Textual Developments

Collected Essays, Volume 4

By

Emanuel Tov

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Emanuel Tov - 978-90-04-40605-6

Downloaded from Brill.com11/09/2020 12:21:39PM
via free access
The Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available online at http://catalog.loc.gov
LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2019025229

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill‑typeface.

ISSN 0083-5889
ISBN 978-90-04-40604-9 (hardback)
ISBN 978-90-04-40605-6 (e-book)

Copyright 2019 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi,
Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag.
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.

This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Emanuel Tov - 978-90-04-40605-6

Downloaded from Brill.com11/09/2020 12:21:39PM
via free access
 chapter 21

Moses in the Septuagint

1 Background

Moses appears in most books of the Hebrew and Greek Bibles starting with
the story of his birth in Exodus 2 and is seen most frequently in Exodus and
Numbers. ‫ משה‬is mentioned 767 times in the Hebrew Bible while in the LXX,
Moses appears 792 times, mainly as Μωυσῆς, but also as Μωσῆ (Dan 9:10, 11,
13).1 The pluses of Μωυσῆς in the LXX are spread evenly throughout the books
of the LXX,2 but the analysis of these data is complicated by the fact that the
LXX occasionally lacks the name.
It is the purpose of this study to examine the special status of Moses in the
LXX. We wish to examine whether the translators of the various books in which
he appears portray him in a different way from the Moses of the Hebrew Bible.
Did Moses undergo certain changes in the translation in any direction? For
example, Solomon of the LXX of 1Kings (3 Reigns) differs from the character
we know from MT. Chapters 2, 5, and 11 in the LXX emphasize Solomon’s wis-
dom in order to enhance his personality, and his sins are presented as being less
offensive.3 Only if the Greek Moses were to be different from the Hebrew Moses
would we have some information about Moses in the LXX. This point should be
stressed, for otherwise we would not be analyzing the Moses of the LXX but a
Greek version of the Hebrew Moses. On the other hand, several scholars have
scrutinized the LXX of the Torah in order to sketch a picture of Moses or other
biblical figures even when the data in the LXX were compatible with those of
the Hebrew Bible. Thus, Horbury deals extensively with “A ruling prophet like
Moses” and with “the profile of Moses”4 in an otherwise valuable discussion
about the Greek shape of these traditions, although usually the text is shared
by the MT and LXX. Such a type of analysis would be more significant for the
study of the reception of the LXX with which we are not involved here. We wish
to study the level of the initial exegesis by the Old Greek translators.

1 Data based on Accordance, BHS module.

2 Especially in Exodus (MT 290, LXX 297), Leviticus (MT 86, LXX 98), Numbers (MT 233, LXX 238).
3 See Z. Talshir, “1Kings and 3Kingdoms: Origin and Revision, Case Study: The Sins of Solomon
(1Kgs 11),” Textus 21 (2002): 71–105.
4 W. Horbury, “Monarchy and Messianism in the Greek Pentateuch,” in The Septuagint and Mes-
sianism (ed. M.A. Knibb; BETL 195; Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 79–128 (110–15, 115–17).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004406056_022 Emanuel Tov - 978-90-04-40605-6

Downloaded from Brill.com11/09/2020 12:21:39PM
via free access
374 chapter 21

The same problem pertains to similar analyses of other Septuagintal tradi-

tions. The discussion of “biblical women” by Jennifer M. Dines provides philo-
logical details comparing the MT and LXX, but in most cases the two texts
agree.5 In yet other cases, some scholars state explicitly that they are not inter-
ested in the comparative study of MT and LXX when studying biblical figures,
but that they are studying the content of the LXX as part of a study of biblical
traditions, without turning to the background of the renderings.
This system is also employed in a very detailed study by Joseph L. McDon-
ald of Sarah in the LXX.6 For example, Sarah is depicted in completely different
ways in the MT and LXX of Gen 18:12,7 and McDonald focuses on the differences
in outlook between the two texts, which are the basis for fundamentally differ-
ent pictures of Sarah. The two texts react in a completely different way towards
the possibility of intercourse. Sarah’s anticipated joy according to MT contrasts
sharply with the lack of such anticipation in the LXX with its incredulity at the
possibility of her pleasure in intercourse.8 However, these considerations are of
interest mainly for the reception history of the MT and LXX, because the transla-
tor himself presumably did not harbor these thoughts. His translation resulted
from linguistic problems that he experienced at the beginning of the transla-
tion enterprise; more specifically, the translator was driven by his ignorance of
two difficult Hebrew words that he rendered incorrectly.9
As a result, this verse will not be included in my analysis of the figure of Sarah
in the LXX since I ascribe the difference between the two texts to the transla-
tor’s ignorance of two rare and difficult Hebrew words. In my view, this verse is
not instructive of the translator’s views about Sarah.

5 J.M. Dines, “What if the Reader is a She? Biblical Women and Their Translators,” in The
Reception of the Hebrew Bible in the Septuagint and the New Testament: Essays in Memory of
Aileen Guilding (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2013), 56–82. This pertains also to the study of
S. Schorch despite its challenging name: “Hellenizing Women in the Biblical Tradition: The
Case of LXX Genesis,” BIOSCS 41 (2008): 3–16.
6 J.L. McDonald, “Searching for Sarah in the Second Temple Era: Portraits in the Hebrew Bible
and Second Temple Narratives” (PhD Dissertation, Fort Worth, 2015).
7 Gen 18:12 MT ‫ותצחק שׂרה בקרבה לאמר אחרי בּלתי היתה־לי עדנה ואדני זקן‬, “And Sarah laughed
to herself, saying, ‘Now that I am withered, am I to have enjoyment—with my husband so
old?’” (NJPS). LXX ἐγέλασεν δὲ Σαρρα ἐν ἑαυτῇ λέγουσα Οὔπω μέν μοι γέγονεν ἕως τοῦ νῦν, ὁ δὲ
κύριός μου πρεσβύτερος, “And Sarah laughed within herself, saying: ‘it has not yet happened to
me up to the present, and my lord is rather old.’”
8 Thus McDonald, “Searching,” 220.
9 The root ‫ בלה‬is not rare, but this is the first time it occurs in the Torah, while the preposi-
tion ‫ ִבְּלִתּי‬occurs eight times in the Torah. Further, ‫ ֶﬠ ְד ָנה‬is a hapax, and the translator did not
know how to handle that word, reading it as ‫ַﬠד־ֵה ָנּה = ַﬠ ֵד ָנּה‬, “until now.” That this was indeed
the case is most likely since the Hebrew phrase was rendered in this way just a few chapters
earlier (15:16) and would be rendered in this way again in Num 14:19; Judg 16:13; 1 Sam 1:16.

Emanuel Tov - 978-90-04-40605-6

Downloaded from Brill.com11/09/2020 12:21:39PM
via free access
moses in the septuagint 375

I illustrated my view by referring to Sarah since scholars have written more

about her than about Moses. Moses belongs to the group of biblical figures in
the Torah and we wish to investigate whether the different translators of the
Torah (and of Scripture as a whole) displayed any inclination to embellish this
figure in any way or to embed exegesis of the figure of Moses in the stories about
him, in short not to translate the biblical stories in a literal fashion. We focus on
the Torah, and thus deal with three different translators, those of Exodus, Num-
bers, and Deuteronomy, and to some extent also the translator of Leviticus.10
At the same time, we also scrutinize the other books in which Moses is men-
tioned.
When examining various postbiblical compositions in which Moses is men-
tioned, the expectations of finding relevant material in the LXX are high, as
many traditions not found in the MT of the Torah found their way into these
sources. Moses is a colorful person in the midrash and targumim as well as in
the Jewish-Hellenistic literature that is based on the LXX, in Philo,11 Ezekiel the
Tragedian, and Josephus. Josephus did not single out the figure of Moses, as
he adorned all biblical figures with a rich layer of exegesis, as well analyzed by
Louis Feldman.12 That study includes his analysis of the Moses figure in Jose-
phus,13 especially his character and the qualities of his leadership.
However, despite these great expectations, the source of Philo, Ezekiel the
Tragedian, and Josephus, namely the LXX, has little interest in exegetical tradi-
tions about Moses.
The first sign of the lack of such exegetical traditions in the LXX is found
in a research tool that should be one’s first step in locating exegesis, especially
theology in the LXX, namely the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.14
The TDNT is very outspoken in its description of the theological background of

10 See the arguments provided by Hayeon Kim, “Multiple Authorship of the Septuagint Pen-
tateuch” (PhD Diss., Jerusalem, 2007. Publication forthcoming.) for the assumption that
each of the books of the Torah was translated by a different translator.
11 See the masterly treatment of Moses’s life and virtues in the writings of Philo in L.H. Feld-
man, Philo’s Portrayal of Moses in the Context of Ancient Judaism (CJAS 15; Notre Dame:
University of Notre Dame Press, 2007).
12 L.H. Feldman wrote a long series of insightful studies on Josephus’s treatment of biblical
figures such as Abraham, Joseph, and Esther, which are combined in his large mono-
graphic study: Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible (JSJSup 58; Leiden: Brill, 1998).
13 Preliminary publications: L.H. Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrait of Moses,” JQR 82 (1992): 285–
328; “Josephus’ Portrait of Moses. Part Two,” JQR 83 (1992): 7–50; “Josephus’ Portrait of
Moses. Part Three,” JQR 83 (1993): 301–30.
14 Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (ed. F. Kittel and G. Friedrich; 10 vols; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976). Translated from: Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Tes-
tament (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1932–1979).

Emanuel Tov - 978-90-04-40605-6

Downloaded from Brill.com11/09/2020 12:21:39PM
via free access
376 chapter 21

all Septuagintal and New Testament words that are not necessary theological,
but one or more of its uses has theological overtones (e.g. παῖς or δοῦλος). At
the same time, it does not refer at all to any of the persons mentioned in the
LXX, neither Moses,15 nor Abraham, Joseph, Aaron, or any of the central names
in that translation, such as Israel or Jerusalem. All these names are covered by
the lexicon, but their description starts with their background in the rabbinic
period or the New Testament. The editorial decision not to cover the Scripture
background of these figures in the Hebrew and Greek Bibles is unusual within
this lexicon, which supplies a great amount of background information, and I
do not know why it was taken.16

2 Moses in the LXX

The topic of this study is the question regarding whether the Greek translation
reflects any specific exegetical or theological traditions about Moses. Septuag-
intal traditions about Moses, if found, would border between being exegetical
and theological in nature because of the special nature of Moses. Moses is an
almost superhuman figure, since he is the only person “whom the Lord knew
face to face” (Deut 34:10). In the same verse, he is named a prophet and else-
where he transmits the divine laws, and these facts alone suffice to engender
exegetical traditions about him.
First some words about theology. Every translation of the Bible, or of any
work dealing with one or more deities, is bound to contain theologically moti-
vated exegesis. Almost any individual translation option is potentially a carrier
of theologically motivated exegesis due to the central place of the Hebrew Bible
in the religions based on it. It is, in fact, difficult to imagine a biblical translation
without theological exegesis. As with all other biblical versions, the LXX reflects
theological exegesis, but to a lesser degree than the Aramaic targumim. The-
ological exegesis reflects but one aspect of the general area of exegesis, and it
cannot be separated easily from the translators’ approach towards exegesis. The
Greek form of some books does not reflect a systematic theological system, but
individual theologoumena. Therefore, one should not isolate theological exege-
sis from other aspects of the translation.17 Theological exegesis of the LXX may

15 Vol. IV (1967), 848–73.

16 Even if we find that the traditions about Moses do not differ much from MT, they do differ
slightly, and TDNT should have paid attention to some of the biblical figures.
17 For my own views, see: E. Tov, “Theologically Motivated Exegesis Embedded in the Septu-
agint,” in idem, Greek–Hebrew Bible, 257–69.

Emanuel Tov - 978-90-04-40605-6

Downloaded from Brill.com11/09/2020 12:21:39PM
via free access
moses in the septuagint 377

be defined as any theological element added to the source text by the transla-
tion.18 A similar definition also applies to other forms of exegesis.
The analysis of the special traditions regarding Moses in the LXX is based on
a meticulous reading of the text, especially the Torah, compared with MT and
other traditions. We exclude from the analysis elements that the LXX shares
with MT.
The results of my investigation are rather negative, but this in itself is a
remarkable phenomenon. The Greek books of the Torah reflect unmistakable
contextual, theological, and legal exegesis,19 while on the other hand the figure
of Moses was not the focus of their interest. For example, theological exegesis is
very clearly visible in Exodus, and the sensitivity of the translator pertains espe-
cially to the depiction of God, the seeing of God, and occasionally the avoid-
ance of anthropomorphic and/or potentially harmful actions of God (24:11).20
At a different level, the translators were sensitive to the nature of Jewish equiva-
lents of certain terms,21 and the legal sections, especially Exodus 21–23, display
midrashic exegesis;22 however, the translators were not sensitive to the depic-
tion of the figure of Moses: they could have extolled him beyond the text of
the Hebrew Bible, have added exegetical traditions about him, and have been
sensitive about certain aspects of Moses at the theological level.
This is the case also for other biblical figures such as Abraham, Joseph, and
Aaron, so far as I was able to see.23
This chapter thus is a study of method. We do find a few exegetical features
in the stories about Moses, such as those analyzed in §§ 2.1–3, but they are the
exception rather than the rule. For this purpose, we have to examine thoroughly
the Torah stories of three individual books, Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteron-
omy, each book rendered by a different translator and therefore potentially

18 For a recent analysis of the problems, see A. Douglas, “Limitations to Writing a Theology
of the Septuagint,” JSCS 45 (2012): 104–17, with much bibliography.
19 See, for example, C.T. Fritsch, The Anti-anthropomorphisms of the Greek Pentateuch
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1943), and the studies quoted in n. 22.
20 See especially Exod 4:24; 19:3; 24:9–11, 16 and the study by E.J. Wyckoff, “When Does Trans-
lation Become Exegesis? Exodus 24:9–11 in the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint,” CBQ 74
(2012): 675–93 and the literature mentioned there.
21 See E. Tov, “Studies in the Vocabulary of the Septuagint: The Relation between Vocabulary
and Translation Technique,” Tarbiz 47 (1978): 120–38 (Heb. with Eng. summ).
22 See especially Frankel, Einfluss; Prijs, Jüdische Tradition; Teeter, Scribal Laws.
23 This statement refers mainly to the Torah. In the later books, there was much interest in
Solomon in 3 Reigns (1Kings), as mentioned above, but in my view the changes in that
Greek translation go back to a different Hebrew Vorlage of the translation. See Tov, “Three
Strange Books.”

Emanuel Tov - 978-90-04-40605-6

Downloaded from Brill.com11/09/2020 12:21:39PM
via free access
378 chapter 21

presenting a different picture.24 Within this investigation, we examine: (§ 2.1)

the infancy story of Moses (Exod 2:1–10) in which the LXX embellished the pic-
ture with various details; (§2.2) the story of Moses’ ascent to Mount Sinai in
Exodus 24, a story in which the modern reader experiences literary difficulties,
a few of which the translator managed to resolve resourcefully; (§ 2.3) other
remarkable renderings. We conclude with a few remarks about characteriza-
tions of Moses (§2.4).

2.1 The Infancy Story of Moses (Exod 2:1–10)

Probably more than other stories in the LXX, the Greek story of Moses’ infancy
shows that the Greek translator was greatly involved in presenting the narrative
almost like a storyteller.25 In the following analysis, we pay attention to nine
changes made by the translator that show his refined literary understanding,
while they do not indicate a focus on the figure of Moses.
a. The Greek translator pays attention to the details of the dramatis per-
sonae. In the beginning of the story (2:1), the Hebrew text says ‫וילך איש‬
‫“( מבית לוי ויקח את בת לוי‬A man from the household of Levi took/married
a daughter of Levi”), while the LXX provides a more general description:
Ἦν δέ τις ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Λευι, ὃς ἔλαβεν τῶν θυγατέρων Λευι (“There was some-
one from the tribe of Levi who took one of the daughters of Levi”). MT’s
description of Moses’ choice of a wife is thus more detailed, referring to
a single daughter of Levi, while according to the LXX Moses chose one of
several daughters of Levi.26 The Greek rendering creates the impression
of being an exegetical tradition based on MT, and not of a translation of a
variant ‫ויקח אחת מבנות לוי‬, because the translator did not offer a text such
as μίαν τῶν θυγατέρων Λευι.

24 See the arguments provided by Kim, “Multiple Authorship.”

25 This view was first suggested by H. Utzschneider, “Die Septuaginta als ‘Erzählerin’: Beo-
bachtungen an der LXX-Fassung der Geburts- und Kindheitsgeschichte des Mose (Ex
2,1–10),” in Die Septuaginta–Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse: 2. Internationale Fachtagung ver-
anstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 23.–27.7.2008 (ed. W. Kraus and
M. Karrer; WUNT 252; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 462–77. Utzschneider’s major argu-
ment is the representation by the LXX of the Hebrew verb, especially the wayyiqtol form,
with a variety of renderings and, according to him, these different presentations show the
translator’s active involvement in transferring the various nuances of the story. Utzschnei-
der also demonstrates that the story is more easily understood in its Greek form than in its
Hebrew shape, not only by way of the improvement of the story with these verbal forms,
but also due to the addition of several small particles (p. 468).
26 The translation of NJPS, “and married a Levite woman,” serves as a compromise between
the two traditions.

Emanuel Tov - 978-90-04-40605-6

Downloaded from Brill.com11/09/2020 12:21:39PM
via free access
moses in the septuagint 379

b. Moses, in addition to his wife, belongs to a larger unit. He is not part of the
house of Levi as in MT (‫)מבית לוי‬, but is part of a larger unit, the “family”
or “tribe” of Levi (ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Λευι), as expressed by φυλή.
c. According to MT, Moses’ father “took” the daughter with the sense of “mar-
rying” (thus NJPS) since the next verse states that she became pregnant
and bore a child.27 The plus of the LXX, καὶ ἔσχεν αὐτήν (“and married
her”), should be seen as exegetical, based probably on a variant ‫וישאה‬.28
Someone added this verb thinking that ‫ ויקח‬was not a sufficiently clear
indication of the close relation between the parents of Moses.
d. In the continuation, we see the translator in action in various small
details. In v. 2, Moses’ mother gave birth to a “boy” according to MT, but
to a “male” according to the LXX. This equivalent follows the example of
1:16, 22, also regarding the girl (‫ )הבת‬likewise rendered as “female” (θῆλυ)
in 1:22.
e. In the LXX, the mother is not alone in taking care of the infant Moses, as
certain verbs have been changed from singular to plural. These changes
have been made very carefully; certain actions have been changed from
singular to plural, while others have not been changed. In vv. 2–3, the
changes pertain to ‫( ותרא‬ἰδόντες δέ), ‫( ותצפנהו‬ἐσκέπασαν αὐτό), ‫( יכלה‬ἠδύ-
ναντο), but not to the other actions in which the mother acted alone: ‫ותשם‬,
‫ותחמרה‬, ‫ותקח‬. The mother, together with another person, decided on the
main actions, but the clandestine action of placing the infant in the reeds
was planned only by the mother. The text does not reveal who the addi-
tional person is, but as these actions must have taken place in the house
of Moses’ mother, it is likely that the father was involved.29
According to MT, she saw that he was “handsome,” but in the LXX the
verb is in the plural (“when they saw”), indicating that the father was also
involved in the hiding of the infant. Instead of “When she could hide him
no longer” (MT), the LXX reads “When they could hide him no longer.”30
Subsequently the mother acted alone, placing the little box in the marsh.

27 Also elsewhere, ‫ לקח‬without further detail is used as “to marry,” as in Gen 34:16 ‫ואת בנתיכם‬
‫נקח לנו‬.
28 Same equivalent as in Deut 24:15. Another possibility, albeit less likely, is ‫( וישכב עמה‬as in
Deut 28:30; suggestion of Nathan Evron, Hebrew University). ‫ וישאה‬could also have been
a doublet to ‫ויקח‬.
29 Thus also Heb 11:23: “By faith Moses was hidden by his parents for three months after his
birth because they saw that the child was beautiful” (πίστει Μωσῆς γεννηθεὶς ἐκρύβη τρίμη-
νον ὑπὸ τῶν πατέρων αὐτοῦ, διότι εἶδον ἀστεῖον τὸ παιδίον).
30 Josephus, Ant. 2.219–220 goes one step further when depriving Jochebed of these activi-

Emanuel Tov - 978-90-04-40605-6

Downloaded from Brill.com11/09/2020 12:21:39PM
via free access
380 chapter 21

f. The translator further improved the story in v. 4. In MT, Moses’ sister

stationed herself from afar, ‫ותתצב אחתו מרחק‬, but in the LXX she had a
more active task: καὶ κατεσκόπευεν ἡ ἀδελφὴ αὐτοῦ μακρόθεν (“his sister was
watching from a distance”). In my view, the translator based his transla-
tion on a phonetic interchange of the cluster ‫ צב‬with ‫צפ‬.31
g. In the continuation of that verse, the translator’s exegesis may well be
more consistent in its equivalents than MT: Pharaoh’s daughter came
to bathe in the Nile while her maidens (‫ )ונערתיה‬were walking along
the riverside (2:5). When she saw the basket, she sent her maidservant
(‫ )אמתה‬to fetch the basket. According to MT, the maidservant, as her
personal assistant, was probably in the water with Pharaoh’s daughter.
However, in the LXX, the personal assistant and the girls on the river-
side belonged to the same group, since the translation uses the same
rare word (αἱ ἅβραι αὐτῆς) for all of them. The same leveling may have
taken place in v. 6 if indeed the translator used a Hebrew text like MT.
MT has two different words, ‫ הילד‬and ‫נער‬, while the LXX only has παι-
δίον.32
h. In v. 9, Pharaoh’s daughter gives a simple command to Moses’ mother
to “bring”33 the child to her house and to nurse him. The LXX enhances
the concern of Pharaoh’s daughter, since it reports her saying to Moses’
mother: “Take care” (διατήρησόν) of this child for me.
j. It is not impossible that the translator intentionally used ἀναιρέω in vv. 5,
10, and 14 for different Hebrew words as a Leitmotiv for Moses. In v. 5, ἀνεί-
λατο αὐτήν (= ‫ )ותקחה‬is used for the act of the “taking” of the basket from
the river (literally: “and she [the maid servant] took it”).34 The Greek verb
is unique in the LXX as an equivalent of ‫לקח‬.35 In its second occurrence,
in v. 10, ἀναιρέω (ἀνειλόμην) renders a rare Hebrew verb ‫“( משׁיתהו‬I drew

ties, while ascribing the hiding of Moses to Amram alone. It was Amram who placed the
child Moses in a basket on the river.
31 The translator’s exegesis is etymological, as in similar ‫ב‬/‫ פ‬interchanges between MT and
SP in Gen 31:49; Exod 15:10, and 2Sam 10:16 ‫ושובך‬//1Chr 19:16 ‫ושופך‬. We need not go as far
as Utzschneider, “Die Septuaginta,” 469, n. 15, who claimed that Moses’s sister was one of
the persons who came to spy out the land of Canaan.
32 The Hebrew text is difficult, and possibly contains a doublet since ‫ הילד‬and ‫ נער‬are paral-
lel, and ‫ ותראהו‬parallels ‫והנה‬.
33 ‫ היליכי‬is difficult (HALOT suggests to correct to ‫)הוליכי‬, yet the form and the root should
have been sufficiently clear so as not to have misled the translator.
34 This verb has two main meanings, “to carry off,” and “to kill,” but in the LXX it is used mainly
in the latter sense.
35 Rather, λαμβάνω is used in the LXX, including Exodus.

Emanuel Tov - 978-90-04-40605-6

Downloaded from Brill.com11/09/2020 12:21:39PM
via free access
moses in the septuagint 381

him out of the water”), occurring elsewhere only in 2 Sam 22:17//Ps 18:17.
In the third occurrence, ἀναιρέω is used in this story in its majority usage,
“to kill.” In v. 14, one of the Hebrews says to Moses: “Do you mean to kill
me as you killed the Egyptian?” If the use of ἀναιρέω in the Moses story
is intentional, this verb covers the major actions in the life cycle of the
young Moses: The maidservant of Pharaoh’s daughter took the basket out
of the water, Pharaoh’s daughter said that she drew Moses out of the water,
and Moses was questioned whether he wanted to kill his fellow man, a
Hebrew.36

2.2 Explaining the Story of the Ascent to Mount Sinai in Exodus 24

Beyond the mere translation of the Scripture text, the translator of chapter 24
focuses on theological interpretations (see vv. 10–11)37 and internal literary
logic. On the other hand, he has no major interest in the person of Moses.
One of the more intriguing narratives in the Torah from a literary point of
view is that of Moses’ ascent to Mt Sinai prior to receiving the stone tablets. The
story of the ascent is narrated no less than six times in chapters 19, 24, 32, and
34, and as a result the sequence of events is very unusual. The narratives con-
cerning the ascent to Mt Sinai are interrupted by the Decalogue and the Book of
the Covenant (Exod 20:22–23:33). The different tradition blocks provide much
occasion for literary38 as well as textual analysis. Without attempting to men-
tion all the problems, in chapter 24 alone the literary layers were combined in
such a complicated literary fashion that Moses went up the mountain no less
than three times (a, b, c), as is shown in Table 10.
An obvious problem is how to accommodate the fact that Moses went up
the mountain more than once, alone or accompanied by different persons. The
main textual sources known to us did not react to the multiple ascents of Moses
because the problems that we recognize in our critical reading of the text were
usually not recognized by ancient scribes. What could the scribes have done?

36 Or, in the words of Utzschneider, “Die Septuaginta,” 472, “Moses carries his name because
the daughter of the Egyptian Pharaoh drew him out of the water and adopted him.”
37 See the analysis by Wyckoff, “When Does Translation Become Exegesis?”
38 The penetrating analysis of Exodus 19–24 by A. Toeg, Lawgiving at Sinai (Jerusalem:
Magnes, 1977; Heb.), still has not been surpassed. In the recent formulation of W.M. Schnie-
dewind, How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel (Cambridge:
University Press, 2004), 123: “Here we ascend Mount Sinai, Moses writes down the Torah,
the people make a covenant of blood with God, the elders actually see God, and God
himself promises to write on ‘tablets of stone’ and give them to Moses. How could any
priestly redactor, any Deuteronomic editor, or indeed any modern commentator resist
such a chapter?”

Emanuel Tov - 978-90-04-40605-6

Downloaded from Brill.com11/09/2020 12:21:39PM
via free access
 382 chapter 21

table 10 Movements of Moses in Exodus 24

Scope Person(s) involved Ascent Descent Circumstances

a. Exod 24:1–8 Moses (+ Aaron, Nadab, 24:2 ? (see 24:9) “Book of the
Abihu, and seventy of the Covenant” (24:7)
elders of Israel)
b. Exod 24:9–11 Moses, Aaron, Nadab, 24:9 ? (see 24:12) stone tablets (24:12)
Abihu, and seventy of the
elders of Israel
c. Exod 24:12–18 Moses (+ Joshua) (13) 24:13 ? (probably 32:15) stone tablets

They could have removed obvious duplications in order to avoid the appear-
ance of Moses having ascended the mountain so often. They also could have
added clarifications in the text, such as the word “again” when Moses ascended
the mountain for a second or third time. Or, after long insertions or digressions,
they could have added so-called Wiederaufnahmen. However, as a rule, the text
was not changed. The scribes and translators who were involved in the trans-
lation and transmission of these and other chapters did not rewrite the text in
any major way; they limited themselves to a very thin layer of ad hoc exegesis
as seen in the next five instances in the LXX.

24:1 MT ‫ואל־משׁה אמר עלה אל־יהוה אתה ואהרן נדב ואביהוא ושׁבעים‬
‫ = מזקני ישׂראל והשׁתחויתם מרחק‬SP
NJPS Then He said to Moses, “Come up to the Lord, with
Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy elders of Israel,
and bow low from afar.”
LXX Καὶ Μωυσῇ εἶπεν Ἀνάβηθι πρὸς κύριον σὺ καὶ Ααρων καὶ
Ναδαβ καὶ Αβιουδ καὶ ἑβδομήκοντα τῶν πρεσβυτέρων
Ισραηλ, καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν μακρόθεν τῷ κυρίῳ
And he said to Moyses, “Come up to the Lord, you and
Aaron …. And they shall do obeisance to the Lord from
afar.”

In MT, God commanded Moses and those who followed him to worship at a dis-
tance, continuing the command at the beginning of the verse (“you should go
up”). On the other hand, the LXX knew that Moses was not to join the group and
therefore the continuation of the command was phrased in the third person,
“they will worship,” thus excluding Moses.

Emanuel Tov - 978-90-04-40605-6

Downloaded from Brill.com11/09/2020 12:21:39PM
via free access
moses in the septuagint 383

24:2b MT ‫“( והעם לא יעלו עמו‬and the people did not go up [pl.] with
him”)
ὁ δὲ λαὸς οὐ συναναβήσεται μετ᾽ αὐτῶν (“and the people
did not go up [sing.] with them”).

This correction to a plural form of the pronoun, “with him” to “with them,”
indicates that the people not only did not accompany Moses to the top of the
mountain, but they also did not accompany the others to the lower level. The
correction shows concern for the exact meaning of the context because Moses
was not alone in ascending the mountain.

24:13 MT ‫ = ויקם משׁה ויהושׁע משׁרתו ויעל משׁה אל־הר האלהים‬SP

NRSV So Moses set out with his assistant Joshua, and Moses
went up into the mountain of God
LXX καὶ ἀναστὰς Μωυσῆς καὶ Ἰησοῦς ὁ παρεστηκὼς39 αὐτῷ ἀνέ-
βησαν εἰς τὸ ὄρος τοῦ θεοῦ·
NETS And Moyses rose up and Iesous who assisted him, and
they went up into the mountain of God.

24:13 attests to the differences between the various traditions, in which Moses
went up the mountain either alone or together with others. This verse in MT
is difficult since Moses and Joshua started out the journey together and only
Moses arrived at the destination. However, the LXX solved this issue by chang-
ing the verb from the singular to the plural in order to have both persons arrive
at the destination (while at the same time omitting the name of “Moses”).40
The comparison of the similar verses 12 and 13 described above is remark-
able, since v. 13 was changed by the translator while v. 12 was not (12 The Lord
said to Moses, “Come up to me on the mountain, and wait there …” 13 So Moses
set out with his assistant Joshua, and Moses went up …). A consistent change
of the context could have led the translator to add the figure of Joshua also to
v. 12.

39 This equivalent of ‫משרת‬, παρεστηκώς, is rare in the LXX (Num 11:28; Deut 21:5; 2 Sam
13:17). This is the first occurrence of the noun ‫משרת‬, and possibly the translator was still
searching for equivalents. Subsequently, this translator used the standard LXX equivalents
(θεράπων, λειτουργέω).
40 This verse may be compared with 33:11, where Moses is likewise joined by Joshua. The syn-
tax of a singular verb joined by a compound subject ‫( ויקם משׁה ויהושׁע‬24:13) is standard
in Biblical Hebrew.

Emanuel Tov - 978-90-04-40605-6

Downloaded from Brill.com11/09/2020 12:21:39PM
via free access
384 chapter 21

24:14 MT ‫ = ואל־הזקנים אמר‬SP

And to the elders he (Moses) said
LXX καὶ τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις εἶπαν
And to the elders they (Moses and Joshua) said

The change to the plural in the LXX continues the trend described in the previ-
ous paragraph.

24:15 MT ‫ = ויעל משׁה אל־ההר‬SP

And Moses went up to the mountain
LXX καὶ ἀνέβη Μωυσῆς καὶ Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὸ ὄρος
And Moses and Joshua went up to the mountain

In this change in the LXX, we see the continuing trend of mentioning Joshua
together with Moses. Presumably this is the original Old Greek reading of
Codex B together with many minuscules corrected in the other codices to the
text of MT.
The trend of inserting Joshua is not continued in vv. 16–18, which tell of the
personal encounter between Moses and God. There was no room for Joshua at
that encounter since according to all traditions Moses was the only person who
had met God personally.
In conclusion to this section, the literary problems encountered in MT in
Exodus 19, 24, 32, and 34 are very extensive, and some scribes intervened at
the editorial-harmonizing level. This occurred especially in the LXX of chap-
ter 24, as shown above, but see also the LXX of additional verses (19:10; 32:4;
34:1), SP 19:25, and 4QRPb (4Q364), frg. 14. This feature shows that while the
Greek translator was sensitive to literary logic in some details in the story
about Moses, he did not change details in the description of Moses him-
self.

2.3 Other Remarkable Renderings

Only very few remarkable renderings concerning Moses come to mind.

Exod 33:7 MT SP ‫ = ומשה יקח את האהל ונטה־לו מחוץ למחנה‬TO,F V

NRSV Now Moses would take the tent and pitch it outside the
camp
LXX Καὶ λαβὼν Μωυσῆς τὴν σκηνὴν αὐτοῦ ἔπηξεν ἔξω τῆς παρεμ-
βολῆς
NETS And Moyses took his tent and pitched it outside the
camp

Emanuel Tov - 978-90-04-40605-6

Downloaded from Brill.com11/09/2020 12:21:39PM
via free access
moses in the septuagint 385

The addition of the pronoun “his” is shared with S (‫ )משכנה‬and TPs-J “his tent
for teaching the Torah” (‫)במשכן אולפן אורייתא דיליה‬, and not repeated in v. 8.
The suggestion that the LXX inserted theological exegesis when naming Moses’
tent “his tent” is challenging. However, probably there is no special theological
thought behind the addition of the pronoun in v. 7, which should be viewed
as a simple translation technical change.41 It is not impossible that ‫לו‬, with-
out direct equivalent in the context (‫) ְו ָנָטה־לוֹ‬, is represented by αὐτοῦ.42 The
pronoun creates an opposition between the tent of Moses and those of all the
people as mentioned in v. 10 (“all the people would rise and bow low, each at the
entrance of his tent”). The Greek translator may have felt the need to explain
which tent is being referred to in v. 7. This small change at the translational level
was deemed necessary by the Greek translator and probably independently,
by S (‫ )משכנה‬and TPs-J. At the same time, 33:7 is a complicated verse that may
present a view of the tent43 of meeting that differs from that in other chapters
but, in my view, we need not connect this small detail in the Greek translation
of v. 7 with theories about the documentary hypothesis or about the nature of
the tent of meeting.44

Num 21:21 MT SP ‫וישלח ישראל מלאכים אל־סיחן‬

And Israel sent messengers to Sihon
LXX Καὶ ἀπέστειλεν Μωυσῆς πρέσβεις πρὸς Σηων
NETS And Moyses sent ambassadors to Seon

This rendering of the LXX could represent a tendentious change from “Israel”
to “Moses,” but more likely it represents a harmonizing change to 20:14 where
Moses sends messengers to Edom, and to 21:32 where he sends men on a spying
mission.

41 The Hebrew article in ‫האהל‬, which represents one form of determination is often rep-
resented in Greek by the pronominal suffix representing another form of determination
(e.g. Josh 2:9). The same phenomenon also occurs vice versa, e.g. Exod 19:10 ‫—שמלתם‬τὰ
ἱμάτια.
42 Thus C. Lustig, “Moses eigenes Zelt: Zur Unterscheidung zweier Zeltkonzeptionen im
griechischen Exodusbuch,” Die Septuaginta—Geschichte, Wirkung, Relevanz, 6. Interna-
tionale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 21.–24. Juli
2016 (ed. M. Meiser et al.; WUNT 405; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), 168–80. See also
B.D. Sommer, “Translation as Commentary: The Case of the Septuagint to Exodus 32–33,”
Textus 20 (2000): 43–60 (52–53).
43 Moses’s tent was referred to earlier, in 18:7. For an analysis of the problems involved in this
verse and the verses in the context, see Sommer, “Translation as Commentary,” 53.
44 For an analysis with much literature, see Lustig, “Moses eigenes Zelt.”

Emanuel Tov - 978-90-04-40605-6

Downloaded from Brill.com11/09/2020 12:21:39PM
via free access
386 chapter 21

c. 1Kgs 9:6 MT ‫ולא תשׁמרו מצותי חקתי אשׁר נתתי לפניכם‬

NJPS and do not keep the commandments [and] the laws
which I have set before you
LXX καὶ μὴ φυλάξητε τὰς ἐντολάς μου καὶ τὰ προστάγματά μου,
ἃ ἔδωκεν Μωυσῆς ἐνώπιον ὑμῶν
NETS and do not keep my commandments and my ordinances
that Moyses set before you

There is a constant tension in Scripture regarding who delivered the command-

ments, God or Moses, and it is difficult to determine which text is older in this
case. For the formulation of MT, see Jer 9:12; 26:4; 44:10. For LXX, cf. Neh 10:30
in a general sense.

2.4 Characterizations of Moses

The LXX contains a translation of the Hebrew Bible and we should not expect to
find in it anything that is not directly related to the biblical text. Therefore, one
will not find here a characterization of Moses or a summary of his activities,
since the translator is bound by the Hebrew text he rendered and the words
used in that text.
Nevertheless, in the LXX, Moses is twice named a προφήτης (… ὥσπερ σέ),
following the Hebrew text, once in a legal context (Deut 18:18) and once in a
summary of his life (34:10 καὶ οὐκ ἀνέστη ἔτι προφήτης ἐν Ισραηλ ὡς Μωυσῆς, ὃν
ἔγνω κύριος αὐτὸν πρόσωπον κατὰ πρόσωπον, “and there has not again arisen a
prophet in Israel like Moyses whom the Lord knew face-to-face”).
Moses’ other functions are not specified in the Hebrew or Greek Bible. Moses
functions as a judge in Exod 18:13–27 = Deut 1:9–18, but he is not named a judge
in that context.45 By the same token, he functions as a στρατηγóς (a comman-
der of an army, a general) in several of the stories in Exodus and Numbers as
well as in his speech in Deuteronomy 1–3, yet this title is never used for him in
the LXX or in the Hebrew Bible.
The main function of Moses is that of a lawgiver (νομοθέτης), as the mediator
between God and the people who relays the laws to the Israelites. However, not
only is that title not used for him, with one exception46 the word itself does not
occur in the LXX.

45 The verb “judging” is used in Exod 18:13, 16, 22, 26 and Deut 1:16, 17.
46 Ps 9:21 ‫—שׁיתה יהוה מורה להם ידעו גוים אנושׁ המה‬κατάστησον, κύριε, νομοθέτην ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς,
γνώτωσαν ἔθνη ὅτι ἄνθρωποί εἰσιν. In addition, the verb νομοθετέω occurs nine times in the
canonical books of the LXX (as an equivalent of ‫)הורה‬.

Emanuel Tov - 978-90-04-40605-6

Downloaded from Brill.com11/09/2020 12:21:39PM
via free access
moses in the septuagint 387

In stark contrast with the LXX, in the postbiblical sources, which gener-
ally depend on the LXX,47 these terms are used as seen in Josephus’ Antiqui-
ties. Here, Moses is depicted as a νομοθέτης,48 usually “our legislator,”49 a στρα-
τηγóς,50 and a ἡγεμών.51 Josephus did not single out the figure of Moses, as he
adorned all biblical figures with a rich layer of contemporizing exegesis, well
analyzed by Louis Feldman.52 Feldman’s study includes a detailed analysis of
the Moses figure,53 especially his character and the qualities of his leadership.
Likewise, Philo depicts Moses as a νομοθέτης.54 Similar terminology is used in
the Epistle of Aristeas 139 where Moses is named a wise νομοθέτης. Likewise,
the early Jewish philosopher Aristobulus (2nd century BCE) named Moses “our
lawgiver” (2:4).

3 Summary

This study has examined the special status of Moses in the LXX. We examined
whether the translators of the various books in which he appears portray him
in a different way from the Moses of the Hebrew Bible. Only if the Greek Moses
was different from the Hebrew Moses would we have some information about
Moses in the LXX. When examining various postbiblical compositions in which
Moses is mentioned, the expectations of finding relevant material in the LXX
are high, as many traditions not found in MT-Torah found their way into these
sources. However, despite these great expectations, the source of Philo, Ezekiel
the Tragedian, and Josephus, namely the LXX, has little interest in exegetical
traditions regarding Moses. The results of my investigation are thus rather neg-
ative, but this by itself is a remarkable phenomenon. The Greek books of the
Torah reflect unmistakable contextual, theological, and legal exegesis, while on

47 For a good summary of these sources, see A. le Boulluec and P. Sandevoir, La Bible
d’Alexandrie, l’Exode (Paris: Cerf, 1989), II.26–31 (“La sortie d’ Egypte et la figure de Moïse”).
See further J.G. Gager, Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism (SBLMS 16; Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 1972).
48 E.g. Ant. 1:24; 4.156 (4.6.13).
49 E.g. Ant. 1:23.
50 E.g. Ant. 2.241 (2.10.1); 3.47 (3.2.3).
51 E.g. Ant. 2.268 (2.12.1). The contrast between the LXX and Josephus in this regard is men-
tioned by Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrait of Moses, Part Two,” 13.
52 Louis Feldman wrote a long series of studies on Josephus’s treatment of biblical figures,
which are collected in his large monographic study: Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewrit-
ten Bible.
53 Earlier publications: “Josephus’ Portrait of Moses. Part One”; “… Two”; “… Three.”
54 E.g. Leg. 3:145; Det. 135.

Emanuel Tov - 978-90-04-40605-6

Downloaded from Brill.com11/09/2020 12:21:39PM
via free access
388 chapter 21

the other hand the figure of Moses was not the focus of their interest.55 This is
the case also for the other biblical figures so far as I have been able to see; thus,
this paper is a study in method. We do find a few exegetical details in the stories
about Moses, but these are the exception rather than the rule. These details are
analyzed in this study together with a few remarks on the characterization of
Moses.

55 C. Dogniez, who published a valuable study on the same theme as this chapter, one year
before the original publication of this study, but unknown to me, likewise concluded that
the Greek translator did not add as many elements to the Moses of the Hebrew Bible,
as Philo, Josephus and additional postbiblical Jewish sources: “La figure de Moïse dans
la Bible grecque des Septante,” in Mosebilder, Gedanken zur Rezeption einer literarischen
Figur im Frühjudentum, frühen Christentum und der römisch-hellenistischen Literatur (ed.
M. Sommer et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 35–62 (62). At the same time, this study
remarked on many more peculiarities of the LXX regarding Moses than we did in details
in which the message of the LXX runs parallel with that of MT (summary on p. 61). The
following study deals with Moses and the law in general, and not with the figure of Moses:
A. van der Kooij, “Moses and the Septuagint of the Pentateuch,” in Moses in Biblical and
Extra-Biblical Traditions (ed. A. Graupner and M. Wolter; BZAW 372; Berlin: de Gruyter,
2007), 89–98.

Emanuel Tov - 978-90-04-40605-6

Downloaded from Brill.com11/09/2020 12:21:39PM
via free access