Job 34:6a
MT: עַל־מִשְׁפָּטִי אֲכַזֵּבConcerning my judgment/right, I lie
OG: ἐψεύσατο δὲ τῷ κρίματί μου
He lied about my judgment/right
Theodotion and Aquila: περὶ τὴν κρίσιν μου ψεῦσμα
There is a falsehood/lie concerning my right/judgment
Comment: The Old Greek read אכזב as a verb similar to later MT, while Th and Aq read it as אַכְזָב, an adjectival/nominal "false" or "falsehood." They read the same consonants with different vocalizations. As an aside, HALOT's entry of אַכְזָב probably could have cited the readings of Theodotion and Aquila here in support of this rarely attested Hebrew lexeme (cf. HALOT 1:45).
Job 35:9a
MT: מַרֹב עֲשׁוּקִים יַזְעִיקוּBecause of the multitude of oppressions they cry out
Theodotion: ἀπὸ πλήθους συκοφαντούμενοι κεκράξονται
From a multitude those oppressors/those being oppressed will cry out.
Symmachus: συκοφαντιῶν
Of oppressions
Comment: There is no Old Greek for this verse, the Greek line in our MSS coming from Theodotion. Sym agrees with the vocalization of MT, “oppressions” (cp. Ecclesiastes 4:1), while Th read עָשׁוֹקִים “oppressors” or עֲשׁוּקִים “the oppressed” (the latter option may equal the vocalization of MT but indicates a different derivative, the pl. pass. ptc.). In any case, Theodotion and MT attest to the same consonantal text but different vocalizations or understandings of those consonants. Or, if we want to read MT as the pass. ptc., then Symmachus has the different reading or understanding.
Isaiah 3:12a
MT: ֹוְנָשִׁים מָשְׁלוּ בוAnd women rule him
OG: καὶ οἱ ἀπαιτοῦντες κυριεύουσιν ὑμῶν
And creditors rule you
Theodotion: δανεισται
Creditors
Aquila: ἀπαιτοῦντες
Creditors
Symmachus: γυναικες
Women
Comment: Symmachus agrees with MT in his reading of נשים "women." But Theodotion and Aquila read נשים as נֹשִים "creditors" from I נשׁא/II נשׁה “to lend” (the analogous formation of III-ה and III-א verbs). Therefore, this is another example of some of the Jewish revisers agreeing with the Old Greek's reading of the consonantal text where the Masoretes preserved a different vocalization, still an ancient reading as Symmachus confirms.
Isaiah 53:8b
MT: ֹמִפֶּשַׁע עַמִּי נֶגַע לָמוBecause of the transgression of my people, the strike was to them.
OG: ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνομιῶν τοῦ λαοῦ μου ἤχθη εἰς θάνατον
Because of the lawless deeds of my people, he was led to death.
Theodotion: ἀπὸ ἀθεσίας τοῦ λαοῦ μου ἥψατο αὐτῶν
Because of the faithlessness of my people, he struck them.
Aquila: ἀπὸ ἀθεσίας τοῦ λαοῦ μου ἥψατο αὐτῶν
Because of the faithlessness of my people, he struck them.
Symmachus: διὰ τὴν ἀδικίαν τοῦ λαοῦ μου πληγὴ αὐτοῖς
On account of my people's unrighteousness, the strike was to them.
Comment: The purpose of this example is not to engage the textual issue between the OG and MT (as fun and interesting as that one is). More modestly, today, I want to point readers to the fact that MT vocalized נגע as a noun (cp. Symmachus), while Theodotion and Aquila rendered the same consonants as a verb (cp. Jerome's Vulgate: percussit eos/eum).
Thanks for this John. Very enlightening.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Timothy. Glad you think so.
DeleteJohn, have you ever written on the variation between Theodotion and the OG in Daniel 7? I'm particularly curious about the conflating of the son of man with the ancient of days.
ReplyDeleteYour article here seems to touch on similar issues.
Thank you for the contribution!
I haven't. Tough book to get a hold of (https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/162859243?q&versionId=177482534), but Peter Gentry's essay "The Son of Man in Daniel 7: individual or corporate?" might be what you are looking for. Let me know if this helps.
DeleteThank you!
DeleteThis was very helpful. As a tangential question: do you have any strong evidence for rabbinic exegesis elsewhere in the OG?
ReplyDeleteThanks, Joel. It's a great question but I'm not sure of the answer. It seems date and provenance of the translations would be key factors; that is, we need to be careful we are not reading earlier Greek translations in the light of later rabbinic exegesis.
DeleteAre there any variants to the MT Isaiah reading in the Isaiah Scrolls?
ReplyDeleteIn 53:8, yes. But the Three do not agree with it either. I don't remember for 3:12, but I don't think so.
DeleteSame goes for comparing to Jerome, who dealt with a proto MT of sorts from what I know...
ReplyDeleteSo much for the supposed purity of the MT. Go LXX (I feel like a salesman lol.. this might be my 3rd post doing that). It certainly shouldn't be discounted as much as it has.
Well, the MT may still be older/more original. I haven't decided between readings here. I only wanted to note that there are some differences between the Three and MT (more if we kept cataloguing :-)).
DeleteIs there any support from Theodotion, Aquila, Symmachus to Matthew gospel regarding Hosea 11.1?
ReplyDeleteLook here http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/matthew-215-and-hexapla.html
DeleteThank you so much, Dirk. Very significant.
DeleteYep, what Dirk said :-).
Delete