(OS 056) Lemmelijn - A Plague of Texts - A Text-Critical Study of The So-Called 'Plagues Narrative' in Exodus 7,14-11,10 PDF

A Plague of Texts?
Oudtestamentische Studiën
Old Testament Studies
published on behalf of the Societies for
Old Testament Studies in the Netherlands and
Belgium, South Africa, the United Kingdom
and Ireland
Editor
B. Becking
Utrecht
Editorial Board
H.G.M. Williamson
Oxford
H.F. Van Rooy

Potchefstroom
M. Vervenne
Leuven
VOLUME 56
A Plague of Texts?
A Text-Critical Study of the So-Called ‘Plagues
Narrative’ in Exodus 7:14–11:10
By
Bénédicte Lemmelijn
LEIDEN • BOSTON
2009
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Lemmelijn, Benedicte.
A plague of texts? : a text-critical study of the so-called ‘plagues narrative’ in Exodus
7:14–11:10 / By Benedicte Lemmelijn.
p. cm. — (Oudtestamentische studien = Old Testament studies)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-90-04-17235-7 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Bible. O.T. Exodus VII, 14-XI,
10—Criticism, Textual. 2. Plagues of Egypt. I. Title. II. Series.
BS1245.52.L46 2009
222’.1204046—dc22
2008052346
ISSN: 0169-7226
ISBN: 978 90 04 17235 7
Copyright 2009 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission
from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by

Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to
The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910,
Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
printed in the netherlands

CONTENTS
Abbreviations .................................................................................... vii

Preface .............................................................................................. ix
Chapter One: Prolegomena ............................................................. 1

Introduction ................................................................................. 1
Terminology ................................................................................. 13
Collecting variants ............................................................... 14
Evaluation of variants .......................................................... 15
Criteria for the evaluation of textual variants .................. 15
Translation character ........................................................ 18
Categories of variants ....................................................... 20
Development of a dedicated working model for text-critical
research ................................................................................ 22
Presentation of the textual material ......................................... 27
Chapter Two: The Textual Material of the ‘Plagues Narrative’ ...... 29

Synopsis of the textual witnesses to the ‘Plagues Narrative’ ..... 29
Registration and description of the textual variants found in
the ‘Plagues Narrative’ ......................................................... 33
Chapter Three: Text-Critical Evaluation of the Variants in the

‘Plagues Narrative’ .................................................................... 96
The study of the translation character of LXX Exodus ............ 96
The relevance of research into translation technique for
text-critical evaluation ...................................................... 96
The characterisation of a translation .................................... 108
The difference between ‘literal’ and ‘free’ translations ....... 108
Two methodological approaches ...................................... 115
Preliminary conclusion and further research
perspectives .................................................................. 124
The translation technique of the book of Exodus ................ 126
General characterisation of LXX Exodus ......................... 126
Implications for the evaluation of text-critical variants .... 129
A relevant cross-section of the translation technique
evident in LXX Exod. 7:14–11:10 ................................... 136
vi contents
Consistency and non-consistency in the choice of

translation equivalents .................................................. 136
Different sequence/word order ......................................... 139
Greek linguistic idioms .................................................... 141
The Text-Critical Evaluation of ‘Text-Relevant’ Variants in
the Textual Witnesses to the ‘Plagues Narrative’ in
Exod. 7:14–11:10 ................................................................... 150
Discussion of the larger plusses or major expansions in the
Hebrew textual witnesses to the ‘Plagues Narrative’ of
Exod. 7:14–11:10 ................................................................... 197
Exod. 7:18b: SamP4Qm ....................................................... 201
Exod. 7:29b: SamP4Qm4Qj ................................................. 201
Exod. 8:1b: SamP4Qj .......................................................... 202
Exod. 8:19b: SamP4Qm ....................................................... 202
Exod. 9:5b: SamP4Qm ......................................................... 203
Exod. 9:19b: SamP4Qm ....................................................... 203
Exod. 10:2b: SamP4Qm ....................................................... 204
Exod. 11:3b1: SamP ............................................................. 205
Exod. 11:3b2: SamP ............................................................. 205
Conclusion ........................................................................... 206
General Conclusion ......................................................................... 209
Appendix: Synopsis of the Textual Witnesses of Exod.

7:14–11:10 .................................................................................. 219
Bibliography ..................................................................................... 359
Index of Authors .............................................................................. 373

Index of Textual References ............................................................. 377
ABBREVIATIONS
AASF Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae

ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary
AIBI Association Internationale Bible et Informatique
ALGHL Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des Hellenistischen
Judentums
ASTI Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute (in Jerusalem)
BETL Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium
BIOSCS Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and
Cognate Studies
BN Biblische Notizen
BWANT Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament
BZ Biblische Zeitschrift
BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
CB OT Coniectanea biblica. Old Testament Series
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CBSC The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
CNEB The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible
DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert
ETL Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses
HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament
HKAT Handkommentar zum Alten Testament
HSS Harvard Semitic Studies
HThR Harvard Theological Review
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
IOSCS International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSS Journal of Semitic Studies
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
KHCAT Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament
KVHS Korte verklaring der Heilige Schrift
MSU Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens
OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis
OTE Old Testament Essays
viii abbreviations
OTS Oudtestamentische Studiën

POT De prediking van het Oude Testament
RB Revue Biblique
RQ Revue de Qumran
SBL RBS Society of Biblical Literature, Resources for Biblical Study
SBL SCS Society of Biblical Literature, Septuagint and Cognate Studies
SBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien
SBTS Sources for Biblical and Theological Study
SEÅ Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok
SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament
SJSJ Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism
StB Studia Biblica
StOr Studia Orientalia
STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah
TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries
TRE Theologische Realenzyklopädie
TSHLRS Texts and Studies in the Hebrew Language and Related Subjects
TvT Tijdschrift voor Theologie
VT Vetus Testamentum
VTS Supplements to Vetus Testamentum
WC Westminster Commentaries
ZAW Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
PREFACE
The textual criticism of the Old Testament has undergone recent improve-
ment, primarily under the impulse of the unearthing of multiple text frag-
ments among the discoveries around the Dead Sea. The exploration of this
textual material has given rise to a number of new hypotheses concerning
the origins and growth of the Old Testament text and has occasioned the
elaboration and refinement of text-critical methodology.
The manner with which text-critical elements are often employed in
literary and exegetical studies, however, stands in sharp contrast to this
evolution. The tendency in fact is to pay little if any attention to textual
criticism as a discipline.1 Where reference is made to one or other text-
critical problem nonetheless, this is often limited to the extent to which
the text-critical elements ‘fit’ or can be manipulated to ‘fit’ within the
framework of the literary-critical or redaction-critical hypothesis of the
scholar in question. The text is then ‘improved’ in function of the exegetical
reading. The exercise is limited, in other words, to (often irresponsible)
conjectural-criticism.2
It should be noted in this regard that several studies relating to the
‘Plagues Narrative’ pay little if any attention to text-critical research into
the text of Exod. 7:14–11:10, and where they do so their findings are
frequently unseasoned and inadequate. A number of commentaries fol-
low the procedure outlined above.3 The shorter contributions found in
academic journals tend to pay no attention whatsoever to textual criticism,
and the two monographs available to us on the topic, those of R. Friebe
1
The same observation is to be found in M. Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal (Exodus 13,17–
14,31): Een literaire studie (unpublished doctoral dissertation Theology, K.U. Leuven),
Leuven 1986; Idem, ‘Tekst en teksten’, in: H. Jagersma, M. Vervenne (eds), Inleiding in
het Oude Testament, Kampen 1992, 25–39, p. 36.
2
Cf. also infra the first section of the introduction in chapter 1, esp. n. 25.
3
See, for example, B. Baentsch, Exodus. Levitikus. Übersetzt und erklärt (HKAT), Göt-
tingen 1900, 64-65, 66, 69, 74; H. Holzinger, Exodus (KHCAT, 2), Tübingen 1900, 24, 25,
27, 29, 31; A.H. McNeile, The Book of Exodus with Introduction and Notes (WC), London
1908, 51; S.R. Driver, The Book of Exodus (CBSC), Cambridge 1911, 68; W.H. Gispen, Het
boek Exodus (KVHS), Kampen 1932, 93; G. Beer, Exodus: Mit einem Beitrag von K. Galling
(HAT, 1,3), Tübingen 1939, 50; R.E. Clements, Exodus (CNEB), London 1972, 52; R.A.
Cole, Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC), London 1973, 94.
x preface
and L. Schmidt, likewise appear to ignore its significance.4 Many authors

simply restrict themselves to the Masoretic Text of Exod. 7–11 without
exploring the other textual material by way of preparation.
It remains our opinion, however, that such a methodological approach
is ill-founded.5 Indeed, prior to any attempt to study a text at the liter-
ary level, the textual material or the so-called ‘physical product’ has to
be carefully established.6 It is for this reason that the present volume is
devoted to a detailed text-critical study of the text of the ‘Plagues Narra-
tive’ in Exod. 7:14–11:10. Within the framework of this study, we will
endeavour to collect, examine and determine the significance of all the
textual material that has come to the fore as part of recent developments
in the discipline of textual criticism, and particularly the relevant textual
fragments found at Qumran.
In the first chapter of the present volume, we will formulate a num-
ber of introductory remarks relating to textual criticism as a discipline,
the textual material at our disposal, the terminology employed and the
methodological model that will serve as the basis of our study. In the
second chapter, data provided by the various text forms of the ‘Plagues
Narrative’ in Exod. 7:14–11:10,7 namely MT, LXX, SamP, 4QpaleoExodm,
4QpaleoGen-Exodl, 2QExoda, 4QExodc, 4QGen-Exoda and 4QExodj, will
be registered and described. The extant textual versions themselves will be
presented in the form of a synopsis, added as an appendix to this volume.
The third and final chapter is devoted to a text-critical evaluation of the
relevant textual variants.8
4
R. Friebe, Form und Entstehungsgeschichte (dissertation Halle/Wittenberg) 1967; L. Schmidt,
Beobachtungen in der Plagenerzählung in Exodus VII,14–XI,10 (StB, 4), Leiden/New York/
Kopenhagen/Köln 1990.
5
See, in this respect, also B. Lemmelijn, ‘What Are We Looking for in Doing Text-
Critical Research?’, JNSL 23/2 (1997), 69–80, esp. 69–71; Idem, ‘The So-Called “Major
Expansions” in SamP, 4QPaleoExodm and 4QExodj in Exod. 7:14–11:10: On the Edge
between Textual Criticism and Literary Criticism’, in: B. Taylor (ed.), X Congress of the
IOSCS. Oslo 1998 (SBL SCS, 51), Atlanta 2001, 429–439, esp. 429–433.
6
The designation ‘physical product’ is borrowed from M. Vervenne. See, for example,
M. Vervenne, ‘Current Tendencies and Developments in the Study of the Book of Exodus’,
in: Idem (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction—Reception—Interpretation (BETL,
126), Leuven 1996, 21–59, p. 33.
7
See also the presentation of the textual material infra, in the third paragraph of chap-
ter one.
8
The designation ‘relevant textual variants’ refers to those variants that give rise to sig-
nificant degrees of difference. This means that smaller language specific variants relative to
Hebrew and Greek that do not influence or change the meaning of the text in any fashion
will not be treated in detail in the third chapter. The said variants will be registered, described
and/or explained in the context of the second chapter.
preface xi
The present study is the result of a considerable amount of planning and

labour. To affirm the ancient words of Qoheleth: “There is no end to the
writing of books, and much study is wearisome” (Qoh. 12:12). This book
has indeed taken much time and effort to accomplish, slowly growing
from childhood into maturity and benefiting from the enrichment of the
process. Concretely speaking, the book is based on my previous studies of
the ‘Plagues Narrative’ in Exod. 7:14–11:10, which resulted in two MA
theses—Religious Studies in 1991 and Theology in 1993—and in my Ph.D.
dissertation in Theology in 1996.9 In addition to the text-critical study of
Exod. 7:14–11:10, the studies in question also included a status quaestionis
of research into the ‘Plagues Narrative’ and a redaction-historical study of
the text. Against the same background, moreover, a number of specific ele-
ments treated in the said studies have been published separately as articles in
journals and/or read as papers at international congresses, references to which
can be found in the bibliography. The revision, elaboration and translation
of the results of the text-critical analysis of Exod. 7:14–11:10, presented in
the present volume, have been realised within the framework of a research
project of ‘bilateral scientific cooperation’ organised between the Katholieke
Universiteit Leuven (Belgium) and the University of Stellenbosch (South-
Africa), entitled Textual Studies in Early Judaism —The Septuagint and the
Dead Sea Scrolls (BIL/04/43, promoter: F. García Martínez; co-promoters:
M. Vervenne, H. Ausloos, B. Lemmelijn, J. Cook). Sincere gratitude is due
in this regard to the Research Fund (Bijzonder Onderzoeksfonds) of the
K.U.Leuven for providing favourable financial conditions. It is the author’s
hope that the support received, and reflected in this book, may contribute
to a better understanding of this most intriguing biblical narrative.
A work of this kind could never have been completed without the ongoing
support and encouragement of a number of individuals. In this respect, my
thanks are due to my colleague Prof. Dr. Brian Doyle for his translation of
9
Cf. B. Lemmelijn, De ‘plagen’ van Egypte (Ex 7,14–11,10): Materialen voor een exege-
tische studie, vol. 1: Tekstvormen: Geschiedenis van het onderzoek in de Exoduscommentaren
(unpublished master’s thesis Religious Studies, K.U. Leuven), Leuven 1991 (promoter M.
Vervenne), XXVII p. + 285 p.; Idem, De ‘plagen’ van Egypte (Ex 7,14–11,10): Materialen voor
een exegetische studie, vol. 2: Geschiedenis van het onderzoek: Tekstkritische studie (unpublished
master’s thesis Theology, K.U. Leuven), Leuven 1993 (promoter M. Vervenne), XIX p. +
286 p.; Idem, Het verhaal van de ‘Plagen in Egypte’ (Exodus 7,14–11,10): Een onderzoek naar
het ontstaan en de compositie van een Pentateuchtraditie (unpublished doctoral dissertation
Theology, 4 vols., K.U. Leuven), Leuven 1996 (promoter M. Vervenne), LVI p. + 629 p. +
172 p. of appendices.
xii preface
the Dutch text and to both my doctoral student/research assistant, Hans

Debel (Ph.D. Fellow of the Research Foundation—Flanders: FWO) and
my graduate student Valérie Kabergs for their technical and redactional
assistance in putting together the final manuscript. As I noted above,
moreover, the present author is also aware that the process of bringing this
book from childhood to maturity has gone hand in hand with a similar
personal journey—I was a mere 19 years of age when I was first introduced
to ‘Plagues research’. The entire process has taken place under the attentive
and caring guidance of one and the same promoter, a Doktorvater in the
most literal and comprehensive sense of the term, Prof. Dr. Marc Vervenne.
Prof. Vervenne taught me how to think, how to write, and perhaps even
how to live. For all these things, I am forever in his debt. I also owe a debt
of gratitude to my parents, in particular for the many opportunities and
chances they made possible for me through the years, even at times when
it was not self-evident. Final thanks are due to another individual who has
accompanied me on this journey from the very beginning and has followed
his own parallel path in Old Testament studies, my husband Prof. Dr. Hans
Ausloos. To him and our children, Matthias, Elke and Ruben, I dedicate
this book, in the hope that the God behind the text we study will bless
them every day of their lives.
CHAPTER ONE
PROLEGOMENA
Introduction
1. The literary study of biblical texts tends to consider the Masoretic Text
to be a ‘definite’ and ‘safe’ textual basis, as if it were in fact dealing with
the original text.1 The Masoretic Text, however, is simply one textual form
among many textual forms that have been passed down to us, although
it has come to occupy a dominant position in the course of history as
the so-called textus receptus.2
Nevertheless, those who wish to engage in serious literary research
cannot do so without making a detailed prior study of the textual mate-
rial available with respect to the passage in question.3 The collection and
evaluation of this material is the task of textual criticism.
Textual criticism does not aim, in the first instance, at a reconstruction
of the original (autograph) text.4 Indeed, some scholars question whether
1
See also A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Übersetzung als Schlüssel zum Original’, in: Idem, On the
Trail of Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays, Kampen 1993, 150–165, p. 155: ‘Obwohl
die Biblia Hebraica, die den MT bietet, in der Praxis fast für das Original oder den Urtext
gehalten wird, ist es doch klar, daß der MT nur eine—obwohl oft gut erhaltene—Textform
vertritt.’
2
Cf. e.g. F.M. Cross jr., ‘Problems of Method in the Textual Criticism of the Hebrew
Bible’, in: W. Doniger O’Flaherty (ed.), The Critical Study of Sacred Texts (Berkeley Religious
Studies Series, 2), Berkeley 1979, 31–32; M. Vervenne, ‘Tekst en teksten’, 25; E. Tov, The
Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research: Revised and Enlarged Second Edition
( Jerusalem Biblical Studies, 8), Jerusalem 1997, 6; A. van der Kooij, ‘Tekstkritiek en tek-
stoverlevering van het Oude Testament’, in: A.S. van der Woude (ed.), Inleiding tot de studie
van het Oude Testament, Kampen 1986, 87–101, p. 91; D. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de
l’Ancien Testament, vol. 1: Josué, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther
(OBO, 50/1), Göttingen 1982, *107–*108, *111–*112. See, in this respect and more gener-
ally, also E. Tov, ‘The History and Significance of a Standard Text of the Hebrew Bible’,
in: M. Saebo (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of its Interpretation, vol. 1:
From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (Until 1300), Göttingen 1996, 49–66.
3
Cf., for example, N. Rabe, ‘Zur synchron definierten alttestamentlichen Textkritik’, BN
52 (1990), 64–97, p. 69. See also B. Lemmelijn, ‘What Are We Looking for in Doing
Text-Critical Research?’, 69–71; Idem, ‘As Many Texts as Plagues: A Preliminary Report of
the Main Results of the Text-Critical Evaluation of Exod 7:14–11:10’, JNSL 24/2 (1998),
111–125; and especially Idem, ‘The So-Called “Major Expansions” in SamP, 4QPaleoExodm
and 4QExodj in Exod 7:14–11:10’, 429–439.
4
The complexity of the debate should not be underestimated. Scholars are far from
2 chapter one: prolegomena
such an original and unique text of the Old Testament ever existed. 5
Many scholars are inclined to argue that a multiplicity of texts was in
circulation from the very beginning, all of which already bore their own
characteristic features from the outset.6
Textual criticism endeavours rather to explore the history and develop-
ment of the text of the Hebrew bible in its various textual forms, pay-
ing particular attention to the period from the 4th to the 3rd centuries
BCE.7 The text of the bible in its current form was determined by two
achieving consensus on the matter and their positions and hypotheses are often inadequately
explained. In some instances, moreover, a significant degree of evolution is evident within
the vision of one single author. I refer here, by way of example, to the position held by
E. Tov, which I have discussed extensively in B. Lemmelijn, ‘What Are We Looking for in
Doing Text-Critical Research?’, 71–75.
5
With respect to the discussion surrounding the Urtext of the biblical texts see, e.g.:
F.M. Cross, ‘Problems of Method’, 50–51; M.H. Goshen-Gottstein, ‘Theory and Practice
of Textual Criticism: The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint’, Textus 3 (1963), 130–158,
pp. 135–136; M. Greenberg, ‘The Use of the Ancient Versions for Interpreting the Hebrew
Text’, in: J.A. Emerton et al. (eds), Congress Volume Göttingen 1977 (VTS, 29), Leiden
1978, 131–148, pp. 140–142; M. Vervenne, ‘Tekst en teksten’, 33; S. Talmon, ‘The Old
Testament Text’, in: P.R. Ackroyd, C.F. Evans (eds), The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1:
From the Beginnings to Jerome, Cambridge 1970, 159–199, pp. 193–199; Idem, ‘The
Textual Study of the Bible: A New Outlook’, in: F.M. Cross, S. Talmon (eds), Qumran and
the History of the Biblical Text, Cambridge 1975, 321–400, pp. 323–326; E. Tov, ‘Criteria’,
431–432; Idem, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible: Second Revised Edition, Minneapolis/
Assen 2001, 17–18, 177, 313–319; Idem, ‘Textual Criticism (Old Testament)’, 394; N.
Rabe, ‘Zur synchron definierten alttestamentlichen Textkritik’, 64; J.E. Sanderson, An
Exodus Scroll from Qumran: 4QpaleoExod m and the Samaritan Tradition (HSS, 30), Atlanta
1986, 42–43, 109; and B. Lemmelijn, ‘What Are We Looking for in Doing Text-Critical
Research?’, 69–80.
6
Cf. M. Vervenne, ‘Tekst en teksten’, 34; E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 204–212; Idem,
‘A Modern Textual Outlook Based on the Qumran Scrolls’, HUCA 53 (1982), 11–27, pp.
23–26 [See also B. Chiesa’s critique of the primary tenet of this article: B. Chiesa, ‘Textual
History and Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Old Testament’, in: J. Trebolle Barrera, L.V.
Montaner (eds), The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the
Dead Sea Scrolls. Madrid 18–21 March, 1991, vol. 1 (STDJ, 11,1), Leiden/New York/Köln/
Madrid 1992, 257–272]; E. Tov, Textual Criticism, 156–163; J. Lust, ‘David and Goliath
in the Hebrew and Greek Texts’, in: D. Barthélemy et al., The Story of David and Goliath:
Textual and Literary Criticism. Papers of a Joint Research Venture (OBO, 73), Freiburg/Göt-
tingen 1986, 121–128, pp. 122–123, 126; and Idem, Epilogue, in: D. Barthélemy et al.,
The Story, 156. See also Idem, ‘The Use of Textual Witnesses for the Establishment of the
Text: the Shorter and Longer Texts of Ezekiel’, in: Idem (ed.), Ezekiel and his Book: Textual
and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation (BETL, 74), Leuven 1986, 7–20, pp. 16, 19;
N. Rabe, ‘Zur synchron definierten alttestamentlichen Textkritik’, 64.
7
Cf. M. Vervenne, ‘Tekst en teksten’, 33; E. Tov, ‘De tekst van het Oude Testament’,
in: A.S. van der Woude (ed.), Bijbels handboek, vol. 1, Kampen 1981, 217–218; Idem,
‘Criteria for Evaluating Textual Readings: The Limitations of Textual Rules’, HThR 75
(1982), 429–448, pp. 431–432; Idem, The Text-Critical Use, 1, 6; Idem, Textual Criticism,
287–290; N. Rabe, ‘Zur synchron definierten alttestamentlichen Textkritik’, 69–75; A. van
der Kooij, ‘Tekstkritiek en tekstoverlevering’, 87, 91; and especially Idem, ‘Textual Criticism
of the Hebrew Bible: Its Aim and Method’, in: S.M. Paul, R.A. Kraft, L.H. Schiffman,
introduction 3
significant processes: the literary development and growth of the text on

the one hand, and the process of transmission of the text on the other.
Intentional and unintentional variants that arose in the course of the
transmission of the text may have changed the latter to a considerable
degree.8 Where literary criticism ignores this fact, its results are based of
necessity on extremely infirm text-critical foundations.
We are immediately confronted with the question concerning the
relationship between literary criticism and textual criticism.9 Up until
recently—and often very recently—the generally held opinion was that
textual criticism as the study of the transmission of the complete literary
work began where literary criticism as the study of the history of origin
and literary formation of the text ended. In line with recent text-critical
research (i.a. D. Barthélemy, J. Lust and especially J. Trebolle Barrera),
however, I am inclined to argue that a clear distinction between these
two processes cannot be made with any degree of satisfaction.10 As a
W.W. Fields (eds), Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls. FS
E. Tov (VTS, 94), Leiden/Boston 2003, 729–739.
8
Cf. M. Vervenne, ‘Tekst en teksten’, 33, 34–35.
9
Cf. M. Vervenne, ‘Tekst en teksten’, 34–35; Idem, Het Zeeverhaal, 64; S. Talmon, ‘The
Textual Study’, 327–332; E. Tov, ‘Criteria’, 431–432; Idem, The Text-Critical Use, 5; Idem,
‘De tekst van het Oude Testament’, 217–218; Idem, Textual Criticism, 313–350; Idem,
‘Textual Criticism (Old Testament)’, ABD 6 (1992), 393–412, esp. 410–411; A. van der
Kooij, ‘Tekstkritiek en tekstoverlevering’, 91; Idem, ‘Zum Verhältnis von Textkritik und
Literarkritik: Überlegungen anhand einiger Beispiele’, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress
Volume, Cambridge, 1995 (VTS, 66), Leiden/New York/Köln 1997, 185–202; N. Rabe,
‘Zur synchron definierten alttestamentlichen Textkritik’, 86–88; and J. Werlitz, Studien zur
literarkritischen Methoden: Gericht und Heil in Jesaja 7,1–17 und 29,1–8 (BZAW, 204),
Berlin/New York 1992, 69–79.
10
Cf., for example, D. Barthélemy, ‘Problématique et tâches de la critique textuelle de
l’Ancien Testament hébraïque’, in: Idem, Études d’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament
(OBO, 21), Fribourg/Göttingen 1978, 365–381, pp. 369, 371–372. See also J. Lust, ‘David
and Goliath’, 123: ‘Theoretically, literary criticism deals with the formation of the text and
textual criticism with the finished compositions and their transmission. In practice, the bor-
derline between both areas tends to blur. Moreover the methods used on both levels largely
coincide, once the probability of accidental errors is outruled.’; and Idem, The Use, 12, 17.
See especially J. Trebolle Barrera, The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible: An Introduction
to the History of the Bible, Leiden/New York/Cologne 1998, 370–388, in particular 370:
‘Textual criticism studies the process of transmission of the text from the moment it is put
into writing or its first edition. Its aim is to determine the oldest biblical text witnessed by
the manuscript tradition. Literary criticism (in the sense of the German term Literarkritik)
studies instead the process before the formation of the biblical writings in order to determine
their author and date. Even though in theory the domains and methods of these two disci-
plines are quite separate, in practice they often overlap. The meeting point causing friction
between them is in the editorial process where the previous process of collecting material
and of composition and of editing the text ends and the next process, textual transmis
sion, begins’, and more elaborately 390–404, see e.g. 390 very explicitly: ‘In theory the
matter of fact, it is highly likely that the textual transmission of certain

biblical texts was already underway prior to the literary completion of
the composition in question.11
Particular reference should be made in this regard to the work of H.-J.
Stipp.12 Stipp points out that the question of the relationship between
textual criticism and literary criticism has resurfaced, particularly in light
of the renewed interest in textual criticism under the influence of the
discoveries at Qumran, in spite of the fact that the given status of both
component disciplines was the subject of little discussion in the past.13
Stipp first discusses the hypotheses of a number of prominent scholars in
this regard, namely E. Tov,14 the Comité pour l’analyse textuelle de l’Ancien
Testament hébreu,15 H. Barth and O.H. Steck,16 and finally L. Schwien-
distinction between these disciplines (Textual Criticism and Literary Criticism, BL) is clear,
but in practice the boundary separating them is very movable making necessary the use
of both methods in combination.’ Cf. in this respect also Idem, ‘The Story of David and
Goliath (1 Sam 17–18): Textual Variants and Literary Composition’, BIOSCS 23 (1990),
16–30; Idem, ‘A Canon within a Canon: Two Series of Old Testament Books Differently
Transmitted, Interpreted and Authorized’, RQ 19 (1999–2000), 383–399 and very recently
Idem, ‘A Combined Textual and Literary Criticism Analysis. Editorial Traces in Joshua and
Judges’ in: H. Ausloos, B. Lemmelijn, M. Vervenne (eds), Florilegium Lovaniense. Studies
in Septuagint and Textual Criticism in Honour of Florentino García Martínez (BETL, 224),
Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA 2008, 437–463.
11
Cf. e.g. E. Tov, ‘De tekst van het Oude Testament’, 218; Idem, The Text-Critical Use,
5, 239; Idem, Textual Criticism, 315–316; Idem, ‘Criteria’, 431, n. 6; A. van der Kooij,
‘Tekstkritiek en tekstoverlevering’, 91; M. Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 64; and Idem, ‘Tekst
en teksten’, 35: ‘. . . In de praktijk is deze stelregel evenwel niet gemakkelijk door te voeren.
Want de tekstoverlevering van een bijbelboek begon vaak al vóórdat de compositie van het
werk voltooid was. Vandaar dat tekstgetuigen soms verschillende stadia van de ontwikkel-
ing van een boek weergeven, zodat ze niet alleen tekstkritische maar buitendien literaire
relevantie hebben.’
12
Cf. H.-J. Stipp, ‘Das Verhältnis von Textkritik und Literarkritik in neueren alttesta-
mentlichen Veröffentlichungen’, BZ 34 (1990), 16–37; and Idem, ‘Textkritik—Literarkri-
tik—Textentwicklung. Überlegungen zur exegetischen Aspectsystematik’, ETL 66 (1990),
143–159.
13
H.-J. Stipp, ‘Das Verhältnis’, 16–17.
14
See H.-J. Stipp, ‘Das Verhältnis’, 18–22. Stipp discusses Tov’s standpoint on the basis of
E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research ( Jerusalem Biblical Studies, 3),
Jerusalem 1981 (i.e. the first edition, not the second referred to elsewhere in this study);
Tov’s contribution to D. Barthélemy et al., The Story and E. Tov, ‘The Composition of
1 Samuel 16–18 in the Light of the Septuagint Version’, in: J.H. Tigay, Empirical Models
for Biblical Criticism, Philadelphia 1985, 97–129.
15
Cf. H.-J. Stipp, ‘Das Verhältnis’, 22–33. Stipp refers for the most part at this juncture
to D. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle, vol. 1.
16
See H.-J. Stipp, ‘Das Verhältnis’, 33–35. Stipp relies here on H. Barth, O.H. Steck,
Exegese des Alten Testaments: Leitfaden der Methodik, Ein Arbeitsbuch für Proseminare, Seminare
und Vorlesungen, Neukirchen/Vluyn, 101984.
introduction 5
horst.17 In Stipp’s opinion, the scholars in question are unable to distance

themselves completely from the classical distinction between textual criti-
cism and literary criticism, in spite of the highly nuanced positions they
are inclined to adopt in the discussion.
After presenting a survey of the said hypotheses, Stipp arrives at a
number of negative conclusions.18 Stipp argues that every hypothesis that
maintains a clear distinction between two phases in the history of the
text, namely textual growth and textual transmission, and then directly or
indirectly associates this in one way or another with the distinction between
the domain of the literary critic and that of the text critic is open to criti-
cism. Furthermore, the so-called ‘status difference’ evident in evaluative
judgements concerning the results of textual criticism on the one hand
and those of literary criticism on the other, whereby reconstructions and
preferential options based on text-critical research are considered legitimate
and those supported by literary-critical research are not, can no longer
be maintained. It is likewise undesirable, he insists, that the distinction
between textual criticism and literary criticism should be made to depend
on a particular understanding of the task of the textual critic, the latter
being restricted to serving the needs generated by the preparation of text
editions, translations, commentaries and so forth. This would result in the
measurement of the scope of textual criticism against the goals of the work
in question whereby all further reconstructions and considerations would
be considered literary critical. Finally, the criterion that maintains that
textual criticism should focus its attention on unintentional variations in
the text and literary criticism on intentional variations cannot be upheld,
according to Stipp, in confrontation with practical reality.
If all this can be confirmed, Stipp argues, then there is no longer any
reason to affirm a strict distinction between the two component exegeti-
cal disciplines. At the very least, the facile appeal to scientific tradition is
no longer sufficient. Against this background, therefore, one is inclined
to wonder whether, and if so how, a dividing line can be drawn between
textual criticism and literary criticism. According to Stipp, it is no longer a
question of how one can determine such a dividing line but whether such
a dividing line is possible in principle. Based on a number of examples,
Stipp goes on to demonstrate that the difference between textual criticism
17
Cf. H.-J. Stipp, ‘Das Verhältnis’, 35–36. In this regard Stipp refers for the most part
to L. Schwienhorst, Die Eroberung Jerichos: Exegetische Untersuchung zu Josua 6 (SBS, 122),
Stuttgart 1986.
18
H.-J. Stipp, ‘Das Verhältnis’, 37; Idem, ‘Textkritik’, 143–144.
and literary criticism is often blurred by the overlapping use of both com-
ponent disciplines.19 It is often impossible to correctly evaluate a parti-
cular textual problem without relating the perspectives, arguments and
methodology of textual criticism and literary criticism to one another,
whereby the one serves to confirm the other and vice versa. Bearing this
in mind, a division between textual criticism and literary criticism based
on the nature of the information derived from either the textual trans-
mission phase or the stage of textual growth is no longer meaningful.
Such a strict distinction between both disciplines can thus no longer be
justified and, as a consequence, is no longer desirable. Stipp, for his part,
proposes the idea of an ‘aspect of exegetical unity’ in the course of textual
development.20 As he understands it, the concept ‘textual development’
refers to every phase in the textual history of the biblical text in as far as
it was committed to writing. As such, and in principle, this development
remains open and embraces every new translation or paraphrase. When
the interests of research focus themselves on the stages prior to a particular
manuscript, it would be better to refer to such a methodological measure
as the ‘reconstruction of previous written stages’ or Vorstufenrekonstruktion.21
If one understands textual development in this way, then one is obliged
to admit that it also embraces the redaction and composition of the text.
Within this framework, therefore, the expressions textual criticism, liter-
ary criticism, composition criticism and redaction criticism continue to
serve as designations for the analysis of specific types of information and
characteristic features, but they are understood against the background
of the ‘aspect of exegetical unity of textual development’ as component
disciplines with very boundaries. They study specific textual problems
bearing the information provided by other component disciplines in mind
at every juncture.22 Against such a background, it is evident that a strict
distinction between textual criticism and literary criticism is difficult to
maintain in practice and, at the very least, open to question.
19
Cf. H.-J. Stipp, ‘Textkritik’, 144–154.
20
See H.-J. Stipp, ‘Textkritik’, 156: ‘Es erscheint daher angezeigt, die Trennung von
Text- und Literarkritik aufzugeben und einen einheitlichen exegetischen Aspekt der Textent-
wicklung anzunehmen. Er umfasst alle Stadien der Geschichte biblischer Texte im Bereich
der Schriftlichkeit.’
21
Stipp includes conjecture criticism as part of his methodological Vorstufenrekonstruktion.
See H.-J. Stipp, ‘Textkritik’, 157.
22
See further H.-J. Stipp, ‘Textkritik’, 157–159. Stipp introduces additional arguments at
this juncture in support of his view on the ‘aspect of exegetical unity in the textual develop-
ment’ and against the strict division of textual criticism and literary criticism.
prolegomena 7
Textual criticism itself consists of two important phases.23 In the first

instance one collects and reconstructs textual variants (based on the
versiones); in the second instance one evaluates the said variants. A third
aspect, so-called ‘conjecture criticism’, can only be applied infrequently
and with the utmost care.24 The biblical texts are not simply open to
‘correction’ on the basis of the literary solutions we are inclined to sup-
port for one reason or another.25 The biblical texts enjoy an integrity that
deserves our respect.
2. In the preceding paragraph, we offered a concise sketch of the way
in which textual criticism tends to be described and practiced in classical
terms. For the sake of completeness, however, it should also be noted that
one can approach textual criticism in an entirely different way, whereby
the relationship between textual criticism and literary criticism, among
other things, can be presented in a radically different manner, in contrast
to recent perspectives on the matter as a whole and to that of Stipp in
particular.26 I refer in this regard to the study of N. Rabe, who defines
textual criticism in a synchronic way.27
‘Synchronic textual criticism’ bases itself on the study of a single extant
(i.e. not reconstructed) manuscript as the object of research. Limitation to
23
Cf. e.g. M.H. Goshen-Gottstein, ‘The Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: Rise,
Decline, Rebirth’, JBL 102 (1983), 365–399, pp. 397–398; M. Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal,
65; Idem, ‘Tekst en teksten’, 36; E. Tov, ‘Criteria’, 430–431; Idem, The Text-Critical Use, 2,
6; Idem, Textual Criticism, 291; A. van der Kooij, ‘Tekstkritiek’, 96–97.
24
Cf. D. Barthélemy, ‘Problématique’, 368; M.H. Goshen-Gottstein, ‘The Textual
Criticism’, 373, 397–398; M. Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 65; Idem, ‘Tekst en teksten’, 36;
E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 5; Idem, Textual Criticism, 290, 351–369; Idem, ‘Textual Criti-
cism (Old Testament)’, 410; A. van der Kooij, ‘Tekstkritiek’, 99. Reference can be made
once again to a degree of evolution within the opinion of E. Tov. While Tov was initially
dismissive when it came to conjecture criticism, it would appear from Textual Criticism
that his opinion on the matter has been nuanced. Although he continues to emphasise the
secondary character of conjecture criticism, he maintains nevertheless that it clearly has a
value in certain cases.
25
This occurs on occasion in the methodological approach of C.J. Labuschagne, for
example, who emends the text or interprets it in such a fashion as to facilitate his logo-
technical analysis. Cf. C.J. Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, vol. 1A (POT), Nijkerk 1987,
86; and Idem, Deuteronomium, vol. 2 (POT), Nijkerk 1990, 30, 49–51, 95–96, 149. See
in this respect also B. Lemmelijn, ‘What Are We Looking for in Doing Old Testament
Tex-Critical Research?’, 69–71.
26
Cf. supra pp. 4–6.
27
Cf. N. Rabe, ‘Zur synchron definierten alttestamentlichen Textkritik’, 76–94. It should
be noted at this juncture that the method of synchronic textual criticism outlined in the
present paragraph was also employed by Rabe’s teacher and mentor H. Schweizer. Cf.
H. Schweizer, Die Josefsgeschichte (Textwissenschaft—Hermeneutik—Linguistik—Informatik
4,1/2), Munich 1990.
one well defined textual witness, Rabe argues, is not simply determined
by the fact that the text in question actually exists, but rather by the
meaningfulness, in principle, of synchronic research into a single text or
a single manuscript. The text that becomes the object of study is consid-
ered to be the expression of a real communicative situation from the past
and an effort is made, with the help of literary analyses, to determine
the historical and cultural backgrounds against which the text came into
existence and to establish the point of departure of the author(s). Rooted
in the textual material as such and in the literary independence of a
manuscript, Rabe upholds the methodological postulate that only one
single manuscript can function as the research object of textual criticism
and the exegesis that follows thereafter in preparation for synchronic and
text-immanent analysis.
Textual criticism limits itself in particular to its ‘practical’ dimension
in studying this single manuscript, in other words to the recognition and
discussion of scribal errors and the comparison of the various textual wit-
nesses. This provides the foundation for a number of additional postulates.
In the first instance, Rabe argues, there is no such thing as a manuscript
that does not contain error or textual corruption. Furthermore, and until
the opposite is confirmed, we must presume that the texts in question
were once grammatically intact textual entities, at least in the original
intention of the author, and that they were once understood by their
audience. Finally, Rabe maintains, many textual errors are frequently open
to explanation and indeed correction. The necessity to correct a text as a
given object of research thus has its roots in the presupposition that the
said text was once intact and coherent and in the hypothesis that problems
should be solved where possible and not carried forward into later stages
of exegetical research as completely intractable.
The so-called ‘target text’ (‘Zieltext’) of Rabe’s synchronic textual criti-
cism is not the ‘original text’ or the Urtext, but rather the ‘presently leg-
ible textual form’ of the chosen textual witness. Against the background
of a straightforward model of communication, Rabe explains synchronic
textual criticism as follows: ‘Die synchrone Textkritik prüft, ob zwischen
Sender und Empfänger einer schriftlichen Nachricht der Übertragungska-
nal selbst, also das material der Handschriften, ihr umfang usw. defekt ist
und/oder ob über diesen Kanal alle gegebenen Signale für den (heutigen)
Adressaten nach seinem Erkenntnisstand dechiffrierbar und nötigenfalls
restituierbar sind.’28
28
Cf. N. Rabe, ‘Zur synchron definierten alttestamentlichen Textkritik’, 78–79.
introduction 9
In Rabe’s opinion, ‘synchronic textual criticism’ has three primary tasks.

In the first instance it must compare the textual witnesses that render the
text being studied in parallel with the chosen manuscript. This consists
of an independent description of the various manuscripts based on an
inquiry into the way in which the text was transmitted. The goal of such
a procedure is twofold: first, endeavour to establish more consciously
one’s preference for a specific textual witness with respect to other texts
that bear witness to the same material; second, endeavour to determine
the peculiar features and characteristics of the chosen textual version. The
second task of synchronic textual criticism is the study of the external
characteristics evident in the textual transmission of the chosen textual
witness, based on which the relationship with the remaining manuscript
traditions of the Old Testament should then become apparent. Such
information on the characteristic features of the chosen textual witness
can clarify the latter’s genealogical position in the manuscript families
and strands of tradition, its age, linguistic usage, the completeness of the
text etc. The third task of textual criticism, understood in this way, is the
observation and discussion (and, where possible, correction) of passages
that are considered illegible.
The criteria for establishing illegible passages in a text are based on the
grammars, lexica and concordances. In the first instance, certain words
or even whole passages may not correspond to our current knowledge of
ancient Hebrew (or Greek). Second, it is possible that one or more words
might appear to lack any sense in a specific context. Third, questionable
vowel signs and punctuation marks may occur, in instances of ketib/qere,
which are difficult to reconcile with the consonantal text. Such scribal
errors can be explained on the basis of classical text-critical designations
such as haplography, dittography, omission due to homoioteleuton, inter-
change similar consonants, incorrect subdivision of words in the context
of scriptio continua or where the space between words is negligible etc.
Rabe also determines three criteria for the correction of these illegible
passages. First, the establishment and explanation of the passage concerned
must already indicate the direction that the potential correction should
follow. Second, the correction should fit the context of the textual witness
read synchronically. Third, the proposed correction must always be directly
related to the error that led to the corrupt reading. According to Rabe,
the danger of arbitrary textual emendation can be significantly mitigated
if these three criteria are maintained. The presence of variant readings for
a specific segment of a manuscript being studied synchronically fulfils a
twofold function. The variants in question help in the discovery of errors
and simultaneously offer advice with respect to proposed corrections. It
is important to note at this juncture, however, that arguments based on

the three criteria remain text-immanent arguments.
From the methodological perspective, however, prudence should be
exercised in order to moderate the fundamental attitude of synchronic
textual criticism towards textual correction. A manuscript should only
be corrected after every other avenue of explanation has been explored
without contribution to the legibility of the text and the three criteria
outlined above have been respected. Such restrictions ensure that the tex-
tual material remains intact and, even in the case of correction, burdened
with only a modest number of hypothetical arguments. The manuscript
thus serves as an improved basis for the exegesis that follows. Secondly, its
particular features and literary development are likewise preserved. Finally,
the limitation whereby only mechanical scribal errors and material textual
corruption are subject to potential correction leaves every other change
that may have emerged at the stage of textual composition or growth to
literary criticism, whereby a clear distinction is to be observed between
the text-critical domain and the literary-critical domain as a sign of their
strict methodological distinction.
Synchronic textual criticism defined in this way can give rise to two
sorts of text. If no scribal errors or textual corruptions are evident, then
the chosen textual witness goes on to serve unemended and unburdened
by hypothetical arguments as the object of study of the exegetical analy-
sis that follows. If textual corruption is discovered, the manuscript thus
bears an increased burden of hypothesis. In contrast to textual criticism
applied in a diachronic fashion, however, the said hypothetical character
can be indicated with greater accuracy and illegible passages with greater
precision. The criteria employed for the determination of scribal errors
remain relatively undisputed. Moreover, the hypothetical character of a
textual correction based on internal criteria is much less significant than
that arising from a compilation based on several textual witnesses. Syn-
chronic textual criticism nevertheless contains a diachronic element. The
text-critical result ultimately reveals a text that must have appeared slightly
different prior to it being committed to writing in the chosen manuscript.
The text-critical procedure thus brings it closer to this earlier version. Rabe
explicitly argues, however, that the goal of such textual criticism is not
the development of a new (original) text, but rather the establishment
of a legible text accessible to exegetes and contemporary readers of the
bible. Based on an analysis limited by such strict criteria, the most one
can expect to achieve is the suspicion that an older and more original
stage in the transmission of the text once existed.
introduction 11
Rabe concludes with a discussion on the relationship between syn-

chronic textual criticism and literary criticism. In his opinion, a strict
separation exists between both methodological steps, although they also
exhibit limited points of contact. One particular similarity would appear
to be the most important: the primary criterion, the legibility of the text
to be interpreted, is the same for both synchronic textual criticism as for
literary criticism. The differences between the two, however, are much
more numerous. In the first instance, when confronted with problems of
legibility, synchronic textual criticism seeks for solutions by tracing and
correcting scribal errors whereas literary criticism tends to explain such
difficulties in light of the redactional background of the text. Second, the
results of literary criticism are based on an extremely broad and global
research context, whereas synchronic textual criticism tends to be limited
to the immediate environment in its analysis of single words, clauses or
expression. Third, the primary focal point of each methodology differs.
Problems raised by literary criticism with respect to internal tensions,
terminology or style characteristics are rarely solved on the basis of a
potential scribal error, whereas textual criticism often limits itself to specifi-
cally orthographical or lexical-grammatical categories. A fourth and final
difference is to be found in the fact that literary criticism no longer draws
attention to the orthographical, lexical and grammatical intelligibility of
the text under analysis, but rather presupposes its legibility and studies it
in relation to a wider range of contextual elements.
Based on our study so far it has become apparent that textual criticism
can be approached in two entirely different ways, whereby completely
different methodological implications are created.29
‘Synchronic textual criticism’ clearly draws our attention to essential
aspects of the textual criticism of biblical texts. The present author is
particularly taken by the emphasis placed on the fact that a well-founded
textual point of departure is necessary before one submits the text to
literary-critical analysis. In other words, the choice of a working text must
be a conscious one. The proposal that a text is an entity functioning in
itself and that it should be understandable as such likewise contains a
considerable degree of truth. The formulation of a few critical observa-
tions, however, seems appropriate at the present juncture.
29
See also in this regard J. Cook, ‘Questions of Textual Criticism. To Reconstruct or
Not?’, in: AIBI, Bible et Informatique: Interprétation, herméneutique, compétence informatique.
Tübingen 1991, Paris/Geneva 1992, 515–522.
First of all, one is left with the impression that the chosen manuscript
employed as the research object of this approach is considered as an
isolated datum, as if it developed in complete detachment from all other
textual material. In our opinion, however, it is important to note that, with
respect to Old Testament texts, we are often dealing with a textual form
that has been preserved by accident and that has also been transmitted in
other textual witnesses. Moreover, the various textual witnesses and textual
forms cannot simply be considered of equal value. While the conscious
choice of one single text as a basis for exegetical research may be a posi-
tive element in the approach, the choice must nevertheless be justified.
For this reason, the sequence followed by the said approach would appear
to be incorrect. A manuscript is first chosen and only then compared
with other manuscripts, and merely with a specific view to correcting
the chosen manuscript on a text-internal basis. In our opinion, it would
seem more appropriate to first make an objective study and comparison
of all the textual material available with respect to a specific text and only
then take the practical step of opting for a single working text, bearing in
mind the various marginal observations that have been formulated in this
regard and accounting for the valuable preferable or synonymous variants
found in other textual forms.30 In short, first compare and then choose
rather than the other way round.
In addition, the value of the so-called ‘target text’ that synchronic tex-
tual criticism strives to obtain, namely the ‘presently legible textual form’
of the chosen textual witness, seems to the present author to be relative if
not slight. As a matter of fact, such a ‘legible’ textual form can be created
for every individual textual witness, without contributing to the establish-
ment of the value of the said witness as such and its relationship with
other textual witnesses. In other words, the establishment of a ‘presently
legible textual form’ tells us nothing about the originality of the text
under analysis.
Furthermore, synchronic textual criticism’s emphasis on the ‘correc-
tion’ of errors within the manuscript ought to take place with the utmost
prudence. The text we have before us may appear to contain ‘errors’ open
to correction from our modern perspective, but it is possible that they
were not originally interpreted as such. The application of contemporary
standards of logic to extremely ancient texts ultimately lacks objectivity
and cannot be justified.31
30
The terms ‘preferable’ and ‘synonymous’ will be further explained below. See pp. 20, 21.
31
Cf. also in this regard n. 82 below.
terminology 13
In our opinion, moreover, Rabe’s strict distinction between textual

criticism and literary criticism cannot be maintained. It is only in light
of the fact that Rabe defines textual criticism in the narrow sense as the
process of orthographical correction and the establishment of a single leg-
ible manuscript that the research domains of textual criticism and literary
criticism can be contrasted to such a degree.
Finally, in maintaining that the hypothetical character of a textual cor-
rection based on internal criteria is much less than that associated with
the classical compilation of various textual witnesses, Rabe leaves one with
the impression that his understanding of diachronic textual criticism is
incorrect. Classical textual criticism also employs internal criteria as the
first stage in the process of evaluating textual variants.32 In addition, the
result of text-critical analysis need not always be a compilation of various
textual witnesses. In light of what we have said so far, it seems preferable
to begin with the comparison and evaluation of the preserved textual
material before one opts for a single working text that can serve as the
point of departure for literary research, bearing in mind all the relevant
variants available to us from other textual witnesses.
Against this background, the present text-critical study of the ‘Plagues
Narrative’ will give preference to the more ‘classical’ or, if the term is
preferred, ‘diachronic’ understanding of textual criticism.
Having offered some brief introductory observations with respect to tex-

tual criticism in general, the following pages will focus concretely on the
terminology to be employed in our text-critical approach to the ‘Plagues
Narrative’, the working model we have developed for the present text-
critical study and the concrete textual material that will constitute the
object of the said study of Exod. 7:14–11:10.
Terminology
In line with the two primary phases of text-critical research, we will divide
our methodological procedure into two parts: the collection of variants
and the evaluation thereof.
32
Cf. infra pp. 15–18.
Collecting variants
Before one can begin with the collection of ‘variants’, it is important that
we have a clear definition of what we mean by the term ‘variant’ in the first
place. According to Tov, the term ‘variant’ includes every element evident
in the textual witnesses that deviates from a specific text which is taken
as the standard. Where the study of the Old Testament text is concerned,
the Masoretic Text generally serves as the basis for every comparison.33
This standard text is thus understood as the central textual witness,34 and
every deviation from a specific form of MT is referred to as a ‘variant’
in relation to the latter.35 Scholars insist, however, that MT is taken as
the point of departure because it represents the textus receptus of the Old
Testament and because it provides the best preserved and most complete
text thereof, not because the content of MT should be preferred above
other textual traditions. On the contrary, a ‘variant’ reading from another
text tradition may indeed be better and more original than MT itself.
Textual criticism collects (and reconstructs) variants, which are then
compared with MT in the evaluation phase, in order to determine the
preferable reading.36 The reading in question is considered to be closest to
the ‘original form of the text’, defined as the final textual form at the end
of the literary growth process and prior to the beginning of the process of
textual transmission of the said complete text.37 A great deal of discussion,
however, surrounds both the question of a possible ‘original’ text and the
transition from textual growth to textual transmission.38
J.E. Sanderson, who has made a text-critical study of 4Qpaleo-Exodm,
offers a contrasting definition of the term ‘variant’ to the conventional
definition outlined above. Sanderson defines a ‘variant’ as every difference
33
Cf. E. Tov, ‘Criteria’, 430; Idem, The Text-Critical Use, 6; Idem, Textual Criticism, 18.
34
Cf. M. Vervenne, ‘Tekst en teksten’, 36: ‘In dit verband willen we beklemtonen dat MT
opgevat wordt als één van de vele tekstgetuigen van het Oude Testament, en dus niet als de
toonaangevende tekst. Omdat MT evenwel de meest complete en toegankelijke tekstvorm is,
worden alle varianten ermee vergeleken. Het doel van de beoordeling is na te gaan of er lez-
ingen voorkomen die mogelijkerwijs oorspronkelijker zijn dan die van MT. In de hedendaagse
tekstkritiek van het Oude Testament doet men daarvoor een beroep op exegetische, literaire
en taalkundige criteria, die variante lezingen beoordelen in hun context.’
35
Cf. E. Tov, Textual Criticism, 18: ‘The details of which texts are composed (letters,
words) are “readings”, and accordingly, all readings which differ from a text presented or
accepted as central are usually called “variant readings” or “variants”.’
36
Cf. E. Tov, Textual Criticism, 290–291, 310–311.
37
Cf. E. Tov, Textual Criticism, 164–180; A. Van der Kooij, Tekstkritiek, 91.
38
terminology 15
between the textual witnesses in every place preserved by 4QpaleoExodm.

The determination of variants is thus no longer based on a point of dif-
ference with the MT but rather on every point of difference evident
between one of four texts (in casu MT, LXX, SamP, 4QpaleoExodm) and
one of the three other texts.39 Sanderson’s choice in this regard is based
on a conscious opposition to the traditional approach that takes the MT
as the standard, even when the latter is only referred to as the ‘basic’ text
without any implied value judgement.
In the present study we will follow Sanderson’s advice and consider
every different reading evident between the textual witnesses as a ‘vari-
ant’, without insisting on comparison with the MT as ‘standard’ text. In
other words, we consider a ‘variant reading’ to be ‘variant’ with respect
to any other textual witness and not only when compared with the MT.
It should be noted at this juncture the purely orthographic differences
are not included as ‘variants’.
Evaluation of variants
Criteria for the evaluation of textual variants

A great deal of prudence is necessary when evaluating textual variants
evident among the various textual witnesses.40 As a matter of fact, the
process of evaluation tends as such to be a rather subjective affair.41 In
order to confront the difficulties that accompany this tendency, scholars
have formulated a number of criteria for the evaluation of variants.42
Classically speaking a division tends to be made between external and
internal criteria, whereby the former allude to the ‘document’ in which
the variant was found and the latter have to do with the intrinsic value of
39
J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 39: ‘A variant is defined in this dissertation as any
disagreement among the four texts Qm, SamP, M, G of Exodus in any passage where Qm
is extant. The determination of variants is not based simply on disagreement with M, but
rather on any disagreement on the part of any one of the four texts with any of the other
three texts.’ Cf. also P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, Qumran Cave 4, vol. 4: Palaeo-
Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts (DJD, 9), Oxford 1992, 65.
40
Cf. E. Tov, Textual Criticism, 293–311.
41
Cf. E. Tov, Textual Criticism, 291.
42
Cf. P. Kyle McCarter, Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible,
Philadelphia 1986, 71–74; E. Tov, ‘Criteria’, 434–448; N. Rabe, ‘Zur synchron definierten
alttestamentlichen Textkritik’, 71–74.
the variant itself.43 External criteria include the following information:44 the
unequal status of the textual sources, preference for MT, the presence of
a particular reading in a number of textual witnesses and the age of the
textual witness. Fundamental criticism can be formulated with respect to
each of these criteria, so much so that their application ultimately becomes
a problem for the evaluation of individual variant readings. Tov considers
the criteria impractical for use in Old Testament textual criticism.45
Internal criteria are formulated according to the classical principles:
lectio difficilior praeferenda and lectio brevior potior.46 According to Tov,
however, these criteria are equally impractical and can only be applied
to an extremely small number of cases. Two additional internal criteria
mentioned in this regard—assimilation to or harmonisation with other
parallel passages and ‘interpretive modification’—are not ipso facto reli-
able either.
Tov warns against the idea that basing oneself on textual rules would
somehow imply that the conclusions of one’s research are thus correct. At
the same time, however, one’s results are not automatically incorrect if one
does not implement such criteria. Tov notes the following shortcomings
with respect to the classical criteria:47
43
Cf. E. Tov, ‘Criteria’, 434; Idem, Textual Criticism, 297.
44
Cf. E. Tov, ‘Criteria’, 434–438; Idem, The Text-Critical Use, 222–225; Idem, Textual
Criticism, 298–302.
45
Cf. the critique of M. Silva, ‘Internal Evidence in the Text-Critical Use of the LXX’,
in: N. Fernández Marcos (ed.), La Septuaginta en la Investigación Contemporánea (V Con-
greso de la IOSCS) (Textos y Estudios ‘Cardenal Cisneros’, 34), Madrid 1985, 151–167.
M. Silva argues that the employment of external criteria, by analogy with the use thereof in
New Testament textual criticism, is practical and delivers good results. In his opinion, Old
Testament textual criticism should function according to the same principles as that of New
Testament textual criticism, given the fact that the textual transmission of both followed the
same general rules, whatever the language in which it developed. Cf. however in this regard
A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint?’, ZAW
99 (1987), 58–89, esp. 88–89. A. Aejmelaeus, who also alludes to this debate, defends Tov’s
position. Aejmelaeus is of the opinion that the situation of Old Testament textual criticism
cannot be compared with that of the New Testament because the preserved textual material
is extremely limited and fragmentary. There are very few textual witnesses older than and
independent of MT. According to Aejmelaeus, the establishment of such a scarcity of mate-
rial makes it impossible to evaluate the textual witnesses in se, i.e. on the basis of external
criteria. In concrete terms, this means that one cannot engage in the process of text-critical
evaluation based on the authority of a particular textual witness such as MT. All one can
do is evaluate individual variants, and only then on the basis of internal criteria.
46
47
E. Tov, ‘Criteria’, 444; Idem, The Text-Critical Use, 231; Idem, Textual Criticism, 308.
terminology 17
a. the logic that underpins certain rules is sometimes open to question.48

b. the application of abstract rules does not make the procedure objective.
The evaluation of variants remains the most subjective aspect of text-
critical analysis.
c. the textual rules can only be applied to a small portion of the readings
that call for evaluation.
d. textual rules have to be limited to internal information; there are no
valid external rules.
Tov’s critique of the classical criteria is not intended to suggest that we

should abandon such procedures altogether. They can be of assistance but
they do not serve to guarantee the accuracy of our text-critical judgement.
The evaluation of textual variants remains a subjective matter, an art and
a practice, governed by intuition as well as rules.49
One can conclude that according to Tov the internal criteria enjoy
the highest degree of validity when one is engaged in the evaluation of
variant readings. The guiding rule in this regard is the reading’s appro-
priateness in the context, understood in both the immediate and in the
broader sense.50
J. Lust argues in this regard that it is better to appeal to formal rather
than content based criteria in one’s evaluation of variants.51 In addition
to the determination of disruption to established patterns and structural
schemes and the study of the early or late character of the Hebrew lan-
guage usage, among other things, Lust underlines the importance of the
embeddedness of the variant in its context,52 which he maintains can also
provide objective information for the evaluation of variants.
J.E. Sanderson likewise dwells on the criteria for evaluating variant
readings and points in this regard to the distinction between external and
internal criteria.53 She agrees with Tov’s fundamental intuition that the use
of such rules does not make subjective text-critical evaluation objective
48
Cf. also A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Übersetzung als Schlüssel zum Original’, 158: ‘Die alten Regeln
“lectio difficilior potior” oder “lectio brevior potior” nimmt man in solchen Fällen gern zur
Hilfe, ohne zu merken, daß Fehler oft sehr schwierige Lesarten zur Folge haben und daß
Auslassungen gewöhnliche Fehler sind.’
49
Cf. E. Tov, ‘Criteria’, 445; Idem, Textual Criticism, 309–310.
50
51
See J. Lust, ‘David and Goliath’, 123–126; and Idem, ‘The Use’, 17–18, 19.
52
See J. Lust, ‘David and Goliath’, 123, 124–125.
53
Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 42–49.
and similarly underlines the importance of the context of a reading as it

is given expression in language, style and content. Sanderson admits that
she has borne the said traditional criteria in mind in her own research
although she has not applied them blindly.54 She prefers to understand
them as general principles that have to be kept in balance with the specific
characteristics of each individual variant reading.
The present author concurs that the text-critical evaluation of textual
variants ought to account for the classical internal criteria, especially
appropriateness to the immediate and wider context,55 on the one hand,
and with the individual characteristics and demands of every individual
textual variant on the other. The process is a delicate one, calling for a
balanced evaluation of a variety of possibilities. In spite of everything,
however, it remains to a large extent subjective.
Translation character
In addition to the Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch and the tex-
tual witnesses stemming from Qumran, the present study will also focus
attention on the Greek text of the Septuagint.56 The variants observed in
54
Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 45. See also Idem, ‘The Old Greek of Exodus in
the Light of 4QpaleoExodm’, Textus 14 (1988), 87–104, esp. 91, n. 13.
55
For this reason, our own evaluation of the variants found among the textual witnesses to
the ‘Plagues Narrative’ will pay particular attention to the context of the said readings. While
our study will focus specifically on the immediate context found in Exod. 7–11, the wider
context, i.e. the entire book of Exodus, will be included in the equation where necessary.
56
It should be noted at this juncture that prior to its use in the text-critical analysis of the
Hebrew biblical text, the Greek text of LXX must itself be subjected to an internal text-critical
study. As with the Hebrew biblical text, LXX is not represented by one single textual version
but is available, rather, in a variety of different Greek textual forms that likewise require
comparison and study. Given the fact that such a work amounts on its own to a separate
and extensive study, we will base ourselves in the present text-critical study of the ‘Plagues
Narrative’ on the LXX version of J.W. Wevers, who put together an eclectic text on the basis
of a thorough study of the various Greek textual witnesses. Cf. J.W. Wevers (ed.), Exodus
(Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum, II,1), Göttingen 1991. See also in this regard
A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 60–62. Aejmelaeus argues
that the textual criticism of the Septuagint, the study of Septuagint translation technique
and the use of the Septuagint in the context of Old Testament text-critical study are three
inextricably linked research elements that ought to be studied according to the given
sequence. For the textual criticism of the Septuagint, Aejmelaeus also makes reference to
the eclectic text editions of the ‘Göttingen Akademie’. Cf. Ibidem, 62: ‘A good solution to
this dilemma is to take advantage of the work done by experts in this field and published
in the critical edition of the Septuagint, issued by the Göttinger Academy of Sciences. The
aim of a critical edition is to offer the nearest possible approach to the original text, pre-
sented by the editor after weighing all the manuscripts and other textual witnesses available
to him.’ See likewise S. Olofsson, The LXX Version: A Guide to the Translation Technique of
the Septuagint (CB OT, 30), Lund 1990, 79: ‘Among the published critical editions of the
terminology 19
the LXX when comparing the different textual forms, however, are not
always rooted in a variant in the consonantal text of the Vorlage.57
When employing the Septuagint in the text-critical study of the Hebrew
Old Testament one is obliged, therefore, to bear in mind its translation
character.58 A variety of factors may serve to explain the origins of a
‘deviation’ in the Greek text. First, it should be remembered that the
Greek translators simultaneously engaged in both linguistic and contextual
exegesis of their Hebrew Vorlage.59 Second, a detailed study of the transla-
tion technique and translation character of the Greek Septuagint remains
essential.60 As a matter of fact, the translation character in question varies
from book to book,61 sometimes word for word and sometimes highly
paraphrased. Some scholars make a distinction in this regard between
‘literal’ and ‘free’ translations while others speak of ‘formal’ and ‘non-
formal’ translations. A ‘formal’ translation is one that strives to provide
an extremely literal, almost mechanical rendering of its Hebrew Vorlage.
A ‘non-formal’ translation treats its Hebrew original with enormous flex-
ibility. Such passages often contain extensive additions (plusses), omissions
(minuses) and substitutions.
Bearing this in mind, the text-critical evaluation of variants must first
establish whether a particular difference between LXX and the Hebrew
texts was due to free translation technique or to a different Hebrew
Vorlage.
Our evaluation of the Greek textual variants with regard to the ‘Plagues
Narrative’ will endeavour to account for the aforementioned factors.62
LXX it is a matter of course to employ the Göttingen Septuagint for scholarly work (. . .)
The Göttingen Septuagint is to be preferred, since it is an eclectic version, with the ultimate
goal of recovering the text as it left the hands of the translators, i.e. the Old Greek (. . .) This
makes the Göttingen Septuagint by far the most useful edition of the LXX.’ Cf. also J.W.
Wevers, ‘The Use of Versions for Text Criticism: The Septuagint’, in: N. Fernández Marcos
(ed.), La Septuaginta, 15–24, pp. 19–20.
57
Cf. M. Vervenne, ‘Tekst en teksten’, 28.
58
Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 58–65, 66–71,
71–87; M. Vervenne, ‘Tekst en teksten’, 28–30; E. Tov, ‘De tekst van het Oude Testa-
ment’, 238–240; Idem, The Text-Critical Use, 17–29, 39–45; Idem, ‘The Septuagint’, in:
M.J. Mulder, H. Sysling (eds), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the
Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, Assen/Maastricht/Philadelphia 1988,
161–188, pp. 168–174; J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 247–246. See also infra pp.
96–150.
59
Cf. M. Vervenne, ‘Tekst en teksten’, 28–29.
60
Cf. M. Vervenne, ‘Tekst en teksten’, 29–30.
61
62
See infra in Chapter III.
Indeed, it has become already apparent in our earlier studies that the dif-
ferences between LXX and MT were often due to the grammatical and
linguistic demands of the Hebrew or the Greek respectively.63 Thus, this
fact will also be dealt with in our discussion of the variants.
Categories of variants
Variant readings in text-critical research can be evaluated in different ways
and according to different categories.64
‘Preferable readings’
Preferable readings or variants are those considered to be ‘better’ or ‘more
original’ than other variants after thorough text-critical analysis.65 However,
such ‘preferability’ can only be ascribed to a particular variant on the basis
of considerable probability.66
Greenberg defines the best reading in a different fashion,67 arguing that
it represents the reading that has the capacity to explain other readings.
In his opinion, the search for such readings restricts the results of text-
critical research. At the same time, however, it sets the question of the
‘original’ text to one side.68
In any case, these readings are ultimately granted priority over others
on the basis of preferability, whatever terms are used to define it.
63
Cf. B. Lemmelijn, De plagen van Egypte I, 44–50; and Idem, De plagen van Egypte
II, 235–242.
64
Cf. also P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 65.
65
Cf. E. Tov, Textual Criticism, 168, 310–311; J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 41,
48–49, 53–54. J. Cook insists in this regard that the labels ‘better’ or ‘superior’ should not
be used in the qualitative sense. The expression ‘more original’ is more neutral than ‘bet-
ter’. Cf. J. Cook, ‘Questions of Textual Criticism’, 521: ‘The definition “more original” is a
more neutral term. It acts only as an indication that a reading is older and could be used
in order to describe variants. The statement that the Septuagint is the earlier text, therefore
does not mean that it is a better, or superior text or tradition. It simply means that it is
historically older than for instance the Massoretic text and consequently its voice should
also be listened to by the interpreter.’
66
Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 41, 48–49, 53–54. See esp. 49: ‘Despite all the
effort that has been taken to determine the “contextually most appropriate reading”, it is
possible to state the preferable reading only as a matter of probability. Varying degrees of
confidence will be expressed, ranging from “almost certainly” to “probably”.’ Sanderson adopts
an expression employed by Tov (with footnote reference) with respect to the appropriateness
of a reading in its context. Cf. E. Tov, ‘Criteria’, 446.
67
Cf. M. Greenberg, ‘The Use’, 148.
68
Cf. M. Greenberg, ‘The Use’, 148: ‘This is, to be sure, a relative gain only, and it leaves
the “lost original” beyond the scope of text-critical inquiry, where it belongs.’
terminology 21
‘Synonymous variants’
Synonymous readings or variants emerge when no ‘preferable variant’ can
be established. They represent different legitimate ways of expressing the
same idea and enjoy an equal claim to originality where there is reference
to an Urtext.69 For scholars who maintain that a variety of parallel texts
were in circulation from the beginning,70 such ‘synonymous readings’ rep-
resent a trace of two (or more) of the said ‘original’ texts.71 The scholars in
question are inclined to refer to virtually every variant as a ‘synonymous
reading’, given the fact that they reject the notion of an Urtext and opt
by way of preference for a variety of parallel texts.72
Some variants cannot be designated as ‘preferable’ because of their
unusual Hebrew usage (and our defective knowledge thereof ) or because
of the fact that both the longer and shorter textual versions are considered
acceptable without being able to determine whether the variant in question
has its roots in an ‘expansion’ or an ‘omission’.73 In the case of variant
readings whereby it is possible to determine that the textual differences
arose during the phase of the text’s literary growth,74 Tov maintains that
we should also speak of ‘synonymous readings’.75 In his opinion, the label
‘preferable variant’ should not be employed in such instances.
69
Cf. E. Tov, Textual Criticism, 170, 241, 260–261; J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll,
41, 54, 109–110.
70
Cf. supra p. 2.
71
See J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 110.
72
Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 109–110; E. Tov, Textual Criticism, 170, 291.
For Tov’s perspective see supra, n. 4.
73
Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 41.
74
Problems frequently arise in this regard, however, on account of the fact that it is often
difficult to determine the stage in the development of the text from which the variant text
reading stems. Tov himself draws attention to this difficulty. See E. Tov, Textual Criticism,
350. Sanderson likewise makes explicit reference to the problem. Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An
Exodus Scroll, 48: ‘This brings up the issue again whether there can be a distinction made
between “literary” and “transmissional”, or “creative” and “mechanical”, or “redactional”
and “scribal”.’ See also Ibidem, 109: ‘Even if there was one Urtext which left the final edi-
tor’s table to meet its fate at the hands of successive scribes, there remains the difficulty of
establishing the moment in time that distinguishes editorial work from scribal work. The
book of Exodus is full, for example, of repetition in all four witnesses under scrutiny here.
Which instances of repetitiousness are to be attributed to an original composer, whether
in oral or written form, which are to be attributed to one of the several redactors through
the centuries, and which to scribes and translators? How would repetition at a literary stage
look different from repetition at a transmissional stage?’
75
Cf. E. Tov, Textual Criticism, 348–350; Idem, The Text-Critical Use, 239–242. See
also J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 48. Compare likewise J. Lust, ‘Epilogue’, 156; Idem,
‘David and Goliath’, 121; and Idem, ‘The Use’, 16–17, 19.
‘Unique readings’
A ‘unique reading’ is a variant that renders the only witness to a particular
reading from among the preserved textual forms.76 Such unique readings
can be ‘preferable’, ‘synonymous’ or secondary.77 It should be noted at
this juncture, however, that judgements meted out with respect to such
‘unique’ readings are extremely contingent. The textual material we have
at our disposal is exceedingly fragmentary and pertains only to the textual
witnesses that have survived the vicissitudes of history and nature. As a
consequence, it is important to bear in mind that results of research into
‘unique readings’ remain relative and provisional.78
Development of a dedicated working model for text-critical research79
Anyone planning to engage in serious text-critical research into a particular

biblical pericope must begin by determining his or her methodological
strategy.80 How do I approach the text? Biblical scholars are at odds in
this regard, as to whether the study of a text should begin with literary
criticism or textual criticism.81 In the present author’s opinion, however,
serious literary criticism cannot be done without a detailed prior study of
the textual material available to us with reference to the passage in ques-
tion. As a consequence, this immediately locates us within the domain of
textual criticism, which is responsible for the collection and evaluation of
the textual data. We thus prefer to begin our research with the material
form of the text, the text as ‘physical product’, before moving on to the
literary study thereof.82
76
77
78
See J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 41–42.
79
This working model has been presented briefly in B. Lemmelijn, ‘What Are We Look-
ing for in Doing Text-Critical Research?’, JNSL 23/2 (1997), 69–80.
80
Within the context of what we have said above concerning the theoretical framework
surrounding textual criticism as a discipline and based on particular methodological and
terminological options that have already been made, either directly or indirectly, with regard
to the present text-critical study of the ‘Plagues Narrative’, the following pages endeavour to
explain our working model for text-critical study. Possible repetitions should be understood
against this background.
81
Cf., for example, D. Barthélemy et al., The Story. The present author is inclined to
agree with the positions adopted by J. Lust and E. Tov in the said book. See D. Barthélemy
et al., The Story, 5–46, 87–94, 121–137, 155.
82
See also B. Lemmelijn, ‘The So-Called “Major Expansions” in SamP, 4QPaleoExodm
and 4QExodj in Exod 7:14–11:10’, 429–439. Cf. similarly M. Vervenne, ‘Tekst en teksten’,
38; Idem, ‘Current Tendencies’, 33. Cf. also E. Tov, ‘The Story of David and Goliath in
dedicated working model for text-critical research 23
As a matter of fact, the textual data ultimately represent the factual

basis upon which research as such is based. The collation and registration
of this data must serve, in our opinion, as the primary point of departure
for any well-founded textual study. Literary criticism has to base itself on
a ‘critical’ text that can only be determined after painstaking text-critical
analysis. For this reason, the present author favours the close examination
of the formal and factual characteristics of the text as an initial step in
the methodological process. The evaluation of the said textual phenomena
must ultimately be postponed at this juncture.83 This necessarily implies,
however, that text-critical research should focus attention not only on the
major plusses and/or minuses evident in the text,84 but should also examine
the minor, often minute details, or at least take note of them.85 To this
end, a synoptic survey of the textual versions under analysis would seem
useful and appropriate.86
Whenever the textual forms employed in a text-critical study include
one or other of the so-called Versiones, as will be the case in the present
study of the ‘Plagues Narrative’ with respect to the Septuagint, a compre-
hensive study must also be made of the translation technique of the text
the MT and LXX’, in: D. Barthélemy et al., The Story, 129–137, pp. 132–134. Those who
begin immediately with literary analyses, moreover, run the risk of appealing to the internal
dynamics of the narrative and the generally accepted principles of logic whereby a particular
narrative is branded as ‘illogical’ or ‘inconsistent’. The use of such arguments, however, has
its limits. Our modern understanding of ‘logicality’ needs not square with that of the biblical
authors and can often be extremely subjective. For this reason, it seems better to begin with
the textual evidence of the narrative in question. Strange and apparently ‘illogical’ passages
should first be accepted as they are without any endeavour to explain them on the basis
of the context. In addition, no single solution can be offered that covers every problem.
A text-critical decision must be made on the basis of pre-established priorities. It is thus
advisable to begin with the solution to textual problems before one endeavours to explain
potential literary problems.
83
Cf. also J. Lust, ‘David and Goliath’, 121–122.
84
It should be noted that the terms ‘minus’ and ‘plus’ are purely descriptive. They sim-
ply state that a verse or verse segment has been added or omitted without implying any
evaluation thereof. Cf. also E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 127–133, esp. 130; and Idem,
‘Criteria’, 430, n. 4.
85
Cf. also E. Tov, ‘The Nature of the Differences between MT and the LXX in 1 Sam.
17–18 [1]’, in: D. Barthélemy et al., The Story, 22–23.
86
See, for example, the method of E. Tov, ‘The Nature of the Differences’, 24–33; and
that of P.-M. Bogaert, ‘Les deux rédactions conservées (LXX et MT) d’Ezéchiel 7’, in: J. Lust
(ed.), Ezekiel and his Book, 21–47, pp. 26–27, 35–36. A synoptic survey offers a number of
advantages. In the first instance, it provides an excellent introduction to and exploration of
the textual material. Second, it provides a convenient arrangement of the textual material,
making it immediately accessible. Third, it allows for all the variants, however small, to be
noted and registered.
in question.87 This implies that an analysis is made of the contribution of

the translator where variants present themselves. Not all of the variants in
LXX, registered on the basis of a comparison of the textual forms, came into
existence on the basis of a variant in the consonantal text of the Vorlage.88
As a matter of fact, variants in the textual forms might be the result of the
conscious or unconscious activities of the translator. The study of translation
technique, which is necessary in order to trace the various factors that lie
at the origins of textual ‘deviations’, includes, among other things, research
into the linguistically and contextually exegetical renderings the translator
may have brought about, the study of word sequence, a detailed analysis
of the quantitative representation of the various words in the differing ver-
sions and the consistency of translation equivalents.89 At the same time,
a systematic survey also has to be made on the basis of typically Hebrew
grammatical constructions in order to determine the extent to which the
Greek translator exercised his freedom as a translator.90 In so doing, one
remains grounded in a textual basis that offers objective facts and having
studied the latter one can endeavour to make a judgement about the nature
of the textual version in question as well as an evaluation of the individual
variants. The point of departure is thus to be found at the textual level.
Once conclusions have been drawn at this level, further evaluation can take
place at the literary level.91
Having collected and registered the objective evidence and textual variants,
thereby establishing the point of departure upon which our research will
be based, we are now ready to make a careful transition to the discussion
and evaluation of text-critical issues based on the material at hand, such as
87
See, for example, E. Tov, ‘The Nature of the Differences’, 23; Idem, ‘Response’, in:
D. Barthélemy et al., The Story, 93; and Idem, ‘The Story’, 135. Cf. also the studies published
by the scholars of the so-called ‘Finish School’, especially I. Soisalon-Soininen, A. Aejmelaeus
and R. Sollamo. See also infra n. 90, chapter III’s n. 92, and, in particular, pp. 108–125.
88
89
Cf., for example, E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 20–24; Idem, ‘The Nature of the Dif-
ferences’, 33–39.
90
See, in particular, the collected contributions of A. Aejmelaeus in A. Aejmelaeus, On
the Trail of the Septuagint Translators. Collected Essays. Revised and Expanded Edition, Leuven/
Paris/Dudley MA, 2007; the most prominent contributions of I. Soisalon-Soininen, collected
in A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen: Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax.
Zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 4. Juni 1987 (AASF Series B, 237), Helsinki 1987; and the
contributions of R. Sollamo, including R. Sollamo, Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions
in the Septuagint (AASF Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum, 19), Helsinki 1979; and
Idem, ‘The LXX Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute Used with a Paronymous Finite Verb
in the Pentateuch’, in: N. Fernández Marcos (ed.), La Septuaginta, 101–113.
91
Cf. E. Tov, ‘Response’, 94.
dedicated working model for text-critical research 25
questions relating to textual corruption, expansion or abbreviation.92 The

present author is of the opinion that the text-critical evaluation of variant
readings ought to pay due attention to the classical internal criteria, with
the emphasis firmly focused on the appropriateness of a reading in its
immediate and broader context, and to the distinctive characteristics and
demands of each individual textual variant.93 Other formal criteria, such as
the study of established narrative patterns and of the early or late character
of the Hebrew usage, can also facilitate the evaluation of textual variants.94
A balanced evaluation of the various possibilities remains, nevertheless, a
complex and delicate task leading to tentative decisions that ultimately
involve a high degree of subjectivity.
The evaluation of the variants to be undertaken in the present study
must take place in full awareness of the fact that consensus has not been
reached with respect to the potential existence of an Urtext and that the
latter, even if one can demonstrate its existence, is no longer accessible to
us.95 All we can establish is that a variety of texts and textual forms were
in circulation at a given moment in history. Whether the texts and textual
forms in question had their roots in one single so-called Urtext or whether
a variety of textual versions existed from the outset is another question.
If one is inclined to support the idea that an Urtext once existed, one is
obliged to accept, nevertheless, that it is no longer immediately recognisable.
Indeed, even if one were to follow the hypothesis of E. Tov and argue that
such an Urtext was the precise text in circulation at the point of transition
from textual growth to textual transmission, one still has to face a number
of unresolved issues. In the first instance, Tov himself already states that
the period in which this text held sway must have been either very short or
non-existent, given the probability that earlier versions were in circulation
at the same time.96 It seems to the present author that one can no longer
92
Cf. J. Lust, ‘The Story of David and Goliath in Hebrew and in Greek’, in: D. Barthé-
lemy et al., The Story, 5–18, pp. 6, 8–11. Cf. also B. Lemmelijn, ‘What Are We Looking
for in Doing Text-Critical Research?’, 75–77.
93
94
See J. Lust, ‘The Use’, 17–18, 19; and Idem, ‘David and Goliath’, 123–126.
95
Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 42. See also supra pp. 1–2 and the evolution in
Tov’s perspective described in n. 4.
96
See E. Tov, ‘Textual Criticism (Old Testament)’, 406: ‘The finalized literary product
which incorporated the last recognizable literary editing of the book should be considered
the “Ur-text” (archetypal copy) of the biblical books, elements of which textual criticism
attempts to reconstruct. This formulation, which necessarily remains conjectural, thus agrees
with the views of de Lagarde though not in all details. The period of textual unity reflected
in the copies which we named the “Ur-text” was short, and possibly never existed, since
at the same time there also circulated additional copies of the biblical books incorporating
speak of a single text in this instance. At the same time, the strict division
between the phase of textual growth and that of textual transmission in this
hypothesis remains problematic (see supra). To seek exclusive support in the
so-called ‘logical principle’ that it is more acceptable that variety emerged
from unicity than vice versa seems to me to be an inadequate procedure.
Should one be inclined to uphold the alternative possibility, however, and
insist that several different texts and textual forms existed from the outset,
having emerged, for example, within the different religious communities,
then one is confronted with an entirely different set of problems. The
presupposed variety of texts, which nonetheless exhibit significant point of
agreement, must have had their roots somewhere! It is difficult to imagine
that several different texts simply emerged out of nothing without having
enjoyed any form of common contact, even if one limits such contact
to a common (possibly oral) tradition. For this reason, it seems desirable
to consider the entire question as a phase concerning which we can say
little if anything without venturing into the extremely hypothetical and
engaging in pure guesswork. We prefer to take our point of departure in
the observation that various texts were in circulation at a given moment
in history (scholars tend to refer to the fourth and third centuries BCE)
without endeavouring to hypotheses concerning their origin or prior textual
history. We opt to describe this period as a sort of ‘prehistory’ about which
we currently know precious little.
As a consequence, I prefer to avoid reference to one or more Urtexts.
When determining ‘preferable variants’, however, and specifically within
the context of a methodical text-critical study of the textual witnesses, I
consider it reasonable, nevertheless, to argue that one variant might be
‘more original’ than another, without making claims thereby with respect
to the text involved or the precise stage it has achieved in the process of
literary growth.97 The claim that one or other variant reflects the text at the
precise moment of transition from textual growth to textual transmission
remnant of previous literary stages.’ Cf. also Idem, ‘Criteria’, 431, n. 6. Compare S. Talmon,
‘The Old Testament Text’, 198.
97
Text-critical evaluation understood in this way endeavours to explain the relationships
between the textual forms available to us without thereby postulating or reconstructing an
Urtext, not even in the case of individual variants (cf. Tov). See also J.E. Sanderson, An
Exodus Scroll, 43. ‘My attempts along this same line (the determination of “preferable”
readings with respect to individual variants, BL) should not be interpreted primarily as an
argument for or against in the theoretical debate about the existence of an Urtext. I would
need a much broader base of evidence before I would personally be in a position to make
such a general decision. I am seeking to determine only whether in individual variants a
preferable reading can be established.’
presentation of the textual material 27
seems too hypothetical, especially when one accounts for the fact that the
development of each individual biblical book took place in such a variety
of ways that it is impossible to establish a clear image thereof.
If one insists on the evaluation of variants within such a relative frame-
work, then both the question of the so-called Urtext and that of the com-
plex relationship between textual criticism and literary criticism (against
the background of the disputed distinction between the phase of textual
growth and the phase of textual transmission) can be set to one side. As we
noted above, the maintenance of general propositions in this regard leads
one into an exaggeratedly hypothetical domain that we prefer to consider
as a sort of ‘prehistory’.
Presentation of the textual material
The textual material employed in the present text-critical study of the Plagues
Narrative in Exod. 7:14–11:10 will be based on the following text editions:
For the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint the CATSS Data Base
(R. Kraft en E. Tov) (Computer Assisted Tools for Septuagint Studies) was
kindly placed at our disposal.98 For the Greek textual version, however,
we finally opted for the eclectic Göttingen edition of LXX edited by J.W.
Wevers.99
For the Samaritan Pentateuch we made use of the (provisional) edi-
tion edited by A. Tal, which is based on Ms 6(C) from the Samaritan
synagogue at Shekhem.100
98
The CATSS Data Base was acquired under the auspices of the Leuven LXX-Lexicon
Project (currently LEH) under the leadership of my predecessor, Prof. Em. Dr. J. Lust. I am
grateful to J. Lust and his colleagues for providing ample access to this material.
99
Cf. J.W. Wevers (ed.), Exodus. Cf. supra n. 56.
100
Cf. A. Tal, The Samaritan Pentateuch: Edited According to Ms 6(C) of the Shekhem Syna-
gogue (TSHLRS, 8), Tel-Aviv 1994. Although we have opted for an eclectic text of LXX (cf.
supra n. 56), we have opted for Tal’s diplomatic text edition of the Samaritan Pentateuch in
preference to the eclectic text of Von Gall (Cf. A. von Gall (ed.), Der Hebräische Pentateuch
der Samaritaner, vol. 2: Exodus, Giessen, 1914). Von Gall’s textual reconstruction is dated
and has been subject, in addition, to considerable critique on account of the methodology
employed. Cf., for example, J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 38: ‘The standard critical
edition of SamP, or the Samaritan Pentateuch, is still that published by von Gall in 1918.
It is an eclectic text and has been much criticized for its methodology. Von Gall clearly
enunciated his own principles for selection among variants in the MSS: he generally preferred
defective orthography, he followed exactly the grammatical rules of (Tiberian?) Hebrew, he
gave preference to the older grammatical forms, and he compared SamP constantly with G
and M. Since full orthography and updating of grammatical features are precisely two of
the major characteristics of SamP and can be expected to have given rise to grammatical
phenomena other than those known to us from the Massoretes, such a procedure was clearly
A variety of textual fragments preserved in several different manuscripts

from Qumran relating to the ‘Plagues Narrative’ have been employed:
4QpaleoExodm, a scroll providing one of the best preserved Exodus
texts from Qumran and exhibiting a number of unusual ‘plusses’ in the
‘Plagues Cycle’.101 For this text, we made use of the DJD edition of the
Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek biblical manuscripts from Cave 4 of Qumran.102
The same DJD edition also provided the manuscript 4QpaleoGen-Exodl,
which has preserved five passages from Exod. 7–11103 and 2QExoda with
two preserved fragments of the ‘Plagues Narrative’.104 The DJD series also
provided manuscript editions of 4QGen-Exoda (three fragments), 4QExodc
(thirty fragments) and 4QExodj (two identified fragments).105 Where it
was considered necessary we also examined the photographs of the said
manuscripts on microfiche.106
misleading.’ The same critique can be found in P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson,
DJD 9, 64; and F.M. Cross jr., ‘Problems of Method’, 35. A. Tal, by contrast, has opted
for a diplomatic edition of Ms 6(C) from the Samaritan synagogue at Shekhem, one of
the most important still extant manuscripts. This option is not based on the advanced age
of the manuscript (1204 CE) nor a claim to superiority with respect to Ms 6(C) when
compared with other manuscripts, but simply because it is the most complete manuscript
among those copied prior to the 14th century. Tal also insists that his publication is not
intended as an alternative to a critical edition, which continues to be necessary. According
to Tal, the latter is being prepared by Prof. A.D. Crown of Sydney University (cf. A. Tal,
The Samaritan Pentateuch, VII). He is of the opinion, nevertheless, that the reproduction
of a reliable text can serve scholarly needs in the meantime as a substitute for the eclectic
edition of von Gall. Tal likewise maintains that the older edition of von Gall no longer
satisfies the demands of modern philology. See Ibidem, VI: ‘This publication is by no means
intended as an alternative to a critical edition, which is still a desideratum. Unfortunately, the
extant edition, produced by August von Gall many years ago (Der hebräische Pentateuch der
Samaritaner, Giessen, 1914–18) does not fulfil the requirements of modern philology. Not
only is the text he created an eclectic composition, but von Gall even altered the character
of Samaritan Hebrew by giving priority to what he called “the rules of Hebrew Grammar”,
recte Masoretic Hebrew. Consequently, the only “authoritative” and universally recognized
edition of the Samaritan Pentateuch defaces its individuality.’
101
The ‘plusses’ in question exhibit numerous similarities with the Samaritan Pentateuch.
Cf. infra Chapters Two and Three.
102
Cf. P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 53–71, 72–85 and plates VII–XI.
103
Cf. P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 17–26, 28–33 and plate II.
104
See M. Baillet, J.T. Milik, R. De Vaux, Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumrân : Exploration de la
falaise. Les grottes 2Q, 3Q, 5Q, 6Q, 7Q à 10Q. Le rouleau de cuivre, vol. 1: Textes (DJD, 3/1),
Oxford 1962, 50–51; and Idem, Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumran: Exploration de la falaise.
Les grottes 2Q, 3Q, 5Q, 6Q, 7Q à 10Q. Le rouleau de cuivre, vol. 2: Planches (DJD, 3/2),
Oxford 1962, plate X.
105
Cf. E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., Qumran Cave 4, vol. 7: Genesis to Numbers (DJD,
12), Oxford 1994, 7–10, 28, 97–113, 149–150 and plates IV, XVI, XVII.
106
See E. Tov, S. Pfann (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche: A Comprehensive Facsimile
Edition of the Texts from the Judean Desert, Leiden/New York/Cologne 1993; and Idem (eds),
The Dead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche: A Comprehensive Facsimile Edition of the Texts from the
Judean Desert. Companion Volume, Leiden/New York/Cologne 1993.
CHAPTER TWO
THE TEXTUAL MATERIAL OF THE

‘PLAGUES NARRATIVE’
Reflecting the methodological framework and working model described

in the previous pages, the present chapter offers—prior to any text-
critical evaluation—a detailed registration and description of the textual
variants found in the extant material of the ‘Plagues Narrative’ in Exod.
7:14–11:10. Thereby, it bases itself on an exhaustive synoptic survey of
the textual material. However, even though the synoptic collection (and
comparison) of the textual material constitutes de facto the very first phase
of the text-critical study, it is, due to practical, typographical and editorial
reasons, presented in appendix at the end of this volume. When intend-
ing to fully understand the registration and description of the text-critical
variants in Exod. 7:14–11:10, presented below, it should nevertheless be
consulted simultaneously.
Synopsis of the textual witnesses to the ‘Plagues Narrative’
The synoptic survey presented in appendix is subdivided as follows: the

first column contains the Hebrew Masoretic Text; the second column the
eclectic Greek LXX text of J.W. Wevers (Göttingen Edition);1 the third one
the text of the Samaritan Pentateuch based on the diplomatic text edition
of A. Tal;2 the fourth column offers 4QpaleoExodm based on DJD 9;3
the fifth column presents 4QpaleoGen-Exodl, likewise based on DJD 9;4
the sixth column 2QExoda following the text edition of DJD 3;5 the
seventh column the text of 4QExodc based on DJD 12; the eigth column
1
Cf. J.W. Wevers (ed.), Exodus.
2
Cf. A. Tal, The Samaritan Pentateuch.
3
Cf. P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 53–71, 72–85 and plates
VII–XI.
4
5
Cf. M. Baillet, J.T. Milik, R. De Vaux, DJD 3/1, 50–51; DJD 3/2, plate X.
30 chapter two: the textual material
contains 4QGen-Exoda and finally, the ninth column presents 4QExodj,

both likewise based on DJD 12.6
A number of remarks should be made on the rendition of problematic
textual fragments from Qumran in this synoptic survey.
1. Exod. 7:29b–8:1b 4QExodj: cf. E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12,
149–150.
The two identified fragments from 4QExodj can be interpreted in two
different ways. They represent either Exod. 7:28–8:2 if the manuscript
agrees with MT, or Exod. 7:29b–8:1b if the manuscript agrees with SamP.
According to DJD 12, the latter of the two possibilities is most probable,
see p. 149: ‘Frgs. 1–2 have been presented in two ways, reconstructed
according to SamP and to MT, respectively, though differences involve
only line 5, since the text of MT in 7:29 is virtually identical to that of
SamP in 7:29b, and 8:1 is also identical with 8:1a in SamP. There is no
direct evidence to show whether this manuscript contained the major
expansions of the 4QpaleoExodm-SamP tradition or lacked them with
MT-LXX. While both reconstructions are possible, the placement of
the text favours the expansion. The interval at the end of line 4 is not
surprising in SamP, since SamP often has an interval before and/or after
interpolations. The presence of any interval between vv. 1 and 2 in the
unexpanded text of MT would be less expected, however, and the fact
that an additional interval at the beginning of line 5 is required (unless
a longer reading is to be posited) is even more unusual.’ I have followed
this option in the synoptic presentation of the text and located the text
fragment adjacent to the expansion in SamP and 4QpaleoExodm.
Within these verses we are confronted with an additional problem,
namely the location of the existing letters ]· ‫ ו[בכל‬in the manuscript. See
in this regard DJD 12, p. 150: ‘The final ink traces could either be taw,
or be yod/waw followed by a space and a possible bet (‫)?בכלי בתיך‬. If taw,
the only possible word in M or SamP is ‫ו[בכל ת]נוריך‬, in which case the
spacing would suggest that the order of the items in the list differed from
that in SamPM.’ The synopsis presents both possibilities.
It is to be noted that the divine name ‫( יהוה‬Exod. 8:1a) is underlined
in the synopsis on account of the fact that it is rendered in Palaeo-Hebrew
6
For the last three manuscripts referred to in the text, see E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al.,
DJD 12, 7–10, 28, 97–113, 149–150 and plates IV, XVI, XVII.
synopsis of the textual witnesses 31
script at this juncture in 4QExodj. See DJD 12, p. 150: ‘The tetragram-
maton was written in the Palaeo-Hebrew script with letters somewhat
larger than those in the Jewish script.’
2. Exod. 8:8 4QExodc: cf. E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 104, 106.
In Exod. 8:8 4QExodc we encounter a supralinear correction inserting the
word ‫ פרעה‬where it would seem to have been omitted from the main text.
According to DJD 12, this addition was the work of a later scribe.7
3. Exod. 8:21 4QpaleoGen-Exodl: Cf. P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sander-

son, DJD 9, 29.
The letters ]‫ [·י‬are located in DJD 9 in verse 21, although without speci-
fication of their precise situation. For this reason I have rendered both
possibilities in relation to v. 21.8
In our opinion, however, the ‫ י‬in the first word (‫ )ויאמר‬of verse 22
ought not to be excluded. A count of the letters in the transition from
the last word of line 1 (‫ )וב]ין‬to the first word of line 2 (‫ )[ערב‬comes to
a total of 31. If one then adds an additional nine letters in line 3 (after
]‫)מפני‬, one arrives at the level of the end of line 1 (‫ )וב]ין‬so that one can
count 31 letters anew from this point to the extant beginning of line 4
at the level of the beginning of line 2 (‫)ערב‬. The thirty-first letter would
then be the second ‫ ל‬in ‫לאלהיכם‬. If one then adds roughly ten letters
from this point one arrives at ]‫[·י‬. This ]‫ [·י‬is then the ‫ י‬in ‫ ויאמר‬at the
beginning of verse 22.
Although the word ‫ המטר‬in Exod. 9:34 4QExodc has not been preserved,
DJD 12 is of the opinion that 4QExodc exhibits the same sequence as
MT in this context, namely ‫ המטר והברד והקל)ו(ת‬and not ‫הברד והמטר‬
‫ והקולות‬as in SamP.
DJD 9 expresses the same opinion with respect to Exod. 9:34 4Qpa-
leoGen-Exodl, in spite of the fact that the word ‫ המטר‬is likewise not
7
See E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, p. 106: ‘‫פרעה‬: Since the scribe omitted
this word, it was added supralinearly. The depth of the pe and the difference in ink suggest
that this insertion was made by a later hand. The pe does, however, somewhat resemble
that in ‫ הפסת‬v. 13.’
8
The first ‫ י‬in the first word of v. 21 (namely ‫ )ויקרא‬is excluded because it is con-
sidered much too close to ‫מפני‬. According to DJD 9, moreover, verse 21 begins on the
same line, while the letters ]‫ [·י‬are located on the following line.
preserved in the location in question. Cf. P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich & J.E.
Sanderson, DJD 9, 30: ‘Letter count favours the order ‫ המטר והברד‬with
MT rather than ‫ הברד והמטר‬with SamP.’
5. Exod. 10:1–2 4QExodc: cf. E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12,
110–111.
A supralinear correction is evident in 4QExodc in relation to Exod. 10:1–2,
replacing what appears to have been lost by parablepsis.
DJD 12 states in this regard: ‘The scribe omitted text which was
later written in supralinearly, perhaps by a second hand; it cannot be
determined whether or not the ink is different. Though only two words
are preserved, spacing and the likelihood of parablepsis (‫ אתתי‬v. 1–v. 2)
suggest that the scribe omitted ‫אלה בקרבו ולמען תספר באזני בנך ובן‬
‫בנך את אשׁר התעללתי במצרים ואת אתתי‬. The correction may have
begun above the left of line 1, where the omission occurred, and then
continued above line 2 from the right margin, in which case all of the
omitted text would have fit.’
6. Exod. 10:4 4QpaleoExodm: cf. P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson,

DJD 9, 81.
According to DJD 9, the ‫ה‬- reflects a variant in 4QpaleoExodm: ‘The
‫ה‬- requires a variant since neither ‫ אתה‬or ‫ ארבה‬fits the letter count; M
would give either ‫ עמי‬or ‫ הנני‬in this position. Perhaps read ‫הנה‬, with
‫ אנכי‬to follow on line 33; cf. 7:17, 27; 8:25; etc., and Jer 6:19.’
As was the case with respect to Exod. 8:8 and Exod. 10:1–2, 4QExodc
exhibits a supralinear correction in relation to Exod. 10:9, which supplies
the words omitted on account of parablepsis, in casu homoioarchton.
DJD 12 states this as follows: ‘Both letter count and the probabilities of
parablepsis indicate that the scribe omitted three words by homoioarchton
(‫)בבנינו—בנערינו‬, which had to be supplied supralinearly. Though it is
difficult to decide on the basis of the script, to judge by the difference in
ink, this addition was probably made by a later hand.’
8. Remark concerning 4QExodc: cf. E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD

12, 102, 105, 108, 109.
Besides the three aforementioned cases of supralinear correction, which insert
words that had formerly been omitted, DJD 12 suggests that we account
for three additional cases of parablepsis in 4QExodc in relation to the
registration and description of the text variants 33
‘Plagues Narrative’, although no correction or insertion as been preserved

in this regard. The verses in question are 7:18;9 9:110 and 9:22–23.11
Registration and description of the textual variants found

in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ 10 11
On the basis of the synoptical collection of the extant textual material

of Exod. 7:14–11:10, the present paragraph aims at offering a list and a
description of the textual differences evident when comparing the various
textual forms of the ‘Plagues Narrative’.
For each variant, we begin with a biblical reference followed by a
typification of the relationship between the textual witnesses as far as the
respective variant is concerned. Thereafter, we make note of the variant
9
Cf. E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 105: ‘L. 12–13 (7:17–19) ‫ונ[הפכו לד]ם‬.
The two horizontal bottom strokes in line 12 belong to pe-kap, with the vertical stroke of
waw touching kap. These words at the end of v. 17 are the only two words in the vicinity
of ‫( ]ע[ל מימי מצרעם על‬in line 13, from v. 19) which fit the remaining ink traces, but
reconstruction according to M-SamP would call for 119 letters to the line, whereas frgs.
2–3, just one verse later, have lines of 73–77 letters. It appears that the text has suffered
from parablepsis within v. 18 (‫היור‬-‫[ ביור‬for this spelling of ‫ היאר‬see lines 16 and 17]),
causing all but the first three words of v. 18 to have been lost. This would account for the
loss of 44 letters, bringing the line total to 75. A numerically less satisfying proposal would
also be within v. 18 (‫היור‬-‫)היור‬, which would account for the loss of only 30 letters, for a
line total of 89 letters. The first reconstruction would allow the space of about 5–8 letters
for an interval at the end of line 12 after ‫ביור‬, with v. 19 beginning at the right margin of
line 13 (minor interval after 7:18 and major interval after 7:18b 4QpaleoExodm, ‫ ס‬between
7:18 and 19 M, ‫ קצה‬after 7:18 and 7:18b SamP). This reconstruction would make it very
unlikely that the MS had space for either occurrence of ‫ את‬found in v. 19 in SamP. While
this particular fragment could come either from 7:17–19, according to M, or from 7:18b–19,
according to the 4QpaleoExodm-SamP tradition, with the same instance of parablepsis, it
has been reconstructed as 7:17–19 because of the evidence of frg. 4 (see note above).’
10
Cf. E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 108: ‘L. 25–26 (9,16) According to the
text of M-SamP, line 25 would be about 15 letters too long. Parablepsis (‫ בעבור‬1°–2°)
would account for the loss of 17 letters. ‫ בעבור‬1° was at the end of line 25, and the
scribe made the error during the transition to the beginning of line 26 where, having
skipped to ‫ בעבור‬2°, he began with the extant ‫]הרא[תך‬.’
11
Cf. E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 109: ‘L. 31–32 (9:22–23) Frg. 16 also
presents a problem regarding textual arrangement. The text of M-SamP calls for 80 letters
both between lines 32 and 33 and between lines 33 and 34, but 124 letters between lines
31 and 32. Despite the appearance of the photograph, inspection of the leather makes it
certain that this is one unbroken piece of leather. To achieve uniformity in length of line,
two candidates for parablepsis present themselves. The more obvious of these is ‫בכל ארץ‬
‫( בארץ מצרים—מצרים‬v. 22), which consists of 46 skipped letters, yielding 78 letters
between lines 31 and 32. Alternatively, the omission may have been (22) ‫(—הבהמה ועל‬23)
‫מטהו על‬, yielding 82 letters. The likelihood of the second may be somewhat increased by
the fact that ‫ על‬probably occurred at the beginning of line 32, and moving from the end
of one line to the beginning of another sometimes occasions parablepsis.’
itself whereby, with respect to the so-called smaller textual differences,

the nature of the said variant is described in brief.12 In the event that a
given variant represents a plus with respect to one or more of the other
textual versions, a plus sign is placed next to the sigla designating the text
in which the variant in question is found.13
In the following survey, the Hebrew, Masoretic text is designated with
the letter M, the Greek Septuagint with the letter G, and the Samaritan
Pentateuch with the siglum SamP. 4QpaleoExodm is referred to as 4Qm,
4QpaleoGen-Exodl as 4Ql, 2QExoda as 2Qa, 4QExodc as 4Qc, 4QGen-
Exoda as 4Qa, and 4QExodj as 4Qj. The Hebrew text is presented in its
unvocalised form and the Greek text without accents.14
Exod. 7:14 MG ≠ SamP4Qm ‫ויאמר‬, εἰπεν δε—‫וידבר‬: different Hebrew

verb form15
Exod. 7:14 G ≠ MSamP του μη is placed as the equivalent of ‫מאן‬
with the infinitive construct ‫ לשׁלח‬16
Exod. 7:15 4Qm ≠ MGSamP ‫ = ו‬4Qm+: conjunction
Exod. 7:15 M ≠ GSamP4Qm αὐτος / ‫ = הוא‬GSamP4Qm+: personal
pronoun. Wevers observes that the expres-
sion αὐτος with a verb form in the present
indicative (c.q. ἐκπορευεται) only occurs
here in Exodus. Given the fact that SamP
also locates the personal pronoun ‫ הוא‬prior
to the participle, Wevers presupposes that
this Greek expression has a textual basis in
the Vorlage.17 Wevers does not refer to 4Qm,
which supports the reading of SamP.
Exod. 7:15 MSamP4Qa ≠ G ‫—נהפך‬στραφεισαν: different translation
(cf. 7:17, 20; 10:19)18
Exod. 7:17 MSamP4Qc4Qa ≠ G ‫—ונהפכו‬και μεταβαλει: different transla-
tion19
Exod. 7:18 MGSamP ≠ 4Qm ‫ב‬, ἐν—‫בתוך‬: different preposition
12
The more ‘text-relevant’ variants are described and evaluated in greater detail in the
following chapter, §2 and 3 (pp. 121–164)
13
For definitions of plus and minus cf. Chapter One, n. 84.
14
Only the spiritus asper and lenis are employed.
15
Cf. infra in relation to the study of translational technique, p. 110.
16
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus (SBL SCS, 30), Atlanta 1990, 99.
17
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 99.
18
See the discussion of translation technique infra p. 137.
19
Cf. n. 18. See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, L’Exode (La Bible d’Alexandrie, 2),
Paris 1989, 120: ‘Μεταβαλλειν, «se changer», traduit le même verbe que στρεφεσθαι en
7,15. La variation, en grec, souligne la distinction entre les divers prodiges, et μεταβαλλειν,
en outre, convient mieux à la modification d’un élément liquide.’ N.B. Our quotations
from A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie render their Greek transcriptions
in Greek characters.
Exod. 7:18b MG4Qc4Qa ≠ SamP4Qm 7:18b = SamP4Qm+: larger plus20

Exod. 7:18b SamP ≠ 4Qm ‫ויאמר—ויאמרו‬: different number in the
verb form
Exod. 7:18b SamP ≠ 4Qm ‫בתוך—ב‬: different preposition
Exod. 7:19 MSamP ≠ G ‫ = אל‬MSamP+: preposition
Exod. 7:19 MSamP ≠ G τῳ ἀδελφῳ σου = G+
Exod. 7:19 M ≠ GSamP4Qa την—‫ = את‬GSamP4Qa+: nota accusativi,
G defined (in relation to ‫—מטך‬ῥαβδον)
Exod. 7:19 M ≠ GSamP4Qa την—‫ = את‬GSamP4Qa+: nota accusativi,
G defined (in relation to ‫—ידך‬χειρα)
Exod. 7:19 MSamP ≠ G ‫ ך‬in ‫ = ידך‬MSamP+: possessive suffix
Exod. 7:19 MSamP4Qc ≠ G και = G+: conjunction
Exod. 7:19 M ≠ GSamP4Qa και, ‫ = ו‬GSamP4Qa+: conjunction
Exod. 7:19 MSamP ≠ G ‫—היה‬εἰναι and γιγνεσθαι : different
translation21
Exod. 7:19 M ≠ GSamP ‫—והיה‬και ἐγενετο, ‫ויהי‬: different verb
form22
Exod. 7:19 MG ≠ SamP ‫ = ה‬SamP+: definite article
Exod. 7:20 MSamP ≠ G αὐτοις = G+: personal pronoun
Exod. 7:20 MSamP ≠ G αἀρων = G+
Exod. 7:20 M ≠ GSamP αὐτου, ‫( ו‬in ‫ = )במטהו‬GSamP+: posses-
sive pronoun, possessive suffix23
Exod. 7:20 MSamP ≠ G ‫ = ו‬MSamP+: conjunction
Exod. 7:20 MSamP ≠ G ‫—לעיני‬ἐναντιον: different formulation
for the same semantic datum24
Exod. 7:20 MSamP ≠ G ‫—לעיני‬και ἐναντιον: different formula-
tion for the same semantic datum25
Exod. 7:20 MSamP ≠ G ‫—ויהפכו‬και μετεβαλεν: different transla-
tion26
Exod. 7:21 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫—הדגה‬οἱ ἰχθυες: difference in number,
singular—plural
Exod. 7:21 MSamP ≠ G ‫—מתה‬ἐτελευτησαν: difference in num-
ber, singular—plural
Exod. 7:21 MGSamP ≠ 4Qc ‫ה‬, το = MGSamP+: definite article
Exod. 7:22 MSamP ≠ G και = G+: conjunction. Compare with
Exod. 7:11: ‫גם‬.
20
The so-called major expansions or larger pluses of the SamP-4Qm tradition are dis-
cussed separately in the following chapter as part of the evaluation of the textual variants.
21
Cf. infra on translation technique, p. 137.
22
Cf. also supra n. 21.
23
See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 120–121: ‘«Aaron» n’est
pas nommé comme sujet de l’action elle-même, mais la présence du génitif αὐτου montre
qu’il s’agit de «son» bâton et qu’il l’a en main, ce qui est moins sûr en hébreu, où le sujet
peut être Aaron, Moïse ou même YHWH.’
24
Cf. the study of translation technique, infra p. 141.
25
Cf. supra n. 24.
26
Cf. n. 18.
Exod. 7:22 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫—דבר‬εἰπεν: different translation (cf. supra,

also ‫)אמר‬27
Exod. 7:23 MSamP ≠ G ‫—לב‬νουν: different translation (elsewhere
also καρδια or διανοια)28
Exod. 7:24 MSamP ≠ G ‫—מים‬ὑδωρ: different location
Exod. 7:24 MSamP ≠ G ‫—כי‬και: different meanings29
Exod. 7:24 MSamP ≠ G ‫—ממימי היאר‬ὑδωρ ἀπο του ποταμου:
different location of the preposition ‫ מ‬and
ἀπο.30 Moreover, difference in number.
The Hebrew ‫ מימי‬is a plural form while
the Greek ὑδωρ is singular.
Exod. 7:26 MG ≠ SamP ‫ואמרת‬, και ἐρεις — ‫ודברת‬: different
translation (cf. supra)31
Exod. 7:27 MSamP ≠ G ‫—גבול‬τα ὁρια: difference in number,
singular—plural32
Exod. 7:28 MSamP ≠ G ‫—ושׁרץ‬και ἐξερευξεται: difference in
meaning. The Hebrew verb form means ‘to
crawl’, ‘to teem’ while the Greek equiva-
lent points more in the direction of ‘to
spit out’, ‘to vomit’.33
Exod. 7:28 M ≠ GSamP ‫—בביתך‬εἰς τους οἰκους σου, ‫בבתיך‬:
difference in number, singular—plural34
Exod. 7:28 M ≠ GSamP ‫—ובחדר‬και εἰς τα ταμιεια, ‫ובחדרי‬: dif-
ference in number, singular—plural
27
Cf. n. 15.
28
See the study of translation technique, infra p. 137. Cf. also A. Le Boulluec,
P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 121: ‘Pour la seule fois dans l’Exode, νους, «esprit,
intelligence», correspond au mot hébreu désignant le «coeur» et rendu le plus souvent soit
par καρδια, soit par διανοια («pensée, réflexion»). Le traducteur a distingué une opéra-
tion intellectuelle, conformément à l’usage grec, de l’endurcissement du «coeur» exprimé
dans le contexte, avec καρδια.’
29
See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 121: ‘La logique de
la LXX, avec l’emploi de «et» entre les deux propositions, paraît légèrement différente
de celle du TM (dépourvu de waw), qui fait de la seconde l’explication de la première.
D’après la LXX, l’eau s’infiltre et c’est encore elle, dénaturée, que les Égyptiens trouvent
en creusant autour du fleuve.’
30
Cf. also Z. Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta, Leipzig 1841, 170.
31
Cf. n. 15.
32
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 106–107. With the exception of three instances in Deut.
3,16–17 in which reference is made to a specific boundary, the occurrences of τα ὁρια in
the Pentateuch are always plural, in spite of the fact that ‫ גבול‬is always singular.
33
Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 122: ‘LXX: «vomira
(ἐξερευξεται)»—ΤΜ: «pullulera». Il y a transposition d’image.’
34
According to Wevers, the Greek plural forms in Exod. 7:28 correctly render the
collective singular forms in M. Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 107.
Exod. 7:28 M4Qc ≠ GSamP ‫—משׁכבך‬των κοιτωνων σου, ‫משׁכביך‬:

difference in number, singular—plural35
Exod. 7:28 M4Qc ≠ GSamP ‫—מט)ו(תך‬των κλινων σου, ‫מטתיך‬: dif-
Exod. 7:28 M4Qc ≠ GSamP ‫—ובבית‬και εἰς τους οἰκους, ‫ובבתי‬: dif-
Exod. 7:28 MSamP ≠ G ‫ = ב‬MSamP+: preposition. Difference in
meaning. Due to the lack of an equiva-
lent for the preposition ‫ ב‬and the geni-
tive του λαου σου, which is determined
by τους οἰκους, G narrates that the frogs
entered the houses of the people, while
MSamP states that the frogs descended
on the people themselves by attaching
the ‫ ב‬to ‫עמך‬.
Exod. 7:28 MSamP ≠ G ‫( ובתנוריך‬oven)—και ἐν τοις φυραμασιν
σου (dough): difference in meaning36
Exod. 7:28 MSamP ≠ G ‫( ובמשׁארותיך‬kneading trough)—και ἐν
τοις κλιβανοις σου (oven): difference in
meaning
Exod. 7:29 MSamP ≠ G ‫—עם‬λαον: different location
Exod. 7:29 MSamP ≠ G ‫ = כל‬MSamP+: adjective
Exod. 7:29b MG4Qc ≠ SamP4Qm4Qj 7:29b = SamP4Qm4Qj+: larger plus
Exod. 7:29b SamP ≠ 4Qj ‫ = כל‬4Qj+: adjective37
m j
or SamP4Q ≠ 4Q
Exod. 8:1 MSamP4Qc4Qj ≠ G ‫ = אל‬MSamP4Qc4Qj+: preposition
Exod. 8:1 MSamP4Qj ≠ G τῳ ἀδελφῳ σου = G+
Exod. 8:1 MSamP4Qj ≠ G ‫ ך‬in ‫ = ידך‬MSamP4Qj+: possessive suffix
m j
Exod. 8:1 MSamP4Q 4Q ≠ G ‫—את ידך במטך‬τῃ χειρι την ῥαβδον σου:
different sequence of object (c.q. Greek
accusative; Hebrew ‫ )את‬and instrumen-
tal (c.q. Greek dative; Hebrew ‫)ב‬
35
According to DJD 12, the readings found in 4Qc with respect to Exod. 7:28 agree
with M but not with SamP. Cf. E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 105.
36
Wevers is of the opinion that φυραμα (dough) stands here for the recipient of the
dough or the kneading trough. Κλιβανος thus refers to the oven. Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes,
107. If this is correct, then MSamP and G have a different sequence of words. MSamP
speaks first about ovens and then about baking troughs, while the Greek mentions the
baking troughs first (called to mind by the term φυραμα) and then the ovens (κλιβανος).
See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 122: ‘Les deux derniers
termes du verset sont inversés dans la LXX, selon un ordre qui suit mieux les étapes de
fabrication du pain; mais φυραμα ne peut signifier «pétrin», d’où la traduction proposée:
«la pâte de (tes) pains».’
37
The location of the variant and the relationship between the textual witnesses vary
according to where one places the preserved letters ]· ‫ו[בכל‬. Cf. Remark 1 in relation to
problematic text fragments from Qumran, supra pp. 30–31.
Exod. 8:1 M ≠ GSamP4Qj και, ‫ =ו‬GSamP4Qj+: conjunction

Exod. 8:1 MSamP4Qj ≠ G ‫ = על ארץ מצרים‬MSamP4Qj+
Exod. 8:1b MG4Qc ≠ SamP4Qj 8:1b = SamP4Qj+: larger ‘plus’
Exod. 8:2 MSamP ≠ G ‫ ו‬in ‫ = ידו‬MSamP+: possessive suffix
Exod. 8:2 MSamP ≠ G και ἀνηγαγεν τους βατραχους = G+38
Exod. 8:3 MSamP ≠ G και = G+: conjunction39
Exod. 8:3 MG ≠ SamP ‫ה‬, οἱ = MG+: definite article
Exod. 8:3 M ≠ GSamP των αἰγυπτιων, ‫ = מצרים‬GSamP+40
Exod. 8:4 MSamP ≠ G περι ἐμου = G+: preposition with personal
pronoun
Exod. 8:5 MG ≠ SamP ‫אעתיר‬, εὐξωμαι—‫העתיר‬: different verb
form
Exod. 8:5 M ≠ SamP ‫אל—ל‬: different preposition. The Greek
προς can serve as an equivalent for
both.
Exod. 8:5 MSamP ≠ G ‫—התפאר‬ταξαι: difference in meaning.
G endeavours to render the Hebrew
polite formula in an analogous manner
in Greek.41
Exod. 8:5 MSamP ≠ G ‫ = ל‬MSamP+: preposition
Exod. 8:5 M ≠ GSamP και ἀπο του λαου σου , ‫= ומעמך‬
GSamP+42
Exod. 8:5 G ≠ SamP και ἀπο του λαου σου—‫ומעמך‬: different
location
Exod. 8:5 MSamP ≠ G ‫—ומבתיך‬και ἐκ των οἰκιων ὑμων: dif-
ference in number in the possessive
suffix/possessive pronoun, second person
singular—second person plural43
38
See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 123: ‘Le grec répète dans
le récit l’ordre donné à Aaron («et fit monter les grenouilles»); cette reprise est absente du
TM. On peut être en présence soit d’une haplographie du TM, soit d’un développement
(ou d’une dittographie?) du grec.’
39
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 103, 108. See in particular 103: ‘Though the και before
οἰ ἐπαοιδοι has no basis in MT it makes good sense in the context with the meaning “also”.’
40
See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 123: ‘Le grec ajoute
«des Égyptiens» (cf. 7,11).’
41
See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 123: ‘LXX: «Fixe-moi
le moment où», «Indique-moi quand . . .»—TM: «Félicite-toi à mon sujet; quand . . .?» Le
grec a transposé la formule de politesse de l’hébreu. C’est le seul exemple dans la LXX
d’un tel emploi de τασσειν, «fixer».’
42
See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 123: ‘Le grec reprend
la mention «de ton peuple» (cf. 8,4), absente du TM.’
43
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 116. Wevers offers the following explanation with respect
to Exod. 8:17 where we encounter the same phenomenon. Moreover, he refers explicitly
to similar variants in verses 8:5 and 7: ‘The four prepositional objects are: you, your ser-
vants, your people, your houses. As in vv. 9 [5] and 11 [7] only the last “your” is plural,
ὑμων, since Pharaoh hardly needed more than one house, although in v. 24 [20] οἰκους
Φαραω does occur.’ ([ ] = B.L.)
Exod. 8:5 MG ≠ SamP ‫ = ומעבדיך‬SamP+44

Exod. 8:6 MSamP ≠ G ‫—ויאמר‬ὁ δε εἰπεν = G+: explicite sub-
ject
Exod. 8:6 MSamP ≠ G οὐν = G+: particle
Exod. 8:6 MSamP ≠ G ‫—אמר‬λεγειν (twice) and ‫—דבר‬λεγειν
(once): different translation (cf. supra).45
Exod. 8:6 MSamP ≠ G ‫כדברך‬, ‫—כדבריך‬ὡς εἰρηκας: the Hebrew
employs the noun ‫ דבר‬twice, which
is rendered in Greek by way of a verb
(λεγειν).46
Exod. 8:6 M ≠ SamP ‫כדבריך—כדברך‬: difference in number,
singular—plural
Exod. 8:6 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ἐστιν = G+
Exod. 8:6 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ἀλλος = G+: adverb, adjective
Exod. 8:6 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫—כ‬πλην: difference in meaning47
Exod. 8:6 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫ = אלהינו‬MSamP4Qc+
Exod. 8:6 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫—אין כיהוה אלהינו‬οὐκ ἐστιν ἀλλος
πλην κυριου: difference in meaning48
Exod. 8:7 MSamP ≠ G ‫—סרו‬περιαιρεθησονται: active verb form
in Hebrew in contrast to a passive verb
form in Greek49
Exod. 8:7 MSamP ≠ G ‫—ומבתיך‬και ἐκ των οἰκιων ὑμων: dif-
ference in number with respect to the
possessive suffix/possessive pronoun50
Exod. 8:7 MSamP ≠ G και ἐκ των ἐπαυλεων = G+51
44
DJD 12 is of the opinion that the location of the preserved letters in the manuscript
4Qc reveals that 4Qc did not have the longer reading ‫ ומעבדיך ומעמך‬found in SamP.
Cf. E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 106.
45
Cf. n. 15.
46
Cf. also n. 15.
47
Cf. Z. Frankel, Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische
Hermeneutik, Leipzig 1851, 87, in which he suggests that the said difference in formula-
tion is rooted in theological concerns. The translator apparently wanted to underline the
incomparability of YHWH.
48
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 110–111: ‘In MT the object clause of “know” is “that there
is no one like Yahweh our God,” i.e. Yahweh is incomparable, whereas Exod. has a mono-
theistic statement: ὁτι οὐκ ἐστιν ἀλλος πλην κυριου. The attributive “our God” [see preced-
ing variant—B.L.] is omitted since that detracts from the absoluteness of the statement.’
49
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 111: ‘In MT ‫ סרו‬makes the frogs turn away, but Exod has a
future passive περιαιρεθησεται which involves a divine agent; it is after all a “sign” from
the Lord; the frogs “shall be removed”.’ Wevers writes a singular form of the verb at this
juncture, although he uses the plural form in the Göttingen edition of the LXX. In any
way, the subject οἱ βατραχοι is equally plural. This is probably due to a printing error.
50
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 116. See supra in Exod. 8:5, n. 43.
51
See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 124: ‘La mention des
«enclos (ἐπαυλεις)» est absente du TM; elle provient de 8,9. Le mot est situé entre «maisons»
et «champs» au v. 9 et doit désigner une réalité intermédiaire, comme en hébreu: entre la
bâtisse couverte et les plaines non clôturés, il y a les espaces clos non couverts. Or ἐπαυλις,
Exod. 8:7 MSamP ≠ G ‫מ‬, ἀπο and ἐκ: different translation52

Exod. 8:8 MSamP ≠ G ‫ —דבר‬ὁρισμος : different translation
(ῥημα in 9:5, 6, 20, 21)53 and difference
in nuance with respect to meaning54
Exod. 8:8 MSamP ≠ G ‫—אשׁר‬ὡς: different translation. ‫ אשׁר‬is
mostly rendered elsewhere with a Greek
relative.55
Exod. 8:8 MSamP ≠ G ‫—אשׁר שׂם לפרעה‬ὡς ἐταξατο φαραω:
different construction and difference in
meaning.56 In the Hebrew textual ver-
sions we find a relative clause in which
YHWH is the subject of ‫ שׂם‬and Pharaoh
the indirect object ‫לפרעה‬. In the Greek,
by contrast, Pharaoh appears to be the
subject of ἐταξατο, unless one interprets
the indeclinable substantive φαραω as a
en grec, peut avoir cette acception, dès Hérodote («parc, enclos»). Ailleurs dans la LXX
ἐπαυλις nomme soit une zone d’habitat campagnard, par opposition à la ville entourée de
murs (Lv 25,31; Jos 13,23.28 et 19,23, avec la variante κωμαι, «villages»), soit le «campe-
ment» d’une troupe (Gn 25,16), selon un sens bien attesté dès Platon.’
52
Cf. infra on translation technique, pp. 137, 142. See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 111:
‘In the prepositional phrases which modify the verb Exod has been careful to distinguish
between people and places. The frogs are to be removed ἀπο, “from” you, people, servants,
but ἐκ, “out of ” houses, villages; comp also vv. 8 and 9.’
53
Cf. infra on translation technique, p. 137 and supra n. 15. See also A. Le Boul-
luec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 124: ‘«Pour la limitation (περι του ὁρισμου)»
des grenouilles: la formule correspond à la locution prépositive ‫על דבר‬, «à cause de»; la
traduction décompose celle-ci et donne à ‫ דבר‬son sens de «mot, parole, décision», au lieu
du sens «chose», «fait» (la locution est simplement rendue par ἐνεκεν en Gn 20,11.18;
Nb 31,16; Ps 45,5; par δια en Nb 25,18). L’interprétation est particulièrement appuyée,
avec l’emploi de ὁρισμος (et non de ῥημα, attendu pour ‫)דבר‬. Aussi paraît-il légitime
de donner au mot un sens plus fort que «décision, mesure», en retenant «limitation»,
nuance attestée en grec classique, d’autant que nulle part dans la LXX ὁρισμος au sens
de «décision» n’est construit avec un génitif objectif.’
54
According to Wevers, there is an observable difference in meaning. G is evidently
more specific in this instance than M. See J.W. Wevers, Notes, 111: ‘Exod is much more
specific than is MT as to the subject of Moses’ call to the Lord. Exod defines MT’s “con-
cerning the matter of ” by a concrete περι του ὁρισμου “concerning the limitation of, the
setting up of boundaries for”; Exod recalls the specifics of vv. 9 and 11—the frogs are to
be kept in bounds, “only in the river will they be left”.’
55
56
For the interpretation of the Greek ὡς ἐταξατο φαραω, see A. Le Boulluec, P. Sand-
evoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 124: ‘Dans la dernière proposition du verset, la construction
la plus plausible consiste à faire de «Pharaon» le sujet, en excellente position grammati-
cale et logique pour cela. Cette solution suppose que la LXX diffère ici du TM, qui a «à
cause des grenouilles qu’il (YHWH) avait envoyées à Pharaon». L’autre solution, moins
vraisemblable, mais qui coïnciderait avec le TM, serait de donner à φαραω, indéclinable,
la valeur d’un datif et de comprendre: «pour la limitation des grenouilles, telles que (le
Seigneur) (les) avait imposées à Pharaon (ὡς ἐταξατο φαραω)».’
dative and YHWH is understood as the

implicit subject of ἐταξατο.
Exod. 8:9 MSamP ≠ G ‫—כ‬καθαπερ: different translation. In
8:11, for example, ‫ אשׁר‬is also translated
as καθαπερ, while the same ‫ כ‬is rendered
by ὡς in 8:6.57
Exod. 8:9 MSamP ≠ G ‫—כדבר‬εἰπεν: while both Hebrew texts
have a substantive (‫)דבר‬, the Greek opts
for a verb form (εἰπεν).58
Exod. 8:9 M ≠ GSamP και, ‫ = ו‬GSamP+: conjunction
Exod. 8:10 MSamP ≠ G ‫—ויצברו‬συνηγαγον: difference in mean-
ing. The Hebrew verb means ‘to pile up’
while the Greek equivalent stands for ‘to
collect’.59
Exod. 8:10 MSamP ≠ G ‫—חמרם‬θημωνιας: difference in meaning,
nonetheless appropriate equivalent. The
Greek θημωνια means ‘heap’ or ‘pile’ and
is employed in this verse as the equivalent
of ‫חמר‬, a significant measure of volume
(450 litre).60
Exod. 8:11 MSamP ≠ G In MSamP, ‫ פרעה‬is the subject of the
entire sentence in v. 11. In G, by contrast,
φαραω is first the subject of ἰδων ,
followed by ἡ καρδια αὐτου as the
subject of the passive ἐβαρυνθη, and
finally φαραω is once again subject of
εἰσηκουσεν.61
Exod. 8:11 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫—היה‬γιγνεσθαι: different translation
(also εἰναι elsewhere)62
Exod. 8:11 MSamP ≠ G ‫—כאשׁר‬καθαπερ: different translation63
Exod. 8:11 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫—דבר‬ἐλαλησεν: different translation64
Exod. 8:12 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫ = אל‬MSamP4Qc+: preposition
Exod. 8:12 GSamP4Qc ≠ M τῃ χειρι, ‫ = את ידך‬GSamP4Qc+65
57
58
Cf. nn. 15 and 53.
59
60
See A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 125: ‘Θιμωνιας θιμωνιας:
«des monceaux et des monceaux». Le mot θιμωνια (ou θημωνια) a le même sens que
θημων, «tas», «monceau». C’est le seul exemple du Pentateuque et il traduit ici ‫חמר‬, qui
est une mesure importante (450 litres).’
61
See J.W. Wevers, Notes, 113.
62
Cf. supra n. 21 in relation to Exod. 7:19.
63
Cf. supra n. 57.
64
Cf. supra nn. 15 and 53.
65
See A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 125: ‘La mention «de la
main», calquée sur 8,1 et 8,13, absente du TM, renforce l’allure «formulaire» du texte.’
Exod. 8:12 G ≠ SamP4Qc τῃ χειρι—‫ = את ידך‬SamP4Qc+: posses-

sive suffix
Exod. 8:12 G ≠ SamP4Qc τῃ χειρι την ῥαβδον σου—‫את ידך במטך‬:
tal (c.q. Greek dative; Hebrew ‫)ב‬66
Exod. 8:12 MG ≠ SamP ‫והיה‬, ἐσονται — ‫ויהי‬: different verb
form67
Exod. 8:12 MSamP ≠ G ‫והיה‬, ‫—ויהי‬ἐσονται: difference in number,
singular—plural. According to J. Wevers,
the singular το χωμα should count
as the subject of the plural verb form
ἐσονται because ‘dust’ is understood as
consisting of a multitude of particles,
which is congruous with the plural form
ἐσονται.68 While it is possible to defend
this explanation, the present author is
more inclined to opt for an alternative
thereto. It seems to me that the Hebrew
and Greek texts exhibit different gram-
matical and syntactic structures at this
juncture. The Hebrew text in transla-
tion runs as follows: ‘Strike the dust
of the earth and it shall turn into lice’
(‫יהי לכנים‬/‫)עפר—היה‬. In other words,
‫ עפר‬is the subject of the verb ‫ היה‬with
the preposition ‫( ל‬twice singular). The
Greek text, on the other hand, sounds
different: ‘Strike the dust of the earth.
And lice shall be on . . . ’ In our opinion,
ἐσονται in the Greek text agrees with
the plural word immediately following,
σκνιφες (twice plural), and not with
χωμα . Compare, moreover, with the
following verse (Exod. 8:13) in which
precisely the same phenomenon occurs
(και ἐγενοντο οἱ σκνιφες). In the latter
instance, οἱ σκνιφες in the nominative
is clearly the subject of the plural verb
ἐγενοντο.
Exod. 8:12 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫ = ל‬MSamP4Qm+
66
Cf. also supra p. 37 in relation to Exod. 8:1.
67
Cf. also supra p. 35 in relation to Exod. 7:19.
68
Exod. 8:12 M ≠ GSamP4Qm ‫—כנם‬σκνιφες, ‫כנים‬: there would appear

to be a difference in number here. How-
ever, the orthographic ‫ כנם‬of M is voca-
lised by the Masoretes at this juncture as
a plural form.69
Exod. 8:12 MSamP ≠ G ἐν τε τοις ἀνθρωποις και ἐν τοις τετρα-
ποσιν = G+
Exod. 8:12 MSamP ≠ G και = G+
Exod. 8:13 MSamP ≠ G ‫ = ויעשׂו כן‬MSamP+
Exod. 8:13 MSamP ≠ G οὐν = G+: particle70
Exod. 8:13 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫—את ידו‬τῃ χειρι = MSamP4Qc+: pos-
sessive suffix
Exod. 8:13 MSamP4Qm4Qc ≠ G ‫—במטהו‬την ῥαβδον = MSamP4Qm4Qc+:
possessive suffix71
Exod. 8:13 G ≠ MSamP4Qm4Qc τῃ χειρι την ῥαβδον— ‫את ידו במטו‬:
tal (c.q. Greek dative; Hebrew ‫)ב‬.72
Exod. 8:13 MSamP ≠ G ‫—היה‬γιγνεσθαι: different translation
(elsewhere also εἰναι)73
Exod. 8:13 MSamP ≠ G ‫—ותהי‬και ἐγενοντο: difference in num-
ber, singular—plural. The plural form of
the Greek verb can be accounted for on
the basis of the explanation above.74 The
subject, clearly in the nominative, is the
immediately following οἱ σκνιφες (‘And
the lice were upon . . .’). The Hebrew verb
forms, on the other hand, would appear
to be less easy to explain. The Hebrew
texts contain a verb in the third person
feminine singular ( ‫)ותהי‬. The subject
69
In this instance, we do not have absolute certainty with respect to the number of
‫כנם‬. Based on the ‫ לכנים‬present in 4Qm, DJD 9 also maintains that it is not clear whether
we are dealing with an orthographical matter or a textual variant. Cf. P.W. Skehan,
E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 77.
70
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 114: ‘Aaron accordingly (οὐν) carries out the divine orders
mediated through Moses.’ The particle οὐν establishes the connection between the com-
mand and its execution.
71
See in this regard J.W. Wevers, Notes, 114: ‘Neither suffix of ‫ ידו‬or of ‫ מטהו‬is
translated, since in the context such repetitions of σου would be otiose.’
72
Cf. also supra pp. 37, 42.
73
Cf. supra n. 21. See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 114: ‘It might be noted that Exod.
carefully distinguishes between εἰμι and γινομαι; in v.16[12] the future existence, ἐσονται,
of the σκνιφες is predicated, but in vv.17[13] and 18[14] they have become, ἐγενοντο,
an itching reality.’ [ ] = B.L.
74
Cf. supra p. 42 in relation to Exod. 8:12.
of this verb is nevertheless a masculine

noun, namely the plural ‫ כנים‬of SamP
and the singular ‫ כנם‬of M vocalised as a
collective. The solution to this apparent
problem, however, is relatively simple.
We would appear to be dealing with a
familiar grammatical phenomenon at
this juncture, whereby plural forms of
the names of animals or things and of
abstract entities are constructed with verb
forms in the feminine singular, whether
the forms in question are masculine or
feminine.75 When we return to the vari-
ant reading under analysis, therefore, we
see that reference is indeed being made to
animals (‫כנם‬/‫כנים‬: masculine noun). SamP
‫ כנים‬contains a plural while M contains
a collective singular with the same plural
meaning. The associated verb form is set
in the feminine singular (‫)ותהי‬.
Exod. 8:13 M ≠ GSamP ‫—כנם‬σκνιφες, ‫כנים‬: difference in num-
ber, collective singular—plural
Exod. 8:13 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫—באדם ובבהמה‬ἐν τε τοις ἀνθρωποις
και ἐν τοις τετραποσιν: difference in
number, collective singular—plural
Exod. 8:13 MSamP ≠ G και ἐν = G+: conjunction and preposi-
tion. At first sight this appears to be a
minor, relatively insignificant variant.
Upon closer inspection, however, the
variant in question betrays an entirely
different presentation of the content of
Exod. 8:12–15 in the Greek text when
compared with the Hebrew texts. As we
already noted supra and will make clear
once again infra at the end of 8:13,
the Greek text continues to employ the
plural σκνιφες as subject of ἐσονται and
ἐγενοντο, where the Hebrew texts use
75
Cf. A.E. Cowley (ed.), GESENIUS’ Hebrew Grammar as Edited and Enlarged by the Late
E. KAUTZSCH. Second English Edition Revised in Accordance with the Twenty-Eighth German
Edition (1909), Oxford 151980, 464, §145k: ‘Plurals of names of animals or things, and
of abstracts, whether they be masculine or feminine, are frequently construed with the
feminine singular of the verbal predicate.’ See also P. Joüon, T. Muraoka, A Grammar of
Biblical Hebrew (Subsidia Biblica, 27), Rome, 2006, 518, §150g: ‘Plural (especially fem.)
nouns of things or of animals may be regarded as equivalent to collectives; the verb then
takes the fem. sing.’
the singular ‫ עפר‬as the subject of ‫היה‬.76

Now, if one observes that the present text
relates that the lice (σκνιφες as subject of
ἐγενοντο) came on humans and animals
and in all the dust of the earth (και ἐν
παντι χωματι της γης), then it becomes
evident that το χωμα—as equivalent of
‫—עפר‬in the Greek version of the nar-
rative cannot possibly be the subject,
given that it functions with ἐγενοντο as
an adjectival stipulation following the
conjunction and the preposition και
ἐν .77 This means that the Greek text
does not state that the dust of the earth
itself changed into lice, as we find in M
and SamP, but rather that the lice came
and crawled in the dust of the earth.78
Moreover, the variant in question implies
in the Hebrew and the Greek versions a
completely different sentence structure
with respect to the immediately follow-
ing verse, and this in spite of the fact
that all the elements are quantitatively
represented in the synopsis.79 The Greek
και ἐν παντι χωματι της γης constitutes
the end of the sentence that commenced
with και ἐγενοντο, while ‫כל עפר הארץ‬
begins a new sentence that concludes at
the end of verse 13. The Greek conclud-
ing sentence only begins with the second
και ἐγενοντο and likewise continues to
the end of the verse.
Exod. 8:13 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫—היה‬ἐγενοντο: difference in number;
singular—plural. Once again we see here
76
See supra pp. 42, 43.
77
This variant, with its implications with respect to grammar and content, confirms
the present author’s alternative explanation to that of Wevers. Cf. supra p. 42.
78
Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 114: ‘The last clause involves a reinterpretation of MT.
According to MT and all the other ancient witnesses all the dust of the land became gnats
in all the land of Egypt. But if all the dust had become gnats there would be no dust left
(to one living in Egypt quite inconceivable!); far more dramatic and far more believable
would be for all the dust of the land to be crawling with insects; so Exod renders this as
“and in all the dust of the land there were gnats in all the land of Egypt”.’
79
The degree of quantitative representation describes the extent to which the different
texts provide an equivalent in one text for each element in another. Cf. infra, pp. 112,
115, 122, 128.
that the Hebrew texts employ ‫ עפר‬as the

subject of the singular ‫היה‬, where the
Greek text offers a verb form in the plu-
ral with the plural subject οἱ σκνιφες.80
In the Hebrew text, ‫ היה‬continues the
sentence while the Greek text starts a
new sentence with the verb ἐγενοντο.
Exod. 8:14 MSamP ≠ G ‫—להוציא‬ἐξαγαγειν: difference in mean-
ing. The Hebrew ‫ להוציא‬means ‘to bring
forth’ or ‘to produce’ while the Greek
ἐξαγαγειν suggests the connotation ‘to
chase/drive off ’ or ‘to lead away from’.82
Exod. 8:14 MSamP4Ql ≠ G ‫—הכנים‬τον σκνιφα: difference in number,
plural—singular
Exod. 8:14 MSamP ≠ G ≠ 4Qm ‫—ותהי‬ἐγενοντο—‫ויהי‬: difference in verb
forms. The Hebrew texts have a verb
in the third person singular, although
the subject in SamP and 4Qm would
appear to be the plural ‫ הכנים‬and in
M the singular ‫ הכנם‬vocalised as a col-
lective (cf. also Exod. 8:13). The Greek
text contains a third person plural with
the subject σκνιφες. Moreover, M and
SamP contain a third person feminine
singular (although ‫ הכנים‬would appear
to be a masculine noun), while 4Qm has
a third person masculine singular. The
Greek verb form requires little if any
further explanation at this juncture. As
a matter of fact, the Greek verb ἐγενοντο
corresponds without irregularity with the
plural subject σκνιφες. In M and SamP,
the Hebrew verb in the third person
feminine singular can be explained gram-
matically in the same way as in Exod.
8:13.83 The masculine form of the verb
in 4Qm in the third person singular,
however, remains unusual. While the
80
81
Cf. supra Exod. 7:22 and 8:3.
82
See A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 126: ‘Le texte grec paraît
signifier non pas que les magiciens cherchent à «produire» aussi des moustiques, mais
qu’ils ne peuvent pas les «chasser».’
83
verb form in 4Qm is set in the singular

in relation to the plural noun for animals
(‫)הכנים‬, as is the case in other Hebrew
textual versions, the masculine character
of the noun ‫ הכנים‬appears to have led
to the choice of a masculine verb form
in this instance.84
Exod. 8:14 M ≠ GSamP4Qm ‫—הכנם‬οἱ σκνιφες, ‫הכנים‬: difference in
Exod. 8:14 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫—באדם ובבהמה‬ἐν τε τοις ἀνθρωποις
και ἐν τοις τετραποσιν: difference in
Exod. 8:15 MSamP ≠ G ‫—ו‬οὐν: conjunction—particle
Exod. 8:15 M ≠ G ≠ SamP ‫—הוא‬τουτο—‫היא‬: demonstrative pro-
noun with difference in gender.85 M
appears to have a masculine demonstra-
tive while ‫ אצבע‬is a feminine noun. As a
matter of fact, however, a feminine pro-
noun is evident at this juncture,86 given
that the qere perpetuum ‫( הוא‬ketib) is to
be read as ‫( היא‬qere) in the Masoretic
Pentateuch.87 In line with the feminine
‫אצבע‬, SamP has a feminine demon-
strative pronoun written in the normal
fashion.88 G contains a neuter equivalent,
which can be explained on the basis of
the difference in Greek syntax. Where
84
Cf. also J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 144–145: ‘According to Gesenius plurals
of names of animals (here “gnats”) frequently take feminine singular verbs as collectives.
If this is a Massoretic convention it seems also to have been followed by SamP at least in
this case; however, given the uncertainties of our knowledge of non-Massoretic Hebrew,
it seems wise to consider the variation in this verb a synonymous variant. The point is
that Qm stands alone against the other two.’
85
As a matter of fact, the Hebrew texts contain a personal pronoun that functions as
a demonstrative. Cf. Freund, Marx, Präparationen zum Alten Testament. Pentateuch, vol.
1: Genesis. Exodus, Kap. 1–13, Stuttgart 1885–1893, 85; and J.P. Lettinga, T. Muraoka,
W.T. Van Peursen, Grammatica van het Bijbels Hebreeuws, Leiden/Boston/Köln, 112000,
37, §17e.
86
Cf., for example, Freund, Marx, Präparationen, 85; and J.J. Owens, Analytical Key
to the Old Testament, vol. 1: Genesis-Joshua, Grand Rapids 21992, 270.
87
See in this regard A.E. Cowley (ed.), GESENIUS’ Hebrew Grammar, 107, §321;
P. Joüon, T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 66, §16f2; and furthermore 111–112,
§39c. See also in this regard J.P. Lettinga, T. Muraoka, W.T. Van Peursen, Grammatica,
22, §8b and 35, §16e.
88
Cf. P. Joüon, T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 111, §39c: ‘In the conso-
nantal text of the Pentateuch (but not in the Samaritan Pentateuch) we find the spelling
‫ הוא‬not only for the masculine, but almost always (18 exceptions) for the feminine, for
which the Naqdanim write ‫ ִהוא‬.’ [italics = B.L.]
the Hebrew texts have ‫ אצבע‬as the

subject of a nominal clause, Greek syntax
makes τουτο the subject of the auxiliary
verb ἐστιν and δακτυλος the predicate.
Τουτο then relates to the facts that the
magicians see taking place before their
very eyes.
Exod. 8:15 MSamP ≠ G ἐστιν = G+: copulative verb, in contrast to
the Hebrew nominal clause with ellipsis
of ‫היה‬.
Exod. 8:15 MSamP ≠ G ἡ = G+: definite article
Exod. 8:15 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫—כאשׁר‬καθαπερ: different translation89
Exod. 8:15 MSamP ≠ G ‫—דבר‬ἐλαλησεν: different translation90
Exod. 8:16 MGSamP ≠ 4Qm ‫ = לאמור‬4Qm+
Exod. 8:16 MSamP ≠ G ‫—לפני‬ἐναντιον: different formulation for
the same semantic datum; also different
translation.91 ’Εναντιον also functions as
the equivalent of ‫ לעיני‬elsewhere.
Exod. 8:16 M ≠ GSamP4Qc αὐτος , ‫ = הוא‬GSamP4Qc+: personal
pronoun92
Exod. 8:16 M ≠ G ≠ SamP ‫—המימה‬ἐπι το ὑδωρ—‫המים‬: direction
expressed in three different ways. M
attaches a locative ‫ ה‬to the substantive
‫ מים‬and G places a preposition before the
noun ὑδωρ. SamP requires the reader to
determine the direction entirely on the
basis of the context.
Exod. 8:16 M ≠ SamP4Qc ‫ = את‬SamP4Qc+: nota accusativi 93
Exod. 8:17 M ≠ SamP4Qc ‫משׁלח—משׁליח‬: different verb form. M
has a hiphil participle; SamP4Qc contains
a similar form in the piel.
Exod. 8:17 MSamP ≠ G ‫—ובבתיך‬και ἐπι τους οἰκους ὑμων: dif-
ference in number with respect to the
possessive suffix/possessive pronoun94
Exod. 8:17 MSamP ≠ 4Qm ‫ = את‬MSamP+: nota accusativi
Exod. 8:17 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫ = ה‬MSamP4Qm+: definite article95
89
Cf. supra n. 57.
90
91
Cf. supra n. 24.
92
Cf. the reconstruction found in DJD 12. See E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 106:
‘There would have been room for the two longer readings found in SamP: ]‫]הנה הוא יו[צא‬
and ]‫]את ע[מי‬.’
93
Cf. supra n. 92.
94
Cf. supra in relation to Exod. 8:5 and 7, n. 43. See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 116.
95
See J.W. Wevers, Notes, 117: ‘The word κυνομυιαν is unarticulated the first time
since it is generic; thereafter it is always articulated.’
Exod. 8:17 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫—וגם‬και: difference in conjunction and

particle96
Exod. 8:17 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫—אדמה‬γην: different translation. The
term γη is also found elsewhere as
the equivalent of ‫( ארץ‬see, for example,
the following verse, Exod. 8:18)97
Exod. 8:17 MSamP ≠ 4Qm4Qc ‫המה—הם‬: different personal pronoun.
Both forms have precisely the same
meaning. The most frequent form is
‫המה‬.98
Exod. 8:17 MSamP4Qm4Qc ≠ G εἰσιν = G+: copulative verb
Exod. 8:18 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫—לבלתי היות‬ἐφ’ ἡς οὐκ ἐσται: different
construction. According to Wevers, ἐφ’
ἡς . . . ἐπ’ αὐτης in 8:18 (see also 8:17)
is a Greek imitation of the Hebrew
‫אשׁר עליה‬. The second ἐφ’ ἡς in 8:18,
however, is an adaptation to the preced-
ing Greek constructions, although the
Hebrew structure ‫ לבלתי היות‬is differ-
ent in this instance. The Greek version
nevertheless renders the intention of the
Hebrew.99
Exod. 8:18 MSamP ≠ G ‫—היות‬ἐσται: different verb form, namely
a Hebrew infinite in contrast to a Greek
finite verb in the third person singular
Exod. 8:18 MSamP ≠ G εἰμι = G+: copulative verb
Exod. 8:18 MSamP ≠ G ὁ κυριος = G+100
96
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 117: ‘MT has ‫ וגם הארמה‬after “the houses of the Egyptians
shall be filled with the insect swarms”, in which the ‫ וגם‬shows that the word ‫ הארמה‬stands
on the same level as “the houses”, so “even the land”, or “namely, the land”. Exod interprets
this differently by και εἰς την γην, “even within the land (on which they are)”, probably
because the plague is to affect only that part of Egypt not occupied by the Israelites.’
97
98
Cf. P. Joüon, T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 111, §39a. See also in
this regard: A.E. Cowley (ed.), GESENIUS’ Hebrew Grammar, 107–108, §32m; and L. Koehler,
W. Baumgartner, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, vol. 1: ‫טבח—א‬,
Leiden 31967, 239–240.
99
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 117: ‘The phrase ἐφ’ αὐτης within the first ἐφ’ ἡς clause
is in imitation of MT’s ‫ עליה‬. . . ‫אשׁר‬. . . . The second ἐφ’ ἡς is an adaptation to the first
one; the construction of MT is quite different: ‫לבלתי היות‬, but Exod’s ἐφ’ ἡς οὐκ ἐσται
brings out what MT intends: “where (on which . . .) there will be no (dog flies)”.’
100
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 118: ‘Exod ends the verse with an attributive phrase ὁ κυριος
πασης της γης modifying κυριος 1°, i.e. it is not Pharaoh but the Lord who is master of
all Egypt. This interprets MT’s ‫“ בקרב הארץ‬in the midst of all the land”, in that being
κυριος in the midst of the land means his complete mastery; when κυριος, Israel’s God,
is present he is automatically in charge.’
Exod. 8:18 MSamP ≠ G ‫—בקרב‬πασης: difference in translation.

The term πας is also found elsewhere as
the equivalent of ‫כל‬.101
Exod. 8:19 MSamP ≠ G ‫—ושׁמתי‬και δωσω: different translation.
The Greek διδοναι is mostly used as the
equivalent of the Hebrew ‫נתן‬.102
Exod. 8:19 MSamP4Ql ≠ G ‫—פדת‬διαστολη: difference in mean-
ing. ‫ פדת‬means ‘redemption’, where
διαστολη tends more to express a
‘distinction’.103
Exod. 8:19 MSamP ≠ G ‫—ל‬ἐν: different preposition
Exod. 8:19 MSamP ≠ G ‫—למחר‬ἐν δε τῃ αὐριον: different expres-
sion104
Exod. 8:19 MSamP ≠ G ἐπι της γης = G+105
Exod. 8:19b MG4Ql4Qc ≠ SamP4Qm 8:19b = SamP4Qm+: larger plus106
Exod. 8:20 MSamP4Ql ≠ G ἡ = G+: definite article
Exod. 8:20 MSamP4Qm4Ql ≠ G ‫—כבר‬πληθος: difference in meaning107
Exod. 8:20 MG ≠ SamP4Qm ‫ = מאד‬SamP4Qm+: adverb108
101
102
Cf. infra on translation technique, p. 138 and see also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 126.
103
Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 118: ‘Exod states that the Lord will set a distinction,
διαστολην, between the two peoples. The word in MT is ‫ פדת‬which usually means “redemp-
tion”, but this is ill-fitting in the context.’ Compare, however, A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir,
La Bible d’Alexandrie, 127–128: ‘La présence de διαστολη, «séparation», est liée à une aporie
textuelle: le mot conviendrait pour traduire ‫( פלת‬racine ‫פלה‬, «distinguer»); or le TM a ici
une forme ‫פדת‬, avec un u bref, qui est particulière (au lieu du mot ‫פדת‬, «rachat», d’où
«libération», qui se trouve en tout 3 fois dans le TM). Certains la traduisent «libération»
(ainsi les Targums, déjà), d’autres corrigent en ‫פלת‬, d’après la LXX («distinction»).’
104
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 118: ‘The adverbial αὐριον is uninflected but is treated as
a feminine noun “the morrow”.’
105
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 118: ‘Exod uniquely among the ancient witnesses adds ἐπι
της γης at the end of the clause, thereby avoiding what would otherwise be a case of
ἐσται being used absolutely.’
106
Based on reconstruction of 4Ql and 4Qc it was decided that neither of the two
scrolls contained the so-called major expansions of the SamP-4Qm tradition. For 4Ql see
P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 29: ‘It cannot be determined from the
preserved text whether this MS contained the major expansion 8:19b with 4Qpaleo-
ExodmSamP or lacked it with MG, but the overall reconstruction of the MS suggests that
it lacked it (see ‘Textual Character’ in the Gen-Exodl introduction)’; cf. also p. 24: ‘The
clues for reconstruction of the quantity of text indicate that the scroll agreed with M and
did not contain the major expansions of the ExodmSamP tradition.’ For 4Qc see E. Ulrich,
F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 108: ‘According to this reconstruction, col. II contained the
text from the end of Exod 8:18 through 9:35 and lacked the major expansions of the
4QpaleoExodmSamP tradition: 8,19b, 9,5b, and 9,19b.’
107
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 119: ‘Πληθος is used adverbially modifying the verb, thus
“came in great numbers”.’
108
Whether 4Ql contained the word ‫ מאד‬can no longer be determined with certainty.
Cf. P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 29: ‘The ink traces after ‫ כ]ב[ד‬are
insufficient to determine confidently whether they agree with ‫( ביתה פרעה‬M), ‫מאד ביתה‬
‫( פרעה‬4QmSamP), or εἰς τους οἰκους φαραω (G).’ [abbreviated texts = B.L.]
Exod. 8:20 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫—ביתה‬εἰς τους οἰκους: difference in

number, singular—plural109
Exod. 8:20 MSamP ≠ G ‫—ובית‬και εἰς τους οἰκους: difference in
number, singular - plural110
Exod. 8:20 MG ≠ SamP ‫ו‬, και = MG+: conjunction
Exod. 8:20 MSamP ≠ G και = G+: conjunction
Exod. 8:20 MSamP4Qm4Ql ≠ G ‫—מפני‬ἀπο: different formulation for the
same semantic datum111
Exod. 8:21 M ≠ G ≠ SamP ‫ל—אל‬: different preposition M—SamP;
MSamP+: preposition
Exod. 8:21 MSamP ≠ G ‫ = ו‬MSamP+
Exod. 8:21 MSamP ≠ G ‫—ויאמר‬λεγων: different verb form; finite
verb form—participle
Exod. 8:21 MSamP ≠ G ‫—לכו‬ἐλθοντες: different verb form; im-
perative—participle
Exod. 8:22 MSamP ≠ G ‫—נכון‬δυνατον: difference in meaning112
Exod. 8:22 MSamP ≠ G ‫—לעשׂות‬γενεσθαι: difference in meaning
(to do—to become, to happen)113 and
different translation. ‫ עשׂה‬is frequently
rendered elsewhere by the Greek ποιειν.114
Cf., for example, in Exod. 8:27.
Exod. 8:22 MSamP ≠ G τα = G+: definite article
Exod. 8:22 MSamP ≠ G ‫ —תועבת‬βδελυγματα : difference in
number, collective singular—plural115
Exod. 8:22 MSamP ≠ G των = G+: definite article. The Greek
translation with the definite article refers
to the Egyptians as a people, while the
Hebrew ‫( מצרים‬if one sets the vocalisa-
tion to one side) can refer to both Egypt
as a people and as a country.116
109
Cf. supra Exod. 8:5, 7, 17 and n. 43. See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 119: ‘‫ בית‬twice
occurs as singular, but Exod has the plural τους οἰκους for both even though the plural
is fitting only for the second; cf. note at v. 21’ [= 8,17, B.L.]
110
See remarks in relation to the preceding variant.
111
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 119: ‘ἀπο here designates the cause, i.e. the land was
destroyed because of the dog flies.’
112
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 120: ‘οὐ δυνατον “is impossible” vs ‫“ לא נכון‬is not upright,
correct”. But to Exod acting in a not upright fashion is not quite the point; rather to Exod
for the suggestion of Pharaoh to take place in such a context is simply not possible.’
113
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 120: ‘The subject of the introductory statement made is
γενεσθαι οὑτως “to take place thus”, but in MT it is ‫“ לעשׂות כן‬to do thus”.’
114
115
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 120: ‘The word ‫ תועבת‬in MT is intended as a collective.’
116
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 6 (remark in relation to Exod. 1:13): ‘Exod tends to distinguish
between ‫ מצרים‬as people and as land or nation. The Masoretes consistently render the last
syllable of ‫ מצרים‬in Exodus as -rayim, but Exod presupposes -rim whenever it fits as here.’
See also 7 (remark in relation to Exod. 1:15): ‘The word ‫ מצרים‬occurs 176 times in Exodus
Exod. 8:22 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫ = ל‬MSamP4Qm+: preposition

Exod. 8:22 MSamP ≠ G τῳ = G+: definite article
Exod. 8:22 MSamP ≠ G ‫—הן‬ἐαν γαρ: different translation
Exod. 8:22 MSamP ≠ G γαρ = G+: particle
Exod. 8:22 MSamP ≠ G των = G+: definite article. Cf. supra in
the same verse.
Exod. 8:22 MSamP ≠ G ‫—לעיניהם‬ἐναντιον αὐτων: different for-
mulation for the same semantic datum117
Exod. 8:22 MSamP4Q ≠ G c
‫ = ולא‬MSamP+: conjunction and particle,
Hebrew idiom, rhetorical question118
Exod. 8:22 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫—יסקלנו‬λιθοβοληθησομεθα: different
verb form, active—passive; different
person, 3rd singular—1st plural. In the
Hebrew text, ‘us’ is the direct object
expressed in the form of an object suffix
attached to the active verb in the 3rd
person plural, while the Greek 1st plural
passive form has ‘we’ as the subject.119
Exod. 8:23 MSamP ≠ G ‫—כאשׁר‬καθαπερ: different translation120
Exod. 8:24 MSamP ≠ G ‫—אשׁלח‬ἐξαποστελω: different transla-
tion.121
Exod. 8:24 MSamP ≠ G ‫—רק‬ἀλλ’: difference in meaning, re-
strictive—adversative122
and is always vocalized as “Egypt” by the Masoretes. Exod disregards the vocalic tradition
in 66 cases where he uses “Egyptians” and in 106 cases correctly uses Αιγυπτος, with four
instances being omitted. On the other hand, Exod has two instances of Αιγυπτιοι as a plus
(cf. v. 12 supra), and four of Αιγυπτος, for a total of 178 occurrences. The only general-
izations which can be made are that “land of Egypt” is usually “Egypt” but with “hand
of ”, “eyes of ”, “heart of ”, “camps of ” it is always the “Egyptians”. In other words, when
the reference is geographic (note also “border of ”, “waters of ”, “midst of ”) Exod uses
“Egypt”, but when the term refers to peoples he uses “Egyptians”.’
117
Compare also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 120. Wevers notes that: ‘Aq in his usual literalistic
fashion has τοις ὀφθαλμοις αὐτων, and Theod, προ ὀφθαλμων αὐτων.’ The translations
of Aquila and Theodotion are in more literal agreement with the Hebrew expression
‫לעיניהם‬. Cf. also supra n. 24.
118
See A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 128: ‘LXX: «nous serons
lapidés»—TM: «ils ne nous lapideront pas». La négation manque dans la LXX, la traduc-
tion syriaque et la Vulg. On résout généralement la difficulté propre au TM en lisant le
texte comme une interrogation: «Ne nous lapideront-ils pas?»’
119
According to Z. Frankel, moreover, the question found in the Hebrew text is ren-
dered categorically in the Greek. Cf. Z. Frankel, Vorstudien, 171; and Idem, Ueber den
Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese, 76.
120
Cf. supra n. 57.
121
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 121: ‘The compound ἐξαποστελω is regularly used for the Piël
of ‫שׁלח‬, whereas ἀποστελω occurs for the Qal’. Cf. infra on translation technique, p. 138.
122
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 121: ‘Exod has idiomatically avoided potential Hebraisms in
his translation of the ‫ רק‬clause; ‫ רק‬has been translated by the adversative ἀλλ’, and the
cognate free infinitive plus negated finite verb has lost all traces of the cognate construction
Exod. 8:24 MSamP ≠ G ‫—לא‬οὐ: different location

Exod. 8:24 MSamP ≠ G οὐν = G+: particle
Exod. 8:24 MSamP ≠ G προς κυριον = G+123
Exod. 8:25 MSamP ≠ G ‫—הנה‬ὁδε: different translation. The deic-
tic ‫ הנה‬is usually translated as ἰδου.124
Exod. 8:25 MSamP ≠ G ‫—אנכי יוצא‬ἐγω ἐξελευσομαι: different
verb form, participle—finite form.125
Exod. 8:25 MSamP ≠ G ‫—יהוה‬τον θεον: different translation. ‫יהוה‬
is usually translated as κυριος.126
Exod. 8:25 MSamP ≠ G ‫—וסר‬και ἀπελευσεται: different transla-
tion. In 8:27, ‫( ויסר‬from the same verb
‫ )סור‬is translated by και περιειλεν.127
Exod. 8:25 MSamP ≠ G ‫ —מפרעה‬ἀπο σου : different gram-
matical construction. The Hebrew names
Pharaoh and refers to him in the third
person, even though the words in ques-
tion are located within direct speech in
which Pharaoh was already addressed
in the second person. The Greek con-
sistently maintains the direct speech
and addresses Pharaoh in the second
person.128
Exod. 8:25 MSamP ≠ G ‫—מעבדיו‬και ἀπο των θεραποντων σου:
third person singular—second person
singular
Exod. 8:25 MSamP ≠ G ‫ = מ‬MSamP+: particle
in Exod’s “not far away shall you extend (your) going”. Exod has expressed the intent of
MT in good Greek fashion.’
123
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 121: ‘MT’s final instruction: “pray for me” is enhanced in
Exod by the logical particle οὐν as well as by προς κυριον at the end. The former ties the
clause to its context, whereas the prepositional phrase makes Pharaoh recognize once again
that the Lord is in control.’ See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie,
128: ‘La mention «au Seigneur» est absente du TM (cf. 8,4; 9,28).’
124
Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 121: ‘Exod sharpens the narrative by using ὁδε “right
now, immediately” for ‫ הנה‬rather than the usual ἱδου.’ Cf. infra on translation technique,
p. 138.
125
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 122: ‘The pattern: pronoun + future verb sensibly interprets
the Hebrew: pronoun + participle as “I shall be leaving you forthwith and”. ’Εγω is lexi-
cally otiose and is conditioned by the Hebrew.’
126
See J.W. Wevers, Notes, 122: ‘Moses accedes to Pharaoh’s request to pray for him,
though not to κυριον as requested but to τον θεον.’ Cf. infra on translation technique, p. 138.
127
128
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 122: ‘The remainder of the verse is in third person in all
other ancient witnesses, and Exod alone continues with the more consistent and from the
point of view of the narrative the more direct and personal second person.’
Exod. 8:25 MSamP ≠ G ‫—ומעמו‬και του λαου σου: third person

singular—second person singular
Exod. 8:25 MSamP ≠ G ‫ = רק‬MSamP+: adverb
Exod. 8:25 MSamP ≠ G ἐτι = G+: adverb
Exod. 8:26 MSamP ≠ G ‫—יהוה‬τον θεον: different translation. ‫יהוה‬
is mostly translated as κυριος.129 Com-
pare, for example, with the following
verse Exod. 8:27.
Exod. 8:27 MSamP ≠ G ‫—כ‬καθαπερ: different translation130
Exod. 8:27 MSamP ≠ G ‫—דבר‬εἰπεν: different translation131
Exod. 8:27 MSamP ≠ G ‫—ויסר‬και περιειλεν: different meaning,
to yield—to remove132
Exod. 8:27 MSamP ≠ G ‫—ויסר הערב‬και περιειλεν την κυνομ-
υιαν: different construction. In the Hebrew
textual versions, the horseflies ( ‫)הערב‬
are the subject of the verb (‫)ויסר‬, while
in the Greek text, την κυνομυιαν in the
accusative is the direct object of περιειλεν,
of which YHWH is the subject.133
Exod. 8:28 MSamP ≠ G ἠθελησεν = G+134
Exod. 9:1 MSamP ≠ G ‫—בא אל‬εἰσελθε προς: the Greek equiva-
lent renders the Hebrew preposition ‫אל‬
twice, once with the preposition προς
and then with the preposition εισ- con-
tained in the verb εἰσιεναι.
Exod. 9:2 MSamP ≠ G ‫ = אתה‬MSamP+: personal pronoun
clarified
Exod. 9:2 MSamP ≠ G τον λαον μου = G+
129
See J.W. Wevers, Notes, 122: ‘Though Moses remains the subject he now leaves
Pharaoh’s presence and prays to τον θεον instead of to ‫ יהוה‬as all other ancient witnesses
attest, probably because he had promised Pharaoh εὐξομαι προς τον θεον in v. 29 [25],
and so here he uses the identical phrase.’ [ ] = B.L. Cf. also supra n. 126.
130
Cf. supra n. 57.
131
132
Cf. supra in relation to Exod. 8:25 and n. 127.
133
See A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 129: ‘LXX: «et il ôta la
mouche . . .»—TM: «et les mouches se détournèrent . . .». Les Targums insistent comme la
LXX sur l’action divine.’
134
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 123: ‘The final clause in MT is a simple statement of fact:
“and he did not send away the people.” Exod on the other hand stresses Pharaoh’s attitude
by οὐκ ἠθελησεν ἐξαποστειλαι “he did not want to send away”, which is particularly
fitting in the context.’
Exod. 9:2 MSamP ≠ G ‫ך‬- in ‫ = ועודך‬MSamP+: pronominal

suffix. The Greek renders this second
person singular in the following finite
verb ἐγκρατεις.
Exod. 9:2 MSamP ≠ G ‫—מחזיק‬ἐγκρατεις: different verb form,
participle—finite verb in the 2nd person
singular135
Exod. 9:2 MSamP ≠ G ‫ —בם‬αὐτου : difference in number,
plural—singular. The Hebrew ‫ בם‬is a
constructio ad sensum related to the pre-
ceding ‫ עמי‬whereby the following verb
‫ ויעבדני‬is also constructed in the plural.
The Greek αὐτου is related to the plus
in G, τον λαον μου, and maintains the
singular form.
Exod. 9:3 MSamP ≠ G ‫—במקנך‬ἐν τοις κτηνεσιν σου: difference
in number, collective singular—plural.136
Note also the literal translation of the
Hebrew ‫ ב‬by the Greek ἐν, while under
normal circumstances the preposition ἐπι
is to be expected with the verb ἐσται.137
Exod. 9:3 MSamP ≠ G ‫—בשׂדה‬ἐν τοις πεδιοις: difference in
Exod. 9:3 MSamP ≠ G ‫ = ב‬MSamP+: preposition
Exod. 9:3 MSamP ≠ G ‫—בקר‬βουσιν: difference in number,
collective singular—plural
Exod. 9:3 MSamP ≠ G ‫ = ב‬MSamP+: preposition
Exod. 9:3 MSamP ≠ G ‫—צאן‬προβατοις: difference in number,
Exod. 9:3 MSamP ≠ G ‫—דבר‬θανατος: difference in meaning.
The Hebrew ‫ דבר‬means ‘plague’ or
135
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 124: ‘The verb in the adversative clause, ἐγκρατεις, a hapax
legomenon in LXX, means “hold on to, retain control over” with the genitive. When it
is modified by an accusative it means “master, overpower”.’
136
With respect to the collective singular see J.P. Lettinga, T. Muraoka, W.T. Van
Peursen, Grammatica, 46, §24j; and B.K. Waltke, M. O’Connor, An Introduction to
Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Winona Lake 1990, 113–114, §7.2.1.
137
See J.W. Wevers, Notes, 125: ‘ἐσται is modified by an ἐν phrase which is a Hebra-
istic rendering of MT’s ‫ ב‬phrase. More idiomatic would have been ἐπι, and the ἐν must
be translated “upon, on” throughout. The generic term ‫ מקנך‬is correctly interpreted by
the plural τοις κτηνεσιν (σου), since it includes the various species that follow. Similarly
‫ בשׁדה‬within the relative clause is taken as collective: ἐν τοις πεδιοις.’
‘pestilence’; the Greek θανατος by con-

trast means ‘death’.138 In addition, dif-
ferent translation. ‫ דבר‬is also translated
differently elsewhere.139
Exod. 9:3 MSamP ≠ G ‫ —כבד‬μεγας : difference in meaning
(heavy—big) and different translation.140
Cf. Exod. 8:20 in which ‫ כבד‬is translated
by πληθος. In these two verses, namely
8:20 and 9:3, the Hebrew offers a parallel
formula,141 which is not recognisable as
such in the equivalent Greek texts.142
Exod. 9:4 MSamP ≠ G ‫—והפלה‬και παραδοξασω: difference
in meaning. The Hebrew ‫ והפלה‬means
‘to make a distinction’, while the Greek
παραδοξασω means ‘to do something
miraculous’143
Exod. 9:4 MSamP ≠ G ‫—והפלה יהוה‬και παραδοξασω ἐγω:
different construction.144 The Hebrew
has a verb in the third person singular
with ‫ יהוה‬as subject, while the Greek
continues the direct speech started in
9:1 and has YHWH in the first person
as speaker.145 This stands in contrast to
χειρ κυριου in 9:3 which, in parallel
with the Hebrew texts, is also rendered
in the third person. If G had intended to
maintain direct speech at this juncture,
χειρ μου should also have been in the
first person singular.
Exod. 9:4 MSamP ≠ G ‫—מקנה‬των κτηνων: difference in num-
138
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 125–126, n. 7: ‘The Hebrew ‫ דבר כבד‬is more literalistically
rendered by Aq and Sym as λοιμος βαρυς “a heavy plague”.’ See also A. Le Boulluec,
P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 129: ‘Comme en Ex 5,3 et ailleurs, θανατος, «mort»,
correspond à un mot hébreu plus précis, «peste». Les commentateurs hellénophones n’ont
pas manqué cependant de réintrodire, en raison de la nature de ce fléau, le terme grec
usuel, λοιμος (ainsi Théodoret, QE 12, p. 107, l. 19; cf. Philon, Mos. I, 133).’
139
Cf. supra n. 53.
140
141
Cf. in Exod. 8:20: (‫ מאד‬SamP4Qm) ‫ ערב כבד‬and in Exod. 9:3 ‫דבר כבד מאד‬.
142
See Exod. 8:20 ἡ κυνομυια πληθος and in Exod. 9:3 θανατος μεγας σφοδρα.
143
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 125: ‘Obviously MT’s “make a distinction” fits better than
Exod’s παραδοξασω “I will set up something wonderful” (between the cattle, etc.).’
144
Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 129: ‘LXX: «Je ferai un
prodige»—TM: «YHWH distinguera».’
145
Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 125: ‘Exod makes the verse continue as speech of the Lord
instead of the third person with ‫ יהוה‬as subject of MT and the other ancient witnesses.’
Exod. 9:4 MSamP ≠ G των in relation to των κτηνων = G+:

definite article. The Hebrew, however, is
also determined on account of the status
constructus ‫מקנה ישׂראל‬.
Exod. 9:4 MSamP ≠ G ‫ישׂראל‬, ἰσραηλ— ‫מצרים‬, αἰγυπτιων:
different location, reversed sequence
Exod. 9:4 MSamP ≠ G των in relation to των αἰγυπτιων = G+:
definite article.146
Exod. 9:4 MSamP ≠ G των in relation to των κτηνων = G+:
definite article. Once again the Hebrew is
constructus ‫מקנה מצרים‬.
Exod. 9:4 MSamP ≠ G των υἱων = G+. Wevers suggests that ‫מצרים‬
is frequently understood as ‘the Egyp-
tians’ (as people rather than country).
Parallel to this, he maintains, ‫ ישׂראל‬is
interpreted at this juncture in the same
manner as the people of Israel: των υἱων
ἰσραηλ.147
Exod. 9:4 MSamP ≠ G ‫—בני‬υἱων: different location
Exod. 9:4 MSamP ≠ G ‫—לבני ישׂראל‬των του ἰσραηλ υἱων:
different grammatical construction. The
Hebrew has a preposition ‫ל‬, while the
Greek employs a genitive construction.148
Exod. 9:4 MSamP ≠ G του = G+: definite article. The Hebrew is
constructus ‫לבני ישׂראל‬.
Exod. 9:4 MSamP ≠ G ‫—דבר‬ῥητον: different translation and
difference in meaning.149 Compare also
with the following verse (9:5), in which
‫ דבר‬is translated by ῥημα.
Exod. 9:5 MSamP ≠ G ‫—וישׁם‬και ἐδωκεν: different translation.
The Greek διδοναι is mostly used as the
equivalent of the Hebrew ‫נתן‬.150
146
See remark in relation to Exod. 8:22.
147
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 125–126.
148
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 126: ‘The pattern of the noun phrase των του ’Ισραηλ υἱων
is excellent Greek but nowhere else in the Pentateuch is the article and the noun υἱος ever
separated by a genitive modifier. . . . The unusual pattern of Exod does place strong stress
on του ’Ισραηλ—it is Israel and not the Egyptians who will escape the plague.’
149
Cf. supra n. 53. See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 126: ‘Changes of the subject ῥητον
to οὐδεν or μηδεν in the tradition are instances of simplification.’ See also Ibidem, n. 9:
‘Samariticon apparently has ῥημα instead of ῥητον; this is a far more common rendering
of ‫ דבר‬than ῥητον.’
150
Cf. supra n. 102 in relation to Exod. 8:19 and see also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 126.
Exod. 9:5 MSamP ≠ G ‫—יהוה‬ὁ θεος: different translation.151 The

Hebrew ‫ יהוה‬is normally rendered by
κυριος. Cf., for example, in the remain-
der of the present verse.
Exod. 9:5 MSamP ≠ G ‫—מחר‬ἐν τῃ αὐριον: different expression.
Cf. supra in relation to Exod. 8:19.
Exod. 9:5 MSamP ≠ G ‫—הדבר‬το ῥημα: different translation152
Exod. 9:5b MG4Qc ≠ SamP4Qm 9:5b = SamP4Qm+: larger plus153
Exod. 9:5b SamP ≠ 4Qm ‫ = את‬SamP+: nota accusativi
Exod. 9:6 MSamP ≠ G ‫—ממחרת‬τῃ ἐπαυριον: different expres-
sion. See 8:19 and 9:5. In order to dis-
tinguish between ‫ מחר‬and ‫ממחרת‬, the
Greek employs two different equivalents,
ἐν τῃ αὐριον and τῃ ἐπαυριον respec-
tively.154
Exod. 9:6 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫—לא אחד‬οὐκ οὐδεν: different expres-
sion. Nonetheless, both expressions are
negative. In Greek, negation is further
reinforced in a double negative, when
the second is compound.
Exod. 9:7 MSamP ≠ G ‫—וישׁלח‬ἰδων δε: different verb form,
finite form in the 3rd person singular—
participle. Also a difference in meaning,
to send—to see.155
Exod. 9:7 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫—לא עד אחד‬οὐκ οὐδεν: different ex-
pression. Cf. supra in the previous verse
(9:6).
Exod. 9:7 M ≠ GSamP4Qm των υἱων = GSamP4Qm+ (cf. 9:4)156
Exod. 9:8 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫ = אל‬MSamP4Qm+: preposition
Exod. 9:8 MSamP ≠ G4Qm λεγων, ‫ = לאמור‬G4Qm+157
Exod. 9:8 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫ ל‬in ‫ = לכם‬MSamP4Qm+: preposition. Dif-
ferent grammatical formula. The Greek
ὑμεις in the nominative is the subject;
the Hebrew ‫ לכם‬is an ethical dative.158
151
Cf. supra n. 126.
152
Cf. supra n. 53. Compare also with the preceding verse, Exod. 9:4.
153
For 4Qc see E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 108: ‘According to this reconstruc-
tion, col. II contained the text from the end of Exod 8:18 through 9:35 and lacked the
major expansions of the 4QpaleoExodmSamP tradition: 8,19b, 9,5b, and 9,19b.’
154
155
According to Wevers, G introduced a simplification at this juncture. Cf. J.W. Wevers,
Notes, 127: ‘Exod has simplified the opening part of the Hebrew “And Pharaoh sent and
behold” to ἰδων δε φαραω ὁτι “but when Pharaoh saw that”; this shows up the relation
of the two parts of the verse more clearly.’
156
157
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 127: ‘The direct speech marker is attested in 4QpaleoExodm,
and its origin may well be textual.’
158
Exod. 9:8 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫כם‬- in ‫ = חפניכם‬MSamP4Qm+: possessive

suffix
Exod. 9:8 MSamP4Qm ≠ G τας in relation to χειρας = G+: definite
article. The Hebrew is also determined
on account of the possessive suffix.
Exod. 9:8 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫—ח)ו(פנ)י(כם‬χειρας: difference in mean-
ing. The Hebrew is a dual form meaning
‘fists’. The Greek χειρ is usually em-
ployed as the equivalent of ‫ יד‬and means
‘hand’.159
Exod. 9:8 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫—פיח‬αἰθαλη: difference in meaning. The
Greek equivalent αἰθαλη of the Hebrew
hapax ‫ פיח‬actually means ‘soot’ rather
than ‘ash’.160
Exod. 9:8 MSamP ≠ G ‫ ו‬in ‫ = וזרקו‬MSamP+: object suffix, refers
to ‫פיח‬.
Exod. 9:8 M4Qa ≠ G ≠ SamP4Qm ‫—השׁמימה‬εἰς τον οὐρανον— ‫השׁמים‬:
different expression of direction. M and
4Qa have a locative ‫ה‬. G employs a pre-
position of direction (εἰς) while SamP
and 4Q m read a simple substantive,
whereby the direction must be derived
from the context.
Exod. 9:8 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫—לעיני‬ἐναντιον: different formulation
for the same semantic datum.161
Exod. 9:8 MSamP4Qm ≠ G και ἐναντιον των θεραποντων αὐτου =
G+
Exod. 9:9 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫—והיה‬και γενηθητω: different transla-
tion.162 In addition, a different grammati-
cal structure is evident at this juncture.
In the Hebrew texts ‫( פיח‬soot from the
oven) is subject of ‫ היה‬followed by the
preposition ‫ל‬. The soot from the oven
( ‫ = פיח‬subject) shall become as ( ‫היה‬
‫ )ל‬dust (‫)אבק‬. In the Greek, however,
κονιορτος (the dust) is itself subject of
γενηθητω: ‘and the dust came’ or ‘and
there was dust’.
159
160
Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 130: ‘Αἰθαλη désigne en
grec la «suie», et non la «cendre»; ici et en 9,10, c’est le seul emploi du mot dans la LXX,
correspondant à un hapax du TM. Le choix de αἰθαλη a été déterminé probablement
par la rareté du terme hébreu, les noms de la «cendre», plus courants, étant traduits par
σποδος. Les lecteurs ont cependant compris qu’il s’agissait de «cendre», à cause de la
«poussière» de 9,9.’
161
Cf. supra n. 24.
162
Cf. supra n. 21.
Exod. 9:9 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫—והיה‬ἐσται: different translation.163 Here

also, both verb forms have different
subjects. The grammatical construction
is different. In the Hebrew texts, ‫אבק‬
is taken up again as subject of ‫ היה‬with
the preposition ‫ ל‬later in the verse (to
become as). In other words, the Hebrew
text states the following: the soot of the
oven shall become as dust (first usage
‫ )היה ל‬in all the land of Egypt and
the dust (subject) shall become as boils
(second usage ‫ )היה ל‬on people and
animals. In the Greek text, by contrast,
ἑλκη (the boils) is the subject of ἐσται.
The verb associated with a neuter plural
subject (ἑλκη) can be in the singular.
As a consequence, the Greek text states
that the soot from the oven became dust
(κονιορτος is subject of γενηθητω) in all
the land of Egypt and that boils (ἑλκη
is subject) came (ἐσται) on the people
and the animals.164
Exod. 9:9 MSamP ≠ G ‫—האדם‬τους ἀνθρωπους: difference in
Exod. 9:9 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫—הבהמה‬τα τετραποδα: difference in
Exod. 9:9 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫ —לשׁחין‬ἑλκη : difference in number,
Exod. 9:9 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫—פ)ו(רח אבעבע)ו(ת‬φλυκτιδες ἀνα-
ζεουσαι: different sequence (in contrast
to 9:10)165
Exod. 9:9 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ἐν τε τοις ἀνθρωποις και ἐν τοις τετρα-
ποσιν = G+
Exod. 9:9 MSamP4Qm ≠ G και = G+: conjunction
Exod. 9:10 MSamP ≠ G ‫—ויקחו‬και ἐλαβεν: difference in number,
singular—plural166
163
Cf. supra n. 21.
164
Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 128: ‘In MT the next clause has a ‫ היה‬+ ‫ ל‬construction
and the clause means “and it (the dust cloud) shall become boils”. In Exod the preposition
is disregarded and ἑλκη “festering sores” is the subject of ἐσται.’
165
Cf. also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 131: ‘Φλυκτις: «cloque»,
«ampoule» ou «pustule». C’est le seul emploi (ici et au v. 10) du mot dans la LXX, corre-
spondant à un hapax du TM. Le bouillonnement décrit par le participe ἀναζεουσαι est soit
celui de l’inflammation suppurante, soit celui de l’éruption des cloques elles-mêmes.’
166
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 129: ‘Exod also changes the subject from plural to the
singular, which is inconsistent over against the λαβετε of v. 8.’ See also A. Le Boulluec,
P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 131.
Exod. 9:10 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫ = ויעמדו‬MSamP4Qm+167

Exod. 9:10 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫—לפני‬ἐναντιον: different formulation for
the same semantic datum.168 In addition,
different translation. ’Εναντιον is also
employed elsewhere as the equivalent of
‫( לעיני‬cf. supra, for example, in 9:8).
Exod. 9:10 M ≠ G ≠ SamP ‫—השׁמימה‬εἰς τον οὐρανον— ‫השׁמים‬:
different expression of direction. M has
a locative ‫ה‬. G employs a preposition
of direction (εἰς) and SamP reads the
substantive alone whereby the direction
must be derived from the context.
Exod. 9:10 MSamP ≠ G ‫ —ויהי‬και ἐγενετο : different transla-
tion169
Exod. 9:10 MSamP ≠ G ‫—ויהי שׁחין‬και ἐγενετο ἑλκη: the Hebrew
has a plural verb form with the collective
singular ‫שׁחין‬, while the Greek employs a
singular verb with a subject in the neuter
plural (ἑλκη).170
Exod. 9:10 MSamP ≠ G ‫—באדם‬ἐν τε τοις ἀνθρωποις: difference
in number, collective singular—plural
Exod. 9:10 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫—ובבהמה‬και ἐν τοις τετραποσιν: dif-
ference in number, collective singular—
plural
Exod. 9:11 MSamP ≠ G ‫—החרטמים‬οἱ φαρμακοι: different trans-
lation. Elsewhere also ἐπαοιδοι171
the same semantic datum.172 In addition,
different translation. ’Εναντιον is also
used elsewhere as the equivalent of ‫לעיני‬
(cf. supra, for example, in 9:8).
Exod. 9:11 MSamP ≠ G ‫—מפני‬δια: different formulation for
the same semantic datum. In addition,
different translation. Supra in 8:20 we
find the same ‫ מפני‬translated by ἀπο.173
Exod. 9:11 MSamP ≠ G ‫—השׁחין‬τα ἑλκη: difference in number,
collective singular–plural
167
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 129: ‘The instructions given by the Lord are being now
carried out. Exod., however, abbreviates the MT account by making the first two clauses
into a single one by omitting ‫ויעמדו‬.’
168
Cf. supra n. 24.
169
Cf. supra n. 21.
170
See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 129: ‘In the last clause a popular variant changed ἐγενετο
into the plural because of the plural subject ἑλκη, but a neuter plural is in order.’
171
172
Cf. supra n. 24.
173
Exod. 9:11 MSamP ≠ G ‫—כי‬γαρ: different location

Exod. 9:11 MSamP ≠ G ‫—היה‬ἐγενετο: different translation.174
In addition, different verb form: qatal.
In 9:10, for example, ἐγενετο was the
equivalent of ‫ ( ויהי‬yiqtol ).175
Exod. 9:11 MSamP ≠ G ‫—השׁחין‬τα ἑλκη: difference in number,
collective singular - plural
Exod. 9:11 MSamP4Qm4Qc ≠ G ‫ —בחרט ) ו ( מים‬ἐν τοις φαρμακοις :
different translation. Elsewhere also
ἐπαοιδοι176
c
Exod. 9:11 MSamP4Q ≠ G γῃ = G+
Exod. 9:12 MSamP ≠ G ‫—כאשׁר‬καθα: different translation177
Exod. 9:12 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫—דבר‬συνεταξεν: different translation.178
Difference in nuance with respect to
meaning.
Exod. 9:12 MSamP ≠ G ‫ = אל‬MSamP+: preposition, rendered by
Greek dative.
the same semantic datum.179 Also differ-
ent translation. ’Εναντιον is also found
elsewhere as the equivalent of ‫( לעיני‬cf.
supra, for example, in 9:8).
Exod. 9:14 MSamP ≠ G ‫—ב‬ἐν τῳ: different location
Exod. 9:14 MSamP ≠ G ‫—כי בפעם הזאת‬ἐν τῳ γαρ νυν καιρῳ:
different formulation for the same
semantic datum180
Exod. 9:14 MSamP ≠ G τα = G+: definite article. The Hebrew is
also defined, however, on account of the
possessive suffix.
174
Cf. supra n. 21. According to Wevers, the construction ἐγενετο with the preposition
ἐν is a Hebraism that agrees with ‫היה ב‬. In Greek one would be more inclined to expect
ἐπι. Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 129.
175
Cf. supra also pp. 35, 42.
176
Cf. supra n. 171.
177
Cf. supra n. 57.
178
Cf. supra n. 15. See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 130: ‘In the καθα clause Exod uses the
verb συνεταξεν though all other old witnesses support ‫ דבר‬of MT.’ See also A. Le Boulluec,
P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 131: ‘LXX: «en ce que le Seigneur avait ordonné»—TM:
«comme l’avait dit YHWH à Moïse». Il paraît exclu de traduire καθα συνεταξεν κυριος
par: «comme le Seigneur l’avait ordonné», d’après le sens pris ailleurs dans la LXX par des
transcriptions semblables («dire» en hébreu, «préscrire» en grec): Ex 1,17; 12,35; Nb 27,23;
Jos 4,8; Jb 42,9. La proposition principale étant négative, la signification est différente
(= «il ne leur obéit pas, en ce que . . .»).’
179
Cf. supra n. 24.
180
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 130: ‘The phrase ἐν τῳ νυν καιρῳ is Exod’s rendering of
‫בפעם הזאת‬. The phrase may well originate with Gen 29:24, 30:20; in the former case
it renders ‫עתה הפעם‬, and presents a striking phrase for “at the present time”.’
Exod. 9:14 MSamP ≠ G ‫ —מגפתי‬συναντηματα : difference in

meaning. The Hebrew means ‘plague’,
while the Greek by contrast points more
in the direction of ‘encounter’ or ‘event’.
According to Wevers, we should interpret
the combination in the present context
as ‘plague–encounters’.181
Exod. 9:14 MSamP ≠ G ἐστιν = G+
Exod. 9:14 MSamP ≠ G ἀλλος = G+: adverb, adjective182
Exod. 9:15 MSamP4Qm4Qc ≠ G ‫—כי‬γαρ: different location
Exod. 9:15 MSamP ≠ G ‫ י‬in ‫ = ידי‬MSamP+: possessive suffix
Exod. 9:15 MSamP ≠ G την = G+: definite article. The Hebrew is
also defined, however, by the possessive
suffix.
Exod. 9:15 MSamP ≠ G ‫ = ב‬MSamP+: preposition. The Greek
expresses this via the dative.
Exod. 9:15 MSamP ≠ G ‫—בדבר‬θανατῳ: difference in meaning.
Cf. supra Exod. 9:3. The Hebrew word
‫ דבר‬means ‘plague’ or ‘pestilence’, while
the Greek θανατος by contrast means
‘death’.183 Also different translation. ‫דבר‬
is also translated differently elsewhere.184
Exod. 9:16 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫ = אולם‬MSamPQm+185
Exod. 9:16 MSamP ≠ G ‫—בעבור‬ἑνεκεν: different translation.
Later in the same verse, ‫ בעבור‬is trans-
lated by ἱνα.186
Exod. 9:16 MSamP ≠ G ‫—העמדתיך‬διετηρηθης: different gram-
matical construction, active—passive,
with different semantic nuance.187
181
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 130. Wevers also makes reference to Greek translations
that render ‫ מגפתי‬more literally at this juncture. Cf. Ibidem, n. 20: ‘Aq followed by
Theod translates by θραυσεις which according to Hesych has the same meaning as Sym’s
πληγας “plagues”.’
182
Compare with Exod. 8:6. See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 131: ‘The ὁτι clause stresses
the incomparableness of the Lord, and may be compared to 8:10[6].’ [ ] = B.L. Cf. also
A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 132: ‘La mention «un autre (ἀλλος)»,
propre à la LXX, est un léger écart par rapport au TM et peut faire écho à la formule
d’Ex 8,6.’
183
Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 131, n. 22: ‘Aq has ἐν λοιμῳ for MT’s ‫בדבר‬.’
184
Cf. supra n. 53.
185
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 131: ‘Exod joins this verse to the preceding by και whereas
MT shows the adversative relationship much more clearly by its ‫ואולם‬. One might well
have expected Exod to have had ἀλλα.’
186
187
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 131–132: ‘The verb διετηρηθης “have you been spared”
is a clear rendering of MT’s ‫“ העמדתיך‬have I let you stand”; though it puts the idea in
the passive there is no doubt that it is the Lord who alone is responsible; he alone is the
active actor in vv. 14–16.’
Exod. 9:16 MSamP ≠ G ‫—בעבור‬ἱνα: different translation. Cf.

supra. Later in the same verse, ‫ בעבור‬is
translated by ἐνεκεν.
Exod. 9:16 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫—הראתך‬ἐνδειξωμαι ἐν σοι: difference
in meaning188
Exod. 9:17 MSamP ≠ G οὐν= G+ particle189
Exod. 9:17 MSamP ≠ G ‫ = ב‬MSamP+: preposition. The Greek
expresses this function via the genitive
in conjunction with the verb ἐμποιειν.190
Exod. 9:18 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫—כבד‬πολλην: difference in meaning
(heavy—many).191 Compare with Exod.
8:20 and 9:3.
Exod. 9:18 MSamP ≠ G ‫—ממטיר‬ὕω: different translation. Simi-
lar to 9:33–34 (‫מטר‬/‫—ה‬ὁ ὑετὸς), but
different from 9:23 where the same
root ‫ מטר‬has been translated by βρεχω
(‫ימטר‬/‫—ו‬καὶ ἔβρεξεν).
Exod. 9:18 MSamP ≠ G ‫—כמהו‬τοιαυτη: difference in location
Exod. 9:18 MSamP ≠ G ‫—היה‬γεγονεν: different translation192
Exod. 9:18 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫—עתה‬της ἡμερας ταυτης: difference in
meaning (now—this day).193
Exod. 9:19 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫—שׁלח העז‬κατασπευσον συναγαγειν:
difference in meaning (send, bring to
safety—hurry to gather up)194
188
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 132: ‘The first clause “that I might display in you my power”
differs from MT which has “to show you my power”. The Hebrew again reflects the theme
of Pharaoh’s forced recognition of Yahweh; it is Pharaoh who is to see God’s power. In
Exod Pharaoh is simply the occasion, the arena, where God displays his power.’ See also
A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 132.
189
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 132: ‘The particle οὐν leads from the general statement to
the specifics of the present situation: “Moreover you are still holding on to”.’
190
191
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 133: ‘The plague is to consist of a divinely given rain of
very much hail. The Hebrew describes the hail(stones) as being ‫כבד‬. Since the hail was
to be extremely destructive either their large size of that they were πολλην makes good
sense.’ See also Ibidem, n. 26: ‘Aq and Sym have βαρειαν instead of πολλην (cf. also v.
3 where they translate similarly).’
192
Cf. supra n. 21.
193
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 133: ‘The last phrase is slightly different in MT which has
“until now”.’
194
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, p. 133: ‘The command “Hurry to gather up” is a free render-
ing of MT’s rather ambiguous “send (out), bring to safety”. The point of ‫ שׁלח‬is not fully
luminous; does it mean “send out instructions”, or “send your servants”, or is it simply used
as an idiom ordering action? Exod has a clearer order with its κατασπευσον. The second
Hebrew imperative ‫ העז‬occurs rarely; it is the Hiphil of ‫“ עוז‬to seek refuge”, hence “to bring
to safety”. For Exod this was expressed by συναγαγειν.’ See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir,
La Bible d’Alexandrie, 133: ‘LXX: «hâte-toi de rassembler (κατασπευσον συναγαγειν)»—TM:
«envoie mettre en sûreté». Le Targum traduit aussi par «rassembler». Le contexte pouvait
dicter une telle interprétation. La LXX reprend le verbe συναγειν en 9,20, de même que
le TM répète «mettre à l’abri». Le choix de κατασπευδειν est une interprétation du verbe
Exod. 9:19 M4Qc ≠ SamPG ‫מקניך—מקנך‬, κτηνη: difference in num-

Exod. 9:19 MSamP ≠ 4Qc ‫ = את‬MSamP+: nota accusativi
Exod. 9:19 MGSamP ≠ 4Qc ‫ו‬, και—‫ו‬: different location
Exod. 9:19 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫ = כל‬MSamP4Qc+: adjective
Exod. 9:19 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ἐστιν = G+, in contrast to the Hebrew
ellipsis of the verb ‫היה‬. The Greek verb is
in the singular in relation to the subject
τα κτηνη in the neuter plural with which
the relative ὁσα also agrees.
Exod. 9:19 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫—לך‬σοι: The Hebrew contains a con-
struction employing the preposition ‫ל‬,
while the Greek expresses this via the
dative of the personal pronoun.
Exod. 9:19 MSamP4Qc ≠ G γαρ = G+: particle
Exod. 9:19 MSamP ≠ G ‫—אדם‬ἀνθρωποι difference in number,
Exod. 9:19 MSamP ≠ G ‫—בהמה‬κτηνη difference in number,
collective singular—plural. Also differ-
ent translation. Hebrew ‫ בהמה‬is nor-
mally translated by τετραποδα (cf., for
example, in Exod. 9:9 and 10) and ‫מקנה‬
is the equivalent of κτηνη (cf. supra in
the same verse and in 9:20).195
Exod. 9:19 MSamP = G ‫—ימצא‬εὑρεθῃ: both verbs are in the
singular. The Hebrew agrees with a
collective singular subject (‫)בהמה‬. The
Greek verb, by contrast, is in the singular
in relation to the subject τα κτηνη in the
neuter plural with which the relative ὁσα
also agrees.196
Exod. 9:19 MSamP ≠ G ‫—בשׂדה‬ἐν τοις πεδιοις difference in num-
ber, collective singular—plural.
Exod. 9:19 MSamP ≠ G ‫—יאסף‬εἰσελθῃ : difference in mean-
ing (to collect—to come home/enter a
dwelling).197 The Greek verb is once again
hébreu «envoyer» analogue à celle qu’on trouve en 9,7 et inspirée cette fois peut-être par
le tour d’Ex 10,16.’
195
196
Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 134: ‘The verbs within the ὁσα clause are singular,
congruent to a neuter plural τα κτηνη, the nearer of the compound subject.’
197
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 134: ‘For the passive ‫ יאסף‬Niphal “be collected” Exod has
an active εἰσελθῃ in “and has not entered a dwelling” (i.e. “come home”).’ See also A. Le
Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 133: ‘LXX: «tout ce qui . . . ne sera pas rentré
(εἰσελθῃ)»—TM: «n’aura pas été ramené». Ce passage du passif à l’actif, avec l’emploi de
εἰσερχεσθαι, est exceptionnel. Le seul texte parallèle est Nb 12,14.’
in the singular in relation to the subject

κτηνη in the neuter plural (cf. supra).
Exod. 9:19 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫ = ו‬MSamP4Qc+: conjunction
Exod. 9:19 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫—מתו‬τελευτησει: difference in num-
ber, plural—singular. The Hebrew verb
agrees with its combined subject (twice
collective singular ‫ אדם‬and ‫)בהמה‬
which is summarised in ‫עלהם‬. The
Greek verb remains singular in relation
to the subject in the neuter plural, which
is recapitulated in ἐπ’ αὐτα.
Exod. 9:20 MSamP ≠ G ‫—דבר‬ῥημα: different translation199
Exod. 9:20 MSamP ≠ G ‫—הניס‬συνηγαγεν: difference in meaning
(cause to flee—collect)200
Exod. 9:20 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫ = את עבדיו‬MSamP4Qm+201
Exod. 9:20 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫—מקנה‬κτηνη: difference in number,
Exod. 9:21 MSamP ≠ G ‫—לב‬διανοιᾳ: different translation202
Exod. 9:21 MSamP ≠ G τῃ = G+: definite article. The Hebrew is
possessive suffix.
Exod. 9:21 MSamP ≠ G ‫ ו‬in ‫ = לבו‬MSamP+: possessive suffix
Exod. 9:21 MG ≠ SamP ‫אל‬, εἰς—‫על‬: different preposition
Exod. 9:21 MSamP ≠ G ‫—דבר‬ῥημα: different translation203
Exod. 9:21 MSamP ≠ G το = G+: definite article
Exod. 9:21 MSamP ≠ G ‫ = את עבדיו‬MSamP+204
Exod. 9:21 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫ ו‬in ‫ = מקנהו‬MSamP4Qm+: possessive
suffix
Exod. 9:21 MSamP4Qm ≠ G τα = G+: definite article
Exod. 9:21 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫—מקנה‬κτηνη: difference in number,
Exod. 9:22 MSamP ≠ G ‫—אדם‬ἀνθρωπους: difference in number,
198
For 4Qc see E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 108: ‘According to this reconstruc-
tion, col. II contained the text from the end of Exod. 8:18 through 9:35 and lacked the
major expansions of the 4QpaleoExodmSamP tradition: 8,19b, 9,5b, and 9,19b.’
199
Cf. supra n. 53.
200
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 134: ‘MT used the verb ‫“ הניס‬caused to flee”; they made
their servants and cattle to flee into houses. Exod in line with v. 19 has “collected”—
συνηγαγεν.’
201
Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 133.
202
Cf. supra n. 28.
203
Cf. supra n. 53.
204
Exod. 9:22 MSamP ≠ G τε = G+: particle

Exod. 9:22 MSamP ≠ G ‫ = על‬MSamP+: preposition205
Exod. 9:22 MSamP ≠ G ‫—בהמה‬κτηνη: difference in number,
collective singular—plural, and different
translation206
Exod. 9:22 MSamP ≠ G ‫—שׂדה‬γης: different translation, see also
in Exod. 10:5.207 The usual equivalent of
‫ שׂדה‬is πεδιον (see, for example, Exod.
9:25), while γης on the other hand
mostly represents the translation of ‫ארץ‬
(cf. for example, Exod. 9:23, 25).
Exod. 9:22 MSamP ≠ G ‫—עשׂב השׂדה‬βοτανην την ἐπι της γης:
different construction. The Hebrew has
a status constructus (or a so-called geni-
tive), while the Greek offers a descrip-
tion in the form of a relative clause.
Compare with the parallel Hebrew ‫אשׁר‬-
construction in Exod. 9:25, the location
of a Greek minus. It is possible that the
Greek construction in 9:22 is rooted in
such a Vorlage.
Exod. 9:22 MSamP ≠ G ‫ = בארץ מצרים‬MSamP+. Note that we
consider the expression βοτανην την ἐπι
της γης, parallel with the construction
βοτανην την ἐν τῳ πεδιῳ as translation
of the same ‫ עשׂב השׂדה‬in Exod. 9:25, as
the equivalent of ‫( עשׂב השׂדה‬cf. also in
Exod. 10:5: γης as translation of ‫)שׂדה‬.
This implies that ἐπι της γης is not iden-
tified as the translation of ‫בארץ‬. This
perspective runs counter to that proposed
by A. Le Boulluec and P. Sandevoir, who
detect two minuses in the text of Exod.
9:22.208 In our opinion, there is only
one minus, namely the entire expression
‫בארץ מצרים‬. There is no minus evident,
however, at the level of ‫שׂדה‬.
Exod. 9:23 MSamP ≠ G ‫ ו‬in ‫ = מטהו‬MSamP+: possessive suffix
205
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 135: ‘By adding the particle τε after the first ἐπι and omit-
ting a preposition before “cattle” Exod has made a bipartite distinction between animate
life and plant life.’
206
Cf. supra n. 195.
207
Cf. supra n. 97.
208
Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 133: ‘Deux absences dans
le texte grec: «de la plaine» après «herbe», et «l’Égypte» après «dans le pays».’
Exod. 9:23 MSamP ≠ G ‫—מטה‬χειρα: different presentation at

the level of content.209 In MSamP, Moses
stretches out his staff, in G his hand
(agrees with MGSamP in Exod. 9:22).
Exod. 9:23 MSamP ≠ G ‫—על‬εἰς: different preposition and differ-
ent translation. The term ‫ על‬is mostly
translated by ἐπι (cf. 9:22) and εἰς repre-
sents the translation of ‫( אל‬cf. 9:21).210
Exod. 9:23 MSamP ≠ G πασαν = G+: adjective
Exod. 9:24 M ≠ GSamP ἡ, ‫ = ה‬GSamP+: definite article
Exod. 9:24 MSamP ≠ G ἡ χαλαζα = G+211
Exod. 9:24 MSamP ≠ G ‫—כבד‬πολλην: difference in meaning
(heavy—many).212
Exod. 9:24 MSamP ≠ G σφοδρα = G+
Exod. 9:24 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫—כמהו‬τοιαυτη: different location
Exod. 9:24 MSamP ≠ G ‫—היה‬γιγνεσθαι: different translation213
Exod. 9:24 M4Qc ≠ GSamP ‫ = כל ארץ‬M4Qc+. GSamP exhibits here
the same formulation as M, SamP and
G in Exod. 9:18.214
Exod. 9:24 MSamP ≠ G ἐπ’ αὐτης = G+. In this plus, it would
appear that G understands Egypt to be
a geographical territory upon which (ἐπ’
αὐτης) a nation comes to dwell. M and
SamP on the other hand speak of the
nation of Egypt that became a people
(‫)לגוי‬.216
Exod. 9:24 MSamP ≠ G ‫ ל‬in ‫ = לגוי‬MSamP+: preposition, whereby
a difference of meaning also emerges at
the level of content.
209
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 136. According to Wevers, there is evidence in this instance
of the harmonisation of v. 23 with v. 22: ‘Exod has levelled the text to make it agree with
v. 22, where Moses was ordered to stretch out his hand heavenward, not his staff as in MT.’
See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 133: ‘La mention de la «main»,
conforme à 9,22, et non du «bâton» (TM), renforce la cohérence du récit en grec.’
210
211
According to Frankel, G has translated the Hebrew term ‫ ברד‬twice. See Z. Frankel,
Vorstudien, 172.
212
Cf. supra in relation to Exod. 8:20; 9:3 and 9:18.
213
Cf. supra n. 21.
214
Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 137.
215
Cf. supra n. 21.
216
Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 137. See likewise A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible
d’Alexandrie, 134: ‘LXX: «depuis qu’une nation s’y trouvait»—TM: «depuis que (le pays)
était devenu en une nation». La présence de ἐπ’ αὐτης, «y», empêche de lire le texte grec
comme un décalque de l’hébreu.’
Exod. 9:25 MG ≠ SamP ‫כל‬, πασῃ = MG+: adjective

Exod. 9:25 MSamP ≠ G ‫ = את כל אשׁר בשׂדה‬MSamP+
Exod. 9:25 M ≠ GSamP ‫ ו‬in ‫ = ועד‬M+: conjunction
Exod. 9:25 MSamP ≠ G ‫—בהמה‬κτηνους: difference in number,
collective singular—plural. Different
translation.217
Exod. 9:25 MSamP ≠ G ‫—עשׂב השׂדה‬βοτανην την ἐν τῳ πεδιῳ:
different construction. The Hebrew has a
status constructus (the so-called genitive),
while the Greek offers a description
in the form of a relative clause. Com-
pare with the parallel Hebrew ‫אשׁר‬-
construction supra in this verse at the
location of a Greek minus.
Exod. 9:25 MSamP ≠ G τα in relation to ξυλα = G+: definite
article
Exod. 9:25 MSamP ≠ G ‫—עץ‬ξυλα: difference in number, collec-
tive singular—plural
Exod. 9:25 MSamP ≠ G ‫—עץ השׂדה‬τα ξυλα τα ἐν τοις πεδιοις:
different construction. The Hebrew has a
status constructus (the so-called genitive),
while the Greek offers a description in
the form of a relative clause.
Exod. 9:25 MSamP ≠ G ‫—שׂדה‬πεδιοις: difference in number, col-
lective singular—plural
Exod. 9:25 MSamP ≠ G ἡ χαλαζα = G+
Exod. 9:26 MSamP ≠ G ἡσαν = G+: ellipsis of the Hebrew
‫היה‬.
Exod. 9:26 MSamP4Ql ≠ G ‫—היה‬γιγνεσθαι: different translation218
Exod. 9:27 MSamP4Ql ≠ G ‫—שׁלח‬ἀποστελω: different translation219
Exod. 9:27 MSamP4Ql ≠ G ‫—הפעם‬το νυν: different formulation for
the same semantic datum
Exod. 9:28 MSamP2Qa ≠ G οὐν περι ἐμου = G+220
Exod. 9:28 MGSamP ≠ 2Qa ‫אל יהוה‬, προς κυριον = MGSamP+
Exod. 9:28 MSamP2Qa4Qc ≠ G ‫—היה‬γιγνεσθαι: different translation221
Exod. 9:28 MSamP ≠ G2Qa και πυρ, ‫ = ואשׁ‬G2Qa+. Compare with
Exod. 9:23–24.222
217
Cf. supra n. 195.
218
Cf. supra n. 21.
219
Cf. supra n. 121.
220
Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 134: ‘La LXX ajoute «donc»
et «pour moi» (cf. 8,4.24).’
221
Cf. supra n. 21.
222
Exod. 9:28 MSamP2Qa ≠ G ‫—שׁלח‬ἐξαποστελω: different translation.223

Compare also with Exod. 9:27.
Exod. 9:28 MSamP2Qa4Qc ≠ G ‫—לא‬οὐκετι: ἐτι in οὐκετι = G+: par-
ticle
Exod. 9:29 MGSamP ≠ 2Qa ‫אליו‬, αὐτῳ: different location
Exod. 9:29 M2Qa ≠ SamP4Qc ‫ = את‬M2Qa+: nota accusativi
Exod. 9:29 MSamP2Qa4Qc ≠ G ‫—כפי‬χειρας: different translation.224 The
Hebrew equivalent of χειρ is usually
‫יד‬.
Exod. 9:29 M2Qa4Qc ≠ GSamP και, ‫ = ו‬GSamP+: conjunction
Exod. 9:29 MSamP4Ql2Qa4Qc ≠ G και ὁ ὑετος = G+. Compare with Exod.
9:34.225
‫ = מפני‬MSamP4Qc+: different grammati-
cal construction. The Hebrew employs a
prepositional clause where the Greek uses
the accusative.
Exod. 9:30 M ≠ G ≠ SamP4Qc ‫—יהוה אלהים‬τον κυριον—‫אדני יהוה‬:
different divine names
Exod. 9:31 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫—ה‬ἡ: definite article, different location
Exod. 9:31 MGSamP ≠ 4Qc ‫השׁערה אביב‬, κριθη παρεστηκυια—
‫השׁ]ערה [·ב‬: different location
Exod. 9:31 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫—אביב‬παρεστηκυια: difference in mean-
ing: ear (of corn)—ripe/mature226
Exod. 9:31 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫—גבעל‬σπερματιζον: difference in mean-
ing: budding—seeding227
Exod. 9:32 MSamP ≠ G ἠν = G+: The verb εἰναι is rendered in
contrast to the ellipsis of the Hebrew
‫היה‬.
Exod. 9:32 MSamP ≠ G ‫ = הנה‬MSamP+: personal pronoun
Exod. 9:33 MSamP ≠ G ἐκτος = G+: preposition228
Exod. 9:33 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫ ו‬in ‫ = כפיו‬MSamP4Qc+: possessive suffix
Exod. 9:33 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫—כפי‬χειρας: different translation.229 Cf.
also Exod. 9:29.
223
Cf. supra n. 121.
224
Cf. supra n. 159.
225
See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 140: ‘The parallel clause states that “the hail and the
rain will no longer obtain”, Exod adding ὁ ὑετος from v. 34 thereby making the account
complete.’
226
Cf. also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 135: ‘LXX: «à maturité»
(παρεστηκυια)—TM: «en épi».’
227
Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’ Alexandrie, 135: ‘LXX: «en graines»—
TM: «en fleur».’
228
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 142: ‘The difficult ‫ ויצא‬plus ‫ את‬is clarified by Exod
ἐξηλθεν . . . ἐκτος: “Moses departed from Pharaoh outside the city”, which reflects the
ἐξελθω την πολιν of v. 29.’
229
Cf. supra n. 159.
Exod. 9:33 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫—יחדלו‬ἐπαυσαντο: different location

Exod. 9:33 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫—ו‬και: different location
Exod. 9:33 M ≠ GSamP ὁ, ‫ = ה‬GSamP+: definite article
Exod. 9:33 MSamP ≠ G ἐτι = G+: preposition
Exod. 9:34 MG4Ql4Qc ≠ SamP ‫המטר‬, ὁ ὑετος—‫והמטר‬: different loca-
tion of substantive and conjunction
Exod. 9:34 MSamP ≠ G ‫ = הוא‬MSamP+: personal pronoun
Exod. 9:35 MSamP4Ql ≠ G ἡ = G+: definite article
Exod. 9:35 MSamP ≠ G ‫—שׁלח‬ἐξαπεστειλεν: different transla-
tion.230 Compare also with Exod. 9:27
and 28.
Exod. 9:35 MSamP4Qm ≠ G τους = G+: definite article
Exod. 9:35 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫ = ביד‬MSamP4Qc+. The Hebrew ‘instru-
mental’ formulation ‫ ביד משׁה‬is ren-
dered in the Greek by a dative with the
definite article, τῳ μωυσῃ. This dative
is then understood as an instrumental
dative.231 As a consequence, we are not
so much confronted with a minus in G
as with an idiomatic Greek translation
of a Hebrew expression.232
Exod. 10:1 MSamP ≠ G λεγων = G+
Exod. 10:1 MSamP4Ql4Qc ≠ G ‫ = את לב‬MSamP4Ql4Qc+
Exod. 10:1 MSamP ≠ G ἑξης = G+: adverb233
Exod. 10:1 MSamP ≠ G ‫—שׁתי‬ἐπελθῃ: difference in person and
number. The Hebrew has 1st person
singular of which YHWH, who is
engaged in direct speech, is the subject.
The Greek, by contrast, has a 3rd person
singular in relation to the subject τα
σημεια in the neuter plural.234
Exod. 10:1 MSamP ≠ G ‫ י‬in ‫אתתי‬, ‫ = אותתי‬MSamP+: possessive
suffix
230
Cf. supra n. 121.
231
Compare, however, with the interpretation offered by A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir,
La Bible d’Alexandrie, 135: ‘LXX: «à Moïse» (de même Targ. N)—TM: «par l’intermédiaire
de Moïse».’, in which τῳ μωυσῃ would appear to have been understood as a dative of
the indirect object.
232
Cf. also infra on translation technique, p. 143.
233
See A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 135: ‘la précision ἑξης, «à la
suite», «les uns après les autres», annonce plus clairement l’ensemble de «signes» accomplis
et à venir (cf. Dt 2,34; 3,6)’
234
Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 135: ‘le sujet n’est pas le
Seigneur, mais les «signes», avec le tour ἐπελθειν ἐπι et l’accusatif, qui évoque un assaut
(cf. Gn 42,21, où le grec concorde avec l’hébreu).’ For the variants in the Greek text of
the end of Exod. 10:1, see also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 144.
Exod. 10:1 MSamP ≠ G τα = G+: definite article. The Hebrew

‫ אתתי‬and ‫ אותתי‬is also defined, how-
ever, on account of the possessive suffix.
Exod. 10:1 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫—בקרבו‬ἐπ’ αὐτους: different formulation
for the same semantic datum; difference
in number, singular—plural
Exod. 10:2 MSamP ≠ G ‫ ו‬in ‫ = ולמען‬MSamP+: conjunction
Exod. 10:2 MSamP ≠ G ‫—למען‬ὁπως: different translation. At
the end of Exod. 10:1, and in the same
grammatical clause type as we see con-
tinued here in Exod. 10:2, ‫ למען‬is trans-
lated by ἱνα. By employing different
equivalents of ‫ למען‬in one and the same
sentence, the symmetry of the Hebrew
sentence structure is rendered differently
in the Greek.235
Exod. 10:2 MSamP ≠ G ‫—תספר‬διηγησησθε: difference in num-
ber. The verb is in the 2nd person singu-
lar in the Hebrew and in the 2nd person
plural in the Greek.
Exod. 10:2 MSamP4Ql ≠ G ‫ —בנך ובן בנך‬των τεκνων και τοις
τεκνοις των τεκνων ὑμων: difference in
number.236 The Hebrew addresses the
addressee in the 2nd person singular, the
Greek in the 2nd person plural.
Exod. 10:2 MSamP4Ql ≠ G των, τοις, των = G+: definite articles.
The Hebrew is also defined, however, on
account of the possessive suffixes.
Exod. 10:2 MSamP4Ql ≠ G ‫—ובן‬τοις τεκνοις: different grammatical
construction. The Hebrew runs as fol-
lows: ‘Speak to the ears of your son and
(to the ears of ) the son of your son’. A
twofold status constructus of ‫ באזני‬with
‫ בנך‬and once again implicitly with ‫ובן‬
‫ בנך‬comes into play. The Greek, by
contrast, renders the first more or less
literally (albeit in the 2nd person plural),
but then uses a dative, τοις τεκνοις, to
render the second. In other words, the
Greek states: ‘Speak to the ears of your
children and to (dative) the children of
your children.’
235
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 145. See also infra on translation technique, p. 139.
236
Exod. 10:2 MSamP ≠ G ‫—את אשׁר‬ὁσα: different translation.237

Compare further in the same verse:
‫—אשׁר‬ἁ.
Exod. 10:2 MSamP ≠ G ‫ —התעללתי‬ἐμπεπαιχα : difference in
meaning238
Exod. 10:2 MSamP ≠ G ‫—אשׁר‬ἁ: different translation239
Exod. 10:2 MG4Qc ≠ SamP ‫ = אלהיכם‬SamP+240
Exod. 10:3 MSamP = G ‫—ויבא‬εἰσηλθεν δε: the verbs are singular
on account of attraction to the closest
element of the plural subject: ‫ משׁה‬and
μωυσης242
Exod. 10:3 MSamP ≠ G ‫—אל‬ἐναντιον: different translation243
Exod. 10:3 MGSamP ≠ 4Qc ··‫ =[· במצר‬4Qc+244
Exod. 10:3 MSamP ≠ G ‫—מאנת‬οὐ βουλει: different construction.
The Hebrew verb has a negative meaning
in se (to refuse), while the Greek employs
237
Cf. supra n. 55.
238
See J.W. Wevers, Notes, 145: ‘. . . ἐμπεπαιχα, “I have mocked” makes the divine
arbitrariness even more marked than MT’s ‫“ התעללתי‬I acted ruthlessly with”.’
239
Cf. supra n. 55. See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 147.
240
For 4Qc see E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 111: ‘Spacing favours the shorter
reading of M at the end of 10:2: ‫ אני יהוה‬rather than ‫ =( אני יהוה אלהיכם‬SamP).’
241
For 4Qc see E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 103: ‘Frg. 20 is somewhat problematic
but has been placed at its most likely spot, which if correct precludes Exod 10:2b.’ . . . ‘Because
of the evidence of these two fragments [frg.4: Ex 7,29b and frg.20: Ex 10,2b], the entire
manuscript was reconstructed without the major expansions, yielding excellent results for the
format of all eight columns. Thus on the basis of these two fragments plus the reconstruc-
tion, Exodc is judged to have lacked the major expansions found in 4QpaleoExodmSamP.’
[ ] = B.L. See also Ibidem, 111: ‘On the basis of this reconstruction of col. III, in which
the expansions of the 4QpaleoExodmSamP tradition (Exod 10:2b and 11:3b) are lacking,
the text of Exod 10:1–11:8 can fill exactly 43 lines.’ For 4Qm see P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich,
J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 81: ‘Lines 23–26 are not extant, but the Exod mSamP major
expansion 10:2b would have begun on line 24 and continued, with the extant fragment
resuming on line 27, on to line 30.’
242
243
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 145: ‘Exod has Moses and Aaron go in ἐναντιον Pharaoh
as at 7:10, rather than προς Pharaoh as 5:1 7:15 and MT’s ‫אל‬. The notion of going in
before may well represent a zeugma for “go in and stand before”; compare 8:20 9:13.’
See also supra n. 24.
244
See E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 111: ‘]··‫] [· במצר‬. After the reš the leather
is split; on the following tiny fragment are traces of two letters, but the relative position
of the fragment is too uncertain to determine what the letters are. There is another very
tiny piece stuck in the mounting of the leather, the positioning of which is slightly dif-
ferent from that in the photograph. The word ‫ במצרים‬does not occur in MSamP in
10:3. Spacing suggests that it was preceded by ‫ אל פרעה‬in this MS, and the ink stroke
before would allow he.’
a positive verb (to desire) with a particle

of negation (οὐ).245
Exod. 10:3 MSamP ≠ G ‫—לענת‬ἐντραπηναι: difference in nuance,
to humiliate oneself—to show respect or
to be ashamed.246
Exod. 10:3 MSamP ≠ G ‫—מפני‬με: different expression.
Exod. 10:3 MSamP ≠ G ‫—שׁלח‬ἐξαποστειλον: different transla-
tion.247 Compare also with Exod. 9:27,
28 and 35.
Exod. 10:3 M4Qc ≠ SamP4Ql ‫ = את‬SamP4Ql+: nota accusativi 248
Exod. 10:4 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫—מאן‬μη θελῃς: different translation.249
Compare with the translation of ‫ מאן‬in
Exod. 10:3.
Exod. 10:4 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫ = אתה‬MSamP4Qc+: personal pronoun
Exod. 10:4 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫—שׁלח‬ἐξαποστειλαι: different transla-
28, 35 and 10:3.
Exod. 10:4 MSamP ≠ 4Qm ]‫[ה‬: according to DJD 9, the ‫ה‬- reflects
a variant in 4QpaleoExodm. Read in this
regard: ‘The ‫ה‬- requires a variant since
neither ‫ אתה‬nor ‫ ארבה‬fits the letter
count; M would give either ‫ עמי‬or ‫הנני‬
in this position. Perhaps read ‫הנה‬, with
‫ אנכי‬to follow on line 33; cf. 7:17, 27;
8:25; etc., and Jer. 6:19.’251
Exod. 10:4 MSamP ≠ G ‫—מביא‬ἐπαγω: different verb form, par-
ticiple—finite verb 1st person singular
Exod. 10:4 MSamP ≠ G ταυτην την ὡραν = G+
Exod. 10:4 MSamP4Ql ≠ G πολλην = G+: adjective
245
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 146: ‘The use of a negative particle and βουλομαι to render
‫ מאן‬is common in Exod. (4:23 8:2 9:2 16:28 22:17); in fact, only twice is ‫ מאן‬not so
translated (7:14 by του μη; 10:4 μη θελῃς).’
246
Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 136: ‘’Εντρεπεσθαι, avec
un accusatif dans la koinè, signifie «montrer du respect» à quelqu’un, ou bien, employé
absolument ou avec un complément, «éprouver de la honte». C’est ici le seul cas de cor-
respondance dans la LXX entre ce verbe et l’hébreu ‫ענה‬, qui a un sens fort: être dans
une condition basse, misérable. Le grec affaiblit donc l’hébreu. Cependant, le fait que
ἐντρεπεσθαι traduit en majorité dans la LXX trois verbes connotant l’humiliation (‫חפר‬,
«être couvert de confusion», ‫כלם‬, «être frappé d’ignominie», ‫כנע‬, au passif, «s’humilier»)
incite à retenir en français un terme assez rude.’
247
Cf. supra n. 121.
248
For 4Qc see E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 111: ‘Spacing favours the shorter
reading ‫ =( שׁלח עמי‬M) rather than ‫ =( שׁלח את עמי‬SamP).’
249
250
Cf. supra n. 121.
251
Cf. P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 81. See also supra, marginal
n. 6, p. 32.
Exod. 10:4 MSamP4Ql ≠ G ‫—ב‬ἐπι: different location

Exod. 10:4 MSamP4Ql ≠ G παντα = G+: adjective
Exod. 10:5 MSamP4Ql ≠ G ‫—עין‬ὀψιν: different nuance in meaning,
eye—sight252
Exod. 10:5 MSamP ≠ G ‫—יוכל‬δυνησῃ: difference in person, 3rd
person singular—2nd person singular253
Exod. 10:5 MSamP4Qm ≠ G παν = G+: adjective254
Exod. 10:5 MSamP ≠ G ‫ = מן‬MSamP+: preposition. Different
construction. In the Hebrew textual ver-
sions, the preposition ‫ מן‬functions in the
same way as the English ‘by’ in relation
to the acting subject in passive construc-
tions (cf. the niphal form ‫)נשׁארת‬.255 As a
consequence, the meaning of the Hebrew
sentence is as follows: ‘what is left for you
by the hail’. In the Greek sentence, the
word χαλαζα serves as the subject in an
active construction: ‘what the hail left for
you’. The preposition in relation to the
acting subject is thus unnecessary.
Exod. 10:5 MG ≠ SamP4Qm ‫ = עשׂב הארץ ואת כל פרי‬SamP4Qm+
Exod. 10:5 MSamP ≠ G ‫—מן‬ἐπι: different translation.256 ’Επι is
usually the equivalent of the Hebrew ‫על‬.
See, for example, in Exod. 9:22; 10:6.
Exod. 10:5 MSamP ≠ G ‫—שׂדה‬γης: different translation.257 The
standard equivalent of ‫ שׂדה‬is πεδιον.
On the other hand, γης is mostly used as
the equivalent of ‫( ארץ‬cf., for example,
in Exod. 9:23, 25).
Exod. 10:6 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫ = כל‬MSamP4Qm+: adjective
Exod. 10:6 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫—ו‬και: different location
Exod. 10:6 MSamP4Qm ≠ G πασαι = G+: adjective258
252
Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 136: ‘Οψις «vue», «aspect»,
rend le mot hébreu pour «oeil» (cf. 10,15; Nb 22,5.11), employé au sens dérivé de «ce
qui se voit», c’est-à-dire la surface de la terre.’
253
Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 136: ‘Le tour imperson-
nel de l’hébreu est rendu par une 2e personne du singulier, «tu ne pourras pas . . .», qui
renvoie à Pharaon.’
254
255
Cf. B.K. Waltke, M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 213,
§11.2.11d.
256
Cf. supra n. 210.
257
Cf. supra n. 97.
258
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 147: ‘Exod differs from MT which has ‫ כל‬before ‫עבדיך‬
instead of before ‫ )ו(בתי‬2°, but the tradition is unanimous in supporting Exod., and it
may well have had a textual basis.’
Exod. 10:6 MSamP ≠ G ἐν = G+: preposition. Different con-

struction. The Hebrew employs a status
constructus (so-called genitive): the houses
of all Egypt. The Greek employs an
adverbial locative after the preposition
ἐν: the houses in all the land of Egypt.
Exod. 10:6 MSamP ≠ G γῃ = G+
Exod. 10:6 MSamP ≠ G ‫—לא‬οὐδεποτε: the Greek negation ‘never’
is stronger than the Hebrew ‘not’.
Exod. 10:6 MSamP ≠ G ‫—אבתיך ואבות אבתיך‬πατερες σου οὐδε
οἱ προπαπποι αὐτων: different descrip-
tion with the same meaning, however,
in terms of content. The Hebrew alludes
to your fathers and the fathers of your
fathers. The Greek renders this as your
fathers and their forefathers. Moreover,
the Hebrew and the Greek employ a
different possessive suffix / pronoun
(‫—ך‬αὐτων): 2nd person singular—3rd
person plural.
Exod. 10:6 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫—אדמה‬γης: different translation (com-
pare with Exod. 8:17).260 Γης, however,
is mostly employed as the equivalent of
‫( ארץ‬cf., for example, in Exod. 9:23,
25).
Exod. 10:6 MSamP ≠ G μωυσης = G+
Exod. 10:6 MSamP ≠ G ‫—מעם‬ἀπο: different translation261
Exod. 10:7 MSamP ≠ G ‫—ויאמרו‬λεγουσιν δε: The Greek contains
a historical present instead of an aorist
as equivalent of the Hebrew wayyiqtol.262
Exod. 10:7 MSamP ≠ G ‫—זה‬τουτο: different meaning. The Greek
τουτο alludes to the situation, whereas
the Hebrew ‫ זה‬can refer to both the situ-
ation and to Moses.263 Compare also with
Exod. 10:11 in which τουτο is employed
as the equivalent of the Hebrew ‫אתה‬.
Exod. 10:7 MSamP ≠ G ‫ ל‬in ‫ = למוקשׁ‬MSamP+: preposition
Exod. 10:7 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫—שׁלח‬ἐξαποστειλον: different transla-
259
Cf. supra n. 21.
260
Cf. supra n. 97. Cf. also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 136.
261
Cf. supra n. 52.
262
263
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 148. See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible
d’Alexandrie, 137.

28, 35 and 10:3, 4.
Exod. 10:7 MSamP ≠ G ‫ = טרם‬MSamP+: particle
Exod. 10:7 MSamP ≠ G βουλει = G+.265
Exod. 10:8 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫—וי)ו(שׁב‬και ἀπεστρεψαν: difference in
number, singular—plural. The servants
from Exod. 10:7 would appear to be
the subject of the Greek plural form,266
while Moses and Aaron are subject of
the Hebrew hophal form.267
Exod. 10:8 MSamP4Qm4Qc ≠ G εἰσιν = G+: in contrast to the ellipsis of
the Hebrew verb ‫היה‬
Exod. 10:9 MSamP4Qm4Qc ≠ G ‫—ויאמר‬και λεγει: the Greek has a his-
toric present instead of an aorist as
equivalent of the Hebrew wayyiqtol.268
Exod. 10:9 MSamP4Qc ≠ G τοις = G+: definite article
Exod. 10:9 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫ נו‬in ‫ = בנערינו‬MSamP4Qc+: possessive
suffix
Exod. 10:9 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫ ב‬in ‫ = בזקנינו‬MSamP4Qc+: preposition
Exod. 10:9 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫ נו‬in ‫ = בזקנינו‬MSamP4Qc+: possessive
suffix
Exod. 10:9 MSamP4Qc ≠ G τοις = G+: definite article
Exod. 10:9 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫ נו‬in ‫ = בבנינו‬MSamP4Qc+: possessive
suffix
Exod. 10:9 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫ ב‬in ‫ = ובבנותנו‬MSamP4Qm+: preposition
Exod. 10:9 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫ נו‬in ‫ = ובבנותנו‬MSamP4Qm+: possessive
suffix
Exod. 10:9 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫ ב‬in ‫ = בצאננו‬MSamP4Qm+: preposition
Exod. 10:9 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫ נו‬in ‫ = בצאננו‬MSamP4Qm+: possessive
suffix
Exod. 10:9 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫—צאן‬προβατοις: difference in number;
Exod. 10:9 MSamP ≠ G ‫ ב‬in ‫ = ובבקרנו‬MSamP+: preposition
264
Cf. supra n. 121.
265
See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 137: ‘Le «veux-tu»
(βουλει) est propre à la LXX et souligne l’interrogation ironique qui exprime aussi en
hébreu un vif reproche.’ See also infra on translation technique, p. 139.
266
Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 137; and J.W. Wevers,
Notes, 148.
267
For the subject introduced by ‫ את‬in relation to a passive verb (Hophal ), see B.K.
Waltke, M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 182, §10.3.2. See also
their reference to the example from Exod. 10:8, Ibidem, 384, n. 18 and 449, §28.2b,
example 2c.
268
Exod. 10:9 MSamP ≠ G ‫—בקר‬βουσιν: difference in number;

Exod. 10:9 MSamP ≠ G ‫ = נלך‬MSamP+269
Exod. 10:9 MSamP ≠ G ἐστιν = G+: in contrast to the ellipsis of
the Hebrew verb ‫היה‬
Exod. 10:9 MSamP ≠ G του θεου = G+270
Exod. 10:9 MSamP ≠ G ‫—לנו‬ἡμων: different construction and
meaning. The Hebrew has a status con-
structus ‫ הג יהוה‬with an indirect object
and preposition ‫לנו‬. The Greek, on the
other hand, alludes to a ‘feast for YHWH
our God’ (objective genitive), whereby
ἡμων does not serve as an indirect object
(otherwise this would be ἡμιν in the
dative), but functions rather as a posses-
sive pronoun in relation to κυριου του
θεου.271
Exod. 10:10 MG4Qm ≠ SamP ‫יהי‬, ἐστω—‫יהיה‬: different verb forms
Exod. 10:10 MSamP ≠ G ‫—כאשׁר‬καθοτι: different translation272
Exod. 10:10 MSamP ≠ G ‫—שׁלח‬ἀποστελλω: different translation.273
Compare also with Exod. 9:27, 28, 35
and 10:3, 4, 7.
Exod. 10:10 MSamP ≠ G την = G+: definite article. The Hebrew
is also defined, however, on account of
the nota accusativi.
Exod. 10:10 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫—נגד‬προκειται: preposition—verb
Exod. 10:10 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫—פניכם‬ὑμιν: different expression, ‘before
your face’—‘before you’ (personal pro-
noun in the dative)
Exod. 10:11 MG4Qm ≠ SamP ‫לא כן‬, μη οὑτως = MG4Qm+
Exod. 10:11 MG4Qm ≠ SamP ‫ = לכן‬SamP+
Exod. 10:11 MSamP ≠ G ‫—לכו הגברים‬πορευεσθωσαν οἱ ἀνδρες:
different grammatical construction. The
Hebrew textual versions have an impera-
tive in the 2nd person plural with the
269
270
See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 137: ‘La LXX développe
ici κυριος en ajoutant «notre Dieu»; c’est Moïse qui parle; au contraire, dans la bouche
des Égyptiens, κυριος est remplacé par θεος (10,7.8.11). Si κυριος est maintenu en
8,4.24; 9,27.28; 10,10.16.17.24, c’est qu’il est indispensable à la clarté du dialogue et de
l’affrontement qui s’y déploie entre Pharaon et «Seigneur», le Dieu des Hébreux.’
271
Cf. also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 137: ‘La LXX
(«. . . c’est la fête du Seigneur notre Dieu») se distingue du TM («. . . c’est pour nous fête
de YHWH»).’
272
Cf. supra n. 57.
273
Cf. supra n. 121.
vocative ‫הגברים‬. The Greek, on the

other hand, has an imperative 3rd person
plural with οἱ ἀνδρες (nominative plural)
as subject.274
Exod. 10:11 MSamP ≠ G ‫—יהוה‬θεος: different translation. The
term ‫ יהוה‬is mostly rendered by κυριος
and ‫ אלהים‬by θεος.275 See, for example,
the following verse Exod. 10:12.
Exod. 10:11 MSamP ≠ G ‫—אתם‬αὐτοι: personal pronoun in the
2nd person plural—personal pronoun
in the 3rd person plural. According to
Wevers, however, the 3rd person plural
is employed here with the meaning of
the 2nd person plural.276
Exod. 10:11 M ≠ GSamP4Qm ‫—ויגרשׁ‬ἐξεβαλον δε, ‫ויגרשׁו‬: difference
in number, 3rd person singular—3rd
person plural
Exod. 10:12 M4Qc ≠ SamP ‫ = את‬SamP+: nota accusativi 277
Exod. 10:12 MSamP ≠ G ‫—בארבה‬ἀκρις: different location and
different function. The Hebrew ‫בארבה‬
is still part of the imperative clause ‫נטה‬,
while the Greek makes ἀκρις subject of
the following verb ἀναβητω.278
Exod. 10:12 MSamP ≠ G την = G+: definite article279
Exod. 10:12 MSamP ≠ G ‫ = מצרים‬MSamP+
Exod. 10:12 M4Qc ≠ GSamP τον καρπον των ξυλων , ‫= פרי העץ‬
GSamP+280 Compare with Exod. 10:5.
274
275
Cf. supra n. 126.
276
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 150: ‘The use of αὐτοι as a substitute for the second per-
sonal pronoun . . .’
277
For 4Qc see E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 112: ‘The spacing in line 14 some-
what favours the shorter reading ‫ =( נטה ידך‬M) rather than ‫ =( נטה את ידך‬SamP).’
278
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 151; A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie,
138. See also Z. Frankel, Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese, 76.
279
See J.W. Wevers, Notes, 151: ‘Γην Αἰγυπτου is never articulated after its first occur-
rence at 8:6; on the other hand, when γην has no modifier it always has the article; thus ἐπι
γην Αἰγυπτου and ἐπι την γην always contrast as in this verse. Incidentally γης Αἰγυπτου
is never articulated in Exod either, nor is γῃ Αἰγυπτῳ (or Αἰγυπτου).’
280
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 151; A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 138.
For 4Qc see E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 112: ‘The spacing in line 15 suggests
the shorter reading ‫ =( כל אשׁר‬M) rather than ‫ =( כל פרי העץ אשׁר‬SamP).’
Exod. 10:12 MSamP ≠ G ‫—השׁאיר‬ὑπελιπετο: different transla-

tion. Compare with Exod. 10:5 in
which the same verb ‫ שׁאר‬is translated
by κατελιπεν.281
Exod. 10:13 MSamP ≠ G ‫—ויט‬και ἐπηρεν: different translation.282
Exod. 10:13 MSamP ≠ G ‫ ו‬in ‫ מטהו‬and ‫ = ידו‬MSamP+: possessive
suffix
Exod. 10:13 MG ≠ SamP ‫מטה‬, ῥαβδον— ‫יד‬: difference in con-
tent
Exod. 10:13 MSamP ≠ G ‫—על ארץ מצרים‬εἰς τον οὐρανον: dif-
ference in content283
Exod. 10:13 MSamP ≠ G ‫—קדים‬νοτον: difference in content, east
wind as opposed to south wind284
Exod. 10:13 MSamP ≠ G ὁ = G+: definite article
Exod. 10:13 MSamP ≠ G ‫—קדים‬νοτον: difference in content, east
wind as opposed to south wind286
Exod. 10:14 MSamP ≠ G ‫ —ויעל הארבה‬και ἀνηγαγεν αὐτην :
different construction. In the Hebrew, a
new clause unit begins with the words
‫ויעל הארבה‬, in which locusts (‫)הארבה‬
are the subject of ‫ויעל‬. In English transla-
tion, therefore, the Hebrew texts runs as
follows: ‘and the locusts went up . . .’ The
Greek expression και ἀνηγαγεν αὐτην,
by contrast, constitutes the beginning of
the second part of a compound clause,
the first part of which in the preceding
verse (Exod. 10:13) runs as follows: και
ὁ ἀνεμος ὁ νοτος ἀνελαβεν την ἀκριδα.
Και ἀνηγαγεν αὐτην continues this
sentence. The subject of the first part,
ἀνεμος, continues to fulfil the same func-
281
282
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 152: ‘Unique is the use of ἐπαιρεω to render the Hiphil of
‫נטה‬.’ See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 138: ‘Le verbe fréquent
‫« נטה‬étendre», rendu habituellement par ἐκτεινειν, est rendu ici, cas unique dans la LXX,
par ἐπαιρειν, «lever».’ Cf. infra on translation technique, p. 139.
283
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 151–152. See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible
284
Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 138: ‘La direction du vent
n’est pas la même dans la LXX et dans le TM: pour des observateurs placés en Égypte,
ce n’est pas de l’est, mais du «sud» (ou du sud-ouest) que peuvent venir les criquets.’ See
also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 152.
285
Cf. supra n. 21.
286
tion with respect to the verb ἀνηγαγεν, of

which αὐτην, referring to την ἀκριδα, is
the object.287 The respective verbs ‫ויעל‬
and ἀνηγαγεν have a different meaning.
Exod. 10:14 MSamP ≠ G ‫—וינח‬και κατεπαυσεν: in the Greek
version, the subject of κατεπαυσεν (with
which a new clause begins) now becomes
the αὐτην (locusts) from the end of the
previous clause. This is evident from the
nominative feminine singular of πολλη in
the expression πολλη σφοδρα.288 The tex-
tual versions thereby run parallel again.
Exod. 10:14 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫—היה‬γιγνεσθαι: different translation289
Exod. 10:14 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫—כן כמהו‬τοιαυτη: different location.
The Greek has simplified the compound
Hebrew formula ‫ כן כמהו‬in the singular
τοιαυτη.290
Exod. 10:15 MSamP ≠ G ‫ = כל‬MSamP+: adjective
Exod. 10:15 MSamP ≠ G4Qc ‫—ותחשׁך‬και ἐφθαρη, ‫ותשׁחת‬: different
meaning
Exod. 10:15 MSamP ≠ G ‫ —פרי‬καρπον : difference in number,
plural—collective singular
Exod. 10:15 MSamP ≠ G ‫—העץ‬των ξυλων: difference in number,
Exod. 10:15 MSamP ≠ G ‫—הותיר‬ὑπελειφθη: different translation.
Elsewhere also the equivalent of ‫שׁאר‬.291
Exod. 10:15 MSamP ≠ G ‫—אשׁר הותיר הברד‬ὁς ὑπελειφθη ἀπο
της χαλαζης: different construction. The
Hebrew clauses are active, with ‫הברד‬
as subject and the antecedent of ‫אשׁר‬,
being ‫פרי העץ‬, as object. The Greek verb
ὑπελειφθη is passive. The subject is the
relative ὁς in the nominative and ἀπο
της χαλαζης is the agent.292 ’Απο = G+:
preposition that designates the agent in
the genitive. The verbs are parallel nev-
ertheless in the remainder of the verse:
‫—נותר‬ὑπελειφθη.
Exod. 10:15 MSamP ≠ G ‫ ו‬in ‫ = ולא‬MSamP+: conjunction
287
Cf. also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 138. See likewise J.W.
Wevers, Notes, 152.
288
289
Cf. supra n. 21.
290
291
Cf. supra n. 281.
292
Exod. 10:15 MSamP ≠ G ‫—נותר‬ὑπελειφθη: different translation.

Elsewhere also the equivalent of ‫( שׁאר‬in
10:12 for example).293
Exod. 10:15 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫—ירק‬χλωρον: different location
Exod. 10:15 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫ = כל‬MSamP4Qc+
Exod. 10:15 MSamP4Qc ≠ G οὐδεν = G+: reinforcement of the first
negation οὐχ294
Exod. 10:15 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫—בעץ‬ἐν τοις ξυλοις: difference in num-
Exod. 10:15 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫—וב‬και ἐν: different location
Exod. 10:15 MSamP4Qc ≠ G πασῃ = G+: adjective295
Exod. 10:16 MSamP ≠ G ‫ ל‬in ‫ = למשׁה‬MSamP+: preposition
Exod. 10:16 MSamP ≠ G ‫ ל‬in ‫ = לאהרן‬MSamP+: preposition
Exod. 10:16 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫ ל‬in ‫—ליהוה‬ἐναντιον: different transla-
tion296
Exod. 10:16 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫ ל‬in ‫—ולכם‬εἰς: different translation297
Exod. 10:17 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫ = ועתה‬MSamP4Qc+: particle298
Exod. 10:17 M ≠ GSamP4Qc ‫ —שׂא‬προσδεξασθε , ‫שׂאו‬: difference
in number, 2nd person singular—2nd
person plural
Exod. 10:17 MSamP ≠ G ‫—הפעם‬νυν: different expression, this
time—now
Exod. 10:17 MSamP ≠ G ‫—עתר‬προσευχεσθαι: different transla-
tion. In the same verse, ‫ עתר‬is also
translated by εὐχεσθαι.299 The prepo-
sition προς employed in relation to
προσευχεσθαι at this juncture is never-
theless repeated in relation to κυριον.
Exod. 10:17 M ≠ G ≠ SamP ‫—ל‬προς—‫אל‬: different prepositions
Exod. 10:17 MSamP ≠ G ‫ = רק‬MSamP+: particle
Exod. 10:18 MSamP ≠ G ‫—מעם‬ἀπο: different translation300
Exod. 10:18 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫—עתר‬εὐχεσθαι: different translation.301
Cf. supra in the same verse.
293
Cf. supra n. 281.
294
295
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 154: ‘Exod has πασῃ before βοτανῃ over against all other
ancient witnesses, but this is consistent with his practice elsewhere (9:22,25 10:12).’
296
Cf. supra n. 24. See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 139:
‘LXX: «devant Seigneur» (cf. Targum: «devant YHWH»)—TM: «contre YHWH».’
297
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 154. According to Wevers, the different prepositions serve
to emphasis the difference between YHWH and his emissaries.
298
299
300
Cf. supra n. 52.
301
Cf. supra n. 299.
Exod. 10:18 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫—יהוה‬τον θεον: different translation. The

term κυριος serves for the most part as
the equivalent of ‫יהוה‬.302
Exod. 10:19 MSamP ≠ G ἀπο = G+: preposition303
Exod. 10:19 MSamP ≠ G ‫—חזק מאד‬σφοδρον: different descrip-
tion, very strong—mighty.304
Exod. 10:19 M ≠ G ≠ SamP ‫—ימה סוף‬εἰς την ἐρυθραν θαλασσαν—
‫ים סוף‬: different expression for designat-
ing direction. M employs a locative ‫ה‬-.
G uses the preposition εἰς. SamP does
not indicate direction.
Exod. 10:19 MSamP ≠ G ‫—נשׁאר‬ὑπελειφθη: different translation.
Elsewhere (e.g. Exod. 10:15) also the
equivalent of ‫יתר‬.306
Exod. 10:19 MSamP4Qm4Qc ≠ G ‫—גבול‬γῃ: different translation.307
Exod. 10:20 MSamP ≠ G ‫—שׁלח‬ἐξαπεστειλεν: different transla-
28, 35 and 10:3, 4, 7, 10.
Exod. 10:21 MGSamP ≠ 4Qm ‫ויאמר‬, εἰπεν δε—‫וידבר‬: different verb
Exod. 10:21 M ≠ SamP ‫ = את‬SamP+: nota accusativi
Exod. 10:21 MSamP ≠ G ‫—על‬εἰς: different translation;309 ἐπι is
generally employed as the equivalent of
‫( על‬see further in the same verse).
Exod. 10:21 MGSamP ≠ 4Qm ‫וימשׁ )ה (חשׁך‬, ψηλαφητον σκοτος =
MGSamP+
Exod. 10:21 MG ≠ SamP ‫ ה‬in ‫ = החשׁך‬SamP+: definite article
Exod. 10:22 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫ ו‬in ‫ = ידו‬MSamP4Qm+: possessive suffix
Exod. 10:22 MSamP ≠ G ‫—על‬εἰς: different translation310 ’Επι is
generally employed as the equivalent of
‫( על‬cf., for example, Exod. 10:21).
302
Cf. supra n. 126.
303
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 155: ‘MT simply refers to a “west wind”, but Exod renders
‫ ים‬as ἀπο θαλασσης. This makes sense to an Alexandrian: a wind from the sea is either
north or west; such a wind towards the ἐρυθραν θαλασσαν would have to be from the
west and slightly north.’
304
305
306
Cf. supra n. 281.
307
Cf. supra n. 97. See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 156: ‘Exod repeats v. 15 in ἐν πασῃ
γῃ Αἰγυπτου, whereas MT uses ‫“ גבול‬border(s)” rather than ‫ארץ‬.’
308
Cf. supra n. 121.
309
Cf. supra n. 210.
310
Cf. supra n. 210.

Exod. 10:22 MSamP ≠ G θυελλα = G+312
Exod. 10:23 MSamP ≠ G ‫ —ראו‬εἰδεν : difference in number,
plural—singular313
Exod. 10:23 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫—קמו‬ἐξανεστη: difference in number,
plural—singular
Exod. 10:23 MSamP ≠ G ‫—מתחתיו‬ἐκ της κοιτης αὐτου: seman-
tic agreement at the level of content
without literal equivalent. The Hebrew
has ‫‘ מתחתיו‬from what is under him’,
in other words a place to sit, rest or lie
down. The Greek, on the other hand,
employs a more specific term, namely
κοιτη (bed or place of rest).314
Exod. 10:23 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫ ל‬in ‫ = ולכל‬MSamP4Qm+: preposition.
The meaning of this preposition is ren-
dered in the Greek, however, with the
dative πασιν.
Exod. 10:23 MSamP ≠ G ‫—ב‬ἐν: different location
Exod. 10:23 MSamP ≠ G πασιν = G+: adjective315
Exod. 10:24 MSamP4Qm ≠ G4Qc ‫אל‬, ‫ = ל‬MSamP4Qm+: preposition
Exod. 10:24 M ≠ SamP4Qm ‫ל—אל‬: different preposition
Exod. 10:24 M4Qc ≠ GSamP4Qm και αἀρων, ‫ = ולאהר)ו(ן‬GSamP4Qm+
Exod. 10:24 G ≠ SamP4Qm ‫ = ל‬SamP4Qm+: preposition
Exod. 10:24 MGSamP4Qc ≠ 4Qm ‫ויאמר‬, λεγων — ‫ויאמרו‬: difference in
number, singular—plural. According to
DJD 9, this difference should not be
counted as a variant because the waw in
question is not clearly legible.316
311
Cf. supra n. 21.
312
Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 156. See likewise A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible
d’Alexandrie, 140: ‘La LXX comporte une formule à trois termes dont le dernier, θυελλα,
(«ouragan»), n’a pas de correspondant dans le TM. Il semble que la traduction grecque
ait subi l’influence subséquente du Dt LXX (4,11; 5,22), dont les expressions rendent
d’autres termes de l’hébreu.’
313
See J.W. Wevers, Notes, 157: ‘The first two clauses have plural verbs, ‫ ראו‬and ‫קמו‬,
which Exod renders by the singular in congruence with οὐδεις.’
314
d’Alexandrie, 140: ‘La traduction par «lit (κοιτη)» précise une localisation plus vague en
hébreu.’
315
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 157: ‘The πασιν renders explicit what is only implicit in
MT.’ See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 140: ‘L’addition de
«partout» souligne le privilège des «fils d’Israël».’
316
Cf. P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 83: ‘‫ ויאמרו‬is not included as
a variant because the distinctive final letter is uncertain.’
Exod. 10:24 MSamP4Qm4Qc ≠ G (‫—ויאמר)ו‬λεγων: different verb form

Exod. 10:24 MSamP ≠ G τῳ θεῳ ὑμων = G+.317 Compare with
Exod. 10:26.
Exod. 10:24 MSamP ≠ G ‫—צאן‬προβατων: difference in number,
Exod. 10:24 MSamP ≠ G ‫ כם‬in ‫ = צאנכם‬MSamP+: possessive
suffix
Exod. 10:24 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫—בקר‬βοων: difference in number, col-
lective singular—plural
Exod. 10:24 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫ כם‬in ‫ = בקרכם‬MSamP4Qm+: possessive
suffix
Exod. 10:24 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫—יצג‬ὑπολειπεσθε: difference in number,
singular—plural,318 and different trans-
lation.319 ὑπολειπειν is also employed
elsewhere as the equivalent of ‫ שׁאר‬and
‫( יתר‬cf. Exod. 10:12, 15, 19, 26).
Exod. 10:25 MSamP ≠ G ἀλλα = G+: adversative particle
Exod. 10:25 MSamP ≠ G ‫—בידנו‬ἡμιν: different expression, parallel
meaning.
Exod. 10:25 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫ —זבחים ועלות‬ὁλοκαυτωματα και
θυσιας: different location, reverse order320
Exod. 10:25 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ἁ = G+: relative in the neuter plural because
the two antecedents ὁλοκαυτωματα και
θυσιας are of different gender.321
Exod. 10:25 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫ ו‬in ‫ = ועשׁינו‬MSamP4Qm+: conjunction
Exod. 10:25 MSamP ≠ G ‫ ל‬in ‫ = ליהוה‬MSamP+: preposition. In the
Greek, however, this word is expressed
by the dative. The term κυριῳ is also
found elsewhere as the equivalent of ‫את‬
‫יהוה‬. Cf., for example, Exod. 10:24, 26
(twice).
317
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 157: ‘MT has ‫ את יהוה‬modifying the imperative, whereas
Exod amplifies κυριῳ by τῳ θεῳ ὑμων as in vv. 25, 26; in fact Exod always has “wor-
ship the Lord” with the accompanying modifier “your (or their) God”.’ See also A. Le
Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 140: ‘LXX: «Seigneur votre Dieu» (cf.
10,25.26)—TM: «YHWH»’
318
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 157–158: ‘In MT ‫ צאנכם‬and ‫ בקרכם‬constitute the com-
pound subject of the Hophal ‫יצג‬, singular by attraction to the nearer unit: “your sheep
and your cattle will be detained”. Exod has quite a different construction. The pronouns
are omitted both for προβατων and for βοων, . . ., and the genitive nouns modify the verb
ὑπολειπεσθε, a present plural imperative: “only the sheep and the cattle leave behind”.’
319
Cf. supra n. 281.
320
321
Exod. 10:25 MSamP ≠ G τῳ = G+: definite article. MSamP is also

defined, however, on account of the pos-
sessive suffix.
Exod. 10:26 M4Qm ≠ GSamP ‫—מקננו‬τα κτηνη ἡμων, ‫מקנינו‬: difference
in number, singular—plural. The Greek
verb form πορευσεται is in the singular
because the subject (τα κτηνη) is a neuter
plural.322
Exod. 10:26 MSamP ≠ G4Qm ‫—תשׁאר‬ὑπολειψομεθα, ‫נשׁאר‬: different
person, 3rd person feminine singular (in
relation to ‫—)פרסה‬1st person plural.323
Different translation.324
Exod. 10:26 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫—כי‬γαρ: different location
Exod. 10:26 MSamP ≠ G ‫—ממנו‬ἀπ’ αὐτων: difference in number,
singular—plural. M agrees with the sin-
gular ‫מקננו‬, G with the plural τα κτηνη
ἡμων. SamP, which employs the singular
‫ ממנו‬at this juncture in line with M,
does not agree with its preceding plural
‫מקנינו‬.
Exod. 10:26 MSamP4Qm ≠ G τῳ = G+: definite article. MSamP4Qm is
possessive suffix.
Exod. 10:26 MSamP ≠ G τῳ θεῳ ἡμων = G+. Compare with Exod.
10:24.
Exod. 10:27 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫—ולא אבה‬και οὐκ ἐβουληθη: different
translation.325
Exod. 10:27 MSamP ≠ G ‫—שׁלח‬ἐξαποστειλαι: different transla-
28, 35 and 10:3, 4, 7, 10, 20.
Exod. 10:28 MSamP ≠ G ‫—ויאמר‬και λεγει: different verb form.
The Greek employs a historical present.
Exod. 10:28 MSamP ≠ G ‫ = לו‬MSamP+: preposition with 3rd
person masculine singular suffix
Exod. 10:28 MG ≠ SamP ‫ = לך‬SamP+: preposition with 2nd person
singular suffix. Reflexive meaning. Cf.
further in the present verse where MSamP
322
Cf. in this regard I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Die Konstruktion des Verbs bei einem
Neutrum Plural im Griechischen Pentateuch’, in A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari
Soisalon-Soininen, 189–199, esp. 196.
323
Cf. also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 140.
324
Cf. supra n. 281.
325
Cf. supra n. 249.
326
Cf. supra n. 121.
have ‫ לך‬and G employs the reflexive pro-

noun σεαυτῳ as equivalent.
Exod. 10:28 M ≠ G ≠ SamP ‫— ֶאל‬ἐτι— ‫ ַאל‬: wrong vocalisation. M
(Codex Leningradensis) vocalises ‫ ֶאל‬as
the preposition ‘to’, although this inter-
pretation does not fit the context, which
appears to expect a command (negation
‫ ַאל‬in association with the verb ‫)תסף‬.
According to the text-critical apparatus
of BHS, several other M-manuscripts
have precisely this meaning and vocalise
‫ ַאל‬as a negation. From the contextual
perspective such a reading is clearly more
appropriate. On the basis of this obser-
vation, we presuppose that SamP also
understood ‫ ַאל‬as a negation. The Greek
text employs ἐτι. According to Wevers, G
also read ‫ ַאל‬as a negation, in spite of the
fact that the use of the particle ἐτι does
not offer a literal equivalent thereof.327
Exod. 10:28 MSamP ≠ G το in μου το προσωπον = G+: definite
article. The Hebrew is also defined,
however, on account of the possessive
suffix.
Exod. 10:28 MSamP ≠ G ‫—כי‬δε: parallel meaning, although ‫ כי‬is
frequently rendered elsewhere by γαρ.
Exod. 10:28 MSamP ≠ G ‫—כי ביום ראתך‬ᾑ δ’αν ἡμερᾳ: differ-
ent construction, infinitive construct—
relative clause.328
Exod. 10:28 MSamP ≠ G ‫—ראתך פני‬ὀφθῃς μοι: different construc-
tion. The Hebrew has a qal infinitive
construct with a 2nd person masculine
singular as subject and ‫ פני‬as object.
The Greek, on the other hand, employs
a passive aorist 2nd person masculine
singular with the dative μοι as agent. In
terms of content, this means that in the
first instance (MSamP) it is a question of
Moses seeing Pharaoh, and in the second
instance (G) of Pharaoh seeing Moses
(Moses being seen by Pharaoh).329 It is
327
328
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 160: ‘The relative clause which follows is a translation of a
preposition with infinitive in MT; it is introduced in MT by a causal ‫כי‬, but Exod uses δε.’
329
probably because of this content related

difference in interpretation that G like-
wise does not translate the Hebrew ‫פני‬
in the same way as it did earlier in the
same verse where ‫ פני‬is rendered liter-
ally by μου το προσωπον. In the passive
construction employed here, however, ‫פני‬
is translated by the dative μοι.
Exod. 10:29 MSamP ≠ G ‫—ויאמר‬λεγει δε: different verb form.
The Greek employs a historical present.
Exod. 10:29 MSamP ≠ G ‫ = כן‬MSamP+: particle
Exod. 10:29 MSamP ≠ G ‫—דברת‬εἰρηκας: different translation.
For the most part, λεγειν serves as the
equivalent of ‫ אמר‬and λαλειν as the
equivalent of ‫דבר‬.330
Exod. 10:29 MSamP ≠ G ‫—לא עוד‬οὐκετι: different location
Exod. 10:29 MSamP ≠ G ‫ = א)ו(סף‬MSamP+
Exod. 10:29 MSamP ≠ G ‫—לא א)ו(סף ראות פניך‬οὐκετι ὀφθησομαι
σοι εἰς προσωπον: different construction.
According to Wevers, respectively parallel
with v. 28.331
Exod. 11:1 MSamP ≠ G ‫—אחד‬μιαν: different location
Exod. 11:1 MSamP ≠ G ‫—ישׁלח‬ἐξαποστελει: different transla-
28, 35 and 10:3, 4, 7, 10, 20, 27.
Exod. 11:1 MSamP ≠ G ‫—כשׁלחו‬ὁταν δε ἐξαποστελλῃ: different
construction. The Hebrew employs an
infinitive construct with the 3rd person
masculine singular suffix as subject. The
Greek, by contrast, contains a finite verb
in the 3rd person masculine singular in
relation to the conditional ὁταν. More-
over, again a different translation.333 Com-
pare also with Exod. 9:27, 28, 35; 10:3,
4, 7, 10, 20, 27 and supra in the pres-
ent verse.
330
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 160. See also supra n. 15.
331
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 160: ‘The ὀφθησομαι σοι of the last clause parallels ὀφθῃς
μοι of v. 28. So too MT with its ‫ לא אסף עוד ראות פניך‬parallels the ‫אל תסף ראות פני‬
of v. 28 except for the added ‫עוד‬, which may be the source for the peculiar ἐτι of v. 28. Over
against v. 28 Exod abbreviates considerably. The verb “to repeat” is omitted in favor of the
ἐτι in οὐκετι, admittedly a much better rendering. But the σοι εἰς προσωπον is also peculiar,
and the clause probably means “I will not again appear to you in person”, i.e. visually.’
332
Cf. supra n. 121.
333
Cf. supra n. 121.
Exod. 11:1 MSamP ≠ G ὑμας = G+: personal pronoun in the

accusative, object of ἐξαποστελλω.
Exod. 11:1 MSamP ≠ G ‫—גרשׁ יגרשׁ‬ἐκβαλει ἐκβολῃ: the Greek
endeavours to offer a literal equivalent of
the Hebrew text although it nevertheless
employs a different construction. The
Hebrew repeats the same verb, once in
finite form and once in the infinitive.
The Greek also repeats the same verbal
root, but once in the form of a finite
verb and once in the form of a related
substantive.334
Exod. 11:1 MSamP ≠ G ‫—אתכם‬ὑμας: different location
Exod. 11:1 MSamP ≠ G ‫ = מזה‬MSamP+
Exod. 11:2 MSamP ≠ G κρυφῃ = G+335
Exod. 11:2 MSamP ≠ G ‫—וישׁאלו‬και αἰτησατω: difference in
number, 3rd person plural—3rd person
singular
Exod. 11:2 MSamP ≠ G ‫ ו‬in ‫ = רעהו‬MSamP+: possessive suffix
Exod. 11:2 MSamP ≠ G ‫ ה‬in ‫ = רעותה‬MSamP+: possessive suffix
Exod. 11:2 MSamP ≠ G ‫ = כלי‬MSamP+
Exod. 11:2 M ≠ GSamP και ἱματισμον, ‫ = ושׁמלות‬GSamP+ (com-
pare with Exod. 3:22 and 12:35!)336
Exod. 11:2 G ≠ SamP και ἱματισμον—‫ושׁמלות‬: difference in
number, (collective) singular—plural
Exod. 11:3 MSamP2Qa ≠ G ‫ ו‬in ‫ויתן‬, ‫—ונתתי‬δε: different location
Exod. 11:3 MSamP2Qa ≠ G ‫ויתן‬, ‫—ונתתי‬ἐδωκεν: different location337
Exod. 11:3 MG2Qa ≠ SamP ‫ויתן‬, ἐδωκεν—‫ונתתי‬: different verb form,
3rd person singular—1st person singu-
lar. The 3rd person singular in MG2Qa
agrees with the account of the ‘despoiling
motif ’ in Exod. 12:36. The 1st person
singular of SamP is parallel with the
version of Exod. 3:21.
334
335
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 162: ‘Exod also adds κρυφῃ, i.e. “speak secretly”, though
MT simply has ‫דבר נא‬. The translator thereby makes explicit what is implicit in MT.’
See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 141.
336
Cf. also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 141: ‘Selon sa ten-
dance harmonisante, la LXX introduit ici les «vêtements» (και ἱματισμον): cf. Ex 3,22
et 12,35.’
337
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 162: ‘Exod has changed the usual order: verb—subject, with
κυριος standing first, thereby paralleling the second clause pattern where ὁ ἀνθρωπος
Μωυσης also precedes the predicate.’
Exod. 11:3 MG2Qa ≠ SamP ‫יהוה‬, κυριος = MG2Qa+: the subject of

the 3rd person singular is expressed,
while SamP had already implied the 1st
person singular as subject in the form of
the verb. Parallel once again with Exod.
12:36 and 3:21 respectively.
Exod. 11:3 MSamP4Qa ≠ G την = G+: definite article. The Hebrew,
however, is also defined on account of
the nota accusativi.
Exod. 11:3 M2Qa ≠ G ≠ SamP αὐτου = G+: possessive pronoun (‘his
people’);338 ‫ = הזה‬SamP+: demonstrative
pronoun (‘this people’)
Exod. 11:3 MSamP2Qa ≠ G ‫—בעיני‬ἐναντιον: different formulation
for the same semantic datum339
Exod. 11:3 M2Qa ≠ GSamP και ἐχρησαν αὐτοις , ‫= והשׁאילום‬
GSamP+ (cf. Exod. 12:36)340
Exod. 11:3 MG2Qa ≠ SamP The second part of verse 3, from ‫גם האישׁ‬
to ‫ ובעיני העם‬and in the Greek from
και ὁ ἀνθρωπος to των θεραποντων
αὐτου, is in a different location in SamP,
namely at the end of the larger plus
Exod. 11:3b. The text of this expansion
(SamP Exod. 11:3b) is identical to the
textual versions M and 2Qa in Exod.
11:3 and exhibits the same differences
with respect to G.341
Exod. 11:3 MSamP2Qa ≠ G ἐγενηθη = G+: G expresses the verb
γιγνεσθαι in contrast to the Hebrew
nominal clause.
Exod. 11:3 MSamP ≠ 2Qa ≠ G ‫ = בארץ‬MSamP+, ‫ = בתוך ארץ‬2Qa +.
MSamP and 2Qa contain different prepo-
sitions: ‫( ב‬MSamP) and ‫( בתוך‬2Qa).
Exod. 11:3 MSamP2Qa ≠ G ἐναντιον = G+: preposition
Exod. 11:3 MSamP2Qa ≠ G ‫—מצרים‬των αἰγυπτιων: The Hebrew
‫ מצרים‬would appear to be geographical
(‫ בארץ מצרים‬and ‫)בתוך ארץ מצרים‬,
338
Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 142: ‘La LXX précise: «son
peuple».’
339
Cf. supra n. 24.
340
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 163: ‘The clause και ἐχρησαν αὐτοις is based on ‫והשׁאלום‬:
see Sam and 12:36.’; and Ibidem, 162–163: ‘The fact is that all of v. 3a is based on a
parent text equalling 12:36a.’ See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie,
142: ‘La LXX précise: «son peuple», et insère dans ce contexte la formule, absente ici du
TM, d’Ex 12,36: «et ils leur prêtèrent» (και ἐχρησαν αὐτοις).’
341
For this reason, the variants—including those in relation to SamP—have already
been registered here.
while the Greek employs των αἰγυπτιων

to refer to the inhabitants of Egypt. Cf.
also the preposition ἐναντιον, a plus that
arises from this variant interpretation.342
Exod. 11:3 MSamP2Qa ≠ G και ἐναντιον φαραω = G+
Exod. 11:3 MSamP2Qa ≠ G παντων = G+: adjective
Exod. 11:3 MSamP2Qa ≠ G ‫—פרעה‬αὐτου: substantive—possessive
pronoun
Exod. 11:3 MSamP2Qa ≠ G ‫ = ובעיני העם‬MSamP2Qa+343
Exod. 11:3b MG2Qa ≠ SamP4Qm 11:3b = SamP4Qm+: larger plus.344 From
the beginning, ‫ וכחצית הלילה‬to ‫ובין‬
‫ישׂראל‬, Exod. 11:3b SamP agrees with
Exod. 11:4b–7 MGSamP4Ql2Qa. What
follows, from ‫ וגם האישׁ‬to ‫ובעיני העם‬,
agrees with the end of Exod. 11:3
MG2Qa which is in a different location
in SamP. Finally, the last part of the
larger plus Exod. 11:3b, from ‫ויאמר‬
‫ משׁה‬to the end ‫את בנך בכורך‬, exhibits
much similarity with Exod. 4:22–23
MGSamP.345
Exod. 11:4 MGSamP ≠ 2Qa ‫ = אל פרעה‬2Qa+
Exod. 11:4 MG2Qa ≠ SamP ‫ = ארץ‬SamP+
Exod. 11:5 MSamP2Qa ≠ G ‫ ו‬in ‫ = כסאו‬MSamP2Qa+: possessive
suffix
Exod. 11:5 MSamP2Qa ≠ G ‫—הי)ו(שׁב‬ὁς καθηται: different construc-
tion. The Hebrew employs a participle
while the Greek offers a relative clause
with a finite verb.
342
343
Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 142: ‘Un écart plus impor-
tant par rapport au TM est l’absence dans la LXX de toute mention du «peuple», comme
si la célébrité de Moïse était limitée à la cour de Pharaon: il est peu vraisemblable que
cela soit intentionnel; c’est peut-être le témoin d’une lecture ancienne, plus brève, déjà
inconnue du Targum.’
344
The text of Exod. 11:3b has not been preserved in 4Qm. On the basis of a recon-
struction of 4Qm, however, it has been suggested that 4Qm, in line with SamP, contained
such an expansion. Cf. P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 67, 84–85.
With respect to 4Ql, which has not preserved a text of Exod. 11:3, it has been suggested
nonetheless on the basis of information gleaned from Exod. 11:4 that the manuscript in
question did not contain the larger plus in Exod. 11:3b. See in this regard Ibidem, 32:
‘The fact that 11:4 begins on the right margin suggests that the preceding line ended
with an interval, a possible indication that the major expansion 11:3b of 4QpaleoExodm
and SamP was not present in this MS.’
345
The Qumran manuscripts (4Qm, 4Ql, 2Qa, 4Qc, 4Qa and 4Qj) have not preserved
the text of Exod. 4:22–23.
Exod. 11:5 MSamP2Qa ≠ G του with θρονου = G+: definite article.

The Hebrew, however, is also defined on
account of the possessive suffix.346
Exod. 11:5 M2Qa ≠ GSamP ‫ = כל‬M2Qa+: adjective
Exod. 11:5 M2Qa ≠ GSamP ἑως—‫ = עד‬GSamP+: particle
Exod. 11:5 M2Qa ≠ GSamP παντος— ‫ = כל‬GSamP+: adjective. As
such, M2Qa and GSamP exhibit the
reversed order. M2Qa speaks of ‘all the
firstborn of the livestock’, while GSamP
speaks of ‘the firstborn of all livestock’.347
Exod. 11:5 MSamP2Qa ≠ G ‫—בהמה‬κτηνους: different translation348
Exod. 11:6 MG4Ql2Qa ≠ SamP ‫כל ארץ‬, πασαν γην = MG4Ql2Qa+
Exod. 11:6 MSamP2Qa ≠ G ‫—אשׁר‬ἡτις: different rendition of ‫ אשׁר‬349
Exod. 11:6 MSamP2Qa ≠ G ‫—לא‬οὐκετι: ἐτι in οὐκετι = G+. The
repetition is thereby emphasised.350
Exod. 11:7 MSamP2Qa ≠ G ‫ ו‬in ‫ = ועד‬MSamP2Qa+: conjunction351
Exod. 11:7 MSamP2Qa ≠ G ‫—בהמב‬κτηνους: different translation352
Exod. 11:7 MSamP4Ql2Qa ≠ G ‫—למען‬ὁπως: different translation353
Exod. 11:7 M4Ql2Qa ≠ GSamP ‫—תדעון‬εἰδῃς, ‫תדע‬: difference in number.
M4Ql2Qa have a 2nd person plural in
contrast to G and SamP which have a
2nd person singular.
Exod. 11:7 MSamP4Ql2Qa ≠ G ‫ —אשׁר‬ὁσα : different rendition of
‫אשׁר‬354
Exod. 11:7 MSamP2Qa ≠ G ‫—מצרים‬των αἰγυπτιων: the Hebrew
‫ מצרים‬represents a geographical reference
to the land of Egypt while the Greek
346
See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 164.
347
See J.W. Wevers, Notes, 164. Cf. also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie,
142: ‘Le fait qu’en règle générale πας («tout») précède le nom qu’il détermine amène à
traduire «premier-né de tout bétail», ce qui diffère du TM: «tout premier-né du bétail» (de
même en 12,29, où l’Alexandrinus comporte une correction d’après l’hébreu). Le Pent. sam.
s’accorde avec la LXX, qui dépend donc probablement d’un texte différent du TM.’
348
Cf. supra n. 195.
349
Cf. supra n. 55.
350
See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 164: ‘For MT’s ‫ לא תסף‬Exod not only uses the negative
οὐκ and the verb but adds ἐτι to the negative to reinforce the notion of repetition as at
8:29 10:28.’ There would appear to be an error in Wevers’ text with respect to the verse
references. In the present author’s opinion, verses 9:28 and 10:29 are intended. As a matter
of fact, neither Exod. 8:29 (25) or Exod. 10:28 contain any trace of the term οὐκετι.
351
Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 164: ‘The word ‫ עד‬can be rendered either by ἑως or by
και ἑως, but in the pattern: “from x up to y” Exod only uses και ἑως when a coordinate
ἑως phrase obtains, i.e. “up to y και ἑως z”.’
352
Cf. supra n. 195.
353
Cf. supra n. 235.
354
Cf. supra n. 55.
των αἰγυπτιων alludes to the inhabitants

of Egypt. Cf. also των = G+: definite
article.
Exod. 11:7 MSamP2Qa ≠ G ‫ = בין‬MSamP2Qa+: particle355
Exod. 11:7 MSamP2Qa ≠ G του = G+: definite article
Exod. 11:8 MSamP4Ql ≠ G ‫—עבדיך‬παιδες σου: different transla-
tion. The term θεραποντες is frequently
employed as the Greek equivalent of
‫עבדים‬.356 Cf., for example, Exod. 11:3.
Exod. 11:8 MSamP4Ql ≠ G οἱ = G+: definite article. The Hebrew is
possessive suffix.
Exod. 11:8 M ≠ SamP(G) ‫וישׁתחוו—והשׁתחוו‬: different verb forms,
hištaph’al qatal—hištaph’al yiqtol 357 As a
future form, the Greek προσκυνησουσιν
is probably closer to the yiqtol of SamP
than to the qatal of M.358
Exod. 11:8 MSamP4Qm ≠ G σου = G+: possessive pronoun359
Exod. 11:8 MSamP4Ql ≠ G ‫—אשׁר ברגליך‬οὑ συ ἀφηγῃ: different
construction. After the ‘relative’ ‫אשׁר‬,
the Hebrew textual versions employ a
nominal clause without verb (‫ )ברגליך‬of
which the people (‫ )העם‬are the subject.
According to Wevers, the Greek οὑ by
contrast should not be understood as a
relative but rather as the adverbial ‘there
where’.360 A finite verb form (ἀφηγῃ)
follows the said adverbial οὑ with συ
(Moses) as subject.361
355
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 165: ‘Exod does not repeat the “between” before the second
noun as MT does. . . . Actually Exod otherwise always repeats the ἀνα μεσον before a
second noun!’
356
Cf. infra under translation technique, p. 139.
357
Cf. J.P. Lettinga, T. Muraoka, W.T. Van Peursen, Grammatica, 80, §42q, esp.
132–133, §58x.
358
See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 165: ‘Somewhat unusual is the use in the second clause
of προσκυνησουσιν με. It would normally mean “shall worship me” but it can hardly
mean that here. It translates the Hebrew ‫ ;השׁתחוה‬in fact, that Hebrew verb is only
rendered by προσκυνεω in LXX (except for the Aramaic part of Daniel where the verb
translates ‫)סגד‬. Obviously here “bowing down” does not mean “doing obeisance”, but
rather “begging, pleading, imploring”, as the context makes fully clear.’
359
360
Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 166: ‘The imperative is modified by a οὐ clause, whereas
MT has ‫אשׁר ברגליך‬, an idiomatic phrase meaning “who are in your train”, i.e. “who are
following you”. Exod makes something different; after the adverbial οὑ he has συ ἀφηγῃ,
a subjunctive from ἀφηγεομαι “to lead away from”, thus “where you might lead away”.’
361
It is perhaps possible, nevertheless, to understand the Greek οὑ as a relative in parallel

Exod. 11:8 MSamP4Qm ≠ G ‫—בחרי אף‬μετα θυμου: different expres-
sion362
‫—למען‬ἱνα: different translation363
Exod. 11:9 MSamP4Qm4Qc ≠ G ‫—רבות‬πληθυνω: different verb form:
infinitive—finite verb, 1st person sin-
gular. Different construction. In the
Hebrew text we observe an infinitive
construct ‫ רבות‬of which ‫ מופתי‬is the
subject: ‘in order that my wonders may
be multiplied’. In the Greek text, the
1st person singular of the finite verb
πληθυνω is the subject (God) and the
signs are the object: ‘in order that I may
multiply my signs and wonders’.364
Exod. 11:9 MSamP4Qm4Qc ≠ G τα σημεια και = G+365
Exod. 11:10 MSamP4Ql ≠ G τα σημεια και = G+
Exod. 11:10 MSamP ≠ G ἐν γῃ αἰγυπτῳ = G+ (cf. Exod. 11:9)366
with the Hebrew texts (‫)אשׁר‬. The relative οὑ agrees in gender and number with the
antecedent (ὁ λαος σου) and in this instance also adopts the case of its antecedent (rela-
tive attraction). However, the difficulty with this interpretation lies in the fact that the
relative in this instance has to adopt the case of the possessive pronoun in the antecedent
(σου: genitive), since ὁ λαος is in the nominative. The rule of attraction does not apply
to a nominative. In this respect, the relative is obliged to adopt the case relevant to its
function in the clause (in casu direct object) and as a consequence should be ὁν.
Note that a number of Greek manuscripts also contain a relative. Reference can be made
in this regard to J.W. Wevers (ed.), Exodus, 162 in the text-critical apparatus: ‘οὑ] ὁν 799;
οὑς 376 129 84 Syh’. Compare also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie,
143: ‘LXX: «que toi tu conduis»—TM: «qui est dans tes pieds».’ In this translation, the
authors would likewise appear to have interpreted the Greek lemma οὑ as a relative.
362
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 166: ‘Moses’ departure was μετα θυμου, a simplification of
but just as effective a phrase as MT’s ‫בחרי אף‬.’
363
Cf. supra n. 235.
364
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 166: ‘The divine purpose underlying Pharaoh’s continued
refusal to listen is stated in the ἱνα clause, “that I may multiply my signs and wonders in
the land of Egypt”. MT has a slightly more neutral statement, with ‫ למען‬governing the
infinitive ‫ רבות‬whose subject is ‫מופתי‬, i.e. “that my wonders may abound in the land
of Egypt”. [. . .] Exod also used a first person verb which makes κυριος the subject, and
“signs and wonders” the object of the verb.’
365
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 166 in which Wevers alludes to his observation in relation to
Exod. 7:3. See Ibidem, 93: ‘The divine promise to multiply his signs (cf. also 11:9) is par-
ticularly appropriate at the beginning of the narrative of the plagues here called τα σημεια
(μου) και τα τερατα (only elsewhere in 11:9,10). The double designation is appropriate
since the plagues were not only signs accompanying the communicated orders to release the
people but were in themselves “portents, wonders” displaying the divine power.’ See also
A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 143: ‘Selon la tendance harmonisante,
la LXX introduit les «signes» et la mention «au pays d’Égypte».’
366
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 167: ‘Exod was intent on a close parallel with the preceding
Exod. 11:10 MSamP ≠ G ‫—לפני‬ἐναντιον: different formulation

for the same semantic datum. Different
translation.367
m l c
Exod. 11:10 MSamP4Q 4Q 4Q ≠ G την with καρδιαν = G+: definite article.
The Hebrew is also defined, however, on
account of the nota accusativi.
Exod. 11:10 MSamP4Ql ≠ G ἠθελησεν = G+368
l
Exod. 11:10 MSamP4Q ≠ G ‫—שׁלח‬ἐξαποστειλαι: different transla-
28, 35; 10:3, 4, 7, 10, 20, 27 and 11:1.
Exod. 11:10 MSamP4Ql ≠ G ‫—מארצו‬ἐκ γης αἰγυπτου: Instead of the
Hebrew possessive suffix associated with
‫ארץ‬, the Greek employs the epexegetical
genitive αἰγυπτου in relation to γης.
verse where the phrase follows “signs and wonders”.’ See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir,
La Bible d’Alexandrie, 143.
367
Cf. supra n. 24.
368
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 167: ‘MT simply makes the blunt statement “he did not
send away (the Israelites)”, but Exod expands this to “he was unwilling to send away”
by which Pharaoh’s wilfulness is stressed.’ See also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible
d’Alexandrie, 143: ‘Le thème du consentement est absent du TM (cf. 8,28).’
369
Cf. supra n. 121.
CHAPTER THREE
TEXTCRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE VARIANTS

IN THE ‘PLAGUES NARRATIVE’
The comparison of the various textual witnesses to the ‘Plagues Narrative’

of Exod. 7:14–11:10 gave rise to a large number of variants of differing
character. The goal of the present chapter is to submit the said variants to
a text-critical evaluation. The first paragraph will be devoted to a study of
the translation technique of the Septuagint of Exodus, bearing in mind the
relevance of insight into translation character for the text-critical evaluation
of the variants. The second paragraph constitutes the actual evaluation of
the most important, ‘text-relevant’ variants from Exod. 7:14–11:10. The
third paragraph concludes the chapter with a text-critical evaluation of the
so-called major expansions or larger pluses in the ‘Plagues Narrative’.
The study of the translation character of LXX Exodus
The relevance of research into translation technique for text-critical

evaluation1
The variants registered and described in the process of comparing the
Septuagint with the Hebrew textual witnesses cannot all be traced back
to the Vorlage of the Greek text. Indeed, there can be little doubt that
many of the observed differences have their roots in the conscious or
unconscious intervention of the translator.2 If we intend to involve the
1
For a definition of what we understand by ‘translation technique’ see also supra, p. 24.
2
Cf. supra, pp. 18–19, 24. See also, for example, J.E. Sanderson, ‘The Old Greek of
Exodus in the Light of 4QPaleoExodm’, 87, 90–91; Idem, An Exodus Scroll, 247–256;
J. Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament, Winona Lake 21987,
245; E. Tov, ‘The Nature of the Hebrew Text Underlying the LXX. A Survey of the
Problems’, JSOT 7 (1978), 53–68, p. 60; Idem, The Text-Critical Use, 8, 9, 17, 33, 39,
128, 130–131, 154; Idem, ‘De tekst van het Oude Testament’, 238–240; Idem, ‘On
“Pseudo-variants” Reflected in the Septuagint’, JSS 20 (1975), 165–177, pp. 165–168;
Idem, ‘The Contribution of the Qumran Scrolls to the Understanding of the LXX’, in
G.J. Brooke, B. Lindars (eds), Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings: Papers Presented
to the International Symposium on the Septuagint and Its Relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls
and Other Writings (Manchester, 1990) (SBL SCS, 33), Atlanta 1992, 11–47, pp. 16, 22;
Idem, ‘Some Reflections on the Hebrew Texts from which the Septuagint Was Translated’,
study of the translation character of lxx exodus 97
Septuagint in text-critical research, we are obliged as a consequence to

submit its associated translation technique to a detailed study in the course
of our text-critical evaluation in an endeavour to determine the role of
the translator in the unearthed variants.3
A. Aejmelaeus is of the opinion, in this regard, that the employment of
the Septuagint in Old Testament textual criticism implies a correlation of
three conditions.4 In the first instance, we must be assured, on the basis
of a text-critical analysis of the Septuagint itself, that the text we have
at our disposal approaches the original Greek text to the highest degree.
In this regard, and as noted elsewhere in the present volume,5 one can
appeal to the work of a number of experts in the domain. Aejmelaeus
makes explicit reference to the text editions of the ‘Göttingen Akademie’.6
JNSL 19 (1993), 107–122, pp. 107, 116; E. Tov, B.G. Wright, ‘Computer-Assisted Study
of the Criteria for Assessing the Literalness of Translation-Units in the LXX’, Textus 12
(1985), 149–187, pp. 149–150; M. Vervenne, ‘Tekst en teksten’, 28–30; G. Marquis,
‘Word Order as a Criterion for the Evaluation of Translation Technique in the LXX and
the Evaluation of Word-Order Variants as Exemplified in LXX-Ezekiel’, Textus 13 (1986),
59–84, p. 67; C. Rabin, ‘The Translation Process and the Character of the Septuagint’,
Textus 6 (1968), 1–26, p. 1; A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Übersetzung als Schlüssel zum Original’,
156–157, 165; Idem, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors in the Syntactical and
Translation-Technical Study of the Septuagint’, in: C.E. Cox (ed.), Sixth Congress of the
International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Jerusalem, 1986 (SBL SCS,
23), Atlanta 1987, 361–380, p. 362; Idem, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew
Vorlage’, 66, 67, 73, 77, 86–87; Idem, ‘Septuagintal Translation Techniques: A Solution
to the Problem of the Tabernacle Account’, in: G.J. Brooke, B. Lindars, Septuagint, Scrolls
and Cognate Writings, 381–402, pp. 381, 387, 398; Idem, Parataxis in the Septuagint: A
Study of the Renderings of the Hebrew Coordinate Clauses in the Greek Pentateuch (AASF
Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum, 31), Helsinki 1982, 169.
3
Cf., for example, J.W. Wevers, ‘The Use of Versions’, 20–24; E. Tov, The Text-Critical
Use, 9, 17–19; A. Aejmelaeus, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 361–363; Idem,
‘Übersetzung als Schlüssel zum Original’, 156–157: ‘Die beiden Aufgaben, einerseits die
Übersetzungsweise der Übersetzer kennenzulernen und andererseits Abweichungen der
Vorlage der Übersetzer von der uns überlieferten masoretischen Form des hebräischen
Textes festzustellen, kann man methodisch nicht voneinander trennen. Bei jedem kleineren
und größeren Unterschied, auf den man beim Vergleich der Texte stößt, muß man beide
Möglichkeiten abwägen: Entweder hat der Übersetzer den Unterschied auf die eine oder
andere Weise, absichtlich oder unabsichtlich, verursacht, oder die Vorlage des Übersetzers
hatte einen anderen Wortlaut. Wenn man textkritisch arbeitet, wird der abweichende
Wortlaut der Vorlage dann weiter gegen die masoretische Lesart abgewogen und auf seine
Ursprünglichkeit hin überprüft. In der Abwägung zwischen den beiden Möglichkeiten—ob
ein Unterschied von dem Übersetzer oder von der Vorlage stammt—ist die Kenntnis der
persönlichen Neigungen des jeweiligen Übersetzers, die man durch Vergleich der Texte
in unproblematischen Textabschnitten gewonnen hat, von entscheidender Wichtigkeit.’
See also infra, n. 39.
4
See A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 60–65. See
also Idem, ‘Übersetzung als Schlüssel zum Original’, 156–157.
5
Cf. also supra chapter I, n. 56.
6
See in this regard also S. Olofsson, The LXX Version, 79.
98 chapter three: text-critical evaluation
In the second instance, it is essential that we make a thorough analysis

and characterisation of the nature and particularities of the translation in
question.7 It is only in this fashion that the distinction between a variant
that came into existence in the Vorlage and one that developed as a result
of translation technique can lay claim to any degree of certitude, thereby
allowing one to form a judgement concerning the Vorlage of the Greek
text. In the third instance, therefore, and based on one’s knowledge of
translation technique and one’s observation of the context, it is possible
to arrive at a text-critical evaluation with respect to a particular variant
that would appear to be evident in the Septuagint. J. Wevers likewise
emphasised the aforementioned three conditions, adding that a good
understanding of the different language systems, that of Hebrew and
that of Greek, should be included as an essential prerequisite.8 The Greek
and Hebrew verbal and nominal grammatical systems differ considerably
from one another. It is only when one is aware of the difficulties and
limitations that this implies for the translator that one is able to evaluate
certain differences, which appear at first sight to be relevant text-critical
variants, in the correct manner.
A variety of factors can be distinguished at the origins of variants in
the text of the Septuagint. These include the aforementioned distinction
between variants taken over by the translator from his Vorlage and variants
that came into existence at the point of translation. This latter category
requires further subdivision into three sub-categories.
1. The first group of variants consists of those formed by textual differ-
ences resulting from the ‘linguistic exegesis’ introduced by the translators.9
The said exegesis embraces both the grammatical identification and the
semantic interpretation of all the words in the source text and represents
an inherent element in every translation. As already noted, the language
system of Hebrew and Greek differ considerably from one another.10 This
7
See in this regard also E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 45: ‘Thus, a detailed knowledge
of the textual condition of the LXX as well as of the translator’s exegesis is a conditio sine
qua non for the text-critical use of the LXX.’
8
Cf. J.W. Wevers, ‘The Use of Versions’, 15–24.
9
Cf., for example, E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 45–50; Idem, ‘The Septuagint’, 173;
M. Vervenne, ‘Tekst en teksten’, 28–29; J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism in Ancient
Biblical Translations (MSU, 15), Göttingen 1979, 290–291.
10
See, for example, J.W. Wevers, ‘The Use of Versions’, 15–19; C. Rabin, ‘The Transla-
tion Process’, 9; E. Tov, ‘The Septuagint’, 175; Idem, ‘The Nature and Study of the Transla-
tion Technique of the LXX in the Past and Present’, in: C.E. Cox (ed.), Sixth Congress of the
International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Jerusalem, 1986 (SBL SCS,
23), Atlanta 1987, 337–359, esp. 337–338; J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 291–292;
fact obliged the translators, who had few if any examples of translation
technique at their disposal,11 to interpret the Hebrew text in their own
fashion and to render it in Greek.12 As a result of this, translations came
into existence that differed slightly, and on occasion significantly, from
the Hebrew text.
2. The second category of textual differences is a consequence of the
‘contextual exegesis’ of the translator.13 Contextual exegesis is expressed
in the freedom the translator permitted himself in his treatment of the
source text, a freedom that often resulted in explanatory interpolations,
omissions and various other changes in the Greek text.
Against the background of linguistic and contextual exegesis, and
together with E. Tov, it is important to draw attention to the fact that
the Septuagint translators most probably did not always understand their
Hebrew Vorlage.14 This question is significant for the correct characterisa-
tion of translation technique as well as the appropriate text-critical evalu-
ation of variants.15 As is the case up to the present day, the Septuagint
translators encountered problems in understanding the Hebrew text they
had at their disposal.16 Lexica or word lists were rare if not completely
S. Olofsson, The LXX Version, 11–12; A. Aejmelaeus, Introduction, in: Idem, On the Trail.
Revised Edition, xiii–xviii, xiv; Idem, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 364; Idem,
‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 63; Idem, ‘Übersetzung als Schlüssel
zum Original’, 151.
11
See, for example, C. Rabin, ‘The Translation Process’, 20–21; E. Tov, ‘The Septuagint’,
169; Idem, ‘The Nature and Study of the Translation Technique’, 337; S.P. Brock, ‘The
Phenomenon of the Septuagint’, in: M.A. Beek et al., The Witness of Tradition: Papers
Read at the Joint British-Dutch Old Testament Conference Held at Woudschoten, 1970 (OTS,
17), Leiden 1972, 11–36, pp. 11–12; S. Olofsson, The LXX Version, 5–7; A. Aejmelaeus,
‘Übersetzung als Schlüssel zum Original’, 150, 152, 154.
12
Much has been debated in the past with respect to the specific linguistic character
of the Greek of the Septuagint. Generally speaking, it is now possible to discern a degree
of consensus among scholars which maintains that the language of the Septuagint is the
koinè Greek of its day. Under the influence of its Vorlage, however, the latter took on a
number of Hebrew characteristics in places, especially with respect to syntax and style. Cf.
in this regard, for example, H.St.J. Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek
According to the Septuagint, vol. 1, Cambridge 1909, 16–25; S.P. Brock, ‘The Phenomenon
of the Septuagint’, 31–36; E. Tov, ‘The Septuagint’, 178–181; S. Olofsson, The LXX Ver-
sion, 34–40; J.A.L. Lee, A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch (SBL
SCS, 14), Chico 1983, 1–30, 145–149.
13
Cf., for example, E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 45–50; Idem, ‘The Septuagint’, 173–
174; M. Vervenne, ‘Tekst en teksten’, 28–29; J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 291.
14
Cf. E. Tov, ‘Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand their Hebrew Text?’,
in: A. Pietersma, C. Cox (eds), De Septuaginta. Studies in Honour of J.W. Wevers on His
Sixty-Fifth Birthday, Missisauga 1984, 53–70; Idem, ‘The Septuagint’, 171.
15
See E. Tov, ‘Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand’, 53.
16
See as early as Z. Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta, 191–203, who refers to
etymological renderings, untranslated words, contextual guesses, proper names translated
unavailable.17 The option for a particular translation equivalent was

based for the most part on existing knowledge of the Hebrew language
or inspired by the exegetical traditions current at the time.18 In addition,
the translators frequently turned to the literary context for assistance, and
with respect to later translations, it would appear that the translators also
with prepositions and locative ‫ה‬-endings included, interchange of verbal roots and the
influence of others Semitic languages and of Greek in the rendering of difficult Hebrew
words. Cf. also Idem, Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese, 78–82. See in addition
C. Rabin, ‘The Translation Process’, 8, 23–24 who speaks of ‘translations of embarrassment’;
J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 254–255 makes note of ‘an error in translation’; E. Tov,
‘The Septuagint’, 169–171; S. Olofsson, The LXX Version, 7, 28–32; Idem, ‘Consistency
as a Translation Technique’, SJOT 6 (1992), 14–30, pp. 20–21, 22, 23; A. Aejmelaeus,
‘Übersetzung als Schlüssel zum Original’, 157; and Idem, ‘What Can We Know about
the Hebrew Vorlage’, 66–67 which refers to the possibility of ‘mistranslation’ and p. 86
which speaks of ‘difficult words, the meanings of which were unknown to the translator’.
Compare in particular with J. Barr, Comparative Philology, 245, 272 and esp. 266–267:
‘The first thing to realize is that many passages which are difficult for us today were dif-
ficult for the ancient translators also. In such a position of difficulty these translators
had to make what they could out of the context and out of such indications as the text
(i.e., primarily, the unpointed written text) had to offer. These indications might include
“etymological” similarities to other words, especially to words which were more familiar;
they might occasionally include suggestions and influences from the vocabulary of other
languages known to the translators; and they quite commonly included a practice in
which the letters were taken in a different sequence or otherwise jumbled, or arbitrary
word-divisions were implied.’
Cf. in this regard the question of the so-called ‘Hebraisms’ in the Greek text. See, for
example, H.St.J. Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament, 25–55; A. Aejmelaeus,
‘Translation Technique and the Intention of the Translator’, in: C.E. Cox (ed.), Seventh
Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leuven,
1989 (SBL SCS, 31), Atlanta 1991, 23–36, p. 30; E. Tov, ‘The Septuagint’, 178–180;
Idem, ‘Three Dimensions of LXX Words’, RB 83 (1976), 529–544, pp. 532–540; Idem,
The Text-Critical Use, 22–23, 83–85; G. Marquis, ‘Consistency of Lexical Equivalents as
a Criterion for the Evaluation of Translation Technique as Exemplified in the LXX of
Ezekiel’, in: C.E. Cox (ed.), Sixth Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint
and Cognate Studies, 405–424, p. 409; S.P. Brock, ‘The Phenomenon of the Septuagint’,
32; S. Olofsson, The LXX Version, 6; I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Einleitung’, in: A. Aejmelaeus,
R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, 11–18, pp. 12–13, 16; R. Sollamo, Renderings
of Hebrew Semiprepositions, 287–288, 302–303.
17
See, for example, E. Tov, ‘Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand’, 54;
Idem, ‘The Septuagint’, 169; Idem, ‘The Impact of the LXX Translation of the Pentateuch
on the Translation of the Other Books’, in: P. Casetti, O. Keel, A. Schenker (eds), Mélanges
Dominique Barthélemy: Etudes bibliques offertes à l’occasion de son 60E anniversaire (OBO,
38), Freiburg/Göttingen 1981, 579–590, p. 587; S. Olofsson, The LXX Version, 7. Reference
should also be made to the general hypothesis maintained by Aejmelaeus in ‘Translation
Technique and the Intention’, 23–36. Note that Marquis, in contrast to the aforementioned
scholars—including his mentor E. Tov—argues in favour of the existence of such lexica
and lists, at least as a working hypothesis. Cf. G. Marquis, ‘Word Order as a Criterion’,
59–84; and Idem, ‘Consistency of Lexical Equivalents’, 405–424, esp. 406–408.
18
E. Tov, ‘Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand’, 54. Cf. also Idem, ‘The
Septuagint’, 170–171; Idem, ‘The Impact of the LXX Translation of the Pentateuch’,
587–588.
made use of existing translations, particularly the Septuagint translation

of the Pentateuch.19
In a number of Greek translations it is quite clear that the translators
simply did not understand their Vorlage.20 Many such instances are a result
of hapax legomena or difficult Hebrew words with which the translator
was not familiar.21 The words in question are often simply transcribed
into Greek characters.22 Other translation equivalents clearly reveal the
translators’ guessing.23 A number of problematic words are translated in
different locations and in different contexts with different Greek equiva-
lents. Tov speaks in this regard of ‘contextual guesses’, which are to be
found with respect to frequently recurring word combinations and one-
off, isolated words alike.24 In order to avoid the difficulties introduced
by the Hebrew Vorlage, the translators sometimes introduced ‘contextual
changes’25 in which they consciously manipulated the Hebrew basic text,26
sometimes on the basis of palaeographical similarities which they also knew
could be interchanged by mistake (palaeographical manoeuvring).27 When
the Greek translator was confronted with one or more Hebrew words,
the meaning of which he did not completely understand, he also sought
19
E. Tov, ‘Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand’, 54. Cf. also Idem, ‘The
Impact of the LXX Translation of the Pentateuch’, 579–590; Idem, ‘The Septuagint’, 171;
Idem, ‘The Nature and Study of the Translation Technique’, 351; S. Olofsson, ‘The LXX
Version’, 26–28; A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 72.
20
E. Tov, ‘Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand’, 55–56.
21
See, for example, T. Muraoka, ‘Hebrew Hapax Legomena and Septuagint Lexicogra-
phy’, in: C.E. Cox (ed.), Seventh Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint
and Cognate Studies, 205–222.
22
However, some tranlators seem to have really tried to render these hapaxes in
meaningful Greek, which could point at some degree of freedom in their translation. Cf.
in this respect also H. Ausloos, B. Lemmelijn, ‘Rendering Love: Hapax Legomena and
the Characterisation of the Translation Technique of Song of Songs’, in: H. Ausloos,
J. Cook, F. García Martínez, B. Lemmelijn, M. Vervenne (eds), Translating a Translation:
The Septuagint and its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism (BETL, 213),
Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA 2008, 43–61. More information, see infra n.124.
23
See also E. Tov, ‘The Septuagint’, 171.
24
25
26
Alternatively, however, A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vor-
lage’, 66–67, n. 17: ‘Tov seems to go too far in suggesting that the translators deliberately
manipulated their Vorlage in order to create words that would better suit the context.’
27
E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 100–103. With respect to the interchange of Hebrew
consonants see also Idem, ‘Interchanges of Consonants between the Masoretic Text and
the Vorlage of the Septuagint’, in: M. Fishbane, E. Tov (eds), ‘Sha’arei Talmon’: Studies in
the Bible, Qumran and the Ancient Near East. FS S. Talmon, Winona Lake 1992, 255–266;
and Idem, The Text-Critical Use, 135–142.
a solution from time to time in parallel passages.28 In such instances,

one can speak of contextual guesses of an extraordinary nature, which
have points of anchor in the text itself. In other instances, the translator
was inclined to seek refuge in words with a general meaning, such that
the precise content of the word he did not understand is left uncertain.29
Tov speaks further of ‘etymological renderings’,30 in which he makes a
distinction between ‘root-linked renderings’ and ‘etymological guesses’.31
The former can be compared with the stereotypical and consistent trans-
lation of one specific Hebrew root by the same Greek stem.32 The latter
type of translation equivalents are based on the etymology evident in the
respective words.
Tov concludes on the basis of these data that the translators certainly
did not always understand their Vorlage and that the awareness of this
fact is of particular importance for the process of evaluating text-critical
variants.33 Not everything that appears at first sight to be a variant in the
Greek text has its roots in a distinct Vorlage.34 While it is widely known
28
E. Tov, ‘Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand’, 64–65. See also J. Barr,
Comparative Philology, 267.
29
30
Cf. also J. Barr, Comparative Philology, 253–255, 266–267.
31
32
See also Idem, ‘Three Dimensions of LXX Words’, 532–535; S. Olofsson, ‘Consistency
as a Translation Technique’, 20–21. It should be noted together with Olofsson that it is
extremely difficult in practice to distinguish between a stereotype rendering that has its
roots in a lack of expertise in the Hebrew language and a similar equivalent that came
into existence as a result of a conscious option for a consistent translation technique.
33
34
Cf. also in this regard the distinction made by Tov between ‘variants’, ‘non-variants’
and ‘pseudo-variants’. While Tov includes under the term ‘variant’ all the elements in
the textual witnesses that deviate from a particular text that serves as a standard, in casu
MT (cf., for example, E. Tov, ‘Criteria’, 430; Idem, The Text-Critical Use, 6, 8; and Idem,
Textual Criticism, 18), he makes a terminological distinction elsewhere between ‘variants’
that arose on the basis of a different Vorlage, and variant readings, ‘non-variants’, that
did not arise from a different Vorlage, e.g. as a result of the activities of the translator.
In addition, Tov also distinguishes ‘pseudo-variants’. ‘Pseudo-variants’ are ‘variants’ in so
far as they are deviations that can easily be retroverted to the Hebrew on the basis of
Greek-Hebrew equivalents that occur elsewhere. Nevertheless, they are also ‘non-variants’
in the sense that such retroverted readings were probably not to be found de facto in the
Vorlage of the translation but only existed in the mind of the translator (Cf. Idem, The
Text-Critical Use, 88–89, 123–146, 154–162, 162–171; Idem, ‘Interchanges’, 255–257;
Idem, ‘On “Pseudo-variants” ’, 165–177).
While Tov considers this a methodologically important distinction (cf. Idem, ‘On
“Pseudo-variants” ’, 169), Aejmelaeus nuances its importance to a degree. See A. Aejme-
laeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 67: ‘There is also a possibility
that the error never existed in writing, in other words, that the translator read incorrectly
what was correct in the Vorlage. However, needless to say, a misreading by the translator
always produces a secondary reading. Whether a secondary reading was present in the
that many variants came about on account of the exegetical activity of

the translator, it is also important to be aware of the fact that a number
of differences are due to conjecture and guesswork on the part of the
translator, especially in relation to passages in which he ultimately did
not understand the meaning of the Hebrew.
3. Finally, a significant number of variants arose on account of the
manner with which the translator dealt with his Vorlage.35 One can state
in principle that the translators of the Septuagint intended to render their
Hebrew Vorlage as faithfully as possible.36 The way in which the various
different translators of the Septuagint achieved this goal, however, exhibits
variation. A translator who wanted to maintain the word order and syntax
of the Hebrew Vorlage in his Greek text, for example, was less likely to
treat the text he had at his disposal freely than a colleague translator who,
while equally concerned with the careful transmission of the content of the
text, was nonetheless more flexible in his approach to language and thus
rendered his Hebrew Vorlage in fluent Greek. An even greater degree of
freedom was exercised by those translators who paraphrased the Hebrew
ground text.37 Each of these approaches had the potential to introduce
variants in the Greek text which, at first sight, are not easy to distinguish
from variants that arise on the basis of a different Vorlage. It is for this
reason, therefore, that the analysis of the translation technique of the
Septuagint, and more specifically each book thereof independently,38 is of
Vorlage or merely in the mind of the translator is not of any great practical importance.
More important is to distinguish the original from the secondary.’ And n. 19: ‘The prob-
lem of variants existing merely in the minds of the translators is again and again taken
up by Tov, in Text-Critical Use 140–141, 183, 200, 228–229. Since there is no way to
distinguish between real variants and those existing in the minds of the translators, this
cannot affect the decision concerning the original text.’
35
See in this regard, for example, E. Tov, ‘The Nature and Study of the Translation
Technique’, 337–359.
36
Cf., for example, J. Lust, ‘Translation-Greek and the Lexicography of the Septuagint’,
JSOT 59 (1993), 109–120, p. 115: ‘Indeed, the translator appears to have first of all wished
to render his Vorlage as faithfully as possible. He wanted his translation to communicate
the same message as that intended by the original text.’; R. Hanhart, ‘The Translation of
the Septuagint in Light of Earlier Tradition and Subsequent Influences’, in: G.J. Brooke,
B. Lindars (eds), Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings, 339–379, pp. 341–342; G. Mar-
quis, ‘Consistency of Lexical Equivalents’, 406; A. Aejmelaeus, ‘The Significance of Clause
Connectors’, 361; Idem, ‘Septuagintal Translation Techniques’, 382; Idem, ‘Übersetzung
als Schlüssel zum Original’, 152; Idem, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’,
63; I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Einleitung’, 16; Idem, ‘Die Auslassung des Possessivpronomens’,
in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, 86–103, p. 88.
37
Cf. in this regard, for example, J. Barr, Comparative Philology, 255–259 on ‘free
rewriting’.
38
It is generally proposed that each book of the Septuagint was the responsibility of a
essential importance for a correct evaluation of the text-critical variants

that arise therein.39 If it can be argued with respect to a specific book
of the Septuagint that it was translated literally, it becomes difficult as a
consequence to argue that a potential presence of a larger plus or minus
should be ascribed to the translator. On the other hand, one is at liberty
to argue that paraphrastic translations are likely to include exegetical
additions or omissions on the part of the translator.40
It is likewise important to note in this regard that the expression
‘translation technique’ ought not to be understood in the contemporary
sense of the word. Although the literature tends to use the label ‘transla-
tion technique’ to designate the collection of methods employed by the
Septuagint translators to render their Hebrew Vorlage in Greek,41 one
different translator who can also be characterised in a variety of different ways. Cf., for
example, E. Tov, ‘Some Reflections’, 115; S. Olofsson, ‘Consistency as a Translation
Technique’, 21, 29; Idem, The LXX Version, 7, 33, 65; H.St.J. Thackeray, A Grammar
of the Old Testament, 6–7, 10–12 (even two translators in some books); J.W. Wevers,
‘The Use of Versions’, 20–24; R. Hanhart, ‘The Translation of the Septuagint’, 341; A.
Aejmelaeus, ‘Oti causale in Septuagintal Greek’, in: Idem, On the Trail. Revised Edition,
11–29, p. 26; Idem, ‘Oti recitativum in Septuagintal Greek’, in: Idem, On the Trail. Revised
Edition, 31–41, p. 48; Idem, ‘Übersetzung als Schlüssel zum Original’, 152–153, 157;
Idem, Parataxis in the Septuagint, 159–169 (counters Thackeray’s multiple translators),
176–181; Idem, ‘Septuagintal Translation Techniques’, 388; Idem, ‘What Can We Know
about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 63, 65, 71; Idem, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’,
370 and esp. 377: ‘I regard it as the highest aim of the study of translation technique
to describe the translations as the work of individuals, beginning with the biblical books
as the units.’; I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Einleitung’, 17; Idem, ‘Methodologische Fragen der
Erforschung’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, 40–52, pp.
41, 42–43; R. Sollamo, Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions, 280–289, 306–307; Idem,
‘The LXX Renderings’, 103, 110–113.
39
Cf. E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 17–19; Idem, ‘The Nature and Study of the Trans-
lation Technique’, 352; E. Tov, B.G. Wright, ‘Computer-assisted Study of the Criteria’,
149–151; G. Marquis, ‘Consistency of Lexical Equivalents’, 419; Idem, ‘Word Order as
a Criterion’, 59, 83–84; S. Olofsson, The LXX Version, 65–74; J.W. Wevers, ‘The Use of
Versions’, 20–21, 24; A. Aejmelaeus, Introduction, xv; Idem, ‘The Significance of Clause
Connectors’, 361–363 and esp. 377–378: ‘The utilization of the results of translation-
technical research in textual criticism of the OT and in editorial work of the Septuagint
is possible only insofar as we have exact knowledge of the translation technique of the
book we are dealing with . . .’; Idem, ‘Übersetzung als Schlüssel zum Original’, 156–157;
Idem, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 60–61, 62–65, 66, 77, 87 and
esp. 86: ‘Acquaintance with the translation technique of the book in question is a decisive
factor in the evaluation.’
40
See also, for example, E. Tov, B.G. Wright, ‘Computer-assisted Study of the Crite-
ria’, 150; E. Tov, ‘The Nature and Study of the Translation Technique’, 352; G. Marquis,
‘Word Order as a Criterion’, 67.
41
Cf. E. Tov, ‘The Nature and Study of the Translation Technique’, 337–359, esp.
339: ‘What is translation technique? In the professional literature that term has become
a terminus technicus denoting the special techniques used by translators when transferring
the message of the source language into the target language.’
should not understand these ‘techniques’, certainly with respect to the

Pentateuch, as a conscious strategy or methodological tactic.42 When the
Septuagint translators translate one segment of text literally and another
with more freedom, it is because they have tried, in a rather intuitive way,
to render the Hebrew text faithfully in Greek.43 The frequently encoun-
tered word-for-word translations and the maintenance of Hebrew word
order would appear to have been the simplest solution in many instances.44
42
See, for example, A. Aejmelaeus, Introduction, xiv: ‘What one needs as a point of
departure for the study of Septuagint translation technique is a general understanding of
the problems of translation and an understanding of the way these translators in particular
proceeded in their work. They had no translation technique in the sense of a conscious
method to be employed consistently. It was more of a human process of intuitive trial
and error and of finding ways to express in the target language—their mother tongue—
what was understood to be the meaning in the source text.’; Idem, ‘Translation Technique
and the Intention’, 25: ‘Their work is characterized by intuition and spontaneity more
than conscious deliberation and technique.’; and Ibidem, 27: ‘Translation technique can-
not be anything more than a collective name for all the different renderings used by a
translator. Study of translation technique aims at describing what the result of the work
of a translator turned out to be like. It cannot be a question of discovering the system
used by the translator, because there was none.’; together with I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Die
Auslassung des Possessivpronomens’, 88: ‘Übersetzung ohne Theoretisierung und ohne
Systematisierung’.
43
Cf., for example, J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 280–281: ‘Many ancient
translators of the Bible seem not to have had any clear or definite policy for a literal or
a free rendering of the text, and this is true particularly of many of the earlier strata of
biblical translation, as represented in the earlier books of the LXX. Rather than follow
a definite policy, translators often seem to have worked in an ad hoc manner and at
any particular point to have opted for a literal or a free rendering, whichever seemed to
work out according to the character of the original text and its immediate context . . . The
tendency of many early translators was not to be consistently literal or consistently free,
but to combine the two approaches in a quite inconsequential way.’; and Ibidem, 300:
‘The following of the Hebrew word order—not strictly but in large measure—is prob-
ably to be attributed to habit and the quest for an easy technique rather than to any
literalist policy.’ See also A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Übersetzung als Schlüssel zum Original’, 152:
‘Bei den ersten Übersetzern ist das “Wort-für-Wort” noch kein Prinzip, höchstens eine
Gewohnheit. Sie hatten kein bewußtes Prinzip, dem sie gefolgt wären. Eher scheint es,
daß sie nur allgemein ihren Original treu sein wollten, das für sie ja als Heilige Schrift
galt, in Einzelheiten aber ihrer Intuition gefolgt sind.’; I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Die Auslas-
sung des Possessivpronomens’, 102 (‘instinctiv’); Idem, ‘Renderings of Hebrew Compara-
tive Expressions with ‫ מן‬in the Greek Pentateuch’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds),
Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, 141–153, p. 153 (‘by instinct’); Idem, Die Infinitive in der
Septuaginta (AASF Series B, 132,1), Helsinki 1965, 157–158, 159 (‘natürlichste’) and R. Sollamo,
‘The LXX Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute’, 103 (‘instinctively’).
44
Cf., for example, S. Olofsson, The LXX Version, 7: ‘The main factor behind the
adoption of a literal translation technique in the LXX Pentateuch was presumably the
convenience of this approach since the translators had no instruments that could facilitate
the, in many respects, more complicated free translation process.’; I. Soisalon-Soininen,
‘Beobachtungen zur Arbeitsweise der Septuaginta-Übersetzer’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sol-
lamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, 28–39, p. 28: ‘Diese Erscheinung kann man nicht
Against this background and inspired by J. Barr, A. Aejmelaeus describes

the method of the Septuagint translators as ‘easy technique’.45 I. Soisalon-
Soininen points out, moreover, that the translators consistently limited
themselves to a small portion of text without concerning themselves to
any significant degree with the broader context.46 While they may have
remembered what they had just translated, they paid little attention to
what followed. This approach serves once again to illustrate the intuitive
manner with which the translators dealt with the text and explains a
large number of so-called literal translations that as a consequence can
no longer be ascribed to one or another conscious translation technique.
In addition, Soisalon-Soininen insists that the influence exercised by the
Hebrew language and the character of the Hebrew Vorlage on the Greek
translation should only be understood as natural and obvious.47 Neverthe-
damit erklären, daß die Übersetzer bewußt danach gestrebt haben, den Text möglichst
getreu Wort für Wort wiederzugeben. Dagegen könnte man sich vorstellen, daß ihnen
gewisse Ausdrücke Schwierigkeiten bereitet haben, und daß sie mehr zufälligerweise gele-
gentlich zu freieren Wiedergaben, gelegentlich dagegen zu wortgetreueren wiedergaben
gekommen sind.’
45
Cf. supra n. 43 and, for example, A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Translation Technique and the
Intention’, 25–26: ‘As I see it, the general intention of the translators was thus concerned
with the meaning of the original, or meanings of words and phrases in the original.
Their general intention was not directed towards the formal representation of items in
the original. They did not consciously aim at word-for-word translation. Retention of
the original word-order or consistency in lexical choices was not striven after. For the
Septuagint translator’s literalism was, as Barr expresses it, no “policy” but rather an “easy
technique”. It was only later, in the times of the recensions and Aquila, that literalism
became a conscious method of translation.’ See also Ibidem, 34 and esp. 30: ‘Hebraisms
and the use of expressions not idiomatic in Greek are precisely the outcome of the “easy
technique” of translation word-for-word by standard equivalents, without consideration
of their suitability in the context, without intention.’
46
Cf. I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Beobachtungen’, 29–30, 33, 38–39; Idem, ‘Verschiedene
Wiedergaben der Hebräischen Status-Constructus-Verbindung im Griechischen Pentateuch’,
in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, 62–70, p. 70; Idem, ‘Die
Auslassung des Possessivpronomens’, 88; Idem, ‘Renderings of Hebrew Comparative Expres-
sions’, 153. See also in this regard M. Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 101: ‘stuksgewijs’.
47
I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Einleitung’, 16: ‘Wenn man an die Syntax einer Überset-
zung denkt, darf man nicht vergessen, daß dabei drei Faktoren von Bedeutung sind,
nämlich die Syntax der Ausgangsprache, die Anforderungen der Zielsprache und das
Verhältnis des Übersetzers zu beiden. . . . Es ist nur natürlich, daß die Übersetzer der
Septuaginta—obwohl sie von der Übersetzungsmethode Aquilas weit entfernt sind—
stark von der Ausgangsprache beeinflußt sind. Eine andere Übersetzungsweise kann
man von ihnen noch nicht erwarten.’; Idem, ‘Methodologische Fragen der Erfor-
schung’, 41–42; Idem, ‘Die Wiedergabe des partitiven ‫ מן‬im Griechischen Pentateuch’,
in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, 154–171, p. 171;
Idem, ‘Der Gebrauch des Genetivus Absolutus in der Septuaginta’, in: A. Aejme-
laeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, 175–180, pp. 175, 180; Idem, ‘Die
less, the impact of the Hebrew did not appear to dominate every aspect
of the translation, as is apparent from various idiomatic Greek renderings
of the Hebrew original.48 Opposed to this vision of things, but far less
convincing, is the approach of G. Marquis. The latter sketches a picture
of translation technique that one can describe as conscious and methodi-
cal. He makes references to hypothetical indexes and word lists, which
he maintains were employed by the translators.49 In Marquis’ opinion,
this is most evident in the consistency with which certain translation
equivalents were chosen.50
It should be clear from what we have said so far that a correct appre-
ciation of the translation technique of the Septuagint, in function of the
text-critical evaluation of variants, is of essential importance bearing in
mind the different contexts in which the textual differences found in the
Greek biblical text came into existence. In what follows, we shall endea-
vour to determine the extent to which the Septuagint translations can be
characterised methodically and how they can steer text-critical decisions
in the context of the evaluation of variants.
Wiedergabe des Hebräischen Personalpronomens als Subjekt im Griechischen Pentateuch’, in:

A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, 71–85, p. 71. See also A. Aejmelaeus,
Parataxis in the Septuagint, 182: ‘It is only natural . . .’
48
Cf., for example, I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Die Konstruktion des Verbs’, 198; Idem,
‘Der Gebrauch des Genetivus Absolutus’, 180: ‘Wenn man die gen. abs. der Septuaginta
betrachtet, muß man die Geschicklichkeit und das feine Sprachgefühl der Übersetzer
bewundern. In der Übersetzungstechnik der Septuaginta hat man das Augenmerk zunächts
nur auf die wörtlichen Wiedergaben gerichtet und gefragt, ob die entstandenen Ausdrücke
vom Griechischen aus gesehen anwendbar sind oder nicht. Und es is durchaus wahr, daß
die Sprache der Septuaginta im ganzen gesehen stark vom Hebräischen beeinflußt ist. Die
sporadisch vorkommenden, feinen Wiedergaben geben aber einen Einblick in die andere
Seite.’; A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Übersetzung als Schlüssel zum Original’, 152.
49
Cf. G. Marquis, ‘Consistency of Lexical Equivalents’, 405–424, esp. 406–408. It
should be noted that Marquis’ mentor, E. Tov, completely denies the existence of such
word lists. See, for example, E. Tov, ‘Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand’,
54; Idem, ‘The Septuagint’, 169; Idem, ‘The Impact of the LXX Translation of the Pen-
tateuch’, 587. See also supra, n. 17.
50
Cf. in this regard S. Olofsson, ‘Consistency as a Translation Technique’, 21, 26 who
suggests that the stereotypical use of certain translation equivalents can be understood to a
certain degree as conscious technique. E. Tov likewise appears to characterise consistency
as the conscious intention of the translators, although he notes at the same time that such
an approach would have made the process of translation considerably easier. Cf. E. Tov,
‘Three Dimensions of LXX Words’, 533, 535.
The characterisation of a translation51
The difference between ‘literal’ and ‘free’ translations52

When an attempt is made in the course of research to characterise the
Septuagint translation of a particular book, reference is usually made to
the classical distinction between ‘literal’ and ‘free’ translations.53 A trans-
lation is characterised as literal when it remains very close to its Vorlage,
endeavouring to render the latter in an almost mechanical, often word-
for-word manner. On the other hand, a translation is characterised as ‘free’
when it does not do the latter,54 in other words when it treats its Hebrew
Vorlage with greater linguistic and exegetical liberty. It is also argued in
this regard that the goal of a literal translation is to bring the reader to
51
This paragraph presents a revised edition of B. Lemmelijn, ‘Two Methodological
Trails in Recent Studies on the Translation Technique of the Septuagint’, in: R. Sollamo,
S. Sipilä (eds), Helsinki Perspectives: On the Translation Technique of the Septuagint (Publica-
tions of the Finnish Exegetical Society, 82), Helsinki 2001, 43–63.
52
‘Literal’ and ‘free’ translations are also referred to as ‘formal’ and ‘non-formal’
respectively. Cf. supra p. 19.
53
All the studies referred to here make either implicit or explicit reference to the dis-
tinction between ‘literal’ and ‘free’ translations. Cf., for example, E. Tov, ‘The Septuagint’,
173; Idem, The Text-Critical Use, 17–29; Idem, ‘Computer Assisted Alignment of the
Greek-Hebrew Equivalents of the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint’, in: N. Fernández
Marcos (ed.), La Septuaginta, 221–242, pp. 225, 237–238; E. Tov, B.G. Wright, ‘Com-
puter-Assisted Study of the Criteria’, 150–152, 181–185; B.G. Wright, ‘The Quantitative
Representation of Elements: Evaluating “Literalism” in the LXX’, in: C.E. Cox (ed.), Sixth
Congress of the IOSCS, 311–335, pp. 311–314, 332–333; S. Olofsson, The LXX Version,
12–13; G. Marquis, ‘Consistency of Lexical Equivalents’, 405–406, 410, 413; Idem,
‘Word Order as a Criterion’, 59–63; Z. Frankel, Vorstudien, 163–168; Idem, Ueber den
Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese, 73–82; S.P. Brock, ‘The Phenomenon of the Septuagint’,
16–17; J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 279–325; A. Aejmelaeus, Introduction, xiii–xv;
Idem, ‘Übersetzung als Schlüssel zum Original’, 154; Idem, Parataxis in the Septuagint,
176, 182–183; Idem, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 361–363, 377–378; Idem,
‘Septuagintal Translation Techniques’, 388–389; Idem, ‘What Can We Know about the
Hebrew Vorlage’, 63–64, I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Methodologische Fragen der Erforschung’,
41, 44–45; Idem, ‘Die Wiedergabe des Hebräischen Personalpronomens’, 84–85; Idem,
‘Die Auslassung des Possessivpronomens’, 103; Idem, ‘Die Wiedergabe einiger Hebräischer
Zeitangaben mit der Präposition ‫ ב‬in der Septuaginta’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds),
Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, 107–115, p. 107; Idem, ‘Die Wiedergabe des ‫ ב‬Instrumenti im
Griechischen Pentateuch’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen,
116–130, p. 130; Idem, ‘Die Wiedergabe des partitiven ‫’מן‬, 163; Idem, ‘Der Gebrauch
des Verbs ἐχειν in der Septuaginta’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-
Soininen, 181–188, p. 188; Idem, ‘Die Infinitive in der Septuaginta’, 157–159, 190;
R. Sollamo, ‘The LXX Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute’, 111–113; Idem, Renderings
of Hebrew Semiprepositions, 280–283, 284–287, 302–303.
54
Cf., for example, J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 281: ‘It is the various kinds of
literalism that we seek to analyse and define: for each of them “free” means that which is
opposite to this particular literalism.’ and p. 282: ‘. . . the concept of freedom in translating
will always be there as a contrast . . .’
the text while that of a free translation is to bring the text to the reader.55
Within this approach, the ‘literalness’ of the translation is mostly used as
the point of departure for the study of translation technique because of
the fact that the degree of ‘freedom’ of a translation is said to be more
difficult to gauge.56 On this basis then, scholars are inclined to organise
the translations of the Septuagint according to the following categories:
‘very free’ and ‘relatively free’ to ‘very literal’ or ‘relatively literal’.57
The distinction between ‘literal’ and ‘free’ translations outlined above
would appear at first sight to be clear and functional in practical terms.
On closer inspection, however, it becomes clear that the different trans-
lation character of the various Septuagint translations is not as easy to
determine as one might be led to believe. In the past, the characterisation
of a translation as ‘literal’ or ‘free’ was often nothing more than an act of
intuition, and often based on little more than vague impressions.58 The
55
Cf. in this regard, for example, S.P. Brock, ‘The Phenomenon of the Septuagint’,
16–17: ‘Translations can be either free, or literal; the former treat the phrase or sentence
as the unit to be translated, the latter the individual word. They can aim to convey the
general sense at the expense of the individual word, or render the words individually
at the expense of the sense. . . . The psychological reasoning underlying the difference
between these two types of translation is obvious: the free translation aims at bringing
the original to the reader, while the literal one the reader to the original.’; A. Aejmelaeus,
‘Übersetzung als Schlüssel zum Original’, 153–154: ‘Anscheinend haben die frühen jüdis-
chen Korrektoren gemeint, eine Übersetzung solle den Leser zum Original bringen, so
daß er Wort für Wort durch die Übersetzung dem Original folgen oder sogar mit Hilfe
der Übersetzung das sonst unverständliche Original lesen kann. . . . Eine eher dynamische
Übersetzung dagegen ist bestrebt, den Inhalt des Originals zum Leser zu bringen, ohne
von dem Leser besondere Vorkenntnisse zu verlangen.’
56
Cf. E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 19–20: ‘When analyzing translation techniques from
the point of view of the translators’ attitudes towards the Hebrew text, it is probably best
to start from the criteria for literalness, not because literalness formed the basis of most
translations, but rather because these criteria can be defined more easily than those for
free renderings.’; J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 281: ‘. . . the idea of literality, rather
than the idea of free translation, can properly form our base line of definition. . . . it seems
good to take literalism as the aim of our study. Its methods are to be analysed and defined.
Freedom in translation is not a tangible method’.
57
Cf., for example, E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 19–20, 27; E. Tov, B.G. Wright,
‘Computer-Assisted Study of the Criteria’, 150, 181, 185–186.
58
See E. Tov, B.G. Wright, ‘Computer-assisted Study of the Criteria’, 151: ‘The systems
used in the past as a basis for the description of the translation character of the LXX are
not satisfactory, and, in fact, one can hardly speak about a system since the majority of the
analyses are based on the scholar’s intuitive understanding of the translation character.’; and
Ibidem, 152: ‘scholars have had to rely too much on mere impressions.’; E. Tov, The Text-
Critical Use, 25, n. 39; B.G. Wright, ‘The Quantitative Representation of Elements’, 311:
‘. . . traditionally the categories “literal” and “free” have been described in much the same way
one U.S. Supreme Court Justice described obscenity, «I can’t define it, but I know it when
I see it.»’; G. Marquis, ‘Consistency of Lexical Equivalents’, 406: ‘one cannot work with a
broad or intuitive idea of what one means’; A. Aejmelaeus, Introduction, xv: ‘our forerunners
in Septuagint studies actually possessed few tools other than the human intellect.’
various aspects of literalness were never made more precise and interest in
the freedom of a translation remained extremely ephemeral. Against this
background, contemporary scholars have endeavoured to devote greater
attention to these questions and to subject them to further research.
With respect to the literalness of a translation, scholars suggest that the
concept is unusable in se, and that one would be better served to deter-
mine the various sorts of literalness that exist and the extent to which a
translation exhibits one or the other. Reference should be made in this
regard to the authoritative work of J. Barr.59 Countering the classical dis-
tinction between ‘literalness’ and ‘freedom’, this scholar has stressed the
fact that there are many different aspects of literalness as well as many
kinds of freedom.60 When one argues that a particular translation is
literal or free, one is thus obliged to specify in which way it is either
literal or free. A translation can simultaneously be literal and free from
different perspectives.61 The goal of Barr’s study, therefore, is not only to
describe the extent to which literalness and freedom contrast with one
another in a given text, but equally to determine the way in which they
coincide. In this respect, he discerns different aspects of literalness, to
wich the distinctive ways of freedom correlate as their opposites.62 Barr
59
Cf. J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism. See also S. Olofsson, The LXX Version,
12–28.
60
See J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 279–284.
61
Cf. J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 280: ‘For—and this is my principal argument—
there are different ways of being literal and of being free, so that a translation can be literal
and free at the same time but in different modes or on different levels.’ and 323–324: ‘It
has been shown, I think, that “literal” and “free” are not clear and simple terms in the
world of ancient biblical translation. There are numerous ways in which a version could
be both at the same time. It could be literal, by one of the ways in which one may be
literal, while by another of the ways it was simultaneously free.’ See also R. Sollamo, ‘The
LXX Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute’, 111: ‘It is very difficult to draw a distinction
between literal and free renderings in this field. The rendering which in one respect is
slavish may be free in another.’; B.G. Wright, ‘The Quantitative Representation of Ele-
ments’, 313: ‘Consequently, when measured by different indicators a translation could
be both “free” and “literal” at the same time.’; S. Olofsson, The LXX Version, 12: ‘Literal
and free types of translations were not fundamentally contradictory tendencies in ancient
biblical translation, because they could be used together and by the same translator, even
in the same passage.’
62
J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 294–323. Cf. also Ibidem, 281: ‘A sophisticated
study of the LXX, at least in many books, rather than dealing with the contrast between
free and literal, has to concern itself much of the time with variations within a basically
literal approach: different kinds of literality, diverse levels of literal connection, and vari-
ous kinds of departure from the literal. For this reason the idea of literality, rather than
the idea of free translation, can properly form our base line of definition. It is the various
kinds of literalism that we seek to analyse and define: for each of them “free” means that
which is opposite to this particular literalism.’
distinguishes a division into elements or segments and the sequence with

which the said elements were represented,63 the quantitative addition or
omission of elements,64 consistency or non-consistency in the rendering of
the vocabulary of the Vorlage,65 accuracy in the transmission of semantic
information in translation equivalents,66 and the manner in which the
Hebrew is imitated in the Greek translation both formally (similarity of
words) and etymologically (similarity of roots).67 Barr concludes by observ-
ing in addition that the distinction between the translator who based his
choice of translation equivalents exclusively on the consonantal text of his
Vorlage and the translator who employed the text in conjunction with the
tradition of pronunciation/vocalisation created a greater or smaller margin
of freedom respectively.68 Barr ends by repeating that the concepts ‘literal’
and ‘free’ should not per se be understood as each other’s opponents.69 It is
always important to distinguish the level at which a particular translation
is literal and in what respect one should characterise it rather as free.
Based on the same concern and aware of the inadequacy of the general
categories ‘literal’ and ‘free’, E. Tov has likewise produced pioneering
work in this domain. In line with Barr, Tov distinguishes different facets
of literalness and freedom. He proposes five aspects, which he employs
as criteria for determining the literalness of a translation:70 consistency
in the choice of translation equivalent,71 the representation of constitu-
ents of Hebrew words by individual Greek elements (also referred to as
63
Cf. J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 294–303.
64
Cf. J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 303–305. For a description of the distinction
between segmentation and quantitative representation see, for example, B.G. Wright,
‘The Quantitative Representation of Elements’, 314–319. See Ibidem, 315: ‘Quantitative
representation can be thought of as the division by the translator of multi-word Hebrew
units into their constituent parts producing a one-to-one representation in Greek.’ and
Ibidem, 316: ‘Segmentation, properly speaking, is actually a sub-category of quantitative
representation because it involves a type of one-to-one representation albeit of a very
specific type. Segmentation, as Barr and Tov present it, is the one-to-one representation
of each element of a Hebrew word. . . . Thus, segmentation can only be present when there
is more than one element or segment in the Hebrew word.’
65
66
67
68
69
70
See, for example, E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 17–29; Idem, ‘The Nature of the
Differences between MT and the LXX in 1 Sam. 17–18 [1]’, 33–39; E. Tov, B.G. Wright,
‘Computer-Assisted Study of the Criteria’, 152. See also B.G. Wright, ‘The Quantitative
Representation of Elements’, 311; S. Olofsson, The LXX Version, 12.
71
Cf. also the further evolution of this criterion in S. Olofsson, ‘Consistency as a
Translation Technique’, 14–30 and G. Marquis, ‘Consistency of Lexical Equivalents’,
405–424.
segmentation),72 word sequence,73 quantitative representation,74 and the

linguistic adequacy of lexical options. According to Tov, the first four
criteria can be expressed in statistical terms. Freedom in a translation,
in Tov’s opinion, is not only characterised on negative grounds based on
the partial or complete absence of the aforementioned characteristics of
literalness (cf. Barr), but equally on the basis of a positive criterion that
cannot be measured in statistical terms.75 Tov speaks in this regard of the
study of the nature and frequency of the exegetical elements that come
to the fore in the translation under analysis.76
Parallel to this more nuanced approach to the literalness of translations
and likewise based on an awareness of the inadequacy of the general labels
‘literal’ and ‘free’, attention has also been focused on a more accurate char-
acterisation of the freedom evident in Septuagint translations. Particular
reference can be made in this regard to the scholars of the so-called ‘Finnish
School’, including i.a. I. Soisalon-Soininen, A. Aejmelaeus and R. Sollamo.
In contrast to the approach that mainly emphasises the detailed analysis of
the various aspects of a translation’s literalness and that understands these
as more accessible to definition and quantification, the latter scholars insist
that a careful description of the freedom of a translation is likewise of
very great importance.77 While the fact that every Septuagint translation
72
Cf. also in this regard B.G. Wright, ‘The Quantitative Representation of Elements’,
311–335.
73
Cf. also G. Marquis, ‘Word Order as a Criterion’, 59–84.
74
Cf. B.G. Wright, ‘The Quantitative Representation of Elements’, 311–335.
75
See E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 20.
76
See E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 25–27.
77
Cf., for example, A. Aejmelaeus, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 362: ‘Free
renderings are like fingerprints that the translators left behind them. By these fingerprints
it is possible to get to know them and to describe their working habits, their actual
relationship with the original, and their talent as translators.’; and Ibidem, 378: ‘Exact
percentages of literalness are of little help if nothing is known of the actual renderings
used. Importance should be attached to the description of the freedom of the individual
translators.’; Idem, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 65: ‘It is naturally
easier to trace the Vorlage of a literal translation. Even in difficult passages one may dis-
cern the line of thought of a literal translator. It is all the more important, then, to study
more closely the freer translations, with regard to their relationship to the Vorlage and the
kind of freedom applied.’; I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Der Gebrauch des Genetivus Absolutus’,
180: ‘In der Übersetzungstechnik der Septuaginta hat man das Augenmerk zunächts nur
auf die wörtlichen Wiedergaben gerichtet und gefragt, ob die entstandenen Ausdrücke
vom Griechischen aus gesehen anwendbar sind oder nicht. Und es is durchaus wahr, daß
die Sprache der Septuaginta im ganzen gesehen stark vom Hebräischen beeinflußt ist.
Die sporadisch vorkommenden, feinen Wiedergaben geben aber einen einblick in die
andere Seite. Und man darf nicht vergessen, daß die eingangs verwähnten, hemmenden
Faktoren die Ursache dafür sind, daß die wirklichen Sprachkenntnisse der Übersetzer
can be characterised in general terms as more or less literal cannot be

denied, the Finnish scholars argue that it is precisely the deviations from
this literal manner of working in favour of a more free, idiomatic Greek
usage that expose the difference between individual translators and at
the same time illuminate the particular characteristics of each individual
translator.78 This aspect of the freedom evident in a translation is likewise
of primary importance for the textual criticism of the Old Testament.79
As a matter of fact, the established percentage of literalness observed in a
translation offers no indications when one is obliged to decide whether an
individual variant is due to a different Vorlage or to translation technique.
However, a precise awareness of the freedom employed by a particular
translator can help us to recognise and distinguish textual differences from
the Vorlage. In like fashion to the characterisation of literalness, however,
the freedom employed by translators must also be precisely characterised.
Indeed, freedom in translation also consists of a number of different facets
whereby a translator can exercise his translational freedom in a variety
of ways. A distinction can be shown, for example, between freedom
with respect to the word order of the original, freedom in the choice of
translation equivalents for single words and freedom with respect to the
rendering of longer text segments as a whole.80
Based on the evident developments in recent research in this domain, it
has become apparent that the precise characterisation of a particular transla-
tion is essential, both at the level of its literalness and its freedom. While
nur so selten zum Vorschein kommen. Wenn wir etwas Näheres über die Übersetzer
erfahren wollen, müssen wir das Gewicht eben auf diese seltenen Fälle legen. Gerade
daraus sind wertvolle Erkenntnisse zu gewinnen.’; R. Sollamo, ‘The LXX Renderings
of the Infinitive Absolute’, 111–112, whose study is focused on the freedom in transla-
tions. By way of supplement to the results of the study of literal translations (‘slavish
renderings’), she emphasises research into free translations (‘free renderings’) as well as
the degree of consistency criterion (‘stereotyping’). See Ibidem, 111: ‘The distribution
of the freest renderings may serve as a counterpoint to the most slavish renderings.’ and
p. 112: ‘The third criterion which I use for evaluating the freedom of the translation tech-
nique followed by different translators is the degree of stereotyping.’ [italics = B.L.]
78
A. Aejmelaeus, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 361–362.
79
A. Aejmelaeus, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 362.
80
See A. Aejmelaeus, Parataxis in the Septuagint, 180: ‘It must be stressed, however,
that different criteria may really bring out different aspects of the translations. Since the
various free renderings and idiomatic Greek expressions impose different requirements on
the translators, they may have been free in different ways. It is a different thing to be free
as regards word order than as regards the equivalents of individual words, and even more
is required to be free in renderings involving the mastery of larger units of text.’ Cf. also
Idem, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 65.
a general evaluation may be necessary,81 it is nevertheless insufficient.82

To conclude, we consider it important to emphasise the fact that the
classical distinction between ‘literal’ and ‘free’ translations must also be
nuanced in a supplementary manner. Together with A. Aejmelaeus, we
are of the opinion that the analysis of translations must be fully aware of
the difference between ‘literalness’ and ‘faithfulness’.83 An extremely literal
translation need not necessarily imply a particular faithful translation, just
as a free translation need not be understood per se as less faithful. A good
free translation may in fact be very faithful with respect to its Vorlage,84
while a literal translation may be less faithful on account of an extremely
consistent selection of translation equivalents that do not always do justice
to the demands of semantics.85
81
Cf., for example, E. Tov, B.G. Wright, ‘Computer-Assisted Study of the Criteria’,
150–151.
82
Cf. likewise B.G. Wright, ‘The Quantitative Representation of Elements’, 311–313:
‘Given the complex make-up of what has been called “literalism”, it simply is not sufficient
to use the terms “literal” and “free” as blanket descriptions of translations. In fact, the terms
“literal” and “free” may be as much of a hindrance as a help when used as generalizing
descriptions. . . . Thus, in order to have as accurate a picture as possible of the Vorlage of
any given translation scholars need to know more than whether a translation is “literal”
or “free”. They need to know in what ways and to what degree translators are consistent
in their approach to particular aspects of their source texts.’
83
Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 378: ‘A distinction
should be made between literalness and faithfulness.’ See also I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Die
Auslassung des Possessivpronomens’, 88: ‘Sie haben den Text möglichst getreu wiedergeben
wollen, nicht aber wortwörtlich.’
84
Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 378: ‘Changing the
structure of a clause or a phrase, and by so doing replacing an un-Greek expression by a
genuine Greek one closely corresponding to the meaning of the original, is quite a different
thing from being recklessly free and paying less attention to the correspondence with the
original. . . . A good free rendering is a faithful rendering.’; Idem, ‘Septuagintal Translation
Techniques’, 389, 391; I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Renderings of Hebrew Comparative Expres-
sions’, 152: ‘Now and again very free renderings of the whole sentence occur. For the most
part they are skilful translations and correspond to the original meaning very well.’
85
Cf. also S. Olofsson, ‘Consistency as a Translation Technique’, 16, 18; E. Tov, ‘Three
Dimensions of LXX Words’, 535: ‘Since the consistent representation of Hebrew words
by one Greek equivalent often was more important to the translators than contextually
plausible renderings, their technique was bound to do injustice to several Greek words.
For the translators also often used a stereotyped equivalent of a Hebrew word when the
meaning of the Hebrew did not suit that of the Greek.’; Idem, The Text-Critical Use, 22:
‘The majority of stereotyped renderings do not adequately cover all meanings of a given
Hebrew word.’ and G. Marquis, ‘Consistency of Lexical Equivalents’, 408–409: ‘However,
the moment one refers to the semantic level, to the meaning of words, it immediately
becomes clear that the method of automatic and fixed translations was not successful in
every case. The reason for this is that the ranges of meanings of words and their function
in two different languages is far from identical, and as a result the fixed translation may
not be appropriate in certain contexts.’
Two methodological approaches 86

As could have already been inferred from the above given description
of the scholarly views regarding the difference between literal and free
translations, studies into the translation technique and the translation
character of Septuagint translations reveal—generally speaking—two dif-
ferent methodological trails.87
On the one hand, one can observe an approach that takes the vari-
ous aspects of literalness as its point of departure. Based on the study of
consistency, quantitative representation, segmentation and word order,
employed as criteria in support of the literalness of a translation, some
scholars endeavour to make a detailed study of a given text’s translation
character. This is the method initiated by J. Barr in particular and further
developed by E. Tov and the scholars that have followed in his tracks (e.g.
B.G. Wright and G. Marquis).88 Based on the so-called CATSS Data Base,89
in which Hebrew and Greek texts are arranged in parallel columns, and
with frequent use of computers,90 the degree of literalness of a translation is
analysed and even expressed in statistical terms.91 Thus, the above described
86
Particular attention to this issue is paid extendedly in B. Lemmelijn, ‘Two Meth-
odological Trails in Recent Studies on the Translation Technique of the Septuagint’,
52–61.
87
Cf. also S. Olofsson, ‘Consistency as a Translation Technique’, 27–30.
88
Cf., for example, J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 279–325; E. Tov, The Text-Critical
Use, 20–24; Idem, ‘The Nature of the Differences’, 33–39; Idem, ‘The Nature and Study
of the Translation Technique’, 349; Idem, ‘Computer Assisted Alignment’, 221–242;
E. Tov, B.G. Wright, ‘Computer-Assisted Study of the Criteria’, 149–187; B.G. Wright, ‘The
Quantitative Representation of Elements’, 311–335; G. Marquis, ‘Consistency of Lexical
Equivalents’, 405–424; Idem, ‘Word Order as a Criterion’, 59–84 and to a degree also
S. Olofsson, ‘Consistency as a Translation Technique’, 14–30.
89
CATSS: Computer Assisted Tools for Septuagint Studies (ed. R. Kraft and E. Tov).
90
On the disadvantages and risks associated with excessive reliance on the capacity of
computers see, for example, A. Aejmelaeus, Introduction, xv–xvi and I. Soisalon-Soininen,
‘Die Wiedergabe des partitiven ‫’מן‬, 171.
91
Cf., for example, E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 17, 20–24 and 25: ‘The first four
of the five criteria for literalness can be expressed statistically, and in this way it should
be possible to describe the degree of literalness of individual translation units.’; Idem,
‘Computer Assisted Alignment’, 221–242; Idem, ‘The Nature and Study of the Transla-
tion Technique’, 349; E. Tov, B.G. Wright, ‘Computer-Assisted Study of the Criteria’,
152; B.G. Wright, ‘The Quantitative Representation of Elements’, 311–335; G. Marquis,
‘Consistency of Lexical Equivalents’, 405–424; and Idem, ‘Word Order as a Criterion’,
59–84. See also J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 324, who already gave an initial impetus
in this regard: ‘It might be possible to devise a scheme by which the various different
modes of literality might be formally designated and marked. If this were done one could
then go through any particular book in a Greek or other version and give for each verse
a percentage notation or something similar, quantifying the degree of literality on each of
several levels. It might then be possible to produce a more systematic and final assessment
of the degree of freedom or literality to be found in a book.’
approach intends to quantitatively express, and therefore also compare,

the degree of literalness of the LXX translation of various books.
On the other hand, there are scholars who maintain, from a rather
qualitative approach, that the freedom of the Septuagint translation
deserves greater emphasis, among other things in function of the dis-
tinction between textual variants that came into existence in the Vorlage
and those that can be ascribed to the conscious or unconscious activities
of the translator. Particular reference can be made in this regard to the
so-called ‘Finnish School’, with scholars such as I. Soisalon-Soininen,
A. Aejmelaeus and R. Sollamo.92 The latter are of the opinion that the study
of the translation character of Septuagint translations should take the way
in which certain Hebrew grammatical features are rendered in the Greek
text as its point of departure.93 In this way it becomes possible to establish
a clear distinction between the equivalents that are particularly literal in
relation to the Hebrew original and as a consequence non-idiomatic and
the renderings in which the translator offers a fluent and idiomatic Greek
equivalent. Such a distinction creates a better insight into the way in which
a particular translator related to his Vorlage (translation technique) and
facilitates the evaluation of the variants in a given translation (textual criti-
cism). However, the Finnish scholars insist in this regard that the nature
of the Hebrew basic text should equally be taken into consideration, if
92
Cf., for example, the contributions of A. Aejmelaeus, collected in A. Aejmelaeus, On
the Trail. Revised Edition; the most important articles of I. Soisalon-Soininen, collected
in A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen; and the contributions of
R. Sollamo in, for example, R. Sollamo, Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions and Idem,
‘The LXX Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute’, 101–113.
93
See, for example, A. Aejmelaeus, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 361–363;
Idem, ‘Participium Coniunctum as a Criterion of Translation Technique’, VT 32 (1982),
385–393, p. 385; Idem, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 76: ‘Typically
Hebrew expressions, the literal rendering of which produces poor Greek, thus serve as
tests by which may be measured a translator’s ability to free himself from the original and
to choose a rendering which suits the context best.’; R. Sollamo, ‘The LXX Renderings
of the Infinitive Absolute’, 101, 103; I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Einleitung’, 13: ‘Wichtig ist
hierbei die Methode, die Syntax der Septuaginta so zu erforschen, daß man vom Hebräis-
chen ausgeht, die verschiedenen Übersetzungsweisen untersucht, dann den Gebrauch der
verschiedenen Möglichkeiten bei verschiedenen Übersetzern ins Auge faßt und so zu ihren
Unterschieden vorstößt.’ and Ibidem, 18: ‘In den meisten Fällen ist es am besten, von
bestimmten hebräischen grammatischen Kategorien auszugehen und zu untersuchen, wie
diese von den Septuaginta-Übersetzern wiedergegeben sind. Nur so wird deutlich, welche
Unterscheide zwischen den verschiedenen Büchern bereits im Hebräischen bestehen und
welche den Übersetzern zuzurechnen sind.’; Idem, ‘Methodologische Fragen der Erforsc-
hung’, 43, 47, esp. 41: ‘Die einzige mögliche Arbeitsweise ist, daß man von den hebräischen
grammatischen Kategorien und Ausdrücken ausgeht, und deren verschiedene—freiere oder
wörtlichere—Wiedergaben untersucht.’; Idem, ‘Verschiedene Wiedergaben’, 62.
one intends to compare the translation technique in the various books of

the Septuagint on the basis of the results of a specific study.94
Against this background, Finnish researchers have studied the Greek
renderings of several Hebrew linguistic phenomena in a qualifying way,
whereby the Hebraising and/or idiomatic Greek renderings functioned as
the criteria for distinguishing between the various Septuagint translators.95
It should be noted, however, that the scholars in question consistently
point out that the results of one specific study cannot be taken as decisive
or final. In combination with and complemented by the concurrent results
of other research, the conclusions from such an investigation nevertheless
acquire considerably more and better founded persuasiveness.96
94
Cf., for example, I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Methodologische Fragen der Erforschung’,
41; Idem, ‘Die Wiedergabe einiger Hebräischer Zeitangaben’, 108; Idem, ‘Die Wiedergabe
des partitiven ‫’מן‬, 171; A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Participium Coniunctum as a Criterion’, 393;
Idem, Parataxis in the Septuagint, 170–173, 183; Idem, ‘Oti recitativum in Septuagintal
Greek’, 40–41. See also S. Olofsson, ‘Consistency as a Translation Technique’, 22–23.
Compare also S.P. Brock, ‘The Phenomenon of the Septuagint’, 17–20, who maintains
that the literary genre of the basic text may have exercised an influence in this regard.
Legal texts are translated more literally while narrative sections allow for greater freedom.
See also in this regard A. Aejmelaeus, Parataxis in the Septuagint, 165–167.
95
Reference can be made here to a few important contributions concerning the Greek
rendition of various Hebrew linguistic phenomena: A. Aejmelaeus, ‘The Significance of
Clause Connectors’; Idem, Parataxis in the Septuagint; Idem, ‘Oti causale in Septuagintal
Greek’; Idem, ‘Oti recitativum in Septuagintal Greek’; Idem, ‘Participium coniunctum as a
Criterion’; Idem, ‘The Function and Interpretation of ‫ כי‬in Biblical Hebrew’, in: Idem, On the
Trail, 166–185; R. Sollamo, Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions; Idem, ‘The LXX Render-
ings of the Infinitive Absolute’; I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘The Rendering of the Hebrew Relative
Clause in the Greek Pentateuch’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen,
55–61; Idem, ‘Verschiedene Wiedergaben der Hebräischen Status-Constructus-Verbindung’;
Idem, ‘Die Wiedergabe des Hebräischen Personalpronomens’; Idem, ‘Die Auslassung des
Possessivpronomens’; Idem, ‘Die Wiedergabe einiger Hebräischer Zeitangaben’; Idem, ‘Die
Wiedergabe des ‫ ב‬Instrumenti’; Idem, ‘ἐν für εἰς in der Septuaginta’, in: A. Aejmelaeus,
R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, 131–140; Idem, ‘Renderings of Hebrew Com-
parative Expressions’; Idem, ‘Die Wiedergabe des partitiven ‫ ;’מן‬Idem, ‘Der Gebrauch des
Genetivus Absolutus’; Idem, ‘Der Gebrauch des Verbs ἐχειν’; Idem, ‘Die Konstruktion
des Verbs’; Idem, ‘Der infinitivus constructus mit ‫ ל‬im Hebräischen’, in: A. Aejmelaeus,
R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, 203–211; and Idem, Die Infinitive in der
Septuaginta.
96
Cf., for example, A. Aejmelaeus, Parataxis in the Septuagint, 184: ‘The picture arrived
at through any one study must and will be completed and corrected by further studies.’;
Idem, ‘Participium Coniunctum as a Criterion’, 393: ‘To get closer to the truth about
them [the various Septuagint translators, B.L.], we need both as many criteria as possible
to evaluate them, and a due attention to the influence of the Hebrew text.’; Idem, ‘The
Significance of Clause Connectors’, 377: ‘. . . , in any case the results from this area of
study should be complemented by those from other areas, in order that the picture of
the quality and character of each individual translator should be as perfect as possible.’;
R. Sollamo, ‘The LXX Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute’, 113: ‘The body of material
discussed here is too limited to be of much value if used alone for drawing a picture of
the translation techniques followed in the Pentateuch, but together with other studies of
Besides the theoretical development and practical application of their

own working model, which generally places the freedom of Septuagint
translators at the centre of interest from a qualitative perspective, the
scholars of the ‘Finnish School’ also point to a number of problems
concerning the starting points and results of the first described approach,
which mainly accentuates (statistical) literalness. Firstly, it would appear
that the proponents of the first, rather quantitative approach presuppose
a sort of fixed norm of comparison for every translation of which they
seek to determine the degree of literalness, namely perfect literalness.97
A. Aejmelaeus, among others, has argued that such a 100% literal translation
never existed and cannot exist, bearing in mind that literalness in all its
aspects is not rooted in conscious strategy but is the result rather of ‘easy
technique’.98 Secondly, some observations need to be made with respect
to the use of statistical-numerical data.99 Statistics can indeed present
objective results in an easily interpretable format, as is in fact the case in
the Finnish approach,100 but mistakes are far from infrequent. Percentages
translation technique it qualifies and amplifies our notions.’; Idem, Renderings of Hebrew
Semiprepositions, 288, 306–307.
97
By way of example, explicit reference can be made to G. Marquis, ‘Consistency
of Lexical Equivalents’, 405: ‘Literalness in a translation is the degree of adherence to
the source language reflected in the language of the translation, measured relative to a
perfectly literal translation.’
98
Cf., for example, A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Übersetzung als Schlüssel zum Original’, 154, n. 12:
‘Sie [die völlig wortgetreue Übersetzung, B.L.] ist faktisch unmöglich, obwohl manche,
besonders computerorientierte Forscher die völlig wortgetreue Übersetzung zum Aus-
gangspunkt ihrer Analyse der Übersetzungstechnik der Septuaginta machen.’; Idem, ‘The
Significance of Clause Connectors’, 361: ‘From this angle [first approach, B.L.] perfect
literalness would naturally be ideal. . . . It is true that all the Septuagintal translations are
more or less literal. But none of them is perfectly literal.’; Idem, ‘Translation Technique
and the Intention’, 27; Idem, Introduction, xiv: ‘Indeed, there is no ideal percentage by
which the performance of the translators could be measured. One hundred percent—total
literalness—is surely not the proper point of comparison, although one sometimes gets
the impression that this is the viewpoint of some writers. It did eventually become the
conscious ideal of the later recensors—more so than of the translators—, but nonetheless
it is a perversion of the idea of translation. The original translators had—to a varying
degree—an intuitive sense of the need for idiomatic rendering. The scholar who wishes
to describe their work should have no other point of departure.’
99
Cf., for example, A. Aejmelaeus, Introduction, xiii–xv; Idem, ‘Oti Recitativum in
Septuagintal Greek’, 39; Idem, ‘Translation Technique and the Intention’, 27–28; Idem,
Parataxis in the Septuagint, 169; I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Methodologische Fragen der Erforsc-
hung’, 45–47; S. Olofsson, ‘Consistency as a Translation Technique’, 16, 29.
100
Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, Introduction, xiv–xv; Idem, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’,
362–363; R. Sollamo, Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions, 280–281, 289; I. Soisalon-
Soininen, ‘Methodologische Fragen der Erforschung’, 41, 43, 47. This approach consistently
presupposes a precise and concretely measurable object that can be studied in detail against
the background of the various factors that stimulated its creation. Moreover, attention is also
consistently drawn to the various factors that can influence the statistics. Where necessary
have little significance when they are related to the aforementioned con-
testable norm of perfect literalness (100%). The comparison of acquired
percentages determining the grade of literalness in different translations
offers little realistic perspective if it is impossible to estimate how large
a difference of one percent actually is.101 Moreover, and here we touch
the main problem associated with the use of statistics in this context, the
study of the linguistic phenomena associated with the respective language
systems of the basic text and the translation is given insufficient attention.102
Statistical-numerical data concerning the degree of consistency in a given
translation do not account, for example, for the need to vary the use of
translation equivalents on account of the potentially different meanings
called for by the semantic situation.103 Bearing in mind that individual
books always exhibit a different relationship between the so-called consis-
tent translation equivalents and the so-called non-consistent renderings,
which came into existence nevertheless on the basis of the required idiom,
it is impossible to establish an ideal percentage for the degree of literal-
ness with respect to a particular aspect, and certainly not when a variety
of different phenomena are combined in the said percentage. For this
reason, percentages determining the degree of literalness of a translation
are difficult to interpret and as a consequence often misleading, in spite
of the fact that they give the impression of precision and accuracy.104
Scholars who themselves employ the first approach are likewise aware
of certain problems with regard to its use. E. Tov has argued, for example,
that the degree of literalness itself cannot in fact be expressed in terms
and possible, the latter are even eliminated in order to present the final results as correctly
as possible. Finally, the so-called absolute validity of the statistical-numerical data is then
held up against a detailed and precise study of the concrete information in the text. Statistics
are thus never employed on their own to determine the degree of literality or freedom
in se of a text. Cf. Ibidem, 47: ‘Ich habe Statistiken immer erst nach einer gründlichen
und vielseitigen Behandlung des Materials gegeben. Und ich würde hoffen, daß sie erst
dann eingesehen und benutzt werden, wenn der Leser sich mit dem Material vertraut
gemacht hat. Dann kann er die Relativität der Statistiken sehen.’
101
A. Aejmelaeus, Introduction, xiii–xiv.
102
A. Aejmelaeus, Introduction, xiv.
103
A. Aejmelaeus, Introduction, xiv. See also I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Methodologische
Fragen der Erforschung’, 45; S. Olofsson, ‘Consistency as a Translation Technique’, 16,
17–27, esp. 24: ‘One way to study consistency which overcomes some of the weaknesses
in an ordinary statistical treatment is to investigate the different meanings of a word
separately. In that way one can eliminate at least the problem with the different semantic
range of Hebrew words. This is in line with the approach of the investigators of translation
technique of the LXX in Finland, I. Soisalon-Soininen, A. Aejmelaeus and R. Sollamo.’
104
A. Aejmelaeus, Introduction, xiv. Cf. also I. Soisalon-Sioninen, ‘Methodologische
Fragen der Erforschung’, 47: ‘Wie genau die Statistiken auch sein mögen, den wirklichen
Charakter der Übersetzungen können sie nicht wiederspiegeln.’
of a statistical percentage. Indeed, it is not the degree of literalness one

is expressing in statistical terms, but rather—and de facto—the degree of
consistency, a phenomenon that is considered the most important expo-
nent of literalness.105 This position is criticised, however, by S. Olofsson,106
who argues in line with Barr and Sollamo that consistency is not per se
a criterion of literalness.107 A considerable number of so-called consistent
renderings constitute in fact nothing more than the semantically most
appropriate translation equivalent, such that the translation in these
instances exhibits a high degree of consistency. It would be incorrect to
argue in such cases that the translator in question had intentionally set
literalness as his goal.108 According to Olofsson, such consistent render-
ings should be excluded when one employs consistency as a criterion for
literalness.109
G. Marquis’s attempt to mathematically calculate the degree of literalness
based on the degree of consistency in a translation,110 would likewise appear
105
Cf. E. Tov, B.G. Wright, ‘Computer-Assisted Study of the Criteria’, 153: ‘Strictly
speaking, we measure consistency and not literalness, but that consistency is taken as one of
the main exponents of literalness. The more literal the translator was, the more consistent
he was in his translation, even at the cost of the Greek language.’ See also E. Tov, The
Text-Critical Use, 22: ‘The degree of stereotyping apparent in the translation units of the
LXX reflects their literalism. This characteristic can be expressed statistically on the basis
of different gradations of consistency.’
106
Cf. S. Olofsson, ‘Consistency as a Translation Technique’, 16: ‘Consistency is hardly
per se a criterion of literality.’; and Ibidem, 22: ‘To take consistency generally as a sign
of literality can be misleading. Thus consistency cannot be treated in a purely statistical
way as an aspect of literality if one disregards important factors which can influence the
validity of the statistics.’
107
Cf. S. Olofsson, ‘Consistency as a Translation Technique’, 16. Olofsson refers to J. Barr,
The Typology of Literalism, 306–307; and to R. Sollamo, Renderings of Hebrew Semipreposi-
tions, 284.
108
Cf. S. Olofsson, ‘Consistency as a Translation Technique’, 16; and J. Barr, The
Typology of Literalism, 306: ‘Consistency in the use of vocabulary equivalences is not in
itself a sign of literalism. Sometimes translators achieved a high degree of consistency, not
because they were particularly trying to do so, but because a particular word was the really
natural one in their language and could be used repeatedly without strain.’
109
Cf. S. Olofsson, ‘Consistency as a Translation Technique’, 17. In line with the scholars
of the Finnish School, Olofsson also makes reference to a number of other factors that
have to be taken into account when one employs the notion of consistency as a criterion
for literality: the semantic scope of the Hebrew words, the nature and requirements of
the target language (Greek), the genre and specific (inc. contextual) characteristics of
the Hebrew basic text, the frequency of the Hebrew word in question, the translator’s
knowledge of Hebrew, the units upon which the translation is based (words or clauses)
and the Vorlage of the Greek word. Cf. Ibidem, 17–27.
110
Cf. G. Marquis, ‘Consistency of Lexical Equivalents’, 405–424. Marquis endeavours
to make a similar calculation, likewise on the basis of the word sequence followed in a
translation. See in this regard Idem, ‘Word Order as a Criterion’, 59–84.
to imply that the degree of literalness itself could not be expressed in statis-
tical terms up to that point. Marquis argues that the degree of consistency
does not coincide ipso facto with the degree of literalness.111 On the basis
of a mathematical construction intended to give his theory an impression
of objectivity and credibility, Marquis calculates the degree of literalness in
a translation as the latter is reflected in the degree of consistency. In the
present author’s opinion, Marquis’ mathematical constructions are based
on a number of highly questionable hypotheses that are taken as axiomatic.
In the first instance, he suggests that consistency is a consequence of the
fact that the Septuagint translators employed vocabulary lists and lexica
that provided an established Greek equivalent for every Hebrew word.112
If the translator would have followed this list very consistently and if he
would not have used additional equivalents, then his translation would
have reflected a formally perfect rendering of the Hebrew text. If such a
list were still available to us, the reconstruction of the Vorlage of the LXX
would no longer constitute a problem. In Marquis’ opinion, the amount
of deviation from the equivalents found in this hypothetical glossary (i.e.
the degree on non-consistency) represents the degree of deviation from the
literal translation (i.e. the degree of non-literalness). In addition—and this
provides the basis for his mathematical formula for calculating the degree
of literalness—, Marquis siphons the relationship that exists between the
consistent renderings, which he maintains to be a clear reflection of the
source text and to be based on the hypothetical word list, and the non-
consistent translations, which he argues do not formally reflect the source
111
Cf. G. Marquis, ‘Consistency of Lexical Equivalents’, 413: ‘Such a deductive step
from the concrete data to the abstract is necessary because the degree of consistency is not
identical with the degree of literalness. If literalness, as we have defined it, is the reflection
of the language of the source in the language of the translation, the language (or words, in
the case of consistency) of the source can be reflected in the translation regardless of the
question of consistency. The notion of consistency is simply a tool enabling a practicable
measurement of the degree of subservience to the source which can be discovered from the
translation. But since we are interested here not in the degree of consistent translations
found in the translation, but in the degree of literalness reflected in the degree of con-
sistency—which cannot be directly measured in this case—it is necessary to define the
relationship of consistency to literalness.’ Cf. also Marquis’ definition of literalness, Ibidem,
405: ‘Literalness in a translation is the degree of adherence to the source language reflected
in the language of the translation, measured relative to a perfectly literal translation.’; and
that of consistency, Ibidem, 406: ‘Consistency is the degree to which a word in the source
text is translated by one word in the translation (lexical equivalent), relative to the total
number of occurrences of the word in the source text. A translation of a word in the source
text which occurs only once in the translation is called a singular translation.’
112
Cf. G. Marquis, ‘Consistency of Lexical Equivalents’, 406–408. Compare also supra
with his definition of consistency, n. 111.
text and which he refers to as ‘singular translations’, without further ado

onto the relationship between the ‘singular translations’ which, albeit in
an abstract way, reflect the Hebrew text and those which do not reflect
the source text.113 On the basis of the given deduction, Marquis goes
on to create a mathematical formula that is said to be able to determine
the degree of literalness of a particular translation in ‘precise’ statistical
percentages. The present author is of the opinion that such hypothetically
laden constructions cannot function as the basis for a well-founded judge-
ment concerning the translation technique of the Septuagint. When one
compares Marquis’ abstract procedures with the concrete methodological
approach of the ‘Finnish School’, one would indeed be correct to argue
that the latter clearly and concretely reveal the ‘fingerprints’ of the trans-
lators and thereby clarify and illuminate the difference between and the
characterisation of the various translators to a large extent.114
By way of conclusion, one can argue together with A. Aejmelaeus that
everything depends on the way one approaches the translation technique
of the Septuagint.115 One can view translation technique as an object of
study in itself or as a methodological step in the research of linguistic
phenomena in a translation.
If one perceives of translation technique as an object of study itself, this
implies that the translators of the Septuagint employed a specific technique
or conscious methodology that can be detected in their translations. This
presupposition constitutes the point of departure for all studies that collect
the available material and examine it in the first instance on the basis of
the literalness of the translators in it, taking into account of all its aspects:
word order, consistency and quantitative representation. With the help of
the computer, precise results that give expression to the literalness of the
various translators are rendered statistically. This method coincides with
what we characterised in the present discussion as the ‘first’ or ‘quantita-
tive’ approach.116 As has become evident, however, this approach requires
correction and fine tuning with respect to both its presuppositions and
its methodology.117
113
Cf. G. Marquis, ‘Consistency of Lexical Equivalents’, 412–413.
114
Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 362.
115
Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, Introduction, xiii–xvi and, very recently, also R. Sollamo, ‘Translation
Technique as a Method’, in H. Ausloos et al. (eds), Translating a Translation, pp.
35–41.
116
Cf. supra p. 115.
117
Translation technique, however, can equally be viewed as a method-

ological step in the study of linguistic phenomena of the translation.
When such an approach is used, the results are easier to interpret and
more reliable. Moreover, they can be employed more fruitfully in other
subdisciplines, in particular the textual criticism of both the Greek and
the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Percentages that render the
results of analysis in statistical terms can also be employed in such an
instance, to facilitate the comparison of different books for example, but,
in this regard, such statistics are never employed in se as an indication of
the degree of literalness or freedom of a translation. This methodology
appropriately accounts of the various factors that may have influenced
the translation process and thereby offers reliable explanations of specific
linguistic phenomena in the Greek text. This latter method, which we
characterised above as the ‘second’ or ‘qualitative’ method118 and which can
be identified grosso modo with the method of the so-called ‘Finnish School’,
is described somewhat poetically by Aejmelaeus as ‘the following of the
trail of the translators’ . . . Against this background, the Finnish scholars do
not completely reject the first approach but they emphasise the fact—and
personally, I agree—that the exercise thereof must always go hand in hand
with careful linguistic and grammatical research into the literal and free
renderings of various linguistic phenomena.119 There would be no point,
118
119
A. Aejmelaeus, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 378: ‘As for the methodology,
the most ideal way of studying the translation technique is to combine it with linguistic
research using the translation-technical method, as described above. Actually, translation
technique cannot be adequately described without this connection to language usage.
Barr’s Typology of Literalism is an excellent analysis of the theoretical aspects of translation
technique, but it cannot be used, and was hardly meant to be used, as a program for study-
ing the translation technique in concrete translations. The various aspects of translation,
segmentation of the text, word order, consistency, and others, can hardly be examined as
such disconnected from concrete linguistic phenomena. It is not meaningful to study the
changes in word order without paying attention to the cases requiring a different order in
Greek. It is not meaningful to study the consistency in word equivalences without pay-
ing attention to the meaning of the alternatives and the need for different renderings in
Greek. Translation technique must remain a question of methodology within the study
of Septuagintal Greek. The two are inseparable.’ Compare, on the other hand, with B.G.
Wright, ‘The Quantitative Representation of Elements’, 313: ‘In other words, each of the
components of literalism set out by Barr and Tov need to be examined individually for
each translation.’ For a concrete example of the combination of both approaches, refer-
ence can be made for example to the method of R. Sollamo whose linguistic study of the
literal and free translation of Hebrew semiprepositions also explores the degree to which
the latter are consistently translated (‘stereotyping tendency’). Cf. R. Sollamo, Renderings
of Hebrew Semiprepositions in the Septuagint, 280–289.
for example, to study the word order of a translation and draw statistical
conclusions on the basis thereof without bearing in mind that the two
language systems in question, the Hebrew and the Greek, frequently and
of necessity demand a different word order for grammatical reasons. It
would likewise be pointless to study the consistency of word equivalents
without paying attention to the semantic meaning of the alternative choices
and the need for different Greek translations.120 Therefore, once again, the
(statistically expressed) ‘quantitative’ characterisation of the literalness of
a translation cannot be used adequately, if it is not combined with and
adjusted by a ‘qualitative’ detailed grammatical research into the literal
and free renderings of different linguistic phenomena.121
Preliminary conclusion and further research perspectives

Yet, it may have become clear that both the ‘quantitative’ and the ‘qualita-
tive’ aproach can offer valuable insights—although they should comple-
ment each other—with regard to the translation technique of the LXX
translators.
However, based on this insight and moreover, against the background of
a seemingly lacking interest to content-orientated analyses of the Septua-
gint translation technique, the present author and H. Ausloos are actually
developing a third methodical way, somehow in line with the qualitative
approach, but complementing it from a very specific angle. Whereas the
qualitative approach mainly restricts itself to linguistic and grammatical
features in the text, Ausloos and I have tried to take into account specific
criteria related to the content of the text. By way of illustration, reference
can be made to the Greek rendering of so-called aetiologies,122 to the ques-
tion of Greek semantic adequacy in jargon-defined vocabulary,123 and more
120
See also in this regard, for example, I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Methodologische Fragen
der Erforschung’, 45–47; and S. Olofsson, ‘Consistency as a Translation Technique’,
17–27.
121
Remark that A. Aejmelaeus equally makes use of the terms ‘quantitative’ and
‘qualitative’ in this respect. See e.g., A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Characterizing Criteria for the Char-
acterization of the Septuagint Translators: Experimenting on the Greek Psalter’, in R.J.V.
Hiebert, C.E. Cox, P.J. Gentry (eds), The Old Greek Psalter. FS A. Pietersma ( JSOT SS,
332), Sheffield 2001, 54–73.
122
See H. Ausloos, ‘LXX’s Rendering of Hebrew Proper Names and the Characteriza-
tion of the Translation Technique’, in A. Voitila, J. Jokiranta (eds), Scripture in Transition:
Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls. FS R. Sollamo (SJSJ, 126),
Leiden 2008, pp. 53–71.
123
See B. Lemmelijn, ‘Flora in Cantico Canticorum: Towards a More Precise Char-
acterisation of Translation Technique in the LXX of Song of Songs’, in: A. Voitila,
J. Jokiranta (eds), Scripture in Transition, 27–51. With respect to considering ‘lexical accu-
elaborately, to the Greek rendering of Hebrew hapax legomena.124 Since

this (theoretical) development of new so-called ‘content-related’ criteria
in characterising the Septuagint’s translation technique would lead us too
far in the context of the present study of Exod. 7:14–11:10, this issue
will not be dealt here extensively.125
Nevertheless, what is of importance here is the basic statement that a
well-founded assessment with regard to the characterisation of the trans-
lation of the Septuagint is really necessary to function as a substantiated
criterion in the evaluation of individual text-critical variants of the LXX
text. In what follows, due attention will be paid therefore to the charac-
terisation of the translation technique of LXX Exodus.
racy’ among the criteria of the ‘qualitative’ study of the translation technique, and more
specifically as one of the ‘content-related’ criteria, see also a forthcoming contribution of
my doctoral student (Ph. D. fellowship of the Research Foundation—Flanders [FWO]),
H. Debel, ‘Amalgamator or Faithful Translator? A Translation-Technical Assessment of
Psalm 151’, in: E. Zenger (ed.), The Composition of the Book of Psalms. Proceedings of
CBL 2008 (BETL).
124
Cf. in this respect H. Ausloos, B. Lemmelijn, ‘Rendering Love’ Hapax Legomena
and the Characterisation of the Translation Technique of Song of Songs’, in: H. Ausloos,
J. Cook, F. García Martínez, B. Lemmelijn, M. Vervenne (eds), Translating a Translation:
The Septuagint and its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism (BETL, 213),
Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA 2008, 43–61. This article demonstrated that the study of the
Greek rendering of the Hebrew hapax legomena is a relevant content-related criterion
in the characterisation of the translation technique of LXX Song of Songs. Against that
background, Ausloos and Lemmelijn have recently initiated a research project, aiming at
functionally broadening and deepening the above described pilot contribution by studying
the abovementioned facet in the whole of the Greek translation of the Ancient Hebrew
bible. It is entitled: Once-only Hebrew and Uniquely Greek. The Greek Rendering of Hebrew
Hapax legomena as a Significant Indication for the Characterisation of the Septuagint Transla-
tion. This project (FWO G.0334.08; 2008–2011; promoter B. Lemmelijn; co-promoter
H. Ausloos) is financed by the Research Foundation—Flanders (FWO-V) and is currently
being carried out at the Louvain Centre for Septuagint Studies and Textual Criticism with
Dra. Elke Verbeke as a doctoral student and research assistant. Within the scope of this
research project, an exploring contribution on methodology has been published recently:
E. Verbeke, ‘The Use of Hebrew Hapax Legomena in Septuagint Studies. Preliminary
Remarks on Methodology’, in H. Ausloos, B. Lemmelijn, M. Vervenne (eds), Florilegium
Lovaniense. Studies in Septuagint and Textual Criticism in honour of Florentino García
Martínez (BETL, 224), Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA 2008, 507–521. More information on
http://theo.kuleuven.be/lxxtc/en/.
125
A presentation of this new ‘content-related’ criteriology has been offered at the occa-
sion of the LXX.D-congress: Die Septuaginta: Texte, Theologien und Einflüsse. Internationale
Fachtagung, Wüppertal (Germany), 23–27 July 2008, in a lecture entitled Content-Related
Criteria in Characterising the LXX Translation Technique (H. Ausloos & B. Lemmelijn).
This paper will be published in the proceedings of the said congress.
The translation technique of the book of Exodus126
General characterisation of LXX Exodus

The Septuagint translation of the book of Exodus is generally characterised
as (one of ) the most free translation(s) of the Pentateuch.127 It is impor-
tant to note in this regard that the characterisation ‘free’ should not be
understood as arbitrarily ‘paraphrased’. The translator of the Septuagint
translates with great care,128 and is also faithful, even in his free renderings,
to his original.129 However, he is free in the extent to which he endeavours
to render the Hebrew Vorlage in grammatically correct Greek,130 whereby
126
See, in this respect, also B. Lemmelijn, ‘Free and Yet Faithful: On the Translation
Technique of LXX Exod 7,14–11,10’, JNSL 33 (2007), 1–32, pp. 2–13.
127
Cf., for example, Z. Frankel, Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese, 73–122,
esp. 73–82; J.W. Wevers, ‘The Use of Versions’, 21; H.St.J. Thackeray, A Grammar of the
Old Testament, 6–16, esp. 9: ‘At the head stands the Pentateuch, distinguished from the rest
by a fairly high level of style (for κοινη Greek), combined with faithfulness to the original,
rarely degenerating into literalism.’; A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Oti causale in Septuagintal Greek’,
19–20, 23; Idem, ‘Oti recitativum in Septuagintal Greek’, 37–38, 39; Idem, Parataxis in
the Septuagint, 164, 166, 175, 177, 178, 179 and 180: ‘Assembling the evidence of the
various translation-technical characterizations and classifications, the translator of Ex appears
to be the most competent of the Pentateuchal translators. His competence does not always
produce high figures for the statistics, but we have adequate evidence of his consideration
of the demands of the Greek language and mastery of large units of text. In questions of
word order he is fairly free of the original.’; Idem, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’,
370, 371; Idem, ‘Septuagintal Translation Techniques’, 388–391; Idem, ‘What Can We
Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 65, 71–77 and 86–87: ‘one of the freest Septuagintal
translators’ and ‘one of the most freely rendered books in the Septuagint’ respectively;
I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Die Wiedergabe des Hebräischen Personalpronomens’, 80, 83, 85;
Idem, ‘Die Auslassung des Possessivpronomens’, 92–95, 103; Idem, ‘Die Wiedergabe des
partitiven ‫’מן‬, 163, 170; Idem, ‘Der Gebrauch des Verbs ἐχειν’, 183; Idem, Die Infinitive
in der Septuaginta, 176–190, 192, 194; R. Sollamo, ‘The LXX Renderings of the Infinitive
Absolute’, 110–113; Idem, Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions, 281–283 and 284–285:
‘In our field of research Ex is the most freely translated book in the Pentateuch.’
128
The fact that the book of Exodus is translated with care is likewise confirmed, accord-
ing to Tov, by the relative paucity of variants rooted in the interchange of consonants. See
the table in E. Tov, ‘Interchanges’, 263, together with his conclusion, Ibidem, 264.
129
Cf., for example, A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Septuagintal Translation Techniques’, 389: ‘He
[the translator of Exodus, B.L.] could add and omit words and grammatical items, but he
obviously did not do so out of indifference or carelessness. Even in the free renderings he
mostly proves to be faithful to the original.’; Idem, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew
Vorlage’, 63, 65 and 77: ‘It seems that even the free renderings follow the original very
closely. Actually, even small details of the Hebrew text have been rendered faithfully.’
130
Cf., for example, Z. Frankel, Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese, 228:
‘Exodus wurde von einem Manne übertragen, der mehr mit der griechischen als mit der
hebräischen Sprache vertraut gewesen zu sein scheint.’; J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll,
252: ‘for the sake of idiomatic Greek.’ and Ibidem, 253: ‘Often he exercised the freedom
to render the Hebrew into good Greek while maintaining the thought.’; E. Tov, ‘The
Nature and Study of the Translation Technique’, 351; A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Oti recitativum in
a significant number of smaller and larger differences have arisen with

respect to the Hebrew text.131
The present author considers it of vital importance that the distinction
described above between ‘faithfulness’ and ‘literalness’ is borne in mind in
this regard.132 Indeed, it is possible to argue that the Septuagint translation
of Exodus is an extremely faithful translation in relation to its Vorlage,
while insisting at the same time that it is a particularly free translation,
especially in its creation of a relatively good Greek text. In terms of
content, the translation of Exodus remains close to its Hebrew Vorlage,133
but when one examines the word order, for example, the consistent use
Septuagintal Greek’, 39: ‘Within the Pentateuch, the translator of Exodus often proves
to have a special talent in finding genuine Greek equivalents for Hebraistic expressions.;
Idem, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 371: ‘Ex succeeds in omitting the super-
fluous conjunction in about 80% of the cases . . . Ex comes so near to perfectly correct
usage, leaving the others far behind’; and Ibidem: ‘The special position of Gen and Ex is
further emphasized by occasional free renderings which replace coordination by various
kinds of subordination, showing both good command of the Greek idiom and excellent
consideration of the larger context.’; Idem, ‘Septuagintal Translation Techniques’, 388: ‘In
the various translation-technical studies which describe the translators’ way of handling
typically Hebrew syntactical phenomena, Exodus has proved to be one of the most freely
translated books in the LXX and one of those in which the requirements of Greek idiom
have been best taken into account.’; and Ibidem, 391: ‘Free renderings like these should
not be taken as examples of the carelessness of the translator—no more here than in the
case of a modern translator—but rather as evidence of his striving towards natural Greek
expressions, expressions that are accurate and appropriate in their context but formally
diverge from the original. This very same striving towards idiomatic Greek is characteristic
of the whole book of the Greek Exodus.’; Idem, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew
Vorlage’, 72: ‘He [the translator of Exod., B.L.] was the one who of all the Pentateuchal
translators paid most attention to the requirements of the Greek language. This is mani-
fested in his numerous excellent free renderings.’; I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Die Wiedergabe
des Hebräischen Personalpronomens’, 74–75.
131
Cf., for example, A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’,
73: ‘In cases like these [a few examples, including Exod. 10:7, B.L.], there is no doubt that
the translator knew the exact meaning of the Hebrew words in question, but he preferred
a natural Greek expression, formally diverging from the original but all the more accurate
with respect to content. The free renderings often either add or omit words as compared
with the MT. Nevertheless, the type of expression used frequently makes it clear that no
variant of the Vorlage is responsible for these changes. This is particularly obvious in the
case of typically Greek phrases and words with no exact equivalent in Hebrew.’
132
Cf. supra p. 114.
133
See also H.M. Orlinsky, ‘The Septuagint and its Hebrew Text’, in: W.D. Davies,
L. Finkelstein (eds), The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 2: The Hellenistic Age, London/
New York/Port Chester/Melbourne/Sydney 1989, 534–562, p. 550. See also A. Aejmelaeus,
‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 86–87: ‘Even if the translator of Ex is
one of the freest Septuagintal translators, it seems to me that he did not deliberately alter
the information contained in his Vorlage. . . . The changes resulting from the free mode
of translation are for the most part structural, and anyway do not essentially affect the
contents of the passage.’
of translation equivalents or lack thereof, quantitative representation and

segmentation,134 it quickly becomes apparent that Exodus treated the
said Vorlage with considerable freedom in function of a linguistically and
grammatically correct Greek.135 If one does not account for the aforemen-
tioned distinction between ‘literal’ and ‘faithful’, it becomes possible to
characterise the translation of Exodus in what would appear to be contra-
dictory ways. J. Sanderson, for example, has argued that the translation
of Exodus exhibits ‘a high degree of literalness’,136 while the majority of
other scholars would be more inclined to characterise the said translations
as ‘extremely free’. Given that Sanderson simultaneously demonstrates that
a significant number of variants are a result of the book’s free translation
technique,137 it would seem that she intends to argue that Exodus is on
the whole a ‘faithful’ translation and that her evaluation thereof conforms
to the characterisation of Exodus described above.138
134
Cf., for example, A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’,
65: ‘Freedom of word-order is in the Greek Pentateuch most evident in Gen and Ex.’;
Ibidem, 73: ‘This survey thus revealed in the translator of Ex a tendency towards natural
Greek usage and freedom with regard to the word-order of the original.’ and Ibidem, 76:
‘Obviously, Ex is not literal in the sense of word-for-word correspondence.’ See also Idem,
Parataxis in the Septuagint, 180: ‘In questions of word order he [translator of Exod., B.L.]
is fairly free of the original.’
135
Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Septuagintal Translation Techniques’, 388–389. While the
translator of Exodus employed free renderings that fit extremely well in their context,
he also uses literal equivalents from time to time. He is capable of altering grammatical
constructions and their word sequence in order to meet the demands of the Greek idiom
although he does not do so on every occasion. He exhibits enough freedom to change the
word order of the original, yet he frequently follows the original word order nevertheless.
He could add and omit words and grammatical details, but never did so out of indif-
ference or sloppiness. See Ibidem: ‘He [translator of Exod., B.L.] may be characterized
as a competent translator, one of the best, but still not perfect.’; Idem, ‘What Can We
Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 77: ‘The translator of Ex may thus be characterized as
a competent translator, mindful of genuine Greek expressions, free in his relationship to
the original, but still exact in reproducing his original relatively faithfully.’
136
See J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 248: ‘. . . most of Exodus is rendered with a
high degree of literalness . . .’
137
138
This is more explicit in the formulation she employs in J.E. Sanderson, ‘The Old
Greek of Exodus’, 103: ‘It should be emphasized that this study has confirmed that for
the book of Exodus the Old Greek is generally a faithful [italics B.L.] translation of its
Vorlage.’ See likewise Idem, An Exodus Scroll, 255: ‘In general, then, G in Exodus gives
evidence of being a faithful [italics B.L.] translation of its Hebrew Vorlage.’ See, however,
Ibidem for the simultaneous use of the adjective ‘literal’ in the sense of ‘faithful’, indicat-
ing that Sanderson did not consciously maintain this distinction: ‘A few readings seem so
literal as to have produced wooden, “Semitic Greek” (e.g. “to fill the hands”), but most
seem relatively literal [italics B.L.] but without being “translation Greek” (e.g., not repeat-
ing a pronoun when it was required in Hebrew but not in Greek). A few suggest greater
concern for the thought than for the actual words, and thus greater freedom which still
successfully renders the ideas (e.g. “glory” and “above all”).’
One can conclude as a consequence that the Septuagint of the book

of Exodus is a faithful translation of its Hebrew basic text, which has
exercised freedom with respect to the said Vorlage in order to acknowledge
the linguistic characteristics of the Greek language and to provide a final
result that represents grammatically correct Greek.
Implications for the evaluation of text-critical variants

If one is inclined to argue that the Septuagint of Exodus aimed at being
a faithful translation of its Hebrew Vorlage while maintaining its freedom
to provide an idiomatic Greek text, then such an insight will have to be
accounted for in one’s evaluation of the Greek text-critical variants. Indeed,
it will be important in this regard to determine in every case whether the
variant in question has its roots in a different Vorlage or is a consequence
rather of the translation technique employed by the translator. The estab-
lishment of such a distinction and the text-critical decision upon which
it is based is not always easy. A correct appreciation of the translation
character of the text under analysis is thus of essential importance.
With respect to the issue at hand, one can observe differences in accent
in the initial attitude of E. Tov on the one hand and A. Aejmelaeus on
the other. Tov is of the opinion that the evaluation of Septuagint variants
must always endeavour to explore and assess every possible explanation that
might point in the direction of translation technique before accepting—at
a later stage—that there is evidence of a different Vorlage.139 Aejmelaeus
corrects this perspective and suggests that one would be better advised to
presuppose the existence of a different basic text—at least with respect to
larger Septuagint variants—, bearing in mind that the translators of the
Septuagint and the book of Exodus in particular were particularly careful
and attentive to detail in their work and that they reveal their desire to
faithfully render their Vorlage in a variety of ways. Only when one can
produce sufficient and well-founded arguments should one ascribe the
larger Septuagint variants to the translators.140
139
Cf., for example, E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 44–45, esp. 40: ‘When analyzing the
LXX translation for text-critical purposes, one should first attempt to view deviations as
the result of inner-translational factors. Only after all possible translational explanations
have been dismissed should one turn to the assumption that the translation represents a
different reading from MT.’
140
Cf., for example, A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vor-
lage’, 68: ‘Now, knowing that the translators considered the text they translated to be
authoritative Scripture and, on the other hand, that most of them, after all, were fairly
literal, it would seem to be a good rule of thumb to start with the assumption that larger
divergences from the MT mainly come from the Vorlage, and only exceptionally and with
The distinction described above with respect to the points of departure

taken by Tov and Aejmelaeus, however, has been further nuanced by the
respective scholars themselves. On the one hand, Aejmelaeus argues that
in the case of smaller variants—also referred to as ‘word-variants’—Tov’s
advice can be followed, at least if one has a correct assessment of the
translation technique of the text in question and if one accounts for the
latter in one’s evaluation of the variants.141 In this regard, Aejmelaeus
briefly explains the difference between variants that can be ascribed to the
translator and those that came into existence on the basis of a different
Vorlage.142 In her opinion, some variants—albeit only the smaller—may
indeed be a result of the increased liberty enjoyed in terms of translation
technique of certain translators (cf. Tov); she nevertheless confirms her
belief that the larger plusses are best ascribed to the Vorlage. In order to
determine the difference between both types of variants, Aejmelaeus holds
that one is first obliged to study the language of these variants. When we
encounter good idiomatic Greek that does not appear to be the result of
a translation or so-called ‘translation-Greek’, then it is possible that the
translator or even a later Greek reworking is responsible. If the language
in the variant in question is more Hebraising and can be easily retroverted
imperative reasons to attribute them to the translator.’; Ibidem, 71, esp. 87: ‘Tov stresses
that one should always first attempt to regard a divergence from the MT as caused by
the translator and only as a last resort accept the possibility of a variant reading in the
Vorlage. This holds good with regard to word-variants. In the case of quantitative diver-
gences, however, it is methodologically more correct to start with the assumption that the
translator found the larger text in his Vorlage. If plusses are unnecessarily attributed to the
translator, this creates a false picture of the translation technique employed, and further-
more, this may in turn prevent one from discovering original readings behind the plusses.
Thus Tov’s warning against exaggeration of the literalness of the translators in the form of
too quick retroversions must be balanced by another warning, viz. against exaggeration
of the freedom of the translators in the form of too ready an acceptance of additions as
originating with the translation.’; Idem, ‘Septuagintal Translation Techniques’, 381: ‘It is
no longer possible for a scholar to assume off-hand that a divergence between the MT
and the LXX was caused by the translator—either his carelessness or free rewriting—
without serious consideration of the possibility of a different Hebrew Vorlage.’ and Idem,
‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 378. See also J.E. Sanderson, ‘The Old Greek
of Exodus’, 103: ‘It should be emphasized that this study has confirmed that for the
book of Exodus the Old Greek is generally a faithful translation of its Vorlage. Thus it
appears that the variations between the Masoretic text and the Greek are at least for the
most part to be attributed to the period of the transmission of its Hebrew Vorlage.’;
R. Hanhart, ‘The Translation of the Septuagint’, 341–343, esp. 342: ‘This [the fact that
the primary goal of the LXX is to offer a faithful rendering of its original, B.L.] means
that deviations from the MT must be noticed but should only in the rarest cases be taken
as the peculiar expression of the translator by means of which he wants to interpret—let
alone reinterpret—his Vorlage.’
141
A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 87.
142
Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 86–87.
into Hebrew, then the variant would appear to reflect a reading present
in its Vorlage. In such contexts, familiarity with the translation technique
of the book in question becomes a decisive factor in the evaluation of its
variants. In addition to language usage, however, the content of the vari-
ous texts is likewise important. The translator of Exodus, no matter how
free he was with respect to his Vorlage, never changed the information
the Vorlage contained. The content of the basic text was thus faithfully
rendered. As a consequence, when a Greek variant offers something com-
pletely different in terms of content to the Hebrew text(s), this should
not simply be ascribed to the translator. Tov, on the other hand, who is
inclined to emphasise the responsibility of the translator, likewise nuances
his position by stating that the possibility of a different Vorlage, especially
when it comes to larger variants, cannot be ruled out and may even be
probable. In line with Aejmelaeus, he also underlines the importance of
a correct understanding of the translation technique in function of an
accurate evaluation of the text-critical variants in the Septuagint.143
By analogy with the opinions concerning the evaluation of text-critical
variants in the Greek text of Exodus, scholars likewise differ with respect
to the evaluation of the so-called ‘harmonisations’ in the text.144 A correct
143
Cf., for example, E. Tov, ‘The Nature and Study of the Translation Technique’,
352, in which the author strongly underlines the importance of the study of translation
technique; cf. also Idem, ‘Some Reflections’, 115–117, where he points to the fact that
larger differences are not infrequently to be ascribed to a different Vorlage.
144
For a definition of harmonisation and a classification of the various types thereof
and their text-critical evaluation see E. Tov, ‘The Nature and Background of Harmoniza-
tions in Biblical Manuscripts’, JSOT 31 (1985), 3–29. Cf. also in this regard S. Olofsson,
The LXX Version, 27–28.
In the aforementioned contribution, which focuses for the most part on harmonisa-
tions within the Hebrew textual versions, Tov nevertheless makes a distinction between
harmonisations that came into existence at the compositional level (i.e. the phase of a
text’s literary growth, prior to it being perceived as final text) and harmonisations that
came into existence at the textual level (i.e. during the process of textual transmission).
The latter enjoy the lion’s share of Tov’s attention. As a provisional definition he main-
tains that a harmonisation brings details in harmony with one another, whereby detail
a from text A, for example, is brought into harmony with detail b from text B. Such
harmonisation can take place between different books, within a single text, within a single
chapter or even within a single sentence. Tov also distinguishes between intentional and
unintentional harmonisations.
In function of a classification of harmonisations, Tov makes a further double distinction.
Based on the distance between the differences between texts A and B, Tov proposes three
major types of harmonisation: those within the same context, those within the same book
and those between different books. In addition, he maintains, one can likewise distinguish
between harmonisations at the level of content: (a) harmonisation of syntactical differences;
(b) harmonisation of smaller contextual differences that may have come into existence at
the level of textual transmission; (c) harmonisation of passages that narrate the giving of
command and the realisation thereof; (d) harmonisation of references to earlier mentioning,
assessment of the origin of harmonisations in the Greek text is text-crit-

ically of major significance but remains far from simple.145 According to
Tov, it can even be very difficult in some instances to determine whether
the harmonisation stems from the translator or the Vorlage.146 Tov is of the
(e) harmonisation of differences relating to larger details; (f ) harmonisation of schematic

descriptions that frequently have their origins in the compositional stage. The various
harmonisation types are the same in the translations as in the original Hebrew texts.
With respect to the technique of harmonisation, Tov distinguishes between harmonisa-
tions that came about on the basis of ‘changes’ and other harmonisations that quanti-
tatively alter the text on the basis of the addition or omission of certain elements. The
question of the direction of a harmonisation (is a harmonised with b or vice versa?) is
often difficult to answer.
With respect to the background against which such harmonisations came into being,
Tov argues in general terms that the context must have been one in which the biblical
text was not yet sacrosanct, given the fact that the harmonised text in question is always
emended in one way or another. Likewise with respect to unconscious or unintentional
harmonisations, which often embraces external harmonisation between two already similar
texts and the background of which is obscure or even unknown, one must argue in any
event that the scribe or copyist has not followed his Vorlage closely. Indeed, a harmoni-
sation always implies a change in the text. In principle, Tov maintains, every text can
contain every type of harmonisation. Nevertheless, a distinction has to be made between
harmonisations of type a and b (minor adaptations) and harmonisations of type c-f (major
changes). The latter categories, which cannot be understood as accidental changes, are
more frequent in the Pentateuch. This might suggest that a greater sensitivity towards
irregularities was present with respect to the Pentateuch and that the text thereof was
intentionally changed from a formalistic point of view. It is possible that such harmonisa-
tions took place against the background of a scribal tradition which stimulated the said
phenomenon. Tov maintains in addition, however, that reference should also be made
to the possibility of influence from other already existing literary compositions in which
texts were already associated with one another.
To conclude, Tov also discusses the text-critical evaluation of harmonisation. Without
wasting words he argues that all harmonisations are in se secondary. The recognition of a
harmonisation implies, according to Tov, the rejection thereof as a non-original reading.
145
See E. Tov, ‘The Nature and Background of Harmonizations’, 19–20: ‘As expected,
the ancient versions contain a sizable number of harmonizing details. It is, however, dif-
ficult to assess the text-critical value of these harmonizations for they may have derived
from either the translator or his Vorlage. The difference between these two possibilities is
crucial, since harmonizations on the Hebrew level do bear on the issue under investigation,
while the same phenomenon on the inner-translational level does not. Inner-translational
harmonizations are part of the nature of the translation and its transmission, and not of
its Hebrew source.’
146
Cf., for example, E. Tov, ‘The Nature and Background of Harmonizations’, 4:
‘Translations contain many harmonizations, but often it cannot be determined whether
these harmonizations derived from the translator himself or from his Hebrew source.’
Supplemented in n. 5: ‘However, sometimes it can be shown that a given harmonization
(or a group of harmonizations) derived from the translator’s Vorlage.’; and in particular
the appendix of this contribution on the harmonisations in ancient translations, Ibidem,
19–23. See also Idem, ‘The Nature of the Hebrew Text Underlying the LXX’, 60; and
S. Olofsson, The LXX Version, 28: ‘Often it is hard to decide if the translator harmonized
the text or if the harmonization had taken place in the Hebrew text the translator had
at his disposal.’
opinion, nevertheless, that it is possible to set up a comparative study into

the translation equivalents in the harmonised texts (or textual fragments)
in function of determining the difference between a harmonisation stem-
ming from the translator and a harmonisation stemming from the Vorlage.147
If one can presuppose that the passage containing the harmonisation and
the passage upon which the harmonisation was rooted are the work of
the same translator, and if the said translator opted with care in both pas-
sages for the same translation equivalents whereby at least a small number
thereof are unique to the parallel passages, then one is at liberty, according
to Tov, to argue that the harmonisation is a creation of the translator.
Where the translation equivalents in both translations differ, this can serve
as an indication that the harmonisation had already come into existence
in the Hebrew Vorlage. In principle at least, therefore, one can observe a
degree of openness towards ascribing harmonisations to the translator in
Tov’s position. The same basic position is even more evident in the work
of J. Cook who, while he considers the genesis of harmonisations in the
Vorlage to be theoretically possible,148 nevertheless argues in his study of
Gen. 1–2:4 that the harmonisation of discrepancies in the text and the
explanation of ambiguous passages constitute an integral element in
the work of the translator of Genesis.149 In other words, Cook ascribes the
harmonisations in the Greek text of Gen. 1–2:4 to the translator.150
147
See E. Tov, ‘The Nature and Background of Harmonizations’, 20.
148
Cf. J. Cook, ‘The Translator of the Greek Genesis’, in: N. Fernández Marcos (ed.),
La Septuaginta, 169–182, p. 171: ‘It is also theoretically possible for these deviations to
be ascribed to (a) diverging Hebrew Vorlage(n).’
149
Cf. J. Cook, ‘The Translator of the Greek Genesis’, 171: ‘These discrepancies are
harmonized on internal and/or external grounds in the LXX.’; and p. 182: ‘I have demon-
strated that the harmonization of discrepancies and the explication of ambiguous passages
formed an integral part of the approach of the translator of Genesis.’
150
Cf., however, E. Tov, ‘The Nature and Background of Harmonizations’, 21–22, who
argues that the harmonisations in Gen. 1 should be ascribed to the Hebrew Vorlage. See
p. 22: ‘All or most harmonizing changes and additions in ch. 1 derive from a Hebrew
text rather than the translator’s harmonizing tendencies.’ See also A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What
Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 69–70, in which she criticises Cook’s argu-
ment that the harmonisations in Genesis should be ascribed to the translator. According
to Aejmelaeus, it is correct to characterise Genesis as a free translation, but the freedom
in question never extends beyond the framework of the original. Moreover, the manner
with which the first chapters of the book are translated, in which harmonisations are
most numerous, is more literal than the latter chapters of the book. In her opinion it is
highly improbable that the translator set about correcting the texts he was translating from
the very outset. Aejmelaeus argues in addition that it is unlikely that a translator would
harmonise with parallel passages that were located a considerable distance further along
in the text. Indeed, it would be difficult for a translator to harmonise with a text he had
not yet translated. Aejmelaeus maintains, therefore, that the greater the distance between
parallel text fragments, the less likely the translator was responsible for the harmonisation.
A. Aejmelaeus represents a different position in this regard. Within the

framework of her vision concerning the evaluation of larger variants, she
has argued that harmonisations should not be ascribed to the translator
but rather to the copyists of the Vorlage of the Greek text.151 She insists,
therefore, that the creation of harmonisations fits better in the modus
operandi of a copyist or scribe than that of a translator.152 Copyists often
knew their text by heart, thus allowing them to relate parallel passages
with relative ease to the text they were copying. Their working practice
was often fast and mechanical, whereby it was easy for them to think of
other passages at the same time or to discover inconsistencies. Translators,
on the other hand, had to concentrate on the portion of text they were
translating.153 In many instances they would not even have been aware
of the immediate context of the passage they were translating. Structural
inconsistencies could emerge, for example, that they did not even correct
at a later moment.We likewise cannot be sure that translators compared
the text they were translating with the text they had previously translated,
given the fact that variation is also found in the translation equivalents
employed in paralleled texts. One can conclude on this basis that the
horizon of the translator was extremely limited. When one adds to this
the fact that the translator had already ascribed a degree of Scriptural
authority to the text he was translating,154 which as a consequence he
desired to render as faithfully as he could, one can likewise conclude that
harmonisations were more likely to have been the work of scribes than
of translators,155 and that they were taken up into the Greek text via the
The most one can argue is that a translator was responsible for the harmonisation of two
expressions within the same immediate context, and even then this may in fact have been
due to a different Vorlage as can be demonstrated, for example, by the presence of the
same phenomenon in another Hebrew textual version (e.g. SamP).
151
Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 69–71.
152
Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 70: ‘It seems
to me that harmonization is a practice that far better suits the working habits of a copyist
than of a translator.’ See also Idem, ‘Übersetzung als Schlüssel zum Original’, 161.
153
Cf. also supra p. 106.
154
Cf., for example, A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Übersetzung als Schlüssel zum Original’, 152:
‘Eher scheint es, daß sie nur allgemein ihren Original treu sein wollten, das für sie ja
als Heilige Schrift galt.’; and Idem, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’,
68: ‘The translators considered the text they translated to be authoritative Scripture’, in
contrast to the situation of the copyists of the Hebrew text in which the latter was still
in development in compositional terms (in terms of literary growth) and was not yet
considered sacrosanct. Cf. supra n. 144.
155
In contrast to the opinion of A. Aejmelaeus, who maintains a sharp distinction
between the working practices of scribes and translators, J.E. Sanderson appears to ascribe
similar freedoms to both groups, whereby variants and harmonisation can equally well be
Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint in like fashion to other larger text-critical

variants. Aejmelaeus concludes that ‘All in all, the scholar who wishes to
attribute deliberate changes, harmonizations, completion of details and
new accents to the translator is under the obligation to prove this thesis
with weighty arguments and also to show why the divergences cannot
have originated with the Vorlage. That the translator may have manipulated
his original does not mean that he necessarily did so. All that is known
of the translation techniques employed in the Septuagint points firmly
enough in the opposite direction.’156
If one specifically relates this issue to the Septuagint of the book of
Exodus and if one describes the translation technique employed therein
according to the terms outlined above, namely faithful to its Vorlage and
free in its endeavour to provide idiomatic Greek, then such a characterisa-
tion must be allowed to play an important role in the evaluation of the
harmonisations. The translation character of the Greek text of Exodus
would appear to suggest that larger variants and harmonisation should
be ascribed in the first instance to the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint
of Exodus rather than the translator. If such variants are also present in
other Hebrew textual witnesses (such as SamP or particular Qumran
scrolls), this fact can function as an additional argument in support of
the suggestion that the reading in question did indeed exist as a Hebrew
reading and as a consequence may have been present in the Hebrew
Vorlage of the Septuagint.157
In what follows, we will endeavour to determine, on the basis of concrete

textual data from the ‘Plagues Narrative’ in Exod. 7:14–11:10, whether
the characterisation of the translation technique of the Greek text of the
ascribed to a translator. Sanderson points in addition to the possibility of variants coming

into existence during the transmission of the Greek text, since the scribes or copyists that
passed down the Greek text enjoyed the same freedom. See J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus
Scroll, 255: ‘If scribes copying biblical texts in Hebrew exercised the freedom to expand
or alter as they wrote, then presumably the translator and the copyists in Greek did as
well.’ When one bases oneself on the working hypothesis that the Göttingen edition of the
Septuagint text represents a reconstruction of the original Greek text, however, and as a
consequence one hands over the textual criticism of the Greek text, which was characterised
earlier in the present chapter as the primary condition for employing the Septuagint in the
textual criticism of the Hebrew Old Testament (cf. supra p. 97), to specialists, then from
the practical perspective one should not account for the latter type of variant.
156
Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 71.
157
Cf., for example, E. Tov, ‘The Contribution of the Qumran Scrolls to the Under-
standing of the LXX’, 11, 12–22.
book of Exodus outlined above can also function as a point of departure

for the text-critical evaluation of the pericope under analysis.
A relevant cross-section of the translation technique evident in LXX Exod.

7:14–11:10158
In the preceding pages, the Greek translation of Exodus was characterised
as a faithful rendition of its Hebrew Vorlage, which nevertheless took the
liberty to deal freely with its basic text in striving to achieve a grammatically
correct Greek text while exhibiting a clear concern for idiomatic Greek
usage. In this sense one can argue that the Septuagint of Exodus is both
faithful and free at one and the same time.159 Based on a brief analysis of
the different aspects of literalness and freedom, we will endeavour in the
following pages to demonstrate that the characterisation of the translation
technique employed by the Greek text of Exodus as a whole also applies
to the Septuagint text of the ‘Plagues Narrative’ of Exod. 7:14–11:10 in
particular.
For the concrete textual data to be discussed below, the reader is referred
to the synoptic presentation of the textual material.160
Consistency and non-consistency in the choice of translation equivalents

An extremely literal translation would normally exhibit a high degree of
consistency in its choice of translation equivalents. When one examines
the text of Exod. 7:14–11:10, however, one encounters a significant
number of non-consistent renderings in which options have been made
for different translation equivalents on the basis of the context and with
a view to semantic precision or stylistic variation. The following pages
summarise a number of noteworthy examples in this regard.
158
See, in this respect, also B. Lemmelijn, ‘Free and Yet Faithful’: On the Translation
Technique of LXX Exod 7,14–11,10’, JNSL 33 (2007), 1–32, pp. 13–26.
159
See in this respect, e.g., the same conclusion that has been reached concerning the
LXX translator of Song of Songs in H. Ausloos, B. Lemmelijn, ‘Rendering Love’: Hapax
Legomena and the Characterisation of the Translation Technique of Song of Songs’, in:
H. Ausloos, J. Cook, F. García Martínez, B. Lemmelijn, M. Vervenne (eds), Translating
a Translation: The Septuagint and its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism
(BETL, 213), Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA 2008, 43–61, p. 60: “. . . it has nevertheless become
evident that the large majority of the explained Greek equivalents picture a Greek translator
who can be characterised as faithful to his Vorlage, but relatively ‘free’ in rendering it” and
p. 61: “At least on the basis of the study of his renderings of the Hebrew hapax legomena,
he presents himself as a ‘faithful’, but relatively ‘free’ translator: faithful to the content and
message of his Vorlage, but free in rendering it in his own Greek way.”
160
Cf. the appendix at the end of the present volume.
– ‫ אמר‬and ‫ = דבר‬λεγειν (Exod. 7:14, 22, 26; 10:21, 29)

– ‫ = דבר‬λαλειν (Exod. 8:11, 15) and συντασσειν (Exod. 9:12)
– ‫ = הפך‬στρεφειν (Exod. 7:15) and μεταβαλλειν (Exod. 7:17, 20; 10:19)
– ‫ = היה‬εἰναι and γιγνεσθαι (Exod. 7:19; 8:11, 13, 14; 9:9, 10, 11, 18,
24, 26, 28; 10:6, 13, 14, 22)
– ‫ = לב‬mostly καρδια, but also νους (Exod. 7:23) and διανοια (Exod. 9:21)
– ‫ = מן‬ἀπο (for people) ἐκ (for places) (Exod. 8:7, 8, 9). Also ‫ = מעם‬ἀπο
(Exod. 10:6, 18). Reading the same Hebrew word, the translator shows
himself capable of nuancing the meaning according to the semantic
context (people or places).
– ‫ = ב‬mostly ἐν (see, for example, Exod. 8:5, 7, 21, 24; 9:3, 10, 11,
14, 19, 21, 26; 10:2, 15, 19; 11:5, 9), but also ἐπι (cf., for example,
Exod. 8:17, 28; 9:5, 22; 10: 1, 4, 13, 14, 22), εἰς (e.g. Exod. 7:28;
10:2; 11:2, 4), συν (Exod. 10:9) and κατα (Exod. 11:6). In addition,
‫ ב‬is also rendered with the use of an idiomatic Greek (instrumental)
dative (cf., for example, Exod. 7:17, 20, 22, 27; 8:1, 3, 13, 14; 9:15,
35; 10:2, 25, 28) in agreement with the demanded or appropriate
semantic nuance.161
– The Hebrew expression ‫ בפעם הזאת‬is rendered in a variety of ways.
The Greek text renders ἐπι του καιρου τουτου (ἐπι with the genitive)
in Exod. 8:28 and literally ἐν τῳ νυν καιρω| (ἐν with the dative) in
Exod. 9:14.
– ‫( דבר‬as substantive) = λεγειν (Exod. 8:6, 9, 27), ὁρισμος (Exod. 8:8),
θανατος (Exod. 9:3, 15),162 ῥητον (Exod. 9:4), but mostly ῥημα (Exod.
9:5, 6, 20, 21). Also here, the translator demonstrates the freedom to
interpret the same Hebrew consonants in two different ways, reading
deber or dabar, thereby taking the context into account.
– The Hebrew ‫ אשׁר‬is mostly rendered by a Greek relative, but also by
an indeterminate relative pronoun such as ἡτις in Exod. 11:6 or a cor-
relative adjective such as ὁσα in Exod. 9:19; 10:2; 11:7.163 In addition,
one observes the rendering of ‫ אשׁר‬by ὡς (Exod. 8:8) and καθαπερ
(Exod. 8:11).
161
Cf. also in this regard I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Methodologische Fragen der Erfor-
schung’, 49; Idem, ‘Die Wiedergabe einiger Hebräischen Zeitangaben’, 107–115; Idem,
‘Die Wiedergabe des ‫ ב‬Instrumenti’, 116–130.
162
In contrast to the more literal λοιμος found in Aquila and Symmachus. See in this
regard J.W. Wevers, Notes, 125–126, n. 7 and Ibidem, 131, n. 22.
163
Cf. also I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘The Rendering of the Hebrew Relative Clause’,
55–61.
– ‫כ‬, ‫ כאשׁר‬en ‫ = כדבר‬καθαπερ (Exod. 8:9, 11, 15, 23, 27), ὡς (Exod.
8:6), καθα (Exod. 9:12) and καθοτι (Exod. 10:10)164
– The Greek word γη mostly represents the equivalent of ‫( ארץ‬e.g., Exod.
8:18; 9:23, 25), although it is also employed as a parallel of ‫אדמה‬
(Exod. 8:17; 10:6), ‫( גבול‬Exod. 10:19) and ‫( שׂדה‬Exod. 9:22; 10:5).
The term πεδιον represents the standard equivalent of ‫שׂדה‬.
– Πας = mostly ‫כל‬, but also ‫( בקרב‬Exod. 8:18)
– ∆ιδοναι = mostly ‫נתן‬, but also ‫( שׂים‬Exod. 8:19; 9:5)
– ‫ = עשׂה‬ποιειν, but also γενεσθαι (Exod. 8:22, 27)
– ‫ = שׁלח‬ἀποστελλειν and ἐξαποστελλειν (Exod. 8:16, 17, 24; 9:27, 28,
35; 10:3, 4, 7, 10, 20, 27; 11:1, 10), and also ἐπαποστελλειν (Exod. 8:17)
– ‫ = הנה‬mostly ἰδου, but also ὁδε (Exod. 8:25)
– The translation equivalent of the Hebrew tetragrammaton ‫ יהוה‬is usually
κυριος, although θεος is also found in a number of places (Exod. 8:25,
26; 9:5; 10:11, 18); θεος tends to function as a rule as the equivalent
of ‫( אלהים‬cf., for example, Exod. 8:15, 21; 9:28; 10:16).
– The Hebrew ‫( וסר‬from ‫ )סור‬is translated in Exod. 8:25 by ἀπελευσεται.
In Exod. 8:27, ‫( ויסר‬from the same verb ‫ )סור‬is rendered by
περιειλεν.
– ‫ כבד‬is rendered in Exod. 8:20 by πληθος, in Exod. 9:3 by μεγας,165
and in Exod. 9:18, 24 by πολλην.166
– Χειρ = mostly ‫יד‬, but also ‫( חפנים‬Exod. 9:8) and ‫( כפי‬Exod. 9:29, 33)
– ‫ = החרטמים‬mostly οἱ ἐπαοιδοι (Exod. 7:22; 8:3, 14, 15), but also οἱ
φαρμακοι (Exod. 9:11)
– ‫ עמד‬is rendered in Exod. 9:11 by ἱσταναι and in Exod. 9:28 by μενειν.
In addition, ἱσταναι in Exod. 9:13 is also the equivalent of the Hebrew
‫יצב‬.
– ‫ = בעבור‬ἑνεκεν (Exod. 9:16) and ἱνα (Exod. 9:16)
– ‫ = מטר‬ὑω and ὑετὸς (Exod. 9:18, 33–34) but also βρεχω (Exod.
9:23).
– While the Hebrew ‫ בהמה‬is mostly rendered by the semantic equiva-
lent τετραποδα (cf., for example, Exod. 8:13, 14; 9:9, 10), it is also
translated on occasion as κτηνη (Exod. 9:19, 22, 25; 11:5, 7), although
κτηνη mostly represents the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew ‫( מקנה‬cf.,
for example, Exod. 9:19, 20, 21).
164
See also A. Aejmelaeus, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 375–377.
165
In contrast to the more literal βαρυς found in Aquila and Symmachus. See in this
regard J.W. Wevers, Notes, 125–126, n. 7.
166
Once again in contrast to Aquila and Symmachus which likewise do not translate ‫כבד‬
as πολλην, but appear to prefer the more literal βαρυς. Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 133, n. 26.
– For the most part, ‫ על‬is rendered by ἐπι (cf. Exod. 9:22; 10:6, 21)
and ‫ אל‬by εἰς (cf. Exod. 9:21). In Exod. 9:23; 10:21, 22, however,
εἰς represents the equivalent of ‫ על‬and in Exod. 10:3, ἐναντιον is the
equivalent of ‫אל‬. In addition, ἐπι is also the equivalent of ‫ מן‬in Exod.
10:5. In Exod. 10:16, ἐναντιον also functions as the equivalent of ‫ל‬
and the same ‫ ל‬is also rendered by εἰς.
– ‫ = למען‬ἱνα and ὁπως (Exod. 9:16, 29; 10:1, 2; 11:7, 9)167
– ‫ = ספר‬διαγγελειν (Exod. 9:16) and διαγειν (Exod. 10:1)
– The Hebrew ‫ מאן‬is rendered by both οὐ βουλει (Exod. 9:2; 10:3) and
μη θελῃς (Exod. 10:4), but sometimes merely by a simple negation,
for example μη in Exod. 7:14. In Exod. 10:27, moreover, the Hebrew
‫ ולא אבה‬is rendered by και οὐκ ἐβουληθη and in Exod. 8:17, ‫אינך‬
is translated as μη βουλῃ.
– The Hebrew ‫ שׂם לבו‬is translated as προσεσχεν τῃ διανοιᾳ in Exod.
9:21 (cf. the current Greek expression προσεχειν τον νουν: ‘to draw
attention to’, here however with the dative τῃ διανοιᾳ). In Exod. 10:2,
‫ שׂם‬is rendered by ποιειν.
– The Hebrew ‫ שׁאר‬is rendered by both ὑπολειπειν (Exod. 10:12, 19,
26) and καταλειπειν (Exod. 10:5). In addition, ὑπολειπειν also func-
tions as the equivalent of ‫( יתר‬Exod. 10:15) and ‫( יצג‬Exod. 10:24).
– ‫ = נטה‬mostly ἐκτεινειν, but also on one occasion in the Septuagint
ἐπαιρειν (Exod. 10:13)
– ‫ = עתר‬εὐχεσθαι and προσευχεσθαι (Exod. 10:17)
– The Hebrew verb ‫ הלך‬is rendered by βαδιζειν (Exod. 10:24) as well
as ἀποτρεχειν (Exod. 10:24), πορευεσθαι (Exod. 10:26) and ἀπιεναι
(Exod. 10:28), leaving the impression that the Greek translator endea-
voured to account for various shades of meaning.
– ‫ = עבד‬mostly θεραπων (cf., for example, Exod. 7:28, 29; 8:5, 17, 20;
11:3), but also παις (Exod. 11:8)
Different sequence/word order

With respect to word order, one can generally presume that a translator
aiming at a very literal rendering of the Vorlage would likewise endeavour
to maintain the same sequence of words where possible. Our analysis of
this aspect in relation to Exodus 7:14–11:10 confirms our earlier find-
ings, namely that the translator of Exodus faithfully rendered the basic
167
See also A. Aejmelaeus, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 374–375.
text without going to extremes of literalness. As a matter of fact, the word

order in numerous verses would appear to be changed primarily for gram-
matical reasons and the particularities of Greek language usage.
The following list offers some striking examples of such a change in word
order within Exod. 7:14–11:10. In order to acquire a clear perspective
on the textual situation, however, the information provided here should
be seen within the framework of the synoptic overview of the textual
material of Exod. 7:14–11:10.168
– ‫—מים‬ὑδωρ in Exod. 7:24
– ‫—עם‬λαον in Exod. 7:29
– ‫—את ידך במטך‬τῃ χειρι την ῥαβδον σου in Exod. 8:1, 12, 13
– ‫ישׂראל‬, ἰσραηλ—‫מצרים‬, αἰγυπτιων in Exod. 9:4
– ‫—לא‬οὐ in Exod. 8:24
– ‫—לשׁחין פרח אבעבעת‬ἑλκη φλυκτιδες ἀναζεουσαι in Exod. 9:9 (in
contrast to the parallel sequence in Exod. 9:10)
– ‫—כי‬γαρ in Exod. 9:11, 15, 32; 10:1, 11, 26 (due to Greek idiom and
syntaxis, cf. infra)
– ‫—ב‬ἐν τῳ in Exod. 9:14
– ‫—כמהו‬τοιαυτη in Exod. 9:18, 24; 10:14 (cf. also Exod. 11:6, however,
where a parallel sequence is maintained)
– ‫—אליו‬αὐτῳ in Exod. 9:29
– ‫—יחדלו‬ἐπαυσαντο in Exod. 9:33
– ‫—ו‬και in Exod. 9:33 (respectively before ‫ יחדלו‬and ἐπαυσαντο) and
in 10:6 (respectively before ‫ בתי‬and πασαι)
– ‫—ב‬ἐπι in Exod. 10:4
– ‫—ארבה‬ἀκρις in Exod. 10:12
– ‫—ירק‬χλωρον in Exod. 10:15
– ‫—וב‬και ἐν in Exod. 10:15
– ‫—ב‬ἐν in Exod. 10:23
– ‫—זבחים ועלות‬ὁλοκαυτωματα και θυσιας in Exod. 10:25
– ‫—אחד‬μιαν in Exod. 11:1
– ‫—אתכם‬ὑμας in Exod. 11:1
– ‫—ו‬δε in Exod. 11:3 (before ‫ יתן‬and κυριος)
– ‫—ויתן‬ἐδωκεν in Exod. 11:3
168
Cf. the appendix at the end of the present volume.
Greek linguistic idioms

It has already been noted above that the Septuagint translator of Exodus
paid due attention to the use of idiomatic Greek. This can be observed
in several details. The following salient examples serve to confirm this
observation.
– The Hebrew ‫ לעיני‬is not translated literally as ‘before the eyes’,169 nor
is ‫ לפני‬translated as ‘before the face’. Use is made rather of a specific
Greek preposition that correctly renders the meaning, namely ἐναντιον
(Exod. 7:20; 8:16, 22; 9:8, 10, 11, 13; 11:10). See also ‫ בעיני‬parallel
with ἐναντιον in Exod. 11:3.170
– The Hebrew ‫ מפני‬is not literally translated as ‘from before the face’. Use
is made rather of an appropriate preposition, namely ἀπο (Exod. 8:20)
or δια (Exod. 9:11), or by a personal pronoun με in Exod. 10:3. The
term ‫ פניכם‬in Exod. 10:10 is likewise given an idiomatic translation,
rendered as a personal pronoun in the dative, ὑμιν. In Exod. 10:28,
the Hebrew term ‫ פני‬is rendered literally on one occasion by μου το
προσωπον and more idiomatically on another by the dative μοι. Com-
pare also with Exod. 10:11 and 29.171
– The Hebrew preposition ‫ אל‬in Exod. 8:1 is not translated in LXX,
because the peculiarities of the Greek language consider it redundant.172
– Possessive suffixes are not always translated explicitly in Greek with
possessive pronouns because the emphatic nuance introduced by a
Greek possessive is not always considered necessary. Indeed when the
‘possessor’ is also the subject in Greek, the definite article can also have
a possessive significance without intending any particular emphatic
nuance.173 For this reason, a definite article in such instances is suf-
ficient in Greek. According to I. Soisalon-Soininen, even the definite
article is sometimes unnecessary given the fact that the context also—
and primarily—determines the possessive relationship.174 Examples of
the omission of the possessive suffix in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ can be
169
In contrast, for example, to Aquila (τοις ὀφθαλμοις αὐτων) and Theodotion (προ
ὀφθαλμων αὐτων). See in this regard J.W. Wevers, Notes, 120.
170
Cf. also R. Sollamo, Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions, 302–307.
171
Cf. also R. Sollamo, Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions, 302–307.
172
Cf. also Z. Frankel, Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese, 81.
173
Cf. also I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Die Auslassung des Possessivpronomens’, 86–103,
esp. 87: ‘Vor allem, wenn das Subjekt des Satzes der Possessor ist, kann das Pronomen
weggelassen werden.’
174
Cf. also I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Die Auslassung des Possessivpronomens’, 87.
found in Exod. 8:1, 2, 12, 13; 9:8, 15, 21, 23, 33; 10:1, 2, 9, 12, 13,
21, 22, 24; 11:2, 5).175 Compare also with a literal translation such as
those found in Exod. 9:22 or Exod. 10:26.
– The Hebrew ‫ ל‬in Exod. 8:5 is rendered by περι twice in sequence
instead of three times. The third object is linked therewith via a simple
conjunction. The Greek translator evidently considered this to be suf-
ficiently comprehensible.
– In Exod. 8:6, the Greek version makes the subject of ‫ ויאמר‬explicit in
the equivalent expression ὁ δε εἰπεν.
– In contrast to the Hebrew nominal clause, the Greek text occasionally
employs the verb ‘to be’ εἰναι or γιγνεσθαι; cf. Exod. 8:6, 15, 17, 18;
9:14, 19, 26, 32; 10:8, 9; 11:3.
– The Hebrew preposition ‫ב‬, with a temporal meaning, is rendered in the
Septuagint in a variety of ways. The formal translation is provided by
the Greek preposition ἐν with the dative (see, for example, in Exod.
8:18; 9:14). A freer, idiomatic Greek translation expresses the indica-
tion of time in a dative without preposition (cf. Exod. 10:28) or in
the genitive (Exod. 8:28).176
– The Hebrew preposition ‫ ב‬in its instrumental usage has a variety of
equivalents in Greek. In the first instance, we find translations employing
the preposition ἐν, which is also employed in koinè Greek and as such
cannot be simply considered a ‘hebraism’. In addition, we find freer,
more idiomatic Greek renderings employing an instrumental dative.
Cf., for example, in the ‘Plagues Narrative’: Exod. 7:17, 20, 22, 27;
8:3, 14; 9:15.177
– The Hebrew preposition ‫ מן‬can be translated literally as ἀπο or ἐκ (see,
for example, Exod. 7:24; 8:7, 8, 9; 9:4, 6, 7; 10:26), but also by a free
Greek rendering using a partitive genitive (Exod. 9:20).178
– In Exod. 9:2; 10:4, the Greek does not have an equivalent of the Hebrew
personal pronoun ‫אתה‬, because the person in Greek is contained in
the conjugated verb forms βουλει and θελῃς respectively.
175
Cf. also I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Die Auslassung des Possessivpronomens’, 92–95.
176
Cf. in this regard I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Die Wiedergabe einiger Hebräischen Zeit-
angaben’, 107–115.
177
Cf. I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Die Wiedergabe des ‫ ב‬Instrumenti’, 116–130.
178
Cf. I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Die Wiedergabe des partitiven ‫’מן‬, 154–171. Reference
should be made to the fact that the ratio of the given six partitive genitives with respect
to the thirteen translations with the prepositions ἀπο/ἐκ (13/6) makes Exodus at this level
one of the freest translations in the Pentateuch. By way of comparison see: Gen. 25/5,
Lev. 48/6, Num. 13/3, Deut. 15/0. See Ibidem, 163.
– The Greek equivalent των του ἰσραηλ ὑιων in Exod. 9:4 represents
an excellent translation of the Hebrew ‫לבני ישׂראל‬.
– The Hebrew expression ‫ ביד משׁה‬in Exod. 9:35 is not literally trans-
lated as ‘by the hand of Moses’ but rendered rather according to its
meaning by a Greek instrumental dative, namely τῳ μωυσῃ. Compare
also Exod. 10:25 ‫בידנו‬, translated by the dative ἡμιν.
– In Exod. 10:6, the Hebrew clause ‫ אבות אבותיך‬is rendered by a single
Greek word οἱ προπαπποι αὐτων.179
– Likewise in Exod. 10:6, the Hebrew infinitive ‫היותם‬, in which the
subject is expressed via a third person plural suffix, is rendered in the
Greek in an idiomatic way by a conjugated verb γεγονασιν, which
makes the subject explicit in a third person plural ending.180
– In Exod. 10:7, the Hebrew expression ‫ הטרם תדע‬is rendered smoothly
by a Greek parallel construction, namely ἠ εἰδεναι βουλει. In this
instance, the translator must have been familiar with the precise mean-
ing of the Hebrew words he found in his basic text, although he chose
to render them in idiomatic Greek. While the latter departs in formal
terms from the Vorlage, it nevertheless expresses the content of the
Hebrew with greater accuracy.181
– In Exod. 10:13, the Hebrew status constructus ‫ רוח קדים‬is rendered on
two occasions by a substantive with accompanying adjective ἀνεμος
νοτος rather than literally in the form of a genitive.182
– In Exod. 10:16, the Greek does not render the Hebrew preposition ‫ל‬
attached to ‫ למשׁה‬and ‫ לאהרן‬because proper nouns in the accusative
(clear at least with respect to μωυσην) are sufficient to clarify function
and significance in the sentence. Cf. also the parallel in Exod. 10:24
with the prepositions ‫ ל‬and ‫אל‬, and Exod. 10:25 where the preposition
‫ ל‬attached to ‫ ליהוה‬does not have a translation equivalent because the
expression is rendered by a dative, namely κυριῳ. See also, for example,
Exod. 8:23 in which the Hebrew prepositional expression ‫ אלינו‬is trans-
lated by the Greek dative ἡμιν, whereby further explicitation provided
by the preposition becomes redundant.
179
Cf. I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Verschiedene Wiedergaben der Hebräischen Status-
Constructus-Verbindung’, 69–70.
180
Cf. I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Die Wiedergabe des Hebräischen Personalpronomens’,
84.
181
Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 73. See also
Z. Frankel, Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese, 73.
182
Cf. I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Verschiedene Wiedergaben der Hebräischen Status-
Constructus-Verbindung’, 65.
– In Exod. 10:23, the Greek text does not offer a literal equivalent for
the Hebrew ‫‘( מתחתיו‬from what is under him’) but employs rather a
more idiomatic Greek expression with a specific substantive that means
‘bed’ or ‘place of rest’: ἐκ της κοιτης αὐτου.183
– In Exod. 10:23, the expression ‫ לכל‬is not translated with an equivalent
preposition and the adjective but rather by the dative of the Greek
adjective πας, namely πασιν.
– In Exod. 10:29, the Hebrew formulation ‫ לא אסף עוד ראות‬is rendered
by the idiomatic Greek οὐκετι ὀφθησομαι.
– In Exod. 11:1, the Hebrew paronomastic construction ‫ גרשׁ יגרשׁ‬is
translated by the verb ἐκβαλλειν in combination with the dative of a
substantive of the same verbal root, namely ἐκβολῃ. The translation
of paronomastic constructions by a verb in combination with the
dative of a related substantive is understood by R. Sollamo, in line
with Thackeray,184 as a freer rendering than the non-idiomatic Greek
translation employing a participle and a finite form of the same radix.185
In addition, however, even freer translations exist (striving for better
Greek) that translate paronomastic constructions on the basis of a finite
verb form with an adverb or an adverbial clause or an alternative form
of free translation. One of the seven such cases in the entire Pentateuch
is to be found in Exod. 8:24 in which the paronomastic construction
‫ רק הרחק לא תרחיקו ללכת‬is rendered in Greek by ἀλλ’ οὐ μακραν
ἀποτενειτε πορευθηναι.186
– In Exod. 11:8, the Hebrew expressions ‫ אשׁר ברגליך‬and ‫בחרי אף‬
are both rendered by an idiomatic, content related, Greek equivalent,
namely οὑ συ ἀφηγῃ and μετα θυμου respectively.187
In addition to the concrete examples described above, reference should
also be made to a number of supplementary linguistic details which reveal
that the translator of Exodus paid due attention to the peculiarities of the
183
Cf. also Z. Frankel, Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese, 73.
184
Sollamo refers to H.St.J. Thackeray, ‘Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute in the
LXX’, JTS 9 (1908), 597–601, esp. 597–598. See also Idem, A Grammar of the Old
Testament, 47–50.
185
Cf. R. Sollamo, ‘The LXX Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute’, 100–113.
186
Cf. R. Sollamo, ‘The LXX Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute’, 109. The remaining
six instances are Gen. 32:13; Exod. 15:1, 21; 22:3; Num. 22:17; 13:30.
187
Cf. also in this regard I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Die Wiedergabe des Hebräischen
Personalpronomens’, 83; Z. Frankel, Vorstudien, 166; and Idem, Ueber den Einfluss der
palästinischen Exegese, 74.
Greek language whether he was aware of it or not. In order to show that

the characterisation of the translation technique of Exodus as a whole is
also applicable to the Greek text of the ‘Plagues Narrative’ in particular, a
few examples will be discussed below in this regard without endeavouring
to be exhaustive. The verses from the ‘Plagues Narrative’ referenced in
illustration of the given grammatical peculiarities likewise do not pretend
to be a complete list of examples to be found in Exod. 7:14–11:10.
The Hebrew conjunction ‫ ו‬can be rendered in a variety of ways in
Greek.188 The translator is at liberty to translate it literally using και thereby
producing a rather awkward Greek text. He is also at liberty—in addition
to a number of less frequent alternatives such as οὐν, ἀλλα, γαρ, ἱνα, ει0,
ὁτι and the use of a participium coniunctum—to opt for a translation of ‫ו‬
by the Greek δε. In the latter instance, his choice will produce a smoother
Greek equivalent although it also implies a change in word order with
respect to the Vorlage. Aejmelaeus notes that Exodus renders 16% of the
cases of the Hebrew conjunction ‫ ו‬with δε,189 and as a consequence, has
opted for a freer translation in each instance. In other words, when one
observes that a translator has employed the conjunction δε instead of the
literal και, one can conclude that he was alert to the use of idiomatic
Greek and as a consequence freer with respect to his Vorlage. Examples of
such translations can be found in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ in Exod. 7:14,
19, 23, 24, 26, 27; 8:1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 25,
26, 27; 9:1, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33,
34; 10:1, 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29; 11:1, 3, 8, 9,
10. The particle οὐν is also employed as an equivalent for the Hebrew
conjunction ‫ ו‬in Exod. 8:13, 15, for example. The same is also true for
ἱνα in Exod. 7:16; 10:3 among other places.190
188
Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 370. See also Idem,
‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 73–74.
189
For the sake of comparison: Gen. 25%; Lev., Num. and Deut. less than 3%.
Aejmelaeus thus concludes that Gen. and Exod. are clearly freer in their use of δε. See
A. Aejmelaeus., ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 370.
190
In these two cases, the translator seems to have understood his Vorlage quite well and
has indeed interpreted the conjunction ‫ ו‬correctly with a final meaning. In both 7:16 and
10:3, ‫ ו‬is used within the context of a typical pattern for final constructions in Hebrew:
directive (here imperative ‫ )שׁלח‬in the protasis and weyiqtol (‫ )ויעבדני‬in the apodosis. Thus,
his rendering of ‫ ו‬by ἱνα is a very adequate option. See e.g. C.H.J. Van der Merwe, J.A.
Naudé, J.H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (Biblical Languages: Hebrew,
3), Sheffield 1999, 171, §21.5. Note, however, that the Greek renders the ‫ ו‬in a similar
Hebrew construction in Exod. 8:4 by και.
It is customary in Hebrew to introduce the apodosis following a condi-

tional or temporal clause with the conjunction ‫ו‬.191 The literal translation
of the said ‫ ו‬in the apodosis by the Greek conjunction και, however,
would produce a faulty Greek text. In such instances, the translator is
once again faced with a choice. Either he translates the ‫ ו‬literally with
και and ends up as a consequence with a poor Greek text or he drops the
conjunction. Where the translator opts for the latter, it would thus appear
that he had detected a problem and had sought to avoid linguistically
unacceptable Greek. Aejmelaeus points out in this regard that in no less
than 80% of the relevant instances, the translator of Exodus has opted
for the latter solution,192 revealing once again that he preferred a correct
Greek translation of his basic text. Several examples of the second option
can be found in the ‘Plagues Narrative’, including Exod. 7:20, 23, 28;
8:11; 9:7, 15, 19, 21, 27, 34; 10:6, 16, 24.
A similar example is to be found with respect to the use of the Greek
term γαρ, which functions as an explanatory or slightly causal conjunction,
thereby closely approaching the Hebrew ‫כי‬-causalis.193 As with the Greek
δε, the use of γαρ as a parallel for ‫ כי‬requires a change in word order,
whereby translators more inclined to literalness (i.e. those who wished
to maintain the Hebrew word order) sought refuge in the often overly
intense ὁτι causale that once again led to awkward Greek.194 In Exodus,
however, it would appear that 85% of the causal ‫’כי‬s have been rendered
by γαρ,195 revealing anew that the translator of Exodus was concerned
with idiomatic Greek language usage and thus freer in his treatment of
his Vorlage. Examples hereof in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ can be found in
Exod. 8:22; 9:11, 14, 15, 31, 32; 10:1, 9, 11, 26.
According to Aejmelaeus, the use of the Greek participium coniunctum
represents an indication of the way in which the translator worked with
his Vorlage and the extent to which he strove to produce idiomatic Greek.196
191
Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 370–371. See also Idem,
‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 76.
192
For the sake of comparison: Gen. 55%, Lev., Num. and Deut. 40–30%. Cf.
A. Aejmelaeus, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 371.
193
Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors’, 371. See also Idem,
‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 74.
194
See also A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Oti Causale in Septuagintal Greek’, 11–29.
195
For the sake of comparison: Gen. 55%, Lev. 35%, Num. 27% and Deut. 26%.
Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Oti Causale in Septuagintal Greek’, 20; and Idem, ‘The Significance
of Clause Connectors’, 371.
196
On the use of the participium coniunctum, see A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Participium Coni-
unctum as a Criterion’, 385–393. Cf. also Idem, ‘Septuagintal Translation Techniques’,
It should be noted in the first instance that no single Hebrew expression

or construction exists that corresponds precisely to the Greek participium
coniunctum. As a consequence, it will be clear that a translation that wishes
to follow its Vorlage literally will be likely to employ such a construction
rarely if ever. A translator who takes a freer approach to the basic text
and attaches importance to idiomatic Greek usage, on the other hand,
will likely be more inclined to use such a construction. One can thus
observe a significant number of uses of the participia coniuncta in the
Greek Pentateuch that serve as a parallel for a variety of Hebrew gram-
matical categories.197 In this respect, the rendering of Hebrew coordinate
clauses by a Greek participium coniunctum is of special interest.198 In these
cases, The Greek combines two Hebrew coordinate clauses, connected by
‫ו‬, into a single Greek clause whereby one of the verbs in participial form
is subordinate to the other in finite form. The majority of the participia
coniuncta in the Pentateuch are of this nature. Closer inspection reveals,
however, that we are dealing here with frequently recurring forms of a
limited number of verbs. The main participia in question are λαβων (70),
ἰδων (43), ἐλθων (36), ἀναστας (24) and λεγων (20), the latter probably
influenced by the pleonastic λεγων employed for the Hebrew ‫ לאמר‬as an
introduction to direct speech.199 It is striking, moreover, that where Greek
participia coniuncta can have a modal, temporal, conditional, concessive,
final or causal function substituting subordinate clauses, the Septuagint
tends to employ the participium in the first instance in order to render
a sequence of two Hebrew coordinate clauses that are closely related to
one another and thereby in fact describe the same activity (or aspects of
the same activity), the first verb indicating the start or the continuation
of the activity in question. According to Aejmelaeus, expressions and con-
structions of this nature are typical of the Hebrew way of speaking—also
389–390; and Idem, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, p. 75. See likewise
I. Soisalon-Soininen, Die Infinitive in der Septuaginta, 177–179.
197
Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Participium Coniunctum as a Criterion’, 386–389. Aejmelaeus
distinguishes the use of the P.C. in order to render a Hebrew paronomastic construction,
the P.C. λεγων as equivalent of the Hebrew ‫לאמר‬, the P.C. rendering asyndetically related
verb pairs, the P.C. as parallel for a Hebrew participle, the P.C. rendering temporal construc-
tions and the Hebrew infinitive construct with the preposition ‫ב‬. The greatest importance
is attached, however, to the use of participia coniuncta rendering two coordinate Hebrew
clauses by a single Greek clause with a subordinate verb (P.C.) and a finite main verb.
198
Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Participium Coniunctum as a Criterion’, 389–391.
199
See also in this regard I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Methodologische Fragen der Erfor-
schung’, 46, who suggests that the use of λεγων to render the Hebrew infinitive construct
‫ לאמר‬represents a smooth, free translation.
referred to as enumerative Redeweise—in which an action is split into its

component parts and expressed in different coordinate verbs. The Greek
participium coniunctum, which reflects this manner of speaking, exhibits
few similarities with the actual Greek use of this construction. For this
reason, Aejmelaeus refers to this usage of the participium as pleonastic
(35% instances). Of the same kind, similarly not rendering a subordinate
clause, are the modal participia coniuncta (37%). Taken together, both
these groups constitute three-quarters of the global number of participia
coniuncta, an extremely large number when compared with other Greek
texts. Nevertheless, and in like fashion to originally Greek texts, a number
of participia coniuncta have a temporal (25%), causal, conditional and
concessive (together 3%) function.200
Aejmelaeus formulates a conclusion on the basis of these observations.201
The participium coniunctum as such is a typical characteristic of good
Greek style. The use thereof in the Septuagint, however, deviates from
its original Greek use. The participia coniuncta in the Septuagint exhibit
little variation in form and word order. They tend to be employed for
the most part with respect to a limited number of verbs and tend to
function in a manner not common in Greek. For this reason, Aejmelaeus
argues that ‘a genuine Greek structure is here used as a disguise for a
Hebraistic idiom’.202 Nevertheless, the use of a participium coniunctum to
render Hebrew parataxis can function as a criterion to characterise the
translation technique of the Septuagint translators because it reveals how
the translators dealt with larger units of text. The frequent occurrence of
the participium coniunctum might point us by way of suggestion in the
direction of free translation technique. A significant number of participia
coniuncta can be found in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ of Exod. 7:14–11:10,
more specifically in Exod. 7:16, 20, 23; 8:11, 21, 28; 9:5, 7, 8, 15, 20,
27, 34; 10:1, 6, 16, 24 and 11:8, whereby even a single example of the
rare participia that serve to replace a concessive clause can be recognised in
Exod. 9:7.203 Once again, and on the basis of all these examples, it would
appear that the Greek text of Exodus, and in particular the one of Exod.
7:14–11:10, can be characterised as a free translation to the extent that
an effort is made to work with idiomatic Greek, thereby often implying
that the original text cannot be followed too literally.
200
Cf. also A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 75:
‘Renderings of this kind are rarely employed and only by the most skilful translators.’
201
Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Participium Coniunctum as a Criterion’, 392–393.
202
Cf. also A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Participium Coniunctum as a Criterion’, 392.
203
Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Participium Coniunctum as a Criterion’, 391.
Related to the above is the infrequent use of the Greek genetivus abso-
lutus to render the Hebrew ‫ ב‬with the infinitive construct instead of a
literal, Hebraising ἐν τῳ with the infinitive.204 Other Hebrew infinitive
constructions are likewise rendered by idiomatic Greek infinitive construc-
tions, by various subordinate clauses that represent a good, free translation
thereof, or by the participium coniunctum described above, as alternatives
to a literal translation.205 Examples of the smooth Greek translation of
Hebrew infinitive constructions in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ can be found,
for example, in Exod. 7:15, 16, 24; 8:5, 14, 22, 24, 25; 9:2, 11, 16, 18,
28, 29; 10:3, 4, 5, 6, 16, 26, 27, 28, 29; 11:1, 8, 9, thus making it clear
that the translator of Exodus dealt freely with his Vorlage in so far as he
aimed at producing an idiomatic Greek text.
Clausal constructions that tend to exchange the numerous Hebrew coor-
dinate clauses with Greek subordinate clauses point in the same direction.206
See, for example, Exod. 7:16, 20, 23, 26, 28; 8:11, 16, 21; 9:1, 7, 13, 15,
19, 25, 27, 34; 10:3, 6, 7, 16, 24, 25, 28; 11:1. Moreover, the translation
of the Hebrew relative clause with ‫ אשׁר‬by a Greek nominal expression
with the use of a participle confirms this tendency.207 An example of the
latter in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ can be found in Exod. 7:15.
Reference should be made, in addition, to the fact that Hebrew always
locates pronominal suffixes after the verb, while idiomatic Greek usage
tends to place the enclitic personal pronoun before the verb.208 In a sig-
nificant number of cases, the Septuagint reflects the Hebrew construction,
whereby the word order of the original is maintained, while only a few
translators appear to be capable of changing the word order and locating
the Greek pronoun before the verb. Although one among the few, Exodus
contains 30 instances (out of 350) in which the pronoun is located before
the verb. The same freedom is also to be noted in the ‘Plagues Narrative’
in Exod. 7:16, 26; 8:16; 9:1 (in contrast to Exod. 9:13; 10:3, 19).209
204
Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Septuagintal Translation Techniques’, 389–390; and especially
I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Der Gebrauch des Genetivus Absolutus’, 175–180. See likewise
Idem, Die Infinitive in der Septuaginta, 177–179.
205
Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 74–75; as
well as I. Soisalon-Soininen, Die Infinitive in der Septuaginta, 176–190.
206
Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘Septuagintal Translation Techniques’, 390.
207
208
Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 73, which
is based on a study by A. Wifstrand entitled A. Wifstrand, Die Stellung der enklitischen
Personalpronomina bei den Septuaginta (Kungl. Humanistiska Vetenskapssamfundets i Lund
arsberättelse 1949–1950, II), Lund 1950, 44–70.
209
Cf. also the change with respect to the Hebrew word order in the location of a
possessive pronoun in relation to a substantive, for example in Exod. 8:19; 9:34; 10:1,
6, 17, 29.
Finally, the rendering of a singular verb form reflecting a subject in

neuter plural represents a characteristic of smooth Greek language usage.210
Research has shown that the Hebrew Vorlage of Exodus has not prevailed
in this regard and that the translator has instead opted for a singular form
where he considered it appropriate. Thus, it has been noted, for example,
that Exod. 10:26 employs a singular verb πορευσεται with a subject in
the neuter plural, namely τα κτηνη.211 See also, for example, Exod. 9:6,
9, 10, 11, 19.
All of the free renderings described against the background of the charac-
terisation of the translation technique of Exodus are in no way the result of
the carelessness or nonchalance of the translator thereof. They bear witness
rather to an endeavour on the part of the translator to employ natural
Greek expressions that are accurate in their meaning and appropriate
within their context although deviating in formal terms from the Vorlage.212
The concern to provide idiomatic Greek is evident throughout the book
of Exodus and can also be particularly observed in the ‘Plagues Narrative’
of Exod. 7:14–11:10. As a consequence, the translator of Exodus can and
may be characterised as a competent translator who was attentive to the
idiomatic use of the Greek language. While his relation to his original
Vorlage can thus be described as free, he nevertheless remains exact in the
faithful rendering thereof.213
The text-critical evaluation of the textual variants in the texts of the
‘Plagues Narrative’ in the following pages will thus be obliged to pay due
attention to the results that have emerged from the present paragraph.
The Text-Critical Evaluation of ‘Text-Relevant’ Variants in the

Textual Witnesses to the ‘Plagues Narrative’ in Exod. 7:14–11:10
The text-critical comparison of the textual witnesses to the ‘Plagues

Narrative’ in Exod. 7:14–11:10 (Masoretic Text, Septuagint, Samaritan
Pentateuch and a variety of manuscripts from Qumran) has exposed a
210
Cf. I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Die Konstruktion des Verbs bei einem Neutrum Plural’,
189–199.
211
Cf. I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Die Konstruktion des Verbs bei einem Neutrum Plural’, 196.
212
213
Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 77. It should
be noted in this regard that M. Vervenne reaches a similar conclusion with respect to the
translation character of the ‘Sea Narrative’ of Exod. 13:17–14:31. See M. Vervenne, Het
Zeeverhaal, 101–102.
text-critical evaluation of ‘text-relevant’ variants 151
significant number of textual variants representing a wide spectrum of

characteristics.
The majority of variants exhibit only minor differences that frequently
possess little if any text-critical relevance.214 It is difficult to determine with
respect to such variants which is to be taken as the ‘preferable’ reading.
Where variants in the Greek text are concerned, one is often embroiled
in a ‘perennial discussion’215 on whether they should be traced back to a
different Vorlage or understood as stemming from the translator.216 Such
so-called ‘minor’ variants will not be the subject of discussion or evalu-
ation in the present paragraph. A detailed registration and description
thereof is provided in chapter II of the present volume. They can often be
explained, against the background of the beginning of the present chapter,
as a question of translation technique or on the basis of the grammatical
demands of the Hebrew and Greek language systems.
In addition to the ‘minor’ variants, there are also a number of more
extensive or more striking differences. Some of the latter change aspects of
the narrative at the level of content, others reveal significant expansions.
The present paragraph will focus on these ‘major’ or ‘text-relevant’ variants
and endeavour to study and evaluate them. In this context we will try
to establish whether the ‘preferred variant’ of ‘preferable’ reading can be
determined or whether we are dealing with ‘synonymous’ readings.217
From the practical perspective, we will discuss the variants in a sequence
that runs parallel to the registration thereof in chapter II. The so-called
‘major expansions’ will be discussed separately at the end of the present
chapter.
1. MSamP ≠ G Exod. 7:19 τῳ ἀδελφῳ σου = G+

MSamP ≠ G Exod. 7:20 ἀαρων = G+
MSamP4Qj ≠ G Exod. 8:1 τῳ ἀδελφῳ σου = G+
M4Qc ≠ GSamP4Qm Exod. 10:24 και ἀαρων, ‫ולאהר)ו(ן‬
= GSamP4Qm+
214
See A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 68: ‘On the
whole, however, it is often unimportant to make text-critical decisions on such small
details. Since the OT textual criticism does not aim at a critically edited text, but only
at the original meanings of the text, it is not necessary to reach certainty in the minor
questions.’
215
C. Rabin, ‘The Translation Process’, 1.
216
See A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 67–68.
217
For the terminology ‘preferable variants’, ‘synonymous readings’ and ‘unique read-
ings’ cf. supra pp. 20–22.
For the evaluation of these variants we will take our appraisal of the vari-
ant in Exod. 10:24 as our point of departure. In Exod. 10:24 G, SamP
and 4Qm agree with respect to the reference to Aaron while M and 4Qc
have a minus at this juncture. According to J. Sanderson, M (and thus
also 4Qc, although she makes no reference thereto) should be considered
the ‘preferable’ variant in this instance. Sanderson is in fact of the opinion
that reference to Aaron is based on a later addition.218 This is evident,
she argues, from the fact that the verb forms in other verses in which
both names—Moses and Aaron—are mentioned nevertheless continue to
be in the singular (cf. Exod. 10:3, 8, 16). According to Sanderson, the
interpolation of Aaron has given rise to a syntactical irregularity. In his
discussion of the said variant in Exod. 10:24, J. Wevers likewise speaks
of the reference to Aaron as a later interpolation.219 M refers to Moses
alone, although the imperatives addressed to him are formulated in the
plural. According to Wevers, however, the said plural forms were origi-
nally related to Moses and the people. The later interpolation of Aaron
represents an attempt to make the text more understandable by creating a
plural subject. Wevers also maintains with respect to Exod. 7:20 that the
explicit mention of Aaron as subject of the participle ἐπαρας represents
a harmonising interpolation with Exod. 7:19.220
If one accepts along with Sanderson and Wevers that the mention of
Aaron in the text represents a later interpolation, then MSamP in Exod.
7:20 and M4Qc in Exod. 10:24 offer the ‘preferable’ variant.
If one maintains this line of reasoning, one is obliged to conclude
that the variant τῳ ἀδελφῳ σου in Exod. 7:19 and Exod. 8:1, which
functions as an appositional clause in relation to the reference to Aaron,
likewise should not be considered to offer the ‘preferable’ variant. Based
on the available evidence, the present author is inclined to conclude that
MSamP in Exod. 7:19 and MSamP4Qj in Exod. 8:1 have preserved the
‘preferable’ variant.
218
Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 90–91, 201–203, 276–277. The interpolations
of Aaron into the text of Exodus took place in two phases, in the first instance during
the compositional growth or literary development of the texts and also in a second,
much later phase of textual transmission, in Sanderson’s textual hypothesis particularly
during the period in which the textual tradition behind SamP and 4Qm had separated
themselves from the main group (MGSamP4Qm still together) but still continued to
develop as a single text. In relation to Sanderson’ theory concerning the textual evolution
of Exodus, see Ibidem, 256–259, 311–312; Idem, ‘The Contributions of 4QPaleoExodm
to Textual Criticism’, RQ 13 (1988), 547–560, pp. 552–554; Idem, ‘The Old Greek of
Exodus’, 100–102. See also infra, p. 166.
219
220
2. MSamP4Qj ≠ G Exod. 8:1 ‫= על ארץ מצרים‬

MSamP4Qj+
MSamP4Qc ≠ G Exod. 9:11 γῃ = G+
MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:22 ‫ = בארץ מצרים‬MSamP+
M4Qc ≠ GSamP Exod. 9:24 ‫ = כל ארץ‬M4Qc+
MSamP4Qc ≠ G Exod. 10:6 γῃ = G+
MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:12 ‫ = מצרים‬MSamP+
MSamP ≠ 2Qa ≠ G Exod. 11:3 ‫ = בארץ‬MSamP+, ‫בתוך ארץ‬
= 2Qa+
MG2Qa ≠ SamP Exod. 11:4 ‫ = ארץ‬SamP+
MG4Ql2Qa ≠ SamP Exod. 11:6 ‫כל ארץ‬, πασαν γην =
MG4Ql2Qa+
MSamP ≠ G Exod. 11:10 ἐν γῃ αἰγυπτῳ = G+
The variants listed above each relate to the partial or complete absence of
a rendering or translation of the expression ‫( ארץ מצרים‬-‫ב‬, ‫)על‬.
Allusion to Egypt in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ is usually made on the
basis of the full expression ‫( ארץ מצרים‬cf. Exod. 7:19, 21; 8:2, 3, 12,
13, 20; 9:9, 22, 23, 25; 10:12, 13, 14, 15, 21, 22; 11:6, 9).221 Instead
of the expression ‫ארץ מצרים‬, however, it is also possible to have ‫גבול‬
‫מצרים‬, as is apparent from Exod. 10:14 and 19.222 In Exod. 8:20, 21
and 9:14, 16, the expression is abbreviated.223 The absence of ‫ מצרים‬in
the latter instances implies that the word ‫ ארץ‬already refers in the given
context to Egypt.
Based on the fact that, in the majority of instances, the expression ‫ארץ‬
‫ מצרים‬is rendered in all the extant textual witnesses, one can conclude
that ‫ ארץ מצרים‬represents the complete expression. With regard to the
evaluation of the variants listed above this might imply that the textual
version that reflects the fuller expression should be given preference to the
text that exhibits minuses. One would then conclude that such textual
versions represent the ‘preferable’ variant.
221
Exod. 7:19: MGSamP4Qa; 7:21: MGSamP4Qc; 8:2: MGSamP; 8:3: MGSamP;
8:12: MGSamP; 8:13: MGSamP4Qm4Qc; 8:20: MGSamP; 9:9: MGSamP4Qm (twice);
9:22: MSamP; 9:23: MGSamP; 9:25: MGSamP4Ql; 10:12: MGSamP4Qc; 10:13: MSamP;
10:14: MGSamP; 10:15: MGSamP4Qc; 10:21: MGSam4Qm; 10:22: MGSamP4Qm; 11:6:
MG4Ql2Qa; 11:9: MGSamP4Qm4Ql4Qc.
222
Exod. 10:14: MSamP4Qc, where G offers the equivalent ὁρια for ‫ ;גבול‬10:19:
MSamP4Qm4Qc, where G has the equivalent γης.
223
Exod. 8:20: MGSamP4Ql; 8:21: MGSamP4Qm; 9:14: MGSamP4Qm; 9:16:
MGSamP and probably also 4Qc.
Nevertheless, one is obliged to be careful with respect to such conclu-

sions. In the first instance, it is possible that the abbreviated expressions in
Exod. 8:20, 21 and 9:14, 16 exhibit equal textual originality, given the fact
that various textual witnesses employ a similar formulation in the same
location. Furthermore, one is also obliged to account for the so-called
‘harmonisations’ that may have synchronized full or abbreviated expressions
with their immediate context.224 In such instances, a complete or abbrevi-
ated expression brought about by harmonisation could not be considered
more original and as a consequence could not represent the ‘preferable’
variant. Reference can be made in this context, for example, to Exod. 11:10
(MSamP ≠ G: ἐν γῃ αἰγυπτῳ = G+). In the rendering of this full expression
found in Exod. 11:10, it would appear that the Vorlage of G has har-
monised with Exod. 11:9,225 where one encounters the Greek plus from
Exod. 11:10 in M, G, SamP, 4Qm, 4Ql and 4Qc. In this case, therefore,
the variant containing the full expression is secondary (based on harmonisa-
tion) and thus cannot be the ‘preferable’ variant. A similar example
can be found in Exod. 9:24 (M4Qc ≠ G: ‫ = כל ארץ‬M4Qc+). In 9:24,
G and SamP only read ἐν αἰγυπτῳ, ‫ במצרים‬while M4Qc have the full
expression ‫בכל ארץ מצרים‬. In such instances one might argue that the
textual versions with the full expressions contain the ‘preferable’ variant and
that the variant found in G came about on the basis of a harmonisation
(of the Vorlage) with the formulation found in Exod. 9:18 in which M,
G and SamP all contain this expression (‫במצרים‬, ἐν αἰγυπτῳ).
Given the different possible explanations of the variants listed above and
the uncertainty they introduce, the present author is inclined to consider
the said differences between the textual witnesses to the ‘Plagues Narrative’
as ‘synonymous’ variants.
3. MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:2 και ἀνηγαγεν τους βατραχους = G+
In G of Exod. 8:2 one can observe a double reference to the arrival of

the frogs while the Hebrew text of M and SamP by contrast relate the
event only once.
A closer study of the terminology employed in this regard reveals that
the arrival of the frogs is expressed three times in the present context by the
224
In this instance, and with respect to the Septuagint, I would opt for the methodologi-
cal point of departure maintained by A. Aejmelaeus who argues that such harmonisations
were the work of scribes at the level of the Vorlage of G. Cf. supra, p. 134.
225
Cf. also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 143; and J.W. Wevers,
Notes, 167.
verb ἀναβαινειν (Exod. 7:28, 29; 8:2) with the frogs as subject and three
times by the verb ἀναγαγειν (Exod. 8:1, 2, 3) with Aaron or the magicians
as subject. The Hebrew equivalent of these verbs is always ‫עלה‬.
If one examines the word order of the said verbs in 7:29 and 8:1–2
one observes a chiastic formation (ἀναβαινειν 7:29, ἀναγαγειν 8:1,
ἀναγαγειν 8:2, ἀναβαινειν 8:2). It is probable that the repetition in 8:2
was intended to obtain the said style figure.226
Another possible explanation, which the present author considers more
plausible, would separate the twofold reference to the arrival of the frogs
in 8:2. The first reference (the variant under analysis) would then be
understood to belong to the first half of 8:2, in which Aaron’s execution
of the command from 8:1 is related in harmonising fashion (parallel in
command and execution: holding out the rod and causing the frogs to
arrive). The second reference would then apply to the beginning of the
account of the event itself. Aaron’s actions would appear to have had
some effect. In this instance, the author or redactor of the Hebrew text,
who has a minus with respect to the first reference, probably considered
it sufficient to describe Aaron’s gesture with the rod as execution of the
command in 8:1, after which immediately account is given of the effect
thereof in the event itself. In this perspective, G, or its Vorlage, is more
harmonising and repetitive at this juncture than M and SamP.
If the explanation offered above is correct,227 and one takes harmonising
repetition to be a secondary intervention in the text,228 I would consider
226
Compare with J.W. Wevers who is of the opinion that και ἀνηγαγεν τους βατραχους
is an interpolation on the part of G. According to him, G thus created an alternation
in the immediate context between two singular verb forms (with a collective singular as
subject) and two plural forms. The explanation coincides to a degree with the chiasm
observed by the present author in 7:29 and 8:1–2. Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 108.
227
Compare, however, with A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 123,
who argue that the said plus in 8:2 may also be the result of haplography in the Masoretic
Text. I would suggest that this option be rejected on the basis of the fact that—presuming
that M also had the said plus—there are no similar sounding endings to be found in
8:2 that might explain the haplography. As a matter of fact, the result of retroversion in
this instance (in parallel with 8:1) would be ‫ צפרדעים‬in the first reference and ‫צפרדע‬
in the second cf. also 8:3, 4, 5). Based on the context, moreover, a retroverted Hebrew
translation would always employ one and the same verb for the Greek verbs ἀναγαγειν
and ἀναβαινειν, namely ‫עלה‬, which, in the event of the presence of the said plus in the
Hebrew text, would be used twice in a row. This is hardly probable from a stylistic point
of view. For this reason, and by way of exception, I am inclined to ascribe the harmonisa-
tion in G to the translator and not to his Vorlage. The fact that SamP exhibits the same
minus as M serves to support this option.
228
Cf. E. Tov, ‘The Nature and Background of Harmonizations’, 19: ‘By implication,
all harmonizing readings are secondary, and whenever a harmonization is recognized, it is
rejected as a non-original part of the textual transmission.’ Cf. supra n. 144.
it necessary to designate the Hebrew reading of M and SamP as more

original and consequently as the ‘preferable’ variant.
4. M ≠ GSamP Exod. 8:3 των αἰγυπτιων, ‫ = מצרים‬GSamP+
The description of the magicians represents a plus in the Septuagint and

the Samaritan Pentateuch of Exod. 8:3 in relation to the Masoretic Text.
Where M speaks in short of ‘the magicians’, G and SamP further char-
acterise them as ‘the magicians of the Egyptians’.
A brief review of the references to the Egyptian magicians in the ‘Plagues
Narrative’ and its immediate context reveals that the full expression ‘the
magicians of Egypt’ (‫—חרטמי מצרים‬οἱ ἐπαοιδοι των αἰγυπτιων) is to
be found in Exod. 7:11, 22 in M, G and SamP. In the three remaining
verses—Exod. 8:14, 15 (MGSamP4Qm) and 9:11 (MGSamP)—one finds
only ‘the magicians’ (‫—חרטמים‬ἐπαοιδοι, φαρμακοι).
The variant in Exod. 8:3 is located between Exod. 7:22 and 8:14, 15;
9:11. The present author is of the opinion that it would be fairly normal
for the magicians to be explained to the reader to some degree when
they appear for the first time in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ as such. When
the magicians appear for the second time in Exod. 8:3, however, G and
SamP would appear to consider the additional explanation still necessary.
In the rest of the narrative, all of the textual versions—including the
preserved fragments of 4Qm—speak exclusively of ‘the magicians’ without
further explanation.
The evaluation of the variant found in 8:3 is far from easy. On the one
hand, M is in agreement with all the other verses (8:14, 15; 9:11). On the
other hand, the explanation given a second time by G and SamP does not
appear completely redundant. One is at liberty to argue, however, that the
variant in G probably stems from the Vorlage, given the fact that SamP
also bears witness to an existing Hebrew reading of the same nature.229 It
remains difficult, nevertheless, to determine which of the two readings is
the more original. If one takes the fact that G and SamP have a tendency
to be harmonising and repetitive as one’s point of departure, then one
might be inclined to consider M as containing the ‘preferable’ reading. The
lack of precise supportive indications in the immediate context, however,
229
The perspective maintained in A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie,
123, namely that the Greek text adds the explanatory genitive (‘ajoute’), needs to be
nuanced. In the present author’s opinion, one cannot argue that the Greek text is respon-
sible for the said plus since SamP has the same reading in Hebrew.
leaves such argument without adequate foundations. For this reason we

are more inclined to caution and prefer to designate both readings in 8:3
5. MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:4 περι μου = G+

MSamP2Qa ≠ G Exod. 9:28 οὐν περι ἐμου = G+
In both Exod. 8:4 and Exod. 9:28, the Greek text has a plus in the form
of the mentioning of a preposition with a personal pronoun, relating in
both instances to the identity of the one to be prayed for.
If one compares this information with Exod. 8:24, one observes that
in this verse the Hebrew textual witnesses also have this expression, in
addition to G (G: περι ἐμου; MSamP: ‫)בעדי‬.230 On the basis of this verse,
it would appear that a Hebrew equivalent is conceivable for the Greek
plusses in Exod. 8:4 and 9:28. As a consequence, one can argue that the
Greek plus in Exod. 8:4 and 9:28 was not a creation of the translator but
that it was probably already present in the Vorlage of G. This does not
yet allow to argue that the Greek readings found in Exod. 8:4 and 9:28
should be considered more original. Indeed, the plusses in question may
have arisen on the basis of harmonisation with Exod. 8:24 in the said
Vorlage. In the latter case, they would thus be secondary.231
Bearing these difficulties in mind, we prefer to designate the variants
in Exod. 8:4 and 9:28 as ‘synonymous’ readings. It is impossible to
determine whether G’s Vorlage originally exhibited this variant in all three
locations, including Exod. 8:24, or whether the plusses arose on account
of harmonisation.
6. M ≠ GSamP Exod. 8:5 και ἀπο του λαου σου, ‫ = ומעמך‬GSamP+
In Exod. 7:28–29 (MGSamP), the plague of frogs is presented to Pharaoh

as a threefold threat to himself, his servants and his people. In Exod. 8:4
(MGSamP), Pharaoh pleads for the frogs to be removed from himself and
230
In like fashion to Exod. 9:28, G also has a plus in the particle οὐν. The text-critical
evaluation of such a minor element, however, would be extremely hypothetical and of
little relevance.
231
Cf. in the same direction, the explanation of A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible
d’Alexandrie, 134: ‘La LXX ajoute «donc» et «pour moi» (cf. 8,4.24).’, which, however,
posits an ‘addition’ in G without further argumentation. Along similar lines see also: J.W.
Wevers, Notes, 138: ‘addition’.
his people. In the first half of Exod. 8:5 (MGSamP4Qc), Moses promises
to pray on behalf of Pharaoh, his servants and his people. In the remain-
der of Exod. 8:5, the reference to Pharaoh and his people is repeated in
G and in SamP (albeit in a different sequence, cf. infra), while M only
makes mention of Pharaoh. In the continuation of this part of the narra-
tive, especially in Exod. 8:7 (MGSamP), one can observe a return to the
threefold reference: Pharaoh, his servants and his people.232
The present author is of the opinion that the plus in G and SamP of
Exod. 8:5 represents an endeavour to maintain the sequence of victims as
described in the context and, indeed, in the first half of the same verse.233
This need not imply per se, however, that M omitted this part of the verse.
The texts of G and SamP probably represent an example of harmonisation.
The fact that SamP contains a Hebrew reading in line with G might sug-
gest that the harmonisation in question was not a creation of the translator
but was more likely to have been present already in his Vorlage.
If one is correct in speaking of harmonisation at this juncture, then the
plus in G and SamP must be understood as a secondary development. For
this reason, we consider it appropriate to designate M as the ‘preferable’
variant while maintaining the usual caution in this regard.
7. G ≠ SamP Exod. 8:5 και ἀπο του λαου σου—‫ומעמך‬:

different location
MG ≠ SamP Exod. 8:5 ‫ = ומעבדיך‬SamP+
The plus found in SamP Exod. 8:5 can be evaluated in association with
the preceding variant. M makes reference to Pharaoh and his houses in
Exod. 8:5. G, by contrast, adds the people to the list while SamP includes
both the people and the servants. If one compares the SamP text of the
second half of Exod. 8:5 with its context, and in particular with Exod.
8:7, one observes that the said text in 8:5 contains the same list of victims
as M, G and SamP in 8:7 and, furthermore, in the same sequence. In
addition, the list found in the first half of Exod. 8:5 is the same in M, G
and SamP, although houses are not mentioned there. Reference should also
be made to the fact that in the wider context, in particular Exod. 8:17,
25, 27 (MGSamP and, with respect to verse 17, also 4Qc), the servants
are consistently mentioned.
232
Compare also with Exod. 8:17: MGSamP4Q c, 8:25: MGSamP and 8:27:
MGSamP.
233
Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 123: ‘Le grec reprend la
mention «de ton peuple» (cf. 8,4), absente du TM.’
Based on the given information, one is at liberty to suggest that the plus
in the second half of SamP Exod. 8:5 is a result of harmonisation with
the context, i.e. with the first half of Exod. 8:5 and in particular Exod.
8:7. The difference in sequence between G and SamP, discussed above in
relation to the reference to the people, can likewise be explained on this
basis. Against this background, the present author considers it advised
with respect to the said variant in SamP to designate the reading of MG
as the ‘preferable’ variant.
8. MSamP4Qc ≠ G Exod. 8:6 ‫—אין כיהוה אלהינו‬οὐκ ἐστιν

ἀλλος πλην κυριου
A number of differences are evident when one compares the Hebrew

expression ‫ אין כיהוה אלהינו‬with its Greek parallel οὐκ ἐστιν ἀλλος
πλην κυριου. First, the Greek employs the verb εἰναι where the Hebrew
has a nominal clause. Such a difference, however, can be traced back to
the linguistic particularities of Hebrew and Greek. Second, the Greek
adjective ἀλλος represents a plus. Furthermore, there is a difference in
meaning evident between the Hebrew ‫ כ‬and the Greek πλην. Finally the
Hebrew texts contain a plus, namely ‫אלהינו‬.
Taken together, all the aforementioned variants make it clear that we
are not dealing with a few independent, minor differences but rather
with the fact that the entire expression in Greek exhibits a different
emphasis when compared with the formulation found in the Hebrew
texts. The Hebrew texts (M, SamP and 4Qc) state that there is ‘no (god)
like YHWH, our god’. In other words, the said texts affirm that YHWH
is greater than the other gods, so much so that he is ultimately beyond
comparison. The Greek text on the other hand is more radical. YHWH is
beyond comparison because there are no other gods. From the theological
perspective, the Greek text emphasises monotheistic faith in YHWH to
such an extent that the appositional ‫ אלהינו‬need not be added.234 YHWH
is the only god. As a consequence, there is no need to add the expression
‘our god’ to the name YHWH. Where the Hebrew texts state that ‘there
is no (god) like YHWH our god’, the Greek text affirms that ‘there is no
(god) other than YHWH’.
Bearing these differences in mind, it is clear that the variant in Exod.
8:6 is of a different nature when compared with textual variants we
234
Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 144 and Z. Frankel, Ueber den Einfluss der palästini-
schen Exegese, 87.
have considered so far. Exod. 8:6 does not represent a harmonising or

complementing variant that makes little if any difference to the meaning
of the text, rather it represents a theological shift of accent that states
something fundamentally different about YHWH. Given the fact that
the three Hebrew texts exhibit no trace of a formulation similar to that
found in the Greek and given the fact that the Greek text is difficult to
retrovert, the present author is obliged to maintain that the theological
shift in accent does not stem from the Greek Vorlage but should be ascribed
rather to the Greek translator. If one argues that the Greek variant stems
from the translator, then it is highly likely that its Hebrew Vorlage had
the same reading as the other three preserved Hebrew texts, namely M,
SamP en 4Qc. For this reason one is at liberty to argue that the latter
contain the more original reading and as a consequence represent the
‘preferable’ variant.
9. MSamP4Qc ≠ G Exod. 8:6 ‫ = אלהינו‬MSamP4Qc+

MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:18 ὁ κυριος = G+
MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:24 προς κυριον = G+
MGSamP ≠ 2Qa Exod. 9:28 ‫אל יהוה‬, προς κυριον = MGSamP+
M ≠ G ≠ SamP4QcExod. 9:30 ‫—יהוה אלהים‬τον κυριον—
‫אדני יהוה‬
MG4Qc ≠ SamP Exod. 10:2 ‫ = אלהיכם‬SamP+
MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:9 του θεου = G+
MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:24 τῳ θεῳ ὑμων = G+
MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:26 τῳ θεῳ ἡμων = G+
Although the plus ‫ אלהינו‬in Exod. 8:6 constitutes a part of the differ-
ence in meaning between the Hebrew and Greek texts described above,
it is nevertheless important that we examine the term more closely in
conjunction with similar variants that likewise relate to the use of the
divine name in the ‘Plagues Narrative’.
A survey of the naming of god in Exod. 7:14–11:10 reveals six different
expressions that function as divine names. The most frequently used is
‫יהוה‬, parallel to the Greek κυριος.235 In the second place we find the use
235
Cf. Exod. 7:14 (MGSamP4Qm), 17 (MGSamP4Qa), 19 (MGSamP4Qm), 20
(MGSamP), 22 (MGSamP), 25 (MGSamP), 26 (MGSamP4Qc); 8:1 (MGSamP4Qc4Qj),
4 (MGSamP), 8 (MGSamP), 9 (MGSamP), 11 (MGSamP4Q c), 12 (MGSamP),
15 (MGSamP), 16 (MGSamP), 20 (MGSamP), 27 (MGSamP); 9:3 (MGSamP), 5
(MGSamP), 8 (MGSamP4Qm4Qa), 12 (MGSamP), 13 (MGSamP), 20 (MGSamP), 21
of the twofold name ‫( יהוה אלהים‬with suffix) with its Greek equivalent
κυριος ὁ θεος (with possessive pronoun).236 A third expression with the
threefold characterisation of god as ‫ יהוה אלהי העברים‬has its Greek
equivalent in the expression κυριος ὁ θεος των ἐβραιων.237 A fourth
expression, which only occurs three times, is the singular ‫ אלהים‬with its
Greek equivalent θεος.238 On the other hand, one observes that θεος is
also used as the equivalent of ‫יהוה‬.239 Finally, attention also deserves to
be focused on the use of the expression ‫אדני יהוה‬.240
The variants in Exod. 8:6; 10:2, 9, 24 and 26 each reflect the double
formula ‫( יהוה אלהים‬with suffix) or κυριος ὁ θεος in one (set of ) tex-
tual version(s) where the other (set of ) textual version(s) have a minus
on account of the fact that they only employ the most common term
‫ יהוה‬or κυριος. It should be noted with respect to Exod. 10:24 and 26,
moreover, that the use of the same complete formula in the immediate
context, namely in 10:25 and in the first half of verse 26,241 may have
led to harmonisations in 10:24 and the second half of 26. Likewise
with respect to Exod. 10:9 attention should be drawn to the fact that
the immediately preceding verse 8 employs the complete expression—in
all the textual versions (MGSamP)—thus introducing the possibility of
harmonisation in verse 9. As noted above, however, both formulations—
the singular ‫ יהוה‬/ κυριος and the compound ‫( יהוה אלהים‬with suffix)
/ κυριος ὁ θεος (with preposition)—are employed with some frequency
in the ‘Plagues Narrative’. In our opinion, therefore, they are both to be
considered legitimate readings whereby the ‘preferability’ of one over the
other is extremely difficult to determine. Consequently, we choose to
(MGSamP), 22 (MGSamP), 23 (MGSamP), 27 (MGSamP4Ql2Qa), 28 (MGSamP), 29

(MGSamP2Qa), 33 (MGSamP4Qc), 35 (MGSamP4Qc); 10:1 (MGSamP), 2 (MG), 12
(MGSamP4Qm), 13 (MGSamP), 19 (MGSamP), 20 (MGSamP), 21 (MGSamP4Qm), 27
(MGSamP4Qm); 11:1 (MGSamP), 3 (MG2Qa), 4 (MGSamP2Qa), 9 (MGSamP4Ql), 10
(MGSamP4Qm4Ql4Qc).
236
Cf. Exod. 8:22 (MGSamP), 23 (MGSamP), 24 (MGSamP); 10:2 (SamP), 7
(MGSamP4Qm), 8 (MGSamP), 16 (MGSamP4Qc), 17 (MGSamP), 25 (MGSamP), 26
(MGSamP4Qm). The twofold name ‫ יהוה אלהים‬without suffix is only found in the variant
of Exod. 9:30(M), under analysis at this juncture. See also infra p. 163.
237
Cf. Exod. 7:16 (MGSamP); 9:1 (MGSamP), 13 (MGSamP4Q m ); 10:3
(MGSamP4Ql).
238
Cf. Exod. 8:15 (MGSamP), 21 (MGSamP4Qm); 9:28 (MGSamP4Ql2Qa).
239
Cf. Exod. 8:25 (MGSamP), 26 (MGSamP); 9:5 (MGSamP); 10:11 (MGSamP),
18 (MGSamP4Qc).
240
See Exod. 9:30 (SamP4Qc).
241
Cf. also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 140; J.W. Wevers, Notes, 157.
designate the different readings found in Exod. 8:6; 10:2, 9, 24 and 26

The plus in the Greek text of Exod. 8:18 is of a different nature. It
gives rise to an uncommon formulation: instead of the common κυριος
ὁ θεος, Exod. 8:18 has κυριος ὁ κυριος. M and SamP exhibit a minus
in the location of the second κυριος. Two explanations would appear to
be possible with respect to the variant in question. In the first instance,
it is possible that we are dealing here with a formulation unique to the
‘Plagues Narrative’. Secondly, one should also consider the possibility of a
simple, grammatical/syntactical explanation. One could imagine a ‘comma’
placed after the first κυριος, whereby the second ὁ κυριος constitutes
an appositional clause up to and including the genitive της γης, where
a second ‘comma’ could be placed.242 In this way, the second κυριος is
understood as a simple repetition of the first and need not represent a
unique double formula. Whether this Greek variant is ‘preferable’ to the
singular Hebrew ‫ יהוה‬is, in our opinion, impossible to determine, espe-
cially if one considers the possibility that the Greek variant may equally
have been the result of the Greek translator’s concern to render the Hebrew
‫ יהוה בקרב הארץ‬in more fluent Greek. As a result we prefer to designate
the variant reading in Exod. 8:18 as ‘synonymous’.
With respect to the variants in Exod. 8:24 and 9:28, one could argue
that they do not have a direct association with the question of the use of
the divine name since the Hebrew ‫ יהוה‬and the Greek κυριος represent
the customary and most frequently employed terms. The plus in G of
Exod. 8:24, however, explicitly identifies the addressee of the prayer where
M and SamP do not.243 If one compares this situation with Exod. 8:4,
one immediately notes that in the latter verse M, G and SamP each make
reference to the one to whom the prayer is to be addressed. In Exod. 9:28,
M, G and SamP similarly express the identity of the addressee, in contrast
at this juncture to 2Qa. It would thus appear that such identification is
not unusual. It remains difficult nevertheless to make an evaluation of the
variants in question. Based on both the absence and the presence of the
said identification (in Exod. 9:28 2Qa and in 8:4 MGSamP; 9:28 MGSamP
respectively) in the Hebrew texts, one can conclude that the plus in G
was more than likely already present at the level of its Vorlage. However,
this does not make it any easier to determine which of the readings is
242
243
See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 121; A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie,
128.
‘preferable’. Based on the textual material, both readings would seem to be

plausible and equally legitimate. For this reason we designate the variants
in Exod. 8:24 and 9:28 as ‘synonymous’.
The final variant requiring our attention with respect to the use of the
divine name is to be found in Exod. 9:30, which contains three different
formulations thereof. M has the ‘double formula’ ‫ יהוה אלהים‬without
suffix, the only occurrence in the ‘Plagues Narrative’.244 In G one reads
the singular κυριος, as usual probably as the equivalent of the Hebrew
‫יהוה‬. SamP and 4Qc refer to god as ‫אדני יהוה‬. When the variants in M
and G are evaluated, one is obliged to designate them as ‘synonymous’,
based on the fact that both expressions are in frequent use in the ‘Plagues
Narrative’. With respect to the formula ‫ אדני יהוה‬it would appear to be
equally legitimate to conclude that this represents an original expression,245
given the fact that two independent—till further notice—textual witnesses
(SamP en 4Qc) have preserved the same formula. As a consequence, one
can conclude that all the various readings of Exod. 9:30 represent ‘syn-
onymous’ variants.
10. MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:7 και ἐκ των ἐπαυλεων = G+
The comparison of Exod. 8:7 and Exod. 8:9 reveals that in contrast to
8:7, where M and SamP have a minus in the place of the Greek και ἐκ
των ἐπαυλεων, M, SamP and G of 8:9 do have the words in question.
It would appear that the various textual witnesses were familiar with
this expression and that a Hebrew Vorlage exists for the Greek ἐκ των
ἐπαυλεων, namely ‫מן החצרת‬. In this instance, it is possible to speak
of a harmonisation of the prediction (8:7) with the formulation of the
realisation (8:9).246 As a consequence one can designate M and SamP of
Exod. 8:7 as ‘preferable’ variants.
11. GSamP4Qc ≠ M Exod. 8:12 τῃ χειρι—‫ = את ידך‬GSamP4Qc+
G, SamP and 4Qc exhibit a plus in Exod. 8:12, namely the expression
τῃ χειρι and ‫את ידך‬. When one compares Exod. 8:12 with verse 13,
however, it appears that the latter verse has also preserved the words in
244
Cf. also supra n. 236.
245
I use the expression ‘original’ at this juncture in the sense that the variant does not
owe its existence to harmonisation or scribal error.
246
Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 111; A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie,
124: ‘La mention des «enclos (ἐπαυλεις)» est absente du TM; elle provient de 8,9.’
question in G, SamP and 4Qc but moreover equally in M and most

likely in 4Qm.247 As will be evident with respect to the description of the
following variant, there would appear to have been a tendency in 8:12
to harmonise with 8:13,248 a harmonisation one can characterise as com-
mand and execution. In our opinion, the said change in the text already
manifested itself at the level of the Hebrew Vorlage, given the fact that,
apart from the Greek plus, a number of textual witnesses exhibit a Hebrew
version of the same variant. If one is at liberty to argue that Exod. 8:12
in GSamP4Qc most likely represents harmonisation with Exod. 8:13, one
is obliged to conclude that the textual version of M in 8:12 is the more
original reading or, in other words, the ‘preferable’ variant.
12. MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:12 ἐν τε τοις ἀνθρωποις και ἐν

τοις τετραποσιν = G+
MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 9:9 ἐν τε τοις ἀνθρωποις και ἐν
τοις τετραποσιν = G+
It was evident from our discussion of the plus τῃ χειρι/‫ את ידך‬in Exod.
8:12 G, SamP and 4Qc that G 8:12 represents a harmonisation with 8:13.
Similarly with respect to the Greek plus ἐν τε τοις ἀνθρωποις και ἐν τοις
τετραποσιν, G 8:12 would appear to have adapted itself to G 8:13. In the
latter verse, M, G, SamP and 4Qm have preserved the given formulation.
In addition, M, G, SamP and 4Qc also employ this expression in 8:14.
When one compares this textual information with the variant in Exod.
9:9 it becomes apparent that precisely the same procedure has been fol-
lowed. The Greek text of Exod. 9:9 has a plus in the presence of the
same expression ἐν τε τοις ἀνθρωποις και ἐν τοις τετραποσιν, which is
lacking in M, SamP and 4Qm. G would thus appear to have harmonised
at this juncture with the following verse Exod. 9:10, in which all the
preserved textual versions (M, G, SamP and 4Qm) once again employ
the given formulation.
In both instances there is harmonisation of the formulation of the
command with that of the execution. According to J. Sanderson, the
textual tradition preserved in G in these verses seems to have maintained
247
Moreover, the expression χειρ/‫ יד‬is also to be found in Exod. 7:17 and 19. Compare
in particular with Exod. 8:1.
248
125.
the said procedure more consistently than the other texts.249 Nevertheless,
she is of the opinion that there is no clear indication to suggest that the
said harmonisations between command and execution emerged either in
the translation or rather in the transmission phase of the Greek text. The
other textual versions are likewise to be characterised to a significant degree
by the procedure of repetition and expansion, which Sanderson argues is
a feature of the activities of redactors and scribes in both languages. In
other words, the harmonisation in the Greek text of 8:12 and 9:9 may
also have its roots in the Hebrew Vorlage.
Based on the observation described above and on the proposed hypothe-
sis of harmonisation between command and execution in G, the present
author is inclined to conclude that Exod. 8:12 M and SamP and Exod.
9:9 M, SamP and 4Qm have preserved the ‘preferable’ variant.250
13. MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:13 ‫ = ויעשׂו כן‬MSamP+
At first sight, the plus ‫ ויעשׂו כן‬in M and SamP at the beginning of Exod.
8:13, following the command in Exod. 8:12, appears to function as an
introduction to the description of Aaron’s execution of the said command
in the remainder of 8:13. The plus, however, is in the plural and probably
relates to Moses and Aaron together. If this is the case, then the plus in
M and SamP represents a secondary expansion of the text, coupling com-
mand to execution. G has thus preserved the ‘preferable’ variant.
However, in our opinion, an alternative, more plausible explanation
can be offered at this juncture. If one compares the end of verse 12 (‫לכנם‬
‫ )בכל ארץ מצרים‬and the beginning of verse 13—the plus in question
(‫—)ויעשׂו כן‬on the one hand with the end of verse 13 (‫כנים בכל ארץ‬
‫ )מצרים‬and the beginning of verse 14 (‫ )ויעשׂו כן‬on the other, two
very similar formulations become apparent. Bearing this observation in
mind, it is possible that the scribe, having written the end of verse 12,
continued to write with the words that followed after the identical end
of verse 13 (parablepsis). After a moment of distraction, however, he
then returned to the correct place in the text at the beginning of verse
13. This explains how it was possible for the plus ‫ ויעשׂו כן‬to be located
249
250
Within the framework of her discussion of Exod. 9:9, Sanderson equally maintains
that M, SamP and 4Qm have preserved the ‘preferable’ variant. Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An
Exodus Scroll, 67: ‘Thus QmSamPM appear to preserve the original here, and G a typical
addition.’
after the ‫ ארץ מצרים‬of verse 12, as was similarly the case with respect
to the end of verse 13 and the beginning of verse 14. According to this
explanation, therefore, the plus in Exod. 8:13 is the result of a scribal
error, namely dittography. In addition, the fact that the plus in question
is in the plural—in like fashion to the beginning of verse 14 with the
plural subject ‫ החרטמים‬251—while the command in verse 12 (addressed
to Aaron via Moses) and the continuation of the execution in verse 13
(Aaron) are both in the singular—further suggests that the said plus does
not fit really well the context of the beginning of verse 13 but does fit at
the beginning of verse 14. If the plus had arisen on the basis of harmoni-
sation or expansion it would have been adapted to its context.
If this explanation is correct then one will be obliged to explain how
it is possible that the ‘error’ in question has not been preserved in one
single text, M for example, but also in SamP. If one accepts, within the
framework of Sanderson’s theory with respect to the textual development
of Exodus,252 that the textual traditions behind M and SamP continued
to develop together for a considerable period of time after G had taken
leave (the first to do so) of the common text behind M, G, SamP and
4Qm, then it is indeed probable that the dittography alluded to above
took place at this stage. This explains why (the Vorlage of ) G, which had
already gone its own way, does not have the variant, while (the texts
behind) M and SamP, which continued to develop together, both bear
witness to the said scribal error. As a consequence, and on the basis of
this second explanation too, we are obliged to argue that G has preserved
the ‘preferable’ variant at the beginning of Exod. 8:13.
14. MGSamP ≠ 4Qm Exod. 8:16 ‫ = לאמור‬4Qm+

MSamP ≠ G4Qm Exod. 9:8 λεγων, ‫ = לאמור‬G4Qm+
MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:1 λεγων = G+
MSamP4Qm4Qc ≠ G Exod. 10:24 (‫—ויאמר)ו‬λεγων
While Exod. 8:16 M, G and SamP immediately follow the clause intro-
ducing direct speech (‫ ויאמר יהוה אל משׁה‬and εἰπεν δε κυριος προς
μωυσην respectively) with the words of YHWH, 4Qm has a typical Hebrew
infinitive construct ‫ לאמור‬at this juncture. Precisely the same can be said
251
Cf. also the use of the same expression in relation to the activities of the magicians
in Exod. 7:22; 8:3.
252
J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 256–259, 311–312; Idem, ‘The Contributions of
4QPaleoExodm’, 552–554; Idem, ‘The Old Greek of Exodus’, 100–102. See also supra
n. 218.
with respect to Exod. 9:8. M and SamP announce direct speech as fol-
lows: ‫ויאמר יהוה אל משׁה ואל אהרן‬, followed by the words of YHWH,
while G and 4Qm only introduce the words of YHWH after the participle
λεγων and the infinitive construct ‫לאמור‬. The fact that a Hebrew textual
witness to Exod. 9:8 (4Qm) has the same reading as G thus suggests that
the variant in G can probably be traced back to its Vorlage.253
According to Sanderson, the interpolation of ‫ לאמור‬in this function
is also a frequent occurrence with respect to the other textual witnesses.
It represents a typical repetitive phenomenon and, as such, it is often
the result of secondary text development. Based on this information, the
present author is inclined to agree with Sanderson who claims that M, G
and SamP of Exod. 8:16 and M and SamP of 9:8 should be considered
the ‘preferable’ variant.254
A similar textual situation is also to be found in Exod. 10:1. Once
again M and SamP introduce direct speech with the words ‫ויאמר יהוה‬
‫אל משׁה‬, followed immediately by the said direct speech, while G adds
a participle λεγων after the introductory formula εἰπεν δε κυριος προς
μωυσην. Bearing in mind that such a pleonastic participle cannot be
characterised as typical of idiomatic Greek usage,255 and given the fact
that a Hebrew equivalent with the same function frequently occurs in
other locations, we would argue that the participle is probably based
on a Hebrew infinitive ‫ לאמור‬in the Vorlage of G. In this instance also,
therefore, we can agree with the view of Sanderson described in relation
to Exod. 8:16 and 9:8, namely that M and SamP should be designated
the ‘preferable’ variant.
To conclude, the variant readings in Exod. 10:24 deserve some attention
in this regard. It should be noted in the first instance that the reading
of 4Qm (‫ )ויאמרו‬does not count as a variant with respect to the other
Hebrew textual witnesses because it is barely possible to determine on the
basis of the manuscript whether the waw of the third person plural is a
genuine letter or an inkblot. For this reason DJD does not include the said
reading as a variant.256 If one accounts for this palaeographic uncertainty
and reads ‫ ויאמר‬in 4Qm, then the Hebrew textual witnesses can thus be
said to represent one and the same reading, namely a finite verb form in
contrast to the Greek text which has a participle. The translation of the
Hebrew ‫ ויאמר‬by the Greek participle λεγων occurs with relative frequency
253
See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 127; and J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 85–86.
254
J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 85–86 and 89.
255
Cf. also supra in the section dealing with translation technique, pp. 147–148.
256
Cf. P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 83.
in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ (e.g. 8:21 and 10:16). The finite form ‫ וירא‬of
the verb ‫ ראה‬is likewise translated by a participle ἰδων (e.g. Exod. 8:11).
The differences in question, which ultimately exhibit little text-critical
relevance, should probably be understood as an endeavour to establish
grammatical variation.257 For these reasons, therefore, we are inclined to
designate the variant readings in Exod. 10:24 as ‘synonymous’.
15. MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:19 ἐπι της γης = G+
The plus in the Greek text of Exod. 8:19 represents an adverbial locative
expression (‘in/on the land’), where M and SamP simply state that the
sign is to take place ‘tomorrow’. A decision as to the ‘preferability’ of one
textual version over the other is difficult at this juncture. One might argue
that (the Vorlage of ) G was being explanatory, providing more detail, yet
at the same time it is also possible to suggest that the text behind M and
SamP simply did not notice the locative expression.
Nevertheless, clues to an explanation of this variant are to be found in
Exod. 9:5 at the end of the announcement of the following plague. As
a matter of fact, Exod. 9:5 of M, G and SamP have a similar expression
in a similar context—the announcement of a sign the following day—
namely ‫ בארץ‬and ἐπι της γης. It is probable that G’s Vorlage adapted the
formulation found in Exod. 8:19 by way of harmonisation.
If our explanation is correct, this would imply that the reading of M
and SamP in Exod. 8:19 is more original and as a consequence should
be considered the ‘preferable’ variant.
16. MSamP ≠ G Exod. 8:28 ἠθελησεν = G+

MSamP4Ql ≠ G Exod. 11:10 ἠθελησεν = G+
A plus is evident in the Greek text of both Exod. 8:28 and Exod. 11:10.
Pharaoh’s refusal to let the people go is expressed in the form of a verbum
volendi.
A brief examination of Pharaoh’s refusal to let the people go in the ‘Plagues
Narrative’ reveals two main expressions. Exod. 7:22; 8:11, 15 and 9:12
(MGSamP) state that Pharaoh ‘did not listen’, thus implying refusal (‫לא‬
‫—שׁמע‬οὐκ εἰσηκουσεν). Exod. 9:7, 35 and 10:20 (MGSamP) simply
257
It is also possible, however, that G’s Vorlage already had a participle ‫ לאמור‬at this
juncture.
make reference to the fact that Pharaoh did not let the people go (‫—לא שׁלח‬
οὐκ ἐξαπεστειλεν). In neither instance is reference made to the will of
Pharaoh. However, when one examines the passages in which YHWH
announces the plague to Pharaoh (via Moses), reference can be found to
the will of Pharaoh. A few examples: ‫—אם מאן‬εἰ δε (μεν) μη βουλει
in Exod. 7:27 and 9:2 (MGSamP); ‫—כי אם אינך‬ἐαν δε μη βουλῃ in
Exod. 8:17 (MGSamP) and ‫—אם מאן אתה‬ἐαν δε μη θελῃς in Exod.
10:4 (MGSamP4Qc).
Based on the information outlined above, one might conclude that
the textual witnesses generally make reference to an aspect of will in
Pharaoh’s refusal when the latter is found in the context of an announce-
ment from YHWH (or from YHWH via Moses) in discursive passages
(direct speech), while Pharaoh’s will is not spoken of in relation to his
refusal in narrative passages that simply relate the course of events. The
variants in the Septuagint of Exod. 8:28 and 11:10 are an exception to
this ‘rule’ in so far as they make explicit reference to an aspect of will
in Pharaohs refusal within the framework of an announcement, i.e. in a
narrative context. The reading found in the verses in question is only to
be found elsewhere in Exod. 10:27: ‫( ולא אבה לשׁלחם‬MSamP4Qm) and
και οὐκ ἐβουληθη ἐξαποστειλαι αὐτους (G). The fact that a Hebrew
equivalent of the same character as that found in 8:28 and 11:10 exists
for the Greek textual version of 10:27, opens up the possibility that these
variants stem from the Vorlage of G.
The situation described above does not tend to facilitate the text-critical
evaluation of the Greek variants found in Exod. 8:28 and 11:10 and, as
a consequence, it is difficult to determine the ‘preferable’ reading. The
variants in question are probably rooted in the theological intention
of the scribes of the Vorlage of G, or perhaps the translator himself, to
place the accent of YHWH’s greatness by emphasising Pharaoh’s wilful
stubbornness.258 This would imply that the textual version under analysis
was based on a text that did not place the accent on YHWH in this way,
making the emendation ipso facto a secondary one. For this reason one
might argue that M and SamP of Exod. 8:28 and M, SamP and 4Ql of
Exod. 11:10 represent the ‘preferable’ reading. On the other hand, the
reading found in Exod. 10:27 bears witness to the fact that the Hebrew
text behind G may have originally sounded the same. We opt, therefore,
258
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 123, 167; A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie,
143.
to designate the different readings found in Exod. 8:28 and 11:10 as

‘synonymous’ variants.
17. MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:2 τον λαον μου = G+

MSamP ≠ G Exod. 11:1 ὑμας = G+
The plus in the Greek text of Exod. 9:2 is formed by the explicit desig-
nation of the object of ἐξαποστειλαι in the same way as the variant in
Exod. 11:1 is constituted by the expression of the object ὑμας in relation
to the same verb. If one examines those places in the ‘Plagues Narrative’
in which the verbs ‫ שׁלח‬and ἐξαποστειλαι are followed by an object,
then it becomes clear that the accusatives in question are expressed in a
variety of ways. The great majority of cases employ the object ‫את העם‬
(or ‫ )את עמי‬and τον λαον (μου) with ‫ שׁלח‬and ἐξαποστειλαι.259 In
other instances, ‫ שׁלח‬and (ἐξ)αποστειλαι are combined with an object
expressed in the form of a personal pronoun.260 In three other verses, ‫שׁלח‬
and ἐξαποστειλαι are followed by the expression ‫ בני ישׂראל‬and τους
υἱους ἰσραηλ.261 Lastly, one finds ‫ שׁלח‬and ἐξαποστειλαι in the speech
of the servants in Exod. 10:7 (MGSamP4Qc) with the object ‫את האנשׁים‬
and τους ἀνθρωπους respectively. In addition to the variants under analy-
sis, ‫ שׁלח‬and ἐξαποστειλαι are also found elsewhere without an object
in Exod. 7:27 (M, G and SamP).
When one compares the variant in 9:2 with the latter verse—Exod.
7:27—one can observe that both Exod. 7:26–27 and 9:1–2 exhibit the
same word order. It is clear in both instances that τον λαον μου is already
made explicit in the respective preceding verses, namely 7:26 and 9:1.
The textual situation in Exod. 11:1 represents an analogous situation in
which the object ὑμας is already expressed in the first half of the verse.
While no single textual version considered it necessary to repeat the said
object in Exod. 7:26–27, repetition of the object is found nevertheless
in Exod. 9:2 and 11:1.
Based on this information, one might suggest that the variants in Exod.
9:2 and 11:1 are a result of harmonisation with the immediate context.
259
Cf. Exod. 7:14 (MGSamP4Qm), 16 (MGSamP4Qa), 26 (MGSamP); 8:4 (MGSamP),
16 (MGSamP4Qc), 17 (MGSamP4Qm4Qc), 25 (MGSamP), 28 (MGSamP); 9:1 (MGSamP),
7 (MGSamP4Qm), 13 (MGSamP); 10:3 (MGSamP4Ql) and 4 (MGSamP).
260
Cf. Exod. 8:24 (MGSamP); 9:17 (MGSamP), 28 (MGSamP2Qa); 10:10 (MGSamP),
27 (MGSamP); 11:1 (MGSamP).
261
Cf. Exod. 9:35 (MGSamP); 10:20 (MGSamP4Qm); 11:10 (MGSamP4Ql).
G appears to repeat the already mentioned object, where M and SamP

do not. Given the fact that a similar harmonising repetition can be found
in Exod. 8:16–17 (MGSamP4Qm4Qc) and 10:3–4 (MGSamP4Ql) in all
the preserved textual versions, however, one could suggest that the said
harmonisation may have taken place at the level of the Vorlage of G. If
one can agree that the Greek plusses found in Exod. 9:2 and 11:1 are
indeed the result of harmonisation, then one is obliged to conclude that
M and SamP contain the ‘preferable’ variant at this juncture.
18. MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:4 των υἱων = G+

M ≠ GSamP4Qm Exod. 9:7 των υἱων, ‫ = בני‬GSamP4Qm+
The Israelites in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ are mostly referred as ‫ העם‬or ‫עמי‬,
ὁ λαος or ὁ λαος μου respectively. In addition, the expression ‫בני ישׂראל‬
and υἱοι ἰσραηλ also occurs.262 The abbreviated form of this formula—
‫ ישׂראל‬and ἰσραηλ—can be found in Exod. 11:7 (MGSamP2Qa).
In Exod. 9:4, G has the full expression των υἱων ἰσραηλ in contrast to
M and SamP. In Exod. 9:7, G together with SamP and 4Qm have the fuller
reading in contrast to M. It is possible that G in Exod. 9:4 and GSamP4Qm
in 9:7 set out to harmonise the short formula with the most frequently
used expression, which also happened to occur in the immediate context
(cf. the continuation of Exod. 9:4 and Exod. 9:6), namely ‫בני ישׂראל‬
and υἱοι ἰσραηλ. Based on the fact that not merely G but also the
Hebrew textual versions of SamP and 4Qm provide this reading in Exod.
9:7, it is reasonable to assume that the said harmonisation should not be
ascribed to the translator but rather to the Vorlage of G. In any event,
the observation of harmonisation, which is in se secondary, obliges us
to conclude that M and SamP in Exod. 9:4 and M in Exod. 9:7 have
preserved the ‘preferable’ variant, which is similar to the reading found
in all the extant texts of Exod. 11:7.
19. MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 9:8 και ἐναντιον των θεραποντων

αὐτου = G+
A survey of combined references to Pharaoh, his servants and his people

in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ reveals the following. Pharaoh is sometimes
262
Cf. Exod. 9:4 (MGSamP), 6 (MGSamP4Qm), 26 (MGSamP), 35 (MGSamP4Qm); 10:20
(MGSamP4Qm), 23 (MGSamP4Qm); 11:7 (MGSamP4Ql2Qa), 10 (MGSamP4Ql).
referred to on his own,263 on occasion together with his servants,264 at

times together with his people265 and, finally, together with his servants
and his people.266
With respect to the variant under analysis, Pharaoh is referred to on
his own in M, SamP and 4Qm, while the Greek text of Exod. 9:8 also
makes mention of his servants. Bearing in mind the information outlined
above, however, it is clear that both formulations are to be found in the
‘Plagues Narrative’ and that one is at liberty to designate the readings in
question as ‘synonymous’ variants.
Nevertheless, the present author is of the opinion that the reference to
the servants in G is an addition. In addition to Exod. 9:8, precisely the
same phenomenon also occurs outside the ‘Plagues Narrative’ in Exod.
7:9, 10a, 10b; 14:5, 8,267 verses in which G differs from the remaining
textual versions by making explicit reference to Pharaoh’s servants. For
this reason, it is probable that G added in Exod. 9:8 the reference to
the servants—mentioned in the majority of cases in the context of the
narrative268—with a view to harmonisation of the text. It remains diffi-
cult to determine the level at which the said harmonisation took place.
In light of the fact that the Hebrew textual versions employ exactly the
same formula elsewhere, one certainly cannot exclude the possibility that
the Vorlage of G was responsible for the harmonisation. Based on the
available information, therefore, we opt to designate the reading of Exod.
9:8 found in M, SamP and 4Qm the ‘preferable’ variant.
20. MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 9:10 ‫ = ויעמדו‬MSamP4Qm+
J. Sanderson considers the plus ‫ ויעמדו‬in M, SamP and 4Qm as an addi-

tion in the Hebrew textual witnesses.269 She suggests that the verb ‫עמד‬
was made more explicit at this juncture in order to give greater emphasis
to the defeat of the magicians in the following verse. Moses and Aaron
are presented as standing proud in front of Pharaoh. The magicians, on
the other hand, are unable to remain standing in front of Moses and
263
Cf. Exod. 8:16 (MGSamP); 9:13 (MGSamP); 10:3 (MGSamP).
264
Cf. Exod. 7:20 (MGSamP); 8:20 (MGSamP); 9:34 (MGSamP); 11:3 (G).
265
Cf. Exod. 9:15 (MGSamP).
266
Cf. Exod. 7:28 (MGSamP); 8:5 (MGSamP, 4Qc?), 7 (MGSamP), 17 (MGSamP,
4Qc?), 25 (MGSamP), 27 (MGSamP); 9:14 (MGSamP).
267
268
Compare nn. 264 and 266.
269
Aaron on account of their ‘boils’. Furthermore, the same verb is employed

elsewhere in the narrative, namely in Exod. 9:16, in which Pharaoh is
told that the only reason he is still standing is to allow YHWH to reveal
His power to him. The verb ‫ עמד‬is employed three times in this context.
As a consequence, the addition of the same verb in M, SamP and 4Qm
of Exod. 9:10 would bring about a greater contrast between the defeat
of the magicians and the victory of Moses and Aaron. The sentence in
question in Exod. 9:10, however, functions equally well without this verb.
Sanderson therefore maintains that the plus in Exod. 9:10 (MSamP4Qm)
is an addition and designates the reading found in G as the ‘preferable’
variant. The Vorlage of G was apparently unfamiliar with this reading and
did not exhibit the slightest trace of the emphasis described above in the
Hebrew texts. G even translates the verb ‫ עמד‬in Exod. 9:11 and 9:16 in
two different ways, in the first instance with στηναι, in the second with
διετηρηθης.
In contrast to Sanderson, J. Wevers appears to presuppose, albeit
without argumentation, that (the Vorlage of ) G ‘abbreviated’ the Hebrew
text and ‘omitted’ the Hebrew plus.270 According to Sanderson, however,
there is no indication to be found that suggests accidental omission as a
consequence, for example, of parablepsis. She also excludes the possibility
of intentional omission because, in her opinion, the effect of the Hebrew
word ‫ עמד‬was so clear that no scribe would ever have simply omitted it.
One could add at this juncture that the translator of G, characterised in
the first paragraph of the present chapter as faithful to his Vorlage, would
certainly not have omitted such text elements.
Bearing this information in mind, and in line with Sanderson, the pres-
ent author is inclined to consider the plus in Exod. 9:10 as a secondary
addition in M, SamP and 4Qm. Within the framework of Sanderson’s
theory with respect to the textual development of Exodus,271 the emenda-
tion in question must have arisen in the period in which the text behind
G had already taken its leave of the collective, while the texts behind
M, SamP and 4Qm continued to develop together.272 Based on the given
information, we can conclude that G has preserved the ‘preferable’ vari-
ant in Exod. 9:10.
270
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 129: ‘abbreviates’, ‘omitting’.
271
Cf. supra p. 166 together with n. 218.
272
Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 106: ‘Hence the word appears to have been
added: late enough in the history of the text so that the Vorlage of G lacked it, but early
enough so that all three Hebrew witnesses have it.’
21. MSamP4Qm ≠ G Exod. 9:20 ‫ = את עבדיו‬MSamP4Qm+

MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:21 ‫ = את עבדיו‬MSamP+
In Exod. 9:20 (MSamP4Qm) and Exod. 9:21 (MSamP), the servants

who fear YHWH call their labourers and livestock back from the field,
while G only makes mention of the livestock. The Hebrew plusses bring
the narratives of MSamP4Qm and MSamP respectively into line with the
warning issued to animals and humans in Exod. 9:19, in which both M
and SamP together with G speak of the people (‫אדם‬, ἀνθρωποι) in the
field. The plusses in Exod. 9:20 and 21 align themselves in this fashion
(compare also with Exod. 9:25 MGSamP).
Based on this information, and in line with J. Sanderson, the present
author is of the opinion that the Hebrew plusses in Exod. 9:20 and 21
should be understood as additions resulting from internal harmonisation
within the narrative.273 The alternative possibility of an accidental omis-
sion as a result of parablepsis on the part of the Greek text seems highly
improbable if one bears in mind that precisely the same phenomenon
occurs in two consecutive verses. The Hebrew text of Exod. 9:20 and 21
is brought into line and thus harmonised with its immediate context,
resulting in a secondary text development. Once again, it would appear
that the said emendation of the text arose—within the framework of
Sanderson’s theory—during the phase in which the Hebrew texts con-
tinued to develop together while the text behind the Vorlage of G had
already gone its own way.
One can conclude with Sanderson that the Greek text of both Exod.
9:20 and 9:21 represents the ‘more original’ reading and as a consequence
can be designated the ‘preferable’ variant.
22. MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:24 ἡ δε χαλαζα = G+

MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:24 σφοδρα = G+
In M and SamP, Exod. 9:24 can be read as a single sentence in which

‫ כבד מאד‬functions as a hinge. ‫ כבד מאד‬serves to determine that which
precedes it (the hail and the fire were very heavy: ‫)כבד מאד‬, although
it is also connected to the relative clause that follows (Egypt had never
experienced such a storm: ‫)כבד מאד‬.
273
The Greek text of Exod. 9:24, however, has to be split into three clauses,
in contrast to the announcement in Exod. 9:18 where all the textual wit-
nesses are parallel to one another. The first clause relates that there was
hail and fire (ην δε χαλαζα και το πυρ φλογιζον ἐν τῃ χαλαζῃ), the
second that the hail and fire were heavy (ἡ δε χαλαζα πολλη σφοδρα) and
the third that such a storm had never been seen in Egypt (σφοδρα ἡτις
τοιαυτη οὐ γεγονεν ἐν αἰγυπτῳ). This threefold sentence structure obliges
G to repeat an element from the preceding clause on two occasions, on
account of the syntax and in order to clarify the content of the following
clause.274 The second clause thus repeats the hail from the first clause, mak-
ing the subject of the second clause explicit: ἡ δε χαλαζα πολλη σφοδρα.
Given the fact that πολλη σφοδρα consequently becomes the predicate
of the second clause, the Greek text is prevented from simply making the
transition to a relative clause in parallel with the Hebrew text. G repeats an
element from the preceding clause (σφοδρα), therefore, in order to clarify
the antecedent being determined by the relative clause that follows.
Based on this analysis, which considers the (Vorlage of ) the Greek text
as a derivative of a Hebrew text similar to the extant text of M and SamP,
one might conclude that M and SamP represent the ‘preferable’ variant
in Exod. 9:24. Bearing in mind that the variant in question is purely
grammatical, however, we prefer to side with caution and designate the
variants in Exod. 9:24 as ‘synonymous’.
23. MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:24 ἐπ’ αὐτης = G+
In the final part of Exod. 9:24, reference is made in M, SamP and G to

Egypt. M and SamP employ the expression ‫ארץ מצרים‬, while G speaks
succinctly of αἰγυπτῳ. In the remainder of the sentence, G refers once
again to Egypt in the form of an adverbial locative via the plus ἐπ’ αὐτης.
M and SamP, by contrast, do not repeat ‫ארץ מצרים‬, preferring to allow
the latter to serve as the subject of ‫היה‬.
The said differences, and in particular the plus in G, may have arisen as
a result of differing interpretations of ‫ מצרים‬and αἰγυπτῳ. The Hebrew
274
See also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 136–137. Wevers likewise explains the Greek plus Exod.
9:24 ἡ δε χαλαζα as a syntactical variant. The expression ἡ δε χαλαζα is necessary in
order to make clear that το πυρ is no longer the subject. Cf. also Z. Frankel, Vorstudien,
171: ‘Noch ist ein sonderbarer Umstand bei den LXX. zu erwähnen: sie scheinen manches
Wort zum vorhergehenden und folgenden Stichos zugleich zu nehmen und übersetzen es
doppelt’ with a reference to Exod. 9:24 by way of example on 172.
texts consider ‫ מצרים‬as a designation to be applied to Egypt as a nation.275

G, on the other hand, sees ἐν αἰγυπτῳ (as the translation of ‫בכל ארץ‬
‫ )מצרים‬rather as a geographical location. M and SamP are thereby able
to state that Egypt as a nation became a people, while G, in line with
the beginning of the sentence, relates that a people came into existence in
Egypt as a geographical territory. For this reason, G was obliged to place
a preposition with a personal pronoun after the verb, thereby giving rise
to the variant in question.276
I am inclined to consider both readings as equally legitimate and prefer,
therefore, to designate MSamP and G in Exod. 9:24 as ‘synonymous’
variants.
24. MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:25 ‫ = את כל אשׁר בשׂדה‬MSamP+
In Exod. 9:23–26, the execution of what was announced in Exod. 9:18–19,

22 is related in parallel fashion. In the description of the said execu-
tion, however, one can observe a plus in the Hebrew texts (MSamP) of
Exod. 9:25: ‫( את כל אשׁר בשׂדה‬everything in the field). If one examines
the plus in question in its immediate context one is struck by the fact
that the announcement in Exod. 9:19 contains a similar, almost identical
formula in all the preserved textual witnesses: ‫)את( כל אשׁר לך בשׂדה‬
(MSamP4Qc) and ὁσα σοι ἐστιν ἐν τῳ πεδιῳ (G). Bearing in mind that
the remainder of Exod. 9:25 runs parallel to the announcement in 9:19
and 22, the present author considers it possible to speak of a harmonising
adaptation of the narrative of the event to that of the announcement in
regard to the Hebrew plus in 9:25. As a consequence, therefore, the plus
in this verse (MSamP) should be considered secondary. G, by contrast,
has preserved the ‘more original’ reading at this juncture, probably because
the text behind the latter—at least within Sanderson’s theory—was first
to take its leave of the common group of texts. Since M and SamP bear
witness to the same secondary reading, this must have arisen at a time
when both text traditions were still developing together.
Based on the aforementioned considerations, therefore, we prefer to
designate the reading found in G as the ‘preferable’ variant.
275
It is unfortunate in this regard that 4Qm has not been preserved at this point in the
text. As a matter of fact, 4Qm makes an orthographic distinction between Egypt as a country
(‫ )מצרים‬and Egypt as a nation or the Egyptians (‫)מצריים‬, whereby the interpretation of
‘Egypt’ becomes unambiguous. Cf. P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 64.
276
134.
25. MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:25 ἡ χαλαζα = G+
Both the Hebrew texts (M and SamP) and the Greek text (G) of Exod.
9:25 are made up of three paratactic clauses containing the verbs forms
‫ ויך‬/ ἐπαταξεν, ‫ הכה‬/ ἐπαταξεν and ‫ שׁבר‬/ συνετριψεν respectively. The
subject ‫ הברד‬/ ἡ χαλαζα is given in each instance with respect to the
first two verbs. In the third clause, however, only G repeats the subject ἡ
χαλαζα, thereby giving rise to the variant in question.
The plus ἡ χαλαζα in G is a repetitive, explicit formulation of a
subject already mentioned on two previous occasions and clear on the
basis of the context without further repetition. One is thus at liberty to
characterise the said variant as a harmonising addition in (the Vorlage of )
G,277 whereby it should be evaluated as secondary. The readings found in
M and SamP contain the ‘preferable’ variant.
26. MSamP ≠ G2Qa Exod. 9:28 και πυρ, ‫ = ואשׁ‬G2Qa+
The announcement of the plague only makes reference to hail, both in

M, SamP, 4Qm, 4Qc and in G (cf. Exod. 9:18–19, 22). In the account of
the event itself, however, the Hebrew texts and the Greek text speak of
hail and fire in Exod. 9:23–24 but merely of hail in Exod. 9:25. In the
entreaty of Pharaoh that follows (Exod. 9:26–28), only G and 2Qa return
to the reference to ‘fire’ in Exod. 9:28. No single textual witness makes
reference to fire in Moses’ response (Exod. 9:29–30), although all textual
versions speak of hail and G, in addition, of rain (cf. infra). At the end of
the plague account (Exod. 9:33–35), to conclude, all of the textual wit-
nesses speak of hail and rain and none of them makes reference to fire.
The motif of fire that flashes back and forth through the hail does not
appear to have stemmed from the Greek translator since 2Qa also bears
witness to the same reading. It should be noted, in addition, that all the
textual witnesses mention this phenomenon in Exod. 9:23–24 without
sign of irregularity. For these reasons, the present author is inclined to
argue that the plus in the Vorlage of G and in 2Qa of Exod. 9:28 arose as a
result of internal harmonisation of the entreaty of Pharaoh with the event
of the plague itself recounted in the preceding verses (Exod. 9:23–24).278
277
J.W. Wevers likewise speaks in this regard of an addition in G. Cf. J.W. Wevers,
Notes, 137: ‘The subject ἡ χαλαζα is added though it would have been obvious from
the context.’
278
Wevers also alludes to the similarity between the variant in Exod. 9:28 and the read-
ings of 9:23–24. However, without argumentation and moreover without any reference
G and 2Qa should thus be considered secondary variants and the reading
found in M and SamP designated the ‘preferable’ variant.
27. MSamP4Ql2Qa4Qc ≠ G Exod. 9:29 και ὁ ὑετος = G
Mention of rain in relation to the plague in question is to be found in

none of the textual witnesses within the framework of Pharaoh’s entreaty.
In the announcement of the plague in Exod. 9:18, however, rain is referred
to by way of the verbs ‫ממטיר‬, and ὑω respectively. The execution of the
announcement in Exod. 9:23 similarly employs ‫ וימטר‬from the same root,
although in this instance the Greek uses a different equivalent, namely και
ἐβρεξεν, which also means ‘to rain’. The rain is also mentioned at the end
of the given plague account in Exod. 9:33–34 as ‫ מטר‬/ ὑετος.
The Greek variant found in Exod. 9:29, which, in contrast to the
Hebrew textual witnesses, also makes reference to rain at this juncture
(in Moses’ response to Pharaoh’s entreaty) can be explained in a manner
analogous to the explanation of the previous variant. Bearing in mind
that the Hebrew textual witnesses employ the same motif in Exod. 9:18,
23, 33–34, it would be incorrect to suggest that 9:29 is a creation on the
part of G. Rather, the Greek reference to rain in this verse would appear
once again to be an endeavour to harmonise the response of Moses to
Pharaoh with both the announcement of the plague in Exod. 9:18 and
the execution thereof in 9:23 as well as with the account of the end of
the plague as such in 9:33–34.279 In this fashion, the presentation of the
announcement of the end of the plague is adapted to the announcement
and the execution of the plague and at the same time to the descrip-
tion of the end thereof. Consequently, the Greek variant in Exod. 9:29
would appear to be the result of harmonisation.280 It follows, therefore,
that the Hebrew reading should be designated the ‘preferable’ variant at
this juncture.
to the fact that 2Qa has the same variant in Hebrew, he describes this variant as an addi-
tion in G. See J.W. Wevers, Notes, 139: ‘To God’s thunders and hail there is added “and
lightning”, for which see vv. 23 and 24.’ [italics B.L.]
279
Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 140. Wevers is likewise of the opinion that the variant
in question came about as a result of harmonisation with the end of the plague. However,
he speaks once again of an ‘addition’ in G without further explanation: ‘. . ., Exod adding
ὁ ὑετος from v. 34 thereby making the account complete.’ [italics B.L.]
280
Bearing the translation technique evident in the book of Exodus in mind, one can
argue that the harmonisation in question probably took place at the level of the Vorlage.
28. MSamP ≠ G Exod. 9:34 ‫ = הוא‬MSamP+

MSamP4Ql4Qc ≠ G Exod. 10:1 ‫ = את לב‬MSamP4Ql4Qc+
In all the textual witnesses of Exod. 9:34, reference is made to the hard-
ening of Pharaoh and his servants. In addition to the subject that was
already clear in the third person verb form (‫)ויכבד‬, in the possessive suffix
associated with the substantive (‫ )לבו‬and made explicit at the beginning of
the verse as ‫פרעה‬, the Hebrew texts repeat the subject ‫ הוא‬once again in
this context and add the servants ‫ ועבדיו‬as a supplement. The Greek, by
contrast, does not repeat the subject and as a consequence offers a slightly
different construction. Where the Hebrew texts speak of Pharaoh and his
servants as subject, G avoids ‫ הוא‬and thereby relates both elements to
the substantive καρδια, such that the reference then speaks of Pharaoh’s
heart and that of his servants. Where the Hebrew makes ‫ הוא ועבדיו‬the
subject of the hardening, the Greek αὐτου την καρδιαν (accusative) και
των θεραποντων αὐτου is the object of ἐβαρυνεν.281
A similar reference is made in the textual witnesses of Exod. 10:1 to
the obduracy of Pharaoh and his servants. On two occasions, the Hebrew
texts make explicit mention of the substantive ‫לב‬, where G only employs
the equivalent καρδια once. The word in question nevertheless determines
both the genitives that follow—Pharaoh and his servants—in like fashion
to 9:34.
However, it remains difficult to determine which of the readings should
be designated the ‘preferable’ variant with respect to Exod. 9:34 and 10:1.
It is possible to argue that in each instance the minus in G is a result of
the Greek translator’s concern to produce good, idiomatic Greek.282 This
is evident in both verses, for example, from the fact that he locates the
personal pronoun before the substantive καρδια rather than after it as in
the Hebrew.283 By avoiding repetition of the subject (‫ )הוא‬and of the sec-
ond ‫לב‬, the translator seems to have been intent on avoiding unnecessary
repetition, most likely for stylistic reasons. In terms of content, however,
the different readings found in Exod. 9:34 and in 10:1 say precisely the
281
Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 143: ‘MT defines the subject of the verb in larger detail
as “he and his servants”; what MT means is that Pharaoh and his servants hardened their
hearts, but Exod has και των θεραποντων αὐτου joining it to αὐτου 1°, which αὐτου
precedes την καρδιαν in good Greek style.’
282
283
Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 143: ‘good Greek style’.
same thing. For this reason we are inclined to designate the variants in
Exod. 9:34 and Exod. 10:1 as ‘synonymous’.
29. MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:4 ταυτην την ὡραν = G+
A review of the introductory formulas preceding the individual plagues

reveals that no temporal indicator is employed in Exod. 7:19, 27; 8:12,
17 and 9:3. In Exod. 9:14, by contrast, the Hebrew textual witnesses
have ‫ בפעם הזאת‬and the Greek text has ἐν τῳ νυν καιρῳ.284 In Exod.
10:21, reference is made to the duration of the plague (‫שׁלשׁת ימים‬, τρεις
ἡμερας). In Exod. 11:4, we read ‫ כחזת הלילה‬and περι μεσας νυκτας
respectively. In Exod. 9:18, the Hebrew textual witnesses employ the
expression ‫ כעת מחר‬while the Greek text employs the formula ταυτην
την ὡραν αὐριον. It is this latter formulation that we find reflected in
Exod. 10:4 in G, while the Hebrew texts (M and SamP) only have ‫מחר‬,
without ‫ כעת‬as equivalent for the Greek ταυτην την ὡραν.
It is striking in this regard that the temporal references are all to be
found in the announcement of the final plagues. Exod. 10:4, the variant
under treatment, likewise functions in the context of the account of one
of the final disasters.
Against this background, one can suggest that (the Vorlage of ) G prob-
ably took the plus in Exod. 10:4 from its immediate context, namely the
preceding announcement in Exod. 9:18, in which the Hebrew textual wit-
nesses and the Greek text employ the same formula. If this hypothesis is
correct, then the Greek text of Exod. 10:4 (or its Vorlage) must have been
harmonised with Exod. 9:18, and as a consequence, the Hebrew textual
witnesses (M and SamP) have clearly preserved the ‘preferable’ variant.285
30. MG ≠ SamP4Qm Exod. 10:5 ‫= עשׂב הארץ ואת כל פרי‬

SamP4Qm+
With respect to the variant in Exod. 10:5, a plausible explanation can

also be found in the immediate context, which is to be found within
284
Cf. the same formula in Exod. 8:28, albeit not within the framework of an
announcement.
285
Nevertheless, it also remains theoretically possible that the Vorlage of G originally
had the same formulation as Exod. 9:18 at this juncture and that this had been lost in M
and SamP. The Hebrew text, however, offers no indication of the possibility of a scribal
error, nor indeed is it likely that the said text simply omitted something.
the framework of the plague of locusts. This pericope is structured as

follows. Exod. 10:3–6 contains the announcement and 10:7–11 relates
the negotiations that follow and their negative result. In 10:12, YHWH
commands Moses to instigate the plague, combining his instruction with
a short prediction concerning the consequences. Finally, Exod. 10:13–15
narrates the execution of YHWH’s command and a description of the
effect of the plague.
The plus in Exod. 10:5 (SamP4Qm) is in agreement with the text of
10:15 (MGSamP4Qc), in which we are told, in identical words, about
the damage inflicted by the locusts on the crops in the field and the fruit
on the trees. Given the fact that all the extant textual witnesses of 10:15
are equivalent at this juncture, it is possible that the text of 4Qm also
shared this reading, but the latter has not been preserved. We note once
again, therefore, that SamP and 4Qm would appear to have harmonised
the announcement in Exod. 10:5 with the account of the execution in
10:15 (cf. also partly 10:12).
Based on this observation one can argue that the reading found in SamP
and 4Qm is the result of a secondary text development whereby M and G
are to be considered the ‘preferable’ variant in Exod. 10:5.286
31. MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:6 μωυσης = G+

MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:18 μωυσης = G+
MSamP ≠ G Exod. 11:8 μωυσης = G+
In the Greek text of Exod. 10:6, the subject μωυσης is stated explicitly at
the end of a segment of direct speech. The subject of the latter is already
mentioned, however, in the introduction (Exod. 10:3) in M, G, SamP
and 4Qm, namely Moses and Aaron. The verb that follows is likewise in
the plural: ‫ ויאמרו‬/ εἰπαν. At the end of the said direct speech in Exod.
10:6, however, all the textual witnesses have singular verb forms: ‫ ויפן‬/
ἐκκλινας. With respect to the variant under analysis, it is probable that
(the Vorlage of ) G adapted the subject to the singular verbs by only mak-
ing explicit reference to μωυσης.
A similar instance can be found in Exod. 10:18. A segment of direct
speech begins in Exod. 10:16 in which Pharaoh addresses Moses and
Aaron. After this direct speech, however, the verb forms are suddenly
286
J. Sanderson likewise designates M and G as the ‘preferable’ variant on the basis of
a similar line of argument. Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 97–98.
singular. M, G and SamP of Exod. 10:18 have ‫ ויצא‬/ ἐξηλθεν and the
verbs that follow are also in the singular. Once again, it would appear that
(the Vorlage of ) G is making explicit reference to an adapted (singular)
subject, namely μωυσης.
The question is slightly different in the case of Exod. 11:8, although a
similar explanation can be proposed in this regard nevertheless. A segment
of direct speech with Moses as speaker begins in 11:4. The said text also
contains an embedded segment of direct speech, however, with YHWH
as subject. At the end of this direct speech in Exod. 11:8 G clearly sees
the need to identify the subject of ἐξηλθεν once again and thereby makes
explicit reference to μωυσης.
This explanation has the potential to shed a degree of light on the
emergence of the plus μωυσης in the three instances under analysis. It
remains to be seen, however, which of the readings has preserved the
‘preferable’ reading. Given the fact that references to Aaron are mostly
understood as later interpolation,287 the plural verb forms referring to
Moses and Aaron are to be considered less original than the singular verb
forms with Moses as subject. The singular verb forms in Exod. 10:6 and
10:18 are, as a consequence, more original than the preceding introduc-
tions in the plural.
If one thus presumes that G explicitly related the subject μωυσης to
the singular verb forms in order to clarify the situation with respect to
the preceding context—which had changed to the plural on account of the
interpolation of Aaron—, then one is obliged to consider the Greek text
to be less original than the Hebrew textual witnesses in which the subject
is not added. G (or its Vorlage) has thus adapted itself in Exod. 10:6 and
18 to the secondary emendations that have been introduced into the text
while the Hebrew texts exhibit no adaptation. For this reason we can
consider M and SamP in both instances as representing the ‘preferable’
variant.
The present author is also of the opinion that the latter can also be
said with respect to Exod. 11:8, namely that M and SamP have preserved
the ‘preferable’ variant. As a matter of fact, the narrative simply continues
in the Hebrew textual witnesses. ‫ ויצא‬returns to the subject Moses from
Exod. 11:4 without providing any further clarification. G (or its Vorlage),
on the other hand, considered it necessary to repeat the subject. In our
opinion, the very fact of this repetition implies that G is less original than
287
Cf. supra the discussion of textual variant 1 on pp. 151–152.
M and SamP. As a consequence, we likewise prefer to designate M and

SamP as the ‘preferable’ variant with respect to Exod. 11:8.
32. MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:9 ‫ = נלך‬MSamP+
In the Hebrew textual witnesses to Exod. 10:9 (M and SamP) one finds
two summary lists in response to Pharaoh’s question ‘But which ones are
to go?’ (10:8). Both enumerations end with the verb form ‫נלך‬. The verse
is thus symmetrical in construction. The second verb form ‫ נלך‬rounds off
the second list and simultaneously concludes the verse as a whole. While
the Greek text contains the same two lists, it only places a verb at the
end of the first: πορευσομεθα, parallel with ‫נלך‬. The verb πορευσομεθα
in G thus serves both groups and exercises a hinge function between the
two lists.
The ‘preferable’ variant is difficult to determine in the case of Exod.
10:9. One might suggest that the minus in G with respect to the Hebrew
‫ נלך‬is a result of the Greek translator’s concern to write good, idiomatic
Greek. It is probable that he wanted to avoid unnecessary repetition for
stylistic reasons. Indeed, in terms of content, the various readings of Exod.
10:9 say exactly the same thing. A confirmation for this explanation is
to be found, we maintain, in the fact that the Hebrew preposition -‫ב‬,
which is consistently repeated in MSamP4Qm4Qc, is only rendered where
necessary in the Greek text, namely in two instances by συν, the second
because the list was interrupted by the verb πορευσομεθα.288 Moreover, in
contrast to the frequent use of the possessive suffix in the Hebrew texts,
the possessive pronoun ἡμων is only found once in the Greek text. For
these reasons we are inclined to designate the variants in Exod. 10:9 as
‘synonymous’.
33. MG4Qm ≠ SamP Exod. 10:11 ‫לא כן‬, μη οὑτως = MG4Qm+

MG4Qm ≠ SamP Exod. 10:11 ‫ = לכן‬SamP+
Our explanation of the variants in Exod. 10:11 is based on the suggestion

proposed by J. Sanderson who maintains that the readings in question are
‘synonymous’.289 The fact that the reading of the Vorlage of G, which is
apparently in line with M and 4Qm, cannot be established with certainty
288
289
remains a problem, however. Sanderson points out that ‫ לא כן‬as well as

‫ לכן‬are rendered in G by οὐχ οὑτως, in particular when the preceding
idea is given a negative evaluation and the following has to be introduced
in a positive manner. She refers in this regard to Gen. 4:15; 30:15; 1 Kgs
22:19; 2 Kgs 1:4, 6; Judg. 8:7; 11:8. Of the four instances in which M
has ‫ לא כן‬in the Pentateuch (Gen. 48:18; Num. 12:7; Deut. 18:14 and
Exod. 10:11), SamP agrees with M in three, with the exception being
precisely Exod. 10:11. In all four instances, G translates with οὐχ (μη)
οὑτως. In each of these four passages—in like fashion to the passage in
which ‫ לכן‬occurs—a preceding idea is refuted and the following is intro-
duced. Sanderson concludes that, on the basis of this information, it is
impossible to reach a decision with respect to the determination of the
‘preferable’ variant neither is one able to make a statement in relation to
the Vorlage of G. For this reason she designates the readings under analysis
as ‘synonymous’ variants. In the context of Exod. 10:11, both ‫ לא כן‬and
‫ לכן‬can function in the same manner.
34. M4Qc ≠ GSamP Exod. 10:12 τον καρπον των ξυλων,

‫ = פרי העץ‬GSamP+
The plus in G and SamP of Exod. 10:12 is to be found within the frame-
work of YHWH’s command to Moses to instigate the plague of locusts.
Exod. 10:13–15 thus relates the execution of this command and the onset
of the plague. A comparison of the command in Exod. 10:12 with the
execution in 10:15 reveals identical expression. The words of the plus in
G and SamP of Exod. 10:12—‘the fruit of the trees’—can be found in
Exod. 10:15 in all the textual witnesses.290
Bearing this observation in mind, it seems clear that (the Vorlage of ) G
and SamP in Exod. 10:12 set about harmonising the formulation of the
command with the account of the execution in Exod. 10:15.291 Given the
fact that harmonisation must be understood as a secondary text develop-
ment, it follows that M and 4Qc have preserved the more original reading
with respect to Exod. 10:12 and as a consequence should be considered
290
Le Boulluec and Sandevoir likewise note the similarity between the plus in Exod.
10:12 and Exod. 10:15. Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 138.
291
Cf. also supra the discussion of variant 30 on pp. 180–181, in which harmonisa-
tion was also observed between the announcement of the plague in Exod. 10:5 and the
execution thereof in Exod. 10:15, in part even with the same words.
35. MG ≠ SamP Exod. 10:13 ‫מטה‬, ῥαβδον—‫יד‬
A variant reading is apparent in Exod. 10:13 between MG and SamP,

the former stating that Moses stretched out his staff, the latter that he
stretched out his hand.
An explanation for the variant in question, which immediately orientates
the evaluation thereof, can be found in the fact that the description of
the command in both MG and SamP of Exod. 10:12 speaks of Moses
stretching out his hand (‫ יד‬/ χειρ). Once again, it seems clear that SamP
intended to harmonise the execution of the command in Exod. 10:13
with the command itself, such that both verses make reference to the
stretching out of the ‘hand’.292
On the basis of this information one can argue that M and G have
preserved the ‘preferable’ reading.
36. MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:13 ‫—על ארץ מצרים‬εἰς τον οὐρανον
The different reading evident between MSamP and G with respect to Exod.
10:13 does not turn around the presence of a minus or a plus, but offers
rather two entirely different presentations of the event. In MSamP, Moses
stretches out his hand/staff over the land of Egypt (‫)על ארץ מצרים‬, while
in G he points his staff towards the heavens (εἰς τον οὐρανον).
A survey of the references to the stretching out of the hand/staff in the
‘Plagues Narrative’ reveals that in Exod. 7:17, 19, 20; 8:1, 2 this is done
over water and/or rivers, in Exod. 8:12, 13 over the dust, in Exod. 9:22,
23; 10:21, 22 towards the heavens, and in Exod. 10:12 over the land of
Egypt. The variants under analysis reflect that last two possibilities.
M and SamP of Exod. 10:13 would appear to continue the presentation
of events as it is found in Exod. 10:12. In the latter passage, all the textual
witnesses (MGSamP4Qc) have ‫—על ארץ מצרים‬ἐπι γην αἰγυπτου. G,
by contrast, recapitulates events in Exod. 10:13 as they are found in the
wider context. As a matter of fact, all the textual witnesses to Exod. 9:22
(MGSamP4Qc), 23 (MGSamP), 10:21 (MGSamP), and 22 (MGSamP),
make reference to the stretching out of the hand/staff towards the heavens.293
292
Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 152: ‘probably due to the influence of v. 12.’
293
Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 152; and A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible
d’Alexandrie, 138, who also make reference to the connection with Exod. 9:22, 23 and
10:21, 22.
Both presentations of events are possible and indeed appropriate within

the context of the ‘Plagues Narrative’.
This makes it difficult to establish an explanation for the variant readings
in question. It is possible that the texts behind M and SamP harmonised
the execution in Exod. 10:13 with the command in Exod. 10:12, after
G’s Vorlage had separated itself from the common group (cf. Sanderson’s
theory). In such an instance, G would then have preserved the more
original reading on the basis of its Vorlage, which is somewhat surprising
in a context in which (the Vorlage of ) G has a tendency to harmonise
between command and execution as was evident from our analysis of the
previous variants. Nevertheless, the present author would suggest that G
has preserved the ‘preferable’ variant at this juncture.
37. MSamP ≠ G4Qc Exod. 10:15 ‫—ותחשׁך‬και ἐφθαρη, ‫ותשׁחת‬
The variant readings in Exod. 10:15 exhibit a difference in meaning. M

and SamP read ‫( ותחשׁך‬to be dark), G and 4Qc by contrast και ἐφθαρη
and ‫( ותשׁחת‬to ruin or to destroy).
J. Wevers is of the opinion with respect to this variant that G has simply
endeavoured to better fit the context and he considers the presupposition
of a possible Vorlage ‫ תשׁחת‬unnecessary.294 On the basis of the material
present in 4Qc, however, Wevers’ conclusion must be contradicted, since
the said textual witness reflects precisely the same Greek variant in a
Hebrew textual version.295 For this reason we are inclined to conclude
that G’s variant does indeed stem from its Vorlage.
As a consequence, it would appear that we are dealing with two different
Hebrew readings at this juncture, namely ‫ ותחשׁך‬and ‫ותשׁחת‬. One can
immediately observe that the variants in question are very similar given
the fact that two of the three basic consonants are identical. Reference can
also be made in this regard to the perspective adopted by A. Le Boulluec
and P. Sandevoir who point to the possibility of metathesis of the shared
consonants in the roots ‫ חשׁך‬and ‫שׁחת‬, and possible confusion between
two forms closely resembling one another.296
294
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 153: ‘Instead of MT’s “and the land was darkened” Exod
has “and the land was destroyed”, ἐφθαρη. That the land was wasted is then explicated in
the rest of the verse; in the context ἐφθαρη fits much better than MT, though it is useless
to suppose a parent ‫ תשׁחת‬instead of ‫ ;תחשׁך‬Exod was simply trying to make sense.’
295
For 4Qc see E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD 12, 112: ‘This is one clear instance
where Exodc agrees with G (ἐφθαρη, “was ruined”) against the variant in MSamP (‫תחשׁך‬,
“became dark”).’
296
Cf. A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 138: ‘LXX: «fut dévastée»—
Establishing the ‘preferable’ variant at this juncture, however, remains

difficult. If one takes metathesis and confusion as one’s point of departure,
one still has to admit ignorance as to the direction of the emendation in
question. Did ‫ ותחשׁך‬come about on the basis of ‫ ותשׁחת‬or vice versa?
In terms of content and context, the reading found in G and 4Qc would
appear to fit more appropriately in the narrative, but certainty as to the
‘preferability’ of one reading over the other is impossible to establish.
For this reason we prefer to designate the readings in Exod. 10:15 as
‘synonymous’ variants.
38. MGSamP ≠ 4Qm Exod. 10:21 ‫וימשׁ )ה(חשׁך‬, ψηλαφητον

σκοτος = MGSamP+
Reference is made in M, G and SamP of Exod. 10:21 to ‘darkness that

can be felt’ while 4Qm, by contrast, has a minus at this juncture. In order
to explain and evaluate the variant in question we turn to the hypothesis
proposed by J. Sanderson who maintains that the variant in 4Qm may
have occurred on account of parablepsis.297 It is clearly possible to move
from the ‫ וי‬in ‫ וימשׁ‬to the ‫ וי‬in ‫ ויט‬omitting what lies between.
On the other hand, Sanderson suggests that the plus ‫—וימשׁ )ה(חשׁך‬
ψηλαφητον σκοτος in MGSamP may have been influenced by Job 12:25
and Deut. 28:29 in which similar expressions are employed. She main-
tains, nevertheless, that even if such influence can be established, it may
have already taken place during the phase of the literary development
of Exodus, such that the expression in question already belonged to the
‘preferable’ text when 4Qm omitted it by parablepsis.
Given the lack of certitude surrounding the evaluation of the variant
under analysis, however, Sanderson opts to designate the readings in
MGSamP and 4Qm of Exod. 10:21 as ‘synonymous’ variants.
39. MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:22 θυελλα = G+
In Exod. 10:21, M, G and SamP make reference for the first time to
darkness with the words ‫ חשׁך‬and σκοτος. In the second half of Exod.
TM: «fut obscurcie». 11 fois sur 20, φθειρειν correspond à l’hébreu ‫שׁחת‬, et non pas (c’est
ici le seul cas) à une forme de la racine ‫חשׁך‬. Les deux verbes hébreux comportent deux
consonnes communes ‫ שׁ‬et ‫ ח‬en ordre inversé. L’écart entre la LXX et le TM peut résulter
d’une métathèse et d’une confusion entre deux formes assez proches l’une de l’autre. La
lecture faite par la LXX paraît mieux adaptée à la logique du texte.’
297
10:21, darkness is alluded to once again in the expression ‫ ימשׁ חשׁך‬and

ψηλαφητον σκοτος, darkness that can be felt. In Exod. 10:22, the vari-
ant under consideration, we encounter a third reference: M and SamP
speak of ‫ חשׁך אפלה‬and G of σκοτος γνοφος θυελλα. One can observe
a climactic process in the vocabulary at this juncture. The narrative begins
by speaking about ‘darkness’ as such, then of ‘darkness that can be felt’,
and finally in both MSamP and in G the darkness is emphasised in a
pleonastic expression. Furthermore, G adds a supplementary element that
reinforces the expression: θυελλα (stormy wind, storm). The Greek thus
speaks of ‘darkness, pitch darkness, storm’.
Given the fact that the term θυελλα is not to be found elsewhere in
the ‘Plagues Narrative’, we cannot thereby appeal to the immediate con-
text in order to investigate the origin of the word. Although the Greek
expression σκοτος γνοφος θυελλα can also be found in the Septuagint
of Deut. 4:11 and 5:22, in these instances it represents a translation of
the Hebrew words ‫)חשׁך( ענן וערפל‬.298 According to Wevers, the plus
in Exod. 10:22 may have been based on the aforementioned texts from
Deuteronomy.299 Le Boulluec and Sandevoir likewise claim that G of
Exod. 10:22 was influenced by the said verses.300
The present author is inclined in this regard to locate the proposed
influence, if it could be confirmed, at the level of the Vorlage of G. Bearing
in mind our characterisation of the translation technique employed in the
book of Exodus,301 it seems unlikely that the translator himself would have
added elements of this kind. Moreover, if one accepts that the translator
of Exodus only worked with small segments of text simultaneously,302 then
it would be strange for him to have allowed himself to be influenced by
the text of Deuteronomy and certainly not by the translation thereof,
298
While Deut. 5:22 contains the full Greek expression σκοτος γνοφος θυελλα, the
Hebrew equivalent ‫ חשׁך‬for σκοτος is lacking at this juncture. In contrast to Exod. 10:22,
where γνοφος is the equivalent of ‫אפלה‬, γνοφος in Deut. 4:11 and 5:22 would appear to
be the equivalent of ‫ענן‬. The term constituting the plus in Exod. 10:22, θυελλα, represents
the equivalent of ‫ ערפל‬in Deut. 4:11 and 5:22. For a comprehensive and detailed discus-
sion of the entire expression σκοτος γνοφος θυελλα and its individual components, but
moreover of the Hebrew terms that may have constituted the Vorlage of the expression,
see M. Vervenne, Het Zeeverhaal, 153–161, especially 155–159.
299
300
301
302
Cf. supra pp. 106, 134.
since it is argued that the translation of Exodus took place before that
of Deuteronomy.303
If one argues that θυελλα in Exod. 10:22 came about on the basis of
harmonisation with Deuteronomy, then the variant in question must be
considered ipso facto secondary. As a consequence, we opt to designate
the reading found in M and SamP as the ‘preferable’ variant.
40. MSamP ≠ G Exod. 10:29 ‫אסף‬, ‫ = אוסף‬MSamP+
In Exod. 10:29, both MSamP and G recount that Moses may/shall no

longer see Pharaoh’s face. The Hebrew expression ‫ א)ו(סף ראות‬is rendered
in Greek with the singular verb form ὀφθησομαι and the negation οὐκετι,
while the same text has a more literal equivalent in 10:28—προσθειναι
ἰδειν—for the same Hebrew expression.
When one compares 10:29 with 10:28, one might suggest that M
and SamP harmonised 10:29 with 10:28, whereby G would thus have
preserved the ‘preferable’ variant, offering an expression parallel with the
end of 10:28 (‫ ראתך פני‬and ὀφθῃς μοι).
It is equally possible and perhaps even more likely, however, that the
Greek translator found the same expression in his Vorlage of 10:29 as
M and SamP, namely ‫לא אסף עוד ראות‬, but preferred to render the
latter in idiomatic Greek with οὐκετι ὀφθησομαι. In this instance, both
readings must be understood as ‘synonymous’ variants. Both expressions
relate precisely the same content: Moses is no longer permitted to see
the face of Pharaoh.
303
The hypothesis claiming that Deuteronomy was probably translated later than Exodus
is based on the research of the Finnish scholars A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo and I. Soisalon-
Soininen, who observe on the basis of different independent criteria that the translation of
Deuteronomy is strikingly more literal (in the word-for-word sense) than that of Exodus.
According to the scholars in question, the preference for translating word-for-word gradu-
ally became more pronounced over time, reaching its climax in the reworking of Aquila.
The fact that the translator of Deuteronomy appeared to have considered this aspect of
translation more important than the translator of Exodus leads them to suspect, therefore,
that Deuteronomy was translated later than Exodus. Cf., for example, A. Aejmelaeus,
‘Oti Causale in Septuagintal Greek’, 20; Idem, Parataxis in the Septuagint, 174–175, 178,
183–184; Idem, ‘Translation Technique and the Intention’, 25–26; R. Sollamo, ‘The LXX
Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute’, 113; I. Soisalon-Soininen, ‘Die Wiedergabe des
Hebräischen Personalpronomens’, 80, 85; Idem, ‘Die Auslassung des Possessivpronomens’,
88, 103; Idem, ‘Die Wiedergabe des partitiven ‫’מן‬, 163; Idem, ‘Der Gebrauch des Verbs
ἐχειν’, 183–184 and Idem, Die Infinitive in der Septuaginta, 159. Cf. also E. Tov, ‘The
Nature and Study of the Translation Technique’, 351, in which Genesis and Exodus are
likewise considered to be the oldest translations.
41. MSamP ≠ G Exod. 11:1 ‫ = מזה‬MSamP+
In the second half of Exod. 11:1, YHWH announces that when Pharaoh
lets the people go, he will drive it away ‘from here’ (‫)מזה‬. G has a minus
with respect to this expression when compared with M and SamP.
If one compares the second half of the verse with the first, in which
YHWH announces the same thing without reference to ‘driving away’,
one observes that all the textual witnesses (MSamP and G) have ‫מזה‬
and ἐντευθεν. Bearing this in mind, it seems reasonable to speak once
again of a harmonisation in M and SamP with regard to the variant in
question, more specifically the synchronisation of the same words within
two halves of the same verse.
Given the fact that G lacks an equivalent for ‫מזה‬, and if we follow
Sanderson’s theory with respect to the text development of Exodus,304
the harmonisation in question probably took place during the phase in
which the texts behind M and SamP continued to develop together but
the text behind G had already commend its own development. G would
thus appear to have preserved the ‘preferable’ variant on the basis of a
more original Vorlage. The contrary hypothesis, namely that G’s Vorlage
may have omitted the word in question, is unlikely, especially when one
considers the fact that the said Vorlage exhibits traces of harmonisation
elsewhere in the same verse,305 and would evidently not have missed an
existing harmonisation.
42. MSamP ≠ G Exod. 11:2 κρυφῃ = G+
No evidence can be found in the context of the ‘Plagues Narrative’ that

can explain the presence of the Greek plus in Exod. 11:2, κρυφῃ. Given
the lack of a contextual explanation for the variant, and bearing in mind
that scribal error, in our opinion, is equally unlikely at this juncture,
one might be inclined to conclude that this plus in G reflects a different
Vorlage to that of M.306
Nevertheless, as J. Wevers argues, it is also possible that G’s more elabo-
rate expression simply represents an endeavour on its part to give explicit
304
Cf. supra p. 166 and n. 218.
305
With regard to the harmonisation in Exod. 11:1 (G), cf. also the discussion of variant
17 on pp. 170–171.
306
See, for example, N.L. Collins, ‘Evidence in the Septuagint of a Tradition in Which
the Israelites Left Egypt without Pharaoh’s Consent’, CBQ 56 (1994), 442–448, pp.
444–445, 447, 448.
formulation to what is already implicit expressed in ‫דבר נא באזני העם‬

(‘speak now to the ears of the people’).307 As a matter of fact, the modern
English expression ‘whisper something in someone’s ear’ also connotes
a degree of secrecy. In this case, the plus κρυφῃ should be understood
to stem from the translator and his desire to write fluent and idiomatic
Greek, which led him to explain the Hebrew expression.
Given the fact that both readings ultimately relate the same content
and that any attempt to determine the origin of the Greek plus in Exod.
11:2 would be nothing more than guesswork, we prefer to designate the
Hebrew and Greek readings as ‘synonymous’ variants.
43. MSamP ≠ G Exod. 11:2 ‫ = כלי‬MSamP+
In Exod. 11:2, reference is made to the loaning and borrowing of silver

and gold objects. The Hebrew text of M and SamP explicitly states the
same subject ‫ כלי‬twice, in each instance in a status constructus with the
material nouns ‫ כסף‬and ‫זהב‬. The Greek, by contrast, only mentions
the substantive σκευη once, in combination with two adjectives agreeing
in gender and number, linked by the conjunction και. A minus is thus
evident in G where the Hebrew texts repeat the substantive ‫כלי‬.
In the present author’s opinion, the variant in question has its roots in
grammar and linguistic feeling. The Greek translator of Exodus sought
to provide fluent and idiomatic Greek.308 This is evident from the fact
that he avoided the unnecessary repetition of the substantive σκευη as
equivalent for the twofold ‫כלי‬. For this reason we are inclined to designate
the variant readings in Exod. 11:2 as ‘synonymous’ variants.
44. M ≠ GSamP Exod. 11:2 και ἱματισμον, ‫ = ושׁמלות‬GSamP+
Where M speaks only of the exchange of gold and silver objects in Exod.
11:2, G and SamP refer in addition to clothing (ἱματισμον, ‫)שׁמלות‬
thereby giving rise to a plus in the said textual versions.
One might be inclined to imagine at first sight that we are dealing here
with a variant stemming from a different Vorlage, since there does not seem
to be an explanation for the plus in question in the immediate context.
However, a closer analysis of the wider context and, in particular, a study
of the way in which the so-called ‘despoiling motif ’ is referred to elsewhere
307
308
in Exodus, reveal that M also makes reference to clothing in both Exod.

3:22 and in 12:35.309 In other words, the plus under analysis appears to
be a harmonisation of the present narrative with other instances in which
the ‘despoiling motif ’ is narrated, namely in Exod. 3 and 12.310
If this explanation is correct and we are in fact dealing with a harmonisa-
tion in SamP and in the Vorlage of G (bearing in mind that the translator
would not have introduced such terms indiscriminately) it follows that
M in the present instance has preserved the more original reading and as
a consequence should be designated the ‘preferable’ variant.
45. M2Qa ≠ GSamP Exod. 11:3 και ἐχρησαν αὐτοις,

‫ = והשׁאילום‬GSamP+
With the words και ἐχρησαν αὐτοις and ‫והשׁאילום‬, G and SamP set
themselves apart once again with a remarkable plus unparalleled in the
‘Plagues Narrative’. M and 2Qa also make mention of the fact that YHWH
grants favour, but G and SamP are alone in relating the purpose thereof:
the Egyptians hand over their objects of silver and gold.
In line with the discussion of the preceding variant, much can be learned
in the present instance from Exod. 12. Indeed, the plus in G and SamP
of Exod. 11:3 is identical to the words found in Exod. 12:36,311 in which
allusion was made to the ‘despoiling motif ’. Once again, it would appear
that the Vorlage of G and SamP harmonised with Exod. 12 with respect
to Exod. 11:3. For this reason it seems reasonable to argue that M and
2Qa have preserved the ‘preferable’ variant.
46. MSamP2Qa ≠ G Exod. 11:3 και ἐναντιον φαραω = G+

MSamP2Qa ≠ G Exod. 11:3 ‫ = בעיני העם‬MSamP2Qa+
One encounters further differences in the final part of Exod. 11:3 when
the Hebrew and Greek textual witnesses are compared. With the help of
the prepositions ‫ ב‬and ‫ בעיני‬M and 2Qa state that Moses was great ‘in
309
Cf. also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 141; J.W. Wevers, Notes,
162 and N.L. Collins, ‘Evidence in the Septuagint’, 443, esp. n. 6.
310
On the harmonisations in the textual witnesses of Exod. 11:1–10 with Exod. 3:21–22;
4:22–23 and 12:35–36, see also B. Lemmelijn, ‘Setting and Function of Exod. 11,1–10 in
the Exodus Narrative’, in: M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction—
Reception—Interpretation (BETL, 126), Leuven 1996, 443–460, pp. 455–456.
311
Cf. also J.W. Wevers, Notes, 162–163; A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible
d’Alexandrie, 142; and N.L. Collins, ‘Evidence in the Septuagint’, 443–444.
the land of Egypt, in the sight of Pharaoh’s servants and in the sight of
the people’. SamP relates precisely the same thing and in precisely the
same fashion but in a different location, namely towards the end of the
‘major expansion’ in Exod. 11:3b.312 With the help of the preposition
ἐναντιον, G, by contrast, also speaks of the Egyptians (quasi-parallel
with ‫ )ארץ מצרים‬and then refers to Pharaoh and the servants of Pharaoh
(equivalent of ‫)עבדי פרעה‬.
In this text fragment, the Hebrew texts thus have a minus with respect
to the Greek text’s και ἐναντιον φαραω and the Greek text has a minus
with respect to the Hebrew text’s ‫בעיני העם‬.
With respect to the Hebrew minus, one might suggest that Pharaoh is
intentionally not mentioned in MSamP2Qa for theological reasons. The
Hebrew text thus shows that all Egypt, the servants of Pharaoh and the
people, recognised Moses and YHWH. Pharaoh himself, however, does
not capitulate, refusing to recognise either Moses or YHWH. The Hebrew
text makes no reference to Pharaoh in order to show the extent of his
uncompromising obduracy.313 While such an explanation is attractive, it
nevertheless remains speculative. An alternative is possible, however. The
plus in G is not unusual in the context of the ‘Plagues Narrative’. When
similar summarising statements in the narrative are compared,314 it is
remarkable that Pharaoh is often if not always included.315 As a conse-
quence, it is possible that the Vorlage of G harmonised with the context
and made explicit reference to Pharaoh on the basis of the formulation
frequently employed in the ‘Plagues Narrative’.316 If this explanation is
correct, then the Hebrew textual witnesses should be understood as having
preserved the ‘preferable’ variant in the present instance.
With respect to the minus in the Greek by contrast to the Hebrew
‫בעיני העם‬, reference should be made to the fact that G has already made
explicit reference to the Egyptians in this verse and even placed them in
the first position: ἐναντιον των αἰγυπτιων. The latter formula is paral-
lel with the same expression a little earlier in the same verse in both G
(ἐναντιον των αἰγυπτιων) and MSamP2Qa (‫)בעיני מצרים‬. It is probable
312
This ‘major expansion’ is discussed in more detail infra p. 205.
313
Cf. also Exod. 11:10: the final words of the ‘Plague Narrative’ continue to describe
Pharaoh’s hardening.
314
Cf. the discussion of variant 19 on pp. 171–172.
315
Cf., by way of example, Exod. 7:20 (MGSamP), 28 (MGSamP); 8:5 (MGSamP),
7 (MGSamP), 17 (MGSamP4Qc), 25 (MGSamP), 27 (MGSamP); 9:14 (MGSamP).
316
J. Wevers likewise suggests that the Vorlage of G is responsible for this plus in the
Greek text. Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 163: ‘only explicable on the basis of a different par-
ent text’.
that G’s Vorlage harmonised with this expression, perhaps even consciously.
As a consequence, given the fact that the Egyptian people had already
been mentioned, the Vorlage of G saw no reason to mention them again.
However, given the fact that the Hebrew ‫ בארץ מצרים‬has geographi-
cal significance (in contrast to the abovementioned ‫)בעיני מצרים‬, the
explicit formulation of ‫ בעיני העם‬in the Hebrew text, an element that
occurs with relative frequency in the context of the ‘Plagues Narrative’,
is not superfluous. Bearing this in mind, one can argue that the Vorlage
of G manipulated its text and that the existing Hebrew textual witnesses
probably preserved the ‘preferable’ variant in this instance.
47. MGSamP ≠ 2Qa Exod. 11:4 ‫ = אל פרעה‬2Qa+
A review of the references in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ in which the addressee

in direct speech is explicitly mentioned, reveals a number of different possi-
bilities. When YHWH addresses Moses we read ‫;אל משׁה‬317 when Pharaoh
addresses Moses and Aaron we occasionally find no further specification,318
but elsewhere we read ‫; אלהם‬319 when Pharaoh’s servants address Pharaoh
we read ‫;אליו‬320 when the magicians address Pharaoh we read ‫;אל פרעה‬321
when Moses speaks to Aaron we read ‫אל אהרן‬.322 In the variant under
analysis—namely when Moses addresses Pharaoh—three possibilities can
be distinguished. In a few cases everything can be understood on the
basis of the context and no further specification is necessary.323 In other
instances we find ‫אליו‬,324 and in a single instance we find ‫לפרעה‬.325
In Exod. 11:4, no further specification is evident in M, G and SamP;
2Qa reads ‫אל פרעה‬. Based on the information outlined above, one
observes that the said expression occurs nowhere else in exactly the same
form in the ‘Plagues Narrative’. Parallels such as ‫ אליו‬and especially
‫לפרעה‬, however, are in frequent evidence. Nevertheless, the reading
317
Cf. Exod. 7:14 (MGSamP4Q m), 19 (MGSamP), 26 (MGSamP4Q c); 8:1
(MGSamP4Qc4Qj), 12 (MGSamP), 16 (MGSamP4Qm); 9:1 (MGSamP), 8 (MGSamP4Qm),
13 (MGSamP), 22 (MGSamP); 10:1 (MGSamP), 12 (MGSamP4Qm), 21 (MGSamP4Qm);
11:1 (MGSamP), 9 (MGSamP4Ql).
318
Cf. Exod. 8:4 (MGSamP), 24 (MGSamP).
319
Cf. Exod. 9:27 (MGSamP) and Exod. 10:8 (MGSamP).
320
Cf. Exod. 10:7 (MGSamP4Qm).
321
Cf. Exod. 8:15 (MGSamP4Qm).
322
Cf. Exod. 10:3 (MGSamP4Ql4Qc).
323
Cf. Exod. 8:22 (MGSamP), 25 (MGSamP); 10:9 (MGSamP4Qm4Qc).
324
Cf. Exod. 7:16 (MGSamP4Q a), 26 (MGSamP); 8:16 (MGSamP4Q m); 9:1
(MGSamP), 13 (MGSamP).
325
Cf. Exod. 8:5 (MGSamP).
found in MGSamP—i.e. without further specification—is also found.

For this reason we are obliged to conclude that both possibilities are
legitimate readings, such that the variants in question can be designated
as ‘synonymous’.
48. MSamP4Qm4Qc ≠ G Exod. 11:9 τα σημεια και = G+

MSamP4Ql ≠ G Exod. 11:10 τα σημεια και = G+
In both Exod. 11:9 and 11:10, reference is made in all the extant textual
witnesses to ‫מופתי‬, and τερατα respectively. The plus found in G, τα
σημεια, is found in both Exod. 11:9 and 11:10 and is actually the equiva-
lent of the Hebrew ‫אות‬. It is striking that references to YHWH’s miracu-
lous deeds elsewhere in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ employ precisely these terms
(cf. Exod. 8:19MGSamP; 10:1MGSamP, 2MGSamP: ‫—אתת‬σημεια).
Nevertheless, the terminology ‫—מופתים‬τερατα employed in the verses
under analysis is original since all the extant texts bear witness to it.
By employing the term σημεια in Exod. 11:9 and 10, it would appear
that the Vorlage of G wanted to maintain the use of the terminology
employed in the preceding context of the ‘Plagues Narrative’, whereby
the double formula σημεια και τερατα was created in both instances.
Moreover, reference should also be made to the fact that Exod. 11:9–10
functions as a conclusion to the ‘Plagues Narrative’. If one compares these
verses to Exod. 7:3,326 in which we find a sort of prologue to the plagues,
one observes that precisely the same double formula is also employed in
the Hebrew text (M: ‫ )והרביתי את אתתי ואת מופתי בארץ מצרים‬in
the same context. As a consequence, it is possible that the Vorlage of G
harmonised its conclusion to the ‘Plagues Narrative’ with the prologue
thereto.327 If this is correct, the readings found in the Hebrew textual
witnesses are more original than G. As a consequence M, SamP, 4Qm and
4Qc should be designated the ‘preferable’ variant with respect to Exod.
11:9 and M, SamP and 4Ql with respect to Exod. 11:10.
49. MSamP4Ql ≠ G Exod. 11:10 ‫—מארצו‬ἐκ γης αἰγυπτου
Where M, SamP and 4Ql allude to the land of Pharaoh (‘his land’), G
speaks explicitly of ‘the land of Egypt’ in Exod. 11:10. As we noted above,
326
Cf. J.W. Wevers, Notes, 93, 166.
327
Cf. also A. Le Boulluec, P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 143, who likewise point
to harmonisation in G.
the formula ‫ ארץ מצרים‬and γη αἰγυπτου is employed most frequently

for references to Egypt in the ‘Plagues Narrative’.328 In 11:10, therefore,
G is in line with this standard usage. The Hebrew textual witnesses, by
contrast, have a possessive suffix in the third person singular instead of
the genitive (or the nomen rectum in the status constructus). The suffix in
question refers to Pharaoh who is mentioned in the immediately preced-
ing context.329
The variant in the Hebrew textual witnesses to Exod. 11:10 may be a
question of stylistic variation. Indeed, the standard formula ‫—ארץ מצרים‬
γη αἰγυπτου is already employed at the end of verse 9. It is probable
therefore that Hebrew textual witnesses wanted to avoid repetition. Fur-
thermore, the reference to Pharaoh serves to underline his ‘obduracy’.
On the other hand, it is also possible that the Hebrew texts employed
the possessive suffix with reference to Pharaoh because the said texts no
longer make reference to Egypt in Exod. 11:10 but only to Pharaoh. G,
by contrast, which found a reference to Egypt in its harmonising plus
ἐν γῃ αἰγυπτου in Exod. 11:10 (based on 11:9),330 continued along the
same lines and repeats γη αἰγυπτου.
If the first explanation is correct and we are dealing with a stylistic
variation in the Hebrew texts, then the readings under analysis are ‘syn-
onymous’ in Exod. 11:10. If the second explanation is correct, however,
this would imply that the reading found in G at the end of Exod. 11:10 is
based on the secondary, harmonising reading earlier in the verse, whereby
one would likewise be obliged to designate the variant under analysis as
secondary. In such an instance, the Hebrew textual witnesses would be
considered to have preserved the ‘preferable’ variant. Given the lack of
certainty in this regard and the fact that neither explanation is conclusive,
we prefer to err on the side of caution and designate both readings as
‘synonymous’.
328
329
Cf. precisely the same formulation in Exod. 7:2: ‫מארצו‬. The Greek also offers an
equivalent at this juncture: ἐκ της γης αὐτου. 4Qm has a minus in this location, leading
Sanderson to consider it the ‘preferable’ variant over M, G and SamP. Cf. J.E. Sanderson,
An Exodus Scroll, 56: ‘‫ מארצו‬is not necessary to the context, while being a typical expan-
sion.’ See also Ibidem, 180.
330
major expansions in the hebrew textual witnesses 197
Discussion of the larger plusses or major expansions in the Hebrew textual

witnesses to the ‘Plagues Narrative’ of Exod. 7:14–11:10 331
In SamP, 4Qm and 4Qj we encounter a number of passages in Exod.

7:14–11:10 that one can characterise as ‘larger plusses’ in relation to
the other textual witnesses. SamP contains nine such major expansions,
six of which are to be found in 4Qm. According to J. Sanderson, 4Qm
originally contained the remaining three also.332 4Qj, by contrast, has
only preserved two major expansions.333 The major expansions are to be
found in Exod. 7:18b (SamP4Qm), Exod. 7:29b (SamP4Qm4Qj), Exod.
8:1b (SamP4Qj), Exod. 8:19b (SamP4Qm), Exod. 9:5b (SamP4Qm), Exod.
9:19b (SamP4Qm), Exod. 10:2b (SamP4Qm) and in Exod. 11:3b (SamP),
a twofold expansion.
Three types of larger plusses can be distinguished. The first is to be
recognised in Exod. 7:18b, 29b; 8:1b; 8:19b; 9:5b and 9:19b.334 All of
the textual witnesses recount a command given by YHWH to Moses.
On the basis thereof, the textual versions without major expansion leave
the reader to presuppose that Moses in fact executes the given command.
The narrative continues with an account of the consequences of the said
execution. SamP, 4Qm and 4Qj, however, make specific reference to the
latter by repeating the words from YHWH’s command and making the
necessary changes to the substantives, pronouns and verb forms. One can
conclude in this regard, therefore, that this first type of larger plus supple-
ments a command with a description of the execution thereof.
A second type of major expansion can be observed in the plus found
in Exod. 10:2b and the first expansion in Exod. 11:3b.335 In these larger
plusses, the expansion precedes the execution of the command, the latter
equally being recounted in the other textual witnesses. The larger plusses
331
These ‘major expansions’ are also discussed in B. Lemmelijn, ‘The So-Called “Major
Expansions” in SamP, 4QpaleoExodm and 4QExodj in Exod 7:14–11:10: On the Edge
between Textual Criticism and Literary Criticism’, in: B. Taylor (ed.), X Congress of the
International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Oslo 1998 (SBL SCS, 51),
Atlanta 2001, 429–439.
332
Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 96–97, 196–207.
333
Sanderson does not mention these expansions in 4Qj, but it will be evident from
what follows that they are of the same type as those in SamP and 4Qm. On the presence
of these larger plusses in 4Qj, cf. also marginal note 1 supra pp. 30–31 in the presentation
of the problematic text fragments from the Qumran scrolls.
334
335
in question repeat words from the execution in the same manner, but in
this instance with a view to demonstrating that what is being executed
was de facto commanded by YHWH. As a consequence, larger plusses
of this type can be characterised as the rendering of a command in the
preceding context of its narrated execution.
The third type of major expansion is to be found in the second expan-
sion of Exod. 11:3b.336 In this passage, YHWH’s command from Exod.
4:22–23 is recapitulated. In the latter text segment, YHWH commands
Moses to announce to Pharaoh that all the firstborn of Egypt will die
if he refuses to let Israel—described as YHWH’s firstborn—go. In the
second expansion of Exod. 11:3b, Moses executes the said command of
YHWH in precisely the same terminology. What is announced in Exod.
11:4–7 and executed in Exod. 12 is thus explicitly related, precisely via
the expansion of Exod. 11:3b, to Exod. 4:22–23. While we are dealing,
once again, with the harmonisation of command and execution, the major
expansion in question distinguishes itself by harking back to a consider-
ably earlier text rather than repeating words from its immediate context
as is the case with the other types of major expansion.
Sanderson poses three questions with respect to the first two types of
major expansions, namely the harmonising expansion of a command by
the execution thereof and vice versa based on the immediate context. In
the first instance, she examines the extent to which the scribe changed the
text and how he went about his work.337 Sanderson observes in this regard
that the text fragments, that all the textual witnesses share, are virtu-
ally identical. In the larger plusses, therefore, it is clear that the scribe
intentionally expanded his Vorlage (the text he had at his disposal). His
methodology can be described as the precise word-for-word repetition
of terms from the command or the execution respectively. At the same
time, the same scribe allowed himself the freedom to omit by providing
summarising statements and to emend by introducing other information
(such as the reference to Aaron and the pronouns and verb forms adapted
thereto). Sanderson suggests in addition that the expansions in question
were probably introduced by one and the same scribe over a short period
of time, given the uniformity of the information and the relatively limited
context of the ‘Plagues Narrative’. At the same time, however, she also
suggests the possibility that the scribe created the said emendations in
response to the wishes of his community.
336
Cf. J.E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 198, 206–207.
337
Secondly, Sanderson reflects on the scribe’s motivation for introduc-

ing the said emendations.338 It is frequently argued that the driving force
behind the expansions should be located in a theoretical a priori refusal to
render a command of YHWH without explicitly rendering the execution
thereof. Sanderson is of the opinion, however, that the real reason has
more to do with the dramatic and/or liturgical dimension. According to
her, the expansions are not per se intended to emphasise Moses’ obedience
to YHWH, given the fact that details from the command are frequently
summarised in the execution. Rather, she maintains, the larger pluses under
analysis are intended to underline the magnitude of YHWH’s threat with
respect to Pharaoh. It thus becomes clear that YHWH’s power is greater
than that of Pharaoh and that he is a god who saves his people. This
message is of crucial importance in the liturgy. Bearing this in mind, it
is probable that the scribe expanded the ‘Plagues Narrative’ in response
to the dramatic and liturgical demands of his community in order to
facilitate the functioning of the narrative.
The third question to which Sanderson endeavours to formulate a
response surrounds the matter of the scribes’ decision only to expand the
account of certain plagues and not all of them.339 Indeed, one observes
that the preparatory sign in Exod. 7:8–14, the plague of gnats in 8:12–15,
the plague of boils in 9:8–12 and the plague of darkness in 10:21–27
have not been expanded.340 What the pericopes have in common is the
fact that none of them contain an address by YHWH to Pharaoh. The
plagues in question are brought about by Aaron or Moses. If one stud-
ies the text closely, moreover, one observes that a similar phenomenon
occurs elsewhere. Within the account of the individual plagues, there is
often more than one command and as a consequence more than one
opportunity for the scribe to introduce a larger plus. In spite of this,
one encounters no expansions in Exod. 7:19; 9:22 and 10:12, in which
YHWH commands Moses to do something himself or to commission
Aaron to do something. These verses likewise make no reference to direct
address by YHWH to Pharaoh. According to Sanderson, therefore, the
scribe paid no attention to them. Moreover, if one can argue on the basis
of the fact that all the preserved texts do the same, it would then appear
338
339
340
From a redaction-historical point of view, it is remarkable that the said pericopes are
all either P or redactional (R) or, on the basis of my own research and in a more adequate
formulation: P as redaction. See, in this respect, B. Lemmelijn, ‘The So-Called “Priestly”
Layer in Exod. 7:14–11:10: “Source” and/or/nor “Redaction”?’, RB 109 (2002), 481–511.
that the Vorlage already made reference to the execution in the respective
following verses—Exod. 7:20; 9:23 and 10:13. Sanderson summarises
her observations with respect to the selection of expanded passages as
follows. It is clear on the one hand that every command on the part of
YHWH to speak to Pharaoh or the passages containing Moses’ address
to Pharaoh have been subject to expansion. On the other hand, passages
in which Moses is commanded to commission Aaron to do something
or to do something himself are not expanded (probably in part because
they already related the execution of the command). There is only one
exception in this regard, namely the larger plus in Exod. 8:1b. In this
case, the command to speak to Aaron is repeated in an expansion. Based
on these observations, Sanderson concludes that the scribes concentrated
their interest on the words of YHWH to Pharaoh. The repetition of the
said words underlined once again the dramatic effect of the struggle in
which they were engaged.
With respect to the first two types of expansion one can conclude as a
consequence that they came into existence as a result of the precise copy-
ing of existing verses from the immediate context in the Vorlage, together
with the interpolation of a number of minor emendations or adaptations.
The goal of the expansions in question was to repeat the words of YHWH
addressed to Pharaoh in order to increase the dramatic effect of the nar-
rative. It seems plausible, moreover, that the said expansions were the
work of one and the same scribe who, according to Sanderson, should
be situated in the period in which the texts behind G and M had already
separated themselves independently from the main group, while the texts
behind 4Qm and SamP continued to develop together.341
With respect to the third type of expansion—namely the second expan-
sion in Exod. 11:3b—Sanderson is of the opinion that we are dealing
here once again with a harmonisation of command and execution, on the
understanding that the passages being related to one another are further
apart in terms of context.342 The larger plus in 11:3b copies from a pas-
sage seven chapters earlier in the text, namely 4:22–23. It thus becomes
apparent that the scribes responsible for the expansions had a broader
horizon of interest. They did not only desire to harmonise the ‘Plagues
Narrative’ internally, they were also concerned about the literary unity
and structure of the Exodus narrative as a whole. The scribes in question
341
342
were aware of parallels in the narrative and were successful in accentuating

them, even when they were further apart in the text. Bearing in mind
the fact that SamP and 4Qm share the expansion in question, Sanderson
maintains that it must have come into existence in the same period as
the larger plusses of the first and second types.
In the remainder of the present paragraph we will provide a brief
description and evaluation of each of the major expansions in the ‘Plagues
Narrative’.
Exod. 7:18b: SamP4Qm

If one compares the larger plus found in Exod. 7:18b in SamP and 4Qm
in closer detail with its immediate context, it becomes evident that the
words ‫ וילך‬up to and including ‫ אל פרעה‬in SamP are a recapitulation
of the first words of Exod. 7:15. They would appear to be a summary
of the latter. The place and hour of the encounter are not repeated, nor
is anything further said of the staff. When one compares the beginning
of the said expansion with 7:15, moreover, it becomes clear that Aaron
has been added. The continuation of the text in question, which is also
preserved in 4Qm, leads us to believe that Aaron was probably not pres-
ent in 4Qm, given the fact that it employs a singular verb form ‫ ויאמר‬in
contrast to the plural ‫ ויאמרו‬of SamP.343 The words in question, namely
(‫ ויאמר)ו‬up to and including the end of the expansion, represent a literal
repetition in SamP and in 4Qm of 7:16–18. The different preposition at
the end of the expansion—‫ ב‬in SamP and ‫ בתוך‬in 4Qm—is in agreement
with the respective prepositions in 7:18.
One observes, therefore, that the scribe indeed offers an almost word-
for-word repetition of the command from Exod. 7:15–18 in order to make
explicit reference to the execution thereof in the same terms. It should be
noted, nevertheless, that Exod. 7:15 is summarised in Exod. 7:18b and
that Aaron is added in SamP together with the adapted verb forms (cf.
‫ ויאמרו‬as well as the plural suffix in ‫)שׁלחנו‬.
Exod. 7:29b: SamP4Qm4Q j

The major expansion found in Exod. 7:29b appears in SamP to be a
literal recapitulation of the preceding verses 7:26–29. Once again, how-
ever, Aaron is added and the verb forms are adapted where necessary as
343
Cf. P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 75.
is apparent from the plural verb form ‫וידברו‬. The words that have been
preserved from the expansion in question in 4Qm and 4Qj are in agree-
ment with SamP and thus likewise appear to be a repetition from Exod.
7:28 and 29.
Once again, the expansion under analysis clearly wishes to render the
execution of the command of YHWH in Exod. 7:26–29. The words
YHWH commands to be addressed to Pharaoh are de facto addressed to
Pharaoh in the expansion.
Exod. 8:1b: SamP4Q j 344

The larger plus found in Exod. 8:1b bears evidence of the same procedure.
In 8:1, YHWH commands Moses to commission Aaron. The execution of
Aaron’s commission follows immediately in Exod. 8:2, while the expansion
of v. 1b also makes explicit reference to Moses’ execution of the command
to speak to Aaron.345
The words of 8:1b in SamP and 4Qj employ the same formulation
as the command in 8:1 to recount the execution thereof. One observes
identical phraseology, with the exception that 8:1 is summarised to a cer-
tain extent. It does not repeat the location over which Aaron is to stretch
out his staff. As a consequence, one can conclude that the expansion in
Exod. 8:1b also concerns an explicit formulation of the execution of a
command in the immediately preceding context.

The beginning of the major expansion Exod. 8:19b in SamP represents
a summarising repetition of the commission given by YHWH to Moses
in 8:16. The clause ‫ ויבא משׁה ואהרן אל פרעה‬is not, however, a literal
repetition. The location and time of the encounter are once again left
aside and the verb ‫ בוא‬is employed instead of ‫ השׁכם‬in 8:16. Moreover,
the interpolation of Aaron with the adaptation of the verb forms is also
evident in the remainder of the expansion (cf. ‫)ויאמרו‬. The text under
analysis has not been preserved in 4Qm. The continuation of the expansion
in SamP and in the preserved fragments of 4Qm, namely from ‫ ויאמרו‬to
the end, represents a literal repetition of 8:16–19.
344
4Qm has not been preserved at this juncture although it would have contained the
same expansion. Cf. P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 77.
345
As noted above, Exod. 8:1b is thus the only larger plus to offer a repetition outside
the context of an address to Pharaoh.
Once again it would appear that the scribe related the command of
Exod. 8:16–19 in the form of its execution in 8:19b. The words Moses
(and Aaron) were commanded to address to Pharaoh in 8:16–19 are in
fact addressed to him in 19b.
Exod. 9:5b: SamP4Qm

Immediately after YHWH’s command to Moses to go to Pharaoh and
bring him his message in Exod. 9:1–5, M, G and 4Qc continue with the
account of the arrival of the given plague and its consequences (9:6–7).
SamP and 4Qm, by contrast, would appear to consider it necessary to
repeat explicitly the execution of YHWH’s command by Moses (and
Aaron) in the expansion of 9:5b.
The beginning of the expansion in 9:5b is thus a recapitulation of the
words found at the beginning of 9:1. Once again we observe the inter-
polation of Aaron in SamP with the adapted plural verb forms ‫ויאמרו‬.
Both in SamP and the preserved text fragments of 4Qm, the remainder
is a literal repetition of 9:1–5, with the exception that the words ‫וישׂם‬
‫ יהוה מועד לאמר‬have been omitted so that the text of 9:5b immediately
follows with ‫ מחר‬after ‫דבר‬.
As a consequence of the explicit recapitulation of the execution of
YHWH’s command to speak to Pharaoh, the larger plus under analysis
once again offers an almost literal repetition of the words addressed by
YHWH to Pharaoh.
Exod. 9:19b: SamP4Qm346

Parallel with the situation in Exod. 8:19b, the beginning of the larger
plus 9:19b in SamP represents a summarising recapitulation of the com-
mission given by YHWH to Moses in 9:13. As with 8:19b, however,
the formulation ‫ ויבא משׁה ואהרן אל פרעה‬is not a literal repetition.
The time and circumstances of the encounter are omitted and the verb
‫ בוא‬is employed (cf. also 8:19b) instead of the verb ‫ השׁכם‬as found in
9:13 and 8:16. Once again, Aaron has been added at this juncture and
the verb forms have been adapted in the remainder of the expansion (cf.
‫)ויאמרו‬. Both in SamP and in the extant textual fragments of 4Qm, the
346
In addition to the words mentioned in the synopsis (cf. appendix), a few traces of
ink have been preserved in 4Qm, which according to DJD probably stem from ‫בעבור‬
‫הראתיך‬. See P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 80.
text that follows in Exod. 9:19b, namely from ‫ ויאמרו‬to the end, is a
literal repetition taken from 9:13–19.
As a consequence, one can conclude that the scribe repeated the com-
mand of 9:13–19 in the form of its execution in 9:19b, using almost
identical terminology. In other words, the expansion under analysis is
thus likewise an explicitation of the execution of the command YHWH
addressed to Moses in 9:13–19. Once again we encounter repetition
of the words addressed by YHWH to Pharaoh. By contrast, M, G and
4Qc relate the impact of the warning Moses was commanded to give to
Pharaoh immediately after 9:19.

As already noted at the beginning of the present paragraph,347 the scribe
has worked in reverse with respect to the expansion of Exod. 10:2b found
in SamP and 4Qm when compared with the major expansions discussed
up to this point. The larger plus in 10:2b, which renders a command,
precedes the execution thereof that is also related in 10:3–6 of M, G, SamP,
4Qm, 4Ql and 4Qc. The expansion found in 10:2b repeats the words of
the execution as the already mentioned expansions did with the words of
the command. In the present instance, the larger plus is intended to show
that YHWH had indeed commanded what was being executed.
Against this background, one observes that the beginning of 10:3 rep-
resents the execution of the command given at the beginning of 10:1.
Once again, there is evidence that the common text (MGSamP4Qc) added
Aaron and an adapted plural verb form ‫ ויאמרו‬and εἰπαν. The remainder
of 10:3 and the verses that follow, namely 10:4 up to and including ‫היום‬
‫ הזה‬in 10:6, however, appears to be the execution of a command formulated
in the larger plus of 10:2b. Indeed, Exod. 10:2b and Exod. 10:3–6 appear
to agree with one another word-for-word. Nevertheless, minor differences
are observable upon closer inspection. First, one notes that where 10:3
makes reference to Aaron and sets the verb form in the plural, the expan-
sion in 10:2b offers a singular form ‫ואמרת‬. Second, where 10:2b makes
an explicit reference ‫אל פרעה‬, the execution in 10:3 speaks of ‫אליו‬.
The expansion found in 10:2b thus intends to demonstrate that the
words addressed to Pharaoh in 10:3–6 were genuinely commanded by
YHWH. Exod. 10:2b formulates a command in exactly the same words
as the execution of 10:3–6.
347
Cf. supra p. 197.
Exod. 11:3b1: SamP 348

One encounters a similar procedure in the first expansion of Exod. 11:3b.
Once again, we are dealing here with an expansion that formulates a com-
mand prior to the execution thereof related in the other textual witnesses.
The larger plus repeats the words of the execution in precisely the same
fashion in order to demonstrate that YHWH de facto commanded what
was being executed.
Against this background, one notes that the expansion found in 11:3b1,
from the beginning ‫ וכחצית הלילה‬up to and including ‫ובין ישׂראל‬, agrees
word-for-word with the text 11:4–7 (MGSamP4Ql2Qa). In this way, the
expansion demonstrates that the words addressed by Moses to Pharaoh
in 11:4–7 are from YHWH. Exod. 11:3b1 thus formulates a command
prior to the execution thereof in 11:4–7.
On the other hand, the continuation of Exod. 11:3b1, from ‫וגם האישׁ‬
up to and including ‫ובעיני העם‬, is identical to the end of 11:3 (MG2Qa),
to which SamP does not bear witness at that location. In other words,
the expansion would appear to hark back at this juncture to that which
precedes it, although the textual basis of the expansion found in SamP (and
4Qm) remains unclear. Given the fact that M, G and 2Qa have preserved
identical phraseology in 11:3, however, it is clear that the words found
in 11:3b1 are not an ‘invention’ of SamP4Qm and it is probable that this
segment of the expansion came about as a result of harmonisation.
Exod. 11:3b2: SamP

The concluding portion of the expansion found in Exod. 11:3b, which
we refer to here as Exod. 11:3b2, is very special. The portion of 11:3b
in question repeats the command of YHWH from Exod. 4:22–23 with
exactly the same words.349 In Exod. 4:22–23, YHWH commands Moses to
announce to Pharaoh that all the firstborn of Egypt will die if he refuses
to let Israel, YHWH’s firstborn, go. In the expansion of 11:3b2, Moses
addresses Pharaoh with the words commanded him in 4:22–23.
348
As has been said in the introduction to the present paragraph (see supra p. 197),
4Qm originally bore witness to both expansions in Exod. 11:3b. However, they have not
been preserved in the text fragments we have at our disposal.
349
Cf. also E.L. Greenstein, ‘The Firstborn Plague and the Reading Process’, in: D.P.
Wright, D.N. Freedman, A. Hurvitz (eds), Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Bib-
lical, Jewish and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature. FS J. Milgrom, Winona Lake
1995, 555–568, p. 561.
One observes in this regard that both passages employ precisely the
same words, with the exception that the command ‫ ואמרת‬becomes nar-
rative ‫ ויאמר‬in the execution and the subject ‫ משׁה‬is made explicit where
this was not necessary in the context of YHWH’s address to Moses in
4:22–23. In addition, where YHWH speaks in the first person singular
(‫ )אנכי‬before the verb ‫ הרג‬in 4:22–23, Moses, who repeats these words
to Pharaoh, speaks of ‫ יהוה‬in the third person. Nevertheless, suffixes in
the first person singular are maintained a little earlier in the text.
Against this background, it is also clear that the structure of the begin-
ning of Exod. 11 in SamP is different from the one in the other textual
witnesses. In the various textual witnesses, Exod. 11:1 begins with a direct
address of YHWH which continues to the end of 11:2. In 11:3, we then
find a narrative passage concerning the people and Moses. In 11:4–7,
Moses then announces YHWH’s words concerning the death of the first-
born of Egypt to Pharaoh, without making any reference to a command
in the same words. In SamP, by contrast, YHWH’s direct address does
not end after 11:2. By analogy with 3:21, Exod. 11:3 continues in the
first person singular, such that YHWH’s direct address is continued. The
expansion found in 11:3b1 continues the said address in which YHWH
commands Moses to announce the death of the firstborn to Pharaoh in
precisely the same words as those found in 11:4–7. After YHWH’s direct
address in which the command is formulated, the remainder of 11:3b1
continues with the narrative passage concerning Moses, which the other
textual witnesses relate at the end of 11:3. Exod. 11:3b2 then begins with
the account of the execution of YHWH’s commands. The second expan-
sion found in 11:3b relates the execution of the command from Exod.
4:22–23 in precisely the same terms. Exod. 11:4–7 then recapitulates the
command given in 11:3b1. SamP thus constructs a parallelly corresponding
pattern of command and execution via the two expansions found in 11:3b.
Where the other textual witnesses begin the execution (of a command not
explicitly mentioned) in 11:4, SamP begins the execution of YHWH’s
commands in 11:3b2 and shapes the remainder of the execution in agree-
ment with the harmonised expansion of the command in 11:3b1.
One thus observes a harmonisation of command and execution in
Exod. 11:3b2, albeit based on words that are not found in the immediate
context but hark back rather to a much earlier pericope.
Conclusion
Based on Sanderson’s study, we already stated at the beginning of this
paragraph, dealing with the larger plusses in the ‘Plagues Narrative’,
that the expansions in question should be characterised as additions or

interpolations. The individual discussion of each expansion has confirmed
this hypothesis and demonstrated that all of them came about as a result
of harmonisation and more or less literal repetition of passages from the
context. Eight of the nine larger plusses were borrowed from the imme-
diate context, while Exod. 11:3b2 based itself exceptionally on the wider
context, namely 4:22–23.
On the basis of the discussion thus far, one can conclude that the
non-expanded reading deserves to be designated the ‘preferable’ variant
in each instance. This means in concreto that MG4Qc4Qa in Exod. 7:18,
MG4Qc in 7:29, MG4Qc in 8:1, MG4Ql4Qc in 8:19, MG4Qc in 9:5,
MG4Qc in 9:19, MG4Qc in 10:2 and MG2Qa in 11:3 have preserved
GENERAL CONCLUSION
The goal of the present volume is to offer a text-critical study of the

‘Plagues Narrative’ of Exod. 7:14–11:10. Our point of departure is based
on the observation that little if any attention is paid to textual criticism
in conventional exegesis of the said narrative. Where scholars draw atten-
tion to text-critical issues, nevertheless, their conclusions are generally
premature, made to ‘fit’ or manipulated within the framework of their
literary or redaction-critical hypotheses. The fundamental need to provide
a text-critical foundation for literary analysis tends, on the whole, to be
ignored. In other words, scholars simply focus their attention on the
Masoretic text of Exod. 7–11 without first engaging in an exploration of
other text material.
The present author is of the opinion that such a procedure is meth-
odologically irresponsible. As a matter of fact, prior to engaging in the
literary analysis of the text, the text material as such or the so-called
‘physical’ product has to be carefully established.1 The material aspect of
the text constitutes the actual foundation upon which further research
can establish its point of departure. Literary criticism must be based on
a ‘critical’ text, a text that can only be achieved on the basis of reliable
text-critical analysis.
The text-critical working model developed in this volume can be sum-

marised as follows (cf. chapter 1). The collation of the extant textual
material and the careful registration of textual differences must serve as
the point of departure for any well-founded textual study. In this initial
phase of text-critical research, attention must not only be paid to the larger
plusses and/or minuses in the textual witnesses but also to the minor and
perhaps even minute details. It has been useful to this end to provide a
synoptic presentation of the textual versions under analysis whereby every
textual difference can be observed no matter how small it might be. In
1
The expression ‘physical product’ is borrowed from M. Vervenne. See, for example,
Idem, ‘Current tendencies’, p. 33.
210 general conclusion
this regard, we have defined the term ‘variant’ as referring to every differ-
ent reading evident between the textual witnesses, without giving priority
per se to MT as the ‘standard’ text with which the remaining witnesses
should be compared. In other words, we considered a ‘variant reading’
to be a ‘variant’ with respect to any other extant textual witness and not
only when compared with MT.
Once the variants have been registered and described, one must then
subject the different readings to a process of evaluation. The evaluation
of the variants found in the present study is rooted in an awareness of
the fact that consensus has not been achieved with respect to the eventual
existence of an Urtext and that the latter, even if it once existed, is not
accessible to us. As a consequence, we prefer to avoid reference to one
or several Urtext(s). This implies that the goal of our text-critical evalu-
ation is not to establish the original reading but rather, and against the
background of thorough text-critical analysis, to determine whether one
variant can be said to be more original than another, without daring to
suggest which text or stage in textual evolution or transmission has been
reached thereby. Understood as such, the text-critical evaluation found
in the present volume endeavours to expose and explain the relationship
between the various textual forms available to us within a relative frame-
work, without proposing or trying to reconstruct—not even with respect
to individual variants—a so-called Urtext.
The text-critical evaluation is based on conventional internal criteria,
whereby the accent is placed in the first instance on the appropriateness
of a reading in its literary context—in both the immediate and wider
sense—and on the specific features and demands of each individual variant.
The result of the said evaluation makes a distinction between ‘preferable’
variants and ‘synonymous’ variants.
It should also be noted at this juncture that prior to any evaluation of the
variants found in the versiones—in the present instance the Septuagint—a
thorough analysis of LXX translation technique is necessary. Indeed, it
is evident that not every variant registered in the LXX when compared
with the other textual witnesses came about on the basis of a variant in
the consonantal text of the Vorlage. Textual differences in the Greek text
may also be the result of the conscious and/or unconscious activities of
the translator. For this reason, an evaluation of the role of the translator
is essential where variants occur.
general conclusion 211
Our text-critical study of the ‘Plagues Narrative’ in Exod. 7:14–11:10

produced the following results.2 We observed at the level of the collection
and interpretative description of the variants (cf. chapter II) that MT was
not the only text to have preserved the narrative found in Exod. 7–11. This
implied ipso facto that MT should not be considered as the text without
a prior critical study of the other textual material at our disposal. MT is
merely a text. In addition to MT, there is a completely preserved text of
Exod. 7:14–11:10 in LXX and in SamP, and fragments of the narrative
in question in 4QpaleoExodm, 4QpaleoGen-Exodl, 2QExoda, 4QExodc,
4QGen-Exoda and 4QExodj. A significant number of textual differences
were registered when these textual witnesses were compared with one
another. Many variants could be explained on the basis of grammatical
and linguistic characteristics peculiar to the Hebrew and Greek languages.
We provided a detailed description and explanation of this category of
grammatical or stylistic variants. In addition, however, a number of other
textual differences became apparent which we referred to as ‘text-relevant’
variants. In this regard, we can speak of variants that expand the text with
a single word or a few words and variants that abbreviate the text in the
same fashion. Other text-relevant differences reveal variant presentations
of content. Especially the so-called ‘major expansions’ in SamP, 4Qm and
4Qj are of particular interest in this regard. Larger plusses of this sort are
to be found in Exod. 7:18b (SamP4Qm), 7:29b (SamP4Qm4Qj), 8:1b
(SamP4Qj), 8:19b (SamP4Qm), 9:5b (SamP4Qm), 9:19b (SamP4Qm),
10:2b (SamP4Qm) and a twofold expansion in 11:3b (SamP).
Within the framework of the second phase of our text-critical analysis—
the text-critical evaluation of text-relevant variants in Exod. 7:14–11:10
(chapter III)—a study of the translation character of the Greek text of
Exodus and of Exod. 7:14–11:10 in particular was made, prior to the
assessment of the registered Greek textual differences and functioning as
the basis for an adequate interpretation and correct evaluation thereof.
This study revealed that the Greek translator of Exodus should be char-
acterised as a competent translator with a concern for the provision of
idiomatic Greek. He can thus be described as free in his relationship to
2
A preliminary survey of these results has been published earlier in B. Lemmelijn, ‘As
Many Texts as Plagues’, 111–125.
his Vorlage, although he remains precise in providing a faithful rendering

of his original.
With the aforesaid characterisation of the translation technique of
LXX Exodus in the background, the present study then proceeded to
the concrete text-critical evaluation of the text-relevant variants in Exod.
7:14–11:10. This evaluation gave rise to a number of findings. In the
first instance, it became clear that the majority of variants in the tex-
tual witnesses to the ‘Plagues Narrative’ could be explained on the basis
of contextual arguments. The different readings in Exod. 7:14–11:10
mostly came into existence via recapitulation of or harmonisation with
the (immediate or wider) context in which they were encountered. A
review of the concrete results of the evaluation reveals that a ‘preferable’
variant is suggested in 54 instances, while the different readings in the
remaining instances are designated as ‘synonymous’ variants. It is striking
that M—together with or without other textual witnesses—was found to
have preserved the ‘preferable’ variant in 47 of these 54 instances. The
remaining 7 ‘preferable’ variants have been preserved by G—likewise
together with or without other textual witnesses but in contrast to M.
We have provided a schematic representation of the said variants below.
The first column designates the location (page) in the previous chapter
in which the variant in question was discussed, the second provides
the biblical reference, the third contains the sigla/siglum associated with the
textual witness(es) considered to contain the ‘preferable’ variant and the
fourth provides a list of textual versions considered to have preserved a
secondary variant.
Page Reference ‘Preferable’ variant Secondary variant

c a
201 Exod. 7:18b MG4Q 4Q SamP4Qm
151–152 Exod. 7:19 MSamP G
151–152 Exod. 7:20 MSamP G
201–202 Exod. 7:29b MG4Qc SamP4Qm4Qj
151–152 Exod. 8:1 MSamP4Qj G
202 Exod. 8:1b MG4Qc SamP4Qj
154–156 Exod. 8:2 MSamP G
157–158 Exod. 8:5 M GSamP
158–159 Exod. 8:5 MG SamP
159–160 Exod. 8:6 MSamP4Qc G
163 Exod. 8:7 MSamP G
163–164 Exod. 8:12 M GSamP4Qc
Table (cont.)
Page Reference ‘Preferable’ variant Secondary variant
164–165 Exod. 8:12 MSamP G
165–166 Exod. 8:13 G MSamP
166–167 Exod. 8:16 MGSamP 4Qm
202–203 Exod. 8:19b MG4Ql4Qc SamP4Qm
170–171 Exod. 9:2 MSamP G
203 Exod. 9:5b MG4Qc SamP4Qm
171 Exod. 9:7 M GSamP4Qm
166–167 Exod. 9:8 MSamP G4Qm
171–172 Exod. 9:8 MSamP4Qm G
164–165 Exod. 9:9 MSamP4Qm G
172–173 Exod. 9:10 G MSamP4Qm
203–204 Exod. 9:19b MG4Qc SamP4Qm
174 Exod. 9:20 G MSamP4Qm
174 Exod. 9:21 G MSamP
177–178 Exod. 9:28 MSamP G2Qa
178 Exod. 9:29 MSamP4Ql2Qa4Qc G
166–167 Exod. 10:1 MSamP G
204 Exod. 10:2b MG4Qc SamP4Qm
180–181 Exod. 10:5 MG SamP4Qm
181–182 Exod. 10:6 MSamP G
184 Exod. 10:12 M4Qc GSamP
185 Exod. 10:13 MG SamP
185–186 Exod. 10:13 G MSamP
181–182 Exod. 10:18 MSamP G
187–189 Exod. 10:22 MSamP G
151–152 Exod. 10:24 M4Qc GSamP4Qm
170–171 Exod. 11:1 MSamP G
191–192 Exod. 11:2 M GSamP
192 Exod. 11:3 M2Qa GSamP
192–193 Exod. 11:3 MSamP2Qa G
193–194 Exod. 11:3 MSamP2Qa G
205 Exod. 11:3b1 MG2Qa SamP
205–206 Exod. 11:3b2 MG2Qa SamP
182–183 Exod. 11:8 MSamP G
195 Exod. 11:9 MSamP4Qm4Qc G
195 Exod. 11:10 MSamP4Ql G
Based on these results, it has become apparent that the customary use
of textual variants from other text witnesses as a means to ‘correct’ (by
way of conjecture) Exod. 7:14–11:10 M is seldom justifiable.3 Indeed, the
vast majority of the textual variants in which a ‘preferable’ variant could
be established are to be found in M, albeit together with other textual
witnesses. The Septuagint, on the other hand, appears to have preserved
the ‘preferable’ variant in twenty instances, of which only seven instances in
contrast to M. These seven variants could only be evaluated as ‘preferable’
on the basis of a thorough text-critical analysis. The ‘preferable’ variants
found exclusively in G are given precedence on the basis of scribal error
(parablepsis) in M and SamP (Exod. 8:13), an addition for the purposes
of emphasis in M, SamP and 4Qm (Exod. 9:10) and the observation of
harmonisations in M and SamP (Exod. 9:20, 21, 25; 10:13 en 11:1). As
a consequence, one is clearly not at liberty to make use of the textual
variants arbitrarily or when one considers it appropriate.
The fact that the majority of ‘preferable’ variants are to be found in M,
however, need not imply that M should immediately be considered the
‘best text’ without reserve. It is only on the basis of a detailed text-critical
study of the individual variants in M of Exod. 7:14–11:10 that the epithet
‘best text’ or ‘more original text’ can be applied thereto.4 Each evaluation
focuses attention on one specific, individual variant, whereby—strictly
speaking—only the variants in question can be described as ‘preferable’.
Nevertheless, taken as a whole, the readings evaluated as ‘preferable’ vari-
ants on the basis of text-critical evaluation ultimately make it possible to
provide a global appreciation of the entire text.5
The emphasis on ‘preferable’ variants, however, should not gloss over
the presence of ‘synonymous’ variants and even ‘secondary’ variants in the
various textual witnesses. In spite of the fact that they often turn around
textual minutiae, such readings should not be ignored. While the variants in
question are frequently based on textual details that may not be particularly
3
Cf. supra p. 209.
4
Cf. also A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 88: ‘It is
generally thought that the MT represents a well preserved and in most cases the original
text. It must, however, be realized that a generalization like this is only valid if it is based
on observations made on the details of the text.’
5
See A. Aejmelaeus, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage’, 88: ‘The general
probability of a text preserving original readings is the sum of individual cases of original
readings. Before the details have been studied, there can hardly be any reliable general
idea of the value of a certain textual witness.’
relevant for the evaluation of one or another textual witness as such, they
nevertheless have an important value in themselves.6 In some places they
betray the intention of the author or scribe; in others they bear witness to
the creativity of the biblical authors. This fact should likewise encourage
scholars to be cautious in granting monopoly status to a particular text
whereby many significant minutiae are simply ignored. In the evaluation
provided here, we have therefore endeavoured to approach each variant in
itself and evaluate it in the first instance on the basis of contextual clues
and indications and not on the purported value of the manuscript as a
whole. Moreover, even if M ultimately appears to contain the majority of
‘preferable’ variants, thus allowing us to describe it as the ‘best text’ with
respect to Exod. 7:14–11:10, one should not forget that M frequently
shares these ‘preferable’ variants with various other textual witnesses, which,
as a consequence, can be designated as equally original.
In function of the literary study of the ‘Plagues Narrative’,7 it is impor-

tant that a single working text be established. Theoretically speaking, one
might argue that the extreme consequence of a text-critical evaluation of
the variants in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ should lead, of necessity, to a ‘new’,
eclectic text containing all of the ‘preferable’ variants from the various
textual witnesses. In such an instance, however, one would be basing
oneself on a text that does not factually exist, a text that would be based
on a hypothetical reconstruction of a number of fortuitously surviving
manuscripts and of which the evaluation of the variants has been unable
to avoid a degree of subjectivity. The alternative is to opt for one single
well-defined, albeit imperfect textual witness that is objectively extant.
In such an instance one is obliged to take the available material as one’s
point of departure, bearing in mind the marginal observations associated
therewith.
Based on the evaluation of the textual material of the ‘Plagues Narra-
tive’ provided in the present text-critical study, we are of the opinion that
the Masoretic text of Exod. 7:14–11:10 can function in this regard as a
6
Cf. also, for example, E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 9.
7
As has been mentioned in the introduction to the present volume, this study is based
on my previous studies of the ‘Plagues Narrative’ in Exod. 7:14–11:10. In addition to the
text-critical analysis of Exod. 7:14–11:10, the studies in question also included a status
quaestionis of research into the ‘Plagues Narrative’ and a redaction-historical study of the
text. It is the author’s hope that the reworking and elaboration of the results of these two
approaches will equally be published in the near future.
practical working text for the literary study of this intriguing narrative.
In the first instance, only three complete texts are available to us, namely
M, G and SamP. While the materials stemming from Qumran are infor-
mative and interesting for the study of individual variants, they cannot
serve as the point of departure of a literary study of the text in question
on account of their fragmentary character. Of the three aforementioned
complete textual witnesses, we have demonstrated that M contains the
‘preferable’ variant in 47 of the 54 registered cases, although not always
as the only textual witness thereto. M, in addition, exhibits a number of
‘synonymous’ variants. In the seven instances in which G provided the
‘preferable’ reading in contrast to M (Exod. 8:13; 9:10, 20, 21, 25; 10:13;
11:1) the literary analysis of the text in question will be obliged to bear
this in mind and include it as part of the literary discussion.
Finally, it has become apparent that the text-critical analysis of Exod.

7:14–11:10 has produced results that are of essential importance for
the literary study of the ‘Plagues Narrative’.8 The textual variants are of
potential relevance in the recognition and explanation of irregularities
in the final text of the said narrative. The most important results of our
analysis are provided here in a concise survey.
1. The harmonisations of command (or announcement) and execution

that were more explicitly sought after and implemented in various
textual witnesses than in M draw attention to this structural design
of the ‘Plagues Narrative’.
2. The harmonising variants that were uncovered in various textual wit-
nesses to Exod. 11 reveal contextual relationships between the ‘Plagues
Narrative’ and Exod. 3:21–22; 4:22–23; 7:2–4, 6 and 12:35–36.
3. Content related and structural irregularities in the literary final text
of Exod. 7:14–11:10 are marked by variant readings, which endea-
vour iron them out with the help of supplementary additions and
harmonisations. Particular reference should be made in this regard to
the major expansions found in Exod. 7:18b, 29b; 8:1b, 19b; 9:5b,
19b; 10:2b and 11:3b, each of which renders a command or execu-
8
Cf. in this respect also B. Lemmelijn, ‘The So-Called “Major Expansions” ’, 429–
439.
tion where this has not been related and where the narrative becomes
uneven.
4. The secondary character of the reference to Aaron in some places
in the ‘Plagues Narrative’ (cf., for example, 8:4, 8, 21; 9:27, 28;
10:3, 8–11, 16) is confirmed by the addition thereof in Exod. 7:29b
(SamP4Qm); 9:5b (SamP); 9:19b (SamP4Qm) and 10:24 (GSamP-
4Qm), for example, where the verb forms are also adapted.
5. Variations with respect to the command to stretch out the hand and/
or staff, which lead to unevenness between command and execution
(see, for example, Exod. 7:19; 8:1, 2, 12, 13), are harmonised in a
variety of textual witnesses. G, SamP and 4Qc adapt Exod. 8:12 on
the basis of 13. G harmonises Exod. 9:23 with 9:22. SamP brings
Exod. 10:12 into agreement with 13. These textual emendations
provide evidence of the observation of (literary) irregularities.
6. The content related irregularities found in Exod. 8:12 with respect
to 8:13 are harmonised in G via an adaptation of the command in
Exod. 8:12 to the command in 8:13 and 14.
7. The irregularities that arise from the lack of complete agreement
between the announcement and the description of the consequences
of the given plague in Exod. 9:9 and 9:10 are disguised in G by way
of harmonisation. The variant ‫ ויעמדו‬in MSamP4Qm, which likewise
disrupts agreement between the various elements of 9:9 and 9:10,
appears on the basis of text-critical evaluation to be secondary. In
this instance, G is taken to represent the ‘preferable’ variant.
8. The evaluation of G as ‘preferable’ variant in 9:20, 21 is of importance
for distinguishing the layers of the verses in question.
9. The harmonisation of Exod. 9:28–29 with 9:18 and 23 emphasises
and confirms the relationship between them.
10. The association between Exod. 10:5 and 10:15 is likewise underlined
by harmonisations in SamP and 4Qm. Indeed, it becomes evident on
the basis thereof that the description of the consequence of the given
plague in Exod. 10:14–15 does not only tie up with 10:12–13, but
also with the announcement of the plague in 10:3–6.
We can conclude, therefore, that the primary result of the text-critical

analysis of the ‘Plagues Narrative’ is the provision of a critically evalu-
ated textual basis for the literary study of Exod. 7:14–11:10, namely
the Masoretic Text. In addition thereto, the analysis of the text-critical
variants in the various textual witnesses to Exod. 7:14–11:10 has already

drawn attention to a significant number of literary irregularities. Thus, the
text-critical study of the ‘Plagues Narrative’, preceding the literary and/or
redaction-historical analysis thereof, has provided a sound basis for the
further analysis and interpretation of this strange but highly fascinating
narrative.
APPENDIX
SYNOPSIS OF THE TEXTUAL WITNESSES OF

EXOD. 7:1411:10
The following pages contain a synoptic survey of the textual material

of the ‘Plagues Narrative’ of Exod. 7:14–11:10. It is subdivided as follows:
the first column contains the Hebrew Masoretic text; the second column
the eclectic Greek LXX text of J.W. Wevers (Göttingen Edition); 1 the
third one the text of the Samaritan Pentateuch based on the diplomatic
text edition of A. Tal;2 the fourth column offers 4QpaleoExodm based on
DJD 93; the fifth column presents 4QpaleoGen-Exodl, likewise based on
DJD 9;4 the sixth column 2QExoda following the text edition of DJD 3;5
the seventh column the text of 4QExodc based on DJD 12; the eighth
column contains 4QGen-Exoda and finally, the ninth column presents
4QExodj, both likewise based on DJD 12.6
In the synoptic survey, a few symbols are used. A combination of three
short hyphens (---) designates a minus. Exclamation marks (!) point to a
different location of words in the respective columns. Slashes (/) divide the
distinctive segments in Hebrew words. Finally, interrogation marks (?) are
added to the rendition of a number of problematic textual fragments from
Qumran, as already discussed in the first paragraph of chapter Two.
1
Cf. J.W. Wevers (ed.), Exodus.
2
Cf. A. Tal, The Samaritan Pentateuch.
3
Cf. P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson, DJD 9, 53–71, 72–85 and plates
VII–XI.
4
5
Cf. M. Baillet, J.T. Milik, R. De Vaux, DJD 3/1, 50–51; DJD 3/2, plate X.
6
For the last three manuscripts referred to in the text, see E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross
et al., DJD 12, 7–10, 28, 97–113, 149–150 and plates IV, XVI, XVII.
MT LXX SamP 4Qpaleo- 4Qpaleo- 2QExoda 4QExodc 4QGen- 4QExodj
220
Exodm Gen-Exodl Exoda

Exod. 7:14 ‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬ εἶπεν δὲ ‫ידבר‬/‫ו‬ ‫ ידבר‬v[acat/‫ו‬
‫יהוה‬ κύριος ‫יהוה‬ ‫יהוה‬
‫אל‬ πρὸς ‫אל‬ ‫אל‬
‫משׁה‬ µωυσῆν ‫משׁה‬ ] ‫] מ[שׁה‬
‫כבד‬ βεβάρυνται ‫כבד‬
‫לב‬ ἡ καρδία ‫לב‬
‫פרעה‬ φαραὼ ‫פרעה‬
! τοῦ !
‫מאן‬ µὴ ‫מאן‬
‫שׁלח‬/‫ל‬ ! ἐξαποστεῖλαι ‫שׁלח‬/‫ל‬
appendix
‫עם‬/‫ ה‬--- τὸν λαόν ‫עם‬/‫את ה‬ ‫ע[ם‬/‫ ה‬---

Exod. 7:15 ‫לך‬ βάδισον ‫לך‬ ‫לך‬
‫פרעה‬ φαραὼ ‫פרעה‬ ‫פרעה‬
‫בקר‬/‫ב‬ τὸ πρωί ‫בקר‬/‫ב‬ ‫בוקר‬/‫ב‬
‫ הנה‬--- --- ἰδοὺ ‫ הנה‬--- ‫הנה‬/‫ו‬
--- αὐτὸς ‫הוא‬ ]‫הוא‬
‫יצא‬ ἐκπορεύεται ‫יצא‬
‫ה‬/‫מימ‬/‫ה‬ ἐπὶ τὸ ὕδωρ ‫מים‬/‫ה‬
Table (cont.)
‫נצבת‬/‫ו‬ καὶ στήσῃ ‫נצבת‬/‫ו‬
‫ו‬/‫קראת‬/‫ל‬ συναντῶν αὐτῷ ‫ו‬/‫קראת‬/‫ל‬
‫על‬ ἐπὶ ‫על‬
‫שׂפת‬ τὸ χεῖλος ‫שׂפת‬ ‫[שׂפת‬
‫יאר‬/‫ה‬ τοῦ ποταµοῦ ‫יאר‬/‫ה‬ ‫יאר‬/‫ה‬
‫מטה‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬ καὶ τὴν ῥάβδον ‫מטה‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬ [‫מ]טה‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬
‫אשׁר‬ τὴν ‫אשׁר‬ ]‫אשׁר‬
‫נהפך‬ στραφεῖσαν ‫נהפך‬ ‫נהפך‬
‫נחשׁ‬/‫ל‬ εἰς ὄφιν ‫נחשׁ‬/‫ל‬ ‫נחשׁ‬/‫ל‬
‫תקח‬ λήµψῃ ‫תקח‬ ‫ת]קח‬
‫ך‬/‫יד‬/‫ב‬ ἐν τῇ χειρί σου ‫ך‬/‫יד‬/‫ב‬ ‫ך‬/‫יד‬/‫ב‬
Exod. 7:16 ‫אמרת‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐρεῖς ‫אמרת‬/‫ו‬ [ ‫אמרת‬/‫ו‬
‫יו‬/‫אל‬ πρὸς αὐτόν ‫יו‬/‫אל‬ ‫יו‬/‫אל‬
synopsis of the textual witnesses
‫יהוה‬ κύριος ‫יהוה‬ ] ‫[יהוה‬ ]‫יהוה‬

‫אלהי‬ ὁ θεὸς ‫אלהי‬
‫עברים‬/‫ה‬ τῶν ἐβραίων ‫עברים‬/‫ה‬
‫ני‬/‫שׁלח‬ ἀπέσταλκέν µε ‫ני‬/‫שׁלח‬
‫יך‬/‫אל‬ πρὸς σὲ ‫יך‬/‫אל‬ ‫יך‬/‫אל‬
221
Table (cont.)
222

‫אמר‬/‫ל‬ λέγων ‫אמר‬/‫ל‬ ‫אמר‬/‫ל‬
‫שׁלח‬ ἐξαπόστειλον ‫שׁלח‬ ‫שׁלח‬
‫י‬/‫את עמ‬ τὸν λαόν µου ‫י‬/‫את עמ‬ ‫י‬/‫את ע]מ‬
‫ני‬/‫יעבד‬/‫ו‬ ἵνα µοι ‫ני‬/‫יעבד‬/‫ו‬ ‫ני‬/‫יע]בד‬/‫ו‬ ‫ני‬/‫יעב[ד‬/‫ו‬
λατρεύσωσιν
‫מדבר‬/‫ב‬ ἐν τῇ ἐρήµῳ ‫מדבר‬/‫ב‬ ]‫מדבר‬/‫ב‬

‫הנה‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἰδοὺ ‫הנה‬/‫ו‬
‫לא‬ οὐκ ‫לא‬
‫שׁמעת‬ εἰσήκουσας ‫שׁמעת‬
‫עד‬ ἕως ‫עד‬
appendix
‫כה‬ τούτου ‫כה‬

Exod. 7:17 ‫כה‬ τάδε ‫כה‬ ‫כה‬
‫אמר‬ λέγει ‫אמר‬ [ ‫]אמר‬
‫זאת‬/‫ב‬ ἐν τούτῳ ‫זאת‬/‫ב‬ ]···[ ‫ז]את‬/‫ב‬ ‫זאת‬/‫ב‬
‫תדע‬ γνώσῃ ‫תדע‬ ‫תדע‬
‫כי‬ ὅτι ‫כי‬ ‫כי‬
‫אני‬ ἐγὼ ‫אני‬ [‫] אני‬
‫יהוה‬ κύριος ‫יהוה‬ ] ‫יהוה‬
Table (cont.)
‫הנה‬ ἰδοὺ ‫הנה‬
‫אנכי‬ ἐγὼ ‫אנכי‬
‫מכה‬ τύπτω ‫מכה‬
‫מטה‬/‫ב‬ τῇ ῥάβδῳ ‫מטה‬/‫ב‬
‫אשׁר‬ τῇ ‫אשׁר‬
‫י‬/‫יד‬/‫ב‬ ἐν τῇ χειρί µου ‫י‬/‫יד‬/‫ב‬ [ ‫י‬/‫יד‬/]‫ב‬ ‫י‬/‫יד‬/‫]ב‬
‫על‬ ἐπὶ ‫על‬ ‫על‬ [‫על‬
‫מים‬/‫ה‬ τὸ ὕδωρ ‫מים‬/‫ה‬ ‫מים‬/‫ה‬ ‫מים‬/‫ה‬
‫אשׁר‬ τὸ ‫אשׁר‬ ‫א]שׁר‬ ‫אשׁר‬
‫יאר‬/‫ב‬ ἐν τῷ ποταµῷ ‫יאר‬/‫ב‬ ‫יאר‬/‫ב‬
‫נהפכו‬/‫ו‬ καὶ µεταβαλεῖ ‫נהפכו‬/‫ו‬ ‫נ[הפכו‬/‫ו‬ [ ‫נהפ]כו‬/‫ו‬
‫דם‬/‫ל‬ εἰς αἷµα ‫דם‬/‫ל‬ ‫ד]ם‬/‫ל‬ ‫דם‬/]‫ל‬
Exod. 7:18 ‫דגה‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬ καὶ οἱ ἰχθύες ‫דגה‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬
‫אשׁר‬ οἱ ‫אשׁר‬
‫יאר‬/‫ב‬ ἐν τῷ ποταµῷ ‫יאר‬/‫ב‬ ‫יאר‬/‫בת]וך [ה‬
‫תמות‬ τελευτήσουσιν ‫תמות‬ ] ‫תמות‬
‫באשׁ‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐποζέσει ‫באשׁ‬/‫ו‬
‫יאר‬/‫ה‬ ὁ ποταµός ‫יאר‬/‫ה‬
223
‫)‪Table (cont.‬‬
‫‪224‬‬
‫‪MT‬‬ ‫‪LXX‬‬ ‫‪SamP‬‬ ‫‪4Qpaleo-‬‬ ‫‪4Qpaleo-‬‬ ‫‪2QExoda‬‬ ‫‪4QExodc‬‬ ‫‪4QGen-‬‬ ‫‪4QExodj‬‬

‫‪Exodm‬‬ ‫‪Gen-Exodl‬‬ ‫‪Exoda‬‬
‫ו‪/‬נלאו‬ ‫‪καὶ οὐ‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬נלאו‬ ‫]ו‪[/‬נלאו‬
‫‪δυνήσονται‬‬
‫מצרים‬ ‫‪οἱ αἰγύπτιοι‬‬ ‫מצרים‬ ‫מצרים‬

‫ל‪/‬שׁתות‬ ‫‪πιεῖν‬‬ ‫ל‪/‬שׁתות‬ ‫ל‪/‬שׁתות‬
‫מים‬ ‫‪ὕδωρ‬‬ ‫מים‬ ‫מים‬ ‫מ]ים‬
‫מן‬ ‫‪ἀπὸ‬‬ ‫מן‬ ‫מן‬
‫ה‪/‬יאר‬ ‫‪τοῦ ποταµοῦ‬‬ ‫ה‪/‬יאר‬ ‫ה‪/‬יאר ‪va]cat‬‬
‫‪Exod. 7:18b‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬ילך‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫משׁה‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫ו‪/‬אהרן‬
‫‪appendix‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫אל‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫פרעה‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬יאמרו‬ ‫ו‪/‬י]א[ומר‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫אל‪/‬יו‬ ‫אל‪/‬יו‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫יהוה‬ ‫יה]וה‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫אלהי‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ה‪/‬עברים‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫שׁלח‪/‬נו‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫אל‪/‬יך‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
Table (cont.)
--- --- ‫אמר‬/‫ל‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫שׁלח‬ ‫שׁלח‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫י‬/‫את עמ‬ ‫י‬/‫את עמ‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫ני‬/‫יעבד‬/‫ו‬ ]‫יעבד‬/‫ו‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫מדבר‬/‫ב‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫הנה‬/‫ו‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫לא‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫שׁמעת‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫עד‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫כה‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫כה‬ ‫כה‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫אמר‬ ‫אמר‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫יהוה‬ ‫יהוה‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫זאת‬/‫ב‬ ‫ז]את‬/‫ב‬ --- ---

--- --- ‫תדע‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫כי‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫אני‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫יהוה‬ --- ---
225
‫‪226‬‬

‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫הנה‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫אנכי‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫מכה‬ ‫מ]כ[ה‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ב‪/‬מטה‬ ‫ב‪/‬מטה‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫אשׁר‬ ‫אשׁר ]‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ב‪/‬יד‪/‬י‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫על‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ה‪/‬מים‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫אשׁר‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ב‪/‬יאר‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬נהפכו‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ל‪/‬דם‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬ה‪/‬דגה‬ ‫ו]‪/‬ה‪/‬ד[גה‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫אשׁר‬ ‫אשׁר‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ב‪/‬יאר‬ ‫בת]וך ה‪/‬יאר‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫תמות‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬באשׁ‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ה‪/‬יאר‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
Table (cont.)
--- --- ‫נלאו‬/‫ו‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫מצרים‬ ‫מ]צ[ריים‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫שׁתות‬/‫ל‬ ‫שׁ]תות‬/‫ל‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫מים‬ ‫מים‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫מן‬ ‫מן‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫יאר‬/‫ה‬ ‫יאר‬/‫ה‬ --- ---
Exod. 7:19 ‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬ εἶπεν δὲ ‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬ ‫[י]או[מר‬vacat/‫ו‬
‫יהוה‬ κύριος ‫יהוה‬ ]‫יהוה‬
‫אל‬ πρὸς ‫אל‬
‫משׁה‬ µωυσῆν ‫משׁה‬
‫אמר‬ εἶπον ‫אמר‬
‫אל‬ --- ‫אל‬
‫אהרן‬ ἀαρὼν ‫אהרן‬
--- τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου ---

‫קח‬ λάβε ‫קח‬ ‫קח‬
‫ך‬/‫ מט‬--- τὴν ῥάβδον σου ‫ך‬/‫את מט‬ ‫ך‬/‫את מט‬
‫נטה‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἔκτεινον ‫נטה‬/‫ו‬ ‫נטה‬/‫ו‬
‫ך‬/‫ יד‬--- τὴν χεῖρα --- ‫ך‬/‫את יד‬ ]‫את‬
227
Table (cont.)
228

‫על‬ ἐπὶ ‫על‬ ‫על‬ ‫ע[ל‬
‫מימי‬ τὰ ὕδατα ‫מימי‬ ‫מימי‬ ‫מימי‬
‫מצרים‬ αἰγύπτου ‫מצרים‬ ‫מ]צרים‬ ‫מצרים‬
--- καὶ --- ---
‫על‬ ἐπὶ ‫על‬ ]‫על‬
‫ם‬/‫נהרת‬ τοὺς ποταµοὺς ‫ם‬/‫נהרות‬
αὐτῶν
‫ על‬--- καὶ ἐπὶ ‫על‬/‫ו‬

‫הם‬/‫יארי‬ τὰς διώρυγας ‫הם‬/‫יארי‬
αὐτῶν
appendix
‫על‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐπὶ ‫על‬/‫ו‬ ‫[על‬/‫]ו‬

‫הם‬/‫אגמי‬ τὰ ἕλη αὐτῶν ‫הם‬/‫אגמי‬ ‫הם‬/‫אגמי‬
‫על‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐπὶ ‫על‬/‫ו‬ ‫על‬/‫[ו‬ ‫על‬/‫ו‬
‫כל‬ πᾶν ‫כל‬ ‫כל‬ ] ‫כל‬
‫מקוה‬ συνεστηκὸς ‫מקוה‬ ‫מק]וה‬
‫הם‬/‫מימי‬ ὕδωρ αὐτῶν ‫הם‬/‫מימי‬
‫יהיו‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἔσται ‫יהיו‬/‫ו‬
‫דם‬ αἷµα ‫דם‬
‫היה‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐγένετο ‫יהי‬/‫ו‬
Table (cont.)
‫ דם‬--- --- αἷµα ‫דם‬/‫ה‬
‫כל‬/‫ב‬ ἐν πάσῃ ‫כל‬/‫ב‬
‫ארץ‬ γῇ ‫ארץ‬
‫מצרים‬ αἰγύπτου ‫מצרים‬ ‫מצרים‬
‫עצים‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ ἔν τε τοῖς ‫עצים‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ [ ‫עצ]ים‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬
ξύλοις
‫אבנים‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ‫אבנים‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ ‫אבנים‬/]‫ב‬/‫ו‬

λίθοις
Exod. 7:20 ‫יעשׂו‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐποίησαν ‫יעשׂו‬/‫ו‬

‫כן‬ οὕτως ‫כן‬
‫משׁה‬ µωυσῆς ‫משׁה‬
‫אהרן‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἀαρών ‫אהרן‬/‫ו‬
‫אשׁר‬/‫כ‬ καθάπερ ‫אשׁר‬/‫כ‬
‫צוה‬ ἐνετείλατο ‫צוה‬
--- αὐτοῖς ---

‫יהוה‬ κύριος ‫יהוה‬
‫ירם‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐπάρας ‫ירם‬/‫ו‬ ]‫ירם‬/‫ו‬
--- ἀαρὼν ---
--- ‫מטה‬/‫ב‬ τῇ ῥάβδῳ αὐτοῦ ‫ו‬/‫מטה‬/‫ב‬
229
Table (cont.)
230

‫יך‬/‫ו‬ --- ἐπάταξεν ‫יך‬/‫ו‬
‫מים‬/‫את ה‬ τὸ ὕδωρ ‫מים‬/‫את ה‬
‫אשׁר‬ τὸ ‫אשׁר‬
‫יאר‬/‫ב‬ ἐν τῷ ποταµῷ ‫יאר‬/‫ב‬
‫עיני‬/‫ל‬ ἐναντίον ‫עיני‬/‫ל‬
‫עיני‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐναντίον ‫עיני‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬
‫ו‬/‫עבדי‬ τῶν θεραπόντων ‫ו‬/‫עבדי‬
αὐτοῦ
‫יהפכו‬/‫ו‬ καὶ µετέβαλεν ‫יהפכו‬/‫ו‬

appendix
‫כל‬ πᾶν ‫כל‬ ‫]כל‬

‫מים‬/‫ה‬ τὸ ὕδωρ ‫מים‬/‫ה‬ ‫[מים‬/‫ה‬
‫אשׁר‬ τὸ ‫אשׁר‬ ‫אשׁר‬
‫יאר‬/‫ב‬ ἐν τῷ ποταµῷ ‫יאר‬/‫ב‬ ‫יור‬/‫ב‬
‫דם‬/‫ל‬ εἰς αἷµα ‫דם‬/‫ל‬ ‫דם‬/‫ל‬
Exod. 7:21 ‫דגה‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬ καὶ οἱ ἰχθύες ‫דגה‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬ ‫דגה‬/‫ה‬/]‫ו‬
‫אשׁר‬ οἱ ‫אשׁר‬
‫מתה‬ ἐτελεύτησαν ‫מתה‬
Table (cont.)
‫יבאשׁ‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐπώζεσεν ‫יבאשׁ‬/‫ו‬
‫יאר‬/‫ה‬ ὁ ποταµός ‫יאר‬/‫ה‬
‫לא‬/‫ו‬ καὶ οὐκ ‫לא‬/‫ו‬
‫יכלו‬ ἠδύναντο ‫יכלו‬
‫מצרים‬ οἱ αἰγύπτιοι ‫מצרים‬
‫שׁתות‬/‫ל‬ πιεῖν ‫שׁתות‬/‫ל‬
‫מים‬ ὕδωρ ‫מים‬
‫מן‬ ἐκ ‫מן‬
‫יאר‬/‫ה‬ τοῦ ποταµοῦ ‫יאר‬/‫ה‬ ‫יור‬/‫ה‬
‫יהי‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἦν ‫יהי‬/‫ו‬ ‫יהי‬/‫ו‬
‫דם‬/‫ה‬ τὸ αἷµα ‫דם‬/‫ה‬ ‫דם‬/---
‫כל‬/‫ב‬ ἐν πάσῃ ‫כל‬/‫ב‬ ‫כל‬/‫ב‬
‫ארץ‬ γῇ ‫ארץ‬ ‫ארץ‬
‫מצרים‬ αἰγύπτου ‫מצרים‬ ‫מצ]רים‬

Exod. 7:22 ‫יעשׂו‬/‫ו‬ ἐποίησαν δὲ ‫יעשׂו‬/‫ו‬
‫כן‬ ὡσαύτως ‫כן‬
--- καὶ ---
‫חרטמי‬ οἱ ἐπαοιδοὶ ‫חרטמי‬
231
Table (cont.)
232

‫מצרים‬ τῶν αἰγυπτίων ‫מצרים‬
‫הם‬/‫לטי‬/‫ב‬ ταῖς φαρµα- ‫הם‬/‫להטי‬/‫ב‬ ]‫הם‬/‫ל[הטי‬/‫ב‬
κείαις αὐτῶν
‫יחזק‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐσκληρύνθη ‫יחזק‬/‫ו‬

‫פרעה‬ φαραώ ‫פרעה‬
‫שׁמע‬ εἰσήκουσεν ‫שׁמע‬
‫הם‬/‫אל‬ αὐτῶν ‫יהם‬/‫אל‬
appendix
‫דבר‬ εἶπεν ‫דבר‬ ]‫דב[ר‬

Exod. 7:23 ‫יפן‬/‫ו‬ ἐπιστραφεὶς δὲ ‫יפן‬/‫ו‬
‫יבא‬/‫ו‬ --- εἰσῆλθεν ‫יבא‬/‫ו‬
‫אל‬ εἰς ‫אל‬
‫ו‬/‫בית‬ τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ ‫ו‬/‫בית‬ ‫ו‬/‫בי[ת‬
‫לא‬/‫ו‬ καὶ οὐκ ‫לא‬/‫ו‬ ‫לא‬/‫ו‬
‫שׁת‬ ἐπέστησεν ‫שׁת‬ ]‫שׁת‬
Table (cont.)
‫ו‬/‫לב‬ τὸν νοῦν αὐτοῦ ‫ו‬/‫לב‬
‫גם‬ οὐδὲ ‫גם‬
‫זאת‬/‫ל‬ ἐπὶ τούτῳ ‫זאת‬/‫ל‬
Exod. 7:24 ‫יחפרו‬/‫ו‬ ὤρυξαν δὲ ‫יחפרו‬/‫ו‬
‫כל‬ πάντες ‫כל‬
‫מצרים‬ οἱ αἰγύπτιοι ‫מצרים‬
‫סביבת‬ κύκλῳ ‫סביבת‬
‫יאר‬/‫ה‬ τοῦ ποταµοῦ ‫יאר‬/‫ה‬
‫מים‬ ! ‫מים‬
‫שׁתות‬/‫ל‬ ὥστε πιεῖν ‫שׁתות‬/‫ל‬
! ὕδωρ !
‫כי‬ καὶ ‫כי‬
‫יכלו‬ ἠδύναντο ‫יכלו‬

‫שׁתת‬/‫ל‬ πιεῖν ‫שׁתות‬/‫ל‬
‫מימי‬/‫מ‬ ὕδωρ ἀπὸ ‫מימי‬/‫מ‬
‫יאר‬/‫ה‬ τοῦ ποταµοῦ ‫יאר‬/‫ה‬
233
Table (cont.)
234

Exod. 7:25 ‫ימלא‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἀνεπληρώ- ‫ימלאו‬/‫ו‬
θησαν
‫שׁבעת‬ ἑπτὰ ‫שׁבעת‬

‫ימים‬ ἡµέραι ‫ימים‬
‫אחרי‬ µετὰ ‫אחרי‬
‫הכות‬ τὸ πατάξαι ‫הכות‬
‫יהוה‬ κύριον ‫יהוה‬
‫יאר‬/‫את ה‬ τὸν ποταµόν ‫יאר‬/‫את ה‬
Exod. 7:26 ‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬ εἶπεν δὲ ‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬ ‫יאמר‬/‫]ו‬
appendix
‫אל‬ πρὸς ‫אל‬ ‫א[ל‬

‫משׁה‬ µωυσῆν ‫משׁה‬ ‫משׁה‬
‫בא‬ εἴσελθε ‫בא‬ ‫ב]א‬
‫אמרת‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐρεῖς ‫דברת‬/‫ו‬
‫יו‬/‫אל‬ πρὸς αὐτόν ‫יו‬/‫אל‬
‫כה‬ τάδε ‫כה‬
‫אמר‬ λέγει ‫אמר‬
Table (cont.)
‫שׁלח‬ ἐξαπόστειλον ‫שׁלח‬
‫י‬/‫את עמ‬ τὸν λαόν µου ‫י‬/‫את עמ‬
‫ני‬/‫יעבד‬/‫ו‬ ἵνα µοι λατρεύ- ‫ני‬/‫יעבד‬/‫ו‬
σωσιν
Exod. 7:27 ‫אם‬/‫ו‬ εἰ δὲ ‫אם‬/‫ו‬

‫מאן‬ µὴ βούλει ‫מאן‬
‫אתה‬ σὺ ‫אתה‬
‫שׁלח‬/‫ל‬ ἐξαποστεῖλαι ‫שׁלח‬/‫ל‬
‫הנה‬ ἰδοὺ ‫הנה‬
‫אנכי‬ ἐγὼ ‫אנכי‬ ‫א[נכי‬
‫נגף‬ τύπτω ‫נגף‬ ‫נוגף‬
‫את כל‬ πάντα ‫את כל‬ ‫את כ]ל‬
‫ך‬/‫גבול‬ τὰ ὅριά σου ‫ך‬/‫גבול‬

‫צפרדעים‬/‫ב‬ τοῖς βατράχοις ‫צפרדעים‬/‫ב‬
Exod. 7:28 ‫שׁרץ‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐξερεύξεται ‫שׁרץ‬/‫ו‬
‫יאר‬/‫ה‬ ὁ ποταµὸς ‫יאר‬/‫ה‬
‫צפרדעים‬ βατράχους ‫צפרדעים‬
235
‫עלו‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἀναβάντες ‫עלו‬/‫ו‬

Table (cont.)
236

‫באו‬/‫ו‬ --- εἰσελεύσον- ‫באו‬/‫ו‬
ται
‫ך‬/‫בית‬/‫ב‬ εἰς τοὺς οἴκους ‫ך‬/‫בתי‬/‫ב‬

σου
‫חדר‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ καὶ εἰς τὰ ‫חדרי‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

ταµιεῖα
‫ך‬/‫משׁכב‬ τῶν κοιτώνων ‫ך‬/‫משׁכבי‬ ‫[ך‬/‫]משׁכב‬

σου
‫על‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐπὶ ‫על‬/‫ו‬ ‫על‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫מטת‬ τῶν κλινῶν σου ‫ך‬/‫מטתי‬ ‫ך‬/‫מטות‬
‫בית‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ καὶ εἰς τοὺς ‫בתי‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬
appendix
]‫בית‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬
οἴκους
‫ך‬/‫עבדי‬ τῶν θεραπόντων ‫ך‬/‫עבדי‬

σου
‫ך‬/‫עמ‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ καὶ --- τοῦ ‫ך‬/‫עמ‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

λαοῦ σου
‫ך‬/‫תנורי‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ‫ך‬/‫תנורי‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

φυράµασίν σου
‫ך‬/‫משׁארותי‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ‫ך‬/‫משׁארתי‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

κλιβάνοις σου
Table (cont.)
Exod. 7:29 ‫כה‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐπὶ σὲ ‫ך‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬
‫ך‬/‫עמ‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ ! ‫ך‬/‫עמ‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬
‫כל‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐπὶ --- ‫כל‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬
‫ך‬/‫עבדי‬ τοὺς ‫ך‬/‫עבדי‬
θεράποντάς σου
! καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν !

λαόν σου
‫יעלו‬ ἀναβήσονται ‫יעלו‬

‫צפרדעים‬/‫ה‬ οἱ βάτραχοι ‫צפרדעים‬/‫ה‬
Exod. 7:29b --- --- ‫יבא‬/‫ו‬ ---
--- --- ‫משׁה‬ ---
--- --- ‫אהרן‬/‫ו‬ ---
--- --- ‫אל‬ ---
--- --- ‫פרעה‬ ---
--- --- ‫ידברו‬/‫ו‬ ---

--- --- ‫יו‬/‫אל‬ ---
--- --- ‫כה‬ ---
--- --- ‫אמר‬ ---
--- --- ‫יהוה‬ ---
237
Table (cont.)
238

--- --- ‫שׁלח‬ ---
--- --- ‫י‬/‫את עמ‬ ---
--- --- ‫ני‬/‫יעבד‬/‫ו‬ ---
--- --- ‫אם‬/‫ו‬ ---
--- --- ‫מאן‬ ---
--- --- ‫אתה‬ ---
--- --- ‫שׁלח‬/‫ל‬ ---
--- --- ‫הנה‬ ---
--- --- ‫אנכי‬ ---
appendix
--- --- ‫נגף‬ ---

--- --- ‫את כל‬ ---
--- --- ‫ך‬/‫גבול‬ ---
--- --- ‫צפרדעים‬/‫ב‬ ---
--- --- ‫שׁרץ‬/‫ו‬ ---
--- --- ‫יאר‬/‫ה‬ ---
--- --- ‫צפרדעים‬ ---
--- --- ‫עלו‬/‫ו‬ ---
--- --- ‫באו‬/‫ו‬ ---
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ב‪/‬בתי‪/‬ך‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬ב‪/‬חדרי‬ ‫[ ו‪/‬ב‪/‬ח]דרי‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫משׁכבי‪/‬ך‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬על‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫מטתי‪/‬ך‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬ב‪/---/‬בתי )?(‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו[‪/‬ב‪/‬כל ·] )?(‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫עבד‪/‬יך‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬ב‪/‬עמ‪/‬ך‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫[ ו‪/‬ב‪/---/‬תנ]ור‪/‬יך ו‪/‬ב‪/---/‬תנורי‪/‬ך‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו[‪/‬ב‪/‬כל ·] )?(‬
‫)?(‬ ‫)?(‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬ב‪/‬משׁארתי‪/‬ך‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬ב‪/‬ך‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬ב‪/‬עמ‪/‬ך‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪synopsis of the textual witnesses‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬ב‪/‬כל‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫]ו‪/‬ב‪/‬כל‬

‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫עבדי‪/‬ך‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫עבד‪/‬יך‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫יעלו‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫יעלו‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ה‪/‬צפרדעים‬ ‫ה‪/‬צ[פרדעי]ם‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ה‪[/‬צפרדעם‬
‫‪vacat‬‬
‫‪239‬‬
‫‪240‬‬

‫‪Exod. 8:1‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬יאמר‬ ‫‪εἶπεν δὲ‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬יאמר‬ ‫ו‪/‬יא]מ[ר‬ ‫]ו‪/‬יאמר‬
‫יהוה‬ ‫‪κύριος‬‬ ‫יהוה‬ ‫יהוה‬ ‫יהו[ה‬
‫אל‬ ‫‪πρὸς‬‬ ‫אל‬ ‫אל]‬ ‫אל‬
‫משׁה‬ ‫‪µωυσῆν‬‬ ‫משׁה‬ ‫מושׁ]ה [‬
‫אמר‬ ‫‪εἶπον‬‬ ‫אמר‬ ‫אמור‬
‫אל‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫אל‬ ‫] אל‬
‫אהרן‬ ‫‪ἀαρὼν‬‬ ‫אהרן‬ ‫אהרן‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫נטה‬ ‫‪ἔκτεινον‬‬ ‫נטה‬ ‫נטה‬
‫את יד‪/‬ך‬ ‫‪τῇ χειρὶ ---‬‬ ‫את יד‪/‬ך‬ ‫את יד‪/‬ך‬

‫ב‪/‬מט‪/‬ך‬ ‫‪τὴν ῥάβδον σου‬‬ ‫ב‪/‬מט‪/‬ך‬ ‫[ב‪/‬מט‪/‬ך]‬ ‫ב‪/‬מט‪/‬ך‬
‫על‬ ‫‪ἐπὶ‬‬ ‫על‬ ‫על‬
‫ה‪/‬נהרת‬ ‫‪τοὺς ποταµοὺς‬‬ ‫ה‪/‬נהרות‬ ‫ה‪/‬נהרות[‬
‫‪ ---‬על‬ ‫‪καὶ ἐπὶ‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬על‬ ‫]ו‪/‬על‬
‫ה‪/‬יארים‬ ‫‪τὰς διώρυγας‬‬ ‫ה‪/‬יארים‬ ‫ה‪/‬יארים‬
‫ו‪/‬על‬ ‫‪καὶ ἐπὶ‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬על‬ ‫ו‪/‬ע[ל‬
‫ה‪/‬אגמים‬ ‫‪τὰ ἕλη‬‬ ‫ה‪/‬אגמים‬ ‫ה‪/‬אגמ]ים‬
‫ו‪/‬העל‬ ‫‪καὶ ἀνάγαγε‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬העל‬ ‫ו‪/‬ה[על‬
‫את ה‪/‬צפרדעים‬ ‫‪τοὺς βατρά-‬‬ ‫את ה‪/‬צפרדעים‬ ‫את ה‪/‬צפרד]ע[‬ ‫א]ת ה‪/‬צפרדעים‬
‫‪χους‬‬ ‫י]ם‬
‫על‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫על‬ ‫על‬
‫ארץ‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ארץ‬ ‫ארץ‬
‫מצרים‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫מצרים‬ ‫מצרים ‪[vacat‬‬
‫‪Exod. 8:1b‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬יאמר‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫]ו‪/‬יאמר‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫משׁה‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫מושׁה‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫אל‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫אל‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫אהרן‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫אהרן‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫נטה‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫נטה [‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫את יד‪/‬ך‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫את יד]‪/‬ך‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ב‪/‬מט‪/‬ך‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬תעל‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ה‪/‬צפרדע‬ ‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫על‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ארץ‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫מצרים‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪241‬‬
Table (cont.)
242

Exod. 8:2 ‫יט‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐξέτεινεν ‫יט‬/‫ו‬
‫אהרן‬ ἀαρὼν ‫אהרן‬
‫ו‬/‫את יד‬ τὴν χεῖρα --- ‫ו‬/‫את יד‬
‫מימי‬ τὰ ὕδατα ‫מימי‬
‫מצרים‬ αἰγύπτου ‫מצרים‬
--- καὶ ἀνήγαγεν ---
--- τοὺς βατράχους ---
‫תעל‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἀνεβιβάσθη ‫תעל‬/‫ו‬
appendix
‫צפרדע‬/‫ה‬ ὁ βάτραχος ‫צפרדע‬/‫ה‬

‫תכס‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐκάλυψεν ‫תכס‬/‫ו‬
‫את ארץ‬ τὴν γῆν ‫את ארץ‬
Exod. 8:3 ‫יעשׂו‬/‫ו‬ ἐποίησαν δὲ ‫יעשׂו‬/‫ו‬
--- καὶ ---
‫חרטמים‬/‫ה‬ οἱ ἐπαοιδοὶ ‫ חרטמי‬---
--- τῶν αἰγυπτίων ‫מצרים‬
Table (cont.)
‫הם‬/‫לטי‬/‫ב‬ ταῖς φαρµα- ‫הם‬/‫להטי‬/‫ב‬
‫יעלו‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἀνήγαγον ‫יעלו‬/‫ו‬

‫צפרדעים‬/‫את ה‬ τοὺς βατράχους ‫צפרדעים‬/‫ה‬
‫ארץ‬ γῆν ‫ארץ‬
Exod. 8:4 ‫יקרא‬/‫ו‬ ἐκάλεσεν δὲ ‫יקרא‬/‫ו‬
‫משׁה‬/‫ל‬ µωυσῆν ‫משׁה‬/‫ל‬
‫אהרן‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἀαρὼν ‫אהרן‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬
‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬ καὶ εἶπεν ‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬
‫העתירו‬ εὔξασθε ‫העתירו‬
--- περὶ ἐµοῦ ---

‫יסר‬/‫ו‬ καὶ περιελέτω ‫יסר‬/‫ו‬
‫צפרדעים‬/‫ה‬ τοὺς βατράχους ‫צפרדעים‬/‫ה‬
243
‫י‬/‫מנ‬/‫מ‬ ἀπ’ ἐµοῦ ‫י‬/‫מנ‬/‫מ‬

Table (cont.)
244

‫י‬/‫עמ‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ‫י‬/‫עמ‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬
ἐµοῦ λαοῦ
‫אשׁלחה‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐξαποστελῶ ‫אשׁלח‬/‫ו‬

‫עם‬/‫את ה‬ τὸν λαόν ‫עם‬/‫את ה‬
‫יזבחו‬/‫ו‬ καὶ θύσωσιν ‫יזבחו‬/‫ו‬
‫יהוה‬/‫ל‬ κυρίῳ ‫יהוה‬/‫ל‬
Exod. 8:5 ‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬ εἶπεν δὲ ‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬
‫פרעה‬/‫ל‬ πρὸς φαραώ ‫אל פרעה‬
‫התפאר‬ τάξαι ‫התפאר‬
appendix
‫י‬/‫על‬ πρός µε ‫י‬/‫על‬

‫מתי‬/‫ל‬ πότε ‫מתי‬/‫ל‬
‫אעתיר‬ εὔξωµαι ‫העתיר‬
‫ך‬/‫ל‬ περὶ σοῦ ‫ך‬/‫ל‬
‫ך‬/‫עבדי‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬ καὶ περὶ τῶν ‫ך‬/‫עבדי‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬
θεραπόντων σου
‫ך‬/‫עמ‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬ καὶ --- τοῦ ‫ך‬/‫עמ‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬ ‫ך‬/‫עמ‬/‫ל‬/‫[ו‬

λαοῦ σου
‫הכרית‬/‫ל‬ ἀφανίσαι ‫הכרית‬/‫ל‬ ‫הכרי]ת‬/‫ל‬

Table (cont.)
‫צפרדעים‬/‫ה‬ τοὺς βατράχους ‫צפרדעים‬/‫ה‬
‫ך‬/‫מ‬/‫מ‬ ἀπὸ σοῦ ‫ך‬/‫מ‬/‫מ‬
--- καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ !
λαοῦ σου
‫ך‬/‫בתי‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ‫ך‬/‫בתי‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬

οἰκιῶν ὑµῶν
--- --- ‫ך‬/‫עבדי‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬

--- ! ‫ך‬/‫עמ‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬
‫רק‬ πλὴν ‫רק‬
‫תשׁארנה‬ ὑπολειφθή- ‫תשׁארנה‬
σονται
Exod. 8:6 ‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬ ὁ δὲ εἶπεν ‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫מחר‬/‫ל‬ εἰς αὔριον ‫מחר‬/‫ל‬
‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬ εἶπεν οὖν ‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫דבר‬/‫כ‬ ὡς εἴρηκας ‫ך‬/‫דברי‬/‫כ‬
‫מען‬/‫ל‬ ἵνα ‫מען‬/‫ל‬
‫תדע‬ εἰδῇς ‫תדע‬
‫כי‬ ὅτι ‫כי‬
245
Table (cont.)
246

‫אין‬ οὐκ ἔστιν ‫אין‬ ‫א[ין‬
--- ἄλλος --- ---
‫יהוה‬/‫כ‬ πλὴν κυρίου ‫יהוה‬/‫כ‬ ‫יהוה‬/‫כ‬
‫נו‬/‫אלהי‬ --- ‫נו‬/‫אלהי‬ ‫נו‬/‫א]להי‬
Exod. 8:7 ‫סרו‬/‫ו‬ καὶ περιαιρε- ‫סרו‬/‫ו‬
θήσονται
‫צפרדעים‬/‫ה‬ οἱ βάτραχοι ‫צפרדעים‬/‫ה‬

‫ך‬/‫מ‬/‫מ‬ ἀπὸ σοῦ ‫ך‬/‫מ‬/‫מ‬
‫ך‬/‫בתי‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ‫ך‬/‫בתי‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬
οἰκιῶν ὑµῶν
appendix
--- καὶ ἐκ τῶν ---

ἐπαύλεων
‫ך‬/‫עבדי‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ‫ך‬/‫עבדי‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬

‫ך‬/‫עמ‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ‫ך‬/‫עמ‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬

λαοῦ σου

‫תשׁארנה‬ ὑπολειφθή- ‫תשׁארנה‬
σονται
Table (cont.)
Exod. 8:8 ‫יצא‬/‫ו‬ ἐξῆλθεν δὲ ‫יצא‬/‫ו‬
‫אהרן‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἀαρὼν ‫אהרן‬/‫ו‬
‫עם‬/‫מ‬ ἀπὸ ‫עם‬/‫מ‬ ‫ע[ם‬/‫מ‬
sup
‫פרעה‬ φαραώ ‫פרעה‬ ‫פרעה‬
‫יצעק‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐβόησεν ‫יצעק‬/‫ו‬ ‫יצעק‬/‫ו‬
‫משׁה‬ µωυσῆς ‫משׁה‬ ]‫משׁה‬
‫על‬ περὶ ‫על‬
‫דבר‬ τοῦ ὁρισµοῦ ‫דבר‬
‫צפרדעים‬/‫ה‬ τῶν βατράχων ‫צפרדעים‬/‫ה‬
‫אשׁר‬ ὡς ‫אשׁר‬
‫שׂם‬ ἐτάξατο ‫שׂם‬

‫פרעה‬/‫ל‬ --- φαραώ ‫פרעה‬/‫ל‬
Exod. 8:9 ‫יעשׂ‬/‫ו‬ ἐποίησεν δὲ ‫יעשׂ‬/‫ו‬
‫דבר‬/‫כ‬ καθάπερ εἶπεν ‫דבר‬/‫כ‬
247
Table (cont.)
248

‫ימתו‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐτελεύτη- ‫ימתו‬/‫ו‬ ‫ימ[תו‬/‫ו‬
σαν
‫צפרדעים‬/‫ה‬ οἰ βάτραχοι ‫צפרדעים‬/‫ה‬ ‫צפרדעים‬/‫ה‬

‫מן‬ ἐκ ‫מן‬ ‫מן‬
‫בתים‬/‫ה‬ τῶν οἰκιῶν ‫בתים‬/‫ה‬ ‫בתים‬/]‫ה‬
‫ מן‬--- καὶ ἐκ ‫מן‬/‫ו‬
‫חצרת‬/‫ה‬ τῶν ἐπαύλεων ‫חצרות‬/‫ה‬
‫מן‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐκ ‫מן‬/‫ו‬
‫שׂדת‬/‫ה‬ τῶν ἀγρῶν ‫שׂדות‬/‫ה‬
appendix
Exod. 8:10 ‫יצברו‬/‫ו‬ καὶ συνήγαγον ‫יצברו‬/‫ו‬

‫ם‬/‫את‬ αὐτοὺς ‫ם‬/‫את‬
‫חמרם‬ θηµωνιὰς ‫חמרים‬
‫חמרם‬ θηµωνιάς ‫חמרים‬
‫תבאשׁ‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ὤζεσεν ‫תבאשׁ‬/‫ו‬
‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬ ἡ γῆ ‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬
Exod. 8:11 ‫ירא‬/‫ו‬ ἰδὼν δὲ ‫ירא‬/‫ו‬
‫פרעה‬ φαραὼ ‫פרעה‬ ‫פרע[ה‬
Table (cont.)
‫היתה‬ γέγονεν ‫היתה‬ ‫היתה‬
‫רוחה‬/‫ה‬ ἀνάψυξις ‫רוחה‬/‫ה‬ ] ‫רוחה‬/‫ה‬
‫הכבד‬/‫ו‬ --- ἐβαρύνθη ‫יכבד‬/‫ו‬
‫ו‬/‫את לב‬ ἡ καρδία αὐτοῦ ‫ו‬/‫את לב‬
‫דבר‬ ἐλάλησεν ‫דבר‬ ‫דב[ר‬
‫יהוה‬ κύριος ‫יהוה‬ ‫יה]וה‬

‫אמר‬ εἶπον ‫אמר‬
‫אל‬ --- ‫אל‬ ‫א[ל‬
‫אהרן‬ ἀαρών ‫אהרן‬ [ ‫אה]רן‬
‫נטה‬ ἔκτεινον ‫נטה‬ ‫נטה‬
249
Table (cont.)
250

--- τῇ χειρὶ --- ‫ך‬/‫את יד‬ ‫ך‬/‫את יד‬
‫ך‬/‫את מט‬ τὴν ῥάβδον σου ‫ך‬/‫מט‬/‫ב‬ ‫מטך‬/‫] ב‬
‫הך‬/‫ו‬ καὶ πάταξον ‫הכה‬/‫ו‬
‫את עפר‬ τὸ χῶµα ‫את עפר‬ ] ‫ע[פר‬
‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬ τῆς γῆς ‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬
‫היה‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἔσονται ‫יהי‬/‫ו‬
‫כנם‬/‫ל‬ --- σκνῖφες ‫כנים‬/‫ל‬ ‫כני]ם‬/‫[ל‬
--- ἔν τε τοῖς ---
ἀνθρώποις
καὶ ἐν τοῖς
appendix
--- ---
τετράποσιν
‫כל‬/‫ ב‬--- καὶ ἐν πάσῃ ‫כל‬/‫ ב‬---

Exod. 8:13 ‫יעשׂו‬/‫ו‬ --- ‫יעשׂו‬/‫ו‬
‫כן‬ --- ‫כן‬
--- ‫יט‬/‫ו‬ ἐξέτεινεν οὖν --- ‫יט‬/‫ו‬
‫אהרן‬ ἀαρὼν ‫אהרן‬ ]‫א[הרון‬
‫ו‬/‫את יד‬ τῇ χειρὶ --- ‫ו‬/‫את יד‬ ‫ו‬/‫[את יד‬
Table (cont.)
‫ו‬/‫מטה‬/‫ב‬ τὴν ῥάβδον --- ‫ו‬/‫מטה‬/‫ב‬ ]‫ו‬/‫[מטה‬/‫ב‬ ‫ו‬/‫מט]ה‬/‫ב‬
‫יך‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐπάταξεν ‫יך‬/‫ו‬
‫את עפר‬ τὸ χῶµα ‫את עפר‬
‫תהי‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐγένοντο ‫תהי‬/‫ו‬
‫כנם‬/‫ה‬ οἱ σκνῖφες ‫כנים‬/‫ה‬
‫אדם‬/‫ב‬ ἔν τε τοῖς ‫אדם‬/‫ב‬ ‫אד[ם‬/‫ב‬
‫בהמה‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ‫בהמה‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ ]‫בהמה‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫ כל‬--- καὶ ἐν παντὶ ‫ כל‬---

‫עפר‬ χώµατι ‫עפר‬
‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬ τῆς γῆς ‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬ ‫אר[ץ‬/‫ה‬
‫היה‬ ἐγένοντο ‫היה‬ ‫הי]ה‬
‫כנים‬ οἱ σκνῖφες ‫כנים‬ ‫[ם‬

‫מצרים‬ αἰγύπτου ‫מצרים‬ ]‫מ[צרים‬ ‫מצ[רים‬
251
Table (cont.)
252

Exod. 8:14 ‫יעשׂו‬/‫ו‬ ἐποίησαν δὲ ‫יעשׂו‬/‫ו‬ ‫י]עשׂו‬/‫ו‬
--- καὶ ---
‫חרטמים‬/‫ה‬ οἱ ἐπαοιδοὶ ‫חרטמים‬/‫ה‬ ]· ‫[חרטומים‬/‫ה‬
‫הם‬/‫לטי‬/‫ב‬ ταῖς φαρµα- ‫הם‬/‫להטי‬/‫ב‬
‫הוציא‬/‫ל‬ ἐξαγαγεῖν ‫הוציא‬/‫ל‬

‫כנים‬/‫את ה‬ τὸν σκνῖφα ‫כנים‬/‫את ה‬ ‫כנים‬/‫[ה‬
ἠδύναντο
appendix
‫יכלו‬ ‫יכלו‬ ‫י[כלו‬

‫תהי‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐγένοντο ‫תהי‬/‫ו‬ ‫יהי‬/‫ו‬
‫כנם‬/‫ה‬ οἱ σκνῖφες ‫כנים‬/‫ה‬ ] ‫כ[נים‬/]‫ה‬
‫אדם‬/‫ב‬ ἔν τε τοῖς ‫אדם‬/‫ב‬
‫בהמה‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ‫בהמה‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ ‫בה]מה‬/‫[ב‬/‫ו‬

Exod. 8:15 ‫יאמרו‬/‫ו‬ εἶπαν οὖν ‫יאמרו‬/‫ו‬

‫חרטמים‬/‫ה‬ οἱ ἐπαοιδοὶ ‫חרטמים‬/‫ה‬ ‫חרטומי[ם‬/‫ה‬
‫אל פרעה‬ τῷ φαραώ ‫אל פרעה‬ ‫אל פרעה‬
Table (cont.)
‫אצבע‬ δάκτυλος ‫אצבע‬ ]‫אצבע‬ ‫א[צבע‬
‫אלהים‬ θεοῦ ‫אלהים‬
‫הוא‬ ἐστιν τοῦτο ‫היא‬
‫יחזק‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐσκληρύνθη ‫יחזק‬/‫ו‬
‫ לב‬--- ἡ καρδία ‫ לב‬---
‫הם‬/‫אל‬ αὐτῶν ‫יהם‬/‫אל‬ ‫יהם‬/‫א[ל‬
‫אשׁר‬/‫כ‬ καθάπερ ‫אשׁר‬/‫כ‬ ‫אשׁ]ר‬/‫כ‬
‫דבר‬ ἐλάλησεν ‫דבר‬
Exod. 8:16 ‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬ εἶπεν δὲ ‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬ vacat [

‫משׁה‬ µωυσῆν ‫משׁה‬ [‫משׁה‬
--- --- --- ]‫אמיר‬/‫ל‬
‫השׁכם‬ ὄρθρισον ‫השׁכם‬
253
Table (cont.)
254

‫בקר‬/‫ב‬ τὸ πρωὶ ‫בקר‬/‫ב‬
‫התיצב‬/‫ו‬ καὶ στῆθι ‫התיצב‬/‫ו‬
‫פני‬/‫ל‬ ἐναντίον ‫פני‬/‫ל‬
--- ‫הנה‬ ἰδοὺ αὐτὸς ‫הנה הוא‬ ‫]הנה הוא‬
‫יוצא‬ ἐξελεύσεται ‫יצא‬ ]‫יו[צא‬
‫ה‬/‫מימ‬/‫ה‬ ἐπὶ το ὕδωρ ‫מים‬/‫ה‬
‫אמרת‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐρεῖς ‫אמרת‬/‫ו‬
‫יו‬/‫אל‬ πρὸς αὐτόν ‫יו‬/‫אל‬ ]‫יו‬/‫[אל‬
appendix

‫י‬/‫ עמ‬--- τὸν λαόν µου ‫י‬/‫את עמ‬ ]‫י‬/‫]את ע[מ‬
σωσιν
Table (cont.)
Exod. 8:17 ‫כי אם‬ ἐὰν δὲ ‫כי אם‬
‫ך‬/‫אינ‬ µὴ βούλῃ ‫ך‬/‫אינ‬
‫משׁלח‬ ἐξαποστεῖλαι ‫משׁלח‬ ‫משׁ[לח‬ ‫[משׁלח‬
‫י‬/‫את עמ‬ τὸν λαόν µου ‫י‬/‫את עמ‬ ‫י‬/]‫את עמ‬ ‫י‬/‫את עמ‬
‫ני‬/‫הנ‬ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ‫ני‬/‫הנ‬ ‫ני‬/‫הנ‬
‫משׁליח‬ ἐπαποστέλλω ‫משׁלח‬ ‫משׁלח‬
‫ך‬/‫ב‬ ἐπὶ σὲ ‫ך‬/‫ב‬ ‫ך‬/‫ב‬
‫ך‬/‫עבדי‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς ‫ך‬/‫עבדי‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ ‫ך‬/‫עבדי‬/]‫ב‬/‫ו‬
θεράποντάς σου
‫ך‬/‫עמ‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν ‫ך‬/‫עמ‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

λαόν σου
‫ך‬/‫בתי‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς ‫ך‬/‫בתי‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

οἴκους ὑµῶν
‫ערב‬/‫את ה‬ --- κυνόµυιαν ‫ערב‬/‫את ה‬ ‫ער[וב‬/‫ ה‬---

‫מלאו‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ‫מלאו‬/‫ו‬ ‫מלא]ו‬/‫ו‬ ‫[מלאו‬/‫ו‬

πλησθήσονται
‫בתי‬ αἱ οἰκίαι ‫בתי‬ ‫בת]י‬

‫מצרים‬ τῶν αἰγυπτἱων ‫מצרים‬ ‫מצרים‬
‫ערב‬/‫את ה‬ τῆς κυνοµυίας ‫ערב‬/‫את ה‬ ‫ערב‬/‫א[ת ה‬
255
Table (cont.)
256

‫גם‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ‫גם‬/‫ו‬ ‫גם‬/‫ו‬
‫אדמה‬/‫ה‬ εἰς τὴν γῆν ‫אדמה‬/‫ה‬ ‫אדמה‬/[‫]ה‬
‫אשׁר‬ ἐφ’ ἧς ‫אשׁר‬ ‫אשׁר‬
--- ‫הם‬ --- εἰσὶν --- ‫הם‬ --- ‫[המה‬ --- ‫המה‬
‫יה‬/‫על‬ ἐπ’ αὐτῆς ‫יה‬/‫על‬ ‫יה‬/‫על‬ ‫יה‬/]‫] ע[ל‬
Exod. 8:18 ‫הפליתי‬/‫ו‬ καὶ παραδο- ‫הפליתי‬/‫ו‬ ‫הפליתי‬/]‫ו‬
ξάσω
‫יום‬/‫ב‬ ἐν τῇ ἡµέρᾳ ‫יום‬/‫ב‬

‫הוא‬/‫ה‬ ἐκείνῃ ‫הוא‬/‫ה‬
‫את ארץ‬ τὴν γῆν ‫את ארץ‬
appendix
‫גשׁן‬ γέσεµ ‫גשׁן‬ ‫ג[שׁן‬

‫אשׁר‬ ἐφ’ ἧς ‫אשׁר‬ ‫א]שׁר‬
‫י‬/‫עמ‬ ὁ λαός µου ‫י‬/‫עמ‬
‫עמד‬ ἔπεστιν ‫עמד‬
‫יה‬/‫על‬ ἐπ’ αὐτῆς ‫יה‬/‫על‬ [ ‫יה‬/]‫ע[ל‬
‫בלתי‬/‫ל‬ ἐφ’ ἧς οὐκ ‫בלתי‬/‫ל‬ ‫]ב[ל]תי‬/‫ל‬
‫היות‬ ἔσται ‫היות‬
‫שׁם‬ ἐκεῖ ‫שׁם‬
‫ ערב‬--- ἡ κυνόµυια ‫ ערב‬---
Table (cont.)
--- ‫אני‬ ἐγώ εἰµι --- ‫אני‬
--- ὁ κύριος ---
‫קרב‬/‫ב‬ πάσης ‫קרב‬/‫ב‬
Exod. 8:19 ‫שׂמתי‬/‫ו‬ καὶ δώσω ‫שׂמתי‬/‫ו‬
‫פדת‬ διαστολὴν ‫פדות‬ ‫[·] [ת‬
‫בין‬ ἀνὰ µέσον ‫בין‬ ‫בין‬
‫י‬/‫עמ‬ τοῦ ἐµοῦ λαοῦ ‫י‬/‫עמ‬ ‫י‬/‫עמ‬
‫בין‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἀνὰ µέσον ‫בין‬/‫ו‬ ‫וב]ין‬
‫ך‬/‫עמ‬ τοῦ σοῦ λαοῦ ‫ך‬/‫עמ‬

‫מחר‬/‫ל‬ ἐν δὲ τῇ αὔριον ‫מחר‬/‫ל‬
‫יהיה‬ ἔσται ‫יהיה‬
‫את‬/‫ה‬ τὸ σηµεῖον ‫אות‬/‫ה‬
‫זה‬/‫ה‬ τοῦτο ‫זה‬/‫ה‬
257
Table (cont.)
258

--- ἐπὶ ---
--- τῆς γῆς ---
Exod. 8:19b --- --- ‫יבא‬/‫ו‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫משׁה‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫אהרן‬/‫ו‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫אל‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫פרעה‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫יאמרו‬/‫ו‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫יו‬/‫אל‬ --- ---
appendix
--- --- ‫כה‬ --- ---

--- --- ‫אמר‬ ‫[אמ]ר‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫יהוה‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫שׁלח‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫י‬/‫את עמ‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫ני‬/‫יעבד‬/‫ו‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫כי‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫אם‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫ך‬/‫אינ‬ --- ---
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫משׁלח‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫את עמ‪/‬י‬ ‫[עמ‪/‬י‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫הנ‪/‬ני‬ ‫הנ‪/‬ני]‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫משׁלח‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ב‪/‬ך‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬ב‪/‬עבדי‪/‬ך‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬ב‪/‬עמ‪/‬ך‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬ב‪/‬בתי‪/‬ך‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫את ה‪/‬ערב‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬מלאו‬ ‫ו‪/‬מל[או‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫בתי‬ ‫בתי‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫מצרים‬ ‫מצרי]ים‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫את ה‪/‬ערב‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬גם‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ה‪/‬אדמה‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫אשׁר‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫הם‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫על‪/‬יה‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪259‬‬
‫‪260‬‬

‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬הפליתי‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ב‪/‬יום‬ ‫ב‪/‬יו[ם‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ה‪/‬הוא‬ ‫ה‪/‬הוא‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫את ארץ‬ ‫את ארץ]‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫גשׁן‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫אשׁר עמ‪/‬י‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫עמד‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫על‪/‬יה‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ל‪/‬בלתי‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫היות‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫שׁם‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ערב‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ל‪/‬מען‬ ‫[ל‪/‬מען‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫תדע‬ ‫תדע‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫כי‬ ‫כי‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫אני‬ ‫אני‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫יהוה‬ ‫יה]וה‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ב‪/‬קרב‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
Table (cont.)
--- --- ‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫שׁמתי‬/‫ו‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫פדות‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫בין‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫י‬/‫עמ‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫בין‬/‫ו‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫ך‬/‫עמ‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫מחר‬/‫ל‬ ‫מחר‬/‫[ ל‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫יהיה‬ ‫יהיה‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫אות‬/‫ה‬ ‫אות‬/]‫ה‬ --- ---
--- --- ‫זה‬/‫ה‬ --- ---

‫יבא‬/‫ו‬ καὶ παρεγένετο ‫יבא‬/‫ו‬
‫ ערב‬--- ἡ κυνόµυια ‫ ערב‬--- ‫ [ערב‬---
‫כבד‬ πλῆθος ‫כבד‬ [‫כבד‬ [ ] ‫כ]ב[ד‬
--- --- ‫מאד‬ ‫מאד‬ ]·· ··
261
Table (cont.)
262

‫ה‬/‫בית‬ εἰς τοὺς οἴκους ‫ה‬/‫בית‬ ‫ה‬/‫בית‬
‫פרעה‬ φαραὼ ‫פרעה‬ ]‫פרעה‬
‫בית‬/‫ו‬ καὶ εἰς τοὺς ‫בית‬/‫ו‬
οἴκους
‫ו‬/‫עבדי‬ τῶν θεραπόντων ‫ו‬/‫עבדי‬

αὐτοῦ
‫כל‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ καὶ εἰς πᾶσαν ‫כל‬/‫ ב‬---

‫ תשׁחת‬--- καὶ ἐξωλε- ‫תשׁחת‬/‫ו‬
appendix
θρεύθη
‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬ ἡ γῆ ‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬ ‫אר[ץ‬/‫ה‬

‫פני‬/‫מ‬ ἀπὸ ‫פני‬/‫מ‬ ‫[פני‬/‫מ‬ ]‫פני‬/‫מ‬
‫ערב‬/‫ה‬ τῆς κυνοµυίας ‫ערב‬/‫ה‬ ‫ערוב‬/‫ה‬ ‫ערב‬/‫[ ה‬
Exod. 8:21 ‫יקרא‬/‫ו‬ ἐκάλεσεν δὲ ‫יקרא‬/‫ו‬ ]‫ו‬ ‫יקר]א‬/‫ו‬
‫אל משׁה‬ --- µωυσῆν ‫משׁה‬/‫ל‬
‫אהרן‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬ καὶ --- ἀαρὼν ‫אהרן‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬
‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬ --- λέγων ‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬ (?)]‫[·י‬
Table (cont.)
‫לכו‬ ἐλθόντες ‫לכו‬
‫זבחו‬ θύσατε ‫זבחו‬
‫כם‬/‫אלהי‬/‫ל‬ τῷ θεῷ ὑµῶν ‫כם‬/‫אלהי‬/‫ל‬ ‫כם‬/‫אלהי‬/‫[ל‬ (?)]‫[·י‬
‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬ ἐν τῇ γῇ ‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬ ]‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬
Exod. 8:22 ‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬ καὶ εἶπεν ‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬ ‫[יאמר‬/‫ו‬
‫משׁה‬ µωυσῆς ‫משׁה‬ ‫משׁה‬
‫לא‬ οὐ ‫לא‬ ‫ל]א‬
‫נכון‬ δυνατὸν ‫נכון‬
‫עשׂות‬/‫ל‬ γενέσθαι ‫עשׂות‬/‫ל‬
‫כן‬ οὕτως ‫כן‬ ]‫כ[ן‬
--- τὰ ---
‫כי‬ γὰρ ‫כי‬
‫תועבת‬ βδελύγµατα ‫תועבת‬
‫ מצרים‬--- τῶν αἰγυπτίων ‫ מצרים‬---

‫נזבח‬ θύσωµεν ‫נזבח‬
‫יהוה‬/‫ל‬ --- κυρίῳ ‫יהוה‬/‫ל‬ ] ‫י[הוה‬/]‫[ל‬
‫נו‬/‫ אלהי‬--- τῷ θεῷ ἡµῶν ‫נו‬/‫ אלהי‬---
‫ הן‬--- ἐὰν γὰρ ‫ הן‬---
263
Table (cont.)
264

‫נזבח‬ θύσωµεν ‫נזבח‬
‫את תועבת‬ τὰ βδελύγµατα ‫את תועבת‬
‫ מצרים‬--- τῶν αἰγυπτίων ‫ מצרים‬---
‫הם‬/‫עיני‬/‫ל‬ ἐναντίον αὐτῶν ‫הם‬/‫עיני‬/‫ל‬
‫לא‬/‫ו‬ --- ‫לא‬/‫ו‬ ‫[לא‬/‫ו‬
‫יסקלנו‬ λιθοβοληθησό- ‫יסקלנו‬ ‫יסקלנ]ו‬
µεθα
Exod. 8:23 ‫דרך‬ ὁδὸν ‫דרך‬

‫שׁלשׁת‬ τριῶν ‫שׁלשׁת‬
‫ימים‬ ἡµερῶν ‫ימים‬
appendix
‫נלך‬ πορευσόµεθα ‫נלכה‬

‫מדבר‬/‫ב‬ εἰς τὴν ἔρηµον ‫מדבר‬/‫ב‬
‫זבחנו‬/‫ו‬ καὶ θύσοµεν ‫נזבחה‬/‫ו‬
‫נו‬/‫אלהי‬ τῷ θεῷ ἡµῶν ‫נו‬/‫אלהי‬
‫יאמר‬ εἶπεν ‫יאמר‬
‫ינו‬/‫אל‬ ἡµῖν ‫ינו‬/‫אל‬
Table (cont.)
Exod. 8:24 ‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬ καὶ εἶπεν ‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬
‫אשׁלח‬ ἐξαποστελῶ ‫אשׁלח‬
‫כם‬/‫את‬ ὑµᾶς ‫כם‬/‫את‬
‫זבחתם‬/‫ו‬ καὶ θύσατε ‫זבחתם‬/‫ו‬
‫כם‬/‫אלהי‬ τῷ θεῷ ὑµῶν ‫כם‬/‫אלהי‬
‫מדבר‬/‫ב‬ ἐν τῇ ἐρήµῳ ‫מדבר‬/‫ב‬
‫רק‬ ἀλλ’ ‫רק‬
! οὐ !
‫הרחק‬ µακρὰν ‫הרחק‬
‫לא‬ ! ‫לא‬
‫תרחיקו‬ ἀποτενεῖτε ‫תרחיקו‬

‫לכת‬/‫ל‬ πορευθῆναι ‫לכת‬/‫ל‬
‫העתירו‬ εὔξασθε ‫העתירו‬
--- οὖν ---
‫י‬/‫עד‬/‫ב‬ περὶ ἐµοῦ ‫י‬/‫עד‬/‫ב‬
265
Table (cont.)
266

--- πρὸς ---
--- κύριον ---
‫הנה‬ ὅδε ‫הנה‬
‫יוצא‬ ἐξελεύσοµαι ‫יצא‬
‫ך‬/‫עמ‬/‫מ‬ ἀπὸ σοῦ ‫ך‬/‫עמ‬/‫מ‬
‫העתרתי‬/‫ו‬ καὶ εὔξοµαι ‫העתרתי‬/‫ו‬
appendix

‫יהוה‬ τὸν θεόν ‫יהוה‬
‫סר‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἀπελεύ- ‫סר‬/‫ו‬
σεται
‫ערב‬/‫ה‬ ἡ κυνόµυια ‫ערב‬/‫ה‬

‫פרעה‬/‫מ‬ ἀπὸ σοῦ ‫פרעה‬/‫מ‬
‫ו‬/‫עבדי‬/‫ מ‬--- καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ‫ו‬/‫עבדי‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬
‫ו‬/‫עמ‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬ καὶ --- τοῦ ‫ו‬/‫עמ‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬

λαοῦ σου
Table (cont.)
‫מחר‬ αὔριον ‫מחר‬
‫רק‬ --- ‫רק‬
‫אל‬ µὴ ‫אל‬
‫יסף‬ προσθῇς ‫יסף‬
--- ἔτι ---
‫התל‬ ἐξαπατῆσαι ‫התל‬
‫בלתי‬/‫ל‬ τοῦ µὴ ‫בלתי‬/‫ל‬
‫שׁלח‬ ἐξαποστεῖλαι ‫שׁלח‬
‫עם‬/‫את ה‬ τὸν λαὸν ‫עם‬/‫את ה‬
‫זבח‬/‫ל‬ θῦσαι ‫זבח‬/‫ל‬

‫עם‬/‫מ‬ ἀπὸ ‫עם‬/‫מ‬
‫יעתר‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ηὔξατο ‫יעתר‬/‫ו‬
267
Table (cont.)
268

‫יהוה‬ τὸν θεόν ‫יהוה‬
‫דבר‬/‫כ‬ καθάπερ εἶπεν ‫דבר‬/‫כ‬
‫יסר‬/‫ו‬ καὶ περιεῖλεν ‫יסר‬/‫ו‬
‫ערב‬/‫ה‬ τὴν κυνόµυιαν ‫ערב‬/‫ה‬
‫פרעה‬/‫מ‬ ἀπὸ φαραὼ ‫פרעה‬/‫מ‬
‫ו‬/‫עבדי‬/‫ מ‬--- καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ‫ו‬/‫עבדי‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬
θεραπόντων
appendix
αὐτοῦ
‫ו‬/‫עמ‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ‫ו‬/‫עמ‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬

λαοῦ αὐτοῦ
‫ לא‬--- καὶ οὐ ‫ לא‬---

‫נשׁאר‬ κατελείφθη ‫נשׁאר‬
‫אחד‬ οὐδεµία ‫אחד‬
Exod. 8:28 ‫יכבד‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐβάρυνεν ‫יכבד‬/‫ו‬
‫ו‬/‫את לב‬ τὴν καρδίαν ‫ו‬/‫את לב‬
αὐτοῦ
Table (cont.)
‫גם‬ καὶ ‫גם‬
‫פעם‬/‫ב‬ ἐπὶ τοῦ καιροῦ ‫פעם‬/‫ב‬
‫זאת‬/‫ה‬ τούτου ‫זאת‬/‫ה‬
--- ἠθέλησεν ---
‫שׁלח‬ ἐξαποστεῖλαι ‫שׁלח‬
‫עם‬/‫את ה‬ τὸν λαόν ‫עם‬/‫את ה‬
‫בא‬ εἴσελθε ‫בא‬

‫דברת‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐρεῖς ‫אמרת‬/‫ו‬
‫יו‬/‫אל‬ αὐτῷ ‫יו‬/‫אל‬
269
Table (cont.)
270

‫אלהי‬ ὁ θεὸς ‫אלהי‬
σωσιν
Exod. 9:2 ‫כי אם‬ εἰ µὲν οὖν ‫כי אם‬

‫מאן אתה‬ µὴ βούλει --- ‫מאן אתה‬
ἐξαποστεῖλαι
appendix
‫שׁלח‬/‫ל‬ ‫שׁלח‬/‫ל‬
--- τὸν λαόν µου ---
‫ך‬/‫עוד‬/‫ו‬ ἀλλ’ ἔτι --- ‫ך‬/‫עוד‬/‫ו‬
‫מחזיק‬ ἐγκρατεῖς ‫מחזיק‬
‫ם‬/‫ב‬ αὐτοῦ ‫ם‬/‫ב‬
Exod. 9:3 ‫הנה‬ ἰδοὺ ‫הנה‬
‫יד‬ χεὶρ ‫יד‬
‫יהוה‬ κυρίου ‫יהוה‬
‫הויה‬ ἔσται ‫היה‬
Table (cont.)
‫ך‬/‫מקנ‬/‫ב‬ ἐν τοῖς κτήνε- ‫ך‬/‫מקני‬/‫ב‬
σίν σου
‫אשׁר‬ τοῖς ‫אשׁר‬

‫שׂדה‬/‫ב‬ ἐν τοῖς πεδίοις ‫שׂדה‬/‫ב‬
‫סוסים‬/‫ב‬ ἔν τε τοῖς ‫סוסים‬/‫ב‬
ἵπποις
‫חמרים‬/‫ ב‬--- καὶ ἐν τοῖς ‫חמורים‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

ὑποζυγίοις
‫גמלים‬/‫ ב‬--- καὶ ἐν ταῖς ‫גמלים‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

καµήλοις
‫בקר‬/‫ ב‬--- καὶ --- βουσὶν ‫בקר‬/‫ ב‬---

‫צאן‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ καὶ --- προβά- ‫צאן‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬
τοις
‫דבר‬ θάνατος ‫דבר‬

‫כבד‬ µέγας ‫כבד‬
‫מאד‬ σφόδρα ‫מאד‬

Exod. 9:4 ‫הפלה‬/‫ו‬ καὶ παραδο- ‫הפלא‬/‫ו‬
ξάσω
‫יהוה‬ ἐγὼ ‫יהוה‬

‫בין‬ ἀνὰ µέσον ‫בין‬
271
Table (cont.)
272

‫ מקנה‬--- τῶν κτηνῶν ‫ מקנה‬---
! ‫ ישׂראל‬--- ! τῶν αἰγυπτίων ! ‫ ישׂראל‬---
‫בין‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἀνὰ µέσον ‫בין‬/‫ו‬
‫ מקנה‬--- τῶν κτηνῶν ‫ מקנה‬---
--- τῶν υἱῶν ---
! ‫מצרים‬ ! ἰσραήλ ! ‫מצרים‬
‫לא‬/‫ו‬ --- οὐ ‫לא‬/‫ו‬
‫ימות‬ τελευτήσει ‫ימות‬
‫כל‬/‫מ‬ ἀπὸ πάντων ‫כל‬/‫מ‬
appendix
‫בני‬/‫ל‬ τῶν ! ‫בני‬/‫ל‬

‫ ישׂראל‬--- τοῦ ἰσραὴλ ‫ ישׂראל‬---
! υἱῶν !
‫דבר‬ ῥητόν ‫דבר‬
Exod. 9:5 ‫ישׂם‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἔδωκεν ‫ישׂם‬/‫ו‬
‫יהוה‬ ὁ θεὸς ‫יהוה‬
‫מועד‬ ὅρον ‫מועד‬
‫אמר‬/‫ל‬ λέγων ‫אמר‬/‫ל‬
‫מחר‬ ἐν τῇ αὔριον ‫מחר‬
Table (cont.)
‫יעשׂה‬ ποιήσει ‫יעשׂה‬
‫דבר‬/‫ ה‬--- τὸ ῥῆµα ‫דבר‬/‫את ה‬
‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬
Exod. 9:5b --- --- ‫יבא‬/‫ו‬ ---
--- --- ‫משׁה‬ ---
--- --- ‫אהרן‬/‫ו‬ ---
--- --- ‫אל‬ ---
--- --- ‫פרעה‬ ---
--- --- ‫יאמרו‬/‫ו‬ ---
--- --- ‫יו‬/‫אל‬ ---
--- --- ‫כה‬ ---
--- --- ‫אמר‬ ---

--- --- ‫יהוה‬ ---
--- --- ‫אלהי‬ ---
--- --- ‫עברים‬/‫ה‬ ---
--- --- ‫שׁלח‬ ---
273
‫‪274‬‬

‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫את עמ‪/‬י‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬יעבד‪/‬ני‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫כי אם‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫מאן אתה‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ל‪/‬שׁלח‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬עוד‪/‬ך‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫מחזיק‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ב‪/‬ם‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫הנה‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫יד‬ ‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫יהוה‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫היה‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ב‪/‬מקני‪/‬ך‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫אשׁר‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ב‪/‬שׂדה‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ב‪/‬סוסים‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬ב‪/‬חמורים‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬ב‪/‬גמלים‬ ‫ו‪/‬ב‪/‬גמל[ים‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ב‪/‬בקר‬ ‫ב‪/‬בקר‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬ב‪/‬צאן‬ ‫ו‪/‬ב‪/‬צאן‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫דבר‬ ‫דבר‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫כבד‬ ‫כבד‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫מאד‬ ‫מאד‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬הפלא‬ ‫ו‪/‬ה]‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫יהוה‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫בין‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫מקנה‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ישׂראל‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬בין‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫מקנה‬ ‫[מקנה‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫מצרים‬ ‫מצריים‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬לא‬ ‫ו‪/‬לא‬ ‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ימות‬ ‫ימות‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫מ‪/‬כל‬ ‫מ‪/‬כל]‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ל‪/‬בני‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ישׂראל‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪275‬‬
Table (cont.)
276

--- --- ‫דבר‬ ---
--- --- ‫מחר‬ ---
--- --- ‫יעשׂה‬ ---
--- --- ‫יהוה‬ ‫יה[וה‬ ---
--- --- ‫דבר‬/‫את ה‬ ‫דבר‬/‫ ה‬--- ---
--- --- ‫זה‬/‫ה‬ ‫זה‬/‫ה‬ ---
--- --- ‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬ ‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬ ---
Exod. 9:6 ‫יעשׂ‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐποίησεν ‫יעשׂ‬/‫ו‬ ‫יעשׂ‬/‫ו‬
‫יהוה‬ κύριος ‫יהוה‬ ‫יהו]ה‬
appendix
‫דבר‬/‫את ה‬ τὸ ῥῆµα ‫דבר‬/‫את ה‬

‫מחרת‬/‫מ‬ τῇ ἐπαύριον ‫מחרת‬/‫מ‬
‫ימת‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐτελεύτησεν ‫ימת‬/‫ו‬
‫כל‬ πάντα ‫כל‬ ‫]כ[ל‬
‫מקנה‬ τὰ κτήνη ‫מקנה‬ ‫מקנה‬
‫מצרים‬ τῶν αἰγυπτίων ‫מצרים‬ ‫מצריים‬
‫מקנה‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬ ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν ‫מקנה‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬ ‫מקנה‬/‫מ‬/‫ו‬
κτηνῶν
Table (cont.)
‫בני‬ τῶν υἱῶν ‫בני‬ ‫בני‬
‫ישׂראל‬ ἰσραὴλ ‫ישׂראל‬ ‫ישׂראל‬
‫לא‬ οὐκ ‫לא‬ ] ‫לא‬
‫מת‬ ἐτελεύτησεν ‫מת‬
‫אחד‬ οὐδέν ‫אחד‬
Exod. 9:7 ‫ישׁלח‬/‫ו‬ ἰδὼν δὲ ‫ישׁלח‬/‫ו‬
‫פרעה‬ φαραὼ ‫פרעה‬ ‫]פר[עה‬
‫הנה‬/‫ו‬ ὅτι ‫הנה‬/‫ו‬ ‫הנה‬/‫ו‬
‫לא‬ οὐκ ‫לא‬ ‫לא‬
‫מת‬ ἐτελεύτησεν ‫מת‬ ‫מת‬
‫מקנה‬/‫מ‬ ἀπὸ τῶν κτηνῶν ‫מקנה‬/‫מ‬ ‫מקנה‬/‫מ‬
--- τῶν υἱῶν ‫בני‬ ‫בני‬
‫ישׂראל‬ ἰσραὴλ ‫ישׂראל‬ ‫ישׂראל‬
‫עד אחד‬ οὐδέν ‫עד אחד‬ ‫עד אחד‬

‫יכבד‬/‫ו‬ ἐβαρύνθη ‫יכבד‬/‫ו‬ ]‫יכבד‬/‫ו‬
277
Table (cont.)
278

‫שׁלח‬ ἐξαπέστειλεν ‫שׁלח‬
‫עם‬/‫את ה‬ τὸν λαόν ‫עם‬/‫את ה‬ ‫עם‬/‫[ ה‬
Exod. 9:8 ‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬ εἶπεν δὲ ‫יאמר‬/‫ ]יאומר ו‬vacat [/‫]ו‬ ‫יא[מר‬/‫ו‬
‫יהוה‬ κύριος ‫יהוה‬ ‫יהוה‬ ‫י]הוה‬
‫אל‬ πρὸς ‫אל‬ ‫א[ל‬
‫אל‬/‫ו‬ καὶ --- ‫אל‬/‫ו‬ ‫אל‬/‫ו‬
‫אהרן‬ ἀαρὼν ‫אהרן‬ ‫אהרון‬
--- λέγων --- ‫אמור‬/‫ל‬
appendix
‫קחו‬ λάβετε ‫קחו‬ ‫קחו‬

‫כם‬/‫ל‬ --- ὑµεῖς ‫כם‬/‫ל‬ ‫כם‬/‫ל‬
‫מלא‬ πλήρεις ‫מלוא‬ ‫מלא‬
‫כם‬/‫ חפני‬--- τὰς χεῖρας --- ‫כם‬/‫ חופני‬--- ‫כם‬/‫ חפנ‬---
‫פיח‬ αἰθάλης ‫פיח‬ [‫פי]ח‬
‫כבשׁן‬ καµιναίας ‫כבשׁן‬
‫ו‬/‫זרק‬/‫ו‬ καὶ πασάτω ‫ו‬/‫זרק‬/‫ו‬
‫ה‬/‫שׁמימ‬/‫ה‬ εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ‫שׁמים‬/‫ה‬ ‫שׁ]מ[ים‬/‫[ ה‬ ]‫ה‬/‫[שׁמימ‬/‫ה‬
Table (cont.)
‫עיני‬/‫ל‬ ἐναντίον ‫עיני‬/‫ל‬ ‫עיני‬/‫ל‬
--- καὶ ἐναντίον --- ---
--- τῶν θεραπόντων --- ---
αὐτοῦ
Exod. 9:9 ‫היה‬/‫ו‬ καὶ γενηθήτω ‫היה‬/‫ו‬ ‫היה‬/‫ו‬

‫אבק‬/‫ל‬ κονιορτὸς ‫אבק‬/‫ל‬ ‫אבק‬/‫ל‬
‫על‬ ἐπὶ ‫על‬ ‫על‬
‫כל‬ πᾶσαν ‫כל‬ ---
‫ארץ‬ γῆν ‫ארץ‬ ‫ארץ‬
‫מצרים‬ αἰγύπτου ‫מצרים‬ [‫מצ]רים‬
‫היה‬/‫ו‬ καἰ ἔσται ‫היה‬/‫ו‬
‫אדם‬/‫ה‬ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ‫אדם‬/‫ה‬

‫על‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐπὶ ‫על‬/‫ו‬
‫בהמה‬/‫ה‬ τὰ τετράποδα ‫בהמה‬/‫ה‬ ‫בה[מה‬/‫ה‬
‫שׁחין‬/‫ל‬ --- ἕλκη ‫שׁחין‬/‫ל‬ ‫שׁ[חין‬/]‫ל‬
‫פרח‬ ! ‫פרח‬ ‫פורח‬
279
‫אבעבעת‬ φλυκτίδες ‫אבעבעות‬ ‫אבעבעות‬

Table (cont.)
280

! ἀναζέουσαι ! !
--- ἔν τε τοῖς --- ---
--- καὶ ἐν τοῖς --- ---

‫כל‬/‫ ב‬--- καὶ ἐν πάσῃ ‫כל‬/‫ ב‬--- ‫כל‬/‫ ב‬---

‫ארץ‬ γῇ ‫ארץ‬ ‫ארץ‬
‫מצרים‬ αἰγύπτου ‫מצרים‬ [‫מצר]ים‬
Exod. 9:10 ‫יקחו‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἔλαβεν ‫יקחו‬/‫ו‬
‫את פיח‬ τὴν αἰθάλην ‫את פיח‬
appendix
‫כבשׁן‬/‫ה‬ τῆς καµιναίας ‫כבשׁן‬/‫ה‬

‫יעמדו‬/‫ו‬ --- ‫יעמדו‬/‫ו‬ ‫יעמדו‬/‫[ו‬
‫פני‬/‫ל‬ ἐναντίον ‫פני‬/‫ל‬ ‫פנ]י‬/‫ל‬
‫פרעה‬ φαραώ ‫פרעה‬ [ ‫פרעה‬
‫יזרק‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἔπασεν ‫יזרק‬/‫ו‬ ‫יזרק‬/‫ו‬
‫ו‬/‫את‬ αὐτὴν ‫ו‬/‫את‬ ‫ו‬/‫אות‬
‫משׁה‬ µωυσῆς ‫משׁה‬ [‫מ]שׁה‬
‫ה‬/‫שׁמימ‬/‫ה‬ εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν ‫שׁמים‬/‫ה‬
‫יהי‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐγένετο ‫יהי‬/‫ו‬
Table (cont.)
‫שׁחין‬ ἕλκη ‫שׁחין‬
‫אבעבעת‬ φλυκτίδες ‫אבעבעית‬
‫פרח‬ ἀναζέουσαι ‫פרח‬
‫אדם‬/‫ב‬ ἔν τε τοῖς ‫אדם‬/‫ב‬
‫בהמה‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ‫בהמה‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ ‫בהמ[ה‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

Exod. 9:11 ‫לא‬/‫ו‬ καὶ οὐκ ‫לא‬/‫ו‬ ‫לא‬/‫ו‬

‫יכלו‬ ἠδύναντο ‫יכלו‬ ] ‫יכלו‬
‫חרטמים‬/‫ה‬ οἱ φάρµακοι ‫חרטמים‬/‫ה‬
‫עמד‬/‫ל‬ στῆναι ‫עמד‬/‫ל‬
‫משׁה‬ µωυσῆ ‫משׁה‬
‫פני‬/‫מ‬ διὰ ‫פני‬/‫מ‬
‫שׁחין‬/‫ה‬ τὰ ἕλκη ‫שׁחין‬/‫ה‬

‫כי‬ ! ‫כי‬
‫היה‬ ἐγένετο ‫היה‬
! γὰρ !
‫שׁחין‬/‫ה‬ τὰ ἕλκη ‫שׁחין‬/‫ה‬
281
Table (cont.)
282

‫חרטמם‬/‫ב‬ ἐν τοῖς φαρµά- ‫חרטמים‬/‫ב‬ ]‫חרטומים‬/‫[ ב‬ ‫חר[טמים‬/‫ב‬
κοις
‫כל‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐν πάσῃ ‫כל‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ ‫כל‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

--- γῇ --- ---
‫מצרים‬ αἰγύπτου ‫מצרים‬ [‫מ]צרים‬
Exod. 9:12 ‫יחזק‬/‫ו‬ ἐσκλήρυνεν δὲ ‫יחזק‬/‫ו‬
‫את לב‬ τὴν καρδίαν ‫את לב‬
appendix

‫אשׁר‬/‫כ‬ καθὰ ‫אשׁר‬/‫כ‬
‫דבר‬ συνέταξεν ‫דבר‬ ‫דב[ר‬
‫יהוה‬ κύριος ‫יהוה‬ ]‫יהוה‬
‫אל‬ --- ‫אל‬
‫משׁה‬ τῷ µωυσῇ ‫משׁה‬
Table (cont.)
‫השׁכם‬ ὄρθρισον ‫השׁכם‬
‫בקר‬/‫ב‬ τὸ πρωὶ ‫בקר‬/‫ב‬
‫התיצב‬/‫ו‬ καὶ στῆθι ‫התיצב‬/‫ו‬
‫אמרת‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐρεῖς ‫אמרת‬/‫ו‬
‫יו‬/‫אל‬ πρὸς αὐτόν ‫יו‬/‫אל‬
‫יהוה‬ κύριος ‫יהוה‬ ‫י[הוה‬

‫אלהי‬ ὁ θεὸς ‫אלהי‬ ‫אל]הי‬
283
Table (cont.)
284

‫ני‬/‫יעבד‬/‫ו‬ ἵνα λατρεύσω- ‫ני‬/‫יעבד‬/‫ו‬
σίν µοι
Exod. 9:14 ! ἐν τῷ !
‫זאת‬/‫פעם ה‬/‫! ב‬ νῦν καιρῷ ‫זאת‬/‫פעם ה‬/‫! ב‬
‫אני‬ ἐγὼ ‫אני‬
‫שׁלח‬ ἐξαποστέλλω ‫שׁלח‬ ‫שׁ[ולח‬
‫את כל‬ πάντα ‫את כל‬ ] ‫את‬
τὰ συναντή-
appendix
‫י‬/‫ מגפת‬--- ‫י‬/‫ מגפת‬---

µατά µου
‫אל‬ εἰς ‫על‬

‫ך‬/‫לב‬ τὴν καρδίαν ‫ך‬/‫לב‬
σου
‫ך‬/‫עבדי‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ καὶ τῶν θερα- ‫ך‬/‫עבדי‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

πόντων σου
‫ך‬/‫עמ‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ καὶ τοῦ λαοῦ ‫ך‬/‫עמ‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

σου
‫עבור‬/‫ב‬ ἵνα ‫עבור‬/‫ב‬

Table (cont.)
‫אין‬ οὐκ ἔστιν ‫אין‬
‫ני‬/‫מ‬/‫כ‬ ὡς ἐγὼ ‫ני‬/‫מו‬/‫כ‬
--- ἄλλος ---
‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬ τῇ γῇ ‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬ ‫[ארץ‬/‫ה‬
Exod. 9:15 ‫כי‬ ! ‫כי‬ ‫כ]י‬ ‫כי‬
‫עתה‬ νῦν ‫עתה‬ ‫עת[ה‬
! γὰρ ! ! !
‫שׁלחתי‬ ἀποστείλας ‫שׁלחתי‬ ‫שׁלחתי‬
‫י‬/‫את יד‬ τὴν χεῖρα --- ‫י‬/‫את יד‬ ]‫את‬
‫אך‬/‫ו‬ πατάξω ‫אכה‬/‫ו‬
‫ך‬/‫אות‬ σε ‫ך‬/‫את‬
‫ך‬/‫את עמ‬/‫ו‬ καὶ τὸν λαόν ‫ך‬/‫את עמ‬/‫ו‬

σου
‫דבר‬/‫ב‬ --- θανάτῳ ‫דבר‬/‫ב‬

‫תכחד‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐκτριβήσῃ ‫תכחד‬/‫ו‬
‫מן‬ ἀπὸ ‫מן‬
285

Table (cont.)
286

Exod. 9:16 ‫אולם‬/‫ו‬ καὶ --- ‫אולם‬/‫ו‬ ]‫[אולם‬/‫ו‬
‫עבור‬/‫ב‬ ἕνεκεν ‫עבור‬/‫ב‬
‫זאת‬ τούτου ‫זאת‬
‫ך‬/‫העמדתי‬ διετηρήθης ‫ך‬/‫העמדתי‬
‫עבור‬/‫ב‬ ἵνα ‫עבור‬/‫ב‬
‫ך‬/‫הראת‬ ἐνδείξωµαι ἐν ‫ך‬/‫הראתי‬ ‫ך‬/‫הרא[ת‬
σοὶ
‫י‬/‫את כח‬ τὴν ἰσχύν µου ‫י‬/‫את כח‬ ‫י‬/]‫את כח‬

‫מען‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ὅπως ‫מען‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬ ‫מען‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬
διαγγελῇ
appendix
‫ספר‬ ‫ספר‬ ‫ס[פר‬

‫י‬/‫שׁמ‬ τὸ ὄνοµά µου ‫י‬/‫שׁמ‬ ‫י‬/‫שׁמ‬
‫כל‬/‫ב‬ ἐν πάσῃ ‫כל‬/‫ב‬ ‫כל‬/]‫ב‬
‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬ τῇ γῇ ‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬
Exod. 9:17 ‫ך‬/‫ עוד‬--- ἔτι οὖν σὺ --- ‫ך‬/‫עוד‬
‫מסתולל‬ ἐµποιῇ ‫מסתולל‬
‫י‬/‫עמ‬/‫ב‬ --- τοῦ λαοῦ ‫י‬/‫עמ‬/‫ב‬
µου
‫בלתי‬/‫ל‬ τοῦ µὴ ‫בלתי‬/‫ל‬

Table (cont.)
‫ם‬/‫שׁלח‬ ἐξαποστεῖλαι ‫ם‬/‫שׁלח‬
αὐτούς
Exod. 9:18 ‫ני‬/‫הנ‬ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ‫ני‬/‫הנ‬

‫ממטיר‬ ὕω ‫ממטיר‬
‫עת‬/‫כ‬ ταύτην τὴν ‫עת‬/‫כ‬
ὥραν
‫מחר‬ αὔριον ‫מחר‬ ‫]מח[ר‬

‫ברד‬ χάλαζαν ‫ברד‬ ‫ברד‬
‫כבד‬ πολλὴν ‫כבד‬ ]‫כבד‬
‫אשׁר‬ ἥτις ‫אשׁר‬
! τοιαύτη !
‫לא‬ οὐ ‫לא‬
‫היה‬ γέγονεν ‫היה‬
‫הו‬/‫מ‬/‫כ‬ ! ‫הו‬/‫מ‬/‫כ‬
‫מצרים‬/‫ב‬ ἐν αἰγύπτῳ ‫מצרים‬/‫ב‬
‫יום‬/‫מן ה‬/‫ל‬ ἀφ’ ἧς ἡµέρας ‫יום‬/‫מ‬/‫ל‬
‫הוסדה‬ ἔκτισται ‫היסדה‬
‫עד‬/‫ו‬ ἕως ‫עד‬/‫ו‬
287
Table (cont.)
288

‫עתה‬ τῆς ἡµέρας ‫עתה‬ ‫[עתה‬
ταύτης
Exod. 9:19 ‫עתה‬/‫ו‬ νῦν οὖν ‫עתה‬/‫ו‬ ‫עתה‬/‫ו‬

‫שׁלח‬ κατάσπευσον ‫שׁלח‬ ‫שׁלח‬
‫העז‬ συναγαγεῖν ‫העז‬ ‫העז‬
‫ך‬/‫את מקנ‬ τὰ κτήνη σου ‫ך‬/‫את מקני‬ ‫ך‬/‫את] מ[קנ‬
‫את‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ‫את‬/‫ו‬ ---/ !
‫כל‬ --- ‫כל‬ ‫כל‬/‫ו‬
‫אשׁר‬ ὅσα ‫אשׁר‬ [ ]‫אשׁר‬
σοί ἐστιν
appendix
‫ך‬/‫ל‬ ‫ך‬/‫ל‬ ‫ך‬/‫]ל‬

‫שׂדה‬/‫ב‬ ἐν τῷ πεδίῳ ‫שׂדה‬/‫ב‬ ‫שׂדה‬/‫ב‬
‫ כל‬--- πάντες γὰρ ‫ כל‬--- ]‫ כ[ל‬---
‫אדם‬/‫ה‬ οἱ ἄνθρωποι ‫אדם‬/‫ה‬
‫בהמה‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬ καὶ τὰ κτήνη ‫בהמה‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬
‫אשׁר‬ ὅσα ἂν ‫אשׁר‬
‫ימצא‬ εὑρεθῇ ‫ימצא‬
‫שׂדה‬/‫ב‬ ἐν τοῖς πεδίοις ‫שׂדה‬/‫ב‬
‫לא‬/‫ו‬ καὶ µὴ ‫ לא‬---
Table (cont.)
‫יאסף‬ εἰσέλθῃ ‫יאסף‬
‫ה‬/‫בית‬/‫ה‬ εἰς οἰκίαν ‫ה‬/‫בית‬/‫ה‬ ‫ה‬/‫[בית‬/‫ה‬
‫ירד‬/‫ו‬ πέσῃ δὲ ‫ירד‬/‫ו‬ ‫יר]ד‬/‫ו‬
‫הם‬/‫על‬ ἐπ’ αὐτὰ ‫יהם‬/‫על‬ ‫]י[הם‬/‫ע[ל‬
‫ברד‬/‫ה‬ ἡ χάλαζα ‫ברד‬/‫ה‬ ‫ברד‬/]‫ה‬
‫מתו‬/‫ו‬ --- τελευτήσει ‫מתו‬/‫ו‬ ‫מ[תו‬/‫ו‬
Exod. 9:19b --- --- ‫יבא‬/‫ו‬ ---
--- --- ‫משׁה‬ ---
--- --- ‫אהרן‬/‫ו‬ ---
--- --- ‫אל‬ ---
--- --- ‫פרעה‬ ---
--- --- ‫יאמרו‬/‫ו‬ ---
--- --- ‫יו‬/‫אל‬ ---
--- --- ‫כה‬ ---

--- --- ‫אמר‬ ---
--- --- ‫יהוה‬ ---
--- --- ‫אלהי‬ ---
--- --- ‫עברים‬/‫ה‬ ---
289
Table (cont.)
290

--- --- ‫שׁלח‬ ---
--- --- ‫י‬/‫את עם‬ ---
--- --- ‫ני‬/‫יעבד‬/‫ו‬ ---
--- --- ‫כי‬ ---
--- --- ‫זאת‬/‫פעם ה‬/‫ב‬ ---
--- --- ‫אני‬ ---
--- --- ‫שׁלח‬ ---
--- --- ‫את כל‬ ---
--- --- ‫י‬/‫מגפת‬ ---
appendix
--- --- ‫על‬ ---

--- --- ‫ך‬/‫לב‬ ---
--- --- ‫ך‬/‫עבדי‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ ---
--- --- ‫ך‬/‫עמ‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ ---
--- --- ‫עבור‬/‫ב‬ ---
--- --- ‫תדע‬ ---
--- --- ‫כי‬ ---
--- --- ‫אין‬ ---
--- --- ‫ני‬/‫מו‬/‫כ‬ ---
Table (cont.)
--- --- ‫כל‬/‫ב‬ ---
--- --- ‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬ ---
--- --- ‫כי‬ ---
--- --- ‫עתה‬ ---
--- --- ‫שׁלחתי‬ ---
--- --- ‫י‬/‫את יד‬ ---
--- --- ‫אכה‬/‫ו‬ ---
--- --- ‫ך‬/‫את‬ ---
--- --- ‫ך‬/‫את עמ‬/‫ו‬ ---
--- --- ‫דבר‬/‫ב‬ ---
--- --- ‫תכחד‬/‫ו‬ ---
--- --- ‫מן‬ ---
--- --- ‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬ ---
--- --- ‫אולם‬/‫ו‬ ---

--- --- ‫עבור‬/‫ב‬ ---
--- --- ‫זאת‬ ---
--- --- ‫ך‬/‫העמדתי‬ ---
--- --- ‫עבור‬/‫ב‬ ---
291
‫‪292‬‬

‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫הראתי‪/‬ך‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫את כח‪/‬י‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬ל‪/‬מען‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ספר‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫שׁמ‪/‬י‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ב‪/‬כל‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ה‪/‬ארץ‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫עוד‪/‬ך‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫מסתולל‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ב‪/‬עמ‪/‬י‬ ‫ב‪/‬ע[מ‪/‬י‬ ‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ל‪/‬בלתי‬ ‫ל‪/‬בלתי‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫שׁלח‪/‬ם‬ ‫שׁלח]‪/‬ם [‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫הנ‪/‬ני‬ ‫הנ‪/‬ני‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ממטיר‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫כ‪/‬עת‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫מחר‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ברד‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫כבד‬ ‫‪---‬‬
Table (cont.)
--- --- ‫מאד‬ ---
--- --- ‫אשׁר‬ ---
--- --- ‫לא‬ ---
--- --- ‫היה‬ ---
--- --- ‫הו‬/‫כמ‬ ---
--- --- ‫מצרים‬/‫ב‬ ‫[מצרים‬/‫ב‬ ---
--- --- ‫יום‬/‫מ‬/‫ל‬ ]‫יום‬/‫מן ה‬/‫ל‬ ---
--- --- ‫היסדה‬ ---
--- --- ‫עד‬/‫ו‬ ---
--- --- ‫עתה‬ ---
--- --- ‫עתה‬/‫ו‬ ---
--- --- ‫שׁלח‬ ---
--- --- ‫העז‬ ---
--- --- ‫ך‬/‫את מקני‬ ---

--- --- ‫את‬/‫ו‬ ---
--- --- ‫כל‬ ---
--- --- ‫אשׁר‬ ‫אשׁ[ר‬ ---
--- --- ‫ך‬/‫ל‬ ‫ך‬/‫ל‬ ---
293
‫‪294‬‬

‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ב‪/‬שׂדה‬ ‫ב‪/‬שׂדה‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫כל‬ ‫כל‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ה‪/‬אדם‬ ‫ה‪/‬אדם‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬ה‪/‬בהמה‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫אשׁר‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ימצא‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ב‪/‬שׁדה‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬לא‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫יאסף‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ה‪/‬בית‪/‬ה‬ ‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬ירד‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫על‪/‬יהם‬ ‫[על‪/‬יהם‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ה‪/‬ברד‬ ‫ה‪/‬ברד‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬מתו‬ ‫]ו‪/‬מתו‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪Exod. 9:20‬‬ ‫ה‪/‬ירא‬ ‫‪ὁ φοβούµενος‬‬ ‫ה‪/‬ירא‬ ‫ה‪/‬ירא ]‬
‫את דבר‬ ‫‪τὸ ῥῆµα‬‬ ‫את דבר‬
‫יהוה‬ ‫‪κυρίου‬‬ ‫יהוה‬
‫מ‪/‬עבדי‬ ‫‪τῶν θεραπόντων‬‬ ‫מ‪/‬עבדי‬
Table (cont.)
‫הניס‬ συνήγαγεν ‫הניס‬
‫ו‬/‫את עבדי‬ --- ‫ו‬/‫את עבדי‬ [ ‫ו‬/‫את עבדי‬
‫הו‬/‫את מקנ‬/‫ו‬ τὰ κτήνη αὐτοῦ ‫הו‬/‫את מקנ‬/‫ו‬ [‫ה]ו‬/‫את מקנ‬/‫ו‬
‫אל‬ εἰς ‫אל‬ ‫אל‬
‫בתים‬/‫ה‬ τοὺς οἴκους ‫בתים‬/‫ה‬
Exod. 9:21 ‫אשׁר‬/‫ו‬ ὃς δὲ ‫אשׁר‬/‫ו‬
‫לא‬ µὴ ‫לא‬
‫שׂם‬ προσέσχεν ‫שׂם‬
‫ו‬/‫לב‬ τῇ διανοίᾳ --- ‫ו‬/‫לב‬
‫אל‬ εἰς ‫על‬
‫דבר‬ τὸ ῥῆµα ‫דבר‬
‫יהוה‬ κυρίου ‫יהוה‬
‫יעזב‬/‫ו‬ ἀφῆκεν ‫יעזב‬/‫ו‬

‫ו‬/‫את עבדי‬ --- ‫ו‬/‫את עבדי‬
‫הו‬/‫את מקנ‬/‫ו‬ τὰ κτήνη --- ‫הו‬/‫את מקנ‬/‫ו‬ ‫ה[ו‬/‫מקנ‬
‫שׂדה‬/‫ב‬ ἐν τῷ πεδίῳ ‫שׂדה‬/‫ב‬ [‫שׂ]דה‬/‫ב‬
295
Table (cont.)
296

‫נטה‬ ἔκτεινον ‫נטה‬
‫ך‬/‫את יד‬ τὴν χεῖρά σου ‫ך‬/‫את יד‬
‫על‬ εἰς ‫על‬
‫שׁמים‬/‫ה‬ τὸν οὐρανόν ‫שׁמים‬/‫ה‬ ‫שׁ[מים‬/‫ה‬
‫יהי‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἔσται ‫יהי‬/‫ו‬ ‫יהי‬/‫ו‬
appendix
‫ברד‬ χάλαζα ‫ברד‬ ]‫ברד‬

‫כל‬/‫ב‬ ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ‫כל‬/‫ב‬
‫על‬ ἐπί ‫על‬
‫אדם‬/‫ה‬ τε τοὺς ἀνθρώ- ‫אדם‬/‫ה‬
πους
‫על‬/‫ו‬ καὶ --- ‫על‬/‫ו‬

‫בהמה‬/‫ה‬ τὰ κτήνη ‫בהמה‬/‫ה‬
Table (cont.)
‫על‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐπὶ ‫על‬/‫ו‬
‫כל‬ πᾶσαν ‫כל‬
‫עשׂב‬ βοτάνην ‫עשׂב‬
‫שׂדה‬/‫ה‬ τὴν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ‫שׂדה‬/‫ה‬
‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬ --- ‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬
‫מצרים‬ --- ‫מצרים‬
Exod. 9:23 ‫יט‬/‫ו‬ ἐξέτεινεν δὲ ‫יט‬/‫ו‬
‫ו‬/‫את מטה‬ τὴν χεῖρα --- ‫ו‬/‫את מטה‬
‫שׁמים‬/‫ה‬ τὸν οὐρανόν ‫שׁמים‬/‫ה‬
‫יהוה‬/‫ו‬ καὶ κύριος ‫יהוה‬/‫ו‬
‫נתן‬ ἔδωκεν ‫נתן‬
‫קלת‬ φωνὰς ‫קולות‬

‫ברד‬/‫ו‬ καὶ χάλαζαν ‫ברד‬/‫ו‬
‫תהלך‬/‫ו‬ καὶ διέτρεχεν ‫תהלך‬/‫ו‬
‫ אשׁ‬--- τὸ πῦρ ‫ אשׁ‬---
‫ה‬/‫ארצ‬ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ‫ה‬/‫ארצ‬ ‫ה‬/‫[ארצ‬
297
Table (cont.)
298

‫ימטר‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἔβρεξεν ‫ימטר‬/‫ו‬ ‫ימטר‬/‫ו‬
‫יהוה‬ κύριος ‫יהוה‬ ‫יה]ו[ה‬
‫ברד‬ χάλαζαν ‫ברד‬ ]‫ברד‬
--- πᾶσαν ---
Exod. 9:24 ‫יהי‬/‫ו‬ ἦν δὲ ‫יהי‬/‫ו‬
‫ ברד‬--- ἡ χάλαζα ‫ברד‬/‫ה‬
appendix
‫אשׁ‬/---/‫ו‬ καὶ τὸ πῦρ ‫אשׁ‬/---/‫ו‬

‫מתלקחת‬ φλογίζον ‫מתלחקת‬
‫תוך‬/‫ב‬ ἐν ‫תוך‬/‫ב‬
‫ברד‬/‫ה‬ τῇ χαλάζῃ ‫ברד‬/‫ה‬
--- ἡ δὲ χάλαζα ---
‫כבד‬ πολλὴ ‫כבד‬
--- σφόδρα ---
‫אשׁר‬ ἥτις ‫אשׁר‬
Table (cont.)
! τοιαύτη !
‫היה‬ γέγονεν ‫היה‬
‫הו‬/‫מ‬/‫כ‬ ! ‫הו‬/‫מ‬/‫כ‬ ]‫הו‬/‫מ‬/‫[כ‬
‫כל‬/‫ב‬ ἐν --- ---/‫ב‬ ‫[כל‬/‫ב‬
‫ארץ‬ --- --- ‫ארץ‬
‫מצרים‬ αἰγύπτῳ ‫מצרים‬ ‫] מצרים‬
‫מאז‬ ἀφ’ οὗ ‫מאז‬
‫היתה‬ γεγένηται ‫היתה‬
--- ἐπ’ αὐτῆς ---
‫גוי‬/‫ל‬ --- ἔθνος ‫גוי‬/‫ל‬
Exod. 9:25 ‫יך‬/‫ו‬ ἐπάταξεν δὲ ‫יך‬/‫ו‬
‫ברד‬/‫ה‬ ἡ χάλαζα ‫ברד‬/‫ה‬
‫כל‬/‫ב‬ ἐν πάσῃ ---/‫ב‬

‫מצרים‬ αἰγύπτου ‫מצרים‬ ]‫מצר[ים‬
‫את כל‬ --- ‫את כל‬
‫אשׁר‬ --- ‫אשׁר‬
299
Table (cont.)
300

‫שׂדה‬/‫ב‬ --- ‫שׂדה‬/‫ב‬
‫אדם‬/‫מ‬ ἀπὸ ἀνθρώπου ‫אדם‬/‫מ‬
‫עד‬/‫ו‬ --- ἕως ‫ עד‬---
‫בהמה‬ κτήνους ‫בהמה‬
‫את כל‬/‫ו‬ καὶ πᾶσαν ‫את כל‬/‫ו‬ ]‫[את כל‬/‫ו‬
‫שׂדה‬/‫ה‬ τὴν ἐν τῷ πεδίῳ ‫שׂדה‬/‫ה‬
‫הכה‬ ἐπάταξεν ‫הכה‬ ‫]הכה‬
‫ברד‬/‫ה‬ ἡ χάλαζα ‫ברד‬/‫ה‬ ‫בר[ד‬/‫ה‬
appendix
‫את כל‬/‫ו‬ καὶ πάντα ‫את כל‬/‫ו‬ ] ‫את‬/‫ו‬

‫ עץ‬--- τὰ ξύλα ‫ עץ‬---
‫שׂדה‬/‫ה‬ τὰ ἐν τοῖς ‫שׂדה‬/‫ה‬
πεδίοις
‫שׁבר‬ συνέτριψεν ‫שׁבר‬

--- ἡ χάλαζα ---
Exod. 9:26 ‫רק‬ πλὴν ‫רק‬
‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬ ἐν γῇ ‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬
‫גשׁן‬ γέσεµ ‫גשׁן‬
Table (cont.)
‫אשׁר שׁם‬ οὗ ‫אשׁר שׁם‬
--- ἦσαν ---
‫בני‬ οἱ υἱοὶ ‫בני‬
‫ישׂראל‬ ἰσραήλ ‫ישׂראל‬
‫היה‬ ἐγένετο ‫היה‬ ‫]הי[ה‬
‫ברד‬ ἡ χάλαζα ‫ברד‬ ‫] ברד‬
Exod. 9:27 ‫ישׁלח‬/‫ו‬ ἀποστείλας δὲ ‫ישׁלח‬/‫ו‬ ‫י]שׁלח‬/‫[ו‬
‫יקרא‬/‫ו‬ ἐκάλεσεν ‫יקרא‬/‫ו‬
‫הם‬/‫אל‬ αὐτοῖς ‫יהם‬/‫אל‬

‫חטאתי‬ ἡµάρτηκα ‫חטאתי‬
‫פעם‬/‫ה‬ τὸ νῦν ‫פעם‬/‫ה‬ ‫פע[ם‬/‫]ה‬
‫יהוה‬ ὁ κύριος ‫יהוה‬ ‫יה]ו[ה‬ ‫]יהוה‬
‫צדיק‬/‫ה‬ δίκαιος ‫צדיק‬/‫ה‬ ‫צדי]ק‬/‫ה‬ ‫צ[דיק‬/‫ה‬ ‫צד[יק‬/‫ה‬
301
‫‪302‬‬

‫ו‪/‬אני‬ ‫‪ἐγὼ δὲ‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬אני‬ ‫ו‪/‬אני‬ ‫ו‪/‬א]ני‬
‫ו‪/‬עמ‪/‬י‬ ‫‪καὶ ὁ λαός µου‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬עמ‪/‬י‬ ‫ו‪/‬עמ‪/‬י‬
‫ה‪/‬רשׁעים‬ ‫‪ἀσεβεῖς‬‬ ‫ה‪/‬רשׁעים‬ ‫] ה‪/‬ר[שׁ]עים‬
‫‪Exod. 9:28‬‬ ‫העתירו‬ ‫‪εὔξασθε‬‬ ‫העתירו‬ ‫העתירו‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪οὖν‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪περὶ ἐµοῦ‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫אל‬ ‫‪πρὸς‬‬ ‫אל‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫יהוה‬ ‫‪κύριον‬‬ ‫יהוה‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫ו‪/‬רב‬ ‫‪καὶ παυσάσθω‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬רב‬ ‫ו‪/‬רב‬ ‫]ו[‪/‬רב‬
‫מ‪/‬הית‬ ‫‪τοῦ γενηθῆναι‬‬ ‫מ‪/‬היות‬ ‫מ‪/‬היות[‬ ‫] מ‪/‬הי[ות‬

‫קלת‬ ‫‪φωνὰς‬‬ ‫קולות‬ ‫קלות‬ ‫]קולות‬ ‫קלות]‬
‫אלהים‬ ‫‪θεοῦ‬‬ ‫אלהים‬ ‫אלהים‬ ‫אלו[הים‬
‫ו‪/‬ברד‬ ‫‪καὶ χάλαζαν‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬ברד‬ ‫ו‪/‬ב]רד‬ ‫ו‪/‬ברד‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪καὶ πῦρ‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬אשׁ‬
‫ו‪/‬אשׁלחה‬ ‫‪καὶ ἐξαποστελῶ‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬אשׁלח‬ ‫]ו‪/‬אשׁלחה‬
‫את‪/‬כם‬ ‫‪ὑµᾶς‬‬ ‫את‪/‬כם‬ ‫את‪/‬כם‬
‫ו‪/‬לא‬ ‫‪καὶ οὐκέτι‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬לא‬ ‫ו‪/‬לוא‬ ‫ו‪/‬לא [‬
‫תספון‬ ‫‪προσθήσεσθε‬‬ ‫תוסיפון‬ ‫תוספון[‬ ‫תספון‬
‫ל‪/‬עמד‬ ‫‪µένειν‬‬ ‫ל‪/‬עמד‬ ‫ל‪/‬עמוד [‬ ‫ל]‪/‬עמד‬
‫‪Exod. 9:29‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬יאמר‬ ‫‪εἶπεν δὲ‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬יאמר‬ ‫ו‪/‬יואמר‬
‫אל‪/‬יו‬ ‫‪αὐτῷ‬‬ ‫אל‪/‬יו‬ ‫!‬
‫משׁה‬ ‫‪µωυσῆς‬‬ ‫משׁה‬ ‫משׁה‬ ‫מושׁה‬
‫!‬ ‫!‬ ‫!‬ ‫] אל‪/‬יו‬
‫כ‪/‬צאת‪/‬י‬ ‫‪ὡς ἂν ἐξέλθω‬‬ ‫כ‪/‬צאת‪/‬י‬ ‫כ‪/‬צאת‪/‬י‬ ‫כ‪/‬צאת‪/‬י‬
‫את ה‪/‬עיר‬ ‫‪τὴν πόλιν‬‬ ‫את ה‪/‬עיר‬ ‫את ה]‪/‬עיר‬ ‫את ה‪/‬עיר‬ ‫א[ת ה‪/‬עיר‬
‫אפרשׂ‬ ‫‪ἐκπετάσω‬‬ ‫אפרשׂ‬ ‫אפרושׂ‬ ‫א]פר[שׂ‬
‫את כפ‪/‬י‬ ‫‪τὰς χεῖράς µου‬‬ ‫‪ ---‬כפ‪/‬י‬ ‫את כפ‪/‬י[‬ ‫‪ ---‬כפ‪/‬י‬
‫אל‬ ‫‪πρὸς‬‬ ‫אל‬ ‫]אל‬ ‫אל‬
‫יהוה‬ ‫‪κύριον‬‬ ‫יהוה‬ ‫יהוה [‬ ‫יהוה‬
‫‪ ---‬ה‪/‬קלות‬ ‫‪καὶ αἱ φωναὶ‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬ה‪/‬קולות‬ ‫‪ ---‬ה‪/‬קולות‬ ‫‪ ---‬ה‪/‬קלות‬
‫יחדלון‬ ‫‪παύσονται‬‬ ‫יחדלון‬ ‫יח]דלון‬ ‫יחדלו‬
‫ו‪/‬ה‪/‬ברד‬ ‫‪καὶ ἡ χάλαζα‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬ה‪/‬ברד‬ ‫ו‪/‬ה]‪/‬ב[רד‬ ‫ו‪/‬ה‪/‬ברד‬ ‫]ו‪[/‬ה‪/‬ברד‬

‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪καὶ ὁ ὑετὸς‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫לא‬ ‫‪οὐκ‬‬ ‫לא‬ ‫לא‬ ‫לוא‬ ‫לא‬
‫יהיה‬ ‫‪ἔσται‬‬ ‫יהיה‬ ‫יהיה‬ ‫יהיה‬ ‫יה]יה‬
‫עוד‬ ‫‪ἔτι‬‬ ‫עוד‬ ‫עוד‬ ‫עוד‬
‫‪303‬‬
‫‪304‬‬

‫ל‪/‬מען‬ ‫‪ἵνα‬‬ ‫ל‪/‬מען‬ ‫ל]‪/‬מען‬ ‫ל‪/‬מען[‬
‫תדע‬ ‫‪γνῷς‬‬ ‫תדע‬ ‫]תדע‬
‫כי‬ ‫‪ὅτι‬‬ ‫כי‬ ‫כי [‬
‫ל‪/‬יהוה‬ ‫‪τοῦ κυρίου‬‬ ‫ל‪/‬יהוה‬ ‫ל]‪/‬י[הוה‬
‫ה‪/‬ארץ‬ ‫‪ἡ γῆ‬‬ ‫ה‪/‬ארץ‬ ‫ה‪/‬אר]ץ‬
‫‪Exod. 9:30‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬אתה‬ ‫‪καὶ σὺ‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬אתה‬ ‫] ו‪/‬א[תה‬
‫ו‪/‬עבדי‪/‬ך‬ ‫‪καὶ οἱ θεράπον-‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬עבדי‪/‬ך‬ ‫ו‪/‬עבדי‪/‬ך‬
‫‪τές σου‬‬
‫ידעתי‬ ‫‪ἐπίσταµαι‬‬ ‫ידעתי‬ ‫ידעת]י [‬

‫כי‬ ‫‪ὅτι‬‬ ‫כי‬ ‫כ]י‬
‫טרם‬ ‫‪οὐδέπω‬‬ ‫טרם‬ ‫טרם‬

‫תיראון‬ ‫‪πεφόβησθε‬‬ ‫תיראון‬ ‫תי[ראו‬
‫מ‪/‬פני‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫מ‪/‬פני‬ ‫מ‪/‬פני‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫אדני‬ ‫אדני‬
‫יהוה‬ ‫‪τὸν κύριον‬‬ ‫יהוה‬ ‫יהוה‬
‫אלהים‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪Exod. 9:31‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬ה‪/‬פשׁתה‬ ‫‪τὸ δὲ λίνον‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬ה‪/‬פשׁתה‬ ‫ו‪/‬ה‪/‬פ]שׁתה‬
‫ו‪/‬ה‪/‬שׂערה‬ ‫‪καὶ ἡ κριθὴ‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬ה‪/‬שׂערה‬
Table (cont.)
‫נכתה‬ ἐπλήγη ‫נכו‬
! ἡ !
‫שׂערה‬/‫ה‬ ! κριθὴ ‫שׂערה‬/‫ה‬ !
‫אביב‬ παρεστηκυῖα ‫אביב‬ !
‫פשׁתה‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬ τὸ δὲ λίνον ‫פשׁתה‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬ [‫פשׁתה‬/‫ה‬
‫גבעל‬ σπερµατίζον ‫גבעל‬ ‫]גב[על‬
! ! ! ‫שׂ]ערה‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬
! ! ! ‫[·ב‬
Exod. 9:32 ‫חטה‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬ ὁ δὲ πυρὸς ‫חטה‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬ [ ‫ח]טה‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬
‫כסמת‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἡ ὀλύρα ‫כסמת‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬ ‫כסמת‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬
‫נכו‬ ἐπλήγη ‫נכו‬ ‫נ]כו‬
‫כי‬ ! ‫כי‬
‫אפילת‬ ὄψιµα ‫אפלות‬ ]‫[לות‬
! γὰρ !
--- ‫הנה‬ --- ἦν --- ‫הנה‬
305
Table (cont.)
306

Exod. 9:33 ‫יצא‬/‫ו‬ ἐξῆλθεν δὲ ‫יצא‬/‫ו‬ ‫י[צא‬/‫ו‬
--- ἐκτὸς ---
‫עיר‬/‫את ה‬ τῆς πόλεως ‫עיר‬/‫את ה‬
‫יפרשׂ‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐξεπέτασεν ‫יפרשׂ‬/‫ו‬ ‫יפרשׂ‬/‫ו‬
‫ו‬/‫כפי‬ τὰς χεῖρας --- ‫ו‬/‫כפי‬ ‫ו‬/‫כפי‬
‫אל‬ πρὸς ‫אל‬ ‫] א[ל‬
appendix
‫יהוה‬ κύριον ‫יהוה‬ ‫י]הוה‬

‫יחדלו‬/‫! ו‬ ! ‫יחדלו‬/‫! ו‬ ‫[יחד]לו‬/‫! ו‬
‫קלות‬/‫ה‬ ! καὶ αἱ φωναὶ ‫קולות‬/‫ה‬ ‫קול[ות‬/‫ה‬ ‫קלות‬/‫ה‬
! ἐπαύσαντο ! !
‫ברד‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἡ χάλαζα ‫ברד‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬ ] ‫ברד‬/‫[ה‬/‫ו‬
‫מטר‬/---/‫ו‬ καὶ ὁ ὑετὸς ‫מטר‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬
‫נתך‬ ἔσταξεν ‫נתך‬
--- ἔτι ---
Table (cont.)
‫ה‬/‫ארצ‬ ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ‫ה‬/‫ארצ‬
Exod. 9:34 ‫ירא‬/‫ו‬ ἰδὼν δὲ ‫ירא‬/‫ו‬
‫חדל‬ πέπαυται ‫חדל‬
‫מטר‬/‫ה‬ ὁ ὑετὸς !
‫ברד‬/‫ה‬/‫! ו‬ ! καὶ ἡ χάλαζα ‫ברד‬/‫! ה‬ ‫[·] [רד‬ ! ‫ברד‬/‫ה‬/‫[ו‬
! ! ‫מטר‬/‫ה‬/‫! ו‬ (?) ! (?) !
‫קלת‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬ καὶ αἱ φωναί ‫קולות‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬ ‫קלות‬/‫ה‬/‫ו‬
‫יסף‬/‫ו‬ προσέθετο ‫יסף‬/‫ו‬ ‫יס[ף‬/‫] ו‬
‫חטא‬/‫ל‬ τοῦ ἁµαρτάνειν ‫חטא‬/‫ל‬ ‫[חט]א‬/‫] ל‬
‫יכבד‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐβάρυνεν ‫יכבד‬/‫ו‬
‫ו‬/‫לב‬ αὐτοῦ τὴν ‫ו‬/‫לב‬
καρδίαν
‫הוא‬ --- ‫הוא‬

‫ו‬/‫עבדי‬/‫ו‬ καὶ τῶν θερα- ‫ו‬/‫עבדי‬/‫ו‬
πόντων αὐτοῦ
307
Table (cont.)
308

Exod. 9:35 ‫יחזק‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐσκληρύνθη ‫יחזק‬/‫ו‬ ‫יח[זק‬/‫ו‬
‫ לב‬--- ἡ καρδία ‫ לב‬--- ‫ לב‬---
‫ בני‬--- ‫את‬ τοὺς υἱοὺς ‫ בני‬--- ‫את‬ ‫[את בני‬
‫ישׂראל‬ ἰσραήλ ‫ישׂראל‬ ‫י]שׂראל‬
‫אשׁר‬/‫כ‬ καθάπερ ‫אשׁר‬/‫כ‬ ‫[אשׁר‬/‫]כ‬
‫דבר‬ ἐλάλησεν ‫דבר‬ ‫דב]ר‬
appendix
‫יהוה‬ κύριος ‫יהוה‬ ‫י[הו]ה‬

‫יד‬/‫ב‬ --- ‫יד‬/‫ב‬ ‫יד‬/‫ב‬
‫ משׁה‬--- τῷ µωυσῇ ‫ משׁה‬--- ‫ משׁה‬---[ ]‫ משׁה‬---
[vacat]
Exod. 10:1 ‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬ εἶπεν δὲ ‫יאמר‬/‫יאומר ו‬/ vacat] ‫[ ו‬
--- λέγων ---
Table (cont.)
‫בא‬ εἴσελθε ‫בא‬ ‫[בוא‬
‫פרעה‬ φαραώ ‫פרעה‬ ‫פ]רעה‬
‫כי‬ ! ‫כי‬
! γὰρ !
‫הכבדתי‬ ἐβάρυνα ‫הכבדתי‬
‫ו‬/‫את לב‬ αὐτοῦ τὴν καρ- ‫ו‬/‫את לב‬ [ ‫ו‬/‫א[ת ל]ב‬
δίαν
‫את לב‬/‫ו‬ καὶ --- ‫את לב‬/‫ו‬ ]‫את לב‬/‫ו‬ ‫[את לב‬/‫ו‬
‫ו‬/‫עבדי‬ τῶν θεραπόντων ‫ו‬/‫עבדי‬ ‫ו‬/‫עב]די‬
αὐτοῦ

‫ שׁתי‬--- ἑξῆς ἐπέλθῃ ‫ שׁתי‬---
--- ‫י‬/‫אתת‬ τὰ σηµεῖα --- ‫י‬/‫אותת‬

‫אלה‬ ταῦτα ‫אלה‬
‫ו‬/‫קרב‬/‫ב‬ ἐπ’ αὐτούς ‫ו‬/‫קרב‬/‫ב‬ ‫ו‬/‫קר]ב‬/‫[ב‬
309
Table (cont.)
310

Exod. 10:2 ‫מען‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬ --- ὅπως ‫מען‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬
‫תספר‬ διηγήσησθε ‫תספר‬
‫אזני‬/‫ב‬ εἰς τὰ ὦτα ‫אזני‬/‫ב‬
‫ך‬/‫בנ‬ τῶν τέκνων ‫ך‬/‫בנ‬
ὑµῶν
‫בן‬/‫ו‬ καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις ‫בן‬/‫ו‬ ‫בן‬/‫[ו‬

‫ך‬/‫בנ‬ τῶν τέκνων ‫ך‬/‫בנ‬ ]‫ך‬/‫בנ‬
ὑµῶν
‫את אשׁר‬ ὅσα ‫את אשׁר‬

‫התעללתי‬ ἐµπέπαιχα ‫התעללתי‬
appendix
‫מצרים‬/‫ב‬ τοῖς αἰγυπτίοις ‫מצרים‬/‫ב‬

sup
‫י‬/‫את אתת‬/‫ו‬ καὶ τὰ σηµεῖά ‫י‬/‫את אותת‬/‫ו‬ ]‫י‬/‫א[ת אתת‬/‫ו‬
µου
‫אשׁר‬ ἃ ‫אשׁר‬
‫שׂמתי‬ ἐποίησα ‫שׂמתי‬
‫ם‬/‫ב‬ ἐν αὐτοῖς ‫ם‬/‫ב‬
‫ידעתם‬/‫ו‬ καὶ γνώσεσθε ‫ידעתם‬/‫ו‬ ‫יד[עתם‬/‫[·] ו‬
Table (cont.)
--- --- ‫כם‬/‫אלהי‬
Exod. 10:2b --- --- ‫אמרת‬/‫ו‬ ---
--- --- ‫אל‬ ---
--- --- ‫פרעה‬ ---
--- --- ‫כה‬ ---
--- --- ‫אמר‬ ---
--- --- ‫יהוה‬ ---
--- --- ‫אלהי‬ ---
--- --- ‫עברים‬/‫ה‬ ---
--- --- ‫עד‬ ---
--- --- ‫מתי‬ ---
--- --- ‫מאנת‬ ---
--- --- ‫ענות‬/‫ל‬ ---

--- --- ‫פני‬/‫מ‬ ---
--- --- ‫שׁלח‬ ---
--- --- ‫י‬/‫את עמ‬ ---
--- --- ‫ני‬/‫יעבד‬/‫ו‬ ---
311
Table (cont.)
312

--- --- ‫כי אם‬ ---
--- --- ‫מאן‬ ---
--- --- ‫אתה‬ ---
--- --- ‫שׁלח‬/‫ל‬ ---
--- --- ‫י‬/‫את עמ‬ ---
--- --- ‫ני‬/‫הנ‬ ---
--- --- ‫מביא‬ ---
--- --- ‫מחר‬ ---
--- --- ‫ארבה‬ ---
appendix
--- --- ‫ך‬/‫גבול‬/‫ב‬ ---

--- --- ‫כסה‬/‫ו‬ ---
--- --- ‫את עין‬ ---
--- --- ‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬ ---
--- --- ‫לא‬/‫ו‬ ---
--- --- ‫יכל‬ ---
--- --- ‫ראות‬/‫ל‬ ---
--- --- ‫ארץ‬/‫את ה‬ ---
--- --- ‫אכל‬/‫ו‬ ---
Table (cont.)
--- --- ‫את יתר‬ ---
--- --- ‫פלטה‬/‫ה‬ ---
--- --- ‫נשׁארת‬/‫ה‬ ---
--- --- ‫כם‬/‫ל‬ ---
--- --- ‫מן‬ ---
--- --- ‫ברד‬/‫ה‬ ---
--- --- ‫אכל‬/‫ו‬ ‫א[כל‬/‫ו‬ ---
--- --- ‫את כל‬ ---
--- --- ‫עשׂב‬ ---
--- --- ‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬ ---
--- --- ‫את כל‬/‫ו‬ ---
--- --- ‫פרי‬ ---
--- --- ‫עץ‬/‫ה‬ ---
--- --- ‫צמח‬/‫ה‬ ---

--- --- ‫כם‬/‫ל‬ ---
--- --- ‫מן‬ ---
--- --- ‫שׂדה‬/‫ה‬ ---
--- --- ‫מלאו‬/‫ו‬ ‫מלא[ו‬/‫ו‬ ---
313
Table (cont.)
314

--- --- ‫ך‬/‫בתי‬ ---
--- --- ‫בתי‬/‫ו‬ ---
--- --- ‫כל‬ ---
--- --- ‫ך‬/‫עבדי‬ ---
--- --- ‫בתי‬/‫ו‬ ---
--- --- ‫כל‬ ---
--- --- ‫מצרים‬ ---
--- --- ‫אשׁר‬ ---
--- --- ‫לא‬ ---
appendix
--- --- ‫ראו‬ ---

--- --- ‫ך‬/‫אבותי‬ ---
--- --- ‫אבות‬/‫ו‬ ‫אבו[ת‬/‫ו‬ ---
--- --- ‫ך‬/‫אבותי‬ ---
--- --- ‫יום‬/‫מ‬ ---
--- --- ‫ם‬/‫היות‬ ---
--- --- ‫על‬ ---
--- --- ‫אדמה‬/‫ה‬ ---
--- --- ‫עד‬ ---
Table (cont.)
--- --- ‫יום‬/‫ה‬ ---
--- --- ‫זה‬/‫ה‬ ---
Exod. 10:3 ‫יבא‬/‫ו‬ εἰσῆλθεν δὲ ‫יבא‬/‫ו‬
‫משׁה‬ µωυσῆς ‫משׁה‬ ‫מ[שׁה‬
‫אל‬ ἐναντίον ‫אל‬
--- ‫פרעה‬ φαραὼ --- --- ‫פרעה‬ ··‫מצר‬/‫[· ב‬
‫יאמרו‬/‫ו‬ καὶ εἶπαν ‫יאמרו‬/‫ו‬ ‫יא[מרו‬/‫] ו‬
‫יו‬/‫אל‬ αὐτῷ ‫יו‬/‫אל‬ ‫יו‬/‫[אל‬ ‫יו‬/]‫אל‬
‫כה‬ τάδε ‫כה‬ ‫כה‬
‫אמר‬ λέγει ‫אמר‬ ‫אמר‬
‫יהוה‬ κύριος ‫יהוה‬ ‫י]הוה‬
‫אלהי‬ ὁ θεὸς ‫אלהי‬ ‫א[להי‬

‫עד‬ ἕως ‫עד‬ ‫[עד‬
‫מתי‬ τίνος ‫מתי‬
‫מאנת‬ οὐ βούλει ‫מאנת‬
‫ענת‬/‫ל‬ ἐντραπῆναί ‫ענות‬/‫ל‬
315
Table (cont.)
316

‫פני‬/‫מ‬ µε ‫פני‬/‫מ‬
‫י‬/‫ עמ‬--- τὸν λαόν µου ‫י‬/‫את עמ‬ ‫י‬/‫[את עמ‬
‫ני‬/‫יעבד‬/‫ו‬ ἵνα λατρεύσω- ‫ני‬/‫יעבד‬/‫ו‬ [ ‫ני‬/‫י]עבד‬/‫ו‬
σίν µοι
Exod. 10:4 ‫כי אם‬ ἐὰν δὲ ‫כי אם‬ ‫[כי אם‬

‫מאן‬ µὴ θέλῃς ‫מאן‬ ‫מאן‬
‫אתה‬ --- ‫אתה‬ ‫את]ה‬
‫שׁלח‬/‫ל‬ ἐξαποστεῖλαι ‫שׁלח‬/‫ל‬ ]‫שׁ[לח‬/‫ל‬
τὸν λαόν µου
appendix
‫י‬/‫את עמ‬ ‫י‬/‫את עמ‬

‫ני‬/‫הנ‬ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ‫ני‬/‫הנ‬ (?) ‫[ה‬
‫מביא‬ ἐπάγω ‫מביא‬
--- ταύτην τὴν ---
ὥραν
‫מחר‬ αὔριον ‫מחר‬

‫ארבה‬ ἀκρίδα ‫ארבה‬ ‫א[רבה‬
--- πολλὴν --- ---
! ἐπὶ ! !
Table (cont.)
--- πάντα --- ---
‫ך‬/‫גבל‬/‫ב‬ τὰ ὅριά σου ‫ך‬/‫גבול‬/‫ב‬ ‫ך‬/‫ג]בול‬/‫ב‬
Exod. 10:5 ‫כסה‬/‫ו‬ καὶ καλύψει ‫כסה‬/‫ו‬
‫את עין‬ τὴν ὄψιν ‫את עין‬ ‫ע[ין‬
‫לא‬/‫ו‬ καὶ οὐ ‫לא‬/‫ו‬
‫יוכל‬ δυνήσῃ ‫יכל‬
‫ראת‬/‫ל‬ κατιδεῖν ‫ראות‬/‫ל‬ ‫רא[ות‬/‫ל‬ ‫ראו[ת‬/‫ל‬
‫ארץ‬/‫את ה‬ τὴν γῆν ‫ארץ‬/‫את ה‬ ‫ארץ‬/‫]את[ ה‬ ‫א]רץ‬/‫את ה‬
‫אכל‬/‫ו‬ καὶ κατέδεται ‫אכל‬/‫ו‬ ‫אכל‬/‫ו‬
--- ‫את‬ πᾶν --- ‫את‬ --- ‫את‬
‫יתר‬ τὸ περισσὸν ‫יתר‬ ‫י]תר‬
‫פלטה‬/‫ה‬ τὸ καταλειφθέν ‫פלטה‬/‫ה‬
‫נשׁארת‬/‫ה‬ ὃ κατέλιπεν ‫נשׁארת‬/‫ה‬

‫כם‬/‫ל‬ ὑµῖν ‫כם‬/‫ל‬
‫מן‬ --- ‫מן‬
‫ברד‬/‫ה‬ ἡ χάλαζα ‫ברד‬/‫ה‬
‫אכל‬/‫ו‬ καὶ κατέδεται ‫אכל‬/‫ו‬
317
Table (cont.)
318

‫את כל‬ πᾶν ‫את כל‬ [‫כ]ל‬
--- --- ‫עשׂב‬ ‫עשׂב‬
--- --- ‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬ ‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬
--- --- ‫את כל‬/‫ו‬ ‫את כל‬/‫ו‬
--- --- ‫פרי‬ ‫] פרי‬
‫עץ‬/‫ה‬ ξύλον ‫עץ‬/‫ה‬
‫צמח‬/‫ה‬ τὸ φυόµενον ‫צמח‬/‫ה‬
‫כם‬/‫ל‬ ὑµῖν ‫כם‬/‫ל‬
‫מן‬ ἐπὶ ‫מן‬
appendix
‫שׂדה‬/‫ה‬ τῆς γῆς ‫שׂדה‬/‫ה‬

Exod. 10:6 ‫מלאו‬/‫ו‬ καὶ πλησθή- ‫מלאו‬/‫ו‬
σονταί
‫ך‬/‫בתי‬ σου αἱ οἰκίαι ‫ך‬/‫בתי‬

‫בתי‬/‫ו‬ καὶ αἱ οἰκίαι ‫בתי‬/‫ו‬ ‫בתי‬/‫[ו‬
‫כל‬ --- ‫כל‬ ‫כל‬
‫ך‬/‫עבדי‬ τῶν θεραπόντων ‫ך‬/‫עבדי‬ ‫ך‬/‫עבדי‬
σου
! καὶ ! !
--- πᾶσαι --- ---
Table (cont.)
‫בתי‬/‫ו‬ ! αἱ οἰκίαι ‫בתי‬/‫ו‬ ‫ב]תי‬/‫ו‬
‫ כל‬--- ἐν πάσῃ ‫ כל‬---
--- γῇ ---
‫אשׁר‬ ἃ ‫אשׁר‬
‫לא‬ οὐδέποτε ‫לא‬
‫ראו‬ ἑωράκασιν ‫ראו‬
‫ך‬/‫אבתי‬ οἱ πατέρες σου ‫ך‬/‫אבותי‬
‫ך‬/‫אבות אבתי‬/‫ו‬ οὐδὲ οἱ πρόπαπ- ‫אבות‬/‫ו‬
ποι αὐτῶν ‫ך‬/‫אבותי‬
‫יום‬/‫מ‬ ἀφ’ ἧς ἡµέρας ‫יום‬/‫מ‬
‫ם‬/‫היות‬ γεγόνασιν ‫ם‬/‫היות‬
‫על‬ ἐπὶ ‫על‬ ‫]ע[ל‬
‫אדמה‬/‫ה‬ τῆς γῆς ‫אדמה‬/‫ה‬ ‫אד[מה‬/]‫ה‬

‫עד‬ ἕως ‫עד‬ ‫עד‬
‫יום‬/‫ה‬ τῆς ἡµέρας ‫יום‬/‫ה‬ ‫י]ום‬/‫ה‬
‫זה‬/‫ה‬ ταύτης ‫זה‬/‫ה‬
‫יפן‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐκκλίνας ‫יפן‬/‫ו‬
319
Table (cont.)
320

--- µωυσῆς ---
‫יצא‬/‫ו‬ ἐξῆλθεν ‫יצא‬/‫ו‬
Exod. 10:7 ‫יאמרו‬/‫ו‬ λέγουσιν δὲ ‫יאמרו‬/‫ו‬
‫עבדי‬ οἱ θεράποντες ‫עבדי‬
‫יו‬/‫אל‬ πρὸς αὐτόν ‫יו‬/‫אל‬ ] ‫יו‬/‫אל‬
appendix
‫מתי‬ τίνος ‫מתי‬

‫זה‬ τοῦτο ‫זה‬
‫נו‬/‫ל‬ ἡµῖν ‫נו‬/‫ל‬
‫מוקשׁ‬/‫ל‬ σκῶλον ‫מוקשׁ‬/‫ל‬
‫שׁלח‬ ἐξαπόστειλον ‫שׁלח‬ ‫[ שׁלח‬
‫אנשׁים‬/‫את ה‬ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ‫אנשׁים‬/‫את ה‬ ‫אנשׁ]ים‬/‫את ה‬
‫יעבדו‬/‫ו‬ ὅπως λατρεύσω- ‫יעבדו‬/‫ו‬
σιν
Table (cont.)
‫את יהוה‬ κυρίῳ ‫את יהוה‬ ‫את יהוה‬
‫הם‬/‫אלהי‬ τῷ θεῷ αὐτῶν ‫הם‬/‫אלהי‬ ‫הם‬/]‫אלהי‬
‫טרם‬/‫ה‬ ἢ --- ‫טרם‬/‫ה‬
‫תדע‬ εἰδέναι ‫תדע‬
--- βούλει ---
‫אבדה‬ ἀπόλωλεν ‫אבדה‬
‫מצרים‬ αἴγυπτος ‫מצרים‬
Exod. 10:8 ‫יושׁב‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἀπέστρεψαν ‫ישׁב‬/‫ו‬ ‫יושׁ[ב‬/‫ו‬
‫את משׁה‬ τόν τε µωυσῆν ‫את משׁה‬ [ ‫את משׁ]ה‬
‫את אהרן‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἀαρὼν ‫את אהרן‬/‫ו‬ ‫א[ת אהרון‬/]‫ו‬ ‫את אהרן‬/‫ו‬
‫אל‬ πρὸς ‫אל‬ ‫אל‬ ]‫אל‬
‫פרעה‬ φαραὼ ‫פרעה‬ ‫פ]רעה‬

‫הם‬/‫אל‬ αὐτοῖς ‫יהם‬/‫אל‬
‫לכו‬ πορεύεσθε ‫לכו‬
‫עבדו‬ λατρεύσατε ‫עבדו‬
‫את יהוה‬ κυρίῳ ‫את יהוה‬
321
Table (cont.)
322

‫כם‬/‫אלהי‬ τῷ θεῷ ὑµῶν ‫כם‬/‫אלהי‬
‫מי‬ τίνες δὲ ‫מי‬ ‫מי‬
‫מי‬/‫ו‬ καὶ τίνες ‫מי‬/‫ו‬ ‫מי‬/‫ו‬ ‫[מי‬/‫ו‬
--- εἰσὶν --- --- ---
‫הלכים‬/‫ה‬ οἱ πορευόµενοι ‫הלכים‬/‫ה‬ ‫הולכים‬/‫ה‬ ‫הולכים‬/‫ה‬
Exod. 10:9 ‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬ καὶ λέγει ‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬ ] ‫יא]מ[ר‬/‫ו‬ ‫יא]מר‬/‫ו‬
‫משׁה‬ µωυσῆς ‫משׁה‬ [ ‫משׁה‬
sup
‫נו‬/‫נערי‬/---/‫ב‬ σὺν τοῖς νεα- ‫נו‬/‫נערי‬/---/‫ב‬ ‫נו‬/‫נערי‬/---/‫ב‬
νίσκοις ---
sup
appendix
‫נו‬/‫זקני‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ καὶ --- πρεσβυ- ‫נו‬/‫זקני‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ ‫נו‬/‫זקני‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

τέροις ---
sup
‫נלך‬ πορευσόµεθα ‫נלך‬ ‫נלך‬
‫נו‬/‫בני‬/---/‫ב‬ σὺν τοῖς υἱοῖς ‫נו‬/‫בני‬/---/‫ב‬ ‫נו‬/‫בנ]י‬/---/‫ב‬
---
‫נו‬/‫בנות‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ καὶ --- θυγατ- ‫נו‬/‫בנת‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ ‫נו‬/‫בנותי‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬
ράσιν ---
‫נו‬/‫צאנ‬/‫ ב‬--- καὶ --- προβά- ‫נו‬/‫צאנ‬/‫ ב‬--- ‫נו‬/‫צאנ‬/‫ ב‬---

τοις ---
‫נו‬/‫בקר‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ καὶ --- βουσὶν ‫נו‬/‫בקר‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ ] ‫נו‬/‫בקר‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

ἡµῶν
Table (cont.)
‫נלך‬ --- ‫נלך‬
--- ἔστιν ---
‫חג‬ ἑορτὴ ‫חג‬
--- ‫יהוה‬ κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ --- ‫יהוה‬
‫נו‬/‫ל‬ ἡµῶν ‫נו‬/‫ל‬
‫הם‬/‫אל‬ πρὸς αὐτούς ‫יהם‬/‫אל‬ ‫יהם‬/‫אל‬
‫יהי‬ ἔστω ‫יהיה‬ ‫יהי‬
‫כן‬ οὕτως ‫כן‬ ‫כן‬
‫כם‬/‫עמ‬ µεθ’ ὑµῶν ‫כם‬/‫עמ‬ ‫כ]ם‬/‫עמ‬
‫אשׁר‬/‫כ‬ καθότι ‫אשׁר‬/‫כ‬
‫אשׁלח‬ ἀποστέλλω ‫אשׁלח‬

‫את‬/‫ו‬ µὴ καὶ ‫את‬/‫ו‬
--- ‫כם‬/‫טפ‬ τὴν ἀποσκευὴν ‫כם‬/‫ טפ‬---
ὑµῶν
323
‫ראו‬ ἴδετε ‫ראו‬

Table (cont.)
324

‫רעה‬ πονηρία ‫רעה‬ ‫]ר[עה‬
‫נגד‬ πρόκειται ‫נגד‬ ‫נגד‬
‫יכם‬/‫פנ‬ ὑµῖν ‫יכם‬/‫פנ‬ ‫יכם‬/‫פנ‬
Exod. 10:11 ‫לא‬ µὴ --- ‫לא‬
‫כן‬ οὕτως --- ]‫כן‬
--- --- ‫לכן‬ ---
‫לכו‬ πορευέσθωσαν ‫לכו‬
‫נא‬ δὲ ‫נא‬
appendix
‫גברים‬/‫ה‬ οἱ ἄνδρες ‫גברים‬/‫ה‬

‫עבדו‬/‫ו‬ καὶ λατρεύσατε ‫עבדו‬/‫ו‬
‫את יהוה‬ τῷ θεῷ ‫את יהוה‬
‫כי‬ ! ‫כי‬
‫ה‬/‫את‬ τοῦτο ‫ה‬/‫את‬
! γὰρ !
‫אתם‬ αὐτοὶ ‫אתם‬ ‫אתם‬
‫מבקשׁים‬ ζητεῖτε ‫מבקשׁים‬ ‫מבק]שׁ[ים‬
‫יגרשׁ‬/‫ו‬ ἐξέβαλον δὲ ‫יגרשׁו‬/‫ו‬ ‫יג]רשׁו‬/‫ו‬
Table (cont.)
‫ם‬/‫את‬ αὐτοὺς ‫ם‬/‫את‬ ‫ם‬/‫את‬
‫את פני‬/‫מ‬ ἀπὸ προσώπου ‫את פני‬/‫מ‬ ‫מאת פני‬
Exod. 10:12 ‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬ εἶπεν δὲ ‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬ ‫יא[ומר‬/vacat ‫ו‬
‫יהוה‬ κύριος ‫יהוה‬ [‫יהו]ה‬
‫משׁה‬ µωυσῆν ‫משׁה‬ ‫משׁ]ה‬
‫נטה‬ ἔκτεινον ‫נטה‬
‫ך‬/‫ יד‬--- τὴν χεῖρα --- ‫ך‬/‫את יד‬
‫ארץ‬ γῆν ‫ארץ‬ ‫אר[ץ‬
‫מצרים‬ αἰγύπτου ‫מצרים‬ ‫מצרי]ם‬
‫ארבה‬/‫ב‬ ! ‫ארבה‬/‫ב‬
‫יעל‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἀναβήτω ‫יעל‬/‫ו‬

! ἀκρὶς !
‫ ארץ‬--- τὴν γῆν ‫ ארץ‬---
‫מצרים‬ --- ‫מצרים‬
325
Table (cont.)
326

‫יאכל‬/‫ו‬ καὶ κατέδεται ‫יאכל‬/‫ו‬ ] ‫יאכ[ל‬/‫ו‬
‫את כל‬ πᾶσαν ‫את כל‬
‫ את כל‬--- καὶ πάντα ‫ואת כל‬
--- τὸν καρπὸν ‫פרי‬
--- τῶν ξύλων ‫עץ‬/‫ה‬
‫אשׁר‬ ὅν ‫אשׁר‬
‫השׁאיר‬ ὑπελίπετο ‫השׁאיר‬
appendix
‫ברד‬/‫ה‬ ἡ χάλαζα ‫ברד‬/‫ה‬ ‫ברד‬/‫[ה‬

Exod. 10:13 ‫יט‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐπῆρεν ‫יט‬/‫ו‬ ‫יטה‬/‫ו‬
‫משׁה‬ µωυσῆς ‫משׁה‬ ]‫מ]שׁ[ה‬
‫ו‬/‫את מטה‬ τὴν ῥάβδον --- ‫ו‬/‫את יד‬
‫ארץ מצרים‬ --- ‫ארץ מצרים‬
--- τὸν οὐρανόν ---
‫יהוה‬/‫ו‬ καὶ κύριος ‫יהוה‬/‫ו‬
‫נהג‬ ἐπήγαγεν ‫נהג‬
Table (cont.)
‫רוח‬ ἄνεµον ‫רוח‬
‫קדים‬ νότον ‫קדים‬
‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬ ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬
‫כל‬ ὅλην ‫כל‬
‫יום‬/‫ה‬ τὴν ἡµέραν ‫יום‬/‫ה‬
‫הוא‬/‫ה‬ ἐκείνην ‫הוא‬/‫ה‬
‫כל‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ὅλην ‫כל‬/‫ו‬ ‫כל‬/‫[ו‬
‫לילה‬/‫ה‬ τὴν νύκτα ‫לילה‬/‫ה‬ ‫לילה‬/‫ה‬
‫בקר‬/‫ה‬ τὸ πρωὶ ‫בקר‬/‫ה‬ ‫בקר‬/‫ה‬
‫היה‬ ἐγενήθη ‫היה‬ ‫הי]ה‬
‫רוח‬/---/‫ו‬ καὶ ὁ ἄνεµος ‫רוח‬/---/‫ו‬ ‫רוח‬/---/‫ו‬
‫קדים‬/‫ה‬ ὁ νότος ‫קדים‬/‫ה‬ ‫ק[דים‬/‫ה‬
‫נשׂא‬ ἀνέλαβεν ‫נשׂאה‬ ‫נשׂא‬
‫ארבה‬/‫את ה‬ τὴν ἀκρίδα ‫ארבה‬/‫את ה‬ ] ‫את‬

Exod. 10:14 ‫יעל‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἀνήγαγεν ‫יעל‬/‫ו‬
‫ארבה‬/‫ה‬ αὐτὴν ‫ארבה‬/‫ה‬
‫כל‬ πᾶσαν ‫כל‬
327
Table (cont.)
328

‫ינח‬/‫ו‬ καὶ κατέπαυσεν ‫ינח‬/‫ו‬
‫כל‬/‫ב‬ ἐπὶ πάντα ‫כל‬/‫ב‬ ‫כל‬/‫[ב‬
‫גבול‬ τὰ ὅρια ‫גבול‬ ‫גבול‬
‫מצרים‬ αἰγύπτου ‫מצרים‬ ‫מ]צרים‬
‫כבד‬ πολλὴ ‫כבד‬
‫ו‬/‫פני‬/‫ל‬ προτέρα αὐτῆς ‫ו‬/‫פני‬/‫ל‬
appendix
‫היה‬ γέγονεν ‫היה‬ ‫[היה‬
! ‫כן‬ τοιαύτη ! ‫כן‬ ! ‫כן‬
‫ארבה‬ ἀκρὶς ‫ארבה‬ ]‫ארבה‬
‫הו‬/‫מ‬/‫כ‬ ! ‫הו‬/‫מ‬/‫כ‬
‫יו‬/‫אחר‬/‫ו‬ καὶ µετ’ αὐτὴν ‫יו‬/‫אחר‬/‫ו‬
Table (cont.)
Exod. 10:15 ‫יכס‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐκάλυψεν ‫יכס‬/‫ו‬
‫את עין‬ τὴν ὄψιν ‫את עין‬
‫כל‬ --- ‫כל‬
‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬ τῆς γῆς ‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬ ‫[ארץ‬/‫ה‬
‫תחשׁך‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐφθάρη ‫תחשׁך‬/‫ו‬ ]‫תשׁחת‬/‫ו‬
‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬ ἡ γῆ ‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬
‫יאכל‬/‫ו‬ καὶ κατέφαγεν ‫יאכל‬/‫ו‬
‫את כל‬ πᾶσαν ‫את כל‬
‫עשׂב‬ βοτάνην ‫עשׂב‬ ‫[עשׂב‬
‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬ τῆς γῆς ‫ארץ‬/‫ה‬ ‫א]רץ‬/‫ה‬
‫את כל‬/‫ו‬ καὶ πάντα ‫את כל‬/‫ו‬
‫פרי‬ τὸν καρπὸν ‫פרי‬
‫עץ‬/‫ה‬ τῶν ξύλων ‫עץ‬/‫ה‬
‫אשׁר‬ ὃς ‫אשׁר‬
‫הותיר‬ ὑπελείφθη ‫הותיר‬
--- ἀπὸ ---
‫ברד‬/‫ה‬ τῆς χαλάζης ‫ברד‬/‫ה‬
‫לא‬/‫ו‬ --- οὐχ ‫לא‬/‫ו‬
329
Table (cont.)
330

‫נותר‬ ὑπελείφθη ‫נותר‬ ‫[נותר‬
! --- χλωρὸν ! !
--- οὐδὲν --- ---
‫כל ירק‬ ! ‫כל ירק‬ ‫כל ירק‬
‫עץ‬/‫ב‬ ἐν τοῖς ξύλοις ‫עץ‬/‫ב‬ ‫עץ‬/‫ב‬
! καὶ ἐν ! !
--- πάσῃ --- ---
‫עשׂב‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ ! βοτάνῃ ‫עשׂב‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ ‫עשׂב‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬
‫שׂדה‬/‫ה‬ τοῦ πεδίου ‫שׂדה‬/‫ה‬ ‫שׂ[דה‬/‫] ה‬
appendix
‫כל‬/‫ב‬ ἐν πάσῃ ‫כל‬/‫ב‬ ‫כל‬/‫ב‬

‫ארץ‬ γῇ ‫ארץ‬ ‫אר]ץ‬
Exod. 10:16 ‫ימהר‬/‫ו‬ κατέσπευσεν δὲ ‫ימהר‬/‫ו‬
‫קרא‬/‫ל‬ καλέσαι ‫קרא‬/‫ל‬
‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬ λέγων ‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬
Table (cont.)
‫חטאתי‬ ἡµάρτηκα ‫חטאתי‬
‫יהוה‬/‫ל‬ ἐναντίον κυρίου ‫יהוה‬/‫ל‬ ‫י[הוה‬/‫ל‬
‫כם‬/‫אלהי‬ τοῦ θεοῦ ὑµῶν ‫כם‬/‫אלהי‬ ‫כם‬/‫אלהי‬
‫כם‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬ καὶ εἰς ὑµᾶς ‫כם‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬ [‫כם‬/]‫ל‬/‫ו‬
Exod. 10:17 ‫עתה‬/‫ו‬ --- ‫עתה‬/‫ו‬ ‫עתה‬/‫ו‬
‫שׂא‬ προσδέξασθε ‫שׂאו‬ ‫שׂאו‬
‫נא‬ οὖν ‫נא‬ ‫נ]א‬
‫י‬/‫חטאת‬ µου τὴν ἁµαρ- ‫י‬/‫חטאת‬
τίαν
‫אך‬ ἔτι ‫אך‬

‫פעם‬/‫ה‬ νῦν ‫פעם‬/‫ה‬
‫העתירו‬/‫ו‬ καὶ προσεύ- ‫ העתירו‬---
ξασθε
‫יהוה‬/‫ל‬ πρὸς κύριον ‫אל יהוה‬

‫כם‬/‫אלהי‬ τὸν θεὸν ὑµῶν ‫כם‬/‫אלהי‬

‫יסר‬/‫ו‬ καὶ περιελέτω ‫יסר‬/‫ו‬
‫י‬/‫על‬/‫מ‬ ἀπ’ ἐµοῦ ‫י‬/‫על‬/‫מ‬
‫רק‬ --- ‫רק‬
‫מות‬/‫את ה‬ τὸν θάνατον ‫מות‬/‫את ה‬
331
‫זה‬/‫ה‬ τοῦτον ‫זה‬/‫ה‬

Table (cont.)
332

‫פרעה‬ φαραώ ‫פרעה‬ ‫פר[עה‬
‫יעתר‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ηὔξατο ‫יעתר‬/‫ו‬ ‫יעתר‬/‫ו‬
‫אל‬ πρὸς ‫אל‬ ‫א]ל‬
‫יהוה‬ τὸν θεόν ‫יהוה‬ ‫יהוה‬
Exod. 10:19 ‫יהפך‬/‫ו‬ καὶ µετέβαλεν ‫יהפך‬/‫ו‬ ]‫י[הפך‬/‫ו‬
appendix
‫רוח‬ ἄνεµον ‫רוח‬

--- ἀπὸ ---
‫ים‬ θαλάσσης ‫ים‬
‫חזק מאד‬ σφοδρόν ‫חזק מאד‬
‫ישׂא‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἀνέλαβεν ‫ישׂא‬/‫ו‬
‫ארבה‬/‫את ה‬ τὴν ἀκρίδα ‫ארבה‬/‫את ה‬
‫הו‬/‫יתקע‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐνέβαλεν ‫הו‬/‫יתקע‬/‫ו‬
αὐτὴν
‫ה סוף‬/‫ימ‬ εἰς τὴν ἐρυθρὰν ‫ים סוף‬

θάλασσαν
Table (cont.)
‫ לא‬--- καὶ οὐχ ‫ לא‬---
‫נשׁאר‬ ὑπελείφθη ‫נשׁאר‬
‫ארבה‬ ἀκρὶς ‫ארבה‬
‫אחד‬ µία ‫אחד‬
‫כל‬/‫ב‬ ἐν πάσῃ ‫כל‬/‫ב‬ [ ‫כל‬/‫]ב‬
‫גבול‬ γῇ ‫גבול‬ ‫גבול‬ ] ‫ג[בול‬
‫מצרים‬ αἰγύπτου ‫מצרים‬ ‫מ]צרים‬
Exod. 10:20 ‫יחזק‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐσκλήρυνεν ‫יחזק‬/‫ו‬
‫את לב‬ τὴν καρδίαν ‫את לב‬
‫את בני‬ τοὺς υἱοὺς ‫את בני‬

‫ישׂראל‬ ἰσραήλ ‫ישׂראל‬ ‫ישׂ[ראל‬
Exod. 10:21 ‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬ εἶπεν δὲ ‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬ ‫[ ידבר‬vacat] /‫ו‬
333
Table (cont.)
334

‫נטה‬ ἔκτεινον ‫נטה‬ ‫נט]ה‬
‫ך‬/‫ יד‬--- τὴν χεῖρα --- ‫ך‬/‫את יד‬
‫יהי‬/‫ו‬ καὶ γενηθήτω ‫יהי‬/‫ו‬
‫חשׁך‬ σκότος ‫חשׁך‬
appendix
‫מצרים‬ αἰγύπτου ‫מצרים‬ ‫מצ[רים‬

‫ימשׁ‬/‫ו‬ ψηλαφητὸν ‫ימשׁ‬/‫ו‬ ---
‫ חשׁך‬--- --- σκότος ‫חשׁך‬/‫ה‬ ---
Exod. 10:22 ‫יט‬/‫ו‬ ἐξέτεινεν δὲ ‫יט‬/‫ו‬ ‫יט‬/‫ו‬
‫משׁה‬ µωυσῆς ‫משׁה‬ ‫משׁה‬
‫ו‬/‫את יד‬ τὴν χεῖρα --- ‫ו‬/‫את יד‬ ‫ו‬/‫את י]ד‬
‫יהי‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐγένετο ‫יהי‬/‫ו‬
Table (cont.)
‫חשׁך‬ σκότος ‫חשׁך‬
‫אפלה‬ γνόφος ‫אפלה‬
--- θύελλα ---
‫כל‬/‫ב‬ ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ‫כל‬/‫ב‬
‫מצרים‬ αἰγύπτου ‫מצרים‬ ‫מצ[רים‬
‫שׁלשׁת‬ τρεῖς ‫שׁלשׁת‬ ‫שׁלשׁת‬
‫ימים‬ ἡµέρας ‫ימים‬ ‫ימים‬
Exod. 10:23 ‫ לא‬--- καὶ οὐκ ‫ לא‬--- ]‫ לא‬---
‫ראו‬ εἶδεν ‫ראו‬
‫אישׁ‬ οὐδεὶς ‫אישׁ‬
‫יו‬/‫את אח‬ τὸν ἀδελφὸν ‫יו‬/‫את אח‬ ‫יו‬/‫]את אח‬
αὐτοῦ
‫לא‬/‫ו‬ καὶ οὐκ ‫לא‬/‫ו‬ ‫ל[א‬/‫ו‬

‫קמו‬ ἐξανέστη ‫קמו‬ ‫קמו‬
‫אישׁ‬ οὐδεὶς ‫אישׁ‬ ‫אי]שׁ‬
‫יו‬/‫תחת‬/‫מ‬ ἐκ τῆς κοίτης ‫יו‬/‫תחת‬/‫מ‬
αὐτοῦ
‫שׁלשׁת‬ τρεῖς ‫שׁלשׁת‬ ‫שׁלשׁת‬

335
Table (cont.)
336

‫ימים‬ ἡµέρας ‫ימים‬ ‫ימים‬
‫כל‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬ πᾶσιν δὲ ‫כל‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬ ‫כל‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬
‫בני‬ τοῖς υἱοῖς ‫בני‬ ]‫בני‬
‫ישׂראל‬ ἰσραὴλ ‫ישׂראל‬
‫היה‬ ἦν ‫היה‬
‫אור‬ φῶς ‫אור‬
! ἐν !
--- πᾶσιν ---
‫ם‬/‫מושׁבת‬/‫ב‬ ! οἷς κατεγί- ‫ם‬/‫מושׁבת‬/‫ב‬
νοντο
appendix
Exod. 10:24 ‫יקרא‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ‫יקרא‬/‫ו‬

‫אל משׁה‬ µωυσῆν ‫משׁה‬/‫ל‬ ‫משׁה‬/‫ל‬ ‫ מ[שׁה‬---
--- καὶ ἀαρὼν ‫אהרן‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬ ‫אהרון‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬ ---
‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬ λέγων ‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬ ]‫יאמרו‬/‫ו‬ ‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬
‫לכו‬ βαδίζετε ‫לכו‬ ‫ל]כו‬
‫עבדו‬ λατρεύσατε ‫עבדו‬
‫את יהוה‬ κυρίῳ ‫את יהוה‬
Table (cont.)
--- τῷ θεῷ ὑµῶν ---
‫כם‬/‫צאנ‬ τῶν προβάτων ‫כם‬/‫צאנ‬
---
‫כם‬/‫בקר‬/‫ו‬ καὶ τῶν βοῶν ‫כם‬/‫בקר‬/‫ו‬ ‫כם‬/‫ב[קר‬/‫ו‬
---
‫יצג‬ ὑπολείπεσθε ‫יצג‬ ‫יצג‬
‫גם‬ καὶ ‫גם‬ ] ‫גם‬
‫כם‬/‫ טפ‬--- ἡ ἀποσκευὴ ‫כם‬/‫ טפ‬---
ὑµῶν
‫ילך‬ ἀποτρεχέτω ‫ילך‬ ]‫י[לך‬

‫כם‬/‫עמ‬ µεθ’ ὑµῶν ‫כם‬/‫עמ‬
‫ גם‬--- ἀλλὰ καὶ ‫ גם‬---

‫אתה‬ σὺ ‫אתה‬
‫תתן‬ δώσεις ‫תתן‬
‫נו‬/‫יד‬/‫ב‬ ἡµῖν ‫נו‬/‫יד‬/‫ב‬
‫זבחים‬ ! ‫זבחים‬ ‫זב]ח[ים‬
337
Table (cont.)
338

‫עלות‬/‫ו‬ ὁλοκαυτώµατα ‫עלות‬/‫ו‬ ‫עלות‬/]‫ו‬
! καὶ θυσίας ! !
--- ἃ --- ---
‫עשׂינו‬/‫ו‬ --- ποιήσοµεν ‫עשׂינו‬/‫ו‬ ‫[עשׂינ]ו‬/‫ו‬
‫נו‬/‫אלהי‬ τῷ θεῷ ἡµῶν ‫נו‬/‫אלהי‬
Exod. 10:26 ‫גם‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ‫גם‬/‫ו‬
‫נו‬/‫מקנ‬ τὰ κτήνη ἡµῶν ‫נו‬/‫מקני‬ ‫נו‬/‫מק[נ‬
‫ילך‬ πορεύσεται ‫ילך‬ [‫י]לך‬
appendix
‫נו‬/‫עמ‬ µεθ’ ἡµῶν ‫נו‬/‫עמ‬ ‫נו‬/‫עמ‬

‫ לא‬--- καὶ οὐχ ‫ לא‬--- ‫ לא‬---
‫תשׁאר‬ ὑπολειψόµεθα ‫תשׁאר‬ ‫נשׁאר‬
‫פרסה‬ ὁπλήν ‫פרסה‬ ‫] פרס[ה‬
‫כי‬ ! ‫כי‬ ]‫כי‬
‫ו‬/‫מנ‬/‫מ‬ ἀπ’ αὐτῶν ‫ו‬/‫מנ‬/‫מ‬
! γὰρ !
‫נקח‬ ληµψόµεθα ‫נקח‬
‫עבד‬/‫ל‬ λατρεῦσαι ‫עבד‬/‫ל‬
Table (cont.)
‫את יהוה‬ κυρίῳ ‫את יהוה‬ ‫יה[וה‬
‫נו‬/‫אלהי‬ τῷ θεῷ ἡµῶν ‫נו‬/‫אלהי‬ [‫נ]ו‬/‫אלהי‬
‫אנחנו‬/‫ו‬ ἡµεῖς δὲ ‫אנחנו‬/‫ו‬ ‫אנחנו‬/‫ו‬
‫נדע‬ οἴδαµεν ‫נדע‬ ‫נדע‬
‫מה‬ τί ‫מה‬ ‫] מה‬
‫נעבד‬ λατρεύσωµεν ‫נעבד‬ ‫נ[עבוד‬
‫את יהוה‬ κυρίῳ ‫את יהוה‬ ]‫את‬
--- τῷ θεῷ ἡµῶν ---
‫נו‬/‫בא‬ τοῦ ἐλθεῖν ἡµᾶς ‫נו‬/‫בא‬
‫ה‬/‫שׁמ‬ ἐκεῖ ‫ה‬/‫שׁמ‬
Exod. 10:27 ‫יחזק‬/‫ו‬ ἐσκλήρυνεν δὲ ‫יחזק‬/‫ו‬ ‫יחזק‬/‫[ ו‬

‫את לב‬ τὴν καρδίαν ‫את לב‬ ‫] את [לב‬
‫פרעה‬ φαραώ ‫פרעה‬ ‫]פרעה‬
‫לא‬/‫ו‬ καὶ οὐκ ‫לא‬/‫ו‬ ‫[לא‬/‫ו‬
‫אבה‬ ἐβουλήθη ‫אבה‬ ]‫אבה‬
339
Table (cont.)
340

‫ם‬/‫שׁלח‬/‫ל‬ ἐξαποστεῖλαι ‫ם‬/‫שׁלח‬/‫ל‬
αὐτούς
Exod. 10:28 ‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬ καὶ λέγει ‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬

‫ו‬/‫ל‬ --- ‫ו‬/‫ל‬
‫לך‬ ἄπελθε ‫לך‬ ‫[ לך‬
--- --- ‫לך‬
‫י‬/‫על‬/‫מ‬ ἀπ᾽ ἐµοῦ ‫י‬/‫על‬/‫מ‬ [‫י‬/]‫על‬/‫מ‬
‫השׁמר‬ πρόσεχε ‫השׁמר‬
‫ך‬/‫ל‬ σεαυτῷ ‫ך‬/‫ל‬
appendix
‫אל‬ ἔτι ‫אל‬

‫תסף‬ προσθεῖναι ‫תוסף‬
‫ראות‬ ἰδεῖν ‫ראות‬
‫י‬/‫פנ‬ µου τὸ πρόσω- ‫י‬/‫פנ‬
πον
! ᾗ !
‫כי‬ δ᾽ ἂν ‫כי‬
‫יום‬/‫ב‬ ! ἡµέρᾳ ‫יום‬/‫ב‬
‫ך‬/‫ראת‬ ὀφθῇς ‫ך‬/‫ראות‬
Table (cont.)
‫י‬/‫פנ‬ µοι ‫י‬/‫פנ‬
‫תמות‬ ἀποθανῇ ‫תמות‬
Exod. 10:29 ‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬ λέγει δὲ ‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬
‫כן‬ --- ‫כן‬
‫דברת‬ εἴρηκας ‫דברת‬
! ‫לא‬ οὐκέτι ! ‫לא‬
‫אסף‬ --- ‫אוסף‬
‫עוד‬ ! ‫עוד‬
‫ראות‬ ὀφθήσοµαί ‫ראות‬
‫ך‬/‫פני‬ σοι εἰς πρόσω- ‫ך‬/‫פני‬
πον


‫עוד‬ ἔτι ‫עוד‬
! µίαν !
341
Table (cont.)
342

‫נגע‬ πληγὴν ‫נגע‬
‫אחד‬ ! ‫אחד‬
‫אביא‬ ἐπάξω ‫אביא‬
‫על‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ἐπ’ ‫על‬/‫ו‬
‫מצרים‬ αἴγυπτον ‫מצרים‬
‫ אחרי כן‬--- καὶ µετὰ ταῦτα ‫אחרי כן‬/‫ו‬
‫ישׁלח‬ ἐξαποστελεῖ ‫ישׁלח‬
appendix

‫זה‬/‫מ‬ ἐντεῦθεν ‫זה‬/‫מ‬
‫ו‬/‫שׁלח‬/‫כ‬ ὅταν δὲ ἐξα- ‫ו‬/‫שׁלח‬/‫כ‬
ποστέλλῃ
--- ὑµᾶς ---

‫כלה‬ σὺν παντὶ ‫כלה‬
‫גרשׁ‬ ἐκβαλεῖ ‫גרשׁ‬
! ὑµᾶς !
‫יגרשׁ‬ ἐκβολῇ ‫יגרשׁ‬
Table (cont.)
‫כם‬/‫את‬ ! ‫כם‬/‫את‬
‫זה‬/‫מ‬ --- ‫זה‬/‫מ‬
Exod. 11:2 ‫דבר‬ λάλησον ‫דברו‬
‫נא‬ οὖν ‫נא‬
--- κρυφῇ ---
‫אזני‬/‫ב‬ εἰς τὰ ὦτα ‫אזני‬/‫ב‬
‫עם‬/‫ה‬ τοῦ λαοῦ ‫עם‬/‫ה‬
‫ישׁאלו‬/‫ו‬ καὶ αἰτησάτω ‫ישׁאלו‬/‫ו‬
‫אישׁ‬ ἕκαστος ‫אישׁ‬
‫את‬/‫מ‬ παρὰ ‫את‬/‫מ‬
‫הו‬/‫רע‬ τοῦ πλησίον --- ‫הו‬/‫רע‬
‫אשׁה‬/‫ו‬ καὶ γυνὴ ‫אשׁה‬/‫ו‬
‫את‬/‫מ‬ παρὰ ‫את‬/‫מ‬
‫ה‬/‫רעות‬ τῆς πλησίον --- ‫ה‬/‫רעות‬

‫כלי‬ σκεύη ‫כלי‬
‫כסף‬ ἀργυρᾶ ‫כסף‬
‫כלי‬/‫ו‬ καὶ --- ‫כלי‬/‫ו‬
‫זהב‬ χρυσᾶ ‫זהב‬
343
Table (cont.)
344

--- καὶ ἱµατισµόν ‫שׁמלות‬/‫ו‬
Exod. 11:3 ‫יתן‬/‫! ו‬ ! ‫נתתי‬/‫! ו‬ ‫יתן‬/‫] ! ו‬
‫יהוה‬ κύριος δὲ ! --- ‫יהוה‬
! ἔδωκεν ! !
‫את חן‬ τὴν χάριν ‫את חן‬ ‫את חן‬
‫עם‬/‫ה‬ τῷ λαῷ ‫עם‬/‫ה‬ ‫עם‬/‫ה‬
--- αὐτοῦ ‫זה‬/‫ה‬ ---
‫עיני‬/‫ב‬ ἐναντίον ‫עיני‬/‫ב‬ ‫עיני‬/‫ב‬
‫מצרים‬ τῶν αἰγυπτίων ‫מצרים‬ ‫מצרים‬
appendix
--- καὶ ἔχρησαν ‫השׁאילום‬/‫ו‬ ---

αὐτοῖς
‫גם‬ καὶ ! ‫גם‬

‫אישׁ‬/‫ה‬ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ! ‫אישׁ‬/‫ה‬
‫משׁה‬ µωυσῆς ! [‫מושׁה‬
‫גדול‬ µέγας ! ‫]גדול‬
--- ἐγενήθη --- ---
‫מאד‬ σφόδρα ! ‫מאד‬
‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬ --- ! ‫בתו[ך ארץ‬
Table (cont.)
--- ἐναντίον --- ---
‫מצרים‬ τῶν αἰγυπτίων ! ‫] מצרים‬
--- καὶ ἐναντίον --- ---
--- φαραὼ --- ---
‫עיני‬/‫ב‬ καὶ ἐναντίον ! ‫עיני‬/‫ב‬
--- πάντων --- ---
‫עבדי פרעה‬ τῶν θεραπόντων ! ‫עבדי פרעה‬
αὐτοῦ
‫עיני‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ --- ! ‫עיני‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬

‫עם‬/‫ה‬ --- ! [‫עם‬/‫ה‬
Exod. 11:3b --- --- ‫חצית‬/‫כ‬/‫ו‬ ---
--- --- ‫לילה‬/‫ה‬ ---
--- --- ‫אני‬ ---
--- --- ‫יצא‬ ---

--- --- ‫תוך‬/‫ב‬ ---
--- --- ‫ארץ‬ ---
--- --- ‫מצרים‬ ---
--- --- ‫מת‬/‫ו‬ ---
345
Table (cont.)
346

--- --- ‫כל‬ ---
--- --- ‫בכור‬ ---
--- --- ‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬ ---
--- --- ‫מצרים‬ ---
--- --- ‫בכור‬/‫מ‬ ---
--- --- ‫פרעה‬ ---
--- --- ‫ישׁב‬/‫ה‬ ---
--- --- ‫על‬ ---
--- --- ‫ו‬/‫כסא‬ ---
appendix
--- --- ‫עד‬/‫ו‬ ---

--- --- ‫בכור‬ ---
--- --- ‫שׁפחה‬/‫ה‬ ---
--- --- ‫אשׁר‬ ---
--- --- ‫אחר‬ ---
--- --- ‫רחים‬/‫ה‬ ---
--- --- ‫עד‬/‫ו‬ ---
--- --- ‫בכור‬ ---
--- --- ‫כל‬ ---
Table (cont.)
--- --- ‫בהמה‬ ---
--- --- ‫היתה‬/‫ו‬ ---
--- --- ‫צעקה‬ ---
--- --- ‫גדלה‬ ---
--- --- ‫מצרים‬/‫ב‬ ---
--- --- ‫אשׁר‬ ---
--- --- ‫וה‬/‫כמ‬ ---
--- --- ‫לא‬ ---
--- --- ‫נהיתה‬ ---
--- --- ‫וה‬/‫כמ‬/‫ו‬ ---
--- --- ‫לא‬ ---
--- --- ‫תוסף‬ ---
--- --- ‫כל‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬ ---
--- --- ‫בני‬ ---

--- --- ‫ישׂראל‬ ---
--- --- ‫לא‬ ---
--- --- ‫יחרץ‬ ---
--- --- ‫כלב‬ ---
347
Table (cont.)
348

--- --- ‫ו‬/‫לשׁנ‬ ---
--- --- ‫אישׁ‬/‫מ‬/‫ל‬ ---
--- --- ‫עד‬/‫ו‬ ---
--- --- ‫בהמה‬ ---
--- --- ‫מען‬/‫ל‬ ---
--- --- ‫תדע‬ ---
--- --- ‫אשׁר‬ ---
--- --- ‫יפלא‬ ---
--- --- ‫יהוה‬ ---
appendix
--- --- ‫בין‬ ---

--- --- ‫מצרים‬ ---
--- --- ‫בין‬/‫ו‬ ---
--- --- ‫ישׂראל‬ ---
! --- ! --- ‫גם‬/‫ו‬ ! ---
! ! ‫אישׁ‬/‫ה‬ !
! ! ‫משׁה‬ !
! ! ‫גדל‬ !
! ! ‫מאד‬ !
Table (cont.)
! --- ‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬ !
! ! ‫מצרים‬ !
! ! ‫עיני‬/‫ב‬ !
! ! ‫עבדי‬ !
! --- ‫פרעה‬ !
! --- ‫עיני‬/‫ב‬/‫ו‬ !
! --- ‫עם‬/‫ה‬ !
--- --- ‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬ ---
--- --- ‫משׁה‬ ---
--- --- ‫אל‬ ---
--- --- ‫פרעה‬ ---
--- --- ‫כה‬ ---
--- --- ‫אמר‬ ---
--- --- ‫יהוה‬ ---

--- --- ‫בני‬ ---
--- --- ‫בכורי‬ ---
--- --- ‫ישׂראל‬ ---
--- --- ‫אמר‬/‫ו‬ ---
349
‫‪350‬‬

‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫אל‪/‬יך‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫שׁלח‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫את בני‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬יעבד‪/‬ני‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬תמאן‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ל‪/‬שׁלח‪/‬ו‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫הנה‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫יהוה‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫הרג‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫את בנ‪/‬ך‬ ‫‪---‬‬

‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫בכור‪/‬ך‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫‪Exod. 11:4‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬יאמר‬ ‫‪καὶ εἶπεν‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬יאמר‬ ‫ו‪/‬יא]מר‬ ‫] ו‪/‬יואמ[ר‬
‫משׁה‬ ‫‪µωυσῆς‬‬ ‫משׁה‬ ‫מושׁה‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫אל‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫פרע]ה‬
‫כה‬ ‫‪τάδε‬‬ ‫כה‬ ‫כה‬
‫אמר‬ ‫‪λέγει‬‬ ‫אמר‬ ‫אמר‬
‫יהוה‬ ‫‪κύριος‬‬ ‫יהוה‬ ‫יהוה‬
Table (cont.)
‫חצת‬/‫כ‬ περὶ µέσας ‫חצית‬/‫כ‬ ‫חצות‬/‫כ‬
‫לילה‬/‫ה‬ νύκτας ‫לילה‬/‫ה‬ ‫לילה‬/‫ה‬
‫אני‬ ἐγὼ ‫אני‬ [‫אני‬
‫יוצא‬ εἰσπορεύοµαι ‫יצא‬ ‫]יוצא‬
‫תוך‬/‫ב‬ εἰς µέσον ‫תוך‬/‫ב‬ ‫תוך‬/‫ב‬
--- --- ‫ארץ‬ ---
‫מצרים‬ αἰγύπτου ‫מצרים‬ ‫מצר]י[ם‬ ‫מ[צרים‬
Exod. 11:5 ‫מת‬/‫ו‬ καὶ τελευτήσει ‫מת‬/‫ו‬ [‫מת‬/‫]ו‬ ‫מת‬/‫ו‬
‫כל‬ πᾶν ‫כל‬ ]‫כל‬ ‫כל‬
‫בכור‬ πρωτότοκον ‫בכור‬ ‫בכור‬
‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬ ἐν γῇ ‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬ ‫ארץ‬/‫] ב‬
‫מצרים‬ αἰγύπτῳ ‫מצרים‬ ‫מצרים‬
‫בכור‬/‫מ‬ ἀπὸ πρωτοτόκου ‫בכור‬/‫מ‬ ‫בכור‬/‫מ‬
‫פרעה‬ φαραώ ‫פרעה‬ [‫פרעה‬

‫ישׁב‬/‫ה‬ ὃς κάθηται ‫ישׁב‬/‫ה‬ ‫יושׁב‬/‫]ה‬
‫על‬ ἐπὶ ‫על‬ ‫על‬
‫ו‬/‫כסא‬ τοῦ θρόνου ‫ו‬/‫כסא‬ ‫[ו‬/‫כסא‬
‫עד‬ ἕως ‫עד‬/‫ו‬ ‫עד‬ ‫עד‬
351
‫‪352‬‬

‫בכור‬ ‫‪πρωτοτόκου‬‬ ‫בכור‬ ‫]בכ[ור‬ ‫בכור‬
‫ה‪/‬שׁפחה‬ ‫‪τῆς θεραπαίνης‬‬ ‫ה‪/‬שׁפחה‬ ‫ה‪/‬שׁפח]ה‬ ‫ה‪/‬שׁפחה‬
‫אשׁר‬ ‫‪τῆς‬‬ ‫אשׁר‬ ‫] אשׁר‬
‫אחר‬ ‫‪παρὰ‬‬ ‫אחר‬ ‫אחר‬
‫ה‪/‬רחים‬ ‫‪τὸν µύλον‬‬ ‫ה‪/‬רחים‬ ‫ה‪/‬רחים‬
‫ו‪/‬כל‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬כל‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪καὶ ἕως‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬עד‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫בכור‬ ‫‪πρωτοτόκου‬‬ ‫בכור‬ ‫בכור[‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪παντὸς‬‬ ‫כל‬ ‫‪---‬‬
‫בהמה‬ ‫‪κτήνους‬‬ ‫בהמה‬ ‫]בהמה‬

‫‪Exod. 11:6‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬היתה‬ ‫‪καὶ ἔσται‬‬ ‫ו‪/‬היתה‬ ‫ו‪/‬היתה‬
‫צעקה‬ ‫‪κραυγὴ‬‬ ‫צעקה‬ ‫צעק[ה‬
‫גדלה‬ ‫‪µεγάλη‬‬ ‫גדלה‬ ‫גדולה‬ ‫גדולה‬
‫ב‪/‬כל‬ ‫‪κατὰ πᾶσαν‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ב‪/‬כ]ל[‬ ‫ב‪/‬כל ]‬
‫ארץ‬ ‫‪γῆν‬‬ ‫‪---‬‬ ‫ארץ‬ ‫ארץ‬
‫מצרים‬ ‫‪αἰγύπτου‬‬ ‫ב‪/‬מצרים‬ ‫] מצרים‬ ‫מצרים‬
‫אשׁר‬ ‫‪ἥτις‬‬ ‫אשׁר‬ ‫אשׁר‬
‫כמ‪/‬הו‬ ‫‪τοιαύτη‬‬ ‫כמ‪/‬וה‬ ‫כמ‪/‬והו‬
Table (cont.)
‫לא‬ οὐ ‫לא‬ [‫לוא‬
‫נהיתה‬ γέγονεν ‫נהיתה‬ ‫]נהיתה‬
‫הו‬/‫כמ‬/‫ו‬ καὶ τοιαύτη ‫וה‬/‫כמ‬/‫ו‬ ‫והו‬/‫כמ‬/‫ו‬
‫לא‬ οὐκέτι ‫לא‬ ‫לוא‬
‫תסף‬ προστεθήσεται ‫תוסף‬ [ ‫תוסף‬
Exod. 11:7 ‫כל‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬ ἐν δὲ πᾶσιν ‫כל‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬ ‫כל‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬ ‫כל‬/‫ל‬/‫ו‬
‫בני‬ τοῖς υἱοῖς ‫בני‬ ‫בני‬ ‫בני‬
‫ישׂראל‬ ἰσραὴλ ‫ישׂראל‬ ‫ישׂ]ראל‬ ‫] ישׂראל‬
‫לא‬ οὐ ‫לא‬ ‫לוא‬
‫יחרץ‬ γρύξει ‫יחרץ‬ [‫יחרץ‬
‫כלב‬ κύων ‫כלב‬ ‫]כלב‬
‫ו‬/‫לשׁנ‬ τῇ γλώσσῃ ‫ו‬/‫לשׁנ‬ ‫ו‬/‫לשׁונ‬
αὐτοῦ
‫אישׁ‬/‫מ‬/‫ל‬ ἀπὸ ἀνθρώπου ‫אישׁ‬/‫מ‬/‫ל‬ ‫אישׁ‬/‫מ‬/‫ל‬

‫עד‬/‫ו‬ --- ἕως ‫עד‬/‫ו‬ ‫עד‬/‫ו‬
‫בהמה‬ κτήνους ‫בהמה‬ [ ‫בהמה‬
‫מען‬/‫ל‬ ὅπως ‫מען‬/‫ל‬ ‫מען‬/‫ל‬ ‫ל]מען‬
‫תדעון‬ εἰδῇς ‫תדע‬ ‫ת]דע[ון‬ ‫תדעון‬
353
Table (cont.)
354

‫אשׁר‬ ὅσα ‫אשׁר‬ ]‫אשׁר‬ ‫אשׁר‬
‫יפלה‬ παραδοξάσει ‫יפלא‬ ‫יפלה‬
‫יהוה‬ κύριος ‫יהוה‬ [‫יהוה‬
‫בין‬ ἀνὰ µέσον ‫בין‬ ‫]בין‬
‫ מצרים‬--- τῶν αἰγυπτίων ‫ מצרים‬--- ‫ מצרים‬---
‫בין‬/‫ו‬ καὶ --- ‫בין‬/‫ו‬ ‫בין‬/‫ו‬
‫ ישׂראל‬--- τοῦ ἰσραήλ ‫ ישׂראל‬--- ‫ ישׂראל‬---
Exod. 11:8 ‫ירדו‬/‫ו‬ καὶ ‫ירדו‬/‫ו‬
καταβήσονται
‫כל‬ πάντες ‫כל‬ ‫כל‬

appendix
‫ך‬/‫ עבדי‬--- οἱ παῖδές σου ‫ך‬/‫ עבדי‬--- ‫ך‬/‫ עבדי‬---

‫אלה‬ οὗτοι ‫אלה‬ ‫אלה‬
‫י‬/‫אל‬ πρός µε ‫י‬/‫אל‬ ‫י‬/]‫אל‬
‫השׁתחוו‬/‫ו‬ καὶ προσκυνή- ‫ישׁתחוו‬/‫ו‬
σουσίν
‫י‬/‫ל‬ µε ‫י‬/‫ל‬
‫אמר‬/‫ל‬ λέγοντες ‫אמר‬/‫ל‬
‫צא‬ ἔξελθε ‫צא‬
‫אתה‬ σὺ ‫אתה‬ ‫[אתה‬
Table (cont.)
‫כל‬/‫ו‬ καὶ πᾶς ‫כל‬/‫ו‬ ‫כל‬/‫ו‬
--- ‫עם‬/‫ה‬ ὁ λαός σου --- ‫עם‬/‫ה‬ --- ]‫עם‬/‫ה‬
‫אשׁר‬ οὗ ‫אשׁר‬
‫ך‬/‫רגלי‬/‫ב‬ σὺ ἀφηγῇ ‫ך‬/‫רגלי‬/‫ב‬ ‫ך‬/‫רגלי‬/‫ב‬
‫אחרי כן‬/‫ו‬ καὶ µετὰ ταῦτα ‫אחרי כן‬/‫ו‬ ]‫אחרי כן‬/‫ו‬
‫אצא‬ ἐξελεύσοµαι ‫אצא‬
‫יצא‬/‫ו‬ ἐξῆλθεν δὲ ‫יצא‬/‫ו‬
‫חרי אף‬/‫ב‬ µετὰ θυµοῦ ‫חרי אף‬/‫ב‬ ‫[אף‬
Exod. 11:9 ‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬ εἶπεν δὲ ‫יאמר‬/‫ו‬ ] ‫יאמר‬/vacat ‫יאמר ו‬/[‫[ ]ו‬vac]at

‫משׁה‬ µωυσῆν ‫משׁה‬ ‫משׁ]ה‬
‫ישׁמע‬ εἰσακούσεται ‫ישׁמע‬
‫יכם‬/‫אל‬ ὑµῶν ‫יכם‬/‫אל‬
355
Table (cont.)
356

‫פרעה‬ φαραώ ‫פרעה‬ ‫פר[עה‬
‫מען‬/‫ל‬ ἵνα ‫מען‬/‫ל‬ ‫מען‬/‫ל‬
‫רבות‬ πληθύνω ‫רבות‬ ‫[רבות‬ ‫רבות‬
! --- µου τὰ σηµεῖα ! --- ! --- ! ---
! ‫י‬/‫ מופת‬--- καὶ τὰ τέρατα ! ‫י‬/‫ מופת‬--- ! ‫י‬/‫ מופת‬--- ! ‫י‬/‫ מופת‬---
‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬ ἐν γῇ ‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬ ‫ארץ‬/‫ב‬ ‫[ארץ‬/‫ב‬ [‫אר]ץ‬/‫ב‬
‫מצרים‬ αἰγύπτῳ ‫מצרים‬ ]‫מצרים‬ ‫מצרים‬ [ ]‫מצרים‬
Exod. 11:10 ‫משׁה‬/‫ו‬ µωυσῆς δὲ ‫משׁה‬/‫ו‬ ‫מ]שׁה‬/‫ו‬
appendix
‫עשׂו‬ ἐποίησαν ‫עשׂו‬

‫את כל‬ πάντα ‫את כל‬ ‫[את כל‬
--- τὰ σηµεῖα --- ---
‫מפתים‬/‫ ה‬--- καὶ τὰ τέρατα ‫מופתים‬/‫ ה‬--- ‫מפ]תים‬/‫ ה‬---
‫אלה‬/‫ה‬ ταῦτα ‫אלה‬/‫ה‬
--- ἐν γῇ ---
--- αἰγύπτῳ ---
‫פרעה‬ φαραώ ‫פרעה‬ ‫]פר[עה‬
Table (cont.)
‫יחזק‬/‫ו‬ ἐσκλήρυνεν δὲ ‫יחזק‬/‫ו‬ ‫יחזק‬/‫[ו‬ ‫יחזק‬/‫ו‬ ‫י[חזק‬/‫ו‬
‫יהוה‬ κύριος ‫יהוה‬ ‫יהוה‬ ‫י]הוה‬ [ ‫יה]וה‬
‫ לב‬--- ‫את‬ τὴν καρδίαν ‫ לב‬--- ‫את‬ ‫ לב‬--- ‫את‬ ‫ לב‬--- ‫את‬ ‫ לב‬--- ‫את‬
‫פרעה‬ φαραώ ‫פרעה‬ ‫פר]עה‬ ‫פרע[ה‬ [‫פ]רעה‬
‫לא‬/‫ו‬ καὶ οὐκ ‫לא‬/‫ו‬ ‫לא‬/‫ו‬
--- ἠθέλησεν --- ---
‫שׁלח‬ ἐξαποστεῖλαι ‫שׁלח‬ ‫שׁלח‬
‫את בני‬ τοὺς υἱοὺς ‫את בני‬ ‫את ב]נ[י‬
‫ישׂראל‬ ἰσραὴλ ‫ישׂראל‬ ‫] ישׂראל‬
‫ו‬/‫ארצ‬/‫מ‬ ἐκ γῆς --- ‫ו‬/‫ארצ‬/‫מ‬ [‫ו‬/‫ארצ‬/‫מ‬
--- αἰγύπτου --- ---
357
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adair, J.R., ‘“Literal” and “Free” Translations: A Proposal for a More Descriptive Termi-
nology’, JNSL 23/1 (1997), 181–209.
——, ‘Light from Below: Canonical and Theological Implications of Textual Criticism’,
OTE 11/1 (1998), 9–23.
Aejmelaeus, A., Parataxis in the Septuagint: A Study of the Renderings of the Hebrew Coor-
dinate Clauses in the Greek Pentateuch (AASF Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum,
31), Helsinki 1982.
——, ‘Participium Coniunctum as a Criterion of Translation Technique’, VT 32 (1982),
385–393 [= Idem, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays. Revised
and Expanded Edition, Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA 2007, 1–10].
——, ‘Oti causale in Septuagintal Greek’, in: N. Fernández Marcos (ed.), La Septuaginta
en la Investigación Contemporea (V Congresso de la IOSCS) (Textos y Estudios ‘Cardenal
Cisneros’, 34), Madrid 1985, 115–132 [= Idem, On the Trail of the Septuagint Transla-
tors: Collected Essays. Revised and Expanded Edition, Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA 2007,
11–29].
——, ‘The Function and Interpretation of ‫ כי‬in Biblical Hebrew’, JBL 105 (1986),
193–209.
——, ‘The Significance of Clause Connectors in the Syntactical and Translation-Technical
Study of the Septuagint’, in: C.E. Cox (ed.), Sixth Congress of the IOSCS, Jerusalem,
1986 (SBL SCS, 23), Atlanta 1987, 361–380 [= Idem, On the Trail of the Septuagint
Translators: Collected Essays. Revised and Expanded Edition, Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA
2007, 43–57].
——, ‘What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint?’, ZAW 99
(1987), 58–89 [= Idem, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays. Revised
——, ‘Oti recitativum in Septuagintal Greek’, in: D. Fraenkel, U. Quast, J.W. Wevers
(eds), Studien zur Septuaginta. FS R. Hanhart (MSU, 20), Göttingen 1990, 74–82
[= Idem, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays. Revised and Expanded
Edition, Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA 2007, 31–41].
——, ‘Translation Technique and the Intention of the Translator’, in: C.E. Cox (ed.),
Seventh Congress of the IOSCS, Leuven, 1989 (SBL SCS, 31), Atlanta 1991, 23–36
[= Idem, On the Trail of the Septuaginta Translators: Collected Essays. Revised and Expanded
——, ‘Septuagintal Translation Techniques: A Solution to the Problem of the Tabernacle
Account’, in: G.J. Brooke, B. Lindars (eds), Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings:
Papers Presented to the International Symposium on the Septuagint and Its Relations to the
Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Writings (Manchester, 1990) (SBL SCS, 33), Atlanta 1992,
381–402 [= Idem, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays. Revised
——, ‘Übersetzung als Schlüssel zum Original’, in: Idem, On the Trail of the Septuagint
Translators: Collected Essays. Revised and Expanded Edition, Kampen 1993, 150–165. [=
Idem, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays. Revised and Expanded
——, ‘What We Talk about When We Talk about Translation Technique’, in: B.A. Taylor
(ed.), X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies,
Oslo, 1998 (SBL, 51), Atlanta 2001, 531–552. [= Idem, On the Trail of the Septuagint
Translators: Collected Essays. Revised and Expanded Edition, Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA
2007, 205–222].
360 bibliography
——, ‘Characterizing Criteria for the Characterization of the Septuagint Translators:

Experimenting on the Greek Psalter’, in R.J.V. Hiebert, C.E. Cox, P.J. Gentry (eds),
The Old Greek Psalter. FS A. Pietersma ( JSOT SS, 332), Sheffield 2001, 54–73.
——, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators. Collected Essays. Revised and Expanded
Edition, Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA 2007.
——, Introduction, in: Idem, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators. Collected Essays.
Revised and Expanded Edition, Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA 2007, XIII–XVIII.
Aejmelaeus, A., Sollamo, R. (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen. Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax.
Zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 4. Juni 1987 (AASF Series B, 237), Helsinki 1987.
Ausloos, H., ‘LXX’s Rendering of Hebrew Proper Names and the Characterization of the
Translation Technique’, in A. Voitila, J. Jokiranta (eds), Scripture in Transition: Essays
on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls. FS R. Sollamo (SJSJ, 126), Leiden
2008, pp. 53–71.
Ausloos, H., Lemmelijn, B., Vervenne, M. (eds), Florilegium Lovaniense. Studies in Sep-
tuagint and Textual Criticism in Honour of Florentino García Martínez (BETL, 224),
Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA 2008.
Ausloos, H., Cook, J., García Martínez, F., Lemmelijn, B., Vervenne, M. (eds), Translating
a Translation: The Septuagint and its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism
(BETL, 213), Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA 2008.
Ausloos, H., Lemmelijn, B., ‘“Your Only Son, Your Beloved One” (Genesis 22): When
Septuagint and Messianism Meet’, in: F. García-Martínez, M. Vervenne (eds), Interpret-
ing Translation: Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust (BETL, 192),
Leuven 2005, 19–31.
——, De bijbel, een (g)oude(n) gids: Bijbelse antwoorden op menselijke vragen, Leuven/
Voorburg 2005, especially 38–43.
——, ‘Rendering Love: Hapax Legomena and the Characterisation of the Translation
Technique of Song of Songs’, in: H. Ausloos, J. Cook, F. García Martínez, B. Lemmelijn,
M. Vervenne (eds), Translating a Translation: The Septuagint and its Modern Translations
in the Context of Early Judaism (BETL, 213), Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA 2008, 43–61.
——, ‘Eine Neue Interpretation des Hoheliedes 8,5ab’, ZAW 119 (2007), 556–563.
——, ‘Canticles as Allegory? Textual Criticism and Literary Criticism in Dialogue’, in:
H. Ausloos, B. Lemmelijn, M. Vervenne (eds), Florilegium Lovaniense. Studies in Sep-
tuagint and Textual Criticism in Honour of Florentino García Martínez (BETL, 224),
Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA 2008, 35–48.
Baentsch, B., Exodus. Levitikus. Übersetzt und erklärt (HKAT), Göttingen 1900.
Baillet, M., Milik, J.T., De Vaux, R., Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumrân: Exploration de la
falaise. Les grottes 2Q, 3Q, 5Q, 6Q, 7Q à 10Q. Le rouleau de cuivre, vol. 1: Textes (DJD,
3/1), Oxford 1962; vol. 2: Planches (DJD, 3/2), Oxford 1962.
Barr, J., The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations (MSU, 15), Göttingen
1979.
——, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament, Winona Lake 21987.
Barth, H., Steck, O.H., Exegese des Alten Testament. Leitfaden der Methodik: Ein Arbeitsbuch
für Proseminare, Seminare und Vorlesungen, Neukirchen/Vluyn, 101984.
Barthélemy, D., ‘Problématique et tâches de la critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament
hébraïque’, in: Idem, Études d’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament (OBO, 21), Fribourg/
Göttingen 1978, 365–381.
——, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, vol. 1: Josué, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois,
Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther (OBO, 50/1), Göttingen 1982.
Barthélemy, D. et al., The Story of David and Goliath: Textual and Literary Criticism. Papers
of a Joint Research Venture (OBO, 73), Freiburg/Göttingen 1986.
Beck, J.A., Translators as Storytellers: A Study in Septuagint Translation Technique (SBL,
25), New York 2000.
Beer, G., Exodus: Mit einem Beitrag von K. Galling (HAT, 1/3), Tübingen 1939.
bibliography 361
Bogaert, P.-M., ‘Les deux rédactions conservées (LXX et MT) d’Ezéchiel 7’, in: J. Lust
(ed.), Ezekiel and his Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation (BETL,
74), Leuven 1986, 21–47.
Brenton, L.C.L. (ed.), The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament with an English Transla-
tion; and with Various Readings and Critical Notes, London 1851; repr. 1976.
Brock, S.P., ‘The Phenomenon of the Septuagint’, in: M.A. Beek et al., The Witness of
Tradition: Papers Read at the Joint British-Dutch Old Testament Conference Held at
Woudschoten, 1970 (OTS, 17), Leiden 1972, 11–36.
Brock, S.P., Fritsch, C.T., Jellicoe, S., A Classified Bibliography of the Septuagint (ALGHL,
6), Leiden 1973.
Büchner, D.L., ‘Exegetical Variants in the LXX of Exodus: An Evaluation’, JNSL 22/1
(1996), 35–58.
Camilo dos Santos, E., An Expanded Hebrew Index for the Hatch-Redpath Concordance to
the Septuagint, Jerusalem 1973.
Chiesa, B., ‘Textual History and Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Old Testament’, in:
J. Trebolle Barrera, L. Vegas Montaner (eds), The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings
of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March, 1991, vol. 1
(STDJ, 11/1), Leiden/New York/Köln/Madrid 1992, 257–272.
Clements, R.E., Exodus (CNEB), London 1972.
Cole, R.A., Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC), London 1973.
Collins, N.L., ‘Evidence in the Septuagint of a Tradition in Which the Israelites Left
Egypt without Pharaoh’s Consent’, CBQ 56 (1994), 442–448.
——, The Library in Alexandria and the Bible in Greek (VTS, 82), Leiden 2000.
Cook, J., ‘The Translator of the Greek Genesis’, in: N. Fernández Marcos (ed.), La Sep-
tuaginta en la Investigación Contemporánea (V Congreso de la IOSCS) (Textos y Estudios
‘Cardenal Cisneros’, 34), Madrid 1985, 169–182.
——, ‘Questions of Textual Criticism. To Reconstruct or Not?’, in: AIBI, Bible et Infor-
matique: Interprétation, herméneutique, compétence informatique, Tübingen 1991, Paris/
Geneva 1992, 515–522.
——, ‘Following the Septuagint Translators’, JNSL 22/2 (1996), 181–190.
Cowley, A.E. (ed.), GESENIUS’ Hebrew Grammar as Edited and Enlarged by the Late E.
KAUTZSCH. Second English Edition Revised in Accordance with the Twenty-eighth German
Edition (1909), Oxford 151980.
Cross, F.M., ‘Problems of Method in the Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible’, in: W.
Doniger O’Flaherty (ed.), The Critical Study of Sacred Texts (Berkeley Religious Studies
Series, 2), Berkeley 1979.
——, ‘The Fixation of the Text of the Hebrew Bible’, in: Idem, From Epic to Canon:
History and Literature in Ancient Israel, Baltimore/London 1998, 205–218.
Crown, A.D., ‘Samaritan Scribal Habits with Reference to the Masorah and the Dead
Sea Scrolls’, in: S.M. Paul, R.A. Kraft, L.H Schiffman, W.W. Fields (eds), Emanuel:
Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls. FS E. Tov (VTS, 94), Leiden/
Boston 2003, 159–177.
De Troyer, K., ‘Qumran Research and Textual Studies: A Different Approach’, RSR 28
(2002), 115–122.
——, Rewriting the Sacred Text. What the Old Greek Tells Us about the Literary Growth of
the Bible (SBL Text-Critical Studies, 4), Atlanta 2003.
Dogniez, C., Bibliography of the Septuagint (1970 –1993) (VTS, 60), Leiden/New York/
Köln 1995.
Dorival, G., ‘Dire en grec les choses juives: Quelques choix lexicaux du Pentateuque de
la Septante’, REG 109 (1996), 527–547.
Driver, S.R., The Book of Exodus (CBSC), Cambridge 1911.
Elliger, K., Rudolph, W. (eds), Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, Stuttgart 1984.
Fernández Marcos, N., The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Versions of the
Bible, transl. W.G.E. Watson, Leiden 2000.
362 bibliography
Frankel, Z., Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta, Leipzig 1841.

——, Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik,
Leipzig 1851.
Friebe, R., Form und Entstehungsgeschichte (dissertation Halle/Wittenberg), 1967.
Freund, Marx, Präparationen zum Alten Testament: Pentateuch, vol. 1: Genesis. Exodus, Kap.
1–13, Stuttgart 1885–1893.
García Martínez, F., Trebolle Barrera, J., ‘Qumran Scholarship: A European Perspective’, in:
R.A. Kugler, E.M. Schuller (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls at Fifty: Proceedings of the 1997
Society of Biblical Literature Qumran Section Meetings (Early Judaism and its Literature,
15), Atlanta 1999, 129–141.
Gispen, W.H., Het boek Exodus (KVHS), Kampen 1932.
Goshen-Gottstein, M.H., ‘Theory and Practice of Textual Criticism: The Text-Critical Use
of the Septuagint’, Textus 3 (1963), 130–158.
——, ‘The Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: Rise, Decline, Rebirth’, JBL 102
(1983), 365–399.
Greenberg, M., ‘The Use of the Ancient Versions for Interpreting the Hebrew Text’, in:
J.A. Emerton et al. (eds), Congress Volume Göttingen 1977 (VTS, 29), Leiden 1978,
131–148.
Greenspoon, L.J., ‘Hebrew into Greek: Interpretation In, By, and Of the Septuagint’, in:
A.J. Hauser, D.F. Watson, A History of Biblical Interpretation, vol. 1: The Ancient Period,
Grand Rapids/Cambridge 2003, 80–113.
Greenstein, E.L., ‘The Firstborn Plague and the Reading Process’, in: D.P. Wright, D.N.
Freedman, A. Hurvitz (eds), Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish
and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature. FS J. Milgrom, Winona Lake 1995,
555–568.
Hanhart, R., ‘The Translation of the Septuagint in Light of Earlier Tradition and Sub-
sequent Influences’, in: G.J. Brooke, B. Lindars (eds), Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate
Writings: Papers Presented to the International Symposium on the Septuagint and Its
Relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Writings (Manchester, 1990) (SBL SCS, 33),
Atlanta 1992, 339–379.
Harl, M., ‘La place de la Septante dans les études bibliques’, EV 112 (2002), 3–13.
Hatch, E., Redpath, H.A., A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions
of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books), 2 vols., Oxford 1897, repr. Graz
1954.
Holladay, W.L. (ed.), A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament: Based
on the First, Second and Third Editions of the Koehler-Baumgartner Lexicon in Veteris
Testamenti Libros, Grand Rapids/Leiden 2000.
Holzinger, H., Exodus (KHCAT, 2), Tübingen 1900.
Jagersma, H., Vervenne, M. (eds), Inleiding in het Oude Testament, Kampen 1992.
Jastram, N., ‘A Comparison of Two “proto-Samaritan” Texts from Qumran: 4QpaleoExod
m and 4QNum b’, DSD 5 (1998), 264–289.
Jobes, K.H., Silva, M., Invitation to the Septuagint, Carlisle/Grand Rapids 2000.
Joosten, J., ‘Elaborate Similes: Hebrew and Greek, a Study in Septuagint Translation’,
Biblica 77 (1996), 227–236.
——, ‘On the LXX Translators’ Knowledge of Hebrew’, in: B.A. Taylor (ed.), X Congress
of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Oslo, 1998 (SBL
SCS, 51), Atlanta 2001, 165–179.
Joüon, P., Muraoka, T., A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Subsidia Biblica, 27), Rome,
2006.
Koehler, L., Baumgartner, W., Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament,
5 vols., Leiden 31967–1995.
König, F.E., Historisch-kritische Lehrgebäude der hebraïschen Sprache, Leipzig 1897.
Kyle McCarter, P., Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible, Philadelphia
1986.
bibliography 363
Labuschagne, C.J., Deuteronomium, vol. 1A (POT), Nijkerk 1987; vol. 2 (POT), Nijkerk
1990.
Le Boulluec, A., Sandevoir, P., L’Exode (La Bible d’Alexandrie, 2), Paris 1989.
Lee, J.A.L., A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch (SBL SCS, 14),
Chico 1983.
Lemmelijn, B., De ‘plagen’ van Egypte (Ex 7,14–11,10): Materialen voor een exegetische
studie, vol. 1: Tekstvormen: Geschiedenis van het onderzoek in de Exoduscommentaren
(unpublished master’s thesis Religious Studies, K.U.Leuven), Leuven 1991 (promoter
M. Vervenne).
——, De ‘plagen’ van Egypte (Ex 7,14–11,10): Materialen voor een exegetische studie, vol. 2:
Geschiedenis van het onderzoek: Tekstkritische studie (unpublished master’s thesis Theology,
K.U.Leuven), Leuven 1993 (promoter M. Vervenne).
——, Het verhaal van de “Plagen in Egypte” (Exodus 7,14–11,10): Een onderzoek naar het
ontstaan en de compositie van een Pentateuchtraditie (unpublished doctoral dissertation
Theology, 4 vols., K.U.Leuven), Leuven 1996 (promoter M. Vervenne).
——, ‘Setting and Function of Exod 11,1–10 in the Exodus Narrative’, in: M. Vervenne
(ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction—Reception—Interpretation (BETL, 126),
Leuven 1996, 443–460.
——, ‘Transformations in Biblical Studies: the Story of the History of Research into the
“Plague Narrative” in Exod 7,14–11,10’, JNSL 22/2 (1996), 117–127.
——, ‘Zoals het nog nooit geweest was en ook nooit meer zou zijn (Ex 11,6): De plagen
van Egypte volgens Ex. 7–11: historiciteit en theologie’, TvT 36 (1996), 115–131.
——, ‘What Are We Looking for in Doing Text-Critical Research?’, JNSL 23/2 (1997),
69–80.
——, ‘As Many Texts as Plagues: A Preliminary Report of the Main Results of the Text-
Critical Evaluation of Exod 7:14–11:10’, JNSL 24/2 (1998), 111–125.
——, ‘The Phrase ‫( ובעצים ובאבנים‬ûba’esîm ûba’abanîm) in Ex 7,19’, Biblica 80 (1999),
264–268.
——, ‘The So-Called “Major Expansions” in SamP, 4QpaleoExodm and 4QExodj in Exod
7:14–11:10: On the Edge between Textual Criticism and Literary Criticism’, in: B. Taylor
(ed.), X Congress of the IOSCS. Oslo 1998 (SBL SCS, 51), Atlanta 2001, 429–439.
——, ‘Two Methodological Trails in Recent Studies on the Translation Technique of
the Septuagint’, in: R. Sollamo, S. Sipilä (eds), Helsinki Perspectives: On the Transla-
tion Technique of the Septuagint (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society, 62),
Helsinki 2001, 43–63.
——, ‘The So-Called “Priestly” Layer in Exod 7:14–11:10: “Source” and/or/nor “Redac-
tion”?’, RB 109 (2002), 481–511.
——, ‘Free and Yet Faithful: On the Translation Technique of LXX Exod 7,14–11,10’,
JNSL 33 (2007), 1–32.
——, ‘Not Fact, Yet True: Historicity versus Theology in the “Plague Narrative” (Ex.
7–11)’, OTE 20 (2007), 395–417.
——, ‘Flora in Cantico Canticorum: Towards a More Precise Characterisation of Transla-
tion Technique in the LXX of Song of Songs’, in: A. Voitila, J. Jokiranta (eds), Scripture
in Transition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible and Dead Sea Scrolls. FS R. Sollamo
(SJSJ, 126), Leiden 2008, 27–51.
——, Review of E. Kellenberger, Die Verstockung Pharaos: Exegetische und auslegungsge-
schichtliche Untersuchungen zu Exodus 1–15 (BWANT, 171; Stuttgart 2006), Biblica,
in press.
Lettinga, J.P., Muraoka, T., Van Peursen, W.T., Grammatica van het Bijbels Hebreeuws,
Leiden/Boston/Köln 112000.
Lisowski, G., Konkordanz zum Hebraïschen Alten Testament, Stuttgart 21981.
Lust, J., ‘The Story of David and Goliath in Hebrew and in Greek’, in: D. Barthélemy
et al., The Story of David and Goliath: Textual and Literary Criticism. Papers of a Joint
Research Venture (OBO, 73), Freiburg/Göttingen 1986, 5–18.
364 bibliography
——, ‘David and Goliath in the Hebrew and Greek Texts’, in: D. Barthélemy et al., The
Story of David and Goliath: Textual and Literary Criticism. Papers of a Joint Research
Venture (OBO, 73), Freiburg/Göttingen 1986, 121–128.
——, ‘Epilogue’, in: D. Barthélemy et al., The Story of David and Goliath: Textual and
Literary Criticism. Papers of a Joint Research Venture (OBO, 73), Freiburg/Göttingen
1986, 155–156.
——, ‘The Use of Textual Witnesses for the Establishment of the Text: the Shorter and
Longer Texts of Ezekiel’, in: Idem (ed.), Ezekiel and his Book: Textual and Literary
Criticism and Their Interrelation (BETL, 74), Leuven 1986, 7–20.
——, ‘Translation-Greek and the Lexicography of the Septuagint’, JSOT 59 (1993),
109–120.
——, ‘Textual Criticism of the Old and New Testaments: Stepbrothers?’, in: A. Denaux
(ed.), New Testament: Textual Criticism and Exegesis. FS J. Delobel (BETL, 161), Leuven
2002, 15–31.
Lust, J., Eynikel, E., Hauspie, K., Chamberlain, G., A Greek-English Lexicon of the Sep-
tuagint, Stuttgart 2003.
Marquis, G., ‘Word Order as a Criterion for the Evaluation of Translation Technique in
the LXX and the Evaluation of Word-Order Variants as Exemplified in LXX-Ezekiel’,
Textus 13 (1986), 59–84.
——, ‘Consistency of Lexical Equivalents as a Criterion for the Evaluation of Translation
Technique as Exemplified in the LXX of Ezekiel’, in: C.E. Cox (ed.), Sixth Congress of
the IOSCS, Jerusalem, 1986 (SBL SCS, 23), Atlanta 1987, 405–424.
McLain, C.E., ‘Variants: villainous or validating?’, CBTJ 12 (1996), 88–104.
McNeile, A.H., The Book of Exodus with Introduction and Notes (WC), London 1908.
Muraoka, T., ‘Hebrew Hapax Legomena and Septuagint Lexicography’, in: C.E. Cox
(ed.), Seventh Congress of the IOSCS, Leuven, 1989 (SBL SCS, 31), Atlanta 1991,
205–222.
Oesch, J.M., ‘Skizze einer synchronen und diachronen Gliederungskritik im Rahmen
der alttestamentlichen Textkritik’, in: M.C.A. Korpel, J.M. Oesch (eds), Delimination
Criticism: A New Tool in Biblical Scholarship (Pericope, 1), Assen 2000, 197–229.
Olofsson, S., The LXX Version: A Guide to the Translation Technique of the Septuagint (CB
OT, 30), Lund 1990.
——, ‘Consistency as a Translation Technique’, SJOT 6 (1992), 14–30.
——, ‘Qumran and LXX’, in: F.H. Cryer, T.L. Thompson (eds), Qumran between the
Old and New Testaments ( JSOT SS, 290), Sheffield 1998, 232–248.
Orlinsky, H.M., ‘The Septuagint and its Hebrew Text’, in: W.D. Davies, L. Finkelstein
(eds), The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 2: The Hellenistic Age, London/New York/
Port Chester/Melbourne/Sydney 1989, 534–562.
Owens, J.J., Analytical Key to the Old Testament, vol. 1: Genesis-Joshua, Grand Rapids
2
1992.
Pearson, B.W.R., ‘Remainderless Translations? Implications of the Tradition Concerning
the Translation of the LXX for Modern Translational Theory’, in: R.S. Hess, S.E. Porter
(eds), Translating the Bible ( JSOT SS, 173), Sheffield 1999, 63–84.
Pietersma, A., ‘A New Paradigm for Addressing Old Questions: The Relevance of the
Interlinear Model for the Study of the Septuagint’, in: J. Cook (ed.), Bible and Com-
puter: The Stellenbosch AIBI-6 Conference, Proceedings of the Association Internationale
Bible et Informatique ‘From Alpha to Byte’. University of Stellenbosch 17–21 July, 2000,
Leiden/Boston 2002, 337–364.
Polak, F.H., ‘Pluses and Minuses of the LXX on the Pentateuch: Textual Transmission
and Gradual Expansion’, in: J. Cook (ed.), Bible and Computer: The Stellenbosch AIBI-6
Conference, Proceedings of the Association Internationale Bible et Informatique ‘From Alpha
to Byte’. University of Stellenbosch 17–21 July, 2000, Leiden/Boston 2002, 395–412.
Postma, F., Talstra, E., Vervenne, M., Exodus: Materials in Automatic Text Processing. Part I.
Morphological, Syntactical and Literary Case Studies; Part II. Concordance (Instrumenta
Biblica, 1), Amsterdam/Turnhout 1983.
bibliography 365
Pummer, R., ‘The Greek Bible and the Samaritans’, REJ 157 (1998), 269–358.
Rabe, N., ‘Zur synchron definierten alttestamentlichen Textkritik’, BN 52 (1990),
64–97.
Rabin, C., ‘The Translation Process and the Character of the Septuagint’, Textus 6 (1968),
1–26.
Radday, Y.T., Levi, Y., An Analytical Linguistic Key-Word-in-Context Concordance to the
Book of Exodus (Computer Bible, 28), Wooster OH 1984.
Rahlfs, A., Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX interpretes, Stuttgart
1943.
Reed, S.A., Lundberg, M.J., Phelps, M.B., The Dead Sea Scrolls Catalogue: Documents,
Photographs and Museum Inventory Numbers (SBL RBS, 32), Atlanta 1994.
Rofé, A., ‘The Historical Significance of Secondary Readings’, in: C.A. Evans, S. Talmon
(eds), The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality. FS J.A.
Sanders, Leiden/New York/Köln 1997, 393–402.
Sanders, J.A., ‘The Task of Text Criticism’, in: H.T.C. Sun (ed.), Problems in Biblical
Theology. FS R. Knierim, Grand Rapids 1997, 315–327.
——, ‘The Judaean Desert Scrolls and the History of the Text of the Hebrew Bible’, in:
J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), Caves of Enlightenment: Proceedings of the American Schools of
Oriental Research Dead Sea Scrolls Jubilee Symposium (1947–1997), North Richland
Hills 1998, 1–17.
Sanderson, J.E., An Exodus Scroll from Qumran. 4QpaleoExodm and the Samaritan Tradition
(HSS, 30), Atlanta 1986.
——, ‘The Contributions of 4QpaleoExodm to Textual Criticism’, RQ 13 (1988),
547–560.
——, ‘The Old Greek of Exodus in the Light of 4QpaleoExodm’, Textus 14 (1988),
87–104.
Schenker, A., Hugo, P., ‘Histoire du texte et critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament dans
la recherche récente’, in: Idem (ed.), L’enfance de la Bible hébraïque: Histoire du texte de
l’Ancien Testament (Le monde de la Bible, 52), Fribourg 2005, 11–33.
Schmidt, L., Beobachtungen in der Plagenerzählung in Exodus VII,14–XI,10 (StB, 4), Leiden/
New York/Kopenhagen/Köln 1990.
Schweizer, H., Die Josefsgeschichte (Textwissenschaft—Hermeneutik—Linguistik—Infor-
matik 4,1/2), Munich 1990.
Schwienhorst, L., Die Eroberung Jerichos: Exegetische Untersuchung zu Josua 6 (SBS, 122),
Stuttgart 1986.
Silva, M., ‘Internal Evidence in the Text-Critical Use of the LXX’, in: N. Fernández Mar-
cos (ed.), La Septuaginta en la Investigación Contemporánea (V Congreso de la IOSCS)
(Textos y Estudios ‘Cardenal Cisneros’, 34), Madrid 1985, 151–167.
Skehan, P.W., Ulrich, E., Sanderson, J.E., Qumran Cave 4, vol. 4: Palaeo-Hebrew and
Greek Biblical Manuscripts (DJD, 9), Oxford 1992.
Soisalon-Soininen, I., Die Infinitive in der Septuaginta (AASF Series B, 132,1), Helsinki
1965.
——, ‘Der infinitivus constructus mit ‫ ל‬im Hebräischen’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sol-
lamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen: Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax. Zu seinem 70.
Geburtstag am 4. Juni 1987 (AASF Series B, 237), Helsinki 1987, 203–211 [= VT 22
(1972), 82–90].
——, ‘Der Gebrauch des Genetivus Absolutus in der Septuaginta’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R.
Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen: Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax. Zu seinem 70.
Geburtstag am 4. Juni 1987 (AASF Series B, 237), Helsinki 1987, 175–180 [= Proceedings
of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies, vol. 4, Jerusalem 1973, 131–136].
——, ‘Verschiedene Wiedergaben der Hebräischen Status-Constructus-Verbindung im
Griechischen Pentateuch’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen:
Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax. Zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 4. Juni 1987 (AASF Series
B, 237), Helsinki 1987, 62–70 [= SEÅ 41–42 (1976–1977), 214–223].
366 bibliography
——, ‘The Rendering of the Hebrew Relative Clause in the Greek Pentateuch’, in:
A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen: Studien zur Septuaginta-
Syntax. Zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 4. Juni 1987 (AASF Series B, 237), Helsinki 1987,
55–61 [= Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies, vol. 1, Jerusalem
1977, 401–406].
——, ‘Die Wiedergabe einiger Hebräischer Zeitangaben mit der Präposition ‫ ב‬in der
Septuaginta’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen: Studien zur
Septuaginta-Syntax. Zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 4. Juni 1987 (AASF Series B, 237),
Helsinki 1987, 107–115 [= ASTI 9 (1978), 138–146].
——, ‘Der Gebrauch des Verbs ἐχειν in der Septuaginta’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sol-
lamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen: Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax. Zu seinem 70.
Geburtstag am 4. Juni 1987 (AASF Series B, 237), Helsinki 1987, 181–188 [= VT 28
(1978), 92–99].
——, ‘Die Konstruktion des Verbs bei einem Neutrum Plural im Griechischen Pentateuch’,
in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen: Studien zur Septuaginta-
189–199 [= VT 29 (1979), 190–200].
——, ‘Renderings of Hebrew Comparative Expressions with ‫ מן‬in the Greek Pentateuch’,
in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen: Studien zur Septuaginta-
141–153 [= Bulletin IOSCS 12 (1979), 27–42].
——, ‘ἐν für εἰς in der Septuaginta’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-
Soininen: Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax. Zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 4. Juni 1987
(AASF Series B, 237), Helsinki 1987, 131–140 [= VT 32 (1982), 190–200].
——, ‘Beobachtungen zur Arbeitsweise der Septuaginta-Übersetzer’, in: A. Aejmelaeus,
R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen: Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax. Zu seinem
70. Geburtstag am 4. Juni 1987 (AASF Series B, 237), Helsinki 1987, 28–39 [= A.
Rofé, Y. Zakovitch (eds), Isac Leo Seeligmann Volume: Essays on the Bible and the Ancient
World, vol. 3, Jerusalem 1983, 319–329].
——, ‘Die Wiedergabe des ‫ ב‬instrumenti im Griechischen Pentateuch’, in: A. Aejme-
laeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen: Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax. Zu
seinem 70. Geburtstag am 4. Juni 1987 (AASF Series B, 237), Helsinki 1987, 116–130
[= J. Kiilunen, V. Riekkinen, H. Räisänen (eds), Glaube und Gerechtigkeit: In Memoriam
Rafael Gyllenberg (Schriften der Finnischen Exegetischen Gesellschaft, 38), Helsinki
1983, 31–46].
——, ‘Die Wiedergabe des Hebräischen Personalpronomens als Subjekt im Griechischen
Pentateuch’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen: Studien zur
Septuaginta-Syntax. Zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 4. Juni 1987 (AASF Series B, 237),
Helsinki 1987, 71–85 [= A. Pietersma, C. Cox (eds), De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour
of John William Wevers on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, Missisauga 1984, 115–128].
——, ‘Die Auslassung des Possessivpronomens im Griechischen Pentateuch’, in: A. Aej-
melaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen: Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax. Zu
seinem 70. Geburtstag am 4. Juni 1987 (AASF Series B, 237), Helsinki 1987, 86–103 [=
Studia Orientalia memoriae Jussi Aro dedicato (StOr, 55), Helsinki 1984, 277–294].
——, ‘Die Wiedergabe des partitiven ‫ מן‬im Griechischen Pentateuch’, in: A. Aejmelaeus,
R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen: Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax. Zu seinem
70. Geburtstag am 4. Juni 1987 (AASF Series B, 237), Helsinki 1987, 154–171 [= N.
Fernández Marcos (ed.), La Septuaginta en la Investigación Contemporanea (V Congreso
de la IOSCS) (Textos y Estudios ‘Cardinal Cisneros’, 34), Madrid 1985, 83–100].
——, ‘Einleitung’, in: A. Aejmelaeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen: Studien
zur Septuaginta-Syntax. Zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 4. Juni 1987 (AASF Series B,
237), Helsinki 1987, 11–18.
——, ‘Methodologische Fragen der Erforschung der Septuaginta-Syntax’, in: A. Aejme-
laeus, R. Sollamo (eds), Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen: Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax. Zu
bibliography 367
seinem 70. Geburtstag am 4. Juni 1987 (AASF Series B, 237), Helsinki 1987, 40–52
[= C. Cox (ed.), Sixth Congress of the IOSCS, Jerusalem, 1986 (SBL SCS, 23), Atlanta
1987, 425–444].
Sollamo, R., Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions in the Septuagint (AASF Dissertationes
Humanarum Litterarum, 19), Helsinki 1979.
——, ‘The LXX Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute Used with a Paronymous Finite
Verb in the Pentateuch’, in: N. Fernández Marcos (ed.), La Septuaginta en la Investigación
Contemporánea (V Congreso de la IOSCS) (Textos y Estudios ‘Cardenal Cisneros’, 34),
Madrid 1985, 101–113.
——, ‘The Origins of LXX Studies in Finland’, SJOT 10 (1996), 159–168.
——, ‘The Significance of Septuagint Studies’, in: S.M. Paul, R.A. Kraft, L.H. Schiffman,
W.W. Fields (eds), Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls.
FS E. Tov (VTS, 94), Leiden/Boston 2003, 497–512.
——, ‘Translation Technique as a Method’, in: H. Ausloos, J. Cook, F. García Martínez,
B. Lemmelijn, M. Vervenne (eds), Translating a Translation: The Septuagint and its
Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism (BETL, 213), Leuven/Paris/Dudley
MA 2008, pp. 35–41.
Sperber, A., A Historical Grammar of Biblical Hebrew: A Presentation of Problems with
Suggestions to Their Solution, Leiden 1966.
Stipp, H.-J., ‘Das Verhältnis von Textkritik und Literarkritik in neueren alttestamentlichen
Veröffentlichungen’, BZ 34 (1990), 16–37.
——, ‘Textkritik—Literarkritik—Textentwicklung: Überlegungen zur exegetischen Aspect-
systematik’, ETL 66 (1990), 143–159.
Tal, A., The Samaritan Pentateuch: Edited According to Ms 6(C) of the Shekhem Synagogue
(TSHLRS, 8), Tel-Aviv 1994.
——, ‘The Hebrew Pentateuch in the Eyes of the Samaritan Translator’, in: J. Krašovec
(ed.), Interpretation of the Bible: The International Symposium in Slovenia ( JSOT SS,
289), Sheffield 1998, 341–354.
——, ‘Le Pentateuque Samaritain’, in: A. Schenker, P. Hugo (eds), L’enfance de la Bible
hébraïque: Histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament (Le monde de la Bible, 52), Fribourg
2005, 77–104.
Talmon, S., ‘The Old Testament Text’, in: P.R. Ackroyd, C.F. Evans (eds), The Cam-
bridge History of the Bible, vol. 1: From the Beginnings to Jerome, Cambridge 1970,
159–199.
——, ‘The Textual Study of the Bible: A New Outlook’, in: F.M. Cross, S. Talmon (eds),
Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, Cambridge 1975, 321–400.
——, ‘Textual Criticism: The Ancient Versions’, in: A.D.H. Mayes (ed.), Text in
Context: Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study, Oxford 2000,
141–170.
Teshima, I., Textual Criticism and Early Biblical Interpretation, in: J. Krašovec (ed.),
Interpretation of the Bible: The International Symposium in Slovenia ( JSOT SS, 289),
Sheffield 1998, 165–179.
Thackeray, H.St.J., ‘Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute in the LXX’, JTS 9 (1908),
597–601.
——, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint, vol. 1,
Cambridge 1909.
Tov, E., ‘On “Pseudo-variants” Reflected in the Septuagint’, JSS 20 (1975), 165–177.
——, ‘Three Dimensions of LXX Words’, RB 83 (1976), 529–544.
——, ‘The Nature of the Hebrew Text Underlying the LXX: A Survey of the Problems’,
JSOT 7 (1978), 53–68.
——, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research ( Jerusalem Biblical Stu-
dies, 3), Jerusalem 1981.
——, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research: Second Edition, Revised
and Enlarged ( Jerusalem Biblical Studies, 8), Jerusalem 1997.
368 bibliography
——, ‘De tekst van het Oude Testament’, in: A.S. van der Woude (ed.), Bijbels handboek,
vol. 1, Kampen 1981.
——, ‘The Impact of the LXX Translation of the Pentateuch on the Translation of the
Other Books’, in: P. Casetti, O. Keel, A. Schenker (eds), Mélanges Dominique Barthé-
lemy: Etudes bibliques offertes à l’occasion de son 60e anniversaire (OBO, 38), Freiburg/
Göttingen 1981, 579–590.
——, ‘Criteria for Evaluating Textual Readings: The Limitations of Textual Rules’, HThR
75 (1982), 429–448.
——, ‘A Modern Textual Outlook Based on the Qumran Scrolls’, HUCA 53 (1982),
11–27.
——, ‘Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand their Hebrew Text?’, in:
A. Pietersma, C. Cox (eds), De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of J.W. Wevers on His
Sixty-Fifth Birthday, Missisauga 1984, 53–70.
——, ‘The Composition of 1 Samuel 16–18 in the Light of the Septuagint Version’, in:
J.H. Tigay, Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism, Philadelphia 1985, 97–129.
——, ‘Computer Assisted Alignment of the Greek-Hebrew Equivalents of the Masoretic
Text and the Septuagint’, in: N. Fernández Marcos (ed.), La Septuaginta en la Investi-
gación Contemporánea (V Congreso de la IOSCS), (Textos y Estudios ‘Cardenal Cisneros’,
34), Madrid 1985, 221–242.
——, ‘The Nature and Background of Harmonizations in Biblical Manuscripts’, JSOT
31 (1985), 3–29.
——, ‘The Nature of the Differences between MT and the LXX in 1 Sam. 17–18 [1]’,
in: D. Barthélemy et al., The Story of David and Goliath: Textual and Literary Criticism,
Papers of a Joint Research Venture (OBO, 73), Freiburg/Göttingen 1986, 19–46.
——, ‘Response’, in: Ibidem, 92–94.
——, ‘The Story of David and Goliath in the MT and LXX’, in: Ibidem, 129–137.
——, ‘The Nature and Study of the Translation Technique of the LXX in the Past and
Present’, in: C.E. Cox (ed.), Sixth Congress of the IOSCS, Jerusalem, 1986 (SBL SCS,
23), Atlanta 1987, 337–359.
——, ‘The Septuagint’, in: M.J. Mulder, H. Sysling (ed.), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading
and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, Assen/
Maastricht/Philadelphia 1988, 161–188.
——, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Minneapolis/Assen/Maastricht 1992.
——, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible: Second Revised Edition, Minneapolis/Assen
2001.
——, ‘Textual Criticism (Old Testament)’, ABD 6 (1992), 393–412.
——, ‘The Contribution of the Qumran Scrolls to the Understanding of the LXX’, in:
G.J. Brooke, B. Lindars (eds), Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings: Papers Presented
to the International Symposium on the Septuagint and Its Relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls
and Other Writings (Manchester, 1990) (SBL SCS, 33), Atlanta 1992, 11–47.
——, ‘Interchanges of Consonants between the Masoretic Text and the Vorlage of the
Septuagint’, in: M. Fishbane, E. Tov (eds), ‘Sha’arei Talmon’: Studies in the Bible, Qumran
and the Ancient Near East. FS S. Talmon, Winona Lake 1992, 255–266.
——, ‘Some Reflections on the Hebrew Texts from which the Septuagint Was Translated’,
JNSL 19 (1993), 107–122.
——, ‘The History and Significance of a Standard Text of the Hebrew Bible’, in:
M. Saebo (ed.), Hebrew Bible / Old Testament: The History of its Interpretation, vol. 1:
——, ‘The Accordance Search Program for the MT, LXX, and the CATSS Database’,
Bulletin IOSCS 30 (1997), 36–44.
——, ‘Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible 1947–1997’, in: F. García-Martínez,
E. Noort (eds), Perspectives in the Study of the Old Testament and Early Judaism. FS A.S.
van der Woude (VTS, 73), Leiden/Boston/Köln 1998, 61–81.
bibliography 369
——, ‘Sense Divisions in the Qumran Texts, the Masoretic Text, and Ancient Transla-
tions of the Bible’, in: J. Krašovec (ed.), Interpretation of the Bible: The International
Symposium in Slovenia ( JSOT SS, 289), Sheffield 1998, 121–146.
——, ‘The Significance of the Texts from the Judean Desert for the History of the Text
of the Hebrew Bible: A New Synthesis’, in: F.H. Cryer, T.L. Thompson (eds), Qumran
between the Old and New Testaments ( JSOT SS, 290), Sheffield 1998, 277–309.
——, ‘Rewritten Bible Compositions and Biblical Manuscripts, with Special Attention
to the Samaritan Pentateuch’, DSD 5 (1998), 334–354.
——, ‘The Nature of the Large-Scale Differences between the LXX and MT S T V,
Compared with Similar Evidence in Other Sources’, in: A. Schenker (ed.), The Earliest
Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew
Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered (SBL, 52), Atlanta 2003, 121–144.
——, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert
(STDJ, 54), Leiden/Boston 2004.
——, ‘La nature du texte massorétique à la lumière des découvertes du désert de Juda
et de la littérature rabbinique’, in: A. Schenker, P. Hugo (eds), L’enfance de la Bible
hébraïque: Histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament (Le monde de la Bible, 52), Fribourg
2005, 105–131.
——, ‘The Use of Computers in Biblical Research’, in: P.W. Flint, E. Tov, J.C. Vanderkam,
Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran and the Septuagint FS E. Ulrich (VTS, 101),
Leiden/Boston 2006, 337–359.
Tov, E., Wright, B.G., ‘Computer-Assisted Study of the Criteria for Assessing the Literal-
ness of Translation-Units in the LXX’, Textus 12 (1985), 149–187.
Tov, E., Pfann, S. (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche: A Comprehensive Facsimile
Edition of the Texts from the Judean Desert, Leiden/New York/Cologne 1993; Companion
Volume, Leiden/New York/Cologne 1993.
Trebolle Barrera, J., ‘Redaction, Recension and Midrash in the Book of Kings’, BIOSCS
15 (1982), 12–35.
——, ‘From the “Old Latin” through the “Old Greek” to the “Old Hebrew” (2 Kings
10:23–25)’, Textus 11 (1984), 17–36.
——, ‘Old Latin, Old Greek and Old Hebrew in the Books of Kings (1 Ki 18:27 and
2 Ki 20:11)’, Textus 13 (1986), 85–94.
——, ‘The Story of David and Goliath (1 Sam 17–18): Textual Variants and Literary
Composition’, BIOSCS 23 (1990), 16–30.
——, The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible: An Introduction to the History of the Bible,
Leiden/New York/Cologne 1998.
——, ‘A Canon within a Canon: Two Series of Old Testament Books Differently Trans-
mitted, Interpreted and Authorized’, RQ 19 (1999–2000), 383–399.
——, ‘Qumran Evidence for a Biblical Standard Text and for Non-standard and Para-
biblical Texts’, in: T.H. Lim (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context,
Edinburgh 2000, 89–106.
——, ‘Redaction, Recension, and Midrash in the Books of Kings’, in: G.N. Knoppers,
J.G. McConville (ed.), Reconsidering Israel and Judah. Recent Studies on the Deuterono-
mistic History (SBTS, 8), Winona Lake 2000, 475–492.
——, ‘A Combined Textual and Literary Criticism Analysis. Editorial Traces in Joshua
and Judges’ in: H. Ausloos, B. Lemmelijn, M. Vervenne (eds), Florilegium Lovaniense.
Studies in Septuagint and Textual Criticism in Honour of Florentino García Martínez
(BETL, 224), Leuven/Paris/Dudley MA 2008, 437–464.
Ulrich, E., Cross, F.M. et al., Qumran Cave 4, vol. 7: Genesis to Numbers (DJD, 12),
Oxford 1994.
——, ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Biblical Text’, in: P.W. Flint, J.C. Vanderkam (eds),
The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment, vol. 1, Leiden/Boston/
Köln 1998, 79–100.
370 bibliography
——, ‘The Canonical Process, Textual Criticism, and Latter Stages in the Composition
of the Bible’, in: Idem, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible, Grand Rapids/
Leiden/Boston/Köln 1999, 51–78 [= M. Fishbane, E. Tov (eds.), ‘Sha’arei Talmon’:
Studies in the Bible, Qumran and the Ancient Near East. FS S. Talmon, Winona Lake
1992, 267–291].
——, ‘The Palaeo-Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts from Qumran Cave 4’, in: Idem, The
Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible, Grand Rapids/Leiden/Boston/Köln 1999,
121–147 [= D. Dimant, L.H. Schiffman (eds.), Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilder-
ness. Papers on the Qumran Scrolls by Fellows of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the
Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989–1990 (STDJ, 16), Leiden/New York/Köln 1995,
103–129].
Van der Kooij, A., ‘Tekstkritiek en tekstoverlevering van het Oude Testament’, in: A.S.
van der Woude (ed.), Inleiding tot de studie van het Oude Testament, Kampen 1986,
87–101.
——, ‘Zum Verhältnis von Textkritik und Literarkritik: Überlegungen anhand einiger
Beispiele’, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume, Cambridge, 1995 (VTS, 66), Leiden/
New York/Köln 1997, 185–202.
——, ‘Perspectives on the Study of the Septuagint: Who Are the Translators?’, in:
F. García-Martínez, E. Noort (eds), Perspectives in the Study of the Old Testament and Early
Judaism. FS A.S. van der Woude (VTS, 73), Leiden/Boston/Köln 1998, 214–229.
——, ‘The Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible before and after the Qumran Discover-
ies’, in: E.D. Herbert, E. Tov (eds), The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean
Desert Discoveries, London/New Castle/Grand Haven 2002, 167–177.
——, ‘Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible: Its Aim and Method’, in: S.M. Paul, R.A.
Kraft, L.H. Schiffman, W.W. Fields (eds), Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint
and Dead Sea Scrolls. FS E. Tov (VTS, 94), Leiden/Boston 2003, 729–739.
——, ‘Textual Criticism’, in: J.W. Rogerson, J.M. Lieu, The Oxford Handbook of Biblical
Studies, Oxford 2006, 579–590.
Vanderkam, J., Flint, P., ‘The Biblical Scrolls and the Text of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testa-
ment’, in: Idem, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance for Understanding
the Bible, Judaism, Jesus and Christianity, San Francisco 2002, 103–153.
Van der Merwe, C.H.J., Naudé, J.A., Kroeze, J.H., A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar
(Biblical Languages: Hebrew, 3), Sheffield 1999.
Vervenne, M., Het Zeeverhaal (Exodus 13,17–14,31): Een literaire studie (unpublished
doctoral dissertation Theology, K.U.Leuven), Leuven 1986.
——, ‘Tekst en teksten’, in: H. Jagersma, M. Vervenne (eds), Inleiding in het Oude Testa-
ment, Kampen 1992, 25–39.
——, ‘Current Tendencies and Developments in the Study of the Book of Exodus’, in:
Idem (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction—Reception—Interpretation (BETL,
126), Leuven 1996, 21–29.
Voitila, A., ‘What the Translation of Tenses Tells about the Septuagint Translators’, SJOT
10 (1996), 183–196.
——, Présent et imparfait de l’indicatif dans le Pentateuque grec: Une étude sur la syntaxe de
traduction (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society, 79), Göttingen 2001.
Von Gall, A. (ed.), Der Hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner, vol. 2: Exodus, Giessen
1914.
Waltke, B.K., O’Connor, M., An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Winona Lake
1990.
Werlitz, J., Studien zur literarkritischen Methoden: Gericht und Heil in Jesaja 7,1–17 und
29,1–8 (BZAW, 204), Berlin/New York 1992.
Wevers, J.W., ‘The Use of Versions for Text Criticism: The Septuagint’, in: N. Fernández
Marcos (ed.), La Septuaginta en la Investigación Contemporánea (V Congreso de la IOSCS)
(Textos y Estudios ‘Cardenal Cisneros’, 34), Madrid 1985, 15–24.
——, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus (SBL SCS, 30), Atlanta 1990.
bibliography 371
——, (ed.), Exodus (Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum, II,1), Göttingen 1991.
——, ‘The Interpretative Character and Significance of the Septuagint Version’, in:
M. Saebo (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of its Interpretation, vol. 1:
Wifstrand, A., Die Stellung der enklitischen Personalpronomina bei den Septuaginta (Kungl.
Humanistiska Vetenskapssamfundets i Lund arsberättelse 1949–1950, II), Lund
1950.
Wright, B.G., ‘The Quantitative Representation of Elements: Evaluating “Literalism” in
the LXX’, in: C.E. Cox (ed.), Sixth Congress of the IOSCS, Jerusalem, 1986 (SBL SCS,
23), Atlanta 1987, 311–335.
——, ‘∆ουλος and Παις as Translations of ‫עבד‬: Lexical Equivalences and Conceptual
Transformations’, in: B.A. Taylor, IX Congress of the International Organization for Sep-
tuagint and Cognate Studies, Cambridge, 1995, Atlanta 1997, 263–277.
——, ‘The Jewish Scriptures in Greek: The Septuagint in the Context of Ancient Transla-
tion Activity’, in: F.W. Knobloch, Biblical Translation in Context (Studies and Texts in
Jewish History and Culture, 10), Maryland 2002.
Young, I., ‘The “Archaic” Poetry of the Pentateuch in the MT, Samaritan Pentateuch and
4QExodc’, Abr-Nahrain 35 (1998), 74–83.
Zipor, M.A., ‘The Use of the Septuagint as a Textual Witness: Further Considerations’,
in: B.A. Taylor (ed.), X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and
Cognate Studies, Oslo, 1998 (SBL, 51), Atlanta 2001, 553–581.
INDEX OF AUTHORS
Ackroyd, P.R. 2 Doniger O’Flaherty, W. 1

Aejmelaeus, A. 1, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, Driver, S.R. ix
86, 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104,
105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 112, 113, Emerton, J.A. 2, 3
114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 122, Evans, C.F. 2
123, 124, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130,
133, 134, 135, 138, 143, 145, 146, Fernández Marcos, N. 16, 19, 24, 108,
147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 154, 189, 133
214 Fields, W.W. 3
Aquila 52, 63, 64, 106, 137, 138, 141, Finkelstein, L. 127
189 Fishbane, M. 101
Ausloos, H. xi, 4, 101, 122, 124, 125, Frankel, Z. 36, 39, 52, 68, 79, 99, 100,
136 108, 126, 141, 143, 144, 159, 175
Freedman, D.N. 205
Baentsch, B. ix Freund 47
Baillet, M. 28, 29, 219 Friebe, R. ix, x
Barr, J. 96, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 105,
106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 115, García Martínez, F. xi, 4, 101, 125,
120, 123 136
Barth, H. 4 Gentry, P.J. 124
Barthélemy, D. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 22, 23, Gispen, W.H. ix
24, 25, 100 Goshen-Gottstein, M.H. 2, 7
Baumgartner, W. 49 Greenberg, M. 2, 20
Beek, M.A. 99 Greenstein, E.L. 205
Beer, G. ix
Bogaert, P.-M. 23 Hanhart, R. 103, 104, 130
Brock, S.P. 99, 100, 108, 109, 117 Hesychius 63
Brooke, G.J. 96, 97, 103 Hiebert, R.J.V. 124
Holzinger, H. ix
Casetti, P. 100 Hurvitz, A. 205
Chiesa, B. 2
Clements, R.E. ix Jagersma, H. ix
Cole, R.A. ix Jokiranta, J. 124
Collins, N.L. 190, 192 Joüon, P. 44, 47, 49
Cook, J. xi, 11, 20, 101, 125, 133, 136
Cowley, A.E. 44, 47, 49 Keel, O. 100
Cox, C.E. 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 108, Koehler, L. 49
124 Kraft, R.A. 2, 27, 115
Cross, F.M. 1, 2, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, Kroeze, J.H. 145
37, 39, 48, 50, 58, 66, 73, 74, 79, Kyle McCarter, P. 15
186, 219
Crown, A.D. 28 Labuschagne, C.J. 7
Le Boulluec, A. 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39,
Davies, W.D. 127 40, 41, 46, 50, 52, 53, 54, 56, 59, 60,
Debel, H. 125 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71,
De Vaux, R. 28, 29, 219 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82,
374 index of authors
84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71,
154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 161, 162, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82,
163, 164, 169, 176, 184, 185, 186, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95,
187, 188, 192, 195 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 161, 162,
Lee, J.A.L. 99 163, 164, 169, 176, 184, 185, 186,
Lemmelijn, B. x, xi, 1, 2, 4, 7, 20, 22, 187, 188, 192, 195
25, 101, 108, 115, 124, 125, 126, Schenker, A. 100
136, 192, 197, 199, 211, 216 Schiffman, L.H. 2
Lettinga, J.P. 47, 55, 93 Schmidt, L. x
Lindars, B. 96, 97, 103 Schweitzer, H. 7
Lust, J. 2, 3, 17, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, Schwienhorst, L. 4, 5
103 Silva, M. 16
Sipilä, S. 108
Marquis, G. 97, 100, 103, 104, 107, Skehan, P.W. 15, 20, 28, 29, 31, 32,
108, 109, 111, 112, 114, 115, 118, 43, 50, 73, 74, 84, 91, 167, 176, 201,
120, 121, 122 202, 203, 219
Marx 47 Soisalon-Soininen, I. 24, 86, 100, 103,
McNeile, A.H. ix 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 112, 113,
Milgrom, J. 205 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 124,
Milik, J.T. 28, 29, 219 126, 127, 137, 141, 142, 143, 144,
Montaner, L.V. 2 147, 148, 150, 189
Mulder, M.J. 19 Sollamo, R. 24, 86, 100, 103, 104,
Muraoka, T. 44, 47, 49, 55, 93, 101 105, 106, 107, 108, 110, 112, 113,
116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 122, 123,
Naudé, J.A. 145 124, 126, 141, 144, 189
Steck, O.H. 4
O’Connor, M. 55, 75, 77 Stipp, H.-J. 4, 5, 6
Olofsson, S. 18, 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, Symmachus 63, 64, 137, 138
104, 105, 107, 108, 110, 111, 114, Sysling, H. 19
115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 124, 131,
132 Tal, A. 27, 28, 29, 219
Orlinsky, H.M. 127 Talmon, S. 2, 3, 26, 101
Owens, J.J. 47 Taylor, B. x, 197, 216
Thackeray, H.St.J. 99, 100, 104, 126,
Paul, S.M. 2 144
Pfann, S. 28 Theodoretus of Cyrrhus 56
Philo of Alexandria 56 Theodotion 52, 63, 141
Pietersma, A. 99, 124 Tigay, J.H. 4
Tov, E. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 14, 15, 16, 17,
Rabe, N. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,
15 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103,
Rabin, C. 97, 98, 99, 100, 151 104, 107, 108, 109, 111, 112, 114,
115, 119, 120, 123, 126, 129, 130,
Saebo, M. 1 131, 132, 133, 135, 155, 189, 215
Sanderson, J.E. 2, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, Trebolle Barrera, J. 2, 3, 4
20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32,
43, 47, 50, 73, 74, 84, 91, 96, 100, Ulrich, E. 15, 20, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32,
126, 128, 130, 134, 135, 152, 164, 33, 37, 39, 43, 48, 50, 58, 66, 73, 74,
165, 166, 167, 172, 173, 174, 176, 79, 84, 91, 167, 176, 186, 201, 202,
181, 183, 186, 187, 190, 196, 197, 203, 219
198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 206,
219 Van der Kooij, A. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 14
Sandevoir, P. 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, Van der Merwe, C.H.J. 145
40, 41, 46, 50, 52, 53, 54, 56, 59, 60, Van der Woude, A.S. 1, 2
index of authors 375
Van Peursen, W.T. 47, 55, 93 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80,
Verbeke, E. 125 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92,
Vervenne, M. ix, x, xi, 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 99, 104, 126, 137,
14, 19, 22, 97, 98, 99, 101, 106, 125, 138, 139, 141, 152, 154, 155, 157,
136, 150, 188, 192, 209 159, 161, 162, 163, 164, 167, 169,
Voitila, A. 124 173, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 183,
Von Gall, A. 27, 28 185, 186, 188, 190, 191, 192, 193,
195, 219
Waltke, B.K. 55, 75, 77 Wifstrand, A. 149
Werlitz, J. 3 Wright, B.G. 97, 104, 108, 109, 110,
Wevers, J.W. 18, 19, 27, 29, 34, 36, 111, 112, 114, 115, 120, 123
37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 48, 49, Wright, D.P. 205
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60,
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, Zenger, E. 125
INDEX OF TEXTUAL REFERENCES
Hebrew Bible
Genesis 214, 215, 216,

217, 218, 219
4:15 184
7:14 34, 74, 137, 139,
20:11 40
145, 160, 170,
20:18 40
194, 220
25:16 40
7:15–18 201
29:24 62
7:15 34, 73, 137, 149,
30:15 184
201, 220–221
30:20 62
7:16–18 201
32:13 144
7:16 145, 148, 149,
42:21 71
161, 170, 194,
48:18 148
221–222
7:17 32, 34, 74, 137,
Exodus
142, 160, 164,
1:12 52 185, 222–223
1:13 51 7:18 34, 201, 207,
1:15 51 223–224
1:17 62 7:18b 33, 35, 197, 201,
3 192 211, 212, 216,
3:21–22 192, 216 224–227
3:21 89, 90, 206 7:19 35, 41, 42, 137,
3:22 89, 192 145, 151, 152,
4:22–23 91, 192, 198, 153, 160, 164,
200, 205, 206, 180, 185, 194,
207, 216 199, 212, 217,
4:23 74 227–229
5:1 73 7:20 34, 35, 137, 141,
5:3 56 142, 146, 148,
7–11 x, 18, 28, 209, 149, 151, 152,
211 160, 172, 185,
7:2–4 216 193, 200, 212,
7:2 196 229–230
7:3 94, 195 7:21 35, 153, 230–231
7:6 216 7:22 35, 36, 46, 137,
7:8–14 199 138, 142, 156,
7:9 172 160, 166, 168,
7:10 73, 172 231–232
7:11 35, 38, 156 7:23 36, 137, 145,
7:14–11:10 ix, x, xi, 13, 27, 146, 148, 149,
29, 33, 96, 125, 232–233
135, 136, 139, 7:24 36, 140, 142,
140, 145, 148, 145, 149, 233
150, 160, 197, 7:25 160, 234
209, 211, 212, 7:26–29 201, 202
378 index of textual references
Exodus (cont.) 161, 162, 212,

7:26–27 170 245–246
7:26 36, 137, 145, 8:7 38, 39, 40, 48,
149, 160, 170, 51, 137, 142,
194, 234–235 158, 159, 163,
7:27 32, 36, 74, 137, 172, 193, 212,
142, 145, 169, 246
170, 180, 235 8:8 40, 137, 142,
7:28–29 157 145, 160, 217,
7:28 36, 37, 137, 139, 247
146, 149, 155, 8:9 38, 39, 40, 41,
172, 193, 202, 137, 138, 142,
235–236 145, 160, 163,
7:29 37, 139, 140, 247–248
155, 202, 207, 8:10 41, 63, 248
237 8:11 38, 40, 41, 137,
7:29b 37, 197, 201, 138, 145, 146,
211, 212, 216, 148, 149, 160,
217, 237–239 168, 248–249
8:1–2 155 8:12–15 44, 199
8:1 37, 38, 41, 42, 8:12 41, 42, 43, 140,
137, 140, 141, 142, 145, 153,
142, 145, 151, 160, 163, 164,
152, 153, 155, 165, 166, 180,
160, 164, 185, 185, 194, 212,
194, 202, 207, 213, 217, 249–
212, 217, 250
240–241 8:13 41, 42, 43, 44,
8:1b 38, 197, 200, 45, 46, 137, 138,
202, 211, 212, 140, 142, 145,
216, 241 153, 163, 164,
8:2 38, 74, 142, 153, 165, 166, 185,
154, 155, 185, 213, 214, 216,
202, 212, 217, 217, 250–251
242 8:14 46, 47, 137, 138,
8:3 38, 46, 137, 142, 145, 149,
138, 142, 145, 156, 164, 165,
153, 155, 156, 166, 217, 252
157, 166, 8:15 47, 48, 137, 138,
242–243 142, 145, 156,
8:4 38, 53, 69, 78, 160, 161, 168,
145, 155, 157, 194, 252–253
158, 160, 162, 8:16–19 202, 203
170, 194, 217, 8:16–17 171
243–244 8:16 43, 48, 138,
8:5 38, 39, 48, 51, 141, 145, 149,
137, 139, 142, 160, 166, 167,
145, 149, 155, 170, 172, 194,
157, 158, 159, 202, 203, 213,
172, 193, 194, 253–254
212, 244–245 8:17 38, 43, 48, 49,
8:6 39, 41, 63, 79, 51, 76, 137, 138,
137, 138, 142, 139, 142, 145,
145, 159, 160, 158, 169, 170,
index of textual references 379
Exodus (cont.) 9:1–5 203

172, 180, 193, 9:1–2 170
255–256 9:1 54, 56, 145, 149,
8:18 43, 49, 50, 58, 161, 170, 194,
66, 138, 142, 203, 269–270
160, 162, 9:2 54, 55, 74, 139,
256–257 142, 149, 169,
8:19 50, 57, 58, 138, 170, 171, 213,
149, 168, 195, 270
207, 213, 9:3 55, 56, 63, 64,
257–258 68, 137, 138,
8:19b 50, 58, 66, 197, 160, 180,
202, 203, 211, 270–271
213, 216, 9:4 56, 57, 58, 137,
258–261 140, 142, 143,
8:20 50, 51, 56, 61, 171, 213,
64, 68, 73, 138, 271–272
139, 141, 145, 9:5 40, 57, 58, 137,
153, 154, 160, 138, 148, 160,
172, 261–262 161, 168, 207,
8:21 51, 137, 138, 272–273
145, 148, 149, 9:5b 50, 58, 66, 197,
153, 154, 161, 203, 211, 213,
168, 217, 216, 217,
262–263 273–276
8:22 51, 52, 57, 138, 9:6–7 203
141, 146, 149, 9:6 40, 58, 137, 142,
161, 194, 145, 150, 171,
263–264 276–277
8:23 52, 138, 143, 9:7 58, 65, 142, 145,
161, 264 146, 148, 149,
8:24 38, 52, 53, 69, 168, 170, 171,
78, 137, 138, 213, 277–278
140, 144, 149, 9:8–12 199
157, 160, 161, 9:8 58, 59, 60, 61,
162, 163, 170, 62, 138, 141,
194, 265–266 142, 145, 148,
8:25 32, 53, 54, 74, 160, 166, 167,
138, 145, 149, 171, 172, 194,
158, 161, 170, 213, 278–279
172, 193, 194, 9:9 59, 60, 65, 137,
266–267 138, 140, 150,
8:26 54, 138, 145, 153, 164, 165,
161, 267–268 213, 217,
8:27 51, 53, 54, 137, 279–280
138, 145, 158, 9:10 59, 60, 61, 62,
160, 172, 193, 65, 137, 138,
268 140, 141, 150,
8:28 54, 95, 137, 164, 172, 173,
142, 148, 168, 213, 214, 216,
169, 170, 180, 217, 280–281
268–269 9:11 61, 62, 137, 138,
8:29(25) 54, 92 140, 141,
Exodus (cont.) 177, 185, 194,

146, 149, 150, 199, 217,
153, 156, 173, 296–297
281–282 9:23–26 176
9:12 62, 137, 138, 9:23–24 69, 177
145, 160, 168, 9:23 64, 67, 68, 75,
282 76, 138, 139,
9:13–19 204 142, 145, 153,
9:13 62, 73, 138, 161, 178, 185,
141, 145, 149, 200, 217,
160, 161, 170, 297–298
172, 194, 203, 9:24 68, 137, 138,
283–284 140, 145, 153,
9:14–16 63 154, 174, 175,
9:14 62, 63, 137, 140, 176, 178,
142, 146, 153, 298–299
154, 172, 180, 9:25 67, 69, 75, 76,
193, 284–285 82, 138, 145,
9:15 63, 137, 140, 149, 153, 174,
142, 146, 148, 176, 177, 213,
149, 172, 285 214, 216,
9:16 63, 64, 138, 139, 299–300
149, 153, 154, 9:26–28 177
173, 286 9:26 69, 137, 142,
9:17 64, 170, 286–287 171, 300–301
9:18–19 176, 177 9:27 69, 70, 71, 74,
9:18 64, 68, 137, 138, 77, 78, 83, 86,
140, 149, 154, 88, 95, 138, 145,
175, 178, 180, 146, 148, 149,
217, 287–288 161, 194, 217,
9:19 64, 65, 66, 137, 301–302
138, 142, 145, 9:28–29 217
146, 149, 150, 9:28 53, 69, 70, 71,
174, 176, 204, 74, 77, 78, 83,
207, 288–289 86, 88, 92, 95,
9:19b 50, 58, 66, 197, 137, 138, 149,
203, 204, 211, 157, 160, 161,
213, 216, 217, 162, 163, 170,
289–294 177, 213, 217,
9:20 40, 64, 65, 66, 302–303
137, 138, 142, 9:29–30 177
148, 160, 174, 9:29 70, 138, 139,
213, 214, 216, 140, 145, 149,
217, 294–295 161, 178, 213,
9:21 40, 66, 68, 137, 303–304
138, 139, 142, 9:30 70, 160, 161,
145, 146, 160, 163, 304
174, 213, 214, 9:31 70, 145, 146,
216, 217, 295 304–305
9:22 66, 67, 68, 75, 9:32 70, 140, 142,
82, 137, 138, 145, 146, 305
139, 142, 145, 9:33–35 177
153, 161, 176, 9:33–34 64, 138, 178
Exodus (cont.) 182, 204, 213,

9:33 70, 71, 138, 140, 318–320
142, 145, 161, 10:7–11 181
306–307 10:7 76, 77, 78, 83,
9:34 70, 71, 145, 146, 86, 88, 95, 127,
148, 149, 172, 138, 143, 145,
178, 179, 180, 149, 161, 170,
307 194, 320–321
9:35 50, 58, 66, 71, 10:8–11 217
74, 77, 78, 83, 10:8 77, 78, 142, 152,
86, 88, 95, 137, 161, 183, 194,
138, 143, 161, 321–322
168, 170, 171, 10:9 77, 78, 137, 142,
308 146, 160, 161,
10:1–11:8 73 162, 183, 194,
10:1 71, 72, 137, 139, 322–323
140, 142, 145, 10:10 78, 83, 86, 88,
146, 148, 149, 95, 138, 141,
161, 166, 167, 170, 323–324
179, 180, 194, 10:11 76, 78, 79, 138,
195, 204, 213, 140, 141, 145,
308–309 146, 161, 183,
10:2 72, 73, 137, 139, 184, 324–325
142, 160, 161, 10:12–13 217
162, 195, 207, 10:12 79, 80, 82, 85,
310–311 139, 140, 142,
10:2b 73, 197, 204, 145, 153, 161,
211, 213, 216, 181, 184, 185,
311–315 186, 194, 199,
10:3–6 181, 204, 217 213, 217,
10:3–4 171 325–326
10:3 73, 74, 77, 78, 10:13–15 181, 184
83, 86, 88, 95, 10:13 80, 137, 139,
138, 139, 141, 142, 143, 153,
145, 149, 152, 161, 185, 186,
161, 170, 172, 200, 213, 214,
181, 194, 204, 216, 217,
217, 315–316 326–327
10:4 74, 75, 77, 78, 10:14–15 217
83, 86, 88, 95, 10:14 80, 81, 137, 140,
137, 138, 139, 153, 327–328
140, 142, 145, 10:15 75, 81, 82, 83,
149, 169, 170, 85, 137, 139,
180, 204, 213, 140, 153, 181,
316–317 184, 186, 187,
10:5 67, 75, 79, 80, 217, 329–330
138, 139, 149, 10:16 65, 78, 82, 138,
180, 181, 184, 139, 143, 145,
213, 217, 146, 148, 149,
317–318 152, 161, 168,
10:6 75, 76, 137, 181, 217,
138, 139, 140, 330–331
143, 146, 148, 10:17 78, 82, 139, 149,
149, 153, 181, 161, 331
Exodus (cont.) 11:1 88, 89, 95, 138,

10:18 82, 83, 137, 138, 140, 144, 145,
145, 181, 182, 149, 161, 170,
213, 332 171, 190, 194,
10:19 34, 83, 85, 137, 206, 213, 214,
138, 139, 149, 216, 341–343
153, 161, 11:2 89, 137, 142,
332–333 190, 191, 206,
10:20 83, 86, 88, 95, 213, 343–344
138, 161, 168, 11:3 89, 90, 91, 93,
170, 171, 333 139, 140, 141,
10:21–27 199 142, 145, 153,
10:21 83, 137, 139, 161, 192, 205,
142, 145, 153, 206, 207, 213,
161, 180, 185, 344–345
187, 188, 194, 11:3b 73, 90, 91, 193,
333–334 197, 198, 200,
10:22 83, 84, 137, 205, 206, 207,
139, 142, 145, 211, 213, 216,
153, 185, 187, 345–350
188, 189, 213, 11:4–7 91, 198, 205, 206
334–335 11:4 91, 137, 153,
10:23 84, 140, 144, 161, 180, 182,
145, 171, 194, 206,
335–336 350–351
10:24 78, 84, 85, 86, 11:5 91, 92, 137, 138,
139, 142, 143, 142, 351–352
146, 148, 149, 11:6 92, 137, 140,
151, 152, 160, 153, 352–353
161, 162, 166, 11:7 92, 93, 137,
167, 168, 213, 138, 139, 171,
217, 336–337 353–354
10:25 85, 86, 137, 140, 11:8 93, 94, 139, 144,
143, 149, 161, 145, 148, 149,
337–338 181, 182, 183,
10:26 85, 86, 139, 213, 354–355
140, 142, 145, 11:9–10 195
146, 149, 150, 11:9 94, 137, 139,
160, 161, 162, 145, 149, 153,
338–339 154, 161, 194,
10:27 86, 88, 95, 138, 195, 196, 213,
139, 145, 149, 355–356
161, 169, 170, 11:10 94, 95, 138, 141,
339–340 145, 153, 154,
10:28 86, 87, 88, 92, 161, 168, 169,
137, 139, 141, 170, 171, 193,
142, 149, 189, 195, 196, 213,
340–341 356–357
10:29 88, 92, 137, 141, 12 192, 198
144, 145, 149, 12:29 92
189, 341 12:35–36 192, 216
11 206, 216 12:35 62, 89, 192
11:1–10 192 12:36 89, 90, 192
Exodus (cont.) Joshua

13:17–14:31 150
4:8 62
14:5 172
13:23 40
14:8 172
13:28 40
15:1 144
19:23 40
15:21 144
16:28 74
Judges
22:3 144
22:17 74 8:7 184
11:8 184
Leviticus
1 Kings
25:31 40
22:19 184
Numbers
2 Kings
12:7 184
12:14 65 1:4 184
13:30 144 1:6 184
22:5 75
22:11 75 Job
22:17 144
12:25 187
25:18 40
42:9 62
27:23 62
31:16 40
Psalms
Deuteronomy 45:5 40
2:34 71
Qohelet
3:6 71
3:16–17 36 12:12 xi
4:11 84, 188
5:22 84, 188 Jeremiah
18:14 184
6:19 32, 74
28:29 187
Qumran
4QpaleoExodm x, 14, 15, 28, 29, 4QExodc x, 28, 29, 31, 32,
30, 32, 33, 34, 34, 73, 91, 211,
50, 58, 66, 73, 219
74, 91, 211, 219 7:17–19 33
7:18b–19 33 7:17 33
7:18b 33 7:18 33
10:4 32 7:19 33
7:29b 73
4QpaleoGen-Exodl x, 28, 29, 34, 91, 8:8 31, 32
211, 219 8:12 31
8:21 31 9:1 33
8:22 31 9:16 33
9:34 31 9:22–23 33
9:22 33
2QExoda x, 28, 29, 34, 91, 9:34 31
211, 219 10:1–2 32
4QExodc (cont.) 4QExodj x, 28, 30, 31, 34,

10:2b 73 91, 211, 219
10:9 32 7:28–8:2 30
7:29b–8:1b 30
4QGen-Exoda x, 28, 30, 34, 91, 7:29 30
211, 219 7:29b 30
8:1 30
8:1a 30

(OS 056) Lemmelijn - A Plague of Texts - A Text-Critical Study of The So-Called 'Plagues Narrative' in Exodus 7,14-11,10 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

(OS 056) Lemmelijn - A Plague of Texts - A Text-Critical Study of The So-Called 'Plagues Narrative' in Exodus 7,14-11,10 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

A Plague of Texts?

H.F. Van Rooy

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Copyright 2009 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated,

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by

printed in the netherlands

Abbreviations .................................................................................... vii

Chapter One: Prolegomena ............................................................. 1

Chapter Two: The Textual Material of the ‘Plagues Narrative’ ...... 29

Chapter Three: Text-Critical Evaluation of the Variants in the

Consistency and non-consistency in the choice of

General Conclusion ......................................................................... 209

Appendix: Synopsis of the Textual Witnesses of Exod.

Bibliography ..................................................................................... 359

Index of Authors .............................................................................. 373

AASF Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae

OTS Oudtestamentische Studiën

and L. Schmidt, likewise appear to ignore its signiﬁcance.4 Many authors

The present study is the result of a considerable amount of planning and

the Dutch text and to both my doctoral student/research assistant, Hans

signiﬁcant processes: the literary development and growth of the text on

matter of fact, it is highly likely that the textual transmission of certain

horst.17 In Stipp’s opinion, the scholars in question are unable to distance

Textual criticism itself consists of two important phases.23 In the ﬁrst

In Rabe’s opinion, ‘synchronic textual criticism’ has three primary tasks.

is important to note at this juncture, however, that arguments based on

Rabe concludes with a discussion on the relationship between syn-

In our opinion, moreover, Rabe’s strict distinction between textual

Having oﬀered some brief introductory observations with respect to tex-

between the textual witnesses in every place preserved by 4QpaleoExodm.

Criteria for the evaluation of textual variants

a. the logic that underpins certain rules is sometimes open to question.48

Tov’s critique of the classical criteria is not intended to suggest that we

and similarly underlines the importance of the context of a reading as it

Development of a dedicated working model for text-critical research79

Anyone planning to engage in serious text-critical research into a particular

As a matter of fact, the textual data ultimately represent the factual

in question.87 This implies that an analysis is made of the contribution of

questions relating to textual corruption, expansion or abbreviation.92 The

Presentation of the textual material

A variety of textual fragments preserved in several diﬀerent manuscripts

THE TEXTUAL MATERIAL OF THE

Reﬂecting the methodological framework and working model described

Synopsis of the textual witnesses to the ‘Plagues Narrative’

The synoptic survey presented in appendix is subdivided as follows: the

contains 4QGen-Exoda and ﬁnally, the ninth column presents 4QExodj,

3. Exod. 8:21 4QpaleoGen-Exodl: Cf. P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sander-

6. Exod. 10:4 4QpaleoExodm: cf. P.W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, J.E. Sanderson,

8. Remark concerning 4QExodc: cf. E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross et al., DJD

‘Plagues Narrative’, although no correction or insertion as been preserved

Registration and description of the textual variants found

On the basis of the synoptical collection of the extant textual material

itself whereby, with respect to the so-called smaller textual diﬀerences,

Exod. 7:14 MG ≠ SamP4Qm ‫ויאמר‬, εἰπεν δε—‫וידבר‬: diﬀerent Hebrew

Exod. 7:18b MG4Qc4Qa ≠ SamP4Qm 7:18b = SamP4Qm+: larger plus20

Exod. 7:22 MSamP4Qc ≠ G ‫—דבר‬εἰπεν: diﬀerent translation (cf. supra,

Exod. 7:28 M4Qc ≠ GSamP ‫—משׁכבך‬των κοιτωνων σου, ‫משׁכביך‬:

Exod. 8:1 M ≠ GSamP4Qj και, ‫ =ו‬GSamP4Qj+: conjunction

Exod. 8:5 MG ≠ SamP ‫ = ומעבדיך‬SamP+44

Exod. 8:7 MSamP ≠ G ‫מ‬, ἀπο and ἐκ: diﬀerent translation52

dative and YHWH is understood as the

Exod. 8:12 G ≠ SamP4Qc τῃ χειρι—‫ = את ידך‬SamP4Qc+: posses-