The KJV of Mal 2:16 reads:
For the Lord, the God
of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away (alt. "divorce"): for
one covereth violence with his garment, saith the Lord of hosts: therefore take
heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.
However, some ancient versions of this
passage read differently. Following 4QXIIa from Qumran, one
translation reads:
For if you hate and
divorce, [says the LORD,] the God of Israel, they cover my [garmen]t with
violence, says the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, [that]
you do [no]t deal treacherously. (Martin Abegg, Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene
Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for
the First Time into English [HarperCollins e-books], 476)
Gordon P. Hugenberger, in his comments on
this passage, argues for preferring the KJV and other translations of the
Hebrew which have God hating divorce instead of God allowing people to divorce
if they “hate” their spouse:
The great majority of
commentators from the ancient versions to the modern era agree that Mal. 2:16
refers to divorce, but there is a wide diversity of view as to Malachi’s
precise attitude toward divorce . . .
Malachi urges divorce
(4QXIIa, LXXLW, and Targum)
. . . the MT of 2:16
may permit an alternative reading, “If he hates, send (her) away . . . “
This interpretation of כּי as a conditional particle and the related understanding of שַׁלַּ֗ח as an imperative are
supported by 4QXIIa, as well as by the LXXLW, Vulgate,
Targum, and Talmud. Accordingly, this interpretation is accepted by Rashi,
David Kimchi, and Maimonides, among others.
In spite of the ancient
pedigree of this view, at times called “the traditional Jewish interpretation,”
the following objections may be noted:
1) LXXLW (“But
if, having hated [or “you ate”], divorce her!) and the other versions to
which appeal is made support this view only by eliminating the awkward shift in
personal reference to the MT between כִּֽי־שָׂנֵ֣א, “if he hates,” and שַׁלַּ֗ח, “you send
away.” Accordingly, the MT may be preferable as the lectio difficilior.
2) In spite of the
apparent support for divorce in LXXLW, the uniform rendering of the
LXX in 16b is και καλυψει ασεβεια επι τα ενθυηματα [LXXW ενδυματα] σου, “and ungodliness
will cover your thoughts [garment].” This rendering is basically supportive of
the MT, וְכִסָּ֤ה חָמָס֙ עַל־לְבוּשׁ֔וֹ, and only with great
difficulty can it be made to support the present interpretation, since it
appears implicitly to condemn divorce. Furthermore, it should be noted that LXXאABQV, understood by J.
Ziergler to preserve the Old Greek, differs significantly form LXXLW
and in that it explicitly condemns divorce. LXXאABQV reads: αλλα [LXXאA: αλλ] εαν μισησας εξαποστειλης λεγει κυριος ο θεος του ισραηλ, και καλυψει ασεβεια επι τα ενθυμηματα σου, λεγει κυριος παντοκρατωρ, “But if you divorce,
having hated, says the Lord, the God of Israel, then ungodliness will cover
your thoughts [or “garments” if LXXאABQV are corrected with LXXW], says
the Lord Almighty.”
3) The reading of the
versions with their approval of divorce is considered by many scholars to be tendentious
. . . In spite of the great antiquity of 4QXIIa, dated to 150-125
B.C. based on its semicursive script, Fuller notes that in more than half of
the cases where 4QXIIa agrees with the LXX over against the MT, it
offers a reading which is inferior to the MT.
4) Most seriously, as
noted by J. Baldwin, “such a reading undermines all that the prophet is
seeking to convey” (Joyce G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An
Introduction and Commentary [TOTC; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity, 1972],
241). To be more specific, we may observe with R. Westbrook that this interpretation,
which considers that 2:16a commends divorce, is difficult to reconcile with the
strenuous disapproval implied at the conclusion of the verse: “So take heed to
yourselves and do not be faithless” (Raymond Westbrook, “The Prohibition on
Restoration of Marriage in Deuteronomy 24:1-4,” in Studies in the Bible
1986: Scripta Hierosolymitana 31, S. Japhet, ed. [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986],
p. 403). (Gordon P. Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant: Biblical Law and
Ethics and Developed from Malachi [Biblical Studies Library; Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Baker Books, 1994], 57-59)
While reading the above, it reminded me of
how many critics of the Book of Mormon following the KJV/MT instead of other
ancient versions (e.g., those from Qumran) as evidence that (1) the KJV is, ipso
facto, in error and, as a result, (2) the Book of Mormon is in error for
following these passages in its quotations of Isaiah. In light of Mal 2:16 in
the MT, DSS, and LXX above, we see that such a view is naïve.