THE MASORETIC and SEPTUAGINT TEXTS of EZEKIEL 39,21-29 While

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 attention 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 translation 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 concludes with the restoration of Israel4, (b) 39,17-24 is a section on the great sacrificial 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auf Grund der Septuaginta hergestellt, Leipzig, 1905, pp. 270-271; H.v.D. PARUNAK, Structural Studies in Ezekiel, unpublished Ph.D. Diss., Harvard University, 1978, pp. 505-506. 5.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 between 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. 1 Sam 6,5)16, and when the subject of -takes up the meaning of “hon כבוד with human as the indirect object, the word נתן כבודי our” (e.g. 1 Kgs 3,13; 2 Chr 1,12; Ps 84,12; Prov 26,8). The phrase with God as subject occurs only three times in the Hebrew Bible: Ez 39,21; Is וכבודי לאחר לא In both Isaian passages, we find the expression .48,11 ;42,8 In these two cases, the glory of God is not given to another, which in their .17אתן ,גוים and the כבוד contexts refers to idols and images18. In cases involving God’s it is often said that the nations will see the glory of God (e.g. Is 66,18), or one is urged to declare the glory of God among the nations (e.g. Ps 96,3; Is 66,19). But

12. BLOCK, Ezekiel 25–48 (n. 6), p. 480. 13. CORNILL, Das Buch des Propheten Ezechiel, Leipzig, 1886, pp. 430-431. 14. JAHN, Ezechiel (n. 4), p. 270. 15. ZIMMERLI, Ezechiel (n. 6), p. 932. .in TWAT IV:23-42, p. 27 ,כבוד ,M. WEINFELD .16 17. The case of Is 48,11 has some striking parallels with Ezekiel. In Is 48,9-11, Yahweh explains that he has refrained from exterminating his people for the sake of his own name. This is precisely the same argument in Ez 20,8-9; 36,21-23. In Is 48,11, the profaning of does not appear in the Hebrew. This also שׁם the name of God is implied although the word echoes in Ezekiel. See R.N. WHYBRAY, Isaiah 40–66 (NCB), London, 1975, pp. 129-130. 18. K. ELLIGER, Deuterojesaja (BKAT, XI/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1978, pp. 237-238; J.L. KOOLE, Jesaja II (COT), Kampen, 1985, pp. 164-165. THE MASORETIC AND SEPTUAGINT TEXTS OF EZ 39,21-29 133 no where does the Bible says that God gives19 his glory to the nations except here in Ez 39,21. as בגוים It is possible, though not very likely, that the translator wrongly read It is more likely that the translator found the Hebrew expression .בכם uncongenial and changed it. As we have just pointed out above, not only is the with God as subject rare, the idea that God gives his glory to the נתן כבודי phrase nations is unique in the Hebrew Bible. It would be strange for pious Jews to see that God gives his glory to the Gentiles. More often, God’s glory is only for Is- rael. For example, in a vision in Zech 2,8-9, God promises that he will be glory in the midst of Jerusalem which shall be inhabited “as villages without walls”. This description of Jerusalem can also be found in Ez 38,11. In Ez 40–48, the return of In the case of .כבוד Yahweh to the future temple is depicted as the return of his Ez 39,21 here, the translator could have deliberately changed the Hebrew to ên üm⁄n, referring to God’s giving his glory to or among the Israelites. In the Hebrew, God’s giving of his glory to the nations is associated with his punishment inflicted on the nations (v. 21b). This shows some similarity to what is said elsewhere in Ezekiel that whenever God is said to “show himself holy in/ through” a foreign nation, this means that God executes judgment upon that na- ב with God as subject plus קדשׁ tion. This is expressed by the use of the niphal of with pronomial suffix referring to the nation/s (28,22 and 38,16; cf. the use of hitpael in 38,23). However, when the same expression is used with the suffix referring to Israel, it takes up a positive meaning, referring to God’s salvific action in favour of Israel (20,41; 28,25; 36,23; 39,27). Thus, the Greek rendering would also imply a change from a negative action of God with respect to the nations to a positive action of God with respect to Israel. here. As an object of a משׁפט We shall also mention briefly the translation of -In these 26 cases, the trans .עשׂה occurs 26 times, mainly as object of משׁפט ,verb lation varies. It is omitted in 11,12 (where the main part of the verse is a minus in the Greek), and the rest is translated as follows: (a) dikaíwma in 5,6.7; 11,20; 18,9; 20,11.13.18.19.21.24.25. (b) kr⁄ma in 5,8; 18,5.8.27; 23,24; 33,14.16.19.27; 45,9. (x) dikaiosúnj in 18,17.19.21. (d) krísiv only in 39,21. -has been regularly translated as kr⁄ma kaì dikaio משׁפט וצדקה The expression súnj except in 18,19.21 where we have dikaiosúnj kaì ∂leov. The use of krísiv is quite exceptional. Elsewhere in the LXX, krísiv is often used to trans- .(ריב However, in Ezekiel krísiv occurs only in 39,21 and 44,24 (for .משׁפט late It is thus possible that the translation of 39,21 was made at a later time.

(b) Ez 39,22 kaì gnÉsontai o¤kov Israjl ºti êgÉ eîmi וידעו בית ישׂראל כי אני יהוה אלהיהם kúriov ö ‡eòv aût¬n âpò t±v ™mérav מן-היום ההוא והלאה taútjv kaì êpékeina. to be “to give”. However, it has been argued that נתן We have taken the meaning of .19 the word can also have the connotation of “to bring upon” and “to pour out”. Thus, in case of Ez 39,21, it can be translated as “I will pour out my glory over the nations”, or as “I will pour out my glory before, in the sight of, the nations”. See H.J. VAN DIJK, A Neglected Connotation of 3 Hebrew Verbs, in VT 18 (1968), pp. 25, 29. 134 K.L. WONG

This verse shows that God’s punishment of the nations aims at bringing about a knowledge of Yahweh on the part of Israel20 from “that day forward”. We will מן-היום ההוא והלאה examine the slight change brought to the Hebrew expression by the Greek translator. and some variations of them occur a total of ,היום ההזה ,היום ההוא The phrases Note that in .הוא היום אשׁר … times in Ezekiel. We also have in 39,8 the phrase 20 could refer to a future time (e.g. 38,10) or the היום ההוא Ezekiel, the expression occurs הלאה past (e.g. 38,17), although the former occurs more often. The word in five cases22. Its general יום times in the Hebrew Bible21 and links with 16 הלאה meaning is “further” or “beyond” said of time or place23. Twelve times is rendered by êpékeina (with the exception of Gen 19,9; Num 17,2; Is 18,7; Am in Ezekiel deserves some attention היום ההוא The translation of phrases like .(5,27 and is given below: wv t±v sßmeron ™mérav∏ 2,3 עד עצם היום הזה ên êkeínjÇ t±Ç ™méraç 20,6 ביום ההוא wv t±v sßmeron ™mérav∏ 20,29 עד היום הזה wv t±v sßmeron ™mérav∏ 20,31 עד היום Absent in LXX 23,38 ביום ההוא Absent in LXX 23,39 ביום ההוא t±v ™mérav taútjv 24,2 עצם היום t±v ™mérav t±v sßmeron 24,2 בעצם היום הזה ên êkeínjÇ t±Ç ™méraç 24,26 ביום ההוא ên êkeínjÇ t±Ç ™méraç 24,27 ביום ההוא ên t±Ç ™méraç êkeínjÇ 29,21 ביום ההוא ên t±Ç ™méraç êkeínjÇ 30,9 ביום ההוא ên t±Ç ™méraç êkeínjÇ 38,10 ביום ההוא ên t±Ç ™méraç êkeínjÇ 38,14 ביום ההוא ên ta⁄v ™méraiv êkeínaiv 38,17 בימים ההם ên t±Ç ™méraç êkeínjÇ 38,18 ביום ההוא ên t±Ç ™méraç êkeínjÇ 38,19 ביום ההוא … aÀtj êstìn ™ ™méra 39,8 הוא היום אשׁר… ên t±Ç ™méraç êkeínjÇ 39,11 ביום ההוא âpò t±v ™mérav taútjv 39,22 מן היום ההוא ên t±Ç ™méraç êkeínjÇ 40,1 בעצם היום הזה ên êkeínjÇ t±Ç ™méraç 45,22 ביום ההוא That there is a minus in LXX in 23,38.39 is generally taken to indicate the sec- -which is inserted for theologi ,ביום ההוא ondary character of the Hebrew phrase

20. For a discussion of the so-called recognition formula, see W. ZIMMERLI, Ich bin Yahweh, in Gottes Offenbarung. Gesammelte Aufsätze I (Theologische Bücherei, 19), Mün- chen, 1969, pp. 11-40; ID. Erkenntnis Gottes nach dem Buche Ezechiel, in Gottes Offen- barung. Gesammelte Aufsätze I (Theologische Bücherei, 19), München, 1969, pp. 41-119; P. JOYCE, Divine Initiative and Human Response in Ezekiel (JSOT SS, 51), Sheffield, 1989, pp. 89-95; F. SEDLMEIER, Studien zu Komposition und Theologie von Ezechiel 20, Stutt- gart, 1990, pp. 297-309; M. VERVENNE, The Phraseology of “Knowing YHWH” in the Hebrew Bible: A Preliminary Study of Its Syntax and Function, in J. VAN RUITEN – M. VERVENNE (eds.), Studies in the Book of Isaiah. FS W.A.M. Beuken (BETL, 132), Leuven, 1997, pp. 467-492. A study on the Greek rendering of the formula can be found in L.J. MCGREGOR, The Greek Text of Ezekiel: An Examination of Its Homogeneity (SCS, 18), Atlanta, GA, 1985, pp. 97-101. 21. Gen 19,9; 35,21; Lev 22,27; Num 15,23; 17,2; 32,19; 1 Sam 10,3; 18,9; 20,22.37; Is 18,2.7; Ez 39,22; 43,27; Am 5,27; Jl 22,19. 22. Lev 22,27; Num 15,23; 1 Sam 18,9; Ez 39,22; 43,27. 23. HALAT, p. 235. THE MASORETIC AND SEPTUAGINT TEXTS OF EZ 39,21-29 135 cal reasons: to show that the cult of Yahweh is different from the idolatry wor- ship24, or to emphasise that the defiling idolatry and the entering into Yahweh’s sanctuary occur on exactly the same one day25. Our concern here in 39,22 is that the Greek reads âpò t±v ™mérav taútjv instead of the expected âpò t±v ™mérav êkeínjv. Something similar occurs in 39,8 where we would expect êkeínj êstìn ™ ™méra. The effect of this slight change is that the event is no longer seen to be far away in the future, but is com- paratively near at hand26. At the time when the LXX was made, the idea of Gog had became more common. This can be seen, for instance, when the less familiar in Num 24,7 is translated by GÉg in the Greek27, and in Am 7,1, the אגג name is rendered as GÉg28. The point is that by changing êkeínjv to גזי Hebrew taútjv, with the background that the idea of Gog had become more common, the translator saw the Gog-event as something near to his time, and it was no longer seen as belonging to the distant indefinite future29.

(c) Ez 39,23 kaì gnÉsontai pánta tà ∂‡nj ºti dià tàv ämartíav וידעו הגוים כי בעונם גלו בית-ישׂראל aût¬n ©Çxmalwteú‡jsan o¤kov Israjl, ân‡ˆ ˜n על אשׁר מעלו-בי ואסתר פני מהם étjsan eîv êmé, kaì âpéstreca tò próswpón‡© ואתנם ביד צריהם ויפלו בחרב כלם mou âpˆ aût¬n kaì parédwka aûtoùv eîv xe⁄rav t¬n êx‡r¬n aût¬n, kaì ∂pesan pántev maxaíraç.

There are various differences between the Hebrew and the Greek. The first one appears 87 times in גוים by pánta tà ∂‡nj. The word הגוים is the rendering of כל Ezekiel, all referring to non-Israel nations except in 37,22. The expression כל גוים רבים ,only in 26,3 and 38,23 גוים רבים ,occurs only in 25,8 and 39,21 הגוים which is ungrammatical because of the ,הגוים רבים only in 31,6. The expression .occurs only in 39,27 ,רבים in ה lacking of the definite article is regularly translated by ∂‡nov except in 20,41 where גוי In Ezekiel, the word we have laóv. However, ∂‡nov is found there in P967. Apart from that, we have the following anomalies in the LXX: (1) The word ∂‡nov is omitted in the LXX in 2,3; 5,14 (where LXX reads ‡ugatérav); 7,24 (where 7,24a is missing); 11,12 (where 11,12b is missing); 25,10; 31,17 and 36,15 (where 36,15c is a repetition of 36,14b which is retained in LXX). was hier wie in V.39 in LXX fehlt, ist ביום ההוא“ :Cf. JAHN, Ezechiel (n. 4), p. 169 .24 hinzugesetzt, um den Jahwecultus von dem mit Menschenopfern verbunden zu unter- scheiden”. 25. ZIMMERLI, Ezechiel (n. 6), pp. 534-535. For a discussion of such a practice, see G. ROBINSON, The Prohibition of Strange Fire in Ancient Israel, in VT 28 (1978) 301-317. 26. BDAG, p. 740. 27. S.H. HOOKE, Gog and Magog, in ExpT 26 (1914/15) 317-319, p. 318, holds rather that the true Hebrew reading is Gog, “as Agag offers no intelligible sense”. But J.W. WE- VERS, Notes on the Greek Text of Numbers (SCS, 46), Atlanta, GA, 1998, p. 405, holds correctly that this rendering refers “no longer to a historical figure in the early days of Isra- el’s kingship but to the eschatological hopes embodied in the (mythical) figure of Gog from the land of Magog”. 28. F.I. ANDERSEN – D.N. FREEDMAN, Amos (AB, 24A), New York, 1989, p. 742, suggest the possibility that the text is interpreted “allegorically and apocalyptically”. 29. For a recent study on the “actualisation” of the Septuagint, see A. VAN DER KOOIJ, The Oracle of Tyre: The Septuagint of Isaiah XXIII as Version and Vision (SVT, 71), Leiden, 1998. 136 K.L. WONG is rendered לעיני הגוים In 28,25, the translation is irregular where the phrase (2) is consistently עם as ênÉpion t¬n la¬n kaì t¬n ê‡n¬n. In view of the fact that -although this ex ,לעיני העמים והגוים rendered by laóv, the Vorlage seems to read is העמים pression never occurs in Ezekiel. So it is more likely that the word added later in view of 28,25a and subsequently taken over into Greek. More interesting in our case is the translation found in Ez 38–39. All the oc- :and its translations within Ez 38–39 are given below גוים currences of âpò ê‡n¬n poll¬n 38,12 מגוים pánta tà ∂‡nj 38,16 הגוים ê‡n¬n poll¬n 38,23 גוים רבים pánta tà ∂‡nj 39,7 הגוים 39,21a ên üm⁄n בגוים 39,21b pánta tà ∂‡nj כל גוים pánta tà ∂‡nj 39,23 הגוים t¬n ê‡n¬n 39,27 הגוים רבים ên to⁄v ∂‡nesi 39,28 אל הגוים

There is an exact translation in 38,23; 39,21b.28. In four cases, namely, 38,12.16; 39,7.23, we can see that the Greek translation shows an intensification or “exaggeration” of the situation by the addition of poll¬n to ê‡n¬n or pánta to ∂‡nj. We might infer from these cases that the translator wanted to provide a more impressive picture of the battle against Gog. This exaggeration is made within Ez 38–39 with the exception of 39,21a.27.28. We have already dealt with the case of 39,21a, where we argued that the change was motivated by theological reasons. The translation of the ungrammatical expression in 39,27 seems to be contrary to this “exaggeration” tendency. However, in this case, P967 reads ê‡n¬n poll¬n. Thus, in view of the “exaggeration” occurs elsewhere, it is more likely and it was translated by הגוים that in 39,27 the Vorlage of the Greek reads only the same sort of “exaggeration” as attested by P967. Then either the Greek text was revised later, or more probably poll¬n was dropped out accidentally by was רבים homoioteleuton with its preceding ê‡n¬n. In the Hebrew text, when added later (probably under the influence of of 38,23), it was not fully assimi- lated into the text grammatically30. This consideration would imply a change in the reading in Ziegler’s critical edition. That there is no “exaggeration” in 39,28 remains the only case that cannot be easily accounted for. ,מעל A second point regarding the Greek is concerned with the translation of whose occurrences and translations within Ezekiel are given below31: toÕ parapese⁄n paráptwma 14,13 למעל מעל parépeson paraptÉmati 15,8 מעלו מעל LXX reads differently 17,20 מעלו אשׁר מעל בי ên t¬ç paraptÉmati aûtoÕ, ˜ç parépese 18,24 במעלו אשׁר מעל ên to⁄v paraptÉmasin aût¬n, ên oﬁv parépeson eîv êmé 20,27 במעלם בי מעל (étjsan eîv êmé (P967 reads moi‡© 39,23 מעלו בי t®n âdikían, ¯n ©díkjsan 39,26 כל מעלם אשׁר מעלו בי

,see JAHN, Ezechiel (n. 4), p. 272; COOKE ,רבים For the additional character of .30 Ezekiel (n. 6), p. 424; ALLEN, Ezekiel 20–48 (n. 6), p. 202. ZIMMERLI, Ezechiel (n. 6), p. כל could be justified on the basis of the Hebrew expression ה asks whether the article ,932 ,is seen as a fixed expression גוים רבים in 31,6, which can be understood only if גוים רבים .is probably a secondary gloss רבים although he agrees that 31. McGregor does not include this example in his study, probably because the Hebrew word does not have a good distribution in the three sections of Ezekiel. THE MASORETIC AND SEPTUAGINT TEXTS OF EZ 39,21-29 137

Apart from Ez 39, the translation in is quite regular with the exception of because מעל In 20,27 the plural parépeson is used to render the singular .17,20 whereas in 18,24 ,אבותיכם the subject of the verb in the Hebrew is a plural noun the Greek word is singular because the subject of the Hebrew word is singular. This translation of 20,27 shows that the translator had vocalised the text as the Masoretic text. However, the text could be vocalised differently by -as a substan מעל as an infinitive with pronominal suffix and במעלם treating tive32. appears only in later layers ַמ ַעל ָמ ַעל ביהוה Hossfeld suggests that the formula of Ezekiel33. The Greek texts seem to support his argument. Note firstly that the phrase in 17,20 is absent in the LXX. This points to the additional character of is translated by â‡etéw only מעל ,the phrase34. Secondly, elsewhere in the LXX in 1 Chr 2,7; 5,25; 2 Chr 36,14; Neh 1,8 and Dath 9,7, and by âdikéw only in 2 Chr 26,16. These texts are all late. Thirdly, the translation of 39,26 does not seem to correspond exactly to the Hebrew. The translator of 39,26 seems to have read in בי in the Vorlage. This expression is similar to that in 18,24. The מעל אשׁר מעלו 39,26 does not seem to be omitted by the translator for theological reasons be- found in 20,27 and 39,23 is retained in the Greek. Regarding בי cause the same מעל the Hebrew text in 39,26, it may be suggested that the Hebrew was first read .which is similar to the reading in 18,24 and also reflected in the Greek ,אשׁר מעלו and by ,בי and כל Later it was intensified in the Hebrew by the addition of .מעלם to מעל changing which ,נתן ביד The third point to be noted regards the translation of the phrase occurs 15 times within Ezekiel. In ten cases the phrase refers to delivering some- body in the hands of someone else, for good or for bad (7,21; 11,9; 16,39; 21,36; 23,9 [2x].28 [2x]; 31,11; 39,23). In all these cases, the Greek consistently renders the phrase by paradídwmi … eîv xe⁄rav. In 21,16; 23,31 and 30,24.25 -in materiellen Sinn von ‘überreichen’, fast mit der Nuance ‘eigen נתן ביד muß“ händig’ verstanden werden”35. In these four cases, the Greek has another consistent translation: dídwmi … eîv (t®n) xe⁄rav/xe⁄ra. Lastly, in 25,14 the preposi- has an instrumental sense, meaning “by the hand נתן ביד in the phrase ב tion of”36. The Greek rendering is dídwmi … ên xeirí. The difference in the translations does not seem to be due to different translators. Rather, it shows that the translator noticed the nuances of the Hebrew and did not render the text mechani- -be רוח cally. This fact is of some importance when we discuss the translation of low.

32. This is the opinion of E. JENNI, Die hebräischen Präpositionen. Band 1: Die Präposition Beth, Stuttgart, 1992, p. 382. 33. HOSSFELD, Untersuchungen (n. 6), p. 486. Note that on the same page where one in Ezekiel, the scriptural reference “18,14” should read מעל finds a list of occurrences of “18,24”. should מעלו Regarding the Hebrew text, Zimmerli, following Ehrlich, suggests that .34 See .על אשׁר מעלו בי with the additional reason that 39,23 reads על probably be replaced by ZIMMERLI, Ezechiel (n. 6), p. 376 and A.B. EHRLICH, Randglossen zur Hebräischen Bibel, Vol. 5, Hildesheim, 1968 [Reprinted], p. 64. Note that the Greek rendering in Origen’s Hexapla of 17,20 is tjn adikian autou jn jdikjsen en emoi. Thus, we have the same adikia and adikew as in 39,26. .in TWAT V:693-712, p. 699 ,נתן ,E. LIPINSKI .35 compare JENNI, Die Präposition ,ב For our understanding of the various uses of .36 Beth (n. 32), pp. 123, 198-200. 138 K.L. WONG

(d) Ez 39,24

-katà tàv âka‡arsíav aût¬n kaì katà tà ânomß כטמאתם וכפשׁעיהם עשׂיתי אתם ואסתר mata aût¬n êpoíjsa aûto⁄v kaì âpéstreca tò פני מהם próswpón mou âpˆ aût¬n.

In this verse the Greek renders the Hebrew literally and no significant deviations can be found.

(e) Ez 39,25 dià toÕto táde légei kúriov kúriov nÕn âpostrécw לכן כה אמר אדני יהוה עתה אשׁיב t®n aîxmalwsían Iakwb kaì êleßsw tòn o¤kon את-שׁבית יעקב ורחמתי כל-בית .Israjl kaì hjlÉsw dià tò ∫noma tò †gión mou ישׂראל וקנאתי לשׁם קדשׁי occurs ten times in Ezekiel37. With the exception of כל בית ישׂראל The phrase 37,16 and 39,25, all have the consistent translation p¢v (ö) o¤kov (toÕ) Israjl. We shall deal with 37,16 shortly. Now we note that only in 39,25 is the word p¢v omitted in the translation. Some scholars suggest that the original Hebrew reads ,in the Hebrew Bible רחם However, in all the occurrences of .38כל instead of על only twice in Ps 103,13. For the rest, the direct על its direct object is governed by Thus, it .את or is indicated by the object marker רחם object either follows simply was probably first כל Our opinion is that .39על is not likely that the original reads not in the Hebrew but added later. The reason for the addition is that the restoration of Israel implies the union of all tribes, and this can best be expressed by the -as in 20,40; 36,10; 37,11; 45,640. The same idea is ex כל בית ישׂראל phrase to כל pressed here in 39,25. Thus, the text is slightly modified by the addition of indicate that all Israelites are involved. בית We may now briefly mention some anomalies regarding the translation of including 37,16. The translation found in 37,16 is pántav toùv uïoùv ישׂראל ⁄is translated as (oï) uïo בית ישׂראל Israjl. There are three other cases where Israjl: 3,1; 4,3; 12,24. Regarding 37,16 one has to note that the translator basically re-structured the verse, making a parallel between “Judah, and the sons of Israel” and “Joseph, the rod of Ephraim, and all the sons of Israel”. In six cases ;of Israel): 2,3; 35,5; 37,21) בני the Greek reads o¤kov when the Hebrew is 43,7a; 44,9.15. Only in 29,21 is the translation pantì t¬ç o÷kwç. And only in 20,5 translated as o¤kon Israjl. However, o¤kon is omitted בישׂראל is the Hebrew there in P967. In five cases the Greek has no equivalent of the expression: 8,6; 20,13.44; 35,15a; 44,22. -by hjlów is quite regular in the LXX, and more specifi קנא The translation of is used, that the Greek קנא cally in Ezekiel. It is only in Ez 8,3, when the hiphil of in Ezekiel is translated by either tò ∫nomá שׁם קדשׁי has no equivalent. The phrase mou tò †gion (20,39; 36,20.21.22; 39,7 [2x]) or tò ∫noma tò †gión mou (39,25; 43,7.8), without any difference in meaning, although the latter can be said to cor- occurs ten times קנא ל respond more to the form of the Hebrew. The combination

37. 3,7; 5,4; 11,15; 12,10; 20,40; 36,10; 37,11.16; 39,25; 45,6. 38. E.g. A. BERTHOLET, Hesekiel (HAT, 13), Tübingen, 1936, p. 135. is frequently רחם ;על Cf. COOKE, Ezekiel (n. 6), p. 424: “it is not necessary to read .39 followed by the accus.”. 40. Cf. AALDERS, Ezechiël II (n. 6), p. 242. THE MASORETIC AND SEPTUAGINT TEXTS OF EZ 39,21-29 139 elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. The direct object in the Hebrew, when translated in the Greek, is often in either the accusative case (e.g. Jl 2,18; Zech 1,14; 8,2) or the dative case (e.g. Num 11,29; 25,13). The translation here by diá is unique41. The Greek expression dià tò ∫noma tò †gión mou occurs twice more in Ezekiel. and the ואחמל על שׁם קדשׁי The first is found in 36,21 where the Hebrew reads Greek has kaì êfeisámjn aût¬n dià tò ∫nomá mou tò †gion42. The second לשׁם קדשׁי occurs in 36,22, where we have the only other occurrence of the phrase in Ezekiel and there the translation is dià tò ∫nomá mou tò †gion. Note that in which is translated by the dative ,למענכם is לשׁם קדשׁי this verse, the parallel to -does not indicate direct object, but means “be ל üm⁄n43. In 36,22, the preposition cause of, for the sake of”44, and hence diá with the accusative is a correct render- .in 39,25 clearly indicates a direct object45 ל ing. However, the preposition Hence, the translation by diá with the accusative here either shows that the translator understands the phrase as what it means in 36,22, or that the translator wants to harmonise the readings46, or that the translator attempts to emphasise the importance of the holy name of God in related to his action. אדני We may just mention the problem of the translation of the double name which has caused much controversy in discussion on the Septuagint of ,יהוה Ezekiel. We shall not deal with the problem here but refer the readers to some literature47. The comparison between the Greek and the Hebrew of this verse shows that there is some minor development in the Hebrew text. It also indicates that the Greek has deviated from the Hebrew in some instances where these deviations are due more to the translator than to the Vorlage.

(f) Ez 39,26

-kaì lßmcontai t®n âtimían ëaut¬n kaì t®n âdi ונשׂו את-כלמתם ואת-כל-מעלם אשׁר kían, ∞n ©díkjsan, ên t¬ç katoikis‡±nai aûtoùv מעלו-בי בשׁבתם על-אדמתם לבטח êpì t®n g±n aût¬n êpˆ eîrßnjv, kaì oûk ∂stai ö ואין מחריד êkfob¬n.

41. Compare the comment in ZIMMERLI, Ezechiel (n. 6), p. 932. ,is well attested in the Hebrew Bible. See על and חמל Note firstly that combination .42 for instance, Ex 2,6; 1 Sam 15,3; Jer 15,5 and Jl 2,18. The Greek feídomai occurs ten .”whose usual meaning is “to spare חוס times in Ezekiel. In eight times it is used to render whose usual translation in Ezekiel is ,חמל Thus, it seems that here in 36,21, by translating êleéw, as feídomai and adding aût¬n, the translator has shifted the emphasis to the mercy for the people and therefore alleviated the original stress that Yahweh is first concerned for his name but the latter is not neglected as shown in the use of the preposition diá with the accusative. Cf. ZIMMERLI, Ezechiel (n. 6), p. 870. 43. Concerning the Hebrew, ZIMMERLI, Ezechiel (n. 6), p. 870, remarks that the parallel .can also be found in Is 55,5 למען and ל use of 44. HALAT, p. 485. Cf. E. JENNI, Die hebräischen Präpositionen. Band 2: Die Präposition Lamed, Stuttgart, 2000, p. 299. 45. Cf. JENNI, Die Präposition Lamed (n. 44), p. 124. M.F. ROOKER, Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of Ezekiel (JSOT SS, 90), Sheffield, 1990, pp. 97- .to govern a direct object is a use of late biblical Hebrew ל remarks that the use of ,99 46. For a discussion of harmonisations, see E. TOV, The Nature and Background of Harmonizations in Biblical Manuscripts, in JSOT 31 (1985) 3-29. 47. See, for instance, ZIMMERLI, Ezechiel (n. 6), pp. 1250-1258; MCGREGOR, The Greek in Ezekiel and Its Counterpart in the אדני יהוה ,Text of Ezekiel (n. 20), pp. 57-93; J. LUST Old Greek, in ETL 72 (1996) 138-145; J. LUST – K. HAUSPIE – A. TERNIER, Notes to the Septuagint Ezekiel 6, in ETL 76 (2000) 396-403, pp. 396-400. 140 K.L. WONG has caused some discussion among exegetes as to how it should ונשׂו The word .ונשׂאו be read48. The Masoretic vocalisation suggests that it is a defective form of A detailed discussion has been given by Barthélemy49. Suffice to point out the מלו following. Firstly, a similar defective reading is found in 28,16 where -is frequent in Ezekiel, occur נשׂא כלמה Secondly, the phrase .מלאו stands for ring in 16,52.54; 32,24.25.30; 34,29; 36,6.7; (36,15); 39,26; 44,13. In both immediately. Thirdly, the defective שׁוב שׁבות and here, the phrase follows 16,54 reading is supported by the Vulgate, Targum and Peshitta. Fourthly, the word which has similar meaning, appears ,שׁכח is never found in Ez. The word נשׁה only in 22,12 and 23,35 in Ezekiel, both in an accusation of Yahweh against the Israelites. ;the verb is translated by lambánw in 16,52 ,נשׂא כלמה In the expression 32,24; 36,7; 39,26; 44,13; komíhw in 16,52.54; férw in 34,29; 36,6; âpoférw in 32,30; and omitted in 32,25 (probably due to homoioteleuton)50. In 39,26 here, we read lambánw. This is one of the reasons to support the Masoretic vocalisa- but ,ונשׂאו tion. However, Lust suggests that the Vorlage of the Greek was indeed .to give a more hopeful message51 ונשׁו then the Hebrew text was later changed to It is difficult to decide between the options. For those who are more text-critically oriented, the Greek translation lends support to read the Hebrew as a defective form. But for those who pay more attention to the development of the Hebrew text, the Greek text, when properly retroverted, attests to a stage of the Hebrew text in its development to the final form. Lust’s suggestion that one should not separate textual criticism and literary criticism certainly has a point, but indi- vidual cases have to be judged on their own merits. is rendered as ên t¬ç katoikis‡±nai aûtoúv. Out of nine occurrences בשׁבתם in its qal, niphal ישׁב of katoikíhw in Ezekiel, eight times it is used to translate and hiphil forms. McGregor lists the 90 occurrences of ên t¬ç with infinitive in Ezekiel, and he claims that in all but two cases (3,27; 11,13), it correctly renders with the infinitive construct. In these two exceptional cases, the ב the Hebrew An immediate question is whether the converse is true, i.e., is .52כ Hebrew reads with the infinitive construct is rendered in Greek by ên ב it true that the Hebrew t¬ç with infinitive? The answer is negative53. It has been translated as ên with a substantive, an ºte clause, a participle, an infinitive without a preposition, an ™níka clause and some others. In the Appendix we will give all the translations with infinitive construct in Ezekiel which have not been listed ב of the Hebrew by McGregor.

48. See, for example, EHRLICH, Randglossen (n. 34), p. 140; CORNILL, Ezechiel (n. 13), p. 432; SCHUMPP, Ezechiel (n. 6), p. 196; AALDERS, Ezechiël II (n. 6), p. 243. 49. D. BARTHÉLEMY (ed.), Critique textuelle de l'Ancien Testament. Tome 3: Ézéchiel, Daniel et les 12 Prophétes (OBO, 50/3), Göttingen, 1992, pp. 312-313. 50. Cf. ZIMMERLI, Ezechiel (n. 6), p. 815. For a different opinion, see JAHN, Ezechiel (n. 4), p. 232. 51. LUST, The Final Text (n. 2), p. 53. 52. MCGREGOR, The Greek Text of Ezekiel (n. 20), pp. 142-145. His account, however, And it is in 9,8 .כ and not ב is in need of correction. Firstly, in 3,27 the Hebrew does read בהיות Secondly, McGregor misses the case of 6,13 where .ב but not כ that the Hebrew read is translated as ên t¬ç e¤nai. 53. See the analysis in I. SOISALON-SOININEN, Die Infinitive in der Septuaginta (AASF, B 132,1), Helsinki, 1965, pp. 80-93, 188-190. THE MASORETIC AND SEPTUAGINT TEXTS OF EZ 39,21-29 141

.see section (c) above ,כל-מעלם אשׁר מעלו-בי For the translations of the phrase

(g) Ez 39,27

-ên t¬ç âpostrécai me aûtoùv êk t¬n ê‡n¬n kaì suna בשׁובבי אותם מן-העמים וקבצתי gage⁄n me aûtoùv êk t¬n xwr¬n t¬n êx‡r¬n kaì אתם מארצות איביהם ונקדשׁתי בם ,ägias‡ßsomai ên aûto⁄v ênÉpion t¬n ê‡n¬n לעיני הגוים רבים by t¬n êx‡r¬n, P967 does איביהם Although the Greek attests to the Hebrew .איביהם not have t¬n êx‡r¬n. This might point to the additional character of However, it is more probable that t¬n êx‡r¬n was omitted because of homoioteleuton as t¬n êxqr¬n has the same ending as t¬n xwr¬n54. But still, .איביהם rather than איבים the Greek seems to reflect וקבצתי ,בשׁובבי The Hebrew of 39,27 consists of three clauses beginning with plus infinitive construct ב in this order. The structure is therefore ונקדשׁתי and clause, weqatal clause and another weqatal clause. The Greek renders them as ên t¬ç âpostrécai me, kaì sunagage⁄n me and kaì ägias‡ßsomai respectively. That is to say, the structure in Greek is ên t¬ç plus (aorist) infinitive, (present) infinitive and future. It is interesting that the translator renders the first weqatal form as an infinitive and the second as future. This phenomenon appears again elsewhere in Ezekiel. The Hebrew in 20,41 also has a series of three clauses be- in this order. The Greek reads ên t¬ç ונקדשׁתי and וקבצתי ,בהוציאי ginning with êzagage⁄n me, kaì eîsdéxes‡ai and kaì ägias‡ßsomai respectively. The Greek has the structure ên t¬ç plus (present) infinitive, (aorist) infinitive and future, which is basically the same as that of 39,27. Some more examples can be is repeated almost exactly in 33,11 where we בשׁובו … והיה given. The sequence In both cases, the Greek has tò âpostrécai for the Hebrew .בשׁוב … והיה have ב In 3,20; 18,24 and 33,19, the sequence of a .והיה infinitive and h±n aûtón for plus infinitive construct followed by a weqatal is rendered in the Greek by a ên t¬ç plus infinitive followed by an aorist subjunctive. In both 18,26 and 33,18, the plus infinitive construct followed by ב ,.i.e ,בשׁוב … ועשׂה … ומת … Hebrew has two weqatal forms. The Greek of 18,26 has ên t¬ç âpostrécai … kaì poißsjÇ … kaì âpo‡ánjÇ, i.e., ên t¬ç plus infinitive followed by two subjunctives. The Greek of 33,18 reads ên t¬ç âpostrécai … kaì poißsjÇ … kaì âpo‡ane⁄tai, i.e., ên t¬ç plus infinitive followed by subjunctive and then future. The point of this brief discussion is that the weqatal form following an infinitive construct has been rendered differently in the Greek. The reason for adopting different translations is not clear. More studies on the translation of grammatical featues such as verbal forms are needed to arrive at any conclusion55. .see section (c) above ,הגוים רבים For a discussion of

(h) Ez 39,28 kaì gnÉsontai ºti êgÉ eîmi kúriov ö ‡eòv aût¬n וידעו כי אני יהוה אלהיהם בהגלותי .ên t¬ç êpifan±naí me aûto⁄v ên to⁄v ∂‡nesin אתם אל-הגוים וכנסתים על-אדמתם ולא-אותיר עוד מהם שׁם

54. H.S. GEHMAN, Observationes Criticae, in A.C. JOHNSON – H.S. GEHMAN – E.H. KASE, JR. (eds.), The John H. Scheide Biblical Papyri, Princeton, NJ, 1938, p. 137. This is adopted by Ziegler in his critical edition. 55. T.V. EVANS, Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference, Oxford, 2001, provides a study in this direction, but his starting point is on the Greek forms. See also his bibliography for some other related studies. 142 K.L. WONG

בהגלותי The first point to be noted is that against the Masoretic vocalisation of as a hiphil form, the Greek reading ên t¬ç êpifan±naí me suggests a vocalisation of a niphal form. However, both forms are highly unusual in Ezekiel56. Secondly, we have noted above that it is only here within Ez 38–39 that we .”without any “exaggeration הגוים have a translation of Thirdly, v. 28b is a minus in the Greek. Regarding this, Lust proposes the fol- appears כנס lowing argument57. Agreeing with Hurvitz, Lust holds that the verb in late books such as Ecclesiastes, Esther, Nehemiah and Chronicles, and it pre- vails in Mishnaic Hebrew and Aramaic58. Thus, its presence indicates lateness and betrays the additional character of the verb and its immediate context. occurs three times in Ezekiel, namely, 6,8; 12,16 and יתר Moreover, the verb 39,28. In the first two cases, the context is an oracle of doom and the verb has a negative connotation. This is different from that in 39,28 where there is an oracle of salvation and the verb has a positive connotation. Moreover, the idea that God will leave no one behind in the day of restoration cannot be found elsewhere in the Hebrew text. The only exception is Zech 10,10, but only in the LXX. This idea probably originated in the intertestamental period. This again shows the lateness of the Hebrew text59. This consideration of the lateness of the Hebrew text is of much importance in explaining this longer minus in the Greek text. In this case, the conclusion is that v. 28b is a late addition which did not exist in the Vorlage of the LXX.

(i) Ez 39,29

-kaì oûk âpostrécw oûkéti tò próswpón mou âpˆ aû ולא-אסתיר עוד פני מהם אשׁר t¬n, ân‡ˆ ˜n êzéxea tòn ‡umón mou êpì tòn o¤kon שׁפכתי את-רוחי על-בית ישׂראל Israjl, légei kúriov kúriov נאם אדני יהוה

.by tòn ‡umón mou רוחי The major problem of this verse is the rendering of here could be either a relative pronoun60, or have a temporal or אשׁר The word causal meaning. In the temporal sense, it can mean either “when”, or “after”, or “once”61. Most scholars hold that it has the causal meaning62. In the causal sense,

56. See further LUST, The Final Text (n. 2), p. 51, n. 12. 57. LUST, The Final Text (n. 2), pp. 49-50. 58. In his article, LUST, The Final Text (n. 2), p. 49, seems to regard 39,27a and 39,28b -However, the former verb be .כנס with קבץ as parallel or repetitious and hence contrast longs to the so-called “gather” expression and the latter verb the “return” expression. And -is used. For a de בוא in the “return” expressions used elsewhere in Ezekiel, the hiphil of tailed discussion of these expressions, see J. LUST, ‘Gathering and Return’ in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, in P.-M. BOGAERT (ed.), Le livre de Jérémie (BETL, 54), Leuven, 1981, pp. 119- 142. 59. LUST, The Final Text (n. 2), pp. 50-51. 60. A. VAN DEN BORN, Ezechiël (BOT, 11), Roermond, 1954, p. 232; POHLMANN, Hese- kiel (n. 6), p. 509; NEB. 61. The meaning “when” is held by RSV and NRSV; “after” is supported by SCHUMPP, Ezechiel (n. 6), p. 196; ZIMMERLI, Ezechiel (n. 6), p. 924; “once” is suggested by ALLEN, Ezekiel 20–48 (n. 6), p. 199. HOSSFELD, Untersuchungen (n. 6), p. 430, also reads it in a temporal sense, referring to anteriority. 62. The causal sense is accepted by R. KRAETZSCHMAR, Das Buch Ezechiel (HKAT, III 3/1), Göttingen, 1900, p. 261; P. HEINISCH, Das Buch Ezechiel (HSAT, VIII 1), Bonn, 1923, p. 190; COOKE, Ezekiel (n. 6), p. 424; P. AUVRAY, Ézéchiel (La Sainte Bible), Paris, 1949, p. 143; AALDERS, Ezechiël II (n. 6), p. 244; G. FOHRER, Ezechiel (HBAT, I 13), THE MASORETIC AND SEPTUAGINT TEXTS OF EZ 39,21-29 143

This is also the .על אשׁר or תחת אשׁר ,יען אשׁר also appears in expressions like אשׁר understanding of the Greek which reads ân‡’ ñ. The expression ân‡’ ñ occurs כה times (mostly in the formula 22 יען times in Ezekiel. It is used to render 30 אשׁר once and תחת אשׁר ,once על אשׁר ,five times יען אשׁר ,(אמר אדני יהוה יען … once. P967 has only little variation: ân‡’ ñ is absent in 21,9 (= 21,4 in LXX), it reads êpeidß in 28,6 and ân‡ˆ oœ in 39,29 instead of ân‡’ ñ. in other combinations שׁפך ,is unique in Ezekiel. However שׁפך רוח The phrase is common in Ezekiel: .in 4,2; 17,17; 21,27; 26,8 שׁפך סללה (a) .in 16,15; 23,8 שׁפך תזנוה (b) .in 21,36; 22,31 שׁפך זעם (c) .in 16,38; 18,10; 22,3.4.6.9.12.27; 23,45; 24,7; 33,25; 36,18 שׁפך דם (d) .in 7,8; 9,8; 14,19; 20,8.13.21.33.34; 22,22; 30,15; 36,18 שׁפך חמה (e) exists only in Jl 3,1.2 where it refers שׁפך רוחי Outside Ezekiel, the expression There we find .שׁפך רוח חן to a hopeful situation in future. In Zech 12,10 we have the connection of the deliverance of Jerusalem from foreign nations and the pour- ing out of the Spirit. This has some similarity with Ez 39,2963. The frequent oc- may lead one to suggest that the original Hebrew of 39,29 שׁפך חמתי currence of to give a more hopeful שׁפך רוחי read that expression which was later changed to .רוח message64. This leads us to a discussion of the word occurs 52 times in Ezekiel and has quite a variety of meanings65. It means רוח breath (e.g. 37,5.8.10), wind that carries forward (e.g. 3,12.14; 8,3; 11,1.24; 43,5), stormy weather (e.g. 13,11.13), the four sides (e.g. 37,9; 42,16.17.18.19.20), the thought of human being (e.g. 11,5; 13,3; 20,32), the spirit of Yahweh (e.g. 11,5; 36,27; 37,1.14; 39,29), the spirit of God (e.g. 11,24), a moving spirit (e.g. 1,12.20), the spirit which is to be given to the human (e.g. 11,19; 18,31; 36,26.27). Of relevancy to us is the meaning “anger”. In Ez 3,14 and 13,13 the is close to anger, the former said of man and the latter said of רוח meaning of God. Outside Ezekiel, the meaning of “anger” can be found in Jdg 8,3; Eccl 10,4; Prov 16,32; Is 25,4; 33,11. ;has been translated as pnoß in 13,1366, ãnemov in 5,10.12 רוח ,In Ezekiel 12,14; 17,10.21; 19,12, ‡umóv in 39,29, and paraphrased in 42,16.17.18.19.20. This list shows that the translator did not simply render the Hebrew into Greek in a mechanical manner. He looked into the use and context of the word and made -by ‡umóv here fur רוח the translation accordingly. To examine the rendering of קנאה ,once עזם ther, we have to note that ‡umóv is used in Ezekiel to translate is רוח ,times. Elsewhere in the LXX 24 חמה six times and אף ,once רוח ,once translated as ‡umóv in Job 15,13; Prov 18,14; 29,11; Zech 6,867; Is 59,19.

Tübingen, 1955, p. 218; BRUNNER, Ezechiel (n. 5), 103; EICHRODT, Ezekiel (n. 6), p. 518; H. LAMPARTER, Zum Wächter bestellt. Der Prophet Hesekiel (BAT, 21), Stuttgart, 21986, p. 273; H.F. FUHS, Ezechiel II 25–48 (NEB, 22), Würzburg, 1988, p. 224; The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, vol. 1, p. 432. 63. H.W. WOLFF, Dodekapropheten 2. Joel und Amos (BKAT, 14/2), Neukirchen- Vluyn, 1969, p. 71. 64. This is suggested by LUST, The Final Text (n. 2), p. 52. 65. HALAT, pp. 1117-1121. See also the discussion in S. TENGSTRÖM – H.-J. FABRY, .in TWAT VII:385-425 ,רוח 66. This rendering can also be found in Gen 7,22; Prov 1,23; 11,13; Is 38,16. 67. In LUST, The Final Text (n. 2), p. 52 n.18, we should have “Zech 6,8” instead of “Zech 9,8”, and “nwh” instead of “mwh”. 144 K.L. WONG

Concerning the translation here in 39,29, Lust asks the question: if the original שׁפך is it possible that the translator would render the Hebrew phrase ,רוח reads -His an ?שׁפך חמתי here as if it were the more stereotyped Ezekielian idiom רוחי swer is negative. The first reason is that the translator of Ezekiel tends to use synonyms instead of increasing stereotyped expressions. The second reason is that if the Vorlage has chapter 37 immediately after chapter 39 as found in P967 68, plays an important role in chapter 37, then it is more likely that רוח and the word .as pneÕma than ‡umóv רוח the translator would have rendered the Hebrew -and trans ,חמתי Hence, Lust suggests that the original Hebrew must have read to give a more positive רוחי lated as tòn ‡umón mou. Later the word is changed to tone69. ,can have the meaning of anger רוח However, we noted above that the word and it has been translated as ‡umóv elsewhere in the LXX. Moreover, the render- ,as noted above, is not mechanical in Ezekiel. Thus, it is not necessary ,רוח ing of as êzéxea tòn ‡umón mou שׁפך רוחי as Lust claims, to hold that the translation of is a case of “increasing stereotyped expression”, for it could well be an interpre- רוח tative translation. That is to say, the translator finds it reasonable to interpret in this case as ‡umóv. This is what we are going to argue. .is supported by the Targum, Peshitta and Vulgate רוח Firstly, the originality of Secondly, to answer the question of what could have prompted the translator to make such an interpretation, we have to look at 39,21-29 again. Zimmerli suggests that vv. 21-22 look back to the Gog oracle, and vv. 23-29 bring the scene back to the basic themes of the prophet’s message. It is treated as an extended expansion of vv. 21-22. When we look at vv. 23-29 more closely, there is a shift Vv. 23-24 looks at the.עתה and לכן of perspective in v. 25 indicated by the use of past sin of Israel and that God hid his face from them. In vv. 25-26, we have a more positive tone. God will return their fortune and they will dwell in their land securely. This continues in vv. 27-28. If we consider v. 29 as a summary state- ment of vv. 23-28, then we find the two perspectives again. The positive one, with a future sense, can be found in v. 29a: God will no more hide his face from them. The negative one, with a past sense, can be found in v. 29b70: in the past, God has poured out his anger on Israel on account of their sin, then in future, God in v. 25 bears לכן will not hide his face from them any more. Note that the use of ân‡ˆ ˜n) in v. 29. Both of them indicate the same =) אשׁר some similarity to the relation between the past negative event and the future positive event. Thirdly, there is an additional reason for saying that the translator interpreted ,as ‡úmov. Lust has argued convincingly that regarding Ez 36-39 רוח the Hebrew the original sequence of chapters in the Hebrew text was Ez 36,1-23b, Ez 38–39, Ez 37. Later Ez 37 was moved to follow Ez 36,1-23b, and Ez 36,23c-38 was added to make a shift from Ez 36 to Ez 3771. The original sequence of chapters is is an x-qatal clause אשׁר שׁפכתי את-רוחי witnessed by P967. Note that the clause indicating past time. In its original sequence, the promise of the giving of the spirit in 36,27 did not yet exist, and the promise of the spirit in 37,14 was yet to

68. See the argument in J. LUST, Ezekiel 36–40 in the Oldest Greek Manuscript, in CBQ 43 (1981) 517-533. 69. LUST, The Final Text (n. 2), p. 52. 70. Some scholars regard this past tense as prophetic past. See TAYLOR, Ezekiel (n. 5), p. 250. And some have translated it by the future perfect tense, i.e., “I shall have poured out…” as in NKJV. 71. LUST, Ezekiel 36–40 (n. 68), pp. 517-533. THE MASORETIC AND SEPTUAGINT TEXTS OF EZ 39,21-29 145

-has a causal meaning and is fol אשׁר come after 39,29. In this case, if the word lowed by an x-qatal clause, then to be consistent in meaning, one has to interpret .”means “when אשׁר as a prophetic past. This would be the same when שׁפכתי שׁפכתי as “after” or “once” can one interpret אשׁר Only when one interprets the as a simple past or perfect. We are now in a better position to consider the Greek ,as ân‡ˆ ˜n, i.e., having a causal meaning אשׁר text. The translator interpreted the as êzéxea which is an aorist form. This interpretation שׁפכתי and translated would not be possible if he had read the text in the context of the original se- as רוח quence of chapters (i.e., Ez 36, 38–39, 37) and interpreted the word “spirit” for the reason just mentioned. The possible solution was to interpret the as ‡umóv. This is made possible especially after he read 36,17-19 where רוח word and in ,ואשׁפך חמתי the motif of uncleanness (36,17) is followed by the phrase שׁפכתי רוחי the same motif of uncleanness (39,24) is followed by ,39,21-29 (39,29)72. The point of these arguments is to show that there is sufficient ground (on basis of translation technique and contextual considerations) to say that the as ‡umóv, and there is no need to interpret רוח translator could interpret the word .as secondary רוח The main discussion in this verse is to explain the use of the Greek word -The conclusion of our argument is differ .רוח qumóv to render the Hebrew word ent from that of Lust’s. Nevertheless, both arguments bear some similarities. Firstly, both are based on some understanding of the use of lexical equivalents in by ‡umóv and the חמה Ezekiel. His is based on the rather consistent translation of rather general observation that the translator of Ezekiel tended to use synonyms instead of increasing stereotyped expressions. Ours is based on the understanding .in Ezekiel רוח of the translation of the word Secondly, both arguments involve some contextual considerations. Both Lust and we agree on the original sequence of chapters in Ez 36–39. His argument is ,רוח based on the fact that Ez 37 follows Ez 39 and in Ez 37 we find the word then the translator would translate it as רוח hence he concludes that if 39,29 had pneÕma. Ours pays more attention to the semantic content of the immediate context.

3. Conclusion

In our study above, we have focused mainly on the lexical correspondence between the Hebrew and Greek texts although grammatical categories are not ex- cluded absolutely. It is time to summarise our findings. First, there are a number of singular uses of words which do not occur elsewhere in the Greek text of Ezekiel. Some examples are the use of krísiv to This points to the possibility .מעל â‡etéw and âdikéw to render ,משׁפט render that the Greek text of this pericope was done later than the rest of the book. Second, the comparison between the Hebrew and the Greek texts shows that the Vorlage of the Greek is not the same as the MT. This can help to identify the various development of the Hebrew text which, in our case here, includes the and ,(כל מעלם אשׁר מעלו בי) and 39,26 (כל בית ישׂראל) minor revisions in 39,25 the long plus in 39,28.

72. ALLEN, Ezekiel 20–48 (n. 6), p. 202. 146 K.L. WONG

Third, regarding the textual criticism of the Greek text, one suggestion is to change Ziegler’s reading of t¬n ê‡n¬n in 39,27 to t¬n ê‡n¬n poll¬n. This suggestion is supported by the reading of P967 (external criticism) and the transla- .(in Ez 38-39 (internal criticism גוים tions of Fourth, although the Greek text can in general be said to be a literal translation, it is by no means a mechanical translation. Due attention has been paid to the nu- Apart .רוח and and the word נתן יד ances in the Hebrew text such as the phrase from translating the text, the translators actually contributed to the text by bringing various modifications to it. This includes the “actualisation” of the text found -exaggeration” of the situa“ ,(מן היום ההוא in 39,22 (âpò t±v ™mérav taútjv for in Ez 38-39, positive interpretation of the גוים tion as shown in the rendering of and 39,28 (ên t¬ç êpifan±naí me for (בגוים Hebrew as in 39,21 (ên üm⁄n for and other minor changes such as that in 39,25 (dià tò ∫noma tò †gión (בהגלותי .(לשׁם קדשׁי mou for It is quite sure that the above-listed features are not limited to this pericope, but can be found throughout the whole book of Ezekiel. A thorough study of the Greek text of Ezekiel should not be limited to considering lexical equivalents, which is the main approach of this paper. Thus, our study should be supple- mented by taking into consideration other grammatical aspects. Syntactic phe- nomena, including the use of prepositions, tenses and aspects should also be taken into account.

Appendix

McGregor has listed all 90 occurrences of the ên t¬ç with infinitive in the LXX of Ez with infinitive ב The Greek Text of Ezekiel, pp. 142-145). 88 of these translate the Hebrew) McGregor .ב instead of כ construct. The two exceptions are 9,8 and 11,13 where we have wrongly claims that the two exceptions are 3,27 and 11,13. Moreover, he omits the case is rendered as ên t¬ç e¤nai. This appendix supplements his list by giving בהיות where 6,13 with the infinitive construct in Ezekiel. For the ב all the other translations of the Hebrew cases of 3,27 and 6,13. See note 52 above.

— 1,12 בלכתן — 1,17 בלכתם — 1,25 בעמדם kaì ên t¬ç lale⁄n 3,27 ובדברי ên t¬ç diaskorpism¬ç 6,8 בהזרותיכם laloÕntov 10,5 בדברו ntov∫ 15,5 בהיותו ºte ¥s‡a 16,22 בהיותך Öçkodómjsav 16,31 בבנוריך ên xarakobolíaç 17,17 בשׁפך ên oîkodom±Ç belostásewn 17,17 ובבנות tò âpostrécai aûtón 18,23 בשׁובו ên to⁄v paraptÉmasin aût¬n 20,27 במעלם ên ta⁄v âparxa⁄v 20,31 ובשׂאת ên to⁄v âforismo⁄v 20,31 בהעביר ên t±Ç örásei 21,34 בחזות êpoíeiv 23,21 בעשׂות ºtan ∂lqjÇ taÕta 24,24 בבואה eîsporeuoménou aûtoÕ 26,10 בבואו ¬ºtan d 26,19 בתתי THE MASORETIC AND SEPTUAGINT TEXTS OF EZ 39,21-29 147 eœrev 27,33 בצאת sunázw 28,25 בקבצי ºtan poißsw 28,26 בעשׂותי ºte êpelábonto 29,7 בתפשׂם pesoÕntai 30,4 בנפל ¬ºtan d 30,8 בתתי — 31,5 בשׁלחו ºte katebíbahon 31,16 בהורדי níka ån âgágw™ 32,9 בהביאי ¬ºtan d 32,15 בתתי ºtan diaspeírw 32,15 בהכותי tò âpostrécai 33,11 בשׁוב poißsw 33,29 בתתי níka ån ∂l‡jÇ™ 33,33 ובבאה toÕ ânagage⁄n 37,13 ובהעלותי toÕ eîsporeúes‡ai 42,9 בבאו toÕ eîsporeúes‡ai 42,12 בבואן eîseleúsontai 42,14 בבאם ºte eîseporeuómjn 43,3 בבאי metà tò suntelésai se 43,23 בכלותך toÕ eîsagage⁄n üm¢v 44,7 בהביאכם kaì ºtan eîsporeújtai 46,9 ובבוא ka‡Ñv ∂zodov 47,3 בצאת ên t±Ç êpistrof±ç 47,7 בשׁובני ên t±Ç planßsei 48,11 בתעות

China Graduate School of Theology Ka Leung WONG 12 Dorset Crescent Kowloon Tong Hong Kong