Collected Studies on the Septuagint: From Language to Interpretation and Beyond 3161517334, 9783161517334, 9783161578250

Citation preview

Forschungen zum Alten Testament Edited by Bernd Janowski (Tübingen) • Mark S. Smith (New York) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen)

83

ARTIBUS

Jan Joosten

Collected Studies on the Septuagint From Language to Interpretation and Beyond

Mohr Siebeck

JAN JOOSTEN: B o r n 1959; 1989 P h D f r o m H e b r e w University, Jerusalem; since 1994 Professor at the Faculty of Protestant Theology of the University of Strasbourg, also directs the G r o u p e de R e c h e r c h e s sur la Septante; since 2012 President of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies.

ISBN 978-3-16-151733-4 ISSN 0940-4155 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament) D i e D e u t s c h e Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the D e u t s c h e Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic d a t a are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

978-3-16-157825-0 Unveränderte eBook-Ausgabe 2019 © 2012 by M o h r Siebeck Tübingen, Germany, www.mohr.de This book may not be r e p r o d u c e d , in whole or in part, in any f o r m (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher's written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The b o o k was printed by G u i d e - D r u c k in T ü b i n g e n on non-aging p a p e r and b o u n d by Buchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

Foreword The so-called Septuagint, for a long time regarded merely as an ancient version (although the most important one) of the Hebrew Bible, has, over the last thirty years or so, emerged as an important corpus to be studied in its own right. This development is perhaps only partially perceived among biblical scholars specializing in Old Testament/Hebrew Bible or New Testament. Combined with the impetus given by the Dead Sea Scrolls, it is bringing about a profound change in the study of early Jewish and Christian Scripture: writings that had been marginal for a long time are taking center stage, long-standing theories disintegrate, and new continuities come to light. The articles collected in the present volume seek to contribute to the study of the Septuagint in the framework of this new approach. Although some of the studies are relevant to textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible, all of them focus on properties of the Greek texts themselves. What characterizes these studies, in the concert of recent Septuagint research, is their special attention to linguistic details. Typically, they take their point of departure in the observation of one or other curious philological phenomenon, for which an explanation is suggested that simultaneously sheds light on wider questions of interpretation, history, or theology. Two studies address questions of "translation technique" as defined by the Finnish School (IImari Soisalon-Soininen and his students): the variation in Greek renderings of specific Hebrew constructions. A dossier of as much as seven studies deals with different aspects of the question of the knowledge of Hebrew of the Septuagint translators. The "Seventy" knew Hebrew well, but the Hebrew they knew was not the classical language of the biblical authors, but a post-biblical variety somewhat akin to - although distinct from - Qumran Hebrew. Four studies analyse the process of interpretation: a complex one involving many steps. The article on "Exegesis in the Septuagint Version of Hosea" tries to draw up an inventory of factors that come into play, while the other articles pursue individual issues relevant to the question. Finally, four studies explore questions of historical milieu. Stylistic peculiarities and translational techniques may in certain cases throw light on the identity of the translators and on the project they were engaged in.

VI

Foreword

Most of the studies are by-products either of the graduate seminar on the Septuagint taught yearly at the Protestant Faculty of the University of Strasbourg since 1994, or of the research done in preparation of the volume on Hosea in the series La Bible d'Alexandrie (published in 2002). All but one of them were published in diverse journals and collective works between 1996 and 2008. A few mistakes have been silently corrected, but no effort has been made to update them in the light of more recent research, nor to harmonize them with one another. The one unpublished paper, on "Divine Omniscience and the Theology of the Septuagint", was presented at the conference of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies in Basel, in 2001, the proceedings of which never materialized. Thanks are due to my colleague, Eberhard Bons, and to other members of the research group on the Septuagint in Strasbourg, notably Philippe Le Moigne. Dr. Henning Ziebritzki of Mohr Siebeck suggested the idea of the present collection. I am much indebted also to my research assistant, Phoebe Woods, who translated the article on "IDfl, 'Benevolence', and 'Pity'" from French into English, and prepared the entire volume for publication. Funds for the publication were made available by the Institut Universitaire de France and by the Equipe d'Accueil 4378. Strasbourg, May 2012

Jan Joosten

Contents Foreword

V

List of Abbreviations

IX

Translation Technique Elaborate Similes - Hebrew and Greek. A Study in Septuagint Translation Technique A Septuagintal Translation Technique in the Minor Prophets. The Elimination of Verbal Repetitions

3

15

The Translators' Knowledge of Hebrew On the Septuagint Translators' Knowledge of Hebrew

25

The Knowledge and Practice of Hebrew in the Hellenistic Period. Qumran and the Septuagint

37

On Aramaizing Renderings in the Septuagint

53

Biblical Hebrew as Mirrored in the Septuagint. The Question of Influence from Spoken Hebrew

67

Source-Language Oriented Remarks on the Lexicography of the Greek Versions of the Bible

81

70n, "Benevolence", and e/xoq, "Pity". Reflections on Their Lexical Equivalence in the Septuagint

97

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint in Mutual Illumination

113

VIII

Contents

Interpretation Exegesis in the Septuagint Version of Hosea

123

The Impact of the Septuagint Pentateuch on the Greek Psalms

147

To See God. Conflicting Exegetical Tendencies in the Septuagint

157

Divine Omniscience and the Theology of the Septuagint

171

Historical Milieu Language as Symptom. Linguistic Clues to the Social Background of the Seventy

185

The Original Language and Historical Milieu of the Book of Judith

195

The Septuagint as a Source of Information on Egyptian Aramaic in the Hellenistic Period

211

Reflections on the 'Interlinear Paradigm' in Septuagintal Studies

225

Acknowledgments

241

Index of Selected Passages

243

List of Abbreviations AASF AB AbrNSup AnBib BBB BDB

BETL BHK BHS BIOSCS BSFE BZAW CBET CBOT CBQ CBQMS CCL CRB CRINT DJD DNWSI DSD GCS GKC HAL HAT HBS IE] JBL JJS JSJ JSJSup JSNTSup

Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae Anchor Bible Abr-Nahrain. Supplement Series Analecta Biblica Bonner biblische Beiträge F. Brown, S. R. Driver, C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament: With an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic (Oxford 1907; repr. 1972) Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium Biblia Hebraica. Ed. R. KITTEL Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Bulletin de la Société Française d 'Egyptologie Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology Coniectanea biblica. Old Testament Series Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly. Monograph Series Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina Revue biblique. Cahiers Compendia rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Discoveries in the Judaean Desert B. JONGELING, J. HOFTIJZER, Dictionary of North-West Semitic Inscriptions (2 vols.; Handbuch der Orientalistik 1/21; Leiden 1995) Dead Sea Discoveries Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte A. E. COWLEY (ed.), Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar: As Edited and Enlarged by the Late E. Kautzsch, Oxford 1910 2 (repr. Oxford 1990) L. KÖHLER, W. BAUMGARTNER, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (5 vols.; Leiden 1994-2000) Handbuch zum Alten Testament Herders biblische Studien Israel Exploration Journal Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Jewish Studies Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of the New Testament. Supplement series

X JTS KAT KBL3 KJV LHB/OTS LSJ LXX MGWJ MSU MT

NBG NETS

NIV NRSV OBO OLA OTS PAAJR PG RAC RB RQ RSV SBLDS SCS SJOT SSLL STDJ TAD TSAJ TWAT TWNT UUÂ VT VTSup WUNT ZAW ZDPV

List of

Abbreviations

Journal of Theological Studies K o m m e n t a r z u m Alten Testament L . KÖHLER, W . BAUMGARTNER, Hebräisches

und

aramäisches

Lexikon zum Alten Testament (2 vols.; Leiden 1 9 6 7 - 1 9 9 6 3 ) King J a m e s Version Library of H e b r e w Bible/Old T e s t a m e n t Studies H . G . LIDDELL, R . SCOTT, H . S. JONES, A Greek-English

Lexicon

(9th ed. with revised supplement; O x f o r d 1996) Septuagint Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens der A k a d e m i e der W i s s e n s c h a f t e n in Göttingen Massoretic Text N i e u w e Bijbelvertaling A. PLETERSMA, B. G. WRIGHT (eds.), A New English Translation of the Septuagint: And the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title ( O x f o r d & N e w York 2007) N e w International Version N e w Revised Standard Version Orbus biblicus et orientalis Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta O u d t e s t a m e n t i s c h e studiën/Old Testament Studies Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research J.-P. MlGNE (ed.), Patrologia G r a e c a [Patrologiae cursus completus: Series graeca] (162 vols.; Paris 1 8 5 7 - 1 8 8 6 ) T. KLAUSER (ed.), Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum (Stuttgart 1950ff) Revue biblique Revue de Qumran Revised Standard Version Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Septuagint and C o g n a t e Studies Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics Studies on the T e x t s of the Desert of J u d a h B. PORTEN, A. YARDENI, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt (4 vols.; W i n o n a Lake 1 9 8 6 - 1 9 9 9 ) Texte und Studien zum Antiken J u d e n t u m / T e x t s and Studies in Ancient J u d a i s m H.-J. FABRY, H. RINGGREN (eds.), Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament (10 vols.; Stuttgart et al. 1 9 7 3 - 2 0 0 0 ) G. KITTEL, G. FRIEDRICH (eds.), Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (10 vols.; Stuttgart et al. 1 9 3 3 - 1 9 7 9 ) Uppsala Universitets Arsskrift Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum. Supplements W i s s e n s c h a f t l i c h e U n t e r s u c h u n g e n zum N e u e n Testament Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins

Translation Technique

Elaborate Similes - Hebrew and Greek A Study in Septuagint Translation Technique The imaginative, and down-to-earth, language of the Old Testament abounds in illustrations and comparisons of all sorts. In poetry, in particular, and in the record of direct speech, but occasionally also in narrative, the author will drive home a point, enliven the discourse or simply embellish the style by bringing a comparison from nature or from day-to-day life. A very frequent figure of speech may be termed the elaborate simile; it is defined here as a quasi-proverbial comparison expressed by a complete sentence. This definition seeks to exclude simple similes of the type "the LORD goes forth like a hero" (Isa 42:13) on the one hand, and comparisons with concrete events or circumstances as in "As I have done, so God has requited me" (Judg 1:7) or in "If we be circumcised as they are circumcised" (Gen 34:22) on the other. Elaborate similes tend to be expressed by specific syntactic structures. Thus they make up an interesting corpus for studying a cross-section, as it were, of the Septuagint's translation technique. 1 This study is an attempt to treat the way this figure of speech was translated from Hebrew into Greek. The focus is primarily on the translational process, while the implications for the relative and absolute chronology of the Septuagint will merely be touched upon. The investigation will be limited to the books of the Hebrew canon and their Greek translations.

1. Hebrew Since the syntax of elaborate similes is not treated as such in the existing grammars, 2 and since a precise analysis of the Hebrew is of obvious rel1

The impetus for the present study was given by the remarkable nature of the optatives in similes occurring in a score of passages in the Septuagint (see below). For an adequate evaluation of this phenomenon, the entire problem of the syntactic structure of elaborate similes, in Hebrew and in Greek, had to be taken up. 2 In all the grammars consulted, similes were thrown together with other comparative clauses. Moreover, in most grammars the description of these clauses is not complete. In

4

Translation

Technique

evance for the understanding of the translational process, our treatment of the Septuagint will be prefaced by a brief section on the grammatical possibilities of the source text. 3 1.1. Type 1: kaiser

+ yiqtol

The most straightforward way of expressing an elaborate simile in Biblical Hebrew is by means of the relative particle ®ser prefixed by the preposition ke. T h e composite particle is immediately followed by the verb in the imperfect expressing repetition or habit. 4 Example: Deut 28:29

nVsxa -ran bw» 1

n n n x n aw»» r r m

" A n d you shall g r o p e at n o o n d a y , as the b l i n d g r o p e in d a r k n e s s . " 5

This type of syntax allows for a certain amount of variation: the verb occurring in the simile may be identical to the main verb or it may be different; the subject in the simile may be named explicitly or it may be expressed only by the third person verbal form used impersonally; to the first verb of the simile further verbal forms may be added (see in particular Isa 55:10); the main clause may or may not be introduced by the correlative ken; the simile may occur before or after the main clause. The following is a fairly exhaustive list of cases employing the syntax described in this section: Exod 33:11; N u m 11:12; Deut 1:31, 44; 8:5; 22:26; 28:29, 49; Judg 7:5; 16:9; 1 Sam 26:20; 2 Sam 16:23; 17:12; 19:4; 1 Kgs 14:10; 2 Kgs 21:13; Isa 9:2; 25:11; 29:8; 31:4; 55:10; 65:8; 66:20; Jer 13:11; 43:12; A m o s 2:13; 3:12; 5:19; 9:9; Mai 3:17. 1.2. Type 2: ke + Infinitive

Construct

Elaborate similes may also be expressed by means of the infinitive construct preceded by the preposition ke. Example: N u m 22:4

pi 1 m ns?n in^D irnTao-bo-nx Vnpn •DriV' nriy " T h i s h o r d e will n o w lick u p all that is r o u n d a b o u t us, as the ox licks up the g r a s s of the field." spite of its b r i e f n e s s , the treatment in J o ü o n ' s g r a m m a r - both in its original F r e n c h edition and in the E n g l i s h r e v i s i o n b y T. M u r a o k a - is m o r e e x h a u s t i v e than most, see P. JOÜON, T. MURAOKA, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew ( R o m a 1991) § 174. See also E. JENNI, Die hebräischen Präpositionen, B a n d 2: Die Präposition Kaph (Stuttgart 1994) 8 8 - 9 6 . 3 T h e f o c u s of interest is on the c o m m o n f u n c t i o n of the d i f f e r e n t c o n s t r u c t i o n s disc u s s e d in the f o l l o w i n g sections. N u a n c e s of e x p r e s s i o n m i g h t well exist, but t h e s e m u s t b e left for f u r t h e r investigation. See, h o w e v e r , n. 9. 4

N o t e that this type of syntax is not limited to similes. T h e E n g l i s h t r a n s l a t i o n s f o l l o w the R S V (1952), e x c e p t w h e r e it was n e c e s s a r y to stress a certain syntactic point. 5

Elaborate Similes - Hebrew and Greek

5

This construction shows the same versatility as the previous one. Indeed, there seems to be very little functional difference between the two types of syntax. T h e following examples have come to my attention: Gen 33:10; N u m 22:4; Judg 14:6; 2 Sam 3:34; 6:20; Isa 5:24; 7:2; 10:14, 15; 17:5, 12; 19:14; 25:10; 34:4; 64:1; Jer 5:26; 6:7; Ezek 23:44; 26:3; Zech 13:9; Ps 66:10; 68:3; 103:11, 13; Job 2:10; 5:26; 10:4; 13:9; Prov 7:23; 26:8. 1.3. Type 3: k'' + Noun + Asyndetic Relative

Clause

A third type of syntax employed to express elaborate similes is limited to poetic texts. 6 It consists of the preposition ke,7 followed by a noun - as in simple similes - to which an asyndetic relative clause has been added. 8 Example: Ps 42:2

rrnVK "i^x r w n ^ D ] p rra-v^N"1?*? nyri y>*o

"As a hart longs for flowing streams, so longs my soul for you, O God."

Again, this type of syntax does not seem to express a different meaning f r o m the types discussed above. 9 T h e examples are: Deut 32:11; Isa 53:7; 61:10, 11; 62:1; Jer 23:29; 48:28; Hos 6:3; 11:10; H a b 2 : 1 4 ; Ps 17:12; 42:2; 58:5; 83:15; 90:5; 125:1; Prov 7:22; Job 7:2 (twice); 9:26; 24:24; 32:19 (twice). 1 0 1.4. Type 4: Simple

Juxtaposition

In the sententious poetry typical of Israelite wisdom, elaborate similes are often not marked as such in any specific way. The mere juxtaposition of a well-known p h e n o m e n o n with a new observation indicates that the first functions as a simile illustrating the second. Example: Prov 26:14

inaa-17S7 ^ssn nTX-1?» mon nVin "As a door turns on its hinges, so does a sluggard on his bed."

6 The limitation to poetic texts is a simple corollary of the fact that asyndetic relative clauses are almost wholly restricted to poetry. 7 The opinion has been expressed that in this type of syntax the preposition functions as a conjunction. As is remarked by JOUON, MURAOKA, Grammar, § 174, this explanation is contradicted by the fact that kf is always prefixed to the noun and never to the verbal form. The traditional analysis of these cases is therefore preferable. 8 This type of syntax is found in Ugaritic, see, e.g. Keret I, 103f (and parallels) k'rby tskn sd, "... as locusts settle on a field". 9 In a few cases the focus of the comparison is on the noun, and not, as in Types 1 and 2, on the action expressed by the verb, see Isa 62:1; Jer 23:29; 48:28; Ps 58:5. In the other cases, however, the comparison bears on the action, exactly like in the other types. 10 Cf. Ps 58:5b where instead of k", we find k'mo.

6

Translation

Technique

In both ancient and modern translations these implicit similes are often explicitly rendered as such. However, since in Hebrew they are not marked in a clear way, identifying these cases sometimes involves a measure of subjectivity. They have not been collected exhaustively for this study. See however the following examples: Jer 17:11; Prov 26:7, 9; Job 5:7; 7:9; 24:19. 1.5. Other

Constructions

Finally, a small number of similes are expressed by constructions which seem to be limited to one or two examples. Twice the simile is introduced by the conjunction ki (Isa 55:9; 62:5). It is possible, however, that we should emend the text in these verses to read ke + infinitive construct (cf. Type 2). 11 An altogether peculiar construction is found in the following case: Isa 11:9 ,1 CPODQ D 7 D'BD m i T T l X HSH p X H n x ' W ' O "For the earth shall be full of the k n o w l e d g e of the LORD as the waters cover the see." 1 2

2. Greek Turning toward the Greek renderings of elaborate similes, we should at once be aware that the syntactic structure of the Greek language is very different from that of Hebrew. To begin with, tbq, the natural equivalent of ke, is not a preposition but a relative adverb etymologically related to og. If it is followed by a noun, the noun will be in whatever case is required by the grammar of the clause. Moreover, as an adverb, it may in principle precede a finite verbal form. Secondly, the way the infinitive construct is used in Hebrew Type 2 was practically impossible to imitate in Greek. 1 3 And finally, Greek has no construction comparable to the Hebrew asyndetic relative clause. As a result, the Greek renderings generally show a certain disregard for the variety of Hebrew constructions: the translators simply attempted to render accurately the sense of the source text. 14

11

For Isa 62:5, l Q I s a 3 actually supports this conjecture. T h e same picture is expressed by T y p e 3 in H a b 2:14. 13 T o be sure, the infinitive has greatly expanded its f u n c t i o n s in Septuagint Greek in comparison with classical Greek. E v e n so, the Greek infinitive never b e c o m e s quite as versatile as its H e b r e w counterpart. 14 In a n u m b e r of cases the Massoretic Text has an elaborate simile which is not rendered as such by the Septuagint: Deut 28:49; Isa 10:14; 25:11; 53:7; 61:10; Jer 5:26; Hos 6:3; H a b 2:14; Ps 125:1; Prov 26:8; J o b 2:10; 9:26. 12

Elaborate

Similes - Hebrew and Greek

1

On the other hand, Greek itself turns out to possess quite a variety of means to express elaborate similes. The different types will be classified below according to their main feature, the type of verbal form they contain. 15 Optativus

2.1.

in

Simili

A first possibility for rendering an elaborate simile is by means of the relative adverb d»g introducing a clause with the optative, 16 usually in the aorist. 17 This type of syntax is found in Classical Greek starting with Homer. 18 The examples from the Septuagint seem to be the last attestations of a dying usage. 19 Example, with simple (be;: N u m 22:4 vuv EK^Ei^Ei f) (juvaytoyf) avtr] navxaq xoix; KUKXCI) rjuwv (oq ¿LCASI^ai o (IOOXO.axr|v meaning "to kill" cf. 3 Kgds 19:10, 14; Jonah 4:3. It is also possible to take the third person plural as impersonal, as is done in the patristic commentaries to this verse (cf. also the addition of >.aoi or äXkoi in certain manuscripts). 5 Note that the translator did take account of the context, i.e. in rendering with ev. 6 Cf. J. JOOSTEN, "Exegesis in the Septuagint Version of Hosea", in J. C. DE MOOR (ed.), Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel (OTS 40; Leiden 1998) 62-85, in particular 6 5 - 6 6 (see below, 123-145, esp. 126-128. 7 The shift can clearly be observed in the correspondence of late biblical and post-biblical ntffN Nlffl to classical ntt>N np 1 ?, cf. S. R. DRIVER, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (Gloucester 1972; repr. of 1897) 455. 8 See in particular 1 Kgs 19:10. 9 Cf. Z. FRANKEL, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta (Leipzig 1841) 201-203. 10 Cf. A. KAMINKA, Studien zur Septuaginta an der Hand der zwölf kleinen Prophetenbücher (Schriften der Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaft des Judentums 33; Frankfurt a.M. 1928) 38-42. 4

On the Septuagint Translators'

Knowledge of Hebrew

27

I. L. Seeligmann," and E. Tov, 1 2 to name only the most important, 1 3 have mentioned the phenomenon and provided examples. Yet their remarks are scant and some of the examples unconvincing. 1 4 Many questions raised by the phenomenon remain without answer. 1 5 It seemed advisable, therefore, to subject the question to further research. 1 6 The intention of this paper is no other than to present a few exploratory reflections.

1. Criteria for Establishing Late Hebrew Interference Finding good examples of Post-Biblical Hebrew influence on the Septuagint translators is not easy. The publications mentioned above typically provide two or three instances only (some of which have to be discounted). Even more crucial, however, than the heuristic aspect is the methodological one. When a promising example has been identified - in the literature or in the course of synoptic reading or concordance work - how can one be certain that it is a good one? Conclusive proof that a given rendering in the Greek is due to the translators' being influenced by Post-Biblical Hebrew will usually be unattainable: what was in the mind of the translators when they interpreted the Hebrew in a given way cannot be recovered with certainty. Nevertheless, a set of criteria allows for a reasonable degree of " Cf. 1. L. SEELIGMANN, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of its Problems (Leiden 1948) 4 9 - 5 0 ; idem, "Problems and Perspectives in Modern Septuagint Research", Textus 15 (1990) 169-232 (ET of an article originally published in Dutch in 1940), in particular 203-209. 12 Cf. E. T o v , The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (Jerusalem 1981) 241 (n. 27); idem, "The Septuagint", in M. J. MULDER (ed.), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Assen & Maastricht 1988) 161-188, in particular 170. 13 Note also J. BLAU, "Zum Hebräisch der Übersetzer des AT", VT 6 (1956) 9 8 - 1 0 0 ; J. MARGAIN, "La Septante comme témoin de l'hébreu post-exilique et michnique", in F. BRIQUEL-CHATONNET (éd.), Mosaïque de langues, mosaïque culturelle: Le bilinguisme dans le Proche-Orient ancien (Paris 1996) 191-197. 14 See below nn. 19-21. 15 Note the brief remark in T o v , Text-critical Use, 241 (n. 27): "... the topic must be treated more fully". 16 After reading my paper in Oslo, one of the participants, Mr. Alexis Leonas, informed me that he had devoted part of his master's thesis to the problem at hand; A. LEONAS, The Septuagint: Some Aspects of Translation Technique in Historical Perspective (unpublished M. Phil, thesis, Oxford 1994) 18-69; "The Hebrew of the Translators" (I take this occasion to express my gratitude to Mr. Leonas for sending me a copy of this chapter). Although this study lacks rigour in the selection of examples (out of 41 examples only three pass muster: ""pn, "HD, UWS, cf. below in the appendix), it contains many valuable observations some of which anticipate and prolong thoughts formulated in the present paper.

28

The Translators'

Knowledge of Hebrew

certainty to be reached. Arguing that a Late Hebrew element is at the back of a given Greek equivalent requires: - firstly, that the Hebrew element invoked correspond exactly to what is written in the Massoretic Text (at least with regard to the consonants); 17 - secondly, that the meaning of that Late Hebrew element correspond exactly to the meaning of the Greek equivalent in question; - and thirdly, that the latter meaning be quite distinct from the earlier meaning in the Massoretic Text. Let us consider an example: Ezek 28:12

^ ^ s i n»Dn x1?» nron nmn nnx "You were the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty."

crii cMtoocppdyiana onoiwascoi; KOX oretpavog KaM-oug "You are a seal of resemblance and crown of beauty."

Whereas in Biblical Hebrew always has the meaning "entire, whole" (hence the rendering "perfect in beauty" in the RSV), the translator seems to have taken the word as "crown", attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in rabbinical texts. 18 Now, it is certainly possible to call this affirmation into doubt. One cannot be certain that the Vorlage of our translator was identical with the Massoretic Text (note that two words are missing in the Septuagint, which tends to show that the Vorlage was not identical). Perhaps his text carried, instead of a different word, say 11101?, or i n s both meaning "crown". Or perhaps his text was poorly legible and he made out "IDD instead of what was written. Or possibly he did read but failing to understand the word, guessed and hit upon the meaning "crown" which seemed to fit the context. None of these alternative hypotheses can be absolutely discounted. And yet, as I would argue, the fact that (a) a Post-Biblical Hebrew word i7lI7D is attested with (b) exactly the meaning reflected by the Greek which (c) is quite different from the meaning of biblical ,?,173 makes the claim of Late Hebrew influence on the translator a very strong one. At times other considerations may confirm the approach. If the same Biblical Hebrew word is rendered after Post-Biblical Hebrew in more than one passage this tends to strengthen the case. The rendering oTecpavoq for is found also in Lam 2:15, showing that aT£(pavo) although an adversa32

Cf. S A E N Z - B A D I L L O S , History. It has been noted by Tov (following Seeligmann) that some words unattested in Post-Biblical Hebrew appear to be unknown to the Septuagint translators, cf. Tov, "The Septuagint", 170. 33

34

The Translators'

Knowledge of Hebrew

tive particle could certainly have been used (cf. RSV "No, but")- Secondly, the "classical" interpretation occurs once as the - pseudo-correct - equivalent of late "but", in Dan 10:21 LXX, kcu ^idla, "verily" (Theodotion, correctly, aXk' fi, "but"). Since the Septuagint rendering cannot be ascribed to the context, it seems to indicate that the translator held biblical to mean "verily, indeed", as distinct from contemporary "73N which to all appearances had an adversative meaning only. Cases like this - and several more could be listed 34 - show that the translators did distinguish Biblical Hebrew from the living Hebrew of their day. Two opposing tendencies are to be recognized: Post-Classical Hebrew noticeably interferes with the translation, while at the same time the translators show clear awareness of the distinct linguistic nature of their Vorlage. The solution to this paradox must again be sought in the history of the Hebrew language. During the Hellenistic period, the classical language laid down in ancient texts, and the spoken language of every-day life were not the only existing varieties of Hebrew. As intensive study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, of the Book of Ben Sira and of the Hebrew of the late biblical books has established, "Biblical Hebrew" continued to be practised in certain circles as a literary language. The Hebrew of the writings just mentioned is not simply a transitory phase in the development of Classical Biblical Hebrew into Rabbinic Hebrew. Rather, these texts abound in words, expressions and constructions which seem to have been taken straight from classical writings. The authors did not - or at least, not always - write Hebrew as it was spoken but as they knew it from their study of canonical texts. 35 The result, however, is not pure Classical Hebrew, but, more often than not, a mixture of classical and post-classical elements, in proportion to the skills and good taste of the individual writer. It seems that this biblicizing Hebrew may explain some important features of the Hebrew reflected in Septuagint renderings. Like the authors of the Qumran Scrolls, the Septuagint translators knew Biblical Hebrew to differ from contemporary Hebrew, and disposed of much accurate information about it; yet, at the same time they quite often got it wrong, understanding the Classical in light of the Post-Classical. This hypothesis does not intend 34 Of course the data are not always as clear-cut as with For some words the classical meaning is rendered in one group of books, while the post-classical meaning underlies the rendering in another group. This can easily be checked by the help of the examples listed in the appendix: almost all the expressions rendered after Late Hebrew in the passages indicated are elsewhere translated correctly. 35 Cf. J. JOOSTEN, "Pseudo-classicisms in Late Biblical Hebrew, in Ben Sira and in Qumran Hebrew", in T. MURAOKA, J. F. ELWOLDE (eds.), Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages: Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah, Held at Leiden University, 15-17 December 1997 (STDJ 33; Leiden 1999) 146-159.

On the Septuagint Translators'

Knowledge of Hebrew

35

to establish a direct connection between Qumran or Ben Sira and the Greek translators. Rather, as it would seem, they represent independent manifestations of a much wider cultural phenomenon typifying Jewish life during the Hellenistic period.

5. Conclusions Although a number of concrete examples have been presented - no research can be done without data - the main burden of this paper has been to propose some methodological guidelines for further study of the Greek translators' knowledge of Hebrew. The main points may briefly be recapitulated. Firstly, the study of Greek renderings reflecting Late Hebrew expressions needs to be based on convincing examples. No further text-critical or translation-technical hypotheses should be allowed to encumber the evidence presented. The 19 examples listed below in the appendix satisfy, arguably, the criteria drawn up above. But obviously each case would need to be discussed separately. Moreover, it would be highly useful if we could add further examples. Eventually, the investigation of the Hebrew of the translators must be done separately for each book or translation unit of the Septuagint. Secondly, the problem at hand has to be studied against the backdrop of the history of the Hebrew language. The discoveries in the Dead Sea area have provided a solid foundation for research on the development of Hebrew in the Hellenistic period. And although much remains obscure, a great amount of work has already produced a number of dependable results. 36 Septuagint research needs to take account of this area of studies, which touches directly upon its subject.

36

Cf. especially E. QLMRON, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other publications of Qimron; see also the studies collected in T. MURAOKA, J. F. ELWOLDE (eds.), The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (Leiden 1997).

36

The Translators' Knowledge of Hebrew

Appendix: Septuagint Renderings Based on Post-Classical Hebrew Item

Classical

Post-Classical

Septuagint

Attestation

not where?

woe which?

oiiai JIOÏOÇ

to be disturbed stone heap blood to pollute to continue perfect

make haste tortoise payment to feign to drive away crown

anovôâÇfù XeXévr\ KaxakXayi] ÛJlOKpiTTjç àftopâXXco oxécpavoç

corvée

tax

(pôpoç (etc.)

to desire reed

to kill end

^auPâvco y' Écr/axoç

HDIO

whirlwind

end

nns 705J UTID VMS

pleasure to be standing to declare to raid end

until now to stand up to separate to extend time

Kmaoïpocpr) auvxé^Eia ëcoç toù vOv àviaxrini SiaxcopiÇw

PI

to quake

to be angry

•p2TI

favour to measure

will to prepare

1 Sam 4:21 Kingdoms, Chronicles, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah Job Hos 12:12 Isa 9:4 Job 34:30; 36:13 Prov 27:15 Ezek 28:12; Lam 2:15 Deuteronomy, Judges, Kingdoms, Chronicles, Lamentations Hos 4:8 3 Kgds 9:26; Jonah L .U Hos 8:7 Nah 1:3 Gen 18:12 Prov 29:4 Ezek 34:12 Judges Gen 6:13 Job 6:11 Genesis, Exodus, Psalms Psalms, Proverbs 1 Kgds 2:3; 2 Kgds 12:11

nr ' x

"71 ¡TOT rpn TIB

oa

TIO

r?

pn

ÈKXSÎVCO

Kaipôç Xpôvoç ôpyiÇœ 0É>trina ÉxoinàÇco (etc.)

The Knowledge and Practice of Hebrew in the Hellenistic Period Qumran and the Septuagint To anyone studying the history of the Hebrew language, the Dead Sea Scrolls are a godsend. Here are extensive Hebrew writings, in manuscripts not much later than the texts themselves, dating from the exact period between the Bible and the Mishnah - for which attestation of Hebrew had almost entirely been lacking. The significance of this find for the entire early history of the language cannot be exaggerated. And yet, precisely in the fact that Qumran Hebrew comes from a hitherto largely uncharted period there lies a problem. However close the links with earlier and later phases of the language, within its own epoch Qumran Hebrew stands rather isolated. Is Qumran Hebrew - the language of the main sectarian writings - representative of the Hebrew of its time, or is it a freak, the very peculiar idiom of a very peculiar group of people? An answer to this and many other questions involving the "linguistic background" of Qumran Hebrew cannot be given solely from a comparison with earlier and later stages of the language. Nor can it be arrived at from Qumran Hebrew itself, even though the linguistic diversity of the texts does provide a certain perspective. Fortunately, the isolation of Qumran Hebrew is not complete. 1 Late Biblical Hebrew affords comparative material, as does the Hebrew of Ben Sira insofar as we can be certain of its authenticity; Hebrew inscriptions from the Hellenistic period too are important, in spite of their extreme scarcity. 2

1

Cf. E. Y. KUTSCHER, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (I Q Isa") ( L e i d e n 1974) 1 5 - 1 6 ; C. RABIN, " T h e H i s t o r i c a l B a c k g r o u n d of Q u m r a n H e b r e w " , Scripta Hierosolymitana 4 (1958) 144-161. 2 F o r a survey of the e p i g r a p h i c m a t e r i a l cf. J. NAVEH, On Sherd and Papyrus: Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from the Second Temple, Mishnaic and Talmudic Periods ( J e r u s a l e m 1992).

38

The Translators'

Knowledge of Hebrew

Another potential source of linguistic information is the Septuagint. The Greek version is more or less contemporary with the Qumran writings. 3 And although the version was for the greater part made in Egypt, the knowledge of Hebrew underlying it came from the land of Israel - as is suggested both by legend and by common sense. When it comes to studying the linguistic background of Qumran Hebrew, the relevance of the Septuagint cannot be gainsaid, as has been well recognized since the beginning of research into the language of the Scrolls. 4 The actual use of the Septuagint in this perspective has nevertheless been sporadic at best. Whereas textual and exegetical agreements between the Scrolls and the Septuagint have been studied extensively, linguistic agreements remain the stuff of footnotes. No systematic study of the relation between Qumran Hebrew and the Hebrew of the Greek translators seems to have been undertaken. The present paper will not presume to fill this gap, but merely ask a few preliminary questions and indicate some promising avenues for future research. For reasons of space, the discussion will be limited to the lexical domain. 5

1. Recovering the Translators' Knowledge of Hebrew To the non-initiated, the idea of using a Greek text in linguistic research on Hebrew may sound far-fetched. And even to the specialist, the proposition is daunting. The fact that the Septuagint is a translation of a known Hebrew text means that it does hold much information on the translators' knowledge of Hebrew. But recovering that knowledge is possible only in certain cases.

3

For the dating of the Septuagint, cf. the review of the evidence in M. HARL, G. DORIVAL, O. MUNNICH, La bible grecque des Septante: Du judaïsme hellénistique au christianisme ancien (Paris 1988) 39-111. 4 Kutscher, in his study of the language of the Isaiah Scroll, refers to the Septuagint as a "linguistically parallel text", cf. KUTSCHER, Language, 7 4 - 7 7 . 5 With regard to grammar, too, the Septuagint sometimes gives evidence of Late Hebrew influence. For instance, the translators seem to have ignored the precise value of the locative He, and they often mechanically translate the yiqtol tense as a future: two phenomena that go hand in hand with what can be observed in Post-Classical Hebrew including Qumran Hebrew. There are even some phonological phenomena - e.g. the weakening of the laryngeals, the confusion of final Mem and Nun - that transpire more or less clearly from the Greek text. Such grammatical items have been noted in passing by several scholars, but no systematic research has been done on them from a linguistic point of view. Although they merit closer study, we will leave them aside for the time being.

The Knowledge and Practice of Hebrew in the Hellenistic

Period

39

1.1. The Problem of Using a Version

In a discussion with scholars, such as D. Winton Thomas and G. R. Driver, who had shown much confidence in the Septuagint as a source of linguistic information on Biblical Hebrew, James Barr pointed out a number of caveats to be observed in trying to prise philological information from the versions: 6 a) we don't always know the Hebrew text from which the version was made; b) the original text of the version, in our case the Greek text of the Septuagint, cannot always be reconstructed with certainty; c) the methods of translation of the ancients were at times imprecise: the translators let themselves be guided by the context, or by parallel texts; they had certain favourite words, and tended to etymologize or rewrite a passage more or less freely. In light of these considerations, Barr criticized a number of lexical identifications based on a Septuagint rendering. For instance, the translation of nOST in Ps 84:7 as Scboei, "he shall give", could have been arrived at from the context: Ps 84(LXX 83):7

rrna rrasr mD-n-cn "The early rain also covers it with pools." 7 ical yap eii^oyiou; dibosi o vo|io9excov "For there the law-giver will grant blessings." 8

The rendering does not show that the translator knew a Hebrew verb ¡"1057 or nDl?n, "to give", cognate with Arabic h 'p. Consequently, Barr tended to be more pessimistic as to the translators' knowledge of Biblical Hebrew. On the whole, the probability of retracing forgotten meanings of Hebrew words by means of the Septuagint is rather low. Later research in this domain has in the main supported this view: many archaic or rare words appear to have been totally unknown to the Greek translators. 9 The Septuagint is a rather unlikely source for authentic linguistic information on archaic Hebrew. The case is somewhat different, however, when one looks to the Septuagint not for early but for Late Hebrew elements. 6

J. BARR, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Oxford 1968) 238-272. 7 English translations of the Massoretic Text follow the RSV except where it has been changed in view of the point at issue. 8 English translations of the Septuagint loosely follow Brenton's rendering. 9 Cf., e.g., E. T o v , "Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand their Hebrew Text?", in A. PlETERSMA, C. COX (eds.), De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on His Sixty-fifth Birthday (Mississauga 1984) 53-70.

40

The Translators'

1.2. Post-Biblical

Hebrew in the

Knowledge

of

Hebrew

Septuagint

The discussion between Barr and some earlier scholars bore on how much Hebrew the translators could have known. A different problem, hardly addressed in that discussion, is what kind of Hebrew they knew. 10 Already in 1841, Z. Frankel had pointed out that the Septuagint translators sometimes base their understanding of the biblical text on Post-Biblical Hebrew. 11 His observation was confirmed by other Septuagint scholars such as A. Kaminka, 12 J. Fischer, 13 J. Ziegler, 14 I. L. Seeligmann, 15 and E. Tov, 16 and Semitists such as J. Blau and J. Margain. 17 This claim is of obvious relevance to our topic and merits to be tarried over. First, a word of caution is in order. Many of the examples proposed by the forenamed scholars are questionable. Very often the claim involves an adjustment of the consonants of the Massoretic Text in order to arrive at the Late Hebrew element postulated. Thus in Gen 47:12, the translation of ^ ^ n 1DI7, "according to the (number of) children", with KOTCX O W ^ A , "according to (the number of) persons", is said to result from a misreading of the word H^H as Mishnaic fpa, "body". 18 Such text-critical speculations clearly do not provide a secure foundation for linguistic research. With other proposals, the presumed Late Hebrew etymon turns out not to be

10

But cf. BARR, Comparative Philology, 259-261. " See on this notably Z. FRANKEL, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta (Leipzig 1841) 201-203. 12 Cf. A. KAMINKA, Studien zur Septuaginta an der Hand der zwölf kleinen Prophetenbücher (Schriften der G e s e l l s c h a f t zur Förderung der W i s s e n s c h a f t des J u d e n t u m s 33; F r a n k f u r t a.M. 1928) 3 8 - 4 2 . 13 Cf. J. FISCHER, In welcher Schrift lag das Buch lsaias den LXX vor? ( B Z A W 56; G i e ß e n 1930) 9 - 1 0 . 14 Cf. J. ZIEGLER, Untersuchungen zur Septuaginta des Buches lsaias (Münster i.W. 1934), e.g. 99, 195. 15 Cf. I. L. SEELIGMANN, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of its Problems (Leiden 1948) 4 9 - 5 0 ; idem, " P r o b l e m s and Perspectives in Modern Septuagint Research", Textus 15 (1990), 1 6 9 - 2 3 2 (ET of an article originally published in Dutch in 1940), in particular 2 0 3 - 2 0 9 . 16 Cf. E. T o v , The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (Jerusalem 1981) 241, n. 27; idem, " T h e Septuagint", in M . J . MULDER (ed.), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Assen & Maastricht 1988) 1 6 1 - 1 8 8 , in particular 170. 17 Cf. J. BLAU, " Z u m Hebräisch der Übersetzer des A T " , VT 6 (1956) 9 8 - 1 0 0 ; J. MARGAIN, "La Septante c o m m e témoin de l ' h é b r e u post-exilique et michnique", in F. BRIQUEL-CHATONNET (éd.), Mosaïque de langues, mosaïque culturelle: Le bilinguisme dans le Proche-Orient ancien (Paris 1996) 1 9 1 - 1 9 7 . 18

S e e MARGAIN, " L a S e p t a n t e " ,

192-193.

The Knowledge

and Practice

of Hebrew

in the Hellenistic

Period

41

attested with the precise meaning reflected in the Greek, 19 or involves too subtle a divergence from biblical usage to be considered convincing. In response to such problems of method, I have, in an earlier publication, proposed a few common-sense criteria allowing one to argue that a Late Hebrew element is at the back of a given Greek equivalent: 20 a) the Late Hebrew element invoked should correspond exactly to what is written in the Massoretic Text (at least with regard to the consonants); 21 b) the meaning of that Late Hebrew element should correspond exactly to the meaning of the Greek equivalent in question; c) the latter meaning should be quite distinct from the meaning of the Biblical Hebrew element occurring in the Massoretic Text. Let us consider an example: H o s 12:12

'72? ^ n

n,l?:o Dmmr» DJ

"... their altars a l s o shall be like stone heaps o n the furrows o f the fields" Kat x a Buaiacmipia avrwv ti^ x E ^ ® v a l ¿^l X £ p ° o v aypou "... and their altars are like tortoises o n the barren land of the field"

Instead of Biblical Hebrew "heap of stones", the translator appears to have identified the word as "tortoise", attested in rabbinical literature. 22 Now it is certainly possible to call this claim into question. One cannot be certain that the Vorlage of the Septuagint was identical to the Massoretic Text. Nor can one take the Septuagint text at face value: perhaps the Greek text is the result of a later corruption. 23 Alternatively, the rendering may be due to the technique of the translator: the remarkable equivalent may be meant figuratively and thus correspond to the Hebrew. 24 Nevertheless, the fact that (a) a Post-Biblical Hebrew word ^ is attested with (b) exactly the meaning reflected by the Greek which (c) is quite different from the 19

Thus Frankel takes Kuptoi; in 3 K g d s 20:11 to reflect Mishnaic " l i n (for the M a s s o retic T e x t ' s " i n n , "the o n e w h o girds"); but whereas the Greek word m e a n s "humpback" the Mishnaic o n e m e a n s "lame": the m e a n i n g s are c l o s e but not identical. 20 J. JOOSTEN, "On the L X X Translators' K n o w l e d g e o f Hebrew", in B. A. TAYLOR (ed.), X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Oslo 1998 ( S C S 51; Atlanta 2 0 0 1 ) 1 6 5 - 1 7 8 ( s e e above, 2 5 - 3 5 ) . 21 Or, if it is available, to a n o n - M a s s o r e t i c H e b r e w text. 22 The word is k n o w n a l s o from Syriac, and is actually the o n e used in the Syrohexaplar version of H o s 12:12. 23

Ziegler, in the Gottingen edition of the Septuagint o f H o s e a , signals, but d o e s not adopt, the conjectural e m e n d a t i o n KoX,d>vai, "hills, mounds"; xe^wvai, h o w e v e r , is supported by the entire manuscript tradition. 24 F o l l o w i n g Jerome, this is the opinion o f many Septuagint scholars until this day. S o m e recent dictionaries of the Septuagint do not even indicate the primary lexical meaning of xeXcovti, cf. T. MURAOKA, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Twelve Prophets) ( L e u v e n 1993) 2 4 9 : "arched protrusion over the ground"; J. LUST et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, parts 1 and 2 (Stuttgart 1992, 1 9 9 6 ) 5 1 5 : "hillock, mound".

42

The Translators'

Knowledge of Hebrew

meaning of biblical makes the claim of Late Hebrew influence on the translator a very strong one. In comparison to those searching for authentic linguistic information, the scholar investigating Late Hebrew influence on the Greek translators finds himself in a more favourable situation, for at least two reasons. A translation based on Late Hebrew will often, as in the example of Hos 12:12, sit somewhat oddly in the context. Where contextual exegesis can be ruled out, the hypothesis of linguistic interference becomes much stronger. Secondly, unlike postulated "forgotten meanings", Late Hebrew elements can actually be attested from Hebrew texts. 1.2.1. Cases Involving Rabbinic Hebrew Usually, the case for Post-Biblical Hebrew influence in the Septuagint has been based on Rabbinic Hebrew. Thus Frankel explains the rendering of "1EDQ, "net", as fi(xie(p0ov, "half boiled", in Isa 51:20 from Rabbinic "to heat fruit by underground storage or exposure to the sun" (Jastrow). Isa 51:20

-iaDa Niro msin-1?^ WN-Q -DDK? ID"75? -pin "Your sons have fainted, they lie at the head of every street like an antelope in a net." ol uloi oou ol a7topot>nEvoi ol Ka0ei38ovTE9opd, "corruption", and the like. 53 Again, the change of meaning is due not to semantic evolution but to etymological re-interpretation. In other cases, the interpretation was arrived at through contextual determination. A possible example is the use of the term "lUtf, lit. "flesh", as a designation of a close parent, e.g.: CD V, 11

arm rrnx t i n n n y nx nxn r a rfwri nsi "If the brother's daughter uncovers the nakedness of her father's brother, she is (i.e. a close blood relation)."

52

Cf. Neh 8:10; I s a 2 3 : 4 , 11.

53

C f . the early r e m a r k s o f P. WERNBERG-M0LLER, The Manual

1957) 81.

of Discipline

she'er

(Leiden

The Knowledge and Practice of Hebrew in the Hellenistic Period

51

This usage is of course to be connected with Lev 18:20 and 21 where the word "iNttf occurs. 5 4 However, whereas in Leviticus the term functions as a metaphor, the Damascus document seems to use it as a technical, halachic, term. 55 The latter usage is well known to the Septuagint translators, who render all the occurrences of Utt? in Leviticus (and in Num 27:11) with OIKEIOI;, "near kinsman", or oLKeunr|

S e e J . LUST, E . EYNIKEL, K . HAUSPIE, A Greek-English

Lexicon

of the

Septuagint,

part II (Stuttgart 1996)412. 34 See MURAOKA, Index. 35 See E. Y. KUTSCHER, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (I Q Isa") (Leiden 1974) 75. 36 See MURAOKA, Index. For an attestation of the root in Qumran Hebrew, cf. J. JOOSTEN, "The Knowledge and Use of Hebrew in the Hellenistic Period: Qumran and the Septuagint", in T. MURAOKA, J. F. ELWOLDE (eds.), Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (STDJ 36; Leiden 2000) 115-130. 37

S e e MURAOKA,

Index.

38

Several commentators have felt that the "father-in-law" is out of place in this verse and have consequently rejected the Hebrew text (attested only in manuscript D). Or they have proposed a different meaning for it. In my opinion, the reading "father-in-law" is defendable and does explain the rendering of the Greek text. 39 See also Josh 10:9. 40

41

S e e MURAOKA,

Index.

See also Gen 20:4 (but cf. verse 6); Num 3:10, 38; 17:13(28); Ezek 42:14. 42 See WUTZ, Transkriptionen. The Aramaic word is well attested in Christian Palestinian Aramaic and known also from Samaritan Aramaic, see D. TALSHIR, The Nomenclature of the Fauna in the Samaritan Targum (Diss. Hebrew University, Jerusalem 1981) 191193; A. Tal, A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic (2 vols.; Leiden 2000). In Hebrew, the word means "showers" or the like, although Midrashic writings do attest knowledge of the meaning "lamb" (or "sheep"), see E. BEN YEHUDA, A Complete Dictionary of Ancient and Modern Hebrew, vol. 14 (Berlin 1953) 6377-6378. The idea, suggested by Ben Yehuda, that the two meanings are connected because rain clouds have the form of sheep is to be rejected. 43 See WUTZ, Transkriptionen. The verb is attested in a meaning influenced by Aramaic in Biblical Hebrew (2 Kgs 4:28; 2 Chr 29:11) and Qumran Hebrew (4Q522 9 ii 11). 44 See MURAOKA, Index. For the Aramaic word, see HAL and R. C. STEINER, A. M. MOSHAVI, in DNWSI 2, 1265.

64

The Translators'

Knowledge

of Hebrew

12. At the same time, the list bears eloquent testimony to the fact that the Septuagint translators knew Aramaic as well as Hebrew. There are several other indications to this effect, as has often been noted. 45 First, a number of Aramaic words and forms are found in the Greek text of the Septuagint: - A r a m a i c loanwords: yeuopou; (Exod 12:19; Isa 14:1), rcaTaxpov (Isa 8:21; 37:38) - final Alpha reflecting the status emphaticus: 8e(3pa0a (xa(3pa8a), (xavva, vapXa, 7taoxa, oap(3aTa,46 oaia (?), (jazavaq, oiKgpa - e n d i n g -iv reflecting the Aramaic masculine plural: 47 PaS5iv, yaPiv, eoEcpiv, Gepatptv (Gapacpiv), naco^tv, ¡xeGaxaPiv, vaGivvv, oaXa|xvv, oepacpiv, %epouPw, xettnv 4 8 Some of these elements are loans, thus attesting to language contact between Aramaic and the Jewish Alexandrian sociolect of Greek. This contact may have taken place before the period when the version was made. Other elements, however, are more likely ad hoc transcriptions. The fact that here too we find Aramaizing tendencies - adding an Alpha, or transcribing -im as -in - probably attests to a living Aramaic substratum during the time the version was made. 49 Second, a small amount of epigraphic material from Egypt dating from the Hellenistic period and originating in a Jewish milieu is written in Aramaic. 50 Some of this material could conceivably have been written by recent immigrants, but it is also possible that it attests to the continued use of Aramaic in the Jewish communities in Egypt. Thirdly, the earlier use of Aramaic in the Egyptian Diaspora is well attested, especially by the papyri from Elephantine. As elsewhere in the Diaspora, it seems that the Jews did not continue to use Hebrew but spoke Aramaic even in their daily affairs. Still it is difficult to reconstruct a picture of Jewish life in Alexandria from the Elephantine data. Also, we do not know when the Jewish community stopped speaking Aramaic and started speaking Greek instead. Probably, however, one has to imagine a

45 Cf. J. A. L. LEE, A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch (SCS 14; Chico 1983) 16. 46 On this word, see A. PELLETIER, "La nomenclature du calendrier juif à l'époque hellénistique", RB 82 (1975) 2 1 8 - 2 3 3 . 47 The ending occurs occasionally in Biblical Hebrew and much more often in Mishnaic Hebrew. Nevertheless the source of all these occurrences is Aramaic influence. 48 The ending -im, too, is well attested. 49 See for other evidence to this effect, L. DELEKAT, "Ein Septuagintatargum", VT 8 (1958) 2 2 5 - 2 5 2 , in particular 227. 50 See R. WEILL, "Un document araméen de la Moyenne-Egypte", REJ 65 (1913) 1 6 23; W. HORBURY, D. NOY, Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt (Cambridge 1992) 3 - 9 ; T. MURAOKA, B. PORTEN, A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic (Leiden 1998) 1 - 2 .

On Aramaizing

Renderings

in the

Septuagint

65

long process of transition involving both bilingual and diglossic situations in different localities. It seems reasonable to suppose that the Septuagint translators were actually trilingual: Greek would have been their mother tongue, Hebrew the language of scripture and study, and Aramaic a language they used in certain undefined situations or localities. 51 13. A few tentative conclusions may be offered. The influence of Aramaic on the Septuagint translators turns out to have been rather pervasive. In all the main parts of the version, and practically in every single book, one finds renderings implying a faulty understanding of the Hebrew on the basis of Aramaic. The background to this "Aramaic Approach" of the translators is twofold. On the one hand, the Hebrew language, which had always been cognate to Aramaic, was increasingly Aramaicized during the Persian and Hellenistic periods. A large number of distinctively Aramaic words occur in Hebrew texts of this period, while the testimony of Mishnaic Hebrew shows that the influence of Aramaic on spoken Hebrew may have been even greater. Thus it is only natural that a reader and translator of the Biblical text in the Hellenistic period should have attributed Aramaic meanings to Hebrew words even when these meanings were not the ones intended. On the other hand, it seems likely that the translators had a good knowledge of Aramaic independent from their interest in Scripture and exegesis. Aramaic was probably still spoken in the Jewish Diaspora during the third and second centuries BCE, although with whom and in which circumstances it is hard to determine. Since Hebrew would almost certainly have been an acquired language for the translators, it is possible that they were actually more proficient in Aramaic than in Hebrew. This fact too explains why the Hebrew text was so often interpreted after Aramaic in the Septuagint. The process leading to Aramaizing renderings was varied. At one end of the spectrum are the cases where the translator consciously turned to Aramaic because he did not or would not understand the Hebrew. In these cases the translators appear to be the first practitioners of the philological approach, which would become popular in the Middle Ages and enjoy a new élan in the twentieth century. 52 At the other end of the spectrum, the

51 According to VOLLERS, "Dodekapropheton", 2 2 5 , Aramaic was the language that Alexandrian Jews would have spoken at home. 52 For Mediaeval biblical philology, see F. GREENSPAHN, "The Significance of Hebrew Philology for the D e v e l o p m e n t of a Literal and Historical Jewish Bible Interpretation", in M. SAEB0 (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of its Interpretation, Vol. 1/2: The Middle Ages (Gottingen 2 0 0 0 ) 5 6 - 6 3 ; for the twentieth century, see BARR, Philology.

66

The Translators'

Knowledge

of

Hebrew

translators at times inadvertently understood Hebrew words in the light of Aramaic. In these latter cases, the use of Aramaic is not an exegetical device but a reflex of the difficulty the translator encountered in translating the Biblical text. Many questions pertaining to the subject of Aramaizing renderings in the Septuagint are still unanswered. It would be interesting to study the phenomenon in more depth with regard to the separate translation units. Although the phenomenon occurs in all parts of the Greek version, there may be differences of both quantity and quality among the different units. Another interesting question is the distribution of the Aramaic elements underlying Septuagint renderings in the different Aramaic dialects. The limited attestation of some of these dialects renders this type of research difficult but perhaps not impossible.

Biblical Hebrew as Mirrored in the Septuagint The Question of Influence from Spoken Hebrew* The Septuagint version is a vast depository attesting the knowledge of Hebrew during the Hellenistic period, only part of which has been researched to any degree. Generally, the use of the Septuagint in linguistic analysis of Hebrew is limited to the phonological data contained in Greek transcriptions of Hebrew names and words. 1 This aspect is certainly important, but it represents only a small part of the contribution the Greek version could make to the study of the Hebrew language. In fact, as regards both quantity and quality, the indications given by the translated parts of the Septuagint are of much greater moment than those that can be gained from the transcribed parts. Imagine discovering a complete lexicon of Biblical Hebrew, and the outlines of a grammar, from the early Hellenistic period - the relevance of such documents for the history of the Hebrew language would be doubted by no one. Of course, such a lexicon and grammar do not exist. But it is possible, from the Greek text of the Septuagint, to extrapolate the mental dictionary of the translators, as well as the main grammatical rules they applied to their source text. In the course of rendering the source text, the translators constantly invoked the knowledge of the Hebrew language available to them. The recovery of that knowledge could be a major asset to the study of the Hebrew language in an historical perspective. To be sure, a number of caveats need to be observed in approaching this problem. 2 Working with the Septuagint means working with three unknowns: we lack information about the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint, we do not possess the original Greek text of the version, and we have imperfect * Revised version of a paper read at the Institute of Advanced Studies, Jerusalem, on October 23, 2001. I thank the members of the research group on "Biblical Hebrew in its Northwest Semitic Setting" for their comments and criticisms. 1 See for instance E. Y. KUTSCHER, A History of the Hebrew Language (Jerusalem 1982) 106-107. 2 See in more detail the prolegomena in J. JOOSTEN, "On the LXX Translators' Knowledge of Hebrew", in B. A. TAYLOR (ed.), X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (Atlanta 2001) 165-178 (see above, 25-35).

68

The Translators' Knowledge of Hebrew

knowledge of the translation technique applied by the translators. By necessity, the Septuagint scholar will usually set out from the supposition that the Vorlage of the version is the consonantal text of the Massoretic Text (or another attested Hebrew text), and that the eclectic text printed in the critical editions is a fair approximation of the Old Greek. Neither supposition is necessarily true, however, and one should always be ready to entertain the possibility of a divergent Vorlage or of a corrupted Greek text. In these cases, it would become practically impossible to extrapolate linguistic information from the Septuagint. The third unknown, translation technique, is even more of an obstacle to the linguistic approach. Indeed, knowledge of Biblical Hebrew is not the only factor that guided the translators. Ideological considerations, exegetical traditions, and above all sensitivity to the context played an important role in the creation of the Greek text. What this means is that one cannot simply take any Greek rendering of a Hebrew word and regard it as a lexical gloss equivalent to what one would find in a bilingual dictionary. Consider one example: Hos 10:1

f r m ^ 1 n s ^¡ow 1 ppin isi "Israel is an empty vine, he bringeth forth fruit unto himself." (KJV) IapariA, O Kap7io.aia ii|i(ov ... leal Siappr^co avzix a n d xrov ppaxiovtov i>ndjv "Behold, I am against your pillows ... and I will tear them away from your arms."

The rendering fits the context poorly, both in the present verse and in verse 18. This indicates that the rendering reflects a piece of lexical information available to the translator. Thus it appears that the Greek translator of Ezekiel 13, who lived in the second century BCE, knew the word nOD, "pillow", whose first attestation in writing appears in rabbinical sources of the third century CE. Another example is the Greek translation of Biblical Hebrew Oft. Whereas in the Bible this word usually means "a body of forced labourers" (and then also "forced service"), the Septuagint often renders the word as cpopoi;, "tribute, tax". 35 This correponds to the meaning of the word Oft in Mishnaic Hebrew. 36 The rendering "tax" is found even where it is incompatible with the context: 1 Kgs 5:27 ( L X X 3 Kgds 5:13) wx cpe?1?© o a n T H ^¡citff 1 - 1 ^» o n n » ^ -f7»n

bwi

"King S o l o m o n raised a levy of forced labour out of all Israel; and the levy numbered thirty thousand men." rat avfiveyKEV o PaaAeiw; cpopov ek Jtavxoi; Iapar|^ kcu, f|v o (popoc; xpiaKovxa xi^-ia8ei?jn I V i w n ' " W 8 ritiby n^icna "These also are proverbs of Solomon which the officials of King Hezekiah of Judah copied."

This is the sole occurrence of the word äSidKprax; in the Septuagint. LEH propose the gloss "mixed". 4 But what would be the meaning of this? Are the proverbs of this section more "mixed" than the others? In view of the context, it is better to adopt another interpretation of this word - proposed long ago by Jäger and taken up in Schleusner's lexicon - namely "inseparable", "undistinguishable". 5 The implication of this rendering is that the following proverbs, in spite of having been copied at Hezekiah's court, are genuine Solomonic sentences of one cloth with the rest of the book. 6 In a way, the Greek adjective turns out to be equivalent to the Hebrew conjunction DJ. 3 See LSJ, s.v., meaning II.b. "Similarly M. D ' H A M O N V I L L E , Les Proverbes (La Bible d ' A l e x a n d r i e XVII; Paris 2000) 310: "qui ne sont pas triées" ("which have not been sorted"). 5 J. F . S C H L E U S N E R , Novus thesaurus philologico-criticus, sive lexicon in LXX et reliquos interpretes graecos ac scriptores apocryphos veteris testamenti, vols. 1 - 5 (Leipzig 1820-1821; reprint Turnhout 1994). 6 C f . Ignatius, Eph. 3:2: 'IriaoOç X p i a t ô ç TO àôuxKpixov r)nwv Çfjv, "Jesus Christ, our inseparable life".

Source-Language

Oriented

Remarks

83

A third factor to be taken into account is the Hebrew source text. This is not because the Greek words of the Septuagint take on the meaning of their Hebrew equivalent - usually they do not. 7 Nonetheless, the Hebrew source, whenever it can be determined, may give one an idea of what the translator was thinking when he made the choice of a given Greek word. LEH often make judicious use of this possibility. It is a strength of their lexicon that it takes the Hebrew source text into consideration. And yet, instances may be found where even greater attentiveness to the Hebrew would have been advisable. An example is afforded by the meanings of the Greek word 67rA.ov in the Septuagint. LEH provide for this word the glosses "weapon", "spear", and for the plural "arms" and "armour". The fact, however, that onXov is used nine times to render the Hebrew word "shield", and five times for H3S, "large shield", tends to indicate that "shield" was one of its meanings in the Greek language used by the translators. In classical Greek, 67tA.ov was used in this way. In Attic, it designates the large shield of the hoplites. The word also occurs with the meaning "shield" in Diodorus the Sicilian, the Testament of Levi, and the Epistle of Barnabas.8 Moreover, the latter meaning fits several Septuagintal passages better than the meaning "arms".9 When all goes well, the three factors guiding the lexicographer of the Greek versions of the Bible will agree. In this case, a meaning known from Koine Greek will fit the context well and correspond to the meaning of the Hebrew equivalent. In some cases, however, the parameters will disagree, 7 There are a few well-noted exceptions like 8ia9r|KT] and xpwxôç, where the Greek word does take on the meaning of its Hebrew equivalent against its usual meaning in non-biblical Greek. See E. T o v , "Three Dimensions of LXX words", RB 83 (1976) 5 2 9 544. In general, however, the Septuagint is to be read on its own as a Hellenistic Greek text. In recent years, Albert Pietersma and his students have argued that the Septuagint originated as an interlinear translation whose original function was to give students access to the Hebrew source text, see, e.g., A. PIETERSMA, "A New Paradigm for Addressing Old Questions: The Relevance of the Interlinear Model for the Study of the Septuagint", in J. COOK (ed.), Bible and Computer: The Stellenbosch AIBI-6 Conference (Leiden 2002) 337-364. In this approach, the Hebrew meaning perceived by the translator becomes the main factor determining the meaning of the Septuagint's words. There are good reasons to resist the claims of the "interlinear paradigm", however, see the criticisms in J. JOOSTEN, "70N 'bienveillance', et ëXsoç, 'pitié': Réflexions sur une équivalence lexicale dans la Septante", in E. BONS (éd.), "Car c'est l'amour qui me plaît, non le sacrifice ..." (JSJSup 88; Leiden 2004) 2 5 - 4 2 (see below, 97-111). 8 See W. BAUER, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (translated and adapted by W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich; Chicago 1979). 9 S e e , e.g., 3 Kgds 10:17; Ps 90(91 ):4. A third meaning, "tool", may perhaps be found in Prov 14:7: "wise lips are ôitXa aio8r|CECÛÇ, tools of knowledge" ("arms of knowledge" is possible too). Compare the discussion on the meaning of the expressions ôiika à ô u d a ç and ônka 8 i K a t o 0 i 3 v r | ç in Rom 6:13. In fact, "tool" is the original meaning of the word in Greek.

84

The Translators'

Knowledge

of Hebrew

and leave the lexicographer perplexed. This happens in a variety of ways and for different reasons. Some apparent misfits have to do with the fact that the kind of Greek used by the translators is not attested in any other Greek document. This remains true after Adolf Deissmann, and after more than a century of intensive study of Hellenistic Greek sources. 10 Far more common are misfits that find their origin in the translators' approach to the Hebrew source text. The Greek word may accurately reflect the primary meaning of the Hebrew equivalent but fit the Greek context poorly (in this case, one can generally speak of "Hebraisms"). 11 In other cases, the Greek word may reflect a misunderstanding of the Hebrew equivalent, through confusion of consonants, difference in vocalization, mix-up of homonyms, and the like. 12 A peculiar type of misunderstanding occurs when the translators render a Biblical Hebrew word after Post-Biblical Hebrew or Aramaic. In an earlier publication I have pointed to the following example: 13 Hos 12:12 xci Buoiacxfipia avz&v (b^/EAciiva/ e^ 1 x £ p ° o v aypoO "Their altars are like tortoises on the dry field." 'jiff ' a 1 ? ? Vy bninsfz? m "Their altars are like stone heaps on the furrows of a field."

10 Study of the context and study of the Koine Greek lexicon most often go hand in hand, thus confirming de Saussure's theory concerning the interdependence of paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations in language. In some cases, however, a conflict arises: the meaning required by the context is attested in no other Greek text. An example: the verb ¿Sacpi^co (from eSacpoi;, "floor") means "to dash to the floor" or something similar in most of its occurrences in the Bible (e.g., Ps 136[137]:9; Hos 10:14; 14:1; Nah 3:10; Isa 3:26; Ezek 31:12). In Hellenistic Greek it occurs only as an architectural term. The verb is used to render various Hebrew equivalents which have nothing to do with a floor: it simply reflects the kind of Greek used by some of the Septuagint translators, an idiom - whether dialect, sociolect, or simply level of style - unattested in any other corpus. The use of the verb in Luke 19:44 almost certainly stands under the influence of the Septuagint. 11 A well-known example is the meaning of the word stpf|vr| in Kai EJTT|p(OTR|OEV Aain5 ... elt; Eipf|vriv TOO 7io^E(xou, "David inquired about the - of the war" (2 Kgds 11:7), where eipf|vri, "peace", is an impeccable rendering of Hebrew •iVlff but fits the context poorly. The modern lexicographer faces a dilemma here: does the word express something like the "Hebrew" meaning required by the context, or does it keep its "Greek" meaning known from the dictionary? 12 Of course, an apparent misfit may also be due to the fact that the Hebrew text used by the translators diverged f r o m the Hebrew texts available to us today. 13 See J. JOOSTEN, "The Knowledge and Use of Hebrew in the Hellenistic Period: Qumran and the Septuagint", in T. MURAOKA, J. F. ELWOLDE (eds.), Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (STDJ 36; Leiden 2000) 115-130, in particular 119.

Source-Language

Oriented

85

Remarks

Here the translator seems to have mistaken the Biblical Hebrew word "stone heap", for the Aramaic and Mishnaic Hebrew word "tortoise". The mention of "tortoises" is certainly surprising in the context. It seems to me, nevertheless, that the gloss proposed for this word by LEH, is incorrect. They render the word, which occurs only here in the Septuagint, as "hillock, mound". The primary meaning of the Greek word is tortoise, however. All ancient Greek commentators interpret the word in this way. 14 Moreover, this meaning fits the context reasonably well: after all, the adverb ioc, defines the expression as a simile. If Post-Biblical Hebrew is taken into account, the apparent misfit between the meaning indicated by the Hebrew equivalent and the meaning found in the Greek dictionary disappears. The three factors converge on the meaning "tortoise", which should therefore be retained in the Septuagint lexicon. The influence of Aramaic and Post-Biblical Hebrew on the translators has been insufficiently appreciated. The phenomenon affects all translation units in the Septuagint, and it has left traces in the revisions as well. 15 Its potential relevance to lexicographical studies is considerable. In what follows, another instance will be discussed that has not been recognized before.

1. T h e V e r b avaPdXXo)iai as an E q u i v a l e n t of H e b r e w I S y f l n In the Septuagint, the verb &vapdA,tao occurs twice in a physical sense, "to throw or set onto", and twice, in the middle form, with the meaning "to be clothed with". 16 These usages are not problematic, and will not occupy us any further. The two remaining occurrences are less clear, however: Ps 7 8 ( L X X 77):21 'wnty::? n"?v ^ " c m n p s : ? OTQ - g s T O n p ? v m p1? "Therefore, w h e n the LORD heard, he was full of rage; a fire w a s kindled against Jacob, his anger m o u n t e d against Israel." 8ia TOUTO FIKOWOEV ici>pio. "Therefore the Lord heard, and he - ; and fire was kindled in Jacob, and wrath went up against Israel." 1 7

14 S e e E. BONS, J. JOOSTEN, S. KESSLER, Les d ' A l e x a n d r i e XXIII,1 ; Paris 2 0 0 2 ) 153.

Douze

Prophètes:

Osée

(La B i b l e

15

S e e F. FIELD, Origenis hexaplorum quae supersunt, T o m u s 1 (Oxford 1 8 7 5 ) x x i v . In a physical sense, T o b 6:3: "the y o u n g man grasped the fish and drew it up ( ä v e ß c d e v ) on the land"; also 4 M a c c 9:12; o f clothing, 1 K g d s 28:14: "(I see) a man w a l k i n g upright c o m i n g up, and he is wrapped (avaßsß^rnxevo^) in a robe"; also Ps I03(104):2. 16

l7 B r e n t o n renders the verb: "was p r o v o k e d " (reflecting the H e b r e w rather than the Greek), and Pietersma: "was put out"; see L. C. L. BRENTON, The Septuagint with the

86

The Translators'

Knowledge of Hebrew

Ps 89(LXX 88):39 Ijpwq-ny m a s r n ox;?rn n m r nrixi "But now you have spurned and rejected; you are full of wrath against your anointed." OTJ 8e aitcoaco KCU e^oDSevcoaai; avepaA.ou xov xpioxov aow "But you have cast off and set at nought, you have - your anointed." 1 8

The middle of avapdM.© formally corresponds to Hebrew "ISJJflH, "to become furious, to be arrogant", in both these verses. Its meaning is a longstanding problem. Schleusner proposed to add a negation to the first instance, and to correct the second to a7t£|3aA.ou, "you rejected". 19 Brenton, preserving the received text, also translates "to reject" in Ps 88:39, 20 and in this he is followed by LEH who propose the gloss "you rejected" for Ps 88:39 while referring also to Ps 77:21. The meaning "to reject" makes sense in both passages, but it does not figure in any other Greek dictionary and appears to be otherwise unattested. One appears to be dealing with a school example where the lexical meaning, contextual use, and Hebrew equivalent point in different directions. What is the lexicographer to make of this case? A close look at the Hebrew word and its history will show the way to what seems to be an adequate understanding of the Greek verb in these passages.

2. The Meaning Attributed to Hebrew 2.1. The Renderings

o/HSypn

in the

by the Translators

Septuagint

Forms of the Hitpael "ISVfln occur eight times in Biblical Hebrew. The verb appears to be a denominative from rQ5¥> "fury", 21 and the meaning "to be arrogant, to become furious" is agreed upon by all modern dictionaries. This meaning seems to have been unknown to the earliest Greek translators. In the Pentateuch, where the Hebrew verb occurs only once, it is rendered with imEpopaco, "to disregard, to disdain". Moses relates how he entreated the Lord to be allowed to cross into the Promised Land. The Lord turned him down: Apocrypha: Greek and English (London 1851, reprint: Peabody 1986); A. PlETERSMA, A New English Translation of the Septuagint: The Psalms (Oxford 2000). 18 Brenton here translates the verb: "thou hast rejected"; Pietersma: "you put o f f ' . 19

SCHLEUSNER, Thesaurus,

v o l . 1, 1 6 4 .

In Ps 77:21, he translated "was provoked". Similarly, LSJ give the meaning "to be wroth" for LXX Ps 77(MT 78):21. In the 1996 supplement, however, it is proposed to delete the relevant section: indeed, the meanings "to be wroth", "to be provoked" do not correspond to the Greek text but to the underlying Hebrew. 21 Alternatively, a homonymous root "13V II, "to be angry", may be posited, as is done in KBL 3 . Note that in Prov 20:2 the Hebrew verb is transitive: "to make furious, incite to fury" (but see below, n. 29). 20

Source-Language

Deut 3:26

vm

Oriented

Remarks

87

nsjya 1 ?'a rip?

"But the L o r d was angry with me on your account, and would not heed m e . " Kdl i>7CEpSl5£V KUplO^ £|IE EVEKSV i>HU)V Kal OUK Elof|KOWaEV fiOU "And the Lord disdained me because of you, and did not listen to m e . "

The same equivalent is found twice in the Psalms: Ps 77(78):59: "God utterly disdained and despised (imepeiSev Kal e^ou5svcoosv) Israel"; and Ps 77(78):62: "he delivered his people unto the sword and disdained (i)7iepet5ev) his inheritance". Whether the translator of Psalms borrowed this rendering from the Pentateuch or whether he independently reproduced it is undecided. In any case, the meaning of the Greek verb is clear, and its contextual use unproblematic, although the path leading from the Hebrew to the Greek has not been explained. The two remaining Psalms passages are the ones where "1337]jin is translated with avapdA.A.o|iai. Since the translator of Psalms elsewhere uses i)7t£popdco one may suspect the Greek verbs to be near synonyms. The dictionary does not bear this out, however. The glosses in LSJ for the middle avapdAAo|iai are: "to strike up, begin to play"; "to put off, delay, adjourn"; "to refer a thing to someone else"; "to throw one's cloak up or back"; and "to risk". Which one of these nuances was intended by the translator of Psalms is not obvious. But in any case, the glosses show no overlap with those of imepopaco: "to overlook" and "to despise". The remaining three occurrences of the Hebrew verb are in Proverbs, whose translator, as is well known, takes great liberty in rendering his source text. Consequently, it is often difficult to know how the single words of the Hebrew were interpreted. In one case, the Greek seems to reflect a variant reading: in Prov 14:16 the formal equivalent of "ISVfin is (xslyvuTai corresponding to Tll/flft. 2 2 In a second instance, Prov 26:17, the whole Proverb seems to have been replaced by a Greek equivalent and it is hard to identify the precise rendering of ISVfia. 2 3 Finally, in Prov 20:2, the Greek appears to reflect correct knowledge of the Biblical Hebrew verb, since it is translated 7tapo^i>vci>, "to irritate, incite to fury". 2 4 This might as well be a guess from the context, however. The material from Proverbs is not directly relevant to our question and will be left to the side.

22 See P. DE LAGARDE, Anmerkungen zur griechischen Übersetzung der Proverbien (Leipzig 1 8 6 3 ) 4 7 . 23 T h e formal equivalent is ó itposaxcói;, "he who m a n a g e s " , but it is hard to see how this could reflect the H e b r e w on the word level. 24 DE L a g a r d e , Anmerkungen, 64, prefers the reading é7nmyvú|¿£vo.eiv|/ei as, "afterward, when he sees you, he will forsake you"), and shake his head at you."

Hebrew texts from the Hellenistic period are few in number. There should be no doubt, however, that Ben Sira's use of the verb reflects the common Hebrew idiom of the time. Apparently, the old verb "to become furious"

25 For the occurrences in Ben Sira, see M. H. KISTER, "A Contribution to the Interpretation of Ben Sira", Tarbiz 59 (1990) 3 0 3 - 3 7 8 , in particular 318, 321, 328; for the single occurrence in Qumran Hebrew, see the Appendix below. In Mishnaic Hebrew the verb is attested only with the meaning "to become pregnant". 26 For the Hebrew text of Ben Sira, the edition of the Academy of the Hebrew Language, Jerusalem, 1973, has been used. 27 The same meaning is found in Sir 7:16; see KISTER, "Contribution", 3 2 0 - 3 2 1 . 28 T h e same meaning is found in Sir 38:9.

Source-Language

Oriented

Remarks

89

had become obsolete and a new verb meaning "to disregard, to postpone" had come into being. 29 Since the translators of Deuteronomy and Psalms may have flourished within one or two generations from the time of Ben Sira, one may suppose that the Hebrew they knew was close to his. It appears natural, therefore, that they should have attributed to Biblical IB^Îin the meaning expressed by the verb in their time. In this way, I submit, we can explain the Septuagintal renderings in Deuteronomy and Psalms: xmepopaco, "to disregard, to disdain", and àvapdÀ.A.o|iai, "to postpone". Indeed, these renderings correspond exactly to the nuances expressed by the Hebrew verb in Ben Sira's idiom. 30

3. T h e M e a n i n g of avapdXA.on.at in P s 7 7 : 2 1 ; 8 8 : 3 9 This brings us to the goal of our exercise, the meaning of the verb avaP&XA-o^iai in Ps 7 7 : 2 1 and 8 8 : 3 9 . The use of the verb " i S y f l H in the meaning "to defer, to postpone" in Post-Biblical Hebrew points to the possibility that this is the nuance the translator of Psalms wanted to capture when he chose the verb dva|3dM.o|xai as an equivalent. 31 As was already stated, the meaning "to postpone, to adjourn" is well attested in literary Greek. For the middle voice, LSJ give the following meanings: I. to strike up, begin to play or sing; II. to put off, delay; to defer; III. to throw one's cloak up or back; IV. to risk. 32

29 Alternatively, the meaning "to disregard, to postpone" may be held to reflect an old homonym (possibly attested also in Prov 20:2). 30 Somewhat differently, Muraoka has connected the rendering with the Hiphil of -QS7, see T. MURAOKA, Hebrew/Aramaic Index to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids 1998)

107. 31 Rehkopf renders the verb as "aufschieben", i.e. "defer", but this seems to be based rather on Acts 24:22 than on any Septuagint passages (of which he refers only to 1 Kgds 28:14). See F. REHKOPF, Septuaginta-Vokabular (Gottingen 1989) 17. As was signalled above (n. 18), Pietersma renders the verb in Ps 88:39 with "to put o f f " , the meaning of which is, according to Webster's dictionary: "to delay, discard, evade". It is unclear, however, whether "to delay" is the nuance Pietersma wanted to capture. Note that in Ps 77:21 he renders with a different expression: "to put out", i.e. "to expel, dismiss, disconcert, confuse, distress, vex, inconvenience". 32 In addition, LSJ note the meaning "to be wroth", but see above, n. 20.

90

The Translators'

Knowledge of Hebrew

Of all these meanings, the second one arguably fits the Psalms passages best. The meaning "to postpone" is found also in the New Testament and in the papyri. 3 3 Grammatically, the verb usually takes a direct object designating the matter that is postponed. The direct object may be understood from the context, however. This would be the construction in Ps 77:21: "he postponed (it)". More rarely, the verb governs a personal direct object in the accusative. In the latter case, the meaning is something like: "to postpone someone's hearing" or "to keep someone waiting". The construction is found in the New Testament: Acts 24:22 avefiaXszo 8e amove, o OfjXii;, aKpipeaxspov eLSok; xa jxepl xrj

44 According to some witnesses, A q u i l a ' s version in Deut 3:26 had the same equivalent, imepéGeio, "he deferred", as Theodotion. Since other witnesses attribute the reading to T h e o d o t i o n alone, or to S y m m a c h u s and Theodotion, the attribution to Aquila is problematic, h o w e v e r . See SCHENKER, Psalmenbruchstiicke, 185-186. 45 For both the verb and the noun, see J. REIDER, N. TURNER, An Index to Aquila ( V T S u p 12; Leiden 1966) 23. 46 Cf. SCHENKER, Psalmenbruchstiicke, 186. 47 Cf. M. L. KLEIN, " C o n v e r s e Translations: A T a r g u m i c T e c h n i q u e " , Biblica 57 (1976) 5 1 5 - 5 3 7 . 48 See, for instance, M. HARL, G. DORIVAL, O. MUNNICH, La bible grecque des Septante: Du judaïsme hellénistique au christianisme ancien (Paris 1988) 2 1 5 - 2 1 6 . See Job 35:13; Isa 3:10. 49 Cf. Ps 90(91):4 in the Septuagint. 50 S e e D. BARTHELEMY, Les devanciers d'Aquila ( V T S u p 10; Leiden 1963) 2 5 3 - 2 6 0 .

Source-Language

Oriented

Remarks

95

oe, "I will take your shield away". This keeps part of the earlier rendering but turns the meaning into its opposite by means of the preverb.

6. Conclusion With the help of a few examples, the present study has attempted to show that the "Hebrew dimension" ought not to be neglected in lexicographical studies on the Greek versions of the Bible. The information that can be gained from the study of Hebrew equivalents may complement to good purpose the information gained from the Greek lexicon and the context. As a general statement, this is hardly controversial. But more can be done in this field than has been done by most Septuagint lexicographers. Notably, the investigation should take into account the knowledge and practice of Hebrew in the Hellenistic period, which can be partly recovered by studying Qumran Hebrew, Ben Sira, epigraphic documents, and Mishnaic Hebrew. The Hebrew dictionary used by the Greek translators was not B r o w n Driver-Briggs or Koehler-Baumgartner. Many of their surprising lexical options may be explained on the supposition that they read the Biblical text in light of Post-Biblical Hebrew or Aramaic. Attention to the "Hebrew dimension" is important not only for studies on the Septuagint, but for the revisions too. In fact, the information gained from the Hebrew equivalent may be even more important here than in the case of the Old Greek. Of course, the knowledge of Hebrew will be different for every version. Generally one may suppose the later revisers to have had a much better grasp of the Biblical Hebrew lexicon than the Seventy (though every case should be studied for itself). But the principle remains the same: if we can determine how the translator interpreted a given Hebrew word, we have gained crucial information for the definition of the Greek word he used to render it. An interesting sidelight on the technique of the revisions is the continuity that has come to light among the renderings of Hebrew H: although Theodotion selected a lexeme that was etymologically unrelated to any of the Septuagint's renderings, and although Aquila turned Theodotion's equivalent into its opposite by means of the alpha privativum, a desire can be observed on the part of the later revisers to preserve something of the choices made by their predecessors. This too is a fact that has been noted before, notably by Barthélémy. It has been established here on the basis of new material.

96

The Translators'

Knowledge of Hebrew

A p p e n d i x : "QVpn in Q u m r a n H e b r e w The verb "ISVílH occurs once in a fragmentary manuscript from Qumran, 4QBarki Napshi e : 4Q438 3, 2

...]i Tmsrnn si1? n D ' T r m i . . .

The editors, M. Weinfeld and D. R. Seely, translate the verb "I have not been angry" and refer to Biblical IB^Í 1 '!'- 5 ' In the English translation contained in F. García-Martínez' and E. J. C. Tigchelaar's study edition the verb is translated "I have not mingled" (apparently through mingling with the verb The broken context makes a decision difficult: the fragment counts only three lines, none of which is complete. The translation proposed by Weinfeld and Seely is plausible. If the Qumranic author indeed meant to express something like "I have not been angry with your elect" this would indicate that the Biblical Hebrew meaning was still actively known in the Qumran community. In light of the obsoleteness of " I 3 V Í 1 H , "to become furious", in Post-Biblical Hebrew observed above, it is preferable, however, to adopt a different interpretation. The verb may be taken to mean: "to disdain", as in Sir 13:7 quoted above. The statement in 4Q438 would be more or less the opposite of what is said in Pesher Habakkuk of those who follow the Preacher of Lies: l Q p H a b X , 12-13 ' T M

RIS I D - I M

( I S - N -RAW m

' Ü D ^

INIT

...)

(... they will enter the judgments of fire, since they have reviled) and insulted the elect of God.

The verb used here, ^"in, "despise, scorn", may be a near synonym of "inynn in 4Q438. The speaker in 4Q438 3, 2 protests: "I have not disdained your elect."

51

In E. CHAZON et al„ Poetical

and Liturgical

Texts, part 2 (DJD 29; Oxford 1999)

329. 52

F. GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ, E. J. C. TIGCHELAAR, The Dead

vol. 2 (Leiden 1998)919.

Sea Scrolls:

Study

Edition,

70n, "Benevolence", and eXsoq, "Pity" Reflections on Their Lexical Equivalence in the Septuagint Introduction In the Septuagint, the Hebrew word i o n is usually translated by the Greek word £X.eovr| because e>.£0OHSVCOV gA.aPev aiixov "from behind the lambing ewes he took him" Gen 33:13 nt>v i p n m i x s m "the flocks and herds, which are nursing,

are a care for me"

KCU a i POEav xov EvSunarog avzov "It is like the perfume on the head, which descends upon the beard, on the beard of Aaron, which descends upon the fringe of his clothing." 15 See Gen 3:8; Exod 21:19; Judg 21:24, and cf. Lev 26:12; Deut 23:15. Other verbs of motion, too, are found as equivalents, see, e.g., Gen 13:17; Josh 18:4; 1 Sam 2:30, 35. 16 In Num 12:8 and Ps 17(16): 15, the Hebrew word r u m n , "form", is rendered as 5o^a, "glory"; in Deut 22:14, 17 and Ps 141(140):4, the Hebrew word m ^ y , "deed", is rendered with 7tp6cpaan;, "pretext, excuse", or kindred words. Although these renderings are conditioned by their contexts, they are striking enough to suggest that the Psalms translator adopted them from the Pentateuch.

152

Interpretation

Exod 28:32

n s NWYA T3D VD1? RRRR NSTI> " D I M UPX-HD RRM "It shall have an opening for the head in the middle of it, with a w o v e n binding around the opening." KOU BOTCH TO Tteptcxontov ¿f, aiitoC (XEOOV pioV KOU OI)K eyvax; " W h y is it that we have fasted, but you did not see? H u m b l e d our souls, but you did not know?"

Other examples: Ezek 8:12; 9:9; Ps 94(LXX 93):7; Job 22:13; and perhaps Gen 4:14. 21

4. Conclusions What our study establishes with some assurance is that the Greek translators believed God to be omniscient and let this belief influence their translation. The tendency to preserve or underline the notion of divine omniscience is found in the Pentateuch and in the other books, in literal as well as in free translation units. 22 All this confirms the interest of the thematic approach. A more difficult question is how to interpret these data in the framework of the debate on the theology of the Septuagint. A first possible explanation would be to describe the tendency identified in this paper in terms of Hellenization. Since Greek thought is supposedly more abstract, more conceptual, and more systematic than Hebrew thought, the belief in divine omniscience might be viewed as a typical Hellenistic theologoumenon, held to by the translators and consequently expressed in their Greek text. Such a theory would capture the truth only to a limited extent. A major obstacle in the way of this theory is the fact that the Hebrew Bible too clearly expresses the notion of divine omniscience. "The LORD is a God of

corrected by scribes when they are attributed to God, Jesus or the apostles, but tend to be preserved intact when they are attributed to unbelievers. See B. D. EHRMAN, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (Oxford 1993) 57, 68. 21 T h e same explanation may account for C a i n ' s words in Gen 4:14, "If you throw me out today f r o m the face of the earth, f r o m your face too I will be hidden ..." (Septuagint) - the murderer of his brother could be expected to express a flawed theology. See also Amos 9:3. 22 Not, however, in the Book of Genesis (see above, section 3a).

180

Interpretation

knowledge, and by him actions are weighed", says 1 Sam 2:3, in the Hebrew text. 23 The God of Israel knows what is hidden, he knows what is in the hearts and minds of human beings, and he knows what will happen in the future - every one of these doctrines is explicitly stated in a variety of places. 2 4 Divine omniscience is not a new idea born from Hellenistic reflexion on Israel's theological heritage. Perhaps then - this is a second possibility - the difference between the Greek version and the Hebrew text is that the former is more consistent in affirming divine omniscience. While the Hebrew text is inconsistent - now affirming omniscience, now casting it into doubt - the Greek translators would have effaced these contradictions. The tendency we have retraced would then be due to an effort at harmonizing the message of the Bible. Harmonization is indeed well in evidence in the Greek version, not least in the theological domain. 2 5 Nevertheless, this explanation too seems to be still off the mark. Indeed, the contradiction in the Hebrew Bible is more apparent than real. It is true that, in the passages reviewed above, the Hebrew text affirms that God "got to know", or that God "doesn't hear or see"; moreover, God is quoted as saying: "I didn't know" or "I want to know". One could, on the basis of these passages, conclude that the God of the Bible is not omniscient - as has been done recently by Michael Carasik. 2 6 However, in light of the massive affirmation of G o d ' s omniscience in all kinds of contexts, this approach is questionable. It would be safer to say that the expressions mentioned are figures of speech. Biblical style permits to say "the Lord got to know this or that" and the same style allows to attribute to God words like "I didn't know" - but such phrases, in the context of the Hebrew Bible, do not suggest any real ignorance on God's part. 27 The real difference between the Hebrew and the Greek on the point at issue would seem to be of a stylistic rather than a theological order. Both the Hebrew and the Greek Bible affirm the omniscience of God. But the Greek is more cautious in using turns of phrase that might let the uneducated imagine that God is not omniscient, more prone to affirm divine omniscience explicitly. Perhaps this has something to do with writing in a language everyone could understand. While the Hebrew Bible addresses Israelites familiar with biblical religion, such an audience could not be 23

On the textual problems of this verse, see M. SEGAL, "1 Samuel 2:3: Text, Exegesis

a n d T h e o l o g y " , Shenaton 24

13 ( 2 0 0 2 ) 8 3 - 9 6 .

See, e.g., Josh 22:22; Jer 12:3; Ps 44:22; 94:11; Job 23:10; Dan 2:21-22. The notion is implicit in many other texts, e.g., Deut 18:9ff; Num 23:23. 25 See JOOSTEN, "Une théologie de la Septante?" (above, n. 2). 26 M. CARASIK, "The Limits of Omniscience", JBL 119 (2000) 221-232. 27 Compare phrases like: "wake up", Ps 35:23; 44:24; 59:6 (cf. Ps 7:7; 59:5; Isa 51:9); " d o n ' t forget", 1 Sam 1:11; Ps 10:12 (cf. Ps 42:10; Lam 5:20).

Divine Omniscience and the Theology of the Septuagint

181

taken for granted by the Greek translators.28 What changes in the Greek Bible with regard to the notion of divine omniscience is not the substance, but the rhetoric.

28

Note that the few passages that were not changed did indeed create problems in the later history of interpretation. Origen expressly polemicizes against heretics who deduced from passages like Gen 18:21 that the God of the Old Testament was ignorant, see Horn, in Genesim 4.6. The Ebionites rejected all passages in the Old Testament that made mention of G o d ' s testing (as in Genesis 22), see the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies 2.43 (PG 2, 105).

Historical Milieu

Language as Symptom Linguistic Clues to the Social Background of the Seventy* Introduction The question of the identity of the Septuagint translators, even if we limit the corpus, according to the original meaning of the term, to the Pentateuch, is not an easy one to answer. The date of the Greek Pentateuch can, with some assurance, be set between 280 and 260 BCE, while the place of origin is probably Alexandria in Egypt. 1 But who were the translators? Were they Jews of the Diaspora, or had they recently arrived from Palestine? What was their background? To what kind of community did they belong? And what were their ties to the larger society? The Letter of Aristeas, of course, gives answers to all these questions, but its reliability is in doubt. The aim of aggrandizing the prestige of the Greek version may have led its author to idealize the translators. Moreover, it is uncertain whether the author of the Letter, probably flourishing in the second century BCE, disposed of authentic information on the production of the Septuagint a century earlier. 2 Modern scholars have formulated alternative answers on the basis of the translation technique or the exegetical traditions used by the translators. 3 No single hypothesis is agreed upon by a majority of scholars, however. * An earlier draft of this p a p e r was presented at the c o n f e r e n c e of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies in Leiden, 2004. 1 See M. HARL, G. DORIVAL, O. MUNNICH, La bible grecque des Septante: Du judaïsme hellénistique au christianisme ancien (Paris 1988) 3 9 - 1 1 0 . T h e recent attempt by Clancy to lower this date by about a century is ill i n f o r m e d and ineffective, see F. CLANCY, " T h e D a t e o f L X X " , S JOT

16 ( 2 0 0 2 ) 2 0 7 - 2 2 5 .

2

For the date and p r o v e n a n c e of the Letter of Aristeas, see R. SOLLAMO, "The Letter of Aristeas and the Origin of the Septuagint", in B. A. TAYLOR (ed.), X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Oslo 1998 (SCS 51; Atlanta 2001) 3 2 9 - 3 4 2 , in particular 3 3 1 - 3 3 4 ; see also S. HONIGMAN, The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria: A Study in the Narrative of the Letter of Aristeas ( N e w York 2003). 3 See, e.g., A. VAN DER K o o i J , "Perspectives on the Study of the Septuagint: W h o Are the Translators?", in F. GARCÎA MARTINEZ, E. NOORT (eds.), Perspectives in the Study of

186

Historical

Milieu

In the present study a number of linguistic clues will be presented that may throw some light on the milieu in which the original Septuagint originated. Language communicates not only what speakers or writers intend it to communicate, but reveals something also of their social background. From the way people speak, one may be able to determine not only where they come from but also which schools they attended. Of course, things are rather more difficult when one is dealing with a written text and a dead language. But the principle remains the same. The vocabulary, grammar, and style of a text provide incidental information regarding the author and sometimes also regarding his target group. The study will proceed from features that are relatively well known to others that are more recondite.

1. Colloquialisms in the Septuagint A striking characteristic of the Greek language of the Pentateuch is its colloquial quality. 4 Many words and grammatical forms are rare or completely absent in literary texts, while being well attested in the non-literary papyri. T w o examples will illustrate: - For "ass, donkey" the translators most often use the classical Greek word ovo