A Note on καὶ ἀφανίσθητε (LXX Hab 1:5)

: The Greek translation of Hab 1:5 contains an element that is absent in other textual witnesses: καὶ ἀφανίσθητε »and be annihilated.« In this essay I will consider three possible explanations for the presence of this plus, and I will suggest two potential sources for its origin: LXX Hos 14:1, and the Hebrew text of Psalm 94.


Introduction
The Masoretic Hebrew and Old Greek texts of Hab 1:5 read as follows: verb plus cognate accusative (καὶ θαυμάσατε θαυμάσια),2 and translated the material beginning with ‫פעל‬ ‫פעל‬ ‫כי‬ with only minor differences.But how should we account for the plus καὶ ἀφανίσθητε »and be annihilated«3, given that there is nothing in any Hebrew witness for which it is an appropriate rendering?4In this essay I will consider several explanations, and offer two suggestions for the source of this word.

Explanations for the Plus
There appear to be three possible explanations for the reading καὶ ἀφανίσθητε in the Greek translation of Hab 1:5: first, it may reflect a Hebrew Vorlage that differs from the Masoretic textual tradition; second, it may be a double translation of an element in ‫תמהו‬ ‫;והתמהו‬ third, it may be an »interpretive« addition by the translator.The first explanation is represented by Humbert5 and Elliger,6 who suggest that καὶ ἀφανίσθητε reflects a Hebrew Vorlage ‫ֹּמּו‬ ‫שׁ‬ ‫7.וָ‬The sequence »regard, be astonished, be devastated« would make good sense in context (cf.Jer 2:12), and it is conceivable that if ‫ֹּמּו‬ ‫שׁ‬ ‫וָ‬ was the original reading, it could have been lost by parablepsis in the proto-MT of Habakkuk.However, this suggestion has not been widely adopted, as there seems to be a consensus that the Old Greek and proto-MT Press / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007) 45-57; Csaba Balogh, »Tracing the Pre-Massoretic Text of the Book of Habakkuk,« Sacra Scripta 17/1 (2019) 7-29: 16.The latter argument gains in plausibility given the evidence from 1QpHab: while the lines that would have contained the lemma from Hab 1:5 are missing due to damage, the pesher contains the word ‫הבוגדים‬ in 1QpHab 2.1,3,5.
of Habakkuk share a common Vorlage, even though in places they offer significantly different interpretations of it.8Moreover, this reading is not attested in any other textual witness (not even the Syriac, which supports the other distinctive LXX reading in Hab 1:5a).
The second explanation for the presence of καὶ ἀφανίσθητε is that it may be a double translation of an element in ‫תמהו‬ ‫.והתמהו‬The idea is not implausible, given the presence of other double translations in LXX Habakkuk.9But which element is it translating?According to Rudolph,10 Roberts,11 and Andersen,12 it is a double translation of the second verb; according to Barthélemy, it is a double translation of one of the verbs.13One weakness of this explanation is the lack of certainty regarding which element is being double translated.The other weakness is that the semantic difference between θαυμάσατε and ἀφανίσθητε makes the latter 9 See e. g. ‫והרעל‬ (MT ‫)והערל‬ as καὶ διασαλεύθητι καὶ σείσθητι (LXX Hab 2:16); ‫יראתי‬ (understood as from both ‫ירא‬ and ‫)ראה‬ as ἐφοβήθην, κατενόησα, and ἐξέστην (3:2); ‫בקרב‬ as ἐν μέσῳ, ἐν τῷ ἐγγίζειν, and ἐν τῷ παρεῖναι (3:2); ‫שׁנים‬ as δύο, τὰ ἔτη, and τὸν καιρὸν (3:2); ‫תודיע‬ as γνωσθήσῃ, ἐπιγνωσθήσῃ, and ἀναδειχθήσῃ (3:2); ‫עזה‬ as κραταιὰν ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ (3:4).word an unlikely choice as a double translation of the verb ‫תמה‬ or a »doublet« of θαυμάσατε.14 The third explanation for the presence of καὶ ἀφανίσθητε is that it is an interpretive comment inserted by the translator.15Both Robertson16 and Mulroney17 suggest that the plus is a response to a perceived incompleteness or lack of clarity in Hab 1:5.I would agree that without the plus, v. 5 itself does not specify the consequences for the »despisers« when God rouses the invading nation of vv.6 ff.The Greek translator's insertion of »be annihilated!«therefore makes explicit the fate of the »despisers«,18 just as his rendering of ‫יבוא‬ ‫לחמס‬ ‫כלה‬ in 1:9a as συντέλεια εἰς ἀσεβεῖς ἥξει makes explicit the fate of the »ungodly« mentioned in 1:4.19But if 14 Fabry concludes: »Es ist nicht mehr zu erschließen, ob dieses Textplus aus einer Doppelübersetzung hervorgegangen ist«; see Heinz-Josef Fabry, Habakuk Obadja, HThKAT (Freiburg: Herder, 2018), 198.15 Andersen, Habakkuk, 142: »The match of MT's cognate verb with LXX's cognate noun suggests that kai aphanisthēte (found also in Acts 13:41) is an extra, with no evident basis in MT … The LXX command kai aphanisthēte, »and perish!« has moved further from this idea [viz., the progression from complex to simple in Isa 29:9 and MT Hab 1:5] and, in spite of its use in NT to address a hostile audience, must be set aside as interpretive.«See also Anthony Gelston, The Twelve Minor Prophets, BHQ 13 (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2010), 192, who describes the plus as »amplification«.16 O.Palmer Robertson, Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 313 f.: »The introduction of these words may indicate that the Greek translators had sensed an incompleteness in the thought of the passage as they had rendered it apart from this addition.If the MT is followed, the admonition to ›look among the nations‹ is completed quite naturally by the reference in the next verse to that particular ›nation‹ (the Chaldeans) whom the Lord would raise up.But if the LXX is followed, nothing in the succeeding verses satisfactorily completes the thought begun by an address to ›scoffers‹ that they ›behold … and look‹.What is to be the consequence for them specifically when God raises up the Chaldeans?Although it could be concluded that the implication is that they would ›perish‹, the LXX sensed a need to fill out the thought by adding this comment.«17 Mulroney, Translation Style, 118 f.: »it is difficult to know whether the additional clause at the end of v. 5 was due to some kind of improvisation, or was a free contextual addition … the additional clause καὶ ἀφανίσθητε epexegetically clarifies what is meant, in context, for the scoffers to marvel at marvellous things.It guards against any possible misunderstanding about who is to be destroyed.In fact, that scoffers marvel and do not respond commensurately with what they have seen is certainly judgement against them.It is their undoing, something which is tacitly disambiguated here and further clarified later in the prophecy … The translator expanded the text for the sake of clarity.«18 The reading »despisers« and the interpolation »be annihilated!« in LXX Hab 1:5 bring vv.5-11 into closer connection with vv.2-4, linking the addressees of v. 5 with the evildoers described in the preceding verses; see A. the translator was filling a perceived gap in 1:5, what was the source for his interpolation?The statement in 2:5 -namely, that the »despiser« (καταφρονητὴς) will »complete nothing« (οὐδὲν μὴ περάνῃ) -does not provide sufficient information to explain the plus.Some other source seems to be required.20 One way to resolve this problem is to look outside the immediate context.As Mulroney has noted, »often the textual differences to MT find inner-Twelve and -Septuagintal thematic and lexical connections … the translator, in this case, was aware of the wider theological perspectives of the biblical books, and in particular those for which he was responsible.«21In light of this, I want to suggest an intertextual solution to explain the plus in LXX Hab 1:5.One possible source for the plus is LXX Hos 14:1, and the second is the Hebrew text of Ps 94.

Possible Sources for the Plus
One explanation for the source of καὶ ἀφανίσθητε is that the Greek translations of both Hab 1:5 and 1:9 are informed by LXX Hos 14:1, which states that Samaria will »be annihilated« (ἀφανισθήσεται) because it »stood against« (ἀντέστη) God.This could explain the translator's interpolation of »and be annihilated« (καὶ ἀφανίσθητε) in LXX Hab 1:5 and his translation of the difficult ‫קדימה‬ ‫פניהם‬ ‫מגמת‬ of Hab 1:9 with the rendering »standing against with their faces opposed« (ἀνθεστηκότας προσώποις αὐτῶν ἐξ ἐναντίας).In this scenario, the scribe used the translation of a text about the punishment of Samaria to aid in his translation of a text about the guilt of Judah.Given that the translator's source text made numerous analogies between the guilt of Samaria and Judah (e. g., Hos 5:5,14; 6:4; 8:14; Amos 2:4-8; Micah 1:5), this seems plausible.
The second possible explanation for the plus is that the Greek translator of Habakkuk perceived lexical and argument parallels between Hab 1 and Ps 94, and that these motivated him to add καὶ ἀφανίσθητε »and be annihilated« in LXX Hab 1:5, based on the double occurrence of ‫יצמיתם‬ »he will wipe them out« in Ps 94:23.It seems likely that a scribe who was translating the book of Habakkuk would have noted the repeated lexemes in chap. 1.Here the speaker complains that Yhwh has made him »regard trouble« ‫עמל(‬ ‫,נבט‬ Hab 1:3) because of the lack of »justice« ‫,משׁפט(‬ Hab 1:4 [2×]) in his community.To make matters worse, he is told that Yhwh 20 Andrew Teeter suggested to me [personal communication] that here the verb ἀφανίσθητε may retain its etymological meaning »be made unseen, disappear«, and may have been chosen in light of the preceding verbs of sight (ἴδετε, ἐπιβλέψατε).While this is possible, the verb does not seem to have distinctively visual connotations in the rest of the Twelve.21 Mulroney, Translation Style, 201. is summoning invaders, and the introductory address of Yhwh's response contains a summons to »regard« ‫,נבט(‬ Hab 1:5) the »work« that Yhwh is »working« ‫פעל(‬ ‫,פעל‬ Hab 1:5; taken up later in 3:2).These invaders will define »justice« ‫,משׁפט(‬ Hab 1:7) on their own terms.The speaker then questions Yhwh's plan on the grounds that Yhwh must dispense »justice« ‫,משׁפט(‬ Hab 1:12), because his eyes are too pure to »regard trouble« ‫עמל(‬ ‫,נבט‬ Hab 1:13).
It also seems plausible that a scribe who was highly familiar with other Israelite compositions could have recalled contexts that contained these repeated lexemes.22 As it happens, the verb ‫,נבט‬ the noun ‫,עמל‬ and forms of the root ‫פעל‬ occur together only in Num 23, Hab 1, and Ps 94. 23 If we include the noun ‫משׁפט‬ in the constellation of words, the only contexts with shared occurrences are Hab 1 and Ps 94.24In fact, there are a considerable number of non-trivial lexemes shared by these two units:25 Of course, there is nothing remarkable about any one of these lexemes when taken individually; each one is so common as to be unlikely by itself to evoke Ps 94 in the translator's mind.Moreover, some of the lexemes are used in different ways: in Hab 1:5, ‫פעל‬ is used for Yhwh's work, while in Ps 94:4,16 it refers to the doers of evil.Likewise, the lexeme ‫עין‬ is used in Hab 1:13 to refer to the inability of God's eyes to tolerate evil, while in Ps 94:9 it is used to refer to the human eye that is formed by God (adduced as evidence that God is able to perceive).Nevertheless, given that some of the shared lexemes are repeated, that they are significant for the development of the argument, and that they can be perceived as parts of a cluster of lexemes, it seems plausible that Ps 94 may have come to the Greek translator's mind after reading Hab 1.
But these shared lexemes are not the only point of contact between Hab 1 and Ps 94; there is also similarity in argument.In both Hab 1 and Ps 94, the speakers complain that the »righteous« ‫,צדיק(‬ Hab 1:4,13; Ps 94:21) are threatened by the »wicked« ‫,רשׁע(‬ Hab 1:4,13; Ps 94:3,13).This is widely recognized as one of the central problems, if not the central problem, in both texts.27In Ps 94, the stated solution to this problem is that Yhwh will »wipe out« ‫,צמת(‬ Ps 94:23 [2×]; = LXX Ps 93:23 ἀφανιεῖ) the wicked for what they have done.This statement could have provided the motivation for the translator to add καὶ ἀφανίσθητε »and be annihilated!« in LXX Hab 1:5.28This insertion makes explicit the appropriate fate for the »despisers«.
The likelihood that the Greek translator was motivated either by his recollection of Hos 14:1 or Ps 94 to make an allusive interpolation in

Conclusion
It was not at all uncommon for scribes to interpolate material based on recognized similarities between the text they were copying / translating and another text that they recalled.One example of such »triggered« scribal intervention can be seen in MT Ezek 6:5, where the insertion of ‫גלוליהם‬ ‫לפני‬ ‫ישׂראל‬ ‫בני‬ ‫פגרי‬ ‫את‬ ‫ונתתי‬ (absent in LXX) represents an allusion to Lev 26:30 that was triggered by the existing shared locutions in Ezek 6:3-6,8,11-14 and Lev 26:25,30,33.Another example can be seen in LXX 1Sam 2:10, which has been expanded with material from Jer 9:22-23; the trigger for this was likely the shared references to boasting (1Sam 2:3 // Jer 9:22), the mighty (1Sam 2:4,9b // Jer 9:22), and the rich (1Sam 2:7 // Jer 9:22).31Similarly, the reading καὶ οἰκοδομήσωμεν ἑαυτοῖς πύργον in LXX Isa 9:9 represents an allusion to Gen 11:4, triggered by the shared word πλίνθοι »bricks« (Isa 9:9 // Gen 11:3).32And the reading Γωγ ὁ βασιλεύς in LXX Amos 7:1 is an allusion to Ezek 38-39 (cf.LXX Num 24:7), triggered by the references to locusts in Amos 7:1 and Joel 1:4; 2:25, and to invaders in Joel 1-2.33 Numerous other examples could be cited.34 Allusion and analogy were among the most important literary conventions used by the composers and redactors of ancient Israelite texts.It is no surprise to find that these conventions continued to be used by the scribes who translated these texts.The plus in LXX Hab 1:5 can be regarded as another example of such scribal erudition.

Abstract:
The Greek translation of Hab 1:5 contains an element that is absent in other textual witnesses: καὶ ἀφανίσθητε »and be annihilated.«In this essay I will consider three possible explanations for the presence of this plus, and I will suggest two potential sources for its origin: LXX Hos 14:1, and the Hebrew text of Psalm 94.As Glenny notes (205), while there are no references to locusts in Ezek 38-39, »Ezek.38:17 (where Gog is described as the one the Lord has spoken about in former times through his servants the prophets of Israel) indicates that Ezekiel has summarized and collected invading figures in preceding prophets in his picture of Gog in chapters 38-39, and if so it would be natural to connect the invaders in Joel with all these other invaders.There are several thematic connections between Ezekiel and Joel.In both passages many nations (Ezek.38:5, 7, 15; Joel 2:20; 3:1) from the north (Ezek.38:6; 39:2; Joel 2:20) invade the land of Israel (γῆ; Ezek.38:8, 9; Joel 1:6; 2:18, etc.), and in both contexts the fate of the enemy is similar (Ezek. B. Davidson, The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk,and Zephaniah (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1896), 68; Jeremias, Habakuk, 66.On the perception that MT Hab 1:5-11 does not really answer the complaint of 1:2-4, see Karl Budde, »Die Bücher Habakkuk und Ze phanja,« Theologische Studien und Kritiken 66 (1893) 383-399; Andersen, Habakkuk, 139.19 On the rendering of ‫כלה‬ (MT »all of it«) with συντέλεια »an end« in Hab 1:9, see also LXX Hab 1:15(cf.LXX Hos 13:2; Amos 8:8; 9:5; Nah 2:1; Mal 3:9).