Text-Critical Conjecture in Zech. 14:17

[kwrandolph]

I want to see actual evidence, not speculation. Evidence is an actual alternate reading.

If there is no plausible account of Zech. 14:17 out there

Have you considered making your own analysis instead of relying on others?

that explains how the Hebrew of the MT was used to produce the Greek translation of the LXX, e.g. through a misunderstanding of or misreading of the text as witnessed in the MT,

There are many misreadings of the MT as witnessed by the most of the Kethiv/Qere pairs found there. So why not also we today?s readers?

or of the MT text with a small misspelling here or there, … 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.

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.

Yes, I’m being a bit cryptic here, because I want to see if you can produce either an alternate reading found in a MSS, or an alternate understanding of the MT. I find myself dissatisfied with mere speculation.

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

Must the phrase refer to the feast of Tabernacles in order to fit your criteria?

It must make sense in the context of v. 16-17a, i.e., it should state what will happen in the case of families of the earth who do not go up annually to celebrate the feast of Tabernacles, in order to fit my criteria of "making sense in the context in Hebrew."

Would you accept a similar grammatical or syntactical reading in a different context? That then could be applied to this verse?

But if you have a way of analyzing the sentence of v. 17 so that it is not structured as protasis-apodosis, or you are thinking in some other way that I am not anticipating, I'm certainly willing to learn something new.

I am open to the possibility that the translators of the LXX didn’t read this verse as a protasis-apodosis sentence. Rather that they saw the first part of verse 18 as a continuation and part of the protasis.

Karl W. Randolph.

[jwmealy]

Have you considered making your own analysis instead of relying on others?

My proposed analysis began this thread. The following is what I think the LXX translator had in front of him.

וְגַם־אֵלֶּה עֲלֵיהֶם יִוַּסְפוּ
καὶ οὗτοι ἐκείνοις προστεθήσονται

Your position seems to be that when the LXX differs from the MT, unless it is supported by a Hebrew ms, the LXX is to be assumed to be in error in some way. Thus a LXX manuscript does not count as "an alternate reading found in a MSS." That is not, as far as I know, a typical methodological approach in text-criticism of the Tanach. Forgive me for suggesting this, but it seems that you may have theological ideas about what the Bible is and about what God is likely to do to preserve it perfectly that make it seem unlikely to you in principle that the reading penned by the author could be lost in the Hebrew language and only preserved in Greek translation. If that is the case, then my proposed solution to the puzzle of v. 17 will be out of the question a priori, and there won't be much point in arguing about it.

Be that as it may--and forgive me if I am misinterpreting you--I am interested in your idea of (1) what Hebrew text lay in front of the translator of Zech. 14:17, (2) how that text arose from the MT version of the verse, since you think the MT version is what Zechariah wrote, and (3) why you think it is not likely that the LXX translator had the correct text in front of him. I can't promise ahead of time in the abstract what I will or will not accept as plausible, but I promise to give your proposal the best hearing I can, given the limits of my Hebrew knowledge.

[kwrandolph]

Have you considered making your own analysis instead of relying on others?

My proposed analysis began this thread. The following is what I think the LXX translator had in front of him.

וְגַם־אֵלֶּה עֲלֵיהֶם יִוַּסְפוּ
καὶ οὗτοι ἐκείνοις προστεθήσονται

Your position seems to be that when the LXX differs from the MT, unless it is supported by a Hebrew ms, the LXX is to be assumed to be in error in some way.

I haven’t checked that many times, but the vast majority of times that I have compared the two, the LXX has been in error in some way.

Thus a LXX manuscript does not count as "an alternate reading found in a MSS." That is not, as far as I know, a typical methodological approach in text-criticism of the Tanach. Forgive me for suggesting this, but it seems that you may have theological ideas about what the Bible is and about what God is likely to do to preserve it perfectly that make it seem unlikely to you in principle that the reading penned by the author could be lost in the Hebrew language and only preserved in Greek translation. If that is the case, then my proposed solution to the puzzle of v. 17 will be out of the question a priori, and there won't be much point in arguing about it.

The above is the reason I demand a Hebrew MSS variant reading to back up the LXX. This is not an automatic rejection of the LXX, but based on my experience, the LXX has a record of being untrustworthy.

But then I consider all translations to be questionable at best. That’s just the nature of the beast.

Be that as it may--and forgive me if I am misinterpreting you--I am interested in your idea of (1) what Hebrew text lay in front of the translator of Zech. 14:17, (2) how that text arose from the MT version of the verse, since you think the MT version is what Zechariah wrote, and (3) why you think it is not likely that the LXX translator had the correct text in front of him. I can't promise ahead of time in the abstract what I will or will not accept as plausible, but I promise to give your proposal the best hearing I can, given the limits of my Hebrew knowledge.

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.

Karl W. Randolph.

[jwmealy]

I cannot tell what you are proposing if you only offer fragments. Can you paraphrase, in English, the sentence that you think the translator thought he was translating? I can say this much: (1) καὶ οὗτοι cannot reasonably be construed as negative, and (2) προστίθημι never means to approach or to bring, nor does נגשׁ ever mean add. The translator of the scroll of the twelve was competent in both Hebrew and Greek, so a solution that involves suggesting that he drew two separate impossible meanings from two separate elements in a sentence is not a solution.
̀

[kwrandolph]

I cannot tell what you are proposing if you only offer fragments. Can you paraphrase, in English, the sentence that you think the translator thought he was translating?̀

and neither they were bringing upon them

I can say this much: (1) καὶ οὗτοι cannot reasonably be construed as negative, and

With a different accent over the ουτοι then it is a negative. At the time the LXX was translated, there were no accents in Greek, so the accents presently in the LXX were added much later and you must allow that the accents presently in the LXX are wrong.

(2) προστίθημι never means to approach or to bring,

Literally “to place towards” which can be understood as the Hophal of נגש “to be caused to approach” or “to bring”. We see that use of נגש in 1 Samuel 13:9.

nor does נגשׁ ever mean add.

“To add” is not in the translation.

The translator of the scroll of the twelve was competent in both Hebrew and Greek, so a solution that involves suggesting that he drew two separate impossible meanings from two separate elements in a sentence is not a solution.
̀

I don’t understand this last paragraph.

Karl W. Randolph.

[jwmealy]

Thanks for the conversation.

[Jason Hare]

That is not, as far as I know, a typical methodological approach in text-criticism of the Tanach. Forgive me for suggesting this, but it seems that you may have theological ideas about what the Bible is and about what God is likely to do to preserve it perfectly that make it seem unlikely to you in principle that the reading penned by the author could be lost in the Hebrew language and only preserved in Greek translation. If that is the case, then my proposed solution to the puzzle of v. 17 will be out of the question a priori, and there won't be much point in arguing about it.

You’ve reached the appropriate conclusion.

[kwrandolph]

My question is, do we correctly understand the text in the MT, LXX, or do we have a false reading in one, or maybe even in both, languages? When I checked lexilogos dictionary online, I found that ουτοι is a negative when it has different accents than what are presently in the LXX. Since the accents are not original, what is the probability that the wrong accents were added later? That’s just one question concerning the Greek text.

As for the Hebrew, our present understanding is guided by the Masoretic points that were added a millennium after the text was written. What is the probability that they are wrong? That they indicate a meaning other than the one that Zechariah intended?

Because we deal with two uncertain texts, uncertain in our understanding thereof, how can we confidently claim that one is a definite evidence for an alternate urtext reading of the other?

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

From the NETS translation of the Septuagint, Zechariah 14:

    12 And this shall be the calamity with which the Lord will cut off all the peoples who waged war against Ierousalem: their flesh shall melt away as they stand on their feet, and their eyes shall ooze from their sockets, and their tongue shall melt in their mouth. ¹³And it shall be on that day, a great panic from the Lord shall be upon them, and each will seize the hand of his neighbor, and his hand will be joined to the hand of his neighbor. ¹⁴Even Ioudas will fight at Ierousalem and shall collect the strength of all the peoples round about—gold and silver and apparel in great abundance. ¹⁵And this shall be the overthrow of the horses and the mules and the camels and the donkeys and all the animals that are in those camps, according to this calamity.
    16 And it will be that all who remain of all the nations that came against Ierousalem shall also go up year after year to do obeisance to the King, the Lord Almighty, and to keep the feast of tent pitching. ¹⁷And it shall be that all who do not go up from all the tribes of the earth to Ierousalem to do obeisance to the King, the Lord Almighty, these then shall be added to those. ¹⁸And if the tribe of Egypt should not go up or come, then on these shall be the calamity with which the Lord will strike all the nations, as many as will not go up to keep the feast of tent pitching. ¹⁹This shall be the sin of Egypt and the sin of all the nations, as many as shall not go up to keep the feast of tent pitching.

There seem to be two groups in discussion: those that actively fought against Jerusalem, and those who fail to go to Jerusalem to worship God at the Festival of Sukkot. The punishment (“calamity”) brought upon those who fought against Jerusalem is that their skin would melt, etc., and those who refused to worship God in the way prescribed would share in the same fate (“be added to those”). This makes good sense when read within the context. The insertion of “rain” into the passage makes little sense.

Karl doesn’t do us the favor of repointing the text according to how he suggests it be read or providing a translation of the entire phrase so that we can imagine how he reads the Hebrew text. In 𝔐 the text appears as follows:

וְ֠הָיָה אֲשֶׁ֨ר לֹֽא־יַעֲלֶ֜ה מֵאֵ֨ת מִשְׁפְּחֹ֤ות הָאָ֨רֶץ֙ אֶל־יְר֣וּשָׁלִַ֔ם לְהִֽשְׁתַּחֲוֹ֔ת לְמֶ֖לֶךְ יְהוָ֣ה צְבָאֹ֑ות וְלֹ֥א עֲלֵיהֶ֖ם יִהְיֶ֥ה הַגָּֽשֶׁם׃

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׃

Notice that יִוָּסֵ֫פוּ is the pausal form of יִוָּֽסְפוּ. This really does seem to be an elegant solution to the issue. I want to check if there are any marks on this in the BHS or BHQ before commenting further.