THE MASORETIC and SEPTUAGINT TEXTS of EZEKIEL 39,21-29 While
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
K.L. WONG THE MASORETIC AND SEPTUAGINT TEXTS OF EZEKIEL 39,21-29 While the Septuagint of the book of Ezekiel has increasingly gained the atten- tion of biblical scholars1, Ez 39,21-29, which forms the end of the Gog oracle within the book of Ezekiel, still has not received any detailed examination2. It is the purpose of this short paper to provide a comparison between the Masoretic and Septuagint texts of this pericope3. In the following, we will first delimit our pericope Ez 39,21-29 and discuss its inner structures. Then we will give a verse- by-verse comparison between the Masoretic and the Septuagint texts of the pericope. The focus of the comparison will be on the plus and minus of the Greek text in relation to the Hebrew text, and unusual translations. After that, we will give a summary of the findings with regard to the related issues of the textual criticism of the Hebrew text, the textual criticism of the Greek text and the trans- lation technique. 1. Delimitation and Inner Structure of Ez 39,21-29 Ez 39,21-29 ends the Gog oracle which comprises Ez 38–39. The treatment of the concluding section of the Gog oracle varies. Scholars are of the following opinions: (a) 39,17-21 is about the consummation of Gog, and 39,22-29 con- cludes with the restoration of Israel4, (b) 39,17-24 is a section on the great sacri- ficial feast, and 39,25-29, which is a summary of the restoration of Israel, is the conclusion5; (c) 39,21-29 is the conclusion of the Gog pericope6. The last posi- 1. I would like to thank Prof. J. Lust for commenting on an earlier form of this paper, and for his help and encouragement when I was studying in Leuven. 2. An exception is J. LUST, The Final Text and Textual Criticism. Ez 39,28, in ID. (ed.), Ezekiel and His Book (BETL, 74), Leuven, 1986, pp. 48-54. Note also the extremely brief discussion of the Septuagint of Ez 38–39 in S. BØE, Gog and Magog, Tübingen, 2001, pp. 133-135. 3. The Masoretic text is based on E. ELLIGER – W. RUDOLPH (eds.), Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, Stuttgart, 1977, and the Septuagint text is taken from J. ZIEGLER (ed.), Eze- chiel. Mit einem Nachtrag von Detlef Fraenkel (Septuagint. Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Litterarum Gottingensis editum, 16/1), Göttingen, 21977. 4. G. JAHN, Das Buch Ezechiel auf Grund der Septuaginta hergestellt, Leipzig, 1905, pp. 270-271; H.v.D. PARUNAK, Structural Studies in Ezekiel, unpublished Ph.D. Diss., Harvard University, 1978, pp. 505-506. 5. See, for example, E.W. HENGSTENBERG, Die Weissagungen des Propheten Ezechiel für solche die in der Schrift forschen erläutert, Berlin, 1867-68, pp. 156-157; H.A. RED- PATH, The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel (Westminster Ccommentaries), London, 1907, pp. 212-213; S. FISCH, Ezekiel (Soncino Bible), London, 1950, pp. 262-265; J.B. TAYLOR, Ezekiel (TOTC), Leicester, 1969, pp. 148-150; R. BRUNNER, Das Buch Ezechiel, vol. 2 (Zürcher Bibelkommentare), Zürich, 21969, pp. 101-103. 6. See, for example, M. SCHUMPP, Das Buch Ezechiel übersetzt und erklärt (HBK, 10,1), Freiburg, 1923, p. 201; J. HERRMANN, Ezechiel (KAT, 11), Leipzig, 1924, p. 250; G.A. COOKE, The Book of Ezekiel (ICC), Edinburgh, 1936, p. 422; A. VAN DEN BORN, Ezechiël (BOT, 11), Roermond, 1954, pp. 230-232; G.C. AALDERS, Ezechiël II (COT), THE MASORETIC AND SEPTUAGINT TEXTS OF EZ 39,21-29 131 tion is preferred by most scholars. This choice of v. 21 and v. 29 as the beginning and ending respectively of the final unit of the Gog oracle is well-supported. Concerning v. 29 as the end of the pericope, there is no much doubt about it. In terms of structural markers like formulae, v. 29 ends with the concluding formula it is followed by the date formula in 40,1 which indicates a new ,נאם אדני יהוה section. In terms of content, what follows in Ez 40 differs from that in Ez 38–39. Even if Ez 39 was originally followed by Ez 37 (as found in P967), the laying of God’s hand on the prophet in 37,1 also indicates a new topic. Thus, it is certain that the pericope ends at v. 29. Concerning the beginning of the pericope, opinions differ as we indicated above. To argue for the choice of v. 21, note firstly that the concluding formula can be found at the end of v. 20. Secondly, the content of vv. 21-22 נאם אדני יהוה is different from that of vv. 17-20. In vv. 17-20, the concern is the feast prepared by Yahweh for the birds and animals. However, in v. 21, we find the glory of God and his judgment of the nations. The sacrificial feast is not mentioned again in vv. 21-297. Hence, we conclude that our pericope is circumscribed by the two occurrences of the concluding formula. in v. 25 serves both as a divider as well as a לכן Within vv. 21-29, the word connecting element. The division into vv. 21-24 and vv. 25-29 is accepted by most scholars. Zimmerli opines that vv. 21-22 still looks back to the Gog oracle, while vv. 23-29 leaves this scene and returns to the prophetic message on Israel first mentioned in Ez 34–378. Allen holds a similar opinion. He suggests that vv. 21-22 is appended as a moral conclusion of Yahweh’s vindication. Then in the final stage of the book, vv. 23-29 is added to recall the positive message in Ez in v. 25 refers not to Ez 34–37, but לכן However, Aalders suggests that .379–33 rather to what precedes immediately10. Block tries to find a parallel structure be- tween vv. 21-24 and vv. 25-29, but his scheme is hardly convincing11. Perhaps Kampen, 1957, p. 241; J.W. WEVERS, Ezekiel (NCB), London, 1969, pp. 284-285; W. ZIM- MERLI, Ezechiel (BKAT, 13), Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1969, p. 968; W. EICHRODT, Ezekiel (OTL), Philadelphia, PA, 1970, p. 521; J. GARSHA, Studien zum Ezechielbuch. Eine redak- tionskritische Untersuchung von Ez 1-39 (Europäische Hochschulschriften, XXIII/23), Bern-Frankfurt, 1974, p. 230; F. HOSSFELD, Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theo- logie des Ezechielbuches (FzB, 20), Würzburg, 1977, pp. 428-429; M. DIJKSTRA, Ezechiël II. Een praktische bijbelverklaring (TT), Kampen, 1989, p. 144; L.C. ALLEN, Ezekiel 20– 48 (WBC, 29), Dallas, TX, 1990, pp. 208-209; B. MAARSINGH, Ezechiël III (POT), Nijkerk, 1991, pp. 129-132; D.I. BLOCK, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48 (NICOT), Grand Rapids, MI, 1998, p. 432; K.-F. POHLMANN, Der Prophet Hesekiel/Ezechiel Kapitel 20–48 (ATD, 22,2), Göttingen, 2001, pp. 510-511. Not all scholars within this group have the same opinion on the literary formation of this pericope. For instance, Schumpp, Wevers, Garsha, and Hossfeld suggest that vv. 21-22 is the first addition to the Gog oracle and vv. 23-29 a second insertion. Some see two different layers in vv. 21-24 and vv. 25-29. Others see vv. 21-29 as one coherent pericope. 7. Parunak’s division after v. 21 is hardly convincing. By paying undue attention to the concentric structure found in vv. 22-29, he neglects both the positions of the concluding formula in v. 20 and v. 29, and also the shift in contents from v. 20 to v. 21. 8. ZIMMERLI, Ezechiel (n. 6), pp. 968-970. 9. ALLEN, Ezekiel 20–48 (n. 6), p. 208. 10. AALDERS, Ezechiël II (n. 6), p. 242. 11. BLOCK, Ezekiel 25–48 (n. 6), p. 479. But note that the actions of Yahweh is found not only in section A, but also in section B’. Moreover, to put Yahweh’s hiding his face as constituting section A’ irrespective of its content seems to be somewhat arbitrary. 132 K.L. WONG we should be content with his conclusion regarding the two sections that the “first describes Yahweh’s action of judgment in response to Israel’s rebellion; the second his salvific activity on her behalf, and the response this evokes in the nation”12. 2. A Comparison between the Masoretic and Septuagint Texts of Ez 39,21-29 (a) Ez 39,21 kaì dÉsw t®n dózan mou ên üm⁄n, kaì ונתתי את-כבודי בגוים וראו כל-הגוים את- ,contai pánta tà ∂‡nj t®n krísin mou∫ משׁפטי אשׁר עשׂיתי ואת-ידי אשׁר-שׂמתי בהם ∞n êpoíjsa, kaì t®n xe⁄rá mou, ∞n êpßgagon êpˆ aûtoúv. by ên üm⁄n is the main problem of this verse. The Greek בגוים The rendering of should be read בגוים in the Hebrew. Cornill suggests that בכם seems to have read at the end of the verse should be changed בהם ,and in connection with that ,בגוג as was the original reading which was later changed to בכם Jahn opines that .13בו to Reacting against Cornill, Zimmerli remarks .14הגוים in view of the following בגוים that Cornill's position is not supported by the tradition (meaning probably at least the LXX, Targum, Peshitta and Vulgate) and that Cornill overlooks the fact that v. 21 sees the beginning of an appendix to the Gog oracle in a more general style15. -which oc ,נתן כבוד To look further into the problem, we start with the phrase curs only here in Ezekiel. Elsewhere in the Hebrew Scripture, when the subject of is a human and the indirect object Yahweh, it has a confessional character on נתן is God and נתן the part of the human (e.g.