Text-Critical Conjecture in Zech. 14:17

[Jason Hare]

So, BHS offers nothing at all. However, BHQ has the following textual note:

וְלֹ֥א עֲלֵיהֶ֖ם יִהְיֶ֥ה הַגָּֽשֶׁם׃ α'-σ'-θ' V S T | καὶ οὗτοι ἐκείνοις προστεθήσονται. G (elus) | καὶ οὗτοι ἐκείνοις προστεθήσονται καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ἐπ ̓ αὐτοὺς ὑετός. G^Mss (dbl)

This tells us that the Vulgate, the Syriac, and the Targum all agree with the reading as it appears in 𝔐, as do the readings in Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion (all Greek translations). The marking “G (elus)” means that the reading in G (that is, 𝔊) is elusive—it is difficult to explain based on the Hebrew text. This is for the first reading, which is the standard reading of the 𝔊. We see here that there are also multiple manuscripts of the 𝔊 tradition that duplicate the phrase and include the expression that there will be no rain upon them.

In the explanatory notes on the text, basically mirroring what we gathered from the textual note, the BHQ has this more direct comment:

וְלֹ֥א עֲלֵיהֶ֖ם יִהְיֶ֥ה הַגָּֽשֶׁם׃ It is difficult to account for G’s rendering. The suggestion that הגשׁם has been misinterpreted in terms of √נגשׁ (compare Rudolph, Haggai/Sacharja/Maleachi, 233) is unlikely, since G never otherwise renders נגשׁ by προστιθέναι. See Jansma, Inquiry, 139. G^Mss add the equivalent of M after this reading.

Here they would counter Karl’s position that הגשם should somehow to be read as a verb form of the root נג״שׁ. They say that this position is unlikely.

[Jason Hare]

Just as the vowels were not added to Hebrew until centuries after Zechariah wrote his text, so also the accents were not added to the Greek until centuries later. Are they correct to what the translator originally intended? Or did the translator intend that και ουτοι be a negative, “and neither they…” and הגשם from the Hophal of the irregular verb נגש meaning “to approach, draw near” hence the Greek προστεθήσονται? Now I can’t get inside the head of a long dead translator, but I see this as a possible way he understood the MT.

If it were hophal of נג״שׁ, how do you account for the final mem? The hophal would be passive (“was brought near”). It’s odd to have an object pronoun attached to a passive verb. I wish you would provide a repointing of the text to show how you read it (even in approximation, since vowels are not your strong suit) or a clear English translation that renders it according to your suggestion. Webb’s suggestion is certainly more elegant than what you’re proposing.

?] וְלֹא עֲלֵיהֶם יִהְיֶה הֻגְּשָׁם

Not only do you have to account for הגשם with a final mem, but you need to explain why a verb would be following another verb (יהיה). From what I can make of your little note, you would read it something like “and-not upon-them it-will-be. it-will-be-brought-close-them.” This makes no sense to me at all.

[Jason Hare]

There is also something odd about the word order in 𝔐. Why negate the preposition instead of the verb? I would expect either:

וְלֹא יִהְיֶה עֲלֵיהֶם גָּ֫שֶׁם

Or:

וַעֲלֵיהֶם לֹא יִהְיֶה גָּ֫שֶׁם

As written, it presents a syntactic issue. “Rain” shouldn’t be definite, either. Which rain? No rain was mentioned previous to this in the passage, and it’s not in line with the punishment actually mentioned there.

[kwrandolph]

So, BHS offers nothing at all. However, BHQ has the following textual note:

וְלֹ֥א עֲלֵיהֶ֖ם יִהְיֶ֥ה הַגָּֽשֶׁם׃ α'-σ'-θ' V S T | καὶ οὗτοι ἐκείνοις προστεθήσονται. G (elus) | καὶ οὗτοι ἐκείνοις προστεθήσονται καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ἐπ ̓ αὐτοὺς ὑετός. G^Mss (dbl)

This tells us that the Vulgate, the Syriac, and the Targum all agree with the reading as it appears in 𝔐, as do the readings in Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion (all Greek translations). The marking “G (elus)” means that the reading in G (that is, 𝔊) is elusive—it is difficult to explain based on the Hebrew text. This is for the first reading, which is the standard reading of the 𝔊. We see here that there are also multiple manuscripts of the 𝔊 tradition that duplicate the phrase and include the expression that there will be no rain upon them.

In the explanatory notes on the text, basically mirroring what we gathered from the textual note, the BHQ has this more direct comment:

וְלֹ֥א עֲלֵיהֶ֖ם יִהְיֶ֥ה הַגָּֽשֶׁם׃ It is difficult to account for G’s rendering. The suggestion that הגשׁם has been misinterpreted in terms of √נגשׁ (compare Rudolph, Haggai/Sacharja/Maleachi, 233) is unlikely, since G never otherwise renders נגשׁ by προστιθέναι. See Jansma, Inquiry, 139. G^Mss add the equivalent of M after this reading.

Here they would counter Karl’s position that הגשם should somehow to be read as a verb form of the root נג״שׁ. They say that this position is unlikely.

Thanks, Jason, this is exactly the sort of information for which I was looking. You have sources which I don’t have, and they show that this whole thread was based on a falsehood. Jwmealy (whoever is he, he never signed his posts) basically denied that the sources to which you just referred, exist.

What I tried to do, and I was not happy with the results, was to show how possibly that reading in the LXX could have come from 𝔐, assuming that Jwmealy had told the whole story.

Again, thank you.

Karl W. Randolph.

[jwmealy]

Webb suggests that the 𝔊 seems to have had a different Hebrew text underlying it, which might have looked something like this:

וְהָיָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יַעֲלֶה מִכָּל־מִשְׁפְּחֹות הָאָ֫רֶץ אֶל־יְרוּשָׁלִַם לְהִשְׁתַּחֲוֺת לְמֶ֫לֶךְ יהוה צְבָאוֹת וְגַם אֵ֫לֶּה עֲלֵיהֶם יִוָּסֵ֫פוּ׃

I don't actually think the translator necessarily had מִכָּל in front of him, though he may have. My theory was that he may have inserted πασῶν because he understood that מִן was ablative rather than indicating source or direction, and ἐὰν μὴ ἀναβῶσιν ἐκ τῶν φυλῶν τῆς γῆς...would have been ambiguous. As I type the phrase without πασῶν right now, I can also see that adding πασῶν also removes the potential ambiguity that he might be talking about the tribes of Israel, an idea I had not considered before. I'm applying Occam's Razor--"Do not multiply entities without necessity." If the addition of πασῶν is explainable without the supposition of a further difference between Hebrew mss, then that explanation is to be preferred if it is satisfying.

[jwmealy]

So, BHS offers nothing at all. However, BHQ has the following textual note:

וְלֹ֥א עֲלֵיהֶ֖ם יִהְיֶ֥ה הַגָּֽשֶׁם׃ α'-σ'-θ' V S T | καὶ οὗτοι ἐκείνοις προστεθήσονται. G (elus) | καὶ οὗτοι ἐκείνοις προστεθήσονται καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ἐπ ̓ αὐτοὺς ὑετός. G^Mss (dbl)

This tells us that the Vulgate, the Syriac, and the Targum all agree with the reading as it appears in 𝔐, as do the readings in Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion (all Greek translations). The marking “G (elus)” means that the reading in G (that is, 𝔊) is elusive—it is difficult to explain based on the Hebrew text. This is for the first reading, which is the standard reading of the 𝔊. We see here that there are also multiple manuscripts of the 𝔊 tradition that duplicate the phrase and include the expression that there will be no rain upon them.

In the explanatory notes on the text, basically mirroring what we gathered from the textual note, the BHQ has this more direct comment:

וְלֹ֥א עֲלֵיהֶ֖ם יִהְיֶ֥ה הַגָּֽשֶׁם׃ It is difficult to account for G’s rendering. The suggestion that הגשׁם has been misinterpreted in terms of √נגשׁ (compare Rudolph, Haggai/Sacharja/Maleachi, 233) is unlikely, since G never otherwise renders נגשׁ by προστιθέναι. See Jansma, Inquiry, 139. G^Mss add the equivalent of M after this reading.

Here they would counter Karl’s position that הגשם should somehow to be read as a verb form of the root נג״שׁ. They say that this position is unlikely.

Thanks, Jason, this is exactly the sort of information for which I was looking. You have sources which I don’t have, and they show that this whole thread was based on a falsehood. Jwmealy (whoever is he, he never signed his posts) basically denied that the sources to which you just referred, exist.

I wrote in my original post,

As far as I have discovered in my attempt at exhaustive research of secondary sources on this topic, no one has given a plausible account of how the Greek came from the Hebrew. I have analyzed the proposals of Köhler, Vollers, Lowe, Jansma, and Rudolph, and none of them suggests itself as at all probable.

Yeah, that Rudolph, and that Jansma.
This comment, very early in the discussion (viewtopic.php?p=33887#p33887), which refers to the fact that I am writing technical journal article that is based on an attempt at "exhaustive research," names and critiques every scholar who suggests that the translator of G had M in front of him but read הגשׁם as some version of the verb נגשׁ׳. A little later I said,

the fact that no scholar has been able to come up with a plausible mechanism through which the LXX reading could have come directly from the MT text as we have it, or from something nearly identical, strongly suggests that the text on his scroll differed materially from the MT. I have written a technical paper that demonstrates this in detail, and I'd be happy to share it with you. If you like you can email me and I will send it to you as an attachment. webb at selftest dot net (@ for at, . for dot). Alternatively, if there is a way to upload files to this forum I will be glad to do that.

In response, Karl said,

You don’t need to show a whole article, all you need is to quote alternate readings found in other MSS. Anything else is mere speculation.

In other words, he refused to look at my article, excluding every form of evidence but Hebrew mss as "mere speculation."

If there is any appearance of falsehood in my writing it is not there because of any design on my part.

J. Webb Mealy, PhD (Biblical Studies, Sheffield)

[Jason Hare]

I’m pleased to hear that you’re writing a technical article. Also, I didn’t know that you were PhD! When did you complete your degree? So exciting! I hope that I will get to read your article when it’s ready. In the meantime, I’d love to read your techincal paper. You have my email address.

[kwrandolph]

In response, Karl said,

You don’t need to show a whole article, all you need is to quote alternate readings found in other MSS. Anything else is mere speculation.

In other words, he refused to look at my article, excluding every form of evidence but Hebrew mss as "mere speculation."

If there is any appearance of falsehood in my writing it is not there because of any design on my part.

J. Webb Mealy, PhD (Biblical Studies, Sheffield)

Jason wrote, “We see here that there are also multiple manuscripts of the 𝔊 tradition that duplicate the phrase and include the expression that there will be no rain upon them. ( καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ἐπ ̓ αὐτοὺς ὑετός )” That information severely weakens the argument, because that indicates that J. Webb Mealy didn’t include all the information needed for an understanding of the issue. Adding that information would indicate that the text of the LXX originally included the idea of no rain, only later that that idea got dropped in later, corrupted versions of the LXX. That also gives the indication that ουτοι εκεινοις προστεθησονται was originally a comment added by the translator.

On the other hand, the Aramaic (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan) and Syriac, the Latin, and Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, are all theorized to stem from one exemplar that was selected from among all the existing scrolls around the end of the first century CE--and that ms was not a recension. When all your witnesses are downstream of a single witness, they do not add manuscript weight to its testimony. Thus we have M and G theoretically standing on level ground with each other.

There’s no evidence that “all your witnesses are downstream of a single witness” which renders this speculative theory moot. This is also an example where speculation is treated as fact in order to build up the next step in speculation.

I want to see more than mere speculation upon mere speculation.

Karl W. Randolph.

[talmid56]

J. Webb, I would like to read your technical article, as well when ready. I'll send you my email in a PM.

[Jason Hare]

Hey, Webb.

I just finished reading your article, as it currently is. I cannot go through it and respond by sections—just don’t have the time for it right now.

Just a basic response. (1) It clearly addresses the various suggestions for a resolution of the textual problem and discusses why those made up to now have fallen short. (2) The suggestion that you have made seems, as I said before, elegant and encompassing. I would personally expect to read מִכָּל־מִשְׁפְּחוֹת הָאָ֫רֶץ mikkol-mišpəḥôṯ hāʾā́reṣ, which is a common expression in the biblical text—whether paired with מִן, with לְ־, with the conjunction וְ־, and with other particles, or whether joined to other nouns in the absolute state (such as בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל or הַגּוֹיִם). I don’t really like מֵאֵת there. I know it wasn’t part of your suggestion, and it isn’t worth adding for the point of the argument, but I prefer it to how the text currently appears.

Good job on the research and the suggestion. I hope your work has a positive reception and generates discussion.