Symmachus uses the lexeme μυζήτης in his translation of Psalm 77[78]:46. The relevant passage reads as follows in the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text:
|
LXX Ps 77:46a–b, ed. A. Rahlfs |
MT Ps 78:46a–b, ed. H. Bardtke (BHS) |
|
aκαὶ ἔδωκεν τῇ ἐρυσίβῃ τὸν καρπὸν αὐτῶν bκαὶ τοὺς πόνους αὐτῶν τῇ ἀκρίδι |
וַיִּתֵּ֣ן לֶחָסִ֣יל יְבוּלָ֑ם וִֽ֝יגִיעָ֗ם לָאַרְבֶּֽה׃ |
|
English translation by NETS: |
English translation by NJPS: |
|
And he gave their crops over to the rust, and their labors to the grasshopper. |
then gave their crops over to grubs, |
|
German translation by LXX.D: |
German translation by Elberfelder: |
|
Und er gab dem Mehltau ihre Früchte (preis) und (den Ertrag) ihrer Mühen den Heuschrecken |
Ihre Ernte überließ er den Grillen und Heuschrecken den Ertrag ihrer Mühen. |
Hexaplaric Evidence for μυζήτης (σ' Ps 77:46a)
The Göttingen Hexapla Database, which is in its Beta version, gives the following information for Psalm 77[78]:46a:
|
LXX Ps 77:46a |
MT Ps 78:46a |
|||
|
LXX |
MT |
α' |
σ' |
ε' |
|
καὶ ἔδωκεν |
וַיִּתֵּן |
|
τοῦ δόντος Field |
|
|
τῇ ἐρυσίβῃ |
לֶחָסִיל |
τῷ βρούχῳ 1173 τῷ βρούχῳ Field |
τῷ μυζήτῃ 1173 τῷ μυζήτῃ Field |
τῇ ἐρ‹υ›σίβῃ 1173 |
|
τὸν καρπὸν αὐτῶν |
יְבוּלָם |
φυὴν αὐτῶν 1173 |
τὰ (s. ) γένηματα αὐτῶν 1173 τὰ γεννήματα αὐτῶν Field |
|
MT
The Tiberian Masoretic Text has the phrase לֶחָסִיל. The noun חָסִיל occurs five times in the Masoretic Text (1 Kgs 8:37 = 2 Chr 6:28; Isa 33:4; Joel 1:4; 2:25; Ps 78:46), always in connection with other terms for locusts: אַרְבֶּה (1 Kgs 8:37; 2 Chr 6:28; Joel 1:4; 2:25; Ps 78:46), גָּזָם (Joel 1:4; 2:25), יֶלֶק (Joel 1:4; 2:25), and גֵּבָה (Isa 33:4).[1] The word is used, for example, in Joel’s description of a series of locust invasions (Joel 1:4):[2]
|
MT (BHS) |
NET Bible |
|
יֶ֤תֶר הַגָּזָם֙ אָכַ֣ל הָֽאַרְבֶּ֔ה וְיֶ֥תֶר הָאַרְבֶּ֖ה אָכַ֣ל הַיָּ֑לֶק וְיֶ֣תֶר הַיֶּ֔לֶק אָכַ֖ל הֶחָסִֽיל׃ |
What the gazam-locust left the 'arbeh-locust consumed, what the 'arbeh-locust left the yeleq-locust consumed, and what the yeleq-locust left the hasil-locust consumed! |
Whatever the precise meaning of חָסִיל might be, its association with locust-words and the fact that Psalm 78:46 references the plague of locusts (cf. Exod 10:12–20, which consistently uses the general term for locust, אַרְבֶּה), suggest that חָסִיל in Psalm 78:46 refers to some kind of locust.[3] Hence, Aquila (τῷ βρούχῳ), Jerome (iuxta Hebr.) (brucho), the Peshitta(ܠܩܡܨܐ), and the Targum (לזחלא) use different words for “locust” in this verse.[4]
The following chart shows every occurrence of the word חָסִיל, together with its Greek equivalents:
|
חָסִיל |
|||
|
1 Kgs 8:37 |
חָסִיל |
ἐρυσίβη (LXX)[5] |
βροῦχος ἐρυσίβη μυζήτης |
|
2 Chr 6:28 |
וְחָסִיל |
καὶ βροῦχος (LXX)[6] |
|
|
Isa 33:4 |
הֶחָסִיל |
— (LXX)[7] |
|
|
Joel 1:4 |
הֶחָסִיל |
ἡ ἐρυσίβη (LXX)[8] |
|
|
Joel 2:25 |
וְהֶחָסִיל |
καὶ ἡ ἐρυσίβη (LXX)[9] |
|
|
Ps 78:46 |
לֶחָסִיל |
τῇ ἐρυσίβῃ (LXX) τῷ μυζήτῃ (σ') τῷ βρούχῳ (α') |
|
LXX
The Greek Psalter translates the phrase לֶחָסִיל with the noun phrase τῇ ἐρυσίβῃ (cf. the Quinta). The word ἐρυσίβη occurs some six times in the Septuagint (Deut 28:42; 1 Kgs 8:37; Ps 77:46; Hos 5:7; Joel 1:4; 2:25), representing the Hebrew terms חָסִיל (4x), צְלָצַל (1x), and חֹדֶשׁ (1x).[10] According to Muraoka, it refers to “rust in corn: destructive of trees and crops.”[11] It appears that the Greek translators interpreted חָסִיל as a reference to a crop disease (ἐρυσίβη) rather than a kind of locust. Alternatively, they might have lacked a precise lexical equivalent and settled on ἐρυσίβη as a functional equivalent.
Symmachus
According to the Database, Symmachus reads τῷ μυζήτῃ. The Database has drawn this reading from two sources: Ra 1173 (edited by Schenker) and Field’s edition of Origen’s Hexapla.[12] Field presents Symmachus’s reading as follows: “τοῦ δόντος τῷ μυζήτη τὰ γεννήματα αὐτῶν, καὶ τοὺς κόπους αὐτῶν τῇ ἀκρίδι.”[13] In a footnote, he then gives the sources for this reading: “Euseb. Syro-Hex. ܣ. ܠܩܪܝܬܐ.”[14] There are, therefore, three main sources for Symmachus’s reading: (1) Ra 1173, (2) Eusebius, and (3) the Syro-Hexapla. The following section explores each of these sources.
Manuscript Attestation and Patristic Evidence
Ra 1173
Ra 1173 (Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. gr. 752) is an 11th century Psalms Catena manuscript with numerous hexaplaric readings. The readings for Psalm 77:46 appear on page 248r, at the very bottom of the right column:
Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. gr. 752 (Ra 1173) f. 248r
The manuscript presents the readings of Aquila, Symmachus, and the Quinta as follows:
α' τῶ βρούχω:
σ' τῶ μηζήτη:
ε' τῆ ἐρεσίβη:
Schenker helpfully comments on each of these readings.[15] He notes that the Aquila reading (τῷ βρούχῳ) is preserved also in Eusebius (see below), Hesychius (Roe 13, f. 4b [= PG 55, p. 717, l. 47]; cf. Ra 1133), and two other Catena manuscripts (Ra 1906 [sine nomine]; Ra 1811 [α']). The Symmachus reading (τῷ μυζήτῃ), he notes, is also preserved in Eusebius (see below) and in the same two catena manuscripts (Ra 1906 [sine nomine]; Ra 1811 [σ']).[16] The Quinta reading appears to be equivalent to the Septuagint, though with a different spelling (ἐρεσίβῃ vs ἐρυσίβῃ).[17]
Eusebius
The quotation of Eusebius is based on the 10th century manuscript Codex Coislinianus 44, the only direct witness of Eusebius’ commentary for Psalms 51–95. The reading attributed to Symmachus for Psalm 77:46a – τῷ μυζήτῃ – appears twice on page 261v, first within an extended quotation of Symmachus and a second time within a more focused discussion of the word in question. The forms μυζήτης (nominative) and μυζήτην (accusative) then appear once each in Eusebius’s discussion of this term (f. 261v–262r). The second occurrence of τῷ μυζήτῃ appears as follows in the manuscript:
Codex Coislinianus 44, f. 261v
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b11004562j/f268
The full passage reads as follows according to Bandt’s preliminary edition.[18] The English translation is by Justin Gohl (formatting adapted).[19]
|
διὸ κατὰ τὸν Σύμμαχον εἴρηται·
« οὐκ ἀνεμιμνήσκοντο τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ, τὴν ἡμέραν, ἐν ᾗ ἐρρύσατο αὐτοὺς ἐκ τοῦ θλίβοντος, τοῦ ποιήσαντος τὰ σημεῖα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰ τέρατα αὐτοῦ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ ἐν πεδίῳ Τάνεως, τοῦ μεταβαλόντος εἰς αἷμα τοὺς ποταμοὺς αὐτῶν καὶ τὰ ῥεῖθρα αὐτῶν, ἵνα μὴ πίωσιν· τοῦ ἐπιπέμψαντος αὐτοῖς κυνόμυιαν φαγεῖν αὐτοὺς καὶ βάτραχον διαφθεῖραι αὐτούς, τοῦ δόντος τῷ μυζήτῃ τὰ γεννήματα αὐτῶν καὶ τοὺς κόπους αὐτῶν τῇ ἀκρίδι, τοῦ ἀποκτείναντος ἐν χαλάζῃ τὴν ἄμπελον αὐτῶν καὶ τὰς συκομόρους αὐτῶν ἐν σκώληκι, τοῦ ἐκδόντος λοιμῷ τὰ κτήνη αὐτῶν, καὶ τὰ κτήματα αὐτῶν οἰωνοῖς. »
Ἀντὶ δὲ τοῦ· τῇ ἐρυσίβῃ, ὁ μὲν Σύμμαχος ὁμοίως « τῷ μυζήτῃ », ὁ δὲ Ἀκύλας « τῷ βρούχῳ » ἡρμήνευσεν· καὶ πάλιν ἀντὶ τοῦ· τῇ πάχνῃ, ὁ μὲν Σύμμαχος « τῷ σκώληκι », ὁ δὲ Ἀκύλας « ἐν κρύει », ἐκδεδώκασιν.
Σεσιωπημένα δὲ καὶ ταῦτα παρὰ Μωσεῖ τὸ παρὸν λόγιον ἐδίδαξεν. ἔοικεν δὲ ἡ ἐρυσίβη καὶ ὁ « μυζήτης » αὐτὸς εἶναι ὁ παρὰ Μωσεῖ κεκλημένος « κνίψ » · τῆς γὰρ Μωσέως γραφῆς μνημονευούσης δέκα πληγῶν ὁ παρὼν λόγος τοῦ αἵματος ἐμνημόνευσεν καὶ τῶν βατράχων καὶ τῆς κυνομυίας καὶ τῆς ἀκρίδος καὶ τῆς χαλάζης καὶ τοῦ θανάτου τῶν κτηνῶν καὶ τοῦ θανάτου τῶν πρωτοτόκων · σκνιπῶν τε οὐκ ἐμνήσθη οὐδὲ τῶν φλυκταινῶν οὐδὲ τοῦ σκότους· ἀντὶ δὲ τούτων ἐρυσίβην εἶπεν καὶ πάχνην, ἀνθ’ ὧν « μυζήτην » ἢ « βροῦχον », ἢ « σκώληκα » ἢ « κρύος » οἱ λοιποὶ ἡρμήνευσαν. |
Wherefore according to Symmachus it was said,
“They did not remember his hand, the day in which he saved them out of the one afflicting, who performed his signs and his wonders in Egypt in the plain of Tanis, who changed their waters and their brooks, so that they might not drink, who dispatched to them a dog-fly to eat them and a frog to destroy them, who gave their produce to the caterpillar, and their labors to the locust, who killed their vine with frost and their sycamores with the worm, who gave their beasts to pestilence, and their possessions to birds of prey.”
Instead of to “the red-blight,” Symmachus translated in a similar way, “to the caterpillar,” but Aquila, “to the locust.” And again, instead of “to the frost,” Symmachus rendered as to “the worm,” and Aquila, “in the icy cold.”
The present oracle taught things as well that were kept silent by Moses. It seems that the “red-blight” and the “caterpillar” are the same thing that Moses called lice. For while Moses’ scripture makes mention of 10 plagues, the present passage made mention of “blood,” of “frogs,” of the “dog-fly,” the “locust,” and “hail,” of the “death of beasts,” and of the “death of the firstborn,” but does not mention “lice,” nor of “blisters,” nor of “darkness.” Instead of these things it says “red-blight” and “frost,” instead of which the rest translated “caterpillar,” or “locust,” or “worm,” or “icy cold.” |
In the English translation above, Gohl has chosen to gloss μυζήτης as “caterpillar” (so Liddell/Scott and Montanari). The suitability of this gloss will be evaluated below.
Syro-Hexapla
The Syro-Hexapla preserves a Syriac translation of Symmachus’s reading: ܠܩܪܝܬܐ. The reading appears as follows in the margin of page 23v:[20]
Codex Ambrosianus, Syro-Hexapla, f. 23v
The Symmachus reading is accompanied by a lexical note explaining the meaning of the word ܩܪܝܬܐ (= μυζήτης). The square box around the note suggests a scholion originating in Syriac, perhaps from Paul of Tella.[21] The note reads as follows:[22]
|
ܩܪܝܬܐ ܠܚܒܫܘܫܬܐ ܙܥܘܪܬܐ ܕܡܝܐ. ܘܡܝܨܐ ܫܒܠܐ ܘܠܐ ܥܒܕܐ ܦܐܪܐ. |
The ܩܪܝܬܐ is like a little beetle, and it sucks an ear of grain, and it does not produce fruit. |
Sokoloff identifies the ܩܪܝܬܐ as a “weevil similar to a beetle which infects grain.”[23]
Refined Representation of Hexaplaric Evidence (σ' Ps 77:46a)
A refined representation of the reading in question and its attestation looks like this:
|
LXX Ps 77:46a |
MT Ps 78:46a |
|||
|
LXX |
MT |
α' |
σ' |
ε' |
|
τῇ ἐρυσίβῃ |
לֶחָסִיל |
τῷ βρούχῳ (Ra 1173, Ra 1811, Ra 1906 [s. nom.], Eusebius, Hesychius) |
τῷ μυζήτῃ (Ra 1173, Ra 1811, Ra 1906 [s. nom.], Eusebius; cf. Syh: ܠܩܪܝܬܐ) |
τῇ ἐρυσίβῃ (Ra 1173: τῆἐρεσίβη) |
Analysis of σ' μυζήτης in Ps 77:46a
The phrase τῷ μυζήτῃ, used by Symmachus in Psalm 77[78]:46a to translate the Hebrew phrase לֶחָסִיל is a dative masculine singular noun of the first declension with the definite article. The consulted lexica analyze the word as follows:
|
Biel and Mutzenbecher, Thesaurus II (1779), 369 |
Μυζήτης, genus insecti, sic dicti, quod fruges corrodat et sugat.חסיל species locustæ, Sym. Ps. LXXVII. 46. |
|
Schleusner, Thesaurus II (1829 [London edn]), 483 |
ΜΥΖΗ´ΤΗΣ, genus insecti, sic dicti, quod fruges corrodat et sugat, a i μυζέω, aut a μύζω, sonum emitto, strideo, ut sit grylli nomen a stridore inditum. Vid. Michaëlis Suppl. p. 865. חָסִיל,species locustæ. Symm. Psalm. LXXVII. 46. Vide supra s. ἐρυσίβη. |
|
Stephanus, Thesaurus V (1865), 1244–5 |
Μυζήτης, ὁ, genus Insecti, sic dicti, quod fruges corrodat et sugat, a μυζέω, aut a μύζω, Sonum emitto, Strideo, ut sit grylli nomen a stridore inditum. V. Michaelis Suppl. p. 865. Symm. Ps. 77,46. Schleusn. Lex. |
|
Dimitriakos, Λεξικόν IX (1936–1950), 4796 |
Μυζητής (ὁ) (μυζῶ-άω) μτγν. κ. νεώτ. ἔντομον ἐπιβλαβὲς εἰς τὰφυτά, ἡ κάμπη : Σύμμ.ΠΔ Ψαλμ.77[78],46· || νεώτ. ζῳολ. γένοςἐντόμων ὑμενοπτέρων ἐκ τῶν σφηκιδῶν. |
|
Liddell and Scott, Lexicon (1996), 1150 |
μυζητής, οῦ, ὁ, caterpillar, Sm.Ps.77(78).46. |
|
Montanari, Dictionary (2015), 1369 |
μυζητής, -οῦ, ὁ [μυζάω] caterpillar VT (Sym.) Ps. 77.46. |
|
Montanari, Wörterbuch (2023), 1291 |
μυζητής, -οῦ, ὁ [μυζάω] Raupe VT (Sym.) Ps. 77.46. |
|
Bailly – Hugo-Chávez, Dictionnaire (2020), 1565 |
μυζήτης, ου (ὁ) sorte d’insecte nuisible à la végétation, Symm. Ps. 77, 46 (μυζάω). |
The first issue raised by the lexica is the word’s accentuation. Some of the lexica place the stress on the penult (μυζήτης; so Biel and Mutzenbecher, Schleusner, Stephanus, Bailly – Hugo Chávez), while others place the stress on the ultima (μυζητής; so Dimitriakos, Liddell and Scott, Montanari). For masculine nouns ending in -της, the “accentuation varies,” so the distinction is not crucial.[24] Nevertheless, Codex Coislinianus 44, which contains the nominative form, places an acute accent over the penult.
Codex Coislinianus 44, f. 261v
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b11004562j/f268
For determining the word’s meaning, the explicit lexical commentary by the Syro-Hexapla is especially helpful. The Syriac note says that the ܩܪܝܬܐ/μυζήτης is “like a little beetle” that “sucks an ear of grain” such that the grain “does not produce fruit” (see above). This description fits poorly with a typical leaf-eating “caterpillar” (Liddell/Scott and Montanari), which does not resemble a beetle. The description points rather to a weevil-like grain pest (cf. Sokoloff). Even though weevils do not technically “suck,” the scholion is giving a pre-modern phenomenological description, and the way in which weevils destroy crops while leaving them visibly intact could plausibly be described as “draining” their life.[25]
Wheat weevil (Sitophilus granarius)
This description provided in the Syro-Hexapla is consistent with the apparent etymology (component parts) of μυζήτης. Masculine nouns ending in -της describe “the agent or doer of an action,” and the verb μυζάω/μυζέω (cf. μύζω) means “to suck” (Liddell and Scott, Montanari).[26] Symmachus uses the verb μυζάω in Job 20:16 to translate the Hebrew verb ינק: χολὴν ἀσπίδων μυζήσει (יִינָק).[27] The transparent meaning of μυζήτης, therefore, is “something that sucks.” In the context, this would refer to an insect that sucks, or drains, the life out of a plant.
This meaning of the word works well in the context, which simply requires that μυζήτης refer to some kind of agriculturally destructive pest. Symmachus’s translation of vv. 45–46, preserved in Eusebius (see above), reads as follows:[28]
|
45 |
τοῦ ἐπιπέμψαντος αὐτοῖς κυνόμυιαν φαγεῖν αὐτοὺς καὶ βάτραχον διαφθεῖραι αὐτούς |
who dispatched to them a dog-fly to eat them and a frog to destroy them, |
|
46 |
τοῦ δόντος τῷ μυζήτῃ τὰ γεννήματα αὐτῶν καὶ τοὺς κόπους αὐτῶν τῇ ἀκρίδι |
who gave their produce to the sucking bug, and their labors to the locust, |
It is difficult to know for certain what motivated Symmachus to use this unique word here. One possibility is that he perceived an association between חָסִיל in Psalm 78[77]:46 and the cognitive frame of weaning a nursing child. The related Aramaic word חְסִילָא describes a “weaned child.”[29] This word appears, for example, in Aramaic translations of Isaiah 11:8 (Targum Jonathan and the Peshitta) to render the Hebrew word גָּמוּל, which is poetically parallel with יוֹנֵק (cf. Symmachus translation of ינק with μυζάω in Job 20:16): “the weaned child (חְסִילָא/ܚܣܝܠܐ) will stretch his hand into the asp’s pit.”[30] One might perceive a conceptual connection between a weaned child (חְסִילָא) and a sucking bug (μυζήτης). Both perform a sucking action until they have drained a source of its nutrients. The weaned child has drained his mother of milk, so to speak, and the sucking bug (the weevil?) drains a plant of its nutrients. Perhaps this is why Symmachus chose to render חָסִיל in Psalm 78[77]:46 as μυζήτης – not because he wanted to give a precise entomological identification, but because he wanted to represent the word’s perceived etymology. If this speculative trail of thinking is correct, then the particular species of bug would be less important than its “sucking” function and the agricultural devastation that it creates as a result.
[1] Abraham Even-Shoshan, ed., קונקורדנציה חדשׁה לתורה נביאים וכתובים, 4th edn (Jerusalem: Kiryat-Sefer, 1983), 388. On locust terminology in the Bible, see John A. Thompson, “Translation of the Words for Locust,” The Bible Translator 25, no. 4 (1974): 405–11; The Committee on Translations of the United Bible Societies, Fauna and Flora of the Bible, Helps for Translators (New York: United Bible Societies, 1980), 53–4; Robert C. Stallman, “אַרְבֶּה,” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis ed. Willem VanGemeren (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997), 491–5, on p. 492.
[2] The significance of the various entomological terms in Joel 1:4 (cf. Joel 2:25) is debated. See, e.g., James D. Nogalski, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, and Jonah, ed. E. J. Young et al., The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2023), 81–2. Some have suggested that they refer to different stages in the life of a locust, listed in the order in which they manifested themselves in the series of invasions: “first the ‘young locust’ (gazam), which sheds its skin and becomes the ‘mature locust" ('arbeh), which lays eggs to produce the ‘newly-hatched locust’ (yeleq), which in turn sheds its skin and becomes the ‘younger locust’ (ḥasil).” Thompson, “Translation of the Words for Locust,” 406. According to this interpretation, the term חָסִיל would describe “the locust at the pupa or nymph stage, when it can walk and jump, but not fly, with folded wings incased in sacs.” Ovid R. Sellers, “Stages of Locust in Joel,” The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 52, no. 2 (1936), 81–5, on p. 83; so Wilhelm Gesenius, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament, 18th edn, ed. Herbert Donner (Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, 2013), 377: “Heuschrecke, das 2. Stadium d. Entwicklung d. Wanderheuschrecke.” Others have suggested that each name in the passage evokes a different characteristic of locusts: cutting (gazam), numerous ('arbeh), quick (yeleq), and destructive (ḥasil). See Nogalski, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, and Jonah, 81. This latter view might find support in the related verb חסל (qal or hiphil), which occurs in Deuteronomy 28:38: “the locust (הָאַרְבֶּה) shall consume it (יַחְסְלֶנּוּ) (NRSVue). Cf. the Canaanite verb ḥsl1 (“to be brought to an end, to be extinguished”) in Jacob Hoftijzer/Karel Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions, Handbuch der Orientalistik 1, Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten 21 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 391, and the Aramaic verb חסל (“to come to an end”) in the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon, https://cal.huc.edu.
[3] Note also the related word in 4QParaphrase of Genesis and Exodus (4Q422) 3,10: “He brought locusts (ארבה) to cover the face of the ea[rth], heavy locust (חסל כבד) in all their territory.” Florentino García Martínez/Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 886–7; cf. https://lexicon.qumran-digital.org.
[4] Robert Weber/Roger Gryson, eds., Biblia Sacra: iuxta vulgatam versionem, editio quinta (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007), 869; D.M. Walter/A. Vogel/R.Y. Ebied, eds., Psalms = Liber Psalmorum, The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshiṭta Version 2.3 (Leiden: Brill, 1982); David M. Stec, ed., The Targum of Psalms, The Aramaic Bible 16 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2004), 153; cf. https://cal.huc.edu.
[5] Alfred Rahlfs/Robert Hanhart, eds., Septuaginta, editio altera (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006), I,648.
[6] Robert Hanhart, ed., Paralipomenon II, Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum VII,2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014),164.
[7] Joseph Ziegler, ed., Isaias, 2nd edn, Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum XIV (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967), 239. The Greek text has no clear one-to-one equivalent of הֶחָסִיל: νῦν δὲ συναχθήσεται τὰ σκῦλα ὑμῶν μικροῦ καὶ μεγάλου, ὃν τρόπον ἐάν τις συναγάγῃἀκρίδας, οὕτως ἐμπαίξουσιν ὑμῖν. Perhaps חסיל was misread as חסין (= μεγάλου).
[8] Joseph Ziegler, ed., Duodecim Prophetae, 3rd edn, Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum XIII (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984).
[10] Edwin Hatch/Henry A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the other Greek Versions of the Old Testament: including the Apocryphal Books (Graz: Akademische Druck-und Verlagsanstalt, 1975), I,548. The use of ἐρυσίβη to translate חֹדֶשׁ in Hosea 5:7 is probably “a guess at a word that was found to be unintelligible in the context.” Anthony Gelston, ed., The Twelve Minor Prophets, BHQ 13 (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2004), *59, cf. p. 10.
[12] Adrian Schenker, Hexaplarische Psalmenbruchstücke: Die Hexaplarischen Psalmenfragmente der Handschriften Vaticanus Graecus 752 und Canonicianus Graecus 62, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 8 (Freiburg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 68-9, 146; Frederick Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, vol. 2 Job–Malachi (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1875), 228.
[16] Schenker, Hexaplarische Psalmenbruchstücke, 146: “Die Lesart Ϲ' wird durch Eus bestätigt. Anonym steht sie ebenfalls in cat pal1906und mit Sigel Ϲ' in cat xxv1811 am Rande.”
[17] The excerpter might have included the Quinta reading here because he regarded the spelling difference as meaningful. Cf. Schenker, Hexaplarische Psalmenbruchstücke, 147.
[18] https://pta.bbaw.de/en/reader/28560571/pta0003.pta020.pta-grcBibex2; cf. the forthcoming edition: Cordula Bandt, Eusebius X: Der Psalmenkommentar 2. Teil, 2. Band: Kommentare und Fragmente zu Psalm 72–100, GCS (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2026).
[19] Justin Gohl, “Eusebius of Caesarea, Commentary on the Psalms – A translation of Selected Psalms,” 340, https://www.academia.edu/45603294/Eusebius_of_Caesarea_Commentary_on_the_Psalms_A_translation_of_Selected_Psalms.
[20] Antonio Maria Ceriani, ed., Codex Syro-Hexaplaris Ambrosianus photolithographice editus, vol. 7, Monumenta sacra et profana ex codicibus praesertim Bibliothecae Ambrosianae (Milan: Impensis Bibliothecae Ambrosianae, 1874), 23v.
[22] Cf. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, 228: “ܩܪܝܬܐ scarabaeo (ܠܚܒܫܘܫܬܐ) parvo similis est, et exsugit [unde nomen μυζήτης, a μυζάω, sugo] spicam, et non producit fructam.”
[23] Michael Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009); cf. C. Kayser, Das Buch von der Erkentniss der Wahrheit oder der Ursache aller Ursachen (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1889), p. 42, l. 3, which identifies the ܩܪܝܬܐ with the ܡܢܝܢܐ (“weevil”); see also the collocation with ܡܢܝܢܐ (“weevil”), in I.-B. Chabot, ed., Chronicon Pseudo-Dionysianum Vulgo Dictum, vol. 2, Sriptores Syri 53 (Louvain: L. Durbecq, 1952), p. 202, l. 4.
[24] Evert van Emde Boas et al., The Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019), §23.32; see, e.g., ποιητής vs ὑφάντης.
[25] ChatGPT (Jan 16, 2026) provided a helpful summary of weevil damage: “Grain weevils destroy crops primarily by laying their eggs inside individual kernels of grain; the emerging larvae then develop entirely within the seed, feeding on the endosperm from the inside out. This internal feeding hollows out the grain, reducing its weight, nutritional value, and viability while often leaving the outer husk largely intact, so damage may not be immediately visible. As a result, affected grain fails to germinate, crumbles easily, and becomes unsuitable for food or seed, with infestations capable of spreading rapidly and causing severe losses during storage and after harvest.”
[26] Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966), §839a; cf. van Emde Boas et al., The Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek, §23.32.
[27] Joseph Ziegler, ed., Iob, Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum XI,4 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 300. This reading is attributed to “οἱ λοιποί” in the Catenae, though some witnesses attribute it specifically to Symmachus.
[28] The English translation is by Justin Gohl, except for the word “sap-sucking bug” which has been substituted for “caterpillar.”
[29] “ḥsyl n.m. weaned child”, Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon, https://cal.huc.edu/index.html; cf. Marcus Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (Leipzig: W. Drugulin, 1903), 487.
[30] Peshitta: Sebastian Brock ed., Isaiah, The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshiṭta Version 3.1 (Leiden: Brill, 1993); cf. https://cal.huc.edu/index.html; Targum: https://cal.huc.edu/index.html; cf. https://mg.alhatorah.org/Full/Yeshayahu/11.8#e0n6.
