Does God Hate Divorce? Malachi 2:16

I recently heard an interesting discussion about the contested text and meaning of the (in)famous Malachi 2:16 reading that "God hates divorce," so I wanted to take a closer look. 

כִּֽי־שָׂנֵ֣א שַׁלַּ֗ח אָמַ֤ר יְהוָה֙ אֱלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וְכִסָּ֤ה חָמָס֙ עַל־לְבוּשׁ֔וֹ אָמַ֖ר יְהוָ֣ה צְבָא֑וֹת וְנִשְׁמַרְתֶּ֥ם בְּרוּחֲכֶ֖ם וְלֹ֥א תִבְגֹּֽדוּ׃

For I hate (Cn: Heb he hates) divorce, says the LORD, the God of Israel, and covering one’s garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless. (NRSV)

כִּֽי־שָׂנֵ֣א שַׁלַּ֗ח MT ] כי אם שנתה שלח DSS-4Q76 ἀλλὰ ἐὰν μισήσας ἐξαποστείλῃς LXX cum odio habueris dimite V אֲרֵי אִם סְנֵית/סְנֵיתָ/סני את) לַה פַטרַה) T | > S | prb l שׂנאתִי BHS.

In this case, the MT is somewhat unclear and ambiguous. The verb seems to be third person and could perhaps be read as "he hates divorcing" (with God as implied subject) or even "he hates (and) divorces" (with the faithless one as implied subject). But in the grammatical context, there is no obvious third person masculine antecedent. The faithless one is addressed in the second person in the previous verse, but if this clause is quoted divine speech ("says the LORD"), we would probably expect the first person if God were the subject.

Because of the awkwardness of the MT, some have emended to שׂנאתִי (with BHS) to smooth out the grammar, yielding "I hate divorcing" (with God as subject). Alternatively, others have read the verb as a participle with implied first person pronoun, yielding "(I) am hating divorcing," with similar meaning. The Syriac Peshitta apparently just omitted the whole problematic text, which probably attests to the difficulty already in antiquity, long before our earliest Masoretic manuscripts. 

A serious textual alternative comes from the common second person reading of 4Q76 (4QXIIa), the LXX, Vulgate, and Targum Jonathan. The Hebrew grammar of 4Q76 is still awkward, but the idea can perhaps be rendered roughly as "if you hate (her), divorcing (her)" or "if you hate (her), (and you) divorce (her)" (faithless as subject). The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible translates it, "For if you hate and divorce." The LXX and Vulgate understand the text in the same way, with both verbs understood as something the faithless one is doing. NETS reads, "But if, since you hate her, you should send her away." The Targum situation is a bit complicated by the lack of a good critical edition, but seems to support the second person tradition of reading. Of the three variants I noted from the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon entry and Safaria, סְנֵיתָ and סני את are unambiguously second person "you hate." The reading סְנֵית could potentially be read as "I hate" or "you hate," depending on the dialect (I'd have to look into the grammar of Targum Jonathan more closely).

The agreement of all of these witnesses against MT is indeed impressive, but I admit I am very skeptical. It is easy for me to see how the second person readings could arise as exegetical clarifications of a difficult, ambiguous text. But it is very difficult for me to imagine anyone creating the MT text from the second person readings. Omission of אם seems less likely than grammatical facilitation. The reading שנתה also reflects a common, non-etymological orthography that is highly suspect. I suppose א and ת were easily confused in the old Hebrew script, but I'm still dubious that the MT can be derived reasonably from the other reading. It is worth pointing out that the LXX also translates the awkward third person jussive in וּבְאֵ֥שֶׁת נְעוּרֶ֖יךָ אַל־יִבְגֹּֽד "and against the wife of your youth let him not deal treacherously" at the end of v. 15 with the second person ἐγκαταλίπῃς, showing that the problem of referent actually starts in v. 15 and is clarified throughout by the LXX. Similarly, BHQ reads "The difficulty perceived in M is its apparent inconsistency with the provision for divorce in Deut 24:1. 4QXIIa follows the same tradition of Jewish exegesis as reflected in T (so also G and V), while S adopts the simpler expedient of omission." It is worth pointing out that both T and V use imperatives meaning, "if you hate (her), divorce her!" I'm not really convinced of that reading, as I don't think it fits the context and the third person forms elsewhere in the verse. But perhaps this too could be a rhetorical challenge, more than a literal command to divorce the wives.

If we reject the second person "you hate" reading as exegetical, the question remains what to do with the earlier MT. As I see it now, it doesn't make much sense to render it with God as the subject, because the grammar of the third person self-reference would be highly awkward: "(God) hates divorcing, says the LORD". On the other hand, the third person reference to the faithless one as subject shows good continuation from v. 15 (where the faithless one is commanded indirectly in the third person not to betray his wife), and the collocation of the terms שנא and שלח are more naturally read as the normal process of despising and divorcing one's wife (cf. Deut 24:3, where the two terms are used in the same order). The real problem is why the final part of verse 15 וּבְאֵ֥שֶׁת נְעוּרֶ֖יךָ אַל־יִבְגֹּֽד shifts person reference mid-clause. But Mal 2:16 itself doesn't seem that problematic to me, even if grammatically a bit awkward.

So does God hate divorce? Probably... I can't imagine any divorce is ever completely untainted by at least one party's sin, even if it's the least bad option available. But does Mal 2:16 explicitly state that? Probably not, at least in an absolute sense. Whether we follow the MT or the second person interpretive reading, the exegetical tradition and most plausible reading of the text seems resoundingly in favor of interpreting this(/these) act(s) of hating and divorcing as something the unfaithful one is doing (or at least potentially doing). That said, if the unfaithful ones who divorce their wives are said to betray them and wrap themselves with violence, it still seems pretty clear that God is no fan of unjust divorce. 

Transformations in Translation: Comparing Qumran Aramaic Job and Old Greek Job

I just saw a new book out by SBL Press that looks like a fascinating contribution:

Transformations in Translation: Comparing Qumran Aramaic Job and Old Greek Job

by Alun Morton Thomas

Blurb from the SBL website:

Using insights gleaned from translation studies, Alun Morton Thomas compares the earliest known Aramaic and Greek translations of the book of Job to explore how translators dealt with idiomatic and linguistic difficulties in translating the Hebrew text. Thomas demonstrates that many of the scribal techniques used in both the Qumran and Old Greek versions of Job resemble practices attested in other Second Temple Jewish texts. The scribal choices Thomas reveals provide insights into early interpretations of the book of Job which stem from the Second Temple period. The volume also delves into how earlier Aramaic and Greek translations relate to later translation attempts in these two languages. Transformations in Translation is a critical resource for scholars and students interested in some of the most difficult passages to translate from Hebrew.

Alun Morton Thomas completed his doctoral studies at Trinity College Dublin, where he was awarded a DAAD fellowship to conduct part of the research for this project at the University of Göttingen. He is currently a pastor in North Wales.

Multispectral Gaze: New Approaches to the Cotton Genesis

Medieval Art Research reports of a forthcoming conference on June 19 at the British Library. The Cotton Genesis is a fascinating example of a beautifully illuminated Septuagint manuscript that is of immense importance for art history, Greek paleography, and the history of the Greek text of the Bible.

From the conference website:

The Cotton Genesis (British Library, Cotton MS Otho B VI) is one of the greatest works of manuscript art to survive from late Antiquity and one of the most tragic casualties of the Cotton Library fire of 1731. New multispectral imaging completed at the British Library and sponsored by the Gina Goldhammer Foundation, has opened exciting opportunities for major breakthroughs in the study of this late-fifth-century artwork. Parts of the texts and illuminations of the Cotton Genesis, damaged in the fire and barely visible to the naked eye, can now be seen through a set of ultraviolet, infrared, and visible light images.

The interdisciplinary conference Multispectral Gaze: New Approaches to the Cotton Genesis aims to celebrate the completion of the digitisation campaign and the discoveries it can generate. By drawing on the manuscript’s multispectral images, leading specialists on late antique book production, art, palaeography, and collection history will provide new insights on the Cotton Genesis.

Program

9.30 – 10.00: Registration

10.00 – 10.10: Introduction

Elena Lichmanova and Emanuel Zingg

10.10 – 11.40: The Cotton Genesis in the Early Modern Period

Chair: Andrea Clarke, British Library

Tom Roebuck, University of East Anglia

The Cotton Genesis in Early Modern English Scholarship

Julian Harrison, British Library

Picture This: Early Reproductions of the Cotton Genesis

Raphaëlle Goyeau, British Library / University of East Anglia

The Lost Cottonian Binding of the Cotton Genesis

11.40 – 12.00 Coffee break

12.00 – 13.00 Text and Palaeography

Chair: Peter Tóth, Bodleian Library

Emanuel Zingg, CNRS, Sorbonne University

The Cotton Genesis’ Place in the History of Greek Palaeography

Reinhart Ceulemans, KU Leuven

The Biblical Text of the Cotton Genesis

13.00 – 14.00 Lunch break

14.00 – 15.30 Art of the Cotton Genesis

Chair: Scot McKendrick, British Library (retired)

Jaś Elsner, University of Oxford

The Cotton Genesis and Early Christian Art

Anne-Orange Poilpré, Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University

Visualizing Genesis: Image, Narrativity and Sacrality in the Early Middle Ages

Nancy Thebaut, University of Oxford

Looking Back at Lot in the Cotton Genesis

15.30 – 16.00 Coffee break

16.00 – 16.45 Key-note Lecture – Coactive Scrutiny: What the Cotton Genesis’ Vulgata Tituli Divulge about the San Marco Mosaics

Herbert Kessler, Johns Hopkins University

16.45 – 17.30 Drinks reception

Organisers:

Andrea Clarke (British Library), Elena Lichmanova (British Library), Emanuel Zingg (CNRS, Sorbonne University)

McGill Septuagint Virtual Seminar

McGill University's forthcoming The Septuagint in Modern Research Virtual Seminars include the following interesting seminars:

Monday, October 20 2025 | 15:00 BST with Felix Albrecht, on LXX Psalms

Monday, December 1 2025 | 15:00 GMT with Marieke Dhont, on the T&T Clark Handbook of Hellenistic Jewish Literature in Greek

Cox's Annotated Bibliography of Septuagint Research

I just became aware of Claude Cox's annotated bibliography of Septuagint research that he has posted online. It's a great starting point for getting into the Septuagint and finding key resources on various topics and books.

Sikes' Catalogue of Early Greek Psalms Fragments

Ryan Sikes has uploaded an updated version of his catalogue of early Greek Psalms fragments here. This is a very helpful resource with links to images and editions, which I use regularly.

Isaiah 9:6 and the Antiquity of the Masoretic Tradition

Today I was reading Isaiah 9:6 (Eng. v. 7) with some colleagues and came across a textual variant I had never noticed before.

5 וַיִּקְרָ֨א שְׁמ֜וֹ פֶּ֠לֶא 

יוֹעֵץ֙ אֵ֣ל גִּבּ֔וֹר אֲבִיעַ֖ד שַׂר־

שָׁלֽוֹם׃   6 לַם רַבָּה הַמִּשְׂרָ֜ה 

וּלְשָׁל֣וֹם אֵֽין־קֵ֗ץ 

and he is named Wonderful 

Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of 

Peace.  ⁷ His authority shall grow continually, 
and there shall be endless peace (NRSV)

In the Aleppo and Leningrad codices, the second letter of v. 6 is a final mem yielding לם רבה, whereas a Qere note in the margin (marked with קׄ) says to read למרבה as one word with a non-final mem.

Detail of Leningrad Codex. Photographer: Bruce E. Zuckerman.

My first instinct was to explain this away as a scribal error in the Aleppo codex I was reading from. This kind of confusion is common in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but I noted that it most commonly occurs on the archaic ־מו prefix (meaning "them") rather than in the middle of a word. A little more digging showed that the Leningrad codex has the same exact peculiarity, so this is certainly no accidental innovation in these manuscripts. 

In 1QIsa-a, the scribe does not use a distinct form of final mem, but does leave a space between למ and רבה. It is worth noting that the scribe does not always write a distinct final form, as is evident in the second detail below from just a few lines above our verse. Thus, it appears that our scribe here likely read למ רבה as two words rather than one.

Details of 1QIsa-a. © The Israel Museum.

Looking at the Septuagint, Ziegler reconstructs the Greek text as:

καὶ καλεῖται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Μεγάλης βουλῆς ἄγγελος·

ἐγὼ γὰρ ἄξω εἰρήνην ἐπὶ τοὺς ἄρχοντας, 

εἰρήνην καὶ ὑγίειαν αὐτῷ (some mss αυτων). 

^{(6) 7} μεγάλη ἡ ἀρχὴ αὐτοῦ, 

καὶ τῆς εἰρήνης αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν ὅριον

and he is named Messenger of Great Counsel, 

for I will bring peace upon the rulers, 

peace and health to him (some mss them). 

⁷⁽⁶⁾  His sovereignty is great, 

and his peace has no boundary (NETS)

For our verse, the Greek translator--who often translates rather freely--is clearly struggling to make sense of a difficult text, reading something like:

אבי(א) עד שר(ים) שלום (שלום ובורי/בריאות?) למ(ו) רבה המשרה

The extra "peace and health to him" may have been added by the translator for some reason, or it could have been a Hebrew reading known to him or at least supposed by him. Note the similarity between a conjenctured retroversion like שלום שלום ובורי and שלום למו רבה. If so, the translation could perhaps reflect a double translation of the Hebrew representing two possible readings of the difficult Hebrew text before him. Either way, the translation αὐτῷ μεγάλη seems to imply a source text that read לם רבה as two separate words.

Thus, the final mem in the medieval Masoretic codices is no accident, but an accurate record of a textual variant that can be traced back to the 2nd century BCE in 1QIsa-a and the LXX! The inherited reading tradition preferred to read למרבה as one word (cf. the similar noun form in Isa 33:23), a tradition which can be traced at least as far back as the 2nd century CE (see Theodotion's translation τω πληθυνειν την παιδειαν; so also το εβρʹ λεμαρβη αμμισρα according to Chrysostum). But for over 1000 years, some (not all) Jewish scribes faithfully copied the alternative text with two words לם רבה inherited from their exemplars. This variant then gives us a remarkable window into the deep roots of the (sometimes multiple and conflicting) readings embedded in the traditional Masoretic text in one of the most famous passages in all of the Hebrew Bible.

New Witnesses to Origen's Text of the Psalms

Felix Albrecht on the Göttingen Psalter Project's blog announces new identifications of catena manuscripts that attest to Origen's Septuagint text according to the Hexapla. Note well that this is the text (perhaps only lightly edited?) that Origen used for the LXX column in his Hexapla of the Psalms (Felix calls it the Origenic recension), not a heavily edited recension or thoroughgoing edition of the Psalms (which Felix calls a Hexaplaric recension). This new data is critical, since this Origenic text is not well preserved in the tradition but is often very close to the Old Greek. The new grouping suggested is: O = 1098(ο′)-1121-1209-Ga.

HT Ryan Sikes

Aitken Grinfield Lectures Online

I just saw that the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies has put Jim Aitken's 2021-2022 Grinfield Lectures online here. Jim gives a fascinating exploration of how the Septuagint fits within contemporary Egyptian Greek writing culture and the ramifications for Septuagint research. Highly recommended!

Text & Canon Institute Videos

Phoenix Seminary's Text & Canon Institute has uploaded video recordings of two lectures on the history of the OT text. These are aimed at a popular audience, but it is nice to see the speakers' take on the issues.

Peter Gentry, Chaos Theory and the Text of the Old Testament

Anthony Ferguson, Listening to the Dead Sea Scrolls

From Scribal Error to Rewriting: How Ancient Texts Could and Could Not Be Changed

I just received my editor's copies for our new volume!

Anneli Aejmelaeus, Drew Longacre, and Natia Mirotadze, eds. From Scribal Error to Rewriting: How Ancient Texts Could and Could Not Be Changed. De Septuaginta Investigationes 12. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2020.

For the contents and introduction see the free preview here.

How ancient texts could and could not be changed has been in the focus of vibrant scholarly discussions in recent years. The present volume offers contributions from a representative group of prominent scholars from different backgrounds and specialties in the areas of Classical and Biblical studies who were gathered at an interdisciplinary symposium held in May 2015 at the Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University in Tbilisi, Georgia. In the first part of the volume Ancient Scribal and Editorial Practices, the authors approach ancient scribal and editorial techniques in Greek, Latin, and Syriac sources concerning classical and biblical texts, their textual criticism, and editorial history. The second part Textual History of the Hebrew Bible focuses on scribal and editorial aspects of the textual history of the Hebrew Bible. The third part Writing and Rewriting in Translation deals with a variety of writings from the Old Testament, New Testament, Apocrypha, and Patristic texts in various languages (Greek, Coptic, Arabic, Armenian, and Georgian), focusing on issues of textual criticism and translation technique. The volume contains an especially rich assortment of contributions by Georgian textual scholars concerning ancient editorial practices and ancient Georgian translations of biblical and patristic texts. This collection of papers provides insights into a variety of different areas of study that seldom come into contact with each other but are clearly in many ways related.

Origen as Philologist Colloquium

John Meade announces that Phoenix Seminary's Text and Canon Institute will be hosting a colloquium on Origen as philologist on 18-19 November 2020. They have a great line-up of speakers presenting, so I'm sure it will be a very interesting conference. From their website:

About the Colloquium

Twenty five years after Oxford’s Rich Seminar sparked a renaissance of research on Origen’s Hexapla, the Phoenix Seminary Text & Canon Institute will host its first colloquium to explore Origen’s textual scholarship and its reception in late antiquity.

Origen of Alexandria moved to Caesarea around AD 230 and soon after began his work on the Hexapla or six-parallel-columned edition of the Old Testament. This edition inspired the preparation of subsequent scholarly editions of the Greek scriptures at the Caesarean Library that impacted the text and exegesis of the Scriptures in their Greek and Hebrew forms there and in other locales.

For its inaugural colloquium, the Text & Canon Institute is bringing together a group of international scholars to write this chapter of the Bible’s history.

Presenters & Topics

Alison Salvesen ※University of Oxford
“Symmachus at Caesarea: the Use and Reception of his Ekdosis by Caesarean Scholars”

Edmon L. Gallagher ※ Heritage Christian University
“The Hexapla in the Church according to Jerome”

Michael Graves ※ Wheaton College
“Jerome’s Epistle 106 and Origen’s Hexapla”

Bradley J. Marsh, Jr. ※ University of Oxford
“The ‘Afterlife’ of Hexaplaric Samaritan Readings”

Peter J. Gentry ※ The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
“History of Hexapla and Tetrapla from the Evidence of the Colophons”

Anna Kharanauli ※ Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University

“Grammarians at Work”

John D. Meade ※ Phoenix Seminary
“Late Fourth- and Early Fifth-Century Reception of the Caesarean Ekdoseis”

Matthew Miller ※ Classical School of Wichita
“The Caesarean Hebrew Text: Insights from the Asterisked Material in Codex Colbertinus-Sarravianus”

Francesca Schironi ※ University of Michigan
“Textual Scholarship in Hellenistic Alexandria (and beyond)”

Benjamin Kantor ※ University of Cambridge
“The Pre-Hexaplaric Secunda: Greek Transcriptions of the Hebrew Bible in Roman Caesarea”

Postdocs in Helsinki

Tuukka Kauhanen is calling for applications for postdocs to work on the ancient translations of the LXX of 2 Samuel here.

SBL Handbook of Style on Kaige

So apparently from now on it's just plain old kaige... FYI.

Interview with Natalio Fernández Marcos

William Ross has a nice interview with Natalio Fernández Marcos to commemorate LXX day 2017. :)

Marieke Dhont on LXX Manuscripts in the Vatican Library

Marieke Dhont has an interesting blog post on LXX manuscripts in the Vatican library that might be of interest!

LXX Summer School with Kristin De Troyer

Kristin De Troyer has announced her next LXX summer school in Salzburg. Highly recommended for anyone interested in learning textual criticism from one of the foremost experts in the field!

ON BIBLICAL

MANUSCRIPTS AND

THEIR USE IN BIBLICAL

STUDIES

Summer School in Salzburg,

Austria

Class schedule: Classes start on Monday July 3 at 9 am to Friday July 7, noon, with

sessions from 9-12 on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday and sessions

from 14 to 17 on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday.

Arrival on Sunday July 2, 2017 is recommended.

Prerequisites:

- USA/Canada: MA in Biblical Studies, Theological Studies or Religious Studies

or MDiv,

- UK/Australia/etc: an honours degree in Biblical, Theological or Religious

Studies,

- Any equivalent to the above mentioned options.

- Sufficient knowledge of Hebrew and Greek. !

Credits: 5 ECTS (= 2.5 US Sem credits)-6 ECTS (mit Arbeit oder Prüfung; with paper

and exam; = 3 US Sem credits)

Instruction language: English Fee: €100

Applications:

- Please send a letter of motivation, a transcript and a CV to Prof Kristin De

Troyer, FB Bibelwissenschaften & Kirchengeschichte, Theologische Fakultät,

Universitätsplatz 1, A-5020 Salzburg, Austria.

- Please indicate whether or not you would like us to book a room for you in Haus

St Benedikt (Toscaninihof 1, 5020 Salzburg; pp/pn: €60 for students; €75 for

Double room/ €90 for Single room).

- Application due date: April 15, 2016

- Accepted candidates will be informed before May 1, 2017

- A maximum of 10 students will be admitted. !

Accommodation:

- 10 rooms will be reserved for the participants at the Haus St Benedict (Sunday

evening to Friday noon, 5 nights). We strongly encourage participants to use this

facility as available accommodation during summertime in Salzburg is rare and

expensive.

- Participants are responsible for their accommodation and food (cash only). !

Where? Faculty of Theology, Universitätsplatz 1, 5020 Salzburg, Austria

Interview with Anneli Aejmelaeus

Helen Dixon has posted an interview with Anneli Aejmelaeus, recently retired professor and Septuagint specialist from the University of Helsinki. I had the pleasure of working with her for the past couple of years and greatly enjoyed my time in Helsinki.

LXX Scholar Interview: José Manuel Cañas Reíllo

Will Ross blogs with an interesting interview with José Manuel Cañas Reíllo, the editor of the Göttingen LXX edition of Judges. José gives an interesting window into the work of an editor and a sneak peak into the edition he anticipates to complete in 2020. Interestingly, he suggests it will be possible to produce a single main text of the book, rather than printing two parallel versions. Best of luck to José as he finishes the edition!

Genizah Research Newsletter

In the latest newsletter of the Genizah Research Institute, Stefan Reif reports on a conference on the Hebrew texts of Ben Sirah.

They also highlight a new book on Greek translations in Byzantine Judaism, which will be of interest to those interested in the Greek Bible:

Nicholas de Lange, Japheth in the Tents of Shem: Greek Bible Translations in Byzantine Judaism (Mohr Siebeck, 2015).