Septuagint Variants in Midrash and the Haggadah

The version in Exodus is shorter:

^{שׁמות כ:יב} כַּבֵּד אֶת אָבִיךָ וְאֶת אִמֶּךָ לְמַעַן יַאֲרִכוּן יָמֶיךָ עַל הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ.

^{Exod 20:12} Honor your father and mother, so that you may live long in the land which YHWH your God is giving you.

For other discussions of the differences between the two versions of the Decalogues, see Marty Lockshin, “The Existence of Two Versions of the Decalogue,” TheTorah (2015); idem, “Two Versions of the Decalogue: Ibn Ezra’s Non-Explanation,” TheTorah (2019); Norman Solomon, “The Two Shabbats of the Decalogue,” TheTorah (2013); Leonard Greenspoon, “Do Not Covet: Is It a Feeling or an Action?” TheTorah (2018); Esther Eshel, “The Oldest Known Copy of the Decalogue?” TheTorah (2015); Sidnie White Crawford, “The Many Recensions of the Ten Commandments,” TheTorah (2019).

^{בבלי חולין קמא:} אמר ליה ר' זירא לאו אמינא לכו כל מתניתא דלא תניא בי רבי חייא ובי רבי אושעיא משבשתא.

^{b. Hullin 141b} Rabbi Zeira said to him: Did not I already tell you that any baraita that is not taught in the study hall of Rabbi Hiyya or Rabbi [H]oshaya is corrupt.

While this emendation does not have support in the manuscript tradition, in his commentary (ad loc.), Maharsha (Rabbi Shmuel Eliezer Edels, 1555–1631) argues persuasively that this word must have fallen out of the text:

^{מהרש"א בבא קמא נד:} יראה מלשונו שאמר עד שאתה שואלני למה לא נאמר בהן טוב דעיקר הקושיא היא למה בדברות הראשונות לא נאמר טוב ובכלל זה למה לא נאמר אות הט' בכל הדברות הראשונות כמ"ש המפרשים אבל על מה שנאמר בדברות האחרונות טוב לא קשיא ליה.

^{Maharsha Baba Qama 54b} It is evident from his language that what he said was: “Before you ask me why the word “good” is not 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.” Because the main problem is why the first Decalogue doesn’t include the word “good” and why the letter tet doesn’t appear anywhere in the first Decalogue, as the commentators have stated. But as for why the second Decalogue does include the word “good”—that is not a difficulty for him.

(I thank Shamma Friedman who suggested to me that “not” here is an emendation of the Talmudic text.) Another, more obscure, commentator who offers this same emendation is R. David bar Solomon Teitelbaum Mezritch in his book of glosses on the Torah and Talmud, Devash Tamar, published in 1897:

^{דבש תמר כרך א, בבא קמא נה.} עד שאתה שואלני למה לא נאמר בהם כצ״ל טוב כי עיקר השאלה על מה שלא נאמר בדברות הראשונות וכן הואת תשובת ר׳ תנחום בר חנילאי על מה שלא נאמר.

^{Devash Tamar 1, Bava Qama 55a} “Before you ask me why the word “good” is not stated in them”—thus must the textual reading be. For the main question is about what is not stated in the first Decalogue. And so too, the answer of Rabbi Tanḥum bar Ḥanilai is concerned about what is not stated [in the first Decalogue].

This is the term preferred by scholars when referring to the consonantal MT, before the Tibrerian Masoretes added vowels, cantillation marks, and other elements, to create the Masoretic Text. See discussion in Emanuel Tov, “The (Proto-)Masoretic Text: A Ten-Part Series,” TheTorah (2017).

Violent acts (smashing) inanimate objects can activate immediate, real consequences through a phenomenon called “sympathetic magic,” like current voodoo/vodou practices. See Herbert Basser, “Superstitious Interpretations of Jewish Laws,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 8 (1977): 127–138.

Two LXX manuscripts (LXX^{848, 106c}) have υἱῶν θεοῦ “sons of God.” as does a Hebrew manuscript found at Qumran (i.e., υἱῶν θεοῦ and בני אלוהים, respectively). See discussion in, Emanuel Tov, “The Sons of Israel or God? – Deuteronomy 32:8,” TheTorah (2023). See also, Michael S. Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the sons of God,” Bibliotheca Sacra 158 (January-March 2001): 52–74, and Kalle "Kaleb" Kannisto, “Torah integrity Problem in WLC and Aleppo Codex against LXX and Dead Sea scrolls in Deuteronomy 32.8,” Sefaria (Nov 29, 2022). See also Kannisto, “Torah integrity Problem in WLC and Aleppo Codex against LXX and Dead Sea scrolls in Deuteronomy 32.8.” The issue is noted in a passage in Justin Martyr (first century Judea), Dialogue with Trypho ch. 131.—How much more faithful to God the Gentiles are who are converted to Christ than the Jews.

But I shall quote the passage by which it is made known that God divided all the nations. It is as follows: “Ask thy father, and he will show thee; thine elders, and they will tell thee; when the Most High divided the nations, as He dispersed the sons of Adam. He set the bounds of the nations according to the numbers of the sons of children of Israel; and the Lord's portion became His people Jacob, and Israel was the lot of His inheritance.” And having said this, I added: “The Seventy have translated it, He set the bounds of the nations according; to the number of the angels of God.”

This is a late first millennim C.E. expansive Aramaic translation, filled with midrashic readings, that has been erroneously attributed to the 2^nd century C.E. sage, Jonthan ben Uziel, who composed the literalist translation of the Prophets.

The targumist here references Jubilees’ account of the divisions of the nations among the three sons of Noah and their descendants (ch. 8). 4Q216 shows us Jubilees was composed in Hebrew probably around the time of the early Hasmoneans.

אִתְגְלֵי literally means “was revealed” and follows the convention for the usual targumic circumlocution for descending, coming as, for example, in Pseudo-Jonathan to Genesis 11:8:

ואיתגליאת מימרא דייי עילוי קרתא ועימיה שׁובעין מלאכיא כל־קבל שׁו{מ}<ב>עין עממיא וכל חד וחד לישׁן עממיה ורושׁם כתביה בידיה ובדרינון מתמן על אנפי כל ארעא לשׁיבעין לישׁנין.

^{Targ. Ps-J Gen 11:8} And the Word of the Lord [targumic convention for “God” when physical Scriptures ascribe divine activity] was revealed upon him [targumic convention for Scripture’s “descended” to avoiding mentioning any divine physical action]” and with him seventy angels corresponding to seventy nations, each having its own language, and thence the writing of its own hand: and He dispersed them from thence upon the face of all the earth into seventy languages.

By adding a simple vav, “and” at the beginning of the second interpretation, the final hand signifies the addition from a parallel source.

To my mind it is obvious the original midrashist must have known Deuteronomy 32:8 in Hebrew (למספר בני אלהים) or in Greek (κατὰ ἀριθµὸν ἀγγέλων θεοῦ). This reading is likely based on the textual tradition published by John William Wevers, Deuteronomium, Septuaginta, Vetus Testamentum graecum, auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum gottingensis editum, III.2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 170. In my many conversations with Wevers he told me that many of the differences between LXX and MT were based on only reading traditions and not on consonantal discrepancies in the respective parent texts. That is clearly not the case in respect to the passages in the present study.

^{LXX Deut 32:9} καὶ ἐγενήθη μερὶς κυρίου λαὸς αὐτοῦ Ιακωβ, σχοίνισμα κληρονομίας αὐτοῦ Ισραηλ.

This is an Aramaic translation tradition from the Land of Israel, which includes midrashic expansions, double translations, and other features. We have one recension which is complete, known as Neophiti, for where the manuscript was found in the Vatican, and the Fragmentary, which is the version generally printed in the Mikraot Gedolot (Rabbinic Bible). Targum Pseudo-Jonathan is also loosely part of this tradition.

Deuteronomy elsewhere refers to YHWH’s “mighty hand” together “outstretched arm” (e.g., 4:34, 5:15, 7:19, 9:29, 11:2, 26:8). No DSS fragments of this verse have been discovered.

Although the common English rendition of וּבִזְרֹעַ נְטוּיָה is “outstretched arm.” LXX interprets the phrase as “raised arm.” This is also how Targum Onkelos renders the phrase וּבִדרָע מְרָמַם elsehwere, where it appears in MT.

Similarly, at the end of his laws of Chametz and Matzah, Maimonides copies the known version of his time in his Haggadah as witnessed by manuscripts and older printings of his work. They read “us.” Later, this was replaced by MT “you.”

As Marc Brettler notes in “Some Biblical Perspectives on the Haggadah,” TheTorah (2014):

That is why the chacham is lauded—he includes himself in the community, while the rasha is punished. And indeed, some manuscripts of the Haggadah, including of Maimonides’ Haggadah, quote the wise son saying “us” rather than “you.” This is a rare and remarkable case of a biblical variant to what became the standard Torah text surviving into the Middle Ages!

The discussion here shows that other variants were and are still current. See also, Zev Farber, “The Four Sons: How the Midrash Developed,” TheTorah (2019).

One old commentary under Chabad imprimatur noted that the phrasing of the wise son’s question is mipi sod (based on Kabbalistic secrets).”

The Haggadah offers an extensive midrash, phrase by phrase, of the first four verses of the statement every Israelite is supposed to make together with their offering of bikkurim, first produce (Deut 26:5–8). This is in accord with the Mishnah’s requirement:

^{משנה פסחים י:ד} וּלְפִי דַעְתּוֹ שֶׁל בֵּן, אָבִיו מְלַמְּדוֹ. מַתְחִיל בִּגְנוּת וּמְסַיֵּם בְּשֶׁבַח, וְדוֹרֵשׁ מֵאֲרַמִּי אוֹבֵד אָבִי, עַד שֶׁיִּגְמֹר כֹּל הַפָּרָשָׁה כֻלָּהּ:

^{m. Pesachim 10:4} And the father instructs his son according to the son's capacity. He begins with the blameworthy and ends with the praiseworthy and explicates the fine points in the unit of Deut. 26:5-8 from “My father was a fugitive Aramean” until the entire unit is concluded (with explicating “and the Lord took us out from Egypt, by a mighty hand, and by a stretched-out arm, and by great fear, and by signs, and by wonders.” (Deut 26:8)

For some discussion of this midrash, see Judah Goldin, “‘Not by Means of an Angel and Not by Means of a Messenger’,” in Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough, ed. Jacob Neusner (Brill, 1968), 412–424.

God’s direct involvement is confirmed in the narration of the plague:

^{שמות יב:כט} וַיְהִי בַּחֲצִי הַלַּיְלָה וַי־הוָה הִכָּה כָל בְּכוֹר בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם מִבְּכֹר פַּרְעֹה הַיֹּשֵׁב עַל כִּסְאוֹ עַד בְּכוֹר הַשְּׁבִי אֲשֶׁר בְּבֵית הַבּוֹר וְכֹל בְּכוֹר בְּהֵמָה.

^{Exod 12:29} In the middle of the night YHWH struck down all the first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharaoh who sat on the throne to the first-born of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of the cattle.

Yerushalmi text taken from Sefaria—but the translation is mine.

The word in parenthesis is the written text (ktiv); in brackets is the text to be read aloud (krei). As the two words are homophones (like “there,” “they’re” and “their”), the confusion that led to this double reading was aural, i.e., the scribe may have been listening to dictation or repeating the word in his head without thinking about the meaning.

The Greek reads:

^{LXX Isaiah 63:9} ἐκ πάσης θλίψεως αὐτῶν. οὐ πρέσβυς οὐδὲ ἄγγελος, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς ἔσωσεν αὐτούς, διὰ τὸ ἀγαπᾷν αὐτοὺς καὶ φείδεσθαι αὐτῶν· αὐτὸς ἐλυτρώσατο αὐτοὺς καὶ ἀνέλαβεν αὐτούς, καὶ ὕψωσεν αὐτοὺς πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας τοῦ αἰῶνος·

See brief discussion in Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Revised and Expanded Fourth Edition (Fortress Press, 2022), 303–304. That said, the prefix be- can mean “from.” See the gloss of R. Moses Nahmanides on Leviticus 8:32.

The usage is clearer when we look at the LXX translation of the verse in which God says to Moses that He will accompany them:

^{שמות לג:יד} וַיֹּאמַר פָּנַי יֵלֵכוּ וַהֲנִחֹתִי לָךְ. ^לג:טו וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו אִם אֵין פָּנֶיךָ הֹלְכִים אַל תַּעֲלֵנוּ מִזֶּה.

^{Exod 33:14} And He said, “My face will go in the lead and will lighten your burden.” ^33:15 And he said to Him, “Unless Your face goes in the lead, do not make us leave this place.”

The LXX translates:

^{Έξοδος 33:14} καὶ λέγει Αὐτὸς προπορεύσομαί σου καὶ καταπαύσω σε. ^33:15 καὶ λέγει πρὸς αὐτόν Εἰ μὴ αὐτὸς σὺ πορεύῃ, μή με ἀναγάγῃς ἐντεῦθεν·

^{Exod [LXX] 33:14} And he says, “I myself will go before you, and I will give you rest.” ^33:15 And he says to him, “If you yourself do not go, do not lead me up from here.

We see that, in the LXX, “face” is taken as a reflexive (autos), i.e., God Himself.

For the history of the biblical text, see Emanuel Tov, “Textual Criticism of the Torah: Ten Short Case Studies,” TheTorah (2023).

See also Simcha Kogut, “Variants in the Masoretic Text: From Talmud to Rashi,” TheTorah (2025).