Septuagint Variants in Midrash and the Haggadah

“Good” Is Absent from the First Decalogue?

The Talmud tells a story of how Rabbi Ḥanina ben Agil asks Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba (early 3^rd cent. C.E., Israel) about why the word ṭov “good” appears only in the Decalogue in Deuteronomy 5 and not that of Exodus 20:

^{בבלי בבא קמא נד:-נה.} שָׁאַל רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן עָגֵיל אֶת רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: מִפְּנֵי מָה בְּדִבְּרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת לֹא נֶאֱמַר בָּהֶם ״טוֹב״, וּבְדִבְּרוֹת הָאַחֲרוֹנוֹת נֶאֱמַר בָּהֶם ״טוֹב״?

^{b. Bava Kamma 54b–55a} Rabbi Ḥanina ben Agil asked Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: “For what reason does the word ṭov (“good”) not appear the first version of the Decalogue, but the later version of the Decalogue does used the word ṭov?”

In fact, the Decalogue from Deuteronomy, in the commandment to honor one’s parents, contains two phrases absent from the version in Exodus (bold):

^{דברים ה:טו} כַּבֵּד אֶת אָבִיךָ וְאֶת אִמֶּךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְמַעַן יַאֲרִיכֻן יָמֶיךָ וּלְמַעַן יִיטַב לָךְ עַל הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ.

^{Deut 5:15} Honor your father and your mother, as YHWH your God has commanded you, that you may long endure, and that you may fare well (yiyṭav), in the land that YHWH your God is assigning to you.^[1]

Instead of answering Rabbi Ḥanina’s question about this difference, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, who was known to be the expert par excellence in accurately transmitting old traditions pre-dating their reformulation in Mishnah,^[2] responds by asking whether the question itself is even valid:

^{בבלי בבא קמא נה.} אָמַר לוֹ: עַד שֶׁאַתָּה שׁוֹאֲלֵנִי לָמָּה {לֺא} נֶאֱמַר בָּהֶם ״טוֹב״, שׁוֹאֲלֵנִי אִם נֶאֱמַר בָּהֶן ״טוֹב״ אִם לָאו – שֶׁאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם נֶאֱמַר בָּהֶן ״טוֹב״ אִם לָאו.

^{b. Bava Kamma 55a} He [Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba] said to him: “Before you ask me why the word “good” is {not}^[3] stated in them, you should have asked me if the word “good” is actually stated in them or not, since I do not know if the word “good” is stated there or not.”

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba’s response suggests that he is aware of the alternative text in the LXX or its Vorlage (Hebrew original), which has the clause “that it may be good with you” (ἵνα εὖ σοι γένηται) in its version of the commandment in Exodus. This version also appears in harmonistic versions of the Decalogue, such as the Nash Papyrus, or 4Q137/4QPhyl J.

It is surprising that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba would give such weight to a non-Masoretic reading. In the continuation of the passage, Rabbi Tanḥum bar Ḥanilai—whom Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba suggests his student consult—upholds the primacy of Proto-MT^[4] by accepting the discrepancy and explaining it: he suggests that the word “good” was omitted from the first Decalogue because God knew that the tablets on which it was written would be broken (Exodus 32) when the Israelites made the golden calf:

^{בבלי בבא קמא נה.} כְּלָךְ אֵצֶל רַבִּי תַּנְחוּם בַּר חֲנִילַאי, שֶׁהָיָה רָגִיל אֵצֶל רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי – שֶׁהָיָה בָּקִי בְּאַגָּדָה.

^{b. Bava Kamma 55a} Go to Rabbi Tanḥum bar Ḥanilai, who was commonly found with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who was an expert in aggada. Perhaps he heard something from him on this matter.

אֲזַל לְגַבֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִמֶּנּוּ לֹא שָׁמַעְתִּי, אֶלָּא כָּךְ אָמַר לִי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחוּם אֲחִי אִמּוֹ שֶׁל רַב אַחָא בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אֲבִי אִמּוֹ שֶׁל רַב אַחַי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: הוֹאִיל וְסוֹפָן לְהִשְׁתַּבֵּר.

[Rabbi Ḥanina ben Agil] went to him and asked him. [Rabbi Tanḥum] said to him: “I did not hear anything on this matter from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi himself. But this is what Shmuel bar Naḥum, the maternal uncle of Rav Aḥa, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said to me, and some say it was the father of the mother of Rav Aḥai, son of Rabbi Ḥanina: ‘It does not mention the word Good in the first tablets, since they were ultimately destined to be broken.’”^[5]

The Talmud explains that destroying tablets with the phrase “that it will go well for Israel” could have caused the cessation of good to Israel:

^{בבלי בבא קמא נה.} וְכִי סוֹפָן לְהִשְׁתַּבֵּר מַאי הָוֵי? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: חַס וְשָׁלוֹם, פָּסְקָה טוֹבָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל.

^{b. Bava Kamma 55a} Now if they were ultimately to break, what of it? Rav Ashi said: All good would have, God forbid, ceased from Israel.

The Talmud makes no attempt to explain Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba’s otherwise cryptic comment. Whether the editors of the Talmud knew of the LXX variant and suppressed it, or whether they were already in the dark about non-MT versions is unclear, but whatever the explanation, the Talmud retained his observation in the canon.

The Divine Assembly of Haazinu, Absent from MT but Present in Midrash

Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer (PRE), a work from the latter half of the first millennium C.E., contains many early traditions of a mystical nature that were eschewed by most rabbinic editors of midrashim. On the story of the Tower of Babel (Gen 11:1–9), PRE notes that God consulted with angels before dispersing the nations:

^{פרקי דרבי אליעזר כד:ח} רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: קָרָא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְשִׁבְעִים מַלְאָכִים הַמְּסוֹבְבִים כִּסֵּא כְּבוֹדוֹ וְאָמַר לָהֶם: ״בֹּאוּ וּנְבַלְבֵּל אֶת לְשׁוֹנָם״.

^{Pirkei de Rabbi Eliezer 24:8} Rabbi Simeon said: The Holy One, blessed be He, called to the seventy angels, who surround the throne of His glory, and He said to them: “Come, let us confuse their language.”

וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא יָרַד אֲלֵיהֶם? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הָבָה נֵרְדָה״. ״אֵרְדָה״ אֵין כְּתִיב, אֶלָּא ״נֵרְדָה״.

Whence [do we know] that the Holy One, blessed be He, spoke to them? Because it is said, “Let us go down” (Gen 11:7). “I (singular) will go down” is not written, but “Let us (plural) go down.”

Already in the book Jubilees, from the second century B.C.E., the narrating angel, the main speaker in the book, speaks of the angels descending with God:

^{Jub 8:23} And the Lord descended, and we descended with Him to see the city and the tower which the children of men had built.

PRE then explains that God divided up the people, who now spoke seventy languages, among the seventy angels:

^{פרקי דרבי אליעזר כד:ט} וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁהִפִּיל גּוֹרָלוֹת בֵּינֵיהֶם? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (דברים לב:ח) ״בְּהַנְחֵל עֶלְיוֹן גּוֹיִם״. וְנָפַל גּוֹרָלוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עַל אַבְרָהָם וְעַל זַרְעוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (דברים לב:ט) ״כִּי חֵלֶק ה' עַמּוֹ״.

^{Pirkei de Rabbi Eliezer 24:9} And they cast lots among them. Because it is said, “When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance” (Deut 32:8). The lot of the Holy One, blessed be He, fell upon Abraham and upon his seed, as it is said, “For the Lord’s portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance” (Deut 32:9).

The prooftext from the MT used to support this claim makes no mention of angels:

^{דברים לב:ח} בְּהַנְחֵל עֶלְיוֹן גּוֹיִם בְּהַפְרִידוֹ בְּנֵי אָדָם יַצֵּב גְּבֻלֹת עַמִּים לְמִסְפַּר בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.

^{Deut 32:8} When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when He divided the sons of man, He fixed the boundaries of peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel.

The author of the PRE midrash likely had the LXX version of this verse in mind, which has “angels of God” (ἀγγέλων θεοῦ) in place of “sons of Israel”:

^{LXX Deut 32:8} When the Most High was apportioning nations, as he scattered Adam’s sons, he fixed the boundaries of nations according to the number of the angels of God.^[6]

This is also the text preserved at Qumran (4QDeut^j), which reads בני אלהים, “sons of God.”

PseudoJonathan

As is often the case, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan^[7] is in line with PRE here. It rewrites the verse in Deuteronomy to include God dividing up the nations among the seventy angels, which is to have taken place just prior to the dispersion of the nations (Gen 11:8), when the descendants of Noah would be allotted territories over the face of the entire world:^[8]

^{תרגום פסודו-יונתן דברים לב:ח} בְּאַחְסָנוּת עִלָאָה עַלְמָא לְעַמְמַיָא דִי נְפָקוּ מִבְּנוֹי דְנחַ בְּאַפְרָשׁוּתֵיהּ מִכְתָּבִין וְלִישְׁנִין לִבְנֵי נְשָׁא בְּדָרָא דְפַלְגוּתָא בֵּי הוּא זִמְנָא רָמָא פִיצְתָא עִם שׁוּבְעִין מַלְאָכַיָא רַבְרְבֵי עַמְמִין דְאִתְגְלֵי עִמְהוֹן לְמֶחֱמֵי קַרְתָּא. וּבֵי הוּא זִמְנָא אָקִים תְּחוּמֵי אוּמַיָא כִּסְכוּם מִנְיַין שׁוּבְעִין נַפְשָׁתָא דְיִשְרָאֵל דִנְחָתוּ לְמִצְרַיִם.

^{Targ. Ps-J Deut 32:8} When the Most High gave territorial allotments to the nations, which were descended from the sons of Noah when the scripts and languages of those people of the Generation of the Dispersion were differentiated. At that time He cast a lot among the seventy angels, the princes of the nations, for He had descended^[9] with them to see the city. And at that time He established the boundaries of nations according to the sum of the number of the seventy souls of Israel who went down into Egypt.

The targum translates both the LXX’s version of the division according to the number of God’s angels and that of Proto-MT—perhaps added by a later editor^[10]—with its tradition of the division occurring according to the number of the children of Israel.

Midrash Tanchuma: Dividing the Lands Among the Divine Beings

Midrash Tanhuma’s account of the division of the nations focuses on the land of Israel rather than the people of Israel, but it too illustrates that it knows of this variant reading:

^{מדרש תנחומא ראה ח} אַתָּה מוֹצֵא, כְּשֶׁבָּרָא הָעוֹלָם, חִלֵּק הָאֲרָצוֹת לְשָׂרֵי הָאֻמּוֹת וּבָחַר בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. מִנַּיִן, שֶׁכֵּן מֹשֶׁה אָמַר, בְּהַנְחֵל עֶלְיוֹן גּוֹיִם וְגוֹמר (דברים לב:ח), וּבָחַר לְחֶלְקוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: כִּי חֵלֶק י״י עַמּוֹ, יַעֲקֹב חֶבֶל נַחֲלָתוֹ (דברים לב:ט).

^{Midrash Tanhuma Re’eh S. 8} You find that when He created the world, He apportioned the lands to the ministering angels of the nations, and He chose the Land of Israel [for Himself]. From where [is this in Scripture]? As Scripture says: “When the Most High gave the nations their inheritances, etc.” (Deut 32:8), And He chose Israel as His portion, as stated in Scripture: “For the Lord’s portion is His people, Yaakov His allotment.” (Deut 32:9).

The “etc.” suggests that the scribe is suppressing a master text containing a reading of Deuteronomy 32:8 that aligns with the LXX/Qumran version, rather than the MT’s “sons of Israel.”^[11] In addition, the midrash about Israel as God’s allotment fits only loosely with the MT, which does not feature the name Israel, but fits tightly with the LXX version, which is the same as the Samaritan Pentateuch, both of which use that name:

^{דברים לב:ט נה"ש / תה"ש} כי חלק י־הוה עמו יעקב חבל נחלתו ישראל.

^{Deut 32:9 LXX/SP} And His people Jacob became the Lord’s portion, Israel a measured part of His inheritance.^[12]

We also find this in the Targum Yerushalmi^[13] tradition, where the names Jacob and Israel are in the opposite places, though in this case, the translators may have been adding something they felt was missing, based on the lack of parallelism to the word Jacob which, like the MT parsing, is understood to be part of the latter half of the verse:

^{תרגום ירושלמי–ניאופיטי דברים לב:ט} ארום חלקה די״י אנון עמה בני ישראל יעקב עדב אחסנתיה.

^{Targum Yerushalmi–Neofiti Deut 32:9} For the portion of the LORD is his people, the children of Israel; Jacob is the lot of His inheritance.

^{תרגום ירושלמי–קטעים דברים לב:ט} ארום לחלקא דיי אינון עמיה דבני ישראל ודבית יעקב עדב אחסנתיה.

^{Targum Yerushalmi–Fragmentary Deut 32:9} For the portion of the LORD is his people, the children of Israel; and the house of Jacob is the lot of His inheritance.

Thus, it seems that this midrash had the LXX or the pre-Samaritan text as his basis, and the midrash was revised by later scribes to fit with MT at the loss of some of its coherence.

Three Examples from the Passover Haggadah

The Haggadah is an early text, whose beginnings lay in the Second Temple period. Despite efforts by editors and scribes throughout the Middle Ages to eliminate such variant references in the final versions of the Passover Seder traditions, LXX wordings are still discernable at several points in the Haggadah.

1. “Outstretched Arm”

In response to the Mah Nishtanah, “Why is this [night] different [from all other nights]” the Haggadah quotes Deuteronomy about God bringing the people out of Egypt, but uses two phrases that veer from the MT:

עֲבָדִים הָיִינוּ לְפַרְעֹה בְּמִצְרָיִם, וַיּוֹצִיאֵנוּ ה' אֱלֹהֵינוּ מִשָּׁם בְּיָד חֲזָקָה וּבִזְרֹעַ נְטוּיָה.

We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt, and the Lord our God, brought us out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched [or raised] arm (Deut 6:21).

The Haggadah exchanges the specific “from Egypt” for the general “from there,” and adds “outstretched arm”:

^{דברים ו:כא} וְאָמַרְתָּ לְבִנְךָ עֲבָדִים הָיִינוּ לְפַרְעֹה בְּמִצְרָיִם וַיּוֹצִיאֵנוּ יְ־הוָה מִמִּצְרַיִם בְּיָד חֲזָקָה.

^{Deut 6:21} You shall say to your children, “We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt, and YHWH brought us out from Egypt with a mighty hand.”^[14]

This quote follows the LXX version:

^{LXX Deut 6:21} That you shall say to your son, “We were slaves to Pharaoh in the land of Egypt, and the Lord brought us forth from there with a mighty hand and with a raised arm.^[15]

2. The Wise Son: “Us” as Opposed to “You”

The midrash about the four sons opens with the wise son asking about the laws, quoting Deuteronomy 6:20:

מה העדות והחוקים והמשפטים אשר צוה ה' אלהינו אתכם?

What are the testimonies and the statutes and the judgments that the Lord our God commanded you?

The question as we have it is problematic, since the wicked son is criticized for asking מה העבודה הזאת לכם “what is this service to you,” because of the alienating second person, while the wise son is praised. In the older manuscripts, however, the quote follows the LXX and Vulgate, which uses the inclusive first-person plural:

מה העדת והחקים והמשפטים אשר צוה יי האלהינו אותנו?

What are the testimonials, statutes and laws the Lord our God has commanded us?"

This text appears in the manuscript versions of the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael (Pischa 18), j. Pesachim (10:4), and Yalkut Shimoni (Bo §425), all rabbinic texts, and in all early versions of the Haggadah. Later medieval scribes changed the reading to conform to MT,^[16] but by doing so, they obfuscated the contrasting expressions in the two verses, midrashically imagined as two sons.^[17] Our current versions have sparked a flurry of exegetical comments to bypass the difficulty.^[18]

3. Not by Means of an Angel

Emphasizing that God was directly responsible for the exodus, the Haggadah offers a reading of the opening phrase of Deuteronomy 26:8:^[19]

"וַיּוֹצִאֵנוּ יְיָ מִמִּצְרַיִם" (דברים כו:ח)—לֹא עַל־יְדֵי מַלְאָךְ, וְלֹא עַל־יְדֵי שָׂרָף, וְלֹא עַל־יְדֵי שָׁלִיחַ, אֶלָּא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בִּכְבוֹדוֹ וּבְעַצְמוֹ.

“The Lord took us out of Egypt,” not through an angel, not through a seraph and not through a messenger. The Holy One, blessed be He, did it in His glory by Himself!^[20]

The Haggadah brings a prooftext for this from Exodus from the final plague, the slaughter of the firstborn:

שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות יב:יב): "וְעָבַרְתִּי בְאֶרֶץ־מִצְרַיִם בַּלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה, וְהִכֵּיתִי כָל־בְּכוֹר בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם מֵאָדָם וְעַד־בְּהֵמָה, וּבְכָל־אֱלֹהֵי מִצְרַיִם אֶעֱשֶׂה שְׁפָטִים, אֲנִי יְיָ."

As it says (Exod 12:12): “For that night I will go through the land of Egypt and strike down every first-born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and I will mete out punishments to all the gods of Egypt, I the LORD.”

The Haggadah then proceeds to offer a midrashic reading of this verse as well:

"וְעָבַרְתִּי בְאֶרֶץ־מִצְרַיִם בַּלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה"—אֲנִי וְלֹא מַלְאָךְ;

“For that night I will go through the land of Egypt”—I and not an angel.

"וְהִכֵּיתִי כָל־בְּכוֹר בְּאֶרֶץ־מִצְרַים"—אֲנִי וְלֹא שָׂרָף;

“And I will strike down every first-born in the land of Egypt”—I and not a seraph.

"וּבְכָל־אֱלֹהֵי מִצְרַיִם אֶעֱשֶׂה שְׁפָטִים"—אֲנִי וְלֹא הַשָּׁלִיחַ;

“And I will mete out punishments to all the gods of Egypt”—I and not a messenger.

"אֲנִי יְיָ"—אֲנִי הוּא וְלֹא אַחֵר.

“I am the Lord”—I am He, and no other.^[21]

The haggadah’s midrash makes a logical jump from God’s role in the death of the firstborn to God’s role in the exodus from Egypt as a whole, which we also find in a short midrash from the Jerusalem Talmud:

^{ירושלמי סנהדרין ב:א, ט:} כַּד אֲתַא רַחֲמָנָא לְמִפְרוֹק יַת יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא שָׁלַח לֹא שָׁלִיחַ וְלֹא מַלְאָךְ אֶלָּא הוּא בְעַצְמוֹ, דִּכְתִיב: וְעָבַרְתִּי בְאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם (שמות יב:יב).

^{j. Sanhedrin 2:1, 9b} When the Merciful One came to redeem Israel He did not send—not a messenger and not an angel but He did so by Himself as it written (Exod 12:12), “I will pass through the Land of Egypt.”^[22]

In contrast, a verse in Isaiah claims that God made use of a messenger or angel to facilitate the exodus, ostensibly contradicting the midrash:

^{ישׁעיה סג:ט} בְּכָל צָרָתָם (לא) [לוֹ] צָר וּמַלְאַךְ פָּנָיו הוֹשִׁיעָם בְּאַהֲבָתוֹ וּבְחֶמְלָתוֹ הוּא גְאָלָם וַיְנַטְּלֵם וַיְנַשְּׂאֵם כָּל יְמֵי עוֹלָם.

^{Isa 63:9} In all their distress He is (not) [too] distressed.^[23] And the angel of His presence saved them, in His love and in His pity, He redeemed them, and He lifted them up, and carried them all the days of old.

Notably, the LXX offers an oppositie rendering of the first half of this verse (the Hebrew retroversion is my own):

^{ישׁעיה סג:ט} מִכָּל צָרָתָם לֺא צִר וּמַלְאַךְ פָּנָיו הוֹשִׁיעָם בְּאַהֲבָתוֹ וּבְחֶמְלָתוֹ הוּא גְאָלָם וַיְנַטְּלֵם וַיְנַשְּׂאֵם כָּל יְמֵי עוֹלָם.^[24]

^{Isa 63:9} from all their affliction, it was not a messenger or an angel; He himself (autos) saved them with His love and with His mercy, He Himself redeemed them, and took them up, and lifted them up all the days of old.

There are three main differences betweeen the MT and LXX here:

1. LXX begins with the preposition mi- “from,” MT with be- “in.” These two Hebrew letters look similar and are often interchanged.^[25]
2. LXX parses the word panav “His face” as part of the second clause, “He Himself.”^[26]
3. Where MT reads tzar “affliction” LXX reads tzir, “representative, ambassador.” The consonantal spelling of the word (miqra) is the same; only the received pronunciation (mesora) is different.

The result is the verse has opposite meanings in Proto-MT and LXX. The former suggests that a particular angel, which beholds the divine countenance, saves Israel. The latter lacks an intermediary, and God alone saves Israel. Given the force with which the rabbis insist that no angel was involved, especially the way they emphasize this point in an almost poetic refrain in the Haggadah’s midrash, it is likely that the authors of this midrash were aware of the LXX reading of the verse in Isaiah and even preferred it to the Proto-MT version.

Variants even in Rabbinic Times

Prima-facie, Rabbinic midrash works with the implicit notion of a single perfect text,^[27] and in some cases, like in polemics, rabbis explicitly claim that an alternative text is a corruption or forgery:

^{ספרי דברים פיסקא נו} אמר רבי אלעזר ברבי יוסי: אמרתי להם לסופרי כותיים "זייפתם את התורה..."

^{Sifrei Deut §56} Rabbi Elazar be-Rabbi Yossi said: “I told the Samaritan scribes: ‘You have forged the Torah…’”

This was also the case later in Jewish tradition, where scribes of rabbinic works adjusted the biblical texts to follow the Masoretic reading, even if doing so obscured the original point or proof of the midrash. Nevertheless, a careful look at some midrashim shows that the rabbis were, in some cases, still cognizant of variant readings and sometimes even made use of them. Even in the rabbinic period, where only the MT was considered authoritative, the influence of LXX variants still made themselves felt.^[28]