύγων αὐτῶν ἐπάνωθεν

1

For a comprehensive list of all coordinating additions in Ezekiel, see the Appendices. They include the following texts. Harmonization between the Vision Accounts: 1: 22; 1: 23; 1: 24; 1: 27; 3: 23; 8: 2; 10: 1; 10: 12; 10: 14; 40: 3; 43: 2; 43: 3. Assimilation: 1: 4a; 1: 4b; 1: 11; 1: 16; 1: 20; 1: 21; 2: 3b–5; 2: 8; 3: 1; 3: 2; 3: 13; 3: 18; 4: 9; 4: 13b; 4: 16; 3: 20; 5: 1; 5: 8; 6: 4b–5; 6: 8–9; 6: 9b; 6: 10; 6: 11; 7: 2; 7: 5a; 7: 5b–7a; 7: 10; 7: 12–14; 7: 19; 7: 23; 8: 5–6a; 8: 8; 8: 9; 8: 10; 8: 11; 8: 14; 8: 16; 8: 18; 9: 3; 9: 4; 9: 6; 9: 7; 9: 10; 10: 6, 7; 10: 18; 10: 22; 11: 1; 11: 12; 11: 15; 12: 4; 13: 3; 13: 7; 13: 8; 13: 10; 13: 20; 14: 14; 14: 21; 15: 2; 15: 6; 16: 23; 16: 38; 16: 59; 17: 9a; 17: 11–12a; 17: 19; 17: 20–21a; 17: 22a; 18: 4; 18: 2; 18: 8a; 18: 23; 18: 24; 18: 28; 19: 11; 20: 1; 20: 3; 20: 8; 20: 31; 20: 43; 20: 44a; 21: 7; 21: 13; 21: 37; 22: 2a; 22: 2b; 22: 7–12; 22: 12; 22: 23; 22: 19; 23: 10; 23: 19; 23: 45; 23: 46; 24: 14b; 26: 7; 26: 8; 26: 14; 26: 15; 27: 2; 27: 9; 27: 11; 27: 17; 27: 18; 27: 23; 27: 25; 27: 34; 28: 2; 28: 13; 28: 14; 28: 16; 28: 17; 29: 3a; 29: 13; 30: 2b–3; 30: 13a; 30: 24; 31: 5; 31: 10; 31: 16; 32: 3; 32: 15; 32: 17; 32: 22; 33: 7; 33: 11; 33: 12a; 33: 13; 33: 16; 33: 28; 34: 9; 34: 12; 34: 24; 34: 25b; 34: 26; 34: 27; 34: 31; 36: 7; 36: 11; 37: 7b; 37: 11; 37: 16; 37: 12a; 37: 22; 37: 26; 38: 3b–4; 38: 12; 38: 23; 39: 4; 39: 17; 39: 26; 39: 27; 40: 4; 41: 1b–2; 42: 13; 43: 6; 43: 7; 43: 8b; 43: 14; 43: 22; 45: 20; 45: 22; 46: 6; 46: 22; 47: 15a–16; 48: 11.

Expansions that Coordinate Multiple Co-texts within Ezekiel

123

MT And over the heads of the creature, the likeness of a flat surface, like the appearance of crystal [which was awesome] was stretched out over their heads above.

Near the conclusion of his initial vision, Ezekiel begins to describe a large “platform surface” (‫רקיע‬i, 1: 22), the creatures beneath it (1: 23–25), and the man seated on the throne above it (1: 26–28). The word “awesome” (Niphal participle of ‫ )ירא‬is absent in the OG, and its meaning is quite puzzling in this context.2 Kraetzschmar’s suggestion about this text is persuasive,3 and has been adopted by Freedy and Allen.4 He argued that this word was actu­ ally a scribal harmonization with the parallel description of the platform in 10: 1; see the text below. Ezek 10: 1 ‫ ואראה והנה אל־הרקיע אשר על־ראש הכרבים כאבן ספיר ]כמראה[ דמות‬MT ‫כסא ]נראה[ עליהם‬ OG καὶ εἶδον καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπάνω τοῦ στερεώματος τοῦ ὑπὲρ κεφαλῆς τῶν χερουβιν ὡς λίθος σαπφείρου ὁμοίωμα θρόνου ἐπ᾽αὐτῶν

MT And I looked, and behold, on the platform which was above the heads of the cherubim, something like a sapphire stone [like the appearance of] the like­ ness of a throne [appeared] over them.

The first MT plus (“like the appearance of” ‫ )כמראה‬will be discussed below, but our focus here is on the second one, “appeared” (‫נראה‬i). Within the syntax of 10: 1, this word provides a much needed verb (“it appeared”) to a complicated series of noun phrases which apparently describe “some­ thing like a sapphire stone” (‫כאבן ספיר‬i). Since the verb’s absence only complicates the clause, it makes little sense to argue that the OG translator would have omitted it, not to mention the fact that it is also absent in the Syriac Peshitta. Conversely, it fits exactly the profile of a semantic clarifica­ tion of syntactic ambiguity, such as we saw in section 3.1.3. The specific wording of this clarifying expansion is noteworthy, because the Niphal of ‫ראה‬, “to appear” has a specific nuance of divine self-revelation when used of appearances of the divine glory.5 Thus, the MT plus in 10: 1 clarifies the 2

3 4 5

Greenberg’s construal of the word as “dazzling” (Ezekiel 1–20, 48) does have a parallel usage, for example, in Job 37: 22, ‫על־אלוה נורא הוד‬, “around El is awe-inspiring majesty.” But this Job text highlights exactly what is strange about Ezek 1: 22. In all parallel uses of ‫נורא‬, it is YHWH (or El) himself that inspires fear and wonder, especially in theo­ phanic appearances. See, for example, the response of Manoah’s wife after seeing the angel: ‫ומראהו כמראה מלאך האלהים נורא מאד‬, “and his appearance was like the appearance of the angel of God, very awesome” (cf. also Gen 28: 17). But to attribute wonder and aweinspiring qualities to the crystal-like platform seems utterly strange in a theophany (noted also by Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 8). R. Kraetzschmar, Das Buch Ezekiel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900), 18. K.S. Freedy, “The Glosses in Ezekiel i-xxiv”, VT 20 (1970) 129–152, on p. 147; L.C. Allen, Ezekiel 1–19 (WBC; Dallas: Word Books, 1994), 8. This is the specific phrase used of YHWH’s appearances to the patriarchs (Gen 48: 3), Moses (Exod 3: 16; 4: 1, 5), or of the appearance of the “glory of YHWH” (‫ )כבוד יהוה‬to

124

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts:

syntax of the sentence, and it does so by adding vocabulary typical of theo­ phanic appearances. The MT expansion in 1: 22, ‫הנורא‬, is most likely a corrupted (or adapted) form of a scribal expansion which sought to harmonize the two passages. The text of 1: 22 likely originally read, “…the likeness of a flat surface, like the appearance of crystal [which appeared, ‫ ”…]הנראה‬According to this hypothesis, the original expansion was a Niphal participle of ‫ראה‬, and was graphically shifted in the MT tradition to a participle of ‫ ירא‬by the plene spelling (‫נ ִר ְאָה < נֹורָא‬i), likely under the influence of passages which employ ‫ נורא‬in theophanic appearances (cf. Gen 28: 17; Judg 13: 6). Thus, we see in this instance the combination of numerous scribal processes. (1) An expan­ sion in a distant co-text that originally served to clarify a syntactic ambigu­ ity (the MT plus ‫ נראה‬in 10: 1) generated (2) a harmonizing addition in a parallel passage (the MT plus1: 22 ‫)הנראה‬, which (3) was itself graphically altered (or corrupted) to‫ הנורא‬. The result in 1: 22 is a curious, yet still meaningful, image in Ezekiel’s vision of the throne platform. [4.2] Ezek 1: 23 [Harmonized with 3: 13] ‫ותחת הרקיע כנפיהם ישרות אשה אל־אחותה‬

MT

‫ = ותחת הרקיע כנפיהם ישרות ]משיקות[ אשה אל־אחותה‬OG

OG καὶ ὑποκάτω τοῦ στερεώματος αἱ πτέρυγες αὐτῶν ἐκτεταμέναι πτερυσ­ σόμεναι ἑτέρα τῇ ἑτέρᾳ ἑκάστῳ

OG And underneath the platform, their wings were straight [touching] one to the other.

Here the OG attests a plus that assimilates the description of the creatures’ wings found in 1: 23 to the parallel description in 3: 13: ‫וקול כנפי החיות‬ ‫משיקות אשה אל־אחותה‬, “and (I heard) the sound of the wings of the crea­ tures touching one to another” (‫משיקות‬, is rendered as πτερυσσομένων in the OG). The addition was not generated by any particular problem within the original passage, for the pre-expanded text of 1: 23 makes perfect gram­ matical sense as a comment about the shape of the wings. Rather, it is the existence of a parallel passage with nearly identical wording that generates a harmonizing expansion. [4.3] Ezek 1: 24 [Harmonized with 10: 5; see also 43: 2] ‫ ואשמע את־קול כנפיהם כקול מים רבים ]כקול־שדי[ בלכתם ]קול המלה‬MT [‫ כקול מחנה‬MT

OG καὶ ἤκουον τὴν φωνὴν τῶν πτερύγων αὐτῶν ἐν τῷ πορεύεσθαι αὐτὰ ὡς φωνὴν ὕδατος πολλοῦ Israel directly (Exod 16: 10; Num 14: 14), or in the tent of meeting (Lev 9: 4; Num 14: 10) or to Israel’s kings (e. g. to Solomon, 1 Kings 3: 5; 9: 2; 11: 9), and, of course, in the temple (Ps 102: 17).

Expansions that Coordinate Multiple Co-texts within Ezekiel

125

MT And I heard the sound of their wings, like the sound of many waters [like the sound of Shaddai] as they moved [the sound of a roar, like the sound of an army].

In this text, the original description of the sound generated by the creatures’ wings (“like the sound of many waters,” cf. 43: 2) has been supplemented in the MT by three additional similes. The first “like the sound of Shaddai”6 is related to the parallel passage in 10: 5: ‫קול כנפי הכרובים נשמע עד־החצר‬ ‫ החיצנה כקול אל־שדי בדברו‬, “the sound of the wings of the cherubim were heard unto the outer court, like the sound of Shaddai when he speaks.” While some scholars think that the MT plus in 1: 24 is a harmonization with the statement in 10: 5,7 the most likely solution is more nuanced, and reveals a stage in Ezekiel’s composition history that goes behind what is available to us in the OG edition. In his study of the relationship between the vision narratives in chapters one and ten, D.J. Halperin persuasively argued that Ezek 10 is an interpretive rewriting of portions of Ezek 1,8 and as such represents a deposit of exegetical modifications.9 Given this basic character of Ezek 10, the relationship between 1: 24 and 10: 5 needs to be examined more carefully: 1: 24 [‫ואשמע את־קול כנפיהם כקול מים רבים ]כקול־שדי‬ 10: 5 ‫כקול אל שדי בדברו … וקול כנפי הכרובים‬

It is also possible that the MT plus in 1: 24 is not actually a “borrowing” from 10: 5. Note that the two crucial elements of 10: 5, the title “El” and the verbal description “when he speaks” (‫ )בדברו‬are absent in 1: 24. It is unli­ kely that these would have been omitted if 1: 24 is “borrowing” from 10: 5, for these are the very words that make the image intelligible, “the sound of El Shaddai when he speaks.” On the other hand, given the exegetical charac­ ter of Ezek 10 and its dependence upon chapter one, the phrase in 10: 5 looks more like an exegetical revision of 1: 24, clarifying the dense phrase 6

7

8 9

I leave the divine appelative Shaddai (‫דּי‬ ַ ‫שׁ‬ ַ ) untranslated here to reflect the lack of knowl­ edge we have about the meaning and origin of this name. See HALOT, 1420–22 for a detailed discussion of the etymology and usage of this term in Northwest Semitic and Hebrew. Many scholars assume that this phrase as a scribal addition borrowed from 10: 5: C. Cor­ nill, Das Buch, 185; A. Bertholet, Das Buch Hesekiel erklärt (Freiburg: J.C.B. Mohr, 1897), 9; C. Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel (ICC; Edin­ burgh: T&T Clark, 1936), 20; W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1 (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 88; J.W. Wevers, Ezekiel (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 47. D.J. Halperin, “The Exegetical Character of Ezekiel X 9–17”, VT 26 (1976) 129–41. Among the most compelling parts of his argument (cf. Halperin, “The Exegetical Charac­ ter”, 129–32) is that the order of contents in 10: 9–17 corresponds exactly to 1: 15–21, but with many of chapter one’s exegetical problems resolved. For example, the wording in 10: 9 is based on and shows awareness of the tension in 1: 15, which implies that there is only one wheel next to “the creatures” (‫והנה אופן אחד בארץ אצל החיות‬i, 1: 15). This part is rewritten in 10: 9 with a clearer sense, namely that each of the four creatures had one wheel beside it (10: 9 ‫והנה ארבעה אופנים אצל הכרובים אופן אחד אצל הכרוב אחד‬i).

126

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts:

“like the voice of Shaddai.” The divine title has been filled out with another one (“El”) and a verbal action is provided that generates a sound, “when he speaks.”10 The implication of this view is that when Ezek 10 was composed, the phrase ‫ כקול שדי‬was present in the MT of 1: 24, but it does not follow that it is therefore original in that context; it is still absent in the OG. In 1: 24, the phrase could have been added to provide a synonym to the adja­ cent simile “like the sound of many waters” (‫כקול מים רבים‬i), which lends credence to Driver’s philological suggestion that original meaning of the word ‫ שדי‬was not “Shaddai” but rather “like the sound of a downpour.”11 However, when Ezek 10 was composed, the consonants in 1: 24 were con­ strued as an abbreviated form of El Shaddai, a sensible interpretation within the context of the theophany. In other words, Ezek 10 is based upon the form of Ezek 1 that we have in the MT; the OG edition of Ezek 1 precedes both in that it lacks the phrase at the root of this exegetical development. The following two MT plusses in 1: 24, “the sound of a roar, like the sound of an army” (‫ )קול המלה כקול מחנה‬are also absent in the OG, and represent further elaboration of the sound of the wings. That these phrases are scribal additions is recognized by most commentators.12 However, Allen has advanced the argument that because the word “roar” (‫מלָּה‬ ֻ ‫ה‬ ֲ ) is extremely rare (it occurs only here and Jer 11: 16),13 these MT plusses must be original, because “glosses” necessarily explain rare words with common 10 D.J. Halperin, “Merkabah Midrash in the Septuagint”, JBL 101 (1982) 351–63, on pp. 355– 56. 11 This translation presupposes a vocalization different from the MT tradition, namely ‫שׁ ְד ִי‬, “downpour.” This reading was proposed by G.R. Driver, “Ezekiel: Linguistic and Textual Problems”, Biblica 35 (1954) 145–59, 299–312 (see especially pp. 239–40), based on the phi­ lological study of R. Gordis (“The Biblical Root ŠDY-ŠD: Notes on 2Sam i.21; Jer xviii. 14; Ps xci. 6; Job v. 21.” JTS 41 [1940] 34–43) on Ezek 1: 24 and 2 Sam 1: 24 (‫שדי תרומות‬i). Their appeal is to the Aramaic cognate verb ‫די‬ ֵ ְ ‫שׁ‬, “to pour out, discharge liquid” (cf. M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Mid­ rashic Literature] New York: Judaica Press, 1903],1524), from which they propose the noun, downpour. Given the parallel phrase in Ezek 1: 24, “the sound of many waters,” this proposal is plausible and makes sense of why the title El is absent in 1: 24; it was not origin­ ally a reference to El Shaddai. However, J. Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968; repr. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1987), 235, has questioned the logic of Gordis and Driver. If an Aramaic cognate word existed contemporaneously with the Hebrew word, how did the meaning of ‫ שׁ ְד ִי‬come to be for­ gotten so that the word was vocalized as ‫דּי‬ ַ ‫שׁ‬ ַ ? The situation, however, is not as simple as Barr suggests. It is not that the vocalization or meaning of ‫ שדי‬was forgotten, but that the exegetical tradition represented in 10: 5 construed the letters as a divine title. It is this inter­ pretation of the title that was fixed in the vocalization of ‫ שדי‬in 10: 5 and 1: 24. We are not dealing solely with the transmission of lexical meanings (Barr’s concern) but rather with an exegetical issue embedded within the vocalization tradition of the MT. 12 See Bertholet, Das Buch Hesekiel, 9; Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 20; Cornill, Das Buch, 185; C.H. Toy, The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel: Criticial Edition of the Hebrew Text with Notes (The Sacred Books of the Old Testament; Leipzig: J.C. Hin­ richs, 1899), 34; Wevers, Ezekiel, 47; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 88. 13 Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 9.

Expansions that Coordinate Multiple Co-texts within Ezekiel

127

ones, not vice-versa. Again, this represents a reductionist view of scribal expansions, as if their only function is lexical clarification. These two expan­ sions represent scribal elaboration by the addition of synonymous phrases (see section 3.3.4). There is another more important point to be made about these MT plusses in 1: 24. Ezekiel’s description of the sound of the divine glory found in 43: 2 is directly related to this passage: ‫והנה כבוד אלהי ישראל בא מדרך‬ ‫ הקדים וקולו כקול מים רבים‬, “and behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the direction of the East, and its sound was like the sound of many waters.” The wording of 43: 2 “the sound of many waters” is itself dependent upon 1: 24. The OG of Ezek 43: 2, however, attests that an addi­ tional scribal harmonization with 1: 24 was added in its Vorlage: καὶ φωνὴ τῆς παρεμβολῆς ὡς φωνὴ διπλασιαζόντων πολλῶν, “and the sound of the army camp, like the sound of many doubling (?).”14 Clearly this OG plus in 43: 2 is based on the MT plus in 1: 24 (“like the sound of an army camp”), harmonizing the two visionary descriptions of the sound of the wings. This complex example has shown us three dimensions of scribal expan­ sion. (a) The original scene in 1: 24 was elaborated by the addition of three synonymous phrases which developed the sense of the original simile, “like the sound of many waters.” These expansions, in turn, generated further scribal activity in two separate locations, (b) namely in the exegetical rewrit­ ing of chapter 1 in Ezek 10, and (c) in the harmonizing expansions in the Vorlage of the OG in 43: 2. [4.4] Ezek 8: 2 [Harmonized with 1: 26–27] ‫ ואראה והנה דמות ]כמראה[ אש מ]מראה[ מתניו ולמטה אש‬MT

OG καὶ εἶδον καὶ ἰδοὺ ὁμοίωμα ἀνδρός ἀπὸ τῆς ὀσφύος αὐτοῦ καὶ ἕως κάτω πῦρ

MT And I looked, and behold, the likeness of [like the appearance of] a man/ fire,15 from [the appearance of] his waist downward, there was fire. 14 The retroversion of the first phrase, “the sound of the army” is unambiguous ‫קול מחנה‬, borrowed from 1: 24. The last phrase in the OG plus in 43: 2, διπλασιαζόντων, “doubling” has generated much discussion and disagreement. Cornill (Das Buch, 478) suggested that OG’s Vorlage read ‫שׁנ ִם‬ ֹ in place of MT’s ‫מים‬, and this has been followed (with some hesi­ tancy) by other commentators (Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 473; W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2 [Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983], 407). Halperin’s elaborate explanation (“Merkabah Midrash,” 357–59) is that this phrase is actually a midrash which links Ezek 43: 2 to the theophany scenes in Isaiah 6, by means of the description of the divine chariot (‫ )רכב אלהים‬in Ps 68: 18. He suggests that διπλασιαζόντων is a translation of the obscure ‫ שנאן‬in Ps 68: 18, which is interpreted as “repeating,” i. e., singing repeat­ edly, which has been inserted into the OG’s translation of Ezek 43: 2. While the existence of such an exegetical tradition linking the divine chariot scenes with the theophanies in Isaiah 6 and Psalm 68 is not doubted, to explain διπλασιαζόντων on this basis is, in my view, to be received only as a very tentative suggestion. 15 The MT reads “fire” (‫אש‬ ֵ i), whereas the OG reads ανδρος, reflecting a different vocaliza­ tion of the same consonants (‫א ִש‬i). For discussion of this difference, see below.

128

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts:

These MT plusses in 8: 2 represent harmonization with the related passage that describes this figure’s appearance in Ezekiel’s first vision (1: 26–27). The first expansion “like the appearance” (‫ )כמראה‬is taken directly from the parallel phrase in 1: 26: 1: 26 ‫דמות כמראה אדם‬, “the likeness like the appearance of a man” 8: 2 ‫והנה דמות ]כמראה[ אש‬, “the likeness of [like the appearance of] a man”

The second addition “from [the appearance of]”, is based on the parallel passage in 1: 27: 1: 27 ‫וממראה מתניו ולמטה‬, “and from the appearance of his waist downward” 8: 2 ‫מ]מראה[ מתניו ולמטה‬, “from [the appearance of] his waist downward”16

These two expansions fit the typical description of scribal harmonization as we have seen above. What is interesting in this case is how the relationship between 8: 2 and 1: 27, further cemented by the additions to 8: 2, generates even further expansions in the opposite direction: 1: 27 is now expanded with elements taken from 8: 2. The MT plusses in 1: 27, taken from 8: 2, are as follows: ‫ וארא כעין חשמל ]כמראה־אש[ ]בית־לה סביב[ ממראה מתניו‬MT ‫ולמעלה‬

And I saw something like gleaming metal [like the appearance of fire] [a covering for it all around] from the appearance of his waist upward.17

These MT plusses in 1: 27 represent an interpretation of the man’s appear­ ance in 8: 2, which is then inserted back into the first vision scene. It is the first phrase of the expansion in 1: 27 that concerns us here: The words “like the appearance of fire” (‫כמראה אש‬i), are based on 8: 2, ‫והנה דמות כמראה‬ ‫אש‬, which could be rendered as “and behold, like the appearance of fire” (‫אש‬ ֵ ) or as “… the appearance of a man” (‫א ִ]י[ש‬i). The consonants ‫ אש‬in 8: 2 demand the vocalization ‫א ִיש‬, “a man,” as the OG understood (ἀνδρός), for the next phrases describe “his waist” (‫ )מתניו‬and demands the grammati­ cally masculine antecedent “man.” However, within the MT tradition, these consonants, which originally had a defective spelling, were construed as “fire” (‫אש‬ ֵ , a grammatically feminine noun),18 so that Ezekiel’s description 16 The OG of 8: 2 attests the preposition, but it is attached to “his waist”: ἀπὸ τῆς ὀσφύος αὐτοῦ = ‫ממתניו‬. 17 The second expansion in 1: 27, ‫בית לה סביב‬, “a covering for it all around,” does not relate to the parallel text in 8: 2. Once the first assimilating expansion “like the appearance of fire” (‫ )כמראה אש‬was added, the relationship between the “glowing metal” and the newly introduced “appearance of fire” was unclear: “I saw something like glowing metal, like the appearance of fire.” This second expansion clarifies that the glowing metal was a “cover­ ing” for the fire. For the use of ‫ בית‬in the sense of covering, or receptacle, cf. BDB, 109. 18 The interpretation of these consonants as “fire” is also attested by Targum Jonathan (‫ )אישתא‬and Jerome’s Vulgate (ignis). Greenberg (Ezekiel 1–20, 166) thinks that the vocali­ zation ‫אש‬ ֵ arose “under the influence” of the second appearance of ‫אש‬ ֵ later in the verse.

Expansions that Coordinate Multiple Co-texts within Ezekiel

129

(awkwardly) begins with the appearance of fire, and then moves to the body of a man who has not yet been introduced. However, it is the interpretation of ‫ אש‬as “fire” that is represented in the harmonizing expansion in 1: 27 (see the text below), which describes the general appearance of the man (“like the appearance of fire,” ‫אש‬ ֵ ‫כמראה‬i), and then his specific characteristics in terms of “glowing metal.” 1: 27‫וארא כעין חשמל ]כמראה־אש… [ ממראה מתניו ולמעלה‬ “And I saw something like glowing metal [like the appearance of fire], from the appearance of his waist upward.” 8: 2‫ואראה והנה דמות ]כמראה[ אש… וממתניו ולמעלה… כעין החשמלה‬ “And I saw, and behold, the likeness of [like the appearance of] fire, and from his waist upward, something like glowing metal.”

To summarize, this complex example shows (1) how the wording of a later vision scene (8: 2) was harmonized with a parallel passage in the earlier vision (1: 26–27), which (2) generated further harmonization in the reverse direction (1: 27 then harmonized with 8: 2). [4.5] Ezek 3: 23 [Harmonized with 8: 4; 43: 3] ‫ = והנה־שם כבוד־יהוה עמד ]כמראה ו[ככבוד אשר ראיתי על־נהר־כבר‬OG ‫ואפל אל־פני‬

OG καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐκεῖ δόξα κυρίου εἱστήκει καθὼς ἡ ὅρασις καὶ καθὼς ἡ δόξα ἣν εἶδον ἐπὶ τοῦ ποταμοῦ τοῦ Χοβαρ

OG And behold, the glory of YHWH was standing there, [like the vision and] like the glory which I saw by the river Chebar, and I fell on my face.

Here Ezekiel’s reference to the first vision scene has been harmonized (in the OG’s Vorlage) with the wording of his description of the later temple vision in 43: 3: ‫ ומראות כמראה אשר ראיתי אל־נהר־כבר ואפל אל־פני‬, “And the visions were like the vision which I saw by the river Chebar, and I fell on my face.” This example shows that the sequence of the visions was irrelevant to the process of harmonization.19 Just as the subsequent vision scenes are harmonized with earlier ones, so also the initial scenes are An older suggestion is that of Abraham Geiger, Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der inneren Entwicklung des Judentums (Breslau: Julius Hainauer, 1857), 343, who suggested that the awkward MT vocalization “fire” avoids describing YHWH as a man: “Dies passt zu dem Zusammenhange, indem von den Hüften und der Han dieser Gestalt gesprochen wird, und dennoch haben Syr. und Hieron. mit unserm T. ‫אש‬ ֵ .” 19 One is reminded of the much later principle of Rabbinic interpretation regarding the laws of the Torah, “there is no before or after in the Torah” (‫אין מוקדם ומאחור בתורה‬, b. Pesach. 1: 6). For a discussion of the relationship between textual sequence and temporal sequence in biblical narrative, and how this issue was perceived in Rabbinic interpretation, see T. Goldfajn, Word Order and Time in Biblical Narrative (Clarendon: Oxford Univer­ sity Press, 1998), 7–25.

130

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts:

adapted to the details of the later visions. If the object of the description is putatively one and the same (i. e., the divine glory), then any divergences are susceptible to harmonization regardless of their sequential presentation in the book. [4.6] Ezek 10: 12, 14 [Harmonized with 1: 10, 18] Ezek 10: 12 ‫ ]וכל־בשרם[ וגבהם וידיהם וכנפיהם והאופנים מלאים עינים סביב‬MT

MT [And all their flesh] and their backs, and their hands, and their wings, even the wheels, were full of eyes all around. Ezek 10: 14 ‫ ]וארבעה פנים לאחד פני האחד פני הכרוב ופני השני פני אדם והשלישי פני‬MT [‫ אריה והרביעי פני־נשר׃‬MT

MT

[And each one had four faces: the first face was the face of a cherub, and the second face was the face of a man, and the third was the face of a lion, and the fourth was the face of an eagle.]

As mentioned above, D.J. Halperin has argued that the vision narrative in Ezek 10 contains a number of exegetical revisions of the vision in Ezek 1.20 The two MT plusses in 10: 12, 14 have long proven difficult to integrate into the sequence in Ezek 10. But, if it is seen that the primary purpose of these lines is to harmonize certain elements in Ezek 1: 10, 18, they not only make sense, but fit into the larger pattern of scribal coordination and harmoniza­ tion we have seen so far in this chapter. It will be helpful here to lay out these parallel texts. ‫ ודמות פניהם פני אדם ופני אריה אל־הימין לארבעתם ופני־שור מהשמאול‬i1: 10 ‫לארבעתן ופני־נשר לארבעתן‬

And as for the likeness of their faces: the four of them had the face of a man, the face of a lion on the right side, and the face of an bull on the left side of all four of them, and the face of an eagle on all four of them. ‫וגביהן וגבה להם ויראה להם וגבתם מלאת עינים סביב לארבעתן‬i1: 18

And as for their (i. e., the wheels’) rims, and they were high, and their rims were full of eyes all around the four of them.

Ezek 10: 9–14 is entirely dedicated to elaborating upon the “wheels” (‫ )האופנים‬described in 1: 18. In the MT of 10: 12, we find a long list of the wheels’ components, their backs, hands and wings. Many commentators have argued that the masculine plural suffixes (“their hands, their wings,” ‫ )וידיהם וכנפיהם‬in 10: 12 must refer to the cherubim because 10: 12 is based on the parallel description in 1: 18, which states that the creatures (i. e., the cherubim) are full of eyes.21 However, this view sidesteps the true signifi­ 20 “The Exegetical Character of Ezekiel X 9–17”, VT 26 (1976) 129–41. 21 This is what Cooke (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 116) and Zimmerli (Ezekiel 1,

Expansions that Coordinate Multiple Co-texts within Ezekiel

131

cance of 10: 12 and its relationship to 1: 18. As Halperin notes, “once we grasp that the writer of 10: 12 conceives of the ’ôphannîm as a type of angel, and is concerned to stress the point, his attributing flesh and limbs to them becomes wholly natural.”22 In this light, the MT plus in 10: 12, “all their flesh” (‫כל בשרם‬i), is both a harmonizing and elaborative expansion, for the parallel phrases in 1: 18 (‫ )וגביהן וגבה להם ובגתם‬have been understood to refer to the bodies of the creatures. This understanding was then applied, with new vocabulary (their flesh), to the wheels in Ezek 10. This also provides the basis for an explanation of the long MT plus in 10: 14, surely one of the last harmonizing expansions added to the chapter. In this verse phrases from 1: 6a and 1: 10 are combined to make the same claim that the wheels are creatures in their own right. The description in 10: 14 says that each wheel had four faces (‫וארבעה פנים לאחד‬, cf. 1: 6a ‫וארבעה פנים לאחת‬i). However, the list of faces in 10: 14 differs from the list in 1: 10 with regard to one important detail: 1: 10 – human, lion, ox, eagle 10: 14 – cherub, human, lion, eagle.

Halperin has noted the problem here. If 10: 14 is describing the cherubim, as some scholars maintain,23 how is it that one of the faces is that of a cherub? “How could a kerûb be said to have a penê hakkerûb? Surely this implies that something other than a kerub is being described, and likened to a kerûb.”24 Thus, the faces in 10: 14 belong to the wheels, ‫האופנים‬, not con­ ceived of as merely components of the chariot, but as a kind of angelic being with physical attributes, such as flesh and faces. In conclusion, the two MT plusses in 10: 12 and 10: 14 reflect scribal har­ monization with the vision of Ezek 1. But they also elaborate upon the crea­ tures of Ezek 1 considerably, and so carry on the interpretive trajectory of Ezek 10 to produce an exegetical revision of Ezekiel’s first vision. [4.7] Ezek 40: 3 [Harmonized with 1: 7] [‫ = והנה־איש מראהו כמראה נחשת ]קלל‬OG OG καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀνήρ καὶ ἡ ὅρασις αὐτοῦ ἦν ὡσεὶ ὅρασις χαλκοῦ στίλβοντος OG And behold, a man whose appearance was like the appearance of bronze [gleaming].

The man who approaches Ezekiel at the beginning of his vision of the new temple is described in language similar to the creatures in Ezek 1: 7 (‫ונצצים‬ ‫כעין נחשת קלל‬, “and they were shining like gleaming bronze”). The OG 227) argue. But, as Halperin notes, the masculine plural suffixes all through 10: 12 can refer to nothing other than the same referent of the suffixes in 10: 10–11, namely the wheels, ‫האופנים‬. 22 “The Exegetical Character,” 137. 23 See Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 117; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 255. 24 Halperin, “The Exegetical Character,” 138–39.

132

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts:

plus in Ezek 40: 3 is clearly an assimilation to the identical phraseology of that passage. There is some disagreement as to whether this assimilating plus should be attributed to the OG translator25 or to a scribal harmonization in the OG Vorlage.26 It is important to note here there is a related passage in Dan 10: 5–6, which is clearly dependent on both Ezek 1: 7 and 40: 3. Daniel’s description of the mediating angel has drawn upon Ezekiel’s visions in mul­ tiple places (e. g. Dan 10: 5 ‫ = והנה איש אחד לבוש בדים‬Ezek 9: 2), and so here the phraseology of Ezek 1: 7 and 40: 3 supplied the imagery for the man’s depiction in Dan 10: 6: ‫וזרעתיו ומרגלתיו כעין נחשת קלל‬, “and his arms and his feet were like gleaming bronze.”27 This idiom “gleaming bronze” (‫ )נחשת קלל‬occurs only in these three passages in the Hebrew Bible. Most commentators assert that the phrase in Dan 10: 6 is dependent on Ezek 1: 7,28 which describes the appearance of the throne-bearing crea­ tures’ feet as “gleaming bronze.”29 However, it is more likely that the description of the mediating angel in Dan 10: 6 is dependent primarily upon Ezek 40: 3, which also depicts a mediating angel. This would mean that Dan 10: 6 drew upon a version of Ezek 40: 3 that contained the plus attested in the OG (‫)נחשת קלל‬. Thus, the shared locution in Dan 10: 6 gives additional support that the assimilative plus in the OG of Ezek 40: 3 existed in its Vor­ lage and should not be attributed to the translator.

1.2 Assimilation of Phraseology 1.2.1 Assimilation of Prophetic Speech Formula Prophetic speech formulae in Ezekiel provide the most basic place to start our study of scribal assimilation of phraseology. These are the most struc­ tured and repetitive linguistic elements in then book, and nearly every dis­ course unit is introduced, concluded, and internally structured by means of these phrases.30 They range from the prophetic messenger formula, “Thus 25 So Cornill, Das Buch, 433, and Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1983), 332. 26 So Bertholet, Das Buch Hesekiel, 195, and Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 441. 27 Dan 10: 6 ‫ומרגלתיו כעין נחשת קלל‬, “and his feet were like gleaming bronze.” The OG reads in this verse, καὶ οἱ πόδες ὡσεὶ χαλκὸς ἐξαστράπτων, the “Theodotianic” version reads, καὶ τὰ σκέλη ὡς ὅρασις χαλκοῦ στίλβοντος. 28 J.A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Book of Daniel (ICC; (New York: Scribners, 1927), 409; J.J. Collins, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Her­ meneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 373. 29 The entire clause of Ezek 1: 7 ‫ונצצים כעין נחשת קלל‬, has been taken by some to refer to “their feet” (‫ )רגליהם‬earlier in 1: 7a (Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 44), but the participle is masculine plural, while “feet” is grammatically feminine, and so it must be describing the creatures’ “faces” (‫ )פנים‬from 1: 6 (so Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 83). 30 The most often repeated introductory formulas are the date notifications (e. g. 1: 1–2; 8: 1; 20: 1; etc.) and the oracular reception formula, ‫ויהי דבר יהוה אלי‬, “and the word of

Expansions that Coordinate Multiple Co-texts within Ezekiel

133

says YHWH,” to the fixed phrases where the prophet is addressed, “And you, son of man.” The vast majority of instances of a given formula, as we will see, are identical. But there are occasionally small linguistic variations, and it is these divergences that attracted the attention of scribes. The present text-forms of both the OG and MT Ezekiel exhibit many features that result from scribal efforts to assimilate certain of these formulaic variations to one another. [4.8] “And you, son of man” – ‫ואתה בן אדם‬

This formula occurs almost more than any other in the book (24 times), usually at the beginning of a unit (e. g. 4: 1; 5: 1; 39: 1), or as an internal divi­ der (e. g. 21: 11, 19, 24), but always at the very beginning of the verse.31 When it stands at the head of a literary unit, it is always followed by an imperative command (e. g. 4: 1 “And you, son of man, take a brick”; 12: 3 “And you, son of man, make for yourself…”; ).32 There are, however, also many examples where a shorter form of the phrase (“son of man,” without the second person pronoun) begins a literary unit and is followed by an imperative command (e. g. 6: 1 “son of man, set your face…”; 13: 2 “son of man, prophesy”).33 There is an equally distributed variation between the long and short forms when the formula stands at the head of a speech unit. This is well illustrated in chapter 21, where the short form begins a new unit of address three times (21: 2, 7, 14), alongside three instances where the long form does the same (21: 11, 24, 33), all six are followed by an imperative command. Neither form is more dominant than the other throughout the book. This last point is especially relevant when we encounter variant readings of the formula. There are twenty occasions where the MT and OG together attest to the long form phrase.34 In two instances, the MT begins a unit with the short formula, whereas the OG attests the longer form:

31

32

33

34

YHWH came to me,” which occurs forty-one times in the book. Zimmerli (Ezekiel 1, 24– 26) has, on the basis of these literary markers, delineated fifty distinct discourse units in the book. For a thorough form-critical discussion of prophetic speech formulas in Ezekiel, see Zimmerli (Ezekiel 1, 25–41). This phrase (second masculine pronoun + “son of man”) is to be distinguished from cases where the vocative phrase “son of man” is used within a speech clause: e. g. ‫ויאמר אלי בן‬ ‫אדם‬, “and he said to me, ‘Son of man…’” (2: 1, 3; 3: 1, 3, 4, 10; 4: 16; 8: 5, 6, 8, 12, 15, 17; 11: 2; 23: 36; 37: 3, 11; 43: 7, 18; 44: 5; 47: 6). The full phrase (“And you, son of man”) occurs at the head of a literary unit with a follow­ ing imperative 16 times: 2: 6, 8; 4: 1; 5: 1; 7: 2 (imperative is a plus in the OG); 12: 3; 13: 17; 21: 11, 19, 24, 33; 33: 10; 36: 1; 39: 1, 17; 43: 10. The short phrase (“Son of man”) occurs at the head of a literary unit with a following imperative 18 times: 6: 2; 13: 2; 16: 2; 17: 2; 20: 3; 21: 2, 7, 14; 24: 2; 25: 2; 28: 12; 28: 21; 29: 2; 30: 2; 31: 2; 32: 2; 33: 2; 34: 2. MT ‫ = ואתה בן אדם‬OG καὶ σύ υἱὲ ἀνθρώπου: 2: 6, 8; 3: 25; 4: 1; 5: 1; 7: 2; 12: 3; 13: 17; 21: 11, 19, 24, 33; 24: 25; 33: 7, 10, 30; 36: 1; 39: 1, 17; 43: 10.

134

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts: MT

15: 2; 28: 2

OG

‫ = בן אדם‬καὶ σύ υἱὲ ἀνθρώπου = ‫ואתה בן אדם‬

In three cases, the MT begins a unit with a long form where the OG attests the shorter formula: MT OG 22: 2; 27: 2; 37: 16 ‫ | ואתה בן־אדם‬υἱὲ ἀνθρώπου

Only these five cases have quantitative divergences among the thirty nine appearances of the formula. There is no evident motive for the OG transla­ tor to have randomly abbreviated and expanded these texts. It is much more likely that in these isolated examples the formula was lengthened with the second person pronoun, either in the MT or in OG’s Vorlage. Of impor­ tance here is the non-systematic nature of the linguistic assimilation in either text-witness. These seem to be occasional scribal expansions which modi­ fied these particular texts in light of the more frequent longer formula. [4.9] “Speak, ‘Thus says YHWH’” – ‫מר כה אמר יהוה‬ ֹ ‫א‬ ֱ

Attached to the typical prophetic messenger formula, there often occurs an imperative address to the prophet along with an identification of the addres­ see: “Speak to X, saying ‘Thus says YHWH…’”35 A condensed form of this saying is the imperative without an addressee followed by the messenger formula: “Speak, ‘Thus says YHWH.’” This occurs three times, attested by both the MT and OG (11: 16, 17; 17: 9). There is one instance where the MT provides the imperative “speak,” but it is absent in the OG: 11: 5 ‫ותפל עלי‬ ‫ רוח יהוה ויאמר אלי ]אמר[ כה־אמר יהוה‬, “And the spirit of YHWH came upon me, and he said to me, “[Speak], ‘Thus says YHWH…’” Notably, this addition appears in the same chapter where the longer formula occurs two other times (vv. 16, 17),36 and it was certainly assimilated to these. The OG attests six further passages where it contains the same exact addition (7: 2 [also a + in the Syriac Peshitta]; 13: 8; 15: 6; 17: 19; 22: 19; 39: 17): MT

OG

‫ | כה אמר אדני יהוה‬εἰπόν τάδε λέγει κύριος = ‫אמר כה אמר אדני יהוה‬

The OG is consistent in precisely rendering this formula every other time it occurs in the MT. There are no linguistic or grammatical difficulties in these passages that would have compelled the translator to introduce the impera­ tive. These six cases are typologically identical to the MT plus in 11: 5. Therefore, they most likely represent an example of a rather uncommon phrase becoming more widely used in the manuscript tradition via assimila­ tion. 35 The formula “Speak to X, ‘Thus says YHWH’”, 12: 10, 23, 28; 14: 6; 20: 30; 24: 21; 28: 2; 33: 25; 36: 22. 36 11: 16, 17: ‫מר כה אמר אדני יהוה‬ ֹ ‫א‬ ֱ ‫לכן‬, “Therefore, speak, thus says YHWH.”

Expansions that Coordinate Multiple Co-texts within Ezekiel

135

[4.10] “For I YHWH have spoken” – ‫כי אני יהוה דברתי‬

This is a common divine speech formula used to conclude judgment oracles, and it appears in both a long and short form. In cases where the MT and OG agree, the following examples present themselves: Short Form – “For I have spoken” 23: 34; 26: 5; 28: 10; 39: 5 Long Form – “For I, YHWH, have spoken” 5: 13, 15, 17; 6: 10 (in OG); 17: 21, 24; 21: 22; 22: 14; 24: 14; 30: 12; 34: 24; 36: 36; 37: 14; 39: 5 The long version of this saying is much more common (14 times) than the short version (4 times). There are two occasions where the MT shows the longer form of the saying, and the OG the shorter: MT OG 21: 3737; 26: 14: ‫ | כי אני ]יהוה[ דברתי‬διοτι εγω λελαηκα

There is no evident motive for the OG translator to have abbreviated the phrase (in 26: 14 it is absent in the Syriac Peshitta as well), but every reason to see why the less common, short formula has been assimilated to the more common, long from in the MT. Again, note the unsystematic nature of the assimilation in the MT tradition, as four instances of the short formula were left untouched. [4.11] “Son of man, speak!” – ‫מר‬ ֹ ‫א‬ ֱ ‫בן אדם‬

On five occasions, we encounter the vocative address combined with an imperative command to speak: “son of man, speak!” (22: 24; 28: 2; 31: 2; 33: 10, 12, all attested by both MT and OG). On one occasion, 17: 11–12, the MT contains only the command to speak, while the OG attests the addition of the vocative: Ezek 17: 11–12a ‫אמר־נא‬12 ‫ויהי דבר יהוה אלי לאמר‬i11 MT ‫אמר־נא‬12 ‫ויהי דבר יהוה אלי לאמר בן אדם‬i11 = OG

OG καὶ ἐγένετο λόγος κυρίου πρός με λέγων υἱὲ ἀνθρώπου εἰπὸν δὴ [Syriac Peshitta = OG]

Throughout the entire book, the OG translator renders these vocative and imperative phrases with perfect consistency, and so there is no reason to think that he is doing anything other than adhering to his Vorlage (the plus is present in the Syriac Peshitta as well). The assimilation of this phrase to the others by means of a scribal addition is the most likely explanation. [4.12] “Therefore, prophesy, son of man!” – ‫לכן הנבא בן אדם‬

There is a wide variety of formulae in which Ezekiel is commanded to pro­ phesy: 37 In 21: 37, the main codices BAQ do in fact attest the divine name, κυριος, but it is absent in Papyrus 967, the oldest witness to the OG for Ezekiel.

136

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts:

(1) ‫הנבא בן אדם‬, “Prophesy son of man”: 11: 4; 37: 9 (2) ‫בן אדם הנבא‬, “Son of man, prophesy”: 13: 2; 21: 14; 21: 19; 21: 33; 30: 2; 34: 2; 36: 1; 39: 1 (3) ‫לכן הנבא‬, “Therefore, prophesy”: 36: 3, 6; 37: 12 (4) ‫לכן הנבא בן אדם‬, “Therefore, prophesy son of man”: 38: 14

In 21: 7 we encounter a plus in the OG which shows assimilation to phrase (4): MT OG 21: 7 ‫ | בן אדם‬διὰ τοῦτο προφήτευσον υἱὲ ἀνθρώπου = ‫לכן הנבא בן אדם‬

The simple introductory address to the prophet (MT 21: 7, “Son of man, set your face …”) has been assimilated to a less common form of the saying (#4 above) instead of the most common phrase (#2 above). There is no apparent motive for the translator to have moved away from a literal rendering at this point; it must reflect an element present in his Vorlage. [4.13] “For, thus says YHWH” – ‫כי כה אמר יהוה‬

The messenger formula, “Thus says YHWH,” occurs 126 times in Ezekiel, and ten times in the MT we find a longer form with the conjunctive particle “for” (‫ )כי‬prefixed to at the beginning.38 In each case the long form marks an internal division within a larger speech unit.39 However, in only six of these ten instances of the long formula do the MT and OG agree (23: 28; 25: 6; 26: 7, 19; 32: 11; 34: 11). On three occasions the particle ‫ כי‬is not attested in the OG (see below), and in one case it is absent from the OG and Syriac Peshitta (29: 13): MT OG 14: 21; 16: 59; 23: 46; 29: 13: ‫ = כי כה אמר יהוה‬τάδε λέγει κύριος = ‫כה אמר יהוה‬

Conversely, in four instances the OG attests the long formula where the particle ‫ כי‬is not attested in the MT.40 38 “For thus says YHWH” (29: 13 ;19 ,26: 7 ;25: 6 ;46 ,23: 28 ;16: 59 ;14: 21 :(‫;כי כה אמר יהוה‬ 32: 11; 34: 11. 39 The dividing function of this phrase was recognized within the Masoretic tradition by the fact that every instance of the long formula is connected with a setuma or petucha division. In Codex B19 (= Codex Leningrad), seven are preceded by a setuma (16: 59; 23: 28, 46; 25: 6; 26: 19; 32: 11; 34: 11) and three by a petucha (14: 21; 26: 7; 29: 13). The internal divi­ sions of the Aleppo codex differ occasionally from B19, but only in the nature of the sec­ tion break (B19 = setuma but Aleppo = petucha 23: 28; 25: 6; 32: 11; B19 = petucha but Aleppo = setuma 29: 13). For details see Appendix “Open and Closed Sections” in M.H. Goshen-Gottstein/S. Talmon/G. Marquis, The Hebrew University Bible: Ezekiel (Jerusa­ lem: Magnes, 2004), xlix-lxi. 40 The Hebrew particle ‫ כי‬occurs 189 times in Ezekiel, and is rendered by διοτι/οτι 173 times. The 16 differences consist of the 8 variants listed in this formula, and the handful of times ‫ כי‬is used as a conditional (= εαν, 14: 13; 18: 21; 33: 6), a contrastive (= δε, 14: 18; αλλα, 18: 11; 39: 10), a marker of indirect speech (24: 19), or as part of another phrase (‫אף‬ ‫ = כי‬και, 14: 21).

137

Expansions that Coordinate Multiple Co-texts within Ezekiel

MT OG 7: 5; 17: 22; 26: 15; 30: 13: ‫ | כה אמר יהוה‬διότι/ὅτι τάδε λέγει κύριος = ‫כי כה אמר‬ ‫יהוה‬

A few explanations present themselves. These eight examples could be instances of either dittography (‫ )כה < כי כה‬or parablepsis (‫ )כי כה < כה‬of the two graphically similar words. However, they most likely represent eight isolated examples where the shorter formula was assimilated to the longer formula with the conjunctive particle so that the unit could be con­ nected with the immediately preceding one.41

1.2.2 Assimilation to Contextually Close Phraseology 1.2.2.1 Assimilation of Identical Phraseology [4.14] Ezek 9: 3 ‫ ויקרא אל־האיש הלבש הבדים אשר קסת ]הספר[ במתניו‬MT

OG καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸν ἄνδρα τὸν ἐνδεδυκότα τὸν ποδήρη ὃς εἶχεν ἐπὶ τῆς ὀσφύος αὐτοῦ τὴν ζώνην

MT And he called to the man clothed in linen, who had the kit [of a scribe] at his side.

In this scene, it is mentioned three times that the man clothed in linen has some kind of writing kit attached to his side (9: 2, 3, 11).42 The description in MT 9: 3 is clearly related to two passages in the immediate co-text: 9: 2 ‫ואיש־אחד בתוכם לבש בדים וקסת הספר במתניו‬ 9: 11 ‫האיש לבש הבדים אשר הקסת במתניו‬

The OG incorrectly translates both words of the phrase ‫ קסת הספר‬in 9: 2 as “a sapphire sash” (ζώνη σαπφείρου),43 while in the two remaining 41 This explanation is more likely than the opposite, namely, that the particle is necessary for the conceptual flow within a unit, but was omitted by the translator or a scribe. This latter view is presupposed by Zimmerli, for example, in his comment on 14: 21 (Ezekiel 1, 311): “MT ‫ כי‬is certainly not attested by OG, but, against Cornill, Bertholet, Fohrer, it is not to be deleted since it connects the general explanation of the righteous punishment of Yahweh with the concrete address to those condemned.” Zimmerli’s choice of vocabulary, “to be deleted,” is not helpful here, for the real issue revolves around how the textual witnesses are to be weighed, which reading is primary, and which is secondary. If a particular con­ junctive element does play an important role in the flow of a passage, but is absent in a pri­ mary textual witness, it is just as possible, if not more likely, that the conjunction was added for just this purpose. Arguments based on a word’s “logical necessity” must be sub­ ordinated first to the textual witnesses, and then weighed in light of the evidence. 42 The word ‫סת‬ ֶ ‫ק‬ ֶ is used three times to describe the writing kit (9: 2, 3, 11). The word occurs only here in biblical Hebrew. It is likely an Egyptian loan-word (see HALOT, 1116, and also Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 224), and refers to a scribe’s writing or marking equipment. 43 The rendering ζώνη σαπφείρου, “a sapphire girdle,” represents lexical exegesis of the first word (‫קסת‬i), and a transliteration of the second (‫הספר‬i). For a methodological discussion of how the OG translators dealt with such rare terminology by means of transliteration,

138

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts:

instances we find only ‫ קסת‬represented as “sash” (ζώνη, 9: 3, 11). It is unli­ kely that the OG translator would have intentionally left one of the two words unrepresented, especially identical phrases in adjacent sentences. It is more probable that the original account had the more elaborate description (‫ )קסת הספר‬of the writing kit only at its first mention (9: 2), and followed with two shorter forms (‫ קסת‬in vv. 3, 11). Because of the spatial proximity of the phrases in vv. 2 and 3, the latter was assimilated to the former. This explanation makes the most sense of the witnesses, and displays a principle of assimilation we have been tracing in this chapter. The following examples will confirm this view. [4.15] Ezek 3: 2 [‫ ואפתח את־פי ויאכלני את המגלה ]הזאת‬MT OG καὶ διήνοιξα τὸ στόμα μου καὶ ἐψώμισέν με τὴν κεφαλίδα MT And I opened my mouth, and he fed me the scroll [this one].

The account of Ezekiel’s consumption of the scroll takes place in a number of sequential steps. In the previous verse (3: 1), we find the divine command given to the prophet, “Eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel” (‫אכול את המגלה הזאת ולך דבר אל בית ישראל‬i). Additionally, after Eze­ kiel ingests the scroll, YHWH gives him further explanation of what he has done, again mentioning “this scroll” (‫המגלה הזאת‬i, 3: 3). In 3: 1, 3 the deictic pronoun (“this scroll”) is appropriate in YHWH’s speech, as it refers back to the scroll which was the centre of attention in 2: 8–10. However, 3: 2 is a first person narrative account by Ezekiel of the fulfillment of the command, and here the demonstrative is wholly unnecessary; it is perfectly clear what scroll is in view.44 This example fits the profile of the assimilation of com­ mand-fulfillment passages, a feature common in the Samaritan and preSamaritan mansucripts of the Pentateuch.45 The description of the prophet’s obedience to YHWH’s command is assimilated to the language of the com­ mand itself. The absence of the word “this” in the OG of 3: 2 is a sure sign that phrase has been assimilated to those in vv. 1 and 3.

see E. Tov, “Loan-words, Homophony, and Transliterations in the Septuagint” in E. Tov (ed.), The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (Leiden: Brill, 1999) 165–82. 44 A feature noticed by Cornill (Das Buch, 188), “Im Munde JHVHs, der die Rolle in der Hand hält, ist ‫ המגלה הזאת‬korrekt, nicht aber im Munde des Propheten.” This view was adopted by A.B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel: Textkritisches, Sprachliches, und Sachliches – Fünfter Band, Ezechiel und die kleinen Propheten (Leipzig: Druckerei Lokay, 1912), 11, and Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 92. 45 For a brief outline of this feature, see E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Min­ neapolis/Assen: Fortress/Van Gorcum, 22001), 89, and for a detailed discussion of this fea­ ture in the context of the pre-Samaritan and Samaritan manuscripts as a whole, see R. Weiss, Mechqere miqra’ be-chinot nosach we-lashon (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1981), 317– 87.

Expansions that Coordinate Multiple Co-texts within Ezekiel

139

[4.16] Ezek 3: 13 [‫ …וקול האופנים לעמתם וקול רעש ]גדול‬MT OG … καὶ φωνὴ τῶν τροχῶν ἐχομένη αὐτῶν καὶ φωνὴ τοῦ σεισμοῦ MT … and the sound of the wheels beside them, and the sound of an earthquake [a great one]

In 3: 12, Ezekiel hears behind him “the sound of a great earthquake” (‫קול‬ ‫)רעש גדול‬, as the glory of YHWH begins to move. The many “sounds” in 3: 13 describe the things which generate the clamor; the final one is “the sound of an earthquake.” This final phrase, which resumes the mention of the earthquake, has been assimilated to the wording of its first appearance in 3: 13 by addition of the adjective, “great” (‫גדול‬i). Again, spatial proximity of identical phrases has generated an instance of assimilation. [4.17] Ezek 3: 18 [‫ להזהיר רשע מדרכו ]הרשעה‬MT OG οῦ διαστείλασθαι τῷ ἀνόμῳ ἀποστρέψαι ἀπὸ τῶν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ [Syriac Peshitta = OG] MT To warn the wicked man from his [wicked] way.

This plus is absent in the OG and the Peshitta, and shows how the descrip­ tion of the wicked man’s “way” has been assimilated in the MT to the matching phrase in the following verse (3: 19 ‫כי הזהרת רשע ולא שב מרשעו‬ ‫ומדרכו הרשעה‬, “when you warn the wicked man, yet he does not turn from his wickedness or from his wicked way”). [4.18] Ezek 34: 24 ‫ ו[עבדי] דוד נשיא בתוכם‬MT

OG καὶ Δαυιδ ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν MT And [my servant] David will be a prince among them.

The mention of David in the previous verse (34: 23), described him as ‫עבדי‬ ‫דויד‬, “my servant David,” and so the phrase in 34: 24 has been assimilated to what came before. The previous examples involved identical phraseology in adjacent sen­ tences or verses. There are also many cases where two similar parts of a sin­ gle sentence are assimilated to one another. [4.19] Ezek 34: 9–10

‫כה־אמר אדני יהוה‬10 [‫לכן הרעים ]שמעו דבר־יהוה‬i9 MT

OG

9

MT

9

ἀντὶ τούτου ποιμένες, 10 τάδε λέγει κύριος

Therefore, O shepherds [Hear the word of YHWH], YHWH.

10

thus says the Lord

The initial accusation and judgment oracle against Israel’s leaders (depicted as shepherds) in 34: 1–16 is broken into three units by the structural marker,

140

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts:

“therefore, O shepherds” (‫לכן הרעים‬i, 34: 7, 9). The first two units are accu­ sations (34: 2–6, 7–8) while the last is an announcement of deliverance from the corrupt leaders (34: 9–16). In the MT tradition, these two markers are identical, but their minute variation (the presence of ‫ את‬in 34: 7) as well as the witness of the OG make it certain that phrase in 34: 9 is secondary, an assimilation to 34: 7. 34: 7 ‫לכן רעים שמעו את־דבר יהוה‬ 34: 9 [‫לכן הרעים ]שמעו דבר־יהוה‬ [4.20] Ezek 18: 4 ‫ =הן כל־הנפשות לי הנה כנפש האב וכנפש הבן ]כל הנפשות[ לי־הנה‬OG

OG ὅτι πᾶσαι αἱ ψυχαὶ ἐμαί εἰσιν ὃν τρόπον ἡ ψυχὴ τοῦ πατρός οὕτως καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ τοῦ υἱοῦ πᾶσαι αἱ ψυχαὶ ἐμαί εἰσιν

A

Behold, every living person, they belong to me: B the life of the father, B’ just as the life of the son, A’ [every living person] they belong to me.

Here the OG attests to a plus that creates a chiastic balance between the two parts of the sentence. The operative phrase is “they belong to me” (‫לי הנה‬i), and the final, originally abbreviated, clause has been made to match the first clause by assimilation. [4.21] Ezek 20: 44 [‫ =וידעתם כי־אני יהוה בעשותי אתכם למען שמי ]לבלתי החל‬OG OG καὶ ἐπιγνώσεσθε διότι ἐγὼ κύριος ἐν τῷ ποιῆσαί με οὕτως ὑμῖν ὅπως τὸ ὄνομά μου μὴ βεβηλωθῇ

OG And you will know that I am YHWH, when deal with you for the sake of my name [so that it will not be defiled]

In the course of Ezekiel’s revisionist history of Israel’s apostasy in ch. 20, YHWH relents three times from destroying the entire people “for the sake of my name, so that it would not be defiled” in the sight of the nations (‫ואעש למען שמי לבלתי החל‬i, 20: 9, 14, 22). The final unit of this chapter (where 20: 44 occurs) is future oriented, looking towards Israel’s restoration and return to the land (20: 33–43). After these events, the people will recog­ nize that YHWH acted in this way as he had all along, “for the sake of my name.” The OG attests an expansion that assimilates this fourth and final clause to the previous three by adding the phrase “so that it would not be defiled.” This basic procedure is the same as the above examples, but the scope is not limited to the immediate co-text, i. e., the adjacent verses or the sentence. Rather 20: 44 has been assimilated to a repeated structural element that spans the entire chapter. [4.22] Ezek 22: 7–12 ‫אב ואם הקלו בך לגר עשו בעשק בתוכך יתום ואלמנה הונו ]בך[׃‬i7 ‫קדשי בזית ואת־שבתתי חללת ]בך[׃‬i8

Expansions that Coordinate Multiple Co-texts within Ezekiel

141

‫אנשי רכיל היו בך למען שפך־דם ]בך[ ואל־ההרים אכלו בך זמה עשו בתוכך׃‬i9 ‫ערות־אב גלה־בך טמאת הנדה ענו־בך׃‬i10 ‫ואיש את־אשת רעהו עשה תועבה ]בך[ ואיש את־כלתו טמא בזמה‬i11 ‫ואיש את־אחתו בת־אביו ענה־בך׃‬ ‫שחד לקחו־בך למען שפך־דם נשך ותרבית לקחת ]בך[ ותבצעי רעיך בעשק‬i12 7

8

9

10

11

12

They have treated father and mother with contempt in your midst; they have oppressed the orphan and widow [in your midst]. You have despised my holy things, and you have defiled my Sabbaths [in your midst]. Slanderous men are in your midst, to shed blood [in your midst]; and on the mountains they eat in your midst; they commit lewdness in your midst. One has exposed the nakedness of (his) father in your midst, men violate a woman in menstrual impurity in your midst. Each commits abominations with the wife of his neighbor [in your midst], and each defiles his daughter-in-law in lewdness, and each violates his sister, the daughter of his father in your midst. They receive a bribe, so as to shed blood in your midst, you receive interest and profit [in your midst], and you extort by violence your neighbors with oppression.

Key: – in your midst (Bold) = Present in both OG and MT – [in your midst] (Underlined) = Plus in MT, minus in OG – [in your midst] (Italicized) = Plus in OG, minus in MT Of the fifteen verbal clauses in this litany of cultic and moral violations, only three do not end with the prepositional phrase “in your midst” (vv. 8a, 11b, 12c). In seven cases, both the OG and MT attest the repeated phrase (vv. 7a, 9b, c, 10a, b, 11c, 12a), and in only one instance does the MT alone evince a case of assimilation to the other phrases (v. 7b). The OG, on the other hand, attests four cases where “in your midst” has been added (vv. 8b, 9a, 11a, 12b). Thus, while the MT tradition has been expanded in a more conservative manner than the OG, the character of these additions is the same. This example differs from the previous cases in that none of the sen­ tences in 22: 7–12 are identical or even similar in content. Thus, these assimi­ lative expansions have the entire list and its rhetorical goals in view. While all the sentences differ in content and vocabulary, their rhetorical function is the same: each sentence contributes to the inventory of moral and cultic aberrations taking place among the Israelites. The recurrence of the preposi­ tional phrases in the original oracle is a stylistic feature that heightens the rhetorical force of the accusation. Thus, the assimilative tendencies of scribes in both text traditions behind the MT and OG, took their cue from this feature and replicated it to the extreme. As a conclusion to this section, it may be useful to address a possible objection that these examples actually show how the translator was in the habit of omitting superfluous or otiose terminology, as Block asserts of

142

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts:

Ezek 34: 9–10.46 While translator omission is always a possibility, it is improbable in the texts we have been examining. First of all, the final two examples of this last section were OG plusses, i. e., the “superfluous” ele­ ment is found only in the OG. Unless we are to posit that the OG translator is sometimes creating these repetitions and other times eliminating them, it is much more compelling to argue that both the OG Vorlage and the MT tradition were subject to scribal assimilation in different places and various ways. Secondly, none of the scribal additions examined here are superflu­ ous. They are repetitions, but repetition does not make a phrase’s semantic or rhetorical contribution therefore meaningless. The hypothesis of scribal assimilation is a more economic and probable explanation than the theory of random translator omission or addition.

1.2.3 Assimilation to Contextually Distant Phraseology 1.2.3.1 Assimilation of Identical Terminology [4.23] Ezek 20: 1, 3 ‫… באו אנשים מזקני ]בית[ ישראל לדרש את־יהוה וישבו לפני‬i1 = OG ‫בן־אדם דבר את־זקני ]בית[ ישראל‬i3 = OG

OG

1

OG

1

ἦλθον ἄνδρες ἐκ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων οἴκου Ισραηλ… υἱὲ ἀνθρώπου λάλησον πρὸς τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους τοῦ οἴκου Ισραηλ

3

Men came from the elders of [the house of] Israel, to enquire of YHWH, and they sat before me… 3“Son of man, speak to the elders of [the house of] Israel.”

Here the epithet for the elders has been twice expanded in the OG tradition. It is possible that the OG translator added the phrases, without a basis in his Vorlage. However, the lack of any apparent motivation for the translator to have done so, and additionally the distribution of this phrase in the book undermine this option. The phrase “elders of Israel” occurs five times within the book: 8: 11 ‫ | מזקני בית־ישׂראל‬ἐκ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων οἴκου Ισραηλ = MT 8: 12 ‫ | זקני בית־ישׂראל‬οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τοῦ οἴκου Ισραηλ = MT 14: 1 ‫מזקני ישׂראל‬ | ἐκ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων τοῦ Ισραηλ = MT 20: 1 ‫מזקני ישׂראל‬ | ἐκ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων οἴκου Ισραηλ OG+ 20: 3 ‫זקני ישׂראל‬ | τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους τοῦ οἴκου Ισραηλ OG+ Given the broad evidence we have seen for assimilation within both the MT and OG traditions, the probability that 20: 1, 3 have been assimilated to the identical phraseology in 8: 11–12 is strong. A secondary explanation could 46 D.I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 279.

Expansions that Coordinate Multiple Co-texts within Ezekiel

143

be that within chapter 20, which our key passages introduce, the most com­ mon designation for Israel is “the house of Israel” (i‫בית ישראל‬i, 20: 13, 27, 30, 31, 39, 40, 44) and that this is the source of the expansion. However, given that textual distance did not decrease the possibility of assimilation of identical phrases in the preceding example, it is most likely that these titles in 20:1, 3 have been assimilated to the phrases in 8:11–12. The reading in 14: 1 is also important, for it represented an opportunity for assimilation to the longer phrase that was never realised in the traditions of the MT or the OG Vorlage. Examples like this make it clear that scribes did not assimilate every text that they could have. Their work did not sys­ tematically introduce expansions for comprehensive editorial or redactional purposes. This same observation was made by Fishbane in his critique with Koenig’s work on interpretive variants in the transmission of biblical texts. The latter’s claim that techniques of scribal assimilation were carried by scribes as an “activité méthodique,”47 was critiqued by Fishbane, who, more accurately, describes such processes as “unsystematic” and “occasional tex­ tual reflexes.”48 The examples in Ezek 14: 1 over against 8: 11–12 and 20: 1, 3 demonstrate exactly this point. Scribes did not seize upon every potential instance of assimilation, only some.

1.2.3.2 Assimilation of Particular Phrases in Distant Co-texts [4.24] “Wicked Ways” 13: 22 ‫ולחזק ידי רשע לבלתי־שוב מדרכו הרע‬ … and to strengthen the hands of the wicked, so that he will not turn from his wicked way. 18: 23 ‫החפץ אחפץ מות רשׁע נאם אדני יהוה הלוא בשׁובו מדרכיו ]הרעים[ וחי‬ (plus in OG and Syriac Peshitta, absent in MT)49 Do I take pleasure in the death of the wicked? Is it not rather that he turn from his [wicked] ways and live? 20: 44 ‫בעשותי אתכם למען שמי לא כדרכיכם הרעים‬ When I deal with you for the sake of my name, not according to your wicked ways. 33: 11 ‫שובו שובו מדרכיכם ]הרעים[… בית ישראל‬i(plus in MT, absent in OG) Turn, turn from your [wicked] ways … O house of Israel! 47 J. Koenig, “L’activité herméneutique des scribes dans la transmission du texte de l’Ancien Testament”, RHR 161 (1962) 141–74, on p. 162. 48 M. Fishbane, “Review of Jean Koenig, L’herméneutique analogique du Judaïsme antique d’après les témoins textuels d’Isaïe”, CBQ 46 (1984) 761–63, on p. 763; see also his Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 84–85. 49 Ezek 18: 23 in OG: μὴ θελήσει θελήσω τὸν θάνατον τοῦ ἀνόμου… ὡς τὸ ἀποστρέψαι αὐτὸν ἐκ τῆς ὁδοῦ τῆς πονηρᾶς καὶ ζῆν αὐτόν.

144

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts:

36: 31 ‫וזכרתם את־דרכיכם הרעים‬ And you will remember your wicked ways.

The phrase “wicked ways” occurs four times in the MT edition of Ezekiel (13: 22; 20: 44; 33: 11; 36: 31), and is a plus in one of these (33: 11). The OG tradition itself attests this same plus (“wicked”) in 18: 23. The three occa­ sions where the full phrase appears to be original (13: 22; 20: 44; 36: 31) have motivated an identical case of assimilation in both MT and OG traditions. Note that in both instances (18: 23; 33: 11) the idiom involved is “turn from” + “[wicked] ways” (‫ שוב‬+ ‫ מן‬+‫דרך‬i), similar to 13: 22. However, it is impor­ tant to note that not every instance of this phrase has been assimilated to the fuller expression. The phraseology in 33: 9 offered the same possibility for assimilation, which was never realised.50 [4.25] “Wicked Abominations” MT 6: 11 ‫ואמר־אח אל כל־תועבות ]רעות[ בית ישראל‬ And say, “Alas!” at all the [wicked] abominations of the house of Israel.51 MT 8: 9

…[‫בא וראה את־התועבות ]הרעות‬ Go and see the [wicked] abominations…

Ezek 6: 11 and 8: 9 are the only places in the MT edition of Ezekiel where the phrase “wicked abominations” occurs, and both are unrepresented in the OG. The adjective “wicked” is used five other times in Ezek (attested in both MT and OG, 11: 2; 13: 22; 14: 21; 20: 44; 36: 31), and on two other occa­ sions the word itself is a MT plus (5: 16; 33: 11) or part of a larger MT plus (7: 24; 30: 12). We have already considered four of these texts in the previous example, where it was concluded that this adjective was a scribal addition in 33: 11. The grammatical problem in the above example of 6: 11 (cf. footnote 35) shows that the word is clearly secondary. It is possible that 6: 11 was assimilated to 8: 9, or vice-versa. Regardless, these examples of assimilation show us how attuned scribes were to such minute relationships between similar phraseology in distant co-texts. [4.26] “Many Nations” MT ‫גוים רבים‬ ‫גוים רבים‬ ‫גוים‬ ‫גוים רבים‬

OG i26: 3 i31: 6 i38: 12 i38: 23

ἔθνη πολλά πλῆθος ἐθνῶν ἐθνῶν πολλῶν ἐθνῶν πολλῶν

As can be seen from these examples, the evidence regarding these phrases is diverse. The full phrase is represented in MT/OG three times (26: 3; 31: 6; 38: 23); the OG attests a plus two times (38: 12; 39: 23), and the MT has the same plus

50 Ezek 33: 11 ‫ ואתה כי־הזהרת רשע מדרכו לשוב ממנה ולא־שב מדרכו‬. 51 As many have noted, the adjective ‫ רעות‬does not agree grammatically with the noun ‫תועבות‬, which is grammatically definite by virtue of its construct relationship to “house of Israel,” i. e., “the abominations of the house of Israel.” The grammatical incongruity of ‫רעות‬, in addition to its absence in the OG is a sure sign of its secondary character accord­ ing to Cornill, Das Buch, 210; Toy, The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, 51; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 181.

Expansions that Coordinate Multiple Co-texts within Ezekiel

145

one time (39: 27). To attribute these differences to the translator involves the assumption that he both expanded a short phrase (38: 12; 39: 23) and abbre­ viated the full phrase (39: 27) within a fairly short expanse of text. There is nothing in the immediate co-text of either phrase that would have necessi­ tated its addition or omission by the translator. It is much more likely, in view of the assimilative tendencies we have seen in this chapter, that the MT and OG were independently assimilated to the longer expression. This is the same conclusion reached by Wong in his study of the OG and MT of Ezek 39: 21–29.52 It is noteworthy that this is yet another example where an identical assimilative tendency appears in both the MT and (the Vorlage of the) OG. [4.27] “Many Peoples” ‫עמים רבים‬ ‫רב עם‬ ‫עמים רבים‬ ‫עמים רבים‬ ‫עמים רבים‬ ‫עמים רבים‬

i3: 6 i26: 7 i27: 33 i32: 3 i32: 9 i32: 10

λαοὺς πολλοὺς ἐθνῶν πολλῶν σφόδρα ἔθνη λαῶν πολλῶν λαῶν πολλῶν ἔθνη πολλά

‫עמים רבים‬ ‫עמים רבים‬ ‫עמים רבים‬ ‫עמים רבים‬ ‫עמים רבים‬ ‫עמים‬

i38: 6 i38: 8 i38: 9 i38: 15 i38: 22 i39: 4

ἔθνη πολλὰ ἔθνη πολλὰ ἔθνη πολλὰ ἔθνη πολλὰ ἔθνη πολλὰ ἔθνη πολλὰ

[OG = Syr]

The OG is consistent in its quantitative representation of the full expression throughout the entire book. Thus, the three instances where we encounter textual differences (26: 7; 27: 33; 39: 4) need to be examined more closely. In 39: 4 we have independent attestation to an assimilating plus in the OG and Syriac Peshitta over against the MT, and this example, along with 27: 33, is of the same kind that we encountered above with the “many nations” texts. In these two texts, one witness (the MT or OG) preserves a shorter phrase, while the other (MT or OG/Peshitta) was assimilated to the more common longer phrase. The case of 26: 7 is unique, and needs the considered sepa­ rately and in its own context. The full line reads as follows: ‫ הנני מביא אל־צר נבוכדראצר מלך־בבל מצפון… בסוס וברכב ובפרשים‬26: 7 ‫וקהל ועם־רב‬

Look, I am about to bring to Tyre Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon, from the North… with horses and with chariots, and with cavalry, and an assem­ bly and a great people. The final phrase, ‫וקהל ועם־רב‬, “and an assembly, and a great people” is represented in the OG by καὶ συναγωγῆς ἐθνῶν πολλῶν σφόδρα, “and an assembly of a great many peoples.” It is possible that the phrase was expanded by the OG translator53 or that assimilation has taken place in the 52 K.L. Wong, “The Masoretic and Septuagint Texts of Ezekiel 39, 21–29”, ETL 78 (2002) 130–47, on pp. 135–46. 53 So Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 28, who calls it a “free rendering” by the OG translator.

146

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts:

OG’s Vorlage to conform the unique wording to the more common phrase “many peoples.”54 There are a handful of phrases in Ezekiel that are parallel to MT 26: 7 which are relevant here: – Expressions with ‫קהל‬, “assembly” 23: 24 ‫ובקהל עמים‬, “and with an assembly of peoples” 32: 3 ‫ופרשתי עליך את־רשתי בקהל עמים רבים‬, “and I will spread my net over you, with an assembly of many peoples” – Expressions without ‫קהל‬ 17: 9 ‫ובעם־רב‬, “and with a great people” 17: 15 ‫לתת־לו סוסים ועם־רב‬, “to supply him with horses, and a great people” The shorter phrase “and a great people” (‫ )ועם רב‬in the MT of 26: 7 has par­ allels in 17: 9, 15, but the word ‫ קהל‬occurs only with the longer phrase “peoples” (‫עמים‬i, 23: 24) or “many peoples” (‫עמים רבים‬i, 32: 3). Thus, 26: 7 stands out as unique in this list. Also, the OG of 26: 7 has the additional ele­ ment, σφόδρα, “very, much” which consistently represents the Hebrew word ‫ מאד‬throughout the book.55 Ezek 26: 7 is the only occasion where the OG contains σφοδρα as a plus over against the MT, and so supposing that the translator added it here at random is very improbable. Each of these points, taken within the larger argument being developed in this chapter, lends significant weight to the arguments of Cornill and Toy that the unique collocation of phrases attested in the MT 26: 7 has been assimilated in the OG’s Vorlage to the more common phrases in 23: 24 and 32: 3, and also ela­ borated with the addition of the adverb “very much” (‫מאד‬i).56

1.3 Assimilation of Related Texts within a Narrative Unit Within the generic makeup of the book of Ezekiel, there is a clear difference between the oracular units and the larger narrative complexes. There are, however, a number of narrative units that have been interspersed within oracles. For example, 3: 16b–19 is divine address to the prophet set within the larger narrative of 1: 1–3: 27. The large vision report in 40: 1–48: 35 has large legislative blocks inserted within it, which are held together by the narrative skeleton.57 Other narrative units are rather self-contained, and 54 So Cornill, Das Buch, 340, and Toy, The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, 81. 55 The word ‫ מאד‬occurs in the MT of Ezek 11 times, and is translated in the OG as σφοδρα every time (9: 9; 16: 13; 20: 13; 27: 25; 37: 2, 10; 40: 2; 47: 7, 9, 10). 56 Given the translation equivalencies given above, the OG’s Vorlage likely read ‫וקהל עמים‬ ‫רבים מאד‬. 57 For an excellent discussion of the narrative structure of Ezek 40–48 and how it relates to the composition-history of these chapters, see M. Fishbane and S. Talmon. “The Structur­ ing of Biblical Books: Studies in the Book of Ezekiel”, ASTI 10 (1976) 129–153.

Expansions that Coordinate Multiple Co-texts within Ezekiel

147

have clear literary borders which frame the narrative. The initial vision report in Ezek 1 displays such features, as well as the temple vision narrative in Ezek 8–11. When the many MT and OG plusses within these units are examined, a pattern of internal assimilation emerges. These scribal additions display an awareness of the distinct parts of the particular narrative unit and represent attempts to coordinate its various sections. The relevant co-text is always within the larger narrative unit, ranging from the previous sentence to another distant section. The fact that they occur in the same narrative block shows that scribes were aware of the co-textual boundaries of certain literary units, and sought to coordinate various elements within those speci­ fic units.

1.3.1 Assimilation within Ezekiel 1 The many textual variants in Ezekiel 1 go hand in hand with its extremely dense and obscure description of the prophet’s visionary experience. The vast majority of differences between the OG and MT (and also the Syriac Peshitta) are related to the complex composition and transmission history of this vision account. There are many ambiguities which seem to have been part of the original account (e. g. the constantly shifting masculine and feminine noun suffixes58), as well as examples of scribal errors and expan­ sion.59 I am interested particularly in examples of scribal expansion which aim to interconnect and coordinate different elements within the vision

58 For the most thorough discussion of this grammatical problem in Ezek 1, see Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 102–6. D.I. Block, “Text and Emotion: A Study in the ‘Corruptions’ in Ezekiel’s Inaugural Vision (Ezekiel 1: 4–28)”, CBQ 50 (1988) 418–42, has argued that “the reason why the account of the inaugural vision appears so garbled and contains so many obscuri­ ties lies in the emotional state of the recipient. … [A]ttempts to describe mental pictures while in a state of high excitement often come out garbled with incomplete sentences, erra­ tic grammar, confused vocabulary, and incoherent structure” (p. 433). Moreover, he argues that “to lay the burden of all of the irregularities on the shoulders of the either scribes or redactors is to impose upon them a load which they might have been both unwilling and unable to bear” (p. 428). Block’s psychological explanation for the abounding textual diffi­ culties does not, however, account for the empirical textual evidence we have (especially in OG Ezek) which demonstrates that we are dealing with scribal expansion in many of the quantitative textual divergences in Ezek 1. As for the grammatical and syntactic problems, the difficulty of the visual descriptions themselves is often sufficient to posit scribal expan­ sion, corruption, or adaptation. The architectural descriptions of Solomon’s temple in 1 Kings 6–7 are an analogous example, which generated an enormous amount of textual annotation and corruption in the textual history of these chapters, on which see J.A. Mon­ tgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Kings (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951), 140–84. 59 Wever’s comments (Ezekiel, 40–41) on Ezek 1 are apt: “For the latest expansions of the text, G must be used with care. G represents a text somewhat earlier than MT and is often shorter. Many times its shorter text will be an excellent witness to a late stage in the text development.”

148

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts:

itself. While the above discussion of harmonization in Ezek 1 showed how scribes coordinated this chapter with the other vision accounts, these expansions assimilate the disparate components of the vision (the cloud, the creatures, the wheels, the throne) to one another, resulting in a more cohesive unit. [4.28] Ezek 1: 4 in MT ‫וארא והנה רוח סערה באה מן־הצפון ענן גדול‬ ‫ואש מתלקחת ונגה לו סביב ומתוכה כעין החשמל מתוך האש‬

And I looked, and behold, a windstorm coming from the north, a great cloud, and fire was flashing, and a radiance was around it (i. e., the fire), and from its midst, was something like the appearance of glowing metal, i. e., from the midst of the fire. Ezek 1: 4 in OG [‫ =וארא והנה רוח סערה באה מן־הצפון ענן גדול ]בה‬OG [‫ונגה לו סביב ואש מתלקחת ומתוכה כעין החשמל מתוך האש ]ונגה בה‬ OG καὶ εἶδον καὶ ἰδοὺ πνεῦμα ἐξαῖρον ἤρχετο ἀπὸ βορρᾶ καὶ νεφέλη μεγάλη ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ φέγγος κύκλῳ αὐτοῦ καὶ πῦρ ἐξαστράπτον καὶ ἐν τῷ μέσῳ αὐτοῦ ὡς ὅρασις ἠλέκτρου ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ πυρὸς καὶ φέγγος ἐν αὐτῷ

And I looked, and behold a windstorm coming from the north, a great cloud [was inside it], and a radiance was around it (i. e., the cloud) and fire was flashing, and from its midst was something like the appearance of glowing metal, i. e., from the midst of the fire [and there was a radiance in it (i. e., in the fire)].

Ezekiel’s first perception of the divine glory involves an array of elements: a windstorm, a large cloud with flashing fire, and a glowing metal object, all permeated by a shining radiance. The relationship between all of these ele­ ments in the MT is ambiguous due to the unclear syntactical relationships between the nouns, as well as disagreements in grammatical gender. The exegetical difficulties in the MT 1: 4 relevant for understanding the plus material in the OG are as follows. (1) The syntactical relationships between the nouns “storm,” “cloud,” and “fire” are unclear. In the MT the “cloud” “and fire” are in apposition to the “windstorm.” This could be taken to mean that the cloud and fire are a further elaborative description of the first object viewed, namely, the wind­ storm.60 Alternatively, these could all be separate entities seen by Ezekiel whose relationships are left undefined: a windstorm, a cloud, and a fire.61 (2) The referent of masculine pronoun in the phrase, ‫ונגה לו סביב‬, “and it had a radiance all around” is unclear. It seems to be referring back to the cloud (a masculine noun), but the fact that the immediately preceding clause 60 I.e., the noun(s) in apposition further defines the quality or attribute of the first noun, cf. GKC §131; JM §131b–c. 61 The view that the cloud and fire are a further description of the windstorm is the view taken by most interpreters, however some think this is a list of separate items with unclear relationships (e. g. Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 10).

Expansions that Coordinate Multiple Co-texts within Ezekiel

149

in the MT is about the flashing fire (‫ )ואש מתלקחת‬has led some to say the radiance refers to the fire (a feminine noun), despite the disagreement of grammatical gender.62 The first exegetical issue is resolved by the OG plus which places the cloud inside the windstorm (“and a great cloud [was inside it]”, ἐν αὐτῷ). The second issue is resolved in the OG tradition by a transposition of the two phrases “and flashing fire” (‫ואש מתלקחת‬i), and “a radiance was around it” (‫ונגה לו סביב‬i), so that the masculine pronoun of the radiance (‫ )לו‬is now adjacent to, and naturally refers to, the masculine noun “cloud” (‫ענן‬i), and not the fire. This, in effect, solves the two interpretive ambiguities of the sentence. However, the other major quantitative difference in this verse raises a fascinating dimension of this exegetical puzzle. At the end of the verse, there is another OG plus, which gives one further description of the fire: “and there was a radiance in it” (καὶ φέγγος ἐν αὐτῷ). The fire is said to have its own radiant attribute, analogous to the cloud’s radiance. How are we to explain this scribal expansion?63 In the OG both entities, the cloud and the fire, have their own radiance, a fact which shows an awareness of both interpretive possibilities inherent in the MT edition. Just as the trans­ position in the OG secured one particular solution (attributing radiance to the cloud), the concluding plus attested by the OG simultaneously adds the other (attributing radiance to the fire). Thus, both exegetical options were made into textual reality by adding a second, nearly identical phrase to the end of the verse. We should note that many scholars attribute these addi­ tions and the transposition to the Hebrew Vorlage of the OG,64 and given the cumulative evidence of our study so far, there is every reason to take this view. [4.29] Ezek 1: 20 [‫ על אשר יהיה שם הרוח ללכת ילכו ]שמה הרוח ללכת‬MT [‫ = על אשר יהיה ]הענן[ שם הרוח ללכת ילכו ]החיות‬OG OG οὗ ἂν ἦν ἡ νεφέλη ἐκεῖ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ πορεύεσθαι ἐπορεύοντο τὰ ζῷα MT To the place where the spirit would go, they would go [to where the spirit would go] OG Wherever [the cloud] was, there was the spirit to go, they would go [the crea­ tures] 62 Greenberg (Ezekiel 1–20, 43) argues that the noun “fire” (‫ )אש‬can on (rare) occasion be referred to as a masculine noun (e. g. Jer 48: 45, ‫אש יצא מחשבון‬, see also Jer 20: 9; Job 20: 26). These references are noted in BDB’s entry on ‫אש‬i(p. 77). 63 While most commentators give attention to the exegetical dimensions of the other textual issues in 1: 4, this last OG plus has usually been discarded as trivial. Cooke (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 23) calls it a “superfluous gloss,” and Zimmerli (Ezekiel 1, 83) simply describes it as a “further gloss.” 64 So Cornill (Das Buch, 179–80), Cooke (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 10), Zim­ merli (Ezekiel 1, 82–83), and Wevers (Ezekiel, 43).

150

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts:

In the MT edition of Ezek 1, the cloud (‫ )הענן‬which Ezekiel first saw envel­ oping the entire divine glory (1: 4) is not mentioned again. The rest of the vision goes on to elaborate on the different components of the vision: the four creatures and their faces, their manner of movement, the wheels and their manner of movement, and the divine throne. However, the “wind/ spirit” (‫ )הרוח‬that was first connected with the cloud in 1: 4 is mentioned multiple times. In 1: 12 the four creatures are said to move straight forward, “to wherever the wind/spirit goes” (‫אל אשר יהיה שמה הרוח ללכת‬i). In the MT of 1: 20, we find a nearly identical statement made of the wheels, with one important difference. The word “wherever” in 1: 12 has a directive heh suffix (literally, “to wherever” ‫שמָּה‬i), making the clause subordinate to the infinitive verb “went” (wherever the wind was going). In contrast the paral­ lel phrase in 1: 20 has no suffix, making it possible to read two verbal clauses: “wherever it was, the spirit goes” (‫על אשר יהיה שם הרוח ללכת‬i). That 1: 20 was in fact understood this way is demonstrated by the plus attested in the OG, which supplies at subject for ‫יהיה‬i: “wherever the cloud is, the wind/ spirit goes.”65 This plus clearly picks up the image of the cloud from 1: 4 as a reference to the movement of the entire divine glory, which is now attribu­ ted to the movement of the wheels in particular. Moreover, the second OG plus, “the creatures” (‫ )החיות‬identifies that the subject of the verb “they went” (‫ )ילכו‬is not only the “wheels” (as in the MT), but “the creatures and the wheels.” This is the logical deduction from the identical descriptions of movement in v. 12 (about the creatures) and vv. 19–20 (about the wheels). Thus, the OG plusses in 1: 20 represent assimilation to two preceding pas­ sages (1: 4, 12) in the vision narrative. These two examples from Ezek 1 show how scribal coordination mani­ fests itself on many levels of the co-text within one literary unit. The first shows us how ambiguities within a particular verse (1: 4) are resolved by coordinating its parts. The second example shows how that same verse (1: 4) can become the source of an addition elsewhere in the vision (in 1: 20) aimed at resolving another interpretive issue altogether. In the resulting, intern­ ally-assimilated account, Ezekiel’s first description of the cloud now finds later echoes in the vision itself, binding the vision together into a more cohe­ sive, self-referencing whole.

65 That the difference between the absence or presence of the heh suffix on ‫ שם‬was meaning­ ful is also shown by the presence of a large conflate variant in the next phrase of the MT plus of 1: 20aβ: ‫שמה הרוח ללכת‬, which preserves the alternative reading to the more ambiguous wording of the phrase in 1: 20aα. This is noted by Bertholet (Das Buch Hese­ kiel, 4), Zimmerli (Ezekiel 1, 87), Allen (Ezekiel 1–19, 7), and Greenberg (Ezekiel 1–20, 48).

Expansions that Coordinate Multiple Co-texts within Ezekiel

151

1.3.2 Assimilation within Ezekiel’s Temple Vision: Ch. 8–11 [4.30] Ezek 8: 5 ‫ ויאמר אלי בן־אדם שא־נא עיניך דרך צפונה ואשא עיני דרך צפונה‬MT [‫והנה מצפון לשער המזבח ]סמל הקנאה הזה בבאה‬i

OG καὶ εἶπεν πρός με υἱὲ ἀνθρώπου ἀνάβλεψον τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς σου πρὸς βορ­ ρᾶν καὶ ἀνέβλεψα τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς μου πρὸς βορρᾶν καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀπὸ βορρᾶ ἐπὶ τὴν πύλην τὴν πρὸς ἀνατολάς

MT And he said to me: “Son of man, lift your eyes to the north.” And I lifted my eyes to the north, and behold, at the north of the gate was the altar [the idol of jealousy, the one at the entrance].

The last four words of this line in the MT, “this idol of jealousy in the entrance” (‫סמל הקנאה הזה בבאה‬i), are not represented in the OG. These words show all the signs of being a later expansion. This option is eschewed by a number of scholars because the final word “at the entrance” (‫בּבּ ִאָה‬ ַ ) is a hapax legomenon in Biblical Hebrew. They reject the possibility that a “gloss” would consist of a rare word.66 However, a gloss, properly defined, is a comment or annotation that clarifies a difficult or obscure word in the text. This is clearly not the purpose of this phrase, and therefore the term “gloss” and arguments connected with it are not appropriate here. Cornill’s observation (1886, 222–23) that the MT plus constitutes a “reconciling addi­ tion” (conciliatorisiche Nachtragung) is on the mark.67 The “idol of jea­ lousy” had already been introduced in 8: 3, where we are told it is located: “at the entrance of the gate which faces north, there is the place of the idol of jealousy.” However, the description of its location in 8: 5 is worded dif­ ferently: the idol is located “to the north of the gate.” This small terminolo­ gical variation provided the perfect motivation for scribal assimilation. The 66 The word ‫ בּ ִאָה‬occurs only here in the Hebrew Bible, though it is common in Rabbinic Hebrew, see the entry on ‫ בּ ִיאָה‬II in M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Tal­ mud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York: Judaica Press, 1903), 259. Among the scholars who do not entertain the possibility of scribal expansion because of the word’s rarity are Zimmerli (Ezekiel I, 218), Wevers (Ezekiel, 68), and Allen (Ezekiel 1–19), 119. 67 Cornill, Das Buch, 222–23. Cornill borrowed the phrase from a comment made by J. Well­ hausen on 1 Sam 17: 12 regarding the word ‫ הזה‬in the sentence ‫ודוד בן איש אפרתי הזה‬ ‫מבית לחם‬, “Now David was the son of that Ephrathite man from Bethlehem,” see Well­ hausen, Der Text der Bücher Samuelis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1871), 104–5. The entirety of 1 Sam 17: 12–31 is absent in the OG, and these words stand as an introduction to a later supplement to the David and Goliath narratives; see D. Barthelemy/ D.W. Gooding/J. Lust/E. Tov, The Story of David and Goliath: Textual and Literary Cri­ ticism (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986). 1 Sam 17: 12 begins the narrative as though David and his father are new characters, though the reader is already familiar with them from chapter 16. Wellhausen argued that the word, “that Ephrathite,” is a cross refer­ ence back to the narrative in 1 Sam 16, where David and his father have already been intro­ duced (for a discussion of the grammatical function of the demonstrative pronoun, see GKC §136a). It represents an attempt to alleviate the incongruence of having two separate introductions to David and his family, and in this way is “conciliatorische.”

152

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts:

last four words of 8: 5 in the MT represent an attempt to equate the two dis­ tinct descriptions of the idol’s location. The deictic reference, “[this] idol” (‫ )הזה‬is a cross-reference to the idol in 8: 3, making clear that Ezekiel has not seen two idols in two different places in the temple, but one and the same. The second word places the idol “at the entrance” (‫בבאה‬i), which is certainly a reference to the “entrance of the gate” (‫ )פתח שער‬in 8: 3. The result of these additions is a much clearer account of Ezekiel’s vision of the idol and its location in the temple courts. [4.31] Ezek 8: 6 ‫ ויאמר אלי בן־אדם הראה אתה מה הם עשים תועבות גדלות ]אשר‬MT ‫בית־ישראל[ עשים פה‬

OG καὶ εἶπεν πρός με υἱὲ ἀνθρώπου ἑώρακας τί οὗτοι ποιοῦσιν ἀνομίας μεγά­ λας ποιοῦσιν ὧδε

MT And he said to me: “Son of man, do you see what they are doing, the great abominations [which the house of Israel] they are doing here?”

This addition is similar to the examples of explicitation discussed in Section 3.2 of Chapter Two, though it was accomplished by borrowing phraseology from the surrounding narrative co-text, i. e., by assimilation. In the preexpanded edition of these verses, the culprits behind the cultic abominations which Ezekiel sees are not specified until 8: 12 (“what the elders of the house of Israel are doing”) and 8: 17 (“the house of Judah … has committed abomi­ nations here”). In the OG of 8: 6 and 8: 9, “they,” who are acting abomin­ ably, are an unspecified group.68 Although it is implicitly clear that the Jeru­ salemites are in view, this assimilation was introduced to make explicit from the first that it is the “house of Israel” committing these acts, as the later verses will make clear. [4.32] Ezek 8: 16 ‫ והנה־פתח היכל יהוה בין האולם ובין המזבח כעשרים ]וחמשה[ איש אחריהם‬MT ‫אל־היכל‬ ‫יהוה ופניהם קדמה והמה משתחויתם ]קדמה[ לשמש‬

OG καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπὶ τῶν προθύρων τοῦ ναοῦ κυρίου ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν αιλαμ καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου ὡς εἴκοσι ἄνδρες τὰ ὀπίσθια αὐτῶν πρὸς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ κυρίου καὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῶν ἀπέναντι καὶ οὗτοι προσκυνοῦσιν τῷ ἡλίῳ

MT And look, at the entrance of the temple of YHWH, between the porch and the altar were about twenty [and five] men. Their backs were towards the temple of YHWH and their faces were toward the east, and they were bowing down [eastward] to the sun.

68 8: 6 (before the MT plus was added): “have you seen what they are doing, the great abomi­ nations they are doing here.” 8: 9: “See the wicked abominations that they are doing here.”

Expansions that Coordinate Multiple Co-texts within Ezekiel

153

[4.33] Ezek 11: 1 ‫ = עשרים וחמשה איש]כ[אל שער בית יהוה הקדמוני הפונה קדימה והנה בפתח‬OG ‫השער‬

OG ἐπὶ τὴν πύλην τοῦ οἴκου κυρίου τὴν κατέναντι τὴν βλέπουσαν κατὰ ἀνατο­ λάς καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπὶ τῶν προθύρων τῆς πύλης ὡς εἴκοσι καὶ πέντε ἄνδρες

OG … at the eastern gate of the temple of YHWH, which faces east: and look, at the entrance of the gate were [about] twenty five men.

At the beginning and end of Ezekiel’s temple vision, the prophet sees a large group of men committing aberrant cultic acts. In 8: 15–18, the number of men in the inner court bowing down to the sun is twenty-five in the MT and twenty in the OG. There is no apparent motive for the translator to have altered the number, but every reason for a scribe to have added “and five” as an assimilative addition. The passage related to this is 11: 1–13, where Ezekiel is taken to the eastern gate of the temple, and at the entrance are another group of twenty-five men. While the two locations are techni­ cally distinct, as are the two groups of men, they were similar enough to each other69 to invite comparison, if not identification, by means of these assimilating additions. In turn, the phrase describing the men in 8: 16 has been assimilated to the men in 11: 1, and vice-versa. In 8: 16 they are now a group of “about twenty five,” and in the Vorlage of OG, a further assimila­ tion has taken place so that the men in 11: 1 are “about twenty five.” The same dynamics of assimilation are at work in both OG and MT traditions, though in different texts. [4.34] Ezek 9: 6 ‫ ויחלו באנשים ]הזקנים[ אשר לפני הבית‬MT

OG καὶ ἤρξαντο ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνδρῶν οἳ ἦσαν ἔσω ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ MT And they began with the men [the elders] who were in front of the temple.

This MT plus is similar to the previous two examples, in that it identifies the twenty-five men who were in front of the temple in the inner court (8: 16) with the seventy elders who were inside the temple structure (cf. 8: 7–13, esp. vv.11–12). By calling these men “the elders,” the different groups of men are (con)fused with one another.70 [4.35] Ezek 9: 4 ‫ ויאמר ]יהוה[ אליו עבר ]בתוך העיר[ בתוך ירושלם‬MT

OG καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτόν δίελθε μέσην τὴν Ιερουσαλημ MT And [YHWH] said to him, “Go through [the midst of the city] the midst of Jerusalem.”71 69 The entrance gate to the temple would have been on the East (8: 16), and the scene in 11: 1 takes place near the east gate of the inner court, just across the courtyard from the first scene. 70 So Cornill (Das Buch, 228), Greenberg, (Ezekiel 1–20, 177), and Allen (Ezekiel 1–19), 123. 71 The first MT plus, “YHWH,” is a explicating addition, which assures that the third mascu­

154

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts:

At first glance, the two phrases, “in the midst of the city” and “in the midst of Jerusalem,” fit the profile of a conflation of synonymous variants.72 Thus, both Cornill and Zimmerli argued that the MT was a conflate reading,73 and also because they thought it unlikely that the phrase “inside Jerusalem” would be “glossed” by “inside the city.” However, another possibility pre­ sents itself. We must ask what semantic or stylistic gain there might have been in adding a synonymous phrase “inside the city” to augment “inside Jerusalem.” In the following verse (9: 5) we read a second, very similar com­ mand given to the executioners, ‫ולאלה אמר באזני עברו בעיר‬, “and to these he said in my hearing, “Go through the city!”” A few sentences later, when they are commanded to begin their slaughter, they are told to “strike in the city” (9: 7, though this ‫ בעיר‬is a plus in the MT, see the next example). Explicit mention of “the city” (‫ )העיר‬is frequent throughout Ezekiel’s tem­ ple vision (9: 1, 9; 10: 2; 11: 2, 6, 23). Thus, while the MT plus in 9: 4 “inside the city” does not seem to have much semantic significance in and of itself, it fits into a larger stylistic pattern in Ezek 8–11 of referring to Jerusalem as “the city.” This opens the possibility that the MT plus is an expansion assimilating the description of Jerusalem to terminology more commonly used in surrounding narrative co-text. [4.36] Ezek 9: 7 ‫ ויאמר אליהם טמאו את־הבית ומלאו את־החצרות חללים צאו ]ויצאו[ והכו‬MT [i‫]בעיר‬

OG καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς μιάνατε τὸν οἶκον καὶ πλήσατε τὰς ὁδοὺς νεκρῶν ἐκπορευόμενοι καὶ κόπτετε

MT And he said to them: “Defile the temple, and the courts with corpses! Go out [and they went out] and strike [in the city]!”

The first MT plus (‫ויצאו‬, “and they went out”) is either a dittographic cor­ ruption or a conflate variant of the MT consonants 74,‫ צאו‬but the second, line singular subject is understood to be YHWH, and not the kabod Yahweh or the man clothed in linen in v. 3 (so Cornill, Das Buch, 227; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 224; Wevers, Eze­ kiel, 71). 72 As described by S. Talmon, a conflation of synonymous variants involves the substitution or preservation of alternate words or phrases that are used interchangeably elsewhere in biblical literature, and which result in a double reading in the present text. More specifi­ cally, these are readings that cannot be explained as variants with a clearly defined ideologi­ cal purpose, and have no major difference between them in content or meaning; see S. Tal­ mon, “Double Readings in the Masoretic Text”, Textus 1 (1960) 144–84, on pp. 151–52; Ibid., “Synonymous Readings in the Textual Traditions of the Old Testament”, Scripta Hierosolymitica 8 (1961) 335–85, on pp. 335–36. Thus, Allen (Ezekiel 1–19, 122) thinks that MT of 9: 4 is a conflate text, and that the OG preserves only one of the variants, namely, “in the midst of Jerusalem.” 73 Cornill, Das Buch, 227; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 224. 74 To explain the plus as a conflate reading means that it is an alternative reading that inte­ grates into the context in its own right. However, ‫ ויצאו‬does not fit into the sentence.

Expansions that Coordinate Multiple Co-texts within Ezekiel

155

“in the city” (‫ )בעיר‬fits the same profile as the previous example. In 9: 5 the executioners were commanded, ‫עברו בעיר אחריו והכו‬, “Go through the city behind him and strike!” The phrases we are considering in 9: 7 are the follow-up directive, which has been expanded to match the wording of 9: 5. Although the executioners are to begin in the temple courts (cf. 9.6), their real goal is to visit judgment upon the city as a whole. [4.37] Ezek 10: 18 ‫ ויצא כבוד יהוה מ]על מפתן[ הבית ויעמד על־הכרובים‬MT

OG καὶ ἐξῆλθεν δόξα κυρίου ἀπὸ τοῦ οἴκου καὶ ἐπέβη ἐπὶ τὰ χερουβιν MT And the glory of YHWH went out from [upon the threshold] of the temple and stood over the cherubim.

Here the phrase describing the location of the divine glory before it leaves the temple has been assimilated to the wording of the earlier description in 10: 4: ‫וירם כבוד יהוה מעל הכרוב על מפתן הבית‬, “and the glory of YHWH rose up from upon the cherub to the threshold of the temple.” In the material that follows, we are never told that the divine glory has moved from this location. So in 10: 18 when it departs the temple courts a descrip­ tion matching 10: 4 has been added to clarify this very point. [4.38] Ezek 10: 22 ‫ = ודמות פניהם המה הפנים אשר ראיתי ]תחת כבוד אלהי ישראל[ על־נהר־כבר‬OG

OG καὶ ὁμοίωσις τῶν προσώπων αὐτῶν ταῦτα τὰ πρόσωπά ἐστιν ἃ εἶδον ὑπο­ κάτω τῆς δόξης θεοῦ Ισραηλ ἐπὶ τοῦ ποταμοῦ τοῦ Χοβαρ… OG And as for the appearance of their faces, they are the faces I saw [under the glory of the God of Israel] by the river Chebar.

The wording of this OG plus has been taken directly from the preceding sentences in 10: 19–20, but merged into a new combination. Their relation­ ship is easily seen by comparing each sentence: 10: 19 ‫וכבוד אלהי־ישראל עליהם מלמעלה‬ 10: 20 ‫היא החיה אשר ראיתי תחת אלהי־ישראל בנהר־כבר‬ 10: 22 ‫תחת כבוד אלהי ישראל על נהר כבר המה הפנים אשר ראיתי‬ The concluding statement in 10: 22 assimilates the location of the faces with the previous statements about the cherubim; they are underneath the divine glory. The description in 10: 19 locates the divine glory above the cherubim, and in 10: 20 the entire entity is labeled as “the creature” which was under­ neath the divine glory seen by Ezekiel at the Chebar river in his first vision. Verse 7 contains a litany of imperatives given to the executioners (‫ צאו‬, ‫ומלאו‬,‫טמאו‬i), and this MT plus (‫ויצאו‬, a waw-consecutive perfect) disrupts the syntactic continuity of the commands. Also, the final verb ‫ו ְה ִכּוּ‬, was certainly an original imperative (‫הכּוּ‬ ַ ְ ‫ו‬i), but was likely vocalized as a perfect once ‫ ויצאו‬entered the text in the MT tradition. It is more likely a dittograph of the previous word ‫צאו‬i (cf. the discussion in Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 123).

156

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts:

The OG plus in 10: 22 follows suit and logically locates the faces of the cher­ ubim underneath the divine glory, which is described in language fused together from vv. 19–20.75 The expansions we have just reviewed represent attempts to coordinate different parts of a larger narrative co-text into a more cohesive and selfreferencing unit. The spatial distance between the expanded text and related co-text ranged from the immediate sentence (e. g. 1: 4), to different parts of the same vision scene (e. g. 10: 18 > 10: 4; 10: 22 > 10: 19–20). The feature that unites all of these examples, however, is that the scope or co-textual bound­ aries in view is the larger narrative unit, and not simply the immediate con­ text of the sentence (as in the examples of ch. 3).

1.4 Assimilation of Related Texts within Ezekiel as a Whole The assimilating scribal expansions surveyed here are identical in form and function to those in the previous section. However, the relevant co-textual boundaries are now widened to the scope of the entire book. Passages from any two locations in the book that share similar vocabulary are connected and nuanced by these expansions. The interpretive result is often surprising, and reflects the scribes’ intimate knowledge of the textual details of Eze­ kiel’s prophecies. An initial example will illustrate the uniqueness of these expansions, and the methodological steps I will use to examine them. [4.39] Ezek 6: 10 [‫ וידעו כי־אני יהוה ]לא אל־חנם[ דברתי ]לעשות להם הרעה הזאת‬MT MT And they will know that I am YHWH [not without reason] I have spoken [to bring about this calamity on them]. OG καὶ ἐπιγνώσονται διότι ἐγὼ κύριος λελάληκα OG And they will know that I, YHWH, have spoken.

The MT plusses in this verse modify both the content and purpose of the concluding recognition formula. In the OG, it is a simple call to recognize that the proclamation of judgment is from Israel’s God and is thus authori­ tative (the OG Vorlage reflects the same formula found in Ezek 17: 21, ‫וידעתם כי אני יהוה דברתי‬i). There are no potential ambiguities in this sim­ 75 J. Lust, “Exegesis and Theology in the Septuagint of Ezekiel: The Longer ‘Pluses’ and Ezek 43: 1–9” in C.E. Cox (ed.), Sixth Congress of the IOSCS, Jerusalem, 1986 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 1987) 201–32, on p. 206 comments that the plus in OG 10: 22, which speaks of “glory” of the god of Israel instead of simply the “god of Israel” himself, is an example of theological exegesis in avoiding any statement that Ezekiel saw God. However, he does not observe that the OG plus in 10: 22 is simply a fusion of phrases from vv. 19 and 20, and that in the former verse the “glory” is explicitly mentioned. These OG plusses fit exactly the profile and function of internal assimilation, not “theological exegesis” as Lust main­ tains.

Expansions that Coordinate Multiple Co-texts within Ezekiel

157

ple sentence, and there is no evident reason for the translator to have omitted just these clauses to abbreviate the formula (as Cooke asserts).76 It looks formally identical to examples of scribal elaboration. However, there are identifiable motivations for a scribe to have added these particular words to this specific passage: it has been assimilated to 14: 22–23. But before we reach this point in the analysis, we must consider the content and unique­ ness of the larger passage of 6: 8–10. Ezek 6 is a judgment oracle against the “mountains of Israel” (‫הרי‬ ‫ישראל‬i, 6: 1), more particularly against the cultic installations on the hilltops of Israel which will be destroyed in a coming disaster (6: 3b–7). Midway through the oracle, the addressee shifts suddenly from the mountains to the Israelites who are performing cultic rites at these shrines (6: 5), and their impending deaths are announced (6: 5, 7). In the concluding section of the oracle, YHWH states that a remnant will escape this calamity (‫בהיות לכם‬ ‫פליטי חרב‬i, 6: 8a) and go into exile among the nations (‫בהזרותיכם‬ ‫בארצות‬i, 6: 8b). But this is no portent of good fortune, for these exiles will stew over their apostasy and “loathe themselves” (‫ונקטו בפניהם‬i, 6: 9b). The text under examination, 6: 10, concludes this scene, assuring the exiles that when these events take place, they will know that it was part of YHWH’s pronouncement of judgment: “I, YHWH, have spoken.” The rhetorical shape of this judgment oracle is typical of Ezekiel’s mes­ sage: YHWH’s judgment consists not only of disaster on the Jerusalemites, but also in bringing shame and disgrace on the survivors.77 The terminology which describes the exiled Israelites “remembering their evil deeds” and “loathing themselves” (Niphal ‫ )קוט‬occurs elsewhere in a handful of pas­ 76 Cooke’s claims about the OG in this verse are puzzling (A Critical and Exegetical Com­ mentary, 71): “The shorter form of the text is not invariably the more original, and in favour of MT is the unconventional wording of clause b.” His first point is well taken. The shorter reading is not automatically original, simply because it is shorter. See P.K. McCar­ ter, Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 73–74, and E. Tov, Textual Criticism, 305–7. However, this qualification cannot itself be applied as a blanket statement. The longer readings of the MT in comparison to the OG in Ezek are part of a consistent pattern of textual relationships throughout the entire book, and therefore boost the likelihood that in any given case the longer MT read­ ing is not original. The point is that every example must be examined on its own merits. The logic of his second point is specious, for it assumes that if a given reading has an “unconventional” linguistic form, it is more likely to be “original,” i. e., not a scribal expansion. As we have seen many times already, the assumption that “glosses” must con­ sist of “common” wording to deal with a complicated original text is not a sufficient expla­ nation for the diverse nature of scribal expansion in Ezekiel. The MT plusses here are not “glosses” in their proper sense, and so his reasoning cannot apply. 77 This theme of self-loathing has a redemptive role in the overall shape of the book of Eze­ kiel. Through shame the people are brought to a new knowledge of themselves and YHWH. This profound theological theme has been explored best by J.E. Lapsley, “Shame and Self-Knowledge: The Positive Role of Shame in Ezekiel’s View of the Moral Self” in M. Odell/J.T. Strong (ed.), The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspec­ tives (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000) 143–73.

158

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts:

sages which develop this same theme (cf. Ezek 6: 9; 20: 43; 36: 31). One parti­ cular passage, Ezek 14: 12–23, highlights just these themes with vocabulary remarkably similar to Ezek 6. Ezekiel 14 contains four cyclical and rhetori­ cal scenarios designed to convince the reader of the inevitability and legiti­ macy of the city’s destruction (14: 13–20), and these culminate in the announcement of judgment on Jerusalem (14: 22). However, YHWH announces that after the disaster in Jerusalem there will be an “escaped rem­ nant” (‫פליטה‬i, 14: 22) that will go into exile. When the exiles of the first deportation to Babylon in 597 BCE see “the ways and deeds” of these Judean refugees, they will be sorrowed and grieved (Niphal ‫ )נחם‬for their own actions.78 The concluding saying of this oracle in 14: 22–23 is of special relevance for understanding the MT plusses in 6: 10. After seeing the newly arrived exiles, they (the exiles already in Babylon) will recognize the legiti­ macy of “the calamity that I brought on Jerusalem” (‫על הרעה אשר הבאתי‬ ‫על ירושלם‬i, 14: 22b) and they “will know that I did not act without reason” (‫וידעתם כי לא חנם עשיתי‬i, 14: 23b). The conclusion in 14: 22–23 serves the same rhetorical purpose as 6: 8–10, and indeed supplies the vocabulary for the scribal expansions we are examining. [‫ וידעו כי־אני יהוה ]לא אל־חנם[ דברתי ]לעשות להם הרעה הזאת‬i6: 10 And they will know that I, YHWH [not without reason] have spoken [to bring out this calamity on them]. ‫וידעתם כי לא חנם עשיתי‬23 …‫ ונחמתם על־הרעה אשר הבאתי על־ירושלם‬22 14: 22–23 22

And you will be sorry about the calamity which I brought on Jerusalem, you will know that I did not act without reason.

23

and

In the scribal additions of 6: 10, we see the characteristic features of assimila­ tive expansion that will guide the analysis of this section: There are numer­ ous verbal and thematic relationships between the larger co-texts of the two passages (6: 8–10 and 14: 22–23) and these pre-existing relationships provided the impetus for further coordination by means of assimilative scribal addi­ tions.79 We should also take note of the resulting effect the expansions have on the passage. In the pre-expanded form of the recognition formula in 6: 10, 78 The Niphal of ‫ נחם‬is often used in the sense of being moved to sorrow or grief, especially for one’s own actions (cf. Jer 8: 6, 18: 10), a nuance related to, but distinct from, the more general sense “to comfort oneself, be comforted” (cf. Gen 38: 12; Ezek 31: 16); see BDB, 636–37. 79 It is interesting to note that the relationship between 6: 10 and 14: 23 progressed even further in medieval Masoretic manuscripts. The phrase “not without reason” in 14: 23 (‫לא‬ ‫חנם‬i), was the source of the expansion in 6: 10, which differed slightly in wording, ‫לא אל‬ ‫חנם‬. In the Cambridge Prophets Codex and the Berlin codex (manuscripts 93 and 150 in the apparatus of The Hebrew University Bible, see M.H. Goshen-Gottstein/S. Talmon/G. Marquis, The Hebrew University Bible: Ezekiel, xxxvii-xxxviii), the phrase in 14: 23 reads ‫לא אל חנם‬i; i. e., it has been assimilated to the longer phrase in 6: 10.

Expansions that Coordinate Multiple Co-texts within Ezekiel

159

the exiles will recall their apostasy and realise that the disaster had been pre­ viously announced by YHWH (“they will know that I have spoken”). The recognition formula in 14: 22–23, on the other hand, emphasizes not the fact that YHWH announced the judgment beforehand, but rather that the destruction of Jerusalem was a legitimate and necessary response to the peo­ ple’s apostasy, “You will know that I did not act without reason” (14: 23). The scribal additions in MT 6: 10 adjust the recognition formula so that it now has the same function as 14: 23: the people will know that YHWH’s judgment was completely justified.80 This discussion of the MT plusses in 6: 10 illustrates the key issues explored in this section. In each case, I will examine the textual plus itself, then the “source text” from which the vocabulary is derived, and finally the pre-existing relationships between their respective co-texts. Once we have gained a perspective on the association between the two passages, we will then be in a position to appreciate the purpose of the scribal additions in their new context. [4.40] Ezek 13: 6–7 ‫ חזו שוא וקסם כזב האמרים נאם־יהוה ויהוה לא שלחם ויחלו לקים דבר‬MT 6 ‫ הלוא מחזה־שוא חזיתם ומקסם כזב אמרתם ]ואמרים נאם־יהוה ואני לא‬7 [‫דברתי‬

MT:

6

OG

6

They have seen a false vision, and a lying divination, those who are saying, “Utterance of YHWH,” but YHWH has not sent them, yet they await the ful­ fillment of the word. 7 Is it not a false vision that you have seen, and a lying divination that you have spoken? [and they say, “Utterance of YHWH,” but I have not spoken] βλέποντες ψευδῆ μαντευόμενοι μάταια οἱ λέγοντες λέγει κύριος καὶ κύρ­ ιος οὐκ ἀπέσταλκεν αὐτούς καὶ ἤρξαντο τοῦ ἀναστῆσαι λόγον 7 οὐχ ὅρασιν ψευδῆ ἑωράκατε καὶ μαντείας ματαίας εἰρήκατε

In these verses YHWH rails against Ezekiel’s prophetic contemporaries who reside in Jerusalem. Note how the description of the prophets’ activ­ ities moves from a third person perspective in v. 6 (“they have seen…”) to second person in v. 7a (“you have seen”). The MT plus in v. 7b is conspicu­ ous in that it reverts back to the third person (“and they say…”) and sud­ 80 Interestingly, Greenberg (Ezekiel 1–20, 134–35) does not mention that the phrase “not without reason” is absent in the OG, but does observe that the meaning of the recognition formula has the same function is the same as in 14: 23. Wevers (Ezekiel, 61) notes that these words are absent in OG, but says that they are “germane to the passage since the effective­ ness of Yahweh’s speech is demonstrated by the exile’s confession and self-loathing.” His point seems to be that because these words are “germane” to the passage they are for that reason not scribal expansions. He labels the MT plus at the end of 6: 10 “an accretion,” but not the earlier phrase “not without reason.” His logic is curious: if an MT plus makes good logical or rhetorical sense in its context, it is not likely a scribal expansion. This is a nonsequitur, for it assumes that later scribes were not capable of making additions that fit well into the context.

160

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts:

denly introduces a divine first person voice, “I have not spoken.”81 This contextual observation about the shift of addressee (noted by Cooke 1936, 140), as well the absence of this material in the OG, has led most scholars to view the MT plus as a scribal expansion of some kind.82 Further, many have noticed the unique pre-existing relationship between this MT plus and the parallel passage in 22: 28: ‫ונביאיה טחו להם תפל חזים שוא וקסמים להם כזב אמרים כה אמר אדני יהוה ויהוה‬ ‫לא דבר‬

And its prophets have smeared whitewash for them, seeing false visions and giving lying divinations for them, saying, “Thus says YHWH,” but YHWH has not spo­ ken.

The connections between 22: 28 and the larger co-text of 13: 6–7 are easily discernible. The description of their divinatory practices (‫חזים שוא וקסמים‬ ‫ )כזב‬is identical, and the mention of “smearing whitewash” (‫ )טחו תפל‬in 22: 28 alludes to the same metaphor in 13: 10–12, where the prophets are depicted as people who smear whitewash on an unstable wall. This colloca­ tion of terms (‫ טחו תפל‬,‫ חזה שוא‬,‫ כזב‬,‫ )קסם‬occurs only in these two pas­ sages in the Hebrew Bible (Ezek 13: 6, 7; 22: 28). Moreover, both Ezek 13: 6 and 22: 28 contain the two key phrases (“false vision,” “lying divination,”) followed by YHWH’s denouncement of their claims: 13: 6 ‫האמרים נאם־יהוה ויהוה לא שלחם‬ “Those who say, ‘Utterance of YHWH,’ but YHWH has not sent them.” 22: 28 ‫אמרים כה אמר אדני יהוה ויהוה לא דבר‬ “They are saying, ‘Thus says the Lord YHWH,’ but YHWH has not spoken.” Ezek 13: 7, on the other hand, has the two key phrases, but did not origin­ ally conclude with a quotation of the false claim of the prophets. Thus, 13: 7 has been assimilated to 13: 6 and 22: 8, but the MT expansions borrow lin­ guistic elements from each: ‫ ואמרים נאם יהוה‬comes from 13: 6 and ‫ואני לא‬

81 The first person divine speech does not appear until later in 13: 8b: “Therefore, thus says the Lord YHWH, ‘Because you have spoken falsehood and seen a lie, therefore behold, I am against you,’ declares the Lord.” 82 Greenberg (Ezekiel 1–20, 236) attempted to counter the suggestion that the shift in person indicated an expansion by arguing that the waw of ‫ ואמרים‬marks a relative clause. Thus, he translates the line, “You have seen… you have said … (you) who say…” He appeals to a handful passages (Ezek 12: 25; Gen 16: 1; Mal 1: 10; Job 14: 5) where a waw marks a relative clause, but none of these are similar to Ezek 13: 7. Gen 16: 1 is a verbless circumstantial clause (‫ושמה חגר‬i), on which see GKC §156b. Ezek 12: 25, Mal 1: 10, and Job 14: 5 are all wayyiqtol verbs which closely follow the syntax of the previous clause (on Mal 1: 10 speci­ fically see GKC §151a, d). Moreover, the repetition of ‫ ואמרים‬directly after ‫ אמרתם‬in Ezek 13: 7 makes the shift in addressee all the more striking.

Expansions that Coordinate Multiple Co-texts within Ezekiel

161

‫ דברתי‬is based on the wording of 22: 28.83 In summary, we see here a case

of textual coordination that has assimilated 13: 7 to elements of 13: 6 and 22: 28, and it is the pre-existing connection between all of these texts that generated the scribal addition in the first place. [4.41] Ezek 11: 12 ‫ וידעתם כי־אני יהוה ]אשר בחקי לא הלכתם ומשפטי לא עשיתם‬MT [‫וכמשפטי הגוים אשר סביבותיכם עשיתם‬

OG καὶ ἐπιγνώσεσθε διότι ἐγὼ κύριος MT And you will know that I am YHWH [in whose decrees you have not walked, and you have not carried out my statutes, but you have carried out the statutes of the nations around you].

Although there is a complex textual issue preceding this verse (in 11: 11– 12a), the absence of v. 12b in the OG is certain.84 Moreover, the MT plus creates a rhetorical awkwardness, as it has been attached to the recognition formula in a curious way. As Greenberg noted,85 when recognition formu­ lae in Ezekiel (“and you will know that I am YHWH”) are modified by a following circumstantial clause, these always highlight YHWH’s action that brings about the recognition (e. g., 6: 13 “You will know … when their slain are among their idols”; 12: 15 “They will know … when I scatter them”). The MT plus in 11: 12 does not highlight YHWH’s action at all, but rather Israel’s sin which warrants the punishment: “You will know that I am YHWH, in whose statutes you have not walked…”86 The absence of this line in the OG and the curious rhetorical effect of the expansion coincide 83 Though the third person verb of 22: 28 has been changed to the first person in the MT plus of 13: 7, perhaps in anticipation of the divine speech that follows in 13: 8. A few scholars have also noted Jer 23: 21 ‫לא־שלחתי את־הנבאים והם רצו לא־דברתי אליהם והם נבאו‬, “I did not send the prophets, but they ran. I did not speak to them, but they prophesied” (cf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 286; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 189). While there is a close tradition-histori­ cal connection between Jeremiah and Ezekiel’s oracles against prophetic opponents, the connections between Ezek 13: 6 and Jer 23: 21 are not comprehensive enough to suggest that there is a literary dependence. There are not any linguistic connections between Jer 23: 21 and Ezek 13: 7 in same way that there are with Ezek 13: 6 and 22: 8. 84 Verses 11–12a are absent in the B manuscripts of the OG (see Ziegler, Septuaginta: Eze­ chiel, 23–28, 129), but this is an accidental omission due to homoioteleuton, namely, from the ‫ וידעתם כי אני יהוה‬in v. 10b to the ‫ וידעתם כי אני יהוה‬in v. 12a (so Ziegler, Septua­ ginta: Ezechiel, 129; Wevers, Ezekiel, 77–78; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 128). Note the similar example in the B manuscripts in 33: 25b–27a. The portion in v. 12 after this recognition for­ mula is also absent in the B manucripts, but there is no similar mechanism to explain it as an omission. Combined with the other arguments above, it is much more likely that v. 12b is a later expansion. Thus, the conclusions of Cooke (A Critical and Exgetical Commen­ tary, 123) and Zimmerli (Ezekiel 1, 229) are skewed as they bracket all of vv. 11–12 as a scribal expansion without paying attention to the different status of vv. 11–12a and v. 12b. 85 Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 188. 86 The rhetorical feature of this formula in the MT is well described by Block (Ezekiel 1–24, 337–38) when he says that it “highlights the reason for punishment, rather than the punish­ ment itself.”

162

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts:

with the fact that the plus is identical to Ezek 5: 7, making it certain that we have here an example of inner-Ezekielian borrowing: ‫ בחקותי לא הלכתם ואת־משפטי לא עשיתם וכמשפטי הגוים אשר‬i ‫ סביבותיכם לא עשיתם‬i

5: 7

‫ אשר בחקי לא הלכתם ומשפטי לא עשיתם וכמשפטי הגוים אשר סביבותיכם‬i11: 12 ‫ עשיתם‬i

The two texts are clearly related, and an examination of their surrounding co-texts reveals the pre-existing associations that triggered the assimilation. Allen noted that the phrase “I will execute judgments on you” (‫ועשיתי בכם‬ ‫ )שפטים‬occurs in the contexts of both passages (5: 8b, 10b; 11: 9b),87 and serves as a linguistic foil to the Israelites who “did not carry out my judg­ ments” (‫ואת משפטי לא עשיתם‬i). Another connection involves locutions about “the sword,” namely in 5: 12, “they will fall by the sword” (‫בחרב‬ ‫יפלו‬i), and 11: 10, “you will fall by the sword” (‫בחרב תפלו‬i). Moreover, at the conclusion of the announcement in 11: 7–16, there is a restoration oracle in which Israel’s return to the land is promised (11: 17), accompanied by the renewal of the people’s hearts “so that they can walk in my decrees, and keep my statutes and carry them out” (11: 20, ‫למען בחקתי ילכו ואת משפטי‬ ‫ישמרו ועשו אותם‬i). The language of this promise is identical to that of the MT plus in 11: 12, which is itself derived from 5: 7. The scribal expansion in 11: 12 was triggered by two interrelated ele­ ments: (1) the series of similar locutions found in both 5: 8–12 and 11: 7–12, and (2) the fact that the concluding promise of Israel’s internal renewal described in 11: 20 employs the identical wording as 5: 7. We have encoun­ tered feature (1) already in this section, namely that similar wording in two different passages can motivate scribal assimilation. Feature (2), however, is more complex, for it means that the MT plus in 11: 12 is not merely assimila­ tion, but is also an attempt to nuance the entire message of Ezek 11: 7–25 in light of this passage’s relationship to 5: 7. The concluding oracle in 11: 19–20 promises that YHWH will reshape the moral constitution of the Israelites so that they can “walk in my decrees and keep my judgments.” The only passage that uses this language of cove­ nant faithfulness prior to Ezek 11 is 5: 7, where it describes how they have not been faithful. Thus, the scribal expansion in 11: 12 draws upon the lan­ guage of 5: 7 in order to recall the nature of the people’s disobedience which will be reversed in 11: 20. As a result, the rhetorical shape of Ezek 11

87 Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 128. The phrase ‫עשה שפטים‬, used in the sense “to execute judgments on X,” occurs in Ezek 5: 10, 15; 11: 9; 16: 41, 25: 11; 28: 22, 26; 30: 14, 19. Note that 5: 8 uses a different noun ‫עשה משפטים‬, but to mean the same thing, “to execute judgment” (this idiom occurs only in 5: 8 and 39: 21, which is borrowing from the former, see Tooman, Gog of Magog, 231), as well as a more general sense “to do justice” (18: 5, 8, 17, 21, 27; 33: 14, 16, 19; 45: 9), or “to perform my ordinances” (20: 13, 19, 21, 24; 36: 27).

Expansions that Coordinate Multiple Co-texts within Ezekiel

163

becomes more internally coherent, as the waywardness of the people in 11: 12 is dealt with explicitly and inverted in 11: 20.88 [4.42] Ezek 38: 23 ‫ = והתגדלתי והתקדשתי ]ונכבדתי[ ונודעתי לעיני גוים רבים‬OG

OG καὶ μεγαλυνθήσομαι καὶ ἁγιασθήσομαι

καὶ ἐνδοξασθήσομαι καὶ γνωσθήσομαι ἐναντίον ἐθνῶν πολλῶν καὶ γνώσονται ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι κύριος

OG “And I will make myself great, and I will make myself holy, [and I will gain honour for myself] and I will become renowned in the eyes of many nations.”

In this text, the OG plus displays the same profile of scribal assimilation as the MT plusses we have examined so far. The Greek phrase in question “and I will gain honour for myself” (καὶ ἐνδοξασθήσομαι) occurs only one other time in the book, 28: 22, “Behold I am against you Sidon, and I will gain honour for myself in your midst” (‫הנני עליך צידון ונכבדתי‬ ‫בתוכך‬i).89 Cornill argued that the OG preserves the original reading here,90 while others have attributed the OG plus to the translator.91 However, none who advocate the latter position offer any reason why this explanation is to be preferred. The criteria we have been developing in this chapter offer a solution to this type of impasse. There are numerous verbal associations between the Sidon oracle in 28: 20–26 and the co-text of our passage in 38: 18–23. In Too­ man’s study on the literary dependence of Ezek 38–39 on earlier units in the book, he sets out impressive arguments that 28: 20–26 was a major resource of language and imagery for the composer of the Gog oracles.92 The Sidon oracle repeatedly emphasizes that divine judgment will result in YHWH 88 This rhetorical feature of the MT is noted by Greenberg (Ezekiel 1–20, 190): “Vss. 19–20 [of Ezek 11] foreshadow the doctrine of the future compulsory obedience of the Israe­ lites… Note how the terms used in God’s foreclosure of future sinning echo those used above in vs. 12 [of Ezek 11] to describe the sin.” This is an accurate characterization of the MT’s rhetorical shape. However, Greenberg does not mention the absence of the material of 11: 12 in the OG, which, in the framework of the passage’s text-history, actually reverses his conclusions. The scribal expansion in 11: 12 is actually “echoing” 11: 20 by borrowing the phrases from 5: 7. 89 The Niphal of ‫ כבד‬does not have merely a passive sense “to be honoured” as is reflected in many English translations (e. g. New American Standard, “I will be glorified”), but rather a reflexive sense, “to get honour for oneself” (e. g. see BDB, 457). 90 Cornill’s argument (Das Buch, 426) was based on a stylistic observation about the OG, it preserves two balanced pairs, the first consisting of two Hithpael verbs, the second having two Niphal verbs. His argument thus assumes that the verb ‫ ונכבדתי‬was omitted via homoioteleuton, due to the next word ‫ונודעתי‬. While this is possible, the suggestion is not likely after being weighed against other explanations; see below. 91 Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 417; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 289; Block, Eze­ kiel 25–48, 452. 92 Tooman, Gog of Magog, 104–11. He also notes (on pp. 105–7) the following phrases in Ezek 38–39 that are borrowed from Ezek 28: 25–26: ‫בקבצי את בית ישראל מן העמים‬i (28: 25, cf. 38: 8), ‫ונקדשתי בם לעיני הגוים‬i (28:25, cf. 38: 23; 39: 27), ‫יעקב‬i (28:25; cf. 37: 25; 39: 25), ‫ישבו על אדמתם‬i(28: 26, cf. 39: 26), ‫ישבו עליה לבטח‬i(28: 26, cf. 39: 26).

164

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts:

receiving great recognition: 28: 22 “I will gain honour for myself among you” (‫ונכבדתי בתוכך‬i), 28: 23 “I will be recognized as holy” (‫ונקדשתי‬i), 28: 25 “I will be recognized as holy among them in the eyes of the nations” (‫ונקדשתי בם לעיני הגוים‬i). Ezek 38: 23 is based on just these phrases, “And I will make myself great, and I will make myself holy, and I will become renowned in the eyes of many nations.” Moreover, both passages note that recognition of YHWH’s greatness takes place only after a divine judgment of “bloody plague” (‫דבר ודם‬i, 28: 23; 38: 22, only elsewhere in 5: 17). The OG plus which imports the phrase “I will gain honour for myself” from 28: 22 into the triad of MT 38: 23 is simply following this trajectory by add­ ing another verbal association. This example matches the profile of the pre­ ceding examples which took place in the Hebrew transmission of the text. There is no evident motive or co-textual element that would have compelled the translator to move away from a literal, quantitative rendering here. Cor­ nill’s suggestion that the OG’s longer reading is original is still possible,93 but the existence of so many pre-existing verbal connections between the two passages makes it more likely that the OG plus in 38: 23 was in its Vor­ lage, and is an instance of scribal assimilation. [4.43] Ezek 20: 31 ‫ ובשאת מתנתיכם ]בהעביר בניכם באש[ אתם נטמאים לכל־גלוליכם‬MT

OG καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἀπαρχαῖς τῶν δομάτων ὑμῶν ἐν τοῖς ἀφορισμοῖς ὑμεῖς μιαίνεσθε ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἐνθυμήμασιν ὑμῶν

MT And when you offer your gifts [when you enter your children into the fire], you are defiling yourselves with all your idols.

Although there is a textual problem regarding the rendering of the first Hebrew phrase in the OG, this does not affect the fact that the clause men­ tioning the rite of child sacrifice is simply unrepresented in the OG.94 An interesting rhetorical feature about the MT version of this passage is that it is addressed to Ezekiel’s fellow Judeans exiled in Babylon, and so infers that the worship practices among the exiles involved idols. It is possible that such a thing was taking place,95 but the MT plus in 20: 31 goes one step further, in saying that child sacrifice was also taking place among the exiles. 93 Cornill, Das Buch, 426. 94 The first two words of the MT (‫ )ובשאת מתנתיכם‬are represented by three in the OG: καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἀπαρχαῖς τῶν δομάτων ὑμῶν ἐν τοῖς ἀφορισμοῖς. This last word, “in the offer­ ings” is used again to render the similar phrase in 20: 40 ‫ראשית משאותיכם‬, τὰς ἀπαρχὰς τῶν ἀφορισμῶν ὑμῶν. Allen (Ezekiel 1–19, 4) and Block (Ezekiel 1–24, 645) rightly recog­ nize that the OG of 20: 31 reflects a variant doublet in its Vorlage (‫ובשאת מתנתיכם‬ ‫ )ובמשאות‬which likely arose from the similarity between vv. 31 and 40. Regardless, it does not affect the fact that the following MT phrase about child sacrifice is not represented in the OG. 95 Note Ezek 14: 2 ff, where YHWH accuses the elders of the exiled community of resorting to idols and divination rites before consulting the prophet.

Expansions that Coordinate Multiple Co-texts within Ezekiel

165

Most scholars eschew such an idea,96 but there is no evidence to leverage the argument either way.97 The absence of the phrase in the OG, however, does provide compelling grounds for viewing the plus as a scribal expansion, and two other consid­ erations make this probable. First, this passage is the culmination of Eze­ kiel’s “revisionist” account of Israel’s history and so he levels the accusation that his contemporaries are no different than their ancestors who persisted in rebellion against YHWH by their cultic deviance. Verse 30 makes this comparison clear, “Are you defiling yourselves in the very way your ances­ tors did?” (‫הבדרך אבותיכם אתם נטמאים‬i). Thus, the prophet is drawing a direct line between his exiled compatriots and his depiction of the pre-exilic Judeans earlier in the oracle. Thus, whatever cultic practices among the exiles he is deploring, they are, in Ezekiel’s mind, similar to those of pre­ vious generations. Second, his description of the ancestors in 20: 26 is similar to the language describing the exiles in vv. 30–31: “And so I rendered them impure by their gifts, when they offered up every firstborn” (‫ואטמא אותם‬ ‫במתנותם בהעביר כל פטר רחם‬i). In these words we find a compelling rea­ son as to why the particular words of the MT plus in 20: 31 would have been added. While Ezekiel drew a parallel between the cultic practices of the preexilic Jerusalemites and the exiles, it was not exact. The former were defiled by child sacrifice (20: 26), while the latter were defiled offering gifts to idols in Babylon (20: 31). The prophet’s rhetorical purposes are accomplished through the inexact analogy. One could hypothesize that the OG translator omitted the words in question because of the offensive implication of child sacrifice among the exiles. Againt this, however, is the fact that the translator nowhere else omits any mention of child sacrifice in the book (see 16: 20, 23: 37, 39), nor are any of the other harsh accusations against the exilic community muted in any way in the translation (Ezek 14, 33). The words are not superfluous or particularly difficult, and there is simply no evident motive for them to have been omitted. On the other hand, this passage does display features characteristic of assimilative expansion. The two other passages that men­ tion child sacrifice contain a significant amount of shared vocabulary with our passage:

96 Cf. Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 220; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 412. 97 Even Block, who almost always retains the MT expansions as original, recognizes the pro­ blem in this passage (Ezekiel 1–24, 646): “Are child sacrifices being offered in Babylon? If so, where and when? Unfortunately, little is known about the religious practices of the exiles, but the accusation is too direct to be restricted to those who remain behind in the homeland.” This passage, however, needs to be weighed in terms of Ezekiel’s rhetoric. M. Greenberg, “Prolegomenon” in C.C. Torrey/S. Spiegel (ed.), Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Ori­ ginal Prophecy (New York: KTAV, 1970) ix-xxxix, has pointed out how part of Ezekiel’s communicative tactic is to superimpose the sins of past generations onto his contempor­ aries.

166

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts:

• “Defilement” (23: 38 – (‫“ טמא‬they defiled (‫ )טמאו‬my sanctuary;” 20: 26 “And I defiled (‫ )ואטמא‬them.” • “Gifts” (20: 26 – (‫“ מתנות‬I defiled them with their gifts” (‫מתנותם‬i). • Child Sacrifice to idols: – 23: 37 ‫– ואת־גלוליהן נאפו וגם את־בניהן … העבירו להם לאכלה‬ “And with their idols they committed adultery and also their sons … they passed through (the fire) for them (i. e., the idols) as food.” – 20: 24, 26 ‫ואחרי גלולי אבותם היו עיניהם … ואטמא אותם במתנותם‬ ‫“ – בהעביר כל־פטר רחם‬And their eyes were set on the idols of their fathers … and I defiled them by their gifts, when (they) passed through (the fire) every firstborn.” In light of these closely worded parallel texts, when 20: 31 begins by accus­ ing the exiles of “defiling themselves” (‫ )נטמאים‬as they “offer gifts” (‫ובשאת‬ ‫ )מתנתיכם‬to their “idols” (‫לכל גלוליכם‬i), the obvious gap is the mention of child sacrifice. This is precisely what the MT plus contributes, and in lan­ guage directly borrowed from 20: 26 and 23: 37 (‫בהעביר בניכם‬i). This example fits precisely the profile of scribal assimilation to parallel texts, and explains the presence of the MT plus better than any other available hypoth­ esis. [4.44] Ezek 34: 31 ‫ ]ואתן[ צאני צאן מרעיתי ]אדם[ אתם אני אלהיכם‬MT

OG πρόβατά μου καὶ πρόβατα ποιμνίου μού ἐστε καὶ ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν MT

[And you are] My flock, the flock of my pasture [a human one] you are, I am your God.98

Of the two MT plusses in this line, it is the second that concerns us here. The vast majority of scholars in the commentary tradition have recognized that the word “human” is a later addition which modifies “flock.”99 This expansion is derived from 36: 37–38, the only other place in the book which uses this peculiar imagery: “I will multiply them like a human flock (‫כצאן‬ ‫אדם‬i). Like a flock for sacrifices, like a flock at Jerusalem during its festivals, so the desolated cities will be full of flocks of people (‫צאן אדם‬i).” The simile 98 The additional of the second feminine plural pronoun (‫ )ואתן‬in MT is a clarifying expan­ sion which smoothes the abrupt transition from the third person address in 34: 30 to the second person address in 34: 31 (see the comments of Zimmerli 1983, 211). 99 This is the view of Cooke (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 379), Zimmerli (Ezekiel 1, 211), Wevers (Ezekiel, 185), Toy (The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, 95), Bertholet (Das Buch Hesekiel, 177), and Cornill (Das Buch, 406). On the other hand, G.R. Driver (“Lin­ guistic and Textual Problems: Ezekiel”, Biblica 19 [1938] 60–69, 175–87, on p. 302) argued that the word “human” is an accusative modifier of “my flock,” and he appeals to the phrase “from your lewd way” (‫ )מדרכך זמה‬as a syntactic parallel. But this argument com­ pletely side-steps the textual evidence for the word’s absence in the OG, Peshitta, and even in the Targum. The fact that the MT can be meaningfully construed is no argument for its textual priority over against another text witness. Rather it shows that scribes could make additions that fit into the syntax of the original.

Expansions that Coordinate Multiple Co-texts within Ezekiel

167

describing the human flock has its appropriate home in the context in 36: 37–38, where the abundance of sacrificial sheep and goats in Jerusalem becomes an image for the repopulation of the city after the exile. While the larger co-text of 34: 31 is about the regathering from exile, the image of the flock in v. 31 has a different function, for the phrase “the sheep of my pas­ ture” evokes images of protection and abundance (cf. Ps 100: 3 ‫אנחנו עמו‬ ‫וצאן מרעיתו‬i), not of repopulation. However, the unique verbal similarities constituted a sufficient reason to assimilate one to the other, despite their differences in content. [4.45] Ezek 38: 3b–4

‫ושובבתיך ונתתי חחים בלחייך[ והוצאתי אותך ואת־כל־חילך‬4] …‫הנני אליך גוג‬i3 MT

OG

3

MT

3

ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐπὶ σὲ Γωγ… 4 καὶ συνάξω σε καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν δύναμίν σου

Behold, I am against you Gog, 4[and I will turn you about and I will put hooks in your jaws] and I will bring you out, you and all your army.

In this opening section of the Gog oracles, YHWH says that he himself will lead out Gog and his hoards. The shorter text of the OG has one verb, “I will bring you out” (‫והוצאתי אותך‬i), while the MT contains two more ver­ bal clauses, each drawn from another passage in the book.100 The first MT plus, ‫ושובבתיך‬, “and I will turn you around” comes from 39: 2: “and I will turn you around and lead you and make you come up from the far reaches of the north” (‫ושובבתיך וששאתיך והעליתיך מירכתי צפון‬i), which recapi­ tulates the image of divine leading from 38: 4. The second clause, “and I will put hooks in your jaws” is taken directly from 29: 4, where the king of Egypt is depicted as a river monster (‫תנים = תנין‬, cf. OG τὸν δράκοντα)101 that YHWH takes out of the Nile and casts into the desert (29: 4–5). How­ ever, as many have noticed, the image in 29: 4 is about capturing a wild beast with hooks, while in the MT plus 38: 4 it is transformed into a scene of divine leading and coercion.102 This example is unique because there are no verbal connections between the co-texts around 29: 4 and 38: 4, but such connections do exist between

100 The OG reads καὶ συνάξω σε, which corresponds to the rendering of this same verb in 39: 2 (‫ = ושובבתיך‬καὶ συνάξω σε), and raises the possibility that the OG does represent ‫ ושובבתיך‬in 38: 4, and that it is ‫ והוצאתי אותך‬in MT 38: 4 that is unrepresented. However, the Greek verb συναγω in OG Ezek renders a multiplicity of different Hebrew verbs (e. g. ‫ אסף‬in 11: 17, ‫ קבץ‬in 16: 37, ‫ קהל‬in 38: 17), and this is an appropriate contextual rendering of the Hebrew “and I will make you go out”; see 2 Sam 10: 16 where ‫ ויצא‬is translated as καὶ συνήγαγεν. This point was also noted by Cornill (Das Buch, 422) and Wevers (Eze­ kiel, 202). 101 The Hebrew word ‫ תנין‬is written as ‫ תנים‬in Ezek 29: 3 and 32: 2, mostly likely a morpho­ logical “correction,” “perhaps resulting from a misconstrual of -n as an Aramaic plural ending and its ‘correction’ to Hebrew -m” (Greenberg Ezekiel 21–37, 601). 102 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 284; Tooman, Gog of Magog, 29–30.

168

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts:

29: 4–5 and 39: 2–5, the second major unit of the Gog oracles. As Allen has noted, the phrase “I will bring you up” (‫ )והעליתיך‬is used of YHWH bringing the king of Egypt out of the Nile (29: 4) and of YHWH leading Gog out of the northern regions (39: 2).103 In both passages, the king of Egypt and Gog fall to the ground (‫על פני השדה תפול‬, identical in 29: 5 and 39: 5), where they become carrion for the wild animals: “to the beasts of the land, and to the birds of heaven I will give you as carrion” (‫לחית השדה‬ ‫ולעוף השמים נתתיך לאכלה‬i, 29: 4), “to every bird of prey and beast of the field I will give you as carrion” (‫לעיט צפור כל כנף וחית השדה נתתיך‬ ‫לאכלה‬i, 39: 4). It is thus clear that the imagery of Gog’s demise in 39: 2–5 has been taken directly from the Egypt oracle in 29: 4–5.104 According to the characteristics of scribal assimilation we have traced so far, we would expect the MT plus in 38: 4, which itself borrows from 29: 4, to have been placed somewhere in 39: 2–5, not at the beginning of chapter 38. This was noticed by Paul Haupt,105 who said the MT plus in 38: 4 is misplaced and was supposed to be located in 39: 2. Allen carried this explanation further arguing (1) that the phrase from 29: 4 (‫ )ונתתי חחים בלחייך‬was the scribal addition, (2) that it was marked with a cue word indicating where it was to be inserted in 39: 2 (next to ‫ושובבתיך‬i), and (3) that it was accidentally placed in a parallel column of ch. 38.106 This is, admittedly, a very hypothe­ tical solution, but it is made more plausible by the fact that the pre-existing verbal associations that characterize such assimilative expansions are between 39: 2–5 and 29: 4–5, and not with 38: 4. Either way, the MT plus in 38: 4 represents a further scribal connection between the Egypt and Gog oracles, and this was triggered by the fact that Ezek 38–39 had already taken up much of vocabulary of Ezek 29. [4.46] Ezek 6: 8–9 ‫וזכרו‬9 ‫]והותרתי[ בהיות לכם פליטי חרב בגוים בהזרותיכם בארצות׃‬i8 MT ‫פליטיכם אותי‬i8 MT

OG

8

MT

8

ἐν τῷ γενέσθαι ἐξ ὑμῶν ἀνασῳζομένους ἐκ ῥομφαίας ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν καὶ ἐν τῷ διασκορπισμῷ ὑμῶν ἐν ταῖς χώραις. 9καὶ μνησθήσονταί μου οἱ ἀνα­ σῳζόμενοι ἐξ ὑμῶν

[And I will leave over] When those of you who have escaped the sword are among the nations, when you are scattered among the lands, 9then your esca­ pees will remember me.

103 L.C. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48 (WBC; Dallas: Word Books, 1990), 200. 104 However, as Tooman has noted (Gog of Magog, 242), the use of language from 29: 4–5 in 39: 2–5 “makes no contribution to our understanding of the Gog oracles. They create cohe­ sion, but there are no points of contiguity between these texts other than similar judgment language. In fact, the judgments, when announced against Pharaoh, are figurative. When they are applied to Gog, they are literal.” 105 In Toy, The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, 99. 106 Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 200.

Expansions that Coordinate Multiple Co-texts within Ezekiel

169

The MT of 6: 8 is notoriously difficult.107 The sentence consists of two cir­ cumstantial clauses marked by infinitives (‫ בהזרותיכם‬,‫בהיות‬i), followed by the main clause in v. 9 (‫וזכרו‬i). The first word of 6: 8 in the MT, “and I will leave over” (‫ )והותרתי‬stands completely outside of the sentence’s syntax.108 Cooke, Wevers, and Greenberg think that the two verbs at the beginning of the verse (‫ בהיות‬and ‫ )והותרתי‬are variants that were conflated in the MT tradition.109 This is possible, but the pre-existing verbal associations between 6: 8 and 12: 16 make it more likely that we are dealing with assimila­ tive expansion. The verbal clause ‫והותרתי‬, “and I will leave over” (Hiphil Perfect of ‫יתר‬, first person singular) occurs in the Hebrew Bible only here and in 12: 16 (“and I will leave over a few people among them,” ‫והותרתי‬ ‫מהם אנשי מספר‬i). In both texts, there is a remnant left after the judgment who travel to see the first exiles who are “among the nations” (‫בגוים‬i, 6: 8–9, 12: 16), and both passages highlight how the “abominations” of this remnant (‫תועבותיהם‬i, 6: 9b, 12: 16b) became a source of shame. In 12: 16, the preser­ vation of this remnant after Jerusalem’s judgment is directly attributed to YHWH’s intervention (“I will leave some over”), while in the pre-expanded text of 6: 8–9, the existence of refugees is simply a matter of fact. All these factors make it more than likely that the MT plus in 6: 8 is an assimilation to 12: 16: the concept of a divine allowance of the remnant is introduced from the latter into the former. It should be noted that in contrast to the previous examples, the expansion in 6: 8 was not integrated into the sentence’s syntax. This may give some credence to the view of Zimmerli and Allen that it is actually an allusion or cross-reference of some kind.110 Regardless, it fits the profile of assimilative expansions being outline in this chapter. [4.47] Ezek 24: 14b ‫ אני יהוה דברתי… לא־אפרע ולא־אחוס ]ולא אנחם[ כדרכיך וכעלילותיך‬MT ‫שפטוך נאם אדני יהוה׃‬ ‫ = אני יהוה דברתי… לא־אפרע ולא־אחוס כדרכיך וכעלילותיך שפטיך נאם‬OG ‫אדני יהוה׃ ]לכן אני אשפט אותך כדמיך וכעלילותיך אשפט אותך‬ [‫טמאת השם ורבת המרי‬

107 This is most evident in Cooke’s resignation after a long, detailed discussion of the MT, “it is better to admit the uncertainty of the text at this point” (A Critical and Exegetical Com­ mentary, 74). Cornill (Das Buch, 208) simply emends ‫ והותרתי‬to ‫ והיה‬to solve the textual problem. But this does not address the substantial evidence that this is an assimilative expansion drawn from 12: 16, and ignores the fact that the OG does not represent any word here. 108 Block’s construal (Ezekiel 1–24, 229) of the first infinitival clause as a concessive modifier of ‫והותרתי‬i(“But a few I will spare, inasmuch as there will be some of you who will escape the sword”) is a valiant attempt, but extremely unlikely, for the infinitival clauses in 6: 8 are parallel, and cannot be separated from the main clause in 6: 9. 109 Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 74; Wevers, Ezekiel, 60; Greenberg, Eze­ kiel 1–20, 133–34. 110 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 179; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 82.

170

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts:

OG ἐγὼ κύριος λελάληκα… οὐ διαστελῶ οὐδὲ μὴ ἐλεήσω κατὰ τὰς ὁδούς σου καὶ κατὰ τὰ ἐνθυμήματά σου κρινῶ σε λέγει κύριος διὰ τοῦτο ἐγὼ κρινῶ σε κατὰ τὰ αἵματά σου καὶ κατὰ τὰ ἐνθυμήματά σου κρινῶ σε ἡ ἀκάθαρτος ἡ ὀνομαστὴ καὶ πολλὴ τοῦ παραπικραίνειν

MT I, YHWH, have spoken… I will not desist and I will not pity [and I will not relent]. According to your ways and according to your deeds they have judged you, Utterance of the Lord YHWH. OG I, YHWH, have spoken… I will not desist and I will not pity, according to your ways and according to your deeds I will judge you, Utterance of the Lord YHWH. [Therefore, I will judge you according to your bloodshed and according to you deeds I will judge you, O notoriously impure one, and full of rebellion.]

This passage contains scribal expansions unique to both MT and OG tradi­ tions. The MT plus “and I will not relent” (‫ )ולא אנחם‬is an example of scri­ bal elaboration by the addition of associated phrases, discussed in section 3.3.4. of Chapter Three. The verb is conspicuous not only due to its absence in the OG, but also because Ezekiel never uses this verb (‫ )נחם‬to describe YHWH relenting from judgment (the two times it is used this way in MT Ezekiel are both plusses: here and 5: 13). Rather, Ezekiel uses the verb to describe the people’s sorrow or comfort (Niphal or Piel of ‫נחם‬i, 14: 22, 23; 16: 54; 31: 16; 32: 31). This expansion embellishes and intensifies the passage by adding a synonym to the chain of verbs, using a term common to other such statements in the prophets (cf. Jer 4: 28; 20: 16; Zech 8: 14).111 It is the large plus in the OG, however, that warrants our attention here. This is one of the largest textual expansions in any textual witness of Eze­ kiel. Most scholars agree that the OG is based on a longer Hebrew Vor­ lage,112 although there is disagreement as to whether the material was origi­ nal to the oracle or added secondarily.113 Most have noticed that the OG plus consists of three major clauses, and each is drawn from vocabulary in the previous verse (MT 24: 14a) or from 22: 5: – ἐγὼ κρινῶ σε κατὰ τὰ αἵματά σου = ‫ אני אשפט אותך כדמיך‬parallel to 24: 14a ‫כדרכיך… שפטוך‬i: The last word ‫ כדמיך‬is likely a corruption from ‫כדרכיך‬i (mem/kaph interchange, see further examples in Delitzsch 1920, 114), given that the awkward resulting idiom “I will judge you according to your blood” is for­ eign to Ezekiel’s diction, while the alternative (“judge according to your ways”) is very common (cf. 7: 3, 8; 18: 30; 33: 20; 36: 19).

111 See especially Jer 4: 28: ‫כי־דברתי זמתי ולא נחמתי ולא־אשוב ממנה‬, “For I have spoken, I have planned, and I will not relent, nor will I turn from it.” 112 See Bertholet, Das Buch Hesekiel, 128; Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 275; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 496. 113 Cornill (Das Buch, 332–33) argues that the OG plus repeats too much material from MT 24: 14a to be original. He also makes the stylistic argument that the thrice-repeated “I will judge” in the OG tradition is “unbearable” (unerträglich).

Expansions that Coordinate Multiple Co-texts within Ezekiel

171

– καὶ κατὰ τὰ ἐνθυμήματά σου κρινῶ σε = ‫ וכעלילותיך אשפט אותך‬parallel to 24: 14a ‫וכעלילותיך שפטוך‬. – ἡ ἀκάθαρτος ἡ ὀνομαστὴ καὶ πολλὴ τοῦ παραπικραίνειν = ‫טמאת השם ורבת‬ ‫המרי‬, based on MT 22: 5 ‫טמאת השם רבת המהומה‬i (rendering in OG as ἀκάθαρτος ἡ ὀνομαστὴ καὶ πολλὴ ἐν ταῖς ἀνομίαις).

The first two clauses look like reformulations of the final clause in MT 24: 14a, which raises the likely possibility that these additions were added to clarify something in the pre-expanded co-text. Allen’s discussion is helpful here, and while not all of his textual arguments are probable,114 his two most compelling points are as follows. The first two “I will judge you” clauses of the OG plus match the concluding portion of MT 24: 14a, “according to your ways and according to your deeds they have judged you” (‫כדרכיך וכעלילותיך שפטוך‬i). The MT in v. 14a is problematic in two ways: it is a third person plural perfect verb, denoting past action (“They have judged you”), while the previous sentence is first person divine speech depicting future action (“I will not desist and I will pity”). Both ele­ ments of v. 14a have been smoothed out in the ancient translations, and even in some medieval Hebrew manuscripts,115 showing that these were indeed conspicuous features of the text for ancient scribes (and modern commenta­ tors116). The first two clauses of the OG plus address these very problems as they reshape the ending of MT 24: 14 into first person future verbs.117 The final phrase in the OG plus is a vocative, “O notoriously impure one, and full of rebellion,” nearly identical to 22: 5: “and those who are far from you will mock you, O notoriously impure one, full of turmoil” (‫)והרחקות ממך יתקלסו־בך טמאת השם רבת המהומה‬. As we would expect, there are a number of unique verbal connections between 24: 6–14 and the context surrounding 22: 5 that motivated the assimilative addition. Both ora­ 114 Ezekiel 20–48, 55. He thinks that the OG plus is a conglomeration of what he calls “com­ parative glosses,” by which he means scribal additions based on language from another passage. Particularly, his suggestion that the phrase καὶ κατὰ τὰ ἐνθυμήματά σου κρινῶ σε = ‫וכעלילותיך אשפט אותך‬, is taken from 36: 19 seems unlikely, given that a nearly identical phrase occurs in MT 24: 14a. 115 The Peshitta renders as a first person, as do the Vulage (iudicavi te) and the Targum (‫אתפרע מניך‬i). Note that the Cambridge Prophets Codex reads ‫שפטתיך‬i (seea description of the manuscript in M.H. Goshen-Gottstein/S. Talmon/G. Marquis [ed.], The Hebrew University Bible: Ezekiel, xxxvii). 116 Greenberg (Ezekiel 21–37, 503) explains the MT’s third plural verb as an example of “the interchange of God and his earthly agents as executioners.” However, no such third party has been featured anywhere in the oracle of 24: 1–14. While his explanation of the perfect past action verb as a “prophetic perfect” (on which see JM §112h) is perhaps tenable, it clearly posed a grammatical problem for ancient readers, which is the point of discussion here. 117 This example is formally similar to the MT plusses in Ezek 5: 16 that we examined in exam­ ple 3.9 of Chapter Three. The words posing interpretive difficulties were not removed, but rather exegetical revisions were added to the text in juxtaposition to the more difficult ori­ ginal readings.

172

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts:

cles of judgment are aimed at the “city of bloodshed” (24: 6, 9 ‫אוי עיר‬ ‫הדמים‬i; 22: 3 ‫עיר הדמים‬i; 22: 3 ‫עיר שפכת דם‬i), a unique phrase that within Ezekiel occurs only in these two passages.118 Moreover, the burden of the accusation in 22: 2–5 is that the worship of idols and bloodshed in Jerusalem have defiled the city (22: 3 ‫ועשתה גלולים עליה לטמאה‬, v. 4 ‫ובגלוליך אשר‬ ‫)עשית טמאת‬, similar to the “defilement” language that permeates 24: 11–14 (v. 11 ‫טמ ְאָתָהּ‬ ֻ , v. 13ְ ‫תך‬ ֵ ָ‫טמ ְא‬ ֻ ְ ‫ בּ‬and ְ ‫תך‬ ֵ ָ‫טּמ ְא‬ ֻ ִ ‫מ‬i). On the basis of these pre-exist­ ing associations, the phrase from 22: 25 was introduced into the expansion in the Vorlage of OG 24: 24, though with one small difference: 24: 14 OG+ καὶ πολλὴ τοῦ παραπικραίνειν = ‫רבת המרי‬, “full of rebel­ lion” 22: 5 MT ‫רבת המהומה‬, “full of turmoil” This small difference is likely due to the fact that the addressee in Ezek 24 is not the city as such, but rather “the rebellious house” (24: 3 ,‫)בית המרי‬. Thus, the phrase borrowed from 22: 5 was modified to fit into the larger rhetorical context of chapter 24. This example displays how in just one passage scribal expansions fulfill a number of purposes which, for heuristic purposes, I have separated in my descriptive typology. The MT plus (“I will not relent”) is an example of scribal elaboration, while the OG plus contains clauses which clarify a grammatical ambiguity and assimilate 24: 14 to 22: 5, a distinct passage that shared pre-existing verbal connections.

118 The phrase “city of bloodshed” also occurs in Nah 3: 1, where it is applied to Nineveh (see J.M. Powis-Smith/W.H. Ward/J.A. Bewer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Obadiah, and Joel [ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1911], 355), and Hab 2: 12, where it applies, in the book’s present compositional form, to Babylon (see F.I. Andersen, Habakkuk [AB; New York: Doubleday, 2001], 242–43). It is possible that the woe oracles in Hab 2 were originally uttered by Habakkuk against the Judeans in the late seventh and early sixth century B.C.E. and that these indictments have been redirected against the Babylonians in the final composition of the book (for discus­ sion of this point see J. Jeremias, Kultprophetie und Gerichtsverkündigung in der späten Königszeit [WMANT 35; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970], 57–67, and R. Albertz, Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century BCE [Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003], 239). Regardless, these two passages represent parallel formulations of this prophetic indictment against needless violence.

Expansions that Coordinate Multiple Co-texts within Ezekiel

173

[4.48] Ezek 43: 3 MT ‫וכמראה המראה אשר ראיתי‬ ‫כמראה אשר־ראיתי בבאי לשחת‬ ‫את־העיר‬ ‫ומראות‬ ‫כמראה אשר ראיתי אל־נהר־כבר‬

OG and Retroverted Vorlage A B C D

‫והמראה אשר ראיתי‬ ‫כמראה אשר־ראיתי בבאי לשחת‬ ‫את־העיר‬ [‫ומראה ]המרכבה אשר ראיתי‬ ‫כמראה אשר ראיתי אל־נהר־כבר‬

A B C D

A καὶ ἡ ὅρασις ἣν εἶδον B κατὰ τὴν ὅρασιν ἣν εἶδον ὅτε εἰσεπορευόμην τοῦ χρῖσαι τὴν πόλιν C καὶ ἡ ὅρασις τοῦ ἅρματος οὗ εἶδον D κατὰ τὴν ὅρασιν ἣν εἶδον ἐπὶ τοῦ ποταμοῦ τοῦ Χοβαρ

A – And like the appearance of the vision which I saw, B – like the vision which I saw when I came to destroy the city C – and the visions119 D – were like the vision which I saw by the river Chebar

A – And the vision which I saw B – was like the vision which I saw when I came to anoint the city; C – and the vision of the chariot which I saw D – was like the vision which I saw by the river Chebar

This passage has stimulated no small debate among Ezekiel scholars. Is the OG plus reflected in line C (τοῦ ἅρματος οὗ εἶδον) the result of the transla­ tor’s exegesis of this and other passages related to the divine chariot, or does it accurately reflect a Vorlage which contained this key phrase in Hebrew? The issues here are charged with a greater significance than usual, because the existence of the addition in Hebrew could shed light on the question of when the tradition of merkaba mysticism developed within Second Temple Judaism.120

119 The first word of the MT, ‫ומראות‬, is plural, while its OG equivalent is singular (καὶ ἡ ὅρασις), but this is a word-level variant, and does not bear on the issue of quantitative representative under discussion at this point. 120 The earliest witnesses to a connection between the Ezekiel’s visions, the divine chariot, and the cherubim above the ark of the covenant are 1 Chron 28: 28 (‫ולתבנית המרכבה הכרבים‬ ‫זהב לפרשים וסככים על־ארון ברית־יהוה‬i), Ben Sirah 49: 8 (Ιεζεκιηλ ὃς εἶδεν ὅρασιν δόξης ἣν ὑπέδειξεν αὐτῷ ἐπὶ ἅρματος χερουβιν), and the OG of Ezek 43: 3. The most comprehensive studies of these traditions are by D.J. Halperin, The Merkabah in Rabbinic Literature (AOS 62; New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1980), and The Faces of the Chariot: Early Jewish Responses to Ezekiel’s Vision (TSAJ 16; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988), where he who traces their development within the socio-historical context of the Second Temple and Late Antique periods.

174

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts:

Some scholars attribute this OG plus to the interpretive activity of the translator,121 others claim it was present in the OG’s Hebrew Vorlage.122 The most compelling reasons for the latter view were given by Cornill and further buttressed by Jahn.123 They believed that the OG plus, in fact, reflected the original account of Ezekiel’s vision. Both argued that mention of the chariot was linked with other passages which describe YHWH’s chariot flanked by cherubim (Ps 18: 11; 68: 18).124 Additionally, Jahn argued that the OG of 43: 3 is original because the description of the ark of the covenant as a chariot in 1 Chr 28: 18 could only have been made by depen­ dence upon an earlier passage that said such a thing; he thought Ezek 43: 3 (preserved in OG’s Vorlage) was that text.125 The opposite view, that the OG plus is the result of the translator’s inter­ pretive activity, has been articulated in greatest detail by D.J. Halperin.126 He claims that in the OG the word ‫כמראה‬i(the first word of line D above) “has been translated twice, with ‫ כמראה‬rendered the first time as if it were ‫ ”)מרכבה)ה‬and then again as ‫כמראה‬, resulting in τοῦ ἅρματος οὗ εἶδον κατὰ τὴν ὅρασιν. He then wonders if the OG plus reflects the preservation of a conflate text of two graphically similar words (‫ כמראה‬/‫ )מרכבה‬which arose from scribal error (dittography of similar consonants). He rejects this option because he finds it unlikely that a scribe would commit this kind of error, and concludes that the OG translation is a “midrashic rendering that presupposes merkabah as a standard designation for the entity seen by Eze­

121 Zimmerli (Ezekiel 2, 408), Cooke (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 463), W. Eichrodt (Ezekiel: A Commentary [OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970], 553), and J. Lust, “Exegesis and Theology in the Septuagint of Ezekiel: The Longer ‘Pluses’ and Ezek 43: 1–9” in C.E. Cox (ed.), Sixth Congress of the IOSCS, Jerusalem, 1986 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 1987) 201–32, on pp. 209–11. 122 Cornill, Das Buch, 478; Bertholet, Das Buch Hesekiel, 216; F. Jahn, Das Buch Ezechiel auf Grund der Septuaginta hergestellt (Leipzig: E. Pfeiffer, 1905), 305–6; J. Herrmann, Eze­ chiel (KAT; Leipzig: Deichert, 1924), 262; G. Fohrer, Ezechiel (HAT; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1955), 241. 123 Cornill, Das Buch, 478; F. Jahn, Das Buch Ezechiel, 305–6. 124 Ps 18: 11: ‫ וירכב על־כרוב ויעף וידא על־כנפי־רוח‬, “And he (YHWH) rode upon the cherub, and he flew and sped on the wings of the wind”; Ps 68: 18 ‫רכב אלהים רבתים‬ ‫ אלפי שנאן‬, “The chariotry of God are myriads, many(?) thousands.” On the problematic word ‫שנאן‬, see the discussion in HALOT, 1596–97. 125 According to Jahn, Das Buch Ezechiel, 305, “Das τοῦ ἅρματος der LXX ist urspr. ist (gegen Cornill) geht aus 1Chron 28, 18 hervor, wo durch Glossirung in höchst charackter­ istischer Weise die ‫ מרכבה‬mit dem Kerub des Tempels in Verbindung gebracht wird, was nur aus unserer Stelle genommen sein kann.” That 1 Chron 28: 18 does presuppose Eze­ kiel’s vision is also mentioned by E.L. Curtis, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles (ICC; New York: Scribners, 1910), 299. If this dependence, how­ ever, is specifically upon Ezek 43, as Jahn maintains, then S. Japhet’s comments that 1 Chron 28: 18 are the “first and only instance in which ‘chariot’ is used explicitly in connec­ tion with the ark and its cherubim” (I & II Chronicles [OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992], 497) are in need of reconsideration. 126 Halperin, “Merkabah Midrash in the Septuagint”, JBL 101 (1982) 351–63, on p. 354.

Expansions that Coordinate Multiple Co-texts within Ezekiel

175

kiel.”127 While Halperin’s conclusions follow from his premises, he has not in fact correctly analyzed the textual differences between the OG and MT. Further, his attribution of a “midrashic rendering” technique to the OG translator is in no way supported by any of the descriptive studies of the translation technique of OG Ezek mentioned in Chapter One. He claims that one word of the MT, ‫כמראה‬, has dual representation in the OG, first in τοῦ ἅρματος (line C) and again in κατὰ τὴν ὅρασιν (line D) and that due to the graphic similarity between ‫ כמראה‬and ‫המרכבה‬, “[i] t is possible that the translator believed that the near identity of the letters … pointed to a mystic equation of the two words, and that this justified his double translation.”128 However, a glance at the table below shows the idea of a “double translation” is not accurate. Rather, we have two phrases in the OG instead of the MT’s single phrase. MT

‫כמראה אשר ראיתי‬

OG Retroverted ‫המרכבה אשר ראיתי‬ ‫כמראה אשר ראיתי‬

OG τοῦ ἅρματος οὗ εἶδον κατὰ τὴν ὅρασιν ἣν εἶδον

This is not an example of double rendering, properly defined, since we are dealing here with the additional presence of an entire phrase, not just a word.129 This point is relevant because Halperin’s explanation ignores other, more probable, explanations. It could be a case of accidental omission via parablepsis (‫ אשר ראיתי‬to ‫אשר ראיתי‬i), in which case the longer OG reading is original to the account (as Cornill argued). However, the OG plus also fits the profile of scribal elaboration discussed in the previous chapter, namely it mimics the syntactic and linguistic shape of the co-text. Is it possi­ ble to gain leverage for either one of these arguments (scribal error vs. scri­ bal elaboration) over the other? We can only deal in terms of probabilities, but some explanations fit the data better than others. Halperin does not show any awareness of the stu­ dies done on the translation technique of OG Ezek, and in his introduction he includes the translator of OG Ezek within a very broad generalization of “the” Septuagint as a translation that “reflects the religious needs and exege­

127 Halperin, “Merkabah Midrash,” 354. 128 Halperin, “Merkabah Midrash,” 354. 129 The basic study on the phenomenon of double rendering of words in the OG is Z. Talshir, “Double Translations in the Septuagint” in C.E. Cox (ed.), VI Congress of the Interna­ tional Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Jerusalem, 1986 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1987) 21–63, who excludes “exegetical additions” from a proper definition of “double translations” (see pp. 26–27); for methodological discussions of double transla­ tion in the OG, see also J. Cook, “The Hexaplaric Text, Double Translations, and Other Textual Phenomena in the Septuagint”, JNSL 22 (1996) 129–40.

176

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts:

tical perceptions of Alexandrian Jews in the third and second centuries B.C.”130 While this is an undeniable feature of the various OG translations of the different scriptural books, no one translation displays this character­ istic in the same manner or in equal degree. Everything depends upon the translation technique of the unit in question.131 As our review of such stu­ dies on OG Ezek in Chapter One has shown, “midrashic renderings” based on mystical interpretation of Hebrew letters do not at all fit the profile of this translator’s working methods. If other possible explanations are at hand, and they are, then it is best to set Halperin’s proposal very low on the scale of probability. What of Cornill and Jahn’s view that this phrase is original to the account? How did it come to be lost? Cornill does not say, and Jahn thinks that the words ‫ המרכבה אשר ראיתי‬were intentionally omitted by scribes who wanted to avoid any explicit reference to the merkabah in Ezekiel’s visions.132 While theologically motivated scribal changes are a well attested phenomenon in some biblical manuscripts,133 the dominant character of quantitative textual differences between the OG and MT reflects scribal addition and expansion, not omission. The mention of the merkabah as a textual plus in the final vision scene of the book134 casts suspicion over its originality. Thus, the possibility that this is an instance of scribal elaboration is the most probable. Additonally, it assumes a close reading of the earlier vision texts, and much of the language in the passage dependent upon the preceding visions, precisely the features of assimilation. The plus is the result of a scribe’s reflection upon the earlier visions in Ezekiel, and an attempt to coordinate and offer new language to describe the multiple repre­ sentations of the divine glory in Ezekiel’s visions.

130 Halperin, “Merkabah Midrash,” 351. 131 This is the indispensable starting point for any text-critical evaluation of the OG in relation to MT. Tov’s comments are representative: “For a proper analysis of the text-critical value of the LXX, one must approach it as a collection of individual translation units rather than as a homogeneous translation. The appreciation of this heterogeneity is important, because text-critical analysis is based mainly on the characteristics of the translation techniques of the individual units, and differences in translation character and vocabulary must be taken into consideration” (in The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research [Jeru­ salem: Simor, 21997], 15). 132 Jahn, Das Buch Ezechiel, 305. 133 See the examples in the section on “Theological Changes Intentionally Created by Scribes” in Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 264–74. 134 Jahn, in fact, sensed in his argument the problem that this key term was only used in the final vision. He thus claimed (Das Buch Ezechiel, 8) that the term ‫ המרכבה‬was in fact ori­ ginally present in Ezek 1: 15, where he reconstructs ‫וארא והנה מרכבה בארץ אצל החיות‬. This is certainly a creative proposal, but has no supporting evidence anywhere in the tex­ tual witnesses of this verse, and is ultimately the result of what Jahn thinks should be pre­ sent in the vision in Ezek 1. His suggestion has not been adopted by any subsequent scho­ lar.

Expansions that Coordinate Multiple Co-texts within Ezekiel

177

One more comment on the OG plus in 43: 3: There is an additional fea­ ture to this scribal addition which will be the exclusive focus of the second half of this chapter. The description of the divine glory as “a chariot” resulted from (1) reflection on the type of mobile described in Ezek 1 and 10, and (2) awareness of other descriptions of the divine glory which expli­ citly mention “a chariot” (cf. Ps 18: 11; 68: 18). In other words, other scrip­ tural passages directly influenced the scribe’s interpretation of this passage in Ezekiel. This phenomenon, inner-scriptural scribal expansion, will be the focus of the second half of this chapter. [4.49] Ezek 6: 13 ‫ וידעתם כי־אני יהוה בהיות חלליהם בתוך גלוליהם סביבות מזבחותיהם‬MT [‫אל כל־גבעה רמה ]בכל ראשי ההרים‬ [‫ותחת כל־עץ רענן ]ותחת כל־אלה עבתה‬

OG καὶ γνώσεσθε διότι ἐγὼ κύριος ἐν τῷ εἶναι τοὺς τραυματίας ὑμῶν ἐν μέσῳ τῶν εἰδώλων ὑμῶν κύκλῳ τῶν θυσιαστηρίων ὑμῶν ἐπὶ πάντα βουνὸν ὑψηλὸν καὶ ὑποκάτω δένδρου συσκίου

MT And you will know that I am YHWH, when their slain are among their idols, around their altars, on every high hill [on all the tops of the mountains], and under every green tree [and under every leafy oak tree].

In this description of the Israelites’ cultic practices, there are in the MT four prepositional phrases but only two are represented in the OG. (1) (2) (3) (4)

‫אל כל־גבעה רמה‬ ‫בכל ראשי ההרים‬ ‫ותחת כל־עץ רענן‬ ‫ותחת כל אלה עבתה‬

“on every high hill” “on all the tops of the mountains” [absent in OG] “and under every green tree” “and under every leafy terebinth tree” [absent in OG]

Phrases (1) and (3), which appear both in the MT and OG, employ termi­ nology that occurs most often as a set phrase in Deuteronomistic idiom, “under every high hill and under every green tree.”135 The vocabulary in lines (2) and (4) is more unique,136 and the vocabulary appear to have been drawn from two different sources:

135 The idiom occurs most in texts connected to the Deuteronomistic work (Deut-Kings) and the redaction of Jeremiah: Deut 12: 2 ‫על־ההרים הרמים ועל־הגבעות ותחת כל־עץ רענן‬ 1 Kings 14: 23 ‫על כל־גבעה גבהה ותחת כל־עץ רענן‬ 2 Kings 16: 4 ‫ועל־הגבעות ותחת כל־עץ רענן‬ 2 Kings 17: 10 ‫על כל־גבעה גבהה ותחת כל־עץ רענן‬ Jer 2: 20 ‫על־כל־גבעה גבהה ותחת כל־עץ רענן‬ Jer 3: 6 ‫על־כל־הר גבה ואל־תחת כל־עץ רענן‬ Jer 17: 2 ‫על־עץ רענן על גבעות הגבהות‬ 136 Noted by Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 136.

178

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts:

• Ezek 20: 28 ‫“ – כל־גבעה רמה וכל־עץ עבת‬every high hill and every leafy tree” • Hos 4: 13 ‫– על־ראשי ההרים יזבחו ועל־הגבעות יקטרו תחת אלון ולבנה ואלה‬ “on the tops of the mountains they sacrificed, and on the hills they burned incense, under oak and poplar and terebinth tree.”

Most scholars conclude that the MT plusses are scribal additions.137 What has been less noticed is how they fit into the passage’s rhetoric and contri­ bute to its language and imagery. The entire oracle of ch. 6 is directed at “the mountains of Israel” (‫הרי ישראל‬i, 6: 2) and “to the mountains and to the hills” (‫להרים ולהגבעות‬i, 6: 3). While the idolatrous practices are said to take place on “every high hill” (‫גבעה‬, phrase 1), the MT plus, adopting the language directly from Hos 4: 13, brings in vocabulary directly connected the chapter’s theme, “on the tops of the mountains” (‫ראשי ההרים‬i). Simi­ larly, the MT plus in phrase (4) adds a colorful parallel to “green tree” by drawing language from Ezek 20: 28 and Hos 4: 13, “leafy terebinth” (‫אלה‬ ‫עבתה‬i). It is worth noticing that the key terminology associated with idol cults in Ezekiel, “prostitution” (‫זנה‬i), occurs earlier in 6: 9 (“their prostitut­ ing heart” ‫לבם הזונה‬i), and also occurs in the immediate co-text of both passages drawn from in the MT plusses (Ezek 28: 30 ‫ואחרי שׁקוציהם אתם‬ ‫ ; זנים‬Hos 4: 13 ‫תזנינה בנותיכם‬i). Thus we see in phrases (2) and (4) the precise features of assimilative expansion: A handful of other texts employed similar terminology in their depiction of Israel’s cultic rites atop the hills, and this compelled a scribe to adopt language from these passages and introduce them into Ezek 6. It is important also to note that the addi­ tions borrow not only from Ezekiel (20: 28), but from another scriptural text altogether (Hos 4: 13). We will see this combination in the next exam­ ple as well. [4.50] Ezek 17: 20–21a 20

‫ ופרשתי עליו רשתי ונתפש במצודתי‬MT [‫ ואת כל־ מברחיו‬21‫ ]והביאותיהו בבלה ונשפטתי אתו שם מעלו אשר מעל־בי‬MT ‫ בכל־אגפיו בחרב יפלו והנשארים לכל־רוח יפרשו‬MT

OG

20

καὶ ἐκπετάσω ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν τὸ δίκτυόν μου καὶ ἁλώσεται ἐν τῇ περιοχῇ αὐτοῦ. 21 ἐν πάσῃ παρατάξει αὐτοῦ ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ πεσοῦνται καὶ τοὺς κατα­ λοίπους εἰς πάντα ἄνεμον διασπερῶ

MT And I will spread my net over him, and he will be caught in my net [and I will bring him to Babylon, and I will enter into judgment with him there, for his treachery which he perpetrated against me, and with all his refugees] with all his hosts; they will fall by the sword, and those who remain will be scattered in all directions.

Opinions differ on the textual status of this long MT plus. Cornill stated that the absence of this material in the OG is not explicable by any means of 137 Cf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 181; Wevers, Ezekiel, 61.

Expansions that Coordinate Multiple Co-texts within Ezekiel

179

scribal error.138 Allen maintains that the translator accidentally omitted the section by parablepsis (namely, skipping from αὐτοῦ to αὐτοῦ).139 Is there any way to give independent support to one or the other of these explana­ tions? A cursory examination of the co-text around 17: 20–21 shows that much of the terminology is identical to the interpretation of Ezekiel’s sign act in 12: 13, and both passages describe the capture of Zedekiah in 587/6 BCE: 12: 13 ‫ופרשתי את־רשתי עליו ונתפש במצודתי והבאתי אתו בבלה ארץ‬ ‫כשדים‬

17: 20 [… ‫ופרשתי עליו רשתי ונתפש במצודתי ]והביאותיהו בבלה‬ The first phrase of the MT plus in 17: 20 (“and I will bring him to Baby­ lon”) fits the profile of harmonizing assimilation to 12: 13. The two texts describe the same event in nearly identical language, and one is assimilated to the other. However, the MT plus continues with three more phrases which show that there is more to this expansion than mere assimilation of similar terminology. The second phrase of the MT plus, ‫ונשפטתי אתו שם‬, “and I will enter into judgment with him there (i. e., in Babylon)” is a reformulation of the parallel statement in 20: 35: ‫והבאתי אתכם אל־מדבר העמים ונשפטתי אתכם‬ ‫שם‬, “and I will bring you (i. e., Israel) into the wilderness of the nations, and I will enter into judgment with you there.” In 20: 35 “the wilderness of the nations” describes the entire nation’s exile and deportation after the destruc­ tion of Jerusalem. The scribal addition in 17: 20 takes up this phrase and applies it to Zedekiah’s capture and deportation to Babylon.140 The parallel implied in the MT plus, then, is that the “wilderness of the nations” refers to Babylon. The next phrase of the MT plus is ‫מעלו אשר מעל־בי‬, “his treachery which he perpetrated against me.” The term “treachery” (‫מעל‬i), is used in Ezekiel as a general term to describe the nation’s apostasy (cf. 14: 13; 15: 8) or an individual’s sin (cf. 18: 24, parallel with ‫חטא‬i). The exact syntactic form of this phrase (‫ מעל‬+ noun suffix + ‫ אשר‬+ verb ‫ בי‬+ ‫ )מעל‬is rare, occurring only here, Ezek 39: 26 (‫ )ואת־כל־מעלם אשר מעלו־בי‬and Lev 26: 40 (‫במעלם אשר מעלו־בי‬i). Is the wording of this scribal addition in 17: 20 bor­ rowed from the phrase from the Gog oracles (39: 26), or vice-versa? Tooman has argued comprehensively that the Gog oracles are a literary “pastiche” of quotations and allusions to passages from Ezek 1–37,141 which makes it

138 Cornill, Das Buch, 276. 139 Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 253. 140 The description of Zedekiah’s capture in Ezek 12: 13 and 17: 20 abbreviates the events recounted in 2 Kings, where Zedekiah is first brought before Nebuchadrezzar at Riblah (2 Kings 25: 6–7), where his sons are executed, his eyes gouged out, and then taken to Baby­ lon. Ezekiel truncates all this into the phrase “I will take him to Babylon.” 141 Tooman, Gog of Magog, 186–94.

180

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts:

more likely that Ezek 39: 26 was based on a version of Ezek 17: 20–21 that contained the MT plus. This means the vocabulary of the plus “his treachery which he perpe­ trated against me” in Ezek 17: 20–21 is derived from the covenant curses in Lev 26: 40 (see above). This possibility is bolstered by the presence of many pre-existing linguistic and thematic associations between the two passages. – Lev 26: 39: ‫והנשארים בכם ימקו בעונם בארצות איביכם‬, “and those left over among you will rot in their sins in the lands of your enemies”; see Ezek 17: 21 ‫והנשארים לכל רוח יפרשו‬, “and those left over will be scat­ tered in all directions.” – Lev 26: 36: ‫ונסו מנסת חרב ונפלו‬, “and they will flee as though from a sword, and they will fall”; see Ezek 17: 21 ‫בחרב יפלו‬, “by the sword they will fall.” – Lev 26: 41: ‫והבאתי אתם בארץ איביהם‬, “and I will bring them to the land of their enemies”; see Ezek 17: 20, ‫והביאותיהו בבלה‬, “and I will bring him to Babylon.” The borrowed phraseology, “his treachery which he perpetrated against me,” in the MT plus of Ezek 17: 20 serves to further bind Ezek 17 and Lev 26 together by introducing a unique phrase from the latter into the for­ mer.142 Just as the preceding clause in the MT plus “I will enter into judg­ ment with him there” took a phrase describing the entire nation in 20: 35 and applied it specifically to Zedekiah, so this expression, used in Lev 26: 40 of the people of Israel, is now used of Zedekiah’s treachery in particular. The final phrase of the MT plus, “and all his refugees” (‫ואת כל מברחיו‬, likely a corruption from ‫מבחריו‬, “his choice troops”)143 is now part of MT 17: 21a, and in the MT vocalization and punctuation the phrase has been construed as the subject of the verb “they will fall” (‫יפלו‬i). However, the phrase’s absence in the OG makes it likely that is was originally a part of the scribal addition found in 17: 20. Before it was incorporated into the syn­ tax of 17: 21, ‫ את‬would have been a preposition in the phrase “I will enter into judgment with him… and with all his choice troops” (‫ונשפטתי אתו‬i… ‫ואת כל מבחריו‬i).144 142 The dependence of Ezek 20: 27 upon Lev 26: 40 was noted previously by M.A. Lyons, From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code (LHBOTS 507; New York; T&T Clark, 2009), 23–34. 143 The word used in the MT of Ezek 17: 21, “refugee” ‫מברח‬, is a hapax legomena in Biblical Hebrew, whereas the word ‫ מבחר‬is used elsewhere in Ezekiel’s vocabulary to describe trained soldiers (Ezek 23: 7) or choice items (food, 24: 4; animals, 24: 5; trees, 31: 16). The Cambridge Prophets codex reads ‫מבחריו‬i (see M.H. Goshen-Gottstein/S. Talmon/G. Marquis (ed.), The Hebrew University Bible: Ezekiel, xxxvii), and this reading is attested by a number of Old Greek traditions: οι εκλεκτοι in Aquila (see Ziegler, Septuaginta: Eze­ chiel, 161). 144 That ‫ ואת מבחריו‬was to be syntactically connected with ‫ ונשפטתי‬in 17: 20 was argued in detail by Cooke (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, pp. 190 and 193) and J. Blau, “Zum angeblichen Gebrauch von ’et vor dem Nominativ”, VT 4 (1954) 7–22, on pp. 8–9.

Coordinate Related Texts in Ezekiel and Other Scriptural Books

181

In conclusion, the long MT plus in 17: 20–21 combines multiple dynamics of scribal expansion. The first phrase (“and I will bring him to Babylon”) is an assimilation to the verbatim phraseology in 12: 13, the second and fourth phrases are an assimilative expansion based on 20: 35, and the third phrase, borrowed from Lev 26: 40, opens a new category that will constitute the final section of this chapter: inner-scriptural scribal expansion.

2. Expansions that Coordinate Related Texts in Ezekiel and Other Scriptural Books This is the most dynamic set of scribal expansions in Ezekiel, for they com­ bine elements that we have so far examined only separately. The source of the wording in all of these examples is another scriptural book, and so they fall under the general heading of scribal coordination. They do, however, display an additional range of purpose functions similar to those we sur­ veyed in Chapter Three. Therefore, I have organized the remaining exam­ ples in terms of their purpose, which was not always simply to assimilate two texts based on pre-existing verbal association. Sometimes the assimila­ tive addition fulfills other functions as well. We begin with explicating expansions.

2.1 Assimilative Explicitation [4.51] Ezek 8: 11 ‫ ואיש מקטרתו בידו ועתר ]ענן[ הקטרת עלה‬MT

OG καὶ ἕκαστος θυμιατήριον αὐτοῦ εἶχεν ἐν τῇ χειρί καὶ ἡ ἀτμὶς τοῦ θυμιάματος ἀνέβαινεν

MT And each one had a censer in his hand, and the scent of [the cloud of] incense was rising.

In Ezekiel’s temple vision, the first acts of cultic apostasy he sees are the seventy elders and Ya’zanyahu burning incense in the inner court of the temple (8: 7–11). The description of the incense smoke is unique, as the word “scent” (‫ )עתר‬occurs only here in ancient Hebrew.145 While Allen wonders if the OG translator has condensed the phrase,146 most scholars have followed Cornill’s suggestion that the MT plus “cloud” (‫ )ענן‬is (1) a scribal clarification of the rare word “scent,” and (2) based on the nearly 145 A cognate word appears in Syriac translation (‘tr), meaning “vapor, fume, esp. of anything offered in sacrifice” (see J. Payne-Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary: Founded upon the Thesaurus Syriacus of R. Payne Smith [Clarendon: Oxford University Press, 1902], 410); for other cognate evidence in Semitic languages, see HALOT, 906. 146 Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 121.

182

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts:

identical phrase in Lev 16: 13:147 “And he (i. e., the high priest) will place the incense on the fire in YHWH’s presence, and the cloud of the incense will cover the kappōret”148 (‫ונתן את־הקטרת על־האש לפני יהוה וכסה ענן‬ ‫הקטרת את־הכפרת‬i).149 The purpose of the scribal clarification is the same as the examples we encountered in section 3.1.1, namely to offer semantic clarification of an obscure word. But this addition displays another feature, namely that its source is another scriptural text which describes the same cultic ritual (burning incense) in the inner sanctuary. Thus, Lev 16: 13 sup­ plied the exact vocabulary necessary to clarify the obscure word, “scent,” used by Ezekiel. Put simply, a scribe used Scripture to clarify Scripture, but did so in a way that recognized the pre-existing similarities between the two co-texts involved. [4.52] Ezek 8: 10 ‫ ואבוא ואראה והנה כל־]תבנית רמש ובהמה[ שקץ וכל־גלולי בית ישראל‬MT ‫מחקה על־הקיר‬

OG καὶ εἰσῆλθον καὶ εἶδον καὶ ἰδοὺ μάταια βδελύγματα καὶ πάντα τὰ εἴδωλα οἴκου Ισραηλ διαγεγραμμένα ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῦ150

MT And I went and I saw, and behold, every kind of [image of reptiles and beasts] detestable creature and all the idols of the house of Israel were engraved on the wall.

The MT plus here protrudes from the sentence due to its awkward syn­ tax,151 and its removal results in a balanced, parallel statement: ‫כל שקץ וכל‬ ‫גלולי בית ישראל‬, “every detestable creature, and all the idols of the house of Israel.” The expansion has been generated by the unique usage of the word “detestable creature” (‫קץ‬ ֶ ‫שׁ‬ ֶ i), which occurs only here in Ezekiel. It is semantically distinct from the more general term “detestable thing” (‫שׁ ִקּוּץ‬i), which occurs often in the prophet’s vocabulary,152 and has a broader seman­ 147 Cornill, Das Buch, 224. 148 I have left the term ‫ כפרת‬untranslated here, as the English traditions of “mercy-seat” are hardly accurate; see Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 (Anchor Bible; New York: Doubleday, 1991), 1014. It refers to the golden slab atop the ark, the name of which is derived from its function in the rituals on the day of Atonement. 149 This explanation is followed by Zimmerli (Ezekiel 1, 220), E. Tov (“Recensional Differ­ ences Between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint of Ezekiel”, ETL 62 [1986] 89–101, p. 93), Fohrer (Ezechiel, 42), Freedy (“The Glosses in Ezekiel”, 137), Cooke (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 95), Bertholet (Das Buch Hesekiel, 48). 150 The MT phrase ‫ כל ]תבנית רמש ובהמה[ שקץ‬is represented in the OG with μάταια βδε­ λύγματα. Cornill’s explanation (Das Buch, 224) is that this reading is the result of an inner Greek corruption, so that the original Greek Uncial reading ΠΑΝΤΑΤΑ (= ‫ )כל‬was cor­ rupted to ΜΑΤΑΙΑ. This is probable, and has been accepted by Ziegler (Septuaginta: Eze­ chiel, 119) and Zimmerli (Ezekiel 1, 219). 151 The plus creates an awkward appositional relationship between “every [image of reptiles and beasts], detestable thing.” This is noted and discussed by Cooke, A Critical and Exege­ tical Commentary, 102. 152 ‫ שׁ ִקּוּץ‬occurs eight times in Ezekiel: 5: 11; 7: 20; 11: 18, 21; 20: 7, 8, 30; 37: 23.

Coordinate Related Texts in Ezekiel and Other Scriptural Books

183

tic range, referring to ritually impure foods (Zech 9: 7), idols (Deut 29: 16; 2 Kings 23: 24; Jer 4: 1), or even dirt (Nah 3: 6). Zimmerli noted that the word ‫קץ‬ ֶ ‫שׁ‬ ֶ creates a conceptual incongruity in Ezek 8,153 for it is never used in Leviticus to refer to images of prohibited animals, but to the actual animals themselves (cf. Lev 11: 10–13, 20, 23, 41–42).154 Nonetheless, idolatrous image is the clear sense of ‫קץ‬ ֶ ‫שׁ‬ ֶ in Ezek 8: 10. Many scholars have noted that the MT plus in Ezek 8: 10 is based on language from Deut 4: 16–18: …‫ … תבנית כל־בהמה אשר בארץ‬17‫פן־תשחתון ועשיתם לכם פסל תמונת כל־סמל‬16 ‫תבנית כל־רמש באדמה‬18

16 17

Lest you act corruptly and make for yourselves an idol in the image of any statue… the image of any beast on the earth… 18the image of any reptile on the ground.

The scribal expansion in Ezek 8: 10 is a condensed form of these phrases from Deut 4: 17–18. Their proximity to the ambiguous word ‫קץ‬ ֶ ‫שׁ‬ ֶ , “detest­ able animal,” makes it likely that the purpose is to explicate the passage so it refers explicitly to “an image” (‫ )תבנית‬of such animals. As Greenberg notes: [T]he combination of phrases from Deut 4: 17–18 interrupts the expected sequence kol šeqets ‘every detestation,’ as though to guarantee the reading šeqets [as opposed to šiqqūts] for the graph. … The point here is that these idols were engravings of ani­ mal figures on the wall.155

Moreover, the choice of Deut 4: 17–18 for the source of the expansion is not random. Deut 4 and Ezek have in common one particular vocabulary item, the word ‫מל‬ ֶ ‫ס‬ ֵ “statue” (Deut 4: 16; Ezek 8: 3, 5) which occurs nowhere else in Biblical Hebrew, save in two passages of 2 Chronicles which are them­ selves dependent upon Ezek 8.156 The common use of the unique word ‫סמל‬ established a pre-existing relationship between Ezek 8 and Deut 4, and pro­ vides a plausible rationale for the selection of vocabulary from the latter when scribes sought to clarify the semantically ambiguous phrase in Ezek 8: 10.

153 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 219. 154 See Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 656. 155 Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 169. 156 In 2 Chron 33: 7 the statue placed by Manasseh in the temple is described as a ‫סמל‬i (‫וישם‬ ‫את־פסל הסמל‬i), whereas in the parallel passage in 2 Kings 21: 7 it is called an ‫אשרה‬i(‫וישם‬ ‫את־פסל האשרה‬i). H.G.M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerd­ mans, 1982), 391, thinks that the Chronicler’s Vorlage differed from Kings on this point, while Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 1007, more cogently argues that the Chronicler changed the word to ‫ סמל‬under the influence of Ezek 8: 3–5. Either way, 2 Chron 33 is not an inde­ pendent witness to the word in biblical Hebrew, leaving only Deut 4: 16 and Ezek 8 as pri­ mary evidence.

184

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts: [4.53] Ezek 6: 9a157 ‫ נשברתי את־לבם הזונה ]אשר־סר[ מעלי‬MT

OG ὀμώμοκα τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτῶν τῇ ἐκπορνευούσῃ ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ MT I was grieved at their heart which whored [which turned away] from me.158

The MT plus, “which turned away,” is conspicuous because of its absence in the OG, for which there is no apparent explanation. The location of the MT plus identifies the element in the pre-expanded text that generated the need for the scribal clarification, namely the words before and after. The unique idiom “to whore away from” (‫הזונה מעלי‬i), occurs only here and Hos 9: 1 “For you have whored away from your God” (‫כי זנית מעל‬ ‫אלהיך‬i).159 The idiom resulting from the expansion in the MT is also unique. The combination ‫ לב‬+ ‫ סור‬+ ‫ מעל‬occurs only in Ezek 6: 9 and Jer 32: 40, which, upon further examination, is certainly the source of the scribal expansion in MT Ezek 6: 9.160 Jer 32: 40 ‫ואת־יראתי אתן בלבבם לבלתי סור מעלי‬, “and I will put the fear of me in their heart, so that it/they will no longer turn away from me.”

That the MT plus should be drawn from language in Jeremiah is consistent with the rhetorical makeup of Ezek 6, a chapter which Greenberg has called “a mosaic of literary echoes.”161 However, the context of this phrase in Jer 32 raises an even more significant aspect of its relationship to the MT plus in Ezek 6: 9. Jeremiah 32: 40 is found within a salvation oracle that promises the restoration of exiled Israel, which entails their return to the land (Jer 32: 37) and a renewed covenant (32: 40a). Moreover, in Jer 32: 39, the verse before the source text, we find that this restoration hinges on the internal reconstitution of the people themselves, “And I will give them a unified heart, and a unified path, to fear me forever” (‫ונתתי להם לב אחד ודרך‬

157 My comments here are coincide with the detailed treatment of this text by J. Stromberg, “Observations on Inner-Scriptural Scribal Expansion in MT Ezekiel”, VT 58 (2008) 1–19, see especially pp. 8–11. 158 Instead of the MT’s difficult “I was broken” (‫נשברתי‬i), the OG reading ὀμώμοκα reflects a variant, “I had sworn” (‫נשבעתי‬i). While this affects the basic semantic import of the sen­ tence, it does not affect the OG’s quantitative representation of the MT, in which every ele­ ment is present except the relative clause. 159 Somewhat similar to Hos 9: 1 is the idiom in Ps 73: 27 “those who whore away from you” (‫כל־זונה ממך‬i). The most common prepositions used with the verb are “to be a prostitute with” (‫את‬ ֶ , Isa 23: 17), “to go as a prostitute after X” (‫אחרי‬, Exod 34: 15; Lev 17: 7; Ezek 23: 30). The use of adultery as a motif for cultic idolatry in the prophets is prominent parti­ cularly in Hosea (on which, see H.W. Wolff, Hosea [Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974], 14–15, 153–54). 160 See Stromberg, “Observations,” 9–10. There is one other idiom, ‫ לב‬+ ‫ סור‬+ ‫מן‬, that comes close to Ezek 6: 9 and Jer 32: 40: Ps 100: 4, “A perverse heart will turn away from me” (‫לבב‬ ‫עקש יסור ממני‬i); Jer 17: 5, “And his heart turned away from YHWH” (‫ומן־יהוה יסור‬ ‫לבו‬i). 161 Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 134.

Coordinate Related Texts in Ezekiel and Other Scriptural Books

185

‫אחד ליראה אותי כל הימים‬i).162 This image is closely connected with, and is

likely the source of, Ezekiel’s parallel image in 11: 19–20: 19“And I will give them a unified heart and a new spirit I will put in them… 20so that they will walk in my statutes…” (‫ונתתי להם‬i19 ‫…לב אחד ורוח חדשה אתן בקרבכם‬ ‫למען בחקתי ילכו‬20…). Both Jeremiah and Ezekiel envisioned that the restoration of Israel would be not only be accompanied but constituted by a complete renovation of the moral and volitional constitution of the peo­ ple.163 Thus, even before the expansion, the image of Israel’s wayward “heart” in Ezek 6: 9 evoked a whole matrix of passages in both Ezekiel’s and Jeremiah that spoke of the recreation of the people’s hearts. Ezek 6: 9 pro­ vided a perfect opportunity for a scribe (1) to clarify a unique turn of phrase (‫לבם הזונה מעלי‬i), and (2) to do it by borrowing language from a restora­ tion oracle in Jeremiah. The scribal expansion now frames the people’s pro­ blem, “a wayward heart,” in the very language of the solution, “a new, uni­ fied heart” (Ezek 11: 19, Jer 32: 39–40). As Stromberg aptly summarizes: “[T]here was more than ample occasion for the scribe himself to have conceptualized the restoration in Ezekiel in terms of that in Jeremiah. And that he did so will come as no surprise if … a line of continuity was drawn at the outset between the messages of Ezekiel and Jeremiah.”164 [4.54] Ezek 3: 12–13 ‫ואשמע אחרי קול רעש גדול ברוך כבוד־יהוה ממקומו‬i12 = OG ‫ו]אראה[ קול כנפי החיות משיקות אשה אל־אחותה וקול האופנים לעמתם‬i13 = OG ‫ = וקול רעש‬OG

OG

12

OG

12

καὶ ἀνέλαβέν με πνεῦμα καὶ ἤκουσα κατόπισθέν μου φωνὴν σεισμοῦ μεγάλου εὐλογημένη ἡ δόξα κυρίου ἐκ τοῦ τόπου αὐτοῦ 13 καὶ εἶδον φωνὴν πτερύγων τῶν ζῴων πτερυσσομένων ἑτέρα πρὸς τὴν ἑτέραν καὶ φωνὴ τῶν τροχῶν ἐχομένη αὐτῶν καὶ φωνὴ τοῦ σεισμοῦ

And I heard behind me the sound of a great earthquake, “Blessed be the glory of YHWH from its place!” 13And [I saw] the sound of the wings of the creatures touching one another, and the sound of the wheels beside them, and the sound of an earthquake.

The OG plus “and I saw” has one main function, namely, to provide a verb which governs the long list of “sounds” which Ezekiel hears. In the MT ver­ sion, all of the “sounds” in v. 13 are implicit objects of the verb “and I heard” in v. 12, but these have been separated from the verb by the textual change related to the word “Blessed” (‫ברוך‬i). The MT here is particularly 162 In contrast to the MT reading in Jer 32: 39 “unified heart” (‫לב אחד‬i), the OG reads “another heart” (καρδίαν ἑτέραν = ‫)לב אחר‬. The same variant occurs in the identical par­ allel passage of Ezek 11: 19. 163 See also the well-known passages on this theme, Jer 31: 33, “I will put my Torah in them” (‫נתתי תורתי בקרבם‬i), as well as Jer 24: 4–7, and Ezek 36: 26–27. For a discussion of this theme in the restoration messages of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, see T. Raitt, A Theology of Exile: Judgment/Deliverance in Jeremiah and Ezekiel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977). 164 Stromberg, “Observations,” 10.

186

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts:

difficult, as the exclamation “Blessed be the glory of YHWH!” appears out of nowhere and no speakers are identified.165 As most scholars have noted, while the MT reading is supported by the entire textual tradition, it is almost certainly a scribal corruption (or intentional change166) from an ori­ ginal infinitival clause ‫ברום‬, which would restore proper syntax to both verses: “12And I heard behind me the sound of a great earthquake as the glory of YHWH rose from its place, 13and the sound of the wings of the creatures…” This would be an example of a mem-kaph interchange, com­ mon in both the square Hebrew script (‫מ‬/‫כ‬i)167or even possibly in the paleo-Hebrew script.168 The emendation, ‫ ברום‬was proposed long ago by Hitzig and Luzatto,169 and has been accepted by nearly all commenta­ tors.170 This very ancient textual change created an awkward syntactical problem at the beginning of 3: 13. The list of objects governed by “I heard” in v. 12 is now cut off from its main verb. The OG plus, then, is an example

165 Thus the Targum Jonathan supplies the speakers: ‫ קל זיע סגי דמשבחין ואמרין‬, “the sound of a great earthquake, of those who were praising and saying…” But, as Greenberg notes (Ezekiel 1–20, 70), “But not even these exegetic acrobatics can mitigate the awkwardness of a contextless, abrupt doxology at this point in the narration, or the strain put on ‘a great rumbling noise’ by interpreting it as the noise of speech, when it is clear from the end of v. 14 that the commotion was caused by various movements of the components of the divine vehicle.” 166 Geiger, Urschrift und Übersetzungen, 318, argued that an original ‫ברום‬, was changed to ‫ ברוך‬to avoid the (in his view) anthropomorphic notion of God “rising.” However, in light of the parallel statements of the kabod rising in Ezek 10: 4, 18, this seems unlikely. 167 On these types of letter interchanges, see F. Delitzsch, Die Lese- und Screibfehler im alten Testament (Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter, 1920), 114; Tov, Textual Criticism, 247–48. 168 On which see S. Talmon, “The Ancient Hebrew Alphabet and Biblical Text Criticism” in D. Barthelemy/P. Casetti/O. Keel (ed.), Mélanges Dominique Barthélemy: études bibli­ ques offertes à l’occasion de son 60e anniversaire (Fribourg: Éditions universitaires, 1981) 497–529; idem., “The Ancient Hebrew Alphabet and Biblical Criticism” in M. Delcor/A. Caquot/S. Légasse/M. Tardieu (ed.), Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1985) 387–402. A different kind of evidence is provided by the reading in 4Q405, frag. 20, col. II, lines 7–8, a hymn which takes up the language of our passages in Ezekiel. It reads: ‫יפול]ו[ לפנו ה]כרו[בים וב]ר[כו בהרומם‬ ‫]קול דממת אלוהים ]נשמע‬. This could be translated “The cherubim fall before him and pronounce a blessing; when they arise, the quiet sound of God [is heard]” (see C. Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition [HSM 27; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985], 306). Alternatively, the key phrase ‫ וב]ר[כו בהרומם‬could be taken as a syntactic unit, “and they pronounce a blessing as they arise” (so Halperin, The Faces of the Chariot, 44). This could reflect either a double rendering based on a wordplay of the two graphically similar words “blessed” (‫ )ברוך‬and “as it arises” (‫ברום‬i), or, less likely, an awareness of the variant readings, similar to the incorporation and interpretation of variant readings in the Habakkuk pesher (on which, see G.J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context [JSOTSup 29; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985]). Either way, this 4Q405 shows an awareness of both possible readings in the text of Ezek 3: 12. 169 F. Hitzig, Der Prophet Ezechiel (KHAT; Leipzig: Weidmann, 1847), 24; Ehrlich, Rand­ glossen zur hebräischen Bibel, 12. 170 E.g. Cornill, Das Buch, 190; Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 43; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 94; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 13.

Coordinate Related Texts in Ezekiel and Other Scriptural Books

187

of scribal clarification of this syntactic problem, as it provides a verb to gov­ ern the objects in v. 13. While it is theoretically possible that this verb was supplied by the translator to deal with the difficult syntax of the Hebrew,171 it is just as possible that it was added in its Vorlage.172 We do have empirical evidence in biblical manuscripts from Qumran Cave 4 that verbs were sometimes added by scribes to solve syntactic problems,173 and given what we know of the consistent translation technique of OG Ezek, the OG likely reflects an expanded Vorlage. Additional support for this position is found by examining the curious wording of the addition, which fits the profile of inner-scriptural expansion we’re examining in this section. The vocabulary choice of the plus is cur­ ious, and creates an utterly unique idiom: “And I saw the sound of the wings” (καὶ εἶδον φωνὴν πτερύγων), implying a Vorlage, 174.‫ואראה קול‬ The notion of “seeing” a “sound” (‫ ראה‬+ ‫ )קול‬is odd, though ‫ קול‬is some­ times used to designate a thunder-clap associated with lightening,175 and it is highly unlikely that the translator would have supplied “saw” as an appropriate verb here. The awkward idiom makes it probable that the trans­ lator is reflecting a plus in the Vorlage. The only other passage in the Hebrew Bible where this expression is found concerns the Sinai theophany:176 Exod 20: 18: ‫וכל־העם ראים את־הקולת ואת־הלפידם ואת קול השפר‬, “And all the people saw the sounds, and the lightning, and the sound of the shophar.”

171 So Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 94. 172 So Cornill, Das Buch, 190. 173 For example, Isa 44: 7 in MT ‫ואתיות ואשר תבאנה יגידו למו‬, “and the things that are impending, and which are to come, let them (i. e., the idols) announce to them (i. e., the lis­ teners).” In 1QIsaa a verb is supplied for the first noun, to create a more syntactically balanced line: ‫ואתיות יואמר אשר תבאנה יגידו למו‬, “and let them speak of the things that are impending; the things which are to come, let them announce to them.” For a different division of the syntax, see Blenkinsopp Isaiah 40–-55 (AB; New York: Doubleday, 2002), 235.. 174 The certainty of this retroversion of the Greek is very high. The phrase καὶ εἶδον, “and I saw” occurs 21 times in OG Ezek, and every time renders the Hebrew ‫ואראה‬, or the apocopated form ‫וארא‬. 175 Cr. BDB, 877. See 1 Sam 12: 17, “I will cry to YHWH, that he may send thunder and rain” (‫ ;)אקרא אל־יהוה ויתן קלות ומטר‬Ps 18: 14, “Elyon issued his thunder, hail, and coals of fire” (‫ועליון יתן קלו ברד וגחלי־אש‬i). 176 The one other possible occurrence of this idiom also involves a description of the Sinai theophany, in its deuteronomistic retelling: Deut 4: 12: ‫וידבר יהוה אליכם מתוך האש קול‬ ‫דברים אתם שמעים ותמונה אינכם ראים זולתי קול‬, “And YHWH spoke you from the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of words, but you did not see any form, only a voice.” It is possible that that the final phrase “only a voice” is the object of “you did not see,” but it is more likely a distant object of the previous verb “you heard.” The latter inter­ pretation is supposed by S.R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteron­ omy (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902), 67, “Ye saw no form, save (that there was) a voice.”

188

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts:

Is it possible or likely that the scribe who sought to clarify the syntactic pro­ blem in MT Ezek 3: 12 (a theophany narrative) would draw upon the unique idiom used in the story of the Sinai theophany? There is strong evidence that the imagery of the Sinai theophany was connected to that of Ezekiel’s vision in various interpretive traditions in Second Temple Judaism. Hal­ perin has argued that the synagogue tradition of combining Ezek 1 as the haftarah reading along with Exod 19–20 during the feast of Shavuot was likely established by the mid-first century CE.177 His study begs the ques­ tion, however, about the preceding traditions that would have motivated such a connection between Ezek 1 and the Sinai theophany. Teugels (1996) has argued at some length that “the link between the Sinai and merkavah speculations already existed in some fashion, and that this link was, there­ fore, not entirely and exclusively a result of … the lectionary coupling of Exod 19–20 and Ezek 1.”178 If such an interpretive connection between the theophany accounts in Ezek 1 and Exod 19–20 existed in the early centuries BCE, the key text by which they were related was certainly Psalm 68: 8–9, 17–19.179 Here we find YHWH marching in the wilderness (vv. 8–9) towards Sinai (vv. 17–19), riding on his chariot (‫רכב אלהים רבתים‬, v.18). Moreover, as Fishbane has argued at length the description of the earth­ quake at YHWH’s appearance in Ps 68: 9 has been annotated by an early scribe identifying it with the scene of the Sinai theophany: ‫ארץ רעשה‬ ‫ אף־שמים נטפו מפני אלהים זה סיני‬, “the earth quaked, and the heavens poured, before God, this is Sinai,” or “this refers to Sinai.”180 Thus, the con­ nection between the Sinai theophany and the imagery of YHWH’s chariot in Ps 68 was made at a very early period (evidenced by the scribal annota­ tions in Ps 68 and Judg 5: 5), and so the incorporation of Ezek 1 into this

177 Halperin, Faces of the Chariot, 17–19. The relevant Rabbinic sources for this point are b. Meg. 31a, y. Meg. 74b. 178 See L. Teugels, “Did Moses See the Chariot? The Link between Exod 19–20 and Ezek 1 in Early Jewish Interpretation” in M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redac­ tion, Reception, Interpretation (STDJ 64; Leuven: Peeters, 1996) 595–602, on p. 600. 179 As noted by Halperin, Faces of the Chariot, 146–48, and Teugels, “Did Moses See the Chariot,” 596–98. 180 M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 54–55. The older interpretation of this phrase by W.F. Albright, “A Catalogue of Early Hebrew Lyric Poems (Psalm LXVIII)”, HUCA 23 (1950–51) 1–39, on p. 20, which was later adopted by F.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History and Religion of Israel (Cam­ bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 100–103, is that the phrase ‫ זה סיני‬is an appositional epithet next to “God”: “…the skies poured before God, the One of Sinai.” To gain this reading, however, Albright revocalized the demonstrative ‫ ֶזה‬to zû. In this deci­ sion, he rescinded his earlier interpretation of the parallel text in Judg 5: 5 (‫הרים נזלו מפני‬ ‫ יהוה זה סיני‬, “Mountains melted before YHWH, this is Sinai”), “All serious scholars agree that the phrase ‫ זה סיני‬is a gloss, restricting the general statement to Mount Sinai” (cf. also G. F. Moore, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges [ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1895], 141; W. F. Albright, “The Earliest Forms of Hebrew Verse”, Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 2 [1922] 69–-86, on p. 75).

Coordinate Related Texts in Ezekiel and Other Scriptural Books

189

matrix of texts could not be far behind. Moreover, Tuegels has identified references in other Jewish-Hellenistic texts that demonstrate that the Ezek 1 and Exod 19–20 were being interconnected in interpretive traditions in the second century BCE.181 This evidence provides significant warrant for arguing that (1) such an interpretive tradition existed during the Second Temple period and that (2) the OG plus in Ezek 3: 12 is likely connected to this tradition by framing Ezekiel’s perception of the theophany in language unique to the Sinai narrative in Exod 19–20 (“they saw the sounds”). Thus, as we have seen in the previous examples of this section, a genuine syntactic difficulty in the text generated the opportunity for a scribal clarification. However, the language employed to do so was chosen on the basis of an interpretive tradition that, in this case, is connected to the early interpretive history of the merkavah traditions. [4.55] Ezek 6: 4b–5 [‫]ונתתי את־פגרי בני ישראל לפני גלוליהם‬5 ‫והפלתי חלליכם לפני גלוליכם׃‬i4 MT ‫וזריתי‬ ‫את־עצמותיכם סביבות מזבחותיכם׃‬

OG

4

καὶ καταβαλῶ τραυματίας ὑμῶν ἐνώπιον τῶν εἰδώλων ὑμῶν. 5καὶ δια­ σκορπιῶ τὰ ὀστᾶ ὑμῶν κύκλῳ τῶν θυσιαστηρίων ὑμῶν

MT

4

And I will throw down your slain before your idols. 5[And I will place the corpses of the sons of Israel before their idols] And I will scatter your bones around your altars.

This example has been addressed by Stromberg and Lyons,182 and I will apply their work to the particular issues being explored in this study. That the material in 6: 5a is a scribal addition is likely not only because of its absence in the OG, but also because of the awkward shift of pronouns in the expansion (“their idols…”) in contrast to the co-text (“your idols…”). M. Greenberg’s explanation of the scribal addition is on target: The oracle begins as an address to “the mountains of Israel” (‫הרי ישראל‬i, 6: 2), but in 6: 4b–5 the metaphor shifts to describe “your slain… your idols… your bones…” “Since it is a strain to understand the pronoun of ‘your slain’ in vs. 4b as still referring to the mountains, vs. 5a refers the pronoun to the inhabitants of the (mountainous) land in language inspired by Lev 26: 30.”183 Thus, the addition was made to clarify a conceptual incongruity in the passage: in reality it is the people being addressed, and it is their corpses that will be on the ground. Significant for our discussion here is not only the purpose of the expan­ sion, but also its source, Lev 26: 30, ‫ונתתי את־פגריכם על־פגרי גלוליכם‬, “and I will set your corpses with the corpses of your idols.” The connection 181 Teugels, “Did Moses See the Chariot,” 599–601. 182 J. Stromberg, “Observations on Inner-Scriptural Scribal Expansion,” 4–5; M. Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 78–80. 183 Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 132.

190

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts:

is not random. As Stromberg has shown,184 there were already numerous linguistic connections between Ezek 6 and Lev 26. Both speak of the destruction of “your shrines” (‫חמניכם‬, Ezek 6: 4a, Lev 26: 30), of YHWH “bringing the sword” (Hiphil ‫ עליכם‬+ ‫ חרב‬+ ‫בוא‬, Ezek 6: 3, Lev 26: 25), and “scattering you among the nations” (‫זרה‬, Ezek 6: 9, Lev 26: 33). These pre-existing associations between the language and imagery of Ezek 6 and Lev 26 prompted a scribe to explicate the text using phraseology from the latter, thereby addressing a conceptual problem in the former. [4.56] Ezek 7: 19 ‫ כספם בחוצות ישליכו וזהבם לנדה יהיה‬MT [‫ ]כספם וזהבם לא־יוכל להצילם ביום עברת יהוה‬MT ‫ נפשם לא ישבעו ומעיהם לא ימלאו כי־מכשול עונם היה‬MT

OG τὸ ἀργύριον αὐτῶν ῥιφήσεται ἐν ταῖς πλατείαις καὶ τὸ χρυσίον αὐτῶν ὑπεροφθήσεται αἱ ψυχαὶ αὐτῶν οὐ μὴ ἐμπλησθῶσιν καὶ αἱ κοιλίαι αὐτῶν οὐ μὴ πληρωθῶσιν διότι βάσανος τῶν ἀδικιῶν αὐτῶν ἐγένετο

MT They will cast their silver into the streets, and their gold will become an unclean thing; [their silver and their gold will not be able to deliver them in the day of YHWH’s wrath]; their appetite will not be satisfied, nor will their bellies be filled, for their sin will become a stumbling block.

As Stromberg has noted,185 the MT plus not only disturbs the tightly struc­ tured syntactic parallelism of the four lines,186 but is drawn directly from Zeph 1: 18: ‫גם־כספם גם־זהבם לא־יוכל להצילם ביום עברת יהוה‬, “Neither their silver nor their gold will be able to deliver them in the day of YHWH’s wrath.” These two pieces of evidence, along with its absence in the OG, confirm its identity as a scribal expansion.187 As for the purpose of the expansion, it is clearly connected to the preceding line, as the link-words “their silver” (‫ )כספם‬and “their gold” (‫ )וזהבם‬bind the text and expansion together. Stromberg argues that the addition addresses a conceptual ambi­ guity in the prophet’s original announcement of doom, which depicts the people throwing out their wealth and going hungry. “[This] may have appeared counterintuitive: Why cast out wealth when the people would need it to feed themselves? The scribal comment explains that money would be useless to save on the day of Yhwh’s wrath.”188

184 Stromberg, “Observations,” 5. 185 Stromberg, “Observations,” 14–15. 186 Each of the two lines before and after the MT plus is structured in a mirrored fashion. The first two consist of noun with suffix (‫ וזהבם‬,‫ )כספם‬+ noun with preposition (,‫בחוצות‬ ‫ )לנדה‬+ imperfect verb (‫ יהיה‬,‫ישליכו‬i), while the second two consist of noun with suffix (‫ מעיהם‬,‫ )נפשם‬+ negative + imperfect verb (‫ ימאלו‬,‫ישבעו‬i). The MT plus is a prose line which falls right in the middle of this parallel structure. 187 So Cornill, Das Buch, 217; Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 82; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 199; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 102. 188 Stromberg, “Observations,” 15.

Coordinate Related Texts in Ezekiel and Other Scriptural Books

191

Moreover, this addition is not an isolated feature of the judgment oracle in Ezek 7. There are in this chapter other echoes of Zephaniah’s announce­ ment of the day of YHWH (“it is near,” ‫קרוב‬, Ezek 7: 7; Zeph 1: 7, 14), as well as from other prophetic announcements of doom (especially Isaiah 13). As Greenberg notes, “Such evidence points to borrowing in our chapter from poetic and prophetic sources… [T]he treasury of language and ima­ gery common to the poets and prophets was heavily drawn upon here.”189 Thus, the expansion in MT Ezek 7: 19 sought to address a potential concep­ tual ambiguity, and it did so by borrowing language from the very texts whose words resonated elsewhere in the oracle. [4.57] Ezek 34: 25b [‫ וכרתי להם ברית שלום והשבתי חיה־רעה מן־הארץ וישבו במדבר ]לבטח‬MT ‫ וישנו ביערים‬MT OG

καὶ διαθήσομαι τῷ Δαυιδ διαθήκην εἰρήνης καὶ ἀφανιῶ θηρία πονηρὰ ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς καὶ κατοικήσουσιν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ καὶ ὑπνώσουσιν ἐν τοῖς δρυμοῖς

MT And I will make with them a covenant of peace, and I will rid the land of wild beasts and they will dwell in the wilderness [in security] and they will sleep in the forests.

This line appears in a salvation oracle (Ezek 34: 20–31) which tells of the day when a royal deliverer will unite the exiles (34: 20–24) and settle them back in the land (34: 25) where they will experience the covenant blessings of Leviticus 26: 1–13 (34: 25–31). In fact, the entire section of 34: 25–28 has cast the depiction of the return to the land in the mold of the promises found in Lev 26: 4–13:190 – “I will give the rain in its time” (Ezek 34: 26 ‫ > והורדתי הגשם בעתו‬Lev 26: 4 ‫ונתתי גשמיכם בעתם‬i). – “The trees will produce fruit and the land its produce” (Ezek 34: 27 ‫ונתן‬ ‫ > עץ השדה את פריו והארץ תתן יבולה‬Lev 26: 4 ‫ונתנה הארץ יבולה ועץ‬ ‫השדה יתן פריו‬i). – “I will cause wild animals to cease from the land” (Ezek 34: 25 ‫והשבתי‬ ‫ > חיה רעה מן הארץ‬Lev 26: 6 ‫והשבתי חיה רעה מן הארץ‬i). In Lev 26: 5 it is said that “you will dwell in your land securely” (‫וישבתם‬ ‫לבטח בארצכם‬i), which also finds it counterpart in Ezek 34: 27, “and they will be secure on their land” (‫)והיו על אדמתם לבטח‬. However, earlier in the scene we find the curious phrase “they will dwell in the wilderness… and sleep in forests” (‫וישבו במדבר… וישנו ביערים‬i, 34: 25), evidence that areas previously considered dangerous due to wild animals will then be

189 Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 159. 190 The dependence of Ezek 34: 25–31 on Lev 26 was noted by Greenberg (Ezekiel 21–37, 707), Block (Ezekiel 25–48, 303–4), and explored in detail by Lyons (From Law to Pro­ phecy, 157–59).

192

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts:

inhabitable. However, this image of dwelling in the wilderness is unique in Ezekiel’s depiction of the restoration. Elsewhere in his oracles the wilder­ ness (‫ )מדבר‬is a place of desolation (6: 14), where judgment comes upon the nations (29: 5) or the Exodus generation (20: 13, 15, 17, 21, 36), and it is also used as an image of exile (“the wilderness of the nations,” 20: 35). In other words, “wilderness” has consistently negative connotations throughout Ezekiel, yet in this restoration oracle that is exactly where the restored peo­ ple will dwell. The fact that this posed a conceptual problem is evidenced by the presence of an expansion, “they will dwell in the wilderness [securely].” The phrase is borrowed from the parallel statement in Lev 26: 5 on which the language of Ezek 34: 27 was itself based. By analogy, if any land on which the restored Israel will dwell is peaceful, then even the wilderness will be such a place. Thus, the existing connections between Ezek 34 and Lev 26 created a logical basis for the extension of “dwelling peacefully” to even the wilderness.

2.2 Assimilative Elaboration The above examples involved passages with some sort of linguistic or con­ ceptual ambiguity, addressed by scribal additions that borrow vocabulary from another scriptural book. The remaining examples in the chapter can­ not be linked to any particular incongruities or ambiguities in the text. Rather, they have been generated purely because of the existence of another scriptural passage associated by similar vocabulary. [4.58] Ezek 13: 10 ‫ואין שלום‬ ‫ הטעו את־עמי לאמר שלום‬MT ‫ = הטעו את־עמי לאמר שלום ]שלום[ ואין שלום‬OG

OG ἀνθ᾽ ὧν τὸν λαόν μου ἐπλάνησαν λέγοντες εἰρήνη εἰρήνη καὶ οὐκ ἦν εἰρήνη

Here the accusation against Ezekiel’s prophetic opposition has been assimi­ lated to the nearly identical formulations in Jer 6: 14 and 8: 11:‫וירפאו‬ ‫ את־שבר עמי על־נקלה לאמר שלום שלום ואין שלום‬, “and they healed the brokenness of my people superficially, saying ‘Peace! Peace!’ But there is no peace.” This is similar to instances of assimilation of phraseology which we saw in section 4.1.2 of this chapter. [4.59] Ezek 18: 8a ‫ = ]וכספו[ בנשך לא־יתן ותרבית לא יקח‬OG

OG καὶ τὸ ἀργύριον αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τόκῳ οὐ δώσει καὶ πλεονασμὸν οὐ λήμψεται OG [And his silver] he does not lend with interest, or take back a loan with increase.

The descriptions of the righteous and wicked man in Ezek 18 copiously borrow terminology from different parts of the Holiness Code in Lev 17–

Coordinate Related Texts in Ezekiel and Other Scriptural Books

193

26.191 Included here are the prohibitions against giving out loans with inter­ est or accrued interest: ‫את־כספך לא־תתן לו בנשך‬37 …‫אל־תקח מאתו נשך ותרבית‬i36 Lev 25: 36–37 ‫בנשך נתן ותרבית לקח‬ Ezek 18: 15 ‫נשך ותרבית לא לקח‬ Ezek 18: 17

Out of the three occurrences of this expression in Ezek 18, only the first (18: 8a) has been assimilated to the full phrase in Lev 25: 37 by the addition of “and his silver.” Zimmerli calls this a “free paraphrase” by the OG trans­ lator,192 but this is unhelpful. There is no paraphrasing being done by the translator, for every Hebrew element has an exact quantitative representa­ tion. This OG plus fits all the criteria of a scribal assimilation, and there is every reason to assume that the translation reflects an expanded Vorlage.193 The scribal addition assimilates the first occurrence (18: 15) of the key phrase “lend with interest” to the fuller expression in Lev 25: 37, but not the second (18: 17). [4.60] Ezek 3: 1 ‫ ויאמר אלי בן־אדם ]את אשר־תמצא אכול[ אכול את־המגלה הזאת‬MT ‫ולך דבר אל־בית ישראל‬

OG καὶ εἶπεν πρός με υἱὲ ἀνθρώπου κατάφαγε τὴν κεφαλίδα ταύτην καὶ πορ­ εύθητι καὶ λάλησον τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ

MT And he said to me, “Son of Man, [that which you find, eat!] Eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.”

The MT plus in this verse creates an odd double imperative to eat, and if the scroll is already in Ezekiel’s hand (cf. 2: 8–10), in what sense is he supposed to “find” it?194 Moreover, the language of this MT plus is strikingly similar to Jer 15: 16: ‫נמצאו דבריך ואכלם ויהי דברך לי לששון ולשמחת לבבי‬

Your words were found, and I ate them. And your word became for me a joy, and the delight of my heart.

Within the prophetic tradition of the Hebrew Bible, only Ezekiel and Jere­ miah have this experience of ingesting the divine word,195 where it 191 This is discussed in some detail by Lyons (From Law to Prophecy, 162–64). Among the fol­ lowing expressions are: Sexual relations with a woman during her menstrual period (Lev 18: 19 > Ezek 18: 6), defiling a neighbor’s wife (Lev 18: 19 > Ezek 18: 6, 11, 15), walking in YHWH’s statutes and ordinances (Lev 18: 4–5 > Ezek 18: 9, 17, 21). 192 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 370. 193 So Cornill, Das Buch, 280. 194 This point was raised by Cornill, Das Buch, 188. Greenberg’s response to it (Ezekiel 1–20, 67) is to claim that the double command infers that after the first one the prophet hesitated, thinking, “Am I supposed to eat that?” Thus, a second command was required. This is interesting as a piece of psychological speculation, but does not address the textual issues at hand. 195 In Jeremiah, the passage is clearly a metaphor for his internalization of the divine message

194

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts:

“becomes” something pleasant (Ezek 3: 3 ‫ואכלה ותהי בפי כדבש למתוק‬, “and I ate, and it became in my mouth as honey for sweetness”). The unique relationship between these two scenes was clearly noticed by ancient scribes, and it is no surprise that we should find language from one inserted into the other. The wording of the Jeremiah passage has been reformulated to be fitted into the context of the divine command in Ezek 3: 1,196 but the strong and unique resonance remains. [4.61] Ezek 4: 13b [‫ ככה יאכלו בני־ישראל ]את־לחמם[ טמא בגוים ]אשר אדיחם שם‬MT OG καὶ ἐρεῖς τάδε λέγει κύριος ὁ θεὸς τοῦ Ισραηλ οὕτως φάγονται οἱ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ ἀκάθαρτα ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν

MT In this manner the sons of Israel will eat [their bread] unclean among the nations [to which I banish them].

The MT plusses in this verse have different purposes and profiles. The first supplies a direct object for the verb “they will eat” and is designed to con­ nect the preceding sign act concerning Ezekiel’s bread (4: 12) with the fol­ lowing explicitation in 4: 14–15 that the bread eaten will be ritually impure.197 The second plus is especially relevant to our discussion in this section. The divine pronouncement that Israel will be eating “among the nations” (‫ )בגוים‬introduces a new element into Ezekiel’s depiction of the judgment coming upon Jerusalem and Judah. He had been told that the divine judg­ ment would involve “lamentation, mourning, and woe” (‫קנים והגה והי‬i, 2: 10) and an impending siege on Jerusalem (4: 3), but the mention of the Jer­ usalemites ending up “among the nations” in 4: 13 is the first intimation of an exile. The theme is picked up later in the explication of the sign act about the scattering of the hair in 5: 10–12 (“and a third [i. e., of those remaining after the siege] I will scatter in every direction,” 5: 12). The MT plus in 4: 13 makes this implicit hint of exile completely explicit, and it does so by employing an idiom (“among all the nations [where I will banish them]”) used nowhere else in Ezekiel’s diction.198 The phraseology is, however, extremely common in depictions of exile found in Deuteronomy199 and in he must proclaim. Ezekiel’s depiction goes one step further in concretizing this image of ingesting the divine message; on this theme see M. Odell (“You Are What You Eat: Ezekiel and the Scroll”, JBL 117 [1998] 229–48, on pp. 241–45) who argues that Ezekiel is not sim­ ply ingesting the divine word, but also divine judgment itself: “By eating the scroll, Ezekiel takes into his inner being the fate of his people” (p. 244). 196 As noted by Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 37, and Stromberg, “Observa­ tions,” 8. 197 So Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 149–50; Wevers, Ezekiel, 56; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 51. 198 The components of the idiom: ‫ בכל‬+ ‫מקומות‬/‫ארצות‬/‫ אשר גוים‬+ ‫ נדח‬+ ‫שמה‬/‫שם‬. 199 Deut 30: 1, ‫“ בכל־הגוים אשר הדיחך יהוה אלהיך שמה‬among all the nations where YHWH your God banishes you.”

Coordinate Related Texts in Ezekiel and Other Scriptural Books

195

Jeremiah.200 Among this group of passages, there are two particular texts that are relevant for understanding the MT plus in Ezek 4: 13. The exact phrase found in Ezek 4: 13 “where I will banish them” (‫)אשר אדיחם שם‬ occurs only elsewhere at the conclusion of Jeremiah’s vision of the good and bad figs in Jer 24: 9–10: ‫ ונתתים לזעוה… לחרפה ולמשל לשנינה ולקללה בכל־המקמות אשר־אדיחם שם׃‬9 ‫ ושלחתי בם את־החרב את־הרעב ואת־הדבר עד־תמם‬10 9

And I will make them into a horror… and a reproach, and a byword, and a taunt and a curse among all the places where I will banish them. 10 And I will send among them the sword and the famine and the plague until they are finished.

This passage not only contains the idiom used in the MT plus of Ezek 4: 13, but also contains the same triad of judgments (sword, famine, plague) found in the sign act narrative of Ezek 4–5 (cf. Ezek 5: 12). This combination of the triad with the idiom in question is unique to Ezek 4–5, Jer 24: 9–10, and Jer 29: 18, and so the wording of the MT plus in Ezek 4: 13 must have come from either of these passages.201 Thus, while the immediate goal of the scribe was to make explicit the implicit mention of the impending exile, the connections between the three passages mentioned above compelled him to do so by employing phraseology from the Jeremiah texts. [4.62] Ezek 36: 11 ‫ והרביתי עליכם אדם ובהמה ]ורבו ופרו[ והושבתי אתכם כקדמותיכם‬MT ‫והטבתי מראשתיכם‬ 200 Or, more specifically, passages in Jeremiah marked by deuteronomistic phraseology: Jer 8: 3; 16: 15; 23: 3, 8; 24: 9; 27: 10, 15; 29: 14, 18; 32: 37; 39: 37; 40: 12; 43: 5; 46: 28. 201 Jer 29: 18 is found in literary unit (29: 16–20) that is absent in OG Jer, and is almost cer­ tainly a secondary literary layer in Jer 29. The entire unit is dependent on language from Jer 24, and is marked by a resumptive repetition (wiederaufnahme) in the verses that frame the addition (24: 15, 20b). Some scholars hold that the material in these verses is in fact “genuine” in Jeremiah’s letter, but in a wrong location (so Holladay Jeremiah 2 [Hereme­ neia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989], 135–36). Most argue that it is a later addition, dependent upon Jer 24, which was designed to clarify Jeremiah’s attitude towards the Judeans living in Jerusalem between the first and second Babylonian attacks on Jerusalem, i. e., during the same time period indicated in Ezek 4–5. See the older treatments by S. Mowinckel, Zur Komposition des Buches Jeremia (Oslo: J. Dybwad, 1914), on pp. 41–42, and G. Wanke, Untersuchungen zur sogenannten Baruchschrift (BZAW 122; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1971), 57–59, and the more text-critically informed discussions of W. Thiel, Die deuteronomis­ tische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981), 11–19, and W. McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah: Volume II (ICC; Edin­ burgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 735–40. Regardless of one’s position on these verses in the com­ position history of Jer 29, the point of relevance for this discussion is whether Jer 29: 18 could have been a source for the scribal expansion in Ezek 4: 13. As McKane (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 737) notes, the absence of Jer 29: 16–20 in the OG, and there­ fore in its Vorlage, does not prove that these verses were not a part of any Hebrew texts of Jer 29 in the period before the OG’s production. Thus, either Jer 24: 9–10 or Jer 29: 14 could have been a possible source for the MT plus in Ezek 4: 13.

196

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts:

OG καὶ πληθυνῶ ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς ἀνθρώπους καὶ κτήνη καὶ κατοικιῶ ὑμᾶς ὡς τὸ ἐν ἀρχῇ ὑμῶν καὶ εὖ ποιήσω ὑμᾶς ὥσπερ τὰ ἔμπροσθεν ὑμῶν

MT And I will multiply upon you humans and animals [and they will multiply and be fruitful] and I will cause you to be inhabited like former times and I will do more good to you than in earlier times.

In this salvation oracle for the mountains of Israel (‫הרי ישראל‬i, 36: 2), YHWH announces the reversal of their destruction described in Ezek 6. In preparation for the returnees from the exile, the land of Israel will become a flourishing paradise, “like the garden of Eden” (‫כגן עדן‬i, 36: 35), where the trees produce fruit (‫ענפכם תתנו ופריכם תשאו לעמי‬i, 36: 8, cf. also v. 30) for the many humans and animals (‫אדם ובהמה‬i, 36: 10) that YHWH will bring and multiply there (‫ארבה אותם‬, “I will multiply them,” 36: 37). The lan­ guage and imagery of the Eden narratives (or traditions) have been drawn upon heavily in Ezekiel’s depictions of the restoration. Fishbane has devel­ oped this point at some length: Longing for order and spatial restoration, the prophets imagined the ancient national centre as an old-new Eden from which the people were evicted. But, quite unlike the old Adam, this new national counterpart will return to Edenic bliss–this being the return to Zion and to national dignity in the land.202

In Ezek 36: 11 we find an MT plus that, aside from being absent in the OG, breaks into the litany of first person verbs (v. 10 ‫והרביתי‬, v. 11 ,‫והרביתי‬ ‫ והטבתי‬,‫והושבתי‬, v. 12 ‫ )והולכתי‬with two third person plural verbs (‫רבו‬ ‫ופרו‬i).203 What is more, the two verbs match exactly the primeval blessing that God bestowed upon both animals and humans in Gen 1 (‫פרו ורבו‬, vv. 22, 28).204 Given the oracle’s clear pre-existing dependence upon the Eden traditions, this kind of assimilative expansion is not surprising. It both furthers the old-new typology in the chapter and heightens it by introdu­ cing the language of the divine blessing in Ezekiel’s vision of the future. [4.63] Ezek 34: 27 ‫ וידעו כי־אני יהוה בשברי את ]מטות[ עלם והצלתים מיד העבדים בהם‬MT

OG καὶ γνώσονται ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι κύριος ἐν τῷ συντρῖψαί με τὸν ζυγὸν αὐτῶν καὶ ἐξελοῦμαι αὐτοὺς ἐκ χειρὸς τῶν καταδουλωσαμένων αὐτούς [Syriac Peshitta = OG] 202 M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 370; cited by J. Stromberg, “Obser­ vations,” 6. 203 Noted by Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 388; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 230; Stromberg, “Observations,” 6. 204 Stromberg has noted (“Observations,” 7) that later scribes were clearly aware of this con­ nection between Ezek 36: 11 and Gen 1: 22, 28, evident by the fact that numerous medieval manuscripts of Ezekiel reversed the order of the two verbs to match the order in Genesis, i. e., ‫פרו ורבו‬, in mss. 30, 93, 96 (cf. the manuscripts noted in M.H. Goshen-Gottstein/S. Talmon/G. Marquis (ed.), The Hebrew University Bible: Ezekiel, 262).

Coordinate Related Texts in Ezekiel and Other Scriptural Books

197

MT And they will know that I am YHWH when I break [the bars of] their yoke, and I will deliver them from the hand of those who enslaved them.

As noted above in our discussion of Ezek 34: 35b , much of the vocabulary in the salvation oracle of 34: 25–31 was drawn from Lev 26.205 We have yet another example in 34: 27, which employs an idiom used only here and Lev 26: 13, ‫הוצאתי אתכם מארץ מצרים מהית להם עבדים ואשבר מטת עלכם‬, “I brought you out of the land of Egypt, to no longer be slaves, and I broke the bars of your yoke.” The word “bars” (‫ )מטות‬is not represented in the OG or Peshitta of Ezek 34: 27. Both Cornill and Zimmerli assert that the OG has condensed the phrase and omitted this word, but they give no sup­ porting argumentation.206 In Lev 26: 13 the OG offers a precise quantitative representation of the text: ‫ ואשבר מטת עלכם‬/ OG καὶ συνέτριψα τὸν δεσ­ μὸν τοῦ ζυγοῦ ὑμῶν.207 If the translators were capable of this mimetic translation in Lev 26: 13, they were certainly capable of doing the same here in Ezek 34: 27. It is far more likely, as Ziegler argues, that the Vorlagen before the OG and Peshitta translators, respectively, did not contain the first word (“bars”) in the pair.208 The shorter idiom preserved in these trans­ lations, “I broke their yoke” (‫ )בשברי את עלם‬is a common one, particularly in Jeremiah.209 Thus, the evidence strongly supports the view that the short expression (“break the yoke”) has been assimilated to the longer expression (“break the bars of their yoke”) in Lev 26: 13. The expansion was added by a scribe who was reading Ezek 34: 27 in line with the contours of the text, which already contained many pre-existing associations with Lev 26. The assimilating expansion was one further step in this process.

205 Cf. Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 156–58. 206 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 211. Cornill (Das Buch, 405) does mention that the word “bars” is “indispensible” (unentbehrlich) due to the parallelism in the line, but I cannot understand what he means by this. If he means that the last two clauses of 34: 27 are syntactically paral­ lel in some way, he is simply wrong, for they show no matching semantic or syntactic structures. 207 Cornill’s point (Das Buch, 405) that the Peshitta does not render this phrase with precise lexical equivalents is valid. Aramaic did not have adequate lexical resources to give a com­ pletely mimetic equivalent, evident in the Peshitta and Targum translations of Lev 26: 13, “the yoke of your slavery” (cf. Targum Neofiti to Lev 26: 13 ‫ניר שעבודיהון‬i). However, although the Aramaic translations were not capable of a precise lexical rendering of the phrase, they have both given an exact quantitative representation. The fact that the Peshitta and Targum give a quantitatively mimetic rendering of the phrase in Lev 26: 13 means that they were perfectly capable of doing the same in Ezek 34: 27. Targum Jonathan to Ezekiel does offer such a translation, ‫אתבר ית ניר תקפהון‬, “I broke the yoke of their strength” but the Peshitta does not. It is, therefore, an independent witness to the shorter reading in Ezek 34: 27. 208 J. Ziegler, “Die Bedeutung des Chester Beatty-Scheide Papyrus 967 für die Textüberliefer­ ung der Ezechiel Septuaginta”, ZAW 61 (1945–48) 76–94, on p. 84. 209 See Jer 2: 20 (MT ‫שברתי עלך נתקתי מוסרתיך‬, OG συνέτριψας τὸν ζυγόν σου), 5: 5 (MT ‫שברו על‬, OG συνέτριψαν ζυγόν), 30: 8 (MT‫ אשבר עלו מעל צוארך‬, OG συντρίψω τὸν ζυγὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ τραχήλου αὐτῶν).

198

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts: [4.64] Ezek 4: 9

‫ קח־לך חטין ושערים ופול ועדשים ודחן וכסמים ונתתה אותם בכלי‬MT ‫ אחד‬MT [‫ = קח־לך חטין ושערים ופול ועדשים ודחן וכסמים ונתתה אותם בכלי ]חרש‬OG ‫ אחד‬MT

OG λαβὲ σεαυτῷ πυροὺς καὶ κριθὰς καὶ κύαμον καὶ φακὸν καὶ κέγχρον καὶ ὄλυραν καὶ ἐμβαλεῖς αὐτὰ εἰς ἄγγος ἓν ὀστράκινον

OG Take for yourself wheat and barley and beans and lentils and millet and spelt and put them in one [clay] vessel.

The OG plus in this verse adds a seemingly random and unnecessary detail to the account of Ezekiel’s sign act, describing the vessel as one made of earthen clay. It is, however, a clear example of inner-scriptural assimilation to a sign act performed by Jeremiah. During the Babylonian siege, Jeremiah is instructed to purchase a field outside of Jerusalem (Jer 32: 1–8). He gathers the deed documents and money (32: 9–11) and gives them to Baruch (32: 12), instructing him, “Take (‫ )לקוח‬these deeds, this sealed deed of purchase and the opened deed, and put them in a clay jar (‫)ונתתם בכלי־חרשׂ‬, so that they will last a long time” (32: 14). Only these two prophetic sign acts in the Hebrew Bible involve a clay jar, and the verbal similarities between them are unmistakable. Moreover, the phrase “clay jar” (‫ )כלי חרש‬occurs only elsewhere in priestly literature concerning the disposal of ritually impure vessels (e. g. Lev 6: 21, 11: 33, 14: 5) or their use in a water ritual (cf. Num 5: 17). There is no evident motive for the translator to have added this detail, but there is every reason for a scribe transmitting the OG’s Hebrew Vorlage to have assimilated Ezek 4 to Jer 32. The expansion displays a scribal reflex towards assimilation of like accounts in the Hebrew Bible. [4.65] Ezek 16: 23–24

‫ ותבני־לך גב ותעשי־לך‬24‫ויהי אחרי כל־רעתך ]אוי אוי לך[ נאם אדני יהוה׃‬i23 MT ‫רמה‬i23 MT

OG

23

καὶ ἐγένετο μετὰ πάσας τὰς κακίας σου λέγει κύριος. 24 καὶ ᾠκοδόμη­ σας σεαυτῇ οἴκημα πορνικὸν καὶ ἐποίησας σεαυτῇ ἔκθεμα

MT

23

And it came about, after all your wickedness [Woe! Woe to you!], utterance of YHWH, 24that you built for yourself a cultic pillar and made for yourself a ritual installation.

The first section of Ezekiel’s depiction of the Judeans as a rebellious sister (16: 14–22) concludes with a transition piece in vv. 23–24. If their produc­ tion and worship of idols was not bad enough, “after all this wickedness” she went on to build cultic installations (‫ רמה‬,‫גב‬i)210 for further acts of apos­ 210 The noun ‫ ֵגּב‬is somewhat ambiguous here. The discussion in BDB (p. 146) derives the noun from the root ‫גבב‬, “to be curved,” by which they guess it refers to some kind of mound or hill for cultic worship. The entry in HALOT (p. 170) and Zimmerli (Ezekiel 1, 342) both appeal the study of W. Andrae (Die jüngeren Ischtar-Tempel in Assur [Osnab­ rück: Zeller Verlag, 1935, 45]) on Ishtar temples in Asshur and claim it refers to the archi­

Coordinate Related Texts in Ezekiel and Other Scriptural Books

199

tasy (16: 24–29). In the middle of this description we find an unexpected exclamation, “Woe, woe to you!” (‫אוי אוי לך‬i). The absence of these words in the OG is inexplicable by any mechanical or translation means.211 Most have followed Cornill’s judgment (1886, 263) that the words are a scribal addition.212 But what has not been noticed by any commentator is that the exclamation has been borrowed from a uniquely similar passage in Jer 13: 27: ‫נאפיך ומצהלותיך זמת זנותך על־גבעות בשדה ראיתי שקוציך‬ ‫אוי לך ירושלם לא תטהרי אחרי מתי עד‬

As for your adulterous acts and your neighings, your lewd prostitution on the hills in the field–I have seen your detestable acts. Woe to you, Jerusalem! You will not be pure; for how long? The unique doubling of “Woe! Woe!” in Ezek 16: 23 is without parallel in the Hebrew Bible. The phrase “Woe to you” (‫אוי לך‬i), however, occurs four times, twice in related oracles against Moab (Num 21: 29, Jer 48: 46)213 and in our two passages, Jer 13: 27 and Ezek 16: 23. When the co-texts of the latter two passages are examined, we find a large amount of shared vocabu­ lary and imagery depicting idol worship and adultery. The word “adultery” (root ‫ )נאף‬features in both passages (Jer 13: 27, Ezek 16: 32, 38), as do the key words prostitution (‫ תזנות‬,‫זנות‬i: Jer 13: 27, Ezek 16: 15, 20, 22, 25, 26, etc.) and “lewdness” (‫זמה‬i: Jer 13: 27, Ezek 16: 27, 43, 58). Instead of stew­ arding YHWH’s “beautiful” gifts (‫תפארה‬i: Jer 13: 20, Ezek 16: 12), the pros­ titute abused them, “trusting” in frail hopes (Ezek 16: 15, ‫ותבטחי ביפיך‬, “and you trusted in your beauty”; Jer 13: 25, ‫ותבטחי בשקר‬, “and you trusted in lies”). Thus, Jer 13: 27 contains a compact presentation of Israel as an adulterous prostitute, with all the language found in the longer accusa­ tions of Ezek 16. It makes perfect sense that a scribe would have partially coordinated these two passages by inserting the exclamation from Jer 13: 27 into Ezekiel’s long tirade against the Judeans. tectural features at the base of a cultic pillar (a “torus”). Either way, it refers to some sort cultic installation. 211 Allen (Ezekiel 1–19, 228) believes the MT is original here, but offers only a general rhetori­ cal explanation that v. 30 shows an equal outbreak of “passion,” making the exclamation in v. 23 more likely to be original. This begs entirely the evidence of the OG, with which he does not adequately deal. 212 Cornill, Das Buch, 263; followed by Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 169, and Wevers, Ezekiel, 98–99. Zimmerli’s explanation (Ezekiel 1, 327) that it is “a passionate interjection of a reader” is a bit romantic, and is rightly countered by Block (Ezekiel 1–24, 491) as a weak argument for its secondary status. 213 These two passages are not, in fact, independent witnesses to this expression, for Jer 46: 47– 48 has quoted and rearranged material from the Moab oracles in Num 21: 29 and 24: 17; see G.B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1912), 304, and W.L. Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (Heremeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 353. Thus, the phrase “woe to you” has only three independent attestations in bibli­ cal Hebrew.

200

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts: [4.66] Ezek 45: 22 ‫ = ועשה הנשיא ביום ההוא בעדו ]וביתו[ ובעד כל־עם הארץ פר חטאת‬OG

OG καὶ ποιήσει ὁ ἀφηγούμενος ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ὑπὲρ αὑτοῦ καὶ τοῦ οἴκου καὶ ὑπὲρ παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ τῆς γῆς μόσχον ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτίας

OG And the prince will prepare the bull for the purgation offering for himself [and for his household]214 and for all the people of the land.

One part of Ezekiel’s new temple vision is the outline of a new festival calendar. In Ezek 45: 18–25 we find a description of the offerings to be made during Passover and Shavuot (cf. 45: 21). However, this passage exhibits two differences from the ritual legislation found in Exodus 12–14: (1) Instead of the rite being performed by the head of the household (cf. Exod 12: 3–4), it is here performed by the national leader on behalf of the people.215 (2) The animals offered are no longer an unblemished lamb (Exod 12: 5), but a mul­ tiplicity of bulls and goats (Ezek 45: 22–24). The offering in 45: 22 is unique as well, for it institutes a purgation offering similar in form to that of the Day of Atonement offering in Lev 16, “and Aaron will bring the bull for the purgation offering which is for himself, and he will effect atonement for himself and for his household” (‫והקריב אהרן את־פר החטאת אשר־לו‬ ‫ וכפר בעדו ובעד ביתו‬, Lev 16: 6, 11, 17).216 The purgation offering of Eze­ kiel’s Passover legislation has been adopted from Lev 16, and the OG plus attests one further step of assimilative coordination between these two pas­ sages: the people’s representative must make an offering for himself and his household. There is no reason to attribute this plus to the translator, and every reason to align it with the many examples of scribal assimilation we have seen in the Hebrew text throughout this chapter.

214 It is not always necessary in ancient Greek to indicate the possessive pronoun, “when the possessor is not to be mistaken” (see H.W. Smyth, Greek Grammar [rev. ed.; Harvard, 1984], §1199d note). Thus the Vorlage contained the third masculine singular possessive pronoun, as in the parallel passage in Leviticus 16, see below. 215 Such a tradition seems to have been known to the Chronicler, who tells of Hezekiah as a royal patron of the Passover festival (2 Chron 30), as well as Josiah some decades later (2 Chron 35: 1–5; cf. 2 Kings 23: 21). 216 Note that the OG translation to Lev 16: 6 (περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ οἴκου αὐτοῦ) quantita­ tively matches the structure of OG Ezek 45: 22 (ὑπὲρ αὑτοῦ καὶ τοῦ οἴκου).

Coordinate Related Texts in Ezekiel and Other Scriptural Books

201

2.3 Cross-Reference/Allusion [4.67] The MT plusses in Ezek 7: 5–14217 Ezek 7: 5–7a [‫כה אמר אדני יהוה ]רעה אחת רעה הנה באה׃‬5 ‫ באה הצפירה[ אליך יושב הארץ‬7‫]קץ בא[ בא הקץ ]הקיץ אליך הנה באה׃‬6 ‫בא העת קרוב היום‬ 5

Thus says the Lord YHWH: [A single calamity, look, it is coming!] [An end is coming] The end is coming [It has risen against you! Look, it is com­ ing!] 7[The tsephirah is coming] against you, O inhabitants of the land. The time is coming, the day is near!

6

Ezek 7: 10 ‫הנה היום ]הנה באה יצאה הצפרה[ צץ המטה פרח הזדון‬

Look, the day! [Look, it is coming! The tsephirah has come out!] The rod has blos­ somed, insolence has budded! Ezek 7: 12–14 ‫בא העת הגיע היום הקונה אל־ישמח והמוכר אל־יתאבל ]כי חרון אל־כל־המונה[׃‬12 ‫כי המוכר אל־הממכר לא ישוב ]ו[עוד ]בחיים חיתם כי־חזון אל־כל־המונה לא‬13 [‫ישוב‬ ‫ואיש בעונו חיתו לא יתחזקו׃‬ ‫תקעו בתקוע והכין הכל ]ואין הלך[ למלחמה ]כי חרוני אל־כל־המונה[׃‬14 12

The time has come! The day has approached! The buyer should not rejoice, nor should the seller weep! [For wrath is against all its horde] 13 For the seller will not return to the thing sold, [and] ever. [while they are alive, their life] [For the vision is against all its horde, it will not reverse] 14 Blow the trumpet, and prepare everything [though there is no one going] for war. [For my wrath is against all its horde]

In the MT edition of this oracle, we find in vv. 5–7, 10, and 12–14, a number of large expansions absent in the OG, which, as I will argue below, are most certainly related. The plusses in vv. 5–7 and 10 mention the imminent “com­ ing” of “the tsephirah” (‫הצפירה‬i). These additions introduce a new feature to the oracle, for in the shorter OG edition, it is the Lord himself who brings judgment (OG 7: 6, “I am YHWH who strikes”), but the MT plusses identify the agent of YHWH’s judgment, namely the tsephirah. 217 This section is a condensed form of my more detailed essay on the differences between the OG and MT of Ezek 7 in T. Mackie, “Of Editions and Expansions: The Hermeneutics of Scribal Expansion in the Masoretic and Septuagint Texts of Ezekiel 7” in M.A. Lyons/ W.A. Tooman (ed.), Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text, Tradition and Theol­ ogy in Ezekiel (Princeton Theological Monograph Series; Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publica­ tions, 2010, 249–78.

202

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts:

Furthermore, we find in vv. 12–14 three MT plusses. Particularly promi­ nent are the three refrains which are similar in form and content, and thus are clearly related to one another. v. 12 ‫ – כי חרון אל־כל־המונה‬For wrath is against all its horde. v. 13 ‫ – כי־חזון אל־כל־המונה לא ישוב‬For the vision is about all its horde; it will not reverse. v. 14 ‫ – כי חרוני אל־כל־המונה‬For my wrath is against all its horde. The centre refrain (v. 13) states that “the vision,” i. e., the oracle of Ezekiel 7, is irreversible, and concerns “its” horde, while the outer refrains (vv. 12, 14) repeat that “its” horde will face divine wrath. The obviously outstanding feature of these expansions is the ambiguity surrounding “all its horde” (‫כל‬ ‫המונה‬i). To whom or what does “its” refer? The third feminine suffix has no antecedent referent in the immediate sentence–the horde does not belong to the “buyer” or “seller” or “day” of 7: 12 (all masculine nouns). The only possible referent for the feminine suffix in these editorial additions is the preceding feminine noun tsephirah, found only in the MT plusses in vv. 7 and 10. Therefore, these refrains presuppose the scribal additions earlier in the passage, which shows that we are dealing with an interconnected series of expansions. The basic role of the additions as a whole is to introduce an agent of YHWH’s judgment, the tsephirah, but the refrains of vv. 12–14 make clear that eventually the divine wrath will turn against the tsephirah and “its horde.” Clearly, the crux interpretum of this entire matter is the meaning and identification of the tsephirah, whose appearance and downfall is high­ lighted in the additions. The noun, in its absolute form (‫צפירה‬i), occurs only here in Biblical Hebrew. Another possible occurrence of the word is in Isaiah 28: 5, ‫רת תּ ִפ ְאָרָה‬ ַ ‫ל ִצ ְפ ִי‬i (“for a beautiful crown”), where it clearly refers to a “wreath” or “crown” of some sort, in light of its parallel term “a glorious diadem” (‫רת צ ְב ִי‬ ֶ ‫ט‬ ֶ ‫ע‬ ֲ ‫ל‬ ַ i).218 Targum Jonathan has relied upon the phrase in Isaiah 28: 5 and interpreted the word as “kingdom,”219 as have some modern commentators.220 Both Rashi and David KimHi explained the tsephirah by appeal to an Aramaic word with the same consonants, ‫צפ ְרָא‬ ַ , “morning,” and understood it as a reference to the time of the com­ ing calamity.221 Modern philological studies of the word have appealed to 218 Isaiah 28: 5 reads: ‫עמֹּו‬ ַ ‫רת תּ ִפ ְאָרָה ל ִשׁ ְאָר‬ ַ ‫רת צ ְב ִי ו ְל ִצ ְפ ִי‬ ֶ ‫ט‬ ֶ ‫ע‬ ֲ ‫ל‬ ַ ‫ההוּא י ִה ְֶיה י ְהוָה צ ְבָאֹות‬ ַ ‫בּיֹּום‬ ַ , “In that day, YHWH of Hosts will become a beautiful crown, and a glorious diadem for the remnant of his people.” For discussion of the word’s meaning in this context, see H. Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39 (CC; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 5–6. 219 Targum Jonathan reads ‫אתגליאת מלכותא‬, “the kingdom is revealed” for both occurrences of the word in Ezekiel 7. 220 So R. Kraetzschmar, Das Buch Ezekiel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900), 74– 75, and A. Bertholet, Das Buch Hesekiel, 39–40. 221 Kimchi: ‫באה הצפירה – הגזירה באה לך בבקר – מתרגום בקר בצפרא‬, “the cĕ pīrāh has come – the decree has come to you in the morning – from the [Aramaic] translation of ‘morning’ (‫ )צפרא‬as ‘morning’ (‫בקר‬i).” Rashi: ‫בא ושקע מאור השחר‬, “it has come, and

Coordinate Related Texts in Ezekiel and Other Scriptural Books

203

the cognate Arabic verb tsafara “to braid/interweave,”222 and have led to the proposal of a hypothetical Hebrew (qatīl) noun with a “figurative” meaning, “a turn of events” or “doom.”223 It is exceedingly unclear, how­ ever, what such a word would mean in Ezekiel 7, where the tsephirah is an active personal subject whose coming is linked with an imminent cala­ mity.224 While this welter of suggestions has long existed in the interpretive tradition, none of them can be regarded as ultimately satisfactory. The tse­ phirah is directly connected to the editorial history of the oracle, and any hypothesis about the word’s meaning must provide a philological solution that also elucidates the chapter’s textual development. P.-M. Bogaert, who has been followed by Lust,225 has proposed that (1) tsephirah is a feminine form of the masculine noun ‫“ צפיר‬goat,”226 (2) that the editorial expansions are allusions to the visions of Daniel 7–11, particu­ larly chapter 8 (the vision of the ram and the he-goat, ‫ צ ְפ ִיר־הָע ִזּ ִים‬Dan 8: 5 ff), and (3) that they were added to introduce a veiled reference to the “insolent king” depicted in those visions (Bogaert 1986, 41–47). The “singu­ lar coming calamity” (‫רעה אחת באה‬, MT 7: 5b), i. e., the tsephirah, is a

morning star has gone down…” Interestingly, the Authorized Version of 1611 follows this interpretive tradition in its translation, “the morning is come unto thee.” This is likely due to the influence of medieval Jewish exegesis on the translators of the AV; see E.I.J. Rosenthal, “Rashi and the English Bible”, BJRL 24 (1940) 138–67. 222 R. Smend (Der Prophet Ezechiel [Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1880], 42) traced this philological sug­ gestion for Ezekiel 7: 7 back to G.B. Winer’s revision of J. Simonis’ lexicon, Lexicon man­ uale hebraicum et chaldaicum in Veteris Testamenti libros post J.G. Eichhornii curas denuo castigavit, multisque modis auxit G.B. Winer (1828, p. 831). This tradition appears even ear­ lier the revisions of the OG translation: Theodotian, πλοκη “woven work”; Aquila, συσ­ τολη, “contraction.” These are followed by Jerome, contraction. 223 This view is represented by most modern commentators: Cornill (Das Buch, 214–15), Cooke (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 77–78, 85), Greenberg (Ezekiel 1–20, 148), and most modern English versions: NRSV, NAS. The JPS Tanakh has opted for the second stage of the “figurative” noun’s development, and thus translated the word as “cycle.” 224 M. Masson, “Sepirâ (Ezéchiel VII 10)”, VT 37 (1987) 301–11, has offered a more recent var­ iation of the philological argument, hypothesizing a different meaning from the Arabic cognate root: it refers to a woven object such as a “lasso” or “woven cord,” which symbo­ lizes the Judean deportation. He is followed in this interpretation by Block (Ezekiel 1–24, 251–52). 225 P.-M. Bogaert, “Les deux rédactions conserves (LXX et TM) d’Ézéchiel 7” in J. Lust (ed.), Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation (Leuven: Peeters, 1986) 21–47; J. Lust, „Notes to the Septuagint: Ezekiel 7”, ETL 77 (2001) 384-–94. 226 Bogaert, “Les deux redactions,” 41–44. The morphological variation between feminine and masculine nominal forms is not uncommon in Biblical Hebrew, e. g. ‫אשם‬/‫אשמה‬, “guilt;” ‫גדר‬/‫גדרה‬, “wall”; ‫שיר‬/‫שירה‬, “song.” For further examples and discussion of such “gen­ der doublets,” see H. Bauer/P. Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testaments (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1922; Repr., Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1962, §62) and B. Waltke/M. O’Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990, 106). It is possible that the Syriac Peshitta also saw the he-goat here in its rendering tspry’ which could be vocalized as (1) tsephraya’ “he-goat” or (2) as tsaph­ raya’ “morning”; see Payne-Smith’s Compendious Syriac Dictionary, 483.

204

V. Expansions That Coordinate Multiple Co-texts:

reference to the “the insolent king … who will greatly destroy and prosper” (Dan 8: 23–24), and who is described as the “single horn” of the he-goat (‫קרן אחת‬, Dan 8: 9).227 Bogaert’s suggestion is important and opens up the possibility for a new solution. There are many more pre-existing connections between Daniel and Ezekiel 7 not mentioned by Bogaert, and these allow us to develop his idea into a more compelling and comprehensive solution. Fishbane has shown in detail how Ezekiel’s judgment oracles (especially Ezek 7), along with numerous other prophetic texts, were a direct source for much of the vocabulary and imagery found in the visions of Daniel 7–12.228 The announcement of the “end” (‫ )קץ‬and the “time” (‫ )עת‬are prominent in Eze­ kiel 7 (vv. 2, 3, 6, 7, 12), and in fact, these terms occur together as a phrase, “the time of the end” (‫עת קץ‬i), only in Ezekiel and Daniel in the entire Hebrew Bible.229 Another example is how the author of Daniel’s visions drew upon the imagery of the temple’s defilement in Ezekiel 7: 20–24 and 24.21. In Ezek 7: 24 YHWH says that “the pride of their strength” (‫גּ ְאֹון‬ ‫עזָּם‬ ֻ i)230 will be “defiled” in the coming calamity (v. 21, 22 ‫ו ְח ִלּ ְלוּהוּ‬i), and in 24.21 “I will defile my sanctuary, the pride of your strength” (‫לּל‬ ֵ ‫ח‬ ַ ְ ‫ה ִנ ְנ ִי מ‬ ‫כם‬ ֶ ְ ‫עזּ‬ ֻ ‫את־מ ִק ְדָּשׁ ִי גּ ְאֹון‬ ֶ i). Daniel 11: 31 draws upon these passages when it says the forces of the king of the North “will defile the strong sanctuary” (‫המָּעֹוז‬ ַ ‫המּ ִק ְדָּש‬ ַ ‫ו ְח ִלּ ְלוּ‬i). Such examples demonstrate that the oracles of Eze­ kiel, particularly chapter 7 and its description of the temple’s defilement, were an important resource in the composition Daniel’s visions. I propose here that these associations between Daniel and Ezek 7 moti­ vated the scribal expansions discussed above, by which scribes sought to show more clearly the precise role the king of the North would play in the unfolding historical events. This point is crucial in distinguishing this study from those of Bogaert and Lust, for it emphasizes that there was a pre-exist­

227 The reason for the feminine form of ‫ צפירה‬is unclear. J. Lust/K. Hauspie/A. Ternier, “Notes to the Septuagint: Ezekiel 7”, ETL 77 (2001) 384–94, on p. 385 argue that it is because the tsephirah represents the Greek people, but no parallel examples are offered. The feminine form may be explained as broadening of the term in Daniel, “goat of the flock” (‫צפיר־עזים‬i), the first noun (“goat”) being masculine and the second (“flock”) femi­ nine (cf. BDB, ‫עז‬ ֵ i). Another possibility is that because the tsephirah refers specifically to the horn of the he-goat in Dan 8, a feminine form was chosen to reflect the gender of the word “horn” (‫קרן‬i). 228 Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 482–95, examines in detail how the author of Daniel 7–12 draws upon specific vocabulary and phraseology from texts such as Numbers 24, Isaiah 10, 28, 53, Jeremiah 25, Ezekiel 7, and Habakkuk 2. 229 The author of Daniel’s visions has clearly drawn upon the language of Ezekiel 7 at this point: Dan 8: 17 “the vision is for the time of the end” (‫לעת קץ החזון‬i); 11.35 and 12: 4 “until the time of the end” (‫עד עת קץ‬i); 11: 40 “the time of the end” (‫עת קץ‬i). 230 I have adopted the variant reading attested in the OG τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτῶν instead of the ter­ ribly awkward MT ‫עזּ ִים‬ ַ ‫גּ ְאֹון‬, “the pride of the strong.” The strongest evidence for the ori­ ginality of the OG reading in 7: 24 is the parallel phrase in 24: 21, “the pride of your strength” (‫גאון עזכם‬i).

Coordinate Related Texts in Ezekiel and Other Scriptural Books

205

ing relationship between the two (namely, Daniel’s use of Ezek 7) which generated the expansions. The additions about the tsephirah are aware of this relationship, and are an attempt to identify the agent of judgment in Ezekiel’s oracle as the “insolent king” of Daniel’s visions (Dan 8: 23); he is the one who will carry out the defilement of the temple described in Ezekiel 7: 21–24. Further, the three expansions we saw in verses 12, 13, and 14, describe the complex role this king will play in the divine plan. The thrice repeated phrase “all its horde” (‫ )כל המונה‬is derived from the description of the armed forces of the king of the North, namely, his “great horde” (‫המון רב‬, Dan 11: 12).231 Moreover, the first and last refrains (MT 7: 12, 14) tell us that YHWH’s “wrath” (‫ )חרון‬will be turned “against all its horde.” Although the tsephirah and “its horde” are the divinely chosen agents of judgment against Israel, YHWH’s wrath will ultimately be turned against the tse­ phirah and its horde in the end. This is consistent with the depiction of the insolent king in Daniel’s visions, who after executing his role in the divine plan is filled with arrogance (7: 20–21; 8: 25; 11: 36–39) and is consequently destroyed (7.26; 8.25; 11: 45). Thus, the expansions introduce allusions to Daniel’s “insolent king” and represent his complex role in the divine plan as both an agent and recipient of God’s wrath. The expansions in the MT of Ezek 7 are wider in scope than any others in the book. They occur across a broad expanse of the oracle (Ezek 7: 1–14), and demonstrate a subtle exegetical awareness of the language and details of the scriptural texts involved. The profile of the expansions, however, is simi­ lar to everything we have seen throughout this chapter. Two co-texts demonstrate pre-existing relationships that motivated scribes to expand the text to nuance or create new connections between them.

231 In Dan 11: 10–13 the word “horde” (‫ )המון‬is used five times to describe the armies of the king of the North.

VI. Conclusions and Prospects In this study I have identified scribal expansions in the textual traditions of the MT and OG of Ezekiel and have laid a methodological framework for doing so (Chapter One). Having compiled the index of expansions, I cate­ gorized them according to a descriptive typology that is designed to high­ light their purpose (Explicitation, Elaboration, Harmonization, Assimila­ tion) and the source of their vocabulary (Chapter Two). Throughout the analysis of each type of scribal addition (Chapters Three and Four) I high­ lighted certain common features that contribute to our understanding of the methods and techniques of Jewish scribes during the last centuries BCE through the first century CE. In this concluding chapter I would like to consolidate those observations, compare them with scribal practices in other literary traditions, and highlight how they contribute to and advance cur­ rent scholarship on the history and development of the scriptural texts dur­ ing this period.

1. Technique and Presentation of Jewish Scribal Interpretation The main feature of the scribal modifications analyzed in this study is clear: they are additions that were meant to be incorporated into the received base text.1 This is attested by the fact that they are usually well integrated into the grammar and syntax of the existing text.2 The significance of this parti­ cular technique of scribal adaptation is worth exploring in its own right, but it also needs to be located within a larger spectrum of techniques by which scriptural scrolls, i. e., texts that represent an authoritative religious tradi­ tion,3 were produced, transmitted, and interpreted by Jewish scribes during the Second Temple period. 1

2

3

This is true of the textual plusses in both the OG Vorlage and the MT. The fact that the expansions in these distinct text-traditions share so many features shows that the types of scribal additions traced in this study were not particular to just one scribe or group of scribes, but rather were part of a larger and wider spread tradition. In other words, the additions very often have accompanying conjunctions (-‫ כי‬,‫ו‬, etc.) that link them into the syntax of the existing sentence. Exceptions to this point are quite rare (e. g. 6: 8; 26: 17a), and only serve to underscore the conclusion that the scribal expansions made to the OG/MT editions of Ezekiel were meant to be incorporated into the text itself. By using the term “scriptural scrolls” I am not assuming any fixed demarcation or official list of texts in a religious canon. I mean only to describe those texts that were perceived as having some level of religious authority in Jewish communities during the Second Temple period. Terms such as “biblical,” or “Bible” tend to import later developed conceptions of

Technique and Presentation of Jewish Scribal Interpretation

207

The techniques of scribal addition analyzed in this study reveal a preser­ vative orientation on the part of the scribes toward the base text they received.4 This is most clearly illustrated in passages that presented scribes with ambiguities or interpretive puzzles (Section 3.1 of Chapter Three). The response was always explicitation by means of small-scale additions made to the text. Theoretically, an equally effective solution would have been to reformulate the problematic text or remove it altogether. Instead, the text was expanded and made more explicit in order to narrow down its interpre­ tive possibilities, and these supplements utilized the grammatical slots already provided by the co-text.5 Such a technique reflects an attempt to account for the wording of the base text, yet without changing it. This is especially evident in the examples of textual revision by means of expansion: alongside the opaque or ambiguous sentence we find a rewritten version simply juxtaposed, free of the incongruities found in the original (see the discussions of 5: 16, 24: 14b, and 35: 14–15 in Chapter Three). The original sentence which generated the scribal clarification remains in the text. As Samely notes, such expansions, attuned as they are to the details of the base text, demonstrate a conviction that the text is to be accommodated.6 By means of expansion a new co-text is created which shows the “implied” meaning the text had all along.7 In other words, such clarifying scribal addi­ tions issue from an exegetical impulse. However, in contrast to omission or reformulation they also express a preservative orientation not just for the text in general but for its particular wording, which is retained. The mode of scribal addition as a means of accommodating difficulties in scriptural texts can be usefully compared with another way in which Jewish scribes could present their solutions to such interpretive puzzles, namely, in the compositions that have been called “rewritten Bible,” or “reworked Bible.” These texts contain accounts that display “a close attachment, either through narrative or themes, to some book contained in the present Jewish canon of Scripture, and some type of reworking, whether through rearran­

4

5

6 7

canon back into the Second Temple period when they likely did not exist. For discussion of this whole set of issues, see E. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999). The significance of this observation was made especially clear to me through A. Samely’s study of the exegetical function of additions in the Targum: The Interpretation of Speech in the Pentateuchal Targums: A Study of Method and Presentation in Targumic Exegesis (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1993). Samely’s words about Targumic additions provide a close analogy here: “[T]he new, addi­ tional text can be viewed as both conveying new information and as reflecting exegesis of the original wording. … The textual facts of the Hebrew are the datum: they are not to be changed. Accordingly, the Aramaic [Targum] accomodates rather than eliminates them. And it does so by creating a new co-text. Exegesis starts from the assumption that the text has a meaning as it is” (Samely, The Interpretation of Speech, 175–76). Samely, Interpretation of Speech, 176. As Samely says of Targumic expansions (Interpretation of Speech, 175), they bring “to the surface not what the words say, and not even what they mean, but what they imply.”

208

Conclusions and Prospects

gement, conflation, or supplementation, of the present canonical biblical text.”8 The Genesis Apocryphon, a well-known example of this literature, retells (in Aramaic) portions of the Abraham narratives in Genesis in such a way that it resolves many of the interpretive difficulties raised by the stories. The techniques of modification include additions, but also rearrangement, reformulation, and omission of details that present difficulties.9 While the author of this work was clearly attuned to the textual details of Genesis, the presentation of his exegesis took the form of a thoroughly revised version of the narrative. We also know that a similar work existed in relation to Eze­ kiel, evident in the fragments of “4QPseudo-Ezekiel,” which present oracles from Ezek 1, 30, and 37 in a similar fashion: reformulated, supplemented and expanded with interpretive material.10 Regarding the manner in which scribes could present the results of their exegetical traditions, the additions made to the Ezekiel text and the compo­ sitions called “rewritten Bible” provide something like two opposite ends of a spectrum. In terms of form and presentation, the techniques of scribal expansion explored in this study appear less drastic than the modifications evident in such rewritten texts as the Genesis Apocryphon. However, this formal contrast belies the fact that both types of scribal activity are rooted in a similar orientation towards these textual traditions. George Brooke explores this very point in his insightful essay on the relationship between reworked scriptural texts and their authoritative-religious status in early Jewish communities: The scribal practices of the latter half of the Second Temple period indicate that scribes were often more than straightforward copyists. As they copied they worked to improve the text in minor ways, through harmonizations, small exegetical addi­ tions, stylistic improvements, and so on. … It could be argued that even the multiple copying of scriptural texts themselves with minor stylistic and other improvements belongs to the spectrum of activity which is exemplified by the reworkings of scrip­ ture to be found in such texts as the Genesis Apocryphon … or Pseudo-Ezekiel. These reworkings have authority both in themselves as the effective means of main­ taining and enhancing the ongoing significance of the primary sources, and also

8

See S. White-Crawford, “The Rewritten Bible at Quman: A Look at Three Texts” in B.A. Levine/J. Naveh/E. Stern (ed.), Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical, and Geographical Studies (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1999) 1–8. 9 For details, see the classic study by Geza Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Hag­ gadic Studies (Studia Post Biblica; Leiden: Brill, 1961), 121–26, on the interpretive tradi­ tions and techniques evident in the Genesis Apocryphon. 10 For detailed studies of the 4QPseudo-Ezekiel manuscripts, see the earlier works of D. Dimant, “4QSecond Ezekiel”, Revue de Qumran 13 (1988) 45–58; “The Merkaba Vision in Second Ezekiel”, Revue de Qumran 14 (1990) 331–48. For the critical edition of the 4QPseudo-Ezekiel fragments, see D. Dimant, “Pseudo-Ezekiel” in D. Dimant (ed.), Qum­ ran Cave 4 – Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts (DJD XXX; (Oxford: Clarendon, 2001) 7–90.

Scribal Expansion in Other Literary Traditions

209

because they are derived from texts that are known to have or to have had authority in themselves.11

While the techniques and presentation of scribal exegesis evident in the additions to Ezekiel differ in scope from such reworked compositions, both are expressions of a similar attitude and orientation towards the text. It is precisely by the processes of interpretation, subsequent reworking and adaptation that traditional texts moved towards becoming more and more authoritative in the Jewish literary tradition. As Brooke notes, while expan­ sion or reworking of earlier texts may appear as introducing innovation into the tradition, “it is in fact a process that establishes identity through connec­ tion with and appropriation of earlier traditions, and so is an essentially conservative activity.”12 Scribes could present the results of their interpretive activity in multiple ways. (1) They could introduce and integrate the results of their exegetical traditions into the primary texts themselves by means of large or small-scale additions. (2) They could also create new reformulated compositions with a whole variety of relations to the primary texts (e. g. Pseudo-Ezekiel, Genesis Apocryphon, Jubilees). (3) Some scribal communities even presented their reworked compositions as new primary texts in and of themselves (e. g. Chronicles,13 the Temple Scroll). The additions in Ezekiel provide one small window into this broad and more diverse development taking place during the Second Temple period whereby certain texts became increasingly revered as they were re-appro­ priated, transmitted, and preserved within religious and scribal commu­ nities.

2. Scribal Expansion in Other Literary Traditions The scribal additions in Ezekiel are not an isolated phenomenon, and it will be useful here to briefly compare our findings with examples of scribal modification in another Ancient Near Eastern literary tradition that was 11 G.J. Brooke, “The Biblical Texts in the Qumran Commentaries: Scribal Errors or Exegeti­ cal Variants?” in C.A. Evans/W.F. Stinespring (ed.), Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis: Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987) 85–100, quote from pp. 98–99. 12 Brooke, “The Biblical Texts,” 99. 13 Brooke’s comments on Chronicles (“The Biblical Texts,” 89) in this context are insightful: “The books of Chronicles demonstrate that authority in a text is in part the result of it being a satisfactory reworking of the tradition. In other words, the reworking of earlier tradition may have been viewed by some Jews in the latter half of the Second Temple per­ iod as a standard way through which any composition might lay some claim to authority… Over against modern views of rewritings a self-evidently secondary and plagiaristic, in early Judaism such imitation with its own form of exegetical innovation was entirely justi­ fiable as a claim to the authoritative voice of the tradition.”

210

Conclusions and Prospects

subject to a similar process, namely the Gilgamesh Epic. As noted in Chap­ ter One, Tigay has done extensive work on the literary formation of the Gil­ gamesh Epic,14 which developed over the course of more than one thousand years. When one compares the Old Babylonian version preserved in Akka­ dian (ca. 2000–1600 BCE) with the Middle Babylonian versions (preserved in Akkadian, Hittite, and Hurrian; ca. 1600–1000 BCE) and the Late Baby­ lonian version (in Akkadian; ca. 900–600 BCE), a whole variety of scribal modifications can be isolated in the latest witnesses that are not present in the earliest editions. A large number of these consist of scribal additions, many of which are similar to the type we analyzed in the Ezekiel text.15 – Elaboration by Additional Adjectives or Predicatives16 – Elaboration by Additional Titles or Names17 – Elaboration by Additional Parallel Lines18 – Assimilation of Contextually Close Phraseology19 – Assimilation and Harmonization of Contextually Distant Passages20 When the dynamics of these scribal additions to the Gilgamesh Epic are compared with those of the Ezekiel text, the resemblance is striking. There are, however, some differences between these scribal traditions worth not­ ing. Alongside the large body of scribal expansions in the Late Babylonian version of the Gilgamesh Epic, there are also a significant number of instances where the late version contains shorter accounts due to scribal abbreviation and omission.21 The scribes who passed on the epic during these last phases of its literary formation also removed whole lines or

14 J. Tigay, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982). 15 For details and disussion of the following examples in Akkadian and English translation, see Tigay, The Evolution, ch. 4. 16 E.g. “the mother of Gilgamesh [is wise],” (cf. Tigay, The Evolution, 60). 17 E.g. “to the pure temple, abode of Anu [and Ishtar]” (cf. Tigay, The Evolution, 60). 18 E.g. “Uruk-land was gathered about it; [the land is gathered around it]” (Tigay, The Evo­ lution, 61). 19 “The Old Babylonian version of the elders’ warning to Gilgamesh calls them ‘elders’ before their speech and ‘counselors’ afterwards. The late version uses ‘counselors’ in both passages” (Tigay, The Evolution, 82). 20 Tigay discusses at length the way in which Gilgamesh’s two dreams about Enkidu’s arrival are thematically similar in the Old Babylonian Version, but distinct in terms of vocabulary and phraseology. In the Late Babylonian version multiple sections of the two dreams have been assimilated to one another: whole lines and phrases from the first dream have been imported into the second, and vice-versa (for details see Tigay, The Evolution, 82–90). Tigay also discusses three other examples of assimilated and harmonized accounts within the epic (see Tigay, The Evolution, 93–100). 21 For example, Tigay (The Evolution, 91–93) explains how the account of Enkidu’s arrival in Uruk has been “pared down” (p. 93) in the Late Babylonian version, so that only those ele­ ments remain which correspond with Gilgamesh’s earlier dream that foretold the event. He also discusses other examples of parallel lines that have been “telescoped” (i. e., shor­ tened; cf. Tigay, The Evolution, pp. 62–63).

Scribal Expansion in Other Literary Traditions

211

phrases, or reformulated and shortened whole sections of a narrative.22 In Tigay’s estimation, this entire body of modifications represents the “sense of clarity and aesthetics” of the scribes which compelled them to add, omit, and rework the tradition, even in its final stages of literary crystallization.23 In contrast, the primary technique of scribal modification evident in the lat­ est stages of the Ezekiel text was smaller scale addition of words or phrases, not large-scale omission, rearrangement, or reformulation. The above observation can be complemented by another. As Tigay noted, the scribes who transmitted the Late Babylonian version were very much literary contributors to that edition. This corresponds in some degree to the body of elaborating additions in the Ezekiel text. Though the scope and technique of these expansions is smaller in scale than the modifications in the Gilgamesh Epic, their purpose is similar, namely, to enhance the sty­ listic or rhetorical features of the text. However, a quick perusal of Appen­ dix II in the index will show that largest numbers of scribal additions are not elaborative. Rather, they were generated by particular or peculiar fea­ tures of the base text: unclear words, phrases, or grammar (Explicitation), the existence of parallel accounts (Harmonization), or the existence of dis­ tant co-texts with similar vocabulary or content (Assimilation). In other words, the vast majority of scribal additions in Ezekiel presuppose an exe­ getical process of some sort that issued in textual expansion. While this con­ trast is not total (there are assimilating features in the Gilgamesh Epic, and there are elaborating features in Ezekiel), there is a difference in proportion. A reasonable conclusion based on this difference could be that the scribes of the Ezekiel text contributed to the tradition most often (but not only) by responding to it with small additions. One gets the sense that the scribes whose work we have observed in this study leaned more towards the preser­ vative mode. Expansions are meant to be added and integrated into an unal­ tered base text. In contrast, the scribes active during the final stages of the Gilgamesh Epic’s development more often played the role of literary contri­ butors, and on a much larger scale, reshaping and reformulating the base text as much as preserving it. The comparison and contrast helps us see more precisely the balance between scribal innovation and preservation evi­ dent in the Ezekiel tradition.

22 Tigay, The Evolution, 72–73. 23 The whole passage is enlightening: “Variants whose language or style is no less ancient than that of the Old Babylonian version, which do not add clarity or more familiar words to a difficult passage, or stem from error, or update a passage theologically, would seem to be based on the subjective artistic judgment or taste of later editors” (Tigay, The Evolution, 71–72).

212

Conclusions and Prospects

3. The Scope of Scribal Expansion in Ezekiel It was noted in Chapter One that Tov claimed that the MT plusses in Eze­ kiel are not simply an amalgamation of scribal additions, but “they should be taken in their totality as representative of a literary layer.”24 Later on, in Tov’s discussion of multiple literary editions, he defines an “edition” as a set of “large-scale differences displaying a certain coherence … created at the level of the literary growth of the books by persons who considered themselves actively involved in the literary process of composition.”25 Tov’s explanation is similar to typical definitions of a “redactional layer.” In his discussion of the large-scale differences between the MT and OG of Joshua, van der Meer defines a redactional layer as a literary stratum in which “it should be possible to detect a coherent pattern of distinctive ideas and inter­ ests expressed by a distinctive vocabulary.”26 The plusses in the MT or OG of Ezekiel do not lend themselves to this kind of interpretation. While they do demonstrate common patterns of scribal technique, they do not display anything like a common ideology. Van der Meer’s further comments are relevant here: Not every instance of literary tension or repetition in the text points to a redactional expansion. This is only the case when a coherent pattern of distinctive ideas and interests expressed by a distinctive vocabulary is apparent. If the variants do not reflect a coherent pattern, there is no way of telling whether they are individual tex­ tual alterations or elements of an otherwise unidentifiable redaction. If the plusses in the MT do not express a distinctive theology and phraseology it becomes hard to argue that they are part of a literary stratum that should be distinguished from their context.27

According to van der Meer’s criteria, the only set of scribal additions in MT or OG Ezekiel that qualify as a “redactional layer” are the MT plusses in Ezek 7: 1–15, which are a unified set of expansions linking the judgment ora­ cle to Daniel’s visions.28 Other than these, the plusses in the MT or OG nowhere constitute a coherent literary layer. Moreover, the fact that the same types of expansions appear in the both the OG and MT of Ezekiel means that isolated instances of scribal expan­ 24 E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis/Assen: Fortress/Van Gor­ cum, 22001), 283. 25 Tov, Textual Criticism, 314. 26 M.N. van der Meer, Formation and Reformulation: The Redaction of the Book of Joshua in the Light of the Oldest Textual Witnesses (SVT 102; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 156–57. 27 van der Meer, Formation and Reformulation, 157. 28 This is not to exclude earlier stages of redaction and composition in Ezekiel’s oracles. The vision in Ezek 10, and the sign act in Ezek 4, to pick two poignant examples, have both undergone multiple stages of supplementation and redaction. Additionally, many of these types of additions are similar in kind to those attested in the MT and OG of Ezekiel. But because these stages preceded all of our text-witnesses, they were not considered in this study.

Coordinating Scribal Additions and the Emerging Scriptural Collection

213

sion have taken place in the OG text-tradition wholly apart from the devel­ opment of the MT. This does not, of course, prove that the MT plusses were not produced by one person or a group of persons. It only means that we cannot identify a common purpose or ideology among the mass of data. This point is also relevant for qualifying the important work of J. Koenig on scribal expansion mentioned in Chapter Four. His claims that scribal assimilation was an “activité méthodique,” pervasive throughout the scribal culture of second Temple Judaism was not borne out by the evidence of this study.29 We examined numerous cases where assimilation could have been carried out, but was not (see the discussion on prophetic speech formulae in Chapter Four). This means that scribal expansions, at least those found in Ezekiel, were not carried out in any kind of systematic fashion. Rather, they are evidence of what Fishbane has called “occasional scribal reflexes.”30 However, the conclusion that this kind of scribal activity was not systematic is not the same as saying it was not intentional. The scribes who produced the expansions in Ezekiel were clearly attentive to the textual details of Eze­ kiel’s prophecies, and their work shows every indication of careful reflec­ tion.

4. Coordinating Scribal Additions and the Emerging Scriptural Collection One of the interesting features of scribal expansion traced in this study was the source of an addition’s wording. In cases of scribal explicitation and ela­ boration (see Chapter Four), there was an even balance between additions that introduced entirely new vocabulary into a passage and those that drew upon terminology present within the co-text.31 Of particular interest are cases of scribal harmonization or assimilation between two or more related passages (explored in Chapter Five). There was no consistent pattern regarding the direction of assimilation: A passage could be assimilated to a text that came earlier in the book32 or later.33 This is significant because it 29 J. Koenig, “L’activité herméneutique des scribes dans la transmission du texte de l’Ancien Testament”, RHR 161 (1962) 141–74, on p. 162. See also his full length study, L’herméneu­ tique analogique du judaïsme antique d’après les témoins textuels d’Isaïe (VTSup 33; Lei­ den: Brill, 1982). 30 M. Fishbane, “Review of Jean Koenig, L’herméneutique analogique du Judaïsme antique d’après les témoins textuels d’Isaïe”, CBQ 46 (1984) 761–63, see p. 763. See also M. Fish­ bane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 84–85. 31 Of the scribal explicitations studied in Chapter Three, ten drew their wording from the cotext (5: 16; 10: 7; 12: 12; 20: 31; 24: 9–11; 29: 4; 34: 14–15; 39: 14), and nine introduced new vocabulary altogether (3: 14; 4: 6; 6: 12; 8: 17; 23: 38–39; 26: 17; 32: 20; 34: 16; 39: 9). Of the scribal elaborations studied in Chapter Three, six drew their wording from the co-text (18: 28; 23: 34; 24: 13; 28: 12; 31: 8–9; 44: 10), and seven introduced new vocabulary alto­ gether (7: 16; 13: 22; 20: 20b–21; 23: 32; 26: 21; 29: 20; 39: 28–29). 32 Among passages that were assimilated or harmonized with a distant co-text, nine were

214

Conclusions and Prospects

shows that a scribe’s awareness of parallel or associated texts did not result from simply rolling the scroll backward or forward a few rotations. Rather, such scribes were intimately familiar with the details and wording of the entire book, and were able to coordinate texts and phrases at any distance. This conclusion is underscored by the existence of so many inter-textual expansions that coordinate passages in Ezekiel with texts outside of Ezekiel. The distribution of scriptural texts drawn upon by scribes shows a clear pat­ tern, namely that Leviticus and Jeremiah provided the most common source for coordinating expansion. The following table will illustrate: Distribution of Inner-Scriptural Expansions Leviticus [6 examples]

Lev Lev Lev Lev Lev Lev

16: 6 > Ezek 45: 22 16: 13 > Ezek 8: 11 25: 36–37 > Ezek 18: 8a 26: 5 > Ezek 34: 25 26: 13 > Ezek 34: 27 26: 30 > Ezek 6: 4b–5

Jeremiah [6 examples]

Jer Jer Jer Jer Jer Jer

Daniel [5 examples, all in Ezek 7]

Dan 8 > Ezek 7: 5–7, 10 Dan 11 > Ezek 7: 12–14

Genesis [1 example]

Gen 1: 22, 28 > Ezek 36: 11

Exodus [1 example]

Exod 20: 18 > Ezek 3: 12–13

Deuteronomy [1 example]

Deut 4: 14–16 > Ezek 8: 10

6: 4 > Ezek 13: 10 13: 27 > Ezek 16: 23–24 15: 16 > Ezek 3: 1 32: 14 > Ezek 4: 9 32: 40 > Ezek 6: 9a 24: 9–10 > Ezek 4: 13b

That Leviticus and Jeremiah should feature so highly among the sources of scribal assimilation is no surprise. The relationship between Leviticus, parti­ cularly the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26) and Ezekiel is well known.34 The presence of so many expansions based on these chapters in Leviticus coordinated with a passage earlier in the book: 8: 2 assimilated to 1: 26–27; 10: 12, 14 to 1: 10, 18; 11: 12 to 5: 7, 20: 1, 3 to 8: 11–12; 21: 14 to 22: 5; 22: 2 to 20: 4; ; 38: 3–4 to 29: 4; 38: 23 to 28: 22; 40: 3 to 1: 7. 33 Ten passages were assimilated to passages later in the book: 1: 22 assimilated to 10: 1; 1: 23 to 3: 13; 1: 24 to 10: 5; 3: 23 to 8: 4; 6: 8 to 12: 16; 6: 10 to 14: 22–23; 13: 6–7 to 22: 28; 17: 20–21 to 12: 13; 24: 14 to 22: 5; 34: 31 to 36: 37–38. 34 See most recently, M.A. Lyons, From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code (LHBOTS 507; New York; T&T Clark, 2009).

Coordinating Scribal Additions and the Emerging Scriptural Collection

215

demonstrates not only an awareness of that pre-existing relationship, but also an attempt to further solidify the bond between these texts. The asso­ ciation of Jeremiah and Ezekiel has also been well studied,35 and regardless of one’s view of the literary relationship between these two prophetic texts,36 the scribal additions show both an awareness and an effort to further nuance that association. In every case the impetus for inter-textual expansion was the presence of pre-existing verbal and thematic associations between the two passages in question. These antecedent relationships are the key to understanding the generation of such additions, and this point is relevant to contemporary dis­ cussion about the shape of the scriptural texts in the Second Temple period. Eugene Ulrich has taken up James Sanders’ model of the “stability and adaptability” of scriptural texts within ancient Israel and Judaism,37 and has sought to apply these insights to the issue of revised literary editions, such as we have in Ezekiel.38 According to his text-model, scriptural texts were viewed as religiously authoritative within Jewish communities, and yet still open to modification in light of the experiences of those same commu­ nities.39 This description is helpful, and the dynamics of coordinating scribal expansion explored in this study aid in sharpening these theories. Textual shaping or modification was generated not only as a response to particular historical events.40 It was also a response to the reality of an emerging cor­ pus of literature held to be sacred by its tradents. One of the key historical realities in the life of post-exilic Israel was the emergence and continual con­ solidation of a collection of sacred texts.41 As the individual parts of the tex­ 35 See the discussion in W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1 (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 44–46, and H. Leene, “Blowing the Same Shofar: An Intertextual Comparison of Repre­ sentations of the Prophetic Role in Jeremiah and Ezekiel” in J.C. de Moor (ed.), The Elu­ sive Prophet: The Prophet as Historical Person, Literary Character and Anonymous Artist (Leiden: Brill, 2001) 175–198. 36 The most common view is that Ezekiel was familiar with and drew upon some form of Jer­ emiah’s oracles (see Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 46). H. Leene, “Blowing the Same Shofar,” holds the opposite view, that the book of Jeremiah was shaped and edited in dependence upon a form of the book of Ezekiel. 37 J.A. Sanders, Torah & Canon (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), and “Hermeneutics of Text Criticism”, Textus 18 (1995) 1–26. 38 Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 72–76. 39 See also the discussion of G.J. Brooke, “Ezekiel in Some Qumran and New Testament Texts” in J.T. Barrera/L.V. Montaner (ed.), The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March, 1991 (Leiden: Brill, 1992) 317–37. 40 Ulrich is uncharacteristically vague on this point, stating that scribes of the scriptural texts were “taking the tradition and repeating it faithfully but reshaping it creatively in the light of the exigencies of their current cultural situation” (The Dead Sea Scrolls, 74). What exactly these “exigencies” are, or how they generate scribal modifications is not spelled out in any detail. 41 For the most complete survey of current discussion about the emergence of a body of

216

Conclusions and Prospects

tual collection came to be viewed as an interrelated whole, it became desir­ able (even necessary?) to coordinate them by means of various scribal tech­ niques, particularly intertextual expansion, further composition, and innerbiblical interpretation, all of which reflect what Seeligmann called a “canonconsciousness” (Kanonbewusstsein).42 Stromberg makes this same point in his short study on inter-textual expansion in Ezekiel: “MT Ezekiel as empirical evidence shows how the editing of a book can be oriented toward a larger body of scriptural texts.”43 This type of coordinating scribal activity that attempts to consolidate an emerging collection of authoritative texts has a interesting parallel in the tex­ tual history of the Synoptic Gospels in the New Testament. While the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) each had distinct origins in the final decades of the first century CE, they were gathered together into a four Gospel collection (including John) at some point during the second cen­ tury.44 During this period and for some time after, the Synoptic Gospels in particular exerted a strong influence on one another in their textual develop­ ment and transmission because they overlap in so many places. Much has been written about the dynamics of assimilation and harmonization among the three Gospel traditions,45 and relevant here is the frequently made observation that scribal harmonization among the Gospels was not always intentional.46 Once the Gospel collection was consolidated and the texts

42

43 44

45

46

authoritative texts within the post-exilic Judean community and the Second Temple period see the essays in L. McDonald/J.A. Sanders (ed.), The Canon Debate (Peabody, MA: Hen­ drickson, 2002). I.L. Seeligmann, “Voraussetzungen der Midraschexegese”, SVT 1 (1953) 150–181, on p. 152. It is important to recognize that by using the term “canon” Seeligmann is not con­ necting his idea to the notion of an official list of documents. Rather, he simply means a body (not necessarily fixed or closed) of literature considered to be authoritative for a reli­ gious community. J. Stromberg, “Observations on Inner-Scriptural Scribal Expansion in MT Ezekiel”, VT 58 (2008) 1–19, quote from p. 18. There has been an immense amount of scholarly debate concerning which precise decades of the second century the four New Testament Gospels were collected and distinguished from other early traditions about Jesus of Nazareth. For summaries of the entire discussion see H.Y. Gamble, “The New Testament Canon: Recent Research and the Status Quaestio­ nis,” in L.M. McDonald/J.A. Sanders (ed.), The Canon Debate (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002), 267–294, especially 276–82, and M. Hengel, Hengel M., The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000), 116–40. For surveys of textual examples and scholarly discussion see the text-critical handbooks of K. Aland/B. Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Edi­ tions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids/Leiden: Eerdmans/Brill, 1987), 285–87, and B. Metzger/B. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testa­ ment: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York: Oxford, 42005), 262–64. See also the specific and very helpful discussion of J.K. Elliot, “Textual Criticism, Assimi­ lation, and the Synoptic Problem,” NTS 26 (1980) 231–42. See B. Aland/K. Aland, The Text of the New Testament, 285; B. Metzger/B. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament, 262.

Coordinating Scribal Additions and the Emerging Scriptural Collection

217

were read as an interrelated unity, a scribe’s familiarity with a story in Mat­ thew, for example, could unconsciously cause him to insert uniquely Mat­ thean material into a parallel narrative in Mark.47 However, many examples of assimilation or harmonization are certainly deliberate. As the tension concerning contradictions between parallel narratives in the Gospels began to grow in the early centuries,48 scribes were increasingly motivated to ame­ liorate inconsistencies.49 Thus, the emergence of a four Gospel collection generated a diverse set of scribal responses, ranging from harmonizing and assimilating additions to the production of new literary works that resolved such differences (i. e., Tatian’s Diatessaron).50 This historical parallel offers an illuminating analogue to the type of inter-textual additions attested in the Ezekiel text. As an emerging collec­ tion of texts is further consolidated and read as a inter-related whole, inten­ tional and unintentional scribal coordination is a natural result. Efforts to harmonize and assimilate are part of the inherent inertia of textual collec­ tions. As such collections begin to exert an internal force upon themselves, scribes immersed in the tradition demonstrate their assumption of its unity consciously or unconsciously by coordinating modifications. These insights have significant implications for our understanding of the final editorial stages of Jewish scriptural texts. This study of scribal additions to Ezekiel comes alongside the many other studies about the empirical evi­ dence of scribal modifications in Jeremiah and Samuel (see my discussion in Chapter One), and offers tools for studying the editorial history of scriptural texts which are not supported by the same kinds of textual evidence. Scholars have long been aware that the final compositional and editorial stages of the Pentateuch and certain prophetic books show this same characteristic: edi­ torial features that coordinate related passages or theological themes within a particular book or within the emerging scriptural collection.51 The expan­

47 For example, see the words “and be joined to his wife” in Mark 10: 7. The sentence is not present in the earliest codices, and could have been unintentionally introduced by a scribe familiar with the parallel phrase in Matthew 19: 5, or the source text in Genesis 2: 24. For discussion of this particular example see B. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 22001), 88–89. 48 On this point, see M. Hengel, The Four Gospels, 26–32. 49 For example, Luke 23: 28: “There was a written notice above him which read: This is the King of the Jews.” One finds in many of the earliest Lukan manuscripts the additional phrase “written in Hebrew, in Latin, and in Greek,” borrowed directly from John 19: 20. This example must be intentional because the language of the two texts is totally different at this point; see B. Metzger/B. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament, 262. 50 On which, see M. Hengel, The Four Gospels, 24–26. 51 For example, the work of J. Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977), and S.B. Chapman, The Law and the Prophets: A Study in Old Testament Canon Formation (FAT 27; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), idem., “How the Biblical Canon Began: Working Models and Open Questions” in M. Finkelberg/G.G. Stroumsa (ed.), Homer, the Bible, and Beyond: Literary and Religious Canons in the Ancient World (Leiden: Brill, 2003) 29–51. Both authors highlight the final compositional

218

Conclusions and Prospects

sions in the OG and MT Ezekiel show these same kinds of features and pro­ vide us with working methods and analytical categories to identify and study examples of scribal coordination that are not attested in the manuscript wit­ nesses. This study has also placed us firmly in the early development of Jewish scriptural interpretation, and shown the complex relationship between the transmission of scriptural texts and the interpretive traditions surrounding them. Early Rabbinic sources presupposed a clear line of historical develop­ ment between the scribes who preserved scriptural texts in the Jerusalem Temple and the body of exegetical techniques and methods known as the “teachings of the scribes.”52 This is precisely the connection explored by Fishbane in his work on scribal interpretation in ancient Israel, namely that the assumptions, methods, and textual knowledge expressed in later Jewish interpretation were firmly rooted in the scribal culture early post-exilic per­ iod: There need be little doubt that the intimate acquaintance of the ancient Israelite scribes with textual minutiae bearing on orthographic details and verbal and syntac­ tic sense increased over time … and contributed to the development of those exegeti­ cal methods which required exact knowledge of the full scope of [scriptural texts] for intra-textual correlations, combinations, and harmonizations. … [This repre­ sents] the full organic movement from technical scribal competence to comprehen­ sive textual knowledge, and from there to the role of the scribes in the development of textual exegesis in its diversity of techniques and concerns.53

The body of scribal additions in the OG and MT editions of Ezekiel places us within this same line of development. They contribute in a substantial way to our understanding of Jewish scribal practice in this period, and also confirm the general portrait of the scriptural text’s development supplied by the scrolls from Qumran and the Judean Desert. Embedded in the Ezekiel texts we find a deposit of scribal exegesis that is attuned to the details and ideology not just of Ezekiel but of other texts in the emerging scriptural col­ lection. These intersecting dynamics of textual interpretation and produc­ tion mean that studying the involved and often complex phenomenon of scribal expansion in Ezekiel places us deep into the seedbed of what will later become the large and variegated tradition of Jewish scriptural interpretation.

features of the Torah (Deut 34) and the Prophets (Mal 3), which bind the two literary com­ plexes into a loose editorial unity. Blenkinsopp has also applied this model to the composi­ tional history of Isaiah, “The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: Isaiah as a Test Case” in L. McDonald/J.A. Sander (ed.), The Canon Debate (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002) 53– 67, and Anja Klein has done the same for Ezekiel 34–39 in her Schriftauslegung im Eze­ chielbuch: redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Ez 34–39 (BZAW; Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2008). 52 See the discussion of the relevant Talmudic texts in M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 83–84. 53 Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 83.

Appendices Index of Quantitative Divergences between OG and MT Ezekiel that are most likely due to Scribal Expansion Appendix I represents a list of the MT or OG plusses considered for this study, listed in sequential order. This is not a comprehensive list of textual variants between OG and MT Ezekiel. For a discussion of the types of “non-variants” or “pseudo-variants” not included in the index, see Section 4.1 in Chapter Two.1 The “Category” label corresponds to the descriptive typology of scribal additions laid out in Chapter Two, and correspond to the abbreviations listed below. The “Example” label notes those texts which were discussed in the body of the dissertation. Appendix II represents the same index, but organized topically according to the the typological cate­ gories listed below. All texts with the label “MT+” mean that the words in brackets are not represented in the OG, or, when indicated, in the Syriac Peshitta.2. All texts labed “OG+” indicate that the words in brackets are not represented in the MT.

Key to Category Abbreviations: Cl-SemA Cl-GA Cl-SynA Cl-CA Exp Elab-Adj Elab-T/D Elab-Syn Elab-Par Elab-V1 Elab-V2 1

2

– – – – – – – – – –

Clarification of Semantic Ambiguity [Ch. 3.1.1] Clarification of Grammatical Ambiguity [Ch. 3.1.2] Clarification of Syntactic Ambiguity [Ch. 3.1.3] Clarification of Conceptual Incongruities [Ch. 3.1.4] Explicitation of What is Already Explicit [Ch. 3.1.5] Elaboration: Adjectival Intensification [Ch. 3.2.1] Elaboration: Addition of Title/Designation [Ch. 3.2.2] Elaboration: Addition of Associated Words and Images [Ch. 3.2.3.1] Elaboration: Addition of Parallel Phrases [Ch. 3.2.3.2] Elaboration: Additions with Vocabulary Derived from Co-text [Ch. 3.2.4.1] – Elaboration: Additions with New Vocabulary [Ch. 3.2.4.2]

For a comprehensive list of all the plusses, minuses, and other types of variants between the MT and OG Ezekiel, including see M.H. Goshen-Gottstein/S. Talmon/G. Marquis, The Hebrew University Bible: Ezekiel (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2004), or the introduction to the index of minuses in the Septuagint compiled by F. Polak/G. Marquis, see F. Polak, “A Classified Index of the Minuses of the Septuagint” in L.J. Greenspoon/O. Munnich (ed.), VIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995) 335–347. According to the critical edition of M.J. Mulder, The Old Testament in Syriac: According to the Peshitta Version-Ezekiel (Leiden: Brill, 1985).

220

Appendices

Harm A-PSF

– Harmonization among the Vision Accounts [Ch. 4.1.1] – Assimilation of Phraseology of Prophetic Speech Formula [Ch. 4.1.2.1] A-CCP – Assimilation of Phraseology of Co-textually Close Phraseology [Ch. 4.1.2.2] A-CDP – Assimilation of Phraseology of Co-textually Distant Phraseology [Ch. 4.1.2.3] A-NU – Assimilation of Related Texts within Narrative Units [Ch. 4.1.3] AEzek – Assimilation of Related Texts within Ezekiel [Ch. 4.1.4] AScrip – Assimilation of Related Texts in Ezekiel and other Scriptural Books [Ch. 4.2] ScrDittog – Scribal Error: Dittography [Ch. 1.4.4] ScrParab – Scribal Error: Parablepsis [Ch. 1.4.4] ScrConfl – Scribal Error: Conflate Reading [Ch. 1.4.4] ScrMarg – Scribal Error: Inclusion of Marginal or Supralinear Variant3 TrAbbr – Translator Abbreviation4 TrExp – Translator Expansion Alt – Alternate Textual Traditions5

Appendix I: Index of Scribal Additions Text

Category

1: 3

‫ היה היה דבר־יהוה אל־יחזקאל בן־בוזי‬MT+ ‫הכהן בארץ כשׂדים על־נהר־כבר ותהי עליו‬ ‫]שׁם[ יד־יהוה‬

Exp

1: 4a

‫ וארא והנה רוח סערה באה מן־הצפון ענן‬OG+ [‫גדול ]בה‬ καὶ εἶδον καὶ ἰδοὺ πνεῦμα ἐξαῖρον ἤρχετο ἀπὸ βορρᾶ καὶ νεφέλη μεγάλη ἐν αὐτῷ

A-NU

4.28

1: 4b

‫ ואש מתלקחת ונגה לו סביב ומתוכה כעין‬OG+ [‫החשמל מתוך האש ]ונגה בו‬ καὶ πῦρ ἐξαστράπτον καὶ ἐν τῷ μέσῳ αὐτοῦ ὡς ὅρασις ἠλέκτρου ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ πυρὸς καὶ φέγγος ἐν αὐτῷ

A-NU

4.28

1: 7a

‫ ורגליהם ]רגל[ ישׁרה וכף רגליהם ככף רגל‬MT+ ‫עגל‬

TrAbbr

3 4 5

Exam­ ple

For discussion of this type of variant in Ezekiel, see the thorough discussions of L.C. Allen, “Annotation Clusters in Ezekiel”, ZAW 102 (1990) 408–413. For explanation and examples of this phenomenon, see p. 110 note 18. This refers to instances where the OG and MT present divergent textual traditions, i. e., genuine variant readings. I have included in the index alternate traditions when they differ in quantitative length.

‫‪221‬‬

‫‪Appendices‬‬

‫­‪Exam‬‬ ‫‪ple‬‬

‫‪4.29‬‬

‫‪Category‬‬

‫‪Text‬‬

‫‪ScrMarg‬‬

‫‪ OG+‬ונצצים כעין נחשׁת קלל ]וכנפיהם קלות?[‬ ‫‪καὶ σπινθῆρες ὡς ἐξαστράπτων χαλκός‬‬ ‫‪καὶ ἐλαφραὶ αἱ πτέρυγες αὐτῶν‬‬

‫‪ScrMarg‬‬

‫וידי אדם מתחת כנפיהם על ארבעת‬ ‫רבעיהם ופניהם ]וכנפיהם[ לארבעתם‬

‫‪1: 8‬‬

‫‪ScrMarg‬‬

‫]חברת אשׁה אל־אחותה כנפיהם[ לא־יסבו‬ ‫בלכתן אישׁ אל־עבר פניו ילכו‬

‫‪1: 9‬‬

‫‪A-CCP‬‬

‫‪] MT+‬ופניהם[ וכנפיהם פרדות מלמעלה‬ ‫‪] OG+‬לארבעתם[ לאיש שתים חברות איש ושתים‬ ‫מכסות את גויתיהנה‬ ‫‪καὶ αἱ πτέρυγες αὐτῶν ἐκτεταμέναι‬‬ ‫‪ἄνωθεν τοῖς τέσσαρσιν ἑκατέρῳ δύο‬‬ ‫‪συνεζευγμέναι πρὸς ἀλλήλας καὶ δύο‬‬ ‫‪ἐπεκάλυπτον ἐπάνω τοῦ σώματος αὐτῶν‬‬

‫‪1: 11‬‬

‫‪ScrMarg‬‬

‫‪ MT+‬אל אשׁר יהיה־שׁמה הרוח ללכת ילכו לא‬ ‫יסבו ]בלכתן[‬

‫‪1: 12‬‬

‫‪Elab-V1‬‬

‫‪] MT+‬והחיות רצוא ושׁוב כמראה הבזק[‬

‫‪1: 14‬‬

‫‪Cl-GA‬‬

‫‪ MT+‬וארא ]החיות[ והנה אופן אחד בארץ אצל‬ ‫החיות‬

‫‪1: 15‬‬

‫‪A-CCP‬‬

‫‪ MT+‬מראה האופנים ]ומעשיהם[ כעין תרשיש‬ ‫ודמות אחד לארבעתן‬ ‫]ומראיהם[ ומעשיהם כאשר יהיה האופן‬ ‫בתוך האופן‬

‫‪1: 16‬‬

‫‪ScrMarg‬‬

‫‪ MT+‬על־ארבעת רבעיהן ]בלכתם[ ילכו לא יסבו‬ ‫בלכתן‬

‫‪1: 17‬‬

‫‪A-NU‬‬

‫‪ OG+‬על אשר יהיה ]הענן[ שם הרוח ללכת ילכו‬ ‫‪] OG+‬החיות[ ]שמה הרוח ללכת[‬ ‫‪οὗ ἂν ἦν ἡ νεφέλη ἐκεῖ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ‬‬ ‫‪πορεύεσθαι ἐπορεύοντο τὰ ζῷα‬‬

‫‪1: 20‬‬

‫‪ MT+‬ינשאו ]האופנים[ לעמתם כי רוח החיה‬ ‫באופנים‬

‫‪1: 21‬‬

‫‪ MT+‬ודמות על־ראשי החיה רקיע כעין הקרח‬ ‫]הנורא[ נטוי על־ראשיהם מלמעלה‬

‫‪1: 22‬‬

‫‪ MT+‬לאישׁ שׁתים מכסות להנה ]ולאישׁ שׁתים‬ ‫מכסות להנה[‬

‫‪1: 23‬‬

‫‪A-CCP‬‬

‫‪4.1‬‬

‫‪1: 7b‬‬

‫‪Harm‬‬

‫‪ScrParab‬‬ ‫­‪or ScrDit‬‬ ‫‪tog‬‬

‫‪222‬‬

‫‪Appendices‬‬ ‫­‪Exam‬‬ ‫‪ple‬‬

‫‪Category‬‬

‫‪Text‬‬

‫‪4.2‬‬

‫‪Harm‬‬

‫‪ OG+‬ותחת הרקיע כנפיהם ישרות ]משיקות[ אשה‬ ‫אל־אחותה‬ ‫‪καὶ ὑποκάτω τοῦ στερεώματος αἱ‬‬ ‫­‪πτέρυγες αὐτῶν ἐκτεταμέναι πτερυσ‬‬ ‫‪σόμεναι ἑτέρα τῇ ἑτέρᾳ ἑκάστῳ‬‬

‫‪1: 23‬‬

‫‪4.3‬‬

‫‪Harm‬‬

‫‪ MT+‬ואשמע את־קול כנפיהם כקול מים רבים‬ ‫‪] MT+‬כקול־שדי[ בלכתם ]קול המלה כקול מחנה[‬

‫‪1: 24‬‬

‫‪ScrMarg‬‬

‫‪ MT+‬ויהי־קול ]מעל לרקיע אשׁר על־ראשׁם‬ ‫בעמדם תרפינה כנפיהן ו[ממעל לרקיע‬

‫‪1: 25–26‬‬

‫‪Harm‬‬

‫‪ MT+‬וארא כעין חשמל ]כמראה־אש בית־לה‬ ‫סביב[ ממראה מתניו ולמעלה‬

‫‪1: 27‬‬

‫‪ MT‬ותבא בי רוח כאשׁר דבר אלי ותעמדני‬ ‫על־רגלי‬ ‫‪ = OG‬ותבא בי רוח ותקהני ותשׂאני ותעמדני‬ ‫על־רגלי‬ ‫‪καὶ ἦλθεν ἐπ᾽ἐμὲ πνεῦμα καὶ ἀνέλαβέν με‬‬ ‫‪καὶ ἐξῆρέν με καὶ ἔστησέν με ἐπὶ τοὺς‬‬ ‫‪πόδας μου‬‬

‫‪Alt‬‬

‫‪Elab-V2‬‬

‫‪2: 3a‬‬

‫בן־אדם שולח אני אותך אל־בני ישראל‬ ‫]אל־גוים[ המורדים אשר מרדו־בי המה‬ ‫ואבותם ]פשעו בי[עד־עצם היום הזה׃‬ ‫]והבנים קשי פנים וחזקי־לב אני שולח אותך‬ ‫אליהם[ ואמרת אליהם כה אמר אדני יהוה׃‬ ‫]והמה[ אם־ישמעו ואם־יחדלו כי בית מרי‬ ‫המה וידעו כי נביא היה בתוכם׃‬

‫‪2: 3b–5‬‬

‫‪Alt‬‬

‫‪ MT‬בן־אדם אל־תירא מהם ומדבריהם אל־‬ ‫תירא‬ ‫‪ OG‬בן־אדם אל־תירא מהם ואל תחת‬ ‫מפניהם‬ ‫‪ἱὲ ἀνθρώπου μὴ φοβηθῇς αὐτοὺς μηδὲ‬‬ ‫‪ἐκστῇς ἀπὸ προσώπου αὐτῶν‬‬

‫‪2: 6‬‬

‫‪A-CCP‬‬

‫] ‪ OG+‬ודברת את־דברי אליהם אם־ישׁמעו ואם־‬ ‫‪ +Syr‬יחדלו כי ]בית[ מרי המה‬ ‫‪καὶ λαλήσεις τοὺς λόγους μου πρὸς‬‬ ‫‪αὐτούς ἐὰν ἄρα ἀκούσωσιν ἢ πτοηθῶσιν‬‬ ‫‪διότι οἶκος παραπικραίνων ἐστίν‬‬

‫‪2: 7‬‬

‫‪A-CCP‬‬

‫‪ MT+‬ואתה בן־אדם שמע את ]אשר־אני[ מדבר‬ ‫אליך… פצה פיך ואכל את אשר־אני נתן‬ ‫אליך‬

‫‪2: 8‬‬

‫‪AEzek‬‬

‫‪4.16‬‬

‫‪ MT+‬בן־אדם שולח אני אותך אל־בני ישראל‬ ‫]אל־גוים[ המורדים‬

‫‪2: 2‬‬

‫‪MT+‬‬ ‫‪MT+‬‬ ‫‪MT+‬‬ ‫‪[