In this post, I offer a new solution to an old textual crux. The first part of Deut 32:5, read in five major translations (NJPSV, NRSV, REB, NAB, and NJB), is translated in five, remarkably different ways - none of which convinces. Still, with the help of text-criticism, half of which is really the science of human error, a plausible solution is proposed below.
The apparatus to Deut 32:5 in the
OHB sample reads:
32:5 שִׁחֲתוּ֥ [sic: should read שחתו ] SP G (ἡμάρτοσαν) T (חבילו) S (ܚܒܠܘ) V (peccaverunt)
] שִׁחֵת [sic: should read שחת] M (assim num) § || לו לא M [sic: to add: sim V (ei et non)] לא לו SP G (οὐκ αὐτῷ) T (לא ליה) S (ܘܠܐ
ܠܗ ) (metath) § || בניו M] בני SP G (τέκνα) T (בניא) S (ܒܢܝܐ ) (gram) § || בניו ] + מומם M sim SP (מום) G (μωμητά) [sic:
to add, per Crawford’s text-critical commentary: S (ܪܡܘܡܐ) T (לטעותא) V (in sordibus) ] (explic) §
The apparatus to Deut 32:5 in BHQ 5
reads:
32:5 שִׁחֵ֥ת ל֛וֹ לֹ֖א בָּנָ֣יו
מוּמָ֑ם (em scr) │ διέφθιεραν αὐτῷ οὐχ υἱοί αὐτοῦ α′ σ′ V [sic;
should be (V)] │ שחתו לא לו
בני מום Smr G [sic; should be (G)] S
[sic; should be (S)] TSmr (facil) │ חבילו להון לא לה בניא דפלחו לטעותא TO
(midr) │ חבילו עובדיהון טביא בניא חביבייא אשתכח מומא
בהון TJ (TNF) (midr) ║ pref שִׁחֵ֥ת ל֛וֹ לֹ֥א בָּנָ֖יו מוּמָ֑ם
With respect to שחת vs. שחתו, BHQ
prefers the more difficult reading. OHB suggests that שחת sg assimilates to the sg of 32:7 following. But it
is more likely that שחתו pl assimilates to the pls of 32:3 and
32:6.
OHB and BHQ differ in their explanation of לו לא vs. לא לו - as for לו ולא* V and לא ולו* S, they are not discussed, but
they are secondary in any case. For OHB, it is a case of metathesis; in BHQ’s
terminology, a transposition. For BHQ, it is a case of trying to avoid a text
that is scandalous or derogatory. But this cannot be correct. Smr in context
reads: ‘Those not his dealt corruptly – children of blemish, / a perverse and
crooked generation. // How could you . . .?’ This is no less harsh than the
test preserved in MT. On the other hand, BHQ acutely notes that MT’s accents
read the underlying text against the grain so as to avoid a derogatory
construal. BHQ actually provides an alternative accentuation.
With respect to בניו vs. בני, BHQ regards the latter as a facilitation. OHB
thinks it may have “crept in, brought about by loss of ו by haplography (perhaps), then retained because
it made better grammatical sense.” OHB’s explanation is more exact. All other
things being equal, the explanation of mechanical error rather than intentional
change is to be preferred.
OHB and BHQ
regard מומם M sim SP (מום) similarly: a “gloss” (BHQ); an “explicating plus” (OHB), but
BHQ does not “prefer” the reading because no extant witness omits it. Along
with Dillmann, Craigie, and Tigay (see OHB’s excellent commentary), I don’t
think the item should be thus explained. Explicating plusses – the ones we know
from the textual history of Jer and Ezek, e.g. – are clarificatory. The
presumed addition of מום or מומם to the remainder of the text makes a difficult text more
difficult still.
Here is my
take on the lemma:
*בניו
אמונם ] M בניו מומם (err-phonol [hapl] +
err-graph/ phonol [similar sonorants/ graphs]) │ V (filii ejus in
sordibus) (interp of מומם) │ SP (בני מום) S ( ܒܢܝܐ
ܪܡܘܡܐ ) G (τέκνα μωμητά) T (בניא דפלחו לטעותא) (hapl of ו in בניו after י and מ in מומם before/after מ)
On this
reconstruction, א disappeared through aphaeresis, and נ morphed into מ. Tigay (per OHB) conjectured
similarly, but he emended throughout 32:5a, which inevitably cast doubt
on his core proposal. For אמון sg., cf. Deut 32:20. For the
syntax and sense of שחת per this reconstruction, cf. Am
1:11; Num 32:15. The sense of the whole: “His no-sons made an end to their
loyalty towards him.”
I treatמומם with בניו as a textual unit; otherwise, variation
across the Hebrew witnesses and the versions is impossible to follow. OHB would
be more user-friendly if it did likewise; as it stands, the quotation of versional evidence does not always provide necessary context. BHQ runs into other problems. Note that
διέφθιεραν αὐτῷ οὐχ υἱοί αὐτοῦ at the beginning of the lemma is missing elements with
respect to its head שִׁחֵ֥ת ל֛וֹ לֹ֖א בָּנָ֣יו
מוּמָ֑ם.
John, I wonder if there is anyone else in the blogosphere (except perhaps for a few speakers of closely related languages) who puts untransliterated Syriac into their blog posts?
Posted by: Peter Kirk | February 27, 2008 at 05:53 PM
I like the Syriac. I can never get Word to connect the letters correctly when I try to type in it. I'm envious of your erudition, John. Very nice.
Posted by: Jim Getz | February 27, 2008 at 09:26 PM
The Syriac didn't come through for me. I'm on Firefox 2.0.0.12 (Macintosh) with the character encoding set for UTF-8. The Hebrew and Greek worked fine.
SPEdessa and Peshitta fonts are installed. I'm not sure if they are Unicode fonts.
Do you have any idea how I can get Firefox to exhibit Syriac on your blog?
Posted by: learnfrenchwiththebible | February 27, 2008 at 10:42 PM
If you have "Estrangelo Edessa" installed then Firefox should display the Syriac for you. At least, it does for me
Posted by: syriac_helper | February 28, 2008 at 03:14 AM
Jim,
Syriac connects up fine in Word for me - almost always - but when I transfer it into html, it sometimes disconnects (note benaya above; connected the first time, but not the second, and I can't seem to fix it).
Posted by: JohnFH | February 28, 2008 at 07:14 AM
I tinkered a bit more with the post, and straightened out the Syriac connections. Don't ask me how.
Posted by: JohnFH | February 29, 2008 at 10:20 AM
As for the אשר לו לא: The crucial misunderstanding is that the Masoretic oral tradition is not analysed separatelly from the consonantal text (as I strive in my dissertation). If done so, You'll see that it is to be read exactly the opposite as the consonants do (see the accentuation; the "vocalization" of לו and לא is, obviously, homophonic!). No wonder, however, that it conforms to the Targum...
As for the original form: a) it can be a "double reading" (as a result of some "midrashic" process); but not necessarilly. I'd rather see לא לו as original (i.e. the masoretic version, i.e. that of the accentuation and Targum) and לא לו as a reinterpretation of the scribe.
Posted by: Petr Tomášek (Prague) | September 08, 2011 at 02:28 PM