Exodus 2 - Strange Occurrences

Discussion must focus on the Hebrew text (including text criticism) and its ancient translations, not on archaeology, modern language translations, or theological controversies.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
S_Walch
Posts: 309
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Exodus 2 - Strange Occurrences

Post by S_Walch »

Jason Hare wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 2:10 pmWhy would ἡ θυγάτηρ Φαραω be delayed until the end of the second phrase? I can see that it's in the same position in the DSS, but I think that's an addition to the text (hence, its position). Perhaps the LXX was translating from a Hebrew text that had already included that addition, though.
This is more than likely. If the LXX has a word order that is reflected in a Hebrew manuscript, then that's more than likely the source.
It also feels really strange to have ἔφη in a position that is not post-positive. I've only just begun reading the LXX with any regularity, and its style is still jarring to me!
The LXX is well known to be more or less an essentially literal translation of the Hebrew, usually following Hebrew word-order rather than translating into idiomatic Greek.

This literalness has lead to the "interlinear paradigm" when it comes to the LXX. See https://www.academia.edu/3138274/_Refle ... l_Studies_
Ste Walch
Jason Hare
Posts: 937
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Exodus 2 - Strange Occurrences

Post by Jason Hare »

kwrandolph wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 3:10 pm Moses apparently thought the names were unimportant in this place in the narrative, especially since he named them later.
Moses?
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 3:10 pm The word את is a direct object indicator, not a definite article.

Calling her “a daughter of Levi” is consistent with the practice of calling the people of Israel “sons of Israel” many generations after Israel died.
בת־לוי is definite ("the daughter of Levi"). בת ללוי would be indefinite ("a daughter of Levi"). I did not confuse את for an article.
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 3:10 pm The verb is נצב not יצב.
What verbal stem?
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 3:10 pm Because a boy, even as an infant, is already a “youth”.
So, you read את־הילד as in apposition to the explicit object attached to the verb? That is probably the correct reading.
kwrandolph wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 3:10 pm Maybe it seems strange because of your expectations that you learned in class. But I learned that some of those expectations are wrong, that they don’t fit the observed patterns. Here in Exodus 2 we have an observed pattern.
I haven't been in a Hebrew class in twenty years (other than ulpan for speaking modern Hebrew, which I took for about six months more than ten years ago). I've got plenty of experience reading the Bible, and my general sense of the Hebrew text comes from reading the Bible. You can't allow that anyone else's experience is worth anything, can you? "This is the way," you seem to say as your mantra.

Jason
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian
Jason Hare
Posts: 937
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Exodus 2 - Strange Occurrences

Post by Jason Hare »

S_Walch wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 3:22 pm The LXX is well known to be more or less an essentially literal translation of the Hebrew, usually following Hebrew word-order rather than translating into idiomatic Greek.

This literalness has lead to the "interlinear paradigm" when it comes to the LXX. See https://www.academia.edu/3138274/_Refle ... l_Studies_
Yeah, I've been playing around with Deuteronomy this week, and it's really jarring to what extent it is "literal" in its approach to rendering Hebrew into Greek. It's almost laughable sometimes how the Greek comes out. Thanks for the article recommendation. I've downloaded it now and am reading it.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian
ducky
Posts: 518
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Exodus 2 - Strange Occurrences

Post by ducky »

Hi Jason,
Jason Hare wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 1:53 pm According to the Stone Chumash, Rashi claims that she was around 130 years old when she gave birth to Moses as the result of a miracle. I'm not personally interested in miracle claims, especially when no such claim is explicitly made in the text of the Torah itself.
First, we need to look at what is said.
It's said that he married his aunt (in Numbers) - and that is what we need to accept (as opposed to "cousin").

About the age thing...
Rashi wrote the age according to what was written before him. And that age is a result of a calculation of:
1. Yocheved was born in Egypt at the arrival of Israel to Egypt.
2. Israel settled in Egypt for 210 years.
3. Moses was 80 when he took Israel out of Egypt.
=
Yocheved gave birth at age (210-80)=130.

But there are some commentators that say that we don't need to say that Yocheved was born at the arrival to Egypt, but she was born a few decades later, and so it could be calculated that she gave birth at age 80-90 or something like that.

You asked for an explicit claim in the text for a miracle, but remember that this text is lack details.
And anyway, since this birth is like a "holy birth" of a great person, it is not unlikely that this birth would occur in some unnatural way.
Jason Hare wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 1:53 pm It would be awesome if we had a mention of his given name from birth. Is it possible that Yochéved was so frightened that he would not survive that she didn't herself give him a name? We don't have any indication of a name for him other than Moses (despite the "seven names" claim).
Just to correct myself, I just checked, and he had 10 names (including Moses), and there is an 11th name that is written in another book.
But never mind about that.

There is an interpretation that says that the name Moses was given to him by his mother. I mean that the Daughter of Pharao asked the woman what to call him, then the woman (his mother) told her משה and explained to her that it means to "pull out" and that the Daughter of Pharao accepted that offer.

But also, never mind about that.
Jason Hare wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 1:53 pm I don't know what 15:17 means after מקדש, though.
Sorry for the trouble. It is Ex. 15:17
Jason Hare wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 1:53 pm I've never heard of hiphil verbs having a T form. What does that mean? You're using non-standard nomenclature, and I don't really know what you're trying to say.

I've never heard of a התאפעל stem. You're saying that תִּתְאַיְצַב titʾay(ə)ṣaḇ reduced to תֵּתַצַּב. I don't see how the initial syllable would have become open if that were the case. There's too much change to be explained: how tit|ʾa- became tē|ta-; why the entire vocalic structure of the א syllable would be lost. Why wouldn't it remain as תִּתַּצַּב at the very least, to preserve the closed syllable even with the collapse? I don't see that this is really justifiable. It looks much more likely that the י was simply not written (accidentally).
Once again, sorry about my usage of terms.
About the form, I will try to explain what I mean.

in the verb system, there are three types of forms.
1. Active
2. Passive
3. Reflexive & Mutual (This is what I called T)

In common Hebrew, only the Dageshed conjugation has these three forms.
1. Active - Piel (qittel)
2. Passive - Pual (quttal)
3. T form - Hitpael (hitqattel)

In Qal there are:
1. Active - paal (qatal)
2. Passive - pual (qutal-->quttal)
3. T form (rare) - hitpael (hitqatel)

1. Active - hiphil (hiqtil)
2. Passive - Huphal (huqtal)
3. T form (rare) - hittaphel/hittaphal (hitaqtel/hitaqtal)

So about the T form of Hiphil...
The H of the hiphil was "swallowed" in the previous T, that is why it is doubled.

for example, the word יִתָּכֵן or תִּתָּבָר - the ת is with Dagesh, and it is because of the H.
תִּתְהָבָר-->תָּתָּבָר

When there is a form when the T is not with Dagesh, then it means that the Hiphil uses the Aleph and not the H.

so in the word תְּתַחֲרֶה (the T is without Dagesh) it was:
תִּתְאַחֲרֶה -> the Aleph was drop because of the accent->
תִּתַחֲרֶה -> since the first syllable was opened, it is reduced->
תְּתַחֲרֶה

Now almost the same with root יצב
תּתְאַיְצַב -> the Y of יצב is always "swallowed" inside the צ ->
תִּתְאַצַּב -> the Aleph is dropped because of accent->
תִּתַצַּב -> in this case, instead of the first syllable being reduced, it expands and being wider to Tsere ->
תֵּתַצַּב

**when there is a collapse, there are three ways to deal with that:
1. closing the syllable with Dagesh in the next letter.
2. reducing the vowel to a mobile Sheva.
3. expanding the vowel and make it wider (as in תתצב).
Jason Hare wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 1:53 pm I've always called ׃ "sof pasuq" and ◌ֽ "silluq" (rather than "meteg") when paired with sof pasuq. Am I wrong in that? According to Wikipedia, the ◌ֽ is called both "silluq" and "sof pasuq," and the two dots that end the verse are not part of the trope system at all. I'm a bit confused on who to believe. That's not how I learned trope (הטעמים).
The Siluq is the mark, and usually, the two dots appear too.
But in the Allepo codex, for example, the two dots don't come often.
(in some other books there is a circle instead of two dots, or just one dot).

I read that there are a few books (even early ones) that in the books of Psalms-Proverbs-Job, they use to finish every verse at the end of the line and with two dots (with no Siluq).
But the Siluq would appear only if the word's accent syllable is not the last one.

But there is no need to go deep too much. the basic mark is the Siluq. And I think that the two dots were created more for the "eyes".
David Hunter
ducky
Posts: 518
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Exodus 2 - Strange Occurrences

Post by ducky »

S_Walch wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 11:19 am I disagree that just ־ה is wrong or incorrect, as it can quite easily refer to the reed basket from v5:

וַתֵּ֤רֶא אֶת־הַתֵּבָה בְּת֣וֹךְ הַסּ֔וּף

If this is continued with the DSS Hebrew:

[ותפתח] ותראה את הילד וה[נה] נער [בוכה ותחמו]ל עליו בת פרעה [ותואמר מילדי העברים] זה

Here we have ... and she saw the reed basket in the midst of the rushes... And she opened it, and she saw it was with a child (= it contained a child), and behold, a baby crying. So the daughter of Pharaoh took pity upon him...
the way you put את=with in the meaning of "containing" is strange.
Sounds bad to me, and I don't think there is any case that it is used that way.

It just a prefix את.
S_Walch wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 11:19 am Would seem the LXX translator was interpreting it this way, and instead of the suffix ־ה it was fleshed out to say ἐν τῇ θίβει/in the basket to make the pronoun suffix explicit.
This is a nice thought (But I don't think they read the H as a feminine suffix). And I don't think we can count on that since we see that the Sept. adds details to make things clear. Like in this verse, it also adds the "daughter of Pharao". So if the Sept. adds this detail, it could that they just added that detail (of the Ark). So it is hard to use that "in the basket" as some sort of strict translation when we know that it was not strict (as we see that they wrote "boy" only once, for example).

And if I Would go your way, then I think that translation would be that She saw the ark with a baby weeping. But instead, the Sept. says that She saw the *baby* weeping in the ark. And so the Object of that verb is the baby. And I don't think that if they thought that the object was the ark, they would have a problem to translate it as they saw it written.

So I don't think they read it as you suggest. I think they read it that she open the ark and saw the baby. And they just cleared the translation to a nice sentence (also by removing one occurrence of the word "boy").
S_Walch wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 11:19 am I wouldn't agree that the W supports the H.
That is because you have the suggestion of the H as a feminine suffix. And I wrote that against a claim of ותראה as a regular form.
S_Walch wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 11:19 am Needless to say, it does look like some sort of corruption has occurred here in the Hebrew text, with either the LXX translator fixing it so it was readable, or also just as likely there was a different Hebrew Vorlage used, to which 4QExodb is related.
This chapter has more than a few "strange" forms and styles.
So it is hard to say that it is corrupted. It is not a form or two. It seems that this chapter uses uncommon dialect forms which we just have to deal with them as part of the Hebrew forms that were alive at some point in time.
David Hunter
S_Walch
Posts: 309
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Exodus 2 - Strange Occurrences

Post by S_Walch »

ducky wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 6:16 pmthe way you put את=with in the meaning of "containing" is strange.
Sounds bad to me, and I don't think there is any case that it is used that way.
Was trying to make clear how I was interpreting the words; I guess a bit clearer:

And she saw it with the baby
=
And she saw it had a baby in it
This is a nice thought (But I don't think they read the H as a feminine suffix). And I don't think we can count on that since we see that the Sept. adds details to make things clear. Like in this verse, it also adds the "daughter of Pharao". So if the Sept. adds this detail, it could that they just added that detail (of the Ark). So it is hard to use that "in the basket" as some sort of strict translation when we know that it was not strict (as we see that they wrote "boy" only once, for example).
Well as we see in the case of 4QExodb, the LXX likely didn't add this detail. If the LXX translator chose to add "the daughter of Pharaoh", they'd've put it much sooner. That the LXX matches 4QExodb precisely with this detail in the exact same spot is good evidence the Hebrew Vorlage contained this detail.
And if I Would go your way, then I think that translation would be that She saw the ark with a baby weeping. But instead, the Sept. says that She saw the *baby* weeping in the ark. And so the Object of that verb is the baby. And I don't think that if they thought that the object was the ark, they would have a problem to translate it as they saw it written.
Fair point. The object of ὁρᾷ [she sees {Jason}] is indeed παιδίον [little child {Jason}].
So I don't think they read it as you suggest. I think they read it that she open the ark and saw the baby. And they just cleared the translation to a nice sentence (also by removing one occurrence of the word "boy").
Yes, the LXX is somewhat more different than just interpreting the verb differently here. Nevertheless, one has a question of whether they had a text which had אֶת־הַיֶּ֔לֶד וְהִנֵּה־נַ֖עַר, or was it possibly just אֶת־נַ֖עַר, or possibly just even אֶת־הַיֶּ֔לֶד? Quite easily be from a Hebrew Vorlage which had already attempted to clean up the Hebrew. A leap from הַיֶּ֔לֶד to נַ֖עַר also isn't out of the question (confusion between ר/ד is quite common). As the LXX doesn't include the definite article before παιδίον, this would lead me to think it possibly just had אֶת־נַ֖עַר.

In the case of ἐν τῇ θίβει [in the ark {Jason}], could this evidence that possibly בתבה has dropped out from the Hebrew? A jump from the end of בבה to the end of בתבה isn't out of the question here, either.
This chapter has more than a few "strange" forms and styles.
So it is hard to say that it is corrupted. It is not a form or two. It seems that this chapter uses uncommon dialect forms which we just have to deal with them as part of the Hebrew forms that were alive at some point in time.
Well we can certainly see if we can make some sort of sense out of the Masoretic Hebrew.

However I do like looking at these things from a text-critical perspective, to which I usually look at all the different ways something could come about, including translations such as the LXX. Thus there are a few things which could explain both the LXX translation (errors of sight etc.), and even a retroverted Hebrew Vorlage which wasn't exactly like the Masoretic text as we have it now.

4QExodb is evidence there was at least one different form of this text around 2,000 years ago (there's quite a few differences in 4QExodb; but those are for other verse discussions :) ), the LXX possibly two.
Ste Walch
ducky
Posts: 518
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Exodus 2 - Strange Occurrences

Post by ducky »

Hi Ste,
S_Walch wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 7:40 pmWas trying to make clear how I was interpreting the words; I guess a bit clearer:
And she saw it with the baby
=
And she saw it had a baby in it
I understood that, and it still sounds odd to me. And I can't think right now of any case like that as if the את as "with" - is referring to something inside something which the object in the thing that is the inside.
S_Walch wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 7:40 pm Well as we see in the case of 4QExodb, the LXX likely didn't add this detail. If the LXX translator chose to add "the daughter of Pharaoh", they'd put it much sooner. That the LXX matches 4QExodb precisely with this detail in the exact same spot is good evidence the Hebrew Vorlage contained this detail.
Actually, this part of the "daughter of Pharao" is more likely to be a late add-on. And the fact that these two words בת פרעה came in the same place, does not mean that it is a must that the LXX and DSS used some other source.

why do I say this?
Because when we see two texts that one is unclear and the other is cleared by more details, then most likely, the unclear is the earlier, and the other one saw the unclear text and made it clear.
But it is hard to assume that there was a clear source with details, and then the other text removed the details of the clear text and made it unclear. (I'll repeat that at the end).

And why do I say that it is not a must that the LXX and DSS used some One source?
because we are talking here about only two words, that came to clear thing out, and that they could be put only in one place.
And so, if both of them wanted to clear things out, they did the exact only thing that they could do. Which is putting בת פרעה right after ותחמל עליו.

And if they used some same Volrage (I guess it means "source"?), then how come the LXX doesn't have the rest of the verse as the DSS?
This proves that it is not the same other Volrage. But it is the same as the MT, Which each one adds some details or explainings.
S_Walch wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 7:40 pm Yes, the LXX is somewhat more different than just interpreting the verb differently here. Nevertheless, one has a question of whether they had a text which had אֶת־הַיֶּ֔לֶד וְהִנֵּה־נַ֖עַר, or was it possibly just אֶת־נַ֖עַר, or possibly just even אֶת־הַיֶּ֔לֶד? Quite easily be from a Hebrew Vorlage which had already attempted to clean up the Hebrew. A leap from הַיֶּ֔לֶד to נַ֖עַר also isn't out of the question (confusion between ר/ד is quite common). As the LXX doesn't include the definite article before παιδίον, this would lead me to think it possibly just had אֶת־נַ֖עַר.
I have to ask You and Jason that you would translate the Greek words that you write.
(Not everyone knows Greek)... I guess that the word means "baby".

I don't think it is about a different source. It is just the way they translated the verse. The translation wasn't meant to be perfect literally, but to present the meaning of the verse. And if the Hebrew verse uses a Double-object or a repeat about the same thing, I guess that they just translate the verse to Greek in a "short & simple" way, without "breaking their head" about this.
S_Walch wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 7:40 pm In the case of ἐν τῇ θίβει, could this evidence that possibly בתבה has dropped out from the Hebrew? A jump from the end of בבה to the end of בתבה isn't out of the question here, either.


Well, we can certainly see if we can make some sort of sense out of the Masoretic Hebrew.

However, I do like looking at these things from a text-critical perspective, to which I usually look at all the different ways something could come about, including translations such as the LXX. Thus there are a few things which could explain both the LXX translation (errors of sight etc.) and even a retroverted Hebrew Vorlage which wasn't exactly like the Masoretic text as we have it now.

4QExodb is evidence there was at least one different form of this text around 2,000 years ago (there are quite a few differences in 4QExodb; but those are for other verse discussions :) ), the LXX possibly two.
When you look at texts from a text-critical perspective, it is important to not follow the logic inside the text.
Actually, it is the unlogic text that is the logical way.
There is a term in linguistic that says that the strange thing is earlier, and so, this is similar to what I say here.

For example,
If there is Text A that write an unlogic/unclear sentence
And there is a Text B that writes it in a logical/clear way,
The immediate thought would be to follow Text B and call it the "right" one.

But we need to be careful about it. Because let's say that one text is original and the other is edited.
We have two options:
Option 1 - the unlogic Text A is the original, and Text B made it Logic by editing.

Option 2 - the logic Text B is the original, and Text A made it unlogic by editing.

So of course, Option 1 is reasonable, and option 2 is unreasonable.
Giving us the sense that if we want to be critical about the texts, then we need to say that the unlogic one is the right one.

****
And so, going back to our subject...
When we see the LXX gives more details and making it clear,
And we see also more details in the DSS, and having תראה vs. the תראהו in the MT (as making it clearer)

In that case, I'll have to look at the unlogic and unclear text of the MT and call it the right one.

Because it is reasonable that the DSS and LXX would turn the unclear MT to a clear one,
But it is unreasonable, that the MT would see a clear text and start editing it to make it unclear.
David Hunter
ducky
Posts: 518
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Exodus 2 - Strange Occurrences

Post by ducky »

By the way, Something general about the age thing...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGiL2PgC17A
David Hunter
Jason Hare
Posts: 937
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Exodus 2 - Strange Occurrences

Post by Jason Hare »

You're right. I'm actually used to being in circles where people know Greek better than they know Hebrew (online, anyway), so I didn't think about the need to translate. I'll go back and do that when I get a few moments.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
www.thehebrewcafe.com
Nihil est peius iis, qui paulum aliquid ultra primas litteras
progressi falsam sibi scientiæ persusionem induerunt.

— Quintilian
S_Walch
Posts: 309
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Exodus 2 - Strange Occurrences

Post by S_Walch »

I'm enjoying our exchange here, David :)
ducky wrote: Sat Nov 14, 2020 10:16 amI understood that, and it still sounds odd to me. And I can't think right now of any case like that as if the את as "with" - is referring to something inside something which the object in the thing that is the inside.
I was thinking along the lines of the English phrase "Is she with child?" (= being pregnant), however yes, this is an English phrase that I've not been able to find in Hebrew (or Greek for that matter - apparently it's Norse according to a quick google).
Actually, this part of the "daughter of Pharao" is more likely to be a late add-on.
Ah sorry, I wasn't implying that בת פרעה here was original, rather that possibly by the LXX translation (circa 250-200 BCE), there was a Hebrew version which already had this detail which the LXX translator copied.
And the fact that these two words בת פרעה came in the same place, does not mean that it is a must that the LXX and DSS used some other source.
Granted, the phrase could've been inserted by both the copyist of 4QExodb and the LXX translator. However before this could be answered with any certainty, a full on investigation of LXX Exodus would have to be conducted to determine whether it's common in LXX Exodus to add in extra details such as this, or whether it's rare. If rare, then I would suggest there's some sort of link between the two.

Frank Moore Cross, in Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Vol. 12 p. 84, says this about 4QExodb:

We can summarize the relationship of 4QExodb to the textual family standing behind the Old Greek translation as follows: In 23 variants 4QExodb stands with [the LXX]. In 14 cases these are secondary readings, the most important variants for determining filiation. In 13 variants, 4QExodb agrees with [the Masoretic], 11 of the 13 iח superior readings - the least important readings for determining filiation, since superior (or original) readings may survive independently in different textual families. In 18 variants 4QExodb agrees with [the Samaritan Pentateuch], 11 of those 18 in superior readings, 5 of the 18 חו secondary readings. We must conclude that 4QExodb is a collateral witness to the textual family which provided the Vorlage of the Old Greek translation.

Thus Frank comes very heavily in favour of the LXX and 4QExodb having a sort of textual relationship.
why do I say this?
Because when we see two texts that one is unclear and the other is cleared by more details, then most likely, the unclear is the earlier, and the other one saw the unclear text and made it clear.
But it is hard to assume that there was a clear source with details, and then the other text removed the details of the clear text and made it unclear. (I'll repeat that at the end).
Yes, this would be the Lectio difficilior, "the most difficult reading is likely the original."

There are caveats to this though: completely nonsense readings (those readings which make absolutely no sense and must be the fault of the copyist), or those readings which are just too difficult to make sense of, and are thus less likely to have been original.
And if they used some same Volrage (I guess it means "source"?),
Source, prototype, textual-witness, underlying-text, text-type - there's quite a few interpretations based on context!

Wikipedia should suffice on this one.
then how come the LXX doesn't have the rest of the verse as the DSS? This proves that it is not the same other Volrage. But it is the same as the MT, Which each one adds some details or explainings.
More "similar" rather than "same". See above though with quote from FMC about the general character of 4QExodb and the LXX.
I have to ask You and Jason that you would translate the Greek words that you write.
(Not everyone knows Greek)... I guess that the word means "baby".
Yes of course, sorry - παιδίον = child, infant, babe.
When you look at texts from a text-critical perspective, it is important to not follow the logic inside the text.
Actually, it is the unlogic text that is the logical way.
There is a term in linguistic that says that the strange thing is earlier, and so, this is similar to what I say here.
Lectio difficilior indeed :)
And so, going back to our subject...
When we see the LXX gives more details and making it clear,
And we see also more details in the DSS, and having תראה vs. the תראהו in the MT (as making it clearer)

In that case, I'll have to look at the unlogic and unclear text of the MT and call it the right one.

Because it is reasonable that the DSS and LXX would turn the unclear MT to a clear one,
But it is unreasonable, that the MT would see a clear text and start editing it to make it unclear.
Agreed; this doesn't account for a mistake being made earlier on in the textual tradition which was faithfully copied afterwards by the Masoretes. Apologies if it came across I was implying there was any sort of conscious decision to make the text weird!

I'm very much of the opinion that all our major text-families (Masoretic, DSS, LXX) contain errors which the others either also show, or instead have the superior reading. There are some scholars who go too far in dismissing all the others in favour of just one (H. S. Nyberg for instance describes the Masoretic as "the most recent and worst form of the biblical text" - see E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd Edition p. 274), which I think is the wrong approach to take.

For the LXX I start from the premise that the translators were very much attempting to make as strict a translation of their Hebrew source-texts as possible; as Jason has pointed out, the LXX produces some horrible Greek, even if it is understandable, so much to the point the Hebrew word order and exact phrases are carbon-copied into the Greek. From this though it is possible to retrovert an underlying Hebrew (or Aramaic) text; Exodus 2:6 here is no exception, and we certainly have some places where we could have a superior reading.

The more I stare at the LXX's κλαῖον ἐν τῇ θίβει ("crying in the basket") and my retroversion of בכה בתבה, the more I'm convinced בתבה has accidentally dropped out, even if this is not reflected in any of our Hebrew manuscripts.

Edit:
Should be noted that the Samaritan Pentateuch also includes בת פרעה in the same place as 4QExodb and the LXX. Evidently a very old addition if not original.
Ste Walch
Post Reply