An Addition That Created an Omission in Exod 24:9-11
Exodus 24:9-11 provides another illustrative example of how later
editors regarded the idea of seeing Yhweh as theologically offensive. Here the
correction was made by an addition, which de facto created an omission, although
no section of the older text was omitted.
According to the Masoretic version of Exod 24:9-11 (with the
exception of some additional names in v. 9, the S[amaritan]P[entateuch] follows
the MT closely in these verses), Moses, Aaron and the elders of Israel went up
(to the mountain of Sinai), where they saw the God of Israel. Unlike in many
other passages, which refer to God’s glory or fire being seen, this text refers
to God himself being seen. It also implied that they see his feet under which
there was a pavement made of sapphire, pure like heaven. The reference to the
feet implies an anthropomorphic form. The LXX translation, however, contains
two small additions that in effect omit the idea that God could be seen:
Exod 24:9-11 MT |
Exod 24:9-11 LXX |
ויעל משׁה ואהרן נדב ואביהוא9
10 ויראו 11 ואל־אצילי בני ישׂראל |
9 καὶ ἀνέβη Μωυσῆς καὶ Ααρων καὶ Ναδαβ |
9 Moses and Aaron, Nadab, Abihu |
9 Moses and Aaron, Nadab, Abihu |
The Greek version adds a reference to the place where God stood
(v. 10) and a place of God (v. 11) immediately after the verb so that the
original object was replaced by the addition. As a consequence, the original object,
God, now only defines that the place is that is seen ( à place where
God stood). Because the plus in the LXX occurs twice in a similar context
having a similar effect in the text, the possibility of an accidental omission
in the MT/SP can be excluded. The Greek version is a secondary attempt to avoid
the idea that God could be seen. However, the Greek text was not systematically
edited in this respect because it preserves a reference to the feet of God.
The additions show that the editor (or translator) who made the
additions had a high regard for the text and was not unwilling or not allowed
to make substantial changes to it. The older test was preserved if the
correction in content could be made with an addition, a tendency that we have
also seen elsewhere. For the editor it was evidently easier to accept an
addition than an omission if the result was similar. The example also shows
that the omission of a theologically offensive idea could be achieved by an
expansion that effectively avoided the original meaning of the sentence. (Juha
Pakkala, God's Word Omitted: Omissions in the Translation of the Hebrew
Bible [Forschungen zur Religion und Lieratur des Alten und Neuen Testaments
251; Bristol, Conn.: Vandenhoeck and Reprecht, 2013], 195-96)