Introduction to the Text of Exodus 20:18

Exodus 20:18 stands at a crucial juncture in the Sinai narrative. Immediately following the delivery of the Ten Commandments, the verse describes Israel’s response to the theophany that accompanied God’s giving of the Law. The verse, as preserved in the Masoretic Text (MT), reads:

Exodus 20:18 (UASV):
“Now when all the people saw the thunder and the flashes of lightning and the sound of the trumpet and the mountain smoking, the people were afraid and trembled, and they stood at a distance.”

The textual variant of interest here concerns the Hebrew verb וַיַּ֤רְא (vayyareʾ, “and [they] saw”), preserved in the MT, in contrast with a different reading found in the Septuagint (LXX), Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), Syriac Peshitta (SYR), and Latin Vulgate (VG), which instead read “and the people were afraid.” This divergence raises questions of scribal transmission, translation technique, and interpretive tradition, requiring careful textual analysis.

---

Masoretic Text Reading: וַיַּרְא הָעָם (“And the People Saw”)

The Masoretic reading, וַיַּ֤רְא הָעָם֙ (vayyareʾ haʿam), is straightforward and well-attested in the medieval Hebrew textual tradition. The verb is qal imperfect with waw-consecutive of the root ראה (rʾh, “to see”), meaning “to see, to perceive.” The object of this verb is expanded in the subsequent clauses: the thunder, lightning, sound of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking. Thus, the MT presents the people as perceiving visually and auditorily the manifestations of God’s presence.

This reading corresponds with the Hebrew narrative style that frequently emphasizes sensory experiences in theophanic contexts. Earlier in Exodus 19:16–18, the description of thunder, lightning, thick cloud, trumpet blasts, smoke, and trembling of the mountain already established the terrifying setting. Exodus 20:18 continues this theme by recounting how the people witnessed these phenomena. In fact, the Hebrew idiom often uses “to see” in an extended sense of experiencing or perceiving, not merely visual observation. Therefore, “saw” in MT is not strictly limited to eyesight but encompasses perception of the entire sensory event.

---

Variant Reading: “And the People Were Afraid”

In contrast, the LXX, Samaritan Pentateuch, Syriac Peshitta, and Vulgate read “and the people were afraid.” The LXX renders: καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ἐφοβήθη (kai pas ho laos ephobēthē), “and all the people were afraid.” The Samaritan Pentateuch similarly adjusts the verb. The Syriac Peshitta has wedaḥlū ʿammā (“and the people were afraid”), and the Vulgate reads videns autem populus timuit (“but the people, seeing, feared”). In these witnesses, the action is not perception but immediate reaction—fear.

This suggests that either the translators and copyists read a different Hebrew Vorlage, or they interpreted and paraphrased the MT reading for clarity. The Hebrew verb וַיִּירָא (vayyiraʾ, “and [they] feared”), from the root ירא (yrʾ, “to fear”), differs only in consonantal form by the transposition of א (aleph) and ר (resh) compared to וַיַּרְא (vayyareʾ, “and [they] saw”). In unpointed Hebrew text, confusion between these two roots was possible, especially given the visual similarity of resh (ר) and aleph (א) in certain scripts. This provides a plausible explanation for the variant.

---

Scribal Considerations: Confusion Between וַיַּרְא and וַיִּירָא

The textual divergence most likely arises from orthographic and paleographic confusion:

1. Similarity of Letters: In early Hebrew scripts (paleo-Hebrew and early Aramaic forms), the letters א (aleph) and ר (resh) could be easily confused by a scribe. Thus, the original text וַיַּרְא (saw) may have been misread as וַיִּירָא (feared), or vice versa.

2. Contextual Influence: Because the following clause explicitly states that the people were “afraid and trembled” (וַיִּירְאוּ וַיָּנֻעוּ), a scribe or translator may have harmonized the opening verb to match the emotional reaction described. This tendency toward scribal harmonization is well-documented across biblical manuscripts.

3. Translation Philosophy: The LXX translators sometimes smoothed difficult or unusual Hebrew expressions, especially where the idiomatic sense of “seeing thunder and lightning” might appear awkward in Greek. They may have chosen to render it as “feared” to emphasize the reaction rather than the perception.

---

Internal Evidence: Which Reading Best Explains the Others?

The principle of textual criticism that “the more difficult reading is to be preferred” (lectio difficilior potior) applies here. The MT’s reading, “and the people saw,” is more challenging because it seems redundant—why repeat that they “saw” when the emphasis of the context is their fear? By contrast, the versions (LXX, SP, SYR, VG) read more smoothly: “and the people feared,” which aligns directly with the following statement, “and the people were afraid and trembled.”

This suggests that the MT’s “saw” is more likely original, while the variant arose through either scribal misreading or interpretive harmonization. The MT preserves a vivid idiom, emphasizing sensory perception, while the versions simplify to emphasize emotional response.

---

Broader Contextual Support in Exodus

The MT’s reading also fits the broader context of Exodus. In Exodus 19:16, the people saw the lightning and heard the thunder, which caused them to tremble. In Exodus 20:18, the continuation “all the people saw the thunder and the flashes of lightning” naturally follows this narrative pattern. The emphasis is on the people’s direct sensory experience of the theophany. Only after this perception does the narrative describe their fear and trembling.

By contrast, the LXX’s reading conflates the perception with the reaction, which could be seen as a secondary interpretation. The Hebrew author, however, appears to deliberately separate these stages: first sensory observation, then emotional reaction.

---

Witness of the Dead Sea Scrolls

The Dead Sea Scrolls provide important confirmation or challenges to MT readings. Unfortunately, Exodus 20:18 is not fully extant in the surviving Qumran fragments of Exodus. However, the pattern in the scrolls generally confirms the reliability of the MT wording over against secondary harmonizations. Where the MT preserves unusual or difficult expressions, Qumran often supports MT rather than the smoother readings found in later versions. This strengthens the case for retaining וַיַּרְא (saw) as original.

---

Evaluation of the Variant Readings

The following points summarize the evaluation:

1. Masoretic Text (וַיַּרְא, “saw”):
   The harder reading, idiomatically consistent with Hebrew usage of “to see” as “to perceive,” well-suited to the Exodus context, likely original.

2. LXX, SP, SYR, VG (“feared”):
   Smoother, harmonized reading, probably derived from scribal or translational confusion between ר (resh) and א (aleph), or an intentional clarification by translators.

3. Textual Transmission:
   The MT preserves a more primitive form of the text, while the versions reflect interpretive adaptations.

---

Theological and Literary Implications

The distinction between “saw” and “feared” is subtle but meaningful. The MT underscores the people’s direct perception of God’s presence. They did not merely imagine or hear secondhand reports; they experienced the thunder, lightning, trumpet blast, and smoke firsthand. Their fear was not abstract but grounded in what they tangibly perceived. Thus, the MT highlights both the objectivity of the theophany and the natural human response of terror.

By contrast, the versions shift the focus directly to the people’s fear, bypassing the vivid description of their sensory perception. This diminishes the layered structure of the verse, which first establishes perception, then describes emotional response.

---

Conclusion on the Text of Exodus 20:18

The weight of evidence supports the MT reading וַיַּרְא הָעָם (“and the people saw”) as the original text of Exodus 20:18. The alternative reading “and the people were afraid,” though found in multiple versions (LXX, SP, SYR, VG), is best explained as a secondary development through either scribal error or interpretive translation. The MT preserves the more difficult yet contextually coherent wording, emphasizing the people’s direct perception of the divine manifestations at Sinai before describing their fear and trembling.

This case study illustrates the careful balance in textual criticism: respecting the overwhelming preservation of the Hebrew Masoretic tradition while judiciously consulting other ancient witnesses. The MT’s reliability is once again affirmed, while the variants shed light on how later scribes and translators sought to clarify, harmonize, or simplify the text.

You May Also Enjoy

Rahlfs’ 1935 Septuagint Edition: Textual Foundations, Methodology, and Scholarly Evaluation

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS