The Greek Version of Leviticus

OT and LXX scholars will enthusiastically welcome the present volume ¹, the fourth in this series by J.W. Wevers. Similar to his earlier volumes ², the core of this exhaustive book consists of verse by verse comments, covering most textual and interpretative aspects of the LXX. This work is preceded by an "Introductory Statement", actually an introduction, which illuminates the Greek translator’s work as well as the methodological principles of the author. In effect, this is a summation of the main issues discussed in the book. The book concludes with a list of proposed changes in the LXX text of Leviticus in the Gцttingen critical edition ³, an Appendix, "Terms for Sacrifices", which summarizes the discussions in various parts of the book, and Indexes to the Greek and Hebrew words.

In his "Introductory Statement" (xxvi) Wevers modestly says that his book is not intended for the professional scholar of Greek. In fact, even readers of Greek will find plenty of keen and refreshing observations in this book as well as in Wevers’ other volumes. I mention here one example: There is the obligation of wtlr( Mtlr(w when planting a tree (Lev 19,23). The noun hlr( usually means "foreskin", but this noun and the denominative verb lr( (literally: "take off the hlr(", i.e. circumcise), which is a hapax legomenon, serve metaphorically in our context. The Greek translator renders it thus: perikaqariei=te th\n a0kaqarsi/an au0tou=, lit.: "and you shall cleanse-around its uncleanness". Then again: "its fruits shall be Mylr(", which is rendered: a0perika/qartoj ("uncleansed"). A subtle suggestion of circumcision, however, can be found in the translation by using the compound verb peri/ + kaqari/zein (or with an alpha privativum). The component peri/ has no Hebrew equivalent here and yet it does exist in the common rendering of lwm (when used literally as "circumcise"): peritemne/in = "cut around" ⁴.

Nevertheless, Wevers’ series does not suit those lacking a reasonable level of Greek. Many of his comments incorporate Greek expressions without English translation, and this regretfully precludes the use of his book by many OT students.

Another particularly useful tool is the frequent statistics of Septuagintal expressions and renditions used in the Book of Leviticus. It would have been more useful if data of other parts of the Pentateuch (and OT) had been included in the statistics.

Wevers deals extensively in his comments with what he calls "in the tradition", i.e. the transformations made during the transmission and duplication of the LXX text ⁵. Although this data is important, we believe that its proper place would be in the volumes dedicated to the history of the Greek text of the biblical books ⁶, unless there is doubt as to the reading which represents the authentic Greek translation (= the "Old Greek"), or in the event that the Greek variants represent recensions (such as the Hexapla) which can shed more light on the Hebrew text that Origen and others had at their disposal. On the other hand, there are important issues worthy of attention which are not discussed in the book. Thus, for example, the reader would like to know how the Greek translator perceived the term Mylyl) (19,4; 26,1), and how he rendered it: did he have in mind man-made and carved "gods", or did he take it as an abstract term? This case and others will be discussed below.

On the other hand, Wevers incorporates many comments with regard to Greek terminology, or to what the translator did, where the Greek text is actually no more than a literal rendition of a text identical with MT; e.g. Wevers’ comment on 19,1: "What is said to the community (...) is a3gioi e1sesqe (...) It is that separateness that is demanded in order a3gioi e1sesqe". Similarly, comments on 20,21.26; 21,4, and other references. Such comments have nothing to do with LXX, and their proper place is in a commentary on the Hebrew book of Leviticus. The reader does not always discern that in these cases Wevers’ comment in fact illuminates what MT said, not the translator, who merely duplicated MT’s idea in Greek.

The above-mentioned observations refer more to the contents and structure of the book under review; the observations that follow refer to its principles. Wevers frequently states that the translator added to, omitted from or made changes in the text where, to a no lesser extent, we can assume he strictly followed his Hebrew Vorlage. Wevers’ credo is expressed thus: "Lev ⁷ is essentially an exegetical text (...) whenever Levstrays from the obvious intent of the Hebrew (...) I have suggested a possible reason for such deviation" (xxxii; similarly, even more determinately in his "Introductory Statement" to his volume of Genesis, xiii). As a rule, only (and not in all cases) when he finds a similarity in a Hebrew text to LXX (viz., Sam and Qumran) is Wevers willing to assess that the change has already appeared in the Vorlage. Thus, in many cases, Wevers explains the difference between MT ⁸ and LXX as harmonization with another biblical reference ("leveling" is the term frequently used by Wevers) made by the Greek translator. In other cases, however, where the MT utilizes the same expression in various references, and LXX has different expressions, it is explained as the translator’s desire for variety. Thus the Greek translator, as it is alleged, is never satisfied with the Hebrew text: he shows a tendency to harmonize when MT has "uneven" passages, but when MT is already "even" the translator feels it necessary to vary the Greek expressions. And yet, in many other passages, the same translator seems quite satisfied with the Hebrew text and leaves it as it is. These contradictory attitudes may be attributed to the same person, namely the Greek translator, only if one insists that the translator had a Hebrew text similar to MT (or at times to Sam), and that he took pains to modify it. An alternative and no less probable assumption is that the differences between LXX and MT were sporadically created by a number of Hebrew copyists over the generations, and that the Greek translator usually made an exact translation of his Hebrew Vorlage, which differed in many details from MT. Unfortunately, only small parts of the Hebrew Book of Leviticus remained in Qumran; however, from fragments of other biblical books and also from the limited remnants of Leviticus, we see great textual variety. Qumranic Hebrew texts often support the LXX version as opposed to that of MT. As a principle, this may apply to other places in the book, even when there is no such extant Hebrew variant. Such reconstruction of an assumed Hebrew Vorlage can only be denied when a non-biblical expression is created. This issue is discussed in extenso elsewhere ⁹.

After this overall appraisal, we now return to reexamine details. The best way would be to focus here on four consecutive chapters, 19–22, which have already been processed by our own Hebrew Septuagint Project ¹⁰. We find the present volumes of Wevers most valuable tools for the OT and LXX studies, and the following detailed comments should only be taken as minor addenda et corrigenda. These observations are divided into (1) LXX as interpretation, and (2) LXX as a textual-witness. We will not reintroduce what has already appeared in the apparatuses of BHS and BHK or in Wevers’ book unless either we feel they have missed the point or when their comments need to be supplemented. The issue of which version is to be preferred, will not be dealt with here.

1. LXX of Leviticus as an Interpretation – Additional Notes

19,2 MT: wyht My#dq, "You shall be holy". The Greek translates it simply in the future tense and not as an imperative. We cannot know if the translator understood this phrase as a command or as a fact, "You shall be holy, because I am holy", because the translator often fails to translate the Hebrew imperfect by means of an imperative despite the fact that this is the intention of the Hebrew text.

19,3 The word #y) in the distributive sense is rendered here e3kastoj, "everyone". It is often translated as a Hebraism: a1nqrwpoj or a0nh/r. The Greek verb used here is 3rd pers. sing. (notwithstanding the Hebrew). To the word e3kastoj either a singular or plural predicate can be added.

19,4 Mylyl). This word is rendered at 26,1 xeiropoi/hta, lit. "hand-made (objects)", which fits the context "you shall not make for yourselves" and the parallelism in the verse. At 19,4 the termei1dwla was chosen ¹¹, a word related to ei0d– (Lat. videre, to see), but usually meaning "unreal", yeu=doj (see TDNT, s.v. ei1dwlon). ei1dwlon is used in other books to render Myprt, lsp, etc., thus, in LXX it has the meaning of stone-made or wooden statues.

19,9 MT rcql Kd# t)p hlkt )l (lit: "you shall not finish to crop the edge of your field"). LXX: "You shall not completely crop off the harvest of your field". The translator makes no reference to the wordh)p "edge", "border". A similar translation is found in the parallel passage 23,22. Zacharia Frankel and Leo Prijs think that this interpretation in the LXX meets the requirements of rabbinical halacha ¹². I suspect that the Greek translator of Leviticus simply had difficulty with the word h)p, and avoided it whenever it appears in our book (six times!). See further on v. 27; 21,5 and at 13,41. Our translator never renders this word as "edge", unlike the Greek translator of Exodus. Precisely the same phenomenon is to be found in Vg in Leviticus, which often follows LXX.

19,20 The word trqb is rendered e0piskoph/. This Greek word and its derivatives are used to translate the roots rqb and dqp in their various Hebrew meanings. It is hard to know what the translator intended here by "there will bee0piskoph/ … au0toi=j". The supplement au0toi=j ("to them" or "for them"), which has here no Hebrew equivalent, also does not add clarity. At times it appears that the translator makes little or no effort to delve deeply into the matter, and he translates in a completely stereotypical manner.

19,24 MT Mylwlh #dq. LXX: a3gioj ai0neto/j "(Its fruits) shall be holy, an offering of praise". According to the division of the verse by the cantillations, these two words in MT are in the constructed state: "holiness of praise (to the Lord)". However, in LXX the two words are separate: a3gioj is the predicate of "will be", while the phrase ai0neto\j tw=| kuri/w| ("laudable to the Lord") is in apposition ¹³.

19,26 MT: "You shall not practice augury or witchcraft". LXX renders the Hebrew phrase in connection with ornithoskopia, of which something similar can be found in Sy and in rabbinical literature ¹⁴.

19,27 MT: "You shall not round off the edge (t)p) of your head". LXX: "you shall not make siso/h from the hair on your head". This is unclear, but it appears that the intention is a certain kind of hairstyle. The word siso/h which is a hapax legomenon in the LXX, is enigmatic and in fact unknown in all earlier documents. As in other places in our book, the word h)p is not translated as "edge" here either. Further on in our verse, MT says: "You shall not mar the edge (t)p) of your beard". A similar expression, with slight variation, is to be found at 21,5. In these two references h)p is translated as o1yij, "appearance". See on v. 9 above.

19,31 The cantillations divide the verse thus: "Do not turn to mediums or wizards; do not seek to be defiled by them". The division in LXX is different, but also possible: "Do not follow the ventriloquists; and as for the enchanters do not attach yourselves, so to be defiled by them". For the word w#qbt, LXX uses the verb proskolla/w, which perhaps reflects wqbdt.

19,34 MT: "For you were strangers (Myrg) in the Land of Egypt". Generally, a distinction is made in the LXX between rg in the sense of a person who has joined (or "approached", prose/rxomai) the Jewish nation, translated as prosh/lutoj (as at the beginning of this verse and the previous verse, this is also the term that was later accepted by the European languages), and rg in the sense of "dweller", a person living in a strange land, which is translated pa/roikoj, "he who lives near" (as in Gen 15,13; 23,4; Exod 2,22; Deut 23,8). Given this, the text here should ostensibly read: "Because you were pa/roikoi in Egypt". However, our translator did not write this because he wanted to say: You must behave sensitively to the prosh/lutoj because you yourselves were prosh/lutoi. This is LXX’s rendition in Exod 22,21; 23,9; Deut 10,9 (in Deut 23,18 he has no need for this, and can therefore say: "Because you were pa/roikoj in this land") ¹⁵.

20,11 hwr(. As usual, the LXX renders this "shame", as is the case in the Tg. of the Prophets. It appears that the Mishna contradicted this translation; see m.Meg. 4,9 and b.Meg. 25a.

21,3 MT: (#y)l) htyh ()l r#)), "who has had no husband". In LXX, "who was not given to a man". Compare Deut 22,16. Apparently this is an interpretation introduced by the translator. The possibility of a Hebrew Vorlage hntn, however, should not be excluded.

21,5 MT: Mnqz t)p. See above on 19,27 and 19,9.

21,9 MT: "She profanes her father". There are additional words in LXX, "the name of (her father)". This accentuation is necessary, since the meaning of the verb llx here is not the same as in vv. 14-15, where the offspring of a priest’s unlawful marriage is "profaned", in the meaning that he cannot serve as priest. Similar interpretation is to be found in rabbinical literature (see Prijs, Jьdische Tradition, 15). Note that in OT the expression M# + llx refers only to the name of the Lord. In 4QLev^e [DJD XII, 199]: [tllxm )yh hyb)] tyb t).

21,10b. Wevers makes reference to 10,6, but fails to refer to 13,45 or to Num 5,18 ¹⁶.

22,10 ryk#w Nhk b#wt, "a sojourner of a priest and a hireling". b#wt and ryki# are a fixed word-pair, mostly in this order. Like MT, LXX does not explicitly say that reference here is to the hireling of a priest and, even as such, he may not partake "of the holy thing" (as opposed to those mentioned in v. 11), but seemingly this is the meaning. See, however, 25,6 where the Hebrew says "your hired servant" but nevertheless does not give expression to the Hebrew suffix ¹⁷.

22,22 MT: Cwrx. LXX: "with a cut tongue". This specification derives from Crx and Nw#l in Exod 11,7 ¹⁸.

22,23 hcry )l rdnlw wt) h#(t hbdn, "you may present it as free will. But it will not be acceptable in a fulfillment of a vow". LXX: "you shall make them sfa/gia (= a victim) for yourself", etc. The intention here, apparently, is secular slaughter. The term hbdn cannot here be given its usual explanation: ai3resij, "chosen", as in 22,18 and other places; e9kou/sioj, "by free will", o9mologi/a, as a terminus technicus of an offering, since we are dealing with an animal with a blemish and, as such, unfit for an offering. The translator thus solved this problem, in that a man can slaughter such a mutilated animal for his own food but it cannot be accepted as a votive offering by God. Fischer, on the other hand, believes that the translator read the word hbdn as xb+ "slaughter", exchanging dn/+ and h/x for which the rendition sfa/gion is appropriate ¹⁹. Rabbinical literature offers another solution: such an animal can be used as an offering of the kind described in 27,11-13, as can also be the case for an unclean animal.

2. LXX of Leviticus as Evidence for a Different Hebrew Text

19,3 MT: "His mother and (i.e. "or") his father" (similarly 4Q367 [DJD XII, 348]). The order in LXX, Vg, Sy and Tg. Neof. is: "his father and his mother". Similarly at 20,9; 21,2, in Sam, LXX and Sy (as against MT), "father" precedes "mother". The usual order of these two nouns in OT is "father" as an A-word and "mother" as a B-word. These three biblical references, as well as Ezek 16,45, are the exceptions. On the other hand, nowhere in Sam or the LXX does "mother" precede "father", as against MT. Hence, in our verse MT is lectio difficilior while the other versions are in accordance with the usual word order, possibly influenced by the Decalogue (thus Wevers). However, also note that vv. 3-4 in our chapter are set up in chiastic order to the Decalogue.

19,5 MT: whxbzt. In LXX there is no pronominal suffix, but the absence of such a component is very common in translation. Nevertheless, this may reflect a different Vorlage here. Compare MT 22,29.

19,6 MT: y#yl#h Mwy d( rtwnhw, "And anything left over until the third day". It appears that LXX reflects another formula: y#yl#h Mwy d( rtwy M)w, "and if anything remains until the third day". Compare Exod 29,34 My)lmh r#bm rtwy M)w (note the next words, "then you shall burn the remainder with fire", similar to the wording in our verse). Note that in Lev 7,17 (in LXX 7,7); 8,32, where MT is identical with the formula of our verse, the Greek translates the Hebrew literally.

19,8 MT: "The holy thing of the Lord". In the LXX: ta\ a3gia. There is a possibility that the translator actually read the Hebrew word in the plural (notice the letter yod heading the adjacent word). On the other hand, the neutrum pluralis appears frequently in LXX in apposition to different words deriving from the root #dq both in the plural and singular forms. The combination hwhy #dq appears once more in MT in Mal 2,11, while hwhy y#dq in the plural appears in Lev 5,15.

19,8 MT: hym(m )yhh #pnh htrknw, "and that soul shall be destroyed from its nation". LXX: "and the souls who eat shall be destroyed from their nation". This probably reflects a Hebrew text that read: Mm( (brq)m twlkw)h tw#pnh htrknw, etc. Compare MT Lev 18,29: Mm( brqm t#(h tw#pnh wtrknw and 7,25 (in a similar context of consuming the meat of an offering after the prescribed time): hym(m tlk)h #pnh htrknw.

19,18 MT: (Km( ynb t) r+t )lw) Mqti )l. LXX: "your hand shall not avenge you (and you shall not keep anger against the children of your people)". The phrase "sou h9 xei/r" ("your hand") appears to be an explanatory addition, although the explanation itself remains unclear. Note, however, the Damascus Covenant 9,2-10, where the relations between members of the community are dealt with. It quotes the verses 18-19 in our chapter, adding: "Because he did not carry out God’s words, )+x wyl( )#t )lw Ky(r t) xykwt xkwh. As for the oath, that He said, ‘your hand shall not save yourself’" ²⁰; compare Serek 7,8-9: "and who will unjustly hold a grudge (rw+y) against his friend (…) and thus for anyone who revenges another" (w#pnl Mqwnh); see also ibid. 6,25-27 and 1 Sam 25,26, etc. Note that the grammatical form of Mqt can be 2nd pers. sing. masculine, thus having "you" as subject (as the perfect tbh)w in the same verse), but also 3rd pers. sing. fem. – and this can be appropriate for "your hand" as subject.

19,19 MT: (MyI)lk (rzt )l) Kd#, "your field (you shall not sow with two species)". LXX: "your vineyard". Wevers states: "The translation is simply an error". I do not think so. Compare Deut 22,9: "You shall not sow your vineyard (Kmrk) with two species". Note the similarity of the context at Deut 22, as well: there are the three types of mixture (MyI)lk), field (or vineyard), cattle, zn+(# of clothes. Frankel maintains that the translator of Leviticus rendered the law of prohibition of sowing with two species in accordance with the rules of MyI)lk which apply outside Palestine ²¹. However, it is most likely that the word Kmrk has appeared in the Vorlage of LXX in our verse. The two words, Mrk and hd#, are a fixed pair and are interchangeable. Compare Judg 9,27: "and they went out into the field (hd#) and gathered grapes from the vineyards (Mrk)". In the Qumranic work miqs[at ma(ase= ha-tora (4Q396) a combination of the two terms appears: "And concerning his [clean ani]mal it is written that one must not let it mate with another species; and concerning his clothes [it is written that they should not] be of mixed stuff; and he must not sow his field and his vine[yard with mixed specie]s" (see DJD X, 54-56). The fact that the law about mixing species refers to breeding animals and not to ploughing with two types of animals bound together, proves that this passage is a rewritten version of Lev 19 and not of Deut 22.

19,22 MT: wt)+xm wl xlsnw, lit: "from his sin" (with an impersonal subject: "it will be atoned for him"). In LXX: "his sin will be atoned". This is also the case in Sy. Possibly their Vorlage had w)+x /wt)+x wl xlsnw. Note that the usual formulation in MT is –l 4xlsnw, lit.: "and it will be atoned for" with an impersonal subject (appearing 13 times – all in Lev and Num). Only in our verse does MT add "from his sin that he committed". Compare the formula in 5,26.

19,25 MT: wyrp t) wlk)t, "You may eat of their fruit". LXX and Sy translate this in the imperative. This may indicate the reading wlk). Note the letter t ending the preceding word (t#ymxh).

20,2 MT: "Who gives from his seed to the Molech" (Klm). Here and at 18,21 LXX renders: "to the a1rxon", a Greek word which is a regular rendition for )y#n and for r#. See also Rofй, who asserts that there must have been a Hebrew text that used the word )y#n, "prince", instead of Klm, "king", as part of the general tendency to replace the term Klm with )y#n – since God is the one and only king ²². Among the arguments presented by Rofй, he mentions the quotation from Deut 17,17 in Damascus Covenant 5:12: "And it was written about the )y#n, that he should not multiply wives for himself, but David did not read in the sealed Book" (at Deut 17,14-17 the term used is Klm).

20,2 MT: Nbe) (wt) wmgry), lit., "a stone". Here the singular form of "stone" is used in a collective sense and actually refers to "stones". In the LXX it is translated e0n li/qoij ("with stones"). This is also true of 24,23 and later in v. 27 where Sam also uses the plural form "stones". It is possible that in the other verses as well, in these references or some of them, there was a Vorlage with the word "stones". Compare Num 14,10; Deut 21,21, where MT has the plural (with the verb Mgr) and Deut 13,11; 22,21.24 (with lqs).

20,6 MT: "I will cut him (wt)) off from among his people (wm()" (referring to #y)h in v. 5). LXX: "cut her, from among her people" (in the feminine referring to yuxh/, "that soul"), which may reflect the reading wm(, ht) referring to )yhh #pnh. In fact, in Sam we find here hm(, ht); however, there is no certainty whether the intention in Sam was to indicate the feminine gender (as BH claims) or to the masculine (and this refers to "man"), with the early orthography frequently represented in Sam and also in MT (e.g. Gen 9,21) and in inscriptions of the First Temple period. It is possible that what was written in the ancient text was hm(, ht) and only because these words were understood in the masculine form were they written in the "normative" orthography, wm(, wt), as is now in MT. A similar explanation can apply to 22,28 (see below).

20,7 MT: "For I am the Lord your God". LXX: "For I am sacred I am your Lord God"; Sam: Mkyhl) ’h yn) #wdq yk. Compare 19,2. See further v. 26. In fact, there are two basic formulas in the Code of Holiness to justify God’s commandments: (a): "For I am your Lord (God)"; (b): "Because I am sacred". All the variations (or extensions, such as "who took you out of Egypt") appearing in the different references in MT and the other versions developed from these two basic formulas. See, e.g., 11,44-45.

20,9 MT: #y) #y) yk. In LXX, Vg and Sy there is no equivalent here for yk and the sentence flows better. Is it merely coincidental that these three versions do not use "for"? Do they derive from a shorter Vorlage?

20,17 MT: )#y wnw(, "He shall bear his iniquity"; the subject is "the man". LXX, Vg, Sy in the plural: "they shall bear their iniquity", applicable for the man and his sister, possibly reading w)#y Mnw(. Note the letter yod prefixing the following word.

20,24 MT: ht) t#rl, "To possess her" (i.e., the land). In LXX there is a noun here instead and it may reflect the Vorlage h#rwm(l), "for a possession". Compare Exod 6,8: "I will give it to you for a possession. I am the Lord" and similar wording in Ezekiel, passim.

20,25 MT: hrh+h hmhbh-Nyb Mtldbhw, etc. In LXX: "and you shall set them (au0tou/j) aside between the pure cattle", etc. Where does the accusative in LXX come from? There is no doubt that the Hebrew Vorlage was... hrh+h hmhbh-Nyb Mt) Mtldbhw, originally meaning: "and you yourselves shall separate between the pure cattle...". The addition of the personal pronoun for purpose of emphasis appears, for example, in v. 5: ynp yn) yttnw. Compare ytqx lk t) Mtrm#w (20,22), as against ytqx t) Mt) Mtrm#w (18,26). The Greek in our verse, on the other hand, has translated the word Mt), meaning "you" as Mt), "them": au0tou/j.

20,25 MT: "And between the unclean bird and the clean". LXX, Vg and Sy have an inverted order as in the previous expression. The usual order, however, is )m+ preceding rwh+; e.g., 10,10; 11,47; Deut 12,11, etc.

20,25 MT: hmd)h #mrt r#) lkb, "through anything which the ground makes teem" (lit., "that the ground makes reptile"). LXX, Vg and Sy: "and through anything that creeps upon the ground". Similarly LXX in Gen 9,2. Probably the translators had some difficulty with the Hebrew expression. This may, however, represent another Vorlage, hmd)h l( #mwr(h) lkb, cf., e.g., Gen 1,30; 7,14.

20,26 MT: Mkt) ldb)w, "and I have separated you (from the nations)". LXX: "who has separated you (from all the nations)". Apparently LXX had here a Hebrew Vorlage similar to v. 24 and not a Greek harmonization, since it translated Hiph. ldb in v. 24 in a different way.

20,27 MT: yk, which may be understood as "if". LXX: "who". Wevers comments: "The Greek has made a relative clause of the yk". We find, however, the reading r#) in Sam (as is also mentioned in BH), similar to the opening formula of the causative sentences in the earlier part of the chapter. The addition in LXX, a0mfo/teroi, "both of them", after "they would be surely put to death" is absurd, and was influenced by the language used in vv. 11.12.13.18. There is no way of knowing if the Hebrew Vorlage had already included the word Mhyn#.

21,2 MT: "his mother… his father". In Sam, LXX and in Sy the order is inverted, as in v. 11, Ezek 44,25 and compare Num 6,7 (all references with similar context). See above on 19,3.

21,4 MT: wym(b l(b )m+y )l. The Hebrew phrase is not clear. The Greek equivalent of l(b in our verse is e0xa/pina, "suddenly, unexpectedly". This translation might reflect the Vorlage (lb (thus rendered in Num 4,20), and, according to others, lhb or lg(b (Aramaic: "soon, quickly") ²³.

However, this may also just be an interpretation according to Num 6,9, "And if any man dies very suddenly beside him and he become defiled". Note the similarity in the context: the sanctity of the Nazarite and the restrictions applying to him are similar to those of the priests, particularly the High Priest.

21,8 MT: "The bread of your God". In LXX: "of the Lord your (plural!) God". This does not derive from a Hebrew Vorlage because in the OT there is only "The bread of his God" (or "your God" and so on), and in no place is there "the bread of the Lord".

21,8 MT: wt#dqw, lit., "and you shall sanctify him" (or, "you shall consider him as holy"). In LXX: "and he shall sanctify him", the subject "he" referring to "his God" in the previous verse. According to this version, the sanctity of the priests is absolute and does not depend on any act or goodwill of the people.

22,4 MT: #pn )m+ lkb (gnhw, lit., "Whoever touches anyone that is unclean through a soul", that is to say, he who comes into contact with a person who has been defiled by being in touch with a dead person; cf. 21,1. LXX, Sy and the Fragment Targum seemingly say something different: "he who comes in contact with the impurity of the soul" (i.e., a corpse) and apparently read #pn t)m+u lkb (gnhw. Hence this law does not refer to someone who touched a person who had been defiled by coming into contact with a corpse.

22,9 MT: "I am the Lord". LXX + "the God". This is undoubtedly a Greek addition since the Hebrew formula should include a possessive suffix, such as "your God". It is true that, from the Greek syntactic point of view, the suffix is not necessary; however, in our chapters the Hebrew formula "I am the Lord your God" is always rendered with the pronominal possessive article.

22,20 MT: "you shall not offer". LXX + kuri/w|, "to the Lord"; cf. vv. 22.24, etc.

22,25 Wevers, 360 n. 50 cites 11QpaleoLev erroneously. The correct citation is

Mh Myt[x#m]. Compare Sam Mhb Mytx#m (v. l. Mhb Mytyx#m).

22,28 MT: wnb t)w wt). LXX: "Her and her young ones". It is possible that LXX reflects an ancient halachic tradition, where reference is in fact made to the mother and her newborn and not to the male and its young. A similar tradition is found in miqs[at ma(ase+ ha-tora (4Q396 [DJD X, 50-51, 157]) in the following words: "the mother and her : dlw (fetus?) in one day". This is the case in rabbinical literature (Sifra Emor 8) and it is thus also translated in the Targum Versions ²⁴. The word paidi/on is frequently used in LXX for dly but also for Nb. It is probable, however, that the text was wnb t)w t), which was read in two different ways: (a) )otah w^e)et b^ena1h, as in LXX; and (b) )oto+ w^e)et b^eno+, in accordance with the ancient orthography (see above on 20,6 apropos of wm( , wt)) and later modified, according to the "normative" orthography, into wnb t)w wt).

22,29 MT: "You shall offer". LXX follows the Sam text, adding the accusative form: whxbzt, cf. 19,3.

Regretfully, the indexes are not free of blemishes. They lack references to the discussions in the "Introductory Statement"; in the Hebrew index there are the voces Kkr(b, Nwcrl, Klml, +p#mk (with the added prefixed particles), but one also finds separately the voces Nwcr, Klm, +p#m, Kr(, making reference to different pages in the book ²⁵; the entry Myhl) Mxl makes reference to p. 344, but should also refer to p. 334 (for Lev 21,6); there are xyrl, h(wb#b xxyn, but not xxyn xyr, h(wb#, and important voces such as hpfy), Nyh, ryzn are missing. In the Greek index the word xou=j, "dust", also includes the reference to the homograph that means a measure of capacity, equivalent to Nyh in Lev 19,36. The entry o9 me/gaj is to be found under o-mikron, not at m, nor under i9ereu\j o9 me/gaj (or: [i9ereu\j o9] me/gaj), where it belongs. Important references are sometimes missing (or include the wrong page-number), e.g., for a1rtoj there is no reference to pp. 110, 334.

All these minor observations should not of course diminish the tremendous value of this and the other volumes of Wevers in this series for every OT and LXX scholar and student.

SUMMARY

After an overall appraisal of J.W. WEVERS, Notes on the Greek Text of Leviticus (SBLSCS 44; Atlanta 1997), the author reexamines details of four consecutive chapters, 19–22. His observations are divided into (1) LXX as interpretation and (2) LXX as a textual-witness. It is not his intention to discuss here what has already appeared in the apparatuses of BHS and BHK or in Wevers’ book unless he feels they have missed the point or that their comments need to be supplemented.