Hosea 1 - 7

English Translation of the Coptic Hosea 1-7
by koot van wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)

Kyungpook National University
Sangju Campus
South Korea
conjoint lecturer of Avondale College
Australia
HOSEA
Chapter 1
1. The word of the Lord, which came to Hosea the son of
Beerim in the days of Ouziae, and Joatham, and Achaz,
and Ezechiae kings of Judah: in the days of Eiroupham
the son of Joash the king of Israel.
2. The beginning of the words of the Lord in Osee. And
the Lord said to Osee: come, go, and take for you a wife
of fornications and children of fornications, be open in the
fornication for the land fornicated from behind the Lord.
3. And he went, Gomer the daughter of Belelem he took.
And she conceived and bore him a son.
4. And the Lord said to Hosea: You shall call his name
Jezrael: because as yet restrained, and I will punish the
blood of Jezrael upon the house of Judah, and I will give
rest to the reign of the house of Israel.
5. And it shall be in that day, I will crumble the bow of
Israel in the valley of Jezrael.
6. And she conceived and bore a daughter, and he said to
him: call her name: that which is not compassion for I
will not add anymore love to the house of Israel but in
opposition I will oppose them.
7. But the sons of Judah I will have compassion and I
will save them in the Lord their God and not will I save
them with a bow nor with a sword nor with a war nor
with chariots nor with horses nor with horsemen.
8. And she weaned her that was not to be selected. And
she conceived again and bore a son.
9. And he said: call his name not my people for you are
not my people and I am not I am for you.
10. And the number of the sons of Israel was like the
sand of the sea which cannot be measured nor can it be
counted. And it is in the place which it is said to them:
You are not my people, also they shall be saying: Those
who are the sons of the living God.
11. And they will be gathered together, the sons of Judah
and the sons of Israel likewise and they will place for
them one voice, and they will go up from the earth for
great is the day of Jezreel.
v3 Arabic Walton 1654 reads Bethlehem. In the Coptic Tattam 1836 there is a
mishearing of the Hebrew from a reader by the Coptic scribe in the assimilation
of /taw/ and /dalet/ as one sound and the /yod/ as a guttural /he/.
of the Masoretic Text tradition is read as by the Coptic scribe
and by the Arabic scribe. The Arabic scribe substituted the /beth/
with a /he/ and transposed it with the lamed.
v4 Arabic Walton 1654 also read J udah. Misreading originated in Symmachus 170
CE Field 1875 copied by Theodotion 190 CE Field 1875 in which the Hebrew copy was
illegible here. The original reading was miscopied in the Hebrew Vorlage
of Symmachus by that scribe as at least the letter /nun/ was read by the
reader to Symmachus and taken over by Theodotion. The same illegible
manuscript was used by Origen 240 CE Field 1875 and his reader saw . The
/nun/ seemed for him like a /resh/. All three translated from a reader listener
situation here since the correct reading of J udah is . If they were
translating by consulting the original themselves they would have seen that there
is an /aleph/ and not a /he/ at the end of the word. The first entry of Judah
was thus in 240 CE by Origen in a period in which the first Coptic translation
was presumably made. Coptic Tattam 1836 reading of J udah here may come all
the way from Origen in 240 CE.
v7 The misreading of the consonants in the Hebrew original led to a variant in
the text here reading house of as sons of. The Greek of the fifth century CE was
using a Hebrew text that was very illegible in this verse and its reader misread
the characters as follows: instead of it read . Only the Greek of the
fifth century CE had this variant and of course the Coptic Tattam 1836 and the
Arabic of Walton 1654. In the same verse there is also another variant.
The Targum Walton 1654 gives a hint as to how the variant with chariots
originated. The consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition is reading the words
as and the same is translated by the Targum
translator as and it seems as if there was a
double entry in the original coupled with a situation of very illegible characters.
It appears that the Hebrew text that was available to translators of the Greek of
the fifth century CE used the same Hebrew text in this verse as the Targum
Walton 1654. It seems as if that Hebrew text to the Greek of the fifth century
CE was reading a double entry as: . It is
clear that the words with the sword was entered twice. This Hebrew text was
also used by the Targum Walton 1654 who misread some characters as follows:
. The interesting thing is that the
misreading of the letters of the Hebrew came to almost the same meaning in the
Targum as the original meaning in the correct Hebrew of the consonantal text of
the Masoretic tradition. One can argue that it is only interpretation but the
coincidence is too large in this case. The Coptic Tattam 1836 reads the same as
the Greek of the fifth century CE in this variant but the Arabic Walton 1654 did
not include this variant. The area of the misreadings are the same in the
Targum, Greek and Coptic. The double entry is in all three. A Hebrew text with
illegible letters and double entry in the fifth century CE seems to be the origin
of the variant. The origin of the variant in the Hebrew text of the fifth century
CE was due to a misreading of the scribe. The origin of the variant in the Greek
of the fifth century CE was due to a mishearing of consonants by the translator
or a illegible copy by its reader. The origin of the variant in the Targum was
due to a mishearing of the consonants by the translator or an illegible copy used
by its reader.
v11 Targum Walton 1654 reads like one. It seems as if the Targum
reader misread the original Hebrew together as like one . It further
seems as if the Coptic Tattam 1836 is sharing this variant.
Chapter 2
1. Say to your brother: You are my people, and to your
sister: The one to be selected.
2. Judge with your mother. Judge that one for she is not
my wife and I am not to be her husband and destroy her
fornication from before her face and her adulturies from
the middle of that land.
3. And I will send her away naked, and I will bring her
back like in the day of her birth. And I will make her
like a desert and I will place her like a land without
water and I will kill her in thirst.
4. And I will not have mercy on her children, for the
children of fornication they are.
5. For their mother committed fornication, and she that
bare them is confused, for she said: I will go and I will
walk after my lovers, that give me my bread, and my
water, and my garments, and my flax, and my oil, and all
that is necessary to me.
6. Therefore look, I will fence her way with thorns, and I
will rebuild her ways, and she shall not find her path.
7. And she shall follow after her lovers, and shall not
grasp them, and she shall seek them, and shall not find,
and she shall say: I will go, and return to my first
husband, because it was better to me that time than now.
8. And the same one did not know that I, I gave to her
the corn and the wine, and the oil, and that I cause it to
be multiplied but the same silver and gold she has made
for Baal.
9. Because of this I will return and take away my wheat
in its season and my wine in its season and I will
remove my garments and my flax and not do I cover her
disgrace.
10. And now I will reveal her uncleanliness in the sight
of her lovers, and no-one shall deliver her out of my
hand.
11. And I will turn aside all the joy of her, those feasts
of her and those new moons of her and those sabbath of
her and all those feasts of her.
12. And I will destroy her vineyards and those fig trees,
of all which she said: those are my rewards which my
lovers gave me. And I will make her to a testimony and
the animals of the field shall devour her and the flying
ones of heaven, and the reptiles of the earth.
13. And I will punish upon her in the days of Baals,
where she offered to them and she has given her
bracelets/earrings to them, her works of trust and she
went after her lovers but I am forgotten says the Lord.
14. Therefore look I will lead her away and I will set her
as a wildernis and I will teach upward her heart.
15. And I will give her vines out of that place, and the
valley of Achor in a door of hope in order to open her
comprehension. And she shall be humbled there according
to the days of her youth, and according to the days of
her coming up from the land of Egypt.
16. And it shall be in that day, says the Lord, she shall
call me: my man and she shall call me no more Baalim.
17. And I will take away the names of Baalim out of her
mouth and she shall no more remember, namely, not
names.
18. And I will arrange in that day a covenant with them,
with the beasts of the field, and the flying ones of heaven
and the creeping things of the earth. And I will destroy
also the bow, and the sword and war I will crumble from
the land and I will make those to dwell in hope.
19. And I will espouse you to me toward eternity.
20. And I will espouse you to me in faith and you shall

become acqainted with the Lord.
21. And it shall be in that day, says the Lord, I will hear
the heavens and the heavens shall hear the earth.
22. And the earth shall hear grain and the wine, and the
oil and these shall hear Jezrael.
23. And I will sow her for me over the earth and I will
select her that was not to be selected.
24. And I will say to those that are not my people, You
are my people. And the same will say, You are the Lord
my God.
v4 The Coptic Tattam 1836 does not follow the reading of the Greek of the fifth
century CE in the singular of the verb at the end of the verse.
v5 The variant at the end of the verse is similar to the variant in the Greek of
the fifth century CE. The Greek of the fifth century CE read the last part of the
verse as and my water, and my garment, and my flax, and my oil, and all those
things which belongs to me. This is in Greek και το υδωρ μου και τα ιματια μου
και τα οθονια μου και το ελαιον μου και παντα οσα μοι καθηκει and we have
underlined the variants. In the retroversion of the text for the Greek of the fifth
century CE it may read or . It
is possible to see where the misreading originated in the Hebrew copy of the
Greek of the fifth century CE and Coptic texts. The consonantal text of the
Masoretic Tradition reads . The variant
entered in the following way: a Hebrew reader to a scribe read the illegible word
of the original as . When this same errorful Hebrew manuscript
came into the hands of a reader who had to make a Hebrew copy of that copy
for Origen to translate, he heard the reader read and that is what he
copied in the Hebrew Vorlage for Origen Field 1875
. This manuscript then served
both Origen and the Coptic translators to enter the variant in Africa in 250 CE.
It was taken over by the Greek translators of the fifth century CE. In 130 CE
the Greek translator Aquila Field 1875 knew nothing about this variant. It must
have entered into copies after 130 CE. This variant must have had a Hebrew
basis for it also entered into the Targum Walton 1654 as and the
Syriac Leiden Peshitta Gelston 1980 as yL )OBtMd lKw. II t can also be found
in the Arabic Walton 1654 with the same reading as the Coptic. We have a case
here of mistaken Hebrew copies that was then read to another copier hearing
wrongly and this errorful copy became the guiding line for the variant entries in
the versions, even to the Vorlage of the Targum Walton 1654. It was not the
same Hebrew Vorlage that Aquila 130 CE and Jerome 403 CE employed and that
survived for us in the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition. The Coptic,
Greek, Syriac and Targum was using an errorful copy of the Hebrew but they
did not know that.
v6 The Coptic Tattam 1836 reads here a variant similar to the Greek of Origen
and the Greek of the fifth century CE but unlike that of Aquila 130 CE,
Symmachus 150 CE and Theodotion 190 CE. The variant thus originated
sometime shortly before 240 CE in a Hebrew errorful copy that misread the
letters as follows: was read by
the Greek copier instead of of
the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition. The similarity in the letters are
very obvious and the Hebrew manuscript that was employed to read to Origen's
Hebrew copier and reader was illegible at this point. Letters were all continous
in those days so that division of words was the work of the reader. This variant
was not at all followed by the Targum Walton 1654 nor the Syriac Leiden
Peshitta Gelston 1980. One do find it in the Arabic Walton 1654.
v7 The variant at the end of this verse in the Coptic Tattam 1836 is very
unusual. In fact it seems as if there is a strong link between the Syriac Leiden
Peshitta Gelston 1980 and the Coptic. It appears as if an Aramaic Vorlage that
served both the Syriac and the Targum fell also in the hands of the Coptic
translator since the error that was done in the reading was not done from the
Hebrew but from the Aramaic. There is no way for the word time to be
deducted from any letters in the Hebrew in any form of misreading. The Syriac
form of the text gives us a hint where the variant time could have come from. A
misreading of the letters of the Syriac )$hd oM oYd yh yL )wh B+d could have
resulted in a reading of oM oYd as the word for time cMz but equally so could
it be that an Aramaic reading was the basis for
this rendering with very illegible letters in this area which could account for the
difference between the Coptic and the Syriac. That an Aramaic Vorlage probably
existed seems to be echoed in part by the reading of the Targum Walton 1654 in
this section as we find in where the similarity in form
to our suggested reconstruction of such an Aramaic Vorlage seems appealing. Of
course time is not found in either the Syriac nor in the Targum but we are
talking about the misreading of letters that are written continuous and that kind
of misreading could only have happened if the Coptic reader was reading an
Aramaic or Syriac text. The rendering of the Coptic is Je nare
pipeqnaneF Sop nhi mpishou etemmau eHote Tnou with
the word time underlined.
v8 With a slight difference in the beginning, namely the same one instead of the
Greek of the fifth century's she , the Coptic Tattam 1836 reads the same as the
variant in the Greek of the fifth century CE. This variant was not in the any of
the private copies of the second century CE and neither in Origen in 240 CE.
v9 There is a connection between the variant of the Coptic Tattam 1836 in this
verse and the Greek of the fifth century CE but that connection is not exactly
the same. Whereas the Greek of the fifth century reads ελαιον και αργυριον
επληθυνα αυτῃ αυτη δε αργυρα και χρυσα εποιησεν τῃ βααλ with a double entry of
silver , the Coptic read silver only once and similar to the Greek of the fifth
century CE near the end. A retroversion of the Coptic will be here:
while in the Greek it will be:
. The original of the
consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition reads here:
and one should probably add here that
the Qumran fragment from cave four does not support neither the Coptic nor the
Greek of the fifth century CE but rather the exactness of the consonantal text of
the Masoretic tradition. Compare 4QpHos a where it reads:
] [ and translated as silver that
de unto a Baal with the Masoretic tradition supra. The
differences one experience in the variants between the versions and in the
versions themselves within a short time span is outweighed by the more than
thousand years between Qumran and the Codex Leningradensis of the Masoretic
Tradition.
v9 The Coptic Tattam 1836 is reading here the variant as a negative the same
as the Greek of the fifth century CE and Arabic Walton 1654 but seemingly not
the same as Origen 240 CE or the Private copies of Aquila 130 CE, Symmachus
150 CE and Theodotion 170 CE. The way the variant originated was probably an
illegible part of a Hebrew manuscript that was the cause for its copier to copy
two letters again with a slight variation between the two entries. The
consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition read it as but the
Hebrew copier to the Vorlage of the Greek of the fifth century CE and Coptic
Tattam 1836 misread as follows: became .
We have to use imagination as to how such a variant can actually be entered
into a copy. If the reader was reading to two copiers and one of them was more
attentive than the other, and if the reader stotters at the illegible part retreating
and reads it the second time correct, the attentive scribe will cancel the
self-correction by the reader but the non-attentive scribe will enter both
readings as we have here in the Greek and the Coptic. Qumran is not necessarily
a guiding line of what reading should be considered correct simply because it is
a Qumran manuscript, but it is noteworthy that 4QpHos a reads the same as the
consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition here namely: season
her or to consider the original of the
fragment here:
] [ . In comparison with the Masoretic
tradition of over a millenium later (if conventional datings are still worth
standing) , there is no difference.
v10 The Coptic Tattam 1836 reads here very similar to the Greek of the fifth
century CE.
v11 The Coptic Tattam 1836 reads here very similar to Theodotion 190 CE but
also like the majority text for Greek selected as the Septuagint in Rahlfs edition
of 1935. However, the Coptic is slightly different by translating those of her
instead of her . It is the only version that read it this way. Also different in the
Coptic is the singular translation of Sabbath and not Sabbaths. Here we differ
with the Latin translation of Tattam in 1836 who translated the Coptic in the
plural. We will elaborate on this verse by adding all the Greek possibilities
available so that we can see the alignment better. Working through all the
possibilities we will discuss the origin of the variants. Below we can see that
although the phrase her Sabbath is used in Theodotion 190 CE yet in Origen's
Septuagint in his hands 250 CE this phrase was absent but present in Hebrew
manuscripts that he used as comparison. That is why Origen placed the signs
around the phrase to indicate that it is found in the Hebrew. The phrase found
its way back into the Greek and in the fifth century CE one can see it in the
Greek and in the majority text of the Greek selected by modern editors as the
Septuagint e.g. Rahlfs 1935. One must remember that for Origen and Theodotion
Field 1875 discussed only the Sabbath phrase and we do not have the rest of the
verse for them although we have attempted to reconstruct the rest, but in
essence one should omit the parts before and after the Sabbath phrase for Origen
and Theodotion.
Greek's English Translation
And I will turn aside all the joy of her, the feasts and the new moons of her and
the sabbaths of her and all the feasts of her.
Greek's English Translation Codex Alexandrinus
And I will turn aside all the joy of her, the feasts of her and the new moons of
her and the sabbaths of her and all the feasts of her.
Greek's English Translation Origen's Hexapla 1(?)
And I will turn aside all the joy of her, her feasts and the new moons of her] ※
and the sabbaths of her ✔ [and all the feasts of her.

And I will turn aside all the joy of her, her feasts and the new moons of her]
[and all the feasts of her.
and the ✔ sabbaths of her [and all the feasts of her.

And I will turn aside all the joy of her, her feasts and the new moons of her]
sabbaths of her [and all the feasts of her.
and the sabbaths of her [and all the feasts of her.

And I will turn aside all the joy of her, her feasts and the new moons of her[
[
Greek Private Editions' English Translation Theodotion
And I will turn aside all the joy of her, the feasts of her and the new moons of
her] and the sabbaths of her [and all the feasts of her.
Greek's English Translation Catenna 87 first hand
And I will turn aside all the joy of her, her feasts and the new moons of her
and the sabbaths and all the feasts of her.
Greek's English Translation Catenna 87 corrector
and the sabbaths of her and all the feasts of her.
Greek's English Translation Catenna 97
and the sabbaths and all the feasts of her.
Greek Text
και αποστρευω πασας τας ευφροσυνας αυτης εορτας αυτης
και τας νουμηνιας αυτης και τα σαββατα αυτης και πασας
τας πανηγυρεις αυτης
(G Rahlfs1935 Majority Reading )
Greek Text Codex Alexandrinus
και αποστρευω πασας τας ευφροσυνας τας εορτας αυτης
και τας νουμηνιας αυτης και τα σαββατα αυτης και πασας τας
πανηγυρεις αυτης
(G Alexandrinus450 Rahlfs1935 )
Greek Text Origen's Hexapla possibility 1(?)
και αποστρευω πασας τας ευφροσυνας εορτας αυτης και τας
νουμηνιας αυτης] ※
και τα σαββατα αυτης [ και πασας τας ✔
(G origen hexapla
230recon
Codex Ambrosianus Syro-Hexapla
recon
Fields Origen Hexapla
1875 )

νουμηνιας αυτης] [ και πασας τας
νουμηνιας αυτης] και τα ※ ✔
σαββατα αυτης [ και πασας τας
(G origen hexapla
230recon
CodexJesuitarum/MarchalianusSyro-Hexapla
recon
1875 )

νουμηνιας αυτης ] σαββατα αυτης [ και πασας τας
νουμηνιας αυτης] ※
και τα σαββατα αυτης [ και πασας τας
(G origen hexapla
230recon
Ms BritishLibrary 14.668 Syro-Hexapla
recon
1875 )

νουμηνιας αυτης]
[
Greek Private Editions' Text Theodotion
και αποστρευω πασας τας ευφροσυνας αυτης εορτας αυτης
και τας νουμηνιας αυτης] και τα σαββατα αυτης [ και πασας
τας πανηγυρεις αυτης
(G Theodotion170 reconSYRO-HEXAPLA=PAUL616 reconORIGENES-HEXAPLA=FIELD1875)
Greek Text Catena 87 (first hand)
νουμηνιας αυτης και τα σαββατα και πασας τας
(G Catenna87 first hand
recon
Fields Origenes Hexapla
1875 )
Greek Text Catena 87 (corrector)
νουμηνιας αυτης και τα σαββατα αυτης και πασας τας
(G Catenna87 correctorreconFields Origenes Hexapla
1875 )
Greek Text Catena 97
νουμηνιας αυτης και τα σαββατα και πασας τας
(G Catenna97reconFields Origenes Hexapla
1875 )
Greek Retroversion


(G Heb-reconHos2:13 )
Consonantal text of Masoretic Tradition


(M K1008 BHS )
The Greek translator translated from the root "to turn" and not from
the root "to rest" . He translated the perfect into the future active tense "I
shall". The Greek translator at least of the fifth century CE and later added an
extra waw-copulative before "new moons" to read "and her new moons" which is
not in the original. Different from all the other versions, the Greek translator of
the fifth century CE translated the nouns in the plural. Seemingly Theodotion
also translated Sabbaths not Sabbath in 190 CE.
The Greek translator could have misread a manuscript with a bad handwriting.
The earliest Greek writing we have is that of Theodotion represented in the
reconstruction of Field 1875 reconstructed from Codex Ambrosianus of the eighth
century CE copied from the Syro-Hexapla of Paul of Tella 616 CE translating
the Hexapla of Origen in 230 CE copying the translation of Theodotion. Through
this chain of data assembling, copying, translating, retroverting back we have to
hope that we arrive clean on the other side at Theodotion's translation but we
should omit the phrases before and after the Sabbath clause. Let's accept that it
is the way it is given in the Codex Ambrosianus available to A. Ceriani in 1875
and that he read in essence the same as the consonantal text of the Masoretic
tradition with the exception of the addition of the waw/ copulative "and" and the
different root analysis of "turn" instead of "rest" in the beginning of the
sentence. This is the way it finally came out in the Middle Ages and later
editions of what was perceived to be at that time the "Septuagint" . We call it
the majority reading of the Middle Ages Greek. Origen 250 CE seems to be a
can of worms. Not he himself but the transmission status of his work. If one
looks at the above evidence it is a problem to ascertain where the metobolus ✔
exactly was and if it was there at all! This means that we do not know exactly
how the so-called "Septuagint" or LXX read in the days of Origen judging only
with the evidence that is available to us. Here are three different forms of the
same reality each one claiming to be the correct one, which is an impossible
situation. If Origen used the metobolus ✔ , where exactly did he put it? The
uncertainty about this situation in the textual evidence seems to imply that the
term "Origen's H exapla" has also become an elusive term similar to that of the
"Septuagint" . What we are saying above is that there are three signs used by
Origen to indicate the differences between the Hebrew original and the
"Septuagint" of his day. Two of the signs are used for the beginning of a
phrase or word ※ and the metobolus ✔ is used to indicate where the variant
ends. It is thus very important to have a metobolus ✔ to indicate the length of
the variant. In the above situation the metobolus ✔ appears and disappears in the
manuscripts representing Origen!
Let us go into the detail concerning the variant surrounding the Sabbath because
that is really what it is. It appears as if the phrase and the Sabbaths of her was
not in the Septuagint of Origen's day. In the later Middle Ages and modern
editions the phrase can be found though. Did Origen really used a proper
"Septuagint" Greek text? If it was the "Septuagint" text, was it properly copied
before it came into the hands of Origen? Fifty years before Origen, Justin the
Martyr complained about additions and omissions that were done in the
manuscripts in a mala fide way. In the same time as Justin the Martyr
Theodotion made his translation and he included this phrase but as and the
Sabbaths of her . It was a private copy though and not an ecclessiastical official
text. It seems as if the preservation spirit of the church was in jeopardy in the
first two centuries. The official text seems to have changed face as centuries
progressed.
In the first option of Origen we have about this text, the Sabbath is not in the
picture of something to be turned aside. In the second option of Origen, Sabbath
is in the picture but it sounds as if it is any Sabbath (even holidays). Again this
kind of omission could have found a place in the Sabbath-Sunday conflict of the
second century CE.
In the third option of Origen the Sabbath and some festivals are not in the
picture as items to be "turned aside". Again this could have had its origin in a
Jewish-Christian debate of the second century CE.
All three our interpretations above are only valid if the text of Origen indeed
contained the metobolus ✔ at one of those points. We do not know for certain.
Catena 97 of the Middle Ages read it as if it is the Sabbaths that will be
"turned aside". It appears as if this catena was copied by a Christian with the
intention to demonstrate that the Sabbath will be turned aside and Sunday took
its place. Catena 87 copied it the same way in the first reading but a corrector
then came and saw the error and corrected the text. The correction of the text
stands as a witness that catena 97 was a mistake similar to catena 87. It is
highly unlikely that the original Septuagint text would have read it similar to
catena 97.
Catena means "chain" and it is a putting together of biblical verses like a chain
and this genre is not a formal biblical text but a functional biblical text. No
conclusions may be drawn from them regarding the form of the original text.
Contenders for Sunday worship has used this verse to illustrate that the Seventh
day Sabbath would be changed but Saturday was the Lord's Sabbath not her
Sabbath as we find here in Hosea. The issue is not singular or plural of the
phrase but to whom this Sabbath belongs, to God or to the Baal worshipper wife
of Hosea?
In an article by Robert Kraft of the university of Pennsylvania "Some Notes on
Sabbath Observance in Early Christianity" (can be easily located in the search
engines of the internet) he investigated the research of W. B. Bishai on Sabbath
keeping practices in the early Coptic church. Bishai suggested that the early
Coptic Christianity kept only the Sabbath and at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE
they adopted both Saturday and Sunday as a day of worship. He quoted Bishai
as saying:
It seems possible that Sabbath observance among the Copts in Egypt and
Ethiopia may have passed through three stages: 1) Only the seventh-day
observed--from apostolic times until the Council of Nicea; 2) Sunday and the
seventh-day Sabbath both observed--from the Council of Nicea until perhaps a
century two later; and 3) only Sunday designated as a day of public worship--a
practice still observed today (Bishai, 31).
Kraft is criticizing Bishai's research for his (Bishai) use of the sources, namely
that the Coptic-Arabic-Ethiopic ecclesiasitical literature are opposed to the
Greek-Latin-Syriac ecclessiastical literature regarding the issue of the Sabbath.
Bishai concluded that only the Southern Christianity kept the Sabbath for a long
time after the first century CE in which Kraft attempted to oppose him by
showing that the very source that Bishai is using to support that statement from
the Coptic is based on a Greek Vorlage or original. The words read:
Let the slaves (13) work five days, But on the Sabbath and the Lord's Day let
them devote themselves to the church that they may be instructed in piety. The
Sabbath, indeed, because God himself rested on it when he complete all the
creation, and the Lord's Day because it is the day of the resurrection of the
Lord. Greek Apostolic Constitutions VIII. 33.2: (11) but in Sahidic "Statutes"
(12).
For the reference of Bishai to the chief Egyptian delegate at Niceae, namely,
Athanasius, whose canons are dated around 366 CE, and his insistence that there
is a necessity to keep both days, Kraft tries to argue that Egypt was primarily
Hellenistic not Coptic. Kraft tries to push the Sabbath keeping importance in the
Christian church later than 325 CE by referring to Timotheus Bishop of
Alexandria who speaks in 381-385 CE about the importance to keep from sexual
relations on the Sabbath and the Lord's Day because on these days the spiritual
sacrifice (Lord's Supper) is served to the Lord. On the island of Cyprus at
Salamis Epiphanius witness about the special place the Saturday Sabbath has
alongside of Sunday as a day of Christian gathering (see his "Exposition of the
Faith" 24 at the end of his Panarion which was completed in 380 CE. In the
Greek form of the Didascalia tradition that dates according to Kraft probably to
the fourth century CE there is evidence that Northern Christianity reminded their
followers that they should not neglect the daily assemblies especially the Sabbath
and Sunday days of rejoicing. The main thing is that both men, Bishai in his
research of the Southern Christianity and Kraft in his defense for the Northern
Christianity cites evidence that until at least late in the fourth century CE (the
time of Jerome and Augustine) some practices of Sabbath keeping could still be
found in Christianity.
Kraft concluded from his study of the sources:
Both H ellenistic Egypt and the rest of the H ellenistic Christian East knew of
the dual observance of Sabbath and Sunday in the 4th century, and had recorded
its interpretation of what was meant by "Sabbath observance," in terms of "rest"
and idleness. .... Is it possible to move behind the 4th century to determine how
ancient this dual observance of Sabbath/ Sunday may have been? Unfortunately,
sources for Coptic Christianity prior to that date are not readily available. But
if we can trust those scholars who trace the "Egyptian Church Order" tradition
back to H ippolytus and his Apostolic Tradition, the dual observance in
H ellenistic Christianity may be at least as old as the early 3d-century and
probably much older(23). Although it is not possible to determine with
precision from what portion of early 3d-century Christianity H ippolytus had
derived his traditions, it is probable that he spent his early life somewhere in
the H ellenistic East (Alexandria or Antioch?) before he came to Rome (24).
Thus the dual observance may have been an established Eastern (Hellenistic)
practice at the end of the 2d century.
Unfortunately, Robert Kraft fell victim to the very method he is denouncing. He
claims that it is very difficult to reconstruct with precision what early
Christianity exactly was in the second and third centuries because of the
lateness of the sources that are preserved (and in this he is correct) but then
ends his paragraph with the words of a possible dual observance established at
the end of the 2nd century CE. It is our experience with patrology and sources
involved in the study of church history, that comparisons between the
manuscripts that survived of Ignatius, the Sheperd of Hermas and nearly every
single church father has omissions, additions, reworkings, recastings,
reinterpretations, "backreadings", assumed corrections so that Kraft's optimism is
very dim to say the least. What we are saying is, is that proper understanding
of church history of the second and third centuries stops in the fourth century
CE which is the time of the oldest manuscripts that survived. Yes, copies of the
second and third centuries CE literature are definitely a fourth century CE
understanding of second and third centuries CE literature, but not the actual
second and third centuries' literature. To use the argument of Kraft against
himself, we do not know whether all Christians in the Northern and Southern
groups accepted a dual observance in these centuries. Since Jesus was not a
Sunday keeper and neither is there evidence that his apostles were, it is possible
that Sabbath keeping Christians could be found in all parts of the Mediterannean
and that only some factions adopted a dual practice and that very late. We do
not know whether the anti-Sabbath attitudes of later centuries rested heavily on
the hands of the editors to make their copies of earlier literature reflect this
anti-Sabbath attitude attempting to read back their own change of Saturday to
Sunday as worship day? This is where our consideration of the translations of
Hosea 2:11/13 comes in. Did Theodotion change the singular to a plural Sabbaths
in this verse because he wanted the text to refer to the festival Sabbaths and
not the Sabbath of the Lord? Was this verse absent in the Septuagint of Origen
240 CE because some copier could not accept that the Sabbath of the Lord could
be turned over? Do the conflicting cases of additions of the signs by Origen in
the sources give evidence that later scribes had problems with these concepts?
Similarly, was the addition of the variant those by the Coptic an attempt to
cancel a reference to the Seventh day Sabbath? As we have indicated the
translation her Sabbath as it is in the Hebrew should not give any problems
since it refers to her (wife of Hosea's) own days of worship in Baalism and not
the Sabbath of the Lord in true worship.
v12 The Coptic Tattam 1836 reads the variants here the same as the Greek of
the fifth century CE. The earliest evidence for the misreading of the Hebrew
letters for /r/ as a /d/ in this verse is that of Origen in 240 CE. The Private
Greek translations of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion of the previous century
did not share this misreading. In all probability the error entered in an illegible
part. The scribe who read the text misread the letters in one of two ways:
before when he was memorizing the text or chapter, or during the process of
copying. What then happened is that the scribe was dictating the mistaken
identity of the word for testimony/ witness that he memorized before in a
previous reading of the text and in the process of dictation he relied, by enlarge,
on memory. That is why he carried information that are later in another verse
earlier into this verse. He did not have the original in front of him but only his
memory. The Hebrew copyist to Origen then copied it similarly to what is
dictated to him and as such there is no reference to this second variant and the
birds of heaven and the reptiles of the earth by Origen in 240 CE (see Field
1875: 942). The same Hebrew text was used by both the Coptic and Greek of the
fifth century CE. Could it be that accessibility to Hebrew original manuscripts
was very difficult for Christians in the early centuries and that this method of
memorizing a text was the only way to copy? It will explain a lot of problems in
the Greek, Coptic and other versions. In this verse we do not share the Latin
translation of Tattam 1836 as in testimonium . In our opinion he should have
translated euetmeqre as ad testimonium . In fact, it is clear that Tattam was
not making in this verse a new Latin translation of his own but he was copying
the Latin translation of the Greek Walton Polyglot 1654 for this verse. For some
reason the Latin translation of the Arabic Walton Polyglot also follows the Latin
translation of the Greek very closely in this verse and the same error was taken
over.
v13 It appears as if the Coptic is not reading the text of the Greek of the fifth
century CE exactly the same but has an independent reading outside the variant
zone. For the convenience of the reader we list the variants of the retroversion
of the versions in order to see the differences:
consonantal text of Masoretes
Aquila 130 CE Field 1875 reading
Jerome's Latin Vulgate 403 CE
Origen's 250 CE Field 1875 reading
Syriac Leiden Gelston 1980
Coptic Tattam 1836 reading
qen nieHoou nte balim nhet asSwt nwou Coptic version
shared variant zone
The variant of the Greek of the fifth century CE originated since the days of
Origen because we cannot find that reading in the previous century in the
private Greek copies. One would have to think that the Coptic translation was
not totally a slavish copy of the Greek but that there was at one point in time
an independent attempt to translate anew. It would be easier for us to
understand that the Coptic was made from an Aramaic or Syriac literal
translation (with variantions) of the Greek, a translation today totally lost.
According to Arabic Walton 1654 a mixture between the Syriac/Targum and
Coptic would be very close to the Arabic in this verse. In our opinion it appears
to be not correct to say that the Arabic Walton 1654 was done only from the
Coptic. In the next part of the verse a striking close resemblance is found
between the Coptic, Syriac and Aramaic as opposed to the Arabic and Greek.
consonantal text of Masoretes

and put on her rings and her jewelry
Targum Walton 1654
and she prepares in her sanctuary and she wears her pearls
Targum retroversion
h[tYNGr*Mw h[Y$*dQ tlQ$w .)Ms*B Syriac Leiden Gelston 1980
in the placement and her weighing of her consecrated things and her jewelry
Syriac retroversion
Syriac in Aramaic letters
Coptic possible misreading
Coptic retroversion
ouoH nasT nnesleon eros nem nesieb nHat
and she has given to her bracelets/earrings to them, her works of trust
It is clear in this second part of the verse that the Coptic misread Aramaic word
in the Targum and by misconstruing a few letters the trust
was deducted from it. We also consider another possibility from the Aramaic
with the word the trust from . There is a closer relationship
between the Coptic and the Syriac and Aramaic here than there is between the
Coptic and the Greek or even the Arabic. It is now the second time that we
suggested an Aramaic literal translation as the Vorlage of the Coptic (see our
discussion at Hosea 2:7). Even the misreading of and her works as
must have originated in a Semitic Vorlage. It is not necessary for us here to
fully explain the origin of variants in the Syriac or in the Targum since that
was done in the New M illennium.Commentary Vol. 28 H osea by the same
author. We will merely mention that there are mishearings of letters by the
scribe who copied the Vorlage of the Syriac, a transposition of two words and a
double entry. With the Targum the situation is very similar but there is no
one-on-one relationship to the absolute.
v14 In this verse the reading of Coptic Tattam 1836 does not agree with the
Greek of the fifth century CE or later, but partially with Origen's Hexapla 240
CE. The reading as in the verse connects strongly to Origen. However at the
end of the verse the variant teach upward her heart is coming from a misreading
of the word )rM)w speak in the Syriac as )rwM)w teach. We think that in all
probability the Coptic was using an Aramaic Vorlage which read instead
of as one currently finds in the Targum Walton 1654. It could have been
that the reader misread as and that is how the Coptic came to
the word TnaTsbw and I will teach. In similar vein one can understand why
the Targumist will elaborate the same word as speaking consolations . We
suspect from our investigations that there was a literal Aramaic translation of
the Old Testament that was consulted or used by the Coptic, Syriac and
Targumist which could account for similarities in the Syriac and Targum and
occasionally the Coptic, like here.
v15 The Coptic Tattam 1836 does not follow the Greek of the fifth century CE in
the reading in order to open and neither that of Aquila 130 CE or Theodotion
190 CE but rather that of Symmachus 150 CE namely unto a door . Similarly to
Origen 240 CE and differently than the Private editions of the previous century,
the Coptic also reads her comprehension/ understanding epeskat. It seems
that a similar Aramaic Vorlage as the one that was used by the Syriac Leiden
Gelston 1980 could also have been used by the Coptic Tattam 1836 since the
reading in the Syriac is also to open her reason and she shall humble herself
kKMttw .h[lKws but similarly to the Coptic there is no share in the variant
at the beginning of the verse dating from the time of Origen 240 CE namely the
word property instead of vines. Contrary to the Syriac, the Targum Walton 1654
did follow this variant with Origen 240 CE of property or in the Targum
control also retroverted as . It is wrong to say that the Coptic is
merely copying the Greek of Origen or the Greek of later centuries considered by
those to be the Septuagint.
v16 The Coptic Tattam 1836 shares here the variant Baalim with the text of
Origen 250 CE Field 1875 namely as baalim. However, it could have been an
illegible literal Hebrew translation that was illegible in this part that gave cause
to the variant. A hint in this direction is the reading of the Targum to the idols
of the nations in which it is possible that its Aramaic Vorlage
read which is a further misreading of the original Hebrew by the
Aramaic copier or reader to the copier. In verse 17 the Targum read the plural
for Baal or Baals as idols of the nations . One must thus hinges on the fact
whether there was a general tendency to write all cases this way or whether it
is just an idiosyncracy with the Targum. Question is whether the Targumist was
just careless in this verse?
v17 In this verse the Coptic Tattam 1836 "hesitated" at the end of the verse in
its translation method by adding a namely Je which could hint to the presence
of the preposition in or / / in the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition
that was left untranslated by all the versions.
v18 The variant in this verse of Coptic Tattam 1836 is also present in the Greek
of Origen 250 CE but probably also in Aquila 130 CE if one corrects Field's 1875
translation of the Syriac rendering (8th century CE manuscript of 616 CE
translation of Origen's Hexapla) for Aquila. This variant qen in of the Coptic
can also be found in the Syriac as )rBsB in hope but not in the Targum.
v19 The Coptic is reading toward and not in as the Latin of Henry Tattam 1836
is suggesting, namely, Sa eneH toward eternity. Henry Tattam took his Latin
phraseology over from the Latin translation of the Greek in Walton 1654. In all
the Latin translations of the Walton edition of all the languages: Hebrew, Greek,
Armaic, Syriac and Arabic the preposition in is used. None of the versions are
using in. They are all using toward in their originals so that the correct Latin
would be ad not in. It gives the wrong impression for the uninformed reader that
all the translations are reading the same as the Vulgate misreading of in instead
of ad . Only the Vulgate can rightfully be said to read in. There is a very long
omission here in the Coptic Tattam 1836 since the rest of the verse cannot be
found. Similarity in phraseology of the original in the following verses could
have led to this omission. We call this kind of error haplography = written only
half. Scholars too easily jump to the conclusion that a shorter text means an
earlier text and that a longer text means a later text. This is a fallacy
commonly misunderstood in modern textual criticism.
v21 The Coptic Tattam 1836 also included the extra word the heavens in the
verse similarly to what one finds in the Greek of the fifth century CE.
v22 The Coptic Tattam 1836 also included the variant reading shall hear instead
of shall answer . As to where the Greek of the fifth century, the Coptic and the
presumed translation of the Vulgate from the remnants we have of Jerome, came
to the reading of hearing instead of answering we can suggest the following:
there was a copy of the Hebrew text that read the letters transposed and a
further mistaken identity resulted in further variations with the Targum. The
word answer or which appear in this verse as was misread by the
scribe to the Hebrew copier of the Greek, Coptic and later Vulgate manuscripts
who read it as to know = to hear . That this variant originated in this
way one can see from the mistaken word in the Targum who elaborated on the
word shall spring forth. If the letters were transposed by the Semitic texts
that underlies these versions then it is possible through a complex system of
simulations due to dictation and hearing problems how other variations crept in,
yet all bound by the same semitic text.
v24 Here the Coptic shares the same variant with the Greek the fifth century CE
namely the addition of the words the Lord . It can also be found in the Arabic
Walton 1654. It is not correct to assume that it was also in Jerome's Vulgate of
403 CE simply because the late Vulgate copies read it this way between 750-950
CE as we can witness in V minus s450Later mss: A M S O C Φ Σ L Λ 750-960reconWEBER. It read
there et ipse dicet Dominus meus es tu with the omission of God . translated as
and the same will say: My Lord you are .
Chapter 3
1. And the Lord said to me: go again, love a woman
loving the bad and an adulteress, as the Lord love the
children of Israel and the same looked for foreign gods
and love the cookings with raisins.
2. And I hired her for me for fifteen silver and and a
gomer of barley and a nebel of wine.
3. And I said to her: Sit by me many days and not shall
you play the harlot nor shall you be another man's and I
also shall wait for you.
4. For the children of Israel shall sit many days without a
king, without a prince, without a sacrifice, without an
altar, without a priesthood, without manifestations.
5. And after this the children of Israel shall return, and
shall seek the Lord their God and David their king and
they shall be astounded unto the Lord and over his
goodness in the last days.
v1 The word for cookings in the Coptic Tattam 1836 is in the later manuscripts
of the Vulgate of Jerome 403 vinacea = wines and in the Greek of the fifth
century CE pasties or πεμματα. It is easier to understand the semantics of the
Greek and the Coptic from the word but it is not so simple for the Latin
how Jerome or those later scribes arrived at wines.
Chapter 4
1. Hear the word of the Lord, children of Israel. For the
judgements of the Lord against the inhabitants over the
earth, for there is no truth, no mercy, no knowledge of
God over the earth.
2. Cursing and lying and killing and adultery is sprawling
over the earth and blood mixed upon blood.
3. Therefore shall the land mourn, and all that lives in it
and diminish with the animals of the field and with the
crawling ones of the earth, and the flying ones of the
heaven and the fishes of the sea shall fail.
4. And no one should judge nor blame. But those people
are like a priest who are contradicting to him.
5. And you shall be weak in that day and also the
prophet with you shall be weak. Your mother I have made
likewise in that night.
6. My people are similar to not having knowledge.
Because you rejected knowledge I also reject you, the
priest does not perform for me and I have forgotton also
the law of Israel and I have forgotten their
works.
7. So they have sinned against me, their
glory I placed in shame.
8. The sins of my people they shall eat and in their
iniquity they shall accept their souls.
9. And it shall be like people, similarly also a priest. And
I will punish over him his ways and I will repay him his
thoughts.
10. And they shall eat and not be satisfied they have
fornicated and not did they guide
11. Because they have forsaken the Lord and they have
kept fornication and wine and drunkenness the heart of
my people accepted him in it.
12. They have asked in signs and it judged to him in its
twig. Seduced are they in a spirit of fornication they are
fornicating against their God.
13. And they offered their sacrifices upon the tops of the
mountains, and they offer frankencise upon the hills under
the oak, and the poplar and the well-wooded tree because
good is its shadow. Therefore your daughters shall
commit fornication and your daughters shall commit
adultery.
14. And I will not visit upon your daughters when they
shall commit fornication and upon your spouses and your
sons. Because of these evils they did they have mixed
with nations and have given aroma to them with those
defiled ones and a people without understanding he shall
embrace with prostitutes.
15. But you Israel may not know, and you may
not lead Judah to Galgala, and not should you go upward
to the house of her wickedness and not may you swear:
Living is the Lord.
16. For like a heifer that is striking so Israel is walking.
Now will the Lord feed them like a lamb in wide place.
17. Ephraim is a partaker of idols, he sets himself to
things belonging to temptation.
18. Channaneos is elected. They have gone astray in
fornication. They have protected shame in
their arrogance.
19. A turn of a wind are you in its wings and they shall
be confounded out of their altars.
v5 The Coptic Tattam 1836 also follows the variant of the Greek of the fifth
century CE in reading the word as be weaken instead of be fallen. In
the Aramaic of the Middle Ages both meanings were used.
v6 What exactly happened in this verse is difficult to say but there are many
variants. The variants are not shared by any other version. We have underlined
them. M y people are similar to not having knowledge. Because you rejected
knowledge I also reject you, the priest does not perform for me and I have
forgotton also the law of Israel and I have forgotten their works.
palaos eF mfrhT mfhetenteF swoun mmau Je nqok
akxw mpswoun nswk anok Hw Tnaxak nswi
eStemerouhb nhi ouoH on TnaerpwbS mfnomos
nte pICL ouoH TnaerpwbS nnouHbhoui.
Coptic Hebrew Retroversion:
We suggest that the last word could have originated from a semitic text but that
it could equally have happened in the misreading of the Greek word τεκνων
meaning son as τεχνων meaning art/ work. The misreading of God as I srael
rather happened in a semitic text setting. However, in the beginning of the next
verse there is an omission of the first word and we suggest that this word was
"swallowed up" in a larger omission at the end of this verse. It happened as
follows: the continious text with the omission in the first part of the next verse
is in the consonantal text of the
Masoretic tradition. The following happened with the Coptic reader:
. The letters were misread for the word
work . This is how the first part of the next verse were omitted and the
underlined section was also omitted. There are thus two theories here as to how
the Coptic translator arrived at work but it seems as if the semitic text
misreading should be given greater value here. The Arabic Walton 1654 does not
share these variants with the Coptic and neither does the other versions. In the
transmission history of the Coptic, why did they kept to their own way even
contra the Greek of the fifth century CE? Was the original Coptic translator tired
in this verse that he made so many misreadings?
What we are doing now is to look at the most possible way the Coptic could
have misread this variant from God to Israel . Firstly, the original versions were
written in continious writing as:
1. Greek νομον θεου as ΝΟΜΟΝΘΕΟΥ
2. Latin Vulgate legis Dei tui as LEGICDEITUI from which ICRAEL was
deducted in the following way: LEG IC EI UI redivided as leg israel in the ear
of the translator? If this was the case then the role of the Vetus Latina should
be kept in mind here.
3. Hebrew of the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition
4. Targum from which is misread as
5. Syriac reading khl)d hswMN in which it is also possible for the
misreading to have occured.
What do we have here? The Coptic reader could have misread letters of the
Vetus Latina, Aramaic Targum or the Syriac. Of all three the strongest
possibility would be the Aramaic Vorlage that underlies the Aramaic Targum
since there are also other variants in the same version which could only have
originated with a semitic text. The Greek and Hebrew are cancelled since it is
impossible to misread these texts without dismanteling the word for law.
v7 The first word in the Hebrew text was omitted in translation by the Coptic
Tattam 1836 since the phenomenon of haplography happened in which the eye of
the reader moved on in the previous verse to this word and he translated this
word misread as part of the previous verse as the word work .
v11 The Coptic Tattam 1836 divided the verses in this section slightly different
than any other version.
v12 In this verse the Coptic Tattam 1836 proofs undoubtedly to us that it was
using a semitic original from which it did the translation. Secondly, it proofs
that the text the Coptic translator and reader used was written continious and
that word and verse divisions was the task of the reader. Nearly 98% of the
Coptic translation in this verse can be found in the letters of the consonantal
text of the Masoretic tradition. It happened as follows:
Coptic Retroversion:
They have asked in signs and it judged well in its twig. Seduced are they in a
spirit of fornication they are fornicating against their God .
Compare the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition:
The translation of the Coptic Tattam 1836 stands in these aspects alone with no
version sharing these phenomena. The Coptic was not done from the Greek.
v13 None of the versions read the and in the beginning like the Coptic Tattam
1836.
v14 The Coptic Tattam 1836 is not reading here the Greek of the fifth century
CE and neither is it reading the Greek of Origen 240 CE. Some very unusual
things happened in this verse and again nearly all phenomena can be directed
back to a semitic base. Misreadings of characters happened, double entries and it
seems as if the scribe copied the Hebrew manuscript from memory. None of the
versions were consulted in the making of this translation in the verse, however,
one interesting connection can be found with a reading of Symmachus 170 CE as
represented in Codex Barberinus (86) in Field 1875. There an alternative reading
is represented for Symmachus that differs with that of Codex Ambrosianus (both
dating to the same period ca. 750 CE). The oldest reference that Symmachus
read it as και μετα των ακαθαρτων and with the defiled ones is thus Codex
Barberinus and this is the same as we find here in the Coptic Tattam 1836. Does
this mean that our manuscript goes back to the year 750 CE? The variants can
be identified as follows:
And I will not visit upon your daughters when they shall commit fornication and
upon your spouses and your sons. Because of these evils they did they have
mixed with nations and have given aroma to them with those defiled ones and a
people without understanding he shall embrace with prostitutes.
/
ouoH nnaJempSini nnetenSeri auSanerporneuin nem
eJen netenSelet nem nouShri eqbe fai seHwou
naumouJt nem nieqnos ouoH nauT sqinouGi eHrhi nem
nhetswF ouoH pilaos nreFkaT naFGlemlwm pe nem
nipornh.
There is a second connection to Symmachus in this verse and this time it is not
Codex Barberinus (86) but Codex Ambrosianus in Field 1875. The point is that
Symmachus read it as παρεληφθη he shall be embraced as an equavalent for the
Syriac rendering of Symmachus (750 CE) as arBDta) he shall be seized . This is
the result of the misreading of the last letter of the Hebrew word as a shin in
.
v15 Coptic Tattam 1836 reads here not similar to the Greek of Origen 240 CE
according to the reading in Ralhfs 1935 but according to the Greek of the Codex
Alexandrinus 450 CE also in Ralhfs 1935. The difference is the reading of her
wickedness instead of On like Origen in 240 CE. However, wickedness was read
by Theodotion already in 190 CE if we follow Codex Ambrosianus 750 CE and
the commentary of Jerome but not Codex Barberinus (86) as is cited in Field
1875. When we say Theodotion or even Origen we are walking on thin ice. The
sources are giving conflicting evidence.
v16 Coptic Tattam 1836 misread here the Hebrew letters in one variant and thus
ended up with so...is walking . The Hebrew Retroversion of the Coptic looks like
this:
while it is suppose to read according to the consonantal text of the Masoretic
tradition: .
The origin of the variant can possibly be linked to a similar misreading by
Symmachus in 170 CE who read the previous word as that is walking as
we can see in the Syriac form of Codex Ambrosianus for Symmachus, namely,
)Grd as it is reading in Field 1875. This variant aFmoSi so...is walking is
linked to Symmachus in 170 CE and cannot be found in any other version. Not
even the Arabic of Walton 1654 followed the Coptic reading here.
v17 Coptic Tattam 1836 here reads the same as the majority reading of the
Greek that modern scholars attempted to construct as the Septuagint . It is better
to speak of the Greek of the fifth century CE than the Septuagint . There is an
"ugly ditch" before the fourth century CE where our evidence stops and from
that point everything becomes speculation and opinions. Presumably this was
also the reading of Origen in 240 CE according to Field 1875. The variant in the
Coptic Tattam 1836 in this verse is definitely a echo of the translation of Origen
250 CE and not that of Aquila 130 CE or Symmachus 170 CE or Theodotion 190
CE. In both cases, Coptic and Origen the misreading in the Hebrew was the
same, namely, . The last word in the
verse of the Coptic was pulled from the previous verse and with a misreading in
some letters resulted in the translation: to things belonging to temptation.
v18 The Coptic Tattam 1836 reads some parts of this verse the same as Origen
did in 240 CE FIELD 1875. What happened in the Coptic is that the same was read
as Origen but the misreading occured as a result of letter confusion and a fusion
of two words into one . When Jerome wrote his commentary
on Hosea after 403 CE he saw this reading in the Greek and said:
That with respect to what the LXX [ Septuagint] translated, called forth
Channanaeos , is not held in the H ebrew (Jerome's Commentary Hosea reconORIGENES
1875 :947). It was not in the Hebrew of Jerome's Vorlage and rightly
-HEXAPLA=FIELD
so, but it was in a misreading or miscopying of a Hebrew copy that Origen used
for his translation. It was actually a double entry of remnants of the previous
verse and this verse.
Coptic Retroversion into Hebrew
[
Greek Retroversion into Hebrew
[
Consonantal text of the Masoretic Tradition
Aquila 130 CE Retroversion into Hebrew

[ no data ] [
Symmachus 170 CE Retroversion into Hebrew
[ no data ] [
Theodotion 190 CE Retroversion into Hebrew
[ no data ] [
What is clear from this analysis is that the Hebrew text was copied with many
misreadings to serve as Vorlage to Aquila 130 CE, Symmachus 170 CE and also
Theodotion 190 CE. With minor variants all three Greek translations of the
second century CE read the Hebrew like our retroversion of Symmachus 170 CE.
There are many mistakes of dittography and haplography in this verse. There
are word fusions, letter confusions, word divisions, omissions, additions and
mistaken meanings due to similar forms of the Hebrew. Aquila apparently did not
see his text but only heard it and that accounts for his unique errors but still
the same Vorlage. The copyist made many errors and the reader could have
made also some of the mistakes. The Hebrew text was not carefully transmitted
and we ascribe these difficulties to the stormy years of the beginning of
Christianity. We will not discuss here in full detail each of these versions since
that was done in the N ew M illennium.commentary Vol. 28 of H osea by the same
author. The Coptic Tattam 1836 translated from the same Hebrew text as that of
the one that Origen used in 240 CE but it must have been a copy of a copy in
which more errors crept in. There were reading errors and listening errors.
Chapter 5
1. Hear this priests and listen house of Israel and receive
sound house of the king because there is done a
judgement and it against you because you have been a
snare to the observers and like a net spread out over
Itabirion.
2. And those who are hunting, to hunt pierce it. But I am
to be your teacher.
3. I know Ephraim and Israel is not withdrawn from me.
For now Ephraim is fornicating, and Israel is defiled.
4. And they will not give their thoughts to return to their
God but the spirit of fornication is in them but they did
not know the Lord.
5. And the disgrace of Israel shall be humiliated in their
face. And Israel and Ephraim shall be weakened in their
iniquity. And Judah also shall be [ rather correct here to: shall be
weakened ] with them.
6. They shall go with their sheep and calves to seek after
the Lord and they shall not find him.
7. Because they have turned aside from those, because
they have left behind the Lord, because the son are
strangers of those, now shall they be eaten of rust and
their allotments.
8. Blow the trumpet upon the hills, sound upon high
places, announce upon the house of On: it happened,
namely, Benjamin.
9. Ephraim are made to the destruction in the day of
rebuke. Among the tribes of Israel I have shown to you
the heart out.
10. The princes of Judah are like they that change a
boundary. I will pour my wrath over them like water.
11. Ephraim oppressed his enemy he trampled upon
judgement for he began to go after emptiness.
12. And I will be like a confusion to Ephraim and like a
sting to the house of Judah.
13. And Ephraim saw his sickness, and Judah in his pain.
And Ephraim went to those Assyrians and sent a deputy
to the king Jarim. And the same shall not be able to heal
you and not shall he hold back from you in the pain.
14. For I will be like a lioness to Ephraim and like a lion
to the house of Judah. I will resist them in the way of
the Assyrians like a bear desiring food. And I will
destroy and advance and remove and there is none that
can save.
15. And I will go and return to my place until you perish
and he shall search my face.
v1 In this verse the Coptic Tattam 1836 read almost the same as Origen's Greek
translation in 240 CE especially with the form of the noun at the end, namely,
pitabirion which is read by Origen as ιταβυριον = Itaburion . But, to say
there is an exact reading like that of Origen would be off the mark. It also used
the comparative particle ως like in mfrhT like as . This is not in the Hebrew
original. Different than the Greek it used the Greek crasis of και η and it as χη
in xh. Although it is a Greek loanword into Coptic it is not found in Origen's
Greek in 240 CE. Let us look at the origin of the variant Itabirion in the texts
of the time of Origen 240 CE.
Reading of the Coptic
Reading of Origen 240 CE and the Coptic
Reading of Symmachus 170 CE
Reading of Aquila 130 CE
Reading of consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition
Continious text of Aquila 130 CE ]
Misreading by Hebrew reader to the copyist of a Hebrew text for Symmachus by

including the first letter of next verse misread as a nun instead of a waw and
also the misreading of the tav as a he sounding in the ear of Symmachus as
ear. It is from this form that Symmachus thought he heard the
word . Before Symmachus 170 CE this variant - orion section to the
name Itaburion did not exist. Origen 240 CE and the Coptic translator consulted
a copy of this bad Hebrew copy of Symmachus 170 CE resulting in
cross-mutation of the variant.
The situation with Theodotion in 190 CE on this name is slightly different than
that with Aquila or Symmachus. The last noun in the Hebrew text was misread
by Theodotion from an Aramaic text very similar to that of the Targum Walton
1654 reading . The way this happened is that the letters were
written continious and Theodotion's reader read it wrongly and also Theodotion
heard some letters wrongly due to similarity in phonics. It happened in the
following way:
Aramaic Targum reading of the name ]
Theodotion 190 CE reading of the name ] = επι δρυμον
v2 Coptic Tattam 1836 did not include the last word of the Hebrew text
all of them similar to the Greek text of the fifth century CE. It dropped
completely out of the text. There is evidence that the Coptic was not done from
the Greek in the fact that the copulative and in the beginning is translated by
the Coptic although it is absent in the Greek.
v3 The Coptic Tattam 1836 reads one thing different than the Greek text of the
fifth century CE, namely, the extra copulative and = ouoH at the end which
one can find in none of the other versions except the Syriac Leiden Gelston 1980
as pN+t)w.
v4 The Coptic Tattam 1836 is reading here a copulative at the beginning of the
sentence that is not shared by any other version including the consonantal text
of the Masoretic Tradition. Whereas Origen 240 CE used διαβουλια meaning
counsels Aquila 130 CE used επιτηδευματα = practices Symmachus 170 CE used
also counsels = βουλας and Theodotion 190 CE γνωμην = thoughts . The Coptic
also used thoughts = nnoumeui. As far as meaning is concerned there is a
link between Theodotion and the Coptic here as opposed to Origen or the rest of
the Greek tradition. The Hebrew word = act/ deed of in the
consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition corresponds more with the reading of
Aquila 130 CE than the others. The way these different variants originated
between the versions seems to be in the following way:
Someone translated before Aquila 130 CE the Hebrew text into Aramaic language
reading deeds/ tasks . It is a synonym for another Aramaic form that
was presented in Targum Walton 1654 as . When Symmachus' copyist
170 CE copied this text he thought that he either heard (if another reader was
reading) or he himself saw (if he was copying directly) the word
resulting in the variant counsels . Later when Theodotion translated, his copyist
copied the original Hebrew text as resulting in the reading
thoughts/ bad faith. This same Hebrew copy were in the hands of the Coptic
translator who also translated thoughts . What emerges from this picture is that
an Aramaic text was the origin of the variant in Symmachus and that the Coptic
translated his text from a consultation of a similar Hebrew miscopy as that of
Theodotion 190 CE. Origen and the Greek tradition also used this Aramaic text
that served Symmachus 170 CE resulting in a cross-mutation of the variant.
v5 On the basis of the Hebrew original and all the versions: Latin Vulgate,
Greek tradition and forms, the Syriac Leiden Gelston 1980, the Aramaic Targum
Walton 1654 we have no other choice but to suggest that the copy entered by
Henry Tattam in 1836 was a miscopy by someone from the Coptic. The words
are suppose to be the same but they are not in Coptic Tattam 1836 namely:
eueSwni shall be weaken which is read in Tattam as eFeSw i shall be
the second time later in the sentence. The similarity in the letters are probably
the cause of this variant.
v6 The Coptic Tattam 1836 misread the text here as behind instead of the
direct object particle as it is in the Hebrew original. The Targum Walton
1654 also evaded this reading by translating before . These variants cannot
be found in the Greek, Latin or Syriac versions.
v7 The Coptic Tattam 1836 reads here the same word rust as Origen in 240 CE
and also the Greek of the fifth century CE but not that of the private Greek
copies of Aquila 130 CE new moons, Symmachus 170 CE and Theodotion 190 CE
moons. The Greek of Origen gives us a hint how it originated since the Greek
form ερυσιβη rust resembles that of the Hebrew word meaning plague .
The same can be said of the Latin word rubigo that resembles the Aramaic word
both meaning rust . We are dealing here with loanwords by the western
languages from the semitic languages. The original Hebrew of the consonantal
text of the Masoretic tradition reads here . The copyist of the Hebrew text
that served for the translation of Origen and the Coptic misread and miscopied
the original here. In the Targum Walton 1654 this section is translated twice (1)
meaning month and (2) meaning new produce or fruits . This section was
completely omitted by the Syriac tradition Leiden Gelston 1980.
v8 The Coptic Tattam 1836 also read the extra preposition prior to Beth-el,
namely, HiJen upon. Symmachus 170 CE also read an extra preposition here
and translated it as in. This is the way in which Origen 240 CE read it but not
Theodotion 190 CE who read no preposition here and Aquila 130 CE who read it
as into . In the case of Symmachus, Origen and the Coptic the Hebrew reading is
the same but the translation of the Coptic is different.
v9 The Coptic Tattam 1836 also divided the last word differently and misread
the letter as a /k/ instead of an /n/. Instead of reading the consonantal text of
the Masoretic tradition as the Coptic read aiouonH
nnhetenHot ebol which can be retroverted in Hebrew as the reading:
. This is the same form as it was to the Greek translator of
the fifth century CE but that Greek translator left the /k/ out of his translation.
v11 The Coptic Tattam 1836 also misread the last word of the verse from a
Hebrew copy that served the Greek of the fifth century CE, the Syriac and the
Targum. What is read as deception by the Targum Walton 1654 is read as
slippery by the Syriac Leiden Gelston 1980. Two letters are transposed in order
in these two translations namely (Syriac) Targum. The word means
actually dirty or filthy and Jerome's rendering is correct here. The Syriac read
the word as which was a wrong division of the verse. The Targum
translator read it as which in both cases illustrates a mishearing of the
Hebrew by the copyist of that Hebrew that underlies the Targum and the Syriac.
v12 Similar to Origen 240 CE the Coptic Tattam 1836 also misread the word
of the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition as meaning
sting . Aquila 130 CE and Symmachus 170 CE read it correctly here the same
way as Jerome 403 CE namely rottenness .
v13 The Coptic Tattam 1836 also reads the word as pain like the Greek of
Origen 240 CE and the Greek of the fifth century CE. The misreading could not
have resulted from the Hebrew which reads band . It rather originated from
a common Aramaic text which read very similar to the Targum Walton 1654
in a continious reading. The different division of the letters resulted in
and in the translation of the Coptic of an extra in nHet that is not
in the Greek or in the Hebrew.
v14 The Coptic Tattam 1836 reads a long addition here that is not in the original
Hebrew nor in the other versions. It is I will resist them in the way of the
Assyrians like a bear desiring food Tnaerapantan erwou qen
pimwit nte niassurios mfrhT noulaboi esJwnt
esHoker. Coptic Tattam 1836 reading of Hosea 13:7-8
qen fmwit nniassurios. (8)Tnaerapantan erwou mfrhT
noulaboi esonSou
Consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition of Hosea 13:7-8
(8)
Coptic Tattam 1836 Hebrew retroversion of a gloss from Hosea 13:7-8
(8)
It is not difficult to see what happened here. First of all the other section where
the gloss was taken from is very similar in detail. In the original of the
consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition (Hebrew) it is as if there is a
recasting of material. How does a gloss like this appear in the translation?
Firstly, it was in the Hebrew text that was used but, that text was copied by a
scribe for whom it was dictated from memory. This is the key. This kind of
mistake occurs when a person has to memorize long passages and there are
sections that are the same. Conflation of detail happens. Why was it not
corrected? They did not correct it since they trusted the Hebrew copy that a
scribe made from this dictation by someone else. It is possible that a scribe
memorized the Hebrew text that served Origen in 240 CE and that when he
dictated this Hebrew text to the scribe that provided the Coptic translators with
a semitic text, he committed the error. No other version shares this gloss.
Chapter 6
1. In their affliction they will be early to me saying:
Come and let us return to the Lord our God.
2. For he himself seized and he will heal us, he will
strike and he will cure us.
3. He will make us healthy after two days in the third
day will resurrect us and we live in his presence and we
shall know and we shall follow unto the knowledge of the
Lord. Like the morning is prepared he is going forth and
he will come to us like the rain of the morning and the
last over the earth.
4. Who is it what shall I do with you Ephraim? And who
is it what shall I do with you Judah? Your mercy is as a
cloud of the morning and as the dew that go early.
5. For this reason I have reaped their prophets, I have
slain them by the words of my mouth and my judgement
shall go forth as the light.
6. For I desired mercy, more than sacrifce and the
knowledge of God more than slaying.
7. They truly are like a man that have transgressed the
covenant.
8. In that place Gilead disregard me, a city which work
emptiness stirring water.
9. And your fortress is like a man that attacks. The
priests hide their ways of those that destroy Shechem for
they have done lawlessness.
10. In the house of Israel I have seen terrible works, in
that place the fornications belonging to Ephraim.
Contaminated is Israel and Judah. Begin grapegathering to
yourself when I shall bring back the captives of my
people.
v1 The Coptic Tattam 1836 also read here the extra variant our God
like the Greek of the fifth century CE.
v5 The Coptic Tattam 1836 also separated the kaph at the end of judgements and
moved it to connect with light so that it read my judgement like the light . This
was the way Origen 240 CE read the text and the Greek of the fifth century CE,
the Syriac Leiden Gelston 1980 and the Targum Walton 1654. This does not
change the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition but it does change the
tradition of the Masoretes.
v8 Coptic Tattam 1836 also misread the Hebrew as water instead of
of blood as it reads in the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition, similar to
the misreading by Origen in 240 CE and the Greek of the fifth century CE but
different than Aquila 130 CE, Symmachus 170 CE, Theodotion 190 CE and
Jerome 403 CE who read it correctly.
v9 The Coptic Tattam 1836 read the variants the same as the Greek translation
since they have used the same errorful semitic text (whether Hebrew or
translation from the Hebrew in Aramaic).
Consonantal text of the Masoretic Tradition
Greek (Codex Alexandrinus) retroversion into Hebrew
If one compares the Greek of the fifth century CE especially Codex Alexandrinus
with the other versions it is clear that a number of misreadings was made of the
Hebrew text by the copyist to the Greek. We have indicated it in the
retroversion. The word for Lord entered probably in due to an illegible part
in the sentence but for some reason this extra addition did not enter into any of
the other versions. It seems as if this word Lord was only a reading error
by the reader to the Greek translator of an errorful copy anyway. The same copy
also served the Coptic translator who did not enter this variant simply because
his reader read more carefully. A number of letters were misread by the Hebrew
copyist to the Greek translators since he read your fortress which is not in the
original. The Hebrew copyist also entered the misreading of the word as
lawlessness and this is how it entered in both the Coptic and the Greek. The
first time the error of Lord entered into the Greek tradition seems to be in the
time of Codex Alexandrinus. At least if the theory holds that the later Coptic
translations were aligned to the Greek (which we have no proof of) it was
definitely not Codex Alexandrinus. The Arabic Walton 1654 also used this
variant Lord in its translation. The first misreading of the Hebrew letters
can be dated to the time of Aquila 130 CE who misread the word as
well-girdled . The first time it was misread in same consonantal form as
the misreading in the text of Origen 240 CE and that of the Coptic was in the
time of Symmachus 170 CE who also used but translated it presumptious =
υποκριτου or even if the other Symmachus tradition is correct that Symmachus
read who lies in ambush = ενεδρευτου it was still semantically different than
Origen or the Coptic who considered it to be fortress . It could very well be that
the errorful copy was made in the days of Aquila 130 CE and that this text
served or was copied again for others leading to a multiplication of other
mistakes as we find it today in the various texts.
Chapter 7
1. When I will convert Israel and reveal the iniquity of
Ephraim and the wickedness of Samaria for they have
committed falsehood and it shall be advanced inward to
him of his evildoing with his stealing and he shall be
stripped of a robber in his way.
2. As they may sing like singers in their hearts. All their
evil is remembered. Now will encircle them their thoughts
and it is done in the presence of their face.
3. In their wickedness they have made the king glad and
the princes in their lies.
4. They are all adulterers like an oven kindled to boil in
the heat of her flames from the mingling of the leaven till
it was leavened.
5. In the days of your kings the princes began to be mad
from wine. He stretched out his hand with the plagues.
6. Because they have burnt their hearts like an oven in a
curse is Ephraim filled all night. When the morning
comes he is inflamed like a light of a fire.
7. They were all heated like an oven of their heart and
they devoured his judges. All their kings have fallen. Not
is there one who calls upward towards me.
8. Ephraim is mixed to himself with his nation, Ephraim
became a dough concealed, not is it to be carried.
9. Devoured is his strength from strangers, but he will
not know it and grey hairs flourish on him and he is
ignorant of it.
10. ouoH eFeqebio nJe pSwS mpICL
eJen peFHo ouoH mpoutasqwou Ha
pOC pounouT ouoH mpoukwT nswF qen
nai throu.
10. And the scattering of Israel shall be humbled before
his face and not have they returned to the Lord their God
and not have they sought him in all these.
Et humiliabitur contumelia Israel in facie ejus. Et non
reversi sunt ad Dominum Deum suum, et non
quaesiverunt eum in omnibus his.
And the pride of Israel shall be humbled before his face: and they have not
returned to the Lord their God, nor have they sought him in all these.
Latin Vulgate Text
et humiliabitur superbia Israhel in facie eius nec reversi
sunt ad Dominum Deum suum et non quaesierunt eum in omnibus his
(V s 450 reconWEBER)
Latin Retroversion
(V Heb-recon Hos7:10)
Greek English Translation

And the violence of Israel shall be humbled before his face: and they have not
Greek Text
και ταπεινωθησεται η υβρις ισραηλ εις προσωπον αυτου
και ουκ επεστεψαν προς κυριον τον θεον αυτων και ουκ
εξεζητησαν αυτον εν πασι τουτοις
Greek Retroversion
(G Heb-reconHos7:10)
Targum's English Translation

And the pride of Israel shall be humbled and they themselves see upon that they
have not returned to the worship of the Lord their God and not have they sought
from before me in all of these.
Targum Text
(T walton 1654)
Targum Retroversion
(T Heb-recon Hos7:10 )
Syriac's English Translation

And the pride of Israel shall be humbled before his face: and they have not
Syriac Text
wYNPt) )Lw .yhwMdQ lYrsY)d hrQY) kKMt)w
.yhw)OB )Lw nwhhL) )YrM twL
(S Leiden Peshitta
Gelston
1980
)
Syriac Retroversion
11. Et Ephrem erat, quasi columba insipiens, non habens

cor. Invocabat Ægyptum, et abiverunt in Assyrios.
12. Sicut iverunt; mittam rete meum super eos:
descendere faciam illos, ut volatilia coeli: castigabo eos in
auditu tribulationis eoru.
13. Vae eis, quoniam fugerunt a me: miseri sunt quoniam
impie egerunt mihi. Ego vero redemi eos: ipsi vero loquuti
sunt contra me in mendaciis.
14. Non clamaverunt ad me in cordibus eorum, sed
ululabant super cubilibus suis. Dissecabantur super tritico,
et vino:
15. Eruditi sunt in me. Et ego quoque confortavi brachia
eorum: et cogitaverunt contra me mala.
16. Conversi sunt in nihilum: et facti sunt quasi arcus
intentus. Cadent in gladio principes eorum propter
imperitiam linguae eorum. Hoc est opprobrium eorum in
terra Ægypti.
v1 The Coptic Tattam 1836 in this verse definitely misread not a Greek text but
a semitic one. In fact a copy was made from dictation of the text that Origen
also used and those errors of misreadings by the one who copied the Hebrew for
Origen also were done by the dictating reader to the Coptic copyist but added to
those errors were other errors of dittography and phonetic similations. If one
place the Coptic Tattam 1836 next to the Greek of the fifth century CE and
Origen 240 CE, the following differences are apparent:
Coptic Tattam 1836
qen pJinoqritasqo mpICL ouoH eseGwrp ebol pJe
tkakia nefrem nem tkakia ntsamaria Je auerHwb
eHanmeqnouJ ouoH eFeSenaF eqoun HaroF nJe
oureFGinJons nem oureFGioui ouoH eFebwS nJe ousoni
qen peFmwit.
Greek fifth century CE and Origen 240 CE
εν τῳ ιασασθαι με τον ισραηλ και αποκαλυφησεται η αδικια εφραιμ και η κακια
σαμαρειας οτι ηργασαντο ψευδη και κλεπτης προς αυτον εισελευσεται εκδιδυσκων
λῃστης εν τῃ οδῳ αυτου
Greek Retroversion into Hebrew

Translation of the Coptic:
When I will convert Israel and reveal the iniquity of Ephraim and the wickedness
of Samaria for they have committed falsehood and it shall be advanced inward to
him of his evildoing with his stealing and he shall be stripped of a robber in his
way.
The underlined phrase was a dittography or double reading of the Hebrew text
that Origen used in 240 CE since these readings were absent from Aquila 130
CE, Symmachus 170 CE and Theodotion 190 CE Field1875:950. The inclusion of
to him indicates that the same text as that for the Greek of Origen's
Hexapla was used. The miscopying of stripped off as of his
evildoing is a proof that the copying process was that of dictation or an acoustic
error. The word for thief/ stealing was copied later in the sentence of the Hebrew
of the text for the Coptic. The word inside/ inward in the Coptic is also a
double entry.
v2 Coptic Tattam 1836 used the same Hebrew text as the Greek of the time of
Origen 240 CE but there are variants probably due to a copying of the same
manuscript by dictation or from memory. There is thus a difference from the
Greek that the Greek is reading του προσωπου μου = my face while
the Coptic is reading mpouHo = their face . When the Hebrew copy
was made that served the Greek translator that Origen entered in 240 CE as the
Greek, dittography happened in the beginning of the sentence but also was one
letter misread. Both the Greek and the Coptic read here they may sing like
singers instead of the consonantal text of the Masoretic
tradition reading of and not do they say. Such a dittography can
originate when the reader misread the word and then correct himself but the
listener who is copying the dictated piece does not realize that there was a
mistake followed by a correction. If this part in the original Hebrew manuscript
was very illegible then this phenomenon could explain this double entry of
mistaken letters. Both the Hebrew copier for the Greek of Origen 240 CE and the
Hebrew copier from this Hebrew copy for the Coptic copier did not have access
to the original Hebrew manuscript from which the reading was done (in our
estimation the same as the consonantal text of the Masoretic Tradition).
v4 The Coptic Tattam 1836 also read the variant in the same position as the
Greek of the time of Origen 240 CE. The Coptic translated in the heat of her
flame = qen pqmom nte pesSaH the Greek translated the heat from
the flame = κατακαυματος απο της φλογος. The Coptic retroversion back into
Hebrew here is: but the Greek retroversion into Hebrew is:
. What actually happened here is that the Hebrew reader pulled up
information that appear in verse 6 and attached it to verse 4 substituting the
phrase there with that of verse 6 on the basis of a similar Hebrew word
in the area of both verses. The Coptic misread a letter kaph as a beth.
v5 The Coptic Tattam 1836 read the same Hebrew manuscript as that which
resulted in the Greek of Origen's Hexapla in 240 CE. All the misreadings cannot
be dated earlier than Origen. Symmachus 170 CE and Theodotion 190 CE Field1875:
951 did not read these variants. They are reading the consonantal text of the
Masoretic tradition. The Coptic does not read exactly the same as the Greek.
Whereas the Greek read = the days = αι ημεραι the Coptic read =
in the days = qen nieHoou. Similar to the Greek of Origen's day
των βασιλεων υμων = your kings, the Coptic also read = your kings =
netenourwou. The misreading of the Hebrew by the Greek in the days of
Origen 240 CE for the last word = to the scorners as = to the
plagues is also shared by the Coptic Tattam 1836 as nem Haploimos.
v6 Coptic Tattam 1836 also reads the variants of the Greek of Origen 240 CE
they have heated and their hearts. Aquila 130 CE and Symmachus 170 CE did
not read these variants in their Greek translations. There is a difference between
the Coptic and Greek Hebrew retroversions:
Coptic text
Je ouhi aumoH nJe nouHht mfrhT nouqrir qen
pJinqrousaHoui aFsi nenkot nJe efrem mpieJwrH thrF
a Swrp Swpi aFmoH mfrhT noumoue nte ouxrwm.
Coptic Hebrew retroversion
Coptic English Translation

Because they have burnt their hearts like an oven in a curse is Ephraim filled
all night. When the morning comes he is inflamed like a light of a fire.
Greek English Translation
Because they have heated their hearts like an oven, in order to run them down,
all the night slept Ephraim. He is filled when the morning comes. He was heated
as a flaming fire.
Greek text
διοτι ανεκαυθησαν ως κλιβανος αι καρδιαι αυτων εν τῳ
καταρασσειν αυτους ολην την νυκτα υπνου εφραιμ
ενεπλησθη πρῳ εγενηθη ανεκαυθη ως πυρος φεγγος
Greek Hebrew retroversion
At the end of the verse the Coptic is reading the last two Hebrew words in
inverted order. This can happen in a number of ways: (1) copying by dictation
by another reader whereby the copyist have to rely on his memory, (2) copying
by memory after a session of memorization. This verse also supports the
conclusion that the Coptic was not done from the Greek. Besides the omission of
a letter in the Coptic there was also a different division of letters of the Semitic
text at the end than the Greek.
v7 If there was just a hint that harmonization took place between the beginning
of verse 6 and the beginning of verse 7 in the Greek of the time of Origen 240
CE then the Coptic Tattam 1836 has established this fact. The Coptic displays
that it has fully harmonized verses 6 and 7 whereas in the Greek the
harmonization is only in verse 6 (from verse 7 of course). This means that
words from verse 6 are used in 7 and words from verse 7 are used in 6. In the
Greek only words from verse 7 are used in verse 6 and not vice versa.
Verse 6 and 7 needs more explanation as far as the variants in the Coptic
Tattam 1836 are concerned. The first time that the variant of verse 6 they have
burnt or they have heated can be found is in the days of Origen in his Greek
240 CE. This variant was originally a moving of a phrase from verse 7 to verse
6 on the basis of similar words in both verses. Both the Coptic and Greek
consulted the same Hebrew text. It appears as if the Coptic text copied this
Hebrew text of the Greek from memory or by way of dictation and extra
variants can be found in the Coptic that are not in the Greek. In verse 7 there is
an addition by the Coptic of of their heart from verse 6. The first record in the
Greek traditions for this addition is in the fifth century CE in Codex
Alexandrinus. The translator of Codex Alexandrinus also took a word from verse
4 and introduce it with one from verse 6 in verse 7. The second time that one
can find this addition in the Greek traditions where their is a removal of the
word from verse 4 used by Codex Alexandrinus is in the sixth century in Codex
Marchalianus (Vat. gr. 2125). In the Coptic we also find this addition but rather
similar to Codex Marchalianus (with the word fire from verse 4 absent). There is
a very strong relationship between Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Marchalianus.
This is understandable since they are less than a century apart from each other.
Codex Alexandrinus harmonized information from different verses and felt the
right to move and add that information in phrases that looked similar. We are
suggesting that the translator of Codex Alexandrinus read the Greek translation
of Origen 240 CE very carefully in verse 6 and noticed that the "Septuagint"
took a word from verse 7 and introduced it in verse 6 and since Jesus used the
Septuagint in His sermons He sanctified not only the Greek translation but also
this modus operandi or method of translation and this gave him (the translator of
Codex Alexandrinus) authorization to continue harmonization in places where the
"Septuagint" did not. In the Coptic Tattam 1836 there is also an inversion of the
last two words in the Hebrew. This is not in the Greek traditions. This
phenomenon can be found in the Arabic Walton 1654. The Arabic also added of
their hearts in verse 7 similar to the Coptic and Codex Marchalianus but not
similar to Codex Alexandrinus. There is a very strong relationship between the
Coptic and Arabic in these two verses. At least the inversion of the two Hebrew
words at the end of verse 6 in the Coptic and Arabic link them to such an
extend that one has to ask the question: who came first, the chicken or the egg?
In previous verses we have established the fact that the Coptic translation was
done not from the Greek but from a semitic text that corresponds to the semitic
text that was used by the Greek translator of the days of Origen 240 CE. We
have also established the fact that the Coptic translation was not done from the
Arabic Walton 1654, in a number of other cases prior to this verse. These two
verses are the strongest connection so far between the Arabic and Coptic.
v8 The Coptic Tattam 1836 reads a number of variants in this verse and differs
largely from the Greek of the day of Origen 240 CE or later. Instead of nations
as the Hebrew original of the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition read,
the Coptic read (even contrary to the Greek) nation. Besides this variant, there is
also a case of dittography (double entry from ] [ ) = concealed , and
a mishearing of letters of the last word. The mishearing of a /b/ instead of a /p/
in this case is easier to understand rather than a misreading of these two letters.
Coptic retroversion into Hebrew:
v9 The Coptic Tattam 1836 shares with the Greek here the omission of the
translation of the = also in the consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition.
Instead of reading ke = also the Coptic read ouoH = and . This omission of
the word also can be found since the time of Origen 240 CE. It was translated
by Eusebius in 320 CE as ηδη = already (see Field 1875: 951).
v10 The Coptic Tattam 1836 misread the text in the beginning of this verse,
which was done by nearly all versions. Theodotion 190 CE was the first to
misread the Hebrew by omitting = pride and entering a misreading of
as a dittography = arrogance = υπερηφανια. His text read as
follows: = and he humbled the arrogance of I srael .
Origen in 240 CE presented an error due to mishearing/acoustic error from the
one dictating. He read which is a double reading of the
/h/, a misreading of the /g/ as an /r/ and the omission of the / aleph/ . It could
be that the presence of the guttural at the end of the first word and the /g/ in
the beginning of the next word were assimilated in the ear of the copyist.

Hosea 1 - 7

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Hosea 1 - 7

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hosea 1 - 7

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

English Translation of the Coptic Hosea 1-7

by koot van wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)

20. And I will espouse you to me in faith and you shall

consonantal text of Masoretes

Aquila 130 CE Retroversion into Hebrew

Misreading by Hebrew reader to the copyist of a Hebrew text for Symmachus by

Greek (Codex Alexandrinus) retroversion into Hebrew

Coptic Retroversion into Hebrew

Greek English Translation

Targum's English Translation

Syriac's English Translation

11. Et Ephrem erat, quasi columba insipiens, non habens

Greek Retroversion into Hebrew

Coptic English Translation

You might also like