possible to insert a
"them" after the word "plow" (so NASB) or to insert an adverb "there" (so KJV, NIV).
But actually there is no word in the Hebrew for either "them" or "there"; and it might therefore be better to split off the plural ending - i(y)m from the word beqari(y)m ("oxen") and understand it as the word yam ("sea"). Then the amended clause would read thus:
"Does an ox plow the sea?"--an illustration of futile or senseless procedure, similar to horses running on bare rock. The only problem with this emendation, advocated by the critical apparatus of Kittel's Biblia Hebraica , is that no ancient version or surviving Hebrew manuscript so divides it.
Another textual problem of more far-reaching consequence is the apparent reference to a mysterious "Azazel" in Leviticus 16:8. In the procedure prescribed for the Day of Atonement, the high priest is to cast two lots for the two goats chosen for sacrifice. The NIV reads, "One lot for the Lord and the other for the scapegoat [ àza'zel ]."
24
The MT indicates some otherwise unknown proper name, Azazel, which was explained by the medieval rabbis as a designation of a hairy desert demon. Aaron, then, would be casting a lot for a demon. Now since there is no allowance made for the service or the worship of demons anywhere else in the Torah, it is most improbable that it should appear here (and in the following verses of the same chapter). The obvious solution to this enigma is found in separating the two parts of àza'zel into èz 'azel , that is, the "goat of departure, or dismissal." In other words, as v.10 makes clear, this second goat is to be led off into the wilderness and there let go, thus symbolically bearing away the sins of all Israel from the camp of the Hebrew nation. Unquestionably the LXX so understood it, with its to apopompaio ("for the one to be sent off") and likewise the Vulgate with its capro emissario ("for the goat that is to be sent away"). So if we separate the two words that were improperly fused together in the Hebrew text, we have a reading that makes perfect sense in context, and which does not bring up an otherwise unexampled concession to demonology. In other words, "scapegoat" (KJV, NASB, NIV) is really the right rendering to follow, rather than "for Azazel" (ASV, RSV).
5. Fission
This refers to the improper separation of one word into two. For example, in Isaiah 61:1 the final word in Hebrew is peqah-qah , according to the MT. Apart from this passage, there is no such separate qoah known in the Old Testament, or, indeed, in all Hebrew literature. Even 1QIsa reads this word as one reduplicated stem, pq2 hqwh , and so do many later Hebrew manuscripts. None of the versions indicate an awareness of two words here, but they all translate the Hebrew as "liberation" or "release" or even
"recovery of sight"--relating pqhqwh to the root pqh , which refers to the opening of one's eyes to see clearly. Without doubt, therefore, the hyphen (or maqqef ) should be removed from the text and the word read as a single unit.
Another interesting example of fission is in Isaiah 2:20, where the MT reads lahpor perot ("to a hole of rats"). This is by no means a difficult reading, and it yields satisfactory sense as a proper place for discarding heathen idols. But on the other hand, the 1QIsa reading fuses the two into lhrprm (with a masculine plural ending rather than feminine), which would probably mean "to the field mice." The Theodotion Greek does not know what to make of the word and so simply transcribes it into the meaningless pharpharoth ; but at least it indicates that the Hebrew Vorlage read the two parts as a single word. The meaning would then be that the field mice would do a good job of gnawing to bits the heathen idols discarded in the field by their disillusioned worshipers.
However, it must be admitted that the case for this emendation is not quite conclusive, and it should be regarded as merely a tentative correction.
6.
"them" after the word "plow" (so NASB) or to insert an adverb "there" (so KJV, NIV).
But actually there is no word in the Hebrew for either "them" or "there"; and it might therefore be better to split off the plural ending - i(y)m from the word beqari(y)m ("oxen") and understand it as the word yam ("sea"). Then the amended clause would read thus:
"Does an ox plow the sea?"--an illustration of futile or senseless procedure, similar to horses running on bare rock. The only problem with this emendation, advocated by the critical apparatus of Kittel's Biblia Hebraica , is that no ancient version or surviving Hebrew manuscript so divides it.
Another textual problem of more far-reaching consequence is the apparent reference to a mysterious "Azazel" in Leviticus 16:8. In the procedure prescribed for the Day of Atonement, the high priest is to cast two lots for the two goats chosen for sacrifice. The NIV reads, "One lot for the Lord and the other for the scapegoat [ àza'zel ]."
24
The MT indicates some otherwise unknown proper name, Azazel, which was explained by the medieval rabbis as a designation of a hairy desert demon. Aaron, then, would be casting a lot for a demon. Now since there is no allowance made for the service or the worship of demons anywhere else in the Torah, it is most improbable that it should appear here (and in the following verses of the same chapter). The obvious solution to this enigma is found in separating the two parts of àza'zel into èz 'azel , that is, the "goat of departure, or dismissal." In other words, as v.10 makes clear, this second goat is to be led off into the wilderness and there let go, thus symbolically bearing away the sins of all Israel from the camp of the Hebrew nation. Unquestionably the LXX so understood it, with its to apopompaio ("for the one to be sent off") and likewise the Vulgate with its capro emissario ("for the goat that is to be sent away"). So if we separate the two words that were improperly fused together in the Hebrew text, we have a reading that makes perfect sense in context, and which does not bring up an otherwise unexampled concession to demonology. In other words, "scapegoat" (KJV, NASB, NIV) is really the right rendering to follow, rather than "for Azazel" (ASV, RSV).
5. Fission
This refers to the improper separation of one word into two. For example, in Isaiah 61:1 the final word in Hebrew is peqah-qah , according to the MT. Apart from this passage, there is no such separate qoah known in the Old Testament, or, indeed, in all Hebrew literature. Even 1QIsa reads this word as one reduplicated stem, pq2 hqwh , and so do many later Hebrew manuscripts. None of the versions indicate an awareness of two words here, but they all translate the Hebrew as "liberation" or "release" or even
"recovery of sight"--relating pqhqwh to the root pqh , which refers to the opening of one's eyes to see clearly. Without doubt, therefore, the hyphen (or maqqef ) should be removed from the text and the word read as a single unit.
Another interesting example of fission is in Isaiah 2:20, where the MT reads lahpor perot ("to a hole of rats"). This is by no means a difficult reading, and it yields satisfactory sense as a proper place for discarding heathen idols. But on the other hand, the 1QIsa reading fuses the two into lhrprm (with a masculine plural ending rather than feminine), which would probably mean "to the field mice." The Theodotion Greek does not know what to make of the word and so simply transcribes it into the meaningless pharpharoth ; but at least it indicates that the Hebrew Vorlage read the two parts as a single word. The meaning would then be that the field mice would do a good job of gnawing to bits the heathen idols discarded in the field by their disillusioned worshipers.
However, it must be admitted that the case for this emendation is not quite conclusive, and it should be regarded as merely a tentative correction.
6.
Similar Books
