The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic on the Translator of Septuagint Isaiah 9780567672384, 9780567672407, 9780567672391

Citation preview

LIBRARY OF HEBREW BIBLE/ OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES

635 Formerly Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series

Editors Claudia V. Camp, Texas Christian University Andrew Mein, Westcott House, Cambridge Founding Editors David J. A. Clines, Philip R. Davies and David M. Gunn Editorial Board Alan Cooper, John Goldingay, Robert P. Gordon, Norman K. Gottwald, James E. Harding, John Jarick, Carol Meyers, Carolyn J. Sharp, Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, Francesca Stavrakopoulou, James W. Watts

THE HEBREW BIBLE AND ITS VERSIONS

9 General Editor Robert P. Gordon, University of Cambridge

THE INFLUENCE OF POST-BIBLICAL HEBREW AND ARAMAIC ON THE TRANSLATOR OF SEPTUAGINT ISAIAH

Seulgi L. Byun

T&T CLARK Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the T&T Clark logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2017 Paperback edition first published 2018 Copyright © Seulgi L. Byun, 2017 Seulgi L. Byun has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. For legal purposes the Acknowledgements on p. ix constitute an extension of this copyright page. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Byun, Seulgi L., author. Title: The Influence of post-biblical Hebrew and Aramaic on the translator of Septuagint Isaiah / Seulgi L. Byun. Description: New York : Bloomsbury T&T Clark, [2017]| Series: Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament studies ; 641 | Series: Hebrew Bible and its versions ; 1 |Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2016050081 (print) | LCCN 2016050845 (ebook) | ISBN 9780567672384 (hardback) | ISBN 9780567672391 (epdf) Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Isaiah. Greek–Versions–Septuagint. | Bible. Isaiah–Criticism, interpretation, etc. | Bible. Isaiah–Translating. Classification: LCC BS1514.G7 S425 2017 (print) | LCCBS1514.G7 (ebook) | DDC 224/.10486–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016050081 ISBN: HB: 978-0-5676-7238-4 PB: 978-0-5676-8355-7 ePDF: 978-0-5676-7239-1 Series: Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies, volume 635 Typeset by Forthcoming Publications (www.forthpub.com) To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

C on t en t s

Contents v Acknowledgments ix Abbreviations xi Section 1 Introduction 1 1. Semantic Change 1 2. The Development of the Hebrew Language 4 3. Previous Scholarship 13 4. LXX Isa 18 5. Methodological Considerations 24 Section 2 Post-biblical Hebrew Influence 27 1. Introduction 27 2. The Influence of PBH on LXX Isa 31 Chapter 1 ‫ צדקה‬35 1. Introduction 35 2. ‫ צדקה‬in BH 36 3. ‫ צדקה‬in PBH and Aramaic 41 4. The Meaning of ἐλεημοσύνη 52 5. LXX Isa and ‫ צדקה‬ 55 6. Conclusion 64 Chapter 2 ‫ כשל‬66 1. Introduction 66 2. ‫ כשל‬in BH and PBH 67 3. LXX Renderings of ‫ כשל‬as “Be Weak” 72 4. LXX Renderings of ‫ כשל‬as “Stumble, Fall” 76 5. The Greek Revisions and ‫ כשל‬82 6. LXX Isa and ‫ כשל‬85 7. Conclusion 86

vi Contents

Chapter 3 *‫ ברר‬88 1. Introduction 88 2. ‫ ברר‬in BH and PBH 89 3. The Peshitta and ‫ ברר‬96 4. The Targums and ‫ ברר‬98 5. The Vulgate and ‫ ברר‬100 6. The LXX and ‫ ברר‬102 7. Aquila and ‫ ברר‬104 8. The LXX and Other ‫ר‬-‫ ב‬Lexemes 106 9. Conclusion 109 Section 3 Aramaic Influence 111 1. Introduction 111 2. Grammatical Influence 113 3. Lexical Influence 115 4. The Influence of Aramaic on LXX Isa 117 Chapter 1 ‫ דכא‬121 1. Introduction 121 2. ‫ דכא‬in BH 122 3. ‫ דכא‬in PBH and Aramaic 123 4. The LXX and ‫ דכא‬128 5. Conclusion 135 Chapter 2 ‫רעה‬/‫ רעי‬136 1. Introduction 136 2. ‫ רעה‬in BH 138 3. ‫ רעי‬in PBH, Aramaic and Syriac 139 4. LXX Isa and ‫ רעה‬142 5. Conclusion 146 Section 4 Post-biblical Hebrew and Aramaic Influence 147 1. Introduction 147 Chapter 1 ‫ אשר‬149 1. Introduction 149 2. ‫ אשר‬in BH 150 3. ‫ אשר‬in PBH and Aramaic 151 4. The LXX and ‫ אשר‬154 5. Conclusion 160



Contents

vii

Chapter 2 ‫ חשש‬161 1. Introduction 161 2. ‫חשש‬/‫ חוש‬in BH 162 3. ‫חשש‬/‫ חוש‬in PBH, Aramaic and Syriac 163 4. The Versions and Manuscripts 168 5. ‫ ֲח ַׁשׁש‬and LXX Isa 170 6. Conclusion 173 Chapter 3 ‫ צמח‬and ‫ צבי‬174 1. Introduction 174 2. ‫ צמח‬in BH, PBH and Aramaic 174 3. ‫ צבי‬in BH, PBH and Aramaic 177 4. Conclusion 179 Section 5 Word Manipulation 181 1. Introduction 181 2. Word Manipulation in LXX Isa 183 3. Root Confusion and PBH/Aramaic Meanings in LXX Isa 189 Chapter 1 ‫ ׂש ִכּיֹות‬191 ְ 1. Introduction 191 2. ‫ ְׂש ִכּיֹות‬and ‫ שכה‬in BH 192 3. ‫ סכי‬in PBH and Aramaic 194 4. LXX Isa 2.16 and *‫ ׂש ִכּיָ ה‬195 ְ 5. Conclusion 200 Chapter 2 ‫ כתוא מכמר‬201 1. Introduction 201 2. ‫ תאו‬and ‫ מכמר‬in BH 202 3. ‫ תאו‬and ‫ מכמר‬in PBH and Aramaic 205 4. LXX Isa 51.20 and ‫ כתוא מכמר‬209 5. Conclusion 213 Chapter 3 ‫גלל‬/‫ דמים‬214 1. Introduction 214 2. Previous Scholarship on Isaiah 9.4 215 3. Aramaic Influence on the Rendering of BH ‫ דמים‬217 4. Toward a Solution: Parallelism and PBH ‫ גלם‬218

viii Contents

Section 6 Conclusion 223 1. Summary 223 2. Concluding Observations 225 Appendices 1. Index of Examples in LXX Isa 2. ‫ ברר‬in the Ancient Versions 3. Other ‫ בר‬Lexemes Rendered as “Choice, Choose”

229 229 232 235

Bibliography 238 Index of References 250 Index of Authors 263

A c k n owl ed g me nts

This study is a slight reworking of a dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Cambridge in 2013. I am grateful to many people who have contributed in one way or another. Firstly, I would like to thank my doctoral supervisor, Professor Robert P. Gordon, whose patience, guidance and wise counsel throughout this project were of inestimable value. It has been such a blessing to experience firsthand his kindness, humility and selflessness for which he is known and loved by many. I would also like to thank the many scholars and colleagues who have generously given of their time to read and interact with my work: Professor Takamitsu Muraoka, Professor Peter Gentry, Dr. James Aitken, Dr. Peter J. Williams, Dr. Dirk Jongkind, Dr. Noam Mizrahi and Anne Andrews. Thanks are also due to my dissertation examiners, Professor Jan Joosten and Professor Geoffrey Khan, for their many helpful comments and suggestions, as well as my copy-editor, Dr. Duncan Burns, for his careful reading of the manuscript. This work was completed during my time at Oak Hill Theological College. I could not have finished it without the encouragement and friendship of my wonderful colleagues at Oak Hill, especially Dr. Charles Anderson and Dr. Christopher Ansberry. A special thanks is also owed to the Principal, the Rev. Dr. Michael J. Ovey, and the Academic Vice-principal, Dr. Daniel Strange, for their generous spirit and unwavering support. I wish to thank my parents, Jae Chang and Aeran, for their endless love and encouragement. They have sacrificed so much for me over the years, and I have not lived a day without knowing their unconditional love. Most importantly, they were the first to teach me the Scriptures, and they modelled for me what it means to walk in the fear of the Lord. My greatest debt and gratitude are due to my family, who have sacrificed much to make this project possible. My four children have shown remarkable patience with a father who was engrossed in his books and writing far too often. Noah, Maliya, Micah and Caleb: you are a constant source of joy and delight, and you enrich my life beyond

x Acknowledgments

measure. And what can I say about my wife, Charis? Your untiring love, support and strength have been an inspiration and a constant source of encouragement to me. I cannot adequately express my gratitude that I owe. I dedicate this work to you with all my love and appreciation. Soli Deo Gloria Seulgi L. Byun London, 2016

A b b rev i at i ons

AASF AB ABD

Annales Academiae scientiarum fennicae Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York, 1992 AH Archaic Hebrew AJBI Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute ASTI Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute AV Authorised Version BDAG Bauer, W. F., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich. Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago, 1999 BDB Brown, F., S. R. Driver, C. A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford, 1907 BH Biblical Hebrew BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. Stuttgart, 1983 Bib Biblica Bijdr Bijdragen: Tijdschrift voor filosofie en theologie BKAT Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament BWAT Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten Testament BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago, 1956– CBH Classical Biblical Hebrew CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series CEJL Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature CIJ Corpus inscriptionum judaicarum DCH Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Edited by D. J. A. Clines. 8 vols. Sheffield, 1993–2011 EA El-Amarna tablets. According to the edition of J. A. Knudtzon. Die el-Amarna-Tafeln. Leipzig, 1908–15. Reprint, Aalen, 1964. Continued in A. F. Rainey, El-Amarna Tablets, 359–379. 2nd revised ed. Kevelaer, 1978 EHAT Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament EncJud Encyclopaedia Judaica. 16 vols. Jerusalem, 1972 FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament FoSub Fontes et Subsidia ad Bibliam Pertinentes

xii Abbreviations FRLANT GKB GKC HALOT HB HKAT HTR FRLANT HS HUCA IBHS IDB ICC IEJ JAOS JBL JM JNES JNSL JQR JSJSup JSOT JSOTSup JSP JTS KAI KAT KTU

LBH LCL LHBOTS LSAWS

Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Bergsträsser, Gotthelf. Hebräische Grammatik : mit Benutzung der von E. Kautzsch bearbeiteten 28. Auflage von Wilhelm Gesenius’ hebräischer Grammatik. Leipzig, 1918 Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch. Translated by A. E. Cowley. 2nd ed. Oxford, 1910 Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner and J. J. Stamm. Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, Translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden, 1994–99 Hebrew Bible Handkommentar zum Alten Testament Harvard Theological Review Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Hebrew Studies Hebrew Union College Annual An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. B. K. Waltke and M. O’Connor. Winona Lake, Indiana, 1990 Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by G. A. Buttrick. 4 vols. Nashville, 1962 International Critical Commentary Israel Exploration Journal Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Joüon, P. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and revised by T. Muraoka. 2 vols. Subsidia biblica 14/1–2. Rome, 1991 Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Jewish Quarterly Review Journal for the Study of Judaism: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha Journal of Theological Studies Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. H. Donner and W. Röllig. 2nd ed. Wiesbaden, 1966–69 Kommentar zum Alten Testament Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit. Edited by M. Dietrich, O. Loretz and J. Sanmartín. AOAT 24/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1976. 2nd enlarged ed. of KTU: The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani, and Other Places. Edited by M. Dietrich, O. Loretz and J. Sanmartín. Münster, 1995 (= CTU) Late Biblical Hebrew Loeb Classical Library Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic



Abbreviations

xiii

LXX Septuagint MH Mishnaic Hebrew MSU Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens MT Masoretic text NCB New Century Bible NIDOTTE New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Edited by W. A. VanGemeren. 5 vols. Grand Rapids, 1997 NRSV New Revised Standard Version NTL New Testament Library OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis OTL Old Testament Library OtSt Oudtestamentische Studiën QH Qumran Hebrew PBH Post-biblical Hebrew RB Revue biblique Sam. Pent. Samaritan Pentateuch SBH Standard Biblical Hebrew SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series SBLSCS Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series SBOT Sacred Books of the Old Testament SJLA Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity SJT Scottish Journal of Theology SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah TDNT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley and D. E. Green. 8 vols. Grand Rapids, 1974– ThWAT Theologische Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Stuttgart, 1970–2000 TP Twelve Prophets TSSI J. C. L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. Vol. 3, Phoenician Inscriptions. Oxford, 1982 UF Ugarit-Forschungen VD Verbum dominia VT Vetus Testamentum WBC Word Biblical Commentary WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ZDMG Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft

S ec t io n 1 I n t r o d u c t ion

The ordinary acceptation of words in their relation to things was changed as men thought fit. Reckless audacity came to be regarded as courageous loyalty to party, prudent hesitation as specious cowardice, moderation as a cloak for unmanly weakness, and to be clever in everything was to do nought in anything. Thucydides (460–395 BCE), Book III, lxxxii.

1. Semantic Change Edward Sapir, one of the pioneers of structural linguistics, first introduced the concept of “drift” in language almost a century ago: Nothing [in language] is perfectly static. Every word, every grammatical element, every locution, every sound and accent is a slowly changing configuration, moulded by the invisible and impersonal drift that is the life of language.1

The idea that languages are dynamic and constantly evolving has been noted as far back as the Classical Greek period and is one of the chief areas of interest for linguists today.2 Ullmann, a prominent scholar in the field of semantics, concluded that of the various aspects of language 1.  Edward Sapir, Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech (New York: Harcourt & Brace, 1921), 183. 2.  See Andreas Blank, “Introduction: Historical Semantics and Cognition,” in Historical Semantics and Cognition, ed. Andreas Blank and Peter Koch, Cognitive Linguistics Research 13 (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1999), 1–16; Stephen Ullmann, Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962), 1–10; and Andreas Blank, “Why Do New Meanings Occur? A Cognitive Typology of the Motivations for Lexical Semantic Change,” in Blank and Koch, eds., Historical Semantics and Cognition, 61–89, for a survey of the history of scholarship of semantic change.

2

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

that are susceptible to change, “meaning is probably the least resistant to change.”3 Modern linguists have investigated this phenomenon from many angles and there are numerous studies on the causes, types and categories of semantic change, as well as some theoretical studies.4 There is no shortage of examples from modern English. Familiar examples include the word “awful,” originally meaning “inspiring awe,” but conveying a more negative sense today, and the word “egregious,” once referring to something that was particularly good, but changing over the years to mean something that is “shocking” or remarkably bad. A well-known example of semantic change within the English Bible tradition can be found in translations of Gen 1.29, where God tells the first humans that every plant and every fruit of the tree ‫לכם יהיה לאכלה‬. Modern versions translate the Hebrew “you shall have them for food,” but the King James translation has “to you it shall be for meat,” a word that can be traced back to the Middle and Old English equivalent mete.5 At some stage between 1611 and today, the word meat underwent semantic change, specifically a narrowing or specialisation in meaning from the broader sense of “food” to “edible flesh,” which is represented in the more recent English translations.6 These are just a few, simple examples from English, but instances of semantic change can be found in almost any language, including Classical Hebrew. 3.  Ullmann, Semantics: An Introduction, 193. Italics mine. 4.  There is no space here to delve further into the science of semantic change. For more on classifications of semantic change, see Gustaf Stern, Meaning and Change of Meaning, with Special Reference to the English Language (Göteborg: Elander, 1931); Leonard Bloomfield, Language (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1935), 425–43; Stephen Ullmann, The Principles of Semantics (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1957), 171–257; Ullmann, Semantics: An Introduction, 193–235; and Moisés Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 53–97. Blank, “Why Do New Meanings Occur?,” has proposed a four-fold classification of causes—linguistic, psychological, socio­ cultural, and cultural/encyclopedic forces. Joachim Grzega, Bezeichnungswandel: Wie, Warum, Wozu? Ein Beitrag zur englischen und allgemeinen Onomasiologie (Heidelberg: Winter, 2004), has compiled a much lengthier and detailed list. 5.  Mete is found in an Old English glossary translating the Latin cibus “food.” Note the progression from mete in the Wycliffe Bible (1380, Middle English) to meate in the Tyndale Bible (mid-sixteenth century) to meat in the AV (1611). See Bloomfield, Language, 425, 430–32, for more on the development of this word. Bloomfield also traces shifts in the use of “flesh” as it pertains to “meat” and “food.” 6.  See Silva, Lexical Semantics, for a helpful discussion of the subject of lexical semantics in the Bible with special attention to Greek and NT lexicography. Silva has two chapters on the subject of semantic change in NT and LXX Greek.



Section 1. Introduction

3

In recent years, the phenomenon of semantic change has been mentioned intermittently in Hebrew studies, primarily in two sub-disciplines: the diachronic study of the Hebrew language and LXX studies. As far as the diachronic research into Biblical Hebrew is concerned, semantic change is of interest in that it can help establish the various linguistic layers within Biblical Hebrew and Post-biblical Hebrew, and a number of studies have been published to that effect.7 In LXX studies, semantic change comes into play when considering the linguistic background of the translator and whether he is able to render accurately the appropriate meaning of a particular Hebrew lexeme. 1.1. The Aim of This Study The present study focuses on the second category: the intersection of semantic change and the LXX. For many years, scholars have noted that Post-biblical Hebrew and Aramaic have sometimes influenced Greek renderings in the LXX, but they have usually done this only in passing and with little discussion or evidence.8 There is a need for a study of this phenomenon on a book-by-book basis or, if appropriate, on the basis of translation units. Such an approach may shed light on the linguistic, and perhaps sociological, background of a translator. I shall focus on the ancient Greek version of Isaiah commonly referred to as LXX Isaiah (hereafter, LXX Isa).9 A number of possible cases will be examined in 7.  E.g., Avi Hurvitz, “Continuity and Innovation in Biblical Hebrew: The Case of ‘Semantic Change’ in Post-Exilic Writings,” in Studies in Ancient Hebrew Semantics, ed. T. Muraoka, Abr-Nahrain Supplement Series 4 (Louvain: Peeters, 1995), examines the lexeme ‫ דרש‬and its nominal cognate ‫ מדרש‬within BH, as well as RH. See also Avi Hurvitz, “Hebrew and Aramaic in the Biblical Period: The Problem of ‘Aramaisms’ in Linguistic Research on the Hebrew Bible,” in Studies in Hebrew and Jewish Languages Presented to Shelomo Morag, ed. M. Bar-Asher (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1996), and Avi Hurvitz, “Continuity and Change in Biblical Hebrew: The Linguistic History of a Formulaic Idiom from the Realm of the Royal Court,” in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives, ed. Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2006), for more on semantics and the development of Biblical Hebrew. See Gad B. Sarfatti, “Mishnaic Vocabulary and Mishnaic Literature as Tools for the Study of Biblical Semantics,” in Muraoka, ed, Studies in Ancient Hebrew Semantics, 33–48, for an analysis of semantic change in Mishnaic literature. 8.  See §1.3, “Previous Scholarship,” p. 12, for a summary of scholarship on this subject. 9.  The term “Septuagint” (LXX) is a slippery term that has caused some confusion. It is often used today to refer to any or all of the ancient Greek translations of the HB. There are, however, thousands of extant LXX mss, and modern editions, such as

4

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

depth in order to determine the degree to which semantic change within Hebrew, as well as the spread of Aramaic already in the Second Temple period, may have influenced the translator. Before we commence, a brief survey of the history of the Hebrew language is necessary, as the study of semantic change and its influence on LXX translation is inevitably intertwined with the historical development of the language. 2. The Development of the Hebrew Language 2.1. A Diachronic Approach to Hebrew Wilhelm Gesenius was the first to speak of discernible layers within Biblical Hebrew, drawing attention to late linguistic features in certain biblical books.10 About 75 years later, S. R. Driver, in his classic text, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, describes an earlier stratum of Biblical Hebrew as “classical,” implying that there are different linguistic layers within Biblical Hebrew.11 Writers have, since then, noted certain features as “early” or “late,” but it is in the past forty years that interest in this area has increased and scholars have looked more carefully at various linguistic features within Biblical Hebrew that may be useful for distinguishing historical phases of the language. Avi Hurvitz, who studied under E. Y. Kutscher and C. Rabin and developed their methods of approach, is by far the most prolific and prominent proponent of the diachronic approach. Dissatisfied with the theological, historical and literary criteria used to establish the dates of texts, which he considered too subjective, Hurvitz undertook a linguistic approach that, as he claimed, was based on a more rigorous and methodologically reliable set of criteria. In his earlier work, he analysed lexical the Rahlfs-Hanhart edition and the Göttingen LXX, are amalgams of the most reliable Greek mss. All LXX citations in the present volume are from the critical edition of the Göttingen LXX, unless noted otherwise. 10.  Wilhelm Gesenius, Geschichte der hebräischen Sprache und Schrift: eine philologisch-historisch Einleitung in die Sprachlehren und Wörterbücher der hebräischen Sprache (Leipzig: F. C. W. Vogel, 1815). See James Barr, “Linguistic Literature, Hebrew,” EncJud 16 (1972): 1352–401, especially 1396, for an analysis of Gesenius’s contributions. 11.  By “classical,” Driver is referring to the Hebrew of the book of Ruth. His statement in full is as follows: “The general Hebrew style (the idioms and the syntax) shows no marks of deterioration; it is palpably different, not merely from that of Esther and Chronicles, but even from Nehemiah’s memoirs or Jonah, and stands on a level with the best parts of Samuel.” S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1891), 426.



Section 1. Introduction

5

and syntactical data in the Wisdom literature, the Priestly Source, and the book of Ezekiel, and organised them into different linguistic stages.12 He summarises his view in the following way: On the surface, a general stylistic unity is perceptible throughout the entire Old Testament… However, upon a closer examination one can clearly discern within BH different linguistic layers and stylistic varieties, all of which point to the heterogeneous character of the language. This is due, above all, to the complex historical process which produced the corpus and shaped its writings… Consequently, it is only to be expected that the language employed in these texts should preserve—to a greater or lesser extent—traces of the various linguistic stages through which BH passed in the course of its long history.13

Others, such as Robert Polzin, Frank Polak and Jan Joosten, just to name a few, have made significant contributions to the diachronic approach, and there is now a growing consensus that linguistic distinctions are discernible among the various stages of Biblical Hebrew, in particular between Classical Biblical Hebrew and Late Biblical Hebrew.14

12.  Avi Hurvitz, The Transition Period in Biblical Hebrew: A Study of Post-Exilic Hebrew and its Implications for the Dating of Psalms (Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1972); Hurvitz, “Linguistic Criteria for Dating Problematic Biblical Texts,” Hebrew Abstracts 14 (1973): 74–79; Hurvitz, “The Evidence of Language in Dating the Priestly Code,” RB 81 (1974): 24–56; and Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel (Paris: Gabalda, 1982). 13.  Hurvitz, “Continuity and Innovation,” 2. 14.  Robert Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976), argued for a diachronic approach by looking at typological features in Late Biblical Hebrew prose and Classical Pre-exilic prose, and he concluded that the language of LBH, the best example of which is Chronicles, “differs markedly” from CBH. Frank Polak takes a socio-linguistic approach and argues for four different styles and strata in BH: Frank Polak, “Sociolinguistics: A Key to the Typology and the Social Background of Biblical Hebrew,” HS 47 (2006): 115–62. See also the works of Jan Joosten, “The Distinction Between Classical and Late Biblical Hebrew as Reflected in Syntax,” HS 46 (2005): 327–39; Mats Eskhult, “Traces of Linguistic Development in Biblical Hebrew,” HS 46 (2005): 353–70; Gary A. Rendsburg, “Aramaic-Like Features in the Pentateuch,” HS 47 (2006): 163–76; Ziony Zevit, “Introductory Remarks: Historical Linguistics and the Dating of Hebrew Texts ca. 1000–300 B.C.E.,” HS 46 (2005): 322–26; and Richard M. Wright, Linguistic Evidence for the Pre-Exilic Date of the Yahwistic Source (London: T&T Clark, 2005).

6

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

Hebrew linguists have concluded that Biblical Hebrew (hereafter, BH), the language of the Israelites from the Iron Age until the Hellenistic era, is not monolithic and can be divided into three chronological periods: Archaic Hebrew (AH), consisting of the oldest poetic and epigraphic material;15 Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH),16 the prose language of the Pentateuch, Prophets and Writings before and during the exile; and Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH), the language of the books written after the exile.17 Most scholars today hold to these three phases within Biblical Hebrew.18 2.2. Recent Scholarship Questioning the Diachronic Approach However, some scholars are sceptical of any clear linguistic differences between CBH and LBH.19 Instead, they argue that the diversity displayed in BH can be explained by synchronic factors, such as a multiplicity of literary styles or scribal dialectal differences.

15.  Though there is some disagreement among scholars, many would categorise the following poems as AH: Gen 49; Exod 15; Deut 33; Judg 5. Some scholars also add the following: Num 23–24; Deut 32; 1 Sam 2; 2 Sam 1; 2 Sam 22; Hab 3; and Pss 29, 68, 72, 79. 16.  Referred to as Standard Biblical Hebrew (SBH) by some. 17.  See Mark F. Rooker, “The Diachronic Study of Biblical Hebrew,” JNSL 14 (1988): 199–214, for a detailed and helpful summary on the diachrony of Hebrew. 18.  E.g., Jo Ann Hackett, “Hebrew (Biblical and Epigraphic),” in Beyond Babel: A Handbook for Biblical Hebrew and Related Languages, ed. John Kaltner and Steven L. McKenzie, Resources for Biblical Study 42 (Atlanta: SBL, 2002), 140–41; Angel Sáenz-Badillos, A History of the Hebrew Language, trans. J. F. Elwolde; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 50–51; Eduard Yechezkel Kutscher, A History of the Hebrew Language (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1982); Rooker, “The Diachronic Study of Biblical Hebrew”; and Hurvitz, “Continuity and Innovation,” especially pp. 2–5. 19.  Philip Davies, In Search of “Ancient Israel”, JSOTSup 148 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1992), 102–105, was one of the first opponents of the diachronic approach and challenged Hurvitz’s study on the language of “P” (Hurvitz, “The Evidence of Language in Dating the Priestly Code”). He concluded that “there are no linguistic arguments to date the biblical literature to, say, the ninth or seventh century rather than the fifth, and examination of the evidence and arguments for such a procedure does not establish a basis for dating biblical texts but actually exposes the fallacious assumption on which they rest” (105). See also J. F. Elwolde, “Developments in Hebrew Vocabulary between Bible and Mishnah,” in The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, ed. T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde, STDJ 26 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), especially 55.



Section 1. Introduction

7

One of the most important proponents of the synchronic approach is Ian Young, whose monograph Diversity in Pre-Exilic Hebrew challenged the majority view by arguing that the diversity in BH is not owing to chronological development, but is the result of diglossia, involving literary/formal and dialectal/colloquial strata.20 More recently, Ian Young and Robert Rezetko, with the help of Martin Ehrensvärd, published a substantial two-volume study entitled Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts in which the authors present their approach to the linguistic dating of Biblical Hebrew.21 Young summarises their approach unequivocally: “We [Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd] claim instead that the nature of the biblical texts is such that this chronology, however, is not visible in any way that makes linguistic dating of biblical texts possible.”22 Though Young, Rezetko and Ehrensvärd raise helpful questions and make some valid points, their methodology used to argue against diachrony and stratification in biblical texts is questionable and lacks sufficient data and evidence, as several reviews and studies have shown.23 Thus, whilst

20.  Ian Young, Diversity in Pre-Exilic Hebrew, FAT 5 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993). For a helpful summary of the debate on the chronology of Hebrew, see the collected essays by advocates of the diachronic approach, “consensus scholars,” and those who oppose it, “challengers,” in Ian Young, ed., Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology, JSOTSup 369 (London: T&T Clark, 2003). These terms were designated by Ziony Zevit, review of I. Young, ed., Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology, RBL 8 (2004). Further discussions took place at meetings of the Society of Biblical Literature in subsequent years and have since been published in HS 46 (2005): 321–76, and HS 47 (2006): 83–210. 21.  Ian Young and Robert Rezetko, with the assistance of M. Ehrensvärd, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts: An Introduction to Approaches and Problems, 2 vols. (London: Equinox, 2009). 22.  From a paper presented in 2010 at the National Association of Professors of Hebrew conference entitled: “Text Critical Observations on the (Im)Possibility of Linguistic Dating of Hebrew Biblical Texts.” Cited in John A. Cook, “Detecting Development in Biblical Hebrew Using Diachronic Typology,” in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, ed. Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Ziony Zevit, LSAWS 8 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 83. 23.  See, e.g., Ziony Zevit, “Not-So-Random Thoughts on Linguistic Dating and Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew,” in Miller-Naudé and Zevit, eds., Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, 455–90; Jan Joosten, review of Ian Young, Robert Rezetko, with the assistance of Martin Ehrensvärd, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts: An Introduction to Approaches and Problems, 2 vols., Bibel und Babel 6 (2012): 535–42. A. D. Forbes, “The Diachrony Debate: Perspectives from Pattern Recognition and Meta-Analysis,” HS 54 (2012): 7–42; and, more informally, R. Hendel, “Unhistorical

8

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

recognising that there are unique challenges to the dating of BH, this study adopts the majority view that variation and change in the language are discernible.24 2.3. Classical Biblical Hebrew and Late Biblical Hebrew By all accounts, CBH was the spoken and literary language in Israel and Judah for most of the monarchic period.25 However, sometime in the late pre-exilic and exilic periods Hebrew began to evolve into what is commonly known as LBH, as attested by its many distinctive linguistic elements. As Joosten puts it, “LBH is noticeably unlike CBH in its vocabulary and in its syntax.”26 One of the chief causes for this development was linguistic interference from Aramaic, which was already establishing itself in the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian kingdoms, and played a significant role in the development of Hebrew, especially from the sixth century BCE onwards.27

Hebrew Linguistics: A Cautionary Tale,” The Bible and Interpretation (September 2011) (http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/hen358022.shtml), also critique the methodology of Young, Rezetko and Ehrensvärd. 24.  For a more detailed analysis of the debate on linguistic dating of BH, see Dong-Hyuk Kim, Early Biblical Hebrew, Late Biblical Hebrew, and Linguistic Variability: A Sociolinguistic Evaluation of the Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts, VTSup 156 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 11–44. 25.  It is very likely that there were some differences between the spoken and the literary language during the First Temple period, and most scholars today maintain that BH is essentially a literary language that existed alongside various spoken dialects. So Sáenz-Badillos, A History of the Hebrew Language, 52, and Hackett, “Hebrew,” 141. However, there is not enough evidence to say so with confidence. Interestingly, the Israelites and Judahites never use the term “Hebrew,” but other designations are employed (e.g. Isa 19.18 has ‫“ שפת כנען‬language of Canaan”; 2 Kgs 18.26/Isa 36.11 and Neh 13.23–24 have ‫“ יהודית‬Judahite”). 26.  Jan Joosten, “Pseudo-classicisms in Late Biblical Hebrew, in Ben Sira, and in Qumran Hebrew,” in Sirach, Scrolls and Sages: Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah, held at Leiden University, 15–17 December 1997, ed. T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 146. 27.  Eduard Yechezkel Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa), STDJ 6 (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 9. There is, admittedly, evidence of different geographical dialects within BH: the Israelite (northern) dialect and the Judean (southern) dialect, but both fall within the realm of Biblical Hebrew.



Section 1. Introduction

9

According to the accounts of 2 Kgs 18.26 and Isa 36.11,28 knowledge of Aramaic was not widespread in Judah and was limited to the educated and elite classes during Hezekiah’s reign. The key event, as far as any significant development of the Hebrew language is concerned, was the Babylonian exile. With the dissolution of the monarchy and the deportation of the military, governing and artisan classes—the institutions that taught and preserved the Hebrew language—the stability of the language was severely compromised.29 As Sáenz-Badillos observes, “the social and political turmoil brought about by the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the First Temple produced a significant change in the linguistic status quo to the detriment of Biblical Hebrew.”30 Furthermore, during and immediately after the exile, rural peoples moved into Jerusalem, bringing with them various dialects, and, according to Ezra and Nehemiah, Judeans took foreign wives who neglected to teach their children Hebrew (‫)יהודית‬.31 These factors, as well as other historical and political events in the post-exilic period, destabilised the vocabulary, grammar and syntax of the Hebrew language, and resulted in the evolution of Hebrew from its classical form to LBH and PBH. 2.4. Comparing 1 Samuel 31.12–13 and 1 Chronicles 10.12 Given the fluid and dynamic state of Hebrew in the exilic and post-exilic periods, it should not be surprising that many Hebrew words underwent semantic change. A comparison of the parallel texts in 1 Sam 31.12–13, widely recognised as a CBH text, and 1 Chr 10.12, a LBH text, sufficiently elucidates this point: 1 Sam 31.12–13

‫ויקחו את־גוית שאול ואת גוית בניו…ויקברו תחת־האשל‬ They took the body of Saul and the bodies of his sons…and they buried (them) under the tamarisk tree.

28.  2 Kgs 18.26 tells of the request by Hezekiah’s envoys to Rabshakeh, Sennacherib’s general: “Please speak to your servants in Aramaic, for we understand it. Do not speak to us in the language of Judah within the hearing of the people who are on the wall.” 29.  2 Kgs 24.14, “None remained, except the poorest people of the land.” 30.  Sáenz-Badillos, A History of the Hebrew Language, 112. 31.  E.g., Nehemiah’s complaint in Neh 13.24, “And half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod, and they could not speak the language of Judah, but only the language of each people,” as well as the account of Ezra 10.

10

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew 1 Chr 10.12

‫וישאו את־גופת שאול ואת גופת בניו…ויקברו תחת האלה‬ They took the body of Saul and the bodies of his sons…and they buried (them)…under the oak tree.

The sense in the two texts is virtually identical, but Chronicles replaces words that had either changed meaning or had become antiquated. Firstly, Chronicles has ‫ וישאו‬in place of ‫ ויקחו‬and, as S. R. Driver observed, the verb ‫ נשא‬took over certain functions of ‫ לקח‬in PBH.32 Thus, we have in these parallel texts two roots that have different senses and uses in BH and LBH. Secondly, instead of the common BH term ‫“ ּגְ וִ יָ ה‬body,” 1 Chr 10.12 uses ‫ּגּופה‬ ָ “body,” an apparent Aramaic loan word that is widely attested in PBH. As linguists have demonstrated, foreign influence is one of the primary causes of semantic change, and, as we shall see later, Aramaic played a major role in the development of Hebrew in LBH and PBH.33 The third difference is the substitution of the more common word ‫“ ֵא ָלה‬terebinth” for ‫“ ֵא ֶׁשל‬tamarisk,” a much rarer word that occurs only three times in BH and is equally rare in PBH.34 It is impossible to determine whether the Chronicler knew ‫ ֵא ֶׁשל‬and so replaced it with the more common word ‫א ָלה‬, ֵ or whether he simply replaced an antiquated word with a more common one; what is clear is that he chose a term that was more familiar to him and more widely attested.

32.  S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), 455. Compare also the verbs ‫ לקח‬and ‫ נשא‬meaning “marry.” The standard way to say this in CBH is to collocate the verb ‫ לקח‬and the word ‫אשה‬, but in LBH the verb ‫ נשא‬is used (e.g. Ezra 10.44 ‫כל־אלה נשאו נשים‬ ‫“ נכריות‬all these married foreign women”). Jan Joosten, “On the LXX Translators’ Knowledge of Hebrew,” in 10th Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Oslo, 1998, ed. Bernard A. Taylor, Septuagint and Cognate Studies 51 (Atlanta: SBL, 2001), 165–67, has argued that the phrase ‫נשא‬ ‫ נפש‬meaning “desire” in CBH became a standard expression meaning “kill” in PBH, which is how the translator of LXX Hos apparently renders it in 4.8: καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἀδικίαις αὐτῶν λήμψονται τὰς ψυχὰς αὐτῶν “and in their injustice they will take their souls.” 33.  Ullmann, Semantics: An Introduction, 133–35, 209–10, 225–26; Bloomfield, Language, 425–95. 34.  It is striking that the LXX represents ‫ ֵא ֶׁשל‬by ἄρουρα, a technical term for an Egyptian land measure, in all three occurrences in the Bible (Gen 21.33; 1 Sam 22.6; 31.13). Aramaic ‫ ַא ְׁש ָלא‬means “rope” but has a secondary sense “measure,” which denotes the function of the instrument. It is possible that the translators did not know this rare word and turned to Aramaic ‫ ַא ְׁש ָלא‬for help.



Section 1. Introduction

11

In this one verse alone, then, there are two, and possibly three, examples of semantic change of one kind or another that are significant enough to warrant updating in the book of Chronicles. 2.5. Post-biblical Hebrew35 The discovery of the Judean Desert texts, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bar Kokhba letters, as well as of Hebrew inscriptions and other postbiblical manuscripts (e.g. Sirach), has greatly enhanced our understanding of the linguistic situation in the late Second Temple period.36 Care must be taken not to make general, sweeping conclusions based on these texts alone, as they are limited in number and represent a variety of dialects, genres and provenances; however, on balance, the evidence suggests a discernible linguistic shift away from LBH, sufficient to warrant recognition of yet another stratum of the Hebrew language, namely Post-biblical Hebrew (PBH).37 Recent studies have shown that, when compared to CBH and LBH, there are many distinctive linguistic features in PBH texts involving orthography, syntax, grammar and vocabulary. For example: increased use of the infinitive construct + ‫ ;ל‬changes in how verbal nouns are 35.  By “Post-biblical Hebrew” I am referring to the Hebrew language as expressed in non-biblical material (e.g. Qumran and other Judean texts; epigraphic material; Hebrew mss of Sirach and Tobit) from Palestine of the late Second Temple period (roughly speaking, third century BCE to first century CE). 36.  Kutscher’s seminal work, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa), shed much needed light on the linguistic situation in Palestine in the third–second century BCE (the traditional dating of 1QIsaa). He compared MT Isa and 1QIsaa from a linguistic standpoint and concluded that “the linguistic anomalies of 1QIsaa reflect the Hebrew and Aramaic currently spoken in Palestine towards the end of the Second Commonwealth.” Cf. Kutscher, Isaiah Scroll, 3. For a summary of the orthographical and morphological variants of 1QIsaa vis-à-vis the MT, see S. Byun, “The Biblical Texts of Isaiah at Qumran,” in Bind Up the Testimony: Explorations in the Genesis of the Book of Isaiah, ed. Daniel I. Block and Richard L. Schultz (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2015), 65–80. 37.  See Chaim Rabin, “Hebrew and Aramaic in the First Century,” in The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions, ed. S. Safrai and M. Stern, Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 2 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976), and J. Naveh and J. C. Greenfield, “Hebrew and Aramaic in the Persian Period,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism, ed. W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), for more on Hebrew and Aramaic in the Second Temple period. See Sáenz-Badillos, A History of the Hebrew Language, 130–36, for an excellent summary of the language of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

12

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

employed; decline of volitives; the use of ‫הם‬- for both the third masculine and the third feminine plural suffixes; changes in pronoun preferences (personal, demonstrative and relative); tendency toward plene spelling; interchange between consonants, especially the laryngeals and pharyngeals; and increased use of Aramaisms.38 In addition to the inner-development of the Hebrew language, one must keep in mind that Aramaic was spoken as a language in its own right. Knowledge and use of Aramaic continued to expand in the Near East and Egypt during the Persian period, and its status as the official language for political and commercial correspondence, as well as for literary composition, was further solidified. Thus, for most of the returning exiles Hebrew was no longer the mother tongue and they were, in all likelihood, fluent Aramaic speakers, which may explain the apparent need to translate the Law into Aramaic so that some of the returnees could understand it (cf. Neh 8.8; the meaning of ‫ ְמפ ָֹרׁש‬is debated, but in other texts, such as Ezra 4.18, “translate” makes best sense).39 In short, Hebrew was a highly fluid language from the exile to the Hellenistic period, and the meanings of words were particularly susceptible to change during this time owing to three factors: the decline of Classical Hebrew as a spoken language; the expansion of colloquial Aramaic in the Levant; and the emergence of PBH, or of a “protoMishnaic Hebrew” dialect.40 Thus, by the time of the LXX translations, many Hebrew words occurring in biblical texts had undergone semantic development, and the ability of the translators to render them correctly depended both on their knowledge of BH and on their awareness of how a particular word may have changed its meaning over time. The question of the translators’ knowledge of BH is a subject of ongoing debate.41 But, at the very least, it is worth noting that there are many instances in which the translators of the LXX represented a Hebrew word with a Greek equivalent that mirrors PBH or Aramaic meanings not attested in BH or occurring only rarely. 38.  Many scholars consider this stratum of Hebrew as a nascent form of Mishnaic Hebrew (MH) and have called it “proto-Mishnaic Hebrew.” Some, however, view MH not as a continuation of BH but rather as a different dialect of Hebrew. 39.  See the introduction to the section on “Aramaic Influence” for more on the influence of Aramaic on Hebrew and on the translators of the LXX. 40.  Aramaic was still the vernacular but, with the Hellenistic period well under way, Greek was an equally important language, especially for the educated classes. 41.  See Emanuel Tov, “Did the Septuagint Translators always Understand their Hebrew Text?,” in The Greek & Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint, VTSup 72 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 203–18, for a helpful discussion of this question.



Section 1. Introduction

13

3. Previous Scholarship 3.1. Nineteenth Century Over the past two hundred years or so, scholars have noted that the LXX translators sometimes based their lexical identifications on PBH and Aramaic. Various examples have been suggested, but most are brief mentions—usually consisting of the biblical reference, the Hebrew word in question and its corresponding Greek rendering—with little supporting evidence, if any, from PBH or Aramaic. I shall first outline the key figures who have contributed to this discussion from the nineteenth century onwards. Gesenius (1821) was the first to mention influence from PBH or Aramaic on the translators of the LXX in his commentary on the book of Isaiah. He argued that the translator of LXX Isa borrowed Aramaic meanings for certain Hebrew words on the basis of syrochaldäische idioms of his time and cited LXX Isa 4.2 and 53.10 as two such examples (see sections §4.3 and §3.1, respectively, for more on these examples).42 Shortly thereafter, Eichhorn (1823) made the general observation that the translators found help in cognate languages. He listed numerous possible connections between LXX renderings and Aramaic idioms, as well as proposing Arabic and Syriac cognates, but he provided little support for his examples. Some were plausible, but many were speculative.43 In his monograph on the Greek version of the Pentateuch published in 1841, Thiersch noted that the LXX sometimes displays grammatical features from Aramaic. For example, instead of -ιμ endings the Greek sometimes has -ιν or -ειν endings, and some Greek renderings, such as μάννα, σίκερα, πάσχα, σάββατα, and Σήκιμα (‫)ׁש ֵכם‬, ְ reflect the Aramaic 44 determined ending. One of the more extensive treatments of this subject can be found in Frankel’s Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta (also published in 1841), in which he devoted an entire section to the translators’ knowledge of Hebrew and the influence of other languages (pp. 191–203). Frankel was 42.  Friedrich Heinrich Wilhelm Gesenius, Der Prophet Jesaia: Uebersetzt und mit einem vollständigen philologisch-kritischen und historischen Commentar begleitet von D. Wilhelm Gesenius, vol. 1 (Leipzig: F. C. W. Vogel, 1821), 63. 43.  J. G. Eichhorn, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, vol. 1 (Göttingen: Weidmanns Erben & Reich, 1823), 469–71. 44.  Heinrich Wilhelm Josias Thiersch, De Pentateuchi Versione Alexandrina: Libri Tres (Erlangen: Th. Blaesing, 1841), 29. For a helpful summary of scholarship before Frankel, see K. Vollers, “Das Dodekapropheton der Alexandriner,” ZAW 3 (1883): 219–72, especially pp. 223–24.

14

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

singular in his opinion that the translators’ knowledge of Hebrew was poor, and he pointed to two particular areas of incompetence: their failure to recognise proper nouns and their propensity to change unnecessarily the consonants of words that were unknown to them. He went so far as to call their efforts to make sense of difficult or unknown Hebrew lexemes “school-boy attempts” (schülerhafte Versuche). Thus, for Frankel, it was not surprising that the translators turned to Aramaic and other Semitic languages for help: “Bei dieser geringen Sprachkenntniss ist nicht befremdend, wenn sie aus andern semitischen Quellen sich Aushilfe holten.”45 He went on to suggest several possible examples of Aramaic influence on the translators, including Isa 4.2 and 51.20 (see the discussions of ‫ צמח‬in Section 4 and ‫ כתוא מכמר‬in Section 5, respectively, for more on these examples). 3.2. Twentieth Century Very little was written on this subject from the mid-nineteenth century to the early twentieth century. A few studies in the 1930s on the character of specific LXX books mentioned, almost in passing, possible cases of “Aramaisms.”46 Of these, Fischer’s monograph on LXX Isa is most instructive, as it addressed the question of PBH and Aramaic influence on the translator in more detail. Like Frankel, Fischer argued that the translator of LXX Isa turned to PBH, Aramaic and Syriac as lexical aids for his translation. He listed several possible cases and concluded that the high number of Aramaisms in LXX Isa indicated that, not only was Aramaic 45.  Z. Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta (Leipzig: F. C. W. Vogel, 1841), 201. 46.  See, e.g., Armand Kaminka, Studien zur Septuaginta an der Hand der Zwölf Kleinen Prophetenbücher (Schriften der Gesellschaft zur Forderung der Wissenschaft des Judentums Frankfurt a.m.: J. Kauffman, 1928), on the LXX TP, and Wilhelm Rudolph, “Zum Text des Jeremiah. I, Zum griechischen Text,” ZAW (1930): 272–81, on LXX Jer. M. Flashar, “Exegetische Studien zum Septuagintapsalter,” ZAW 32 (1912): 241–68 (251) argued that the translator acted as an exegete and did not hesitate to render texts theologically, and, if necessary, turned to Aramaic meanings to express theological insights (e.g. ‫“ רחץ‬wash” is rendered by ἐλπίδος “hope” with Aramaic ‫“ רחץ‬trust” in mind). The innovative work of Franz Wutz on this subject is interesting, but his method and presuppositions have been questioned. Wutz argued that the translators worked from a text that was a Greek transcription of a Hebrew text, which accounted for numerous translational errors. He mentioned several examples of LXX renderings that are influenced by PBH/Aramaic lexemes (e.g. Isa 51.20), but many were speculative. See Frank Wutz, Die Transkriptionen von der Septuaginta bis zu Hieronymus, BWAT 2 (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1933), 150–51, for some of Wutz’s examples.



Section 1. Introduction

15

the dominant living language of the time, but the translator probably knew Aramaic better than Hebrew.47 In his well-known article, “Problems and Perspectives in Modern Septuagint Research,” Seeligmann, following the work of Eichhorn, also acknowledged this phenomenon and listed a few examples in the LXX where Aramaic meanings lay behind the Greek (e.g. Ps 59[60].10 ‫= רחץ‬ ἐλπίς).48 3.3. E. Tov and T. Muraoka Emanuel Tov’s The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint, first published in 1981, is without doubt one of the more important volumes to be published on the LXX in modern times. It provided much-needed clarity and perspective on the question of the LXX and its role in text-criticism. Tov introduced the concept of etymological exegesis, that is, exegesis “which is based on the translator’s understanding of the structure of Hebrew words,” and he argued that the etymological exegesis of the translators was sometimes based on Aramaic and not Hebrew. He discussed two plausible cases: 2 Sam 2.26, in which ‫“ ָלנֶ ַצח‬forever” is rendered by νῖκος “victory,” which corresponds to the Aramaic root ‫“ נצח‬be victorious”; and Hab 3.16, where the root ‫“ צלל‬quiver” is rendered by προσευχῆς “prayer,” which corresponds to the Aramaic root ‫“ צלי‬pray.” In subsequent publications, Tov added more examples of renderings in the LXX that reflected Aramaic, as well as PBH meanings,49 but he also shed much-needed light on translation techniques and the translational 47.  J. Fischer, In welcher Schrift lag das Buch Isaias den LXX vor?, BZAW 56 (Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1930), 9–10. 48.  I. L. Seeligmann, “Problems and Perspectives in Modern Septuagint Research,” Textus 15 (1990): 169–232, originally published in Dutch as “Problemen en Perspectieven in het Moderne Septuaginta Onderzoek,” Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Gezelschap “Ex Oriente Lux” 7 (1940): 359–390. See also the work of J. Blau, “Zum Hebräisch der Übersetzer des Alten Testaments,” VT 6 (1956): 97–99, who noted the influence of Post-biblical Hebrew on the LXX translators. For another recent treatment of this subject, see J. Margain, “La Septante comme témoin de l’hébreu post-exilique et michnique,” in Mosaïque de langues mosaïque culturelle. Le bilinguisme dans le Proche-Orient ancien, ed. F. Briquel-Chatonnet (Paris: J. Maisonneuve, 1996), who lists five possible cases of PBH influence. 49.  See, e.g., Emanuel Tov, “Theologically Motivated Exegesis Embedded in the Septuagint,” in Translation of Scripture: Proceedings of a Conference at the Annenberg Institute May 15–16 1989, JQR Supplement Series (Philadelphia: Annenberg Research Institute, 1990), 170; Emanuel Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research, 2nd ed., Jerusalem Biblical Studies (Jerusalem: Simor, 1997), 109–10.

16

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

process, in particular on how translators handled difficult or problematic Hebrew words. In his article, “Did the Septuagint Translators always Understand their Hebrew Text?,” Tov argued that there are numerous renderings which “show the translators’ ignorance of [Hebrew] words through an analysis of the inner dynamics of the translation,”50 and he outlined six different types of “conjectural renderings,” ways in which the translators attempted to make sense of a difficult or unknown Hebrew word.51 T. Muraoka has also noted in various publications that Greek renderings reflect PBH and Aramaic meanings.52 His greatest contribution, however, may be the publication of the index to the Hatch and Redpath concordance of the LXX, a tool that has greatly aided LXX researchers over the years.53 Of particular interest for our purposes are the many references to potential cases of “Aramaizing Renderings.” 3.4. Jan Joosten Jan Joosten is arguably the most important scholar on the subject of PBH and Aramaic influence on the LXX translators. He has published several articles related to this subject that examine many possible cases and explore key related issues. Furthermore, he is the only scholar to date who has proposed a methodology for establishing and identifying PBH and Aramaic influence on the LXX translators. One of his most important studies is an article entitled “On the LXX Translators’ Knowledge of Hebrew,” initially presented at the Tenth Congress of the IOSCS in 1998. There were two significant contributions in this piece. First, Joosten proposed three criteria for establishing PBH 50.  Tov, “Did the Septuagint Translators always Understand?,” 203. 51.  A more recent work by Tov on translation technique and etymological renderings that is relevant to our discussion, especially in Section 5, “Word Manipulation,” is: Emanuel Tov, “Biliteral Exegesis of Hebrew Roots in the Septuagint,” in Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld, ed. Robert Rezetko, Timothy H. Lim and W. Brian Aucker (Leiden: Brill, 2007). 52.  See, e.g., T. Muraoka, “Hosea IV in the Septuagint Version,” AJBI 9 (1983): 24–64 (32–33), for a discussion of the Hebrew lexeme ‫( כשל‬cf. p. 66 for more). 53.  Muraoka’s first index was published as: T. Muraoka, Hebrew/Aramaic Index to the Septuagint: Keyed to the Hatch–Redpath Concordance (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998). See also Muraoka’s more recent work, T. Muraoka, A Greek–Hebrew/Aramaic Two-way Index to the Septuagint (Louvain: Peeters, 2010), a two-way index that is updated and revised. Not only does he show which Hebrew/Aramaic word corresponds to a given Greek word in the LXX (as well as frequency), but he indicates points of disagreement (by an asterisk mark).



Section 1. Introduction

17

influence and applied them to several possible cases.54 For example: ‫כליל‬, meaning “entire, whole” in BH and “crown” in PBH, and rendered by στέφανος “crown” in LXX Ezek 28.12;55 the phrase ‫נשא נפשו אל‬, an idiom meaning “desire” in BH and “kill” in PBH, and rendered by λήμψονται τὰς ψυχὰς αὐτῶν “they will take their souls” in LXX Hos 4.8; and ‫בהל‬, meaning “be disturbed, dismayed” in BH and “make haste, be eager” in Aramaic, and rendered by ἐσπούδασέν “he has hastened” in LXX Job 23.16. I shall discuss these criteria further in §1.4, but suffice it to say that they provide a helpful framework within which possible cases can be examined more closely. Secondly, instead of asking whether the LXX translators understood their Hebrew text,56 Joosten focused on the kind of Hebrew the translators knew and how it may have influenced their lexical identifications. He concluded that “almost every translation unit…evinces at least some examples of renderings erroneously based on post-classical Hebrew.” Though he conceded that some of these renderings were the result of the translator not knowing a particular BH lexeme and consciously turning to PBH or Aramaic for lexical help, which is the common explanation, he argued that most cases can be explained as the result of linguistic interference. That is, the translator accidentally and unconsciously rendered a Hebrew lexeme on the basis of his knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic: “while reading an old text recorded in an archaic form of the language, the translators at times interpreted it as if it were a contemporary work, written in the Hebrew of their day.” In subsequent publications, Joosten further refined and developed his arguments by analysing various translation techniques of the LXX translators,57 comparing Qumran Hebrew (QH) and the language of the translators,58 examining whether or not spoken Hebrew may have 54.  See §1.3.4 for an outline of his criteria. 55.  See p. 28 for a more detailed treatment of this example. 56.  Cf., e.g., Tov, “Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand?” 57.  In “Exegesis in the Septuagint Version of Hosea,” in Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel, ed. Johannes C. de Moor (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 62–85, Joosten analysed the linguistic approach of the translator of LXX TP and argued that he used both a paradigmatic (individual words) and syntagmatic (context) approach to translation. Additionally, he outlined the various ways in which the translator rendered figures of speech (clarifying additions; metonymy, synecdoche and metaphor; theological corrections; biblical allusions; and modernising readings). 58.  See, e.g., Jan Joosten, “The Knowledge and Use of Hebrew in the Hellenistic Period: Qumran and the Septuagint,” in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, ed.

18

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

influenced the translators,59 and considering the extent to which Aramaic played a role in the LXX translations.60 4. LXX Isa 4.1. The Text61 In terms of literalness, the translation of LXX Isa is universally described as a “free” rendering, or, as Jerome put it, “sensus de sensu.” Scholars explain most divergences as either theological interpretations or conjectural renderings by the translator when faced with a difficult word or phrase. That the translator employed a “free” style, however, does not necessarily mean that he deviated from the Hebrew text before him. In fact, as Baer states, “his much-observed paraphrastic and even midrashic tendencies have almost concealed from scholarly view a pronounced conservatism that binds him, first, to the immediate text of his own Vorlage…and, then, to other biblical texts in Isaiah and elsewhere.”62 As far as the Vorlage of LXX Isa is concerned, there are no large “minuses” or “pluses” in the Greek text such as are seen in LXX Jeremiah, and the current consensus is that it was very similar in consonantal form to the MT, though the usual provisos apply—the possibility of a Hebrew variant, scribal errors in the transmission of the Greek, conscious alterations.63 Dines’s summary on the translator and text of T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde (Leiden: Brill, 2000), and Joosten, “Pseudo-classicisms.” Joosten saw a close connection between LBH and QH, and argued that traces of this stratum of Hebrew were evident in some LXX renderings. 59.  In “Biblical Hebrew as Mirrored in the Septuagint: The Question of Influence from Spoken Hebrew,” Textus 21 (2002): 1–19, Joosten looks at how spoken Hebrew—a form of proto-Mishnaic Hebrew—may have influenced the LXX translations (lexical examples include: ‫ מס‬in 1 Kgs 5.27 and ‫ כסת‬in Ezek 13.18, 20). 60.  Cf. Jan Joosten, “On Aramaising Renderings in the Septuagint,” in Hamlet on a Hill: Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. Martin F. J. Baasten and W. Th. van Peursen (Leuven: Peeters, 2003); Joosten, “Biblical Hebrew as Mirrored in the Septuagint,” 5–7; and idem, “The Aramaic Background of the Seventy: Language, Culture and History,” BIOSCS 43 (2010): 52–72. 61.  For LXX Isa citations I have used the critical edition by J. Ziegler, ed., Isaias. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983). Hebrew citations are based on the BHS. 62.  David A. Baer, When We All Go Home: Translation and Theology in LXX Isaiah 56–66, JSOTSup 318 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001), 16. 63.  Cf. Joosten, “Exegesis in the Septuagint Version of Hosea,” 63–64; Emanuel Tov, “Some Reflections on the Hebrew Texts from which the Septuagint Was



Section 1. Introduction

19

LXX Isa is representative of the consensus view: “He renders a text closely resembling the MT, but with considerable freedom.”64 However, a recent dissertation on the pluses and minuses of LXX Isa has shown that there are some significant minuses in the Greek text consisting of an entire clause or more, which throws the traditional view into some doubt.65 With regard to script, contrary to Wutz’s contention that the LXX was translated from a Vorlage that was a Greek transcription of the Hebrew text, the fact that numerous translational errors have to do with letter confusion (see, Section 5, §2.1, for a discussion of “‫ד‬/‫ ר‬confusion”; “biliteral exegesis”; and “transposition of consonants”) suggests that the Vorlage was indeed a Hebrew text in the Aramaic square script.66 4.2. The Translator Who was the translator of LXX Isa?67 Or, as van der Kooij phrased the question, “to which milieu or circles in ancient Judaism” did the translator Translated,” JNSL 19 (1993): 107–22; and Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 174. 64.  Jennifer M. Dines, The Septuagint, Understanding the Bible and its World (London and New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 22. So R. R. Ottley, The Book of Isaiah according to the Septuagint (Codex Alexandrinus). Vol. 2, Text and Notes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1906), 1:51, who concluded that the evidence points to a Vorlage “very closely resembling the MT.” Dines notes, however, that there is “some historical updating in places, presumably to show the translator’s own generation that the prophecies apply to them.” 65.  The dissertation by Mirjam van der Vorm-Croughs of Leiden University is entitled, “The Old Greek of Isaiah: An Analysis of its Pluses and Minuses.” An electronic version is available at: https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/16135. It has subsequently been published: Mirjam van der Vorm-Croughs, The Old Greek of Isaiah: An Analysis of It Pluses and Minuses, Septuagint and Cognate Studies 61 (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2014). 66.  See Wutz, Die Transkriptionen, for more on Wutz’s transcription theory. 67.  I am following the consensus position that the translation of LXX Isa is the work of one person. This is, of course, a simplistic approach and the situation is probably more complex. Others, such as J. Ziegler, Untersuchungen zur Septuaginta des Buches Isaias (Münster i. W.: Aschendorff, 1934), 42–44, Isaac Leo Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah and Cognate Studies, FAT 40 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 39–69, and Baer, When We All Go Home, 19, question whether parts of LXX Isa might be the work of another translator, but no definite proposals have been suggested. See David A. Baer, “What Happens in the End? Evidence for an Early Greek recension in LXX Isaiah 66,” in The Old Greek of Isaiah: Issues and Perspectives. Papers Read at the Conference on the Septuagint of Isaiah, held in Leiden 10–11 April 2008, ed. Arie van der Kooij and Michaël N. van der Meer, Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 55 (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), who

20

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

belong?68 And is it even possible to postulate a social setting for the translator? As Troxel rightly notes, the more literally a book is translated, the less we are able to say anything distinctive about its translator, since he rendered his Vorlage into Greek with little interference from his own ideas… It is the peculiar way that [the translator of LXX Isa] works—investing Isaiah’s oracles with meanings that cannot always be justified linguistically from his source text—that urges the question of who he was. It is not enough to call him a translator, because he seems to have gone beyond simply offering a translation.69

Given that LXX Isa is classified as a “free” rendering, it may be possible to glean clues from the Greek text, especially where it diverges from its presumed Hebrew Vorlage, and reconstruct a “profile” for the translator beyond that of a simple scribe or Bible translator.70 Various social contexts have been proposed for the LXX translators generally,71 some of which are based on details in the Letter of Aristeas, thinks that ch. 66 is the work of another translator, and Marshall S. Hurwitz, “The Septuagint of Isaiah 36–39 in Relation to that of 1–35, 40–66,” HUCA 28 (1957): 75–83, who attributes LXX Isa 36–39 to a different translator. 68.  A. van der Kooij, “Perspectives on the Study of the Septuagint: Who Are the Translators?,” in Perspectives in the Study of the Old Testament and Early Judaism, ed. Florentino García-Martínez and Ed Noort (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 217. 69.  Ronald L. Troxel, LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation: The Strategies of the Translator of the Septuagint of Isaiah, JSJSup 124 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 2. 70.  However, as Dines cautions, the terms “free” and “literal” are not exact terms and are somewhat misleading: “ ‘Free’ is self-evidently an imprecise description (which may include within itself instances of ‘literal’ readings), but even the apparently more controllable ‘literal’ translation is open to different nuances.” Dines, The Septuagint, 120. 71.  Scholars have proposed a variety of possible social contexts for the LXX translators, ranging from the synagogue and court to legal institutions and even a military context. For example, Thackeray placed the origin of the LXX in Jewish synagogues for liturgical purposes: “[The Septuagint] doubtless owed its existence to the lectionary needs of a Greek speaking community”; H. St J. Thackeray, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: A Study in Origins, The Schweich Lectures (London: Oxford University Press, 1921), 41. Chaim Rabin, “The Translation Process and the Character of the Septuagint,” Textus 6 (1968): 1–26 (21); Elias Bickerman, “The Septuagint as a Translation,” in Studies in Jewish and Christian History, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 180; S. Brock, “The Phenomenon of the Septuagint,” OtSt 17 (1972): 11–36 (19–20); and Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 109, view the translators as professional dragomans in a court setting who may have had some knowledge of a reading tradition of the Hebrew text. Some scholars have argued



Section 1. Introduction

21

but two recent proposals are worth highlighting, as they specifically have in mind the translator of LXX Isa. Following the works of Seeligmann,72 das Neves73 and Hanhart,74 van der Kooij argued that the translator of LXX Isa was a learned person who read, studied and interpreted biblical texts. He stated: My tentative conclusion is, that they [the scribe behind 1QIsaa and the translator of LXX Isa], as scribes and scholars, have made the effort to create new texts with a meaning of their own, presumably with the ultimate purpose not only to modernize the text linguistically, but also to actualize the prophecies of Isaiah.75 that the purpose of the LXX, particularly the Pentateuch portion, was legal in nature and was employed as civic law (πολίτικος νόμος) for a Jewish πολίτευμα. Cf. Joseph Mélèze Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt from Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1995); and Dominique Barthélemy, “Pourquoi la Torah a-t-elle été traduite en grec?,” in On Language, Culture, and Religion: In Honor of Eugene A. Nida, ed. M. Black and W. A. Smalley (Paris: Mouton, 1975). Joosten has proposed a very different sociological profile for the LXX translators. He argues that they were Jewish soldiers based in Elephantine on the basis that “military vocabulary is used in a non-military context” (Joosten, “The Aramaic Background of the Seventy,” 65). He cites the use of the Greek word παρεμβολή, meaning “military camp,” for ‫( מחנה‬Gen 32.8, Jacob’s “camps”); ἀποσκευή “military baggage” (Gen 43.8, Judah’s “baggage, people,” rendering Hebrew ‫ ;)טף‬and the verb στρατοπεδεύω “march” (Gen 12.9, Abram “marched”). Cf. Jan Joosten, “Language as Symptom: Linguistic Clues to the Social Background of the Seventy,” Textus 23 (2007): 69–80, for more on the military background of the LXX translators. 72.  Seeligmann introduced the idea that the translator of LXX Isa sought to contemporise and revive the biblical text for his day by showing how Isaiah’s prophecies were being fulfilled in his time. I. L. Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of its Problems, Mededelingen en verhandelingen van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap “Ex Oriente Lux” 7 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1948), 4. 73.  J. C. M. das Neves, A Teologia da Tradução Grega dos Setenta no Livro de Isaías (Lisbon: Universidade Católica Portuguesa, 1973). See, especially, his summary on pp. 281–97. 74.  Robert Hanhart, “Die Septuaginta als Interpretation und Aktualisierung,” in Essays on the Bible and the Ancient World: Isaac Leo Seeligmann Volume, ed. Alexander Rofé and Yair Zakovitch, vol. 3, non-Hebrew section (Jerusalem: E. Rubinstein, 1983), 331–46. 75.  A. van der Kooij, “The Old Greek of Isaiah in Relation to the Qumran Texts of Isaiah,” in Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings: Papers Presented to the International Symposium on the Septuagint and its Relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Writings, ed. George J. Brooke and Barnabas Lindars, SBLSCS 33 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 208.

22

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

Crucially, van der Kooij advanced the idea that the translator viewed himself as an interpreter of prophecy under the rubric of Erfüllungs­ interpretation, and as such he was responsible for the “reinterpretation of the temporal application of an ancient prophecy.”76 His argument, however, stands or falls on the unique rendering of ‫ ס ֵֹפר‬in LXX Isa 33.18 by γραμματικοί, a somewhat surprising word choice given that ‫ הסופר‬is represented elsewhere in LXX Isa (36.3, 22; 37.2), and indeed throughout the LXX, by γραμματεύς.77 Troxel’s monograph, LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation, is effectively a response to van der Kooij’s views on the translator of LXX Isa. While Troxel agrees with van der Kooij that the translator can be identified with the γραμματικός (mentioned in LXX Isa 33.18), he argues that the γραμματικός was directly linked to the Museum (Μουσεῖα) in Alexandria and concludes that the translator was a grammarian from the philological circles of the museum, much like Aristarchus, Callimachus and other γραμματικοί of the day.78 The key distinction between Troxel and van der Kooij is in how they understand the translational approach of the γραμματικός as it pertains to the LXX. Whereas van der Kooij sees the role of the γραμματικός as an interpreter of scripture in the mode of Erfüllungsinterpretation, Troxel limits his role to that of a grammarian or scholar whose chief aim is to translate the book in an accessible and intelligible manner for his audience. 4.3. Literary Competency of the Translator As far as the translator’s literary and linguistic competency is concerned, opinions vary. Frankel’s characterisation of the translator’s attempts at making sense of difficult words as schülerhafte Versuche is perhaps too negative an assessment, while at the other end of the spectrum Koenig is overly optimistic of his exegetical and linguistic abilities.79 Most scholars fall somewhere in between these poles, recognising that the translator 76.  A. van der Kooij, The Oracle of Tyre: The Septuagint of Isaiah XXIII as Version and Vision, VTSup 71 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 18. 77.  Troxel, LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation, 3, notes that γραμματεύς represents ‫ ס ֵֹפר‬40 times outside of LXX Isa. 78.  Ibid., especially pp. 25–31. He makes a helpful observation in that the museum was not an exhibition centre or place of research as we might understand it today, but functioned primarily as a “religious institution, overseen by priests who inculcated religious life” (p. 290). 79.  Frankel, Vorstudien, 201; Jean Koenig, L’Herméneutique analogique du judaïsme antique d’après les témoins textuels d’Isaïe, VTSup 33 (Leiden: Brill, 1982).



Section 1. Introduction

23

struggled with the Hebrew in many places, whilst also appreciating the monumental and unenviable task of translating such a difficult and complex book. Baer’s summary is representative and appropriate: “It seems quite likely that the translator was capable of ‘fertile misinterpretation’ and frankly barren mistakes at the same time that he is to be credited with some complex and premeditated exegetical feats.”80 4.4. Translation or Pesher? There is also the matter of the translator’s approach to the text, or translation technique.81 This entails questions of literalness, style, and handling of Hebrew grammar and syntax: Did he stick closely to his presumed source text or did he render it paraphrastically? How did he handle difficult or unknown Hebrew words? What kind of lexical preferences does he show? I have addressed some of these questions already and will comment on others, as necessary, throughout this study. A related question that is at the heart of the present study is whether or not the translation of LXX Isa is exegetically motivated. Does the translator incorporate exegetical elements in his translation, and, if so, is it consciously or unconsciously done? As we have seen, the contrasting views of van der Kooij and Troxel on the social background of the translator present two very different assessments. Van der Kooij would argue that the translator was a biblical exegete whose purpose was to provide the Alexandrian community with exegetical insights that actualised the prophetic message of Isaiah for their time. In contrast, Troxel contends that he was first and foremost a translator whose chief concern was “to convey the sense of Isaiah to his readers, even if that sense was derived 80.  Baer, When We All Go Home, 16. How one understands the translator’s sociological background will obviously inform his or her opinion of the translator’s competence. For example, Joosten, who situates the translators in a military context, argues that they “were unable to write polished literary Greek. They did not…belong to the cultural elite. They were far removed from the royal court, and had little idea of what went on in the gymnasium. They represent a middle class where literacy was well developed, but literary training remained out of reach.” Joosten, “Language as Symptom,” 73. 81.  Definitions of translation technique vary. Dines’s definition is broad and helpful: the translator’s “methods, preferences and peculiarities” that help us understand “not only how a translation works linguistically, but also how the translator has understood and represented the meaning of the original.” Dines, The Septuagint, 117. See Myrto Theocharous, Lexical Dependence and Intertextual Allusion in the Septuagint of the Twelve Prophets: Studies in Hosea, Amos and Micah, LHBOTS 570 (New York: T&T Clark, 2012), 11–15, for a more detailed discussion of translation technique.

24

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

from within a larger notion of literary context than is permitted a modern translator.”82 He continues: “He seems to have employed no method, but used whatever devices were at his disposal to deliver a translation that would make the book’s sprawling networks of meaning intelligible to his Greek reading coreligionists.”83 5. Methodological Considerations The task of finding convincing cases of PBH and Aramaic influence on the translator of LXX Isa is challenging. There is still much we do not know about the text of LXX Isa, the translator and the process by which he arrived at his translation. Further questions concerning the translator’s linguistic knowledge and social background also remain unanswered, and though significant inroads have been made in our understanding of PBH, Aramaic and the relationship between the two languages, the linguistic situation of the late Second Temple period still appears murky, owing in part to a dearth of manuscript and inscriptional evidence. Thus, the process of determining whether a particular Greek rendering can be attributed to PBH or Aramaic—or, in some cases, both PBH and Aramaic—influence is somewhat heuristic, and it may not be possible to provide conclusive evidence in some cases. Having said that, one must keep in mind that it is impossible to know completely the intention of the translator for any given rendering, especially where the Greek diverges from the Hebrew text, and all possible explanations, including PBH and Aramaic influence, must be considered. As far as methodology is concerned, Joosten’s three-fold criteria provide a helpful starting point:84 1. the PBH (or Aramaic) element invoked corresponds exactly to what is written in the MT; 2. the meaning of the PBH (or Aramaic) element corresponds exactly to the meaning of the Greek equivalent in question; and 3. the latter meaning is distinct from the earlier meaning obtaining in the MT. 82.  Troxel, LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation, 291. Italics mine. 83.  Ibid., 291. 84.  Joosten, “On the LXX Translators’ Knowledge of Hebrew,” 169. These criteria, though derived with PBH in mind, can easily be duplicated for Aramaic words. Cf. Hurvitz’s three-fold criteria for determining whether a Hebrew lexeme is a LBH element: (1) biblical distribution; (2) linguistic contrast; and (3) extra-biblical sources. Hurvitz, “Continuity and Innovation.”



Section 1. Introduction

25

These criteria are useful insofar as they provide a strict method for evaluating possible cases, and examples that pass muster with this set of criteria are as close to conclusive as any method will allow. It is desirable, nevertheless, to introduce an element of qualification into Joosten’s rigid criteria. First, the third criterion does not allow for the overlap of meanings that is bound to exist in the process of semantic change. Whether a new sense emerges or an old one obsolesces, semantic change is a gradual process, and this ambiguity must be taken into account. For example, in the case of polysemes, where a lexeme has more than one sense within its semantic range, the predominance of meanings can oscillate over time so that a once predominant sense becomes relatively unknown.85 Secondly, the grammar and orthography of PBH and Aramaic are distinct enough from CBH for the Hebrew of the translator’s Vorlage to have caused a fair amount of confusion, especially when he was faced with weak verbs or unusual forms. Joosten’s first criterion, that the late Hebrew element should correspond exactly to what is written in the MT, does not accommodate such complexities.86 Nevertheless, Joosten’s criteria are basically valid and I have, on the whole, followed them; however, each case must be examined independently, taking into consideration such factors as literary context, theology, textual matters and other translational issues. I have organised the remainder of the discussion into four Sections: “Post-biblical Hebrew Influence”; “Aramaic Influence”; “Post-biblical Hebrew and/or Aramaic Influence”; and “Word Manipulation.” The first three Sections involve Greek renderings that reflect PBH and/or Aramaic lexemes that produce forms that are consonantally very close, and usually identical with, what is written in the MT, which may be taken to have differed only occasionally from the Hebrew Vorlage of the translator. In many cases, the evidence points to influence from either PBH or Aramaic. This is discussed in Sections 2 and 3. Section 2 begins with a discussion of semantic change and PBH, followed by three chapters that examine specific cases in detail. Section 3 begins with a general introduction on Aramaic in the late Second Temple period, followed by a brief discussion on how Aramaic grammar and lexemes influenced the translators of the LXX. I then look at two chapters that discuss specific cases of Aramaic influence in LXX Isa. Section 4 consists of three chapters 85.  See §2.1.2, p. 29, for more on types of semantic change. 86.  Tov, “Biliteral Exegesis,” has argued, for instance, that the LXX translators often looked for “clusters” of two consonants for semantic identification, especially when faced with weak verbs and difficult or unknown words.

26

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

that deal with cases where the distribution of linguistic interference cannot be apportioned, that is, either PBH or Aramaic or both could have influenced the translator. Given that the linguistic situation in the late Second Temple period is one of diglossia, it is not surprising that both languages influenced the translator to some degree. There are no introductory comments in this section; the introductions to Sections 2 and 3 are applicable here and should be consulted. Section 5 deals with cases where the translator appears to manipulate a Hebrew word by rendering it on the basis of a word in PBH or Aramaic that is not identical in form to his Vorlage. In these instances, it seems that the translator does not recognise a Hebrew word, either because it is a rare word (often a hapax legomenon) or because his Vorlage is unclear. This category admittedly involves more uncertainty, but in the absence of alternative explanations it is worth exploring whether semantic change was a factor in the translator’s manipulating his Vorlage.

S ec t io n 2 P ost - b ib lic a l H eb r ew I n fl ue n c e

A language presents itself to us, at any one moment, as a stable structure of lexical and grammatical habits. This, however, is an illusion. Every language is undergoing, at all times, a slow but unceasing process of linguistic change. Leonard Bloomfield1

1. Introduction 1.1. Classic Examples of PBH Influence on LXX Translation As discussed in the introductory Section 1, various examples of PBH influence on the LXX translators have been proposed, some of which are more convincing than others (see §1.3 for a survey of previous scholarship). Two examples that are commonly cited and widely accepted as cases of PBH influence on the translators relate to ‫( קץ‬Gen 6.13) and ‫כליל‬ (Ezek 28.12). Both fit the strict criteria set out by Joosten,2 and thus serve as helpful controls to compare with less conventional examples. Gen 6.13

‫ויאמר אלהים לנח קץ כל־בשר בא לפני‬ And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh.” καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Νωε Καιρὸς παντὸς ἀνθρώπου ἥκει ἐναντίον μου And God said to Noah, “The time of all humanity has come before me.”

Etymologically speaking, ‫ קץ‬is derived from the root ‫“ קצץ‬cut.” The BH meaning of ‫“ קץ‬end” or “final point” is an abstraction of the root ‫קצץ‬ and is used primarily in a spatial or material sense, for example, for the 1.  Bloomfield, Language, 281. 2.  Joosten, “On the LXX Translators’ Knowledge of Hebrew,” 167.

28

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

“border” of a territory or the “end” of a generation. In LBH onwards, however, it increasingly takes on a temporal sense, and by the time of PBH it is used almost exclusively to mean “time.”3 Thus the Greek renderings of ‫ קץ‬by καιρός (here in Gen 6.13) and χρόνος (Job 6.11) appear to be the result of semantic change in the lexeme ‫קץ‬. The second example is the word ‫“ כליל‬whole, perfect,” derived from the root ‫“ כלל‬complete.” Ezek 28.12

‫ תכנית מלא חכמה וכליל יפי‬4‫אתה חותם‬ You were the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. Σὺ ἀποσφράγισμα ὁμοιώσεως καὶ στέφανος κάλλους You were a signet in likeness and a crown of beauty.

This noun occurs 15 times in the MT and is represented by predictable Greek equivalents, with two exceptions: in Ezek 28.12 and Lam 2.15, ‫ כליל‬is represented by στέφανος “crown,” a meaning that is not found in BH. However, as attested in the Qumran texts and rabbinic literature, ‫כליל‬ takes on a new meaning in PBH and Aramaic, that of “crown, wreath,” which corresponds perfectly to στέφανος.5 It is, of course, within the realms of possibility that the translator had a text that read ‫ כתר‬or ‫עטרה‬, but the most plausible and logical explanation is that ‫ כליל‬shifted in meaning over time from the abstract sense of “whole” or “perfect” to the substantive “crown,” and that the Greek rendering reflects the latter sense, a meaning that is not found in BH.6 3.  The word ‫ קץ‬plays a significant role in the apocalyptic literature of Qumran (e.g. 1QpHab), where it is used to describe different “periods of time” leading up to the eschaton. 4.  Reading ‫חֹותם‬. ַ 5.  E.g., PBH ‫“ ְּכ ִליל‬crown, wreath, coronation tax.” See Marcus Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (London: Choreb; New York: E. Shapiro, 1926), 642–43; Elisha Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Harvard Semitic Studies 29 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1986), 101. See also Aramaic ‫ּכ ִל ָילא‬: ְ Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period, Dictionaries of Talmud, Midrash, and Targum 2 (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1990), 582. For Syriac, see Michael Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 625. 6.  See Joosten, “The Knowledge and Use of Hebrew in the Hellenistic Period,” 169–70, for more on ‫ כליל‬in the LXX.



Section 2. Post-biblical Hebrew Influence

29

1.2. Types of Semantic Change The examples of ‫ קץ‬and ‫ כליל‬described above represent fairly straight­ forward cases where there is clear semantic development from one meaning to another. The PBH meaning “crown” for ‫ כליל‬can, with reasonable certainty, be traced back to the abstract sense of “whole” or “perfect,” and there is clear semantic contrast between the BH and PBH meanings. The meaning of ‫ קץ‬moves from a spatial or material sense in BH to a temporal one in PBH. Linguists have long held that abstraction (movement from concrete > abstract sense) and concretisation (abstract > concrete sense) are two of the most common categories of semantic change.7 However, the nature of semantic change is often much more complex and cannot be explained simply by way of development from one sense to another. Other types of semantic change must therefore also be taken into consideration when examining possible cases of PBH influence. Some BH meanings fell into disuse and became obsolete by the time of the Greek translators.8 If a translator faced a word that was attested in BH but was defunct in his day, he was left to make an educated guess using whatever aids were available to him, linguistic or otherwise. Take, for example, the Greek renderings of the word ‫“ ארמון‬palace,” which occurs more than 30 times in the HB but is very rare in PBH. In the LXX, ‫ ארמון‬is represented by no fewer than 18 different Greek equivalents, most of which appear to have been contextual guesses (e.g. ἄντρον “cave”; τοῖχος “wall”; θεμέλιον “foundation”; οἶκος “house”; πόλις “city”; γῆ “land”; ἄμφοδον “street”; ναός “temple”; and χώρα “country”). The best explanation is that the translators were not familiar with the original BH meaning of the word, which had begun to obsolesce.9 Another possible example is the Hebrew word ‫“ סופה‬storm” or “strong wind,” which occurs 15 times in the HB but is unattested in PBH. Some translators render it by a Greek equivalent with a similar meaning to the Hebrew (e.g. the translator of LXX Isa renders it by καταιγίς “rushing storm” in all five occurrences), but many appear to guess at its meaning, possibly indicating unfamiliarity on their part.

7.  See, e.g., Ullmann, Semantics: An Introduction, 191–235, and Bloomfield, Language, 425–43. 8.  So James Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), 221: “the disuse of a word in late times may be the reason why its meaning ceased to be understood.” 9.  Tov, “Theologically Motivated Exegesis Embedded in the Septuagint,” 170.

30

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

In LXX Hos 8.7 and LXX Nah 1.3, for example, ‫ סופה‬is rendered by καταστροφή “ruin,” “destruction” and συντέλεια “consummation” respectively, presumably reading ‫ סופה‬as a form of the BH (and PBH) word ‫“ סוף‬end.” If the translators had had even the slightest knowledge of BH ‫סופה‬, they would have picked up on the corresponding parallel units (‫רוח‬ in Hos 8.7 and ‫ ענן‬in Nah 1.3), but it appears that their ignorance of ‫סופה‬ led them to another root. Similarly, in the case of polysemes, the predominance of meanings between two or more senses of a word can oscillate over time. Unlike semantic obsolescence, where a meaning eventually falls into disuse and is no longer attested, some words maintain multiple senses but the prevalence of usage shifts from one sense to another. There are several cases in the LXX where the translator renders a Hebrew word on the basis of a meaning that is predominant in his time, but is very rare in BH and does not necessarily fit the context of the biblical text. In this section, I shall examine two examples (‫ כשל‬and ‫ )ברר‬in which the primary and secondary meanings are reversed in BH and PBH, and the translator renders the word on the basis of the predominant PBH meaning. In contrast to words that change meaning or obsolesce over time, the emergence of neologisms—often the result of borrowing from cognate languages—also posed a problem for translators, as new semantic possibilities were made available.10 A well-known example of a neologism in the LXX is Gen 49.10, where 11‫“ עד כי־יבא שילה‬until he comes to Shiloh” is rendered by ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ τὰ ἀποκείμενα αὐτῷ “until there come the things stored up for him.” In this case, the translator is confused by, or misreads, ‫ שילה‬and expands his translational possibilities by reading the PBH relative -‫ ֶׁש‬+ ‫( ְל‬though the particle ‫ של‬is attested a few times in the MT, it is generally considered to be PBH).12

10.  See Hurvitz, “Continuity and Innovation,” 2–4, for a discussion of the differences between CBH and LBH, including the many “neologisms” developed in LBH. Hurvitz comments: “Late BH is recognizable in its innovative elements (‘neologisms’), many of which were to become normative only in Post-biblical Hebrew. These neologisms betray deviations from the classical norms. They are the product of an unceasing process of development, natural in the history of every language; however, from the perspective of the classical language they may be considered as marks of ‘deterioration’ and ‘decline’. For this reason the Hebrew of the Persian period is seen by some scholars as a creation of the ‘Silver Age’ in Israel’s history.” 11.  Ketiv. Qere is ‫ׁשילֹו‬. ִ 12.  Tov, “Theologically Motivated Exegesis Embedded in the Septuagint,” 170.



Section 2. Post-biblical Hebrew Influence

31

In short, semantic change in Hebrew is, as Hurvitz puts it, “quite natural and…is widely attested,” and there is no doubt that it would have had some effect on the translators of the LXX.13 However, it is also a highly complex phenomenon, and the evidence is not always straightforward. Each case must be considered independently and the evidence analysed scrupulously. 2. The Influence of PBH on LXX Isa Scholars have proposed several examples of Greek renderings in LXX Isa that reflect a PBH or Aramaic meaning, but many of them are dubious or lack evidence and there are very few studies that look at cases in depth. 2.1. Inconclusive Cases of PBH Influence There are a handful of cases where the evidence is inconclusive, but they are still worth mentioning. I shall briefly highlight two such examples: Isa 13.2 On a bare hill raise a signal.

‫על הר־נשפה שאו־נס‬

Ἐπ᾿ ὄρους πεδινοῦ ἄρατε σημεῖον On a level mountain raise a signal.

In Isa 13.2, the rare verb ‫( שפה‬Niphal) probably means “be wind-swept,” if evidence from cognate languages is any indication.14 The meaning of the related noun ‫ ְׁש ִפי‬is also difficult to ascertain, and various suggestions such as “bare plain,” “bare height,” “mountain track” and “sand dunes” have been made.15 In PBH and Aramaic the root ‫שפי‬/‫ שפה‬means “make smooth, level” or “make quiet,” which is closer to the Greek word πεδινός “flat, level,” a word that is often contrasted with “high” or “elevated”

13.  Hurvitz, “Continuity and Innovation,” 1. 14.  σ´ renders it by ὁμαλός “level, smooth” and α´ translates it γνοφώδης “dark, gloomy.” 15.  See Karl Elliger, “Der Sinn des hebräischen Wortes ‫ש ִפי‬: ְ Zugleichein Beitrag zum Verständnis der alten Versionen,” ZAW 83 (1971): 317–29, for a discussion of the various proposals for ‫ ְׁש ִפי‬and how the ancient versions translate it. Interestingly, the noun ‫ ְׁש ִפי‬occurs twice in Isaiah and is rendered by ὄρος “mountain” in LXX Isa 41.18 and by τρίβος “path” in LXX Isa 49.9, which suggests that the translator did not know ‫ ְׁש ִפי‬and made guesses on the basis of the context and parallelism in both instances.

32

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

(e.g. Luke 6.17). It is possible that the translator had in mind the PBH or Aramaic sense when rendering ‫ נשפה‬in LXX Isa 13.2, but caution must be exercised here as the semantic distinction between the BH meaning “be wind-swept” and PBH/Aramaic meaning “make smooth, level” is marginal.16 Isa 17.4 The glory of Jacob will be brought low.

‫ידל כבוד יעקב‬

ἔκλειψις δόξης Ιακωβ17 The glory of Jacob will cease (to exist).

The BH verb ‫ דלל‬means “be brought low” or “be made little,” senses that are still distinguishable from the associated adjective ‫“ דל‬poor.” In PBH, however, the verb appears to assimilate the meaning of the adjective and means “make scarce, become thin” and “be poor.” The Greek word ἔκλειψις in Isa 17.4 refers to the cessation, disappearance or absence of something (e.g. the extinction of a race, Str. 9.5.12, or the failure of someone to appear in court, AB 259) and corresponds more closely to the PBH meaning. Interestingly, the verb ἐκλείπω represents ‫ דלל‬in LXX Isa 38.14 and also occurs in LXX Isa 19.6, and in both cases the Greek is awkward. In short, it seems possible that the translator of LXX Isa was not aware of the BH sense of ‫“ דלל‬be brought low,” and rendered it on the basis of a later meaning.18 In both the above examples, the lexeme at hand is rare in BH: ‫שפה‬ occurs on only one other occasion; and ‫ דלל‬occurs seven or eight times with a limited semantic range. However, without more data on these lexemes and their precise meanings in BH, it is impossible to determine whether the Greek equivalents in the LXX represent a developed sense of the Hebrew word or whether they reflect meanings used in CBH and LBH but not attested in the HB.

16.  It could be argued that Hurvitz’s “linguistic contrast” criterion and Joosten’s third criterion, that the PBH or Aramaic meaning is distinct from the meaning in the Hebrew text, are not satisfactorily met. See p. 24 for a discussion on Joosten’s and Hurvitz’s criteria. 17.  Some mss have the article τῆς before δόξης. 18.  The possibility that ἔκλειψις represents BH ‫“ חדל‬cease” is also to be noted.



Section 2. Post-biblical Hebrew Influence

33

2.2. Stronger Cases of PBH Influence In the pages that follow I shall focus on three of the more convincing cases where the Greek rendering in the LXX reflects a Hebrew word that has undergone semantic change at some stage in the LBH and PBH periods.19 I shall analyse examples on an individual basis and, where possible, comment on the process by which the translator has resolved the problematic word(s). Chapter 1 deals with the lexeme ‫צדקה‬. This is usually rendered by δίκαιος “upright, just” and its cognates in the LXX; however, in three instances in LXX Isa (1.27; 28.17; 59.16), ‫ צדקה‬is represented by ἐλεημοσύνη “alms, charity.” As I shall argue, ἐλεημοσύνη reflects the semantic development of ‫ צדקה‬from the sense of “rightness” attested in BH to “merciful action” and specific acts of “charity” or “almsgiving” attested in PBH. In Chapter 2 I consider the lexeme ‫“ כשל‬stumble” and its corresponding Greek word ἀδυνατέω “be weak” in LXX Isa 8.15. Scholars have understandably dismissed this as a case of late influence on the grounds that there is no semantic contrast, as ἀδυνατέω corresponds to a meaning already attested in BH, but, unlike ‫צדקה‬, where a consistent trajectory in meaning from the abstract sense of “rightness” to the concrete meaning of “charity” or “almsgiving” can be established, the semantic development of the root ‫ כשל‬is more complex and various factors must be taken into consideration. For example, the rare BH sense “overthrow” (cf. Jer 18.23; 2 Chr 25.8) is much more prevalent in PBH, and the emergence of Aramaic ‫“ תקל‬stumble” may have provided an alternative verb for “stumble.” Ultimately, I shall argue that the collective outcome of various semantic and linguistic developments in PBH times appears to have influenced the LXX translators’ understanding of ‫ כשל‬in LXX Isa 8.15 and elsewhere. In Chapter 3 I examine the lexeme ‫“ ברר‬cleanse” and renderings of it by ἐκλέγω “choose” and ἐκλεκτός “choice” in the LXX, with special attention to LXX Isa 49.2. Since the lexeme ‫ ברר‬can mean “choose” in LBH, the first task will be to re-examine the root ‫ ברר‬diachronically from BH to the later phase of Hebrew in order to establish its meaning in each linguistic 19.  In Section 3, “Aramaic Influence,” I shall consider cases where the translator renders a Hebrew word on the basis of an Aramaic word that is semantically independent of the Hebrew word. In Section 4, “Post-biblical Hebrew and Aramaic Influence,” I shall analyse cases where the translator either confuses the Hebrew with another root or does not recognise the Hebrew and renders it on the basis of a PBH or Aramaic word that is different from the word before him.

34

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

phase. Secondly, I shall look at how the other ancient versions (Syr, Tg, Vg, α´, σ´, θ´) translated ‫ ברר‬and similar forms (such as ‫)בר‬, an important task in this case as ‫ ברר‬is often rendered by “choose” or “choice” in the ancient versions in general. Thirdly, I shall survey other ‫ר‬-‫ ב‬lexemes that are rendered in the LXX by ἐκλέγω “choose” or ἐκλεκτός “choice.” This will help us to determine the extent to which translators were influenced by later meanings of ‫ברר‬.

Chapter 1

‫צדקה‬ ‫ = צדקה‬ἐλεημοσύνη “alms, charity”; ἔλεος “mercy, pity” Isa 1.27; 28.17; 56.1 [ἔλεος]; 59.161

1. Introduction Isa 1.27

‫ציון במשפט תפדה ושביה בצדקה‬ μετὰ γὰρ κρίματος σωθήσεται ἡ αἰχμαλωσία αὐτῆς καὶ μετὰ ἐλεημοσύνης

As one might expect, the overwhelming majority of occurrences of the noun-forms ‫ צדק‬and ‫ צדקה‬in MT Isa are rendered by δικαιοσύνη. 45 of the 61 occurrences of ‫ צדק‬and ‫ צדקה‬are represented by δικαιοσύνη, and another nine by cognate words from the δικ- root (τὸ δίκαιον [4×]; δίκαιος [4×]; δικαιοῦν [1×]). Less common renderings include ἐλεημοσύνη “alms, charity” (occurring three times: Isa 1.27; 28.17; 59.16), κρίσις “justice, judgement” (Isa 11.4; 51.7), ἔλεος “mercy, compassion” (Isa 56.1) and εὐφροσύνη “joy” (Isa 61.10). Plausible explanations have been suggested for the renderings of κρίσις and εὐφροσύνη.2 However, there is still no consensus among scholars with regard to ἐλεημοσύνη and ἔλεος. Some have suggested that the meanings of ἐλεημοσύνη and ἔλεος are inherent in the Hebrew meaning of ‫צדקה‬, and others have wondered whether the 1.  ‫ צדקה‬is rendered by ἐλεημοσύνη (and ἔλεος) elsewhere in Deut 6.25; 24.13; Ezek 18.19, 21 [ἔλεος]; Ps 24(23).5; 33(32).5; 103(102).6; and Dan 4.24(27). 2.  Κρίσις falls within the semantic range of ּBH ‫צדקה‬, but see John W. Olley, “Righteousness” in the Septuagint of Isaiah: A Contextual Study, Septuagint and Cognate Studies 8 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979), 95–101, for an insightful analysis as to why the LXX translators render ‫ צדקה‬by κρίσις in Isa 11.4 and 51.7. Ziegler, Untersuchungen, 171, thinks that the rendering χιτῶνα εὐφροσύνης “ist wohl beeinflußt durch das vorausgehende εὐφροσύνῃ εὐφρανθήσονται.”

36

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

semantic development of ‫ צדקה‬may have influenced the LXX translation. Still others mention the unusual rendering, but offer no suggestion as to why the translators translated it as they did. The present study will examine the lexical evidence in order to determine the semantic range and trajectory of ‫ צדקה‬in BH and PBH, and then I shall consider why the translator may have rendered ‫ צדקה‬by ἐλεημοσύνη and ἔλεος in LXX Isa. 2. ‫ צדקה‬in BH 2.1. The Meaning of ‫ צדק‬and ‫ צדקה‬in BH The basic meaning of the root ‫ צדק‬has to do with a “standard” or “rightness,” a meaning attested within the Northwest Semitic language group3 and confirmed in recent studies on the ‫ צדק‬word-group.4 In BH, 3.  In Akkadian, the root ṣdq occurs once (as an adjective) in the Amarna Letters: amur šarru bēlija ṣa-du-uq ana jâši aššum LÚ. MEŠ. GN. “See, my lord, I [AbdiHepa, prince of Jerusalem] am right about the people of GN” (CAD 16:59; EA 287, 32). In the Ugaritic literature, ṣdq occurs several times, the most significant attestation being KTU 14 I 12, where aṯt ṣdqh refers to the king’s “lawful” or “legitimate” wife (in parallel with yšr “rightful”). Phoenician inscriptions also provide examples with the sense of “legitimate” or “rightful” (e.g. TSSI 3:18 or KAI No. 4. 6–7; TSSI 3:95 or KAI No. 10. 9). Numerous Aramaic attestations of ṣdq, ranging from the tenth century to sixth century BCE, are also attested. Of particular interest is KAI 2:227, ‫ובצדקה פא‬ ‫“ אחז בכנף מראה מלך אשור‬On the basis of his legitimacy he seized the skirt of his lord, the king of Assyria,” where ‫ צדקה‬probably refers to legitimate succession or lineage. 4.  See David Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967); Bo Johnson, “Der Bedeutungsunterschied zwischen ṢÄDÄQ und ṢEDAQA,” ASTI 11 (Festschrift Gillis Gerleman, ed. Sten Hidal) (1978): 31–39; John J. Scullion, “ṣedeqṣedāqah in Isaiah cc. 40–66 with Special Reference to the Continuity in Meaning Between Second and Third Isaiah,” UF 3 (1971): 335–48; Ahuva Ho, Ṣedeq and Ṣedaqah in the Hebrew Bible (American Universities Studies, Series VII, Theology and Religion 78 New York: Peter Lang, 1991); Mark A. Seifrid, “Righteous­ness Language in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early Judaism,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism, Volume II: The Paradoxes of Paul, ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien and Mark A. Seifrid, WUNT 2/181 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004); and especially Hans H. Schmid, Gerechtigkeit als Weltordnung: Hintergrund und Geschichte des alttestamentlichen Gerechtigkeitsbegriffes, Beiträge zur Hist. Theol. 40 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1968). Schmid’s methodical study, which is based on etymology and usage within the Bible and other theological traditions, is convincing on many levels, but his assertion that the concept of Weltordnung is behind all occurrences of ‫צדק‬ words is too ambitious.



Section 2. Chapter 1. ‫ הקדצ‬

37

most scholars agree that there are three sub-groups of this basic meaning: ethical, forensic, and religious. Ethical meanings include “right” or “honest” conduct and general senses of ethical uprightness, and these are often juxtaposed with “wickedness” or “evil” (e.g. Gen 30.33; 1 Sam 26.23; Isa 58.2; 59.14; Ezek 14.14); forensic meanings include broader senses of legal activity, but are primarily limited to “justice,” both of humans (especially kings and judges) and of God (e.g. 2 Sam 8.15; 1 Kgs 10.9; Isa 63.1; Mic 7.9); and religious meanings include “righteousness” in terms of covenantal demands, God’s holy “righteousness,” and God’s “saving act” (e.g. Gen 15.6; Isa 5.16; 61.10; 63.1). 2.2. Distinguishing between ‫ צדק‬and ‫ צדקה‬in BH Identifying distinct semantic categories with a common and theologically loaded word such as ‫צדקה‬/‫ צדק‬is admittedly a difficult task, especially when we consider the fact that the various ‫ צדק‬terms display a high degree of overlap. Fahlgren has argued, for example, that the nominal forms ‫ צדק‬and ‫ צדקה‬are used interchangeably (compare 2 Sam 22.21, 25 with Ps 18[17].21, 25), and, even if it is conceded that ‫ צדק‬and ‫ צדקה‬have different meanings, it is impossible to apply this consistently to the two words.5 This has led many scholars to conclude that the difference between ‫ צדק‬and ‫ צדקה‬in the Old Testament is negligible. For example, following Kautzsch6 and Fahlgren,7 Snaith concluded: “There is no difference in meaning. The choice is independent of date, and is a matter of style or caprice.”8 Similarly, Achtemeier laconically, and without qualification, stated that there is “no significant difference in the employment of the masculine and feminine nouns.”9 Watson also cautions against semantic differentiation on the basis of gender. With the forms ‫ צדק‬and ‫ צדקה‬in mind, he notes that different genders are employed for 5.  K. H. Fahlgren, Ṣedākā nahestehende und entgegengesetzte Begriffe im Alten Testament (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1932). Against this view, see Alfred Jepsen, “ṣdq und ṣdqh im Alten Testament,” in Gottes Wort und Gottes Land: Hans-Wilhelm Hertzberg zum 70. Geburtstag am 16. Januar 1965 dargebracht von Kollegen, Freunden und Schülern (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965), 79, who argues that Psalms, Qoheleth and Proverbs are later texts, where, semantically, ‫ צדק‬takes over certain functions of ‫צדקה‬. 6.  Edwin Kautzsch, Über die Derivate des Stammes ‫ צדק‬im alttestamentlichen Sprachgebrauch (Tübingen: L. F. Fues, 1881). 7.  Fahlgren, Ṣedākā nahestehende, 67. 8.  Norman H. Snaith, The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament, FernleyHartley Lecture, 1944 (London: Epworth, 1944), 72. 9.  Elizabeth P. Achtemeier, “Righteousness in the OT,” IDB 4:80.

38

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

“poetic convention,” and not because of semantic distinctions.10 Scullion, convinced by Watson and Fahlgren, ultimately takes this position too.11 Recently, however, this view has been challenged and light has been shed on some of the distinctive features of ‫ צדק‬and ‫צדקה‬. The most compelling case is made by Jepsen, who makes the following observations. First, he points out that the masculine form ‫ צדק‬often takes on the meaning Richtigkeit (“accuracy, correctness”), particularly in association with weights and measures, while the feminine form ‫צדקה‬ never takes on such a meaning.12 Secondly, the noun ‫ צדק‬occurs with the verb ‫שפט‬,13 but ‫ צדקה‬is never attested with ‫שפט‬. Moreover, though Jepsen does not mention it, ‫ צדקה‬occurs in a hendiadys with ‫ משפט‬27 times (mostly in the Prophets [18×]). This further supports Jepsen’s contention that ‫ צדק‬and ‫ צדקה‬may have functioned differently in BH. Thirdly, the frequent connection of ‫ צדקה‬with the verb ‫ עשה‬and, by contrast, the fact that ‫ צדק‬and ‫ עשה‬occur together only once (Isa 64.4), leads him to conclude that ‫ צדקה‬was an action rather than a state, and something that was “done.”14 Johnson and Seifrid further develop Jepsen’s argument. Johnson’s most significant contribution is a grammatical observation, namely, that feminine nouns tend to make concrete the more general meanings of the corresponding masculine nouns.15 One of his many examples is ‫“ יִ ְת ָרה‬that which is laid up” (Isa 15.7; Jer 48.36), which he suggests is the concretisation of the more general and abstract noun ‫יֶתר‬ ֶ “rest, remainder.” This, he concludes, supports the view that ‫ צדק‬is the general term and ‫צדקה‬ 10.  Wilfred G. E. Watson, “Gender-Matched Synonymous Parallelism in the OT,” JBL 99 (1980): 321–41 (335). 11.  J. J. Scullion, “Righteousness,” ABD 5:724–36. 12.  The masculine ‫ צדק‬takes on this meaning with the characterising genitive (also known as the attributive genitive or genitive of quality). Cf. GKC §128p; JM §129f; IBHS §9.5.3. 13.  Lev 19.15; Deut 1.16; Isa 11.4; Jer 11.20; Ps 9.5; Prov 8.16; 31.9. ‫ ֶצ ֶדק‬functions as the accusative of manner in all seven occurrences. 14.  “‫ צדקה‬muß also etwas sein, was „getan‟ wird…‫ צדקה‬in sehr viel stärkerem Maße der Ton auf dem Handeln und Tun, nicht auf einem Zustand” (Jepsen, “ṣdq und ṣdqh im Alten Testament,” 79–80). ‫ עשה‬occurs a second time with the hendiadys ‫ משפט וצדק‬in Ps 119.121. See also G. Quell, “The Concept of Law in the OT,” TDNT 2:175 n. 2, for another grammatical distinction. Though Quell was not convinced of a semantic distinction between the masculine and feminine forms, he postulates that ‫ צדק‬is “favoured as a gen. epexegeticus in the sense of ‫ ”צדיק‬because it is shorter than ‫צדקה‬. 15.  Johnson, “Der Bedeutungsunterschied,” 33. Other examples include ‫ַא ְמ ָצה‬ and ‫א ֶֹמץ‬.



Section 2. Chapter 1. ‫ הקדצ‬

39

is the concretisation of it.16 Seifrid develops a syntactical observation made by Jepsen, namely that the two forms are collocated differently. For example, following Jepsen’s observation that ‫ צדק‬immediately follows the verb ‫שפט‬, Seifrid notes that ‫ עשה צדקה‬occurs 24 times, while ‫עשה‬ ‫ צדק‬occurs only twice (arguably once, as ‫ עשה‬occurs with the hendiadys ‫ משפט וצדק‬in Ps 119.112).17 Adding to this discussion is the work of Bendor. In his study of the social structure of ancient Israel (specifically the ‫ בית אב‬and ‫)משפחה‬, while acknowledging the common meaning of ‫“ צדקה‬righteousness,” he concludes that ‫ צדקה‬signifies a concrete “right.” On the basis of texts such as Gen 15.6 and Ps 106.30–31, he argues that “practically, [‫]צדקה‬ is a concrete embodiment of ‫( צדק‬rightness, straightness),”18 and he even intimates that it can refer, in the case of Ps 69.28–29, to inheritance itself (‫)נחלה‬.19 In the light of recent scholarship, Seifrid’s lucid summary is perhaps the best starting point for establishing the meaning of ‫ צדק‬and ‫צדקה‬: “The feminine tends to refer to a concrete thing such as a righteous act or vindicating judgment. The masculine usually signifies the more abstract concept of ‘right order’, or ‘that which is morally right’.”20 In addition to the abstract/concrete differentiation, Jepsen’s point—that ‫צדקה‬ often refers to something that is done, i.e., “right behaviour” or “right conduct”—must also be kept in mind when determining the exact nuance of ‫ צדק‬root-words.21 In sum, it is probably best to recognise ‫ צדק‬and ‫ צדקה‬as semantically independent, and, accordingly, I shall primarily consider the feminine form, the only form that is rendered ἐλεημοσύνη or ἔλεος by the Greek translators. 2.3. The Meaning of ‫ צדק‬and ‫ צדקה‬in Isaiah The nouns ‫ צדק‬and ‫ צדקה‬occur frequently in Isaiah (61×) with a variety of nuances: justice for the needy (1.31); just or righteous deeds of God (5.16); justice as action that rescues and sets something right (63.1); right behaviour within a community (56.1; 58.2); justice as God’s loyalty to a 16.  Ibid., 39. 17.  Seifrid, “Righteousness Language,” 428. 18.  S. Bendor, The Social Structure of Ancient Israel: The Institution of the Family (Beit ab) from the Settlement to the End of the Monarchy, Jerusalem Biblical Studies 7 (Jerusalem: Simor, 1996), 132. 19.  Ibid., 130–31. 20.  Seifrid, “Righteousness Language,” 428. 21.  Jepsen, “ṣdq und ṣdqh im Alten Testament,” 79–80.

40

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

community (46.12; 56.12); and the legal right or entitlement to something (54.17). When the semantic field is considered according to the major divisions of the book, some interesting patterns emerge. First, the collocation of ‫ צדק‬or ‫ צדקה‬with ‫ משפט‬occurs eleven times in Isaiah chs. 1–39, five times in chs. 56–66, but never in chs. 40–55.22 Secondly, many scholars have argued that ‫ צדקה‬has a distinct “salvific” meaning in chs. 40–55, which is not found in the other books, in part because the terms ‫ ישע‬and ‫ צדקה‬occur four times in chs. 40–55, either in parallel or in apposition to each other (Isa 45.8; 59.16; 61.10; 63.1).23 There is no space here to discuss the extensive scholarship on the distinctive meanings of ‫ צדקה‬in chs. 40–55; however, the salient contributions will be mentioned. Fahlgren understands ‫ צדק‬and ‫ צדקה‬to mean “salvation,” “victory” and Gottesdienst (“worship”) in the context of community loyalty.24 Procksch proposed that ‫ צדק‬and ‫ צדקה‬are elements in the order of morality: ‫ צדק‬is the Ordnung (order) and ‫ צדקה‬the Einordnung, which fits into the Ordnung. Thus, in chs. 40–55, ‫ צדק‬reflects the victory of YHWH’s order and ‫צדקה‬ expresses participation in the salvific order of YHWH.25 Von Rad argues that ‫ צדקה‬is fundamentally a term that denotes relationship, specifically, the covenant relationship between YHWH and his people. YHWH is “just” because he is faithful to the covenant that he established with Israel, and Israel is “just” if, and only if, she submits herself to the stipulations of the terms of the covenant.26 Scullion rejects the “covenant” framework and thinks that the “salvific” sense that is common in chs. 40–55 (which, he argues, is also prevalent in chs. 56–66) can include nuances of “wellbeing” and “prosperity,” conditions that accompany God’s saving act.27 On the basis of ancient Near Eeastern parallels, Whitley attempted to demonstrate that ‫ צדקה‬had many meanings and could be understood 22.  Ibid., 79–80; Rolf Rendtorff, “Zur Komposition des buches Jesaja,” VT 34 (1984): 295–320; Christopher James Thomson, “The ṣdq Word Group in the Book of Isaiah” (M.Phil. diss., The University of Cambridge, 2008), 61. 23.  Outside chs. 40–55, the terms ‫ ישע‬and ‫ צדקה‬occur together only in Pss 24.5; 36.7 and 71.2. 24.  Fahlgren, Ṣedākā nahestehende, 103. 25.  Otto Procksch, Theologie des Alten Testaments (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1950), 568–77. Also Jepsen, “ṣdq und ṣdqh im Alten Testament,” who says “es geht vielmehr konkret um ein auf die rechte Ordnung der Gemeinschaft und insofern auf ihr Heil gerichtetes Handeln” (p. 81). 26.  Gerhard von Rad, “ ‘Gerechtigkeit’ und ‘Leben’ in den Psalmen,” in Festschrift A. Bertholet (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1950), 423. 27.  Scullion, “ṣedeq-ṣedāqah in Isaiah cc. 40–66,” 348.



Section 2. Chapter 1. ‫ הקדצ‬

41

“functionally,” and that, therefore, highly theological nuances such as “divine rule,” “divine influence” or “divine power” must be considered.28 Rendtorff examined occurrences of the ‫ צדק‬word group in Isaiah to illustrate the composition of the various sections of the book. In chs. 1–39 he argues that ‫ צדקה‬emphasises human behaviour because of its close link with ‫משפט‬, but in chs. 40–55 it refers to God’s actions on behalf of his people, primarily because of its association with terms such as ‫ שלום‬and ‫ישע‬.29 2.4. Conclusion Despite the considerable amount of research on this subject, there is still no consensus on the precise meaning of ‫ צדק‬and ‫ צדקה‬in Isaiah. Jepsen’s sentiments best summarise the quandary in which scholarship finds itself: In allen neueren Darstellungen und Untersuchungen besteht wohl Einmütigkeit darüber, daß „Gerechtigkeit“ keine angemessene Übersetzung für die Nomina ‫ צדק‬und ‫ צדקה‬darstellt, aber wohl auch darüber, daß es schwer ist, eine bessere Übersetzung zu finden.30

However, as recent studies have demonstrated, it is possible to establish nuances beyond Gerechtigkeit, especially in chs. 40–55. Instead of limiting the meaning of ‫ צדק‬and ‫ צדקה‬in chs. 40–55 to “justice” or “righteousness,” it is probably best, when referring to human ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬, to understand ‫ צדק‬as “right order” and ‫ צדקה‬as “right behaviour,” while allowing for various nuances on the basis of context. When speaking of God’s ‫צדקה‬, especially in chs. 40–55 and Psalms, a salvific sense is generally intended.31 3. ‫ צדקה‬in PBH and Aramaic Analysing the meaning of ‫ צדקה‬in the early Jewish sources is an exceedingly difficult task. Not only must one navigate through the linguistic differences in later Hebrew and in the Aramaic dialects, but one must also 28.  C. F. Whitley, “Deutero-Isaiah’s Interpretation of Ṣedeq,” VT 22 (1972): 469–75 (especially 471). 29.  Rolf Rendtorff, Canon and Theology: Overtures to an Old Testament Theology (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994), 181–89. 30.  Jepsen, “ṣdq und ṣdqh im Alten Testament,” 78. 31.  See Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer, Gerechtigkeit als Heil: ‫ צדק‬bei Deuterojesaja: Aussage und Vergleich mit der alttestamentlichen Tradition (Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1976), for a helpful componential analysis of ‫ צדקה‬in Isa 40–55.

42

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

examine Greek occurrences of “righteousness” terminology, and Greek words that reflect ‫צדקה‬, where there may be a Hebrew source text (e.g. Tobit and Sirach). Furthermore, the Jewish writings of this period are diverse, ranging from the legal documents of Elephantine to the highly theological writings of Qumran and on to the Mishnah, which makes it difficult to categorise neatly the various meanings and nuances of ‫ צדקה‬in PBH. The challenges notwithstanding, when the evidence from BH, early Jewish writings and later Mishnaic writings is considered diachronically, a distinctive semantic trajectory emerges, one which may shed light on the LXX translators’ rendering of ‫ צדקה‬by ἐλεημοσύνη and ἔλεος. As we have seen, the BH understanding of ‫ צדקה‬primarily means “justice” or “righteousness,” though it is often subcategorised into different aspects: forensic, judicial, salvific and ethical.32 I shall first consider the evidence from the early Jewish literature (Qumran texts and Hebrew apocryphal books) and then the Mishnaic texts in order to determine (1) the extent to which ‫ צדקה‬develops semantically in the PBH literature, and (2) whether or not the semantic development of ‫ צדקה‬in PBH may have influenced the LXX translators’ understanding of it. 3.1. Qumran The concept of “righteousness” continues to play a prominent role in early Jewish literature, especially in the Qumran texts. The masculine form ‫צדק‬ occurs 276 times and the feminine form ‫ צדקה‬92 times in the non-biblical Qumran texts.33 As one might suspect, some of the BH meanings are 32.  As noted above, many scholars who have looked at the occurrences of ‫צדקה‬ in Isa 40–55 and Psalms argue for a more general meaning such as “right order” or “right conduct” where humans are concerned, and a more “salvific” meaning when God’s ‫ צדקה‬is in view. 33.  In contrast with the situation in BH, a clear distinction—whether semantic or grammatical—between the masculine and feminine forms is more difficult to discern in the Qumran texts. Przybylski challenged this notion by arguing that ‫צדקה‬ generally refers to “God’s saving, gracious activity” and ‫ צדק‬to the “norm for human conduct.” B. Przybylski, Righteousness in Matthew and His World of Thought, SNTSMS 41 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 26. Though he acknowledges that these designations can be reversed, Przybylski thinks the overlap in meaning between ‫( צדק‬the norm for human conduct) and ‫( צדקה‬God’s saving, gracious activity) is owing to the incorporation of various sources, especially in 1QS, which is more Hymnic, and is, ostensibly, more reliant on other sources. This explanation, however, undermines his own argument, as he is essentially admitting that other sources used ‫ צדק‬and ‫ צדקה‬interchangeably. The evidence does not support his claim, especially with regard to ‫צדקה‬. Of the 70 occurrences of ‫ צדקה‬in the nonbiblical Qumran texts where the context and meaning are clear enough for analysis,



Section 2. Chapter 1. ‫ הקדצ‬

43

attested in Qumran, but there are also significant semantic developments that may clarify how ‫ צדקה‬functioned and was understood in the period of the Qumran literature. First, there is a gradual narrowing in the semantic range, from the broader BH range to a more limited range in the Qumran texts, comprising primarily salvific34 and ethical senses.35 This is owing in large measure to the declining use of the legal and judicial senses of ‫צדקה‬.36 Cronbach confirms this pattern when he persuasively argues that “righteousness” in early Jewish literature refers to all forms of approved conduct, by demonstrating that ‫ צדק‬and ‫ צדקה‬mostly signify qualities that constitute righteousness (e.g. “mercy,” “benevolence,” “compassion” for the poor and weak, “kindness,” “equity,” “almsgiving,” and “charity”).37 Additional ‫ צדקה‬occurs 92 times in the Qumran texts, but at least 11 occurrences are too fragmentary for lexical analysis, and an additional 7 are direct biblical citations, which reflect BH meanings and will thus be set aside. The ‫ צדקה‬of God is referred to approximately 40 times and human ‫ צדקה‬almost 30 times. That God’s ‫ צדקה‬is referred to slightly more than human ‫צדקה‬, however, may simply be the result of the heavily theological nature of the Qumran texts, especially 1QS, 1QH, 1QpHab and CD, where many of the occurrences of ‫ צדקה‬are found. 34.  The “salvific” sense, which is uncommon in BH and occurs only in Isa 40–66 (45.8; 59.16; 61.10; 63.1) and Psalms (24.5; 36.7 and 71.2), is attested more widely in Qumran. A typical example of the “salvific” meaning in Qumran is CD 20.18–20: ‫ויקשב אל אל דבריהם וישמע ויכתב ספר זכרון [לפניו] ליראי אל ולחושבי שמו עד יגלה ישע‬ ‫“ וצדקה ליראי אל‬And God shall listen to their words, ‘and he will hear and a recordbook will be written on behalf of those who fear God and honour his name’ (Mal 3.16), until salvation and righteousness are revealed to the God fearing.” The context makes it clear that a forthcoming salvation is the subject, and the apposition of ‫צדקה‬ with ‫ ישע‬confirms the “salvific” meaning of ‫ צדקה‬in this passage. See also 1QS 11.3; 1QHa 16.3; 19.34; 4Q258 31.2; 4Q428 10.9. 35.  When “forensic” or “judicial” senses do occur, the meanings often overlap with other meanings or are very general nuances. Seifrid, “Righteousness Language,” 431, highlights 1QS 10.11 as an example where “the boundary between the [ethical and forensic usages] seems indistinct.” 36.  Interestingly, J. A. Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Inquiry, SNTSMS 20 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), points out that the verb δικαιόω almost always signifies a legal or forensic sense, while the noun δικαιοσύνη almost always takes on an ethical sense in the Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphical writings. Though this is an observation on the Greek language, they are Jewish texts nonetheless, and it may shed light on how the concept of “righteousness” was understood at that time. 37.  Abraham Cronbach, “Righteousness in Jewish Literature, 200 B.C.–A.D. 100,” IBD 4:85–91 (especially 85).

44

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

evidence of this change is seen with the verb ‫( צדק‬in the Qal), which generally has “forensic” senses in BH, but is used primarily for “ethical” nuances in Qumran. Secondly, when human ‫ צדקה‬is mentioned in Qumran, it is almost always something to be “done,” often occurring in apposition to ‫ עשה‬or ‫מעשה‬. The notion of doing ‫ צדקה‬is, of course, attested in the HB, but the context is YHWH’s acts of ‫ צדקה‬for his people38 or a description of the righteous rule of the king.39 In Qumran, doing ‫ צדקה‬is often listed as part of a series of terms that specifies what “right conduct” meant for the Qumran community. Below are a few examples which illustrate this:40 1QS 1.5

‫ולדבוק בכול מעשי טוב ולעשות אמת וצדקה ומשפט‬ And to hold fast to all good deeds; to practise truth, righteousness and justice. 1QS 5.3–4 ‫לעשות אמת יחד וענוה צדקה ומשפט ואהבת חסד והצנע לכת בכול דרכיהם‬ [The ‫ ]יחד‬are to practise truth together with humility, righteousness and justice and loving-kindness, and modest behaviour in all their ways. 4Q256 f9.3–4 ‫ולהיות יחד בתורה ובהון ומשיבים על פי הרבים לכול דבר לתורה ולהון ולעשות ענוה‬ ‫וצדקה ומשפט ואהבת חסד והצנע לכת בכול דרכיהמה‬ [God has commanded] to be a community in Torah and possessions and answer according to the opinion of the Many concerning all matters relating to Torah and possessions and the practice of humility, righteousness, justice and loving-kindness and modest behaviour in all their ways.

In 1QS 1.5, ‫צדקה‬, with ‫ אמת‬and ‫משפט‬, is part of a series which describes ‫“ מעשי טוב‬good deeds.” It is tempting to read ‫ לעשות אמת‬simplistically as “practising truth” or “acting faithfully,” but, as Leaney suggests, 38.  E.g., 1 Sam 12.7; Jer 9.24. 39.  E.g., 2 Sam 8.15; 1 Kgs 10.9; Jer 22.15. 40.  Jepsen’s observation—that ‫ צדק‬signifies abstract concepts and ‫ צדקה‬signifies more concrete examples in BH—may, in part, explain why ‫ צדקה‬was used in this way, as the evidence in Qumran appears to support this. The masculine form, particularly with regard to humans, generally refers to ethical behaviour, while ‫צדקה‬ mostly occurs when illustrating what right conduct actually looks like. B. Przybylski, Righteousness in Matthew and His World of Thought, SNTSMS 41 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 24, notes that the passages where ‫ צדק‬is referred to in the Qumran texts “are very vague in indicating the meaning of tsedeq.”



Section 2. Chapter 1. ‫ הקדצ‬

45

the phrase ‫“ לעשות אמת‬carries with it the further meanings of dealing sincerely with one’s neighbour,” and is probably an expression for actions in accordance with “true Torah.”41 Thus, in 1QpHab 7.10 members of the Qumran community are appropriately called ‫אנשי האמת‬. 1QpHab 7.10–12 ‫פשרו על אנשי האמת עושי התורה אשר לוא ירפו ידיהם מעבודת האמת‬ Its interpretation concerns the men of truth, those who obey the law and whose hands do not cease from practice of the truth.

The description of men of truth as “those whose hands do not cease from practice” suggests that ‫ אמת‬was used as a title for those who exemplified Torah. In this case, ‫ אמת‬represents practical obedience to the law. Accordingly, in the light of the larger context, the occurrences of ‫ צדקה‬in 1QS 5.3 and 4Q256 f9.3 are concerned with actions appropriate to “men of truth”; these are not specifically charitable acts, though the thought may not be absent from the usage. 3.2. Ben Sira ‫ צדקה‬occurs 11 times in the various Hebrew fragments of Ben Sira, two of them in less reliable manuscripts and therefore discounted here.42 The meaning of ‫ צדקה‬in Ben Sira is “charity” or “almsgiving” in all but two of its occurrences: in Sir 3.14, “kindness” is probably the nuance, and in 44.10 (and possibly 12.3) “righteousness” appears to be the intended meaning. Below are examples of ‫ צדקה‬meaning “charity,” together with the Greek translation: Sir 7.10

‫אל תתקצר בתפלה ובצדקה אל תתעבר‬ Do not shorten prayers, and do not forgo charity. μὴ ὀλιγοψυχήσῃς ἐν τῇ προσευχῇ σου καὶ ἐλεημοσύνην ποιῆσαι μὴ παρίδῃς Do not be fainthearted in your prayer, and do forget to practise charity.

41.  A. R. C. Leaney, The Rule of Qumran and Its Meaning: Introduction, Translation and Commentary, New Testament Library (London: SCM, 1966), 119. 42.  ‫ צדקה‬occurs in Sir 44.13 in the less reliable ms B, where the corresponding Greek and preferred Hebrew texts (e.g. Masada Scroll) have δόξα and ‫כבוד‬, respectively, and also in Sir 51.30 (ms B), where ‫ צדקה‬appears to be represented by καιρός. Consequently, both occurrences will be excluded.

46

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew Sir 16.14

‫כל העושה צדקה יש לו שכר וכל אדם כמעשיו יצא לפניו‬ Everyone who practises charity has his wage and every person goes out before him according to his works. πάσῃ ἐλεημοσύνῃ ποιήσει τόπον ἕκαστος κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ εὑρήσει For every [act of] charity, he will make a place; each will get according to his deeds.

The use of verbs such as ‫ עבר‬and ‫ עשה‬in these passages suggests that “charity” or “almsgiving” is the intended meaning. The Greek also employs the verb ποιέω, which indicates that ἐλεημοσύνη is something that is to be done and not neglected. The context of the Hebrew also favours the meaning “charity” or “almsgiving.” Sirach 7.1–17 is a collection of ethical maxims that are focused on specific behaviour towards God and humans, and “charity” is one of the main attributes of exemplary behaviour in early Judaism. In Sir 16.14, ‫( כמעשיו‬κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ) in the second colon of the parallelism clarifies the meaning of ‫ צדקה‬as “charity.” Another example is Sir 12.3: Sir 12.3

‫אין טובה למנוח רשע וגם צדקה לא עשה‬ There is no good for the one who comforts the wicked, or who does not practise charity.43 οὐκ ἔσται ἀγαθὰ τῷ ἐνδελεχίζοντι εἰς κακὰ καὶ τῷ ἐλεημοσύνην μὴ χαριζομένῳ There will be no good for him who continues in evil, and for him who does not graciously give alms.

The context of Sir 12.1–6 is charity for the righteous and, conversely, the withholding of good deeds from those who are evil.44 Sirach 12.1 begins with the exhortation ‫“ אם טוב תדיע למי תטיב‬If you do good, know to whom you are doing it”; v. 2 specifies for whom charity is to be practised, ‫היטב‬ ‫“ לצדיק ומצא תשלומת‬Do good to the righteous (‫ )צדיק‬and you will find a reward”; v. 4 continues, ‫“ תן לטוב ומנע מרע‬Give to the one who is good and withhold from the evil one”; and v. 5, which parallels v. 4, repeats the exhortation, ‫“ הקיר מך ואל תתן לזד‬Refresh the poor, but do not give

43.  Patrick W. Skehan, The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes, AB 39 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987), 242, translates ‫“ וגם צדקה לא עשה‬nor is it an act of mercy that he does.” 44.  The Hebrew of Sir 12.1–6 is attested only in ms A.



Section 2. Chapter 1. ‫ הקדצ‬

47

to the proud.” Following on the occurrence of ‫( צדקה‬v. 2) in the sense of “rightness,” it appears that ‫ צדקה‬used in conjunction with ‫ עשה‬in v. 3 represents a different nuance of the root. Also, the occurrence of the verb ‫ עשה‬in v. 3, coupled with the use of ‫“ צדיק‬righteous” in v. 2, suggests that the author had in mind different meanings for the two words. The context of Sir 12 and the Greek translation support the reading “or who does not practise charity.” The rendering of ‫ עשה‬by the substantival participle τῷ χαριζομένῳ is strange, since this is the only time χαρίζομαι is associated with ἐλεημοσύνη in early Jewish literature.45 When a verb is employed to convey the sense of “doing” or “giving” charity or alms, ποιέω is always the verb that is collocated with ἐλεημοσύνη. It is possible that the adjustments in the Greek translation are a reflection of the translator’s conviction that ‫צדקה‬ meant “charity.” At the very least, the use of the verb χαρίζομαι indicates that the translator understood ‫ צדקה‬as an act to be performed. To summarise: in the extant Hebrew texts of Ben Sira, ‫ צדקה‬mostly means “charity,” though less concrete meanings, such as “kindness” and “righteousness,” can be argued for in a few cases. The Greek translations, however, understand ‫ צדקה‬almost exclusively as “charity” or “almsgiving.” 3.3. Tobit ‫ צדקה‬occurs five times in the extant Hebrew and Aramaic fragments of Tobit uncovered at Qumran (4Q196 f.10.1; 4Q198 f.1.1; 4Q200 f.2.6, 8, 9) and means “almsgiving” in every instance. This is not surprising given that the theme of almsgiving plays a large part in the book of Tobit. Ἐλεημοσύνη occurs more frequently in Tobit than in any other book in the LXX (20 times in G1 [Vaticanus] and 13 times in G2 [Sinaiticus]) and, though the Qumran fragments witness only a small portion of the book of Tobit, the later Hebrew and Aramaic texts of Tobit have ‫ צדקה‬for almost every occurrence of ἐλεημοσύνη in the Greek manuscripts.46 The most helpful occurrence of ‫ צדקה‬in the Qumran fragments of Tobit for semantic purposes is 4Q200:

45.  χαρίζομαι occurs once in the LXX (Esth 8.7) and reflects the Hebrew verb ‫נתן‬. 46.  For medieval manuscripts in Hebrew and Aramaic, see Stuart Weeks, Simon Gathercole, and Loren Stuckenbruck, eds., The Book of Tobit: Texts from the Principal Ancient and Medieval Traditions, with Synopsis, Concordances, and Annotated Texts in Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Syriac, FoSub 3 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004).

48

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew 4Q200 f.2.5–9 ] ‫כי בעשות ה[אמת מצלחת יה]יה עמך … […ו]כארך ידכה בני היה[ עושה בחסד‬ ‫צדקות ואל תס[תר פניכה מן כול ע]נו אף ממכה לוא יס[תרו פני אלהי]ם אם יהיה‬ ]‫לכה בנ[י רוב כרוב היה‬ ]‫[עוש]ה ממנו צד[קו]ת […] אם יהיה לך מעט כמעט[ היה עושה ממנו צדקות בעש‬ ]…[ ‫ותך צדקה שימה טובה‬ For by acting [truthfully success will b]e with you. … […] According to the size of your hands, my son, be [generous in doing] just deeds (alms), and do not wit[hdraw your face from any po]or person, so that from you the [face of God does] not with[draw.] If, [my] son, you have [much, according to the abundance do] just deeds with it. […] If you have little, according to the lit[tle do just deeds with it. By] your [do]ing just deeds, a [good] store […]47 Tob 4.6–8 διότι ποιοῦντός σου τὴν ἀλήθειαν εὐοδίαι ἔσονται ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις σου καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς ποιοῦσι τὴν δικαιοσύνην ἐκ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων σοι ποίει ἐλεημοσύνην καὶ μὴ φθονεσάτω σου ὁ ὀφθαλμὸς ἐν τῷ ποιεῖν σε ἐλεημοσύνην μὴ ἀποστρέψῃς τὸ πρόσωπόν σου ἀπὸ παντὸς πτωχοῦ καὶ ἀπὸ σοῦ οὐ μὴ ἀποστραφῇ τὸ πρόσωπον τοῦ θεοῦ. ὡς σοὶ ὑπάρχει κατὰ τὸ πλῆθος ποίησον ἐξ αὐτῶν ἐλεημοσύνην ἐὰν ὀλίγο(ν) σοι ὑπάρχῃ κατὰ τὸ ὀλίγον μὴ φοβοῦ ποιεῖ(ν) ἐλεημοσύνην. For if you do the truth, there will be successes in your deeds. And to all who do righteousness give alms from your possessions, and do not let your eye be envious when you give alms. Do not turn your face away from any poor person. Then God’s face will not be turned away from you. According to what you have, give alms from it in proportion to your abundance. If you have little, do not be afraid to give alms according to the little.

‫ צדקה‬occurs three times in this text (probably four, if not for the lacuna in f.2.6), and the context makes plain the meaning “almsgiving” in each case. The Greek has ἐλεημοσύνη for the Hebrew ‫ צדקה‬in the three instances where it is legible.48 More importantly, the context makes clear the meaning of ‫צדקה‬: the admonition not to turn away from the poor and the instruction that ‫ צדקה‬should be given in proportion to one’s abundance (that which is ‫ )כארך ידכה‬confirm that “almsgiving” is the correct meaning here.

47.  Reconstruction of Hebrew text and English translation by Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 1:397. 48.  I have chosen G1, Codex Vaticanus gr. 1209 (B), for the simple fact that G2, Codex Sinaiticus, is lacking Tob 4.7–18. The extant portions of G2 also render ‫צדקה‬ by ἐλεημοσύνη in Tob 4.6–7a.



Section 2. Chapter 1. ‫ הקדצ‬

49

There are two instances of ‫ צדקה‬in the Aramaic fragments of Tobit, both of which also mean “almsgiving.” 4Q196 f10.1 reflects Tob 4.7 and is virtually identical to 4Q200 f.2.6, and 4Q198 f.1.1 is an Aramaic fragment of Tob 14.2. 4Q198 f.1.1

‫צדקה והוסף למדחל לאלהא ולה[ודיה רבותה‬ [And he gave] alms and he continued to fear God and to ac[knowledge his greatness. Tob 14.2 καὶ ἐποίει ἐλεημοσύνας καὶ προσέθετο φοβεῖσθαι κύριον τὸν θεὸν καὶ ἐξομολογεῖσθαι αὐτῷ And he gave alms and he continued to fear the Lord God and to acknowledge him.

In sum, it is apparent that ‫ צדקה‬meant “almsgiving” or “charity” in the Hebrew and Aramaic fragments of Tobit. This is confirmed by the Greek renderings of it by ἐλεημοσύνη. 3.4. Rabbinic Literature According to Przybylski, ‫ צדקה‬occurs 80 times in the Tannaitic literature (Mishnah, Tosefta, Jerusalem Talmud, Babylonian Talmud and minor tractates) and halakhic midrashim, 27 of these occurring within biblical quotations.49 Of the remaining 50 or so occurrences,50 almost all refer to various aspects of “charity” and “benevolence” or to the specific act of “almsgiving.” Examples, as in the technical term ‫“ גבאי צדקה‬collectors of charity,”51 are often monetary in nature: b. B. Qam. 10.1

‫ואין נוטלין מהן צדקה אבל נוטל הוא מתוך ביתו או מן השוק‬ And they do not take from them contributions to charity. But one may take [from them contributions for charity when the funds] are from [the collector’s] own home or from the marketplace.

49.  Przybylski, Righteousness in Matthew, 66. 50.  Six times in Mishnah; 36 times in Tosefta; eight times in Sifre Deut.; once each in Sifre Numbers, Sifra and Mekilta. 51.  This term occurs frequently in rabbinic literature: Demai 3.1; Qidd. 4.5; t. Peah 4.15; t. Demai 3.21; t. B. Qam. 10.9; 11.3; b. Šabb. 16.2; b. Pesaḥ 1.4–5; 3.7–8; b. Taan. 3.1–11; b. B. Meṣia 3.6; b. B. Bat. 1.5.

50

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew y. Ketub. 6.6

‫לא מוטב שיתפרנסו משל אביהן ולא מן הצדקה‬ Is it not better that they should be supported from the property of their father, and not from charity?

A subtle, yet significant, development between early Jewish literature and rabbinic literature is the use of the verb ‫נתן‬, which further narrows the meaning of ‫ צדקה‬in MH. For example: Abot 5.13

‫ארבע מידות בנותני צדקה‬ There are four traits among people who give charity.

The use of ‫ נתן‬over ‫עשה‬, which commonly occurs in the Qumran literature, identifies this kind of “charity” or “benevolence” as something that can be given, and also eliminates the possibility of more general meanings such as “merciful act.” Seldom is God’s ‫ צדקה‬mentioned outside of biblical quotations, and, when it is, it usually refers to God’s forensic “mercy” (e.g. Gen. Rab. 33.1; b. Sanh. 105b) or his “justice” (e.g. Abot 5.18). There are a few instances where ‫ צדקה‬appears to mean “mercy,” but, as previously discussed, in such cases the giving of material or monetary benefits underlies the notion of “mercy” and, thus, “mercy” is effectively shown by acts of charity (t. Sanh. 1.4, 5; t. Peah 4.21). Also attested, though scantily, is the juridical meaning, but such occurrences are usually in reference to a biblical text (e.g. Mek. Shirata 1; Mek. Nezikin 18; Sifre Num. 106). That the predominant meaning of ‫ צדקה‬in MH is “charity” or “alms­ giving” is reinforced by texts which clarify this meaning by contrasting it with similar terms. In t. Peah 4.19, for example, ‫ צדקה‬and ‫גמילות חסדים‬ are differentiated: ‫צדקה וגמילת חסדים שקולין כנגד כל מצות שבתורה אלא שהצדקה בחיים וגמ"ח‬ ‫בחיים ובמתים צדקה בעניים גמילות חסדים בעניים ובעשירים‬ Charity and righteous deeds outweigh all other commandments in the Torah. Nevertheless, charity [can be given only to the] living, but righteous deeds [can be performed for the] living and the dead. Charity [is given only] to the poor people, but righteous deeds [are done for both] poor and rich people.52

In t. Sanh. 1.3, the contrast between ‫ משפט‬and ‫ צדקה‬is clearly highlighted: 52.  English translation by Jacob Neusner, Richard S. Sarason, and Alan J. AveryPeck, eds., The Tosefta: First Division, Zeraim, The Order of Agriculture (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1986), 73.



Section 2. Chapter 1. ‫ הקדצ‬

51

‫ויהי דוד עושה משפט וצדקה לכל עמו והלא כ"מ שיש משפט אין צדקה וכל מקום‬ ‫שיש צדקה אין משפט‬ “And David acted with judgement and charity to all his people (2 Sam 8.15).” Now is it not so that in any case in which there is judgement, there is no charity, and in any case in which there is charity, there is no judgement?

On the basis of t. Sanh. 1.3 and Gen. Rab. 49, McGrath concludes that ‫ צדקה‬and ‫ משפט‬are semantically opposed in that “the former means benevolence, as a consequence of divine intention for creation; the latter means adherence to a strict code of justice.”53 3.5. Conclusion The semantic range of ‫ צדקה‬in the non-biblical Qumran texts narrows somewhat from the broader BH range, and focuses primarily on “ethical” and “salvific” meanings. “Ethical” meanings are generally intended when human ‫ צדקה‬is spoken of, and “salvific” meanings are reserved for God’s ‫צדקה‬. The emphasis on these two meanings is partly owing to a general shift from concepts of “righteousness” and “justice” in BH to qualities and actions that constitute righteousness, such as “mercy,” “benevolence” and “compassion.” In the Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts and fragments of Ben Sira and Tobit, ‫ צדקה‬continues to shift from signifying qualities and acts of righteousness more specifically to “charity” and “almsgiving,” while in the rabbinic literature the primary meaning of ‫ צדקה‬is “charity” and “almsgiving.” When the evidence from cognate languages, BH and PBH is considered diachronically, it is apparent that the trajectory in the meaning of ‫צדקה‬ moves from the general sense of “rightness” or “normative behaviour” to qualities constituting right behaviour and, ultimately, to concrete examples of righteous behaviour such as “almsgiving” and “charity,” with a varying degree of nuances and exceptions throughout. If, with the modern consensus, we date the translation of LXX Isa to the middle of the second century BCE, the Hebrew of the LXX translator is contemporaneous with the Qumran literature, Ben Sira and Tobit, where the semantic range of ‫ צדקה‬includes some BH meanings but consists primarily of qualities that constitute right behaviour, such as “mercy” (merciful action), “benevolence,” “almsgiving” or “charity.” 53.  A. E. McGrath, “Justice and Justification: Semantic and Juristic Aspects of the Christian Doctrine of Justification,” SJT 35 (1982): 403–18 (408). It should be noted that there are occasional Aramaic occurrences of ‫צדקה‬. Cf. ‫צדקתא‬, Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, 1264a, and ‫צדקה‬/‫צדקתה‬, Sokoloff, Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, 458, but Sokoloff’s translation of Tg. Neof. Gen 18.19 is questionable.

52

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

4. The Meaning of ἐλεημοσύνη In the extant Greek texts and manuscripts of the Graeco-Roman period, ἐλεημοσύνη denotes “acts of charity” or “almsgiving,” and, when a more general sense of benevolent activity is intended, it can also refer to the emotions that invoke such action, such as “pity” or “mercy.” However, when the latter sense is indicated, it is important to note that there is almost always some kind of action that underlies the feeling of “pity” or “mercy” that is being referred to. 4.1. The Earliest Attestations of ἐλεημοσύνη An example of an action underlying the general sense of “pity” or “mercy” can be found in a hymn by Callimachus dating to the third century BCE, a text that is roughly contemporaneous with the LXX and containing the earliest attestation of ἐλεημοσύνη: Call. Del. 150–52 οἱ Κοιηὶς ἐκέκλετο σώιζεο χαίρων, σώιζεο: μὴ σύ γ᾽ ἐμεῖο πάθῃις κακὸν εἵνεκα τῆσδε ἀντ᾽ ἐλεημοσύνης, χάριτος δέ τοι ἔσσετ᾽ ἀμοιβή The one of Coeüs [Leto] called to him: “Save yourself! Farewell! Save yourself; do not suffer evil because of your benevolence; your favour will be rewarded.”

Here, ἐλεημοσύνη refers to Peneus’ assistance in helping Leto find a place to give birth to Apollo, at great risk to his own life. The subsequent line, χάριτος δέ τοι ἔσσετ᾽ ἀμοιβή, clarifies ἐλεημοσύνη as an act of benevolence that is worthy of a reward. Similarly, in P.Cair.Zen. 59495, another thirdcentury CE document, ἐλεημοσύνη refers to a “merciful act” that is shown to an Egyptian slave. Thus, in contexts where a specific act of “charity” or the act of “almsgiving” is lacking, ἐλεημοσύνη can mean “pity” or “mercy” that leads to or is accompanied by action. 4.2. Ἐλεημοσύνη in Sirach and Tobit In the Greek translations of Ben Sira and Tobit, ἐλεημοσύνη occurs 33 times and uniformly means “charity” or “alms.” This is not particularly surprising, since, as we have noted, “alms” and “almsgiving” are major themes in both books. However, it is worth pointing out that the meanings of δικαιοσύνη “righteousness” and ἐλεημοσύνη “almsgiving” are explicitly distinguished, especially in Tobit. This distinction is particularly apparent in Tob 12.8:



Section 2. Chapter 1. ‫ הקדצ‬

53

ἀγαθὸν προσευχὴ μετὰ νηστείας καὶ ἐλεημοσύνης καὶ δικαιοσύνης ἀγαθὸν τὸ ὀλίγον μετὰ δικαιοσύνης ἢ πολὺ μετὰ ἀδικίας καλὸν ποιῆσαι ἐλεημοσύνην ἢ θησαυρίσαι χρυσίον Prayer with fasting, almsgiving and righteousness is good: Better is a little with righteousness than much with injustice. It is better to give alms than to store up gold.

There are two features in this verse that distinguish δικαιοσύνη and ἐλεημοσύνη. First, according to the aphorism, προσευχή is to be practised in accordance with ἐλεημοσύνη, νηστεία and δικαιοσύνη, a list of distinct actions exemplifying Jewish piety.54 That fasting is a part of this list suggests that δικαιοσύνη and ἐλεημοσύνη were not synonymous characteristics, but distinct actions. Secondly, the subsequent explanation of the aphorism contrasts δικαιοσύνη with ἀδικία, a clear indication that δικαιοσύνη takes on a judicial sense, such as “just action,” while ἐλεημοσύνη refers to the act of “almsgiving.” This distinction is also evident in the abovequoted Tob 1.3: Tob 1.3 (G1) ἐγὼ Τωβιτ ὁδοῖς ἀληθείας ἐπορευόμην καὶ δικαιοσύνης πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ζωῆς μου καὶ ἐλεημοσύνας πολλὰς ἐποίησα τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου καὶ τῷ ἔθνει τοῖς συμπορευθεῖσιν μετ᾿ ἐμοῦ εἰς χώραν Ἀσσυρίων εἰς Νινευη I, Tobit, walked in the ways of truth and righteousness all the days of my life, and I performed many acts of charity for my kindred and people who had accompanied me into the land of the Assyrians, into Nineue.

The book of Tobit begins by introducing the man Tobit as one who “walked in the ways of truth and δικαιοσύνη.” As stated in our discussion of the Hebrew of this text, δικαιοσύνη (with ἀληθεία) is the general term that describes the ideal Jewish way of life in Tobit, and ἐλεημοσύνη refers to the specific act of “almsgiving.” In other words, ἐλεημοσύνη is one of the elements that characterises and constitutes a life of δικαιοσύνη. This distinction is significant for understanding how the translator of LXX Isa rendered ‫ צדקה‬by both δικαιοσύνη and ἐλεημοσύνη, something I shall consider in the final part of this chapter.

54.  G2, the lone variant reading, has ἀληθείας for νηστείας, but the combination of “prayer and fasting” is expected in this context. As Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Tobit, CEJL (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 292, notes, the three pillars of Jewish works are prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

54

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

4.3. Ἐλεημοσύνη in the New Testament In the New Testament, ἐλεημοσύνη occurs 13 times and without doubt means “almsgiving” in each case. Eight of these occurrences are in conjunction with the verb ποιέω (Matt 6.2, 3, 4; Lk 12.33; Acts 9.36; 10.2; 24.17) or δίδωμι (Lk 11.41), and in two cases ἐλεημοσύνη is something that is requested (with αἰτέω in Acts 3.2 and ἐρωτάω in Acts 3.3).55 In fact, by the time of the NT, the occurrence of ἐλεημοσύνη alongside ποιέω (and, to a lesser degree, δίδωμι) becomes commonplace, especially in Tobit and in the patristic writings, where ἐλεημοσύνη occurs over 1,500 times.56 4.4. Ἐλεημοσύνη in Alexandrian Papyri Ἐλεημοσύνη is also attested in some Alexandrian papyri, though these documents are dated after the time of the LXX translators. A search in the Duke Documentary Papyri database yields eight occurrences of ἐλεημοσύνη in texts ranging from the third to fifth century CE, and it has a semantic range that is almost identical to occurrences in the biblical and apocryphal texts: “charity” or “almsgiving” and, more generally, benevolent acts resulting from “pity” or “compassion.”57 Below are characteristic examples from the biographer Diogenes Laertius (third century CE) and a letter from the Abinnaeus Archive (early fourth century CE): Diog. Laert. V.17 ὀνειδιζόμενός ποτε ὅτι πονηρῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐλεημοσύνην ἔδωκεν, οὐ τὸν τρόπον, εἶπεν ἀλλὰ τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἠλέησα. Being once reproached for giving alms to a bad man, he rejoined, “It was the man and not his character that I pitied.”58 55.  In two cases, prayers and “alms” are considered righteous deeds that ascend to God (ἀναβαίνω in Acts 10.4) and are remembered by God (μιμνῄσκομαι in Acts 10.31). Acts 3.10 is the only case where a verb is not directly connected, but the meaning is obvious. 56.  There is no space here to discuss the more than 1,500 occurrences of ἐλεημοσύνη in the patristic writings, but its semantic range is, on the whole, identical to the meanings in the biblical texts (LXX, apocryphal writings, and NT). In the overwhelming majority of cases, ἐλεημοσύνη means “almsgiving,” and, as we have seen with Tobit and the NT, it is often juxtaposed with the verb ποιέω. G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961), 447, also notes that ἐλεημοσύνη can mean “mercy,” especially divine “mercy,” but, when human “mercy” is the subject, Lampe thinks that it is roughly equal to the meaning “almsgiving” (e.g. Chrys. poenit. 3.1) or to be defined as an “act of mercy” (Hom. Clem. 3.68). 57.  P.Abinn. 19.26; P.Cair.Zen. 59495.10; P.Herm. 17.3; P.Oxy. 130.6; 2479.5; P.Stras. 657.3; Diog. Laert. 5.17; and 7.115. 58.  English translation by R. D. Hicks, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, LCL 184 (London: Heinemann, 1980), 461.



Section 2. Chapter 1. ‫ הקדצ‬

55

P.Abinn. 19.21–27 ἐὰν δὲ πάλιν στρατευθῇ, ἵ[ν]α συντηρῇς αὐτὸν ἵνα μὴ [ἐλ]θ̣ῇ ἔξω μετὰ τῶν ἐγλεγω̣ μ̣ [εν]ων εἰς [κ]ωμιδᾶ̣τ̣[ον], καὶ ὁ Θ(εὸ)ς ἀποδιδοῖ σ̣ [ο]ι πρὸς τὴν ἐλεημοσύνην σου καὶ ἀνυψοῖ ανυψῦ σε εἰς τὰ μεί[ζ]ονα μι̣[ζ]ωνα But if he must serve, please safeguard him from going abroad with the draft for the field army, and may God make return to you for your charity and elevate you to greater things.59

In the example from Diogenes, ἐλεημοσύνη occurs with δίδωμι and means “alms,” and, in P.Abinn. 19.21–27, it refers to (the request for) a “merciful act” on behalf of a widowed mother whose son is enrolled for military duty. In short, ἐλεημοσύνη functions in the same way and has the same meanings as in previous text groups and time periods. 4.5. Conclusions A survey of ἐλεημοσύνη from the third century BCE to the fifth century CE surprisingly shows little change in meaning, if any at all. The word is consistently understood in two ways: as the act of “charity” or “alms” itself, or as the feeling of “pity” or “mercy” that underlies a benevolent act. When the feeling of “pity,” “mercy” or “compassion” itself is intended, either ἔλεος or the adjective ἐλεήμων is usually employed. 5. LXX Isa and ‫צדקה‬ We return now to the question asked at the outset: Why did the LXX translators—in our case the translator of LXX Isa—render ‫ צדקה‬by ἐλεημοσύνη? Were the translators influenced by the meaning of ‫צדקה‬ in their own time, when the significance of the word had undergone semantic change and included “charity” and “almsgiving”? Could the theology of Second Temple Judaism have played a part in the rendering of ‫?צדקה‬ In this section, I shall look at the opinions of previous scholars on this issue. Then, in the light of our lexical analyses of ἐλεημοσύνη in the Graeco-Roman period and beyond, as also of ‫ צדקה‬in BH and PBH, I shall examine the occasions in LXX Isa where ‫ צדקה‬is rendered by ἐλεημοσύνη.

59.  English translation by H. Bell, V. Martin, E. G. Turner, and D. van Berchem, eds., The Abinnaeus Archive: Papers of a Roman Officer in the Reign of Constantine II (Oxford: Clarendon, 1962).

56

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

5.1. Previous Scholarship on ‫ צדקה‬and ἐλεημοσύνη As early as 1889, Hatch noted that ‫ צדקה‬was rendered by both δικαιοσύνη and ἐλεημοσύνη and, on the basis of the various contexts in which they occurred, he concluded that, by the time of the LXX translators, the two terms “interpenetrated” each other. He argued that the tendency of the later Greek revisions (α´, σ´, θ´) to emend δικαιοσύνη to ἐλεημοσύνη (and vice versa) was evidence of interpenetration.60 Unconvinced by Hatch’s reasoning, C. H. Dodd suggested a twofold meaning of ‫צדקה‬: “justice, right” on the one hand and “mercy” on the other. Thus, according to Dodd, “the two aspects of ‫ צדק‬are polarized into δικαιοσύνη and ἐλεημοσύνη” for the Greek translators, and ἐλεημοσύνη was employed only when the Hebrew clearly took on the meaning “mercy.”61 Snaith expanded upon Dodd’s idea of the contrasting concepts of “justice, right” and “mercy” in ‫ צדקה‬by way of semantic development. According to Snaith, though the primary meaning of ‫ צדקה‬in BH is “right, justice,” there are seeds of the later meaning, “almsgiving” and “benevolence,” in BH and Biblical Aramaic (cf. Ps 112.9; Dan 4.24[27]); the Greek rendering by ἐλεημοσύνη (or ἔλεος) appears to be simply a reflection of the meaning already present in BH and Biblical Aramaic ‫צדקה‬:62

60.  Edwin Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek (Oxford: Clarendon, 1889), 50. Hatch further speculated that “the sense in which δικαιοσύνη is used in the LXX…was a local peculiarity of the country in which that translation was made.” 61.  C. H. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935), 56. 62.  Ps 112(111).9 ‫פזר נתן לאביונים צדקתו עמדת לעד קרנו תרום בכבוד‬ ἐσκόρπισεν ἔδωκεν τοῖς πένησιν ἡ δικαιοσύνη αὐτοῦ μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος τὸ κέρας αὐτοῦ ὑψωθήσεται ἐν δόξῃ. Dan 4.24[27] ‫להן מלכא מלכי ישפר עליך [עלך] וחטיך [ו][חטאך] בצדקה פרק ועויתך במחן ענין‬ ‫הן תהוא ארכה לשלותך‬ κύριος ζῇ ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ γῇ αὐτοῦ δεήθητι περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν σου καὶ πάσας τὰς ἀδικίας σου ἐν ἐλεημοσύναις λύτρωσαι ἵνα ἐπιείκεια δοθῇ σοι καὶ πολυήμερος γένῃ ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου τῆς βασιλείας σου καὶ μὴ καταφθείρῃ σε τούτους τοὺς λόγους ἀγάπησον ἀκριβὴς γάρ μου ὁ λόγος καὶ πλήρης ὁ χρόνος σου.



Section 2. Chapter 1. ‫ הקדצ‬

57

We do not claim that the later use of the word tsedaqah, and its Aramaic and Urdu [sic] equivalents, in itself proves anything with regard to the Old Testament use of the word. Nevertheless, where there is smoke, there is fire. We hold that it may be taken as a legitimate development of an element which was contained in the root from the beginning, especially since we have seen that such a meaning is found already in the Old Testament.63

Similarly, for Hill, the origin of the PBH meaning of ‫ צדקה‬can also be traced to BH, particularly in texts that reference the king’s duty to maintain order in the community and protect the poor and needy in society:64 This bias in favour of the poor and needy in the meaning of the word ‫ְצ ָד ָקה‬ is the beginning of the development by which it came to denote “mercy,” “benevolence” and “almsgiving” in post-biblical Hebrew and in Aramaic.65

Hill argued that there are two explanations for the rendering of ‫ צדקה‬by ἐλεημοσύνη and ἔλεος in the LXX. Though both scenarios are possible, they are highly speculative and lack evidence. First, though not explicitly stated, he assumed that the pre-existing “bias” toward the poor and needy that is inherent in the BH meaning of ‫ צדקה‬was known by the translators. Secondly, since δικαιοσύνη does not cover the idea of “merciful action,” he thought that the LXX translators “introduced” the idea to their readers 63.  Snaith, Distinctive Ideas, 71. 64.  David Hill, in Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings, took a slightly different approach to the work of his predecessors and proposed a threefold development in the history of the ‫ צדק‬word-group. First, he traced the origins of the root ‫ צדק‬in cognate languages and concluded that the earliest understanding of it meant “legal right” or “right relationship.” He noted that occurrences of ‫ צדק‬in BH, which were not directly religious or theological, took on a similar meaning: “conformity to proper standards.” The second stage was the application of ‫ צדק‬words to YHWH on the basis of his covenant relationship with Israel. Hill first explored what it meant for a king to be “righteous,” since the well-being and safety of the nation depended on him. He applied this concept to YHWH, the king with whom Israel had a covenant relationship. It is in this second stage that Hill saw the origins of the PBH and Aramaic meaning emerging. The third stage was the application of the ‫ צדק‬words back to Israel and the individual in the light of YHWH’s “righteousness.” In other words, with the advent of the covenantal relationship between YHWH and Israel, the concept was applied to the divine and was then referred back to man with deeper and more significant implications. Though Hill’s conclusions were, for the most part, satisfactory, he arrived at them by way of theological and ethical interpretation, and he did very little lexical semantic work. 65.  Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings, 88.

58

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

by employing ἔλεος and ἐλεημοσύνη.66 Thus, as with Snaith, the rendering of ‫ צדקה‬by ἐλεημοσύνη and ἔλεος in the LXX was not problematic at all, but, rather, reflective of an impressive understanding of the BH meaning of ‫צדקה‬. Ziesler expanded on Hatch’s view that ἐλεημοσύνη and δικαιοσύνη interpenetrated each other. Since ‫ צדקה‬is rendered by δικαιοσύνη in the majority of cases, he argued that the LXX translators must have been aware that ‫ צדקה‬was a covenant word, and since δικαιοσύνη does not sufficiently cover the many aspects of covenantal language, other covenant words (such as ἐλεημοσύνη) were used interchangeably when necessary. The basis for his argument is that the translators employed δικαιοσύνη to reflect not only ‫צדקה‬, but ‫ חסד‬and ‫—אמת‬words that he categorises as “characteristically covenant words.”67 For Ziesler, then, the use of ἐλεημοσύνη by the LXX translators illustrated a superior theological understanding of ‫צדקה‬. Subsequently, in his detailed analysis of “righteousness” in LXX Isa, Olley has argued that the use of δικαιοσύνη and ἐλεημοσύνη by the translator of LXX Isa can be explained by determining whether Israel was the perpetrator or the victim of sin: Where the context has not referred to Israel’s sins, but rather her being unjustly oppressed or her doing what is right, then δικαιοσύνη is used unambiguously to refer to deliverance of Israel and punishment of evildoers; but where the context has emphasised Israel’s sins then the translator uses ἐλεημοσύνη for )‫ צדק(ה‬referring to God’s delivering act.68

Thus, Olley implies that the occurrences of δικαιοσύνη and ἐλεημοσύνη in LXX Isa reflect deliberate and conscious exegesis by the translator, a claim that I shall examine further. 5.2. Isaiah 1.27 Before we commence with Isa 1.27, we should recall that the translator of LXX Isa had a good, if not a conservative, understanding of BH ‫צדקה‬. He renders it almost exclusively by δικαιοσύνη (31×), which, for the most part, conveys the sense in MT. Other renderings include ἐλεημοσύνη (3×); ἐλεος (1×); and εὐφροσύνη (1×).

66.  Ibid., 104. 67.  Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul, 60. 68.  Olley, Righteousness, 116.



Section 2. Chapter 1. ‫ הקדצ‬

59

Isa 1.27

‫ בצדקה‬69‫ציון במשפט תפדה ושביה‬ μετὰ γὰρ κρίματος σωθήσεται ἡ αἰχμαλωσία αὐτῆς καὶ μετὰ ἐλεημοσύνης

The Greek translation of Isa 1.27 is problematic on several fronts, primarily because the translator read ‫ ציון‬with ‫ קריה נאמנה‬of v. 26 (thus the rendering μητρόπολις πιστὴ Σιων). This not only eliminated ‫ ציון‬as the subject of ‫פדה‬, which is how the Hebrew is to be read, but, apparently, influenced the reading of ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָׁש ֶב‬as ‫“ וְ ִׁש ְביָ ּה‬and her captives.” Whether ‫ וְ ִׁש ְביָ ּה‬was an intentional emendation on the part of the translator to come up with a new subject for ‫תפדה‬, or, conversely, the misreading of ‫יה‬ ָ ‫וְ ָׁש ֶב‬ as ‫ וְ ִׁש ְביָ ּה‬caused him to read ‫ ציון‬back into v. 26, is difficult to determine. Nevertheless, the net result of the Greek translation—one subject (ἡ αἰχμαλωσία), one verb (σωθήσεται) and two qualifying prepositional phrases (μετὰ γὰρ κρίματος and καὶ μετὰ ἐλεημοσύνης)—is vastly different from the Hebrew, which has two subjects in separate clauses that are parallel to each other. In addition, the unusual rendering of ‫ פדה‬by σῴζω, which occurs on only one other occasion in the LXX (Job 33.28), is either a very free translation or a deliberate alteration.70

69.  ‫ ושביה‬has caused problems for many scholars and, consequently, numerous emendations have been suggested: Döderlein, BHS and KB prefer ‫יה‬ ָ ‫יׁש ֶב‬ ְ ְ‫“ ו‬and her inhabitants”. See H. G. M. Williamson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 1–27. Vol. 1, 1–5, ICC (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 147. G. I. Davies suggests ‫בּוה‬ ָ ‫יׁש‬ ִ ְ‫ ו‬on the basis of the Vg as possibly reflecting a Hiphil; on the basis of the parallel expression in Isa 10.21–22, N. H. Tur-Sinai, “A Contribution to the Understanding of Isaiah i–xii,” in Studies in the Bible, ed. Chaim Rabin, Scripta Hierosolymitana (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961), 157, proposes ‫“ וְ ָׁש ָבה‬and [Zion] shall return”; Arnold Bogumil Ehrlich, Randglossen zur Hebräischen Bibel: textkritisches, sprachliches und sachliches. IV, Jesaia, Jeremia (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1912), 8, thinks that the text originally read ‫וירושלים‬. Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, 145, points out that there are two plausible ways in which ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָׁש ֶב‬can be understood: reading the suffix as an objective suffix, “those who return to her,” or by taking the participle as the “genitive of nearer definition” (cf. GKC §116i), “those in her who repent.” Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, Continental Commentaries (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 61, argues that there is no reason for emendation as ‫יה‬ ָ ‫וְ ָׁש ֶב‬, the plural participle with suffix, makes good sense and provides a sharp contrast for what is to follow in v. 28. 70.  Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah, 114, thinks that σῴζω has a technical meaning for the translator of LXX Isa: “liberation from a powerful political enemy” or “escape from a great political disaster.” Thus, according to him, the translator read ‫“ וְ ִׁש ְביָ ּה‬and her captives” and deliberately chose the verb σῴζω to convey a theologically motivated translation of v. 27.

60

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

One of the keys to understanding the Greek translation of v. 27 is the addition of γάρ, which connects v. 27 to the previous verses and, as Olley notes, refers κρίματος back to the punishing, destroying action of God in vv. 24–26.71 By reading v. 27 with the previous verses, then, the focus of the prophecy is not the contrast between those who are repentant (MT v. 27) and those who forsake the Lord (MT v. 28) but the saving of captives (LXX v. 27) from the destruction of unfaithful Zion (LXX vv. 21–26)—a markedly different train of thought from the MT. This interpretation, however, should not be surprising, as the LXX translator often envisaged a different context from that in the MT, and, in a literary context where captives are being saved from God’s wrath and judgement for being unfaithful, it makes perfect sense that the translator would describe the saving act of God with ἐλεημοσύνη “merciful action” and not δικαιοσύνη “righteousness” or “justice.”72 Another clue to understanding the rendering of ‫ צדקה‬by ἐλεημοσύνη in 1.27 is the Greek translation of Isa 1.21: Isa 1.21

‫איכה היתה לזונה קריה נאמנה מלאתי משפט צדק ילין בה ועתה מרצחים‬ πῶς ἐγένετο πόρνη πόλις πιστὴ Σιων πλήρης κρίσεως ἐν ᾗ δικαιοσύνη ἐκοιμήθη ἐν αὐτῇ νῦν δὲ φονευταί How the faithful city Zion has become a whore! She that was full of justice where righteousness lodged, but now full of murderers!

The addition of Σιων (which the Hebrew does not have) in apposition to πόλις πιστή parallels μητρόπολις πιστὴ Σιων at the end of v. 26 and, incidentally, further supports the idea that the translator read vv. 21–27 as a distinct unit and possibly as an inclusio.73 Of particular interest for our purposes, however, are the occurrences of ‫ משפט‬and )‫צדק(ה‬ in vv. 21 and 27. As one might suspect, ‫ משפט‬is rendered literally by κρίσις (v. 21) and κρίμα (v. 27)74 and ‫ צדק‬by δικαιοσύνη in vv. 21 and 26. However, the rendering of ‫ צדקה‬by ἐλεημοσύνη in v. 27 is surprising, in part because it is rarely represented by ἐλεημοσύνη, but more so because it misses the obvious parallelism of the Hebrew, something the translator 71.  Olley, Righteousness, 68. 72.  That ἐλεημοσύνη is employed in this literary context further confirms the meaning of ἐλεημοσύνη as an act of mercy. 73.  See Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, 120–21, for an explanation of why the addition of Σιων does not necessarily reflect a different Vorlage. 74.  ‫ משפט‬occurs 42 times in the MT Isa and, with the exception of two instances (Isa 26.9 [προστάγματά]; 61.8 [δικαιοσύνην]), is reflected by κρίμα, κρίσις or κρίνω.



Section 2. Chapter 1. ‫ הקדצ‬

61

almost always captured in the Greek translation.75 Thus, it appears that ἐλεημοσύνη for ‫ צדקה‬in v. 27 is a deliberate, interpretative rendering on the part of the translator. What caused the translator to render ‫ צדקה‬by ἐλεημοσύνη in v. 27? One possibility is variance. If, as I have argued, the translator read vv. 21–27 as a literary unit, it is possible that the close proximity of ‫( צדק‬vv. 21 and 26) and ‫( צדקה‬v. 27) caused the translator to employ different Greek words for ‫ צדק‬and ‫ צדקה‬for stylistic purposes. After all, ‫משפט‬, which occurs in vv. 21 and 27, is rendered by κρίσις and κρίμα, respectively, two words with virtually identical meanings but different forms.76 Δικαιοσύνη and ἐλεημοσύνη, however, have very different meanings, and it appears that the translator was concerned more with the semantics of ‫ צדקה‬than the style and poetry of the Greek translation. Though poetic variance may have been a factor, a better explanation is that the translator purposefully used a ready-to-hand meaning for ‫צדקה‬, “merciful action,” in order to make better sense of the larger context in vv. 21–26: the message of salvation, deliverance and hope amidst the harsh rhetoric of judgement. This would explain the curious rendering of ‫ פדה‬by σῴζω and the reading of ‫יה‬ ָ ‫“ וְ ָׁש ֶב‬and her repentant ones” as ‫וְ ִׁש ְביָ ּה‬ “and her captives.” Thus, it seems that the translator knew ‫ צדקה‬to mean both “right” or “righteousness” and “merciful action,” but deliberately chose ἐλεημοσύνη for exegetical purposes. The divergences in LXX Isa 1.27 were therefore conscious translational decisions. Whether the translator was aware that 75.  There are numerous examples in LXX Isa where the translator renders both ‫ משפט‬and ‫ צדקה‬literally and expresses the parallelism in the Greek accordingly. E.g., 5.7 ‫ ויקו למשפט והנה משפח לצדקה והנה צעקה‬ἔμεινα τοῦ ποιῆσαι κρίσιν ἐποίησεν δὲ ἀνομίαν καὶ οὐ δικαιοσύνην ἀλλὰ κραυγήν; 9.6 ‫על־כסא דוד ועל־ממלכתו להכין אתה‬ ‫ולסעדה במשפט ובצדקה מעתה ועד־עולם‬, ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον Δαυιδ καὶ τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ κατορθῶσαι αὐτὴν καὶ ἀντιλαβέσθαι αὐτῆς ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ἐν κρίματι ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν καὶ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα χρόνον; 32.16, ‫ושכן במדבר משפט וצדקה בכרמל תשב‬, καὶ ἀναπαύσεται ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνη ἐν τῷ Καρμήλῳ κατοικήσει; 33.5, ‫מלא ציון משפט וצדקה‬, ἐνεπλήσθη Σιων κρίσεως καὶ δικαιοσύνης; 56.1, ‫שמרו משפט ועשו צדקה‬, φυλάσσεσθε κρίσιν ποιήσατε δικαιοσύνην; 58.2, ‫כגוי אשר־צדקה עשה ומשפט אלהיו לא עזב‬, ὡς λαὸς δικαιοσύνην πεποιηκὼς καὶ κρίσιν θεοῦ αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐγκαταλελοιπὼς; 59.9, ‫על־כן רחק‬ ‫משפט ממנו ולא תשיגנו צדקה‬, διὰ τοῦτο ἀπέστη ἡ κρίσις ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν καὶ οὐ μὴ καταλάβῃ αὐτοὺς δικαιοσύνη; 59.14, ‫והסג אחור משפט וצדקה מרחוק תעמד‬, καὶ ἀπεστήσαμεν ὀπίσω τὴν κρίσιν καὶ ἡ δικαιοσύνη μακρὰν ἀφέστηκεν. 76.  See also LXX Isa 10.2, where the translator employs both κρίσις and κρίμα for stylistic purposes and variation: ἐκκλίνοντες κρίσιν πτωχῶν ἁρπάζοντες κρίμα πενήτων τοῦ λαοῦ μου.

62

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

the BH meaning of ‫ צדקה‬was limited to “justice” and “righteousness,” and that “merciful action” was a later meaning is impossible to know. It is clear, however, that the translator thought that he had enough reason to deviate from the expected translation of ‫ צדקה‬by rendering with ἐλεημοσύνη. 5.3. Isaiah 28.17 The Greek translation for much of ch. 28 varies considerably from the MT (especially vv. 6–10 and vv. 27–29), and it is difficult to determine the cause(s) of the divergences. In texts where the differences are substantial, there is always the possibility that another Vorlage may be behind the divergences. Troxel points to several instances in Isa 28 where the translator may have had a different Vorlage. However, with the exception of vv. 15 and 21, he is not convinced, and provides alternative suggestions for the divergences.77 Isa 28.17 ‫ושמתי משפט לקו וצדקה למשקלת ויעה ברד מחסה כזב וסתר מים ישטפו‬ καὶ θήσω κρίσιν εἰς ἐλπίδα78 ἡ δὲ ἐλεημοσύνη79 μου εἰς σταθμούς καὶ οἱ πεποιθότες μάτην ψεύδει ὅτι οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ὑμᾶς καταιγίς

At the heart of the perplexing translation of Isa 28 is the high frequency of ἐλπίς, which occurs ten times in the chapter and reflects a variety of Hebrew words: ‫“ צבי‬beauty” or “glory” in vv. 4 and 5; ‫“ קו‬line” (reading ‫ )?קוה‬in vv. 10, 13, and 17; ‫“ מחסה‬refuge” in v. 15 (cf. Pss 14[13].6; 61[60].4; 62[61].8; 73[72].28; 91[90].9; 94[93].22; 142[141].6 for /‫מחסה‬ ‫ מחסי‬rendered by ἐλπίς); ‫“ חזות‬agreement” in v. 18;80 and ‫“ רק־זועה‬sheer terror” in v. 19. It is patent that the occurrences of ἐλπίς in ch. 28 reflect much more than an honest attempt at rendering the corresponding Hebrew word. This has led scholars such as das Neves and Olley to conclude that “hope” is the major theme in LXX Isa 28.81

77.  See Troxel, LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation, 255 (n. 26) and 281. Cf. pp. 259, 269, 279 and 285 for additional cases where the translator of LXX Isa may have had a different Vorlage in Isa 28. 78.  σ´ has σπαρτιον “measuring cord,” and α´ and θ´ have μέτρον “measuring instrument” instead of ἐλπίδα. 79.  It should be noted that α´, σ´ and θ´ all have δικαιοσύνη over ἐλεημοσύνη here. 80.  The root ‫ חזה‬is never rendered by ἐλπις in the LXX. 81.  Das Neves, A Teologia da Tradução Grega dos Setenta no Livro de Isaías, 73, and Olley, Righteousness, 69.



Section 2. Chapter 1. ‫ הקדצ‬

63

The translator contrasts two types of hope in the chapter. On the one hand stands “hope” or trust in allies (vv. 1, 3, οἱ μισθωτοὶ τοῦ Εφραιμ “the hired workers of Ephraim”) and in rulers who confessed ἐποιήσαμεν διαθήκην μετὰ τοῦ ᾅδου καὶ μετὰ τοῦ θανάτου συνθήκας “We have made a covenant with Hades and agreements with death” (v. 15); on the other stands hope that is placed in the Lord (vv. 5, 17a). The prominence of this theme throughout the chapter appears to have influenced the translator in several instances, including vv. 17–18, where those who hold on to the hope of Hades will be trampled on and the hope will not remain: ἡ ἐλπὶς ὑμῶν ἡ πρὸς τὸν ᾅδην οὐ μὴ ἐμμείνῃ. Thus, the context for v. 17 is of the contrasting “hopes.” It is precisely this theme of contrasting hopes in the chapter which caused the translator to render ‫ צדקה‬by ἐλεημοσύνη in v. 17. If the translator had employed δικαιοσύνη here, the emphasis would have been on God’s just and righteous punishment of those who have turned away, and would be more in line with the MT. But, as Olley has rightly concluded: “The use of ἐλεημοσύνη unambiguously stresses the merciful action of God to those who have trusted in a lie but are now willing to hope in God.”82 Additionally, as discussed with reference to 1.27 above, the translator renders ‫ משפט‬literally by κρίσιν in 28.17, which parallels ‫צדקה‬ nicely. However, the decision to represent ‫ צדקה‬by ἐλεημοσύνη suggests that, while the translator could cope with the MT sense, he chose a nuance that was available to him and that better suited the context. In sum, ἐλεημοσύνη in LXX 28.17 appears to be a deliberate decision on the part of the translator: to render ‫ צדקה‬with the PBH meaning in order to make better sense of the verse in the light of the larger context of ch. 28. 5.4. Isaiah 59.16 ‫ צדקה‬occurs three times in ch. 59 (‫ צדקה‬in vv. 9, 14, 16; ‫ צדק‬also occurs in v. 4), and, in order to assess accurately the rendering of it by ἐλεημοσύνη in v. 16, all three verses need to be examined. In v. 9, most see ‫ צדקה‬as referring to the “saving act” of God, and, with the exception of the shift in person (αὐτῶν for first person plural suffix in MT), the LXX renders this verse with the MT. In v. 14, the consensus view is that ‫ צדקה‬refers to “right conduct” within the community, but a few scholars think that God’s salvific intervention is the intended meaning.83 Nevertheless, the 82.  Ibid., 71. 83.  So Schmid, Gerechtigkeit als Weltordnung, 135, and Scullion, “ṣedeqṣedāqah in Isaiah cc. 40–66,” 345.

64

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

LXX correctly conveys the meaning of the MT, whether δικαιοσύνη is referring to the “saving act” of God here, or, as Olley suggests, “the wellfunctioning, harmonious society in which everyone does what is right.” In v. 17, ‫ צדקה כשרין‬is referring to the “just” punishment of God’s enemies alluded to in the subsequent verses, vv. 18–19, and the LXX correctly renders it by δικαιοσύνην ὡς θώρακα. Isa 59.16 ‫וירא כי אין איש וישתומם כי אין מפגיע ותושע לו זרעו וצדקתו היא סמכתהו‬ καὶ εἶδε καὶ οὐκ ἦν ἀνήρ καὶ κατενόησε καὶ οὐκ ἦν ὁ ἀντιλημψόμενος καὶ ἠμύνατο αὐτοὺς τῷ βραχίονι αὐτοῦ καὶ τῇ ἐλεημοσύνῃ ἐστηρίσατο

In v. 16, the phrase ‫ ותושע לו זרעו‬provides the context for ‫ צדקה‬as the “saving act” of God, which will restore right order where truth is lacking and where there is no justice. Why, then, did the translator render ‫צדקה‬ by ἐλεημοσύνη in v. 16? Olley thinks that ἐλεημοσύνη was employed to highlight the shift in how God is functioning, that is, by his “seeing,”84 but there is no precedent for this. On the other hand, words such as ἀντιλαμβάνω “help” and στηρίζω “strengthen” make v. 16 conducive for ἐλεημοσύνη. Thus, as is the case in LXX Isa 28.17, the rendering of ‫צדקה‬ by ἐλεημοσύνη in v. 16 reflects the translator’s desire to give Isa 59 a message of hope for the post-exilic community, and is most probably an intentional divergence from the MT. 6. Conclusion A survey of ‫ צדקה‬from BH and PBH not only confirms the commonly known fact that ‫ צדקה‬meant “charity” or “almsgiving” in the rabbinic literature, but reveals a consistent trajectory in meaning from the fundamental sense of “rightness,” as corroborated in the cognate Semitic languages, to further nuances of “right behaviour” and “justice”; to qualities and expressions of “right behaviour” and “justice,” such as “benevolence,” “mercy” and “honesty”; and, ultimately, to “merciful action” and specific acts of “charity” or “almsgiving.” It is natural, therefore, to conclude that the LXX renderings of ‫ צדקה‬by ἐλεημοσύνη reflect the semantic development of ‫צדקה‬, which, as I have demonstrated, took on the meanings “merciful action,” “charity” and “almsgiving” by the time of the LXX translators. Additionally, ἐλεημοσύνη is to be understood as the act of “charity” or “alms” itself, or as the feeling of “pity” or “mercy” that underlies a benevolent act. 84.  Olley, Righteousness, 76.



Section 2. Chapter 1. ‫ הקדצ‬

65

It is clear that the translator of LXX Isa knew the BH meaning of ‫צדקה‬, as he correctly renders it by δικαιοσύνη in most instances, but it is also apparent that the later meaning, “merciful action,” was readily available to him. In the three instances where ‫ צדקה‬is reflected by ἐλεημοσύνη, the translator employs the later meaning “merciful action” against the sense in the MT and, in the case of 1.27 and 28.17, despite having rendered the parallel word ‫ משפט‬literally. In short, the later meaning, “merciful action,” was prominent enough for the translator to deploy it in contexts where he wanted to convey the message of hope and deliverance from judgement.

Chapter 2

‫כשל‬ ‫ = כשל‬ἀδυνατέω “weaken” Isa 8.15

1. Introduction Isa 8.15

‫וכשלו בם רבים ונפלו ונשברו ונוקשו ונלכדו‬ διὰ τοῦτο ἀδυνατήσουσιν ἐν αὐτοῖς πολλοὶ καὶ πεσοῦνται καὶ συντριβήσονται καὶ ἐγγιοῦσι καὶ ἁλώσονται ἄνθρωποι ἐν ἀσφαλείᾳ ὄντες

The LXX translation διὰ τοῦτο ἀδυνατήσουσιν ἐν αὐτοῖς πολλοί for MT ‫ וכשלו בם רבים‬is puzzling. Not only do the Greek and Hebrew words ἀδυνατέω and ‫ כשל‬differ in meaning, but the context of Isa 8.15 clearly favours the meaning “stumble,” especially when one considers the parallelism and progression of the poetry. The obvious question that arises is why the translator rendered ‫ כשל‬by ἀδυνατέω. Throughout the LXX, there are numerous instances where ‫ כשל‬is rendered against the sense of the MT and is translated by Greek words meaning “be weak,” and yet there has been very little discussion as to why this may have occurred, whether in LXX Isa or in any other book. The conventional explanation by scholars is simply to note that this nuance is attested in the MT and to assume that the LXX translators employed a BH meaning, albeit the incorrect one. Muraoka, for example, explains the LXX translations by citing occurrences in the MT where ‫ כשל‬can mean “[be] frail, fail,” but, on the basis of MH, he adds that ‫ כשל‬may have been a word in semantic transition.1 Joosten takes Muraoka’s observation 1.  Muraoka, “Hosea IV,” 33, notes that ‫ כשל‬meaning “be frail, fail” extends from CBH to LBH. Cf. also NIDOTTE 2:727, ‫כשל‬.



Section 2. Chapter 2. ‫ לשכ‬

67

further by noting the prevalence of ἀσθενέω for BH ‫כשל‬, and suggests that the LXX translators based their renderings of ‫ כשל‬on PBH.2 Van der Kooij thinks the Greek in LXX Isa 8.15 makes perfect sense in the context of vv. 11–16: the strong leaders, who “disobey the way of this people” in LXX Isa 8.11, shall become “powerless.”3 In the present study, we shall reconsider the meaning of ‫ כשל‬in BH and PBH, examine the LXX renderings of ‫ כשל‬and, finally, compare the LXX with the early Greek revisions in an effort to shed light on why the LXX translators consistently rendered ‫ כשל‬by Greek words meaning “weaken.” 2. ‫ כשל‬in BH and PBH 2.1. Biblical Hebrew As is well known, the predominant meaning of BH ‫ כשל‬is “stumble, stagger, totter,” a meaning which is confirmed by its frequent occurrence in parallel with ‫( נפל‬Isa 3.8; 31.3; Jer 6.15; 8.12; 46.6, 16; Prov 24.17). It is often employed in passages where there is a military conflict or a time of crisis. In Lev 26.37, for example, the Israelites are depicted as stumbling over each other and falling as they are running away from a phantom enemy, and in Isa 5.27 the swiftly advancing Assyrian army marches without anyone being weary or stumbling. Less common meanings include “overthrow” (Hiphil; cf. Jer 18.23; 2 Chr 25.8) and, when the verb is used figuratively, it can refer to moral or spiritual stumbling (Job 4.4; Isa 59.10). As BDB notes, on a few occasions ‫ כשל‬can also be nuanced to mean “fail” and also “make feeble, weak” in the Hiphil.4 A couple of observations should be made here. First, the meanings “make weak” and “fail” for ‫ כשל‬are rare, occurring in only six of the 65 occurrences of ‫ כשל‬in the MT; furthermore, in some of those instances, they are simply nuanced extensions of the more common BH meaning “stumble, stagger, totter.” For example, in Ps 109.24 ‫“ ברכי כשלו‬my knees totter” (the result of fatigue and a lack of strength due to fasting) is simplified in most English translations to an expression of weakness: “My knees are weak through fasting.” Secondly, when the meanings “fail” or “make weak” do occur in BH, they are almost always in conjunction with verbs such as ‫יגע‬, ‫יעף‬/‫ עיף‬or ‫אמץ‬, or with nouns and adjectives such as ‫חיל‬, ‫ עיף‬and ‫כח‬, words that help establish the context of the verse as strength or weakness, thereby 2.  Joosten, “Septuagint Version of Hosea,” 68. 3.  Van der Kooij, “The Old Greek of Isaiah,” 206. 4.  BDB, 505–6.

68

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

allowing for a more nuanced meaning such as “fail” or “make weak.” Below are the six instances where ‫ כשל‬can arguably mean “fail” or “make weak”:5 1 Sam 2.4

‫קשת גברים חתים ונכשלים אזרו חיל‬ The bows of the mighty are broken, but the frail put on strength. Ps 31.11 My strength fails because of my poverty.

‫כשל בעוני כחי‬

Isa 40.30

‫ויעפו נערים ויגעו ובחורים כשול יכשלו‬ Even youths shall faint and be weary, and young men shall be utterly exhausted.6 Isa 35.3

‫חזקו ידים רפות וברכים כשלות אמצו‬ Strengthen the weak hands, and make strong the tottering knees. Lam 1.14

‫הכשיל כחי נתנני אדני בידי לא אוכל קום‬ He caused my strength to fail; the Lord gave me into the hands of those whom I cannot withstand. Neh 4.4 The strength of those who bear the burdens is faltering.

‫כשל כח הסבל‬

In almost every instance where ‫ כשל‬could mean “fail” or “make weak,” the subject is “strength” and words such as ‫אמץ‬, ‫יעף‬, ‫יגע‬, ‫רפה‬, ‫חזק‬, ‫ חיל‬or ‫ כח‬are employed to help establish this context. Thus, when used in conjunction with “strength” (usually ‫)כח‬, ‫ כשל‬was understood figuratively

5.  Dan 11.14, a LBH text, may be the sole exception, where ‫ כשל‬occurs without a “helping” or contextualising word: ‫“ ובני פריצי עמך ינשאו להעמיד חזון ונכשלו‬And violent ones among your own people shall lift themselves up to fulfil the vision, and they shall fail.” 6.  It is possible that ‫ כשל‬may not have been the preferred word here and that the construction ‫ כשול יכשלו‬in Isa 40.30 may have been employed for the purposes of poetic style. See Klaus Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 40–55, trans. Margaret Kohl, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 84, especially n. 175.



Section 2. Chapter 2. ‫ לשכ‬

69

and as a nuance of the more common meaning “stumble, stagger, totter.”7 It should be noted, however, that “strength” is the only referent to which nuances such as “be weak” and “fail” were extended in BH. So, although the predominant meaning of ‫ כשל‬in BH is “stumble, stagger, totter,” in the few instances where the subject is “strength,” it could be nuanced to mean “be weak” or “fail.” 2.2. Post-biblical Hebrew In PBH, the prevalence of the word ‫ כשל‬is significantly reduced but its semantic range is expanded. Furthermore, the common BH meaning “stumble” declines in PBH, and is no longer the dominant meaning.8 Instead, other meanings become increasingly common: for example, the meaning “overthrow” (Hiphil), occurring only in Jer 18.23 and 2 Chr 25.8, is more widely attested in PBH,9 and the figurative sense of spiritual or moral stumbling, also occurring rarely in BH, is frequently found in PBH.10 A meaning not attested in BH, “strike” or “injure,” also emerges in PBH.11 Of particular interest for our purposes, however, are the examples in PBH where ‫ כשל‬distinctly, and without the help of the context, means “be weak” or “weaken”:

7.  The same principle—that ‫ כשל‬can be nuanced to mean “be weak” or “fail” when occurring alongside ‫ כח‬or other words meaning “strength”—applies in the “secular” Qumranic texts. E.g., 1QHab 13.38 ‫להכשיל [רוח] ולהתם כוח לבלתי החזק‬ ‫“ מעמד‬which causes [the spirit] to become weak and puts an end to strength so that he is unable to stand firm in his place.” Scholars have traditionally rendered ‫להכשיל‬ as “make stagger” or “cause to stumble”; however, “make weak” is the better reading here. Due to the genre and nature of the texts of the Qumran community, the majority of occurrences of ‫ כשל‬in the Qumran literature refer to “moral stumbling.” That the figurative sense of “moral stumbling,” which rarely occurs in BH, continues to be attested in PBH supports the argument that ‫ כשל‬underwent semantic change between BH and PBH. 8.  E.g., b. B. Qam. 1.9b, 16b ‫“ יהיו מוכשלים לפניך בעת אפך עשה בהם‬But let them stumble before Thee; deal thus with them in the time of Thine anger” (Jer 18.23).” 9.  E.g., b. Ḥag. 14a ‫“ אפי בשעת כשלנה של ירושלים‬Even at the time of Jerusalem’s downfall” (see b. Šabb. 119b for a similar example). A similar meaning is attested in Aramaic. Though extremely rare and occurring only in the Aphel, ‫ כשל‬in Aramaic means “cause to fall” (cf. b. Giṭ. 57a). 10.  See Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, 676, for numerous examples of spiritual or moral stumbling. 11.  E.g., y. Šabb. 6.9c ‫ מי עלל נכשל באצבעו‬.‫“ בר קפרא היה איעלל לחדא קרייא‬Bar Qappara came to a certain town. When he came, he injured his toe.”

70

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew y. Ketub. 9.2

‫רבי יוחנן אמר לכושל בגופו…אמר רבי אחא לכושל בגופו ועני‬ R. Yohanan said, “[‘The weakest’ means] the one who is weak in body”… Said R. Aha, “It is to the weakest in body and who is poor.” y. Ber. 9.13c He weakens it [strong winds] on the hills.

‫ומכשלו בגבעות‬

The important observation here is that, unlike BH, which requires other words to establish the context as that of strength or weakness so that it may take on a meaning such as “be weak,” the examples above are void of a contextual nuance. That ‫ כשל‬occurs on its own in PBH may be an indication that “be weak” was a distinct meaning in its own right and, perhaps, was more commonly understood in PBH. Although the evidence is limited, it is possible, then, that “be weak” was simply a nuanced meaning in BH that necessitated contextual help and that it gradually became a more common meaning in PBH. Thus, to conclude that the mere existence of BH nuances meaning “fail, be weak” is the reason why the LXX translators rendered ‫ כשל‬by Greek words meaning “be weak” may be ill-advised. 2.3. PBH and Aramaic ‫תקל‬ Another lexical development to consider with regard to ‫ כשל‬is the emergence of II-‫“ תקל‬stumble” in PBH and Aramaic. ‫ תקל‬is attested in PBH with the meaning “stumble, strike against.” For example,12 b. B. Qam. 3.1

‫המניח את הכד ברשות הרבים ובא אחר וניתקל בה ושיברה פטור‬ [If] one leaves a jar in the public domain, and another comes and stumbles on it and breaks it, he is exempt.

Generally speaking, PBH ‫ תקל‬refers to the physical act of stumbling on or over an object, whereas, as we have seen, PBH ‫כשל‬, when meaning “stumble,” refers more often to moral or spiritual stumbling. Though PBH ‫ תקל‬is not attested as widely as Aramaic ‫תקל‬, the mere emergence of an alternative PBH word for ‫ כשל‬may have compromised the knowledge and meaning of ‫ כשל‬in the minds of translators and readers over time. At the very least, it added another word with the meaning “stumble,” which may explain the decline of the common BH meaning for ‫ כשל‬in PBH. 12.  Cf. Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, 1691, for more PBH examples.



Section 2. Chapter 2. ‫ לשכ‬

71

Aramaic ‫ כשל‬is virtually non-existent, which is inconsequential of itself, but the fact that ‫ כשל‬is not attested in the Tgs at all, and that almost all occurrences of it in the MT are rendered by ‫ תקל‬in the Tgs, warrants further consideration.13 Below is our verse of interest, Isa 8.15, as an example of this phenomenon: MT Isa 8.15

‫וכשלו בם רבים ונפלו ונשברו ונוקשו ונלכדו‬ And many shall stumble on it; and they shall fall and be broken; they shall be caught and taken. Tg Isa 8.15

‫ויתקלון בהון סגיאין ויפלון ויתברון ויתצדון ויתאחדון‬ And many shall stumble against them; and they shall fall and be broken and they shall be caught and be taken.

The Tgs render BH ‫ כשל‬53 times, 48 of them by ‫תקל‬, which indicates that the Targumists were aware of the common BH meaning of ‫“ כשל‬stumble.” 2.4. Summary The lexical evidence from BH, PBH and Aramaic can be summarised in the following way: (1) the meaning “be weak” in BH is rarely attested and occurs only when the subject is clearly identified as strength or power; (2) in PBH the common BH meaning of ‫“ כשל‬stumble” diminishes somewhat, while rare nuances such as “overthrow” and “stumble morally” occur more frequently and previously unattested nuances such as “strike, injure” emerge; (3) ‫ כשל‬meaning “be weak” is attested in PBH, and may have been used more widely with this sense as it occurs in passages where it does not have “helping” words; (4) the emergence of PBH and Aramaic ‫“ תקל‬stumble, strike against” may have led to the decline of the common BH meaning of ‫“ כשל‬stumble” in PBH. In the light of the lexical evidence, how then do we make sense of texts such as Isa 8.15, where the LXX diverges from the MT and renders BH ‫“ כשל‬stumble” by Greek equivalents meaning “be weak” (e.g. ἀδυνατήσουσιν “they will be without power” in Isa 8.15)? Did the translators not know ‫ כשל‬to mean “stumble”? Does the evidence suggest that they knew ‫ כשל‬to mean primarily “be weak,” and, if so, was this owing to the influence of PBH? 13.  Syriac ‫“ ܟܫܠ‬sin, fail” is attested but almost always refers to moral or spiritual stumbling, much like the PBH meaning of ‫כשל‬. See, e.g., Afr 151:6; ES2 9:32; and Matt 5.29 ‫( ܡܟܫ�ܠܐ‬σκανδαλίζει).

72

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

3. LXX Renderings of ‫ כשל‬as “Be Weak” A survey of the LXX renderings of ‫ כשל‬uncovers two surprising details that are of significance for our discussion: the frequency with which the LXX renders ‫ כשל‬by Greek equivalents meaning “be weak” and, conversely, the surprisingly low number of occurrences where ‫ כשל‬is rendered by words in the domain of “stumble, stagger, totter.” More than half of the occurrences of ‫ כשל‬in the MT are rendered in the LXX with a Greek equivalent meaning “be weak” or something similar. Of the 65 occurrences of ‫ כשל‬in the MT, there are almost forty instances in which the LXX not only differs from the MT meaning, but renders ‫ כשל‬with a Greek word meaning “be weak.”14 When we juxtapose the evidence here with the previously mentioned fact that there are, at most, only six occurrences of ‫ כשל‬in the MT that ostensibly mean “be weak” or “fail,” it is clear that the LXX translators’ understanding of ‫ כשל‬differs significantly from the BH meaning. Though ‫ כשל‬is rendered by words that reflect the common BH meaning “stumble,” a closer examination of these occurrences indicates that the translators may not have known the meaning “stumble” at all, and, conversely, that they were confident that ‫ כשל‬primarily meant “be weak.” There are numerous instances of the latter, and only a few examples will be discussed below as typifying this tendency by the LXX translators. 3.1. Jeremiah 46(26).6 ‫אל ינוס הקל ואל ימלט הגבור צפונה על יד נהר פרת כשלו ונפלו‬ Let not the swift flee away, nor the warrior escape; in the north by the bank of the Euphrates River, they stumble and fall. μὴ φευγέτω ὁ κοῦφος καὶ μὴ ἀνασῳζέσθω ὁ ἰσχυρός ἐπὶ βορρᾶν τὰ παρὰ τὸν Εὐφράτην ἠσθένησαν πεπτώκασιν Do not let the swift flee, and do not let the strong one be delivered; to the north, the regions by the Euphrates, they were powerless; they have fallen.

Even if the translator did not know what ‫ כשל‬meant here, it would not have been difficult to make an educated guess that it meant something along the lines of “stumble” or “fall” on the basis of the context and the

14.  Various Greek words are employed to reflect ‫כשל‬: ἀσθενέω “be weak” is by far the most common. Other words used include κοπιάω “be weary, labour”; ἀδυνατέω “be weak, be powerless”; παραλύω “be weak, disabled”; and ἄνίσχυς “not having strength.”



Section 2. Chapter 2. ‫ לשכ‬

73

parallelism within the poetry.15 The progression in vv. 5–6 of “turn back” (‫)נסגים אחור‬, “fled in haste” (‫)ומנוס נסו‬, “not look (turn) back” (‫)ולא הפנו‬, “flee” (‫)ינוס‬, “escape” (‫)ימלט‬, “stumble” (‫ )כשלו‬and “fall” (‫ )ונפלו‬is not only logical, but fits the context as it vividly portrays a defeated army running for their lives. Furthermore, the meaning “stumble” fits the poetry better, as ‫ינוס‬/‫ ימלט‬and ‫כשלו‬/‫ נפלו‬form pairs of synonymous terms in v. 6.16 The result of such contextual guessing here would probably have yielded a translational equivalent to ‫נפל‬. However, that the translator insists on ἠσθένησαν suggests that he was confident in his understanding of ‫ כשל‬as “be weak.” 3.2. Nahum 3.3 A similar approach to ‫ כשל‬can be found in Nah 3.3: ‫פרש מעלה ולהב חרב וברק חנית ורב חלל וכבד פגר ואין קצה לגויה יכשלו‬ ‫[ מרב זנוני‬v. 4] ‫בגויתם‬ Charging horsemen and flashing sword and glittering spear; a multitude of slain and heaps of corpses and there is no end to dead bodies; they stumble over dead bodies. 17

καὶ ἱππέως ἀναβαίνοντος καὶ στιλβούσης ῥομφαίας καὶ ἐξαστραπτόντων ὅπλων καὶ πλήθους τραυματιῶν καὶ βαρείας πτώσεως καὶ οὐκ ἦν πέρας τοῖς ἔθνεσιν αὐτῆς καὶ ἀσθενήσουσιν ἐν τοῖς σώμασιν αὐτῶν [v. 4] ἀπὸ πλήθους πορνείας and of mounting horsemen and shining sword and of flashing arms and of a multitude of wounded and of heavy falling. And there was no end to her nations, and they shall become weak in their bodies, [v. 4] because of a multitude of whoredom.

15.  The LXX translators often turned to the context or parallel lines for help when faced with unknown or difficult words. See Tov, “Did the Septuagint Translators always Understand?,” for a discussion of the various kinds of techniques employed by the translators when faced with unknown Hebrew words. 16.  See G. L. Keown, P. J. Scalise and T. G. Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, WBC 27 (Dallas: Word, 1995), 285, for another way in which ‫ כשל‬meaning “stumble” aids the poetry. In the larger literary context of vv. 3–5, there is a reversal in the contrast between the confident call to arms in vv. 3–4 and the subsequent defeat and retreat in vv. 5–6 which is picked up in the poetry. So, just as “they turn back” (v. 5) / “advance” (v. 3) and “flee” / “take your stand” (v. 3) are contrasted, “stumble and fall” serves as a contrast to “Harness the horses and get up (mount), O horsemen!” in the command to attack (vv. 3–4). 17.  The Qere reading, most likely an attempt to make the poetry uniform, is ‫ ;וכשלו‬most scholars prefer the Ketiv.

74

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

Again, the context favours the common BH meaning “stumble, stagger, totter,” but the translator appears confident in his understanding of ‫כשל‬ and renders ‫ יכשלו‬by ἀσθενήσουσιν. Significant amendments are made to accommodate this meaning: ‫ לגויה‬is rendered τοῖς ἔθνεσιν αὐτῆς “to her nations,” and ἀπὸ πλήθους πορνείας “because of a multitude of whoredom” in the following verse is read as the grounds of the verb ἀσθενήσουσιν. It is unlikely that the translator misread ‫ גויה‬as ‫ גוי‬and was consequently influenced to render ‫ כשל‬as “be weak” in order to make sense of τοῖς ἔθνεσιν αὐτῆς, since ‫ בגויתם‬is correctly rendered ἐν τοῖς σώμασιν αὐτῶν “in their bodies” just two words later, and ‫גוייתא‬/‫“ גויה‬body” is attested frequently in PBH/Aramaic. A better explanation is simply that the translator understood ‫ כשל‬to mean “be weak” and, having rendered it as such, he made other changes accordingly. 3.3. Proverbs 4.10–19 Given the relatively free nature of the translation of LXX Prov, caution must be exercised when analysing the Greek text of Prov. This notwithstanding, the renderings of ‫ כשל‬in Prov 4.10–19, a set of instructions by the father/teacher on the “way of wisdom” (‫דרך חכמה‬, v. 11), are worth considering insofar as the lexeme ‫ כשל‬occurs three times in this short pericope (vv. 12, 16 and 19) and means “stumble” in all three occurrences in the Hebrew text.18 Furthermore, ‫ כשל‬serves as a catch-word in Prov 4.10–19, occurring as the last word of vv. 12, 16 and 19. That the meaning of ‫ כשל‬is self-evident in the Hebrew makes it all the more puzzling that the LXX translator renders ‫ כשל‬in these verses by three different Greek equivalents: κοπιάω “be weary” (v. 12), κοιμάω “sleep” (v. 16) and προσκόπτω “stumble” (v. 19). Prov 4.12

‫בלכתך לא יצר צעדך ואם תרוץ לא תכשל‬ When you walk, your step will not be hindered; when you run, you will not stumble. ἐὰν γὰρ πορεύῃ οὐ συγκλεισθήσεταί σου τὰ διαβήματα ἐὰν δὲ τρέχῃς οὐ κοπιάσεις For if you walk, your steps will not be confined, and if you run, you will not grow weary. 18.  The terminology and imagery throughout these verses are perfectly suited for a meaning such as “stumble” (the imagery of wisdom as a road or path is maintained throughout the pericope by using terms such as “step,” “guide,” “run,” “walk,” “go,” and “turn”). Additionally, the parallelism in Prov 4.12 of ‫“ לא יצר צעדך‬your step will not be hampered” with ‫“ לא תכשל‬you will not stumble” further supports “stumble” as the intended meaning.



Section 2. Chapter 2. ‫ לשכ‬

75

Prov 4.16

]‫כי לא ישנו אם לא ירעו ונגזלה שנתם אם לא יכשולו [יכשילו‬ For they cannot sleep unless they have done evil; they are robbed of sleep unless they cause someone to stumble. οὐ γὰρ μὴ ὑπνώσωσιν ἐὰν μὴ κακοποιήσωσιν ἀφῄρηται ὁ ὕπνος αὐτῶν καὶ οὐ κοιμῶνται For they cannot sleep unless they have done evil; their sleep has been taken away and they do not sleep. Prov 4.19

‫דרך רשעים כאפלה לא ידעו במה יכשלו‬ The way of the wicked is like thick darkness; they do not know over what they stumble. αἱ δὲ ὁδοὶ τῶν ἀσεβῶν σκοτειναί οὐκ οἴδασιν πῶς προσκόπτουσιν But the ways of the ungodly are dark; they do not know how they stumble.

There are some interesting questions to consider when we look at these verses together. Does Prov 4.19 indicate that the translator knew ‫ כשל‬to mean “stumble” and, if so, why does he translate it differently elsewhere in the chapter? Or, was his knowledge of ‫ כשל‬limited to “be weak” such that, where such a meaning did not fit the context, he simply made an educated guess? At first glance, LXX Prov 4.19 appears to provide evidence that the translator knew ‫ כשל‬to mean “stumble.” If, however, he was clear that “stumble” was a possible meaning for ‫כשל‬, he would surely have employed it in 4.12 where “stumble” fits nicely with the imagery of walking and running without hindrance. Furthermore, the clear parallelism with ‫לא יצר‬ ‫“ צעדך‬your step will not be hindered” could not be more indicative of the meaning “stumble.” A more likely scenario is that the translator of LXX Prov knew ‫כשל‬ to mean primarily “be weak” and rendered it by κοπιάω in v. 12, the only verse where such a meaning would fit. Though κοπιάω broadly fits the context of v. 12, one must keep in mind that the parallelism clearly favours the meaning “stumble” and that, therefore, the translator’s use of κοπιάω here is indicative of his confidence in the meaning “be weak” for ‫כשל‬. In vv. 16 and 19, however, his understanding of ‫ כשל‬would not have been tenable; thus, he is left to make an educated guess on the basis of the word’s respective contexts. In short, all the examples we have considered suggest that the LXX translators understood ‫ כשל‬to mean primarily “be weak.”19 19.  There are numerous other examples of a LXX translator rendering ‫ כשל‬by words meaning “be weak” where the context prefers “stumble.” Cf. Isa 5.27; 8.15;

76

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

4. LXX Renderings of ‫ כשל‬as “Stumble, Fall” The LXX renders ‫ כשל‬with a Greek equivalent that is similar to the BH meaning “stumble” only seven times. There is thus an interesting reversal, as it were, in the proportion of occurrences between the meanings “stumble, stagger, totter” and “be weak, fail” in the MT and the LXX: in the MT, ‫ כשל‬predominantly means “stumble, stagger, totter” while only six occurrences can mean “be weak, fail”; conversely, the LXX translators render it “stumble” seven times at most, while the majority of occurrences render it “be weak.” Moreover, most, if not all, of the LXX renderings that appear to reflect the BH meaning “stumble” are, in all likelihood, contextual guesses and are not the result of the translator knowing the BH meaning “stumble.” The seven cases where the LXX translators may have rendered ‫ כשל‬on the basis of the BH meaning “stumble” are: Isa 28.13 and 59.10 by πίπτω “fall”; Prov 4.19 by προσκόπτω “strike, offend, stumble”; Prov 24.17 by ὑποσκέλισμα “fall by tripping”; and in OG Dan 11.14, 19 and 33, also by προσκόπτω.20 I shall examine these individually to determine whether the Greek renderings are the result of contextual guessing or derive from the translators’ knowledge of ‫כשל‬. 4.1. Πίπτω Isa 28.13

‫למען ילכו וכשלו אחור ונשברו ונוקשו ונלכדו‬ So they go and stumble backwards, to be broken, snared and taken. ἵνα πορευθῶσι καὶ πέσωσιν εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω καὶ κινδυνεύσουσι καὶ συντριβήσονται καὶ ἁλώσονται In order that they may go and fall backward, and they will be in danger and crushed and be caught. Isa 59.10 ‫נגששה כעורים קיר וכאין עינים נגששה כשלנו בצהרים כנשף באשמנים כמתים‬ We grope along a wall like the blind; we grope like those without eyes. We stumble at noon as in the twilight; [we are] like the dead among those who are healthy. 31.3; 63.13; Jer 6.21; 18.15, 23; 46(26).6, 12, 16; 50.32; Hos 4.5; 5.5; 14.2, 10; Nah 2.6; Ps 9.4; 27(26).2; 31(30).11; 64(63).9; 105(104).37; 107(106).12; 109(108).24; Prov 24.16–17; Lam 1.14; 5.13; and in the θ´ version of Dan 11.14, 19, 33–35, 41. 20.  Interestingly, the θ´ text of Daniel renders all occurrences of ‫ כשל‬by ἀσθενέω “be weak.” If we take θ´ Dan into account, there are only four cases where the LXX translators may have known the BH meaning “stumble.”



Section 2. Chapter 2. ‫ לשכ‬

77

ψηλαφήσουσιν ὡς τυφλοὶ τοῖχον καὶ ὡς οὐχ ὑπαρχόντων ὀφθαλμῶν ψηλαφήσουσι· πεσοῦνται ἐν μεσημβρίᾳ ὡς ἐν μεσονυκτίῳ, ὡς ἀποθνῄσκοντες στενάξουσιν. They will grope like blind men for a wall, and like those who have no eyes they will grope; they will fall at noon as at midnight; like dying men they will groan.21

Though ‫“ כשל‬stumble, stagger, totter” and πίπτω “fall” may be similar in the broadest sense, they are by no means lexical equivalents and it is apparent that the translator did not have the meaning “stumble” in mind when rendering it by πίπτω, for the following reasons. First, of the 305 occurrences of πίπτω in the LXX (excluding Apocryphal texts), Isa 28.13 and 59.10 are the only two which reflect ‫ ;כשל‬and, by way of comparison, πίπτω is employed to reflect ‫ נפל‬at least 286 times (94%). In other words, the semantic range of πίπτω in the minds of the LXX translators was limited, with little room for nuances. Secondly, ‫ כשל‬occurs ten times in MT Isa, but it is never rendered with the common BH meaning “stumble, stagger, totter.” There are instances in Isaiah in which, had the translator known this meaning, he would surely have rendered it as such. Isaiah 31.3 is one such example: Isa 31.3 ‫ומצרים אדם ולא אל וסוסיהם בשר ולא רוח ויהוה יטה ידו וכשל עוזר ונפל עזר‬ ‫ויחדו כלם יכליון‬ Egyptians are men and not God; their horses are flesh, not spirit. When YHWH stretches out his hand, the helper will stumble and the helped will fall; both will perish together. Αἰγύπτιον ἄνθρωπον καὶ οὐ θεόν ἵππων σάρκας καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν βοήθεια ὁ δὲ κύριος ἐπάξει τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ἐπ᾿ αὐτούς καὶ κοπιάσουσιν οἱ βοηθοῦντες22 καὶ ἅμα πάντες ἀπολοῦνται An Egyptian, a man and not God; the flesh of horses, and there is no help. But the Lord will turn his hand against them, and those who help will grow weary, and they will all perish together.

21.  Cf. Baer, When We All Go Home, 53–84, for a helpful discussion of “personalisation,” that is, the substitution of first and second person forms for third person forms in LXX Isa. 22.  The LXX translator’s omission of ‫ ונפל עזר‬is puzzling. It is possible that he simply missed ‫ ונפל עזר‬due to homoioteleuton with ‫ עזר‬and moved on to rendering ‫ויחדו כלם יכליון‬, but there is scant evidence to support such a view. Another view is espoused by Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia, Handkommentar zum Alten Testament 1, 4th ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1922), 231, who prefers the

78

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

Much like Lev 26.36–7, Isa 5.26–27, Jer 20.11 and Jer 46.6, the military context of Isa 31.3 and the occurrence of ‫ כשל‬alongside words such as ‫ נפל‬and ‫ כלה‬make this a prototypical example of where ‫ כשל‬should be rendered “stumble.” That the translator still renders ‫ וכשל‬by καὶ κοπιάσουσιν, however, suggests that he may not know the common BH meaning at all. Thirdly, the meaning “be weak” does not fit well in either Isa 28.13 or 59.10. If “be weak” was the only meaning the LXX translator knew, he may have had to rely on the context to determine an alternative meaning. If we can assume, then, that the translator turned to the context for help, πίπτω “fall” would be a logical guess, since ‫ וכשלו‬is sandwiched between ‫“ למען ילכו‬in order that they may go” and ‫“ אחור‬backward.” In short, though πίπτω is close in meaning to ‫כשל‬, the evidence suggests that the translator’s renderings in Isa 28.13 and 59.10 were semantic guesses on the basis of the context, and not because the BH meaning “stumble, stagger, totter” was known to him. Furthermore, most occurrences of ‫ כשל‬in Isaiah are rendered in the LXX by Greek equivalents meaning “be weak”; if, as we have seen in other translational units, the translator of LXX Isa understood ‫ כשל‬to mean primarily “be weak,” he would have resorted to contextual guessing as the meaning “be weak” does not fit the contexts of either Isa 28.13 or 59.10. Similarly, if the translator did not know what ‫ כשלנו‬meant in Isa 59.10, the context—blind people who grope around and are prone to stumbling whether by day or by night—is perfectly suited for a guess such as πίπτω. In sum, it is more likely that the translator’s rendering of ‫ כשל‬by πίπτω in Isa 28.13 and 59.10 betrays his ignorance, rather than supporting the notion that he was familiar with the meaning “stumble.” 4.2. Ὑποσκέλισμα Another example of ‫ כשל‬rendered by a Greek equivalent meaning “stumble” in LXX Prov can be found in 24.17.

LXX text over the MT and thinks ‫ ונפל עזר‬should be removed as it disturbs the metre of the poetry. However, as Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, Continental Commentaries (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 206–7, points out, ‫ עזר‬and ‫ עוזר‬must be used together to make sense of the verse; thus, he rightly rejects Duhm. Alternatively, it is possible that the translator paraphrased ‫ וכשל עוזר ונפל עזר‬with καὶ κοπιάσουσιν οἱ βοηθοῦντες either to smooth out the translation or because he felt that the conjoined phrase καὶ κοπιάσουσιν οἱ βοηθοῦντες sufficiently reflected ‫וכשל עוזר ונפל עזר‬. That the translator employs the plural for κοπιάω also suggests that he may have been paraphrasing.



Section 2. Chapter 2. ‫ לשכ‬

79

Prov 24.16–17 ‫כי שבע יפול צדיק וקם ורשעים יכשלו ברעה בנפל אויביך [אויבך] אל תשמח‬ ‫ובכשלו אל יגל לבך‬ For the righteous falls seven times and rises again, but the wicked stumbles in evil [times]. Do not rejoice when your enemy falls; let not your heart be glad when he stumbles. ἑπτάκι γὰρ πεσεῖται ὁ δίκαιος καὶ ἀναστήσεται οἱ δὲ ἀσεβεῖς ἀσθενήσουσιν ἐν κακοῖς ἐὰν πέσῃ ὁ ἐχθρός σου μὴ ἐπιχαρῇς αὐτῷ ἐν δὲ τῷ ὑποσκελίσματι αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐπαίρου For the righteous may fall seven times and he will rise again, but the impious will be weak in evil. If your enemy falls, do not rejoice; in his stumbling, do not exult.

Rather as in Prov 4.10–19, where ‫ כשל‬occurs multiple times and is rendered variously, the word occurs in consecutive verses and is rendered by ἀσθενήσουσιν “they will be weak” in v. 16 and ὑποσκελίσματι “[in] stumbling” in v. 17. The context in both verses clearly favours “stumble”; however, words meaning “be weak” are still employed. Again, it is possible that the translator knew the BH meaning “stumble,” albeit poorly, but there is little to support this position. More likely, the translator knew ‫ כשל‬to mean primarily “be weak” (thus ἀσθενήσουσιν in v. 16) and, since it did not fit in v. 17, he was left to make an educated guess on the basis of the context. Thus, the translator’s use of ὑποσκελίσματι in 24.17 does not provide any evidence that he knew the common BH meaning “stumble, stagger, totter.” Verse 16 is also better suited by the meaning “stumble” and yet the translator renders it by ἀσθενέω, suggesting that ἀσθενέω was the primary meaning of ‫ כשל‬in his mind. 4.3. Προσκόπτω23 ‫ כשל‬occurs six times in MT Dan, all in ch. 11 (Dan 11.14, 19, 33, 34, 35, 41). Two occurrences employ more permissive nuances of “stumble” (“stumbling” as the inability to fulfil something in v. 14; and the inability to escape from invaders in v. 41), while the rest follow the common BH meaning “stumble.” What is particularly striking about the Greek translations of Dan 11 are the contrasts in the renderings of ‫ כשל‬in the OG and θ´ versions of Daniel. Of the five occasions on which ‫ כשל‬is reflected in the OG (MT Dan 11.41 is the exception), it is rendered three times by προσκόπτω “stumble, strike 23.  The only other rendering of ‫ כשל‬by προσκόπτω, which occurs in LXX Prov 4.19, has been previously discussed.

80

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

against” (Dan 11.14, 19, 33). θ´, on the other hand, renders the word exclusively by ἀσθενέω “be weak” (see also Dan 11.34–35 below). Below are the three occurrences where ‫ כשל‬is rendered by προσκόπτω in the OG: Dan 11.14

‫ובני פריצי עמך ינשאו להעמיד חזון ונכשלו‬ And the violent among your people will lift themselves up in order to fulfil the vision, but they will stumble. OG: καὶ ἀνοικοδομήσει τὰ πεπτωκότα τοῦ ἔθνους σου καὶ ἀναστήσεται εἰς τὸ ἀναστῆσαι τὴν προφητείαν καὶ προσκόψουσι And he [the king of Egypt] will rebuild the fallen things of your nation, and he will rise up to restore prophecy, and they will stumble. θ´: καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ τῶν λοιμῶν τοῦ λαοῦ σου ἐπαρθήσονται τοῦ στῆσαι ὅρασιν καὶ ἀσθενήσουσιν And the sons of the pestilent ones of your people will be lifted up in order to establish the vision, and they will be weak. Dan 11.19 And he will stumble and fall, and he will not be found.

‫ונכשל ונפל ולא ימצא‬

OG: καὶ προσκόψει καὶ πεσεῖται καὶ οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται And he will stumble and fall and will not be found. θ´: καὶ ἀσθενήσει καὶ πεσεῖται καὶ οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται And he will be weak and fall and will not be found. Dan 11.33 And they shall stumble by sword and flame.

‫ונכשלו בחרב ובלהבה‬

OG: καὶ προσκόψουσι ῥομφαίᾳ καὶ παλαιωθήσονται ἐν αὐτῇ And they will stumble by sword and will become old by it. θ´: καὶ ἀσθενήσουσιν ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ καὶ ἐν φλογί And they will become weak by sword and by flame.

With regard to the OG, the translations of ‫ כשל‬in Dan 11.14, 19 and 33 ostensibly suggest that the translator may have known it to include the meaning “stumble,” as it is represented by προσκόπτω in three of the five occurrences.24 However, the renderings of it in OG Dan 11.34–35 24.  NETS translates προσκόψουσι as “they will take offence” in OG Dan 11.14. προσκόπτω can certainly take on the metaphorical sense of “take offence,” but, equally, it can refer to the act of striking something and, by extension, “stumble.” See, e.g., LXX Jer 13.16; LXX Prov 3.23; and LXX Tob 11.10.



Section 2. Chapter 2. ‫ לשכ‬

81

are awkward, casting some doubt on the translator’s knowledge of the ‫ כשל‬lexeme. In three successive verses it is rendered by different Greek equivalents: in Dan 11.33, as we have seen, by προσκόπτω “stumble, strike against”; in 11.34 by συντρίβω “crush”; and in 11.35 by διανοέω “have in mind.”25 Dan 11.34

‫ובהכשלם יעזרו עזר מעט‬ And when they stumble, they shall receive a little help. OG: καὶ ὅταν συντρίβωνται συνάξουσιν ἰσχὺν βραχεῖαν And when they are crushed, they shall gather a little strength. θ´: καὶ ἐν τῷ ἀσθενῆσαι αὐτοὺς βοηθηθήσονται βοήθειαν μικράν And when they become weak, they will be helped with a little help. Dan 11.35

‫ומן המשכילים יכשלו לצרוף בהם ולברר וללבן עד עת קץ‬ And some of the wise shall stumble, so that they may be refined, purified and made white until the time of the end. OG: καὶ ἐκ τῶν συνιέντων διανοηθήσονται εἰς τὸ καθαρίσαι ἑαυτοὺς καὶ εἰς τὸ ἐκλεγῆναι καὶ εἰς τὸ καθαρισθῆναι ἕως καιροῦ συντελείας And some of the intelligent will be minded to purify themselves and be chosen and be purified until the time of consummation.

θ´: καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν συνιέντων ἀσθενήσουσιν τοῦ πυρῶσαι αὐτοὺς καὶ τοῦ ἐκλέξασθαι καὶ τοῦ ἀποκαλυφθῆναι ἕως καιροῦ πέρας26 And some of the intelligent will become weak so as to refine and choose them and that they be revealed until the time at the end.

The evidence above is slightly ambiguous. It is possible that the translator was aware that BH ‫ כשל‬included the meaning “stumble,” especially since the contexts of Dan 11.14 and 33 do not necessarily favour such a meaning. But the fact that he employs three different Greek equivalents for ‫ כשל‬in three consecutive verses (vv. 33–35) suggests that his knowledge of the word was not secure, as συντρίβω in 11.34 and possibly διανοέω in 11.35 appear to be guesses or attempts to provide a smoother translation. Though somewhat unlikely, a possible explanation of v. 34 is that, on the heels of strong destruction and captivity language in v. 33 (sword, flame, captivity and plunder), the translator wanted to express 25.  It is possible that διανοέω represents BH ‫( שכל‬cf. Dan 7.8 [θ´]). 26.  OG and θ´ both translate ‫ ברר‬with a word meaning “choose.” See the chapter on “‫( ”ברר‬p. 88), for a discussion of the influence of PBH ‫ ברר‬on the LXX translators.

82

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

consequence and, therefore, rendered the infinitive construct ‫ ובהכשלם‬in v. 34 by συντρίβωνται.27 In v. 35, it is conceivable, as Collins suggests, that he read ‫ נשכלו‬for ‫ יכשלו‬and thereby rendered it διανοηθήσονται “they will be minded”;28 however, it seems strange that the translator would suddenly misread ‫ יכשלו‬having just seen it twice in the two previous verses. Contrary to OG Dan’s apparent knowledge of the meaning “stumble” for ‫כשל‬, θ´ Dan renders ‫ כשל‬exclusively by ἀσθενέω. This is not the place to discuss the implications that such varying renderings may have for our understanding of the relationship between the two texts (i.e., whether or not θ´ Dan is a revision on the basis of a Hebrew Vorlage, a recension of the OG or an independent translation of Daniel). For our purposes, we have yet another example where, for whatever reason, ‫ כשל‬is rendered exclusively by ἀσθενέω, even in contexts where the meaning “be weak” is awkward (Dan 11.14, 35). This suggests that the translator of θ´ Dan was confident, albeit wrongly, in his understanding of ‫כשל‬. If, as the traditional view holds—θ´ Dan was a revision of the LXX on the basis of a Hebrew Vorlage—the renderings of ‫ כשל‬by ἀσθενέω in θ´ Dan where OG Dan has προσκόπτω provide further evidence that the semantic range of ‫ כשל‬by the time of the translator of θ´ Dan was limited to “be weak.”29 5. The Greek Revisions and ‫כשל‬ The revisions of Aquila, Symmachus and, to a lesser degree, Sexta and other Greek manuscripts30 correct many of the LXX renderings of ‫כשל‬ meaning “be weak” with the common BH meaning “stumble.” For example, in Isa 8.15: 27.  However, from a grammatical standpoint, the infinitive construct of result is typically preceded by ‫ל‬.ְ Cf. JM §124l, 169d, g. 28.  John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 367. 29.  See Sharon Pace Jeansonne, The Old Greek Translation of Daniel 7–12, CBQMS 19 (Washington, DC: Catholic Bible Association of America, 1988), and Dean O. Wenthe, “The Old Greek Translation of Daniel 1–6” (Ph.D. diss., University of Notre Dame, 1991), for recent studies defending the traditional view. Recently, however, scholars have challenged this view and the relationship between the two texts is unclear. See A. Schmitt, Stammt der sogennante θ´-Text bei Daniel wirklich von Theodotion?, MSU 9 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), and Tim McLay, The OG and Th Versions of Daniel, SBLSCS 43 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996) for contrary views. 30.  At Ps 26(27).2, for example, ς´ has ἔρρεθσαν καὶ πεπτώκεσαν for ‫כשלו ונפלו‬. There are also numerous manuscripts which, against the LXX, render ‫ כשל‬by Greek



Section 2. Chapter 2. ‫ לשכ‬ Isa 8.15

83

‫וכשלו בם רבים ונפלו ונשברו ונוקשו ונלכדו‬

LXX: διὰ τοῦτο ἀδυνατήσουσιν ἐν αὐτοῖς πολλοὶ καὶ πεσοῦνται καὶ συντριβήσονται καὶ ἐγγιοῦσιν καὶ ἁλώσονται ἄνθρωποι ἐν ἀσφαλείᾳ ὄντες α´: διὰ τοῦτο σκανδαλωθήσονται ἐν αὐτοῖς πολλοὶ καὶ πεσοῦνται καὶ συντριβήσονται καὶ ἐγγιοῦσιν καὶ ἁλώσονται ἄνθρωποι ἐν ἀσφαλείᾳ ὄντες σ´: διὰ τοῦτο προσκόψουσιν ἐν αὐτοῖς πολλοὶ καὶ πεσοῦνται καὶ συντριβήσονται καὶ παγιδευθήσονται καὶ συλληφθήσονται

Aquila and Symmachus amend ἀδυνατήσουσιν “they will become weak” in the LXX with σκανδαλωθήσονται “they will be made to stumble” and προσκόψουσιν “they will stumble,” respectively, both of which reflect the Hebrew more accurately.31 This tendency by Aquila, Symmachus and other Greek witnesses is exhibited for most occurrences of ‫ כשל‬in the MT. Below are the other verses in Isaiah where α´, σ´ and θ´ diverge from the LXX and, for the most part, follow the MT:32 Isa 5.27 LXX: οὐδὲ κοπιάσουσιν σ´: οὐ προσκόψουσιν Isa 31.3 LXX: καὶ κοπιάσουσιν οἱ βοηθοῦντες σ´, θ´: καὶ ἀσθενήσει ὁ βοηθός Isa 40.30 LXX: ἀνίσχυες ἔσονται α´: σκανδαλισθήσονται σ´, θ´: ἀσθενήσουσιν

‫ואין כושל‬

‫וכשל עוזר‬

‫כשול יכשלו‬

words meaning “be weak.” For example, the LXX version of Jer 6.15 has καὶ ἐν καιρῷ ἐπισκοπῆς αὐτῶν ἀπολοῦνται [“they shall perish”] εἶπεν κύριος for MT ‫בעת פקדתים‬ ‫ ;יכשלו אמר יהוה‬however, there are several manuscripts, including V (codex Venetus) and Lucianic minuscules, that have ασθενησουσιν against LXX ἀπολοῦνται. 31.  σ´ also has the better translation for ‫ונוקשו ונלכדו‬: καὶ παγιδευθήσονται καὶ συλληφθήσονται “they will be snared and seized.” 32.  Ι do not have the space here to deal with all the Greek witnesses and how they rendered every occurrence of ‫ כשל‬in the MT; however, all renderings of ‫ כשל‬in Isaiah by the LXX translator and “the three” are listed.

84

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew Isa 59.10

‫כשלנו בצהרים כנשף באשמנים כמתים‬ LXX: καὶ πεσοῦνται ἐν μεσημβρίᾳ ὡς ἐν μεσονυκτίῳ ὡς ἀποθνῄσκοντες στενάξουσιν σ´: προσκόψομεν ἐν ἀορασίᾳ ὡς ἐν σκότῳ, ἐν ἀφανισμῷ Isa 59.14 LXX: ὅτι καταναλώθη ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτῶν ἡ ἀλήθεια α´: ὅτι ἐσκανδαλώθη ἐν πλάτει ἀλήθεια Isa 63.13 LXX Isa: οὐκ ἐκοπίασαν α´: οὐκ ἐσκανδαλίσθησαν σ´: οὐκ ἠσθένησαν

‫כי כשלה ברחוב אמת‬

‫לא יכשלו‬

With the exception of Theodotion, who appears to follow the LXX consistently and renders ‫ כשל‬by ἀσθενέω “be weak,” a survey of the Greek renderings of ‫ כשל‬in Isaiah and elsewhere reveals a semantic range and understanding that is similar to BH. For example, Aquila exclusively renders ‫ כשל‬by σκανδαλίζω “stumble.”33 Symmachus exhibits a broader range of words than the LXX, although the meanings all fall within the BH understanding of ‫כשל‬: προσκόπτω “stumble,” πταίω “fall, stumble,” σκανδαλίζω “stumble” and ἀσθενέω “be weak.”34 Short of a comprehensive examination and evaluation of the lexical knowledge of BH ‫ כשל‬by Aquila, Symmachus and other Greek witnesses, a few general observations can be made. Like the LXX translators, who mostly rendered ‫ כשל‬by Greek words meaning “be weak,” but also occasionally by “stumble,” Aquila and Symmachus knew that ‫ כשל‬could also mean “stumble.” The renderings of these later Greek versions, however, do not always adequately reflect the Hebrew, and they may disagree with one another. At the very least, however, the efforts of these later Greek versions to improve the LXX renderings of ‫ כשל‬suggest that there was some uncertainty as to the exact meaning of ‫ כשל‬in PBH times. 33.  Joseph Reider, An Index to Aquila: Greek–Hebrew. Hebrew–Greek. Latin– Hebrew with the Syriac and Armenian Evidence, VTSup 12 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1966), 205 and 286, thinks that Field “wrongly retranslates” α´ from the Syriac here and prefers σκανδαλίζεσθαι or σκανδαλοῦσθαι. 34.  On occasion, however, σ´ reads ‫ כשל‬as “make weak” against the MT and LXX. See, for example, Prov 4.19, where σ´ renders ‫ במה יכשלו‬as ἐν τίνι ἀσθενήσουσιν “by what they will be weak.”



Section 2. Chapter 2. ‫ לשכ‬

85

6. LXX Isa and ‫כשל‬ ‫ כשל‬occurs ten times in MT Isa, in six of which the LXX renders by “be weak,” while the four others are, apparently, attempts to make sense of the text with a limited knowledge of ‫( כשל‬Isa 3.8; 28.13; 59.10, 14). I shall argue that the four occurrences of ‫ כשל‬which are not rendered with the meaning “be weak” are simply contextual guesses due to the translator’s lack of awareness of the primary BH meaning “stumble, stagger, totter.” The two occurrences of ‫ כשל‬in Isa 28.13 and 59.10 which are rendered by πίπτω have already been discussed. To repeat: it may appear that the translator knew BH ‫ כשל‬to mean “stumble, stagger, totter” since πίπτω “fall” is relatively close in meaning, but the evidence suggests that the rendering of ‫ כשל‬by πίπτω is the result of contextual guessing and not owing to the translator’s knowledge of the common BH meaning. The other two occurrences of ‫ כשל‬in Isaiah which are not rendered with a Greek word meaning “be weak” also appear to be the result of contextual guessing. Isa 3.8

‫כי כשלה ירושלם ויהודה נפל כי לשונם ומעלליהם אל יהוה למרות עני כבודו‬ For Jerusalem has stumbled and Judah has fallen because their speech and their deeds are against YHWH, defying the eyes of his glory. ὅτι ἀνεῖται Ιερουσαλημ καὶ ἡ Ιουδαία συμπέπτωκεν καὶ αἱ γλῶσσαι αὐτῶν μετὰ ἀνομίας τὰ πρὸς κύριον ἀπειθοῦντες διότι νῦν ἐταπεινώθη ἡ δόξα αὐτῶν Because Jerusalem has been forsaken and Judea has collapsed, and their tongues are joined with lawlessness, being disobedient toward the things of the Lord; now therefore their glory has been humiliated.

LXX Isa 3.8 is the only place in the LXX where ἀνίημι “leave, forsake” is used to reflect ‫כשל‬, and it has no lexical support since this meaning is not attested for ‫ כשל‬either in BH or in PBH (ἀνίημι generally reflects ‫)רפה‬. The possibility of a misreading also appears to be remote, and there is no reason to suggest that the translator had a different Vorlage here. Furthermore, it should also be noted that in Isa 3.5, just a few verses prior to one of our examples, the translator uses the word προσκόπτω “stumble” (for ‫)רהב‬, a word with an equivalent semantic range to BH ‫ כשל‬and employed by the translator of OG Dan to represent ‫כשל‬. The context of Isa 3.8 and the natural progression of ‫כשל‬/‫ נפל‬also favour the meaning “stumble.” In short, had the translator known the BH meaning “stumble, stagger, totter,” Isa 3.8 would have been a logical place to render ‫ כשל‬with a Greek equivalent.

86

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew Isa 59.14

‫כי כשלה ברחוב אמת ונכחה לא תוכל לבוא‬ For truth has stumbled in the public square, and honesty cannot enter. ὅτι καταναλώθη ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτῶν ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ δι᾿ εὐθείας οὐκ ἠδύναντο διελθεῖν Because truth was consumed in their ways, and they could not travel through a straight path.

Similarly, the rendering καταναλίσκω “consume” has no lexical support in either BH or PBH as an equivalent for ‫כשל‬, and Isa 59.14 is the only instance in the LXX where καταναλίσκω represents ‫כשל‬. Again, the possibility of a misreading is remote and there is no reason to speculate on a different Vorlage here.35 It appears that the variant translation in Isa 59.14 is partly due to the translator missing the personification of the transgressions listed in vv. 14–15 (which may also explain the use of plurals in the LXX) and partly because he did not know the BH meaning “stumble” for ‫כשל‬, so rendering it with καταναλώθη “it [truth] was consumed,” which conveniently fits the context and reiterates the point of vv. 13–15—the absence of truth and justice.36 Thus, once again, the most likely explanation for the divergent readings in Isa 3.8 and 59.14 is that the translator did not know how to render ‫כשל‬ and relied on the context to make sense of it. 7. Conclusion It is hard to ignore the staggering number of times that the LXX translators, as well as θ´, diverge from the MT and render ‫ כשל‬by words meaning “be weak.” As I have argued here, it is clear that the translator of LXX Isa, and in fact most of the LXX translators, understood ‫ כשל‬to mean “be weak.” Where such a meaning did not fit, they apparently made an educated guess on the basis of the context. How do we explain this

35.  It is remotely possible that the translator misread or perceived a textual error with the Hebrew text and read ‫ אכלה‬instead of ‫כשלה‬, thereby rendering or correcting it καταναλώθη “it was consumed.” This is supported by the fact that καταναλίσκω generally reflects ‫ אכל‬in the LXX. However, this suggestion is still highly speculative and requires significant concessions. 36.  Edward J. Kissane, The Book of Isaiah, 2 vols., rev. ed. (Dublin: Browne & Nolan, 1960), 249, sees ‫רחוב‬, the “market-place,” as a place of judgment. Thus, ‫כשל‬ takes on a legal nuance for him, specifically, a reference to Israel’s inability to stand up and testify since witnesses traditionally “rise up” to bear testimony.



Section 2. Chapter 2. ‫ לשכ‬

87

tendency? Is this simply the result of the LXX translators choosing an attested meaning in the MT or might this tendency owe more to semantic development in ‫?כשל‬ A survey of the 65 occurrences of ‫ כשל‬in BH shows that, as expected, the overwhelming majority of them take on the common meaning “stumble, stagger, totter,” while other meanings occur but rarely. For example, the meaning “overthrow” for ‫( כשל‬Hiphil) is attested only in Jer 18.23 and 2 Chr 25.18; the figurative sense of moral stumbling occurs twice (Job 4.4; Isa 59.10); and the meaning “be weak, fail” occurs only six times; however, as I have argued, ‫ כשל‬only means “be weak, fail” where words such as ‫אמץ‬, ‫יעף‬, ‫יגע‬, ‫רפה‬, ‫חזק‬, ‫ חיל‬or ‫ כח‬are already present and establish the context in such a way that the meaning “be weak, fail” can readily be understood. The semantic development of ‫ כשל‬from BH to PBH is not difficult to analyse. It is clear that the common BH meaning “stumble” declines significantly, owing partly, perhaps, to the emergence of PBH and Aramaic ‫תקל‬, which appears to supersede ‫ כשל‬in the sense of “stumble” (as evidenced by the renderings of BH ‫ כשל‬in the Tg and Syr versions). This may explain the decline both of the word itself in PBH and of the meaning “stumble” for ‫כשל‬. It is possible, for example, that the majority of the LXX translators knew only the meaning “be weak” for ‫כשל‬. In sum, the evidence suggests that the LXX translators’ tendency to render ‫ כשל‬by Greek equivalents meaning “be weak” is attributable to semantic development; it was not simply because “be weak” was an attested meaning in BH. The evidence suggests that in PBH the minority BH meaning “be weak” was gaining strength to the disadvantage of the previously predominant sense of “stumble,” and that this already influenced many of the translators of the Greek Old Testament. That is, the sum of the various semantic and linguistic developments in PBH times influenced the LXX translators’ understanding of ‫ כשל‬in Isa 8.15 and elsewhere.

Chapter 3 * ‫ברר‬

‫ = ברר‬ἐκλέγω “choose”; ἐκλεκτός “choice” Isa 49.2

1. Introduction Isa 49.21

‫וישם פי כחרב חדה בצל ידו החביאני וישימני לחץ ברור באשפתו הסתירני‬ καὶ ἔθηκεν τὸ στόμα μου ὡσεὶ μάχαιραν ὀξεῖαν καὶ ὑπὸ τὴν σκέπην τῆς χειρὸς αὐτοῦ ἔκρυψέν με ἔθηκέν με ὡς βέλος ἐκλεκτὸν καὶ ἐν τῇ φαρέτρᾳ αὐτοῦ ἐσκέπασέν με.

The translation of Isa 49.2 by the major versions (LXX, Tg, Vg and Syr) is particularly interesting as they all render ‫“ לחץ ברור‬as a choice arrow”: LXX: ἔθηκέν με ὡς βέλος ἐκλεκτόν Tg: ‫ושויני כגיר בחיר‬ Vg: et posuit me sicut sagittam electam Syr: ‫ܥܒܕܢܝ ܐܝܟ ܓܐܪܐ ܓܒܝܐ‬

On the surface, the fact that all the major versions render ‫ ברור‬as “choice” is evidence against alternative readings (“polished,” “sharpened,” “burnished”) and points to “choice” as the intended Hebrew meaning. However, as I shall argue, these translations are, in fact, the result of semantic change in ‫ברר‬, particularly in the LBH/PBH periods, a *  A shorter version of this chapter was presented as a paper at the SBL Annual Meeting in 2008. 1.  1QIsaa 40.29 has ‫ כחץ ברור‬with a supralinear correction corresponding to the MT: ‫ ;לכחץ ברור‬this correction is confirmed by 1QIsab 21.10 and 4Q58 4.8, which also follow the MT, ‫לחץ ברור‬. It should also be mentioned that in 1QIsaa 40.29a the ‫ כ‬is suspended in the parallel word ‫כחרב‬. Consequently, Kutscher, Isaiah Scroll, 407, wonders whether ‫ בחרב‬might be the original.



Section 2. Chapter 3. ‫ ברר‬

89

development which was problematic for all the ancient versions, including the later Greek revisions. I shall argue this by (1) revisiting the meaning of ‫ ברר‬in its biblical context; (2) tracing the development of the word from BH onwards; and (3) looking at how the individual versions rendered ‫ברר‬ in order to determine the degree to which semantic and morphological change may have influenced their translations. 2. ‫ ברר‬in BH and PBH There are three possible meanings of ‫ ברר‬in BH—two that are well attested in the biblical texts and a third which is still debated and occurs once or twice. The most frequently attested meaning is “purify, cleanse,” which is used in a variety of contexts: the purging of rebels (Ezek 20.38), purifying or consecrating oneself for the Lord (2 Sam 22.27/Ps 18.27; Isa 52.11), pure speech (Job 33.3) and purity as a result of testing (Qoh 3.18; Dan 11.35; 12.10). This meaning is attested by Ugaritic b-r-r “be pure” or “be free,” and Akkadian barru “purified” and barāru “shimmer.”2 Another meaning, occurring only four times, is “choose, select,” which is limited to the later texts Nehemiah and Chronicles, and mostly occurs as a participle in apposition with a nominal construct. It is used to describe choice sheep (Neh 5.18), select men such as warriors (1 Chr 7.40), porters (1 Chr 9.22) or musicians (1 Chr 16.41). A third possible meaning for ‫ברר‬ is “sharpen,” which occurs only in Jer 51.11 and, as I shall argue, here in Isa 49.2. It is thought to be a cognate of Arabic barā,3 although Hoffner is sceptical of this derivation and believes that the original meaning, “purify, cleanse,” is sufficient in this case too.4 A possible by-form with the meaning “sharpen” can be found within BH, as III-‫“ ברא‬shape by cutting” conveys a similar meaning to ‫“ ברר‬sharpen” (cf. Ezek 21.24[19], ‫“ ויד ברא בראש דרך עיר ברא‬and cut out a signpost; cut it out it at the fork5 in the road to each city”). 2.  However, Pelio Fronzaroli, “Problems of a Semitic Etymological Dictionary,” in Studies on Semitic Lexicography, QSem 2 (Florence: Istituto di Linguistica e di Lingue Orientali, 1973), 18, challenges the meaning of this Semitic root and prefers “penetrate”: “The meaning ‘to penetrate’ is shown as original by its preservation in the marginal areas. Contexts in which the two literary words for ‘ray’ and ‘radiance’ appear in Akkadian, do not bear evidence of referring to the quality of light; they refer to the strength of penetration of the rays of Šamaš (or other gods), that reach the most secret places…” 3.  For the Arabic cognate of ‫ברר‬, see H. Wehr, A Dictionary of Modern Arabic (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1979), 54–55, and ‫ ברר‬entries in HALOT, GKB and DCH. 4.  ThWAT, I, 845. 5.  Cf. Ezek 21.26 ‫ בראש שני הדרכים‬for the translation, “at the fork.”

90

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

Commentators are thus understandably divided on the meaning of ‫ ברור‬in Isa 49.2. Westermann, Childs and Watts are among those who prefer “polished,” a conclusion based upon the most frequently attested meaning of ‫ברר‬, “purify/clean.”6 Gerleman, McKenzie and Fischer render it “choice,” a meaning which, as we have seen, also occurs in BH and is supported by the major versions.7 Citing Jer 51.11, Blenkinsopp, Baltzer, Merendino and Koole think that “pointed” or “sharpened” is the correct meaning.8 Goldingay and Payne are alone in reading ‫ ברור‬as “burnished,” presumably on the basis of Akkadian barāru and the association of YHWH’s arrows with lightning.9 Regrettably, few scholars account for their preferences, and when they do they defend their translation by tersely mentioning that their particular nuance is an attested BH meaning. 2.1. The Meaning of ‫ ברר‬in Isaiah 49.2 Though the intended meaning of ‫ ברור‬in Isa 49.2 is difficult to determine with certainty, the following points tilt the evidence in favour of “sharpened.” First, the collocation of “sharp” with “arrow” is employed elsewhere (e.g. Jer 51.11 ‫“ הברו החצים מלאו השלטים‬Sharpen the arrows; fill the quivers!”). It also has support from the Vg and Tg versions of Jer 51.11 (Vg: acuite sagittas implete faretras; Tg: ‫שנינו גרריא מלו‬ ‫)שלטיא‬. Admittedly, such a rendering could have been influenced by the 6.  C. Westermann, Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary, trans. D. M. G. Stalker, OTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 206; B. S. Childs, Isaiah, OTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 379; J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah 34–66, WBC 25 (Waco: Thomas Nelson, 2005), 727. 7.  G. Gerleman, Studien zur alttestamentlichen Theologie, Franz Delitzsch Vorlesungen, 1978, Neue Folge (Heidelberg: Schneider, 1980), 54, “ausgewählten Pfeil”; J. L. McKenzie, Second Isaiah, AB 20 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1968), 103; Fischer, In welcher Schrift?, 102, “erlesenen Pfeil.” 8.  J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, AB 19A (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 2002), 297; Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 307; R. P. Merendino, “Jes 49:1–6: Ein Gottesknechtslied?,” ZAW 92 (1980): 236–48 (237), “geschärften Pfeil”; Jan L. Koole, Isaiah III: Volume 2 / Isaiah 49–55, Historical Commentary on the Old Testament (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1998), 9. Reading ‫ ברר‬as “sharpened” is also supported by Tg Jer 51.11, ‫“ שנינו גרריא מלו שלטיא‬sharpen the arrows; fill the quivers/shields!” and the Vg, acuite sagittas implete faretras “sharpen the arrows; fill the quivers!” 9.  J. Goldingay and D. Payne, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 40–55, Volume 2, ICC (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 158, surmise that “the burnishing referred to…is the smoothing of blemishes from the shaft to make the arrow fly true, and/or the shining brightness of arrows that makes possible an association between YHWH’s arrows and lightning.” Other than the link to Akkadian barāru, their reasoning is somewhat subjective and lacks textual evidence.



Section 2. Chapter 3. ‫ ברר‬

91

parallelism within the verse.10 Nevertheless, it seems that Jerome and the Targumist knew that “sharpen” was a possible meaning of ‫ברר‬. There is no reason to think that they deviated from their lexical knowledge of ‫ברר‬ to make an educated guess, especially since the alternative translations, “Choose the arrows!” or “Polish the arrows!,” would have been passable. I shall discuss why Jerome chose to render ‫ ברור‬in Isa 49.2 by electam below (see “The Vulgate and ‫)”ברר‬. Secondly, the imagery here is military, employing terms such as ‫חץ‬ ‫חרב‬, and ‫אשפה‬. A sharp sword in the hand and arrows in the quiver are by their very nature instruments used to kill and destroy. As Baltzer points out, “arrows in the quiver are ready. They are sharpened.”11 In addition, as King and Stager note: “Iron is valued for its hardness and strength. Wrought iron (shaped by hammering) is softer than bronze, but it holds an edge and a point.”12 Though it appears to be a later insertion, 1QIsaa 49.2 has ‫ באש‬after ‫ברור‬, an explanatory reference, perhaps, to the process by which an arrow is made sharp.13 Thirdly, none of the 55 occurrences of ‫ חץ‬in the Old Testament concerns an arrow that is “polished” or “chosen.” Arrows are almost always described as being “sharp” (or by extension, “piercing” or “deadly”) in the biblical texts.14 The only exceptions are, as Goldingay and Payne

10.  Additionally, there is a chiastic order in Isa 49 that ties ‫ וישימני לחץ ברור‬with the parallelism of v. 2a. Cf. A. Wilson, The Nations in Deutero-Isaiah: A Study on Composition and Structure, Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 1 (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1986), 276–82, and Goldingay and Payne, Isaiah 40–55, Volume 2, 158. 11.  Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 307. Baltzer also appears to be giving the meaning “polished” a vote of confidence by indicating that sharpened arrows are in essence “shining arrows.” 12.  Philip J. King and L. E. Stager, Life in Biblical Israel (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 167–69. King and Stager also provide a concise outline of how an iron object, such as an arrow, might have been made in the Iron Age: the iron ore is first melted at the blistering temperature of 2793 Fº; the liquid metal is then poured into a mould and hardened by quenching; it is then shaped by constantly hammering the ore until it reaches its desired shape and pointedness. 13.  Moshe H. Goshen-Gottstein, ed., The Book of Isaiah (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1995), 223, apparatus II, rightly thinks that ‫ באש‬is a secondary correction. Whether ‫ ברור באש‬reflects the original text of 1QIsaa or is a later correction, ‫ באש‬may be an attempt to clarify the meaning of ‫ברור‬, namely that the arrow had to be melted by fire to be shaped and sharpened. 14.  See, for example, Num 24.8; Deut 32.42; Isa 5.28; Ezek 5.16; Pss 64.4; 120.4; Prov 7.23; 25.18.

92

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

point out, Ps 7.14 (‫“ חציו לדלקים יפעל‬he makes his arrows fiery”), Hab 3.11 (‫“ לאור חציך יהלכו‬at the flash of your flying arrows”) and Zech 9.14 (‫“ ויצא כברק חצו‬his arrow will go forth like lightning”). Fourthly, the description of the tongue as a “sharp” or “destructive” arrow elsewhere (Pss 57.5; 64.3; Jer 9.7) is also significant, as the context of Isa 49.2 is a description of the devastating words and actions of the Servant as commissioned by YHWH. The destructiveness of the divine word is also mentioned in Isa 11.4 (“he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked”), Hos 6.5 (“I have slain them by the words of my mouth”) and Jer 23.29 (“Is not my word like fire, declares YHWH, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?”). It is only logical, then, that the necessary equipment to carry out this destructive task is likened to a “sharp sword” and a “sharp arrow,” alluding, perhaps, to piercing, catastrophic words. In short, the military imagery, descriptions of arrows elsewhere in the Old Testament as “sharp,” and the context of Isa 49 suggest that the intended meaning of ‫ ברור‬in Isa 49.2 was “sharpened.” 2.2. Semantic and Morphological Change in LBH and PBH As we have noted, there are three distinct meanings of ‫ ברר‬in the MT: (1) “purify, cleanse”; (2) “choose, select”; and (3) “sharpen.”15 However, the most frequently attested meaning is “purify, cleanse,” rendered as such by the LXX in 12 of the 18 occurrences. More significant for our purposes, however, is the possibility of semantic development occurring with ‫ברר‬. Below is a list of ‫ ברר‬in every occurrence within the MT (the verb ‫ ברר‬occurs 16 times; I have included the two occurrences of the adjective, ‫“ ברור‬pure, clear” [Zeph 3.9; Job 33.3] as they appear in the same consonantal form as the passive participles in Isa 49.2): 2 Sam 22.27: With the purified, you deal purely. Isa 49.2: He made me as a sharpened arrow. Isa 52.11:

‫עם נבר תתבר‬

‫וישימני לחץ ברור‬

‫הברו נשאי כלי יהוה‬ Purify yourselves, the ones carrying the vessels of YHWH! 15.  DCH also lists three separate entries for ‫ברר‬.



Section 2. Chapter 3. ‫ ברר‬ Jer 4.11:

‫לוא לזרות ולוא להבר‬

[A hot wind comes] not to winnow or cleanse. Jer 51.11: Sharpen the arrows; fill the quivers!

93

‫הברו החצים מלאו השלטים‬

Ezek 20.38:

‫וברותי מכם המרדים והפושעים בי‬ I will purge from among you the rebels and the ones transgressing against me. Zeph 3.9:

‫כי אז אהפך אל עמים שפה ברורה‬ For then I will restore to the peoples a pure speech. Ps 18.27: With the purified, you show yourself as pure. Job 33.3: And what my lips know, they speak purely. Qoh 3.18: For God to test them. Dan 11.35: [That they may be] refined, purified, and made white.

‫עם נבר תתברר‬

‫ודעת שפתי ברור מללו‬

‫לברם האלהים‬

‫לצרוף בהם ולברר וללבן‬

Dan 12.10:

‫יתבררו ויתלבנו ויצרפו רבים‬ Many shall purify themselves, and be made white, and refined. Neh 5.18: Six choice sheep. 1 Chr 7.40:

‫צאן שש בררות‬

‫ראשי בית האבות ברורים גבורי חילים‬ [The sons of Asher were] heads of the houses of fathers, choice, mighty men.

94

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew 1 Chr 9.22: All those chosen as porters in the gate.

‫כלם הברורים לשערים בספים‬

1 Chr 16.41:

‫ושאר הברורים אשר נקבו בשמות להדות ליהוה‬ And the rest were chosen and designated by name to praise YHWH.

A close examination of the occurrences of ‫ ברר‬in the MT reveals a shift in meaning emerging somewhere between the CBH and LBH texts. Of the 18 occurrences of ‫ ברר‬in the HB, the only four that mean “choose” or “select” are found in Nehemiah and 1 Chronicles, books which are selfevidently LBH texts. It is plausible, then, that at a later stage the meanings of ‫ ברר‬bifurcated, with “choose” emerging as a distinct meaning alongside the common BH meaning “purify.”16 2.3. ‫ ברר‬in Qumran and PBH That a distinct later meaning emerges is also attested by the Qumran literature. Though the BH meanings are not replaced, it is clear that the later meaning “choose, select” becomes an equally prominent, if not a primary, meaning for ‫ ברר‬in the Qumran literature.17 A few parallels to the LBH meaning are: CD 10.4, ‫“ עד עשרה אנשים ברורים‬At least ten men [shall be] chosen”; 1QM 5.4, ‫“ ויד הכידן קרן ברורה‬the handle of your sword [shall be] of choice horn”; 11Q19 57.5, ‫“ וברר לו מהמה אלף אלף‬He will choose 16.  The unusual meaning “make sharp” (cf. Isa 49.2; Jer 51.11) is not attested hereafter. Criteria for determining LBH or PBH linguistic elements have been treated in detail by others. See Hurvitz, “Continuity and Innovation,” 5–6; Hurvitz, “Linguistic Criteria for Dating Problematic Biblical Texts”; Joosten, “On the LXX Translators’ Knowledge of Hebrew,” 169; R. Bergey, “Late Linguistic Features in Esther,” JQR 75 (1984): 66–78 (68–69). Hurvitz’s criteria (in “Continuity and Innovation”) are particularly helpful here as the case in point is, as I am arguing, a LBH element. His three-fold criteria of “Biblical Distribution” (the purported LBH meaning, “choose,” is found exclusively in the so-called LBH texts), “Linguistic Contrast” (the “classical” meaning, “purify,” is attested in the BH texts, thereby demonstrating contrast and semantic development) and “Extra-Biblical Sources” (the LBH element is found in late sources outside the HB, e.g., the Qumran texts and other post-biblical literature [see below]) are met convincingly by ‫ברר‬. 17.  Of the sectarian Qumran texts that are coherent, at least half of the occurrences of ‫ ברר‬mean “choose, select.” Some of the occurrences of ‫ ברר‬in the Qumran texts quote directly from the Bible (including Isa 49.2 and Zeph 3.9) and thus the meaning of ‫ ברר‬mirrors that of the respective biblical texts; other occurrences of ‫ברר‬ are fragmentary and, consequently, unintelligible.



Section 2. Chapter 3. ‫ ברר‬

95

from them one thousand [men] for himself.”18 As Elwolde traces the developments in the derivational morphology of ‫ ברר‬in the Qumran texts, he highlights the use of the plural passive participle of ‫ ברר‬as another example of the LBH meaning, “choose, select”: For the Qal of the verb ‫“ ברר‬separate, select,” the Scrolls not only provide us with further examples of the two biblical usages, namely the plural passive participle used as a noun “selected warriors”…and employed verbally…, but also with examples of the Qal perfect and imperfect…and of the passive participle used predicatively.19

The semantic change in ‫ ברר‬continues to develop diachronically from the Qumran texts to the PBH period, where we see the following phenomena in semantic development occurring. First, the BH meaning of ‫“ ברר‬purify” rapidly declines in use and is virtually non-existent after the Qumran texts and Ben Sira.20 Secondly, the LBH meaning “choose, select” is used extensively and takes on greater prominence in PBH, especially in the Mishnaic texts. Furthermore, PBH ‫ ברר‬expands in meaning from “choose, select” to include nuances such as “single out,” “sift,” “clarify,” “ascertain” and “prove.” In fact, of the 30 occurrences of ‫ ברר‬in the Mishnah, six mean “sift, winnow,” which is, arguably, an expanded nuance of “choose, select,” and every other occurrence strictly conforms to the LBH meaning “choose, select.”21 It is apparent, then, that the primary meaning for PBH ‫ ברר‬is “choose, select.” The effect of semantic and morphological changes, particularly with respect to the weak verbs, was to create much confusion for ancient scribes and translators.22 As early as QH, for example, scribes represented unfamiliar roots in the MT by later forms. In his seminal work,

18.  ‫ אלף אלף‬appears to be the result of dittography. If “ten-thousand” were the intended meaning, one would expect ‫ עשרת אלפים‬or ‫רבבה‬, )‫( רבו(א‬cf. JM §100j; GKC §97f). 19.  Elwolde, “Developments in Hebrew Vocabulary,” 43. 20.  The adjective ‫בר‬, “pure,” occurs sporadically in PBH. However, as far as I can tell, ‫“( ברר‬purify, cleanse”) is not attested. 21.  See, Kil. 2.1; Šhev. 5.9; Maaś. 2.6; Maaś. Š. 2.6; Šhabb. 7.2; Eruv. 4.5; Beṣah. 1.8; Taan. 4.8; Giṭ. 5.9; B. Meṣia. 4.12; Sanh. 3.1; 4.4; Avot 2.1; Bek. 2.6–8; Tamid 2.5; Ned. 2.7. 22.  With regard to etymological and morphological recognition of problematic roots, Tov thinks that the LXX translators were, generally speaking, more lenient in their etymological exegesis in that two letters were sufficient for semantic identification, especially with weak verbs. Tov, “Biliteral Exegesis,” 459–82.

96

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll, Kutscher convincingly illustrated this by pointing out numerous examples in which the scribe(s) of 1QIsaa replaced BH roots in the presumed MT Vorlage with slightly altered QH equivalents that changed over time (e.g. ‫חלל‬/‫חלה‬, ‫הלל‬/‫ילל‬, ‫גיא‬/‫גאה‬, ‫באש‬/‫בוש‬, ‫נואם‬/‫נאום‬/‫נום‬, ‫יסף‬/‫אסף‬, etc.).23 It comes as no surprise, then, that bi-consonantal and geminate verbs that evolved between the BH and MH periods were problematic for the translators of the ancient versions, both in terms of etymological recognition and semantic development.24 The lexeme in question, ‫ברר‬, is no exception, as it is rendered in a variety of ways in the ancient versions. The degree to which the versions struggled with ‫ ברר‬and differed in their renderings is remarkable and merits closer examination. I shall thus examine how the individual versions rendered ‫ ברר‬in order to determine the extent of the translators’ knowledge of ‫ ברר‬and the degree to which that may have influenced their translations. 3. The Peshitta and ‫ברר‬ The Syr rendering of ‫ ברר‬in the MT frequently deviates from the intended Hebrew meaning, often resorting to what appears to be contextual guessing. For example, the Syr has ‫ܓܒܐ‬, “choose, select, gather,” in places where the context suggests another meaning: 2 Sam 22.27 With the purified, you deal purely. And with the chosen, you will be chosen.

‫עם נבר תתבר‬ ‫ܘܥܡ ܓܒܝܐ ܬܗܘܐ ܓܒܐ‬

Isa 52.11

‫הברו נשאי כלי יהוה‬ Purify yourselves, the ones carrying the vessels of YHWH! ‫ܘܐܬܓܒܘ ܫܩ̈ܝܠܝ �ܡܐ̈ܢܘܗܝ ܕܡܪܝܐ‬ Gather yourselves, [who] bear the vessels of the Lord! 23.  Kutscher, Isaiah Scroll, especially 216–315. 24.  Using ‫חיל‬, ‫ חול‬and ‫ חלל‬as a test case, David Weissert, “Alexandrian Analogical Word-Analysis and Septuagint Translation Techniques: A Case Study of ‫חלל–חיל–חול‬,” Textus 8 (1974): 31–44, argues that the LXX translators took an “analogistic linguistic approach” in the rendering of geminated and ‫ ע״ו‬verbs which accounts for the different Greek renderings. See also F. H. Polak, “The Interpretation of ‫ּכֹּלה‬/‫ה‬ ֻ ‫ ָכ ָל‬in the LXX: Ambiguity and Intuitive Comprehension,” Textus 17 (1994): 57–77, for another example of etymological confusion.



Section 2. Chapter 3. ‫ ברר‬

97

In one instance, the Syr translator misses the root entirely, probably reading ‫ לברם‬as ‫“ ברא‬create.” Qoh 3.18 For God to test them. Whom God created.

‫לברם האלהים‬ ‫ܕܒܪܐ ܐܢܘܢ ܐܠܗܐ‬

The Syr translators render ‫ ברר‬in some of the LBH texts with meanings other than the later meaning, “choose, select,” though in the case of Chronicles the Syriac is notoriously free in relation to the MT.25 Neh 5.18 Six choice sheep. Six fat sheep.

‫צאן שש בררות‬ ‫ܘܥܢܐ ܫܬ ܫܡܝܢܬܐ‬

1 Chr 7.40

‫ראשי בית האבות ברורים גבורי חילים‬ [The sons of Asher were] heads of the “houses of fathers,” choice, mighty men. ‫ܪ̈ܫܝ ܒܝܬ ܐܒܗ̈ܬܗܘܢ ܒܕܪ̈ܝܗܘܢ ܓܢܒܪ̈ܝ ܚܝ�ܠܐ‬ Heads of their fathers’ houses, according to their generations, mighty men.26 1 Chr 9.22 All those chosen as porters in the gates. All those standing in the gates.

‫כלם הברורים לשערים בספים‬ ‫ܟܠܗܘܢ ܗܠܝܢ ܩܝܡܝܢ ܒܬܪܥܐ‬

1 Chr 16.41

‫ושאר הברורים אשר נקבו בשמות להדות ליהוה‬ And the rest were chosen and designated by name to praise YHWH. ‫ܘܫܪܟܐ ܕܐܢܫܐ ܙܕܝܩܐ‬ And the rest of the righteous men.

25.  See M. P. Weitzman, The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction, University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 56 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), especially Chapter 2, for more on the Syr translator of Chronicles. ̈ 26.  The Syr translation ‫ ܒܕܪܝܗܘܢ‬seems to reflect BH ‫“ דור‬generation.”

98

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

It should also be pointed out that, unlike the LXX, Vg and Tgs, the Syr does not render ‫ ברר‬as “purify, cleanse” at all, an indication, perhaps, that the Syr translators were unaware of this particular BH meaning. Although they knew other meanings of )‫ בר(ר‬that were in use in the PBH period, for whatever reason—the semantic development of )‫ בר(ר‬in the PBH period; unfamiliarity with the BH meaning; etymological confusion—it was a problematic word which caused a great deal of difficulty for the translators, ultimately resulting in a variety of renderings. Of the ancient versions, the Syr understanding of ‫ ברר‬was probably the weakest, as its translations are difficult to explain and appear to be guesses. 4. The Targums and ‫ברר‬ The Targums also employ a variety of words for BH ‫ברר‬, rendering it with Aramaic ‫ברר‬, ‫בריר‬, ‫חבר‬, ‫בחן‬, ‫נסי‬, ‫שנן‬, and ‫פרש‬. A few observations can be made here. First, Aramaic ‫ברר‬, an uncommon word which occurs primarily in the Tgs, means “choose” (Pael) or “be clear, be pure” (Ithpeel, generally as an intransitive).27 Unlike the Syr, there are a few places where the Tgs follow the meanings of BH ‫ ברר‬and have Aramaic ‫ ברר‬or the adjective ‫“ בריר‬clear, pure” or “chosen”: MT 2 Sam 22.27 With the purified, you deal purely.

‫עם נבר תתבר‬

Tg 2 Sam 22.27

‫יעקב דהליך בברירותא קדמך בחרתא בנוהי מכל עממיא‬ Jacob who walked in purity before you, you chose his sons from all the peoples. MT Jer 4.11 Not to winnow or to cleanse. Tg Jer 4.11 Not to winnow or to cleanse.

‫לוא לזרות ולוא להבר‬

‫לא למדרי ולא לבררא‬

27.  See Christian Brady, “The Recovery of the Aramaic Root br ‘to cleanse’ and Another Possible Aramaising Rendering in the Septuagint,” Aramaic Studies 7 (2009): 155–62, for more on the Aramaic background of the root ‫ברר‬.



Section 2. Chapter 3. ‫ ברר‬ MT Ps 18.27 With the purified, you show yourself as pure.

99

‫עם נבר תתברר‬

Tg Ps 18.27

‫עם יעקב דהוה בריר קדמך בחרתא בנוי מן כל עממיא‬ With Jacob, who was pure before you, you chose his sons from all the peoples.

Secondly, the Tgs are well aware of the later meaning “choose, select” for ‫ברר‬, as it is rendered with ‫ בחר‬or ‫בחיר‬: MT Isa 52.11

‫הברו נשאי כלי יהוה‬ Purify yourselves, the ones carrying the vessels of YHWH! Tg Isa 52.11

‫אתבחרו נטלי מני בית מקדשא דיוי‬ Be chosen you who carry the vessels of the sanctuary of YHWH! MT 1 Chr 7.40

‫ראשי בית האבות ברורים גבורי חילים‬ [The sons of Asher were] heads of the “house of fathers,” choice, mighty men. Tg 1 Chr 7.40

‫כל אלין בני אשר רישי בית אבהת בחיריא גברי חילא‬ All these were sons of Asher, heads of the fathers’ houses, choice, warriors of strength. MT 1 Chr 16.41

‫ושאר הברורים אשר נקבו בשמות להדות ליהוה‬ And the rest were chosen and designated by name to praise YHWH. Tg 1 Chr 16.41

‫ועמהון הימן וידותון ושייר בחירייה‬ And with them were Heman and Jeduthun and the rest of those chosen.28

Thirdly, the Tgs seem to have a better grasp of the various meanings of )‫ בר(ר‬and the proper contexts in which they are to be used. For example, in 2 Sam 22.27 (Ps 18.27), where ‫ ברר‬occurs twice, the Tgs employ both 28.  Tg 1 Chr 9.22, ‫“ כולהון אתחברו לתרעייה בשקופייה‬all these were gathered as gatekeepers at the thresholds,” apparently misread MT ‫ הברורים‬and rendered it with Aram. ‫“ חבר‬join, gather.”

100

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

‫ ברר‬and ‫בחר‬, which suggests that the translators may have been aware of both the BH and LBH meanings for ‫ ;ברר‬Tg Jer 51.11 has ‫“ שנן‬sharpen,” which is supported by the Vg acuite; the BH meaning “purify,” and, by extension, “test, prove,” appears in Tg Qoh 3.18 ‫לנסואיהון ובגין למבחנהון‬ “to test and [in order to] try them.” In sum, not only were the Targumists aware of both the BH meaning “purify, cleanse” and the LBH meaning “choose, select,” but, for the most part, they correctly rendered ‫ ברר‬as it occurred in the MT. 5. The Vulgate and ‫ברר‬ The Vg is the only version that employs all three meanings of ‫ברר‬ (“purify,” “choose, select” or “sharpen”) and, by all accounts, Jerome was confident in his understanding of ‫ ברר‬as he diverges from the LXX on several occasions, sometimes with a better translation. For example, in Isa 52.11: MT: ‫הברו נשאי כלי יהוה‬ Vg: mundamini qui fertis vasa Domini VL: separamini qui dominica vasa portatis LXX: ἀφορίσθητε οἱ φέροντες τὰ σκεύη κυρίου

Despite both the LXX and VL reading “separate” (LXX: ἀφορίσθητε; VL: separamini),29 Jerome correctly renders ‫ הברו‬with mundamini “purify yourselves.” In Jer 4.11: MT: ‫לוא לזרות ולוא להבר‬ Vg: non ad ventilandum et ad purgandum LXX: οὐκ εἰς καθαρὸν οὐδ᾿ εἰς ἅγιον σ´: οὐ τοῦ λικμῆσαι οὐδὲ τοῦ καθαρίσαι

Jerome has “cleanse” (verb purgo) for ‫ להבר‬against LXX ἅγιον and possibly following σ´, τοῦ καθαρίσαι, although, admittedly, the LXX translation is difficult to account for. The context of LXX Jer 4 suggests that the translator rendered v. 11 on the basis of the broader literary context of judgement. The difficulty of the LXX translation notwithstanding, the point here is Jerome’s superior rendering of the Hebrew against the LXX. Another example of this is Zeph 3.9:

29.  VL codices K, C, O and X all have separamini, reflecting the LXX ἀφορίσθητε.



Section 2. Chapter 3. ‫ ברר‬

101

MT: ‫כי אז אהפך אל עמים שפה ברורה‬ Vg: quia tunc reddam populis labium electum LXX: ὅτι τότε μεταστρέψω ἐπὶ λαοὺς γλῶσσαν εἰς γενεὰν αὐτῆς

Against the variant reading of LXX Zeph, γενεὰν αὐτῆς, Jerome has electum “chosen” for ‫ברורה‬. It is likely that the LXX translator read ‫בדורה‬ for ‫( ברורה‬thus εἰς γενεάν [‫ דור‬+ ‫)]ב‬. A final example of Jerome going against the LXX is found in Jer 51.11: MT: ‫הברו החצים מלאו השלטים‬ Vg: acuite sagittas implete faretras LXX: παρασκευάζετε τὰ τοξεύματα πληροῦτε τὰς φαρέτρας

Here, Jerome has acuite “sharpen” for ‫הברו‬, against LXX παρασκευάζετε “prepare.” Although it is difficult to determine how Jerome rendered ‫ הברו‬as acuite—perhaps on account of the context of the verse, or of the influence of III-‫ ברא‬meaning “shape by cutting,” or because his understanding of BH ‫ ברר‬included “sharpen”—it is the better translation and is yet another example of his understanding of BH ‫ברר‬. In all six instances in which the MT means “purify, purge, cleanse,” the Vg renders with the LBH meaning, “choose, chosen” (2 Sam 22.27/Ps 18[17].27; Ezek 20.38; Zeph 3.9; Dan 11.35; 12.10). In our passage of interest, Isa 49.2, where Jerome has electam for MT ‫“ ברור‬sharpened,” it appears that his translation was not the result of lexical uncertainty, but a theological interpretation. One might expect acutam “sharpened” here, as Jerome previously rendered ‫ ברר‬with the BH meaning “sharpen” in Jer 51.11, the only other passage where ‫ ברר‬appears with ‫חץ‬. However, it appears that Jerome’s conception of the messiah convinced him to go with electam over acutam.30 In summary, despite Jerome’s ability to render some of the more problematic texts correctly (Isa 52.11; Jer 4.11; 51.11; Job 33.3; Qoh 3.18), the prominence of the LBH/PBH meaning “choose, select” in Jerome’s understanding of ‫ ברר‬may have influenced his translation in several passages where the BH meaning “purify, cleanse” is to be preferred; furthermore, it appears that his translation in Isa 49.2 was influenced by theological considerations.

30.  In his commentary on Isa 49.2, Jerome explains why Christ is the “chosen arrow”: “Christus autem de multis sagittis et filiis plurimis una sagitta electa et filius unigenitus est, quam in pharetra sua abscondit, id est in humano corpore, ut habitaret in eo plenitudo diuinitatis corporaliter, raraque esset credentium fides.”

102

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

6. The LXX and ‫ברר‬ The prominence of the LBH/PBH meaning “choose, select” is also evident in the LXX, where 12 of the 18 occurrences of ‫ ברר‬are rendered with this meaning (I am including ἀφορίσθητε [Isa 52.11], which could be a nuance of either “purify” or “select”). Like Jerome, the LXX translators were apparently unaware that “choose, select” was a later meaning, and they therefore employ it in texts where the intended meaning is the earlier BH meaning, “purify, cleanse”: 2 Sam 22.27 καὶ μετὰ ἐκλεκτοῦ ἐκλεκτὸς ἔσῃ And with the chosen, you will be chosen. Ps 18(17).27 καὶ μετὰ ἐκλεκτοῦ ἐκλεκτὸς ἔσῃ (Ps 17.27) And with the chosen, you will be chosen. Isa 49.2 ἔθηκέν με ὡς βέλος ἐκλεκτόν He made me as a chosen arrow. Isa 52.11 ἀφορίσθητε οἱ φέροντες τὰ σκεύη κυρίου Be separated, you who carry the vessels of YHWH!31

‫עם נבר תתבר‬

‫עם נבר תתברר‬

‫וישימני לחץ ברור‬

‫הברו נשאי כלי יהוה‬

Ezek 20.38

‫וברותי מכם המרדים והפושעים בי‬ καὶ ἐκλέξω ἐξ ὑμῶν τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς καὶ τοὺς ἀφεστηκότας I will choose from among you the ungodly and the rebels. Dan 11.35

‫לצרוף בהם ולברר וללבן‬ εἰς τὸ καθαρίσαι ἑαυτοὺς καὶ εἰς τὸ ἐκλεγῆναι καὶ εἰς τὸ καθαρισθῆναι To purify themselves and to be chosen, and to be cleansed. Neh 5.18 πρόβατα ἓξ ἐκλεκτά six choice sheep. 31.  Instead of LXX ἀφορίσθητε, α´ has ἐκλεκτώθητε here.

‫צאן שש בררות‬



Section 2. Chapter 3. ‫ ברר‬

103

1 Chr 7.40

‫בני אשר…ברורים גבורי חילים‬ πάντες οὗτοι υἱοὶ Ασηρ…ἐκλεκτοὶ ἰσχυροὶ δυνάμει All of these were the sons of Asher…choice, mighty men. 1 Chr 9.22 πάντες οἱ ἐκλεκτοὶ ταῖς πύλαις ἐν ταῖς πύλαις All those chosen for the gates at the gates.

‫כלם הברורים לשערים בספים‬

1 Chr 16.41

‫ושאר הברורים אשר נקבו בשמות להדות ליהוה‬ καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ ἐκλεγέντες ἐπ᾿ ὀνόματος τοῦ αἰνεῖν τὸν κύριον And the rest were chosen by name to praise YHWH.

The LXX renders ‫ ברר‬by “purify, cleanse” only once, in Job 33.3: σύνεσις δὲ χειλέων μου καθαρὰ νοήσει “the understanding of my lips shall contemplate purity.” In this passage, ‫ ברור‬is probably an adverbial accusative adjective (MT: ‫“ שפתי ברור מללו‬my lips speak purely”). On two occasions, the LXX understands ‫ ברר‬as “test, be tested,” a nuance either of “purify” in the metallurgical sense or of “select, sift”: Qoh 3.18 For God to test them. ὅτι διακρινεῖ αὐτοὺς ὁ θεός That God will evaluate them.

‫לברם האלהים‬

Dan 12.10

‫יתבררו ויתלבנו ויצרפו רבים‬ Many shall purify themselves and make themselves white and be refined. OG: πειρασθῶσι καὶ ἁγιασθῶσι πολλοί Many are tested [OG lacks ‫ ]ויתלבנו‬and sanctified.32

In these references, διακρίνω and πειράζω appear to be reflecting ‫ברר‬ meaning “select, sift”;33 if so, the verb ‫ ברר‬is never, with the exception of Job 33.3, rendered by the LXX translators with the BH meaning, “purify, cleanse,” and it is conceivable that they were mostly not aware that such a meaning existed. It is evident, therefore, that the LXX translators were, on the whole, heavily influenced by the LBH/PBH meaning of ‫ברר‬, “choose, select.” 32.  θ´ has ἐκλεγῶσιν καὶ ἐκλευκανθῶσιν καὶ πυρωθῶσιν πολλοί “Let many choose and be made white and be refined,” employing the LBH meaning. 33.  So HALOT.

104

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

7. Aquila and ‫ברר‬ Of the later Greek revisions, Aquila’s translation is particularly interesting. With regard to ‫ברר‬, Aquila diverges from the LXX on two occasions. In Isa 51.11, he (and θ´) changes ἀφορίσθητε to ἐκλεκτώθητε, and in Zeph 3.9 he attempts to correct γενεὰν αὐτῆς with ἐξειλεγμένον.34 Isa 52.11 LXX: ἀφορίσθητε οἱ φέροντες τὰ σκεύη κυρίου α´, θ´: ἐκλεκτώθητε οἱ φέροντες τὰ σκεύη κυρίου

‫הברו נשאי כלי יהוה‬

Zeph 3.9

‫כי אז אהפך אל עמים שפה ברורה‬ LXX: ὅτι τότε μεταστρέψω ἐπὶ λαοὺς γλῶσσαν εἰς γενεὰν αὐτῆς α´, θ´: τότε στρέψω πρὸς πάντας τοὺς λαοὺς χεῖλος ἐξειλεγμένον σ´: τότε μεταστρέψω ἐν τοῖς λαοῖς χεῖλος καθαρόν

In both cases, it is apparent that Aquila sees the root ‫ ברר‬and renders it as ἐκλέγω on the basis of his knowledge of ‫ברר‬. His attempt to correct the LXX of Zeph 3.9 is certainly understandable as εἰς γενεὰν αὐτῆς reflects, in all likelihood, a misreading of ‫ בדורה‬for ‫ברורה‬. However, his decision to go with ἐκλεκτώθητε “be chosen” over LXX ἀφορίσθητε “be separated” is little surprising. The range of words meaning “choose, select” in Aquila’s lexical comprehension extended to biliteral ‫ בר‬lexemes. Here are a few examples: Ps 2.12(11) Kiss the son. α´: καταφιλήσατε ἐκλεκτῶς Kiss selectively.35 Ps 65(64).14 The valleys are covered with grain. α´: καὶ κοιλάδες δευτερογονήσουσιν ἐκλεκτόν And the valleys will bear a second time what is chosen.

‫נשקו בר‬

‫ועמקים יעטפו בר‬

34.  σ´, who has καθαρόν, is the only Greek version to render ‫ ברורה‬correctly. 35.  Interestingly, the versions render ‫ בר‬in Ps 2.12 variously. LXX: δράξασθε παιδείας μήποτε ὀργισθῇ κύριος; σ´: προσκυνήσατε καθαρῶς μήποτε ὀργισθῇ; OL: adorate pure ne forte irascatur; Vg: adprehendite disciplinam nequando irascatur Dominus.



Section 2. Chapter 3. ‫ ברר‬ Prov 14.4 The manger is clean. α´: φατνιάζεται (γέννημα) ἐκλεκτόν He kept at rack and manger the chosen one. Isa 1.25 I will smelt away your dross as lye. α´: καὶ πυρώσω ὡς ἐκλεκτόν στέμφυλά σου I will refine your grapes as the choicest one.

105

‫אבוס בר‬

‫ואצרף כבר סיגיך‬

It is clear from Aquila’s translations that he associated the consonants ‫ בר‬primarily, if not exclusively, with “choose, select.” Barr thinks that Aquila’s uniform rendering of )‫ בר(ר‬by ἐκλέγω or ἐκλεκτός is due to the fact that he “classed together and identified semantically” all forms based on ‫ בר‬or ‫ברר‬: In certain cases, then, homonymic terms were classed as one and given the sense of a dominant term. In this case the dominant sense is that of the rather rare and late ‫ ברר‬in the sense “choose, select.”36

The influence of homonyms and efforts to use the same Hebrew words with the same Greek words are indeed characteristics of Aquila’s translational style.37 However, if Barr is correct in this instance, an exception must be made for the form ‫“ ַּבר‬grain” which Aquila renders σῖτος in several places (Gen 41.35, 49; Jer 23.38; Amos 5.11, etc.).38 Moreover, as I have demonstrated, )‫ בר(ר‬was a difficult word for the translators of all the major versions. A better explanation, therefore, is simply that Aquila’s knowledge of the verbal root )‫ בר(ר‬was limited to “choose, select.”

36.  James Barr, The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations, MSU 15 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 321. 37.  See Natalio Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Versions of the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 115–18, for an overview of Aquila’s translational style. Fernández Marcos attributes Aquila’s confusion of similar roots to his ignorance of triliteral roots. For a list of all )‫ בר(ר‬words rendered ἐκλεκτός or ἐκλέγω by Aquila, see Reider, An Index to Aquila, 269. 38.  However, despite the MT, LXX and θ´ having σῖτον in Ps 64(65).14, Aquila renders ‫ ָבר‬as ἐκλεκτόν.

106

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

In sum, with the exception of ‫“ ַּבר‬grain” (rendered σῖτος) in a few instances, all other )‫ בר(ר‬lexemes are rendered “choose, select” by Aquila. Not only was the triconsonantal form ‫ ברר‬rendered “choose, select,” the biliteral root ‫ בר‬often prompted the LBH/PBH meaning in Aquila’s translation.39 It can be argued that, of all the ancient translators, Aquila appears to be influenced the most by the LBH/PBH meaning of )‫ בר(ר‬when we consider the high frequency of ἐκλέγω and ἐκλεκτός in his translation. 8. The LXX and Other ‫ר‬-‫ ב‬Lexemes The influence of the later meaning “choose, select” on the LXX translators is also not limited to the verb ‫ברר‬. The range of ‫ר‬-‫ ב‬words that are rendered by ἐκλέγω and ἐκλεκτός is extensive. For reasons of space, I shall merely mention them here. Two proper names are rendered by ἐκλεκτός: 2 Sam 8.8 [‫“ ֵּבר ַֹתי‬Berothai”] ‫ּומ ֵּבר ַֹתי ערי הדדעזר לקח המלך דוד נחשת הרבה מאד‬ ִ ‫ומבטח‬ From Betah and from Berothai, towns of Hadadezer, King David took a great amount of bronze. LXX: καὶ ἐκ τῆς Μασβακ ἐκ τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν πόλεων τοῦ Αδρααζαρ ἔλαβεν ὁ βασιλεὺς Δαυιδ χαλκὸν πολὺν σφόδρα And from Masbak from the choice towns of Hadraazar, King David took very much bronze.

‫‏‬

1 Sam 10.3 [‫“ ָּתבֹור‬Tabor”]

‫‏‬

‫וחלפת משם והלאה ובאת עד־אלון ָּתבֹור‬ Then you shall go on from there further and come to the oak of Tabor.

Luc-LXX: καὶ ἀπελεύσει ἐκεῖθεν καὶ ἐπέκεινα ἥξεις ἕως τῆς δρυὸς τῆς ἐκλεκτῆς And you shall go on from there further and come to the choice oak.

In Exod 30.23, it appears that the LXX translator either misreads the ‫ ד‬in ‫ ְּדרֹור‬as a ‫ב‬, or he did not know what ‫ ְּדרֹור‬meant, and thus intentionally read it as ‫ברור‬:

39.  Aquila is not alone in translating ‫ בר‬lexemes as “choose, select.” See Appendix 2 for a list of lexemes with the consonants ‫ בר‬that are rendered “choose, select.”



Section 2. Chapter 3. ‫ ברר‬

107

Exod 30.23 [‫“ ְּדרֹור‬flowing”]40 ‫מר־ּדרֹור חמש מאות וקנמן־בשם מחציתו חמשים‬ ְ ‫ואתה קח־לך בשמים ראש‬ ‫ומאתים וקנה־בשם חמשים ומאתים‬ LXX: καὶ σὺ λαβὲ ἡδύσματα τὸ ἄνθος σμύρνης ἐκλεκτῆς πεντακοσίους σίκλους καὶ κινναμώμου εὐώδους τὸ ἥμισυ τούτου διακοσίους πεντήκοντα καὶ καλάμου εὐώδους διακοσίους πεντήκοντα

The words ‫“ ַּבר‬pure” in Cant 6.9 and ‫“ ַּבר‬grain” in Amos 5.11 are also rendered by ἐκλεκτός: Cant 6.9 [‫“ ַּבר‬pure”]41 ‫אחת היא יונתי תמתי אחת היא לאמה ָּב ָרה היא ליולדתה ראוה בנות ויאשרוה‬ ‫מלכות ופילגשים ויהללוה‬ LXX: μία ἐστὶν περιστερά μου τελεία μου μία ἐστὶν τῇ μητρὶ αὐτῆς ἐκλεκτή ἐστιν τῇ τεκούσῃ αὐτῆς εἴδοσαν αὐτὴν θυγατέρες καὶ μακαριοῦσιν αὐτήν βασίλισσαι καὶ παλλακαὶ καὶ αἰνέσουσιν αὐτήν Amos 5.11 [‫“ ַּבר‬grain”]42 ‫ומשאת־ּבר תקחו ממנו בתי גזית בניתם ולא־תשבו בם כרמי־‬ ַ ‫לכן יען בושסכם על־דל‬ ‫חמד נטעתם ולא תשתו את־יינם‬ LXX: διὰ τοῦτο ἀνθ᾿ ὧν κατεκονδυλίζετε πτωχοὺς καὶ δῶρα ἐκλεκτὰ ἐδέξασθε παρ᾿ αὐτῶν οἴκους ξυστοὺς ᾠκοδομήσατε καὶ οὐ μὴ κατοικήσητε ἐν αὐτοῖς ἀμπελῶνας ἐπιθυμητοὺς ἐφυτεύσατε καὶ οὐ μὴ πίητε τὸν οἶνον ἐξ αὐτῶν

And, finally, there are less familiar Hebrew words that are rendered by ἐκλεκτός by virtue of the ‫ר‬-‫ ב‬letters: 1 Kgs 5.3 [‫“ ַב ְר ֻּבר‬fowl”]43 ‫ּוב ְר ֻּב ִרים‬ ַ ‫עשרה בקר בראים ועשרים בקר רעי ומאה צאן לבד מאיל וצבי ויחמור‬ ‫אבוסים‬ Ten fat oxen, and twenty pasture-fed cattle, one hundred sheep, besides deer, gazelles, roebucks, and fatted fowl. 40.  Cf. Vg Exod 30.23: sume tibi aromata prima et zmyrnae electae quingentos siclos et cinnamomi medium id est ducentos quinquaginta calami similiter ducentos quinquaginta. 41.  Cf. Vg Cant 6.9: una est columba mea perfecta mea una est matris suae electa genetrici suae viderunt illam filiae et beatissimam praedicaverunt reginae et concubinae et laudaverunt eam. See Cant 6.10 for the same phenomenon. 42.  Cf. Vg Amos 5.11: idcirco pro eo quod diripiebatis pauperem et praedam electam tollebatis ab eo domos quadro lapide aedificabitis et non habitabitis in eis vineas amantissimas plantabitis et non bibetis vinum earum. 43.  It is worth noting that ‫“ בריא‬fat” is translated ἐκλεκτός. ‫ בריא‬occurs 14 times in the HB and is rendered by ἐκλεκτός 9 tines. Two of the more interesting

108

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew LXX: καὶ δέκα μόσχοι ἐκλεκτοὶ καὶ εἴκοσι βόες νομάδες καὶ ἑκατὸν πρόβατα ἐκτὸς ἐλάφων καὶ δορκάδων καὶ ὀρνίθων ἐκλεκτῶν σιτευτά And ten choice calves and twenty pasture-fed oxen and one hundred sheep, besides deer and gazelles and choice birds, grain fed. Ezek 27.24 [‫“ ְּבר ִֹמים‬many colours”]44 ‫המה רכליך במכללים בגלומי תכלת ורקמה ובגנזי ְּבר ִֹמים בחבלים חבשים וארזים‬ ‫במרכלתך‬ These traded with you in choice garments, in clothes of blue and embroidered work, and in carpets of many colours, bound with cords and made secure; in these they traded with you. LXX: φέροντες ἐμπορίαν ὑάκινθον καὶ θησαυροὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς δεδεμένους σχοινίοις καὶ κυπαρίσσινα Bearing commerce in blue and choice treasures bound with cords and cypress wood.

A similar instance involving both Aquila and Jerome is found in Jerome’s commentary, Quaestionum hebraicarum liber in Genesim, on Gen 35.16:45 ‫ויסעו מבית אל ויהי עוד ִּכ ְב ַרת־הארץ לבוא אפרתה ותלד רחל ותקש בלדתה‬ Aquila autem hoc ita transtulit et factum est καθ᾽ ὁδὸν τῆς γῆς, id est in itinere terrae, introiens in Ephratham. sed melius est, si transferatur “in electo terrae tempore cum introiret Ephratham.” Aquila has translated this “and it was done according to the road of the land,” that is to say, on the road of the land, going into Ephratha. But it is better if it were translated, “in the chosen time of the land, when he went into Ephratha.”

According to Jerome’s explanation, it is apparent that neither of them knew the word ‫ּכ ָב ָרה‬, ְ but, because of the ‫ר‬-‫ ב‬letters, Jerome thought “chosen” was the correct Hebrew meaning. translations are: Judg 3.17, ‫ = ועגלון איש בריא מאד‬καὶ Εγλωμ ἀνὴρ ἀστεῖος σφόδρα “and Eglon was a very handsome man”; and Ezek 34.20, ‫הנני־אני ושפטתי בין־שה‬ ‫ = בריה ובין שה רזה‬Ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ διακρινῶ ἀνὰ μέσον προβάτου ἰσχυροῦ καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον προβάτου ἀσθενοῦς “Behold, it is I who am deciding between a strong sheep and a weak sheep.” However, given that fat cattle are generally desirable, it seems that ἐκλεκτός is simply a free rendering. 44.  Cf. Vg Ezek 27.24: ipsi negotiatores tui multifariam involucris hyacinthi et polymitorum gazarumque pretiosarum quae obvolutae et adstrictae erant funibus cedros quoque habebant in negotiationibus tuis. 45.  The word ‫ ִּכ ְב ַרת‬is the construct form of the lexeme II-‫ּכ ָב ָרה‬/‫ה‬ ְ ‫“ ִּכ ְב ָר‬length, stretch.”



Section 2. Chapter 3. ‫ ברר‬

109

At the very least, these examples demonstrate that when the translators came across difficult readings involving ‫ר‬-‫ ב‬words in the Hebrew, they defaulted, as it were, to the rendering ἐκλεκτός and electum and never to words meaning “purify” or “cleanse”; and this reflects semantic change associated with the root ‫ ברר‬and affecting understanding of other occurrences of the letters ‫ר‬-‫ב‬. 9. Conclusion A survey of ‫ ברר‬in the MT as understood by the ancient versions elucidates the many translational problems that this vocable posed for the various translators, primarily owing to the semantic development that ‫ ברר‬underwent from the LBH period onwards. The prominence of the LBH/PBH meaning of ‫“ ברר‬choose, select” and occasional etymological confusion (usually with biliteral ‫ בר‬lexemes) resulted in numerous inaccurate renderings, especially in the LXX. In the light of the lexical and versional evidence above, it is not surprising that all the ancient versions render ‫ חץ ברור‬in Isa 49.2 as “choice arrow.”

S ec t io n 3 A r a m a ic I n f lu e n c e

The main source of lexical information for the translators thus was their living knowledge of the Hebrew and Aramaic languages, which allowed them to determine the semantic content of words in their Vorlagen. Emanuel Tov1

1. Introduction The importance of Aramaic in terms of the linguistic situation in the Levant between the third and first centuries BCE, the time of the LXX translations, cannot be emphasised enough. Its use as a spoken and literary language was widespread by then, and there is little doubt that it influenced the translation of the LXX. Broadly speaking, there are two ways in which Aramaic influenced the LXX translation. First, it influenced the inner development of the Hebrew language itself. The emergence of Aramaic as the lingua franca of the ANE, coupled with the tumultuous events leading up to and surrounding the exile and return, played a significant role in shaping the Hebrew language from CBH to LBH, and subsequently to a form of Post-biblical Hebrew that evolved into what we know as Mishnaic Hebrew (see §1.2 for a more detailed summary of the linguistic development of the Hebrew language, and of the growing influence and role of Aramaic). As Joosten summarises: “the influence of Aramaic was one of the principal factors affecting the development of the Hebrew language, particularly in the post-exilic period.”2 If, as most scholars contend, the translators spoke a form of Post-biblical Hebrew (sometimes referred to as Proto-Mishnaic

1.  Tov, “Biliteral Exegesis,” 461. 2.  Joosten, “The Question of Influence from Spoken Hebrew,” 5.

112

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

Hebrew), it stands to reason that distinctive elements of Post-biblical Hebrew may have influenced their translations from time to time. I have discussed this issue in Section 2, “Post-biblical Hebrew Influence.” A second, and more direct, influence is the continuing expansion of Aramaic as a spoken and literary language throughout the Levant from the exile into the Hellenistic period and beyond. Most scholars agree that the LXX translators would have been fluent in Aramaic as well as in Hebrew. As Tov notes, “Aramaic was a living language when the translation was made, and the translators were probably equally familiar with that language as with Hebrew.” He goes on to suggest that the translators may have “based themselves more on Aramaic than Hebrew,” but he concedes that it is often difficult to distinguish between their sources because of the similarity of the two languages.3 The question of how much Hebrew and Aramaic—and what kind of Hebrew and Aramaic— the translators knew, and whether they preferred one language to the other, is difficult to answer. Common sense suggests that they had a working knowledge of both. The point here is that the expansion and dominance of Aramaic as a spoken and literary language in the Second Temple period would undoubtedly have influenced the scribal traditions of the time, including those of the LXX translators, but the question remains: how exactly did Aramaic, the living language for the translators, influence the LXX translations? 1.1. Types of Aramaic Influence on the LXX Translators It is difficult to make any definitive and consequential statements about the translators’ linguistic background from the LXX text itself. Most of the translations read well and, when divergences do occur, it is difficult to attribute them to particular linguistic influences. However, there are some key grammatical and lexical clues left in the LXX translations that betray the translators’ Aramaic knowledge and background. First, there are instances in which a Hebrew lexeme is rendered by a Greek equivalent that reflects a grammatical form found in Aramaic. Secondly, a few Hebrew lexemes are rendered by a Greek equivalent on the basis of an entirely different Aramaic lexeme. Thirdly, there are instances in which the translators when faced with an unknown or problematic Hebrew word rendered it by manipulating the letters or word division to match an Aramaic word.4 Fourthly, there are many cases in which a Hebrew and an Aramaic lexeme are identical in form but have 3.  Tov, “Biliteral Exegesis,” 460–61. Italics mine. 4.  See Section 5, “Word Manipulation,” for a more detailed discussion of the third category: how the translators may have manipulated or misread the Hebrew.



Section 3. Aramaic Influence

113

different semantic values, and the translator appears to prioritise the Aramaic sense over the Hebrew one in his translation. In the present section, most of our attention will be focused on this last category, but I shall briefly consider the other types of influence in order to gain a better sense of the extent to which Aramaic influenced the LXX translators. 2. Grammatical Influence 2.1. Aramaic Determined Ending ‫ָא‬Some Greek words represent the Aramaic determined suffix ‫ָא‬(occasionally spelt with the letter ‫ה‬-). Well-known examples of this from the NT include ἀββα (Mark 14.36; Rom 8.15; Gal 4.6), which corresponds to the determined form of ‫ ָאב‬in Aramaic and is a word that has survived into Modern Hebrew.5 There are several well-known cases of this in the LXX as well. In Num 11.6, the divinely provided substance called ‫ ָמן‬is rendered in the Greek by μαννα, a transliteration which reflects the Aramaic determined form (also, vv. 7, 9; and Deut 8.3, 16); similarly, in Exod 12.11 ‫ ֶּפ ַסח‬is rendered by πασχα (also vv. 21, 27, 43 and 48). 2.2. Aramaic Masculine Plural Absolute Ending ‫ן‬Another type of grammatical influence from Aramaic is the rendering of Hebrew nouns ending in ‫ם‬- by Greek equivalents ending in -ιν, apparently reflecting the Aramaic m. pl. abs. morpheme ending ‫ן‬-. These renderings are found almost exclusively in relation to Hebrew proper nouns, technical terms or unknown words that have been transliterated.6 What is surprising is not that the translators resorted to the -ιν ending; rather, it is the proportion of Greek words with -ιν endings in relation to the -ιμ ending reflecting the standard Hebrew ending. The number of transliterated words in the LXX that end in -ιν falls not far short of those ending in -ιμ. There are just over 100 different Greek words ending in -ιν, which ending, in total, occurs more than 500 times; similarly, there are almost 120 different Greek words ending in -ιμ accounting for approximately 550 occurrences. Moreover, several Hebrew words are represented by both -ιν and -ιμ endings in the LXX, and there is no discernible pattern as to when and how these endings are employed. For example, ‫“ הרי העברים‬the Mountains 5.  Also, μαράνα θά “Lord, come!” in 1 Cor 16.22 and ταλιθα κουμ “Little girl, arise!” in Mark 5.41. 6.  See Emanuel Tov, “Loan-words, Homophony and Transliteration in the Septuagint,” Bib 60 (1979): 216–36, for a helpful discussion of transliterations in the LXX.

114

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

of Abarim” is rendered by Αβαριμ in LXX Num 33.47, 48; however, in LXX Deut 32.49, it is spelled Αβαριν. The rendering of the proper noun ‫ מחנים‬in the LXX is most interesting: LXX Gen 32.3—Παρεμβολή, “barracks, camp,” presumably with Hebrew ‫ חנה‬in mind LXX Josh 12.26—Μααναιν LXX Josh 12.30—Μααναιμ LXX Josh 20.38—τὴν Καμιν LXX 2 Sam 2.8, 12—Μαναεμ LXX 2 Sam 2.29—Παρεμβολή LXX 2 Sam 17.24, 27; 19.33—Μαναϊμ LXX 1 Kgs 2.8—Παρεμβολή LXX 1 Kgs 4.14—Μααναιν LXX 1 Chr 6.65—Μααναιμ

The Greek equivalents to ‫ מחנים‬in the books of Joshua, 2 Samuel, and 1 Kings are striking, as no one form is repeated within any one LXX book. So, for example, in LXX Josh, the three occurrences of ‫ מחנים‬are represented by the three different forms: Μααναιν, Μααναιμ and τὴν Καμιν. This, coupled with the fact that the variant spellings Μααναιν and Μααναιμ are found within the space of a few verses, suggests that the translator may have employed different words for stylistic purposes. Additional examples include the Hebrew word ‫“ נתינים‬temple slaves,” which is transliterated in Ezra 2.58 as ναθινιν but is spelled ναθινιμ in eleven other occurrences in Ezra and Nehemiah;7 the proper noun ‫רפאים‬ is represented by Ραφαϊμ once (2 Sam 23.13) and Ραφαϊν seven times;8 the Hittites (‫ )חתים‬are spelled χεττιιμ twice (Judg 1.26; Jer 2.10, and are also mentioned thus in 1 Macc 1.1) and χεττιιν once (1 Kgs 10.29).9 Interestingly, the proportions of -ιν and -ιμ endings are basically reversed for ‫ נתינים‬and ‫רפאים‬, with the former preferring the -ιμ ending and the latter the -ιν ending.10 7.  Ezra 2.70; 7.7, 24; 8.17, 20; Neh 3.26, 31; 7.46, 60, 72; 10.29. 8.  Gen 15.20; Deut 2.11, 20; 3.11, 13; Josh 14.8. 9.  The Greek transliteration χεττιιν represents two other Hebrew words. In LXX 2 Kgs 23.7, ‫“ בתים‬houses” is rendered awkwardly by χεττιιν. It may be that the translator’s Vorlage had ‫ כתים‬or that he misread/manipulated ‫ּב ִתים‬. ָ In LXX Ezek 27.6, χεττιιν represents ‫“ איי כתים‬the islands of Kittim.” 10.  See also Dan-Th 10.5 (‫“ ַּב ִּדים‬linen” [pl.] is rendered by βαδδιν); 2 Kgs 25.12 (‫“ י ֹגְ ִבים‬farmers” is rendered by γαβιν); and Judg 17.5; 18.14, 17–18, 20; 1 Sam 15.23; 2 Kgs 23.24; and 2 Chr 35.19 (where ‫“ ְּת ָר ִפים‬idols” is rendered by θεραφιν [2 Chr 35.19 spells it θαραφιν]).



Section 3. Aramaic Influence

115

An example from LXX Isa that is worth noting is the rendering of ‫ שרפים‬by σεραφιν in 6.2, 6. The Seraphim do not appear anywhere else in the HB, but they are mentioned several times in the pseudepigraphic writings and, in every instance, they are referred to as σεραφιμ.11 More in-depth analysis is needed on the influence of Aramaic grammatical forms on the LXX translators, especially as regards the Greek -ιν and -ιμ endings, but, at the very least, it is safe to say that the translators did not hesitate to employ Greek endings that reflected Aramaic grammatical forms. In fact, the frequency of these forms indicates that they were not ad hoc renderings but may have been part of the literary, and perhaps even colloquial, register. 3. Lexical Influence 3.1. Greek Renderings on the Basis of a Completely Different Aramaic Root Another category of Aramaic influence is the rendering of Hebrew words by a Greek equivalent that is based on an Aramaic lexeme which is completely different from the Hebrew term it is translating. For example, the Hebrew word ‫“ נערה‬attendant, female servant” is rendered several times in the LXX by ἅβρα,12 which may be a transliteration of the Aramaic word ‫ ַח ְב ָרה‬meaning “friend, companion.” Examples from LXX Isa include 8.21 and 37.38, which render the common Hebrew word ‫ אלהים‬by παταχρα.13 This appears to be a transliteration of the Persian loanword ‫ ְּפ ַת ְכ ָרא‬meaning “sculpture.”14 Given that ‫ אלהים‬is almost always represented by θέος in LXX Isa,15 the decision to render it by παταχρα appears to be an exegetical one on the part of the translator, an attempt, perhaps, to accentuate the folly of the Judahites and Sennacherib respectively, or to distance YHWH from the false gods. Regardless of the exegetical intention of the translator, it is striking that he goes out of his way to incorporate a Persian loanword into his translation. Another example is the rendering of ‫“ גר‬stranger” by γιώρας 11.  Sol A 18.34; 21.2; 26.9; Adam A 1.11; AdamEve 33.3; 37.3; 4 Bar 9.4. 12.  Gen 24.61; Exod 2.5 (twice); Esth 2.9; 4.4, 16. 13.  In LXX Isa 37.38, Ziegler prefers πάτραρχος on the basis of mss evidence. 14.  Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, 1264, gives it a more polemical meaning: “a contemptuous expression for idol.” 15.  ‫ אלהים‬occurs 94 times in LXX Isa. Of these, corresponding Greek equivalents can be identified in approximately 87 cases (there are several instances in which an equivalent is simply not supplied) and, with the exception of the two occurrences of παταχρα in LXX Isa 8.21 and 37.38, ‫ אלהים‬is stereotyped with θέος in every instance.

116

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

in LXX Isa 14.1, an obvious transliteration of the Aramaic word ‫ּיֹורא‬ ָ ִ‫ג‬ 16 “stranger, proselyte.” All other occurrences of ‫ גר‬are represented by common Greek words: πάροικος “stranger,” προσήλυτος “proselyte” or ξένος “stranger.” 3.2. Greek Renderings on the Basis of an Aramaic Sense Rather than the Hebrew The terms “Aramaic influence” and “Aramaic renderings,” when used in the context of the LXX, refer to Greek renderings which correspond to an Aramaic sense where the Hebrew lexeme in the MT and the Aramaic lexeme underlying the Greek are the same in form. Unlike cases such as ἅβρα and παταχρα above, where the translator bypasses other Greek equivalents available to him and chooses to transliterate an Aramaic word instead, the translator renders the Hebrew word by employing a meaning available to him from Aramaic. By way of introduction, I shall briefly discuss a few of the more well-known examples of “Aramaic renderings” and then consider some examples from LXX Isa. One of the most commonly cited and well-known examples of Aramaic rendering in the LXX is found in Ps 60(59).10: Ps 60(59).1017 Moab is my washbasin.

‫מואב סיר רחצי‬

Μωαβ λέβης τῆς ἐλπίδος μου Moab is a cauldron of my hope.

The rare BH word ‫“ ַר ַחץ‬washing” is represented by ἐλπίς “hope” in the LXX, which corresponds semantically to Aramaic ‫רחץ‬, “trust, lean on.” Frankel was the first to suggest that the LXX translator was influenced by Aramaic ‫רחץ‬, and the evidence is convincing. Though the Hebrew verb ‫“ רחץ‬bathe, wash” continues to be used in PBH, the noun ‫“ ַר ַחץ‬washing” is not attested in PBH. If, as it appears, the translator did not know a nominal form of the root ‫“ רחץ‬wash,” he could easily have made a guess on the basis of the verb, which he correctly translates elsewhere in LXX Pss (26[25].6; 58[57].11; 73[72].13). Instead, he renders it on the basis of an Aramaic meaning that was available to him.

16.  See also LXX Exod 12.19, the only other passage where ‫ גר‬is represented by γιώρας in the LXX. 17.  See also Ps 108(107).10.



Section 3. Aramaic Influence

117

Another noteworthy example can be found in 2 Sam 2.26: 2 Sam 2.26 Shall the sword devour forever?

‫ֲה ָלנֶ ַצח תאכל חרב‬

Μὴ εἰς νῖκος καταφάγεται ἡ ῥομφαία; Not unto victory shall the sword devour?

The Hebrew noun ‫“ נֵ ַצח‬duration, eternity” is translated as νῖκος “victory,” which corresponds to the Aramaic word ‫“ נְ ַצח‬victory.” In fact, ‫ ָלנֶ ַצח‬is represented by νῖκος several times throughout the LXX (see, e.g., Jer 3.5; Amos 1.11; 8.7; Job 36.7; Lam 3.18; 5.20). Another interesting case involving ‫ ָלנֶ ַצח‬is LXX Isa 25.8, where the Greek diverges significantly from the MT: ‫“ בלע המות לנצח‬He will swallow up death forever” is rendered by κατέπιεν ὁ θάνατος ἰσχύσας “Death swallowed [them] up, having prevailed,” with death as the subject and not ‫אדני יהוה‬. The translator of LXX Isa appears to know BH ‫נֵ ַצח‬, as he correctly renders it “eternity,” or something similar, elsewhere (13.20; 28.28; 33.20; 34.10; 57.16). The most logical explanation for the divergent translation in 25.8 is the need to make sense of ‫ לנצח‬in the light of reading ‫ מות‬as the subject. Thus, ἰσχύσας is either a very free rendering on the basis of the context, or it reflects the Aramaic meaning of ‫“ נצח‬be victorious, prevail over.” I have compiled a list of cases in which Greek renderings in the LXX appear to be based on Aramaic meanings.18 Some are more convincing than others and they all need to be evaluated individually in order to determine whether an Aramaic meaning or some other factor influenced the Greek translation. I shall focus attention on the cases in LXX Isa. 4. The Influence of Aramaic on LXX Isa 4.1. Inconclusive Cases of Aramaic Influence in LXX Isa As I shall discuss later in Section 5, “Word Manipulation,” there are many examples of Aramaic influence in which the Greek apparently corresponds to an Aramaic word that is slightly different in consonantal form from the Hebrew. For example, in LXX Isa 22.3 the translator appears to render ‫“ יחד‬together” by οἱ ἁλόντες “those who were caught,” 18.  See Section 5, “Word Manipulation,” for examples where the translator manipulates or misreads a Hebrew lexeme and renders it on the basis of an Aramaic lexeme. For a comprehensive list of Greek renderings that reflect PBH or Aramaic readings in LXX Isa, see Appendix 1.

118

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

with Aramaic ‫“ אחד‬seize, capture” in mind; in LXX Isa 51.8, the phrase ‫“ כי כבגד יאכלם עש‬for the moth will consume them like a garment” is rendered by ὥσπερ γὰρ ἱμάτιον βρωθήσεται ὑπὸ χρόνου “for just like a garment it will be devoured by time,” where χρόνος “time” may reflect PBH/Aramaic ‫“ ָׁש ָעה‬moment, hour”; and in LXX Isa 66.24, the very rare word ‫“ ֵּד ָראֹון‬abhorrence” is translated as εἰς ὅρασιν “(they shall become) a spectacle,” presumably reading the -‫ ד‬as the Aramaic relative pronoun followed by the root ‫“ ראה‬see” (cf. Tg which also thinks of ‫ראה‬: “we have seen enough” [= ‫)]די ראינו‬. A more convincing example is found in LXX Isa 38.13,19 where the Hebrew word ‫“ שלם‬be complete, remain healthy, keep peace” is rendered awkwardly by παραδίδωμι “hand over, give up, deliver,” a meaning that is not attested in BH, but is similar to Aramaic ‫“ שלם‬deliver, surrender, betray.”20 Isa 38.13 From day to night you keep me whole.21

‫מיום עד־לילה תשלימני‬

ἀπὸ γὰρ τῆς ἡμέρας ἕως τῆς νυκτὸς παρεδόθην For I was given over from day to night.22 19.  See also LXX Isa 38.12. Another example of ‫ שלם‬rendered by παραδίδωμι in the LXX is found in Josh 11.19, where Codex Alexandrinus has ἥτις οὐ παρέδωκεν τοῖς υῖοῖς Ἰσραηλ, but Codex Vaticanus reads ἣν οὐκ ἔλαβεν Ισραηλ. 20.  Cf. Syriac ‫( ܡܠܫ‬Pael, Aphel) “deliver, surrender, betray.” Karl Marti, Das Buch Jesaja, Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1900), 262, and Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia, 280, were the first to suggest that the Greek rendering is an Aramaism. 21.  Or, “from day to night you make an end of me.” 22.  There are a handful of possible cases of Aramaic influence which are not entirely convincing for one reason or another but which cannot be ruled out, because alternative explanations for the divergent Greek renderings are either absent or equally tenuous. I shall mention two such cases. One is the rendering of ‫“ פלט‬save, escape” in LXX Isa 5.29 by ἐκβάλλω “cast out, reject.” In all other occurrences of the verb ‫ פלט‬in the HB (27×), the word is represented by a Greek equivalent having to do with deliverance or protection: λυτρόω “redeem, ransom”; ἐξάγω “lead out”; ἀνασῴζω “rescue, deliver”; διασῴζω “preserve, save”; and σῴζω “save.” The primary meaning of Aramaic ‫ פלט‬is “discharge, give out,” usually in reference to bodily fluids or something that has been rejected. There are closer semantic parallels between Aramaic ‫ פלט‬and ἐκβάλλω than with Hebrew ‫פלט‬, but, again, there is insufficient evidence to support any definitive conclusions. Another case is LXX Isa 17.4, where the MT reads ‫“ ומשמן בשרו ירזה‬and the fat of his flesh will grow lean.” The LXX has καὶ τὰ πίονα τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ σεισθήσεται “and the riches of his glory will be shaken.” The Hebrew



Section 3. Aramaic Influence

119

4.2. Stronger Cases of Aramaic Influence in LXX Isa In this section, I shall examine in detail two cases in LXX Isa where the Greek rendering corresponds to a meaning found in Aramaic. I shall first survey the lexical data for each lexeme in BH, PBH and Aramaic, and other cognate languages where necessary, and then look closely at the LXX texts in which the word occurs and comment on the process by which the translator arrived at his rendering. Chapter 1 addresses the rendering of ‫“ דכא‬crush” in LXX Isa 53.10 by καθαρίζω “cleanse,” a meaning that corresponds closely to the Aramaic sense of ‫דכי‬/‫דכא‬. Some have rejected the Aramaic connection and have argued that the alteration derives from theological considerations. In order to determine whether the Greek translator was influenced by theological exegesis, Aramaic ‫דכי‬/‫דכא‬, or something else, I shall look first at the lexical data for ‫ דכא‬in order to determine the semantic range of this word in Hebrew and Aramaic, as well as its use in the DSS, Ben Sira, rabbinic texts and the Targums. Secondly, I shall examine how the translator of LXX Isa renders ‫ דכא‬elsewhere in the book, which should give us an indication of his understanding of the word. Interestingly, ‫ דכא‬is represented by different Greek equivalents in each instance, none of which agrees with the BH meaning “crush.” The subject of Chapter 2 is Cyrus’ designation as ‫“ רעי‬my shepherd” in Isa 44.28. There is some debate as to the meaning of ‫—רעי‬some prefer “my friend”—but the consensus is that it is derived from the root I-‫רעה‬ “feed, shepherd.” Of interest for our purposes is the rendering of it by φρονεῖν “think, be wise,” and its connection to the Aramaic root II-‫רעי‬ meaning “wish, desire” (and its nominal cognates ‫רעּו‬/‫א‬ ְ ‫עּות‬ ָ ‫“ ְר‬wish, will, desire” and ‫“ ַר ֲעֹיונָ א‬thought”) and the Syriac root II-‫“ ܪܥܐ‬think, consider” ܳ ‫“ ܷܪ‬mind, intellect, opinion” and ‫ܝܬܐ‬ (and its nominal cognates ‫ܥܝ ܳܢܐ‬ ܴ ‫ܪܥ‬ ܻ ‫ܱܬ‬ “thought, mind”). Another issue to consider here is the possibility that the translator misread ‫ רעי‬as ‫ דעי‬by confusing the letters ‫ ר‬and ‫ד‬, and read root ‫ רזה‬occurs four times in the HB and means “grow thin, dwindle” (Num 13.20; Isa 17.4; Ezek 34.20; Zeph 2.11), but in Aramaic ‫ רזי‬takes on a much different sense: “be strong, impetuous” or “cause damage, be violent.” There is admittedly little semantic overlap between Aramaic ‫ רזי‬and σέιω, but the overall sense of the Greek matches the Aramaic sense of ‫ רזי‬more closely than the Hebrew. Furthermore, none of the renderings of ‫ רזה‬in the LXX conveys the Hebrew meaning correctly, which suggests that they are free or contextually conditioned renderings and that the translators may not have known Hebrew ‫רזה‬. It is also possible that the translator of LXX Isa read or had in mind ‫“ רגז‬tremble, agitate,” a word that is represented by σείω elsewhere in the LXX (Job 9.6; Prov 30.21), though in the twelve occurrences of ‫ רגז‬in Isa it is never rendered by σείω.

120

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

some form of ‫“ ידע‬know.” In order to determine whether or not φρονεῖν in LXX Isa 44.28 reflects Aramaic influence or is the result of confusion between the letters ‫ ר‬and ‫ד‬, I shall (1) delineate the roots and semantic ranges of ‫רעא‬/‫ רעה‬in BH, Aramaic and Syriac; (2) look at how the translator renders ‫ ידע‬and ‫ רעה‬in LXX Isa; and (3) explore the use of φρονέω in LXX Isa.

Chapter 1

‫דכא‬ ‫ = דכא‬καθαρίζω “cleanse” Isa 53.10

1. Introduction Isa 53.10 ‫ויהוה חפץ דכאו החלי אם־תשים אשם נפשו יראה זרע יאריך ימים וחפץ יהוה בידו‬ ‫יצלח‬ καὶ κύριος βούλεται καθαρίσαι αὐτὸν τῆς πληγῆς ἐὰν δῶτε περὶ ἁμαρτίας ἡ ψυχὴ ὑμῶν ὄψεται σπέρμα μακρόβιον καὶ βούλεται κύριος ἀφελεῖν

By all accounts, it appears that the translator of LXX Isa—and for that matter, many of the LXX translators—did not know BH ‫“ דכא‬crush.” ‫ דכא‬occurs six times in Isa and is represented by different Greek words in each case, none of which agrees with the intended Hebrew meaning: ἀδικέω “harm” (3.15); ὀδύνη “pain, sorrow” (19.10); μαλακίζομαι “be sick, weak” (53.5); καθαρίζω “cleanse” (53.10); at Isa 57.15 the Greek counterpart is lacking. The rendering in 53.10 is particularly interesting as the equivalent of ‫דכא‬, καθαρίζω, is identical in meaning to Aramaic ‫דכי‬/‫“ דכא‬cleanse, be pure.” Dillman stated that the Greek rendering is “schwerlich ein Aramaismus,”1 but subsequent scholars have noted the similarity of καθαρίζω to Aramaic ‫דכי‬/‫ דכא‬and have argued for Aramaic influence as the reason for the divergence.2 Conversely, others have argued that 1.  August Dillman, Der Prophet Jesaia, 5th ed., Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1890), 462. 2.  So Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia, 403; Fischer, In welcher Schrift?, 9; Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah, 50; Christopher R. North, The Suffering Servant in

122

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

καθαρίζω is an intentional alteration for theological purposes. Lust, for example, has maintained that the translator is attenuating the suffering of the Servant in order to avoid the “demonic” aspect of YHWH.3 2. ‫ דכא‬in BH ‫ דכא‬occurs 18 times in BH, mostly in Isaiah, Psalm and Job (15×), and is attested only in poetry. It generally means “crush” in a physical and violent sense; for example: Ps 89.11(10) ‫“ אתה דכאת כחלל רהב‬you crushed Rahab like one who is slain”; Lam 3.34 ‫“ לדכא תחת רגליו‬to crush under his feet”; Job 4.19 ‫“ ידכאום לפני־עש מבקר לערב יכתו‬who are crushed like the moth; between morning and evening they are shattered.” In two instances, it takes on the nuance “be humble” or “be contrite,” which are extensions of the meaning “crush”: Jer 44.10 ‫“ לא דכאו עד היום הזה‬they have not humbled themselves even to this day”; Isa 57.15 ‫להחיות רוח‬ ‫“ שפלים ולהחיות לב נדכאים‬to revive the spirit of the lowly, and to revive the heart of the contrite.” Additionally, the nominal and adjectival form ‫“( ַּד ָּכא‬dust” [Ps 90(89).3] or “crushed, contrite” [Isa 57.15; Ps 34.19]) occurs three times. The root ‫ דכא‬has a clear connection with the idea of “crushing,” as do its by-forms ‫ דכא‬and ‫דוך‬, and, similarly, the noun ‫“ ַּד ָּכא‬dust” and adjectives ‫“ ַּד ָּכא‬crushed, contrite” and ‫“ ַּדְך‬oppressed.”4 Noticeably, in the light of the etymological challenges of ‫דכא‬, what is striking about these terms is the shared meaning of “crush,” and the fact that ‫ דכא‬and its cognate forms never take on the Aramaic meaning “cleanse” in BH.

Deutero-Isaiah: An Historical and Critical Study (London: Oxford University Press, 1948), 126; A. van der Kooij, Die alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches: ein Beitrag zur Textgeschichte des Alten Testaments, OBO 35 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 69; and, most recently, Troxel, LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation, 206. Somewhat ambivalently, Kutscher, Isaiah Scroll, 236, thinks that the scribe of 1QIsaa emended ‫ החלי‬to ‫ ויחללהו‬in 53.10 because he “apparently understood the root ‫ דכא‬as an Aramaic root = ‫טהר‬.” Later on (237) Kutscher points out that Tg ‫= דכאה‬ LXX. 3.  Johan Lust, “The Demonic Character of Jahweh and the Septuagint of Isaiah,” Bijdragen 40 (1979): 2–14 (11–13). 4.  W. R. Domeris, “‫דכא‬,” NIDOTTE 1:943–46 (943), concluded that the various terms are similar enough to “suggest some connection, but different enough for the precise nature of the connection to be obscure.”



Section 3. Chapter 1. ‫ אכד‬

123

3. ‫ דכא‬in PBH and Aramaic The meaning of ‫דכי‬/‫ דכא‬in Aramaic is almost always “cleanse” and occurs mostly in ritual contexts. Accordingly, the adjective ‫ ְּד ֵכי‬means “clean, pure, guiltless.”5 Moreover, Aramaic ‫דכי‬/‫ דכא‬appears never to take on the BH meaning “crush.” In PBH, with the exception of the technical term ‫( במי דוכי‬which is discussed later on) and one other case, the meaning is never “cleanse.” Thus, the form ‫ דכא‬appears to have two distinct meanings with very little overlap between them: “cleanse” in Aramaic and “crush” in Hebrew, both BH and PBH. 3.1. Qumran The various forms of ‫דכי‬/‫ דכא‬occur 26 times in the Qumran literature in both Hebrew and Aramaic. They occur nine times in the Aramaic texts and almost always mean “cleanse.” Below are two examples, the first from an Aramaic fragment of Tobit, and the second from 4Q Enocha:6 4Q196 f6.9

]‫[אנתה יייי י]דע ד[י ]דכיה אנה בגרמי מ[ן כ]ל טמאת[ גבר‬ [You, O Lord, k]now th[at] I myself am clean fr[om al]l defilement [with a man]. 4Q201 f1vi.4–5

‫ותדכא כל ארעא מן כל סאב ומן כל טמא‬ And the whole earth shall be cleansed from all defilement and from all impurity.

The lone exception may be 4Q554a f1ii.7 (4QNJb ar) and its parallel text 5Q15 f1ii.10, where ‫ ‏דכא‬appears to mean “place” or “site” (cf. Syriac ‫)ܕܘܟܬܐ‬: 4Q554a f1ii.7

‫ואחזויני משחת גוי בתיא דכא אמין תשע עשרא‬ And he showed me the measurement of the house’s interior, a place nineteen cubits.7 5.  ‫זכי‬/‫זכא‬, which is closely related to BH ‫“ זכה‬be clean, pure,” also means “be clean, pure” in Aramaic. Interestingly, most occurrences of PBH ‫זכי‬/‫ זכה‬take on a more semantically developed sense of ritual purity, “acquit, gain a right.” 6.  Also attested in 4Q156 f2.3; 4Q204 f5ii.22; 4Q472 f2.3; 4Q542 f1i.8, 10, 13. 7.  So E. Cook in Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader: Additional Genres and Unclassified Texts, The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 51.

124

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew 5Q15 f1ii.10

]‫ואחזיאני משחת בתי ]מכלא דכא אמין תשע ע[שרה ארכהון‬ And he showed me the measurement of the houses of] dining. The site was [nine]teen cubits [long].8

Even so, there is still no connection with the Hebrew meaning “crush.” In the Hebrew texts, the 13 occurrences of the verbal and nominal forms of ‫ דכא‬generally mean “crush,” but can mean “contrite, broken,” especially when referring to the state of the heart (‫ )לב‬or spirit (‫ )רוח‬that has been, figuratively speaking, crushed:9 4Q163 f11ii.1 [4Q Isaiah Pesherc] Its pillars shall be crushed.

‫והיו שתתיה מדכאים‬

1QHa 23.16

‫[ ]ע ממקור [ לנד]כאי רוח ואבלים לשמחת עולם‬ [ ] from the fountain [ for the bro]ken in spirit, and mourning into eternal joy.

However, there are two exceptions to the meaning “crush” in the Qumran Hebrew texts: the adjective ‫דכי‬, which means “pure” and occurs only once in these texts (4Q472 f2.2–3),10 and the technical term ‫“ מי דוכי‬cleansing waters,” which occurs four times (1QS 3.9; 4Q255 f2.4; 4Q257 3.13; 4Q512 f1 6.4): 4Q472 f2.2–3 [4Q Eschatological Work]

‫הבאים [ב]לישנה דכי ליחד נזיר[י‬ Those who come pure [of] tongue into the Yaḥad, who are consecrate[d

8.  Ibid., 55, and Michael O. Wise, Martin G. Abegg and Edward M. Cook, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1996), 183. 9.  Other examples of ‫ דכא‬in the Hebrew texts of Qumran include the expression ‫“ ידכאו נפשי‬they crush my soul,” which occurs twice, once in 1QHa 13.19 and also in the parallel text 4Q429 f1ii.4. The meaning “crush” is also attested in biblical quotations and allusions, for example, 4Q381 f15.5 (quoting Ps 89[88].11), ‫‏אתה דכאת‬ ‫“ כחלל רהב‬You crushed Rahab like one who is slain,” and 4Q394 f8iii.10, ‫‏והממזר‬ ‫“ ופצוע הדכה וכרות השפכת‬the bastard, the one whose testicles are crushed and whose penis is cut off,” a reference to Deut 23.2 (also 4Q396 f1 2i.5 and 4Q397 f5.1). The sense of “contrite” occurs four times in ‫“ לב נדכה‬a contrite heart” (4Q184 f2.4; 4Q436 f1a+b1.1, 5; 4Q436 f1ii.4). 10.  See, “Unclassified Texts,” 157, where T. Elgvin translates ‫“ [ב]לישנה דכי‬pure of tongue.”



Section 3. Chapter 1. ‫ אכד‬

125

1QS 3.9

‫להזות במי נדה ולהתקדש במי דוכי‬ To sprinkle with purifying waters and to keep (himself) consecrated by the cleansing waters.11

These are the earliest known examples of a Hebrew form of ‫דכי‬/‫דכא‬ taking on the meaning “pure” and, since there is no known semantic route from “crush” to “cleanse” or “pure,” it is reasonable to assume that this meaning was influenced by Aramaic ‫דכי‬/‫דכא‬. 3.2. Ben Sira The verb ‫ דכא‬and its by-form ‫ דכך‬occur three times, and the adjective ‫ דך‬occurs once in Ben Sira. All occurrences take on extended nuances of the BH meaning “crush” and refer to people who have been “humbled,” “oppressed” or are “contrite,” meanings which fall within the semantic range attested in BH. The Greek renderings of ‫דכא‬/‫ דכך‬and ‫דך‬, however, are surprising and deviate significantly from the intended Hebrew meaning: Sir 4.2–3 ‫נפש חסירה אל תפוח ואל תתעלם ממדכדך נפש אל [תחמיר] מעי דך וקרב עני אל‬ ‫תכאיב‬ Do not testify against the one in need, nor ignore the one who has been crushed; do not aggravate the belly of the oppressed, and do not cause pain among the afflicted. ψυχὴν πεινῶσαν μὴ λυπήσῃς καὶ μὴ παροργίσῃς ἄνδρα ἐν ἀπορίᾳ αὐτοῦ καρδίαν παρωργισμένην μὴ προσταράξῃς καὶ μὴ παρελκύσῃς δόσιν προσδεομένου A hungry person do not distress, and do not anger a man in his need; an angry heart do not trouble, and do not delay the giving to the one in need.

It is difficult to determine what exactly influenced the grandson here, whether he had a different Hebrew Vorlage or did not know ‫ דכא‬to mean “crush,” or has given a very free paraphrase of this Vorlage.12 In Sir 4.2, the colon ‫ ואל תתעלם ממדכדך‬with the unusual Polpal verb (with the 11.  M. Abegg in Donald W. and Parry and Emanuel Tov, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader: Texts Concerned with Religious Law, The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 7, translates this verse freely: “Only thus can he really receive the purifying waters and be purged by the cleansing flow.” 12.  ἀπορία commonly means “anxiety” (cf. Luke 21.25), but can also mean “poverty” or “lack, need.” Cf. Corp. herm. 6.10; Athenagoras, Res. 74.32; and SIG 529.6; W. Dittenberger, ed., Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum (Leipzig, 1915).

126

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

preposition ‫)מן‬13 is awkwardly rendered καὶ μὴ παροργίσῃς ἄνδρα ἐν ἀπορίᾳ αὐτοῦ “and do not anger a man in his need.” What is interesting about this translation is that ‫“ עלם‬conceal, hide” is accurately represented elsewhere (Sir 9.8 ‫ העלים עין‬by ἀπόστρεψον ὀφθαλμόν; 11.4 ‫ונעלם‬ ‫ מאדם פעלו‬by καὶ κρυπτὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ ἀνθρώποις; 37.10 ‫‏וממקנא העלים‬ ‫ סוד‬by καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ζηλούντων σε κρύψον βουλήν), and it is possible that καὶ μὴ παροργίσῃς is an intentional alteration to make sense of ‫דכך‬. Additionally, in the following verse, ‫ מעי דך‬is rendered by καρδίαν παρωργισμένην “angry heart,” an equally perplexing translation. καρδία for ‫“ מעה‬entrails, inner being, womb” is defensible, if only for the reason that ‫ מעה‬and καρδία refer to internal organs, or, if used figuratively, to inner emotions, and it may be ‫ דך‬is rendered on the basis of the parallel line. That plausible explanations exist for the renderings of ‫ עלם‬and ‫מעי‬ suggests that ‫ דכך‬and ‫ דך‬were the problematic words for the translator, and that παροργίζω was a guess on the basis of his reading of the context of vv. 2–3 as a caution against exacerbating the condition and emotions of the needy. The curious renderings of ‫ דכא‬in Sir 11.5 and 32.10 further support the contention that the translator did not know the meaning “crush” for ‫דכא‬. Sir 11.5

‫רבים נדכאים ישבו על כסא ובל על לב עטו צניף‬ Many who are humbled will sit upon a throne, and the ones not considered are adorned with a crown. πολλοὶ τύραννοι ἐκάθισαν ἐπὶ ἐδάφους ὁ δὲ ἀνυπονόητος ἐφόρεσεν διάδημα Many tyrants have sat on the land, but one not expected wore the crown. Sir 32.1014

‫לפני ברד ינצח ברק [[ ]] ולפני דכא ינצח חן‬ Before a hailstorm lightning flashes, and before the contrite, favour shines forth. πρὸ βροντῆς κατασπεύδει ἀστραπή καὶ πρὸ αἰσχυντηροῦ προελεύσεται χάρις Before thunder lightning hastens, and grace will go before a modest person.

13.  GKC §55f. 14.  MS B of Sir 32.10 ends differently. Instead of ‫ולפני דכא ינצח חן‬, ms B reads ‫“ ולפני בושי חן‬and before those who have been put to shame is favour.” Pancratius C. Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira In Hebrew: A Text Edition of all Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of all Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts, VTSup 68 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 58.



Section 3. Chapter 1. ‫ אכד‬

127

In 11.5, the participle ‫ נדכאים‬is rendered by τύραννοι “tyrants,” quite the opposite sense to the Hebrew. Though it is impossible to know for certain the influence behind this translation, the Greek of v. 6, which continues the thought of v. 5, suggests that the translator understood the Hebrew to be a polemic against unjust rulers and high authority: πολλοὶ δυνάσται ἠτιμάσθησαν σφόδρα καὶ ἔνδοξοι παρεδόθησαν εἰς χεῖρας ἑτέρων “Many rulers have been utterly dishonoured, and those of high repute have been given over into the hands of others.” If ‫ דכא‬was problematic for the translator and, for whatever reason, τύραννος was his best guess, ἐδάφος for ‫ כסא‬is certainly understandable, as tyrants are not necessarily known for sitting on a throne but for dispossessing lands and increasing taxes and rents, an idea which is best conveyed by ἐδάφος.15 The rendering by αἰσχυντηρός “bashful, modest” in 32.10 is closer in meaning to the nuanced sense of “humbled” or “contrite” than other Greek equivalents, but had the translator known the intended Hebrew meaning, ταπεινόω would probably have been employed. The theme of humility is not foreign to the translator (e.g. LXX Sir 11.1; 12.5; 35.21), and its occurrence in Sir 3.18, a verse similar to 32.10, is particularly relevant to 32.10 since finding favour (χάρις) and being humble (ταπεινόω) are juxtaposed. 3.3. Rabbinic Literature and the Targums The verb ‫ דכא‬occurs frequently in rabbinic texts, but almost all occurrences are in quotations from the Bible that include ‫דכא‬. The biblical passage that is most often quoted or discussed is Deut 23.2, where the prohibition of the emasculated from entering the assembly of YHWH is announced (Yebam. 8.1, 2; t. Ber. 5.15; t. Meg. 2.4; t. Bek. 5.1; y. Šabb. 19.2; Arayot 14, 15, 17 and passim). Other biblical passages that are quoted in rabbinic literature are Isa 53.10 (b. Ber. 57b), Ps 90.3 (y. Ḥag. 2.1), and Prov 2.22 (b. B. Meṣia 112a). The expression ‫דכא ושפל רוח‬ “contrite and humble in spirit,” which is attested in Isa 57.15, occurs in b. Meg. 31a, b. Soṭah 5a, and y. Šabb. 1.3. It is likely that these occurrences may have been allusions to Isa 57.15. If so, ‫ דכא‬appears only in direct biblical quotations or commentary on biblical texts in rabbinic literature.

15.  ἐδάφος refers primarily to “land, property, field” in ancient Greek papyri: BGU IV, 1262; P.Lond. 401.11; P.Tebt. II, 302.10; P.Oxy. II, 286.22; P.Oxy. XII, 1409.19.

128

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

4. The LXX and ‫דכא‬ ‫ דכא‬is rendered variously and often awkwardly in the LXX, an indication that the translators struggled with its meaning, especially the translators of LXX Isa and LXX Job.16 An exception may be LXX Pss, where ‫דכא‬ is represented by ταπεινόω “be humble” or cognate forms (ταπεινός and ταπεινώσις) in every instance.17 The uniformity with which LXX Pss renders ‫דכא‬, and the similarity of ταπεινόω to certain senses of BH ‫דכא‬, may lead one to think that the translator of LXX Pss knew ‫ דכא‬to mean “be humble.” But caution must be exercised here, as the translator often employs standard one-to-one lexical correspondences, mostly with difficult Hebrew words.18 Furthermore, the meaning of ταπεινόω “be humble” reflects a rare nuance of BH ‫דכא‬, not the primary meaning. As further illustration of translator discomfort with BH ‫ דכא‬we may cite the Greek translation of the noun ‫ דכא‬also using the root ταπεινόω in Ps 90(89).3, which is imprecise and also misses the allusion to Gen 3.19:19 ‫תשב אנוש עד דכא ותאמר שובו בני אדם‬ You return man to dust; You decreed, “Return, O Children of men!” μὴ ἀποστρέψῃς ἄνθρωπον εἰς ταπείνωσιν καὶ εἶπας ἐπιστρέψατε υἱοὶ ἀνθρώπων Do not turn man away to humiliation; And you said, “Return, sons of men!”

It is possible that the translator did not know this particular nuance of ‫דכא‬ and consequently missed the allusion altogether. But what are we to make of the negative particle μή, an addition that changes the meaning of ‫תשב‬ ‫?אנוש עד דכא‬ 16.  LXX Jer has πάυω “stop, cease” for ‫ דכא‬in 44(51).10 and LXX Prov 22.22 has ἀτιμάζω “dishonour,” both of which differ from the intended Hebrew meaning. ‫ דכא‬occurs five times in LXX Job and is rendered differently in each case: 4.19, παίω “hit”; 5.4, κολαβρίζω “deride”; 6.9 τιτρώσκω “cripple, wound”; 19.2, καθαιρέω “take down”; 22.9 κακόω “do evil”; and 34.25 ταπεινόω “be humble,” the last of which is the only rendering that is close to the Hebrew. 17.  The verb ταπεινόω is employed in Ps 72(71).4; 89(88).11; 94(93).5; and 143(142).3. The adjective ταπεινός and noun ταπεινώσις occur in Ps 33.19 and 90(89).3, respectively. 18.  For example, the translator of LXX Ps renders all seven occurrences of BH ‫ כשל‬by ἀσθενέω “be weak” (Pss 9.4; 27[26].2; 31[30].11; 64[63].9; 105[104].37; 107[106].12; and 109[108].24), despite some awkward translations and obvious contexts which demand better Greek equivalents. See the chapter on ‫( כשל‬p. 66) for more. 19.  See Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalmen. Teilband 2: Psalmen 60–150, BKAT 15/2 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1978), 798, and Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 419.



Section 3. Chapter 1. ‫ אכד‬

129

Following Klein’s analysis of “converse translation” in the Targums,20 Gordon points out several examples of converse renderings in the LXX. He lists several cases where the translator deliberately inserts the negative particle to render the text in a more ameliorative way (1 Sam 29.6; Isa 8.14; 54.6; Jer 5.10; Ps 105[104].28).21 If the translator knew ‫ דכא‬to mean only “humiliate” (as it is rendered in all other occurrences in LXX Pss) and missed the allusion to Gen 3, he would have read the Hebrew “You turn back man to humiliation,” a very negative portrait of God and one that does not fit the positive and hopeful context of LXX Ps 89. Thus, it appears that the translator deliberately inserted the negative particle to make better sense of the context and portray God in a more positive way. At the very least, this translation raises questions concerning the translator’s knowledge of BH ‫דכא‬. Overall, then, it is apparent that ‫ דכא‬was problematic for many, if not all, of the LXX translators. I shall now take a closer look at the renderings of the translator of LXX Isa, someone who appears not to have known the meaning of ‫ דכא‬at all. 4.1. LXX Isa 3.15 With the exception of LXX Isa 53.10, the Greek renderings of ‫ דכא‬in Isaiah have no lexical support from Hebrew, Aramaic or other cognate languages, and, when examined closely, appear to be guesses on the basis of context. The rendering of ‫ דכא‬by ἀδικέω “harm” in LXX Isa 3.15 is a case in point. ‫מלכם תדכאו עמי ופני עניים תטחנו‬ Why do you crush my people and grind the faces of the poor? τί ὑμεῖς ἀδικεῖτε τὸν λαόν μου καὶ τὸ πρόσωπον τῶν πτωχῶν καταισχύνετε; Why do you wrong my people and shame the face of the poor?

The context is a courtroom scene where YHWH is formally accusing (‫ )ריב‬the elders and princes of exploiting the poor. The use of ἀδικέω is perplexing as it occurs 68 times in the LXX but is never employed for 20.  M. L. Klein, “Converse Translation: A Targumic Technique,” Biblica 57 (1976): 515–37. 21.  R. P. Gordon, “ ‘Converse Translation’ in the Targums and Beyond,” JSP 19 (1999): 3–21, especially 11–16. Gordon also notes Ottley, The Book of Isaiah, 52–53, Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah, 57, and Steffan Olofsson, God Is My Rock: A Study of Translation Technique and Theological Exegesis in the Septuagint, Coniectanea Biblica: Old Testament Series 31 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1990), 41–42, who have also noted the inserting or omitting of negatives in the LXX.

130

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

‫דכא‬.22 At first glance, the decision to represent ‫ דכא‬by ἀδικέω appears to be aimed at maintaining parallelism with καταισχύνω “shame” and providing a reading that best fits the context. However, the translator correctly renders ‫“ טחן‬grind” by ἀλέω in 47.2, the only other occurrence of ‫ טחן‬in Isaiah; furthermore, the cognate form ἀλήθω “grind” correctly renders ‫ טחן‬elsewhere in the LXX.23 Thus, as Ziegler concludes, there is no reason to think that the translator did not know its meaning, and the rendering of ‫ טחן‬by καταισχύνω appears to be intentional.24 Why, then, did the translator represent ‫ טחן‬by καταισχύνω and ‫ דכא‬by ἀδικέω? Ziegler thought that the language of ‫ דכא‬and ‫ טחן‬was too “realistic” and “rough” for the translator and wondered whether he intentionally softened the imagery by ἀδικεῖτε τὸν λαόν μου and τὸ πρόσωπον… καταισχύνετε, respectively.25 Another possibility is Seeligman’s proposal that ἀδικέω is a “special term” and has “theological notions,” evincing an exegetical decision on the part of the translator: “(ἀδικέω is a) special, wellnigh technical term, to express, without any direct sanction from the Hebrew text, the violence from which Israel was made to suffer by other peoples.”26 However, as Seeligman himself has noted,27 the translator did not know the meaning of ‫דכא‬, and it seems odd that he would employ a “special,” “technical” term with theological implications and exegetical insight at a place where the Hebrew word was unknown.28 Troxel echoes most of Seeligman’s thoughts and concludes that ἀδικεῖτε “is likely more than arbitrary,”29 but he also concedes that the translator probably did not know ‫דכא‬. Additionally, Troxel makes a significant observation in that the translator appealed to forms of αἰσχύνη “shame” when faced with difficult translations (cf. 28.16 and 47.10), an indication that ἀδικέω and αἰσχύνη were more bail-out words than “special” terms.30 22.  ἀδικέω is common in petitions and juridical contexts. See James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament: Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-literary Sources (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1930), 10. 23.  Num 11.8; Judg 16.21; Qoh 12.3, 4. 24.  Ziegler, Untersuchungen, 81: “es ist nicht anzunehmen, daß das Verbum ‫טחן‬ dem Übersetzer nicht bekannt gewesen wäre.” 25.  Ibid., 81. 26.  Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah, 42. 27.  Ibid., 50. 28.  Troxel, LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation, 207. 29.  Ibid., 206. 30.  Ibid., 207 n. 37. Another significant element to consider is LXX Isa 3.9, where the expression ‫“ הכרת פניהם‬the look on their faces” is rendered by καὶ ἡ



Section 3. Chapter 1. ‫ אכד‬

131

Another possibility is that the translator turned to homeophony to derive an equivalent for ‫דכא‬, a phenomenon that has been discussed by previous scholars.31 The Hebrew and Greek lexemes ‫ דכא‬and ἀδικέω fit the criteria of homeophony in that the words sound alike and differ in meaning.32 Additionally, Tov points out that many of the homeophonic renderings parallel hapaxes or rare Hebrew words: These instances do not reflect a literary phenomenon, but rather a form of conjectural rendering. In such cases the translators presumably represented the Hebrew words with similar-sounding Greek words because they found no better way of representing the difficult Hebrew words.33

Following Caird and Tov, de Waard identified numerous homeophonic renderings in LXX Isa, which he categorised into eight groups of “phonological translation.”34 On the basis of Tov and de Waard’s studies, the use of homeophony in the translation of LXX Isa 3.15 must be considered a possibility. In sum, there is consensus that the translator did not know BH ‫דכא‬. Irrespective of whether ἀδικέω reflects homeophony, an educated guess on the basis of the context, or, as Seeligman has argued, the translator’s intentional rendering as such in order to highlight the violence against Israel, it is apparent that the translator did not know the BH meaning of ‫ דכא‬and had to supply a meaning for it in LXX Isa 3.15. αἰσχύνη τοῦ προσώπου αὐτῶν “and the shame of their face.” The translator represents ‫ טחן‬by καταισχύνω “shame” in LXX Isa 3.15 and repeats the theme introduced earlier on in the pericope, though it is uncertain whether the recapitulation is intentional. It may be that the notion of a grinding mill did not fit v. 15, and that the translator appealed to the larger context for help; alternatively, the theme of “shame” may have been intended all along. 31.  A few of the most important studies are H. St J. Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909); Tov, “Loan-words”; G. B. Caird, “Homœophony 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, SJLA 21 (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 74–88; and Jan de Waard, “ ‘Homophony’ in the Septuagint,” Bib 62 (1981): 551–61. For a more sceptical view on homeophony, see James Barr, “Doubts about Homœophony in the Septuagint,” Textus 12 (1985): 1–77. 32.  Tov, “Loan-words,” 224, states: “The first condition for the recognition of homophony is that the Hebrew and Greek words differ in meaning.” 33.  Ibid., 225. 34.  De Waard, “Homophony,” 552, takes a more linguistic approach and, consequently, is not satisfied with the term “homophony.”

132

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

4.2. LXX Isa 19.10 MT Isa 19.10 is problematic as there are several possible meanings for ‫ שתתיה‬and ‫שכר‬. Isa 19.10

‫והיו שתתיה מדכאים כל עשי שכר אגמי נפש‬ Her weavers shall be crushed, and all who make wages shall be grieved.35

καὶ ἔσονται οἱ διαζόμενοι36 αὐτὰ ἐν ὀδύνῃ καὶ πάντες οἱ τὸν ζῦθον ποιοῦντες λυπηθήσονται καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς πονέσουσιν And the ones weaving them will be in pain, and all who make beer will be grieved, and they will afflict (their) souls.

The Greek translations of ‫ שתתיה‬and ‫ שכר‬are certainly explicable (οἱ διαζόμενοι αὐτὰ and τὸν ζῦθον, respectively), but the parallel terms ‫מדכאים‬ and ‫ אגמי נפש‬are rendered awkwardly. ‫“ מדכאים‬crushed” is represented by ἔσονται…ἐν ὀδύνῃ “they will be in pain,” which is free in relation to the Hebrew and further supports the notion that the translator did not know the meaning of BH ‫דכא‬. ‫“ אגמי נפש‬grieved of soul” is represented pleonastically by λυπηθήσονται καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς πονέσουσιν “they will be grieved, and they will afflict (their) souls,” which led Ziegler to conclude that either λυπηθήσονται or καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς πονέσουσιν was original and the other a “Duplikat.”37 Although II-‫“ ָאגֵ ם‬distressed” is a hapax in BH, the expression ‫אגמי‬/‫עגמי‬ ‫ נפש‬was a common phrase in PBH, and, in all probability, the translator of LXX Isa was aware of it.38 Consequently, the question whether one part of the translation was original and another a “Duplikat” is immaterial to 35.  ‫ שתתיה‬is very problematic and could be derived from ‫“ ֵׁשת‬foundation,” ‫ָׁש ָתה‬ “drink,” or ‫“ ְׁש ִתי‬warp.” As a result, there are numerous English translations. For example, the NRSV, reading ‫ׁש ִתי‬, ְ has “Its weavers will be dismayed, and all who work for wages will be grieved,” and JPS has “Her foundations shall be crushed, and all who make dams shall be despondent.” 36.  Alexandrinus (A) and Marchalianus (Q) both have διαλογιζόμενοι “counting” or “arguing.” Sinaiticus, the entire hexaplaric tradition and the Lucianic tradition have ἐργαζόμενοι “accomplishing” or “working.” 37.  Ziegler, Untersuchungen, 143. Ziegler also points out that the rare expression τὰς ψυχὰς πονέσουσιν in 19.10 is very similar to the phrase ἀπο τοῦ πόνου τῆς ψυχῆς in 53.11, an intriguing correspondence considering the occurrence of ‫ דכא‬in both verses (the last line of LXX Isa 53.10 continues into 53.11). 38.  The phrase ‫ מפני עגמת נפש‬occurs several times in rabbinic literature and refers to ones grief, sorrow or emotional pain. For example, in b. Moed Qat. 26b, in a discussion concerning mourning and bereavement, children may be made to rend their clothes in order to stir up grief (‫ ;)ומקרעין לקטן מפני עגמת נפש‬and, in Meg. 3.3,



Section 3. Chapter 1. ‫ אכד‬

133

the translator’s understanding of ‫ ;אגמי נפש‬both λυπηθήσονται and καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς πονέσουσιν accurately represent ‫אגמי נפש‬, and it is possible that the entire phrase λυπηθήσονται καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς πονέσουσιν is original and was protracted for explanatory purposes. If, as the evidence suggests, the translator knew the expression ‫אגמי‬ ‫ נפש‬but did not know BH ‫דכא‬, the best explanation for the rendering of ‫ מדכאים‬by ἔσονται…ἐν ὀδύνῃ is that it was a guess on the basis of the parallel expression ‫אגמי נפש‬. 4.3. LXX Isa 53.5 In similar fashion to LXX Isa 3.15 and 19.10, the translator turned to the context for help in LXX Isa 53.5: ‫והוא מחלל מפשענו מדכא מעונתינו‬ But he was pierced for our transgressions; crushed for our iniquities. αὐτὸς δὲ ἐτραυματίσθη διὰ τὰς ἀνομίας ἡμῶν καὶ μεμαλάκισται διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν But he was wounded because of our transgressions and made weak because of our sins.

Here, μαλακίζομαι “be sick, weak” has the appearance of a contextual guess for ‫דכא‬. If the translator had turned to the parallel Hebrew word ‫ חלל‬for help, there were certainly more obvious Greek candidates than “make weak.” However, when the context of the preceding verses is considered, μαλακίζομαι fits the context and progression of the verses. In contrast to the language of destruction and ruination in MT Isa 53.3–5 (e.g. ‫“ נגע‬strike”; ‫“ נכה‬smite”; ‫“ ענה‬oppress”; ‫“ חלל‬pierce”), the LXX employs a series of terms dealing with physical ailments: ἄνθρωπος ἐν πληγῇ ὢν “a man being in distress”; φέρειν μαλακίαν “to bear sickness”; ὀδυνᾶται “he suffers pain”; ἐν πόνῳ καὶ ἐν πληγῇ καὶ ἐν κακώσει “in pain and in calamity and in affliction”; and ἐτραυματίσθη “he was wounded.” Thus, μεμαλάκισται “he was made weak” not only follows the logic and context of the previous verses in Greek, but the resultative force of the verb brings some resolution to vv. 3–5. It may be that this was the translator’s intention, but only after the realisation that ‫ דכא‬was not known to him. An alternative possibility, which, however, does not take account of the aleph, is that the Vorlage was thought to read ‫מרכא‬, with a resh, since BH ‫ רך‬means “be soft, weak.” grass is not to be plucked where a synagogue has fallen into ruin, lest it cause emotional distress (‫)לא יתלוש מפני עגמת נפש‬. For more examples, see t. Meg. 2.11; b. Šabb. 115a; b. Meg. 28b; b. Moed Qat. 14b; y. Meg. 3.1, 3.

134

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

4.4. LXX Isa 53.10 Isa 53.10a

‫ויהוה חפץ דכאו החלי‬ Yet it was the will of YHWH to crush him; he has put him to grief/made him sick. καὶ κύριος βούλεται καθαρίσαι αὐτὸν τῆς πληγῆς And the Lord desires to cleanse him from (his) disease.

Of all the Greek equivalents for ‫ דכא‬in LXX Isa, καθαρίζω “cleanse” is the most conspicuous from a semantic standpoint. The clear semantic distinction between Hebrew ‫“ דכא‬crush” and Aramaic ‫“ דכא‬cleanse” raises the question whether or not the Aramaic meaning influenced the translator here.39 It has already been established, by the way in which ‫דכא‬ is rendered, that the translator did not associate the meaning “crush” with BH ‫דכא‬, and that he resorted to the context, homeophony, or exegetical exegesis to supply meanings for it. However, with regard to καθαρίζω in LXX Isa 53.10, it is difficult to see where the influence could have come from, save the Aramaic meaning. It is remotely possible that the translator misread ‫ זכה‬here, which would give the sense “purify,” but this is speculative at best. Further evidence of the influence of Aramaic ‫ דכא‬can be found in the later Greek revisions. In Jer 44(51).10, both Aquila and Symmachus render ‫ לא דכאו‬by οὐκ ἐκαθαρίσθησαν “they were not cleansed,” presumably because the LXX translation οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο “they have not ceased” was not tenable. Aquila, who is known for one-to-one lexical correspondences, accurately renders ‫ דכא‬by ἐπιτρίβω “rub, crush; afflict, destroy” in every other occurrence of ‫ דכא‬and, though ἐπιτρίβω would not have suited the context of Jer 44(51).10, the fact that he broke his pattern of representing ‫ דכא‬by ἐπιτρίβω indicates that the Aramaic meaning “cleanse” was available to him. In addition to the Greek witnesses, the Targum also translates ‫ דכא‬with “purify” in mind: ‫“ למצרף ולדכאה ית שארא דעמיה‬to refine and purify the remnant of his people.” Thus, the best explanation is that the translator was aware of the Aramaic meaning of ‫ דכא‬and employed it in 53.10, the only context in which the meaning “cleanse” made any sense at all. This is the only occurrence of ‫ דכא‬where the translator read and perceived the context in a positive way, albeit mistakenly or in a contrived manner, and where it 39.  Note also the two occurrences of ‫ דכא‬meaning “cleanse” in Qumran texts. Cf. pp. 123–25.



Section 3. Chapter 1. ‫ אכד‬

135

could have taken on the meaning “cleanse.” The Greek representations of ‫ דכא‬in 3.15, 19.10, 53.5 and 57.15 are guesses or omissions by the translator; nor did the contexts afford him much opportunity to render it by the Aramaic meaning. That καθαρίζω occurs only once in LXX Isa says little about the translator’s knowledge of ‫דכא‬.40 5. Conclusion An analysis of ‫ דכא‬in BH confirms that it meant primarily “crush,” but could take on nuances, such as “be humble” or “be contrite.” The BH meanings of ‫ דכא‬extended into PBH, but there is a gradual shift away from the meaning “crush” to “be humble” and “be contrite.” In Aramaic, the word almost always means “cleanse” and occurs mostly in ritual contexts. Thus, the lexical evidence suggests that the rendering of ‫דכא‬ by καθαρίζω in LXX Isa 53.10 is not coincidental, but is influenced by Aramaic ‫דכא‬.

40.  It should also be noted that the Tg supports the LXX and also renders ‫דכא‬ with the Aramaic meaning “cleanse,” but the object of the verb has been changed to the people rather than the servant. Tg Isa 53.10: ‫‏ומן קדם יוי הות רעוא למצרף ולדכאה ית‬ ‫שארא דעמיה בדיל לנקאה מחובין נפשהון‬.

Chapter 2

‫רע ה‬/ ‫רע י‬ I-‫“ רעה‬feed, shepherd” = φρονέω “think, have understanding” Isa 44.28

1. Introduction Isa 44.28

‫האמר לכורש רעי וכל־חפצי ישלם ולאמר לירושלם תבנה והיכל תוסד‬ ὁ λέγων Κύρῳ φρονεῖν καὶ πάντα τὰ θελήματά μου ποιήσει ὁ λέγων Ιερουσαλημ οἰκοδομηθήσῃ καὶ τὸν οἶκον τὸν ἅγιόν μου θεμελιώσω

In Isa 44.28, Cyrus, who is mentioned by name for the first time in Isa, is addressed as ‫רעי‬, an ambiguous form with various possible derivations. The majority view among scholars is that it derives from I-‫ רעה‬1 “feed, shepherd” and should be vocalised ‫“ ר ִֹעי‬my shepherd,” a viewpoint which has support from σ´, θ´ (both have ποιμήν μου), α´ (νομεύς μου), and Vg (pastor meus). Those who hold this position point to the fact that a king or ruler was often referred to as a “shepherd” in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia.2 A second possibility is to point it ‫“ ֵר ִעי‬my friend” on the basis of II-‫“ רעה‬associate with, befriend” and the corresponding noun ‫“ ֵר ֶעה‬friend, companion.”3 This meaning also fits the context and 1.  The enumeration of lexical units is in accordance with HALOT and BDB. 2.  See Joachim Jeremias, “ποιμήν,” TDNT 6:485–502; J. A. Soggin, “‫ רעה‬rh to tend,” TLOT 3:1248; and Marie-Joseph Seux, Épithètes royales akkadiennes et sumériennes (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1967), 244–50. That the name Cyrus means “shepherd” in Elamitic is also mentioned by some, but, as Goldingay and Payne, Isaiah 40–55, Volume 2, 15, have noted, the evidence is not entirely convincing. See also Ezek 34.23 and 37.24, where a future king is called “shepherd.” 3.  A. Kuenen, National Religions and Universal Religions, The Hibbert Lectures 1882 (London: Williams & Norgate, 1901), 132, who also suggests that ‫ ר ִֹעי‬in Zech 13.7 should be emended to ‫ר ִעי‬.ֵ



Section 3. Chapter 2. ‫יער‬/‫ הער‬

137

portrays Cyrus as an associate who is to work alongside YHWH for a common purpose. In the Cyrus Cylinder (c. 536 BCE) Marduk, the Babylonian deity, tells Cyrus to take Babylon, then calls him his “friend” or “companion”: “[Marduk] ordered him [Cyrus] to march against his city Babylon. He [Marduk] made him [Cyrus] set out on the road to Babylon going at his side as a friend [ib-ri] or a companion [tappê].”4

In addition, it appears that the scribe of 1QIsaa, who employs the plene orthography throughout the scroll (especially with ‫ ו‬and ‫)י‬, vocalised ‫ רעי‬as ‫“ ֵר ִעי‬my friend,” as the participle of II-‫ רעה‬meaning “shepherd” is almost always spelled with the ‫ ו‬mater (compare, e.g., MT Isa 40.11 ‫ כרעה עדרו ירעה‬and 1QIsaa ‫)כרועה עדרו ירעה‬.5 A third possibility, technically speaking, is to read ‫ רעי‬as III-‫“ ֵר ַע‬want, purpose, thought,” with the following translation: “My wish and all my desire he will fulfil.” At first glance, there appears to be a connection between III-‫“ ֵר ַע‬want, purpose, thought” and the rendering of ‫ רעי‬by φρονεῖν “think, be wise” in LXX Isa 44.28. However, the noun III-‫ ֵר ַע‬occurs only twice in BH (Ps 139.2, 17) and appears to be an Aramaic loan-word from II-‫רעא‬/‫“ רעי‬desire, wish.”6 In fact, with the exception of loan-words, meanings such as “desire, purpose, thought” for ‫ רעה‬lexemes are limited to Aramaic, and it is doubtful that this is the intended meaning in Isa 44.28. Thus, the evidence seems to favour ‫“ ר ִֹעי‬my shepherd” as the intended meaning here, though the second option, ‫“ ֵר ִעי‬my friend,” cannot be ruled out. How, then, do we explain φρονεῖν in LXX Isa 44.28? Is it a case of Aramaic influence, or are there alternative explanations? Jerome was the first to comment on the unusual rendering and wondered whether the translator misread the ‫ ר‬as a ‫ד‬:7 4.  Akkadian text from Robert William Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament (New York: Abingdon, 1926), 381. Cf. CAD 7:6 for the meaning of ibru; 18:184 for tappû. 5.  The participial form of II-‫ רעה‬also occurs in MT Isa 13.20; 31.4; 38.12; 56.11; 63.11. MT Isa 38.12 (‫ )כאהל רעי‬is the only instance, other than the verse at hand (MT Isa 44.28), where the ‫ ו‬mater is not added in 1QIsaa (1QIsaa 32.4 has ‫כאוהל‬ ‫ ;)רעי‬all other occurrences have the ‫ ו‬mater. See Kutscher, Isaiah Scroll, 20–44, for an excellent discussion of the orthography of the scribe, and on the influence of Aramaic on the orthography. 6.  Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, Psalmen 101–150, Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament (Stuttgart: Herder, 2008), 716. 7.  Comm. Isa., 531. Also noted by Olley, Righteousness, 2:318.

‫‏‬

138

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew Verbum enim Hebraicum ROI si per RES litteram legamus (‫)רעי‬, intelligitur pastor meus; si per DALETH (‫)דעי‬, sciens vel intelligens meus, quarum similitudo parvo apice distinguitur, ac per hoc saepe confunditur.8

More recently, Ziegler has suggested that this misreading happened because the translator had v. 18 in mind, where ‫ לא ידעו ולא יבינו‬is rendered in the LXX by οὐκ ἔγνωσαν φρονῆσαι.9 In response to Ziegler, however, G. R. Driver suggested that φρονεῖν was influenced by Syr ‫“ ܪܥܐ‬think,” this being the first mention of influence from a cognate language;10 subsequently, Jellicoe noted the connection with Aramaic ‫“ ַר ְעיֹון‬thought,” which occurs six times in the Aramaic section of Daniel.11 In order to determine whether or not φρονεῖν in LXX Isa 44.28 reflects Aramaic influence, or is the result of confusion between the letters ‫ר‬ and ‫ד‬, I shall (1) take a closer look at ‫ רעה‬and ‫ רעי‬lexemes in BH, PBH, Aramaic and Syriac in order to determine whether or not the meanings are uniquely Aramaic; (2) consider alternative explanations, such as a possible misreading of ‫ ר‬and ‫ ;ד‬and (3) examine how φρονέω and γινώσκω are employed in LXX Isa. 2. ‫ רעה‬in BH The lexeme ‫ רעה‬has three senses in BH: I-‫“ רעה‬feed, shepherd”; II-‫רעה‬ “associate with, befriend”; and III-‫“ רעה‬desire, take pleasure.” Since the issue at hand involves a Greek rendering that is ostensibly connected to III-‫“ ֵר ַע‬want, purpose, thought” and the underlying Hebrew verb III-‫רעה‬, I shall disregard I-‫“ רעה‬shepherd, pasture,” II-‫“ רעה‬associate with, befriend” and corresponding nominal forms for the time being. The verb III-‫ רעה‬is not attested in BH, but is listed in the major lexicons by its Aramaic meaning in order to shed light on the related nominal forms. III-‫“ ֵר ַע‬thought” or “aim, purpose”12 occurs twice: Ps 139.2 You understand my thought(s) from afar.

‫לר ִעי מרחוק‬ ֵ ‫בנתה‬

8.  J. P. Migne, Opera Omnia (Paris: Vrayet, 1845), 4:440. 9.  Ziegler, Untersuchungen, 157. 10.  G. R. Driver, review of J. Ziegler, Untersuchungen zur Septuaginta des Buches Isaias, JTS 36 (1935): 81–83. 11.  Sidney Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), 326. 12.  E.g., BDB, 946.



Section 3. Chapter 2. ‫יער‬/‫ הער‬ Ps 139.7 How precious to me are your thoughts, O God.13

139

‫ולי מה־יקרו ֵר ֶעיך אל‬

II-‫ ְרעּות‬occurs seven times in Qoheleth and uniformly means “longing” or “striving.”14 For example, Qoh 1.14 And, behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind.

‫והנה הכל הבל ְּורעּות רוח‬

‫ ַר ְעיֹון‬occurs three times in Qoheleth (1.17; 2.22; 4.16) and also means “longing” or “striving,” but, interestingly, this form occurs six times in the Aramaic section of Daniel, where it means “thought” in accordance with the Aramaic meaning.15 By all accounts, it appears that ‫ר ַע‬,ֵ ‫ ְרעּות‬and ‫ ַר ְעיֹו‬are not Hebrew words. As Wagner has concluded, all three forms are Aramaic loan-words insofar as the Aramaic meanings did not belong to the vocabulary of BH, but were incorporated into the Hebrew lexicon at some point,16 probably during the time of LBH.17 3. ‫ רעי‬in PBH, Aramaic and Syriac 3.1. ‫ רעי‬in PBH As with BH, the most common of the ‫ רעי‬lexemes in PBH is I-‫“ רעי‬graze, feed,” and nominal forms associated with this root include ‫ר ִעי‬,ְ “grazing 13.  The translator of LXX Ps 139 renders v. 2 by σὺ συνῆκας τοὺς διαλογισμούς μου ἀπὸ μακρόθεν “it was you who discerned my thoughts from far away,” and, interestingly, v. 17 by ἐμοὶ δὲ λίαν ἐτιμήθησαν οἱ φίλοι σου, ὁ θεός “but to me your friends were very much prized, O God.” 14.  See also Qoh 2.11, 17, 26; 4.4, 6; 6.9. 15.  For example, Dan 2.29 ‫‏אנתה [אנת] מלכא ַר ְעֹיונָ ְך על משכבך סלקו מה די להוא‬ ‫אחרי דנה‬, “To you, O king, [when in] your bed thoughts came of what would be after this.” See also Dan 2.29, 30; 4.19; 5.6, 10; 7.28. 16.  M. Wagner, Die lexicalischen und grammatikalischen Aramaismen im alttestamentlichen Hebräisch, BZAW 96 (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1966), §284, §285, and §286, respectively. It should be noted that Wagner does not clarify what he considers to be an “Aramaism”; that is, it is not clear whether he only includes lexemes that enter Hebrew from Aramaic, or, for example, whether lexemes that are native to Hebrew but more common in Aramaic are also included. 17.  Most occurrences of these nominal forms are attested in Qoheleth, a book that is widely believed to be late and heavily influenced by Aramaic. For an opposing view on dating Qoheleth linguistically, see Young, Diversity in Pre-Exilic Hebrew, who argues that Qoheleth is pre-exilic and witnesses to “a type of local Northern literary dialect” (p. 165).

140

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

animal,” ‫(“ ְר ִעּיָ ה‬act of) grazing,” and possibly ‫יעי‬ ִ ‫ר‬/‫י‬ ֵ ‫“ ְר ִע‬excrement.”18 The BH verb II-‫“ רעה‬associate with, befriend” is virtually non-existent in PBH,19 occurring only in quotations of biblical texts: twice in 4Q Isaiah Pesher (4Q163 f2.3.4; 4Q509 f12i.13.6), and once in Cant. Rab. 2.9. The only independent attestation of this root is in the Hebrew mss of Sir 38.1 (MS B):20 ‫רעי רועה רופא לפני צרכו‬ Befriend the physician’s companion before his need.

The nominal forms ‫רעּות‬,ְ ‫ ֵר ַע‬and ‫יע‬ ַ ‫ר‬,ֵ however, are very common in PBH (150× in Qumran; 10× in Mishnah). The root ‫ רעי‬meaning “wish, desire,” does not appear in PBH texts, as far as I can tell. However, its nominal cognate ‫“ ַר ֲעֹיון‬desire, ambition, proof” occurs a few times in Talmudic literature:21 y. Ter. 1.8

‫הוי רעיון רבי מאיר מיקל בגזל השבט ומחמיר בגדר מי חטאת‬ There is proof that Rabbi Meir takes “robbing the tribe” lightly, but the “fence” for purification seriously.22 y. Šhab. 75b ‫ר' חונה ותני לה בשם ר' אלעזר בן יעקב והסיר ה' ממך כל חולי זו רעיון דא''ר‬ ‫אליעזר ונתן עול ברזל על צוארך זה רעיון׃‬ R. Hunah, and it is taught in the name of R. Eliezer b. Jacob: “And the Lord will take away from you all sickness” (Deut 7.15)—this refers to ambition. For R. Eleazar said, “He will put a yoke of iron on your neck” (Deut 28.48)—this refers to ambition. 18.  This root occurs 20 times in the Qumran texts and at least 50 times in the Mishnah. 19.  This may explain in part some awkward renderings in the LXX where the Hebrew is to be read with II-‫“ רעה‬associate with, befriend.” It is possible that the translator knew only I-‫“ רעה‬graze, feed” and III-‫“ רעה‬wish, desire” for ‫ רעה‬verbs. Thus, for example, Prov 28.7 ‫“ ורעה זוללים יכלים אביו‬But he who associates with gluttons shames his father” is rendered ὃς δὲ ποιμαίνει ἀσωτίαν, ἀτιμάζει πατέρα “But he who feeds debauchery dishonours his father”; Prov 29.3 ‫“ ‏ורעה זונות יאבד הון‬But he who associates with prostitutes, (his) wealth will perish” is rendered ὃς δὲ ποιμαίνει πόρνας, ἀπολεῖ πλοῦτον “But he who protects (?) prostitutes, he will destroy wealth.” By employing ποιμαίνω the translator of LXX Prov evidently had I-‫ רעה‬in mind in both instances. 20.  MS D has ‫“‏רעה רועה רופא לפני‬Befriend the physician’s companion before (?).” 21.  ‫ רעיון‬also occurs twice in b. Ber. 56a, but these are in quotations from Dan 2. 22.  English translation by H. W. Guggenheimer, The Jerusalem Talmud. First Order: Zeraïm; Tractates Terumot and Maserot, Studia Judaica (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 53.



Section 3. Chapter 2. ‫יער‬/‫ הער‬

141

That the verb ‫ רעי‬meaning “wish, desire” is virtually non-existent in PBH suggests that, like ‫ ַר ְעיֹון‬in BH, the occurrences of ‫ ַר ְעיֹון‬in PBH are in all likelihood Aramaisms. 3.2. ‫ רעי‬in Aramaic Not surprisingly, the verb I-‫“ רעי‬graze, feed, tend to animals” and its many nominal cognates, such as ‫ר ְעיָ א‬/‫י‬ ִ ‫“ ְר ִע‬pasture,” ‫“ ָר ֲעיָ א‬shepherd,” and possibly ‫ר ֲעיָ א‬/‫י‬ ָ ‫“ ֵר ִע‬excrement,” are well represented in post-biblical Aramaic texts. As is the case in PBH, the equivalent verbal root for BH II-‫“ רעה‬associate with, befriend” is not attested in Aramaic and has been replaced by ‫ ריע‬in PBH and Aramaic. Accordingly, the nominal forms ‫יע‬ ַ ‫ ִר‬and ‫ר ַע‬,ֵ which are common in Aramaic, are derived from ‫ריע‬. Of particular significance for us is the Aramaic verbal root II-‫ רעי‬meaning “wish, desire” and its nominal cognates ‫רעּו‬/‫א‬ ְ ‫עּות‬ ָ ‫“ ְר‬wish, will, desire” (‫ ַר ֲעוָ וה‬in Palestinian Aramaic)23 and ‫“ ַר ֲעֹיונָ א‬thought.”24 The verb is very rare, but nominal forms of the root are widely attested. It should be noted that the word ‫“ ְרעּו‬will, decision” is attested in Biblical Aramaic (cf. Ezra 5.17; 7.18). 3.3. ‫ ܪܥܐ‬in Syriac As one might expect, most of the meanings for the ‫ רעי‬lexemes in Aramaic are also attested in Syriac. The verb I-‫ ܪܥܐ‬means “feed, tend,” and when used metaphorically “rule, lead, govern”; II-‫ ܪܥܐ‬in the Pael means “please, reconcile” and, accordingly, in the Ethpaal “be pleased.” In contrast to Aramaic, however, the verb II-‫ ܪܥܐ‬meaning “think, consider” is more widely attested. Below are a few examples: Syr Judg 19.30 ‫ܘܐܬܪܥܝܘ ܥܠܝܗ ܘܐܬܡܠܟܘ ܘܡܠܠܘ‬ And they considered it, and took counsel, and spoke out.25

23.  ‫ רעו‬is the form in Babylonian Aramaic (Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods (Publications of the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project [Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002], 1089), and ‫ רעווה‬is attested in Palestinian Aramaic (Sokoloff, Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, 527). 24.  At first glance, ‫“ ַר ֲעֹיונָ א‬thought” appears to be unrelated to the verb II-‫רעי‬ “wish, desire” as there is no attestation of ‫ רעי‬meaning “think” and no known etymological link to this root in Aramaic. However, the Syriac usage of the parallel verb ‫ ܪܥܐ‬sheds light on the connection between ‫ ַר ֲעֹיונָ א‬and ‫רעי‬. 25.  The Syr is the only ancient version that employs perfect verbs in Judg 19.30; the MT, LXX and Tg all have imperative verbs.

142

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew Hom. Aphraates 469.426 ‫ܟܕ ܗܠܝܢ ܐܬܪܥܝ ܘܨܠܝ ܚܢܝܓܐܝܬ‬ When he thought of these, he prayed while lamenting.

The attestation of the sense “think, consider” confirms for us the etymological relationship between ‫ ܪܥܐ‬and various nominal forms such as ܳ ‫“ ܷܪ‬mind, intellect, opinion” and ‫ܝܬܐ‬ ‫ܥܝ ܳܢܐ‬ ܴ ‫ܪܥ‬ ܻ ‫“ ܱܬ‬thought, mind,”27 and it is probable that, as well as the noun forms and meanings mentioned above for Aramaic, the verbal sense “think, consider” was also known in Aramaic.28 In sum, the evidence from Aramaic and Syriac confirms that one of the primary senses for ‫ רעי‬and ‫ ܪܥܐ‬is “think, consider.” Nominal derivatives ܳ ‫“ ܷܪ‬mind, of this root include Aramaic ‫“ ַר ֲעֹיונָ א‬thought,” and Syriac ‫ܥܝ ܳܢܐ‬ intellect, opinion” and ‫ܝܬܐ‬ ܴ ‫ܪܥ‬ ܻ ‫“ ܱܬ‬thought, mind.” This stands in contrast to BH, where the verb ‫ רעה‬never means “think, consider,” and nominal forms meaning “thought, striving” appear to be Aramaic loan-words. More importantly, from a purely lexical and semantic standpoint, there is evidence to support the contention that Aramaic may have influenced the rendering of ‫ רעי‬by φρονεῖν in LXX Isa 44.28. 4. LXX Isa and ‫רעה‬ On the whole, the translator of LXX Isa renders ‫ רעה‬lexemes correctly, but this is to be expected, as the verbal roots I-‫רעה‬, II-‫ רעה‬and their nominal cognates are attested in PBH and Aramaic. There are, however, several divergent renderings in LXX Isa that do not reflect either Hebrew root and that may be the result of confusion between ‫ ר‬and ‫ ד‬by the translator. These must be evaluated before any conclusions can be made with regard to possible Aramaic influence. 26.  William Wright, The Homilies of Aphraates, the Persian Sage (London: Williams & Norgate, 1869), 469. See also A. Merx, “Proben der syrischen Uebersetzung von Galenus’ Schrift über die einfachen Heilmittel,” ZDMG 39 (1885): 237–305 (263 [line 13]). 27.  The noun ruiana “thought” is also attested in Mandaic. E. S. Drower and R. Macuch, A Mandaic Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon, 1963), 429. 28.  The common Hebrew verb ‫“ חפץ‬delight in, take pleasure in” and its nominal cognates ‫“ ֵח ֶפץ‬delight, pleasure” are not attested in Aramaic. The decline of the meaning “desire, please” in these lexemes may have created a semantic vacuum, and it is possible that this, coupled with the similarity between ‫ רצה‬and ‫רעה‬, may have played a role in the prevalence of the meaning “desire, be pleased” for Aramaic ‫רעי‬ and Syriac ‫ܪܥܐ‬.



Section 3. Chapter 2. ‫יער‬/‫ הער‬

143

4.1. Misreading ‫ ר‬and ‫ד‬ There are three instances in which the translator of LXX Isa may have misread ‫ ר‬as ‫ ד‬with words that are similar to ‫רעה‬. In all three cases, the Greek word employed is γινώσκω “know”: Isa 8.9

‫‏‬

‫רעו עמים וחתו והאזינו כל מרחקי ארץ התאזרו וחתו התאזרו וחתו‬ Be broken, O peoples, and be shattered; give ear, all you distant lands; strap on your armour and be shattered; strap on your armour and be shattered. γνῶτε ἔθνη καὶ ἡττᾶσθε, ἐπακούσατε ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς ἰσχυκότες ἡττᾶσθε· ἐὰν γὰρ πάλιν ἰσχύσητε, πάλιν ἡττηθήσεσθε Know, you nations, and be defeated; listen as far as the end of the earth; be strong and be defeated, for if you become strong again, again you shall be defeated.

If the parallelism with ‫“ חתת‬be shattered, dismayed” is any indication, ‫ רעו‬probably means “be broken,” from the root II-‫רעע‬, a rare word that is thought to be an Aramaism by some.29 In PBH and Aramaic, ‫ רעע‬means “break, shatter, impair,” but the root I-‫“ רעע‬be evil,” which is widely attested in BH, does not occur at all. This makes the Greek rendering all the more surprising, especially when we consider the obvious parallelism within the verse. Isa 15.4

‫על כן חלצי מואב יריעו נפשו ירעה לו‬ Therefore, the armed ones of Moab cry out; his soul trembles. διὰ τοῦτο ἡ ὀσφὺς30 τῆς Μωαβίτιδος βοᾷ, ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτῆς γνώσεται Therefore, the loins of Moab cry out; her soul will know.

In Isa 15.4, most scholars think ‫ ירעה‬is a word-play on ‫“ יריעו‬they will cry out” and is related to Arabic yaria “be apprehensive,”31 but there is not enough evidence to support any definitive conclusion. It is difficult to know whether the Greek rendering reflects an honest mistake by 29.  Wagner, Die lexicalischen und grammatikalischen Aramaismen, §288. 30.  Probably reading ‫;ח ְל ֵצי‬ ַ so also Syr. This reading better fits the parallelism with ‫נפשו‬. 31.  E.g., Wilhelm Rudolph, “Jesaja XV–XVI,” in Hebrew and Semitic Studies Presented to Godfrey Rolles Driver in Celebration of his Seventieth Birthday, 20 August, 1962, ed. D. Winton Thomas and W. D. McHardy (Oxford: Clarendon, 1963), 134; Franz Delitzsch, Biblischer Commentar über den Propheten Jesaja (Leipzig: Dörffling & Franke, 1869), 216–17.

144

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

misreading ‫ ר‬as ‫ד‬, or whether the translator struggled with ‫ ירעה‬and emended the ‫ ר‬to a ‫ ד‬to make sense of the text. Whatever the reason, it is apparent that γνώσεται reflects a ‫ ר‬and ‫ ד‬interchange. Isa 44.20

‫רעה אפר לב הותל הטהו‬ He feeds on ashes; a deluded heart has led him astray. γνῶτε ὅτι σποδὸς ἡ καρδία αὐτῶν, καὶ πλανῶνται Know that their heart is ashes, and they are going astray.

There are two possibilities for ‫ רעה‬in 44.20. Some commentators interpret it by II-‫“ רעה‬associate with, befriend,” and others read I-‫“ רעה‬feed, shepherd,” but the latter is to be preferred here as II-‫ רעה‬is normally used for association with people.32 Again, the Hebrew is uncertain here,33 but, unlike Isa 15.4, the translator had two viable options that adequately fit the context: I-‫“ רעה‬feed, shepherd” or II-‫“ רעה‬associate with, befriend,” both meanings which are recognised by the translator throughout LXX Isa. It appears, however, that the translator read ‫ רעה‬as an imperative of ‫( ידע‬with ‫ה‬, as ‫ דעה‬in Prov 24.14). The Greek renderings of ‫ רעה‬in Isa 8.9 and 44.20 are especially surprising as either I-‫ רעה‬or II-‫ רעה‬would have suited the context better than γινώσκω; they are, in all likelihood, the result of a ‫ ר‬and ‫ ד‬interchange. The verb ‫“ ידע‬know” and nominal forms ‫“ ֵּד ָעה‬wisdom” and ‫ַּד ַעת‬ “knowledge” are usually reflected by γινώσκω or γνῶσις (51× in LXX Isa). 4.2. The Use of φρονέω by the Translator Ziegler has argued that the rendering of ‫ רעי‬by φρονέω in LXX Isa 44.28 is also the result of a ‫ ר‬and ‫ ד‬interchange, and that the translator read some form of ‫ידע‬. However, the tendency of the translator to render ‫ידע‬ by γινώσκω and the subtle, yet significant, difference in meaning between φρονέω and γινώσκω suggest that something other than an interchange of letters may be behind the rendering of φρονέω. In the two other occurrences of φρονέω in LXX Isa, it appears in the phrase οὐκ ἔγνωσαν φρονῆσαι “they do not know how to think”: Isa 44.18

‫לא ידעו ולא יבינו‬

οὐκ ἔγνωσαν φρονῆσαι

‫‏‬

32.  Cf. Prov 15.14 for a similar construction: ‫“ ופני [ופי] כסילים רעה אולת‬but the mouths of fools feed on folly.” 33.  Similarly, the exact meaning of ‫רּוח‬ ַ ‫ ר ֶֹעה‬in Hos 12.2 is not clear.



Section 3. Chapter 2. ‫יער‬/‫ הער‬

145

Isa 56.10

‫צפו צפיו עורים כלם לא ידעו‬ ἴδετε ὅτι πάντες ἐκτετύφλωνται, οὐκ ἔγνωσαν φρονῆσαι

Not surprisingly, γινώσκω represents ‫ידע‬, but, in Isa 44.18, the translator astutely renders ‫“ בין‬understand, be discerning” by φρονέω, which has a similar semantic range to ‫בין‬. This decision suggests that the translator was aware of the nuances separating ‫ ידע‬and ‫בין‬. Elsewhere in the LXX, φρονέω is employed to reflect similar verbs: ‫“ חכם‬be wise” (Deut 32.19; Zech 9.2) and the Hiphil of ‫“ שכל‬understand, be wise” (Ps 94[93].8). In LXX Isa 56.10, however, the translator employs the same phrase οὐκ ἔγνωσαν φρονῆσαι despite there being no Hebrew equivalent for φρονέω. v. 10 v. 11a v. 11b

‫לא ידעו‬ ‫לא ידעו שבעה‬ ‫לא ידעו הבין‬

οὐκ ἔγνωσαν φρονῆσαι οὐκ εἰδότες πλησμονήν οὐκ εἰδότες σύνεσιν

There are two possible explanations for this. One is that the Hebrew Vorlage of the translator read ‫לא ידעו הבין‬,34 but this view is tempered by the fact that the phrase ‫ לא ידע‬often occurs by itself or with words other than ‫( הבין‬such as ‫ שבעה‬in v. 11a). Moreover, there are several significant Greek mss that do not have φρονῆσαι.35 A second possibility is that φρονέω is an addition by the translator to harmonise with ‫ לא ידעו שבעה‬and ‫לא‬ ‫ ידעו הבין‬in v. 11. The rendering of ‫ הבין‬in v. 11b by σύνεσιν, and not φρονῆσαι, may be the result of stylistic variation. Though this is somewhat speculative, the addition of φρονῆσαι in 56.10 may also be owing to the generally transitive nature of γινώσκω in Greek. Notwithstanding the difficult issue of the apparent addition of φρονέω, the point here is the semantic distinction in the mind of the translator between φρονέω and γινώσκω as indicated by his use of φρονέω in LXX Isa. In sum, though there are cases where the translator of LXX Isa undoubtedly confused ‫ ר‬and ‫ד‬, there is little evidence to suggest that this explains the rendering of ‫ רעי‬in LXX Isa 44.28.

34.  So BHS; Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia, 424; Ziegler, Untersuchungen, 77; and Paul Volz, Jesaia. Zweite Hälfte, Kapitel 40–66, übersetzt und erklärt (Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1974), 207. 35.  The Vaticanus and Venetus codices, several Catena mss, and Jerome’s Hexaplaric revision omit φρονῆσαι in LXX Isa 56.10.

146

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

5. Conclusion There are two possible explanations for the Greek translation of ‫ רעי‬by φρονεῖν in LXX Isa 44.28. The first is that the translator misread ‫ רעי‬as ‫ דעי‬and rendered it by a Greek word reflecting ‫ידע‬. Ziegler added that the phrase ‫ לא ידעו ולא יבינו‬in Isa 44.18, which the translator rendered οὐκ ἔγνωσαν φρονῆσαι, may have influenced him in v. 28. There are, however, a few problems with this view. First, ‫ ידע‬is almost always reflected by γινώσκω in LXX Isa and, for that matter, throughout the LXX. If there was a misreading of the letters ‫ ר‬and ‫ד‬, one would expect a form of the verb γινώσκω. Secondly, the translator employs φρονέω to reflect ‫ בין‬elsewhere in LXX Isa, which tells us that he was aware of the semantic distinction between φρονέω and γινώσκω. Thirdly, if the translator confused the ‫ר‬ for a ‫ ד‬the only possible way to vocalise it would be as the imperative feminine singular form ‫ּד ִעי‬,ְ yet it is rendered by the infinitive, φρονεῖν.36 This is, of course, a minor issue, but the cumulative evidence is against the idea of a ‫ ר‬and ‫ ד‬interchange. The second explanation is that the translator, for whatever reason, did not like either of the BH meanings—I-‫“ רעה‬feed, graze” and II-‫רעה‬ “associate with, befriend,” both of which he employs throughout LXX Isa—and turned to another meaning that was available to him from Aramaic: “think, consider.” A survey of the lexeme ‫ רעה‬in BH shows that the meaning “thought” was very rare, occurring only twice (III-‫ר ַע‬,ֵ Ps 139.2, 7); on the other hand, the PBH, Aramaic and Syriac ‫רעי‬/‫ܪܥܐ‬ meaning “think, consider” is widely attested. Despite the rare occurrences of the Aramaic loan-word III-‫“ ֵר ַע‬want, purpose, thought” in Ps 139, it seems that what begins in LBH and comes to fuller flowering in PBH, Aramaic and Syriac is reflected in LXX Isa 44.28.

36.  It could be argued that the translator read ‫“ ֵּד ִעי‬my knowledge,” which occurs several times in Job (32.6, 10, 17; 36.3; 37.16) and also in Sir 16.25, but these are represented by οἶδα and ἐπιστήμη, not φρονέω.

Section 4 P o s t - b ib lic a l H eb r ew an d A r amaic I n f lu en c e

James Barr1 in commenting on the linguistic competence of those Jews who were able, in the post-biblical epoch, to discuss meanings of words, stated that they were: in a position to discuss the meaning of biblical words and to relate them to current usage would generally know Aramaic as well as Hebrew. Thus, for the purpose of studying the transmission of understanding and the loss of understanding, similarities between biblical words and Jewish Aramaic words have to be taken into account in the same way as similarities between biblical and post-biblical Hebrew.

1. Introduction In some cases, the translator may have been influenced by either PBH or Aramaic, or by his acquaintance with both. As discussed in the introductions to Section 2, “Post-biblical Hebrew Influence,” and Section 3, “Aramaic Influence,” the fluid nature of the Hebrew language and the emergence of Aramaic as the lingua franca in the Second Temple period presented linguistic challenges for the translator of LXX Isa, and so it should come as no surprise that both PBH and Aramaic could have influenced the translator. The rendering of ‫ אשר‬in LXX Isa 23.8 by ἰσχύω, the subject of Chapter 1 in this section, is a case in point. The BH meaning “call blessed” continues to be used in PBH, whereas the BH meaning “stride” or “lead, guide” (Piel) is not attested in PBH; and several new meanings emerge: “confirm, verify,” “make strong,” “set up, establish.” Aramaic ‫ אשר‬has a semantic range that is similar to PBH, though the meaning of “call 1.  Barr, Comparative Philology, 228.

148

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

blessed” appears not to be attested. At first glance the new meanings in PBH appear to be the result of semantic development, which would put this lexeme in the “Post-biblical Hebrew influence” category. However, from an etymological standpoint, it appears that the PBH and Aramaic meanings of ‫( אשר‬Piel) “strengthen” and “confirm” are related to Aramaic ‫“ שרר‬be strong.” For this reason I have put ‫ אשר‬in the “Post-biblical Hebrew and Aramaic influence” category. Before we determine how the translator approached ‫אשר‬, it is necessary to consider the difficult Hebrew participial form ‫המעטירה‬, because the two words are closely associated in the MT. In this chapter, I shall therefore look briefly at ‫ המעטירה‬and at how the translator approached it. In Chapter 2 I examine the rare Hebrew noun ‫“ ֲח ַׁשׁש‬chaff, dried grass” and its rendering in LXX Isa 33.11 by αἰσθάνομαι “sense, understand,” as well as the renderings of it in other Greek and Latin versions. Various arguments have been advanced, and I shall briefly address them, but in the light of the lexical evidence of the roots ‫ חשש‬and ‫ חוש‬in Hebrew, Aramaic and the cognate languages, it seems that the rendering of ‫ֲח ַׁשׁש‬ by αἰσθάνομαι derives from the influence of a later meaning attested in Aramaic, as well as sporadically in PBH. Accordingly, I shall first consider the meaning of ‫ חשש‬in BH, PBH, and other cognate languages, and, secondly, analyse the various Greek and Latin renderings of it in order to determine what may have influenced the early translations of Isa 33.11. In Chapter 3 I look at LXX Isa 4.2, where we find two Hebrew words that may have been rendered on the basis of a PBH or Aramaic meaning. It has been argued that ‫“ צבי‬glory, beauty” is translated as βουλή “counsel” on the basis of Aramaic ‫“ צבא‬desire, choose” (cf. Dan 5.19). For this reason it has been judged to fall into the category of “Aramaic Influence,” but the evidence for Aramaic influence in this instance is not convincing (however, see Ezek 7.20 and 25.9, where ‫ צבי‬is rendered by ἐκλεκτός “chosen” and Aramaic influence is much more likely). A second case is the word ‫“ צמח‬sprout,” represented by ἐπιλάμπω “shine,” which corresponds to PBH and Aramaic ‫“ צמח‬shine.” The semantic range of ‫צמח‬ is limited to senses having to do with “sprout” in BH, but in PBH and Aramaic this meaning expands to include nuances such as “break forth” and “shine,” and, as I shall argue, the translator of LXX Isa renders ‫צמח‬ on the basis of the PBH and Aramaic meaning.2

2.  Syriac ‫ ܨܡܚ‬also attests the meaning “shine.”

Chapter 1

‫אשר‬

‫ = אשר‬ἰσχύω “be strong” Isa 23.8

1. Introduction Isa 23.8

‫מי יעץ זאת על צר המעטירה אשר סחריה שרים כנעניה נכבדי ארץ‬ τίς ταῦτα ἐβούλευσεν ἐπὶ Τύρον; μὴ ἥσσων ἐστὶν ἢ οὐκ ἰσχύει; οἱ ἔμποροι αὐτῆς ἔνδοξοι, ἄρχοντες τῆς γῆς.

‫‏‬

The translation of LXX Isa 23.8 differs significantly from the MT and from other ancient versions in their rendering of the words ‫המעטירה‬ ‫ אשר‬by μὴ ἥσσων ἐστὶν ἢ οὐκ ἰσχύει: “Is she less, or does she have no strength?” Interpreters, ancient and modern, have debated whether the participle ‫ המעטירה‬1 should be read as a Hiphil with the meaning “giver of crowns,”2 a Piel, the “crowning” city, one that is presumably establishing other cities or kingdoms (so Tg), or a Pual, the “crowned” city (Syr and Vg).3 Despite the fact that the LXX is alone in its interpretation of these words, the rendering of ‫ המעטירה‬by μὴ ἥσσων ἐστὶν is not entirely surprising given the presence of the consonants ‫מעט‬, but the translation of ‫ אשר‬by ἰσχύει is interesting in that the relative pronoun appears to be rendered by the verb ἰσχύω “be strong,”4 a meaning that is similar to the PBH and Aramaic meaning of ‫אשר‬. 1.  1QIsaa has ‫המעטרה‬, which can be read as either a Piel or a Pual participle. 2.  See Johannes Lindblom, “Der Ausspruch über Tyrus in Jes. 23,” AThI 4 (1965): 56–73 (66), for the intransitive meaning of the Hiphil of a denominative verb. 3.  See Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 417–19, for an extended discussion of the historical background of each reading. 4.  Otto Kaiser, Isaiah 13–39: A Commentary (London: SCM, 1974), 160, suggests deleting ‫ אשר‬on metrical grounds, but this is unnecessary.

150

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

In this chapter, I shall take a closer look at the lexeme ‫ אשר‬in order to determine whether the rendering in LXX Isa 23.8 may have been influenced by the PBH/Aramaic meaning of the root ‫אשר‬, and briefly consider the proposals of others, including Ottley, Ziegler and van der Kooij. 2. ‫ אשר‬in BH The lexeme ‫ אשר‬has two senses in BH: the verb I-‫ אשר‬means “stride, go straight ahead” or “lead, guide” (Piel), and its corresponding noun ‫אׁשּור‬/‫ר‬ ֲ ‫ ָא ֻׁש‬means “step”; the verb II-‫( אשר‬Piel) means “call happy” or “consider fortunate,” and the related noun ‫א ֶֹׁשר‬/‫ ֶא ֶׁשר‬means “blessedness” or “happiness.”5 Here, I shall focus primarily on I-‫“ אשר‬stride” or “lead,” since the occurrence in Isa 23.8 is connected to this root. I-‫“ אשר‬stride” or “lead” occurs seven times in BH, and is cognate with Ugaritic ṯr “march” and, possibly, Akkadian ašāru “look after” and Arabic aṯara “follow.”6 As the nominal form ‫“ ָא ֻׁשר‬step” might suggest,7 the basic sense is “march” or “stride,” but in the HB it is found mostly in a figurative sense of pursuing a particular direction or course of life, thus the meaning “lead” or “guide.” For example: Prov 9.6

‫‏‬

‫עזבו פתאים וחיו ואשרו בדרך בינה‬ Leave simpleness and live; and walk in the way of understanding. Isa 9.15

‫‏‬

‫ויהיו מאשרי העם הזה מתעים ומאשריו מבלעים‬ For the ones leading this people have been misleaders, and the ones that are led are confused.

5.  The denominative verb II-‫( אשר‬Piel) “call happy” or “consider fortunate” occurs nine times, and the related nouns ‫ ֶא ֶׁשר‬and ‫“ א ֶֹׁשר‬happiness” and the plural construct form ‫“ ַא ְׁש ֵרי‬blessed” or “happy” occur 46 times. 6.  Compare also the nominal forms: Ug ṯr “place”; Akk ašru “place”; and Arb aṯar “track,” “footmark.” See Herbert Niehr, “Zur Etymologie und Bedeutung von šr,” UF 17 (1986): 231–35, especially 231–32, for a detailed discussion of the etymology of ‫ אשר‬in relation to the cognate languages, and its relevance to Isa 1.17. 7.  The noun ‫ ָא ֻׁשר‬occurs nine times, all in the Wisdom Literature. Some have suggested that ‫ אשר‬in Hab 3.16 has been incorrectly vocalised as the relative pronoun and should be read ‫“ ֲא ֻׁש ַרי‬my steps,” which has support from the LXX.



Section 4. Chapter 1. ‫ רשא‬

151

In Isa 1.17, the Piel imperative verb ‫ ַא ְּׁשרּו‬occurs with ‫“ ָחמֹוץ‬oppressor” as the object and probably means “correct” or “put right,” a slightly different nuance but derived from the same basic idea of walking or leading in a straight and proper manner:8 Isa 1.17

‫‏‏‬

‫למדו היטב דרשו משפט אשרו חמוץ שפטו יתום ריבו אלמנה‬ Learn to do good, seek justice, correct the oppressor; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s case.

Scholars have struggled with the meaning of the phrase ‫אשרו חמוץ‬. Cheyne, for example, suggested that if the vocalisation ‫“ ָחמֹוץ‬oppressor” is retained, ‫ ַא ְּׁשרּו‬must be emended to ‫( יַ ְּסרּו‬a form of the verb ‫)יסר‬.9 Driver argued that the better course would be to vocalise ‫“ ָחמּוץ‬oppressed” and read ‫ אשרו‬as “Aramaizing” with the sense “make strong”—hence the translation “strengthen the oppressed.”10 However, as Olley and others have argued, this is unnecessary, as the meaning “correct” is appropriate to “oppressor,”11 and it seems best to read ‫“ אשרו חמוץ‬correct the oppressor.” As Williamson puts it, The oppressor…is not just to be punished, which would be the minimum which could be expected of the courts. Rather, there should be an active attempt to put him right, to direct him in such a way that he reforms his conduct.12

3. ‫ אשר‬in PBH and Aramaic 3.1. ‫ אשר‬in PBH There are significant semantic developments with ‫ אשר‬between BH and PBH. II-‫“ אשר‬call happy” or “consider fortunate” continues to be attested and occurs quite frequently, and an expanded nuance of this meaning

8.  George Buchanan Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928), 25, wonders whether ‫ אשר‬developed the meaning “keep within bounds,” which would make sense in Isa 1.17. 9.  So T. K. Cheyne, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah: Critical Edition of the Hebrew Text, SBOT 10 (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1899), 111. 10.  G. R. Driver, “Linguistic and Textual Problems: Isaiah I–XXXIX,” JTS 38 (1937): 36–50 (37). 11.  Olley, Righteousness, 59. See also, Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, 80–81; and Goshen-Gottstein, ed., “The Book of Isaiah,” ‫ג‬. 12.  Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, 101.

152

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

which is not attested in BH—“become rich, substantial”—emerges in PBH.13 BH I-‫“ אשר‬go straight” or “lead” does not occur in PBH texts. There are senses of ‫ אשר‬which are unattested in BH but which emerge in PBH. One of the primary meanings of ‫ אשר‬in PBH is “confirm” or “verify,” which often occurs in legal contexts. For example, it occurs in a discussion of what constitutes a valid court decree: y. Giṭ. 53a ‫רבי זעירא בשם רב המנונא אשרת הדיינין אפילו רחוקה כמה כשר רב אמר צריכין‬ ‫הדיינין לכתוב אישרנוהי במעמד פלוני ופלוני‬ R. Zeira in the name of R. Hamnuna: The confirmation of judges for a bond may be written even a number of lines below the text of the bond and the document still will be valid. Rab said, “The judges have to write, ‘We have confirmed the bond in the presence of Mr. Such-and-such and Mr. So-and-so.’ ”14

Another common meaning is “make strong” or “make firm.” For example, Gen. Rab. 15

‫ולמה קורא תאשור שהוא מאושר מכולן‬ And why is the ‫[ תאשור‬larch tree]15 called by that [name]? It is stronger than all of them.

A third nuance is “set up,” “erect” or “establish,”16 which may be an extrapolation from “make strong,” but this sense is quite rare. Sipra Qed. 1.10

‫אשרין על שם שהן מתאשרים מאחרים‬ [They are called] Asherim because they are put up by others.

13.  See, e.g., Gen. Rab. 90; b. Sanh. 22a; y. Meg. 1.71b; and y. Soṭah 7.21c, for examples of the nuance “rich” or “substantial.” The possible association with Hebrew ‫“ עשר‬be rich” should be noted. 14.  Translation by Jacob Neusner, The Talmud of the Land of Israel: A Preliminary Translation and Explanation, Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism 25 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), 247. Note also the nominal form ‫ַא ָּׁש ָרה‬ “legal attestation.” 15.  So Jacob Neusner, Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis: A New American Translation, Brown Judaic Studies 1 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 162. 16.  For another example, see t. Sanh. 4.8, where Assyrian writing is described as ‫“‏מאושר‬upright.”



Section 4. Chapter 1. ‫ רשא‬

153

3.2. ‫ אשר‬in Aramaic In Aramaic, the meaning “call happy” or “consider fortunate” is very rare but, otherwise, the semantic range of ‫ אשר‬in Aramaic is similar to PBH.17 There are two basic meanings: “make strong,” and “confirm” or “believe” (that is, “consider to be true”). For example, in b. Giṭ. 4.36b it means “strengthen,” and in b. Giṭ. 70a and b. Ketub. 10b, dates are said to make one strong: b. Ketub. 10b ‫ואמר רב חנא בגדתאה תמרי משחנן משבען משלשלן מאשרן ולא מפנקן‬ And R. Hana of Bagdad said, “Dates warm, satisfy, act as a laxative, strengthen; do not make [one] delicate.” b. Giṭ. 36b

‫אי איישר חיל יותר מהילל איבטליניה‬ If I can make [my] strength grow strong, more than that of ‫הילל‬, I shall abolish it.18

The meaning “confirm” or “verify” is also attested in Aramaic: b. Ketub. 21a We have verified it and confirmed it, as it is proper.

‫אשרנוהי וקימנוהי כדחזי‬

b. Giṭ. 30b

‫מית חברך אשר איעתר לא תאשר‬ [If you hear that] your neighbour has died, believe it; [if you hear that] he has become rich, do not believe it.

Nominal forms include ‫“ ַא ְׁש ָראי‬credit,” “outstanding credit” (e.g. b. B. Bat. 22a; b. B. Meṣia 63b; b. Pesaḥ. 113a), and ‫“ ַא ַּׁש ְר ָּתא‬strength” (b. Giṭ. 62a) or “certification of a document” (b. B. Bat. 163a; b. Ketub. 21b; b. Giṭ. 26b). 17.  Interestingly, the Targums generally render BH II-‫“ אשר‬call happy” or “consider fortunate” by ‫“ שבח‬praise” (Gen 30.13 [Onq, Neof, and Ps-J]; Isa 9.15; Mal 3.12, 15) or ‫טוב‬/‫“ יטב‬be good” or “go well” (Pss 41.3; 72.17; Job 29.11 [‫ ;]אמרת טב‬Prov 3.18; 31.28); it is represented by Aramaic ‫ אשר‬only once (Tg Cant 6.9). 18.  See Tg Esth 7.10 for another example of ‫ אשר‬occurring in connection with ‫“ חיל‬strength” in an expression meaning “strengthen”: ‫קודש׳ וא׳׳ל ישר חילך כל מה‬ ‫“ דאמרת‬The Holy One said, ‘He will strengthen you [lit., “strengthen your strength”] in all that you say’.”

‫‏‬

154

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

From an etymological standpoint, it appears that the PBH and Aramaic meanings of ‫“ אשר‬strengthen” and “confirm” are related to Aramaic ‫שרר‬ (Pael) “make strong.”19 Evidence from Syr supports the connection with ‫שרר‬: although a root ‫ ܐܫܪ‬is not attested in Syr, ‫ ܫܪ‬has a semantic range that is very similar to PBH and Aramaic ‫אשר‬, and includes meanings such as “be strong,” “be firm,” and in the Pael/Aphel “set up,” “establish,” “affirm,” “believe” and “confirm.”20 3.3. Summary The BH root I-‫“ אשר‬stride, go straight ahead” or “lead, guide” (Piel), which is the intended meaning in Isa 23.8, is virtually non-existent in PBH and Aramaic. II-‫( אשר‬Piel) “call happy” or “consider fortunate” is found in PBH, but is very rare in Aramaic. Additionally, meanings not attested in BH, such as “make strong” and “confirm,” “verify,” emerge in PBH and Aramaic and become the primary senses for ‫אשר‬. 4. The LXX and ‫אשר‬ ‫ אשר‬occurs in verbal form 17 times in the HB and is rendered by various Greek equivalents. The verb II-‫“ אשר‬call happy” or “consider fortunate” is, for the most part (see LXX Prov 3.18 and 31.28 below), reflected by Greek equivalents meaning “bless” or “call happy” (usually by μακαρίζω). However, the occurrences of I-‫“ אשר‬stride” or “lead” are rendered variously and almost always deviate from the intended meaning in the MT. Below are the seven occurrences of the verb I-‫“ אשר‬stride” or “lead,” all of which are found in Isaiah or Proverbs: Isa 1.17 Correct the oppressor.

‫‏‬

‫אשרו חמוץ‬

ῥύσασθε ἀδικούμενον Rescue the one who is wronged. Isa 3.12 Your leaders mislead (you).

‫‏‬

‫מאשריך מתעים‬

οἱ μακαρίζοντες ὑμᾶς πλανῶσιν ὑμᾶς Those who bless you mislead you. 19.  Jastrow thinks that ‫ אשר‬is derived from ‫“ אשש‬glitter,” “polish,” but there is no basis for this. See Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, 130. 20.  Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon, 1611–13.



Section 4. Chapter 1. ‫ רשא‬ Isa 9.15

155

‫‏‬

‫ויהיו מאשרי העם הזה מתעים ומאשריו מבלעים‬ For the ones leading this people have been misleaders, and the ones that are led are confused. καὶ ἔσονται οἱ μακαρίζοντες τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον πλανῶντες καὶ πλανῶσιν ὅπως καταπίωσιν αὐτούς And those that call this people happy will lead (them) astray, and they deceive them in order to devour them. Prov 4.16 Do not walk in the ways of the evil.

‫ואל תאשר בדרך רעים‬

μηδὲ ζηλώσῃς ὁδοὺς παρανόμων Do not be jealous of the ways of transgressors. Prov 9.6 And walk in the way of insight.

‫‏‬

‫ואשרו בדרך בינה‬

καὶ κατορθώσατε ἐν γνώσει σύνεσιν And erect understanding with knowledge. Prov 23.19 And lead your heart in the way.

‫ואשר בדרך לבך‬

καὶ κατεύθυνε ἐννοίας σῆς καρδίας And make straight the insights of your heart.

It is apparent that the translators of LXX Isa and LXX Prov struggled with I-‫“ אשר‬stride, lead.” The translation of Prov 4.14 is particularly revealing, as the meaning “stride” or “lead” would fit perfectly with the parallelism of the previous line and with several other references in the immediate context having to do with motion: ‫“ בדרך חכמה‬in the way of wisdom” (v. 11); ‫“ במעגלי־ישר‬in paths of uprightness” (v. 11); ‫“ בלכתך‬when you walk” (v. 12); ‫“ ואם־תרוץ‬if you run” (v. 12); ‫“ בארח רשעים אל־תבא‬do not enter into the way of the wicked” (v. 14); and ‫“ אל־תעבר־בו‬do not pass through it” (v. 15). Instead, the translator of LXX Prov renders ‫ואל־תאשר‬ “do not walk” by μηδὲ ζηλώσῃς “do not be jealous.” The BH meaning “stride, lead” may not have been known to him, though the freedom with which LXX Prov is rendered has to be taken into account.21

‫‏‬

21.  Other ancient translators also struggled with the noun ‫א ֻׁשר‬. ָ For example, LXX Ps 17(16).11 renders ‫“ ַא ֻּׁש ֵרינּו ַע ָּתה ְס ָבבּונִ י‬Now they have surrounded our steps” by ἐκβάλλοντές με νυνὶ περιεκύκλωσάν με “casting me out, they have then encircled

156

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

4.1. ‫ אשר‬in LXX Prov The renderings of the verb ‫ אשר‬by the translator of LXX Prov are particularly interesting, as some of them appear to reflect PBH and Aramaic meanings of ‫ אשר‬that are not attested in BH. For example, in LXX Prov 3.18, ‫“ ְמ ֻא ָּׁשר‬the one called blessed” is translated ἀσφαλής “safe, steadfast,” which may be related to the PBH/Aramaic meaning of ‫“ אשר‬confirm, verify”;22 LXX Prov 9.6 ‫‏ ִא ְׁשרּו‬is rendered by κατορθώσατε “erect,” “establish” or “set straight,” which is similar to the PBH meaning of ‫“ אשר‬set up,” “erect” or “establish”; and LXX Prov 31.28 renders ‫“ ויאשרוה‬and [her children] call her blessed” by καὶ ἐπλούτησαν “and they became rich,” a nuance of the root II-‫( אשר‬Piel) meaning “call happy,” “consider fortunate” that emerges in PBH (see p. 152 n. 13). In addition to the influence of PBH/Aramaic meanings, the root ‫( ישר‬Piel) “make straight, smooth” or “be right” may have also been a factor in translation, especially in LXX Prov 9.6 and 23.19, where ‫ אשר‬is rendered by κατορθόω and κατευθύνω respectively, words that generally correspond to ‫ ישר‬in LXX Prov (cf. Prov 1.3; 2.7, 9; 5.9; 9.15; 14.11; 15.8, 21; 29.27).23 In short, there is little evidence that the translator of LXX Prov knew BH I-‫“ אשר‬stride” or “lead.” Instead, it appears that he turned to the context, other meanings available to him (PBH and Aramaic), or to other roots, such as BH ‫ישר‬, for help. 4.2. ‫ אשר‬in LXX Isa The translator of LXX Isa also struggled with the verb ‫אשר‬. We have noted that the difficult phrase ‫ אשרו חמוץ‬in Isa 1.17 is rendered by ῥύσασθε ἀδικούμενον “rescue the one who has been harmed.” As with the other versions, ‫ חמוץ‬is vocalised as a passive, ἀδικούμενον.24 Gray has argued that the versions associated ‫ אשרו‬with the root II-‫( אשר‬Piel) “call happy,” “consider fortunate,” and then rendered freely, but there is no basis for me.” The best explanation is that the translator read ‫ ד‬for ‫ ר‬and rendered ‫ אשרינו‬as an Aphel of ‫שדא‬/‫“ שדי‬cast, throw,” but what is less certain is whether the confusion was simply a misreading of a letter or an intentional change to make better sense of a word that was unfamiliar. See Prov 14.15 for another example where the noun ‫ ָא ֻׁשר‬appears to have been problematic, and Isa 47.15, where the relative pronoun is rendered by βοήθεια “help, assistance” and may reflect the PBH/Aramaic sense of the root ‫( אשר‬see p. 157). 22.  Sokoloff, Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, 1182. 23.  See below, p. 187, and Tov, “Biliteral Exegesis,” for more on “biliteral exegesis.” 24.  Syr: ‫ ;ܛܠܝ�ܡܐ‬Tg: ‫ ;דאניס‬Vg: oppresso; α´ βλαπτόμενον; σ´ πεπλεονεκτήμενον; and θ´ ἀδικούμενον. See Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, 81, for a thorough and convincing argument against a vocalisation ‫חמּוץ‬. ָ



Section 4. Chapter 1. ‫ רשא‬

157

this.25 If ῥύσασθε represents a particular root that is rendered freely, it is more likely that PBH/Aramaic ‫“ אשר‬be strong” is in view here. In Isa 3.12 and 9.15, ‫ אשר‬occurs as a participle meaning “the one who leads,” but the translator misses the intended meaning in both instances and renders it respectively by μακαρίζοντες “those who bless” and πλανῶσιν “they deceive,” which results in rather awkward translations. That the translator chose to represent ‫ מאשרי‬by μακαρίζοντες at Isa 3.12 is not surprising, as this meaning is attested in both BH and PBH and would have been available to him, but πλανῶσιν “they deceive” in LXX 9.15 appears be a very free rendering that corresponds to MT ‫‏מאשריו‬. It is possible that the translator wanted to portray the μακαρίζοντες as deceptive persons (the word μακαρίζοντες would generally be perceived positively), so instead of repeating μακαρίζοντες he may have inserted πλανῶσιν to make his intention clear. Irrespective of the reasons behind the renderings in LXX Isa 3.12 and 9.15, it is likely that the translator was not aware of the meaning “stride” or “lead,” otherwise he could have employed a Greek equivalent for it. It should also be noted that LXX Isa 23.8 is not the only place where the translator renders the relative pronoun by a Greek equivalent that does not correspond to the meaning in the MT: Isa 47.14b–15a ‫) כן היו לך אשר יגעת סחריך מנעוריך‬15( ‫אין גחלת לחמם אור לשבת נגדו‬ ὅτι ἔχεις ἄνθρακας πυρός, κάθισαι ἐπ᾿ αὐτούς. (15) οὗτοι ἔσονταί σοι βοήθεια, ἐκοπίασας ἐν τῇ μεταβολῇ σου ἐκ νεότητος

The relative pronoun is translated βοήθεια “help, aid” in v. 15, and most scholars think that the translator read ‫ עזר‬here, but this explanation is unconvincing: the words ‫ אשר‬and ‫ עזר‬are too distinct, and the explanation does not address other divergences in the translation of vv. 14–15. The main problem with the translation in v. 15 can be traced back to the rendering of the particle ‫ אין‬by ὅτι ἔχεις “since you have,” which reverses the meaning of the MT completely and alters the structure of the subsequent lines. That is, ‫ כן היו לך אשר‬is read as a predicate nominal phrase (with ‫ אשר‬as the noun) that is subordinate to the previous two lines ‫אין גחלת לחמם אור לשבת נגדו‬. It is possible that βοήθεια is an attempt to find a nominal equivalent for ‫ אשר‬that fits the context; if so, the translator may have had the PBH/Aramaic root ‫ אשר‬in mind and employed βοήθεια as a very free rendering.26 25.  Gray, The Book of Isaiah, 26. 26.  So, Driver, “Isaiah I–XXXIX,” especially 37.

158

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

4.3. LXX Isa 23.8 and ‫אשר‬ Isa 23.8

‫מי יעץ זאת על צר המעטירה אשר סחריה שרים כנעניה נכבדי ארץ‬ τίς ταῦτα ἐβούλευσεν ἐπὶ Τύρον; μὴ ἥσσων ἐστὶν ἢ οὐκ ἰσχύει; οἱ ἔμποροι αὐτῆς ἔνδοξοι, ἄρχοντες τῆς γῆς.

‫‏‬

The rendering of ‫ אשר‬in LXX Isa 23.8 must be analysed alongside ‫המעטירה‬, as the translation of these words is inextricably connected in the Greek. To begin with, it is clear that the translator took the definite article accompanying the Hiphil participle in ‫ המעטירה‬as the interrogative particle, a decision that was probably influenced by the series of questions in vv. 7–8 (the interrogative particle at the beginning of v. 7, and the pronoun ‫ מי‬at the beginning of v. 8). The translator would then be left with ‫מעטירה אשר‬, and there is little doubt that he read ‫“ מעט‬be few, little,” hence the Greek translation μὴ ἥσσων ἐστίν “Is she inferior?” What is more difficult to determine is how the translator rendered the remaining ‫ירה אשר‬-, if at all. Döderlein suggested that the Greek reflects ‫( המעטידה‬with a ‫ )ד‬and not ‫המעטירה‬,27 apparently invoking the PBH expression ‫מעט (על) יד‬, meaning “lessen,” an expression that is found almost 30 times in the Mishnah, Tosephta and Babylonian Talmud. For example: m. Nid. 1.1

‫זו כפקידה וממעטת על יד מעת לעת‬ this is equivalent to an examination and lessens the period of the time (the twenty-four hours).

However, in each of these cases the phrase includes the preposition ‫על‬. Only in later rabbinic texts (tenth century onwards) does the expression occur without the preposition: Ag. Ber. 25.2 Thus, I will shorten your days [lit., “path”].

‫ובשביל כך אני ממעט ידיך‬

Quite apart from the non-citation of ‫ מעט יד‬until the tenth century, Döderlein does not explain how the translator arrived at ἢ οὐκ ἰσχύει.

27.  Apud Johann Friedrich Schleusner, Novus thesaurus philologico-criticus: sive, Lexicon in LXX et reliquos interpretes graecos, ac scriptores apocryphos Veteris Testamenti, 2nd ed. (London: Jacob Duncan, 1829), s.v. ἰσχύει.



Section 4. Chapter 1. ‫ רשא‬

159

Ottley suggested that the phrase ἢ οὐκ ἰσχύει may have been a “duplicate,” presumably of ‫המעטירה‬/μὴ ἥσσων ἐστὶν (cf. LXX Isa 23.11 and 50.2).28 Similarly, Ziegler maintained that μὴ ἥσσων ἐστὶν ἢ οὐκ ἰσχύει is a double translation for ‫המעטירה‬, but he speculated that the Hebrew root ‫“ אזר‬gird,” which the translator generally renders by ἰσχύω (cf. LXX Isa 8.9 and 50.11), may also have influenced the translation.29 Gray argued that the translator simply omitted an equivalent for ‫המעטירה‬.30 Van der Kooij also sees no Hebrew basis for ἢ οὐκ ἰσχύει and thinks that it was added in order to clarify the first part of the verse; he cites LXX Isa 8.8 as another example. He concludes that the Greek rendering μὴ ἥσσων ἐστὶν ἢ οὐκ ἰσχύει “serves a specific interpretation of Isa 23.”31 A very different proposal is made by Fischer, who argued that the translator read ‫המ ַעט‬ ְ ‫אׁשר‬ ֵ ‫[ וְ ֹלה‬sic] and that ἰσχύει reflects Aramaic ‫“ אשר‬make strong,”32 an argument which van der Kooij dismisses as “far-fetched.”33 The proposals of Ottley, Ziegler, Gray and van der Kooij, which take ἢ οὐκ ἰσχύει as either a double translation of some kind or an explanatory addition in relation to )‫המעט(ירה‬, are certainly plausible, but they are deficient in that they do not account for ‫ירה אשר‬. Fischer’s proposal is attractive insofar as it provides a corresponding Greek rendering for every Hebrew element by relating ἰσχύει to ‫ אשר‬and the negative οὐκ to ‫ירה‬-. As demonstrated above, the lexical evidence for ἰσχύει representing the PBH/Aramaic meaning of ‫ אשר‬is convincing, but the suggestion that the translator read ‫ירה‬- as the negative ‫ וְ ֹלה‬is admittedly less than compelling.34 However, if the translator rendered ‫ המעטירה‬by μὴ ἥσσων ἐστὶν and then read ‫ אשר‬with the PBH/Aramaic meaning in mind, he would be left with a translation that is both contradictory and incomprehensible (“Is she inferior…strong?”). It is conceivable, then, that he read ‫ירה‬- as the negative ‫ וְ ֹלה‬in order to make better sense of ἰσχύει and the larger context.35

28.  Ottley, The Book of Isaiah, 217. 29.  Ziegler, Untersuchungen, 66. 30.  Gray, The Book of Isaiah, 390. 31.  Van der Kooij, Oracle of Tyre, 136. 32.  Fischer, In welcher Schrift?, 39. 33.  Van der Kooij, Oracle of Tyre, 135 n. 45. 34.  See Deut 3.11 where the Ketiv is ‫הֹלה‬. ֲ The Qere reading ‫ ֲהלֹא‬is supported by Sam. Pent. BHS thinks that the LXX, Syr and Tg-Jon also reflect ‫הלא‬, but it is possible that the Vorlagen of the versions presuppose ‫ הנה‬and not ‫הלא‬. 35.  Alternatively, this may be another example of converse translation (see p. 129 for more on converse translations).

160

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

5. Conclusion A survey of the lexeme ‫ אשר‬reveals some significant semantic changes from BH to PBH and Aramaic. In BH ‫ אשר‬represents two verbal roots. The first is I-‫“ אשר‬stride, go straight ahead” or “lead, guide” (Piel), but this meaning does not occur in PBH or Aramaic, which may explain the divergent rendering in LXX Isa 23.8. A second root is II-‫( אשר‬Piel) “call happy” or “consider fortunate,” and this meaning is attested in PBH (and very rarely in Aramaic). Furthermore, two new nuances emerge in PBH and Aramaic for this lexeme: “be strong” and “verify.” This is a significant semantic development, and the rendering of ‫ אשר‬by ἰσχύει in LXX Isa 23.8 appears to reflect this new meaning. Most scholars have explained the divergent LXX reading μὴ ἥσσων ἐστὶν ἢ οὐκ ἰσχύει as a misreading of the participle ‫המעטירה‬. There is little doubt that ‫ המעטירה‬was read as the interrogative particle followed by the root ‫מעט‬. However, the lexical evidence suggests that the presence of ἰσχύει in correspondence to ‫ אשר‬is not merely coincidence, or the result of a double translation of the previous line. Rather, the translator rendered ‫ אשר‬on the basis of the PBH/Aramaic meaning “be strong,” which in turn resulted in reading the ‫ירה‬- of the participle ‫ המעטירה‬as a negative. On balance, then, this explanation is to be preferred, since it falls in line with the lexical evidence and accounts for the Hebrew in its entirety.

Chapter 2

‫חשש‬

‫“ ֲח ַׁשׁש‬chaff, dry grass” = αἰσθάνομαι “perceive” Isa 33.11

1. Introduction Isa 33.11

‫תהרו חשש תלדו קש רוחכם אש תאכלכם‬ νῦν ὄψεσθε νῦν αἰσθηθήσεσθε ματαία ἔσται ἡ ἰσχὺς τοῦ πνεύματος ὑμῶν πῦρ ὑμᾶς κατέδεται

Despite the occurrence of the rare word ‫ח ַׁשׁש‬, ֲ the Hebrew of Isa 33.11 is straightforward and there is little dispute about its meaning. However, LXX Isa, many of the Greek mss, the revisions of α´, σ´, and θ´, and several Latin mss render it variously, and in many cases it appears that the word was not known to the respective translator or scribe. Further complicating matters are the differing explanations by recent scholars. Fischer proposed that the LXX translator read ‫“ משש‬feel, grope” instead of ‫חשש‬, hence the rendering by the verb αἰσθάνομαι.1 Ziegler was not convinced by Fischer’s proposal, and suggested instead that Aramaic forms of ‫חשש‬/‫“ חוש‬feel, suffer” influenced the translator.2 Most recently, Troxel, who saw the “double insertion” of νῦν in v. 11 as an echo of v. 10 and viewed vv. 10–14 as a complex exegetical translation, suggested that the translator omitted a Greek equivalent for ‫ ֲח ַׁשׁש‬in v. 11 just as he ostensibly did earlier in LXX Isa 5.24.3

1.  Fischer, In welcher Schrift?, 50. 2.  Ziegler, Untersuchungen, 9–10. 3.  Troxel, LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation, 113–15.

162

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

I shall first consider the meaning of ‫ חשש‬in BH, PBH and other cognate languages; then, secondly, I shall analyse the various Greek and Latin renderings of it in order to determine what may have influenced the early translations of Isa 33.11, whether a rarer sense of ‫ חשש‬or exegetical considerations. 2. ‫חשש‬/‫ חוש‬in BH Scholars differ on whether ‫ חוש‬and ‫ חשש‬are independent roots, especially when taking into consideration the evidence from PBH and Aramaic, where the semantic ranges are almost identical and it is often difficult to determine from which root a given word originates. With regard to Aramaic forms, Sokoloff concludes: “While there may, in fact, be a rt. ‫…חוש‬the complete conflation of its forms w. ‫ חשש‬places its independent existence in doubt. Therefore, all forms are included s.v. ‫חשש‬.”4 In BH, however, the nominal form ‫ ֲח ַׁשׁש‬appears to be unrelated to the root ‫חוש‬ “hurry,” and I shall therefore examine it independently. 2.1. ‫ חשש‬in BH The root ‫ חשש‬is very rare in BH. A verb is not attested at all, and the noun ‫“ ֲח ַׁשׁש‬chaff, dried grass” occurs only in Isa 5.24 and 33.11. However, support for this meaning can be found in the cognate languages. Arabic ḥašīš means “particles of straw” and is probably derived from the verb ḥašša “mow.”5 Akkadian ḫassu is a substantive meaning “leafy bough,”6 and ḫasḫallatu “foliage, green leaves” may also be related.7 Despite the rarity of this word, it is apparent from the context and parallelism of Isa 5.24 and 33.11—the mention of fire and the parallelism of ‫ ֲח ַׁשׁש‬with ‫ַקׁש‬ “straw” in both verses—that “chaff, dried grass” is the intended meaning of ‫ח ַׁשׁש‬. ֲ 8 4.  Sokoloff, Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, 443. 5.  BDB connects ḥašīš with the verb ḥassa “hurry,” presumably on the basis that elements such as straw, sand and dust fly about quickly. In BH, the parallel word ‫“ ַקׁש‬straw” is often described as being caught in the wind (Isa 40.24; 41.2; Jer 13.24; Ps 83.14; Job 13.25), and hence it became a symbol of something light or insignificant; otherwise, there is little evidence to suggest a connection with ḥassa. 6.  CAD 6:128. 7.  Ibid., 6:125. 8.  In prophetic preaching, ‫“ ַקׁש‬stubble” is a common metaphor for anything that is worthless and destined for the fire (Isa 5.24; 47.14; Joel 2.5; Obad 18; Nah 1.10; Mal 3.19). Similar metaphors employed in prophetic preaching include ‫קֹוץ‬ “thorn” (2 Sam 23.6); ‫“ נְ ע ֶֹרת‬tow” (Isa 1.31); ‫“ ְס ַבְך‬brier” (Isa 9.17), ‫“ ֶה ֶמס‬brushwood” (Isa 64.1), and ‫“ ַכּנָ ה‬stock” (Ps 80.17).

‫‏‬



Section 4. Chapter 2. ‫ ששח‬

163

2.2. ‫ חוש‬in BH The lexeme ‫ חוש‬occurs 21 times in BH and almost always means “hurry.”9 The lone exception is in Qoh 2.25 where it appears to take the PBH/ Aramaic meaning “feel, perceive”: ‫“ ‏כי מי יאכל ומי יחוש חוץ ממני‬For who can eat, and who can feel apart from me [him]?”10 Despite limited evidence in BH, scholars assign two separate roots: I-‫“ חוש‬hurry” and II-‫“ חוש‬feel, perceive.” In addition to Qoh 2.25, HALOT includes Job 20.2 and Ps 141.1 under the root II-‫חוש‬, and translates them “be painful” and “take notice,” respectively.11 Although these are certainly plausible meanings, the predominant BH meaning “hurry” also fits the context in Job 20.2 and Ps 141.1, and it is unnecessary and somewhat speculative to see a connection with the meaning “feel, perceive.”12 The meaning of ‫ יחושו‬in Job 20.2 is admittedly more ambiguous and difficult to determine, as either meaning fits the context. In short, with the exception of one occurrence in Qoh, a book that is widely thought to be late, and one or two occurrences that are unclear, the predominant meaning of ‫ חוש‬in BH is limited to “hurry.” 3. ‫חשש‬/‫ חוש‬in PBH, Aramaic and Syriac 3.1. ‫ חשש‬in 1QIsaa One might expect the noun ‫ ֲח ַׁשׁש‬to occur in 1QIsaa at Isa 5.24 and 33.11, but, interestingly, the scribe deviates from the MT in both verses: MT Isa 5.24a ‫לכן כאכל קש לשון אש וחשש להבה ירפה שרשם כמק יהיה ופרחם כאבק יעלה‬

‫‏‬

1QIsaa ‫לכן כאכל קש לשון אש ואש לוהבת ירפה שרשם כמק יהיה ופרחם כאבק יעלה‬ 9.  The corresponding Akkadian verb to BH ‫ חוש‬is ḫâšu and it has five attested meanings: “move quickly, rush,” which is the most common meaning and corresponds to the predominant BH meaning “hurry”; “worry” is scarcely attested, but is a meaning that is found in PBH, Aramaic and Syriac ‫חוש‬/‫“ ;ܚܫ‬shake” may be related to a meaning found in Qumran (see below); “see” or “find” is also similar to the PBH, Aramaic and Syriac meanings; and “give.” See CAD 6:146–47 for more on this root. 10.  MT has ‫ממני‬, but some mss have ‫ממנו‬, which is the reading that tends to be preferred in modern versions. Incidentally, Tg Qoh employs the noun ‫“ ֲח ָׁש ָׁשא‬fear, anxiety” instead of a verb: Tg Qoh 2.25 ‫ארום מאן הוא די יעסק בפתגמי אוריתא ומאן‬ ‫“ ההוא גבר דאית ליה חששא מן יום למדינא רבא דעתיד יתי בר־מיני‬Behold, who occupies himself with words of Torah, and who besides me is the man who has fear of the great judgment day which will come?” 11.  BDB includes only Qoh 2.25 for II-‫חוש‬. 12.  Almost all English translations prefer “hurry” for Ps 141.1.

164

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

In 1QIsaa 5.24a, ‫ אש‬corresponds to ‫ חשש‬and ‫ לוהבת‬to ‫להבה‬, which results in a difficult reading. It is conceivable that the Vorlage of the scribe did not have ‫ חשש‬and that ‫ ואש לוהבת‬is original. This is supported by the LXX, which also has no equivalent for ‫ח ַׁשׁש‬, ֲ and by the fact that the collocation of ‫ אש‬and )‫ להב(ה‬is found elsewhere in the HB, and nearby in Isa 4.5:13 ‫וברא יהוה על כל מכון הר ציון ועל מקראה ענן יומם ועשן ונגה אש להבה לילה כי‬ ‫על כל כבוד חפה‬ Then YHWH will create over the whole site of Mount Zion and over her assemblies a cloud by day, and smoke and the shining of a flaming fire by night; for over all the glory there will be a canopy.

However, the phrase ‫ ואש לוהבת‬breaks up the string of synonymous parallelisms with ‫חשש‬//‫ קש‬followed by ‫פרח‬//‫ שרש‬and the climactic parallel phrases ‫ כי מאסו את תורת יהוה צבאות‬and ‫ואת אמרת קדוש ישראל נאצו‬. It is possible that the scribe had Isa 4.5 in mind and subconsciously repeated it, but the fact that ‫ להבה‬is singular in Isa 4.5 and possibly made a feminine participle in 1QIsaa 5.2414 suggests a conscious decision on the part of the scribe. It should also be noted that another Qumran scroll, 4QIsab, follows MT exactly:

‫‏‬

‫‏‬

‫‏לכן כאכל קש לשון אש וחשש להבה[ ירפה שרשם כמק יהיה] ופרחם כאבק יעלה‬

But if ‫ ואש לוהבת‬in 1QIsaa is not original, why did the scribe choose to substitute ‫ אש‬for ‫ ?חשש‬Kutscher suggests three reasons for the change: (1) the scribe was not familiar with ‫;ח ַׁשׁש‬ ֲ (2) the weakness of the pharyngeal, so that the ‫ א‬was substituted for ‫ ;ח‬and (3) the influence of the immediately preceding word ‫אש‬, and the common collocation ‫אש להבה‬ that occurs elsewhere in the HB. He concludes: “All these together father our reading, which is in itself such a very strange one.”15 MT Isa 33.11 1QIsaa

‫תהרו חשש תלדו קש רוחכם אש תאכלכם‬ ‫תהרו חששה תלדו קש רוחכם אש תאכלכם‬

13.  See also Hos 7.6; Pss 104.4; 105.32; and Lam 3.2. 14.  It is probable that ‫ לוהבת‬is a feminine participle agreeing with ‫אש‬, with the meaning “flaming,” although there is no BH occurrence of the verb ‫להב‬. Otherwise the 1QIsaa variant may be intended as a plural noun. 15.  Kutscher, Isaiah Scroll, 221.



Section 4. Chapter 2. ‫ ששח‬

165

In 1QIsaa 33.11, ‫ חשש‬becomes ‫חששה‬. Kutscher thinks that the scribe had Aramaic ‫ חשש‬in mind, with the final ‫ה‬- reflecting the suffix of the emphatic state.16 Alternatively, Driver takes the form with a feminine ending as a nomen unitatis,17 but the idea of a single strand of grass or piece of chaff seems obscure in this context and does not appear to represent the scribe’s intention.18 It is impossible to determine the exact reasons for the divergences from ‫ ֲח ַׁשׁש‬in 1QIsaa, but the salient point here is that the scribe of 1QIsaa did not know BH ‫ח ַׁשׁש‬, ֲ and either substituted it with another word (Isa 5.24) or changed it to a form that made sense to him (Isa 33.11).19 3.2. ‫ חוש‬in Qumran Non-biblical Texts and Ben Sira The root ‫ חשש‬is not attested in Qumran non-biblical texts or Ben Sira. The verb I-‫ חוש‬occurs eight times in the non-biblical texts of Qumran, meaning “hurry” and, apparently, “be shaken.” The meaning “hurry” occurs four times and has a semantic range similar to BH.20 The meaning “be shaken” is found three times in copies of “The Rule of the Community” (1QS 8.8; 4Q258 6.2; 4Q259 2.16) and always in the phrase ‫“‏ ובל יחישו ממקומם‬and they [the Council of the Yahad] shall not be shaken from their place.” If this is indeed the meaning, it is a nuance found only in Qumran and may be an extension of the meaning “be anxious” found elsewhere in PBH.21 The verb ‫ חוש‬occurs three times in Ben Sira and means “hurry” in each instance (Sir 35.20; 36.10; 40.10). 3.3. ‫חוש‬/‫ חשש‬in Rabbinic Literature The verbs ‫ חשש‬and ‫ חוש‬are both widely attested in rabbinic literature, but ‫ חשש‬is by far the more frequently attested root. As a point of comparison, the participial form ‫ חושש‬alone occurs more than 300 times, whereas the corresponding participle ‫ חש‬occurs fewer than 40 times. What is particularly interesting about ‫ חשש‬and ‫ חוש‬is their meaning and semantic range. ‫ חשש‬means “consider,” “scruple,” “be concerned,” and “feel pain”— mostly relating to emotional and psychological pain. Representative examples include:

‫‏‬

16.  Ibid. See also MT Isa 1.13b, where 1QIsaa has ‫ עצרתה‬for MT ‫עצרה‬. 17.  Cf. GKC §122t. 18.  G. R. Driver, “Hebrew Scrolls,” JTS ns 3 (1951): 17–30 (18 n. 3). 19.  Other examples include: Isa 37.25—MT ‫ קור‬is rendered by the root ‫ קרא‬in 1QIsaa; and Isa 30.12—‫ לוז‬is represented by ‫עלז‬. 20.  1QpHab 3.8; 1QHa 11.11; 14.32; 4Q303 1ii.13. 21.  Akkadian ḫâšu-C means “shake,” but this is not a common meaning. See CAD 6:147.

166

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew b. Šabb. 14.4 ‫‏החושש מתניו לא יסוך יין וחומץ אבל סך הוא את השמן לא שמן וורד‬ He who is concerned about his loins [which give him pain], he may not anoint them with wine or vinegar. But he anoints with oil, not with rose oil. t. Yebam. 8.2

‫‏לוים המזוהמין באימן לא חששו להן חכמים‬ Levites, who became unfit for the priesthood by their mothers, the sages did not take into consideration. t. Ter. 1.5

‫כיצד ידוע אם חושש משום גזל‬ How does one know if he [owner of the field] is apprehensive of robbery?

The semantic range of ‫ =( חוש‬BH II-‫ )חוש‬is practically identical to that of ‫ חשש‬and also includes meanings such as “consider,” “scruple,” and “feel pain.” The one minor difference from ‫חוש‬, however, is the continuation of BH I-‫“ חוש‬hurry,” though it is quite rare and usually occurs with reference to a biblical text. For example, in y. Yebamot, there is a word-play on the names ‫ חושים‬and ‫ בערא‬in 1 Chr 8.8 that employs the meaning “hurry”:22 y. Yebam. 8.9c ‫חושים ואת בערא נשיו׃ וכי יש לך אדם שהוא מוליד את נשיו׃ אלא שחש כנמר‬ ‫וביאר את ההלכה‬ “Hushim and Baara, his wives”—Now is there such a thing as a man who fathers his own wives? But he was as quick as a panther and explained the law.

A few observations must be summarised here. First, the meaning “hurry,” which is the predominant meaning in BH and Qumran, is rare in PBH, as it appears to be replaced by other PBH and Aramaic words. Secondly, the semantic ranges of ‫ חשש‬and ‫ חוש‬are almost identical, with meanings such as “consider” and “apprehend” in LBH (in the case of II-‫ )חוש‬and PBH. Lastly, the meaning “chaff” is not attested in PBH. 3.4. ‫חוש‬/‫ חשש‬in Aramaic The Aramaic verbs ‫ חשש‬and ‫ חוש‬are also quite common and their semantic range is very similar to that of PBH. The fact that BH ‫ חוש‬is usually rendered by ‫יחי‬, ‫ זרז‬and ‫ בעע‬in the Targums suggests that Aramaic ‫ חוש‬did not have the sense of “hurry” in the way of BH I-‫חוש‬. It does include meanings such as “consider,” “apprehend,” “feel” and “suffer.” 22.  Cf. Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, 441.



Section 4. Chapter 2. ‫ ששח‬

167

If there is a perceptible difference in usage, the tactile nuance of “feel” seems to occur more frequently in Aramaic vis-à-vis PBH, where psychological or emotional senses are more prominent. For example: b. Šabb. 140a

‫וחאשית בי מבינתא דרישאי ועד טופרא[י] דכרעאי‬ And I felt (a cooling sensation) from the hair of my head to the toenail of my foot.

Similarly, the meaning “suffer” often refers to physical pain and has a variety of subjects including the head (AmGen 5c.7; ŠT 2, 3), eye (b. B. Bat. 17a; b. Soṭah 16d; b. Nid. 20b; b. Bek. 36b), mouth (b. Moed Qat. 82d), teeth (b. Ket. 35a; Kil. 32b), hand (PRK 283.10), gout (b. Sanh. 48b), gall stones (ŠR 19a), and bowels (b. Šabb. 108a; VR 858.4).23 Equally, if not more, prominent is the meaning “apprehend,” “be concerned” or “consider” for Aramaic ‫חוש‬/‫חשש‬. In addition to the verb, the noun ‫“ ֲח ָׁש ָׁשא‬anxiety, fear, suspicion” is also attested in Aramaic (e.g. b. Ket. 27b; b. Bek. 36a; b. AZ 23b; b. Giṭ 86b; b. Qid. 60a; b. Yom. 83b). In short, Aramaic ‫חוש‬/‫ חשש‬generally has two meanings: “feel”— primarily of physical pain and suffering—and “consider” or “apprehend.” 3.5. Evidence from Syriac, Mandaic and Akkadian The Syriac root ‫ ܚܫ‬is extensive both in terms of frequency and the number of forms in which it is found. In Sokoloff’s expanded version of Brockelmann’s lexicon, there are eight nominal, adjectival and adverbial entries for the root ‫ܚܫ‬.24 The same two basic nuances also exist for the verb ‫ ܚܫ‬as are found in later Hebrew and in Aramaic. The first is “sense” or “feel” and can refer to both physical and emotional aspects (cf. Ḥab 37.9; ESNisB2 43.14). Τhe second meaning is “suffer” or “endure,” the contexts of which range from the suffering of headaches (KwD2 65.17), the harm caused by a fire (ESRef1ER 54.11), or the pain caused by torture (MP 31.44; Matt 16.21// πάσχω). When the subject is a material item such as iron, ‫ ܚܫܫ‬can also mean “shatter” or “break in pieces” (cf. BBah 19.26). Nominal forms include ‫“ ܚܫܐ‬feeling, sense,” “pain, suffering,” or “desire, zeal”; ‫ܚܫܬܐ‬ 23.  Of course, physical and tactile senses of “feel” and “suffer” are also attested in PBH, but to a lesser degree; similarly, emotional and psychological senses are indicated in Aramaic. I mention the differences simply as a point of comparison between PBH, where psychological and emotional senses are not uncommon, and Syriac, where the meanings “feel” and “suffer” are discernibly more physical and tactile. 24.  Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon, 497–503.

168

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

“feeling, sense” or “suffering, grief”; ‫“ ܚܫܘܬܐ‬suffering, passion”; and ‫ܚܫܘܫܘܬܐ‬/‫“ ܚܫܢܝܘܬܐ‬capability of suffering, passion.” Adjectives and adverbs include ‫“ ܚܫܢܐ‬ardent, excited,” “furious, raging,” or “rebellious”; ‫“ ܚܫܢܝܐ‬subject to passion,” “capable of feeling or suffering”; and ‫ܚܫܢܐܝܬ‬ “mournfully.” Thus, in Syriac there are two broad categories of meanings: “feel, sense” and “suffer,” with various forms and nuances. In Mandaic, the verbs HUŠ and HŠŠ mean “feel,” “think anxiously,” “be troubled,” “suffer,” “meditate,” or “ponder seriously.” Also, the substantive II-huš means “intelligence,” “sense,” or “understanding.” Mention must also be made of the Akkadian verb ḫasāsu—a very common verb that has a near identical semantic range to PBH, Aramaic, and Syriac ‫חוש‬/‫—חשש‬and its cognate forms ḫasīsu “hearing,” “comprehension,” and “ear,” and ḫassu “intelligent, wise.”25 3.6. Summary We conclude our analysis of the verbs ‫חשש‬/‫חוש‬/‫ ܚܫܫ‬in BH, PBH, Aramaic and Syriac with the following observations: (1) BH ‫“ ֲח ַׁשׁש‬chaff, dried grass” is found only in Isa 5.24 and 33.11, and, in fact, there is no evidence for such a root elsewhere in Hebrew, Aramaic or Syriac; (2) there are two roots ‫ חוש‬in BH: I-‫“ חוש‬hurry” is the more common and occurs more than 20 times; II-‫ חוש‬occurs once with the probable meaning “perceive,” but becomes more common in PBH. On the other hand, the meaning “hurry” as in I-‫ חוש‬is rare in PBH and is usually found in discussion of scripture; (3) in PBH, Aramaic and Syriac ‫חשש‬/‫חוש‬/‫ ܚܫܫ‬is very common and means “feel, sense,” “consider,” or “suffer.” The collective evidence illustrates just how problematic BH ‫ ֲח ַׁשׁש‬would have been for ancient translators into Greek and Latin; it is probable that ‫ ֲח ַׁשׁש‬was not known to them at all. 4. The Versions and Manuscripts 4.1. Greek Versions and MSS The Greek manuscripts and the later revisions of α´, σ´ and θ´ render ‫ חשש‬variously. Codex Vaticanus, Codex Verona (an eighth-century Latin manuscript) and Eusebius have αισθηθησεσθε, which is the reading that the critical editions of Ziegler and Rahlfs prefer. However, there is evidence 25.  CAD lists 14 meanings for the verb ḫasāsu including “think,” “care for,” “listen,” “be intelligent, understanding,” “pay attention,” “be concerned,” and “worry.” See CAD 6:122–28 for a comprehensive list and examples for ḫasāsu, ḫasīsu and ḫassu.



Section 4. Chapter 2. ‫ ששח‬

169

for alternative readings. All the manuscripts in the “Alexandrian Group” (Codex Alexandrinus, the original reading of Codex Marchalianus, 26, 86, 106, and 710), Codex Venetus, and several Lucianic mss have αισχυνθησεσθε (or -θαι), the preferred reading of Ottley.26

‫( א‬Codex Sinaiticus) is particularly interesting, as it has multiple corrections for the Greek word representing ‫חשש‬. In his transcription of the codex published in 1862, Tischendorf noted that the original manuscript read εθηθησεσθαι, but that subsequent scribes or correctors, namely Ca and Cb3, made changes to the text. Ca, thought to be a philologically minded scribe who apparently had manuscript evidence to improve the text, corrected εσθηθησεσθαι supralinearly to αισχυνθησεσθαι, probably on the basis of an Alexandrian or Lucianic manuscript. Cb3, a scribe known for aesthetic alterations and retroversions to the original, erased Ca’s supralinear corrections and changed the initial ε- to αι-, resulting in αισθηθησεσθαι. Another interesting witness to consider is the Fayumic translation of the Greek. Ziegler thinks that the Greek Vorlage of the Fayumic text read νυν αισθηθησεσθε και αισχυνθησεσθε, which appears to be a conflation of αἰσθάνομαι and αἰσχύνω. It appears that the translator of the Fayumic text had Greek texts before him that reflected both words and, rather than choosing one, he conflated the two. In contrast to the various manuscripts of the LXX, which render ‫ ֲח ַׁשׁש‬by verbs, the Greek versions of α´, σ´, and θ´ correctly represent ‫ ֲח ַׁשׁש‬by nouns: α´ has αιθαλην “soot,” σ´ φλογα “flame,” and θ´ σπουδῇ “in haste, hastily,” renderings that appear to be translating ‫ ֲח ַׁשׁש‬on the basis of the context. It is apparent that ‫ חשש‬was problematic for many if not all of the Greek translators and scribes, and various translation ploys were used to make sense of it. The rendering of ‫ חשש‬by αἰσχύνω is most likely the result of assonantal exegesis (‫ חשש‬emended to ‫“ בוש‬be ashamed”).27 θ´ σπουδῇ takes ‫ ֲח ַׁשׁש‬to be a form of ‫“ חוש‬hurry” (cf. LXX Job 35.1 where the verb ‫ חוש‬is represented by σπουδάζω “hasten”). The renderings of α´ 26.  Ottley, The Book of Isaiah, 271–72. 27.  The Polel form ‫ ‏ּב ֵֹׁשׁש‬is found twice for the root II-‫“ בוש‬tarry” (Exod 32.1; Judg 5.28), thus it is conceivable that this form was in mind when rendering ‫ חשש‬by αἰσχύνω.

170

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

αιθαλην “soot” and σ´ φλογα “flame”—words having to do with “fire” or “burn”—appear to be translations on the basis of the context, specifically the parallelism with ‫“ קש‬stubble” and ‫“ אש‬fire” in the following line, or, possibly, because of the association of ‫ קש‬with fire in prophetic preaching. The reliance on parallelism may also explain why α´ and σ´ have nouns representing ‫חשש‬. 4.2. Latin Witnesses Many of the Latin witnesses also reflect ‫ ֲח ַׁשׁש‬variously. K (the Ad Quirinum text) reads nunc intellegetis “now you will perceive” and E (the “European” text) has nunc sentietis “now you will sense,” both of which translate αἰσθηθήσεσθε and reflect a Greek text like ‫ א‬or Codex Vaticanus; Vg ardorem “flame” appears to be a translation on the basis of the context much like σ´ φλογα “flame” (cf. Isa 5.24). Cyprian cites Isa 33.11, but he has two verbs for ‫ח ַׁשׁש‬: ֲ nunc intellegetis, nunc confundemini. At first glance, the addition of the verb confundo “pour, mix” or “confuse, disturb” seems unconnected, but ‫ בוש‬is almost always represented by confundo in the Vg (in Vg Isa, for example, 21 of the 24 occurrences of the verb ‫ בוש‬are rendered by confundo). Thus, it appears that this is another case of conflating two attested renderings of ‫חשש‬. This led Ottley to wonder whether Cyprian was quoting from a copy whose original had a correction in its text.28 5. ‫ ֲח ַׁשׁש‬and LXX Isa 5.1. LXX Isa 5.24 In order to understand fully the rendering of ‫ ֲח ַׁשׁש‬in LXX Isa 33.11, it is important to consider how the translator approaches the word in Isa 5.24, the only other occurrence in the HB: Isa 5.24 ‫לכן כאכל קש לשון אש וחשש להבה ירפה שרשם כמק יהיה ופרחם כאבק יעלה‬ Therefore, as the tongue of fire consumes the stubble, and as dry grass sinks down in the flame, so their root will be as decay, and their blossom will go up like dust. διὰ τοῦτο ὃν τρόπον καυθήσεται καλάμη ὑπὸ ἄνθρακος πυρὸς καὶ συγκαυθήσεται ὑπὸ φλογὸς ἀνειμένης, ἡ ῥίζα αὐτῶν ὡς χνοῦς ἔσται, καὶ τὸ ἄνθος αὐτῶν ὡς κονιορτὸς ἀναβήσεται· Therefore, as stubble will be burned by a coal of fire and burned up by a weakened flame, so their root will be like fine dust and their blossom go up like dust. 28.  Ottley, The Book of Isaiah, 271.



Section 4. Chapter 2. ‫ ששח‬

171

The main divergence from the MT in LXX Isa 5.24 is the rendering of ‫ ֲח ַׁשׁש‬by συγκαυθήσεται “will be burned up.” Contrary to Troxel’s assertion that a Greek equivalent for ‫ ֲח ַׁשׁש‬is omitted in the LXX,29 συγκαυθήσεται must represent ‫ח ַׁשׁש‬, ֲ as every other Hebrew word has a corresponding Greek word.30 But how did the translator arrive at συγκαυθήσεται? It is conceivable that there is a different Hebrew text underlying the LXX, and there is some textual evidence for a reading that is more in line with the LXX. As previously mentioned, 1QIsaa substitutes ‫ חשש‬with ‫ אש‬and makes ‫ להבת‬a feminine participle, which is closer to the LXX reading.31 α´, σ´, and θ´ all have θέρμη φλογὸς “heat of flame,” and, similarly, the Vg, which appears to be influenced by the Three, reads calor flammae. Thus, the Three and Jerome take ‫ ֲח ַׁשׁש‬to be a noun in construct with ‫ להבה‬on the basis of the immediately preceding construct ‫לשון אש‬. Since the root ‫ חשש‬and similar words are never rendered by συγκαίω “burn,” it is unlikely that etymological rendering played a part in the translation of LXX Isa 5.24. The decision to render ‫ ֲח ַׁשׁש‬by συγκαυθήσεται in parallel to καυθήσεται “it will be burned” from the previous line indicates that the immediate context of the burning of stubble by fire must have influenced the translator. However, contrary to the Three who recognised that ‫ ֲח ַׁשׁש‬had to be a noun (cf. p. 162 n. 8), the LXX translator links it with the verb καυθήσεται, thereby eliminating the subject for ‫ירפה‬. This in turn forces him to render ‫ ירפה‬by an attributive participle [φλογὸς] ἀνειμένης, and, as a result, καὶ συγκαυθήσεται ὑπὸ φλογὸς ἀνειμένης necessarily refers back to ‫( קש‬καλάμη).32 In sum, it is apparent that the translator did not know, or was confused by, ‫ח ַׁשׁש‬, ֲ and his attempt to make sense of it changed the syntax and meaning of the verse. 5.2. LXX Isa 33.11 The LXX translation of Isa 33.11 is very free and is contextually conditioned and/or exegetically motivated: 29.  Troxel, LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation, 114 n. 152. 30.  The addition of the preposition ὑπό, which occurs twice, is necessitated by the passive voice of the verbs καυθήσεται and συγκαυθήσεται. 31.  The reading in 1QIsaa 5.24 should be evaluated alongside another Qumran text, 4QIsab, which is identical to the MT. See p. 161 for the discussion of the Qumran texts of Isa. 32.  The verb ἀνίημι represents various Hebrew words in LXX Isa, but, in LXX Isa 35.3, the only other place where it corresponds to a word from the root ‫( רפה‬the adjective ‫“ ָר ֶפה‬weak”), it also occurs as an attributive participle: ‫ ידים רפות‬// χεῖρες ἀνειμέναι.

172

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew ‫תהרו חשש תלדו קש רוחכם אש תאכלכם‬ You conceive chaff; you give birth to stubble; your breath is a fire that will consume you. νῦν ὄψεσθε, νῦν αἰσθηθήσεσθε· ματαία ἔσται ἡ ἰσχὺς τοῦ πνεύματος ὑμῶν, πῦρ ὑμᾶς κατέδεται Now you will see; now you will perceive; the strength of your spirit will be vain; fire will consume you.

There are two important features to point out here. First, the translator carries over the adverb νῦν from 33.10 and repeats it twice in v. 11, despite the absence of ‫ עתה‬in the MT. As Troxel puts it, this double repetition of νῦν in v. 11 “signals his exegetical interest,” and may be indicative of intentional alteration. Secondly, the verbs ‫“ הרה‬conceive” (7× in MT Isa; rendered by ἐν γαστρὶ λαμβάνω and κύω in LXX Isa) and ‫“ ילד‬bear children” (23× in MT Isa; rendered by τίκτω and γεννάω in LXX Isa) are words the translator knows well, as he represents them correctly in every other occurrence in LXX Isa. In fact, if the rendering of Hebrew words elsewhere in LXX Isa is any indication of the translator’s knowledge of a given word, ‫ ֲח ַׁשׁש‬is the only one in v. 11 that would have posed a problem from a lexical standpoint. Thus, the crux of the divergent renderings in LXX Isa 33.11 appears to be the translator’s understanding and treatment of ‫ח ַׁשׁש‬, ֲ a word he apparently did not know. On the basis of the lexical evidence from LBH, PBH and Aramaic, it would appear that the translator knew the meaning of ‫“ חשש‬feel,” “consider,” and “apprehend,” and that, by extension, the meaning was available to him for translation. If this is so, the translator would have had to make other adjustments, even of words he knew well, to make sense of the verse as a whole. It is possible, for example, that the rendering of ‫ ‏תהרו‬by ὄψεσθε is an attempt to help synchronise νῦν αἰσθηθήσεσθε by providing a parallel phrase.33 This, of course, makes ‫ תלדו קש‬incomprehensible, so the translator takes the liberty of rendering it by ματαία ἔσται ἡ ἰσχὺς τοῦ πνεύματος ὑμῶν “the strength of your spirit will be vain.” Additionally, the rendering of ‫ מי יגור לנו‬by τίς ἀγγελεῖ ὑμῖν “Who will declare to you” in v. 14b (reading ‫ מי יגיד‬and changing the object from first person to second person) also appears to be an attempt to harmonise the warning to the addressees in v. 11 with vv. 12–14.

33.  Léo Laberge, La Septante d’Isaïe 28–33: Étude de tradition textuelle (Ottawa: CRU Saint-Paul, 1978), 104, thinks that the translation νῦν ὄψεσθε is the result of Aramaic influence, i.e., he read ‫ תהרו‬as Aramaic “you see”; however, there is little evidence to support this.



Section 4. Chapter 2. ‫ ששח‬

173

In sum, it is clear that there is some exegetical interpretation in LXX Isa 33.10–14, and that the translator’s unfamiliarity with ‫ ֲח ַׁשׁש‬and knowledge of LBH/PBH/Aramaic ‫ חשש‬was a significant factor in how he translated v. 11. A more difficult question to answer is whether the free translation of v. 11 (and 14b) is an attempt to make sense of the passage in the light of the awkward rendering of ‫ח ַׁשׁש‬, ֲ or whether the translator employed a meaning available to him for exegetical purposes. 6. Conclusion In the light of the lexical evidence for the roots ‫ חשש‬and ‫ חוש‬in LBH, PBH, Aramaic and Syriac, as well as Akkadian, it is clear that the rendering of ‫ ֲח ַׁשׁש‬by αἰσθάνομαι “sense, understand” in LXX Isa 33.11 is owing to the influence of a less well attested sense for the roots ‫ חשש‬and ‫חוש‬, which became more apparent in PBH and Aramaic. The decision to reflect ‫ ֲח ַׁשׁש‬by αἰσθάνομαι is not on the basis of the context—the context precludes such a meaning and αἰσθάνομαι disrupts the clear parallelism. It seems more likely that a meaning which surfaces in one later biblical text (i.e., II-‫ חוש‬in Ps 139), and is reflected more widely in the cognate languages, was known to the translator and was deployed on this occasion.

Chapter 3

‫ צמח‬a n d ‫צבי‬ ‫ = צבי‬βουλή “counsel”; ‫ = צמח‬ἐπιλάμπω “shine” Isa 4.2

1. Introduction Isa 4.2 ‫ביום ההוא יהיה צמח יהוה לצבי ולכבוד ופרי הארץ לגאון ולתפארת לפליטת ישראל‬ τῇ δὲ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ ἐπιλάμψει ὁ θεὸς ἐν βουλῇ μετὰ δόξης ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς τοῦ ὑψῶσαι καὶ δοξάσαι τὸ καταλειφθὲν τοῦ Ισραηλ

The Greek version of Isa 4.2 diverges considerably from the MT, resulting in an entirely different reading. The paraphrastic rendering of ‫יהיה צמח‬ by the verb ἐπιλάμψει “he will shine,” the apparent ignorance of BH ‫“ צבי‬ornament/splendour,” and the inexplicable omission of ‫( פרי‬LXX reads ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς for ‫ )ופרי הארץ‬raise some interesting questions. Are the variants a result of theologically motivated translation, as is often suggested for the LXX version of Isaiah? Was the translator looking at an entirely different Vorlage? Or are these divergences the result of linguistic interference—in this particular case, the influence of Aramaic and/or PBH on the translator? 2. ‫ צמח‬in BH, PBH and Aramaic In the biblical corpus, the noun ‫ ֶצ ַמח‬always refers to “something that sprouts” (often of a specific sprout or shoot, e.g., ‫)צמח צדיק‬, and, likewise, the verb generally means “sprout,” “grow,” or “produce” something. How then did the LXX translator render the straightforward BH word ‫ ֶצ ַמח‬with a meaning not found in the biblical text? One explanation is that the translator’s Vorlage had ‫“( צחח‬shine”) in place of the MT ‫צמח‬. Lamentations 4.7, where ‫( צחו‬from the root ‫ )צחח‬is similarly rendered ἔλαμψαν, is the example that is often cited to support this view.



Section 4. Chapter 3. ‫ צמח‬and ‫ צבי‬

175

Though it cannot altogether be discounted that the translator may have had ‫ צחח‬in his Vorlage, a brief survey of the PBH and Aramaic meanings of ‫ צמח‬provides considerable evidence that cognate languages may have been what influenced the translation, and not a different Vorlage. As far back as 1841, Frankel argued that the LXX translation of ‫ צמח‬in Isa 4.2 was based on the Syriac ‫“ ܨܡܚ‬shine.”1 Recently, scholars have amended Frankel’s observation by stating that the translator was more likely to have been influenced by the Aramaic ‫צמח‬/‫ צמחא‬rather than by the Syriac,2 but they provide no lexical data to support their claim. Below is an overview of the relevant verbal and nominal forms of ‫ צמח‬in Hebrew, Aramaic and Syriac of the post-biblical era: Post-biblical Hebrew, vb. ‫ ָ צ ַמח‬3 break forth, shine. Cant. R. to 3.6: ‫“ ועמוד אש צומח‬and the pillar of fire grew brighter.” Pesik. R. S. 46: ‫“ צמחה כפרתו‬his pardon was revealed.” to sprout, grow (same as BH). The noun ‫ ֶצ ַמח‬in PBH continues to mean “growth,” “sprout” or “plant.” Aramaic, vb. ‫ְצ ַמח‬ shine.4 Bo 78.20: ‫“ טורי כולהון צמחי ביתניה‬all the mountains shine with his shape.” sprout, grow (same as BH). Aram. occurs twice in Qumran texts, both with BH meaning; 15 times in Hebrew texts, all with BH meaning. Occurs eight times in Mishnaic texts, all with BH meaning. Occurs 27 times in Targumic texts, all with BH meaning. Aramaic, n.m. ‫ימ ָחא‬ ְ ‫ ִ צ‬5 splendour b. AZ 39a: ‫“ נקטיה להדי יומא חזא ביה צמחי ושרייה‬he held it [a fish] towards the sun, saw lustres6 on it and permitted it.” pustule, ulcer, growth.

1.  Frankel, Vorstudien, 201. See below for Payne Smith’s Syriac definitions. 2.  Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, 301; Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 165. 3.  Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, 1287. 4.  Sokoloff, Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, 966–67. 5.  Ibid., 960. 6.  The “lustres” coming from the light reflecting off the scales. Compare ‫ִצ ְמ ָחא‬ in Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, 1287, where he understands the same referent in b. AZ 39a as the scales themselves and not as “lustre.”

176

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew Syriac, vb. ‫ ܨܡܚ‬7 spring forth, appear, shine, sprout. the noun ‫ ܨܡܚܐ‬sprout, shoot; brilliancy, radiance, splendour, reflection. Mandaic, vb. ‫צמא‬, ‫ צהם‬8 shine, appear. DC 34.66; Gy 267.4; 273.5; 287.9.

It is obvious from the meanings given above that the BH meaning of ‫צמח‬ expanded in PBH and Aramaic. Though the meaning is still “sprout” in the Hebrew and Aramaic of the Hellenistic era, the time of the LXX translators, the semantic range of the verbal and nominal forms of ‫ צמח‬clearly took on an auxiliary meaning, “shine,” in both PBH and Aramaic. Syriac and Mandaic9 emerged sometime after the first century CE, and although this is after the time of the LXX translators, they confirm the already established semantic range of lexemes in the Aramaic of the first and second centuries CE For example, although Syriac ‫ ܨܡܚ‬meant “sprout” in a few cases, the demotic and more frequent meaning was “shine” (likewise, the nominal form ‫ ܨܡܚܐ‬primarily meant “brilliance” or “radiance” and very occasionally “sprout”). By the time of the Mandaic texts, it appears that ṣma (‫צמא‬/‫ )צהם‬was understood solely as “shine” or “appear.” Thus the various languages from BH to Mandaic illustrate a gradual diachronic shift in meaning from exclusively “sprout” in BH to senses such as “shine,” “appear,” and, by extension, “radiance,” “lustre,” “reflection,” and to things that “sprout/grow,” such as an “ulcer,” “pustule,” or “growth.” The evidence for semantic development is clear, but we must not automatically assume that it accounts for LXX ἐπιλάμψει in Isa 4.2. Joosten cautions that conclusive proof of linguistic interference is usually unattainable. However, it will be useful to recall at this point the three criteria which provide a reasonable degree of certainty that PBH or Aramaic may have influenced a translator. First that the [late] Hebrew element invoked should correspond exactly to what is written in the Masoretic Text (at least with regard to the consonants); second that the meaning of that late Hebrew element should correspond exactly to the meaning of the Greek equivalent in question; and third, that the latter meaning be quite distinct from the earlier meaning obtaining in the MT.10 7.  J. Payne Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary: Founded Upon the Thesaurus Syriacus of R. Payne Smith (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1998), 481. 8.  Drower and Macuch, A Mandaic Dictionary, 390, 395. 9.  Closely related to Syriac and the Aramaic portions of the Talmud, Mandaic is a member of the Southeastern Aramaic dialect group. 10.  Joosten, “On the LXX Translators’ Knowledge of Hebrew,” 169.



Section 4. Chapter 3. ‫ צמח‬and ‫ צבי‬

177

If we follow Joosten’s criteria, the PBH/Aramaic ‫ צמח‬corresponds exactly to the MT in Isa 4.2; ‫ צמח‬in PBH/Aramaic corresponds exactly to the meaning of the Greek equivalent ἐπιλάμψει; and, although there is some degree of crossover, the meanings in BH and PBH/Aramaic are quite distinct, as illustrated above. On the basis of Joosten’s set of criteria, we can assume with relative certainty that PBH/Aramaic at the time of the LXX translators influenced their translation of ‫ צמח‬in Isa 4.2. 3. ‫ צבי‬in BH, PBH and Aramaic In BH ‫ צבי‬generally means “glory, beauty” and is often used attributively (e.g. Ezek 7.20, ‫“ צבי עדיו‬his beautiful ornament”).11 In PBH, the meaning “glory, beauty” is very rare; the more common meaning is “desirable thing” or “beauty.”12 Despite the limited range of meaning in BH, the LXX translators have rendered the 19 occurrences of ‫ צבי‬variously in the biblical corpus: στηλόω “to set up a pillar” (2 Sam 1.19)13 βουλή “counsel” (Isa 4.2) ἔνδοξος “glorious” (Isa 13.19; 23.9) δόξα “glory” (Isa 28.1)14 ἐλπίς “hope” (Isa 24.16; 28.4, 5) θεοῦ παντοκράτορος “Almighty God” for ‫( צבי צבאות‬Jer 3.19) ἐκλεκτός “chosen” (Ezek 7.20; 25.9) κηρίον “honeycomb” (Ezek 20.6, 15)15 ἀνίστημι “to raise up,” “arise” (Ezek 26.20)16 11.  The BH word ‫“ צבי‬gazelle” continues to be used in PBH. 12.  Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, 1258. Cf. Tanh. Mishp. 17 (ref. to Jer 3.19), ‫“ נחלת צבי‬an inheritance of choice.” Note also the form ‫“ ִצ ְביֹון‬desire, pleasure,” related to the Aramaic verb ‫“ צבא‬desire, choose.” 13.  2 Sam 1.19 and Ezek 26.20 may have had Vorlagen that read ‫ יצב‬or ‫נצב‬, or it is possible that the translators simply misread ‫ צבי‬as ‫נצב‬/‫יצב‬. 14.  It is possible that this is a “minus” by the translator as the entire phrase ‫ְצ ִבי‬ ‫ ִת ְפ ַא ְרּתֹו‬is tersely rendered ἐκ τῆς δόξης, possibly omitting ‫ ְצ ִבי‬from the translation, but, as Brockington has argued, the translator of LXX Isa had a predilection for δόξα. See L. H. Brockington, “The Greek Translator of Isaiah and his Interest in ΔΟΞΑ,” VT 1 (1951): 23–32. 15.  Perhaps reading ‫צוף‬. Cf. Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 625–27. 16.  Possibly a different Vorlage here, with the translator reading ‫ ותתיצבי‬or ‫ותתנצבי‬. Cf. Walther Zimmerli, A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 25–48, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 32.

178

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew βορέας “north” (Dan 8.9) χώρα “land,” “country” (Dan 11.16, 41) θέλησις “desire” (Dan 11.45)

Of the 19 occurrences of ‫ צבי‬in the MT, Isa 13.19 and 23.9 may be the only two which feature the corresponding BH meaning in the LXX. Some of these can be attributed to different Vorlagen or to etymological guessing (see, footnotes below for 2 Sam 1.19; Ezek 20.6, 15; 26.20) and others appear to be theologically motivated (Isa 24.16; 28.4, 5; Jer 3.19; Dan 8.9). But how do we account for translations that do not appear to be the result of traceable conjectural reading, theologically motivated exegesis or difference in Vorlage? In our particular case, how can we explain the translator’s rendering of ἐν βουλῇ in Isa 4.2? Williamson postulates that there are both theological and linguistic influences at work with ἐν βουλῇ in Isa 4.2. Following Seeligmann17 and van der Kooij,18 Williamson suggests that the translator may have been influenced by the theological concept of a messianic theophany and that he saw a reference to God’s plan or counsel, hence βουλή. Furthermore, he thinks that the similarity of BH ‫ צבי‬to Aramaic ‫“( צבא‬desire” or “choose”) may have either suggested or confirmed this eschatological theme for the translator (cf. Dan 5.19 where ‫ צבא‬is rendered ἠβούλετο): In sum, although LXX departs significantly from MT, it can all be explained on the basis that the translator was working within the parameters of the language as he understood it at the time and that he was making intelligent use of the immediate context of the verse within the overarching framework of his presupposed theological outlook as known from elsewhere. There is no point at which we are obliged to postulate a different Vorlage.19

To conclude that Aramaic ‫ צבא‬influenced the translator in rendering ‫צבי‬ as βουλή, one must either assume that βουλή and βούλομαι have similar meanings, or consider semantics to be less important than morphology. The comparison of βουλή with βούλομαι, however, must be made with caution as their meanings are quite distinct, as is also evident in the LXX. βουλή almost always appears in conjunction with ‫ עצה‬and means “counsel” or “advice,” and βούλομαι is used almost exclusively to express ideas of want, pleasure or delight. Although the semantic range of βούλομαι can include the meaning “plan” (the closest cognate to “counsel”), it is the 17.  Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah, 110, 116. 18.  Van der Kooij, Die alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches, 43. 19.  Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, 302.



Section 4. Chapter 3. ‫ צמח‬and ‫ צבי‬

179

least frequent meaning. If the translator was influenced by Aramaic ‫צבא‬, he would have had in mind the sense “want, desire.”20 In addition, the evidence from contemporaneous inscriptions and from Ben Sira supports this. An epitaph inscription, CIJ ii no. 1489,21 found on a stele in Egypt and dating to the approximate time of the translators (first century BCE) has the similar phrase ἐν βουλαῖσιν ἄριστος and means “best in counsel/wisdom” (not “desire” or “delight”). In the Ben Sira texts where βουλή occurs in the Greek and the presumed Hebrew Vorlage is extant, every Hebrew equivalent refers to some form of “counsel” or “wisdom” (e.g. ‫עצה‬, ‫מחשבה‬, albeit there is the idiomatic expression ‫ביד נפשך‬, “into the grip of your desire”).22 4. Conclusion One cannot rule out the possibility that the translator allowed Aramaic ‫ צבא‬to influence his rendering of ‫ צבי‬as βουλή, but there are conjectural hurdles that make such a claim questionable. First, the meaning of Aramaic ‫“ צבא‬choose, desire” does not correspond exactly to βουλή “counsel, plan.”23 Secondly, this example must be considered in the light of renderings of ‫ צבי‬elsewhere in LXX Isa. Of the six remaining occurrences of ‫ צבי‬in Isaiah, three are rendered by ἐλπίς (LXX Isa 24.16; 28.4, 5); the other three are rendered by δόξα or ἔνδοξος (Isa 13.19; 23.9), which, of course, correspond to the BH sense. As previously mentioned, the renderings by ἐλπίς appear to be theological translations. The renderings of ‫ צבי‬by δόξα and ἔνδοξος suggest that the translator may have known the BH meaning. Given the tenuous evidence for Aramaic influence and the possibility that the translator may have known BH ‫צבי‬, the most plausible explanation is that the translator, when faced with what was apparently a difficult phrase, was influenced by his presumed

20.  Cf. LXX Dan 4.31 (MT 4.28), where the Peal verb ‫ יִ ְצ ֵּבא‬is rendered by βούληται “he desires.” 21.  William Horbury, Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt: With an Index of the Jewish Inscriptions of Egypt and Cyrenaica (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 193–94. 22.  Cf. Sir 6.2; 31.21 (marginal reading); 32.18, 19; 37.13, 16. The context of Sir 38.33 appears to indicate a “council/assembly” of some kind, but, to date, there are no extant Hebrew mss to confirm this. 23.  Cf. Joosten’s second criterion, that the PBH/Aramaic element correspond to the Greek word in question. Joosten, “On the LXX Translators’ Knowledge of Hebrew,” 169.

180

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

theological message of deliverance, of a messianic future, and of God’s eternal plan (βουλή) being realised in Isa 4.2.24 Although the claim of linguistic interference in Isa 4.2 is weakly supported, there are a few instances in which the suggestion that Aramaic ‫ צבא‬or PBH ‫ צבי‬influenced the translators is quite convincing. In the LXX of Ezek 7.20 and 25.9, for example, ‫ צבי‬is rendered by ἐκλεκτός “chosen,” a word that is virtually identical in meaning to Aramaic ‫“ צבא‬choose, desire.”25

24.  See Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah, 94–121, for a thorough discussion of the translator’s tendency to allow for theologically motivated exegesis. 25.  Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, 1258. Cf. Tanh. Mishp. 17 (ref. to Jer 3.19), ‫נחלת צבי‬, “an inheritance of choice.” Caution must be exercised as the consonants are not identical with those of the MT. A less convincing case is Dan 11.45, where ‫ צבי‬is rendered by θέλησις “desire,” but the meanings of PBH ‫“ צבי‬desirable thing” and BH ‫“ צבי‬ornament, splendour” are too similar.

Section 5 W o r d M a n ipul atio n

Emanuel Tov1 identified that the awareness of translators in post-Biblical times of the morphological nature of a word cannot be assumed: It need not be assumed that the translators were aware of such abstractions as “roots” or conjugations when identifying meaningful elements in verbs. They possibly had only a vague understanding of such abstractions…the translators probably recognised clusters of meaningful elements or word patterns that allowed them to identify the essence of the Hebrew verb.

1. Introduction 1.1. Semantic Identification One of the first steps in semantic identification is analysing the morphological nature of a word, a generally straightforward task when dealing with lexemes that are known to the translator and are not irregular in form. However, the task becomes more complicated when the translator is confronted with a sequence of Hebrew letters that is unrecognisable to the translator or that can be derived from multiple roots, and in such cases the translator is left to make an educated guess, with the help of lexical aids and the literary context, as to the form and meaning of the word. Take, for example, the Hebrew word ‫אכלה‬. The translator must first analyse its component morphemes and decide whether to read this as the feminine noun ‫“ ָא ְכ ָלה‬food” or as a verbal form “eat,” or even possibly as deriving from the root ‫“ כלה‬be complete, come to an end”; and, if it is decided that it is a verb, further decisions, such as its binyan, aspect and tense, must also be considered.

1.  Tov, “Biliteral Exegesis,” 462.

182

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

The process of identifying the root or form of a word is even more complex, and often involves a certain degree of guesswork in cases where translators are faced with a word they do not know or recognise. This is most apparent in the rendering of hapax legomena, rare words or proper nouns that are not identified as such by the translator.2 For example, the translator of LXX Hos attempts to make sense of the hapax ‫“ ַּת ְל ֻאבֹות‬drought” in Hos 13.5 by dividing the word into ‫ לֹא‬and ‫ּביִת‬, ַ thus the variant Greek rendering ἀοικήτῳ “uninhabited.”3 Another example can be found in 1 Kgs 5.3, where the hapax ‫“ ַב ְר ֻּבר‬fowl” is rendered by ἐκλεκτῶν “choice,” presumably with the root ‫ ברר‬in mind (often rendered by ἐκλεκτός/ἐκλέγω in the Greek versions).4 In both cases it is clear that the translator did not recognise the difficult Hebrew word and attempted to make sense of it by isolating recognisable units within it or by manipulating the letters. 1.2. Root Manipulation and PBH/Aramaic Influence in LXX Isa In the two previous Sections, “Post-biblical Hebrew Influence” and “Aramaic Influence,” we examined cases in LXX Isa where the Greek translation reflects a PBH or Aramaic word that is identical, or at the least very similar, in consonantal form to the Hebrew word in the MT. However, there are numerous renderings in LXX Isa where the translator appears to have in mind a word that is different in consonantal form from what is in the MT. The difference is often minor, but even the slightest variation provides new translational possibilities. One must always keep textual considerations in mind—for example, the possibility that the translator had a different Vorlage—but in many of these cases the Hebrew word is very rare and, in all likelihood, unknown to the

2.  As Leslie C. Allen, The Greek Chronicles, 2 vols., VTSup 27 (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 1:59, noted, “It is not difficult to perceive that now and then the translator came across words whose meaning he did not know and could not discover.” That the translator employed various techniques to make sense of a difficult or unknown word is not surprising and has been noted before. See, for example, Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 203–18, where Tov presents six different types of conjectural renderings. 3.  For more on this particular example, see Joosten, “Septuagint Version of Hosea,” 69. Not only does the translator separate the word into two, but he conveniently ignores the -‫ ת‬and changes the ‫ ו‬to a ‫י‬. 4.  See the chapter on “‫( ”ברר‬p. 88) for more on the rendering of ‫ברר‬/‫ בר‬lexemes in the LXX and other versions.



Section 5. Word Manipulation

183

translator. When faced with a problematic word, he would have turned to whatever lexical sources were available to him (exegetical traditions, the translator’s direct and living knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic, or other LXX translations),5 but if, having exhausted his sources, he still did not know the word, it is conceivable that he altered it to one that he knew and whose meaning suited the context. That the translators manipulated the consonants of unknown words has been noted before and is not surprising. Frankel was the first to suggest that the LXX translators manipulated consonants, and, though some of his examples do not convince, his basic premise is reasonable and merits closer attention.6 Similarly, Tov has recently suggested that the translators employed “contextual manipulation” when faced with an unknown word, and this features as one of his six categories of “conjectural renderings.” The next three chapters focus on cases in LXX Isa where the Greek translation reflects a word that is different in form and takes on meanings that do not occur in BH but are attested in PBH and/or Aramaic. First, I shall briefly summarise some of the ways in which the LXX translators manipulated Hebrew consonants. 2. Word Manipulation in LXX Isa A cursory perusal of LXX Isa suggests that there are upwards of 100 cases where the Greek corresponds to a Hebrew or Aramaic word that is different in consonantal form from the MT—a relatively large number at first blush, but not surprising when we take into consideration the high percentage of hapaxes and rare words in MT Isa. One must always keep

5.  See Emanuel Tov, “The Impact of the LXX Translation of the Pentateuch on the Translation of the Other Books,” in Mélanges Dominique Barthélemy, ed. P. Casetti, O. Keel and A. Schenker, OBO 38 (Fribourg: Éditions universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 577–92, for Tov’s proposal that the Greek translation of the Pentateuch served as a lexicon of sorts for subsequent LXX translations. 6.  Frankel, Vorstudien, 200: “Die geringe Sprachkenntniss der LXX. veranlasste auch die Verwechselung der Radices untereinander.” More recently, Tov, “Did the Septuagint Translators always Understand?,” outlined six categories of “conjectural renderings”: untranslated words, contextual guesses, contextual manipulation, reliance on parallelism, employment of general words, and etymological renderings. Of particular interest for our purposes is the contextual manipulation category, where the translator knowingly manipulates a word, especially when letters are graphically similar, in order to make better sense of his translation.

184

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

in mind the question of conscious or unconscious alterations, that is, whether the Greek rendering reflects a genuine misreading of the Hebrew or is the result of conscious manipulation of a word or words, but in many cases there is not enough evidence to determine the intention or decisionmaking process of the translator. In the following, I shall highlight the most common categories of word manipulation/confusion in LXX Isa and look at some examples. 2.1. ‫ד‬/‫ ר‬Confusion7 It is not surprising that the graphically similar letters ‫ ר‬and ‫ ד‬were often confused, and there are a number of cases in LXX Isa where it appears that the translator renders a Hebrew word by misreading or interchanging a ‫ ר‬for a ‫ ד‬or vice versa. Unlike some of the other categories, many of the Greek renderings in LXX Isa that reflect a ‫ד‬/‫ ר‬interchange can be attributed to paleographical issues, whether misreading or scribal errors, and are not necessarily an indication of conscious letter manipulation by the translator.8 That common lexemes such as )‫רע(ה‬/‫ ידע‬and ‫עבר‬/‫עבד‬ are frequently confused suggests that the divergent rendering was often unintentional (e.g. Isa 23.10; 28.9; and 59.15). However, the possibility that the translator took advantage of textual ambiguity must also be considered, especially where the Hebrew word is rare or difficult (e.g. Isa 17.2). As Tov puts it: A translator who could make no sense of a word when written, let us say, with a daleth, would have been strongly tempted to render it as if it were written with a resh. The assumption of such paleographical manoeuvring is objectively conditioned by the occurrence of lexical or other difficulties.9

Below are several possible examples in LXX Isa where the translator renders a Hebrew word by confusing or purposefully switching the letters ‫ ר‬and ‫ד‬:

7.  See the chapter on ‫( רעי‬p. 136) where the translator may have read ‫ דעי‬instead of ‫רעי‬. I conclude, however, that the Greek translation reflects a later meaning for ‫רעי‬ and is not caused by confusion between the letters ‫ ר‬and ‫ד‬. 8.  For example, in LXX Isa 46.5 MT ‫“ וְ נִ ְד ֶמה‬that we may be alike” is rendered by οἱ πλανώμενοι “(you who) are going astray,” possibly with II-‫“ רמה‬betray, abandon” in view. Given that the translator correctly renders I-‫“ דמה‬be like” elsewhere in LXX Isa (1.9; 14.14; 40.18, 25; 46.5), it is likely that οἱ πλανώμενοι is the result of misreading. 9.  Tov, “Did the Septuagint Translators always Understand?,” 211.



Section 5. Word Manipulation Isaiah

MT

16.9

‫ דמעתי‬my tear

17.2

46.12

‫ ערי ערער‬cities of Aroer ‫ עברי‬cross ‫ דעה‬knowledge ‫ בדמי‬in the middle (?) ‫ חרש‬be silent ‫ רעי‬my shepherd ‫ ונדמה‬we may be alike mighty ‫אבירי‬

59.15

‫ רע‬evil

23.10 28.9 38.10 41.1 44.28 46.5

LXX

εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα

he threw down forever

ἐργάζου κακὰ Ἐν τῷ ὕψει

work evil things in the height

Ἐγκαινίζεσθε φρονεῖν

renew to be wise

οἱ πλανώμενοι10 οἱ ἀπολωλεκότες

those going astray those who have destroyed to understand

κατέβαλεν

συνιέναι

185 Hebrew underlying LXX ‫ רמה‬throw down ‫עדי‬ ‫עד‬ ‫עבד‬ ‫רעה‬ ‫רום‬

forever work evil height

‫ חדש‬be new ‫ ידע‬know, understand ‫ רמה‬betray, deceive ‫ אבד‬destroy ‫ ידע‬know, understand

One of the explanations for the rendering of ‫ רעי‬by φρονεῖν in LXX Isa 44.28 is that the translator confused the ‫ ר‬for a ‫( ד‬see, e.g., LXX Isa 59.15). However, as I argue in Section 3, φρονεῖν reflects an Aramaic root and is not the direct result of ‫ד‬/‫ ר‬confusion. 2.2. Faulty Word-division Another technique translators employed to make sense of a difficult word is to divide it into comprehensible units. There are a few cases of wordsplitting in LXX Isa that are worth mentioning. For example, in LXX Isa 66.24, the very rare word ‫“ ֵּד ָראֹון‬abhorrence” is translated εἰς ὅρασιν “(they shall become) a spectacle,” again dividing the word into separate elements: the Aramaic relative pronoun ‫ ד‬+ the root ‫( ראה‬see Section 3, p. 118, for more on this example). Also, in LXX Isa 9.1, the noun ‫צלמות‬ “deep darkness” is rendered by καὶ σκιᾷ θανάτου “and the shadow of death,” presumably reading ‫ ֵצל‬+ ‫מוֶ ת‬. ָ 11 10.  It is also possible that the translator had the root ‫“ נדח‬scatter, lead astray” in mind, a word that is represented by πλανάω five times elsewhere in the LXX; but this is equally problematic. 11.  See also Isa 1.16 ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫“ ַמ ַע ְל ֵל‬your deeds,” which is rendered by ἀπὸ τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν “from your souls.” It is possible that the translator read ‫לבכם‬+‫על‬+‫ מ‬or, as

186

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

2.3. Sibilant Confusion As the famous šibbolet-sibbolet incident in Judg 12 illustrates, the difference between sibilants in Hebrew is subtle but distinct, and has significant implications for phonology and lexicography. In BH there are five sibilants: ‫ׁש‬/š/, ‫ׂש‬/ś/, ‫ס‬/s/, ‫ז‬/z/, and ‫צ‬/ṣ/. The precise pronunciation of ‫ׂש‬/ś/ is debated, but for the most part these sibilants were relatively stable and usually distinguished in the BH period.12 In LBH, however, the ‫ׂש‬/ś/ and ‫ס‬/s/ were interchangeable and there was a gradual merger of the two consonants. Words that were originally spelled with a ‫ׂש‬/ś/ were also spelled with a ‫ס‬/s/ (compare, e.g., Ezra 4.5 ‫ ס ְֹכ ִרים‬and 2 Chr 24.12 ‫)ש ְֹכ ִרים‬. As Kutscher points out, by the time of PBH “most of the roots containing an original /ś/ are already spelled with samekh.”13 It is not surprising, then, that the LXX translators would have maintained a degree of flexibility when faced with words involving sibilants, especially if they were problematic or unknown to the translator. There are several renderings in LXX Isa that possibly reflect sibilant confusion, as the following table illustrates: Isaiah 2.16 7.20 17.11 19.10 25.11 65.15

MT

LXX

sight ‫ שכיות‬ships θέαν ‫ שכירה‬hired μεμεθυσμένῳ drunken you will be ‫ תשגשגי‬cause to grow πλανηθήσῃ led astray wages beer ‫ֶׂש ֶכר‬ ζῦθον ‫ שחה‬swimmer ἐταπείνωσεν he humbled satisfaction ‫ שבועה‬oath πλησμονήν

Hebrew underlying LXX ‫ סכה‬look out ‫ שכר‬be drunk ‫ שגג‬go astray ‫ ֵׁש ָכר‬strong drink ‫ שחה‬bow down ‫ שבע‬be satisfied

Robert Govett, Isaiah Unfulfilled: Being an Exposition of the Prophet (London: James Nisbet, 1841), 397, suggested, he read ‫ לביכם‬+ ‫“ מעל‬of your doings.” There are also cases where separate words are conjoined and treated as one word. For example, in Zech 2.4 the translator appears to read ‫ פה( ְּכ ִפי‬+ ‫“ )כ‬so that” as one morphological unit, perhaps as the verb ‫“ כפה‬turn over, bring down, force.” I am indebted for these references to Phillip Marshall, who presented a paper entitled “Aramaic Influence on the (Old) Greek Bible” at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, 2009. 12.  Kutscher, A History of the Hebrew Language, 13–15. 13.  Ibid., 14. Kutscher provides a few examples: the BH root ‫שפק‬, which is spelled ‫ ספק‬in Mishnaic literature; ‫“ שים‬put, set” and ‫ׂשֹורה‬ ָ ‫“ ְּב‬tidings” are also spelled with a samekh in Mishnaic manuscripts. See also G. Bergsträsser, Hebräische Grammatik: 1 Teil: Einleitung, Schrift- und Lautlehre (Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1918), 42.



Section 5. Word Manipulation

187

One example of sibilant confusion that merits closer attention and is the subject of much debate among scholars is the hapax ‫ שכיות‬in Isa 2.16, which is translated as θέαν πλοίων, in which case it could have semantic correspondence to the PBH and Aramaic verbs ‫ סכי‬meaning “look (out),” and possibly to BH ‫“ ַמ ְׂש ִּכית‬image, figure.” I shall discuss this example in more detail in Chapter 1 of this section. 2.4. Biliteral Exegesis Tov has argued that the LXX translators often looked for “clusters” of two consonants for semantic identification, especially when faced with weak verbs and difficult or unknown words.14 The LXX translators, as other biblical translators in antiquity, often turned to a cluster of two letters providing sufficient information for the translation process, especially in weak verbal forms. This approach was borne out of the translators’ difficulties in identifying words, rather than any biliteral theory.15

In many renderings involving weak verbs, reliance on clusters of two letters did not pose a problem for the translators, as only two radicals were needed for semantic identification. However, there are cases where the cluster can point to multiple roots, which may have confused the translators or forced them to make difficult translational decisions. An obvious and fairly straightforward example is the ‫ רא‬cluster, representing either ‫“ ראה‬see” or ‫“ ירא‬fear” (cf. Deut 4.34; 26.8; Jer 32[39].21; Joel 2.11; Hab 1.7). There are numerous cases of “biliteral exegesis” in LXX Isa.

14.  Tov, “Biliteral Exegesis,” 459–82. 15.  Ibid., 481. See pp. 466–78 for an extensive list of problematic Greek renderings that can be attributed to “biliteral exegesis.” Though Tov states that “the great majority” of instances of biliteral exegesis occur in weak verbs, such exegesis is possible in strong verbs as well (p. 466). Interestingly, there may be several cases in LXX Isa where nominal and adjectival forms have undergone biliteral exegesis (e.g. in LXX Isa 17.9 ‫“ ָמעֹוז‬stronghold” is rendered by ἐγκαταλελειμμέναι “abandoned” = ‫)עזב‬. One case involving an Aramaic word is LXX Isa 7.19, where the hapax ‫“ ַּב ָּתה‬steep” is represented by χώρα “country, place” (MT ‫“ ְּבנַ ֲח ֵלי ַה ַּבּתֹות‬in the steep ravines”; LXX ἐν ταῖς φάραγξι τῆς χώρας “in the ravines of the place”). If the translator did not know ‫ ַּב ָּתה‬it is possible that he manipulated the initial letter ‫ ב‬to a ‫ מ‬with the Aramaic word )‫“ ָמ ָת(א‬place, region” in mind.

188

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

Isaiah

MT

63.14

‫ תניחנו‬he gave them rest ‫ לקנות‬to acquire ‫ אנחם‬I will avenge ‫ הנספה‬the ones who are caught

ὡδήγησεν αὐτούς ζηλῶσαι οὐ παύσεται συνηγμένοι

‫ תושיה‬wisdom

ματαίαν παράκλησιν συναγάγετε

11.11 1.2416 13.15 28.29 29.1

‫ ספו‬add

50.217

‫ תבאש‬it rots

LXX he guided them to be zealous it will not abate the ones gathered worthless encouragement gather

ξηρανθήσονται they will be dried up

Hebrew underlying LXX ‫ נחה‬lead ‫ קנא‬be zealous ‫ נוח‬rest, await ‫ אסף‬gather, assemble ‫ שוא‬worthless ‫ אסף‬gather, assemble ‫ יבש‬dry up

As with any variant, other factors, such as a different Vorlage or exegetical considerations on the part of the translator, may have played a part in these renderings. However, the similarities between the divergent Greek renderings and other “biliteral” Hebrew roots is hard to ignore and must be considered when determining the translator’s intention. In all the above cases, the “biliteral exegesis” of the translator is based on roots attested in BH. However, there are some cases in the LXX where the Greek rendering does not appear to correspond to a BH word, but rather a PBH and/or Aramaic one. For example, in LXX Isa 22.3 it is possible that the translator rendered the particle ‫“ יחד‬together” by οἱ ἁλόντες “those who were caught” with Aramaic ‫“ אחד‬seize, capture” in mind. 2.5. Transposition of Consonants There are several renderings in LXX Isa where the Greek reflects a transposition of letters in the corresponding Hebrew word. In some cases the switch may simply be a case of misreading. For example, in LXX Isa 16.8 ‫“ בעלי גוים‬lords of the nations” is rendered by καταπίνοντες τὰ ἔθνη “swallowing up the nations,” probably the result of misreading ‫ בעל‬as ‫בלע‬. Again, in LXX Isa 16.6 it is possible that ‫“ עברה‬anger, rage” is rendered by ἐξαίρω “remove” with II-‫“ בער‬remove, sweep away” in mind.18 16.  The verb ‫ נוח‬is often represented by παύω “cease” in the LXX. 17.  This example is less conclusive and may be the result of a different Vorlage (cf. 1QIsaa ‫תיבש‬, which corresponds to the LXX). 18.  It is also possible that the translator had in mind the Hiphil of the root ‫עבר‬, one of the nuances of which is “take away” (e.g. 1 Kgs 15.12).



Section 5. Word Manipulation

189

However, on a few occasions the translator himself seems to rearrange the consonants to make better sense of a problematic or rare word. In LXX Isa 54.4, for example, the Greek translation αἰσχύνην αἰώνιον “your ancient/eternal shame” for MT ‫“ בשת עלומיך‬the shame of your youth” is either the result of the translator switching the ‫ ו‬and ‫ ל‬or evidence of a different Vorlage. In LXX Isa 27.11, the Hiphil ptcp. ‫“ מאירות‬making a fire” from the root ‫ אור‬is rendered θέας “spectacle,” presumably with the root ‫ ראה‬in mind. Of interest for our purposes are cases where the transposition occurs with a PBH or Aramaic word in mind. A possible example mentioned previously (see Section 3, p. 118) may be found in LXX Isa 51.8, where the phrase ‫“ כי כבגד יאכלם עש‬for the moth will consume them like a garment” is rendered by ὥσπερ γὰρ ἱμάτιον βρωθήσεται ὑπὸ χρόνου “for just as a garment it will be devoured by time.” There is semantic similarity between χρόνος “time” and PBH/Aramaic ‫“ ָׁש ָעה‬moment, hour,” and if the translator did not know ‫“ עש‬moth” it is possible that he tried to make sense of it by switching the ‫ ע‬and ‫ ש‬to allow for a meaning with which he was familiar.19 Another possible example of transposition is in LXX Isa 63.1, where the much debated participle ‫ צ ֶֹעה‬is rendered by βίᾳ “force, violence.” The Greek has some semantic correspondence to PBH/Aramaic ‫עצה‬ “oppress” and it may be that the translator either misread the letters or deliberately switched the ‫ צ‬and ‫ע‬. A further example has been proposed for LXX Isa 18.7, where the hapax ‫“ ָּבזְ אּו‬they divide” is rendered ἐν μέρει “in a part.” Fischer argues that the translator read ‫ ב‬+ ‫ גוא‬on the basis of Aramaic ‫“ גוא‬inner-part, belly,” which corresponds to ἐν μέρει.20 According to Fischer, not only did the translator misread the ‫ ז‬for a ‫ג‬, but he transposed the ‫ א‬and ‫ ו‬and then turned to an Aramaic word for help (‫ ב > ָּבזְ אּו‬+ ‫ ב > זאו‬+ ‫)גוא‬. In Fischer’s defence, the verb ‫ בזא‬occurs only twice in the MT (here and in v. 2), and it is possible that the translator did not know this word and was left to make a guess. However, too many accommodations are required to make his argument work. 3. Root Confusion and PBH/Aramaic Meanings in LXX Isa The sections introduced below will focus on three cases where (1) the translator appears to render a Hebrew word on the basis of a root or form 19.  However, ‫ עש‬is rendered by σής “moth” in the previous chapter (50.9), which suggests that this may be a case of misreading the letters rather than enforced root manipulation. The possibility that the source text of the translator read )‫ שע(ה‬also cannot be ruled out. 20.  Fischer, In welcher Schrift?, 34.

190

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

that differs from the word before him, and (2) the alternative root or form is semantically equivalent to lexemes in PBH and Aramaic.21 In Chapter 1 I consider the hapax ‫“ שכיה‬ship” in Isa 2.16, a word that the translator may have rendered on the basis of the near-homophone ‫סכה‬ “look out, hope” attested only in PBH and Aramaic. In Chapter 2 I discuss the curious phrase ‫“ כתוא מכמר‬like an antelope caught in a net” in Isa 51.20, which is represented by ὡς σευτλίον ἡμίεφθον “like a half-cooked beet.” As I shall argue, the translator struggled to make sense of the noun ‫“ ְּתאֹו‬antelope” and ultimately rendered it on the basis of )‫“ תיא(ה‬root of crowfoot.” Once this meaning had been established, he employed a specialised nuance of ‫ כמר‬that emerges in PBH and Aramaic. The basis for the rendering of ‫ כמר‬technically falls within the “semantic change” category, as the letters appear to be identical in both the source text and what lies behind the Greek, but I have included it here since the translator’s understanding of ‫ כתוא‬seems to be the pivotal point in the LXX translation. In Chapter 3 I examine Isa 9.4, where renderings on the basis of both semantic change and root confusion are attested. ‫“ דמים‬blood” is represented by καταλλαγή “payment,” which corresponds to the PBH and Aramaic sense of “payment,” “compensation” or “monetary value” and is a clear case of semantic expansion from the BH meaning “blood.” In the same verse, however, ‫“ גלל‬roll” is represented by ἀποτίνω “repay,” and, as I shall argue, the translator performed “biliteral exegesis” by rendering ‫ גלל‬on the basis of ‫גלם‬, a word that means “roll” in BH but takes on a specialised nuance, “calculate in a lump,” “fix an arbitrary price,” in PBH and Aramaic.

21.  Invariably, there is some overlap between the categories of semantic change and root confusion/manipulation, especially in geminate or bi-consonantal roots. For example, in Isa 33.11 it appears that the translator does not recognise the very rare BH word ‫“ ֲח ַׁשׁש‬chaff, dried grass” and therefore appeals to meanings of ‫ חשש‬and the slightly different form ‫ חוש‬found in PBH and Aramaic. Scholars differ on whether ‫ חוש‬and ‫ חשש‬are independent roots; however, I have included this example in the “semantic change” category, as it appears on balance to be a case of semantic change with ‫ חשש‬and not root confusion (see p. 161 for more). Note also that the chapter on “‫ צמח‬and ‫§( ”צבי‬4.3, p. 174) has also been put in the “Post-biblical Hebrew and Aramaic Influence” category despite the possibility that the rendering of ‫“ צבי‬splendour, glory” by βουλή “counsel” may reflect Aramaic ‫“ צבא‬choose, desire.” The more significant translational decision in this verse is the rendering of ‫ צמח‬by ἐπιλάμπω “shine,” which corresponds to the PBH and Aramaic meaning of ‫“ צמח‬shine.”

Chapter 1

‫ְׂש ִכּיֹות‬

‫“ ְׂש ִכּיֹות‬craft” = θέα “sight, watching, view” Isa 2.16

1. Introduction Isa 2.16

‫‏‬

‫ועל כל אניות תרשיש ועל כל שכיות החמדה‬ καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶν πλοῖον θαλάσσης καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶσαν θέαν πλοίων κάλλους

There are a couple of difficult translational issues in Isa 2.16, as is evident in the various renderings in the ancient versions: the meaning of ‫תרשיש‬ and the meaning of the hapax legomenon ‫שכיות‬. The LXX is unique among the versions in its rendering of ‫ תרשיש‬by θαλάσσης “of the sea” and of ‫ שכיות‬by the double translation θέαν πλοίων “spectacle of ships.” The translation θέαν πλοίων for ‫ שכיות‬is of particular interest for our purposes, as the root ‫סכה‬/‫ סכי‬means “look out” in later Hebrew and Aramaic. The semantic correspondence between θέαν and the PBH/ Aramaic root ‫סכה‬/‫ סכי‬leaves open the possibility that the translator may have turned to the PBH/Aramaic meaning for help for the hapax ‫שכיות‬, and, given that the other ancient versions also struggled with ‫שכיות‬, the probability that the translator of LXX Isa had difficulty with ‫ שכיות‬is high. In order to determine whether or not a later meaning influenced the translator here, I shall take a closer look at ‫ שכיה‬and ‫ שכה‬in BH, then examine the root ‫ סכי‬in PBH and Aramaic, and finally analyse the translation of LXX Isa 2.16 in the light of the lexical evidence.

192

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

2. ‫ ְׂש ִכּיֹות‬and ‫ שכה‬in BH 2.1. The Meaning of ‫ְׂש ִכּיֹות‬ For long, the meaning and etymology of the hapax ‫ שכיה‬in Isa 2.16 perplexed scholars, and some questionable conjectures were proposed.1 These have included appeal to Aramaic ‫“ סכי‬look out, see” in support of nuances such as “imagery,” “delightful (works of art)” or “watch towers.”2 However, as we shall see, this seems unlikely, as the meaning “look out, see” may not have been known in BH times. Siegfried and Stade were the first to associate ‫ שכיות‬with the meaning “ship” by emending it to ‫( ספינת‬cf. Jon 1.5, where ‫ספינה‬, also a hapax, means “ship”), an alteration that derives support from the context.3 However, in 1913 Herz contended that ‫ שכיות‬is related to “the wellknown Egyptian word, of which there are several variants, in Semitic consonants, ‫שכך‬, ‫שכתי‬, ‫שכתת‬, ‫שכת‬, meaning not only the sacred bark but also an ordinary ship,”4 an important observation given that it does not require any emendations.5 Ginsberg and Driver shed further light when

1.  See Gray, The Book of Isaiah, 59, for a summary of scholarship before 1928. Tur-Sinai, “A Contribution to the Understanding of Isaiah i–xii,” 159, thinks that ‫ ְׂש ִכּיֹות‬means “high-flying birds,” on the basis of ‫ ֶׂש ְכוִ י‬in Job 38.36, a hapax which most take to mean “mind.” This suggestion is apparently made on the basis of the PBH meaning of ‫“ ֶׂש ְכוִ י‬cock, rooster,” but there is no serious evidence to support this argument. Ottley, The Book of Isaiah, 114, argues that, with the exception of πλοίων, which appears to be a mistaken addition, θέαν πλοίων κάλλους represents the Hebrew accurately, as the root ‫ שכה‬can mean “see.” 2.  E.g., Franz Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah, 2 vols., Foreign Biblical Library (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1881), 1:124; Gray, The Book of Isaiah, 59; and Marti, Das Buch Jesaja, 33, though Marti appears to make his case on the basis of Hebrew ‫שכה‬, a word that is not attested. 3.  Carl Gustav Adolf Siegfried and Bernhard Stade, Hebräisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testaments: Mit zwei Anhängen: I. Lexidion zu den aramäischen Stücken des Alten Testamentes. II. Deutsch-Hebräisches Wörterverzeichnis (Leipzig: Veit, 1893), 752. 4.  N. Herz, “The Exaggeration of Errors in the Masoretic,” JTS 15 (1913): 258–64 (261), was the first to suggest the Egyptian origin of this word, but most scholars erroneously credit Joachim Begrich, apud Karl Budde, “Zu Jesaja 1–5,” ZAW 49 (1931): 16–40, 182 (198), with this solution. 5.  Y. Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords in North-West Semitic, SBLDS 173 (Atlanta: SBL, 1999), 255–56, argues that Egyptian ś could come directly into Hebrew as ‫ׂש‬, and that the vocalisation of ‫ שכיות‬was influenced by the parallelism with ‫אניות‬.



Section 5. Chapter 1. ‫ ּיִכְׂש‬

193

they inde­pendently associated ‫ שכיה‬with Ugaritic ṯkt, a word for a boat or a ship.6 On the basis of the etymological evidence from the other languages and the obvious parallelism with ‫אניות‬, there is now a consensus that ‫ שכיה‬is a loan-word for a boat of some kind. 2.2. ‫ שכה‬in BH There are very few words in the HB that can be traced to a root ‫שכה‬ meaning “look, see.” One possible instance is ‫ ַמ ְׂש ִּכית‬meaning “image, sculpture” (Lev 26.1 and Num 33.52, “a figured stone”; Ezek 8.12, “room of image [covered?]”; Prov 25.11, “a setting [or showpiece] of silver”) or, when collocated with ‫“ לבב‬imagination” (Prov 18.11; 73.3).7 An appeal to a BH root ‫“ שכה‬look, see” is made in a conjectural reading proposed for ‫“ ְׁשכֹול לנפשי‬my soul is bereft” in Ps 35.12. Kraus argued that the ‫ ל‬in ‫ ְׁשכֹול‬is the result of dittography, and that ‫ שכול‬should be emended to ‫“ ָׂשכּו‬they look out for.”8 Thus, the sense here is that the ‫“ עדי חמס‬malicious witnesses” (v. 11) are lurking around and waiting for an opportunity to harm ‫נפשי‬. Though not explicitly mentioned, it appears that Kraus has based his reconstruction on the PBH/Aramaic root ‫“ סכי‬look,” but it seems unnecessary to emend the MT, as the meaning ‫“ ‏שכול לנפשי‬my soul is bereft” is sufficient.9

‫‏‬

6.  H. L. Ginsberg apud W. F. Albright, “Baal-Zaphon,” in Festschrift Alfred Bertholet (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1950), 5; G. R. Driver, “Difficult Words in the Hebrew Prophets,” in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy: Presented to Theodore H. Robinson on his Sixty-fifth Birthday, August 9th, 1946, ed. H. H. Rowley (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1950), 52–53. 7.  Note also the hapax ‫“ ֶׂש ְכוִ י‬celestial appearance” in Job 38.36. Cf. BDB, 967, 8.  Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalmen. Teilband 1: Psalmen 1–59, BKAT 15 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1961), 426, “sie lauern.” Mitchell Dahood, Psalms 1–50: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB 16 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965), 213, proposes reading a Shaphel infinitive absolute form from ‫ כלה‬and references Ugaritic škllt, “an obscure personage in a class with štqt, ‘she who makes (disease) pass away’ .” 9.  DCH 6:151 somewhat speculatively lists ‫“ ַס ָּכה‬image” as a separate entry on the basis of a few conjectural readings. For example, it suggests emending ‫ונשאתם‬ ‫“ את ִסּכּות מלככם‬and you shall take up Sikkuth your king” to ‫ונשאתם את ַסּכֹות מלככם‬ “and you shall carry the images of your king” (cf. also 2 Kgs 17.30; CD 7.14), but the evidence is not convincing.

‫‏‬ ‫‏‬

194

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

In short, with the possible exceptions of ‫“ ַמ ְׂש ִּכית‬image, sculpture,” ‫“ ֶׂש ְכוִ י‬celestial appearance” and the highly conjectural reading in Ps 35.12, there is little evidence in BH for a root ‫ שכה‬meaning “look, see” that would support meanings such as “imagery,” “delightful (works of art)” or “watch towers” for ‫ ְׂש ִכֹּיות‬in Isa 2.16. In the light of this, the meaning “ships,” which has support from Egyptian and Ugaritic, is to be preferred. 3. ‫ סכי‬in PBH and Aramaic 3.1. ‫ סכי‬in PBH The root ‫“ סכי‬look out” or “hope” occurs almost 50 times in extant PBH texts, though it does not occur in the DSS, Ben Sira or the Mishnah. The earliest attestation is in Sifra (Ahare 8.3), which most date to the mid-third century CE. The semantic range includes nuances such as “look,” “foresee,” and, in the passive participle, “clear, transparent.” A helpful example is b. Meg. 14a where the name ‫ יסכה‬is derived from a prefixed form of ‫“ סכה‬look, see”:10 b. Meg. 14a ‫ שסוכה ברוח הקודש וכן הוא‬.‫ ולמה נקרא שמה יסכה‬.‫ יסכה זו שרה‬.‫ואמ' ר' יצחק‬ ‫ ד'א יסכה שהכל סכין ביפיה‬.‫אומ' כל אשר תאמר אליך שרה שמ' בקלה‬ And R. Isaac said, Yiscah is Sarah; and why was she called Yiscah? Because she foresaw by way of the holy spirit, as it is said, “all that Sarah says to you, listen to her voice.” Another explanation for Yiscah is because all looked at her beauty.

3.2. ‫ סכי‬in Aramaic The Aramaic root ‫ סכי‬is widely attested and occurs 92 times in the Tgs alone. Meanings range from “look, see” to “oversee,” “hope” and “expect.” Representative examples include: Lev. Rab. 783.6

‫סכי בי איסתכל בי סכי בי מה הוינא‬ [The poor man says] Look at me! Observe me! Look at me what I was. Tg. Onq. Gen 19.26

‫ איתתיה מבתרוהי והות קמא דמלח‬11‫‏ואסתכיאת‬ Then [Lot’s] wife looked behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.

10.  The name ‫ ‏יסכה‬could also be derived from a prefixed form of ‫“ נסך‬to pour.” 11.  Representing Hebrew ‫נבט‬.



Section 5. Chapter 1. ‫ ּיִכְׂש‬

195

Tg. Neof. Gen 18.21 ‫‏ואין בעין מעבד תתובה ומסכיין אינון בנפשתהון דלמא דלית עבדיהון בישייא גליין‬ ‫קדמי‬ But if they seek to do repentance and they hope in their souls that perhaps their evil deeds are not revealed before me…

In addition to the verb, nominal forms, such as I-‫“ סכוי‬seer,” I-‫סכוי‬ “prospect,” ‫“ סכותה‬outlook, watchpost,” and the euphemism ‫סכי שמש‬ “squint” are also attested in Aramaic. m. Ber. 7.3 What is harum?… One who squints in the sun. Lev. Rab. 9.7 In Arabia they call a prophet seer.

‫איזה הוא החרם…סכי שמש‬

‫בערביא קורין לנביא סכיא‬

Pap 1.212 My hope and my prospect.

‫סברי וסכוי‬

There is one occurrence of ‫ סכי‬that is questionable and appears to be from a different root meaning “pour,”13 but otherwise the semantic range of ‫סכי‬ is fairly straightforward and generally means “look” or “hope,” together with some extended nuances. It should also be noted that there is no evidence in Aramaic, or PBH for that matter, of a word meaning “ship” with the consonants ‫סכי‬/‫ש‬. 4. LXX Isa 2.16 and *‫ְׂש ִכּיָ ה‬ Isa 2.16

‫‏‬

‫ועל כל־אניות תרשיש ועל כל־שכיות החמדה‬ καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶν πλοῖον θαλάσσης καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶσαν θέαν πλοίων κάλλους

The divergent translation of LXX Isa 2.16 can be attributed primarily to the rendering of ‫תרשיש‬, represented by θαλάσσης, and ‫שכיות‬, represented by the double-translation θέαν πλοίων.

12.  Sokoloff, Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, 15, 377. 13.  Ibid., 809. Cf. Anan 49.30 ‫“ סכא עליהון מים במאנא‬he poured water on them in a utensil” (cf. BH ‫“ נסך‬pour”).

196

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

Many scholars think that ‫—תרשיש‬occurring here in 2.16 and six other times in Isa—is to be identified with Tartessos in Spain,14 but other identifications have been proposed, including Tarsus in Asia Minor, the region of Carthage, the far west, and a city in India.15 The HB describes ‫ תרשיש‬as a key port and commercial city in the Mediterranean (Jer 10.9; Ezek 38.13), but it is also portrayed more generally as a place that is as far away as one could go (Isa 66.19; Jon 1.3; Ps 72.10). Cyrus Gordon argued that ‫ תרשיש‬originally meant “red,” specifically the colour of wine,16 and, coupled with the fact that οἶνοψ “wine-coloured” is a common Homeric epithet for the sea, he concludes that ‫ תרשיש‬reflects an ancient tradition where the sea was called “wine-coloured.” Thus, for Gordon, ‫ תרשיש‬in Isa 2.16 does not refer to a specific place but to “the open sea.”17 Irrespective of the exact explanation of ‫תרשיש‬, the rendering of it in LXX Isa 2.16 is strange, as it is the only place in LXX Isa where ‫ תרשיש‬is not represented by Καρχηδών “Carthage” (LXX Isa 23.1, 6, 10, 14) or Θαρσις (LXX Isa 60.9 and 66.19), and there is no credible etymological or textual basis for representing ‫ תרשיש‬by θαλάσσης. Seeligmann suggests that θαλάσσης is an inner-Greek corruption of θαρσις,18 but it is possible that πλοῖον θαλάσσης is simply a free translation. Given that ‫ תרשיש‬is always represented by proper nouns elsewhere in LXX Isa, the reason for the free rendering cannot be the translator’s ignorance. Rather, it seems to reflect his interpretation of the word-pair ‫אניות תרשיש‬. It is possible, for example, that he knew ‫אניות‬ ‫ תרשיש‬to be a technical term for a large trading ship capable of covering vast distances, and therefore chose a free rendering that expressed this sense. References to ‫ אניות תרשיש‬in the HB suggest that the phrase had lost its geographical sense and was synonymous with a luxurious trading vessel that could traverse long distances (1 Kgs 22.48; Isa 23.1, 14; 60.9; 14.  For a more detailed argument in favour of Tartessos, see ThWAT 8:778–81; and M. Koch, Tarschisch und Hispanien: Historische, geographische und namenkundliche Untersuchungen zur phönikischen Kolonisation der iberischen Halbinsel, Madrider Forschungen 14 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984). 15.  See Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 117, or the excursus “Tarshish: Tartessos or Tarsus?,” in van der Kooij, Oracle of Tyre, 40–47, for a more detailed discussion of this subject. 16.  Cyrus H. Gordon, “The Wine-Dark Sea,” JNES 37 (1978): 51–52, bases his argument on cognate evidence: Coptic trošreš “red”; Ugaritic trṯ “wine”; and Hebrew ‫תירוש‬. 17.  See also S. B. Hoenig, “Tarshish,” JQR 69 (1979): 181–82, who contends that ‫ תרשיש‬is to be interpreted more generally as “sea.” 18.  Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah, 30, 207 and 235.



Section 5. Chapter 1. ‫ ּיִכְׂש‬

197

Ezek 27.25; Ps 48.8).19 How, then, do we account for the renderings of ‫ תרשיש‬by proper names or, in the case of θαρσις, transliteration? Van der Kooij observes that the renderings of ‫ תרשיש‬by Καρχηδών in LXX Isa and LXX Ezek occur in prophecies concerning Tyre, and that this may account for the choice of Καρχηδών in Isa 23,20 but the various renderings of ‫ תרשיש‬throughout LXX Isa remain a mystery. In short, it appears that πλοῖον θαλάσσης in LXX Isa 2.16 is a free translation with a seagoing vessel of some type in mind, but other explanations cannot be ruled out. There are three possible explanations for the rendering of the hapax legomenon ‫ ְׂש ִכּיָ ה‬by the double-translation θέαν πλοίων: 1. The translator knew BH *‫ שכיה‬and rendered it by πλοίων, and θέαν is a “plus” employed for stylistic purposes. 2. The translator did not know BH *‫ שכיה‬and turned to the parallelism with ‫ אניות‬for help. Thus, πλοίων is a guess on the basis of the parallelism with ‫אניות‬, and θέαν was employed to make better sense of the text. 3. The translator did not know BH *‫ שכיה‬and rendered ‫ שכיות‬on the basis of PBH/Aramaic ‫“ סכי‬look, see”; πλοίων was subsequently employed to improve the translation and complete the parallelism with the previous line. At first glance, πλοίων seems to indicate that the translator knew BH *‫שכיה‬. However, as noted earlier, there is no equivalent word in PBH or Aramaic for BH *‫“ שכיה‬ship,” and, given that it is a hapax in BH, there is no reason to think that the translator knew this word. As Williamson has cautioned, “The fact that LXX includes a reference to ships should not be taken to mean that it understood ‫ שכיות‬to mean ‘ships’; that is clearly an interpretative addition by the translator, based intelligently on the context, as his repetition of πλοίων from the first half of the line indicates.”21 Furthermore, it seems somewhat redundant to employ both

19.  Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 118, compares ‫ אניות תרשיש‬to the German word “Indienfahrer”—otherwise known as the “East Indiaman”—a commercial ship capable of sailing the most treacherous seas. 20.  Van der Kooij, Oracle of Tyre, 49–50. He also points out some similarities in the way the LXX and Tgs render ‫( תרשיש‬e.g. both versions translate it “the sea” and “Carthage”/“Africa”), and concludes that there may have been a Jewish tradition according to which ‫ תרשיש‬could refer to the Mediterranean sea or to a particular coastal region of the sea, such as Carthage. 21.  Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, 199 n. 27.

198

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

θέαν and κάλλους to make better sense of the text. If the translator knew ‫שכיות‬, there would be no need to add θέαν, as πλοίων κάλλους makes perfect sense and fits the parallelism with the previous line.22 The second option is certainly possible, but similar objections as apply to the first option remain. That the translator simply relied on parallelism for a difficult word has been noted before, and, indeed, Tov cites LXX Isa 2.16 as giving an example of repetition of a parallel word when rendering a difficult Hebrew word.23 However, if this was the case in this verse, the addition of θέαν is perplexing, as it does not improve the translation of the second line and unnecessarily explicates what is already straightforward. Having relied on parallelism for help with ‫שכיות‬, the translator should have been content with πλοίων κάλλους, a perfectly adequate translation that is attested in numerous mss. The most likely option is the third. As mentioned above, the translator probably did not know BH *‫“ שכיה‬ship,” and it appears that he derived the meaning of ‫ שכיות‬on the basis of PBH/Aramaic ‫סכי‬. Having rendered ‫ שכיות‬by θέαν and ‫ החמדה‬by κάλλους, he was left with θέαν κάλλους, an awkward translation in the context of Isa 2.16, and in order to make better sense of θέαν κάλλους and to complete the parallelism with the previous line, he turned to ‫ אניות‬for help. This is the best explanation, as it accounts for the presence of θέαν and the double-translation. 4.1. Other Ancient Versions MT LXX Οἱ γ΄ OL Vg Syr Tg

‫ועל כל אניות תרשיש ועל כל שכיות החמדה‬ καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶν πλοῖον θαλάσσης καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶσαν θέαν πλοίων κάλλους (‫ תרשיש‬reflected by θαρσις) et super omnem navem maris et super omne spectaculum navium decoris et super omnes naves Tharsis et super omne quod visu pulchrum est ܵ ܵ ‫ܕܘܩܐ ܕܪܓܬܐ‬ ‫ܐܠܦܐ ܕܬܪܫܝܫ ܘܥܠ ܟܠܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܥܠ ܟܠܗܝܢ‬ ‫ועל כל דיתבין בניסי ימא ועל כל דשרן בירנית שופרא‬

What is striking about the ancient versions is that most of them represent ‫ שכיות‬by a word meaning “look” or “sight,” the only exception being the Tg, which is a very free translation.24 Not surprisingly, two of the main 22.  Codex V, almost all the Lucianic mss (with the exception of 46 and 233), Chrysostom and Theodoret have πλοίων κάλλους (and C–309, owing to an apparent scribal error, reads πλοίων καλούς). 23.  Tov, “Did the Septuagint Translators always Understand?,” 213–14. 24.  No mention is made of any variants for ‫ שכיות‬in the Hexapla. Jerome makes no mention of The Three, but singles out the LXX as the only version that reads mare: “Pro Tharsis, quod omnes similiter transtulerunt, soli LXX mare interpretati sunt.”



Section 5. Chapter 1. ‫ ּיִכְׂש‬

199

Latin witnesses, E (the “European” text) and A (the “Augustinian” text), mirror the LXX and represent θαλάσσης and πλοίων by maris and navium, respectively. In the Vg, Jerome correctly replaces maris with Tharsis, but the translation of the second half of the verse deviates from the MT. He corrects the LXX and OL by eliminating navium, which appears to be an addition on the basis of parallelism, and renders ‫ שכיות‬by visu. This leaves open the possibility that he was confident about the meaning of ‫שכיות‬, or, alternatively, that he turned to the LXX (θέαν) for help. As Jerome explains in his commentary, the phrase ‫ שכיות החמדה‬refers to beautiful human words or to reason that appears to be beautiful, and will be destroyed in the Day of the Lord.25 Similarly, the Peshitta also appears to reflect PBH/Aramaic ‫סכי‬. The second half of Syr reads: And upon all the desirable sights.

‫ܘܥܠ ܟܠܗܘܢ ܕܘ̈ܩܐ ܕܪܓܬܐ‬

The semantic range of ‫“ ܕܘܩܐ‬lookout, watchtower,” “observer” or “sight” is almost identical to PBH/Aramaic ‫סכי‬, and if, as most scholars believe, the Syr is translating the Hebrew text, it appears that this is another case of a translator rendering ‫ שכיות‬on the basis of PBH/Aramaic ‫סכי‬. The translation of the Tg is interesting insofar as ‫ ימא‬seems to correspond to MT ‫תרשיש‬, and ‫ בירנית‬to ‫שכיות‬: ‫ועל כל דיתבין בניסי ימא ועל כל דשרן בירנית שופרא‬ And against all those who dwell in the islands of the sea, and against all those who encamp in beautiful palaces.

Though it is tempting to scrutinise the implications of rendering ‫ תרשיש‬by ‫ימא‬, or the relationship between ‫ שכיות‬and ‫בירנית‬, it is important to note that the translation of Tg Isa 2.13–22 is a very free, exegetical rendering that has the nations and their leaders in mind. So, instead of the “cedars of Lebanon” and “oaks of Bashan,” Tg Isa 2.13 has ‫“ ‏מלכי עממיא‬kings of the nations” and ‫“ טורני מדינתא‬tyrants of the provinces.” Verses 15–16 expand on this by interpreting the various targets of ‫ יום ליהוה צבאות‬as dwelling places of the nations. Accordingly, Tg ‫ כל דיתבין בניסי ימא‬is an adaptation of the technical maritime term ‫ אניות תרשיש‬that describes another dwelling place of the nations. It has been suggested that “islands” in v. 16 is a reference to the Romans, and that the following line is “an objection to the Roman habit of providing comparatively lavish facilities 25.  Migne, Opera Omnia, 53.

200

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

for their officials.”26 Thus, the free translation style and highly exegetical nature of Tg Isa 2.16 makes it difficult to determine whether or not the translator knew BH *‫ שכיה‬and how this may or may not have influenced his translation. 5. Conclusion The aim of this chapter was to determine whether the PBH/Aramaic meaning of ‫“ סכי‬look, see” influenced in any way the double-translation θέαν πλοίων for ‫ שכיות‬in LXX Isa 2.16. A survey of the lexical evidence reveals two things: the virtual absence of the root ‫ שכה‬meaning “look, see” in BH, and the prevalence of the root ‫ סכי‬meaning “look, see” in PBH and Aramaic. This suggests that the rendering by θέαν could derive from the PBH/Aramaic meaning, especially if the translator did not know the hapax ‫שכיה‬. Furthermore, a closer examination of the Greek of LXX Isa 2.16 confirms that θέαν represents ‫שכיות‬, and that πλοίων was employed to make better sense of the text and to fit the parallelism in the previous half-line.

26.  See Bruce D. Chilton, The Isaiah Targum: Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and Notes, The Aramaic Bible 11 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1987), 7.

Chapter 2

‫כתוא מכמר‬

‫ = כתוא מכמר‬σευτλίον ἡμίεφθον “beet half-boiled” Isa 51.20

1. Introduction Isa 51.20 ‫בניך עלפו שכבו בראש כל חוצות כתוא מכמר המלאים חמת יהוה גערת אלהיך‬ οἱ υἱοί σου οἱ ἀπορούμενοι, οἱ καθεύδοντες ἐπ᾿ ἄκρου πάσης ἐξόδου ὡς σευτλίον ἡμίεφθον, οἱ πλήρεις θυμοῦ κυρίου, ἐκλελυμένοι διὰ κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ

‫‏‬

Many scholars have maintained that the metre and poetical structure of MT Isa 51.20 are defective, and as a result various interpretations and emendations have been proposed. Some have gone as far as omitting completely the second1 or third lines2 in order to form a more balanced metre,3 and most have struggled with the meaning of the difficult Hebrew phrases ‫ שכבו בראש כל חוצות‬and ‫כתוא מכמר‬.4 Additionally, the phrase ‫בראש כל‬ ‫חוצות‬, which occurs identically in Lam 2.19 and 4.1, is thought by some 1.  Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia, 388, omits ‫ שכבו בראש כל חוצות‬from his translation. 2.  F. Feldmann, Das Buch Isaias, EHAT 14 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1926), 212, omits ‫כתוא מכמר‬. 3.  Recent contributions in Hebrew poetry have shifted the emphasis away from relying exclusively on metre in determining the structure of verse. Furthermore, Koole, Isaiah III: Volume 2 / Isaiah 49–55, 203, and others have noted that a tricolon/bicolon combination occurs in Isa 51.20, a poetic technique that is sometimes employed to mark the end of a pericope (see also vv. 11 and 23). 4.  E.g., Kissane, The Book of Isaiah, 2:166, emends the Hebrew not on the basis of metre but of sense. He sees no connection between people lying dead in the streets and an antelope caught in a trap. Thus, he reads v. 20a–b together and connects v. 20c, ‫כתוא מכמר‬, with the subsequent lines concerning the wrath of YHWH.

202

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

to be either a gloss or a secondary derivation from Lamentations.5 Though there is a consensus in modern scholarship on the general meaning of the genitive construction ‫—כתוא מכמר‬a wild beast that is caught or trapped—it posed great difficulty for ancient exegetes and translators and was interpreted variously. For example, α´, σ´, and θ´ correctly rendered it of an antelope (ὄρυξ) caught in a net or trap,6 but Eusebius and Ibn Ezra related it to a bird, and, strangely, the LXX and Syr rendered it with some kind of cooked vegetable in mind. The translation of the LXX is particularly interesting in that there are semantic parallels between the Greek rendering ὡς σευτλίον ἡμίεφθον “like a half-cooked beet” and the PBH/Aramaic words )‫“ תיא(ה‬root of crowfoot” and ‫“ כמר‬heat, shrink.” In this chapter, I shall examine LXX Isa 51.20 in order to determine whether the Greek translation reflects PBH/ Aramaic influence or whether other translational or interpretative issues are at play. 2. ‫ תאו‬and ‫ מכמר‬in BH 2.1. ‫ תאו‬in BH The word ‫ תאו‬occurs only here and in Deut 14.5, where “clean” wild animals that are permitted to be eaten are listed. The KJV has translated this “wild bull,” and some scholars have related it to the “water buffalo,”7 5.  See, e.g., Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 244–46; R. N. Whybray, Isaiah 40–66, NCB (London: Oliphants, 1975), 162–63; and Christopher R. North, The Second Isaiah: Introduction, Translation and Commentary to Chapters XL–LV (Oxford: Clarendon, 1964), 217, who suggest that the phrase ‫ בראש כל חוצות‬may be a gloss from Lam 2.19 or 4.1. Those who hold this view tend to emphasise other close affinities between Isaiah and Lamentations and consequently read Isa 51.9–23 as a community lament with a qînâ metre, an analysis which is not beyond the realm of possibility. However, the contention that the phrase ‫ בראש כל חוצות‬is either a gloss or derived from Lam 2.19 and 4.1 must be taken with caution. For example, the same phrase is employed in Nah 3.10 to describe the destruction and captivity of Thebes. Not only is the context of Nah 3.10 similar to Isa 51.20, but the imagery of children being hunted down and slaughtered in the streets as a description of the horrors of captivity also occurs in Isa 51.20 and Lam 2.19. Moreover, the collocation of ‫ ראש‬with a street, ‫חוץ‬ or ‫דרך‬, is found in Ezekiel four times and refers to a fork in the road (21.24, 26) or the intersection or end of a street (16.25, 31). 6.  α´: ὡς ὄρυξ ἠμφιβληστρευμένος “like an antelope caught in a net”; σ´: ὡς ὄρυξ ἐν ἀμφιβλήστρῳ “like an antelope in a net”; and θ´: ὡς ὄρυξ συνειλημμένος “like a seized antelope.” 7.  See, e.g., Oded Borowski, Every Living Thing: Daily Use of Animals in Ancient Israel (Walnut Creek: Sage, 1997), 186–92.



Section 5. Chapter 2. ‫ רמכמ אותכ‬

203

but both of these are unlikely, as the method of capture in the subsequent line does not correspond to either animal. Despite the lack of evidence from the cognate languages, there is little doubt that ‫ תאו‬refers to an antelope, and possibly, as Cansdale has argued, the Desert Oryx, a wild ruminant that was common in antiquity.8 Not only does antelope fit nicely in the list of “clean” wild animals in Deut 14.5, but it is one of the few beasts that would be captured in a “trap” or “net,” and modern archaeological discoveries have confirmed both the existence and the hunting of antelopes in the Levant.9 Furthermore, the imagery of an antelope caught in a trap best illustrates the situation envisaged in the first half of v. 20: sons lying dead or exhausted, and trapped at the head or end of a street. 2.2. ‫ (מ)כמר‬in BH The verb ‫ כמר‬occurs four times in BH. In Gen 43.30, 1 Kgs 3.26 and Hos 11.8 the subject of the verb is “compassion” (‫ רחמים‬or ‫ )נחמים‬and ‫ כמר‬means “grow warm,” and in Lam 5.20 the passive verb ‫ נכמרו‬means “become hot,” with ‫“ עור‬skin” as the subject. It should be noted that, in contrast to its usage in PBH, there is no link between ‫ כמר‬and food in BH. The noun ‫ ִמ ְכ ֶמ ֶרת‬is found three times in BH and always occurs in fishing contexts. In Isa 19.8 ‫ מכמרת‬is the object of the verb ‫פרש‬, and in Hab 1.15 and 16 ‫ מכמרת‬is parallel to ‫“ ֵח ֶרם‬fishing net.” Thus, the form ‫ מכמרת‬appears to refer specifically to a “fishing net,” as is the case in PBH. There is no connection with BH ‫“ כמר‬grow warm.” The rare noun ‫ ִמ ְכ ָמר‬occurs twice in BH (Isa 51.20 and Ps 141.10), and most lexicons propose the meaning “net” or “snare.”10 A few of the older lexicons have suggested possible etymological connections. For example, Gesenius’s lexicon suggests that ‫ מכמר‬is derived from a root meaning “plait” or “braid,”11 hence “net,” and BDB links it to Akkadian kamāru “overthrow,” “lay prostrate.”12 However, the contexts of both Isa 51.20 and Ps 141.10 suggest that ‫ מכמר‬takes on the nuance “pit” or “trap” rather than “net.”

8.  George Cansdale, Animals of Bible Lands (Exeter: Paternoster, 1970), 84. 9.  Cf. S. W. Helms, “Jawa Excavations 1975: Third Preliminary Report,” Levant 9 (1977): 21–35. 10.  See, e.g., HALOT, 2:580. 11.  Wilhelm Gesenius, Gesenius’s Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures, trans. by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles (London: S. Bagster, 1857), 402. 12.  BDB, 485.

204

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew Ps 141.9–10

‫‏שמרני מידי פח יקשו לי ומקשות פעלי און‬ ‫יפלו במכמריו רשעים יחד אנכי עד אעבור‬ Keep me from the trap that they have laid for me, and from the snares of evildoers! Let the wicked fall into their own traps, while I walk safely by.

In Ps 141.9–10, ‫ מכמר‬follows the parallel words ‫מֹוקׁש‬ ֵ “snare” and ‫ַפח‬ “trap,” both of which are thought to be trapping devices used in fowling, and, though there is a connection between the three terms, ‫ מכמר‬is distinct insofar as it is described as something that a beast or person “falls into” (‫)יפלו במכמריו‬.13 That the verb ‫ נפל‬never occurs in conjunction with “nets” of any kind (‫מ ְכ ֶמ ֶרת‬, ִ ‫ ֶר ֶׁשת‬or ‫)ח ֶרם‬ ֵ suggests that ‫ מכמר‬may have been a “snare” or “trap” that was dug up and not a “net,” as is commonly thought.14 Given that ‫ מכמרת‬occurs only in fishing contexts and ‫ מכמר‬in hunting contexts, there may be a semantic distinction between ‫ מכמר‬and ‫מכמרת‬, but the evidence is scant and each word must be examined within its own context.15 Recent archaeological evidence, such as “desert kite” structures, the discovery of antelope bones in the vicinity of these devices, and engravings depicting antelopes caught in traps, has thrown some light on the meaning of the phrase ‫ כתוא מכמר‬in Isa 51.20.16 “Desert kites” consisted of two long stone walls built in a “V” shape and converging into a kind of funnel 13.  Cf. Isa 24.18 and Jer 48.44 where a ‫“ ַפ ַחת‬pit” is something that one falls into (‫)נפל‬, but a ‫“ ַפח‬snare” is something that traps or catches (‫)לכד‬. For more examples, see Pss 9.15 and 57.6. 14.  The most common verb that occurs in conjunction with “nets” is ‫פרש‬, followed by ‫זרה‬, ‫אסף‬, ‫ עלה‬and ‫( משך‬e.g. Ezek 12.13; 17.20; 19.8; Hos 5.1; 7.12; Hab 1.15; Pss 10.9; 31.4; 35.8; Prov 1.17; 29.5. For examples in the DSS, see 1QpHab 5.14 [‫ ;]אסף‬1QHa 11.27; 13.10 [‫)]פרש‬. 15.  Akkadian kamāru “trap” lends support to the meaning “snare” or “trap,” but it is possible, as the editors of CAD suggest, that Akkadian may have been influenced by West Semitic here. Cf. CAD 8:111, 533. 16.  See Abraham Terian, “The Hunting Imagery in Isaiah 51.20a,” VT 41 (1991): 462–71, for a thorough summary of recent archaeological evidence of “desert kites” and its implications for the meaning of ‫ מכמר‬in Isa 50.21. O. G. S. Crawford, “Note by Editor,” Antiquity 3 (1929): 400–401, points out that John Lewis Burckhardt identified these structures as gazelle traps as early as 1831. The term “desert kite,” however, was first coined by RAF pilots flying the Cairo–Baghdad route at the end of World War I, and a description of these rock formations, which were eventually called “desert kites” on account of their long tails, was published by Captain L. W. B. Rees, “The Transjordan Desert,” Antiquity 3 (1929): 395–400.



Section 5. Chapter 2. ‫ רמכמ אותכ‬

205

leading to a deep escarpment or pit where the animals were killed. This hunting technique, the only documented method of capturing antelopes in the ANE, corresponds perfectly with the description of children being flushed out of the alleys and into ‫ ראש כל חוצות‬where they are trapped and left for dead. As Terian concludes, The “desert kite” imagery discernable [sic] in Isa. li 20a adds to our understanding of the individual words and phrases, clarifies the continuity and the integrity of the verse as a whole, and renders more vividly the picture of hopelessness, suffering and death.17

Thus, in the light of the archaeological evidence and the imagery of Isa 51, it seems best to interpret ‫ תוא מכמר‬as an “antelope [in a] trap.” 3. ‫ תאו‬and ‫ מכמר‬in PBH and Aramaic 3.1. ‫ תאו‬in PBH The noun ‫ תאו‬occurs four times in rabbinic literature before the sixth century CE (t. Kil. 1.9 [2×]; b. B. Qam. 10.5; b. Ḥul. 80a), and in each instance it occurs in a discussion of either Deut 14.5 or Isa 51.20, the two verses where ‫ תאו‬is attested in the HB. For example: t. Kil. 1.9 ‫ שור הבר‬.‫ תאו בריא לעצמו‬.'‫ וחכמים אומ‬.‫ זהו תאו הכתוב בתורה‬.'‫ר' יוסי אומ‬ ‫בריא לעצמו‬ R. Yosé says, “This [wild ox] is the tw which is mentioned in the Torah”… And as the sages say, “The tw is a creature unto itself, and the wild ox is a creature unto itself.” b. Ḥul. 80a ‫ אמר ליה רב חנן לרב אשי אמימר שרי‬.‫דלמא מינא דתאו או מינא דזמר נינהו‬ ‫תרבייהו‬ Perhaps they [forest goats] are included within the class Tw or Zemer. R. Ḥanan said to R. Ashi, “Amemar permitted the fat of these [to be eaten].”

It appears that the exact identity of ‫ תאו‬was not known to the rabbis and was still a matter of some debate. In b. Ḥul. 80a the rabbis debated whether the forest goat should be categorised as a type of ‫תאו‬, that is, the class of animal it belonged to, and in t. Kil. 1.9 the discussion is whether ‫ תאו‬is a “wild ox” or some other beast. In short, the word ‫ תאו‬is very rare in rabbinic literature, and occurs only where biblical texts are being discussed. 17.  Terian, “Hunting Imagery,” 471.

206

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

3.2. )‫ מכמר(ת‬in PBH and Aramaic The noun ‫ מכמרת‬occurs six times in the DSS and 46 times in rabbinic literature before the sixth century CE, and in almost every instance it refers to a “drag net,” which is consistent with the BH meaning and usage (Isa 19.8; Hab 1.15, 16). However, the form ‫ מכמר‬is very rare and occurs only three times in rabbinic literature. The first occurrence is in t. B. Qam. 8.17, where fishing regulations are the topic of discussion: ‫ אין אדם פורש חרמו ומעמיד ספינתו בתוך של‬.‫בראשונה שהיו שבטים כתקנן אמרו‬ ‫ אבל צדין בחכין ובמכמרין בכל מקום‬.‫חבירו‬ At the outset, when the tribes were properly situated, they said, “A man may not lay out his fishing net or set up his boat in the area of another person.” But they permitted fishing hooks and snares in any location.

That ‫“ ַח ָּכה‬fishing hook” and ‫ מכמר‬are juxtaposed with ‫“ ספינה‬boat” and ‫“ ֵח ֶרם‬drag net” suggests that ‫ מכמר‬is a device for catching fish on a smaller scale, whether a non-commercial net or a trap of some kind (cf. t. Yebam. 14.6 in §3.3). The only other passage where ‫ מכמר‬occurs is b. B. Qam. 10.5, where Isa 51.20a is quoted and then expounded: ‫ מה תא זה כיון שנפל במכמר שוב‬.‫בניך עלפו שכבו בראש כל חוצות כתא מכמר‬ ]‫ כך ממונן של ישראל כיון שנפל ביד גוים אין מרחמין [עליו‬.‫אין מרחמין עליו‬ Your sons have fainted; they lie at the head of every street, like an antelope in a trap. Just as when this antelope falls into a trap and there is no mercy upon it, so with the property of an Israelite; as soon as it falls into the hands of heathens, there is no mercy [towards him].

There is little lexical information on ‫ מכמר‬that can be gained here, as the explanatory comment on Isa 51.20a focuses more on the beast that is caught than the contraption itself, but, as with Ps 141.10, ‫ מכמר‬is obviously something that an antelope or object “falls into” (‫)שנפל במכמר‬. Brief mention should also be made of the orthography of 1QIsaa. The scroll reads ‫ ;כתו מוכמר‬it omits the ‫ א‬in ‫ כתוא‬and adds a suspended ‫ ו‬in ‫מכמר‬, which suggests that the scribe(s) may not have known either ‫תאו‬ or ‫מכמר‬. 3.3. ‫ כמר‬in PBH18 The verb ‫ כמר‬occurs only ten times in texts before the sixth century CE and it refers mostly to the process of making ‫ּכֹומר‬ ֶ “shrunken grapes or 18.  Outside rabbinic literature, the verb ‫ כמר‬is found once in the DSS (4Q501[4QapocrLam B] 1.6), in what appears to be a quotation of Lam 5.20, with the meaning “heat” or “grow warm.”



Section 5. Chapter 2. ‫ רמכמ אותכ‬

207

olives,”19 either by exposure to the sun or by storing the produce underground and then pressing it. For example: m. Maaś. 4.1

‫‏הכובש השוליק המוליח בשדה חייב המכמיר באדמה פטור‬ The one who pickles, boils or salts (produce) in the field is required (to tithe). The one who buries (produce) in the ground is exempt (from tithing). t. Menaḥ. 9.10

‫לא היו בוצרין ענבים וכומרין אותן‬ They did not cut the grapes but let them shrink (before putting them into the press).

When the subject is not fruit or vegetables, the verb ‫ כמר‬means “bury” or “heat” in a more general sense. For example: t. Yebam. 14.6

‫ בירדן‬21‫ בשנים שהיו מכמרין מכמראות‬20‫אמ' ר' מעשה‬ Said R. MŚ: Two men were hiding fishing nets in the Jordan.

From the sixth century CE onward, the verb ‫ כמר‬is attested much more frequently and means “heat” or, when occurring alongside ‫רחמים‬ “compassion,” it means heat in a figurative sense, “grow warm” with compassion.22 3.4. ‫ כמר‬in Aramaic23 The semantic range of Aramaic ‫ כמר‬includes the two primary PBH meanings: “warm,” usually by covering, insulating or burying something, and “shrink” by exposure to the sun. For example, b. Šabb. 29a One who covers a cauldron.

‫ההן דכמר איי{ד}ה‬

19.  ‫ּכֹומר‬ ֶ occurs 14 times in texts before the sixth century CE. 20.  The attribution of this saying to a rabbi called ‫ מעשה‬is perplexing, but this is the preferred translation of Jacob Neusner, The Tosefta: Third Division, Nashim, the Order of Women (New York: Ktav, 1979), 55. It may be, however, that ‫ מעשה‬is to be taken as the substantive meaning “deed,” “practice” or “event,” which would result in the following translation: “He said, ‘It concerns two men who hid fishing nets in the Jordan.’ ” 21.  The Vienna ms reads ‫מכמראות בירדן‬, and the Erfurt ms reads ‫מכמרות בירדן‬. 22.  ‫ כמר‬occurs 84 times in texts between the sixth and eleventh centuries with the meaning “heat” or “grow warm.” 23.  See p. 210 n. 29 for a discussion of the Syr rendering of ‫(מ)כמר‬.

208

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew b. Šabb. 29a ‫א''ל כמרא גו גיפתא׃ אמר לה לא תהי עבדה כן אלא כמרה גו קופתא ויהבה קופתא‬ ‫על גיפתא‬ [R. Yanni’s daughter] said to him, “It is kept warm in peat.” And [R. Yanni] said to her, “Do not do it that way, but cover it in a basket and put the basket on the peat.”

There are, however, two senses in Aramaic that are not attested in PBH, though both are very rare.24 The first is “turn, return” or “do again”: b. Qid. 81b He spat into it again.

‫אכמר שדא ביה‬

Bo. 106.725

‫וניכמרון כולהין על קרינהין‬ May all of them (idol-spirits) return on the one who called them.

This meaning is attested only twice in Aramaic, but it occurs much more frequently in Mandaic, where KMR almost always means “turn, return” or “do again.” The second meaning is “pile up” and occurs once: b. B. Meṣia 74a

‫מכמר ועילי לבי מעצרתא‬ Piling up and bringing in (of grapes) to the press-room.

This meaning is probably related to Ugaritic kmr “pile”26 and Akkadian kamāru “heap up,” a verb that is employed when describing the process of gathering, piling up and spreading out produce for sorting, especially of dates.27

24.  Sokoloff, Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, 586, speculates on a third meaning for ‫כמר‬: “spoil” (of meat), but he concedes that this is “uncertain.” 25.  Sokoloff cites an inscription on an incantation bowl. 26.  kmr refers to a “pile” of grain in KTU 1.19 I 7, 12. Cf. Cyrus H. Gordon, Ugaritic Manual: Newly Revised Grammar, Texts in Transliteration, Cuneiform Selections, Paradigms, Glossary, Indices, Analecta Orientalia, Commentationes Scientificae D (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1955), 420. 27.  CAD 8:112–14. Incidentally, Aramaic ‫כומרא‬, which occurs several times in b. Berakot, and Akkadian kimru refer to a kind or quality of date. Cf. Sokoloff, Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, 563, and CAD 8:373.



Section 5. Chapter 2. ‫ רמכמ אותכ‬

209

3.5. Conclusion The noun ‫“ תאו‬antelope” is rare in PBH and occurs only in texts where Deut 14.5 or Isa 51.20 is in view, and, furthermore, it seems that the exact identity of ‫ תאו‬was not known to those discussing it. The noun ‫ מכמרת‬is more common in PBH and means “fishing net,” but ‫ מכמר‬is rare and seems to refer to a “trap” of some kind. In texts before the sixth century CE, the verb ‫“ כמר‬heat,” “cover” almost always occurs in texts having to do with heating or shrinking fruit (grapes, dates, olives, etc.), which explains the emergence of the substantive ‫“ כומר‬shrunken grapes or olives” in PBH. In texts after the sixth century CE, ‫ כמר‬means “heat” in a more general sense or, when occurring alongside ‫רחמים‬, “grow warm” with compassion. The Aramaic verb ‫ כמר‬has at least three distinct meanings: “heat,” “cover”; “turn, do again”; and “pile up.” The only related substantive is ‫כומרא‬, a type of date (cf. PBH ‫)כומר‬. Equivalents for Hebrew ‫ מכמרת‬and ‫ מכמר‬are not attested in Aramaic. In sum, given the rarity of ‫“ תאו‬antelope” and ‫“ מכמר‬trap” in PBH and Aramaic, it is not surprising that the translator of LXX Isa struggled with the phrase ‫כתוא מכמר‬. This, coupled with the fact that the root ‫כמר‬ almost always refers to the process of heating or dehydrating fruit in PBH and Aramaic (especially in texts before the sixth century CE), may have played a role in the rendering of ‫ כתוא מכמר‬by ὡς σευτλίον ἡμίεφθον “like half-cooked beet” in LXX Isa 51.20. 4. LXX Isa 51.20 and ‫כתוא מכמר‬ LXX Isa 51.20 οἱ υἱοί σου οἱ ἀπορούμενοι, οἱ καθεύδοντες ἐπ᾿ ἄκρου πάσης ἐξόδου ὡς σευτλίον ἡμίεφθον, οἱ πλήρεις θυμοῦ κυρίου, ἐκλελυμένοι διὰ κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ Your sons are the ones perplexed, who lie at the head of every way out28 like a half-cooked beet, who are full of the wrath of the Lord, made feeble by the Lord God. 28.  See T. Muraoka, A Greek–English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Louvain: Peeters, 2009), 253, for the meaning of ἔξοδος in the LXX. The NETS has translated ἐξόδου “street,” but there is very little evidence to support this. With the exception of ‫חוץ‬, a word that occasionally means “street” (see 1 Sam 1.20; 22.43; Mic 7.10; Isa 10.6 for examples where the meaning “street” may be intended; note, however, that ‫ חוץ‬is collocated with another word in each instance), ἔξοδος is never employed to translate a Hebrew word meaning “street.” Ἔξοδος overwhelmingly corresponds to the Hebrew ‫ יצא‬or derived nominal forms such as ‫ּתֹוצאֹות‬, ָ ‫מֹוצא‬ ָ or ‫צֹואה‬. ָ Other Hebrew equivalents include the verb ‫בוא‬, the hapax ‫“ ִּצּנָ ה‬cold” and ‫“ ָמקֹור‬spring” or “water source” (see Hdt. 7.130 and Arist. Pr. 947a.19 for examples of ἔξοδος as the outlet of rivers).

210

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

The rendering of ‫ כתוא מכמר‬by ὡς σευτλίον ἡμίεφθον in LXX Isa 51.20 differs significantly from the MT and is obscure.29 Ottley went so far as to say that “there are few more incomprehensible phrases in the LXX than that in Isa li.20, where the Greek gives, ‘Thy sons lie at the head of every way of escape, like half-cooked beet-root’!”30 That ὡς σευτλίον ἡμίεφθον does not the fit the context suggests that the divergent rendering was not a contextual guess or an attempt at theological exegesis by the translator. There are, however, a few explanations that have been proposed. Jerome suggested that the translator had Syriac thoreth meaning “beet” in mind, but it remains unclear which word he was referring to.31 The closest word is Aramaic ‫—ּת ָרד‬a ָ species of beet—and Löw has suggested that Jerome was referring to a plural form ‫ ֳּת ָר ִדין‬or ‫ּתֹור ִדין‬. ָ 32 Even so, it remains unlikely that the translator turned to a word that was so different in form.33 Ottley thought that inner-Greek corruption was to blame for the divergent translation. He points to the similarity of the prefix in ἡμίεφθον to α´ ἠμφιβληστρευμένος and σ´ ἀμφιβλήστρῳ, and speculates that ἡμίεφθον is a corruption of a compound participle beginning with ἠμφι-. Furthermore, he could not make sense of σευτλίον and wondered whether it had originally been σιτευτός “fatted” (cf. Jer 46[26].21).34 However, this explanation remains unlikely, as there is no evidence to support innerGreek corruption and σευτλίον is well attested in Greek literature. Frankel suggested that the translator was influenced by the PBH words )‫ תיא(ה‬and ‫כמר‬. That is, the translator read )‫יא(ה‬ ָ ‫“ ִּת‬crowfoot” for ‫ְּתאֹו‬ “antelope,” and rendered ‫“ מכמר‬trap” with PBH ‫“ כמר‬cook” in mind.35 29.  Syr renders ‫ כתאו מכמר‬by ‫“ ܐܝܟ ܣܠܩܐ ܕܟܡܝܪ‬like a beet [that is] blackened.” It is certainly possible that the Syr translator is rendering the Hebrew on the basis of the LXX here, but probably only for ‫כתוא‬. It appears that the translator may simply have interpreted the Hebrew word ‫ מכמר‬with the Syr meaning in mind (the root ‫ܟܡܪ‬ means “be dark” or “be gloomy” in Syr) and without any help from the LXX. 30.  R. R. Ottley, A Handbook to the Septuagint (London: Methuen, 1920), 192. 31.  “Pro quo LXX Syra lingua opinati sunt thoreth, quae dicitur beta.” Migne, Opera Omnia, 4:493. 32.  Immanuel Löw, Die Flora der Juden, 4 vols. (Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1967), 1:347 and 3:125–26, for a discussion of the possible connection to ‫ תרדין‬and for other rabbinic interpretations. 33.  So ibid., 1:346–47. 34.  Ottley, A Handbook to the Septuagint, 193. Interestingly, ‫( א‬Codex Sinaiticus) has σειταιον, which is unintelligible and may possibly be an attempt to harmonise σευτλίον and a word such as σῖτος. A later scribe subsequently corrects it to σευτλιον. 35.  Frankel, Vorstudien, 201. Frankel’s definition of PBH ‫ כמר‬as “cook” is slightly misleading. The occurrences of ‫ כמר‬do occur in cooking contexts, but the meaning of ‫ כמר‬is “heat” or “shrink.”



Section 5. Chapter 2. ‫ רמכמ אותכ‬

211

Similarly, Wutz argued that the translator of LXX Isa read ‫ִּתיא ָמ ְכ ָמד‬ “weakened beet” for MT ‫תוא מכמר‬, presumably on the basis of Syr ‫ܟܡܕ‬ “be weak, languid.”36 There are two factors that lend support to the possibility of PBH )‫תיא(ה‬ influencing the LXX translation. First, the similarity of the construct form ‫ תוא‬and )‫ תיא(ה‬leaves open the possibility that the translator mistakenly confused the two words or that he did not know BH ‫ תאו‬and assumed it to be a form of )‫תיא(ה‬. Secondly, ‫“ תיאה‬crowfoot” (Ranunculus) occurs seven times in rabbinic literature, and was used primarily as a spice in cooking, as the following examples suggest:37 m. T. Yom 1.5

‫השעורה והכוסמת בזמן שאינן קלופין התייה והחלתית והאילום‬ Barley and spelt, when they are not husked, crowfoot, asafoetida, and silphium (are clean). m. Uq. 3.5 ‫הכושת והחמם וראשי בבשמים התיא והחלתית והפלפלין וחלות חרייע נלקחין בכסף‬ ‫מעשר‬ Costus, and amomum, and the principal spices, crowfoot, and asafoetida, and black pepper, and lozenges of safflower are purchased with money of [second] tithe.

That )‫ תיא(ה‬is listed alongside asafoetida, silphium, and black pepper—all common spices in the ANE—suggests that crowfoot was one of the major spices, and, in fact, m. Uq. 3.5 refers to it as one of the ‫ראשי בבשמים‬ “principal spices.” “Crowfoot” is also found in Syr as 38‫ ܢܘܪܬܐ‬and was known in Judean Aramaic as ‫“ עיקרא דנוריתא‬root of crowfoot.”39 There is no )‫ תיא(ה‬equivalent in Aramaic. However, the question remains: if the translator knew ‫“ תיאה‬crowfoot,” why did he render ‫ תאו‬by σευτλίον “beet” and not βατράχιον, the Greek term for “crowfoot”?40 One possibility is that the translator knew the 36.  Wutz, Die Transkriptionen, 499. That Syr ‫ ܟܡܕ‬influenced the translation ἡμίεφθον in LXX Isa 51.20 is unlikely. There are, however, two Syr mss (6hs and 7a1) that may have misread the ‫ ר‬for a ‫ ד‬and consequently have ‫“ ܟܡܝܕ‬weak” or “languid,” and not ‫ܟܡܝܪ‬. 37.  See also t. Ḥul. 4.5 and b. Ḥul. 58b, where the crowfoot’s toxic properties are discussed. 38.  Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon, 905. 39.  Löw, Die Flora der Juden, 3:124–25. 40.  The form τεῦτλον is more widely attested than σεῦτλον, and, as LSJ, 1591 and 1783, suggests, the difference may simply be dialectal. See, e.g., Ath. Deipn.

212

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

Hebrew term and not the Greek. That is, he recognised ‫ תאו‬as “crowfoot,” but did not know the Greek counterpart and therefore resorted to the similar, but more common, σευτλίον “beet.”41 The term βατράχιον is very rare and almost always occurs in medical or remedial texts.42 Another possibility is that the translator did not consider “crowfoot” to be a spice or plant to be cooked (or consumed, for that matter), whereas the beet is documented as a vegetable that was cooked.43 Though these are possible explanations, both are admittedly speculative and there is not enough evidence to draw any definitive conclusions. Perhaps the best approach to ὡς σευτλίον ἡμίεφθον is to examine the rendering of ‫ תאו‬in the light of ‫מכמר‬. As noted earlier, the lexical evidence for ‫ מכמר‬and ‫ כמר‬suggests that the translator may have struggled with ‫מכמר‬, as the noun ‫“ ִמ ְכ ָמר‬trap” is very rare in both BH and PBH, and the verb ‫ כמר‬takes on a more technical sense in PBH (“heat” or “shrink” fruit or vegetables). If the translator did not know BH ‫“ מכמר‬trap” and rendered ‫ מכמר‬with the PBH meaning of ‫“( כמר‬heat” or “shrink” fruit or vegetables), he may have been inclined to consider a fruit or vegetable for ‫תאו‬, especially if he did not know BH ‫“ תאו‬antelope,” which is a distinct possibility given the rarity of ‫ תאו‬in PBH and Aramaic, as well as BH. Thus, if the translator attempted to make sense of ‫ כתוא מכמר‬by finding a 11.109.5–6: ἐπὰν δὲ καλέσῃ ψυγέα τὸν ψυκτηρίαν, τὸ τευτλίον δὲ σεῦτλα, φακέαν τὴν φακῆν, τί δεῖ ποιεῖν; “When you call a psukteria a psugeus, a teutlion a seutla, and phake phakea, what am I supposed to do?” However, Athaneus also tells us that Theophrastus, who wrote two large botanical treatises, made a distinction between the two: ἡ δὲ σευτλὶς ἕτερον, φησί, τοῦ τεύτλου ἐστί “He says that the seutlis is different from the teutlon” (Ath. Deipn. 9.11.13). 41.  Daniel Zohary and Maria Hopf, Domestication of Plants in the Old World: The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants in West Asia, Europe, and the Nile Valley (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 201, examine the extent to which the beet was consumed and grown in the ANE: “Roman and Jewish literary sources indicate that already in the first century BC domestic beet was represented in the Mediterranean basin by leafy forms (chards) and very probably also by beetroot cultivars.” 42.  Hp. Nat. Mul. 32 is the only occurrence before the common era. See Dsc. 2.175 and Gp. 2.6.30 for examples of medical references. The lone non-medical usage of βατράχια is in Paus. 9.21.1, where the hair of Tritons is described as being like βατράχια because of the impossibility of separating one strand of hair from another. This description corresponds to the hair-like achenes of some species in the Ranunculus family. 43.  See, e.g., Ath. Deipn. 2.57.30–31: Διοκλῆς ὁ Καρύστιος ἐν αʹ Ὑγιεινῶν φησιν· “ἄγρια ἑψήματα τεῦτλον…” (“Diocles of Carystus, in Book 1 of his Health says, ‘Wild vegetables fit to boil are the beet…’ ”). See also Ath. Deipn. 9.11.15.



Section 5. Chapter 2. ‫ רמכמ אותכ‬

213

subject for ‫מכמר‬, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that he turned to PBH )‫“ תיא(ה‬crowfoot” for help. Why the translator was not more precise by rendering ‫ כתוא‬by βατράχιον remains unclear, but, at the very least, it appears that he translated ‫ מכמר‬on the basis of a nuance of the verb ‫כמר‬ found in PBH and Aramaic, and that this in turn influenced the rendering of ‫ תאו‬by σευτλίον. 5. Conclusion A survey of the lexical evidence shows that ‫“ תאו‬antelope” is very rare, occurring only in Deut 14.5 and Isa 51.20, or in rabbinic texts that discuss one of the two biblical texts, and it is not surprising that the translator of LXX Isa may have struggled with it. Though there is no equivalent for ‫( תאו‬or the construct form ‫ )תוא‬meaning “beet” in Hebrew or Aramaic, the similarity to )‫“ תיא(ה‬crowfoot,” a form that is attested only in PBH, may have been a factor in the Greek translation. The suggestion, first made by Jerome, that the translator was influenced by Aramaic )‫“ תרד(ין‬beet” is unlikely. In BH, the verb ‫ כמר‬usually occurs alongside ‫ רחמים‬and means “grow warm” in physical or figurative senses, but in PBH it is used specifically in connection with the heating or warming of food, usually of fruit or vegetables. Though there is no semantic shift, its usage becomes more narrow and technical in PBH. It is difficult to determine the exact process by which the translator arrived at ὡς σευτλίον ἡμίεφθον, but what is clear is that he had some kind of cooked vegetable in mind. Given the technical and culinary nuance of ‫ כמר‬in PBH and, to some extent, Aramaic, and the similarity of the construct form ‫ תוא‬to )‫תיא(ה‬, it is reasonable to conclude that the translator was influenced by a combination of PBH elements in his translation of the phrase ‫כתוא מכמר‬.

Chapter 3

‫גלל‬/‫דמים‬ ‫ = דמים‬καταλλαγῆς “exchange for money, profit”; ‫ = גלל‬ἀποτίνω “repay” (PBH ‫גלם‬, “calculate in a lump,” “fix an arbitrary price”) Isa 9.4(5)

1. Introduction Isa 9.4(5) ‫כי כל סאון סאן ברעש ושמלה מגוללה בדמים והיתה לשרפה מאכלת אש‬ ὅτι πᾶσαν στολὴν ἐπισυνηγμένην δόλῳ καὶ ἱμάτιον μετὰ καταλλαγῆς ἀποτείσουσιν καὶ θελήσουσιν εἰ ἐγενήθησαν πυρίκαυστοι

Isaiah 9.4(5) is fittingly mentioned in R. Ottley’s list of “passages that differ considerably”1 since there are as many as six variant readings in the LXX of this difficult verse vis-à-vis the MT. The Greek is so problematic that some have proposed drastic measures to make sense of it. For example, Procksch audaciously suggested eliminating ‫ רעש‬and ‫ דמים‬altogether to even out the metre and make better sense of the poetry,2 and Zorrell alters ‫ מגוללה‬to ‫“ ְמג ֲֹא ָלה‬soiled.”3 Below are five of the most problematic LXX variants (with the presumed corresponding Hebrew words) that must be addressed in order to make sense of the LXX translation:4

1.  Ottley, The Book of Isaiah, 52. 2.  Otto Procksch, Jesaia I, KAT 9/1 (Leipzig: Deichert, 1930), 148. 3.  F. Zorrell, “Isaiae cohortatio ad poenitentiam (caput 1),” VD 6 (1926): 65–79. 4.  The sixth variant, θελήσουσιν “want/will,” for ‫“ שרפה‬burning,” has been added to make sense of the last line, ‫והיתה לשרפה מאכלת אש‬. See the discussion below for an analysis of θελήσουσιν as supposedly from Aramaic ‫לשדכה‬.



Section 5. Chapter 3. ‫םימד‬/‫ ללג‬

215

στολήν “garment” for ‫“ סאון‬boot” ἐπισυνηγμένην “gathered/collected” for ‫“ סאן‬trample,” “march along” δόλῳ “deceit,” “cunning” for ‫“ רעש‬noise,” “earthquake,” “shaking” καταλλαγῆς “exchange for money,” “profit” for ‫“ דמים‬blood” ἀποτείσουσιν “compensate,” “repay” for ‫“ מגוללה‬rolled”

Unfortunately, there has been no constructive discussion in the last fifty years or so on how or why the LXX translator rendered Isa 9.4 the way he did, despite the stark differences between the texts and the lack of consensus in modern scholarship.5 2. Previous Scholarship on Isaiah 9.4 As early as 1930, J. Fischer proposed that many of the variants listed above could be explained by the influence Aramaic may have had on the LXX translator of Isaiah. First, he argued that the translator saw Aramaic ‫“( אסן‬gather,” “collect”) instead of MT ‫“( סאן‬trample”), by way of metathesis of the first two consonants, and thus rendered it ἐπισυνηγμένην “gathered.” He went on to make the dubious suggestion that ‫והיתה לשרפה‬ was rendered θελήσουσιν because the translator read Aramaic ‫“ לשדכה‬to calm/pacify.” However, the most significant contribution by Fischer was his observation that PBH ‫ דמים‬may have critically affected the translation, apparently being represented by καταλλαγή.6 J. Ziegler notes an observation by Fischer on PBH ‫ּד ִמים‬:ָ Fischer glaubt, daß der Übers[etzer] an den Stamm ‫ = דמה‬gleichen gedacht habe; jedoch liegt viel näher, daß er einfach das späthebräische ‫ ְד ִמים‬im Sinne hatte, das “Kaufpreis,” “Wert,” und allgemein “Geld” bedeutet.7

Another helpful observation by Ziegler concerns the effect parallelism may have had on the translation, particularly with ‫ שמלה‬and ‫ ;סאון‬i.e., the translator knew the familiar term ‫ שמלה‬and rendered the more difficult (and possibly unknown) word ‫ סאון‬as στολήν.8 More recently, 5.  Beuken, Blenkinsopp, Wildberger, Oswalt and Watts make no mention of the LXX divergences. 6.  Fischer, In welcher Schrift?, 24. Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah, 50, also thinks ‫ = דמים‬money as “New-Hebrew” influence. However, the more likely explanation has been noted by Ziegler (see next note) who refers to PBH ‫ דמים‬meaning “purchase price,” which he takes to lie behind LXX καταλλαγή here in Isa 9.4. 7.  Ziegler, Untersuchungen, 195. 8.  Ibid. See the numerous Talmudic examples in Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, 313.

216

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

N. H. Tur-Sinai proposed that ‫ רעש‬was read by the translator as ‫ר ַשע‬,ֶ 9 which has some support from Tg Isa (‫רׁשע‬ ַ ‫)ארי כל מיסבהון ומיתנהון ִב‬. However, the translator’s choice of δόλῳ, whether for ‫( רעש‬MT) or ‫רשע‬ (Tur-Sinai), raises a question. The translator knew both words well and consistently translates ‫ ֶר ַשע‬in Isaiah as “ungodly” or “wicked” (usually with ἀσεβής or ἄδικος) and ‫ רעש‬by “earthquake” (σεισμός)10 or “shaking” (σείων). Tur-Sinai also argues that ‫ מגוללה‬was read as ‫“ נִ גְ ָל ָמה‬wrapped around” (a hapax occurring in 2 Kgs 2.8 as ‫)וַ ּיִ גְ ֹלם‬, on the basis of the parallelism of the MT,11 but this is to be rejected as it is too speculative and contrived. Before an evaluation of possible Aramaic influence can be made, a few additional points must be mentioned. The LXX is not the only version that differs from the MT; the Syr, Tg, and Vg also render Isa 9.4 differently. In fact, a comparison of the versions pinpoints the crux of the problem as the hapax legomena ‫ סאון‬and ‫ סאן‬and to a lesser degree ‫רעש‬: Isa 9.4a MT LXX Tg Syr Vg

‫ְּב ַר ַעׁש‬ δόλῳ ‫רׁשע‬ ַ ‫ִב‬ ‫ܒܙܘܥܬܐ‬ cum tumultu

‫ְסאֹון ס ֵֹאן‬ στολὴν ἐπισυνηγμένην ‫יתנהֹון‬ ַ ‫ּומ‬ ִ ‫יסבהֹון‬ ַ ‫ִמ‬ ‫ܩܠ ܐܫܬܡܥ‬ violenta praedatio

‫ָכל־‬ πᾶσαν ‫ָכל‬ ‫ܕܟܠ‬ omnis

‫ִּכי‬ ὅτι ‫ֲא ֵרי‬ ‫ܡܛܠ‬ quia

As illustrated above, ‫ סאון‬and ‫ סאן‬are not only translated differently by the various versions, but these latter disagree among themselves, the result of which is four different renditions of the MT: “garment [that has] been acquired” (LXX); “their dealing [with evil]” (Tg);12 “voice is 9.  Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 386, and J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1–33, WBC 24 (Waco: Thomas Nelson, 1985), 131, mention the proposal of Tur-Sinai, “A Contribution to the Understanding of Isaiah i–xii,” 177, that ‫ רעש‬was read by the translator as ‫ר ַשע‬,ֶ but both reject it. 10.  Cf. Isa 29.6, where the translator clearly understands ‫ רעש‬to mean “earthquake.” 11.  Thus, Tur-Sinai’s final translation is: “For every shoe that one puts on in wickedness and (every) garment wrapped around in blood…” Ibid., 177–78. Though most scholars view Akkadian šēnu as the origin of ‫סאון‬, Tur-Sinai suggests Aramaic ‫ מסאנא‬as another possibility. 12.  Interestingly, Tg Isa reads ‫מיסבהון ומיתנהון‬, a commercial idiom for “dealing,” “negotiation” (Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, 777; also Sokoloff, Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, 337, who cites Gen. Rab. 451:5 [citation based on the pagination of mss by J. Theodor and C. Albeck]). There are two possibilities here: the targumist did not know ‫ סאון סאן‬and turned to the LXX for help, or he was influenced by PBH/



Section 5. Chapter 3. ‫םימד‬/‫ ללג‬

217

heard” (Syr); “violently taking booty” (Vg).13 That none of the versions corresponds with another is evidence of a translational problem with an extremely problematic text, not of different Vorlagen, and it is clear that ‫ סאון‬and ‫ סאן‬were problematic for all translators. Caution must therefore be exercised with the suggested emendations and hypothetical readings which alter the MT.14 If the pivotal words ‫ סאון‬and ‫ סאן‬were unknown to the LXX translator, it is quite possible that the majority of divergences in the translation of Isa 9.4 are simply an attempt to make sense of an unintelligible passage at the expense of a more literal translation. 3. Aramaic Influence on the Rendering of BH ‫דמים‬ What then do we make of the Aramaic links in LXX Isa 9.4 suggested by Fischer? Of the three proposed Aramaic influences, MT ‫ והיתה לשרפה‬as θελήσουσιν (under the influence of Aramaic ‫ )לשדכה‬is the least likely as it requires significant alteration of the consonants and the meanings of θέλω “will/want” and ‫“ לשדכה‬to calm” are too remote from each other. The second suggestion, that the translator read Aramaic ‫“ אסן‬to gather/ collect” instead of MT ‫“ סאן‬to trample,” is conceivable but not entirely convincing. There is always the faint possibility that the translator misread ‫ סאן‬as ‫ אסן‬and was then influenced by the Aramaic meaning of ‫“ אסן‬gather” (‫ אסן‬does not occur in BH). Or perhaps the unfamiliarity of the hapax legomenon ‫ סאן‬caused the translator to emend the text with the more familiar Aramaic word ‫אסן‬, but too much speculation is involved in either case. With regard to ‫דמים‬, PBH and Aramaic almost certainly played a significant role in the translation of our verse. It is obvious from the translator’s rendering of ‫ מגוללה בדמים‬as μετὰ καταλλαγῆς ἀποτείσουσιν that ‫דמים‬ Aramaic ‫דמים‬/‫( דמין‬see below) and rendered ‫ סאון סאן‬with the PBH/Aramaic word in mind. J. Margain, “Sémantique hébraïque l’apport des targums,” in Muraoka, ed., Studies in Ancient Hebrew Semantics, 14, offers a unique perspective, though it is somewhat speculative: “Pour montrer la densité du text, le targumiste «joue» avec les consonnes. Le cas d’Isaïe 9,4 est très éclairant à cet égard. L’hébreu donne: «car toute chassure produit un fracas (‫)כי כל סאון סאן ברעש‬,» alors que le targum se lit: «car tous faisaient du commerce avec malice (‫)ארי כל מיסבהון ומיתנהון ברשע‬.» On voit que seôn sōen a été rattaché à maśśā û-mattān, et que raaš est changé en reša.” 13.  Apparently, the Vg read ‫ סאון סאן‬as ‫אנוס אנס‬, lit., “violent [man] took by force.” ‫ אנס‬occurs twice in the OT, in Esth 1.8 and Dan 4.6 (Aramaic); ‫ אנוס‬is unattested in BH. It appears that Jerome turned to PBH to make sense of ‫( סאון סאן‬PBH ‫אנס‬, “take by force,” “oppress”; ‫“ אנוס‬one who acts violently”). 14.  E.g., ‫סאן‬/‫שדכה ;אסן‬/‫רעש ;שרפה‬/‫מגוללה ;רשע‬/‫נגלמה‬.

218

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

was rendered with the PBH and Aramaic sense of “payment,” “compensation,” or “monetary value,”15 since ἀποτίνω (“repay”) and καταλλαγή (“exchange,” “compensation,” “profit”) are distinctly mercantile terms.16 In PBH, ‫ ָּד ִמים‬means “price, value”17 and in Aramaic ‫ ָּד ִמין‬has a similar semantic range: “price, monetary value, payment.”18 Now, if ‫ דמים‬is the only acceptable case of PBH and/or Aramaic influence in LXX Isa 9.4 and all purported emendations and deletions are to be rejected or questioned, how do we account for the problematic first colon: (ὅτι πᾶσαν) στολήν ἐπισυνηγμένην δόλῳ? 4. Toward a Solution: Parallelism and PBH ‫גלם‬ It is apparent that the hapax legomena ‫ סאון‬and ‫ סאן‬were not known to the LXX translator, rendering the first colon all but incomprehensible. Of the two “unknown” words, ‫ סאון‬appears to have been resolved according to the parallelism with the common term ‫שמלה‬.19 If the translator relied on parallelism for help with ‫סאון‬, it comes as no surprise that he chose στολή, since ἱμάτιον and στολή are synonymous terms in the LXX (for the 31 occurrences of ‫ שמלה‬in the MT, the LXX usually has ἱμάτιον, but see Gen 15.22; 35.2; 41.14 and Deut 22.5 where ‫ שמלה‬is rendered στολή, the only other word used for ‫ שמלה‬in the LXX).20 The translator’s choice of ἀποτείσουσιν for ‫ מגוללה‬is interesting. The verb ‫ גלל‬occurs in Isaiah twice, here in 9.4 and also in 34.4 as ‫וְ נָ גֹּלּו‬, which the translator correctly renders with ἑλίσσω “roll up.”21 Why, then, did he translate what he presumably knew to mean “roll up” with ἀποτίνω 15.  Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, 313. 16.  Cf. A.Sept. 767 (mid-fourth century BCE), “For the compensation is heavy when curses uttered long ago are fulfilled.” In P.Hib. 1.100.4 (266 BCE), καταλλαγή refers to a premium on the exchange of goods. 17.  For example, 1Q27 f1ii.8 ‫“ דמי וכ[ול מח]יר לוא שוה‬value, and any price is not equal…” 18.  Cf. Sokoloff, Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, 152; Sokoloff, Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, 343; and Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, 313. 19.  For more about reliance on parallelism by the LXX translator, see Ziegler, Untersuchungen, 9–10, and Tov, “Did the Septuagint Translators always Understand?” 20.  Instead of simply repeating ἱμάτιον, the translator apparently chose the equivalent parallel term στολὴ. See Isa 2.16 where the translator repeats the unknown word with the known parallel term, and Isa 5.11; 21.4; 59.10 where a synonymous word is used to render an unknown parallel word, as is the case here in Isa 9.4. 21.  ἑλίσσω occurs only twice in the LXX, once in Isa 34.4 where the translator clearly knew the meaning of ‫גלל‬.



Section 5. Chapter 3. ‫םימד‬/‫ ללג‬

219

“repay” in Isa 9.4? There are three possible reasons. First, the commercial nature of PBH ‫ דמים‬and Aramaic ‫ דמין‬may have compelled the translator to insert a corresponding verb to make sense of the entire clause, even at the expense of translating ‫ מגוללה‬literally. Instead of ἑλίσσω “roll,” the translator has καὶ ἱμάτιον μετὰ καταλλαγῆς ἀποτείσουσιν “and [every] garment they will repay with compensation,” in order to maintain the mercantile imagery. This decision is indicative of the translator’s tendency to translate rather freely when faced with an unknown or difficult word as against translating a text literally.22 Secondly, with the commercial theme in mind, it is possible that the translator was also influenced by references to ‫“ חבל‬distraint”23 in the Pentateuch and elsewhere. Garments were often taken as collateral for debts and loans as Israelites were forbidden to exact interest from their compatriots. However, strict guidelines were set to prevent potentially oppressive and unethical claims of collateral (‫“ ולא תחבל בגד אלמנה‬do not take as collateral a widow’s garment” [Deut 24.17]; ‫אם חבל תחבל שלמת‬ ‫“ רעך עד בא השמש תשיבנו לו‬if you ever take your neighbour’s garment as collateral, you will return it to him before the sun goes down” [Exod 22.25–26]), and a scathing indictment is delivered by Amos to creditors who oppress the poor (‫“ ועל בגדים חבלים יטו אצל כל מזבח‬They stretch out beside every altar on garments taken as collateral” [Amos 2.8]). This is not to suggest that the translator is making an intentional allusion to Deut 24 or Exod 22; rather, due to the uncertainty of the text, his knowledge of ‫ חבל‬legislation in the Pentateuch may have influenced the nuances of his translation, especially in the light of PBH ‫ דמים‬and Aramaic ‫ דמין‬and the presumed commercial imagery.24 22.  Rodrigo Franklin de Sousa, Eschatology and Messianism in LXX Isaiah 1–12, LHBOTS 516 (New York: T&T Clark, 2010), 135–36, thinks that μετὰ καταλλαγῆς is an exegetical addition that helps clarify the difficult Hebrew in this verse. He adds that “the primary impact of the translation of these two verses (9.3–4) is to redefine the locus of the messianic liberating activity” (p. 136). 23.  For the view that ‫ חבל‬refers not to items taken as pledges but to those taken in distraint, see M. David, “Deux anciens termes bibliques pour le gage (‫עבוט‬, ‫)חבל‬,” Oudtestamentische Studiën 2 (1943): 79–86, and Jacob Milgrom, Cult and Conscience: The Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance, SJLA 18 (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 95–99. 24.  The financial nature of the context of vv. 3–4 may also have played a part in the rendering of ‫“ מגוללה‬rolled” by ἀποτείσουσιν “they will repay.” For example, ‫נֹגֵ ׂש‬ “oppressor” is rendered ἀπαιτούντες “exactors, tax-collectors” in v. 3, which suggests that the translator had in mind economic concerns (see LXX Isa 3.12 for a similar use of ἀπαιτούντες.

220

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

Thirdly, we may have yet another case of PBH influencing the LXX translator. It is possible that the PBH meaning of ‫ גלם‬may have crossed the translator’s mind as he wrestled with this text. PBH ‫ גלם‬and ‫ גלל‬were almost interchangeable terms: ‫ גלל‬meant “roll,” “fold/unfold” and ‫“ גלם‬roll up,” “to unshape” (cf. 2 Kgs 2.8, the only place where ‫ גלם‬occurs in BH, also rendered “roll”). Somewhere in the ‫גלל‬/‫ גלם‬semantic continuum, ‫גלם‬ took on an additional meaning—“calculate in a lump,” “fix an arbitrary price”—referring to the calculation of a cost or price by means of rolling or shaping something (e.g. b. B. Qam. 113b “he was permitted to force an arbitrary price on him”).25 Admittedly, ‫ גלם‬and ‫ גלל‬are not identical, and it is virtually impossible to determine whether this particular meaning of ‫גלם‬ was in use at the time of the Greek translation. But if this latter meaning was then current, it is possible that PBH ‫ גלם‬convinced the translator to go with ἀποτίνω over ἑλίσσω and so attribute commercial language to the text.26 Finally, how do we explain ἐπισυνηγμένην δόλῳ for ‫ ?סאן ברעש‬As previously mentioned, it appears that the LXX translator knew ‫רעש‬, as he correctly renders it by “earthquake” (σεισμός) and “shaking” (σείων) in other occurrences in Isaiah (cf. 13.13; 14.16; 24.18; 29.6). But the hapax legomenon ‫ סאן‬was not known to the translator, forcing him to turn to alternative translational possibilities. Below is a chart summarising the process by which the translator may have rendered LXX Isa 9.4: 9.4a

9.4b

‫ס ֵֹאן ְּב ַר ַעׁש‬

‫ְסאֹון‬

ἐπισυνηγμένην δόλῳ [rendered by way of // from ‫גֹול ָלה ְב ָד ִמים‬ ָ ‫]מ‬ ְ

στολήν [// from ‫]ׂש ְמ ָלה‬ ִ

‫ְב ָד ִמים‬

‫גֹול ָלה‬ ָ ‫ְמ‬

‫ִׂש ְמ ָלה‬

μετὰ καταλλαγῆς [reading PBH ‫]דמים‬

ἀποτείσουσιν [following ‫ דמים‬and/or reading PBH ‫]גלם‬

ἱμάτιον [with MT]

With the exception of the introductory ‫( כי כל‬which agrees with MT), the translation of the first colon was rendered exclusively by way of parallelism with the second colon. Instead of rendering ‫ רעש‬as σεισμός and making an educated guess on the unknown ‫סאן‬, the translator chose to render the phrase ‫ סאן ברעש‬on the basis of the parallelism with 25.  Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, 250. 26.  That the translator altered consonants to make sense of difficult or problematic words is not surprising and has been mentioned before. See Section 5, “Word Manipulation,” for a discussion of the various ways the translator of LXX Isa alters consonants to make better sense of (a) word(s).



Section 5. Chapter 3. ‫םימד‬/‫ ללג‬

221

‫מגוללה בדמים‬, a phrase which he represented by μετὰ καταλλαγῆς ἀποτείσουσιν. The translator turned again to parallelism for the problematic ‫סאן ברעש‬. Apparently, his confidence in ‫ מגוללה בדמים‬as being appropriately rendered by μετὰ καταλλαγῆς ἀποτείσουσιν “they will repay with reconciliation” was strong enough for him to overlook ‫ רעש‬and devise the analogous phrase ἐπισυνηγμένην δόλῳ “gathered with trickery” for ‫סאן ברעש‬. In short, despite the numerous differences between the MT and LXX of Isa 9.4, the divergences can be explained by way of two translational phenomena: the influence of PBH and Aramaic on the translator, and reliance on parallelism for unknown words.

Section 6 C o n c lusio n

The present study focusses on the translation of LXX Isa in the light of the linguistic situation of the late Second Temple period in order to determine how the development of the Hebrew language and the emergence of Aramaic as the lingua franca in the Near East influenced the Greek translator of this Old Testament book. I shall briefly summarise my findings and offer further concluding observations on the text of LXX Isa and its translator. 1. Summary In Section 1 I begin with a brief overview of semantic change in relation to the Hebrew language and the implications of this for LXX Isa. This is followed with a survey of the various stages of the Hebrew language in order to help better understand the nature of semantic development within Hebrew. I then review the history of scholarship on the subject of PBH and Aramaic influence on the LXX translators and conclude with some observations on whether or not LXX Isa should be taken primarily as a translation or as a coherent, theological document on its own account. In Sections 2 to 4 I discuss specific examples divided according to the type of influence, whether PBH, Aramaic or both. In Section 2, I look at three cases involving influence from PBH lexemes. Chapter 1 of this section deals with the important term ‫צדקה‬. As I argue, there is clear semantic development in this lexeme from the BH sense of “rightness” to a concretisation of this sense in the meanings “alms, charity,” as in PBH. The translator follows the PBH meaning in three instances in LXX Isa (1.27; 28.17; 59.16), despite the fact that it changes the meanings of these verses. In the second and third chapters, respectively, I look at the lexemes ‫ כשל‬and ‫ברר‬. In both cases, the translator renders the Hebrew

224

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

word on the basis of a meaning that is predominant in PBH but is rare in BH. The simple solution would be to characterise such instances as “free renderings,” but a careful analysis of the lexical evidence shows a gradual semantic development in both lexemes, whereby a once predominant meaning in BH obsolesces and becomes virtually non-existent in PBH, while a rare meaning in BH becomes the primary sense in PBH. Section 3 examines the issue of Aramaic influence on LXX Isa by looking at two cases where the Greek reflects an Aramaic lexeme: the rendering of ‫ דכא‬in LXX Isa 53.10 and of ‫ רעי‬in LXX Isa 44.28. First, I raise the matter of Aramaic grammatical forms that are reflected in the translation of LXX Isa. Space has not permitted an in-depth analysis of the influence of such forms; I offer some preliminary thoughts and provide some examples of grammatical influence in LXX Isa. As far as lexemes are concerned, the rendering of ‫ רעי‬in LXX Isa 44.28 is particularly complex, as it involves several homonyms, apparent confusion of the letters ‫ר‬/‫ד‬, and also exegetical and theological considerations. On balance, however, the evidence suggests that φρονεῖν in LXX Isa 44.28 is influenced by Aramaic. It is possible that the translator consciously turned to Aramaic in order to make a particular exegetical point. Section 4 looks at cases where the influence may stem from either PBH or Aramaic, or from both. In the first chapter, I look at the relative particle ‫אשר‬, which is rendered in LXX Isa 23.8 by the Greek verb ἰσχύω “be strong,” a word with semantic correspondence to PBH and Aramaic ‫“ אשר‬be strong,” “consider, establish (something to be true).” In the second chapter I discuss the hapax ‫ ֲח ַשׁש‬in Isa 33.11, where it appears that the translator did not know the word and therefore turned for help to the PBH and Aramaic root ‫“ חשש‬feel, sense,” “consider,” “suffer.” Chapter 3 considers two possible cases in one verse, Isa 4.2: ‫צבי‬, rendered by βουλή “counsel” and ‫צמח‬, rendered by ἐπιλάμπω “shine.” With regard to the first, it is possible that Aramaic ‫ צבא‬influenced the translator, but I conclude that βουλή reflects the translator’s theological outlook. The rendering of ‫ צמח‬by ἐπιλάμπω “shine,” however, is a straightforward case where the translator renders the Hebrew word on the basis of the PBH and Aramaic meaning. Section 5 deals with cases where the translator appears to have in mind a word that differs consonantally from the Hebrew of the MT. That is, the Greek translation reflects a word that is both different in form and takes on a meaning that is attested only in PBH and/or Aramaic. In the main, these cases involve rare Hebrew words that were, in all probability, unknown to the translator, leaving him with no choice but to venture a guess as to



Section 6. Conclusion

225

the root or morphological components of the word. As I have argued, the translator of LXX Isa occasionally manipulated the consonants of unknown or problematic words to make sense of the text before him. I have highlighted the most common categories of word manipulation (or, in the case of unconscious changes, confusion), giving several examples of each. The categories are: ‫ד‬/‫ ר‬confusion; faulty word-division; sibilant confusion; “biliteral exegesis”; and the transposition of consonants. Further study of each of these categories would be productive and would shed light on the modus operandi of the translator. This fifth section includes three cases where the translator engages in “word manipulation” and renders the word on the basis of a PBH or Aramaic lexeme. In the first chapter I argue that the hapax ‫“ שכיה‬ship” in Isa 2.16 is translated with ‫“ סכה‬look out, hope” in mind, a verb that is attested only in PBH and Aramaic. The second chapter discusses the enigmatic translation in LXX Isa 51.20 ὡς σευτλίον ἡμίεφθον “like a halfcooked beet” for MT ‫כתוא מכמר‬. I maintain that the translator rendered the phrase with PBH )‫“ תיא(ה‬root of crowfoot” and PBH/Aramaic ‫כמר‬ “heat, shrink” in mind. In the final chapter I address the problematic Greek translation in LXX Isa 9.4 by suggesting that the translator read ‫גֹול ָלה‬ ָ ‫ ְמ‬in the light of PBH ‫“ גלם‬calculate in a lump,” “fix an arbitrary price.” 2. Concluding Observations In the last century or so, studies in LXX Isa have increasingly focussed on reading the Greek text as a literary or theological work in its own right, with the emphasis on how and to what extent the translator reinterpreted the book of Isaiah. Most notably, Seeligmann and van der Kooij argued that the translator’s approach to the biblical text was that of Erfüllungsinterpretation, and that he was responsible for reinterpreting the Scriptures for his immediate community and with reference to contemporary circumstances and events. Baer noted how this explains the tendency of the translator to actualise prophecy and ameliorate texts that are at odds with his theology. However, Troxel has recently offered a different assessment, viewing the translator primarily as a scholar associated with the Museum of Alexandria, whose chief aim was to translate the book of Isaiah and make it accessible and intelligible for his audience. That is not to say that those in support of the reinterpretation model would disagree entirely with Troxel, and vice versa; the distinction is one of emphasis.

226

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

Also concerned with the reinterpretation of Scripture, albeit with a specific topic in mind, are the studies by de Sousa and Ngunga, who have looked at the phenomenon of “messianising” translations in LXX Isa. Ngunga is optimistic in his estimation of the messianic element in the translation and contends that a profile of a royal messianic figure can be constructed on the basis of several “messianic” texts.1 De Sousa is more cautious in his approach, wanting to focus more on the translator’s awareness of the context. He concludes that “the translator’s purpose was to offer an intelligible and reliable representation of the Hebrew text as he understood it,” adding the caveat that the inclusion of “foreign” elements, such as post-biblical exegetical traditions, in the process of translation is to be expected.2 The nature of this study is more philologically focussed than those just mentioned insofar as it involves detailed linguistic analysis and foraging for lexical evidence. Nevertheless, a few general observations can be made on broader questions, such as the role of the scribe as translator or exegete and the extent to which LXX Isa reflects his theology. With regard to the discussion on Erfüllungsinterpretation and the role of the scribe/grammarian as translator, the results of this study appear to support Troxel and, to a lesser degree, de Sousa, for the following reasons. First, the divergent Greek renderings in LXX Isa that have been characterised as messianic or reinterpreted Scripture may actually result from the translator’s attempt to make sense of an unknown or problematic word. For example, it has been argued that, despite the semantic parallels between φρονεῖν and Aramaic ‫רעי‬, φρονεῖν is to be interpreted in relation to other texts pertaining to Cyrus. This may be plausible from a literary analysis point of view, but it does not take into consideration basic issues at the translational level: for example, did the translator know the Hebrew word ‫ רעי‬or is the Greek rendering an educated guess on the basis of the context? Did linguistic interference from other languages or strata of Hebrew influence the translation?3 Second, most of the cases of “word manipulations” in LXX Isa do not appear to serve an actualising purpose, which is suggestive of a translator who was intent on delivering an intelligible and accurate translation rather than of an exegete whose role was to actualise or explicate the prophetic message of Isaiah. I am not denying the possibility of messianic or 1.  Abi Ngunga, Messianism in the Old Greek of Isaiah: An Intertextual Analysis, FRLANT 245 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 209. 2.  De Sousa, Eschatology and Messianism, 158. 3.  So Ngunga, Messianism, 208.



Section 6. Conclusion

227

exegetically motivated translations. There are, of course, clear examples of actualisation and amelioration in LXX Isa,4 but this does not negate the fact that the translator’s priority was to provide an accurate translation. Additionally, this study points up the complex linguistic situation in the late Second Temple period and beyond—a situation widely acknowledged by scholars of Qumran and other Post-biblical Hebrew texts, but less so by those engaged in Septuagint studies. Embedded in the minutiae of the text of LXX Isa are clues that tell us something about the translator himself: his linguistic background, his approach to translation, and even his theology. The main contribution of the present study is in what it tells us about the linguistic situation in which the translator of LXX Isa operated. It suggests that the translator may have been primarily an Aramaic speaker, as evidenced by the many grammatical and lexical Aramaisms reflected in the Greek. This study has focused on lexical and semantic influences, but there are many Aramaic grammatical influences on the LXX translators that may have been a part of the literary, and even colloquial, register (for example, the Aramaic determined ending ‫א‬-; the masculine plural absolute ending ‫ן‬-; gentilic adjectives ending in -αιος, possibly derived from the Aramaic nisbe-ending; and Greek transliterations reflecting Aramaic spellings).5 Of the lexical cases discussed in this study, at least eight appear to exhibit influence from Aramaic: ‫( דכא‬p. 121); ‫רעה‬/‫( רעי‬p. 136); ‫( אשר‬p. 149); ‫( חשש‬p. 161); ‫ צבי‬and ‫( צמח‬p. 174); ‫( שכיות‬p. 191); and ‫( דמים‬p. 214). In some of these cases, it is difficult to determine whether the Greek rendering reflects Aramaic or PBH influence (or perhaps both), but this ambiguity highlights the complexities involved in translation from BH into Greek, and the fluid nature of the linguistic situation in the later Second Temple period. At the very least, it is apparent that the translator had a working knowledge of Aramaic to the extent that he turned to Aramaic meanings when faced with a word or phrase that, from a modern philological perspective, he did not know. With regard to the translator’s knowledge of Hebrew, I concur with Baer that he was competent but

4.  Cf. Baer, When We All Go Home. 5.  This study has focused on lexical and semantic influences, but there are many Aramaic grammatical influences on the the LXX translators that may have been a part of the literary, and even colloquial, register. E.g., the Aramaic determined ending ‫א‬-; the masculine plural abstract ending ‫ן‬-; gentilic adjectives ending in -αιος, possibly derived from the Aramaic nisbe-ending; and Greek transliterations reflecting Aramaic spellings. For more on this, see the discussion on pp. 113–15; and Joosten, “The Aramaic Background of the Seventy,” especially pp. 56–58.

228

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

equally capable of “fertile misinterpretation” and blatant mistakes, this partly because the Hebrew language had undergone significant change, including semantic change, as it progressed from BH to the Hebrew of the translator’s own time, but also because he was inclined to think in Aramaic as well as Hebrew. Section 5, “Word Manipulation,” also testifies to the limitations of the translator’s competence in BH and to the challenges of translation work in the Second Temple period.

A p p en d i c e s

Appendix 1. Index of Examples in LXX Isa I have compiled all Aramaic and PBH renderings in LXX Isa known to me in this index. Many have been mentioned or discussed by others, and I have provided one or two sources of the more helpful discussions for each case where available. It goes without saying that some are more convincing than others, and each case needs to be examined in depth in order to determine whether PBH or Aramaic influence may have influenced the translator. The most convincing cases are discussed in this volume, but many are inconclusive, lacking sufficient evidence. Nevertheless, I have included them in this index as a reference and for further study. Isaiah

BH Lexeme in MT

Greek Rendering

PBH/Aramaic Lexeme

1.271

‫צדקה‬ “righteousness”

ἐλεημοσύνη “alms, charity”

2.6

‫“ שפק‬clap”2

2.16

‫“ ְׂש ִכּיֹות‬craft”

πολλὰ γενήθη ‫“ שפק‬be αὐτοῖς “many sufficient” were born to them” θέα “sight, view” ‫“ סכי‬look out, see”

4.2

‫“ צמח‬sprout”

ἐπιλάμπω “shine”

‫“ צדקה‬alms, charity”

‫“ צמח‬shine”

1.  See Isa 28.17 and 59.16 for the same rendering. 2.  Cf. 1 Kgs 20.10 for possible “Aramaic” sense of ‫שפק‬.

Source

pp. 35–65; Hatch (1889), 50; Olley (1979), 68–76. Barr (1968), 336.

pp. 191–200; Delitzsch (1881), 124; Ottley (1906), 114. pp. 174–80; Frankel (1841), 201; Joosten (2001), 169.

230

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew ‫“ צבי‬ornament”

βουλή “counsel,” ‫“ צבא‬choose” “will”

8.15

‫“ פלט‬save, escape” ‫שרפים‬ “Seraphim” ‫“ כשל‬stumble”

ἐκβάλλω “cast out, reject” σεραφιν “Seraphin” ἀδυνατέω “be weak”

8.213

‫“ אלהים‬god(s)”

9.4

‫“ דמים‬blood”

5.29 6.2

‫“ גלל‬roll” 13.2 14.14

‫“ שפה‬be wind-swept” ‫“ גר‬stranger”

16.6

‫“ עברת‬wrath”

17.4

‫“ דלל‬be brought low” ‫“ רזה‬grow thin”

18.1

‫“ צלצל‬whirring”

18.7

‫“ בזא‬divide”

‫“ פלט‬discharge, give out” Aram. m.pl.abs. ending ‫“ כשל‬be weak,” “overthrow” (Hiphil)

pp. 174–80; Williamson (2006), 302. p. 118 p. 115

pp. 66–87; Muraoka (1983), 33; Joosten (1998), 68. Persian loanword p. 115; Marshall παταχρα “idol” (2009), 2. ‫“ דמים‬payment, pp. 214–18; καταλλαγῆς Fischer (1930), compensation” “exchange for 24; Seeligman money, profit” (1948), 50. ἀποτίνω “repay” ‫“ גלם‬calculate,” pp. 218–22 “fix a price” pp. 31–32 πεδινος “flat, ‫“ שפי‬make level” smooth, level” pp. 115–16; γιώρας “stranger” translit. Aram. ‫“ גיורא‬stranger” Fischer (1930), 28. ἐξαίρω “remove, ‫“ בער‬remove” + p. 188 lift up” metathesis p. 32 ἐκλείπω “cease ‫“ דלל‬make to exist, become scarce,” “become extinct”5 thin” p. 118 n. 22; σέιω “shake” ‫“ רזי‬be violent, Tov and Polak cause damage” (2009), Isa 17.4.6 Barr (1968), 334. πλοῖον “boat”; θ´ ‫“ צלצלא‬boat” πλοίοις p. 187; Fischer ἐν μέρει “in a ‫ גוא‬+ ‫ ב‬prep. (1930), 34. part” + “inner part, belly”

3.  Cf. Isa 37.38. 4.  See also LXX Exod 12.19. 5.  Cf. LXX Isa 19.6 and 38.14. 6.  Emanuel Tov and Frank Polak, eds., The Revised CATSS Hebrew/Greek Parallel Text, Accordance 7.4.2. (Almonte Springs, FL: Oak Tree Software, Inc., 2009), see under Isa 17.4.



Appendices 22.3

23.8

‫“ יחד‬together”

οἱ ἁλόντες ‫“ אחד‬seize, “those who were capture” caught” ‫ אשר‬relative p.n. ἰσχύω “be ‫“ אשר‬be strong” strong”

25.8

‫“ נצח‬eternity”

29.14

‫“ פלא‬be wonderful”

33.11

‫“ חשש‬chaff, dry grass”

38.137 ‫“ שלם‬make peace” 38.16

‫“ חיה‬live”

41.25

‫ויאת‬

44.28

‫“ רעי‬my shepherd”

46.5

‫“ דמה‬be alike”

49.2 51.8

‫“ ברר‬cleanse” ‫“ ָעׁש‬moth”

51.20

‫“ כתוא מכמר‬like an antelope in a net”

ἰσχύω “be strong” μετατίθημι “remove, change” αἰσθάνομαι “perceive”

‫“ נצח‬be victorious” ‫“ פלא‬remove, put away”

231 pp. 127–28; Fischer (1930), 27. pp. 149–60; Fischer (1930), 39. p. 117; Fischer (1930), 41. Fischer (1930), 46.

pp. 161–73; Ziegler (1934), 9–10. παραδίδωμι ‫“ שלם‬surrender, p. 118; Marti “hand over, give betray, give up” (1900), 262; Duhm (1922), up” 280. Tov and Polak ἀναγγέλλω ‫“ חוי‬show, tell” (2009), Isa “report, 38.16. announce” Jastrow (1903), τὸν ἀπὸ βορρᾶ ‫ יָת‬Aram. 602; GKC “the one from accusative §117a. the North” particle φρονεῖν “think, ‫רעה‬/‫“ רעי‬think, pp. 136–46; G. R. Driver be wise” consider” (1935), 81–83; Jellicoe (1968), 326. p. 185 πλανάω ‫“ רמה‬deceive” + “deceive” ‫ד‬/‫ ר‬confusion pp. 88–110 ἐκλέγω “choose” ‫“ ברר‬choose” p. 189; Fischer χρόνος “time” ‫“ ָׁש ָעה‬hour, (1930), 61–62. moment” + metathesis σευτλίον ‫“ תיאה‬crowfoot”; pp. 201–13; Frankel (1841), ἡμίεφθον “beet ‫“ כמר‬cook” 201. half-boiled” ‫חשש‬/‫“ חוש‬feel, suffer”

7.  See also Josh 10.1; 1 Sam 20.30; 2 Sam 2.19.

232

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew

53.10

‫“ דכא‬crush”

καθαρίζω “cleanse”

‫“ דכי‬cleanse, be pure”

56.1

‫צדקה‬ “righteousness”

ἔλεος “mercy”

‫“ צדקה‬alms, charity”

63.1

‫“ צעה‬tilt,” “marching” ‫ֵד ָראֹון‬ “abhorrence”

βίᾳ “force, violence” εἰς ὅρασιν “(they shall become) a spectacle”

‫“ עצה‬oppress” + metathesis ‫ ראה‬+ ‫ = ד‬rel. p.n. + “see”

66.24

pp. 121–35; Duhm (1922), 403; Fischer (1930), 9. pp. 35–65; Hatch (1889), 50; Olley (1979), 68–76. p. 189 pp. 118, 185

Appendix 2. ‫ ברר‬in the Ancient Versions Below are examples where ‫ ברר‬is rendered with the LBH/PBH meaning “choose, select” by the translators of the ancient versions. Some of the translations provided do not necessarily reflect the later meaning, but are included for the purposes of comparison: 2 Sam 22.278 MT: ‫עם נבר תתבר ועם עקש תתפל‬ LXX: καὶ μετὰ ἐκλεκτοῦ ἐκλεκτὸς ἔσῃ καὶ μετὰ στρεβλοῦ στρεβλωθήσῃ Vg: cum electo electus eris et cum perverso perverteris Tg: ‫יעקב דהליך בברירותא קדמך בחרתא בנוהי מכל עממיא אפרישתא זרעיה‬ ‫מכל פסולא‬ Syr: ‫ܘܥܡ ܓܒܝܐ ܬܗܘܐ ܓܒܐ ܘܥܡ ܥܩܝ�ܡܐ ܬܬܥܩܡ‬ Isa 49.2 MT: ‫וישימני לחץ ברור באשפתו הסתירני‬ LXX: ἔθηκέν με ὡς βέλος ἐκλεκτὸν καὶ ἐν τῇ φαρέτρᾳ αὐτοῦ ἐσκέπασέν με Vg:9 et posuit me sicut sagittam electam in faretra sua abscondit me Tg: ‫ושויני כגיר בחיר דבבית אזנין מסתר‬ Syr: ‫ܥܒܕܢܝ ܐܝܟ ܓܐܪܐ ܓܒܝܐ ܘܒܩܛܪܩܗ ܣܬܪܢܝ‬

8.  Cf. Ps 18.27, where ‫ עם נבר תתברר‬is also rendered καὶ μετὰ ἐκλεκτοῦ ἐκλεκτὸς ἔσῃ; Tg Ps 18.27 is similarly rendered: ‫עם יעקב דהוה בריר קדמך בחרתא‬ ‫ ;בנוי מן כל עממיא ואפרשתא זרעיה מן כל פסילא‬the Vg of Ps 17.27 is identical with 2 Sam 22.27 with the exception of the last word which has pervertes; the Syr is slightly different in Ps 18.27, ‫ܘܥܡ ܓܒܝܐ ܬܬܓܒܐ ܘܥܡ ܥܩܝ�ܡܐ ܬܬܦܬܠ‬, with the Ithpaal of ‫ܓܒܐ‬. 9.  There are no significant variants in the VL as it pertains to ‫ברור‬.



Appendices

233

Isa 52.11 MT: ‫הברו נשאי כלי יהוה‬ LXX: ἀφορίσθητε οἱ φέροντες τὰ σκεύη κυρίου α´ and θ´: ἐκλεκτώθητε οἱ φέροντες τὰ σκεύη κυρίου VL-K and C:10 separamini qui fertis vasa domini Vg: mundamini qui fertis vasa domini Tg: ‫אתבחרו נטלי מני בית מקדשא דיוי‬ Syr: ‫ܘܐܬܓܒܘ ܫܩܝܠܝ �ܡܐܢܘܗܝ ܕܡܪܝܐ‬ Jer 4.11 MT: ‫לוא לזרות ולוא להבר‬ LXX: οὐκ εἰς καθαρὸν οὐδ᾿ εἰς ἅγιον σ´: οὐ τοῦ λικμῆσαι οὐδὲ τοῦ καθαρίσαι Vg: non ad ventilandum et ad purgandum Tg: ‫לא למדרי ולא לבררא‬ Syr: ‫�ܠܐ ܠܡܕܪܐ ܘ�ܠܐ ܠܡܚܡܠ‬ Jer 51.11 MT: ‫הברו החצים מלאו השלטים‬ LXX: παρασκευάζετε τὰ τοξεύματα πληροῦτε τὰς φαρέτρας (Jer 28.11) Vg: acuite sagittas implete faretras Tg: ‫שנינו גרריא מלו שלטיא‬ Syr: ‫ܟܢܫܘ ܫܠܛܐ ܡܠܘ ܓܐܪܐ‬ Ezek 20.38a MT: ‫וברותי מכם המרדים והפושעים בי‬ LXX: καὶ ἐκλέξω ἐξ ὑμῶν τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς καὶ τοὺς ἀφεστηκότας Vg: et eligam de vobis transgressores et impios Tg: ‫ואפריש מנכון דמרדו ושקרו במימרי‬ Syr: ‫ܘܐܓܒܐ ܡܢܟܘܢ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܡܪܕܝܢ ܘܡܥܠܝܢ ܒܝ‬ Zeph 3.9 MT: ‫כי אז אהפך אל עמים שפה ברורה‬ LXX: ὅτι τότε μεταστρέψω ἐπὶ λαοὺς γλῶσσαν εἰς γενεὰν αὐτῆς α´ and θ´: τότε στρέψω πρὸς πάντας τοὺς λαοὺς χεῖλος ἐξειλεγμένον σ´: τότε μεταστρέψω ἐν τοῖς λαοῖς χεῖλος καθαρόν Vg: quia tunc reddam populis labium electum ut vocent omnes in nomine Domini et serviant ei umero uno Tg: ‫ארי בכין אשני על עממיא ממלל חד בחיר‬ Syr: ‫ܘܗܝܕܝܢ ܐܗܦܟ ܥܠ ܥܡ�ܡܐ ܣܦܬܐ ܓܒܝܬܐ‬

10.  VL-X: separamini qui dominica vasa portatis; VL-O: separamini qui portatis vasa domini.

234

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew Job 33.3 MT: ‫ודעת שפתי ברור מללו‬ LXX: σύνεσις δὲ χειλέων μου καθαρὰ νοήσει Vg: et sententiam labia mea puram loquentur Tg: ‫ומנדע שפוותי בריר מלילו‬ Syr: ‫ܘܓܒܐ ܗܘ �ܡܐܡܪܐ ܕܣܦܘܬܝ‬ Qoh 3.18 MT: ‫לברם האלהים‬ LXX: ὅτι διακρινεῖ αὐτοὺς ὁ θεός Vg: ut probaret eos Deus Tg: ‫די ייתי עילויהון מכתשין ומרעין בישין בגין לנסואיהון ובגין למבחנהון‬ Syr: ‫“( ܕܒܪܐ ܐܢܘܢ ܐܠܗܐ‬Creavit illos Deus”) Dan 11.35 MT: ‫לצרוף בהם ולברר וללבן‬ LXX: εἰς τὸ καθαρίσαι ἑαυτοὺς καὶ εἰς τὸ ἐκλεγῆναι καὶ εἰς τὸ καθαρισθῆναι Vg: ut conflentur et eligantur et dealbentur Syr: ‫ܠܡܒܚܪ ܒܗܘܢ ܘܠܡܬܒܝܢܘ‬ Dan 12.10 MT: ‫יתבררו ויתלבנו ויצרפו רבים‬ LXX: ἕως ἂν πειρασθῶσι καὶ ἁγιασθῶσι πολλοί καὶ ἁμάρτωσιν οἱ ἁμαρτωλοί Vg: eligentur et dealbabuntur et quasi ignis probabuntur multi Syr: ‫ܢܬܓܒܘܢ ܘܢܬܚܘܪܘܢ ܘܢܬܒܚܪܘܢ ܣܓܝܐܐ‬ Neh 5.18 MT: ‫צאן שש בררות‬ LXX: πρόβατα ἓξ ἐκλεκτὰ Vg: sex electi exceptis Syr: ‫ܘܥܢܐ ܫܬ ܫܡܝܢܬܐ‬ 1 Chr 7.40 MT: ‫כל אלה בני אשר ראשי בית האבות ברורים גבורי חילים‬ LXX: πάντες οὗτοι υἱοὶ Ασηρ πάντες ἄρχοντες πατριῶν ἐκλεκτοὶ ἰσχυροὶ δυνάμει Vg: omnes hii filii Aser principes cognationum electi atque fortissimi Syr: ‫ܗܠܝܢ ܟܠܗܘܢ ܒܢܝ ܐܫܝܪ ܪܫܝ ܒܝܬ ܐܒܗܬܗܘܢ ܒܕܪܝܗܘܢ ܓܢܒܪܝ ܚܝ�ܠܐ‬ 1 Chr 9.22 MT: ‫כלם הברורים לשערים בספים‬ LXX: πάντες οἱ ἐκλεκτοὶ ταῖς πύλαις ἐν ταῖς πύλαις Vg: omnes hii electi in ostiarios per portas Syr: ‫ܟܠܗܘܢ ܗܠܝܢ ܿܩܝܡܝܢ ܒܬܪ̈ܥܐ ܒܡܢܝܢܐ‬



Appendices 1 Chr 16.41 MT: ‫ושאר הברורים אשר נקבו בשמות להדות ליהוה‬ LXX: καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ ἐκλεγέντες ἐπ᾿ ὀνόματος τοῦ αἰνεῖν τὸν κύριον Vg: et reliquos electos unumquemque vocabulo suo ad confitendum Domino Syr: ‫ܘܫܪܟܐ ܕܐܢܫܐ ܙܕܝܩ̈ܐ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܐܬܟܣܝܘ ܫܡܗ̈ܝܗܘܢ‬

Appendix 3. Other ‫ בר‬Lexemes Rendered as “Choice, Choose” Gen 35.16 [‫]כברה‬ MT: ‫ויסעו מבית אל ויהי עוד כברת הארץ לבוא אפרתה ותלד רחל ותקש בלדתה‬ Jerome, Qu. hebr. Gen. (on Gen 35.16): Aquila autem hoc ita transtulit et factum est καθ᾽ ὁδὸν τῆς γῆς, id est in itinere terrae, introiens in Ephratham. sed melius est, si transferatur ‘in electo terrae tempore cum introiret Ephratham’. Aquila has translated this and it was done “according to the road of the land” that is to say, on the road of the land, going into Ephratham. But it is better if it were translated, “In the chosen time of the land, when he went into Ephratham.” Gen 41.411 [‫]בריא‬ MT: ‫ותאכלנה הפרות רעות המראה ודקת הבשר את שבע הפרות יפת המראה‬ ‫והבריאת וייקץ פרעה‬ LXX: καὶ κατέφαγον αἱ ἑπτὰ βόες αἱ αἰσχραὶ καὶ λεπταὶ ταῖς σαρξὶν τὰς ἑπτὰ βόας τὰς καλὰς τῷ εἴδει καὶ τὰς ἐκλεκτάς ἠγέρθη δὲ Φαραω Exod 30.23 [‫]דרור‬ MT: ‫ואתה קח לך בשמים ראש מר דרור חמש מאות וקנמן בשם מחציתו חמשים‬ ‫ומאתים וקנה בשם חמשים ומאתים‬ LXX: καὶ σὺ λαβὲ ἡδύσματα τὸ ἄνθος σμύρνης ἐκλεκτῆς πεντακοσίους σίκλους καὶ κινναμώμου εὐώδους τὸ ἥμισυ τούτου διακοσίους πεντήκοντα καὶ καλάμου εὐώδους διακοσίους πεντήκοντα Vg: dicens sume tibi aromata prima et zmyrnae electae quingentos siclos et cinnamomi medium id est ducentos quinquaginta calami similiter ducentos quinquaginta 2 Sam 8.8 [‫]ברתי‬ MT: ‫ומבטח ומברתי ערי הדדעזר לקח המלך דוד נחשת הרבה מאד‬ LXX: καὶ ἐκ τῆς Μασβακ ἐκ τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν πόλεων τοῦ Αδρααζαρ ἔλαβεν ὁ βασιλεὺς Δαυιδ χαλκὸν πολὺν σφόδρα

11.  See LXX Gen 41.5, 7, 18 and 20 for similar renderings of ‫בריא‬.

235

236

The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew 1 Kgs 5.3 [‫]ברבר‬ MT: ‫עשרה בקר בראים ועשרים בקר רעי ומאה צאן לבד מאיל וצבי ויחמור‬ ‫וברברים אבוסים‬ LXX: καὶ δέκα μόσχοι ἐκλεκτοὶ καὶ εἴκοσι βόες νομάδες καὶ ἑκατὸν πρόβατα ἐκτὸς ἐλάφων καὶ δορκάδων καὶ ὀρνίθων ἐκλεκτῶν σιτευτά Ps 2.12(11) [‫]בר‬ MT: ‫נשקו בר פן יאנף‬ LXX: δράξασθε παιδείας μήποτε ὀργισθῇ κύριος α´: καταφιλήσατε ἐκλεκτῶς μήποτε ὀργισθῇ σ´: προσκυνήσατε καθαρῶς μήποτε ὀργισθῇ OL: adorate pure ne forte irascatur Vg: adprehendite disciplinam nequando irascatur Dominus Prov 17.3 [‫]בחן‬ MT: ‫מצרף לכסף וכור לזהב ובחן לבות יהוה‬ LXX: ὥσπερ δοκιμάζεται ἐν καμίνῳ ἄργυρος καὶ χρυσός οὕτως ἐκλεκταὶ καρδίαι παρὰ κυρίῳ Job 37.11 [prep. ‫ ב‬+ ‫]רי‬ MT: ‫אף ברי יטריח עב יפיץ ענן אורו‬ LXX: καὶ ἐκλεκτὸν καταπλάσσει νεφέλη διασκορπιεῖ νέφος φῶς αὐτοῦ Cant 6.912 [‫]בר‬ MT: ‫אחת היא יונתי תמתי אחת היא לאמה ברה היא ליולדתה ראוה בנות ויאשרוה‬ ‫מלכות ופילגשים ויהללוה‬ LXX: μία ἐστὶν περιστερά μου τελεία μου μία ἐστὶν τῇ μητρὶ αὐτῆς ἐκλεκτή ἐστιν τῇ τεκούσῃ αὐτῆς εἴδοσαν αὐτὴν θυγατέρες καὶ μακαριοῦσιν αὐτήν βασίλισσαι καὶ παλλακαὶ καὶ αἰνέσουσιν αὐτήν Vg: una est columba mea perfecta mea una est matris suae electa genetrici suae viderunt illam filiae et beatissimam praedicaverunt reginae et concubinae et laudaverunt eam Amos 5.11 [‫]בר‬ MT: ‫לכן יען בושסכם על דל ומשאת בר תקחו ממנו בתי גזית בניתם ולא תשבו בם‬ ‫כרמי חמד נטעתם ולא תשתו את יינם‬ LXX: διὰ τοῦτο ἀνθ᾿ ὧν κατεκονδυλίζετε πτωχοὺς καὶ δῶρα ἐκλεκτὰ ἐδέξασθε παρ᾿ αὐτῶν οἴκους ξυστοὺς ᾠκοδομήσατε καὶ οὐ μὴ κατοικήσητε ἐν αὐτοῖς ἀμπελῶνας ἐπιθυμητοὺς ἐφυτεύσατε καὶ οὐ μὴ πίητε τὸν οἶνον ἐξ αὐτῶν Vg: idcirco pro eo quod diripiebatis pauperem et praedam electam tollebatis ab eo domos quadro lapide aedificabitis et non habitabitis in eis vineas amantissimas plantabitis et non bibetis vinum earum

12.  Cf. Cant. 6.10 for the same phenomenon.



Appendices Hab 1.16 [‫]בריא‬ MT: ‫על כן יזבח לחרמו ויקטר למכמרתו כי בהמה שמן חלקו ומאכלו בראה‬ LXX: ἕνεκεν τούτου θύσει τῇ σαγήνῃ αὐτοῦ καὶ θυμιάσει τῷ ἀμφιβλήστρῳ αὐτοῦ ὅτι ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐλίπανεν μερίδα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰ βρώματα αὐτοῦ ἐκλεκτά Vg: propterea immolabit sagenae suae et sacrificabit reti suo quia in ipsis incrassata est pars eius et cibus eius electus Zech 11.16 [‫]בריא‬ MT: ‫כי הנה אנכי מקים רעה בארץ הנכחדות לא יפקד הנער לא יבקש והנשברת‬ ‫לא ירפא הנצבה לא יכלכל ובשר הבריאה יאכל ופרסיהן יפרק‬ LXX: διότι ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐξεγείρω ποιμένα ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν τὸ ἐκλιμπάνον οὐ μὴ ἐπισκέψηται καὶ τὸ διεσκορπισμένον οὐ μὴ ζητήσῃ καὶ τὸ συντετριμμένον οὐ μὴ ἰάσηται καὶ τὸ ὁλόκληρον οὐ μὴ κατευθύνῃ καὶ τὰ κρέα τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν καταφάγεται καὶ τοὺς ἀστραγάλους αὐτῶν ἐκστρέψει Ezek 27.24 [‫]ברמים‬ MT: ‫המה רכליך במכללים בגלומי תכלת ורקמה ובגנזי ברמים בחבלים חבשים‬ ‫וארזים במרכלתך‬ LXX: φέροντες ἐμπορίαν ὑάκινθον καὶ θησαυροὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς δεδεμένους σχοινίοις καὶ κυπαρίσσινα Vg: ipsi negotiatores tui multifariam involucris hyacinthi et polymitorum gazarumque pretiosarum quae obvolutae et adstrictae erant funibus cedros quoque habebant in negotiationibus tuis

237

B i b l i og ra p h y

Albright, W. F. “Baal-Zaphon.” Pages 1–14 in Festschrift Alfred Bertholet. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1950. Allen, Leslie C. The Greek Chronicles. 2 vols. VTSup 27. Leiden: Brill, 1974. Baer, David A. “What Happens in the End? Evidence for an Early Greek Recension in LXX Isaiah 66.” Pages 1–31 in The Old Greek of Isaiah: Issues and Perspectives. Papers Read at the Conference on the Septuagint of Isaiah, Held in Leiden 10–11 April 2008. Edited by Arie van der Kooij and Michaël N. van der Meer. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 55. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. ———. When We All Go Home: Translation and Theology in LXX Isaiah 56–66. JSOTSup 318. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001. Baltzer, Klaus. Deutero-Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 40–55. Hermeneia. Translated by Margaret Kohl. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999. Barr, James. Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968. ———. “Doubts about Homœophony in the Septuagint.” Textus 12 (1985): 1–77. ———. “Linguistic Literature, Hebrew.” EncJud 16 (1972): 1352–401. ———. The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations. MSU 15. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979. Barthélemy, Dominique. “Pourquoi la Torah a-t-elle été traduite en grec?” Pages 23–41 in On Language, Culture, and Religion: In Honor of Eugene A. Nida. Edited by M. Black and W. A. Smalley. Paris: Mouton, 1975. Beentjes, Pancratius C. The Book of Ben Sira In Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts. VTSup 68. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Bell, H., V. Martin, E. G. Turner and D. van Berchem, eds. The Abinnaeus Archive: Papers of a Roman Officer in the Reign of Constantine II. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962. Bendor, S. The Social Structure of Ancient Israel: The Institution of the Family (Beit ab) from the Settlement to the End of the Monarchy. Jerusalem Biblical Studies 7. Jerusalem: Simor, 1996. Bergey, R. “Late Linguistic Features in Esther.” JQR 75 (1984–85): 66–78. Bergsträsser, G. Hebräische Grammatik: 1 Teil: Einleitung, Schrift- und Lautlehre. Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1918. Bickerman, Elias. “The Septuagint as a Translation.” Pages 167–200 in Studies in Jewish and Christian History. Edited by A. Tropper. 2 vols. Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 68. Leiden: Brill, 2007.



Bibliography

239

Blank, Andreas. “Introduction: Historical Semantics and Cognition.” Pages 1–16 in Historical Semantics and Cognition. Edited by Andreas Blank and Peter Koch. Cognitive Linguistics Research 13. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1999. ———. “Why Do New Meanings Occur? A Cognitive Typology of the Motivations for Lexical Semantic Change.” Pages 61–90 in Historical Semantics and Cognition. Edited by Andreas Blank and Peter Koch. Cognitive Linguistics Research 13. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1999. Blau, J. “Zum Hebräisch der Übersetzer des Alten Testaments.” VT 6 (1956): 97–99. Blenkinsopp, J. Isaiah 40–55. AB 19A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 2002. Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Bloomfield, Leonard. Language. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1935. Borowski, Oded. Every Living Thing: Daily Use of Animals in Ancient Israel. Walnut Creek: Sage, 1997. Brady, Christian. “The Recovery of the Aramaic Root br ‘to cleanse’ and Another Possible Aramaising Rendering in the Septuagint.” Aramaic Studies 7 (2009): 155–62. Brock, S. “The Phenomenon of the Septuagint.” OtSt 17 (1972): 11–36. Brockington, L. H. “The Greek Translator of Isaiah and his Interest in ΔΟΞΑ.” VT 1 (1951): 23–32. Budde, Karl. “Zu Jesaja 1–5.” ZAW 49 (1931): 16–40, 182–211. Byun, Seulgi. “The Biblical Texts of Isaiah at Qumran.” Pages 65–80 in Bind Up the Testimony: Explorations in the Genesis of the Book of Isaiah. Edited by Daniel I. Block and Richard L. Schultz. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2015. Caird, G. B. “Homœophony 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. SJLA 21. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Cansdale, George. Animals of Bible Lands. Exeter: Paternoster, 1970. Cheyne, T. K. The Book of the Prophet Isaiah: Critical Edition of the Hebrew Text. SBOT 10. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1899. Childs, B. S. Isaiah. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Chilton, Bruce D. The Isaiah Targum: Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and Notes. The Aramaic Bible 11. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1987. Collins, John J. Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Cook, John A. “Detecting Development in Biblical Hebrew Using Diachronic Typology.” Pages 83–85 in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew. Edited by Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Ziony Zevit. LSAWS 8. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012. Cooke, G. A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936. Crawford, O. S. G. “Note by Editor.” Antiquity 3 (1929): 400–401. Dahood, Mitchell. Psalms 1–50: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. AB 16. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965. David, M. “Deux anciens termes bibliques pour le gage (‫עבוט‬, ‫)חבל‬.” OtSt 2 (1943): 79–86. Davies, Philip. In Search of “Ancient Israel.” JSOTSup 148. Sheffield: JSOT, 1992. Delitzsch, Franz. Biblical Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah. 2 vols. Foreign Biblical Library. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1881. ———. Biblischer Commentar über den Propheten Jesaia. Leipzig: Dörffling & Franke, 1869.

240 Bibliography Dillman, August, Der Prophet Jesaia. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament. 5th ed. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1890. Dines, Jennifer M. The Septuagint. Understanding the Bible and its World. London and New York: T&T Clark, 2004. Dittenberger, W., ed. Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1915–24. Dodd, C. H. The Bible and the Greeks. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935. Driver, G. R. “Confused Hebrew Roots.” Pages 73–83 in Occident and Orient: Being Studies in Semitic Philology and Literature, Jewish History and Philosophy and Folklore in the Widest Sense, in Honour of Haham Dr. M. Gaster’s 80th Birthday. Edited by B. Schindler. London: Taylor’s Foreign Press, 1936. ———. “Difficult Words in the Hebrew Prophets.” Pages 52–72 in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy: Presented to Theodore H. Robinson on his Sixty-fifth Birthday, August 9th, 1946. Edited by H. H. Rowley. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1950. ———. “Hebrew Scrolls.” JTS ns 3 (1951): 17–30. ———. “Linguistic and Textual Problems: Isaiah I–XXXIX.” JTS 38 (1937): 36–50. Driver, S. R. An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913. 1st ed. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1891. Drower, E. S., and R. Macuch. A Mandaic Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon, 1963. Duhm, Bernhard. Das Buch Jesaia. Handkommentar zum Alten Testament 1. 4th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1922. Ehrlich, Arnold Bogumil. Randglossen zur Hebräischen Bibel: textkritisches, sprachliches und sachliches. IV, Jesaia, Jeremia. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1912. Eichhorn, J. G. Einleitung in das Alte Testament, vol. 1. Göttingen: Weidmanns Erben & Reich, 1823. Elliger, Karl. “Der Sinn des hebräischen Wortes ‫ש ִפי‬: ְ Zugleichein Beitrag zum Verständnis der alten Versionen.” ZAW 83 (1971): 317–29. Elwolde, J. F. “Developments in Hebrew Vocabulary between Bible and Mishnah.” Pages 17–55 in The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Edited by T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde. STDJ 26. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Eskhult, Mats. “Traces of Linguistic Development in Biblical Hebrew.” HS 46 (2005): 353–70. Fahlgren, K. H. Ṣedākā nahestehende und entgegengesetzte Begriffe im Alten Testament. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1932. Feldmann, F. Das Buch Isaias. EHAT 14. Münster: Aschendorff, 1926. Fernández Marcos, Natalio. The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Versions of the Bible. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Fischer, J. In welcher Schrift lag das Buch Isaias den LXX vor? BZAW 56. Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1930. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Tobit. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. Flashar, M. “Exegetische Studien zum Septuagintapsalter.” ZAW 32 (1912): 241–68. Forbes, A. D. “The Diachrony Debate: Perspectives from Pattern Recognition and Meta Analysis.” HS 54 (2012): 7–42. Frankel, Z. Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta. Leipzig: F. C. W. Vogel, 1841. Fronzaroli, Pelio. “Problems of a Semitic Etymological Dictionary.” Pages 1–24 in Studies on Semitic Lexicography. QSem 2. Florence: Istituto di Linguistica e di Lingue Orientali, 1973. Gerleman, G. Studien zur alttestamentlichen Theologie. Franz Delitzsch Vorlesungen, 1978. Heidelberg: Schneider, 1980.



Bibliography

241

Gesenius, Friedrich Heinrich Wilhelm. Geschichte der hebräischen Sprache und Schrift: eine philologisch-historisch Einleitung in die Sprachlehren und Wörterbücher der hebräischen Sprache. Leipzig: F. C. W. Vogel, 1815. ———. Gesenius’s Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures. Translated by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles. London: S. Bagster, 1857. ———. Der Prophet Jesaia: Uebersetzt und mit einem vollständigen philologischkritischen und historischen Commentar begleitet von D. Wilhelm Gesenius, vol. 1. Leipzig: F. C. W. Vogel, 1821. Goldingay, J., and D. Payne. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 40–55, Volume 2. ICC. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Gordon, Cyrus H. Ugaritic Manual: Newly Revised Grammar, Texts in Transliteration, Cunei­form Selections, Paradigms, Glossary, Indices. Analecta Orientalia, Commen­ tationes Scientificae D. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1955. ———. “The Wine-Dark Sea.” JNES 37 (1978): 51–52. Gordon, R. P. “ ‘Converse Translation’ in the Targums and Beyond.” JSP 19 (1999): 3–21. Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H., ed. The Book of Isaiah. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1995. Govett, Robert. Isaiah Unfulfilled: Being an Exposition of the Prophet. London: James Nisbet, 1841. Gray, George Buchanan. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928. Grzega, Joachim. Bezeichnungswandel: Wie, Warum, Wozu? Ein Beitrag zur englischen und allgemeinen Onomasiologie. Heidelberg: Winter, 2004. Guggenheimer, H. W. The Jerusalem Talmud. First Order: Zeraïm; Tractates Terumot and Maserot. Studia Judaica. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002. Hackett, Jo Ann. “Hebrew (Biblical and Epigraphic).” Pages 139–56 in Beyond Babel: A Handbook for Biblical Hebrew and Related Languages. Edited by John Kaltner and Steven L. McKenzie. Resources for Biblical Study 42. Atlanta: SBL, 2002. Hanhart, Robert. “Die Septuaginta als Interpretation und Aktualisierung.” Pages 331–46 in Essays on the Bible and the Ancient World: Isaac Leo Seeligmann Volume. Edited by Alexander Rofé and Yair Zakovitch. Vol. 3, non-Hebrew section. Jerusalem: E. Rubinstein, 1983. Hatch, Edwin. Essays in Biblical Greek. Oxford: Clarendon, 1889. Helms, S. W. “Jawa Excavations 1975: Third Preliminary Report.” Levant 9 (1977): 21–35. Hendel, R. “Unhistorical Hebrew Linguistics: A Cautionary Tale.” The Bible and Inter­ pretation (September 2011). Online: http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/hen358022. shtml. Herz, N. “The Exaggeration of Errors in the Masoretic.” JTS 15 (1913): 258–64. Hicks, R. D., trans. Diogenes Laertius: Lives of Eminent Philosophers. 2 vols. LCL 184–85. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925. Hill, David. Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Ho, Ahuva. Ṣedeq and Ṣedaqah in the Hebrew Bible. American Universities Studies, Series VII, Theology and Religion 78. New York: Peter Lang, 1991. Hoenig, S. B. “Tarshish.” JQR 69 (1979): 181–82. Horbury, William. Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt: With an Index of the Jewish Inscriptions of Egypt and Cyrenaica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

242 Bibliography Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar. Psalmen 101–150. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Stuttgart: Herder, 2008. Hurvitz, Avi. “Continuity and Change in Biblical Hebrew: The Linguistic History of a Formulaic Idiom from the Realm of the Royal Court.” Pages 127–34 in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives. Edited by Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz. Jerusalem: Magnes, 2006. ———. “Continuity and Innovation in Biblical Hebrew: The Case of ‘Semantic Change’ in Post-Exilic Writings.” Pages 1–10 in Studies in Ancient Hebrew Semantics. Edited by T. Muraoka. Abr-Nahrain Supplement Series 4. Louvain: Peeters, 1995. ———. “The Evidence of Language in Dating the Priestly Code.” RB 81 (1974): 24–56. ———. “Hebrew and Aramaic in the Biblical Period: The Problem of ‘Aramaisms’ in Linguistic Research on the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 79–94 in Studies in Hebrew and Jewish Languages Presented to Shelomo Morag. Edited by M. Bar-Asher. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1996. ———. “Linguistic Criteria for Dating Problematic Biblical Texts.” Hebrew Abstracts 14 (1973): 74–79. ———. A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel (Paris: Gabalda, 1982). Hurwitz, Marshall S. “The Septuagint of Isaiah 36–39 in Relation to that of 1–35, 40–66.” HUCA 28 (1957): 75–83. Jastrow, Marcus. Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. London: Luzac, 1903. Jeansonne, Sharon Pace. The Old Greek Translation of Daniel 7–12. CBQMS 19. Washington, DC: Catholic Bible Association of America, 1988. Jellicoe, Sidney. The Septuagint and Modern Study. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968. Jepsen, Alfred. “ṣdq und ṣdqh im Alten Testament.” Pages 78–89 in Gottes Wort und Gottes Land: Hans-Wilhelm Hertzberg zum 70. Geburtstag am 16. Januar 1965 dargebracht von Kollegen, Freunden und Schülern. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965. Johnson, Bo. “Der Bedeutungsunterschied zwischen ṢÄDÄQ und ṢEDAQA.” ASTI 11 (Festschrift Gillis Gerleman, ed. Sten Hidal) (1978): 31–39. Joosten, Jan. “The Aramaic Background of the Seventy: Language, Culture and History.” BIOSCS 43 (2010): 52–72. ———. “Biblical Hebrew as Mirrored in the Septuagint: The Question of Influence from Spoken Hebrew.” Textus 21 (2002): 1–19. ———. “Exegesis in the Septuagint Version of Hosea.” Pages 62–85 in Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel. Edited by Johannes C. de Moor. Leiden: Brill, 1998. ———. “The Knowledge and Use of Hebrew in the Hellenistic Period: Qumran and the Septuagint.” Pages 115–30 in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Edited by T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde. Leiden: Brill, 2000. ———. “Language as Symptom: Linguistic Clues to the Social Background of the Seventy.” Textus 23 (2007): 69–80. ———. “On Aramaising Renderings in the Septuagint.” Pages 587–600 in Hamlet on a Hill: Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by Martin F. J. Baasten and W. Th. van Peursen. Leuven: Peeters, 2003.



Bibliography

243

———. “On the LXX Translators’ Knowledge of Hebrew.” Pages 165–78 in 10th Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Oslo, 1998. Edited by Bernard A. Taylor. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 51. Atlanta: SBL, 2001. ———. “Pseudo-classicisms in Late Biblical Hebrew, in Ben Sira, and in Qumran Hebrew.” Pages 146–59 in Sirach, Scrolls and Sages: Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah, Held at Leiden University, 15–17 December 1997. Edited by T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde. Leiden: Brill, 1999. ———. “Review of Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts: An Introduction to Approaches and Problems, vol. 2, by Ian Young, Robert Rezetko, with the Assistance of Martin Ehrensvärd.” Bibel und Babel 6 (2012): 535–42. Kaiser, Otto. Isaiah 13–39: A Commentary. London: SCM, 1974. Kaminka, Armand. Studien zur Septuaginta an der Hand der Zwölf Kleinen Propheten­ bücher. Schriften der Gesellschaft zur Forderung der Wissenschaft des Judentums. Frankfurt a.m.: J. Kauffman, 1928. Kautzsch, Edwin. Über die Derivate des Stammes ‫ צדק‬im alttestamentlichen Sprachgebrauch. Tübingen: L. F. Fues, 1881. Keown, G. L., P. J. Scalise and T. G. Smothers. Jeremiah 26–52. WBC 27. Dallas: Word, 1995. Kim, Dong-Hyuk. Early Biblical Hebrew, Late Biblical Hebrew, and Linguistic Variability: A Sociolinguistic Evaluation of the Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts. VTSup 156. Leiden: Brill, 2013. King, Philip J., and L. E. Stager, Life in Biblical Israel. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Kissane, Edward J. The Book of Isaiah. 2 vols. rev. ed. Dublin: Browne & Nolan, 1960. Klein, M. L. “Converse Translation: A Targumic Technique.” Biblica 57 (1976): 515–37. Koch, M. Tarschisch und Hispanien: Historische, geographische und namenkundliche Untersuchungen zur phönikischen Kolonisation der iberischen Halbinsel. Madrider Forschungen 14. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984. Koenig, Jean. L’Herméneutique analogique du judaïsme antique d’après les témoins textuels d’Isaïe. VTSup 33. Leiden: Brill, 1982. Kooij, A. van der. Die alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches: ein Beitrag zur Textgeschichte des Alten Testaments. OBO 35. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. ———. “The Old Greek of Isaiah in Relation to the Qumran Texts of Isaiah.” Pages 195–213 in Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings: Papers Presented to the International Symposium on the Septuagint and its Relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Writings. Edited by George J. Brooke and Barnabas Lindars. SBLSCS 33. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. ———. The Oracle of Tyre: The Septuagint of Isaiah XXIII as Version and Vision. VTSup 71. Leiden: Brill, 1998. ———. “Perspectives on the Study of the Septuagint: Who Are the Translators?” Pages 214–29 in Perspectives in the Study of the Old Testament and Early Judaism. Edited by Florentino García-Martínez and Ed Noort. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Koole, Jan L. Isaiah III: Volume 2 / Isaiah 49–55. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1998.

244 Bibliography Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Psalmen. Teilband 1: Psalmen 1–59. BKAT 15/1. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1961. ———. Psalmen. Teilband 2: Psalmen 60–150. BKAT 15/2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1978. Kuenen, A. National Religions and Universal Religions. The Hibbert Lectures 1882. London: Williams & Norgate, 1901. Kutscher, Eduard Yechezkel. A History of the Hebrew Language. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1982. ———. The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa). STDJ 6. Leiden: Brill, 1974. Laberge, Léo. La Septante d’Isaïe 28–33: Étude de tradition textuelle. Ottawa: CRU Saint-Paul, 1978. Lampe, G. W. H. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon, 1961. Leaney, A. R. C. The Rule of Qumran and Its Meaning: Introduction, Translation and Commentary. New Testament Library. London: SCM, 1966. Lindblom, Johannes. “Der Ausspruch über Tyrus in Jes. 23.” ASTI 4 (1965): 56–73. Löw, Immanuel. Die Flora der Juden. 4 vols. Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1967. Lust, Johan. “The Demonic Character of Jahweh and the Septuagint of Isaiah.” Bijdragen 40 (1979): 2–14. Margain, J. “Sémantique hébraïque l’apport des targums.” Pages 11–17 in Studies in Ancient Hebrew Semantics. Edited by T. Muraoka. Abr-Nahrain Supplement Series 4. Louvain: Peeters, 1995. ———. “La Septante comme témoin de l’hébreu post-exilique et michnique.” Pages 191–95 in Mosaïque de langues mosaïque culturelle. Le bilinguisme dans le ProcheOrient ancien. Edited by F. Briquel-Chatonnet. Paris: J. Maisonneuve, 1996. Marshall, P. “Aramaic Influence on the (Old) Greek Bible.” Unpublished paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, 2009. Marti, Karl. Das Buch Jesaja. Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1900. Martínez, Florentino García, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997. McGrath, A. E. “Justice and Justification: Semantic and Juristic Aspects of the Christian Doctrine of Justification.” SJT 35 (1982): 403–18. McKenzie, J. L. Second Isaiah. AB 20. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1968. McLay, Tim. The OG and Th Versions of Daniel. SBLSCS 43. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Merendino, R. P. “Jes 49:1–6: Ein Gottesknechtslied?” ZAW 92 (1980): 236–48. Merx, A. “Proben der syrischen Uebersetzung von Galenus’ Schrift über die einfachen Heilmittel.” ZDMG 39 (1885): 237–305. Migne, J. P. Opera Omnia. Patrologiae Cursus Completus 4. Paris: Vrayet, 1845. Milgrom, Jacob. Cult and Conscience: The Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance. SJLA 18. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Modrzejewski, Joseph Mélèze. The Jews of Egypt from Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1995. Moulton, James Hope, and George Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament: Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-literary Sources. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1930. Muchiki, Y. Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords in North-West Semitic. SBLDS 173. Atlanta: SBL, 1999.



Bibliography

245

Muraoka, T. A Greek–English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Louvain: Peeters, 2009. ———. A Greek–Hebrew/Aramaic Two-way Index to the Septuagint. Louvain: Peeters, 2010. ———. Hebrew/Aramaic Index to the Septuagint: Keyed to the Hatch–Redpath Concordance. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998. ———. “Hosea IV in the Septuagint Version.” AJBI 9 (1983): 24–64. Naveh, J., and J. C. Greenfield. “Hebrew and Aramaic in the Persian Period.” Pages 118–22 in The Cambridge History of Judaism. Edited by W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Neusner, Jacob. Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis: A New American Translation. Brown Judaic Studies 1. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. ———. The Talmud of the Land of Israel: A Preliminary Translation and Explanation. Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism 25. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985. ———. The Tosefta: Third Division, Nashim, the Order of Women. New York: Ktav, 1979. Neusner, Jacob, Richard S. Sarason and Alan J. Avery-Peck, eds. The Tosefta: First Division, Zeraim, The Order of Agriculture. Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1986. Neves, J. C. M. das. A Teologia da Tradução Grega dos Setenta no Livro de Isaías. Lisbon: Universidade Católica Portuguesa, 1973. Ngunga, Abi. Messianism in the Old Greek of Isaiah: An Intertextual Analysis. FRLANT 245. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013. Niehr, Herbert. “Zur Etymologie und Bedeutung von šr.” UF 17 (1986): 231–35. North, Christopher R. The Second Isaiah: Introduction, Translation and Commentary to Chapters XL–LV. Oxford: Clarendon, 1964. ———. The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah: An Historical and Critical Study. London: Oxford University Press, 1948. Olley, John W. “Righteousness” in the Septuagint of Isaiah: A Contextual Study. SBLSCS 8. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979. Olofsson, Steffan. God Is My Rock: A Study of Translation Technique and Theological Exegesis in the Septuagint. Coniectanea Biblica: Old Testament Series 31. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1990. Ottley, R. R. The Book of Isaiah according to the Septuagint (Codex Alexandrinus). Vol. 2, Text and Notes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1906. ———. A Handbook to the Septuagint. London: Methuen, 1920. Parry, Donald W., and Emanuel Tov, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader: Additional Genres and Unclassified Texts, vol. 6. The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader. Leiden: Brill, 2005. ———. The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader: Texts Concerned with Religious Law, vol. 1. The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Payne Smith, J. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary: Founded Upon the Thesaurus Syriacus of R. Payne Smith. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1998. Polak, F. H. “The Interpretation of ‫ּכֹּלה‬/‫ה‬ ֻ ‫ ָכ ָל‬in the LXX: Ambiguity and Intuitive Comprehension.” Textus 17 (1994): 57–77. Procksch, Otto. Jesaia I. KAT 9/1. Leipzig: Deichert, 1930. ———. Theologie des Alten Testaments. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1950. Przybylski, B. Righteousness in Matthew and His World of Thought. SNTSMS 41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Qimron, Elisha. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Harvard Semitic Studies 29. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1986.

246 Bibliography Rabin, Chaim. “Hebrew and Aramaic in the First Century.” Pages 1007–39 in The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions. Edited by S. Safrai and M. Stern. Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 2. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976. ———. “The Translation Process and the Character of the Septuagint.” Textus 6 (1968): 1–26. Rad, Gerhard von. “ ‘Gerechtigkeit’ und ‘Leben’ in den Psalmen.” Pages 418–37 in Festschrift A. Bertholet. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1950. Rees, L. W. B. “The Transjordan Desert.” Antiquity 3 (1929): 395–400. Reider, Joseph. An Index to Aquila: Greek–Hebrew. Hebrew–Greek. Latin–Hebrew with the Syriac and Armenian Evidence. VTSup 12. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1966. Reiterer, Friedrich Vinzenz. Gerechtigkeit als Heil: ‫ צדק‬bei Deuterojesaja: Aussage und Vergleich mit der alttestamentlichen Tradition. Graz: Akademische Druck- & Verlagsanstalt, 1976. Rendsburg, Gary A. “Aramaic-Like Features in the Pentateuch.” HS 47 (2006): 163–76. Rendtorff, Rolf. Canon and Theology: Overtures to an Old Testament Theology. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994. ———. “Zur Komposition des buches Jesaja.” VT 34 (1984): 295–320. Rogers, Robert William. Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament. New York: Abingdon, 1926. Rooker, Mark F. “The Diachronic Study of Biblical Hebrew.” JNSL 14 (1988): 199–214. Rudolph, Wilhelm. “Jesaja XV–XVI.” Pages 130–43 in Hebrew and Semitic Studies Presented to Godfrey Rolles Driver in Celebration of his Seventieth Birthday, 20 August, 1962. Edited by D. Winton Thomas and W. D. McHardy. Oxford: Clarendon, 1963. ———. “Zum Text des Jeremiah. I, Zum griechischen Text.” ZAW (1930): 272–81. Sáenz-Badillos, Angel. A History of the Hebrew Language. Translated by John Elwolde. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Sapir, Edward. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt & Brace, 1921. Sarfatti, Gad B. “Mishnaic Vocabulary and Mishnaic Literature as Tools for the Study of Biblical Semantics.” Pages 33–48 in Studies in Ancient Hebrew Semantics. Edited by T. Muraoka. Abr-Nahrain Supplement Series 4. Louvain: Peeters, 1995. Schleusner, Johann Friedrich. Novus thesaurus philologico-criticus: sive, Lexicon in LXX et reliquos interpretes graecos, ac scriptores apocryphos Veteris Testamenti. 2nd ed. London: Jacob Duncan, 1829. Schmid, Hans H. Gerechtigkeit als Weltordnung: Hintergrund und Geschichte des alttestament­lichen Gerechtigkeitsbegriffes. Beiträge zur Hist. Theol 40. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1968. Schmitt, A. Stammt der sogennante θ´-Text bei Daniel wirklich von Theodotion? MSU 9. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966. Scullion, John J. “ṣedeq-ṣedāqah in Isaiah cc. 40–66 with Special Reference to the Continuity in Meaning Between Second and Third Isaiah.” UF 3 (1971): 335–48. Seeligmann, I. L. “Problems and Perspectives in Modern Septuagint Research.” Textus 15 (1990): 169–232. ———. The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of its Problems. Mededelingen en verhandelingen van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap “Ex Oriente Lux” 7. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1948. ———. The Septuagint Version of Isaiah and Cognate Studies. FAT 40. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.



Bibliography

247

Seifrid, Mark A. “Righteousness Language in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early Judaism.” Pages 415–42 in Justification and Variegated Nomism, Volume II: The Paradoxes of Paul. Edited by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid. WUNT 2/181. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Seux, Marie-Joseph. Épithètes royales akkadiennes et sumériennes. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1967. Siegfried, Carl Gustav Adolf, and Bernhard Stade. Hebräisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testaments: Mit zwei Anhängen: I. Lexidion zu den aramäischen Stücken des Alten Testamentes. II. Deutsch-Hebräisches Wörterverzeichnis. Leipzig: Veit, 1893. Silva, Moisés. Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994. Skehan, Patrick W. The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes. AB 39. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987. Snaith, Norman H. The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament. Fernley-Hartley Lecture, 1944. London: Epworth, 1944. Sokoloff, Michael. A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods. Publications of the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project. RamatGan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002. ———. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period. Dictionaries of Talmud, Midrash, and Targum 2. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1990. ———. A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009. Sousa, Rodrigo Franklin de. Eschatology and Messianism in LXX Isaiah 1–12. LHBOTS 516. New York: T&T Clark, 2010. Stern, Gustaf. Meaning and Change of Meaning, with Special Reference to the English Language. Göteborg: Elander, 1931. Terian, Abraham. “The Hunting Imagery in Isaiah 51.20a.” VT 41 (1991): 462–71. Thackeray, H. St J. A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909. ———. The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: A Study in Origins. The Schweich Lectures. London: Oxford University Press, 1921. Theocharous, Myrto. Lexical Dependence and Intertextual Allusion in the Septuagint of the Twelve Prophets: Studies in Hosea, Amos and Micah. LHBOTS 570. New York: T&T Clark, 2012. Thiersch, Heinrich Wilhelm Josias. De Pentateuchi Versione Alexandrina: Libri Tres. Erlangen: Th. Blaesing, 1841. Thomson, Christopher James. “The ṣdq Word Group in the Book of Isaiah.” M.Phil. diss. The University of Cambridge, 2008. Tov, Emanuel. “Biliteral Exegesis of Hebrew Roots in the Septuagint.” Pages 459–82 in Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld. Edited by Robert Rezetko, Timothy H. Lim and W. Brian Aucker. Leiden: Brill, 2007. ———. “Did the Septuagint Translators always Understand their Hebrew Text?” Pages 203–18 in The Greek & Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint. VTSup 72. Leiden: Brill, 1999. First published as pp. 53–70 in De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by A. Pietersma and C. Cox. Mississauga, ON: Benben, 1984.

248 Bibliography ———. “The Impact of the LXX Translation of the Pentateuch on the Translation of the Other Books.” Pages 577–92 in Mélanges Dominique Barthélemy. Edited by P. Casetti, O. Keel and A. Schenker. OBO 38. Fribourg/Göttingen: Éditions universitaires/ Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. ———. “Loan-words, Homophony and Transliteration in the Septuagint.” Bib 60 (1979): 216–36. ———. “The Septuagint.” Pages 161–88 in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading, and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Martin Jan Mulder and Harry Sysling. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988. ———. “Some Reflections on the Hebrew Texts from which the Septuagint Was Translated.” JNSL 19 (1993): 107–22. ———. The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. Jerusalem Biblical Studies. 2nd ed. Jerusalem: Simor, 1997. ———. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Troxel, Ronald L. LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation: The Strategies of the Translator of the Septuagint of Isaiah. J Sup 124. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Tur-Sinai, N. H. “A Contribution to the Understanding of Isaiah i–xii.” Pages 154–88 in Studies in the Bible. Edited by Chaim Rabin. Scripta Hierosolymitana. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961. Ullmann, Stephen. The Principles of Semantics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1957. ———. Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962. Vollers, K. “Das Dodekapropheton der Alexandriner.” ZAW 3 (1883): 219–72. Volz, Paul, Jesaia. Zweite Hälfte, Kapitel 40–66, übersetzt und erklärt. Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1974. Vorm-Croughs, Mirjam van der. The Old Greek of Isaiah: An Analysis of It Pluses and Minuses. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 61. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2014. Waard, Jan de. “ ‘Homophony’ in the Septuagint.” Bib 62 (1981): 551–61. Wagner, M. Die lexicalischen und grammatikalischen Aramaismen im alttestamentlichen Hebräisch. BZAW 96. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1966. Watson, Wilfred G. E. “Gender-Matched Synonymous Parallelism in the OT.” JBL 99 (1980): 321–41. Watts, J. D. W. Isaiah 1–33. WBC 24. Waco: Thomas Nelson, 1985. ———. Isaiah 34–66. WBC 25. Waco: Thomas Nelson, 2005. Weeks, Stuart, Simon Gathercole, and Loren Stuckenbruck, eds. The Book of Tobit: Texts from the Principal Ancient and Medieval Traditions, with Synopsis, Concordances, and Annotated Texts in Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Syriac. FoSub 3. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004. Wehr, H. A Dictionary of Modern Arabic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1979. Weissert, David. “Alexandrian Analogical Word-Analysis and Septuagint Translation Techniques: A Case Study of ‫לוח–ליח–ללח‬.” Textus 8 (1974): 31–44. Weitzman, M. P. The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction. University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Wenthe, Dean O. “The Old Greek Translation of Daniel 1–6.” Ph.D. diss. University of Notre Dame, 1991. Westermann, C. Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary. OTL. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Whitley, C. F. “Deutero-Isaiah’s Interpretation of Ṣedeq.” VT 22 (1972): 469–75.



Bibliography

249

Whybray, R. N. Isaiah 40–66. NCB. London: Oliphants, 1975. Wildberger, Hans. Isaiah 1–12. Continental Commentaries. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. ———. Isaiah 28–39. Continental Commentaries. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Williamson, H. G. M. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 1–27. Vol. 1, 1–5. ICC. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Wilson, A. The Nations in Deutero-Isaiah: A Study on Composition and Structure. Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 1. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1986. Wise, Michael O., Martin G. Abegg and Edward M. Cook, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1996. Wright, Richard M. Linguistic Evidence for the Pre-Exilic Date of the Yahwistic Source. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Wright, William. The Homilies of Aphraates, the Persian Sage. London: Williams & Norgate, 1869. Wutz, Frank. Die Transkriptionen von der Septuaginta bis zu Hieronymus. BWAT 2. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1933. Young, Ian. Diversity in Pre-Exilic Hebrew. FAT 5. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993. Young, Ian, ed. Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology. JSOTSup 369. London: T&T Clark, 2003. Young, Ian, and Robert Rezetko, with the assistance of M. Ehrensvärd. Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts: An Introduction to Approaches and Problems. 2 vols. London: Equinox, 2009. Zevit, Ziony. “Not-So-Random Thoughts on Linguistic Dating and Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew.” Pages 455–90 in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew. Edited by Cynthia L. MillerNaudé and Ziony Zevit. LSAWS 8. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012. Ziegler, J. Untersuchungen zur Septuaginta des Buches Isaias. Münster i. W.: Aschendorff, 1934. Ziegler, J., ed. Isaias. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum, vol. 14. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. Ziesler, J. A. The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Inquiry. SNTSMS 20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972. Zimmerli, Walther. A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 25–48. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. Zohary, Daniel, and Maria Hopf. Domestication of Plants in the Old World: The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants in West Asia, Europe, and the Nile Valley. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Zorrell, F. “Isaiae cohortatio ad poenitentiam (caput 1).” VD 6 (1926): 65–79.

I n d ex of R ef er e nce s Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament Genesis 1.29 2 3.19 128 6.13 27, 28 12.9 21 15.6 37, 39 15.20 114 15.22 218 21.33 10 24.61 115 30.13 153 30.33 37 32.3 114 32.8 21 35.2 218 35.16 108, 235 41.4 235 41.5 235 41.7 235 41.14 218 41.18 235 41.20 235 41.35 105 41.49 105 43.8 21 43.30 203 49 6 49.10 30 Exodus 2.5 115 12.11 113 12.19 116, 230 12.21 113 12.27 113 12.43 113 12.48 113

15 6 22 219 22.25–26 219 30.23 106, 107, 235 32.1 169 Leviticus 19.15 38 24.37 67 26.1 193 26.36–37 78 Numbers 11.6 113 11.7 113 11.8 130 11.9 113 13.20 119 23–24 6 24.8 91 33.47 114 33.48 114 33.52 193 Deuteronomy 1.16 38 2.11 114 2.20 114 3.11 114, 159 3.13 114 4.34 187 6.25 35 7.15 140 8.3 113 8.16 113 14.5 202, 203, 205, 209, 212

14.20 203 22.5 218 23.2 124, 127 24 219 24.13 35 24.17 219 26.8 187 28.48 140 32 6 32.19 145 32.42 91 32.49 114 33 6 Joshua 10.1 231 11.19 118 12.26 114 12.30 114 14.8 114 20.38 114 Judges 1.26 114 3.17 108 5 6 5.28 169 12 186 16.21 130 17.5 114 18.15 114 18.17–18 114 18.20 114 19.30 141 1 Samuel 1.20 209 2 6 2.4 68

10.3 106 12.7 44 15.23 114 20.30 231 22.6 10 22.43 209 26.23 37 29.6 129 31.12–13 9 31.13 10 2 Samuel 1 6 1.19 177, 178 2.8 114 2.12 114 2.19 231 2.26 15, 117 2.29 114 8.8 106, 235 8.15 37, 44 17.24 114 17.27 114 19.33 114 22 6 22.21 37 22.25 37 22.27 89, 92, 96, 99, 101, 102, 232 22.27 mt 98 23.6 162 23.13 114 1 Kings 2.8 114 3.26 203 4.14 114 5.3 107, 182, 236 5.27 18 10.9 37, 44 10.29 114 15.12 188 20.10 229 22.48 196

251

Index of References 2 Kings 2.8 216, 220 17.30 193 18.26 8, 9 23.7 114 23.24 114 24.14 9 25.12 114 1 Chronicles 6.65 114 7.40 89, 93, 97, 103, 234 7.40 mt 99 8.8 166 9.22 89, 94, 97, 103, 234 10.12 9, 10 16.41 89, 94, 97, 103, 235 16.41 mt 99 2 Chronicles 24.12 186 25.8 33, 67, 69 25.18 87 35.19 114 Ezra 2.58 114 2.70 114 4.5 186 4.18 12 5.17 141 7.7 114 7.18 141 7.24 114 8.17 114 8.20 114 10 9 10.44 10 Nehemiah 3.26 114 3.31 114 4.4 68

5.18

89, 93, 97, 102, 234 7.46 114 7.60 114 7.72 114 8.8 12 10.29 114 13.23–24 8 13.24 9 Esther 1.8 217 2.9 115 4.4 115 4.16 115 8.7 47 Job 4.4 67, 87 4.19 122, 128 5.4 128 6.9 128 6.11 28 9.6 119 13.25 162 19.2 128 20.2 163 22.9 128 23.16 17 29.11 153 32.6 146 32.10 146 32.17 146 33.3 89, 92, 93, 101, 103, 234 33.28 59 34.25 128 35.1 169 36.3 146 36.7 117 37.11 236 37.16 146 38.36 192 44.10 122

252 Psalms 2.11 mt 104, 236 2.12 104, 236 7.14 92 9.4 76, 128 9.5 38 9.15 204 10.9 204 13.6 mt 62 14.6 62 16.11 mt 155 17.11 155 17.21 mt 37 17.25 mt 37 17.27 232 17.27 mt 101, 102 18.21 37 18.25 37 18.27 89, 93, 99, 101, 102, 232 18.27 mt 99 23.5 mt 35 24.5 35, 40, 43 25.6 mt 116 26.2 82 26.2 mt 76, 128 26.6 116 27.2 76, 128 27.2 mt 82 29 6 30.11 mt 76, 128 31.4 204 31.11 68, 76, 128 32.5 mt 35 33.5 35 33.19 128 34.19 122 35.8 204 35.11 193 35.12 193, 194 36.7 40, 43 41.3 153 48.8 197 57.5 92 57.6 204 57.11 mt 116

Index of References 58.11 116 59.10 15 59.10 mt 116 60.4 mt 62 60.10 116 60.10 mt 15 61.4 62 61.8 mt 62 62.8 62 63.9 mt 128 64.3 92 64.4 91 64.9 76, 128 64.14 105 64.14 mt 104 65.14 104 65.14 mt 105 68 6 69.28–29 39 71.2 40, 43 71.4 mt 128 72 6 72.4 128 72.10 196 72.13 mt 116 72.17 153 72.28 mt 62 73.13 116 73.28 62 79 6 80.17 162 83.14 162 88.11 mt 128 89 129 89.3 mt 122, 128 89.10 mt 122 89.11 122, 128 90.3 122, 127, 128 90.9 mt 62 91.9 62 93.5 mt 128 93.8 mt 145 93.22 mt 62 94.5 128 94.8 145 94.22 62

102.6 mt 35 103.6 35 104.4 164 104.28 mt 129 104.37 mt 76, 128 105.28 129 105.32 164 105.37 76, 128 106.12 mt 76, 128 106.30–31 39 107.10 mt 116 107.12 76, 128 108.10 116 108.24 mt 76, 128 109.24 67, 76, 128 111.9 mt 56 112.9 56 119.112 39 119.121 38 120.4 91 139 139, 146, 173 139.2 137–39, 146 139.7 139, 146 139.17 137, 139 141.1 163 141.6 mt 62 141.9–10 204 141.10 203, 206 142.3 mt 128 142.6 62 143.3 128 Proverbs 1.3 156 1.17 204 2.7 156 2.9 156 2.22 127 3.18 153, 154, 156 3.23 80 4.10–19 74, 79 4.11 74, 155 4.12 74, 75, 155 4.14 155 4.15 155



Index of References

4.16

74, 75, 79, 155 4.17 79 4.19 74–76, 79, 84 5.9 156 7.23 91 8.16 38 9.6 150, 155, 156 9.15 156 14.4 105 14.11 156 14.15 156 15.8 156 15.14 144 15.21 156 17.3 236 18.11 193 22.22 128 23.19 155, 156 24.14 144 24.16–17 76, 79 24.17 67, 78 25.11 193 25.18 91 28.7 140 29.3 140 29.5 204 29.27 156 30.21 119 31.9 38 31.28 153, 154, 156 73.3 193 Qohelet 2.25 163 3.18 89, 93, 97, 101, 103, 234 12.3 130 12.4 130 Canticles 6.9 6.10

107, 236 107, 236

Isaiah 1–39 40, 41 1.9 184 1.13 mt 165 1.16 185 1.17 150, 151, 154, 156 1.21–27 60, 61 1.21–26 60, 61 1.21 60, 61 1.24–26 60 1.24 188 1.25 105 1.26 60 1.27 33, 35, 58– 61, 63, 65, 223, 229 1.28 59, 60 1.31 39, 162 2.6 229 2.16 186, 187, 190–92, 195–98, 200, 218, 225, 229 3.5 85 3.8 67, 85, 86 3.9 130 3.12 154, 157, 219 3.15 121, 129, 131, 133, 135 4.2 148, 174–78, 180, 224, 229 4.2 13, 14 4.5 164 5.7 61 5.11 218 5.16 37, 39 5.24 161–63, 165, 168, 170, 171 5.26–27 78 5.27 67, 75, 83 5.28 91

253 5.29 118, 230 6.2 115, 230 6.6 115 7.19 187 7.20 186 8.8 159 8.9 143, 144, 159 8.11–19 67 8.11 67 8.14 129 8.15 33, 66, 67, 71, 75, 82, 83, 87, 230 8.21 115, 230 9.1 185 9.3–4 219 9.3 219 9.4 190, 214–21, 225, 230 9.5 mt 214 9.15 150, 153, 155, 157 9.17 162 10.2 61 10.6 209 10.21–22 59 11.4 35, 38, 92 11.11 188 13.2 31, 230 13.2 32 13.13 220 13.15 188 13.19 177–79 13.20 117 13.20 mt 137 14.1 116, 230 14.14 184 14.16 220 15.4 143, 144 16.6 188, 230 16.8 188 16.9 185 17.2 184, 185 17.4 32, 118, 119, 230 17.9 187

254 Isaiah (cont.) 17.11 186 18.1 230 18.2 189 18.7 189, 230 19.6 32 19.8 203, 206 19.10 121, 132, 133, 135, 186 19.16 230 19.18 8 21.4 218 22.3 117, 188, 231 23 159, 197 23.1 196 23.7–8 158 23.7 158 23.8 147, 149, 150, 154, 157, 158, 160, 224, 231 23.9 177–79 23.10 184, 185 23.11 159 23.14 196 24.16 177–79 24.18 204, 220 25.8 117, 231 25.11 186 26.9 60 27.11 189 28 62, 63 28.1 63, 177 28.3 63 28.4 62, 177–79 28.5 62, 177–79 28.6–10 62 28.9 184, 185 28.10 62 28.13 62, 76, 77, 85 28.15 62, 63 28.16 130 28.17–18 63

Index of References 28.17

33, 35, 62– 65, 223, 229 28.18 62 28.19 62 28.21 62 28.28 117 28.29 188 29.1 188 29.6 216, 220 29.14 231 31.3 67, 76–78, 83 31.4 mt 137 32.16 61 33.5 61 33.10–14 161, 173 33.10 161, 172 33.11 148, 161–63, 165, 168, 170–73, 190, 224, 231 33.11 mt 164 33.12–14 172 33.12 173 33.14 172, 173 33.18 22 33.20 117 34.4 218 34.10 117 35.3 68, 171 36–39 20 36.3 22 36.11 8, 9 36.22 22 37.2 22 37.25 165 37.38 115, 230 38.10 185 38.12 118 38.12 mt 137 38.13 118, 231 38.14 32, 230 38.16 231 40–66 43 40–55 40–42 40.11 mt 137 40.18 184

40.24 162 40.25 184 40.30 68, 83 41.1 185 41.2 162 41.18 31 41.25 231 44.18 138, 145, 146 44.20 144 44.28 119, 120, 137, 138, 142, 144–46, 185, 224, 231 44.28 136 44.28 mt 137 45.8 40, 43 46.5 184, 185, 231 46.12 40, 185 47.2 130 47.10 130 47.14–15 157 47.14 162 47.15 156, 157 49 92 49.2 33, 88–92, 94, 101, 102, 109, 231, 232 49.9 31 50.2 159, 188 50.11 159 51 205 51.7 35 51.8 118, 189, 231 51.9–23 202 51.11 104, 201 51.20 190, 201– 206, 209–12, 225, 231 51.20 14 51.20 mt 201 51.23 201

52.11

89, 92, 96, 100–102, 104, 233 52.11 mt 99 53.3–5 mt 133 53.5 121, 133, 135 53.10 119, 121, 122, 127, 129, 134, 135, 224, 232 53.10 13 53.11 132 54.4 189 54.6 129 54.17 40 56–66 40 56.1 35, 39, 61, 232 56.10 145 56.11 145 56.11 mt 137 56.12 40 57.15 121, 122, 127, 135 57.16 117 58.2 37, 39, 61 59 63, 64 59.9 61, 63 59.10 67, 76–78, 84, 85, 87, 218 59.13–15 86 59.14–15 86 59.14 37, 61, 63, 84–86 59.15 184, 185 59.16 33, 35, 40, 43, 63, 64, 223, 229 59.17 64 59.18–19 64 60.9 196 61.8 60 61.10 35, 37, 40, 43

Index of References 63.1

37, 39, 40, 43, 189, 232 63.11 mt 137 63.13 76, 84 63.14 188 64.1 162 64.4 38 65.15 186 66 20 66.19 196 66.24 118, 185, 232 Jeremiah 2.10 114 3.5 117 3.19 177, 178, 180 4 100 4.11 93, 100, 101, 233 4.11 mt 98 5.10 129 6.15 67, 83 6.21 76 8.12 67 9.7 92 9.24 44 10.9 196 11.20 38 13.16 80 13.24 162 18.15 76 18.23 33, 67, 69, 76, 87 20.11 78 22.15 44 23.29 92 23.38 105 26.6 mt 72, 76 26.12 mt 76 26.16 mt 76 26.21 mt 210 32.21 187 39.21 mt 187 44.10 128 44.10 mt 134 46.3–5 73

255 46.3–4 73 46.3 73 46.5–6 73 46.5 73 46.6 67, 72, 73, 76, 78 46.12 76 46.16 67, 76 46.21 210 48.44 204 50.32 76 51.10 134 51.10 mt 128 51.11 89, 90, 93, 94, 101, 233 Lamentations 1.14 68, 76 2.19 201, 202 3.2 164 3.18 117 3.34 122 4.1 201, 202 4.7 174 5.13 76 5.20 117, 203, 206 Ezekiel 5.16 91 7.20 148, 177, 180 8.12 193 12.13 204 13.18 18 13.20 18 14.14 37 16.25 202 16.31 202 17.20 204 18.19 35 18.21 35 19.8 204 20.6 177, 178 20.15 177, 178 20.38 89, 93, 101, 102, 233 21.19 mt 89

256 Ezekiel (cont.) 21.24 89, 202 21.26 89, 202 25.9 148, 177, 180 26.20 177, 178 27.6 114 27.24 108, 237 27.25 197 28.12 27, 28 28.12 17 34.20 108, 119 34.23 136 37.24 108, 136 38.13 196 Daniel 2 140 2.29 139 2.30 139 4.6 217 4.19 139 4.24 35, 56 4.27 mt 35, 56 4.28 mt 179 4.31 179 5.6 139 5.10 139 5.19 148, 178 7.28 139 8.9 178 10.5 114 11 mt 79 11.14 68, 76, 80–82 11.14 mt 79 11.16 178 11.19 76, 80 11.19 mt 79 11.33 76, 80, 81 11.33 mt 79 11.33–35 76, 81 11.34 81, 82 11.34 mt 79 11.34–35 80 11.35 81, 82, 89, 93, 101, 102, 234

Index of References 11.35 mt 79 11.41 76, 178 11.41 mt 79 11.45 178, 180 12.10 89, 93, 101, 103, 234 Hosea 1.3 30 4.5 76 4.8 10, 17 5.1 204 5.5 76 6.5 92 7.6 164 7.12 204 8.7 30 8.7 30 11.8 203 12.2 144 13.5 182 14.2 76 14.10 76 Joel 2.5 162 2.11 187 Amos 1.11 117 2.8 219 5.11 105, 107, 236 8.7 117 Obadiah 18 162 Jonah 1.3 196 1.5 192 Micah 7.9 37 7.10 209

Nahum 1.3 30 1.10 162 2.6 76 3.3 73 3.4 73 3.10 202 Habakkuk 1.7 187 1.15 203, 204, 206 1.16 203, 206, 237 3 6 3.11 92 3.16 15, 150 Zephaniah 2.11 119 3.9 92–94, 100, 101, 104, 233 Zechariah 2.4 186 9.2 145 9.14 92 13.7 136 Malachi 3.12 153 3.15 153 3.16 43 3.19 162 New Testament Matthew 5.29 71 6.2 54 6.3 54 6.4 54 16.21 167 Mark 5.41 113 14.36 113

Luke 6.17 32 11.41 54 12.33 54 21.25 125 Acts 3.10 54 9.36 54 10.2 54 10.4 54 10.31 54 24.17 54 Romans 8.15 113 1 Corinthians 16.22 113 Galatians 4.6 113 Apocrypha Tobit 1.3 53 4.6–8 48 4.6–7 48 4.7–18 48 4.7 49 11.10 80 12.8 52 14.2 49 Sirach 1.14 139 1.17 139 2.11 139 2.17 139 2.22 139 2.26 139 3.14 45 3.18 127 4.2–3 125, 126 4.2 125 4.4 139

257

Index of References 4.6 139 4.16 139 6.2 179 6.9 139 7.1–17 46 7.10 45 9.8 126 11.1 127 11.4 126 11.5 126, 127 11.6 127 12 47 12.1–6 46 12.1 46 12.2 46, 47 12.3 45–47 12.4 46 12.5 46, 127 16.14 46 16.25 146 31.21 179 32.10 126, 127 32.18 179 32.19 179 35.20 165 35.21 127 36.10 165 37.10 126 37.13 179 37.16 179 38.1 140 40.10 165 44.10 45 44.13 45 51.30 45 1 Maccabees 1.1 114 Pseudepigrapha 4 Baruch 9.4 115 Apocalypse of Adam 1.11 115

Life of Adam and Eve 33.3 115 37.3 115 Dead Sea Scrolls 1Q27 fl ii.8 218 1QHa 11.11 165 11.27 204 13.10 204 13.19 124 14.32 165 16.3 43 19.34 43 23.16 124 1QIsaa 5.24 164, 171 32.4 137 33.11 165 40.29 88 49.2 91 1QIsab 21.10 88 1QM 5.4 94 1QS 1.5 44 3.9 124, 125 5.3–4 44 8.8 165 10.11 43 11.3 43 1QpHab 3.8 165 5.14 204 7.10–12 45 7.10 45 13.38 69

258

Index of References

4Q58 4.8 88

4Q259 2.16 165

5Q15 fl ii.10

4Q156 f2.3 123

4Q303 lii.3 165

11Q19 57.5 94

4Q163 f2.3.4 140 fl 1ii.1 124

4Q381 fl5.5

CD 7.14 193 10.4 94 20.18–20 43

4Q184 f2.4 124 4Q196 f10.1 47, 49 f6.9 123 4Q198 f.1.1

47, 49

4Q200 f.2.5–9 48 f.2.6 47–49 f.2.8 47 f.2.9 47 4Q201 fl vi.4–5

123

4Q204 f5ii.22 123 4Q255 f2.4 124 4Q256 f9.3–4 44 f9.3 45 4Q257 3.13 124 4Q258 6.2 165 31.2 43

124

4Q394 f8iii.10 124 4Q396 fl 2i.5

124

4Q397 f5.1 124 4Q428 10.9 43 4Q429 fl ii.4

124

4Q436 fl ii.4 124 fla+b1.1, 5 124 4Q472 f2.2–3 124 4Q501 1.6 206 4Q509 fl2i.13.6

140

4Q512 fl 6.4

124

4Q542 fl i.8 fl i.10 fl i.13

123 123 123

4Q554a fl ii.7

123

123, 124

Targumic Texts 2 Samuel 22.27 98 1 Chronicles 7.40 99 9.22 99 16.41 99 Esther I 7.10

153

Psalms 18.27

99, 232

Qohelet 2.25 163 3.18 100 Canticles 6.9 153 Isaiah 2.13–22 199 2.13 199 2.15–16 199 2.16 199, 200 8.15 71 52.11 99 53.10 135 Jeremiah 4.11 98 51.11 90, 100

Neofiti Genesis 18.19 51 18.21 195

Ma‘aśerot 2.6 95 4.1 207

Onqelos Genesis 19.26 194

Megillah 3.3 132

Mishnah ’Abot 2.1 95 5.13 50 5.18 50

Nedarim 2.7 95

Arayot 14 127 15 127 17 127

Qiddušin 4.5 49

Baba Meṣia 4.12 95 Bekorot 2.6–8 95 Berakot 7.3 195 Beṣah 1.8 95 Demai 3.1 49 ‘Erubin 4.5 95

259

Index of References

Niddah 1.1 158

Šabbat 7.2 95 Šeqalim 5.9 95 Sanhedrin 3.1 95 4.4 95 Taanit 4.8 95 Tamid 2.5 95 Tebul Yom 1.5 211

Giṭṭin 5.9 95

Yebamot 8.1 127 8.2 127

Kil’ayim 2.1 95

Uqṣin 3.5 211

Ma‘aśer Šeni 2.6 95

Babylonian Talmud Abodah Zarah 23b 167 39a 175

Baba Batra 1.5 49 17a 167 22a 153 163a 153 Baba Meṣia 3.6 49 63b 153 74a 208 112a 127 Baba Qamma 1.9b 69 3.1 70 10.1 49 10.5 205, 206 113b 220 16b 69 Berakot 56a 140 57b 127 Giṭṭin 4.36b 153 26b 153 30b 153 57a 69 62a 153 70a 153 86b 167 agigah 14a 69 ullin 58b 211 80a 205 Ketubbot 10b 153 21a 153 21b 153

260 Mo’ed Qaṭan 14b 133 26b 132 Megillah 14a 194 28b 133 31a 127 Pesaim 1.4–5 49 3.7–8 49 113a 153 Qiddušin 60a 167 81b 208 Šabbat 14.4 166 16.2 49 29a 207, 208 115a 133 140a 167 Sanhedrin 22a 152 105b 50 119b 69 Soṭah 16d 167 5a 127 Ta‘anit 3.1–11 49 Yoma 83b 167 Jerusalem Talmud Berakot 9.13c 70 Giṭṭin 53a 152

Index of References agigah 2.1 127 Ketubbot 6.6 50 9.2 70

Megillah 2.4 127 2.11 133 Menaot 9.10 207

Megillah 1.71 152 3.1 133 3.3 133

Pe’ah 4.15 49 4.19 50 4.21 50

Šabbat 1.3 127 6.9c 69 19.2 127 75b 140

Sanhedrin 1.3 50, 51 1.4 50 1.5 50 4.8 152

Soṭah 7.21c 152

Terumot 1.5 166

Terumot 1.8 140

Yebamot 8.2 166 14.6 206, 207

Yebamot 8.9c 166 Tosefta Baba Qamma 8.17 206 10.9 49 11.3 49 Bekorot 5.1 127 Berakot 5.15 127 Demai 3.21 49 ullin 4.5 211 Kil’ayim 1.9 205

Midrash Canticles Rabbah 2.9 140 3.6 175 Genesis Rabbah 15 152 33.1 50 49 51 90 152 Leviticus Rabbah 9.7 195 783.6 194 Pesiqta Rabbati 46 175 Sifra Ahare 8.3 194

Sifre Numbers 106 50 Sipra Qed. 1.10 152 Tanuma Mishp. 17 177, 180 Other Rabbinic Works Ag. Ber. 25.2 158 AmGen 5c.7 167 Anan 49.30 195 Mekilta Nezikin 18 50 Mekilta Shirata 1 50 ST 2 167 3 167 Classical and Ancient Christian Literature Arist. Pr. 947a.19 209 Athenaeus Deipnosophistae 2.57.30–31 211 9.11.13 211 9.11.15 211 11.109.5–6 212 Athenagoras De resurrectione 74.32 125

261

Index of References Callimachus Hymnus in Delum 150–52 52

P.Abinn. 19.21–27 55 19.26 54

Clementine Homilies 3.68 54

P.Cair.Zen. 59495 52 59495.10 54

Corp. Herm. 6.10 125 Diogenes Laertius 5.17 54 7.115 54

P.Herm. 17.3 54 P.Hib. 1.100.4 218

Dsc. 2.175 211

P.Lond. 401.11 127

Gp. 2.6.30 211

P.Oxy 130.6 54 2479.5 54 II, 286.22 127 XII, 1409.19

Hippocrates De natura muliebri 32 211 Hdt. 7.130 209 Homilies of Aphraates 469.4 142 John Chrysostom De paenitentia 3.1 54 Thucydides III, xii 1 Ostraca, Papyri and Tablets BGU IV, 1262 127 El Amarna 287, 32 36

127

P.Stras. 657.3 54 P.Tebt. II, 302.10 127 SIG 529.6 125 Other Inscriptions and Texts AB 259 32 Afr. 151:6 71 BBah 19.26 167 Bo 78.20 175 106.7 208

262

Index of References

CIJ ii. no. 1489 179

ab 37.9 167

DC 34.66 176

KAI 2:227 36 4, 6–7 36 10. 9 36

ES2 9:32 71 ESNisB2 43.14 167 ESRef1ER 54.11 167 Gy 267.4 176 273.5 176 287.9 176

KTU 1.19 I 7 1.19 I 12 14 I 23

208 208 36

KwD2 65.17 167 MP 31.44 167 Pap 1.2 195

Sol A 18.34 115 21.2 115 26.9 115 Str. 9.5.12 32 TSSI 3:18 36 3:95 36 Codices Codex Alexandrinus 26 169 86 169 106 169 710 169

I n d ex of A ut hor s Abegg, M. G. 124, 125 Achtemeier, E. P. 37 Albright, W. F. 193 Allen, L. C. 182 Avery-Peck, A. J. 50 Baer, D. A. 18, 19, 23, 77, 227 Baltzer, K. 68, 90, 91, 128 Barr, J. 4, 29, 105, 131, 147, 229, 230 Barthélemy, D. 21 Beentjes, P. C. 126 Bell, H. 55 Bendor, S. 39 Berchem, D. van 55 Bergey, R. 94 Bergsträsser, G. 186 Bickerman, E. 20 Blank, A. 1, 2 Blau, J. 15 Blenkinsopp, J. 90 Block, D. I. 177 Bloomfield, L. 2, 10, 27 Borowski, O. 202 Brady, C. 98 Brock, S. 20 Brockington, L. H. 177 Budde, K. 192 Byun, S. 11 Caird, G. B. 131 Cansdale, G. 203 Cheyne, T. K. 151 Childs, B. S. 90 Chilton, B. D. 200 Collins, J. J. 82 Cook, E. M. 123, 124 Cook, J. A. 7 Crawford, O. S. G. 204 Cronbach, A. 43

Dahood, M. 193 David, M. 219 Davies, G. I. 59 Davies, P. 6 Delitzsch, F. 143, 192, 229 Dillman, A. 121 Dines, J. M. 19, 20, 23 Dittenberger, W. 125 Dodd, C. H. 56 Domeris, W. R. 122 Driver, G. R. 138, 151, 157, 165, 193, 231 Driver, S. R. 4, 10 Drower, E. S. 142, 176 Duhm, B. 77, 118, 121, 145, 201, 231, 232 Ehrlich, A. B. 59 Eichhorn, J. G. 13 Elgvin, T. 124 Elliger, K. 31 Elwolde, J. F. 6, 95 Eskhult, M. 5 Fahlgren, K. H. 37, 40 Feldmann, F. 201 Fernández Marcos, N. 105 Fischer, J. 15, 90, 159, 161, 189, 215, 230–32 Fitzmyer, J. A. 53 Flashar, M. 14 Forbes, A. D. 7 Frankel, Z. 14, 22, 175, 183, 210, 229, 231 Fronzaroli, P. 89 Gathercole, S. 47 Gerleman, G. 90 Gesenius, F. H. W. 4, 13, 203 Ginsberg, H. L. 193

264

Index of Authors

Goldingay, J. 90, 91, 136 Gordon, C. H. 196, 208 Gordon, R. P. 129 Goshen-Gottstein, M. H. 91, 151 Govett, R. 186 Gray, G. B. 151, 157, 159, 192 Greenfield, J. C. 11 Grzega, J. 2 Guggenheimer, H. W. 140 Hackett, J. A. 6 Hanhart, R. 21 Hatch, E. 56, 229, 232 Helms, S. W. 203 Hendel, R. 7, 8 Herz, N. 192 Hicks, R. D. 54 Hill, D. 36, 57, 58 Ho, A. 36 Hoenig, S. B. 196 Hopf, M. 212 Horbury, W. 179 Hossfeld, F.-L. 137 Hurvitz, A. 3, 5, 6, 24, 30, 31, 94 Hurwitz, M. S. 20 Jastrow, M. 28, 51, 69, 70, 115, 154, 166, 175, 177, 180, 215, 216, 218, 220, 231 Jeansonne, S. P. 82 Jellicoe, S. 138, 231 Jepsen, A. 37–41 Jeremias, J. 136 Johnson, B. 36, 38, 39 Joosten, J. 5, 7, 8, 10, 17, 18, 21, 23, 24, 27, 28, 67, 94, 111, 176, 179, 227, 229, 230 Kaiser, O. 149 Kaminka, A. 14 Kautzsch, E. 37 Keown, G. L. 73 Kim, D.-H. 8 King, P. J. 91 Kissane, E. J. 86, 201 Klein, M. L. 129 Koch, M. 196 Koenig, J. 22 Kooij, A. van der 20–22, 67, 122, 159, 178, 196, 197 Koole, J. L. 90, 201

Kraus, H.-J. 128, 193 Kuenen, A. 136 Kutscher, E. Y. 6, 8, 11, 88, 96, 122, 137, 164, 165, 186 Laberge, L. 172 Lampe, G. W. H. 54 Leaney, A. R. C. 45 Lindblom, J. 149 Löw, I. 210, 211 Lust, J. 122 Macuch, R. 142, 176 Margain, J. 15, 217 Marshall, P. 186 Marti, K. 118, 192 Martin, V. 55 Martínez, F. G. 48 McGrath, A. E. 51 McKenzie, J. L. 90 McLay, T. 82 Merendino, R. P. 90 Merx, A. 142 Migne, J. P. 138, 199, 210 Milgrom, J. 219 Milligan, G. 130 Modrzejewski,, J. M. 21 Moulton, J. H. 130 Muchiki, Y. 192 Muraoka, T. 16, 66, 209, 230 Naveh, J. 11 Neusner, J. 50, 152, 207 Neves, J. C. M. das 21, 62, 63 Ngunga, A. 226 Niehr, H. 150 North, C. R. 121, 122, 202 Olley, J. W. 35, 58, 60, 64, 137, 151, 232 Olofsson, S. 129 Ottley, R. R. 19, 129, 159, 169, 170, 192, 210, 214, 229 Parry, D. W. 123, 125 Payne Smith, J. 176 Payne, D. 90, 91, 136 Polak, F. H. 5, 96, 230, 231 Polzin, R. 5 Procksch, F. H. 40, 214 Przyblski, B. 42, 44, 49



Index of Authors

Qimron, E. 28 Quell, G. 38 Rabin, C. 11, 20 Rad, G. von 40 Rees, L. W. B. 204 Reider, J. 84, 105 Reiterer, F. V. 41 Rendsburg, G. A. 5 Rendtorff, R. 40, 41 Rezetko, R. 7 Rogers, R. W. 137 Rooker, M. F. 6 Rudolph, W. 14, 143 Sáenz-Badillos, A. 6, 8, 9, 11 Sapir, E. 1 Sarason, R. S. 50 Sarfatti, G. B. 3 Scalise, P. J. 73 Schleusner, J. F. 158 Schmid, H. H. 36, 63 Schmitt, A. 82 Scullion, J. J. 36, 38, 40, 63 Seeligmann, I. L. 15, 19, 21, 59, 129, 130, 178, 180, 196, 215, 230 Seifrid, M. A. 36, 39, 43 Seux, M.-J. 136 Siegfried, C. G. A. 192 Silva, M. 2 Skehan, P. W. 46 Smothers, T. G. 73 Snaith, N. H. 37, 57 Soggin, J. 136 Sokoloff, M. 28, 51, 141, 154, 156, 162, 167, 175, 195, 208, 211, 216, 218 Sousa, R. F. de 219, 226 Stade, B. 192 Stager, L. E. 91 Stern, G. 2 Stuckenbruck, L. 47 Terian, A. 204, 205 Thackeray, H. St. J. 20, 131 Theocharous, M. 23 Thiersch, H. W. J. 13

265

Thomson, C. J. 40 Tigchelaar, E. J. C. 48 Tov, E. 12, 15–18, 20, 25, 29, 30, 73, 95, 111–13, 123, 125, 131, 156, 181–84, 187, 198, 218, 230, 231 Troxel, R. L. 20, 22, 24, 62, 122, 130, 161, 171 Tur-Sinai, N. H. 59, 192, 216 Turner, E. G. 55 Ullmann, S. 1, 2, 10, 29 Vollers, K. 13 Volz, P. 145 Vorm-Croughs, M. van der 19 Waard, J. de 131 Wagner, M. 139, 143 Watson, W. G. E. 38 Watts, J. D. W. 90, 216 Weeks, S. 47 Wehr, H. 89 Weissert, D. 96 Weitzman, M. P. 97 Wenthe, D. O. 82 Westermann, C. 90, 202 Whitley, C. F. 41 Whybray, R. N. 202 Wildberger, H. 59, 78, 149, 196, 197, 216 Williamson, H. G. M. 59, 60, 151, 156, 175, 178, 197, 230 Wilson, A. 91 Wise, M. O. 124 Wright, R. M. 5 Wright, W. 142 Wutz, F. 14, 19, 211 Young, I. 7, 139 Zevit, Z. 5, 7 Ziegler, J. 18, 19, 35, 115, 130, 132, 138, 145, 159, 161, 215, 218, 231 Ziesler, J. A. 43, 58 Zimmerli, W. 177 Zohary, D. 212 Zorrell, F. 214