A Text-Critical Analysis of Deuteronomy 3235-37

7/28/2019 A Text-Critical Analysis of Deuteronomy 3235-37

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-text-critical-analysis-of-deuteronomy-3235-37 1/21

A TEXT-CRITICAL ANALYSIS OFDEUTERONOMY 32:35-37

BY

DREW LONGACRE

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR OT 840: OLT TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM

TMSMAY, 2009

The following writing sample is a slightlymodified and condensed version of a

research paper I wrote in 2009 for a Th.M.seminar in Old Testament textual criticism.It is somewhat limited in scope, but I believe it accurately reflects my thorough primary source research and writing skillsin conversation with exegesis, poeticanalysis, linguistics, and other criticalconcerns. The full bibliography has beenomitted for brevity’s sake.



2

SEPTUAGINT TEXT (Ö)

Deuteronomy 32:35-3735 evn h`me,ra| evkdikh,sewj avntapodw,sw [s′ mihi ultio et retribuam = evmoi. evkdi,khsij kai. avntapodw,sw] evn kairw/ | [AFMN Q; B omit evn kairw / |] o[tan sfalh/ | o` pou.j auvtw/n o[ti evggu.j h`me,ra avpwlei, aj

[B bAF*; B av pwli, aj ] auvtw/n [AFMN Q; Bt auv toi/ j ] kai. pa,restin e[toima [ a′kairi, wj ] um̀i/n 36 o[ti

krinei/ ku,rioj to.n lao.n auvtou/ kai. evpi. toi/j dou,loij auvtou/ paraklhqh,setai ei=den [AF; B i; den ; O′ei= de ] ga.r paralelume,nouj [Bparelelume, nouj ] auvtou.j [most witnesses transpose paralelume,nouj

auvtou.j, but the oldest witnesses ABF show this order to be original6] kai. evkleloipo,taj evn evpagwgh/ |

kai. pareime,nouj [ ei=den – pareime,nouj: s′ vidit enim quod humiliata esset manus, et defecisset angustia

affectus et destitutus = ei= de ga. r o[ ti ev tapeinw, qh cei. r , kai. ev xe,lipen o` suneco, menoj kai.

ev gkataleleimme, noj ] 37 kai. ei=pen ku,rioj pou/ eivsin [á sunt nunc] oi` qeoi. [A qeoij ] auvtw/n ev fV oi-j [ a′ firmus = stereo, j ; q′ custos = fu, lax ] evpepoi,qeisan evpV auvtoi/j

35In the day of vengeance I will repay [prp ] , at the time when their foot should slip, for

the day of their destruction is near, and things prepared are upon you [prb cumà]. 36 For the

Lord will judge his people and show his servants compassion, for he has seen them paralyzed,

wasting away in captivity, and listless.37

And the Lord [prb ] said, “Where are their gods?” onwhom [prb ] they took refuge.

The Greek text of Deuteronomy 32:35-37 is somewhat more complicated, but it can still be

reliably traced back to a single translation, accurately reflected in Rahlfs’ edition of the Septuagint.7

Variant readings from significant LXX manuscripts have been interpolated into the text from the

Göttingen,8 Cambridge,9 and other critical editions.10 Of the LXX readings, only the omission of evn

kairw/ | in Codex Vaticanus in v. 35 —probably omitted as redundant —makes a significant difference in

meaning, and in this and all other cases, the text as presented above seems clearly to be original. The

later recensions, recorded in Origen’s Hexapla, make characteristic revisions towards à.11 The

variants of Symmachus (s′), reconstructed from extant Latin readings, are clearly bringing the text

closer into line with the Masoretic text. The alternative translations of Aquila ( a′) and Theodotian (q′)

proffer more literal renderings of the Hebrew than the LXX, which is relatively free at certain points.

6 John William Wevers, LXX: Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy, Septuagint and Cognate Studies 39(Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1995), 529.

7

Alfred Rahlfs, Septuaginta (Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1935), 349.8 John William Wevers, ed., Deuteronomium, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum AuctoritateAcademiae Scientiarum Gottingensis Editum, vol. III, 2 (Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 356-7.

9 Alan England Brooke and Norman McLean, eds., The Old Testament in Greek: According to the Text of

Codex Vaticanus, Supplemented from Other Uncial Manuscripts, with a Critical Apparatus Containing the Variants of

the Chief Ancient Authorities for the Text of the Septuagint (London, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press,1911), 665.

10 Henry Barclay Swete, The Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint (Cambridge, UnitedKingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1901), 413; Robert Hanhart, Septuaginta, Revision of Alfred Ralphs (Stuttgart,Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellshaft, 2006), 349.

11 Fredericus Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, vol. 1 (Oxonii: E Typographeo Clarenoniano, 1875), 323.



3

The author’s translation also proposes several reconstructions for the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX

translation, where it seems to differ from à. These will be considered below on a case-by-case basis.

SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH (Ä)

Deuteronomy 32:35-37

wml tdyt[ vxw ~dya ~wy bwrq yk ~lgr jwmt t[l ~lvw ~qn ~wyl 35

bwz[w rwc[ spaw dy tlza yk hary yk ~xnty wydb[ l[w wm[ hwhy !ydy yk 36 wb wysx rwc wmyhla hya wrmaw 37

35… [continued from v. 34?] for the day of vengeance and recompense. In due time their foot will

slip, for the day of their disaster is near, and things to come are hasting upon them.36

For the LORD

will vindicate his people and show his servants compassion when he sees that their strength is goneand there are none left, bond or free.

37 Then they will say, “Where is their God—the rock in which

they took refuge?”

The text of the Samaritan Pentateuch is likewise well established in the critical editions of

Von Gall12 and Kennicott13 and the London Polyglot,14 with only inconsequential orthographic

variants. It follows à closely in both form and content. Its first clause ~qn ~wyl attests to the LXX

reading and will be discussed in greater detail below. Only the third person plural reading wrmaw in v.

37 betrays exegetical alteration, which will also be further expounded.

OTHER SIGNIFICANT VERSIONS (ç, ã, and å)

Latin Vulgate (ç)


mea est ultio et ego retribuam in tempore ut labatur pes eorum iuxta est dies perditionis et adessefestinant tempora 36 iudicabit Dominus populum suum et in [OL omit in] servis suis miserebitur videbit quod infirmata sit manus et clausi quoque defecerint residuique consumpti sint [Lr defecerint

… sint ; ACSLFS defecerint … sunt ; OTMFc defecerunt … sunt ] 37 et dicet [AC; cet. dicent ] ubi suntdii eorum in quibus habebant fiduciam

The text of the Latin Vulgate is generally established according to the critical editions.15 It is

divided on two readings: defecerint … sint in v. 36 and dicet in v. 37. Where the LXX and à

disagree, it tends to prefer à, but some significant readings are hybrids or uncertain.

12 August Freiherrn Von Gall, Der Hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner (Giessen, Germany: Verlag vonAlfred Töpelmann, 1918), 433.

13 Kennicott, 436.14 Brian Walton, ed., Biblia Sacra Polyglotta, vol. 1 (London: Thomas Roycroft, 1657), 837.15 Bonifatius Fischer et al, eds., Biblia Sacra Vulgata, vol. 1 (Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft,

1983), 281; Pont. Max. Sixti V and Clementis VIII, Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis (Rome, Italy: Marietti, 1959), 158.



4

Syriac Peshitta (ã)


~rm bhrsmw !whrbtd amwy wh Byrqd ljm !whlgr jwmtd anbnb !wna [wrpad ay[rwp wh ylyd 35

$msdw rd[d tylw adya tjlvd azxd lwjm aybtm hwdb[bw hm[l ayrm !add Ljm 36!whl dyt[d !whyl[ wwh cylybtd !wnh apyqt !whyhla !wna a[ya [7j3 rmaw ] rmanw 37

The text of the Syriac Peshitta is established in the critical edition of Lane et al.16 Generally,

if followsà fairly closely. Much like ç, at key points it is a hybrid of à and Ö, providing much

help in resolving the text-critical problems of this passage.

Aramaic Targums

Targum Onqelos (åO)

Deuteronomy 32:35-37 dyt[d [bmw !whrbt ~wy byrq yra !wh[ram !wlgyd !d[l ~ylva anaw atwn[rwp ymdq 35 !dy[bd yhwmdq ylg yra [rpty ayqydc yhwdb[ twn[rwpw hym[d anyd ywy !ydy yra 36 !whl

wwhd apyqt !whtlxd !a rmyyw 37 !yqybvw !yljljm !why hans txm !whyl[ @qtytdhyb !ycyxr

The text of Targum Onqelos remains the closest of the targums to its original Hebrew

Vorlage, which was apparently very close to à.17 There are numerous exegetical and grammatical

facilitations in the text, but it does not contain the same degree of midrashic tendencies as the other

targums.18 Though the precise date of Targum Onqelos is debated, Tov argues that it may preserve a

pre-Christian written or oral tradition, which may be significant as discussed later.19

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (åJ)

Deuteronomy 32:35-37 ~wy ytyml byrq ~wra atwlgl !whylgyr jwmtd !dy[l ~ylva anaw atwn[rwp ymdq 35 hym[d anyd ywmxrb yyyd armym !yad ~wra 36 !whl adt[tmd atvyb a[bmw !whrbt

!wbwxyd !dy[bd ywmdq ylg ~wra ywmdq [wht] !ht yhy ywdb[ l[ rzgyd atvyb l[w larvy!ybj !ydbw[ yrm aynmyhm !yqsp !whyw !whydym dy[s ljnttw hans txm !whyl[ @qtytw

hyb wcyxrd apyqt larvyd !whtlxd awh !ah hans rmyyw 37 !yqybvw !yljljym !whyw

16 D. J. Lane, et al., The Old Testament in Syriac According to the Peshitta Version: Leviticus – Numbers –

Deuteronomy – Joshua, part I, fascicle 2; part II, fascicle 1 b (Leiden, the Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1991), 92-3.17 Alexander Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic: The Pentateuch according to Targum Onqelos, vol. 1 (Leiden, the

Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1992), 348.18 For translation and notes see Bernard Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Deuteronomy: Translated, with

Apparatus, and Notes, the Aramaic Bible 9 (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1988), 99-100.19 Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, second revised edition (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress

Press, 2001), 150.



5

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan in this passage shows strong influence from åO, but it contains far

more exegetical and grammatical facilitations, as well as midrashic elements.20 The freedom of the

translators makes this targum of less direct text-critical significance than åO for this passage.

Targum Neophyti (å N

)

Deuteronomy 32:35-37 [brq] byrq ~wra hyqydcd !whylgr jwmyt yd !d[l ~lvmd awh hnaw htmqn ayh ydyd 35 zrzmw !whl [hdyt[] hdt[m [gd avaw] ~nyhgd tvaw hy[yvrd [!whyrbt] !whrbt ~wy awhwymxrb yyy awh !yad ~wra 36 ytad ly[l [rwp [!whyl[ hml[l] !whyl[ htwn[rwp ytyymwawh hyqydcd ywdb[ !wbl[ l[w [vyd ywnb] larvy ynb hym[d !whynyd ty hyybj [ywmxrb]

d[sd !whl tylw !yvyjrw !yqybv !wnaw hyqydcd !whydy tjm ~wra ywmdq ylg ~wra ~xntmhyb wcxrtad hpyqt larvyd ahla [!h] !a rmyml hymwa !wnya !ydyt[ rmaw 37 $msw

Like åJ above, Targum Neophyti introduces many facilitating interpretive and midrashic

elements, diminishing its direct value in reconstructing the Hebrew Vorlage.21 Nevertheless,

significant departures from the tradition of åOJ indicate a degree of independence for this targum as

a separate witness. It is variously dated from the first to fifth centuries A.D.22

Fragmentary Targum (åF)

Deuteronomy 32:35-37 jwmytd !dy[l [P; V ~ylvm yd] ~lvmd awh anaw atmqn [PV; NL awh] ayh ydyd „„ 35

~wy [V awh] byrq ~wra ayqydcd [PL; V !whlgr; N !whylygr] !whylgr [P; V jwmt yd] tvaw; N ~nhygd atvaw] ~nhyg vaw ay[yvrd [P; V !whrbt] !whyrbt [PV; N a~wy]

!whyl[ atwn[rwp ytyymw [P; V zyrzmw] !whl [P; V hdyt[] adyt[ [P; V ~nhyg

awh ayqydc ywdb[ l[w rvy ynb hym[d !whnyd ‘yy awh !yad ~wra „„ 36 ayqydcd !whydy tjm ~wra ywmdwq ylg ~wra ~xntm [corrected by 2 hands ~xntm] $msw d[sd !whl tylw [V; L !yvyjrm] !yvyjrw !yqybv [V; N !wnyaw; L ~wraw] !wnyhw

awh [P; V !a; NL !h] !ah rmyml [P; V ayymwa] aymwa [P; V omit !h] !h !ydyt[ „„ 37 [P hyb – !whhla; VN hyb wcyxrtyad apyqt rvyd ahla] hyb !whncxwrd !whhla

The Fragmentary Targum bears close affinities to å N and exhibits many exegetical and

midrashic influences.23 Its collected fragmentary nature lends itself to be helpful in analyzing the

history of the targumic traditions for this passage.

20 This text of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan is from BibleWorks7 (PJT) <http://www.bibleworks.com/>.21 The text of Targum Neophyti is also from BibleWorks7 (NFT) <http://www.bibleworks.com/>.22 Tov, 150.23 Michael L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch according to their Extant Sources: Texts, Indices,

and Introductory Essays, vol. 1 (Rome, Italy: Biblical Institute Press, 1980), 114, 228-9. For translation and notes, seevol. 2, pp. 87, 185-6. Deuteronomy 32:35-37 is fortunately well preserved in four manuscripts: MS Paris (P) – Bibliothèque nationale Hébr. 110, folios 1-16; MS Vatican (V) – Ebr. 440, folios 198-227; MS Leipzig (L) – UniversitätB. H. folio 1; MS Nürnberg (N) – Stadtbiliothek Solger 2.2o, folios 119-147.



6

Cairo Genizah Targum (åC)

Deuteronomy 32:35-37 byrq Î~Ðwra hyy[yvrd !whylgr @k jwmt yd ÎhÐt[vl hmÎlvmwÐ hÎtmÐqn ayh hydyd „„ 35

‘yy hyrmm awh !yad ~wra „„ 36 !whl hdt[m ~nyhg tvyaw hy[yvrd !whrbt ~wy awh~wra ywmdq ylg ~wra ~xntm awh hyqydc ywdb[ l[w vy tybd hym[l hyybj ywmxrb

!wrmay ald „„ 37 $ymsd tylw dy[sd tyl !wdkw hyybj hyydbw[ arm hyynmyh hm[ wqsphyb wcyxrta yd hpyqt vyd !whhla awh !h hyymwa

The text of Deuteronomy

32:35-37 is almost entirely

preserved in an Aramaic targum

manuscript from the Cairo

Genizah.24 The Cairo Genizah

Targum has a varied text type that

bears similarities to other targums,

but also exhibits a fair degree of

independence. As in the other

targums, the Cairo Genizah text

exhibits many exegetical and

midrashic additions.

V. 35V. 35 has by far the most difficult of the textual problems in Deuteronomy 32:35-37. The

first half of the verse provides a great test case for the reconstruction of the original reading from

extant manuscripts and versions. It introduces many complex issues including transcriptional

probability, scribal psychology, the reconstruction of a Hebrew Vorlage from a version, the

interrelations between versions, and the role of New Testament citations of the Old Testament in

textual criticism.

The first problem in the text is encountered immediately in the first two words of à:

‘~q'n" yli Û.

This reading is generally translated “vengeance is mine.”25 ç is in agreement with à in its reading

24 Michael L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, vol. 2 (Cincinnati, OH:Hebrew Union College Press, 1986), 96. Photo from plate 151.

25 The exegesis of Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy ~yrbd , the JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia, PA: The

Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 311, and other commentators who see v. 35 as a continuation of v. 34 notwithstanding.This rendering is rightly rejected by most modern translations because it combines the two verses into one long,

Figure 1 Cairo Genizah Manuscript (lines 2-9)



8

judgment. Christians should not return evil for evil, avenging themselves before man, but rather

leave room for God’s wrath. In the last day, Christ will judge the world and all wrongs will be righted.

The pertinent text of this citation in Romans is evmoi. evkdi,khsij“vengeance is mine” (cf. s′ ). The fact

that this attests precisely to à is not surprising, if McCarthy is right in asserting that Paul normally

cites from the Hebrew in Old Testament references in Romans.30 The writer of Hebrews, in contrast,

typically cites from Ö only, which makes its identical reading evmoi. evkdi,khsij“vengeance is mine” in

Hebrews 10:30 in favor of à all the more astonishing and significant.31 This reading is in the

context of a warning passage, threatening God’s judgment on those who apostatize, a different

application than Paul makes in Romans. The author of Hebrews is further seen to be citing Scripture

independently, not dependent on Romans 12:19, since he also cites Deuteronomy 32:36 (krinei/

ku,rioj to.n lao.n auvtou/), which Romans does not.32 The fact that the quotation of Deuteronomy

32:36 utilizes the text of Ö further emphasizes the uniqueness of this text of Deuteronomy 32:35 incontradistinction to the normal style of the writer of Hebrews. The author must have had access to a

Hebrew or other tradition, or else he had access to variant manuscripts or early recensions of Ö.

Thus, we have two independent New Testament citations in agreement with à. More pointedly, it is

noteworthy that the text of Romans 12:19 not only prefers the reading of à, but in fact relies on this

reading against that of Ö, which would not fit the context as well. “Vengeance belongs to the Lord,

and not to human beings,”Paul says. The Ö reading would not have stressed the same opposition, as

it eliminates the emphasis on the divine prerogative for vengeance over and against the human.

Hebrews does not rest its case on the divine prerogative in judgment against that of man, but rather

merely stresses the certainty of the Lord’s coming wrath on apostates, so it may not indicate a

preference for à over Ö. Nevertheless, its unusual usage of the à text may still indicate just such a

preference. McCarthy rightly argues that these New Testament citations give clear evidence for the

antiquity of the reading à, but not necessarily its authenticity.33

Against the reading of à is the reading ~qn ~wyl“on/for the day of vengeance.” The first

significant attestation of this variant is in Ö, which reads evn h`me,ra| evkdikh,sewj “in the day of

vengeance.” This almost certainly represents a Hebrew Vorlage of ~qn ~wyl, since it most easily

explains the difference withà and is confirmed with Hebrew readings. The LXX text for this

30 McCarthy, 150.31 Ibid.32 Ibid.33 Ibid.



9

variant is firm and ancient, lending strong weight to this reading. The reconstruction from Ö is not

purely hypothetical, however, since Ä also reads ~qn ~wyl“on/for the day of vengeance.” The text of

Ä in this passage does not exhibit characteristics of dependence on Ö, and it must be granted the

weight of an independent attestation. Both Ö and Ä are strong witnesses against à, which makes

the textual solution all the more difficult. One final piece of evidence was found at Qumran cave

four. Dead Sea Scrolls manuscript 4QPaleoDeutr may preserve the reading ~qn ~wyl, but this is not

certain. This fragment is written in the paleo-Hebrew script and contains two lines of

partially preserved text. Line one reads va]rw ~nyyš[ from v. 34, and line two

reads ]Ùyšl[ from the beginning of v. 35.34 The problem is that this text is illegible at

precisely the point in question, as only the upper edges of the letters l and y are

visible. Nevertheless, it has been suggested in support of the variant ~qn ~wyl that the traces below

line one best fit the word ~wyl, rather than yl.35 If so, ä supports Ö and Ä against à, providing for

a strong combined contrary case.

The majority of contemporary scholars have not been persuaded by the external evidence for

~qn ~wyl, however, as evidenced by the near universal agreement of the modern versions in favor of

à.36 First of all, the evidence from ä is mitigated by the partial attestation and questionable

reconstruction. The fragment is such that it is extremely difficult to tell whether it actually supports

the variant or not. Second of all, though Ö andÄ do provide early and strong versional evidence,

they are by no means incontrovertible. The tradition of à is itself early and well established, as

evidenced by agreement in all the early versions other than Ö and Ä. ç, ã, two strands of å, Å,

revised texts of Ö, and the two New Testament citations give very strong evidence for the reading of

à that likely goes back to pre-Christian times. That the Romans citation relies heavily on the à

reading in its argument and that Hebrews uncharacteristically cites an à text against our Ö are

particularly strong support for the reading of à. Thus, the external evidence is sharply divided and

inconclusive.

Two proposals have been made to account for the origin of the reading ~qn ~wyl being

derived fromà’s ‘~q'n" yli Û. Tov and Tigay suggest that yl may have been used as an abbreviation for

34 Patrick Skehan, et al., Discoveries in the Judaean Desert IX: Qumran Cave 4, IV, Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek

Biblical Manuscripts (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 1992), 147. Photo from plate 36.35 Ibid., 147.36 RSV, NRSV, NJB, ESV, NIV, NASB, NKJV, NLT, NET Bible, Tanakh, Schlachter, Elberfelder, Louis

Segond, etc.

Figure 2

4QPaleoDeutr

frg. 41 (line 2)



10

~wyl, or at least possibly have been misunderstood as such by a scribe. 37 This solution is possible,

but the evidence for it is quite sparse. There are few if any solid indications of the regular use of

abbreviations in the early history of the Hebrew manuscripts, as would be necessary to postulate

corruption in Ö. Equally apropos is the fact that of the abbreviations Tov proposes, only this passage

provides any evidence for an abbreviation for anything other than a divine name. If the resort to

abbreviations in text-critical decisions in general is questionable, it is even more highly unlikely that

anyone would have ever read yl as an abbreviation for ~wyl. The paucity of evidence in favor of

such a solution in general and for this particular solution renders it highly improbable, and such a

solution should be appealed to only as a last resort.

A second explanation for the origin of ~qn ~wyl may also be proposed. This variant may be

explained by dittography, whereby the final ~ in ~qn led the scribe to read yl as ~wyl, by error of the

eye. This proposed accidental transcriptional error is more probable than an intentional error due to

misunderstanding as an abbreviation, which should not be resorted to if a reasonable unintentional

explanation is available. Furthermore, though the parallelism with t[l is often cited in support of

~wyl, it is possible that the potential parallel could have influenced the reading in favor of a

corruption towards ~wyl. In fact, if the two cola are evaluated as synthetically parallel, rather than

synonymously so, some might consider the more closely parallel reading suspect, or at best

unnecessary. It could be further influenced by assimilation to ~wy later in the verse. The heavy

emphasis on temporal terms could have influenced the reading from yl to ~wyl. Furthermore, though

~wyl would be similar to the many temporal terms already present, it also makes much less sense in

the context if the reading ~lvw is retained in the next problem, in which case the reading ~wyl would

require an excessive piling on of adverbial clauses with an obscure main verb that is extremely

difficult in Hebrew, particularly in poetry as such.

Nevertheless, in part because of the strong external evidence against à, BHQ prefers the

reading ~qn ~wyl of ä, Ö, and Ä.à’s reading ‘~q'n" yli Û is then explained by haplography.

38

In thiscase, the final ~ of ~q'n" influenced the corruption of the original reading ~qn ~wyl by the accidental

omission of the ~w on ~wyl by error of the eye. The expression ~qn ~wy is not uncommon and fits

37 Tov, 257; Tigay, 405n144.38 McCarthy, 150.



11

well in the context of what precedes and follows.39 Specifically, ~wyl fits well in tight parallel with

t[l later in the verse and has a high degree of intrinsic probability.40 Since both ~qn yl and ~wyl

~qn are ancient, well-attested, and viable, resolving this difficult textual issue requires careful

attention to questions of internal probability. One important point to recognize is the integral

relationship of this variant with the following one. They cannot be considered in isolation, in my

view, and adjudication between the variants must await further discussion of the next textual variant.

The second major textual problem in v. 35 is the reading ~Le êviw> inà. This word is difficult,

since it is a hapax legomenon as pointed as a common noun in à.41 First of all, there are several

witnesses to this consonantal text. à reads solidly ~Le êviw>.Ä also reads the consonantal text ~lvw. In

fact, all the Hebrew manuscript evidence attests to the consonantal text of à and Ä, which is strong

support for their reading. Å is alone among the versions, however, in attesting clearly to the same

text with a nominal form.42

The next question which must be asked about this consonantal text witness is its proper

vocalization.à provides direction with its pointing ~Le êviw>. As noted above, this noun is not attested

anywhere else in the Old Testament, which raises immediate questions about the accuracy of the

pointing. This is particularly the case since the consonantal form allows for a pointing that

corresponds to the more normal word ~Luviw> of the same root and meaning as is sometimes proposed

for ~Le êviw>.43 Though Rashi understands ~Le êviw> as a verb, he notes that some in his day emended the

vowels to correspond to ~Luviw>.44 Grisanti points out as a word of caution, however, that the archaic

nature of the poetry of Deuteronomy 32 renders the possibility of an antiquated hapax legomenon

form more feasible.45 Theà vocalization is clearly the more difficult to account for and explain its

origin if incorrect. With little evidence either way, other than faith in the vocalization of à versus

the linguistic probability of the more common term, the decision is based almost purely on

39 Ibid. Cf. Isa 34:8; 61:2; 63:4; Prov 6:34.40 Arnold B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur Hebräischen Bibel: Textkritisches, Sprachliches, und Sachliches (Leipzig,

Germany: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1909), 345.41 Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, eds, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament , rev.

by Walter Baumgartner and Johann Jakob Stamm, trans. by M.E.J. Richardson (Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2001),1540.

42 Walton, 857.43 Rudolph Kittel, ed., Biblia Hebraica (Stuttgart, Germany: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1937), 315.44 Abraham Ben Isaiah and Benjamin Sharfman, The Pentateuch and Rashi’s Commentary: A Linear

Translation into English: Deuteronomy (Brooklyn, NY: S. S. & R. Publishing Company, Inc., 1949), 304-5.45 In personal communication with Michael Grisanti. Note that the occurrences of ~WLviÆ~Luvi are all in the later

prophets: Is 34:8; Hos 9:7; Mic 7:3.



12

conjecture. Rashi’s suggestion that this is a third person masculine singular finite verb does not make

sense of the statement in context, so we are left with the understanding of ~lvw as a noun meaning

“recompense” in any case.

The problem arises when the versional evidence is considered. The ancient versions, with the

exception of Å, all read a form of a first person verb. Ö reads avntapodw,sw“I will repay (viz.

retribution).”s′ agrees, being preserved in the Latin reading et retribuam“and I will repay.” This is

significant, since his corrections to the LXX in this passage show that he was correcting Ö toà, yet

he retains the reading of Ö here.46 ç similarly reads et ego retribuam“and I will repay.” This reading

with an explicit personal pronoun may be influenced by the New Testament citations to be discussed

later, but likely reflects a variant in its Vorlage. ã attests essentially to the same with [wrpad “I will

repay.” Once again, å indicates two independent traditions that both agree with the other versions.

åOJ read ~ylva anaw“and I will repay.”å NF read ~lvmd awh hnaw“and I am the one who will

repay.”47 åC is unrecoverable at this point and is not a reliable witness to this text, despite attempts at

reconstruction.

Both the New Testament citations from the previous problem (Rom 12:19; Heb 10:30)

include this text as well and read evgw. avntapodw,sw“I will repay.” Both New Testament citations are

citing a hybrid text followingà for the first problem and another text form for the rest, possibly

influenced both by Ö and the traditions behind å. The main point of the Romans passage, as noted

above, depends on theà reading in the first phrase, but not essentially on either reading for this

problem. Bothà and the alternate reading would fit in the context of Paul’s argument, so perhaps

not too much weight can be put on the apostle’s choice of the latter for text-critical decisions.

Nevertheless, the text type of the quotation does indeed fit the context well. In Hebrews, the text

type yet again is highly appropriate for the context. à would also make sense in the context, but it

would not have the same effect as an emphatic statement that the Lord will repay the apostate. It

would also destroy the similarities and parallels with the citation from Deuteronomy 32:36. At very

least Hebrews then, and possibly Romans, makes its argument in large part contingent upon the

choice of text type, lending relatively great significance to these readings.

While the evidence from the Hebrew manuscripts is quite strong, the persistent preference

among the versions for the contrary reading presents a great challenge to them. The difference is

46 Wevers, 529.47 One manuscript separates the relative pronoun from the participle.



13

jarring and raises the possibility that an obscure and poorly understood Hebrew text gave rise to the

translations that choose a first person verbal form by free grammatical facilitation to the target

language.48 Wevers is one who argues that the Ö reading and those of the other versions are

explicable on the basis of the consonantal text ~lvw. He proposes that the LXX understood ~lvw as

a Piel infinitive absolute and took it as a separate clause, “and there is repayment.” In the context, this

demands that God be the subject of repayment, giving rise to a free translation of the passage, and

hence the finite verb.49 This is along the lines of Rashi’s interpretation noted above, though he

understood the form as that of a finite verb. The theory that the versions are merely free translations

of the difficult Hebrew of à and Ä may be supported by the lack of uniformity in versional

readings. ç, å, and s′ have the conjunction “and,” whereas Ö, ã, and the New Testament citations do

not. ç, å, and the New Testament citations have an explicit first person independent personal

pronoun, whereas Ö, s′, and ã do not. The participle of å NF

is periphrastic, but does not indicate adifferent Hebrew Vorlage from those of the other versions that utilize a first person indicative verb.

Such complications make it difficult to trace all the versions back to a single variant reading against

à and raise doubts as to their authenticity as true variants.

Nevertheless, one possible way to account for the differences is to propose the text ~lvaw.

The variant ~lvw of à could then be easily explained by quiescence of the a. The lack of the

conjunction in Ö would then have to be explained by the syntax of Ö, where the preceding temporal

clause requires a paratactic indicative verb in Greek. This would also explain s′’s and ç’s correctionsto Ö, as well as å. The relative pronoun of ã renders the conjunction unnecessary. The presence of

the optional independent personal pronoun in so many versions remains perplexing, because an

independent pronoun cannot possibly be original to the Hebrew. Its presence may best be explained

as clarifying exegetical emphasis on the subject under the influence of the preceding clause ~qn yl,

since all the witnesses that read an emphatic independent personal pronoun also prefer the previous

à reading, which likewise emphasizes the divine prerogative in judgment. In this scenario, only the

conjunction’s absence from the New Testament citations remains problematic.Another possible reconstruction is simply ~lva without the conjunction. This construction

makes sense in the Hebrew and would be closer to Ö and the New Testament citations, though it

could open the Hebrew to potential misunderstanding if à is retained in the previous problem (i.e., “I

48 McCarthy, 151.49 Wevers, 528.



14

will repay vengeance for me,” with vengeance as the direct object). It would require a graphic

confusion between the a and the w, which is not impossible in the Old Hebrew script. The addition of

a conjunction in ç, å, and s′ could be explained as a secondary correction or grammatical facilitation,

since all three witnesses prefer the independent clause of à for the previous variant, which creates

the potentially awkward paratactic juxtaposition of two main clauses. As in the previous

reconstruction, this proposal can account for the optional independent personal pronouns in the

versions by clarification of emphasis, leaving ~lva the preferred reconstruction of Ö capable of

accounting for all the other witnesses.

This problem remains an extremely difficult one, and no one solution seems obviously to be

able to account well for all the evidence. The proposed reconstructions ~lvaw and ~lva must be

admitted as possibilities, but the former’s inability easily to account for the variance in detail among

the versions and their total lack of attestation in extant Hebrew manuscripts raise questions as to

their accuracy. McCarthy also recognizes the possibility that the versions read ~lva by assimilation

to ~Le (v;a] in v. 41, which is quite possible.50 On the other hand, retaining the à text ~Le êviw> is

problematic, because of its linguistic improbability and inability to account for the consistent

versional evidence to the contrary without being forced and exceedingly free in translation, a

prospect which would render inexplicable the degree of consistency that is present among the

versions in the choice of the verbal form. Revocalization of the retained consonantal text ~lvw of à

andÄ opens numerous opportunities, but each still has liabilities. If the text is revocalized to ~Luviw>,

the problem of linguistic probability is alleviated, but the form is still unable to account for the

periphrastic decisions of the versions. If ~lvw is understood as a Piel infinitive absolute, the free

translations of the versions are more understandable,51 but the difficult Hebrew grammar adds a

degree of improbability to this solution. If this form is deemed feasible for the Hebrew, then perhaps

it would be best to retain the consonantal text of à andÄ, as it could be hazardous to proffer an

unnecessary variant reconstruction that is unattested in any Hebrew manuscripts, when the Hebrew

text might explain the evidence well enough.

In the end, though the evidence seems starkly divided, a conclusion must be reached. If the

versions do reflect a Hebrew Vorlage different fromà andÄ, then both variants would have to

have been very early in the history of the textual transmission. The fact that the later versions, as

50 McCarthy, 151.51 Ibid., 151, sees Ö, s′, ç, ã, å, and the NT citations as possible facilitations of ~lvw inà.



15

well as the New Testament citations, persist in line with the text of Ö would then require that such a

reading was also current in the first centuries A.D. If this were the case, it is difficult to explain the

unanimity in the traditions of à and Ä. Given the strong testimony of the Hebrew manuscripts and

the possibility of explaining all the versions based on that reading (forced as it may at times appear),

some might reasonably conclude, given the current state of the evidence, that the versions reflect

grammatical and exegetical facilitations in the target languages, rather than a substantial variation in

their Hebrew Vorlagen.52 The possibility of assimilation to v. 41 in Ö and its possible influence on

other versions further bolsters this assessment of the transcriptional probability. Yet, while this is

certainly a tenable conclusion, I am convinced that other mitigating circumstances argue instead for

the priority of the Ö reading for both this variant and the preceding one.

The strongest case for Ö is the poetic structure of the passage. The phrase ~lvw ~qn yl in

à and its corresponding variants in other witnesses form the first colon of a poetic bicolon with thefollowing phrase ~lgr jwmt t[l“in due time their foot will slip.”53 If the reading ~qn ~wyl is

preferred, it cannot go with v. 34, because the balance of the parallelism would be completely

destroyed in the remaining text of v. 35. This means that v. 35 begins a new sentence and must have

an independent clause. If then ~lvw ~qn ~wyl is preferred withÄ, there is no main clause and the

sentence is nonsense, so Ä must be corrupt. Similarly, if Wevers is right that Ö agrees withÄ with

the reading ~lvw, then the text behind Ö would be corrupt as well.

Conversely, if ~lva ~qn yl is preferred with the NT, the first colon is broken apart

intolerably into two independent clauses in parallel to each other. While this makes sense in isolation

as cited in the NT, when placed in the Hebrew poetic structure of the song in Deuteronomy, the

stichometry breaks down. ~lva would itself be parallel to ‘~q'n" yli Û, creating a parallel within a

parallelism, which is unacceptably awkward. Alternately, to alleviate this tension, some translations

attempt to analyze ~lgr jwmt t[l instead as an independent clause functioning as the first colon

of a tricolon also containing the next two clauses. This, however, ignores the structural marker yk

52 Among the main modern versions, only the NIV and NJB clearly prefer the reading “I will repay.” NLT and

NET Bible blur over the issue with a free translation of both ‘~q'n" yli Û and ~Le êviw> and take no obvious position.53 The meaning “in due time their foot will slip,” understanding t[l absolutely without a following temporal

adjunct, would be unprecedented, but so also would be the temporal usage of the indicative verb following t[l meaning

“when their foot slips.” Both are possible translations, but the former creates a much tighter formal parallelism with the preceding colon and should be preferred.



16

and leads to an unnatural structural division with poor parallelism. Both of these scenarios lead to

untenable stichometries, so the reading ~lva ~qn yl cannot be original.

On the other hand, the à reading ~lvw ~qn yl and the probable Ö reading of a differing

and viable Vorlage ~lva ~qn ~wyl both retain the broad poetic structure and entail a single

independent clause in parallel with the properly paired colon. Both ~lvw ~qn yl of à and ~wyl

~lva ~qn of Ö are stichometrically plausible, then, but the other hybrid combinations of variants

are not. What this means is that both variants must stand or fall together, and one’s conclusion for

~qn yl/~qn ~wyl necessarily affects one’s conclusion for the following problem ~lvw/~lva, and

vice versa. In adjudicating between the two viable variants ~lvw ~qn yl and ~lva ~qn ~wyl

intrinsic probability must be the determining factor, and since both are contextually coherent,54 the

most perfect parallelism should be preferred. In this case ~lvw ~qn yl has almost no formally

parallel characteristics with the following ~lgr jwmt t[l and is intrinsically doubtful as a

corresponding colon. ~lva ~qn ~wyl, however, fits perfectly, having the temporal term ~qn ~wyl

in formal parallel with the temporal term t[l and ~lva formally parallel to the independent clause

~lgr jwmt of the second colon with its indicative verb.55 Though reasonable concerns of

assimilation in the text of Ö may be entertained, they cannot overthrow the heavy weight of the

intrinsic value of its reading as the superior text. Thus, despite the many difficulties encountered in

this problem, the reading ~lva ~qn ~wyl should be preferred.

Two other minor problems are also found in v. 35 that can be dealt with rather briefly. The

interpolation of matres lectiones into tdo ïti[] in medieval Hebrewà manuscripts andÄ are almost

certainly secondary and irrelevant, as are the few other poorly attested and inconsequential

variants.56 The Ö reading u`mi/n for Aml' ( inà is a question of interpretation, not a differing Hebrew

Vorlage. Ö is inconsistent in its translation of Aml', as seen in all its occurrences in Deuteronomy; Ö

translates each of the four occurrences in Deuteronomy with entirely different pronouns, proving an

54 ~lvw ~qn yl would stress that the vengeance belongs to the Lord, which fits the context well from v. 34,

but would be somewhat redundant. It leaves the repayment of vengeance implicit until v. 41. ~lva ~qn ~wyl would

stress the fact that the Lord will repay, advancing the song by making the repayment on the day of vengeance explicit.55 The parallelism is less obvious if the temporal interpretation “at the time when their foot will slip” is accepted,

but it is still strong. In this case, the phrase would be synthetic parallelism further modifying the ~qn ~wyl of the first

colon.56 Kennicott, 436.



17

extremely free translation or a lack of understanding on behalf of the translators, rather than a

different Hebrew text.57 Aml' ( is understood in most versions to have a third person plural antecedent

(ã !whL , Å , åO !whl, åF !whyl[, etc.).

V. 36

The text of v. 36 is extremely well established and consistent among all witnesses. The

proposal in BHK and BHS to emend dy" ë to Ady" is without basis.58 It is an unnecessary correction with

no textual or contextual support against a text that is understandable and stylistically preferable in its

poetic context.

V. 37

The first two textual problems in v. 37 are related, but they are also substantially easier to

resolve with a high degree of certainty than the major problems in v. 35. Some witnesses challenge

the reading of rm: ßa'w> without an explicit subject. One’s choice of a subject will in part determine one’s

choice of the text for the verb as well. The singular rm: ßa'w> of à is supported by Ö kai. ei=pen, ç et

dicit , ã rma [n ]w , åOJ rmyyw, ä manuscript 4QDeutq rm[aw],59 and the periphrastic Å “and the

voice of the enemy”.60 This near universal agreement demands a common archetype with the text of

à. The only variation is found in Ä and one tradition of å.Ä reads the plural wrmaw, probably

reflecting targumic exegesis, rather than an accurate transmission of a divergent text type. The å

tradition is complicated, betraying midrashic alterations based on the decision that the subject of the

verb is the pagan nations, rather than God:61 å N rmyml hymwa !wnya !ydyt[ rmaw “the nations are

going to say,”åF rmyml a(y)ymwa (!h) !ydyt[… “the nations are going to say,” and åC ald

hyymwa !wrmay “where the nations will not say.” Though significant for exegesis, these midrashes are

irrelevant for textual criticism in indicating a Vorlage different fromà, but rather are expanded

interpretations. On the other hand, they are crucial in resolving the next issue, because by making the

nations the subject they are rejecting the texts which explicitly make the Lord the subject.

57 Deut 32:32 auvtoi/j (3mp); 32:35 um̀i/n (2p); 33:2 hm̀i/n (1p) and metV auvtou/ (3ms).58 Kittel, 316; Elliger and Rudolph, 348.59 Eugene Ulrich, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XIV: Qumran Cave 4, IX, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges,

Kings (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 1995), 139.60 Walton, 857. The choice of “enemy” as the subject will be discussed later.61 Cf. the discussion by R. Judah and R. Nehemiah on whose gods/God are/is referred to in this verse for the

exegetical traditions. Leon Nemoy, Sifre on Deuteronomy, Yale Judaica Series 24 (New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress, 1986) §327f.



18

This variant reading is found in the two witnesses Ö and ä. Ö inserts the explicit subject

ku,rioj after kai. ei=pen. Further corroboration for this reading has been found in fragment 4QDeut q of

ä which includes hšwšhy.62 The reading, then, has attestation both ancient and in the Hebrew.

Nevertheless, this reading should be rejected in light of the contrary evidence. à, Ä, ç, ã, Å, and

all strands of å omit it. This omission alone is significant enough to reject the text

of Ö and ä, but there are other concerns as well that make this decision even more

certain. In many versions, not only is the variant rejected, but also a completely

different and mutually exclusive interpretation of the passage is adopted. As

mentioned above,Ä and å NFC consider the subject of the speaking to be the pagan

nations in mockery of Israel and the Lord. Similarly, åJ hans rmyyw “and the enemy

will say” and Å “and the voice of the enemy,” interpret the subject as an

enemy of Israel in the singular (though probably intended collectively), which is

likewise obviously secondary and explanatory. These midrashic traditions are

impossible if the text of Ö and ä is original and betray the textual ambiguity that

explains the variant readings. The only reading that adequately accounts for the origin of all the

variants is that of à and Ä without hwhy. Though Ö and ä are probably right in their exegesis,63

they are almost certainly wrong in their text that includes the explicit subject. The hwhy of Ö and ä

is a facilitating interpretive addition for clarification of the text, not a valid reading of the text itself,

andà andÄ should be retained.

There is also a minor question about the Yae ä of à. Ä has the minor orthographic variant hya

that does not affect the meaning, but possibly reflects a different vocalization. The reading hya is

smoothing out the more original orthography of à, which as the more difficult rendering is not

62 Ulrich, 139. Photo from plate 31. The reconstructed text of line 1 is hšwšhy rm[aw]. Line 2 is possibly to be

reconstructed as ]rva [r]wš[ch, according to McCarthy, 151, who notes,

The reconstruction for 4QDeutq here follows Lust (“Raised Hand,” 35-37) rather than either that of Skehan (“Fragment,” 12-15), or DJD XIV (139-140). The Qumran fragments in question (Tov/Pfann,

Microfiche, 42.164) preserve a trace of a middle letter belonging to a word at the beginning of the line, more probably w rather than y, which occurs before rva, which itself is perfectly legible. Given the stichographic

arrangement of the fragments, this letter would have been preceded and followed by one or more characters

(there is clearly the beginnings of one of these characters after the w. Lust’s suggestion that this line began with

rwch (or possibly just with rwc, as in M) is followed here.63 The plural verbs in v. 38 strongly indicate that the Amyhe _l{a/ of v. 37 is a true plural, not a reference to the one

true God. This requires the Lord to be the subject of rm: ßa'w>, as he is in vv. 38-39. The singular rWc ß in v. 37 is more easily

understood as collective than the plural verbs of v. 38 are as referring to the Lord. For a modern proponent of the

interpretation that views the subject of rm: ßa'w> as implicitly the enemies of Israel, see Ehrlich, 345. Cf. Deut 32:27.

Figure 3

4QDeutq

(lines 1 and 2)



19

easily derived from hya. The strength of the à tradition and its ability better to explain the Ä

reading than vice versa proves that Yae ä is original.

The final significant variant in v. 37 regards the rWcß of à andÄ. Ö reads ev fV oi-j“on whom”

and gives no equivalent for the Hebrew rWc. Wevers explains Ö by saying that its normal

interpretive translation qeo,j for rWc would have been redundant and was therefore omitted (cf. Deut

32:4).64 ç likewise reads in quibus without any mention of a rock. The recensions a′ firmus = stereo,j

“firm” and q′ custos = fu,lax“guard” attest to the reading rWc, however.65 rWcß must be original to account

for the various versions, even though they are admittedly periphrastic. The versions are not capable

of maintaining the precise form of the Hebrew while remaining comprehensible. Omission of the

rWc would also make the poetic bicolon of which it is a part unbearably unbalanced. The reading rWcß

seems certain on both internal and external grounds.Modifying their equivalents for rWcß, both ã and å also read a relative pronoun. This need not

necessarily, and indeed probably does not, reflect a variant in the Hebrew Vorlagen, however, as the

readings can be explained as grammatical facilitations as with Ö and ç. A relative pronoun would

have been the expected translation in all the other versions, whereas it is unnecessary in the Hebrew.

4QDeutq’s probable reading ]rva [r]wš[ch probably also reflects a smoothing out of the grammar for

ease in comprehension.66 Proposing the text of à and Ä as original seems to be able most easily to

explain the relative pronoun as smoothing out the grammar, rather than the development of the moredifficult text incidentally. Further internal evidence is found in the fact that poetic brevity would

seem to favor the omission of the relative pronoun as well. Thus the text Ab* Wys' îx' rWcß of à is to be

retained.

CONCLUSION

As seen above, Deuteronomy 32:35-37 provides a difficult test case for how to deal with

text-critical problems in the Hebrew Bible. Several key points have been observed in the practice of

textual criticism as seen in this paper. First, any viable text-critical strategy must take into account

the external evidence of Hebrew and versional witnesses and best explain the origin of all other

variants. Second, reconstructions from the versions are often difficult to achieve with precision, but

can be confirmed by other ancient manuscript evidence, some of which may be unknown to the

64 Wevers, 530. This accounts for the two prepositional phrases of Ö.65 Field, 323. q′ is wrongly identified as s′ in McCarthy, 97.66 McCarthy, 97; Ulrich, 139. See also footnote 60 of this paper.



20

scholar attempting the reconstruction. Third, if the translations of the versions can reasonably be

derived from the extant Hebrew text, it is perhaps wisest not to conjecture an alternative Vorlage.

The decision of what is a possible translation for any given Hebrew text will be largely subjective,

based on the scholar’s understanding and familiarity with both the Hebrew and the style of the

version. Fourth, the textual critic must be sensitive to the interrelations between versions, as one

reading often can influence another and affect the value of a given witness for textual criticism. Fifth,

the scholar must be thoroughly familiar with the translation styles, exegesis, and midrashic

tendencies of the various translators and scribes so as to account for their influence in particular

readings. And sixth, the Old Testament textual critic must always be alert for New Testament and

non-biblical citations of Old Testament passages and think through the exegesis of the passage to

determine the weight the citations should have on the evaluation of the Old Testament text.

After considering all the major variants in Deuteronomy 32:35-37, the Masoretic text has

shown itself to be strong in this passage, yet there were points at which there may be legitimate

reason to question certain readings of the Masoretic text and prefer readings preserved in the ancient

versions. As seen, the evidence is not always cut and dry. Even with the objective evaluation of the

external evidence and the application of the canons of textual criticism, there is always a subjective

element in the weighing of various readings. At times the evidence seems split down the middle, and

the textual critic is forced to make a decision based on conflicting evidence that does not lend itself

obviously to any conclusion. Yet with all the difficulty and focus on minutiae, it should always be

remembered that the vast majority of the text is unquestionably established, and even the

questionable parts are generally of such little significance that the main point of the passage is still

attainable. This is the hard work of textual criticism, but its work is essential for those who desire to

have the Scripture in its purest form possible.

A Text-Critical Analysis of Deuteronomy 3235-37

Documents

Transcript of A Text-Critical Analysis of Deuteronomy 3235-37