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

Introduction
det variation in the use of a determinative particle (mainly in ])
diath variation in the use of active or passive forms, especially with an indefinite
subject, which may also affect the status of subject and object 52
diff version is altogether different from x in the given stretch of text 53
div added or different appellation for the divinity
num interchange of singular and plural nouns or pronouns 54
/num/ singular/plural interchange in a stretch of text, affecting also verbal forms
pers difference involving agens of the verb — person, gender or number 55 (see
also /num/)
pers/pron interchange of person and pronoun
prep difference concerning a preposition 56
prep/pron difference relating to a Hebrew preposition with a pronominal suffix, for
example, el, expressed in Greek by a declined pronoun
pron difference in pronoun, whether independent or suffixed (common in the interchange:
pron/det, pron/nom); 57 see also dem
ptcl difference in particle (including problems of l)
reformul a version has a turn of expression which differs from x 58
52 Concerning this type of textual variation it is difficult to determine whether a witness indeed reflects
a different understanding of the text, or whether the seeming difference is but an accurate reflection
of the possible active/passive. Cases in which the difference seems to be synonymous have not been
listed (cf above, §31). Cf. C. Rabin, “The Ancient Versions and the Indefinite Subject,” Textus 2
(1962) 60–76. ‘Diath’ also covers, e.g., cases of interchanges between a first person action on an
object and an object acted upon with an indefinite subject, though this may appear to be a variation
concerning ‘coniug’; cf., e.g., 32:14.
53 This notation comes instead of listing such stretches of text in the apparatus. The text is usually
quoted in the notes, together with editorial comments. However, in chaps. 40–48, where [ presents
a text differing significantly from x, the text itself is not given in the notes. The technical nature of
these chapters presents particular difficulties, and the Peshitta . here often goes its own way.
Therefore, it was deemed sufficient to indicate the difference without over-burdening the notes with
Syriac quotations.
54 Such differences may extend over a stretch of text or a number of verses. The notation does not imply
that a version shows the variation in each pertinent word. A special case is the Hebrew syntactic
figure of singulare tantum, customarily rendered by the plural in the versions, or the complementary
plurale tantum, rendered by the singular in the versions. Such cases are not considered as ‘num’.
Other examples of a consistent employment in a version of a plural for a collective expression in x
are also not listed as ‘num’.
55 The substitution of a finite verb for a Hebrew infinitive is usually taken to derive from a necessity of
translation. Therefore, it is recorded only in the likelihood of reflecting a possible Hebrew variant.
56 E.g., for the purpose of notation, åðé ¢ ´ is taken as the rendition of lr, and ðñïò ´ of l`.
57 In differences involving pronouns it is particularly difficult to distinguish between translational
deviations and possible Hebrew variants, and to decide which deviations should be recorded in the
apparatus. The phenomenological nature of the presence or absence of the pronoun is highlighted by
variations recorded as ‘> pron’ (e.g. 16:4) or ‘+ pron’ (e.g. 3:3).
58 The full text is given in the notes. The ‘reformul’ notation should not be understood as related to
xxiv