The Septuagint Text of Hosea Compared with the Massoretic Text 9781463214753

Citation preview

T H E SEPTUAGINT T E X T O F H O S E A COMPARED W I T H T H E MASSORETIC T E X T

Analecta Gorgiana 75 General Editor George Anton Kiraz Analecta Gorgiana is a collection of long essays and short monographs which are consistently cited by modern scholars but previously difficult to find because of their original appearance in obscure publications. Now conveniently published, these essays are not only vital for our understanding of the history of research and ideas, but are also indispensable tools for the continuation and development of on-going research. Carefully selected by a team of scholars based on their relevance to modern scholarship, these essays can now be fully utilized by scholars and proudly owned by libraries.

The Septuagint Text of Hosea Compared with the Massoretic Text

GARLORD HAWKINS PATTERSON

GORGIAS PRESS

2007

First Gorgias Press Edition, 2007 The special contents of this edition are copyright © 2007 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. N o part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. Published in the United States of America by Gorgias Press LLC, N e w Jersey

This edition is a facsimile reprint of the original edition published mHebraica, Hartford, 1891, Vol. 7, No. 3.

ISBN 978-1-59333-889-3 ISSN 1935-6854

GORGIAS PRESS 46 Orris Ave., Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA www.gorgiaspress.com

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standards. Printed in the United States of America

THE SEPTUAGINT TEXT OF HOSEA COMPARED WITH THE MASSORETIC TEXT.* B Y GTAYLORD H . P A T T E R S O N , P H . D . ,

New Haven, Conn. PRELIMINARY

REMARKS.

In sympathy with all earnest effort to obtain a better text of the Old Testament, I was led, at the suggestion of my esteemed friend and teacher, Professor W. E. Harper, to take up the study of the Septuagint version of Hosea. Good use has been made of the Targum by Wunsche,t and SebokJ has investigated the variations of the Peshitta. But the most important of the versions for textual criticism, the Septuagint, has received little attention, having been investigated only in a general way by the commentators as well as by Toilers in Das Dodekapropheton der Alexandriner. I t is not my purpose to repeat the history of the version, the legend of its origin, etc., since this work has already been done by those who have wider experience. The purpose is simply to compare the Septuagint with the Massoretic text and note the conclusions that may be drawn from such comparison. The great question, however, in the study of the LXX. to-day is whether the variations, which it presents, are due to arbitrariness of translation or to difference of recension. Thus it is my object to consider whether there are variations in the translation which would not be allowed a translator, and if so, whether these are due to arbitrariness on the part of the translator or to difference of recension. Before proceeding to the consideration of the differences between the texts, it seems best to present a brief outline of the manner in which the investigation is conducted. Having studied the text verse by verse it was my intention to present the results in somewhat the same form as is followed in the works of Lagarde, Wellhausen, Ryssel, etc., but this, it seems, fails to present to the mind any clear idea of the variations as a class. Therefore, after a brief statement in regard to the condition of the text of the LXX., the variations are considered under three general divisions which I have named Interpretation, Doubtful and Becensional. Under Interpretation those variations which may, in any fair way, be attributed to * P a r t of a thesis p r e s e n t e d to t h e F a c u l t y of t h e D e p a r t m e n t of Philosophy a n d t h e A r t s , Yale University, f o r t h e degree of Doctor of Philosophy, by Gay lard H . P a t t e r s o n . t Der Prophet Hosea Wbersetzt und erklttrt mit Benutzung der Targumim und der jlldischen Aualeger, Rascht, A ben Ezra und David Kimchi. Leipzig 1 ,1868. t Die Syrische XJebersetzung der zwfflf kUtnen Propheten und ihr VerhSUniss zu dem massoretischen Text und zu den ai dvaiai avruv

«a

and

voicmLsJ

}3= .

TREVDNVC,

N ^ l = L X X . , Kal ovx A.rJ.

Variant. yS'vvavTo

Peshitta,

K.T.7.

Targum, p i T J T n p N ' U H ^ p ^ p j V

N^l •

The

one reading of the L X X . as well as the Peshitta and Targum take D U T D ? the subject of the verb, giving the better construction.

as

T h e variant of the L X X .

has in its favor also the fact that ydhvu when used actively takes the accusative. Cheyne suggests that the Massoretic division " was possibly caused by a wish to preclude a misinterpretation of Hosea's language, viz., that the Israelites would go on sacrificing to Jehovah even when in c a p t i v i t y . " !

Other cases may be found

in 9:11; 11:8; 12:1,2,3; 13:2 and 14:8 ; they need no comments. 6. A change in more than one verse, as in 4:14,15: H D N f " 0 ? ~ 0 X : T -

LXX.—crvveir?ieiceTo p.era ir6pvvc. 2«.

V

'

*

• f

T

Here the L X X . seem to have tried to bring

the last of the verse into consonance with the phrase " H " ) ^ f l U f f l thus translate freely, reading Qty for

a very easy confusion.

, and

Sebok, how-

ever, suggests that the L X X . which he thinks the Peshitta followed, deluded by the sound of the letters, translated ¿ " I..f iT^. • but this does not seem well supported by his references.

A t any rate a glance at the text shows it to be incorrectly

construed. I n 9:8,9 for '"jj«|

. . . .

has jiavlav kv oku deov

KAREMJ^AV.

m i l t r p»OJ>r? ; V h ^ K . . .

I

s^dpr/sav

- ;|v

K.T.7..

|T

Y:

•• :

HDID'tiffo the L X X . T

:

-

The two verbs coming together in

the Hebrew were separated by the translator and the first was given to the preceding clause.

T h e Massoretic text, however, gives a possible construction and

being the more difficult is to be preferred.

Other cases may be found in 4:11.12;

5:15 and 6:1, also 6:10,11. 2. T h e different grouping of letters, as in 4:4. where * Patrolngia Latina, Ed. J. P. Migne, Pan's, 18«. Vol. XXV., p. 891. + The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Hosea. Cambridge, 1887, p. 94.

Tj'J^I =

196

HEBKAICA.

LXX. 6 Se ?.aoc fwv ¿f avrtlsrydrnvog lepevg. The LXX. reading suits the context better in placing ^ so as to read , cf. v. 6. The ^ in the Massoretic text is probably from the first of the following word, and so this case might have been considered under liecensional variations, but being connected with an otherwise free translation it seemed best to consider both under Interpretation. The translation of the latter part may be thought to invalidate that of the first part, but the final Yodh of HDD "was probably obscured in the MS., and thus this would be a fair translation following closely the order of the words, since in Greek the regular order would be the reverse. Thus the LXX. becomes a safeguard against such conjectures as that of Wellhausen* unless such corruption took place before the translation was made. One conjecture by Kobertson Smith,f viz., ^ HOO , is antedated by a conjecture cited by Rosenmiiller,t viz., " Quos conjecturae juvant, miror, in earn pariter non incidisse, qua legeretur '"103 cum affixo primae pers. singul. sicut contendens adversus me sacerdos, ita ut sensus exoriretur periodi; turn populus tuus turn sacerdos mihi contradicunt et adversantur. ' Si genuina floret lectio in Alexandrina versione, videri haec posset isti conjecturae ex parte faveri.' "? In 6:5 for ^ ^ the Peshitta,

Tj'CDQtyjDI the LXX. has mi |joiaJ p-oo ; the Targum,

"YJF}

TO

Kpirn /iov ¿>g J]J the LXX. has rag fvxdg avrav, reading DCyiJ perhaps, as do many Hebrew MSS., or they may have referred the singular suffix to the community and thus" translated in the plural; in either case the effect upon the noun is the same, requiring the plural. Cf. also 9:11, Q Tt i 3 3: = c epi/pov} 2:16, is original this is a turn in expression, but see p . 192.

C f . a l s o D ^ f l ^ D ^ = ¿ireKvudyaovrai, 9 : 1 2 ; Qp] 1 ?

= M/.aioi elmv, 7:13.

2. An addition, as in 2:10, where, for the Hebrew H1? ' J T D ^ n i|D01 , the LXX. is Kal apyvpiov i~?//lvva AI'Ty. avTTj , 1 3 : S ;

9 : 7 ; v a r i a n t , arrawaiUumtt; H ^ J T i i VII.

("T^K = fihdpov

CVCKICICOVTOC,

4:13 ;

— rrvkdCuvna. 14:9 ; Q ^ ^ p J = avTanoddaeag aov (V), =

«JwrifffAf /">«, 1 1 : 4 ; etc.

T h e r e a r e s o m e cases i n which t h e t r a n s l a t o r h a s m i s s e d t h e sense

t h r o u g h a f a l s e c o n s t r u c t i o n or m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of a word, etc.

There may be

noted, 1. T h e m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of w o r d s a n d incorrect r e a d i n g of suffixes o f t e n conn e c t e d w i t h such m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g , as in 2:18, w h e r e

= [iaaXei/i.

This

probably arose o u t of a difficulty in t h e m i n d of t h e t r a n s l a t o r in n o t u n d e r s t a n d i n g h o w Y a h w e h could ever h a v e b e e n called

• or a n u n w i l l i n g n e s s t o

a d m i t it. I n 13:14 i j ' " ) ^ =

>VKV {0 • The uncommon word seems to have caused difficulty. I n 2:19 for

"Tl^ "I^OP

fr^l

t h e L X X . i s ml oi ptrj /ivr/cdâmv

OVK in

rà

bvofiara avrôv, taking 3 in construction with the verb and translating as in the Hïph'îl. Cf. Josh. 23:7 ; Isa. 48:1. Perhaps they vocalized as Hipli'îL but y ^ f » : T •

seems well sustained. Cf. Zech. 13:2. In 6:5 for O ' X ^ J ^ the LXX. has àiriftÉpuja roiiç -pow/raç vuâv. No object being expressed for the verb the phrase was probably taken in the sense of " slaying in " or " among the prophets " and read • The received text and interpretation are sustained by the parallelism. I n 11:6 f o r V " 0

ilfi'Wl

31(1 n ^ H I

t h e L X X . h a s icaï i,nHhr,m-v

avrov. The first verb is derived from H^fT and both it and n'^O are taken intransitively, while V " 0 is made to correspond with VIJ^U in the first clause and so is read V T D • The translator seems to have been influenced by an attempt to bring out parallelism. In 9:1 is translated in the LXX. by pids evpaivov ; in the Vulgate, "noli exultare." The early translators probably overlooked the fact that ^ is not thus used. They may have read ' T J j l ^ , but cf. Job 3:22, which favors the received text. In 7:14 the LXX. makes the subject of the verb in the translation ml 1 oiIK. ijiàticav npoç fié al Kopâlat avTùv, for the Hebrew Q^ ?!) N^l • In 6:7 TOJ7 D~îîO H O f f l i the translation of which is avrol ôé slaiv ¿>ç âvfipuTvoç irapapaivuv. V Û ^ read "Oi*, qualifying D"1îO • This is a weak statement, but perhaps not more so than one interpretation of 4:4, viz., " t h y people are as they that strive with the priest," or the expression in 5:10. = In 6:8 ptf fV*1p = nôXiç spyaÇo/iévq fiàraia ; 'Ev T0Ï? 1 T Xaoïç avrov (annexion ?), 7:8 ; "iipO^ ) = °ï iKSwijaai, 12:3. VIII. Again, there are some variations which seem to have arisen through the peculiar difficulty presented by the Hebrew or the MSS., or a strange misunderstanding of the text. In many cases a combination of these causes explains a reading. Since the reason for a variation of this nature is not very evident they need not be classified more definitely. The following are instances of such variation : In 2:4 for the Hebrew fi^ÔO ¡ l ^ U f 1DJTI (v. 5 H^D^iDN fi3), the LXX. reads ml ki-apâ rfjv vopvdav avrijç in npoçinrov fiov (v. 5 biruç âv eKÔbau avrijv). Perhaps the first person is used as anticipative of the same in the following verse. Though the sense is missed, the translation does not involve any important change in the *5 iv po/j-ipaia iv raïç nô'Aeaiv avrov> ml

narivavmv

èv raïç xEPBlv

202

HEBRAICA.

text.

for

I D f l ; and

for rpJtJQ , the former being much more

common would naturally be taken in case of obscurity. read

unless the Greek should read ¿»>; /»)(?).

in v. 5 was perhaps

Cf. p. 192.

In 12:15 for the Hebrew DHfliDfi DHfiK D ^ D H the L X X . has M-m.^v 'Etjipai/j, ml irapapjioF•

variant, insert

h

before 'E^paiu. Is this an attempt to render

the phrase by the combination of two verbs or was one originally an adverb in force, but altered ? The second verb of the Greek is the one most frequently used for J3J73 i

the other is also used.

There must be an alteration or corruption

here, perhaps a double rendering. In 14:8 it is suggested that the L X X .

^aovrai

ml /ledvaft^aovrai airy,

translation of p~] VIT > being read once ^fT • once rai corresponds, but this word with mrog is unparalleled. traced to a tampering with the text of the L X X .

This is probably to be

Such " conflate readings " are

probably rightly attributed to admixture from other versions. following canon,

is a double

, to which ¡ledvaeiinov-

According to the

If two readings coexist, of which one expresses the Massoretic

text, while the other can only be explained from a text deviating from it, the latter is to be regarded as the original,''* ¡iedvadijoovnu aha should be regarded as the original reading.

This then may be a free translation of p"7

, which

would not be bad in this connection. In 14:3 KtyfT'PS =

Mpr/re. In the unparalleled Hebrew the trans-

lator seems to have found difficulty, reading

perhaps for S 3 .

The

difficulty of the expression baffles the modern interpreter also. In 12:1 for the Hebrew p t f j D'tJHlp vvv iyva abroiif

O

6tb( mi b

7MUQ

aym; KeK?,yatTai,

OJf 1 1 1 J ? the L X X . has mistaking blame for praise, but such a

sentiment in this connection is altogether out of place.

A slight change of con-

sonants and pointing would admit the Greek reading, viz.,

DJ7T • ' iffl^

Other cases in which a slight change will admit a peculiar reading are the following: LXX.

6:9 altered to " U l I K O H p (D'HTTJ

ml 71 laxi'i oov avSpbr; naparov

for which the L X X . is

teal b

iupvipav

ffedf

hrl

ra

^jCP may explain the

k.T.A.; also 11:7, rifiia

VIp* ^JO it t|T : 12:12 again,

avrov dv/iudr/aeTcu.

DHt^ "ly'piG j'N l ^ i l ' D N for the L X X . u ¡ 4 Yalaai eariv h YaTiaai With 8:9, Sapa riya^r/aav compare p H i i Jn^ilN i • The translator has not used n J f l anywhere; at least no translation requires it. 13:1, — dimiM/iara, perhaps for ;~n Aramaic(?). In 8:7 •'"Q seems to have been omitted. DMIAARIIPIA TO. R/ARRYFIHA, 8:12, repeated from 8:11 by copyist? In 2:8 YYTMl ml avotKodofi-yrtu rag orfoi'f, free V apxovre(.

* Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Bonks of Samuel, p. xlvii. t Not SKI after Simeon aud Wiiuscho, as Nowack indicates.

T H E SEPTUAGINT T E X T OF HOSEA.

203

IX. Another reason for variation in the translation is the confusion of consonants ; these must often have been dim and obscure in ancient M8S. Moreover the similarity between some of the letters must have led to confusion. The MSS. used by the translator were probably written in the old Hebrew or " square " characters, and the letters may have been confused in the transmission of those MSS. before the translation was made. Hence it is difficult to determine, many times, whether the translator erred in reading these, or some copyist before him. It seems probable, however, that as good a MS. or MSS. as the average would be used in such a translation, and accordingly the following variations may fairly be considered as due to the translator. In 1:4 for f f l i T the L X X . has 'Iovfa. Jerome believed this to have been due to the inexperience of the translator, using this word because it was the more common. Simson also points out the fact that " J u d a h " is thus brought into consonance with "house of Israel" at the end of the verse. f n i i T might also be confused easily with J f l i T 1 especially the apocopated form "tlpp • Thus in case of obscurity Judah would naturally be taken. But we, thinking of a definite fact, find that the context requires X l i T • Instead of " l ^ 1 ? (2:14) the L X X . has t».- fiaprvptov, concerning which Jerome observed, " L X X . posuerunt testimonium, Res et Daleth literarum falsi similitudine." This seems probable, since Yodh C) might easily be obliterated. In 10:14 for J"V3 L X X . has h rov OIKOV TOV 'IEPOFIOAFI; variant, 'lepofiadA. The latter reading is that of the Alex, and Sin. MSS.; it is also the one Jerome gives for the reading of the L X X . It would seem then that was read ^ f r O T through confusion of and * , perhaps also and y , while was translated. Possibly a confusion of Zalmunna with JO^tJ* may have led to the peculiar reading here, referring to Jerubaal, mentioned in the same passage, viz., Judg. 8. Jerome endeavored to explain the reading from this, but the reference is to a place, not to a person. The passage in the Hebrew awaits a satisfactory explanation. In 4:12 If)") = Kvevfian of the L X X . The reading was probably 2 f ° r and this the more readily since n ^ ] " ! ! ! >s without an object, unless the reading was O J / n n as in some MSS.,* and is translated freely. In 10:2; 5:15 and 14:1 D J J ^ is translated by aonxiZu. The translator probably read • Q J J ' . Cf. 2:12 and 5:9, where the forms from QQti' are translated by derivatives of a^avi^a. It is possible, however, that the translator may have connected these two roots in some such way as Schmoller, whose opinion was that from the idea of suffering punishment comes the idea of being desolated, waste. * Davidson's Hebrew Text.

London.

P. 123.

204

H e b r a i c a. In 7:6 for QnQK the L X X . has "Ehipaiu, which is not easy to explain unless

the reading of the MS. was QJTflN and this was confused with the form 0 H 0 N in some way.

Perhaps the left foot of pj was obliterated and then the remain-

ing form and Yodh were transposed, or "1 may have been read for •, since these letters were sometimes confused in the old characters.* •0*0 . -

for

Compare also

0 1T 0" .

I n 1 1 : 4 t h e L X X . h a s ¿ f pami^uv avdpumoc im raf aiayivaq avrov f o r t h e H e b r e w

• r r n 1 ? ^ J l V y * Q H 0 3 , reading taken as a threat; cf. Isa. 50:6.

ty

and omitting one ^ :

The context shows it to be wrong.

this is

'AvHp-or is

used indefinitely, as several times. In 8:6 h ™ 'lapayl arose probably from confusing • would seem a repetition or was obscured perhaps.

with 3 ^

and

and thus

D , however, are

very similar in the old " s q u a r e " characters and may have been confused in the MSS. Other examples of such confusion of letters may be seen in the following: D N = D y 4:14; n m t f ? = o m i f 1 ? i f i P i p p r = - i f l j o p n 8:i; o y v = Djn*9:2; n c

=

i o : i i •, »a4? = n f l 1 ? 10:12 ;

= 1 0 10:14.

cf.

also the more doubtful Q B W ) = DB^I 13:1; U H t ^ N = I J I t i ^ 14:9; 3 p " l = 5:12 (cf. 13:14 '/). X.

Very peculiar are the variations in the translation of the particles.

In

many cases the variation may be affected by the context as in the case of which is frequently translated by oti and oi6n but after a negative by 'aY/A. But as an accurate knowledge of the use of particles seems to be one of the last attainments in the study of a language, the translator is not to be censured if he allow the context as he understands it to determine the force of a particle.

This our

translator seems to have done always, rather than to have used the particlps at any time as an aid in discovering the meaning of a particular passage.

The fol-

lowing groupings of the translations of prepositions, conjunctions, etc., will serve to show this:

"ItyXD

=

KO-SÙÇ

"IClN

àv, 7:12 ; òv rpónov, 9:13. == ÒTTÌcu generally, b u t fiera ravra, 8 : 5 .

•jX = âpa, 1 2 : 1 2 ; irM/v, 1 2 : 9 ; 8iruç, 4:4('r>). "Iff* = èv to avTù, 1 1 : 8 ; X'T1 ,

I

=

^

™

2:2.

= ov a n d ov ¡ifj f r e q u e n t l y ; //, 6 : 6 . (

SIÀ

TOVTO,

4:3, etc.

Cf. p 1 ? also, 2:8,16, etc.

) svena, 1 3 : 6 .

» Cf. Wellhausen's Der Text der Buecher Samuelis. Gottingen, 1872. Pp. 18 and 169.

205

T H E S E P T U A G I N T T E X T OF H O S E A .

and Si6ti, general. alX fh 1:6 ; 7:14.

' en, general. ¿H, 2:20; 5:3, etc. 6La, 8:4. p •{ peri, 6:2. ' tf, 2:11(?). eic, 7:4. . y, 2:9; 6:6.

oti

8:10;

6ia Toiro,

9:6.

4:14.

8rav,

ev, general. ml, 2:25; 3:5, etc. eif, 4:7 ; 5:5, etc. 7Tp6(, 2:4.

f ¿>c, general. Kadu(, 2:5; 8:1, etc. Kara, 2:17 ; 4:7, etc.

/cara, 2:11. aiw, 4:3. 5:6.

fiera,

ovTog, 4:9.

dative, 7:9.

>'-/', general.

dative general,

aara,

genitive, 1:9; 2:14, etc. 2:14; 2:21, etc.

ek,

ITpit;, 5:1. M , 2:20; 3:3. ev,

9:5.

"7K

f fiera, general. o r [ Trpdc, 4:1; 12:3, etc.

7:13;

8:1.

7:14. Sia, 9:15. ev,

•n-pdc, general, iri, 3:3; 3:5, etc. tic, 7:15; 8:1, etc. h , 4:8.

Perhaps a table of some of the Greek particles with their equivalents in Hebrew, according to the translation, may be of interest in showing the peculiarities in an even more striking way. 07TiJf bna)^ av

=

6t6rt Kat edv ev

(8:3)

4:4 , 2:5(?)

s™c m = ^ 3 (? N1? >3), 14:3 »3 DJ (9:16)

(9:12)

«7

=

1 0 3 (8:12)

3

etc Eizi

3

7r p6q

3

"7

3 3

Kara fiera

3~lp3 (5:4; 11:9)

or

3

Sia

P

¿7t6 fit} 6ta

tovto

TzXtjV ¿av

n n n o (*:12)

(12:9) DK (9:12)

p

a1?

ty

'm

OfTWf :

p '3

P P DJ (8:10)

» n ^ f (13:4) •VlN (8:7)

* The equivalent most frequently used Is underscored; in most cases the references In the above table suffice.

206

HEBRAICA.

Thus the majority of the variations which may be attributed to the translator have been considered, and the general character of the translation in cases in which the text underlying it was similar to the Massoretic text, has been noted. It has been seen that passages in which the Greek text is corrupt or doubtful, are of such a nature, usually, as to indicate that they should not be used in textual study. The cases of free translation are such as may readily be detected, either in the peculiar reading or difficulty of the passage, or in the approximate .sense expressed. Most of these are of such a nature that, if held to indicate difference of recension, one could only substitute a word related in meaning to that in the text. Interesting cases of the use of the same Greek word for different Hebrew words, such as avrairodidupu for Efrtff in 9:8 and 14:3, for 1^' i n 4:9; 12:2,14; and different Greek words for the same Hebrew word, as = SuufiOopd, 11:4, , 9:11, show that the translator, not and ¿K&>tf, 13:13, which is used for always influenced by a desire for uniformity, simply expressed what he regarded as the sense of a particular passage. There are also slight traces of local influence in the translation as the probable reference to paftSo/iaqTeia, a sort of divination among the Greeks, in 4:12; also a reference to the rites of Venus and other deities in the -iry/rciiivai of 4:14. In both cases, however, the translation is fair and may have no reference to customs of the Greeks. But after having attributed to the translation all that can fairly be considered as belonging to it, in accordance with the general disposition or tendency of the translator,—his evident fairness of intention—there still remains a number of variations unexplained. DOUBTFUL

CASES.

There is a number of variations the character of which is doubtful. One cannot say positively that they are due to difference of recension, but they seem to be due to this. In some cases the readings are certainly not as good as those given in the Massoretic text, but at the same time they bear evidence of having been translated from Hebrew, while in other cases they are much better than the received reading. I. Under this division additions may be considered first. 1. No great stress can be laid on the addition of a letter or particle, yet there are a few cases in which such an addition gives a different and often a good reading. In 2:13 the connective mi occurs between all except the first two nouns. Why not here ? If the translator inserted it, why not between each word as in 1:1 and 2:7 ? If this difference is recensional, perhaps in the original construction the words following ntTlK'ID were adverbial accusatives as Briggs seems to take

T H E S E P T U A G I N T T E X T OF H O S E A .

207

them in the translation, " And I will cause all her mirth to cease in her feasts (and) her new moons and her sabbaths and all her festivals."* It is in fact the mirth of these feasts that is the prominent idea. Cf. Amos 8:10; Isa. 58:13. Adopting this construction of the passage, Cheyne's observation, that the sabbath did not pass away, becomes unnecessary. = In 13:13 H"!1?!' TMTaiiatic. It is difficult to determine whether o5 V)DV • In 4:18 the L X X .

¡¡yd-n-r/aav

for « o n "OHX gives no equivalent, but of course

it is impossible to give an exact translation and so "Qil may have been omitted. It seems more probable, however, that it is a repetition of the last three letters of "DUN by a copyist. In 9:14 for O f f ? Ji~l j n n HO the L X X . has H Soae^ av-ois; variant, add (Joe airroif.

is perhaps a copyist's repetition of the last two letters of

; it

is supported, however, by one reading of the Greek, but this may be a correction. III.

There are also certain variations in number, person, gender, etc., which

often give a good reading but yet are of a doubtful character. in 12:5, where, for IJNIJO' ^ N f l O 1*7 p f t f V l > h ™

OIKU

Tiiv

evpoaim us,

the

Such may be seen

L X X . has mi Uafir,aav fim>,

a strange variation for which there seems to be no good

explanation unless it is connected with the substitution of oku rQv for ^ X f V S , which may best be considered then in this connection, though not properly belonging here.

About the time the translation was made and before this certain

" tendency changes " f are said to have been made, such as, p X f V 2 for CQfD for f Q l f D ; Cf. p. 211.

,

Elsewhere in the book fltf/VD is found, but here

the historical reference demands ^XJTD • However, one cannot say whether this is due to the translator or to the MS. which he used, and the other variations are probably connected with this.

A t the end irpdf avrove for UQJf, as Cheyne

* This occurred in some codices and seems to have been in the original f o r anyone, inserting later to make it agree with the Hebrew, would certainly have inserted the correct translation, t See Geiger's UrseUrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel, pp. 259-433. Brealau, 1857. *6

210

HEBRAICA.

observes, was probably for • When used of the community the singular suffix is often translated by the plural, and so the L X X . may have taken it here. The Peshitta, which otherwise does not agree with the L X X . , has aiia^ and this suits the context better. In 13:8 the Hebrew is Dti-' 0 ^ 3 Nli the LXX., aai KurajidyovTtu • T :

T

•• :

:

aiirovs hei aavfivoi Spv/xov ; the Peshitta, > v 0 — ^ o ^ J j o . Sebok thinks L , they may have read D '3X 1 or 0*73X1 (the latter, if the person is changed, gives the proper consecution in tense, though the form in the text following in the same person as the preceding verbs may be regarded as coordinate with these), 3 before ft^*? being erased. He also takes the preceding verbs in the first person as establishing the Massoretic text; however, it is to be noted that the following verb is in the third person, and this arrangement would make the first two and the second two agree. In 2:8 for ?J3*yi the L X X . is rrjv bSbv ahr-^r • the Peshitta, OIAJOO] . Preceding and following this the third person is used, and such a change is hardly justifiable, even in Hosea, where the change is not infrequent, " p n " h a s nothing but difficulty in its favor " (Briggs). In 4:8 for iJJ'SJ the L X X . has raj ipv^a; avrav; the Peshitta, ,,001 »q 1 ; the Yulgate, " animas eorum;" Symmachus and Theodotion, h rug fuxaic aWav. Thus the versions as well as some MSS. read QU'^J and this is demanded by the context. However, see page 197. Compare also I f f D * = m 3 * > n °te 1 following, 12:2; H 3 = D S , 9:2. I Y . There is also a number of cases in which a substitution of one part of speech for another or a variation of expression is such that it is difficult to determine whether the reading is due to difference of MSS. or to the translator. There may be noted, 1. Cases of the variation of a word or expression, as in 1:7, where, for the Hebrew m i t T J T 3 ~ n i O » the L X X . has robg Ss vloiig 'IovSa, requiring m i r r i Which was probably in the MS. before the translator. Both expressions T

:

occur in Hebrew for the same idea, and in the Greek ohcoc may be used, as well as the expression here used, to convey this idea, viz., that of posterity. There is a score of places in the Bible where this interchange occurs, the L X X . having one form and the Hebrew the other. Perhaps these may be recensional; they may, however, be explained as due to the translator's desire for variety of expression, as the use of ayaivdu for O n - ) ¡ n 2:25 (where, however, the variant eleiu agrees with that in 2:3,6) must be explained. Similar to the foregoing is the variation in 2:i, ¡ » r r ^ N ]T

>J3 o n 1 ? * i o k * d d n • :

V T

T"

V -

' a y •

ti^ a r t ? n a n * = v m V T

»¿™z f maaoOai ¡it = (?)• Cf. 6:11. V. Closely connected with the preceding are a few cases of transposition of letters and words as in 8:13, where, for l ^ t f ' l H"DP O P D n ' P Q f , tlie LXX. has iav Svauai dvaiav aal ¡pdyuai xpea. The Hebrew is peculiar and difficult, if indeed it is Hebrew at all. Usually the LXX. follows the Hebrew order, especially in difficult passages, and the translation here would indicate that the Hebrew at the basis of it was, "1JJO l^DN* FOf i r O P ON • "which gives the same arrangement of clauses as the received reading, or even better than this. ^ ¡ - Q n looks very much like a peculiar repetition of the letters in |"Qf slightly altered, viz., H for 17 • For the use of QN cf. 9:12 (LXX.); cf. also »3 QJ , 9:16. In 6:3 for the Hebrew H I V tt'lp^DS the LXX. has Trpui/iog aai oipiftoc Yv, and this order requires t J ' l p ' W l H")V > taking H I V a s a noun as the A.V. also. The arrangement would then be similar to that in Joel 2:23, but the usual order may be taken because the word is taken as a noun, though this is not probable. In 7:16 for the Hebrew ^ X1? " O W the LXX. has aneorpifiiaav sif ovSh ; the Peshitta, Jojio p*. oasaiZ] . These versions give little help here ; they seem to have taken these two words in the reverse order, viz., X1? , unless the sense is " to the not high one," " no god " (Gesenius), which is not probable. In the former case X1? would hardly be used as this arrangement requires. Williams' conjecture, ^'IN 1 ? * i s a l s o impossible. In 13:10 for the Hebrew " p ^ D 'I7N the LXX. has ttov o :-iaci'/ri>r gov oi-of; which is a fair translation, taking as an interrogative, and it seems probable that the letters * and |~t have been transposed, the original being n ' N i and this is confirmed by iOfiN i which would naturally follow (TN a s a n enclitic, but is peculiar after • The form would arise the more easily since it occurs in v. 7 and elsewhere. The forms in v. 14 were probably n ' N a l s 0 - S° the versions in 13:10. In 13:15 there is clearly a transposition of letters, "^"IN for "llflN - but amiss. RBCENSIONAX, V A R I A T I O N S .

There are still other variations of a different nature from those already considered. These are of such a character that they cart only be explained by * The Hebrew Prophets.

London, 1866. In loco.

214

HEBRAICA.

supposing the translator to have used a MS. differing somewhat from the MSS. underlying the present Massoretic text. this.

An examination of these cases will show

There may be noted, I.

Additions.

In 4:17 for "j^-pfjn the L X X . has efhinev ¿av-fi arnvSaXa. Nowack and Simson regard this as an interpretation in explanation of the preceding

, but as

Ewald perceived there is an incompleteness in the verse as it now stands, " And Ephraim shall not be left with his idols as is strongly enough expressed, v. 19." The sentiment too is foreign to the spirit of Iiosea and especially so if satirical. This also is against the reading of Ewald, viz., " the scandal giveth him restoration."

l i e supposes some such word as ^ I t J O Q to have dropped out of the text

and vocalizes n ' J H • I t seems better, however, to vocalize f l ^ f l • which is used of the setting up of idols (cf. Isa. 46:7 and 2 Kgs. 17:29), and to construe ('? D ^ I B O D

as

object of the verb.

Thus the reading would be, Ephraim

joined to idols, he hath set a stumbling-block

for himself.

is

The last clause then car-

ries out the idea preceding and gives good parallelism; note also the connection with the following verse according to the L X X . In 4:18 for ¡ T J J O |Y?p ( t o i l ) "DHN the L X X . has yydntjaav an/uav t-K (¡¡pvayfiaroc avrijc. By the addition of a letter

and a change of pointing, a vari-

ant, and in this case a much better reading, is obtained.

The MSS. underlying

the Massoretic text seem to have been corrupted or obscure in this place as the peculiar Hebrew and variations of the L X X . in the last verses of this chapter as well as the opening of the next chapter indicate.

The Hebrew of this clause is

certainly very peculiar, but accepting a suggestion of the L X X . , an excellent reading is obtained.

Hermann* pointed out the fact that though the present

reading of the L X X . gives no fit sense, yet a restoration of that which was its basis gives a form susceptible of a good translation : he suggests ¡ T J l i O O with the translation " s i e lieben Schande mehr als ihre Ehre."'

Cheyne favors this cor-

rection, referring p X J to Yahweh, the Pride of Israel, her God. He would then translate " they love infamy

Cf. Zech. 11:3.

rather than her Excellency."

The

peculiarity of the Greek shows that the translator was following Hebrew. II.

There are also a few cases of omission which indicate that certain letters

and words were not in the MS. before the translator. In 2:23 for the Hebrew D W n

i l K m ^ K ¡TlfT D X J P I ^ K the L X X .

has leyu icvpioc eiranovoo/tai to avpava.

The

first

occurs unexpectedly here

in the Hebrew and evidently was not in the MS. before the translator, for it is not his tendency to omit. In 8:2 for S t f - ) ^ * " p J ^ Y

7 the L X X . has eui Kenpagwrai '0

y