In Genesis 4:26B?: the Mt and the Versions
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
WHO “BEGAN TO CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD” IN GENESIS 4:26B?: THE MT AND THE VERSIONS Robert P. Gordon “Then it was begun to call upon the name of the Lord” is a literal ren- dering of the last few words of Gen 4:26, and they are usually read as a statement about the beginnings of Yhwh-worship in early human history. That they come at this point and not earlier, in the narrative about Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, is itself cause for reflection; nevertheless it is their relationship to the texts in early Exodus about the revelation of the divine name to Moses (see Exod 3:13–15; 6:2–3) that usually brings them to attention. Whereas Exodus is commonly read to mean that the divine name has been previously unknown to Moses, who must now announce it to the Hebrew slaves in Egypt, Gen 4:26 claims that worship of God, apparently by the name Yhwh, began already in the time of Seth and Enosh. This apparent equivocation would be sufficient grounds for expec- ting divergence within the textual and translational traditions, but pro- the only ,הוחל bably no less significant in antiquity was the unique form begin”) in the Hophal“) חלל occurrence in the Hebrew Bible of the verb conjugation. Since this use of the passive denies the sentence a clear and unambiguous subject—Hendel describes the clause as “ungrammatical and semantically obscure in its context” 1—the opportunity is there for differing identifications of those involved in the worship. The exegetical possibilities of the half-verse ramify through centuries of Jewish, Samari- tan and Christian interpretation.2 I. The Septuagint The earliest translation-cum-interpretation of Gen 4:26 is provided by the Septuagint: “This one (=he) hoped to call upon the name of the Lord God.” “Lord God” corresponds to the simple use of the Tetragrammaton in the 1 Ronald S. Hendel, The Text of Genesis I–II: Textual Studies and Critical Edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 49. 2 See the excellent study by Steven D. Fraade, Enosh and His Generation: Pre-Israelite Hero and History in Postbiblical Interpretation (SBLMS 30; Chico: Scholars Press, 1984). 58 robert p. gordon MT and is of uncertain textual status. This fuller designation may derive from the Septuagintal Vorlage, or may be a translator’s flourish, in either case connecting with the occurrences of the composite form used throug- hout most of the Eden narrative in Gen 2–3. Wevers claims that the LXX’s use of the composite designation “the Lord God” actually “negates the Hebrew notion that invoking the name Yahweh began with Enos.”3 The claim is difficult to justify, and we shall return to it briefly. There are more palpable differences between the Hebrew and the Greek at the beginning of this half-verse, where “This one (= he) hoped” in the Greek corresponds to MT “Then it was begun.” In theory, the Greek could represent an inde- pendent, and even the “original,” reading. On the other hand, it seems likely that the two divergences “then”/“this one” and “was begun”/“hoped” are interdependent. If this is granted, two main lines of approach are pos- ,זה was taken as a rare equivalent of אז or if ,זה was misread as אז sible. If the passive verb would have had to be converted to the active, since “this one was begun” would have conveyed no sense. Conversely, the rendering by an active verb could have triggered the inclusion of a more הוחל of explicit subject than would have been indicated within the simple (active) verb-form. Wevers represents the first of these options, concluding that with dittography a possible ,אז LXX οὑτος is the result of a misreading of factor; with this divergence it became necessary, on Wevers’ view, to ren- der the passive verb of the MT by an active.4 Others, as we shall see, have simply assumed that the LXX more faithfully reflects the original reading.5 in the kind of הוא At the same time, normal Hebrew usage would favour situation that the LXX creates, with οὑτος frequently enough translating This seems to raise a question about the status of any presumed 6.הוא MT .in the MT אז corresponding to זה Vorlage that had 3 John W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis (SBLSCS 35; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 66–67. 4 Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis, 66. Susan Brayford, Genesis (SCS; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 257, is in broad agreement with Wevers. Kenneth A. Mathews, Genesis 1–11:26 (NAC IA; Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1996), assumes a variant Vorlage, with both dittography and haplography involved (291 n. 332). 5 Cf. John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (ICC; 2nd ed.; Edin- burgh: T&T Clark, 1930), 126, and Sandmel’s reservations: Samuel Sandmel, “Genesis 4:26b,” HUCA 32 (1961): 19–29 (27–28). ;LXX οὑτος) in direct speech in Gen 5:29 is in a different category; cf. also Gen 12:12) זה 6 οὑτος in Genesis see 4:20, 21; 10:8, 9. See also Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, “Die//הוא For .38:28 Wiedergabe des Hebräischen, als Subjekt Stehenden Personalpronomens im Griechischen Pentateuch,” in De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. Albert Pietersma and Claude Cox; Mississauga, Ont.: Benben Publications, 1984), 115–28 (122), referring to Gen 2:11, 13, 14, among other texts..