THE BOOK OF EZEKIEL Moshe H. Goshen-Gottstein Shemaryahu ...

Introduction
Such sub-titles are found in a number of fragments from Qumran, both biblical and
non-biblical. 22 It was decided, therefore, that such variations are of text-critical significance
and worthy of recording in a critical edition.
33. Apparatus I includes variants collated from the primary versions, translated directly
from the Hebrew. 23 The sources are indicated by the following symbols:
Masoretic Text x
Septuagint ]
Vulgate *
Targum Jonathan T
Peshitta . [
34. Main classes of variants between a version and x:
(a) Recurrent deviations from x mostly due to grammatical differences and syntactic structure,
simplification of expression, contextual adjustment, and the like. However, the possibility
that such deviations reflect a Hebrew Vorlage that differed from the MT must be taken
into account. They are therefore marked by verbal symbols such as ‘pers’, ‘num’, ‘verb’,
indicating the type of phenomenological variation, as explained below in §53. The quantity
of such differences exceeds by far that of all other reconstructed variants. Variants that can
be characterized as phenomenological, either at the level of translation technique or scribal
transmission, are generally considered of less importance than more ‘material’ variants,
which are less likely to derive from these processes.
35. Variations in the use of waw in the versions are fully recorded in Apparatus I only for
] and are presented in two ways: 24 If the editors consider it more likely that translation
technique caused a variation (taking into account the syntax of the various languages), this
is indicated by the phenomenon marker &; otherwise the omission is marked by a minus
symbol. Variants in the use of waw for fragments from the Judean Desert are fully recorded
in Apparatus II and for selected masoretic manuscripts in Apparatuses III-IV. 25
36. (b) Differences between x and a version which may reflect ‘material’ variants, such
as pluses or minuses in the text, 26 or variances in wording other than the types of variation
22 For example, Isa 15:1, 17:1, 19:1 (a`en `yn, wync `yn, etc.); Jer 48:1, 49:1, 7, 28 (a`enl, pal oenr i ,
etc.) et al.; CD X 14 (zayd lr).
23 Putative secondary influences of one version on another are usually disregarded, since in most cases,
it is practically impossible to differentiate between influence and similar, yet independent,
renderings.
24 If the evidence of ]h is particularly strong, and makes sense syntactically, variations in the use of
waw are recorded; cf. 11:10.
25 The editors doubt the importance of variant readings involving copulative or any other syntactic waw,
even when attested in a Hebrew source, because the use of waw in Biblical Hebrew, as of analogous
morphemes in a translational language, does not enable definite evaluation of differences. Similar
considerations also pertain to the use of the word kol (see below, §53). A variant concerning waw
was recorded for a version other than ] only when the syntactic/textual environment seemed to
justify this (cf., e.g., 25:7, 9). Cf. Tov, TCU, 154–158.
26 The LXX of Ezekiel has a significant number of minus readings (some 553 in the present apparatus),
amounting, according to one estimate, to some 625 words = some 35 verses if taken altogether (cf.
G. Marquis, The Translation Technique Reflected in LXX-Ezekiel [unpublished MA thesis, Dept. of
xviii