PART I: GENERAL CONTRIBUTIONS

 

Was the Levite's Concubine Unfaithful or Angry? A Proposed Solution to the Text Critical Problem in Judges 19:2

 

 

William Krisel

Institut Catholique de Paris, France

 

 

---

ABSTRACT

Judges 19:2 poses a text critical problem that has vexed scholars for over a century. According to the MT, the Levite's concubine left her husband and returned to her father's house in Bethlehem because she had "played the harlot against him." According to LXX^A, the woman left her husband because she was "angry with him." However, no other Greek, Latin or Aramaic variant of the verse supports MT or LXX^A. This article proposes a new hypothesis for understanding the relationship among the various textual variants of Judg 19:2. It will be argued that the earliest Vorlage used the verb עבר in the hitpa 'el form which has the meaning "to be furious". This Vorlage is reflected in LXX^A. Later scribes then read the verb עבר in the qal form that has multiple meanings that depend on context. LXX^B translated the verb in Greek with the meaning of "to move on". In contrast, Pseudo-Philo interpreted the verb with the meaning of "to transgress". The MT, which emended "to transgress" to "to play the harlot" , represents the final stage in the redaction process.

Keywords: Judges 19:2, Textual criticism, Septuagint, Pseudo-Philo, Masoretic Text

---

 

 

A INTRODUCTION

Judges 19 tells a gruesome story about the gang rape and murder of a nameless woman identified as the "Levite's concubine." After introducing the two principal characters in the narrative, the text states that the woman left her husband to return to her father's house in Bethlehem (Judg 19:2). The reason for her flight is because, according to certain translations of the verse, "His concubine became angry with him [the Levite]."¹ However, other translations propose: "His concubine played the harlot against him."²Was the woman unfaithful to her husband or did she become angry with him? Clearly, a story that revolves around a common place conjugal disagreement is a very different narrative than a story that describes the consequences of a woman's adultery and abandonment of her husband. While the LXX^A variant of Judg 19:2 (και ώργίσθη αύτω) supports the reading "she became angry with him," the MT variant (וַתִּזְנֶה עָלָיו) supports the reading "she played the harlot against him," The relationship among the various textual variants of this verse has interested scholars for over a century. This article will propose a new text critical analysis that supports the anteriority of the LXX^A version of Judg 19:2 on different grounds than those that have been proposed to date. I will attempt to demonstrate that the Vorlage underlying LXX^A, LXX^B and MT read וַתַתְעַבֵּר (and she was furious); that is, the wayyiqtol third person singular feminine of the verb עבר in the hitpa'el form.³

 

B STATEMENT OF THE TEXT CRITICAL PROBLEM

Judges 19:2 poses a complex text critical problem for two reasons. First, MT is not supported by any other version. Second, AL, B, T and V present variants that differ among themselves.⁴ The challenge is to identify the variant that most closely reflects the earliest Vorlage and to explain how and why different variants evolved. Most text critical scholars take the position that AL reflects the earliest Vorlage but they disagree on the Hebrew verb that underlies the Greek οργίζω (to be angry). George F. Moore argued in 1895 that the Vorlage for the Greek οργίζω probably used a form of the verb אנף (to be angry), which was then corrupted through a scribal inversion of the first two consonants into נאף (to commit adultery), which in turn was then corrected to זנה (to prostitute oneself; to commit fornication; to play the harlot) to reflect the fact that the Levite's woman was a concubine rather than a wife.⁵

Charles F. Burney considered Moore's proposal to be "almost too ingenious" and instead proposed in 1918 that the Vorlage used the verb זנ ח, which was then corrupted into זנ ח as a result of a scribal confusion between the letters ח and ה. Although the verb זנ ח is usually translated to mean "to reject", Burney argued that the verb can, "when used absolutely (cf. e.g. Ps 74:1, 77:8, Lam 3:31) possess the sense 'to be angry' which regularly belongs to the Bab. equivalent zinü [sic]."⁶ Although all attested uses of זנח in the MT are transitive (i.e., take a direct object), Burney argued further that "the verb might be construed with על 'was angry against,' much as the Bab. verb is construed with itti, 'be angry with''"⁷Burney thus took the position that the verb זנ ח has two meanings in Hebrew: "to reject" and "to be angry". Following Burney, BHS emended the lexeme וַתִּזְנֶה (and she played the harlot) to read וַתִּזְנַח, with the hypothesised meaning of "and she was angry". This preferred reading is maintained in the most recent 1997 edition of BHS.⁸

It should be noted that Samuel R. Driver proposed a simplification of Burney's theory in 1950. Driver argued that the Hebrew cognate of the Akkadian zenü (to be angry) was actually זנה rather than זנ ח.⁹ Thus, according to Driver, the verb זנה has two different meanings in Hebrew: to prostitute oneself and to be angry. Dominique Barthélemy follows Driver.¹⁰BHQ Judges¹¹disagrees with BHS and maintains the MT variant וַתִּזְנֶה עָלָיו as the preferred reading. However, BHQ is studiously silent as to how this phrase should be translated. Although Fernandez Marcos presents the positions of Driver or Barthélemy in his monograph, it is not clear whether BHQ is proposing that the MT variant וַתִּזְנֶהעָלָיו should be interpreted to mean (i) "and she played the harlot against him" in accordance with the usual meaning of זנה or (ii) "and she was angry with him" as proposed by Driver and Barthélemy.¹²

The proposal of Burney (followed by BHS) to emend the verb זנה to זנח with the hypothetical meaning of "to be angry," and the proposal of Driver (followed by Barthélemy) to interpret זנה as having a secondary meaning of "to be angry", have two methodological disadvantages. First, they are unable to explain why none of the other principal variants of Judg 19:2 (i.e., B, MT, V and T) supports AL.¹³ Second, they both propose that the Vorlage used a verb, זנ ח or זנה, with a meaning of "to be angry", that cannot be confirmed with reference to any occurrence of these two verbs in the MT.

 

C PROPOSED SOLUTION TO THE TEXT CRITICAL PROBLEM

I will attempt to demonstrate that the Vorlage underlying AL, B and MT Judg 19:2 read וַתַתְעַבֵּר (and she was furious); that is, the wayyiqtol third person singular feminine of the verb עבר in the hitpa'el form. My proposal will be presented in three steps. First, the semantic breadth of the verb עבר as used in MT will be discussed, and in particular, the meaning of the verb in the hitpa'el. Second, it will be argued that a Vorlage using the verb עבר can explain most of the other variants of Judg 19:2 that accord with neither AL nor the MT. Third, an explanation for the shift from the verb עבר in the hypothesised Vorlage to the verb זנה in the MT will be presented.

1 Various Meanings of the Verb 12V in the MT

The verb עבר has a wide semantic range in Hebrew. The qal form of the verb connotes, inter alia, to cross a river, border or boundary; to overstep or transgress; to pass through, to traverse; to pass along, to pass by, to go beyond, to travel.¹⁴ In addition, the hitpa'el form of the verb עבר, which is used eight times in the MT, has, an apparently unrelated meaning: to be arrogant; to be furious, to be angry.¹⁵ When used in the hitpa'el, the verb עבר is intransitive or absolute; it is followed by the preposition בְ in Deut 3:26 and Ps 78:62; by עִּם in Ps 89:39; and by עַל in Prov 26:17. The hitpa'el form of the verb עבר is not used in Aramaic. Instead, T uses the verb רגז to translate the hitpa'el form of the verb עבר in T Deut 3:26; Pss 78:21, 59, 62; 89:38. According to Michael Sokoloff, the Aramaic verb רגז means "to be angry."¹⁶ In my view, the possibility should therefore be considered that the Vorlage underlying the AL variant και ώργίσθη αύτφ in fact read, וַתַתְעַבֵּר עָלָיו, which I propose to translate as "and she was furious with him."

Of the eight occurrences of the hitpa'el form of the verb עבר in the MT, it is likely that six have direct parallels in the LXX).¹⁷ The LXX "translates" the hitpa'el form of the verb עבר in three different ways.¹⁸ The verb ύπεροράω is used in Deut 3:26; Ps 78:59, 62; the verb αναβάλλω in Pss 78:21; 89:38; and the verb παροξύνω in Prov 20:2.¹⁹

As there are only eight occurrences of the hitpa'el form of the verb עבר in the MT (and only six with parallels in the LXX), the variety of translations in the LXX can be interpreted in two ways. First, they add complementary dimensions of meaning to the narrow definition of the hitpa'el form of the verb עבר as "to be arrogant; "to be furious"; to be angry." Second, they indicate that the translators worked from a Vorlage that contained a verb other than the hitpa'el form of the verb עבר. I will consider both hypotheses below.

A comparison of the MT and LXX variants of the verses in which the hitpa'el form of the verb עבר is attested (Deut 3:26; Pss 78:21, 59, 62; 89:38; Prov 20:2) is set out below. The English translation of the LXX verses is that of Philip E. Satterthwaite in NETS;²⁰my proposed translation of the Greek verbs in question are indicated in square brackets. Translations from Hebrew are my own.

 

 

The verb ύπεροράω also means "to disregard," "to despise," "to disdain" according to LEH and "to be willing to part with" according to Muraoka.²¹

Psalm 78 is instructive because the hitpa'el form of the verb 12V occurs three times in the MT version (in verses 21.59.62) and is translated in two different ways in LXX:

 

 

The use of both ύπεροράω and αναβάλλω in LXX Psalm 78 is problematic. In my view, both Greek verbs connote actions that are sufficiently close in meaning to each other to sustain the argument that they translate the hitpa'el form of the verb עבר. The use of different Greek verbs to translate a single Hebrew verb in the same psalm can be explained as a stylistic device. For example, it is possible that the Greek translator thought that αναβάλλω was more appropriate in v. 21 because it created a felicitous parallel with αναβαίνω in the same verse.

Psalm 89:39 is also instructive as it uses a series of three verbs that form part of a semantic field:

 

 

The LXX uses the verb παροξύνω in Prov 20:2 to translate the hitpa'el form of the verb עָבַר:

 

 

The verb παροξύνω also includes the meaning of "to irritate" according to LEH and "to anger" according to Muraoka. It should be noted that the verb παροξύνω is also used 14 times in the LXX to translate the verb נאץ (to spurn; to despise).²²

In conclusion, the rare hitpa'el form of the verb עבר is translated by T with the Aramaic verb רגז (to be angry) and by the LXX in a number of different ways that connote anger, hatred, disdain and rejection. The possibility should therefore be considered that the Vorlage underlying the AL variant, και ώργίσθη αύτω, in fact read, וַתַתְעַבֵּר עָלָיו, which I propose to translate as "and she was furious with him."

2 Other variants of Judges 19:2 support the proposed emendation of זנה with עבר

As discussed, the text critical interpretation of 19:2 is problematic because no other Greek, Aramaic or Latin variant supports the MT or AL variant of the verse. I have argued that the Vorlage underlying AL might have been וַתַתְעַבֵּר עָלָיו (and she was furious with him). I will attempt to demonstrate below that B and Pseudo-Philo support my hypothesis that the Vorlage could have been the verb עבר. Each of these variants will be discussed below.

2a Codex Vaticanus

The B variant of 19:2 differs from both the MT and the A variants:²³

 

 

As there is considerable overlap in meaning between the verbs πορεύω and απέρχομαι in Greek, and both verbs are used most frequently in the LXX to translate the verb הָלַךְ, the seemingly repetitive nature of B Judg 19:2a (και έπορεύθη άπ' αύτοΰ) and B Judg 19:2b (και άπήλθεν παρ' αύτοΰ) is problematic. Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen argues that the use of the verb πορεύω in B Judg 19:2a is a corruption of the verb πορνεύω (to prostitute oneself) as a result of a scribal omission of the letter ν.²⁴ On this theory, B (rather than AL) reflects the Vorlage and accords with the MT. Paul Harlé follows Soisalon-Soininen.²⁵ Importantly, Harlé notes that a scribal confusion of πορνεύω with πορεύω also occurs in AL Judges. In Judg 2:15, B reads, έν πάσιν οίς έξεπορεύοντο (in each case when they went out), which accords with the MT and the obvious context of the passage. Strangely, AL reads έν πάσιν οίς έπόρνευον (in each case when they went whoring). Harlé considers the case of AL Judg 2:15 to be a scribal error due to the paronomasia of the two verbs.²⁶

I disagree with the positions of Soisalon-Soininen and Harlé for three reasons. First, the B variant of Judg 19:2a reads, και έπορεύθη άπ' αύτοΰ. If the verb πορεύω is a corruption of πορνεύω as proposed, the original phrase would have read, και έπορνεύθη άπ' αύτοΰ. Second, the use of the preposition άπό following the verb πορνεύω is not attested in the LXX. In contrast, the preposition άπό can follow πορεύω.²⁷ Third, the LXX translates the verb זנה in two ways: πορνεύω and έκπορνεύω. The former is used 13 times and the latter, 39 times. The verb πορνεύω has a rather limited distribution.²⁸ In contrast, the 39 occurrences of έκπορνεύω are more widely distributed, being used, inter alia, in every book of the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets (Joshua to Kings), including three times in Judges. In the case of Judges, both A and B use έκπορνεύω rather than πορνεύω. For these reasons, it is more likely that B would have used έκπορνεύω rather than πορνεύω in B Judg 19:2a

If my hypothesis is correct that the B variant, και έπορεύθη άπ' αύτοΰ, is not a scribal corruption of the verb πορνεύω, it must then be determined what verb was used in the Vorlage underlying the B text. The verb πορεύω is used in the LXX most frequently to translate הלך (to walk; to go). However, it is unlikely the Vorlage of B Judg 19:2a^A used הלך because MT uses the verb הלך in the immediately following phrase in Judg 19:2a^B, וַתֵּלֶךְ מֵּאִּתוֹ אֶל־בֵּית אָבִּיהָ (and she went away from him to her father's house). However, the qal verb עבר is also translated with πορεύω in LXX Josh 3:4; 15:4; Judg 12:1; 2 Sam 15:18, Isa 33:15; 34:10; 62:10; Ezek 9:5; Ruth 2:8. Although speculative, I propose to interpret the B variant, και έπορεύθη άπ' αύτοΰ, as using the verb πορεύω to translate the qal verb עבר.

As discussed, the qal verb עבר has a variety of different meanings, including that of "to move on". The clearest example of the use of עבר with the meaning of "move on" is probably Ruth 2:18:

 

 

In this passage, the verb עבר (to move on) is contrasted with דבק (to cling; to stay close). It can be noted that LXX translates the verb עבר in Ruth 2:8 with πορεύω, as I am proposing is also the case in LXX^B Judg 19:2a.

In conclusion, I have attempted to demonstrate that the B variant of Judg 19:2a, και έπορεύθη άπ' αύτοΰ, is not a scribal corruption as has been proposed by Soisalon-Soininen and followed by Harlé, but rather the translation of a Vorlage that used the verb עבר. I, therefore, propose that B Judg 19:2a can be translated as "And his concubine moved on from him. And she went away from him to her father's house." If this hypothesis is correct, it follows that the verb in the Vorlagen underlying both the AL and B variants of Judg 19:2a is עבר. It has been argued above that the verb in the AL Vorlage was most likely the rarely used hitpa'el form, וַתַתְעַבְּרִי (And she was furious). In contrast, the translators of B appear to have read the Vorlage as if the verb were in the commonly used qal form, וַתַעַבְרִי (And she moved on). This difference can be explained in two ways. First, the B Vorlage was the same as the AL Vorlage, but the translators of B interpreted the verb as if it were qal. Second, B worked from a later Vorlage than AL in which a scribe intentionally or accidentally omitted the second ת in וַתַתְעַבְּרִי, thereby changing the verb from the hitpa'el to the qal form. Although speculative, I prefer the second hypothesis. This preference will be defended below in the discussion of Pseudo-Philo's Liver Antiquitatum Biblicum (LAB).

2b Pseudo-Philo's LAB

A number of ancient Jewish authors writing in Greek produced works that include "rewritten Bible"; that is, a literary genre common in the Greco-Roman world in which a Jewish author uses the Hebrew Bible as a source and then "rewrites" the text to advance the author's own ideological/theological positions.²⁹Both Flavius Josephus and Pseudo-Philo address the story of the Levite and his concubine in their works. It is generally agreed that Flavius Josephus' text is a creative interpretation of Judges 19 without text critical relevance.³⁰ In contrast, Pseudo-Philo's text relating to Judg 19:2 is significant and will be discussed below.

As both the original Hebrew text and the Greek translation of Pseudo-Philo's LAB have been lost, scholars rely on a Latin translation from Greek. It is generally agreed that the Hebrew original of LAB was written in Palestine, shortly before 70 C.E.³¹ Pseudo-Philo "rewrites" Judges 19-21 in Chapters 4547 of LAB. Chapter 45 opens the story of the Levite and his concubine with Judg 19:10, thus skipping entirely the narrator's background information concerning the woman having left her husband to return to her father. However, in Pseudo-Philo's recounting of the story of the concubine's gang-rape (Judg 19:25) in Chapter 45 of LAB, he adds a comment that explains the violent event as a punishment for the concubine's adultery (translation by Howard Jacobson):

They entered by force and dragged him and his concubine outside. After letting the man go, they abused his concubine until she died, for she had strayed from her man at one time (quoniam transgressa fuerat virum suum quodam tempore), when she committed sin with the Amalekites (cum peccasset cum Amalechitis), and on account of this the Lord God delivered her into the hands of sinners."³²

Pseudo-Philo thus presents the woman's gang-rape and murder as divine retribution for adulteries she had committed earlier in her life. This introduces a theme that is absent in AL and B Judg 19:2 but that is implied in MT Judg 19:2 with the phrase וַתִּזְנֶה עָלָיו (and she played the harlot against him).³³ The question thus arises whether Pseudo-Philo based his retelling of the story on a Vorlage similar to AL, B and/or MT. In my view, Pseudo-Philo's text indicates that he knew the Vorlage of B, as well as a proto-Masoretic text, and thus provides important evidence of the relationship between B and MT.

My position can be summarised as follows: First, as discussed, the AL phrase και ώργίσθη αύτω (and she was angry with him) was probably based on a Vorlage that read, וַתַתְעַבֵּר עָלָיו, which I propose to translate as "and she was furious with him." Second, as discussed, B worked from a Vorlage that read וַתַ עַבְרִי עָלָיו; that is, in which the verb עבר had been copied as a qal rather than a hitpa'el verb yielding the Greek translation, και έπορεύθη άπ' αύτοΰ (and she moved on from him). Third, while B translated עבר on the basis of its meaning of "to move on," Pseudo-Philo translated the same verb with another of its meanings, as "to transgress." My position concerning Pseudo-Philo's reliance on the Vorlage underlying B is supported by two arguments.

First, the meaning of the Latin phrase, quoniam transgressa fuerat virum suum quodam tempore is not entirely clear. As mentioned, Jacobson translates the phrase as "for she had strayed from her husband at one time." In my view, Christopher Begg's translation, "because she had transgressed against her man" is more accurate.³⁴ It can be noted that V uses the verb transgredior with the meaning of "to transgress" in the following passages: Num 14:41; Deut 17:2; Isa 24:5; Hos 6:7; 8:1; Sir 19:21; 23:5; 31:10. The Greek verb in the corresponding LXX variants is παραβαίνω (which LEH defines inter alia as "to pass beyond, to overstep, to transgress") in all of the above cited verses with the exception of V Deut 17:2. The Greek verb in LXX Deut 17:2 is παρέρχομαι, which LEH defines inter alia as "to overstep; to transgress; to disregard". In conclusion, it is likely that the Latin translator of the phrase quoniam transgressa fuerat virum suum quodam tempore in Chapter 45 of LAB used the verb transgredior, with the meaning of "to transgress," to translate the verb παραβαίνω (or possibly παρέρχομαι) in the underlying Greek version of LAB.³⁵

Second, as LAB was originally composed in Hebrew, the verb that underlies παραβαίνω (or possibly παρέρχομαι) remains to be determined. It can be observed that the qal verb עבר is used to mean "to transgress" 18 times in MT, with 15 parallels in LXX.³⁶ The verb is translated with (i) παραβαίνω in Num 14:41; Josh 7:11.15; 23:16; 1 Sam 15:24; 2 Kgs 18:12; Isa 24:5 Hos 6:7; 8:1; Dan 9:11; (ii) παρέρχομαι in Deut 17:2; 26:13; Jer 34:18; (iii) παραπορεύομαι in 2 Chr 24:20; and (iv) έγκαταλείπω in Judg 2:20. Thus, it is likely that the Hebrew verb underlying the Greek translation of the phrase "and she transgressed against her husband" in Chapter 45 of LAB was the qal verb עבר. I have argued above that the verb in the Vorlage underlying the phrase και έπορεύθη άπ' αύτοΰ (and she moved on from him) in B Judg 19:2a was also the qal verb עבר. Thus, while B translated עבר in the sense of "to move on," Pseudo-Philo translated the same verb, probably from the same Vorlage as B, with another of its meanings, as "to transgress".

2c Targum Jonathan of Judges

Most scholars consider Targum Jonathan of Judges to have been composed in Jerusalem in the second century C.E. and then revised and amended in Babylon over the following five centuries.³⁷ W. Smelik's English translation of the Targum's Aramaic variant of Judg 19:2 is as follows: "But the concubine despised (בסר) him and went away from him, [back] to her father's house."³⁸BHQ takes the position that T does not support AL, B or MT. I disagree. In my view, T follows MT for the reasons discussed below.

The Targumim are generally modest in relation to sexual matters and often substitute Aramaic euphemisms to translate a Hebrew word that is considered to be too bold to pronounce. For example, it can be observed that the verb זנה is used four times in MT Judges; in 2:17; 8:27; 8:33; and 19:2. In addition, the Hebrew active participle used nominatively, זוֹנָה or זֹנָה (prostitute), is used twice; in Judg 11:1 and 16:1. In all six cases, T replaces the Hebrew word with a more modest euphemism. In Judg 2:17, 8:27 and 8:33 זנה is replaced with an Aramaic verb meaning "to go astray". In Judg 11:1 and 16:1, "prostitute" is replaced with an Aramaic word meaning "hostess" or "innkeeper". In Judg 19:2 זנה is replaced with the Aramaic word בסר (to despise).

Because of T's consistent "mistranslation" of the six occurrences of the verb זנה and its cognates in Judges, it is highly unlikely that T would rely on a Vorlage that was substantially different from MT for all six of these verses. In particular, it is unlikely that T relies on the same Vorlage as AL. As discussed, the hitpa'el form of the verb עבר is not used in Aramaic. Instead, T uses the verb רגז, meaning "to be angry, to be enraged." If T worked from a Vorlage that used the hitpa'el form of the verb עבר as in AL, it could be expected that T would have used the Aramaic verb רגז. As T is otherwise generally close to MT in its choice of vocabulary, the fact that T elects to emend MT Judg 19:2 at all tends to suggest that T's Vorlage contained a verb with a sexual connotation, such as זנה, which was unacceptable to the Aramaic translators for cultural reasons. It is thus preferable to view T's reading of Judg 19:2 as "his concubine despised him" as an interpretative change to the underlying MT variant וַתִּזְנֶה עָלָיו.

3 Change of the Vorlage in MT Judg 19:2

I have attempted to demonstrate above that the verb in the Vorlage underlying both B and Pseudo-Philo's LAB was probably the qal form of the verb עבר. B translated the verb with its meaning "to move on" and Pseudo-Philo as "to transgress". It can be hypothesised that a later redactor changed וַתַעַבְרִי עָלָיו (and she transgressed against him) to וַתִּזְנֶה עָלָיו (And she played the harlot against him), as reflected in MT. Three reasons for this change can be envisaged. First, the change clarifies that the verb עבר should be interpreted to mean "to transgress" rather than "to move on" as interpreted by B. Second, the change clarifies that the woman's "transgression" was precisely that of adultery. Third, the change provides a theological explanation for the concubine's gang-rape as a "measure-for-measure" or "talionic" retribution for her earlier sexual sins. In the Chronicler's theology of retributive justice, every misfortune that befalls a person can be explained as a consequence of a moral failure committed by that person earlier in his or her life.³⁹ If this hypothesis is correct, it follows that the change to וַתִּזְנֶה עָלָיו occurred late in the compositional history of Judges 19, after the finalisation of the Vorlage underlying B.

 

D CONCLUSIONS

The text critical analysis of Judges 19:2 is complicated by the fact that the lessons of AL, B, MT, T and Pseudo-Philo's LAB are different and appear to be irreconcilable. I have proposed a hypothesis that attempts to explain all of these variants as based on a Vorlage that used the verb עבר to describe the concubine's action in relation to her husband. In my view, the earliest Vorlage read וַתַתְעַבְּרִי עָלָיו (and she was furious with him); that is, the wayyiqtol third person singular feminine of the verb עבר in the hitpa'el form. This Vorlage is reflected in the AL variant και ώργίσθη αύτω (she was angry with him). The Vorlage then underwent two successive changes.

First, a scribe changed וַתַתְעַבְּרִי עָלָיו (And she was furious with him), as reflected in AL, to וַתַעַבְרִי עָלָיו, as suggested by B and Pseudo-Philo. One can only speculate as to the reasons for the change from the hitpa'el to the qal form of the verb עבר in Judg 19:2. There are two plausible explanations. First, a scribe accidentally omitted the second ת in וַתַתְעַבְּרִי. Second, as the hitpa'el form of the verb עבר is used rarely in MT and not used at all in Aramaic, it is possible that a late Persian/early Hellenistic period scribe intentionally changed וַתַתְעַבְּרִי to וַתַעַבְרִי to clarify the meaning of Judg 19:2 for readers no longer familiar with the hitpa'el meaning of the verb. Although the change in meaning from the hitpa'el to the qal is semantically significant, the change can be viewed as lexically conservative from the perspective of a scribal culture because it involves the deletion of only a single consonant from the earlier Vorlage. Although speculative, I am inclined to prefer the second hypothesis.

The qal verb עבר has multiple meanings that depend on context. B translated the verb in Greek with the meaning of "to move on"; "to travel further." In contrast, Pseudo-Philo interpreted the verb with the meaning of "to transgress." In my view, B and Pseudo-Philo can be understood as reflecting two different schools of interpretation of the same Vorlage. B, probably working in Alexandria, may have endeavored to translate וַתַעַבְרִי עָלָיו in a way that created the least conflict with A (from "and she was angry with him" to "and she moved on from him"). In contrast, Pseudo-Philo, probably working in Palestine, understood the same Vorlage to mean "and she transgressed against him", thereby inferring that the concubine had committed adultery.

Second, it can be hypothesised that a later redactor changed וַתַעַבְרִי עָלָיו (and she transgressed against him) to וַתִּזְנֶה עָלָיו (And she played the harlot against him), as reflected in MT. Three reasons for this change can be envisaged. First, the change clarifies that the verb עבר should be interpreted to mean "to transgress" rather than "to move on" as interpreted by B. Second, the change clarifies that the woman's "transgression" was precisely that of adultery. Third, the change provides a theological explanation for the concubine's gang-rape as a "measure-for-measure" or "talionic" retribution for her earlier sexual sins.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexander, Philip S. "The Bible in Qumran and Early Judaism." Pages 35-62 in Text in Context: Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Studies. Edited by A. D. H. Mayes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.         [ Links ]

Ausloos, Hans. "Judges: Textual History of Judges." Pages 277-280 in The Hebrew Bible, Pentateuch, Former and Latter Prophets 1B. Edited by Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2017.         [ Links ]

Barr, James. Comparative Philology and the Text of the OT. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968.         [ Links ]

Barthélemy, Dominique. Critique textuelle de l'Ancien testament 1. Fribourg: Editions universitaires Fribourg, 1982.         [ Links ]

Begg, Christopher. "The Retellings of the Story of Judges 19." Estudios Biblicos 58 (2000): 33-49.         [ Links ]

Burney, Charles F. The Book of Judges, with Introduction and Notes. London: Rivingtons, 1920.         [ Links ]

Dogniez, Cécile. "Judges: Septuagint." Pages 294-300 in The Hebrew Bible: Pentateuch, Former and Latter Prophets 1B. Edited by Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2017.         [ Links ]

Driver, Godfrey R. "L'interprétation du texte masorétique á la lumière de la lexicographie hébraïque," Ephemerides Theolologicae Lovanienses 26 (1950): 337-353.         [ Links ]

Feldman, Ariel. "The Book of Judges in Early Jewish Interpretation: The Contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls." Pages 77-94 in On Prophets, Warriors, and Kings: Former Prophets Through the Eyes of Their Interpreters. Edited by George J. Brooke and Ariel Feldman. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016.         [ Links ]

Fernandez, Marcos N. "The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Judges." Pages 1-16 in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered. Edited by A. Schenker. Leiden: Brill, 2003.         [ Links ]

______. "L'histoire textuelle: Les Livres Historiques (Juges)." Pages 148-169 in L 'enfance de la Bible hébraïque. Edited by Adrian Schenker and Phiippe Hugo. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2005.         [ Links ]

______. Biblia Hebraica Quinta, vol. 7. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2017.         [ Links ]

Harlé, Paul. La Bible d'Alexandrie : Les Juges. Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1999.         [ Links ]

Harrington, Daniel J., "Pseudo-Philo." Pages 344-345 in Anchor Bible Dictionary. Volume 5. Edited by David N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.         [ Links ]

Harrington, Daniel J. and Saldarini, Anthony J. Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987.         [ Links ]

Jacobson, Howard. A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo's Liver "Antiquitatum Biblicum," with Latin Text and English Translation. Volume 1. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996.         [ Links ]

Japhet, Sara. The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought. Frankfurt: Verlag Peter Lang, 1989.         [ Links ]

Moore, George F. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1908.         [ Links ]

Murphy, Frederick J. "Biblical Antiquities (Pseudo-Philo)." Pages 440-442 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.         [ Links ]

Philip E. Satterthwaite. "Judges." Pages 102-117 in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint. Edited by James K. Aitkin. London: Bloomsbury T &T Clark, 2015.         [ Links ]

______. "Introduction to Judges." Pages 195-200 in New English Translation of the Septuagint. Edited by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.         [ Links ]

Screnock, John. "A New Approach to using the Old Greek in Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism." Textus 27/1 (2018): 229-257.         [ Links ]

Soisalon-Soininen, Ilmari, Die Textformen der Setptuaginta-Übersetzung des Richterbuches, AASF Series B 72.1. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedekatemia, 1951.         [ Links ]

Sokoloff, Michael. A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods. Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar Ilan University Press, 2002.         [ Links ]

Smelik, Willem F., The Targum of Judges. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995.         [ Links ]

Tov, Emmanuel, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.         [ Links ]

 

 

Submitted: 18/06/2020
Peer-reviewed: 12/10/2020
Accepted: 15/10/2020

 

 

William Krisel, Institut Catholique de Paris, France wkrisel@gmail.com. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9208-3426.
1 NRSV; see also NJB, TOB.
2 NAS; see also KJV, NKJV, NIV.
3 There is an absence of scholarly consensus on the text critical question of whether a single Vorlage underlies both LXX and LXX Judg or to the contrary, Greek translators worked from a variety of Hebrew texts circulating at the time of translation. For an overview of the question, see Natalio Fernández Marcos, "L'histoire textuelle: Les Livres Historiques (Juges)" in L 'enfance de la Bible hébraïque (eds. Adrian Schenker and Philippe Hugo; Geneva, Labor et Fides, 2005, 148-169. In relation to LXX, I will consider both hypotheses; i.e., that LXX is based on the same or a different Vorlage than LXX. In relation to the MT, it should be remembered that the scholarly text is based on an early 11 century C.E. manuscript which is itself a variant of an earlier Vorlage often called "proto-MT." The Qumran manuscripts add a valuable element to the text critical analysis of both LXX and MT. However, none of the extant Qumran texts relates to Judg 19:2.
4 I will follow the abbreviations used by BHQ in this chapter; i.e., (i) MT means Masoretic Text; (ii) AL means the Codex Alexandrinus as supported by variants from the group of Antiochian manuscripts known as L; that is, the Lucianic recension; (iii) B means the Codex Vaticanus; (iv) T means the Targum Jonathan of Judges; and (v) V means the Vulgate.
5 George F. Moore, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1908), 409-410.
6 Charles F Burney, The Book of Judges, with Introduction and Notes (London: Rivingtons, 1920), 460.
7 Burney. Book of Judges, 460.
8 K. Elliger and W. Rudolph, eds., Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997).
9 Godfrey R. Driver, "L'interprétation du texte masorétique á la lumière de la lexicographie hébraïque," ETL 26 (1950), 348. Both Burney and Driver transcribed the Akkadian word for "to become angry" as zinü. Scholars today generally use the transcription zenü.
10 Dominique Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l'Ancien testament, vol. 1 (Fribourg: Editions universitaires Fribourg, 1982), 116.
11 Natalio Fernandez Marcos, Biblia Hebraica Quinta, vol. 7 (Stuttgart: DeutscheBibelgesellschaft, 2017).
12 12 BHQ, 105.
13 The Peshitta, the Syriac translation of the OT usually dated to the 2nd century C.E., will not be discussed in this article. It can be noted that the Peshitta's variant of Judg 19:2 does not support AL and appears to be based on a proto-MT variant.
14 F. Brown, S.R. Driver and C.A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Peabody MA: Hendrickson Publishers 2005); L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner & J.J. Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, tr. and ed. by M.E.J. Richardson (Leiden: Brill, 2001); David J. A. Clines, The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2007).
15 BDB; HALOT; DCH. See, Deut 3:26; Ps 78:21, 59, 62; 89:38; Prov 14:16; 20:2; 26:17.
16 Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2002), 1058.
17 The LXX versions of MT Prov 14:16 and 26:17 are significantly different, suggesting that they may be based on a different Vorlage than the MT versions of these two verses.
18 The proposition that the LXX "translates" specific Hebrew words is an oversimplification. As stated by James Barr, "Where the Greek text gives a sense different from the Hebrew, the hypothesis that it was translated from a different Hebrew text is only one of a number of possibilities. It may have had the same text, but misread it; or been careless in handling it, or guessed at the sense, or paraphrased, or assimilated it to another passage[.] [...] Only when we eliminate a number of these possible relations are we entitled to translate back the Greek into a Hebrew text and say that the translators 'read' this text." James Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the OT (Oxford University Press, 1968; Winona Lake IN, Eisenbrauns, 1987 with additions and corrections), 245. However, when a relatively rare Hebrew verb in the MT such as the hitpa'el form of the verb עבר is reflected in the LXX with verbs that form part of a semantic field and signify something close to the assumed meaning of the Hebrew word, it can be concluded that it is likely that the Vorlage underlying the LXX variant was the same as the Vorlage underlying MT. John Screnock, "A New Approach to using the Old Greek in Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism," Textus 27/1 (2018), 229-257. In the case of LXX Judg, many scholars consider that the text "is a generally accurate translation of a text-form almost identical to the Massoretic Text (MT)." Philip E Satterthwaite, "Judges" in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint (ed. J.K. Aitkin; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 102. More precisely, Philip E. Satterthwaite states, "In general, LXX Judges follows a 'word-for-word' translational model." Philip E. Satterthwaite, "Introduction to Judges," in New English Translation of the Septuagint (eds. A. Pietersma & B.G. Wright; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 197.
19 For ease of reference, I will refer to verses in the LXX using the book name and chapter and verse divisions of the MT. For example, a verse in LXX 3 Reigns will be cited as LXX 1 Kings.
20 New English Translation of the Septuagint (eds. Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009)
21 J. Lust, E. Eynikel and & K. Hauspie, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgessellschaft, 1992); T. Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Louvain: Peeters, 2009).
22 Num 14:11, 23; 16:30; Deut 31:20; 32:19; 2 Sam 12:14; Isa 5:24; 10:14; Pss 9:24; 10:13; 74:10, 18; 108:11; and Lam 2:6.
23 All citations of LXX in this work are from the eclectic version of A prepared by Alfred Rahlfs (Alfred Rahlfs, Septuaginta [Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007]). Rahlfs text emends Alexandrinus to include certain preferred variants from L and the hexaplaric recension.
24 Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, Die Textformen der Setptuaginta-Übersetzung des Richterbuches (AASF Series B, 72, 1; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedekatemia, 1951), 79.
25 Paul Harlé, La Bible d'Alexandrie : Les Juges, Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1999, 241.
26 Harlé, Les Juges, 89.
27 See, e.g., LXX Judg 6:21; 1 Chr 16:20.
28 It is used four times in Hosea, four times in Jeremiah and three times in Ezekiel. Outside of these three books, the verb is attested once in Amos, once in Chronicles and once in Psalms.
29 According to Philip S. Alexander, "Rewritten Bible mimics the form of the original text, but weaves into it additional, explanatory matter. It is basically a genre that applies only to aggadah. It reproduces the biblical text selectively, and is used to integrate legend and tradition into the biblical narrative." Philip S. Alexander, "The Bible in Qumran and Early Judaism" in Text in Context: Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Studies (ed. A.D.H. Mayes; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 42. I am grateful to Bénédicte Lemmelijn for this reference.
30 See, for example, Ariel Feldman, "The Book of Judges in Early Jewish Interpretation: The Contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls" in On Prophets, Warriors, and Kings: Former Prophets Through the Eyes of Their Interpreters (eds. G.J. Brooke and A. Feldman; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016), 77-94, 90-91.
31 Daniel J Harrington, "Pseudo-Philo" in ABD, vol. 5 (ed. David N. Freedman; Newyork: Doubleday, 1992), 345. Some scholars argue for a post-70 dating of LAB. See, e.g., Frederick J Murphy, "Biblical Antiquities (Pseudo-Philo)" in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism (eds. J.J. Collins and D.C. Harlow; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 440.
32 Howard Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo's Liver "Antiquitatum Biblicum," with Latin Text and English Translation, vol. 1 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996), 168.
33 Pace Christopher Begg, "The Retellings of the Story of Judges 19," EB 58 (2000), 37.
34 Begg. "Retellings", 39.
35 Jacobson takes the position that it is the verb παραβαίνω that underlies the Latin translation transgredior in LAB. He states, "I do not know any exact Latin parallel [to quoniam transgressa fuerat virum suum quodam tempore]. However, Sirach 23:25 [=LXX Sir 23:18a] is close, transgrediens lectum suum, where the Greek has παραβαίνων άπο τής κλίνης αύτοΰ, that is, 'strays from his bed.' Thus LAB means, 'she had strayed from her husband'." Jacobson, Commentary on Pseudo-Philo's, 1034. As discussed above, the verb transgredior is frequently used in V with the meaning of "to transgress". In particular, V Sir 23:25=LXX Sir 23:18a can more easily be translated as "and the man who transgresses his [marriage] bed" than as "and the man who strays from his [marriage] bed" as proposed by Jacobson.
36 The three occurrences without parallels in LXX are Ps 17:3; Prov 8:29; and Esth 3:3.
37 Daniel J. Harrington and Anthony J. Saldarini, Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987), 13.
38 Willem F Smelik, The Targum of Judges (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), 607.
39 Sara Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Peter Lang, 1989), 456. For example, it is reported in 1 Kgs 14:25, "In the fifth year of Rehoboam, King Shishak of Egypt marched against Jerusalem." The Chronicler cites this phrase in 2 Chron 12:2, but adds, "for they had been unfaithful to YHWH." Similarly, 1 Kgs 20:49 states, "Edom has been in rebellion against Judah [...] Libnah has rebelled against him." The Chronicler cites these phrases in 2 Chron 21:10 but adds "because he had forsaken YHWH God of his fathers."