Of Kings and Reigns: A Study of Translation Technique in the Gamma/Gamma Section of 3 Reigns (1 Kings) (Forschungen Zum Alten Testament 2.Reihe) 9783161495410, 9783161511288, 3161495411

Citation preview

Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe Edited by Bernd Janowski (Tübingen) · Mark S. Smith (New York) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen)

30

Andrzej S. Turkanik

Of Kings and Reigns A Study of Translation Technique in the Gamma/Gamma Section of 3 Reigns (1 Kings)

Mohr Siebeck

Andrzej S. Turkanik, born 1970; 2002 PhD at the Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Cambridge; 2002–2005 Lecturer in Old Testament at Schloss Mittersill Study Centre, Austria; since 2005 Executive Director there.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-151128-8 ISBN 978-3-16-149541-0 ISSN 1611-4914 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe) Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. © 2008 by Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was typeset by Martin Fischer in Tübingen, printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

Preface This monograph has its origin as a PhD dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Oriental Studies at the University of Cambridge in 2002. This is the revised version of that study as a result of an ongoing interest in the subject. As far as possible I have tried to take account of the pertinent literature on the Kings/ Reigns relationship that has occurred since the original research was done. The completion of this project gives me the opportunity to express appreciation to those whose support has been invaluable. My initial work was done in the library of Tyndale House, Cambridge. It has provided not only outstanding resources for research and a very amiable space in which to carry it out (at probably the best place in the library: desk 16) but also the opportunity to develop friendships with other scholars working in the area of Biblical Studies during regular breaks for coffee and tea. It is these relationships that made the long process of preparation seem short. I am indebted to the then Warden, Dr Bruce Winter and the staff of Tyndale House for their kind help in many ways. I am grateful to Professor David W. Gooding for instilling in me an interest in things Septuagintal and to Professor Alan Millard for encouraging me to study the Books of Kings. Out of this combination came the present project on 3 Reigns. The course of my studies has been guided by Professor Robert P. Gordon. I am greatly indebted to him not just for terrific guidance and help in the technical matters of the work, but also for his gentle encouragement throughout the entire project. His kind “keep going” kept me from falling into despair more than once. I am grateful for his commitment to this project, beyond the finishing line, for his friendship and pastoral care. To Dr James Aitken, who supervised my research for part of the time, I express sincere thanks for his encouragement and valuable comments. A number of colleagues have read and commented either on the subject matter, or on my English, or both. They are too many to be mentioned but a few names of “sparring partners” should not be left out: Drs David Baer, Carol Kaminski, Richard Deibert, Radu Gheorghita, Simon Sherwin, Richard Smith, Peter Williams. Danice Lee and Grzegorz Turkanik have helped with the technicalities of the earlier draft of the manuscript for which I am most grateful. The J.W. Laing Trust provided me with a generous scholarship and I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to its Trustees.

VI

Preface

To the Staff, past and present, and Board of Schloss Mittersill I owe a word of thanks for allowing me to take the necessary time to research and write. I am grateful to my family who have shown their unceasing support in the process of these studies. My parents, Henryk and Antonina Turkanik, and my parents-in-law, Stefan and Elisabeth Rzyczniok, are to be particularly thanked for their prayerful support and help. My children, Stefanie, Philipp and Emily, are a special blessing from God and have helped me to realise that there is more to life than a Septuagintal project. I would like to thank the editors of the series Forschungen zum Alten Testament, Professors Bernd Janowski, Mark S. Smith and Herman Spieckermann, for accepting this work for publication. Dr Ziebritzki is to be thanked for not giving up on me in spite of the long delays and Ms Trispel for guidance in the process of publication. My deepest gratitude is reserved for my wife, Małgosia. Without her this project would have been neither attempted nor completed, and it is to her that it is dedicated with wholehearted affection.

Proverbs 18.22 Mittersill, Whit Monday 2008

Andrzej Szymon Turkanik

Table of Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIII

Chapter One

Introduction 1 I. Background of 3 Reigns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

II. The characteristics of the γγ-section of 3 Reigns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2

III. State of research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4

IV. The purpose of this study and the issues of methodology . . . . . . . . .

7

V. The sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

VI. Arrangement of the material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Chapter Two

The Translator’s quest for logical consistency in rendering the Hebrew text 11 I. Redistribution of material according to G’s convictions as to the correct, i. e. chronological, sequence of events . . . . . . . . . .

11

A. Transposition of larger parts of the text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1. Reorganisation of the material in 3 Reigns 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

VIII

Table of Contents

2. Reorganisation of the material in the Temple building narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a. Reorganisation of the material in 3 Reigns 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . b. Reorganisation of the material in 3 Reigns 6.3–8 . . . . . . . . . c. Reorganisation of the material in 3 Reigns 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Reorganisation of the material in 3 Reigns 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Reorganisation of the material in 3 Reigns 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . a. MT 9.15–23 is transposed to 10.23–25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Reorganisation of the material in 3 Reigns 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Reorganisation of the material in 3 Reigns 20 and 21 . . . . . . .

15 15 17 20 22 23 23 32 34

B. Transposition of material within verse units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 C. Borrowing (repeating) of material from other verses . . . . . . . . . . 38 II. Smoothing out the (perceived) difficulties in the text and/or difficult Hebrew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 III. Adherence to detail and precision of expression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 IV. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Chapter Three

Piety in the

-section

99 I. Reordering of material for the sake of piety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 II. Choice of vocabulary, omissions and additions influenced by piety

102

A. Piety in the Temple narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Materials used for the building of the Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Concern for the use of cultically appropriate materials in the furnishing of the Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. The problem of foreigners working on the construction of the Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Solomon at the dedication of the Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

102 102

B. Piety in the presentation of G’s conception of God . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Piety in the description of God’s sovereignty . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Piety in the description of God’s dwelling place . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Treatment of the Divine Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Piety in relation to God’s judgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

110 110 111 111 112

103 105 106

Table of Contents

IX

C. Verspottung in G’s treatment of foreign deities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Derogatory terms used for heathen deities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Inconsistencies in G’s use of denigratory terms for when referring to idols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 3. Avoidance of a polytheistic understanding of

114 114

D. Piety expressed in G’s concern for cultically proper conduct . . . ............................. 1. The treatment of the 2. Concern for the cultic purity of Jerusalem’s environs . . . . . . . 3. Piety in relation to vocabulary describing proper and improper sacrifice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Treatment of Elijah in his capacity as a prophet of the Lord . . a. Elijah is not residing outside Israelite territory . . . . . . . . . . b. G ensures that no magical actions are attributed to Elijah . . c. Concern for the complete removal of idolatry in Israel . . . . d. G defends Elijah’s actions as cultically appropriate . . . . . . .

117 118 118

116 117

118 119 119 120 120 121

E. The question of the anthropomorphisms in the γγ-section and their treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 1. Instances of reverential distancing in G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 2. Anthropomorphic features not amended . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 III. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Chapter Four

Treatment of the main characters in 3 Reigns by the translator of the γγ-section 127 I. G’s treatment of Solomon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 A. Whitewashing Solomon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Omissions of the text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Additions to the text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a. Solomon is a truthful, just and powerful monarch . . . . . . . . b. God answers Solomon’s prayers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Reordering of the material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a. Pharaoh’s daughter leaves the city of David and moves to Solomon’s palace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Theological amelioration of Solomonic actions evident in grammatical changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

127 128 136 136 141 141 142 145

X

Table of Contents

a. Avoiding the notion that Israelites were drawn into the levy and that there were overseers over the people . . . . . . . b. G reduces the amount of gold amassed by Solomon by conflating two events into one . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Enhancing Solomon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a. A higher number of compositions attributed to Solomon . . . b. G mixes measures, which results in a larger amount of food c. G suggests that all the nations came to see Solomon’s wisdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d. Hiram acknowledges the young king as an established monarch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e. G claims that the God of David is now the God of Solomon f. G attributes work entirely to Solomon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . g. Solomon’s wealth is great . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . h. A toning down effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

147 147 149 149 150 151 151 151 152 152 153

B. Judgement on Solomon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 Verses dealing with the greatness of the Solomonic kingdom are omitted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 II. Other Major Figures in 1 Kings/3 Reigns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 A. David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 B. Hiram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 C. Jeroboam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 C. Rehoboam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 D. Abijam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 E. Asa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 F. Nadab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 G. Baasha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 H. Jehoshaphat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 I. Ahab

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

III. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

Table of Contents

XI

Chapter Five

The Issues of Court Etiquette 193 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

Chapter Six

Summary and Conclusions 205

Select Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 Index of Scriptural References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 Index of Modern Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

Abbreviations [] A ABD ASV B BAGD BDF BETL BHK BHS BK.AT CBQ CUP Chr Dan DSS Ep.Arist. G HB HR HUCA ICC Is JAOS JBL Josh JNSL JSOTSup JSP JSS JTS K L LEH Lev LSJ

Reconstruction Codex Alexandrinus Anchor Bible Dictionary American Standard Version Codex Vaticanus Bauer/Arndt/Gingrich/Danker, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (2nd ed.) Blass/Debrunner/Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Biblia Hebraica (ed. Kittel) Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Biblischer Kommentar. Altes Testament Catholic Biblical Quarterly Cambridge University Press Chronicles Daniel Dead Sea Scrolls Letter of Aristeas Old Greek Hebrew Bible Hatch and Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (including the Apocryphal Books) Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary Isaiah Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Joshua Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Kethib Lucianic Manuscripts (boc2e2) Lust/Eynikel/Hauspie, A Greek -English Lexicon of the Septuagint Leviticus Liddell/Scott/Jones, et al., A Greek-English Lexicon

XIV LXX Mac MJS MS(S) MT NEB Neh NIBCOT NIV NRSV OBO OTG OS OUP Par Praep.ev. Ps Q Sam SBL SBLSCS SBOT TDOT VT VTSup WBC WUNT ZAW ZNW

Abbreviations

Septuagint Maccabees Münsteraner Judaistische Studien Manuscript(s) Masoretic Text New English Bible Nehemiah New International Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament New International Version New Revised Standard Version Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Old Testament in Greek, ed. Brooke, A. E., et al. Oudtestamentische Studiën Oxford University Press Paralipomenon Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica Psalms Qere Samuel Society of Biblical Literature Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies Sacred Books of the Old Testament Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

Chapter One

Introduction I. Background of 3 Reigns The text of Samuel – Kings comes to us in a variety of forms. Two of them, the Hebrew Masoretic Text (abbreviated MT ) and the early Greek translation, generally known as the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX ), are the main witnesses to the history of transmission of the Hebrew Scriptures. The MT , which is the standard text used in Biblia Hebraica (BHK ) and Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS ) editions of the Hebrew Bible, has as its basis codex Leningrad B 19A. Although it contains the entire corpus of the Hebrew canonical scriptures, it is not a very old manuscript, dating to AD 1008 or 1009. Our other main textual witness, LXX , was produced, at least the Pentateuch, in the second half of the third century B. C. by Jews living in Ptolemaic Alexandria. It was a remarkable achievement and without parallel in the ancient world.1 We do not have the exact dates when the Samuel – Kings (referred to as “1–4 Reigns” in the LXX world) translation took place, nor do we know where, but in any case we are dealing with a text in translation which is much older than the extant Hebrew manuscripts. The Dead Sea Scrolls’ text of Kings, although of much older date than the MT , plays only a marginal role in the quest for the original text of Kings. 5QK gs and 6QK gs are small pieces of text preserving a few verses from chapters 1, 3, 12 and 22; 4QK gs, though not containing much more material, may be helpful in recovering a part of the original text of Kings.2 Since all the textual witnesses have had a different text transmission history, they present us with different readings. The present state of the text leaves us in doubt as to whether some readings found in the extant manuscripts are part of the original or were added in the course of time. There exist a number of differences between the textual witnesses that have an effect on how the text should be understood and interpreted. Before studies on a literary level are carried out on the text, the practice of textual criticism helps to determine the status of the material we are dealing with. That kind of 1

Cf. Bickerman, Septuagint, 198. Trebolle Barrera, in Ulrich, DJD XIV , 183, comments: “The most important reading of 4QK gs is the preservation of a substantial original reading of Kings, lost by homoioteleuton in 1Kgs 8:16, but preserved in the parallel text of 2Chr 6:5b–6a and partially preserved in the Old Greek text of 1Kings 8:16.” 2

2

Chapter One: Introduction

study needs to be done over a larger portion of text so that the characteristics of the given text can be sufficiently evident. Only then is the comparison of a unit with its counterpart in a different textual witness going to bear fruit. Hence in this study we will discuss the research carried out on one of the translation units in 3 Reigns, namely the section.

II. The characteristics of the γγ-section of 3 Reigns Modern scholarship, following H. St J. Thackeray,3 divides the Samuel – Kings corpus in its Greek form into the following sections: 1 Sam (1 Reigns) 2 Sam (2 Reigns) 1.1–11.1 2 Sam (2 Reigns) 11.2–1 Kings (3 Reigns ) 2.11 1 Kings (3 Reigns) 2.12–21.43 1 Kings (3 Reigns) 22.1–2 Kings (4 Reigns) 25.30

The section of 3 Reigns, which covers the period of Solomon’s reign and the early history of the divided Monarchy, was identified by Thackeray as the work of a single translator, although Thackeray admitted that “two hands may have been at work”4 in it. For the purposes of determining the specific and distinctive tendencies that characterised the translator’s work only a section of unmixed style can be considered here. The section as it has been preserved in Codex Vaticanus (abbreviated B), contains, according to Thackeray,5 the Old Greek (abbreviated G), as do sections and , while the remaining parts of Reigns, and , contain a revision of the Old Greek tending towards the MT . That revision, as observed with . On the grounds by Barthélemy,6 translates the Hebrew word of evidence from the DSS , Barthélemy proposed that in sections of Reigns which underwent the revision ( and ), the Old Greek translation is reflected in the boc2e2 manuscripts (abbreviated L), called Antiochian and containing the Lucianic recension. This important group of manuscripts is an invaluable source of information not only on the state of the text in fourth century Antioch, but more importantly can be very useful in the restoration of the earlier text of Kings. This recension was most probably carried out by Lucian, a deacon in Antioch, who was martyred in AD 312. Lucian, preparing a recension for the Byzantine Church, was influenced by the Hexaplaric version but at the same time was using a text of apparently pre-Christian origin, bear3

Thackeray, Greek Translators, 263. Thackeray, Greek Translators, 263. 5 Thackeray, Greek Translators, 263. 6 Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila. 4

II. The characteristics of the γγ-section of 3 Reigns

3

ing similarities to Vaticanus. Traces of the Lucianic recension can be found in variants listed in the critical apparatus of the Cambridge OTG . Both these and the reconstructed Lucianic (Antiochian) text will be taken into account in the course of this work. The language of the section falls into the category of “indifferent Greek”, 7 according to Thackeray, which classification he used to describe a style between good Greek and a literal, unintelligent, translation. In terms of modern translation methods one would have to include it in the “formal equivalence” type of translation.8 In the section we are presented, as in other parts of 3 Reigns, with features peculiar to the Greek version of Kings. In chapter 2, after verse 35, we find two lengthy additions in the Greek text extending over a number of verses (35a–k, l–o), the so-called “Miscellanies”.9 They contain various statements about Solomon and his reign, some of which are not found in the MT at all, and some in other locations. Similarly, a few verses down, in 2.46a–l the third “Miscellany” is to be found. Later on in chapter 12. 24a–z another addition is encountered, this time dealing with Jeroboam and Rehoboam, and supplying an alternative version of the Jeroboam story.10 Apart from the aforementioned “Miscellanies”, a significant number of differences between G and the MT exist in the form of lengthy additions and omissions in G, with also substantial reorderings of material. Extending over the whole of 3 Reigns there are different chronological systems used in relation to those in the MT , Vulgate, Syriac and Targums. These problems and their relationship to the development of text in the so-called Deuteronomistic History will not be part of this present study. Since they are complex topics and each would require a study of its own, this work will refer to them only in passing.11 Nevertheless, it needs to be stated that generally the section translation follows very closely the Hebrew of our MT . It is possible, therefore, to assume a Vorlage not identical but similar to our MT .

7

Thackeray, Grammar, 13. Cf. Nida, Towards a Science of Translating, 165–76. 9 There are several detailed studies of the Miscellanies in 3 Reigns 2. Cf., Gooding, The Shimei Duplicate, 76–92; Gooding, text and Midrash, 1–29; Gooding, Relics. A different approach is taken by Tov, LXX Additions. 10 The problems of the Miscellany in chapter 12 have been discussed in a monograph by Talshir, Alternative Story. 11 For the extensive treatment of the problems of chronology in 3 Reigns, cf. Shenkel, Chronology. For the recent discussion of the Deuteronomistic History, cf., for example, McKenzie, Trouble with Kings, Knoppers, Deutoronomistic History. 8

4

Chapter One: Introduction

III. State of research There are two substantially opposite approaches to the problems of the textual history of the LXX . The first of them, pioneered by Paul de Lagarde,12 suggests that it is possible to reconstruct the “archetype” from the body of Greek witnesses. Then, it is argued, one could go on to reconstruct the original Old Greek translation. The second approach is that proposed by Paul Kahle.13 Kahle argued for multiple origins of the Septuagint, as is the case with the Targums, rather than one parent text. His “multiple translations” theory postulated that in the beginning of the translation process of what today constitutes LXX , various translations came into being, which, after a time, were combined into one commonly accepted version. Nowadays neither of these theories is accepted in its entirety. Certainly Kahle’s “multiple translations” idea has long since been abandoned. But also Lagarde’s view that the “Urtext” can be reconstructed if the three main revisions, by Origen, Lucian, and Hesychius, are compared with each other, is not seen as a way forward. This was inevitable simply because no reconstruction can make absolute claims to certainty. As with the question of textual history of the LXX , we can observe two different ways in which the problems of the reliability and condition of the text in 3 Reigns are handled. In recent years, following the discovery of the DSS and text traditions different from our MT , it is generally14 inferred that most of the differences between the LXX and MT are due to a different text tradition (Vorlage), rather than intentional, or unintentional, changes on the part of the translator. The translators, it is argued, generally were very careful not to depart from their Hebrew Vorlage, and represented the parent text faithfully, limiting their own creativity in the process of translating.15 This was due to the status of the Hebrew Scriptures in the translators’ community. Although maintaining the general Lagardian approach in relation to the Urseptuaginta, a number of scholars have developed a somewhat more balanced view on the reliability, state and quality of the LXX version of 1 Kings when compared to the MT . In the 1930s Montgomery16 pointed out that the translator performed exegetical work in his task of translation. Similar ob12

Lagarde, Ankündigung. Kahle, Geniza, 132–79. 14 Cf. the studies of Trebolle Barrera, Salomon y Jeroboam, Trebolle Barrera, Centena in Libros Samuelis et Regum, Trebolle Barrera, Redaction, Recension, and Midrash, Tov, LXX Additions, Talshir, Alternative Story, Pennoyer, Solomonic Apologetic (unpub. PhD diss.). Polak, Septuagint, attributes the differences between MT and G to a revision in G as well as (in parts) to its differing Hebrew Vorlage. 15 Cf. Brock, Translating, 90. 16 Montgomery, Supplement, 124–9. 13

III. State of research

5

servations came from Gehman17 and Wevers18 in the 1950s, Gooding in the 1960s and Gordon19 in the 1970s. Gooding20 maintains that the Greek versions contain a lot of midrashic elements which were inserted into the text either at the time of the translation or in subsequent revisions. Although such a practice was legitimate and in accordance with the hermeneutical principles of the time, nevertheless because of the midrashic influence in them the Greek witnesses are inferior to the Hebrew as preserved in the MT . That does not mean that the translator of the section was using as his Vorlage the MT as we have it today. But, as I hope to demonstrate in this present work, it was probably very similar to it. Although also arguing for a similar Vorlage, Schenker in his work Septante et texte massorétique dans l’histoire la plus ancienne du texte de 1 Rois 2–14, 2000, followed by a newer work Älteste Textgeschichte der Königsbücher, 2004, takes a different route, maintaining that the Greek translation has preserved a more ancient text. I have sought to interact with Schenker’s observations on individual points. It needs to be stated here that we differ methodologically. Schenker’s work is difficult, in fact, to interact with since he reads evidence selectively and does not deal sufficiently with the findings of other scholars. For example, throughout Schenker maintains that the tensions in the MT are proof of its secondary character, whereas the tensions in G are proof of its originality. Yet, he discovers these “tensions” in the texts without using adequate criteria and evaluates them in a way which is not open to discussion. Moreover, a further difficulty with Schenker’s approach lies in the confusion of the categories “possible” and “probable” in relation to the history of text transmission, which helps make his hypotheses unfalsifiable. In this study there has been an attempt to follow a different set of controls, which, hopefully, are methodologically more viable than those of Schenker. Another recent important monograph comes from P. S. F. van Keulen, Two Versions of the Solomon Narrative: An Inquiry into the Relationship between MT 1 Kgs. 2–11 and LXX 3 Reg. 2–11, 2005. As the title suggests, not all the section is included in the investigation but, as it stands, it is a major contribution on the relations between the two witnesses: the MT and G. Van Keulen’s attention to detail and careful analysis of the problems is outstanding and the result will be hard to outdo. There is, however, a methodological flaw in van Keulen’s approach.

17

Gehman, Exegetical Methods, 292–6. Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 300–22. 19 Gordon, Source Study, 59–70, Gordon, Second Septuagint Account of Jeroboam, 368–93. 20 Gooding has been advocating this theory in his many publications. The fullest treatment of the subject can be found in Gooding, Relics. 18

6

Chapter One: Introduction

As the basis for his examination, van Keulen adopted the Rahlfs edition of the text. The reason for this, we are told, is the lack of a Göttingen edition for 3 Reigns.21 As far as the general needs are concerned, Rahlfs is the most useful tool for the perusal of LXX material. For serious enquiry, however, the edition poses serious problems. Rahlfs’ intention was not to make a definitive critical edition, but rather to undertake the first step in such an enterprise. This is why the Göttingen edition with its full apparatus and a more nuanced attempt at reconstruction of the original text is a first choice for serious enquiry. Scholars have shown that Rahlfs’ attempts, although superior to other one-man enterprises, lack the precision of the Göttingen edition.22 Rahlfs himself understood his edition as preliminary and thus a helpful tool for “Studenten und Pfarrer (…)”23 but hardly suitable for detailed research. Thus, in the absence of a Göttingen edition for the historical books, one is best advised to follow the diplomatic edition of the Larger Cambridge Septuagint, (OTG). On page 181 of van Keulen’s study we have illustration of the problem of following Rahlfs’ edition. Van Keulen points out that “Rahlfs’ text here is almost identical with LXX B”24. Yet, even there we encounter slight variations which Rahlfs took over from Ms A. The critical apparatus in his edition, however, does not indicate this. Thus, unless one has access to the Larger Cambridge Septuagint, one has to assume a conjecture on the part of Rahlfs. Moreover, on a number of occasions it has proved difficult to follow van Keulen’s argument simply because of the difficulty in locating the given text, since Rahlfs’ edition follows its own text sequence.25 However, if MS B has preserved the unrevised text, the order of the text in B should be followed as preserving the more original version. Since many textual problems in 3 Reigns involve transposition of text, the most precise research tools should be employed. Rahlfs’ text, however, does not always follow MS evidence; it attempts to find the original sequence even if not based on extant MSS evidence. This criticism notwithstanding, van Keulen’s contribution is invaluable for his insights and the depth of his discussion. In the following I shall frequently refer to his findings, which are, on the whole, similar to my own.

21

Cf. Van Keulen, Solomon Narrative, 25. Cf., e. g., Folkert, Zwischen Hebräischer Bibel und Altem Testament, 111–2. 23 Rahlfs, Septuaginta, from Vorwort des Bearbeiters. 24 Van Keulen, Solomon Narrative, 181. 25 For the quite substantial differences in sequence between B and Rahlfs’ edition, see DeVries, 1 Kings, lx–lxiv. 22

IV. The purpose of this study and the issues of methodology

7

IV. The purpose of this study and the issues of methodology This present work on the text and transmission in the section of 3 Reigns seeks to examine the translation techniques used by its translator. Since the term “translation technique” is used in a variety of ways, the approach I shall take is an exegetical one. It is to be differentiated from the “translation technique” used by the so-called “Scandinavian School”,26 the representatives of which take a different approach: they generally do not see the possibility of distilling the translator’s ideological or theological persuasions. Inasmuch as the section, as Thackeray supposed, comes to us “free from these and peculiarities”27 (meaning the particles and prepositions peculiar to the sections of Reigns), this study will argue that it is possible to a large degree to discover the translator’s ideological and theological trends by careful analysis of his translation technique. The determination of the individual style of the translator of the section is attained by tracing the evidence of his “exegetical principles”28 and the presuppositions that he used in his work. The “exegetical section are, among others: principles” that Wevers29 has identified in the rationalisation and harmonisation of the text, and a tendency to elevate biblical heroes, especially Solomon, and to denigrate the enemies of Israel. Moreover, Wevers maintains that the translator could not justify the anthropomorphisms used in the MT when speaking of God, hence his emphasis on God’s transcendence. He sees evidence of theological and ideological alteration in passages which seemingly contradict the teaching of the Torah. Equally subject to our translator’s personal judgment are aspects of court etiquette which, when perceived as unacceptable in a particular setting, have been represented in a more acceptable manner. These claims about the translator’s tendencies will be examined and reappraised. It is difficult to make a distinction between the work of the translator on the one hand and the work of a redactor of the text, if we suppose that redaction took place, on the other. While Talshir30 argues for redactional activity lying 26 Represented by, among others, Soisalon-Soininen, Studien, Aejmelaeus, Parataxis, Aejmelaeus, Translation Technique, Aejmelaeus, On the Trails, Sollamo, Hebrew. The term “translation technique” is used by these scholars (almost) exclusively with reference to the grammar and syntax of the translation. Although in one of her recent articles, What we Talk about, 547–52, Aejmelaeus herself ventures into the area of theological aspects of translation technique. A useful essay on the questions of methodological matters relating to ascertaining theological components in the translation is Aejmelaeus, Von Sprache zur Theologie, 21–48. 27 Thackeray, Grammar, 10. 28 Term used by Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 300–22. 29 Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 321. 30 Talshir, Alternative Story, 248.

8

Chapter One: Introduction

behind the differences between the Greek and the MT , it is equally possible that these arise from the translator’s work. Moreover, the distinction between the translator’s input and his Vorlage seems to me, in respect of the material studied, difficult to maintain. I have decided, therefore, to use the symbol “G” for both the translator/redactor of the OG and the text he was working on. This study consists of a careful investigation of the text in both its Greek and Hebrew forms in order to identify and categorize the differences between G and the MT . Preparatory activity involved working through chapters 2 to 21 of 3 Reigns noting the differences and trying to establish whether they are based on a different Vorlage or whether they arise from the translator’s interpretation of his Vorlage. Only after work over the translation unit is completed in this manner is it possible to draw conclusions from the patterns emerging from the study. The approach to translation technique I shall take is an inductive one; the evidence has been discussed and decided on a case-by-case basis. The point of departure is the MT since it is the extant Hebrew text with which the Greek can be compared. Although we do not have at our disposal the history of transmission of the MT , it is given the benefit of the doubt in cases where it is somewhat unusual. This is deemed important owing to our limited knowledge of the transmission processes and the limited corpus of literature at our disposal. I have focused primarily, though not exclusively, on the quantitative variants between the MT and G and studied their relationship towards each other. The possibility of a different Vorlage has been seriously looked into in the majority of cases. However, with Goshen-Gottstein31 I do not think that where G has a differing text there is automatically a case for reconstructing of the Vorlage by means of retroversion. Regarding the evaluation of readings, Tov32 maintains that “(w)hile some objective aspects are involved in the retroversion of variants, their evaluation is completely subjective.” This holds particularly true of the text-critical rules lectio brevior and lectio difficilior which prove to be only partially useful in the quest for the recovery of the text of the HB . Thus Tov encourages the use of “common sense”33 in the process of assessing the readings. However, here the problem with the subjective opinions of scholars begins. So, for example, Trebolle34 argues that “Tendenzkritik is very much exposed to the fantasies and biases of each exegete.” Granted, the potential for exaggerated assessment of the facts is possible, but no critical methodology is free from the possibility of misuse. Trebolle fails to observe, moreover, that no enquiry is entirely free from biases brought by the scholar to the work; his own study, governed by 31

Goshen-Gottstein, Theory, 133 f. Tov, Septuagint, 217. 33 Tov, Septuagint, 219. 34 Trebolle Barrera, Redaction, 485. 32

V. The sources

9

presuppositions of redaction criticism, can be shown at times to be guided by a particular set of controls which are no less questionable than Tendenzkritik. Thus any critical investigation of a Biblical text using any method will mislead if misused. Wevers’ suggestions as to the principles used in the evaluation of small variants are still worth consideration. In his third principle he argues that “before a translation can be properly used in the text criticism of the text of a source language, one must fully understand just how and from what points of view this translation was done by a particular translator.”35 Thus the translator’s style of work and particular mannerisms have to be isolated and interpreted in conjunction with the rest of the translation unit. Therefore, it appears imperative that a systematic study of the whole of the section needs to be conducted before consideration of translation technique can be helpful in determining the original text of 1 Kings. Therefore I fully embrace Wevers’ statement that “(o)nly through such a process of understanding can one correctly distinguish between textual and attitudinal matters.”36 It remains in the nature of the study that a particular judgment of a particular textual feature could be understood in a different way. Thus as a rule this kind of study is open to the possibility that a different scholar will see things in a different light; it is, therefore, unlikely that definitive answers are going to be obtained either in this study or in others. In light of this, some features mentioned in one section can be, and in some instances will be, mentioned in different contexts elsewhere in the same chapter as well as in another chapter. Although we are in possession of several advanced studies of parts of the section,37 heretofore there has been no study of the translation technique that covers the whole of the translation unit. This work attempts to find out what, if any, are the translator’s theological and ideological presuppositions governing his choices of vocabulary and general treatment of the material.

V. The sources The main texts used for the research will be those of the principal editions: Codex Vaticanus (B) published in the diplomatic edition of Brooke, McLean, Thackeray, eds., The Old Testament in Greek According to the Text of Codex Vaticanus, Supplemented from other Uncial Manuscripts, with a Critical 35

Wevers, Versions, 20. Wevers, Versions, 21. 37 Concentrating mostly on the Solomonic narrative, for example, Trebolle Barrera, Salomon, Schenker, Septante, and unpublished doctoral dissertations of Duval, Salomon sage ou habile dans le Texte Massorétique et dans la Septante 1 R 2,12–11,43 et 3 R 2,12–11,43 (Strasbourg, 1990), Lefebvre, Salomon, le temple et le palais. Etude du troisième livre des Règnes de la Septante (Paris 1993). Van Keulen, Solomon Narrative, as the title suggests, is a comprehensive treatment of chapters 2–11. 36

10

Chapter One: Introduction

Apparatus containing the Variants of the Chief Ancient Authorities for the Text of the Septuagint, Volume II, Part II, I and II Kings, Cambridge, University Press, 1930. K. Elliger, W. Rudolph, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, Stuttgart, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983. N. Fernández Marcos and J. R. Busto Saiz, El Texto Antioqueno de la Biblia Griega; II, 1–2 Reyes, Madrid, Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 53, 1992.

VI. Arrangement of the material Our treatment of 3 Reigns is divided into four chapters, each dealing with a different aspect of the translation technique evident in the text. In most cases the presentation of the evidence both in the MT and G comes first. The reason for the inclusion of a fair amount of the original text is for the sake of convenience. For the same reason a translation of the larger units of text has been provided. For the MT the translation generally follows the NRSV whereas for G it is the translation of Sir Lancelot Brenton.38 Both of these have been modified at times to provide a more exact rendering of the text. Owing to the different numbering in the MT and G, I have included the verse numbering for each verse. The verse division in G follows that of the Cambridge OTG .

38

Brenton, Septuagint.

Chapter Two

The Translator’s quest for logical consistency in rendering the Hebrew text The text of the section provides us with enough information about the translator’s methods of work to determine the characteristic features of his translation technique. Apart from making sure that the major characters of the narrative were well within the parameters set up by G’s ideological and theological sensibilities, which elements are outlined in other chapters of the monograph, the translator had yet another distinctive focus in his work, striving to adjudicate what he perceived to be inconsistencies and difficulties in the text. Parts of it were evidently understood by him to be defective in some way, be it due to a faulty Vorlage or to linguistic difficulties, and G undertook to remedy this problem. Corrections which aimed both to represent facts accurately and to use easily understandable verbal expressions were effected by various literary and textual means. We shall discuss the different ways in which G dealt with various problems in the three parts of this chapter. The first part, dealing with the repositioning of the text in comparison with the MT , will be discussed under the following headings: 1. Transposition of larger parts of text; 2. Transposition of material within verses; 3. Borrowing (repeating) of material from other verses. The second part of the chapter will address the issue of direct amelioration of perceived problems without resorting to the transposition of material, while the third part will discuss the translator’s attention to detail which demonstrates itself in the adjustments made to the text.

I. Redistribution of material according to G’s convictions as to the correct, i. e. chronological, sequence of events A. Transposition of larger parts of the text Chapters 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 20 and 21 of G have material in a different location from the MT . We shall look into the possible reasons behind this differing arrangement of text.

12

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

1. Reorganisation of the material in 3 Reigns 4 Chapter four in G has a number of verses in a different location vis-à-vis MT . Following G’s system the verse order is as follows: G 4.17,18,19 4.20–21 4.22–24 4.25–30

= = = =

MT 4.18,19,17 5.7–8 5.2–4 4.9–14

3 Reigns 4.17 = MT 4.18 Beginning with verse 7 the reader is introduced to a long list of Solomon’s administrative officials. In G a good part of the text is difficult to interpret, probably owing to a damaged Vorlage.1 What can be safely retraced seems to follow the Hebrew fairly closely. What interests us here, however, is the issue of different verse order: following verse 16, in both the MT and G, verse 17 in G corresponds with verse 18 in the MT . G reads: , son of Ela in Benjamin. It is possible that G wanted to give prominence to the tribe of Benjamin over that of Issachar which has been transposed to the end of the list (verse 19 (MT 4.17)).2 We may ask why this should be so. The text itself does not give us any clues as to the reason for the transposition. We can speculate that G felt that Benjamin was more noble than Issachar and so should be mentioned first. Possibly the fact that for a period of time Jerusalem belonged to the territory of Benjamin3 contributed to the fact that overall the tribe plays an important role for the translator.4 We cannot provide any definitive proof, but it seems likely that in the presentation of Solomon’s officials G wanted to retain the “proper” order of listing of the tribes. 3 Reigns 4.20 = MT 5.7 Following MT ’s order we would expect verse 20 of the MT , a brief statement about the well-being of the people, to follow verse 19, but this verse is omitted in its entirety from G.5 Some have argued that since the verse’s content does not correspond to the material either before or after it, the order of verses in G 1

Commenting on the textual problems in G, Montgomery, Kings, 125, says: “vv.10.11a [in] the Grr. give a barbarous gibberish”. Other verses in the list are text-critically in a similarly poor state of preservation. 2 G reads: . 3 Cf. Joshua 18.28. 4 Cf. 70. 5 At least it is absent from the main body of text. A similar text can be found in the socalled Miscellany at 2.46a and g.

I. Redistribution of material according to G’s convictions

13

should be accepted as more coherent and thus more original.6 It is likely that G considered this text inappropriate at this point and so moved it to the Miscellany.7 However, there is a connection with verse 19 as well as 21 in the MT . This summary is meant to convey the spirit of stability in the country, which is run by efficient administrators. That is why the Hebrew has this text at this point. G, on the other hand, not only lacks MT 4.20 but has the next verse, MT 5.1, transposed to 10.30.8 Verse 20 in G corresponds to MT 5.7. G reads: , and thus the officers provided for king Solomon: and (they executed) every one in his month all the orders for the table of the king, they omitted nothing. As is evident from the text, in G the narrative proceeds from the list of Solomon’s officials to the actual description of their activities which runs to verse 21 (MT 5.8). As the common denominator in the story G presents the officials. At first, in verse 20, their general areas of activity are introduced and this is followed by the more detailed description of their responsibilities in verse 21: , and they carried the barley and the straw for the horses and the chariots to the place where the king might be, each according to his charge. But herein lies a problem: one would expect that material removed from one location is unlikely to fit into another without some adjustments, and this is the case here. G therefore adds as the subject of . Burney dismisses it as an explanatory gloss added by our translator to solve the difficulty in the Hecould not simbrew syntax.9 Burney’s argument is that the work of the ply have been confined to following the king and his horses wherever he went. Šanda takes a different view to that of Burney and argues for the necessity of the delivery of goods to the king outside of Jerusalem.10 In his opinion, it is 6

Cf. Burney, Notes, 47. Pace Kittel, Könige, 36–7, who argues that the opposite is the case. 8 Van Keulen, Solomon Narrative, 112, erroneously takes 10.30 (in his verse counting it is 10.26a) as a plus in G and argues that it “emphasizes Solomon’s supreme international position”. However, the text of G, , to a great degree is identical with the one of MT in 5.1. The slight difference is the change from , over all the kingdoms, to , over all the kings, which probably reflects the influence of 2 Chr 9.26, , rendered . That the passage in 3 Reigns has been revised according to the Chr is the conclusion of another article by Van Keulen, A Touch of Chronicles, which deals with our text. 9 Burney, Notes, 50. 10 Šanda, Könige, 96. 7

14

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

possible that originally stood after , and this would be supported by the context. Although we cannot prove what the Vorlage might have included, what we have in G looks like a text that either reflects a slightly different Vorlage or supplies a subject in the sentence in the place where it logically fits, thereby solving the problem by the relocation of the material. The second seems more probable. Verses 22 and 23 in G correspond to MT 5.2–3 which discusses the daily provision for Solomon’s court. Thus, so it seems, the material from MT ’s chapter 5 follows “logically” even though one verse is missing and a few are repositioned. But this logic is flawed: the extensive supplies of food required by Solomon’s court would have come, at least partially, from the vassal states, as MT 5.1 says. This is not so according to G. Here everything is provided by Solomon’s officials. Furthermore, MT 5.1 is found in G at 10.30 in the context of Solomon’s wisdom and splendour demonstrated by his commercial activities. By removing this information from its location and placing it in a different context the emphasis is on the Israelites supplying the food. Thus an additional confirmation is obtained for the statement of 4.20 (MT 5.7) that the officers let nothing be lacking. 3 Reigns 4.32–33 = MT 9.16–17a These verses deal with Pharaoh’s campaign in Canaanite territory resulting in the burning of Gezer, which was given to Pharaoh’s daughter as dowry. In G they are found in a different location from the MT . Immediately preceding them, at G 4.31, we find material which has been transposed from MT 3.1. Some likely reasons for this transposition will be discussed later.11 However, in our case there is a common motivation for the consecutive arrangement of the text as we find it in G. Verses 31–33 deal with the same topic: Solomon’s marriage to the Egyptian princess, followed by the question of her dowry. It is only logical that a precision-conscious translator would want to see these two events joined together.12 Gooding’s findings adequately explain G’s action: “… to the LXX the chief interest in the verse is the fact that Gezer was given as a dowry to Solomon’s wife; and since dowries are always given at the time of the wedding, the LXX ’s sense of timetable has dictated that the verse shall stand immediately after iv 31, which announces the wedding.”13 Van Keulen argues, moreover, that the location of the text in G serves an ad11

Cf. the comments on the location of 4.31 (MT 3.1) in chapter three, 100. Van Keulen, in his discussion of the narrative logic in G as compared with the MT , comes to a similar conclusion that the material in G has been reorganized and modified. Cf. Solomon Narrative, 76–9. 13 Gooding, Solomon’s Misconduct, 328. 12

I. Redistribution of material according to G’s convictions

15

ditional purpose: Solomon’s marriage to the Egyptian princess can not be argued as a sign of Solomon’s wisdom, as the text mentioned heretofore, but is its consequence; precisely because Solomon is wise he enjoys the popularity among the kings of the earth.14 Thus the logical consistency in G is continued in the rest of the narrative. 2. Reorganisation of the material in the Temple building narrative. There are certain issues in the texts dealing with the building of the Temple which G saw fit to rearrange according to its logic. They stretch over 3 Reigns 5–7. a. Reorganisation of the material in 3 Reigns 5 3 Reigns 5.17 = MT 5.32b MT has: So Solomon’s builders and Hiram’s builders and the Gebalites did the stonecutting and prepared the timber and the stone to build the house.

G has: And they prepared the stones and the timber (during) three years.

G lacks the beginning of the verse here (MT 5.32a). It can be found in G 6.3: , and the men of Solomon, and the men of Chiram hewed (the stones), and laid them (for a foundation).15 Along with 6.2 (MT 5.31), these verses were removed from their original location in the context of conscripted labour and transposed to the actual account of the Temple building project. As Montgomery has observed,16 the most likely motivation for the transposition was the desire to have the reported activities set firmly in the context of the building of the Temple, a motivation which is encountered in other places. The apparently faulty logic of the MT was easily fixed by positioning these verses after verse 1 of chapter 6 where the project is formally introduced. But the transposition has left our text stranded. In its (new) setting in G the verse has to be applied to a different group of people. Since the intervening verses (MT 31 and 32a) are removed to G 6.2 and 3, our 14 Van Keulen, Solomon Narrative, 72 and 98–9. Cf., also comments in chapter four, 156. 15 On the unusual renderings in this verse cf. chapter three, 105–6. 16 Montgomery, Kings, 139.

16

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

verse 5.17 (MT 5.32b) is preceded by MT 5.30 which speaks of the masters or supervisors ( ) who were in charge of those doing the preparatory work before the Temple building project proper could begin. Thus, in G’s version of events there is a problem. G 5.16 reads: , besides the rulers that were appointed over the works of Solomon, (there were) three thousand six hundred masters who did the work. Apart from the difference in the number of people between the MT and G,17 there is a difficulty presented by the fact that in G it is the overseers ( ) who actually do the work, as distinct from the people ( ) in the MT . Moreover, it is those same overseers, as has to be deduced from verse 5.17 immediately following, who ( ) , prepared the stonesand the timber (during) three years, which is factual nonsense. The overseers’ work by definition cannot be that of those who are overseen. The logic of G is therefore flawed. We agree with Stade’s comments on G’s verse ordering: “This arrangement is inferior; v. 32b is unintelligible unless it is preceded by vv. 31.32a.”18 Moreover, at the end of the verse we have the addition , but simultaneously the omission of , to build the house. The amount of time G proposes is most probably either a sophisticated calculation inferred from 6.1, or a guess from the context in order to have enough time for adequate preparation of building materials prior to the beginning of the project.19 Burney20 speculates that although the time span between the inauguration of Solomon’s reign and the request for wood from Hiram was most probably not very long, it would have taken much longer than three years to cut the necessary timber and transport it to Jerusalem. It is difficult, however, to see how this could be measured objectively and in consequence Burney’s speculation as to the origin of the addition seems unfounded. Regardless of whether one accepts his argument or not, there is neither textually nor exegetically any basis for G’s addition. , to build the house, is likely to be connected The omission of with the Greek equivalent of and may have to do with the fact that strictly speaking at this point the work was at the preparatory stage. In view of that the translator possibly thought of the wood as material suitable for the construction of parts of the house proper, but not for its foundations. Especially 17 G has , six hundred, instead of , three hundred, in Hebrew. Cf. the comments on this verse in chapter four, 147. 18 Stade, Kings, 83. 19 Van Keulen, Solomon Narrative, 290, argues that G has been particularly careful about exact chronology in the section dealing with the temple construction, though not so much in other sections, where individual themes have a higher priority than the chronology. 20 Cf. Burney, Notes, 58.

I. Redistribution of material according to G’s convictions

17

since 6.2 (MT 5.31) mentions the material used for the foundation as stone ( ), wood was probably thought of as best reserved for the later stages of the construction project. Moreover, there is no mention of any wood in G until verse 14 (MT 6.9) where the topic is the roofing of the Temple. Yet, since it is linked closely with the stones, this must have given rise to the idea that a general preparation of the work is what is referred to; this is followed by the section on laying the foundation of stone, beginning with G 6.2. Again, we can sense the harmonising activity of our translator behind the text. b. Reorganisation of the material in 3 Reigns 6.3–8 This section at the beginning of chapter 6 in G varies considerably from the MT . Verse 1 in both the MT and G informs us as to the time when the Temple building project began. Next in the MT (verses 2–3) come the measurements of the House of the Lord. Not so in G. We shall look at the differences between the two witnesses in more detail. 3 Reigns 6.2 = MT 5.31 G has only the second part of the verse as compared with the MT : ,21 and they were taking great (and) costly stones for the foundation of the house, and unhewn stones.

At the beginning

is missing. What is lacking in G is found in L MSS , . It seems that this is an attempt to keep the text

close to the MT . G has a further omission in this verse: for the MT ’s we have , so lacking the second , but this may be a stylistic matter in G. Verse 2 in G therefore speaks about the quarrying of big stones to be used for the Temple foundation while verse 3 deals with further preparations for the building project.22 In the MT verse 2 deals with the size of the Temple. However, since we are only at the beginning of the project this information might have seemed premature to our translator and so was removed to a different location (6.6), later on in the building process. 21

On the peculiar cf. 102. Van Keulen, Solomon Narrative, 130, stresses the fact that the whole section 5.31–6.1 in G was put together “into a continuous, logically ordered, account of the preparation of building materials and the foundation of the temple.” 22

18

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

3 Reigns 6.3 = MT 5.32a G follows the MT fairly closely in this verse.23 G’s text reads, , and the men of Solomon, and the men of Chiram hewed (the stones), and laid them (for a foundation). The parallel text in the MT is found in 5.32a.24 It is not the verse’s content but location that concerns us here. While G verse 3, continuing the story from verse 2, includes further information about the provision of timber and stones for the remainder of the building, MT ’s verse 3 further develops the theme of the Temple specifications, this time describing the size of the . But as in the previous verse, this must have been unacceptable to our translator at this point in the narrative and so he moved it to G 6.7. This move again suggests a conscious redeployment of material according to G’s logic. There is a problem, however, with its legitimacy. G’s verses 2 and 3, in their original location in the MT , are part of chapter 5, 31–32a and are imbedded in a different context, that of conscripted forced labour. Although they seem to fit well into the Temple building narrative, in the MT it is clear that this work was done at an earlier stage in the project, before the building work had begun. 3 Reigns 6.4 = MT 6.37 The transposition of this verse may well be due to the fact that in G’s understanding the account of the laying of the foundation for the Temple should be placed after the account of the preparation of building materials. According to this logic the obvious thing to do would be to put verse 37 after verse 3. Thus, continuing the logic, we have verse 38 following with the account of the finishing of the project. Moreover, verse 4 of the MT mentions windows that were made in the Temple.25 In G this is found later in verse 9. It was evidently considered out of place to refer to the windows in a construction which was still only at the foundation level. Equally, the transposition of MT 6.37 to its location in G is connected with the fact that in the mind of the translator the account of the laying of the foundation of the Temple should logically be placed immediately after the account of the preparation of the building materials. According to this 23

It omits the reference to the Gebalites, on which see 105–6. The second part of the verse (MT 5.32b) is found at 5.17. 25 The MT is difficult since it uses two technical terms both of which are somewhat hard to define. has been rendered as windows of narrow lights by the AV , windows of fixed lattice-work by the ASV , and windows with recessed frames by the NRSV . Burney, Notes, 62, suggests two possible translations: windows with frames closed in, or windows with narrowed frames. G has: , and he made for the house secret windows inclining inward. It seems that G was looking for an acceptable solution to the difficult Hebrew. 24

I. Redistribution of material according to G’s convictions

19

reasoning the obvious place for verse 37 was after verse 3, and so the chronology of events is safeguarded. 3 Reigns 6.5 = MT 6.38 In the MT verse 5 informs the reader about a structure built outside the Temple. G has it differently. Verse 5 in G, again stemming from later on in chapter 6 (verse 38), follows “logically” with the account of the finishing of the project.26 G reads: 27 28

,

in the eleventh year, in the month Baad, this (is) the eighth month, the house was completed according to all its plan, and according to all its arrangement.

This verse was placed after verse 4 (MT 6.37) with the intention of providing a rounded up short summary informing the reader about the beginning and end of the building project. Only now, in verses 6–7 (MT 6.2–3), the Temple’s specifications are introduced29 with MT ’s verse 5 finally appearing in verse 10. G’s arrangement of the verses can hardly be attributed to features in the history of transmission but should rather be seen as a result of careful editing of the text. Since the logic in the MT is not immediately clear, G’s treatment seems at first sight much more plausible. However, it is clear that in this arrangement G has utilised material removed from other places, uprooting it from its original context. 3 Reigns 6.8 = MT 6.14 G reads: , and he built the house, and finished it.

This verse renders the Hebrew faithfully with the exception that the proper name Solomon is lacking in G.

26

Cf. the additional treatment of this verse in the latter part of the chapter. G has a distorted version of the name for the month. MT supplies us with a Canaanite name for the eighth Hebrew month, , Bul. This was transcribed as , which could be an inner-Greek confusion of with , and is therefore a corrupted transliteration of the Hebrew. 28 G read both and as singular, rendering them as and respectively. 29 For the differences in details between MT and G, cf. Gooding, Temple Specifications, 68–72. 27

20

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

The verse has been transported to this position from MT 6.14.30 According to Gooding31 the phrase, and he built the house, and finished it, has been put into the text at the point which seemed more appropriate to the translator, as it does to the western reader of the story – that is, at the end of the particular building project. G has divided the story of the building of the Temple into smaller units: first of all we have the stone-work section, which is then followed by the wood-work section. The phrase and he built the house, and finished it, concludes the stone-work section in G. Not very successfully, however. As Gooding32 points out, the phrase in its present position in verse 8 does not conclude the section dealing with the Temple proper, because in verse 9 we have the mention of the windows, which were part of the Temple. Here we have an example of G’s work, attempting to circumnavigate the difficulty of stating that the building work was finished before there is even a mention of the building process in the text. Therefore it can be concluded that the transposition of verse 8 from its location in the MT is an example of exegetical activity on the part of our translator. c. Reorganisation of the material in 3 Reigns 7 3 Reigns 7.38 = MT 7.1 G reads: , and Solomon built a house for himself in thirteen years.

The whole section in G dealing with the construction of Solomon’s palace has been moved from its original place at the beginning of the chapter to its present location, after the passage describing the building of the Temple. Moreover, the reordering of the larger parts of the chapter is accompanied in G by smaller movements of the text. In the verse under consideration only the first half of the verse is here; , and he finished his entire house, is found , and Solomon in verse 50: finished all his house. As will be pointed out elsewhere, the most likely reason for the omission of this text here was the translator’s sense of piety and its suitability in this context.33 Moreover, it is possible that connected with the concept of piety was the translator’s desire to organise material in the most logical manner. From 30 Van Keulen, Solomon Narrative, 147, questions whether there is a true correlation between MT 6.14 and our verse and takes it as “a mere, albeit well-founded, assumption.” (Van Keulen follows Rahlfs’ edition thus the verse number he refers to in G is 6.3b.) 31 Gooding, Temple Specifications, 148. 32 Gooding, Temple Specifications, 153. 33 Cf. the comments on this verse in chapter four, 142.

I. Redistribution of material according to G’s convictions

21

the beginning of chapter 6 the narrative continuously develops the theme of Temple building. In the MT this continuity is broken by the “intrusion” of the passage describing Solomon’s other building activity, that of his own palace. In the MT this passage is located in 7.1–12. G removes this perceived intrusion by transposing the passage after verse 12. In G, therefore, chapter 7 begins with Hiram’s arrival at Solomon’s court, followed by a description of his contribution to the Temple building. Only after we learn in verse 37 (MT 7.51) , and the work of the house of the Lord which Solomon wrought was finished, which completes the Temple project, can the new project, and with it the new narrative, begin.34 3 Reigns 7.49 = MT 7.12 This verse deals with the outer, or great, courtyard. G reads: , round about the great hall (there were) three rows of unhewn (stones), and a row of carved cedar.

Although the first part of the verse is rendered faithfully, G lacks the second part of the verse, , so had the inner court of the house of the LORD , and the vestibule of the house. Trebolle35 argues that it is the MT that has an addition, which, in the process of Wiederaufnahme, was inserted into our text in order to provide a smooth connection between 7.1–12a and the following material. Trebolle thinks that the missing part has “little meaning in itself and even less in its present context”.36 However, it seems that Trebolle is following G’s thinking too readily and in consequence accepts G’s logic for the arrangement of material. It is true that G’s version, where the chronological note (6.4–5a) is followed by Temple narrative 1 (6.6–34) then by Temple narrative 2 (7.1–37) and finally by the one on the Palace (7.38–50), seems to be neater than the somewhat clumsy account in the MT (Temple narrative 1 (6.2–36), chronological note (6.37–38a, b), the note on the Palace 34 Van Keulen, Solomon Narrative, 113–41, devotes a whole section to the problem of the order of presentation of events and finds that G was motivated to change the order not only by its desire for logic and a proper order of events, but for other possible reasons. Van Keulen shows that already Josephus was concerned about the image of Solomon in relation to his building projects: “Josephus wanted to protect Solomon against the charge that he showed lack of piety in starting the building of his palace while not yet having completed the building of the temple.” Hence, Van Keulen argues that since Antiquities and G, although separated by time, come from the same exegetical milieu, the same motive is likely to lie behind the transposition of the text in G. 35 Trebolle Barrera, Redaction, 487. 36 Trebolle Barrera, Redaction, 487.

22

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

(7.1–12),Temple narrative 2 (7.13–51)). However, as we have observed earlier, G has a tendency towards, and a particular interest in, smoothing out irregularities in the chronological arrangement of the text. It is not surprising, therefore, to find a different arrangement in this place. It is most likely that the missing second part has been relocated, albeit in a somewhat changed form, to 6.34a (MT 6.36), as a plus: , round about, and he made the curtain of the court of the ailam of the house that was in front of the temple. Some commentators see this as a passage that has fallen out of the MT .37 Although possible, however, this is not the only option for explaining the text in G. It is best to take it as a transposition which, together with the rest of verse 34 in G, resembles the text of MT 7.12b.38 Since the narrative mentions the inner court ( ) and this was part of the Temple, our translator possibly thought that this reference fitted the context of the Temple building narrative better than that of Solomon’s palace, which had the great ). courtyard ( 3. Reorganisation of the material in 3 Reigns 9 3 Reigns 9.9b = MT 9.24 Both MT and G agree as to the first part of 9.9. It continues God’s word to Solomon in the vision at Gibeon, begun in verse 2 of chapter 9. However, the second part, designated as 9b, introduces a different text in G. The text in the MT is located at 9.24:

but Pharaoh’s daughter went up from the city of David to her (own) house that (Solomon) had built for her; then he built the Millo.

G’s text runs: , then Solomon brought up the daughter of Pharaoh out of the city of David into his house which he built for himself in those days.

There are at least two problems discernible in this verse in G. First is the issue of the text’s location in the immediate context. Second is the slightly different content of the text. Both these questions will be addressed to some degree lat37 Cf. Stade, Kings, 90, and Trebolle Barrera, Redaction, 487, who thinks that the ending of the verse was partly transposed to provide 7.12b. 38 Cf. Van Keulen’s discussion of the verse (in Rahlfs’ version it is 6.36a) and its resemblance of MT 7.12 in Solomon Narrative, 136.

I. Redistribution of material according to G’s convictions

23

er.39 For now we shall look at the first question, since it appears to be relevant to our current study. It is strange that G should insert the material regarding Solomon’s housing provisions for his Egyptian wife immediately following God’s damning words on the Egyptian bondage! This was risky. There must, therefore, have been particularly strong reasons for G to go to such extremes. These are elaborated upon in Gooding’s thorough investigation of the issues in this verse and will be referred to later.40 Gooding’s argument that it was very important for the translator to locate the note about the departure of Solomon’s Egyptian wife from Jerusalem after the announcement about the completion of the project in verse 1 of chapter 9 is convincing.41 Moreover, as van Keulen ably demonstrates,42 this verse, along with other references to Pharaoh’s daughter in G, shows signs of coordination between them for the purpose of achieving “formal correspondence” and this in turn provides, as van Keulen calls it, “narrative logic and transparency”. We could ask, of course, why G did not put the note in a different location, for example immediately afterwards, at 9.2. Most likely, the concern to retain at this particular point God’s conditioning of his blessing on Solomon was even more important than the issue of the chronology of events. Thus for G the concept of piety was higher on the agenda than chronology or logical timetabling. Only after this theologically significant passage has been introduced to the reader does the fulfillment of 4.31 (MT 3.1) immediately follow. 4. Reorganisation of the material in 3 Reigns 10 a. MT 9.15–23 is transposed to 10.23–25 The text of 9.15–23 in the MT deals with the issue of the forced labour which Solomon had assembled from the peoples living among the Israelites, who had been there since before their settlement in the land. At the outset, in verse 15, we are informed what building projects were completed using the forced labour, viz. the temple, Solomon’s palace, the walls of Jerusalem, and some cities, among which Gezer is mentioned. The following verse, 16 in the MT , gives an explanation how this city, originally Canaanite, became an Israelite possession. It had been captured and burned by Pharaoh, and given to his daughter, Solomon’s wife, as a dowry. The text continues with the names of more cities, this time storage-cities, and also reports who was drafted into the forced labour, i. e., the nations of Canaan. The Israelites, on the other hand, served as managers of this group. In G the story has a slightly different text. 39

Cf. comments in chapter four, 142–4. Gooding, Solomon’s Misconduct, 325–35, and Gooding, Text, 8–9. 41 But cf. Schenker, Septante, 88–9, who argues that the location of the text in G is based on a different Vorlage. 42 Van Keulen, Solomon Narrative, 62–9. 40

24

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

3 Reigns 10.23a = MT 9.15 MT reads:

And this is the account of the forced labour that King Solomon conscripted to build the house of the LORD and his own house, and the Millo and the wall of Jerusalem, and Hazor, and Megiddo, and Gezer

G reads:

This was the undertaking of the provision which king Solomon brought to build the house of the Lord and the king’s house and the wall of Jerusalem and the citadel; to fortify the fence of the city of David, and Assur and Magdan and Gazer.

In G’s version of events MT ’s verse 15 is removed to 10.23a where it stands within a different context. Whereas in chapter 9 the context is that of the forced labour, in chapter 10 the text is found in the context of Solomon’s trading operations. Not only is the context different, but also the content does not correspond to that of the MT . Before we address the problem of the different location, it is worthwhile discussing briefly the content of the verse in both witnesses. . As G reads , rendering is discussed elsewhere,43 lacks a proper translation. The typical equivalent is ,44 but not , which here most probably carries the meaning of store, provision. Moreover, is an unusual equivalent of . The question arises as to why the translation differs from the Hebrew. In 10.15 G uses , but the Hebrew word it is translating is difficult to determine.45 In our case, however, G lacks the term which would be easily under43

Cf. the comments on this verse in chapter four, 144. On the connection of = equivalence with the Mishnaic Hebrew, cf. Joosten, Biblical Hebrew, 12–13. 45 Montgomery, Kings, 229, follows earlier exegetes in accepting as a translation of , fine, which apparently was corrupted to . occurs in 2 Kings 23.33 in and is rendered by L as . The second occurrence is in Prov 19.19, though here it is not translated but by the verb , to fine with. Mulder, 1 Kings, 525, retains the MT on the basis of lectio difficilior. He follows Hillers’ findings concerning in Is 33.8 based on Ugaritic ‘unt, and argues that equally here the translation land tax is applicable. I follow Mulder in retaining the MT . It seems as though G read instead of , not because of a different Vorlage, but because it did not seem to make sense of the following text. 44

I. Redistribution of material according to G’s convictions

25

stood as referring to the forced labour and instead uses which fits well within the context of chapter 10. Schenker46 thinks, therefore, that G’s account is more coherent. He argues that the MT ’s account is flawed both in relation to its context and its content. This, Schenker argues, can be seen in the following incongruencies. – The text of the MT suggests that Solomon used the indigenous nations to build the Temple which in 9.15 is mentioned as the first building to be erected. It seems to contradict MT 5.27 where the reader is informed that the Temple was built exclusively by the forced labour composed from the Israelites. – In MT 11.28 Jeroboam is the overseer set over the forced labour from the tribe of Joseph. The work that this tribe was doing was, as the context suggests, primarily connected with mending the gap in the Jerusalem wall as well as building the citadel. This, says Schenker, stands in opposition to 9.22 according to which there was no forced labour from among the Israelites, and also 5.27 where Israelites were supposed to be involved exclusively in building the Temple. – According to the account in the MT the original population of Canaan did not pose any threat to Israelite dominion in the area, as they were involved only in construction of Solomon’s buildings. However, MT 9.16–17 implies that the Canaanite military might was strong enough to justify Pharaoh’s campaign against the city of Gezer. This, on the other hand, gives the impression that the Israelites were weak militarily, i. e., neither David nor Solomon were able to prevail against the Canaanites, in spite of the assertions of 4.4–5 and 5.17–18. It seems, therefore, that the MT is in conflict with what is rightly portrayed in G 10.23–24 – that the ancient people of the land were again militarily a threat to Solomon. – The comparison of the contexts of both pericopes leads Schenker to the opinion that the MT version is not well anchored in its context. This, he argues, is especially evident in the case of 9.14, which is erratically placed between 9.10–13 and 9.15–23. Moreover, the following paragraph 9.24–28 does not agree contextually with that of 9.15–23, of which the forced labour is the main topic. On the other hand, Schenker argues, the account of G is well integrated in its context. Whereas in G we have in 10.22 the report of the import of gold, silver and ivory, the respective location in the MT also includes, apart from the above mentioned articles, apes and peacocks. This, Schenker argues, changes the focus of the report from simply technical information about the delivery of materials as resources necessary for the building projects in G, to “illustrating exotic luxury of the king” in the MT .47 This and other issues have persuaded 46 47

Schenker, Septante, 45–59 (47). Schenker, Septante, 57.

26

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

Schenker that G’s story is more coherent and thus should be regarded as the better text. However, Schenker’s assertions are methodologically difficult to verify. We shall try to examine whether the problems with the coherence of the MT ’s narrative which Schenker suggests are valid. The first two issues are connected as they involve an apparent conflict of statements in two parts of the narrative. In the first case it is the contents of 9.15 which clash with 5.27 in relation to the non-Israelites involved in the construction of the Temple, and in the second case the tension between 11.28 and 9.22 on the issue whether the Israelites were drawn into the forced labour or were free from it. Though there is a certain tension between these texts, it is by no means as irresolvable as Schenker claims. Indeed, for a long time scholars have disagreed on whether these texts are reconcilable or not.48 It seems that the clue to solving the riddle of this passage is linked to the question whether there is used in MT 4.6; 5.27; 9.15 and 12.18 on the a difference in the meaning of one hand, and in MT 9.21 (G 10.24c) on the other. The first expression seems to carry the ordinary meaning of forced labour, tribute, tax, whereas the second is a forced levy of slaves49 or state slavery.50 Furthermore, is connected with the second term used in relation to it, i. e., . This word is used very seldom in the HB , only in 1 Kings 11.28, Neh 4.11 and Ps 81.7. Outside 1 Kings it describes the burden bearer, but in our context it has a similar meaning to that of . Taken this way, those subjected to were clearly Canaanites only; MT 9.22 stresses the fact that no Israelites were made slaves. However, Provan51 sees two groups in MT 5.27–32 and 9.15–23. He argues that the thirty thousand workers taken in 5.27 are the Canaanite population. The second group, a hundred and fifty thousand, is that of the Israelites, mentioned as a distinct group in 5.29–31, which is later referred to in 11.28 and 12.3–4. Provan claims that this latter group is never referred to using the word and so in this way sees the solution to the problem. Yet, Provan may be reading too much into the text. Granted, it is probable that the two groups are not identical. However, it seems likely that those referred to in MT 5.27 are the Israelites who were a short-term forced labour, whereas the hundred and fifty thousand were composed of Canaanites. Moreover, there is a precedent for using forced labour out of Israel before the time

48 For the first option cf., for example, Gray, 1 & 2 Kings, 155, Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, I, 157–9, Keil, Kings, 62–3, Mettinger, Solomonic State Officials, 133–4, Šanda, Könige, 107. However, Kittel, Könige, 87, Burney, Notes, 40, Montgomery, Kings, 209, think that this is not the case. 49 Cf. Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, I, 158. 50 Cf. Mulder, 1 Kings, 219. 51 Provan, 1 & 2 Kings, 65.

I. Redistribution of material according to G’s convictions

27

of Solomon. It was during the time of David that was employed.52 Thus we do not have the need to justify Solomon’s actions here. However, G may have had a particular problem with this statement. The reason why G was cautious about this difficult passage was that there may not have been such a clear-cut distinction visible between the two groups, so G feared that Solomon would be seen as breaking the Law which, in Lev 25.39, prohibits one from taking a Hebrew slave. Yet the MT is painfully honest in presenting the facts. It does not conceal the fact that although Solomon did not take his people as life-long slaves, as was clearly the case with the autochthonous population, nevertheless he did not shy away from temporarily using a large part of the population for projects requiring vast human resources. Schenker’s argument that Solomon used foreigners to build the Temple, then, is not tenable. If, with a number of scholars,53 we take it that the refers only to the Israelites, who were required by the kingly edict to work four months of the year on Solomon’s building sites, there is no conflict with 9.15. For in 9.15 it is the same group, the Israelites, that is referred to. Only in 9.21 do we find the mention of the sec. It is, therefore, most probable that ond group of forced labourers, the Solomon had the Israelites working on the Temple and his palace, while the Canaanite slave-workers were busy building Solomon’s fortifications. In any case, Schenker’s argument is largely one from silence and can be therefore dismissed as not plausible. The third point raised by Schenker is that there is an incoherence in the narrative owing to the location of MT ’s 9.16. Schenker argues that MT ’s verses 16–17 imply a powerful opposition of the local population which required a military strength greater than that of Solomon to subdue the locals, i. e., it was nothing less than the might of the Egyptian army which finally pacified Gezer. However, the MT ’s text does not seem to produce difficulty on a literary level. Since the end of verse 15 mentions Gezer as one of the cities which Solomon built, or re-built, it is only natural that the history of this formerly Philistine territory is explained to the reader. Especially so, as its history is not typical of other Canaanite cities. In fact, the verse does not address the question of Solomon’s military might, or that of the Philistines. What is important to the narrator is the sheer fact of the city being given as a dowry to Solomon’s wife and this makes for its significance. Moreover, the argument that Schenker introduces, that G rightly emphasises the fact of Philistine military strength in 10.23–24, is difficult to sustain. It will be helpful to look at the text: 3 Reigns 10.24 = MT 9.19b This verse in G is a continuation of 9.19a in the MT (in brackets). 52 53

Cf. 2 Sam 20.24. Cf. Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, I, 158–9, Mulder, 1 Kings, 219, House, Kings, 124.

28

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

] [ [and all Solomon’s storage cities, and the cities for his chariots, and the cities for his cavalry,] and whatever Solomon desired to build, in Jerusalem, and in Lebanon, and in all the land of his dominion.

G reads: . And the work of Solomon which he undertook to build in Jerusalem and in all the land (so that) no (one would) rule over him.

The issue of the unusual equivalents as well as the omission in this verse will be addressed elsewhere.54 The next problem in the verse seems to be the sentence division. Stade55 is followed by most exegetes in his assertion that we have here “a misunderstanding due to the beginning of the following verse being misjoined to the last clause of v. 19.” And so what Schenker sees as a clear statement reflecting a different view of the Solomonic military strength versus the rebel Canaanite forces, can be explained as a mechanical error. I with of agree with Montgomery who argues that G connected the next verse as its subject, taking the “as though with prefixed = ”,56 which resulted in the Greek text reading . Thus it can be argued that, far from G having the better text, the MT preserves the more coherent narrative. It is possible that the mechanical error, which seems a plausible explanation for G, has been used by the later redactor since it in some way provides an attractive interpretation, howbeit different from the MT and, I would argue, inferior to it. The fourth point raised by Schenker deals with the alleged misplacement of verse 14 in the MT narrative. The text reads: And Hiram had sent to the king one hundred and twenty talents of gold.

Its translation is as follows: And Hiram brought to Solomon a hundred and twenty talents of gold.

The differences between the two texts are discussed elsewhere.57 At this point what interests us is the location. In both witnesses verse 14 follows the information about the payment for the wood which Solomon received from Hiram 54

Cf. the comments on this verse below, 66. Stade, Kings, 112. 56 Montgomery, Kings, 214. 57 Cf. the discussion of this verse in chapter four, 147–8. 55

I. Redistribution of material according to G’s convictions

29

for the building of the Temple and his palace. Hiram’s payment was the cities in Galilee, which he did not consider a fair deal. After this comes in the MT the statement that Hiram had sent to Solomon a hundred and twenty talents of gold. This statement in G is found in the same location but is followed by verse 26 which deals with Solomon’s imports. Schenker does not outline the reasons for his comment, but merely states that the position of verse 14 is “erratic”58 in view of the immediately following material. In the MT it is the account of the forced labour that joins to verse 14 and Schenker sees this as an improper connection. However, the value of verse 14 in its context is as follows. Earlier on in the narrative we are informed that Solomon entered into business relations with Hiram. The context implies that Solomon was satisfied with the deal, unlike Hiram who, in verse 13, complains to Solomon about the uselessness of the cities that he had obtained. Yet in verse 14 Solomon receives more gold from Hiram. This is certainly not a wrong location for the note since it stresses the fact that Solomon had the upper hand in the transactions and thus shows his “wisdom” in dealings with business partners.59 Moreover, it may be that the text wants to emphasise the fact of Solomon’s successful reign, even though not everybody is a beneficiary in the same measure as the king himself. The theme of gathering gold is a recurring one in the MT 60 and constitutes the narrator’s judgement on Solomon’s excessive collection of it. But this may have been the very reason why the translator was not happy with its location and so we have a different topic following in G. In order to see the connection between the two witnesses, it will be helpful at this point to trace the path G took. What followed verse 14 in the MT has been transposed to 10.23a, and this we have discussed earlier on. MT ’s 9.16–17a is found in 4.32–33, and likely reasons for this location have been proposed elsewhere.61 So now we turn to the following verses. They, too, are found scattered in G. 10.23b = MT 9.17b–19a MT has: 62

17b 18 19

58

Schenker, Septante, 57. Cf. Brueggemann, Kings, 123–4. 60 Cf. for example, 9.28; 10.2,10–11,14,16–18,21–22,25. 61 Cf. above, 14. 62 is missing in the main body of text in G; 2.35i has it as literation of the Hebrew. 59

, which is a trans-

30

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

And Lower Beth-horon, (18) And Baalath, and Tamar in the wilderness, in the land, (19) and all Solomon’s storage cities, and the cities for his chariots, and the cities for his cavalry, [and whatever Solomon desired to build, in Jerusalem, and in Lebanon, and in all the land of his dominion.]

G has:

And Baethoron the upper and Iethermath and all the cities of the chariots and all the cities of the horsemen.

In contrast with the MT , the connection in G is not with 9.17a, dealing with the story about Gezer, but directly with the end of MT ’s verse 15, which lists the names of the cities built by Solomon. We notice immediately the difference between the names of the two cities.63 According to the MT it is the Lower Beth-horon, but in G it is the Upper Beth-horon that is referred to. Schenker64 finds fault with the account in the MT on the ground that it stresses the fortification of the Lower Beth-horon, as, he claims, it is uncertain whether it was entirely Israelite. On the other hand G, Schenker stresses, mentions Upper Beth-horon, which was not only within Ephraimite territory but also strategically a very important location. It is noteworthy, however, that the Lower Beth-horon, mentioned in Josh 16.3, was well within Ephraimite territory, since it was given to the descendants of Joseph, and Upper Beth-horon was on the border between the tribes of Ephraim (Josh 16.5) and Benjamin (Josh 18.13–14). Although it is indisputable that both sites were strategically important – both located on the hill-tops overlooking the valley and the road leading towards Jerusalem – the question which Bethhoron is referred to in the HB is not settled.65 We can presume that G chose the Upper Beth-horon not so much because of its location within, or on the border, of Ephraimite territory but because it seemed more reasonable to have a stronghold in a place located on higher ground. or , reflected in Q and K respectively. There is a double tradition It has been retained by the main body of the Greek text in the transliterated form of , and possibly by the alternative reading provided in Miscellany material in 2.46d, where we find .66 63

The Miscellany in 2.35i has a text more resembling that of the MT : . Apart from the difference of , above, over, there is a fair amount of overlap. has been transliterated as both in 10.23b and 2.35i. In both instances it is the Upper Beth-horon that has been read by G. 64 Schenker, Septante, 49. 65 Cf. Peterson, sub Beth-Horon, in ABD , I, 688–9. 66 Cf. Mulder, 1 Kings, 485.

I. Redistribution of material according to G’s convictions

31

Schenker maintains the superiority of G’s account over that of the MT , although he admits that the coherence of G’s account could be objected to on the basis that it was redactionally smoothed out. For, as Schenker concedes, the homogeneity of its account could be the work of a later redactor.67 This, however, would involve a serious internal contradiction in G, for rather than the issue of forced labour, which dominates the passage in the MT , in G it is the building of necessary installations in Israel that is stressed. Furthermore, Schenker thinks that owing to the statements in 10.24a,68 in G much greater weight is given to the opposition which Solomon had than is the case in the MT . For G’s 10.22–24 does not at all mention the fact that the local population was involved in Solomon’s building projects, but merely states that military installations put in place by Solomon were there in order to keep the Canaanites under Israelite rule.69 Also, Schenker’s suggestion discussed earlier, that Pharaoh’s gift of Gezer to Solomon was a testimony to his military weakness,70 and the fact that G mentions Upper Beth-horon because it was firmly in Ephraimite territory and thus strategically more important,71 led him to the conclusion that G paints a less positive picture of Solomon, because it shows that the territory was not firmly in Solomon’s hand and suggests a weak government struggling with the local population. This would stand in clear opposition to the statements in MT 4.20; 5.5 or 5.17–18 where a peaceful reign is praised. On the other hand, Schenker admits that the MT is in agreement with these passages, but argues that the MT ignores the possible military threat to Solomon’s reign by the remaining peoples. Thus G alone sees the necessity of extending the military presence and fortifications, although 5.17 promises a God-given victory. These possible contradictions within G’s account Schenker sees as evidence that it is based on an earlier form of the text, though similar to the MT .72 He argues that had the text been worked over by a redactor, he would have removed the difficulties. On the other hand, since the MT fits better with the general idea of Solomonic peace in 1 Kings, there is strong evidence that it has been redactionally smoothed. However, Schenker’s argument stands and falls with the particular reading of G 10.24. He argues that the material in G is older and more reliable, which he claims to have proved by way of narrative analysis. But if we give serious consideration to the possibility of a misreading of 67

Schenker, Septante, 58. Not as Schenker, Septante, 51, erroneously states, verse 23. 69 Schenker, Septante, 51–2. 70 Schenker, Septante, 48–9; yet for Van Keulen, Solomon Narrative, 98–9, this is testimony to the opposite effect: since Solomon is the beneficiary of the Pharaoh’s gift, it provides Solomon with additional prestige. 71 Schenker, Septante, 49. 72 Schenker, Septante, 58–9. 68

32

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

the Hebrew Vorlage, to which Schenker refers in passing,73 the superiority of the narrative proposed by G disappears. Then the problem of the internal contradiction, to which Schenker refers as proof of G’s superiority, is not on the level of editorial activity, but a mechanical error, which renders the proposed solution improbable. In view of the above considerations, which address Schenker’s objections, it is more probable that G has removed the text from its original setting, and this in turn has resulted in its changed emphasis and an altogether different scenario. In spite of Schenker’s innovative approach, his arguments for G’s superiority over the MT are unconvincing. 5. Reorganisation of the material in 3 Reigns 11 3 Reigns 11.22–25 and its relationship to 11.14 Chapter 11 in G has a number of verses in a different location as compared with the MT . We shall look at the relationships between them. 11.22 in the MT concludes the story of Hadad:

and Pharaoh said to him, “What do you lack with me? and behold you are seeking to go to your own country?” And he said, “No, do let me go.”

At the end of the verse G adds an explanatory gloss: , and Ader returned to his own country. Although this is clear from the context, G felt the text was not complete without it. Moreover, in G the story of Hadad (Ader in G) seems to carry on. This is due to the fact that the following verses in the MT (11.23–25a) have been moved to 11.14 in G. Whereas in G these verses are incorporated within verse 14, in the MT they comprise the separate account of the second adversary of Solomon, Rezon son of Eliada, for this gentleman’s story follows that of Hadad (verses 14–22), Solomon’s first adversary. It will help to have a closer look at verse 14 in G: (23)

(24)

(25)

73

Schenker, Septante, 55, n. 16.

I. Redistribution of material according to G’s convictions

33

And the Lord raised up a satan to Solomon, Ader the Idumean, (23) and Esrom son of Eliade who (lived) in Raemmaaer, Adrazar the king of Suba (was) his master, (24) and men gathered to him, he was head of a conspiracy, and he seized Damascus, and they were satan to Israel all the days of Solomon, and Ader the Idumean (was) of the royal seed in Idumea.

Verse 14 comes first both in MT and G. It is rendered faithfully apart from which is transliterated as consistently throughout the passage.74 The last part of verse 14 (MT ), , he was of the royal seed in Edom, is transposed to the end of verse 14 in G, , he (was) of the royal seed in Idumea. The effect of this transposition is that we have the story of Hadad, (Ader) followed by that of Rezon (Esrom), and at the end Hadad’s again. , this time , Rezon. Yet G does not Verse 23 in MT mentions another have the introductory phrase . Perhaps the similar wording at the beginning of verse 14 was a reason for the omission.75 Whatever the reason, G’s version has a string of names following one another, and it is difficult to work out the connection between them. From this fact alone one could argue for a corrupted state of G in comparison with MT ’s account. The following is transliterated by the somewhat confused , but there is no problem in supposing virtually the same Vorlage. , Rahlfs76 suggested that the unexpected place name in G, came about when the translator put together into and by so doing invented the home town of Rezon.77 Owing to this corruption a different scenario appears: by omitting the mention of Rezon’s flight from his master, Hadadezer remains his master, or, in a particular reading of the text, could even be regarded as Rezon’s accomplice, a far cry from what we have in the MT ’s story. What remains of verse 24 is partly a paraphrase. MT ’s version has Rezin as the one who gathered men around him ( ) whereas G has them gathering themselves around their leader ( ).78 74 For the confusion of similar letters between see, e. g., Fernández Marcos, Translation Greek, 1–22 (6). 75 Yet there are a few differences. In verse 14 the subject is whereas here it is . Also, in verse 14 the object is mentioned by name: , whereas verse 23 has the third person singular suffix in . 76 Rahlfs, Septuaginta Studien, 217. 77 L rendered the cluster as , which probably degenerated into B’s . 78 Mulder, 1 Kings, 575, points out that G along with Peshitta has the plural here in order to apply the statement to both Hadad and Rezon.

34

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

G omits the middle part of the verse, , after the slaughter by David, which some commentators take as a late gloss.79 Nevertheless, it seems more probable that the translator omitted the clause on the grounds of its supposed incongruity with the rest of the narrative. For since G wants to see Hadad as, at least in part, the subject of the verse, it would be difficult to have him linked to David’s military campaigns which are discussed in 2 Sam 8. If this were the case then indeed the note would be illogical. However, there is no difficulty when we associate the story, as MT does, with Rezon. So, then, it becomes obvious that for some not easily explainable reason, in G both characters have become intertwined, making the story very complicated indeed. Verse 25a in G starts with a plural, , obviously referring to Hadad and Rezon mentioned as one group, whereas MT has the singular , referring only to Rezon of the preceding verses 23–25.80 By applying the statement to both adversaries, G was forced to change the rest of the verse in order to keep the logic of the sentence. Hence the reference to Hadad , and as we have it in the MT , (did) evil as Hadad; and he despised Israel and reigned over Aram, had to be abandoned. Instead, as was argued above, the section from the second part of verse 14 in Hebrew was inserted. After this confusing section, let us look again at the connection of verse 22 to the following. What was left of verse 25, i. e., 25b, connects directly with verse 22: , this (is) the evil which Ader did, and he was indignant at Israel and reigned in the land of Edom. Although in MT clearly Rezon is the subject of the verse, in G, in line with the previous verses, it appears to be Ader (Hadad). A number of scholars81 have accepted G’s version of events as original. However, as we have observed, a reconstruction of the original text based on G is very difficult. It appears that either the Vorlage of G was very corrupted or, and this seems more probable, G tried to conflate two accounts which it considered would be better interwoven. In spite of the difficulties, therefore, I take MT ’s version to be better. 6. Reorganisation of the material in 3 Reigns 20 and 21 One of the most significant and striking differences between G and the MT is the different ordering of the chapters. Thus, as compared with MT , in G chapter 21 comes before chapter 20. This alternative order has been accepted by 79

So, for example, Stade, Kings, 125. Schenker, Septante, 112, thinks this is because G sees Hadad and Rezon as enemies of both Solomon and each other. 81 Cf. Klostermann, Könige, 340, Burney, Notes, 162, Schenker, Septante,112–4. 80

I. Redistribution of material according to G’s convictions

35

a number of scholars82 on the grounds that the two chapters dealing with the Aramean Wars, 20 and 22, seem to fit better if they are not separated by the story of Naboth of Jezreel. However, this arrangement is not without serious problems. Walsh points out the difficulty in this arrangement from the narrative criticism point of view: “While this [the joining of chapters 20 and 21 together] is superficially neater, it significantly changes the focus of the stories. In the Greek text we have four chapters about Elijah followed by two about the Aramean wars. In the Hebrew text we have three chapters about a paradigmatic prophet like Moses followed by three about a paradigmatic conflict between the monarchy and the prophetic movement.”83 Furthermore, Gooding,84 in his notable study on the character of Ahab as presented by G has argued for a particular motivation lying behind G’s order of events: in his opinion the concern for a logical flow determined the sequence of material. As Gooding shows, the succession of chapters 19, 21, 20, 22 secures the following logical development of the story: “Ahab sins, is sentenced, but repents; delay in execution is promised. Ahab sins again, is sentenced, is unrepentant; no delay in execution is promised, and execution follows immediately.”85 If Gooding’s observations are correct, G’s aim is to have neatly organised material focusing on the observation of, and the development of, Ahab’s behaviour. On the other hand, the sequence in the MT looks at first sight less well organised86: “Ahab sins, is sentenced, is unrepentant; no delay in execution of the sentence is mentioned. Ahab sins again, is sentenced, but repents; delay in execution is promised, but execution follows immediately.”87 This has led some scholars to accept G’s order over that of the MT . However, the criticism concerning the MT ’s sequence of events is unsubstantiated, for the promise of delayed judgement in 20.21 (MT 21.21) in its greater part concerns Ahab’s house, and this has been postponed until the days of his children (cf. 2 Kings 9). Moreover, as Gooding points out, the personal judgement on Ahab has nowhere been announced, and so its occurrence in chapter 22 does not contradict the earlier statements.88 Based on the above observations I con82 Cf. Burney, Notes, 210, Benzinger, Könige, 114, Kittel, Könige, 156, Šanda, Könige, 461. Schenker, Textgeschichte, 86–107, especially 106, and idem, Studien, 116–131, argues for a theologically motivated tiqqun sopherim in the MT which results in a changed chronology of Ahab and Jehoshaphat. This, Schenker argues, protects an “Interpretationssystem” in the MT which maintains a balance in its text, and which is lacking in G. For a contrary argument see above. 83 Walsh, Kings, 316. 84 Gooding, Ahab, 269–80. 85 Gooding, Ahab, 271. 86 Schenker, Textgeschichte, 106–7, is of a different opinion. He thinks that internal tensions in G are the test of its originality whereas the much better organized MT testifies to its secondary character. 87 Gooding, Ahab, 271. 88 Gooding, Ahab, 277.

36

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

clude that the different ordering of chapters in G is a result of conscious reworking of the text based on logical grounds. B. Transposition of material within verse units Apart from the movement of larger units of text, there is also a certain amount of transposition of material between, as well as within, verses. 3 Reigns 18.30–32 = MT 18.30–32 The text of the verses in question differs in the two witnesses. The MT of 18.30 reads:

Then Elijah said to all the people, “Come near to me”; and all the people came near to him. And he repaired (literally: healed) the altar of the LORD that (had been) thrown down.

G’s text reads as follows:

And Eleiou said to the people, “Come near to me”; and all the people came near to him.

G lacks the reference to the restoration of the sacrificial altar. This latter part of the verse, i. e., , can be found after G 18.32a. There the MT reads: And with the stones he built an altar in the name of the LORD . And he made a trench like a receptacle of two seahs (or measures) of seed around the altar.

There is a difference between MT ’s wording in verses 30 and 32. In the former the verb used is , and he repaired, whereas in the latter it is , and he rebuilt. G, however, has in 18.32: 89

89 Two solutions have been proposed concerning the original rendition of in the LXX , but since both in equal measure could have given rise to the other, the decision is difficult. G has , accepted by Thackeray, Grammar, 37, as original, but Rahlfs, Septuaginta Studien, 285, followed by Montgomery, Kings, 311, maintains that it is a corrected form. Originally, he argues, the translator did not understand the Hebrew word and so transcribed it as , the form preserved by the L MSS (oc2 [original hand], e2e

I. Redistribution of material according to G’s convictions

37

and he built the stones in the name of the Lord and repaired the altar that had been destroyed, and made a see (thaala) holding two measures of grain round about the altar.

After

we have the addition which, with the exception of , almost exactly represents MT ’s of 18.30. The question arises as to why there is a difference between the arrangements of the text in MT and G. Schenker90 proposes a different explanation from that preferred here. His premise is that, since over large parts of the text the translator renders the Hebrew faithfully, it would be unlikely for him to take a liberty in rendering his Vorlage. His argument is based on the assumption that G speaks of one altar used by the priests of Baal and then by Elijah, whereas the MT indicates two: one for the Baalites and one for Elijah. Furthermore, Schenker thinks that verses 32–33 in G imply that Elijah himself destroyed the altar used by the Baal priests and then built it up.91 For, according to Schenker, before any altar could be used for the God of Israel, it would have to be rededicated (Umgeweiht). For Schenker, the clue to the understanding of this story is the position of the note about the rebuilding of the altar, found in verse 30 in the MT and in verse 32 in G. Schenker assigns special importance to the fact that in the MT the altar is referred to as the altar of the Lord, , whereas in G it is the altar of Baal.92 Thus, although the tearing down of the altar by Elijah is not explicitly mentioned, for Schenker it is implied. For after the priests of Baal have jumped over the altar in verse 26, according to Schenker, nothing else could be expected than that Elijah would tear down the altar and then build it with the twelve stones, thus bringing about its Umweihung. This is logical for Schenker, since the verb “to heal” ( ) follows the rebuilding of the altar.93 However, his arguments are not convincing. It is possible that G perceived verse 30 G as chronologically inconsistent with verse 32. If verse 31 functions as an introduction to the building of the altar, it is verse 32 where the actual action of building is described. G therefore combined the two accounts to produce what seemed to be a more probable and reasonable scenario.94 Yet verse 32 in G is not free from problems. From the way it reads, one could get an impression that there were two separate items: a certain structure built of stones, and the repaired altar. This is caused by the intrusion of the text originally taken from verse 30. read bc2a ). Tov, Septuagint, 53, in his treatment of Greek transliterations of Hebrew words, came to similar conclusions. In his opinion was in the first instance transliterated as and only later was corrupted to the more understandable found both here and in verses 35 and 38. 90 Schenker, Textgeschichte, 14–27. The same arguments in a slightly different form are to be found in Schenker, Studien, 99–115. 91 Schenker, Textgeschichte, 15, idem, Studien, 103. 92 Schenker, Textgeschichte, 17, idem, Studien, 104. 93 Schenker, Textgeschichte, 17, idem, Studien, 103. 94 Thiel, Beobachtungen, 289, arrives at the same conclusion.

38

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

Therefore G does not offer the original reading but rather a reworked text that seemed more logical to the translator. 3 Reigns 18.38 = MT 18.38 G has a different sequence of words in this verse. MT reads:

And the fire of the LORD fell and consumed the sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that (was) in the trench.

G follows the Hebrew fairly closely95 but moves , the stones, and the dust, to the end of the verse. Although we cannot exclude the possibility of a different Vorlage it appears that this is a conscious alteration. A logically motivated correction suggests itself: the first in line were the substances that could be more easily destroyed by the fire and those close to but is the sacrifice. This arrangement is kept in the MT as far as then interrupted by the non-inflammable . The translator did not think that this was right; hence in G, rationally, the stones and the dust are mentioned last. C. Borrowing (repeating) of material from other verses In some instances G repeats text from other parts of the book. It is not entirely transposed but solely repeated. 3 Reigns 8.1 = MT 8.1 MT has:

Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, all the heads of the tribes, the leaders of the ancestral houses of the Israelites, before King Solomon in Jerusalem, to bring up the ark of the covenant of the LORD out of the city of David, which is Zion.

G has:

95

On the issue of rendering , see 125.

by

I. Redistribution of material according to G’s convictions

39

And it came to pass when Solomon had finished building the house of the Lord and his own house after twenty years, then king Solomon assembled all the elders of Israel in Zion, to bring the ark of the covenant of the Lord out of the city of David (this is Zion).

G has some additional material while at the same time leaving out part of the Hebrew. The verse is prefaced in G by the addition of , and it came to pass when Solomon had finished building the house of the Lord and his own house after twenty years. The text bears some similarity to 9.10: , twenty years in which Solomon was building the two houses, the house of the Lord, and the house of the king. This material is not transposed from its original location; in 9.10 G follows the Hebrew very closely. In our verse G has repeated the content of this verse in a different context. Burney96 suggested that, contrary to the opinions of some earlier exegetes, the Greek version is best treated as an addition induced by the translator’s unwillingness to begin the sentence with “without ‘any definitive point of attachment in the preceding narrative’”. The amount of time spent on the building projects is calculated from two references. The first, referring to the time , taken to build the Temple, is to be found in the MT at 6.38, and he was seven years in building it.97 The second, this time concerning the king’s palace, comes from 7.38, reporting the thirteen years in which Solomon built his own palace. It seems that the translator places extra weight on the “correct” order of events, a characteristic encountered earlier. Before G felt comfortable with passing on to the reader the information that the ark of the covenant was brought to Zion, it was imperative to state that all the building projects had indeed been completed. is omitted, probably owing to the explanatory exThe reference to pression, , at the end of the verse which might have prompted the translator to unify the account, and so he substituted instead. According to the text, this is indeed where the meeting took place, but this translational gloss is not warranted by the Hebrew. This leads me to believe that it was important for the translator to emphasise the importance of the Temple Mount as an extra entity in itself, a place enjoying the special presence and protection of God.98 96

Burney, Notes, 104. On the omission of the number in G see 50. 98 That “Zion symbolism” carries the notion of “Yahweh’s exclusive kingship and his exclusive status as provider of security for his people” is elaborated at length by Ollenburger, Zion, 81. 97

40

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

Apart from the longer addition, G also lacks the middle part of the verse. The MT tells us in greater detail about those gathered for the feast of the dedication of the Temple. But in G , all the heads of the tribes, the leaders of the ancestral houses of the Israelites, before King Solomon, is missing. Stade classifies the fragment lacking in G as a “useless scribal expansion”.99 It is certainly possible that a marginal gloss could creep into the main text. However, it is equally possible that our translator omitted the present sentence as redundant. Alternatively, , could have been read as we could ask whether the reference to the an unwelcome remark referring to the rebellious Northern Kingdom. If this were the case, it would constitute one of the examples of an ideologically motivated change to the text as classified by Wevers.100 However, we cannot be sure of this because it is an isolated example of this kind of omission. On balance, it seems more probable that the content of the missing part was omitted as redundant. 3 Reigns 16.28a–h Following verse 28 of chapter 16 we find a Miscellany which extends over a number of verses: 28a–h. This material appears both in the MT in 22.45–46 and, to a large extent, in G at the same location. The Miscellany 28a–h is a brief record of Jehoshaphat’s reign. The question arises as to the reason for the duplicate material from chapter 22 in chapter 16. According to Gooding,101 this duplication has to do with the system of chronology employed by G. In his detailed analysis Gooding points out that the order in which the kings of Judah and Israel are introduced is based on a pattern. A king from one kingdom is described in detail whereas only the relevant facts from his contemporary in the other kingdom are included in short form. Then there is a change-over to describe in full the dealings of the monarch in the other kingdom with only cursory mention of what happens in the kingdom described first. This system breaks down at the point of Omri, who is regarded by G as the last king of Israel to come to the throne during Asa’s long rule on the throne of Judah.102 According to the MT it should be Ahab, but G insists that Asa has already gone and has been replaced by Jehoshaphat by the time Ahab ascends the throne of Israel. With the death of Omri the focus should change to the situation in Judah, and so G felt the need to introduce Jehoshaphat at this stage. But as Gooding points out, G betrays itself as not original by introducing here just a summary where the full account should have stood. 99

Stade, Kings, 98. Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 321. 101 Gooding, Text, 13. 102 Cf. the lack of dates in verse 15. 100

II. Smoothing out the (perceived) difficulties in the text and/or difficult Hebrew

41

The statement about Jehoshaphat’s alliance with Ahab103 in 22.4 carries with it a remark about where the remaining acts of Jehoshaphat are to be found: , behold, are not these things written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Juda? This is an often used formula and its occurrence does not surprise us at this point in the narrative, that is, at the end of a king’s reign. However, G has it in chapter 16.28c as well: . Therefore, Gooding’s comments are appropriate that it “is very odd indeed”104 to have the formula followed by a further account of the king’s reign, albeit only in the form of a summary, at a later point in the same book, in this case in chapter 22. Moreover, the problem with G is more evident in the following verse 29, where the story-line focuses on Ahab. Gooding argues that this is rightly so in the MT where it is Israel’s turn to be described in full, but not so in G. Jehoshaphat’s reign, according to the schema in the MT , receives only a brief treatment in 22. 41–51. This is so because he is so closely connected with the reign of Ahab that these ten verses alone were considered to be enough information on Jehoshaphat. G, however, has two accounts; yet both of them, minor details excluded, carry basically the same information. Thus it can be concluded that G’s treatment of Jehoshaphat’s reign bears the marks of reworking in order to fit the story within the constraints of the most logical arrangement of the text, which G aspires to.

II. Smoothing out the (perceived) difficulties in the text and/or difficult Hebrew 3 Reigns 2.26 = MT 2.26 MT reads: Go to Anathoth, to your fields; for you are a man of death. But I will not put you to death this day,

after which follows the reason for the temporary postponement of judgement. G, however, reads , depart quickly to Anathoth to your field, for you are a man of death this day; but I will not kill you. 103 104

Cf. the comments in chapter four, 173–4. Gooding, Text, 16.

42

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

has been transposed after . The most likely reason for the rearrangement of this text would be G’s unwillingness to attribute to Solomon the killing of the high priest. This will be discussed in the chapter dealing with G’s treatment of Solomon.105 Additionally, there is another, rational, consideration that could have influenced G: nowhere are we told that Abiathar was executed at a later stage, and thus we can speculate that factual correctness prompted G to remove this fragment of the story. This was easily done, as we have observed, by the slight rearrangement of the wording which in conserefer to . quence resulted in making 3 Reigns 2.34 = MT 2.34

And (Banaeas son) of Jodae attacked Joab, and slew him, and buried him in his house in the wilderness.

G lacks in , and Benaiah son of Jehoiada went up and fell upon him. Stade argues that G is original on the basis that its presence in the MT is superfluous. He maintains that the author would not have originally made such a reference, because “the road from the City of David to Solomon’s Temple ascended, but not the one to David’s tent”.106 However, precisely this logical reasoning may well have been the cause of the omission of the verb by G. Moreover, G includes additional information not supplied by the Hebrew in our verse. In accordance with verse 31 G makes Benaiah responsible not only for the killing but also for the burial of Joab, , read, whereas the MT has nifal . L go one step further and have ing qal which, Stade maintains, has been amended “for dogmatic purposes.”107 3 Reigns 2.35 = MT 2.35 The MT informs the reader about the changes in the priestly roles: and the king put the priest Zadok in the place of Abiathar. G, however, has a plus (in cursive) here: , and Sadoc the priest, the king put him as a high priest in the place of Abiathar. 105

Cf. comments on this issue in chapter four, 128. Stade, Kings, 70. 107 Stade, Kings, 70. 106

II. Smoothing out the (perceived) difficulties in the text and/or difficult Hebrew

43

Schenker108 thinks that all that G is suggesting is a change of rank, that is, Zadok is promoted to the position of high priest, while Abiathar is downgraded to a lower status. This Schenker sees confirmed in 4.4 where we find in the list of Solomon’s cabinet , and Sadoc and Abiathar were priests. Thus the third phrase in G 2.35 Schenker sees as necessarily based upon a Hebrew Vorlage since it delivers a more appropriate presentation of Abiathar as a high priest in line with the statements in chapter 1 and is in agreement with 4.4.109 Yet it seems that Schenker’s discernment of what is possible and what probable is not very clear. Although we cannot be entirely sure of the identity of the mentioned persons, it is highly unlikely that the banished priest would occupy a high-ranking position in the kingdom’s new ruling apparatus. Moreover, if we take 2.27 as a fulfilment of the prophecy in 1 Sam 2.27–36, it is most certainly a different Abiathar to which the text is referring. If this is the case, then the tensions which Schenker postulates are no longer there. Moreover, there is no need to presuppose the third clause of G 2.35 as necessary for 4.4. It is far more probable that G introduced this plus as an explanatory gloss.110 3 Reigns 3.13 = MT 3.13 In the narrative dealing with the bestowal upon Solomon of God’s gifts accompanying wisdom, riches and honour, G lacks the reference to how long Solomon would be unrivalled: , all your days. An ideological reason for the omission, a logical shortcoming perceived in the Hebrew, might have been a relevant factor. It is probable that it has been removed owing to the apparent contradiction it creates with verse 12, where Solomon is given wisdom above every other human ever. Thus by way of omission this difficulty is believed to have been remedied. 3 Reigns 3.15 = MT 3.15 Whereas the MT relates what took place following Solomon’s dream in , and he made a feast for all his servants, G Gibeon: adds that the banquet was arranged , for himself, Solomon, as well as for all his servants. Schenker111 is of the opinion that the MT is at fault here for it suggests a non-liturgical festival, since how can it be liturgical if the one who offers the sacrifice is not present, the absolutely necessary component for the sacrifice of communion. Schenker thinks that G, on the other hand, adequately presents 108

Schenker, Septante, 89, idem, Joabs Tod, 31. Schenker, Septante, 90, idem, Joabs Tod, 31–2. 110 Cf., for example, Mulder, 1 Kings, 121, Montgomery, Kings, 101. 111 Schenker, Septante, 94. 109

44

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

the story of the king eating the meal with his servants following the offering of the sacrifice as in a similar situation in 1 Kings 1.9–10, 41. Yet Schenker’s argument cannot be sustained because it erroneously assumes that in the MT Solomon is not present at the festival. Moreover, as appealing as this explanation may be, it fails to take account of the view held by other scholars that G is likely to have expanded the text.112 This seems, in fact, more probable and well in line with the pedantic strategy advocated by G. For if the servants are mentioned as the beneficiaries of the feast, it would be unthinkable not to mention the king who is, besides, the main character of the passage. 3 Reigns 3.20 = MT 3.20 Relating the words of the harlot to Solomon, G lacks , and while your (maid)servant slept. That the likely reason for this omission is G’s concern for a worthy portrayal of Solomon is argued elsewhere in this study.113 An additional reason may be G’s concern for the cohesiveness of the narra, tive. Focusing our attention on the second word of the missing clause sleeping, we can understand the translator’s objection because it clashes with the woman’s recollection of events during the night. As Walsh puts it: “How could she know how the child died and what her rival did about it if she was asleep at the time?”114 Thus it seems just possible that G, feeling sympathy for the rightful mother, removed the flawed element from her argument. 3 Reigns 4.2 = MT 4.2 MT reads: And these were his high officials: Azariah son of Zadok was the priest.

G has: And these are the princes which he had; Azarias son of Sadoc.

G lacks . Stade115 objects to MT ’s originality on the basis that the list of cannot begin with a priest, and that Azariah was not one of Solomon’s priests anyway. Gray,116 in the first edition of his commentary, suggests that should be omitted on the basis that G does not include it here. He thinks

112

Cf. Stade, Kings, 73. Cf. chapter five, 197. 114 Walsh, Kings, 81. 115 Stade, Kings, 75. 116 Gray, I & II Kings, 1st ed., 127. 113

II. Smoothing out the (perceived) difficulties in the text and/or difficult Hebrew

45

that a variant in 2.46h has influenced our passage.117 This nevertheless seems very improbable. We do not have any indication as to when the Miscellany came to be part of the book, but it is unlikely that it would have had a bearing on the main body of the material. Moreover, not all commentators are persuaded about the superiority of G in our verse simply on the basis of its lack . Gray himself accepts MT ’s version in the second edition of his comof mentary.118 Šanda119 does not see any reason for the omission, for, if is original, it reflects appropriately the peaceful character of Solomon’s reign. Benzinger120 notes that it is quite logical for Zadok’s son to follow him in the priestly office. Moreover, according to Benzinger, a priest should feature in the list of Solomon’s officials. The definite article equally has its function and should not be omitted: we are dealing here with the leading priest and he is rightly the first one to be mentioned in the list. It can be therefore concluded with Mulder121 that is original and points to the future office of high priest.122 It may be relevant at this point to consider the possible connection with 2 Sam 15.27 where Ahimaaz is introduced as Zadok’s son. 1 Chr 6.9 mentions Azariah as a son of Ahimaaz and so the MT is probably taking Azariah as Zadok’s grandson when it speaks of . Strictly speaking, therefore, Azariah was not the son of Zadok. Consequently, it is possible that G considas complicating the matter and so omitted it, understanding Azarias ered son of Sadoc to be from an altogether different family unrelated to the priest Zadok. It seems probable, therefore, that it is the translator’s drive to eliminate problems in the text which is the reason for this omission. 3 Reigns 4.5 = MT 4.5 A similar case to the one discussed above can be made for 4.5. Again lacking in G. The MT reads:

is

Azariah son of Nathan was over the officials; Zabud son of Nathan was priest and king’s friend.

G has: 117

118

That is,

Gray, 1 & 2 Kings, 131. Šanda, Könige, 65, but especially Noth, Könige, 63, who writes: “Daß an erster Stelle (2b) ‘der Priester’ erscheint … ist unter der Regierung des Tempelbauers Salomo schwerlich zufällig.” 120 Benzinger, Könige, 17. 121 Mulder, 1 Kings, 163. 122 Cf. in 2 Kgs 12.11. 119

46

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency 123

And Ornia the son of Nathan was over the officers (appointed ones); and Zabuth son of Nathan was the king’s friend.

MT has , referring to Zabud. Because it is absent in most of the reliable LXX manuscripts, a number of commentators disregard the MT , treating the word as a gloss that crept into the text from the margin.124 While we cannot exclude this as a possibility it does not seem likely. Noth,125 although sharing the opinion that it is a gloss, points out the possibility of a dittography in the preceding . Such an explanation, if true, could have caused the translator to drop the second mention of “priest” as not fitting the context: both are sons of the same father and yet only one of them is a priest. Actually, there is nothing to suggest that these two men had the same father. It is possible, but not necessarily the case. However, the mention of Zabud’s vocation may have been an intentional and deliberate effort to specify a particular individual who could otherwise have been confused with somebody else. According to Fichtner it is questionable that Zabud was indeed a priest, since even the miscellany 2.46h does not include such a reference.126 Neither do we know who Nathan his father was, nor what was his occupation. Possible suggestions range from Nathan the prophet at David’s court, to one of the king’s sons. If he was indeed one of David’s sons,127 it is possible that his son could also have been “a priest” in the way of David’s sons, though we cannot be sure as to what “priests” mean in that context in 2 Sam 8.18.128 If Nathan the prophet is meant, again we do not have any indication that he was a priest, and if he was not, his son would not have been one either. It is clear from the above discussion that the identity of Zabud was not apparent to the ancient readers, as it is not to us. It seems therefore probable that the description of Zabud’s job was dropped so as not to include information that was doubtful to the translator.

123

The L MSS render as , with a variant , i. e., . This arises from a confusion of the Hebrew consonants and , and and . Since both names appear in the HB (Zabud in Gen 30.20; Zaccur appears more often, e. g. Neh 10.13, 1 Chr 4.26) we can accept the originality of the MT and its counterpart in B. 124 Cf. Benzinger, Könige, 18, Gray, 1 & 2 Kings, 131, Fritz, Könige, 47, Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, I, 137. Of the older commentators Kittel, Könige, 31, is a notable exception. He thinks that the word must be original, for otherwise there is no reason why it would be put into the text. 125 Noth, Könige, 57. 126 Fichtner, Buch von den Königen, 82. 127 Cf. 2 Sam 5.14. 128 Mulder, 1 Kings, 166, discusses the possibility of Zabud’s function as “priest friend of the king”; cf. Gordon, 1 & 2 Samuel, 247.

II. Smoothing out the (perceived) difficulties in the text and/or difficult Hebrew

47

3 Reigns 4.18 = MT 4.19 MT reads:

Geber son of Uri, in the land of Gilead, the country of King Sihon of the Amorites and of King Og of Bashan. And there was one governor in the land.

G reads: 129

130

131

Son of Adai in the land of Gad in Seon king of Esebon and Og king of Basan and one nasef in the land of Judah.

The text of G here is seriously corrupted but still allows us to get to its meaning. The latter part is especially interesting for our purposes. At the end of the verse G has . The word is a transliteration , and was probably understood by the translator as a proper name. The of MT does not have Judah, thus some commentators132 restore it from G, arguing that without it the MT does not make much sense: and one official, was in the land. Gray133 states that whether or not we add Judah after G, the addition is implied by the text. However, Benzinger134 argues against this view, saying that it is very unlikely that the country was divided into thirteen regions. Klostermann135 proposes to reconstruct the original with the help of verse 5a: , with the meaning of the verse something like: one prefect was (over all officials) who were in the land. This seems quite plausible, provided we can base it on concrete evidence. There is in fact a difference in the Hebrew word found in our verse when compared with other occurrences, i. e., 4.5,7; used in our verse can carry the meaning governor, prefect, 5.7 of the MT . but also garrison, (military) post. It is found only here in 1 Kings. The word , nifal participle plural of , deputy, district used in the earlier verses, officer, consequently rendered , would refer to the officials responsible for the twelve districts who were answerable to the one over the . Consequently, it can be argued that the otherwhole country, i. e., the 129 , as noted by Rahlfs, Septuaginta Studien, 234, has not been corrected towards into , from where it is a the MT by Origen. But it clearly looks like a corruption of short step to . 130 is probably a corruption of , according to Rahlfs, Septuaginta Studien, 235. 131 was confused with , a common error. 132 Cf. Stade, Kings, 79, Noth, Könige, 75. 133 Gray, 1 & 2 Kings, 140. 134 Benzinger, Könige, 22. 135 Klostermann, Könige, 283.

48

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

wise difficult Hebrew can be understood in a different way from what G proposes. It follows that was added to the list of Solomon’s ministers most likely because Judah had not been mentioned in the provinces and G wanted to see the officials evenly distributed in the whole country, not just the Northern Kingdom. However, this causes internal conflict in G with the twelve officials of verse 7. Overall it seems to be the case that G, by adding , unsuccessfully tried to correct what it perceived to be defective information. 3 Reigns 5.1 = MT 5.15 MT has:

Now King Hiram of Tyre sent his servants to Solomon, when he heard that they had anointed him king in place of his father; for Hiram had been loving David all the days.

G has:

And Hiram king of Tyre sent his servants to anoint Solomon instead of David his father, because Hiram loved David all the days.

G follows the MT closely up to . The section , when he heard that they had anointed him, is lacking. Instead G produces a different arrangement: Hiram sends his servants to anoint Solomon as king in place of his father David. The data have been interpreted in various ways. Kuan136 argues that we have here the second of two occasions when Solomon was installed as king: the first is in 1.39 and has as its purpose civil and sacral recognition. Here, however, Solomon is being installed as king over Israel after Hiram of Tyre has given his blessing. This proposal, however, is clearly at odds with the picture of Solomon, in both the MT and G, as a powerful and independent ruler.137 Schenker138 thinks that although the scenario in G is unusual – nowhere in the HB do we find servants of a foreign king anointing a king of Israel or Judah, and thus G shows signs of editorial activity – it is not impossible to accept it, though it would imply a different significance for anointing from any encountered elsewhere in the HB . Furthermore, Schenker argues that the am136

Kuan, Relations, 31–46. Cf. Van Keulen’s assessment of Kuan, Relations, in Solomon Narrative, 102–4. 138 Schenker, Septante, 140. 137

II. Smoothing out the (perceived) difficulties in the text and/or difficult Hebrew

49

bassadors’ lack of mission in the MT is equally strange and difficult to explain. On the other hand, Burney139 sees the Greek as a corruption of the MT . Stade140 equally disapproves of G, pointing out that Israel was not a vassal state of Tyre, and such would have to be the case for an act of this kind to take place. The L MSS follow the corrupted trail of G. Wevers141 points out that the reason is most likely logical: if Solomon was so well known, it would have been impossible for a close neighbour, such as Hiram, to learn about his coronation only through hearsay. With this we have the further comment that Hiram had a close relationship with David, and so it would be unthinkable for Solomon not to include him among the guests of honour. does not necessarily mean in the context that Hiram’s dignitaries have themselves anointed Solomon, but simply that they have participated in the occasion. Moreover, Schenker’s142 argument about G describing a diplomatic mission which was aimed at strengthening the already existing friendship between the neighbouring kingdoms holds true for the MT ’s text as well. Hiram’s servants were not needed at the time of the anointing of Solomon; this was a national and religious occasion. Only after Solomon is confirmed king by the anointing does Hiram send his embassy to show his peaceful intentions in the hope of extending mutual relations.143 Thus it seems that G wanted to improve upon what it considered, like Schenker, a “missionless mission” in its Vorlage, and thus introduced Hiram’s servants at the investiture of Solomon.144 3 Reigns 5.11 = MT 5.25 MT has , twenty cors, whereas G has , twenty thousand baths. Earlier in the verse we are told that Solomon gave yearly twenty thousand cors of wheat to Hiram. This huge discrepancy in the amounts was troublesome and so the second figure was emended in the light of the first.145

3 Reigns 6.1 = MT 6.1 MT has , and it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year, whereas G has , and it came to pass in the four hundred and fortieth 139

Burney, Notes, 53. Stade, Kings, 81. 141 Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 307. 142 Schenker, Septante, 140. 143 So, too, Van Keulen, who takes the anointing as “… Perfektionszeichen, that is, it implies the conclusion of a treaty”, Solomon Narrative, 105. Moreover, he sees in G’s account “homage that Hiram paid to the young and already famous king.”, ibid, 106. 144 Cf. also chapter four, 151. 145 Cf. the comments in chapter four, 150. 140

50

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

year. According to Montgomery,146 this discrepancy lies in the fact that the genealogy from Aaron to Zadok, as outlined in 1 Chr 5.29 ff., amounts to only 11 persons. And so 11 times 40, the usual figure given for a generation, equals 440 years. This may have been an incentive for our translator to adjust the figures in the context of the building of the Temple, to fit into the chronology of the account that was most agreeable to him. , in the month of Ziv, which is the second G lacks (month). There are several possible ways to explain the omission. On the one hand we can see the possibility of a faulty manuscript that was used as a Vorlage by our translator. There may have occurred a haplography between and omitting what was in between the two words, with the translator, then, rendering faithfully what was in his Vorlage. On the other hand, there is the possibility of a change on the part of the translator: he may have left out the mention of the month , Ziv, intentionally, not knowing how to translate it. Although it is difficult to find a definite answer, I am inclined to favour the second explanation. Further on in the verse, we find another omission of the text, compared to , he began to build the house of the LORD , the MT . The clause is lacking entirely in G. There is no apparent reason for this apart from the harmonisation principle driving our translator. Since the mention of the laying of the foundation for the Temple is first introduced in verse 4, there is a good possibility that our translator did not see the need to mention it in verse 1. All the building work follows verse 1, unlike the MT where we have some of the information already in the preceding chapter. 3 Reigns 6.5 = MT 6.38 We have a large minus in the verse when compared with the text of MT ’s verse 38b. , and he was seven years building it, is missing altogether from G. Since a mechanical error responsible for the omission is unlikely, we either have here an instance of omission of detail not suited to this particular location, or for some reason G considered it redundant. Verse 4 states that the foundations of the Temple were laid , in the fourth year, and the beginning of verse 6 records that the Temple was completed , in the eleventh year. The calculation is simple. Thus we could argue G did not feel obliged to include the result, deeming it unnecessary. However, we find the text in a different location, in the Miscellany in 2.35c : , in seven years he made and finished (them). At the same time it is just possible that G was keen on dropping the information about the amount of time it took Solomon to build the Temple. Of 146

Montgomery, Kings, 143.

II. Smoothing out the (perceived) difficulties in the text and/or difficult Hebrew

51

course, it does not take great mathematical skills to work out how long he spent on each individual project, yet, although the time spent on the building of Solomon’s palace is reported, (7.38), the exact amount of time used for building the Temple is somehow concealed from the reader. The artificial separation between the consecutive verses 6.37, 38 and 7.1 (MT ), which in G are separated by most of the chapter, strengthens the notion of a deliberate attempt to turn the readers’ attention away from the facts. Perhaps this is a gentle way of neglecting a detail that could suggest that Solomon was more concerned about building his own house than the Temple. Certainly the amount of time invested in the different projects would suggest a set of values that does not present Solomon in the best possible light. Thus, in my opinion, the first of the above options seems more satisfactory. 3 Reigns 6.13 = MT 6.8 The MT has:

The entrance for the middle story was on (or towards) the right side of the house: one went up by winding stairs to the middle story, and from the middle story to the third.

G has:

And the gateway of the under side (was) below the right wing of the house, and (there was) a winding ascent into the middle (chamber), and from the middle to the third story.

There is a discrepancy in the information as to where the entrance led, that is, the first or second floor. Most commentators147 hold the view that the first , the middle story, is a corruption of , the lower story, and so should be emended with G.148 However, it is equally possible that our translator changed the meaning of the verse because he recognised the difficulty of we get placing the entrance on the middle level. Thus instead of , the gateway of the under side (was) below the right wing. It is possible that the translator had a different Vorlage from the MT , nevertheless the additional material

147 Cf. Burney, Notes, 65, Gray, 1 & 2 Kings, 162, Klostermann, Könige, 293, Stade, Kings, 87, Šanda, Könige, 147. 148 Noth, Könige, 99, comments on the emendation that “eine sprachliche Notwendigkeit dazu liegt nicht vor”.

52

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

, below the right wing, points towards the conclusion that we are dealing here with a rationalisation of the difficult Hebrew. 3 Reigns 6.15 = MT 6.10 MT reports that the feature known as the and associated with the Temple extended over the whole length of it, , and was joined to it with cedar timber, . G, however, presents a different picture. First of all there is a problem with the description of the building: G twice uses , bondings, in our verse but each time in a different capacity – the first time as a translation of and the second time for . Yet this word cannot describe two distinct objects as we have in the MT . Moreover, , against the whole house, gets a very unusual equivalent in the form of , through all the house. This is hardly a result of reading a different Vorlage but a conscious reworking of the text. The question arises why the translator would have difficulty with the concept of the structure which would prohibit him from rendering it straightforwardly. Most probably G understands the structure to be inside the Temple, since if it were joined to the building, outside it, G may have thought that it conflicted with 6.11 (MT 6.6), where side-rooms were not supposed to join directly on to the walls of the Temple. But, as Gooding points out, G “shows no appreciation of the fine technical distinction between ‘taking hold in’, i. e. being inserted into the wall, and ‘taking hold of ‘, i. e. resting on the rebatements. Instead it has invented the pious idea that there was an interval between the side-rooms and the temple wall; and consequently it could not and would not say, in verse 15, that ‘the side-wing took hold of the house’, for it felt that this was quite wrong and detracted from the holiness of the house.”149 Although generally agreeing with Gooding’s reading of the way G handled the text, I would argue that the motivation for the change is G’s particular understanding of what 6.11 meant – that is, that there was no structure attached to the by walls of the Temple – and not piety, as Gooding thinks. It seems that G wanted to preserve this notion at all costs, and a different reading of our verse would have caused factual conflict with 6.11, and so G adjusted our verse.

3 Reigns 6.16 = MT 6.15 MT :

149

Gooding, Temple Specifications, 166.

II. Smoothing out the (perceived) difficulties in the text and/or difficult Hebrew

53

And he lined the walls of the house on the inside with boards of cedar; from the floor of the house to the rafters (or walls?) of the ceiling, he covered them on the inside with wood; and he covered the floor of the house with boards of cypress.

G:

And he built the walls of the house with cedar boards, from the floor of the house and on to the beams and to the walls providing the ceiling to be detained: he lined the parts enclosed with boards within, and compassed the inward parts of the house with planks of fir.

The phrase , and on to the beams and to the inner walls can be retroverted as , which Montgomery150 understands to be an early double reading. Most modern commen, walls, with , beams. However, it tators follow G and replace MT ’s is also possible that the fault is with G. Gooding151 suggests that the translator failed to understand the syntax of his Vorlage. He argues that he mistakenly and so missed the beginning of took the first sentence to run as far as the second sentence at . Following this mistake the translator attempted to begin the second Hebrew sentence with , ceiling. Here we find the second occurrence of , provided with coffered ceiling, in our text, which, being a verb, is a strange equivalent for a noun. What we are left , he covered, is , enclosed, but this is with as a counterpart to not the usual equivalent for the Hebrew. Throughout 3 Reigns the standard equivalent is , as later in the same verse, so it is difficult to explain the unusual choice here. In any case, it seems most likely that G understood the verse from its immediate context, and because the context is different from that of the MT , G consequently lost its sense of direction. Another problem of translation is apparent in the clause , and he covered the floor of the house with boards of cypress. G translates it , and compassed the inward parts of the house with planks of fir. is not a , floor. This Hebrew word occurs two other times typical equivalent for in verses 15 and 16 and is translated both times by . , the inside, interior, is a vague term and does not convey the precision of the Hebrew. The use of is unsuccessful insofar as it causes confusion as to its meaning. could be used of both floor and walls, but more so of the latter. This in turn would form a contradiction to the statement earlier in verse 16 (MT 15), where we read that he lined the walls of the house on the inside with 150 151

Montgomery, Kings, 153. Gooding, Temple Specifications, 167.

54

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

boards of cedar since, taking in its usual meaning of interior, the text would read he covered the interior of the house with boards of cypress. This procedure is in any case highly unlikely. Gooding comments: “no architect or builder would have covered expensive cedar wainscoating with fir.” The explanation as to whether could refer to both the walls and the floor is given clearly in verse 18 in the MT , but this explanation is lacking in G which omits the whole verse. The translation of the verse, therefore, can be regarded as unreliable as far as the transmission of the original content is concerned. It can be concluded with Gooding,152 that, although on the surface the translation seems logical, it does not stand the test when compared to the MT . It is heavily edited and misses points that are very clear in the Hebrew, either by omitting certain words or by introducing unwarranted changes. 3 Reigns 6.17 = MT 6.16 MT has:

And he built twenty cubits of the rear of the house with boards of cedar from the floor to the rafters, and he built this within as an inner sanctuary, as the most holy place.

G has:

And he built the twenty cubits from the top of the wall, one side from the floor to the beams, and he made it from the oracle (debir) into the most holy place.

G has the very strange . may be a corruption of , which is a common error, but the choice of may indicate an intentional change. The Greek can mean both top and end. Gooding153 argues for the following scenario in the process of transmission of G: was understood to mean top, which fits nicely with the phrase , one side (from the floor to the beams). This statement Gooding takes to be in apposition to the previously mentioned 20 cubits from the top of the Temple. Thus the measure would then be referring to vertical dimensions as opposed to the horizontal dimensions implied by the MT . Another serious difficulty is posed by the phrase , from the oracle (debir) into the most holy place. Here should be a translation of , as an inner sanctuary, as the most holy 152 153

Gooding, Temple Specifications, 167. Gooding, Temple Specifications, 171.

II. Smoothing out the (perceived) difficulties in the text and/or difficult Hebrew

55

place. But what we have hardly does justice to the Hebrew. usually gets transliterated into Greek, as in this case, but the preposition is not the right equivalent for . Thus the translation is not only insufficient lexically, but logically as well: it is impossible for the text to read from the debir into the most holy place, because the debir was the most holy place.154 3 Reigns 6.18 = MT 6.17–19 MT has: And the house, that is, the nave in front of (the inner sanctuary), was forty cubits long. And the inner sanctuary he prepared in the innermost part of the house, to set there the ark of the covenant of the LORD .

G has:

And the temple was forty cubits (in extent), in front of the debir in the midst of the house within, (in order) to put there the ark of the covenant of the Lord.

G omits verse 18 which in the MT runs as follows:

The cedar within the house had carvings of gourds and open flowers; all was cedar, no stone was seen.

Some commentators see verses 18 and 19 as an intrusion that disturbed the text at an early stage.155 Jones156 suggests that by deleting these verses a better sequence can be obtained. This view is allegedly strengthened by the fact that G does not have verse 18. However, it can be argued that G is not a completely reliable source of information as to what might have been the original and what a late gloss.157 For example, although G lacks verse 18, it has included verse 19 which, along with verse 18, is viewed by most modern commentators as a gloss. Similarly, verse 21a is omitted from G, apparently because of its unreal representation of the gold-plating, but verse 22a has been included in spite of its contents, the overlaying of the inside of the Temple with gold. 154

Cf. Gooding, An impossible shrine, 411. Cf. Montgomery, Kings, 154, Gray, 1 & 2 Kings, 168, Noth, Könige, 100, Würthwein, Könige, 100. 156 Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, I, 169. 157 Cf. Gooding, An impossible shrine, 409. 155

56

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

There is therefore hardly any evidence to sustain the thesis that G retains the more original reading and so has the better descriptive sequence. On the contrary, Gooding has argued convincingly for the presence of secondary and corrupted material in G.158 Verse 18 in the MT delivers new information which opens another section in the narrative, the account of the ornamented interior woodwork. Since verse 28 (MT 6.29) has similar content, with the exception of the extra material , engravings of cherubim, rendered faithfully , it is possible that G considered MT ’s verse 18 out of place and defective and so omitted it. In consequence G has in its account only the part of the narrative mentioning gold-plating in verses 19–22. However, not only is the account in G deficient owing to the lack of the MT ’s verse 18, but the facts presented by G do not hold together. Verse 18 in G gives the measurements of the Temple rightly as 40 cubits in front of the debir. It lacks, however, the phrase . Burney,159 in an attempt to reconstruct the presumed Vorlage, takes the missing element to be rather , that is, the Temple. He thinks that the lack of the phrase both in G and Vulgate confirms the absence thereof in the Vorlage. But there is a problem in Burney’s analysis. As Gooding160 points out, the usual equivalent of in 3 Reigns is , whereas is the Greek equivalent of . It is possible that G for some reason did not apply the usual equivalent here, but it is rather unlikely. In view of this it seems more likely that the missing words are . In order to join verse 19 with the otherwise unconnected verse 17, G read the Hebrew as , i. e. . But even this has not helped in restoring the thought-flow which is broken through the omission of verse 18 (MT ). The second part of verse18 in G has additional problems. The first is that because of the gap which was created when verse 18 (MT ) fell out there is a break in the logic not filled by any additional material. Thus in the second part of the verse we learn that the ark was to be put into , rather than into the , which makes, in Gooding’s words, “factual nonsense”.161 We know, of course, that the ark was to rest in the debir, and the MT makes this very clear. G, however, is far from being clear. In fact it would have been very difficult for any reader of G to get the idea that the ark was to be in the debir, unless he knew “his Hebrew or the temple-plans well.”162 The omission of the verb , to set up, in G confuses the grammar of the sentence and brings disorder to the whole account. Hence the contradiction of

158

Gooding, An impossible shrine, 412. Burney, Notes, 72. 160 Gooding, An impossible shrine, 412, note 2. 161 Gooding, An impossible shrine, 410. 162 Gooding, An impossible shrine, 411. 159

II. Smoothing out the (perceived) difficulties in the text and/or difficult Hebrew

57

the dimensions in the next verse. The details of this problem will be dealt with in connection with the following verse. 3 Reigns 6.19–20 = MT 6.20 MT has:

The interior of the inner sanctuary was twenty cubits long, twenty cubits wide, and twenty cubits high; he overlaid it with pure gold. He also overlaid the altar with cedar.

G has: (6.20) The length (was) twenty cubits, and the breadth (was) twenty cubits, and the height of it was twenty cubits. (6.20) And he covered it with perfect gold, and he made an altar.

G lacks the first two words of the sentence , and the interior of the debir, which leads to confusion in the rest of the verse. Whether they were in G’s Vorlage or not is difficult to decide. It is possible that they were not, for otherwise the text following is difficult to justify. There is a discrepancy between the dimensions given in verses 18 and 19 in G. In the former we read , and the temple was forty cubits. Here the text has , the length (was) twenty cubits. The subject of the first sentence is the Temple and not the debir, so the measurements provided in our verse should also apply to the Temple. But, as we know from verse 20 in the MT , these are the dimensions of the debir. G lacks some material at the end of the verse. In the MT we have the description of the material used for the decoration of the altar ( ). G fails to mention this. Instead there is the mere mention of the making of the altar ( ) which is then connected with verse 20b (MT 21b).The problem was most likely as follows. According to MT ’s verse 20 the altar is supposed to have been overlaid with cedar, whereas verse 22 suggests that the whole of it was covered with gold. Since we nowhere find another note about a cedar altar, and since cedar would not be appropriate material for an altar anyway, G removed this note along with verse MT 21a and thereby connected the remaining part of verse 20 with verse 20b (MT 21b). Therefore there was an additional omission, this time at the end of verse 21 (MT 22) where we read about the golden overlay of the altar in the MT . Since the two statements about the golden altar would now be too close to each other, the second was removed.

58

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

3 Reigns 7.10 = MT 7.23 MT has:

Then he made the molten sea; ten cubits from brim to brim, (it was) round all about, and five cubits high. And a line of thirty cubits would encircle it round about.

G has:

And he made the sea, ten cubits from its wall to its brim, the same was round in a circle: its height (was) five cubits, and drawn together thirty three cubits (in circumference).

There seems to be one difference when compared with the MT that points towards a harmonisation on the part of the translator: , and a line of thirty cubits is translated as . , a perfect passive participle, refers to drawing together “so has been variously as to make the extremities meet.”163 The additional explained by scholars. Burney takes it as a “mistaken repetition of as ”.164 However, it seems that this may be an intentional change. The measurements provided in our verse could have caused our translator some difficulty: a diameter of ten cubits and a circumference of thirty cubits, as suggested by the Hebrew, seemed imprecise. Modern exegetes have struggled with the issue as well. Noth165 tried to solve the difficulty by suggesting that the diameter was measured from the outside rims, but the circumference on the inside of the sea. This is one possible explanation of the measurements. Jones,166 on the other hand, sees the measurements as only roughly describing the actual size and not aiming at strict precision. This is a convincing argument since the measure 30 is close enough to that of and an universally used approximation of its value. Although we cannot exclude the possibility of either a haplography in the MT or a dittography in G, there is a suspicion that the translator added in an attempt to improve upon the seemingly faulty account of the Hebrew. This attempt, however, was not successful for three cubits is far too many for the purpose.

163

Lsj, 1691. Burney, Notes, 90. 165 Noth, Könige, 155. 166 Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, I, 184. 164

II. Smoothing out the (perceived) difficulties in the text and/or difficult Hebrew

59

3 Reigns 7.37 = MT 7.51

And all the work that King Solomon did on the house of the LORD was finished. And Solomon brought in the things that his father David had dedicated, the silver, and the gold, and the vessels, (and) stored them in the treasuries of the house of the LORD .

G has:

And the work of the house of the Lord which Solomon wrought was finished; and Solomon brought in the holy things of David his father, and all the holy things of Solomon; the silver, and the gold he gave, into the treasures of the house of the Lord.

G lacks in the phrase . It is likely that the omission is due to logical considerations: in its positioning in G the verse does not appear as a summary at the end of the Temple construction section. In fact, owing to a different structuring of the text, soon after our verse in G there is a whole section dealing with the Temple furnishings. Thus it would have been illogical to say that all work was finished when this was not the case. By the omission of the problem is resolved.167 , and the vessels, is lacking in G and at the same time there is an addition ; both issues will be addressed later on in this study.168 The question of the omission of the utensils, however, concerns us here under a different aspect. It was caused by the redundancy of the statement in view of the already specified . Alternatively, logic was possibly the problem for the translator: if the passage speaks made by Solomon, then, logically, they could not have been given of by David. The omission therefore separates the objects offered by David from those offered by Solomon. 3 Reigns 7.39 = MT 7.2 MT has:

167 168

But cf. also the comments in chapter four, 140. Cf. comments on this verse in chapter four, 140.

60

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

And he built the House of the Forest of Lebanon one hundred cubits long, and fifty cubits wide, and thirty cubits high, built on four rows of cedar pillars, with cedar beams on the pillars.

G has:

And he built the house of the wood of Lebanon; a hundred cubits (was) its length, and fifty cubits (was) its breadth, and (it was made) of three rows of cedar pillars, and the pillars had shoulder pieces of cedar.

G lacks the middle part of the verse , and thirty cubits high, i. e. . This is also missing in L but retained by the Syro-Hexapla and Josephus. It is most likely that it was not in G’s Vorlage. The major difference, however, lies in the variation in the number of rows. MT has , four rows of pillars; G on the other hand has , three rows of pillars. Some commentators169 follow G’s account, since it links with the pillars mentioned in the following verse 3 (MT ), , fifteen in each of three rows. Yet, it is this link that led i. e., forty-five the translator to change the number of rows in our verse. But, as suggested on different occasions,170 this connection is not a correct one. Noth171 argues that of v 2: “Die Anin verse 3 (MT ) are not to be connected with gabe über die drei “Reihen” zu je fünfzehn Stück in 3a b kann sich nur auf die beziehen; denn das Thema der Säulen des Innenraums ist mit 2 erledigt, und die “vier” Säulenreihen von 2b verbieten die Beziehung von 3a b auf die “Säulen” (die Lesung “drei” in 2b … beruht nur auf falscher Kombination mit 3 b).” It seems likely, therefore, that the translator regarded the change as necessary in order to clarify the apparent logical fault in the Hebrew. This explanation is strengthened by the fact that in verse 40 G lacks , fifteen (in each row), which, again, was most likely omitted because it conflicted with the number 45. Otherwise the omission is difficult to explain. 3 Reigns 7.43 = MT 7.6 MT has:

169 Cf. Benzinger, Könige, 38, DeVries, 1 Kings, 99, Kittel, Könige, 57, Stade, Kings, 90, Šanda, Könige, 160, Würthwein, Könige, 70. 170 Cf. Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, I, 175, Gray, 1 & 2 Kings, 177, Montgomery, Kings, 164, Noth, Könige, 135–37. 171 Noth, Könige, 135.

II. Smoothing out the (perceived) difficulties in the text and/or difficult Hebrew

61

And (he made) the Hall of Pillars fifty cubits long and thirty cubits wide. And the porch (was) in front with pillars, and a canopy in front of them.

G has:

And (he made) the ailam of the pillars, (they were) fifty (cubits) long and fifty broad, the porch joining ailam in front of them(;) and the (other) pillars(;) and the thickness in front (of the house) (by) the ailams.

There is a difference in the second dimension of the Hall of Pillars: in place , and thirty cubits wide, G reads of MT ’s , and fifty broad. We are not told exactly where the Hall of Pillars was located in relation to the House of the Forest of Lebanon, but the translator in all probability thought of it as an extension to it, as can be argued at any rate, from the unwarranted addition in the Greek . Verse 39 (MT 7.2) gives the dimensions of the House of the Forest of Lebanon as one hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide, and, in the MT only, thirty cubits high. If we assume that the Hall of Pillars was not a detached construction but rather formed an extension of the House of the Forest of Lebanon, then the length of fifty cubits of the Hall of Pillars would equal the breadth of the House of the Forest of Lebanon. Although not stated specifically in G, this understanding of the positioning of the Hall is most likely behind the differing dimension. It can be argued, therefore, that because it made better sense for the translator and connected well with verse 39 (MT 7.2), the breadth of the Hall of Pillars was extended in G to fifty cubits and thus was made equal to its length. Yet this is precisely what betrays G’s reworking of the text. Both the measurements of the Temple in 6.6 (MT 6.2), although differing in some way from the ones in the MT , and those of Solomon’s palace in 7.39 (MT 7.2) have the same pattern: they are rectangular in shape. A square-shaped Hall of Pillars in the setting of other Solomonic building enterprises is therefore improbable. 3 Reigns 8.8 = MT 8.8 In the account of the bringing of the ark of the covenant to the Temple, a final note referring to the poles on the sides of the ark, , and they are there to this day, is lacking in G. Since this was not true at the time of the translation – even the Solomonic Temple itself was not in existence at the time, not to mention its furnishings – it is likely that the translator decided to omit the clause.172 172 But cf. Stade, Kings, 100, who argues that the text was a meaningless gloss creeping in from a different place.

62

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

3 Reigns 8.15 = MT 8.15 , who spoke with his mouth to David, is rendered , who spoke with his mouth . concerning David. The question concerns the unusual equivalent of should be taken to mean “with”, which is Mulder173 argues that the particle plausible. But G is rendering the text as though it read which is the standard equivalent of in 3 Reigns. Although we cannot be sure, this case may well be one of harmonisation of a logical kind on the part of the translator: the information is adjusted in accordance with the facts. The promise to David to which Solomon is alluding in his address is reported in 2 Sam 7 in the third person, that is, God does not address David directly but via the prophet Nathan. Thus it is possible that G thought it appropriate to speak of the promise concerning David though not putting it in terms of a direct communication with God. The same reasoning is possibly behind the omission of part of 8.26, , which you spoke to your servant, seeing that the word did not come directly to David. However, G is not entirely consistent in its renderings. For example, in 9.5 , as I said with regard to David, is rendered , as though translating . 3 Reigns 8.23 = MT 8.23 G changed the plural ending in to the singular , in to and in to , in order to make them apply to David rather than to servants, referring to Israel. This is most likely because verse 24 refers to David. 3 Reigns 8.29 = MT 8.29 In his prayer of dedication of the Temple Solomon requests God’s attentive listening to the pleas of the Israelites: , that your eyes may be open toward this house night and day. However, G ) into switched the order in accordance with 2 Chr 6.20 ( , day and night. This is reinforced by adding at the end of the verse , the second time round in this order. This different sequence is by no means unique to our verse: in other places LXX shows a similar tendency, such as Deut 28.66 or Jer 14.17 which LXX renders . It may be an indication of an idiomatic translation. But then how is the addition to be accounted for? We cannot exclude the possibility of a different Vorlage but it is possible that G thought it necessary to add this phrase for the sake of logic: if God is to be attentive to human prayer round the clock, it would only be appropriate for 173

Mulder, 1 Kings, 405.

II. Smoothing out the (perceived) difficulties in the text and/or difficult Hebrew

63

humans to pray when God hears, and that is always. Moreover, in connection with the word-order there is a possible issue of logic playing a role here: the primary prayer time was during the day. Alternatively, it is possible that G’s word-order was influenced by that encountered in 8.59, which is part of Solomon’s blessing which follows this passage:

and let these words of mine, with which I pleaded before the LORD, be near to the LORD our God day and night.

Indeed, the order day and night is the more common one in the HB,174 though the reverse is by no means unique.175 It is difficult to determine which was the decisive reason behind G’s wordorder. A combination of both is a possibility. 3 Reigns 8.49 = MT 8.49a MT reads: And hear (in) heaven your dwelling place their prayer and their plea, maintain their cause, whereas G has a shorter text: , and you will hear from heaven, out of your established dwelling place.

It has been argued176 that the missing part in G is a gloss which entered MT from verse 45. However, a different explanation of the difficulty can be offered. Owing to the fact that the missing part of the text, , their prayer and their plea, maintain their cause, has the same wording as verse 45, it is possible that G felt it was redundant and omitted it. The beginning was left intact since it connects smoothly with the following verse. However, the argument that the missing part covers the same ground as its counterpart in verse 45 is erroneous. The context of 44–45 is the request for protection in battle which concludes the petitions for God’s blessing in different circumstances of life, whereas 46–53 deal with the concept of Israel’s sin and resulting exile. Therefore, although the plea for God’s provision may be voiced in a similar way, both statements are valid and necessary in their separate contexts, since they deal with different concepts.

174

Cf., for example, Josh 1.8; 2 Chr 6.20; Neh 1.6; Ps 1.2. Apart from the examples referred to above, cf. also Is 27.3; 34.10. 176 So, for example, Burney, Notes, 125, Šanda, Könige, 235. 175

64

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

3 Reigns 8.59 = MT 8.59 G reads:

And let these words, which I have prayed before the Lord our God (be) approaching to the Lord our God day and night, to maintain the cause of your servant, and the cause of your people Israel, a thing of a day in a day of a year.

G changes the tone of the prayer slightly: by changing the person of the object , to maintain the from third in the MT to second in G, from cause of his servant, to , to maintain the cause of your servant. G adjusted the suffix because it felt that the third person did not match with the first person in the beginning of the verse. However, G has misunderstood the Hebrew, for if we retain the third person, the text can be understood in a more general application, i. e., not only specifically to Solomon as the servant, but to any other king in the future. Thus, owing to the change, G restricts the meaning of the verse beyond the original intention. 3 Reigns 8.65 = MT 8.65 In the account of the feast of dedication of the Temple, the MT reports that it lasted , seven days and seven days, (that is) fourteen days. G lacks the last words of the verse: . Van Keulen177 postulates that this material is a late gloss which entered the MT from 2 Chr 7.8–10,178 so importing the Chr viewpoint on the chronology of the Feast of Tabernacles. This explanation builds on an apparent inconsistency with the next verse, where Solomon sends the people away on the eighth day, , which G renders faithfully . There is, however, another possible explanation and explanation van Keulen offers is not new. Stade,179 followed since by a number of commentators, thinks that the MT is at fault here for, as he argues, the section was inserted in order to comply with 2 Chr 7.9. There we are informed that the first seven days were used to celebrate the dedication of the altar while the next seven were spent celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles. However, it seems unlikely that our verse is dependent on Chr. It seems more probable that Chr offers an explanation of the somewhat enigmatic statement

177

Van Keulen, Solomon Narrative, 161–2. The same, it is argued, is true of the time note in verse 2. 179 Stade, Kings, 109. 178

II. Smoothing out the (perceived) difficulties in the text and/or difficult Hebrew

65

in Kings. Indeed, it is possible to take of verse 66 to refer to the end of the festival period.180 Thus it can be argued that the translator did not understand the intention of the two separate occasions and combined them into what seemed to be a logical solution. 3 Reigns 9.10 = MT 9.10 The MT of 9.11 states that Hiram delivered building materials to Solomon during the building projects which took twenty years, and G renders this faithfully. MT in 9.10 reads: , and it came to pass at the end of twenty years, in which Solomon had built the two in the place where we would expect it. It is to be houses. G lacks found instead at the end of verse 9: then Solomon brought up the daughter of Pharaoh out of the city of David into his house which he built for himself in those days. As will be shown elsewhere,181 through a small adjustment of the syntax G has obtained a more favourable picture of Solomon. Moreover, G is likely to have connected the phrase with verse 9 out of logical considerations, since when left in connection with verse 10, as is the case in the MT , it could be misleading. If verse 11a is not taken as a parenthesis,182 it gives the impression that Hiram supplied Solomon at the end of twenty years into the building project, which would clearly contradict earlier statements. This G prevents by its careful repositioning of the phrase. 3 Reigns 10.7 = MT 10.7 , wisdom and prosperity, has been collapsed into one word , good (things). It is possible that G did this on purpose, trying to avoid a logiis mentioned in the previous verse as one of the main cal clash. Since elements in the report which the queen of Sheba received in her country, how of Solomon be spoken of as the half could then the already proverbial that was not known to her prior to her coming to Jerusalem? The of Solomon was the primary reason for the queen of Sheba’s visit.

180

Cf. Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, I, 208. Cf. comments on this verse in chapter four, 143. 182 Cf. Montgomery, Kings, 213. 181

66

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

3 Reigns 10.24 = MT 9.19b183 MT has: and whatever Solomon desired to build, in Jerusalem, and in Lebanon, and in all the land of his dominion.

G has:

And the work of Solomon which he undertook to build in Jerusalem and in all of the land (so that) no (one will) rule over him.

, desire, has been translated as , occupation, business, undertaking, affair. This Greek word occurs 4 times in 3 Reigns184 and a total of 8 it is used only in 9.1 and in our verse. times in LXX .185 As a translation of Although is seldom used,186 there is no reason to assume that the translator guessed the meaning simply from the context. It appears more probable with , which in later Hebrew had the meaning busithat he connected ness, affair, concern.187 We can therefore presume that the confusion between these two words occurred owing to phonetic similarity.188 The same is true of the following verb-form , he desired to build, which is rendered , he undertook to build. The mention of Solomon’s building projects in Lebanon is lacking in G, , and in Lebanon, which is accepted by most exegetes. Mulder189 i. e. argues that Lebanon is not mentioned as it is unlikely that Solomon undertook building projects in the Lebanon. However, the reference to Solomon’s presence in the Lebanon appears in the Miscellany in 2.46c: , and Solomon began to open the natural resources of Lebanon, whatever that may mean. Whether this note was taken into consideration by our translator is difficult to say. Since our verse deals specifically with the question of building projects within Solomon’s kingdom, it is conceivable that the reference here was removed on the basis that Lebanon was not under the dominion of Solomon – Hiram was king over the Lebanon – and the translator thus felt obliged to eliminate this note as not being true to the facts. 183

Some comments on the verse have been made earlier, cf. above 28–9. 7.33; 9.1; 10.23, 24. 185 Elsewhere in 1 Par 28.21; Ps 70.15 (in B); Dan 6.4; 2 Mac 2.31. 186 1 Kings 9.1; 9.19; Is 21.4; 2 Chr 8.6. 187 Jastrow, Dictionary, 1099. 188 Cf. Tov, Textual Criticism, 251. 189 Mulder, 1 Kings, 487. 184

II. Smoothing out the (perceived) difficulties in the text and/or difficult Hebrew

67

3 Reigns 10.27 = MT 10.24 MT reads , and the whole earth sought the presence of Solomon whereas G has , and all the kings of the earth sought the presence of Solomon. There are at least two reasons for such a text. Firstly, G may have been puzzled by the incongruence between the singular and the plural participle , and consequently it decided to fill noun in the absent plural noun , which, incidentally, is found in 2 Chr 9.23 translated ). ( Secondly, it is likely that G considered the hyperbolic , and the whole earth, as either improper factually or, at least, imprecise and so added . If the verse were understood as an intensification of what had been said about Solomon’s wisdom in 4.30 (MT 5.14):

, and all the nations came to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and (ambassadors) from all the kings of the earth, as many as heard of his wisdom, it would not be surprising that was included. 3 Reigns 10.28 = MT 10.25 In the list of gifts brought yearly to Solomon by the visiting parties one item, , vessels of silver, is conspicuously missing from G. Although a homoioteleuton between and cannot be excluded, it seems more probable that we have here a conscious change. Earlier in the chapter verse 21 reported that silver was not worth much in the days of Solomon’s reign. Most likely the translator brought the text of our verse into accordance with the point made in verse 21: if silver was of no great value in the land, it was not worthy of being offered to the king.190 3 Reigns 11.20 = MT 11.20 There is a slight change of meaning in the translation of , and she weaned him. G has , brought up. According to Stade191 G makes more sense since only the time spent with the princess later in the child’s life could have been profitable for him. Therefore he proposes to emend the MT to , which is the standard equivalent of the Greek word.192 There is, however, a strong possibility that the translator had objections of a similar nature

190

Cf. Mulder, 1 Kings, 537 and discussion in chapter four, 152. Stade, Kings, 124. 192 Hr, 443. 191

68

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

and so utilised the more often used word and connected it to the context which was familiar and logical to him. 3 Reigns 11.29 = MT 11.29 G adds , and caused him to depart from the way. It is possible that it was omitted in the MT owing to homoioteleuton,193 but more probably the translator thought this information to be important for the understanding of the story. As the possible “motive of the action” in the story, Burney194 takes the need for privacy, which is not found on a busy road, and illustrates this from the Samuel and Saul story in 1 Sam 9.27. It is possible that the translator found such material essential to the story. Furwas regarded as redundant: the thermore, we can argue that the omitted very reason for leaving the road for the field was to be alone. Thus I agree with Wevers195 who argues for another instance of rationalisation on the part of the translator. 3 Reigns 11.32 = MT 11.32 MT has:

And one tribe will remain his, for the sake of my servant David and for the sake of Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel.

G has:

And two sceptres (tribes) will be his, for David my servant’s sake, and for the sake of Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel.

The problem in this verse is that of the number of tribes in the southern King. This difficulty has been dom. G has whereas MT has dealt with by different exegetes in contrasting ways. Some196 argue that homoioarcton in the previous verse, vs. , caused the confusion. Noth,197 on the other hand, argues that the whole passage including verses 29–39 is deuteronomistic and hence it contains the view that Judah was conceived as a unity. The tribe of Levi had not been counted because it did not 193

So, for example, Burney, Notes, 170 (between and Burney, Notes, 170. 195 Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 303. 196 Cf. Šanda, Könige, 319, and the critical apparatus in BHS. 197 Noth, Könige, 259. 194

).

II. Smoothing out the (perceived) difficulties in the text and/or difficult Hebrew

69

own the land, and so the total number of tribes would be eleven.198 It is conceivable that the tribe of Simeon had by that time been merged with Judah. Jones199 proposes yet another solution to the dilemma which strikes me as convincing: “Because of uncertainty about the tribes in these fluctuating historical circumstances, it appears reasonable to accept that the original oracle in verse 31 expresses the standpoint of the northern kingdom, which consisted of ten tribes, but the elaboration in verse 32 ff. in using the phrase one tribe takes the standpoint of the southern kingdom, which, as its designation as ‘that state of Judah’ implies, included the tribe of Judah together with any elements that had become attached to it.”

However, G takes a different route in its attempts to solve the riddles of the Hebrew. It harmonises the account by adding the “missing” tribe in the assumed total number of twelve regardless of the historical/theological point that the Hebrew is apparently trying to make.200 I agree therefore with Wevers who argues for a rationalisation on the part of G; the change to was perceived necessary “since both Judah and Benjamin remained faithful to the Davidic house.”201 3 Reigns 12.18 = MT 12.18 Reporting on Rehoboam’s escape from Shechem, the MT reads: And King Rehoboam hurriedly mounted his chariot to flee to Jerusalem,

whereas G has: And the king Roboam outstripped (others) to mount (the horse?) to flee to Jerusalem.

G omits and relates only the action , to mount to flee, not explaining what Rehoboam mounted. Schenker202 argues that G preserves here the more ancient form of the text than that preserved in the MT . He argues that in the HB one does not run away in a chariot, with the exception of a sudden retreat from the battlefield, or of a combat with somebody in a chariot. So, when one is in a location which is unfit for the use of chariots, and Schenker would argue that Shechem was one such place without 198

Schenker, Septante, 97–9, however, thinks that G refers to the tribe of Levi, but does not mention it explicitly because the Levites were not the subjects of the kings of the house of David. Moreover, Schenker thinks that the readers would have been instantly able to identify the unnamed tribe as the Levites. 199 Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, I, 244. 200 Pace Schenker, Septante, 97–8, who argues for the superiority of G. 201 Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 303. 202 Schenker, Septante, 140–1.

70

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

an adequate road connecting it with Jerusalem, one escapes either on foot or by horse. Schenker concludes thus that the MT by presupposing the use of a chariot on a decent road surface is anachronistic and would require transposition into Hellenistic times. In consequence, he regards the MT as the product of a later redaction. However, Schenker’s thesis is based on arguments from silence. We are in no position to infer from the text that there was no beaten road; the text certainly does not encourage such a thought, nor do we know that Rehoboam would not have used a chariot. To the contrary, Solomon’s extensive import of chariots from Egypt, as described in chapter 10, would have left Rehoboam with a sufficient supply of these. However, it is possible that the translator either had similar questions to those raised by Schenker and thus left the means of transportation deliberately vague, or else it was so obvious that Rehoboam fled on his royal chariot that it was considered redundant. Incidentally, the Miscellany at 12.24u reads . 3 Reigns 12.20 = MT 12.20 In this verse as well G shows concern for the inclusion of relevant information. In the question which tribes were faithful to the Davidic throne after Solomon’s death, the MT says , there was no one who followed the house of David, except the tribe of Judah alone. G, however, adds . Most likely here, too, G is harmonising in line with verses 21, 23 and 11.31, 32 and 36, where Benjamin is counted with Judah. Moreover, G is concerned that the text should be made relevant in the light of present-day geography.203 3 Reigns 12.21 = MT 12.21 , one There is a difference in the number of the troops. MT has hundred and eighty thousand, but G has , a hundred and twenty thousand. Stade204 maintains that either of the readings could be erroneous. It is likely, however, that the first figure seemed too high to the translator205 to be realistic, hence the change.

203 Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, I, 255, argues that this is so because in the post-exilic period the area adjacent to Jerusalem was inhabited by both the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. 204 Stade, Kings, 130. 205 Modern exegetes also struggle with this unusually high number of warriors for Benjamin. Montgomery, Kings, 251, commenting on the MT ’s number, calls it “absurd”.

II. Smoothing out the (perceived) difficulties in the text and/or difficult Hebrew

71

3 Reigns 12.27 = MT 12.27 Relating Jeroboam’s reflections on the potential problems involved in allowing the populace to attend the feasts in Jerusalem, G lacks the part of the verse which speculates about the possibility of the people’s defection: , and return to King Rehoboam of Judah. Wevers206 understands this omission as a sign of “personal cowardice” on the part of Jeroboam. The introduction of the rival feast was not based on good political perception alone, but, Wevers argues, G’s version implies that he was afraid to lose his influence over the people. Although this idea could be true of G, it seems to apply equally to the MT . It is not clear, however, why Wevers thinks this omission would help make “a more pointed story”. It seems more probable that the phrase was omitted as redundant. 3 Reigns 12.31 = MT 12.31 We find the witnesses differing in their reports on the idolatrous practices of Jeroboam accounts. , and he made a house on The MT says of Jeroboam high places, whereas G reads , and he made houses on (the) high places. Schenker207 thinks it plausible that, since Jeroboam established a new liturgical calendar, each holy place would have its own liturgical calendar and, as a result, its own cultic premises. Moreover, in another study devoted to our passage (12.28–33)208 Schenker constructs a complex theory according to which MT mentions three temples,209 and, in Schenker’s view, harmonises 12.30 with 2 Chr 11.16: unlike in a few LXX MSS , MT does not stress the fact that Israel abandoned the House of the Lord.210 Furthermore, Schenker finds fault with the MT ’s 2 Kings 17.29 and 32, which also mention the singular house on high places, for not supplying enough of the geographical details of where this temple stood.211 These, in Schenker’s view, are clear arguments for the originality of G’s account. This explanation, however ingenious and complex, does not seem convincing. More likely G understood as a collective in view of of 13.32 and rendered it in the plural , houses on the of verse 27 high places. By so doing, however, the contrast with the is lost.212 206

Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 311. Schenker, Septante, 100. 208 Schenker, Textgeschichte, 36–40. 209 Schenker, Textgeschichte, 38. 210 Schenker, Textgeschichte, 38. 211 Schenker, Textgeschichte, 44. 212 Schenker, Textgeschichte, 36, note 38, mentions the connection, but fails to point out its implications. 207

72

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

3 Reigns 12.32 = MT 12.32 Verse 32 informs the reader about the changes in the cultic calendar introduced by Jeroboam. After building an alternative sanctuary, the second stage ) and Jeroboam’s parinvolved the appointing of the new festival ( ticipation in it: , and he went up to the altar; so he did in Bethel. G renders it , and he went up to the altar which he made in Bethel. G misunderstood and translated it with the particle , thereby changing the meaning of the fragment. The reference then is no longer to the sacrifice made in Bethel, but to the making of the altar in Bethel. This is clearly under the influence of the following verse: . 3 Reigns 12.33 = MT 12.33 MT has: 213

And he went up to the altar that he had made in Bethel on the fifteenth day in the eighth month, in the month that he alone had devised; he appointed a festival for the people of Israel, and he went up to the altar to offer incense.

G has:

And he went up to the altar which he made, on the fifteenth day in the eighth month, at the feast which he devised out of his own heart, and he made a feast for the children of Israel, and went up to the altar to sacrifice.

There is a significant difference between the MT and G; instead of the second instance of , in the month, G has , at the feast. Wevers thinks that the reason for the conscious change by the translator was the fact that the feast was unknown to him.214 But the translator has most likely misunderstood the Hebrew or was concerned not to give a wrong impression as to what was being said. It seemed illogical to him to render into Greek the seemingly nonsensical notion of “devising a month” and he consciously adjusted it so that Jeroboam did not devise a month, but a new feast. However, this is not altogether correct, for Jeroboam did not establish an altogether new feast but only an alternative time for the feast.215 As we know from 8.2 the Feast of Tabernac213

A number of MSS and Q read , which is what G translates. Cf. also 164. Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 311. 215 Cf. Noth, Könige, 289. 214

II. Smoothing out the (perceived) difficulties in the text and/or difficult Hebrew

73

les was held in the seventh month ( , Ethanim), between the fifteenth and twenty-first days of that month.216 It can be concluded, therefore, that the solution to the problem G found with the Hebrew is not altogether satisfactory. 3 Reigns 13.2 = MT 13.2 The denunciation of the altar by the unnamed man of God from Bethel is presented slightly differently in G. Referring to the burning of the bones ( , they will burn, whereas G has singular ) MT has a plural verb , he will burn. Most probably we are dealing here with a conscious change by the translator. By changing the person from plural to singular Josiah, who is the focus of the prophecy anyway, is made the subject of the second part of the verse. Nevertheless, although this seems a plausible solution to the problem of the plural in the Hebrew, there is text-critically very little to be said for it, and the MT as it stands can be defended, too.217 3 Reigns 13.3 = MT 13.3 The MT reads: and he gave a sign the same day, saying,“This is the sign that the LORD has spoken”,

whereas G reads: 218

and in that day he will give a sign, saying, “This is the word which the Lord has spoken”.

G refers to Josiah as the one giving the sign, rather than, as the context of the MT would suggest, the unnamed man of God from Judah himself. This suggests that G understood the text as unfulfilled at that moment, but awaiting fulfilment at the hands of Josiah in 4 Reigns 23.15. At the same time it has to be admitted that G translating would have been very easily persuaded to use the future tense in view of the following: (1) the imperfect in verse 2, (2) the closest subject, also in verse 2, being Josiah, which implies that the action is norto be fulfilled in the future, and (3) the immediately following mally referring to a future event, it is also possible that a reworking of the text in G is due to a logical consideration. We are not told about the fulfilment of the sign of the broken altar until 2 Kings 23.15, and so G could feel justified in using the future tense, thereby referring to Josiah. 216

G has preserved only the second part of the verse: . Noth, Könige, 293, maintains that “(es) bliebe immer noch seltsam, daß auf die höchst konkrete Mitteilung von 2b eine vergleichsweise so blasse Aussage wie 2b folgt.”. 218 L MSS follow G in its rendering, but MSS AN have . 217

74

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

Moreover, instead of the typical equivalent , sign, for the second , G has an unusual one, , word. Since a sign is normally given, and not spoken, G adjusted the expression according to its logic; what the Lord has spoken is a word not a sign. 3 Reigns 13.11 = MT 13.11 The old prophet in Bethel is approached with the information about the man of , God from Judah. The MT in the first part of the verse has . This abrupt shift from but in the second the MT has a plural singular to plural in the MT is difficult to explain. NRSV understands as one of his sons. G, however, solves the difficulty otherwise: it reads . Prompted by the plural in the into latter part of the verse and in verse 12, G changed the initial singular the plural and in this way disposed of the difficulty. 3 Reigns 13.31 = MT 13.31 , lay my bones, by , lay me. By this G G translates makes the point that immediately after death it is the body, rather than the bones, that is buried. Yet G has additional text following: . This material has been added in view of the fulfilment of the word of the man of God in 2 Kings 23.18. Although Gray219 wants to see this addition as original, basing his argument on the fact that “the whole passage is so influenced”, there is no need to follow his suggestion. I propose that the additional text has been introduced by G in anticipation of the fact that the “bones” of both men will rest in the same tomb.220 3 Reigns 15.10 = MT 15.10 , Maacah daughter of Abishalom, G has , Ana, daughter of Abessalom. It seems that G changed the name was described as the because it clashed with the report of verse 2 where mother of Abijah, Asa’s father. This caused G to adopt a different name , while leaving the patronymic . A likely explanation of this difficulty in the MT is that since Abijah’s reign lasted only three years, Maacah was still the queen mother during Asa, her grandson’s, reign.221 For

219

Gray, 1 & 2 Kings, 329. Cf. Noth, Könige, 291. 221 Cf. Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 304. 220

II. Smoothing out the (perceived) difficulties in the text and/or difficult Hebrew

75

3 Reigns 15.21 = MT 15.21 , and lived The MT says that Baasha stopped building Ramah in Tirzah. G, however, says , and returned to Thersa. and is followed by most modern exG’s presupposes egetes. However, as Noth222 points out, Baasha’s return to Tirzah is not the main point here. During the Aramean campaign there was no more overseeing of the building project and so no reason for Baasha to come to Ramah. Indeed Baasha stayed on in Tirza since his plans for moving the seat of power to Ramah had been abandoned along with the building project. Hence there is no need to accept G’s suggestion that Baasha moved back to Tirzah; there is no indication that he had ever moved from there permanently. G is reading too much into the text. 3 Reigns 15.33 = MT 15.33 . G sees Reporting on Baasha’s rule MT says that he was the king this as an error of fact and omits . The phrase is rendered faithfully by in 12.1 and 16 but there, one could argue, representatives of the whole of Israel were present. This does not hold true in the case of Baasha, for if he were the king of the Northern Kingdom, as the text clearly reports, he could not have reigned over all Israel, i. e., comprising all twelve omitted. Howtribes. Consequently the reference had to be adjusted and ever, G is not entirely consistent in its renderings of the phrase. In 16.16 and 17, dealing with the account of the transfer of power from Zimri to Omri, G has different treatments of the phrase in the two verses. In 16.16 the Hebrew text reading is rendered . The omission of the equivalent of is evident. But what does all Israel mean in this context anyway? Walsh argues that all Israel is exaggerated since only Omri’s troops can be referred to as present at the coronation, and it concerned only the North in any case.223 G, confronted with our passage, obviously did not think of representatives of the twelve tribes but only the part of Israel’s troops in the north that were with Omri, and so they could not be referred to as all Israel; consequently only was retained. Montgomery224 argues that “the changes were made because the ideal All-Israel was not involved.” However, in 16.17 MT ’s is rendered . Although it is equally unlikely that all Israel was involved immediately following the insur222

Noth, Könige, 325, 341. Cf. Walsh, Kings, 216. 224 Montgomery, Kings, 290. 223

76

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

rection against Zimri, G nevertheless retained for a reason which is difficult to determine. Thus, although we can be fairly certain about the reasons in 15.33, G’s treatment of the phrase is not for the omission of uniform in the section. 3 Reigns 16.15 = MT 16.15 The amount of time Zimri stayed in power is differently presented by the MT and G. G has , seven years, the MT , seven days. Montgomery225 credits this difference to the addition in verse 6, where G reads , in the twentieth year of king Asa, and so in summing up the years comes up with this number. Although Montgomery is certainly right in his observation and the number makes sense, there is another possible way in which to account for the difference. The amount of time required to carry out the judgement on the house of Baasha, as described in connection with verse 11, could have been a factor leading to the lengthening of Zimri’s reign in G. Seven days is indeed a very short period of time during which Zimri is reported to have wiped out the entire family of Baasha. It is possible, therefore, that G felt it was more likely achieved with the extended period of Zimri’s reign. 3 Reigns 16.28g = MT 22.50 Referring to the conversation between Ahaziah son of Ahab and Jehoshaphat , Ahazconcerning a shared nautical project, the king’s name iah son of Ahab, has been omitted and a very general included. Most probably G thought that it clashed with verse 29 where Ahab still reigns after Jehoshaphat’s death. Clearly, the reference to his son as king during Jehoshaphat’s reign would have been considered anachronistic, so G omitted it. 3 Reigns 17.6 = MT 17.6 MT relates that the ravens brought Elijah’s food in the following manner: , bread and meat in the morning, and bread and meat in the evening. G has, however, , bread in the morning and meat in the evening. G seems to care about variety in the prophet’s food: it lacks in the first senand in the second . Benzinger226 and Klostermann,227 followed tence 225

Montgomery, Kings, 289. Benzinger, Könige, 107. 227 Klostermann, Könige, 363–4. 226

II. Smoothing out the (perceived) difficulties in the text and/or difficult Hebrew

77

by Montgomery,228 accept the influence of Ex. 16.8 and 12 upon the translator as the explanation for the variation. Stade,229 however, defends G’s originality on the basis that its account better reflects eating habits in the East, i. e., bread in the morning and meat in the evening meal. Quite possibly both factors could have been taken into consideration by G, and from our perspective it is difficult to judge which one had a greater influence on the translator, though the logical argument seems more persuasive. In any case, this correction cannot be attributed to a mechanical error but to a conscious change on the part of the translator who for one reason or another felt the need to adjust the text to fit his ideas. 3 Reigns 17.15 = MT 17.15 MT has: And she went and did as Elijah said, so that he as well as she and her household ate for (many) days.

G has: And the woman went and did and she ate and both he and her children.

is lacking in G. We can speculate as to the reason for this. Most likely it was omitted because the translator took offence at this statement. Ac) and verse 16 cording to verse 14 it was the word of the Lord ( further develops the idea that the woman was acting according to God’s in). However, the MT is merely saying that it was delivered struction ( by Elijah and nowhere does the text claim that the instruction originated with Elijah. Quite to the contrary, both verse 14 and 16 stress that Elijah was solely the agent acting on God’s behalf. However, it must not have been enough for our translator and he omitted the problematic clause. 3 Reigns 18.12 = MT 18.12 MT ’s , and the spirit of the LORD will carry you I know not where, has been made more precise: , and the spirit of the Lord will carry you to a land which I know not. The reason for choosing was probably the influence of the concepts of nation and kingdom in verse 10.

228 229

Montgomery, Kings, 297. Stade, Kings, 150.

78

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

G lacks , and he cannot find you. It may have been considered redundant; if Elijah were to be taken to a land that Obadiah did not know of, that would mean that he would not know where to look for him and in consequence would not be able to find him. Stade sees the phrase as an unnecessary expansion in the MT : “the narrative is more vivid without it”,230 though in fact the opposite is true; the reason for Ahab’s anger is not apparent without the note. 3 Reigns 18.35 = MT 18.35 The MT gives the impression that it was Elijah who filled the trench, since it reads: And the water ran all around the altar, and he filled also the trench with water

G has:

And the water ran round about the altar, and they filled the thalassan with water.

G’s plural suggests that it wanted to avoid what it considered to be a clash with the previous verse. There it is the unspecified they ( ) who pour the water on the altar. Nevertheless there is no real conflict between verses 34 and 35 of the MT : since it was Elijah who ordered the pouring of water, it was .231 in effect he who Alternatively, the scenario ran something like this: after the people had poured water on the sacrifice and altar, Elijah additionally filled the trench. However for G this was unacceptable, and it utilised the plural in our verse under the influence of the plural verbs in the earlier verses.232 3 Reigns 18.36 = MT 18.36 Rendering Elijah’s prayer, we have the following texts: 233

And that I have done all these things at your words And for your sake I have done these things

230

Stade, Kings, 153. Cf. Stade, Kings, 155. 232 Cf. Burney, Notes, 227. 233 Q has singular . 231

II. Smoothing out the (perceived) difficulties in the text and/or difficult Hebrew

79

It is possible that G found difficulty with the phrase since there is no specific mention of God instructing Elijah to perform these acts, and hence felt it safer to refer to them in this way. Wevers234 argues that by so doing the translator avoids the possible connotations of “magical practice” on the part of Elijah, if this were to be inferred from his utterance: I have done all these things at your word. It is possible, however, that G tries to avoid the by giving Elijah special notion that God would allow a sacrifice on the permission through his word to him, even though sacrificing on the was clearly forbidden at the time. Thus G makes a statement that what Elijah did was , which could be translated here as for your sake or even for you. Consequently G does not include the potentially offensive idea that God allowed Elijah to do something he expressly condemned in Deut 12. 3 Reigns 19.1 = MT 19.1 In his account of the slaughter of Baal’s priests to Jezebel, Ahab tells of Elijah’s actions: And all how he had killed all the prophets with the sword.

At the end of the verse G lacks in relation to the prophets. Stade235 argues that “was erroneously repeated from the clause before.” But as Walsh236 points out, the repetition of three times emphasises the “detailed completeness of Ahab’s report” to Jezebel. G may have tried to avoid the awkward Heby removing .The absolute use of all would brew expression be absurd, meaning all the prophets were killed by Elijah. This was obviously unacceptable for G and was omitted.237 3 Reigns 19.11 = MT 19.11 The beginning of the verse in the MT reads: And he said, “Go out and stand on the mountain before the LORD .”

but G renders it as follows: And he said, “Come out tomorrow and stand before the Lord on the mountain.”

234

Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 315. Stade, Kings, 156. 236 Walsh, Kings, 265. 237 Manuscripts g and i have added 235

for clarity’s sake.

80

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

, tomorrow, is unaccounted for. This word occurs three times in 3 Reigns: in 19.2 and 11 (where no underlying Hebrew is extant), and in 21.6 , tomorrow. It is probable that G inserted (MT 20.6) where it translates this expansion in view of verse 9, where , and he lodged there, and, behold, the word of the Lord (came) to him, gives the impression that , as well as the events described in verses 11 and 12, happened during the night. Only in verse 13 does Elijah come out, after the forces of nature are calm again, which is why G considered it to take place on the next day. 3 Reigns 20.1 = MT 21.1 , and it came At the beginning of the verse the MT has to pass after these events (took place), which is lacking in G. Its text begins And Nabuthai the Israelite had a vineyard, near the threshing floor of Achaab king of Samaria. are superfluous “beim engen AnŠanda238 argues that the words until schluß an Kap. 19”. However, if we consider, as we have done, the possibility that in G chapter 21 has been transposed before chapter 20 on purpose, this argument does not hold good. As Stade observes, this note is necessary for the flow of the argument, if the sequence of events as recorded in the MT is to be retained.239 Obviously for G, following a different scenario, it was not helpful at all; in fact, if retained it would work against the order proposed by G. Since it did not fit the argument in G’s chronological logic, it was therefore excluded. 3 Reigns 21.3 = MT 20.3 MT reports that Ben-hadad’s message to Ahab was , and your wives and fairest children are mine. G lacks , fair. It probably felt a clash with the following information according to which all the children were to be taken, not just the fairest. Possibly we can see here the influence of , in view of which G tried verses 5 and 7, where the MT has only to unify the account by omitting this one-off note.

3 Reigns 21.7 = MT 20.7 , to all the elders of the land, G has , omitting the reference to the land. Since the earlier narrative informed the reader that Ben-hadad besieged the city, this implies severe restrictions on For

238 239

Šanda, Könige, 461. Stade, Kings, 164.

II. Smoothing out the (perceived) difficulties in the text and/or difficult Hebrew

81

anybody outside reaching the city. Thus it seemed improbable that elders from outside the city would come in, and so G’s version of events assumes that they were the elders of the city, or were at least staying in Samaria at the time of : not all siege. In the following verse G omits in its rendering of the elders were present, only the ones from Samaria. This, however, contradicts the previous verse where G has . 3 Reigns 21.15 = MT 20.15 MT has:

And he numbered the young men of the heads of the districts, and they were two hundred and thirty-two; and after them he numbered all the people, all the sons of Israel, seven thousand.

G has:

And Achaab numbered the chiefs(,) the young men of the districts, and it was two hundred and thirty; and afterwards he numbered the people, all mighty men, sixty.

G changes the order of the people numbered and so in effect counts the chiefs , choirs, rather than the young men (as MT has it). So, too, in verse 17. bands of dancers, seems clearly to be an error for , districts, territories. Yet Schenker240 argues for a different development. In his article he proposes that translating MT , G has retained the original version of the text. Schenker thinks that in the Vorlage of G the choirs and the dancing procession were the main point in the narrative, and he argues for a connection with 2 Sam 6.5,13 and 1 Kings 1.40 where G speaks of involved in open celebration. Schenker’s argument is that the MT avoids the use of choirs in both cases and that it removed the term from the present reference.241 For , G has , omitting ; Montgomery242 argues that the figure seemed too low for the whole of Israel. , G has , omitting , but adds . For Burney argues that G and L “rightly presuppose ”.243 But this expla-

240 241

Schenker, Junge Garden, 18. Schenker, Junge Garden, 19–21. Cf. the following discussion of Schenker’s argu-

ment. 242 243

Montgomery, Kings, 327. Burney, Notes, 235.

82

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

nation is not necessary: G had a problem with the number referring to all Israel and so omitted but added the gloss , son of strength. , seven thousand, G has , sixty, and Whereas MT has L has , sixty thousand. Schenker thinks that G has retained would be expected as the original text. He claims that the MT ’s the fulfilment of prophecy given to Elijah in 19.18, and so MT would naturally supply it, not the more difficult sixty soldiers of G!244 This is for Schenker the measure of originality. Moreover, the choir makes more sense tactically in Schenker’s mind in a situation of surprise attack on Ben-hadad in the middle of the day than would a troop of 7000 soldiers.245 Furthermore, Schenker doubts the logic of the MT narrative: had Ahab an army of 7000 soldiers at his disposal, why would he not put it to use against Ben-hadad at an earlier stage in the conflict and why would he attack the enemy only after a chiding word from the prophet?246 All these considerations lead Schenker to propose that G indeed has the more original text and that the choir of young dancers accompanied by 60 soldiers represents the original intention of the text.247 The question as to what purpose a choir of dancers would have, Schenker answers with reference to the dance choir of 2 Sam 6.13 where they are part of the royal procession.248 However, Schenker’s argument is ill-founded. The MT text of 2 Sam 6.13 does not have the equivalent of G’s , and so the case is a difficult one anyway. His second argument for the existence of bands of choirs is taken from 3 Reigns 1.40 where we have another textual difficulty. Thus Schenker’s arguments for the originality of G in our verse are more or less a collection of textual errors. Moreover, it is more probable that in 18.10. renders MT ’s An alternative explanation for G may be suggested here. It is conceivable that, if we are not dealing with a scribal error, a different understanding of the figure is implied by G. Ahab was not counting the army of the whole of Israel, in the number two hundred and thirty-two, nor even that of the northern kingdom, but the young men who were to lead in the battle as well as some not closely defined as chiefs or champions, i. e., mighty men, in the number sixty. This would connect well with the passage in 2 Reigns 17.8 where David’s special warriors are called . This idea, however, is entirely absent from the MT in our passage.

244

Schenker, Junge Garden, 26. Schenker, Junge Garden, 25. 246 Schenker, Junge Garden, 31. 247 Schenker, Junge Garden, 26. 248 Schenker, Junge Garden, 32. 245

II. Smoothing out the (perceived) difficulties in the text and/or difficult Hebrew

83

3 Reigns 21.17 = MT 20.17 G read , and Ben-hadad had sent, as impersonal “and one sent”,249 making Ben-hadad the object rather than subject of the clause and omitting the proper name . Although G makes for a smoother reading of the story it is less original. It is quite likely that G’s decision to read the text this way was based on the improbability of Ben-hadad’s sending spies while in the condition described in verse 16: , and the son of Ader was drinking (and) getting drunk in Socchoth. Incidentally, a number of exegetes250 have proposed to emend the text of the MT in accordance with G for the same reason: it seemed more likely to have the Aramean spies send the information to the drunk king rather than for him to give orders. Indeed, on the surface this explanation seems to make better sense. It should be observed, however, that the commissioning of the spies to keep watch on what is happening at the gates of Samaria need not necessarily have taken place after Ben-hadad’s intoxicating party. Moreover, it makes sense that a king conducting a siege of a city would charge his soldiers to be alert to any changes in the besieged fort, such as movements of enemy troops, even though he himself would have been engaged in other activities. I would argue, therefore, for a conscious alteration of the Hebrew text. 3 Reigns 21.26 = MT 20.26 is translated . The critical apparatus in BHS suggests a Vorlage with , but this is unnecessary. Although , in relation to combat, would normally be translated either without any preposition251 or as as ,252 in 1 Sam 13.5 G translates . I am of the opinion that the translator wanted to ensure that the against aspect is clearly discernible. 3 Reigns 21.30 = MT 20.30 , and came into the city, (into) a chamber within a chamber, is rendered , and entered into the house of the chamber, into a closet. The translator, faced with a seemingly illogical statement, introduced instead of

249

Cf. Burney, Notes, 235. Cf. Stade, Kings, 160, Šanda, Könige, 479. 251 As is the case in Ex 17.8 , i. e., 250

252

As is the case in a number of instances in Judges.

84

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

in order to improve the meaning of the sentence.253 That the translator struggled to make sense of the Hebrew is further evident from and . , which both render 3 Reigns 21.43 = MT 20.43 MT reads , and the king of Israel went toward his home, which is made more specific later in , and came to Samaria. In its rendering of the verse G lacks .254 It is likely that the precisionconscious G recalled that in 20.2 (MT 21.1) it is reported that Ahab’s home was not in Samaria, but in Jezreel. In spite of the fact that Ahab might have had several palaces in different locations, G felt that this was not an appropriate statement about the location of Ahab’s home and omitted it.

III. Adherence to detail and precision of expression In the following section we shall discuss issues influenced by logical considerations where the translator’s concern to deliver precise and exact information is the driving force behind changes in the text. 3 Reigns 2.22 = MT 2.22 At the end of the verse G adds ,255 the commanderin-chief, a friend, which is appended to make the text more precise. In the MT 253 Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 306, argues that “the metonymy was lost upon the translator who felt that a city with chambers made no sense. Hence he interpreted it as ”. 254 Schenker, Textgeschichte, 101–2, maintains that is incongruent with , thus it has to mean “… over his house”, instead of “toward his home”. The fact that G lacks this note is for Schenker clear evidence that it constitutes a plus in the MT , which stresses MT ’s shift of emphasis from “people” to “dynasty”. This, in turn, Schenker argues, can be deduced from verse 42 where the judgment is on the king and his life, as there is no mention of the king’s house, i. e., his dynasty. However, notice the discussion in the main body of text. 255 Montgomery, Kings, 100, explains the first term as Joab’s title, but judges the second as follows: “apparently error for the pl., epexegetical to the preceding dative .” However, Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 310, observes here a deprecatory Tendenz in relation to the enemies of the kingdom. He translates as the other (= ) commander, and argues that since Joab supported Adonijah his title would refer to the one in charge of the “rebel forces”. Besides, Wevers maintains that, in verse 32, Joab has been replaced in his office by Benaiah, hence the other in the text. But is Wevers right in assuming this reading? This assumption would hold good only if we take to be an error for ; the former does not occur with the meaning other. (A negative nuance can be attributed to it if the translation partisan is to be accepted.) This is certainly possible in view of a number of cases where a confusion has occurred between these two words (cf. Walters, Text, 214–8, in a section on the confusion of and ). However, it is

III. Adherence to detail and precision of expression

85

Abiathar is described as , but Joab’s “job description” is lacking. The need to provide this bit of information was felt by G not only in order to retain the symmetry in the narrative, but because both offices were the most prominent ones in the kingdom. 3 Reigns 2.25 = MT 2.25 The narrative reports that Benaiah is sent by Solomon to do away with Adonijah. G adds at the end of the verse in order to comply with the text of verse 24, where Solomon pledges to deal with Adonijah the very same day: . Schenker256 suggests that there is a connection between our verse and 2.31 where the same phrase is used concerning Joab. He argues that in both cases the MT presupposes an old penal code reflected in the teaching of later rabbis who argue that the execution should not be carried out on the same day as the sentence is passed, but on the following.257 Furthermore, Schenker maintains, the MT ’s version gives credibility to Solomon’s function as judge; he does not act in haste, and since the execution is not carried out immediately, there is time to review the sentence should any doubts arise. G, on the other hand, delivers a less positive view of Solomon because it mentions the execution immediately, thus implying Solomon’s impatience to eliminate without delay a potentially dangerous contestant for the throne. On the basis of this observation, Schenker argues that the positive approach visible in the MT is a sign of a redactionally reworked text, and, on the other hand, of the originality of G since it presents Solomon in a less favourable light.258 However, the value-judgement which Schenker attributes to both the MT and G is not convincing. It seems that both witnesses present Solomon as eager to root out any opposition at this early stage of his reign. Apart from 2 Sam 1.13–16, where another case of an immediate execution can be found, we have very little evidence as to the time-scale which usually applied in capital cases so it is difficult to speculate whether what we have in our text is an atypical procedure requiring explanation. As far as the narrative is concerned, there is no need for this explanatory note in G. It seems more probable that G added it for precision’s sake and to agree with the preceding verse 24.

difficult to establish whether there is indeed an error, partially owing to the lack of an underlying Hebrew word. Of the L MSS only b has . Nevertheless, Wevers’ argument can be retained even though one does not have to accept his point that the text should read 256 Schenker, Septante, 67. 257 Cf. m.Sanh. 4.1 and 5.5. 258 Schenker, Septante, 68.

86

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

3 Reigns 2.28 = MT 2.28 G adds the precise description whereas the MT has only the name . This is not the first occasion within the section where Joab , is mentioned. Already in verse 22 the matronymic is introduced rendered by G . There, however, it is fulfilling a particular purpose in the narrative. Similarly in 2.5, where David instructs Solomon as to how he should go about dealing with David’s enemies, he spells out their names along with the patronymic, and also in 2.22, where Solomon answers his mother’s request for Abishag to be given as wife to Adonijah, full names and titles are included. It appears, therefore, that a certain official tone is maintained in these verses. This is despite the fact that all the characters are well known to the reader by this stage. Therefore, it seems that G either wanted to emphasise something by including Joab’s matronymic or else it simply adjusted our text to the form previously encountered. I would argue that the latter is probably the case since no reason for emphasis can be detected. 3 Reigns 2.29 = MT 2.29 Continuing the account of Joab’s escape to the tent of the Lord, the MT ’s , (he is) beside the altar, is rendered , he has hold of the horns of the altar. G’s text is more detailed although it does not include any new information but solely repeats what is known from the previous verse. Although admitting that this may be a harmonisation of the Vorlage, Schenker259 thinks that G presents a more original reading of the story on the basis of the following. He maintains that there is a connection with Ex 21.14 which presupposes that a person guilty of homicide can seek refuge by the altar, whereas the one committing a crime wilfully has to be taken away from the altar for execution. G’s reading of the story implies Solomon’s violation of this provision in the Law, for Joab refuses to leave the Holy Place in verse 30. In G’s story, then, Schenker argues, Joab is holding on to the horns of the altar and thus the narrative makes Solomon transgress the Law – by holding the horns of the altar Joab pleads not guilty. On the other hand Schenker maintains that in the MT ’s reading there is no suggestion of Solomon’s transgression, for Joab himself pleads guilty by his action of leaving the Holy Place. The MT thus suggests an implicit confession of culpability on the part of Joab.260 Thus, Schenker argues, by altering the text the MT protects Solomon from transgressing against the Torah’s provision for such situations.261 259

Schenker, Septante, 69, idem, Joabs Tod, 27–35. Schenker, Septante, 70, idem, Joabs Tod, 30. 261 Schenker, Septante, 70, idem, Joabs Tod, 30. 260

III. Adherence to detail and precision of expression

87

However, the difference which Schenker seeks to point out in the two readings is exaggerated.262 MT ’s text implies Joab’s presence in the Holy Place and does not fundamentally differ from of verse 28. In both witnesses Joab tries to secure immunity by escaping into the presence of the altar. There is no stronger emphasis on Joab’s guilt in the MT than in G. Thus I agree with Burney who argues that the translator repeated this text out of a “desire for strict uniformity”.263 Moreover, the same motivation can be discerned behind the short addition264 at the end of the verse: , and bury him. This is not completely new material but anticipates Solomon’s words of instruction to Benaiah in verse 31, , fall upon him and bury him, which G renders . Most probably G felt that without this note at this point Solomon’s instruction to bury Joab in verse 31 would appear to be an afterthought, and so for the sake of both Solomon’s credibility and the cohesiveness of the narrative it was included here. 3 Reigns 2.32 = MT 2.32 , and the Lord has returned the blood, rendering MT ’s , and the LORD will return his blood, is given a more detailed explanation by adding , of his unrighteousness. Schenker265 states that the MT should be understood as an imprecatory prayer which petitions God to return the bloodguilt of Joab on his own head rather than on that of his judge, Solomon. He argues that nowhere in the HB does the judge have to make such a request that the blood go on the head of the criminal and not the judge. In G, Schenker argues, is completely natural: there is no need to ask that the guilt be returned on the head of Joab – God had already done so. However, the difficulty in the verse seems to be more connected to the idea of time, and not the issue of the bloodguilt returned upon Joab or Solomon, which two issues Schenker confuses. It seems likely that G in its quest for precision of expression wanted to make sure that the Hebrew phrase was correctly understood by its readers.266 Nevertheless, it is only at this point that G supplies additional comment when translating in 3 Reigns.267

262

Van Keulen, Solomon Narrative, 29–31, also does not share Schenker’s optimistic assessment of G’s priority arguing that there is not enough difference between being near the altar and holding the horns of the altar to assign to them the significance Schenker does. 263 Burney, Notes, 23. 264 For the longer addition in this verse see chapter four, 136–7. 265 Schenker, Septante, 72–3. 266 Although the question of Solomon’s portrayal also plays a role, cf. comments, 137–8. 267 Out of 10 occurrences of in this book.

88

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

Moreover, the plus functions further to explain what David did not know about (approve of), i. e., the blood of Abner and Amasa, and thus connects our text with 2 Reigns 2.28 where the death of Abner is discussed.268 3 Reigns 2.33 = MT 2.33 The continuation of Solomon’s imprecatory prayer reads in the MT as follows: , and their blood shall return on the head of Joab. But G has a different text here: , and his blood(s) is returned upon his head, thus implying that it has already taken place. G seems to some degree to repeat the Hebrew of verse 32, , which is rendered there [ ] . G’s plural renders the Hebrew correctly, but the third person singular personal pronoun, , makes it incongruent with the preceding plural. Although G does not agree with the Hebrew, it is coherent is rendered by in itself. It is noteworthy that in verse 31 the plural in the singular , while in verse 32 the singular is rendered in the singular and the second appearing later in the verse has no Hebrew equivalent. Of these occurrences only in our verse do we have the plural . Schenker269 points out that G has a singular understanding of the word blood in these cases. So it seems that the translator is using the word in the sense “his assassinations” or “crimes”, which is not exactly what the Hebrew is trying to say and shows the interpretative character of G. 3 Reigns 2.37 = MT 2.37 The solemn promise which Solomon makes to Shimei ends in G with a plus: , and the king caused him to swear in that day. This addition was influenced by verse 42, where the reason for Shimei’s condemnation is announced: his breaking of the oath. Although the narrative anticipates verse 42, where Solomon recounts Shimei’s consent on that particular occasion, the actual act of swearing an oath is never actually reported in the MT , though it is implicitly stated in verse 38. As will be discussed elsewhere,270 the addition is most likely connected with G’s enhanced portrayal of Solomon. However, the secondary purpose, or perhaps a desirable side-effect, is the inclusion of information most likely considered to be so important that it could not be missed, even though it is not present in the 268 Thus agreeing with Van Keulen, Solomon Narrative, 35, and pace Schenker, Septante, 73–4, who takes as referring to Abner and Amassa’s own crimes. 269 Schenker, Septante, 73. 270 Cf. chapter four, 138.

III. Adherence to detail and precision of expression

89

Hebrew. Klostermann,271 accepting G’s version as original, argues that “Nach V. 42.43 ist der Meineid bei Jahve der Rechtsgrund für Simeis Hinrichtung; also muß der Schwur, wenn irgendwo, hier in der Erzählung konstatiert werden.” Most likely this was G’s argument as well but the question is whether G’s correction was put in the right place. Burney272 thinks that had this passage been “genuine”, the report of swearing the oath would have followed 38a where Shimei agrees with the king’s demands in general terms; in other words, had Shimei sworn an oath in verse 37, he would not have continued with the words reported in 38a, , and Semei said to the king, “Good is the word that you have spoken, my lord O king: thus will your servant do.” As it stands, verse 37 is not coherent with what follows. Thus it can be suggested that G added this text through its pursuit of precision, yet failed by inserting it at the wrong place. 3 Reigns 2.41 = MT 2.41 G’s version of events, unlike the MT , gives the reason for Shimei’s trip to Gath: , and (Simei) has returned back (cf. verse 30), for and supplying the obhis servants, reading ject. Burney273 considers the addition to be a gloss, whereas Klostermann274 argues that it is pointless because it does not contribute anything to the story; for Solomon it was not important whether Shimei returned with or without the slaves, but that he broke the oath. G’s decision to include this material was influenced by the previous verse, where the reason for Shimei’s trip is announced: , and brought his servants from Geth. Here it is reiterated in the account presented to Solomon, which to G seemed the logically appropriate location. 3 Reigns 2.42 = MT 2.42 The phrase , saying, on the day you go out and go to any place whatever, is made more precise in G’s rendering of it: , saying, In whatsoever day you will go out of Jerusalem and go to the right or left, which is in accordance with Solomon’s pronouncement in verse 36: , and said to him, “Build yourself a house in Jerusalem, and live there, and do not go out from there to anywhere at all.”As 271

Klostermann, Könige, 273. Burney, Notes, 25. 273 Burney, Notes, 26. 274 Klostermann, Könige, 274. 272

90

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

Stade275 has observed, if it were original it would need to have been placed in verse 37. 3 Reigns 3.15 = MT 3.15 In the account of Solomon’s dream in Gibeon, G includes a few details not , and he found elsewhere. G adds , and he stood up, before went, as though it encountered , and he got up and went. Although this exact phrase does not occur in 1 Kings,276 we find it in 2 Kings 9.6 and 10.12.277 There are at least two likely reasons for its addition. First, the abrupt juxtaposition of and prompted the translator to include . Second, he assimilated the phrase to the more common , i. e., as in 19.3. Both of them are possible and it is difficult to determine which is more likely. , dream, is a good equivalent, Although the word used here to render , dream, in the only other occurrence of the Hebrew word in i. e., 1 Kings, in verse 5, we find , in sleep, as the translation. I agree with Mulder278 that G is making this distinction in order to highlight that the experience was initially perceived as ordinary sleep only to discover that it was God’s means of revelation. 3 Reigns 3.25 = MT 3.25 After , the child, for , child (boy), G has a plus, adding an explanatory note , the suckling. The word is found in the HB some 90 times. It is used for both small children and teenagers up to young adults, depending on the context. The usual translation into Greek is ,279 al280 Our translator used the though at times for young adults is used. term in order to be more specific as to the age of the child, although it would have been pretty obvious from the context. Nevertheless, in the light of the wide age range in the standard usage he thought it necessary to be more precise.

275 276

Stade, Kings, 71.

in 11.18 G renders … … . 277 The sequence of the three verbs, i. e., , , , can be found in 1 Kings 14.4 and 17, as well as in 17.10. However, the first two references are not included in the main body of text in G but in the Miscellany and there the precise equivalent is difficult to determine, while in 17.10 an equivalent for is lacking altogether. 278 Mulder, 1 Kings, 151. 279 Occurring 163 times in the LXX . 280 110 times in the LXX .

III. Adherence to detail and precision of expression

91

3 Reigns 8.9 = MT 8.9 At the occasion of the bringing of the ark of the covenant from the Tent of David to the Temple, MT reads: There was nothing in the ark except the two tablets of stone.

G has: There was nothing in the ark except the two tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant.

G adds , the tablets of the covenant, i. e., . Noth281 maintains that the MT here is at fault for having lost part of the text. However, it is possible that G inserted a gloss in order to make the connection smoother as well as to conform to a particular text, since it resembles Deut 9.9: , to receive the stone tablets, the tablets of the covenant that the LORD made with you, which is rendered brought to the translator’s . It is likely that the phrase attention an expression which was familiar to him and which he utilised in our verse.282 3 Reigns 9.3 = MT 9.3 G is very careful in its rendering of ideas that might suggest God’s dependence on human prayer. Although God listens to the prayers and supplications of his people and responds to them, it is made clear that this is so because God chooses to respond to them according to his will. Moreover, G makes it clear that he will not allow himself to be manipulated or pressured by human endeavours. So, for example, in 9.3 the MT has: And the LORD said to him, “I have heard your prayer.”

which G renders: And the Lord said to him, “I have heard the voice of your prayer.”

In order to avoid the possible misinterpretation of the passage as saying that God obeyed Solomon’s prayer, G adds . Wevers suggests that G in281

Noth, Könige, 171–2. Cf. Van Keulen, Solomon Narrative, 155–6, for additional in-depth discussion with basically the same result. 282

92

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

troduced the extra words in order to make the interaction between God and humans less direct.283 Although this buffer-effect is certainly there, it may be just a by-product and not the immediate reason for the addition. It is much more probable that the language is too close to obey, and that this proved to be an obstacle. Equally, it could well be assimilation to other occurrences is used transitively, e. g. in 1 Kings 20.25 (3 Reigns 21.25) where is rendered and 20.36 (3 Reigns 21.36) translated . Therefore Wevers’s argument for theological adjustment has to be modified in view of the lexical possibility. 3 Reigns 9.12 = MT 9.12 Reporting on Hiram’s visit to the cities given to him by Solomon, after G adds , and went into Galilee, a supplement that is not warranted by the Hebrew. Verse 11 has already in, which G faithfully renders formed us that the cities were . Since the note which G includes does not introduce any new material the only possible reason behind this addition is the translator’s wish for a greater precision of expression than he found in the text of his Vorlage. 3 Reigns 10.25 = MT 9.20 In the list of the nations from whom Solomon conscripted the levy G has a slightly different text. Two nations, and , are added. It is likely that this was done to conform to the traditional number of Palestine’s seven nations as encountered in Deut 7.1, Josh 3.10 and Judg 3.5.284 These lists of the nations occupying the territory of the land contain names of all those present in G and it therefore seems that the translator thought it appropriate to include them here for the sake of completeness.285 This is not unique to this passage. Shorter lists are found in Ex 34.11, Deut 20.17 and Josh 9.1, where . the MT has only six nations but G adds the seventh: Although we can understand the translator’s effort to achieve precision of expression – the full list is now available to the reader – there is, however, a problem with this verse in G in that the original intention of the note is lost. This is not due to the added nations but to the different location of the text. In the MT the verse stands in the context of conscripted labour from the neighbouring nations for Solomonic building projects. This is not so in G, where it is followed by 10.26 (MT 10.23) which speaks about Solomon’s wealth and 283 284

Cf. Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 319. There is a different ordering of the nations but essentially the same text in the MT and

285

Cf. Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, I, 217.

G.

III. Adherence to detail and precision of expression

93

wisdom admired by the whole world, but which does not include a reference to the conscripted labour of foreigners. In the MT the nations are the source of manual labour used for the Temple building project whereas in G they serve solely as an example of Solomon’s power, demonstrated in his building projects which ensure his dominion over the territory where these nations were living. Thus, although attempting to be precise, G betrays different interests and a different logic of argument which is removed from the emphasis evident in the MT . 3 Reigns 11.13 = MT 11.13 MT ’s , and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen, G renders , and for the sake of Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen. The addition connects this verse to 8.16, where the identification of as the city is encountered three times ( ) is distinct. Also, the phrase in 1 Kings286 and in numerous places elsewhere in the HB .287 Thus it is most likely that for the sake of conformity to the standard phrase the “incomplete” text of our verse was corrected.

3 Reigns 11.29 = MT 11.29 In the story of the meeting between the prophet Ahijah and Jeroboam, the MT reports , and he had clothed himself with a new garment. However, G felt that it was not clear enough who the person wearing the new garment was so it exegetically expanded the phrase by saying . 3 Reigns 12.16 = MT 12.16 In its rendering of , to your tents, O Israel! Look now to your own house, O David, G supplies the verb , depart, . go away, after 3 Reigns 13.28 = MT 13.28 After rendering , and a donkey and the lion standing beside the body, G adds , in order to be exact. However, the addition is not necessary. As Burney288 points out, it ought to be seen as a harmonisation with verse 29 where it is explicitly stated: 286

11.32,36; 14.21. Cf., for example, Neh 11.1,3; Is 52.1. 288 Burney, Notes, 184. 287

94

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

, and the prophet took up the body of the man of God. 3 Reigns 15.8–9 = MT 15.8–9 Reporting on the death of Abijam in verse 8 G includes additional information: , in the twenty-fourth year of Jeroboam, anticipating verse 9. There G reads , in the twenty-fourth year of Jeroboam. However, this dating does not correspond with that in the MT : , and in the twentieth year of King Jeroboam of Israel, Asa reigned over Judah. The number 24 in G is derived from adding the 18 years of verse 1 ( ) and the 6 years of verse 2 ( ).289 It can be concluded, therefore, that verse 8 has been influenced by verse 9, and that this was also adjusted by the precision-conscious translator. 3 Reigns 15.19 = MT 15.19 , The beginning of the verse reads in the MT : alliance between me and between you, (like that) between my father and your father. G adds a verb at the beginning of the sentence, the aorist middle imperative, , make. The Hebrew could be taken to mean “There is a covenant”,290 but it could equally mean “let us make a covenant”. By introducing the verb G commits itself to a particular exegesis and settles the question left open in the Hebrew as to whether there already was a covenant or whether it was still in the making as the situation developed.291 3 Reigns 16.2 = MT 16.2 There is an unusual equivalent for , in their sins, in , in their vanities. Montgomery292 suggests that G produced the translation by connecting it with , meaning in their breath (or figuratively vanity) adapted from verses 13 and 26. It seems that G is more specific in spelling out the essence of Israel’s sins, i. e., idolatry. This would suggest a connection with the concept of following idols as following vanity, as in 4 Reigns 17.15 which says rendering .

289

Cf. Šanda, Könige, 383. So, for example, Burney, Notes, 198. 291 Cf. also Walsh, Kings, 212. 292 Montgomery, Kings, 289. 290

III. Adherence to detail and precision of expression

95

3 Reigns 17.1 = MT 17.1 G has a scribal expansion, It is aimed at providing a more detailed description of who this Elijah the Tishbite, of Tishbe in Gilead is. Since the Hebrew does not provide much clue as to Elijah’s authority to deliver God’s oracles, G makes an effort to identify him with a known category. Therein, however, lies a problem. In 18.36, the only time where the two words stand together, G does not translate . It was probably omitted in this context in view of a possible connection with the prophets of Baal. of 18.22 in its translation Nevertheless, G has retained , where there is a contrast between the one prophet of the Lord and the four hundred of Baal. G has one more plus, which Montgomery293 calls a “magnification”, after in order to make the expression more solemn. This resembles Elijah’s words in another solemn oath in 18.15, , rendered . 3 Reigns 17.4 = MT 17.4 Rendering God’s command to Elijah , and it shall be (that) you shall drink from the brook, G adds pedantically , water. A similar case involving expansion of this sort is found in 13.23 where G, , and it came to pass after he had rendering eaten bread and after he had drunk, reads , and it came to pass after (he had finished) eating bread and drinking water. 3 Reigns 18.13 = MT 18.13 , has it not The MT preserves Obadiah’s words to Elijah as been told my lord. G reads: , or has it not been told to you my lord. An explicative is added; otherwise could have been understood to refer to Ahab.294 3 Reigns 18.22 = MT 18.22 Elijah’s words to the gathered Israelites read in the MT as follows:

And Elijah said to the people, “I, (even) I only, remain a prophet of the LORD ; but Baal’s prophets (number) four hundred and fifty men. 293 294

Montgomery, Kings, 296. Cf. Conybeare, Grammar & Readings, 270.

96

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

G adds , and the prophets of the groves (are) four hundred. G again shows its concern for the precision of the account, and so, in line with verse 19, adds the prophets of Asherah. The contrast between the one prophet of the Lord and the prophets of Baal is thus strengthened. 3 Reigns 18.33 = MT 18.33 MT has: And he put the wood in order and cut the bullock in pieces, and laid it on the wood.

G has:

And he piled up the wood splinters on the altar which he had built, and cut in pieces the sacrifice, and put it on the wood splinters and piled it up on the altar.

, and he put the wood, G adds , on the altar which he had built. But this explanatory gloss is not necessary;295 the context makes it clear that the wood had to be placed on the altar. The emphasis is rather on Elijah’s construction of the altar. Following this addition we have an example of a conscious selection of words based not on lexical equivalents but the translator’s aim to stress the main concept of the passage. Since this section deals with the offering of the whole burnt offering, G uses the standard word to render it, regardless of the expressions used in the Hebrew. So instead of (as in verse 23) or (as in verses 25 and , the bullock, G has , whole-burnt offering. In 26) for verse 29 translates , offering, but in verses 34 and 38 it renders , whole-burnt offering, for which is the standard LXX equivalent. After , and he put the wood in order and cut the bullock in pieces, and laid it on the wood, G adds , and piled it up on the altar. Since the Hebrew text does not mention the altar, only the wood, it may have been perceived as necessary to mention the final placing of the prepared animal on the sacrificial altar. Evidently the adherence to detail and precision of expression was of utter importance to our translator. After

295

Cf. Thiel, Beobachtungen, 289.

III. Adherence to detail and precision of expression

97

3 Reigns 18.34 = MT 18.34 After Elijah’s request for water: , and pour it on the burnt offering and on the wood, G has a plus, , and they did it. This seems to have been added because there was no mention in the Hebrew text that the task was actually fulfilled. The previous request, in , “Come near to me”; and all the people came verse 30, near to him, is reported, so the translator felt compelled to add the necessary detail here also.296 3 Reigns 20.13 = MT 21.13 , saying, “Naboth blessed God and G renders MT ’s the king.”, by , saying, “You have blessed God and the king”. Although the difference is not very great, it is nevertheless significant. By addressing Naboth directly and not, as MT does, simply airing the charge against him, G demonstrates the obedience of the two scoundrels, for the text reflects precisely Jezebel’s orders in verse 10: , and have them bring a charge against him, saying, ‘You have cursed God and the king’. Although it cannot be argued decisively, it is probable that G adopted the text of verse 10 in preference to the Hebrew of its Vorlage on the grounds that it renders the earlier text word for word. 3 Reigns 21.7 = MT 20.7 Rendering Ahab’s words to the elders of Israel in the matter of Ben-Hadad’s request for tribute, which included members of the royal family, G makes a with curious exegetical move. It renders , rightly implying that all royal children would be taken away. By doing so it constitutes one of the earliest “gender inclusive , the filth versions”. A similar case can be found in Is 4.4 where of the daughters of Zion, is rendered in G by . 3 Reigns 21.28 = MT 20.28 The sign given to Ahab by the unnamed man of God is followed in the MT by the plural , and you shall know that I am LORD ; this is rendered in the singular . G understood it to be from the immediate context a sign solely for the king, whereas the MT takes it in a wider context that includes the Israelites. G most likely thought that the plural was misleading and thus changed it. The influence of verse 13 is also possi296

Stade, Kings, 154, following this line of argument, accepts G as original.

98

Chapter Two: The Translator’s quest for logical consistency

ble where the text has the singular , rendered . This would then be another instance of the translator’s tendency to adjust the text in the light of other occurrences.

IV. Conclusions The above evidence indicates that the text of the section of 3 Reigns shows signs of a conscious process of rationalisation of the material which G found in its Vorlage, which was closer to the MT than G’s treatment of it might suggest.

Chapter Three

Piety in the

-section

As we have argued earlier, the text of 3 Reigns comes to us in a form which shows the affinity of its Vorlage with the MT of 1 Kings. For long stretches of text, the Old Greek (G) follows the MT in an almost word-for-word manner. However, this pattern breaks up at points, producing a rival version to the one presented in the MT . This has led numerous scholars to assume a Vorlage which is substantially different from the MT and thus to interpret the differences as a sign of divergent text-traditions.1 That this is the case in some parts of the book has been argued successfully in the past.2 However, not all the differences can simply be attributed to a diverging Vorlage. A careful analysis of the text of the -section suggests the presence of exegetical elements that can be attributed to ideological and theological convictions on the part of the translator. In cases where the Hebrew text seemed to contradict the translator’s convictions these exegetical elements were punctiliously introduced into the text, adjusting it to comply with what was acceptable to him. Some of these elements are sporadic and are only to be viewed as tendencies, whereas others occur more frequently and are elaborately developed techniques. Within this latter group, a prominent concern of the translator is for the proper treatment of, and reverence for, holy objects such as altars or even the Temple itself, as well as the observance of an appropriate distance between humans and God. This concern for the depiction of characters in the Biblical narrative as maintaining proper conduct towards God and the places of his worship can, for our present purposes, be called piety. In the following we shall discuss several texts where exegetical improvements can be seen to originate from motives of piety.

1

Cf. Trebolle Barrera, Salomon y Jeroboam, Tov, The LXX Additions, Pennoyer, Solomonic Apologetic. 2 Cf. Talshir, Alternative Story.

100

Chapter Three: Piety in the γγ-section

I. Reordering of material for the sake of piety 3 Reigns 4.31 = MT 3.1 MT reads:

And Solomon formed a marriage alliance with Pharaoh king of Egypt; he took Pharaoh’s daughter and brought her into the city of David, until he had finished building his own house and the house of the LORD and the wall around Jerusalem

G reads:

And Solomon took to himself the daughter of Pharaoh to wife, and brought her into the city of David until he had finished the house of the Lord, and his own house, and the wall of Jerusalem.

There are two major issues in this verse that are of interest to us. The first – its location in 3 Reigns as compared with 1 Kings – will be dealt with below.3 The second – the sequence of events within it – concerns us here. In both texts Solomon takes the daughter of Pharaoh to be his wife. In the MT , Solomon brings the daughter of Pharaoh to the City of David and she stays in his palace until he has finished building his palace, the Temple and the city wall. From this sequence we get the impression that Solomon’s own building projects are in the foreground. In G, however, Solomon first completes the Temple, and only then his palace and the city wall. This difference may not seem vast, yet it is significant. It demonstrates, in its “proper” portrayal of Solomon, the translator’s piety and his adherence to Hellenistic notions of an ideal Israelite king. In the sequence of events presented in G’s version, Solomon, as the model king, is concerned first and foremost with the building of God’s House, and only after it is finished does he complete his own house. According to Gooding, “piety would suggest that it [was] improper for the palace-plans to be inserted among the temple plans, or for Solomon to start building his own house before completing the Lord’s house.”4 Since 3 Reigns shows concern to portray Solomon as a model ruler whose faithfulness to God in his dealings is exemplary, such exegetical activity should not surprise us. Equally, it is unlikely that an original text which has G’s order would have been altered to produce the religiously infelicitous sequence of the MT .5 3

Cf. comments on this verse in chapter four, 141–2. Gooding, Pedantic Timetabling, 155. 5 Pace Burney, Notes, 47, who argues for the originality of G. 4

I. Reordering of material for the sake of piety

101

3 Reigns 7.38 = MT 7.1 An analogous case can be argued from chapter 7, where similar reasoning seems to lie behind the reordering of part of the chapter. The passage starts in the MT at 7.1. G, however, has it at 7.38. The texts read as follows: And Solomon was building his own house thirteen years, and he finished his entire house. And Solomon built a house for himself in thirteen years.

The translation follows the Hebrew closely. The difference between the two witnesses is in the location of the text in relation to its context. The MT has (a) a summary of the Temple building project in the preceding two verses in 6.37–38, (b) an interlude concerning the building of the king’s palace in 7.1–12, and (c) a note on Hiram which returns to the subject of unfinished Temple and its furnishings in 7.13 ff. Not so in G. Here, the whole section describing the building of Solomon’s palace has been moved to a later position in the narrative, after the section dealing with the Temple building project. Thus the narrative of the palace construction closes the description of the Solomonic building projects and is followed by the section on installing the ark of the covenant beginning with 8.1.6 Burney, while admitting the secondary character of G, argues that the reason for the shift was to obtain a smooth transition between the primary Temple-building narrative and the one dealing with Temple furnishings.7 That G has achieved this by reordering the text is beyond doubt. However, Burney’s explanation does not take into account the common motive for reordering both here and in 4.31 (MT 3.1). Moreover, our findings seem to suggest that in both instances G has adapted the text according to theological convictions. Thus I agree with Montgomery’s reading of the passage when he argues that G reorganised the text for the “pious purpose of placing the sacred before the profane.”8 Furthermore, this is not the only difference in the passage in relation to the MT . The preceding two verses in MT 6.37–38, containing a brief summary of the Temple building project, are also found at a different location in G, at

6 The “proper” order of events is once again stressed by additional material at the beginning of 8.1: . 7 Cf. Burney, Notes, 78. 8 Montgomery, Kings, 167.

102

Chapter Three: Piety in the γγ-section

6.4–5.9 However, the latter part of verse 38, detailing the amount of time spent building the Temple, , is lacking in G altogether.10

II. Choice of vocabulary, omissions and additions influenced by piety A. Piety in the Temple narrative 1. Materials used for the building of the Temple Concern for the use of proper materials in the building of the Temple is evident from the following examples. 3 Reigns 6.2 = MT 5.31 , dressed stones. This is rendered by G The MT of 5.31 speaks of at its revised location in 6.2 as . In other occurrences of the LXX equivalents include , to hew, e. g., in Is 9.9; Ez 40.42, or as , polished, in 1 Par 22.2 and Am 5.11. LSJ 11 translate unhewn, unwrought.12 Perhaps a more precise translation would be undressed or raw since the stone had to be obtained somehow, and this was evidently done by hewing, as the next verse confirms. Indeed, carving out the stone in order to obtain the building material was not a problem for the translator. In , and they did stonecutting, is rendered straightforwardly 6.3 (MT 5.32) by . However, the dressing and shaping, or fixing, (cf. ) 13 of the stones and wood is not mentioned in G; we are only informed that the builders the stones. The significance of this peculiar treatment of stones in the context of Temple building will be noted after our discussion of another reference sharing similar characteristics.14 3 Reigns 6.12 = MT 6.7 The next reference to the building materials is in 6.12 (MT 6.7), which says that the house was built of , stone finished at the quarry. G 9 The most likely reason for this relocation is logic. Cf. comments on this verse in chapter two, 20–1. 10 Cf. with the comments in chapter two, 50–1. 11 Lsj, 185. 12 Van Keulen, Solomon Narrative, 120–1, argues that the ad sensum rendering of in the first instance is to be blamed for the standard rendering of the word in 3 Reigns as . 13 Cf. below, 105. 14 Cf. below, 103.

II. Choice of vocabulary, omissions and additions influenced by piety

103

renders this strangely by . carries the meaning cut off sharp, abrupt, whereas , meaning unprepared, undressed, unpolished, only reiterates that idea. Thus after the equivalent of , , clearly avoiding the concept that the stones were in any way improved upon, the translator does not put in a formal equivalent of , but rather an emphasising . In this way he stresses the unrefined character of the stones used for building the Temple. The same observation holds true for the remaining passages dealing with , three courses the stones for the Temple. In 6.34a (MT 6.36) of dressed stone, is rendered , three rows of unhewn stones. Again, in 7.48 (MT 7.11) , costly stones, cut (or hewn) to measure, is rendered , costly (stones), according to the measure of unhewn stones. This choice of equivalents for the terms used for stones utilised in the building of the Temple seems to indicate an ongoing attempt on the part of the translator to present building materials in the light of instructions for the building of cultic structures in Ex 20.2515 and Deut 27.5, 6. However, these passages speak about the building of altars using unhewn, undressed stones and not about Temple-building. The Hebrew text of our narrative, at least in the opinion of the translator, is too ambiguous on this issue, and so needed to be made clear by “proper”, cultically unambiguous, equivalents. 2. Concern for the use of cultically appropriate materials in the furnishing of the Temple 3 Reigns 6.22 = MT 6.23 MT reads: And he made in the debir two cherubim of olivewood, each ten cubits high.

G has: And he made in the debir two cherubim of ten cubits measured size.

G lacks the description of the material of which the cherubim were made, i. e., . This is another instance of the “cultic correctness”16 that leads the translator to leave out the undesirable element. This is most likely because 15

Admittedly, the initial rendering of in 3 Reigns. 16 Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 321.

in Ex 20.25,

, cut, dressed, is not used

104

Chapter Three: Piety in the γγ-section

it violates the instruction in Ex 25.18 and 37.7 that the Cherubim were to be made of , gold.17 Our translator, trying to be faithful to the account in Ex but not wanting to change the text, simply left out the detail about an unorthodox material being used for the construction of the cherubim. The translation , measured size, corresponds to , for which is the standard equivalent. is somewhat problematic because of the singular suffix. The rendering of the suffix as each is still not satisfactory. Perhaps this is the reason why G has leaving out the suffix. , which occurs only once here in G, is described by Burney18 as “merely a translator’s flourish.” 3 Reigns 6.28 = MT 6.29

He carved the walls of the house round about with carved engravings of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers, in the inner and outer rooms.

G has:

He carved all the walls of the house round about with the engraving of cherubs, and (he sculptured) palm trees inside and outside.

G lacks the phrase , and open flowers. Verses 18, 32 and 35 in the MT are other occurrences of the rare phrase in 1 Kings; however verses 18 and 32 are completely lacking in G. Both deal with the issue of a graphic design inside the Temple. It seems unusual that both verses using the same vocabulary should disappear from the text for no apparent reason, . However, verse 33 (MT 35) and it is likely that it has to do with renders the phrase , spreading leaves. According to are “presumably examples of fertility symbols belongAhlström ing to the West Semitic religion.”19 If it were not for verse 33, which delivers a straightforward translation of the Hebrew, Ahlström’s observation could have been drawn into the argument for conscious omission on the part of the translator – G was avoiding elements that represented Canaanite worship and , palm figures, is thus inappropriate in the Temple. It is noteworthy that translated faithfully. Although they too could have been considered imports from the Canaanite religion and thus offensive, they were retained without any alteration. It is possible that the translator was not altogether consistent 17

Cf. Šanda, Könige, 140. Burney, Notes, 75. 19 Ahlström, Syncretism, 44. 18

II. Choice of vocabulary, omissions and additions influenced by piety

105

in his treatment of the decorating designs in the Temple, but at least wanted to avoid the mention of the open flowers in the debir and on the walls of the Holy Place. Since verse 33 refers to the doors on the outside, leading into the Temple, but not actually inside it, it was considered appropriate to retain the other materials there. 3. The problem of foreigners working on the construction of the Temple 3 Reigns 6.3 = MT 5.32a MT has:

So Solomon’s builders and Hiram’s builders and the Gebalites did the stonecutting and prepared the timber and the stone to build the house.

G has: And the men of Solomon, and the men of Chiram hewed (the stones), and laid them (for a foundation).

G has erroneously pointed the Hebrew , builders, as , sons.20 The rest of the verse differs substantially from the MT . We have already noted the omission of the second half of the verse.21 G also rendered as a verbal form , and laid them, avoiding the proper name. The L MSS read . It seems likely that in both cases some kind of corruption of the word took place. It is quite probable that G for some reason had a difficulty with including the Gebalites in the narrative describing work on the Temple project. The history of interpretation of this passage suggests that interpreters have struggled with this concept as well. Most commentators since Thenius22 follow the opinion that since Gebalites as craftsmen are mentioned only once, in Ez 27.9,23 and there in the context of professional ship-building, it is unlikely that they were equally skilled in masonry, and that thus we have to read the uncommon Hebrew word in a different way. Following this observation several emendations to the text have to , and they been suggested. Thenius24 proposed emending 20

But as Stade, Kings, 83, points out, according to verse 23 it would refer to , “my servants”. Van Keulen, Solomon Narrative, 128, also sees the translator’s mistaken pointing as a possibility, though he admits that could also be a deliberate change referring to the literal sons of Solomon and Hiram together performing a foundation ceremony. 21 Cf. above, 102. 22 Thenius, Könige, 53–4. 23 Lxx, rendering , reads there . 24 Thenius, Könige, 54.

106

Chapter Three: Piety in the γγ-section

bordered them (with grooved edges), and treating the word as an architectural terminus technicus.25 Benzinger,26 following Thenius’ observation, sees as a translation of Hebrew , this in turn being a corruption of and renders the , whereas Klostermann27 substitutes the perfect text “sie kanten sie gegen einander ab, schrägen sie ab”. However, the question needs to be asked whether an emendation of any sort is necessary. Noth28 argues that from the point of view of textual criticism there is no basis for emendation of the MT and even less for an insertion of the verbal form suggested by G. Stade,29 similarly, was not convinced by the emendations proposed and sees the word as meaning stone-cutters, on the analogy of nouns such as Bohemian meaning “slave”, or Schweizer describing a soldier, door-keeper, etc. as a common Šanda30 argues, however, that there is no reason to take noun describing a group of stonecutters, pointing to the fact that , and they hewed, can be used both of shaping up stones, as in Ex 34.1, and wood, as in Is 40.20. Thus, the difficulty is solved if we take it that Hiram’s workers did the work on the stones and the Gebalites worked on wood. in the HB . This is in Josh There is another occurrence of the gentilic 13.5 where we have , and the land of the Gebalites. LXX translates it , and all the land of Gabli, which simply transliterates the word in question. In conclusion, we can appreciate the difficulty associated with this verse. There is a good possibility that the translator, like some exegetes, was not happy with a reference to Gebalites in this context – not because they were unknown to him, but rather, as Jones31 rightly suggests, to avoid the notion that foreigners were directly involved in the building of the Temple.32 4. Solomon at the dedication of the Temple The translator is very cautious in his presentation of Solomon in relation to the Temple and its cult. 25 Würthwein, Könige, 57, however, objects, pointing out the lack of such a term in the HB . 26 Benzinger, Könige, 30. 27 Klostermann, Könige, 291. 28 Noth, Könige, 87 and 94. 29 Stade, Kings, 83. 30 Šanda, Könige, 112. 31 Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, I, 159. 32 Van Keulen, Solomon Narrative, 122–3, is of a different opinion. He maintains that the translator was probably unable to work out what he thought was a “verbal form followed by a suffix 3 m. pl.”, and either was guessing the meaning, or chose one suited to his understanding of the text as having to do with the laying of the foundations. Van Keulen thinks that “perhaps he also tried to counterbalance his embarrassment with the Hebrew by preserving the phonetic sequence characteristic of the Hebrew word. So he found .”.

II. Choice of vocabulary, omissions and additions influenced by piety

107

3 Reigns 8.2 = MT 8.2a MT :

And all the people of Israel assembled to King Solomon at the festival in the month Ethanim, which is the seventh month.

G has: In the month Athanin.

Only a fraction of the verse in the MT is retained in G. The manuscript evidence suggests that B has the oldest text of the Greek translation,33 though how far it reflects the Hebrew of its Vorlage has been hotly debated in the past. Stade,34 adhering to the generally accepted idea that the MT preserves a scribal gloss in this verse, comments on the discrepancy which arises from a comparison of this verse with 6.5 (MT 6.38). There we read of the Temple being finished , in the month of Bul, which is the eighth month, which G translated as follows: , in the month Baad, this (is) the eighth month. Thus when reading the MT account one gets the impression that the Temple was completed in the eighth month, but dedicated in the seventh. This apparent difficulty can be solved by accepting either the proposal of Šanda35 who argues that the dedication was postponed for eleven months in order to take place on the next Feast of Tabernacles, or Morgenstern’s36 suggestion that the ceremonies started in the seventh month and lasted until the beginning of Bul. However, these explanations may not have occurred to the translator of our text. Having encountered the difficulty he has for some reason resolved it by simply removing the difficult passage. The resulting shorter text at first sight connects well with the preceding verse: … . But the fact that it connects well with the previous section does not prove its originality. On the contrary, it seems that the smooth transition was obtained by a conscious reworking of the text. The reason that G is left with a severely truncated text may not have been (only) the problem of the logic in the text, but also a pietistic motive on the 33 The short text is found in most MSS with the exception of A x e and the L MSS which have been adjusted towards the MT . 34 Stade, Kings, 98. 35 Šanda, Könige, 213. 36 Morgenstern, Three Calendars, 67.

108

Chapter Three: Piety in the γγ-section

part of the translator. The parallel text in 2 Chr 5.3 reads: . The translation is straightforward: . But what was acceptable to the translator of Chr seems not to have been so for the translator of the -section. The translator is likely to have been offended by the idea that all the people of Israel assembled to King Solomon. followed by is used in Lev 8.3,4 where Moses in a cultic context assembles Aaron, his sons and the whole assembly: , which G renders . In Deut 31.28, where again the context is , which cultic, Moses commands the Levites: G renders . Thus the people gather to Moses for instruction. However, in our passage cultic connotations were probably not acceptable to the translator. Even though G favours Solomon as a model ruler, its piety could not allow any hints that Solomon usurps attention reserved for the cultic sphere. He can assemble the congregation of Israel, as in verse 1, but not assemble to himself. It is impossible to be completely certain about the reason for the omission in our text. It is quite probable, however, that either the “faulty” logic of the passage, or the pietistic consideration, or indeed both, are behind the short text of G. 3 Reigns 8.5 = MT 8.5 The reference to the congregation of Israel , assembled about him (the King), with him, is treated in a peculiar manner. The parallel text in 2 Chr 5.6 also has the congregation assembled about him, , though it lacks . 2 Chr 5.6 thus confirms in 1 Kings. Moreover, it is possible that in 1 Kings represents an attempt at the Proto-Masoretic stage to soften .The Greek translation in 2 Par 5.6 renders by , thereby once more drawing attention to the ark of the covenant and away from Solomon. The problem is likely to have originated in the frequent association of with cultic contexts in which the people of Israel gather in the presence of God for instruction and praise.37 G omitted the problematic clause, and we read instead that king and people were gathered , before the ark, which renders , the next phrase in the MT . This was acceptable since the ark represented the divine presence. G thus again protects Solomon from association with worship-like adoration from his subjects. Even the patch applied by the MT , , was not a sufficient remedy to prevent G from adjusting the text. 37

Cf. Ex 25.22; 29.42,43; 30.6,36; Num 17.19.

II. Choice of vocabulary, omissions and additions influenced by piety

109

3 Reigns 8.14 = MT 8.14 A proper respect for the Temple cult is further developed in verse 14 where Solomon is worshipping alongside the people. The MT reads , and the king turned around his face, but G renders it , and the king turned away his face. The difference between the texts, small as it may appear, is as follows: in the MT it is clear that Solomon turns from facing the Temple towards the people in order to bless them, as the remainder of the verse confirms. G, however, joins this verse to verse 11, relocating verses 12 and 13, containing Solomon’s poetic introduction, after verse 53. It could be argued that the relocation had to do with logic: the verses were moved to where they seemed to fit more naturally. Yet it seems most likely that it is the translator’s piety that precludes Solomon from saying his part in full view of the cloud filling the Temple. In view of this G’s rendering of verse 14 in turn appears to have been influenced by the extraordinary presence of the cloud in the Temple, which is now mentioned in the preceding sentence in the Greek version – Solomon turns away. This is the is rendered by . only instance in 3 Reigns where the hifil of The usual equivalent is . Although we cannot exclude the possibility of a scribal error where is an error for , it is more likely that G wanted to present Solomon in a positive light, namely as one who turned his head away from the glory of God filling the Temple.38 3 Reigns 8.22 = MT 8.22 The MT reads: And king Solomon stood in front of the altar of the Lord

but G has: And Solomon stood up in front of the altar.39

seems to have been used here on purpose: to emphasise Solomon’s respect for the altar by rising up before it. Typically renders ,40 whereas is the usual equivalent of . The question arises whether Solomon could have been perceived as sitting in the presence of God during the reported ceremony only to stand up later. A comparison with a text in a 38 Some MSS have the reading ; moreover it needs to be stated that can mean “to turn aside, back” cf. LSJ , 220. 39 There is a variant in MSS A M Z e2. 40 Out of 595 occurrences of in the Hebrew Bible, only approximately 30 are not rendered by . This is the only instance where renders in 3 Reigns.

110

Chapter Three: Piety in the γγ-section

similar context suggests this as a possible scenario. 2 Sam 7.18 reports that king David sat in the presence of the Lord, .41 Hence it is possible to think of Solomon as remaining seated during his prayer and standing up only in verse 22. Moreover, this impression is strengthened ) by the content of verse 11. It says that the “priests were unable to stand ( to serve” because of the cloud. Solomon evidently must have been similarly affected.42 In this verse, therefore, the choice of vocabulary does not seem to be random, but is rather exegetically motivated, revealing the translator’s piety in relation to the altar. In G’s version Solomon shows his reverence for the altar by rising up to utter the confession in the following verses. B. Piety in the presentation of G’s conception of God 1. Piety in the description of God’s sovereignty 3 Reigns 17.22 = MT 17.22 The MT has a much longer text than G: And the LORD listened to the voice of Elijah; and the life of the child returned into him, and he lived.

G: And it was so and the child cried out.

While we cannot exclude the possibility of haplography,43 and it is possible that G omits this part of the text by stylistic abbreviation because it does not introduce any new material, G may represent a conscious change aimed at removing an offensive element. There may have been a theological problem in. According to the MT – God listens and in volving some way obeys the human call. The shorter paraphrase in G, however, avoids this possible difficulty. Wevers44 argues that “the translator objected to Yahweh being swayed by and obedient to Elijah and so rewrote the text.” The reason behind such a conviction on the part of the translator would most likely be a 41

Cf. Ps 110.1: . It is worth mentioning that in the Late Biblical Hebrew can mean “to rise”, which accounts for the LXX ’s translation, but it is striking as a rare equivalent. 43 Montgomery, Kings, 297–8, argues that the text as we have it in G came about as a result of “haplog. of the similar phrases and then assimilation of , v. 21, to , v. 22 … I0 then being read in doublet as .” 44 Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 319–20. 42

II. Choice of vocabulary, omissions and additions influenced by piety

111

particularly strict reading of Josh 10.14 according to which God would not be moved by human prayer again.45 2. Piety in the description of God’s dwelling place 3 Reigns 8.27 = MT 8.27 The translator of G is concerned about maintaining consistency with other biblical texts. Texts may be enhanced in different ways to achieve this. 3 Reigns 8.27 is part of a longer discourse dealing with the relationship between God’s dwelling place, heaven, and his presence in Solomon’s Temple. MT ’s heavens , cannot contain you. G paraphrases by , will not be sufficient for you, thereby avoiding the possibly negative nuance that the Hebrew word might carry, namely that God could be restrained by, or restricted to, heaven as though he were a fluid restricted by its container.46 It is quite possible that G understood as coming from , be able, have power, prevail, endure, although the equivalence – is not reported by HR . Thus a supposedly more neutral equivalent has been employed. The argument in 8.27 (MT ) is developed as follows: since the heavens are not spacious enough for God as a dwelling place, how much less appropriate would ; but this is not pointed enough be the Temple of Solomon, for G. The previous verses state clearly that God would not be dwelling in the Temple: this is an impossibility. Therefore, since God was not to dwell among people on earth, the Temple was intended for God’s name to dwell there. Although this is stated often enough in the preceding verses, G adds the clarifying remark in our verse to remove any doubt. 3. Treatment of the Divine Name 3 Reigns 13.6 = MT 13.6 MT has:

And the king answered and said to the man of God, “Entreat now the face of the LORD your God, and pray on my behalf, so that my hand may be restored to me.” And the

45

Cf. Walsh, Kings, 235. Cf. Hanhart, Die Übersetzung der Septuaginta,130–1, who argues that G’s equivalent “soll … lediglich die Erhabenheit des Schöpfers über allem Geschaffenen, nicht eine Bedürftigkeit jeseits seiner Schöpfung aussagen und bereitet so durch die hebräische Vorlage noch nicht gegebene direkte Beziehung des griechischen terminus technicus auf die Schöpfungsaussage vor.” 46

112

Chapter Three: Piety in the γγ-section

man of God entreated the face of the LORD ; and the king’s hand was restored to him, and became as (it was) before.

G has:

And king Jeroboam said to the man of God, “Beg (a favour) of your God and let my hand return to me.” And the man of God begged the face of the Lord, and he restored the king’s hand to him, and it became as before.

The first , i. e., , is lacking in G. Its absence can be explained in at least two ways: first, as an instance of homoioteleuton between and , or second, as an intentional change. The first option, although it cannot be excluded, is less likely. It is more probable that G objected to putting the Divine Name in the mouth of the idolatrous Jeroboam. suggests a treatment particular to G’s piFurthermore, the equivalent of etistic focus. Noth47 observes that the translator was not happy using the typical equivalent of because of its original meaning, “das Angesicht weich machen”, which could have been perceived as irreverent. Likewise Wevers48 argues here for an example of the translator’s “antianthropomorphic tendency”. G chose, therefore, the more acceptable , to beg, pray somebody for something. This equivalent, moreover, is by no means unique or restricted to 3 Reigns: in several instances in the LXX where the context involves in relation to , the translators use this verb and avoid any mention of the divine “face”.49 G lacks , and pray on my behalf. However, the text goes on to say that the man of God “begged the face of the Lord”, which is pretty strong; G actually makes God the subject of “restores”, whereas MT has simply “the king’s hand was restored”. 4. Piety in relation to God’s judgement 3 Reigns 13.26 = MT 13.26a MT reads:

47

Noth, Könige, 290. Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 318. 49 Cf., for example, Ex 32.11; Jer 26.19; Dan 9.13. 48

II. Choice of vocabulary, omissions and additions influenced by piety

113

And when the prophet who had brought him back from the way heard of it, he said, “It is the man of God who disobeyed the mouth of the LORD ; and therefore the LORD has given him to the lion, and he has torn him and killed him according to the word that the LORD spoke to him.”

G reads: 50

And (the prophet) that turned him back out of the way heard, and said, “This is the man of God who has embittered the word of the Lord.”

Only the first part of the verse is preserved in G. As is suggested in the BHS apparatus, there is a possibility that the MT is adding the material not present in G. However, there is also a possibility that G omitted the second part of the verse. It could well have been considered controversial by G since it presents God in an unwelcome manner, i. e., as an executioner of his disobedient servant. Therefore I agree with Wevers51 who suggests that the cause of the omission was the idea, offensive to the translator, that God would order the prophet to be killed by a lion. 3 Reigns 21.42 = MT 20.42 MT has:

And he said to him, “Thus says the LORD , ‘Because you have let go out of hand the man of my ban, therefore your soul shall be for his soul, and your people for his people.’”

G has: 52

And he said to him, “Thus says the Lord, ‘Because you have sent out of your hand a man of destruction, therefore your soul shall be for his soul, and your people for his people.’”

resenting

, man of my ban, is rendered in G . repis found only here in the LXX . Wevers53 argues that this render-

50 As in verse 21 G has rendered , to be disobedient, rebellious, stubborn, as though coming from , bitter, hence the translation , he has embittered. 51 Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 319. 52 , bring out, send out, is an unusual equivalent for the piel of , let loose, send off, nevertheless it renders the idea well. This is the only instance of this equivalence in LXX . 53 Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 320.

114

Chapter Three: Piety in the γγ-section

ing avoids the offensive idea that God would devote somebody to destruction. He maintains that should be translated deadly, destructive. However, LSJ 54 suggests that, when referring to persons, can carry the meaning in danger of death, or lost, undone, so that the translation man destined for destruction, doomed would be more appropriate than Wevers’s deadly, destructive. Moreover, the point made by Wevers that G is softening the expression is only one possibility. The idea that God could not be accused of condemning somebody to death is difficult to maintain in view of the rest of the verse. , in the HB is in Is 34.5: The only other occurrence of and upon the people I have doomed to judgement, which G renders , and upon the people of destruction in judgement. In Is 34.5 and here the suffix is dropped in G; in both cases God is the speaker. For the above mentioned reasons it is possible, however unlikely, that G is attempting to change the wording in these two instances for the same in purpose. The issue seems to be the translation problem of rendering Greek. Hence the omission of the suffix in both cases. C. “Verspottung” in G’s treatment of foreign deities G regularly shows disrespect towards the foreign deities which had been introduced to Israel’s cult by its rulers. However, the treatment of these is not uniform, as will become apparent from the following examples. 1. Derogatory terms used for heathen deities = in referring to idols. In several instances G avoids the equation a different translation can be observed. 3 Reigns 11.2 = MT 11.2 Whereas the text of the MT exhorts not to follow dered by , their idols.55

, their gods, G ren-

3 Reigns 11.6 = MT 11.5 Here G is stronger in its expression and refers to Astarte , the goddess of the Sidonians, as , abomination of the Sidonians.

54 55

Lsj, 1213. Pace Van Keulen, Solomon Narrative, 216, who argues for a different Vorlage.

II. Choice of vocabulary, omissions and additions influenced by piety

115

3 Reigns 11.7 = MT 11.8 , who burnt incense and sacrificed to their gods, is translated , who burnt incense and sacrificed to their idols, out of reverence for the word for deity as well as to in the immediate context. obtain uniformity with the rendering of 3 Reigns 11.33 = MT 11.33 Whereas the MT lists the gods of the nations using the standard , followed by the country of their origin, G uses different derogatory terms, some quite , abomination, rare, to “express moral judgement on these gods”56: , idol, ,57 object of wrath, offence. 3 Reigns 16.32 = MT 16.32 G renders by , to Baal in the house of his provocations. occurs only a few times in the LXX ,58 mostly translating , detestable thing. Its first occurrence is in Deut 7.26.59 The same Greek word is also used in 3 Reigns 11.33 and 18.29. It is used there as a denigratory term referring to idols worshipped: in the first case it refers to Milcom, the god of the Ammonites, and in the second the word occurs in a Greek addition where the subject of the phrase is Baal. In our verse G connects Ahab’s deed to the prohibition in Deut 7.26: . Stade60 considers to be just a euphemism but Wevers’s argument that the choice of the vocabulary “is certainly not accidental, but constitutes G’s judgement upon Ahab’s idolatry”61 is more persuasive.62 3 Reigns 18.19 = MT 18.19 In contrast to the previous verse (18.18) where we find the reference to foreign gods in , in 18.19 G has chosen not to use transliteration, emphasising instead the derisory expression , prophets of 56

So Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 317. Occurs in LXX only 10 times; 3 times in 3 Reigns: 11.33; 16.32; 18.29. 58 See footnote 57 above. 59 Dogniez, Le Deutéronome, 64, classified it as a proper neologism of Deuteronomy. 60 Stade, Kings, 149. 61 Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 312. 62 Schenker, Textgeschichte, 48, is of a different opinion and argues that since the temple was intended not only for Baal but for other deities as well, G is right to name it as such, hence the more precise name is for him a sign of G’s originality. 57

116

Chapter Three: Piety in the γγ-section

disgrace. LEH 63 calls this a “contemptuous defamation of name”, obtained by replacing with . The same is the case in verse 25. Admittedly, G represents a tendency already observable in the MT at various points, so that here we may have to think of the Vorlage of G rather than the translation itself. , the Asherah, is consistently rendered not in the form of In 3 Reigns a proper name for the goddess, but by a reference to the place of her worship, the grove. This is well in line with Pentateuchal (LXX ) usage. Beginning with Ex 34.13 the standard equivalent of is .64 In our verse the plural 65 form is used but in verse 22 it is singular. 2. Inconsistencies in G’s use of denigratory terms for when referring to idols 3 Reigns 11.3–4 These verses are ordered differently in G. The contents of verse 3 are split in , and his wives G: 3a is to be found in verse 1, while 3b, i. e. turned away his heart, which was probably considered as a doublet to verse 4, , his wives turned away his heart, has been left out. How, after their gods, vs. ever, verse 4 (MT 3) speaks of going MT ’s , after other gods. It is likely that the different organisation of the text led to the description of the wives as “foreign” ( ), with “their gods” depending on “wives” as antecedent. 3 Reigns 11.5 = MT 11.7 G read , and for Molech, as , i. e., . does not otherwise represent in the LXX . In verse 33 is the rendering of . Usually in instances of technical terms and proper nouns G transliterates the words in question.66 In 11.33 G renders , and for Milcom, as , not taking it to be a proper noun. L, on the other hand, have ( ), probably influsection, is rendered by enced by the MT . In instances outside of the ,68 and only once69 is rendered ,67 63

Leh, 13. Cf. Wevers, Exodus, 562. 65 Schenker, Textgeschichte, 32–33, makes much of the plural in verse 22 and argues for the originality of G’s account on the grounds of lectio difficilior; in G the parallelism between “Baal-Asherah” is lost and the reference to “the Asherah” of Samaria, as in the MT , is lacking. These arguments, however, fail to convince. The lack of parallelism speaks against G’s originality and the plural in 19 is balanced by the singular in 22. 66 See also the comments in chapter four, 135–6. 67 4 Reigns 23.13; 1 Par 20.2. 68 Jer 30.17 (MT 49.1). 69 Zeph 1.5. 64

II. Choice of vocabulary, omissions and additions influenced by piety

117

. It is difficult to arrive at a conclusive decision as to the reason for this equivalence. Either G took the unvocalised Hebrew at face value or it tried to avoid the name of the Ammonite god. 3. Avoidance of a polytheistic understanding of 3 Reigns 19.2 = MT 19.2 G avoids the possibility of a polytheistic reading of the text which involves , so may the gods the word for deity. Thus in 19.2 do to me, and more also, is rendered by , if you are Eleiou and I am Iezabel, so let God do these (things) to me, and add these (things). The clause, is added as a part of the oath. corresponds and occurs in this capacity three times in 3 Reigns: in elsewhere to 13.14, for example, G renders by .70 Here, however, there is no corresponding Hebrew. It is most likely intended to emphasise the strength of Jezebel’s threat; she makes herself more than just equal to Elijah: “you are Elijah (only a prophet), but I am Jezebel (the queen)”.71 G has opted for the singular translating ; it seemed too bold to the translator to put the blasphemous polytheistic concept even in the mouth of idolatrous Jezebel. Instead G used the singular form as it appears in Solomon’s oath in 2.23: .72 The same is the case in 21.10 (MT 20.10) where Ben-hadad’s reference to is rendered in the singular . So, too, in 21.23 (MT 20.21) when relating the words of the Arameans , their gods (are) gods of the hills, G has , the God of Israel (is) a God of mountains. D. Piety expressed in G’s concern for cultically proper conduct Throughout the entire text of the section G attempts not to compromise its high respect for the cult. Hence every instance of ambiguous or potentially 70

The other occurrences are 18.7,17. Cf., however, Schenker, Textgeschichte, 134, who, following some exegetes (notably Eissfeldt, Elia, 65–70), accepts the originality of G’s Vorlage as witnessed by the Old Latin Palimpsestus Vindobonensis L 115. According to this view, the additional sentence attributed to Jezebel has been preserved in G except for the missing second = et dixit, which was lost due to homoioteleuton. Thus, it is argued, only the Old Latin preserved the full text: et dixit si tu es helias et ego sum iezabel et dixit. However, the objection of Stade, Kings, 156, to accepting this proposal is still valid: “although this may be authentic, it is difficult to understand how it could have been omitted in M(T)”. 72 Cf. Walsh, Kings, 265. 71

118

Chapter Three: Piety in the γγ-section

misleading information is carefully scrutinised and either adjusted or removed altogether. 1. The treatment of the 3 Reigns 3.4 = MT 3.4 G has rendered by . is simply an attributive adjective, the great high place, whereas is superlative. We can as a imagine that the translator did not want his readers to understand the technical term referring to an illegitimate cult place,73 as it came to be recognised by later prophets (e. g., Jer. 19. 5; 32. 35), and so he eliminated a potential problem by rendering it as he did.74 , a demonstrative pronoun, is used before as an emphatic adjunct, i. e. “a marker of emphasis by calling attention to the distinctiveness of the lexical item with which it occurs”,75 and refers to Gibeon as the only available grammatical antecedent. The idea is that the place was not only high and great, but the highest place, the most appropriate as a site for such an enormous amount of sacrificial animals. The same issue can be seen in 2 Chr 1. 3 which deals with the same issue by mentioning the presence there , God’s tent of meeting, and so sanctions the use of the of high place in this context. 2. Concern for the cultic purity of Jerusalem’s environs 3 Reigns 11.5 = MT 11.7 , (on the) mountain that (is) before Jerusalem, is lacking in G. Since there are no indications that this omission is due to a mechanical error, there is a strong possibility that the text was altered on theological grounds: “it was too heinous to have the environs of the holy city involved in such heathenism”.76 3. Piety in relation to vocabulary describing proper and improper sacrifice 3 Reigns 12.33 = MT 12.33 is an unusual equivalent for . In 3 Reigns and once again in 13.1, 2. After examining all occurrences of

occurs here in the

73 Schunck, sub bāmā, in TDOT, II ,143, states that the “great high place” in Gibeon was used as a legitimate cult place (royal sanctuary) in the days of Saul’ s reign and in that capacity even under Solomon. 74 Cf. Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 314. 75 Cf. Louw, Nida, Lexicon, 92.37. 76 Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 314.

II. Choice of vocabulary, omissions and additions influenced by piety

119

LXX Kilpatrick77 has argued that in every instance the context is that of an unlawful sacrifice, either because the sacrifice is dedicated to pagan deities or because it is in some other way incorrect in respect to the teaching of the Law. According to Kilpatrick a plausible translation of would be “to perform an action near to a sacrifice … to make a by-sacrifice”, i. e., a false sac, which is clearly not a sacrifice in the culrifice.78 Thus in 13.2 Josiah’s tic sense of the word, is rendered typically by , yet the priests are called , those offering an unlawful sacrifice. The translator is thereand a defiled one, repfore making a clear distinction between the proper resented by .

4. Treatment of Elijah in his capacity as a prophet of the Lord G seems to be taking special care to present Elijah as a blameless character in his capacity as a prophet. This includes cultic purity and dependence on God for all his actions. a. Elijah is not residing outside Israelite territory 3 Reigns 17.9 = MT 17.9 G lacks , and live there, apparently in a conscious modification of the text. According to Montgomery this phrase most likely was removed because Elijah did not “legally dwell there”.79 Furthermore, since G is concerned with cultic purity, it is conceivable that it felt uneasy about Elijah as God’s prophet living in heathen territory. We can envisage the possible influence of a passage like Am 7.17 and the , die in an idea of Amos’ words to Amaziah that he would unclean land. Moreover, had Elijah lived in Sidonian territory, his entire calling and function as a prophet would have been put into question. As Brueggemann80 has argued, there is an inseparable connection between the offices of king and prophet in Israel evident not least by the location of the material institutionalising the office of a prophet (Deut 18.15–22) closely after that of the king (Deut 17.14–20). Both were given for the sake of the people in the Land. Indeed it is the prophet’s duty to remind the king of his responsibility toward the people and the Land in which he performs his work. Thus, it is understandable that the idea of Elijah’s leaving the territory of Israel to live in Sidon would render his prophetic word ineffective and that such an idea was unacceptable to G. That this kind of issue could be a problem in the transla77

Kilpatrick, 151–3. Kilpatrick, 152. 79 Montgomery, Kings, 297. 80 Brueggemann, The Land, 90–2. 78

120

Chapter Three: Piety in the γγ-section

tion is not unique to our text. Later rabbis have argued that the prophet’s area of operation must be that of Palestine. In some instances, for example in the cases of Jeremiah, Ezekiel or Jonah, allowances were made if the prophet prophesied for some part of his career in the Land before venturing into pagan territory.81 In 3 Reigns 17.15 is lacking in G’s translation of , so that he as well as she and her household ate for (many) days. This may be linked with the problem already encountered in verse 9, where G omits the reference to Elijah’s prolonged stay in Phoenician territory. would suggest that Elijah stayed in Zarephath for some time and lived off the food available to the widow. b. G ensures that no magical actions are attributed to Elijah 3 Reigns 17.21 = MT 17.21 The Hithpoel , and he measured himself, stretched himself, occurs only . Wevers82 aronce in the HB . It is rendered here as gues that G changed the text in order to avoid identification of Elijah’s actions as a magical performance. Although this seems an adequate explanation there is a possibility that logical reasoning influenced G’s reading as well; resuscitation, by breathing into the child, was, in the mind of the translator, the necessary action needed, not stretching out on the lifeless body! At 2 Kings 4.34 G does not object to Elisha’s stretching over the boy since it translates it . c. Concern for the complete removal of idolatry in Israel 3 Reigns 18.20 = MT 18.20 For G has following its usage in the immediate context – the previous verse has . For G has . On the one hand, this possibly reflects the translator’s wish to stress the fact that there were not too many of them on the territory of Israel if all could be gathered; on the other, G is perhaps trying to point out that they were all eliminated by Elijah, focusing on the re-establishment of cultic purity.83

81

Cf. Gordon, Terra Sancta, 124. Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 315. 83 Cf. also above chapter four, 180. 82

II. Choice of vocabulary, omissions and additions influenced by piety

121

d. G defends Elijah’s actions as cultically appropriate 3 Reigns 18.36 = MT 18.36 The first three words are lacking in G. Šanda84 speculates that this clause was considered redundant after verse 29. But, as Wevers85 has argued, the major difficulty may have been the possible impression that Elijah, a non-priest, would offer the evening sacrifice. The same consideration lies behind the interpretative translation of the next clause. Instead of , and Elijah the prophet came near, G has , and Eleiou cried towards the heaven, which avoids the cultic .86 G delivers a more dynamic story, involvement of Elijah represented by but it is unlikely that it is the more original. Indeed, it seems that it interprets the text in the way that it thought more appropriate. ) The same word is used of Elijah’s cry as of the prophets in verse 24, ( for Elijah since, apart from verse 22, where El. G avoids the title ijah contrasts himself with the prophets of Baal, it is never used of him. : G adds the following text after , answer (hear) me, O Lord, answer (hear) me, which is repeated from the beginning of verse 37 and helps to fulfil the overall intention of the translator for this passage: Elijah is not a magician but dependent on God’s intervention; thus the attention is centred on Elijah’s plea to God and away from Elijah as miracle-maker. by G paraphrases . Wevers87 argues that by so doing the translator avoids possible connotations of “magical practice” on the part of Elijah, if such were to be inferred from his utterance, I have done all these things at your word. It is possible, however, that G tries to avoid the notion that God would allow for a by giving Elijah a special permission through his word to sacrifice on the him, at a time when sacrificing on a was clearly forbidden. Thus G says that what Elijah did was , which could be translated here as for your sake or even for you, and so G does not include the potentially offensive idea that God allowed Elijah to do something he expressly condemned in Deut 12. For Schenker, however, this is a clear case of the originality of G. When compared, the MT ’s argument is stronger: Elijah took action on God’s instruction, whereas G’s explanation is somewhat doubtful: Elijah did this for God, but on 84

Šanda, Könige, 439. Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 315. 86 Schenker, Textgeschichte, 24, is of a different opinion. He thinks that G has preserved here the original text, in which Elijah is able to pray directly to God in heaven without the constraints of the deuteronomistic theology according to which Elijah’s prayer had to be the evening sacrifice taking place in Jerusalem. 87 Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 315. 85

122

Chapter Three: Piety in the γγ-section

his own authority. Thus, Schenker argues, the more difficult G is the original; it would be difficult to see why an MT -type text would be changed towards G.88 Schenker’s arguments fail to convince, however. Lectio difficilior is not a valid criterion in this instance. It is more likely that G found difficulty with , since there is no specific mention of God instructthe phrase ing Elijah to perform these acts. E. The question of the anthropomorphisms in the γγ-section and their treatment In his treatment of the translation technique in the -section Wevers89 has argued for the translator’s consistently anti-anthropomorphic tendency. Yet, the approach of the translator toward anthropomorphic features in the description of God is somewhat ambivalent. In some places he indulges in anti-anthropomorphisms, whereas in others he is clearly not concerned to replace the anthropomorphisms. Perhaps a better way to describe the translator’s tendency would be to speak of reverential distancing between God and humans in greater measure than is observed in the MT . For, in order to be classified as such, an antianthropomorphic policy would have to include emendation of concepts such as God speaking “with his mouth”, listening “with his ears”, or acting “with his hands” on behalf of Israel and against her enemies. Such, however, are apparently not considered problematic and are left unaltered. The following examples show the extent of this problem. 3 Reigns 3.10 = MT 3.10

And the word was pleasing in the eyes of the Lord that Solomon had asked this. And it was pleasing before the Lord, that Solomon asked this thing.

, in the eyes of the Lord, G translates , before the occurs only once in 1 Kings; however the Lord.90 The expression is the standard standard occurs fourteen times.91 rendering of in the -section. In the kaige-section the translator renders the expression . It is noteworthy that although generally concerned to render the Hebrew as closely as possible, G avoids the 88

Schenker, Textgeschichte, 27; idem, Studien, 113. Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 318–9. 90 A number of Hebrew MSS have . 91 Cf. 11.6; 14.22; 15.5,11,26,34; 16.7,19,25,30; 21.20,25; 22.43,53. 89

II. Choice of vocabulary, omissions and additions influenced by piety

123

more problematic in the -section and settles for a less literal translation. This is the practice in all non-kaige sections of Reigns, hence Shenkel92 argues that “it is most likely not a coincidence … that the ex] was less literal than that pression used in referring to Yahweh [i. e. used in referring to humans [i. e. ].” 3 Reigns 8.44 = MT 8.44 MT has:

If your people go out to battle against his enemy, by whatever way you shall send them, and they pray to the LORD toward the city that you have chosen and the house that I have built for your name.

G has:

(If it be) that your people will go to war against their (his) enemies in the way by which you will turn them, and pray in the name of the Lord by way of the city which you have chosen, and the house which I have built to your name.

Our verse is the only occurrence of in the LXX . Wevers93 maintains that G is seeking to avoid the possible implication of the phrase as though “understood appositively, i. e., that Yahweh is limited to Jerusalem.” However, Burney94 sees this as a paraphrase introduced by G in order to make the transition between the second person and the third smoother. Equally, G may be inserting in order to make the interaction between man and God appear less direct. 3 Reigns 8.46 = MT 8.46 The equivalence of , and you will be angry with them, with , and you will bring them, is unusual. Wevers argues that this is “a clear instance of an antianthropopathism … G wanted to avoid attributing anger to God”.95 Burney, on the other hand, sees G as a corruption of which was caused by an erroneous understanding of the Greek to mean “lead them away and deliver them up”.96 Burney’s view is to be preferred here 92

Shenkel, Chronology, 6. Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 319. 94 Burney, Notes, 123. 95 Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 318. 96 Burney, Notes, 124. 93

124

Chapter Three: Piety in the γγ-section

as adequately addressing the issue. Moreover, Wevers’s argument that G omits the fact of God’s anger for anti-anthropopathic reasons cannot be maintained in view of G’s treatment of the same matter in other places. In 11.9 G translates , and the LORD was angry with Solomon, by , the exact Greek equivalent. If, then, G was not concerned about stating God’s anger towards Solomon, how much less would it , to provoke to consider anger against the people? Furthermore, the verb anger, used in regard to God is usually translated in 3 Reigns by .97 The only instance where this is not the case is 16.33 where the infinitive construct , to provoke to anger, is rendered by G as a noun , provocations. The root, nevertheless, remains the same. 3 Reigns 9.6 = MT 9.6 In relation to the giving of the law G has , , that I have set bewhich Moses gave before you for the MT fore you. We could ask whether G is simply being pedantic or is perhaps toning down the text. Wevers argues, and probably with justification, that this is a clear instance of exegetical activity by the translator in order to create a distance between God and man: “the direct communication is made indirect by the mediation of Moses, the traditional lawgiver.”98 This treatment of Moses fits well within views expressed in the Hellenistic literature of the period. , as The author of the Letter of Aristeas99 calls him a lawgiver, does the Jewish philosopher Aristobulus, quoted by Eusebius.100 Josephus,101 too, quotes earlier writers: Nicolas of Damascus, … and Alexander Polyhistor: … and himself refers to Moses as .102 The same idea is to be found in Eupolemus as quoted in Eusebius.103 Thus the treatment of Moses as lawgiver is not unique to the translator of the section, but is firmly rooted in the writings of the period before and during the translation of the section. 3 Reigns 13.21 = MT 13.21 to be connected with , bitter, hence the translation , you have embittered. The same equivalence is found in verse 26. Both here and in verse 26 G renders by . G understood

97

Cf. 15.30; 16.2,7,13,26; 20.22 (MT 21.22). The two verses where ter 14, i. e. verses 9 and 15, are lacking in G. 98 Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 319. 99 Ep.Arist., 131, 139, 148, 312. 100 Eusebius, Praep.ev., VIII .10.3,6,9. 101 Josephus, A. J., 1.95 and 240. 102 Josephus, A. J., 1.15. 103 Eusebius, Praep.ev., IX .26.1.

occurs in chap-

II. Choice of vocabulary, omissions and additions influenced by piety

125

Wevers104 argues that the avoidance of may well be an indication of an antianthropomorphic tendency of the translator. However, in other instances G does not shy away from fully anthropomorphic rendering of mouth: so, for example, in 8.15 Solomon’s prayer of blessing is directed at God and G translated straightforwardly as . Also in 8.24, referring to God’s promise made to David, , G renders . It is better to assume, therefore, that in 13.21 the difference in G is to be attributed to logical reasoning: it was the actual word that proceeded from God’s mouth that was disobeyed, or embittered, as G has it, and not God’s mouth. 1. Instances of reverential distancing in G 3 Reigns 18.38 = MT 18.38 In some cases G rewords the text in order to tone down an expression. This is , and the fire of the LORD fell, is renthe case in 18.38 where dered , and fire from the Lord fell. In a similar was rendered by the translator in Num way to which the expression 11.1 and 3, G felt that the expression the fire of the Lord was too direct, and so added , from.105 Moreover, G has the plus . Burney106 suggests that the addition is under the influence of Gen 19.24 where we find and it is rendered in G . Though this is possible, the immediate reason seems to be that this explanatory note was added to disperse any doubt as to the origin of the fire, to confirm that it was not the magical powers of Elijah that evoked it.107 3 Reigns 18.39 = MT 18.39 MT has:

And all the people saw (it), and they fell on their faces and said, “The LORD he (is) God; the LORD he (is) God.”

G has:

104

Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 318. Wevers, Numbers, 160. 106 Burney, Notes, 227. 107 Cf. Ginzberg, Legends, IV , 199 and VI , 320. 105

126

Chapter Three: Piety in the γγ-section

And all the people fell on their faces and said, “Truly the Lord (is) God, he (is) God.”

G omits the reference to the people seeing, where the object is unspecified in the MT . It is likely that seeing God’s fire was perceived as unacceptable, too close to seeing God himself, and so the idea had to be omitted. Šanda argues therefore that “das Einschiebsel ist theologische Spekulation der späteren Juden.”108 2. Anthropomorphic features not amended 3 Reigns 8.52 = MT 8.52 Not only does G not remove the clearly anthropomorphic reference to God’s eyes, , but it adds , and your ears, which is aimed at emphasising the idea that the suppliant encourages God to use all his senses when hearing the pleas of his servants. Additionally, the translator’s concern for the logical correctness of the statement may have been at work here, since it is ears that hear rather than eyes. Whatever the cause of the addition, G is clearly not attempting to remove the anthropomorphism here.

III. Conclusions On the basis of the evidence presented in the discussion, the conclusion can be drawn that although G has elements which show an unsystematic tendency to portray the elements relating to the Israelite cult in a reverential manner, it does not have an anti-anthropomorphic agenda as Wevers has argued.

108

Šanda, Könige, 440.

Chapter Four

Treatment of the main characters in 3 Reigns by the translator of the γγ-section I. G’s treatment of Solomon Since most of the text of the section deals with events at, or connected with, the court of Solomon and the later divided Monarchy, it is of great importance to note the way the translator has dealt with different characters prominent in the text. The cases of kings and courtiers are particularly interesting when studied closely. Certain parallels can be drawn between larger-than-life descriptions of Solomon in the compositions of Hellenistic Jewish writers and the way G goes about presenting the great Israelite king.1 It seems that the Hellenistic ideal king is ever present in the text we are discussing. G is vitally interested in a positive presentation of the kings of Israel and Judah as strong and righteous leaders, going back to David, but is predominantly concerned with the main character of the book, king Solomon. The picture of Solomon as painted by G is different from the one encountered in the MT . Whereas the MT of Kings seems to present Solomon in a balanced way – his strong points are emphasised, but equally his weaknesses are exposed to the reader – this is all handled differently by G. In the following I propose to discuss the treatment of the major figures of the narrative, beginning with Solomon. A. Whitewashing Solomon The translator has used different techniques in his quest for a worthy portrayal of Solomon. Omissions, additions, rearrangement of the text as well as grammatical changes have been utilised in this process. These will be discussed in the following paragraphs.

1

Cf., for example, the figure of Solomon in the writings of Eupolemus.

128

Chapter Four: Treatment of the main characters in 3 Reigns

1. Omissions of the text 3 Reigns 2.26 = MT 2.26 The text speaks about the pronouncement of death on the priest Abiathar. The MT reads:

And king said to the priest Abiathar, “Go to Anathoth, to your fields; for you are a man of death. But I will not put you to death this day, because you carried the ark of the Lord GOD before my father David, and because you have been afflicted with all the hardships my father was afflicted.”

G has:

And the king said to Abiathar the priest, “Depart quickly to Anathoth to your field, for you are a man of death this day; but I will not kill you, because you have carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord before my father, and because you were afflicted in all things with which my father was afflicted.”

As an equivalent of , G has , which suggests that it transposed after and connected with the preceding clause. There is a logical explanation for the reworked text in the Greek translation. G felt it would be improper to attribute to Solomon even the thought of killing the high priest who was David’s counsellor and confidant. Above all, he had carried the ark of the covenant. Hence it would have been very irreverent of Solomon to dispose of him, and G felt the need to rehabilitate the “perfect king” by removing this offensive material. Additionally, there may have been a rational consideration; since nowhere are we told that Abiathar was executed at a later stage.2 3 Reigns 4.4 = MT 4.4 MT has: And Benaiah son of Jehoiada was in command of the army; Zadok and Abiathar were priests.

2

Cf. comments on this verse in chapter two, 41.

I. G’s treatment of Solomon

129

G has: And Sadoc and Abiathar were priests.

G lacks the first part of the sentence and there are several possible explanations for this. Šanda3 argues for G’s version on the basis that Benaiah was one of David’s heroes and so most probably about the same age as David. It would, then, be very unlikely for him to be still in office twenty years after Solomon had become king. Similarly, Noth4 sees verse 4a in the MT as a later addition, admitting, however, that the omission of a whole line of text would not have been difficult during the process of text transmission. However difficult the reconstruction of the original may be, it seems likely that at some stage the admittedly problematic mention of Benaiah was, either intentionally or unintentionally, omitted from the Greek text. Some commentators5 take G’s addition in verse 6 as a replacement for Benaiah here: . Noth,6 following Rahlfs’ argument, sees as an “innergriechischer Fehler für ”.7 This explanation, however, is 8 points out, if were the not without serious problems. As Mettinger original word, it would need to appear in more manuscripts. Moreover, B and A insert as an attempt to explain the difficult . If we were to apply the rule of lectio difficilior the obvious choice would be . However, if we accept as the original word here, we are left without a mention of the army commander. It would seem a plausible solution to the problem outlined above to accept with Mettinger9 and Jones10 the MT version as original and presume a defect in G. Apart from the possibility of a mechanical error, it is possible to suggest an intentional change in G. We might assume that the translator reckoned that Solomon would not include in his peaceful government a former aide of David, a man of battle stained with blood. Although he was used by Solomon to do his “dirty work”,11 which dealt with the residue from David’s reign, with the new beginning, however, there was no place for a man like Benaiah in Solomon’s peaceful reign. Granted, in 2.35 both the MT and G attest to the fact that Benaiah was given Joab’s position as commander of the host after the latter’s 3

Šanda, Könige, 67. Noth, Könige, 56, 59. 5 Cf. Rahlfs, Septuaginta Studien, 201, Noth, Könige, 57, De Vaux, Ancient Israel, 128, Klostermann, Könige, 280, Gray, 1 & 2 Kings, 131. 6 Noth, Könige, 57. 7 In fact has been preserved as a variant in some of the L MSS . 8 Mettinger, Solomonic State Officials, 11. 9 Mettinger, Solomonic State Officials, 11. 10 Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, I, 136. 11 Cf. 2.29–35. 4

130

Chapter Four: Treatment of the main characters in 3 Reigns

assassination. However, it could be argued that this was only an intermediary stage when Benaiah was temporarily put in charge of the army, to be quietly replaced later. The text would encourage this speculation since Benaiah is not mentioned later in the narrative. We could speculate that the translator thought that if Benaiah were the captain of Solomon’s host it would be very strange not to hear about him even once after his appointment. This reasoning could possibly have led to abandoning the relevant part of the verse. Thus it seems likely that for the sake of emphasising Solomon’s peaceful reign the involvement of Benaiah in Solomon’s government was eliminated. 3 Reigns 4.31 = MT 3.1 MT has:

And Solomon formed a marriage alliance with Pharaoh king of Egypt; and he took Pharaoh’s daughter and brought her into the city of David, until he had finished building his own house and the house of the LORD and the wall around Jerusalem

G has:

And Solomon took to himself the daughter of Pharaoh to wife, and brought her into the city of David until he had finished the house of the Lord, and his own house, and the wall of Jerusalem.

This verse is found in a different location in G, a fact which does not concern us here.12 Whereas the latter part of the verse is rendered faithfully,13 G lacks the opening words: , And Solomon formed a marriage alliance with Pharaoh king of Egypt. Jones14 thinks it is because they were regarded as tautologous. However, other reasons for the omission seem more probable. The alliance with Pharaoh by means of marriage might have been wise politically but would nevertheless have been seen as conflictin the hitpael, occurs ing with biblical requirements.15 The term used here, only once in 1 Kings. In at least two passages the hitpael form of is used in the negative context of prohibition of intermarriage (Deut 7.3) or of warning against it (Josh 23.12). Consequently, it is likely that G feared that an ac12

Cf. the treatment of this problem later in this chapter, 141. There is, of course, the difference in the order within the verse. This phenomenon has been discussed in chapter three, 100. 14 Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, I, 123. 15 Cf. Deut 7.3,4; 17.16. 13

I. G’s treatment of Solomon

131

knowledgement of Solomon’s becoming Pharaoh’s son-in law would imply the beginning of a cultically negative influence over the king and his subjects. This, we can speculate, was to be avoided at any cost; in this case it meant the omission of part of the text. G renders by as though translating as in 4.11. But by complying with the standard formula … ,16 G unfortunately loses what the Hebrew is trying to convey. As Walsh17 points out, the omission of the standard expression to himself and as wife signifies that “in reality the union is a political alliance between Solomon and the king of Egypt; it is not primarily a relationship between Solomon and a foreign woman.” G misses the point which the Hebrew was trying to make, i. e., to present Solomon in a positive light by implying that the marriage was a purely political manoeuvre. 1 Kings 6.11–13 These verses are omitted from G in their entirety.

Now the word of the LORD came to Solomon, “Concerning this house that you are building, if you will walk in my statutes, obey my ordinances, and keep all my commandments by walking in them, then I will establish my promise with you, which I made to your father David. I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will not forsake my people Israel.”

Most commentators see verses 11–13 as Deuteronomistic additions, hence absent from the Vorlage. However, there may be a different reason for the omission, for to some extent the text interrupts the flow of the narrative. It is placed after the account of the completion of the basic structure of the Temple and before the work on the interior of the Temple. Thus the location of the material may not have been perceived by G as ideal. But this is not the only reason for the omission; in other cases G simply relocates the material to a more suitable position.18 As Walsh aptly remarks, the words of God are “cautionary rather than congratulatory.”19 Solomon is admonished to obey, and the blessing on him, as well as on Israel, is conditional upon his actions:

16

Cf. 2.17,21; 4.11,15. Walsh, Kings, 70. 18 Cf. the examples dealing with the logical arrangements of the text in chapter two. 19 Walsh, Kings, 105. 17

132

Chapter Four: Treatment of the main characters in 3 Reigns

It seems quite extraordinary that Solomon is exhorted to obedience and walking in God’s statutes while building the Temple. Doubtless this must be the most distinguished building activity an Israelite king could be called upon to carry out. However, in God’s proclamation there is a hint of disappointment with Solomon’s actions and it reflects a different set of priorities: Solomon is concerned with the project, God with his obedience.20 Furthermore, as Walsh21 observes, the message which comes to Solomon in the process of building the Temple does not mention God’s dwelling in the Temple; instead God promises , and I will dwell among the children of Israel. Would this not call into question the whole project, if God were not going to dwell there? All these could easily have been difficult issues for the translator to pass over without adjusting the text in order to portray Solomon in a positive light. Hence there is a good chance that verses 11–13 were omitted on purpose.22 1 Kings 9.25

And three times a year Solomon used to offer up burnt offerings and peace offerings on the altar that he built for the LORD , and he burned incense upon the altar that (was) before the LORD . And he completed the house.

This verse is lacking in G. There are reasons to think that it was removed because it implied that Solomon was actively participating in offering sacrifices at a time when he should not have. The last mention of Solomon’s sacrifices is in 8.62–65, and that is at the dedication of the Temple. From that time on it would have been the strict prerogative of the priests to offer sacrifices. 3 Reigns 10.29 = MT 10.26 The omission in this verse is quite significant in terms of G’s view of Solomon. MT has:

20

Cf. Walsh, Kings, 105. Walsh, Kings, 105. 22 Van Keulen, Solomon Narrative, 142–50, discusses missing verses in G and comes to the guarded conclusion that they could have been removed by the reviser of the text (in order to smooth out the account of the temple building), although he admits that it is unusual for G to leave out “passages of [the] size and theological weight … without any representation” (147), especially since our passage includes words from God himself. However, it is precisely the theological difficulty of the passage that most probably influenced the omission, regardless of whose words it included. 21

I. G’s treatment of Solomon

133

And Solomon gathered together chariots and horsemen; and he had a thousand and four hundred chariots and twelve thousand horsemen, and he stationed them in the chariot cities and with the king in Jerusalem.

G has:

And Solomon had four thousand mares for his chariots and twelve thousand horsemen; and he put them in the cities of his chariots and with the king in Jerusalem.

G lacks the beginning of the verse: , and Solomon gathered together chariots and horsemen. , to gather, is used in 1 Kings only in our verse. We can speculate that by omitting the sentence in verse 29 G tries to put Solomon’s affairs in a positive light. It is conceivable that the translator removed the possibly offensive material for one of the reasons which brought about changes in other parts of the book, specifically his attempt to whitewash Solomon’s accumulation of gold and horses. Why should the translator be unhappy about the idea of “gathering horses”? Because it would stand in direct opposition to Deut 17.16 which specifically prohibits the kings of Israel from amassing horses. Here, as Gooding23 points out, the omission helps to obtain the desired “sequence of thought”: since in verse 28 stress is put on the fact that the horses and mules were brought to Solomon as a gift, verse 29 by omitting the first clause reinforces the positive approach towards Solomon. He did not gather horses, as the MT would have it, but was given them as a gift. G has which more closely resembles of 2 Chr 9.25 than our verse’s . But the 4000 of 2 Chr 9.25 refer to stalls or teams of horses,24 which would have included more than one horse, whereas G here refers to mares. , Owing to the fact that G to a large extent follows the text of 2 Chr 9.25, chariots, is not in fact rendered by , mares. G represents , borrowed from the parallel verses in 2 Chr. It is likely that G read in a spelling encountered at 1 Kings 5.6, i. e., , but not knowing its meaning took it to be the infinitive construct of , conceive, be pregnant, . Similarly the phrase in 5.6, found only in the Miscellany at 2.24i, is rendered in G by , horses for breeding. The following also , does not represent the text of MT 10.26, but that of 2 Chr 9.25, i. e.,

23

Gooding, Text-Sequence, 454–5. Davies, Urwot, 25–38, proposes a new understanding of in 1 Kgs 5.6. In his opinion the term should be understood as teams of horses rather than stalls for horses. Davies’ findings are based on observation of Akkadian cognates. 24

134

Chapter Four: Treatment of the main characters in 3 Reigns

and chariots, with the exception that the is replaced with , as is the case . with MT 5.6, The rest of the verse, starting with , follows closely the text of MT 10.26, which goes against Gooding’s argument that the whole of the verse is based on the text of Chr. 3 Reigns 11.1 = MT 11.1 Chapter 11 in MT begins with a critique of Solomon already in verse 1: And King Solomon loved many foreign women along with the daughter of Pharaoh,

followed by the list of the nations from which they came. G’s text reads slightly differently: , And King Solomon was a lover of women. And he had seven hundred queens, and three hundred concubines. And he took foreign women and the daughter of Pharaoh,

which again is followed by the list of the nations, as in the MT . The text of G is longer and includes additions moved from other places to , he loved many foreign smooth out the harsh statement women. We have the text of verse 3a in MT moved up after the introductory remarks; , and he had seven hundred wives, princesses and three hundred concubines, which corresponds to , and he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines. The con. Then nection with the rest of verse 1 is retained by the additional only does here follow the misplaced , , foreign women. The pejorative adjective is omitted entirely. Thus the focus of the reader is taken away from the fact so prominent in the MT : Solomon is guilty of transgressing against Deut 7. Moreover, as van Keulen25 aptly observes, the MT concentrates on the fact of many foreign women, whereas G focuses on the fact that he was , a lover of women, and backs up the information with the numbers. The reason for Solomon’s fall, as is clear from the MT , is not introduced at this point in the narrative.26

25

Van Keulen, Solomon Narrative, 207. Van Keulen, Solomon Narrative, 219, does not see the whitewashing of Solomon in connection with the prohibitions of Deut 7. In his opinion, both MT and G are conscious about the transgression of the intermarriage regulations. G, Van Keulen argues, through its arrangement of the text, allows us to see two distinct violations: multiplication of women as well as intermarriage. 26

I. G’s treatment of Solomon

135

3 Reigns 11.3 = MT 11.4

And it came to pass when Solomon was old, his wives turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not true to the LORD his God, as was the heart of his father David.

G has:

And it came to pass in the time when Solomon was of old age, and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, like the heart of David his father.

In G the text of verse 3 is following that of verse 4 in the MT . The contents of verse 3 as we have it in the MT were split in G. Verse 3a has been moved to verse 1 and 3b, i. e., , and his wives turned away his heart. One possible reason is that the text was considered a doublet to verse 4, , his wives turned away his heart, and as such has been abandoned.27 Another possibility is that G tones down the effect of the MT : it was in his old age that Solomon was not as careful about orthodoxy as in his youth. The MT , however, claims that the foreign wives were the reason for Solomon’s infidelity in his old age. The difference may not seem great, but it is significant and changes the perspective on the assessment of Solomon.28 3 Reigns 11.6 = MT 11.5a The text of the MT is as follows: For Solomon followed Astarte the goddess of the Sidonians, and Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.

This verse was considered too offensive and damaging to the good name of Solomon in its present location, so G removed it and omitted problematic parts. Verse 4 (MT 11.3), gives the reason for Solomon’s downfall: , and the foreign women turned away his heart after their gods. Then, instead of the damning verse 5 (MT ), we have 11.7, which speaks about building the bamah for foreign deities: , to Chemosh the abomination of Moab, as well as , and for Molech the abomination of the sons of Ammon. G most likely read , and for Molech, as , pro27 28

Cf. the extensive notes on the issue by Talshir, Origin and Revision, 71–105 (93–5). Cf. Van Keulen, Solomon Narrative, 214, who arrives at similar conclusions.

136

Chapter Four: Treatment of the main characters in 3 Reigns

ducing . This unusual rendering seems to be a conscious effort on the part of the translator to disguise the full force of the meaning of the word. One reason is that G does not see it as possible that Solomon would build the bamah to Molech. Thus functions here as a euphemism for , which in this concealed form would not have been immediately evident to the original readers.29 The following verse, MT 11.6, has also been moved to another location. It is to be found in G at 11.8. Verse 6 in G is a remnant of what was left of MT 11.5: , and to Astarte the abomination of the Sidonians. In G this part can only refer to the preceding verse which deals with building of the bamah. So, then, the reference to illegitimate worship is not detectable. Yet, not only is the beginning of the verse missing, but the sec, and (went) after Milcom the ond part is omitted, i. e., abomination of the Ammonites. This note had to go, too. Otherwise G would have repeated the note about building the bamah to Molech. All this continues the process of whitewashing Solomon from verse 5 on. G removes the remark about Solomon following Astarte and connects our verse with MT 11.7, thus creating the notion that Solomon only built an altar to Astarte, i. e., he himself was not guilty of following this foreign goddess. According to G, therefore, Solomon’s guilt cannot be viewed in terms of worshipping foreign gods. All he did was to build sacrificial places for his foreign wives and even this was because they had turned his heart to do this. 2. Additions to the text a. Solomon is a truthful, just and powerful monarch 3 Reigns 2.29 = MT 2.29 G has a large piece of text that does not have a counterpart in the Hebrew:

And king Solomon sent to Joab, saying, “What happened to you, that you have fled to the altar?” And Joab said, “Because I was afraid of you, and fled for refuge to the Lord.”

Its origin has been variously explained. Burney,30 following Thenius and Klostermann, argues that the words in G “exhibit no attempt to justify the action of Solomon” which he takes as proof of their genuineness. Schenker thinks similarly arguing that the additional material in G is there for a specific purpose: the difference between the two narratives extends over the whole 29 30

See also comments in chapter three, 118. Burney, Notes, 23–4.

I. G’s treatment of Solomon

137

judicial procedure which the reader is a witness to in our verse.31 Since king Solomon as judge is faced with Joab’s seeking asylum at the horns of the altar, he has to deal with it appropriately. In G’s account therefore we have the necessary information which Solomon requests to be delivered through the anonymous messenger. He enquires of Joab the reasons for his refuge at the horns of the altar. According to G, Joab informs Solomon that it is he, the king, who is unjustly pursuing him. The lack of this information in the MT leads Schenker to accept G’s superiority.32 However, it seems that Schenker failed to notice both the potential for mechanical error and a possible exegetical move on the part of G. Certainly we cannot exclude the possibility of a . The assumption homoioteleuton between the first and second of the above mentioned scholars that there is no attempt to justify Solomon’s action needs to be looked into more closely. Joab’s expression of fear in G implies his wrong-doing. He escapes to the sanctuary knowing that he deserves punishment from Solomon. In the MT Solomon orders his execution immediately. This to G may have seemed too abrupt and so it introduced this interlude which does not contain a lot of new information but smoothes out the abruptness of the statement, as Noth points out: “durch den Solomo von dem allzu abrupten Tötungsbefehl entlastet werden sollte.”33 Furthermore, as van Keulen notes,34 the suggestion that G is consciously protecting Solomon’s image is strengthened by the fact that in 2.32 we have the addition .35 3 Reigns 2.37 = MT 2.37 MT :

For it shall come to pass on the day you go out, and cross the Wadi Kidron, know for certain that you shall die; your blood shall be on your own head.

G:

31

Schenker, Septante, 70. Schenker, Septante, 70. 33 Noth, Könige, 7. 34 Van Keulen, Solomon Narrative, 33–5. 35 We have already commented on the verse in chapter two, since it seems that the addition plays a dual role: it contributes to the overall quest for logic in the narrative as well as to the creation of the right image for Solomon. 32

138

Chapter Four: Treatment of the main characters in 3 Reigns

And it shall come to pass on the day that you will go out, and cross over the brook Kedron, know for sure that you will certainly die; your blood shall be on your head.” And the king caused him to swear in that day.

G has a plus , and the king caused him to swear in that day. The MT does not say when Shimei’s oath was actually sworn; the fact that Shimei has sworn is simply reported in verse 42. The addition was quite likely introduced in order to bring the content of verse 37 in line with verse 42: . This statement serves as security for Solomon, who would not invoke the breach of an oath which never took place as grounds for the death-sentence on Shimei in verse 42. Thus the translator felt that if the oath were not reported it would undermine the legitimacy of Solomon’s claims in verse 42. 3 Reigns 3.15 = MT 3.15 The text speaks of Solomon coming to Jerusalem to offer burnt offering. The MT relates this: And he stood before the ark of the covenant of the LORD .

However, the text in G is as follows:

And he stood before the altar that was in front of the ark of the covenant of the Lord in Zion.

Schenker36 thinks that the explicit mention of the altar in conjunction with the ark of the covenant must be based on a Hebrew Vorlage and offers the following argument. Since there was apparently an altar in Jerusalem, we have a conflict with the fact that both Solomon and the Israelites had been offering sacrifices to the Lord on the high places. Thus G, by mentioning this fact, risks drawing attention to the problem. Also, a common location of the altar and the ark of covenant would suggest the existence of a temporary Holy of Holies prior to the building of the Temple. This would have been considered an impossibility by the redactor of the text and so Schenker concludes that the difficulties have been remedied in the MT by removing the note about the altar. Although Schenker’s solution to the problem is complex and ingenious, it will not stand. It is much more probable to assume with a number of scholars that was added in G in order to avoid a possible misunderstanding that Solomon was acting in a way strictly forbidden to laity, i. e., coming 36

Schenker, Septante, 92.

I. G’s treatment of Solomon

139

into the immediate presence of the ark.37 By that time the ark had been deposited in the Tent of David in the city of David (2 Sam 6.12–17) and thus was not accessible to those outside the priesthood. G reiterates that the ark was in fact in the city of David by its addition in Zion.38 But this addition certainly plays another role as well. It additionally assures the reader that Solomon’s sacrifices were done in the cultically appropriate place,39 not just anywhere in Jerusalem, but in the place where David had placed the ark, and thus a legitimate location for offering sacrifices. 3 Reigns 7.31 = MT 7.45 MT reads:

And the pots, and the shovels, and the basins, and all these vessels that Hiram made for King Solomon for the house of the LORD were of burnished bronze.

After

G has the following plus:

, and (there were) eight and forty pillars of the house of the king and of the house of the Lord as well as , all the works of the king (which) Hiram made. Šanda40 considers this to be a late addition as suggested by the use of the nominative case rather than the accusative as previously in the verse. In verses 3–9 we are presented with an extensive description of the two pillars, Jachin and Boaz. Wevers thinks that the addition was made in order to “enhance Solomon”.41 It is plausible that the mention of the forty-eight columns would generate in the reader an even greater recognition of the Solomonic building operations. On the other hand, however, it is equally possible 37 So, for example, Burney, Notes, 34, Montgomery, Kings, 112, Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 314–5. 38 Schenker, Septante, 93, argues that the topographical and theological content of the verse is very complex. Pointing out that, according to 8.1, Zion describes the city of David, he argues that the plus is an important contribution to the question of topographical data. For if the place where the ark of the covenant and the altar were located is in the city of David, then Zion clashes with the location of the future site of Solomon’s Temple. Moreover, Schenker says that it would be unthinkable that two legitimate places of worship would be operating in Jerusalem at the same time. Thus, having listed what he believes are original tensions in G, he proceeds to state that these have been remedied in the MT . The problem with this explanation is that it presupposes only one possible way in which the text has developed and ignores the findings of other scholars in respect to the problem. Moreover, Schenker’s argumentation is on a purely philological level and does not take into account the general theological connotation of the phrase in Zion. 39 Cf. Mulder, 1 Kings, 151. 40 Šanda, Könige, 194. 41 Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 308.

140

Chapter Four: Treatment of the main characters in 3 Reigns

that a major haplography occurred in the MT , i. e., between and the non-existing reflected by . The decision is very difficult and both options are open possibilities. 3 Reigns 7.37 = MT 7.51 G has:

And the work of the house of the Lord which Solomon did was finished; and Solomon brought in the holy things of David his father, and all the holy things of Solomon; the silver, and the gold, he gave, into the treasures of the house of the Lord.

G lacks referring to the work on the Temple. Montgomery argues that G omitted it in order not “to limit Solomon’s works”.42 However, it is difficult to know what this comment might mean. It seems more probable that logic was an issue here- not all the work on the Temple was concluded at this point.43 We have the addition in G of , and all the holy things of Solomon. This could refer to Solomon’s Temple utensils mentioned in verses 10 and following (MT 7.23 and following). Wevers44 is right in assuming that this is another example of improving the image of Solomon; if there were holy things of David,45 there must have been holy things of Solomon.46 There is the omission, too, of , and the vessels. There is no obvious explanation for this omission. Possibly the statement was considered redundant, or to be causing confusion with the utensils supplied by Solomon. 3 Reigns 10.12 = MT 10.12 G has:

And the king made hewn timber (into) supports of the house of the Lord and the house of the king and nablas and kinyras for the singers; such hewn timber had not come upon the earth, nor have been seen anywhere until this day.

An explanatory , upon the earth, has been added as well as , anywhere. It could be argued that this is merely stylistic, since without it the 42

Montgomery, Kings, 184. Cf. treatment of the verse in chapter two, 59. 44 Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 308. 45 Cf. 2 Sam 8.10–12. 46 Cf. also comments above, 59. 43

I. G’s treatment of Solomon

141

sentence is without the predicate. But equally it could be argued that it is aimed at augmenting Solomon’s building projects. The latter seems more probable. b. God answers Solomon’s prayers 3 Reigns 9.3 = MT 9.3

And the LORD said to him, “I have heard your prayer and your plea, which you made before me; I have consecrated this house that you have built to put my name there forever; and my eyes and my heart will be there for all time.

After we have the addition of , I have done for you according to all your prayer. It seems that the translator’s intention was to point out God’s favourable reaction to the prayers of this model-king by fulfilling all his requests. 3. Reordering of the material 3 Reigns 4.31 = MT 3.1 This verse is to be found in a different location in G. The text deals with Solomon’s marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter. In the MT this pericope is placed in the context of Solomon’s wisdom. One could argue, however, that this location is not ideal where the impeccable character of Solomon is involved. The marriage to a foreign woman, especially from Egypt, would not necessarily be perceived as a wise act for a model Israelite ruler for whom obedience to the ordinances of the Law were of paramount importance.47 The translator, conscious of the issues at stake, decided to move the sensitive subject to a more “suitable” context, that of political astuteness. It is found in G alongside information about the institution of ministers, dealings with Hiram, and the building of the Temple, i. e., in the context of obedience to God’s instructions and the ordinances of his father, David. Our text, then, comes after the cabinet list and before the section dealing with the building of the Temple. In his treatment of the subject Gooding48 has suggested that the reordering of the material in G, in contrast to the MT , is connected very closely with a “timetabling” motive, one of the driving forces behind the present form of G. In the case under consideration the material implying the bringing of Pharaoh’s daughter into Jerusalem is positioned just prior to the negotiations with Hiram concerning the building of the Temple. The text says that 47 48

Cf. above, 130. Gooding, Solomon’s Misconduct, 327.

142

Chapter Four: Treatment of the main characters in 3 Reigns

… . Unlike the MT ’s sequence of events, where the section on Solomon’s judicial wisdom follows, in G, almost immediately after the mention of the House of the Lord in our verse, Solomon starts the Temple building project. Thus this secondary positioning of the text appears to fit the context better, while at the same time the different distribution of the material encourages a more favourable view of Solomon. Whether this is derived from a different Vorlage is difficult to determine. But that it fulfils a desirable function, and thus falls well within G’s interests, is without question. 3 Reigns 7.38 = MT 7.1 The whole section dealing with the construction of Solomon’s palace49 has been moved in G from its original place at the beginning of the chapter to its present location, i. e., after the passage describing the building of the Temple.50 This, however, is not the only difference between the texts. The second part of the verse, , and he finished his entire house, has been removed even further from its counterpart in the MT . In G it does not appear until the whole section dealing with Solomon’s palace has been presented, upon which we read as a conclusion in verse 50: , and Solomon finished all his house. We can suppose an exegetical activity on the part of the translator aimed at smoothing out the perceived incongruence in the Hebrew text on the basis that a statement about the finished project should be placed at the end and not at the beginning of the account. Moreover, it seems likely that a note about a finished palace in the context of an unfinished Temple would awake unwelcome associations with a text like Haggai 1.2–9, where the prophet’s accusation is directed towards those who build their own houses and leave the Temple of the Lord in ruins. a. Pharaoh’s daughter leaves the city of David and moves to Solomon’s palace 3 Reigns 9.9b = MT 9.24 Here we have the transposition of a part of the text; 9b is found in a different location in the MT , i. e., MT 9.24: But Pharaoh’s daughter went up from the city of David to her (own) house that (Solomon) had built for her; then he built the Millo.

49 50

101.

Verses 1–12 in the MT . One of the reasons is the issue of piety which has been discussed in chapter three above,

I. G’s treatment of Solomon

143

G reads:

Then Solomon brought up the daughter of Pharaoh out of the city of David into his house which he built for himself in those days.

The problems of this verse have been discussed in detail by Gooding.51 He argues for the deliberate transposition of verse 24 (MT ) to the second part of verse 9. In Gooding’s opinion the translator, driven by the idea of a detailed timetable, is particularly concerned that our text be in line with 4.31 (MT 3.1).52 There we read that Solomon is said to have taken his Egyptian wife into Jerusalem only for a limited period of time: , until he finished, his building projects. Hence, according to Gooding, the note about Solomon’s wife’s departure from Jerusalem seemed to our translator most appropriate immediately after the information about the completion of the project had , then, which is aimed at making sure that the been given.53 The additional reader is aware of Solomon’s fulfilled promise, may be considered as one sign of this particular concern that the translator apparently exercised. The timing of the removal of Solomon’s wife is further emphasised by the subsequent remark at the end of the verse, . Although agreeing with Gooding’s reading of the text54, it may be added that by sticking to the strict reading of the details, G is able to fulfil its overall interest: the presentation of Solomon in a worthy manner. So then, the timetable is not just precise for its own sake, but in order to obtain the most desirable picture of Solomon. Another detail may be significant in our assessment of the translator’s pedantic attitude toward the text: the change of the place to which Solomon’s , to her wife moved.55 The MT maintains that she moved (own) house that (Solomon) had built for her, whereas G has , into his house which he built for himself. There are two possible explanations for this difference.

51

Gooding, Solomon’s Misconduct, 325–35, and Text and Midrash, 8–9. Schenker, Septante, 88–9, in dealing with this passage does not interact with Gooding’s findings and, without providing any evidence, states only that G’s location of the text is anchored in the context and chronology of events, whereas this text in the MT is simply an annalistic note, without chronological co-ordination, and is detached from the context. 53 But see also the comments on this verse in chapter two, 65. 54 Pace Van Keulen, Solomon Narrative, 66, note 6, who fails to recognise a clear connection between the two parts of the same verse in G (9.9a and b) and thus misses the point made by Gooding. 55 It is surprising that Gooding does not discuss this. 52

144

Chapter Four: Treatment of the main characters in 3 Reigns

Firstly, it is possible that G misread the final in both cases as the third masculine singular suffix, which resulted in reading the unvocalised text as his house and himself.56 Secondly, it is equally possible that G manipulated the text. It is apparent from the MT that Pharaoh’s daughter was given a separate house. But, for our translator, who certainly had 4.31 (MT 3.1) in mind while translating this verse, it was clear that there is no mention of a separate house for Pharaoh’s daughter. Indeed, it may have been perceived by the translator as the lesser evil for Solomon to have his wife, who happened to be Pharaoh’s daughter, in his own house, than to build an extra palace just for her. This would mean too great a compromise on the part of Solomon than was acceptable to our translator, so he emended the text. On balance, it seems more probable that G purposely altered the text. 3 Reigns 10.23a = MT 9.15 Before we look at the question of the different location of our text in G, it is worth noting G’s treatment of Solomon’s levy in our verse. First of all the question of forced labour is not at all clear owing to G’s translation of the key by , but there is uncertainty as to how term. G renders should be understood.57 Mulder58 draws attention to the fact that is often used in LXX to translate , booty, plunder. It is also used to render , prey, spoil, plunder, on a number of occasions.59 Nevertheless, we can speculate about the possibility of an effort on the part of the translator to remove the offending idea of a levy by the use of a word which had other connotations as well. Apart from the more usual notion of forage, can be used with the meaning suggested for our passage by LSJ,60 viz. store, provision. If we take it this way, the idea of forced labour is removed from the text, and this could well have been the intention of the translator.61 We now turn to the different location of the verse in G. It deals with the forced labour conscripted for the building of both the Temple and Solomon’s palace. In the MT the verse follows the account of Hiram’s supply of wood for the Temple and the House of Lebanon building projects and precedes the account of Solomon’s other building projects; the rebuilding of Gezer burned by Pharaoh, and other cities. In G, on the other hand, it is located in the context of Solomon’s trading operations. 56

Cf. Montgomery, Kings, 214. Cf. the comments in chapter two, 24. 58 Mulder, 1 Kings, 480. 59 Cf. Hr, 1208. 60 LSJ , 1491. 61 But cf. the suggestions proposed by Van Keulen, Solomon Narrative, 194–200. 57

I. G’s treatment of Solomon

145

It is worth asking what the reason for this relocation could have been. The verse has been moved after 10.22, so that G gives the impression that the ships bringing goods from Tarshish were in fact delivering materials for the Solomonic building projects, rather than, as in the MT ’s version, for Solomon’s treasury. Thus Solomon could not be accused of amassing riches for himself. The vast amounts of goods imported by ships were, according to G, used for a worthy project. There was but one problem, however, with this understanding of the matter. The preceding verse (22) mentions, apart from materials used for the building operations, some imported goods whose use in those operations ,62 are is questionable. The last three words in the MT , hapax legomena, traditionally translated as ivory, apes, and peacocks. These words are missing in G. They were either not known to the translator, which is possible, or he wanted to focus attention on the stones. The former view, although not impossible, is less likely; it is probable that G “read” the meaning of the unfamiliar words the way he felt suited the context best as , and carved and hewn stones. Obviously, in this scenario there was not much use for exotic animals on the building site; exotic building materials, however, added to the splendour of the project.63 3 Reigns 11.8 = MT 11.6 The verse deals with the pronouncement that Solomon did evil ( ) and did not follow the Lord like David his father. The text itself has not been changed greatly; G follows the Hebrew very closely rendering the concepts using standard equivalents: . However, the accusation against Solomon is mitigated by its removal from its original location after verse 5 with its denunciation of Solomon as a follower of Astarte,64 and using it as a summary after listing the reason for his downfall, i. e., that the foreign wives turned away his heart from the God of Israel. The effect of this procedure is to admit that Solomon was guilty of not doing the right things, but this was because he could not help it – he was deceived by his foreign wives. 4. Theological amelioration of Solomonic actions evident in grammatical changes 3 Reigns 3.4 = MT 3.4 MT :

62

Cf. the discussion of possible meanings in Mulder, 1 Kings, 535. Cf. above, 140. 64 Cf. the discussion above, 135. 63

146

Chapter Four: Treatment of the main characters in 3 Reigns

And the king went to Gibeon to sacrifice there, for that was the principal high place; Solomon used to offer a thousand burnt offerings on that altar.

G has:

And he arose and went to Gabaon to sacrifice there, for that (was) the highest place, and great; Solomon offered a whole-burnt-offering of a thousand (victims) on the altar in Gabaon

Verse 4 in G includes several grammatical differences compared to the MT , and these again possibly point towards intentional changes on the part of the translator. The verb expressing the idea of offering sacrifice, , is used in the MT in the form , (imperfect hifil), thus having the connotation of habitual or customary action. The translator chose the word to render the idea of offering up an offering, but the form used is the aorist. This suggests one particular occasion on which animals were sacrificed rather than a recurring event as the MT version seems to suggest.65 Our translator supports his understanding of the meaning of the verse by introducing , and he got up. That phrase usually appears in the .66 On two occasions67 we find exactly the same section as a translation of , thus providform but there the MT has ing the basis for the translation. In verse 4 we lack and thus the basis for , unless the Greek represents a non-Masoretic Vorlage. It is possible that was introduced by our translator because it helps to ensure that the statement as a whole refers to a single occasion and avoids the impression created by the MT . This agrees with G’s use of the aorist for later in the verse and avoids the implication of repeated action suggested by the MT ’s imperfect. There is a further point in relation to the place where the sacrificing takes place. by suggesting a careful interpreG has rendered tational move in the process of which G effectively takes away the scandal of Solomon’s sacrifice on the bamah.68

65

Cf. Burney, Notes, 32: “Probably frequentative; ‘used to offer’”. Cf. 2.40; 11.40; 17.10; 19.3,8,21; 21.16. At 2.19 we find , to stand up, rise up, still rendering the same Hebrew word . At 3.20 the Hebrew is translated by ; similarly 3.21 for . 67 Cf. 17.10; 19.21. 68 For a fuller treatment of G’s treatment of , cf. chapter three, 118. 66

147

I. G’s treatment of Solomon

a. Avoiding the notion that Israelites were drawn into the levy and that there were overseers over the people. 3 Reigns 5.16 = MT 5.30 MT reads:

Besides Solomon’s three thousand three hundred supervisors who were over the work, having charge of the people who did the work.

G reads:

Besides the rulers that were appointed over the works of Solomon, (there were) three thousand six hundred masters who did the work.

G has , six hundred, instead of , three hundred, in the MT . Montgomery69 thinks that G preferred 3600 because it is “a round number”, but it is not immediately clear what he means. According to Noth,70 the MT should not be corrected because we do not know how the different figures, represented by the variations in different MSS in relation to the MT , came into the text.71 G follows here the slightly different syntax of 9.23 , in its , with following rather than preceding it, as is the case in our verse in the MT . Incidentally, the whole verse MT 9.23 is lacking in G. G lacks an equivalent for . The resulting change in the syntax would imply that it was the masters, , who actually did the work and not the people, as the MT would have it. It is possible that this omission occurred in order to avoid the notion that the Israelites were also drawn into the levy, as well as the fact that there were supervisors over the people. L have . b. G reduces the amount of gold amassed by Solomon by conflating two events into one 3 Reigns 9.14 = MT 9.14

69

Montgomery, Kings, 139. Noth, Könige, 87. 71 L have ; A, x, Armenian and Syro-hexapla have Josephus has . 70

;

148

Chapter Four: Treatment of the main characters in 3 Reigns

And Hiram had sent to the king one hundred and twenty talents of gold.

And Hiram brought to Solomon a hundred and twenty talents of gold.

G makes Hiram come to Solomon with the gifts, , whereas MT just laconically states , and he sent. One could argue that this is simply a different way of expressing the same thing but it seems that there is more at stake here. As Gooding72 points out, there seems to be a connection between here and in verse 28. There it is used as a translation of , and they delivered, of which it is a standard equivalent. , Furthermore, in verse 27, is rendered, more normally, as sent. Gooding maintains that this is a deliberate choice of words in G in order to assimilate the contents of verse 14 to verse 28. By so doing the gold of which verse 14 speaks, amounting to 120 talents, has been sent by Hiram to Solomon, whereas in verse 28 the gold (420 talents) has been brought to Solomon by his and Hiram’s servants. In the account of G we have the same amount of gold, 120 talents, in both instances, as well as the same wording, brought. Gooding has argued convincingly that G is trying to make the two references, i. e., verses 14 and 28, relate to one and the same story. The effect of this amalgamation is a considerably smaller amount of gold brought to Solomon, and in consequence the criticism against Solomon’s amassing of gold, clearly present in the MT , is no longer there. 3 Reigns 9.26 = MT 9.26 A similar problem is found in 9.26. The text of the MT is straightforward. G, on the other hand, has syntax which is difficult to unravel:

And a ship for the sake of which king Solomon built in Emaesion Gaber near Aelath on the shore of the last (part?) of the sea in the land of Edom.

Gooding73 argues that the difficulty in understanding the syntax of the verse, especially in relation to the translation of , can be solved if we connect with the preceding verse and take as intransitive. The translation which Gooding offers reads as follows: “And Hiram brought to Solomon 120 talents of gold and a ship, for the sake of which (gold) Solomon the king wrought in Ezion-Geber which is near Elath on the Shore of the Last Sea in the land of Edom …”74 By connecting these 72

Gooding, Text-Sequence, 449. Gooding, Text-Sequence, 452. 74 Gooding, Text-Sequence, 452. 73

I. G’s treatment of Solomon

149

two verses, we form the impression that Hiram was “responsible” both for the cargo and the ship.75 3 Reigns 9.27 = MT 9.27 G seems to stress the fact that Hiram was the owner of the ship. The MT reads: And Hiram sent his servants with the fleet.

G has: And Hiram sent in the ship of his servants.

As we have noted in the previous verse, it is Hiram who brings the gold as well as the ship. This is strengthened by our verse’s reading which seems to be a conscious change on part of the translator.76 5. Enhancing Solomon Not only does G remove difficulties in the perceived picture of Solomon, but it also introduces elements that are foreign to the form of the text represented by the MT . a. A higher number of compositions attributed to Solomon 3 Reigns 4.28 = MT 5.12 This verse deals with the issue of Solomon’s composition of proverbs and songs. MT and G agree that there were three thousand proverbs; however, , when it comes to songs, they part company. The MT has and his songs numbered a thousand and five. G has , and his songs were five thousand. Montgomery77 explains the different number of compositions as a scribal error, 75

Van Keulen, Solomon Narrative, 184–5, suggests an alternative way of understanding to mean “because” instead of “for the sake of which”. The translation of the verse according to Van Keulen would be: “And Hiram brought to Solomon 120 talents and a ship because Solomon had wrought in Ezion-Geber.” In this Solomon is portrayed as the one who is the driving force behind the project, whereas Hiram is more or less an investor. This explanation is attractive, though, as Van Keulen admits, it would have to refer to the same event in verses 14 and 28 and hence is unlikely. Van Keulen accepts, therefore, Gooding’s solution as the best available. 76 But cf. Van Keulen, Solomon Narrative, 186–7, who argues that the change could be the result on an error caused by the translator. 77 Montgomery, Kings, 132.

150

Chapter Four: Treatment of the main characters in 3 Reigns

(sic). MT ’s reading is supported by Josephus.78 It is likely that the order five and a thousand prompted G to go this way.79 However, it is just possible that we have here an instance of exegetical activity on the part of the translator. By raising the number of songs which Solomon allegedly composed the translator aimed at elevating Solomon’s wisdom and enhancing his creativity. b. G mixes measures, which results in a larger amount of food 3 Reigns 5.11 = MT 5.25 Here we are informed about the provision of food for Hiram, which constituted payment for the timber exported from the Lebanon. MT speaks first of , twenty thousand cors of wheat, and then of , twenty cors of fine oil. While agreeing in the first instance, , twenty thousand cors of wheat,80 in the second G has , twenty thousand baths. Different attempts to explain the text as it stands in G have not been very convincing81 since they leave a number of questions open.82 A study of the differing numbers alone does not give us clues as to whether this is a copyist’s error or a conscious change. The latter seems to be the case, however, if we consider the use of two different terms for both the liquid and dry measures. G for one word in Hebrew. MT has uses different terms: , for the dry measure, and for the liquids. It is more likely, therefore, that we have here another product of the translator’s harmonisation. Wevers83 maintains that G did not understand the size of the , yet knew that a was a liquid measure and accordingly changed into it. This, however, was not necessary since can be used for both. Nevertheless, G changed the measure into a much smaller one, yet increased the amount. In G the number 20 000 baths not only matches the amount of wheat mentioned earlier, but has the effect of portraying Solomon as extremely wealthy if he is able to deliver such amounts of foodstuffs to Hiram. Alternatively, since 2 Chr

78

Cf. Josephus, AJ , VIII , 44. The Vulgate MSS also have “5000”. 80 After which G adds , a corrupted transliteration of , creating a tautology with the already mentioned . 81 Cf. Benzinger, Könige, 29, Burney, Notes, 55. 82 Noth’s solution seems to be the most satisfactory. He speculates: “Die Zahl “20000” beruht sehr wahrscheinlich auf Angleichung an die “20000” von 25a ; das scheinbare Mißverhältnis zwischen den beiden Zahlangaben sollte beseitigt werden.” Noth, Könige, 86. If this diagnosis is correct, we are dealing here not just with an unintentional error caused by copying the same phrase twice, but with editorial activity aimed at harmonising the alleged discrepancies in the text. 83 Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 307–8. 79

I. G’s treatment of Solomon

151

2.9 also has the same 20 000 baths, it is possible that G is using a text closer to the MT of Chr. c. G suggests that all the nations came to see Solomon’s wisdom 3 Reigns 4.30 = MT 5.14 In the context of Solomon’s wisdom, there were other visitors apart from the by . Usually G queen of Sheba. G renders MT ’s translates prepositions faithfully. It seems that in the context of Solomon’s wisdom the omission of the preposition serves to enhance Solomon’s fame: not just representatives from, but all the nations, came to see and admire Solomon’s wisdom.84 d. Hiram acknowledges the young king as an established monarch 3 Reigns 5.1 = MT 5.15 As was noted earlier,85 van Keulen argues convincingly that the “anointing” of Solomon by the emissaries of Hiram contributes to the overall notion in chapter 5 of G: enhancement of Solomon’s position. Here, Hiram’s party not only come to make contact with the newly elected king, but they take the initiative in recognising him as an established ruler.86 e. G claims that the God of David is now the God of Solomon 3 Reigns 5.3 = MT 5.17 Whereas in the MT Solomon is reporting on the inability of David to build the Temple for , his God, G has , my God. Burney87 takes G to be an erroneous reading of the MT , while Stade88 suggests the influence of in verses 18 and 19. While it is quite likely that G was influenced by the usage in subsequent verses, there is an important statement that G is making: it was not just the God of David for whom Solomon happens to be building a Temple in place of his father, but now he is the God of Solomon. Because Solo84 So also Van Keulen, Solomon Narrative, 97–8, who furthermore argues that the Greek addition (not in the Hexaplaric manuscripts) in the aorist would suggest that “kings offered presents to Solomon not on a single occasion but continuously”, which in turn enhances Solomon; the kings of all the earth continued personally to bring presents to Solomon. Moreover, Van Keulen, Solomon Narrative, 99, postulates that G makes much of the fact that Solomon is the beneficiary of Pharaoh’s dowry gift – a testimony to his status as a special king. 85 Cf. comments in chapter two, 48. 86 Van Keulen, Solomon Narrative, 102–7. 87 Burney, Notes, 53. 88 Stade, Kings, 81.

152

Chapter Four: Treatment of the main characters in 3 Reigns

mon is a ruler in his own right, his relationship with God is in place of the one his father enjoyed, and thus Solomon is not dependent on David’s relationship with God in the past. f. G attributes work entirely to Solomon 3 Reigns 6.4 = MT 6.37 G has translated the Hebrew , the foundation was laid, pual perfect, by , he laid the foundation, as though it read , piel perfect. Not only, therefore, do we have a statement about the foundation of the Temple, but the focus of the statement and credit for the work goes to Solomon.89 g. Solomon’s wealth is great 3 Reigns 10.21 = MT 10.21 MT speaks only of , drinking vessels, having been made of gold; G applies this to all the king’s vessels: . The addition , and the washing tubs (were) of gold, develops the idea further: not only all vessels used for dining purposes were golden, but the extravagance and wealth of Solomon’s court affected even the washing utensils.

3 Reigns 10.31 = MT 10.27 Whereas the MT speaks of silver as that which became as popular as stones in Jerusalem, , And the king made silver as common in Jerusalem as stones, G has an additional element: , And the king made gold and silver in Jerusalem as stones. As in a previous case (10.28),90 where G adjusted the text by omitting the mention of silver as unworthy in relation to the king, so here we observe a similar tendency: gold is introduced alongside silver in order to make the point more strongly. Thus we have not only a question of logic addressed but also the enhancement of Solomon in a single move.91

89 Pace Van Keulen, Solomon Narrative, 128, who does not see this as an intentional change. 90 Cf. discussion in chapter two, 67. 91 Thus agreeing with Van Keulen, Solomon Narrative, 111.

I. G’s treatment of Solomon

153

h. A toning down effect 3 Reigns 11.10 = MT 11.10 G changed the meaning of the expression by leaving out , and did not, as though it read . This results in the translation of , but he did not observe what the LORD commanded, by , but to take heed to do what the Lord God commanded him. Montgomery92 retains the Hebrew, arguing that “is parenthetical”. It seems that G intentionally avoids the statement that Solomon did not observe God’s command, i. e., he went after other gods. G has almost a converse translation93 which changes the negative statement into a positive one: , to take heed to do what the Lord commanded him. By so doing G disposes of the problematic notion of following after foreign gods and connects with the ideas encountered earlier in our discussion.94 This is achieved in spite of the fact that G includes a note of judgement at the end of the verse, but this is far more general in scope and does not cause damage to Solomon’s reputation as much as the note G sought to remove. 3 Reigns 11.11 = MT 11.11 The MT has: And you have not kept my covenant and my statutes that I have commanded you

whereas G has: And you have not kept my commandments and ordinances which I commanded you

In this report of God’s criticism of Solomon’s ways we have an unusual equivalent of , , instead of the regular . Mont, and translated the first word gomery95 thinks that G “missed the usual with .” Wevers96 argues differently that the reason behind this equivalence is G’s theology: “man cannot break God’s covenant; that is immutable; the only thing that man can disregard is God’s law.” Thus, it is possible that was too fundamental and weighty an issue to be implied of breaking the 92

Montgomery, Kings, 245. Cf. Gordon, Converse Translation, 3–21. 94 Cf. the removal of parts of MT 11.5, 135. 95 Montgomery, Kings, 245. 96 Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 320. 93

154

Chapter Four: Treatment of the main characters in 3 Reigns

Solomon and therefore the translator decided to tone it down by the choice of a less hefty word. Indeed, as van Keulen97 points out, the “sin” of Solomon is not completely denied by G in verses 8 and 33. However, where the text seems to go “too far”, i. e., in denouncing Solomon as idolater, the sensibilities of G have interfered. B. Judgement on Solomon A single reference seems to point in the direction of some limited judgement on Solomon which is passed by G. 3 Reigns 11.33 = MT 11.33 Strikingly, G makes Solomon, and not Israel, as in the MT , responsible for forsaking God and his statutes: , because he forsook me, and , and he walked not in my ways, to do that which was right before me, as David his father did. MT , on the other hand, only in the last part of the verse shifts the responsibility from the people to Solomon , as David his father did. This strange ending might specifically, i. e. have prompted the translator to adjust the earlier part of the verse. G in any , and bowed down, worcase tones down the accusation by replacing shipped, which in the MT relates to Astarte and other foreign deities, by , and he made. Thus in G it is the altars and high places for these deities that the text is referring to and not the deities themselves. By so doing G merely states what has been said earlier in verse 5: that Solomon only made an altar to the foreign gods (but did not follow them). Thus by processing the text the way it does, G purposely avoids the notion that Solomon followed the foreign gods, which would make him “a thoroughgoing idolator”.98 Verses dealing with the greatness of the Solomonic kingdom are omitted Surprisingly G lacks parts of the text which one might expect it would want to emphasise, or at least keep. These are in the MT : 1 Kings 4.20

97

Van Keulen, Solomon Narrative, 213. Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 309, cf. also Van Keulen, Solomon Narrative, 211–3, who comes to the similar conclusions. 98

II. Other Major Figures in 1 Kings/3 Reigns

155

Judah and Israel were as numerous as the sand by the sea for multitude; they ate and drank and were happy.

This verse is missing in G at this point; it is to be found, however, with minor changes in the Miscellany at 2.46a and g. 1 Kings 5.5

Judah and Israel lived in safety, from Dan even to Beer-sheba, all of them under their vines and fig trees throughout all the days of Solomon.

This verse is lacking in the main body of the text but is to be found in the Miscellany at 2.46g.

II. Other Major Figures in 1 Kings/3 Reigns As has been discussed in the first part of this chapter, the translator of the section seems to have been interested in a more polarised presentation of the players in the drama of Israelite history than is evident from the reading of the Hebrew text. That this was true not just for the person of Solomon can be observed from the way in which particular care was employed in the presentation of other persons of influence. A precise portrayal of the characters of other kings was equally important to the translator from a theological point of view, and thus their virtues and positive conduct are emphasised. Some, like David, are presented in a more positive light than the MT allows. Others, however, are treated with greater caution, and the appraisal of their deeds is quite severe, again more so than in the MT . In the following I propose to discuss the cases where it is likely that the translator changed the form of the text. A. David section does not deal with The narrative in the MT corresponding to the David’s life beyond presenting him as the model king and hence a reference point for all other monarchs. G follows this trend wholeheartedly. The singular case of David’s sin is dealt with in G in a peculiar way.

156

Chapter Four: Treatment of the main characters in 3 Reigns

3 Reigns 2.32 = MT 2.32 The plus after is designed to describe what David did not know about: . It is not very clear what is meant by it. Schenker99 suggests that this phrase could be referring to two different things. First, the crime of Joab was not known to David, and, in consequence, he was not the one arranging for Joab to execute Abner and Amasa; second, could be referring to some crime on the part of Abner and Amasa of which again David had no knowledge. The first interpretation could only mean lack of knowledge of the plan to kill them, for David knew of its implementation by Joab soon after. But although it relieves David from responsibility for the death of these two men, Schenker argues, there is no suggestion to execute Joab. The second interpretation is connected with the first; David did not know of the crime of these men, otherwise he would have ordered their execution himself. Thus, since there was no crime on the part of the two military commanders, Schenker suggests that connects particularly well with the ex, without cause, of verse 31 and, in consequence, he argues for its pression has been originality.100 Although Schenker acknowledges that identified by some scholars as an explicatory addition,101 he does not seriously entertain the possibility that this might be the case. Yet, it seems likely that a conscientious scribe would add this bit of information not so much because of a particular bias, but to complete the clause. It appears that there was a mefollowed immedichanical difficulty with the proper reading of ately by . If not for G’s addition the text could have been understood as saying that David did not know Abner and Amasa, which would be absurd. However, the fact that this addition fits well with verse 31, as Schenker admits, means that it is just possible that it was added to disperse any possible doubt concerning David’s righteous conduct. 3 Reigns 9.4 = MT 9.4 G renders , doing according to all that I have commanded you, by , to do according to all that I commanded him. The person addressed in the text is clearly Solomon but G applies the reference to David instead. It is possible that this is so because David was the subject of the first part of the verse as well as being referred to in Solomon’s first encounter with God in 3.14. The translator, therefore, understood a reference to David to fit the context better. Following 2 Sam 22.22–23, which presents David as the one faithfully keeping God’s ordi99

Schenker, Septante, 73. Schenker, Septante, 74. 101 Schenker, Septante, 74, note 5. 100

II. Other Major Figures in 1 Kings/3 Reigns

157

nances and statutes, the translator subsequently takes David as a point of reference when the evaluation of a king’s obedience to God’s law is concerned. In our verse this feature is emphasised even at the cost of temporarily turning attention from Solomon to David. 3 Reigns 15.5 = MT 15.5 MT has:

Because David did (what was) right in the eyes of the LORD , and did not turn aside from anything that he commanded him all the days of his life, except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.

G follows the Hebrew closely with one exception: , except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite, is lacking.102 This absence is suspicious. Although a number of exegetes consider the words in question a gloss,103 other places in the section104 indicate that even if it was present in G’s Vorlage, it was too strong a statement to be left intact. David is the model king of Israel par excellence. This one comment would be enough to put a question mark over his credibility as the exemplary ruler worthy of the highest esteem. Therefore G could not include it in our text, especially since it is the only note of this kind in the narrative. It can be concluded that G’s concern to present David as a model king is the most likely reason why such an offensive reading was omitted.105 B. Hiram The place of Hiram in the narrative is discussed on numerous occasions throughout this study. Van Keulen has suggested that at least on one occasion Hiram is portrayed as a “minor partner of Solomon”.106 At 5.20 (MT 5.6) G has , I will give you (the wages of) your service, according to all that you will say, rendering MT ’s , , and I will give you whatever wages you set for your servants. Van Keulen points out that is used on a number of occasions in 3 Reigns in reference to compulsory service.107 Here, however, he argues that 102

It is present in L. So Noth, Könige, 334, Montgomery, Kings, 274. 104 Cf. verses discussed above, 2.32; 9.4. 105 Cf. Gooding, Text and Midrash, 20–1. 106 Van Keulen, Solomon Narrative, 107–8. 107 Cf. Van Keulen, Solomon Narrative, 107. 103

158

Chapter Four: Treatment of the main characters in 3 Reigns

preceded by would be a contradiction in terms; a reward for slavery is absurd. However, there is a problem with van Keulen’s argument. What he cites as G, i. e., , is in fact Rahlfs’ reconstructed text. It does not occur in this form in any of the manuscripts. In fact G’s stands on its own without a grammatical link to its context. If , abstract for concrete, G lacks an is a loose rendering of equivalent of . The missing word has been supplied by L: . Although we disagree with van Keulen’s treatment of the details, nonetheless he has a point. It seems indeed likely that the translator’s choice of vocabulary suggests a view of Solomon as at least a senior partner in the dealings with Hiram, his “servant”. C. Jeroboam G has two accounts of Jeroboam’s rise to power. The first is found in 11.43–12.24 while the second follows immediately after it in 12.24a–z. The second account, sometimes referred to as a Miscellany, has attracted the attention of a number of scholars108 owing to its unique features: unlike the first account it does not have a MT equivalent and contains material different from the first account. Since this Miscellany is a part of the longer additions and omissions in the book it will not be addressed in the present study. However, the first account includes some interesting details revealing G’s views of Jeroboam. 3 Reigns 11.26 = MT 11.26 Introducing Jeroboam, the MT reads: and Jeroboam son of Nebat, an Ephraimite of Zeredah, and whose mother’s name was Zeruah, a widow.

G reads: and Jeroboam, the son of Nabat, the Ephraimite of Sarira, the son of a bereaved woman.

G lacks , and whose mother’s name was Zeruah, and instead , son, is inserted. It is likely that G removed the name in order to discredit 108 Cf. Gooding, Rival Versions, 173–89, Gooding, Jeroboam’s rise to power: A rejoinder, 529–33, Gordon, Source Study, 59–70, Gordon, Second Septuagint Account of Jeroboam, 368–93, Klein, Jeroboam’s rise to power, 217–8, Klein, Once more ‘Jeroboam’s rise to power’, 582–4, Talshir, Alternative Story.

II. Other Major Figures in 1 Kings/3 Reigns

159

Jeroboam as a legitimate king; in 1 Kings it is a common denominator that the mother of the king who sits on the throne of Judah is named in his introduction. Wevers comments that “Jeroboam was not even king as yet; he was but a rebel.”109 Thus a negative judgement on Jeroboam is evident from the beginning. 3 Reigns 11.43 = MT 12.2 This verse, beginning the section reporting on Jeroboam in connection with the Assembly at Shechem, Trebolle110 understands to be “one of the most important and most discussed passages in the books of Kings” on which the “correct interpretation” of the history of what took place at Shechem depends. MT reads:

And it came to pass, when Jeroboam son of Nebat heard of it (for he was still in Egypt, where he had fled from King Solomon), and Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt.

This verse is to be found in a different location in G, at 11.43,111 but consists of the combination of texts found in the MT in 11.43 and 12.2.

And Solomon slept with his fathers and they buried him in the city of David his father and it came to pass as Jeroboam the son of Nabat heard (of it) and while he was still in Egypt as he fled from the face of Solomon and dwelt in Egypt, and he came to his own city, into the land of Sarira in the mountain of Ephraim and king Solomon slept with his fathers and Roboam his son reigned in his stead.

For the most part G’s version is identical with that of the MT in both verses, except for small differences, such as the omission of before , and , he dwelt, for the MT ’s , and Jeroboam dwelt. The major difference comes in the fragment which technically should represent verse 3a, but has a different text to that found in the MT :

109

Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 303. Trebolle Barrera, Redaction, 477. 111 Parts of it are also found in 12.24d and f. 110

160

Chapter Four: Treatment of the main characters in 3 Reigns

And he came to his own city, into the land of Sarira in the mountain of Ephraim and king Solomon slept with his fathers and Roboam his son reigned in his stead.

Noth112 accepts G’s version of events in 11.43 and proposes an emendation of , and he dwelt, into , and he returned, in the MT 11.2. He admits, however, that this emendation is done “trotz nur schwacher textlicher Bezeugung”.113 In fact, there is hardly any basis for the emendation at all for at least two reasons: First, the MT as it stands makes perfect sense in the immediate context. Noth’s difficulty with the MT has to do with his own particular interpretation of verses 3 and 20 under the influence of G’s order of events demonstrated in a peculiar positioning of the material. As will become evident from the discussion of the following verses, this difficulty can easily be explained. Second, the whole of MT ’s verse 2 is preserved faithfully in G in its present location at 11.43. It is only the addition, the “equivalent” of verse 3a, that is problematic, but this should have no bearing on our understanding of verse 2. Moreover, as Trebolle114 has pointed out, fulfils a very important role in the context. It is a part of a standard expression used in contexts of flight, e. g., in the cases of Moses, Jephthah, David, Absalom, Jeremiah. The elements of the expression include the news about person X delivered to person Y as a result of which Y seeks to kill X, Y is afraid and flees from the presence of X and settles in Z. Our verse contains the essential elements of this formula. If then in our text were emended, this expression would not be fully preserved. needs to be retained, it precludes the sepTrebolle115 argues that since aration of the two verbs in the phrase by assigning one to the parenthesis and one to the main clause. The sentence would then go as follows: When Jeremiah, son of Nebat, learned of this, for he was still in Egypt, where he had fled from King Solomon, then Jeroboam dwelled in Egypt.

It is plausible to think with Trebolle that should be a part of the parenthesis, though he sees the end of it after then Jeroboam dwelled in Egypt, whereas in fact it does not end until after the missing fragment in G, and they “interrupts the sent and called him. He is of the opinion that sequence between verses 1 and 3b”,116 which is remedied in G by a Wiederaufnahme of considered by Trebolle to be a proof of its originality. Following from there, Trebolle argues has to refer back to 11.40, of which Trebolle sees our verse as that 112

Noth, Könige, 266–7. Noth, Könige, 266–7. 114 Trebolle Barrera, Redaction, 477. 115 Trebolle Barrera, Redaction, 478. 116 Trebolle Barrera, Redaction, 479. 113

II. Other Major Figures in 1 Kings/3 Reigns

161

“a direct continuation”,117 rather than to Israel’s gathering in Shechem as the MT does. However, verse 40 states only , without the mention of any movement on the part of Jeroboam. The argument Trebolle uses as a proof of G’s originality is the fact that the correct order in the literary genre of “flight notice”118 is present in this text and in 11.21, the story of Hadad, as well as in the Miscellany in 12.24c. However, as we have observed on other occasions, G has a tendency to repeat terms that were used in the immediate context. In view of this I suggest that the evidence proposed by Trebolle as definitive “confirmation” of G’s originality is not tenable. This will become more evident in the discussion on the next verse. 3 Reigns 12.3 = MT 12.3 MT has:

And they sent and called him); and Jeroboam and all the assembly of Israel came and spoke to Rehoboam saying.

G has: And the people spoke to the king Roboam saying

The first part of the verse is lacking. Stade119 argues for the superiority of G on the basis that the MT anticipates “impossibly” verse 20, yet whether this really is the case needs to be established by carefully looking at the evidence. One of the difficulties perceived by scholars working on this passage is the order of events concerning Jeroboam after the death of Solomon. Although admitting that there is no specific mention of his presence, Trebolle120 argues that Jeroboam was at the gathering at Shechem from the very beginning, favouring the uninterrupted connection in G between 11.40 and 43.121 However, a different interpretation is possible. Jones122 suggests that the lack of mention of Jeroboam in this verse may be linked to a particular interest of the translator: “The Gk … omits and Jeroboam here and in v. 12, thus confining the initial stages of the rebellion to the Israelite people and timing Jeroboam’s call to leadership after Rehoboam’s final rejection of the people’s request.” If this were the case, it would confirm reservations about the reliability of G’s account previously 117

Trebolle Barrera, Redaction, 479. Trebolle Barrera, Redaction, 479. 119 Stade, Kings, 127. 120 Trebolle Barrera, Redaction, 480. 121 Cf. the comments on the previous verse. 122 Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, I, 250. 118

162

Chapter Four: Treatment of the main characters in 3 Reigns

expressed. Jones is not alone in voicing doubts about G’s version of events. In his detailed discussion of the relationship between the MT and G in our passage, Gooding123 argues that there are two major questions that have to be addressed in the process of determining the better reading. These are: When did Jeroboam return from Egypt? Was it immediately after the death of Solomon, or only after he had been summoned for the gathering at Shechem? What was the role of Jeroboam in Israel’s secession from Rehoboam? In attempting to answer these questions let us compare the MT ’s version of events with the one proposed by G. According to the MT (12.3), Jeroboam returns from Egypt when he is called to attend the gathering in Shechem. Not so in G. The relevant material is moved to 11.43 and so must be understood in its immediate context. By positioning verse 2 at 11.43, G secures what Gooding calls a “pedantic timetable”124 scenario by locating the information about Jeroboam’s return immediately after the note about Solomon’s death and burial, and before the mention of the gathering in Shechem. So, then, in G’s timetable Jeroboam returns to his home country, as many exiles do, after the adverse circumstances are a matter of the past. In his study Gooding125 draws attention to the problem of the formula which appears as a conclusion to the monarch’s story in 11.43. The standard phrasing in 11.43 of G – used frequently in Kings and consisting of the information that a king died, was buried with his ancestors, as well as introductory remarks about his successor – bears the marks of a reviser’s activity. The clause “and Solomon slept with his fathers” is found twice in 11.43: at the beginning and end of the verse, and surrounds the information about Jeroboam’s return. Gooding comments: “This is most strange; nowhere else in all the MT Kings or the LXX Reigns do we find a repetition like this in the formula. The reason for its occurrence here, however, is quite clear. The LXX is so keen to associate Jeroboam’s return with Solomon’s death that it is not content to let the complete formula come first before it mentions Jeroboam’s return; for the sequence – Solomon died, was buried, Rehoboam succeeded him, and when Jeroboam heard of it he returned – would make Jeroboam’s hearing refer at least in part to Rehoboam’s succession.”126

This ties in with Gooding’s second question, namely about Jeroboam’s involvement in the revolt against Rehoboam. It seems that G is trying to establish a connection between David and his struggle for kingship against Saul and the experience of Jeroboam. Whereas the MT in verse 3 states that Jeroboam was called upon and came to the gathering at Shechem to be actively 123

Gooding, Rival Versions, 173–4. Gooding, Rival Versions, 173. 125 Gooding, Rival Versions, 179. 126 Gooding, Rival Versions, 179. 124

II. Other Major Figures in 1 Kings/3 Reigns

163

involved in discussions with Rehoboam, G sends him . In the interest of preserving Jeroboam’s reputation as a king who models himself on David, he has to be called to serve his nation as king only after the revolt has taken place – he is not actively involved in it.127 Already in the previous chapter we can see this tendency. In 11.26 where the MT clearly states that Jeroboam rebelled against Solomon, G omits , and he raised his hand against the king. Serving this same purpose is the removal of any reference to Jeroboam in the verses preceding 3 and 12. Only in verse 20, once the revolt is over, can Jeroboam be introduced as the welcomed king, having had nothing to do with the rejection of Rehoboam. Clearly this points towards a conscious manoeuvring of the text in order to obtain the desired impression that Jeroboam kept away from the political scene until after the revolt. G has only , which normally would preIn place of suppose . This could be explained as having happened under the influence occurs, although G in verse 5 has not preserved it. But of verse 5 where what was the reason for removing this piece of information? It is plausible to should be understood as part of a long think, as Gooding argues, that parenthesis, and thus and they sent does not have to refer to the , but to some other group, probably his tribal connections from Ephraim.128 Thus it would appear that “… the Israelites have kept contact with Jeroboam even in distant exile, and they alert him as soon as it is safe for him to return.”129 In the light of these arguments I suggest that G has reworked the text considerably, although the Vorlage underlying G may not have been very different from the MT . 3 Reigns 12.12 = MT 12.12 G renders MT ’s

by . As in verse 3, so here G omits the reference to Jeroboam. This is most likely because of the potential clash with verse 20 where he is supposed to appear for the first time.130 3 Reigns 12.33 = MT 12.33 MT has:

127

Cf. Gooding, Rival Versions, 180. Gooding, Rival Versions, 181. 129 Walsh, Kings, 161. 130 Cf. the comments, 161–2. 128

164

Chapter Four: Treatment of the main characters in 3 Reigns

And he went up to the altar that he had made in Bethel on the fifteenth day in the eighth month, in the month that he alone had devised; he appointed a festival for the people of Israel, and he went up to the altar to offer incense.

G has:

And he went up to the altar which he made, on the fifteenth day in the eighth month, at the feast which he devised out of his own heart, and he made a feast to the children of Israel, and went up to the altar to sacrifice.

is omitted in G, probably as redundant. There is a significant difference between the MT and G; instead of the second instance of , in the month, G has , at the feast. The different attempts to explain this problem are discussed elsewhere.131 Wevers132 says, “By the time of G no feast on the fifteenth of the eighth month was to , the king actually orknown, so the translator changed dained a new feast in G.” Perhaps it seemed illogical to the translator to “devise a month”. Noth comments on the misunderstood Hebrew: “Das, was Jeroboam sich “ausgedacht” hatte, war nicht das Fest an sich, sondern der Monatstermin.”133 Thus Jeroboam’s sin would have been that he celebrated the feast at the wrong time and place. , which has no equivalent in the Hebrew, is more likely read as than an attempt to influence the text to be a corruption of exegetically.134 C. Rehoboam G attempts to portray the kingdom of Judah in an ultra-positive light. If there are negative statements about her sins they are altered into positive ones. This has immediate bearing on the picture of Rehoboam which we get from G. 3 Reigns 14.22 = MT 14.22 MT has:

131

Cf. the treatment of this verse in chapter two, 72. Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 311. 133 Noth, Könige, 289. 134 This reading is in fact preserved in a number of MSS and Q which is what probably the Vorlage had. Cf. also, 72. 132

II. Other Major Figures in 1 Kings/3 Reigns

165

And Judah did evil in the eyes of the LORD , and they provoked him to jealousy with their sins that they committed, more than all that their fathers had done.

G has:

And Roboam did evil in the sight of the Lord; and he provoked him in all the things which their fathers did in their sins which they sinned.

Instead of G has . The parallel passage in 2 Chr 12.14 has only , rendered by G , though from the context Rehoboam is clearly meant as the subject of the sentence. Although it is possible to argue that both the MT and G lacked a precise subject and so included what in each case seemed to be the right one,135 the MT has the more difficult text and on this ground is to be preferred over G. Furthermore, G’s treatment seems consistent with the general philosophy represented in 3 Reigns: presenting Judah in the best possible light. Hence it is of no surprise that G has replaced the offensive material referring to the sins of Judah, with a lesser evil in this case. There is, however, a discrepancy in the verse in that the plural in the second part ( , ), does not match the singular in the first ( , ). G either did not accommodate the grammar well enough to the changes it made, or it got corrupted at a later stage.136 However, some commentators argue otherwise. Stade137 would see G as having preserved the original reading. He argues that “nothing can have stood here but the judgment on Rehoboam”.138 Furthermore, he claims that and must be wrong if the verse is to be applied to Rehoboam and he asserts that must be the original reading. In order to find out whether this assumption is correct, let us ask whether this passage is as exclusively devoted to judgement on Rehoboam as Stade would have it. It seems that after the first 20 verses of the chapter (in the MT ), which deal with Jeroboam the king of Israel, the focus now turns to Rehoboam, the king of Judah. But as with the previous story where the judgement on Jeroboam (verses 7–14) is complemented by that of Israel (verses 15–16), so here the judgement on Rehoboam is closely connected with that on Judah. Indeed, from verse 22 onwards it is the comparison between Israel and Judah that is the main point. Walsh comments: “The accusation is parallel to the cultic evils perpetrated in the north: Jeroboam made high places (12:31), and Israel set up symbols of the god135

So, for example, Stade, Kings, 138. Van Keulen, Solomon Narrative, 297, argues the opposite, though he follows Rahlfs’ . G is more comedition, which at this point adopts the reading of A, i. e., plex as our text indicates. 137 Stade, Kings, 138. 138 Stade, Kings, 138. 136

166

Chapter Four: Treatment of the main characters in 3 Reigns

dess Asherah … Judah does the same. In addition, Judah makes ‘pillars’.”139 It seems, therefore, that the logic of the MT is correct. This is not the case, however, with the reading proposed by G. What Stade claims are the proband – are in fact problems in lems in the MT – the plural forms G; apart from , the rest of the verse has plural forms, . How, then, is this to be accounted for? The problem with the plural has most likely to do with the apparently faulty logic of the sentence: the ancestors of Rehoboam included David, so a reference in the third person singular possessive would have been inappropriate.140 However, with the arrangement of the grammar as we have it in G, it is the people who are branded as having had sinful parents, and not Rehoboam alone.141 G translated , omitting the nuance of “more than all”, by flatly rendering it ; the impact is somewhat lost by the lack of differentiation, whereas the MT says that Judah was worse than her fathers. It is conceivable that this is part of the palliating of Rehoboam for the sake of Solomon and David. 3 Reigns 14.31 = MT 14.31 G lacks the mention of Rehoboam’s mother, , and his mother’s name was Naamah the Ammonite. Although some older commentators142 take the omission in G as proof that the MT has preserved a late gloss, the argument proposed by Walsh143 should not be overlooked. He argues that regardless of whether it is a gloss or not, it has a “narrative effect of emphasis”. This emphasis is on the element not contained in G, that is, the fact of Naamah’s non-Israelite origin: this has a bearing on the relationship and influence of foreign wives on Solomon and, consequently, on his successor to the throne. Thus it is possible that G did not want to repeat this embarrassing information and omitted it.144 At the same time it has to be stated that G does not shy away from admitting that Solomon had Ammonite wives in 11.1, and in 14.21 G does mention the fact that Rehoboam’s mother was an Ammonitess, although for , Naamah, G has , Maacham, which looks as if it is a transliteration of , Maacah, which is the name of the mother of the Judahite king Abijam in 15.2 as well as the grandmother of Asa in 15.10. For some reason which is difficult to explain, a mix-up came about in G in which, at least in spelling, the 139

Walsh, Kings, 208. Schenker, Septante, 122, thinks that Vaticanus is making this particular move to eradicate such a gloomy picture of David. 141 Cf. Stade, Kings, 138. 142 Cf., for example, Stade, Kings, 138. 143 Walsh, Kings, 210. 144 In this way G conforms to the standard formula – no mention of mother’s name at king’s death. 140

II. Other Major Figures in 1 Kings/3 Reigns

167

mother of Rehoboam was confused with the mother of Asa. Perhaps all this has contributed to a slightly confused presentation of Rehoboam in G. D. Abijam The short reign of Abijam, and the equally short amount of text devoted to it, has nevertheless received the translator’s touch. Although Abijam is portrayed negatively in the MT , G’s version of the story is even more pointed. 3 Reigns 15.2 = MT 15.2 MT has: He reigned for three years in Jerusalem and his mother’s name was Maacah daughter of Abishalom.

G has: 145

And he reigned six years and his mother’s name was Maacha, daughter of Abessalom.

G lacks , which Montgomery thinks is owing to the translator’s fear of “limitation of the kingdom”.146 It is indeed conceivable that G did not want the impression to arise that Abijam was king only over Jerusalem. This was especially important in view of the following material (in verse 4) which implies the fulfilment of God’s promise of a royal line given to David, which, according to the prophecy, would rule over the whole of the kingdom. On the other hand, it is also possible that the translator omitted the note concerning Jerusalem because verse 1 already states that Abijam reigned over Judah: . As the text stands in the MT , it could have been considered confusing. Therefore it is likely that G changed the text to include the whole territory of Judah. 3 Reigns 15.3 = MT 15.3 MT has:

145 The difference in numbers Montgomery, Kings, 279, associates with the “common confusion with ”. But this may well be connected with the purpose of construing an alternative chronology peculiar to G. 146 Montgomery, Kings, 279.

168

Chapter Four: Treatment of the main characters in 3 Reigns

And he walked in all the sins of his father, which he had done before him; and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, like the heart of David his father.

G has:

And he walked in the sins of his father, which he had done before him, and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, like the heart of his father.

G lacks an equivalent for , which seems to point towards some kind of whitewashing tendency: Abijam was not as bad as his father Rehoboam after all. For concerning Rehoboam G has already informed us in 14.22 that . This is not said about Abijam; thus a milder judgement may have been considered a proper treatment of his reign. The reference to David in the comparison between the acts of Abijam and , is lacking. Most likely the translator omitted this referDavid, ence owing to the negative judgement passed on Abijam in the narrative. 3 Reigns 15.4 = MT 15.4 MT has:

Nevertheless for David’s sake the LORD his God gave him a lamp in Jerusalem, to set up his son after him, and to establish Jerusalem.

G has:

But for David’s sake the Lord gave him a remnant that he might establish his children after him, and might establish Jerusalem.

, according to Montgomery,147 has been omitted as “too restrictive”. However, it is possible that G considered the note superfluous since it only repeats what was already mentioned in verse 3. is lacking in G. It may reflect, as in verse 2, the fear that the remnant would be confined to Jerusalem only, and so the reference was removed.

147

Montgomery, Kings, 279.

II. Other Major Figures in 1 Kings/3 Reigns

169

E. Asa While Asa is generally portrayed in a positive light in the evaluation found in 1 Kings, G makes him even more favourable by adding or taking away pieces of information as they were considered appropriate or otherwise. 3 Reigns 15.12 = MT 15.12 MT has: And he put away the male temple prostitutes out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.

G has:

And he removed the sacred office out of the land, and abolished all the practices which his fathers did.

For G uses the unusual which can have the following range of meanings: rite, initiation, festival, priesthood, sacred office. This word , which itself is not easy to interpret; probais used only here to render bly sacred person meaning cult male-prostitute is the closest. The word , is found in several places in 1 Kings. In 14.24 it is translated bond, unity; in 22.47 (in G it is located in the Miscellany in 16.28) it is rendered , carrying the possible meanings embrace, intertwining.148 In 2 Kings 23.7, where the plural form is also used, we have just the transliteration . It is likely, therefore, that G is guessing the meaning of the . word from the root Instead of , the idols, G has , practices, customs, habits of life. Montgomery is not able to find “the semantic development”149 for this equivalent. Perhaps the reason for this is that the difference is theological and not lexical. It is conceivable that G is trying to deny that there were any idols is used in relation to Ahab, it is in Judah. In 20.26 (MT 21.26) where rendered straightforwardly by . The translation in our verse is vague enough to give the impression that there was not much to remove. A pro-Judah tendency is quite apparent.

148 149

Cf. the comments below, 174. Montgomery, Kings, 280.

170

Chapter Four: Treatment of the main characters in 3 Reigns

3 Reigns 15.15 = MT 15.15 MT has: And he brought in the things which his father had dedicated, and the things which he himself had dedicated, into the house of the LORD – silver, and gold, and utensils.

G has:

And he brought in the pillars of his father, and his own pillars he brought into the house of the Lord; of silver, and of gold, and utensils.

Šanda150 thinks that the translation of by is due to a confusion of with , boards, planks, of Ex 26.15, although is typically translated . There are indications that G has reworked the material found in its Vor, G has translated them as adjectives lage. Whereas MT has nouns . They refer back to the mysterious ,151 which G takes as some pillars difficult to identify. They could either be those made and dedicated by Solomon, or those attributed by G to Asa, or perhaps both. The difficulty with the literal understanding of as referring to Asa and his father lies in the fact that we do not read anywhere of additions of pillars to the Temple. Even the understanding that those pillars made by Solomon are meant is not without its problems: there is no indication that Solomon’s pillars were overlaid with gold or silver. In 7.37 (MT 7.51), to which this verse seems to allude, we read about , but there is no mention of pillars. These were put in during the building project. This gives the impression that G is trying to enhance Asa by attributing to him work about which we have no information otherwise. 3 Reigns 15.18 = MT 15.18 MT has:

And Asa took all the silver and the gold (that were) left in the treasures of the house of the LORD and the treasures of the king’s house, and gave them into the hands of his 150 151

Šanda, Könige, 385. renders in (B) Judges 16.25,26,29.

II. Other Major Figures in 1 Kings/3 Reigns

171

servants. And king Asa sent them to King Ben-hadad son of Tabrimmon son of Hezion of Aram, who dwelt in Damascus, saying,

G has:

And Asa took the silver and the gold that was found in the treasuries of the king’s house, and gave them into the hands of his servants; and king Asa sent them out to the son of Ader, the son of Taberema son of Azin king of Syria, who dwelt in Damascus, saying,

G lacks , perhaps in view of the information that follows immediately afterwards; not all gold and silver items were taken away, only those of the king’s , of the house of the Lord, house. Interestingly, G lacks and the treasuries. The phrase could have fallen out by homoioteleuton but is more probably the product of a conscious change: it would be unthinkable to take away the gold from the Temple treasury. A Judean king would not do such a thing. By this modest modification the obvious criticism present in the MT ’s version is changed into a positive feature. G records the king’s noble character: he paid a high price for avoiding a military confrontation with Damascus, and he paid it from his own pocket, as it were. The MT , however, paints a more realistic picture. In the parallel passage in 2 Chr 16.2 we have both the house of the Lord and the king’s palace mentioned as the source of tribute money. G translated it faithfully . Thus it cannot be argued that G followed the text of Chr in our verse – if it did, it was certainly done in a particularly fastidious manner. F. Nadab 3 Reigns 15.26 = MT 15.26 G has the plural for , singular. Most likely it is , reflecting the plural in verse 3: if Abijam, a Judahite king, committed how much more would this apply to an Israelite one?152

152

Pace Stade, Kings, 139.

172

Chapter Four: Treatment of the main characters in 3 Reigns

G. Baasha 3 Reigns 15.34 = MT 15.34 MT has: And he did evil in the eyes of the LORD , and walked in the way of Jeroboam and in his sin that he caused Israel to commit.

G has:

And he did evil in the sight of the Lord, and walked in the way of Jeroboam the son of Nabat, and in his sins, that he caused Israel to sin.

The plus , comes from verse 1, and is added probably to comply with the most common usage of the name in1 Kings, including the pat153 ronymic . For , singular, G has , plural. A similar situation to that of Nadab in verse 26 can be understood here. 3 Reigns 16.1 = MT 16.1 MT has: And the word of the LORD came to Jehu son of Hanani against Baasha, saying,

G has: And the word of the Lord came by the hand of Eiou, son of Anani against Baasa.

could be taken to mean both to and against, or neutrally, as far as Baasa was concerned. However, it seems that the more pointed against is the appropriate translation here. This can be inferred from the second reference to the same prophecy regarding Baasha in 16.7: And also by the hand of the prophet Jehu son of Hanani came the word of the LORD to Baasha and to his house,

which G rendered , and by the hand of Eiou (the son of) Anani the Lord spoke against Baasa and against his house. could be taken to mean 153

Cf. 11.26; 12.2; 12.15; 15.1; 16.3,26,31; 21.22; 22.53.

II. Other Major Figures in 1 Kings/3 Reigns

173

either to Baasa or against Baasa. Following the MT , which reads , we would expect it to carry the meaning to. The subsequent usage in G, however, suggests the contrary. At 3 Reigns 16.12, the last reference to Jehu’s proph, ecy regarding Baasha, the MT ’s according to the word of the LORD , which he spoke concerning Baasha by the hand of the prophet Jehu, G renders , according to the word which the Lord spoke against the house of Baasa, and to Eiou the prophet. for . Again here it seems important for G to suggests G read have against. It appears, therefore, that G is determined to present the judgement on the house of Baasha in the most severe terms because he is the representative of the Northern Kingdom.154 The same can be said of Zimri. In 3 Reigns 16.19 (MT 16.19) G renders . There is a Q which has and so the plural in G accords with this. However, it seems that with the following singular the K is to be preferred. G, on the contrary, continues to use the plural regarding the sin(s) of Israelite kings: . H. Jehoshaphat 3 Reigns 16.28c = MT 22.45–46 (=G 22.45–46) MT has:

And Jehoshaphat made peace with the king of Israel. And the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, and his power that he showed, and how he waged war, are they not written in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Judah?

G reads:

And the agreement which Josaphat made and all the might which he performed, and which he fought, behold, are these not written in the book of the accounts of the days of the kings of Judah?

This passage is not only found in G in two different locations (16.28c as well as 22.45–46) but also includes important changes as compared with the 154

Cf. Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 311.

174

Chapter Four: Treatment of the main characters in 3 Reigns

MT . G translates the sentence unusually by rendering with the atypical and omits the following . After L have which corresponds to the text in the MT . Although most commentators take this example as a case of parablepsis beand , it is by no means certain that we are dealing here tween with a purely mechanical error. On the contrary, it is relatively plain that this part is likely to have been purposely excluded. In the context of the author’s overall positive portrayal of Jehoshaphat in the narrative, the mention of an alliance with Ahab would surely qualify to be omitted here. The fact that it is present in chapter 22 does not concern us here since it is outside the translation unit under consideration, though even there the text mentions an alliance with a king of Israel without being too specific. And thus here, although the existence of a covenant, agreement is mentioned, no details are discussed. The identity of the other party is not disclosed. It is not surprising that the translator would have very little respect for an alliance of the king of Judah with the king of rebellious Israel. I agree, therefore, with Wevers who maintains that from the perspective of the translator it would have been considered quite “inappropriate for a Davidic king to be on friendly terms”155 with the fallen Ahab.

3 Reigns 16.28d = MT 22.47 MT has: And the remnant of the male temple prostitutes who remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.

G has:

And the rest of the struggles in which they employed themselves in the days of Asa his father, he removed from the land.

The third occurrence of in 3 Reigns156 is rendered , which carries the range of possible meaning from intertwining, complication, combination, through struggle to embrace, sexual intercourse. Montgomery157 suggests that the latter meaning is the one G intended and thus the equivalent falls within the range of the Hebrew word it was translating. However, it seems , union, conspiracy. more likely that, as in 14.24, there is a confusion with to As Dion158 points out, there is a difficulty with understanding 155

Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 311. The other two are 14.24 and 15.12. 157 Montgomery, Kings, 273. 158 Dion, Cultic Prostitution, 45. 156

II. Other Major Figures in 1 Kings/3 Reigns

175

mean sexual intercourse because of its relationship to , which they put for themselves, since it would require the dative where there is the accusadeals with the other tive. Wevers159 in his discussion of G’s treatment of two instances but fails to mention this verse. It seems that only in 15.12 did G read the text as it stands and tried to make sense of it, whereas on the other two occasions it was a different word that it sought to provide an equivalent for. Why this complicated procedure was introduced we cannot be sure. Perhaps the translator was interested in consciously muddling the meaning of the word? It is possible, since through this operation the resulting text enhances Jehoshaphat: he purified the land from unnecessary things, but nevertheless they were just struggles remaining from the days of Asa. There is no mention of sacred prostitution or any suchlike. As in the case of Asa, the word was rendered in a way that would reflect better on this king. 3 Reigns 16.28f = MT 22.49 MT has:

Jehoshaphat made ships of Tarshish to go to Ophir for gold; but they did not go, for the ships were wrecked at Ezion-geber.

(He) built a ship in Tarseis to go to Sopheir, to go for gold, but it did not go, for the ship was crushed in Gasion gaber.

G connects this verse with the previous one in a peculiar way. Although the translation of verse 28e is quite faithful to the Hebrew: 160 161 , and there was no king in Syria, nasib (was) the king, the first word of 28f, the subject of the sentence, , is lacking. After , L have , and both correctors of B have included . Together with belongs to the next verse. as a single ship, hence , probably in association with the G takes in 10.22, where G has for . Yet here the rendering of has caused some difficulty to the translator. is most likely to

159

Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 317. In there is an interchange of consonants / which caused the mistranslation . The only other occurrence of in 3 Reigns is in 21.20 (MT 20.21) , i. e. and is rendered straightforwardly . is found in 11.14,15,16 and is rendered ( ) . 161 , a transliteration of . 160

176

Chapter Four: Treatment of the main characters in 3 Reigns

be understood as a type of ship, a “large sea-going vessel”.162 It is translated which sounds like a place name. G gives the impression that it wants the building of the ship to be attributed to the of the previous verse rather than to Jehoshaphat. It is noteworthy that the NEB accepts G’s reasoning: “There was no king in Edom, only a viceroy of Jehoshaphat; he built …”. It seems plausible to think that G is whitewashing Jehoshaphat by making the Nasib responsible for building the ships. I. Ahab The picture of Ahab painted by G is by no means clear-cut and easily definable. On the one hand, in several instances G is passing judgement on him in a more severe way than is the case in the MT , yet on the other hand G on occasion seems to justify Ahab’s actions as though his wife and not he were accountable for them. The complex issue of G’s presentation of Ahab has been the topic of a thorough investigation by Gooding.163 In the following I propose to discuss the verses relevant to the topic and to interact with Gooding’s findings where appropriate. 3 Reigns 16.33 = MT 16.33 MT has:

And Ahab also made the Asherah, and Ahab did more to provoke the anger of the LORD , the God of Israel, than had all the kings of Israel who were before him.

G has:

And Ahaab made a grove and Ahaab did more provocations to provoke his own soul to be rooted out; he did evil above all the kings of Israel who were before him.

, to provoke to anger, G has preceded by , provocations, which presupposes the Vorlage of . Although most exegetes favour the version supplied by G, Burney maintains the superiority of the MT . His argument is based on the observation that In place of

162 163

Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, I, 229. Gooding, Ahab, 269–80.

II. Other Major Figures in 1 Kings/3 Reigns

177

and

in a number of places “form the direct obj. of ; and omission of … is unfavourable.”164 G lacks , the LORD , the God of Israel. Since we find instead , his own soul to be rooted out; he did evil, it seems unlikely that the missing part has been left out owing to a mechanical error. Wevers165 argues that G “felt it sacrilegious to utter the divine name in connection with Ahab. By means of homiletical amplification … it avoids mention of Yahweh and at the same time makes out Ahab to be even worse than he was.” G strengthens the expression by adding . L have added here . 3 Reigns 16.34 = MT 16.34 MT has:

In his days Hiel of Bethel built Jericho; he laid its foundation in Abiram his firstborn, and set up its gates in his youngest son Segib, according to the word of the LORD , which he spoke by Joshua son of Nun.

G has:

Achiel the Baithelite built Jericho; he laid the foundation of it in Abeiron his firstborn, and he set up the doors of it in Segoub his younger son, according to the word of the Lord which he spoke by Joshua the son of Naue.

The whole verse is missing in L. Tov166 argues that this is “probably reflecting the original Greek translation”. He suggests that the verse is a deuteronomistic addition, intended to emphasise the fulfilment of the prophecy of Josh 6.26, which breaks the flow of the text between verse 33 and 17.1. According to Walsh,167 however, the verse fulfils an important narrative role. Although admitting that the lack of mention of Ahab by name is “strange”, Walsh points out that such an ambitious project could only have been undertaken under Ahab’s protection; is “an oblique way of suggesting ‘under his aegis.’ ”168

164

Burney, Notes, 206. Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 312. 166 Tov, Septuagint, 259–60. 167 Walsh, Kings, 219. 168 Walsh, Kings, 219. 165

178

Chapter Four: Treatment of the main characters in 3 Reigns

But G lacks , i. e., . Thus in G the verse is disconnected from the reign of Ahab which is implicitly the main point in the MT ; not only is this a fulfilment of prophecy, but it is set within the reign of Ahab, itself “under the shadow of death”169. Provan170 likewise argues for the significance of the verse in this location and points out the comparison drawn between Israel’s virtuous past under Joshua and present moral decline under an apostate G clears Ahab from involvement in king. Hence through the omission of the accursed project, but G is left with a text that does not have any connection with either the following or the preceding material. 3 Reigns 18.10 = MT 18.10 MT has:

(As) the LORD your God lives, if there is a nation or kingdom to which my lord has not sent to seek you there; and when they would say, ‘(He is) not (here)’, he took an oath of the kingdom or nation, that they had not found you.

G has:

(As) the Lord your God lives, if (there) is a nation or kingdom, where my lord has not sent to seek you; and if they said, ‘(He) is not (here)’, then he has set fire to the kingdom and its territories, because he has not found you.”

Generally exegetes follow Klostermann171 in explaining the strange equivalent of , . Klostermann argued that is not based on a different Vorlage, but rather constitutes an inner-Greek error for , , he filled, satisfied. This reading of the consonantal text, coming from according to Klostermann, was influenced by a particular view of the translator, namely that Ahab rewarded the king of the foreign country by providing gifts of grain in return for the permission to perform the search operation in his territory. If this is true, then a subsequent error, or more likely, a conscious move, took place which transformed the idea of implied reward, , into a threat, . However, Klostermann’s explanation does not address the problem of the remaining for . Since earlier in the verse is trans169

Walsh, Kings, 219. Provan, 1 & 2 Kings, 131. 171 Klostermann, Könige, 366. 170

II. Other Major Figures in 1 Kings/3 Reigns

179

lated properly as , this translation appears to be an attempt to fit the concept of threat. Logically it seems more probable that a nation can be rewarded, or required to submit to an oath, but a territory, or a land, is more likely to be burned. Although Klostermann’s explanation may well be correct to some extent, it seems that the translator made a conscious effort to make the threat on the surrounding countries look more dangerous than it actually was. By the same token the story becomes more dramatic since Ahab is portrayed as a mighty king. This image of Ahab as a powerful ruler over practically the whole world is reflected on by later Rabbis who believed that “Three [potentates] ruled over the whole globe, namely, Ahab, Ahasuerus and Nebuchadnezzar. Ahab, as it is written, As the Lord thy God liveth, there is no nation or kingdom whither my lord hath not sent to seek thee etc. Now if he was not king over them, how could he make them take an oath?”172 Consequently one can agree up to a point with Wevers who argues that G “makes out Ahab to be even worse than he was”;173 at the same time it boosts his image as an influential sovereign. 3 Reigns 18.16 = MT 18.16 MT has: And Obadiah went to meet Ahab, and told him; and Ahab went to meet Elijah.

G has: 174

And Abdeiou went to a meeting (with) Ahaab and told him, and Ahaab ran, and went to a meeting (with) Eleiou.

G adds , and he ran, which is rejected by Montgomery175 on the basis that it was not proper for the king to run. The translator may in this way be trying to denigrate the king by attributing to him an action not fitting his status: he runs to meet Elijah. However, it could be that the translator is interested in showing Ahab’s anxiety to meet Elijah lest he disappear.

172

b. Megillah, 11a. Cf. Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 312. 174 On the form of representing Greek, 8–9. 175 Montgomery, Kings, 310. 173

, cf. Fernández Marcos, Translation

180

Chapter Four: Treatment of the main characters in 3 Reigns

3 Reigns 18.18 = MT 18.18 G renders the second part of the verse,

, with . By omitting the reference to forsaking and referring instead directly to forsaking , G is magnifying Ahab’s sin. As Wevers observed, by so doing G is “not only (creating) a better contrast to the Baalim, but also thereby putting Ahab’s sin in a clearer light.”176 3 Reigns 18.20 = MT 18.20 MT has: And Ahab sent to all the sons of Israel, and assembled the prophets to Mount Carmel.

G has:

And Ahaab sent into all Israel and gathered all the prophets to Mount Karmelion.

For G has following the usage in the immediate context – the previous verse has so it is kept here, too. But for G has . On the one hand it conceivably betrays the translator’s desire to show that there were not too many of them; on the other G tries to point out that they were entirely eliminated by Elijah and so cultic purity is in focus.177 Or, perhaps, does it stress the fact of Ahab’s obedience, or his willingness to have them stand the test of faith with Elijah? 3 Reigns 18.45 = MT 18.45 MT has:

And it came to pass in a little while and the heavens grew black with clouds and wind; and there was a heavy rain. And Ahab rode and went to Jezreel.

G has:

176 177

Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 313. Cf. the comments on this verse in chapter three, 120.

II. Other Major Figures in 1 Kings/3 Reigns

181

And it came to pass in the meanwhile, and the heaven grew black with clouds and wind, and there was great rain. And Ahaab wept, and went to Israel.

G translates , and he rode, as , probably an error for , as , with the resulting , and he wept.178 It seems G misread and transferred the proper name, Ahab, after yet retaining him as the subject of both verbs.179 The question arises whether this was simply a mechanical error, or an intentional change. Since this note presents Ahab in a softer light, it could well be an element in the attempt to whitewash Ahab.180 3 Reigns 20.1 = MT 21.1 MT has:

And it came to pass after these events (took place): Naboth the Jezreelite had a vineyard in Jezreel, beside the palace of King Ahab of Samaria.

G has:

And Nabuthai the Israelite had a vineyard, near the threshing floor of Achaab king of Samaria.

By adding , G is possibly making a point of connection or comparison with 2 Sam 12 by stating that Naboth had just one vineyard. Thus a negative light is put on Ahab: he takes away this one and only vineyard from Naboth while he himself owns many. is lacking in G. Jones181 argues that G probably considered it a tautology in view of the previous clause describing Naboth as . But since , as have the G has not retained the translation of , i. e. MSS oc2, it does not follow that G automatically assumes the location of the vineyard in Naboth’s home town Jezreel. In fact, G is deliberately altering the term by using the more general term Israelite.182

178

Cf. Montgomery, Kings, 312. Contrary to Montgomery, Kings, 312, who assumes that applies to Elijah. 180 As suggested by Gooding, Ahab, 272. 181 Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, II , 352. 182 Schenker, Textgeschichte, 104–5, argues that the patronymic Naboth the Jezreelite only makes sense if Naboth lived outside of Jezreel, otherwise it is a tautology. This for Schenker is the sign of a reworked text in MT . 179

182

Chapter Four: Treatment of the main characters in 3 Reigns

The unusual equivalence of by , threshing floor, has been explained as a correction for .183 More likely, however, G is trying to emphasise the fact that the vineyard was close to Ahab’s fields, and so he naturally wanted to expand his acreage. Possibly our translator was not convinced in Jezreel in addition to his residence in Samaria. that Ahab had a second The next verse says that the vineyard was and so this potentially influenced the decision to remove the incongruity in the account by extracting .184 Wevers,185 however, argues that G “deflates” the apparently less likely Ahab by “making him out to be somewhat of a farmer”. 3 Reigns 20.4 = MT 21.4 MT has:

And Ahab went home resentful and sullen concerning the word which Naboth the Jezreelite had said to him; and he said, “I will not give you my ancestral inheritance.” And he lay down on his bed, and turned away his face, and would not eat bread.

G has:

And the spirit of Achaab was troubled, and he lay down upon his bed, and covered his face, and ate no bread.

G lacks the first part of the verse as far as . What is left is a one-word equivalent for , from , to trouble, disturb. This word is used only here, to render , and in the next verse as an equivalent of . Through the choice of this vocabulary G arrives at a much softer description of Ahab’s character and plays down the negative features present in the MT . G adds the comment , and the spirit of Achaab was troubled. , influenced by verse 5, is put before with . The ediG renders tors of the BHS suggest the retroversion to . To be sure, a Vorlage with , where replaced with following metathesis of with , is possible. However, the more probable scenario is a Vorlage with , to cover, where the confusion of letters occurred in the pre-square script. But even if we accept as 183

Leh, 22. Though cf. Schenker, Textgeschichte, 105, who argues for Samaria as the place where Ahab’s house and Naboth’s vineyard were located, and thus for the priority of G’s account. 185 Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 313. 184

II. Other Major Figures in 1 Kings/3 Reigns

183

a plausible scenario, we need to pose the question whether it was purely a mechanical error or perhaps a change introduced by G on purpose. I would argue that the second is the case. The choice of , representing , seems to point the reader towards accepting the idea of mourning, shame, and the penitentiary aspect of Ahab’s behaviour. In 2 Samuel 15.30 David is said to have covered his head, . Ps 43.16 has , all the day my shame is before me, and the confusion of my face has covered me, or Ps 68.8, , For I have suffered reproach for your sake; shame has covered my face. In Esther 6.12 we have a similar concept although a different term is used: , And Mardochaeus returned to the palace: but Aman went home mourning, and having his head covered. According to Gooding,186 chapters 18–21 of G feature material that can be described as “translation-interpretation”,187 which aims at presenting Ahab in a more favourable light. The editorial activity detected in our verse serves this purpose, resulting in a reduction and expansion of the text at the same time. That the first part of the verse as it stands in the MT would have needed to be altered by the translator is clear if Gooding’s assumption holds true; it paints too bleak a picture of Ahab for G to accept it. 3 Reigns 20.6 = MT 21.6 MT has:

And he said to her, “Because I spoke to Naboth the Jezreelite and said to him, ‘Give me your vineyard for money; or else, if you prefer, I will give you another vineyard for it’; and he said, ‘I will not give you my vineyard.’”

G has:

186 187

Gooding, Ahab, 269–79. Gooding, Ahab, 277.

184

Chapter Four: Treatment of the main characters in 3 Reigns

And he said to her, “Because I spoke to Nabuthai the Israelite, saying, ‘Give me your vineyard for money; or if you will, I will give you another vineyard for it’; and he said, ‘I will not give you the inheritance of my fathers.’”

In its rendering of , my vineyard, G gives a fuller explanation of the reasons for Naboth’s refusal by adding , the inheritance of my fathers; the reason was not so much the vineyard itself as that the vineyard was Naboth’s inheritance. In his discussion of the Hebrew text of our verse Walsh suggests that in his conversation with Jezebel Ahab leaves out the mention of the legal term on purpose; Ahab as well as Naboth’s religious exclamation knows that the question of Israelite inheritance laws involving the God of Israel “will not impress his Baalist queen.”188 Instead Ahab concentrates on the sheer fact of his refusal, leaving the circumstances, and reasons for them, unexplained; thus he distorts the information Jezebel gets. In his cunning he is very selective about what he tells Jezebel. Of course, the reader knows more than Jezebel does since already in verse 3 the real reasons for Naboth’s unwillingness to sell the property have been disclosed. This nuance of the narrative is only to be found in the MT . However, G seems to be more interested in the theological dimension of Ahab’s act.189 By spelling out very clearly that the issue was not so much the vineyard, but the vineyard as inheritance, G augments Ahab’s guilt. According to Israelite law it was not up to Naboth to decide whether to sell it or not; he was obliged to protect his inheritance but ultimately it did not belong to him; it was God’s possession. G stresses Ahab’s perversity by wilfully violating the law of the land and thus putting his own will above it. 3 Reigns 20.16 = MT 21.16 MT has:

And it came to pass when Ahab heard that Naboth was dead, and Ahab rose up to go down to the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, to take possession of it.

G has:

188 189

Walsh, Kings, 320. Cf. also comments on verse 21.7, 190.

II. Other Major Figures in 1 Kings/3 Reigns

185

And it came to pass, when Achaab heard that Nabuthai the Israelite was dead, that he rent his garments, and put on sackcloth. And it came to pass afterward, that Achaab arose and went down to the vineyard of Nabuthai the Israelite, to take possession of it.

G has a substantial plus: , the Israelite, and he rent his garments, and put on sackcloth. And it came to pass afterward. This addition is meant to portray Ahab as repentant of his actions. As Burney190 points out, it is unlikely that Ahab’s repentance came before Elijah’s threatening word in verse 27, particularly because his behaviour immediately following this incident does not support claims made here. Surprisingly, though, even in G’s account Ahab goes to take over Naboth’s estate at once after this alleged sign of repentance. It seems, therefore, that the whole verse in G has been heavily edited in order to put forward the idea of Ahab’s remorse over Naboth’s death. As we have observed, G has done it quite unconvincingly. 3 Reigns 20.19 = MT 21.19 MT has:

And you shall speak to him, saying, “Thus says the LORD : Have you killed, and also taken possession?” You shall speak to him, saying, “Thus says the LORD : In the place where dogs licked up the blood of Naboth, dogs will also lick up your blood.”

G has:

And you shall speak to him, saying, “Thus says the Lord, because you have slain and taken possession, therefore thus says the Lord, In every place where the swine and the dogs have licked the blood of Nabuthai, there shall the dogs lick your blood; and the harlots shall wash themselves in your blood.”

G has the following additions: and . These are added from 3 Reigns 22.38, , and they washed the chariot at the fountain of Samaria; and the swine and the dogs 190

Burney, Notes, 248.

186

Chapter Four: Treatment of the main characters in 3 Reigns

licked up the blood, and the harlots washed themselves in the blood, according to the word of the Lord which he spoke. Most likely the purpose behind these additions was to harmonise the words of prediction with those of fulfilment. Although the MT of 22.38 includes the reference to the prostitutes, which is not found in the MT of our verse, there is no mention of , the swine in the Hebrew text. It would appear that the added term in conjunction with the already present would deprecate Ahab even more.191 If in the Israelite context the connection with dogs was a serious insult, the mention of swine would have been particularly offensive. 3 Reigns 20.20 = MT 21.20 MT has:

Ahab said to Elijah, “Have you found me, O my enemy?” And he answered, “I have found you. Because you have sold yourself to do what is evil in the sight of the LORD .”

G has:

And Achaab said to Eleiu, “Have you found me, my enemy?” And he said, “I have found you, because you have in vain sold yourself to do evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger.”

The conjunction , here representing , is used in 3 Reigns four times. .193 G translated the infinitive construct Twice it renders 192 and twice hitpael second person singular , you have sold yourself, as perfect indicative mid/pass , sold yourself or have been sold. As Stade has observed, this may be due to the fact that G has understood “the clause begin… (as) dependent on , whereas it gives the reason for the ning with threats in v 21 f.”194 In his treatment of G’s handling of Ahab, Gooding195 has argued that , in vain, or without reason, which links with found in verse 25,196 was added with the purpose of securing a more positive attitude towards Ahab. Moreover, Gooding suggests that should be taken as passive and 191 Pace Schenker, Textgeschichte, 104, who argues for the primacy of G on the basis that MT lacks the comparable precision. 192 11.34 and 22.18. 193 20.20 (MT 21.20) and 21.42 (MT 20.42). 194 Stade, Kings, 166. 195 Gooding, Ahab, 279. 196 Cf. the comments on this verse, 187–8.

II. Other Major Figures in 1 Kings/3 Reigns

187

thus needs to be translated as you have been sold. This, according to Gooding, shows G’s whitewashing tendency: Ahab could not be held responsible for his actions because he had no influence over his decisions. This is further developed in Gooding’s discussion of verse 25. If this were the case, G would as a strict passive. Alhave understood the infinitive construct hitpael though can be taken as a passive voice, the form could equally function in the middle voice and thus would be no different from the MT . Moreover, G added , most likely from verse 22, which stresses God’s displeasure with Ahab. Therefore it seems unlikely that G is attempting to whitewash Ahab at this point. There is a similar case in 4 Reigns 17.17 where we find . There, , 1 aorist passive indicative third person plural, seems to be used in the tolerative sense of the passive,197 i. e., they allowed themselves to be sold. In this verse, therefore, G is rendering the material concerning Ahab faithfully, albeit with the addition of , and is not whitewashing Ahab. Quite to the contrary, his personal responsibility for his actions is clearly presented in both the MT and G, though in different ways. 3 Reigns 20.25 = MT 21.25 MT has:

Indeed, there was no one like Ahab, who sold himself to do what was evil in the sight of the LORD , urged on by his wife Jezebel.

G has:

But Achaab (did) vainly, as he sold himself to do that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, as his wife Jezabel led him astray.

G has removed the difficult notion that there was no king worse than Ahab: is lacking in G. Instead we have a verbless clause . This expression could be a corruption of , as in the text of L, but this seems unlikely. Occurring only six times in the LXX , renders four different Hebrew words and on two occasions does not have a Hebrew equivalent. Here it functions as a smoke-screen standing in 197

Cf. Hoffmann, Griechische Grammatik, 303, and Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik, 241, who discuss a number of examples of this causative usage of the passive in classical Greek.

188

Chapter Four: Treatment of the main characters in 3 Reigns

place of a negative statement but making it so vague in the Greek as to obscure the sense of it. , surely in vain, is translated In Ps 72.13 (MT 73.13) , And I said, truly in vain. It is possible that G took the adverb , only, surely, to be , or written defectively , empty, vain. The problem with this interpretation is that it does not account for , which normally represents . Perhaps G read twice by mistake, or it appeared twice in its Vorlage. Regardless of what G found in its Vorlage, the text as it stands softens the effect of the pronouncement that Ahab was worse than others. The likely reason for the omission of this damning statement is that, had it been left intact, the assertions in verses 16, 27 and 29 where Ahab, according to G, is repentant, could not have been sustained. The next issue in the text is the choice of , aorist passive as the rendering of hitpael, sold himself. Gooding argues that this changes the entire perspective on Ahab’s actions; he cannot be held fully responsible for his deeds since he was enslaved by his foreign wife. In Gooding’s view , rather than being rendered by a reflexive verb, has been “turned into a pathetic passive”198 in the translation. However, as already mentioned in connection with the previous verse, a similar equivalence is to be found in 4 Reigns 17.17, without making a particular exegetical point. 3 Reigns 20.27 = MT 21.27 MT has:

And it came to pass when Ahab heard these words, that he tore his clothes and put sackcloth over his bare flesh; and he fasted, and lay in the sackcloth, and went about gently.

G has:

And because of the word, Achaab was pierced with sorrow before the Lord, and he went weeping, and rent his garment, and girt sackcloth upon his body, and fasted; and he threw over the sackcloth also in the day that he smote Nabuthai the Israelite, and he went (his way).

The first line of the verse, , and it came to pass when Ahab heard these words, is lacking in G. Instead we have 198

Gooding, Ahab, 279.

II. Other Major Figures in 1 Kings/3 Reigns

189

, which could be interpreted in a number of ways. Gooding199 argues for the translation of the sentence as follows: “now concerning the statement that Ahab was reduced to contrition before the Lord”. Moreover, Gooding maintains that since this statement has not appeared anywhere in the (MT ) text so far, we can explain it as an anticipatory remark in preparation for verse 29 where Ahab’s regret is reported in the MT . Alternatively, we could speculate on the possible connection with 20.16 in G where an earlier instance of Ahab’s sorrow is reported. However, as we have observed earlier,200 this verse too appears to have been expanded to introduce the notion of Ahab’s repentance at an earlier point in the narrative. In view of the above the probable source of the addition remains verse 29, which has virtually the same wording. G did not remove this material from its location in verse 29 altogether, but included it also in verse 27 in order to provide more credibility for the presentation of Ahab’s penitence. Thus the idea is introduced repeatedly at key places in the chapter. The following seems to have replaced the ,201 although it is difficult to determine with any degree of certainty because it has been moved from the end of the verse to the middle. As Gooding points out, the reason for this peculiar rendering is likely to be adherence to a rational sequence of events in the story: “it could be argued that the more ‘logical’ order would be to have Ahab go off in a flood of tears, then rend his clothes, gird on sackcloth and fast, rather than to delay the weeping till after all the other acts of penitence.”202 The second occurrence of in our verse, , and lay in the sackcloth, meaning that he slept in it, G renders curiously as , and he put on the sackcloth in the day that he smote Nabuthai the Israelite. Again the text is reworked in order to show more remorse on the part of Ahab than the Hebrew allows. Gooding203 argues for the following: G encountered the second reference to and assumed that it did not refer to the same situation as the first one, and as a result established a connection with verse 16 by adding the explanatory . This offers a satisfactory solution to the unusual translation and illustrates again G’s exegetical reworking of its text.

199

Gooding, Ahab, 274. Cf. the comments on verse 20.16, 185. 201 Kruger, Ahab’s “slowly”, 133–9, argues that the difficult-to-determine adverb points towards Ahab’s “depressed state of mind” which expressed itself in “psychomotoric retardation”. 202 Gooding, Ahab, 275. 203 Gooding, Ahab, 276. 200

190

Chapter Four: Treatment of the main characters in 3 Reigns

The Lucianic manuscripts have additional text, , which Schenker204 erroneously treats as the unrevised G. Based on the fact that neither in our verse nor in 2 Kings 9.26 (where the plural is used) does MT speak of the son of Naboth in the singular, as do the Lucianic manuscripts, Schenker argues for the priority of G over the MT . For Schenker, the MT is too smooth to be original, while the Greek, on the other hand, has too many problems to be secondary. Yet, G is not as erratic as Schenker would like it to be. For, as Schenker himself argues,205 it provides a rational explanation why Ahab took possession of the vineyard in the end. In spite of Ahab’s penitence, he was able to take it into his own hands ex officio, so to speak; and since there was no heir, the ground became the property of the crown. The logic of the addition is apparent: it helps to explain why the vineyard became Ahab’s in spite of his penitence.206 3 Reigns 21.7 = MT 20.7 MT has:

And the king of Israel called all the elders of the land, and said, “Perceive now and see how this (man) is seeking evil; for he sent to me for my wives and my children, and my silver, and my gold; and I did not refuse him.”

G has:

And the king of Israel called all the elders, and said, “Take notice now and consider, that this (man) seeks evil: for he has sent to me concerning my wives, and concerning my sons, and concerning my daughters; I have not kept back from him my silver and my gold.

By omitting in G gives the impression that a new sentence begins with and thus G relates the giving up of booty to Benhadad only to silver and gold, rather than to both wives and children as in the MT . Thus G shows both the wisdom of Ahab in not doing something irrevocable, and his value system as being higher than that of Ben-hadad: he values people above wealth. 204

Schenker, Textgeschichte, 98–9. Schenker, Textgeschichte, 99. 206 Cf. comments on 21.1, 181. 205

II. Other Major Figures in 1 Kings/3 Reigns

191

3 Reigns 21.21 = MT 20.21 MT has: And the king of Israel went out, and smote the horses and chariots, and smote the Arameans with a great blow.

G has:

And the king of Israel went out, and took all the horses and the chariots, and smote (the enemy) with a great blow in Syria.

Montgomery,207 following Orlinsky’s original suggestion, argues that in the strange equivalence of for is a corruption from . This explanation certainly makes sense, yet equally it can be argued that G wanted to impress its readers with Ahab’s achievements. According to G, he not only defeated Ben-hadad, but also increased his own military strength as a result of this shrewd movement. This story stands in contrast to verses 3–4 where Ben-hadad is demanding virtually all Ahab’s possessions. Here it is Ahab who takes possession of all Ben-hadad’s horses and chariots. not in the possible nuance of attack, but It is likely that G understood strictly as strike, kill. Burney thinks that “MT describes a senseless waste of and by energy”.208 This is improved upon in G by the change to the addition of to .209 In G’s version, therefore, rather than killing the horses and destroying the chariots, Ahab captures all the horses as well as the chariots and thus provides the resources for the Israelites to deliver their enemy a great blow. By the same token Ahab takes away from the Arameans the possibility of an escape after the defeat. This approach is unusual insofar as Ahab seems to act independently of Deut 17.16, ignoring the prohibition about amassing horses. After a similar victory over the Arameans in 2 Sam 8.4 David hamstrings most of Hadadezer’s horses. His son Solomon, however, builds his military strength largely on imported horses. G tried to contain the possible negative judgement of this aspect of Solomon’s policies by careful editing of the relevant texts.210 Here we do not seem to find the same deep interest in by-passing this delicate issue. Therefore, a precise reading of G’s view and value judgement on this military move is difficult to determine.

207

Montgomery, Kings, 328. Burney, Notes, 236. 209 Cf. verse 2, where is added as well. 210 Cf. G’s view of this issue earlier in the chapter, 133. 208

192

Chapter Three: Treatment of the main characters in 3 Reigns

III. Conclusions As we have observed, G goes to great lengths to present the major figures of the book in line with its tendency to show the heroes of the United Monarchy as true examples of faithfulness to the God of Israel, whereas the less important characters are given a less unified treatment. G’s treatment of Ahab is ambivalent.

Chapter Five

The Issues of Court Etiquette In the earlier chapters we have discussed the fact that the translation in the section shows signs of exegetical reworking of the text. In this chapter we will demonstrate that G is concerned to portray the relationships between a given monarch and his subjects in a “proper” way. This is true both of the relationships of Solomon toward the members of the royal household and the kingdom, and also of non-Israelite kings. This special interest comes from the principles of social behaviour known and accepted in antiquity. In the light of these canons of conduct in respect of persons of power as practised in the days of our translator, he chose to make the text of the section under consideration accessible to his readers by evoking normative manners. To this has to be added the translator’s overall discernible concern for a text which is as much as possible free from social faux pas. As in the cases discussed in earlier chapters, the techniques applied in order to achieve this are those of additions, omissions, or conscious alterations of the text. This will become apparent from the study of the following cases. 3 Reigns 2.13 = MT 2.13 When Adonijah comes to Bathsheba to ask for the hand of Abishag, the MT reports simply that he came ( ) and next we learn that Bathsheba began a conversation ( ). G, however, in line with perceived court etiquette adds , and did obeisance to her. In G, then, Adonijah does what a visitor to the queen mother would be expected to do on his approach: he bows in a gesture of respect. Schenker,1 commenting on 2.13–25, suggests that before we address the question of the historicity of the account, we should investigate the literary intention of the narrative. He attributes to the MT a portrayal of Bathsheba as naïve and blind to the subtle intrigue of Adonijah, to which Solomon’s righteous response is that of an accusation of treason. In Schenker’s reading of G’s story, however, a different picture seems to emerge: since Adonijah approaches Bathsheba with the proper reverence, his actions do not surprise us. His motivation is sincere. All he wants is some kind of insignificant reward or recompense for not being given the throne of Israel, which was his by right. 1

Schenker, Septante, 60.

194

Chapter Five: The Issues of Court Etiquette

Furthermore, Schenker proposes that in G’s version of the story it is the reaction of Solomon that is surprising. It is Solomon who is presented as a hypocrite, for he deliberately uses the occasion to accuse the innocent Adonijah and his two friends of a new conspiracy.2 This negative portrayal of Solomon in G would be contrary to the overall accepted practice of presenting the king in the best light possible. Thus, since G runs counter to the MT ’s more traditional approach, Schenker argues for a redactionally smoothed version in the MT .3 However, it seems that Schenker is reading too much into both accounts. His argument that the MT presents Bathsheba as naïve is not verifiable. Commentators’ assessments of Bathsheba’s role are not united, probably because her actions are presented without a strong value-judgement.4 Moreover, the lack of proper respect on the part of Adonijah is better understood less as being in tension with the previous passages, as Schenker would have it, than as a deliberate narrative move to suggest a negative portrayal of the character from the outset. Besides, Schenker’s interpretation of individual characteristics of the persons in the plot using the small differences between the two witnesses is highly subjective and speculative to the point that the comments on texts could be swapped and still make sense. In spite of Schenker’s dismissal of the solution to the problem as simplistic,5 it seems that Wevers is correct in saying that this rationalisation was prompted by the abrupt introduction of the conversation between Adonijah and Bathsheba in the Hebrew, and it therefore smoothes out the unacceptably “rude procedure with respect to the queen mother.”6 3 Reigns 2.19 = MT 2.19 Later on, as Bathsheba approaches Solomon to discuss Adonijah’s plea, the MT reports: And the king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; and sat on his throne, and put a throne for the king’s mother.

G has a different text:

And the king rose up to meet her, and kissed her, and sat on the throne, and a throne was set for the mother of the king. 2

Schenker, Septante, 65. Schenker, Septante, 66. 4 Brueggemann, Kings, 31, comments that Bathsheba “… seems an indifferent message carrier.” 5 Schenker, Septante, 60. 6 Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 306. 3

Chapter Five: The Issues of Court Etiquette

195

A different handling of the text to that encountered in verse 13 is apparent: there G adds the reference to Adonijah bowing to Bathsheba; here it replaces , and he bowed down, with a course of action more suitable to the monarch. G considered it unworthy for a king that he should do obeisance to his . mother, so read it as , kissed, embraced her, i. e., 7 argues that in this case the “filial respect” was conceived as extendWevers ing beyond the acceptable and was thus changed accordingly. But, as Montgomery8 points out, G failed to understand “extreme Oriental etiquette” and so is guilty of reducing the richness of the original expression by its narrowly understood concept of what is acceptable and what is not. , on his throne, but G says After greeting his mother, Solomon sits that he , sat on the throne. Schenker9 draws attention to the fact that in G both Solomon and the queen-mother sit on a throne, which he sees as a sign of equality and of co-regency on the part of Bathsheba. Further, Schenker thinks that the place where the scene takes place is not a throne-room, where the king’s throne is located permanently, but a room with thrones to be used by the king and his guests.10 However, there is no evidence that this is really the case. Moreover, it would reduce the concept of throne to a mere chair available for use by anybody visiting the king. At any rate, the focus of the passage does not allow us to speak authoritatively on the location of the scene. It solely informs us that Bathsheba was offered a seat of honour on the right of her son. , and he set a throne, Moreover, the somewhat striking statement is toned down in G by applying the passive form , and a throne was set. This does not fit well with Schenker’s opinion that G’s version of the story is less formal and that a more intimate atmosphere is in view,11 for in the MT it is the king himself who does the action. It is possible that the passive, impersonal form was chosen in G because it adequately renders the concept.12 The MT ’s third person singular could also be read as impersonal, since the text goes on to mention the king’s mother and not his mother. So we could take the Hebrew to mean he had a throne placed, i. e., as an equivalent of the passive which would in effect make G’s translation fully appropriate. However, it is just possible that G’s concern for the proper portrayal of relationships in the court prompted this change. G assumes that the king would not have reached for the 7

Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 306. Montgomery, Kings, 99. 9 Schenker, Septante, 66. 10 Schenker, Septante, 66. 11 Schenker, Septante, 66. 12 Cf. modern translations’ use of the passive, e. g., NIV : He had a throne brought for the king’s mother, and she sat down at his right hand. 8

196

Chapter Five: The Issues of Court Etiquette

throne himself but rather had his servants prepare it for the queen mother. Yet the MT is acceptable as it stands, for Solomon is the ultimate subject.13 G, on the other hand, is clearly avoiding his too close involvement. 3 Reigns 3.16 = MT 3.16 Reporting about the two harlots coming to Solomon for help in settling their dispute over whose child is the living one, G uses the expression , , came. This is one possible way of renappeared, as a translation for dering the Hebrew verb , to come, go, although not the usual one. is found 85 times in the aorist passive form in the LXX . Most of the occurrences are translations of the verb , to see.14 In 1 Kings 18.1, 2 another appearing before the king takes place: , present yourself to Ahab. Here is translated by . Klostermann15 sees a connection between these two references, although in his opinion the Hebrew in 3.16 has been changed to the more prosaic . The idea of “appearing” before somebody for examination is present also in Lev 13.7: , and he shall appear, which is rendered . We can ask why our translator should use that particular word and not one of the usual equivalents of , either or ? DeVries16 suggests that “‘appeared’ ( ) seeks to clarify [the clause] by removing the verb of motion just prior to a verb of position”. If he is right this would point towards an intentional change based on a concern for the stylistic features of the narrative. But we cannot exclude the possibility that the variant in G has more to do with a copyist’s failure to decipher the word properly. instead of This is the approach Šanda17 takes, arguing that G read , as though was misread / corrupted to , and supplying 1.6 as an example of a similar change of consonants, where was read in G. However, the most likely explanation is the avoidance of sexual overtones , which, particularly in associated with the expression - … followed by this pericope, where we have the prostitutes coming before Solomon, did not seem appropriate to the translator. This would give a logical explanation for the choice of , appeared. Since most of the time the translator is very conscientious in following his Vorlage closely, it seems more likely that we are dealing here with an instance of an intentional change rather than a mechanical error, as suggested by some exegetes. 13

Cf. Gray, 1 & 2 Kings, 105. Cf. references in the -section: 3.5,28; 9.2 (2x),12; 10.4,7,12; 11.9,28; 12.16; 13.25; 16.18; 18.1,2,15,17; 20.29; 21.7,13,22. 15 Klostermann, Könige, 278. 16 DeVries, 1 Kings, n. 16a, 56. 17 Šanda, Könige, 61. 14

Chapter Five: The Issues of Court Etiquette

197

3 Reigns 3.20 = MT 3.20 Further on in the story another significant difference can be isolated. The event described took place during the night , and while your (maid)servant slept. This seems logical to us and we are not surprised to learn this detail , transfrom the MT . The clause, however, is not found in G. The noun lated usually by maidservant or female slave, appears in the Hebrew Bible 56 section. times. In 1 Kings we find it 3 times,18 although only once in the On both occasions in chapter 1 the Greek word used is , although the more frequent term used in translation is .19 Curiously enough the third instance of is not represented by either of the two, but is omitted altogether. There would appear to be two closely related explanations for the deliberate omission of this particular part of verse 20: 1. Our translator was not happy with the idea of a woman described earlier as being in any way associated with the king, as his servant or slave in any capacity. In a culture where prostitutes were regarded as outcasts of society, it was not seemly to have a representative of this despised profession as a servant or slave. That could have been the impression if either or . Besides, if she was the king’s were to be used for rendering servant, why would she have to resort to making her living from prostitution? Was she not paid enough by the king for her service that she had to resort to such an extreme way of earning money? Or, worse still, was she employed by the king in her profession? We know that in the ancient Near East the profession was popular both in secular and cultic contexts. Altogether, the risk of into Greek was probably too putting Solomon in a bad light by rendering great for our translator and so he omitted it. 2. The idea of Solomon having a maidservant could awaken suspicion that the baby was actually the product of a union between the king and “his maidservant”. The account of countless wives and concubines in Solomon’s court would only make such an association plausible. We could see point in the effort of the translator, conscious of the issue at stake, to represent not only the king, but all associated with him, in a proper light, according to court etiquette. Either of these explanations would suggest that the translator could change, adjust or omit words not suiting his sensibilities. The context is self-explanatory: the other woman must have taken the living baby from its mother while she was asleep, otherwise she would not have allowed it to happen in the first place. Nothing of greater significance lies behind the omission in any case.

18 19

Cf. 1.13,17; 3.20. 87 times in the HB ;

about 50 times.

198

Chapter Five: The Issues of Court Etiquette

3 Reigns 7.33 = MT 7.46 Referring to the production of utensils for the Temple MT has , in the plain of the Jordan the king cast them. G has left out the reference to the king, , probably for the sake of clarification as to who is the subject of the actual manufacturing process. Šanda follows G’s reading and “ist besser zu streichen” owing to the context of the argues that MT ’s passage.20 It is true that beginning with verse 31 it is Hiram who is described as the artisan preparing the appliances for the Temple according to the king’s request. For G it may have, therefore, appeared inappropriate to link the king with the work carried out in the muddy workshop in the valley. Although it is plain from the context that Solomon is only on the receiving end of the actual production, the translator did not want to give the wrong impression as to Solomon’s role in it. In view of the above argument it seems likely that the omission is intentional rather than a scribal error. 3 Reigns 7.34 = MT 7.48 Continuing the idea from the previous verse that it was Hiram who did the ac, and Solomon made all tual work, MT the vessels that were (in) the house of the LORD , is rendered in G , and king Solomon took the furniture which (Hiram?) made for the house. , and he made, G has , and he took. As in the preInstead of ceding verse here too G stresses the fact that it was not Solomon who produced the articles, but Hiram. However, G is inconsistent by inserting , he made, later on in the sentence. Hence it is not clear who is meant; it could be Hiram, the supplier/contractor, or Solomon, the client. , the house of the LORD , whereas G has only The MT reads , without the mention of the Lord. There is no indication as to the reason for the omission of the Divine Name. poses some difficulty, too. There are two ways in which one can understand the phrase. The first possibility is that the phrase refers to and so would need to be translated as into. The function of with the meaning of is not very common but refers to the imadequately attested.21 The second possibility is that mediately preceding , which would imply making the utensils in the Temple. Taking into account verse 33, the second option, although grammatically possible, is not very plausible – the utensils were made far away from 20

Šanda, Könige, 195. Cf. Bagd, 260, Bdf, 117, and specifically Thackeray, Grammar, 25, “the use of for after verbs of motion is characteristic of the vernacular style of Tobit … and of Jd.-4 K.” 21

Chapter Five: The Issues of Court Etiquette

199

the Temple. There are stronger arguments in favour of the first option, but the Greek is not very clear. 3 Reigns 7.45 = MT 7.8 The same idea is present in another context. G leaves untranslated ,22 in , and built a house for Pharaoh’s daughter, possibly avoiding the suggestion that Solomon was the actual builder of it in the strict sense of the word. 3 Reigns 8.66 = MT 8.66 After the dedication of the Temple the MT reports the following: On the eighth day he sent the people away; and they blessed the king, and went to their tents.

G, however, sees the story differently:

And on the eighth day he sent away the people, and he blessed them, and they went each to his tabernacles.

The difference between the MT and G relates to the question of who was the object of blessing. G’s , and he blessed him, has been taken by some as “the people blessed him (the king)”,23 but equally some have taken it to mean “he (the king) blessed him (the people)”.24 The latter is to be preferred; otherwise the omission of in the translation is difficult to explain. Moreover, the translator’s concern for proper court etiquette observed earlier speaks for the second option: how could the people have blessed the king, if it is the greater that blesses the lesser? Hence I agree with Wevers who argues that “the blessing of the people was the royal prerogative, rather than the reverse in the opinion of G.”25 Moreover, the context of verses 22 and 55, where the king is doing the blessing, most likely influenced G’s treatment of the text.26

22 Šanda, Könige, 167, suggests that it should be read MSS B and A. 23 Burney, Notes, 129. 24 Montgomery, Kings, 201. 25 Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 314. 26 So Noth, Könige, 173.

or omitted altogether with

200

Chapter Five: The Issues of Court Etiquette

This understanding is strengthened by the presence of the additional note in the L: , which suggests that the primary meaning of the clause was at least ambiguous. 3 Reigns 10.5 = MT 10.5 On the occasion of the visit of the Queen of Sheba, the MT reports that she was amazed not only by Solomon’s wisdom and the beauty of the Temple but by other things as well:

And the food of his table, and the seating of his servants, and the attendance of his ministers, and their clothing, and his drinking vessels, and his burnt offering that he offered at the house of the LORD .

G rendered the text by

And the food of Solomon and the seats of his servants, and the standing of his attendants, and his clothing and his cupbearers, and his whole-burnt-offering which he offered in the house of the Lord.

It is unclear why G did not properly relay the meaning of , his table, but rendered it as though it read . Although a difference in text on the level of its Vorlage is possible, the insertion of the king’s personal name into the verse which deals exclusively with his lavish furnishings is a more probable scenario. Following this pattern, the exchange of , , and their clothing, seems logical.27 Acand his clothing, for MT ’s cording to the translator’s policy of a properly understood court etiquette attention should first be drawn to the ornate clothing of the king rather than to that of his servants. , and his drinking vessels, as , G rendered and (that) of his cupbearers, which is a legitimate translation of the word. However, the suggestion of Mulder28 that this part of the verse deals with different “objects”29 rather than, as in G, “cupbearers robes”, certainly merits consideration.

27

Cf. Šanda, Könige, 278, who argues for G’s version as more original. Mulder, 1 Kings, 515. 29 That is, drinking vessels and burnt offerings. 28

Chapter Five: The Issues of Court Etiquette

201

3 Reigns 16.9 = MT 16.9 MT ’s , and his servant Zimri, commander of half (his) chariots, conspired against him, G renders by , And Zambrei, captain of half (his) chariots, conspired against him. , his servant, is lacking. Montgomery30 suggests that this In G’s version omission was caused “by misunderstanding of the official title”. Possibly an and was the reason for the omission of the irresolvable clash between undesirable expression. Moreover, an apprehension about the idea that an could become king could have caused the omission; it was unacceptable for should sit on the throne of Israel. our translator that a king’s

3 Reigns 18.6 = MT 18.6 MT reads:

And they divided the land between them to pass through it; Ahab went one way by himself, and Obadiah went another way by himself.

G reads:

And they divided the way between them to pass along it; Ahaab went one way, and Abdeiou went the other way alone.

G has for . Burney31 considers it “inferior to the MT ”. Most probably this change took place under the influence of later in the verse. By adjusting the word in accordance with its logic, G wanted to avoid the hardly possible impression of a division of the land between Ahab and Obadiah, which in the MT is immediately clarified anyway by the following . G eases the expression somewhat and harmonises the account. G omitted the first , which in the second instance is rendered faithfully by . The reason for this omission seems again to lie in the realm of perceived court etiquette. To G it seemed improbable that the king would have gone on the journey by himself since kings do not travel without an appropriate entourage. Surprisingly, Stade32 naively accepts G’s reasoning. Although disagreeing with Stade, Montgomery33 suggests that the of verse 7 serves 30

Montgomery, Kings, 289. Burney, Notes, 221. 32 Stade, Kings, 152. 33 Cf. Montgomery, Kings, 309. 31

202

Chapter Five: The Issues of Court Etiquette

as a corrective for the omission here. There is a difficulty with his reasoning, however. In verse 7 applies to Obadiah, and in consequence not to Ahab as it should in this case. It can be thus concluded that while it was acceptable for Obadiah to go alone – hence our translator retained in connection with him, and, moreover, added it in verse 7 – it was not acceptable in the case of Ahab the king. 3 Reigns 21.25 = MT 20.25 The MT reads: And you muster for yourself an army like the army that you have lost.

but G has: And we will give you in exchange (another) army like the army that fell.

G seems to have understood the Hebrew as from the root , change. , to give in exchange, to change for, alter, occurs in 3 Reigns twice; , change. in 5.14 (MT 5.28) it represents Since the servants of Ben-hadad are continuing (from verse 23) their speech expressing dissatisfaction with the king’s handling of the war so far, it is only logical that their words will betray a plan of action which they want to suggest to him. Although both the MT and G agree as to this fact, they go their separate ways when it comes to the technicalities. In the MT it is suggested that the king muster the army for himself ( ), whereas in G it is the servants who want to take in their hands the mustering of the army: . Wevers34 sees the change of the second person singular into first person plural as a matter of respect shown by the servants towards the king – it would be improper to order the king to do things. To be sure, issues of court etiquette have been high on the agenda of our translator, but if Wevers is right, it seems that the translator is not quite consistent in his handling of the issue. The whole reported advice of the servants has an ordering tone to it. In the previous verse all three verbs are imperatives directed at Ben-hadad: , and . Perhaps we are to assume that since the servants are to be involved in the battle they want to make sure that the army is adequately prepared for the challenge, hence the request to remove the failed commanders, followed by a request to replace them with new ones, followed by the servants’ promise to supply a new army. It is possible that the translator was in agreement with this scenario and was not bothered by the “bossy” tone earlier on. Wevers’ reasoning, therefore, is to be ac34

Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 306.

Chapter Five: The Issues of Court Etiquette

203

cepted at least partially. For the matter of respect towards kings being high on the agenda of the translator there also speaks the missing equivalent to , from you; the servants do not dare to point out that it was his army that fell.35 Without unnecessary comments they humbly promise to rebuild what was lost in the course of the campaign. 3 Reigns 21.31 = MT 20.31 A similar case can be argued later in the narrative. The MT has the following text: And his servants said to him, “Behold now, we have heard that the kings of the house of Israel (are) indeed merciful kings”.

G reads: And he said to his servants, “I know that the kings of Israel are merciful kings.

Again G has a different story here. Ben-hadad is addressing his servants rather than being instructed by them as to the course of action he should take in the difficult circumstances after the lost battle. In verse 32 it is the officers, and not Ben-hadad, who go to Ahab. Although Ben-hadad resolves to surrender, and to put on the outward signs of surrender, it is the officers who actually go to plead for mercy in the next verse. Wevers36 argues that again the reason for this change is the matter of court etiquette. In his judgement G puts the orders in the mouth of Ben-hadad because he as king is responsible for making major decisions and so far the servants have been exercising too much influence. Although the MT has the officers in the first instance concerned about Benhadad’s life, , perhaps he will preserve alive your soul, G includes the servants in Ben-hadad’s speech: , if by any means he will preserve alive our souls. Again, most likely G considered the direct reference to the king in the Hebrew to be too irreverent. , my life, referring to Ben-hadad, G has In 21.32 (MT 20.32) as well for , our life, which again includes the servants. Thus G is connecting the expression with those in previous verses and by so doing avoids embarrassing the king by having him pleading for mercy himself.

35 36

L have . Wevers, Exegetical Principles, 307.

204

Chapter Five: The Issues of Court Etiquette

Conclusions The study in this chapter shows a clear desire on the part of the translator to present events at court in the light of the accepted code of behaviour. Some actions and concepts that are difficult to justify are adjusted to fit the translator’s sensibilities; possibly exceptionable behaviour is toned down and in this way made more acceptable.

Chapter Six

Summary and Conclusions In this study my primary concern was to investigate the ideology and theology of the translator of the -section. Building upon the earlier studies of Thackeray, Wevers, Gooding, Gordon and others, I have argued that through careful grammatical, syntactical and lexical analysis of the text it is possible to identify some of the biases and tendencies of the translator of this translation unit. This was achieved in an inductive way, comparing the MT with the text of G primarily, though not exclusively, in the Codex Vaticanus. In the preliminary stages all identifiable deviations were collected and evaluated and each one of them weighed on an individual basis. Taking the Hebrew text as the measure against which G was judged, several tendencies were selected, which, although not always consistently adhered to, are nevertheless recurring and thus form distinguishable patterns. These patterns have been researched and the results obtained collected in the chapters of this work. They can be summarised as follows. The issues referred to in chapter two, which discussed the translator’s desire for logical consistency, have a common thread. In the first part of the chapter the fact that changes to the text were influenced by G’s desire for logical consistency was considered. It is evident from our observation that certain texts were taken to be out of place, mostly from a chronological perspective, and so G rearranged them accordingly. Different techniques have been used in order to adjust the material to fit G’s rationale. Larger units as well as parts of verses have been moved to other – assumed to be more suitable – contexts. This is most likely an effect of the translator’s efforts to create a text which is coherent in terms of the chronological sequence of events and which is free from perceived errors of fact. As we have observed, however, the secondary nature of the new locations can mostly be detected, since the verses do not altogether fit their new surroundings. Moreover, the text as preserved in the MT , although in some cases difficult to understand at first sight, offers a more satisfactory logic overall. This, however, cannot be claimed for G. The second part of the chapter sought to demonstrate a different approach by G in correcting material which was considered faulty. The perceived problems were either linguistic or factual, where the information was perceived to be incorrect. In order to remedy them G either supplies a corrected expression

206

Chapter Six: Summary and Conclusions

or, now and then, obliterates information which it considered either confusing, redundant or unlikely. In the third part of the chapter we discussed verses where the translator endeavours to represent situations in a way that he feels will be most accurate and where this concern for precision was the driving force behind the changes in the text. Parts of the text G felt needed to be more highlighted, and so they are elucidated above what is the case in the MT , and in some instances beyond what the text allows. A good deal of material underwent a process of harmonisation with other passages within 1 Kings and elsewhere. Although it is argued that the translator has made questionable judgements on a number of occasions, he has nevertheless tried to keep the text as clear as possible. In chapter three, dealing with issues of piety in the translation, we concluded that analysis of the text of the section shows the translator to have been responsible for adjusting the text of his Vorlage in accordance with his theological convictions by introducing more acceptable vocabulary and by means of omissions and additions to the text. He was concerned to safeguard the interest of piety in the sections dealing with the Temple, in relation both to its building and to cultic practices during the dedication and later. The prominent figures of Solomon and Elijah, in their respective roles as model ruler and faithful prophet, receive special attention. The gods of the nations are treated with contempt and sometimes described using deprecatory names. This practice, however, is not uniform throughout; in some instances the customary lexical equivalents are used. G is careful in passages describing God, his character and his dealings with humanity, eagerly removing elements which suggest his dependence on humans and introducing reverential distancing in order to maintain a proper respect for God. This falls short of a full anti-anthropomorphic programme on the part of the translator. Chapter four, dealing with G’s handling of the major figures in 1 Kings, moves the discussion further. It emerges from the investigation of the text of the section, as discussed in the first part of the chapter, that the translator portrays Solomon more positively than does the MT . In order to obtain this picture of Solomon, different techniques were used, such as omissions of, and additions to, the text, transposition to a different location of both verses and individual expressions within them, as well as grammatical changes and enhancing features. The resulting picture of Solomon is different from the one painted by the MT in that it removes most of the criticism found in the MT . However, there is a single instance in which criticism beyond that of the MT is expressed. The second part of the chapter demonstrated that G delivers a more pointed picture of the kings of Israel and Judah. The Southern Kingdom as a whole is

Chapter Six: Summary and Conclusions

207

presented in a positive light. This is done even at the expense of inserting negative statements about her rulers in exchange for remarks considered harmful to the kingdom’s integrity. The positively appraised kings of Judah are made even more favourable by omission of their less virtuous acts and addition of positive features. Moreover, Israel’s rulers are looked upon as negative characters owing to the fact that Israel was a rebel state and did not follow in the steps of her model king. David is the ultimate paradigm of faithfulness to God’s law and ordinances and in consequence could not be accused of any wrongdoing whatsoever. The only negative remark betraying the affair with Bathsheba is discreetly removed from the narrative. Jeroboam is stripped of his royal robes even before ascending the throne by the removal of his matronymic. Yet, probably owing to the prophetic utterance concerning Jeroboam’s kingship, G attempts to suggest that he was modelling himself on David and so would not take part in the overthrow of Rehoboam himself. However, G acknowledges that owing to his rebellious nature he became a king of the utmost contrast with David, and an evildoer leading Israel into idolatry. G’s portrayal of Ahab is somewhat ambivalent. On the one hand, he is presented as a fallen king of a rebel state. On the other hand, G makes sure that he is not to be entirely blamed for his wrongdoing since many of his problems were supposedly caused by his idolatrous wife. For some of his activities, though they are highlighted in G’s version, a precise value judgement of G is difficult to decipher since conflicting signals make evaluation of the data problematic. In other instances, however, we can detect a tendency to present Ahab in a more favourable light which may have prompted later Rabbis to adopt a more sympathetic view of his reign. Chapter five argued that in G there is a clearly defined tendency to conform the information given to the reader to the translator’s idea of court etiquette. In the opinion of the translator a “proper” view of an individual’s behaviour has to be seen through a well defined code of practice. This code assumes that there are things a king or his subjects simply do not do. On the other hand, there are responsibilities from which even kings cannot be freed. The method our translator used to achieve this purpose varies. Sometimes through a slight change in the wording G obtains a more desirable view of the story. On other occasions it is the addition or omission of text which creates the necessary adjustment. G tones down expressions which could be misunderstood and so give a false impression of a king’s limited power and, as a result, diminished respect for him as a monarch. Thus, for example, the king is not expected to bow down to his subject – even if it is the king’s mother proper respect towards the monarch is maintained.

208

Chapter Six: Summary and Conclusions

It was considered inappropriate for the king to be in any way associated with characters of questionable reputation, as in the case of the harlots coming before the king. In some instances, as in the case of Adonijah’s visit to Bathsheba, we have the inclusion of material that would be expected in that situation, such as expression of a proper respect for the queen mother. Furthermore, even the remote idea of a king’s direct involvement in a menial task such as the production of Temple furnishings, or in building projects or even the prosaic activity of moving a throne had to be altered in accordance with the translator’s sensitivity. Kings do not travel on their own; they have the appropriate company. Moreover, they are the centre of attention in such a company. By omitting half of Zimri’s job-description, G makes clear that a servant cannot become a royal figure. The king’s prerogative is to bless his subjects and rule over them rather than the opposite; thus G removes material that could be seen as contrary to this protocol. This applies equally to the kings of Israel and Judah and to the kings of other nations. Thus Ben-hadad is responsible for giving orders in a case where in the MT he would seem to be overrun by his servants. In G the servants are silenced and required to fulfil their responsibility. In order to spare the shame of the defeated king they act as spokesmen pleading for mercy. Thus, I would argue, the study of the above elements of the narrative in G shows a distinct pattern of exegetical activity aimed at producing a text which fitted the sensibilities of its first readers regarding relationships at court. In view of the above-presented evidence I would argue that although the findings of scholars arguing in the past for an evident bias in the translation have to be somewhat modified and at times made more precise, nevertheless, these findings, as far as they went, have been confirmed by the study which I have conducted. However, it needs to be stated that in the minority of cases where previous studies of the translation technique of the section have been too optimistic in finding exegetical explanations, differing Vorlage, mechanical errors, or erroneous interpretation of the Hebrew text may account for the deviations from the typical renderings of particular words or phrases. Our translator followed his Vorlage very closely. He was, however, not slavishly bound by it. His intentions were to transmit the content of the text which he was rendering, while at the same time contemporising it somewhat. This is not at all surprising, since this interpretative character distinguishable in the work of translators of biblical books has been recently discussed in relation to other parts of the HB .1 1 Cf. the monograph, When We All Go Home, by Baer, discussing theological aspects of LXX Isaiah. Cook, 45–58, Were the Persons Responsible for the Septuagint Translators

Chapter Six: Summary and Conclusions

209

Our translator’s style of working fits well the description of the activities of translators as dragomans or scribes-translators, who had a greater freedom to interpret the text known to them.2 Though we have here more the style of a literal translation, yet the traditionally understood categories break down in view of the difficulties presented by individual books. Thus I would argue that Van der Kooij’s assessment of the approach of the translator of Isaiah could be applied to that of the section. Van der Kooij maintains that “this approach is more a creative type. In such cases the expression ‘free approach’ should not be taken in the linguistic sense only, but also in a literary, or ‘editorial’ sense: the passage produced by the translator turns out to be, to some extent, a new text or composition.”3 However, not all scholars would agree with this. Aejmelaeus is fundamentally opposed to the idea that translators could, and would indeed, have exercised any ideological influence on the text. Although Aejmelaeus argues that the translators “had no translation technique in the sense of a conscious method to be employed consistently”,4 it needs to be pointed out that this may only be true in principle. In practice, however, the situation is different. A representative of the “Scandinavian school” has recently argued that in the LXX Psalms a theological exegesis, as distinct from linguistic and contextual, is clearly present.5 Similarly Schaper, stating his aims in investigating the theology of the LXX Psalms, argues that he takes “the Greek Psalter not just as a translation, but also as a document of the religious, intellectual and political life of Hellenistic Judaism.”6 I would argue that the elements we have discovered in the section fit well into the religious and cultural milieu of Alexandrian Jewry. This study, therefore, in line with others conducted on other books of the HB , would encourage caution in the immediate and uncontrolled use of G in the restoration of the original text of 1 Kings. The text of the section is a translation of a Hebrew Vorlage and as such has to be treated accordingly and not as a self-standing composition of the Hellenistic era, although it sought to integrate elements of it into its renderings. I sympathise with the idea of the text used as an apologetic for Jewish history, emphasising its greatness and and/or Scribes and/or Editors?, argues that the person responsible for the LXX Proverbs was more than just a translator, but an editor as well. 2 Cf. Van der Kooij, The Oracle of Tyre, 112–23, (120). 3 Van der Kooij, The Oracle of Tyre, 13. 4 Aejmelaeus, On the Trail of Septuagint Translators, 2, Further, Aejmelaeus, 66, argues that “these translators never paused to consider their aims any more than the methods by which best to attain them. Their work is characterised by intuition and spontaneity more than conscious deliberation and technique.” 5 Olofsson, God Is My Rock, 2, states that his study of LXX Psalms focused on “cases where the translation is more influenced by the theology of the translator than by the meaning of the words in their context.” 6 Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter, 19.

210

Chapter Six: Summary and Conclusions

thus setting it firmly within world history. The fact that it has been used this way, however, shows undeniably the agenda of the translator as being more than “literal” reading of the extant Hebrew. These reservations notwithstanding, G’s version can be a useful tool in recovering the early text of 1 Kings, if it is approached with awareness of the existence of these external elements that I have sought to present. This study is by no means exhaustive, but should encourage further enquiry section in into the textual problems of 1 Kings/3 Reigns in general and the particular. Owing to limitations of space and time only selected features of the translation technique could be discussed. I have concentrated on the relationship between the MT and the text of Vaticanus, occasionally referring to other manuscript traditions and evidence from the Ancient Versions. Thus in a further study a closer examination of secondary readings and an expanded use of the critical apparatus in OTG would be desirable, as it may shed new light on the relationships between the textual traditions. Moreover, a study of the relationship of the text of the section to the text of Paralipomena would help to clarify questions relating to Vorlage.7 Having said all, we have to stop and marvel at this venture that took place so long ago. It is fascinating to have an insight, albeit imperfect, into the mind of a scholar who worked so many centuries ago. With all the sophisticated scholarly help we have in the modern world one has to admire the noble efforts of the translator who worked painstakingly on the delivery of the Hebrew sacred writings into Greek, relying on his knowledge of both source and target languages, and armed with not much more than his intuition. With all the deficiencies we have observed in his work, a true respect needs to be shown to this great achievement produced over two thousand years ago.

7

An interest in this neglected area has been revitalised by the recent article by Talshir, The Reign of Solomon in the Making: Pseudo-Connections Between 3 Kingdoms and Chronicles, 233–49.

Select Bibliography Primary sources Biblia Hebraica (BHK ), 2nd ed., ed. R. Kittel, Stuttgart: Privilegierte Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1925 Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS ), ed. K. Elliger et al, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1967–77 The Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud. 20 vols. I. Epstein (ed.), London: Soncino Press, 1967–1988 Josephus. Translated and edited by Thackeray, H. St J. et al., 10 vols. Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1926–1965 The Mishnah. Translated by H. Danby, Oxford: OUP , 1933 Fernández Marcos, N., J. R. Busto Saiz, El Texto Antioqueno de la Biblia Griega; II , 1–2 Reyes, Madrid, Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 53, 1992 Brooke, A. E., Mclean, N., S t John Thackeray H., eds., The Old Testament in Greek According to the Text of Codex Vaticanus, Supplemented from other Uncial Manuscripts, with a Critical Apparatus containing the Variants of the Chief Ancient Authorities for the Text of the Septuagint. Volume II , Part II , I and II Kings, Cambridge: CUP , 1930

Secondary literature Aejmelaeus, A., Parataxis in the Septuagint; A Study of the Renderings of the Hebrew Coordinate Clauses in the Greek Pentateuch. Annales Academiae Scientarum Fennicae 31, Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1982 – Translation Technique and the Intention of the Translator. Cox, C. E., (Ed.),VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leuven 1989, Leuven: SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series 31, 1989, 23–26 – On the Trail of Septuagint Translators. Collected Essays. Kampen: Kok Pharos Publishing House, 1993 – What we Talk about When We Talk about Translation Technique. Taylor, B. A. (Ed.), X Congress of the International Organization For Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Oslo, 1998. SBLSCS Series 51, Atlanta: SBL , 2001, 531–552 – Von Sprache zur Theologie: Methodologische Überlegungen zur Theologie der Septuaginta. Knibb, M., (Ed.), The Septuagint and Messianism, BETL 195, Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2006, 21–48 Ahlström, G. W., Aspects of Syncretism in Israelite Religion. Translated by E. J. Sharpe. Horae Soederblomianae V. Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1963

212

Select Bibliography

Baer, D. A., When We All Go Home; Translation and Theology in LXX Isaiah 56–66. JSOTS up 318. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001 Barthélemy, D., Les devanciers d’Aquila. VTS up 10. Leiden: Brill, 1963 Bauer, W. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated by Gingrich, F. W., F. W. Danker, 2nd ed. (1979). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957 Benzinger, I. Die Bücher der Könige. Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament, Freiburg i. B., Leipzig und Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1899 Bickermann, E. J., The Septuagint as a Translation. In Studies in Jewish and Christian History, I, 167–200. Leiden: Brill, 1976 Blass, F., A. Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated by R. W. Funk. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1961 Botterweck, G. J. et al. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, 11 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974Brenton, Sir L. C. L. The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English. Hendrickson Publishers edition, 6th printing, 1997 ed. London: Samuel Bagster & Sons Ltd., 1851 Brock, S. P., Translating the Old Testament. In It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture, Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SSF , ed. D. A. Carson, H. G. M.Williamson. 87–98. Cambridge: CUP , 1988 Brueggemann, W., The Land; Place as a Gift, Promise, and Challenge in Biblical Faith. Overtures to Biblical Theology, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977 – 1 & 2 Kings. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2000 Burney, C. F., Notes on the Hebrew Text of The Books of Kings. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1903 Conybeare, F. C., ST . G. Stock. Grammar of Septuagint Greek, With Selected Readings, Vocabularies, and Updated Indexes. Peabody: Hendrickson (1905) 1995 Cook, J., Were the Persons Responsible for the Septuagint Translators and/or Scribes and/or Editors?, JNSL 21 (1995): 45–58 Davies, G. I., Urwot in 1 Kings 5:6 (EVV . 4:26) and the Assyrian horse lists, JSS 34 (1989): 25–38 Denis, A. M., Epistula Aristaeae. In Concordance Grecque des Pseudépigraphes d’Ancien Testament; Concordance, Corpus des textes, Indices, 880–892. Louvainla-Neuve: Université Catholique de Louvain, 1987 Devries, S. J., 1 Kings. WBC 12. Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1985 Dion, P. E., Did Cultic Prostitution Fall into Oblivion during the Postexilic Era? Some Evidence from Chronicles and the Septuagint, CBQ 43 (1981): 41–48 Dogniez, C., Harl, M., Le Deutéronome. Vol. 5; La Bible D’Alexandrie. Paris: Les Editions Du Cerf, 1992 Eissfeldt, O., Bist Du Elia, so bin Ich Isebel (1 Kön xix 2). Hebräische Wortforschung: FS zum 80. Geburtstag von Walter Baumgartner. VTS up 16. Leiden: Brill, 1967, 65–70 Fernández Marcos, N., On the Borderline of Translation Greek Lexicography: The Proper Names. JNSL 27/2 (2001), 1–22 Fichtner, J., ed. Fricke, K. D., Das erste Buch von den Königen. Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments 12/1. Stuttgart: Calver Verlag, 1964

Select Bibliography

213

Freedman, D. N., et al (eds.). Anchor Bible Dictionary. Four vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992 Fritz, V., Das erste Buch der Könige, Zürcher Bibelkommentare. Zürich: TVZ , 1996 Gehman, H. S., Exegetical Methods Employed by the Greek Translator of 1 Samuel. JAOS 70 (1950): 292–296 Ginzberg, L., The Legends of the Jews; Bible Times and Characters From Joshua to Esther. 4 vols. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1913, 1941 – The Legends of the Jews; Notes to Volumes III and IV , From Moses to Esther, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1928, 1956 Gooding, D. W., Ahab according to the Septuagint. ZAW 76 (1964): 269–280 – An impossible shrine. VT 15 (1965): 406–420 – Pedantic Timetabling in 3rd Book of Reigns. VT 15 (1965): 153–166 – The Septuagint’s Version of Solomon’s Misconduct. VT 15 (1965): 325–335 – The Septuagint’s Rival Versions of Jeroboam’s Rise to Power. VT 17 (1967): 173–189 – Temple specifications: a dispute in logical arrangement between the MT and the LXX . VT 17 (1967): 143–172 – The Shimei Duplicate and its Satellite Miscellanies in 3 Reigns II . JSS 13, (1968): 76–92 – Problems of Text and Midrash in the Third Book of Reigns. Textus 7 (1969): 1–29 – Text-Sequence and Translation-Revision in 3 Reigns IX 10–X 33. VT 19 (1969): 448–63 – Jeroboam’s rise to power: A rejoinder. JBL 91 (1972): 529–533 – Relics of Ancient Exegesis. A study of the Miscellanies in 3 Reigns. Society for Old Testament Study Monograph Series 4. Cambridge: CUP , 1976 Gordon, R. P., Source Study in 1 Kings XII 24 – n (LXX ). Transactions of the Glasgow University Oriental Society 25 (1973–74): 59–70 – The Second Septuagint Account of Jeroboam: History or Midrash? VT 25 (1975): 368–393 – Terra Sancta and the Territorial Doctrine of the Targum to the Prophets. In Interpreting the Hebrew Bible – Essays in honour of E. I. J. Rosenthal, ed. J. A. Emerton, S. C. Reif, 119–131. Cambridge: CUP , 1982 – 1 & 2 Samuel. A Commentary. Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1986 – ‘Converse Translation’ in the Targums and Beyond. JSP 19 (1999): 3–21 Goshen-Gottstein, M., Theory and Practice of Textual Criticism: The Text Critical Use of the Septuagint. Textus 3 (1963): 130–158 Gray, J., I & II Kings. The Old Testament Library. London: SCM , 1964 – 1 & 2 Kings. 2nd ed. The Old Testament Library. London: SCM , 1970 Hanhart, R., Die Übersetzung der Septuaginta im Licht ihr vorgegebener und auf ihr gründender Tradition. Kratz, R. G. (Ed.), Studien zur Septuaginta und zum hellenistischen Judentum.Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999, 110–133. Hatch, E., Redpath, H. A., A Concordance to the Septuagint and the other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (including the Apocryphal Books). 2nd ed. Michigan: Baker, 1998 Hoffmann, E. G., Siebenthal, H. v., Griechische Grammatik zum Neuen Testament. Riehen: Immanuel-Verlag, 1985

214

Select Bibliography

House, P., 1, 2 Kings. The New American Commentary 8. Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995 Jastrow, M., A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, reprint of the 1926 edition. New York: The Judaica Press, Inc., 1996 Jones, G. H., 1 and 2 Kings, volume I. The New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984 – 1 and 2 Kings, volume II . The New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984 Joosten, J., Biblical Hebrew as Mirrored in the Septuagint: The Question of Influence from Spoken Hebrew. Textus 21 (2002): 1–19 Kahle, P. E., The Cairo Geniza. The Schweich Lectures of The British Academy. London: OUP , 1947 Keil, C. F., The Books of The Kings. 2nd ed. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, Translated by J. Martin. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1872 Keulen, P. S. F. van, A Touch of Chronicles: The Provenance of 3 Reigns of 3 Reigns 10:26–26a. Taylor, B. A. (Ed.), X Congress of the International Organization For Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Oslo, 1998. SBLSCS Series 51, Atlanta: SBL , 2001, 441–457 – Two Versions of the Solomon Narrative; An Inquiry into the Relationship between MT 1 Kgs. 2–11 and LXX 3 Reg. 2–11. VTS up 104. Leiden: Brill, 2005 and in the Greek Bible. ZNW 74 (1983): Kilpatrick, G. D., 151–153 Kittel, R., Die Bücher der Könige. Handkommentar zum Alten Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900 Klein, R. W., Jeroboam’s rise to power. JBL 89 (1970): 217–218 – Once more: ‘Jeroboam’s rise to power’. JBL 92 (1973): 582–584 Klostermann, A. D., Die Bücher Samuelis und der Könige. Kurzgefasster Kommentar zu den Heiligen Schriften Alten und Neuen Testaments sowie zu den Apokryphen. Noerdlingen: C. h. Beck’sche Buchhandlung, 1887 Knoppers, G. N., Two Nations Under God; The Deutoronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies. Harvard Semitic Monographs. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1993 Kooij, A. van der., The Oracle of Tyre; The Septuagint of Isaiah XXIII as Version and Vision. VTS up 71. Leiden: Brill, 1998 Kruger, P. A., Ahab’s “slowly” walking about: another look at 1 Kings 21:27Bβ. JNSL 29/2 (2003), 133–142 Kuan, J. K., Third Kingdoms 5.1 and Israelite-Tyrian Relations during the Reigns of Solomon. Jsot 46 (1990), 31–46 Lagarde, P. de., Ankündigung einer neuen Ausgabe der griechischen Übersetzung des Alten Testaments. Vol. 1. Göttingen: Dieterichsche Verlags-Buchhandlung, 1882 Lidell, H. G., Scott, R., Jones, H. S., A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. (with Revised Supplement 1996). Oxford: Clarendon, 1940 Lust, J., et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1992 Mckenzie, S. L., The Trouble with Kings; The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History. VTS up 42. Leiden: Brill, 1991

Select Bibliography

215

Mettinger, T. N. D., Solomonic State Officials. A Study of the Civil Government Officials of the Israelite Monarchy. Cbots 5. Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1971 Montgomery, J. A., The Supplement at the end of 3 Kingdoms 2 (1 Reg 2). ZAW 50 (1932): 124–129 Montgomery, J. A.,- H. S. Gehman, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings. ICC . Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1951 Morgenstern, J., The Three Calendars of Ancient Israel. HUCA 1 (1924): 13–78 Mulder, M. J., 1 Kings. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament 1/I. Translated by J. Vriend. Leuven: Peeters, 1998 Nida, E., Toward a Science of Translating, With Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: Brill, 1964 Noth, M., Könige 1. (BK .AT IX /1). Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968 Ollenburger, B. C., Zion the city of the great king. JSOT Sup 41. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987 Olofsson, S., God Is My Rock; A Study of Translation Technique and Theological Exegesis in the Septuagint. CB 31. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1990 Polak, F. H., The Septuagint Account of Solomon’s Reign: Revision and Ancient Recension. Taylor, B. A. (Ed.), X Congress of the International Organization For Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Oslo, 1998. (SBLSCS 51), Atlanta: SBL , 2001,139–164 Pennoyer, R. P. III ., Solomonic Apologetic: Text and Redaction in the Succession Narrative with Special Attention to the So-Called ‘Miscellanies’ in 3 Reigns 2. Ph. D. thesis, The Johns Hopkins University, 1992 Provan, I. W., 1 & 2 Kings. NIBCOT . Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995 Rahlfs, A., Septuaginta-Studien III , Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911 – Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes edidit Alfred Rahlfs. Editio Octava, Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935 Šanda, A.; Die Bücher der Könige. Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 9. Münster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1911 Schaper, J., Eschatology in the Greek Psalter. WUNT 2, 76. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1995 Schenker, A., Septante et Texte Massorétique dans l’Historie la Plus Ancienne du Texte de 1 Rois 2–14. Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 48. Paris: Gabalda, 2000 – Älteste Textgeschichte der Königsbücher. Die hebräische Vorlage der ursprünglichen Septuaginta als älteste Textform der Königsbücher. OBO 199. Fribourg – Göttingen: Academic Press, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004 – Junge Garden oder akrobatische Tänzer? Das Verhältnis zwischen 1 Kön 20 MT und 3 Regn 21 LXX . Schenker, A., (Ed.), The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered, (SBLSCS 52), Atlanta: SBL , 2003, 17–34 – Die zwei Erzählungen von Joabs Tod (1 Kön 2:28–34) im Massoretischen Text und in der LXX . Taylor, B. A. (Ed.), X Congress of the International Organization For Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Oslo, 1998. (SBLSCS 51), Atlanta: SBL , 2001, 27–35 Schwyzer, E., Griechische Grammatik. Vol 2, Syntax und Syntaktische Stilistik. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft. München: C. H.Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1950

216

Select Bibliography

Shenkel, J. D., Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings. Harvard Semitic Monographs 1. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1968 Siegert, F., Zwischen Hebräischer Bibel und Altem Testament: Eine Einführung in die Septuaginta. MJS 9. Münster: LIT 2001 Soisalon-Soininen, I., Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax. Zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 4. Juni 1987 herausgegeben von Anneli Aejmelaeus und Raija Sollamo. Sarja-Ser. B, Nide-Tom 237; Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1987 Sollamo, R., Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions in the Septuagint. Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum 19. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1979 Stade, B., Schwally, F., The Books of Kings; Critical Edition of the Hebrew Text. SBOT . Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1904 Talshir, Z., The Alternative Story of the Division of the Kingdom (3 Kingdoms 12: 24a–z). Jerusalem Biblical Studies 6. Jerusalem: Simor Ltd., 1993 – The Reign of Solomon in the Making: Pseudo-Connections Between 3 Kingdoms and Chronicles. VT 50 (2000): 233–249 – Literary Design – A Criterion for Originality? A Case Study: 3 Kgdms 12:24a–z; 1 Kgs 11–14, Goldman, Y./Uehlinger, C. (eds.), La double transmission du texte biblique; Etudes d’histoire du texte offertes en hommage à Adrian Schenker, OBO 179, Fribourg – Göttingen: Academic Press, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001 – 1 Kings and 3 Kingdoms – Origin and Revision Case Study: The Sins of Solomon (1 Kgs 11). Textus 21 (2002): 71–105 Thackeray, H. St J., The Greek Translators of The Four Books of Kings. JTS 8 (1907): 262–278 – A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek. Georg Olms Verlag reprint of the 1909 edition, Hildesheim, 1987 Thenius, O., Die Bücher der Könige. 2nd ed. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Hanbuch zum Alten Testament. Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel, 1873 Thiel, W., Beobachtungen am Text von 1 Könige 18. Diehl, J. F./Heitzenröder, R.,/ Witte, M., (Hg), “Einen Altar von Erde mache mir …” Festschrift für Diethelm Conrad zu seinem 70. Geburtstag. Waltrop: Spenner, 2003, 283–91 Tov, E., The LXX Additions (Miscellanies) in 1 Kings 2 (3 Reigns 2). Textus 11 (1984): 89–118 – Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1992 – The Text-Critical Use of The Septuagint in Biblical Research. Jerusalem Biblical Studies 8. Jerusalem: Simor Ltd., 1997 Trebolle Barrera, J. C., Redaction, Recension, and Midrash in the Books of Kings. In Reconsidering Israel and Judah; Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History, ed. G. N. Knoppers, J. G. McConville, 475–492. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000 – Salomon y Jeroboam. Historia de la recensión y redacción de 1 Reyes, 2–12,14. Bibliotheca Salmanticensis, Dissertationes 3. Salamanca-Jerusalem: Universidad Pontificia / Instituto Español Biblico y Arqueologico, 1980 – Centena in Libros Samuelis et Regum. Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” de la Biblia Políglota Matritense Institutio de Filología. C. S. I. C. 47. Madrid: Instituto de Filología, Departamento de Filología Bíblica y de Oriente Antiguo, 1989 Ulrich, E., et al. Qumran Cave 4, IX . Discoveries in the Judean Desert XIV . Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995

Select Bibliography

217

Vaux, R. de. Ancient Israel. Its Life and Institutions. Translated by J. McHugh. London: Darton, Longman & Todd Ltd, 1961 Walsh, J. T., 1 Kings. Berit Olam. Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1996 Walters, P. (Katz)., The Text of the Septuagint: Its Corruptions and Their Emendation, ed. D. W. Gooding. Cambridge: CUP , 1973 Wevers, J. W., Exegetical Principles underlying the Septuagint Text of 1 Kings ii 12–xxi 43. OS 8 (1950): 300–322 – The Use of Versions for Text Criticism: The Septuagint. In La Septuaginta en la Investigacion Contemporanea (V Congreso de la IOSCS ), ed. N. Fernández Marcos, 15–24. Madrid: C. S. I. C.,1985 – Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus, Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990 – Notes on the Greek Text of Numbers, Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998 Williams, R. J., Hebrew Syntax: An Outline. 2nd ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1976 Würthwein, E., Das erste Buch der Könige, Kapitel 1–16. 2nd ed. Das Alte Testament Deutsch. Göttingen and Zürich: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985

Index of Scriptural References Main discussion of LXX passages in italics. Footnotes are not included.

Septuagint Genesis 19.24

125

Exodus 34.13

116

Leviticus 8.3, 4 13.7

108 196

Numbers 11.1 11.3

125 125

Deuteronomy 7.26 28.66 31.28

115 62 108

1 Reigns 13.15

83

2 Reigns 2.28 15.30 17.8

88 183 82

3 Reigns 2.5 2.13 2.19 2.22 2.23 2.24 2.25

86, 193, 194, 195 194, 195 84, 86 117 85 85

2.26 2.27 2.28 2.29 2.30 2.31 2.32 2.33 2.34 2.35 2.36 2.37 2.38 2.41 2.42 2.43 3.4 3.10 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.20 4.2 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.11 4.17 4.18 4.17–19 4.20–21 4.22–24

41, 42, 128 43 86 86, 87, 136, 137 86, 89 42, 87, 88 87, 88, 137, 156 88 42 42, 43, 129 89 88, 137, 138 88, 89 89 88, 89 89 118, 145, 146 122, 123 43 43 156 43, 44, 138, 139 196 44, 197 44, 45 43, 128, 129 45, 46 129 48 131 12 47, 48 12 12 12

220 4.25–30 4.20 4.21 4.22 4.23 4.28 4.30 4.31 4.32–33 5.1 5.3 5.11 5.14 5.16 5.17 5.20 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.4–5a 6.5 6.6 6.6–34 6.7 6.8 6.11–13 6.11 6.12 6.13 6.15 6.16 6.17 6.18 6.19 6.20 6.21 6.22 6.28 6.33 6.34 7.1–37 7.10 7.31 7.33 7.34 7.37

Index of Scriptural References

12 12, 13, 14 13 14 14 149, 150 67, 151 14, 23, 100, 101, 130, 131, 141, 144 14, 15, 29 48, 49, 151 151 49, 150 202 147 15, 16, 17 157 49, 50 15, 17, 102 15, 17, 18, 19, 102, 105 18, 19, 152 21, 102 19, 50, 51, 107 50, 61 21 18 19, 20 131 52 102, 103 51 52 52, 53 54, 55, 56 55, 56, 57 55, 57 57 57 103, 104 56, 104, 105 104, 105 22, 103 21 58, 140 139, 198 198 198 59, 140, 170

7.38 7.39 7.38–50 7.40 7.43 7.45 7.49 7.50 8.1 8.2 8.5 8.8 8.11 8.12 8.13 8.14 8.15 8.16 8.22 8.23 8.24 8.27 8.29 8.44 8.46 8.49 8.52 8.53 8.55 8.59 8.62–65 8.65 8.66 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.6 9.9 9.9b 9.10 9.11 9.14 9.26 9.27 9.28 10.5 10.7

20, 21, 51, 101, 142 59, 60, 61 21 60 60, 61 199 21, 22 20, 142 38, 39, 40 107, 108 108 61 109 109 109 109 62, 125 93 109, 110, 199 62 62, 125 111 62, 63 123 123, 124 63 126 109 199 64 132 64 199 23 23 91, 92, 141 156 124 65 22, 23, 142, 143, 144 39, 65 65 147, 148 29, 148 149 148 200 65

221

Index of Scriptural References

10.12 10.15 10.21 10.22 10.22–24 10.23–24 10.23–25 10.23a 10.23b 10.24 10.24a 10.24c 10.25 10.26 10.27 10.28 10.29 10.30 10.31 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.7 11.8 11.9 11.10 11.11 11.13 11.14 11.20 11.21 11.22–25 11.24 11.25a 11.26 11.29 11.31 11.32 11.33 11.36 11.40 11.43–12.24 11.43 12.1 12.3a

140 24 67, 152 25, 145, 175, 31 25, 27 23 24, 29, 144, 145 29, 30 27, 28, 31, 66, 67, 31 26 92 92 67 67, 133, 152 132, 133 13 152 134 114 116, 135 116, 135 116, 118, 154 114, 135 115, 135 136, 145, 154 124 153 153 93 32, 33 67 161 32, 34 33, 34 34 158, 163 68, 93 70 68, 70 115, 116, 154 70 160, 161 158 159, 160, 161, 162 75 159

12.3 12.5 12.12 12.16 12.18 12.20 12.21 12.23 12.32 12.33 13.1 13.2 13.6 13.11 13.12 13.14 13.21 13.23 13.26 13.28 13.31 14.21 14.22 14.24 14.31 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 15.8 15.9 15.10 15.12 15.15 15.18 15.19 15.21 15.26 15.33 15.34 16.1 16.7 16.9 16.11 16.12 16.15 16.16

161, 163 163 163 75, 93 69, 70 70, 161, 163 70 70 72 72, 118, 163, 164 118 118, 119 111, 112 74 74 117 124, 125 95 112, 113, 124 93 74 166 164, 165, 168 169, 174 166 94, 167 94, 166, 167, 168 167, 168 167, 168 157 94 94 74, 166 169, 175 170 170, 171 94 75 171, 172 75, 76 172 172 172 201 76 173 76 75

222 16.17 16.19 16.28c 16.28d 16.28f 16.28g 16.29 16.32 16.33 16.34 17.1 17.4 17.6 17.9 17.15 17.21 17.22 18–21 18.1 18.2 18.6 18.7 18.10 18.12 18.13 18.15 18.16 18.18 18.19 18.20 18.22 18.23 18.24 18.25 18.26 18.29 18.30–32 18.30 18.32 18.33 18.34 18.35 18.36 18.37 18.38 18.39 18.45 19.1

Index of Scriptural References

75 173 41, 173, 174 174, 175 175, 76 41, 76 115 124, 176 177, 178 95 95 76, 77 119, 120 77, 120 120 110 183 196 196 201 201, 202 77, 82 77 95 95 179 115, 180 96, 115, 116 120, 180 95, 96, 121 96 121 96, 116 96 96, 115, 121 36, 37 36, 37, 97 36, 37 96 96, 97 78 78, 79, 95, 121 121, 38, 96, 125 125, 126 180, 181 79

19.2 19.3 19.9 19.11 19.12 19.13 19, 21, 20, 22 20 and 21 20.1 20.2 20.6 20.10 20.13 20.16 20.19 20.20 20.21 20.22 20.25 20.26 20.27 20.29 21.3 21.4 21.6 21.7 21.10 21.13 21.15 21.16 21.17 21.21 21.23 21.25 21.31 21.32 21.36 21.26 21.28 21.30 21.42 21.43 22.4 22.38 22.45–46

80 90 80 79, 80 80 80 35 34, 35 80, 181, 182 84 183, 184 97 97 184, 185, 188, 189 185, 186 186 35 187 186, 187 169 185, 188, 189 188, 189 80, 191 191 80 80, 81, 97, 190 117 97 81, 82 83 81, 83 191 117 92, 202 203 203 92 83 97 83 113, 114 84 41 185, 186 173

4 Reigns 17.15

94

223

Index of Scriptural References

72.13 68.8

188 183

Amos 5.11

102

2 Paralipomenon 5.6 108

Isaiah 4.4 9.9 34.5

97 102 114

Esther 6.12

183

Jeremiah 14.17

62

Psalms 43.16

183

Ezekiel 40.42

102

17.17 23.7 23.15 4.34

187, 188 169 73 120

1 Paralipomenon 22.2 102

Miscellanies 2.24i 2.35cb 2.46a 2.46c 2.46d 2.46g

133 50 155 66 30 155

2.46h 12.24a–z 12.24c 12.24u 16.28a–h

45 158 161 70 40, 41, 169

Masoretic Text Exodus 16.8, 12 20.25 21.14 25.18 34.1 34.11 34.13 37.7

77 103 86 104 106 92 116 104

Leviticus 8.3, 4 13.7 25.39

108 196 27

Deuteronomy 7 7.1

134 92

7.3 9.9 12 17.14–20 17.16 18.15–22 20.17 27.5, 6 31.28

130 91 79, 121 119 133, 191 119 92 103 108

Joshua 3.10 6.26 9.1 10.14 13.5 16.3 16.5

92 177 92 111 106 30 30

224

Index of Scriptural References

18.13–14 23.12

30 130

Judges 3.5

92

1 Samuel 2.27–36 9.27 13.5

43 68 83

2 Samuel 1.13–16 6.5, 13 6.12–17 7.18 8.4 8.18 12 15.27 15.30 22.22–23

85 81, 82, 139 110 191 46 181 45 183 156

1 Kings 1.9–10, 41 1.39 1.40 2.13 2.19 2.22 2.24 2.25 2.26 2.28 2.29 2.31 2.32 2.33 2.34 2.35 2.37 2.38 2.42 3.1 3.4 3.5 3.10

44 48 81, 82 193, 194 194, 195 84 85 85 41, 42, 128 86, 87 86, 136 85, 87, 156 87, 88, 156 88 42 42, 43, 129 88 88 89, 138 14, 23, 100, 101, 130, 131, 141, 143, 144 145, 146 90 122

3.13 3.15 3.16 3.20 3.25 4.2 4.4 4.4–5 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.9–14 4.11 4.16 4.18, 19, 17 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 5.1 5.2–3 5.2–4 5.5 5.6 5.17–18 5.7 5.7–8 5.8 5.12 5.14 5.15 5.17 5.18 5.19 5.25 5.27 5.27–32 5.29–31 5.28 5.30 5.31 5.32a 5.32b 5.32 6.1 6.2 6.2–36

43 43, 44, 90, 138 196 44, 197 90 44, 45 128, 129 25 45, 46, 47 26 47 12 131 12 12 12 12 12, 13, 47 13, 31, 154, 155 13 13, 14 14 12 31, 155 133, 134, 157 25, 31 12, 13, 14, 47 12 13 149 67, 151 48, 49, 151 151 151 151 49, 150 25, 26 26 26 202 147 15, 16, 17, 102 15, 16, 18, 105 15, 16 102 49, 50 19, 61 21

Index of Scriptural References

6.3 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11–13 6.14 6.15 6.16 6.17–19 6.18 6.19 6.21a 6.21b 6.22a 6.22 6.23 6.29 6.32 6.35 6.36 6.37 6.37–38a 6.38 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.6 7.8 7.1–12 7.11 7.12 7.12b 7.13–51 7.23 7.38 7.45 7.46 7.48 7.51 8.1 8.2 8.5 8.8 8.9 8.11 8.14

19 52 102, 103 51 17 52 131, 132 19, 20 52, 53, 54 53, 54, 55 54, 55, 56, 104, 55 55, 57 57 55 57 103, 104 56, 104 104 104 22, 103 18, 19, 51 21, 101 19, 39, 50, 51, 107 20, 51, 101, 142 59, 60, 61 60, 60, 61 199 21, 22, 101 103 21, 22 22 22 58, 140 39 139 198 198 21, 59, 140, 170 38, 39, 40 72, 73, 107 108 61 91 110 109

8.15 8.22 8.23 8.26 8.27 8.29 8.44–45 8.44 8.46–53 8.45 8.46 8.49 8.52 8.59 8.65 8.66 9.3 9.5 9.6 9.10–13 9.10 9.11 9.12 9.13 9.14 9.15–23 9.15 9.16 9.16–17 9.17b–19a 9.19b 9.20 9.21 9.22 9.23 9.24 9.25 9.26 9.27 10.5 10.7 10.12 10.22 10.23 10.25 10.26 11.1

225 62 109, 110 62 62 111 62 63 123 63 63 123 63 126 63, 64 64 65, 199 91, 141 62 124 25 65 65, 92 92 29 25, 28, 29, 147, 148 23, 25, 26 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 144, 145 23, 27 25, 27, 29 29, 30 27, 28, 66 92 26 25, 26 147 22, 23, 142, 143 132 29, 148 149 200 65 140 175 92 67 132, 133, 134 134

226 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5a 11.6 11.7 11.8 11.12 11.13 11.14 11.15 11.20 11.22 11.23–25a 11.23 11.26 11.28 11.29–39 11.29 11.32 11.33 11.40 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.3–4 12.12 12.16 12.18 12.20 12.21 12.27 12.29 12.30 12.31 12.32 12.33 12.38 13.3 13.6 13.11 13.21 13.23 13.26 13.31 13.32 14.7–14 14.15–16

Index of Scriptural References

160 116, 135 135 135 136, 145 116, 118, 136 115 114 93 33 114 67 32 32, 33 33 158, 163 25, 26 68 93 68 115, 154 160, 161 160 159 160, 161, 162 26 163 93 26, 69, 70 70, 160 70 71 93 71 71, 165 72 118, 163, 164 93 73, 74 111, 112 74 124 95 112, 113 74 71 165 165

14.22 14.31 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 15.8 15.9 15.10 15.18 15.19 15.21 15.26 15.33 15.34 16.1 16.2 16.7 16.9 16.12 16.13 16.19 16.26 16.32 16.33 16.34 17.1 17.4 17.6 17.14 17.15 17.16 17.21 17.22 18.1 18.2 18.6 18.10 18.12 18.16 18.19 18.20 18.30–32 18.30 18.32 18.33 18.34

164, 165 166 167 74, 167 167, 168 167, 168 157 94 94 74 170, 171 94 75 171 75, 76 172 172, 173 94 172 201 173 94 173 94 115 176, 177, 177, 178 95, 177 95 76, 77 77 77 77 120 110 196 196 201 178, 179 77 179 115, 116 120, 180 36 36, 37, 97 36, 37 96 78, 97

227

Index of Scriptural References

18.35 18.36 18.38 18.39 18.45 19.1 19.2 19.11 19.18 20.3 20.5 20.6 20.7 20.10 20.15 20.17 20.21 20.25 20.26 20.30 20.31 20.32 20.36 20.43 21.1 21.4 21.13 21.16 21.19 21.20 21.21 21.25 21.26 21.27 21.28 22.41–51 22.45–46 22.47 22.49 22.50 2 Kings 9 9.6 9.26 10.12 17.29

78 78, 79 38 125, 126 180, 181 79 117 79, 80 82 80 80 80 80, 97, 190 117 81 83 117, 191 92, 202 83 83, 84 203 203 92 84 80, 84, 181 182, 183 97 184, 185 185, 186 186, 187 35, 186 187 169 188, 189 97 41 40 169 175 76

35 90 190 90 71

17.32 23.7 23.18

71 169 74

1 Chronicles 5.29 6.9

50 45

2 Chronicles 1.3 2.9 5.3 5.6 6.20 7.8–10 9.23 7.9 9.25 11.16 12.14 16.2

118 150, 151 108 108 62 64 67 64 133 71 165 171

Nehemiah 4.11

26

Isaiah 34.5 40.20

114 106

Jeremiah 19.5 19.32 19.35

118 118 118

Ezekiel 27.9

105

Amos 7.17

119

Haggai 1.2–9

142

Psalms 73.13 81.7

188 26

Index of Modern Authors Footnotes are not included.

Aejmelaeus, A. 209 Ahlström, G. W. 104 Barthélemy, D. 2 Benzinger, I. 45, 47, 76, 106 Brueggemann, W. 119 Burney, C. F. 13, 16, 39, 49, 56, 58, 68, 87, 89, 93, 101, 104, 123–4, 125, 136, 151, 176–7, 185, 191, 201 DeVries, S. J. 196 Dion, P. E. 174 Fichtner, J. 46 Gehman, H. S. 5 Gooding, D. W. 5, 14, 20, 23, 35, 40, 41, 52, 53, 54, 56, 100, 133–4, 141, 143, 148, 162–3, 176, 183, 186–7, 188, 189, 205 Gordon, R. P. 5, 205 Goshen-Gottstein, M. 8 Gray, J. 44, 45, 47, 74 Jones, G. H. 55, 58, 69, 106, 129, 130, 161–2, 181 Kahle, P. 4 Keulen, P. S.F van 5, 6, 14, 15, 23, 64, 134, 137, 151, 154, 157–8 Kilpatrick, G. D. 119 Klostermann, A. D. 47, 76, 89, 106, 136, 178–9, 196 Kooij, A.van der 209 Kuan, J. K. 48 Lagarde, P. de. 4 Mettinger, T. N. D. 129 Montgomery, J. A. 4, 15, 50, 53, 75, 76, 77, 81, 94, 95, 101, 119, 140, 147,

149, 153, 167, 168, 169, 174, 179, 191, 195, 201 Morgenstern, J. 107 Mulder , M. J. 45, 62, 90, 144, 200 Noth, M. 46, 58, 60, 68, 75, 91, 106, 112, 129, 137, 147, 160, 164 Provan, I. W. 26, 178 Rahlfs, A. 6, 33, 129 Šanda, A. 45, 80, 106, 107, 121, 126, 129, 139, 170, 196, 198 Schaper, J. 209 Schenker, A. 5, 25, 26, 27, 30–1, 32, 37, 43, 44, 48, 49, 69, 70, 71, 81–82, 85, 86–7, 88, 121–2, 136–7, 138–9, 156, 190, 193–4, 195 Shenkel, J. D. 123 Stade, B. 16, 40, 42, 44, 49, 64, 67, 70, 77, 78, 79, 80, 90, 106, 107, 115, 151, 161, 165, 186, 201 Talshir, Z. 7 Thackeray, H. St J. 2, 3, 7, 205 Thenius, O. 36, 105–6 Tov, E. 8, 177 Trebolle Barrera, J. C. 8, 21, 159, 160–1 Walsh, J. T. 35, 44, 75, 79, 94, 131, 132, 166, 177, 184 Wevers, J. W. 5, 7, 9, 40, 49, 68, 69, 71, 72, 79, 91–2, 94, 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 120, 121, 122, 123–4, 125, 126, 139, 140, 150, 153, 159, 164, 174, 175, 177, 179, 180, 182, 195, 199, 202, 203, 205

Subject Index Abiathar 41–3, 84–5, 128 Abijam 94, 167–8, 171 Adonijah 85–6, 193–6, 208 Ahab 35, 40, 76, 78–80, 81–2, 84, 97, 176–92, 201–2 Ahaziah 76 Ana 74 Anthropomorphisms, treatment of 112, 122–6, 206 Asa 40, 74, 169–71 Alexander Polyhistor 124 Alexandrian Jewry 1, 209 Aristeas, Letter of 124 Aristobulus 124 Ark of the covenant 38–9, 56, 61, 91, 101, 108, 128, 138–9

G – – – –

Bamah 79, 118, 121, 136, 146 Baasha 75, 76, 172 Bathsheba 193–6, 208 Benaiah 42, 85, 87, 128–30 Ben-hadad 80, 82–3, 97, 117, 190–1, 202–3, 208

–

Converse Translation 153 Court etiquette, issues of 193–204 David 27, 34, 48, 59, 62, 68, 82, 86, 127, 128–9, 155–7 Dead Sea Scrolls 1 Elijah 36–7, 76–80, 95–7, 110, 117, 119–22, 179, 185–6, 206 Eupolemus 124 Eusebius 124 Feast of Tabernacles 64, 65 Forced labour, question of 18, 23–7, 29, 31, 92, 144–5, 147

–

– – – – – –

– – – – – – – – – –

meaning of 8 style of 209 failed to understand the syntax 53 followed Vorlage closely 18, 38, 39, 48, 101, 134, 145, 157, 208 borrowing, repeating material 38–41, 86, 88, 121, 161 -section, characteristics of 2–3 state of research 4–6 gender inclusive, translation in 97 language of 3 larger parts of the text, transposition of 11–36, 65 material within verses, transposition of 36–8 logical consistency, quest for 11ff, 44, 50, 62–3, 74, 80 chronological arrangement, concern for 17–22, 141–3, 161–4, additional material in 39, 68, 74 omitting redundant material 40 omitting doubtful material 44–6 smoothing out the perceived difficulties 41ff, 52, 56, 58ff precision of expression 92–7 correcting defective information 47–9, 61 rationalisation of difficult Hebrew 51–2 assimilation of more common expression 90–2 inconsistencies in rendering 116–7

Hadad 34, 161 Hall of Pillars 61

230

Subject Index

Hiram 15, 21, 28–9, 48–9, 65, 66, 92, 101, 106, 148–50, 157–8, 198 House of the Forest of Lebanon 60–1 Homoioarcton 68 Homoioteleuton 67, 68, 118, 137, 171 Haplography 50, 110, 139–40 Jehoshaphat 40–1, 76, 173–6 Jeroboam 3, 25, 71–2, 93, 94, 112, 158–64, 162–3, 165, 207 Jezebel 79, 97, 117, 184 Joab 42, 85–8, 129, 136–7, 156 Josephus 60, 124, 150 2 Larger Cambridge Septuagint (OTG) 6, 9, 10, 210 Lucianic Manuscripts (L) 2, 17, 42, 49, 60, 81, 82, 105, 116, 147, 158, 174, 175, 177, 187, 190, 200 Lucianic (Antiochian) text 3 Methodology 5–6, 7–9 Miscellany 3, 40–1, 45, 66, 70, 133, 155, 158, 161, 169, 173, Matronymic, mention of 86, 158–9, 166, 207 Naboth 35, 97, 181, 188–90 Nadab 171–2 Nicolas of Damascus 124 Omri 40, 75 Obadiah 78, 95, 179, 201–2 Piety – reordering of material for the sake of 100–2 – in relation to the altar 109–10 – in describing God’s sovereignty 110 – in describing God’s dwelling place 111, 171, – in treatment of the Divine Name 111–2 – in relation to God’s judgment 112–4 – concerning cultically proper conduct 117–22

Queen of Sheba 65, 151, 200 Rahlfs’ text 6, 158 Rehoboam 3, 69–71, 161–7, 207 Rezon 33–4 Scandinavian School 7, 209 Shimei 88–9, 137–8 Solomon – officials of 13 – amassing of wealth by 29, 67, 132–4, 145, 147–9, 152, 191 – marriages to foreign wives 116, 134–5, 145, 166 – marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter 14–5, 130–1, 143–4, 144–5 – wisdom of 15, 29, 43, 65, 67, 92–3, 141, 150–1 – palace of 20–2, 23, 39, 50–1, 100–1, 142–4 – innocence of 42 – additions to the text concerning 136–9 – as judge 85, 196–8 – whitewashing of 127–54 – removed criticism of 131–2, 135–6, 153–4 – role clarification of 198–9 – proper focus upon 200 – enhancement of 139–43, 149–52 – judgment on 154 Syro-Hexapla 60 Temple – dedication of 64, 106–10 – building of 15–20, – time taken to build 39, 50–1, – materials for 102–4 – feature adjacent to 52 – foreigners working on 105–6 – not there at the time of G 61 Tendenzkritik 8, 9 Translation Technique 7, 122, 208 Verspottung of foreign deities 114–6 Vorlage 8 – possibly damaged, corrupted 12, 34, 50,

Subject Index

– perceived inconsistencies in 11 – misreading of 31–2 – possibility of a differing 14, 60, 62, 116, 146, 176, 200 – similar to MT 33, 52, 99, 163, 178, 183 – adjustments to 49, 51, 52, 86, 92, 97, 98, 170

231

– difficult Hebrew in 13, 48, 52, 156, 175 Zabud 45–6 Zimri 75–6, 173, 201, 208