The following article has been published as: Nogalski, James D. “The Problematic Suffixes of Amos ix 11.” VT 43 (1993): 411–18. Per the publisher’s guidelines, only a preprint copy may be uploaded to academia.edu. For the final published version of this essay, please visit the publisher’s website at: http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/156853393x00232 The Problematic Suffixes of Amos IX 11 The MT of Amos 9:11 in its present form contains three incongruous suffixes which seemingly defy explanation. These three distinct suffixes used in the second half of the verse refer back to the unique phrase “booth of David.” The MT may be literally translated: On that day I will raise up the fallen booth of David; And I will wall up their (feminine plural) breaches (pirṣêhen), And I will raise his (masculine singular) ruins (wahărīsōtāyw), And I will build it (ûbenîtîhā: feminine singular) as in the days of old. The problem is clear enough. The use of the feminine plural, masculine singular, and feminine singular suffixes cannot be readily explained grammatically as references to the feminine singular construct “booth of David.” The normal solution follows the LXX and reads all three suffixes in the third feminine singular (τὰ πεπτωκότα αὐτῆς; τὰ κατεσκαμμένα αὐτῆς; ἀνοικοδομήσω αὐτὴν). The vast majority of commentators have welcomed the LXX as the means of avoiding the problem, either through their unqualified acceptance or with the hesitant admission that no better suggestion has adequately explained the incongruity.1 In the light of such unanimity it would appear superfluous to suggest an alternative reading were it not for the fact that scholars have generally proceeded from two incorrect assumptions when treating this text. First, most authors implicitly or explicitly presume that the LXX represents the “more original” reading;2 and second, they presume that the solution must explain away one or more of the problematic suffixes. There are good reasons for rejecting both these presuppositions. 1 A selection of those following the LXX is impressive: Julius Wellhausen, Die kleinen Propheten: übersetzt und erklärt (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1892), 94; Bernhard Duhm, “Anmerkungen zu den Zwölf Propheten. I,” ZAW 31 (1911): 17; Artur Weiser, Das Buch der zwölf kleinen Propheten I: die Propheten Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadja, Jona, Micha, 8th ed., ATD 24 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985), 203; Theodore H. Robinson and Friedrich Horst, Die Zwölf Kleinen Propheten, HAT 1/14 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1938), 106; Richard S. Cripps, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Amos, 2nd ed. (London: SPCK, 1955), 270–71; Edmond Jacob, Samuel Amsler, and Carl A. Keller, Osée, Joël, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, CAT 11a (Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1965), 245; Hans Walter Wolff, Dodekapropheton 2, Joel und Amos, BKAT 14/2 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1969), 403; Ina Willi-Plein, Vorformen der Schriftexegese innerhalb des Alten Testaments: Untersuchungen zum literarischen Werden der auf Amos, Hosea und Micha zurückgehenden Bücher im hebraischen Zwolfprophetenbuch, BZAW 123 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1971), 57; Wilhelm Rudolph, Joel, Amos, Obadja, Jona, KAT 13/2 (Gütersloher: G. Mohn, 1971), 278–79; Douglas Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, WBC 31 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), 395–96. 2 Note especially Willi-Plein, p 57, who not only accepts the LXX, but offers a suggestion as to how MT came about Willi-Plein argues that dittography caused the final nun as a result of the following waw. The only explanation she offers for changing “his ruins” to “her ruins” is that the feminine singular form of “her ruins” was simply displaced, for psychological reasons, by the more frequently attested masculine suffix. The problem with this suggestion is that 1 2 The LXX need not represent the “original reading” of Amos 9:11; rather, it may harmonize the MT. Mays and Rudolph call the LXX reading into question, but offer no grounds for doing so; nor do they offer clarification of the meaning or explanation of the so-called corruption of the MT.3 In reality, the LXX is no different from the other ancient versions. The LXX, Syriac, and Vulgate all read the same text, but attempt a solution to the suffixes in their own way. Whereas the LXX eliminates the problem by ignoring the change of number and gender in the suffixes, the Syriac and Vulgate offer some help both in the verification of the MT and, more indirectly, toward a solution. A comparison of the Vulgate with the MT and LXX reveals an attempt to avoid the problem through phraseology, as well as the creation of further problems with the use of an otherwise unattested third-person masculine singular suffix for the feminine suffix in the phrase “I will rebuild it.” The Vulgate may be read: “I will raise the tent of David which is destroyed, and I will rebuild the holes of its walls; and those things which they destroyed I will repair; and I shall rebuild him as in the days of old.” In the first occurrence of the suffix, the word “its” (eius) can be either masculine, neuter, or feminine, but since the antecedent is neuter (tabernaculum), eius must be neuter as well. The Vulgate has been formulated according to the gender of the Latin and not the Hebrew. The Vulgate avoids the second suffix. The Vulgate obviously has problems translating the Hebrew since it has changed the plural noun “ruins” into a masculine plural verb as though reading hāresû. One may legitimately explain this variation as an intentional change for two reasons. First, it is doubtful that two letters (tau and yodh) would have fallen away from the MT. Second, the Vulgate preserves echoes of a suffix attached to “ruins” in the phrase “those things which” (ea quae). The Vulgate treats the third suffix uniquely. The use of the third masculine singular suffix must grammatically refer back to David, and the connection of the verb “rebuild” with David indicates the translator has understood David symbolically. More importantly for the eventual understanding of the MT, the Vulgate interprets both “booth” and “David” as antecedents to the suffixes. The Syriac likewise struggles with its translation. The pertinent portions of the verse read: “I will raise the fallen tent of David, and I will close their (masculine plural) breaches, and I will raise their (masculine plural) ruins, and I will build it (feminine singular) as in the days of old...” The Syriac, like the MT, attests both “booth” and “fallen” as singular, but it uses the masculine plural for both of the next two suffixes (“their breaches” and “their ruins”) rather than feminine plural and masculine singular as in the MT. The reason for this variation is two-fold. First, the use of “tent” in the Syriac version means that the translator used a masculine noun rather than a feminine noun as in the MT. Second, the masculine plural suffixes indicate that the translator understood the entire phrase “fallen booth of David” as a collective expression. The final suffix in the Syriac version reverts to a literal translation of the third feminine singular suffix of the MT. Given the use of the collective in the first two instances, this return to a literal rendering of the MT is striking, but in spite of the deviations mentioned above, it is highly unlikely that the Syriac presupposes a different Vorlage. The tension reflects an attempt to it fails to account for the fact that the feminine is already attested twice (singular and plural). Her argument about dittography is more plausible, but does not solve the problem by itself. 3 Rudolph acknowledges the priority of the MT over the LXX, but he translates with the LXX for lack of a better alternative (Joel, Amos, Obadja, Jona, 278–79). James Luther Mays preserves the tension of the MT, but offers no explanation for the significance of the suffixes (Amos: A Commentary, OTL [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969], 163–64). 3 comprehend the MT. This tension is the more notable since the Syriac does not revert to the LXX reading, a practice it follows elsewhere with some regularity. A comparison of the MT with the LXX, Syriac, and Vulgate versions of Amos 9:11 demonstrates that none of the three suffixes appears in the same form in every version. These results may be summarized as follows:4 Breaches Suffix Ruins Suffix I will rebuild “it” suffix MT: FP MS FS FS LXX: FS FS FS Syriac: MP MP FS Vulgate: NS NP MS Of all these readings, only the LXX reading is consistent within itself. However, given the evidence of the other versions, the principle of lectio difficilior suggests that the LXX merely smooths over the problems of a very difficult MT. One may not, therefore, presume that the LXX represents the “more original” reading. Other solutions must be sought which are more in keeping with the MT, and which simultaneously shed light on the intended significance of these suffixes. To accomplish this task, it is necessary to question the second presupposition that the problem lies in the corruption of the suffixes. Two further alternatives should be explored: (1) the problem lies in the corruption of the antecedent “booth of David;” or (2) the variation of suffixes represents a deliberate device on the part of the author. Over 100 years ago, G. Hoffmann argued that the problem could be solved by separating the first two of the parallel statements from the third and fourth, and supposing that the original antecedent to “their breaches” was the plural “booths of David.”5 Hoffmann’s suggestion has gone largely unnoticed, but prudence and precision demand a closer evaluation of this possibility, although several crucial obstacles argue against its acceptance.6 Hoffmann treats the phrase as an example of haplography caused by the omission of the mater lectionis waw from the consonantal text of Hebrew Vorlage, which originally read: sukkôt dāwîd hannōpelôt. It must be admitted that several observations make this reading possible. Waw is one of the more frequent letters involved in scribal errors. The fact that the letter was situated between the letters kaph and tau increases the likelihood of haplography, since this ending often appears with two spellings. The feminine plural absolute sukkōt is well attested both with defective and with plene spellings, often within neighboring verses.7 This interchangeable form would add to the susceptibility of the word to the accidental omission of the waw. In addition, the omission of the waw in the consonantal text changed the number from plural to singular, but left a word which made sense in its context. Relatedly, only one other word would have been affected by this omission, namely hnplt, but this word would have appeared exactly the same in the consonantal text whether the word was plural (hannōpelōt) or singular (hannōpelet). 4 “F” = feminine, “M” = masculine , “N” = neuter, “S” = singular, “P” = plural. Geo Hoffmann, “Versuche zu Amos,” ZAW 3 (1883): 125–26. 6 Only Friedrich Schwally takes up Hoffmann’s suggestion favorably (“Das Buch Ssefanjâ: eine historisch-kritische Untersuchung,” ZAW 10 [1890]: 226). 7 Genesis 33:17; Neh 8:15; Deut 16:13; and Lev 23:42 have no mater lectionis to represent the vowel ō, whereas other passages have the plene spelling. Second Samuel 22:12; Neh 8:14, 16, 17; Lev 23:34, 43; Deut 16:16; 31:10; Zech 14:16, 18, 19; Ezra 3:4, 2 Chr 8:13; 2 Sam 11:11; 1 Kgs 20:12, 16. Interestingly, with the exception of Gen 33:17 all the other defective spellings appear in the context of verses where the plene spelling is used. 5 4 In spite of the admission that Hoffmann’s reading is possible, several problems result from it. First, no ancient version attests a plural “booths” in place of the singular “booth.” Second, while his reading alleviates the problematic feminine plural suffix of “their breaches,” it does not solve the problem of the variation of suffixes (3 m.s. and 3 f.s.) in the remainder of the verse.8 Third, Hoffmann's reading does not adequately explain the significance of the plural “booths” in the context. He understands “booths” as a derogatory reference to the high palaces of the North which should now be rebuilt in the simple style of a hut from the Davidic period. So understood, the verse runs counter to the promissory nature of 9:11ff. whose unbridled positive character, is beyond dispute. Thus, one may safely eliminate Hoffmann’s reading of “booths” on textual, syntactical, and contextual grounds. When one eliminates textual corruption of both the problematic suffixes and the antecedent as explanations for the divergent suffixes, one is forced to grapple with Amos 9:11 as it stands in the MT. The verse, as noted already, contains four statements, yet the formulation of these statements is enlightening. If we ignore the problem of the suffixes for the moment, these four consecutive statements appear in synonymous parallelism. The combination of verbs (raise, wall up, raise, rebuild) twice articulates YHWH’s action of lifting and repairing in beautifully constructed synonymous parallelism.9 Taking the cue from this structural formulation, one must ask if it is possible to make any sense of the suffixes in the light of the parallel expressions. When so viewed, one may answer that the suffixes do play a role in the parallelism. The syntactical key to unlocking the understanding of these suffixes appears in the expression of collective ideas via the combination of feminine singular nouns with plural adjectives.10 This phenomenon occurs with enough regularity to enable us to presume that the collective idea could as well be expressed via the combination of a feminine singular noun and a plural suffix.11 Thus, it is possible to view the second statement as a collective parallel to the first statement. Moreover, the third and fourth statements are even easier to explain in the light of the parallel structure, since the suffixes relate specifically back to the constituent elements of the phrase “booth of David.” The 3 m.s. suffix of the third statement pertains specifically to David when it mentions “his” ruins, and the 3 f.s. suffix of the fourth statement refers explicitly back to the feminine noun “booth.” The parallel structure and the function of the enigmatic suffixes may thus be graphically displayed: I will raise up I will wall up I will raise I will rebuild the fallen booth it of David his ruins their breaches 8 Hoffmann correctly suggests that the 3ms suffix could refer back to David, but stretches the point when he argues that the 3fs suffix in the phrase “I will build it” relates to “the land” (“Versuche zu Amos,” 226). He ignores the fact that the closest example of “land” appears two verses away (9:9). If the 2fs suffix intended “land” as the antecedent, it would have to bypass three other feminine nouns in the MT (not only “booth” in 9:11, but “sword” and “calamity” in 9:10). Such a syntactical oversight appears highly unlikely. 9 Amos 9:11 twice uses “I will raise,” and uses the synonyms “I will wall up” and “I will rebuild” to create the second half of the AB/A’B’ schema. 10 Compare, for example, Gen 30:43 and 1 Sam 25:18, where the feminine singular “sheep” takes a plural adjective. See also Wilhelm Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, 2nd English Ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), §132g and §145c. 11 See, for example, Num 27:17, where the feminine singular noun appears with the plural pronoun. 5 Having detailed the elements of this verse it is now necessary to turn to the question how this understanding of Amos 9:11 relates to the larger context of 9:11-15. The salvation oracle at the end of the book is clearly separated from what precedes it by both theme and style. The positive tenor of 9:11-15 contrasts sharply with the message of the remainder of the book, and the situation presumed by these verses is most understandable in exilic and post-exilic times. For this reason the verses are correctly assumed to be a later addition to the book.12 It has been argued above that the writer of Amos 9:11 used the metaphor “booth of David” for a collective entity. Not only does the use of the feminine plural pronoun "their" treat this phrase collectively, but the remainder of the nouns in the verse (breaches, ruins), which function identically in the parallelism, are also plural, further adding to the impression of a collective identity. On its own, Amos 9:11 does not clearly impart the identity of this “fallen booth of David,” but an evaluation of the larger context reveals that the real key for understanding the metaphorical language of Amos 9:11 on a more concrete level is found in Amos 9:14, where the destruction imagery appears once again. “I will return the captivity of my people Israel, and they will rebuild the ruined cities...” The recurrence of the verb “to build” and the use of “ruined” (which expresses the same meaning as “ruins” in 9:11) relate back to the situation in 9:11. Thus, it is clear that the ruined cities of 9:14 and the fallen booth ( = David's ruins) of 9:11 are intended to be one and the same. The metaphorical use of “booth” as a reference to a city is attested elsewhere.13 The “fallen booth” of 9:11 does not reflect a polemic against the divided kingdom in the time of Amos, but refers collectively to the destruction of the cities of David’s kingdom.14 The frequent assumption of an exilic or post-exilic date for these verses makes perfect sense, since the desolate state of the cities during that period, resulting from the Babylonian destruction of the entire area, makes this extended metaphor intelligible. In summary, it has been argued that the LXX does not reflect the “original reading” of Amos 9:11, but is itself a harmonization of problematic suffixes. Likewise, the argument of a textual corruption in the antecedent does not withstand critical scrutiny. It has been argued here that attention to the parallel structure of the verse as it appears in the MT can account for the suffixes by noting how they function in the verse and in the larger context. 12 For a classic example of this opinion, as well as a more detailed summary of the arguments, see Wolff, Dodekapropheton 2, Joel und Amos, 405–6. For a dissenting opinion, see Rudolph, Joel, Amos, Obadja, Jona, 284– 85. 13 Isaiah 1:8 uses this metaphor to refer to Jerusalem. 14 While one must acknowledge that the context does not provide precise definitions of the extent of territory and people involved in the metaphorical “booth,” it must nevertheless be stated clearly that the collective attributes of the MT within the larger context do not allow the supposition of the consonants skt as the Trans-jordanian city as suggested by commentators such as H. Neil Richardson, “Skt (Amos 9:11) : ‘Booth’ or ‘Succoth’?,” JBL 92 (1973): 375–81; and Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 398.