Multiple Authorship of the Septuagint Pentateuch The Original Translators of the Pentateuch (Supplements to the Textual History of the Bible, 4) 9004420517, 9789004420519

Citation preview

Multiple Authorship of the Septuagint Pentateuch

Supplements to the Textual History of the Bible Editorial Board Russell Fuller (University of San Diego) Matthias Henze (Rice University) Armin Lange (University of Vienna) Emanuel Tov (Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

volume 4

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/thbs

Multiple Authorship of the Septuagint Pentateuch The Original Translators of the Pentateuch

By

Hayeon Kim

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Kim, Hayeon, author. Title: Multiple authorship of the Septuagint Pentateuch : The Original Translators of the Pentateuch / by Hayeon Kim. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, [2019] | Series: Supplements to the textual history of the Bible, 2214-5958 ; 4 | Based on the author's doctoral dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2007. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2019055553 (print) | LCCN 2019055554 (ebook) | ISBN 9789004420519 (hardback) | ISBN 9789004421127 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Old Testament. Greek–Versions–Septuagint–Criticism, interpretation, etc. | Bible. Old Testament–Translating. Classification: LCC BS744 .K56 2019 (print) | LCC BS744 (ebook) | DDC 222/.10486–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019055553 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019055554

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill‑typeface. ISSN 2214-5958 ISBN 978-90-04-42051-9 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-42112-7 (e-book) Copyright 2020 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents Preface vii List of Tables ix Abbreviations xii 1 Introduction 1 1 Study of the Unity of the Septuagint Pentateuch 2 State of Research 3 3 Methodology 10

1

2 The Common Background of the Septuagint Translators of the Pentateuch 18 1 Shared Vocabulary: Natural Equivalents 18 2 Shared Vocabulary: Religious Terminology 20 3 Differences in Rendering between the Pentateuch and the Other Books of the Septuagint 31 4 Conclusions 36 5 Excursus 1: Neologisms of the Septuagint 37 6 Excursus 2: The Translation Character of the Tabernacle Account: Exodus 25–31 and 35–40 39 7 Excursus 3: The Balaam Story (Numbers 22–24) Compared with the Other Parts of LXX-Num 53 3 Differences between the Translation Units in LXX-Pent 58 1 Introduction 58 2 Synonymous Renderings 60 3 Renderings Showing Different Perceptions 142 4 Degree of Literalism 146 5 Excursus: Differences between Exodus 29 and Leviticus 8

154

4 General Conclusions 159 1 The Common Background of the Septuagint Translators of the Pentateuch 159 2 Heterogeneity 159

vi

contents

Bibliography 175 Index of Modern Authors 185 Index of Main Hebrew Words Discussed 188 Index of Main Greek Words Discussed 189 Index of Ancient Sources 192

Preface :‫ְו ַי ֶגּד־ְלָך ַתֲּﬠֻלמו ֺת ָחְכָמה כּי־ִכְפַל ִים ְלתוִּשׁ ָיּה ְו ַדע ִכי־ ַיֶשּׁה ְלָך ֱאלוֹ ַה ֵמֲﬠוֹ ֶנָך‬ He would tell you the secrets of wisdom, For there are many sides to sagacity; And know that God has overlooked for you some of your iniquity. Job 11:6, JPS

∵ This monograph was written originally for my doctoral dissertation at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (2007), with Prof. Emanuel Tov as my advisor. Due to the constraints of my career as a minister in Korea, I have not been able to prepare this dissertation for publication until now. The purpose of this study is to explore the origin of the LXX Pentateuch, particularly its multiple authorship. Previous studies on the topic were either based primarily on perspectives that lack historical credibility and concrete evidence or were conducted using inconsistent sets of translation-technique criteria, which resulted in limited and varying conclusions. However, in the current study, I analyzed the LXX of the Pentateuch with an objective and consistent set of translation-technique criteria, using traditional and computerized tools. Therefore, the analysis I submit is more comprehensive and the results provide a clearer picture of the complete Pentateuch. Obviously, this study is not an exhaustive report on the origin of the LXX Pentateuch. However, its findings fill a lacuna in LXX studies and play an important role as a stepping-stone for future related studies. Several changes have been made to my original dissertation as it was written twelve years ago. In this edition, I have updated the recent research findings on the origin of the LXX Pentateuch, in order to make my study relevant to the contemporary discussion on the topic. Most of the latest studies reinforced my earlier findings and also broadened my perspective on the subject. Furthermore, I replaced the excursuses and changed the numbering of the examples in the manuscript to facilitate easier reading. As I finalize this monograph, I would like to express my deepest appreciation to Prof. Emanuel Tov who was not only my dissertation supervisor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, but also my teacher and mentor. Without his guidance, patience, and unwavering support, I never would have completed

viii

preface

this research study. Hence, I dedicate this book to Prof. Tov. I am also grateful to Brill Publishers for providing an invaluable opportunity to publish my monograph as a supplementary volume of the Textual History of the Bible. Thanks to Brill, my research study finally sees the light of day. I also acknowledge Janice Karnis for her work in stylizing this monograph. Her insightful suggestions are greatly appreciated. Further, I would like to recognize the effort of Shiran Shevah, who carefully read the manuscript, made judicious corrections, and helped with accurate indexing. Finally, my deep and sincere gratitude goes to my family. Thanks to my wife, Myeonghee, who has stood beside me throughout my studies, ministry, and life journey, to where I am today. My heartfelt thanks go to my supportive and loving children, Anna, Sara, Rebekah, and Ezra. They are the best children I could have ever desired. Hayeon Kim July 1, 2019

Tables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Criteria for literal versus free translation 9 Shared vocabulary of LXX-Pent: natural equivalents 19 The main equivalents of some religious terms in the Pentateuch 21 ‫ מזבח‬in LXX-Pent 22 ‫ אהל מועד‬in LXX-Pent 24 ‫( שבת‬noun) in LXX-Pent 27 The Feast of Booths 29 ‫רגלים‬/‫שלוש פעמים‬, ‫שבע פעמים‬, etc. 30 ‫ באר שבע‬in the LXX 32 The main equivalents of ‫ עבד‬in the LXX 33 The distribution of θεράπων, δοῦλος, and παῖς in the NT 34 The occurrences of θεράπων, δοῦλος, and παῖς in the LXX and NT 34 Shared neologisms of LXX-Pent 38 Pattern A (article + noun + article + adjective) in the tabernacle account 43 Pattern B (article + adjectival modifier + noun) in the tabernacle account 43 The rendering of the directions in the tabernacle account 47 List of materials in LXX-Exod 25:3–7 and 35:5–9 50 The breastplate in LXX-Exod 28:17–20 and 36:17–20 51 ‫מצנפת‬, “turban” in the tabernacle account 52 ‫ ווים‬in the tabernacle account 52 ‫ משחה‬in the tabernacle account 52 (1) ‫ מעשה חשב‬and (2) ‫ מעשה רקם‬in the tabernacle account 53 ‫ יהוה‬in LXX-Num 54 Transliteration of ‫ מדין‬in the Pentateuch 56 ‫ אולי‬in LXX-Pent 61 ‫ ]אמ״ר[ ל־‬in LXX-Pent 62 ‫ ]אמ״ר[ אל‬in LXX-Pent 64 ‫ בהמה‬in LXX-Pent 66 ‫גור‬, “dwell” in LXX-Pent 68 παροικέω, “to dwell beside” in LXX-Pent 69 πρόσκειμαι, “to be placed by/to lie by” in LXX-Pent 69 ‫ ֵגּר‬in LXX-Pent 70 ‫ גנב‬in LXX-Pent 73 ‫ גזל‬in LXX-Pent 73 ‫ זכר‬in LXX-Pent 74 ἄρσην and ἀρσενικός in LXX-Pent 75 ‫ נקבה‬in LXX-Pent 75

x 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77

tables ‫( זקן‬substantive adj.) in LXX-Pent 77 ‫ חמור‬in LXX-Pent 80 ‫ טו״ב‬in LXX-Pent: adjectival use 82 ‫ טו״ב‬in LXX-Pent: substantive use 83 ‫ טו״ב‬in LXX-Pent: verbal and/or adverbial use

84 Semantic realms of ἀγαθός and καλός in the NT 84 ἀγαθός and καλός in LXX-Gen and LXX-Deut 85 ‫ )ב(טרם‬+ impf./pf. in LXX-Pent 87 ‫( כאשר‬temporal or conditional) in LXX-Pent 89 ‫ כאשר‬in conditional clauses 91 ὃν τρόπον in LXX-Pent 92 καθάπερ in LXX-Pent 92 ‫ כרת‬in LXX-Pent 93 ‫ ליהוה‬in LXX-Pent 94 ‫ מו״ת‬in LXX-Pent 97 Main equivalents of ‫( מו״ת‬Qal, finite) in LXX-Pent 98 Participle forms of ‫ מו״ת‬in LXX-Pent 100 ‫ ָמן‬in LXX-Pent 101 ‫ מקרא‬in LXX-Pent 102 ‫ תולד)ו(ת‬,‫ משפחה‬in LXX-Pent 103 φυλή in LXX-Pent (based on HRCS) 104 ‫ תולדות‬in LXX-Pent 106 ‫ נחלה‬in LXX-Pent 107 ‫ נסע‬in LXX-Pent 108 ‫ נסע‬in LXX-Num 109 ‫( עבד‬noun) in LXX-Pent 111 ‫ על־כן‬in LXX-Pent 114 ‫ ַﬠם‬in LXX-Pent 115 γένος in LXX-Pent 117 ‫ערבות‬/‫ ערבה‬in Numbers and Deuteronomy 118 ‫ פן‬in LXX-Pent 119 μήποτε in LXX-Pent 120 ‫ צוה‬in LXX-Pent 121 Case syntax of ἐντέλλομαι (occurrences) 123 Case syntax of συντάσσω (occurrences) 124 ‫ צפור‬in LXX-Pent 125 ‫ ראש‬in LXX-Pent 126 ‫( שקל‬noun) in LXX-Pent 128 ‫ בשקל הקדש‬in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers 129 Two indicative future medium forms of ἐσθίω in LXX-Pent

130

tables 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108

xi

‫ ויהי‬in LXX-Pent 132 Combined table for καί and δέ 134 Examples of the interchangeable use of constructions with καί and δέ in LXX-Gen 134 (‫ ויהי)ו‬in LXX-Gen 135 ‫ ויהי‬in LXX-Exod 135 ‫ ויאמר‬in LXX-Pent 136 Renderings of ‫ ויאמר‬in LXX-Pent 138 The two main renderings of ‫ ויאמר‬in LXX-Exod 139 Infinitive absolute construction in LXX-Pent 141 The main equivalents of the infinitive absolute construction in LXX-Pent 142 ἐντέλλομαι and συντάσσω with different subjects in LXX-Lev and LXX-Num 143 ‫ ַﬠם‬represented by λαός and ἔθνος 144 Frequency of καί vs. postpositive particles 148 Equivalence of ‫—הנה‬ἰδού in LXX-Pent 149 The distribution of the rendering of ‫ ב‬+ infinitive in LXX-Pent 150 ‫ אמר‬in perfective tense, third person, and historical present 153 Different equivalents in Exodus 29 and Leviticus 8 155 ‫ פר‬in LXX-Exod and LXX-Lev 156 ‫ ִמשָחה‬in LXX-Pent 157 Variety in LXX-Exod versus stereotyping in LXX-Lev 157 Synonymous renderings—individual words (ch. 3.1.A) 160 Synonymous renderings—syntactical units (ch. 3.1.B) 161 Renderings showing different perceptions (ch. 3.2) 161 Degree of literalism (ch. 3.3) 162 Features of Genesis 162 Features of Exodus 163 Features of Leviticus 164 Features of Numbers 164 Features of Deuteronomy 165 Possible clusters of books in LXX-Pent 165 Relations between the five books of LXX-Pent 167

Abbreviations 1

General Abbreviations

LXX LXX-Pent LXX-Gen LXX-Exod LXX-Lev LXX-Num LXX-Deut LXX-Josh MT ms(s) Manuscript

pap SP

2 AASF ABC ABD

Septuagint Septuagint of the Pentateuch Septuagint of Genesis Septuagint of Exodus Septuagint of Leviticus Septuagint of Numbers Septuagint of Deuteronomy Septuagint of Joshua Masoretic Text manuscript(s) A Codex Alexandrinus B Codex Vaticanus S (‫ )א‬Codex Sinaiticus papyrus Samaritan Pentateuch

Journals and Research Tools

Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae Anchor Bible Commentary Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D.N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992 BETL Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium BIOSCS Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies BWA(N)T Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten (und Neuen) Testament BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft HRCS Hatch, E., and H.A. Redpath. A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1897. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998 HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs HTR Harvard Theological Review HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual ICC International Critical Commentary

abbreviations ISBE

xiii

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Edited by G.W. Bromiley. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979–1988 JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages JPS Jewish Publication Society Version JQR Jewish Quarterly Review JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSS Journal of Semitic Studies JTS Journal of Theological Studies KJV King James (Authorized) Version LSJ Liddell, H.G., R. Scott, H.S. Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996 MSU Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens NASB New American Standard Bible NETS A New English Translation of the Septuagint NIDOTTE New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Edited by W.A. VanGemeren. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997 NIV New International Version NovT Novum Testamentum OTS Old Testament Studies PAAJR Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research RB Revue biblique SCS Septuagint and Cognate Studies SemeiaSt Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by G.W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976 TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G.J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Translated by J.T. Willis et al. 16 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2018 THBO Textual History of the Bible Online. Edited by A. Lange, E. Tov, M. Henze, R.E. Fuller, and F. Feder TWOT Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Edited by R.L. Harris, G.L. Archer Jr., and B.K. Waltke. 2 vols. Chicago: Moody Press, 1980 VT Vetus Testamentum VTSup Supplements to Vetus Testamentum WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament WBC Word Biblical Commentary

chapter 1

Introduction 1

Study of the Unity of the Septuagint Pentateuch

The Septuagint1 Pentateuch, which was translated from Hebrew into Greek in the third century BCE, is an important source of knowledge for the transmission of the biblical text, early biblical interpretation, and Jewish Hellenism.2 Although many studies have contributed much to the understanding of the language of the LXX and its text-critical value, the question of the number of translators who produced LXX-Pent is still far from being settled. Some scholars (such as H.St.J. Thackeray,3 H.B. Swete4) have insisted on the homogeneous character of LXX-Pent, thus implying a single translator, while others (such as Z. Frankel,5 M. Hadas,6 A. Aejmelaeus7) have claimed five different hands. Still others (K. Huber,8 O.J. Baab,9 and N. Turner10 among others) have suggested, explicitly or implicitly, multiple hands for the individual books of LXX-Pent. Furthermore, those studies that have focused on LXX Greek and lexicography investigated only limited areas (e.g., M. Johannessohn, Der Gebrauch der Präpositionen in der Septuaginta [1925]; R. Helbing, Die Kasussyntax der Verba 1 2

3

4 5 6 7

8 9 10

Hereafter LXX. J.K. Aitken adds that LXX is also significant for other aspects of the linguistic studies pertaining to the Ptolemaic era, especially for translation studies. J.K. Aitken, “Introduction,” in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint (ed. J.K. Aitken; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 1–12. H.St.J. Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek, according to the Septuagint, Vol. 1, Introduction, Orthography and Accidence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909), 13; H.St.J. Thackeray, “Septuagint,” in ISBE 4:2722–2732. See H.B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (2nd ed.; Cambridge: Hendrickson, 1914), 21. Z. Frankel, Über den Einfluss der palastinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik (Leipzig: Barth, 1851). M. Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates: Letter of Aristeas (New York: Ktav, 1974), 81. A. Aejmelaeus, Parataxis in the Septuagint: A Study of the Renderings of the Hebrew Coordinate Clauses in the Greek Pentateuch (AASF 31; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1982), 176. K. Huber, Untersuchungen über den Sprachcharakter des griechischen Leviticus (Giessen: Topelmann, 1916), 98. O.J. Baab, “A Theory of Two Translators for the Greek Genesis,” JBL 52 (1933): 239–243. J.H. Moulton and N. Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. III: Syntax (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1963), 332, 337.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004421127_002

2

chapter 1

bei den Septuaginta [1928]; I. Soisalon-Soininen, Die Infinitive in der Septuaginta [1965]; R. Sollamo, Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions in the Septuagint [1979]). Due to their limited scope, these studies contribute more to the understanding of particular translation techniques than to the description of the characteristics of the individual books of the Greek Bible. These scholars reached different conclusions with regard to the characterization of the translation techniques of LXX-Pent based on the different criteria by which they analyzed their material. Wevers dedicated a large number of valuable monographs to the LXX of the Pentateuch.11 Below we refer to Wevers’s views on the translation character of Exodus 35–40.12 He also referred briefly to the independent status of other books of the Pentateuch but did not subject them to an exhaustive study.13 In order to improve the understanding of the individual translation units, the present study proposes to examine the agreements and distinctions among or within the books of LXX-Pent on a wider scale. It is essential to compare the recurring Hebrew words and phrases in the five books and their translation techniques in each of the LXX-Pent books, when attempting to find the relationship between the translations.14 This study will use a consistent set of translation-technique criteria involving statistical data in order to arrive at a more comprehensively based and less inductive set of conclusions than in previous studies. 11

12 13

14

J.W. Wevers, Septuaginta, Vetus Testamentum graecum, auctoritate academiae scientiarumgottingensis editum: Vol. I: Genesis (1974); Vol. II,1: Exodus (1991); Vol. II,2: Leviticus (1986); Vol. III,1: Numeri (1982); Vol. III,2 Deuteronomium (1977) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht); idem, Text History of the Greek Genesis (MSU XI; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974); idem, Text History of the Greek Deuteronomy (MSU XIII; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978); idem, Text History of the Greek Numbers (MSU XVI; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982); idem, Text History of the Greek Leviticus (MSU XIX; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986); idem, Text History of the Greek Exodus (MSU XXI; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992); idem, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus (SCS 30; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990); idem, Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis (SCS 35; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993); idem, Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy (SCS 39; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995); idem, Notes on the Greek Text of Leviticus (SCS 44; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997); idem, Notes on the Greek Text of Numbers (SCS 46; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998). Ch. 2, Excursus 2. J.W. Wevers, “The Attitude of the Greek Translator of Deuteronomy towards His Parent Text,” in Beiträge zur Alttestamentlichen Theologie. Festschrift für W. Zimmerli zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. H. Donner, R. Hanhart, and R. Smend; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 498–499; Wevers, Text-Numbers, 94–95; Wevers, Notes-Leviticus, 486. Thackeray, Grammar, 6–7; M. Tucker, “Using Recurring Hebrew Phrases to Evaluate a Septuagint Translation: Jeremiah 11:1–14 as a Case Study,” in XV Congress of the IOSCS, Munich, 2013 (W. Kraus, M.N. van der Meer, and M. Meiser; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016), 497–500.

introduction

3

The following criteria are utilized in chapters 2 and 3: lexical choices of the translators, consistency in rendering, the translators’ preference for certain Greek words, and stylistic differences among translation units, as well as a running identical text, Exodus 29 compared with Leviticus 8 (ch. 3, Excursus). This investigation will enable us to address the question of the number of translators (or translation groups) who produced LXX-Pent. In the study of the unity of LXX-Pent, other exponents of its character turned out to be of little help in this examination: the Jewish background of the translation, its geographical background, the nature of the Hebrew Vorlage, and the translators’ knowledge of Hebrew. The ultimate intention of this study is to contribute to the solution of the problem of the origin of LXX-Pent. It is anticipated that this study will demonstrate the heterogeneity of LXX-Pent (five different translators of the five books, and possibly different translators of segments of the individual books as well). This is the first study to offer a comprehensive analysis of the authorship of LXX-Pent. The focus of the study lies in the examination of the translational vocabulary of the complete Pentateuch, analyzed with the aid of traditional and computerized tools. It is hoped that conclusive answers can be given to the questions under investigation.

2

State of Research

Various views have been expressed both in antiquity and in modern scholarship on the question of the number of translators involved in LXX-Pent. Modern scholars have reverted to comparing differences in translation techniques and vocabulary, but in neither area have firm methods been established. The traditional sources regarding how many translators were employed in the translation of LXX-Pent can be divided into two groups. The first group includes the Letter of Aristeas and dependent sources in which the claim is made that the translation of the Pentateuch was prepared by a group of seventy (or seventytwo) elders.15 The second source is the first story told in Massekhet Sopherim 1.8, which mentions that five persons translated LXX-Pent.

15

On the relation between the numbers seventy and seventy-two, see E. Tov, “The Septuagint,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (ed. M.J. Mulder; Philadelphia: Fortress; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988), 161: “Possibly the original tradition referred to 72 translators (6 elders from each tribe as mentioned in the Epistle of Aristeas) and this number was then rounded off to 70. But it is also possible that seventy, which often serves as a typological number, was the

4

chapter 1

The Letter of Aristeas is the earliest document that conveys information on the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek. According to its account, the translation of LXX-Pent was produced by seventy-two elders who went down to Egypt from the land of Israel to translate the Torah into Greek and the result was perfect agreement among the translations they produced even though each one worked in isolation.16 The other witnesses that claim that the translation work was executed piously by seventy-two (or seventy) elders (in early Jewish literature and the church fathers) are probably merely quoting parts of the Letter of Aristeas. Josephus follows Aristeas largely on the main historical sections without adding any critical reflection.17 Philo strongly emphasizes the accuracy and internal agreement of the translators.18 A baraita in b. Meg. 9a19 supports the main description of Aristeas and Philo. The writings of the early church fathers show that at least parts of the Aristeas story were known to them. Justin Martyr (100–165? CE) testifies to seventy elders,20 and Clement of Alexandria (150–212 CE) and John Chrysostom (344–407 CE) maintain a similar tradition.21 Jerome, though he doubted the story of the seventy rooms and regarded as fictitious some parts of the Letter of Aristeas, also accepted the number of seventy translators.22 Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE) not only

16 17 18

19

20 21 22

original one: to the tradition that seventy elders translated the Pentateuch into Greek one can compare the ‘seventy elders of Israel’ who went up to the mountain of Sinai together with Moses (Exod 24:1, 9), the seventy elders who were appointed to assist Moses (Num 11:16ff.) and the seventy members of the Sanhedrin.” Letter of Aristeas, §§1–11, 39, 121–122, 301–302, and 310. Josephus, Ant., 12.12–18. “They, like men inspired, prophesied, not one saying one thing and another, but every one of them employed the self-same nouns and verbs, as if some unseen prompter had suggested all their language to them … [I]n every case, exactly corresponding Greek words were employed to translate literally the appropriate Chaldaic words, being adapted with exceeding propriety to the matters which were to be explained.” Philo, Mos. 2, vii, 37– 38 (translation quoted from C.D. Yonge, The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993], 82). b. Meg. 9a: ‫דתניא מעשה בתלמי המלך שכינס שבעים ושנים זקנים והכניסן בשבעים ושנים בתים‬ ‫ולא גילה להם על מה כינסן ונכנס אצל כל אחד ואחד אמר להם כתבו לי תורת משה רבכם נתן‬ ‫הקב״ה בלב כל אחד ואחד עצה והסכימו כולן לדעת אחת‬, “As it was taught in a Baraita: There was an incident with King Talmai [i.e., Ptolemy], that he gathered seventy-two elders and placed them in seventy-two houses, and he did not reveal to them for what he had gathered them. He then visited each one of them, and said to them ‘Write for me the Torah of Moses your teacher.’ The Holy One, blessed is He, placed counsel in each of their hearts and all of them arrived at a common decision.” Justin Martyr, Dial., lxvii. 7. Clement, Strom. (1, 148); Chrysostom, Hom. Matt., 5:2. Hadas, Aristeas, 78.

introduction

5

embraced strongly the evidence of Aristeas’s letter, but also emphasized the sanctity of the entire LXX.23 The most explicit tradition is that of Epiphanius of Salamis (315–403CE). According to him, the seventy-two translators worked in pairs, in thirty-six rooms, and their independent work resulted in complete agreement.24 All of these Jewish and Christian sources are fundamentally in agreement on the number of translators, namely, either seventy or seventy-two. Serious doubts as to the genuineness of the Letter of Aristeas have arisen among many modern scholars. The main points against the reliability of the Letter of Aristeas are as follows: 1) Lack of historical credibility: There is no firm evidence of the existence of a high priest named Eleazar or a royal librarian named Demetrius.25 Further, it is hardly likely that Demetrius of Phalerum and the king commissioned the translation work of the LXX.26 2) Geographical and linguistic problems: The Egyptian background of the language of the LXX does not support the claim of the Letter of Aristeas regarding the provenance of the translators. LXX Greek reflects the Koine Greek that was spoken and written in Egypt at the time of the translation,27 i.e., Greek as spoken in Egypt, not in the land of Israel. Therefore, LXX Greek could not have been produced by the seventy (or seventy-two) elders who came from Israel. Thus Swete: “The Greek of the Alexandrian Pentateuch is Egyptian, and as far as we can judge, not such as Palestinian translators would have written.”28 23 24

25 26 27

28

Civ., Book XVIII, 42ff. De Mensuris et Ponderibus, 3–11: “They were seventy-two in number and were shut up from morn till eve in the Pharian island … They slept in pairs in thirty-six bed-chambers … To each pair one book was delivered … [T]he books were distributed periodically to each pair of translators, passing from the first pair to the second, and again from the second to the third in rotation. Thus, each book was translated thirty-six times; such is the story which is told. There were also twenty-two of the apocryphal books … Then one reader recited, and the rest diligently attended; and there was found no discrepancy … [W]here they added a word they all added it in common, and where they omitted the omission was made by all alike.” The translation is cited in Hadas, Aristeas, 76. For a detailed discussion, see I. Abrahams, “Recent Criticism of the Letter of Aristeas,” JQR 14 (1902): 335–337. Abrahams, “Recent Criticism,” 337–339; S.P. Brock, “The Phenomenon of the Septuagint,” OTS 17 (1972): 23. G.A. Deissmann, Bible Studies (trans. A. Grieve; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1901), 86–169; J.A.L. Lee, A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch (SCS 14; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), 146–147; J.W. Wevers, “An Apologia for Septuagint Studies,”BIOSCS 18 (1985): 18; S. Olofsson, The LXX Version: A Guide to the Translation Technique of the Septuagint (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1990), 34. Swete, Introduction, 20.

6

chapter 1

3)

The purpose of the Letter of Aristeas: The purpose of the Letter of Aristeas undermines the credibility of the report included in it. It is now commonly held that Aristeas’s story of the origins of the LXX is part of an embellished work of propaganda aimed at glorifying the Jews and their law.29 Likewise, Zuntz: “In Aristeas it serves the same purpose as it had done in pseudo-Hecataeus; namely, Jewish propaganda.”30 While not necessarily accepting the account of the Letter of Aristeas, scholars such as Thackeray31 and Swete32 insisted on the homogeneous character of the language and translation character of LXX-Pent. Thackeray, even though his conclusion is not based on specific data but on a general evaluation of style and translation technique, assigned the Pentateuch to the same group in his division of LXX books.33 He suggested that the variety of renderings within specific pericopes in the Pentateuch resulted from the attempt of the translators to avoid the monotony of the Hebrew text.34 Likewise, in A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch, Lee concluded that “both in age and level of language” the vocabulary of LXX-Pent is homogeneous.35 Yet it should be noted that Lee’s conclusion is more concerned with the chronological background of the vocabulary and its country of origin (Egypt) than with the translators and their lexical style. However, the fact that the translators were contemporaneous, from the same region, and even spoke the same dialect does not necessarily imply that the translation is a single unit, for the books of LXX-Pent differ in lexical rendering and style. Scholarly investigation and critical analysis of the LXX have shown that there are variations in vocabulary and style among different books in the LXX, and even within single books. Due to the different translation techniques within and among the Greek biblical books, the scholarly argument that the claims

29 30

31 32 33

34 35

For a related discussion, see D.W. Gooding, “Aristeas and Septuagint Origins: A Review of Recent Studies,” VT 13 (1963): 357. G. Zuntz, “Aristeas Studies II: Aristeas on the Translation of the Torah,” in Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations: Selected Essays, with a Prolegomenon (ed. S. Jellicoe; New York: Ktav, 1974), 224. Thackeray, Grammar, 13. Also, see Thackeray, “Septuagint,” 2729, who states categorically: “The Greek Pentateuch should undoubtedly be regarded as a unit.” Swete, Introduction, 21. Thackeray, Grammar, 9: “At the head stands the Pentateuch, distinguished from the rest by a fairly high level of style (for Koine Greek), combined with faithfulness to the original, rarely degenerating into literalism.” H.St.J. Thackeray, “The Greek Translators of Jeremiah,” JTS 4 (1903): 245. Lee, Lexical Study, 148.

introduction

7

of homogeneity are untenable because of differences in authorship of the portions of LXX-Pent has been gaining strength slowly, though this aspect has not yet been discussed sufficiently. A tradition that differs radically from the above accounts is recorded only in the posttalmudic Tractate Sop. 1.7. This passage mentions five elders instead of the seventy-two (or seventy) elders who worked for King Ptolemy,36 assigning one elder to each book of the Pentateuch. Frankel was the first scholar to claim that LXX-Pent was translated by five different individuals. Although he did not articulate explicit conclusions in this direction, the data provided by him may be taken to indicate that individual books (i.e., Genesis, Exodus) were translated separately.37 More elaborate research carried out by Soisalon-Soininen, Sollamo, and Aejmelaeus supports the theory of multiple authorship of the books of LXX-Pent, although not necessarily pointing to exactly five translators. Thus, according to Soisalon-Soininen’s division in his Die Infinitive in der Septuaginta, Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are included in the group of “free rendering,” whereas Leviticus is included in another group, that of “relatively literal renderings.”38 According to the conclusion reached by Sollamo in Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions in the Septuagint, Exodus is included in the group of “mostly free translations,” whereas the other four books of LXX-Pent are in the group of “relatively free translations.”39 In Parataxis in the Septuagint: A Study of the Renderings of the Hebrew Coordinate Clauses in the Greek Pentateuch, Aejmelaeus concluded that the translators of Genesis and Exodus were more sensitive to the demands of the Greek language than were the translators of the other three books. The translators of these two books were freer in their attitude towards their Vorlage than were the translators of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, who followed the word order of the original closely.40 Some scholars maintain that more than one translator produced an individual book within the Pentateuch. Thus, Huber suggested that either different

36

37 38 39 40

Tractate Sop. 1.7: ‫מעשה בחמשה זקנים שכתבו לתלמי המלך את התורה יונית והיה )היום( אותו‬ ‫יום קשה לישראל כיום שעשו בו ישראל את העגל שלא היתה התורה יכולה להתרגם כל צורכה‬, “It happened once that five elders wrote the Law in Greek for King Talmai (i.e., Ptolemy); and that day was a hard day for Israel, like the day on which Israel made the [golden] calf, because the Law was not capable of being interpreted according to all its requirements.” Frankel, Einfluss. For an extended discussion on Frankel’s theory, see Hadas, Aristeas, 81. I. Soisalon-Soininen, Die Infinitive in der Septuaginta (AASF B 1321; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1965), 177–178, 186, and 190. R. Sollamo, Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions in the Septuagint (AASF 19; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1979), 284–285. Aejmelaeus, Parataxis, 183–184.

8

chapter 1

translators or a later redactor were involved in some parts of LXX-Lev.41 Baab (1933) first put forth the theory that there were two translators of LXX-Gen,42 thereby raising the possibility of multiple translators of the individual books of LXX-Pent. He divided Genesis into two sections of roughly equal length (chs. 1–25 and 26–50) and then compared them with regard to pronouns, adverbs, waw + ‫ היה‬constructions, etc. On the basis of this data, Baab suggested that there were sufficient differences and points of contrast to seriously consider a theory of two translators for each of the books of the Pentateuch. Turner supported Baab’s view especially with regard to the books of Genesis and Exodus.43 The abovementioned studies show that the characteristics of the individual books of LXX-Pent regarding translation technique were not identical and, in any event, LXX-Pent cannot be regarded as a homogeneous translation. Further, the results of these studies do not agree in their divisions of the books. In several instances, including the abovementioned examples in which the Pentateuch was examined using a single criterion, the conclusions varied according to the criteria used to characterize the individual books of LXX-Pent. In all these cases, the suggestions were made on the basis of scanty evidence and no developed methodology, and without a clear picture of the complete Pentateuch. From a methodological point of view, this suggests that more objective and sound criteria need to be employed to cover the full range of the translators’ translation techniques. The present study intends to analyze this topic fully with the objective of developing an overall view on the translation of LXX-Pent. Various studies on the translation character of the LXX (freedom versus literalism) have contributed much toward characterizing the translation techniques reflected in the individual translation units of the LXX. In fact, many of the recent studies on translation technique investigated the degree of freedom and literalism in the translation. Thus, the attitude of the translators to their parent text can be evaluated by the degree of literalness or freedom in the translation units. Among other things, clarifying these characteristics by using criteria of literalism has been considered a very important tool for examining the number of the translators of LXX-Pent. In the past, the distinction between literal and free translations was based mainly on the vocabulary and style of the translation. Such evaluations were based on the scholars’ intuitive understand-

41 42 43

Huber, Leviticus, 98. Baab, “Genesis,” 239–243. Moulton–Turner, Syntax, 332, 337.

9

introduction

ing rather than on statistical data and, subsequently, more systematic criteria for literal versus free translations have been suggested, especially by J. Barr and E. Tov. Tov emphasizes that his criteria—partially overlapping with Barr’s first four criteria—can be expressed statistically thus enabling an accurate description of the degree of literalness in individual translation units.44 table 1

Criteria for literal versus free translation

Barr45

Tov46

1) Division of the words into elements or segments, and the sequence of their representation in the translation. 2) Quantitative addition and subtraction of elements. 3) Consistency/non-consistency in rendering. 4) Accuracy and level of semantic information. 5) Coded “etymological” indication of formal/semantic relationships obtaining in the vocabulary of the source language. 6) Level of text and level of analysis.

1) Internal consistency. 2) Representation of the constituents of Hebrew words by individual Greek equivalents. 3) Word order. 4) Quantitative representation. 5) Linguistic adequacy of lexical choices.

Implementing Tov’s abstract description, Tov and Wright used multiple criteria for measuring the literalness of the translation units:47 1) the rendering of the preposition -‫ ב‬by ἐν; 2) the rendering of the conjunction ‫ כי‬by ὅτι/διότι; 3) the rendering of the Hebrew third person singular masculine suffix by αὐτός/ἑαυτοῦ; 4) frequency of prepositions added in the LXX in accordance with the rules

44 45 46 47

E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (3rd ed.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 26. J. Barr, Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations (MSU 15; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 279–325. Tov, Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint, 22–26. E. Tov and B.G. Wright, “Computer-Assisted Study of the Criteria for Assessing the Literalness of Translation Units in the LXX,” Textus 12 (1985): 149–187.

10

chapter 1

of the Greek language or translation habits; and 5) frequency of the Greek postposition particles δέ, οὖν, μέν, and τέ in relation to καί. On the basis of these criteria, Numbers and Deuteronomy have been classified as “relatively free,”48 similar to the classifications of Soisalon-Soininen and Sollamo.49 It should be pointed out that measuring the degree of literalness of a translation in order to characterize its translation technique is not without problems, for the degree of literalness in the individual translations cannot be expressed with precision. Translators are neither consistently literal nor consistently free.50 A translator may vary his style and choice of words depending on the nature of the Hebrew. Thus, a different literary genre (law, poetry, proverbs, narrative, genealogy, etc.) may require a different type of translation.51 An investigation of this type involving a thorough study of translation technique and lexical choices is needed in order to determine the number of the translators of LXX-Pent. The subjective aspects of this investigation should be taken into consideration constantly. Therefore, an attempt is made here to include as many criteria/aspects as possible for distinguishing between translation units.

3

Methodology

3.1 Sources There is no external evidence that testifies to the number of the translators of LXX-Pent, and therefore the only researchable material regarding the nature of LXX-Pent is the translation itself. Since no complete Greek text from an early period has been preserved, one depends mainly on such relatively late Greek manuscripts as A, B, and S (‫ )א‬from the fourth or fifth century CE. These manuscripts are central to the reconstructed original text of the LXX in the Göttingen LXX editions, which are our point of departure. The text reconstructed in these editions incorporates also the evidence of early papyri and manuscripts, which is likewise taken into consideration in the present study. At the same time, such early papyri as the Chester Beatty papyri, P. Greek 458 of the John

48 49 50

51

The data for the other three books of the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus) have not been included in this study. Soisalon-Soininen, Infinitive, 177–178, 186; Sollamo, Semiprepositions, 284–286. See E. Bickerman, “The Septuagint as a Translation,” in Studies in Jewish and Christian History, Part 1 (ed. E. Bickerman; Leiden: Brill, 1976), 198; Brock, “Phenomenon,” 20; Barr, Typology, 281, etc. Bickerman, “The Septuagint as a Translation,” 190; Brock, “Phenomenon,” 20.

introduction

11

Rylands Library, P. Fouad 266, 4QLXXLeva,b, and 4QLXXNum do not add significant independent evidence for the present investigation. Relying on the uncial manuscripts as presented in the Göttingen editions raises several fundamental questions. First of all, do the uncial manuscripts, which were copied in the fourth–fifth centuries CE, reflect faithfully the Old Greek translation produced in the third century BCE? Secondly, do the eclectic Göttingen editions represent these uncial manuscripts accurately? Since this eclectic edition reflects elements from all the uncial manuscripts, a discussion is in order. We suggest that the Göttingen editions present these uncials well, and therefore they can be used as a basis for our investigations. The original LXX or Old Greek translation is not represented in any one manuscript. Furthermore, no two manuscripts are identical in all their details, although they are often very close. In addition, all uncials are defective.52 Nevertheless, several sources remain from the pre-Christian era and, though they are fragmentary, sufficient texts have been preserved to compare the uncials to them. Such comparisons confirm the reliability of the uncials. P. Fouad 266 (Rahlfs 848, 942, and 847), which is one of the oldest sources (100 BCE), includes parts of Genesis and Deuteronomy.53 4QLXXLeva (ca. first century CE), 4QLXXLevb (second–first century BCE), and 4QLXXNum (first century BCE) provide scattered pieces of a few chapters of the Greek Pentateuch.54 P. Rylands Gk. 458 (Rahlfs 957, middle second century BCE) contains parts of Deuteronomy chapters 23–25 and 28.55 The evidence of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, though predating that of the uncials, is not used for the present purpose, since these texts reflect revisions of the Old Greek translation and hence are irrelevant to the present study. 52

53

54

55

Codex Alexandrianus (A) is defective in Gen 14:14–17; 15:1–5, 16–19; 16:6–9; 1 Regn 12:18– 14:9; Ps 49:19–79:10; Codex Vaticanus (B) is also defective in Gen 1–46:28; 2 Regn 2:5–7, 10–13. Gen 3:10–12; 4:5–7, 23; 7:17–20; 37:34–36; 38:1, 10–12; Deut 17:1–2, 14–16, 18–19; 18:3–8, 15–16; 19:3–5, 5–9, 10–11, 13–14, 14–15, 18–20; 20:3–5, 5–8, 8–9, 12–14, 16–19, 19–20; 21:1–3, 4–8, 9–12, 14–18, 23; 22:1–3, 6–14, 21–23, 24, 26–27, 23:3–5, 7–11, 14–17, 21–22, 24–25; 24:1, 4, 7–11, 19–21; 25:1–5, 6–10, 14–18, (19); 26:1–3, 3–8, 11–12, 13–16, 18–19; 27:1–3, 3–9, 9–10, 13–16, 23–24, 25– 26; 28:1–4, 4–11, 13–14, 15–17, 20, 31–33, 49–50, 54, 54–55, 57–58, 58–63, 63–67, 68; 29:1–4, 9–10, 17–20, 21–22, 26–29; 30:1–2, 3–4, 6–7, 9–11, 16, 19–20; 31:2–3, 5–7, 10–11, 14–17, 21–26, 27–30; 32:1–7, 7–12, 14, 17–20, 25–26, 39–43, 44–49; 33:25–27; and Deut (4:18; 10:3, 8–9) 10:22; 11:1, 10–11; 11:13–14:16; 23:25–24:1; (31:17), 31:26–28, 29; 32:1, 2, 4; 33:14–20, 21–22, 25–27. 4QLXXLeva: Lev 26:2–16; 4QLXXLevb: Lev 1:11; 2:3–5, 7–8(?); 3:4, 7, 9–14; 4:3–4, 6–8, 10– 11, 18–19, 26–28, 30; 5:6, 8–10, 16–17; 5:18–6:5(5:24); 4QLXXNum: Num 3:40–42, 50–51(?); 4:1, (2–4), 5–9, (10), 11–16. See P.W. Skehan, “The Qumran Manuscripts and Textual Criticism,” in Volume du Congrès International pour l’étude de l’ Ancien Testament, Strasbourg 1956 (ed. P.A.H. de Boer; VTSup 4; Brill: Leiden, 1957), 157–158 and idem, “4QLXXNumb: A Pre-Christian Reworking of the Septuagint,” HTR 70 (1977): 39–50. Deut 23:24–24:3; 25:1–3; 26:12, 17–19; 28:31–33.

12

chapter 1

Comparison shows that, for example, 4QLXXLeva, 4QLXXLevb, 4QLXXNum, and the uncials reflect the same translation vocabulary in usual, as well as unusual, LXX equivalents.56 The following examples show that these two groups of sources agree also when they reflect an unusual LXX equivalent. 4QLXXLeva and the uncials Lev 26:5 σπόρος (‫ )זרע‬usual LXX equivalent: σπέρμα Lev 26:6 πόλεμος (‫ )חרב‬usually ῥομφαία or μάχαιρα 4QLXXLevb and the uncials Lev 4:7 παρὰ τὴν βάσιν (‫ )אל יסוד‬note the preposition, usually dative or εἰς Lev 5:8 τοῦ σφονδύλου (‫ )ערפו‬usually αὐχήν or τράχηλος 4QLXXNum and the uncials Num 4:8 ἐπ᾽ αὐτήν (‫ )עליהם‬usually ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς (note the number of the pronoun) These examples and several others57 show that the uncials can be used for the study of the Old Greek vocabulary. The critical editions are based principally on the ancient uncials, especially codices A and B. For example, taking the Göttingen edition as our point of departure, the edition contains 1,853 words in the first three chapters of LXXGen and, when compared with the uncial Codex Alexandrianus, the differences are negligible, while meaningful differences are very rare. The Göttingen edition (Gö) has only four plus elements,58 whereas as compared with the Göttingen edition, Codex Alexandrianus (A) has five plus elements,59 and different words are found only in one place.60 A few other miscellaneous differences

56

57 58 59 60

For the full data, see E. Tov, “The Greek Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert,” in The Bible as Book: The Transmission of the Greek Text (ed. S. McKendrick and O. O’Sullivan; London: Oak Knoll Press, 2003), 97–122. See Tov, “Greek Biblical Texts,” 106–118. Three of the four are prepositions (ἐν 2:2; 3:1; πρός 2:24) and the other case occurs in 3:20 (pronoun αὐτοῦ). In 1:11, εἰς ὁμοιότητα2; 1:14, καὶ ἄρχειν τῆς ἡμέρας καὶ τῆς νυκτὸς; 1:30, article τῷ; 3:13, κύριος; 3:17, ἔφαγες2. 3:2 Gö reads ἀπὸ καρποῦ ξύλου while A has ἀπὸ παντὸς ξύλου.

introduction

13

occur between the two sources such as in itacism61 or grammatical categories.62 These findings show that the meaningful differences are less than 1 % of the total words in the first three chapters of LXX-Gen.63 Therefore, the text reconstructed in the Göttingen editions may be considered a faithful reflection of the uncials and the data extracted from them are trustworthy for analyzing the translation units of LXX-Pent. 3.2 Tools The following tools are utilized for the present study. Critical text editions of the LXX: Septuaginta, Vetus Testamentum Graecum, Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, ed. J.W. Wevers, Vol. I: Genesis (1974); Vol. II,1: Exodus (1991); Vol. II,2: Leviticus (1986); Vol. III,1: Numeri (1982); Vol. III,2: Deuteronomium (1977). In second place also: The Old Testament in Greek, ed. A.E. Brooke and N. McLean, Vol. I, Part I: Genesis (1906); Vol. I, Part II: Exodus and Leviticus (1909); Vol. I, Part III: Numbers and Deuteronomy (1911). Septuaginta, Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes, ed. A. Rahlfs, Vols. I–II (1965). The following tools are used as additional controls: a) The Hebrew-Greek parallel aligned text of the Computer-Assisted Tools for Septuagint Studies (CATSS) project, codirected by R.A. Kraft and E. Tov in Philadelphia and Jerusalem, 1986, accessed through the computer program Accordance (Software for Biblical Studies, OakTree Software, Inc. 2001) in a Macintosh environment. This database contains the morphologically tagged text of Rahlfs’s LXX and the MT as well as a comparison 61 62

63

1Q21, 26 εἶδεν (Gö) vs. ἶδεν (A); 1Q22 εὐλόγησεν (Gö) vs. ηὐλόγησεν (A); 2Q11, Φισων (Gö) vs. φεισων (A). A difference regarding the movable n, “nu,” occurs in 1:30 (twice), πᾶσιν (Gö) vs. πᾶσι (A); phonetical difference in 3:24 χερουβιμ (Gö) vs. χερουβιν (A); active-passive differences in 2:17 and 3:5, φάγητε (Gö) vs. φάγησθε (A). If one examines the statistics in the first chapter of Joshua, the agreement between the Göttingen edition and Codex Vaticanus (B) is even more striking since the two differ in only four out of 441 words (0.9%).

14

b)

c) d)

chapter 1

between them. When CATSS differs from the Göttingen editions, the latter are followed. E. Hatch and H.A. Redpath (HRCS), A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament I–II together with T. Muraoka, Hebrew/Aramaic Index to the Septuagint (1998).64 E.C. Dos Santos, An Expanded Hebrew Index for the Hatch–Redpath Concordance to the Septuagint (1973).65 Greek grammars: F.C. Conybeare and St.G. Stock, A Grammar of Septuagint Greek (1905); H.St.J. Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek, according to the Septuagint, I, Introduction, Orthography and Accidence (1909); K. Huber, Untersuchungen über den Sprachcharakter des griechischen Leviticus (1916); and J.H. Moulton (1906–1963) and N. Turner (1963–1976), Grammar of New Testament Greek, etc. These grammar books provide background information for the study of the Greek styles and grammatical constructions of the individual translators.

3.3 Procedure The first step in our procedure will be an examination of the common elements of the five books of the Greek Pentateuch, as superficial reading of the translation points to homogeneity rather than to diversity (ch. 2). Next, we turn to the main topic of our study, viz., an examination of the differences between the books of LXX-Pent (ch. 3). When doing so, we will also turn to possible differences between individual segments of the books of the Pentateuch through an analysis of the translation vocabulary of these segments. The main procedure followed is the comparison of the translation options for the same Hebrew word in the various translation units. Most criteria materials are found and gathered while examining the setting of Hebrew and Greek texts of the Pentateuch. Also, many relevant studies are reexamined and utilized for the purposes of this study with the purpose of finding heterogeneity among the LXX-Pentateuch translators. For example, I turn to the vocabulary study of LXX-Pentateuch (such as Lee, A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch), the translators’ attitude to the parent text 64 65

The listing of Greek-Hebrew equivalents in this tool allows for a comparison of the different translators’ use of certain Greek equivalents. This reverse index to HRCS includes statistics for the equivalents of the main index (GreekHebrew), thus enabling one to see easily the main Greek equivalents for the Hebrew words and their distribution in the LXX. The statistics themselves are imprecise since they disregard various notations in the main index of HRCS: Greek words without equivalents as well as equivalents denoted as problematic or corrupt. Nevertheless, they often give a very good guideline for further research.

introduction

15

(such as Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in biblical Research), and the translation techniques employed in the rendering of words and syntagmata (such as Soisalon-Soininen, Infinitive and Aejmelaeus, Parataxis). In this investigation, we will try to locate and analyze Hebrew-Greek pairs of words, phrases, and syntagmata that are utilized widely in the five books of the Pentateuch and therefore may provide the needed information. Many equivalents that were investigated in the course of our preparatory work occur in several translation units and therefore point to homogeneity. However, our analysis focuses on differences in translation equivalents. We are aware of the fact that translators are not consistent even within the same context/verse. For example, in Exod 12:42, within the same verse the translator employed two different representation systems, with and without the article (below, ch. 3, 13. ‫)ליהוה‬. Exod 12:42 MT

‫ליל שמרים הוא ליהוה להוציאם מארץ מצרים הוא־הלילה הזה ליהוה שמרים לכל־בני‬ ‫ישראל לדרתם‬

LXX νυκτὸς προφυλακή ἐστιν τῷ κυρίῳ ὥστε ἐξαγαγεῖν αὐτοὺς ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου ἐκείνη ἡ νὺξ αὕτη προφυλακὴ κυρίῳ ὥστε πᾶσι τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ εἶναι εἰς γενεὰς αὐτῶν Likewise, in chapter 3, 22. ‫עם‬, the inconsistency in the rendering of ‫ עם‬in Gen 26:10–11 is indicated. Gen 26:10–11 MT

‫ ויאמר אבימלך מה־זאת עשית לנו כמעט שכב אחד העם את־אשתך והבאת עלינו‬10 ‫ ויצו אבימלך את־כל־העם לאמר הנוגע באיש הזה ובאשתו מות יומת‬11 ‫אשם‬

LXX 10 εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ Αβιμελεχ τί τοῦτο ἐποίησας ἡμῖν μικροῦ ἐκοιμήθη τις τοῦ γένους μου μετὰ τῆς γυναικός σου καὶ ἐπήγαγες ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἄγνοιαν 11 συνέταξεν δὲ Αβιμελεχ παντὶ τῷ λαῷ αὐτοῦ λέγων πᾶς ὁ ἁπτόμενος οῦ ἀνθρώπου ούτου ἢ τῆς γυναικὸς αὐτοῦ θανάτου ἔνοχος ἔσται Similar observations were made by Muraoka in his study of 1–4 Kingdoms.66 We realize that there are such incidental inconsistencies in all translation units,

66

T. Muraoka, “The Greek Texts of Samuel–Kings: Incomplete Translations or Recensional Activity?” AbrN 21 (1982–1983): 28–49.

16

chapter 1

but statistical research carried out in this study expects to find certain patterns beyond incidental cases of inconsistency. In explaining these differences, our working hypothesis is that consistent sets of differences between and within the books of the Pentateuch might indicate the existence of separate translators for the books of the Pentateuch or segments of them. The equivalents and features of the translation units will be scrutinized to determine whether or not LXX-Pent is a homogeneous work and, if not, what the distribution patterns are within the Pentateuch. Among other things, patterns of consistency and preference for certain Greek words/phrases and syntagmata among translation units will come to light. For example, Leviticus uses ὀρνίθιον exclusively (13 times) for ‫צפור‬, whereas Deuteronomy uses only ὄρνεον (3 times). In addition, the study will examine the renderings of certain grammatical constructions unique to Hebrew such as the infinitive absolute, the waw consecutive, and preposition + infinitive. In addition, study of the Greek style, unrelated to Hebrew (such as the use of prepositions), will further help us characterize features of individual translators. In every example examined, an exhaustive data table will present the distribution of the Greek renderings or uses of a word, phrase, or syntactical unit in order to discover patterns of distribution of the lexical choices within the Pentateuch as a whole, and within each individual book. The biblical references in the data tables provide not only the exact data for each item, but also a statistical distribution chart of the renderings. When differences between the translation units come to light, they will also be organized under the heading of “literal” versus “less literal” (or “free”) renderings. The aim of this study is to examine the degree of unity of LXX-Pent, and for this purpose the examination focuses on translation options that could point to different translators. At the same time, constant attention is paid to alternative explanations of translational diversity. Therefore, the meanings and functions of each Hebrew word will be considered, i.e., when a word has various meanings or functions (e.g., ‫ כאשר‬functions in both temporal and conditional clauses) that could necessitate different equivalents. In those cases, consistency and inconsistency in translation cannot be applied as a simple criterion in the distinction between translation units.67 After such alternative explanations of diversity have been discovered, one will detect differences among the translation units. It is then recognized that some translators rendered a given Hebrew word by the same Greek equiva-

67

For further discussion, see S. Olofsson, Translation Technique and Theological Exegesis: Collected Essays on the Septuagint Version (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 3–4, 53–59.

introduction

17

lent consistently while others varied their rendering from case to case. Thus, when distinctions appear in the rendering/use of several words and when a particular usage characterizes one section and not another one, this type of distribution strongly suggests different translators among the books of LXX-Pent and/or within individual books.

chapter 2

The Common Background of the Septuagint Translators of the Pentateuch The working hypothesis of this study is that consistent sets of differences among the translation units of LXX-Pent indicate that different translators were involved. However, not all equivalents show such differences among the five books or within individual translation sections. Part of the vocabulary of LXXPent was common to all the translators. In the areas of religious and legal terminology, and for several common words, the translators turned to what may be considered the natural Hebrew-Greek equivalents. These natural equivalents employed by all translators and exemplified in 1. Shared Vocabulary: Natural Equivalents below, do not establish any special relation between the translators, e.g., ‫ אח‬with ἀδελφός. Other more convincing examples of a unique character of the relationship between the Greek versions of the Pentateuch are exemplified in 2. Shared Vocabulary: Religious Terminology, e.g., ‫ מזבח‬with θυσιαστήριον, ‫ אהל מועד‬with ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ μαρτυρίου and ‫ פסח‬with πάσχα. The focus of this chapter is an investigation of the origin and nature of the common vocabulary in LXX-Pent, which reflects the translators’ shared socioreligious background. This understanding is reached by an examination of the equivalents used to express ordinary and religious words, focusing especially on idiosyncratic renderings. Within this shared translation vocabulary, there was room for individuality as will be shown by an analysis in chapter 3 of the differences between the translators. An analysis of these differences is meaningful only after the common features have been established in the present chapter.

1

Shared Vocabulary: Natural Equivalents

The shared renderings of the translators of the Pentateuch are recognized by statistical research. These shared renderings, often natural equivalents, are used in the great majority of the instances, as can be seen from a glance at HRCS. Thus, the translators did not employ different Greek synonyms for the Hebrew word for “brother” (‫ ;)אח‬rather they used only ἀδελφός. By the same token, ‫נפש‬, “soul, person” was usually translated as ψυχή (196 of 207 times =

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004421127_003

the common background of the septuagint translators

19

94.7%), although additional equivalents were also used.1 These shared equivalents show the translators’ wish not to vary their vocabulary, but to adhere to fixed equivalents, a tendency characterizing many of the LXX translators. Upon investigation, one finds that the greater part of this shared vocabulary reflects natural equivalents. That is, the best way to express ‫ שמש‬is ἥλιος, and one would have to make a special effort to locate alternative renderings, often of a poetic nature.2 By the same token, ‫ אח‬is ἀδελφός, even though the Greek language has other words to express this idea, especially when ‫ אח‬has a specific connotation.3 Table 2 furnishes more extensive data on the standard vocabulary of Hebrew-Greek equivalents in the Pentateuch, in this case illustrating the common background of the translators. A large portion of this translation vocabulary was accepted by the later translators,4 although these translators also developed new translation options. One might claim that these equivalents reflect the Greek spoken by the translators or, more generally, the Greek of Hellenistic Egypt,5 but the examples in Table 2 are not specific enough for this claim. table 2

ἅγιος ἄγγελος ἀδελφός ἀγαθός ἀετός αἷμα

Shared vocabulary of LXX-Pent: natural equivalents

‫קדש‬ ‫מלאך‬ ‫אח‬ ‫טוב‬ ‫נשר‬ ‫דם‬

ἐκλέγω ἔλαιον ἐνιαυτός ἐντέλλω ἔτος ἐξαποστέλλω

‫בחר‬ ‫שמן‬ ‫שנה‬ ‫צוה‬ ‫שנה‬ ‫שלח‬

νύμφη ‫כלה‬ νύξ (‫ליל)ה‬ ξύλον ‫עץ‬ ὁδός ‫דרך‬ ὁλοκαύτωμα ‫עלה‬ ὄμνυμι ‫( שבע‬ni.)

1 ἀνήρ (Gen 14:21), σῶμα (Gen 36:6), ὀλιγοψυχέω (Num 21:4), ἀναιρέω (Num 31:19), ἐλεύθερος (Deut 21:14), ἐλπίς (Deut 24:15). 2 For example, in Ps 84:12 [LXX Ps 83:12], ‫ שמש‬is rendered by ἔλεος, “mercy.” 3 Thus, the idiom ‫איש לאחיו‬, “one to another” is translated as ἄνθρωπος τῷ πλησίον αὐτοῦ῏ (Gen 26:31) or ἕτερος τῷ ἑτέρῳ (Exod 16:15, Num 14:4). 4 For a broad discussion of this phenomenon, see E. Tov, “The Septuagint Translation of the Torah as a Source and Resource,” in Die Sprache der Septuaginta/The Language of the Septuagint, LXX.H 3 (ed. E. Bons and J. Joosten; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2016), 316–328. 5 Deissmann suggests that the translators used words with meanings similar to those of contemporary words in the Egyptian papyri from the time of the Ptolemies. He highlights this position with a comparison of a cross-section of LXX vocabulary with one from Egyptian papyri of the Ptolemaic era. For example, (δια)γογγύζω (“murmur,” Exod 16:7, Num 11:1, etc.) occurs in a papyrus from 241–239BCE; ἐργοδιώκτης (“overseer of work,” “foreman,” Exod 3:8, 5:6, etc.) in one from 255–254 BCE; περιδέξιον (“bracelet,” Exod 35:22, Num 31:50) in one from 238–237 BCE (Deissmann, Bible Studies, 110, 122, 150). Lee also arrives at the same conclusion in Lee, Lexical Study, esp. 111, 131.

20 Table 2

chapter 2 Shared vocabulary of LXX-Pent: natural equivalents (cont.)

αἴξ ‫עז‬ ἅλς ‫מלח‬ αἰών ‫ע)ו(לם‬ ἀκούω ‫שמע‬ ἁμαρτάνω ‫חטא‬ ἄμπελος ‫כרם‬ ἀμφότεροι ‫שנים‬ ἀναβαίνω ‫עלה‬ ἀνίστημι ‫קום‬ ἀπαίρω ‫נסע‬ ἀποθνήσκω ‫מות‬ ἀποκρίνω ‫ענה‬ ἀποστέλλω ‫שלח‬ ἀποστρέφω ‫שוב‬ ἄρα ‫אלה‬ ἀργύριον ‫כסף‬ ἀριστερός ‫שמאל‬ αὔριον ‫מחר‬ βασιλεύς ‫מלך‬ βότρυς ‫אשכל‬ γάλα ‫חלב‬ γινώσκω ‫ידע‬ γυνή ‫אשה‬ διάνοια ‫לב‬ δίδωμι ‫נתן‬ δύναμαι ‫יכל‬ εἰσακούω ‫שמע‬ εἰσέρχομαι ‫בוא‬ εἰσπορεύω ‫בוא‬ ἐκεῖ ‫שם‬

2

ἐξέρχομαι ἐξιλάσκομαι ἐπαύριον ἐσθίω ἑσπέρα εὐλογέω εὐλογία εὐχή ζωή ἡμέρα ἥμισυς θάλασσα θάπτω θυγάτηρ θύρα ὁράω ἱερεύς καλέω καλύπτω καρδία κατοικέω κύκλος λαλέω λαμβάνω λαός λέγω λόγος λύχνος μήτηρ νεφέλη

‫יצא‬ ‫כפר‬ ‫מחרת‬ ‫אכל‬ ‫ערב‬ ‫ברך‬ ‫ברכה‬ ‫נדר‬ ‫חיים‬ ‫יום‬ ‫חצי‬ ‫ים‬ ‫קבר‬ ‫בת‬ ‫פתח‬ ‫ראה‬ ‫כהן‬ ‫קרא‬ ‫כסה‬ ‫לב‬ ‫ישב‬ ‫סביב‬ ‫דבר‬ ‫לקח‬ ‫עם‬ ‫אמר‬ ‫דבר‬ ‫נר‬ ‫אם‬ ‫ענן‬

ὄνομα ὅριον ὀσμή οὐρανός ὀφθαλμό παρέρχομαι πᾶς πατήρ πεδίον πετεινός πνεῦμα ποιέω πορεύω πῦρ προσκυνέω σάρξ σκεῦος σπέρμα σπονδή στόμα σφάζω σφόδρα τόπος ὕδωρ υἱός φυλάσσω χαλκός χείρ χιτών ψυχή

‫שם‬ ‫גבול‬ ‫ר יק‬ ‫שמים‬ ‫עין‬ ‫עבר‬ ‫כל‬ ‫אב‬ ‫שדה‬ ‫עוף‬ ‫רוח‬ ‫עשה‬ ‫הלך‬ ‫אש‬ ‫שחה‬ ‫בשר‬ ‫כלי‬ ‫זרע‬ ‫נסך‬ ‫פה‬ ‫שחט‬ ‫מאד‬ ‫מקום‬ ‫מים‬ ‫בן‬ ‫שמר‬ ‫נחשת‬ ‫יד‬ ‫כתונת‬ ‫נפש‬

Shared Vocabulary: Religious Terminology

The purpose of the analysis and examples in this section is to show special connections between the translators of the Pentateuch in remarkable translation equivalents, even though the decision as to which equivalents are unique is

21

the common background of the septuagint translators

often impressionistic. Such renderings reflect a specific nuance of the Hebrew or add a nuance in the Greek version that is not found in the original Hebrew. These new aspects are especially recognizable when the Greek word was apparently coined by the translators as a new entity in the Greek language. The focus of this section is the religious terminology, often innovating Greek words or expanding the meaning of those already existing. table 3

The main equivalents of some religious terms in the Pentateuch

Greek equivalent

Hebrew word Gen Exod Lev Num Deut Total Neologism

ἁγίασμα ‫נזיר‬/‫ מקדש‬/‫קדש‬ ἀποδεκατόω ‫עשר‬ ἀφαίρεμα ‫תרומה‬/‫ תנופה‬etc. ἀφόρισμα ‫הניף‬/‫תנופה‬, etc.6 ἐξιλασμός ‫כפר‬ εὐλογητός ‫ברוך‬ θυσιαστήριον ‫מזבח‬ θυσίασμα ‫אשה‬/‫מנחה‬/‫זבח‬ ζυμωτός ‫חמץ‬ ἱλαστήριον ‫כפורת‬ λάγανον ‫רקיק‬ λουτήρ ‫כיור‬ λυχνία ‫מנורה‬ νόμος ‫תורה‬ ὁλοκάρπωμα ‫עלה‬ ὁλοκαύτωμα ‫עלה‬ πάσχα ‫פסח‬ σάββατον/σάββατα ‫שבת‬ σκηνή ‫משכן‬ ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ μαρτυρίου ‫אהל מועד‬

8

1

1

77 13

1 7

2 13 4 1 1 49 2 3 138 2 5 15 7

8 4 2

15 2

87 1 1 7 3 1 1 16

20 1

6 6 11 39 33

45 1 18 2 43

1 2 1 6 10 1 34 10 4 36 61

2 8 2

20 6 4 3 2

9 3 36 10 3 10 177 6 4 21 7 7 22 54 8 91 21 36 77 149

× = neologism

These special renderings, exemplified in Table 3, were devised in the course of the translation activity, while some of them may have existed at an earlier 6 ‫ נזר‬Exod 39:30, ‫ תרומה‬Num 15:19, ‫ מגרש‬Num 35:3. 7 In Gen 43:28, εὐλογητός has no Hebrew equivalent. 8 In Exod 37:8a, there is no Hebrew equivalent.

× × × × × × × × × × × × × × ×

22

chapter 2

stage.9 The Alexandrian Jewish community must have availed itself of special Greek words in their religious life,10 especially in their religious gatherings and in keeping their religious festivals. Typically, neologisms were created in three different ways: (1) new nouns coined based on known roots, (2) new verbs created based on known nouns, and (3) new terms created by a combination of elements. Table 3 exemplifies these terms, some of which are discussed below. 2.1 Religious Words 2.1.1 ‫ = מזבח‬θυσιαστήριον θυσιαστήριον is the standard translation of ‫ מזבח‬in LXX-Pent, used in 177 of 198 occurrences (almost 90%). See Table 4.11 table 4

θυσιαστήριον

9

10 11

‫ מזבח‬in LXX-Pent

Gen

Exod

Lev

Num

Deut

13 occurrences 8:20a, b; 12:7, 8; 13:4, 18; 22:9a,b; 26:25; 33:20; 35:1, 3, 7

49 occurrences 17:15; 20:24, 25, 26; 21:14; 24:4, 6; 27:1a, b, 5a, b, 6, 7; 28:43; 29:12a, b, 13, 16, 18, 20, 21, 25, 36, 37a, b, c, 38, 44; 30:1, 18, 20, 27, 28; 32:5; 35:16; 38:1, 3, 4, 30a; 39:38; 40:5, 6, 10a, b, c, 26, 29, 32, 33

87 occurrences 1:5, 7, 8, 9, 11a, b, 12, 13, 15a, b, c, 16, 17; 2:2, 8, 9, 12; 3:2, 5, 8, 11, 13, 16; 4:7a, b, 10, 18a, b, 19, 25a, b, 26, 30a, b, 31, 34a, b, 35; 5:9a, b, 12; 6:2a, b, 3a, b, 5, 6, 7, 8; 7:2, 5, 31; 8:11a, b, 15a, b, c, 16, 19, 21, 24, 28, 30; 9:7, 8, 9a, b, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 24; 10:12; 14:20; 16:12, 18a, b, 20, 25, 33; 17:6, 11; 21:23; 22:22

20 occurrences 3:31; 4:11, 13, 14; 5:25, 26; 7:1, 10a, b, 11, 84, 88; 17:3, 4, 11; 18:3, 5, 7, 17; *23:30

8 occurrences 27a, b; 16:21; 26:4; 27:5a, b, 6; 33:10

Tov suggests that Alexandrian Jews might have invented Greek equivalents for several Hebrew words before the time of the translation. His examples include such cases as ‫—תורה‬νόμος (196 times), ‫—ברית‬διαθήκη (264 times), ‫—צדיק‬δίκαιος (171 times), and ‫—גר‬ προσήλυτος (71 times). See E. Tov, “Studies in the Vocabulary of the LXX: The Relation between Vocabulary and Translation Technique,” Tarbiz 47 (1977–1978): 120–138 (Heb.). Especially many religious, cultic, and technical terms were used perpetually by the translators of the postpentateuchal books. For example, ἀφαίρεμα, γονορρυής, διαγογγύζω, διχοτόμημα, θυσιαστήριον, κρεάγρα, λουτήρ, λυχνία, νόμος, πρωτογένημα, φαρμακός, χοιρογρύλλιος, χωνευτός. See Tov, “The Septuagint Translation of the Torah as a Source and Resource”. See Bickerman, “The Septuagint as a Translation,” 172. Disregarding long minuses (Exod 31:8, 9; 35:15; 37:25; 38:7, 30b; 39:39; 40:7, 30; Num 3:26; 4:26) that probably reflect a different Hebrew Vorlage, the percentage is higher than 95 %.

23

the common background of the septuagint translators Table 4

‫ מזבח‬in LXX-Pent (cont.) Gen

Exod

Lev

Num

Deut 2 occurrences *7:5; *12:3

βωμός

*34:1312

7 occurrences *23:1, *2, *4a, *b, *14a, *b, *29

No equivalent (long minuses in the LXX)

9 occurrences 31:8, 9; 35:15; 37:25; 38:7, 30b; 39:39; 40:7, 30

2 occurrences 3:26; 4:26

Total

13

59

87

29

10

In the Pentateuch, ‫ מזבח‬is used for various kinds of altars. It refers frequently to a burnt-offering altar (bronze altar, Exod 27:1; Lev 1:9; Num 18:17; Deut 12:27, etc.), on which the priests could offer animal burnt offerings (Exod 29:13, 18, etc.) as well as meal offerings (Num 5:25; 17:11, etc.). In addition, it depicts the altar of incense (golden altar, Exod 39:38, 40:5, 43:1 ff.; Lev 4:7; Num 17:11, etc.) and a memorial altar, on which priests never placed any kind of sacrifice (Gen 33:7; 35:7; Exod 17:15, etc.).13 θυσιαστήριον, reflecting all these meanings of ‫מזבח‬, is a freshly coined term through the combination of the stem of θυσιάζω, “to sacrifice” with an instrumental suffix, -τήριον.14 The translators of the Pentateuch clearly distinguished between a Jewish altar (θυσιαστήριον) and a pagan altar, almost always represented by βωμός, as indicated by asterisks in Table 4. θυσιαστήριον appears only in the LXX and literature dependent upon it (Matt 23:18; Josephus, Ant. 8.4.1., etc.).15

12 13

14

15

The asterisk indicates a pagan altar. Many instances of ‫ מזבח‬in Genesis could be considered as memorial altars, such as 12:7, 8; 13:4, 18; 26:25; 33:20; 35:1, 3. Beyond the Pentateuch, this type of altar is found in Josh 22:10– 34, when the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh built an altar, which they did not intend to use for burnt offerings. The ending -τήριον with both local and instrumental connotations is a fairly common element used in Hellenistic new word-formations. See J.H. Moulton, and W.F. Howard, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. II: Accidence and Word-Formation with an Appendix on Semitisms in the New Testament (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1979), 342–343; W. Gesenius and E. Kautzsch, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (2nd Eng. ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1910), § 85e; R.J.V. Hiebert, “To the Reader of Genesis,” in NETS (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 2. For a detailed discussion on theological perspectives, see S. Daniel, Recherches sur le vocabulaire du culte dans la Septante (Études et Commentaires 61; Paris: Klincksieck, 1966), 15–32, 203, 209f.; L. Perkins, “2.4.1.2 Exodus”, in THBO.

24

chapter 2

2.1.2

‫ = אהל מועד‬ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ μαρτυρίου

table 5

‫ אהל מועד‬in LXX-Pent

Equivalent

Exod

Lev

Num

ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ μαρτυρίου

28 occurrences 27:21; 28:43; 29:4, 10, 11, 30, 32, 42, 44; 30:16, 18, 20, 26, 36; 31:7; 33:7a; 35:21; 38:8, 30; 40:2, 6, 12, 22, 24, 26, 32[38:27]; 34, 35

43 occurrences 1:1, 3, 5; 3:2, 8, 13; 4:4, 5, 7a, b, 14, 16, 18a, b; 6:9, 19, 23; 8:3, 4, 31, 33, 35; 9:5, 23; 10:7, 9; 12:6; 14:11, 23; 15:14, 29; 16:7, 16, 17, 20, 23, 33; 17:4, 5, 6, 9; 19:21; 24:3

56 occurrences 31:14a, b 1:1; 2:2, 17; 3:7, 8, 25a, b, 38; 4:3, 4, 15, 23, 25a, b, 28, 30, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 41, 43, 47; 6:10, 13, 18; 7:5, 89; 8:9, 15, 19, 22, 24, 26; 10:13; 11:16; 12:4; 14:10; 16:18, 19; 17:7, 8, 15, 19; 18:4, 6, 21, 22, 23, 31; 19:4; 20:6; 25:6; 27:2; 31:54

σκηνή

33:7b

No equivalent

5 occurrences 39:32, 40; 40:7, 29, 30 43

56

Total

Gen

0

34

Deut

2

This Pentateuch rendering with a fully articulated Greek equivalent16 reflects an etymological rendition of ‫ מועד‬derived from ‫עו״ד‬, “to witness” instead of ‫יע״ד‬, “to appoint,”17 which is influenced possibly by ‫( אהל עדות‬Num 17:22, 23; 18:2).18 This rendering is perpetuated in the translations of later books (Josh 18:1, 19:51; 1 Chr 6:17; 23:32; 2Chr 1:3, 13; 5:5; 24:6, etc.). Table 5 displays the wide distribution of this rendering. 2.1.3 ‫ = תורה‬νόμος νόμος is the overwhelmingly dominant equivalent for ‫ תורה‬in the LXX, used on fifty-four of fifty-six occasions by the translators of the Pentateuch19 and

16

17 18 19

For a discussion, see L. Perkins, “The Translation of ‫משכן‬/‫ אהל מועד‬and ‫ שכן‬in Greek Exodus,” JSCS 48 (2015): 14–15. Perkins assumes that the translator intentionally used the two articles “to describe the sacred shrine” as “the location for Yahweh’s communication with Israel” while the unarticulated rendering of ‫ אהל מועד‬was employed in contexts such as Exod 33:7, where “Moses moves his tent outside of the Israelite camp.” A. Salvesen, “Exodus,” in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint (ed. J.K. Aitken; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 31. See Tov, Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint, 194; Wevers, Notes-Exodus, 442, 491; H. SimianYofre, “‫עוֹד‬, etc.,” TDOT 10:495ff. Gen 26:5; Exod 12:49; 13:9; 16:4, 28; 18:16, 20; 24:12; Lev 6:2, 7, 18; 7:1, 7, 11, 37; 11:46; 12:7; 13:59; 14:2, 32, 54, 57; 15:32; 26:46; Num 5:29, 30; 6:13, 21a, b; 15:16, 29; 19:2, 14; 31:21; Deut 1:5; 4:8, 44;

the common background of the septuagint translators

25

150 times out of the 167 instances by the later translators. While the semantic realms of ‫תורה‬20 and the pre-Septuagintal νόμος21 differ considerably,22 this equivalence is almost universal in the LXX, and by necessity often inappropriate.23 The connotations “general religious instructions” and “regulations of cultic or ritual practices” that are contained in ‫ תורה‬are absent in νόμος when occurring in secular Greek literature.24 By associating νόμος with ‫תורה‬, regardless of the latter’s meaning and lexical versatility, the LXX and Hellenistic Judaism thus expanded the realm of its Greek counterpart.25 2.2 Names of the Festivals The terms used for the Pentateuchal festivals in the LXX probably reveal an aspect of the characteristics and background of the society to which the translators belonged. In their daily life, Alexandrian Jews must have given Greek names to the Jewish festivals, probably those used in the LXX.

20

21

22

23 24 25

17:11; 27:3, 8, 26; 28:58, 61; 29:20, 28; 30:10; 31:9, 11, 12, 24, 26; 32:46; 33:4, 10. Similar equivalents are used in Gen 26:5 (νόμιμος) and Deut 17:18 (δευτερονόμιον ‫)משנה התורה‬. See E. Tov, “Compound Words in the LXX Representing Two or More Hebrew Words,” Bib 58 (1977): 200. The basic meaning of ‫ תורה‬is “teaching,” but it is also used with a much broader scope of meanings. In the Pentateuch, it often refers to a set of regulations of cultic or ritual practices: Passover (‫תורה אחת‬, Exod 12:49), offerings (‫תורת העולה‬, Lev 6:2; ‫תורת המנחה‬, Lev 6:7; ‫תורת החטאת‬, Lev 6:18; ‫תורת האשם‬, Lev 7:1; ‫זבח השלמים‬, Lev 11:7), leprosy (‫תורת‬ ‫המצרע‬, Lev 14:2; ‫תורת אשר בו נגע צרעת‬, Lev 14:32; ‫תורת הצרעת‬, Lev 14:57), and jealousy (‫תורת הקנאת‬, Num 5:29). In Deuteronomy, ‫ תורה‬also involves the law in its collective sense (Deut 1:5), the Decalogue (Deut 4:44), and the curse of violating the covenant (Deut 28:61). Elsewhere it means “the word of God” (Isa 8:16, etc.) or “divine direction” (Lam 2:9, Ezek 7:26, Mal 2:4ff., etc.), a customary social practice (2 Chr 17:9, 19:10) or instruction in a general sense (Prov 28:4, 7, 9; 29:18). In classical Greek, νόμος, though lexically versatile, usually appears with more general connotations. Etymologically it designates “what is proper” (derived from νέμω, “to allot”), which led to the meaning of “order,” “custom,” “usage,” or “tradition.” The word also denotes “written law,” an authoritative ordinance, the law of nature, or the moral law. Ad hoc. TDNT, LSJ, and J.H. Moulton and G. Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1930; repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997). See E. Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988), 114–115; S.H. Blank, “The LXX Renderings of Old Testament Terms for Law,” HUCA 7 (1930): 259–283; C.H. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks (2nd ed.; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1954), 25–35; and H. Kleinknecht and W. Gutbrod, “νόμος,” TDNT 4:1022–1091 (esp. 1023– 1024, 1046–1047). Dodd, Greeks, 25. See, further, Thackeray, Grammar, 40; E. Tov, “Three Dimensions of LXX Words,” RB 83 (1976): 535–536. Dodd, Greeks, 25. W. Gutbrod, “νόμος,” TDNT 4:1046–1047.

26

chapter 2

2.2.1 ‫ = פסח‬πάσχα πάσχα is always employed to represent ‫ פסח‬in the Pentateuch (21 instances: Exod 12:11, 21, 27, 43, 48; 34:25; Lev 23:5; Num 9:2, 4, 6, 10, 12, 13, 14a, b; 28:16; 33:3; Deut 16:1, 2, 5, 6). This Aramaic-flavored rendering (‫ )פסחא‬represents the mother tongue of the Alexandrian Jews before Greek became their spoken language.26 In fact, πάσχα reflects one of the few surviving Aramaic elements in the Greek translation of a Hebrew text. After the translation of the Pentateuch, the word also features in the Former Prophets (Josh 5:10, 11; 2 Kgs 23:21, 22, 23), while the translator(s) of 2Chronicles used the Hebrew forms φασεκ (2 Chr 30:1, 2, 5, 15, 17, 18) or φασεχ (2Chr 35:1a, b, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 17, 18a, b). The shared use of Aramaic-flavored πάσχα as the only equivalent of ‫ פסח‬in the Pentateuch forms a convincing detail in the chain of arguments in favor of a common background of the translators.27 Most likely, in their daily life, Alexandrian Jews spoke about πάσχα, rather than φασεκ. 2.2.2 ‫ = שבת‬σάββατα/σάββατον The Pentateuch translators commonly selected Semitically flavored equivalents for ‫שבת‬. They rendered ‫שבת‬, “Sabbath” frequently with σάββατα (24 instances), reflecting the Aramaic ending (‫)שבתא‬,28 also used after the Pentateuch (Isa 56:2, 4; Ezek 20:12, 13; Hos 2:13; 2Chr 31:3, etc.). At the same time, in combinations such as ‫( יום השבת‬Exod 20:8; 35:3; Lev 24:8a; Num 15:32; 28:9) or ‫( ממחרת השבת‬Lev 23:15a), the form σάββατον (-ων) was used.29

26 27

28 29

Cf. Lee, Lexical Study, 16. This fact indicates that the translators of the LXX-Pent employed preexisting common vocabulary used in their religious milieu. J. Joosten strongly supports this point: “A consideration of the meaning of these Aramaic words and forms confirms that they reflect the Jewish sociolect. Without exception they are terms whose relevance is determined by religion. Some of them, like manna, Pesach and Sabbath, had no equivalent at all in Greek …” J. Joosten, “Septuagint Greek and the Jewish Sociolect in Egypt,” in Die Sprache der Septuaginta/The Language of the Septuagint, LXX.H 3 (ed. E. Bons and J. Joosten; Gutersloh: Gutersloher Verlagshaus, 2016), 247–248; See further J. Joosten, “The Aramaic Background of the Seventy: Language, Culture and History,” BIOSCS 43 (2010): 53–72. For a different view, see P. Walters, The Text of the Septuagint: Its Corruptions and Their Emendation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 166–168, 171–172. According to Walters, σάββατον represents the original transliteration better than σαββάτων (Walters, Text, 157–159).

27

the common background of the septuagint translators table 6 Equivalents

‫( שבת‬noun) in LXX-Pent Gen

Exod

Lev

σάββατα

9 occurrences 16:25, 26, 29; 20:10; 31:13, 14, 15a, 16a; 35:2

15 occurrences 16:31; 19:3, 30; 23:3a, b, 32a, b; 25:2, 4a, b, 6; 26:2, 34a, b, 43

σάββατον (-ων)

2 occurrences 20:8; 35:3

3 occurrences 23:15; 24:8; 26:35

ἀνάπαυσις

16:23

ἕβδομος

2 occurrences 20:11; 31:15b

πρῶτος, ἔσχατος

Deut 5:14

4 occurrences 15:32; 28:9, 10a, b

2 occurrences 5:12, 15

4

3

2 occurrences 23:11, 16

pronoun

31:16b

no equiv. Total

Num

24:8b 0

15

21

In some contexts, the translators deviated from this norm: a) In Exod 16:23, ‫ שבת‬is reflected by ἀνάπαυσις.30 b) In Exod 20:11, where ‫ שבת‬is rendered by ἕβδομος, the translator or his Vorlage was probably influenced by the parallel phrase ‫יום השביעי‬. Exod 20:11 MT ‫ַו ָיּ ַנח ַבּיּוֹם ַהְשִּׁביִﬠי ַﬠל־ֵכּן ֵבּ ַרְך ְיה ָוה ֶאת־יוֹם ַהַשָּׁבּת ַו ְיַק ְדֵּשׁהוּ‬ LXX καὶ κατέπαυσεν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ἑβδόμῃ διὰ τοῦτο εὐλόγησεν κύριος τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ἑβδόμην καὶ ἡγίασεν αὐτήν c)

Deviations from the abovementioned stereotypical strategy in LXX-Lev exhibit a more dynamic interpretation. In Lev 23:11 and 16, the translator creatively used πρῶτος and ἔσχατος in the translation of ‫ממחרת השבת‬. Perhaps the choice of πρῶτος in Lev 23:11 (‫ממחרת השבת‬, τῇ ἐπαύριον τῆς

30

A comparison of σάββατα ἀνάπαυσις (ἁγία) for (‫ שבתון שבת )־קדש‬in this verse with Exod 31:15; 35:2; Lev 23:3; 25:4, where the Greek phrase σάββατα ἀνάπαυσις always translates ‫שבת שבתון‬, indicates that the Vorlage of LXX-Exod 16:23 may have been (‫שבת )קדש‬ ‫שבתון‬.

28

chapter 2

πρώτης [sc. ἡμέρας], “on the morrow of the first day”) was influenced by the translation of ‫ ביום הראשון‬with τῆς ἡμέρας τῆς πρώτης (Exod 12:15). In Lev 23:11, the translator likely denoted that the “Sabbath” is the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the fifteenth of Nisan, a solemn day of rest. Thus, in Lev 23:16 ‫עד ממחרת השבת השביעת‬, “Even unto the morrow after the seventh Sabbath” the translator rendered ἕως τῆς ἐπαύριον τῆς ἐσχάτης ἑβδομάδος, “until the morrow after the last week,” that is, until the next day of the seventh Sabbath. Similar exegesis is reflected in Sipra ʿEmor 23:11, 15, Tg. Yer. and Tg. Onq., Philo, Spec. 2:162, 176, and Josephus, Ant. 3.10.5.31 2.2.3 ‫ = חג המצות‬ἑορτὴ ἀζύμων ‫חג המצות‬, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, appears consistently as ἑορτὴ ἀζύμων (Exod 23:15; 34:18; Lev 23:6; Deut 16:16). 2.2.4

‫ = חג השבועות‬ἑορτή ἑβδομάδων ‫חג השבועות‬, the Feast of Weeks, was rendered by the fixed equivalents of its

components, ἑορτὴ ἑβδομάδων in LXX-Pent (Exod 34:22; Deut 16:10). At the same time, one also finds some diversity in the equivalents of the names of festivals. a. ‫חג הסכות‬, “the Feast of Booths”. The translator of Deuteronomy presents two equivalents for ‫חג הסכות‬, ἑορτὴ σκηνῶν (16:13) and ἑορτὴ σκηνοπηγίας (31:10). Likewise, the translator of Exodus selected two different equivalents for ‫חג האסיף‬, i.e., ἑορτὴ συντελείας, “the feast of completion” (23:16) and ἑορτὴ συναγωγῆς, “the feast of ingathering” (34:22). Possibly because this term was not actually used for a festival, the translator turned to contextual conjectures.32

31

32

For a detailed discussion, see Bickerman, Jews, 110; J.E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC 4; Dallas: Word, 1992), 385–386 and J. Milgrom, Leviticus (AB; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991), 2056–2063. Milgrom presupposes a sabbath-week theory instead of sabbath-day theories (sabbatian or festivalian) for the interpretation of ‫ ממחרת שבת‬because of the latter’s ambiguities. To avoid the ambiguities, he suggests removing the phrase ‫ממחרת השבת‬ from the text as a gloss. συντέλεια in Exod 23:16, usually translating ‫כלה‬, may reflect the idea of “end” which appears in the same verse as ‫בצאת השנה‬. This translation also reflects etymological analysis based on the root letters ‫ ;ס״פ‬cf. ‫סוף‬, “end.”

the common background of the septuagint translators

29

Exod 23:16 MT ‫וחג האסף בצאת השנה באספך את־מעשיך מן־השדה‬ LXX καὶ ἑορτὴν συντελείας ἐπ᾽ ἐξόδου τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ τῶν ἔργων σου τῶν ἐκ τοῦ ἀγροῦ σου Exod 34:22 MT ‫וחג האסיף תקופת השנה‬ LXX καὶ ἑορτὴν συναγωγῆς μεσοῦντος τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ b. ‫ראש החדשים‬, “the New Moon” is rendered differently in Exod 12:2 (ἀρχὴ μηνῶν) and Num 10:10, 28:11 (ἐν ταῖς νουμηνίαις), possibly because the term was not used in daily life. c. ‫יום )ה(כפרים‬, “Day of Atonement” is rendered differently in Exod 29:36 (ἡμέρα καθαρισμοῦ), and Leviticus: ἡμέρα ἐξιλασμοῦ (23:27, 28) and ἡμέρα ἱλασμοῦ (25:9). table 7

‫חג האסיף‬ ‫חג הסכות‬

The Feast of Booths

Equivalents

Exod

ἑορτὴ συντελείας ἑορτὴ συναγωγῆς ἑορτὴ σκηνῶν ἑορτὴ σκηνοπηγίας

23:16 34:22

Lev

Deut

23:34

16:13 16:16; 31:10

While the agreements in the names of the festivals might represent the translators’ common background, the background of the diversity in translation equivalents is unclear.33

33

It is not impossible that the Jews in Alexandria, including the translators of LXX-Pent, kept only some of the festivals (e.g., Sabbath, Passover, and Pentecost), while not observing others, e.g., “the Festival of the New Moon” and “the Feast of Booths,” which in Nehemiah’s time had been abandoned “from the days of Joshua the son of Nun to that day” (Neh 8:17). Interestingly, at Elephantine, among the names of the festivals of Israel, only Passover is mentioned (A. Schalit, “Elephantine,” EncJud, 6:609).

30

chapter 2

2.3 Expressions Related to the Festivals 2.3.1 ‫לא תעשה כל מלאכה‬ The first and last days of a festival period, as well as the Sabbath, are delineated exclusively as days of devotion to worship expressed as ‫לא תעשה כל מלאכה‬ or ‫כל מלאכה )מלאכת עבודה( לא תעשו‬. In LXX-Pent, the translators constantly employed the Hebraistic constructions πᾶν … οὐ (μή) for ‫ כל … לא‬as well as οὐ (μή) … πᾶς for ‫לא … כל‬.34 The examples include πᾶν ἔργον λατρευτὸν οὐ ποιήσετε (Exod 12:16; Lev 16:29; 23:3, 7, 8, 21, 25, 28, 31, 35, 36; Num 28:18, 25, 26; 29:1, 7, 12, 35) and also οὐ ποιήσεις ἐν … πᾶν ἔργον (Exod 20:10; Deut 5:14). The consistent employment of the πᾶν … οὐ construction for rendering the negative command for the consecrated days of the feasts might indicate the homogeneity of the background of the translators. 2.3.2 ‫רגלים‬/‫שלוש פעמים‬ A similar strategy is revealed when the translators deal with how often Israelite males were to go up to Jerusalem for the festivals. In order to articulate this obligation, they selected the cardinal number “three” + καιρούς construction such as ‫רגלים‬/‫שלוש פעמים‬, τρεῖς καιρούς (Exod 23:14, 17; 34:23, 24; Deut 16:16). However, in the other contexts that are not connected to this religious prescription, regardless of the numbers (three, seven, or one thousand), they employed ordinal numbers and adverbial expressions. For example, ‫—שבע פעמים‬ἑπτάκις (Gen 33:3; Lev 4:6, 17; 8:11; 14:7, 16, 27, 51; 16:14, 19; 25:8; Num 19:4), and ‫שלוש‬ ‫רגלים‬/‫( פעמים‬not in the context of feasts)—τρίτος (Num 22:28, 32, 33; 24:10). table 8

‫רגלים‬/‫שלוש פעמים‬, ‫שבע פעמים‬, etc.

Ordinal number and adverbial expression

ἑπτάκις

δέκατον τρίτος

Cardinal number + καιρούς

χιλιοπλασίως τρεῖς καιρούς

‫ שבע פעמים‬Gen 33:3

‫עשר פעמים‬ ‫שלוש פעמים‬ ‫שלוש רגלים‬ ‫אלף פעמים‬ ‫שלוש פעמים‬ ‫שלוש רגלים‬

34

Moulton–Turner, Syntax, 196.

Lev 4:6, 17; 8:11; 14:7, 16, 27, 51; 16:14, 19; 25:8 Num 19:4 Num 14:22 Num 24:10 Num 22:28, 32, 33 Deut 1:11 Exod 23:17; 34:23, 24 Deut 16:16 Exod 23:14

the common background of the septuagint translators

31

Part of the common vocabulary of the LXX Pentateuch, especially in the religious milieu, shows that the translators had a similar background. Typical renderings of certain religious or technical terms common in the translation of the Pentateuch support this point. The following excursuses provide additional evidence, implicitly or explicitly, of the common features among the five books of LXX-Pent and within the individual books. The examination of particular neologisms shared by the five Pentateuchal books (ch. 2, Excursus 1) supports the idea of the common background of the translators. The investigations carried out in Excurses 2 (The Translation Character of the Tabernacle Account [Exodus 25– 31 and 35–40]) and Excursus 3 (The Story of Balaam [Numbers 22–24] Compared with Other Parts of lxx-Num) in this chapter show the inner consistency of the translation techniques in the individual books in problematic chapters.

3

Differences in Rendering between the Pentateuch and the Other Books of the Septuagint

Despite the impact of LXX-Pent on the later books and the relatively high degree of consistency in the LXX, several equivalents separate the Greek Torah from the subsequent books. It seems that these later translators, while adhering to the guidelines provided by the Greek Pentateuch, developed their own individuality. Within the present context, it is important to stress this point as it underlines the shared characteristics of the Greek translation of the five books of the Pentateuch. Some examples follow: 1) ‫ פלשתים‬is transliterated as Φυλιστιιμ in LXX-Pent (10 times),35 while in the other books of the Greek Bible it is translated by ἀλλόφυλος, “one of another tribe” (neologism, 222 of 226 times = 98 %).36 2) ‫ באר שבע‬is always translated in the Pentateuch (Genesis) as (τὸ) φρέαρ (τοῦ) ὅρκου, “well of the oath,” whereas in the other books of the LXX it is

35

36

Gen 10:14; 21:32, 34; 26:1, 8, 14, 15, 18; Exod 13:17; 23:31. See Tov, “Three Dimensions,” 535 and Tov, “Vocabulary,” 132. The only exception to this stereotype occurs in Gen 26:8 ‫מלך‬ ‫—פלשתים‬ὁ βασιλεὺς Γεραρων (cf. Gen 26:1, ‫—מלך פלשתים גררה‬βασιλέα Φυλιστιιμ εἰς Γεραρα). The exceptions are: Josh 13:2, 3 transliterated Φυλιστιιμ; 1 Sam 4:1 αὐτοῖς; Isa 9:11 Ἕλληνας. Minuses of the LXX in the story of David and Goliath are not taken into consideration. See E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3rd ed., rev. and exp.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 301–303.

32

3)

chapter 2

almost always transliterated by Βηρσαβεε (see Table 9). The only exception is found in Amos 5:5: τὸ φρέαρ τοῦ ὅρκου. In the LXX, the most frequently occurring equivalents of ‫ ֶﬠֶבד‬are θεράπων, δοῦλος, and παῖς (see Table 10). παῖς, appearing consistently throughout the LXX, shows no special distribution features in the LXX, while θεράπων and δοῦλος display a gradual change in the various books. a. θεράπων is used frequently in LXX-Pent (32 times), and it appears also in Joshua (3 times). It falls into almost total disuse in the other books of the LXX (9 times in Job) and, similarly, the New Testament writers almost completely ignore this word (see Table 11).37 b. Although δοῦλος reflects ‫ עבד‬303 times among the 809 occurrences of the word in the Hebrew Bible, it emerges a scant three times in the Pentateuch. On the other hand, it is the main equivalent of ‫עבד‬ in the Prophets (211 times) and Writings (83 times). Likewise, in the New Testament, δοῦλος occurs 126 times in contradistinction to a few occurrences of θεράπων and παῖς.

table 9

‫ באר שבע‬in the LXX

(τὸ) φρέαρ (τοῦ) ὅρκου (ὁρκισμοῦ)

Pentateuch

Prophets and writings

10 occurrences Gen 21:14, 31 (ὁρκισμοῦ), 32, 33; 22:19a, b; 26:23, 33; 28:10; 46:5

Amos 5:5

Βηρσαβεε

Total

37

22 occurrences Josh 15:28; 19:2; Judg 20:1; 1 Sam 3:20; 8:2; 2 Sam 3:10; 17:11; 24:2, 7, 15; 1 Kgs 5:5; 19:3; 2 Kgs 12:2; 23:8; Amos 8:14; Neh 11:27, 30; 1 Chr 4:28; 21:2; 2 Chr 19:4; 24;1; 30:5 10

23

An exception is Heb 3:5, where θεράπων refers to Moses (cf. Josh 1:2; 9:2).

the common background of the septuagint translators table 10

The main equivalents of ‫ עבד‬in the LXX

Books

θεράπων

Gen Exod Lev Num Deut Josh Judg 1 Sam 2 Sam 1 Kgs 2 Kgs Isa Jer Ezek Joel Amos Hag Zech Mal Ps Job Lam Eccl Esth Dan Ezra Neh 1 Chr 2 Chr Total

1 23

38

δοῦλος

2 3 4 3

9

43

1 2 4/538 34 62 47 39 9 4 6 1 1 1 2 2 52 1 1 4 1 4 14 3 5 302/303

παῖς 80 8 3 6 9 13 1 21 42 19 17 19 16 1

4 3

1 11 1 7 22 36 340

I.e., five times in Codex B and four times in Codex A.

33

34

chapter 2

table 11

Books Matt Mark Luke John Acts Rom 1 Cor 2 Cor Gal Eph Phil Col 1 Thess 2 Thess Titus Phlm Heb Jas 1 Pet 2 Pet Rev Total

table 12

θεράπων δοῦλος παῖς

39

The distribution of θεράπων, δοῦλος, and παῖς in the NT

θεράπων

δοῦλος

παῖς

30 5 26 11 3 7 5 1 4 3 2 4 1 1 2 2

5 5 1 5

1

1

1 1 2 14 126

16

The occurrences of θεράπων, δοῦλος, and παῖς in the LXX and NT

Pentateuch

Prophets

Writings

New Testament

31 3 106

3 215 149

9 85 84

1 126 1639

Thus in the sense of “servant/attendant/slave”: Matt 8:6, 8, 13; 12:8; 14:2; Luke 1:54, 69; 7:7;

the common background of the septuagint translators

35

The use of θεράπων, δοῦλος, and παῖς usually is not based on the semantic distinction between the words,40 while the nonuse of δοῦλος in the Pentateuch may reflect a certain sensitivity relating to the social background of those translators.41 δοῦλος may have been considered derogatory or insulting,42 and is therefore lacking in the Greek translation of the Torah in accord with the social reality of the translators. In the Alexandrian Jewish community, δοῦλος was probably not accepted in the third century BCE but, over the course of time, it gradually became less objectionable and hence its appearance in the later translation of the Prophets and Writings. This shift in the translators’ thinking might be explained based on the historical change in their social circumstances in Alexandria. When the Pentateuch was translated into Greek, many Jews in Alexandria might have been slaves who had been captured by Ptolemy I in his campaign against Syria and Phoenicia at the end of the fourth century BCE.43 This was the first tide of migration of Jews to Egypt during that period. This historical reality could explain the Pentateuch translators’ reluctance to use δοῦλος, the most popular word for “slave,” because it could have reminded them constantly of their humiliating status in Egypt. However, the situation became less pronounced in the following century, after the translation of the Pentateuch. Ptolemy II (285–246 BCE) freed the Jewish slaves and raised their social ranking in the country. The second tide of Jewish migration to Egypt took place under the rule of Ptolemy VI Philometor (180–145 BCE), when the situation was different. At that time, the Jews who were already present in Egypt had acquired significant political power,44 espe-

40 41

42 43

44

12:45; 15:26; John 4:51; Acts 3:13, 26; 4:25, 27, 30; Not in the sense of “servant/attendant/ slave”: Matt 2:16; 17:18; 21:15; Luke 2:43; 8:51, 54; 9:42; Acts 20:12. See ch. 3, 20. ‫ עבד‬for a discussion of its theological implications. M.L. Wade also emphasizes the important role of the sociolinguistic factors that affect speech. M.L. Wade, “Evaluating Lexical Consistency in the Old Greek Bible,” BIOSCS 33 (2000): 70–71, esp. n. 36. Cf. B.G. Wright, “Ebed/Doulos: Terms and Social Status in the Meeting of Hebrew Biblical and Hellenistic Roman Culture,” Semeia 83/84: Slavery in Text and Interpretation (1998): 93, 97. Thus, Wright, “Ebed/Doulos,” 93. See H. Hegermann, “The Diaspora in the Hellenistic Age,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. 2: The Hellenistic Age (ed. W.D. Davies; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 133. According to the Letter of Aristeas § 12–13 and 21–22, the number of Jewish captives was up to 100,000. According to S. Kreuzer, about 200,000 Jews lived in Alexandria during the Ptolemic era and thus they were a “significant minority.” He mentions: “It can also be seen in the attestations of the presence and integration of Jews at practically every level of society.” S. Kreuzer, “Origin and Development of the Septuagint in the Context of Alexandrian and

36

chapter 2

cially when compared to their former position as slaves. The newcomers from Israel arrived not as captives but as escapees from the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes.45 Since the remainder of the LXX was translated between the reigns of Ptolemy II and Ptolemy VI, it is plausible that the Jews no longer viewed δοῦλος with their former disdain.

4

Conclusions

The above analysis demonstrates that the shared vocabulary of the translators of LXX-Pent occurs in various realms: the rendering of ordinary words, the names of festivals and expressions related to the festivals, and many religious terms. These common elements were identified through a careful analysis of select equivalents in the Greek Pentateuch when compared with the society in which the translators lived. From the analysis above, it is evident that the translators of the LXX-Pent are from the same geographical, religious, and social milieu,46 although it does not necessarily follow that the translators collaborated. Among other things, it was noticed that the translators of the Pentateuch coined new words in order to express elements that could not be expressed with the existing Greek words. Supposedly, the translation of the Pentateuch was the first among the Greek translations,47 and therefore all features recognized in these translation units characterize all of them. Tendencies and trends, as visible in the equivalents for the festivals and certain key words in Hebrew Scripture, strengthen the feeling that these first translators must have had strong internal ties. An added dimension in the analysis of the Greek Pentateuch was recognized through comparison with the post-Pentateuchal translations. It was realized that the later translations sometimes differ from the translation of the Pentateuch, even though that translation served as a model for them.

45

46 47

Early Jewish Culture and Learning,” in The Bible in Greek-Translation, Transmission, and Theology of the Septuagint (ed. S. Kreuzer; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015), 13–15. M. Stern, “The Jewish Diaspora in the Second Temple Era,” in A History of the Jewish People (ed. H.H. Ben-Sasson; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976), 279–280; Hegermann, “Diaspora,” 142. Lee insisted that “both in age and level of language the vocabulary of the Pentateuch is homogeneous.” Lee, Lexical Study, 148. See E. Tov, “The Septuagint Translation of Genesis as the First Scripture Translation,” in In the Footsteps of Sherlock Holmes: Studies in the Biblical Text in Honour of Anneli Aejmelaeus (ed. K. De Troyer et al.; BETL 72; Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 47–64.

the common background of the septuagint translators

5

37

Excursus 1: Neologisms of the Septuagint

Many of the words shared by the translators of the Pentateuch were probably coined by the translators or the society to which they belonged. These so-called neologisms can be recognized by an analysis of the Greek sources of the third century BCE or earlier periods as recorded in the various lexica.48 Due to our fragmentary knowledge of the Greek language, the recognition of such neologisms is never certain. Thus, a newly discovered Greek source may indicate that a word that was previously considered to be a LXX neologism was actually in common use. There are many types of neologisms. Sometimes the new element is limited to a new noun created on the basis of a known root, or a new verb based on a known noun, such as θανατόω (‫מו״ת‬, hiphil).49 Neologisms in LXXPent are sometimes created by a combination of elements, such as πολυέλεος (‫)רב־חסד‬. The assumption of a new coinage is relatively certain if the new word designates a combination that may be unique to Hebrew (e.g., ‫—קשה־עורף‬ σκληροτράχηλος)50 or a special idea unique to Hebrew Scripture, such as προσήλυτος (‫) ֵגּר‬. A study of neologisms in LXX-Pent is important for our research since these new creations, scattered throughout LXX-Pent, permit a penetrating and revealing view into the translators’ shared background. Table 13 illustrates the list of the shared neologisms in LXX-Pent and their distribution in the individual books.51 The list is limited to neologisms that appear more than three times in two or more books in LXX-Pent, showing the broad distribution of these vocables.

48 49

50 51

For example, LSJ, Moulton–Milligan, Vocabulary, and J. Lust, E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1992). For a detailed discussion and examples, see E. Tov, “The Representation of the Causative Aspects of Hiph’il in the LXX: A Study in Translation Technique,” Bib 63 (1982): 417–424; Walters, Text, 117–121, and more in general, Lee, Lexical Study. Exod 33:3, 5; 34:9; Deut 9:6, 13. For lists of neologisms, see Tov, “Impact,” 581–586; Lust, Lexicon, and C. Schröder, “Alphabetische Zusammenstellung auffälliger Neologismen der Septuaginta,” in Im Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta, Studien zur Entstehung und Bedeutung der Griechischen Bibel (ed. H.J. Fabry et al.; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001), 61–69.

38

chapter 2

table 13

Shared neologisms of LXX-Pent

Greek word ἀπερίτμητος ἀποδεκατόω ἀφαίρεμα ἀφόρισμα βεβηλόω γονορρυής διαγογγύζω διασκορπίζω διατήρησις διεμβάλλω διχοτόμημα ἑκούσιον ἐλεγμός ἐμπεριπατέω ἐνδόσθια ἐξιλασμός ἐπαρυστρίς ἐπισκοπή εὐλογητός ζυμωτός θηριάλωτος θνησιμαῖος θυίσκη θυσίασμα θυσιαστήριον ἱλαστήριον κατακυριεύω κόρος κρεάγρα λατρευτός λιθοβολέω λύτρωσις λουτήρ

52

Equivalent(s) Gen Exod Lev Num Deut Total ‫ערל‬ ‫עשר‬ ‫תרומה‬ ‫תנופה‬ ‫חלל‬ ‫זוב‬ ‫רגן‬/‫לון‬ ‫הדיח‬/‫פוץ‬ ‫משמרת‬ ‫ נתן‬/‫שם‬ ‫נתח‬ ‫נדבה‬ ‫ַמר‬ ‫התהלך‬ ‫קרב‬ ‫כפרים‬ ‫מחתה‬ ‫פקד‬ ‫ברוך‬ ‫ חמץ‬/‫מחמצת‬ ‫טרפה‬ ‫נבלה‬ ‫כף‬52 ‫מנחה‬/‫זבח‬ ‫מזבח‬ ‫כפרת‬ ‫ ירש‬/‫כבש‬ ‫חמר‬ ‫מזלג‬ ‫ עבדה‬etc. ‫סקל‬/‫רגם‬ ‫פדה‬/‫גאלה‬ ‫כיור‬

1 1

1

1

14 4 1

8 4 17 12

2

4

2

2 7 1

13

2 1 1

1 1 1 4 1 3 2 2 2 49 13

1 2 1 1 5 2 1

In the sense of “spoon,” “censer,” etc., and not “hand.”

1 2

1 1

1 6 2

1 87 7 1

5

2 6

1 4 20

2 2 1 5

15 2 3 1 3 1 3 4

6 5 3 1

2 16 1 20 1 3 1 1 6 2 1 1

2 8

5

3 3 37 10 21 13 8 3 5 5 4 5 7 2 6 3 2 13 10 4 7 22 18 6 177 21 5 2 3 13 17 4 7

39

the common background of the septuagint translators Table 13

Shared neologisms of LXX-Pent (cont.)

Greek word μακρόθυμος μηρυκισμός οἰωνισμός ὀνυχιστήρ ὀρθρίζω παραβιάζομαι πειρασμός περιούσιος πολυέλεος προσήλυτος πρωτογένημα πρωτοτόκος πρωτοτόκια σκεπαστής σκληροτράχηλος φαλάκρωμα φαρμακός φύλαγμα χοιρογρύλλιος χωνευτός

6

Equivalent(s) Gen Exod Lev Num Deut Total ‫ארך אפים‬ ‫גרה‬ ‫נחש‬ ‫שסע‬ ‫השכים‬ ‫זיר‬/‫פצר‬ ‫מסה‬ ‫סגלה‬ ‫רב־חסד‬ ‫גר‬ ‫בכורים‬ ‫בכור‬ ‫בכורה‬ ‫ִסְת ָרה‬/‫ִזְמ ָרת‬ ‫קשה ערף‬ ‫קרחת‬ ‫)מ(כשף‬ ‫משמרת‬ ‫שפן‬/‫ארנבת‬ ‫מסכה‬

1

1 7

2

4 1

3 3 1

14 5

5 1 2 1 9 3 19

2 1 1 5 3

22 5 1

1 9 1 25

1 3 4 4

2

2 1 1

1 1

20 10 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2

2 11 3 5 9 2 6 5 2 60 9 64 6 2 5 5 5 4 2 6

Excursus 2: The Translation Character of the Tabernacle Account: Exodus 25–31 and 35–40

The translation of LXX-Exod 35–40 differs considerably from MT in content and internal order. Many studies have been carried out in an attempt to solve the textual problems inherent within the two translations of the tabernacle account (chs. 25–31 and 35–40) and the number of translators who produced them. Within the present chapter 2, it is important to point out the homogeneity of these chapters leaving aside literary considerations and other aspects of these chapters. Frankel, who was probably the first to examine the relationship of the two Greek sections of the tabernacle account, suggested that two different translators worked on the two sections concerning the tabernacle as shown by the

40

chapter 2

“constant variation” between the two translation units.53 Other scholars, such as Kuenen,54 Smith,55 Swete,56 Chapman,57 Driver58 and Pfeiffer,59 accepted this conclusion without further detailed analysis. Popper60 and McNeil61 conducted more elaborate research, mainly regarding the rendering of some technical terms, but their general methodology and conclusions do not vary significantly from those of their predecessors. McNeil presents a list of seventeen lexical differences between the two sections to buttress his theory of the heterogeneity of the translators of the two sections.62 However, because the range of most of his examples is quite narrow, his conclusions are less than convincing. For example, he points out the different renderings of ‫ עש״ה‬in 31:4 (section I, ἐργάζεσθαι) and in 35:32 (section II, ποιεῖν). However, if one compares these findings with 31:16 (section I, ποιεῖν) and 35:10 (section II, ἐργάζεσθαι), one recognizes easily that the translator(s) used the two renderings interchangeably in both sections. In addition, McNeil distinguishes between κυρίου in section I (28:36, ‫ )ליהוה‬and κυρίῳ in section II (36:39). However, a more precise survey of the renderings of ‫ ליהוה‬in both sections shows that the translation with the genitive form (κυρίου) occurs only once in section I, whereas in the same section the more prevalent equivalent is in the dative, κυρίῳ (29:18a, b, 25, 28, 41; 30:10, 12, 13, 20, 37; 31:15) just as it is in the second section (35:2, 5, 22, 29, 39; 39:30). Therefore, McNeile’s attempt falls short of proving the heterogeneity of the translators for the two tabernacle sections. Finn was the first scholar to criticize the multiple translator theory for the tabernacle sections. He showed how the translator(s) varied his renderings in the same context63 and, with the support of a considerable number of exam-

53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

61 62 63

Frankel, Einfluss, 113. A. Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch (trans. H. Wicksteed; London: Forgotten Books, 2015), xviii, 76–80. W.R. Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church (2nd ed.; London: Black, 1892), 124–125. Swete, Introduction, 236. A.T. Chapman, An Introduction to the Pentateuch (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911), 298. S.R. Driver, The Book of Exodus (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911; rev. ed. 1929), 378. R.H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1948), 253. J. Popper, Der biblische Bericht über die Stiftshütte (Leipzig: Heinrich Hunger, 1862), 124 ff., 140ff. Popper suggests that the translation of the second section of the tabernacle account, especially Exod 36:8–38:20, was based on a Hebrew text different from MT. He also asserts that a different translator produced this segment, which was later added to the LXX. A.H. McNeile, The Book of Exodus (WC; London: Methuen, 1908), 223–242. McNeile, Exodus, 226. A.H. Finn, “The Tabernacle Chapters,” JTS 16 (1915): 449–457.

the common background of the septuagint translators

41

ples, he ascertains that “[D]ifferences of rendering in one and the same passage abound, and therefore difference of rendering does not shew difference of translators.” He adds that “[T]here is fair reason for believing that the translators were the same throughout.”64 Gooding’s methodology resembles Finn’s, but is based on more extensive research than any previous study.65 On the basis of a thorough examination of technical terms, Gooding claims that the same person translated the two sections of the tabernacle account (apart from ch. 38). He maintains that the pattern of inconsistent renderings of the same word in both sections of the tabernacle account reflects the translator’s style.66 The inconsistency with respect to the translation of technical terms is not limited to the tabernacle account but is also visible elsewhere in the Pentateuch. He supports this contention by showing that LXX-Lev, in which similar variegation occurs, was produced by one translator.67 For instance, ‫עלה‬, “burnt offering,” among many other examples, is rendered interchangeably in the same chapter with ὁλοκαύτωμα (Lev 1:3, 10) and κάρπωμα (Lev 1:4, 9).68 As a result, he concludes convincingly that there is insufficient evidence for maintaining a two-translator theory based on differences in the renderings of the technical terms. Like Gooding, Aejmelaeus69 confirmed the homogeneity of the translation of both sections in her analysis of several features of free translation technique. Her primary suggestion is that the two sections are identical in character and that they reflect a “free translation.” For example, the translation of LXX-Exod 35–40 uses hypotaxis and participial constructions for Hebrew parataxis constructions (waw-coordinating construction),70 which are also found in chapters 1–34.

64 65 66 67

68 69

70

Finn, “Tabernacle Chapters,” 456. D.W. Gooding, The Account of the Tabernacle: Translation and Textual Problems of the Greek Exodus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959). For detailed examples, see Gooding, Tabernacle, 19–28, 33–39. See, Gooding, Tabernacle, 99. Gooding agrees with Finn that the two sections of the tabernacle account were translated by the same translator. However, he ascribes the sequence differences between MT and LXX in the second section to a later Greek editor. Cf. Lev 6:2, 3, 5; 7:8, where the same translator opted for yet another equivalent ὁλοκαύτωσις. A. Aejmelaeus, “Septuagintal Translation Techniques—A Solution to the Problem of the Tabernacle Account,” in Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings (ed. G.J. Brooke; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 381–402. For example, Exod 35:10: MT ‫באוּ ְו ַיֲﬠשׂוּ‬ ֹ ‫וָכל־ֲחַכם־ֵלב ָבֶּכם ָי‬ LXX καὶ πᾶς σοφὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ ἐν ὑμῖν ἐλθὼν ἐργαζέσθω.

42

chapter 2

More recent research suggests the lack of consensus concerning the authorship of the Greek tabernacle account. Wevers,71 after some initial wavering, concludes that the translator of section II cannot be the same as the one who produced the previous thirty-four chapters of LXX-Exod. He determines that in matters of terminology, individual style, construction of the compound numbers, and expressions of the geographical directions of the courtyard, the two sections are fairly different from each other. Similar conclusions were reached by Le Boulluec–Sandevoir72 and Wade.73 However, upon examination, Wevers’s suggestions are not convincing. 1) Wevers presented some unusual words, which within the LXX occur only in section II (εὐρύς, παράθεμα, ἐνθέμιον, κάτοπτρον, and καταστασιάζω),74 and some terms not found in section I (ἐπαρυστρίς, κατακοσμέω, λαβίς, λαμπάδιον, and στερεός). However, his judgment based on these words is inadequate because most of them appear only in chapter 38.75 His other criterion, “the use of οὗτος in preverb position,”76 which occurs only in 38:18–26 of section II, is similarly objectionable. Indeed, with Gooding, one can safely separate only the translator of chapter 38 from the translation of the other chapters of the book.77 2) The two patterns of the articulated adjectival phrase, “article + noun + article + adjective (pattern A)” such as ὁ μοχλὸς ὁ μέσος (Exod 26:28) and “article + adjectival modifier + noun (pattern B)” such as τὸ ἕτερον κλίτος (Exod 26:28), are both acceptable. However, Wevers claims that an examination of these constructions in the two sections reveals an important stylistic difference between them.78 He argues that, when the adjective is not a number (ordinal or cardinal), pattern A prevails in section I, in which the only instance of

71 72 73 74 75

76 77 78

Wevers, Text-Exodus, 143–146; J.W. Wevers, “The Building of the Tabernacle,” JNSL 19 (1993): 130. A. Le Boulluec and P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie II. L’Exode (Paris: Cerf, 1989), 65– 66. M.L. Wade, Consistency of Translation Techniques in the Tabernacle Accounts of Exodus in the Old Greek (SCS 49; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 13, 87–88, 245. Wevers, Text-Exodus, 144. παράθεμα (LXX 38:24—twice; 39:9), κατακοσμέω (39:5) and further εὐρύς (38:4, 10, 24), ἐνθέμιον (38:16—twice), κάτοπτρον (38:26), καταστασιάζω (38:22), ἐπαρυστρίς (38:17), λαβίς (38:17), λαμπάδιον (38:16—twice), στερεός (38:13, 16). Wevers, Text-Exodus, 144. See Gooding, Tabernacle, 40–59. Wevers, Text-Exodus, 144; Wevers, “Building,” 129.

the common background of the septuagint translators

43

pattern B is τὸ ἕτερον κλίτος (26:28). On the other hand, in section II, pattern B is more common: τὰ ἅγια καθήκοντα (36:1); τῶν ἐπεσκεμμένων ἀνδρῶν (39:2); τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν χρυσίον (39:11, BHS 39:32); and τὴν καταλειφθεῖσαν ὑάκινθον (39:12, BHS 39:1). table 14

Pattern A (article + noun + article + adjective) in the tabernacle account

Section I (Exodus 25–31)

Section II (Exodus 35–40)

Adj ≠ numbers

Adj = a number

Adj ≠ numbers

Adj = a number

13 occurrences 26:4b, 27, 28; 28:3; 29:5, 20a, b, 22, 41b; 30:13; 31:5, 8, 10

38 occurrences 25:12a, b, 19, 32; 26:2a, b, 4a, c, 5, 8a, b, 9, 10, 16a, b, 17, 19a, b, 20, 21a, b, 25a, b; 27:14, 15; 28:10a, b, 17, 18, 19, 20; 29:19, 39a, b, 40, 41a; 31:15, 17

14 occurrences 35:19, 26; 36:37; 38:20a, b, 22a, b; 39:1, 3, 9, 16; 40:5, 13, 26

14 occurrences 36:17, 18, 19, 20; 37:2a, b, 13; 38:3a, b, 10a, b, 16; 40:2, 17

51

table 15

28

Pattern B (article + adjectival modifier + noun) in the tabernacle account

Section I (Exodus 25–31)

Section II (Exodus 35–40)

Adj ≠ numbers

Adj = a number

3 occurrences 26:28b; 29:12 30:4a

39 occurrences 4 (5) occurrences 25:12, 19a, b, 22, 26, 33a, b, 36:1, 39:2, 11, 12 34, 35a, b, c, 37; 26:4, 8, 9a, b, 19, 24, 26a, b, 28a; 27:2, 4, 9; 28:7, 9, 10, 11, 12a, b, 18, 20, 29; 29:3, 13, 22; 30:4b, c; 31:18 42

Adj ≠ numbers

Adj = a number 15 occurrences 36:18, 20, 21, 23, 26, 25a, b, c; 38:6, 24; 39:3, 4a, b, c; 40:17

19

44

chapter 2

However, it should be noted that pattern B surfaces more frequently in section I than Wevers’s statistics suggest. Two instances, τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν πᾶν αἷμα (29:12) and τὴν στρεπτὴν στεφάνην (30:4a), must be included in the number of the occurrences of pattern B (see Table 15). These examples reduce the ratio from 4:1 to 4:3 and, therefore, Wevers’s suggestion is greatly weakened. Moreover, the general statistical picture of the instances of these two Greek adjectival expressions undermines his idea even more. As one can see in the preceeding tables that illustrate the distribution of adjectives in the tabernacle sections, no conclusive tendency is apparent. The two styles are used almost interchangeably in both sections, with a slight prevalence of pattern A over pattern B (section I: 51—42; section II: 28—19). When one excludes the occurrences in which the modifier is a number, both sections display an even more pronounced preference for pattern A (pattern A—B: section I: 13—3; section II: 14—4). 3) According to Wevers, the paradigm of the compound numbers in section II (ch. 39) reveals a difference in technique from that of the other parts of the book (ch. 6): The pattern in Exodus is that of descending grades, i.e., myriads, thousands, hundreds, tens and single units. In ch. 6 these are unconnected with καί but in ch. 39 they are all thus connected except for the final tens and single units.79 However, a more careful examination of the manuscripts suggests that the differences do not pertain to section II as opposed to the other parts of Greek Exodus, but to differences between manuscript B and the others such as A, F, and M. Though the occurrences of compound numbers are not manifold in Exodus, the tendencies of the translator(s) are clear. Exod 6:16 (mt and mss of the lxx) MT ‫ֶשַׁבע וְּשֹׁלִשׁים וְּמַאת ָשׁ ָנה‬ B ἑκατὸν τριάκοντα ἑπτά x, 426 επτα και τριακοντα και εκατον ετη

79

Wevers, Text-Exodus, 144.

the common background of the septuagint translators

45

Exod 6:18 MT ‫ָשֹׁלשׁ וְּשֹׁלִשׁים וְּמַאת ָשׁ ָנה‬ B ἑκατὸν τριάκοντα ἔτη x, 426 τρια και τρικοντα και εκατον Exod 6:20 MT B x

‫ֶשַׁבע וְּשֹׁלִשׁים וְּמַאת ָשׁ ָנה‬

ἑκατὸν τριάκοντα δύο ἔτη επτα και τριακοντα και εκατον ετη

Exod 30:23 MT B A,M

‫ֲחִמִשּׁים וָּמאָת ִים‬

διακοσίους πεντήκοντα (twice) διακοσιους και πεντηκοντα (twice)

Exod 39:1 [MT 38:24] MT ‫תַּשׁע ְוֶﬠְשׂ ִרים ִכָּכּר וְּשַׁבע ֵמאוֹת וְּשֹׁלִשׁים ֶשֶׁקל‬ B ἐννέα καὶ εἴκοσι τάλαντα καὶ ἑπτακόσιοι εἴκοσι σίκλοι A,F,M εννεα και εικοσι ταλαντα και επτακοσιοι και τριακοντα σικλοι Exod 39:2 [MT 38:25] MT B A,M

‫ְוֶאֶלף וְּשַׁבע ֵמאוֹת ַוֲחִמָשּׁה ְוִשְׁבִﬠים ֶשֶׁקל‬

καὶ χίλιοι ἑπτακόσιοι ἑβδομήκοντα πέντε σίκλοι και χιλιοι και επτακοσιοι και εβδομηκοντα πεντε σικλοι

Exod 39:3 [MT 38:26] MT ‫לֵשׁשׁ־ֵמאוֹת ֶאֶלף וְּשֹׁלֶשׁת ֲאָלִפים ַוֲחֵמשׁ ֵמאוֹת ַוֲחִמִשּׁים‬ B εἰς τὰς ἑξήκοντα μυριάδας καὶ τρισχίλιοι πεντακόσιοι καὶ πεντήκοντα A,F,M εις τας εξηκοντα μυριαδας και τρισχιλιυς και πεντακοσιους και πεντηκοντα Exod 39:6 [MT 38:28] MT B A

‫ְוֶאת־ָהֶאֶלף וְּשַׁבע ַהֵמּאוֹת ַוֲחִמָשּׁה ְוִשְׁבִﬠים‬

και τους χιλιους επτακοσιχους εβδομηκοντα πεντασικλους και τους χιλιους και επτακονσιχους και εβδομηκοντα πεντα σικλους

46

chapter 2

Exod 39:7 [MT 38:29] MT B A,F

‫ְוַאְלַפּ ִים ְוַא ְרַבּע־ֵמאוֹת ָשֶׁקל‬

και χιλιοι πεντακοσιοι σικλοι και δισχιλιοι και τετρακοσιοι σικλοι

B prefers the declining order without regard to the Hebrew text, which usually has an ascending order (see above). In most cases, καί is not inserted between the units (6:16, 18, 20; 30:23; 39:1b, 2, 3, 6, 7).80 No difference is found between section II and the other parts of the book in this regard.81 Interestingly, when B prefers the ascending order of the number, καί is inserted between tens and single digits (39:1). Other manuscripts, such as A, F, and M, differ from B. In a descending order, καί is used between numerical units (30:23; 39:1b, 2, 3, 6, 7) except between tens and single units (39:1, 6), while in an ascending order καί is used between ones and tens (39:1a). This analysis suggests that the difference in style regarding the use of καί between units does not depend on the different translators of sections of LXX-Exod, but on the consistent preferences of individual manuscripts: In a descending order, καί is normally absent between numbers in B, while it is found in A, F, and M. However, when the order is ascending, καί is generally used in all manuscripts.82 4) Wevers’s most persuasive argument for the heterogeneity of the tabernacle account translators revolves around the translation of the geographical directions. In chapter 27, where the translator expressed the orientations of the four directions of the court, it appears as though he was confused. While in the Hebrew text the sequence is south (v. 9), north (v. 11), west (v. 12), and east (v. 13), the Greek has πρὸς λίβα (v. 9, “west”), πρὸς ἀπηλιώτην (v. 11, “east”), κατὰ θάλασσαν (v. 12, “west”), and πρὸς νότον (v. 13, “south”). It is hard to know how the “front side,” “toward the east” in Hebrew Scripture, was changed into “south” in Greek and how the long sides of the court on the south and the north are located on the west and the east in the LXX. The only plausible explanation seems to be a mistake in the transmission.

80 81 82

The only exception appears in 39:3, where καί is inserted twice between numbers. The only exception appears in 39:3, where καί is inserted between tens and hundreds. This point could imply the possibility of interference by a later scribe/reviser in an individual manuscript.

the common background of the septuagint translators

47

Wevers, on the other hand, opines that the translator was formulating from the position of Alexandria. Thus, the rear side of the court, ‫ים‬, rendered with θάλασσα (v. 12), becomes the north. This alteration led to his harmonizing the other directions by pivoting ninety degrees to the right. As a result, north becomes east, east changes to south, and south shifts to west. table 16

The rendering of the directions in the tabernacle account

Section I (Exodus 25–31)

(‫( נגבה )תימנה‬SW, S) ‫( צפון‬N)

Exodus 26

Exodus 27

βορέας (N), 26:18 νότος (S), 26:35 νότος (S), 26:20 βορέας (N), 26:35

λίψ (S, W), 27:9

‫( קדמה־מזרחה‬E)

(‫( ימ)ה‬W)

θάλασσα (W), 26:22, 27

ἀπηλιώτης (E), 27:11 νότος (S), 27:13 θάλασσα (W, N?), 27:12

Section II (Exodus 35–40)

λίψ (S), 38:9 νότος (40:24) βορέας (N) 38:11 (37:9), 40:22 ἀνατολή (E), 38:13 θάλασσα (W) 38:12

Remarkably, the directions in the parallel segment in 38:9–11 are rendered correctly in accordance with the Hebrew, i.e., “south” (‫ = )נגב תימנה‬λίψ (38:9 [37:7]); “north” (‫ = )צפון‬βορέας (38:11 [37:9]); “west” ([‫ = )ימ]ה‬θάλασσα (38:12 [37:10]); and “east” (‫ = )קדמה‬ἀνατολήᾳ (38:13 [37:11]). According to Wevers, although the translator of section II did not necessarily reside in Eretz Israel “since the Jews in the diaspora did know their Palestinian directions,”83 he could not have been the same person who produced section I.84 Wevers’s suggestion might find some support from similar renditions in Exod 10:13 and 14:21, where ‫רוח־קדים‬, “the east wind” was rendered with νότος, “south.” These renderings might also reflect the translator’s base in Alexandria. Wevers’s reasoning is not without flaws, even in section I. If the standing point of the translator played such an important role in chapter 27, why was he unaffected by this situation in chapter 26? In Exod 26:18, 20, where the Hebrew has ‫( נגבה‬S) and ‫( צפון‬N), the translator chose βορέας (N) and νότος (S).85 If Wev83 84 85

Wevers, Text-Exodus, 146. Wevers, Text-Exodus, 146 and Wevers, “Building,” 130. However, in v. 35 of the same chapter, the Greek equivalents are: ‫( נגבה‬S) = νότος (S); ‫( צפון‬N) = βορέας (N). Gooding attempts to explain this inconsistency as “just one more

48

chapter 2

ers’s assertion were correct, not only sections I and II should be ascribed to different translators, but also chapters 26, 10, and 27. Wevers bases his idea on the translator’s understanding of θάλασσα and λίψ. Though ‫ ים‬is translated with θάλασσα, Wevers contends that the translator intended to indicate the north in chapter 27 because of his base in Alexandria.86 While this argument might be feasible in Exod 27:12, θάλασσα almost always refers to ‫ ים‬as “west,” not “north.” For example, in Exod 10:19, ‫רוח־ים‬, ἄνεμον ἀπὸ θαλάσσης, a “west wind” lifted the locusts and drove them into the Red Sea, which is located to the east of Egypt. Also, in chapter 26, the long side of the tabernacle was on the north and south (vv. 18, 20), and therefore the rear side of the tabernacle in verses 22 and 27 would be westward: Exod 26:22 MT ‫וְּל ַי ְרְכֵּתי ַהִמְּשָׁכּן ָיָמּה ַתֲּﬠֶשׂה ִשָׁשּׁה ְק ָרִשׁים‬ LXX καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀπίσω τῆς σκηνῆς κατὰ τὸ μέρος τὸ πρὸς θάλασσαν ποιήσεις ἓξ στύλους The use of λίψ in the LXX also casts some doubt on Wevers’s suggestion. Nearly every time this word occurs in LXX-Pent, it is an equivalent of (‫תימנ)ה‬, “south,” the opposite of βορέας, “north” (Gen 13:14; 28:14; Exod 37:7; Num 3:29; 34:3, 4; 35:5; Deut 3:27). In LXX-Pent, δυσμή is the most frequent choice to represent the west,87 and the use of λίψ, in the sense of “west,” as the opposite of ἀπηλιώτης, “east,”88 is quite rare. It appears in the Pentateuch only once, in Exod 27:9,89 and elsewhere in 2Chr 32:30; 33:14. In Greek literature, this use of λίψ surfaced only after the time of the translation of the Pentateuch such as in P. Tebt. 14.19 (second century BCE) and BGU 1037.15, an Egyptian papyrus of the first century CE: λιβα εις απηλιωτην, “from west to east.” As a result, the directional errors in LXX-Exod 27:9, 11, and 13 probably did not derive from a translator, but from a later scribe. The above arguments militate against the heterogeneity of the translators for the two sections of the tabernacle account, and they suggest that a single

86 87 88 89

example of our translator’s style” (Gooding, Tabernacle, 24). However, a more plausible explanation for this translation is a different Vorlage. In vv. 18 and 20, the order is south– north in MT, but in v. 35 of the same chapter it is north–south. Wevers, Text-Exodus, 146. Gen 15:12, 17; Exod 17:12; 22:25[26]; Num 22:1; 33:49, 50; 36:13; Deut 1:1; 11:30; 16:6; 24:13, etc. Exod 27:11; Judg 7:18; 1Macc 12:37; Jer 32:26; and Ezek 21:3, 9. In LXX-Pent, λίψ appears in almost all cases as the opposite of βορέας rendering (‫תימנ)ה‬ (Gen 13:14; 28:14; Exod 37:7; Num 3:29; 34:3, 4; 35:5; Deut 3:27).

the common background of the septuagint translators

49

person translated the two sections. The shared features of the two translation units are revealed in many ways, such as the rendering of ordinary words, technical terms, translation technique, and vocabulary. 6.1 a.

b.

c.

6.2

Consistency in Rendering ‫ אפד‬is stereotypically rendered with ἐπωμίς in the tabernacle sections (25:7; 28:4, 6, 12, 15; 29:5b, c; 35:9, 27; 39:2, 7, 8, 18, 19, 20a, b, 21a, b, c; 39:22),90 as well as in Lev 8:7, while the later translations usually transliterated.91 In the tabernacle account, ‫שוּלים‬, “seams” on the robe, is translated as λῶμα (28:33, 34; 39:24, 25, 26). In contrast, the later translators, probably due to ignorance, opted for contextual translations: δόξα (Isa 6:1), ὀπίσω (Jer 13:22, 26; Nah 3:5), or πούς (Lam 1:9). The phrase ‫ערות תחשים‬,92 the tabernacle coverings, is consistently rendered by δέρματα ὑακίνθινα, “blue skins” (Exod 25:5; 26:14; 35:7, 23; 39:34).93 ὑιακίνθινος, “blue hyacinth” is also employed frequently for ‫ תכלת‬in the same sections (Exod 26:4; 28:31 [27]; 39:22 [36:30], 31 [36:40]).94

Correspondence between the Two Sections

a.

The two lists of materials to be donated for the construction of the tabernacle (Exod 25:3–7; 35:5–9) are identical in MT and LXX with the exception of καί, lacking five times in the second list (25:3–4a).95 Interestingly, some of the items appearing in MT ‫ ְבָּשִׂמים ְלֶשֶׁמן‬,‫אר‬ ֹ ‫ֶשֶׁמן ַלָמּ‬ ‫ ְוִלְקטֹ ֶרת ַהַסִּמּים‬,‫ַהִמְּשָׁחה‬, “oil for the light, spices for the anointing oil, and

90 91

The exceptions occur in 28:31 and 29:5 (ποδήρης—‫)מעיל האפד‬. εφουδ (1Sam 2:18 BGT) in Judg-A 8:27; 17:5; 18:14, 18, 20; 1 Sam 2:18, 28; 14:3; 22:18; 23:6, 9; 30:7; εφωδ in Judg-B 17:5; 18:14, 18, 20; στολή in 2Sam 6:14; 1 Chr 25:27; ἱερατεία in Hos 3:4. ‫( תחש‬meaning has been translated as unknown), “badger” in KJV, “dolphin” in JPS, “porpoise” in NASB, and “sea cows” in NIV. For a discussion, see Driver, Exodus, 265–266; U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (trans. I. Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967; repr. 1997), 326; Wevers, Notes-Exodus, 393–394; J.I. Durham, Exodus (WBC 3; Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 349–350. Likewise, ‫ תחש‬in Numbers (4:6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 25) is always rendered by ὑιακίνθινος, probably due to the influence of LXX-Exod. Elsewhere in the LXX, the same rendition is found in Num 4:6, 9, 11, 12; 15:38; Ezek 23:6, etc. In Exod 35:6, διανενησμένον was probably inserted by a later scribe to correct the preceding διπλοῦν. Finn, “Tabernacle Chapters,” 453.

92

93 94 95

50

b.

chapter 2

for the fragrant incense” (25:6; 35:8) are lacking in both sections of LXXExod. Also, the translator’s interpretation of ‫שש‬, “fine linen” (25:4; 35:6),96 is reflected in both sections as βύσσον κεκλωσμένην, “fine linen by spinning.” In addition, an unusual rendering of ‫ תולעת שני‬is reflected in both sections (25:4; 35:6). In the common collocation ‫תולעת שני‬, “fine linen,” the translator mistakenly represents ‫ ָשׁ ִני‬with διπλοῦν, “double,” probably reflecting ‫ֵש ִני‬, “the second.” A word-for-word relationship between two versions is evident in the rendering of the names of the twelve stones in the breastplate (28:17–20 and 39:10–13 [36:17–20]). In the Hebrew text, the connecting waw appears only in the second and third stones in each line,97 while in the Greek version the translator inserted καί between every stone.98 If these verses were translated by different translators, such correspondence could hardly be expected.99

table 17

List of materials in LXX-Exod 25:3–7 and 35:5–9

35:5–9

25:3–7

25:3 καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἀπαρχή ἣν λήμψεσθε παρ᾽ αὐτῶν χρυσίον καὶ ἀργύριον καὶ χαλκὸν 4 καὶ ὑάκινθον καὶ πορφύραν καὶ κόκκινον διπλοῦν καὶ βύσσον κεκλωσμένην καὶ τρίχας αἰγείας 5 καὶ δέρματα κριῶν ἠρυθροδανωμένα καὶ δέρματα ὑακίνθινα καὶ ξύλα ἄσηπτα 6 7 καὶ λίθους σαρδίου καὶ λίθους εἰς τὴν γλυφὴν εἰς τὴν ἐπωμίδα καὶ τὸν ποδήρη

35:5 λάβετε παρ᾽ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν ἀφαίρεμα κυρίῳ πᾶς ὁ καταδεχόμενος τῇ καρδίᾳ οἴσουσιν τὰς ἀπαρχὰς κυρίῳ χρυσίον ἀργύριον χαλκόν 6 ὑάκινθον πορφύραν κόκκινον διπλοῦν διανενησμένον καὶ βύσσον κεκλωσμένην καὶ τρίχας αἰγείας 7 καὶ δέρματα κριῶν ἠρυθροδανωμένα καὶ δέρματα ὑακίνθινα καὶ ξύλα ἄσηπτα 8 9 καὶ λίθους σαρδίου καὶ λίθους εἰς τὴν γλυφὴν εἰς τὴν ἐπωμίδα καὶ τὸν ποδήρη

96 97 98 99

According to Cassuto, Exodus, 325, ‫ שש‬is “apparently the term for very fine threads of flax, suitable for weaving the most delicate garments.” In 28:20, the waw appears twice. The only exception occurs in 28:17, where καί is omitted once. For another view of this issue, see Finn, “Tabernacle Chapters,” 454.

the common background of the septuagint translators table 18

51

The breastplate in LXX-Exod 28:17–20 and 36:17–20

28:17–20

36:17–20

17 καὶ καθυφανεῖς ἐν αὐτῷ ὕφασμα κατάλιθον τετράστιχον στίχος λίθων ἔσται σάρδιον τοπάζιον καὶ σμάραγδος ὁ στίχος ὁ εἷς 18 καὶ ὁ στίχος ὁ δεύτερος ἄνθραξ καὶ σάπφειρος καὶ ἴασπις 19 καὶ ὁ στίχος ὁ τρίτος λιγύριον ἀχάτης καὶ ἀμέθυστος 20 καὶ ὁ στίχος ὁ τέταρτος χρυσόλιθος καὶ βηρύλλιον καὶ ὀνύχιον περικεκαλυμμένα χρυσίῳ συνδεδεμένα ἐν χρυσίῳ ἔστωσαν κατὰ στίχον αὐτῶν

17 καὶ συνυφάνθη ἐν αὐτῷ ὕφασμα κατάλιθον τετράστιχον στίχος λίθων σάρδιον καὶ τοπάζιον καὶ σμάραγδος ὁ στίχος ὁ εἷς 18 καὶ ὁ στίχος ὁ δεύτερος ἄνθραξ καὶ σάπφειρος καὶ ἴασπις 19 καὶ ὁ στίχος ὁ τρίτος λιγύριον καὶ ἀχάτης καὶ ἀμέθυστος 20 καὶ ὁ στίχος ὁ τέταρτος χρυσόλιθος καὶ βηρύλλιον καὶ ὀνύχιον περικεκυκλωμένα χρυσίῳ καὶ συνδεδεμένα χρυσίῳ

6.3 Shared Vocabulary Even if certain words are not rendered consistently in sections I and II, their Greek equivalents nevertheless display a common vocabulary. a. ‫מצנפת‬, “turban” κίδαρις, “turban,” which originally referred to a Persian headdress, was applied to the headwear of the high priest (‫)מצנפת‬100 in both sections (28:4, 39; 39:28). A synonym, μίτρα, “head band,” is also used in both sections (28:37a, b; 29:6a, b; 39:31). b. ‫ווים‬, “hooks” Both sections use different equivalents for ‫ווים‬: κεφαλίς, κρίκος, and ἀγκύλη. Interestingly, the unusual rendering of ‫ווים‬, “hooks” with κεφαλίς, “little head” or “capital” of a column, which seems more appropriate for ‫ראש‬, is commonly found in both sections:101 c. ‫)שמן( משחה‬, “anointing (oil),” is rendered in both sections with χρῖσμα, “unguent,” the later form of χρίμα and χρῖσις, “anointing.” d. ‫רקם‬/‫מעשה חשב‬, “the work of a skilled craftsman/embroiderer” In section I, ἔργον ποικιλτοῦ equals both ‫( מעשה חשב‬28:15) and ‫מעשה רקם‬ (26:36; 28:39). Likewise, in section II, ἔργον ὑφαντόν translates both ‫מעשה‬

100 101

Elsewhere in the LXX it is used similarly: Lev 8:13 (‫ ;)מגבעה‬16:4 (‫ ;)מצנפת‬Ezek 21:31 (‫ ;)מצנפת‬44:18 (‫ ;)פאר‬Zech 3:5 (‫)צניף‬. Such as in Exod 26:24; 36:38[37:6]; 38:28[39:5]; see Table 74.

52

chapter 2

‫( חשב‬36:35 [37:3]; 39:3 [36:10]) and ‫( מעשה רקם‬36:37 [37:5]). Section I actually uses ἔργον ὑφαντόν (26:1, 31) and ἔργον ποικιλτοῦ (28:15) interchangeably for ‫מעשה חשב‬, while in section II both Greek expressions render ‫מעשה רקם‬: ἔργον ὑφαντὸν (in 36:37 [37:5]) and ἔργον ποικιλτοῦ (in 38:18 [37:16]; 39:29 [36:36]). In addition, the rendering of ‫ מעשה חשב‬with ἔργον ὑφαντὸν ποικιλτοῦ/ποικιλίᾳ reflects another shared feature in the two sections. Though ὑφαντός or ποικιλτής/ποικιλία alone would have underlined the shared character of sections I and II sufficiently, both words occur together in Greek Exod 28:6 and 36:15 in a double translation. Perhaps the translator(s) opted for the long phrase because it was difficult to decide which equivalent was more adequate. table 19

‫מצנפת‬, “turban” in the tabernacle account

Equivalents

Section I (Exodus 25–31)

Section II (Exodus 35–40)

κίδαρις μίτρα

28:4, 39 28:37a, b; 29:6a, b

39:28 [36:35] 39:31 [36:38]

table 20

‫ ווים‬in the tabernacle account

Equivalents

Section I (Exodus 25–31)

Section II (Exodus 35–40)

κεφαλίς κρίκος ἀγκύλη

26:32, 37; 27:17 27:10, 11

36:36 36:38 38:17, 19, 28

table 21

‫ משחה‬in the tabernacle account

Equivalents

Section I (Exodus 25–31)

Section II (Exodus 35–40)

χρῖσμα χρῖσις

29:7; 30:25a, b 29:21; 30:31; 31:11

35:15 [12]; 40:9, 15 35:28; 37:29, 38

the common background of the septuagint translators table 22

53

(1) ‫ מעשה חשב‬and (2) ‫ מעשה רקם‬in the tabernacle account

Equivalents

Section I (Exodus 25–31) Section II (Exodus 35–40)

ἔργον ὑφαντὸν ποικιλτοῦ ἔργον ὑφαντόν

(1) 28:6 (1) 26:1, 31

ἔργον ποικιλτοῦ

(1) 28:15 (2) 26:36; 28:39 τῇ ποικιλίᾳ τοῦ ῥαφιδευτοῦ (2) 27:16

(1) (1) (2) (2)

39:8 [36:15] 36:35 [37:3]; 39:3 [36:10] 36:37 [37:5] 38:18 [37:16]; 39:29 [36:36]

While the adjective ποικίλος surfaces throughout the LXX (as well as in the New Testament),102 the noun ποικιλτής occurs only seven times in the entire LXX,103 six of them in the two tabernacle sections. 6.4 Conclusions The above analysis relates to the number of the translator(s) of LXX-Exod. It suggests strongly that a single translator produced both sections of the tabernacle account. This suggestion is based not only on general translation features such as freedom and variety, but also on the choice of vocabulary, inconsistency, unusual renderings, and translation technique.

7

Excursus 3: The Balaam Story (Numbers 22–24) Compared with the Other Parts of LXX-Num

Certain characteristics of the Greek Balaam story (Numbers 22–24) mark it as different from the remainder of LXX-Num. The indicators include distinct renderings of words confined to this account as well as stylistic features, especially in the choice of verb tenses. However, the analysis in this excursus suggests that these idiosyncrasies are not sufficiently strong to disprove the basic unity of LXX-Num.

102 103

Gen 30:37, 39, 40; 31:8, 10, 12; 37:3, 23, 32; Josh 7:21; Judg 5:30; Ezek 16:10, 13, 16, 18; Zech 1:8; 6:3, 6; 1Chr 29:2; 2Macc 15:21; 3Macc 1:21; 2:6; 4Macc 7:4; 17:7; 18:21; Matt 4:24. LXX-Exod 26:36; 28:6, 15, 39; 36:36; 37:16; Judg 5:30.

54

chapter 2

7.1 ‫יהוה‬ The Tetragrammaton (appearing 396 times in LXX-Num) is usually rendered by κύριος (see Table 23). This rendering appears consistently in chapters 1–21 (250/256 = 97.6%)104 as well as in chapters 25–36 (110/111 = 99.1 %).105 table 23

‫ יהוה‬in LXX-Num

Equivalents

Chs. 1–21

Chs. 22–24

Chs. 25–36

κύριος

250 occurrences 1:1, 19, 48, 54; 2:1, 33, 34; 3:1, 4a, b, 5, 11, 13, 14, 16, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 51a, b; 4:1, 17, 21, 37, 41, 45, 49a, b; 5:1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 16, 18, 21a, b, 25, 30; 6:1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 12, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26; 7:3, 4, 11; 8:1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11a, b, 12, 13, 20, 21, 22, 23; 9:1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18a, b, 19, 20a, b, 23a, b, c, d; 10:1, 9, 10, 13, 29a, b, 32, 33a, b, 34, 35, 36; 11:1a, b, c, 2, 3, 10, 11, 16, 18a, b, 20, 23a, b, 24, 25, 29a, b, 31, 33a, b; 12:2a, b, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14; 13:1, 3; 14:3, 8, 9a, 10, 11, 13, 14a, 16, 18, 20, 21, 26, 28, 35, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43a, 44; 15:1, 3a, b, 4, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23a, b, 24, 25a, b, 28, 31, 35, 36, 37, 39, 41a, b; 16:3a, b, 7a, b, 9, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, 28, 29, 30a, b, 35; 17:1, 3, 5a, b, 6, 7, 9, 11, 16, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28; 18:1, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19a, b, 20, 24, 25, 26, 28a, b, 29; 19:1, 2, 13, 20; 20:3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 16, 23, 27; 21:2, 3, 6, 7a, b, 8, 14, 16, 34

11 occurrences 22:8, 18, 19, 31b; 23:17, 21, 34; 24:1, 6, 11, 13a

110 occurrences 25:3, 4a, b, c, 10, 16; 26:1, 4, 9, 52, 61, 65; 27:3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23; 28:1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 15, 16, 19, 24, 26, 27, 2; 29:6, 8, 12, 13, 36, 39; 30:1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 13, 17; 31:1, 3, 7, 16a, b, 21, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41b, 47a, b, 50a, b, 52, 54; 32:4, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13a, b, 14, 20, 21, 22a, b, c, 23, 27, 29, 31, 32; 33:2, 4a, b, 38, 50; 34:1, 13, 16, 29; 35:1, 9, 34; 36:2a, b, 5, 6, 10, 13

θεός

3 occurrences 15:30; 16:5, 11

18 occurrences 31:41a 22:13, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31a, 32, 35; 23:3, 5, 8, 12, 16, 26; 24:13b

ἐγένετο

10:34 (‫)יהיה‬

no equivalent

5:6; 9:23a

Total

256

104 105

29

111

Exceptions occur in 15:30; 16:5, 11 (‫—יהוה‬θεός). One can attribute the other three exceptions to either the lack of an equivalent (5:6; 9:23a) or a misreading of ‫ יהוה‬by ‫( יהיה‬10:34). The only deviation occurs in 31:41a.

the common background of the septuagint translators

55

The Greek translation of the Balaam story reveals a strikingly different set of equivalents of ‫ יהוה‬in its twenty-nine occurrences. As opposed to the almostcomplete consistency in the other sections of Numbers, in this part one notices a startlingly low incidence of the ‫—יהוה‬κύριος pairing (11/29 = 38%). In this section, θεός is preferred for ‫( יהוה‬18/29 = 62%), most frequently in the phrase ‫מלאך‬ ‫ יהוה‬as ὁ ἄγγελος τοῦ θεοῦ (22:22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32, 34, 35). According to Wevers, this translation results from an attempt by the translator “to minimize the role of Israel’s God in the story.”106 However, there is no evidence in this section that testifies to a tendency toward theological renderings that might reflect the translator’s prejudice. For example, in 24:13, ‫ יהוה‬is rendered with both κύριος and θεός without any distinction. Num 24:13 MT

‫ִאם־ ִיֶתּן־ִלי ָבָלק ְמל ֹא ֵביתוֹ ֶכֶּסף ְו ָזָהב ל ֹא אוַּכל ַלֲﬠבֹר ֶאת־ִפּי ְיה ָוה ַלֲﬠשׂוֹת טוָֹבה אוֹ ָרָﬠה‬ ‫אתוֹ ֲא ַדֵבּר‬ ֹ ‫ִמִלִּבּי ֲאֶשׁר־ ְי ַדֵבּר ְיה ָוה‬

LXX ἐάν μοι δῷ Βαλακ πλήρη τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ ἀργυρίου καὶ χρυσίου οὐ δυνήσομαι παραβῆναι τὸ ῥῆμα κυρίου ποιῆσαι αὐτὸ πονηρὸν ἢ καλὸν παρ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ ὅσα ἐὰν εἴπῃ ὁ θεός ταῦτα ἐρῶ Therefore, the frequent use of θεός in the Balaam story likely reflects the preference of a translator or scribe, possibly even a different Vorlage (‫)אלהים‬.107 7.2 ‫ויאמר‬ In the Balaam story, ‫ ויאמר‬is rendered frequently by εἶπεν only, without καί or δέ to accommodate Greek syntax (see Table 84: ‫ ויאמר‬in LXX-Pent). In these cases, εἶπεν follows a preceding participial construction (hypotaxis). In these three chapters (Numbers 22–24), this translation pattern is used nine times (9/38 =

106

107

Wevers, Notes-Numbers, xxix, 372. For an explanatory discussion of the theological translation policy on the rendering of tetragrammaton in the Greek Pentateuch, see M. Rösel, “The Reading and Translation of the Divine Name in the Masoretic Tradition and the Greek Pentateuch,” JSOT 31 (2007): 411–428; M. Rösel, “2.4.1.1 Genesis”, in THBO. For other opinions, see G.B. Gray, Numbers (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1903), 309–312; A. Rofé, The Book of Balaam (Jerusalem: Simor, 1979), 37–40 (Heb.); and P.J. Budd, Numbers (WBC 5; Waco, TX: Word, 1983), 256–265. For the possibility that the translator intentionally harmonized this rendering in Genesis, see E. Tov, “The Harmonizing Character of the Septuagint of Genesis 1–11,” in Die Septuaginta (ed. W. Kraus and S. Kreuzer; WUNT 325; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 315–332. Thus, for MT ‫ יהוה‬in 23:3, 26, SP, LXX, 4QNumb, and Vulgate read ‫אלהים‬. In addition, in Num 22:20 and 23:4, MT has ‫אלהים‬, while SP reads ‫מלאך אלהים‬.

56

chapter 2

23.7%), whereas in the other thirty-three chapters (Numbers 1–21 and Numbers 25–36), it appears only once (1/57 = 1.8%).108 7.3 Transliteration of ‫מדין‬ The transliteration of ‫ מדין‬in the Balaam story (Μαδιαμ, Num 22:4, 7) differs from the other sections of LXX-Num (Μαδιαν, 25:15, 18; 31:3a, b, 7, 8a, b, 9). The transliteration in the Balaam story agrees with that in the other books of LXXPent (Gen 25:2, 4; 36:35; Exod 2:15, 16; 3:1; 4:19; 18:1). table 24

Transliteration of ‫ מדין‬in the Pentateuch

Equivalents Gen Μαδιαμ

Exod

Lev

25:2, 4; 36:35 2:15, 16; 3:1; 4:19; 18:1

Deut

22:4, 7

Μαδιαν Total

Num

25:15, 18; 31:3a, b, 7, 8a, b, 9 3

5

0

10

0

The above details could lead to the conclusion that a separate translator produced the Balaam account. However, it is more likely that these items display scribal activity as the following examples suggest unity for LXX-Num: a. The rendering ‫ערבה‬/‫—ערב)ו(ת‬δυσμή in Num 22:1 agrees with the practice in the other parts of LXX-Num (33:48, 49, 50; 35:1; 36:13). This choice is preferred especially in LXX-Num (see p. 117 below),109 as opposed to the transliteration Ἀραβά/Ἀραβώθ elsewhere in the LXX. b. ‫נטה‬, used as “to bend, turn, incline,” is rendered stereotypically with ἐκκλίνω in LXX-Num (22:23, 26, 33a, b as well as 20:17, 21; 21:22), as opposed to ἐκκλίνω (Gen 38:16; Exod 23:2), ἐπικλίνω (Gen 24:14), διαστρέφω (Exod 23:6), and ἀφικνέομαι (Gen 38:1) elsewhere. c. ‫קו״ץ‬, “to abhor,” occurs rarely in the Pentateuch (only 5 times). Its rendering with προσοχθίζω in the Balaam story (Num 22:3) and elsewhere in 108

109

In the other books of LXX-Pent, this way of rendering ‫ ויאמר‬rarely occurs: in Genesis, seven times out of 347 (2%); in Exodus, only once out of 156 (0.6 %); and not at all in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. See Table 84. Elsewhere in the LXX this rendering appears in Deut 1:1; 11:30; Josh 5:9; 2 Sam 2:29; 4:7; Ps 67:4; and Isa 51:3.

the common background of the septuagint translators

57

LXX-Num (Num 21:5) shows the unity of LXX-Num. In contrast, this verb is expressed as βδελύσσομαι in Lev 20:23 and Exod 1:12, and προσοχθίζω in Gen 27:46. d. The infrequently used phrase ὁ δὲ εἶπεν for ‫ ויאמר‬appears in Num 20:20 as well as in 22:30.110 e. Note the rendering of ‫ ראש‬in the sense of “top of a hill” with κορυφή in the entire LXX-Num (14:40, 44; 20:28; 21:20; 23:9, 14, 28). These examples indicate that the translation of the Balaam story was produced by the same hand that rendered the other parts of the book, while its idiosyncrasies likely resulted from a scribe.111 110 111

See Table 84 below. How a few chapters in Numbers became distinct from the other parts of the book is difficult to explain. One possibility might be that the translation of this section was transmitted independently from the beginning. The rabbinic tradition recorded in b. B. Bat. 14b would support this idea as it mentions the story of Balaam as a separate unit: ‫ומי כתבן‬ ‫משה כתב ספרו ופרשת בלעם ואיוב‬, “And who wrote them?—Moses wrote his book [i.e., the Pentateuch], the section of Balaam, and the book of Job.”

chapter 3

Differences between the Translation Units in LXX-Pent 1

Introduction

In chapter 2, we scrutinized the shared elements of LXX-Pent in a few areas. However, the individual books of LXX-Pent differ much from one another in other areas. The present study attempts to determine the number of translators employed in the Greek translation of the Pentateuch. Modern studies have asserted various claims about the number of these translators. In order to determine more objectively how many translators were involved, the present study aims at uncovering possible differences in translation techniques employed by the translators of LXX-Pent. The rendering of Hebrew words and syntagmata in LXX-Pent and the translators’ use of Greek in LXX-Pent are scrutinized to determine whether or not the translation of LXX-Pent is homogeneous. If it turns out to be nonhomogeneous, we will try to determine different translation units. The following discussion clarifies the criteria and methodology used in the analysis as well as the system used in this chapter to present the results. 1.1 Criteria and Methodology: Statistical Analysis The present study uses a limited but consistent selection of translation-technique criteria involving statistical data in order to enable a separation between the translation units and to arrive at more rationally based and objective conclusions than previous studies. In the present study, the following criteria are analyzed and measured: lexical choices of the translators, consistency in lexical rendering,1 the translators’ preference for certain Greek words, ideological and stylistic tendencies of the translators, and their attitude to the Hebrew text. In every section of this chapter, an exhaustive table presents the rendering/use of a word/phrase or syntagma on the basis of which the renderings are examined, analyzed, and compared. Whenever differences in translation are encountered, the meanings and functions of the Hebrew are taken into consid-

1 For the appropriateness of the use of consistency in rendering, see Olofsson, LXX Version, 16–20; S. Olofsson, “Consistency as a Translation Technique,” SJOT 6 (1992): 14–30; Wade, “Evaluating Lexical Consistency,” 53–75.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004421127_004

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent

59

eration since they may explain the differences in translation (e.g., ‫ כאשר‬functions in both temporal and protasis clauses). By a careful examination of the equivalents, one can distinguish the differences among the translation units. Some translators rendered a given Hebrew word consistently, using the same Greek equivalent, while others varied their rendering from case to case. Thus, when distinctions appear in the rendering/use of many words and when a particular usage characterizes one section and not another one, this variety suggests different translators among the books of LXX-Pent and/or within individual books. Some such differences have been recognized in the past by others and are recorded in their names. In addition to the study of individual isolated words, equivalents of different translators are examined in two more-or-less identical running chapters, viz., Exodus 29 and Leviticus 8 (ch. 3, Excursus). 1.2 Tables Two kinds of tabular statistical data are employed in the comparison of the differences among the translations. The first type of table (e.g., Table 29: ‫ גור‬in LXXPent), showing Hebrew-Greek renderings, demonstrates the lexical choices of the individual translators and their degree of consistency. The biblical references serve to provide not only the exact data but also a statistical distribution chart of the translators’ renderings. The second type of table (e.g., Table 30: παροικέω, “to dwell beside” in LXX-Pent), showing Greek-Hebrew equivalents, enables a comparison of different translators’ uses of certain Greek words. In this way, the preferences of the translators for a certain Greek word will become apparent, together with their lexicographical backgrounds. These two types of tables, showing the word choices of the translators and their preferences for certain Greek words, aid in distinguishing among the different translators of LXX-Pent. For example, Table 73: ‫ צפור‬in LXX-Pent shows that Leviticus uses ὀρνίθιον exclusively (13 times) for ‫צפור‬, whereas Deuteronomy uses only ὄρνεον (3 times). 1.3 Headers In the present study, the headers of each section contain not only the title/criterion by which distinctions are made among the translation units of LXX-Pent, but also the conclusions resulting from the examination. The headers are composed of three parts: number, criterion, and results, e.g., “24) ‫פן‬: Gen, Exod ≠ Deut.” The number signifies the part and section. The criterion, i.e., the word/phrase/syntactical unit selected, is divided by a colon (:) from the results. Often, detailed grammatical information defining the criterion is added in parenthesis before the colon. For example, “‫( זקן‬substan-

60

chapter 3

tive): Gen, Num ≠ Exod ≠ Deut” indicates that the examination of ‫ זקן‬is limited to the substantive use of the word. The results display two sets of data. First, they indicate the distinction among/between books/groups of books or translation units. This distinction is expressed by the “≠” sign to show that the two entities differ in their rendering/use of a given Hebrew word. Second, the criterion indicates the common elements among books/groups of books or translation units, separated by a comma. For example, the heading “24) ‫פן‬: Gen, Exod ≠ Deut” denotes that section 24 relates to the renderings of ‫ פן‬and that LXX-Gen and LXX-Exod are similar to each other and different from Deuteronomy.

2

Synonymous Renderings

The present chapter focuses on a comprehensive analysis of the different renderings of ordinary words and syntagmata distributed widely in the five books of the Pentateuch. Through an analysis of such words, differences in translation character can best be revealed. The criteria are meant to demonstrate distinctions among the translation units of the Pentateuch in different translation vocabulary and in the perception of the Hebrew. Usually, the renderings themselves are functionally synonymous. The renderings may reflect slight differences in meaning or perception, but they were interchanged everywhere in the LXX and, therefore, function as synonyms at the translational level. These differences in translation vocabulary are weighed carefully against the variety of the lexical meanings of the Hebrew words. When a Hebrew word has several meanings, it is natural that translators rendered it according to its respective contexts. In those cases, the statistical data for the different translation units can be assessed adequately only after the contexts have been analyzed. Thus, the various meanings of ‫ ראש‬in the Pentateuch2 have often been taken into consideration by the translators. For example, the translation of Exodus uses eight different Greek words for seven meanings of ‫ראש‬.3 Likewise, LXX-Num used seven different Greek words for five meanings of that Hebrew

2 (1) “head,” i.e., part of the anatomy of human beings or animals; (2) “beginning”; (3) “top or summit of mountains, hills”; (4) “leader, chief, head of a tribe or family”; (5) “a unit of counting in a census”; (6) “best, foremost”; (7) “principal, full”; (8) “poison”; (9) technical term for a structure of the tabernacle. For details, see ch. 3, 27. ‫ראש‬. 3 For example, κεφαλή in Exod 12:9 for sense (1) in the previous footnote, i.e., “head”; ἀρχή in 12:2 (2); ἄκρος in 34:2 (3); ἀρχηγός in 6:14 (4); κορυφή in 17:9 (3); κεφαλίς in 26:24 (9); συλλογισμός in 30:12 (5); ἄνθος in 30:23, etc.

61

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent

word.4 In these cases, consistency in translation clearly cannot be applied as a criterion in the distinction between translation units; translation technique, Greek vocabulary, and the understanding of Hebrew by the translators must also be taken into account. 2.1 1.

Words ‫אולי‬: Gen ≠ Num

The Hebrew adverb/conjunction5 ‫ אולי‬expresses “hope,” “fear,” “perhaps,” and is also used in the protasis in the sense of “if not,” “unless.” In the Pentateuch, ‫ אולי‬appears mainly in Genesis and Numbers: table 25

‫ אולי‬in LXX-Pent

Equivalents

Gen

Exod

ἵνα

16:2

32:30

ἐάν (δέ)

6 occurrences 18:24, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32

μήποτε

4 occurrences 24:5, 39; 27:12; 43:12

ἴσως

32:21

Lev

Deut

22:6

εἰ (+ἄρα/μή) Total

Num

4 occurrences 22:11, 33; 23:3, 27 12

1

0

5

0

LXX-Gen and LXX-Num differ in the rendering of ‫אולי‬. In Genesis, ‫ אולי‬is rendered by various Greek words (ἵνα once, ἐάν [δέ] six times, μήποτε four times, and ἴσως once),6 while in Numbers, εἰ (+ ἄρα/μή) is preferred (4/5). This dis4 For example, κεφαλή in 5:18 (1); ἀρχή in 1:2 (5); ἀρχηγός in 13:3 (5); κορυφή in 23:9 (3); κεφάλαιον in 4:2 (5); ἄρχων in 1:4 (4); ἀριθμός in 1:49 (5), etc. 5 In the terminology of Waltke and O’Connor, this word serves as a “disjunction,” that is, an adverb that modifies a clause in relation to the act of speaking. B.K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 662–663. Even-Shoshan marks it as a conjunction in both the dictionary and the concordance (A New Concordance of the Bible [Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1988]). 6 The translator’s change of Greek equivalents was presumably due to the evolution of

62

chapter 3

tinction cannot be attributed to variation. The translation of Genesis varied internally since the same nuance of ‫ אולי‬is represented in various ways, e.g., for the sense of “purpose,” ‫ אולי‬is rendered by ἵνα once (16:2), ἐάν (δέ) six times (18:24, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32), and ἴσως once (32:21), while the translator of Numbers almost always used εἰ (+ ἄρα/μή) regardless of its meanings, namely “purpose” (22:11), “unless” (22:33), and “perhaps” (23:3, 27). The only exception occurs in Num 22:6, but even there some manuscripts have the reading εἰ ἄρα.7 2.

‫אמ״ר‬: Gen ≠ Exod, Lev, Num, Deut

In the Hebrew Bible, ‫ אמר‬is usually followed by an indication of the addressee, ‫ ל־‬or ‫אל־‬, which is rendered in LXX-Pent in almost all cases either by a dative or by πρός with the accusative construction (see the table below).8 When the indicator of the addressee is ‫ל־‬, the translators of the five books agree in their preference for the dative rather than the πρός construction (Genesis: 55 of 73; Exodus: 19/23; Leviticus: 3/3; Numbers: 10/15; and Deuteronomy: 7/10). table 26

dat.

‫ ]אמ״ר[ ל־‬in LXX-Pent

Gen

Exod

Lev

55 occurrences 3:9; 4:5, 23; 9:1; 12:7; 16:9, 10, 11; 20:5, 9, 13a; 21:10, 17; 22:3, 9; 24:60; 25:23; 26:20; 27:13, 31, 32, 37; 29:4, 5, 6, 14, 15; 31:5, 14, 24, 26, 31, 36, 46, 51; 32:5; 35:10, 11, 17; 37:8, 10, 13, 14; 38:8; 39:14; 40:12; 41:55; 42:1; 43:16; 44:4, 15, 16; 47:18, 29; 48:1

19 occurrences 3 occurrences 1:18; 2:8, 9; 17:12, 14; 20:24 3:13a, 14; 4:6, 18; 5:16; 6:6, 26; 14:3; 17:2, 10; 18:15; 19:3; 32:13, 24, 27; 33:1

Num

Deut

10 occurrences 6:23; 10:29; 11:29; 18:24; 21:16; 22:20, 28; 23:17; 26:65; 32:6

7 occurrences 1:42; 5:30; 6:21; 17:11; 32:7; 33:9; 34:4

the rendering towards a more appropriate translation or to the translator’s hesitation about the word choice considering the fact that LXX-Gen would have been the first translated unit. See, Tov, “The Septuagint Translation of Genesis,” 53; T. van der Louw, “The Evolution of the LXX-Genesis Translator,” in Die Septuaginta—Geschichte, Wirkung, Relevanz, 6. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal, 21.–24. Juli 2016 (ed. M. Meiser, M. Geiger, S. Kreuzer, and M. Sigismund; WUNT 405; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), 145–157 (Quoted from https://www.academia.edu/35229526/The_Evolution _of_the_LXX‑Genesis_Translator, 1–11). 7 According to the Göttingen edition of the LXX (edited by Wevers), the rendering with εἰ ἄρα is found in MS 619 and the Aldina edition. 8 General descriptions on the Greek renderings of this construction are found in M. Johannes-

63

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent Table 26

πρός

‫ ]אמ״ר[ ל־‬in LXX-Pent (cont.)

Gen

Exod

4 occurrences 6:13; 7:1; 19:5; 20:13b

8:5

acc.

Lev

Num

Deut

4 occurrences 20:10; 21:16; 23:3; 28:3

3:13b

gen.

32:19

No equiv.

13 occurrences 1:28; 15:5; 20:3; 23:5, 6; 26:32; 24:7; 27:34; 28:1; 30:15; 32:18; 38:11; 50:17

4:18; 10:28

Total

73

23

3

23:23

3 occurrences 1:39; 17:16; 28:68

15

10

However, when the indicator of the addressee is ‫אל‬, the translator of Genesis worked in a manner noticeably distinct from the others. He still prefers the dative to πρός (109 times: 46 times, representing a ratio of 2.4:1), while the other translators clearly favored πρός, which reflects a more stereotyped translation of ‫אל‬. The proportions of the two main equivalents in the four books are: Exodus: dative 33, πρός 78 (1:2.4); Leviticus: 6—15 (1:2.5); Numbers: 18—70 (1:3.8); and Deuteronomy: 3—26 (1:8.7). Though both equivalents are correct, this statistical discrepancy reveals the different, probably unconscious, choices of the individual translators. The different equivalents were not determined by the context, as frequently the same speakers and sometimes even addressees appear in different parts of the biblical narrative, but the translators changed their translation style. For example: God to Abraham: Gen 12:1 Gen 17:9

‫ַויּ ֹאֶמר ְיה ָוה ֶאל־ַאְב ָרם‬ ‫ַויּ ֹאֶמר ֱאֹלִהים ֶאל־ַאְב ָרָהם‬

καὶ εἶπεν κύριος τῷ Αβραμ καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Αβρααμ

sohn, Der Gebrauch der Präpositionen in der Septuaginta (MSU 3; Berlin: Weidmann, 1925), 265 and Wevers, Notes-Deuteronomy, 288.

64

chapter 3

Pharaoh to Moses and Aaron: Exod 9:27 Exod 10:10

‫ויּ ֹאֶמר ֲאֵלֶהם‬ ‫ויּ ֹאֶמר ֲאֵלֶהם‬

καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς

Moses to Aaron: Lev 9:2 Lev 9:7

‫ַויּ ֹאֶמר ֶאל־ַאֲהר ֹן‬ ‫מֶשׁה ֶאל־ַאֲהר ֹן‬ ֹ ‫ַויּ ֹאֶמר‬

καὶ εἶπεν Μωυσῆς πρὸς Ααρων καὶ εἶπεν Μωυσῆς τῷ Ααρων

Moses to the Gadites and Reubenites: Num 31:15

‫מֶשׁה‬ ֹ ‫ַויּ ֹאֶמר ֲאֵליֶהם‬

καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Μωυσῆς

Moses to the army commanders: Num 32:20 ‫מֶשׁה‬ ֹ ‫ַויּ ֹאֶמר ֲאֵליֶהם‬

καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτοὺς Μωυσῆς

Moses to Joshua: Deut 31:7

‫ַויּ ֹאֶמר ֵאָליו‬

καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ

The people of Israel to the priests: Deut 32:46 ‫ַויּ ֹאֶמר ֲאֵלֶהם‬

καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς

Thus, the stylistic differences between Genesis and the other Pentateuchal books reveal their stylistic preferences: table 27

dat.

‫ ]אמ״ר[ אל‬in LXX-Pent

Gen

Exod

Lev

109 occurrences 3:1, 2, 4, 14; 4:6; 9:8, 17; 11:3; 12:1; 13:8, 14; 15:9; 17:1, 15; 19:21; 20:6, 10; 21:12a, b, 29; 22:2, 5; 24:2, 24, 25, 39, 40, 44, 45, 56, 58, 65; 25:30; 26:2, 9, 27; 27:1, 19, 20, 21, 26, 39, 42; 29:25; 30:1, 14, 25, 27, 29; 31:16,

33 occurrences 6 occurrences 1:9, 19; 2:7, 20; 3:15b; 8:5; 9:7; 10:4; 4:2, 22, 23; 5:1, 4, 21; 15:2; 22:3; 27:2 8:15, 23; 9:27, 29; 10:3, 8; 13:14; 16:9b, 15a; 17:19; 18:6; 19:15, 24, 25; 20:22; 24:1; 32:1, 2, 21; 33:5b, 12b; 35:30

Num

Deut

18 occurrences 3 occurrences 5:19; 11:12; 14:4, 21:20; 27:14; 28; 19:2; 20:19; 31:7 22:4, 13, 18, 30, 32, 34; 23:1, 26; 25:4, 5; 30:1; 31:15

65

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent Table 27

‫ ]אמ״ר[ אל‬in LXX-Pent (cont.)

Gen

Exod

Lev

Num

Deut

78 occurrences 3:13, 14, 15a, 16, 18; 4:4, 10, 11, 19, 21, 27; 5:10; 6:1, 2; 7:1, 8, 14, 16, 19, 26a, b; 8:1a, 12a, 16a, b; 9:1, 8, 13a, b, 22; 10:1, 7, 10, 12, 21; 11:1, 9; 12:1a, 21, 26, 43; 13:3; 14:11, 13, 15, 26; 16:3, 4, 6, 9a, 15b, 19, 23, 28, 33; 17:5, 14; 18:17; 19:9, 10, 21, 23; 20:19, 22; 23:13; 24:12; 30:34; 31:12; 32:17, 30, 33; 33:12a, 17; 34:1, 27; 35:1, 4; 36:5

15 occurrences 1:2; 8:31; 9:2; 10:3, 6; 16:2; 17:2; 18:2; 19:2; 21:1a, b; 22:18; 23:2, 10; 25:2

70 occurrences 3:40; 5:12; 6:2; 7:4, 11; 8:2; 9:8; 10:30; 11:11, 16, 23; 12:4, 11, 14; 13:17; 14:2, 7, 11, 13; 15:2, 18, 35, 37, 38; 16:8, 15, 16; 17:2, 11, 25, 27; 18:1, 20, 26, 30; 20:12, 18, 23; 21:8, 34; 22:8, 10, 12, 35, 37, 38; 23:4, 5, 13, 15, 16, 25, 27, 29; 24:10, 12; 26:1; 27:6, 12, 18; 28:2; 31:21, 25, 49; 32:2, 20, 29; 33:51; 34:2; 35:10

26 occurrences 1:9, 20, 29, 42; 2:2, 9, 31; 3:2, 26; 4:10; 5:1, 28; 9:12, 13; 10:1, 11; 15:6; 18:17; 20:3; 26:3; 29:1; 31:2, 14, 16; 32:46; 34:4

35, 43; 32:10, 17, 28; 33:13; 34:12, 14; 35:2; 37:6, 22; 39:8; 40:8, 16; 41:15, 24, 25, 38, 39, 41, 44; 42:7, 9, 12, 14, 18, 22, 28, 31, 33, 36, 37; 43:2, 3, 5, 11; 44:4, 7, 20, 21, 22, 23; 45:9, 24; 46:31b; 47:3a, b, 4, 8, 9, 23; 48:3, 4, 9, 18, 21; 49:29; 50:19, 24 πρός

46 occurrences 4:8, 9, 13; 14:21, 22; 15:7; 16:2, 5, 6; 17:9, 18; 18:9, 13; 19:12, 18, 31, 34; 22:1, 7; 24:5, 6; 26:16; 27:6, 11, 38, 46; 29:21; 30:16; 31:3, 29; 34:4, 11a; 35:1; 37:13, 19, 26; 42:21; 43:8, 29; 45:3, 4, 17; 46:30, 31a; 47:5; 48:11

acc.

3:11

No 8 occurrences equiv. 8:21; 12:11; 20:2; 24:14, 43; 34:11b, 30; 42:10

7 occurrences 7:9; 8:1b, 12b; 12:1b; 20:20; 32:9; 33:5a

11:1

3 occurrences 14:14; 16:3; 22:17

1:41

Total

119

22

91

30

3.

163

‫בהמה‬: Gen, Exod, Lev ≠ Num, Deut

‫ בהמה‬usually indicates either an animal in general (Gen 6:6, 20; Lev 18:23; 20:16;

Num 3:13; 18:15; Deut 4:17, etc.), cattle, especially domestic animals (Gen 36:6; 47:18; Exod 9:19, 22, 25; Lev 1:2; 24:18; Num 3:41; Deut 2:35; 5:14, etc.) or a beast (Deut 28:26; 32:24). The translators of LXX-Pent usually preferred κτῆνος with its comprehensive lexical range of either flocks and herds or beasts in gen-

66

chapter 3

eral: Genesis: 19 times; Exodus: 14 times; Leviticus: 20 times; Numbers: 15 times; and Deuteronomy: 14 times.9 Among the other choices were τετράπους (fourfooted), and on rare occasions θηρίον (Deut 13:16; 28:4), which is the usual equivalent of ‫ חיה‬in LXX-Pent. table 28

‫ בהמה‬in LXX-Pent

Equivalent

Gen

Exod

Lev

τετράπους

2 occurrences 1:24; 34:23

4 occurrences 8:13, 14; 9:9, 10

9 occurrences 7:21; 11:2, 3, 26, 39, 46; 20:15a, b; 27:27

κτῆνος

19 occurrences 1:25, 26; 2:20; 3:14; 6:7, 20; 7:2a, b, 8a, b, 14, 21, 23; 8:1, 17, 20; 9:10; 36:6; 47:18

14 occurrences 9:19, 22, 25; 11:5, 7; 12:12, 29; 13:2, 12, 15; 19:13; 20:10; 22:9, 18

20 occurrences 1:2; 7:25, 26; 18:23a, b; 19:19; 20:16a, b, 25a, b; 24:18; 25:7; 26:22; 27:9, 10a, b, 11a, b, 26, 28

Num

Deut

15 occurrences 3:13, 41a, b, 45a, b; 8:17; 18:15a, b; 31:9, 11, 26, 30, 47; 32:26; 35:3

14 occurrences 2:35; 3:7; 4:17; 5:14; 7:14; 11:15; 14:4, 6a, b; 20:14; 27:21; *28:11, 51; 30:9

θηρίον

28:26; 32:24

No equivalent Total

5:2; 25:21 21

18

31

13:16; 28:4 15

18

A distinction is readily apparent between the books of LXX-Pent in the rendering of ‫בהמה‬. The translators of the first three books often employed τετράπους, whereas the translators of the latter two books avoided that equivalent entirely. The former translators likely understood κτῆνος and τετράπους as synonyms. For example, in Gen 1:24, 25, the translator used τετράπους and κτῆνος interchangeably for ‫ בהמה‬in the general sense of an animal.10 Likewise, the translator of Exodus used the two words interchangeably for domestic animals in Egypt in Exod 9:9–10, 19. Finally, in Lev 20:15, 16, the translator rendered the beast, with which humans are forbidden to have sexual relations, with τετράπους and κτῆνος in the same context. 9 10

For the various uses of κτῆνος in LXX-Pent, see G. Dorival, B. Barc, G. Favrelle, M. Petit, and J. Tolila, La Bible d’Alexandrie, 4, Les Nombres (Paris: Cerf, 1994), 58. Cf. van der Louw, “Evolution,” 6. Van der Louw ascribes the change of the Greek equivalent for ‫ בהמה‬in Gen 1:25–26 to the translator’s development towards more appropriate renderings. However, the translator chooses τετράπους again in Gen 34:23. See further Tov, “The Septuagint Translation of Genesis.”

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent

67

Gen 1:24 MT ‫ַח ָיּה ְלִמי ָנהּ ְבֵּהָמה ָו ֶרֶמשׂ ְוַח ְיתוֹ־ֶא ֶרץ ְלִמי ָנהּ‬ LXX ζῶσαν κατὰ γένος τετράποδα καὶ ἑρπετὰ καὶ θηρία τῆς γῆς κατὰ γένος Gen 1:25 MT ‫ַו ַיַּﬠשׂ ֱאֹלִהים ֶאת־ַח ַיּת ָהָא ֶרץ ְלִמי ָנהּ ְוֶאת־ַהְבֵּהָמה ְלִמי ָנהּ‬ LXX καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὰ θηρία τῆς γῆς κατὰ γένος καὶ τὰ κτήνη κατὰ γένος Exod 9:10 MT ‫מֶשׁה ַהָשָּׁמ ְיָמה ַו ְיִהי ְשִׁחין ֲאַבְﬠֻבּעֹת ֹפּ ֵר ַח ָבָּא ָדם וַּבְבֵּהָמה‬ ֹ ‫אתוֹ‬ ֹ ‫ַו ִיּ ְזר ֹק‬ LXX καὶ ἔπασεν αὐτὴν Μωυσῆς εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν καὶ ἐγένετο ἕλκη φλυκτίδες ἀναζέουσαι ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις καὶ ἐν τοῖς τετράποσιν Exod 9:19 MT ‫ְוֵאת ָכּל־ֲאֶשׁר ְלָך ַבָּשּׂ ֶדה ָכּל־ָהָא ָדם ְוַהְבֵּהָמה‬ LXX καὶ ὅσα σοί ἐστιν ἐν τῷ πεδίῳ πάντες γὰρ οἱ ἄνθρωποι καὶ τὰ κτήνη Lev 20:15 MT ‫ִאישׁ ֲאֶשׁר ִיֵתּן ְשָׁכְבתּוֹ ִבְּבֵהָמה מוֹת יוָּמת ְוֶאת־ַהְבֵּהָמה ַתֲּהר ֹגוּ‬ LXX καὶ ὃς ἂν δῷ κοιτασίαν αὐτοῦ ἐν τετράποδι θανάτῳ θανατούσθω καὶ τὸ τετράπουν ἀποκτενεῖτε Lev 20:16 MT

‫אָתהּ ְוָה ַר ְגָתּ ֶאת־ָהִאָשּׁה ְוֶאת־ַהְבֵּהָמה מוֹת‬ ֹ ‫ְוִאָשּׁה ֲאֶשׁר ִתְּק ַרב ֶאל־ָכּל־ְבֵּהָמה ְל ִרְבָﬠה‬ ‫יוָּמתוּ ְדֵּמיֶהם ָבּם‬

LXX καὶ γυνή ἥτις προσελεύσεται πρὸς πᾶν κτῆνος βιβασθῆναι αὐτὴν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἀποκτενεῖτε τὴν γυναῖκα καὶ τὸ κτῆνος θανάτῳ θανατούσθωσαν ἔνοχοί εἰσιν 4.

‫גור‬, “dwell”: Gen ≠ Lev, Num ‫ ֵגר‬, “proselyte/sojourner”: Exod ≠ Lev, Deut

‫גור‬, occurring thirty-seven times in the Pentateuch, usually means “to dwell as

a stranger” but on four occasions it means “to fear” (Num 22:3; Deut 1:17; 18:22; 32:27). The translators of LXX-Pent distinguished between the two senses of the

68

chapter 3

word; for “to dwell,” they used παροικέω, “to dwell beside” and πρόσκειμαι, “to be joined to,” while for the sense of “fear” they employed φοβέω, “to fear,” ὑποστέλλω, “to draw back for shelter,” “to shrink before,” and ἀπέχω, “to be far off.” Within that framework, a distinction is found in the rendering of ‫ גור‬in the sense of “to dwell” between LXX-Gen and LXX-Lev-Num (see the tables below). table 29

‫גור‬, “dwell” in LXX-Pent

Equivalents

Gen

Exod

παροικέω

9 occurrences 12:10; 19:9; 20:1; 21:23, 34; 26:3; 32:5; 35:27; 47:4

6:4

Lev

Num

18:6; 26:5

πρόσκειμαι

6 occurrences 16:29; 17:8, 10, 12, 13; 25:6

5 occurrences 15:15, 16, 26, 29; 19:10

προσγίγνομαι

2 occurrences 18:26; 20:2

15:14

προσπορεύομαι

19:34

προσέρχομαι

2 occurrences 12:48, 49

εἰμί

Deut

19:33

9:14

25:45

No rendering Total

3:22 9

4

11

7

2

Genesis used παροικέω exclusively for ‫( גור‬9/9), the more natural equivalent,11 whereas on eleven occasions Leviticus and Numbers prefer πρόσκειμαι (Leviticus: 6/11; Numbers: 5/7). The translators of these books favored the latter word to the point that fourteen of its twenty-three occurrences in the LXX appear in Leviticus and Numbers. Outside these two books, this rendition appears only in Josh 20:9, while in other places it translates ‫דבק‬, “cling to,” in Deut 4:4; Josh 22:5, ‫“ ;לוה‬join” in Isa 56:3, 6, and ‫חבר‬, “companion” in Ezek 37:16, 19. The tables below document the use of παροικέω and πρόσκειμαι in LXX-Pent:

11

Wevers, Notes-Numbers, 244.

69

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent table 30

παροικέω, “to dwell beside” in LXX-Pent

Equivalents

Gen

Exod

‫גור‬

9 occurrences 6:4b 12:10; 19:9; 20:1; 21:23, 34; 26:3; 32:5; 35:27; 47:4

‫ישב‬

24:37

‫( מגור‬n.)

4 occurrences 17:8; 37:1, 47:9a, b

Num

18:6

6:4a 20:10

Total

Deut

20:15

‫( גר‬n.)

14

table 31

Lev

3

2 occurrences 5:14; 26:5 0

1

3

πρόσκειμαι, “to be placed by/to lie by” in LXX-Pent

Equivalents

Gen

Exod

Lev

Num

Deut

6 occurrences 5 occurrences 16:29; 17:8, 10, 12, 13; 25:6 15:15, 16, 26, 29; 19:10

‫גור‬

21:15

‫שען‬ ‫מלא‬

1:36

‫( דבק‬adj.)

4:4

no equivalent Total

2 occurrences 17:3; 22:18 0

0

8

6

2

LXX-Gen uses only παροικέω for ‫ גור‬and never πρόσκειμαι. In contrast, LXX-Lev and LXX-Num frequently use πρόσκειμαι for ‫ גור‬but never παροικέω.12 This difference might derive from the preferences of the individual translators. Incidentally, all the instances of παροικέω in Exodus and Deuteronomy,

12

The only instance of παροικέω appears in Num 20:15, where it translates ‫ישב‬.

70

chapter 3

as well as in Genesis (see Table 30), refer to Israel’s sojourning in the land of Israel or Egypt. In contrast, when ‫ גור‬refers to a gentile sojourner who dwelled among the Israelites, it is rendered with πρόσκειμαι, προσγίγνομαι, προσπορεύομαι, or προσέρχομαι in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers (see Table 29). Examples include ‫וירד אברם מצרימה לגור שם‬, καὶ κατέβη Αβραμ εἰς Αἴγυπτον παροικῆσαι ἐκεῖ (Gen 12:10) and ‫ולגר הגר אתכם‬, καὶ τῷ προσηλύτῳ τῷ προσκειμένῳ ἐν ὑμῖν (Num 15:16).13 Additional differences between LXX-Exod and LXX-Lev-Deut are found in the rendering of the cognate ‫ ֵגר‬,14 “sojourner” or “proselyte.” table 32

πάροικος

‫ ֵגּר‬in LXX-Pent

Gen

Exod

2 occurrences 15:13; 23:4

2 occurrences 2:22; 18:3

Lev

Num

Deut 2 occurrences 14:21; 23:8

γειώρας

12:19

προσήλυτος

9 occurrences 12:48, 49; 20:10; 22:20a, b; 23:9a, b, c, 12

21 occurrences 16:29; 17:8, 10, 12, 13, 15; 18:26; 19:10, 33, 34a, b; 20:2; 22:18; 23:22; 24:16, 22; 25:23, 35, 47a, b, c

11 occurrences 9:14a, b; 15:14, 15a, b, 16, 26, 29, 30; 19:10; 35:15

20 occurrences 1:16; 5:14; 10:18, 19a, b; 14:29; 16:11, 14; 24:14, 17, 19, 20, 21; 26:11, 12, 13; 27:19; 28:43; 29:10; 31:12

12

21

11

22

Total

2

Where ‫ ֵגּר‬denotes Israelites, the references are in bold face.

It seems that the translators of the Pentateuch coined προσήλυτος and used it consistently for someone who joined the community of Israel.15 This Hellenistic Jewish term is the most dominant equivalent of ‫ ֵגּר‬in the Pentateuch (61 of 68 occurrences). To indicate an Israelite soujourner, the translator of Exodus used πάροικος twice (Exod 2:22; 18:3) and the Aramaic-flavored γειώρας once 13

14

15

In addition, if one compares the rendering of ‫ תושב‬in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, the translators did not hesitate to use πάροικος, “sojourner,” the cognate word of παροικέω, when referring to gentiles (Exod 12:45; Lev 22:10; 25:6, 35, 40, 45, 47a, b; Num 35:15). The only exception occurs in Lev 25:23 where ‫ תושב‬refers to Israelite people. Frequently, ‫ ֵגר‬indicates a poor brother, the fatherless, and the widow (Deut 14:29). When it denotes a proselyte in the biblical context, it refers to a stranger who sojourns among Israelites and is expected to meet the requirements in order to become a member of the Israelite community (Exod 20:10; Lev 17:8; Num 15:15). Tov, “Three Dimensions,” 537–538.

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent

71

(Exod 12:19). However, he employed προσήλυτος exclusively (9 times) to express the proselytes.16 The rendering of ‫ ֵגּר‬in LXX-Exod is most likely due to a theological perception, which was not the case for the translators of LXX-Lev and LXX-Deut. The translator of LXX-Lev employed προσήλυτος stereotypically for ‫( ֵגּר‬21 times) without giving much thought to his rendering; among the occurrences, in at least two places (19:34b; 25:23), ‫ ֵגר‬indicates the Israelites and not the proselytes. Likewise, the translator of LXX-Deut employed προσήλυτος for Israelites (Deut 10:19). The renderings of ‫ ֵגּר‬in LXX-Gen and LXX-Num cannot be taken into account as the equivalents may not reveal the translators’ intentions. 5.

‫גנב‬, ‫גזל‬: Gen ≠ Exod, Lev, Deut

The difference between the similar verbs κλέπτω, “to steal” and ἁρπάζω, “to snatch” was best expressed by Preisker: “κλέπτω denotes the secret and cunning act as compared with ἁρπάζω, which is characterized by violence.”17 Llewelyn likewise distinguished between ἀποστερεῖν, κλέπτειν, and ἀρπάζειν, denoting an illegal possession according to the degree of force used to acquire it: In the case of ἀποστερεῖν, where possession is acquired by the consent of the owner, a use of force is absent. In the case of κλέπτειν, where possession is acquired without the owner’s consent, a use of force (real or potential) is assumed. However, in the case of ἀρπάζειν, the theft is aggravated and the use of force is clearly apparent.18 A similar distinction seems to be intended by the translators of the Pentateuch, who distinguished the semantic field of ‫גזל‬, with the sense of “taking something by force” from that of ‫גנב‬, with the sense of “secretive stealing and cheating.”19 Thus, κλέπτω mainly translates ‫גנב‬, and ἁρπάζω and ἀφαιρέω, “take away, rob” translate ‫גזל‬. Two examples follow:

16 17 18

19

For the debate on the connotation of the word “sojourner(s)” in Exod 12:48–49, see Salvesen, “Exodus,” 36. H. Preisker, “κλέπτω,” TDNT 3:754. S.R. Llewelyn, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, Vol. 7: A Review of the Greek of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1982–83 (Marrickville, NSW: Southwood Press/The Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, Macquarie University, 1994), 152. W.R. Domeris, “‫גּ ַזל‬,” NIDOTTE 1:844; “‫ ָגּ ַנב‬,” NIDOTTE 1:878.

72

chapter 3

Exod 20:15 MT ‫לא ִּתְגֹנב‬ LXX οὐ κλέψεις (20:14) Lev 5:23 MT ‫ְוֵהִשׁיב ֶאת־ַה ְגּ ֵזָלה ֲאֶשׁר ָּגָזל‬ LXX καὶ ἀποδῷ τὸ ἅρπαγμα ὃ ἥρπασεν A distinction in the rendering of ‫ גנב‬is found between Genesis and Exodus– Leviticus–Deuteronomy. While the translation of Genesis has various equivalents for ‫גנב‬,20 the translators of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy used only κλέπτω. LXX-Gen used the various synonyms freely, i.e., κλέπτω for “stealing goods” (Gen 30:31; 31:19, etc.), κλοποφορέω for “rob/steal” (Gen 31:27 [LXX 31:26]), κλέμμα for “stealing” (Gen 31:39a, b), and κλοπή for “theft” (Gen 40:15). The Genesis translator even varies his rendering for the Hebrew idiom ‫גנב‬ ‫לב‬, “to conceal” by using both the word’s verbal form κρύπτω (Gen 31:20) and the adverbial form κρυφῇ (Gen 31:26). The translators of Exodus-LeviticusDeuteronomy opted for one equivalent only, κλέπτω (Exodus: 6 times; Leviticus: once; Deuteronomy: twice). Furthermore, the translator of Genesis differs from the translators of Leviticus and Deuteronomy by using ἀφαιρέω to render ‫גזל‬, as opposed to the more popular ἁρπάζω or the compound verb διαρπάζω, “to spoil,” which were the choice of the latter two translators. Therefore, one may conclude that the translators of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy probably attempted to employ the more generally accepted semantic equivalents, i.e., κλέπτω for ‫גנב‬, and ἁρπάζω for ‫גזל‬, whereas the translator of Genesis preferred versatility over a fixed rendering.

20

The variety is clearly visible in Genesis 31, where the translator rendered ‫ גנב‬with four different Greek equivalents (out of five used in LXX-Pent; see the table below).

73

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent table 33

‫ גנב‬in LXX-Pent21

Equivalents

Gen

κλέπτω (κλέπτης) 6 occurrences 30:33; 31:19, 30, 32; 40:15b; 44:8 κρύπτω

31:20

κλοποφορέω

31:27 [LXX 31:26]

κλέμμα

31:39a, b

κλοπή

40:15a

κρυφῇ

31:26

Total

12

table 34

Lev

6 occurrences 20:15; 21:16, 37; 22:6, 7, 11

19:11

7

1

2 occurrences 5:19; 24:7a

0

2

Exod Lev Num Deut

5:23

διαρπάζω

6.

Deut

21:25; 31:31

ἁρπάζω

Total

Num

‫ גזל‬in LXX-Pent

Equivalents Gen ἀφαιρέω

Exod

28:31 28:29

2

1

2

‫זכר‬: Gen, Lev ≠ Exod, Num, Deut; ‫נקבה‬: Gen, Lev ≠ Num, Deut

Both the classical form, ἄρσην (ἄρρην), and the later form, ἀρσενικός,22 appear contemporaneously in the third century BCE, the era of the LXX-Pent transla21 22

In Exod 22:1 and Deut 24:7b, the noun κλέπτης is used where the MT has the nominal form of ‫גנב‬. This word appears first in the third century BCE, e.g., Callimachus, Epigr. 27 and frequently in the LXX. The formation -ικός is the most productive of denominative adjective suffixes in postclassical Greek and it often replaces different earlier types. See Thackeray,

74

chapter 3

tion. ἄρσην, the older form of ἄρρην,23 was still in use in the New Testament era (Matt 19:4; Mark 10:6; Luke 2:23; Gal 3:28; Rev 12:5), and ἀρσενικός was also prominent in the first century CE literature (Plutarchus, 2.1011c, etc.). ἄρσην and ἀρσενικός (both adjectives) are usually employed as the equivalents of ‫( זכר‬ἄρσην: 31 times; ἀρσενικός: 29 times, especially in the phrase πᾶς ἀρσενικός—‫ )כל זכר‬in LXX-Pent: table 35

‫ זכר‬in LXX-Pent

Equivalents

Gen

Exod

Lev

ἄρσην

9 occurrences 1:27; 5:2; 6:19; 7:3, 9, 16; 17:14, 23; 34:24

12:5

17 occurrences 4 occurrences 1:3, 10; 3:1, 6; 4:23; 1:2; 3:40; 31:17, 18 6:22; 7:6; 12:2, 7; 15:33; 18:22; 20:13; 22:19; 27:3, 5, 6, 7

ἀρσενικός

5 occurrences 17:10, 12; 34:15, 22, 25

6 occurrences 12:48; 13:12, 15; 23:17; 34:19, 23

6:11

ἀνήρ

Num

13 occurrences 1:20, 22; 3:15, 22, 28, 34, 39, 43; 5:3; 18:10; 26:62; 31:7, 17

Deut

4 occurrences 4:16; 15:19; 16:16; 20:13

31:35

Total

14

7

18

18

4

Occurring equally frequently in LXX-Pent (ἄρσην: 40 times; ἀρσενικός: 41 times),24 these words are not used consistently in the individual books. For the translation of ‫זכר‬, ἄρσην is preferred in Genesis and Leviticus, whereas ἀρσενικός is preferred in Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy (see the table above). In LXX-Gen, ἄρσην was used nine times out of fourteen for ‫זכר‬, and in LXX-Lev, it is more strongly stereotyped, seventeen times out of eighteen. The alternate equivalent, ἀρσενικός, is favored in Exodus (6/7), Numbers (13/18), and Deuteronomy (4/4). When one examines the distribution of these two Greek words, without regard to their Hebrew equivalent, the above contrast is even more pronounced,

23 24

Grammar, 123; Moulton–Howard, Word-Formation, 377–378; L.R. Palmer, A Grammar of the Post-Ptolemaic Papyri, Vol. 1, Part 1: The Suffixes (London: Oxford University Press, 1946), 16, 35; C.D. Buck and W. Petersen, A Reverse Index of Greek Nouns and Adjectives (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1944), 636–677; and Lee, Lexical Study, 109. See Moulton–Howard, Word-Formation, 104. This figure includes the instances in which the two words do not represent ‫זכר‬.

75

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent

especially in Genesis and Numbers (see Table 36). The proportion of ἄρσην to ἀρσενικός in Genesis is 13—5, whereas in Numbers it is 4—24. table 36

ἄρσην and ἀρσενικός in LXX-Pent

Equivalents

Gen

Exod

Lev

Num

Deut

Total

ἄρσην ἀρσενικός

1325 5

6 7

17 1

4 2426

0 4

40 41

A similar phenomenon is observed in the rendering of ‫ ;נקבה‬i.e., just as the translations of Genesis and Leviticus are distinct from those of the other books of the Pentateuch in rendering ‫זכר‬, they are also distinct in the rendering of ‫נקבה‬, “female.” table 37

‫ נקבה‬in LXX-Pent

Equivalents Gen θῆλυς

Exod

6 occurrences 1:27; 5:2; 6:19; 7:3, 9, 16

Lev

Num

12 occurrences 3:1, 6; 4:28, 32; 5:6; 12:5, 7; 15:33; 27:4, 5, 6, 7

31:15

θηλυκός Total

6

0

12

Deut

5:3

4:16

2

1

In Genesis and Leviticus, ‫ נקבה‬is translated consistently by θῆλυς (Genesis: 6 times; Leviticus: 12 times), while θηλυκός, the later form of θῆλυς,27 is never used in either book. On the other hand, ‫ נקבה‬is translated with θηλυκός (ending

25 26

27

In Gen 6:20 and 7:3, there is no Hebrew equivalent for ἄρσην and in Gen 7:2 ἄρσην translates ‫איש‬, “man.” In Num 1:18, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, the translator added πᾶν ἀρσενικόν, which is implied in MT, as an explanation of the idiomatic expression ‫( מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה‬see Wevers, Notes-Numbers, 10). θῆλυς begins to appear in the eighth century BCE (Homer, Ilias, 8.7), while θηλυκός surfaces in the fourth century BCE (Aristotle, Gen. corr., 747).

76

chapter 3

with -κός, as in ἀρσενικός) in Num 5:3 and Deut 4:16. Thus, a line of distinction, however small, can be drawn between Genesis–Leviticus versus Numbers– Deuteronomy. 7.

‫( זקן‬substantive adj.): Gen, Num ≠ Exod ≠ Deut

In the Pentateuch, ‫( זקן‬substantive adj.) usually appears in the plural (‫)זקנים‬, and designates either the ruling body, i.e., as a technical term for elders, or old men. In LXX-Pent, ‫( זקן‬substantive adj.) is translated mainly by πρεσβύτερος, “elder” (23 times) and γερουσία, “council of elders” (25 times). The term πρεσβύτερος, the comparative form of πρέσβυς, probably decreased in use in its sense of “older” in the Greek usage of the third century BCE. By then, it had more often come to mean “elder” or to designate an official or person in authority as a technical term in Egypt (P. Lugd. A 35f. [Ptolemaic period]; P. Flindic. Petr. ii. iv, 613 [255–254 BCE]).28 Thus, πρεσβύτερος was readily employed as a translation of ‫ זקן‬by the translators of LXX-Pent. In the society of the translators of LXX-Pent, the functional differences between “old man” and “society elder” were probably not strictly separated. Thus, the translators employed πρεσβύτερος for ‫ זקן‬both as a designation of age and as a title of office.29 For example, the translator of Genesis used πρεσβύτερος for “old man” in 19:4; 24:2; 35:29; 43:27, but at the same time for “elder” in 50:7 (twice). The translator of Leviticus chose the same strategy and consequently (‫ זקנ)ים‬in Lev 4:15 (“elder”) and 19:32 (“old man”) were translated by the same equivalent, πρεσβύτερος. Gen 19:4 MT ‫זקן( ָנַסבּוּ ַﬠל־ַהַבּ ִית ִמ ַנַּﬠר ְוַﬠד־ָזֵקן ָכּל־ָהָﬠם ִמָקֶּצה‬, “old man”) LXX περιεκύκλωσαν τὴν οἰκίαν ἀπὸ νεανίσκου ἕως πρεσβυτέρου ἅπας ὁ λαὸς ἅμα Gen 50:7 MT ‫זקן( ַו ַיֲּﬠלוּ ִאתּוֹ ָכּל־ַﬠְב ֵדי ַפ ְרעֹה ִזְקֵני ֵביתוֹ ְוכֹל ִזְקֵני ֶא ֶרץ־ִמְצ ָר ִים‬, “elder”) LXX καὶ συνανέβησαν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ πάντες οἱ παῖδες Φαραω καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τοῦ οἴκου αὐτοῦ καὶ πάντες οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τῆς γῆς Αἰγύπτου 28 29

Deissmann, Bible Studies, 154–157; Moulton–Milligan, Vocabulary, 535; Lee, Lexical Study, 61. G. Bornkamm, “πρέσβυς etc.,” TDNT 6:654.

77

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent

Lev 4:15 MT ‫זקן( ְוָסְמכוּ ִזְקֵני ָהֵﬠ ָדה ֶאת־ ְי ֵדיֶהם ַﬠל־ר ֹאשׁ ַהָפּר ִלְפ ֵני ְיה ָוה‬, “elder”) LXX καὶ ἐπιθήσουσιν οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τῆς συναγωγῆς τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν τοῦ μόσχου ἔναντι κυρίου Lev 19:32 MT ‫זקן( מְפּ ֵני ֵשׂיָבה ָתּקוּם ְוָה ַד ְרָתּ ְפּ ֵני ָזֵקן‬, “old man”) LXX ἀπὸ προσώπου πολιοῦ ἐξαναστήσῃ καὶ τιμήσεις πρόσωπον πρεσβυτέρου The other main equivalent of ‫זקנים‬/‫זקן‬, γερουσία, “council of elders,” “senate,” is a collective noun. Although it is singular grammatically, it always rendered as the plural ‫זקנים‬, such as ‫זקני ישראל‬, ‫ זקני עיר‬in LXX-Pent. It was usually synonymous with πρεσβύτερος and thus the two words are used interchangeably in LXX-Pent. table 38

‫( זקן‬substantive adj.) in LXX-Pent

Equivalents

Gen

Exod

Lev

Num

Deut

πρεσβύτερος

6 occurrences 19:4; 24:2; 35:29; 43:27; 50:7a, b

6 occurrences 10:9; 17:5; 18:12; 19:7; 24:1, 14

2 occurrences 4:15; 19:32

6 occurrences 11:16a, b, 24, 25, 30, 16:25

3 occurrences 31:9, 28; 32:7

5 occurrences 3:16, 18; 4:29; 12:21; 24:9

9:1

3 occurrences 22:4, 7a, b

16 occurrences 5:23; 19:12; 21:2, 3, 4, 6, 19; 22:15, 16, 17, 18; 25:7, 8, 9; 27:1; 29:9

γερουσία

(28:50)30

πρεσβύτης υἱός

17:6

ἀνήρ Total

21:20 6

12

3

9

20

Italicized boldface references denote ‫זקן‬, “elder(s).”

The two main Greek equivalents, γερουσία and πρεσβύτερος, were employed as synonyms in the last four books of LXX-Pent (see Table 38).31 The following 30 31

Other uncials and minuscules read πρεσβυτέρου (A, F, G, M, a, b, c, e, f, h). For a detailed discussion, see Wevers, Notes-Deuteronomy, 448–449. Apart from LXX-Pent, γερουσία appears only once in LXX-Josh 23:2, denoting the Israelite elders.

78

chapter 3

examples show that both Greek words are used to translate ‫ זקנים‬when denoting the Israelite elders, often in the same context.32 Exod 24:1 MT ‫אָתּה ְוַאֲהר ֹן ָנ ָדב ַוֲאִביהוּא ְוִשְׁבִﬠים ִמ ִּזְקֵני ִיְשׂ ָרֵאל‬ LXX σὺ καὶ Ααρων καὶ Ναδαβ καὶ Αβιουδ καὶ ἑβδομήκοντα τῶν πρεσβυτέρων Ισραηλ Exod 24:9 MT ‫מֶשׁה ְוַאֲהר ֹן ָנ ָדב ַוֲאִביהוּא ְוִשְׁבִﬠים ִמ ִּזְקֵני ִיְשׂ ָרֵאל‬ ֹ ‫ַו ַיַּﬠל‬ LXX καὶ ἀνέβη Μωυσῆς καὶ Ααρων καὶ Ναδαβ καὶ Αβιουδ καὶ ἑβδομήκοντα τῆς γερουσίας Ισραηλ Lev 4:15 MT ‫ְוָסְמכוּ ִזְקֵני ָהֵﬠ ָדה ֶאת־ ְי ֵדיֶהם‬ LXX καὶ ἐπιθήσουσιν οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τῆς συναγωγῆς τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῶν Lev 9:1 MT ‫מֶשׁה ְלַאֲהר ֹן וְּלָב ָניו וְּל ִזְקֵני ִיְשׂ ָרֵאל‬ ֹ ‫ָק ָרא‬ LXX ἐκάλεσεν Μωυσῆς Ααρων καὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν γερουσίαν Ισραηλ Deut 27:1 MT ‫מֶשׁה ְו ִזְקֵני ִיְשׂ ָרֵאל‬ ֹ ‫ַו ְיַצו‬ LXX καὶ προσέταξεν Μωυσῆς καὶ ἡ γερουσία Ισραηλ Deut 31:9 MT ‫ְוֶאל־ָכּל־ ִזְקֵני ִיְשׂ ָרֵאל‬ LXX καὶ τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ

32

In Numbers, ‫ זקנים‬appears nine times, six times translated by πρεσβύτερος (see Table 38 above) and three times by γερουσία. Interestingly, the three instances of γερουσία occur only in the Balaam story (Numbers 22–24), whereas the six instances of πρεσβύτερος occur

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent

79

This variety in rendering ‫ זקנים‬might indicate that both words were used in the Alexandrian Jewish community.33 The different frequencies of the use of these words in LXX-Pent show differences between the translators: πρεσβύτερος is preferred over γερουσία in Genesis and Numbers (Genesis: πρεσβύτερος, 6—γερουσία, 0; Numbers: 6—334), while in Deuteronomy, it is used far less than γερουσία (3—16). In Exodus, πρεσβύτερος (6 times) and γερουσία (5 times) are used interchangeably.35 The few occurrences of ‫ )זקן( זקנים‬in Leviticus do not suffice for identifying a tendency. 8.

‫חמור‬: Exod ≠ Gen, Num, Deut

The translators selected several Greek equivalents in order to represent ‫חמור‬, “he-ass” in LXX-Pent. The most frequent ones are ὄνος, “ass” and ὑποζύγιον, “animal under yoke.” ὄνος appears as early as the eighth century BCE in Homer’s Iliad 11.558 and authors of the fifth and fourth centuries BCE also used it (Cratinus 229). In the papyri of the first century CE, ὄνος had become the standard word for “ass.”36 ὑποζύγιον likewise appears in early sources, in the writings of the fifth century BCE (Herodotus, Hist. 9.39; Plato, Leg. 873e, etc.). Although the literal meaning of the word is “an animal under yoke,” in the third century BCE its more restricted meaning, “ass,” was the more prevalent meaning.37 In the following centuries, the word was less fashionable.38 The reduced use is reflected also in the LXX, since in the Pentateuch, ὑποζύγιον appears fourteen times, while the later translators chose it only eight times. In the New Testament it surfaces only twice.39

33

34 35 36 37 38 39

elsewhere. Also, the three instances of γερουσία refer to the Midian elders, while the six instances of πρεσβύτερος denote the elders of Israel. This difference shows that a single translator distinguished between the Israelite and the Midian elders. See, further, ch. 2, Excursus 3 on the Balaam story. See also Wevers, Notes-Numbers, 360–361. G. Bornkamm, “πρέσβυς,” TDNT 6:653 and J.W. Wevers, “The LXX Translator of Deuteronomy,” in IX Congress of the IOSCS, Cambridge, 1995 (ed. B.A. Taylor; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 84. All three instances appear in the Balaam story. Thus, also Wevers, Notes-Exodus, 35. For a detailed discussion, see Lee, Lexical Study, 140 ff. See the lexica, esp., LSJ and Moulton–Milligan, Vocabulary. Lee, Lexical Study, 140ff. Matt 21:5 quotes Zech 9:9, ὑποζύγιον. 2Pet 2:16 quotes Num 22:22, ὄνος (Balaam’s female donkey).

80

chapter 3

table 39

‫ חמור‬in LXX-Pent

Equivalents

Gen

Exod

ὄνος

15 occurrences 12:16; 22:3, 5; 24:35; 30:43; 32:6; 34:28; 42:26, 27; 43:18, 24; 44:3, 13; 45:23; 47:17

3 occurrences 13:13; 21:33; 22:3

ὑποζύγιον

36:24

9 occurrences 4:20; 9:3; 20:17; 22:8; 22:9; 23:4, 5, 12; 34:20

Lev

Num

Deut

4 occurrences 4 occurrences 31:30, 34, 39, 45 22:3, 4, 10; 28:31

2 occurrences 5:14, 21

βοῦς

31:28 49:1440

καλός ἐπιθυμία

16:15

Total

17

12

0

6

6

A close examination of LXX-Gen, LXX-Num, and LXX-Deut reveals that these translators preferred ὄνος, whereas ὑποζύγιον is preferred in Exodus. The different preferences in the usages of ὄνος and ὑποζύγιον are most pronounced in Genesis (15—1), while they are less so in Numbers (4—0) and Deuteronomy (4—2). However, in Exodus, the situation is reversed with a proportion of 3— 9. In one instance, the use of ὑποζύγιον in Exodus may suggest the translator’s specific intention. In a discussion concerning presumed changes made by the LXX translators, b. Meg. 9a41 claims that in Exod 4:20 the translators changed ‫( חמור‬i.e., ὄνος) into ‫( נושא)י( בני אדם‬i.e., ὑποζύγιον),42 in order to prevent King Ptolemy from thinking that Moses was so poor that he could not even purchase a horse or a camel.43 However, in the other instances of ὑποζύγιον in LXX-Exod, no similar claim can be made, since ὑποζύγιον represents a mere donkey. For example, in Exod 22:9:

40 41 42

43

Here and in Num 16:15, the LXX reflects ‫חמד‬. Similarly, Midrash Rabbah Exodus and Midrash Hagadol Exodus, ad loc. ‫ נושא)י( בני אדם‬may reflect an attempt by the rabbinic tradition to translate ὑποζύγιον, based on the literal meaning of the Greek word, i.e., “(an animal) under yoke,” probably reflecting an improper understanding of the word. E. Tov, “The Rabbinic Traditions concerning the ‘Changes’ Inserted in the Septuagint Translation of the Pentateuch and the Question of the Original Text of That Translation,” JSJ 15 (1984): 88. Thus, b. Meg. 9a.

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent

81

MT ‫מר‬ ֹ ‫ִכּי־ ִיֵתּן ִאישׁ ֶאל־ ֵרֵﬠהוּ ֲחמוֹר אוֹ־שׁוֹר אוֹ־ֶשׂה ְוָכל־ְבֵּהָמה ִלְשׁ‬ LXX ἐὰν δέ τις δῷ τῷ πλησίον ὑποζύγιον ἢ μόσχον ἢ πρόβατον ἢ πᾶν κτῆνος φυλάξαι Both ὄνος and ὑποζύγιον are used interchangeably for “donkey” in the thirdcentury BCE Egyptian papyri such as the Hibeh papyri, I.34:3, 5, and 73:9 (243– 242 BCE).44 Therefore, the frequent use of ὑποζύγιον in Exodus separates this translator from the others. 9.

‫טוב‬: Gen ≠ Deut

In the Hebrew Bible, ‫ טו״ב‬appears as an adjective such as ‫( בשיבה טובה‬Gen 15:15; 25:8) and ‫( הארץ הטובה‬Exod 3:8; Deut 8:7) as well as a noun such as ‫טוב‬ ‫( ורע‬Gen 2:9, 17; 3:5, 22; Deut 1:39) and ‫( מטוב מצרים‬Gen 45:23), sometimes with a verbal/adverbial nuance such as in ‫( וטוב לכם‬Deut 5:33). In the Pentateuch, the root appears most frequently in Genesis (45 times) and Deuteronomy (31 times), and less frequently in Exodus (6 times), Leviticus (5 times), and Numbers (10 times). The Greek renderings generally represent the grammatical use of ‫ טוב‬in the context, with an adjectival form such as in ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς τῆς ἀγαθῆς (Exod 20:12; Deut 8:10), a substantive such as in καλὸν καὶ πονηρόν (Gen 2:17; 3:5, 22), or (rarely) an adverbial construction such as εὖ in ἵνα εὖ σοι ᾖ (Deut 10:13). The distribution of the different equivalents of ‫ טוב‬among the five books is not uniform. The translators of Genesis and Deuteronomy preferred καλός and ἀγαθός (both as adjectives and substantives). In LXX-Gen, the two Greek words are employed 36/45 times (82%) and in LXX-Deut the frequency is 23/31 times (77%). On the other hand, the translators of Exodus and Numbers translated ‫ טוב‬in a variety of ways according to their understanding of the context. The translator of Leviticus used only one Greek equivalent, καλός, for the adjectival ‫ טוב‬in all of its five appearances. In LXX-Exod, three different contextual equivalents (ἀγαθός, ἀστεῖος, and ὀρθῶς) are used for four occurrences of the adjectival ‫טוב‬. For example, in 33:19, the Greek counterpart of ‫ טוב‬is δόξα, “glory.” Exod 33:19 MT ‫אֲַﬠִביר ָכּל־טוִּבי ַﬠל־ָפּ ֶניָך‬ LXX ἐγὼ παρελεύσομαι πρότερός σου τῇ δόξῃ μου

44

See Moulton–Milligan, Vocabulary, 657.

82

chapter 3

The coupling of ‫ טוב‬and δόξα is unique in the LXX, probably influenced by the preceding verse, in which Moses asks God to show His ‫ָכּבוֹד‬.45 The distribution of the renderings in LXX-Num resembles that in LXX-Exod because the former translator chose seven different Greek words for the ten occurrences of ‫טוב‬. While the above data display the assorted stylistic preferences of the translators, the main focus of this section is the distribution and use of the primary Greek equivalents καλός and ἀγαθός in Genesis and Deuteronomy. Though both are employed in the two books, the difference in the translators’ preferences is marked. In Genesis, the generally favored choice is καλός (31/45 times = 69 %), while ἀγαθός appears on significantly fewer occasions (6/45 times = 13 %). However, in Deuteronomy, the opposite feature is found, i.e., ἀγαθός (18/31 times = 58%) prevails over καλός (5/31 times = 16%).46 When one analyzes these trends, the distinction between the two books is brought into relief. When ‫ טוב‬functions as an adjective, the normal rendering in Genesis is καλός (25/30 times = 83%), while in Deuteronomy ἀγαθός is the more prevalent selection (12/19 times = 63%). When ‫ טוב‬appears as a noun, even though the translator of Genesis used καλός and ἀγαθός almost interchangeably (6 times and 5 times, respectively), the discordance between the options is still visible because the translator of Deuteronomy employed only ἀγαθός (6 times). table 40

‫ טו״ב‬in LXX-Pent: adjectival use

Equivalents

Gen

καλός

25 occurrences 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31; 2:9a, 12, 18; 3:6; 6:2; 15:15; 18:7; 24:16; 25:8; 27:9; 30:20; 41:5, 22, 24, 26a, b, 35; 49:15

ἀρεστός

16:6

ἀρέσκω

2 occurrences 19:8; 20:15

ὡραῖος

26:7

45 46

Exod

Lev

Num

5 occurrences 13:19 27:10a, b, 12, 14, 33

36:6

Deut 5 occurrences 1:14; 6:10, 18a; 8:12; 12:28

23:17

See also Wevers, Notes-Exodus, 551. This trend is even more pronounced when one considers all the occurrences of the two Greek words, regardless of their Hebrew equivalents. In Genesis, καλός is favored (καλός: 41 instances; ἀγαθός: 8 times) whereas the opposite phenomenon is observed in Deuteronomy (καλός: 9 times; ἀγαθός: 21 times).

83

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent Table 40

‫ טו״ב‬in LXX-Pent: adjectival use (cont.)

Equivalents

Gen

Exod

ἀγαθός

29:1947

2 occurrences 3:8; 14:12

ἀστεῖος

2:2

ὀρθῶς

18:17

Lev

Num

Deut

14:3, 7

12 occurrences 1:25, 35, 39; 3:25a, b; 4:22; 6:18b; 8:7, 10; 9:6; 11:17; 28:12

No equivalent Total

4:21 30

table 41

4

5

Gen

καλός

6 occurrences 2:9b, 17; 3:5, 22; 24:50; 44:4

ἀγαθός

5 occurrences 24:10; 45:18, 20, 23; 50:20

καλῶς

26:29

ὀρθῶς

40:16

δόξα

Exod

Lev

Num

Deut

10:29 18:9

10:32

6 occurrences 6:11; 26:11; 28:11, 47; 30:9b, 15

33:19 24:1348

πονηρός no equivalent

31:24, 29

Total

15

48

19

‫ טו״ב‬in LXX-Pent: substantive use

Equivalents

47

4

30:9 2

0

3

7

The LXX has βέλτιον, the comparative form of ἀγαθός, which reflects a contextually correct understanding. See Wevers, Notes-Genesis, 465. The presumable Hebrew Vorlage of this word is ‫רעה‬.

84

chapter 3

table 42

‫ טו״ב‬in LXX-Pent: verbal and/or adverbial use

Equivalents Gen Exod Lev Num καλός

Deut

3 occurrences 11:18; 24:1, 5

ἀγαθός εὖ

5 occurrences 5:33; 6:24; 10:13; 15:16; 19:13

Total

0

0

0

3

5

ἀγαθός and καλός have been employed by the translators of LXX Numbers and Deuteronomy three times and five times, individually. Even though ἀγαθός and καλός were used interchangeably as an equivalent for ‫טו״ב‬, it is evident that each translator had his own preference depending on his understanding of the Hebrew text. Louw and Nida examined the semantic realms of ἀγαθός and καλός in the NT49 and according to their findings the two synonymous words were used mainly in three ways: (1) moral good, i.e., “positive moral qualities of the most general nature—good, goodness, good act”; (2) good in value, i.e., “pertaining to having the proper characteristics or performing the expected function in a fully satisfactory way—good, nice, pleasant”; and (3) possessions “which provide material benefits, usually used with reference to movable or storable possession rather than real estate—goods, possessions.” table 43

Semantic realms of ἀγαθός and καλός in the NT

ἀγαθός, ή, όν

καλός, ή, όν

a. b. c. d.

a. b. c. d.

49

good (moral) good (value) possessions generous

good (moral) good (value) beautiful fitting/advantageous/important

J.P. Louw and E.A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, Vols. 1, 2 (New York: United Bible Societies, 1988–1989), 88.1 (ἀγαθός), 65.20 (ἀγαθός), and 57.33 (τά ἀγαθά).

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent

85

Given that Koine Greek is used in both LXX and the NT, it is plausible that the semantic realms of ἀγαθός and καλός in LXX were distinguished similarly as in the NT and that their use varied across individual translators. The following Table 44 records these differences. table 44

ἀγαθός and καλός in LXX-Gen and LXX-Deut

Gen καλός

good (moral) 6 occurrences 2:9b, 17; 3:5, 22; 24:50; 44:4 good (value) 15 occurrences 2:9, 12, 18; 3:6; 15:15; 18:7; 25:8; 27:9; 30:20; 41:5, 22, 24; 26a, b, 35 beautiful 9 occurrences 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31;50 6:2; 24:16

Total

30

ἀγαθός

good (moral) good (value) 2 occurrences 29:19; 50:20 possession

Total

Deut 2 occurrences 6:18; 12:28 3 occurrences 1:14; 6:10; 8:12

5

4 occurrences 24:10; 45:18, 20, 23

1:39 12 occurrences 1:25, 35; 3:25a, b; 4:22; 6:18b; 8:7, 10; 9:6; 11:17; 28:12, 47 5 occurrences 6:11; 26:11; 28:11; 30:9b, 15

6

18

In LXX-Gen, καλός describes a value judgment in most cases (15 times), while ἀγαθός is used only twice (29:19; 50:2051). However, in LXX-Deut, the opposite feature is true, i.e., καλός is used only three times to indicate a value judgment (1:14; 6:10; 8:12), whereas ἀγαθός is used twelve times.52 In addition, the translator of Deuteronomy made use of both words to portray morality (καλός: 50

51 52

C.H. Dodd maintains that the recurring ‫ טוב‬in the creation account in Genesis 1 (vv. 4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31) relates only to the visible creation (Dodd, Greeks, 126–127) and not to any abstract value. If Dodd is correct, then the idea of ‫ טוב‬as “beautiful” is justified. See T. Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 1–2. Deut 1:25, 35; 3:25a, b; 4:22; 6:18b; 8:7, 10; 9:6; 11:17; 28:12.

86

chapter 3

twice; ἀγαθός: once), while the translator of LXX-Gen prefers only καλός for that nuance (6 times). However, when ‫ טוב‬depicts the concept of “possession,” the translators were forced to opt for ἀγαθός53 because this nuance is only covered by this word. The following renderings highlight the different approaches of the translators: 1) When the translator of Genesis translated the phrase ‫כל־טוב‬, he always used ἀγαθός. Gen 24:10 Gen 45:18 Gen 45:20 Gen 45:23

2)

53 54 55 56 57 58 59

‫וכל־טוב אדניו‬ ‫)כל( טוב ארץ מצרים‬ ‫כי־טוב כל־ארץ מצרים‬ ‫מטוב מצרים‬

καὶ ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν ἀγαθῶν τοῦ κυρίου αὐτοῦ πάντων τῶν ἀγαθῶν Αἰγύπτου54 τὰ γὰρ πάντα ἀγαθὰ Αἰγύπτου55 ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν ἀγαθῶν Αἰγύπτου

If one realizes that the translator rarely selected ἀγαθός, these four renderings of ‫ כל־טוב‬reflect the translator’s conscious choice rather than a random selection. Likewise, the two cognate words ἀρεστός, “pleasing” and ἀρέσκω, “to please,” reflecting ‫כם‬/‫טוב בעיניך‬, illustrate his preferences.56 While the translator of Deuteronomy always employed a phrase with ἀγαθός for ‫הארץ הטובה‬, such as τὴν γῆν τὴν ἀγαθήν,57 he did not choose this Greek equivalent for every instance of ‫טוב‬. Although he represented ‫ההר‬ ‫( הטוב‬3:25b) with τὸ ὄρος τοῦτο τὸ ἀγαθόν, he represented ‫( בתים טובים‬8:12) with καὶ οἰκίας καλάς, and ‫( ערים גדולת וטובת‬6:10) with πόλεις μεγάλας καὶ καλάς. Even though καλός and ἀγαθός are interchangeable as expressions of value, as in the above examples, significantly the translator used only ἀγαθός in the idiom ‫הארץ הטובה‬. Thus, one can safely conclude that there was a fixed rendition for the phrase ‫ הארץ הטובה‬as promised by God to the people of Israel. The translator provides an additional insight into his stylistic preferences through his handling of the phrase ‫ טוב ל־‬+ pronoun such as ‫ טוב לך‬or ‫טוב לכם‬, always rendered by εὖ + the dative pronoun such as εὖ σοι (5:33; 6:24; 10:13; 15:16; 19:13).58 Within LXX-Pent, this technique is unique to the translator of Deuteronomy.59 Gen 24:10; 45:18, 20, 23; Deut 6:11; 26:11; 30:9b, 15. ‫ כל‬is reconstructed from the LXX. τα γαρ αγαθα παντα in acmoxb2c2AS. ‫( הטוב בעיניך‬Gen 16:6, ὡς ἄν σοι ἀρεστὸν ᾖ), ‫( טוב בעיניכם‬Gen 19:8, καθὰ ἂν ἀρέσκῃ ὑμῖν), and ‫( בטוב בעיניך‬20:15, οὗ ἐάν σοι ἀρέσκη). Deut 1:25, 35; 3:25a, b; 4:22; 6:18b; 8:7, 10; 9:6; 11:17. The only exception occurs in Deut 23:17 where ‫ בטוב לו‬is translated by οὗ ἐὰν ἀρέσῃ αὐτῷ. The same phrase is translated differently in Num 11:18 ‫—טוב לנו‬καλὸν ἡμῖν.

87

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent

3)

Though the renderings of these phrases including ‫ טו״ב‬were often fixed and particular to each book, on other occasions the translators’ choices betray an unequivocal difference between the renderings. Thus, in LXXGen, the idiom ‫ טוב ורע‬is always expressed by καλὸν καὶ πονηρόν (2:9, 17; 3:5, 22), whereas in LXX-Deut it is rendered with ἀγαθὸν ἢ κακόν (1:39). The translation of the phrase ‫ טוב בעיני־‬presents another model of variation. In Genesis, it is rendered consistently with a construction of ἄν/ἐάν + ἀρεστὸν/ἀρέσκω + personal pronoun (‫כם‬/‫כטוב בעיניך‬/‫ב‬, 16:6 ὡς ἄν σοι ἀρεστὸν ᾖ; 20:15 οὗ ἐάν σοι ἀρέσκῃ; 19:8 καθὰ ἂν ἀρέσκῃ ὑμῖν), whereas in Deuteronomy it appears in a more literal mode, 6:18 ‫—הטוב בעיני יהוה‬καὶ τὸ καλὸν ἐναντίον κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ ὑμῶν.

10. ‫)ב(טרם‬: Gen ≠ Exod The adverb of time, ‫טרם‬, “not yet” or “before that time,” and the conjunction ‫בטרם‬, “before,”60 appear seventeen times in the Pentateuch, mainly in Genesis and Exodus.61 They are usually coupled with a verb in the imperfect tense62 such as ‫( בטרם תבא‬Gen 27:33; Exod 1:19), and construed in the pluperfect sense.63 Although the distinction between ‫ טרם‬and ‫ בטרם‬is clear, the translators did not distinguish between them. Despite their common understanding, the translators of Genesis and Exodus betray recognizable preferences in vocabulary and style in their renderings of the Hebrew construction.64 table 45

‫ )ב(טרם‬+ impf./pf. in LXX-Pent

Translations

Gen

Exod

πρό + τοῦ + inf.

9 occurrences 2:5a, b; 19:4; 24:15, 45; 27:33; 37:18; 41:50; 45:28

12:34

60

61 62 63 64

Lev

Num

Deut 31:21

For a detailed discussion on the meaning and use of these two words, see U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part One: From Adam to Noah (trans. I. Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961; repr. 1989), 101; U. Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch (4th ed.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1965), 45–46 (Heb.). Genesis ten times, Exodus four times, and once in each of the other books. The word appears with a verb in the perfect tense only in Gen 24:15. Gesenius–Kautzsch, Grammar, §107, c; P. Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (SubBi 14/I; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991; repr. 1996), § 113, j. In the other books in the Pentateuch, the occurrences are too few.

88

chapter 3

Table 45

‫ )ב(טרם‬+ impf./pf. in LXX-Pent (cont.)

Translations

Gen

Exod

πρίν + (ἤ)/(art.) + inf.

27:4

1:19

ἤ + inf.

10:7

οὐδέπω + indic. pf.

9:30

πρό + τοῦ + ptc. Total

Lev

Num

Deut

11:23

14:36 10

4

1

1

1

The translator of Genesis almost always employed πρό for ‫ )ב(טרם‬in the construction πρό + τοῦ + infinitive (9 times);65 for example, ‫—טרם יצמח‬πρὸ τοῦ ἀνατεῖλαι (2:5) and ‫—ובטרם יקרב‬πρὸ τοῦ ἐγγίσαι (37:18). Furthermore, he always translated expressions synonymous with ‫)ב(טרם‬, such as those constructed with ‫ לפני‬+ imperfect verb or ‫ לפני‬+ noun, in the same manner, i.e., with πρό + τοῦ + infinitive. For example, he rendered ‫ לפני שֵחת‬with πρὸ τοῦ καταστρέψαι (13:10) and ‫ לפני מותי‬with πρὸ τοῦ ἀποθανεῖν με (27:7). Thus, πρό + τοῦ + infinitive was a fixed construction for this translator, communicating the sense of “before,” irrespective of the Hebrew idiom. On the other hand, the translator of Exodus expressed these constructions inconsistently: Exod 1:19 Exod 9:30 Exod 10:7 Exod 12:34

‫בטרם תבא‬ ‫טרם תיראון‬ ‫הטרם תדע‬ ‫טרם יחמץ‬

πρὶν ἢ εἰσελθεῖν οὐδέπω πεφόβησθε ἢ εἰδέναι πρὸ τοῦ ζυμωθῆναι

Although ‫ )ב(טרם‬does not appear much in these two books, the differences in the translation strategies of the two translators are distinct enough in both vocabulary and style in order to characterize LXX-Gen as stereotypical and LXXExod as not bound by fixed rules.

65

Gen 2:5a, b; 19:4; 24:15, 45; 27:33; 37:18; 41:50; and 45:28. Gen 27:4, where ‫ בטרם מות‬is translated with πρὶν ἀποθανεῖν με, is an exception.

89

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent

11. ‫כאשר‬: ὃν τρόπον: Gen ≠ Exod, Lev, Num, Deut καθάπερ: Exod ≠ Gen, Lev, Num, Deut ‫כאשר‬, “according to,” “when,” is usually used for conditional clauses in the Pentateuch (191 of 208 times). It appears much less frequently in temporal clauses (17 times) since, in Hebrew, subordinate temporal clauses are usually expressed by prepositions; see Table 46.66 The translators of the Pentateuch distinguished between ‫ כאשר‬when used in temporal or conditional clauses. Thus, in Genesis, ἡνίκα, “when” is preferred strongly for the temporal use of ‫( כאשר‬8/14), whereas καθά is used predominantly in conditional clauses (15/28). Exodus employs ἡνίκα (in 32:19), Leviticus uses ὃς ἄν, “as long as” (in 27:14), and Deuteronomy uses ἐπεί, “when,” “since” (in 2:16), representing the temporal use of ‫כאשר‬. However, the translators do not use those words for the conditional meaning of ‫כאשר‬. In conditional clauses, the conjunction ‫ כאשר‬is rendered by various Greek equivalents in LXX-Pent (see Table 47). Although no pattern emerges for translating ‫כאשר‬, the distribution of these Greek equivalents in the Pentateuch shows that the distinctive trends depend on the differences between the translators. LXX-Gen differs from the other translation units in the rendering of the conditional use of ‫כאשר‬. καθά, “just as,” “in the manner,” the later form of καθάπερ,67 is the dominant equivalent in Genesis (15/28 = 53.5 %), while in the other books of LXX-Pent, καθάπερ,68 ὃν τρόπον, and καθά are employed interchangeably. table 46

‫( כאשר‬temporal or conditional) in LXX-Pent

Equivalents

Gen

Exod

Lev

Num

Deut

καθότι

2 occurrences 26:29a; 34:12 (+ an)

5 occurrences 1:12; 10:10; 12:25; 21:22 (+ an); 34:4

24:20

33:56

7 occurrences 1:11, 19; 2:14; 16:10; 18:2; 30:9; 34:9

ὃν τρόπον

26:29b

10 occurrences 2:14; 13:11; 16:34; 39:29 (36:36), 39:31 (36:38), 39:43 (39:23); 40:15, 21, 23, 25

16 occurrences 4:10, 20, 21, 31, 35; 8:4, 9, 17, 31; 9:10, 21; 10:5, 15, 18; 16:15; 18:28

12 occurrences 1:19; 3:16, 42, 51; 14:17, 28; 15:14; 23:2; 26:4; 31:47; 32:27; 36:10

23 occurrences 1:21; 2:1, 12; 4:33; 5:12, 16, 32; 6:16; 11:25; 12:21; 13:18; 15:6; 19:8, 19; 20:17; 23:24; 24:8; 27:3,

66 67 68

For details, see Aejmelaeus, Parataxis, 79–80. Moulton–Milligan, Vocabulary, 310. D.B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 675: “This use suggests an analogy or comparison between the connected ideas or tells how something is to be done.”

90

chapter 3

Table 46 Equivalents

‫( כאשר‬temporal or conditional) in LXX-Pent (cont.)

Gen

Exod

Lev

Num

Deut 28:9, 63; 29:12a, b; 32:50

ὡς

5 occurrences 18:33; 27:4, 9; 29:10; 30:25

24:19

2:17

ὡς εἴ ἡνίκα

3 occurrences 1:44; 8:5; 22:26 8 occurrences 12:11; 20:13; 24:22; 27:40 (+ an); 32:3, 32; 37:23; 43:2

32:19

ἐπεί μετὰ τὸ

2:16 27:30

ὥσπερ

2 occurrences 2:22; 3:2, 6

καθώς

3 occurrences 8:21; 18:5; 41:13

ὅταν

40:14

ἐν (+ dat.)

24:52

καθά

16 occurrences 7:9, 16; 17:23; 21:1a, b, 4; 24:51; 27:14, 19; 34:22; 40:22; 41:21, 54; 43:14, 17; 47:11

9 occurrences 9:12; 12:28, 50; 39:1 (36:8), 5 (36:12), 7 (36:14), 21 (36:28), 26 (36:33); 40:19

καθάπερ

2 occurrences 12:4; 50:6

15 occurrences 5:13; 7:6, 10, 13, 20, 22; 8:11, 15, 23; 9:35; 16:24; 17:10; 23:15; 40:27, 32 (38:27) 27:8

ὡσεί

33:11

ὃς ἐάν/ἄν

1:17 44:1

2 occurrences 8:22; 21:34

2 occurrences 2:29; 26:19

2 occurrences 8:29; 24:23

15 occurrences 2:33; 5:4; 8:3; 15:36; 17:5, 26; 20:9, 27; 27:11, 13, 22; 31:7, 31, 41; 32:25

8 occurrences 4:5; 6:19, 25; 10:5, 9; 26:15; 31:3, 4

5 occurrences 8:13, 21, 34; 9:7; 16:34

4 occurrences 14:19; 17:12; 23:30; 27:23

4 occurrences 6:3; 9:3; 12:20; 26:18

11:12

2 occurrences 28:29, 49

17:11a, b (+ δέ)

κατά

ὅσα ἐάν

2 occurrences 1:31; 12:22

27:14

22:8

91

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent Table 46 Equivalents

‫( כאשר‬temporal or conditional) in LXX-Pent (cont.) Gen

Exod

Lev

Num

διότι

Deut

27:14

No equiv.

50:12

2 occurrences 12:32; 40:29

Total

42

47

26

38

55

Italicized boldface indicates the use of ‫ כאשר‬in a temporal clause.

Table 47 describes the frequency of ‫ כאשר‬in conditional clauses and its Greek equivalents in LXX-Pent. table 47

‫ כאשר‬in conditional clauses

Equivalents καθότι ὃν τρόπον ὡς ὡς εἴ ὥσπερ καθώς ὅταν καθά καθάπερ κατά ὡσεί ὃς ἐὰν/ἂν ὅσος ἐὰν No equivalent Total

Gen

Exod

Lev

Num

Deut

2 1 2

5 10

1 16 1

1 12 1

2

7 23 2 3 3 2

15 4

8 4

1 1

2

37

54

3 1 15 2

1 1 28

2 9 15 1 1 1 2 46

2 5

25

In summary, in Genesis, the conjunction ὃν τρόπον is one of the least-favored equivalents (1/28 = 3.6%) of ‫ כאשר‬in conditional clauses, while in the other four books it is a common equivalent (Exodus: 10/46 = 22.7%; Leviticus: 16/25 = 64.0%; Numbers: 12/37 = 32.4%; Deuteronomy: 23/54 = 42.6 %). ὃν τρόπον occurs sixty-seven times in LXX-Pent, of which only once in Genesis, but tento twenty-fold in each of the other four books.

92

chapter 3

table 48

ὃν τρόπον in LXX-Pent

Equivalents

Gen

Exod

Lev

Num

Deut

‫כאשר‬ ‫אשר‬ ‫כי אשר‬

1

16 1

12 2

23 1

Total

1

10 1 1 11

17

14

24

By the same token, Exodus is distinct from the other four books of LXX-Pent in its preference for καθάπερ. However, besides the individual preference of the translators, καθά and καθάπερ carried the same meaning and could be used interchangeably.69 For example: Exod 9:12 ‫מֶשׁה‬ ֹ ‫ ַכֲּאֶשׁר ִדֶּבּר ְיה ָוה ֶאל־‬καθὰ συνέταξεν κύριος Exod 9:35 ‫מֶשׁה‬ ֹ ‫ ַכֲּאֶשׁר ִדֶּבּר ְיה ָוה ְבּ ַיד־‬καθάπερ ἐλάλησεν κύριος τῷ Μωυσῇ Lev 8:13 Lev 8:29

‫מֶשׁה‬ ֹ ‫ַכֲּאֶשׁר ִצ ָוּה ְיה ָוה ֶאת־‬ ‫מֶשׁה‬ ֹ ‫ַכֲּאֶשׁר ִצ ָוּה ְיה ָוה ֶאת־‬

καθάπερ συνέταξεν κύριος τῷ Μωυσῇ καθὰ ἐνετείλατο κύριος τῷ Μωυσῇ

καθάπερ appears thirty-nine times in the Pentateuch, of which it occurs in Exodus twenty-one times but only eighteen times in the other four books together (Table 48) (Genesis: twice; Leviticus: 7 times; Numbers: 4 times; Deuteronomy: 5 times). table 49

καθάπερ in LXX-Pent

Equivalent

Gen

Exod

Lev

Num

Deut

‫כאשר‬ ‫ְכּ‬ ‫אשר‬

2

4 1

2

5 1 1 7

4

Total

15 5 1 21

4

5

69

καθάπερ appears in the literature from the fifth century BCE (Herodotus, Hist., I.182), while καθά, the shortened form, first appears in Menander’s μονόστιχοι, 551 (fourth-third centuries BCE). It is also found frequently in papyri, for example, pap. Petr II. 13 (238–237 BCE).

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent

93

12. (‫כרת )ברית‬: Gen, Deut ≠ Exod ‫כרת ברית‬, which appears in three books of the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, and Deuteronomy), denotes the making of a covenant, literally “to cut a covenant” (Gen 15:18; Jer 34:18). The term ‫ ברית‬is rendered stereotypically in the LXX with διαθήκη.70 The main Greek equivalent of ‫כרת‬, διατίθημι, denotes that both sides execute an agreement or obligation,71 sometimes a one-sided covenant.72 The compositum διατίθημι is favored strongly in Genesis (5/5 = 100 %) and Deuteronomy (10/11 = 90.9%), whereas the simplex τίθημι is preferred in Exodus (4/6 = 66.7%). table 50

‫ כרת‬in LXX-Pent

Rendering

Gen

Exod

διατίθημι

5 occurrences 24:8 15:18; 21:27, 32; 26:28; 31:44

τίθημι

4 occurrences 34:10, 12, 15, 27

συγκατατίθημι

23:32

Lev

Num Deut 10 occurrences 4:23; 5:2, 3; 7:2; 9:9; 28:69b; 29:11, 13, 24; 31:16

ἵστημι Total

28:69a 5

6

0

0

11

13. ‫ליהוה‬: Lev ≠ Gen, Exod, Num, Deut The Tetragrammaton (‫ )יהוה‬is usually rendered by anarthrous forms of κύριος. The nominative ὁ κύριος with the definite article was the norm for ‫אדני‬73 while it

70 71 72 73

99% of all instances of ‫ ברית‬are translated by διαθήκη; see Tov, “Three Dimensions,” 534. R. Helbing, Die Kasussyntax der Verba bei den Septuaginta (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1928), 241–242. Helbing, ibid. E. Bickerman, Studies in Jewish and Christian History (AGJU 9; Leiden: Brill, 1976), 159; Dodd, Greeks, 9; Wevers, Notes-Numbers, 602; for further discussion, see L. Perkins, “κύριος: Articulation and Non-Articulation in Greek Exodus,” BIOSCS 41 (2008): 17–33.

94

chapter 3

occurs very rarely for ‫( יהוה‬only 5/1526 times in LXX-Pent).74 However, for ‫ליהוה‬ with the definite article, τῷ κυρίῳ is used frequently (83/254 times in LXX-Pent; see Table 51) alongside the anarthrous dative κυρίῳ, representing the preposition ‫ל־‬. table 51 Equivalents Gen

‫ ליהוה‬in LXX-Pent Exod

Lev

Num

τῷ κυρίῳ

2 occurrences 10 occurrences 4:3; 12:8 12:42a; 13:12a, b, 15; 15:1b, 21; 16:23, 25; 30:12; 31:15

69 occurrences 2 occurrences 1:2, 9, 13, 14, 17; 2:1, 2, 18:12, 28:11 8, 9, 14; 3:6, 16; 4:3; 5:15, 25; 6:8; 7:5, 35; 8:21, 28; 16:8, 9; 17:5a, b, 9; 19:5, 21, 24; 22:3, 15, 21, 22a, b, 24; 23:3, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18a, b, 20, 27, 34, 36, 37, 38; 24:7; 25:2, 4; 27:2, 9a, b, 11, 14, 16, 21, 22, 23, 26a, b, 28a, b, 30a, b, 32

κυρίῳ

5 occurrences 28 occurrences 12:7; 13:18; 8:4, 22, 23, 24, 24:6, 48, 52 25; 10:25; 12:11, 14, 27, 42b, 48; 20:10; 22:19; 29:18a, b, 25, 28, 41; 30:10, 13, 20, 37; 32:29; 35:2, 5, 22, 29; 39:30

24 occurrences 2:11b, 12, 16; 3:3, 5, 11, 14; 4:31; 5:6, 7; 6:13, 14; 7:11, 14, 21, 25, 29a, b; 17:4, 6; 22:27; 29a, b; 23:25

τῷ θεῷ

8:20

3 occurrences 5:17; 15:1a; 24:5

2 occurrences 3:9; 22:18

ἐναντίον τοῦ θεοῦ

13:13

10:16

ἔναντι κυρίου

κυρίου

7:38

25:21

74

2 occurrences 13:6; 28:36

2 occurrences 5:19; 7:20

Exod 8:18; 9:27; Num 32:31; Deut 1:20; 11:17.

57 occurrences 5:8; 6:2, 5, 6, 8, 12, 14, 17, 21; 8:12; 9:10, 14; 15:3a, b, 4, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 19, 21, 24; 18:6, 13, 15, 17, 19, 24; 21:2; 25:4; 28:3, 6, 7, 8, 13, 15, 16, 19, 24, 26, 27; 29:2, 6, 8, 12, 13, 36, 39; 30:3, 4; 31:28, 37, 38, 39, 40, 52

Deut

24 occurrences 5:14; 7:6; 12:4, 31; 14:2, 21; 15:2, 19, 21; 16:1, 2, 8, 10, 15; 17:1; 23:22, 24; 26:3, 19; 27:5, 6, 9; 29:28; 32:6

2 occurrences 12:11; 14:1

3 occurrences 8:13; 15:25; 32:23

4 occurrences 1:41; 9:16; 13:17; 20:18 10:14

95

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent Table 51

‫ ליהוה‬in LXX-Pent (cont.)

Equivalents Gen

Exod

τοῦ κυρίου

2 occurrences 9:29; 32:5

πρὸς κύριον

2 occurrences 10:17; 32:26

No equiv.

2 occurrences 3:18; 5:3

3 occurrences 2:11a; 6:15; 23:41

50

101

Total

10

Lev

Num

Deut

62

31

The statistics betray the unmistakable preference in LXX-Lev for the articular proper noun (τῷ κυρίῳ: 69 times; κυρίῳ: 24 times), whereas in the other four books they show a clear leaning toward the noun without the article (Genesis: 2—5; Exodus: 10—28; Numbers: 2—57; Deuteronomy: 0—24). The reason that the translator of Leviticus preferred τῷ κυρίῳ to κυρίῳ is probably his wish, however inconsistent, to represent the Hebrew preposition lamed with the Greek article.75 For examples of such inconsistency, see the adjacent verses in Lev 17:4–5: Lev 17:4 MT ‫ל ֹא ֱהִביאוֹ ְלַהְק ִריב ָק ְרָבּן ַליה ָוה ִלְפ ֵני ִמְשַׁכּן ְיה ָוה‬ LXX μὴ ἐνέγκῃ αὐτὸ ὥστε μὴ προσενέγκαι δῶρον κυρίῳ ἀπέναντι τῆς σκηνῆς κυρίου Lev 17:5 MT ‫אֶהל מוֵֹﬠד‬ ֹ ‫ֶוֱהִביֻאם ַליה ָוה ֶאל־ֶפַּתח‬ LXX καὶ οἴσουσιν τῷ κυρίῳ ἐπὶ τὰς θύρας τῆς σκηνῆς τοῦ μαρτυρίου The same situation occurred even within the same verse (Exod 12:42):

75

Thus A. Debrunner, “Zur Übersetzungstechnik der Septuaginta: Der Gebrauch des Artikels bei κύριος,” BZAW 41 (1925): 69–78. See further A. Pietersma, “Kyrios or Tetragram: A Renewed Quest for the Original Septuagint,” in De Septuaginta, Studies in Honour of J.W. Wevers on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. A. Pietersma and C. Cox; Mississauga, ON: Benben Publications, 1984), 93–95.

96

chapter 3

Exod 12:42 MT

‫ֵליל ִשֻׁמּ ִרים הוּא ַליה ָוה ְלהוִֹציָאם ֵמֶא ֶרץ ִמְצ ָר ִים הוּא־ַהַלּ ְיָלה ַה ֶזּה ַליה ָוה ִשֻׁמּ ִרים ְלָכל־ְבּ ֵני‬ ‫ִיְשׂ ָרֵאל ְלד ֹר ָֹתם‬

LXX νυκτὸς προφυλακή ἐστιν τῷ κυρίῳ ὥστε ἐξαγαγεῖν αὐτοὺς ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου ἐκείνη ἡ νὺξ αὕτη προφυλακὴ κυρίῳ ὥστε πᾶσι τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ εἶναι εἰς γενεὰς αὐτῶν The translators of LXX-Pent probably did not attempt to make a lexical distinction between the two forms. The differences between the translators are likely due to their individual preferences. 14. ‫מו״ת‬: (qal, finite verb) Exod ≠ Gen, Lev, Num, Deut (qal, ptc.) Gen ≠ Num ≠ Exod, Deut (idiom) Gen ≠ Exod ≠ Lev, Num Any investigation of the equivalents of ‫ מו״ת‬has to take the different conjugations and aspects of this verb into consideration. ‫ מו״ת‬appears frequently in the Pentateuch in its qal stem “to die” (242 times), in its hiphil stem, “to put to death” (21 times), and in its hophal stem, mainly in the phrase ‫מות יומת‬, “He will surely be put to death” (43 times). The translators used different Greek words in order to express the different Hebrew stems (see Table 52). 2.1.1 Qal, Finite Verb, “To Die”: Exod ≠ Gen, Lev, Num, Deut When ‫ מות‬conveys the sense “to die” in the qal stem, as a finite verb, the main Greek equivalents are two synonymous words ἀποθνῄσκω, “to die,” which implies an aspect of the completion of the process of destruction,76 and τελευτάω, “to finish, accomplish,” i.e., “to die.” An analysis of these words exposes a phenomenon that separates the translation of Exodus from the other four books (see Table 53). The translator of Exodus used both verbs interchangeably (ἀποθνῄσκω: 12 times; τελευτάω: 13 times), while the other translators strongly favored ἀποθνῄσκω (Genesis: 51—3; Leviticus: 11—1; Numbers: 39—3; Deuteronomy: 22—4). The differences in the statistical frequency in these preferences reflect the heterogeneity of the translators because they did not distinguish between the

76

J.H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. I: Prolegomena (3rd ed.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1906), 114, 120.

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent

97

two verbs. For example, while in Gen 46:12 the translator rendered ‫ וימת ער‬with ἀπέθανεν δὲ Ηρ, he used the alternate option in 50:26, ‫וימת יוסף‬, καὶ ἐτελεύτησεν Ιωσηφ. table 52

‫ מו״ת‬in LXX-Pent

Equivalents

Gen

Exod

Lev

Num

Deut

ἀποθνῄσκω

54 occurrences 2:17b; 3:3, 4b; 5:5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 27, 31; 7:22; 9:29; 11:28, 32; 19:19; 20:7b; 23:2; 25:8, 17; 26:9; 27:4; 33:13; 35:8, 18, 19, 29; 36:33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39; 38:11, 12; 42:2, 20, 38; 43:8; 44:9, 20, 22; 45:28; 46:12, 30; 47:15, 19a, b, 29; 48:7 (ptc) 20:3; 48:21; 50:24

13 occurrences 10:28; 14:12; 16:3; 20:19; 21:12a, 18, 20, 28; 22:1, 13; 28:35, 43

13 occurrences 8:35; 10:2, 6, 7, 9; 11:39; 15:31; 16:2, 13; 20:20; 22:9

(ptc) 12:33

(ho) 19:20; 24:17b

43 occurrences 4:15, 19, 20; 6:7, 9a; 14:2a, b, 35, 37; 16:29; 17:25, 28; 18:3, 32; 19:13b, 14; 20:26, 28; 21:6; 23:10; 26:11, 19, 61, 65b; 27:3a, b, 8; 33:38, 39; 35:12, 17a, b, 18a, b, 20, 21a, 23a, b, 30

31 occurrences 2:16; 5:25a, b; 10:6, 11, 12; 18:16, 20; 19:5, 11, 12; 20:5, 6, 7; 21:21, 22; 22:21, 24; 24:3, 7; 25:5a; 32:50b; 33:6

4 occurrences 25:32; 44:31; 50:26 (ptc) 30:1

19 occurrences 1:6; 2:23; 7:18, 21; 8:9; 9:4, 6a, b, 7, 19; 11:5, 35a; 22:9 (ptc) 21:34, 36 (ho) 19:12b; 21:16b, 17b; 35:2

3 occurrences 16:1

4 occurrences 3:4; 20:1; 35:16a

(ptc) 21:11 (ho) 24:16d

(ptc) 6:6

τελευτάω

(ho) 1:51; 3:10, 38; 18:7

(ptc) 4:22; 17:6b (ho) 13:6; 17:6a, c; 21:22; 24:16a, b, c 5 occurrences 17:5; 32:50a; 34:5, 7 (ptc) 25:6

θάνατος

3 occurrences (ia) 2:17a; 3:4a; 26:11a

8 occurrences (ia) 19:12a; 21:12b, 15a, 16a, 17a; 22:18a; 31:14a, 15a

11 occurrences (ia) 20:2a, 9a, 10a, 11a, 12a, 15a, 16a, 27a; 24:16a, 17a; 27:29a

9 occurrences 26:10 (pt) 12:12 (ia) 15:35a; 26:65a; 35:16b, 17c, 18b, 21b, 31b

31:14

θανατόω

(hi) 38:10

6 occurrences 14:11; 21:14 (ho) 21:12c, 15b; 31:14b, 15b

12 occurrences (ho) 20:2b, 9b, 10b, 11b, 12b, 13b, 15b, 16b, 27b; 24:16b, 21; 27:29b

6 occurrences (ho) 15:35b; 35:16c, 17d, 18d, 21c, 31c

(hi) 17:7

98

chapter 3

Table 52

‫ מו״ת‬in LXX-Pent (cont.)

Equivalents

Gen

Exod

ἀποκτείνω

4 occurrences (hi) 18:25; 37:18; 38:7; 42:37

7 occurrences 30:20, 21 (hi) 1:16; 4:24; 16:3b; 17:3 (ho) 22:18b

νεκρός

Lev

(hi) 20:4

8 occurrences (ptc) 23:3, 4, 6a,b, 8, 11, 13, 15

θνῄσκω

50:15

ἔνοχος

(ho) 26:11b

ἀναιρέω

Deut

7 occurrences (hi) 16:13; 17:6; 20:4; 21:5; 35:19a, b, 21d

6 occurrences 22:22, 25 (hi) 9:28; 13:10; 32:39

(ptc) 19:16

2 occurrences (ptc) 14:1; 18:11

4 occurrences 4:19, (ptc) 12:30; 14:30; 21:35b

7 occurrences (ptc) 17:13, 14a, b; 19:11, 13a, 18; 25:9

(hi) 21:29a

35:31a

ἐκτρίβω

2 occurrences (ptc) 25:5b; 26:14

(hi) 14:15

προσαποθνῄσκω

(ho) 21:29b

θανατηφόρος No equivalent

Total

Num

18:22 2 occurrences (ia) 20:7a (ptc) 50:5 78

59

(ia) 20:13a

2 occurrences 15:36 (ptc) 6:9b

41

82

47

(ia) = infinitive absolute; (hi) = hiphil; (ptc) = participle; (ho) = hophal; no indication = qal, finite.

table 53

Main equivalents of ‫( מו״ת‬Qal, finite) in LXX-Pent

Equivalents

Gen

Exod

Lev

Num

Deut

ἀποθνῄσκω τελευτάω

51 3

12 13

11 1

39 3

22 4

The translator of Exodus displayed variety even within a single chapter. Thus, in 22:1, he translated ‫ והכה ומת‬with καὶ πληγεὶς ἀποθάνῃ, whereas in verse 9, he

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent

99

rendered ‫ ומת או־נשׁבה‬with ἢ τελευτήσῃ ἢ αἰχμάλωτον. Likewise, in Num 33:38, ‫ וימת שם‬is translated as καὶ ἀπέθανεν ἐκεῖ, while in Num 35:16 ‫ וימת רצח הוא‬is rendered as καὶ τελευτήσῃ φονευτής ἐστιν. 2.1.2

Qal, Participle, “Dead”: Gen ≠ Num ≠ Exod, Deut (Three Different Practices) Another distinction between the translators is found regarding the participle ‫( ֵמת‬qal-stem, “dead”). This word was rendered by either a participle of θνῄσκω or νεκρός (23/38 times), rather than a participle of ἀποθνῄσκω (see Table 54). Gen 23:3 MT ‫ַו ָיָּקם ַאְב ָרָהם ֵמַﬠל ְפּ ֵני ֵמתוֹ‬ LXX καὶ ἀνέστη Αβρααμ ἀπὸ τοῦ νεκροῦ αὐτου Exod 12:30 MT ‫ֲאֶשׁר ֵאין־ָשׁם ֵמת‬ LXX ἐν ᾗ οὐκ ἦν ἐν αὐτῇ τεθνηκώς In LXX-Pent, the simplex of θνῄσκω was selected thirteen times for the Hebrew participle because it denotes an action in progress,77 not the completed action, indicated by the prefix ἀπο- in ἀποθνῄσκω. The heterogeneity of the translators thus derives not only from their word choices but also from their translation styles.78 However, the individual books differ among each other: In Genesis, the noun νεκρός is favored eight times out of thirteen instances of the participle ‫( מת‬see Table 54 below). However, in Numbers, θνῄσκω is the more dominant rendering (7 of 11 times of ‫)מת‬.79 The translators of Deuteronomy and Exodus chose a more variegated approach. LXX-Deut employed ἀποθνῄσκω, νεκρός, and θνῄσκω twice each, and τελευτάω once.80 The translator of

77 78

79 80

Moulton, Prolegomena, 112. See further, Walters, Text, 315 n. 1. Walters discusses the variation of ἀποθνῄσκω and θνῄσκω regarding the possibility of multiple translators in the Pentateuch. He suggests that the variation between these verbal forms could serve as proof of a multiple translation theory only in combination with an examination of the tenses of the Hebrew verb. See Walters, Text, 127 writing against F. Baumgärtel and H. Johannes, Beiträge zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Septuaginta (BWAT II.5; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1923), 28, 57, 76. Different renderings are τελευτάω (6:6) and θάνατος (12:12). ἀποθνῄσκω (4:22; 17:6b), νεκρός (14:1; 18:11), θνῄσκω (25:5b; 26:14), and τελευτάω (25:6).

100

chapter 3

Exodus favored θνῄσκω on three occasions over τελευτάω twice and ἀποθνῄσκω once. In Leviticus, ‫ מת‬occurs once. table 54

Participle forms of ‫ מו״ת‬in LXX-Pent

Equivalents ἀποθνῄσκω τελευτάω θάνατος νεκρός θνῄσκω No equivalent Total

Gen Exod Lev Num Deut 3 1

1 2

1

8 3 1 13

6

1

1 1 1 7 1 11

2 1 2 2 7

2.1.3 (‫ מות יומת)ו‬or (‫מות תמות)ו‬: Gen ≠ Exod ≠ Lev, Num The phrase (‫מות יומת)ו‬, (‫מות תמות)ו‬, etc., “you/he shall/will surely be put to death” is rendered in various ways in the LXX. The translator of Genesis selected three different variations for the four instances of this phrase: in 2:17 and 3:4, θανάτῳ ἀποθανεῖσθε (noun dat. + cognate verb); in 26:11, he translated idiomatically, θανάτου ἔνοχος ἔσται (noun gen. + adj. + εἰμί); and in 20:7, he used the finite verb ἀποθανῇ for the two-word phrase. While the translator of Exodus adhered to his general translation strategy when employing three different words for ‫יומת‬, he used the same construction, i.e., noun dative + a verb (indic./impv.): θανάτῳ τελευτήσει (indic.) in 19:12, 21:17; θανάτῳ τελευτάτω (impv., LXX 21:17) in 21:16; θανάτῳ ἀποκτενεῖτε (indic.) in 22:18; and θανάτῳ with the cognate θανατούσθω (impv.) in 21:12, 15 and with θανατωθήσεται (indic. pass.) in 31:14, 15. The vocabulary choices and the styles of the translators of Leviticus and Numbers are similar. In LXX-Lev, the idiom appears on twelve occasions81 and the translator regularly articulated it with two cognate forms, mostly θανάτῳ θανατούσθω.82 One finds similar consistency in LXX-Num (7 times): noun + cognate verb, such as θανάτῳ θανατούσθω (15:35; 35:16, 17, 18, 21, 31) and θανάτῳ ἀποθανοῦνται (26:65).83 81 82 83

Lev 20:2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 27; 24:16, 17, 19. In 20:13, the Hebrew phrase is rendered by a single word, θανατούσθωσαν. The difference may be due to the different tenses used in the Hebrew text, the qal in this verse as opposed to the hophal in the others.

101

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent

15. ‫ָמן‬: Exod ≠ Num, Deut .

Of the fourteen instances of the heavenly food ‫ ָמן‬in Hebrew Scripture,84 ten occur in the Pentateuch, represented mainly by two undeclined transliterations μαν and μάννα.85 μαν occurs only in LXX-Exod (4 times), whereas μάννα, with an Aramaic ending, appears elsewhere in the Pentateuch (Numbers: 3 times; Deuteronomy: twice). table 55

‫ ָמן‬in LXX-Pent

Equivalents Gen

Exod

μαν

4 occurrences 16:31, 33, 35a, b

Lev

μάννα

Deut

3 occurrences 2 occurrences 11:6, 7, 9 8:3, 16

τί Total

Num

16:1586 0

5

0

3

2

The origin of μάννα is debated among scholars. Some maintain that it is a Greek loanword from a Semitic language, either Hebrew or Aramaic, from before the time of the LXX translation.87 Others suggest that it is a transliteration, also employed elsewhere to reproduce proper nouns, technical terms, and unknown words.88 84 85 86

87

88

Exod 6:5, 31, 33, 35 (twice); Num 11:6, 7, 9; Deut 8:3, 16; Josh 5:12 (twice); Neh 9:20; and Ps 78:24. μάννα is sometimes declined in manuscripts of the postpentateuchal books, e.g., Jer 17:26 (Codex Sinaiticus, μάνναν). The translator of Exodus represented ‫ מן‬with τί (Exod 16:15, τί ἐστιν τοῦτο, ‫)מן הוא‬. This choice derives from his etymological interpretation of the later Aramaic interrogative pronoun, ‫מן‬. The biblical author used it when the Israelites quizzically inspected the manna asking: ‫ויראו בני־ישראל ויאמרו איש אל־אחיו מן הוא כי לא ידעו מה־הוא‬, “And when the sons of Israel saw it, they said to one another, ‘What is it?’ for they did not know what it was.” G.B. Caird, “Homoephony in the Septuagint,” in Jews, Greeks and Christians: Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity. Essays in Honor of William David Davies (ed. R. Hamerton-Kelly and R. Scroggs; Leiden: Brill, 1976), 85. Hippocrates, Artic. 36 (περί ἄρθρων ἐμβολῆς, fifth century BCE) mentions μάννα in the sense of “frankincense powder.” E. Tov, “Loan-Words, Homophony and Transliterations in the Septuagint,” Bib 60 (1979): 227–231.

102

chapter 3

16. ‫מקרא‬: Lev ≠ Num ‫( מקרא‬noun) indicates a convocation for religious gatherings at an appointed time, e.g., the Sabbath or feasts. With the exception of its occurrence in Num 10:2,89 it is joined in the Pentateuch with ‫קדש‬. The word is translated mainly by two Greek adjectives, κλητός (κλητή) and ἐπίκλητος, especially in LXX-Lev and LXX-Num: table 56

‫ מקרא‬in LXX-Pent

Equivalents Gen

Exod

κληθήσεται

12:16a

κλητός

12:16b

Lev

Num

11 occurrences 28:2590 23:2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 21, 24, 27, 35, 36, 37

ἐπίκλητος

5 occurrences 28:18, 26; 29:1, 7, 12

ἀνακαλεῖν

10:2

Total

0

2

Deut

11

7

0

The literal meanings of κλητός (“invited,” Aeschin. 2.162; “welcome,” Homer, Od. 17.386; “called out, or chosen,” Ilias 9.165) and ἐπίκλητος (“called upon,” Herodotus, Hist. 5.75) are irrelevant for understanding the translators’ interpretations.91 The substantive use of κλητός and ἐπίκλητος is not attested outside the LXX.92 Perhaps the translators of Leviticus (κλητός) and Numbers (ἐπίκλητος) shared a common conception of ‫ מקרא‬as a passive participle form.93 Proba-

89 90 91

92 93

‫למקרא העדה‬, “to summon the congregation.” Some MSS (K, 619, 68′–120) read ἐπίκλητος ἁγία. Walters notes: “Therefore the lexicon should register κλητή and ἡ ἐπίκλητος as mistranslations of ‫ִמְק ָרא‬, festival, as though it were a passive participle of ‫ ָק ָרא‬cry, call, convene” (Walters, Text, 245). Outside the Pentateuch, κλητή as a substantive is used in Judg 14:11; 2 Sam 15:11; 1 Kgs 1:41, 49; Zech 1:7; and 3Macc 5:14. See Walters, Text, 244–245; Lee, Lexical Study, 50–51.

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent

103

bly the translator of Numbers was influenced by his own translation of ‫קרי)ו(אי‬ ‫העדה‬, ἐπίκλητοι τῆς συναγωγῆς (Num 1:16, 26:9). 17. ‫תולד)ו(ת‬, ‫משפחה‬: ‫משפחה‬: Gen ≠ Num ≠ Exod, Lev (three groups) δῆμος: Num ≠ Gen, Exod, Lev, Deut ‫תולד)ו(ת‬: Gen ≠ Num ‫משפחה‬, “family,” “clan” is used frequently as a subdivision of a larger group such as a tribe or nation. In the Pentateuch, the word occurs most frequently in Numbers (159 [Num]/185 times [Pent.]). table 57

‫ משפחה‬in LXX-Pent

Equivalents Gen γένος

Exod

11 occurrences 10:5, 18, 20, 31, 32; 12:3; 24:38, 40, 41; 28:14; 36:40

συγγένεια

3 occurrences 6:14, 15; 12:21

οἶκος πατριᾶς

2 occurrences 6:17, 19

δῆμος

2 occurrences 25:41, 47

1:18

25:49

4 occurrences 27:11; 33:54; 36:1a, b

2 occurrences 20:5; 25:45

1:2

Deut

2 occurrences 6:24, 25

γενεά, γενετή

πατρίς

Num

8:19

γένεσις

φυλή

Lev

25:10

29:17 145 occurrences 1:20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30(28), 32(30), 34(32), 36(34), 38, 40, 42; 2:34; 3:15, 18, 19, 20a, b, 21a, b, c, 27a, b, c, d, e, 29, 30, 33a, b, c, 35, 39; 4:2, 18, 22, 24, 29, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42a, b, 44, 45, 46; 11:10; 26:5a, b, 6a, b, 7, 12a, b, c, d, 13a, b, 14, 15(24)a, b, c, d, 16(25)a, b, 17(26)a, b, 18(27), 20(16)a, b, c, d, 21(17)a, b, 22(18), 23(19)a, b, c, 24(20)a, b, 25(21), 26(22)a,

104

chapter 3

Table 57

‫ משפחה‬in LXX-Pent (cont.)

Equivalents Gen

Exod

Lev

Num

Deut

b, c, d, 27(23), 28(32), 29(33)a, b, 30(34)a, b, 31(35)a, b, 32(36)a, b, 34(38), 35(39)b, d, 36(40), 37(41)a, b, 38(42)a, b, c, d, 39(43)a, 40(44)a, b, 41(45), 42(46)a, b, c, d, 43(47), 44(28)a, b, c, d, 45(29)a, b, 47(31), 48a, b, c, 49a, b, 57a, b, c, d, 58a, b, c, d, f; 27:1, 4; 36:6, 8, 12a, b υἱός

3:23

No equiv.

4:28; *26:35(39)a, c, *39(43)b, c, *50, *58e

Total

12

7

6

159

1

* textual problem.

The preferences in rendering ‫ משפחה‬show that the distinctive trends depended upon the individual translators. φυλή, “race,” “tribe” is favored in Genesis (11/12 = 91.7%), while δῆμος “the people of a country” dominates in Numbers (144/159 = 90.6%). In LXX-Exod and LXX-Lev, no dominant equivalents exist (see Table 57).94 This diversity is further underlined by a reverse examination of φυλή in LXXPent: table 58

φυλή in LXX-Pent (based on HRCS)

Equivalent ‫מטה‬ ‫שבט‬ ‫משפחה‬ ‫מולדת‬ ‫בית‬ 94

Gen

1 11 1

Exod

Lev

Num

Deut

6 3

1

85 4 4

13

1 1

A similar difference between LXX-Lev and LXX-Num in the rendering of ‫אשה‬, “burnt offering” is noted by Wevers. According to his investigation, ‫ אשה‬is translated consistently as κάρπωμα in LXX-Num, whereas it is rendered inconsistently in LXX-Lev, κάρπωμα, nineteen times, θυσία, nine times, and even ὁλοκαύτωμα, seven times (Wevers, Notes-Leviticus, 486).

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent Table 58

105

φυλή in LXX-Pent (based on HRCS) (cont.)

Equivalent Textual problem95 No equivalent Total

Gen

13

Exod

10

Lev

Num

Deut

2

3 4 100

13

While φυλή is usually the equivalent of ‫ משפחה‬in Genesis (11/13 = 84.6%), in Exodus it is preferred as a rendering of ‫( מטה‬6/10 = 60 %). It expresses ‫ מטה‬and ‫ משפחה‬each once in Leviticus and it is the dominant translation for ‫ מטה‬in Numbers (85/100 = 85%). In Deuteronomy, this word translates ‫( שבט‬13/13 = 100%). Numbers differs from the other books of LXX-Pent in another detail also; within the Pentateuch, δῆμος occurs solely in that book (151 times) as well as in Joshua,96 Judges, Nehemiah, and Daniel.97 The original meaning of δῆμος is “divided portion,”98 hence in the Greek literature the word is used frequently with the sense of “district/country” (Homer, Ilias 5.710),99 and never with the sense of “family” or “clan,” as in LXX-Num. Therefore, the use of δῆμος for ‫משפחה‬ in that translation is unusual. Perhaps the translator of Numbers wavered in the beginning of his translation activity, rendering ‫ משפחה‬initially with συγγένεια (1:2) and γενεά (1:18), and settling on δῆμος in Num 1:20 when he realized that several names of social groups (‫תולד]ו[ת‬, ‫משפחה‬, ‫בית אבתם‬, etc.) were used much in the book. At that point, he chose consistently δῆμος for ‫ משפחה‬and συγγένεια for ‫תולד)ו(ת‬.100 The latter translation was a novelty, too, differing from the previous books, especially Genesis:

95 96 97 98 99 100

According to HRCS. Josh 7:14a, b, 17a, b; 13:15, 23, 24, 28, 29, 31; 15:1, 12; 16:5, 8; 17:2; 18:11, 20, 21, 28; 19:8, 10, 16, 23, 31, 48; 21:4, 7, 20, 26, 33, 34, 40. Judg (B, 17:7); Neh 4:7; Dan 8:24; 9:16; 11:23, 32. W. Grundmann, “δῆμος,” TDNT 2:63. It is used also in the sense of “common people” (Herodotus, Hist. 5.66) or “free citizens” (Aeschylus. Sept. 199.1011). Num 1:20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42. For an extensive discussion of the linguistic background of δῆμος and φυλή, also beyond LXX-Pent, see Dorival et al., Numbers, 159–161.

106

chapter 3

table 59

‫ תולדות‬in LXX-Pent

Equivalents

Gen

Exod

γένεσις

12 occurrences 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1, 32; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1, 9; 37:2

28:10

3:1

γενεά

25:13 2 occurrences 6:16, 19

12 occurrences 1:20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42

συγγένεια

Total

13

3

Lev

0

Num

13

Deut

0

18. ‫נחלה‬: Num ≠ Deut The general meaning of ‫ נחלה‬is “inheritance.” In the Torah, the word appears mainly in Numbers and Deuteronomy with several nuances. It describes the entire land of Israel, which God promised as a land flowing with milk and honey (Deut 4:38; 12:9, etc.). It also frequently designates a smaller portion of an appointed inheritance that is gained after casting a lot for a tribe of the Israelite people (Num 26:53; Deut 10:9, etc.). Apart from physical inheritances, sometimes it depicts a spiritual possession such as the Israelite people as God’s portion (Deut 32:9, etc.) or God himself as the heritage of the Levites (Num 18:20; Deut 18:1, etc.). κληρονομία and κλῆρος are the preferred equivalents in the Pentateuch, used interchangeably in LXX-Num and LXX-Deut. The basic meaning of κλῆρος in Classical Greek is “lot,” “that which is assigned by lot or an allotment of land.”101 However, the word has been expanded in the LXX to cover the whole sphere of ‫נחלה‬, and it sometimes has no connection with the act or sense of “lot” (Deut 9:29; 18:1, 2, etc.). While the primary meaning of κληρονομία is “inheritance” (Isocrates, 19.43, etc.) in LXX-Pent, it included also the concept of “possession.”102 Further, 101 102

Herodotus, Vita Homeri, 2.109; Thucydides, 3.50; Plato, Leg., 740b; and Aristoteles, Pol., 1265. LSJ lists only the LXX examples for this meaning of κληρονομία. See also W. Foerster, “κληρονόμος,” TDNT 3:777. The unusual association between ‫ נחלה‬and ‫ אוכל‬in Deut 18:1 adds an element of food to the word when κληρονομία appears in this special context.

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent

107

though κληρονομία is originally related to inheritances obtained by legal means, the translators also selected the word to represent a portion of land that derived from casting a lot. The examples include instances where ‫ נחלה‬is juxtaposed with ‫( גורל‬Num 26:56; 33:54b; 36:2, 3). table 60

‫ נחלה‬in LXX-Pent

Equivalents

Gen

Exod Lev Num

κληρονομία

31:14

15:17

Deut

29 occurrences 5 occurrences 18:20, 23; 26:53, 54a, b, c, 4:38; 12:9; 19:14; 20:16; 32:9 56; 27:7a, 8, 9, 10, 11; 32:18; 33:54b; 34:2; 36:2a, b, 3c, d, 4a, b, c, d, 7a, b, 8a, b, 9b, 12

ἔγκληρος

4:20

μερίς

9:26

κλῆρος

48:6

14 occurrences 16:14; 18:21, 24a, b, 26; 26:62; 27:7b; 32:19; 34:14, 15; 35:2, 8; 36:3a, 9a

κατάσχεσις

33:54a; 36:3b

No equivalent

32:32

Total

2

1

0

46

18 occurrences 4:21; 9:29; 10:9a, b; 12:12; 14:27, 29; 15:4; 18:1a, b, 2a, b; 19:10; 21:23; 24:4; 25:19; 26:1; 29:7

25

In Numbers, the translator employed κληρονομία to represent the heritage of the Levites (Num 18:20, 23), but in the same context he selected κλῆρος for the same word (Num 18:21, 24). In Numbers 26, he described the portions of the other tribes with similar inconsistency as both κληρονομία (vv. 53, 54, 56) and κλῆρος (v. 62). Num 27:7 and 36:3 present two accounts of the daughters of Zelophehad insisting on their rights to their inheritances. Despite the correspondence between the stories, the translator opted for κληρονομία in the first episode and κλῆρος in the second one. The translator of Deuteronomy betrayed the same variety. He chose κληρονομία to translate ‫ נחלה‬when it designates the whole promised land (4:38; 12:9; 20:6), but selected κλῆρος in the same context (4:21). κληρονομία is employed when the people of Israel are the ‫ נחלה‬of God (32:9), while in 9:29 κλῆρος serves

108

chapter 3

the same function.103 In the passages that mention God becoming the heritage of the Levites, both κληρονομία (Num 18:20) and κλῆρος (Deut 18:1b, 2b) appear, again, without any apparent reason. The translators of Numbers and Deuteronomy thus used the two words interchangeably.104 Nevertheless, the translator of Numbers clearly preferred κληρονομία for ‫( נחלה‬29/46 times = 63%) to κλῆρος (14/46 times = 30 %), whereas the translator of Deuteronomy favored κλῆρος (18/25 times = 72%) over κληρονομία (5/25 times = 20%). 19. ‫נסע‬: Exod ≠ Gen, Num, Deut ‫נסע‬, usually meaning “to set out (on a journey)” or “to remove from a place,” is translated especially by ἀπαίρω, “to lift off,” “take away,” “remove from” throughout the LXX and ἐξαίρω, “to lift up,” “to raise”105 mainly in the first half of LXXNum. The latter rendering occurs only four times outside the Pentateuch (Judg 16:14; 2Esd 8:31; Eccl 10:9; and Jer 4:7). table 61

‫ נסע‬in LXX-Pent

Equivalents

Gen

ἀπαίρω

8 occurrences 3 occurrences 12:9a; 13:11; 33:12, 12:37; 16:1; 17:1 17; 35:15, 21; 37:17; 46:1

103 104

105

Exod

Lev

Num

Deut

53 occurrences 6 occurrences 9:20, 21a, 22a, 23; 14:25; 20:22; 1:7, 19; 2:1, 24; 21:4, 10, 12, 13; 22:1; 33:3, 5, 6, 7, 10:6, 7 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48

Other choices for conveying the spiritual sense of ‫ נחלה‬in LXX-Deut are μερίς (9:26) and ἔγκληρος (4:20). W. Foerster formulated the differences between the two words in the LXX as follows: “In this whole matter κλῆρος emphasizes the aspect of allotment and κληρονομία the sure and lasting nature of the possession.” However, the examples given above do not support this suggestion (W. Foerster, “κλῆρος,” TDNT 3:760). The use of ἐξαίρω for ‫ נסע‬is unusual since it does not mean exactly “to travel.” The translators might have come to use it in the metaphorical sense of “pulling up stakes.” In the New Testament, it denotes only “to remove” or “get rid of” (1 Cor 5:13). See Louw–Nida, Semantic Domains; W. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (2nd ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958). Translation of W. Bauer, Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1952).

109

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent Table 61

‫ נסע‬in LXX-Pent (cont.)

Equivalents

Gen

Exod

ἐξαίρω

35:5

5 occurrences 13:20; 14:19a, b; 15:22; 19:2

κινέω

11:2; 20:1

στρατοπεδεύω

12:9b

Lev

Num 30 occurrences 1:51; 2:9, 16, 17b, 24, 31, 34; 4:5, 15; 9:19; 10:5, 6a, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, 25, 28, 29, 33a, 34, 35, 36; 11:35; 12:15, 16; 21:11

14:10

ἀναζεύγνυμι

Deut

1:40

14:15; 40:36, 37

παρεμβάλλω

9:18

ἐξέρχομαι

11:31

αἴρω

2:17a

προπορεύομαι

10:33b

No equiv.

9:21b, 22b

Total

12

12

0

89

7

Within the Pentateuch, ἀπαίρω is preferred in Genesis (8/12), Numbers (53/89), and Deuteronomy (6/7), while another compositum, ἐξαίρω is preferred in Exodus (5/12). The translation of Exodus further uses ἀπαίρω (3 times), στρατοπεδεύω (once), and ἀναζεύγνυμι (3 times). table 62

‫ נסע‬in LXX-Num

Equivalents Chapters 1–24 Chapters 25–36 ἀπαίρω ἐξαίρω Other verbs Total

11 30 6

42 0 0 89

By way of digression, I add a remark on the distribution within LXX-Num. That translation is internally inconsistent in the rendering of ‫נסע‬. In chapters 1–24, ἐξαίρω is preferred (30/47), while in chapters 25–36 only ἀπαίρω is used (42

110

chapter 3

times): e.g., contrast chapter 10 (ἐξαίρω: 16 times) with chapter 33 (ἀπαίρω: 42 times). However, the fact that all the occurrences of ἀπαίρω in the second part of the book are limited to chapter 33 does not allow the suggestion that a separate hand was at work in the second portion of Numbers. 20. ‫( עבד‬noun): Gen ≠ Exod, Lev, Num, Deut In the Hebrew Bible, ‫ עבד‬usually denotes different subordinate persons such as a vassal/chattel (Gen 39:17; Lev 25:42, etc.), the Israelites in Egypt (Exod 13:3, 14; Deut 5:6, etc.), supporters of the king (Gen 40:20; Exod 21:25, etc.), servants/prophets of Yahweh (Gen 50:17; Exod 4:10; Num 11:11, etc.), impoverished servants (Exod 21:2, etc.), or a self-declared humble person (Gen 33:5, etc.). Contrary to Hebrew, Greek has several words that express the servant/slave motif. Thus, LSJ defines δοῦλος as a born bondman or slave, παῖς as a child or a slave, οἰκέτης as a household slave, and θεράπων, which implies free service, as an attendant or a servant different from a δοῦλος.106 Because of this richer and more descriptive Greek vocabulary, it is not impossible that the translators of LXX-Pent made an effort to choose the appropriate and precise Greek equivalent that reflected the context. However, surprisingly, in disregard of the context, they used the various Greek equivalents, such as παῖς (106 times), θεράπων (32 times), οἰκέτης (23 times), and δοῦλος (3 times)107 for ‫עבד‬, without any lexical distinction or theological bent.108 The choices simply reflect their individual preferences for certain synonyms. Thus, in LXX-Gen, there is no distinction between the use of παῖς and οἰκέτης. For example, the cursed Canaan is destined to be a παῖς (9:25a, 26, 27) or οἰκέτης (9:26b) of his brothers. When the brothers of Joseph come to Egypt to purchase food, they call themselves both παῖς (42:10, 11, 13, 18) and οἰκέτης (44:16b). 106

107 108

According to Wright, δοῦλος is a general word for “slave,” παῖς, a less general and more familiar word, for the same, οἰκέτης, “domestic or household slave,” and θεράπων, “personal attendant” (Wright, “Ebed/Doulos,” 89). See also Daniel, Vocabulaire, 103 and R.A. Kraft, “Approaches to Translation Greek Lexicography,” in Septuagintal Lexicography (rev. ed.; R.A. Kraft; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975), 36–37; A. van der Kooij, “Servant or Slave? The Various Equivalents of Hebrew ʿEbed in the Septuagint of the Pentateuch,” in XIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Ljubljana 2007 (ed. M.K.H. Peters; SCS 55; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 225–238. δουλεία (9 times) in the phrase ‫בית עבדים‬, ἄρχων (Num 22:18) and υἱός (Deut 32:43), etc. For a discussion of the infrequent use of δοῦλος in LXX-Pent, see ch. 2, pp. 33–36 above. The only possible exception may be found in the use of θεράπων for ‫עבד‬, referring to the servants of Pharaoh in LXX-Exod (21 times). The translator probably selected θεράπων to depict more dignified people, such as Pharaoh’s courtiers. However, in 11:8, the servants of Pharoah (MT ‫ )עבד‬were translated by παῖς, a word that frequently signifies a slave in the same book (Exod 20:10, 17; 21:2, 5, 20, 32).

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent table 63

111

‫( עבד‬noun) in LXX-Pent

Equivalents

Gen

Exod

θεράπων

50:17

23 occurrences 4:10; 5:21; 7:10, 20, 28, 29; 8:5, 7, 17, 20, 25, 27; 9:14, 20a, 30, 34; 10:1, 6, 7; 11:3; 12:30; 14:5, 31

δουλεία (in the phrase ‫)ֵבּית ֲﬠָב ִדים‬

Lev

Num

Deut

4 occurrences 11:11; 12:7, 8; 32:31

4 occurrences 3:24; 9:27; 29:1; 34:11

3 occurrences 13:3, 14; 20:2

6 occurrences 5:6; 6:12; 7:8; 8:14; 13:6, 11

παῖς

80 occurrences 9:25a, 26, 27; 12:6; 14:15; 18:3, 5; 19:2, 19; 20:8, 14; 21:25; 24:2, 5, 9, 10, 14, 17, 52, 34, 35, 53, 59, 61, 65a, b, 66; 26:15, 19, 25, 32; 30:43; 32:5, 6, 11, 17a, b, 19, 21; 33:5, 14; 39:17, 19; 40:20a, b; 41:10, 12, 37, 38; 42:10, 11, 13, 18; 43:28; 44:7, 9a, b, 10, 16a, 17, 18a, b, 19, 21, 23, 24, 27, 30, 31a, b, 32, 33a; 46:34; 47:3, 4a, b, 19, 25; 50:2, 7

8 occurrences 3 occurrences 5:16b; 11:8; 20:10, 25:6, 44a, 55b 17; 21:2, 5, 20, 32

οἰκέτης

5 occurrences 9:25b; 27:37; 44:16b, 33b; 50:18

6 occurrences 5:15, 16a; 12:44; 21:26, 27; 32:13

δοῦλος δούλη

6 occurrences 9 occurrences 14:24; 31:49; 5:14a, b, 21; 32:4, 5, 25, 27 12:12, 18; 16:11, 14; 23:16; 28:68

4 occurrences 25:39, 42a, b, 55a

8 occurrences 5:15; 6:21; 15:15, 17; 16:12; 24:18, 22; 34:5

2 occurrences 25:44b, 26:13

32:36

21:7

υἱός

32:43

ἄρχων

22:18

θεραπεία

45:16

No equiv.

26:24 (diff. text?)

2 occurrences 9:20b, 21

Total

88

43

9

11

29

112

chapter 3

A similar feature obtains in LXX-Exod when the foremen of the Israelites call themselves not only παῖς (5:16b) but also οἰκέτης (5:15, 16a) even within the same verse (v. 16). Likewise, in Lev 25:44 the foreign slaves are pictured as παῖς and δοῦλος, while in Lev 25:55 the people of Israel are described as the servants of God, once as παῖς and once as οἰκέτης. This variety also surfaces in Numbers. When the sons of Reuben and Gad swear in front of Moses to accompany the rest of the tribes across the Jordan River and designate themselves as Moses’s servants, θεράπων is the choice in 32:31, while παῖς appears in 32:4, 5, 25, 27. In Deuteronomy, Moses is a θεράπων in 3:24 and οἰκέτης in 34:5. Likewise, the people of Israel as servants/slaves of God/in Egypt is expressed by παῖς in 28:68, and οἰκέτης in 5:25, 6:21, 15:15, etc.109 These examples show how easily the translators moved among the various Greek synonyms in their rendering of ‫עבד‬.110 Zimmerli attempts to explain the principles that guided the translators in their delicate translation decisions when he states: One may discern a careful distinction between them. παῖς is used only for freer servants of the king (soldiers, ministers, officials) who by their own choice enter his service, … δοῦλος, on the other hand, is used for slavery proper.111 His proposal, however, is open to question: 1) The actual use of δοῦλος in LXX-Pent does not support his assertion. In Lev 25:44, the word refers to foreign slaves, a choice that reinforces Zimmerli’s claim. On the other hand, in Lev 26:13 and Deut 32:36, that word depicts the relation of the Israelite people to their God, which is not a relation of slavery.112 2) Zimmerli suggests that παῖς characterizes “freer servants of the king (soldiers, minister, officials) who by their own choice enter his service.” However, the translators’ repeated use of παῖς to represent chattels contradicts 109 110

111 112

υἱός in 32:43 probably reflects a variant (‫)בנים‬. A similar lack of pattern in the rendering of ‫ עבד‬is recognizable in LXX-Josh in ch. 9. In that chapter, παῖς is used eleven times for Moses and twice for the Givonites, who became the hewers of wood and drawers of water for the whole community. The translator also chose οἰκέτης once for Joshua and twice for the Givonites, while δοῦλος is used once for Joshua and once for the Givonites. The fact that he selected the same word to depict Joshua and the Givonites, a people whom Joshua cursed, implies that the translator did not consciously make any distinction. W. Zimmerli, “παῖς θεοῦ,” TDNT 5:674. For a detailed discussion, see Wright, “Ebed/Doulos,” 90–91.

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent

113

this suggestion (Gen 20:14; 39:17, 19; 41:12; Exod 20:10, 17; 21:2, 5, 20; Lev 25:6, 44; Deut 5:14, 21; 12:12, etc.). In addition, the bondage of the Israelite people is expressed by οἰκέτης (Exod 5:15, 16; Deut 5:15; 6:21; 15:15; 16:12; 24:18, 22), rather than by δοῦλος. 3) Zimmerli provides the following theological explanation for θεράπων: “In general it may be said that the relation of ‫ עבד‬by θεράπων, the most daring rendering, and the furthest removed from the Heb., fades from the picture.”113 Perhaps Zimmerli assumes that θεράπων is not an appropriate description of Moses (Exod 4:10; 14:31; Deut 3:24) as the servant of God, because of the connotation of that word with θεραπεία, “healing” or “household servants.” He emphasizes the theological meaning of “healing.”114 However, the use of θεράπων in LXX-Pent does not support Zimmerli’s opinion. In Num 32:31, θεράπων—‫עבד‬, referring to the sons of Reuben and Gad, has no connection with θεραπεία in the sense of “healing.” In addition, in Deut 9:27, θεράπων, referring to the patriarchal fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, does not have the slightest nuance of healing. Thackeray’s earlier theological explanation that differs from that of Zimmerli suggests that the rendering of ‫ עבד יהוה‬reflects a gradual change in the intimacy of the relationship between God and his servants.115 According to this scholar, θεράπων portrays a personal attendant who is close to God, δοῦλος pictures a bond-servant who is without a will of his own, while οἰκέτης and παῖς likely describe an intermediate status. However, his theological understanding of θεράπων is not convincing because in LXX-Exod the word is used especially with relation to the servants of Pharaoh (21 times),116 who could hardly have been described as intimate servants of the God of Israel. In short, there is no theological tendency in LXX-Pent because the evidence testifies that θεράπων is merely a synonym of παῖς or οἰκέτης.117 The predominance of παῖς in LXX-Gen in contrast to the other four books of the Pentateuch indicates that a different hand was likely at work in that book. In LXX-Gen, of the eighty-eight instances of ‫עבד‬, the translator rendered it eighty times (80/88 = 91%) with παῖς in order to represent the various types of slaves, while the translators of the remaining books in the Pentateuch used the Greek synonyms

113 114 115 116 117

W. Zimmerli, “παῖς θεοῦ,” TDNT 5:675. For a discussion of the theological tendency of TDNT, see J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967), 254. Thackeray, Grammar, 8. Exod 5:21; 7:10, 20, 28, 29; 8:5, 7, 17, 20, 25, 27; 9:14, 20a, 30, 34; 10:1, 6, 7; 11:3; 12:30; 14:5. Cf. Exod 11:8, where ‫עבד‬, referring to the servants of Pharaoh, is rendered by παῖς. Thus also Wright, “Ebed/Doulos,” 92–93.

114

chapter 3

interchangeably:118 Exodus, θεράπων (23 times), παῖς (8 times), οἰκέτης (6 times); Leviticus, παῖς (3 times), οἰκέτης (4 times), δοῦλος (twice); Numbers, θεράπων (4 times), παῖς (6 times); and Deuteronomy, θεράπων (4 times), παῖς (9 times), οἰκέτης (8 times). 21. ‫על־כן‬: Gen ≠ Exod, Lev, Num, Deut Within LXX-Pent, the phrase ‫על־כן‬,119 “therefore” is rendered by ἕνεκεν τούτου and the similar διὰ τοῦτο120 in different ways in Genesis and the other four books. table 64

‫ על־כן‬in LXX-Pent

Equivalents

Gen

Exod

Lev

Num

Deut

ἕνεκεν τούτου

5 occurrences 2:24; 16:14; 20:6; 32:33; 42:21

διὰ τοῦτο

13 occurrences 10:9; 11:9; 19:22; 21:31; 25:30; 26:33; 29:34, 35; 30:6; 31:48; 33:17; 47:22; 50:11

6 occurrences 5:8, 17; 13:15; 15:23; 16:29; 20:11

17:12

3 occurrences 18:24; 21:14, 27

7 occurrences 5:15; 10:9; 15:11, 15; 19:7; 24:18, 22

Total

18

6

1

3

7

In Genesis, ἕνεκεν τούτου (5 times) and διὰ τοῦτο (13 times) are used interchangeably, while in the other four books only διὰ τοῦτο occurs (Exodus: 6 times; Leviticus: once; Numbers: 3 times; Deuteronomy: 7 times). 22. ‫—ַﬠם‬γένος: Gen, Exod, Lev ≠ Num, Deut (two groups) In the Pentateuch, ‫( ַﬠם‬445 times) is translated mainly by λαός (363 times) and ἔθνος (50 times), and further by γένος (10 times) and other equivalents:

118 119

120

This point has been mentioned briefly in previous research: W. Zimmerli, “παῖς θεοῦ,” TDNT 5:673. For ‫כי־על־כן‬, οὗ εἵνεκεν is the main equivalent in the Pentateuch (Gen 18:5; 19:8; and 38:26; Num 10:31; 14:43). See also Gen 33:10 ἕνεκεν τούτου. See Wevers, Notes-Genesis, 226, 545. The spelling εἵνεκεν (Ionic and poetic) occurs in the Pentateuch only in this construction. See Thackeray, Grammar, 82. Wevers, op. cit., 226.

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent table 65

115

‫ ַﬠם‬in LXX-Pent

Equivalents

Gen

Exod

Lev

Num

Deut

λαός

20 occurrences 14:16; 19:4; 23:7, 12, 13; 25:8; 26:11; 32:8; 33:15; 34:22; 35:6; 41:40, 55; 42:6; 47:21; 48:19; 49:16, 29, 33; 50:20

159 occurrences 1:20, 22; 3:7, 10, 12, 21; 4:16, 21, 30, 31; 5:1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10b, 12, 16, 22, 23a, b; 6:7; 7:4, 14, 16, 26, 28, 29; 8:4a, b, 5, 7, 16, 17a, b, 18, 19a, b, 25a, b, 27, 28; 9:1, 7, 13, 14, 15, 17, 27; 10:3, 4; 11:2, 3a, 8; 12:27, 31, 33, 34, 36; 13:3, 17a, b, 18, 22; 14:5a, b, 6, 13, 31; 15:13, 16a, b, 24; 16:4, 27, 30; 17:1, 2, 3a, b, 4, 5, 6, 13; 18:1, 10, 13a, b, 14a, b, c, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 26; 19:7, 8a, b, 9a, b, 10, 11, 12, 14a, 15, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 25; 20:18a, b, 21; 22:27; 24:2, 3a, b, 7, 8; 30:33, 38; 31:14; 32:1a, b, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 17, 21, 22, 25, 28, 30, 31, 34, 35; 33:1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10a, b, 12, 13, 16a, b; 34:9, 10a, b; 36:5, 6

31 occurrences 4:3, 27; 7:20, 21, 25, 27; 9:7b, 15a, b, 18, 22, 23a, b, 24; 16:15, 24a, b; 17:4, 9, 10; 18:29; 19:8, 18; 20:3, 5, 6; 21:4, 15; 23:29, 30; 26:12

77 occurrences 5:21, 27; 9:13; 11:1, 2, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 21, 24a, b, 29, 32, 33a, b, 34, 35; 12:15, 16; 13:18, 30, 32; 14:1, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19a, 39; 15:26, 30; 17:6, 12a, b; 20:1, 3, 24; 21:2, 4, 5, 6a, b, c, 7a, b, 16, 23, 29, 33, 34, 35; 22:3, 5a, b, 6, 11, 12, 17, 41; 23:9, 24; 24:14b, c; 25:1, 2b, 4; 27:13; 31:2, 3; 33:14

77 occurrences 2:4, 16, 32, 33; 3:1, 2, 3, 28; 4:6b, 10, 20, 5:28; 7:6a, b; 9:2, 6, 12, 13a, b, 26, 27, 29; 10:11; 13:10; 14:2a, b, 21; 16:18; 17:7, 13, 16; 18:3; 20:1, 2, 5, 8, 9a, b, 11; 21:8a, b; 26:15, 18, 19; 27:9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26; 28:9; 29:12; 31:7, 12, 16; 32:6, 9, 36, 43a, b, 44, 50a, b; 33:3, 5, 7, 21, 29

ἔθνος

5 occurrences 17:16; 27:29; 28:3; 48:4; 49:10

7 occurrences 1:9a; 15:14; 19:5; 21:8; 23:11, 27; 33:16c

5 occurrences 19:16; 20:2, 24, 26; 21:1

3 occurrences 13:28, 31; 21:18

29 occurrences 1:28; 2:10, 21, 25; 4:6a, 19, 27, 33; 6:14; 7:6c, 7a, b, 14, 16, 19; 10:15; 13:8; 14:2c; 20:16; 28:10, 32, 33, 37, 64; 30:3; 32:8, 21; 33:17, 19

γένος

6 occurrences 1:9b 11:6; 17:14; 25:17; 26:10; 34:16; 35:29

πολίτης

23:11

Αἰγύπτιος*

47:23

ἀδελφός

*22:24

3 occurrences 20:17, 18; 21:14

116

chapter 3

Table 65 Equivalents

Gen

‫ ַﬠם‬in LXX-Pent (cont.) Exod

Lev

οἶκος

*9:7a121

συναγωγή

*10:3

αὐτόχθονες

*20:4

Num

*32:15

τόπος

*24:14a122

ὄχλος

*20:20

ἀνήρ

*31:32

pronoun

2 occurrences 19:14b; 20:20

No equiv.

5 occurrences 5:10a; 11:3b; *18:25; *32:9a, *b

16:33

175

43

Total

33

Deut

3 occurrences 11:10; 14:19b; 25:2a 27:1

87

107

* textual problem.

The use of γένος as a translation of ‫ ַﬠם‬in Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus is distinct from the other two books of LXX-Pent. The main translations of ‫עם‬ are λαός and ἔθνος, while ‫ עם‬is rendered by γένος in Genesis six times, Exodus once, and Leviticus three times; this rendition does not occur in Numbers and Deuteronomy. However, when the translators chose γένος and not one of the main renderings, they likely did not have a special nuance in mind. Thus, in Genesis, “the people of Abimelech” is expressed by either γένος (26:10) or λαός (26:11); in Exodus, “the people of Israel” by γένος (1:9) as well as by λαός (Exod 1:20); and in Leviticus, as with λαός (19:8) and ἔθνος (19:16), γένος represents “the people of Israel” (20:17, 18; 21:14).123 The use of γένος in Genesis could reflect a general preference for this word regardless of its Hebrew source as this translator used γένος twenty-six times, mainly for ‫ מין‬and ‫( עם‬23 times).

121 122 123

Harmonizing change influenced by Lev 16:6 or a different Hebrew Vorlage. Harmonizing change influenced by Num 24:25. For a discussion of the theological distinction between the Greek words, see ch. 3, 33. λαός/ἔθνος below.

117

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent table 66

γένος in LXX-Pent

Equivalent

Gen

Exod

‫מין‬

17 occurrences 1:11b, 12a, b, 21a, b, 24a, b, 25a, b, c; 6:20a, b, c; 7:14a, b, c, d

‫משפחה‬

8:19

‫עם‬

6 occurrences 1:9 11:6; 17:4; 25:17; 26:10; 34:16; 35:29

Lev

Num Deut

3 occurrences 20:17, 18; 21:14 21:17

‫זרע‬ ‫?מאכל‬124

40:17

No equiv.

1:11

5:14

21:13

Total

26

2

5

0

0

23. (‫ערבה )ערבות‬: Num ≠ Deut In the Pentateuch, ‫( ערבה‬plural: ‫ )ערבות‬only appears as a toponym in Numbers (9 times) and in Deuteronomy (10 times). Arabah in the singular refers to the long Jordan Valley (Deut 3:17) from the Kineret to the Gulf of Aqaba near Eilat, Etzion Gever, and surrounding areas.125 On other occasions, it is linked with the Dead Sea, which is called “the Arabah Sea” (Deut 3:17; 4:49). This area includes both the entire eastern side of the Jordan Valley (Deut 1:1, 7; 4:49), the site where Moses last spoke to the Israelite people, and the western side and environs (Deut 11:30). The area also encompasses the extensive wilderness in southern Jordan (Deut 2:8). The plural form of Arabah, ‫ערבות‬, which always appears with ‫ מואב‬in the Pentateuch (‫ערבות מואב‬, “the Plains of Moab”), signifies a region on the east 124 125

Textual problem. D.R. Seely defines the border of the Arabah as follows: “It [Arabah] can be divided into three distinct areas: the Jordan Valley, extending from the Sea of Chinereth, including both sides of the Jordan River to the Dead Sea; the region of the Dead Sea itself, including the desert wasteland on either side; and the modern Wadi el Arabath, which designates the region running from the southern end of the Dead Sea, slightly W[est] and S[outh] to the Gulf of Aqaba.” (D.R. Seely, “Arabah,” ABD 1:322). See also Y. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1979), 35–36, 41.

118

chapter 3

side of the Jordan Valley. The location is described more precisely as ‫ערבות מואב‬ ‫מעבר לירדן ירחו‬,126 “the Plains of Moab, beyond Jordan from Jericho.” It was here that the Israelites camped for the last time before crossing the Jordan into the land of Canaan (Num 22:1; 33:48–50; 35:1; 36:13) and this place was the setting for the final words of Moses (Numbers 32–36). This territory is situated near Mount Nebo (Deut 34:1, 8). Although the biblical writers usually refer to this more limited locale as ‫ערבות מואב‬, sometimes they also describe it using the broader designation of Arabah, especially in Deut 1:1, 7. The translations of ‫ ערבה‬and ‫ ערבות‬in LXX-Num and LXX-Deut show remarkable differences. In Numbers, etymological interpretation prevailed, while transliteration is preferred in Deuteronomy. table 67

‫ערבות‬/‫ ערבה‬in Numbers and Deuteronomy

Equivalents

Num

Deut

δυσμή

6 occurrences 22:1; 33:48, 49, 50; 35:1; 36:13

2 occurrences 1:1; 11:30

Ἀραβώθ/Ἀραβά 3 occurrences 26:3, 63; 31:12

8 occurrences 1:7; 2:8; 3:17a, b; 4:49a, b; 34:1, 8

Total

10

9

While the translator of Numbers sometimes transliterated ‫ ערבות‬with Ἀραβώθ (3 times), more frequently he rendered δυσμή, “west” (6 times) based on ‫מערב‬, “west.”127 On the other hand, in LXX-Deut, ‫ ערבה‬or ‫ ערבות‬was usually transliterated as Ἀραβά or Ἀραβώθ (8/10), while in 1:1128 and 11:30 the translator opted for

126 127

128

Num 22:1; 26:3, 63; 31:12; 33:48, 49, 50; 35:1; 36:13. At the first appearance of the Hebrew word in 22:1, the translator chose δυσμή but in the following three occurrences (26:3, 63; 31:12) he shifted to transliteration. However, for no apparent reason, he returned to his initial choice of δυσμήᾳ from 33:48 until the last occurrences of ‫ ערבה‬in the book (33:48, 49, 50; 35:1; and 36:13). Wevers notes that this rendering reflects a different reading of the unvocalized text from that of the Masoretes and another nuance of the same root ‫ער״ב‬, “sunset.” This understanding might have prompted the translator to take ‫ ערבות‬as “west” (Wevers, Notes-Numbers, 360; Wevers, Notes-Deuteronomy, 203). For a similar interpretation of the issue, see M. Harl, M. Alexandre, and C.E.A. Dogniez, La Bible d’Alexandrie I. La Genèse (Paris: Cerf, 1986), 65. In Deut 1:1, the translator was possibly confused about the location of ‫ ערבה‬because of the names of the surrounding places:

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent

119

δυσμή, possibly on the basis of the context. In Deut 11:30, when he attempted to resolve a geographical discrepancy, the translator deviated from his usual strategy of transliteration. The text mentions the location of two important mountains, Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal, on which the Israelites were supposed to proclaim blessings and curses. Deut 11:30 MT ‫ְבֶּא ֶרץ ַהְכּ ַנֲﬠ ִני ַהיֵֹּשׁב ָבֲּﬠ ָרָבה מוּל ַה ִגְּל ָגּל‬ LXX ἐν γῇ Χανααν τὸ κατοικοῦν ἐπὶ δυσμῶν ἐχόμενον τοῦ Γολγολ 24. ‫ֶפּן‬: Gen, Exod ≠ Deut ‫פן‬, “lest,” expressing apprehension or precaution,129 was rendered in various ways in LXX-Pent, mainly μήποτε and μή (with the subjunctive): table 68

‫ פן‬in LXX-Pent

Rendering Gen

Exod

Lev

ἵνα μή

4 occurrences 3:3; 19:15; 44:34; 45:11

3 occurrences 23:9, 33; 33:3

10:7

μήποτε

10 occurrences 3:22; 19:17; 26:7, 9; 31:24, 31; 32:12; 38:11, 23; 42:4

9 occurrences 1:10; 5:3; 13:17; 19:21, 22, 24; 20:19; 34:12a, 15

129

Num

Deut 5 occurrences 7:22; 19:6; 22:9; 32:27a, b

16:34

Deut 1:1 MT ‫תֶּפל ְוָלָבן ַוֲחֵצר ֹת ְו ִדי ָזָהב‬ ֹ ‫בֲּﬠ ָרָבה מוֹל סוּף ֵבּין־ָפּא ָרן וֵּבין־‬ LXX πρὸς δυσμαῖς πλησίον τῆς ἐρυθρᾶς ἀνὰ μέσον Φαραν Τοφολ καὶ Λοβον καὶ Αυλων καὶ Καταχρύσεα While none of these names can be identified with certainty, D.L. Christensen mentions some possible locations: “Suf (Khirbet Sufe), Laban (Khirbet el-Libben), Hazeroth (‘encampments’), and Dizahab (ed-Dhebe).” See D.L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 1–11 (WBC 6A; Dallas: Word, 1991), 7. Names such as Paran, reminiscent of the wilderness of Paran, located in the southern Negev area, and Suf, reminiscent of ‫ים סוף‬, the Red Sea, probably puzzled the translator. See Y. Aharoni and M. Avi-Yonah, The Macmillan Bible Atlas (New York: MacMillan, 1968), 40–42, esp. maps 48, 52. The following verse, which mentions Mount Horeb and Kadesh Barnea, could have directed the translator to place the location of ‫ערבה‬ somewhere in the southern part of the Negev. In this context of geographical confusion, the translator may have turned to an etymological interpretation of ‫ ערבה‬as “west,” from ‫מערב‬. See Gesenius–Kautzsch, Grammar, 482.

120

chapter 3

Table 68

‫ פן‬in LXX-Pent (cont.)

Rendering Gen

Exod

μή

2 occurrences 19:19; 24:6

34:12b

πρό

11:4

Lev

εἰ δὲ μή

Num

Deut

16:26

21 occurrences 4:9a, b, 16, 19, 23; 6:12, 15; 7:25; 8:11, 12; 9:28; 11:16; 12:13, 19, 30a; 15:9; 20:5, 6, 7; 29:17a, b

20:18

οὐ μή

12:30b

ἐὰν δέ

25:3

Total

17

13

1

3

28

The translators of Genesis (10/17 = 58.8%) and Exodus (9/13 = 69.2 %) preferred μήποτε, while the translator of Deuteronomy preferred μή (21/28 = 75%). Furthermore, μήποτε was used frequently in Genesis (19 times) for several Hebrew equivalents as well as in Exodus (10 times), but not at all in Deuteronomy. table 69

μήποτε in LXX-Pent

Equivalents

Gen

Exod

‫פן‬

10 occurrences 3:22; 19:17; 26:7, 9; 31:24, 31; 32:12; 38:11, 23; 42:4

9 occurrences 1:10; 5:3; 13:17; 19:21, 22, 24; 20:19; 34:12, 15

‫אולי‬

4 occurrences 24:5, 39; 27:12; 43:12

‫למה‬

27:45

‫לא‬

47:18

‫לוּ‬

50:15

Lev

Num

Deut

16:34

32:12

No Heb. equiv. 2 occurrences 20:2, 31:29 Total

19

10

0

1

0

121

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent

25. ‫צוה‬: Gen, Lev, Deut ≠ Exod, Num The synonymous verbs ἐντέλλομαι and συντάσσω are the two main equivalents of ‫( צוה‬piel/pual) in LXX-Pent. Both Greek words are semantically close (“to instruct,” “to give orders”), and are used interchangeably in the LXX:130 table 70

‫ צוה‬in LXX-Pent

Equivalents

Gen

Exod

Lev

Num

Deut

ἐντέλλομαι

18 occurrences 2:16; 3:11, 17; 6:22; 7:5, 9, 16; 12:20; 21:4; 27:8; 28:1, 6; 32:5, 18, 20; 42:25; 44:1; 45:19

17 occurrences 4:28; 7:2, 6, 10, 20; 12:28, 50; 23:15, 22; 29:35; 31:11; 32:8; 34:11, 18, 32, 34; 40:16

16 occurrences 6:2; 7:36, 38a, b; 8:5, 21, 29, 34, 35; 9:5, 7, 10; 10:13; 17:2; 24:2; 27:34

18 occurrences 1:54; 2:33; 3:42; 8:20; 9:8; 27:19, 22; 28:2; 30:1, 17; 31:7; 32:25; 34:2, 13a, 29; 36:2a, 5, 13

82 occurrences 1:3, 16, 18, 19, 41; 2:4, 37; 3:18, 21, 28; 4:2a, b, 5, 13, 14, 40; 5:12, 16, 31, 33; 6:1, 2, 6, 17, 20, 24, 25, 7:11; 8:1,11; 9:12, 16; 10:5, 13; 11:8, 13, 22, 27, 28; 12:11, 14, 21, 28; 13:1, 6, 19; 15:5, 11, 15; 18:18; 19:7, 9; 20:17; 24:8, 18, 22; 26:13, 14, 16; 27:1b, 4, 10, 11; 28:1, 13, 14, 15, 45, 69; 30:2, 8, 11, 16; 31:5, 10, 14, 23, 25, 29; 32:46; 33:4, 9

συντάσσω

2 occurrences 18:19; 26:11

33 occurrences 1:22; 5:6; 6:13; 16:16, 24, 32, 34; 19:7; 27:20; 31:6; 34:4; 35:4, 10, 29; 36:1, 5; 38:22; 39:1 [36:8], 5, 7, 21 (36:28), 26 [36:33], 29 [36:36], 31 [36:38], 32 [39:10], 42 [22], 43 [23]; 40:19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 32

12 occurrences 8:4, 9, 13, 17, 31, 36; 9:21; 10:15, 18; 13:54; 16:34; 24:23

28 occurrences 3 occurrences 1:19; 2:34; 4:23; 5:15; 17:3 3:16, 51; 4:49; 8:3, 22; 9:5; 15:23a, b, 36; 17:26; 19:2; 20:9, 27; 26:4; 27:11, 23; 30:2; 31:21, 31, 41, 47; 34:13b; 35:2; 36:2b, 6, 10

130

For the semantic domains of these words, see J.A.L. Lee, “A Lexical Study Thirty Years On, with Observations on ‘Order’ Words in the LXX Pentateuch,” in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (ed. S.M. Paul et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 517–520. According to Lee, “ἐντέλλομαι, προστάσσω and συντάσσω are more for-

122

chapter 3

Table 70

‫ צוה‬in LXX-Pent (cont.)

Equivalents

Gen

Exod

Lev

Num

Deut

προστάσσω

47:11; 50:2

36:6

5 occurrences 10:1; 14:4, 5, 36, 40

5:2

2 occurrences 18:20; 27:1a

κατισχύω

18:23

εἰπὸν

49:29

ἐπιτάσσω

49:33

παραγίνομαι

50:16a

ὁρκίζω

50:16b

35:1

ἀποστέλλω

9:6

25:21

συνίστημι

28:8 32:28

No equiv.

50:12

40:29

Total

27

54

35

48

88

Gen 2:16 MT ‫מֶשׁה‬ ֹ ‫ַכֲּאֶשׁר ִצ ָּוה ְיה ָוה ֶאת־‬ LXX καὶ ἐνετείλατο κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῷ Αδαμ λέγων Num 27:11 MT ‫מֶשׁה‬ ֹ ‫ַכֲּאֶשׁר ִצ ָּוה ְיה ָוה ֶאת־‬ LXX καθὰ συνέταξεν κύριος τῷ Μωυσῇ Each translator displayed a preference in the choice of equivalents. ἐντέλλομαι is the dominant equivalent in Genesis (18/27 = 66.6 %), Leviticus (16/35 = 45.7%), and Deuteronomy (82/88 = 93.2%), while συντάσσω is preferred in Exodus (33/54 = 61%) and Numbers (28/48 = 58.3 %). The statistical relation between ἐντέλλομαι and συντάσσω shows a clear partition line in LXX-Pent: Genesis: 18—2; Leviticus: 16—12; and Deuteronomy: 82—2 vs. Exod: 17—33 and Numbers: 18—28. mal and official-sounding than κελεύω” (Lee, “Order,” 520). For the ideological differences between these verbs, see ch. 3, 32. ἐντέλλομαι/συντάσσω.

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent

123

Both verbs are construed with the dative for the object of the command131 without regard to the Hebrew constructions (‫על‬, ‫ל‬, ‫את‬, ‫אל‬, or pronominal suffix, e.g., ‫)צויתיך‬. For example: Gen 3:11 MT ‫אֶשׁר ִצ ִוּיִתיָך ְלִבְלִתּי ֲאָכל־ִמֶמּנּוּ ָאָכְלָתּ‬ LXX οὗ ἐνετειλάμην σοι τούτου μόνου μὴ φαγεῖν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἔφαγες Exod 16:34 MT ‫מֶשׁה‬ ֹ ‫ַכֲּאֶשׁר ִצ ָוּה ְיה ָוה ֶאל־‬ LXX ὃν τρόπον συνέταξεν κύριος τῷ Μωυση Lev 6:2 [6:9] MT ‫מר‬ ֹ ‫ַצו ֶאת־ַאֲהר ֹן ְוֶאת־ָבּ ָניו ֵלא‬ LXX ἔντειλαι Ααρων καὶ τοῖς υἱοῖς αὐτοῦ λέγων Deut 33:4 MT ‫מֶשׁה‬ ֹ ‫תּוֹ ָרה ִצ ָוּה־ָלנוּ‬ LXX νόμον ὃν ἐνετείλατο ἡμῖν Μωυσῆς In the case syntax of these verbs, the translators of LXX-Pent had more regard for the requirements of the Greek language than for the differences between the Hebrew constructions, with very few exceptions.132 table 71

Case syntax of ἐντέλλομαι (occurrences)

Renderings

Gen

Exod

Lev

Num

Deut

with dative

‫( על‬2) ‫( את‬9)

‫( את‬6)

‫( את‬8)

‫( את‬13)

‫( ל‬1) ‫( את‬32)

pron. suf. (4)

pron. suf. (8)

131 132

pron. suf. (45)

Helbing, Kasussyntax, 205. περί + genitive = ‫על‬, Gen 12:20; περί + genitive = ‫את‬, Num 27:19; περί + genitive = ‫ל‬, Num 9:8; πρός + accusative = ‫אל‬, Num 15:23; περί + genitive = ‫את‬, Deut 1:3; accusative = Num 27:23. Cf. Helbing, Kasussyntax, 205–206.

124

chapter 3

Table 71

Case syntax of ἐντέλλομαι (occurrences) (cont.)

Renderings

Gen

περί + genitive

‫( על‬1)

Exod

Lev

Num

Deut

‫( את‬1) ‫( ל‬1)

(1)133

πρός + accusative

‫( את‬1)

No object in Hebrew or no equivalent in Greek

(2)

(3)

(8)

(3)

(3)

Total

18

17 (18)

16

18

82

table 72

Case syntax of συντάσσω (occurrences)

Renderings

Gen

Exod

Lev

Num

with dative

‫( את‬2)

‫( את‬20) ‫( ל‬1) ‫( אל‬1)

‫( את‬6)

‫( את‬21)

pron.suf. (3)

pron. suf. (1)

πρός + accusative

(1)

accusative

(1)134

No object in Hebrew or no equivalent in Greek Total

2

Deut

(8)

(6)

(5)

(2)

33

12

28

3

26. ‫צפור‬: Lev ≠ Gen, Deut The onomatopoeic word ‫צפור‬135 is translated in LXX-Pent mainly by ὄρνεον, “bird” or ὀρνίθιον, “small bird.” ὄρνεον is the most common equivalent for ‫ צפור‬in

133 134 135

Exod 12:50b πρὸς αὐτούς, not in MT. Num 15:23 has two instances of πρὸς ὑμᾶς. The second one has no basis in MT. ‫ צפור‬is related to the chirping sound of a bird (J.E. Hartley, “‫ִצפּוֹר‬,” TWOT 2:775; Hartley, Leviticus, 178).

125

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent

all of the LXX (20/30),136 while ὀρνίθιον is used exclusively in Leviticus (13 times). In LXX-Pent, ὄρνεον is used in Genesis (once) and Deuteronomy (3 times), and ὀρνίθιον in Leviticus (13 times). table 73

‫ צפור‬in LXX-Pent

Equivalents Gen ὄρνεον

Exod

Lev

Num

15:10

Deut 3 occurrences 4:17; 14:11; 22:6

ὀρνίθιον

13 occurrences 14:4, 5, 6a, b, c, 7, 49, 50, 51a, b, 52a, b, 53

No equiv.

7:14

Total

2

0

13

0

3

In Leviticus, ὀρνίθιον is used in a single chapter, referring to the ritually clean birds. The same type of bird was rendered in Deuteronomy by ὄρνεον (14:11). 27. ‫ראש‬: Gen ≠ Exod, Num, Deut; Num ≠ Deut ‫ראש‬, whose primary meaning is “head,” occurs in several senses in the Penta-

teuch: (1) “head,” i.e., part of the body of human beings or animals (Gen 3:15; 47:31; Exod 12:9; Lev 4:4; 13:2; Num 5:18; 8:12; Deut 21:12, etc.); (2) “beginning” (Gen 2:10; 40:13; Exod 12:2, etc.); (3) “top or summit of mountains/hills” (Gen 8:5; Exod 34:2; Num 20:28; 21:20; Deut 3:27, etc.); (4) “leader, chief, head of a tribe or family” (Exod 6:14; Num 13:3; 25:4; Deut 1:13; 20:9, etc.); (5) “a unit of counting in a census” (Exod 30:12; Num 1:2, 49; 4:22; 26:2; 31:26, 49, etc.); (6) “best, foremost” (Exod 30:23); (7) “principal, full” (Lev 5:24; Num 5:7); and (8) “capital,” a structure of the tabernacle (Exod 26:24; 36:38, etc.). Though κεφαλή is the most common equivalent of ‫ ראש‬in LXX-Pent (78/145), and though it has, like ‫ראש‬, various meanings such as “head,” “top,” “end,” “the point of departure,” “prominent,” and “head of society,”137 the translators often 136

137

Apart from the Pentateuch, ὄρνεον is used most frequently for ‫( צפור‬Prov 6:5; 7:23; 26:2; 27:8; Eccl 9:12; Job 40:29; Hos 11:11; Amos 3:5; Isa 31:5; Ezek 17:23; 39:4, 17; Dan 4:9, 11, 18, 30). It also renders ‫ עוף‬in Hos 9:11 and ‫ קאת‬in Isa 34:11. See T. Muraoka, “Septuagintal Lexicography: Some General Issues,” in Melbourne Sympo-

126

chapter 3

strove to render ‫ ראש‬contextually. Thus, the translator of Exodus used eight different Greek words for seven different meanings of ‫ראש‬. In this section, therefore, consistency in translation cannot be applied automatically as a criterion for distinguishing between translation units. At the same time, differences are recognizable in two areas: 1) When ‫ ראש‬is used as “top of a mountain/hill, extreme point,” as in ‫אנכי נצב‬ ‫על־ראש הגבעה‬/καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἕστηκα ἐπὶ τῆς κορυφῆς τοῦ βουνοῦ (Exod 17:9), Genesis differs from Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Of the four instances of ‫ ראש‬with this sense in Genesis, the translator selected κεφαλή three times (8:5, 11:4, 28:12) and ἄκρος, “summit” once (28:18). At the same time, in the other books, it was rendered almost always by κορυφή, “top of a mountain”: Exodus (5/6);138 Numbers, (7/7);139 Deuteronomy (3/3).140 2) In LXX-Deut, the translation of ‫ראש‬, “leader, chief, head of a tribe or family” is very nuanced, involving six different equivalents: κεφαλή (28:13, 44); ἀρχηγός (33:21); ἄρχων (33:5); ἡγέομαι (1:13, 15b, 5:23); προηγέομαι (20:9); and ἀρχίφυλος (29:9). table 74

‫ ראש‬in LXX-Pent

Equivalents Gen

Exod

κεφαλή

15 occurrences 9 occurrences (1) 3:15; 28:18a; (1) 12:9; 29:6, 7, 40:16, 17, 19; 10, 15, 17, 19 48:14a, b, 17a, b, c, 18; 49:26 (3) 8:5; 11:4; 28:12

ἀρχή

(2) 2:10; 40:13, 20a, b

(2) 12:2

ἄκρος

(1) 47:31 (3) 28:18b

(3) 34:2

ἀρχηγός

(4) 6:14, 25

138 139 140

Lev

Num

39 occurrences 9 occurrences (1) 1:4, 8, 12, 15; 3:2, 8, (1) 5:18; 6:5a, b, 7, 13; 4:4, 11, 15, 24, 29, 33; 9a, b, 11, 18a; 8:12 5:8; 8:9, 12, 14, 18, 20, 22; 9:13; 10:6; 13:12, 29, 30, 40, 41, 44, 45; 14:9, 18, 29; 16:21a, b; 19:27; 21:5, 10a, b; 24:14

Deut 6 occurrences (1) 21:12; 28:23; 32:42; 33:16 (4) 28:13, 44

(5) 1:2; 4:22; 26:2

(4) 13:3; 14:4; 25:4

(4) 33:21

sium on Septuagint Lexicography (ed. T. Muraoka; SCS 28; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 28 and H. Schlier, “κεφαλή, ἀνακεφαλαιόομαι,” TDNT 3:673–674. Exod 17:9, 10; 19:20a, b; 24:17; the only exception occurs in 34:2. Num 14:40, 44; 20:28; 21:20; 23:9, 14, 28. Deut 3:27; 33:15; 34:1.

127

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent ‫ ראש‬in LXX-Pent (cont.)

Table 74

Equivalents Gen

Exod

κορυφή

5 occurrences (3) 17:9, 10; 19:20a, b; 24:17

κεφαλίς

5 occurrences (8) 26:24; 36:38; 38:17 [37:15], 19, 28 (39:5)

συλλογισμός

(5) 30:12

ἄνθος

(6) 30:23

κεφάλαιον

Lev

Num

Deut

7 occurrences (3) 3:27; 33:15; (3) 14:40, 44; 20:28; 34:1 21:20; 23:9, 14, 28

(7) 5:24

(5) 4:2; 31:26a, 49 (7) 5:7

ἄρχων

10 occurrences (4) 33:5 (4) 1:4, 16; 7:2; 10:4; 25:15; 30:2; 31:26b; 32:28; 36:1a, b

ἀριθμός

(5) 1:49

ἡγέομαι

(4) 1:13, 15b; 5:23

προηγέομαι

(4) 20:9

Part of compound word No equiv. *textual problem Total

18:25; 28:32; *36:29 21

26

40

(2) 10:10 (νεο-); 28:11 (νεο-)

(4) 29:9 (ἀρχί-)

*6:18b; 17:18

1:15a

41

17

* The numbers in parentheses denote the meaning of ‫ראש‬: (1) “head” (of human being, animal); (2) “beginning”; (3) “top” (of mountain, hill), “extreme point”; (4) “leader, chief, head of a tribe or family”; (5) unit of counting in a census; (6) “best”; (7) “principal, full”; (8) “capital.”

The translator’s versatile style is quite distinct from the lack of variation in Numbers, in which this meaning of ‫ ראש‬appears more frequently than in Deuteronomy. The translator of Numbers opted for only two equivalents, ἄρχων (10/13) and ἀρχηγός (3/13).

128

chapter 3

28. ‫( שקל‬noun): Exod ≠ Lev ≠ Num The common unit of weight in the Hebrew Bible, ‫שקל‬,141 is rendered mainly by δίδραχμον (19/63) and σίκλος (40/63) in LXX-Pent. Both Greek words were common at the time of the translation of LXX-Pent. The δίδραχμον (two-drachma coin) was used from the fifth century onwards142 and was equivalent to a shekel. Thus, the tax imposed on every male was half a δίδραχμον (Exod 30:13, etc.). In New Testament times, it was used as a special term for the temple tax rather than a coin (Matt 17:24).143 σίκλος was likewise used from early times.144 The word itself was a loanword from Hebrew,145 and at the time of the translation was chosen as a natural equivalent for ‫שקל‬. table 75

‫( שקל‬noun) in LXX-Pent

Equivalents

Gen

Exod

Lev

Num

δίδραχμον

2 occurrences 23:15, 16

6 occurrences 21:32; 30:13a, b, c, d, 15

10 occurrences 27:3a, 4, 5a, b, 6a, b, 7a, b, 16, 25b

3:47b

7 occurrences 30:24; 38:24 (39:1)a, b, 25 (39:2)a, 26 (39:3)a, b, 29 (39:6)

5:15a, b

31 occurrences 3:47a, c, 50; 7:13a, b, 19a, b, 25a, b, 31a, b, 37a, b, 43a, b, 49a, b, 55a, b, 61a, b, 67a, b, 73a, b, 79a, b, 85; 18:16a, b; 31:52

σίκλος

σταθμός

Deut

27:3b, 25a

No equiv. Total

38:25b 2

141

142 143 144 145

14

7:86 14

33

0

Three different shekels are used in Hebrew Scripture: 1) the sanctuary shekel (Lev 27:25, etc.) weighing about 10 grams; 2) the merchant’s shekel (Gen 23:16, etc.) weighing about 11.5 grams; 3) the royal shekel (2Sam 14:26, etc.) weighing 13 grams (see J.E. Shepherd, “‫ֶשֶׁקל‬,”NIDOTTE 4:237–238; H.J. Austel, “‫ֶשֶׁקל‬,” TWOT 2:953–954; M.A. Powell, “Weights and Measures,” ABD 6:907). See Aristoteles, Αθηναίων πολιτεία 10.7 (fourth century BCE); see, further, Wevers, NotesExodus, 495. See Louw–Nida, Semantic Domains, 1:57.181. In the New Testament, the currency unit in use was a δηνάριον, which is approximately equivalent to a δραχμή. See Xenophon, Anab. 1.5.6 (fifth/fourth century BCE). For details, see Tov, “Loan-Words,” 216–223, and Walters, Text, 164–165.

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent

129

In the rendering of ‫שקל‬, a noticeable distinction is recognizable among the translators of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. Exodus uses δίδραχμον (6 times) and σίκλος (7 times) interchangeably; Leviticus prefers δίδραχμον (10/14) and Numbers prefers σίκλος (31/33). As a result, ‫בשקל הקדש‬, “according to the shekel of the sanctuary” is rendered differently in these three books involving different lexical choices and prepositions. Exodus shows a variety (four different renderings or no rendering), Leviticus consistently employs the dative (3 times), and Numbers employs a preposition, mainly κατά (15/16). table 76

Exod

Lev

Num

‫ בשקל הקדש‬in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers

ὅ ἐστιν κατὰ τὸ δίδραχμον τὸ ἅγιον σίκλους τοῦ ἁγίου κατὰ τὸν σίκλον τὸν ἅγιον No equiv. τῷ σίκλῳ τῶν ἁγίων τῷ σταθμῷ τῷ ἁγίῳ σταθμίοις ἁγίοις κατὰ τὸ δίδραχμον τὸ ἅγιον κατὰ τὸν σίκλον τὸν ἅγιον ἐν τῷ σίκλῳ τῷ ἁγίῳ

30:13 30:24 38:24, 26 [39:1, 3] 38:25 5:15 27:3 27:25 3:47 3:50; 7:13, 19, 25, 31, 37, 43, 49, 55, 61, 67, 73, 79; 18:16 7:85

29. φάγομαι/ἔδομαι: Exod ≠ Gen, Lev, Num, Deut The use of the indicative future forms of ἐσθίω, φάγομαι and ἔδομαι, serves as a criterion for distinguishing between translators.146 The use of these forms is apparently mainly a matter of preference and is, at times, interchangeable within the verse.147 146

147

Huber, Leviticus, 98. Thackeray and Huber claimed that two translators were involved in the translation of LXX-Lev while Aejmelaeus, Parataxis believed that only one translator was involved. See H.St.J. Thackeray, “The Bisection of Books in Primitive Septuagint MSS,” JTS 9 (1908): 88–98 and Huber, Leviticus, 95–98. For more discussion, see A. Voitila, “Leviticus,” in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint (ed. J.K. Aitken; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 44–45. Exod 12:8 MT ‫ואכלו את־הבשר בלילה הזה צלי־אש ומצות על־מררים יאכלהו‬ LXX καὶ φάγονται τὰ κρέα τῇ νυκτὶ ταύτῃ ὀπτὰ πυρὶ καὶ ἄζυμα ἐπὶ πικρίδων ἔδονται

130

chapter 3

table 77 Gloss

Gen

φάγομαι

Two indicative future medium forms of ἐσθίω in LXX-Pent Exod

Lev

Num

Deut

15 occurrences 6 occurrences 2:16, 17; 3:2, 3, 12:8a, 11a, 15b, 19, 14, 17, 18, 19; 44; 34:18 9:4; 18:5;148 27:10, 25; 40:19; 43:16; 45:18

45 occurrences 6:22; 7:19; 8:31a, b; 10:12, 13, 14, 18, 19; 11:2, 3, 4, 8, 9a, b, 21, 22, 42; 17:12a, b, 14, 15; 19:25; 21:22; 22:7, 8, 10a, b, 11a, b, 12, 13a, b; 23:14; 24:9; 25:12, 19, 20, 22a, b; 26:5, 10, 26, 29a, b

11 occurrences 6:3, 4; 9:11; 11:18a, b, 19, 20,149 21; 18:10a, b; 23:24

52 occurrences 2:6, 28; 7:16; 8:9, 10; 12:7, 15a, b, 16, 18, 20a, c, 21, 22b, 24, 25, 27; 14:3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9a, b, 10, 11, 12, 19, 20, 21a, b, 23, 26, 29; 15:20, 22a, 23; 16:3a, b, 7, 8; 18:1, 8; 20:14, 19; 23:25 [26]; 26:12; 27:7; 28:31, 33, 53; 31:20

ἔδομαι

2 occurrences 6:21; 49:27

20 occurrences 12:8b, 9, 11b, 15a, 18, 20a, b, 43, 45, 48; 13:6, 7; 16:12; 22:30; 23:11a, b, 15; 29:32, 33a, b

14 occurrences 5 occurrences 3:17; 6:9a, b, 11, 19; 18:11, 13, 31; 7:6a, b, 23, 26; 11:11; 24:8; 28:17 22:4, 6; 23:6; 26:16

2 occurrences 12:22c; 15:22b150

Total

17

26

59

54

16

φάγομαι is preferred to ἔδομαι in Genesis (15/2), Leviticus (45/14), Numbers (11/5), and especially Deuteronomy (52/2). Exodus displays the opposite trend in preferring ἔδομαι to φάγομαι (20/6). Most likely this phenomenon should be attributed to translators rather than scribes.151 2.2

Syntactical Criteria

30. Waw-Coordinating Clauses The frequency of the use of a particular Greek particle for a waw-coordinating clause has been used in the past as a criterion for characterizing individual

148 149 150 151

Deut 12:22 MT ‫אך כאשר יאכל את־הצבי ואת־האיל כן תאכלנו הטמא והטהור יחדו יאכלנו‬ LXX ὡς ἔσθεται ἡ δορκὰς καὶ ἡ ἔλαφος οὕτως φάγῃ αὐτό ὁ ἀκάθαρτος ἐν σοὶ καὶ ὁ καθαρὸς ὡσαύτως ἔδεται. Hebrew equivalent ‫וסעדו‬. No Hebrew counterpart. No Hebrew counterpart. Thackeray, “Bisection,” 88–98.

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent

131

translators.152 Aitken is confident that “[i]n the LXX there is a great variety in the use of particles between different books, but the difference is between translators and not genres.”153 Sometimes translators represented Hebrew coordinate clauses (parataxis) with subordinate clauses (hypotaxis). However, the most common practice in LXX-Pent was to translate the waw-construction by constructions containing καί or δέ, such as καὶ ἐγένετο and ἐγένετο δέ. The waw-conjunction functions both as a copulative and an adversative, expressed by different particles in Greek. Thus, καί is usually used as a copulative (continuative or connective) or an adverbial particle, whereas δέ is used as the adversative (contrastive) particle.154 In the LXX, the use of these particles is blurred due to the mechanical rendering of ‫ ו־‬with both καί and δέ.155 Noticeable distinctions emerge in the books of LXX-Pent in the rendering of the waw-clause. The examples are confined to the renderings of ‫ ויהי‬and ‫ויאמר‬, which represent different linguistic models as ‫ ויהי‬usually starts a new unit156 and ‫ ויאמר‬usually continues the narrative context.157 2.2.1 Representation of Waw in ‫ויהי‬: Gen, Exod ≠ Num, Deut ‫ ויהי‬introduces an independent narrative, especially when followed by a time phrase, such as ‫( ויהי ביום השלישי‬Gen 40:20), ‫( ויהי מקץ שלשים שנה‬Exod 12:41), and ‫( ויהי ברדת משה‬Exod 34:29).158

152

153 154

155

156 157 158

Moulton–Turner, Syntax, 332; Baab, “Genesis,” 239–243; E. Tov, The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discussion of an Early Revision of the LXX of Jeremiah 29–53 and Baruch 1:1–3:8 (HSM 8; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976), 63; Aejmelaeus, Parataxis, esp., 10–46. J.K. Aitken, “The Language of the Septuagint: Recent Theories, Future Prospects,” Bulletin of Judaeo-Greek Studies 24 (1999): 26. LSJ, 371f., 837f.; A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (4th ed.; Nashville: Broadman, 1923), 1179–1185; H.W. Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1920), 644–645, 652; Aejmelaeus, Parataxis, 34. As a result, the sense of contrast of MT is sometimes not expressed in the LXX, e.g., in Gen 31:7: ‫מ ִנים ְול ֹא־ ְנָתנוֹ ֱאֹלִהים ְלָה ַרע ִﬠָמּ ִדי‬ ֹ ‫— ַוֲאִביֶכן ֵהֶתל ִבּי ְוֶהֱחִלף ֶאת־ַמְשֻׂכּ ְרִתּי ֲﬠֶשׂ ֶרת‬ὁ δὲ πατὴρ ὑμῶν παρεκρούσατό με καὶ ἤλλαξεν τὸν μισθόν μου τῶν δέκα ἀμνῶν καὶ οὐκ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς κακοποιῆσαί με. S.R. Driver, A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew and Some Other Syntactical Questions (Oxford: Clarendon, 1892), 89. Ibid., 71–72. Gesenius–Kautzsch, Grammar, §111, f ; Waltke–O’Connor, Syntax, § 3.3.4, d.

132 table 78

chapter 3 ‫ ויהי‬in LXX-Pent

Rendering

Gen

Exod

καὶ ἐγένετο (pl. καὶ ἐγένοντο)

52 occurrences 1:3, 5a, b, 8a, b, 11, 13a, b, 15, 19a, b, 23a, b, 24, 30, 31a, b; 2:7; 4:2, 3, 8; 5:23, 31(pl); 6:1; 7:10, 12, 17; 8:6, 13; 10:19, 30; 11:2; 12:10, 16(pl.); 13:7; 19:17, 29; 22:1; 24:15, 30; 27:30a, b; 29:23; 30:43; 31:10; 32:6(pl.); 35:5; 39:2c, 7, 13; 41:54; 50:9

12 occurrences 4:3, 4; 7:10; 9:10; 10:22; 12:41a, 51; 14:20; 17:12 (pl.); 18:13; 32:30; 40:17

καὶ ἐγενήθη

2 occurrences 39:5b; 49:15

2 occurrences 2:10; 38:27

καὶ ἦν

9 occurrences 4:17; 5:32; 11:1; 21:20a; 25:27; 39:2a, b, 6; 39:21

3 occurrences 7:21; 24:18; 34:28

καί

32:19

καὶ ἐγίνοντο

19:16b

Lev

9:1

Num

Deut

8 occurrences 3:43 (pl.); 7:1; 10:11, 35; 17:7, 23; 31:37, 52

3 occurrences 5:23; 9:11; 26:5

2 occurrences 22:41; 31:32

2 occurrences 1:3; 2:16

2 occurrences 7:12; 11:1

καὶ ἔσται/ἔστω

2 occurrences 33:5, 6

ἐγένετο δέ (pl. ἐγένοντο δέ)

45 occurrences 6 occurrences 12:11, 14; 14:1; 17:1; 19:34; 20:13; 2:11; 4:24; 16:13, 21:20b, 22; 22:20; 24:22, 52; 25:11; 22, 27; 19:16a 26:1, 8, 14, 32; 27:1; 29:10, 13, 25; 30:25; 34:25; 35:16, 17, 18, 22a, b; 38:1, 7, 24, 27, 28; 39:5a, 11, 19; 40:1, 20; 41:1, 8; 42:35; 43:2, 21; 44:24; 47:28 (pl.); 48:1

ἐγενήθη δέ

41:13

12:29; 14:24

ἦν δέ

2 occurrences 25:20; 26:34

9:24

δέ

4 occurrences 38:29; 39:10, 15, 18

5 occurrences 2:23; 13:15, 17; 16:10; 34:29

περὶ δέ

15:12

ἐπεὶ δέ ἐγίνετο

15:17

ἔδοξεν δέ

19:14

ἦσαν δέ

1:5

ἐγίνοντο δέ

19:19

2 occurrences 11:25; 16:31

31:24

133

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent Table 78

‫ ויהי‬in LXX-Pent (cont.)

Rendering

Gen

ὃς ἦν

35:3

Exod

ἐπειδή

1:21

ἐγένετο

2 occurrences 15:2; 38:24

Lev

παρεγένοντο

Num

Deut

9:6

No equivalent

3 occurrences 1:7, 9; 39:20

3 occurrences 6:28; 12:41b; *36:13

Total

122

41

*25:19

1

16

8

* textual problem.

Although in Greek there are many ways of introducing a new thought, such as a participium coniunctum or a genitive absolute, in LXX-Pent the main introductions are καὶ ἐγένετο, etc., and ἐγένετο δέ, etc., imitating Hebrew narrative style. Exhaustive data for the renderings of ‫ ויהי‬are listed in Table 78. The different types of renderings of ‫ ויהי‬show a distinction between GenesisExodus and Numbers-Deuteronomy. In the former two books, the construction with δέ is common (καί—δέ: Genesis: 63—55; Exodus: 19—16), while in the latter books δέ is quite rare (Numbers: 12—2; Deuteronomy: 7—1).159 The smaller numbers in Numbers and Deuteronomy are due to the fact that these books contain much fewer narratives than Genesis and Exodus, but even under these circumstances differences between Genesis-Exodus and NumbersDeuteronomy are recognizable. The dichotomy between these two groups of books reflects the different preferences of the Pentateuch translators regarding καί and δέ.160 Thus, in LXX-Gen, ‫ ויהי‬is translated with either word at the beginning of a new unit:

159 160

Similar statistics obtain regarding the plural form ‫ויהיו‬: καί construction/δέ construction: Genesis 11/9, Numbers, 17/1. F.H. Polak, “Context Sensitive Translation and Parataxis in Biblical Narrative,” in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (ed. S.M. Paul et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 525–539 (see esp. 538–539) suggests that the translator of LXX-Gen and Exod preferred δέ when introducing new participants or a new stage into the context. According to his analysis, the former translator hesitated to use δέ for these purposes in the first four chapters, while he gradually increased the frequency in chs. 4–12. By contrast, the translator of Exodus employed δέ from the beginning with confidence.

134

chapter 3

table 79

Combined table for καί and δέ

καὶ ἐγένοντο, etc. ἐγένετο δέ, etc. Total

Gen

Exod

Lev

Num

Deut

63 55 118

19 16 35

1

12 2 14

7 1 8

1

In LXX-Gen, καί and δέ are often used interchangeably: ‫ ויהי‬with a time phrase such as ‫ויהי מקץ שלשים שנה‬, ‫ויהי ממחרת‬, ‫ ויהי בקר‬is rendered with a construction that includes καί in Gen 4:3; 5:23, 31; 7:10, 17; 8:6, 13; 29:13; 31:10, etc. It appears with a construction containing δέ in 17:1; 19:34; 21:22; 26:32; 29:25; 34:25; 38:1, 24, 27; 39:5, 11; 41:8. ‫ ויהי‬+ ‫כ‬/‫ ב‬+ infinitive clause such as ‫ויהי כראת‬, ‫ויהי בהיותם‬ is expressed by a construction containing καί in 4:8; 11:2; 19:17, 29; 24:30; 39:13, etc., and also with δέ in 12:14; 29:13; 35:18, 22; 39:19. Likewise, ‫ויהי אחר הדברים‬ ‫ האלה‬clauses are represented by καί in 22:1; 25:11; 39:7, and with δέ in 22:20; 40:1; 48:1 (see Table 80).161 table 80

Examples of the interchangeable use of constructions with καί and δέ in LXX-Gen

Hebrew expression

καὶ ἐγένετο, etc.

ἐγένετο δέ, etc.

‫ויהי כאשר‬

27:30a

12:11; 20:13; 24:22, 52; 29:10; 30:25; 43:2

‫ויהי בעת ההיא‬

31:10

21:22; 38:1, 27

‫ויהי אחר הדברים האלה‬

22:1; 39:7

22:20; 40:1; 48:1

‫ויהי רעב‬

12:10; 41:54

26:1

‫צאן‬/‫ויהי לו מקנה‬

12:16; 30:43; 32:6

26:14

‫ויהי כי‬

6:1

27:1

‫כראת‬/‫ויהי כשמע‬, etc. (‫ ויהי‬+ ‫ כ‬+ inf. const.)

24:30

29:13; 39:19

‫בשחת‬/‫ויהי בהקשתה‬, etc. (‫ ויהי‬+ ‫ ב‬+ inf. const.)

19:29

35:17; 38:28

161

An additional possible explanation for the varying renderings of the LXX-Gen translator can be found in Tov, “The Septuagint Translation of Genesis,” 54.

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent Table 80

135

Examples of the interchangeable use of constructions with καί and δέ (cont.)

Hebrew expression

καὶ ἐγένετο, etc.

ἐγένετο δέ, etc.

‫ימים‬/‫ויהי מקץ שנה‬, etc.

4:3; 8:6

41:1

‫חמש מאת שנה‬-‫ויהי נח בן‬ ‫ארבעים שנה‬-‫ויהי עשו בן‬

5:32

26:34

Likewise, the translator of LXX-Exod represented ‫ ויהי‬+ noun clauses with both καί and δέ without any apparent distinction. Thus 19:16 ‫ ויהי קלות וברקים‬is translated by καὶ ἐγίνοντο, while v. 19 ‫ ויהי קול השופר הולך‬is represented with ἐγίνοντο δέ. Similarly, the καί construction occurs elsewhere in 4:3, 4; 7:10, 21; 9:10; 10:22; 12:41, 51; 14:20; 17:12; 18:13; 24:18; 34:28; 40:17 and the δέ constructions in 2:11, 23; 4:24; 9:24; 13:15, 17; 16:10, 13, 22, 27; 19:16; 34:29 (all: ‫ ויהי‬+ noun clauses). On the other hand, with some exceptions, Numbers and Deuteronomy favored the καί construction. By way of digression, I want to refer to (‫ ויהי)ו‬in Genesis and Exodus. Constructions with καί are preferred in Genesis chapters 1–25 (καί 55—δέ 19), while the statistics are reversed in chapters 26–50 (19—45). table 81

(‫ ויהי)ו‬in LXX-Gen

Constructions with καί

Constructions with δέ

55 19 74

19 45 64

Chapters 1–25 Chapters 26–50 Total

A similar distinction is evident in the two sections of LXX-Exod: table 82

‫ ויהי‬in LXX-Exod

Exod 1:1–23:19 Exod 23:20–40:38 Total

Constructions with καί

Constructions with δέ

13 6 19

15 1 16

136

chapter 3

Seemingly, this distinction is a good basis for assuming the bisection of LXX-Gen and LXX-Exod.162 However, this evidence does not necessarily support such a hypothesis since in related matters the two presumed segments are very similar. Thus, the frequency of the hypotaxis structure for ‫( ויאמר‬see Table 83) appears in both parts of LXX-Gen with almost equal frequency (Genesis I: 7 times; Genesis II: 8 times).163 Besides, in all other examples (e.g., ch. 3, 31. Infinitive Absolute Constructions in lxx-Pent), LXX-Gen forms a unity. 2.2.2

Representation of the Waw in ‫ויאמר‬: Gen, Exod ≠ Lev, Num, Deut

table 83

‫ ויאמר‬in LXX-Pent

Rendering Gen

Exod

Lev

Num

Deut

καὶ εἶπεν

72 occurrences 1:15, 16, 18; 2:14b; 3:5, 6, 11, 13, 14a, b, 15; 4:1, 3, 4, 7, 13, 18b; 5:2, 4, 5, 17, 22; 6:1, 2, 30; 7:1, 8; 8:4, 22, 24; 9:27; 10:8, 10, 25; 11:4; 12:21, 31; 14:25 (pl.); 15:26; 16:6, 8, 33; 17:2, 5; 18:10; 19:15, 21, 23, 25; 24:8, 12; 30:34; 32:11, 21, 22, 26, 29, 31, 33; 33:5, 12, 17, 19, 20, 21; 34:1, 9, 10, 27; 35:1, 4, 30

10 occur. 8:5, 31; 9:2, 6, 7; 10:3, 4, 6; 16:2; 21:1

77 occurrences 3:40; 7:4, 11; 9:8; 10:29, 30, 31, 35; 11:11, 16, 21, 23, 27, 29; 12:4, 6, 11, 14; 13:17, 30; 14:11, 13, 20, 41; 15:37; 16:8, 15, 16, 28; 17:11, 25; 18:1; 20:10, 12, 18, 23; 21:2, 8, 34; 22:4, 8, 9, 10, 12, 18, 20, 29, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38; 23:1, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 25, 27, 29; 24:10, 12; 25:4, 5; 27:12; 31:15, 21, 25; 32:6, 20, 25(pl.), 29

21 occur. 1:42; 2:2, 9, 31; 3:2, 26; 5:1, 28; 9:12, 13; 10:11; 18:17; 29:1; 31:2, 7, 14, 16, 23; 32:20, 46; 33:2; 34:4

174 occurrences 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26, 29; 2:18, 23; 3:1, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 22; 4:6, 8, 9a, 10, 13, 15; 6:3, 7, 13; 7:1; 8:21; 9:1, 8, 12, 17, 25, 26; 11:6; 12:1, 7; 14:19; 15:3, 5a, b; 16:8, 10, 11; 17:1, 9, 17; 18:3, 6, 13, 15, 28, 29a, b, 30a, b, 31a, b, 32a, b; 19:2, 14, 17, 21; 20:3, 4, 9, 15; 21:17, 22, 24, 26, 29, 30; 22:1a, 2, 5, 11a, 12; 24:2, 12, 17, 23, 27, 31, 33a, b(pl.), 34, 40; 25:23, 30, 33; 26:2, 7, 9a, 24, 27; 27:1a, b, 2, 19, 22, 24a, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32a, 33, 34, 36a, b; 28:13, 16, 17; 29:7, 14, 18; 30:2, 31a; 31:5, 11, 12, 24; 32:9, 27a, 30a, b; 33:5a, 8a, 12; 35:10; 37:6, 9, 10, 13a, 21, 30, 33; 38:16, 22; 40:9, 12, 16; 41:25, 38; 42:7, 9, 28; 43:2, 16, 27, 29a, b, 31; 45:4b, 24; 46:30; 47:3, 9, 29; 48:3, 4, 9b, 11, 15; 49:1, 29, 50:6, 19, 24

162

163

Thus Baab, “Genesis,” 239–243. For Exodus, see Moulton–Turner, Syntax, 332, 337. However, Aejmelaeus, Parataxis, 59–60, 159–181 does not accept Baab’s bisection hypothesis, claiming that there is no sound evidence in the text. Gen 1:28, 27; 12:18; 18:23; 22:7, 16; 24:54; 26:22; 27:39; 28:1; 37:35; 40:18; 46:3; 47:1; 48:8.

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent Table 83

‫ ויאמר‬in LXX-Pent (cont.)

Rendering Gen

Exod

καὶ λέγει

12 occurrences 2:13; 4:18a; 10:9, 28; 18:15; 20:20; 32:2, 18, 27; 33:12, 15, 18

καὶ ἐλάλησεν

31:12

6 occurrences 15:35; 18:20; 26:1; 27:6, 18; 30:1 2 occurrences 20:20; 22:30

εἶπεν δὲ or δὲ εἶπεν164

145 occurrences 4:9b, 23; 13:8; 14:21, 22; 15:7, 8, 9; 16:6, 9; 17:15, 18, 19; 18:9, 10, 20, 26; 19:7, 18; 20:2, 6, 10, 11; 21:12; 22:1b, 7a, c, 8, 11b; 24:5, 6, 55(pl.), 56, 65; 25:31, 32; 26:9b, 10, 16; 27:11, 18a, b, 20a, b, 21, 24b, 32b, 35, 37, 38, 41; 29:4, 5, 6, 15, 19, 21, 25, 26; 30:27, 29, 31b, 34; 31:3, 26, 31, 36, 43, 46, 48, 51; 32:3, 10, 17, 27b, 28a, b, 29; 33:5b, 8b, 9, 10, 13, 15a, b; 34:4, 11, 30; 35:1, 2, 11; 37:13b, 14, 16, 17, 22, 26; 38:8, 11, 17, 18, 23, 24, 26; 39:8; 40:8; 41:15, 39, 41, 44, 55; 42:12, 14, 18, 33, 36, 37, 38; 43:3, 6, 8, 11, 23; 44:10, 15, 16, 17, 25, 27; 45:3, 4a, 17, 28; 46:2a, c, 31; 47:5, 8, 16, 23, 30, 31; 48:9a, 18, 21

56 occurrences 1:9; 2:14a, 18, 20; 3:3, 4b, 7, 12; 4:2a, b, 6, 10, 11, 19, 21, 27; 7:14, 19, 26; 8:1, 4, 6a, 12, 16, 25; 9:1, 8, 13, 22, 29; 10:1, 12, 21; 11:1, 9; 12:1, 43; 13:3; 14:13, 15, 26; 16:4, 9, 15, 19, 23, 25, 28, 32; 17:9, 14; 18:17; 19:9, 10, 24; 20:22

λέγει δέ

15:2

3 occurrences 10:29; 18:4; 32:17

λέγων (ptc.)

8 occurrences 1:28; 22:7d, 16; 26:22; 28:1; 37:35; 46:3; 47:1

7 occurrences 3:4a; 8:21; 10:16, 24; 17:3; 18:6; 32:5

εἶπας (ptc.) 22:7b; 46:2b

164

137

Gen 33:15b; Exod 2:18; Num 20:20, etc.

Lev

Num

Deut

33:27

138

chapter 3

Table 83

‫ ויאמר‬in LXX-Pent (cont.)

Rendering Gen

Exod

Lev

εἶπεν

12 occurrences 12:11, 18(hy); 18:23(hy), 27(hy); 24:54(hy); 27:39(hy); 30:25; 40:18(hy); 42:1; 44:18; 48:8(hy), 19

4:14(hy); 8:6b; 32:30

ἐρρέθη

15:13

ἀπηγγέλη

48:1, 2

no equiv.

30:28; 42:2

17:16; 32:9

Total

347

156

Num

Deut

10 occurrences 11:28 (hy); 22:13 (hy); 23:7 (hy), 18 (hy), 26 (hy); 24:3 (hy), 15 (hy), 20 (hy), 21 (hy), 23 (hy)

33:7 10

95

24

* (hy) indicates that the immediately preceding coordinating clause was changed to a subordinate (hypotaxis) clause without καί or δέ.

The most common equivalents of ‫ ויאמר‬in LXX-Pent are constructions with καί or δέ (580/631 = 92%), such as καὶ εἶπεν or εἶπεν δέ. Participial constructions (e.g., λέγων), mainly in Genesis and Exodus, implied the omission of the conjunction in the translation. Renderings with καί prevail in Genesis and Exodus but, while δέ occurs frequently (Genesis: 146 times; Exodus: 59 times), in the latter three books δέ is employed rarely.165 table 84

Renderings of ‫ ויאמר‬in LXX-Pent

Constructions with καί Constructions with δέ Total

Gen

Exod

Lev

Num

Deut

Total

174 146 320

85 59 144

10 0 10

83 2 85

21 0 21

373 207 580

The dichotomy between Genesis-Exodus and Leviticus-Numbers-Deuteronomy is also visible in the use of the participle λέγων for ‫ויאמר‬, frequently in 165

Num 20:20; 22:30. See Aejmelaeus, Parataxis, 37 n. 4. This statistical fact is related to factors of content, since the first two books have a narrative content, while in the latter two books the main speakers are God and Moses in legal and not narrative contexts that lack the contrasts that could be expressed by δέ.

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent

139

Genesis-Exodus (Genesis: 8 times; Exodus: 7 times; see Table 83), but only once (Deut 33:27) in the latter three books. This dichotomy may be explained by the content differences between the books (narrative style in the first two books). By way of digression, I want to refer to the rendering of ‫ ויאמר‬in Exodus. The table below shows the distribution of the two main Greek equivalents of ‫ויאמר‬, καὶ εἶπεν and εἶπεν δέ, in LXX-Exod. table 85

Rendering καὶ εἶπεν εἶπεν δέ Total

The two main renderings of ‫ ויאמר‬in LXX-Exod

Exod 1:1–23:19

Exod 23:20–40:38

49 56 105

23 0 23

Exod 1:1–23:19 has both types of renderings (καὶ εἶπεν: 49 times; εἶπεν δέ: 56 times), but Exod 23:20–40:38 has only καὶ εἶπεν (23—0). However, this distinction does not necessarily support the assumption of a LXX-Exod bisection. For example, the use of the historical present tense (ch. 3, 36. Linguistic Adequacy of Lexical Choices: Historical Present of λέγω) and substantive adjective of ‫( זקן‬ch. 3, 7. ‫ )זקן‬rebut the possible bisection of Exodus. 31. Infinitive Absolute Constructions in lxx-Pent: Gen ≠ Exod, Lev, Num, Deut One of the most idiosyncratic Hebrew constructions is the infinitive absolute form with its paronymous finite verb meant “to define more accurately or to strengthen the idea of the verb.”166 The infinitives appears prepositively (‫אכל‬ ‫תאכל‬, Gen 2:16) and, less frequently, postpositively (‫וישפט שפוט‬, Gen 19:9). Usually, the two paronymous verbs are written side by side but occasionally adverbial elements such as ‫ גם‬and ‫ לא‬break the continuity.167 For instance:

166 167

Gesenius–Kautzsch, Grammar, §113, n. Waltke–O’Connor, Syntax, 586–589. E.g., Gen 31:15; 46:4; Exod 5:23; 8:24; 34:7; Lev 7:24; 19:20; Num 11:15; 14:18; 16:13; 23:25; Deut 21:14, etc. Compare Joüon–Muraoka, Grammar, §123, l. A greater separation is found in Gen 8:3 ‫ ;וישבו המים מעל הארץ הלוך ושוב‬Deut 20:5, 6, 7, 8; 1Sam 17:15; Ps 78:39; Isa 37:37; Hos 5:15, etc. See further Gesenius–Kautzsch, Grammar, §113, n–o; Waltke–O’Connor, Syntax, 589–590.

140

chapter 3

Gen 31:15 ‫ֲהלוֹא ָנְכ ִריּוֹת ֶנְחַשְׁבנוּ לוֹ ִכּי ְמָכ ָרנוּ ַו ּיֹאַכל ַּגם־ָאכ ֹול‬ Exod 5:13 ‫וֵּמָאז ָבּאִתי ֶאל־ַפּ ְרעֹה ְל ַדֵבּר ִבְּשֶׁמָך ֵה ַרע ָלָﬠם ַה ֶזּה ְוַה ֵ ּצל לֹא־ִהַּצְלָּת ֶאת־ַﬠֶמָּך‬ Generally, the translators of LXX-Pent rendered the Hebrew construction with a noun + finite verb construction (108 times), often in the dative case, or with a participle form + finite verb (46 times).168 For example: Exod 19:5 MT ‫ְוַﬠָתּה ִאם־ָשׁמוֹ ַע ִתְּשְׁמעוּ ְבּקִֹלי‬ LXX καὶ νῦν ἐὰν ἀκοῇ ἀκούσητε τῆς ἐμῆς φωνῆς Lev 14:48 MT ‫ְוִאם־בּ ֹא ָיב ֹא ַהכֵֹּהן ְו ָרָאה‬ LXX ἐὰν δὲ παραγενόμενος εἰσέλθῃ ὁ ἱερεὺς καὶ ἴδῃ Deut 7:18 MT ‫ל ֹא ִתי ָרא ֵמֶהם ָזכֹר ִתּ ְזכֹּר ֵאת ֲאֶשׁר־ָﬠָשׂה ְיה ָוה ֱאֹלֶהיָך ְלַפ ְרעֹה וְּלָכל־ִמְצ ָר ִים‬ LXX οὐ φοβηθήσῃ αὐτούς μνείᾳ μνησθήσῃ ὅσα ἐποίησεν κύριος ὁ θεός σου τῷ Φαραω καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς Αἰγυπτίοις LXX-Gen employed a different technique than the other four books of LXXPent. This translator chose both main Greek constructions interchangeably (noun: 15 times; participle: 14 times) whereas, in the other books, the noun was much preferred to the participle (Exodus: 28—7; Leviticus: 22—8; Numbers: 18—8; and Deuteronomy: 24—10). Tov suggests that a possible reason for this phenomenon is “[because] the translator of Genesis was still searching for the right type of rendering for the Hebrew construction.”169

168

169

In the 193 occurrences of the infinitive absolute construction, on 167 occasions (86.5 %), the translator represented it relatively literally with two Greek words. (Genesis: 35 wordfor-word translations of the 42 occurrences of the Hebrew infinitive absolute construct; Exodus: 40 of 49; Leviticus: 30 of 35; Numbers: 29 of 32; Deuteronomy: 35 of 35). For a more detailed analysis, see E. Tov, “Renderings of Combinations of the Infinitive Absolute Construction and Finite Verbs in the LXX: Their Nature and Distribution,” in Studien zur Septuaginta: Robert Hanhart zu Ehren (ed. D. Fraenkel et al.; MSU XX; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 64–73 and Soisalon-Soininen, Infinitive, 80 ff. Tov, “Infinitive Absolute,” 72.

141

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent table 86

Infinitive absolute construction in LXX-Pent Gen

Exod

Lev

Num

Deut

noun + finite verb

16 occurrences 2:16, 17; 3:4; 17:13; 26:11; 31:15, 30b; 37:33; 40:15; 43:3; 44:5, 15; 46:4; 50:15, 24, 25

28 occurrences 3:16; 11:1; 13:9a, b; 15:26; 17:14; 18:18; 19:5, 12, 13a, b; 21:12, 15, 16, 17, 20, 22, 28; 22:15, 18, 22a, c, 25; 23:22, 24a; 31:14, 15; 34:7

22 occurrences 7:24; 13:27; 35, 44; 15:24; 19:7, 17, 20; 20:2, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 27; 24:16a, b, 17; 27:29, 31

18 occurrences 11:15, 32; 14:18; 15:31, 35; 16:13; 18:15; 22:30; 23:11, 25a; 26:65; 27:7; 35:16, 17, 18, 21, 26, 31

24 occurrences 4:26a, b; 7:2, 18, 26a, b; 8:19a, b; 11:13, 22; 12:2; 15:5, 8b, 14; 20:17; 21:14, 23; 22:1, 7; 24:13; 28:1; 30:18; 31:18, 29

participle + finite verb

13 occurrences 3:16; 15:13; 16:10; 18:10, 18; 20:18; 22:17a, b; 26:28; 37:8a, b, 10; 43:7a

7 occurrences 3:7; 4:14; 21:5; 22:16, 22b; 23:4, 24b

8 occurrences 7:18; 10:16; 13:7, 12; 13:48; 27:10, 13, 33

8 occurrences 12:14; 13:30a; 23:25b; 24:10; 30:7, 13, 15, 16

10 occurrences 6:17; 13:10, 16; 15:4, 8a, 10, 11; 17:15; 22:4; 23:22

infinitive + finite verb

19:9

14:22

finite verb + finite verb

22:3

adj. + finite verb

2 occurrences 28:22; 44:28

22:12

2 occurrences 13:30b; 22:38

adv. + finite verb

32:13

3 occurrences 8:24; 15:1, 21

22:17

expressed by one word

finite verb only

7 occurrences 20:7; 24:5; 27:30; 30:16; 31:30a; 43:7b, 20

8 occurrences 2:19; 5:23; 21:36; 22:2, 5, 11, 13; 23:5

participle only

2 occurrences 8:7; 26:13

noun only Total

5 occurrences 5:19; 10:18; 13:22; 20:13; 27:19

3 occurrences 21:2; 22:37; 24:11

35

32

21:19 42

49

35

142

chapter 3

table 87

The main equivalents of the infinitive absolute construction in LXX-Pent

Noun + finite verb Participle + finite verb Proportion

3

Gen

Exod

Lev

Num

Deut

16 13 1.2:1

28 7 4:1

22 8 2.7:1

18 8 2.2:1

24 10 2.4:1

Renderings Showing Different Perceptions

The use of language, especially in the areas of word choices and syntax, is a matter of personal preference. Since these perceptions do not change in the course of the translation, the identification of them aids in identifying different translators. Sometimes translators were guided by theological inclinations, as suggested by Rösel:170 … it is important to note that the translators of the Hebrew-Aramaic text were fully aware that they were translating Scriptures in the sense of authoritative religious writings.171 32. ἐντέλλομαι/συντάσσω with Different Subjects: Lev ≠ Num The synonymous ἐντέλλομαι and συντάσσω are the two main Greek equivalents used for ‫ צוה‬in LXX-Lev and LXX-Num.172 However, a significant difference obtains in the two books regarding the subject of these verbs, i.e., either God or a highly placed human being such as a king or ruler.173 170

171

172 173

For a full discussion, see E. Tov, “Theologically Motivated Exegesis Embedded in the Septuagint,” in Translation of Scripture: Proceedings of a Conference at the Annenberg Research Institute, May 15–16, 1989 (JQRSup; Philadelphia: Annenberg Research Institute, 1990), 215– 233; C.T. Fritsch, The Anti-Anthropomorphism of the Greek Pentateuch (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1943); and H.M. Orlinsky, “Introductory Essay: On Anthropomorphisms and Anthropopathisms in the Septuagint and Targum,” in The Septuagint Translation of the Hebrew Terms in Relation to God in the Book of Jeremiah (ed. B.M. Zlotowitz; New York: Ktav, 1981), 15–24. M. Rösel, “Towards a ‘Theology’ of the Septuagint,” in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures (ed. W. Kraus and R.G. Wooden; SCS 53; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 244. For the rendering of ‫ צוה‬in LXX-Pent, see ch. 3, 25. ‫ צוה‬and Table 70, above. G. Schrenk, “ἐντέλλομαι, ἐντολή,” TDNT 2:544–546.

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent table 88

143

ἐντέλλομαι and συντάσσω with different subjects in LXX-Lev and LXX-Num

ἐντέλλομαι συντάσσω

God Man God Man

Total

Lev

Num

15 1 8 4 28

12 6 27 1 46

The translator of Leviticus employed ἐντέλλομαι more frequently (15 times) than συντάσσω (8 times) to denote a heavenly command,174 while the translator of Numbers preferred συντάσσω (ἐντέλλομαι: 12 times; συντάσσω: 27 times).175 This point is even more prominent when one compares the use of both verbs to represent a command by a human being. In these cases, συντάσσω is preferred in Leviticus (ἐντέλλομαι: once; συντάσσω: 4 times), whereas in Numbers ἐντέλλομαι is used more frequently (ἐντέλλομαι: 6 times;176 συντάσσω: once177).

174 175

Almost all the occurrences of ἐντέλλομαι in Leviticus (15/16 = 94 %) have God as subject with the exception of Lev 9:5 (Moses). The data for Genesis, Exodus, and Deuteronomy are not germane because in Genesis and Deuteronomy ἐντέλλομαι is overwhelmingly dominant, and the data for LXX-Exod do not disclose any significant trend: The main equivalents of ‫ צוה‬in Genesis, Exodus, and Deuteronomy

ἐντέλλομαι συντάσσω Total 176 177

God Man God Man

Gen

Exod

Deut

8 10 0 2 20

16 1 29 4 50

32 50 2 1 85

Num 27:9; 28:2; 32:25; 34:2, 14a; 36:5. Num 35:2.

144

chapter 3

33. λαός/ἔθνος: Gen, Lev, Num ≠ Exod, Deut Several scholars claim that λαός, “people” when translating ‫ ַﬠם‬refers especially to the people of God.178 Thus Strathmann: [T]he word is now a specific term for a specific people, namely, Israel, and it serves to emphasize the special and privileged religious position of this people as the people of God … [, and t]here is a corresponding inclination to use ἔθνος instead when ‫ ַﬠם‬does not refer to Israel.179 According to Strathmann and Seeligmann, this diversity, while already extant in the Pentateuch, is prominent in the prophetic books.180 In the use of λαός and ἔθνος, Genesis, Leviticus, and Numbers are distinct from the other two books of LXX-Pent. The former group does not distinguish between the different uses of λαός and ἔθνος, whereas the latter does. table 89

‫ ַﬠם‬represented by λαός and ἔθνος181

Referring to λαός ἔθνος Total

People of God Gentiles People of God Gentiles

Gen

Exod

Lev

Num

Deut

7 13 4 1 25

142 17 0 7 166

31 0 3 2 36

68 9 1 2 80

67 9 0 30 106

Genesis has five Greek equivalents for ‫ַﬠם‬, of which λαός is the most common. λαός translates ‫ַﬠם‬, signifying both the people of Israel and the people of the patriarchs (7/20182 = 35%), but more frequently a non-Israelite people (13/20183 = 65%). ἔθνος, the usual Greek equivalent of ‫ גוי‬in the LXX, appears four times184 178 179 180 181 182 183 184

I.L. Seeligmann, “Problems and Perspectives in Modern Septuagint Research,” Textus 15 (1990): 226. See further Joosten, “Jewish Sociolect,” 246–256. H. Strathmann, “λαός,” TDNT 4:32–33. Ibid., 37. See further L. Perkins, “Deuteronomy,” in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint (ed. J.K. Aitken; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 81–82. For exhaustive data on the rendering of ‫עם‬, see Table 65. Gen 26:11; 32:8; 35:6; 48:19; 49:16, 29, 33. Gen 14:16; 19:4; 23:7, 12, 13; 25:8; 33:15; 34:22; 41:40, 55; 42:6; 47:21; 50:20. Gen 17:16; 28:3; 48:4; 49:10.

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent

145

(4/5 = 80%) for the people of God and indicates gentiles only once185 (1/5 = 20%). Thus, the translation of Genesis has no fixed equivalent for ‫ַﬠם‬, as exemplified by the following passage: Gen 26:10–11 MT

‫ ַויּ ֹאֶמר ֲאִביֶמֶלְך ַמה־זּ ֹאת ָﬠִשׂיָת ָלּנוּ ִכְּמַﬠט ָשַׁכב ַאַחד ָהָעם ֶאת־ִאְשֶׁתָּך ְוֵהֵבאָת ָﬠֵלינוּ‬10 ‫מר ַהֹנּ ֵג ַע ָבִּאישׁ ַה ֶזּה וְּבִאְשׁתּוֹ מוֹת יוָּמת‬ ֹ ‫ ַו ְיַצו ֲאִביֶמֶלְך ֶאת־ָכּל־ָהָעם ֵלא‬11 ‫ָאָשׁם‬

LXX 10 εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ Αβιμελεχ τί τοῦτο ἐποίησας ἡμῖν μικροῦ ἐκοιμήθη τις τοῦ γένους μου μετὰ τῆς γυναικός σου καὶ ἐπήγαγες ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἄγνοιαν 11 συνέταξεν δὲ Αβιμελεχ παντὶ τῷ λαῷ αὐτοῦ λέγων πᾶς ὁ ἁπτόμενος τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τούτου ἢ τῆς γυναικὸς αὐτοῦ θανάτου ἔνοχος ἔσται In both verses, ‫ ַﬠם‬refers to the people of Abimelech, but the Greek translator chose different equivalents. Likewise, in Gen 25:8 and Gen 35:29, ‫ ַﬠם‬referring to Abraham’s and Isaac’s kin respectively is translated differently.186 Similarly, in LXX-Lev and LXX-Num, ἔθνος is not used as a technical term for denoting only gentiles. Thus, in Leviticus, ἔθνος is used twice for gentiles,187 and three times for the people of God.188 In Numbers, it is used twice for gentiles189 and once for the people of God.190 On the other hand, the translators of Exodus and Deuteronomy apparently distinguish between λαός and ἔθνος in rendering ‫ַﬠם‬. In these books, ‫ַﬠם‬, when referring to the people of Israel, is translated usually by λαός (Exodus: 142/159 times = 89.3%; Deuteronomy: 67/76 times = 88.2 %). For example: Exod 1:20 MT ‫אד‬ ֹ ‫ַו ֵיּיֶטב ֱאֹלִהים ַלְמ ַיְלּד ֹת ַו ִיּ ֶרב ָהָעם ַו ַיַּﬠְצמוּ ְמ‬ LXX εὖ δὲ ἐποίει ὁ θεὸς ταῖς μαίαις καὶ ἐπλήθυνεν ὁ λαὸς καὶ ἴσχυεν σφόδρα

185 186

187 188 189 190

Gen 27:29. According to G. Bertram, “ἔθνος, ἐθνικός,” TDNT 2:365, the Greek rendering of ‫ ַﬠם‬in Genesis is natural because in that book ‫ ַﬠם‬does not yet refer exclusively to the chosen people in the Pentateuch. Lev 20:24, 26. Lev 19:16; 20:2; 21:1. The absence of a special distinction is felt even more in 4QLXXLeva where ἔθνος refers to the people of God in Lev 26:12 (other MSS: λαός). Num 13:28, 31. Num 21:18.

146

chapter 3

Deut 10:11 MT ‫ַויּ ֹאֶמר ְיה ָוה ֵאַלי קוּם ֵלְך ְלַמַסּע ִלְפ ֵני ָהָעם ְו ָיבֹאוּ ְו ִי ְרשׁוּ ֶאת־ָהָא ֶרץ‬ LXX καὶ εἶπεν κύριος πρός με βάδιζε ἄπαρον ἐναντίον τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου καὶ εἰσπορευέσθωσαν καὶ κληρονομείτωσαν τὴν γῆν In LXX-Exod (6/7 times),191 ἔθνος is used primarily for representing “gentiles” or in a general sense, “peoples/nations.” In LXX-Deut, ἔθνος also designates gentiles and not the people of God (29 times).192 For example: Exod 21:8 MT ‫לַעם ָנְכ ִרי ל ֹא־ ִיְמשׁ ֹל ְלָמְכ ָרהּ ְבִּב ְגדוֹ־ָבהּ‬ LXX ἔθνει δὲ ἀλλοτρίῳ οὐ κύριός ἐστιν πωλεῖν αὐτήν ὅτι ἠθέτησεν ἐν αὐτῇ Deut 13:8 MT ‫ֵמֱאֹלֵהי ָהַעִּמים ֲאֶשׁר ְסִביבֵֹתיֶכם‬ LXX ἀπὸ τῶν θεῶν τῶν ἐθνῶν τῶν περικύκλῳ ὑμῶν The distinction between Jews and gentiles in Exodus and Deuteronomy may be compared to the distinction between Jewish and heathen altars in the rendering of ‫מזבח‬. Probably the translators of these two books chose θυσιαστήριον solely for Israelite altars193 and βωμός only for non-Israelite altars (Exod 34:13; Deut 7:5; 12:3).194

4

Degree of Literalism

Measuring degrees of literalism is a useful device for examining the nature of translation characteristics. It is also a beneficial tool for distinguishing between the translators of LXX-Pent. Evaluating the level of literalness or freedom also 191 192 193

194

Exod 1:9; 15:14; 19:5; 21:8; 23:27; 33:16. In Exod 23:11, however, ‫ עם‬refers to the people of Israel. Deut 1:28; 2:10, 21, 25; 4:6a, 19, 27, 33; 6:14; 7:6c, 7a, b, 14, 16, 19; 10:15; 13:8; 14:2c; 20:16; 28:10, 32, 33, 37, 64; 30:3; 32:8, 21; 33:17, 19. Exod 17:15; 20:24, 25, 26; 21:14; 24:4, 6; 27:1a, b, 5a, b, 6, 7; 28:43; 29:12a, b, 13, 16, 18, 20, 21, 25, 36, 37a, b, c, 38, 44; 30:1, 18, 20, 27, 28; 32:5; 35:16; 38:1, 3, 4, 30a; 39:38; 40:5, 6, 10a, b, c, 26, 29, 32, 33; Deut 12:27a, b; 16:21; 26:4; 27:5a, b, 6; 33:10. For discussions, see Wevers, Notes-Leviticus, 5; Wevers, Notes-Numbers, 37; Daniel, Vocabulaire, 27–31, 203, 241–242, 252, 255, 367; Muraoka, “Septuagintal Lexicography,” 46.

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent

147

enables one to characterize the attitude of the translators to their parent text, which was neither consistently literal nor consistently free.195 Since they did not work with any fixed translation principles, and they operated independently, the scale of literalness necessarily varied.196 In the past, many studies of literalism have been based exclusively on an intuitive understanding of the character of the translation, while Barr and Tov suggested systematic criteria for defining a literal versus free translation.197 In the present section, three of the criteria discussed above,198 internal consistency, quantitative representation, and linguistic adequacy of lexical choices, will be employed as standards for examining the translators’ attitudes towards their Hebrew Vorlage. 34. Internal Consistency Appraising the degree of consistency in the rendering of a translation unit provides the data for assessing the literalness of that unit. In general, if a translator rendered a certain Hebrew word with the same Greek equivalent, he attempted to be as faithful as possible to the original text, “even at the cost of the Greek language.”199 4.1 καί versus Postpositive Particles: Gen, Exod ≠ Lev, Num, Deut One of the criteria for assessing literalness applied by Tov–Wright concerns the frequency of the usage of such Greek postposition particles as δέ, μέν, οὖν, 195

196

197 198 199

Bickerman, “Septuagint as a Translation,” 198; H.S. Gehman, “Adventures in LXX Lexicography,” Textus 5 (1966): 125–132; Brock, “Phenomenon,” 20; Barr, Typology, 281, 294. According to Bickerman, “Septuagint as a Translation,” 189: “The literalism of the ‘Seventy’ was neither mechanical nor arbitrary. While the use of stock equivalents necessarily affected the style of the whole Pentateuch, the intentional literalism in the main disfigured the translation of legal clauses.” By the same token, Olofsson meaningfully indicates that “[c]onsistency can only be used as a sign of literality when a translator deliberately used one and the same equivalent, although the outcome was a translation where the nuances of the original were obliterated, and the target language was not employed in a natural way.” Olofsson, Translation Technique, 4. See R. Sollamo, “The LXX Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute Used with a Paronymous Finite Verb in the Pentateuch,” in La Septuaginta en la Investigacion Contemporanea (V Congreso de la IOSCS) (ed. N. Fernandez Marcos; Madrid: CSIC, 1985), 111–113. Aejmelaeus states, “It must be stressed, however, that different criteria may really bring out different aspects of the translations” (Aejmelaeus, Parataxis, 180). See ch. 1, pp. 9–10. See further Barr, Typology, 294 and Tov, Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint, 22–26. See pp. 9–10 above, especially Table 1. Tov–Wright, “Literalness,” 153.

148

chapter 3

and τέ in relation to καί.200 The underlying assumption is that a translator who wished to remain faithful to the Hebrew text chose καί more frequently for the coordinating waw than postpositive particles. The use of such particles is natural in the Greek language, but goes against the word order of Hebrew. The proportion of καί to postpositive particles varies considerably among the books of the LXX.201 In Genesis and Exodus, the ratio is 3.3:1 and 5.3:1 respectively, while in the other three books καί is far more prevalent: 12.3:1 (Leviticus); 29.5:1 (Numbers); and 18.4:1 (Deuteronomy). Consequently, the translation vocabulary of these books is considered closer to Hebrew than that of Genesis and Exodus. table 90

Book

Gen Exod Lev Num Deut

Frequency of καί vs. postpositive particles

καί

δέ

3063 855 2424 402 1734 126 2478 74 2005 98

οὖν μέν

τέ

42 29 0 5 4

16 21 10 3 6

7 5 4 2 1

Total of Relative frequency postpositive of καί and postpositive particles particles 920 457 140 84 109

3.3:1 5.3:1 12.3:1 29.5:1 18.4:1

Based on the above examination, Genesis-Exodus are closer to natural Greek than Leviticus-Numbers-Deuteronomy. 4.2 ‫—ִהֵנה‬ἰδού: Gen, Exod ≠ Lev, Deut ἰδού is the most common equivalent of ‫הנה‬. The frequency of this stereotypical rendering as opposed to other choices such as εὐθύς, νῦν, ἐπειδή, τί, ἐστιν, and ὥσπερ is tabulated below. Genesis and Exodus show the smallest amount of overlap between ‫ הנה‬and ἰδού among the five books of LXX-Pent (56% and 60.9 % respectively), whereas Leviticus and Deuteronomy have the greatest overlap (76.9% and 80 %). Num200 201

Tov–Wright, “Literalness,” 149–187. Likewise, according to Moulton–Turner, Syntax, 332, in the New Testament, the proportion of δέ to καί depends on the different authors. Thus, in the Pauline letters, it is 1:0.6 (Gal 58:21; Rom 145:77; 1Cor 208:129; 2Cor 74:58), while in Revelation (attributed to John) it is 1:17 (4:69 in chs. 1–3) and 1:73 (8:586 in chs. 4–21).

149

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent

bers falls somewhere in the middle between the two groups (67.8%). The translation character of the latter three books is considered more stereotyped than that of the fomer two. table 91

Equivalence of ‫—הנה‬ἰδού in LXX-Pent

‫הנה‬

ἰδού Other equivalents Proportion of ‫ = הנה‬ἰδού

Gen

Exod

Lev

Num

Deut

125 70 55 56%

41 25 16 60.9%

26 20 6 76.9 %

28 19 9 67.8 %

10 8 2 80 %

35. Quantitative Representation: ‫ ב‬+ infinitive: Gen, Lev, Num ≠ Exod, Deut Scholars regard the degree of the separate representation of every Hebrew element, either a full word or a segment, in the Greek translation as a criterion for determining the translation character.202 According to Wright, “[t]he more translators render their Vorlagen using a one-to-one technique, without using a greater or fewer number of elements than are in their Hebrew, the more literal they can be considered.”203 Within this framework, we consider here the different representations of ‫ ב‬+ infinitive. This construction generally denotes “the temporal proximity of one event to another”204 such as in ‫בהוציאך את־העם ממצרים‬, “when you have brought the people out of Egypt” (Exod 3:12). The translators expressed this construction mainly with Greek syntagmata that included temporal conjunctions such as ἡνίκα, ὅτε, ὡς, as in ‫בצאתו מחרן‬, ὅτε ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ Χαρραν (Gen 12:4) and ‫בבאכם‬ ‫אל־אהל מועד‬, ἡνίκα ἂν εἰσπορεύησθε εἰς τὴν σκηνὴν τοῦ μαρτυρίου (Lev 10:9). Sometimes, they employed a genitive absolute or a participial construction, such as ‫בצאתם ממצרים‬, ἐξελθόντων αὐτῶν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου (Deut 4:46) and ‫ובשכבך ובקומך‬, καὶ κοιταζόμενος καὶ διανιστάμενος (Deut 6:7). On other occasions, they opted for a translation that was influenced by Hebrew, ἐν + infinitive,205 such as in

202 203

204 205

Barr, Typology, 294–303 and Tov, Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint, 24–25. B.G. Wright, “The Quantitative Representation of Elements: Evaluating ‘Literalism’ in the LXX,” in VI Congress of the IOSCS, Jerusalem, 1986 (ed. C.E. Cox; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 316. See also Olofsson, LXX Version, 12. Waltke–O’Connor, Syntax, 604. Moulton–Turner, Syntax, 8, 144–145.

150

chapter 3

‫בהוציאך את־העם ממצרים‬, ἐν τῷ ἐξαγαγεῖν σε τὸν λαόν μου ἐξ Αἰγύπτου (Exod 3:12). The distribution of the various types of equivalents is illustrated in Table 92. When measuring the degree of literalness of translations by examining quantitative representation, the ἐν + infinitive/adverb/noun translation (the first three categories in Table 92) is the most literal one in which ἐν represents ‫ב‬, while the other translations move away from a literal representation.206 LXXLev is the most literal translation unit (12/22 = 54.5 %), followed by Genesis (17/43 = 39.5%) and Numbers (16/38 = 42.1%). The most free translation units are Exodus (8/49 = 16.3%) and Deuteronomy (8/38 = 21 %). The criterion of ‫ ב‬+ infinitive reveals another clear distinction between Exodus-Deuteronomy and Genesis-Leviticus-Numbers in measuring quantitative representation. The first group is the freest as ἐν is used less as an equivalent of ‫( ב־‬Exodus: 8 times; Deuteronomy: 8 times), while all other constructions, which point to better Greek, are much more prevalent (Exodus: 41 times; Deuteronomy: 30 times). table 92

The distribution of the rendering of ‫ ב‬+ Infinitive in LXX-Pent

Equivalents ἐν + art. + vb. (inf.) ἐν + art. + adv. ἐν + (art.) + noun Subtotal ἡνίκα + vb. (indic.) ἡνίκα (ἐ)άν + vb. (subj.) ὅτι/ὅτε + vb. (indic.) ὅταν/ὅτι ἄν + vb. (subj.) ὡς + vb. (indic./ptc.) ὡς + ἄν + vb. (subj.) διά + art. + vb. (inf.) ἐπί + noun ἐάν + vb. (subj.) participial constructions vb. (inf.) vb. (indic.)

206

Gen

Exod

Lev

Num

Deut

16 1

6

12

13

7

2 8

12

3 16

1 8

17 9 10

3 3 1

2 4 2 11 4 1 1 1

1 1 3 1

13

4

4 10

7

1 4 1 1 2

1 20

1

Soisalon-Soininen, Infinitive, 80–93; Tov–Wright, “Literalness,” 159–163.

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent Table 92

The distribution of the rendering of ‫ ב‬+ Infinitive (cont.)

Equivalents No equiv. Subtotal Total

151

Gen

Exod

26 43

1 41 49

Lev

Num

Deut

10 22

1 22 38

30 38

36. Linguistic Adequacy of Lexical Choices: Historical Present of λέγω: Exod ≠ Gen, Lev, Num, Deut The historical present, which is common not only in classical and Septuagint Greek but also in many other languages,207 is a literary device used to portray an event vividly208 or to introduce a date, a new scene, and/or a new character in a narrative.209 The historical present is usually expressed by present indicative forms appearing in the midst of past tenses. Consequently, it assumes an aoristic character and permits both the speaker and the reader to be present at the scene, as in Exod 4:18: Exod 4:18 MT ‫וילך משה וישב אל־יתר חתנו ויאמר לו אלכה נא ואשובה אל־אחי אשר־במצרים‬ LXX ἐπορεύθη δὲ Μωυσῆς καὶ ἀπέστρεψεν πρὸς Ιοθορ τὸν γαμβρὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ λέγει πορεύσομαι καὶ ἀποστρέψω πρὸς τοὺς ἀδελφούς μου τοὺς ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ (Literally: And Moses went and returned to Jothor his father-in-law, and says “I will go and return to my brethren in Egypt”). The use of the historical present has been employed as a criterion for distinguishing between the translators of the LXX books. Thackeray found that in the early portions of Reigns the translators used the historical present frequently (Part α [1Sam]: 151 times; ββ [2Sam 1:1–11:1]: 28 times; and γγ [1 Kgs 2:12–21:43]: 48 times), while the later portions (2Sam 11:2–1Kgs 2:11 and 1 Kgs 22:1–2Kgs)210

207 208 209 210

Robertson, Grammar, 866–867. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 526. H.St.J. Thackeray, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: A Study in Origins (London: Oxford University Press, 1923), 21. These sections are usually denoted as the kaige-Th recension.

152

chapter 3

have only nine forms.211 A similar distinction is visible in the New Testament where the historical present is frequently used in Mark (151 times), John (151 times), and Matthew (93 times), but not in Luke (9 times).212 Although the translators of LXX-Pent did not employ the historical present in great numbers, it can still be used as a criterion for distinguishing between translators, especially in the case of λέγω, “to say.” This is the most prevalent verb213 appearing in the historical present in the LXX.214 In LXX-Pent, the present indicative form of λέγω occurs six times in Genesis, thirty-five times in Exodus, and twelve times in Numbers, altogether fifty-three times. These occurrences include the historical present as well as the simple present indicative form of λέγω. The translators sometimes used λέγω in the historical present in the midst of an aorist context in order to make the description more vivid. On most occasions, this word opens a unit of direct speech: Gen 15:2; 38:22; Exod 2:13; 4:18 (quoted above); 5:3; 10:7, 9, 28, 29; 18:14, 15; 20:20; 32:1, 2, 17, 18, 23, 27; 33:14, 15, 18 (= 19 times); Num 20:19; 22:16a, 28, 30.215 The translators of LXX-Pent also frequently selected the historic present of λέγω for the formulaic expressions ‫ כה אמר יהוה‬and ‫ נאם יהוה‬introducing a messenger’s word as in Gen 22:16; 32:5(32:4 in Gö); 45:9; Exod 4:22; 5:1, 10; 7:10, 26; 8:16; 9:1, 13; 10:3; 11:4; 32:27b; and Num 14:28; 20:14; 22:16b. For instance: Exod 9:1 MT ‫כֹּה־ָאַמר ְיה ָוה ֱאֹלֵהי ָהִﬠְב ִרים ַשַׁלּח ֶאת־ַﬠִמּי‬ LXX τάδε λέγει κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῶν Εβραίων ἐξαπόστειλον τὸν λαόν μου

211 212 213 214

215

Thackeray, Jewish Worship, 20. Moulton–Turner, Syntax, 60 and J.H. Moulton and N. Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. IV: Style (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1976), 20. New Testament writers also employ λέγω in the historical present more than any other verb. On the other hand, other verbs of speaking such as ἐρωτάω, “to ask,” and λαλέω, “to speak,” do not appear at all in the historical present in LXX-Pent. These verbs often appear in the present indicative form in the midst of an aorist context, influenced by the Hebrew text. Usually the translators chose the present indicative to indicate the sense of a participle or imperfect aspect of a Hebrew verb as in: Gen 32:30 ἵνα τί τοῦτο ἐρωτᾷς ‫ָלָמּה ֶזּה ִתְּשַׁאל‬ Gen 44:7 ἵνα τί λαλεῖ ὁ κύριος ‫ָלָמּה ְי ַדֵבּר ֲאד ֹ ִני‬ Three instances appear in the story of Balaam (chs. 22–24).

153

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent

Num 14:28 MT ‫ְנֻאם־ ְיה ָוה ִאם־ל ֹא ַכֲּאֶשׁר ִדַּבּ ְרֶתּם ְבָּא ְז ָני ֵכּן ֶאֱﬠֶשׂה ָלֶכם‬ LXX λέγει κύριος ἦ μὴν ὃν τρόπον λελαλήκατε εἰς τὰ ὦτά μου οὕτως ποιήσω ὑμῖν The usage of the genuine historical present was not widespread in LXX-Pent. It only occurs in Genesis (5 times), Exodus (30 times) and Numbers (7 times), and not in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. These instances include the use of λέγω, singled out here for analysis. Any investigation of the historical present must be confined to the third person because Greek usage in narrative is restricted to the third person.216 The table below demonstrates the possible places in which the historical present could have occurred in the Pentateuch. table 93

‫ אמר‬in perfective tense, third person, and historical present

‫ אמר‬in MT

waw-imperfect (3rd p.) perfect (3rd p.) Total Translated with historical present

Gen

Exod

Lev

Num

Deut

438 27 465 2

186 11 197 19

10 0 10 0

119 8 127 4

25 13 38 0

When one examines the number of instances in which the translators chose the historical present in LXX-Pent for the perfect ‫אמר‬, the translator of Exodus made that choice most frequently. He used the historical present tense nineteen times among the 197 cases of the perfect ‫ אמר‬in narrative contexts (9.6%). On the other hand, in Genesis, the translator opted for the historical present only twice out of 465 occurrences (0.4%), the translator of Numbers used it four times out of 127 (3.1%),217 and the translators of Leviticus and Deuteronomy never employed the historical present. The translator of Exodus thus allowed himself more freedom than the other translators in LXX-Pent in representing the context more vividly.

216 217

Wallace, Greek Grammar, 528. Num 20:19; 22:16, 28, 30.

154 5

chapter 3

Excursus: Differences between Exodus 29 and Leviticus 8

The preceding analyses captured differences in vocabulary between the various units in individual words. This excursus examines the same type of differences, not in individual renderings, but in the context of nearly identical running chapters, viz., Exodus 29 and Leviticus 8, containing instructions for the ordination of priests.218 Common features are examined first, differences are analyzed afterwards. 5.1 Common Features The translations of the two sections reflect wide-ranging agreements in such technical terms as: ‫—יסוד‬βάσις,219 ‫—ריח ניחוח‬ὀσμὴ εὐωδίας,220 ‫—איל‬κριός,221 ‫—רקיק‬λάγανον,222 ‫—חלב‬στέαρ,223 ‫—יתרת‬λοβός,224 ‫—כבד‬ἧπαρ,225 ‫—בשר‬κρέας,226 ‫—כת)ו(נת‬χιτών,227 ‫—אפד‬ἐπωμίς,228 ‫—חשן‬λογεῖον,229 ‫—מצנפת‬μίτρα,230 ‫—אבנט‬ζώνη,231 ‫—מגבעת‬κίδαρις,232 ‫—קרן‬κέρας,233 and ‫—כרע‬πούς.234 Furthermore, “thigh,” equaling βραχίων in both chapters (Exod 29:22, 27; Lev 8:25, 26) is not found in the LXX beyond Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. Elsewhere in the LXX, βραχίων equals ‫( זרוע‬passim).235 The phrase ‫מלא יד‬, “fill the hand,” a technical term for “to ordain to office,” was translated by τελειόω χεῖρα (Exod 29:9, 29, 33, 35; Lev 8:33), as opposed to πληρόω and (ἐμ)πίπλημι elsewhere in LXX-Pent. The fact that the later translators attempted to capture the sense of ‫ מלא יד‬with the more frequent equivalent

218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235

See the commentaries of Hartley, Leviticus, 103–110 and E.S. Gerstenberger, Leviticus (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 99–101, 107–112. Exod 29:12; Lev 8:15. Exod 29:18, 25, 41; Lev 8:21, 28. Exod 29:1, 3, 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, 26, 27, 31, 32; Lev 8:2, 18, 20, 21, 22, 29. Exod 29:2, 23; Lev 8:26. Exod 29:13, 22; Lev 8:16, 25, 26. Exod 29:13, 22; Lev 8:16, 25. Exod 29:13, 22; Lev 8:16, 23. Exod 29:14, 31, 32, 34; Lev 8:17, 31, 32. Exod 29:5, 8; Lev 8:7, 13. Exod 29:5; Lev 8:7. Exod 29:5; Lev 8:8. Exod 29:6; Lev 8:9. Exod 29:9; Lev 8:7, 13. Exod 29:9; Lev 8:13. Exod 29:12; Lev 8:15. Exod 29:17; Lev 8:15. Gen 49:24; Exod 6:6; 15:16; Num 6:19; Deut 5:15; 7:19; 33:20, etc.

155

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent

πληρόω τὴν χεῖρα (Judg 17:5, 12; 1Kgs 13:33; 1Chr 29:5; 2 Chr 13:9; 29:31) or πίπλημι τὴν χεῖρα (2Kgs 9:24; Ezek 43:26) strengthens the similarity between Exodus 29 and Leviticus 8. 5.2 Differences Together with ample evidence that points to the common background of the two versions, there is also clear testimony of variety. 5.2.1 Vocabulary 5.2.1.1 Different Word Choices The translators of the two chapters rendered ‫נתח‬, piel “to divide, cut into sections” differently. The translator of Exodus 29 translated ‫ואת האיל תנתח לנתחיו‬ with καὶ τὸν κριὸν διχοτομήσεις κατὰ μέλη (Exod 29:17), as if every part of the ram should be cut into two pieces, while κρεανομέω, “to divide” in Leviticus 8 does not go into any detail with regard to the cutting.236 Additional examples: table 94

Different equivalents in Exodus 29 and Leviticus 8

Hebrew word

Greek equivalents Exodus 29 (vv.) Leviticus 8 (vv.)

‫מעיל‬,

5

“garment”

ποδήρης ὑποδύτης237

‫אפד‬, “to gird”

συσφίγγω συνάπτω

5

‫חשב‬, “ingenious work”

λογεῖον ποίησις

‫( נזר‬consecration

6

of the high priest)

πέταλον καθηγιασμένον

‫עור‬, “skin”

δέρμα βύρσα

4

‫הניף‬,

ἀφορίζω ἀναφέρω ἀφαιρέω

“to wave”

236 237

7 7 5 (‫)?חשן‬ 7 9 17 24, 26, 27 27 29

The other equivalents in the book, μελίζω (“dismember,” Lev 1:6) and διαιρέω (“divide,” Lev 1:12), are similarly general. Exod 28:31, 34; 33:22.

156 Table 94

chapter 3 Different equivalents in Exodus 29 and Leviticus 8 (cont.)

Hebrew word

Greek equivalents Exodus 29 (vv.) Leviticus 8 (vv.)

‫תנופה‬,

ἀφόρισμα ἀφαίρεμα ἐπίθεμα

“wave offering” ‫ִכֶּפּר‬, “to atone for sin”

ἁγιάζω καθαρίζω ἐξιλάσκομαι

24, 26, 27 27 29 33, 36 37 15, 34

5.2.1.2 Different Preferences In some renderings, the translator of Exodus strived for variety, while the translator of Leviticus presented more stereotyped equivalents. For example, for ‫פר‬, the translation of Exodus selected both μοσχάριον, “little calf” (Exod 29:1, 3, 36) and μόσχος, “calf, young bull” (Exod 29:10a, b, 11, 12, 14), while Leviticus used only μόσχος (Lev 8:2, 14a, b, 17). table 95

‫ פר‬in LXX-Exod and LXX-Lev

Exodus

Leviticus

μοσχάριον 4 occurrences 24:5; 29:1, 3, 36 μόσχος

5 occurrences 30 occurrences 29:10a, b, 11, 12, 14 4:3, 4a, b, c, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15a, b, 16, 20a, b, 21a, b; 8:2, 14a, b, 17; 16:3, 6, 11a, b, 14, 15, 18, 27; 23:18

Total

9

30

Elsewhere, μοσχάριον is used in Lev 9:2, 3, 8 and in Isa 11:6; Amos 6:4; Mal 3:20 for ‫עגל‬, and in Gen 17:7, 8 for ‫בן בקר‬. In rendering ‫משחה‬, “anointing (oil),” Exodus 29 employed both χρῖσμα (vv. 7, 25a, b) and χρῖσις (v. 21), while the translator of Leviticus 8 used only χρῖσις (vv. 2, 10, 12, 30):

157

differences between the translation units in lxx-pent table 96

‫ ִמשָחה‬in LXX-Pent

Gen

Exod

χρῖσμα

4 occurrences 29:7, 25a, b; 40:9

χρῖσις

6 occurrences 29:21; 30:31; 31:11; 35:28, 29, 38

χριστός

Lev

Num Deut

7 occurrences 7:35a, b; 8:2, 10, 12, 30; 10:7

4:16

2 occurrences 21:10, 12

No equivalent Total

3 occurrences 25:6; 35:8, 15 0

13

9

1

0

Additional examples of variety in Exodus 29 versus consistency in Leviticus 8 are: table 97

Variety in LXX-Exod versus stereotyping in LXX-Lev

Hebrew word

Greek equivalents Exodus 29 (vv.)

Leviticus 8 (vv.)

‫פתח‬, “entrance”

θύρα αὐλή

4, 11, 32, 42 31

3, 4, 33, 35

‫לפני‬,

“to the front of”

ἐπὶ ἔναντι

10 11, 23, 24, 25, 26, 42 26, 27

‫הקטיר‬, “to offer incense”

ἐπιτίθημι ἀναφέρω

13 18, 25

‫הוא‬

εἰμί αὐτός οὗτος

14, 18b, 25, 34 21 22, 28

21a, b, 28

‫עלה‬, “whole burnt offering”

ὁλοκαύτωμα θυσία

18, 25 42

18, 21, 28

‫אכל‬,

ἐσθίω βιβρώσκω

32, 33 34

31a, b

“to eat”

16, 21, 20

158

chapter 3

Table 97

Variety in LXX-Exod versus stereotyping in LXX-Lev (cont.)

Hebrew word

Greek equivalents Exodus 29 (vv.)

Leviticus 8 (vv.)

‫אשה‬,

θυσίασμα κάρπωμα

21, 28

“burnt offering”

5.2.2 a.

b.

c.

18 25, 41

Translation Technique The translator of Exodus 29 consistently renders ‫ ליהוה‬with κυρίῳ without the definite article (vv. 18a, b, 25, 28, 41), as he did in the remainder of the book, while Leviticus 8 added the article, τῷ κυρίῳ (vv. 21, 28), in line with the preference in Leviticus.238 καί is employed in both chapters (Exodus 29: 127 times; Leviticus 8: 128 times), while the postpositive conjunction δέ is used only in Exodus 29 (vv. 12, 14, 21, 34). It never appears in Leviticus 8. In the use of the two different indicative future forms of ἐσθίω, “eat,” φάγομαι and ἔδομαι, the translators of Exodus 29 and Leviticus 8 differ. The translator of Exodus employed ἔδομαι in Exod 29:32 and 33 (twice), while the Leviticus translator chose the alternate form φάγομαι in Lev 8:31 (twice):

Exod 29:32 MT ‫ְוָאַכל ַאֲהר ֹן וָּב ָניו‬ LXX καὶ ἔδονται Ααρων καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτου Lev 8:31 MT ‫ַאֲהר ֹן וָּב ָניו י ֹאְכֻלהוּ‬ LXX Ααρων καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτοῦ φάγονται αὐτά In sum, the analysis of Exodus 29 and Leviticus 8 reveals clearly that the translators of the two chapters differed in many details. 238

For the general differences within LXX-Pent based on this criterion and an exhaustive table, see ch. 3, 13. ‫ליהוה‬.

chapter 4

General Conclusions The present study addresses the question of the number of translators (or translation groups) that produced the LXX Pentateuch.

1

The Common Background of the Septuagint Translators of the Pentateuch

This study tried to capture the special vocabulary of LXX-Pent beyond such natural equivalents as ‫—אח‬ἀδελφός and ‫—נפש‬ψυχή. Its main purpose was to describe elements common to the five books of the Greek Pentateuch within its Jewish-Hellenistic background. Some equivalents were described at greater length because they presumably characterize the socioreligious milieu of the translators in the third century BCE. The names of the main festivals are common to all five books, as well as most technical terms and many newly coined words (neologisms).1 All these descriptions are based on statistical data. Several equivalents show clearly that the vocabulary of the Pentateuch differed from that of the later books, for example, ‫—פלשתים‬Φυλιστιιμ in the Torah as opposed to ἀλλόφυλοι in the later books. The individuality of the translators, which is shown by an analysis in chapter 3, is meaningful only after the common features are established, as in chapter 2.

2

Heterogeneity

2.1 Five Different Translators of LXX-Pent There being no external evidence regarding the number of translators of LXXPent, we have to turn to internal evidence. The evidence presented in chapter 3 strongly supports the contention that the translations of the five books of the Pentateuch were prepared by several individuals. We suggest that five different translators, each in charge of one book, created these translations. The tables below summarize the results of each section in chapter 3 concerning the divisions within each book and the relationship between the books. The first four 1 For the former, see pp. 25–29; for the latter, see pp. 22–25 and 37–39.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004421127_005

160

chapter 4

tables (Tables 98, 99, 100, 101) summarize the criteria and the results of the analyses of each section in this chapter. The differences reflected in the tables are rearranged in the ensuing six tables (Tables 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107), which indicate the differences that separate the five individual books in relation to each other. The evidence allows the reader to recognize how often and in which areas a book differs from another book or books, or how a certain group of books diverges from another group. In addition, the translations of two running texts of almost identical content (Exodus 29 and Leviticus 8) were found to differ in many ways (ch. 3, Excursus). This evidence needs to be added to the examination of individual equivalents in chapter 3. Every table contains three columns: the source word (Hebrew word or syntagma), its main renderings, and a brief indication of the translation units containing different renderings. Thus ‫חמור‬, ὑποζύγιον/ὄνος, Exod ≠ Gen, Num, Deut indicates that the main rendering of ‫ חמור‬was ὑποζύγιον in Exodus, and ὄνος in three other books. table 98

Synonymous renderings—individual words (ch. 3.1.A)

Section

Source word

Main renderings

Internal differences

1 2 3 4 5

‫אולי‬ ‫אמ״ר‬ ‫בהמה‬ ‫גור‬ ‫ֵגר‬ ‫גזל‬, ‫גנב‬

Gen ≠ Num Gen ≠ Exod, Lev, Num, Deut Gen, Exod, Lev ≠ Num, Deut Gen ≠ Lev, Num Exod ≠ Lev, Deut Gen ≠ Exod, Lev, Deut

6

‫ זכר‬and ‫נקבה‬

7 8 9 10 11

‫זקן‬ ‫חמור‬ ‫טוב‬ ‫)ב(טרם‬ ‫כאשר‬

ἐάν, μήποτε / εἰ dative / πρός τετράπους / κτῆνος παροικέω / πρόσκειμαι προσήλυτος variety / κλέπτω ἀφαιρέω / ἁρπάζω ἄρσην / ἀρσενικός θῆλυς / θηλυκός πρεσβύτερος / γερουσία ὑποζύγιον / ὄνος ἀγαθός / καλός πρό+τοῦ inf / variety ὃν τρόπον / καθάπερ

12 13 14

(‫כרת )ברית‬ ‫ליהוה‬ ‫מו״ת‬

τίθημι / διατίθημι τῷ κυρίῳ / κυρίῳ (qal) ἀποθνῄσκω / τελευτάω (ptc.) νεκρός / θνῄσκω ‫מות יומת‬

Gen, Lev ≠ Exod, Num, Deut Gen, Lev ≠ Num, Deut Gen, Num ≠ Exod ≠ Deut Exod ≠ Gen, Num, Deut Gen ≠ Deut Gen ≠ Exod Gen ≠ Exod, Lev, Num, Deut Exod ≠ Gen, Lev, Num, Deut Exod ≠ Gen, Deut Lev ≠ Gen, Exod, Num, Deut Exod ≠ Gen, Lev, Num, Deut Gen ≠ Num ≠ Exod, Deut Gen ≠ Exod ≠ Lev, Num

161

general conclusions Table 98

Synonymous renderings—individual words (ch. 3.1.A) (cont.)

Section

Source word

Main renderings

Internal differences

15 16 17

‫ָמן‬ (‫מקרא )קדש‬ ‫משפחה‬

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

‫תולד)ו(ת‬ ‫נחלה‬ ‫נסע‬ ‫עבד‬ ‫על־כן‬ ‫ַﬠם‬ (‫ערבה )ערבות‬ ‫פן‬ ‫צוה‬ ‫צפור‬ ‫ראש‬

μαν / μάννα κλητός / ἐπίκλητος φυλή / δῆμος / variety δῆμος γένεσις / συγγένεια κληρονομία / κλῆρος ἀπαίρω / ἐξαίρω παῖς / variety variety / διὰ τοῦτο γένος δυσμή / Ἀραβώθ, Ἀραβά μήποτε / μή ἐντέλλομαι / συντάσσω ὀρνίθιον / ὄρνεον (“top of a hill”) κεφαλή / κορυφή (“leader”) ἄρχων / variety variety / δίδραχμον / σίκλος φάγομαι / ἔδομαι

Exod ≠ Num, Deut Lev ≠ Num Gen ≠ Num ≠ Exod, Lev Num ≠ Gen, Exod, Lev, Deut Gen ≠ Num Num ≠ Deut Exod ≠ Gen, Num, Deut Gen ≠ Exod, Lev, Num, Deut Gen ≠ Exod, Lev, Num, Deut Gen, Exod, Lev ≠ Num, Deut Num ≠ Deut Gen, Exod ≠ Deut Gen, Lev, Deut ≠ Exod, Num Lev ≠ Gen, Deut Gen ≠ Exod, Num, Deut Num ≠ Deut Exod ≠ Lev ≠ Num Exod ≠ Gen, Lev, Num, Deut

28 29

‫שקל‬

φάγομαι and ἔδομαι

table 99

Synonymous renderings—syntactical units (ch. 3.1.B)

Sections

Main renderings

Internal differences

30. Waw-Coordinating Clauses a. Representation of waw in ‫ויהי‬ b. Representation of waw in ‫ויאמר‬ 31. Infinitive Absolute Constructions

καί / δέ καί / δέ ptc. / noun

Gen, Exod ≠ Num, Deut Gen, Exod ≠ Lev, Num, Deut Gen ≠ Exod, Lev, Num, Deut

table 100 Renderings showing different perceptions (ch. 3.2)

32. ἐντέλλομαι and συντάσσω with different subjects 33. λαός and ἔθνος

Lev ≠ Num Gen, Lev, Num ≠ Exod, Deut

162 table 101

chapter 4 Degree of literalism (ch. 3.3)

34. Internal consistency a. καί vs. postpositive particles b. ‫—הנה‬ἰδού 35. Quantitative representation 36. Linguistic adequacy of lexical choices: Historical present of λέγω

Gen, Exod ≠ Lev, Num, Deut Gen, Exod ≠ Lev, Deut Exod, Deut ≠ Gen, Lev, Num Exod ≠ Gen, Lev, Num, Deut

The summarizing tables (Tables 98, 99, 100, 101) show how often and to what extent a translator differs from the others. In the renderings of words and syntagmata, in different perceptions, as well as in the degree of literalism, the translators reveal constant variety. For example, in the rendering of ‫ערבה‬ (‫)ערבות‬, the translator of LXX-Num preferred the etymological interpretation δυσμή (in six out of nine occurrences), while the translator of Deuteronomy favored the transliterated Ἀραβά or Ἀραβώθ (8/10). While two or three translators may agree in a certain criterion, they may disagree in others. The data listed above are now analyzed by book in order to facilitate a comparison of the books of the Pentateuch. The translator of Genesis distinguished himself from the others sixteen times in fourteen criteria in the areas of the rendering of words or phrases (‫אמ״ר‬, ‫גור‬, ‫גנב‬/‫גזל‬, ‫כאשר‬, ‫מו״ת‬, ‫משפחה‬, ‫עבד‬, ‫על־כן‬, ‫)ראש‬, in syntagmata (infinitive absolute), and in Greek style (see Table 102). These distinctions can also be expressed as differences between Genesis and one or more books of the Pentateuch. Thus, Genesis differs from Exodus in the rendering of ‫)ב(טרם‬, from Leviticus and Numbers in the rendering of ‫גר‬/‫גור‬, from Numbers in the translation of ‫אולי‬, ‫תולד)ו(ת‬, and ‫ויהי‬, and from Deuteronomy in the representation of ‫טוב‬. table 102 Features of Genesis

Source word

Main renderings

Internal differences

‫)ב(טרם‬ ‫כאשר‬ ‫גזל‬, ‫( גנב‬vb.)

Gen ≠ Exod Gen ≠ Exod, Lev, Num, Deut Gen ≠ Exod, Lev, Deut

‫( מות‬ptc.)

πρό + τοῦ inf / variety ὃν τρόπον variety / κλέπτω ἀφαιρέω / ἁρπάζω νεκρός / θνῄσκω

Idiom

‫מות יומת‬

Gen ≠ Exod, Deut ≠ Num Gen ≠ Exod ≠ Lev, Num

163

general conclusions Table 102 Features of Genesis (cont.)

Source word

Main renderings

Internal differences

‫משפחה‬ ‫תולד)ו(ת‬ ‫עבד‬ ‫אל‬/‫)וי(אמר ל־‬ ‫על־כן‬

φυλή / δῆμος / variety γένεσις / συγγένεια παῖς / variety dative / πρός variety / διὰ τοῦτο ptc. / noun κεφαλή / κορυφή παροικέω / πρόσκειμαι ἐὰν, μήποτε / εἰ καί / δέ ἀγαθός / καλός

Gen ≠ Exod, Lev ≠ Num Gen ≠ Num Gen ≠ Exod, Lev, Num, Deut Gen ≠ Exod, Lev, Num, Deut Gen ≠ Exod, Lev, Num, Deut Gen ≠ Exod, Lev, Num, Deut Gen ≠ Exod, Num, Deut Gen ≠ Lev, Num Gen ≠ Num Gen ≠ Num Gen ≠ Deut

Infinitive Absolute ‫ראש‬, “top of a hill” ‫גר‬/‫גור‬ ‫אולי‬

Representation of waw in ‫ויהי‬ ‫טוב‬

The translator of Exodus reveals his distinct translation features thirteen times in twelve criteria. He differed from other translators in the rendering of words and phrases (‫זקן‬, ‫חמור‬, ‫כאשר‬, [‫כרת ]ברית‬, ‫מו״ת‬, ‫ָמן‬, ‫)נסע‬, in preferences of certain Greek forms (φάγομαι and ἔδομαι), and in the degree of literalism (historical present). This translator was also often distinct from one or two other individual translators. For example, his vocabulary and style show no affinity to Genesis in the rendering of ‫)ב(טרם‬, and it differs from Leviticus and Numbers in the rendering of ‫שקל‬. table 103 Features of Exodus

Source word

Main renderings

Internal differences

‫ֵגר‬ ‫)ב(טרם‬ ‫כאשר‬ ‫( מות‬qal, finite verb)

προσήλυτος πρό + τοῦ inf / variety καθάπερ variety / ἀποθνῄσκω

idiom

‫מות יומת‬

‫חמור‬ ‫זקן‬ ‫נסע‬ (‫כרת )ברית‬ ‫שקל‬

ὑποζύγιον / ὄνος variety / πρεσβύτερος / γερουσία ἀπαίρω / ἐξαίρω τίθημι / διατίθημι variety / δίδραχμον / σίκλος

Exod ≠ Lev, Deut Exod ≠ Gen Exod ≠ Gen, Lev, Num, Deut Exod ≠ Gen, Lev, Num, Deut Exod ≠ Gen ≠ Lev, Num Exod ≠ Gen, Num, Deut Exod ≠ Gen, Num ≠ Deut Exod ≠ Gen, Num, Deut Exod ≠ Gen, Deut Exod ≠ Lev ≠ Num

164

chapter 4

Table 103 Features of Exodus (cont.)

Source word

Main renderings

Internal differences

‫ָמן‬

μαν / μάννα

Exod ≠ Num, Deut Exod ≠ Gen, Lev, Num, Deut Exod ≠ Gen, Lev, Num, Deut

φάγομαι and ἔδομαι Literalism: Linguistic adequacy of lexical choices

LXX-Lev differs from the other four books in five criteria. table 104 Features of Leviticus

Source word

Main renderings

τῷ κυρίῳ / κυρίῳ ὀρνίθιον / ὄρνεον δίδραχμον / σίκλος /variety κλητός / ἐπίκλητος ἐντέλλομαι and συντάσσω with different subjects ‫ליהוה‬ ‫צפור‬ ‫שקל‬ (‫מקרא )קדש‬

Internal differences Lev ≠ Gen, Exod, Num, Deut Lev ≠ Gen, Deut Lev ≠ Exod ≠ Num Lev ≠ Num Lev ≠ Num

Numbers differs from the other units eleven times in nine criteria. table 105 Features of Numbers

Source word

Main renderings

ἐὰν, μήποτε / εἰ δῆμος φυλή / δῆμος / variety ‫תולד)ו(ת‬ γένεσις / συγγένεια ‫( מו״ת‬ptc.) νεκρός / θνῄσκω ‫שקל‬ variety / δίδραχμον / σίκλος (‫מקרא )קדש‬ κλητός / ἐπίκλητος ἐντέλλομαι and συντάσσω with different subjects ‫ערבה‬ δυσμή / Ἀραβώθ, Ἀραβά ‫נחלה‬ κληρονομία / κλῆρος ‫ראש‬, “leader” ἄρχων / variety ‫אולי‬ ‫משפחה‬

Internal differences Num ≠ Gen Num ≠ Gen, Exod, Lev, Deut Num ≠ Gen ≠ Exod, Lev Num ≠ Gen Num ≠ Gen ≠ Exod, Deut Num ≠ Exod ≠ Lev Num ≠ Lev Num ≠ Lev Num ≠ Deut Num ≠ Deut Num ≠ Deut

165

general conclusions

The translator of Deuteronomy reveals his idiosyncrasies in six criteria. He differed from the others in the rendering of six words. table 106 Features of Deuteronomy

Source word

Main renderings

Internal differences

‫טוב‬ ‫פן‬ ‫זקן‬ ‫ערבה‬ ‫נחלה‬ ‫ראש‬, “leader”

ἀγαθός / καλός μήποτε / μή πρεσβύτερος / γερουσία δυσμή / Ἀραβώθ, Ἀραβά κληρονομία / κλῆρος ἄρχων / variety

Deut ≠ Gen Deut ≠ Gen, Exod Deut ≠ Gen, Num ≠ Exod Deut ≠ Num Deut ≠ Num Deut ≠ Num

2.2 Clusters of Books? Tables 98 to 106 above display the differences between the individual books. These discrepancies show clearly that five different translators were at work. The next step is an attempt to determine possible clusters of books within LXXPent. The statistics often show a partition line between clusters of books of LXX-Pent, such as Genesis-Exodus versus Leviticus-Numbers-Deuteronomy. table 107 Possible clusters of books in LXX-Pent

‫בהמה‬ ‫ויהי‬ ‫ויאמר‬ ‫ַﬠם‬ ‫ זכר‬and ‫נקבה‬ ‫צוה‬

τετράπους / κτῆνος καί / δέ καί / δέ γένος ἄρσην / ἀρσενικός θῆλυς / θηλυκός ἐντέλλομαι and συντάσσω with different subjects

λαός and ἔθνος Literalism: καί vs. postpositive particles Literalism: ‫—הנה‬ἰδού Literalism: Quantitative Representation

Gen, Exod, Lev ≠ Num, Deut Gen, Exod ≠ Num, Deut Gen, Exod ≠ Lev, Num, Deut Gen, Exod, Lev ≠ Num, Deut Gen, Lev ≠ Exod, Num, Deut Gen, Lev ≠ Num, Deut Gen, Lev, Deut ≠ Exod, Num Gen, Lev, Num ≠ Exod, Deut Gen, Exod ≠ Lev, Num, Deut Gen, Exod ≠ Lev, Deut Exod, Deut ≠ Gen, Lev, Num

The clustering of books is especially clear in the rendering of waw-coordinating clauses (see ‫ ויהי‬and ‫ ויאמר‬above). The construction with δέ is used frequently

166

chapter 4

in the first two books of the Pentateuch, whereas it rarely appears in the other three books. The latter three books reflect a more literal translation of these clauses with καί than Genesis and Exodus in the matter of word order. Similar conclusions concerning the clustering of the books of LXX-Pent were reached by other scholars.2 This clustering does not necessarily mean that a single translator or a translation group produced both LXX-Gen and LXX-Exod or that a team of translators or a single one created LXX-Lev, Num, and Deut, since the internal resemblance only pertains to a limited number of renderings and translation techniques. It also does not apply to every instance. For example, though Genesis and Exodus both reflect a certain degree of freedom, they clearly differ in the other criteria such as the renderings of ‫ בטרם‬and ‫חמור‬, as described above. Moreover, the division line in the five books of LXX-Pent changes constantly according to the different criteria. For example, Genesis-Exodus-Leviticus and Numbers-Deuteronomy differ in the rendering of ‫ בהמה‬and ‫ַﬠם‬, while GenesisLeviticus and the other three books differ in the rendering of ‫ זכר‬and ‫נקבה‬. Other clusterings between Genesis-Leviticus-Deuteronomy and Exodus-Numbers are visible in the rendering of ‫צוה‬, and between Genesis-Leviticus-Numbers and Exodus-Deuteronomy in the use of λαός and ἔθνος.

2 See Thackeray, Grammar, 50–52; A. Wifstrand, Die Stellung der enklitischen Personalpronomina bei den Septuaginta (K. Humanistiska Vetenskapssamfundets i Lund årsberättelse 1949– 1950, II; Lund: Gleerup, 1950), 44–70. Soisalon-Soininen asserts that in the translation of ‫עד‬ + infinitive, LXX-Gen shows a marked difference from LXX-Lev, Num, and Deut (SoisalonSoininen, Infinitive, 111–112). In her study on Parataxis (Aejmelaeus, Parataxis, 184), Aejmelaeus determines that the translators of Genesis and Exodus were freer in their attitudes toward the original Hebrew than the translators of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, who avoided changing the original word order. She also confirms this point in her study, A. Aejmelaeus, “The Significance of Clause Connectors in the Syntactical and TranslationTechnical Study of the Septuagint,” in VI Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Jerusalem 1986 (ed. C.E. Cox; SCS 23; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 361–380. She shows that the use of δέ, the most frequent alternative to καί, occurs in Genesis 25% of the time, in Exodus 16%, but in Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy less than 3 % of the time. As a postpositive particle, δέ changes the original word order. Sollamo also arrived at a similar conclusion in her discussion of the pleonastic use of the pronoun. See R. Sollamo, “The Pleonastic Use of the Pronoun in Connection with the Relative Pronoun in the Greek Pentateuch,” in VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leuven, 1989 (ed. C.E. Cox; SCS 31; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991). She concludes that Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy represent a more literal manner of translation than Genesis and Exodus. Genesis uses pleonastic pronouns 26 times out of a total of 48 cases (54%), Exodus 22 out of 43 (51%), Leviticus 51 out of 73 (70%), Numbers 30 out of 37 (81 %), and Deuteronomy 65 out of 80 (81%).

167

general conclusions

The unstable division line between the various clusters shows that no clear conclusions can be drawn from the combined translation evidence. In chapter 2, the common background of the translations was pointed out. Had the evidence of the clustering been clear, we could have concluded that two or more translators often or always cooperated. However, there seems to be no evidence for such an assumption. 2.3 Relations among the Translations A few comments are warranted regarding the relations among the individual books within the context of the criteria considered in this chapter. Table 108, below, which combines data from Tables 98, 99, 100, 101, illustrates the statistical aspects of the agreements (=) and differences (≠) between the books of LXX-Pent. table 108 Relations between the five books of LXX-Pent

Gen = Exod Gen = Lev Gen = Num Gen = Deut Exod = Lev Exod = Num Exod = Deut Lev = Num Lev = Deut Num = Deut

8 12 10 11 12 9 14 15 14 21

Gen ≠ Exod Gen ≠ Lev Gen ≠ Num Gen ≠ Deut Exod ≠ Lev Exod ≠ Num Exod ≠ Deut Lev ≠ Num Lev ≠ Deut Num ≠ Deut

23 13 21 20 11 20 15 11 7 9

The disparity between Genesis and the other books is the most prominent feature within the web of relations between the books. This translator shows many more disagreements than similarities with the other translators of LXXPent. Thus, Genesis deviated from Exodus twenty-three times according to the abovementioned criteria, while showing similarity on only eight occasions (agreements 8—differences 23). The statistical picture of Genesis vis-àvis Leviticus (12—13), Numbers (10—21), and Deuteronomy (11—20) is equally revealing. Perhaps, the notion that the translation of Genesis was a pioneering work could be a clue for understanding the background of this translation.3

3 See Tov, “The Septuagint Translation of Genesis,” 47–51.

168

chapter 4

As the translation enterprise progressed, the other translators could produce more nuanced renderings. For example, the translator of Genesis rendered ‫עבד‬ almost stereotypically with παῖς (80/88), while the others attempted to employ various equivalents to distinguish the different types of servants/slaves (ch. 3, 20. ‫)עבד‬. Likewise, since the translator of Genesis wavered in his renderings of the infinitive absolute construction, he employed the noun form (15 times) and the participle form (14 times) interchangeably. The other translators, however, leaned to the noun form (ch. 3, 20. ‫)עבד‬. The scope of divergence of the translator of Exodus in the area of the relevant criteria is second to Genesis. He shows more differences than similarities in translation in comparison with Genesis and Numbers (Genesis: agreements 8—differences 23; Numbers: 9—20). However, the proportions between the agreements and differences are more balanced in his relationship with Leviticus (agreements 12—differences 11) and with Deuteronomy (14—15). The latter two similarities probably derived from his tendency to prefer variety. Thus, he rendered ‫ שקל‬with two words, δίδραχμον and σίκλος, while the translators of Leviticus and Numbers tended to employ only one. Likewise, he chose three different approaches to express the four occurrences of ‫בשקל הקדש‬, while the translators of Leviticus and Numbers rendered the Hebrew consistently in their respective styles (ch. 3, 28. ‫)שקל‬. Interestingly, the internal points of contact in the relations between the last three books, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, are more numerous than the differences. Leviticus shows affinities with Numbers on fifteen occasions, while the disparities appear in eleven cases. The relation between Leviticus and Deuteronomy is even more pronounced, as they share common characteristics in fourteen places, whereas they differ on seven occasions. Numbers and Deuteronomy are also rather similar. They agree twenty-one times and differ in only nine instances. The closeness of the three books could have arisen from the translators’ tendencies to render their Vorlagen literally, which often led them to follow closely the word order of the Hebrew. For example, they nearly always preferred the prepositive conjunction καί to the postpositive δέ in rendering the waw-coordinating clauses, ‫ ויהי‬and ‫( ויאמר‬see ch. 3, 30. WawCoordinating Clauses). 2.4 Bisection of Individual Books for the Purpose of Translation? The patterns of differences between the translations of the five books of the Pentateuch are explained here as reflecting a reality of five different translations. However, in this kind of examination there always is a residue of doubt. Some examples (“criteria”) are more convincing than others, while in other instances the evidence is not clear-cut. Some of these doubts can be phrased

general conclusions

169

in terms of an additional step in the theory, namely the assumption that some books were rendered by more than one translator. In this scenario, there were more than five translators, possibly six (if, for example, Genesis was translated by two translators who each rendered part of the book), or seven (two translators for Exodus), etc. This type of scenario is named a bisection for the purpose of translation, and it has been suggested for several books of the LXX ever since the days of Thackeray4 at the beginning of the twentieth century, and by others for the Pentateuch. This idea was first suggested by Baab and Turner for LXX-Pent. Baab put forth the notion that there were two translators of LXX-Gen,5 while expanding his multiple-translator theory to the other books of LXX-Pent. He suggested a division of Genesis into two sections of roughly equal length (chs. 1–25, chs. 26–50), based on such differences as οὐδείς versus οὐθείς (part I vs. II: οὐδείς 3/4; οὐθείς 0/9), and the rendering of waw + ‫ היה‬constructions with καὶ ἐγένετο versus ἐγένετο δέ (part I vs. part II: καὶ ἐγένετο 60/8; ἐγένετο δέ 11/43), etc. However, Baab’s work is flawed methodologically because certain variations, such as οὐδείς versus οὐθείς were probably created by scribes rather than translators. Turner supports this theory with further examples of contrast between the two parts of Exodus regarding the overall proportion of δέ and καί.6 According to him, the proportion of δέ to καί in Exodus part I (chs. 1–24) is 369:800 (1:2.1), and in Exodus part II (chs. 25–40), 35:605 (1:17) showing greater adherence to the Hebrew.7 However, the evidence in the present study suggests that Baab’s and Turner’s theories of the bisection of Genesis and Exodus are unfounded. The differences between the sections of Genesis in the renderings of ‫ ויהי‬and ‫ ויאמר‬do not necessarily support the hypothesis of two translators since the translation techniques and the styles in each part bear a strong resemblance in several other areas: a. The use of the hypotaxis structure, which characterizes free translation, to render the Hebrew parataxis containing ‫( ויאמר‬see Table 83) appears

4 5 6 7

Thackeray, “Bisection.” Baab, “Genesis,” 239–243. Moulton–Turner, Syntax, 332, 337. Aejmelaeus does not accept Baab’s bisection hypothesis (Aejmelaeus, Parataxis, 59–60, 159– 181). She claims that the comparison of these particles is irrelevant, since the use of either δέ or καί is determined by the nature of the text to be translated, that is either narrative (Exodus I) or legal (Exodus II). See Aejmelaeus, Parataxis, 161. See also Voitila, “Leviticus,” 44–45.

170

chapter 4

in both parts of LXX-Gen with almost equal frequency (Genesis I: 8 times; Genesis II: 9 times).8 b. The application of the general use of δέ as the indicator of a new paragraph to convey ‫ ויהי‬+ time phrase, etc. is equally inconsistent in both parts of Genesis. See a. Representation of waw in ‫( ויהי‬see ch. 3, 30. WawCoordinating Clauses). c. The use of δέ as a marker for the change of speaker or audience in dialogue is similar in both parts of LXX-Gen (Table 83). Some inconsistency resulted from a lack of attention to this grammatical feature. d. Some particular translation techniques that are common in both parts of LXX-Exod in rendering ‫ ויהי‬and ‫ ויאמר‬strongly betray the unity of the book. The use of the historic present by καὶ λέγει or λέγει δέ to render ‫ ויאמר‬appears almost equally in both parts of the book (part I: 8 times; part II: 7 times). The above evidence regarding uses of καί and δέ in Genesis and Exodus shows that the differences between the two parts of each of the books cannot be attributed to two separate translators.9 In addition, in the present study, more problematic chapters—the second group of tabernacle chapters (Exodus 35–40: ch. 2, Excursus 2) and the Balaam story (Numbers 22–24: ch. 2, Excursus 3)—also have been analyzed. Although these units are small, sometimes less than half of a book, several scholars have claimed that some of these segments were rendered by separate translators. However, in chapter 2, Excursus 2 and Excursus 3, we concluded that the translators of each of these segments were identical to those of the other parts of the book. Although there are differences in rendering, there are many more agreements between the two segments, including in idiosyncratic equivalents. For example, the unusual rendering of ‫ווים‬, “hooks” with κεφαλίς, “little head” or “capital of a column” is commonly found in both tabernacle accounts (Exod 26:32, 37; 27:17; 36:36). 2.5 A Possible Scenario for the Translation Procedure The results of the above analyses enable us to formulate a working hypothesis about the creation of the first five books of the LXX. The shared vocabulary of the translators, which reflected their religious milieu, made their translation 8 1:28; 12:18; 18:23, 27; 22:7b, d, 16; 24:54; 26:22; 27:39; 28:1; 37:35; 40:18; 46:2b, 3; 47:1; 48:8. 9 The study of van der Louw, “Evolution” arrived at the same conclusion: “The translator’s evolution not only comes to the fore when comparing the two halves of the book. It is visible everywhere, even within smaller textual units” (van der Louw, “Evolution,” 4). He adds a remark: “This finding shows that Baab’s thesis of two translators is too simplistic” (van der Louw, “Evolution,” 4 n. 20).

general conclusions

171

unique within Greek literature in general as well as within the LXX corpus. However, as has been stressed repeatedly above, despite their common vocabulary, five individuals working separately produced the books of LXX-Pent. Genesis was likely the first book to be translated, and then the other four books followed. This suggestion is based upon the largest proportion of differences between Genesis and the other Pentateuchal works. If indeed the translator of Genesis was a pioneer, the others might have had this translation in front of them. However, even if the production proceeded in this fashion, one still cannot claim that the others cooperated or compared notes, so to speak. The idiosyncratic translation techniques and Greek styles of each of the four remaining books do not allow for the possibility of a joint effort by a group of translators. 2.6 Unity of LXX-Pent? The analysis in the preceding paragraphs shows clear differences between the five books of the Greek Pentateuch. Other scholars, however, upheld the Pentateuch’s basic unity, mainly because they did not submit the evidence to a thorough investigation (Thackeray, Swete). Thus, Thackeray asserts that: The Greek Pentateuch should undoubtedly be regarded as a unit: the Aristeas story may so far be credited that the Law or the greater part of it was translated en bloc, as a single undertaking, in the 3rd century B.C.10 In line with this view in his description of the books of the LXX, Thackeray characterized all of the Pentateuch with the same set of features.11 He also posits that the variety of renderings within the same context of the Pentateuch arose from an attempt to avoid the monotony of the Hebrew text.12 Though Thackeray presents his argument well, it cannot pass without dissent since the present study shows clearly that the idiosyncrasies in style, word choice, etc. are far more extensive than the internal agreements between the translation units. The analyses demonstrate that the distinctions in rendering vocabulary, syntax, the use of Greek words and style, translation techniques, and even in the translators’ approaches to their Vorlage clearly testify that the five books were created by different translators. 10 11

12

Thackeray, Grammar, 13. Ibid., 9: “At the head stands the Pentateuch, distinguished from the rest by a fairly high level of style (for Koine Greek), combined with faithfulness to the original, rarely degenerating into literalism.” Thackeray, “Jeremiah,” 245.

172

chapter 4

Swete based his agreement on Thackeray’s judgment upon the close relationship among the Greek Pentateuchal books in vocabulary and translation technique. He contrasts these similarities with the differences among the other books of LXX.13 Likewise, Lee suggests “that both in age and level of language the vocabulary of the Pentateuch is homogeneous.”14 His statements mention the general features of LXX-Pent and they fail to scrutinize the sharp differences among the five books. The findings in the present study regarding the internal relations within the books of LXX-Pent are in keeping with the research results of other scholars such as Soisalon-Soininen,15 Sollamo,16 and Aejmelaeus17 in their studies on translation techniques. However, as mentioned in chapter 1, each of these studies is limited only to one small area. Due to the criteria invoked by these scholars, they naturally produced different results in characterizations of the translation technique in LXX-Pent. In contrast, the analyses in the present study regarding the distinctions among the books of LXX-Pent are conducted on the basis of far more comprehensive investigations. 2.7 Ancient Evidence for the Assumption of Five Translators The traditional number of seventy (seventy-two) translators is not regarded as a reliable assumption in modern scholarship. However, the idea of the involvement of five translators for the Pentateuch as reflected in a late Jewish source, the posttalmudic Tractate Sop. 1.7, has been shown by our investigation to be reliable.18 2.8 Implications for LXX Research Our study has hopefully provided solid data, in two main areas, the common background of the translators of LXX-Pent (ch. 2) and the differences between the same translators (ch. 3). Neither subject has been treated so far in the literature. This monograph suggests that the five books of the Pentateuch were translated by five different individuals who shared a common background. 13 14 15 16 17 18

Swete, Introduction, 21, 314–345. Lee, Lexical Study, 148. Soisalon-Soininen, Infinitive, 177–178, 186, 190. Sollamo, Semiprepositions, 284–285. Aejmelaeus, Parataxis, 183–184. The origin of this tradition is unclear. Most likely it reflects midrashic thinking: The five books of Moses were probably translated by five separate translators. It is unclear whether the tradition in Soperim reflects intimate knowledge of the Greek Bible, since it would have been equally acceptable to have come up with the figure of a single translator.

general conclusions

173

These conclusions should aid researchers in continuing and fine-tuning their studies of LXX-Pent as well as the LXX in general. We are now able to turn to specific tangible data and not only to abstract theoretical arguments regarding the authorship of LXX-Pent. One of the purposes of this study was to find answers to some of the mysteries surrounding the origin of the Greek Pentateuch. We hope to have succeeded in this regard and that from now onwards scholars can base themselves on philological data rather than on amorphous traditions about the beginning of the Greek Bible translations.

Bibliography 1

Biblical Texts

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1969–1976. The Old Testament in Greek. Edited by A.E. Brooke and N. McLean. London: Cambridge University Press, 1906–1911. Vol. I, Part I: Genesis, 1906; Vol. I, Part II: Exodus and Leviticus, 1909; Vol. I, Part III: Numbers and Deuteronomy, 1911. Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX interpretes. Edited by A. Rahlfs and R. Hanhart. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006. Septuaginta, Vetus Testamentum Graecum, Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. Edited by J.W. Wevers. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974– 1991. Vol. I: Genesis, 1974; Vol. II,1: Exodus, 1991; Vol. II,2: Leviticus, 1986; Vol. III,1: Numeri, 1982; Vol. III,2: Deuteronomium, 1977. A New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS). Edited by A. Pietersma and B.G. Wright. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

2

Dictionaries and Concordances

Arndt, W., and F.W. Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958. Translation of W. Bauer, Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1952. Botterweck, G.J., H. Ringgren, and H.-J. Fabry. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Translated by J.T. Willis. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2012. Even-Shoshan, A. A New Concordance of the Bible. Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1988. Harris, R.L., G.L. Archer, Jr., and B.K. Waltke. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Chicago: Moody Press, 1980. Hatch, E., and H.A. Redpath. A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament I–II. Supplement. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1897–1906. Repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983. Kittel, G., and G. Friedrich. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated and Edited by G.W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976. Translation of Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1933– 1973. Köhler, L., and W. Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2001.

176

bibliography

Liddell, H.G., R. Scott, and H.S. Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1940. LSJ is used together with E.A. Barber. A Greek-English Lexicon, A Supplement. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968 and P.G.W. Glare. Revised Supplement. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Louw, J.P., and E.A. Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. 2 vols. New York: United Bible Societies, 1988–1989. Lust, J., E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1992. Moulton, J.H., and G. Milligan. Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1930. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997. Muraoka, T. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Leuven: Peeters, 2009. VanGemeren, W.A. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997.

3

Secondary Literature

Abrahams, I. “Recent Criticism of the Letter of Aristeas.” JQR 14 (1902): 335–337. Aejmelaeus, A. Parataxis in the Septuagint: A Study of the Renderings of the Hebrew Coordinate Clauses in the Greek Pentateuch. AASF 31. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1982. Aejmelaeus, A. “The Significance of Clause Connectors in the Syntactical and Translation-Technical Study of the Septuagint.” Pages 361–380 in VI Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Jerusalem 1986. Edited by C. Cox. SCS 23. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. Aejmelaeus, A. “Septuagintal Translation Techniques—A Solution to the Problem of the Tabernacle Account.” Pages 381–402 in Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings. Edited by G.J. Brooke. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Aharoni, Y. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1979. Aharoni, Y., and M. Avi-Yonah. The Macmillan Bible Atlas. New York: Macmillan, 1968. Aitken, J.K. “The Language of the Septuagint: Recent Theories, Future Prospects.” Bulletin of Judaeo-Greek Studies 24 (1999): 24–33. Aitken, J.K. “Introduction.” Pages 1–12 in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint. Edited by J.K. Aitken. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. Baab, O.J. “A Theory of Two Translators for the Greek Genesis.” JBL 52 (1933): 239–243. Barr, J. The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961. Repr., 1967. Barr, J. Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations. MSU 15. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979.

bibliography

177

Baumgärtel, F., and H. Johannes. Beiträge zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Septuaginta. BWAT II.5. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1923. Bickerman, E.J. Studies in Jewish and Christian History. Part 1. AGJU 9. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Bickerman, E.J. “The Septuagint as a Translation.” Pages 167–200 in Studies in Jewish and Christian History. Part 1. Bickerman, E.J. The Jews in the Greek Age. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988. Blank, S.H. “The LXX Renderings of Old Testament Terms for Law.” HUCA 7 (1930): 259– 283. Brock, S.P. “The Phenomenon of the Septuagint.” OTS 17 (1972): 11–36. Buck, C.D., and W. Petersen. A Reverse Index of Greek Nouns and Adjectives. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1944. Budd, P.J. Numbers. WBC 5. Edited by D.A. Hubbard and G.W. Barker. Waco, TX: Word, 1983. Caird, G.B. “Homoephony in the Septuagint.” Pages 74–88 in Jews, Greeks and Christians: Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity. Essays in Honor of William David Davies. Edited by R. Hamerton-Kelly and R. Scroggs. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Cassuto, U. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Part One: From Adam to Noah. Translated by I. Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961. Repr., 1989. Cassuto, U. The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch. 4th ed. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1965. Heb. Cassuto, U. A Commentary on the Book of Exodus. Translated by I. Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967. Repr., 1997. Chapman, A.T. An Introduction to the Pentateuch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911. Christensen, D.L. Deuteronomy 1–11. WBC 6A. Dallas: Word, 1991. Conybeare, F.C., and St.G. Stock. A Grammar of Septuagint Greek. Boston: Ginn & Co., 1905. Repr., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980. Daniel, S. Recherches sur le vocabulaire du culte dans la Septante. Études et Commentaires 61. Paris: Klincksieck, 1966. Debrunner, A. “Zur Übersetzungstechnik der Septuaginta: Der Gebrauch des Artikels bei κύριος.” BZAW 41 (1925): 69–78. Deissmann, G.A. Bible Studies. Translated by A. Grieve from Bibelstudien (1895) and Neue Bibelstudien (1897). Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1901. Dodd, C.H. The Bible and the Greeks. 2nd ed. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1954. Dorival, G., B. Barc, G. Favrelle, M. Petit, and J. Tolila. La Bible d’Alexandrie, 4, Les Nombres. Paris: Cerf, 1994. Driver, S.R. A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew and Some Other Syntactical Questions. Oxford: Clarendon, 1892. Driver, S.R. The Book of Exodus. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge:

178

bibliography

Cambridge University Press, 1911. Rev. with introduction and notes by S.R. Driver, 1929. Durham, J.I. Exodus. WBC 3. Waco, TX: Word, 1987. Even-Shoshan, A. A New Concordance of the Bible. Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1988. Finn, A.H. “The Tabernacle Chapters.” JTS 16 (1915): 449–482. Frankel, Z. Über den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik. Leipzig: Barth, 1851. Fritsch, C.T. The Anti-Anthropomorphism of the Greek Pentateuch. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1943. Gehman, H.S. “Adventures in LXX Lexicography.” Textus 5 (1966): 125–132. Gerstenberger, E.S. Leviticus. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Gesenius, W., and E. Kautzsch, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. 2nd Eng. ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910. Gooding, D.W. The Account of the Tabernacle: Translation and Textual Problems of the Greek Exodus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959. Gooding, D.W. “Aristeas and Septuagint Origins: A Review of Recent Studies.” VT 13 (1963): 357–379. Gray, G.B. Numbers. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1903. Hadas, M. Aristeas to Philocrates: Letter of Aristeas. New York: Ktav, 1974. Harl, M., M. Alexandre, and C.E.A. Dogniez. La Bible d’ Alexandrie I. La Genèse. Paris: Cerf, 1986. Hartley, J.E. Leviticus. WBC 4. Dallas: Word, 1992. Hegermann, H. “The Diaspora in the Hellenistic Age.” Pages 115–166 in The Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. 2: The Hellenistic Age. Edited by W.D. Davies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Helbing, R. Die Kasussyntax der Verba bei den Septuaginta. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1928. Hiebert, R.J.V. “To the Reader of Genesis.” Pages 1–6 in NETS. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Huber, K. Untersuchungen über den Sprachcharakter des griechischen Leviticus. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1916. Johannessohn, M. Der Gebrauch der Präpositionen in der Septuaginta. MSU 3. Berlin: Weidmann, 1925. Joosten, J. “Septuagint Greek and the Jewish Sociolect in Egypt.” Pages 246–256 in Die Sprache der Septuaginta/The Language of the Septuagint, LXX.H 3. Edited by E. Bons and J. Joosten. Gutersloh: Gutersloher Verlagshaus, 2016. Joosten, J. “The Aramaic Background of the Seventy: Language, Culture and History.” BIOSCS 43 (2010): 53–72. Joüon, P., and T. Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. SubBi 14/I. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991. Repr., 1996.

bibliography

179

van der Kooij, A. “Servant or Slave?: The Various Equivalents of Hebrew ʿEbed in the Septuagint of the Pentateuch.” Pages 225–238 in XIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Ljubljana 2007. Edited by M.K.H. Peters. SCS 55. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. Kraft, R.A. “Approaches to Translation Greek Lexicography.” Pages 30–39 in Septuagintal Lexicography. Rev. and ed. by R.A. Kraft. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975. Kreuzer, S. “Origin and Development of the Septuagint in the Context of Alexandrian and Early Jewish Culture and Learning.” Pages 3–46 in The Bible in Greek-Translation, Transmission, and Theology of the Septuagint. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015. Kuenen, A. An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch. Translated by H. Wicksteed. London: Forgotten Books, 2015. Le Boulluec, A., and P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie II. L’ Exode. Paris: Cerf, 1989. Lee, J.A.L. A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch. SCS 14. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983. Lee, J.A.L. “A Lexical Study Thirty Years On, with Observations on ‘Order’ Words in the LXX Pentateuch.” Pages 513–524 in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. Edited by S.M. Paul, R.A. Kraft, L.H. Schiffman, and W.W. Fields. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Llewelyn, S.R. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. Vol. 7: A Review of the Greek of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1982–83. Marrickville, NSW: Southwood Press/The Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, Macquarie University, 1994. Loader, J.A. “An Explanation of the Term προσήλυτος.” NovT 15 (1973): 270–277. van der Louw, T.A. “The Evolution of the Greek Genesis Translator.” Pages 146–157 in Die Septuaginta—Geschichte, Wirkung, Relevanz, 6. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal, 21.–24. Juli 2016. Edited by M. Meiser, M. Geiger, S. Kreuzer, and M. Sigismund. WUNT 405. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018. (Quoted from https://www.academia.edu/35229526/The_Evolution _of_the_LXX‑Genesis_Translator, 1–11). McNeile, A.H. The Book of Exodus. WC. London: Methuen, 1908. Milgrom, J. Leviticus. Anchor Bible Commentary. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991. Moulton, J.H. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Vol. I: Prolegomena (1906); Vol. II: Accidence and Word-Formation with an Appendix on Semitisms in the New Testament. Edited by J.H. Moulton and W.F. Howard (1979); Vol. III: Syntax. Edited by N. Turner (1963); Vol. IV: Style. Edited by N. Turner (1976). Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Muraoka, T. “The Greek Texts of Samuel–Kings: Incomplete Translations or Recensional Activity?” AbrN 21 (1982–1983): 28–49. Muraoka, T. “Septuagintal Lexicography: Some General Issues.” Pages 17–48 in Melbourne Symposium on Septuagint Lexicography. Edited by T. Muraoka. SCS 28. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990.

180

bibliography

Olofsson, S. The LXX Version: A Guide to the Translation Technique of the Septuagint. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1990. Olofsson, S. “Consistency as a Translation Technique.” SJOT 6 (1992): 14–30. Olofsson, S. Translation Technique and Theological Exegesis: Collected Essays on the Septuagint Version. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009. Orlinsky, H.M. “Introductory Essay: On Anthropomorphisms and Anthropopathisms in the Septuagint and Targum.” Pages 15–24 in The Septuagint Translation of the Hebrew Terms in Relation to God in the Book of Jeremiah. Edited by B.M. Zlotowitz. New York: Ktav, 1981. Palmer, L.R. A Grammar of the Post-Ptolemaic Papyri. Vol. 1. Part 1. The Suffixes. London: Oxford University Press, 1946. Perkins, L. “κύριος: Articulation and Non-Articulation in Greek Exodus.” BIOSCS 41 (2008): 17–33. Perkins, L. “The Translation of ‫אהל מועד‬/‫ משכן‬and ‫ שכן‬in Greek Exodus.” JSCS 48 (2015): 8–26. Perkins, L. “Deuteronomy.” Pages 68–85 in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint. Edited by J.K. Aitken. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. Perkins, L. “2.4.1.2 Exodus”. in Textual History of the Bible Online. Vol. 1A, Edited by A. Lange and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Pfeiffer, R.H. Introduction to the Old Testament. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1948. Pietersma, A. “Kyrios or Tetragram: A Renewed Quest for the Original Septuagint.” Pages 85–101 in De Septuaginta, Studies in Honour of J.W. Wevers on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by A. Pietersma and C. Cox. Mississauga, ON: Benben Publications, 1984. Polak, F.H. “Context Sensitive Translation and Parataxis in Biblical Narrative.” Pages 525–539 in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. Edited by S.M. Paul, R.A. Kraft, L.H. Schiffman, and W.W. Fields. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Popper, J. Der biblische Bericht über die Stiftshütte. Leipzig: Heinrich Hunger, 1862. Robertson, A.T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th ed. Nashville: Broadman, 1923. Rofé, A. The Book of Balaam. Jerusalem: Simor, 1979. Heb. Rösel, M. “The Reading and Translation of the Divine Name in the Masoretic Tradition and the Greek Pentateuch.” JSOT 31.4 (2007): 411–428. Rösel, M. “Towards a ‘Theology’ of the Septuagint.” Pages 239–252 in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures. Edited by W. Kraus and R.G. Wooden. SCS 53. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Rösel, M. “2.4.1.1 Genesis.” in Textual History of the Bible Online. Vol. 1A, Edited by A. Lange and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Salvesen, A. “Exodus.” Pages 29–42 in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint. Edited by J.K. Aitken. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015.

bibliography

181

Santos, E.C. Dos. An Expanded Hebrew Index for the Hatch–Redpath Concordance to the Septuagint. Jerusalem: Dugith Publishers, 1973. Schröder, C. “Alphabetische Zusammenstellung auffälliger Neologismen der Septuaginta.” Pages 61–69 in Im Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta, Studien zur Entstehung und Bedeutung der Griechischen Bibel. Edited by H.-J. Fabry et al. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001. Seeligmann, I.L. “Problems and Perspectives in Modern Septuagint Research.” Textus 15 (1990): 169–232. Translation of “Problemen en Perspectieven in het Moderne Septuaginta Onderzoek.” JEOL 7 (1940): 359–390. Skehan, P.W. “The Qumran Manuscripts and Textual Criticism.” VTSup 4 (1957): 148– 160. Skehan, P.W. “4QLXXNumb: A Pre-Christian Reworking of the Septuagint.” HTR 70 (1977): 39–50. Smith, W.R. The Old Testament in the Jewish Church. 2nd ed. London: Black, 1892. Smyth, H.W. Greek Grammar. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1920. Soisalon-Soininen, I. Die Infinitive in der Septuaginta. AASF B 132.1. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1965. Sollamo, R. Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions in the Septuagint. AASF 19. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1979. Sollamo, R. “The LXX Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute Used with a Paronymous Finite Verb in the Pentateuch.” Pages 101–113 in La Septuaginta en la Investigacion Contemporanea (V Congreso de la IOSCS). Edited by N. Fernandez Marcos. Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 34. Madrid: CSIC, 1985. Sollamo, R. “The Pleonastic Use of the Pronoun in Connection with the Relative Pronoun in the Greek Pentateuch.” Pages 75–85 in VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leuven, 1989. Edited by C.E. Cox. SCS 31. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991. Stern, M. “The Jewish Diaspora in the Second Temple Era.” Pages 277–281 in A History of the Jewish People. Edited by H.H. Ben-Sasson. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976. Swete, H.B. An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Hendrickson, 1914. Thackeray, H.St.J. “The Greek Translators of Jeremiah.” JTS 4 (1903): 245–266. Thackeray, H.St.J. “The Translators of the Prophetical Books.” JTS 4 (1903): 578–585. Thackeray, H.St.J. “The Bisection of Books in Primitive Septuagint MSS.” JTS 9 (1908): 88–98. Thackeray, H.St.J. A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek, according to the Septuagint. Vol. 1. Introduction, Orthography and Accidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909. Thackeray, H.St.J. The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: A Study in Origins. London: Oxford University Press, 1923.

182

bibliography

Thackeray, H.St.J. “Septuagint.” ISBE 4:2722–2732. Tov, E. “Three Dimensions of LXX Words.” RB 83 (1976): 529–544. Tov, E. The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discussion of an Early Revision of the LXX of Jeremiah 29–53 and Baruch 1:1–3:8. HSM 8. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976. Tov, E. “Compound Words in the LXX Representing Two or More Hebrew Words.”Bib 58 (1977): 189–212. Tov, E. “Studies in the Vocabulary of the LXX: The Relation between Vocabulary and Translation Technique.” Tarbiz 47 (1977–1978): 120–138. Heb. Tov, E. “Loan-Words, Homophony and Transliterations in the Septuagint.”Bib 60 (1979): 216–236. Tov, E. “The Representation of the Causative Aspects of Hiph’il in the LXX: A Study in Translation Technique.” Bib 63 (1982): 417–424. Tov, E. “The Rabbinic Traditions concerning the ‘Changes’ Inserted in the Septuagint Translation of the Pentateuch and the Question of the Original Text of That Translation.” JSJ 15 (1984): 65–89. Tov, E. “The Septuagint.” Pages 161–188 in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by M.J. Mulder. Philadelphia: Fortress; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988. Tov, E. “Renderings of Combinations of the Infinitive Absolute Construction and Finite Verbs in the LXX: Their Nature and Distribution.” Pages 64–73 in Studien zur Septuaginta: Robert Hanhart zu Ehren. Edited by D. Fraenkel et al. MSU XX. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990. Rev. ed. Pages 247–256 in The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Tov, E. “Theologically Motivated Exegesis Embedded in the Septuagint.” Pages 215–233 in Translation of Scripture: Proceedings of a Conference at the Annenberg Research Institute, May 15–16, 1989. JQRSup. Philadelphia: Annenberg Research Institute, 1990. Rev. ed. Pages 257–269 in The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Tov, E. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd ed. rev. and exp. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Tov, E. “The Greek Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert.” Pages 97–122 in The Bible as Book: The Transmission of the Greek Text. Edited by S. McKendrick and O. O’Sullivan. London: Oak Knoll Press, 2003. Tov, E. “The Harmonizing Character of the Septuagint of Genesis 1–11.” Pages 315–332 in Die Septuaginta. Edited by W. Kraus and S. Kreuzer. WUNT 325. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Tov, E. “The Septuagint Translation of Genesis as the First Scripture Translation.” Pages 47–64 in In the Footsteps of Sherlock Holmes: Studies in the Biblical Text in Honour of Anneli Aejmelaeus. Edited by K. De Troyer et al. BETL 72. Leuven: Peeters, 2014.

bibliography

183

Tov, E. The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. 3rd ed. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Tov, E. “2.4 Primary Translations.” in Textual History of the Bible Online. Vol. 1A, Edited by A. Lange and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Tov, E. “The Septuagint Translation of the Torah as a Source and Resource for the Post-Pentateuchal Translators.” Pages 316–328 in Die Sprache der Septuaginta/The Language of the Septuagint, LXX.H 3. Edited by E. Bons and J. Joosten. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag, 2016. Tov, E. and B.G. Wright, “Computer-Assisted Study of the Criteria for Assessing the Literalness of Translation Units in the LXX.” Textus 12 (1985): 149–187. Tucker, M. “Using Recurring Hebrew Phrases to Evaluate a Septuagint Translation: Jeremiah 11:1–14 as a Case Study.” Pages 497–508 in XV Congress of the IOSCS, Munich, 2013. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016. Voitila, A. “Leviticus.” Pages 43–57 in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint. Edited by J.K. Aitken. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. Wade, M.L. “Evaluating Lexical Consistency in the Old Greek Bible.” BIOSCS 33 (2000): 53–75. Wade, M.L. Consistency of Translation Techniques in the Tabernacle Accounts of Exodus in the Old Greek. SCS 49. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Wallace, D.B. Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Walters, P. The Text of the Septuagint: Its Corruptions and Their Emendation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. Waltke, B.K., and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Wevers, J.W. Text History of the Greek Genesis. MSU XI. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974. Wevers, J.W. “The Attitude of the Greek Translator of Deuteronomy towards His Parent Text.” Pages 498–505 in Beiträge zur Alttestamentlichen Theologie. Festschrift für Walther Zimmerli zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by H. Donner, R. Hanhart, and R. Smend. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977. Wevers, J.W. Text History of the Greek Deuteronomy. MSU XIII. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. Wevers, J.W. Text History of the Greek Numbers. MSU XVI. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. Wevers, J.W. Text History of the Greek Leviticus. MSU XIX. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. Wevers, J.W. “An Apologia for Septuagint Studies.” BIOSCS 18 (1985): 16–38. Wevers, J.W. Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus. SCS 30. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. Wevers, J.W. Text History of the Greek Exodus. MSU XXI. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992.

184

bibliography

Wevers, J.W. Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis. SCS 35. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. Wevers, J.W. “The Building of the Tabernacle.” JNSL 19 (1993): 1123–1132. Wevers, J.W. “The LXX Translator of Deuteronomy.” Pages 57–89 in IX Congress of the IOSCS, Cambridge, 1995. Edited by B.A. Taylor. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Wevers, J.W. Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy. SCS 39. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Wevers, J.W. Notes on the Greek Text of Leviticus. SCS 44. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Wevers, J.W. Notes on the Greek Text of Numbers. SCS 46. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Wifstrand, A. Die Stellung der enklitischen Personalpronomina bei den Septuaginta. K. Humanistiska Vetenskapssamfundets i Lund årsberättelse 1949–1950, II. Lund: Gleerup, 1950. Wright, B.G. “The Quantitative Representation of Elements: Evaluating ‘Literalism’ in the LXX.” Pages 311–335 in VI Congress of the IOSCS, Jerusalem, 1986. Edited by C.E. Cox. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. Wright, B.G. “Ebed/Doulos: Terms and Social Status in the Meeting of Hebrew Biblical and Hellenistic Roman Culture.” Semeia 83/84: Slavery in Text and Interpretation (1998): 83–111. Yonge, C.D. The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993. Zuntz, G. “Aristeas Studies II: Aristeas on the Translation of the Torah.” Pages 208–225 in Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations: Selected Essays, with a Prolegomenon. Edited by S. Jellicoe. New York: Ktav, 1974.

Index of Modern Authors I. Abrahams 5n25–26 A. Aejmelaeus 1, 1n7, 7, 7n40, 15, 41n69, 89n66, 129n146, 131n152, 131n154, 136n162, 138n165, 147n196, 166n2, 169n7, 172n17 Y. Aharoni 117n125, 118–119n128 J.K. Aitken 1n2, 131, 131n153 M. Alexandre 128n127 W. Arndt 108n105 H.J. Austel 128n141 M. Avi-Yonah 118–119n128 O.J. Baab 1, 1n9, 8, 8n42, 131n152, 136n162, 169, 169n5 B. Barc 66n9 J. Barr 9, 9n45, 10n50, 113n114, 147, 147n195, 147n197, 149n202 F. Baumgärtel 99n78 H.H. Ben-Sasson 36n45 G. Bertram 145n186 E. Bickerman 10nn50–51, 22n10, 25n22, 28n31, 93n73, 147n195 S.H. Blank 25n22 G. Bornkamm 76n29, 79n33 S.P. Brock 5n26, 10n50, 10n51, 147n195 A.E. Brooke 13 C.D. Buck 73–74n22 P.J. Budd 55n106 G.B. Caird 101n87 U. Cassuto 49n92, 50n96, 87n60 A.T. Chapman 40, 40n57 D.L. Christensen 118–119n128 F.C. Conybeare 14 S. Daniel 23n15, 110n106, 146n194 A. Debrunner 95n75 G.A. Deissmann 5n27, 19n5, 76n28 C.H. Dodd 25nn22–24, 85n50, 93n73 C.E.A. Dogniez 118n127 W.R. Domeris 71n19 G. Dorival 66n9, 105n100 E.C. Dos Santos 14 S.R. Driver 40, 40n58, 49n92, 131n156 J.I. Durham 49n92

A. Even-Shoshan 61n5 E. Eynikel 37n48, 37n51 G. Favrelle 66n9 A.H. Finn 40–41, 40n63, 41n64, 41n67, 49n95, 50n99 W. Foerster 106n102, 108n104 Z. Frankel 1, 1n5, 7, 7n37, 39–40, 40n53 H.S. Gehman 147n195 E.S. Gerstenberger 154n218 W. Gesenius 23n14, 87n63, 119n129, 131n158, 139n166, 139n167 D.W. Gooding 6n29, 41–42, 41nn65–67, 42n77, 47–48n85 G.B. Gray 55n106 F.W. Gingrich 108n105 W. Grundmann 105n98 W. Gutbrod 25n22, 25n25 M. Hadas 1, 1n6, 4n22, 5n24, 7n37 M. Harl 118n127 J.E. Hartley 28n31, 124n135, 154n218 E. Hatch 14 K. Hauspie 37n48, 37n51 R. Helbing 1–2, 93nn71–72, 123nn131– 132 H. Hegermann 35n43, 36n45 R.J.V. Hiebert 23n14 W.F. Howard 23n14, 73–74nn22–23 K. Huber 1, 1n8, 7–8, 8n41, 14, 129n146 H. Johannes 99n78 M. Johannessohn 1, 62–63n8 J. Joosten 26n27, 144n178 P. Joüon 87n63, 139n167 E. Kautzsch 23n14, 87n63, 119n129, 131n158, 139n166, 139n167 H. Kleinknecht 25n22 A. van der Kooij 110n106 R.A. Kraft 13, 110n106 S. Kreuzer 35–36n44 A. Kuenen 40, 40n54 A. Le Boulluec 42, 42n72

186 J.A.L. Lee 5n27, 6, 6n35, 14–15, 19n5, 26n26, 36n46, 37n49, 73–74n22, 76n28, 79n36, 79n38, 102n93, 121–122n130, 172, 172n14 S.R. Llewelyn 71, 71n18 J.P. Louw 84, 84n49, 108n105, 128n143 T. van der Louw 62n6, 66n10, 170n9 J. Lust 37n48, 37n51 N. McLean 13 A.H. McNeile 40, 40nn61–62 J. Milgrom 28n31 G. Milligan 25n21, 37n48, 76n28, 79n37, 81n44, 89n67 J.H. Moulton 1n10, 8n43, 14, 23n14, 25n21, 30n34, 37n48, 73–74n22, 74n23, 76n28, 79n37, 81n44, 89n67, 96n76, 99n77, 131n152, 136n162, 148n201, 149n205, 152n212, 169n6 T. Muraoka 15, 15n66, 85n51, 87n63, 125n137, 139n167, 146n194 E.A. Nida 84, 84n49, 108n105, 128n143 M. O’Connor 61n5, 131n158, 139n167, 149n204 S. Olofsson 5n27, 16n67, 58n1, 147n195, 149n203 H.M. Orlinsky 142n170 L.R. Palmer 73–74n22 W. Petersen 73–74n22 L. Perkins 23n15, 24n16, 97n73, 144n180 M. Petit 66n9 R.H. Pfeiffer 40, 40n59 A. Pietersma 95n75 F.H. Polak 133n160 J. Popper 40, 40n60 M.A. Powell 128n141 H. Preisker 70, 71n17 A. Rahlfs 11, 13–14 H.A. Redpath 14 A.T. Robertson 131n154, 151n207 A. Rofé 55n106 M. Rösel 55n106, 142, 142n71 A. Salvesen 24n17, 71n16 P. Sandevoir 42, 42n72 A. Schalit 29n33 H. Schlier 125–126n137

index of modern authors G. Schrenk 142n173 C. Schröder 37n51 I.L. Seeligmann 144, 144n178 D.R. Seely 117n125 J.E. Shepherd 128n141 P.W. Skehan 11n54 H. Simian-Yofre 24n18 I. Soisalon-Soininen 2, 7, 7n38, 10, 10n49, 15, 140n168, 150n206, 166n2, 172, 172n15 R. Sollamo 2, 7, 7n39, 10, 10n49, 147n196, 166n2, 172, 172n16 W.R. Smith 40, 40n55 H.W. Smyth 131n154 H. Strathmann 144, 144nn179–180 M. Stern 36n45 St.G. Stock 14 H.B. Swete 1, 1n4, 5, 5n28, 6n32, 40, 40n56, 171–172, 172n13 H.St.J. Thackeray 1, 1n3, 2n14, 6, 6n31, 6n33, 6n34, 14, 25n23, 73n22, 113n115, 114n119, 129n146, 130n151, 151, 151n209, 151n211, 166n2, 169n4, 171, 171nn10–12 J. Tolila 66n9 E. Tov 3–4n15, 9, 9n44, 9n46, 9n47, 12nn56– 57, 13–14, 15, 19n4, 22n9, 24n18, 24– 25n19, 25n23, 31n35, 31n36, 36n47, 37n49, 37n51, 55n106, 62n6, 66n10, 70n15, 80n42, 93n70, 101n88, 128n145, 131n152, 134n161, 140, 140n168, 140n169, 142n170, 147, 147n197, 147n199, 148n200, 149n202, 150n206, 167n3 M. Tucker 2n14 N. Turner 1, 1n10, 8, 8n43, 14, 30n34, 131n152, 136n162, 148n201, 149n205, 152n212, 169, 169n6 A. Voitila 129n149, 169n7 M.L. Wade 35n41, 42, 42n73, 58n1 D.B. Wallace 89n68, 151n208, 153n216 P. Walters 26nn28–29, 37n49, 99nn77–78, 102n91, 102n93, 128n145 B.K. Waltke 61n5, 131n158, 139n167, 149n204 J.W. Wevers 2, 2n11, 2n13, 5n27, 13, 24n18, 42–43, 42n71, 42n74, 42n76, 42n78, 44, 44n79, 46–48, 47nn83–84, 48n86, 49n92, 55, 55n106, 62n7, 62–63n8, 68n11, 75n26, 77n30, 78n32, 79n33,

187

index of modern authors 79n35, 82n45, 83n47, 93n73, 104n94, 114nn119–120, 118n127, 128n142, 146n194 A. Wifstrand 166n2 B.G. Wright 9, 9n47, 35nn41–42, 110n106, 112n112, 113n117, 147–148, 147n199, 148n200, 149, 149n203, 150n206

C.D. Yonge 4n18 W. Zimmerli 112–114, 112n111, 113n113, 114n118 G. Zuntz 6, 6n30

‫‪Index of Main Hebrew Words Discussed‬‬ ‫‪ָ 101, 161, 163–164‬מן‬ ‫‪ 51–52, 51n100‬מצנפת‬ ‫‪ 51–53‬מעשה חשב‬ ‫‪ 51–53‬מעשה רקם‬ ‫‪ 102–103, 102n91, 164‬מקרא‬ ‫‪) 49, 51–52, 156–157‬שמן( משחה‬ ‫‪ 103–106, 161–164‬משפחה‬ ‫‪ 47–49, 48–49n85‬נגב‪/‬ה‬ ‫–‪ 106–108, 106n102, 108n103, 161, 164‬נחלה‬ ‫‪165‬‬ ‫‪ 56‬נטה‬ ‫‪ 108–110, 108n105, 161, 163‬נסע‬ ‫‪ 73–76, 160, 165–166‬נקבה‬

‫‪ 61–62, 160, 162–164‬אולי‬ ‫‪ 24, 24n16‬אהל מועד‬ ‫‪ 62–65, 151–153, 163‬אמ״ר‪/‬אמר‬ ‫‪ 49, 154–155‬אפד‬ ‫‪ + infinitive 149–151‬ב‬ ‫‪ 31–32‬באר שבע‬ ‫‪ 65–67, 66n20, 160, 165–166‬בהמה‬ ‫‪71–73, 72n20, 73n21, 160, 162‬‬ ‫‪59, 67–71, 160, 162–163‬‬ ‫‪71–73, 160, 162‬‬ ‫‪67–71, 70n14, 160, 162–163‬‬

‫גנב‬ ‫גור‬ ‫גזל‬ ‫גר‬

‫‪ 148–149, 162, 165‬הנה‬ ‫‪ (people) 15, 114–117, 144–146, 145n186,‬עם‬ ‫‪146n191, 161, 165–166‬‬ ‫‪ֶ 32–36, 110–114, 161–163, 168‬ﬠֶבד‬ ‫‪ 114, 114n119, 161–163‬על־כן‬ ‫–‪ 56–57, 117–119, 118n127, 118‬ערב)ו(ת‪/‬ערבה‬ ‫‪119n128, 161–162, 164–165‬‬ ‫‪ֶ 59–60, 119–120, 161, 165‬פּן‬ ‫‪ 26‬פסח‬ ‫‪ 31, 31n35, 159‬פלשתים‬ ‫‪ 121–124, 142–142, 142nn172–173, 143n175,‬צוה‬ ‫‪161, 165–166‬‬ ‫‪ 16, 59, 124–125, 124n135, 125n136, 161, 164‬צפור‬ ‫‪ 47–49, 48–49n85‬צפון‬ ‫‪ 47–49‬קדמה‬ ‫‪ 56–57‬קו״ץ‬ ‫‪ 57, 60–61, 60n3, 125–127, 161–165‬ראש‬ ‫‪ 29‬ראש החדשים‬

‫‪ 51–52, 170‬ווים‬ ‫‪ 55–57, 56n108, 131, 136–139, 161, 165–170‬ויאמר‬ ‫‪ 131–136, 161–163, 165–166, 168–170‬ויהי‬ ‫‪ 73–76, 74n24, 160, 165–166‬זכר‬ ‫‪ 59–60, 76–79, 139, 160, 163, 165‬זקן‬ ‫‪ 28‬חג המצות‬ ‫‪ 28–29‬חג הסכות‬ ‫‪ 28‬חג השבועות‬ ‫‪ 79–81, 160, 163, 166‬חמור‬ ‫–‪ 81–87, 85n50, 86n56, 86n59, 160, 162‬טוב‬ ‫‪163, 165‬‬ ‫‪) 87–88, 88n65, 160, 162–163, 166‬ב(טרם‬ ‫‪ 54–55, 54n104, 55n107‬יהוה‬ ‫‪ 29‬יום )ה(כפרים‬ ‫‪ 47–49‬ים‪/‬ימה‬ ‫‪ 16, 58–59, 89–93, 160, 162–163‬כאשר‬ ‫‪ 30‬כל מלאכה‬ ‫‪ 93, 160, 163‬כרת )ברית(‬

‫‪ 26–28, 27n30, 28n31‬שבת‬ ‫‪ 49‬שוּלים‬ ‫‪ 30‬שלוש פעמים‬ ‫‪ 30‬שלוש רגלים‬ ‫‪ 128–129, 161, 163–164, 168‬שקל‬

‫‪ 30‬לא תעשה‬ ‫‪ 15, 40, 93–96, 158, 158n238, 160, 164‬ליהוה‬

‫‪ 103–106, 161–164‬תולד)ו(ת‬ ‫‪ 24–25, 25n20‬תורה‬ ‫‪ 49, 49nn92–93‬תחש‬

‫‪ 56‬מדין‬ ‫‪ 96–100, 160, 162–164‬מות‪/‬מו״ת‬ ‫‪ 18, 22–23, 23n17, 38, 146‬מזבח‬

Index of Main Greek Words Discussed ἀγαθός 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87 ἀγκύλη 51 ἀδελφός 18, 19, 159 ἄκρος 126 ἀλλόφυλος 31, 159 ἀναζεύγνυμι 109 ἀνάπαυσις 27 ἀνατολή 47 ἀπαίρω 108, 109, 110 ἀπέχω 68 ἀπηλιώτης 46, 48 ἀποθνῄσκω 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 ἄρα 62 Ἀραβά/Ἀραβώθ 56, 118, 162 ἀρέσκω 86, 87 ἀρεστός 86 ἁρπάζω 71, 72 ἀρσενικός 73, 74, 75, 76 ἄρσην (ἄρρην) 73, 74, 75 ἀρχή 29 ἀρχηγός 126, 127 ἀρχίφυλος 126 ἄρχων 126, 127 ἀφαιρέω 71, 72 ἀφικνέομαι 56 βάσιν 12 βάσις 154 βδελύσσομαι 57 Βηρσαβεε 32 βορέας 47, 48 βραχίων 154 βωμός 23, 146 γειώρας 70 γενεά 105 γένος 114, 116 γερουσία 77, 79 γίνομαι 131, 132, 133, 134, 135 δῆμος 104, 105 διαθήκη 93 διατίθημι 93 διαρπάζω 72 διαστρέφω 56 δίδραχμον 128, 129, 168 διπλοῦν 50 διχοτομέω 155

δόξα 49, 82 δοῦλος 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 110, 112, 113, 114 δυσμή 48, 56, 118, 119 ἐάν 61, 62 ἕβδομος 27 εἰμί 148 ἔθνος 114, 116, 144, 145, 146 ἐκκλίνω 56 ἕνεκεν ἕνεκεν τούτου 114 ἐντέλλομαι 121, 1222, 123, 124, 142, 143 ἐξαίρω 108, 109, 110 ἑορτὴ ἑορτὴ ἀζύμων 28 ἑορτὴ ἑβδομάδων 28 ἑορτὴ σκηνῶν 28 ἑορτὴ σκηνοπηγίας 28 ἑορτὴ συντελείας 28 ἑορτὴ συναγωγῆς 28 ἐπειδή 148 ἐπίκλητος 102, 103 ἐπικλίνω 56 ἑπτάκις 30 ἐπωμίς 49, 154 ἔργον ἔργον ποικιλτοῦ 51, 52 ἔργον ὑφαντόν 51, 52 ἐσθίω 129, 130, 158 ἔδομαι 129, 130, 158, 163 φάγομαι 129, 130, 158, 163 ἔσχατος 27 εὐθύς 148 εὐωδίας 154 ζώνη 154 ἡγέομαι 126 ἥλιος 19 ἡμέρα 18 ἡμέρα καθαρισμοῦ 29 ἡμέρα ἐξιλασμοῦ 29 ἡμέρα ἱλασμοῦ 29 ἧπαρ 154

190 θάλασσα 46, 47, 48 θανατόω 37 θεός 55 θεράπων 32, 33, 34, 35, 110, 112, 113, 114 θῆλυς 75 θηλυκός 75 θηρίον 66 θνῄσκω 99, 100 θυσιάζω θυσιαστήριον 18, 22, 23, 146 ἰδού 148, 149 ἵνα 61 ἴσως 62 καθά 89, 92 καθάπερ 89, 92 καιρούς 30 καλέω 18 καλός 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87 κάρπωμα 40, 41 κέρας 154 κεφαλή 125, 126 κεφαλίς 51 κίδαρις 51, 154 κλέμμα 72 κλέπτω 71, 72 κληρονομία 106, 107, 108 κλῆρος 106, 107, 108 κλητός (κλητή) 102 κλίτος 42, 43 κλοπή 72 κλοποφορέω 72 κορυφή 57, 126 κτῆνος 65, 66 κρέας 154 κρεανομέω 155 κρίκος 51 κριός 154, 155 κρύπτω 72 κρυφῇ 72 κύριος 54, 93, 94, 95 λάγανον 154 λαός 114, 116, 144, 145 λέγω 138, 139, 151, 152, 153 λίβα 46 λίψ 47, 48 λοβός 154

index of main greek words discussed λογεῖον 154 λῶμα 49 Μαδιαμ 56 Μαδιαν 56 μαν 101 μάννα 101 μάχαιρα 12 μή 119, 120 μήποτε 61, 119, 120 μίτρα 51, 154 μοσχάριον 156 μόσχος 156 μοχλό 42 νεκρός 99 νόμος 24, 25 νότος 46, 47 νουμηνία 29 νῦν 148 οἰκέτης 110, 112, 113, 114 ὁλοκαύτωμα 40, 41 ὄνος 79, 80, 160 ὀπίσω 49 ὄρνεον 124, 125 ὀρνίθιον 124, 125 ὀσμή 154 παῖς 32, 33, 34, 35, 110, 112, 113, 114, 168 παροικέω 68, 69 πάροικος 70 πάσχα 18, 26 πληρόω 154, 155 (ἐμ)πίπλημι 154, 155 ποικιλτής 52, 53 πόλεμος 12 πολυέλεος 37 πούς 49, 154 πρεσβύτερος 76, 77, 79 προηγέομαι 126 προσήλυτος 37, 70, 71 πρόσκειμαι 68, 69, 70 προσοχθίζω 56, 57 πρῶτος 27 ῥομφαία 12

191

index of main greek words discussed σάββατα 26 σάββατον 26 σίκλος 128, 129, 168 σκηνὴ 18, 24 σκηνὴ μαρτυρίου 18, 24 σκληροτράχηλος 37 σπέρμα 12 σπόρος 12 στέαρ 154 στρατοπεδεύω 109 συγγένεια 105 συντάσσω 121, 122, 123, 124, 142, 143 σφονδύλου 12 τελειόω 154 τελευτάω 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 τετράπους 66 τί 148 τίθημι 93 τράχηλος 12 τρίτος 30 τρόπος ὃν τρόπον 89, 91

ὑιακίνθινος 49 ὑποζύγιον 79, 80, 81, 160 ὑποστέλλω 68 φασεκ 26 φασεχ 26 φοβέω 68 φρέαρ φρέαρ τοῦ ὅρκου 31, 32 φυλή 104, 105 Φυλιστιιμ 31, 159 χεῖρα χιτών χρίμα χρῖσις χρῖσμα

154, 155 154 51 51 51

ψυχή 18, 159 ὥσπερ 148

Index of Ancient Sources Hebrew and Greek Bible Genesis 1–25 1–46:28 1:4 1:10 1:12 1:18 1:21 1:24 1:25 1:25–26 1:28 1:27 1:31 1–25 2:5 2:9 2:10 2:16 2:17 3:4 3:5 3:10–12 3:11 3:15 3:22 4:3 4:5–7 4:8 4:23 5:23 5:31 6:6 6:20 7:2 7:3 7:10 7:17 7:17–20 8:3 8:5 8:6 8:13 10:14

8 11n52 85n50 85n50 85n50 85n50 85n50 66–67 66–67, 85n50 66n10 136n163 136n163 85n50 8, 135, 169 88, 88n65 81 125 116, 139 81, 100 100 81 11n53 123 125 81 134 11n53 134 11n53 134 134 65 65, 75n25 75n25 75n25 134 134 11n53 139n167 125–126 134 134 31n35

9:25–27 11:2 11:4 12:1 12:4 12:7–8 12:10 12:14 12:18 12:20 13:4 13:8 13:10 13:14 14:14–17 14:16 14:21 15:2 15:1–5 15:12 15:15 15:16–19 15:17 15:18 16:2 16:6 16:6–9 17:1 17:4–5 17:7–8 17:9 17:16 18:5 18:23 18:24 18:28–32 19:4 19:8 19:19 19:17 19:23 19:34 20:7 20:14

110 134 126 63 149 23n13 70 134 136n163 123n132 23n13 23n13 88 48, 48n89 11n52 144n183 19n1 152 11n52 48n87 81 11n52 48n87 93 61–62 86n56 11n52 134 95 156 63 144n184 114n119 136n163 61–62 61–62 76, 88n65, 144n183 86n56, 119n114 139 134 134 134 100 113

193

index of ancient sources 20:15 21:22 21:32 21:34 23:3 23:16 22:1 22:7 22:16 22:20 23:7 23:12–13 24:2 24:10 24:14 24:15 24:30 24:45 24:54 25:2 25:4 25:8 25:11 26–50 26:1 26:5 26:8 26:10 26:11 26:10–11 26:14–15 26:18 26:22 26:25 26:31 26:32 27:4 27:7 27:29 27:33 27:39 27:46 28:1 28:3 28:12 28:14 28:18 29:13 29:19

86n56 134 31n35 31n35 99 128n141 134 136n163 136n163, 152 134 144n183 144n182 76 86, 86n53 56 87n62, 88n65 134 88n65 136n163 56 56 81, 144n183, 145 134 8, 135, 169 31n35, 31n35 23–24n19 31n35 116 100, 116, 144n182 15, 145 31n35 31n35 136n163 23n13 19n3 134 88n65 88 145n185 87, 88n65 136n163 57 136n163 144n184 126 48, 48n89 126 134 85

29:25 30:31 30:37 30:39–40 31 31:7 31:8 31:10 31:12 31:15 31:19 31:20 31:26 31:27 [LXX 31:26] 31:39 32:5 [Gö 32:4] 32:8 32:21 32:30 33:3 33:5 33:7 33:10 33:15 33:20 34:22 34:23 34:25 35:1 35:3 35:6 35:7 35:18 35:22 35:29 36:6 36:35 37:3 37:18 37:23 37:32 37:34–36 37:35 38:1 38:10–12 38:16 38:22 38:24 38:26

134 72 53n102 53n102 72n20 131n151 53n102 53n102, 134 53n102 139n167, 140 72 72 72 72 72 152 144n182 61–62 152n214 30 110 23 114n119 137n164, 144n183 23n13 144n183 66n10 134 23n13 23n13 144n182 23 134 134 76, 145 65 56 53n102 88, 88n65 53n102 53n102 11n53 136n163 11n53, 56, 134 11n53 56 152 134 114n119

194 Genesis (cont.) 38:27 39:5 39:7 39:11 39:13 39:17 39:19 40:1 40:13 40:15 40:18 40:20 41:8 41:12 41:40 41:50 41:55 42:6 42:10–11 42:13 42:18 43:27 43:28 44:7 44:16 45:9 45:18 45:20 45:23 45:28 46:3 46:4 46:12 47:1 47:18 47:21 47:31 48:1 48:4 48:8 48:19 49:10 49:16 49:24 49:29 49:33 50:7 50:17

index of ancient sources

134 134 134 134 134 110, 113 113, 134 134 125 72 136n163 110, 131 134 113 144n183 88n65 144n183 144n183 110 110 110 76 21n7 152n214 110 152 86, 86n53 86, 86n53 81, 86, 86n53 88n65 136n163 139n167 97 136n163 65 144n183 125 134 144n184 136n163 144n182 144n184 144n182 154n235 144n182 144n182 76 110

50:20 50:26 Exodus 1–24 1–34 1:1–23:19 1:9 1:12 1:19 1:20 2:11 2:13 2:15–16 2:18 2:22 2:23 3:1 3:8 3:12 4–12 4:3–4 4:10 4:18 4:19 4:20 4:22 4:24 5:1 5:3 5:6 5:10 5:13 5:15–16 5:21 5:23 6:5 6:6 6:14 6:16 6:18 6:20 6:31 6:35 7:10 7:20 7:21 7:26 7:28–29

85, 144n183 97

169, 169n7 41 139 116, 146n191 57 79, 88 116, 145–146 135 152 56 137n164 70 135 56 19n5, 81 149–150 133n160 135 110, 113 151–152 56 80 152 135 152 152 19n5 152 140 112–113 113n116 139n167 101n84 152n235 60n3, 125 44, 46 45–46 45–46 101n84 101n84 113n116, 135, 152 113n116 135 152 113n116

195

index of ancient sources 8:5 8:7 8:16 8:18 8:20 8:24 8:25 8:27 9:1 9:9–10 9:10 9:12 9:13 9:14 9:19 9:20 9:22 9:24 9:25 9:27 9:30 9:34 9:35 10:1 10:3 10:6–7 10:7 10:9 10:10 10:13 10:19 10:22 10:28–29 11:3 11:4 11:8 12:2 12:8 12:9 12:11 12:15 12:16 12:19 12:21 12:27 12:30 12:34 12:41 12:42

113n116 113n116 152 94n74 113n116 139n167 113n116 113n116 152–153 66–67 135 92 152 113n116 65–67 113n116 65 135 65 64, 94n74 88, 113n116 113n116 92 113n116 152 113n116 88, 152 152 64 47 48 135 152 113n116 152 113n116 29, 60n3, 125 129n147 60n3, 125 26 28 30 70–71 26 26 99, 113n116 88 131, 135 15, 95–96

12:43 12:45 12:48 12:48–49 12:49 12:50 12:51 13:3 13:9 13:14 13:15 13:17 14:5 14:20 14:21 14:31 15:14 15:16 16:3 16:4 16:7 16:10 16:13 16:15 16:22 16:23 16:27 16:28 17:2 17:9 17:9–10 17:15 18:1 18:3 18:13 18:14–15 18:16 18:20 19:5 19:12 19:16 19:19 19:20 20:8 20:10 20:11 20:12 20:14–15

26 70n13 26 71n16 24n19, 25n20 124n113 135 110 24n19 110 135 31n35, 135 113n116 135 47 113 146n191 154n235 123 24n19 19n5 135 135 19n3, 101n86 135 27, 27n30 135 24n19 135 60n3, 126 126n138 23, 146n193 56 70 135 152 24n19 24n19 140, 146n191 100 135 135 126n138 26 30, 70n13, 110n108, 113 27 81 72

196 Exodus (cont.) 20:17 20:20 20:24–26 21:2 21:5 21:8 21:12 21:14 21:15–17 21:20 21:25 21:32 22:1 22:9 22:18 23:2 23:6 23:11 23:14 23:17 23:15 23:16 23:20–40:38 23:27 23:31 24:1 24:4 24:6 24:9 24:12 24:17 24:18 25–31 25–40 26:24 26:28 26:32 26:37 27 27:1 27:5–7 27:9–13 27:17 28:31 28:34 28:43 29 29:12–13

index of ancient sources

110n108, 113 152 146n193 110, 110n108, 113 110n108, 113 146, 146n191 100 146n193 100 110n108, 113 110 110n108 73n21, 98 80–81, 98–99 100 56 56 146n191 30 30 28 28–29, 28n32 139 146n191 31n35 3–4n15, 78 146n193 146n196 3–4n15, 78 24n19 126n138 135 39–53 169, 169n7 60n3, 125 42 170 170 23 146n193 146n191 46 170 155n237 155n237 146n193 3, 59, 154–158 146n193

29:13 29:16 29:18 29:20–21 29:30 29:25 29:36–38 29:44 30:1 30:12 30:13 30:18 30:20 30:23 30:27–28 31:8–9 31:14–15 31:15 32:1–2 32:5 32:17–18 32:19 32:23 32:27 33:3 33:5 33:7 33:14–15 33:16 33:18 33:19 33:22 34:2 34:7 34:9 34:13 34:18 34:22 34:23–24 34:25 34:28 34:29 35–40 35:2 35:3 35:10 35:15 35:16 35:22

23 146n193 23, 146n193 146n193 29 146n193 146n193 146n193 146n193 60n3, 125 128 146n193 146n193 45–46, 60n3, 125 146n193 22n11 100 27n30 152 146n193 152 89 152 152 37n50 37n50 24 152 146n191 152 81 155n237 60n3, 125, 126n138 139n167 37n50 146 28 28–29 30 23 135 131, 135 2, 39–53, 170 27n30 26 41n70 22n11 146n193 19n5

197

index of ancient sources 36:8–38:20 40n60 36:36 170 36:38 125 37:8 21n8, 22n11 37:30 22n11 37:25 22n11 38:1 146n193 38:3–4 146n193 38:4 42n75 38:10 42n75 38:13 42n75 38:16–17 42n75 38:18–26 42 38:22 42n75 38:24 [LXX 39:1] 42n75, 45 38:25–26 [LXX 39:2–3] 42n75, 45 [LXX 38:24] 42n75 38:28–29 [LXX 39:6–7] 45–46 38:30 146n193 39 44 39:1–3 46 39:5 42n75 39:6–7 46 39:30 21n6 39:38 23, 146n193 39:39 22n11 40:5 23 40:5–6 146n193 40:7 22n11 40:10 146n193 40:17 135 40:26 146n193 40:29 146n193 40:30 22n11 40:32–33 146n193 43:1ff. 23 Leviticus 1:2 1:3–4 1:6 1:9 1:10 1:11 1:12 2:3–5 2:7–8

65 41 155n236 23, 41 41 11n54 155n236 11n54 11n54

3:4 3:7 3:9–14 4:3–4 4:4 4:6 4:6–8 4:7 4:10–11 4:15 4:17 4:18–19 4:26–28 4:30 5:6 5:8 5:8–10 5:16–17 5:18–6:5 (5:24) 5:23 5:24 6:2 [6:9] 6:3 6:5 6:7 6:18 7:1 7:7 7:8 7:11 7:24 7:37 8 8:7 8:11 8:13 8:29 9:1 9:2 9:2–3 9:5 9:8 9:7 10:9 11:46 12:7 13:2 13:59

11n54 11n54 11n54 11n54 125 30 11n54 12, 23 11n54 76–78 30 11n54 11n54 11n54 11n54 12 11n54 11n54 11n54 72 125 24–25n19, 25n20, 41n68, 123 41n68 41n68 24–25n19, 25n20 24–25n19, 25n20 24–25n19, 25n20 24–25n19 41n68 24–25n19, 25n20 139n167 24–25n19 3, 59, 154–158, 160 49 30 51n100, 92 92 78 64 156 143n174 156 64 149 24–25n19 24–25n19 125 24–25n19

198 Leviticus (cont.) 14:2 14:7 14:16 14:27 14:32 14:48 14:51 14:54 14:57 15:32 16:4 16:6 16:19 16:29 17:4–5 17:18 18:23 19:8 19:16 19:20 19:32 19:34 20:2 20:9–13 20:13 20:15–16 20:17–18 20:27 20:15–16 20:23 20:24 20:26 21:1 21:14 22:10 23:3 23:5 23:6 23:7–8 23:11 23:15 23:16 23:21 23:25 23:27–28 23:31 23:35–36 24:8

index of ancient sources

24–25n19, 25n20 30 30 30 24–25n19, 25n20 140 30 24–25n19 24–25n19, 25n20 24–25n19 51n100 116n121 30 30 95 70n14 65 116 116, 145n188 139n167 76–77 71 100n81, 145n188 100n81 100n82 100n81 116 100n81 65–67 57 145n187 145n187 145n188 116 70n13 27n30, 30 26 28 30 27–28 26 27–28 30 30 29–30 30 30 26

24:16–17 24:18 24:19 25:4 25:6 25:8 25:9 25:23 25:35 25:40 25:42 25:44 25:45 25:47 25:55 26:2–16 26:5–6 26:12 26:13 26:46 27:14 27:25 Numbers 1–21 1:2 1:4 1:16 1:18 1:20 1:22 1:24 1:26 1:28 1:32 1:34 1:36 1:38 1:40 1:42 1:49 3:13 3:26 3:29 3:40–42 3:41 3:50–51 4:1 4:2

100n81 65 100n81 27n30 70n13, 113 30 29 70n13, 71 70n13 70n13 110 112 70n13 70n13 112 11n54 12 145n188 112–113 24–25n19 89 128n141

56 61n4, 105, 125 61n4 102–103 75n26, 105 105, 105n100 105n100 75n26, 105n100 75n26, 105n100 75n26, 105n100 75n26, 105n100 75n26, 105n100 75n26, 105n100 75n26, 105n100 75n26, 105n100 75n26, 105n100 61n4, 125 65 22n11 48, 48n89 11n54 65 11n54 11n54 61n4

199

index of ancient sources 4:5–16 4:6 4:8 4:9 4:10–12 4:14 4:22 4:25 4:26 5:3 5:7 5:18 5:25 5:29–30 6:6 6:13 6:19 6:21 8:12 9:2 9:4 9:6 9:8 9:10 9:12–14 10:2 10:10 10:31 11:1 11:6–7 11:9 11:11 11:15 11:16 11:18 12:12 13:3 13:28 13:31 14:4 14:18 14:28 14:40 14:43 14:44 15:15 15:16 15:19 15:23

11n54 49n93–94 12, 49n93 49n94 49n93–94 49n93 125 49n93 22n11 75–76 125 61n4, 125 23 24–25nn19–20 99n79 24–25n19 154n235 24–25n19 125 26 26 26 123n132 26 26 102 29 114n119 19n5 101n84 101n84 110 139n167 3–4n15 86n59 99n79 61n4, 125 145n189 145n189 19n3 139n167 152–153 57, 126n139 113n119 57, 126n139 70n14 24–25n19, 70 21n6 123n132, 124n134

15:29 15:32 15:35 15:38 16:2 16:13 16:15 17:11 17:22–23 18:2 18:15 18:17 18:20 18:21 18:23 18:24 18:28–32 19:2 19:4 19:14 20:14 20:15 20:17 20:19 20:20 20:21 20:28 21:4 21:5 21:18 21:20 21:22 22–24 22:1 22:3 22:6 22:11 22:16 22:18 22:22 22:28 22:30 22:32 22:33 23:3 23:9 23:14

24–25n19 26 100 49n94 62 139n167 80n40 23 24 24 65 23 106–108 107 107 62, 107 62 24–25n19 30 24–25n19 152 69n12 56 152, 153n217 57, 137n164, 138n165, 152 56, 125 57, 125, 126n139 19n1 57 145n190 57, 126n139 56 53–57, 78–79n32 48n87, 118, 118nn126– 127 67 61–62 61–62 152, 153n217 110n106 79n39 30, 152, 153n217 138n165, 152, 153n217 30 30, 61–62 61–62 61n4, 126n139 126n139

200 Numbers (cont.) 23:25 23:27 23:28 24:10 24:25 25:4 25:15 25:18 25–36 26:2 26:3 26:9 26:53 26:54 26:56 26:62 26:63 26:65 27:7 27:9 27:11 27:12 27:23 28:2 28:9 28:11 28:16 28:18 28:24–25 29:1 29:7 29:12 29:35 31:3 31:7–9 31:12 31:15 31:19 31:21 31:26 31:49 31:50 32:4–5 32:20 32:21 32:25 32:27 32:31

index of ancient sources

139n167 61–62 126n139 30 116n112 125 56 56 56 125 118nn126–127 102–103 106–107 107 107 107 118nn126–127 100 107 143n176 122 123n132 123n132 143n176 26 29 26 30 30 30 30 30 30 56 56 118nn126–127 64 19n1 24–25n19 125 125 19n5 112 64 62 112, 143n176 112 94n74, 112–113

33:3 33:38 33:48–50 33:49–50 33:54 34:2 34:3–4 34:14 35:1 35:3 35:5 35:15 35:16 35:16–18 35:21 35:31 36:2–3 36:5 36:13

Deuteronomy 1:1 1:3 1:5 1:7 1:13 1:14 1:15 1:17 1:20 1:25 1:28 1:35 1:39 2:8 2:10 2:16 2:21 2:25 2:35 3:17 3:24 3:25 3:27 4:4 4:6

26 98–99 56, 118, 118nn126–127 48n87 107 143n176 48, 48n89 143n176 56, 118, 118nn126–127 21n6 48, 48n89 70n13 98–99 100 100 100 107, 143n176 143n176 48n87, 56, 118, 118nn126–127

48n87, 56n109, 117– 119, 118–119n128 123n132 24–25nn19–20 117–118 125, 126 85 126 67 94n74 85n52, 86n57 146n192 85n52, 86n57 81, 87 117 146n192 89 146n192 146n192 65 117 112–113 85n52, 86, 86n57 48, 48n87, 125, 126n140 68 146n192

201

index of ancient sources 4:8 4:16 4:17 (4:18) 4:19 4:20 4:21 4:22 4:27 4:33 4:38 4:44 4:46 4:49 5:6 5:14 5:15 5:21 5:23 5:25 5:33 6:7 6:10 6:11 6:14 6:18 6:21 6:24 7:5 7:6–7 7:14 7:16 7:18 7:19 8:3 8:7 8:10 8:12 8:16 9:6 9:13 9:26 9:27 9:29 (10:3) (10:8–9) 10:9 10:11 10:13

24–25n19 75–76 65 11n53 146n192 108n103 107 85n52, 86n57, 99n80 146n192 146n192 106–107 24–25nn19–20 149 117 110 30, 65, 113 113, 154n235 113 126 112 81, 86 149 85–86 86n53 146n192 85n52, 86n57, 87 112–113 86 146 146n192 146n192 146n192 140 146n192, 154n235 101n84 81, 85n52, 86n57 81, 85n52, 86n57 85–86 101n84 37n50, 85n52, 86n57 37n50 108n103 113 106 11n53 11n53 106 146 81, 86

10:15 10:19 10:22 11:1 11:10–11 11:13–14:16 11:17 11:30 12:3 12:9 12:12 12:22 12:27 13:8 13:16 14:1 14:2 14:11 14:29 15:15 15:16 16:1–2 16:5–6 16:6 16:10 16:12 16:13 16:16 16:21 17:1–2 17:6 17:11 17:14–16 17:18 17:18–19 18:1–2 18:3–8 18:11 18:15–16 18:22 19:3–5 19:5–11 19:13 19:13–15 19:18–20 20:3–9 20:5–8 20:6

146n192 71 11n53 11n53 11n53 11n53 85n52, 86n57, 94n74 48n87, 56n109, 117– 119 146 106–107 113 129–130n147 23, 146n193 146, 146n192 65–66 99n80 146n192 125 70n14 112–113 86 26 26 48n87 28 113 28 28, 30 146n193 11n53 99n80 24–25n19 11n53 24–25n19 11n53 106–108, 106n102 11n53 99n80 11n53 67 11n53 11n53 86 11n53 11n53 11n53 139n167 107

202 Deuteronomy (cont.) 20:9 20:12–14 20:16 20:16–20 21:1–12 21:12 21:14 21:14–18 21:23 22:1–3 22:6–14 22:21–24 22:26–27 23:3–5 23:7–11 23:14–17 23:17 23:21–22 23:24–25 23:24–24:3 24:1 24:4 24:7 24:7–11 24:13 24:15 24:18 24:19–21 24:22 25:1–3 25:1–10 25:5–6 25:14–18, (19) 26:1–8 26:4 26:11 26:11–16 26:12 26:14 26:17–19 26:18–19 27:1 27:1–10 27:3 27:5–6 27:8 27:13–16 27:23–26

index of ancient sources

125, 126 11n53 146n192 11n53 11n53 125 19n1, 139n167 11n53 11n53 11n53 11n53 11n53 11n53 11n53 11n53 11n53 86n58 11n53 11n53 11n55 11n53 11n53 73n21 11n53 48n87 19n1 113 11n53 113 11n55 11n53 99n80 11n53 11n53 146n193 86n53 11n53 11n55 99n80 11n55 11n53 78–79 11n53 24–25n19 146n193 24–25n19 11n53 11n53

27:26 28:1–11 28:4 28:10 28:12 28:13–17 28:13 28:20 28:26 28:31–33 28:37 28:44 28:49–50 28:54–55 28:57–68 28:58 28:64 28:61 28:68 29:1–4 29:9–10 29:9 29:17–22 29:20 29:26–29 29:28 30:1–4 30:3 30:6–7 30:9 30:9–11 30:10 30:15 30:16 30:19–20 31:2–3 31:5–7 31:7 31:9 31:10 31:10–11 31:11–12 31:14–17 (31:17) 31:21–30 31:24 31:26 31:26–29 32:1–4

24–25n19 11n53 65–66 146n192 85n52 11n53 126 11n53 65 11n53, 11n55, 146n192 146n192 126 11n53 11n53 11n53 24–25n19 146n192 24–25nn19–20 112 11n53 11n53 126 11n53 24–25n19 11n53 24–25n19 11n53 146n192 11n53 86n53 11n53 24–25n19 86n53 11n53 11n53 11n53 11n53 64 24–25n19, 78–79 28 11n53 24–25n19 11n53 11n53 11n53 24–25n19 24–25n19 11n53 11n53

203

index of ancient sources 32:1–12 32:8 32:9 32:14 32:17–20 32:21 32:24 32:25–26 32:27 32:36 32:39–49 32:43 32:46 33:4 33:5 33:10 33:14–22 33:15 33:17 33:19 33:20 33:21 33:25–27 33:27 34:1 34:5 34:8 Joshua 1:2 5:9 5:10–11 5:12 7:14 7:17 7:21 9 9:2 13:2–3 13:15 13:23–24 13:28–29 13:31 15:1 15:12 16:5 16:8 17:2 18:1

11n53 146n192 106–107 11n53 11n53 146n192 65 11n53 67 112 11n53 110n107 24–25n19, 64 24–25n19, 123–124 126 24–25n19, 146n193 11n53 126n140 146n192 81, 146n192 154n235 126 11n53 138–139 118, 126n140 112 118

32n37 56n109 26 101n84 105n96 105n96 53n102 112n110 32n37 31n36 105n96 105n96 105n96 105n96 105n96 105n96 105n96 105n96 105n96 24

18:11 18:20–21 18:28 19:8 19:10 19:16 19:23 19:31 19:48 19:51 20:9 21:4 21:7 21:20 21:26 21:33–34 21:40 22:5 22:10–34 23:2

105n96 105n96 105n96 105n96 105n96 105n96 105n96 105n96 105n96 24 68 105n96 105n96 105n96 105n96 105n96 105n96 68 23n13 77n31

Judges 5:30 7:18 8:27 A 14:11 16:14 17:5 17:5 A 17:5 B 17:7 B 17:12 18:14 A 18:14 B 18:18 A 18:18 B 18:20 A 18:20 B

53n102–103 48n88 49n91 102n95 108 154–155 49n91 49n91 105n97 154–155 49n91 49n91 49n91 49n91 49n91 49n91

1Samuel 4:1 2:18 2:28 14:3 17:15 22:18 23:6 23:9 30:7

31n36 49n91 49n91 49n91 139n167 49n91 49n91 49n91 49n91

204

index of ancient sources

2Samuel 1:1–11:1 2:29 4:7 6:14 14:26 15:11

151–152 56n109 56n109 49n91 128n141 102n92

1Kings 1:41 1:49 2:12–21:43 13:33

102n92 102n92 151–152 154–155

2Kings 9:24 23:21–23

154–155 26

Isaiah 6:1 8:16 9:11 11:6 31:5 34:11 37:37 51:3 56:2 56:3 56:4 56:6

49 25n20 31n36 156 125n136 125n136 139n167 56n109 26 68 26 68

Jeremiah 4:7 13:22 13:26 17:26 32:26 34:18

108 49 49 101n85 48n88 93

Ezekiel 7:26 16:10 16:13 16:16 16:18 17:23 20:12–13 21:3

25n20 53n102 53n102 53n102 53n102 125n136 26 48n88

21:9 21:31 23:6 37:16 37:19 39:4 39:17 43:26 44:18

48n88 51n100 49n94 68 68 125n136 125n136 154–155 51n100

Hosea 2:13 3:4 5:15 9:11 11:11

26 49n91 139n167 125n136 125n136

Amos 3:5 5:5 6:4

125n136 31–32 156

Nahum 3:5

49

Zechariah 1:7 1:8 3:5 6:3 6:6 9:9

102n92 53n102 51n100 53n102 53n102 79n39

Malachi 2:4 3:20

25n20 156

Psalms 49:19–79:10 A 67:4 78:24 78:39 84:12 [83:12]

11n52 56n109 101n84 139n167 19n2

Proverbs 6:5 7:23 26:2 27:8

125n136 125n136 125n136 125n136

205

index of ancient sources 28:4 28:7 28:9 29:18 Job 40:29

25n20 25n20 25n20 25n20

1Chronicles 6:17 23:32 25:27 29:2 29:5

24 24 49n91 53n102 154–155

2Chronicles 1:3 1:13 5:5 13:9 17:9 19:10 24:6 29:31 30:1–2 30:5 30:15 30:17–18 31:3 32:30 33:14 35:1 35:6–9 35:11 35:13 35:16–18

24 24 24 154–155 25n20 25n20 24 154–155 26 26 26 26 26 48 48 26 26 26 26 26

Mark 10:6

74

Luke 1:54 1:69 2:23 2:43 7:7 8:51 8:54 9:42 12:45 15:26

34–35n39 34–35n39 74 34–35n39 34–35n39 34–35n39 34–35n39 34–35n39 34–35n39 34–35n39

125n136

Lamentations 1:9 2:9

49 25n20

Ecclesiastes 10:9 9:12

108 125n136

Daniel 4:9 4:11 4:18 4:30 8:24 9:16 11:23 11:32

125n136 125n136 125n136 125n136 105n97 105n97 105n97 105n97

Nehemiah 4:7 8:17 9:20

105n97 29n33 101n84

New Testament Matthew 2:16 4:24 8:6 8:8 8:13 12:8 14:2 17:18 17:24 19:4 21:5 21:15 23:18

34–35n39 53n102 34–35n39 34–35n39 34–35n39 34–35n39 34–35n39 34–35n39 128 74 79n39 34–35n39 23

206

index of ancient sources

John 4:51

34–35n39

Acts 3:13 3:26 4:25 4:27 4:30 20:12

34–35n39 34–35n39 34–35n39 34–35n39 34–35n39 34–35n39

1Corinthians 5:13

Galatians 3:28

74

Hebrews 3:5

32n37

2Peter 2:16

79n39

Revelation 12:5

74

3Maccabees 1:21 2:6 5:14

53n102 53n102 102n92

4Maccabees 7:4 17:7 18:21

53n102 53n102 53n102

13n61 13n61 13n61 13n61

4QLXXLeva 4QLXXLevb 4QLXXNum

11–12, 11n54, 145n188 11–12, 11n54 11–12, 11n54, 55n107

4

Philo On the Life of Moses 2, vii, 37–38 On the Special Laws 2:162 2:176

4

108n105

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 2Esdras 8:31 Letter of Aristeas

108 3–6, 3–4nn15–16, 35n43

1Maccabees 12:37

48n88

2Maccabees 15:21

53n102

Judean Desert Texts 1Q21 1Q22 1Q26 2Q11

Josephus and Philo Josephus Jewish Antiquities 3.10.5 8.4.1 12.12–18

28 23 4n17

4n18 28 28

207

index of ancient sources Rabbinic Literature b. B. Bat. 14b b. Meg. 9a

57n111 4, 4n19, 80, 80n43

Massekhet Sopherim 1.7 1.8

7 3

Herodotus Hist. 1.182 Hist. 5.66 Hist. 5.75 Hist. 9.39 Vita Homeri, 2.109

92n69 105n99 102 79 106n101

Homer Od. 17.386 Ilias, 5.710 Ilias, 8.7 Ilias 9.165 Iliad, 11.558

102 105 75n27 102 79

Isocrates, 19.43

106

Justin Martyr Dial., lxvii. 7

4 4n20

Plato Leg., 740b Leg., 873e

106n101 79

Plutarchus, 2.1011c

74

Thucydides, 3.50

106n101

Xenophon Anab. 1.5.6

128n144

Other Ancient Writers and Sources Aristotle Gen. corr., 747

75n27

Aristoteles Αθηναίων πολιτεία, 10.7 128n142 Pol., 1265 106n101 Aeschylus Sept. 199.1011

105n99

Aeschin. 2.162

102

Callimachus Epigr. 27

73–74n22

Clement of Alexandria Strom. (1, 148) John Chrysostom Hom. Matt., 5:2

4 4n21 4 4n21

Epiphanius of Salamis 5 De Mensuris et Ponderibus, 3–11 5n24 Civ., Book XVIII, 42ff. 5n23 Hippocrates Artic. 36

101n87