. . . there are several compelling reasons why the MT may well
preserve a superior reading to that of the LXX. Two scholars have put forward
persuasive arguments for retaining the text and sense of the MT. First,
Jeppesen (1991: 90–91) maintains that, if we emend the MT in order to read
“with a cherub,” there remains a problem with the translation of verse 16.
Here, as in verse 14, the MT seems to equate the cherub with the king. Further
emendation of the MT is thus required in order to preserve the independence of
the cherub and the king. Some commentators have done this by reading וָֽאַבֶּדְךָ
as the 3ms qatal form of אבד (rather than the 1cs yiqtol form
represented in the MT) and translate, “So the guardian cherub destroyed you”.
This requires no emendation to the consonantal text of the MT. However, the
syntax of the MT in verse 16 makes sense as it is. Although the full version of
the 1cs yiqtol of אבד should be written with two alephs, the
elision of the aleph, although unusual, is not impossible. This omission
of an aleph occasionally happens in the piel, for example in 2
Sam 22:40. Also, only earlier in Ezekiel 28:16 itself, the third person plural qal
qatal of מלא is written without the third radical, aleph. Another
point in favour of the MT in verse 16 is the fact that the subject of the
previous verb, וָאֶחַלֶּלְךָ, is Yahweh. Arguably, the agent of punishment is
Yahweh and thus he should be the subject of וָֽאַבֶּדְךָ and not the cherub. Those
scholars who amend the vocalization of וָֽאַבֶּדְךָ to read the third person
form are thus harmonizing the text in order to preserve the independence of the
cherub and the king and create a better parallel between Ezek 28 and Gen 2–3.
Hence, Jeppesen is right to argue that we should read with the MT (as lectio
difficilior) in verses 14 and 16.
Second, Barr (1992a: 213–223) has pointed to another textual
difficulty that arises if we emend the Masoretic vocalization of את to mean “with”
in verse 14. The LXX supplies a simple reading, “With the cherub I placed you”.
However, after אַ֙תְּ־כְּר֔וּב, the MT has two other descriptive words which
the LXX omits. Following these words in the MT is the verb “I appointed you”,
yet this is separated from the previous verbless clause by the conjunction
“and”, thus וּנְתַתִּ֗יךָ. The LXX does not represent this conjunction. Barr
argues that the syntax of the MT necessitates two clauses, the nominal clause,
“You are the cherub”, and the verbal clause, “and I appointed you.” However,
the LXX translator, not understanding the rare 2ms pronoun אַתְּ, reads אֵת (‘with’).
In doing this, the Greek translator is then forced to read one clause instead of
two. The LXX does not supply anything in place of the Hebrew הִתְהַלָּֽכְתָּ in
the third clause. הִתְהַלָּֽכְתָּ would be a completely unnecessary later
addition to the Hebrew text.
Accordingly, the MT may be regarded as the lectio difficilior and
thus may preserve a more ancient reading. The possibility that the MT is the
earlier reading, over against the LXX, has important implications for our
understanding of the portrayal of the king of Tyre in this pericope and the
history of the Eden tradition. Barr contends: “The person addressed in the...
oracle, the one who is full of wisdom and perfect in beauty, who walked among
the precious stones… was a semi-divine being or a divinely placed agent, not
the first man, Adam” (1992: 220). (Alice Wood, Of Wings and Wheels: A
Synthetic Study of the Biblical Cherubim [Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 385; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008], 71-73)