Septuagint, Targum and Beyond: Comparing Aramaic and Greek Versions from Jewish Antiquity 9004416722, 9789004416727

Table of contents :
Septuagint, Targum and Beyond: Comparing Aramaic and Greek Versions from Jewish Antiquity
Contents
Tables
Introduction
1 Fresh Approaches to Septuagint/Old Greek and Targum
2 Beyond Targum and LXX
Bibliography
Part 1: Fresh Approaches to Septuagint/Old Greek and Targum
1 Reflecting on the Creation (בראשית): a Comparison of Genesis 1 in the Pentateuchal Targumim and the Septuagint
1 Introduction
2 The Targumim
2.1 Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
2.2 Targum Onqelos
3 The Septuagint
4 Conclusion
Acknowledgements
Bibliography
2 The Passover of Egypt in Septuagint and Targum of Exodus 12
1 Passover
2 Rules for Cooking the Pesach Sacrifice
3 The Prohibition of Work
4 Draw Out a Sheep or Depart?
5 An Unblemished Animal
6 Firstborn of the Male Captive or Female Captive?
7 Conclusions
Bibliography
3 The Greek and Aramaic Versions of Joshua 3–4
1 Introduction
2 The Setting of the Greek and Aramaic Translations of the Former Prophets
3 Research Questions
4 The Hebrew Versions of Joshua 3–4
5 The Old Greek Version of Joshua 3–4
6 The Aramaic Version of Joshua 3–4
7 The Greek and Aramaic Versions of Joshua 3–4
8 Conclusions
Appendix
Bibliography
4 Optimal Translation in LXX and Tg. Jon. of 1 Samuel 1:1–5: Outline of a Comparative Theory of Translation Technique
1 Introduction
2 Optimality
2.1 Translations as Optimal Forms
2.2 Optimality Theory as Explanatory Paradigm
3 The Study
3.1 Preliminaries
3.2 The Constraint System
3.2.1 “Change Linguistic System” vs. “Transliterate Proper Nouns”
3.2.2 Constraints Driving Isomorphism
3.2.2.1 Morphosemantic Correspondence
3.2.2.2 Linear Fidelity
3.2.2.3 Quantitative Fidelity
3.2.2.4 Summary
3.3 The Tableau System
3.3.1 “Change Linguistic System” vs. “Transliterate Proper Nouns”
4 Conclusion
Bibliography
5 No Death without Sin on the New Earth: Isaiah 65:20 in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic
1 Masoretic Text
1.1 Text and Context
1.2 Sinning or Missing?
2 Ancient Translations
2.1 Septuagint
2.2 Targum Jonathan
3 Evaluation
Acknowledgements
Bibliography
6 The Old Greek of Isaiah and the Isaiah Targum: What Do They Have in Common?
1 Introduction
2 LXX Isaiah and Tg. Isaiah
2.1 Lexical Choices
2.2 Converse Translation
2.3 Metaphorical Interpretation
2.4 Explicitation
2.5 Free / Interpretive Rewriting
2.6 Exegetical Traditions
3 Concluding Remarks
Bibliography
7 Targum Jonathan and Its Relation to the Septuagint in the Book of Hosea
1 A List of Agreements between lxx and Targum in Hosea
2 Discussion
3 A Septuagintal Pseudo-Variant in the Targum
4 A Hebrew Variant
5 The Origin of the Reading
6 The Targumic Interpretation
7 Conclusions
Bibliography
8 The Premature Death of the Wicked in the Old Greek of Proverbs
1 Introduction
1.1 A Multilingual Environment
1.2 Translation Greek
1.3 The Influence of the Aramaic Language
3 The Fate of the Wicked in the Old Greek of Proverbs
3.1 The Aramaic Bipolar Root חטף “to Seize”—“to Do a Thing in Haste”
3.2 The Proximity between חתף and חטף
3.3 Two Free Translations
4 The Fate of the Righteous in the Old Greek of Proverbs
5 Conclusions
Bibliography
Part 2: Beyond Targum and LXX
9 The Septuagint and Jewish Translation Traditions
1 The Separation between Septuagint and Targum
2 Traditions of Jewish Translation
2.1 Translation Activity among Jews
2.2 The Evidence of Translations
2.3 Implications
3 Septuagint and Its Relation to Rabbinic Scholarly Traditions
4 The Varying Translation Techniques
5 Conclusions
Bibliography
10 See God and Die? Job’s Final Words (42:6) according to His First Aramaic and Greek Interpreters
1 The Targum of Job: Job Renounces Wealth and Is Comforted regarding His Dead Children
2 Peshitta-Job: Job Expects to Die and Be Resurrected
3 Old Greek: Job Expects to Die from His Original Afflictions
4 Qumran Aramaic: Job Expects to Die of Exposure to Heat
5 Concluding Reflections: Job’s Last Words in Aramaic and Greek
Bibliography
11 A Comparative Study of the Translation Techniques of the Old Greek and Qumran Aramaic (4Q156) Versions of Leviticus
1 Methodology
2 Rendering of Nota Accusativi את
3 The Rendering of על־פני
4 Representation of Hebrew Pronominal Suffixes (Addition and Omission)
5 Transposition (Word Order)
6 Pluses in QarLev and OG Lev
7 Lexical Substitution
8 Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Bibliography
12 More Evidence for a Samaritan Greek Bible: Two Septuagint Translation Traditions in the Samaritan Targum
1 Hebrew שוטר ‘Teacher, Schoolmaster’
2 A Non-Literal Translation in Sam. Tg. Exod 15:3
3 Excursus: Greek Words in the Samaritan Targum
4 Conclusion
Acknowledgements
Bibliography
13 Targum Onqelos and Rabbinic Interpretation in the Jewish Greek Translations of the Bible
1 Introduction
1.1 Sources of Examples
2 Influence of Targum Onqelos and Targum Jonathan on the Judeo-Greek Bible Translations
3 Influence of Rabbinic Literature on the Translations
4 Concluding Remarks
Acknowledgements
Bibliography
14 Simeon the Just, the Septuagint and Targum Jonathan
1 Introduction
2 Simeon and the Septuagint
2.1 An Unbelieving Simeon
2.2 An Expectant Simeon
2.3 Greek Origin
2.4 Preliminary Conclusion
3 Simeon the Just and Targum Jonathan
3.1 Paul Fagius
3.2 Pietro Colonna Galatino
3.3 Jean Cinquarbre
3.4 William Bedwell
3.5 Brian Walton
3.6 Preliminary Conclusion
4 An Apt Identification
4.1 Similar But Not Identical Identifications
4.2 Simeon as an Early Trope
4.3 Reformation
5 Spread and Influence
6 Conclusions
Bibliography
Index of Ancient Sources
1 Ancient Near Eastern Texts
2 Hebrew Bible (and its ancient versions)
3 Greco-Roman Authors
4 Documentary papyri and inscriptions
5 Second Temple Literature
6 Dead Sea Scrolls
7 New Testament
8 Christian Texts (Antiquity and Middle Ages)
9 Samaritan Texts
10 Rabbinic Literature
Index of Modern Authors

Citation preview

Septuagint, Targum and Beyond

Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism Editors René Bloch (Institut für Judaistik, Universität Bern) Karina Martin Hogan (Department of Theology, Fordham University) Associate Editors Hindy Najman (Theology & Religion Faculty, University of Oxford) Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar (Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, KU Leuven) Benjamin G. Wright, III (Department of Religion Studies, Lehigh University) Advisory Board A.M. Berlin – K. Berthelot – J.J. Collins – B. Eckhardt – Y. Furstenberg S. Kattan Gribetz – S. Mason – F. Mirguet – J.H. Newman A.K. Petersen – M. Popović – I. Rosen-Zvi – J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten M. Segal – J. Sievers – W. Smelik – G. Stemberger – L.T. Stuckenbruck L. Teugels – J.C. de Vos

volume 193

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

Septuagint, Targum and Beyond Comparing Aramaic and Greek Versions from Jewish Antiquity

Edited by

David Shepherd Jan Joosten Michaël N. van der Meer

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Shepherd, David, 1972– editor. | Joosten, Jan, editor. | Meer, Michaël N. van der, editor. Title: Septuagint, targum and beyond : comparing Aramaic and Greek versions from Jewish antiquity / David James Shepherd, Jan Joosten, Michaël N. van der Meer. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, 2020. | Series: Supplements to the journal for the study of Judaism, 1384–2161 ; vol. 193 | Includes index. Identifiers: LCCN 2019040093 (print) | LCCN 2019040094 (ebook) | ISBN 9789004416710 (hardback) | ISBN 9789004416727 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Old Testament—Translating. | Bible. Old Testament—Language, style | Bible. Old Testament. Greek—Versions—Septuagint—Language, style. | Bible. Old Testament. Greek—Versions—Septuagint—Criticism, interpretation, etc. | Bible. Old Testament. Aramaic—Versions—Language, style. | Bible. Old Testament. Aramaic—Versions—Criticism, interpretation, etc. Classification: LCC BS1131 .S47 2020 (print) | LCC BS1131 (ebook) | DDC 221.4/8—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019040093 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019040094

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN 1384-2161 ISBN 978-90-04-41671-0 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-41672-7 (e-book) Copyright 2020 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents List of Tables vii Introduction 1 David Shepherd, Jan Joosten and Michaël N. van der Meer

Part 1 Fresh Approaches to Septuagint/Old Greek and Targum 1

Reflecting on the Creation (‫)בראשית‬: a Comparison of Genesis 1 in the Pentateuchal Targumim and the Septuagint 13 Johann Cook

2

The Passover of Egypt in Septuagint and Targum of Exodus 12 37 C.T.R. Hayward

3

The Greek and Aramaic Versions of Joshua 3–4 58 Michaël N. van der Meer

4

Optimal Translation in lxx and Tg. Jon. of 1 Samuel 1:1–5: Outline of a Comparative Theory of Translation Technique 101 Jeremy M. Hutton

5

No Death without Sin on the New Earth: Isaiah 65:20 in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic 129 Paul Sanders

6

The Old Greek of Isaiah and the Isaiah Targum: What Do They Have in Common? 141 Arie van der Kooij

7

Targum Jonathan and Its Relation to the Septuagint in the Book of Hosea 157 Jan Joosten

8

The Premature Death of the Wicked in the Old Greek of Proverbs 174 Anne-Françoise Loiseau

vi

Contents

Part 2 Beyond Targum and LXX 9

The Septuagint and Jewish Translation Traditions 197 James K. Aitken

10

See God and Die? Job’s Final Words (42:6) according to His First Aramaic and Greek Interpreters 228 David J. Shepherd

11

A Comparative Study of the Translation Techniques of the Old Greek and Qumran Aramaic (4Q156) Versions of Leviticus 249 Alun Morton Thomas

12

More Evidence for a Samaritan Greek Bible: Two Septuagint Translation Traditions in the Samaritan Targum 271 Christian Stadel

13

Targum Onqelos and Rabbinic Interpretation in the Jewish Greek Translations of the Bible 289 Shifra Sznol

14

Simeon the Just, the Septuagint and Targum Jonathan 317 Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman Index of Ancient Sources 339 Index of Modern Authors 350

Tables 3.1 3.2 4.1

Doublets in Joshua 3–4 67 Joshua 3:15b–16 in mt, 4QJoshb and 4QRewrittenJoshuab 69 Boyd-Taylor’s chart, Aquilianic Mode of Translation. From: Cameron Boyd-Taylor, Reading between the Lines: The Interlinear Paradigm for Septuagint Studies, BTS 8 (Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 171–172 103 9.1 Jewish texts translated in Antiquity 208 9.2 Qumran distribution of Enoch and Jubilees MSS 212 11.1 Quantitative agreement of the 4Q156 and versions with the Masoretic text 266

Introduction David Shepherd, Jan Joosten and Michaël N. van der Meer The Talmud’s quotation of both the Aramaic Targum and the Greek translation of Akylas (Aquila) testifies to the Rabbis’ early awareness of the two most important biblical translations of ancient Judaism.1 That these two translations were, however, to remain uncompared for so long is at least partly to be explained by the subsequent development of both Judaism and Christianity. Of course, Aramaic translations were by no means unknown to the latter (cf. translations in Syriac and Christian Palestinian Aramaic) nor Greek translations eschewed entirely by later Judaism,2 but the Rabbis’ official adoption of the Targum and the Western Church’s general preference for Greek and then Latin translations did little to encourage close comparison between the Targum and the Septuagint. The situation began to be remedied in the sixteenth century with the appearance first of polyglots like the famed Complutensian (1515) which included amongst its textual witnesses, Targum Onkelos (and its Latin translation) and the Septuagint.3 Indeed, it is no coincidence that the first extended and learned discussion of the relationship of the two traditions appeared later that same century from the pen of Azariah de Rossi in his Me’or Einayim published in Mantua beginning in 1573.4 Despite limitations inevitable for the time and a certain circularity of argumentation, de Rossi’s work broke new ground by arguing that the ancient Greek translators were directly dependent

1  See Willem Smelik, Rabbis, Language and Translation in Late Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 323–497 and Alison Salvesen, “Did Aquila and Symmachus Shelter under the Rabbinic Umbrella?” in Greek Scripture and the Rabbis, ed. T. Michael Law and Alison Salvesen; CBET 66 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 107–26. 2  See, for instance, Smelik, Rabbis, Language and Translation, esp. 185–200, and 323–497 along with the essays collected in Law and Salvesen, Greek Scripture and the Rabbis and Nicholas de Lange, Julia G. Krivoruchko, and Cameron Boyd-Taylor, eds., Jewish Reception of Greek Bible Versions: Studies in Their Use in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, Texts and Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Judaism 23 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009). 3  For a fine discussion of the Complutensian with particular attention to the place of Onkelos see Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman, Justifying Christian Aramaism: editions and Latin translations of the Targums from the Complutensian to the London Polyglot Bible (1517–1657), Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series 33 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 11–36. 4  See Azariah de Rossi, The Light of the Eyes, transl. Joanna Weinberg (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001).

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004416727_002

2

SHEPHERD, JOOSTEN & VAN DER MEER

on—indeed, translated from—an Aramaic Targum originating in Palestine.5 When this notion resurfaced in the nineteenth century in Zacharias Frankel’s Historisch-Kritische Studien zu der Septuaginta nebst Beiträgen zu den Targumim: Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta (1841), however, the similarities Frankel detected between the Greek and Aramaic, persuaded him not that Greek was translated from an Aramaic Targum as De Rossi supposed, but rather merely influenced by it as the “Seventy” translated into Greek from the Hebrew.6 While Frankel fails to give sufficient consideration to other explanations for the similarities between Targum and lxx he detects,7 the idea that traditions preserved in an Aramaic translation exerted an influence on the lxx was reasserted and rearticulated in the twentieth century in the work of Pinchos Churgin.8 Churgin’s additions to the stock of similarities between Septuagint and Targum are notable and not to be dismissed lightly, but the assumption of the great antiquity of Onkelos (or something like it) on which his and Frankel’s argument depends is no more shared by recent scholarship than Churgin’s assertion that Onkelos and the Septuagint were both used in the synagogue before the common era.9 Interestingly, when Lienhard Delekat returned to the question of the relationship between Targum and lxx a quarter century after Churgin, the conclusion at which he arrived was not dissimilar to de Rossi’s in the sixteenth century: the Greek version was not merely influenced by the Aramaic but translated directly from it.10 In arguing anew for such a conclusion, however, Delekat invoked the analogy of the Greek Samareitikon and the Aramaic Samaritan targum, persuaded as he was by Kohn that the former had been translated from the latter.11 While the Samareitikon’s dependence on the 5   See De Rossi, The Light of the Eyes, chs. 7–9 (but esp. the latter: pp. 182–96) and discussion in Azaria de Rossi, Selected Chapters from Sefer Me’or Einayim and Matsref la-Kessef, ed. Robert Bonfil (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1991), 91–96, and Joanna Weinberg, “Azariah de Rossi and Septuagint Traditions,” Italia 5:1–2 (1985): 7–35. 6  See Zacharias Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta (Leipzig: Vogel, 1841), 15, and idem, Ueber den Einfluss der Palästinensischen Exegese auf die Alexandrinische Hermeneutik (Leipzig: Barth, 1851), 202–04. 7  As noted by Jan Joosten, “Des Targumismes dans la Septante ?,” in The Targums in Light of the Second Temple Period, ed. Thierry Legrand and Jan Joosten; JSJSup 167 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 54–71, esp. 55–56. This volume casts its net rather wider than the present one, but in touching at various points on the relationship between Septuagint and Targum (not least in Joosten’s essay), serves as a further prompt to what follows. 8  Pinchos Churgin, “The Targum and the Septuagint,” AJSL 50 (1933): 41–65. 9  See the reservations noted by Joosten, “Des Targumismes,” 56 as well as Alun Thomas, forthcoming doctoral dissertation. 10  Lienhard Delekat, “Ein Septuagintatargum,” VT 8 (1958): 225–52. 11  Samuel Kohn, “Samareitikon und Septuaginta,” MGWJ 38 (1894): 1–7, 49–67, and before him, Frederick Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt (Oxford: Clarendon, 1875), lxxxxii–lxxxiv.

Introduction

3

Samaritan Targum does seem probable to some at certain points,12 this hardly proves the dependence of the lxx on Onqelos of course.13 Perhaps for this reason, like de Rossi centuries earlier, Delekat sought to advance his argument historically as well, pointing to evidence for the currency of Aramaic in Jewish communities in Egypt, which seemed to him to require an Aramaic version in Alexandria. While subsequent scholarship has demurred from Delekat’s latter conclusion, the legacy of his (and de Rossi’s) historical sensibilities may be seen in more recent suggestions that if the Septuagint does not depend on a complete Aramaic targum per se, the influence of Aramaic may be seen in renderings within the Septuagint which depend on Aramaic and the conceptualization of Jewish religious culture in an Aramaic milieu.14 While this brief resumé of the comparison of Targum and the Old Greek/ Septuagint confirms that it has a respectably long history, it seemed to the editors that this was nevertheless a history in need of a new chapter. The question of the relationship between the two traditions has remained largely framed in terms of how the ancient Greek of the Septuagint might have been influenced by a still more ancient Aramaic translation tradition, but developments in the study of both versions suggest a need to revisit the question armed with fewer assumptions and a greater diversity of methodological approaches. In the view of the editors, the essays collected here reflect such a revisiting, delivered as most of them were at a joint session of the International Organization for Targum Studies (IOTS) and the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate studies (IOSCS) when both organizations met in Stellenbosch in association with the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament (IOSOT) in September of 2016. The desire to organize such a joint-session stemmed from a recognition that the increasing disciplinary specialization responsible for advancing our understanding of Aramaic and Greek translations in their own right, had actually militated against our understanding of how these two great translation traditions of Jewish antiquity might relate to each other. Indeed, such was the interest in the session in Stellenbosch that the editors felt it useful to include in this volume several contributions not delivered at the meeting, but very much apropos to the subject 12  Jan Joosten, “The Samareitikon and the Samaritan Tradition” in Die Septuaginta—Text, Wirkung, Rezeption. 4. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 19.–22. Juli 2012, ed. Wolfgang Kraus, Siegfried Kreuzer, Martin Meiser, and Marcus Sigismund; WUNT 325 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 351–354; see also idem, “De Targumismes,” 69–71. 13  This holds true whether or not the more apposite analogy is between the Samareitikon and the recensions (Theodotion, Aquila, Symmachus) as Joosten, “De Targumismes,” 58 suggests. 14  Joosten, “De Targumismes,” 54–71.

4

SHEPHERD, JOOSTEN & VAN DER MEER

and which supplemented the range of approaches reflected in those offered in South Africa. 1

Fresh Approaches to Septuagint/Old Greek and Targum

The contributions in the first part of this volume revisit the central question as it has been framed historically: how (if at all) do the texts of the Old Greek relate to those of the classical Targumim? Yet in exploring this question anew, some contributors attend to fresh details while others propose new frames of reference altogether. In the first of a series of essays comparing particular passages/books in the Targum and the Septuagint / Old Greek, Johann Cook considers their respective renderings of theological loci classici in the opening chapters of Genesis (including 1:26–27). He finds in some Targumim (cf. Neofiti and Fragmentary Targum), a conscious effort to underline notions of God’s creation as orderly, fundamentally good—indeed perfect—and achieved by means of wisdom, in opposition to contrary notions current in some circles. At the same time, while others (esp. Rösel) have seen the Septuagint’s rendering of the opening chapters of Genesis as deeply influenced by Platonic philosophical assumptions, Cook, encouraged by his own work in lxx Proverbs, finds evidence of such assumptions distinctly lacking in the Septuagint’s translation of Genesis 1–2. Robert Hayward’s contribution focuses on the Torah as well, but his textual focus on the Greek and Aramaic renderings of Exodus 12 persuades him that while exegetical/interpretive parallels between Septuagint and Targumim (esp. Neofiti) are typically atomistic rather than systematic, their agreement on points of religious law is not incidental or insignificant. To prove the point, Hayward shows that the technical and quite precise use of the word γ(ε)ιώρας at 12:19 to refer to the convert to Judaism finds a parallel in the Aramaic found in Onkelos and in both the main text and margin of Neofiti. For Hayward, such agreements are less likely to reflect divergent Vorlagen than a shared Sitz im Leben, if not in the bet midrash, then perhaps at least in an educational context. Somewhat different conclusions are reached by Michaël N. van der Meer in taking up the Greek and Aramaic versions of Joshua 3–4, in the first of a pair of essays devoted to texts from the Former Prophets. Van der Meer finds no indication that either version of these chapters might have emerged from a liturgical setting, nor that the Greek version is likely to have originated in the sort of “school” setting imagined by Pietersma, Boyd-Taylor and others for

Introduction

5

the Septuagint. That this is less likely for the Septuagint than the Targum is suggested by Van der Meer on the basis that the idiomatic Greek constructions and general freedom of the lxx’s translation of these chapters makes it a far less reliable guide to the Hebrew it translates than the Targum. Indeed, Van der Meer’s observation of a substantial agreement between Tg. Jon. and Symmachus at 3:16 suggests to him that a more fruitful hunting ground for similarities of approach or traces of influence between Aramaic and Greek might be later Greek translations like that of Symmachus. While slightly more agnostic as to what translations may or may not tell us about the social context in which they were produced, Jeremy Hutton seeks to base his own observations on 1 Sam 1:1–5 in the lxx and Tg. Jon. on a quantitative analysis which nevertheless goes beyond “counting” translational interventions of various sorts. To do so, Hutton takes Toury’s insistence that translations must be considered (by the translator if no one else) to be “optimal forms” within the constraints of the target language/culture, as an invitation to apply Optimality Theory to the lxx and Targumic versions of 1 Sam 1:1–5. Seeking to discern and rank the translational constraints within which these translations were produced, Hutton illustrates (amongst other things) that while occasionally trumped by specific linguistic rules, the constraint of morphological linearity (representing the word order of the source) is relatively highly ranked for the Targum. Moreover, while morphological maximality (not “dropping morphemes”) is demonstrably important for the Targum, Hutton shows that it is also a relatively higher ranked constraint for Aquila than lxx. He concludes that rather than thinking in terms of foundational translational premises or techniques it is more useful to think in terms of translators seeking to satisfy various constraints optimally. In the first of three essays focused on the Latter Prophets, Paul Sanders considers the Septuagint and Targumic versions of Isaiah 65:20, both of which imply that in the future prophesied by the prophet (“new heavens, new earth” [v. 17]) people in Jerusalem will live for centuries. It would appear from their interpretations of v. 20 that both Greek and Aramaic translators were troubled by what they saw as its implication that “young” (and potentially innocent) people might die at the age of one hundred (and thus prematurely), but Sanders illustrates how the respective translators sought to “solve” this difficulty in their own ways. While the Septuagint displaces the early death from the νέος “youth” (20bA) to the ἁμαρτωλός “sinner” (20bB), Targum Jonathan maintains the connection between the “youth” and “death” (20bA) but explains the latter by rendering the “youth” as “guilty.” Sanders observes that while neither translator were disturbed by the prospect of “sinners” being eliminated in the

6

SHEPHERD, JOOSTEN & VAN DER MEER

new dispensation, both were uncomfortable with the notion that the innocent might suffer the same fate as sinners. Remaining with Isaiah, but ranging more widely, Arie van der Kooij broaches the question of what the Old Greek and Targum might have in common in their treatment of the Hebrew book. His discussion of Isaiah 19:35 and 22:15–25 in the respective versions acknowledges that there may be evidence of common exegetical traditions in the Greek and Aramaic and that the specific rendering of ‫ לאם‬in lxx Isaiah and Tg. Isaiah may well reflect “an old lexicological tradition.” However, in view of the many striking divergences he observes between lxx Isaiah and Tg. Isaiah, Van der Kooij considers it best to speak of them merely sharing a common approach or method, which includes, for instance, converse translation, metaphorical interpretation, and free rewriting, all of which may be deployed in the respective versions with quite different results, as indeed Sanders’ previous discussion illustrates. In the final essay devoted to the Latter Prophets, Jan Joosten turns to the book of the Twelve and to Hosea, not to argue that the Septuagint here is dependent on Aramaic interpretations, but rather to propose the possibility that the Targum of Hosea depends on the Septuagint. In doing so, he considers Hosea 6:11, where the reading in Septuagint and Targum diverges from the mt in a curious way, and 13:13, where the Greek and Aramaic translators interpret the mt in a way that seems contrary to the context of the verse. Persuaded as he is that the Targum depends on the lxx in Hos. 12:1, Joosten suggests that the other shared readings he discusses might therefore be seen to point in the same direction and that while such evidence is not ironclad, further research is likely to turn up other such examples in the lxx and Targumic version of the Twelve. In considering the relationship between the lxx and the Aramaic rendering of the Targum in the Writings, Anne-Françoise Loiseau turns to Proverbs, and returns to the notion—espoused both in the past and more recently—that the Greek translators have been influenced by the Aramaic. To illustrate the phenomenon, Loiseau focuses on four verses in the mt in which Hebrew ‫חמס‬ “violence” appears and where the Greek translator, rather than eliminating the untimely death of the innocent (cf. Sanders), instead interpolates the untimely death of the wicked. Here, however, Loiseau argues that the Greek translator was encouraged to do so by the polysemy of the Aramaic root ‫“ חטף‬to seize, rob, snatch, tear” and “to do a thing with haste, to hurry, to precipitate oneself”—the latter of which Loiseau suggests has encouraged Jerome’s translation in the Vulgate.

Introduction

2

7

Beyond Targum and lxx

While various of the abovementioned essays point toward ways in which scholarship might move beyond current approaches to Targum and Septuagint per se, the contributions in this second section point toward the importance of broadening the lines of enquiry into other corpora. In a programmatic essay, James Aitken steps back to view the relationship between the Septuagint and the Targum alongside the history of Jewish literary composition more generally. Aitken observes that both compositional and translational traditions testify to an ongoing ebb and flow of authority and its impact on copying, supplementing and revising—probably as inevitable features of the multilingual environment inhabited by Jews in antiquity. Acknowledging the precedence of the Greek, and the likelihood that Hebrew’s ongoing vitality explains why Aramaic targums emerged only later, Aitken’s emphasis nevertheless is on continuity between—and indeed the probable simultaneous production of—Greek and Aramaic translation in ancient Palestine. Indeed, he underlines the importance of future scholarship situating the study of both great translation traditions of Jewish antiquity against the wider backdrop of literary production. The two essays which follow gesture in this direction by focusing on Aramaic and Greek translations which do not belong to either of these two traditions as such, but are nevertheless very much indigenous to Jewish antiquity. In the first of these, David Shepherd compares the Qumran Aramaic version of Job (11Q10) with Greek and Aramaic versions of Job’s famous last words in Job 42:6. In doing so, Shepherd observes that while the later Tg. Job intervenes quite intentionally and obviously to discount the possibility of Job’s expectation of his own death in Job 42:5–6, the Old Greek insists in its translation that Job expects to die of the bodily afflictions initially visited upon him. He also observes that in this respect, the Old Greek shares more with earlier Aramaic translations, including 11QarJob where the translator appears to understand Job to be anticipating his own immolation/incineration, perhaps as a result of experiencing a theophany (Job 38–41). While acknowledging the limits of such studies, Shepherd suggests that future research is needed to determine whether the Old Greek is more closely aligned with the Qumran Aramaic versions than the Targum with respect to interpretive traditions as well as translational approach, as has been previously argued in relation to Job.

8

SHEPHERD, JOOSTEN & VAN DER MEER

It is precisely such a translational approach which Alun Thomas considers in comparing those portions of Leviticus found in Aramaic in Cave 4 at Qumran (4Q156) with Greek and other Aramaic versions of these passages. In doing so, he finds that while the earliest renderings into Greek (Old Greek Leviticus) and Aramaic (QarLev) inevitably differ in their rendering of elements (such as pronominal suffixes) due to the variable constraints of the respective languages, they both tend to depart from the Hebrew in order to accommodate the respective demands of Aramaic and Greek idiom. Thomas also observes that this accommodating tendency of the earlier (Qumran) Aramaic and (Old) Greek translations is also illustrated by their willingness to drop morphemes like the nota accusativa, depart from the order of the Hebrew and abandon the kinds of isomorphic renderings characteristic of both the Targumim and the Hexaplaric witnesses. It is to later Greek traditions which Christian Stadel turns in his contribution on the Samareitikon and the Samaritan Targum. However, Stadel does not consider the evidence for a Greek Samaritan translation and its relationship to the tradition’s extant Aramaic one in order to revisit Delekat’s argument for the translation of the lxx from the Targum on analogy, or to uncover further indications of the Samaritan Targum’s influence on their Greek version. Rather, Stadel offers examples of renderings in the former that were themselves influenced by a Greek translation which resembles that found in the Septuagint. Such examples include a departure from a traditional Jewish interpretation found in both, a translation which is exceptional for the Samaritan Targum and paralleled in the Septuagint, as well as a translation in which the Samaritan Targum uses Greek words not found elsewhere in the tradition’s Aramaic sources but attested in the Septuagint. These findings offer an important addition to the otherwise limited evidence of Greek-Aramaic interaction within the Samaritan tradition, but also suggest the possibility that further explorations may well turn up other signs of Septuagintal influence, if not on the general translational approach of the Samaritan Targum, then certainly on particular translations and stylistic devices found within it. Still later recensions of the Greek tradition are considered by Shifra Sznol, who takes up the relationship not between Onkelos and lxx as much earlier scholarship had done, but instead between Onkelos/Jonathan (along with Rabbinic interpretation) and the Jewish Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible which were produced subsequent to Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion. Sznol offers a series of examples which suggest that these “new” Greek translations were influenced not only by these earlier recensions of the lxx but also by the translations (targums) and commentaries associated with the Rabbis. She argues that interpretations found in these Greek translations which were

Introduction

9

drawn from the Targum as well as midrashic and medieval exegesis suggest that these Greek translations were not created before the seventh or eighth century and perhaps somewhat after. Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman moves beyond the lxx and the Targum in a rather different way, by tracing Eastern and Western Christianity’s respective associations of the Septuagint and Targum Jonathan with the famous if elusive figure of Simeon in the New Testament. Van Staalduine-Sulman illustrates how the interpretation of Simeon in commentaries right up to the sixteenth century portrayed him as a transitional figure—expecting the Messiah, but eventually eclipsed by the new Christian dispensation—an identification which was seen to justify the use of the Septuagint in the Eastern Church and Targum Jonathan in the West. Such a study resonates with a renewed interest in how and why particular figures (e.g. Aquila-Onqelos) are identified with Greek and Aramaic translations within Judaism and points to the importance of further study in this area. In the view of its editors, perhaps the chief contribution of this volume as a whole is that it offers a stimulating illustration not only of fresh approaches to understanding the relationship between lxx and Targum, but also how moving beyond this understanding requires a broadening of the field, a “going beyond” Targum and lxx per se to consider the phenomena of Greek and Aramaic translation in Jewish antiquity more generally, including both Aramaic versions before the Targum and Greek translation after the Old Greek. For this reason, while we hope this volume constitutes a welcome next chapter in the discussion of the relationship between the two great translation traditions of Jewish antiquity, we also hope that it will play some small part in paving the way for the writing of the next one. Bibliography Churgin, Pinchos, “The Targum and the Septuagint,” AJSL 50 (1933): 41–65. Delekat, Lienhard, “Ein Septuagintatargum,” VT 8 (1958): 225–52. Field, Frederick, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt (Oxford: Clarendon, 1875). Frankel, Zacharias, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta (Leipzig: Vogel, 1841). Frankel, Zacharias, Ueber den Einfluss der Palästinensischen Exegese auf die Alexandrinische Hermeneutik (Leipzig: Barth, 1851). Joosten, Jan, “Des Targumismes dans la Septante ?,” in The Targums in Light of the Second Temple Period, ed. Thierry Legrand and Jan Joosten; JSJSup 167 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 54–71.

10

SHEPHERD, JOOSTEN & VAN DER MEER

Joosten, Jan, “The Samareitikon and the Samaritan Tradition” in Die Septuaginta— Text, Wirkung, Rezeption. 4. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 19.–22. Juli 2012, ed. Wolfgang Kraus, Siegfried Kreuzer, Martin Meiser, and Marcus Sigismund; WUNT 325 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 346–60. Kohn, Samuel, “Samareitikon und Septuaginta,” MGWJ 38 (1894): 1–7, 49–67. Lange, Nicholas de, Julia G. Krivoruchko, and Cameron Boyd-Taylor, eds., Jewish Reception of Greek Bible Versions: Studies in Their Use in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, Texts and Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Judaism 23 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009). Rossi, Azariah de, The Light of the Eyes, transl. Joanna Weinberg (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001). Rossi, Azaria de, Selected Chapters from Sefer Me’or Einayim and Matsref la-Kessef, ed. Robert Bonfil (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1991). Salvesen, Alison, “Did Aquila and Symmachus Shelter under the Rabbinic Umbrella?” in Greek Scripture and the Rabbis, ed. T. Michael Law and Alison Salvesen; CBET 66 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 107–126. Smelik, Willem, Rabbis, Language and Translation in Late Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013). Staalduine-Sulman, Eveline van, Justifying Christian Aramaism: editions and Latin translations of the Targums from the Complutensian to the London Polyglot Bible (1517–1657), Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series 33 (Leiden: Brill, 2017). Weinberg, Joanna, “Azariah de Rossi and Septuagint Traditions,” Italia 5:1–2 (1985): 7–35.

Part 1 Fresh Approaches to Septuagint/ Old Greek and Targum

∵

Chapter 1

Reflecting on the Creation (‫)בראשית‬: a Comparison of Genesis 1 in the Pentateuchal Targumim and the Septuagint Johann Cook 1 Introduction This paper ventures into reflection and compares various versions of a wellknown passage in the book of Genesis, viz. chapter 1. It discusses prominent differences between the pentateuchal Targumim and the Septuagint of Genesis 1. Reasons for these striking differences are sought in contextual differences and in Hellenism.1 2

The Targumim2

Targum Onqelos on the Torah is the official3 traditional Jewish Targum of Eastern (Babylonian) and Western (Palestinian) Judaism.4 It is generally quite literal in its translation, but expansive in the poetic sections. A characteristic of this Targum is that it uses lexemes that represent haggadic traditions.

1  This joint session of IOSCS and IOTS provided me of an opportunity to revisit past research topics. I have in fact changed some of my views in the light of new evidence or novel insights, as should become clear below. 2  For a definition of Targum see Paul V.M. Flesher and Bruce D. Chilton, The Targums: A Critical Introduction, Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 12 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 4. Translations from the Targumim are taken from the Aramaic Bible (ArBib) series, see the references below. 3  See Flesher and Chilton. The Targums: A Critical Introduction, 9. 4  See Martin McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis. Translated with Apparatus and Notes, ArBib 1a (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1992), 1. According to Moses Aberbach and Bernard Grossfeld, Targum Onkelos to Genesis. A Critical Analysis Together With An English Translation of the Text (Based on A. Sperber’s Edition) (Denver: Ktav, 1982), 9, it is the oldest Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004416727_003

14

Cook

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan5 is a Targum of the Pentateuch representing a Babylonian version of the Palestinian Targum tradition.6 It is probably an eighth-century ce composition incorporating earlier and later midrashic and targumic material. An example is the reference to the wives of Mohammed in Gen 21:21. According to Maher,7 Pseudo-Jonathan is different from all the other Targumim, although there is a relation of sorts with Onqelos and the Palestinian Targumim of the Pentateuch. Maher has argued that the haggadic material in Pseudo-Jonathan is essentially of a Palestinian nature. Its hybrid language is, moreover, a mixture of Palestinian forms with linguistic elements characteristic of Eastern Aramaic.8 Nevertheless it has its own individual character, as will soon become clear. Targum Yerushalmi/Palestinian Targumim:9 a Targum used in Eretz-Israel and the west, built on the basis of Onqelos but adding extensive midrashic exposition, finalised only in the Byzantine era. Prior to the 1950s it was known only from fragments preserved in what are called the “fragment targums” and in fragmentary pages from the Cairo Genizah. However, a complete sixteenthcentury manuscript of the entire Torah in that tradition was discovered in a library at the Vatican by Alejandro Díez Macho in 1949 and identified by him in 1956 as a complete copy of the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch.10 It is now referred to as Targum Neofiti.11 It is possible to classify and group the Aramaic versions of the Pentateuch on the basis of content, translation technique and linguistic characteristics.12 According to these criteria, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Targum Onqelos should be classified together, whereas Targum Neofiti and the Fragmentary Targumim belong together.

5   See Flesher and Chilton. The Targums: A Critical Introduction, 9. 6    See John Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature. An Introduction to Jewish Interpretations of Scripture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 26. 7   Michael Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis. Translated, with Introduction and Notes, ArBib 1B (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1992), 1. 8   Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, 2. 9   See Flesher and Chilton. The Targums: A Critical Introduction, 10. 10  McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1, 8. 11  Alejandro Díez Macho, “The Recently Discovered Palestinian Targum: Its Antiquity and Relationship with the Other Targums,” in Congress Volume, Oxford 1959, VTSup 7 (Leiden: Brill, 1960), 222–45. 12  According to Flesher and Chilton, The Targums: A Critical Introduction, 10, the different Targumim were written in different dialects.

15

Reflecting on the Creation

2.1 Targum Pseudo-Jonathan There are two extant sources of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan for the Pentateuch. These are the British Museum MS Add 2703113 and the Venice edition printed in the second Rabbinic Bible.14 The two extant editions are those of Ginsburger15 and Rieder,16 which act as basis for this analysis. I consistently made use of the available texts of the CAL (Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon).17 Gen 1:1 mt Tg. Ps.-J.

‫בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ‬ ‫מן אוולא ברא אלקים ית שמייא וית ארעא‬

At the beginning18 God created the heaven and the earth. ‫ מן אוולא‬is used as equivalent for ‫בראשית‬. The Aramaic phrase is different from

the other Targumim and this must be ascribed to the fact that the different Targumim came to be written in different times and places.19 The same applies to the name of God, ‫אלקים‬. It would seem that ‫ מן אוולא‬was used to express a temporal nuance contrary to possible interpretations in which Greek philosophical perspectives prevail. Genesis Rabbah refers to such views.20 In b. Ḥag 12a it is mentioned that Rab, one of the prominent Babylonian rabbis, said that on the first day ten things were created: heaven, earth, tohu, bohu, light and darkness, wind and water, the measure of the day and the measure of the night. In Gen. Rab. I.5 these words are interpreted in relation to preexistent matter: “God created heaven and earth; Out of what? Out of Now the earth was Tohu and Bohu.” Similar views are rejected in the same writing I.9, 13  McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1, 4. 14  Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, ix. 15  Moses Ginsburger, Pseudo-Jonathan (Thargum Jonathan ben Usiël zum Pentateuch) nach der Londoner Handschrift (Berlin: Calvary, 1903; Basel: Gasser, 1974). 16  David Rieder, Pseudo-Jonathan (Targum Jonathan ben Uziel on the Pentateuch (Jerusalem: Makor, 1974). 17  http://cal.huc.edu/. See Stephen A. Kaufman, The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon, Text Entry and Format Manual, Publications of The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987). 18  Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, 16. 19  See Johann Cook, “Studies in the Creation Traditions of the Septuagint, the Vulgate, the Peshitta and the Targumim” (Unpublished PhD diss., University of Stellenbosch, 1982), 120. See also Cook, “Anti-Heretical Traditions in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan,” JNSL 11 (1983): 47–57. 20  See Cook, “Studies in the Creation Traditions,” 102.

16

Cook

where the discussions of a certain philosopher, Gamaliel, concerning the creation are compiled. The philosopher said, “Your God was indeed a great artist, but surely He found good materials which assisted him. ‘What are they?’ said he to him. ‘Tohu, bohu, darkness, water, wind and the deep’, replied he. ‘Woe to that man,’ he exclaimed. ‘The term creation is used by Scripture in connection with all of them.’” Gen 1:2 mt Tg. Ps.-J.

‫והארץ היתה תהו ובהו וחׁשך על פני תהום ורוח אלהים מרחפת על פני‬ ‫המים‬ ‫וארעא הוות תהייא ובהיא צדיא מבני נש וריקנייא מן כל בעיר וחשוכא‬ ‫על אנפי תהומא ורוח רחמין מן קדם אלקים מנתבא על אנפי מיא‬

And the earth was without form and void, desolate of sons of people and empty of all animals and darkness was upon the surface of the deep and a merciful wind from before God was blowing over the surface of the water. The Aramaic words ‫ וריקנייא‬and ‫ צדיא‬that are used as equivalents for ‫תהו ובהו‬, are part of the midrashic addition. It would seem as if the intention is to provide additional information.21 They could have been added, for example, in order to reject specific speculative interpretations concerning the Hebrew.22 Gen 1:26 mt Tg. Ps.-J.

‫ויאמר אלהים נעשה אדם בצלמנו כדמותנו וירדו בדגת הים‬ ‫ובעוף השמים ובבהמה ובכל הארץ ובכל הרמש הרמש על הארץ‬ ‫ואמר אלקים למלאכייא דמשמשין קומוי דאיתבריי{ן}⟨ו⟩ ביום‬ ‫תניין לבריית עלמא נעבד אדם בצילמנא כדייוקננא וישלטון בנוני‬ ‫[בכוורי] ימא ובעופא דבאויר שמייא ובבעירא ובכל ארעא ובכל‬ ‫ריחשא דרחיש עילוי ארעא‬

And God said to the angels who minister before him and who were created on the second day of the creation of the world: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds that are in the air of heaven and over the cattle, and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” 21  See Cook, “Studies in the Creation Traditions,” 102. 22  See Cook, “Studies in the Creation Traditions,” 102.

Reflecting on the Creation

17

This verse as well as verse 27 are some of the loci classici of the doctrine concerning God in theological circles. The reference to the angels in the midrashic addition can be interpreted as an anti-Christian insertion.23 This reference acts as a rejection of the interpretation of the plural in the phrase “Let us make man …” as a reference to the Triune God. Similar views are found in the writings of the church fathers and other Christian exegetes. Christian exegetes, like Justin the martyr,24 in fact interpreted the first part as a heresy. There is also an addition concerning angels in verse 20 “and God said ‘Let the alluvial mud of the waters swarm forth a swarm of living creatures and birds that fly, whose nests are on the earth and the course of their flight across the air of the firmament of heaven.” The addition of the reference to the alluvial mud/muddy parts of the water (‫ )רקקי מוי‬is an endeavour to clear the problem that fish and birds are mentioned together.25 The second addition is an attempt to explain that this reference is to birds and not to angels, which, according to Gen. Rab. I.3 and III.8, were created on the second day of creation (R. Johanan). R. Hanina stated that they were created on the fifth day (Gen 1:20). The fact that in Pseudo-Jonathan the creation of angels is seen to have taken place on the second day is in line with an anti-gnostic interpretation found widely in Amoraic writings.26 According to some gnostic doctrines, the world was created by angels, which would account for it being imperfect. Gen. Rab. I.3 states that they were not created on the first day and hence could not have been involved in the creation process. Thus the addition in Pseudo-Jonathan rejects the possibility that God was assisted in the creation process and that it could be imperfect.27 Gen 1:27 mt ‫ויברא אלהים את האדם בצלמו בצלם אלהים ברא אתו זכר ונקבה‬

‫ברא אתם‬

Tg. Ps.-J

‫וברא אלקים ית אדם בדיוקניה בצילמא אלקים ברא יתיה במאתן‬ ‫וארבעין ותמני איברין בׁשית מאה וׁשיתין וחמׁשא גידין וקרם עילוי‬ ‫מוׁשכא ומלי יתיה ביסרא ואדמא דכר ונוקבא בגוונהון ברא יתהון‬

23  See Cook, “Studies in the Creation Traditions,” 120. 24  Justin the Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, trans. A. Lukyn Williams (New York: MacMillan, 1931), 62, C and D. 25  See Cook, “Studies in the Creation Traditions,” 115. 26  Cf. Efraim E. Urbach, The Sages—Their Concepts and Beliefs, Vol. 1, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1975), 203. 27  See Cook, “Studies in the Creation Traditions,” 117.

18

Cook

And God created man in his likeness, in the image of God created he him with 248 members and 365 sinews and he covered them with skin and filled it with flesh and blood, male and female in their respective qualities created he them. Once again midrashic additions are utilized in Pseudo-Jonathan to specify unclear passages. The addition of the figures 248 and 365 (613 in total) has parallels in Jewish sources, where the fact that the law of Moses contains 613 ‫מצות‬, 248 commands and 365 prohibitions is conspicuous.28 In Pseudo-Jonathan a parallel is drawn between the contents of the Torah and of man. The context of this passage is important. It follows immediately upon the statement that man was created in the image of God. Seemingly the image of God is interpreted in connection with the Torah of God. It would therefore seem that this addition is aimed at describing the fundamental importance of the Torah for man. In orthodox Jewish circles the Torah was understood as representative of God’s perfect will. In these circles it was thought that man can be good, do good and do the will of God by keeping the law. The intention of this parallel between the Torah and created man is to stress that man is perfect and good and able to do good. This view was contrary to views in Christianity, which taught the fundamental sinfulness of man.29 This represents one of the fundamental points of difference between Judaism and Christianity. This interpretation of Christianity could have led to the insertion of the midrashic addition in verse 27.30 Targum Onqelos 2.2 The text used in the analysis is Sperber’s edition.31 The criticism of this edition has been taken into account.32

28  See Cook, “Studies in the Creation Traditions,” 122. See also Cook, “Anti-Heretical Traditions in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan,” 47–57. 29  See Cook, “Studies in the Creation Traditions,” 123. 30  See Cook, “Studies in the Creation Traditions,” 123. 31  See Alexander Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, Vol. 1, The Pentateuch According to Targum Onkelos (Leiden: Brill, 1959). 32  See Malachi Martin, “The Babylonian Tradition and Targum,” in Le Psautier. Ses origines. Ses problèmes littéraires. Son influence, ed. Robert A. De Langhe, Orientalia et Biblica Lovaniensia 4 (Louvain: Publications universitaires, 1962), here 425–451, here 446, and Alejandro Díez Macho, “A Fundamental Manuscript for an Edition of the Babylonian Onqelos to Genesis,” in In Memoriam Paul Kahle, ed. Matthew Black and Georg Fohrer, BZAW 103 (Berlin: A. Töpelmann, 1968), 62–78, esp. 64.

19

Reflecting on the Creation

Gen 1:1 Tg. Onq.

‫בקדמין ברא יוי ית שמיא וית ארעא‬

In the beginning Jah created the heaven and the earth. The combination ‫ בקדמין‬is a temporal interpretation of ‫בראשית‬. Gen 1:2 Tg. Onq.

‫וארעא הות צדיא ורוחא ורוקניא [פריש] על אפי התומא וחשוכא מן‬ ‫קדם יוי {דייי} מנשבא {מתנשבא} על אפי מיא‬

And the earth was unformed and empty and darkness was spread over the surface of the deep and the wind from before Jah was blowing over the surface of the water. As in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan the Aramaic words ‫ צדיא‬and ‫ ורוקניא‬are used as equivalents for ‫תהו ובהו‬. This is the case with Neofiti and Fragmentary Targum too. The difference between Onqelos and the others is that there they are part of extensive midrashic additions, whereas in Onqelos just the individual Aramaic words are used. Clearly an abridgement of a well-known tradition is used in Onqelos. 2.3 Targum Neofiti The edition of Díez Macho33 is used for this study. Gen 1:1 Tg. Neof.

‫מלקדמין בחכמה ברא דייי שכלל ית שמיא וית ארעא‬

From the beginning with wisdom the Memra/Son of Jah created and finished/perfected the heaven and the earth. The text in MS has been corrected after an erasure: the “and” of the original is visible before “perfected.” The original was probably “the Lord, or the Memra of the Lord, created and perfected.”34

33  See Alejandro Díez Macho, Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense Ms. De la Biblioteca Vaticana, Tomo I, Genesis (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1968). 34  McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1, 52.

20

Cook

Frg. Tg.35

‫בחכמה״מן לקדמין״ ברא וייי ושכליל ית שמיא וית ארעא‬

(From the beginning) with wisdom Jah created and finished/perfected the heaven and the earth. Gen 1:2 Tg. Neof.

‫וארעא הוות תהיא ובהיא וצדי מן בר נש ומן בעיר וריקנא מן כל‬ ‫פלחן צמחין ומן אילנין וחשוכא פריס על אפי תהומא ורוח דרחמין‬ ‫מן קדם ייי הוה מנשבא על אפי מיא‬

‎ nd the earth was empty of all workers of the fields and of trees and A darkness was blowing over the face of the deep and a spirit of mercy from before Jah was hovering over the face of the sea. Díez Macho states that verse 1 in Neofiti underwent numerous reviews and that the last hand was that of a Christian censor.36 Schäfer37 disagrees on account of the correspondence between Neofiti and Fragmentary Targum. Weiss expressed the view that ‫ בחכמה‬is here used as the creation instrument of God.38 Alexander took ‫ בחכמה‬as original and thinks ‫ מלקדמין‬represents later rabbinic exegesis.39 Wisdom can be interpreted variously in Christian circles, as well as in heretical circles.40 In Jewish writings wisdom also occupied a prominent position in respect of creation. Ben Sira understood wisdom as a hypostatisation which was created before all things in 1:4.41 She was the ordering principle which was 35  Michael L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch According to their Extant Sources. Volume I. Texts, Indices and Introductory Essays (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980), 43. 36  Díez Macho, “The Recently Discovered Palestinian Targum,” 232. See also Díez Macho, Neophyti 1, 3. 37  Peter Schäfer, “Der Grundtext von Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. Eine synoptische Studie zu Gen 1,” in Das Institutum Judaicum der Universität Tübingen in den Jahren 1971–1972 (Tübingen: Tübingen University, 1972), 8–29, here 9. 38   Hans-Friedrich Weiss, Untersuchungen zur Kosmologie des hellenistischen und palästinischen Judentum (Berlin: Akademie, 1966), 198. 39  Philip S. Alexander, review of Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense Ms. De la Biblioteca Vaticana Tomo I, Genesis and Tomo II, Exodus, by Alejandro Díez Macho, JJS 24 (1973): 97. 40  See Cook, “Studies in the Creation Traditions,” 158. 41  Friederich V. Reiterer, “Three Poetic Pillars in the Book of Ben Sira: From the Divine to Human Wisdom,” in Construction, Coherence and Connotations. Studies on the Septuagint, Apocryphal and Cognate Literature, ed. Pierre Jordaan et al., DCLS 34 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016), 27–50, esp. 28.

Reflecting on the Creation

21

poured out by God on all things. He regarded wisdom as a kind of world reason emanating from God, filling and ordering the whole of creation, according to Hengel.42 There is a correspondence between this view and the Stoic Logos.43 The identification of wisdom and Torah which is found in later rabbinic writings also occurs in Ben Sira and Aristobulus. In Gen. Rab. I.4 “R. Banayah said: the world and the fullness thereof were created only for the sake of the Torah: The Lord for the sake of wisdom (i.e. the Torah) founded the earth (Prov 3, 19).”44 In the Targumim exegetical renderings and midrashic insertions were used in various ways. They are usually applied in order to specify and/or explicate specific Hebrew passages which may be the subject of possible misunderstanding. In some instances an addition could have been added on the basis of apologetical considerations. It is possible that ‫ בחכמה‬and ‫ ושכליל‬could have been added to verse 1 on account of such considerations. The semantic possibilities of ‫ שכלל‬are “finish,” “establish,” “decorate,” and “perfect.” This verb was evidently added in order to explicate the creation act of God. On the one hand, the semantic possibilities of “finish” could have been the intention of the person responsible for this verse. This is a view according to which it was believed that God became uninterested in the creation, in a deistic way. On the other hand, the semantic possibility of “perfect” could have been intended. In certain circles it was believed that the creation of God was fundamentally bad, useless and disorderly.45 The verb ‫ שכלל‬could have been added in order to repudiate such views. The use of ‫ בחכמה‬also fits this picture. If God created the world by means of wisdom, then it follows that it cannot be imperfect and useless, etc. An additional argument is that in the rest of Genesis 1 in Neofiti and Fragmentary Targum additions occur which underline the goodness, correctness and orderliness of God’s creation.46 The following phrase recurs with regularity: the equivalent of the Hebrew phrase “and God saw that it was good” is rendered by “and it was manifest before Jah that it was beautiful and correct/ good.” The fact that two adjectives are used to render the Hebrew adjective ‫טוב‬, underscores this understanding.

42  Martin Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus, Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Palästinas bis zur Mitte des 2. Jh.s v. Chr. (Tübingen: Mohr, Siebeck, 1973), 288. 43  Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus, ibid. 44  See Cook, “Studies in the Creation Traditions,” 158. 45  See Cook, “Studies in the Creation Traditions,” 160. 46  See Cook, “Studies in the Creation Traditions,” 169.

22

Cook

There is a definite pattern in Genesis 1 in Neofiti and the Fragmentary Targumim. Many of the additions were interpreted in an anti-heretical way. It was the aim of the persons responsible for these Targumim to underline the fact that God’s creation was fundamentally good, perfect and orderly. It is not difficult to see the influence of Hellenistic thought in this regard. The same cannot be deduced as far as the other Targumim are concerned. These differences are clearly the result of contextual factors. A question that needs to be addressed is the impact of Hellenism on these interpretations. The only allusion to Hellenism is the anti-heretical interpretations mentioned above. As far as the Septuagint is concerned, there are some Septuagint scholars who find Platonic influences in Gen 1 and 2. 3

The Septuagint

As is well known, the first chapter of Genesis has a complex history of origin and transmission. The difference between mt and lxx testifies to that. There are numerous differences in the so-called Hexaemeron (vv. 1–31).47 The following general structure can be reconstructed from the two versions:48 A. Wortbericht (‫)ויאמר אלהים‬ B. Ending formula for the Wortbericht (‫)ויהי כן‬ C. Tatbericht (‫)ויעש אלהים‬ D. Name-giving (‫)ויקרא אלהים‬ E. Ending formula for the Tatbericht (‫)וירא אלהים כי טוב‬ F. Ending formula for a day (‫)ויהי ערב ויהי בקר יום‬ There is a discrepancy in the Hebrew compared to the Septuagint between the number of days (six) and the number of works (eight) completed during these days. Moreover, this structure is not followed for all the days and/ or works.49 The first day of creation does not have a Tatbericht. Likewise, the creation of man (vv. 26–30) has no ending formula following, nor Wort- or Tatberichte. Finally, the name-giving formulae are not found in connection with the third and fourth days. However, there are explanations for these 47  I thank Prof. A.G. van Aarde, editor of HTS Theological Studies, for permission to use my article Johann Cook, “The text-critical and exegetical value of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies, 72 (2016) available at: http://www.hts.org.za/ index.php/HTS/article/view/3280. Date accessed: 21 Feb. 2017. 48  Johann Cook, “The Septuagint of Genesis—Text and/or Interpretation?” in The Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History, ed. André Wénin, BETL 155 (Leuven: Peeters, 2001), 315–330, esp. 317. 49  Cook. “The Septuagint of Genesis—Text and/or Interpretation?” 319.

Reflecting on the Creation

23

apparent discrepancies. The non-existence of a Tatbericht in connection with the first day can be deemed natural, since light was seen as the fundamental substance that came about solely by fiat.50 It is also possible that the author(s) of Genesis 1 (the Hexaemeron) decided that the final work, man, should be included in the final expression of satisfaction in verse 31, ‫טוב מאד‬. This could explain why verses 26–30 have no ending formula. In the Septuagint there are significant differences in comparison with the Hebrew. The Septuagint has a much more closely knit structure than mt. Firstly, the equivalent of the Hebrew formula ‫ ויהי כן‬does not occur in verse 6 following the Wortbericht, but instead in verse 7 after the Tatbericht where one would expect it. This applies also to the sixth work (v. 20), where it is not used at all in the mt. The main question is whether these differences should be attributed to a deviating Hebrew Vorlage or to the translator. The transmission history is another possible, albeit unlikely, factor in this case. Martin Rösel51 argues that most of the conspicuous differences are the result of harmonising by the Greek translator. However, scholars differ on this issue. Hendel,52 Brown,53 and Cook54 argue that the differences between the mt and lxx in Genesis 1 are primarily the result of a deviating Hebrew Vorlage. These scholars have varying and nuanced views in this regard. Hendel,55 for one, interprets some of the additions as the result of harmonisations. However, he argues that the differences are the result of a different Hebrew Vorlage.56 This argument is primarily based upon a translation technical assumption. According to Hiebert lxx Genesis is a relatively faithful representation of its source text.57 Moreover, the Greek translation of the creation stories are 50  Claus Westermann, Genesis. 1. Band. Genesis 1–11, BKAT 1.1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974), 155. 51  Martin Rösel, Ü bersetzung als Vollendung der Auslegung. Studien zur Genesis-Septuaginta, BZAW 223 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994), 68. 52  Ronald Hendel, The Book of Genesis 1–11. Textual Studies and Critical Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 124. 53  William Brown, Structure, Role and Ideology in the Hebrew and Greek Texts of Gen 1:1–2:3, SBLDS 132 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 1993). 54  Johann Cook, “Genesis 1 in the Septuagint as an example of the Problem: Text and Tradition,” JNSL 10 (1982): 25–36, where I argue that the translator brought about the harmonisations. However, I changed my mind in the light of new evidence. 55  Hendel, Genesis 1–11, 121 (see below). 56  Ronald Hendel, “On the Text-Critical Value of Septuagint Genesis: A Reply to Rösel,” BIOSCS 32 (1999): 31–34. 57  Robert J.V. Hiebert, “Genesis,” in A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the other Greek Translations traditionally included under that Title (NETS), ed. Albert Pietersma and B.G. Wright (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 1 (see electronic version: http:// ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/01-gen-nets.pdf).

24

Cook

related by means of the particle ἔτι in Genesis 2:9 and 19. These chapters are also harmonised in that Genesis 1:26 and 2:18 both read the plural ποιήσωμεν, whereas the Hebrew has a singular form in Genesis 2.58 These apparent discrepancies were problematic for Jewish exegetes. Gen. Rab. iv.6, for example, contains a discussion of this issue: “He made—how remarkable! Surely it came into existence at God’s word.” This Rabbinic passage also includes attempts to explain why the ending formula for the Tatbericht (‫ )וירא אלהים כי טוב‬in verse 8 is omitted in mt. This applies also to verse 9, where b. Ḥag. 12a offers an explanation for the fact that the Tatbericht is missing. Clearly, the discrepancies were difficult for Jewish exegetes to understand, and they consequently formulated some explanations. It is striking that many of the differences between mt and lxx are in fact connected to water. I have previously argued that the Vorlage of mt differs from lxx’s parent text because it undermined the sovereignty of God.59 This was naturally unacceptable to a conservative Hebrew scribe, who simply adapted his Hebrew text by removing the Tatbericht. Seen as such, the Tatbericht in verse 9 was not added in lxx in order to harmonise apparent discrepancies. The change was rather brought about in the parent text of mt. As a matter of fact, the lxx in general represents the Urtext of Genesis 1. This interpretation has theological implications. The Hebrew (mt) places more focus on the sovereignty of God by bringing about ideologically inspired adaptations. This is another example of the fact that there should be an interactive relationship between textual and literary criticism.60 This explanation is primarily based on internal considerations—the Septuagintal textual material naturally is primary evidence.61 But fortunately there is Qumran material available, recently published by Davila,62 that underscores the Septuagint reading of verse 9. To be sure, the material is fragmentary and includes only three words, as well as the consonant ‫ ׁש‬in separate lines. However, the third line contains a crucial Hebrew word, ‫מקוה‬. This word corresponds with the Greek word 58  See Cook, “Studies in the Creation Traditions,” 64. 59  Cook. “The Septuagint of Genesis—Text and/or Interpretation?” 319. 60   Johann Cook, “The relationship between textual criticism, literary criticism and exegesis—an interactive one?” Textus 24 (2009): 119–32. 61  Cook, “The text-critical and exegetical value of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 1–6. 62  James R. Davila. “New Qumran Readings for Genesis One,” in Of Scribes and Scrolls. Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian Origins, presented to John Strugnell, ed. Harold W. Attridge et al. (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1990), 8. James R. Davila, “4QGenh1,” in Qumran Cave 4.VI:, Genesis to Numbers, ed. Eugene C. Ulrich and Frank Moore Cross, DJD XII (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 61–62.

Reflecting on the Creation

25

συναγωγή in the lxx, which in turn corresponds with the Old Latin against mt, the Samaritan Pentateuch, Peshitta, Vulgate, Targum Onqelos, Neofiti, the Fragmentary Targum and 4QGenb. These textual witnesses all read the equivalent of ‫מקום‬. The Greek word mentioned appears twice in verse 9, once in the Wortbericht and once in the Tatbericht. mt “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. (nrsv) lxx Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός Συναχθήτω τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ὑποκάτω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ εἰς συναγωγὴν μίαν, καὶ ὀφθήτω ἡ ξηρά. καὶ ἐγένετο οὕτως. καὶ συνήχθη τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ὑποκάτω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ εἰς τὰς συναγωγὰς αὐτῶν, καὶ ὤφθη ἡ ξηρά. Thus there clearly existed a Hebrew text of the Tatbericht that corroborates the interpretation I offered above. However, it must be conceded that the Hebrew text is fragmentary. It should, nevertheless, be remembered that one of the golden rules of textual criticism is that textual evidence should be weighed and not counted. This reconstruction has theological implications. Some Hebrew scribe, probably in Egypt where water plays a crucial role in creation stories—an example is the water god who inseminates the earth from above-, deliberately removed the Tatbericht from Genesis 1:9, because it undermined the sovereignty of Elohim. In the formulation of a theology of the Septuagint version of Genesis, this could be a prominent topos.63 This reconstruction naturally undermines the interpretation that it was the translator who was responsible for the harmonisation of Genesis chapter 1.64 Rösel,65 as I did earlier, seems to presuppose that there is a direct relationship between form and content. In the process Rösel finds traces of Platonic

63  Cf. Martin Rösel, “Towards a ‘Theology of the Septuagint,” in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures, ed. Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden, SBLSCS 53 (Atlanta: SBL, 2006), 239–252. See also Johann Cook, “Towards the Formulation of a Theology of the Septuagint,” in Congress Volume Ljubljana 2007, ed. André Lemaire, VTSup 133 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 621–40. 64  As I said, I have in fact changed my opinion in this regard. See Cook, “Genesis 1 in the Septuagint as an example of the Problem: Text and Tradition,” 25–36, for the original view. 65  Rösel, Ü bersetzung als Vollendung der Auslegung, 58.

26

Cook

influence in lxx Gen 1. In a recent article Hiebert66 concurs with Rösel on this issue. He quotes from Plato Tim. 50c–d and 51a–b as motivation. Van der Horst reacts strongly to the idea of Platonic cosmological influence in this Greek verse.67 He deems it rather far-fetched.68 David Runia69 has a corresponding view, as can be gleaned from the following comment: “Rösel has recently revived the idea that the lxx translators of Genesis themselves were influenced by Plato’s Timaeus, but in this case the hypothesis lacks all plausibility. It is Philo who sees the connection” (my italics). Van der Horst takes a cue from the Greek lexicon and more specifically from the lexeme δύσφατος, which means “not to be looked at, unsightly.” According to Van der Horst, this nuance fits in with the second adjective, ἀκατασκεύαστος, which means “unorganized, in a state of disorder.” The most recent contribution on this issue is by Michaël N. van der Meer.70 He explores the role of the Jewish translators of the Septuagint in the formation of Hellenistic Judaism and later Christian interpretations. He refers to two theoretical positions in this regard. The first is a minimalist view, the second a maximalist perspective. The issue at stake is located in Genesis 2, namely a supposed dualistic anthropology. He correctly indicates “it is a hotly debated issue in present-day Septuagint scholarship whether the Greek translators interpreted their parent text only on the basis of Hebrew Scripture or deliberately incorporated contemporary politics and philosophy into their translation.”71 Van der Meer has an innovative approach in that he explores the papyri dating from the third to the first century bce in Egypt in analysing Gen 2 verse 7. He addresses three issues:72 1. Whether the Old Greek translation of Gen 2:7 actually marks a transformation in Israelite and early Jewish anthropology?

66  Robert J.V. Hiebert, “A ‘Genetic’ Commentary on the Septuagint of Genesis,” JSCS 46 (2013): 19–36, esp. 27. 67  Pieter W. van der Horst, “Was the Earth ‘Invisible’? A Note on ἀόρατος in Genesis 1:2 LXX,” JSCS 48 (2015): 5–7. 68  Van der Horst, “Was the Earth ‘Invisible’?,” 6. 69  David Runia, Philo of Alexandria on the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses, PACS 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 165. See also David Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato, PhA 44 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 38–57. 70  Michaël N. van der Meer, “Anthropology in the Ancient Greek Versions of Gen 2:7,” in Dust of the Ground and Breath of Life (Gen 2:7): The Problem of a Dualistic Anthropology in Early Judaism and Christianity, ed. Jacques T.A.G.M. van Ruiten and George H. van Kooten, TBN 20 (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 36–57. 71  Van der Meer, “Anthropology in the Ancient Greek Versions of Gen 2:7,” 38. 72  Van der Meer, “Anthropology in the Ancient Greek Versions of Gen 2:7,” 40.

Reflecting on the Creation

27

2.

If so, whether the Old Greek represent a deliberate departure from the ancient Israelite concepts, and if so, 3. Was the Old Greek translator influenced by Greek philosophical concepts? He accepts that the parent text of lxx Genesis did not differ substantially from mt.73 Moreover, from a translation technical perspective he argues that the first few chapters of Genesis have been rendered faithfully.74 He suggests an intermediate approach to the study of the Septuagint by way of the vast corpus of Greek documentary papyri from Ptolemaic and early Roman Egypt.75 He then makes a study of the vocabulary of lxx Genesis 2:7. Subsequently he follows Van der Louw,76 who interprets κόσμος for ‫ ָצ ָבא‬in Gen 2 verse 1 as “orderly arrangement” and not as being in line with Plato’s cosmogony, as Rösel does.77 Van der Meer then conducts a fresh analysis of the term χοῦς on the basis of the mentioned corpus and concludes that it does not mean “dust,” but “a heap of clay.” Finally, he concludes: “In lxx Gen 2:7 there is no dualism between body and soul. In fact, it is only through the combination of matter (χοῦς) and spirit (πνοή) that a ψυχή comes into being.”78 Thus he finds no Greek philosophical, Platonic ideas in the first chapters of lxx Genesis. In a recent paper he expresses scepticism about the possibility of Epicurean and hedonistic notions in the opening chapters of lxx Genesis.79 Rösel has the most exhaustive interpretation of the creational passages in Genesis. He addresses the lxx an sich and he has a encompassing methodology.80 He interprets Gen 1:1 as a creatio ex nihilo. Therefore there is no room for Greek philosophical interpretation, God remains sovereign.81 He, nevertheless, finds it strange that the translator uses the verb ποιέω for ‫ברא‬. Moreover, the 73  Van der Meer, “Anthropology in the Ancient Greek Versions of Gen 2:7,” 41. 74  Van der Meer, “Anthropology in the Ancient Greek Versions of Gen 2:7,” 42. 75  Van der Meer, “Anthropology in the Ancient Greek Versions of Gen 2:7,” 51. 76  Theo A.W. van der Louw, Transformations in the Septuagint: Towards an Interaction of Septuagint Studies and Translation Studies, CBET 47 (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 110–11. 77  Van der Meer, “Anthropology in the Ancient Greek Versions of Gen 2:7,” 40. See Van der Louw’s (Transformations in the Septuagint, ibid.) interpretation of the verb πλάσσω contrary Rösel. 78  Van der Meer, “Anthropology in the Ancient Greek Versions of Gen 2:7,” 56. 79  Michaël N. van der Meer, “The Greek Translators of the Pentateuch and the Epicureans,” in Torah and Tradition. Papers read at the Sixteenth Joint Meeting for Old Testament Study and the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap Edinburgh, 2015, ed. Klaas Spronk and Hans Barstad, OTS 70 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 176–200. 80  What follows is based on a paper presented at the Colloquium Biblicum of 1998, entitled “The Septuagint of Genesis—Text and/or Interpretation?,” in: Wénin, The Book of Genesis, 315–29. I thank Mr Paul Peeters from Peeters Publishers for permission to use this article. 81  Rösel, Ü bersetzung als Vollendung der Auslegung, 29.

28

Cook

translator does not differentiate between ‫ ברא‬and ‫ עשה‬in Gen 1 verses 1, 7, 11, 12, 16, 21, 25, 26, 27 and 3, as well as in 2 verses 2, 3, 4 and 18. As a matter of fact from Gen 2:7 onwards another Hebrew verb is used in mt, namely ‫יצר‬, which is rendered by means of πλάσσω in the lxx. In the Hebrew Bible ‫ ברא‬is consistently used in connection with God. As a solution to this apparent anomaly Rösel82 suggests that the translator in fact took a cue from Plato’s Timaeus. There the verb ποιέω is used for the God and father (the demiurge) who created the “Weltseele” and the “Weltkörper,” and πλάσσω for the subordinate helpers. Rösel seems to follow Philo of Alexandria in his Platonic interpretation that Genesis 1 is a description of the ideal world and Gen 2 of the real world. There is, however, a problem with the interpretation of the verbs used by the Greek translator. In Gen 2:18 the verb ποιέω is used in the realm of what, according to Rösel, should have been the real and not the ideal world. Rösel seems to have an ambivalent view concerning the introductory verses in lxx Gen 1. On the one hand, the indication of temporality in the phrase Ἐν ἀρχῇ for ‫ ‬בראשית‬makes it clear to him that there is no indication of Greek philosophical traces pertaining to pre-existent matter.83 On the other hand, he deems the use of two different verbs in Genesis 1 and 2 as ample evidence for concluding that the translator had a Platonic perspective on creation. The Greek verbs under discussion are in fact based upon three different Hebrew verbs. Moreover, very little can be deduced from the fact that the translator used one Greek equivalent in order to render more than one Hebrew verb. This is general practice in the Septuagint. The second verse is also interpreted in a Platonic vein by Rösel. The pregnant phrase ἡ δὲ γῆ ἦν ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος is the main object of analysis and he opts for the interpretation of Philo, which is found in his work On the Creation of the World (De opificio mundi). Philo has a varied, if not confusing, view on creation, which was interspersed with (middle) Platonic, Pythagorean, Stoic and other philosophical perspectives. Rösel’s finds his next piece of evidence in the systematic application of καλός for ‫ טוב‬in verses 4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25 and 31 in Gen 1. Again he engineers the switch from the Hebrew, which the translator presumably had before him, to the world of Greek philosophy, where the Greek concept καλός is an indication of order and symmetry. The idea of goodness (ἀγαθός) is expressed by means of καλός in the Timaeus, an idea that, according to Rösel, was taken over by the 82  Rösel, Ü bersetzung als Vollendung der Auslegung, 30. 83  Rösel, Ü bersetzung als Vollendung der Auslegung, 29: “Gott, nämlich der Gott Israels, hat am Anfang Himmel und Erde geschaffen. Für Spekulationen über Ur-Elementen bleibt dann kein Platz mehr.”

Reflecting on the Creation

29

Septuagint translator of Genesis.84 I find it difficult to accept this evidence as conclusive. Καλός is used as equivalent for ‫ טוב‬in a large number of instances in the Septuagint, especially in Genesis (31 times). ἀγαθός, on the contrary, although it also acts as equivalent for ‫טוב‬, appears only in 5 instances in the book of Genesis. From its usage in the lxx one can hardly make a conclusive deduction. Part of the motivation for finding Platonic influence in Gen 1 is the assumed harmonising tendency of the translator which Rösel finds in this chapter. As said before, it seems to me that Rösel presupposes that there is a direct relationship between form and content. To be sure, the translator did not attempt to harmonise this chapter in detail. The internal harmonisation in verses 11 and 12, which I also think is the result of the work of the translator(s), is ascribed to the influence of the Timaeus by Rösel. Rösel goes further to interpret verse 26 in the lxx in a Platonic manner. The word εἰκών he deems a direct reference to the cosmology of Plato. As in the case of verse 2, he argues that it refers “auf die Vorstellung eines Entsprechungsverhältnisses zwischen einer unsichtbaren Ideen- bzw. Überwelt und der irdischen Welt.”85 He also thinks the fact that ὁμοίωσις occurs only this one time in Genesis is important. He connects this word with ὁμοιότης in verse 11, of which he then finds determinative evidence in Timaeus 30d and 33b. Genesis 2 is also interpreted in a Platonic vein by Rösel. The first verse includes the noun κόσμος which together with the verb συντελέω is taken as an indication of the order and symmetry that is inherent in the Timaeus (92c).86 Even the addition of ἡ βίβλος in the context of verse 4 (Αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς), he takes as a reference to the “umfassende Thematik philosophischer Kosmos Spekulationen,”87 even though he agrees that this addition was brought in from Gen 5:1 by the translator. I think this was done for explicative reasons. The translation of ‫ בהבראם‬by means of ὅτε ἐγένετο in Gen 2:4 he takes as an indication of the end of the first creation, the world of ideas.88 This verse at the same time acts as an introduction to the physical creation (der tatsächlichen Ausführung).89 According to him, the ancient translator and his audience would have no problem in understanding this introduction accordingly. Again 84  Rösel, Ü bersetzung als Vollendung der Auslegung, 32. 85  Rösel, Ü bersetzung als Vollendung der Auslegung, 49. 86  Rösel, Ü bersetzung als Vollendung der Auslegung, 53. 87  Rösel, Ü bersetzung als Vollendung der Auslegung, 53. 88  Rösel, Ü bersetzung als Vollendung der Auslegung, 58. 89  Rösel, Ü bersetzung als Vollendung der Auslegung, 58.

30

Cook

Rösel finds a parallel from Timaeus (27c–29d) for “das Entstehen der sichtbare Welt wird durch γίνομαι bzw. γένεσις ausgedrückt.”90 There are a number of problems with this creative Platonic interpretation of the creation stories in lxx Genesis. Firstly, from a translation-technical perspective the translator sticks basically to his parent text without extensive embroidering expansions, as occurs with lxx Proverbs. In most cases one therefore has to make deductions from individual words. The ambiguous phrase ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος in Gen 1:2 is a case in point. These words are practically hapax legomena; the first is also used in Isa 45:3 and 2 Macc 9:5. Moreover, even though the concept of the equivalent invisible and unformed is used in the Timaeus, the Greek words do not appear together in the treatise itself. The nearest possible parallel is Plato’s reference to a “mother and receptacle” which he called “a kind invisible and unshaped” (ἀνόρατος εἶδος τί καὶ ἄμορφος) (Timaeus 51 d). Another problem involves Plato’s view of the creator and pre-existent matter. It is clear that God was considered by Plato an artificer (demiurge) who had formed the cosmos from pre-existent matter.91 Plato used different expressions to define his concept of matter. It is called chora-space (Timeaus 52b), that place where everything came into being. It was also, according to Plato, filled with a substance, ἐκμαγεῖον (Timaeus 50c). He, moreover, used other substances such as gold, wax and oil metaphorically to describe the matter used by the artificer in the “mother and receptacle,” the chora-space. It is difficult to determine what the nature of this matter was for Plato. According to Aristotle, Plato actually conflated matter and space (Physica 209b). Zeller92 held the view that matter in a Platonic sense was nothing else but space. Guthrie93 argued that Plato meant more than space by the concept of chora, namely a “matrix, stuff without property.” According to him, this chaos was taken over by the artificer. Happ94 also takes chora as a Materieprinzip and not space, which accounts for the fact that it is devoid of all properties. Be that as it may, Plato believed in the pre-existence of matter, which was used to realise the material world. However, Rösel argues that the Greek translator, even though he followed Platonic thought, did not understand Genesis 1 likewise.

90  Rösel, Ü bersetzung als Vollendung der Auslegung, 58. 91  See Cook, “Studies in the Creation Traditions,” 39. 92  Eduard Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung, III. Teil, 2. Abt. (Leipzig: Reisland, 1905), 147. 93  William K.C. Guthrie, A History of the Greek Philosophy, vol. 5. The later Plato and the Academy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), 268. 94  Heinz Happ, Studien zum aristotelischen Materie-Begriff (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1971), 101.

Reflecting on the Creation

31

A further problem I have with Rösel’s interpretation is the way in which he applies perspectives from Philo of Alexandria. Firstly, there is a huge time gap between the origin of the Septuagint and this Hellenistic-Jewish author. Secondly, Philo not only used Platonic ideas in his description of the creation, but he incorporated aspects from other philosophical systems as well. The interpreter is left with a bewildering compilation of perspectives (Stoic and especially Middle Platonism). This is especially true of his understanding of pre-existent matter. To complicate matters further, he applied his view to the biblical (Greek) version of creation (Gen 1 and 2). In this regard he is, however, ambiguous. On the one hand, he interprets the first five verses in Genesis, day one, in terms of the incorporeal world of Plato; on the other hand, he takes Genesis 1 as a description of the incorporeal world in the Platonic sense of the word, with Genesis 2 as the realisation of the material world. This interpretation he based on the Septuagint of Gen 2:9 and 17. The addition of the adverb ἔτι in these verses is seen as a direct reference back to the ideal creation in Genesis 1 (Legum allegoriae I.56). In the lxx these additions also relate these two chapters, but not in the Platonic sense. Genesis 2 refers to matters which have already been described in three passages in Genesis 1. The first is verse 7 where the formation of man is described. There is a difference between Genesis 1 and 2 in that two different verbs are used. This fundamental difference between the “men” of the two chapters is underlined in the addition of ὃν ἔπλασεν in Gen 2:15. The second and third passages in Genesis 2, which are related to Genesis 1, are indeed indicated by means of the adverb ἔτι in Gen 2:9 and 17. This has nothing to do with Platonism, but is the result of internal harmonisation. Rösel holds a well-argued position. After completing his interpretation of the first two chapters of Genesis, he undertakes an excursus on the origin of the world according to the Timaeus of Plato. He indicates many possible correspondences between Genesis 1 and 2 and this treatise, some of which are indeed striking (for instance, his interpretation of Gen 1:11 and 12). However, I am left with the uneasy sense that he has too easily closed the time and cultural gap between lxx Genesis and Plato, as well as Philo of Alexandria. I am therefore not totally convinced by his position. My scepticism is based upon my own research into lxx Genesis, but even more so on my research on the Septuagint version of Proverbs. Contrary to Gerleman (Stoicism),95 Hengel

95  Gilles Gerleman, “The Septuagint Proverbs as a Hellenistic document,” OTS 8 (1950), 15– 27, eps. 19.

32

Cook

and Deist (Platonism)96 and Sandelin (mystery religious influence),97 I could locate few signs of Hellenistic influence in this book. On the contrary, I located a strongly conservative Jewish, anti-Hellenistic attitude in lxx Proverbs, which I ascribe to the historical context in which it came to be written.98 4 Conclusion Hellenism clearly had an impact on both the corpora dealt with in this paper. The difference in the composition between the two corpora is a factor to be reckoned with. The Targumim are not on the same level with the Hebrew Bible. It is in the final analysis the task of the Meturgeman to interpret the Aramaic into which the Hebrew text has been translated, since the Jews could not understand Hebrew, their mother tongue, any longer. These Aramaic versions are therefore in essence interpretations. To be sure the Septuagint, more specifically the Old Greek texts, are also interpretations, since all translations are interpretations. However, they act as a replacement for the scriptural text. Contextual factors also had an impact on these writings. Hence in some of the Targumim, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Neofiti and the Fragmentary Targumim, the Targumists reacted against Greek philosophical, Hellenistic ideas. I identified a number of exegetical traditions in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan that were aimed at rectifying some of the classical differences between Judaism and Christianity, from a Jewish point of view. Genesis 1 verses 26 and 27 are appropriate examples, where the doctrine of the Triunity came under the fire from Judaism. In the final analysis I remain sceptical about the assumption that lxx Genesis 1 and 2 were directly influenced by Plato’s Timaeus. I am also uncertain about the validity of the interpretations of Karrer and Schenker.99 96  Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus, 277 and Ferdinand Deist, Witnesses to the Old Testament, The Literature of the Old Testament 5 (Pretoria: DR Books, 1988), 165. 97   Karl-Gustav Sandelin, Wisdom as Nourisher—a Study of an Old Testament Theme, its Development Within Early Judaism and its Impact on Early Christianity, Acta Aboensis, A. 64.3 (Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 1986), 76. 98  Johann Cook and Arie van der Kooij, Law, Prophets and Wisdom. On the Provenance of Translators and their Books in the Septuagint, CBET 68 (Leuven: Peeters 2012), 168. 99  See the discussion by Martin Karrer “Septuaginta und antike Philosophie,” in Die Septuaginta—Orte und Intentionen, 5. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 24.–27. Juli 2014, ed. Siegfried Kreuzer, Martin Meiser, Marcus Sigismund, Martin Karrer, Wolfgang Kraus; WUNT 361 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 3–34, as well as Adrian Schenker, “‘Was führte zur Übersetzung der Tora ins Griechische?’ Dtn 4,2–8 und Platon (Brief VII,32, 326a–b),” in Die Septuaginta—Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse 2. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch

Reflecting on the Creation

33

Acknowledgements The financial and other assistance of the SANRF is acknowledged. The views expressed in this presentation are solely those of the author. Bibliography Aberbach, Moses and Bernard Grossfeld, Targum Onkelos to Genesis. A Critical Analysis Together With An English Translation of the Text (Based on A. Sperber’s Edition) (University of Denver: Ktav, 1982). Alexander, Philip S., review of Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense Ms. De la Biblioteca Vaticana Tomo I, Genesis and Tomo II, Exodus, by Alejandro Díez Macho, JJS 24 (1973): 97. Bowker, John, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature. An Introduction to Jewish Interpretations of Scripture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969). Brown, William, Structure, Role and Ideology in the Hebrew and Greek Texts of Gen 1:1– 2:3, SBLDS 132 (Atlanta: SBL, 1993). Cook, Johann, “Genesis 1 in the Septuagint as an example of the Problem: Text and Tradition,” JNSL 10 (1982): 25–36. Cook, Johann, “Studies in the Creation Traditions of the Septuagint, the Vulgate, the Peshitta and the Targumim” (Unpublished PhD diss., University of Stellenbosch, 1982). Cook, Johann, “Anti-Heretical Traditions in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan,” JNSL 11 (1983): 47–57. Cook, Johann, “The Septuagint of Genesis—Text and/or Interpretation?” in The Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History, ed. André Wénin, BETL 155 (Leuven: Peeters, 2001), 315–330. Cook, Johann, “The relationship between textual criticism, literary criticism and exegesis—an interactive one?” Textus 24 (2009): 119–132. Cook, Johann, “Towards the Formulation of a Theology of the Septuagint,” in Congress Volume Ljubljana 2007, ed. André Lemaire, VTSup 133 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 621–40. Cook, Johann and Arie van der Kooij, Law, Prophets and Wisdom. On the Provenance of Translators and their Books in the Septuagint, CBET 68 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012). Cook, Johann, “The text-critical and exegetical value of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies, 72 (2016) available at: http://www.hts.org. za/index.php/HTS/article/view/3280. (LXX.D), Wuppertal 23.27.7.2008, ed. Wolfgang Kraus, Martin Karrer, Martin Meiser, WUNT 252 (Tübingen: Mohr, Siebeck, 2010), 23–35.

34

Cook

Davila, James R., “New Qumran Readings for Genesis One,” in Of Scribes and Scrolls. Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian Origins, presented to John Strugnell, ed. Harold W. Attridge et al. (Lanham: University Press of America, 1990), 3–11. Davila, James R., “4QGenh1,” in Qumran Cave 4.VI:, Genesis to Numbers, ed. Eugene C. Ulrich and Frank Moore Cross, DJD XII (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 61–62. Deist, Ferdinand, Witnesses to the Old Testament, The Literature of the Old Testament 5 (Pretoria: DR Books, 1988). Díez Macho, Alejandro, “The Recently Discovered Palestinian Targum: Its Antiquity and Relationship with the Other Targums,” in Congress Volume, Oxford 1959, VTSup 7 (Leiden: Brill, 1960), 222–45. Díez Macho, Alejandro, “A Fundamental Manuscript for an Edition of the Babylonian Onqelos to Genesis,” in In Memoriam Paul Kahle, ed. Matthew Black and Georg Fohrer, BZAW 103 (Berlin: A. Töpelmann, 1968), 62–78. Díez Macho, Alejandro, Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense Ms. De la Biblioteca Vaticana, Tomo I, Genesis (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1968). Flesher, Paul V.M. and Bruce D. Chilton, The Targums: A Critical Introduction, Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 12 (Leiden: Brill, 2011). Gerleman, Gilles, “The Septuagint Proverbs as a Hellenistic document,” OTS 8 (1950), 15–27. Ginsburger, Moses, Pseudo-Jonathan (Thargum Jonathan ben Usiël zum Pentateuch) nach der Londoner Handschrift (Berlin: Calvary, 1903; Basel: Gasser, 1974). Guthrie, William K.C., A History of the Greek Philosophy, vol. 5. The later Plato and the Academy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978). Happ, Heinz, Studien zum aristotelischen Materie-Begriff (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1971). Hendel, Ronald, The Book of Genesis 1–11. Textual Studies and Critical Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998). Hendel, Ronald, “On the Text-Critical Value of Septuagint Genesis: A Reply to Rösel,” BIOSCS 32 (1999): 31–34. Hengel, Martin, Judentum und Hellenismus, Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Berück­sichtigung Palästinas bis zur Mitte des 2. Jh.s v. Chr. (Tübingen: Mohr, Siebeck, 1973). Hiebert, Robert J.V., “Genesis,” in A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the other Greek Translations traditionally included under that Title (NETS), ed. Albert Pietersma and B.G. Wright (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007). Hiebert, Robert J.V., “A ‘Genetic’ Commentary on the Septuagint of Genesis,” JSCS 46 (2013): 19–36. Horst, Pieter W. van der, “Was the Earth ‘Invisible’? A Note on ἀόρατος in Genesis 1:2 LXX,” JSCS 48 (2015): 5–7.

Reflecting on the Creation

35

Justin the Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, trans. A. Lukyn Williams (New York: MacMillan, 1931). Karrer, Martin, “Septuaginta und antike Philosophie,” in Die Septuaginta—Orte und Intentionen, 5. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 24.–27. Juli 2014, ed. Siegfried Kreuzer, Martin Meiser, Marcus Sigismund, Martin Karrer, Wolfgang Kraus; WUNT 361 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 3–34. Kaufman, Stephen A., The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon, Text Entry and Format Manual, Publications of The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987). Klein, Michael L., The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch According to their Extant Sources. Volume I. Texts, Indices and Introductory Essays (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980). Louw, Theo A.W. van der, Transformations in the Septuagint: Towards an Interaction of Septuagint Studies and Translation Studies, CBET 47 (Leuven: Peeters, 2007). Maher, Michael, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis. Translated, with Introduction and Notes, ArBib 1B (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992). Martin, Malachi, “The Babylonian Tradition and Targum,” in Le Psautier. Ses origines. Ses problèmes littéraires. Son influence, ed. Robert A. De Langhe, Orientalia et Biblica Lovaniensia 4 (Louvain: Publications universitaires, 1962), 425–51. McNamara, Martin, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis. Translated with Apparatus and Notes, ArBib 1a (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992). Meer, Michaël N. van der, “Anthropology in the Ancient Greek Versions of Gen 2:7,” in Dust of the Ground and Breath of Life (Gen 2:7): The Problem of a Dualistic Anthropology in Early Judaism and Christianity, ed. Jacques T.A.G.M. van Ruiten and George H. van Kooten, TBN 20 (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 36–57. Meer, Michaël N. van der, “The Greek Translators of the Pentateuch and the Epicureans,” in Torah and Tradition. Papers read at the Sixteenth Joint Meeting for Old Testament Study and the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap Edinburgh, 2015, ed. Klaas Spronk and Hans Barstad, OTS 70 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 176–200. Reiterer, Friederich V., “Three Poetic Pillars in the Book of Ben Sira: From the Divine to Human Wisdom,” in Construction, Coherence and Connotations. Studies on the Septuagint, Apocryphal and Cognate Literature, ed. Pierre Jordaan et al., DCLS 34 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016), 27–50. Rieder, David, Pseudo-Jonathan (Targum Jonathan ben Uziel on the Pentateuch (Jerusalem: Makor, 1974). Rösel, Martin, Ü bersetzung als Vollendung der Auslegung. Studien zur GenesisSeptuaginta, BZAW 223 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994).

36

Cook

Rösel, Martin, “Towards a ‘Theology of the Septuagint,” in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures, ed. Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden, SBLSCS 53 (Atlanta: SBL, 2006), 239–252. Runia, David, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato, PhA 44 (Leiden: Brill, 1996). Runia, David, Philo of Alexandria on the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses, PACS 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2001). Sandelin, Karl-Gustav, Wisdom as Nourisher—a Study of an Old Testament Theme, its Development Within Early Judaism and its Impact on Early Christianity, Acta Aboensis, A. 64/3 (Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 1986). Schäfer, Peter, “Der Grundtext von Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. Eine synoptische Studie zu Gen 1,” in Das Institutum Judaicum der Universität Tübingen in den Jahren 1971– 1972 (Tübingen: Tübingen University, 1972), 8–29. Schenker, Adrian, “‘Was führte zur Übersetzung der Tora ins Griechische?’ Dtn 4,2–8 und Platon (Brief VII,32, 326a–b),” in Die Septuaginta—Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse 2. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 23.27.7.2008, ed. Wolfgang Kraus, Martin Karrer, Martin Meiser, WUNT 252 (Tübingen: Mohr, Siebeck, 2010), 23–35. Sperber, Alexander, The Bible in Aramaic, Vol. 1, The Pentateuch According to Targum Onkelos (Leiden: Brill, 1959). Urbach, Efraim E., The Sages—Their Concepts and Beliefs, Vol. 1, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1975). Weiss, Hans-Friedrich, Untersuchungen zur Kosmologie des hellenistischen und palästinischen Judentum (Berlin: Akademie, 1966). Westermann, Claus, Genesis. 1. Band. Genesis 1–11, BKAT 1.1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neu­ kirchener Verlag, 1974). Zeller, Eduard, Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung, III. Teil, 2. Abt. (Leipzig: Reisland, 1905).

Chapter 2

The Passover of Egypt in Septuagint and Targum of Exodus 12 C.T.R. Hayward In a recent publication, Jan Joosten has explored in some detail the phenomenon of Targumisms in the Septuagint, concluding that there are good grounds for arguing that the ancient scholars who translated the Books of Moses into Greek had at their disposal Aramaic renderings of certain Hebrew words and phrases; that these same Aramaic versions of Hebrew words and phrases were, at the time of the translators, already regarded as traditional; and that the translators made use of them directly or indirectly as the need arose.1 1 Passover One of the first instances of this phenomenon he records in his essay is the use in lxx Exod 12:11 of the word πάσχα, which is employed by the translators to represent the Hebrew noun designating the Passover, ‫פסח‬. This Greek form of the word is evidently indebted to ‫פסחא‬, the Aramaic noun, in its emphatic state, cognate with the Hebrew noun ‫פסח‬. A few verses later, at Exod 12:19, the 1  See Jan Joosten, “Des targumismes dans la Septante ?,” in The Targums in the Light of Traditions of the Second Temple Period, ed. Thierry Legrand and Jan Joosten, JSJSup 167 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 54–71, and his earlier article “On Aramaicizing 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 Wido van Peursen, OLA 118 (Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 587–600. Editions of primary texts used here are as follows. For lxx Exodus, John W. Wevers, Exodus, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum II.1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991); Targum Onqelos (= Tg. Onq.), Alexander Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic I. The Pentateuch according to Targum Onkelos (Leiden: Brill, 1959); Targum Neofiti (= Tg. Neof.), Alejandro Díez Macho, Neophyti 1 Tomo II Éxodo (Madrid-Barcelona: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1970); Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (= Tg. Ps.-J.), Ernest G. Clarke, with Walter E. Aufrecht, J.C. Hurd and F. Spitzer, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1984); and Fragment Targums preserved in MSS Paris 110 and Vatican 440 (= Frg. Tg.), Michael L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch according to their Extant Sources, 2 vols. (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980). Translations are mine.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004416727_004

38

Hayward

Greek translators have put as translation equivalent of Hebrew ‫“( גר‬resident alien”) the word γ(ε)ιώρας, which stands for the Aramaic term ‫ גיורא‬in the sense of “proselyte” or “convert to Judaism,” a specialised sense which this Aramaic word had acquired by the time the lxx translators set to work.2 For Jews resident in Egypt at the time when the Torah was translated into Greek, Exodus 12 would naturally have special and weighty significance, since this chapter depicts the “Passover of Egypt,” whereby God protects the Jews from the final plague He intends to bring on Israel’s Egyptian oppressors, the destruction of Egypt’s first-born sons.3 It is therefore of some moment that Aramaic informs the lxx translators not only in the matter of these two nouns, but almost certainly also in their interpretation of the Hebrew verb ‫ פסח‬which is fundamental to the chapter as a whole.4 Some years ago, Sebastian Brock noted how lxx Exod 12:13 had translated the Lord’s promise to Moses that he would “pass over” Israel, ‫ופסחתי עליכם‬ with the words καὶ σκεπάσω ὑμᾶς, “and I shall protect you,” a translation represented also by Targum Neofiti of this same verse with the words ‫ואפסח ואגן‬ ‫במימרי עליכון‬, “and I shall pass over and protect you by means of my Memra.”5 More will be said about this verse presently; but it is of interest to note at once that Tg. Neof.’s translation has preserved the verbal root ‫ פסח‬and has then proceeded to define it further as signifying the protection or defence of Israel. The Targum thus offers what is in effect a double translation of the verb. The verb ‫ פסח‬occurs again in the Hebrew base text at 12:23 and 27, and Tg. Neof. uses these opportunities to reinforce its translation of 12:13 by reiterating that the Lord will “pass over and protect” Israel. Tg. Neof.’s translation of these verses 2  See Joosten, “Des targumismes,” 59–60, for discussion of this Aramaic terminology as a “sociolect” of Alexandrian Jewry in Ptolemaic times, and his analysis of the historical development of the Aramaic word ‫ גיורא‬as a specifically Jewish technical term for “convert.”. 3  The events surrounding the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt were frequently the targets of anti-Semitic comments by Egyptians writing in Greek, the most famous of whom was the historiographer Manetho: for the relationship of his writings to lxx, see the valuable comments of Tessa Rajak, Translation and Survival: The Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish Diaspora (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 262–64. 4  On the languages known to and used by Jews in Egypt in the Ptolemaic period, see Rajak, Translation and Survival, 143–152, who questions a number of scholarly assumptions about the desuetude of Hebrew, and notes the likely survival of some knowledge of Aramaic in Alexandria (152, n. 88 and literature there cited). 5  See Sebastian P. Brock, “An Early Interpretation of pāsah: ‘aggēn in the Palestinian Targum,” in Interpreting the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honour of E.I.J. Rosenthal, ed. John A. Emerton and Stefan C. Reif (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 27–34. The glosses of Tg. Neof. record two variants: “and I shall pass over” is glossed by “and he shall spare,” which recalls the renderings of Tg. Onq. and Tg. Ps.-J.; while “and protect you by means of My Memra” is given as “and My Memra shall protect.”.

The Passover of Egypt

39

differs markedly from that presented by Tg. Onq., which invariably uses the expression ‫חוס על‬, “to have pity, spare,” to translate the Hebrew verb ‫פסח‬, as does Tg. Ps.-J. at Exod 12:13 and 27. Tg. Ps.-J. of Exod 12:23 states that the Memra of the Lord would protect (‫ )ויגין‬the doors of the Israelites. Tg. Onq. and Tg. Ps.-J. thus eliminate the verbal root ‫ פסח‬altogether from their translations, whereas Tg. Neof. is careful to preserve it, thus emphasising its importance. This procedure on Tg. Neof.’s part recalls, mutatis mutandis, the lxx’s decision to designate the festival as πάσχα tout court. As Cécile Dogniez has shown, the normal practice of the lxx translators in the Pentateuch is to render the names of the festivals and holy days into Greek, etymologising them in the process.6 The translators admit only two departures from this general procedure. The Sabbath they invariably represent as σάββατα, reflecting its designation in Aramaic; and Passover which, as we have seen, they give as πάσχα. It is not unreasonable to conclude from this that, just as Sabbath was regarded by the translators as a quintessential marker of Judaism, so equally was Pesach; and the lxx’s decision to use Aramaic terminology for both these institutions is very telling. 2

Rules for Cooking the Pesach Sacrifice

Traces of what we might call an “Aramaic ambience” may be discerned, perhaps not surprisingly, in other parts of this chapter; but their presence cannot be explained in any simple or straightforward manner. Indeed, as we shall see, they appear to testify to a very complex state of affairs. We may illustrate this with something which appears, at first sight, to be unremarkable, but on closer examination presents us with several puzzles; and it is important, because it involves legal requirements for the proper preparation of the Pesach victim. Exod 12:9 lays down the following rules for the cooking of the Pesach sacrifice: ‫אל תאכלו ממנו נא ובשל מבשל במים כי אם צלי אש ראשו על כרעיו ועל קרבו‬, “you shall not eat of it raw nor boiled at all in water; but roasted with fire, its head with its legs and with its innards.” The Hebrew word translated “raw,” ‫נא‬, is hapax

6  See Cécile Dogniez, “Les noms de fêtes dans le Pentateuque grec,” JSJ 37 (2006): 344–66, especially 345 and 354–55. She notes that the translators were neither unaware of the meaning of the Hebrew terms, nor lacked Greek words to represent them: their appearance in Aramaic suggests that they were very well-known among Greek-speaking Jews (and perhaps nonJews). See also Joosten, “Des targumismes,” 59–61. For further discussion of the treatment of the word Pesach by the ancient Versions, see Alison Salvesen, Symmachus in the Pentateuch, JSS Monograph 15 (Manchester: Victoria University of Manchester, 1991), 83–85.

40

Hayward

legomenon in the Hebrew Bible.7 lxx translated it with the adjective ὠμός, “raw,” and in so doing agrees exactly with Tg. Onq., Tg. Ps.-J., and the Syriac Peshitta, who have rendered it as ‫כד חי‬.8 It is thus highly likely that Tg. Onq., Tg. Ps.-J., and the Peshitta represent an understanding of this rare word which was current and widespread as early as the third century bce. This much we may accept; but a glance at Tg. Neof. suggests a more complicated story. This Targum translated ‫ נא‬as ‫מהבהב‬, a participial form meaning “lightly cooked, singed”; and it is this same understanding of ‫ נא‬which is brought forward in b. Pes. 41a, and adopted by Rashi in his commentary on Exod 12:9, where he makes no reference to Targum Onqelos.9 If Tg. Neof. were the only Targum to have taken the word as meaning “lightly cooked,” it might be argued simply that its translation had arisen under Rabbinic influence;10 but Frg. Tg. preserves an Aramaic translation of the single word ‫ נא‬which is identical with Tg. Neof.’s. If, as some students have suggested, the Fragment Targum originated in an attempt to preserve elements of the old Palestinian Targum tradition from being overwhelmed by Tg. Onq. as the latter became increasingly adopted in the west, then Tg. Neof. and Frg. Tg. together might point to the possibility of at least one other meaning attributed to this hapax legomenon in antiquity which lxx either did not know, or chose not to represent.11 The evidence of Tg. Neof. and Frg. Tg. relating to the interpretation of ‫נא‬ serves as a reminder that there are several Targumim of the Pentateuch, and 7   For definition and discussion of this term, see now Kyong-Jin Lee, “Hapax legomena and the Development of Proto-Onqelos: The Case of Genesis,” in Aramaic in Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Eric M. Meyers and Paul V.M. Flesher, Duke Judaic Studies 3 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 245–68. ‫ נא‬is hapax legomenon in the strictest sense: it is an isolate. 8    So also Mekilta de R. Ishmael Pisḥa 6:65. Mekilta is cited from the edition of Jacob Z. Lauterbach, Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, 3 vols. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1933–1935). Translations are mine. 9   See also Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:19 and discussion in Moshe Goshen-Gottstein, Fragments of Lost Targumim, 2 vols. (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1983, 1989), vol. 2, 43 [in Hebrew]. The Talmud rejects the suggestion that the victim be eaten raw, understanding the Scriptural phrase “roasted with fire” to exclude any such option. Rashi very often invokes Tg. Onq. in support of his interpretations, and his silence on Tg. Onq.’s reading here is remarkable. 10  Note the observation by Barry B. Levy, Targum Neophyti 1. A Textual Study, vol. 1 (Lanham: University Press of America, 1986), 359–60, concerning possible mishnaic influence on Tg. Neof.’s rendering of the Hebrew “nor boiled at all in water.” 11  See Paul V.M. Flesher and Bruce D. Chilton, The Targums: A Critical Introduction (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2011), 78–79. For further information on Frg. Tg., see the valuable discussions of Roger le Déaut, Introduction à la littérature targumique: Première partie (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1988), 102–106, and Philip S. Alexander, “Targum, Targumim,” in ABD 6, 323–24.

The Passover of Egypt

41

raises the possibility that the agreement of lxx with Tg. Onq. and Tg. Ps.-J. in translating the word as “raw” resulted from mere coincidence. When all is said and done, the Hebrew word ‫ נא‬can, in its context, have only a restricted range of possible meanings, and it is not necessary to invoke the Targumim to “explain” lxx’s rendering of the word. Nevertheless, the second part of Exod 12:9 makes us pause. This requires the victim to be roasted with fire, “its head with its legs and with its innards.” lxx translated this phrase as: “head with the feet and the innards,” omitting all suffixes on the original Hebrew nouns, and taking “legs” as “feet.” The possibility that the Greek translators were faced with a Hebrew Vorlage which differs from mt cannot, of course, be entirely discounted; but it seems unlikely, as will become apparent. Tg. Neof. resembles lxx’s translation of the phrase, giving us ‫ראש עם רגלוי ועם בני גווה‬, “head with its feet and with its innards.”12 Like lxx, this Targum has no equivalent for the Hebrew third person masculine singular suffix on “head,” and translates “its legs” as “its feet.” This last point is significant, because on five other occasions in the Pentateuch lxx has translated Hebrew “legs” as “feet,” and in all of these cases Tg. Neof. (and, it may be noted, the Vulgate) does the same thing. The verses concerned are Exod 29:17; Lev 1:9, 13; 8:21 (= lxx 8:19); 9:14, and Tg. Neof. is joined in its translation by Tg. Ps.-J., except in the case of the first. Tg. Ps.-J. at Exod 12:9 also translated “its legs” as “its feet.” By contrast, in all these verses Tg. Onq. represents the Hebrew base text very closely, continuing to speak of “legs.”13 It seems probable that we have before us in these verses a way of translation which is embedded in the Palestinian Targum and shared by lxx, pointing to the possibility that both the Greek and the Aramaic versions derived their renderings from an understanding of the Hebrew text which preceded both of them. A summary of ostensible agreements between some Targumic information and lxx of Exod 12:9 underlines the complexity noted earlier. In the first half of the verse, the translation of ‫ נא‬as “raw” certainly aligns the Greek with Tg. Onq. and Tg. Ps.-J., and points to the antiquity of this particular rendering of the hapax legomenon. On the other hand, this rendering serves to distance lxx 12  For the treatment of elements such as suffixes in the og, Targum and other Aramaic versions see Thomas’s essay in this volume. 13  All these verses specify norms for animal sacrifice. In Exod 12:9, Tg. Ps.-J. like Tg. Neof. translated “its head with its feet”; cf. also Frg. Tg. of Exod 29:17 (though Frg. Tg. here, like Tg. Onq. and Tg. Ps.-J., reads “its legs”). Hebrew ‫ כרעים‬is found eight times in total in the Pentateuch, the remaining two instances not noted above, with their lxx translation equivalents, being Lev 4:11 (ἀκρωτήριον) and 11:21 (σκέλος). At Lev 4:11, concerning the bull of the sin offering of an anointed priest, Tg. Neof. again translated “its feet,” a marginal gloss recording the reading “its legs” in agreement with the Hebrew. Lev 11:21 concerns insects which are permitted for food, and Tg. Neof. chooses its vocabulary accordingly.

42

Hayward

from Tg. Neof., with which it otherwise seems to share a translation of the second half of the verse, referring to the “feet” of the victim rather than its “legs.” We may also note that both lxx and Tg. Neof. specify that the head of the victim is to be roasted with its feet, σὺν τοῖς ποσὶν and ‫ עם רגלוי‬respectively, giving a particular sense to the Hebrew ‫ על כרעיו‬which might otherwise signify “upon its legs,” a meaning which Tg. Onq. appears at least to allow with its translation ‫על כרעוהי‬. While the first of these similarities between lxx and Targum may be the result of coincidence, the second involves a shift in the “plain meaning” of the Hebrew which may betray some learned hermeneutical procedure at work. 3

The Prohibition of Work

The Targumim of Exod 12:9 preserve the word order, grammatical number, and tenses of the Hebrew base text. The same is true in general of lxx, although slight differences from mt are apparent. Thus the Greek insists that people shall not eat “of them” raw, indicating the plurality of the Passover victims; does not represent the Hebrew infinitive absolute in its translation of the phrase ‫ ;ובשל מבשל‬and, as we have seen, speaks simply of head, feet, and innards of the victim without possessive adjectives. In the case of Exod 12:16, however, we are confronted by a striking affinity between lxx and Targum present in a verse which otherwise diverges considerably from the Hebrew base text known to us, as well as from the several renderings of the surviving Targumim. The Hebrew states: And on the first day you shall have a holy convocation, and on the seventh day a holy convocation. No work at all shall be done on them, except that which may be eaten by each person ‫—אך אשר יאכל לכל נפש‬that alone may be done for you. lxx translated this as follows: And the first day shall be called holy, and the seventh day shall be for you a holy convocation. You shall not do14 any servile work on them, except whatever shall be done for each person πλὴν ὅσα ποιηθήσεται πάσῃ ψυχῇ—that alone may be done for you. 14  This is the reading of the major witnesses A, B, and M: the others read with the Hebrew “no servile work shall be done.” See John W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus, SBLSCS 30 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1990), 177.

The Passover of Egypt

43

The translation of Hebrew “that which may be eaten” as “whatever shall be done” is the point of detail which concerns us; but before we address it, we must note just how radically lxx has reconstructed the Hebrew of the verse as a whole. At the start of the verse, it has omitted “on,” and has made “the first day” the subject of a sentence created by treating “a holy convocation” as a verb in third person passive form; likewise, “the seventh day” becomes subject of a verb in the third person. They gloss “work” with the adjective “servile,” making it the object of a verb in second person plural active voice, “you shall not do.” None of these differences between lxx and the Hebrew is present in the Targumim.15 What is present, however, in lxx, Tg. Neof., and Tg. Ps.-J. is the representation of the Hebrew verb “shall be eaten,” ‫יאכל‬, by “shall be done,” Greek ποιηθήσεται and Aramaic ‫( יתעבד‬Tg. Neof. and Tg. Ps.-J.).16 Some years ago, Suzanne Daniel described this as an “halakhic variant,” intended on the part of the lxx translators to bring the Hebrew text into conformity with rulings known from later Rabbinic regulations. The specific prohibition of servile work, in her view, supports this observation.17 What is in view here is the technical Rabbinic expression ‫ אוכל נפש‬literally “food of life, soul”; and it will be noted that both the words ‫ אכל‬and ‫נפש‬ are present in the Hebrew base text of Exod 12:16. The Rabbinic formula ‫נפש‬ ‫ אוכל‬refers both to food necessary for sustenance and to the actions involved in its preparation, which are permitted on festivals and holy days, but prohibited on Sabbaths and Yom Kippur: see, for example, m. Beṣah 5:2 end; Meg. 1:5; Mekilta de R. Ishmael Pisḥa 9:53–67; Sifre Num. 147. These sources, however, do not use the verb “to do” in respect of ‫אוכל נפש‬. The phrase itself is a kind of shorthand term, sufficient to convey the sense of work which needs to be done in the preparation of this necessary food. But it is work which is crucial here; and it is this notion, expressed by the verb “to do,” which is characteristic of lxx, Tg. Neof., and Tg. Ps.-J. Once again, the possibility that all these versions may derive their reading from a Hebrew Vorlage differing from our current mt cannot be entirely excluded; but it is more probable that all three 15  For analysis and discussion of these differences between the Hebrew and lxx, see Alain le Boulluec and Pierre Sandevoir, L’Exode, La Bible d’Alexandrie 2 (Paris: Cerf, 1989), 148; and Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus, 176–77. For omission in og Job in relation to the Targum and other Aramaic versions see again Thomas’ essay in this volume. 16  Sperber notes one witness of Tg. Onq., designated by the siglum a in his edition, which reads ‫מתעביד‬. Otherwise, Tg. Onq. has ‫דמתאכיל‬, a marginal gloss to Tg. Neof. recording a similar kind of reading. 17  See Suzanne Daniel, Recherches sur le vocabulaire du culte dans la Septante, Études et commentaires 61 (Paris: Klincksieck, 1966), 333, noted by Le Boulluec and Sandevoir, La Bible, 148.

44

Hayward

of them have interpreted the final words of the verse, “that (action) alone may be done for you” as referring back directly to the business of eating food mentioned immediately beforehand.18 The agreement of the lxx with two of the extant Targumim is thus likely to be significant, and to point to an exegetical approach well known and widely shared at the time those versions were being completed. This single point of agreement in a matter of religious law between lxx and two Targumim is accentuated by its appearance in a verse which lxx otherwise relays to us in a form very different from the Hebrew texts of Exod 12:16 known to us. 4

Draw Out a Sheep or Depart?

A different set of concerns emerges at Exod 12:21, where Moses addresses the elders of Israel and orders them to take a sheep and to slaughter the Pesach. The translation of the verse given here attempts to indicate an ambiguity in the Hebrew. And Moses called to all the elders of Israel and said to them: Draw out, and take for yourselves (‫ )משכו וקחו לכם‬a sheep for your families, and slaughter the Pesach. The verb ‫ משך‬has the sense of to “draw, drag, draw out, continue,” and it may be followed by a direct object, in which case the verse commands the selection of the lamb as Pesach victim. On the other hand, the verb may be used intransitively, in the sense of “proceed, march,” ordering the Israelites to go, and then select the lamb.19 In two important respects lxx differs from mt: one of these almost certainly agrees with Tg. Neof., while the other may agree with Tg. Onq. and elements of Tg. Ps.-J. lxx has translated in a somewhat unusual manner:

18  See also William H.C. Propp, Exodus 1–18. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1999), 361, who remarks on the possibilities for haplography and dittography in this verse. Note particularly Tg. Neof., which orders: “No work shall be done on them, except what shall be done for each person’s needs ‫—לכל צורכיה דנפשה‬that alone shall be done for you”; this Targum also describes the first day of convocation as ‫יום טב‬, the term used in m. Beṣah 5:2 and Meg. 1:5 in respect of ‫אכל נפש‬. 19  For other examples of this use, see Judg. 4:6; 5:14; Job 21:33.

The Passover of Egypt

45

And Moses called all the Council of Elders (πᾶσαν γερουσίαν) of the sons of Israel and said to them: Departing, take (ἀπελθόντες λάβετε) for yourselves a sheep according to your families and sacrifice the Pascha. Earlier in the narrative (Exod 3:16, 18; 4:29), lxx has spoken of the Council of Elders, the Gerousia, a well-known term designating a body of influential, respected persons, which would indicate to non-Jewish readers that Israel even in her slavery possessed a significant political institution.20 Tg. Neof., looking at the matter from a purely Jewish perspective, speaks of “all the Sages of Israel,” ‫לכל חכמיה דישראל‬, rather than “all the elders of Israel,” referring to the scholars who constitute the court;21 Mekilta de R. Ishmael Pisḥa 11:1–2 takes Moses’ summoning of the elders described here to mean that he made them into a Beth Din. Although expressing the matter differently, lxx and Tg. Neof. here seem to indicate the same reality, that Israel in Egypt was not a rabble of slaves, but an ordered nation possessing a recognisable, religious authority, as further attested in Tg. Neof. of Exod 15:17; Num 21:18, and their corresponding marginal glosses. See also b. Yoma 28b. More tantalising is the treatment of the Hebrew imperative ‫ משכו‬in lxx and the Targumim. As we saw, the former translate it with a participle, meaning literally “departing, going away”; the vagueness of this Greek word might encourage the hearer or reader to envisage that Israel was being ordered to go away or depart from some unspecified object, person, or place. In short, lxx’s translation encouraged speculation. Equally enigmatic is Tg. Onq. The majority of its witnesses read ‫אתנגידו‬, whose sense is not entirely clear. It might indicate a command to be drawn, become spread out or stretched out; but quite what this would mean is not evident. The word could also be translated as an order to grow faint, become feeble, or die, which is clearly not appropriate in the context. Possibly the word means “run,” which would yield 20  See Le Boulluec and Sandevoir, L’Exode, 93; Gilles Dorival, Les Nombres, La Bible d’Alexandrie 4 (Paris: Cerf, 1994), 162. At the time when the Greek translation of the Torah was undertaken, the Gerousia was almost certainly an important political institution among Jews in the Land of Israel, and had been so since before the Hellenistic period: see Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, rev. and ed. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Matthew Black (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1979), 2: 202–204; Lester L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (London: SCM, 1994), 191–92. 21  For Tg. Neof.’s almost invariable translation of “elders” in Exodus as “the Sages,” see Martin McNamara and C.T. Robert Hayward, Targum Neofiti 1: Exodus Translated, with Introduction and Apparatus by M. McNamara and Notes by R. Hayward, ArBib 2 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1994), 20. Tg. Neof.’s presentation of the Sages as an officially recognized, authoritative body is evident from its use of the term in its account of the making of the covenant at Sinai: see especially Tg. Neof. of Exod 19:5–7; 24:1, 9, 14.

46

Hayward

a simple and comprehensible command to the Israelites. We may note that although Aramaic ‫ נגד‬is used by Tg. Onq. as translation equivalent of Hebrew ‫ משך‬elsewhere in the Pentateuch,22 it here occurs in the ithpeel, which does not correspond to the active form of its equivalent in the Hebrew base text. Four witnesses of Tg. Onq. are, however, recorded by Sperber as reading the peal imperative, ‫נגודו‬.23 Were it not for the context of Exod 12:21, one might translate Tg. Onq.’s ‫ אתנגידו‬as “be extended; stretch yourselves,” or even “grow weak, expire”: the latter is its sense in Tg. Onq. Gen 25:8, 17, with reference to Abraham and Ishmael respectively.24 Tg. Ps.-J. has used this verb, albeit in the active form ‫נגודו‬, to translate Hebrew ‫ משכו‬and with it to introduce additional information not found in the Hebrew. This Targum instructs Moses to say to the elders: “Withdraw (‫ )נגודו‬their hands from the idols of the Egyptians,” and then orders them to take the Pesach lambs. The active imperative of ‫ נגד‬is clearly used here in a transitive sense of removing or taking away one’s hand from something. Thus Tg. Ps.-J. construes the imperative as a divine command to abandon idolatry, and a similar interpretation is provided by a marginal gloss of Tg. Neof.25 The close relationship between Tg. Onq. and Tg. Ps.-J. has often been noted, and several explanations for it have been advanced;26 and certainly, as Geza Vermes showed many years ago, Tg. Onq. has translations which tend to remain obscure until set alongside Tg. Ps.-J., which can provide fuller information needed for the correct interpretation of Tg. Onq.27 In the case of Exod 12:21, we may legitimately ask: does Tg. Onq.’s ‫ אתנגידו‬or ‫ נגודו‬as a somewhat awkward translation of ‫ משכו‬represent the abbreviated “remains” of a targumic expansion similar to those found in Tg. Ps.-J. and Tg. Neof.’s marginal gloss which command Israel to depart from idolatry? Admittedly, it is hard to discern an answer to this question, although some clues to a possible solution may perhaps be found. lxx’s translation of ‫משכו‬ 22  See Gen 37:28; Exod 19:13; Deut 21:3. 23  Four of the witnesses cited by Sperber have an active form of the verb, ‫ ;נגודו‬one of them is a marginal note in MS Solger, the remainder printed editions. 24  On the meanings of this verb, see further Martin McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis, Translated with Apparatus and Notes, ArBib 1A (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992), 70; and for the use of the itpeel of this verb in Tg. Ps.-J., see Michael Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis Translated, with Apparatus and Notes, ArBib 1B (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992), 37. 25  The gloss reads: “Withdraw (‫ )נגודו‬your hands from idolatry, and afterwards you shall slaughter a lamb.” 26  See le Déaut, Introduction, 98–101; Flesher and Chilton, The Targums, 119–129; Alexander, “Targum, Targumim,” 322–323. 27  See especially the detailed working out of this thesis in his article “The Targumic Versions of Genesis 4:3–16,” ALUOS 3 (1961–1962; Leiden: Brill, 1963), 81–114; reprinted in his Post-Biblical Jewish Studies (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 92–126.

The Passover of Egypt

47

as “departing, going away” indicates that as early as the third century bce the word could give rise to ambiguous translation, in its turn inviting further explication. Indeed, one might ask why lxx did not here translate ‫ משך‬as they have done on two out of the remaining three occurrences of this verb elsewhere in the Pentateuch, either with ἐξέλκω (as in Gen 37:28, “draw out”), or ἕλκω (as in Deut 21:3, “draw, pull”)? Such a translation, urging Israel to “draw out” a lamb, would have made perfect sense. A clue to their adoption of “depart” as a translation equivalent of ‫ משך‬in Exod 12:21 is perhaps provided by their interpretation of Exod 19:13, where they seem once again to have taken the verb to mean “depart.” In this last instance, however, they have included in their translation information not found in any Hebrew text of Exod 19:13 known to us. The setting is Israel’s assembly at Mount Sinai to receive the Torah: the people are strictly ordered not to ascend the mountain or to touch the edge of it. They may ascend the mountain only ‫במשך היבל‬, a clause which most naturally translates as “when the trumpet continues,” that is, gives a drawn out sound. Assuming that lxx had a Hebrew Vorlage like our mt, they have elaborated these two words into “when the sounds and the trumpets and the cloud depart,” the verb “depart” presumably representing Hebrew ‫משך‬.28 In the century following the translation of the Pentateuch into Greek, Ben Sira’s grandson also used the verb ἀπέρχομαι to translate Hebrew ‫ משך‬in Ben Sira 14:19, where, discussing human endeavours, the Sage declares: “all his works shall certainly rot: and the activity of his hands ‫ ימשך‬after him.”29 Here any idea that the activity of his hands “shall continue after him” would do violence to the poetic parallelism and to the sense of the passage, which concerns the passing away of successive generations. Ben Sira’s grandson accordingly translated: “every rotting work fails: and the one who does it shall depart with it,” ‫ ימשך‬being rendered as “shall depart.” lxx Exod 19:13 and Sir 14:19 suggest that translators of Hebrew into Greek in the Hellenistic period could have taken ‫ משך‬as meaning “depart, go away,” in certain circumstances. Why they should have chosen to do so in the case of Exod 12:21, when in other respects they remain close to the Hebrew, retaining 28  For the reasoning which most likely lies behind this translation, see Le Boulluec and Sandevoir, L’Exode, 202. 29   The Hebrew of this line is preserved only in MS A from the Cairo Geniza: see 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), 43: ‫כל מעשיו רקוב ירקבו ופעל ידיו ימשך אחריו‬. It concludes a well-known section (Ben Sira 14:17–19) on the transitory nature of human existence, which is reminiscent of passages from Homer’s Iliad: see Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, AB 39 (New York: Doubleday, 1987), 260–61.

48

Hayward

its word order and the tenses of its verbs, is something of a puzzle. In this instance, however, Tg. Onq. and Tg. Ps.-J. may offer some pointers to a solution if they are considered alongside Tg. Neof.’s interpretations of the verse. Tg. Neof. understood the imperative to mean “be counted, be numbered,” a command to the Israelites to organize themselves into groups of the legally required number for the consumption of each lamb. The Targums thus reflect a division of opinion over the meaning of ‫ משכו‬which is found also in the Mekilta of this verse at Pisḥa 11:14–18. R. Jose the Galilean sates that the word conveys an injunction to Israel: “Withdraw (‫ )משכו‬your hands from idolatry and cleave to the commandments.” This, it will be noted, corresponds to the sense given to the word in Tg. Ps.-J. and the marginal gloss recorded in Tg. Neof.: these texts view the imperative as demanding a departure from idolatry. By contrast, R. Ishmael expounds as follows: “The Scripture comes to teach you that they may be counted (‫ )נימנין‬for the Pesach victim, or they may withdraw their hands from it (‫ )ומושכין את ידיהם ממנו‬at any time before it is slaughtered, but only if they let the Pesach victim alone entirely.” This appears at first to coincide with Tg. Neof.’s definition of ‫ משכו‬as meaning “count,” but then proceeds to use the verb to signify the “drawing out” of hands, that is, the withdrawal of members from the group (ḥaburah) designated to consume the lamb. This they may do, so long as the lamb is not slaughtered, allowing a fluidity to the constitution of the ḥaburah up to that point. Mekilta thus offers three explanations of ‫משכו‬ over against the two represented in the Targumim. When lxx is considered in the light of all this, it is possible to discern in the Greek translators’ command to Israel to “depart” the early stages of exegetical engagement with ‫משכו‬, a word evidently perceived as in need of interpretation, which came to full flower in the Targumim and the Midrash. From what should Israel depart? Tg. Ps.-J., the gloss of Tg. Neof., and R. Jose the Galilean have their answer: Israel must withdraw from idolatry. Tg. Onq.’s witnesses are divided. Those reading the active form ‫ נגודו‬may be understood tacitly to order withdrawal either from idolatry (so Tg. Ps.-J. and Tg. Neof.’s gloss),30 or from membership of a particular ḥaburah before taking the lamb (so R. Ishmael). Those recording the ithpeel probably see Israel as being ordered to “be withdrawn,” with its attendant sense of departing or going away from something or someone. This last possibility points perhaps to some family resemblance between the translations of Tg. Onq. and lxx.

30  This reading may, indeed, represent an abbreviation of Tg. Ps.-J.’s phraseology, which explicitly demands a departure from idolatry.

The Passover of Egypt

5

49

An Unblemished Animal

In this last example, it will have been noticed that variants among the witnesses of Tg. Onq. may possibly have a significance for our topic. Variant readings between manuscripts of lxx may also be relevant. Exod 12:5 provides an example: it requires the Pesach offering to be ‫“ שה תמים זכר בן שנה‬one of the flock, unimpaired, male, a year old.” Most witnesses of lxx translate these words, and indeed the whole verse, by staying very close to the Hebrew, as do Tg. Onq. and Tg. Ps.-J.31 John Wevers notes, however, that lxx witnesses of the Byzantine group, which were favoured by Christians, add an extra requirement for the animal: the victim is to be ἄμωμος, “unblemished.”32 This demand follows the word “male.” In Tg. Neof. of this verse, an identical qualification is found, albeit following the adjective “unimpaired”: “a lamb, unimpaired, unblemished, male, one year old.”33 The same requirement is given also in a Targum Manuscript from the Cairo Genizah, and indeed Tg. Neof. regularly glosses “unimpaired,” Hebrew ‫תמים‬, with “unblemished,” employing the phrase ‫שלם מן מום‬.34 Mekilta de R. Ishmael of this verse straightforwardly gives “unblemished” as the explanation of ‫“ תמים‬unimpaired.”35 Tg. Neof.’s adoption of the qualification “unimpaired, without blemish” at Exod 12:5 may thus be counted as yet another example of its usual rendering of Hebrew ‫תמים‬. What of lxx, or rather of the Byzantine family of witnesses which include the qualification “unblemished”? In translating the sacrificial regulations, lxx usually represented Hebrew ‫ תמים‬simply by means of Greek ἄμωμος, “unblemished”; but at Exod 12:5 the majority of witnesses to the text have put another word, describing the victim 31  Thus all three versions retain the word order of the Hebrew text, its tenses, and its grammatical number. Tg. Onq. and Tg. Ps.-J., however, indicate that young goats (literally: “the offspring, ‫בני‬, of goats”) are to be selected. 32  See Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text, 170. Wevers uses the expression “Byzantine group” to refer to “the family readings which characterize the text of the Byzantine lectionaries” represented by his sigla d n t; see further John W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis, SBLSCS 35 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), xix. 33  .‫אמר שלם מן מום דכר בר שתא‬ 34  See Michael L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, 2 vols. (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1986), Aramaic text in vol. 1, 209, and notes on the MS (Cambridge University Library MS Or. 1080 B 18:1) and its use of ‫ מן מום‬in vol. 2, [57], where he records “the same standard translation” at Lev 23:12, 18 as perhaps being under the influence of Num 19:2. For Tg. Neof.’s regular use of the stock expression “unimpaired, without blemish” in the context of sacrificial regulations, see its translation of Lev 1:3, 10; 3:1, 6; 4:3, 23; 9:3. 35  See Mekilta de R. Ishmael Pisḥa 4:3, “unimpaired: so as to bar one possessed of a blemish, ‫בעל מום‬.”

50

Hayward

as πρόβατον τέλειον ἄρσεν ἐνιαύσιον, “a sheep, perfect, male, one year old.” The appearance of the additional technical term “unblemished” in the Byzantine family of witnesses might be explained, perhaps, as a Christian addition to the original lxx translation, which sought to provide Scriptural support for the definition of Christ as “an unblemished lamb” at 1 Pet 1:19, and as himself “unblemished” at Heb 9:14. There are difficulties, however, with this supposition. 1 Pet 1:19 designates Christ as ἀμνός, whereas lxx of our verse speaks of πρόβατον, and the former immediately qualifies the lamb as “unblemished,” whereas the Byzantine representatives of lxx used this word in direct juxtaposition with the word “male.” Neither Heb 9:14 nor its immediate setting have reference to a lamb. Christ is indeed spoken of as “unblemished,” but it is difficult to imagine how lxx Exod 12:5 in any of its forms would help the author’s argument, seeing that the latter is intent on distancing Christ as far as possible from the sacrifices prescribed in the Books of Moses.36 If, therefore, we set aside Christian influence to account for the Byzantine family’s reading, we might perhaps suppose a Hebrew Vorlage, now lost to us, including a word or words which the Greek translators rendered as “unblemished”; but then the question is what this might have been, given that ἄμωμος, as we have seen, is the usual translation equivalent of ‫ תמים‬which is already attested in the Hebrew, and is rendered by all witnesses of lxx as τέλειος.37 It is more probable, however, that someone noticed that ἄμωμος, the usual translation equivalent of ‫תמים‬, was missing from the verse, and “rectified” the situation by supplying it. And this is not unlikely, given that the lxx translators have elsewhere included this word in their list of qualifications for sacrificial victims where the Hebrew as represented by mt lacks it. Significant here is Exod 29:38, which legislates for the Tamid lambs, essential for the daily service of the Temple and thus, in their way, as foundational for Israel’s well-being as the Pesach offerings. Whereas the Hebrew text orders simply that they be one year old, lxx adds the requirement that they should be unblemished, ἀμώμους, and a gloss in the margin of Tg. Neof.’s manuscript concurs that they should be “perfect, without blemish.”38 Both lxx and the Targum gloss recorded in Tg. Neof. may be seeking to bring Exod 29:38 into line with Num 28:3, where the Hebrew does indeed indicate 36  Thus Heb 9:12 insists that Christ entered the Sanctuary not with the blood of goats and calves, but with his own blood: this is more effective than the blood of goats and bulls and even the ashes of the Red Heifer (Heb 9:13). 37  Within the Pentateuch, Num 19:2 defines the Red Heifer as ‫פרה אשר אין בה מום‬, which lxx understood to mean ἥτις οὐκ ἔχει ἐν αὐτῇ μῶμον. 38  The gloss has: ‫ שנה שלמים מן מום תרין בכל יום עלה תדירה‬and shares with the Samaritan Pentateuch an explicit reference (additional to information supplied by mt) to the whole burnt offering, ‫עלה‬, which constitutes the Tamid.

The Passover of Egypt

51

that the Tamid lambs be “unblemished.” This somewhat obvious procedure, however, is not followed by the other extant Targumim (Tg. Onq.; Tg. Ps.-J.; Tg. Neof. itself); nor do we encounter it in the minor Greek versions, the Peshitta, or the Vulgate, a state of affairs which suggests that lxx and the person responsible for the Neofiti gloss most probably did not have before them a Hebrew Vorlage which differed from mt.39 We may also question, in the light of the evidence, whether harmonization of Exod 29:38 with Num 28:3 was really a matter which exercised these particular ancient translators. To return to Exod 12:5. It is possible that the Byzantine family of lxx witnesses and Tg. Neof. agree, simply by coincidence, that the Pesach lambs should be unblemished. Against this, there is evidence that Greek translators sensed that the technical term ἄμωμος was necessary in certain key texts, and that its presence was needed to underline the care with which the legal requirements for the sacrifice should be observed.40 In the case of both the Passover and the offering of the Tamid, they would have been conscious that they were putting into another language the regulations for sacrifices which are of fundamental significance for all Israel, and thus require special precision. The upshot of all this is that the reading of ἄμωμος by the Byzantine family of witnesses to lxx can be considered a genuine, Jewish explication of Exod 12:5 which is represented elsewhere in Jewish exegesis by the Targum texts we have noted; and the presence of a similar state of affairs in both lxx and a Tg. Neof. gloss in Exod 29:38 confirms that both these ancient versions display a concern with precision in legislating for both the Pesach and Tamid lambs. It is entirely plausible that on this point of religious law both lxx and Tg. Neof.’s gloss are indebted to a widely accepted and commonly held principle which is older than either of these translations, and of which they make use.

39  By contrast, see Lev 4:14; 23:18; Num 28:27, where the lxx includes in its translation ἄμωμος which has no equivalent in our current mt, but is clearly attested in the Samaritan Pentateuch. Dorival, Les Nombres, 501, wonders whether the reading of Num 28:27 may not have arisen from attempts to harmonise it with verses 3, 9, 11, 19 of the same chapter. 40  For another example, see the lxx’s prescription at Lev 12:6 that a woman should bring a lamb, one year old, unblemished as a whole burnt offering for her purification. Neither mt, the Vulgate, the Peshitta, nor the Targumim include “unblemished” as a qualification here. The adjective appears again at lxx Num 7:88, where it is not present in mt, to qualify the total number of lambs offered at the inauguration of the altar of the Tent of Meeting. It is also found at Num 7:69 in the text of Codex Alexandrinus, qualifying the status of the lamb for whole burnt offering offered by the sons of Dan for the inauguration of the altar.

52 6

Hayward

Firstborn of the Male Captive or Female Captive?

As a final example we may note Exod 12:29, which in the Hebrew lists the Egyptian casualties during the final plague. These include ‫בכור השבי אשר בבית‬ ‫“ הבור‬the first-born of the male captive who is in the dungeon.” lxx conveys this somewhat poetic description in a more prosaic manner, speaking of the first-born “of the female captive,” τῆς αἰχμαλωτίδος: alone of the Targumim, Tg. Neof. has given us ‫בכורא דשביתא‬, which corresponds exactly to lxx’s translation. The latter, indeed, is very much what we might expect of a Targum spelling out and making precise what the phrase “obviously” must mean, to prevent absurd or aberrant ideas from arising out of a wooden, literal rendering of the term. In this particular instance, we should note that the Vulgate also specifies the gender of the captive as feminine, thus for once following lxx, even though Jerome must have recognized that the Hebrew text had employed a masculine noun. It is quite possible, of course, that he had access to a Jewish source of information which encouraged him to retain the lxx’s translation.41 The point is a small one; but lxx’s translation “the first born of the female captive” is distinctively “targumic” in stance, and might properly be labelled a “targumism” without further ado. 7 Conclusions It is time to try to draw together these observations, and to see whether they offer us a coherent picture of the affinities between lxx and Targum examined here. As a necessary preliminary, we need to emphasise that this essay has not attempted to suggest any kind of literary relationship between the two ancient Versions; nor should the following remarks be taken to indicate that the translators responsible for producing lxx had knowledge of Aramaic. Some of them may have known the language; but what is set out here does not presuppose their having done so. Our survey of Exodus 12 in lxx and Targum yields five possibly significant results.

41  Vulgate has: usque ad primogenitum captivae quae erat in carcere. For the text, see Robertus Weber et al., Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, 4th rev. ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994). The possibility that Jerome was informed by Jewish exegetical tradition here is strengthened by his translation of the expression ‫( בבית הבור‬literally: “in the house of the pit”) as in carcere, “in prison”; Tg. Neof., too, translates as ‫בבית חבושה‬, with which compare Tg. Onq. and Symmachus. On the latter and Jerome, see Salvesen, Symmachus in the Pentateuch, 270.

The Passover of Egypt

1.

53

Observable agreements between lxx and Targum are confined to single words, phrases, or individual points of interpretation. These agreements can be described as “atomistic” in character. For example, on one matter lxx of Exod 12:9 displays agreement with Tg. Onq. and Tg. Ps.-J. against Tg. Neof., but in another agrees with Tg. Neof. and Tg. Ps.-J. against Tg. Onq. The agreements appear to be somewhat random, fitting no definite pattern. 2. A certain closeness of lxx to Tg. Neof. in particular is detectable. This is apparent from 12:5 (the inclusion of the adjective “unblemished”); 12:9 (“feet” instead of “legs”); 12:16 (“shall be done” for “shall be eaten”); 12:21 (“Sages” instead of “elders”); and 12:29 (specification of female captive). To these should be added the further definition of ‫ פסח‬as “protect, defend” at 12:13, 23, 27 already noted by Sebastian Brock. lxx also agrees with Tg. Ps.-J. on two occasions (Exod 12: 9, 16) in accord also with Tg. Neof., and possibly on a third (12:21, interpretation of ‫)משכו‬. With Tg. Onq. there is only one clear agreement, at 12:9, and a possible agreement at 12:21. 3. The majority of agreements between lxx and Targum concern points of religious law. The importance of this observation should not be underestimated. The use of the word γ(ε)ιώρας at 12:19 to refer to the convert to Judaism should be included in this tally: its Aramaic original is found in Tg. Onq., Tg. Neofiti, and a marginal gloss of the latter. It has a technical sense which carries a precise meaning. Both Versions seem concerned to provide clear definitions of individual points of law set out in the Hebrew base text. 4. In non-legal matters, lxx’s definition of the first-born of the “female captive” (12:29) is shared by Tg. Neof., and is typically “targumic” in nature. 5. While it is possible that some of these agreements between lxx and Targum are the result of co-incidence, in the sense that the Greek and Aramaic translators accidentally “came up with” the same or similar renderings, this paper has sought to show that such an explanation of the agreements is neither necessary nor, indeed, probable. That so many of the agreements occur in the area of religious law strongly suggests that both versions are passing on crucial information which was understood to give the essential meaning of certain key words and phrases to an audience whose understanding of classical Hebrew was either limited or non-existent. This last point can be expressed in another way, by saying that both lxx and Targum seem to have had access to interpretations of words and phrases in the Hebrew Bible which were well established in the days when those versions came into being, or early during the course of their transmission. The items

54

Hayward

examined here, therefore, tend to support Jan Joosten’s thesis about relations between the two versions which we noted at the start of this paper. The apparent agreement of the two versions on single points of religious law is also telling, given the role undoubtedly played by both lxx and Targum in education and private study. This point can be made, without implying that education or study were the primary or single motivating factors in the genesis of these versions. There is widespread agreement amongst students of lxx that the Greek version was used for instruction and for didactic purposes; indeed, common sense dictates that once such a translation appeared in the public domain, those responsible for it should ensure that the religious laws it translated should be accurate and in agreement with the legal norms of the time. The connection between Targum and education and study is even better documented, and requires no rehearsal here.42 We have also suggested that, in respect of these items, neither lxx nor Targum depended on a Hebrew base text which differed from the mt known to us. In verses where we possess forms of the Hebrew which differ from mt, such as the Samaritan Pentateuch, there can be found important agreements between such forms, lxx and the Targum; but that would be the subject for another essay.43 42  For discussion of lxx and its relationship to teaching and instruction in pubic and in private, see especially Harry M. Orlinsky, “The Septuagint and Its Hebrew Text,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism, ed. William D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 2: 534–562; Erich S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 210– 212; and the judicious remarks of Jennifer M. Dines, The Septuagint (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 44, 47, 51–52. On the use of Targum in education, see Anthony D. York, “The Targum in the Synagogue and in the School,” JSJ 10 (1979): 74–86; Alexander, “Targum, Targumim,” 330; and Flesher and Chilton, The Targums, 319–24. 43  Examples would include Exod 12:3, where the Samaritan Pentateuch refers to “all the congregation of the sons of Israel,” the phrase “the sons of” is absent from mt but found also in lxx, Tg. Neof., and one witness to Tg. Onq. recorded in Sperber’s apparatus, and other “minor” agreements of this kind. More problematic examples of possible agreements come to the surface at 12:17 and 12:40. mt of the former relays a divine command to observe ‫“ המּצּוֹת‬the (feast of) unleavened bread,” a word read by the Samaritan as ‫המצוה‬ “the commandment”; see further Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus, 177. lxx have put “this commandment,” and a marginal gloss of Tg. Neof. has “the commandments of unleavened bread,” which represents a double translation of MT. In Exod 12:40, lxx attempted to deal with the chronological difficulties posed by the verse with additional information resembling the Samaritan version of this verse: see Le Boulluec and Sandevoir, L’Exode, 153, and literature there cited. Tg. Ps.-J. of Exod 12:40 and 41 adopts a similar ploy to deal with the difficulties.

The Passover of Egypt

55

Bibliography Alexander, Philip S., “Targum, Targumim,” in ABD 6, 323–24. 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). Brock, Sebastian P., “An Early Interpretation of pāsah: ‘aggēn in the Palestinian Targum,” in Interpreting the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honour of E.I.J. Rosenthal, ed. John A. Emerton and Stefan C. Reif (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 27–34. Clarke, Ernest G., with Walter E. Aufrecht, J.C. Hurd and F. Spitzer, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1984). Daniel, Suzanne, Recherches sur le vocabulaire du culte dans la Septante, Études et commentaires 61 (Paris: Klincksieck, 1966). Díez Macho, Alejandro, Neophyti 1 Tomo II Éxodo (Madrid-Barcelona: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1970). Dines, Jennifer M., The Septuagint (London: T&T Clark, 2004). Dogniez, Cécile, “Les noms de fêtes dans le Pentateuque grec,” JSJ 37 (2006): 344–66. Dorival, Gilles, Les Nombres, La Bible d’Alexandrie 4 (Paris: Cerf, 1994). Flesher, Paul V.M. and Bruce D. Chilton, The Targums: A Critical Introduction (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2011). Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe, Fragments of Lost Targumim, 2 vols. (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1983, 1989). Grabbe, Lester L., Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (London: SCM, 1994). Gruen, Erich S., Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998). Joosten, Jan, “On Aramaicizing 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 Wido van Peursen, OLA 118 (Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 587–600. Joosten, Jan, “Des targumismes dans la Septante ?,” in The Targums in the Light of Traditions of the Second Temple Period, ed. Thierry Legrand and Jan Joosten, JSJSup 167 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 54–71. Klein, Michael L., The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch according to their Extant Sources, 2 vols. (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980). Klein, Michael L., Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, 2 vols. (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1986). Lauterbach, Jacob Z., Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, 3 vols. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1933–1935).

56

Hayward

Le Boulluec, Alain and Pierre Sandevoir, L’Exode, La Bible d’Alexandrie 2 (Paris: Cerf, 1989). Le Déaut, Roger, Introduction à la littérature targumique: Première partie (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1988). Lee, Kyong-Jin, “Hapax legomena and the Development of Proto-Onqelos: The Case of Genesis,” in Aramaic in Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Eric M. Meyers and Paul V.M. Flesher, Duke Judaic Studies 3 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 245–68. Levy, Barry B., Targum Neophyti 1. A Textual Study, vol. 1 (Lanham: University Press of America, 1986). Maher, Michael, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis Translated, with Apparatus and Notes, ArBib 1B (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992). McNamara, Martin, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis, Translated with Apparatus and Notes, ArBib 1A (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992). McNamara, Martin and C.T. Robert Hayward, Targum Neofiti 1: Exodus Translated, with Introduction and Apparatus by M. McNamara and Notes by R. Hayward, ArBib 2 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1994). Orlinsky, Harry M., “The Septuagint and Its Hebrew Text,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism, ed. William D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989). Propp, William H.C., Exodus 1–18. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1999). Rajak, Tessa, Translation and Survival: The Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish Diaspora (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). Salvesen, Alison, Symmachus in the Pentateuch, JSS Monograph 15 (Manchester: Victoria University of Manchester, 1991). Schürer, Emil, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, rev. and ed. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Matthew Black (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1979). Skehan, Patrick W. and Alexander A. di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, AB 39 (New York: Doubleday, 1987). Sperber, Alexander, The Bible in Aramaic I. The Pentateuch according to Targum Onkelos (Leiden: Brill, 1959). Vermes, Geza, “The Targumic Versions of Genesis 4:3–16,” ALUOS 3 (1961–1962; Leiden: Brill, 1963), 81–114; reprinted in his Post-Biblical Jewish Studies (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 92–126. Weber, Robertus et al., Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, 4th rev. ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994). Wevers, John W., Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus, SBLSCS 30 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1990).

The Passover of Egypt

57

Wevers, John W., Exodus, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum II.1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991). Wevers, John W., Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis, SBLSCS 35 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993). York, Anthony D., “The Targum in the Synagogue and in the School,” JSJ 10 (1979): 74–86.

Chapter 3

The Greek and Aramaic Versions of Joshua 3–4 Michaël N. van der Meer 1 Introduction Biblical studies over the past decades seem to reflect world-wide developments such as globalization and its reflex in what is called localization, or even more apt: glocalization. On the one hand ever widening questions with respect to the contribution of sacred writings to the justification of violence or suppression of minority groups are raised, whereas on the other hand an ongoing fragmentation into autonomous sub-disciplines can be observed. A middle course between these two developments is often hard to find or follow. It is therefore a welcome suggestion of the organizers of the joint meeting of the international organizations for both Septuagint and Targum studies to explore the interaction between these two major Jewish translation projects in antiquity.1 Nevertheless, as soon as one starts to concentrate on the interaction between Septuagint and Targum, the question immediately arises which Aramaic or Greek translation one has in mind, since both the Septuagint and the Targumim cover a wide range of translations of Hebrew Scripture, diverging both in translation style and historical background. For the Septuagint one has to distinguish between the Septuagint proper, i.e. the relatively literal but still intelligible Greek translation of the Pentateuch made around 285 bce, interpretative translations of books such as Proverbs, Job, Isaiah and Daniel, perhaps dating from the second century bce and literalistic renderings in the kaige-Theodotion tradition from the last century bce onwards, culminating into the idiosyncratic translation of the entire Hebrew Bible made by Aquila (early second century ce).2 Although Aramaic translations 1  I consider not only the Latin Vulgate and its Vetus Latina precursors but also the Syriac Peshitta to be Christian products, see for the latter position the discussion in Michael Weitzman, The Syriac Version of the Old Testament. An Introduction, University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 56 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 206–62. 2   See the introductions to the Septuagint, e.g. Marguerite Harl, Gilles Dorival, Olivier Munnich, La Bible grecque des Septante. Du judaïsme hellénistique au christianisme ancien, 2nd ed. (Paris; Cerf, 1994), 83–111. The classification of Septuagint translation units is based upon Henry St. John Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909), 13.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004416727_005

the GREEK & ARAMAIC VERSIONS OF JOSHUA 3–4

59

of the Pentateuch and Job were in existence already in the last century bce,3 the main Targumim such as Onqelos, pseudo-Jonathan, Neophyti and other Palestinian Targumim to the Pentateuch, as well as Targum Jonathan to the Prophets are from a later date, starting from the second century ce onwards.4 Like the Greek translations of Hebrew scripture, these Jewish Aramaic translations differ in character from rather straightforward translation (Onqelos and Jonathan) to periphrastic (pseudo-Jonathan) or complete rewritings (Targum to the Writings).5 Moreover, the Septuagint and Targumim come from different Jewish cultural backgrounds: the Septuagint basically reflects Judaism of the late Second Temple period with its orientation on the temple in Jerusalem and its priesthood along with their competitors. The main Targumim reflect the period after the destruction of the Second Temple and the establishment of rabbinic Judaism. Given this diversity the question arises why one would like to compare Jewish writings that may differ in time by half a millennium. The obvious answer to this question lies in the fact that both the Septuagint and the Targum are Jewish translations of more or less the same Hebrew text, and for many passages outside the Pentateuch the only extant complete interpretations of Jewish Scripture in Antiquity. Both the Greek and Aramaic translator struggled 3  4QtgLev is dated to the late second century bce or early first century bce (Józef T. Milik, “Targum du Lévitique (156),” in Qumrân grotte4.II, ed. Roland de Vaux, Józef T. Milik, DJD VI (Oxford: Clarendon, 1977), 86; 4QtgJob and 11QtgJob date from the middle of the first century ce (ibidem, 90; Florentino García Martínez, Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, eds., Qumran Cave 11.II 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31, DJD XXIII (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 87. For a balanced study of the Aramaic version of Job found at Qumran, see David Shepherd, Targum and Translation. A Reconsideration of the Qumran Aramaic Version of Job, SSN 45 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 2004). 4  See Leivy Smolar and Moses Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, Pinkhos Churgin, Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, ed. Harry M. Orlinksy (New York: Ktav, 1983); Daniel J. Harrington and Anthony J. Saldarini, Targum Jonathan on the Prophets, ArBib 10 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987), 13–14. See also the helpful overview of research on Targum Jonathan provided by Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, Studies in Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 1–48. See further the discussion of the date of the Targum to Isaiah by Arie van der Kooij, Die alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches. Ein Beitrag zur Textgeschichte des Alten Testaments, OBO 35 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 161–220. For a discussion of the historical allusions in and date of the Targum to the Targum of Nahum to Malachi, see Robert P. Gordon, Studies in the Targum to the Twelve Prophets from Nahum to Malachi, VTSup 51 (Leiden: Brill, 1994). Targum Jonathan to the Prophets is generally dated to the decades after the Bar Kochba revolt, hence the middle of the second century ce. 5  See the description and classification by Philip Alexander, “Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures,” in Mikra. Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Martin Jan Mulder and Harry Sysling, CRINT 2.1 (Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 217–53.

60

van der Meer

with the same difficulties posed by the Hebrew source text, hence a comparison between Septuagint and Targum can be mutually illuminating and shed light on the history of reception of the Hebrew text. 2

The Setting of the Greek and Aramaic Translations of the Former Prophets

Whereas previous generations of scholars sought to determine genetic relationships between the two translation corpora in the sense of “Targumisms in the Septuagint,”6 one can observe a shift towards the question of the Sitz im Leben of these translations, particularly the biblical books outside the Pentateuch. The need for a translation in the vernacular language of the Torah is evident, given the fact that the Torah served as main source for Jewish identity and regulation and in later rabbinic Judaism as main source for study and liturgy. However, the need for a translation of the other biblical books such as the Former Prophets is not always so evident. The idea that these non-Pentateuchal books were also important for Jewish liturgy and would therefore require either a Greek or Aramaic translation, has proven untenable. A century ago Henry St. John Thackeray argued for such a liturgical Sitz im Leben of the Septuagint,7 but the problem remains that we still have no evidence whatsoever of a Jewish worship before the Roman period. 6  See e.g. Zacharias Frankel, Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik (Leipzig: Vogel, 1851); Pinkhos Churgin, “Targum and LXX,” AJSL 50 (1933–34): 41–65; Peter Katz, “Coincidences between LXX and Targum in Gen. xv:4,” JTS 47 (1946): 166– 69; Leo Prijs, Jüdische Tradition in der Septuaginta (Leiden: Brill, 1948); L.H. Brockington, “LXX and Targum,” ZAW 66 (1954): 80–86; Lienhard Delekat, “Ein Septuagintatargum,” VT 8 (1958): 225–52; Roger Le Déaut, “La Septante, un Targum?” in Études sur le judaïsme hellénistique; Congrès de Strasbourg, ed. Raymund Kuntzmann, Jacques Schlosser, Lectio divina 119 (Paris: Cerf, 1984), 146–95; Dorival, Harl. Munnich, La bible grecque des Septante, 212–14.   These studies define Targumisms as interpretations of the Hebrew text in the Septuagint that have a counterpart in the extant Targumim and that are held to be examples of early pre-rabbinic interpretations extant already in the Hellenistic period. This definition is stricter than the general influence of the Aramaic language upon the Greek translators of the Hebrew Bible. This influence is ubiquitous, see e.g. the studies on the translator’s knowledge of Hebrew and the interference of Aramaic in Jan Joosten, Collected Studies in the Septuagint. From Language to Interpretation and Beyond, FAT I 83 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), and recently Anne-Françoise Loiseau, L’influence de l’araméen sur les traducteurs de la LXX principalement, sur les traducteurs grecs postérieurs, ainsi que sur les scribes de la Vorlage de la LXX, SBLSCS 65 (Atlanta: SBL, 2016). 7  Henry St. John Thackeray, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship. A Study in Origins, The Schweich Lectures 1920 (London: British Academy, 1921).

the GREEK & ARAMAIC VERSIONS OF JOSHUA 3–4

61

The literal style of the Greek translation of the prophetical books hardly lends itself for liturgical use. Moreover, a translation of the liturgically important book of the Psalms seems to have been made rather late.8 Since only selections from the books of the Prophets were used as haftarah, it remains unclear why complete books were translated. Furthermore the fact that the Greek translations of the books of the Former and Later Prophets reflect different styles and hands (e.g. kaige in JudgesB, Ruth, 2 Regum, 4 Regum, 2 Esdras, the second parts of Jeremiah and Ezekiel versus less literalistic renderings-in varying degrees-in Joshua, 1 and 3 Regum, Isaiah and parts of the other prophetical books) hardly corresponds with any liturgical purpose.9 The considerable lapse in time between the various translations (from third century bce for the Pentateuch to the late first century ce for the later books of the Hebrew Bible) also seems to plead against a liturgical setting of the Septuagint. Hence this idea is now widely abandoned.10 The same also applies to the Targum of the Prophets, where a liturgical use of the Targum is only apparent for the Targumim on the Torah. Recent studies on the Targum of the Prophets have suggested a school setting for this Aramaic translation. Willem Smelik has argued convincingly that the character of the Targum on Judges which is both literal and midrashic is best explained when seen within the context of an educational setting where both younger pupils and more advanced students study both the Torah and the Prophets as part of their curriculum in the Jewish schools and academies.11 Studies on the other books of the Targum on the Prophets seem to confirm this setting.12 This idea of a school setting for the translation of the nonPentateuchal books corresponds well with the interlinear model as developed by Albert Pietersma and Cameron Boyd-Taylor.13 According to this theory the 8   See Michaël N. van der Meer, “The Question of the Literary Dependence of the Greek Isaiah upon the Greek Psalter Revisited,” in Die Septuaginta—Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse, ed. Wolfgang Kraus, Martin Karrer, Martin Meiser, WUNT 252 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 162–200, and literature mentioned there. 9   For the connection between Thackeray’s classification of translation styles and the Greek translations found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, particularly the Greek Minor Prophets scroll from Naḥal Ḥever (XḤevXIIgr), see Dominique Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila, VTSup 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1963). 10  See e.g. Dorival, Harl, Munnich, La Bible grecque des Septante, 68–71, 109–11. 11  Willem Smelik, The Targum of Judges, OtSt 36 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 634–38. 12  See Steven D. Fraade, “Locating Targum in the Textual Polysytem of Rabbinic Pedagogy,” BIOSCS 39 (2006): 69–91. 13  Albert Pietersma, “A New Paradigm for Addressing Old Questions: The Relevance of the Interlinear Model for the Study of the Septuagint,” in Bible and Computer. The Stellenbosch AIBI-6 Conference. Proceedings of the Association Internationale Bible et Informatique

62

van der Meer

very literalistic Greek of the Septuagint is best understood as an educational tool for understanding the underlying Hebrew text, comparable to interlinear texts of Homer (PSI XII 1276 = TM 61131). This thesis builds upon the highly influential study of Sebastian Brock about the phenomenon of the Septuagint within the context of bilingual texts from the Hellenistic period, such as the Greek translation of the Tefnut legend, the Aramaic and Greek translations of Asoka’s edicts.14 Yet, whereas Brock distinguishes between translations that aim to bring the original to the target audience and translations that aim to bring the reader to the original.15 The model advocated by Pietersma tends to postulate such an interlinear dimension for all Greek translations of Hebrew Scripture. Particularly this point of the theory has been heavily criticized.16 The evidence of the bilingual edicts also point to a possible other original setting of translations in antiquity, i.e. that of political purpose. The Ptolemaic edicts found at Rosetta (196 bce), Raphia (217 bce) and Canopus (238 bce) were deliberately published both in Greek and Egyptian (Demotic and hieroglyphs) in order to promulgate the edicts to all strata of Ptolemaic-Egyptian society. The same, of course, also holds true for other bilingual or trilingual royal inscriptions from antiquity, e.g. the edicts of Asoka at Kandahar, the Behistun inscription of Darius I, the trilingual stele of Lethon and older AramaicAssyrian steles from the Levant. Similarly, the Greek translation of a highly “From Alpha to Byte.” University of Stellenbosch 17–21 July, 2000, ed. Johann Cook (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 337–64; Cameron Boyd-Taylor, Reading between the Lines: The Interlinear Paradigm for Septuagint Studies, BTS 8 (Leuven: Peeters, 2011). See also their contributions to the Panel Discussion during the 2004 IOSCS Congress at Leiden, published in BIOSCS 39 (2006): 1–12 (Albert Pietersma, “LXX and DTS: A New Archimedean Point for Septuagint Studies?”) and 27–46 (Cameron Boyd-Taylor, “Toward the Analysis of Translational Norms: A Sighting Shot”). 14  Sebastian Brock, “The Phenomenon of the Septuagint,” in The Witness of Tradition. Papers Read at the Joint British-Dutch Old Testament Conference Held at Woudschoten, 1970, OtSt 17 (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 11–36. 15  Brock, “Phenomenon,” 29, with regard to the literalistic rendering of Vergil into Greek, P.Oxy. VIII 1099. 16  See e.g. Jan Joosten, “Reflections on the ‘Interlinear Paradigm’ in Septuagintal Studies,” in Scripture in Transition. Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo, ed. Anssi Voitila, Jutta Jokiranta; JSJSup 126 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 163–178, reprinted in Collected Essays on the Septuagint, 225–39; Takamitsu Muraoka, “With the Publication of NETS,” in Biblical Greek in Context. Essays in Honour of John A.L. Lee, ed. James K. Aitken and Trevor Evans, BTS 22 (Leuven: Peeters, 2015), 145–64. For a more comprehensive evaluation of the interplay between translation studies and Septuagint studies, see Theo van der Louw, Transformations in the Septuagint: Towards an Interaction of Septuagint Studies and Translation Studies, CBET 47 (Leuven: Peeters, 2007) and idem, “Linguistic or Ideological Shifts? The Problem-oriented Study of Transformations as a Methodological Filter,” in Scripture in Transition, 107–25.

the GREEK & ARAMAIC VERSIONS OF JOSHUA 3–4

63

propagandistic work like 1 Maccabees must also have served political aims. Early Hellenistic works such as the histories produced by Manetho, Berossus, Artapanus, Demetrius the Chronographer, Eupolemus and Cleodemus Malchus demonstrate the need of native oriental scholars to assert their autochthonous cultural tradition over against globalizing Hellenistic cultural imperialism. Greek translations and recreations of native philosophical traditions, such as found in the free renderings of Proverbs and Job, but also in the works of Aristobulus, Philo and perhaps the Hermetic writings, attest to similar, political functions of ancient translations. Likewise the Greek translation of the Pentateuch was probably made not only for inner-Jewish liturgical or educational needs, but may have served political purposes as well, be it the wish of the Ptolemies to collect all available knowledge,17 be it their wish to legislate local jurisdiction of the various ethnic and civic communities (πολιτεύματα),18 or be it the wish of the Jewish community to compete with

17   See Bruno H. Stricker, De brief van Aristeas. De Helleense codificaties der praehelleense godsdiensten, Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, afd. Letterkunde 62.4 (Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij, 1956); Elias Bickerman, “The Septuagint as a Translation,” PAAJR 28 (1959), reprinted in Studies in Jewish and Christian History 1, AGJU 9.1 (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 167–200; Dominique Barthélemy, “Pourquoi la Torah a-t-elle été traduite en grec?” in On Language, Culture and Religion. In Honor of E.A. Nida, Approaches to Semiotics 56 (Den Haag: Mouton, 1974), 23–41, reprinted in Études d’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament, OBO 21 (Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 322–40; Nina L. Collins, The Library in Alexandria and the Bible in Greek, VTSup 82 (Leiden: Brill, 2000); Wolfgang Orth, “Ptolemaios II. und die Septuaginta-Übersetzung,” in Im Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta. Studien zur Entstehung und Bedeutung der griechischen Bibel 1, BWANT 153 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001), 97–114; Arie van der Kooij, “The Septuagint of the Pentateuch and Ptolemaic Rule,” in The Pentateuch as Torah. New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance, ed. Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 289–300; Johann Cook and Arie van der Kooij, Law, Prophets, and Wisdom. On the Provenance of the Translators and their Books in the Septuagint Version, CBET 68 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012). 18  Joseph Mélèze Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt from Ramesses II to Emperor Hadrian (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995), 99–119. The thesis was originally based on the analogy provided by the Greek translation (P.Oxy. XLVI 3285) of a Demotic collection of laws (cf. P.Mattha), ultimately deriving, according to Diodor of Sicily 1.95 and the Demotic Chronicle, from an edict of Darius I. Recent publications of papyri from Herakleopolis have confirmed the existence of a Jewish politeuma already by the middle of the second century bce as well as the use of typically Jewish family law (βιβλίον ἀποστασίου, “bill of divorce,” lxx Deut 24:1–4), see James M.S. Cowey and Klaus Maresch, eds., Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis (144/3–133/2 v. Chr.) (P.Polit.Iud.), Pap.Colon. 29 (Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag, 2001).

64

van der Meer

the cultural traditions cultivated in the Museion.19 Political purposes may also be detected in the Greek translations of Joshua,20 Isaiah,21 Daniel, 1 Esdras and Esther, i.e. Greek translations of Hebrew Scripture that differ from the majority of the writings in the Septuagint corpus because of their relatively free and interpretative style. Although the Targumim occasionally refer to political events of their own time or in the eschaton,22 they do not assert politically motivated claims before a non-Jewish audience. Yet, the Targumim do reflect inner-Jewish disputes and differences, e.g. between the different rabbinical schools. In this sense the Aramaic translations reflect the later Greek translations, made by Theodotion, Aquila and Symmachus, which also reflect to a certain extent the opinions of leading rabbinical authorities and schools, probably those of Rabbi Hillel the Elder (Theodotion),23 Rabbi Aqiba (Aquila),24 and Rabbis Meïr and Juda ha-Nasi (Symmachus).25

19  Sylvie Honigman, The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria. A Study in the Narrative of the Letter of Aristeas (London: Routledge, 2003). See also Tessa Rajak, Translation and Survival. The Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish Diaspora (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). 20  Michaël N. van der Meer, “Provenance, Profile, and Purpose of the Greek Joshua,” in XII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Leiden, 2004, ed. Melvin K.H. Peters, SBLSCS 54 (Atlanta: SBL, 2006), 55–80. 21  Isac L. Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah. A Discussion of Its Problems, MEOL 9 (Leiden: Brill, 1948) reprinted in The Septuagint Version of Isaiah and Cognate Studies, eds. Robert Hanhart and Hermann Spieckermann, FAT I 40 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 119–234. See further Van der Kooij, Die alten Textzeugen, and Cook and Van der Kooij, Law, Prophets, and Wisdom. See also Michaël N. van der Meer, “Visions from Memphis and Leontopolis: The Phenomenon of the Vision Reports in the Greek Isaiah in the Light of Contemporary Accounts from Hellenistic Egypt,” in Isaiah in Context. Studies in Honour of Arie van der Kooij on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, eds. Michaël N. van der Meer, Percy van Keulen, Wido van Peursen and Bas ter Haar Romeny, VTSup 138 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 281–316. 22  Smolar and Aberbach, Studies in the Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, 63–148, Van der Kooij, Die alten Textzeugen, 161–213. 23  Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila, 144–57; Van der Kooij, Die alten Textzeugen, 125–56. 24  Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila, 3–30; Van der Kooij, Die alten Textzeugen, 157–60. 25  Dominique Barthélemy, “Qui est Symmaque?” CBQ 36 (1974): 451–65, reprinted in Études d’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament, 307–21; Van der Kooij, Die alten Textzeugen, 221– 57. The tension Van der Kooij perceives between the schools of Rabbi Meïr and Rabbi Juda ha-Nasi are probably mainly late Babylonian literary fictions, see Michaël N. van der Meer, “Symmachus, the Septuagint and the Sages. An Examination of the References to Sumkhos ben Joseph in the Mishnah, Tosefta and Talmudim,” in Septuagint, Sages and Scripture: Studies in Honour of Johann Cook, eds. Randall X. Gauthier, Gideon R. Kotzé, and Gert Steyn, VTSup 172 (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 336–55.

the GREEK & ARAMAIC VERSIONS OF JOSHUA 3–4

3

65

Research Questions

This brings us back to my original questions: which book or section forms the object of comparison and why should one want to make a comparison between the Greek and Aramaic versions of that particular book? Nevertheless, this small overview over recent approaches to the Greek and Aramaic versions of particularly the prophetic books have helped to tighten up questions that may help us address the broad questions of the what and why of a comparison between ancient Greek and Aramaic Bible translations. 1. What does a comparison of the Greek and Aramaic translations of the same biblical passage tell us about the difficulties in the Hebrew text and the different translation strategies employed by the translators? 2. To what extent do the variants in the translations vis-à-vis the Hebrew source text tell us something about the setting and purpose of the translations? Is it possible to find a liturgical, educational or political purpose behind the translations? In what follows I will apply these questions to a specific section of a specific biblical book, i.e. the book of Joshua, in particular the story of the crossing of the Jordan. This passage is long enough to reflect the variety of textual problems and translational solutions needed for such an investigation, but still small enough to present in the context of a conference devoted to the interaction of Septuagint and Targum studies. Moreover, it is probably the only text outside the Pentateuch and the Psalter to have both explicit cultic and didactic connotations. A study of this passage fills in a lacuna of previous research on Joshua by my own,26 as well as that of the Targum of Joshua, which has not been studied in its own right apart from a study by Sepmeijer and De Moor on the relation between the Targum and Peshitta of Joshua.27 By contrast, the Septuagint version of this passage has been studied well, but with widely diverging results 26  See Michaël N. van der Meer, Formation and Reformulation. The Redaction of the Book of Joshua in the Light of the Oldest Textual Witnesses, VTSup 101 (Leiden: Brill, 2004); idem, “‘Sound the Trumpet!’ Redaction and Reception of Joshua 6:2–25,” in The Land of Israel in Bible, History, and Theology. Studies in Honour of Ed Noort, VTSup 124 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 19–44) and Joshua 2: “Literary and Textual History of Joshua 2,” in XV Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Munich 2013, eds. Wolfgang Kraus, Michaël N. van der Meer, and Martin Meiser, SBLSCS 64 (Atlanta: SBL, 2016), 565–91. 27  Johannes C. de Moor, and Floris Sepmeijer, “The Peshitta and the Targum of Joshua,” in The Peshitta as a Translation. Papers Read at the II Peshitta Symposium Held at Leiden 19–21 August 1993, ed. Piet B. Dirksen, and Arie van der Kooij, Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Leiden 8 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 129–76.

66

van der Meer

regarding the character of the Greek translation and its Hebrew Vorlage. Emanuel Tov, for instance, finds evidence both for “midrash-type exegesis” in the Septuagint,28 a feature that links the Septuagint to the Targum, expansions of a short Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint to a second edition of the book as attested in mt,29 examples of stylistic shortening by the Greek translator, as well as examples of later editing of the Hebrew text from a shorter version reflected by the Septuagint towards a more expanded version attested by the Masoretic Text.30 Seppo Sipilä also finds evidence for these different textual phenomena.31 If the Greek translation at some points would attest to a deviating, shorter Hebrew Vorlage, the question of the reception of this passage gains an additional dimension, i.e. that of interpretation of the Hebrew text by early Hebrew scribes during the Second Temple period. In order to disentangle all these issues, I will examine the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek versions of this passage in order to find out whether the translations reflect similar deviations from their Hebrew parent text and to see what these differences tell about the respective Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek versions. 4

The Hebrew Versions of Joshua 3–4

I will start my discussion about the Greek and Aramaic versions of Joshua with some brief comments on the Masoretic text of Joshua, which is our only complete extant Hebrew text.32 The passage describes the crossing of the river Jordan, exemplified by the words ‫עבר‬, which occurs 22 times in these two chapters,33 and the name of the river ‫ירדן‬, which occurs even more often: 26 times. The narrative as a whole is rather static, as can be deducted from 28  Emanuel Tov, “Midrash-type Exegesis in the Septuagint of Joshua,” RB 85 (1978): 50–61, reprinted in The Greek and Hebrew Bible. Collected Essays on the Septuagint, VTSup 72 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 153–63. 29  Emanuel Tov, “The Growth of the Book of Joshua in the Light of the Evidence of the Septuagint,” in Studies in Bible, ed. Sara Japhet, ScrHier 31 (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986), 321– 39, reprinted in The Greek and Hebrew Bible, 385–96. 30  Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Third Edition, Revised and Expanded (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 119. 31  Seppo Sipilä, “The Septuagint Version of Joshua 3–4,” in VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leuven 1989, ed. Claude E. Cox, SBLSCS 31 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1991), 63–74. 32  In the absence of new critical editions of the Hebrew text of Joshua that of BHS is used here. 33  François Langlamet, Gilgal et les récits de la traversée du Jourdain ( Jos., III–IV), CahRB 11 (Paris: Gabalda, 1969), 142, counts 70 attestations of this verb in Deuteronomy (40) and Joshua (30) and ascribes this number to scribal activity of late redactors.

67

the GREEK & ARAMAIC VERSIONS OF JOSHUA 3–4 Table 3.1

Doublets in Joshua 3–4

Theme Instructions Purpose

Text A

‫ויצוו את העם‬ ‫אשר ידעון כי כאשר הייתי עם‬ ‫משה אהיה עמך‬ ‫קחו לכם שני עשר איש‬ Instructions about stones ‫משבטי ישראל איש אחד איש‬ ‫אחד לשבט‬ ‫שאו לכם מזה מתוך הירדן‬ Specification ‫ממצב רגלי הכהנים הכין‬ ‫שתים עשרה אבנים‬ ‫ויהי כאשר תמו כל הגוי‬ End of passage ‫לעבור את הירדן‬ Catechetical ‫כי ישאלון בניכם מחר לאמר‬ ‫מה האבנים האלה לכם‬ question

Catechetical answer

Placing of stones

vs 3:3 3:7

Text B

‫ויאמר יהושע אל העם‬ ‫בזאת תדעון כי אל חי‬ ‫בקרבכם‬ 3:12 ‫קחו לכם מן העם שנים עשר‬ ‫אנשים איש אחד איש אחד‬ ‫משבט‬ 4:3 ‫והרימו לכם איש אבן אחת‬ ‫על שכמו למספר שבטי בני‬ ‫ישראל‬ 4:1 ‫ויהי כאשר תם כל העם לעבור‬

4:6

‫ ואמרתם להם אשר נכרתו‬4:7 ‫מימי הירדן מפני ארון ברית‬ ‫יהוה בעברו בירדן נכרתו מי‬ ‫הירדן‬ ‫ ושתים עשרה אבנים הקים‬4:9 ‫יהושע בתוך הירדן תחת מצב‬ ‫רגלי הכהנים‬

vs 3:5 3:10 4:2

4:5

4:11

‫ אשר ישאלון בניכם מחר את‬4:21 ‫אבותם לאמר מה האבנים‬ ‫האלה‬ ‫ והודעתם את בניכם לאמר‬4:22–23 ‫ביבשה עבר ישראל את‬ ‫הירדן הזה אשר הוביש יהוה‬ ‫אלהיכם את מי הירדן מפניכם‬ ‫ ואת שתים עשרה האבנים‬4:20 ‫האלה אשר לקחו מן הירדן‬ ‫הקים יהושע בגלגל‬

the numerous speeches, the participial verb forms (e.g. in 3:16–17) and the fivefold repetition of the verb ‫עמד‬. The story is full of repetitions, as Table 3.1 makes clear. In order to understand this complex narrative on a synchronic level one has to go a long way in assuming shifting timeframes, viewpoints, compositional planes, and multi-dimensionality.34 Hence, it does not come as a surprise that many scholars have explained the doublets and outright contradictions in the 34  See e.g. Robert Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist. A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History 1. Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges (New York: Seabury, 1980), 91–110; Elie Assis, “A Literary Approach to Complex Narratives: An Examination of Joshua 3–4,” in The Book of Joshua, BETL 250 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 401–414. Most other scholars adhering to a synchronic reading of the text do not offer an explanation for the doublets, see e.g. Hendrik Koorevaar, De opbouw van het boek Jozua (Heverlee: Centrum voor Bijbelse vorming, 1990), 167–69.

68

van der Meer

present text as results of various redactional alterations.35 There is a broad consensus that a Deuteronomistic author-redactor was responsible for giving the passage through the Jordan almost universal dimensions (4:21–24) with Yhwh as ruler over the whole land (‫ אדון כל הארץ‬3:11, 13), whose might (‫ יד יהוה‬4:24 cf. Deut 2:15; 28:10) is acknowledged by all its inhabitants (4:24 cf. Deut 28:10). This Deuteronomistic redactor was also responsible for linking the passage through the Jordan to that of the Reed Sea (4:23) in order to enhance the authority of Joshua as legitimate successor of Moses (3:7; 4:10, 14) as successful conqueror of the Promised Land (3:10). The Deuteronomistic redactor wanted to stress the unity of all Israel (4:12–13) and to play down the importance of the ancient cultic site at Gilgal (in the pre-deuteronomistic layer 4:20; 5:9) by transforming it into a road marker (4:20–24) preferably drowned at the bottom of the river (4:9). There is also wide agreement that the role of the priests is further highlighted by a priestly redactor who tied the events to the celebration of Passover (4:15–19 cf. 5:10–12).36 The tensions, doublets and contradictions in the Hebrew text of Joshua 3–4 are not restricted to the pluses in the mt, but form part of larger expansions of the text introduced by Deuteronomist (3:2–3, 4b, 7–13; 4:9–14, 21–24) and Priestly (3:4a, 4:15–19) editors who wanted to inscribe their distinctive ideologies and concerns into the ancient text by means of supplementation and resumptive repetition (Wiederaufnahme). These extensions did not provide major challenges for the ancient translators and interpretators, but also already for the Hebrew scribes. Interestingly, the mt is not the only ancient Hebrew witness to Joshua 3–4. We also have fragments of a biblical and a rewritten biblical version of these chapters, viz. 4QJoshuab and 4QRewrittenJoshuab (4Q379 or: 4QApocryphonJoshuab). The biblical scroll 4QJoshuab contains fragments (2–3) with Josh 3:15–4:3 and was written around the middle of the last century bce.37 The rewritten Joshua scroll 4Q379 also contains a fragment (12) with elements of Josh 3:13–16, but with a significant expansion. This text is somewhat older than 4QJoshb as well as the other rewritten Joshua scrolls (4Q378: 35  See the commentaries to Joshua and the very helpful overview of the status quaestionis in Klaus Bieberstein, Josua-Jordan-Jericho. Archäologie, Geschichte und Theologie der Landnahmeerzählungen Josua 1–6, OBO 143 (Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995), 135–41 and Ed Noort, Das Buch Josua. Forschungsgeschichte und Problemfelder, EdF 292 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1998), 147–64. 36  I follow roughly the ideas of Wilhelm Rudolph, Der “Elohist” von Exodus bis Josua, BZAW 68 (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1938), who distinguishes between a pre-deuteronomistic layer, a deuteronomistic and a priestly addition. 37  Emanuel Tov, “4QJoshb,” in Qumran Cave 4.IX. Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, ed. Eugene C. Ulrich et al., DJD XIV (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 153–60.

the GREEK & ARAMAIC VERSIONS OF JOSHUA 3–4

69

Table 3.2 Joshua 3:15b–16 in mt, 4QJoshb and 4QRewrittenJoshuab

mt Josh 3:15b–16 4QJoshb (frg 2–3) 4QRewJoshb (frg. 12)

‫והירדן מלא על כל גדותיו כל ימי קציר׃ ויעמדו המים הירדים מלמעלה‬ ‫קמו נד אחד הרחק מאד כבאדם [קמאדם] העיר אשר מצד צרתן‬ ‫מל[מעלה קמו נד‬ ̊ ‫ו̊ ̊ה[ירדן מלא על כל גדותיו] בימי קצירחטים ויעמדו המים‬ ̇ ‫אחד מאד ̇מ ̊א[ד] ̇םאדם העיר‬ ‫אשר מצד צ[רתן‬ ‫ביבשה ̇בחדש [ הרא] ̊שון בשנת‬ ̇ ‫עמדו נ̊ י̊ ̊ד [ ע] ̊ברו‬ ̇ ‫המים] היורדים‬ ‫היא השנה ליובלים‬ ̊ ‫מא ̊ר[ץ] ̊מ ̊צ ̇רים‬ ̇ ‫לצאתם‬ ̇ ‫הא[חד ו] ̊א ̊ר ̊בעים שנה‬ ̊ ‫םלא מי̊ [ם] ̇על כל גדותיו ושוטף‬ ̊ ‫נען והיורדן‬ ̊ ‫לתחלת בואתם לארץ ̊כ‬ ‫[ב] ̊מימיו ̊מן̊ החדש ה◦[ ]◦י עד ̊ח ̊ד ̇ש קציר חטים‬

first century ce; 4Q522: last century bce; Mas 1039–211: beginning of the first century ce).38 Particularly interesting are the expansions already on the Hebrew level in Josh 3:15b–16 (see Table 3.2). Both the biblical and rewritten biblical scroll of Joshua 3:15 specify the time of year as season of the wheat harvest. A similar specification can be found in the Septuagint (ὡσει ἡμέραι θερισμοῦ πυρῶν), which has been termed by Emanuel Tov an example of “midrash-type exegesis”: an example of biblical interpretation in the text that resembles the type of rabbinic midrash even though it is not actually attested within the corpus of midrashic writings. In addition to that small elucidation, 4QRewrittenJoshuab also links this temporal phrase to that found in Josh 4:19 about the forty years wandering in the desert as well as the meta-temporal frame provided by the periodization of history into jubilees. It is also interesting to note that the rewritten text alternates between almost exact copying of the biblical text and additional sentences. This latter technique is also found in the so-called “type A” periphrastic Targumim. 5

The Old Greek Version of Joshua 3–4

The Septuagint or Old Greek of Joshua is the oldest extant translation of the book and dates, perhaps to the last decades of the third century bce, as I have

38  Emanuel Tov, “The Rewritten Book of Joshua as Found at Qumran and Masada,” in Biblical Perspectives. Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 May, 1996, eds. Michael E. Stone and Esther G. Chazon, STDJ 27 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 233–56; reprinted in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran. Collected Essays, ed. Emanuel Tov, TSAJ 121 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 71–91; see further my Formation and Reformulation, 105–13.

70

van der Meer

argued elsewhere.39 The Hebrew Vorlage of this translation differed in several parts of the book (e.g. 13:7–8; 15:59; 20:4–6; 21:36–37) considerably from the later Masoretic tradition as codified in the great Cairo, Aleppo and Leningrad codices. The Greek translator introduced numerous small interpretations, variations, clarifications, and stylistic shortenings. This also applies to Joshua 3–4, where we find a large variety of smaller and larger variants between the Greek and Hebrew texts. Several of these variants have been discussed by Seppo Sipilä,40 e.g. the use of subordinate clause-constructions for Hebrew infinitive constructions (3:3 ‫—כראותם את ארון‬ὅταν ἴδητε τὴν κιβωτόν; 4:18 ‫ויהי‬ ‫—בעלות הכהנים‬καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς ἐξέβησαν οἱ ἱερεῖς) and the use of the genuine Greek participium coniunctum construction (4:4–5 ‫ויקרא יהושע אל שנים העשר‬ ‫—איש … ויאמר להם יהושע‬καὶ ἀνακαλέσαμενος Ἰησοῦς δώδεκα ἄνδρας … εἶπεν αὐτοῖς). As a matter of fact, the Old Greek version of Joshua 3–4 is full of modifications that could only have been produced at the Greek level: – The Greek translator employed the genuine Greek genitivus absolutus construction (ἀποξηράναντος κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν τὸ ὕδωρ τοῦ Ιορδάνου) in Josh 4:22 for a simple Hebrew temporal clause (‫אשר הוביש יהוה אלהיכם את‬ ‫ )מי הירדן מפניכם‬in order to subordinate this clause to the preceding statement. Although the use of the genitivus absolutus is a very common stylistic feature in both literary and documentary Greek texts,41 it is rare in the Septuagint precisely because of its non-Semitic character.42 – The Greek translator employed the much rarer Greek construction ὅτι-recitativum in Josh 4:7.43 – In Josh 4:5 the translator employed the Greek third person imperative form (ἀράτω), which is also highly unusual within the corpus of Greek translations of Hebrew Scripture.44

39  “Provenance, Profile, and Purpose,” 77–80. 40  Sipilä, “The Septuagint Version of Joshua 3–4,” 63–74. 41  See e.g. Raphael Kühner, Bernhard Gerth, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, II.2, 3rd ed. (Hannover: Hahn 1909) § 486; Eduard Schwyzer, Albert Debrunner, Griechische Grammatik, II (München: Beck, 1959), 398–401; Edwin Mayser, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit, II.3 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1934) § 157. 42  Takamitsu Muraoka, A Syntax of Septuagint Greek (Leuven: Peeters, 2016) § 31h. 43  Anneli Aejmelaeus, “Ὅτι recitativum in Septuagintal Greek,” in Studien zur Septuaginta— Robert Hanhart zu Ehren, ed. Detlef Fraenkel, Udo Quast, John W. Wevers, MSU 20 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 74–82, reprinted in On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators. Collected Essays, Revised and Expanded Edition, ed. Anneli Aejmelaeus, CBET 50 (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 31–41; Muraoka, Syntax § 79c. 44  For comparable examples in Joshua 6, see Van der Meer, “Sound the Trumpet!,” 35.

the GREEK & ARAMAIC VERSIONS OF JOSHUA 3–4

71

– The Greek translator employed the subordinating conjunction ὅταν which also lacks a direct Hebrew equivalent, such as (in 3:3 for the Hebrew preposition ‫ ְּכ־‬in 4:6 without direct Hebrew counterpart and in 4:21 as rendering for Hebrew ‫) ֲא ֶׁשר‬. – The Greek translator employed various Greek expressions for the same Hebrew lexeme, e.g.: – ‫עבר‬, “to pass,” for which no less than 8 different Greek equivalents have been employed: διαβαίνω (3:1, 11, 14, 17, 17; 4:7, 10, 11, 11, 12, 13, 22, 23) διέρχομαι (3:2), πορεύομαι (3:4), προπορεύομαι (3:6), ἵστημι (3:16), διακομίζω (4:3, 8), προάγω (4:5), παρέρχομαι (4:23); – ‫ידע‬, “to know,” with the Greek words ἐπίσταμαι, “to understand,” (3:4), γινώσκω, “to know,” (3:7 cf. 4:24) and ἀναγγέλλω, “to announce,” (4:24 for ‫ ידע‬hiphil); – ‫ירא‬, “to fear,” with the commonly used Greek equivalent φοβέω in 4:14 (twice),45 and the less commonly used verb σέβω in 4:24;46 – ‫ ָמלֹון‬, “lodging-place,” with either παρεμβολή (4:8, the usual rendering for Hebrew ‫ ַמ ֲחנֶ ה‬, “army camp”) and στρατοπεδεία (4:3); – ‫לקח‬, “to take,” with the default rendering λαμβάνω, “to take,” (4:20) its cognate παρα-λαμβάνω (4:2) and the highly unusual rendering προχειρίζομαι, “to take by the hand,” (3:12);47 – the preposition ‫ ַעד‬, “until,” with either the usual Greek prepositions ἕως (3:1, 17; 4:7, 9, 10, 23) and ἐπί (3:8, 15) on the one hand and on the other hand the rather unusual rendering with the preposition μέχρι (4:23), which occurs in the Septuagint predominantly in genuine Greek compositions.48

45  Cf. Josh 8:1; 9:24; 10:2, 8, 25; 11:6; 24:14. Out of the 460 times the verb φοβέω occurs in the lxx, some 290 instances render Hebrew ‫ירא‬, which makes this equation the predominant one (HRCS 1433b–35b). 46  Further only in Josh 22:25; 24:33; Job 1:9; Jonah 1:9; Isa 29:13; 66:14. The other occurrences are in genuine Greek parts of the Septuagint: Wis (15:6, 18); the song of the three in the furnace (Dan 3:33, 90), Bel and the dragon (2, 3, 4, 22, 26), 2 Macc 1:3; 3 Macc 3:4; 4 Macc 5:24; 8:14; see HRCS 1261c; Jacqueline Moatti-Fine, Jésus ( Josué), La Bible d’Alexandrie 6 (Paris: Cerf, 1996), 47, 114, 225. 47  The word occurs within the Septuagint only in Exod 4:13 for Hebrew ‫ׁשלח‬, Dan 3:22 for Aramaic ‫ סלק‬and further 2 Macc 3:7; 8:9; 14:12. 48  G ELS3 457b–58a. The word occurs 65 times in the whole of the Septuagint corpus (HRCS 918c, LEH 400a), out of which 34 times in the genuine Greek compositions Judith (5:10; 12:5, 9) Wisdom (16:5; 19:1), 2 Maccabees (6:14; 11:30; 13:14), 3 Maccabees (1:1; 3:27, 27; 4:7, 15; 5:40; 6:6, 28, 40; 7:4, 16) and 4 Maccabees (5:37; 6:18, 21, 26, 30; 7:8, 16; 9:28; 13:1, 27; 15:10, 15; 16:1; 17:7, 10).

72

van der Meer

– In Josh 3:5 the Greek translator did not use the common Greek equivalent ἁγιάζω for Hebrew ‫( קדׁש‬hitpael), but ἁγνίζω. Although the two Greek verbs are both related to the Greek root ἁγι*,49 they have a slightly different meaning. The former verb ἁγιάζω which occurs some 196 times in the Septuagint,50 can be defined as “to designate as ἅγιος and treat accordingly,” hence “to consecrate.”51 The other verb ἁγνίζω occurs only 34 times in the Septuagint52 and has a more specific meaning: “to render fit to participate in cultic rituals.”53 – As already noted by Max Margolis and later Emanuel Tov, the Greek translator specifies the status of the twelve men selected by Joshua (4:4) as prominent men: ‫—שנים העשר איש אשר הכין מבני ישראל‬δώδεκα ἄνδρας τῶν ἐνδόξων ἀπὸ τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ.54 – The rendering of the common Hebrew word ‫היה‬, “to be,” with ὑπάρχω, “to be available,” (4:6) instead of the common Greek verb εἰμί, adds an extra dimension to the memorial purpose of the stones taken from the river. – The uncommon rendering of the Hebrew verb ‫שוב‬, “to return,” with ὁρμάω, “to set into motion” in 4:18 also adds a narratological nuance to the story of the waters starting to resume their natural course.55 – In Josh 4:21 the Greek translator simplified the Hebrew complex reference to the several generations of Hebrew people: ‫אשר ישאלון בניכם מחר את‬ ‫אבותם‬, “when tomorrow your children will ask their fathers,” into the more direct expressions ὅταν ἐρωτῶσιν ὑμᾶς οἱ υἱοὶ ὑμῶν, “when your children will ask you.” In light of these modifications introduced by the Greek translator, it is plausible to ascribe a number of quantitative variants to the same tendency of restyling the Hebrew text: – In 3:1 the Hebrew narrator explicates the identity of the implied subject of the phrase ‫ ויבאו‬as ‫הוא וכל בני ישראל‬. The Greek translation lacks a counterpart for this subject phrase. Although several scholars prefer to ascribe this 49  See Robert Beekes, Etymological Dictionary of Greek, Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 10 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 13: “< IE *(H)ih2ģ–no.” 50  L EH 4a. 51  G ELS3 5a. 52  L EH 5b predominantly in 1–2 Paralipomena (Chronicles) (18×). 53  G ELS3 6b; Moatti-Fine, Jésus ( Josué), 106. 54  Max L. Margolis, “των ενδοξων Josh. 4,4,” in Studies in Jewish Literature Issued in Honor of Professor Kaufmann Kohler, Ph.D. President Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, Ohio, on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday (Berlin: Reimer, 1913), 204–209; Tov, “Midrash-type Exegesis,” 52–53 (155). 55  Sipilä, “The Septuagint Version of Joshua 3–4,” 65.

the GREEK & ARAMAIC VERSIONS OF JOSHUA 3–4

73

plus in mt to a later reviser or editor of the Hebrew text,56 I find it more likely to consider the absence of the phrase in the Greek text to be an example of omission of redundant information.57 – In 3:6 the Greek version lacks a counterpart for the Hebrew introduction to direct discourse. As I argued elsewhere, there is every reason to ascribe the minus to the Greek translator stylizing his parent text.58 To my mind the same applies to the omission of the introduction to the direct speech in 3:10 ‫ויאמר יהושע‬. This phrase is redundant since the preceding verse opened with the same clause ‫ויאמר יהושע אל בני ישראל‬. By omitting a rendering of the introduction to the direct speech in 3:10, the following text is now presented—more clearly than in the Hebrew text—as the contents of the word(s) of God (‫—דברי יהוה‬τὸ ῥῆμα κυρίου). In 4:21 the Greek translator followed the opposite strategy: he subsumed the whole of the narrative introductions to the direct discourse (‫ )ויאמר אל בני ישראל לאמר‬under the simple phrase λέγων. – In the same verse the Greek translator did not present a literal rendering of the preposition phrase ‫ לפני‬with the customary renderings ἔμπροσθεν (cf. 3:6; 4:5, 11, 12, 23, 23; 5:1), ἐναντίον (cf. 4:13), κατενώπιον (cf. 1:5) or ἀπὸ προσώπου (cf. 2:10; 4:7; 5:1). Instead he condensed the phrase ‫ עברו לפני‬into the compound verb προποερεύεσθε. – In 3:12, 4:2 and 4:4 the Greek translator condensed the ponderous Hebrew expression ‫ איש אחד איש אחד לשבט‬into the more succinct Greek expression ἕνα ἀφ’ ἑκάστης φυλῆς, probably in order to avoid the confusion a literal rendering would produce.59 – In 3:13 and 4:18 the Greek version lacks a counterpart for the word ‫כפות‬, “soles (of the feet).” In Josh 1:3 the Greek translator had no difficulties with the same expression ‫ כף רגלכם‬as he employed the Greek equivalent ἴχνος, “sole,” there. Nevertheless here too the translator modified the Hebrew 56  See e.g. Charles D. Benjamin, The Variations between the Hebrew and Greek Texts of Joshua: Chapters 1–12 (Leipzig: Drugulin, 1921), 28; Tov, “The Growth,” 333 (392); Sipilä, “The Septuagint Version of Joshua 3–4,” 68; Volkmar Fritz, Das Buch Josua, HAT 1.7 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 43; Eun-Woo Lee, Crossing the Jordan. Diachrony versus Synchrony in the Book of Joshua, LHBOTS 578 (London: Bloomsbury, 2013), 150. 57  Likewise e.g. Johannes Hollenberg, Der Charakter der alexandrinischen Uebersetzung des Buches Josua und ihr textkritischer Werth untersucht, Wissenschaftliche Beilage zu dem Oster-Programm des Gymnasiums zu Moers (Moers: Eckner, 1876), 8; Bieberstein, Josua-Jordan-Jericho, 146–47. 58  Van der Meer, Formation and Reformulation, 227–32. 59  See e.g. the discussion in y. Soṭah 7:5 (Heinrich W. Guggenheimer, The Jerusalem Talmud. Third Order. Našim. Tractates Soṭah and Nedarim, Studia Judaica 31 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005), 294).

74

van der Meer

expression ‫כל מקום אשר תדרך כף רגלכם‬, “every place upon which the sole of your foot will tread,” into πᾶς ὁ τόπος ἐφ᾽ ὃν ἂν ἐπιβῆτε τῷ ἴχνει τῶν ποδῶν ὑμῶν, “every place upon which you will tread with the sole of your feet.” With respect to the expression in Josh 3:13 and 4:18 the Greek translator may have puzzled by the idea of Israelite priests standing barefoot on the riverbed. – In 4:3 the Greek translator rendered only the more specific of the three consecutive phrases all starting with the preposition ‫מן‬: ‫מזה מתוך הירדן ממצב‬ ‫רגלי הכהנים‬, “from here, from the middle of the Jordan, from the standing place of the feet of the priests”: ἐκ μέσου τοῦ Ιορδάνου, “from the middle of the Jordan.” Of course the possibility can not be ruled out that the Hebrew phrases are later additions to a shorter Hebrew text as reflected by the mt. Yet, the redundancy of the Hebrew text is rather a characteristic of the whole of the Deuteronomistic layer of Joshua. Given the numerous stylistic shortenings throughout these chapters, I think it is rather probable that the Greek translator did not share the urge of the Deuteronomistic editor of Joshua to amplify the “here and now” of the theological discourses.60 – Likewise in 4:7 the Greek translator rendered only the first of two almost identical clauses stating that the waters of the Jordan were cut off: ‫נכרתו מימי‬ ‫הירדן … נכרתו מי הירדן‬: ὅτι ἐξέλιπεν ὁ Ιορδάνης ποταμὸς. The translator also substituted the notion of water by that of the river and altered the rather illogical notion of “cutting of the water,” by the more subtle notion of waters failing (ἐκλείπω) to flow.61 – The Greek version hardly contains pluses vis-à-vis the Hebrew text, but in Josh 4:9 we find a slightly longer text. The Greek text makes clear that the stones set up at the riverbed (4:9) are different from the stones erected at the camp at Gilgal. By adding the word ἄλλους to the rendering of the Hebrew clause ‫ושתים עשרה אבנים הקים יהושע‬, the deuteronomistic adaptation of the pre-deuteronomistic verse 4:20 (‫ואת שתים עשרה האבנים האלה‬ ‫)… הקים יהושע בגלגל‬, the translator resolved the tension introduced by the

60  Van der Meer, Formation and Reformulation, 193–95. 61  Cf. the demythologizing modification of the miracle presented by Flavius Josephus, Ant.Jud. 5.18: ὡς δὲ τοῖς ἱερεῦσι πρώτοις ἐμβᾶσι πορευτὸς ἔδοξεν ὁ ποταμός, τοῦ μὲν βάθους ἐπεσχημένου, τοῦ δὲ κάχληκος τῷ μὴ πολὺν εἶναι μηδ᾽ ὀξὺν τὸν ῥοῦν ὥσθ᾽ ὑποφέρειν αὐτὸν τῇ βίᾳ ἀντ᾽ ἐδάφους κειμένου, πάντες ἤδη θαρσαλέως ἐπεραιοῦντο τὸν ποταμόν, οἷον αὐτὸν ὁ θεὸς προεῖπε ποιήσειν τοιοῦτον κατανοοῦντες, “When the priests, who were the first to enter, found the river fordable-the depth having diminished and the shingle, which the current was neither full nor rapid enough to force from under their feet, lying as a solid floor-all thereupon confidently traversed the stream, perceiving it to be even as God had foretold that He would make it.” (transl. Thackeray, LCL)

the GREEK & ARAMAIC VERSIONS OF JOSHUA 3–4

75

deuteronomistic editor who tried to redefine and relocate the stones of the ancient pre-deuteronomistic cultic site at Gilgal.62 – In Josh 4:10 the second of two consecutive clauses claiming full compliance of the narrated events with the orders given to Moses (‫כל הדבר אשר צוה יהוה‬ ‫ )את יהושע … ככל אשר צוה משה את יהושע‬lacks a counterpart in the Greek version: πάντα, ἃ ἐνετείλατο κύριος ἀναγγεῖλαι τῷ λαῷ. For Tov and many other scholars this plus in mt is evidence for a later redaction which, in line with the deuteronomistic theology, sought to amplify the authority of Moses.63 If this were true, it would mean that a later editor or interpolator would have wanted to subordinate the role of Yhwh himself to that of Moses! Here too, I find it much more plausible to ascribe the emphatic redundancy of the Hebrew text to the literary style and catechetical theology of the deuteronomistic editor of the whole of Josh 4:4–14.64 The purport of the verse is to indicate the transfer of instructions from Yhwh to Moses and to emphasize the complete compliance by Joshua. The Greek translator kept this structure intact, but transferred this idea in a more economical way. – The same applies to the similar statement a few verses further on in Josh 4:14 where the Hebrew text employs the verb ‫ירא‬, “to fear,” twice (‫ויראו אתו כאשר‬ ‫יראו את משה כל ימי חייו‬, “and they feared him in the same way as the feared Moses all the days of his life”), whereas the Greek translator employed a condensed rendering: καὶ ἐφοβοῦντο αὐτὸν ὥσπερ Μωυσῆν ὅσον χρόνον ἔζη, “and they feared him like Moses the whole period the lived.” In this case Tov classifies the minus in the Greek version as an example of “stylistic shortening” by the Greek translator.65 To my mind this label fits the numerous other minuses in the Septuagint of Josh 3–4 as well. The same clause also exhibits another small modifications of the Hebrew text, e.g. the adaptation of the temporal phrase “all the days of his life” into the idiomatic expression “the whole period he lived.”66 62  Jerome followed the solution offered by his Greek predecessor: alios quoque duodecim lapides posuit Iosue in medio Iordanis. 63  Tov, “The Growth,” 329–30 (389); Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 295; Bieberstein, Josua-Jordan-Jericho, 163; Lee, Crossing the Jordan, 153–54. 64  Likewise Hollenberg, Der Character, 8; Rudolph, Der “Elohist”, 175; Dominique Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’ancien Testament 1. Josué, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther, OBO 50.1 (Fribourg: Éditions universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 3–4; Trent C. Butler, Joshua 1–12. Second Edition, WBC 7a (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 273 (as opposed to his judgment in the first edition of his commentary: Trent C. Butler, Joshua, WBC 7 (Waco: Word, 1983), 40). 65  Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 199. 66  Hollenberg, Der Charakter, 7; Moatti-Fine, Jésus ( Josué), 113.

76

van der Meer

The discussion of the variants between the Septuagint and Masoretic Text of Joshua 3–4 is not complete, but the cumulative strength of the examples presented above should suffice to characterize the Greek translation as a drastic reformulation of the Hebrew text. Perhaps the Hebrew Vorlage of the Greek translation was not in all details exactly identical to the Masoretic Text, yet it is the Greek translation rather than the Masoretic Text that forms a rewritten version of the chapters. The Greek version does not function as an interlinear companion to the parent Hebrew text, but stands on its own. The Greek version of these chapters would hardly function as aid for understanding the Hebrew text on the level of words and clauses within the setting of liturgy or education. Rather, it is more concerned with the presentation of a coherent and intelligible presentation of the Hebrew story than its exact wording, which is often redundant or contradicting. 6

The Aramaic Version of Joshua 3–4

By contrast, the Aramaic version of Joshua 3–4 of Targum Jonathan to the Prophets follows the Hebrew text much more closely. Almost every word of the parent Hebrew text is represented in the Aramaic. If there are quantitative variants it is the Aramaic texts that has additional phrases. The Aramaic translator made no effort to harmonize the contradictions in the Hebrew text. On the other hand the translator makes every effort to avoid anthropomorphisms regarding the presentation of the God of Israel. For that reason the translator substitutes reference to God by references to his Word (‫מימרא‬, 3:7) or to his Shekinah (‫שכינא‬, 3:10), which are features common to all rabbinic Aramaic translations of Hebrew Scripture. In addition to these general Targumic features, there are some other modifications of the Hebrew text by the Aramaic translator that deserve our attention: – In Josh 3:5 the Aramaic translator rendered the instruction of Joshua to the people to sanctify themselves because of impending miracles (‫התקדשו כי‬ ‫ )מחר יעשה יהוה בקרבכם נפלאות‬by the less specific command to prepare themselves (‫)אזמנו‬. According to Daniel Harrington and Anthony Saldarini this rendering reflects a deliberate attempt by the meturgeman to reserve the procedure of sanctifying to the priests.67 Interestingly, the Greek translation does not provide a default rendering either, but does not seem to have problems with the idea that the sanctification (ἁγνίζω) should be done by lay people as well.68 67  Harrington, Saldarini, The Targum to the Former Prophets, 21, n. 1. 68   Moatti-Fine, Jésus ( Josué), 106.

the GREEK & ARAMAIC VERSIONS OF JOSHUA 3–4

77

– In Josh 3:10 the meturgeman transformed the assertion that “the living God will be in the midst” of Israel (‫ )כי אל חי בקרבכם‬into an anti-anthropomorphic paraphrase: ‫ארי אלה קיים אתרעי (יתרעי) לאשראה שכינתיה ביניכון‬, “By this you will know that the living God has chosen to make his Shekinah reside in your midst.”69 By contrast, the Greek translator slightly stylized the statement into the statement that “the living God will be in you”: ὅτι θεὸς ζῶν ἐν ὑμῖν, by omitting a literal rendering of the Hebrew phrase ‫קרב‬, “midst.” – In 3:14 a variant reading in the manuscript tradition of Targum Jonathan modernizes the Hebrew notion of Israelites dwelling in tents (‫)מאהליהם‬.70 Instead the word for cities (‫ )מקרויהון‬has been used, although the reading ‫ ממשכניהון‬is well attested within the Targum tradition. The Greek translator did not employ the standard equivalent σκηνή, but rather the more general word σκήνωμα, “dwelling.” Interestingly though, the Greek version of Josh 22:4, 6, 7, 8 reflects a similar “urbanizing” renderings, when Joshua gives the Transjordanian warriors leave to return to their tents: ‫פנו ולכו לכם‬ ‫לאהליכם‬. The Greek translator renders here: ἀποστραφέντες ἀπέλθατε εἰς τοὺς οἴκους ὑμῶν, “return to your houses.”71 Here too, the Targum and Septuagint correspond: ‫( ואיזילו לכון לקרויכון‬cf. 22:6, 7, 8). – In Josh 4:18 the transition of the priests carrying the ark from the midst of the river to the shore seems to go somewhat smoother in the Aramaic and Greek versions than in the Hebrew parent text. In the Hebrew versions the priests rise (‫ )עלה‬but their soles seem to be glued to the ground, because they have to be torn off (‫ נתק‬niphal) in order to reach dry land so that the water can resume (‫ )שוב‬its course. In the Targum, the priest attempt to come up (‫)בעו למסק‬, after which their soles are withdrawn (‫אתנגידא פרסת רגלי‬ ‫ )כהניא‬from the midst of the river and rest (‫ )ונחא על יבשתא‬on dry land. In the Greek version, the priests do not go up (mt), or attempt to (Targum), but rather go out (ἐξέβησαν) out of the river. No effort needs to be made to have the priests’ feet torn off from their position. Instead the priests (subject) simply place their feet (object) on the land (καὶ ἔθηκαν τοὺς πόδας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς), after which the water is set in motion again (ὥρμησεν τὸ ὕδωρ). – At the end of the narrative (Josh 4:24) the Septuagint and Targum offer a comparable anti-anthropomorphic interpretation of the metaphor of the hand of Yhwh: ‫למען דעת כל עמי הארץ את יד יהוה‬, “so that all the peoples of the earth shall know the hand of Yhwh.” Both the Greek and Aramaic translations

69  Harrington, Saldarini, The Targum to the Former Prophets, 22; Smolar, Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, 221. 70  Smolar, Aberbach, 99–100. 71   Moatti-Fine, Jésus ( Josué), 220–21.

78

van der Meer

render the phrase “hand of Yhwh” with “power of Yhwh”: ἡ δύναμις τοῦ κυρίου; ‫ית גבורתא דיי‬.72 7

The Greek and Aramaic Versions of Joshua 3–4

What do these observations mean for the topic of the relation between Septuagint and Targum? As we just saw, some similarities can be observed in translation strategies by the Greek and Aramaic translators with respect to the idea of Israel returning to its homes (Septuagint) or cities (Targum) instead of tents (mt), with respect to the presentation of the end of the crossing of Israel through the Jordan and with respect to the interpretation of the hand of Yhwh as a reference to his power. These agreements are not sufficient to speak of Septuagintalisms in the Targum or vice-versa of Targumisms in the Septuagint. By contrast, a comparison between these two translations reveal the overall difference between the two translations: whereas the Greek translation seeks to present a version that stands in its own right, the Targum follows the Hebrew text verbatim. On the other hand, the meturgeman introduced theological concepts alien to the original text (such as the Memra and Shekinah), whereas the Greek translator primarily sought to smoothen out the tensions within the original text. The two versions stand apart from one another not only in time by almost half a millennium, but also seem to represent the two poles of any translation: target-language oriented or source oriented. Nevertheless, there is more to be said about the relationship between the two versions. From the last century bce onwards and particularly in the second century ce a number of revisions and rewritings of the Old Greek version were made. With respect to Joshua 3–4 we can observe the attempt to bring the Old Greek version closer to the source text in the additions made by Theodotion, Aquila and Symmachus (or simply οἱ λοιποί as they are often indicated in the manuscript tradition). These Jewish revisers filled out the lacunae the Greek translator left in his translation. In this respect they also come much closer to the Targum. In one case the reading of the latest of these Jewish revisions, viz. the one produced by Symmachus contains an exclusive link to the Targum.73 This per72   Moatti-Fine, Jésus ( Josué), 50. 73  See also my paper “Symmachus’s Version of Joshua,” in Found in Translation: Essays on Jewish Biblical Translation in Honor of Leonard J. Greenspoon, ed. James W. Barker, Anthony Le Donne, Joel N. Lohr, Shofar Supplements in Jewish Studies (Purdue: Purdue University Press, 2018), 53–94.

the GREEK & ARAMAIC VERSIONS OF JOSHUA 3–4

79

tains to the way the miracle of the stopping of the water is presented. According to the Hebrew text (mt and 4QJoshb) the waters stood like a wall: ‫ויעמדו נד אחד‬ (3:13) and ‫( קמו נד אחד‬3:16). This image derives directly from the Song of Moses (Exod 15:8), one of the few other places where the word occurs in the Hebrew Bible: ‫וברוח אפיך נערמו מים נצבו כמו נד נזלים קפאו תהמת בלב ים‬, “By the blast of your nostrils the waters were heaped up, the streams stood like a dam, the depths solidified in the heart of the sea.” Besides Exod 15:8 and its parallels in Josh 3:13 and 3:16, the word occurs only in two late historical psalms referring to the same event at the Sea of Reeds, Ps 33:7 (‫)כנס כנד מי הים נתן באצרות תהומות‬ and 78:13 (‫)בקע ים ויעבירם ויצב מים כמו נד‬, and Isa 17:11, where the word refers to a heap of harvest (‫)נד קציר‬. The Greek translator of Joshua apparently chose to reserve the translation of these almost identical phrases to the second instance in 3:16. Here he employed the Greek word πῆγμα, a word that indicates “something joined (πήγνυμι) together.” The Greek translator of Joshua adopted indirectly the lexical choice of the Greek Exodus (διέστη τὸ ὕδωρ ἐπάγη ὡσεὶ τεῖχος, “the water stood (still), it joined like a wall”), who employed the verb πήγνυμι as rendering for the enigmatic Hebrew word ‫נזלים‬, and τεῖχος as equivalent for ‫נד‬. The Aramaic translator of Joshua employed the image of an inflatable wineskin: ‫כבה‬ ָ ‫ ֻר‬or ‫רּוק ָבה‬ ְ .74 The word is rather rare and occurs only in Targum Onqelos on Gen 21:2, 16, 17; and the Peshitta on Gen 21:14, 15, 19, and Job 13:28 (‫)ܪܩܒܐ‬.75 The synonymous word ‫זיקא‬, “skin used for storing liquids,” is used as rendering for ‫ נד‬in Targum pseudo-Jonathan, Neophyti and Fragment Targum on Exod 15:8 and Targum Psalms (33:7; 78:13).76 Undoubtedly, this interpretation “wineskin” is related to the Hebrew word ‫נֹאד‬, which has exactly the same meaning: “leather bottle or bag used for storing liquids.” Such bags figure prominently in the story of the ruse of the Gibeonites in Joshua 9. By contrast, Targum Onqelos on Exod 15:8 reflects the tradition that understood the Hebrew word ‫ נד‬as wall and has ‫ ֻׁשור‬, “wall.” 74  See the Aramaic lexica by Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York: Judaica, 1903), 1463b: “‫רּוק ָּבה‬ ְ II (v. ‫[ )רקב‬hollow] a goat-skin made into a bag, bottle”; cf. Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1990), 520a: “waterskin”; Michael Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon. A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns; Piscataway: Gorgias, 2009), 1488a. 75  By contrast the Peshiṭta of Josh 3:13, 16 employs the word ‫ܒܙܩܐ‬, “a small pebble”; cf. Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon, 134a: “1. clod of earth 2. pebble,” in the clause ‫ܢܩܘܡܘܢ ܐܝܟ‬ ‫ ܕܒܙܩܐ ܚܕܐ ܠܣܛܪܐ ܚܕ‬. 76   See the discussion in Pinkhos Churgin, Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, ed. Harry M. Orlinksy (New York: Ktav, 1983), 31.

80

van der Meer

As noted above, we find a comparable variation in the interpretations among the younger Jewish Greek versions of the biblical books. In Josh 3:13, 16 a note in the margin of codices M, 54 and 85 ascribe the reading σωρός, “heap,” to Theodotion and Aquila, whereas Symmachus has ἄσκωμα, “drinking bag.”77 Likewise in Ps 33:7 we find the reading συνήγαγεν ὡς ἐν ἀσκῷ ὕδατα τῆς θαλάσσης (Syh: ‫ ܐܝܟ ܕܒܙܩܐ܀‬.‫ )ܣ‬attributed to Symmachus.78 This implies that the reading of Symmachus corresponds directly with the Targum on Joshua and on the Psalms, whereas the interpretation of Theodotion, the Quinta on the Psalms, and possibly Aquila corresponds with Targum Onqelos.79 Hence we find an interesting example of a distinctive interpretation and translation of the Hebrew text attested both in a Greek (Symmachus) and Aramaic (Targum Jonathan) version of the Hebrew text of Joshua 3–4. The shared rendering (“the waters stood like a single inflatable wine-skin,” σ’ ἄσκωμα ἕν, Tg. ‫כבא ַחד‬ ָ ‫ ) ָק ֻמו ֻר‬differs from the wide variety of interpretations attested in the ancient versions and rabbinic as well as patristic discussions of this passage.80 Since we find a similar shared agreement between Symmachus and the Targum of the Psalter,81 it is likely that we are dealing here with a shared rabbinic interpretation, rather than a coincidental convergence of similar renderings. This would imply that if one would try to find direct genetic relations between the Greek and Aramaic versions of Joshua, one should use 77  See also the discussion by Theodorete of Cyrus in his Questions on the Octateuch, question 11 on Joshua (e.g. in the edition and translation by Robert C. Hill, Theodorete of Cyrus. The Questions on the Octateuch 2, LEC 2 (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 2007), 270–71: Τὸ μέντοι πῆγμα, ἄσκωμα ὁ Σύμμαχος ἡρμήνευσεν· ἐπεχομένη γὰρ τῶν ὑδάτων ἡ ῥύμη, οἷον ἠσκοῦτο καὶ ἐκορυφοῦτο· παντὸς γὰρ ἀδαμαντίνου τείχους πλέον ἐπεῖχεν αὐτὴν ὁ τοῦ δημιουργήσαντος ὅρος, “Now, Symmachus rendered the term ‘heap’ as ‘wine-skin.’ That is, as the rush of the waters was blocked, they swelled like a wine-skin and piled up, with the Creator’s will checking them more firmly than any wall of steel.” 78  The interpretation ὡς σωρόν is attributed to the Quinta (cf. Ps 78:13 Syh ‫ ܐܝܟ‬.‫ܗ‬ ‫)ܪܟܝܥܬܐ܀‬, whereas Aquila offered the reading ἀπέθετο ὡς χύμα, “he made it like a fluid” (Syh: ‫)ܐܝܟ ܐܫܝܕܘܬܐ‬. 79  This interpretation of Josh 3:13, 16 is—to the best of my knowledge—not attested in Tannaitic or Amoraic sources. According to y. Soṭah 7:6 rebbe Jochanan (third century ce) interpreted the Hebrew phrase ‫ ִמ ַּצד ָצ ְר ָתן‬, “beside Zarethan,” as a reference to the stronghold of Zarethan: ‫( ְכ ַמ ַצד ָצ ְר ָתן‬Guggenheimer, Soṭah, 296). 80  4QRewJoshb, t. Soṭah 8; y. Soṭah 7:6ff; b. Soṭah 34a–36a; Origen, Hom. Jes. Nav. 5; Theodoret, Q. Jos. 11. 81  Usually dated several centuries later (fourth-sixth century ce) than Symmachus and Targum Jonathan (second-third century ce), but nevertheless containing reminiscences to the Seleucid period (Tg. Ps 69:3, 16), see David M. Stec, The Targum of Psalms, ArBib 16 (London: Continuum, 2004), 1–2.

the GREEK & ARAMAIC VERSIONS OF JOSHUA 3–4

81

the relatively late Greek version of Symmachus rather than the Old Greek version of Joshua as basis for comparison, since that translation stems from approximately the same time (c. 180–200 ce), geographical (Caesarea/Galilee) and intellectual milieu (the schools of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Jehuda ha-Nasi) as Targum Jonathan. 8 Conclusions To return to my initial research questions: in order to make a meaningful comparison between the two major Jewish translation projects of Hebrew Scriptures in either Greek or Aramaic for a non-Pentateuchal, narrative book such as Joshua, it is important to distinguish between the wide variety of translations both on the Greek and Aramaic sides. One has to study each translation unit (book, section within a book, or a cluster of books) on its own. What these translations and interpretations of the parent Hebrew text share is the task of interpreting and rendering the parent Hebrew text. The choice between adhering to the source text or meet the expectations of the target language and audience differs from one translator to the other and sometimes within the same composition from instance to instance. The comparison between Septuagint and Targum of Joshua 3–4 is, to my mind, best described in terms of a contrastive analysis: although the Greek translation is still far from a free and literary elegant reformulation as offered for instance by Josephus, it does take into account the expectations and exigencies of the target language and audience. The use of genuine Greek grammatical constructions, the variation in translation equivalents as well as the other small quantitative reformulations or condensations, renders a study of the original Hebrew text (even if it would not have been identical to the Masoretic Text) difficult. Hence the Old Greek can hardly fulfill the function of a co-text to the Hebrew parent text as the Targum does (which almost always occurs physically alongside the Hebrew text both in manuscripts and print). In terms of the search for an appropriate setting for the ancient versions the conclusion must be that the comparison between Septuagint and Targum demonstrates that the Old Greek of Joshua was intended as an independent Greek text, rather than a companion to the original Hebrew. This implies that the school setting for the Septuagint advocated by Pietersma, Boyd-Taylor and others may apply to the kaige translations in the Septuagint corpus, but does not apply to the Old Greek version of Joshua. The conclusion reached for chapters 3–4 of the book of Joshua align—perhaps not surprisingly—with

82

van der Meer

my conclusions regarding other parts of the book where the Old Greek and Hebrew texts of Joshua differ drastically. Although the Hebrew text of Joshua 3–4 has been regarded by dozens of scholars in the decades after the Second World War as a liturgical text celebrating a non-violent procession of Israelites from an ancient cult-site at Gilgal towards Jerusalem,82 neither the Greek nor the Aramaic version of that passage provides any hint that this text was used, let alone produced, within a liturgical setting. Nevertheless, a careful examination of all extant versions brought to light an interesting case of Greek-Aramaic agreement, viz. in the renderings of Josh 3:16 by Symmachus and Targum Jonathan. If one wants to find traces of influence of the Targumim and their rabbinic authors on Greek versions of Joshua (and the prophetical books in general), one should study the younger Greek translators, in this case the translation made by Symmachus. Another, more distant parallel to Targumic interpretation can be found in the reworked version of Joshua found at Qumran: 4QRewrittenJoshuab. Here we find the alternation between biblical text and additional interpretation that characterizes several of the Targumim to the Pentateuch. The challenge for future research in a time of globalization is to maintain a proper balance between examination of the details within the context of ever increasing specializing branches of research on the one hand and addressing major overarching issues. A multidisciplinary meso-approach such as advocated by the organizations for Septuagint and Targum studies may be a fruitful way to further this type of research.

82  See e.g. Hans-Joachim Kraus, “Gilgal. Ein Beitrag zur Kultusgeschichte Israels,” VT 1 (1951): 181–98; J. Alberto Soggin, “Gilgal. Passah und Landnahme. Eine neue Untersuchung des kultischen Zusammenhangs des Kap. III–VI des Josuabuches,” in Volume du Congrès International pour l’étude de l’Ancien Testament. Genève 1965, ed. Pieter H.A. de Boer, VTSup 15 (Leiden: Brill, 1966), 263–277; J.N.M. Wijngaards, The Dramatization of Salvific history in the Deuteronomic Schools, OtSt 16 (Leiden: Brill, 1969); Eckart Otto, Das Mazzotfest in Gilgal, BWANT 107 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1975). Even the most recent commentary on Joshua, viz. that by Thomas B. Dozeman, Joshua 1–12, AncYB 6B (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015), still ascribes the core narratives of the book of Joshua to traditions related to a cultic procession, but places them now in a post-exilic northern Israelite setting.

83

the GREEK & ARAMAIC VERSIONS OF JOSHUA 3–4

Appendix Synopsis of Joshua 3–4 according to the Masoretic Text (mt), Targum Jonathan, the Old Greek (lxx) and the younger Greek translations by Theodotion (θ’), Aquila (α’) and Symmachus (σ’). Minuses in lxx vis-à-vis mt have been indicated by three hyphens for each Hebrew lexeme. Pluses and other variants in lxx vis-à-vis mt have been italicized in the Greek text. The grey background behind the Hebrew text of some verses indicate the redactional supplements by either the Deuteronomistic (light shading) or Priestly (dark shading) editors. Vs.

Recentiores (ed. Field)a

3:1

lxx (ed. Margolis)b καὶ ὤρθρισεν Ἰησοῦς τὸ πρωί καὶ ἀπῆρεν ἐκ Σαττιν·

Οἱ λοιποί· αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ Ἰσραήλ

καὶ ἤλθοσαν ἕως τοῦ Ιορδάνου, ————— καὶ κατέλυσαν ἐκεῖ πρὸ τοῦ διαβῆναι.

3:2

3:3

Ἄλλος· μετὰ τὸ τέλος τῶν τριῶν ἡμερῶν

καὶ ἐγένετο μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας

※ μέσης ⸔

— διῆλθον οἱ γραμματεῖς διὰ — τῆς παρεμβολῆ

Ἄλλος· παρήγγειλε

καὶ ἐνετείλαντο τῷ λαῷ λέγοντες

※ καὶ ὑμεῖς ⸔

MT (ed. BHS)d

Tg (ed. Sperber)c ‫ואקדים יהושע בצפרא‬

Vs.

‫ וישכם יהושע בבקר‬3:1

‫ונטלו משטין‬

‫ויסעו מהשטים‬

‫ואתו עד ירדנא הוא וכל‬ ‫בני ישראל‬

‫ויבאו עד הירדן הוא וכל‬ ‫בני ישראל‬

‫ובתו תמן‬

‫וילנו שם‬

‫קדם דיעברון׃‬

‫טרם יעברו׃‬

‫והוה מסוף תלתה יומין‬

‫ועברו סרכיא בגו‬ ‫משריתא׃‬ ‫ופקידו ית עמא‬

‫ ויהי מקצה שלשת ימים‬3:2

‫ויעברו השטרים בקרב‬ ‫המחנה׃‬ ‫ ויצוו את העם‬3:3

‫למימר‬

‫לאמר‬

Ὅταν ἴδητε τὴν κιβωτὸν ‫כמחזיכו (במחזיכון) ית‬ τῆς διαθήκης κυρίου τοῦ ‫ארון קימא דיי אלהכון‬ θεοῦ ἡμῶν

‫כראותכם את ארון ברית‬ ‫יהוה אלהיכם‬

καὶ τοὺς ἱερεῖς ἡμῶν καὶ τοὺς Λευίτας αἴροντας αὐτήν,

‫וכהניא ליואי נטלין יתיה‬

‫והכהנים הלוים נשאים‬ ‫אתו‬

— — ἀπαρεῖτε ἀπὸ τῶν τόπων ὑμῶν

‫ואתון תיטלון מאתרכון‬

‫ואתם תסעו ממקומכם‬

‫ותהכון בתרוהי׃‬

‫והלכתם אחריו׃‬

καὶ πορεύεσθε ὀπίσω αὐτῆς.

84

van der Meer

(cont.) Vs.

Recentiores (ed. Field)

3:4

lxx (ed. Margolis) ἀλλὰ μακρὰν ἔστω ἀνὰ μέσον ὑμῶν καὶ ἐκείνης,

Ἄλλος· ἐν μέτρῷ

ὅσον δισχιλίους πήχεις στήσεσθε·

MT (ed. BHS)

Tg (ed. Sperber) ‫ברם רחיק יהי ביניכון‬ ‫ובינוהי‬

‫כתרין אלפין אמין‬ ‫במשחתא‬

Vs.

‫ אך רחוק יהיה ביניכם‬3:4 )‫ובינו (קוביניו‬

‫כאלפים אמה במדה‬

μὴ προσεγγίσητε αὐτῇ,

‫לא תקרבון לותיה‬

‫אל תקרבו אליו‬

ἵν᾽ ἐπίστησθε τὴν ὁδόν

‫בדיל דתדעון ית אורחא‬

‫למען אשר תדעו את‬ ‫הדרך‬

ἣν πορεύεσθε αὐτήν·

‫דתהכון בה‬

‫אשר תלכו בה‬

οὐ γὰρ πεπόρευσθε τὴν ‫ארי לא עברתון באורחא‬ ὁδὸν ἀπ᾽ ἐχθὲς καὶ τρίτης ‫מאתמלי ומדקמוהי‬ ἡμέρας. ‫(ומדקדמוהי)׃‬

‫כי לא עברתם בדרך‬ ‫מתמול שלשום׃‬ ‫ס‬

3:5

καὶ εἶπεν Ἰησοῦς τῷ λαῷ Ἁγνίσασθε εἰς αὔριον, ὅτι αὔριον ποιήσει ἐν — ὑμῖν κύριος θαυμαστά.

3:6

καὶ εἶπεν Ἰησοῦς τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν ※ λέγων ⸔

—

‫התקדשו‬

‫כי מחר יעשה יהוה בקרב־ ארי מחר יעביד יי ביניכון‬ ‫פרישן׃‬ ‫כם נפלאות׃‬ ‫ואמר יהושע לכהניא‬

‫ ויאמר יהושע אל הכהנים‬3:6

‫למימר‬

‫לאמר‬ ‫שאו את ארון הברית‬

‫ועברו קדם עמא‬

‫ועברו לפני העם‬

‫ונטלו ית ארונא דקימא‬

‫וישאו את ארון הברית‬

καὶ ἐπορεύοντο ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ λαοῦ.

‫ואזלו קדם עמא׃‬

‫וילכו ִלפני העם׃‬

καὶ εἶπεν κύριος πρὸς Ἰησοῦν

‫ואמר יי ליהושע‬

‫ ויאמר יהוה אל יהושע‬3:7

Ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ταύτῃ ἄρχομαι

)‫יומא דין (הדין‬

‫היום הזה אחל‬

‫אשרי לרביותך בעיני כל‬ ‫ישראל‬

‫גדלך בעיני כל ישראל‬

‫בדיל דידעון‬

‫אשר ידעון‬

καὶ προπορεύεσθε — — τοῦ λαοῦ. καὶ ἦραν οἱ ἱερεῖς τὴν κιβωτὸν τῆς διαθήκης κυρίου

Ἄλλος· καὶ ἀπῆλθον πρὸ τοῦ λαοῦ.

‫אזדמנו‬

‫ ויאמר יהושע אל העם‬3:5

‫טולו ית ארון קימא‬

Ἄλλος· βαστάσατε Ἄρατε τὴν κιβωτὸν τῆς διαθήκης κυρίου alia exempl. ἔμρποσθεν

‫ואמר יהושע לעמא‬

‫ס‬

3:7 Schol. ἄπαρτι, ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν

Ἄλλος· παντὸς ὑψῶσαί σε κατενώπιον Ἰσραήλ. πάντων ÷ πάντων υἱῶν Ισραηλ, υἱῶν ⸔ Ισραηλ ἵνα γνῶσιν

85

the GREEK & ARAMAIC VERSIONS OF JOSHUA 3–4 (cont.) Vs.

Recentiores (ed. Field)

3:8

lxx (ed. Margolis)

MT (ed. BHS)

Tg (ed. Sperber)

Vs.

— καθότι ἤμην μετὰ Μωυσῆ

‫ארי כמא דהוה מימרי‬ ‫בסעדיה דמשה‬

‫כי כאשר הייתי עם משה‬

οὕτως ἔσομαι καὶ μετὰ σοῦ.

‫כין יהי מימרי בסעדך׃‬

‫אהיה עמך׃‬

καὶ νῦν ἔντειλαι τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν

‫ואת תפקיד ית כהניא‬

τοῖς αἴρουσιν τὴν κιβωτὸν τῆς διαθήκης λέγων Ὡς ἂν εἰσέλθητε ἐπὶ μέρους τοῦ ὕδατος τοῦ Ιορδάνου, καὶ ἐν τῷ Ιορδάνῃ στήσεσθε.

‫ ואתה תצוה את הכהנים‬3:8

‫נטלי ארונא דקימא‬

‫נשאי ארון הברית‬

‫למימר‬

‫לאמר‬

‫כממטיכון (במימטיכון) עד‬ ‫קצת מי ירדנא‬

‫כבאכם עד קצה מי‬ ‫הירדן‬

‫בירדנא תקומון׃‬

‫בירדן תעמדו׃‬ ‫פ‬

3:9

3:10

‫ ויאמר יהושע אל בני‬3:9 ‫ישראל‬

καὶ εἶπεν Ἰησοῦς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ

‫ואמר יהושע לבני ישראל‬

Προσαγάγετε ὧδε

‫אתקרבו (קריבו) הלכא‬

‫גשו הנה‬

καὶ ἀκούσατε τὸ ῥῆμα κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν

‫ושמעו ית פתגמא (פתג־‬ ‫מיא) דיי אלהכון׃‬

‫ושמעו את דברי יהוה‬ ‫אלהיכם׃‬

Οἱ λοιποί· καὶ εἶπεν Ἰησοῦς

———

v.l. Ἐν τούτῳ νῦν] ἐν τῷ

Ἐν τούτῳ γνώσεσθε ὅτι θεὸς ζῶν ἐν — ὑμῖν,

‫ואמר יהושע‬

‫ ויאמר יהושע‬3:10

‫בדא תדעון‬

‫בזאת תדעון‬

‫ארי אלה קיים אתרעי‬ ‫(יתרעי) לאשראה‬ ‫שכינתיה ביניכון‬

‫כי אל חי בקרבכם‬

καὶ ὀλεθρεύων ‫והורש יוריש מפניכם את ותרכא יתריך מן קדמיכון‬ ὀλεθρεύσει ἀπὸ ‫ית כנענאי וית חתאי וית‬ ‫הכנעני ואת החתי ואת‬ προσώπου ἡμῶν τὸν ‫החוי ואת הפרזי ואת הגר־ חואי וית פרזאי וית‬ Χαναναῖον καὶ τὸν ‫גרגישאי ואמוראי ויבוסאי׃‬ ‫גשי והאמרי והיבוסי׃‬ Χετταῖον — — — καὶ τὸν Φερεζαῖον καὶ τὸν Ευαῖον καὶ τὸν Αμορραῖον καὶ τὸν Γεργεσαῖον καὶ τὸν Ιεβουσαῖον. 3:11

α’ *κυριεύοντος σ’ δεσπότου; Οἱ λοιποί· ἔμπροσθεν ὑμῶν

ἰδοὺ ἡ κιβωτὸς τῆς διαθήκης κυρίου πάσης τῆς γῆς διαβαίνει — — — τὸν Ιορδάνην.

‫ הנה ארון הברית אדון כל הא ארון קימא דריבון‬3:11 ‫הארץ עבר לפניכם בירדן׃ כל ארעא (עלמא) עבר‬ ‫קדמיכון בירדנא׃‬

86

van der Meer

(cont.) Vs.

Recentiores (ed. Field)

3:12

lxx (ed. Margolis) ——

‫וכען‬

α’ Ἰσραὴλ, ἄνδρα προχειρίσασθε ὑμῖν ἕνα τοῦ σκήπτρου; δώδεκα ἄνδρας ἀπὸ τῶν Οἱ λοιποί· ἄνδρα υἱῶν Ισραηλ, — ἕνα — — ἀφ᾽ ἑκάστης φυλῆς. 3:13

καὶ ἔσται Οἱ λοιποί· ἄνωθεν

ὡς ἂν καταπαύσωσιν οἱ — — πόδες τῶν ἱερέων τῶν αἰρόντων τὴν κιβωτὸν τῆς διαθήκης κυρίου πάσης τῆς γῆς ἐν τῷ ὕδατι τοῦ Ιορδάνου, τὸ ὕδωρ τοῦ Ιορδάνου ἐκλείψει, τὸ δὲ ὕδωρ τὸ καταβαῖνον — —

θ’ α’ σωρὸς εἶς σ’ ἄσκωμα ἕν 3:14

3:15

MT (ed. BHS)

Tg (ed. Sperber)

στήσεται — —.

‫ ועתה‬3:12

‫סבו (דברו) לכון תרי‬ ‫עסר גברין משבטי‬ ‫ישראל גברא חד גברא‬ ‫חד לשבטא (משבטא)׃‬ )‫ויהי (והוה‬

‫קחו לכם שני עשר איש‬ ‫משבטי ישראל איש אחד‬ ‫איש אחד לשבט׃‬

‫כמנח פרסת רגלי כהניא‬

‫כנוח כפות רגלי הכהנים‬

‫נטלי ארונא דיי רבון‬ ‫(דרבון) כל ארעא‬

‫נשאי ארון יהוה אדון כל‬ ‫הארץ‬

‫ והיה‬3:13

‫במי ירדנא‬

‫במי הירדן‬

‫מי ירדנא יפסקון‬

‫מי הירדן יכרתון‬

‫מיא‬

‫המים‬

‫דנחתין מלעילא‬

‫הירדים מלמעלה‬

‫ויקומון (וקמו) רכבא‬ ‫(רכבא) חד׃‬

‫ויעמדו נד אחד׃‬

θ’ α’ ἐγένετο

καὶ —

> O καὶ ※ ἐγένετο ὡς ⸔ ἀπῆρεν

— — ἀπῆρεν ὁ λαὸς ἐκ ‫כד נטלו עמא ממשכניהון‬ τῶν σκηνωμάτων αὐτῶν )‫(מקרויהון‬

θ’ α’ εἰς τὸν Ἰορδάνην

Vs.

‫והוה‬

‫ ויהי‬3:14 ‫בנסע העם מאהליהם‬

διαβῆναι τὸν Ιορδάνην,

‫למעבר ית ירדנא‬

‫לעבר את הירדן‬

οἱ δὲ ἱερεῖς ἤροσαν τὴν κιβωτὸν τῆς διαθήκης κυρίου πρότεροι τοῦ λαοῦ.

‫וכהניא נטלי ארונא דקימא‬ ‫קדם עמא׃‬

‫והכהנים נשאי הארון‬ ‫הברית לפני העם׃‬

ὡς δὲ εἰσεπορεύοντο οἱ ἱερεῖς οἱ αἴροντες τὴν κιβωτὸν τῆς διαθήκης ἐπὶ τὸν Ιορδάνην,

‫וכממטי נטלי ארונא עד‬ ‫ירדנא‬

‫ וכבוא נשאי הארון עד‬3:15 ‫הירדן‬

καὶ οἱ πόδες τῶν ἱερέων

‫ורגלי כהניא‬

‫ורגלי הכהנים‬

τῶν αἰρόντων τὴν κιβωτὸν τῆς διαθήκης κυρίου

‫נטלי ארונא‬

‫נשאי הארון‬

‫טבילא בקצת מיא‬

‫נטבלו בקצה המים‬

ἐβάφησαν εἰς μέρος τοῦ ὕδατος τοῦ Ιορδάνου

87

the GREEK & ARAMAIC VERSIONS OF JOSHUA 3–4 (cont.) Vs.

Recentiores (ed. Field)

lxx (ed. Margolis)

κρηπῖδα] α’ aggeres

- ὁ δὲ Ιορδάνης ἐπλήρου καθ᾽ ὅλην τὴν κρηπῖδα αὐτοῦ, ὡσεὶ ἡμέραι θερισμοῦ πυρῶν -

3:16

καὶ ἔστη τὰ ὕδατα τὰ καταβαίνοντα ἄνωθεν, σ’ (ἄσκωμα) ἕν ἔστη πῆγμα ἓν *ἀπὸ Ἀδόμ ἀφεστηκὸς μακρὰν (‫ ܡܢ ܐܕܘܡ‬.‫ )ܣܘܡ‬σφόδρα σφοδρῶς — — — ἕως μέρους Καριαθιαριμ, σ’. τῆς ἀοικήτου

τὸ δὲ καταβαῖνον κατέβη εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν Αραβα, θάλασσαν ἁλός, ἕως εἰς τὸ τέλος ἐξέλιπεν· καὶ ὁ λαὸς εἱστήκει ἀπέναντι Ιεριχω.

3:17

καὶ ἔστησαν οἱ ἱερεῖς

MT (ed. BHS)

Tg (ed. Sperber) ‫וירדנא מלי על כל כיפוהי‬ ‫כל יומי חצדא׃‬

‫וקמו מיא‬

ἕως συνετέλεσεν πᾶς ὁ λαὸς διαβαίνων τὸν Ιορδάνην. 4:1

καὶ —

‫והירדן מלא על כל גדותיו‬ ‫כל ימי קציר׃‬

‫ ויעמדו המים‬3:16

‫דנחתין מלעילא‬

‫הירדים מלמעלה‬

‫קמו רכבא (רכבא) חד‬ )‫(חדא) רחיקין (דרחקין‬ ‫לחדא מאדם קרתא‬

‫קמו נד אחד הרחק מאד‬ ‫באדם (קמאדם) העיר‬

‫דבסטר צרתן‬

‫אשר מצד צרתן‬

)‫ודנחתין לימא (על ימא‬ )‫דמישרא לימא (ימא‬ ‫דמלחא‬

‫והירדים על ים הערבה ים‬ ‫המלח‬

‫שלימו‬

‫תמו‬

‫פסקו‬

‫נכרתו‬

)‫ועמא עברו לקביל (קדם‬ ‫יריחו׃‬

‫והעם עברו נגד יריחו׃‬

‫וקמו כהניא‬

Οἱ λοιποί· ἑτοίμως οἱ αἴροντες τὴν κιβωτὸν ‫נטלי ארון קימא דיי ביבש־‬ (M); α’ σ’ ἕτοιμοι τῆς διαθήκης κυρίου ‫תא בגו ירדנא מתקניא‬ ἐπὶ ξηρᾶς ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ Ιορδάνου —· καὶ πάντες οἱ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ διέβαινον διὰ ξηρᾶς,

Vs.

‫ ויעמדו הכהנים‬3:17 ‫נשאי הארון ברית יהוה‬ ‫בחרבה בתוך הירדן הכן‬

‫וכל ישראל עברים בחרבה וכל ישראל עברין‬ ‫ביבשתא‬ ‫עד דשלימו כל עמא‬

‫עד אשר תמו כל הגוי‬

‫למעבר ית ירדנא׃‬

‫לעבר את הירדן׃‬

‫והוה‬

‫ ויהי‬4:1

ἐπεὶ συνετέλεσεν πᾶς ὁ λαὸς

‫כד שלימו כל עמא‬

‫כאשר תמו כל הגוי‬

διαβαίνων τὸν Ιορδάνην,

‫למעבר ית ירדנא‬

‫לעבור את הירדן‬

καὶ εἶπεν κύριος τῷ Ἰησοῖ

‫ואמר יי ליהושע‬

‫ויאמר יהוה אל יהושע‬

‫למימר׃‬

‫לאמר׃‬

‫פ‬

λέγων

88

van der Meer

(cont.) MT (ed. BHS)

Vs.

Recentiores (ed. Field)

lxx (ed. Margolis)

4:2

v.l. ἀπὸ τοῦ λαοῦ δώδεκα ἄνδρας ※ ἄνδρα ⸔ ἕνα

Παραλαβὼν — ἄνδρας ‫דברו לכון מן עמא תרי‬ ἀπὸ τοῦ λαοῦ, — ἕνα — ‫עסר גברין גברא חד גברא‬ — ἀφ᾽ ἑκάστης φυλῆς, ‫חד משבטא׃‬

4:3

— σύνταξον αὐτοῖς — Οἱ λοιποί· ἑαυτοῖς Οἱ λοιποί· ἀπὸ στάσεως ποδῶν ἱερέων

Tg (ed. Sperber)

‫ופקידו יתהון‬ ‫למימר‬

Vs.

‫ קחו לכם מן העם שנים‬4:2 ‫עשר אנשים איש אחד‬ ‫איש אחד משבט׃‬ ‫ וצוו אותם‬4:3 ‫לאמר‬

Καὶἀνέλεσθε — — ‫שאו לכם מזה מתוך הירדן טולו לכון מכא מגו ירדנא‬ — ἐκ μέσου τοῦ ‫ממצב רגלי הכהנים הכין מאתר מקם (ממיקם) רגלי‬ Ιορδάνου — — — — ‫כהניא מתקניא תרתא‬ ‫שתים עשרה אבנים‬ — — ἑτοίμους δώδεκα ‫עסרי אבניא‬ λίθους, καὶ τούτους διακομίσαντες ἅμα ὑμῖν

‫ותעברון יתהון עמכון‬

‫והעברתם אותם עמכם‬

καὶ αὐτοῖς θέτε αὐτοὺς ἐν ‫ותחתון יתהון בבית מבתא‬ τῇ στρατοπεδείᾳ ὑμῶν,

‫והנחתם אותם במלון‬

οὗ ἐὰν παρεμβάλητε ἐκεῖ τὴν νύκτα.

‫דתביתון ביה בליליא׃‬

‫אשר תלינו בו הלילה׃‬ ‫ס‬

4:4

Ο’ ※ τοὺς ⸔ δώδεκα

καὶ ἀνακαλεσάμενος Ἰησοῦς δώδεκα ἄνδρας

‫וקרא יהושע לתרי עסר‬ )‫גברין (גברא‬

α’ *οὓς ἡτοίμασαν ἀπὸ τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ] ※ ἄνδρα ⸔

τῶν ἐνδόξων ἀπὸ τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ, — ἕνα — — ἀφ᾽ ἑκάστης φυλῆς,

‫דאתקין מבני ישראל‬ ‫גברא חד גברא חד‬ ‫משבטא׃‬

θ’ α’ σ’ εἰς πρόσωπον κιβωτοῦ α’ σ’ εἰς πρόσωπου κιβωτοῦ

Προαγάγετε ἔμπροσθέν μου πρὸ προσώπου — κυρίου — — — εἰς μέσον τοῦ Ιορδάνου,

4:5

— εἶπεν — αὐτοῖς

καὶ ἀνελόμενος — ἐκεῖθεν ἕκαστος λίθον — ἀράτω ἐπὶ τῶν ὤμων αὐτοῦ κατὰ τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν δώδεκα φυλῶν τοῦ — Ισραηλ· 4:6

Ο’ ἵνα ὑπάρχωσιν οὗτοι ÷ κείμενοι ⸔ ὑμῖν εἰς σημεῖον ÷ διὰ παντός ⸔

‫ואמר להון יהושע‬

‫ ויקרא יהושע אל שנים‬4:4 ‫העשר איש‬ ‫אשר הכין מבני ישראל‬ ‫איש אחד איש אחד‬ ‫משבט׃‬ ‫ ויאמר להם יהושע‬4:5

‫עברו קדם ארונא דיי‬ ‫אלהכון לגו ירדנא‬

‫עברו לפני ארון יהוה‬ ‫אלהיכם אל תוך הירדן‬

‫וארימו לכון גבר אבנא‬ ‫חדא על כתפיה למנין‬ ‫שבטיא דבני ישראל׃‬

‫והרימו לכם איש אבן‬ ‫אחת על שכמו למספר‬ ‫שבטי בני ישראל׃‬

ἵνα ὑπάρχωσιν ὑμῖν οὗτοι ‫בדיל דתהי דא את ביניכון‬ εἰς σημεῖον κείμενον διὰ παντός·

‫ למען תהיה זאת אות‬4:6 ‫בקרבכם‬

89

the GREEK & ARAMAIC VERSIONS OF JOSHUA 3–4 (cont.) Vs.

Recentiores (ed. Field)

lxx (ed. Margolis) ἵνα ὅταν ἐρωτᾷ σε ὁ υἱός σου αὔριον λέγων Τί εἰσιν οἱ λίθοι οὗτοι ὑμῖν;

4:7

καὶ σὺ δηλώσεις τῷ υἱῷ σου

MT (ed. BHS)

Tg (ed. Sperber) ‫ארי ישאלון בניכון מחר‬

Vs.

‫כי ישאלון בניכם מחר‬

‫למימר‬

‫לאמר‬

‫מא אבניא האלין לכון׃‬

‫מה האבנים האלה לכם׃‬

‫ותימרון להון‬

‫ ואמרתם להם‬4:7

λέγων α’ ἀπεκόπη σ’ αποσκοπη

Ὅτι ἐξέλιπεν — ὁ Ιορδάνης ποταμὸς ἀπὸ προσώπου κιβωτοῦ διαθήκης κυρίου πάσης τῆς γῆς,

O’ ὡς διέβαινεν αὐτόν ※ τὸν Ἰορδάνην, καὶ ἐξέλιπεν τὸ ὕδωρ τοῦ Ἰορδάνου ⸔ Οἱ λοιποί· τοῦ Ἰσραήλ

καὶ ἔσονται οἱ λίθοι οὗτοι ‫והיו האבנים האלה לזכרון ויהוין אבניא האלין לדכר־‬ ὑμῖν μνημόσυνον τοῖς ‫נא לבני ישראל עד עלמא׃‬ ‫לבני ישראל עד עולם׃‬ υἱοῖς Ισραηλ ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος.

4:8

‫דפסקו מי ירדנא מן קדם‬ ‫ארון קימא דיי‬

‫אשר נכרתו מימי הירדן‬ ‫מפני ארון ברית יהוה‬

ὡς διέβαινεν αὐτόν — —·

‫במעבריה בירדנא‬

‫בעברו בירדן‬

————

‫פסקו מי ירדנא‬

‫נכרתו מי הירדן‬

καὶ ἐποίησαν οὕτως οἱ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ πάντες χω. ὁ θεός

καθότι ἐνετείλατο κύριος τῷ Ἰησοῖ·

‫ועבדו כן בני ישראל‬

‫ ויעשו כן בני ישראל‬4:8

‫כמא דפקיד יהושע‬

‫כאשר צוה יהושע‬

‫ונטלו תרתא עסרי אבניא‬ ‫מגו ירדנא‬

‫וישאו שתי עשרה אבנים‬ ‫מתוך הירדן‬

καθάπερ συνέταξεν ‫כמא דמליל יי עם יהושע‬ κύριος τῷ Ἰησοῖ ἐν τῇ ‫למנין שבטיא דבני ישראל‬ συντελείᾳ τῆς διαβάσεως τῶν — — υἱῶν Ισραηλ,

‫כאשר דבר יהוה אל‬ ‫יהושע למספר שבטי בני‬ ‫ישראל‬

καὶ διεκόμισαν ἅμα ἑαυτοῖς εἰς τὴν παρεμβολὴν

‫ואעברונון עמהון לבית‬ ‫מבתא‬

‫ויעברום עמם אל המלון‬

καὶ ἀπέθηκαν ἐκεῖ.

‫ואצנעונון תמן׃‬

‫וינחום שם׃‬

καὶ λαβόντες δώδεκα λίθους ἐκ μέσου τοῦ Ιορδάνου,

90

van der Meer

(cont.) MT (ed. BHS)

Vs.

Recentiores (ed. Field)

lxx (ed. Margolis)

4:9

v.l. καὶ ἄλλους δώδεκα λίθους ἔστησεν Ἰησοῦς

ἔστησεν δὲ Ἰησοῦς καὶ ‫ ושתים עשרה אבנים הקים ותרתא עסרי אבניא אקים‬4:9 ἄλλους δώδεκα λίθους ἐν ‫יהושע בתוך הירדן תחת יהושע בגו ירדנא באתר‬ αὐτῷ τῷ Ιορδάνῃ ἐν τῷ ‫מקם רגלי כהניא‬ ‫מצב רגלי הכהנים‬ γενομένῳ τόπῳ ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας τῶν ἱερέων

4:10

v.l. οἱ δὲ ἱερεῖς … εἱστήκεισαν

Vs.

τῶν αἰρόντων τὴν κιβωτὸν τῆς διαθήκης κυρίου,

‫נטלי ארונא דקימא‬

‫נשאי ארון הברית‬

καί εἰσιν ἐκεῖ ἕως τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας.

‫והוו תמן עד יומא הדין׃‬

‫ויהיו שם עד היום הזה׃‬ ‫ והכהנים‬4:10

εἱστήκεισαν δὲ οἱ ἱερεῖς

‫וכהניא‬

οἱ αἴροντες τὴν κιβωτὸν τῆς διαθήκης

‫נטלי ארונא‬

‫נשאי הארון‬

‫קימין בגו ירדנא‬

‫עמדים בתוך הירדן‬

‫עד דשלים כל פתגמא‬

‫עד תם כל הדבר‬

O’ ἐν ※ μέσῳ ⸔ τῷ ἐν — τῷ Ιορδάνῃ Ἰορδάνῃ] θ’ α’ ἐν μέσῷ ἕως οὗ συνετέλεσεν Ἰησοῦς πάντα —, ἃ ἐνετείλατο κύριος — — ἀναγγεῖλαι τῷ λαῷ· —— ————— Οἱ λοιποί· κατὰ πάντα ὄσα ἐν-ετείλατο Μωυσῆς τῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ ἔσπευσεν ὁ λαὸς καὶ διέβησαν. 4:11

Tg (ed. Sperber)

καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς συνετέλεσεν πᾶς ὁ λαὸς διαβῆναι, θ’ διέβησαν

καὶ διέβη ἡ κιβωτὸς τῆς διαθήκης κυρίου,

Οἱ λοιποί· καὶ οἱ ἰερεῖς πρότεροι

καὶ οἱ λίθοι ἔμπροσθεν αὐτῶν.

‫אשר צוה יהוה את יהושע דפקיד יי ית יהושע‬ ‫למללא עם עמא ככל‬

‫לדבר אל העם ככל‬

‫אשר צוה משה את יהושע דפקיד משה ית יהושע‬

‫ואוחיאו עמא‬

‫וימהרו העם‬

‫ועברו׃‬

‫ויעברו׃‬

‫והוה‬

‫ ויהי‬4:11

‫כד שלים כל עמא‬

‫כאשר תם כל העם‬

‫למעבר‬

‫לעבור‬

‫ועבר ארונא דיי‬

‫ויעבר ארון יהוה‬

‫וכהניא קדם עמא׃‬

‫והכהנים לפני העם׃‬

91

the GREEK & ARAMAIC VERSIONS OF JOSHUA 3–4 (cont.) Vs.

Recentiores (ed. Field)

4:12

καὶ διέβησαν οἱ υἱοὶ Ρουβην καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ Γαδ καὶ οἱ ἡμίσεις φυλῆς Μανασση α’ ἐνωπλισμένοι

4:13

lxx (ed. Margolis)

Ἄλλος· τετρακισχίλιοι] ὄντες εὶς τεσσαράκοντα χιλιάδος α’ *πρὸς ἀραβὼθ Ἱεριχώ] σ’ *κατὰ τὴν ἀοίκητον Ἱεριχώ

4:14

MT (ed. BHS)

Tg (ed. Sperber) ‫ועברו בני ראובן ובני גד‬ ‫ופלגות שבטא דמנשה‬

Vs.

‫ ויעברו בני ראובן ובני גד‬4:12 ‫וחצי שבט המנשה‬

διεσκευασμένοι ἔμπροσθεν τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ,

‫מזרזין קדם בני ישראל‬

‫חמשים לפני בני ישראל‬

καθάπερ ἐνετείλατο αὐτοῖς Μωυσῆς.

‫כמא דמליל עמהון משה׃‬

‫כאשר דבר אליהם משה׃‬

τετρακισμύριοι εὔζωνοι εἰς μάχην διέβησαν ἐναντίον κυρίου εἰς πόλεμον πρὸς τὴν — Ιεριχω πόλιν.

‫כארבעין אלפין מזרזי‬ ‫ כארבעים אלף חלוצי‬4:13 ‫חילא עברו קדם עמא דיי‬ ‫הצבא עברו לפני יהוה‬ ‫למלחמה אל ערבות יריחו׃ לקרבא למישרי יריחו׃‬

‫ס‬

ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ηὔξησεν κύριος τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐναντίον παντὸς τοῦ γένους Ισραηλ, καὶ ἐφοβοῦντο αὐτὸν Ο’ ὃν τρόπον ※ ἐφοβοῦντο ⸔

ὥσπερ — — Μωυσῆν ὅσον χρόνον ἔζη.

v.l. ※ πρὸς ⸔ Ἰησοῦν ⸔

Καὶ εἶπεν κύριος τῷ Ἰησοῖ

‫ביומא ההוא רבי יי ית‬ ‫יהושע בעיני כל ישראל‬

‫ ביום ההוא גדל יהוה את‬4:14 ‫יהושע בעיני כל ישראל‬

‫ודחילו מניה‬

‫ויראו אתו‬

)‫כמא דהוו דחלין (דדחילו‬ ‫מן (מן קדם) משה כל יומי‬ ‫חיוהי׃‬

‫כאשר יראו את משה כל‬ ‫ימי חייו׃‬ ‫פ‬

4:15

λέγων 4:16

‫למימר׃‬

‫ ויאמר יהוה אל יהושע‬4:15 ‫לאמר׃‬ ‫ צוה את הכהנים‬4:16

Ἔντειλαι τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν

‫פקיד ית כהניא‬

τοῖς αἴρουσιν τὴν κιβωτὸν τῆς διαθήκης τοῦ μαρτυρίου κυρίου

‫נטלי ארונא דסהדותא‬

‫נשאי ארון העדות‬

‫ויסקון מן ירדנא׃‬

‫ויעלו מן הירדן׃‬

ἐκβῆναι ἐκ τοῦ Ιορδάνου. 4:17

‫ואמר יי ליהושע‬

καὶ ἐνετείλατο Ἰησοῦς τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν λέγων Ἔκβητε ἐκ τοῦ Ιορδάνου.

‫ופקיד יהושע ית כהניא‬

‫ ויצו יהושע את הכהנים‬4:17

‫למימר‬

‫לאמר‬

‫סקו מן ירדנא׃‬

‫עלו מן הירדן׃‬

92

van der Meer

(cont.) Vs.

Recentiores (ed. Field)

4:18

lxx (ed. Margolis) καὶ ἐγένετο

v.l. ἐκ μέσου τοῦ Ἰορδάνου

‫נתקו כפות רגלי הכהנים‬

‫ונחא על יבשתא‬

‫אל החרבה‬

‫ותבו מי ירדנא לאתרהון‬

‫וישבו מי הירדן למקומם‬

καὶ ἐπορεύετο καθὰ ‫ואזלו כמאתמלי ומדקמוהי‬ ἐχθὲς καὶ τρίτην ἡμέραν ‫(ומדקדמוהי) על כל‬ δι᾽ ὅλης τῆς κρηπῖδος. ‫כיפוהי׃‬

‫וילכו כתמול שלשום על‬ ‫כל גדותיו׃‬

ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς,

καὶ ὁ λαὸς ἀνέβη ἐκ τοῦ Ιορδάνου δεκάτῃ τοῦ μηνὸς τοῦ πρώτου·

‫ והעם עלו מן הירדן בעשור ועמא סליקו מן ירדנא‬4:19 ‫בעסרא לירחא קדמאה‬ ‫לחדש הראשון‬ )‫(לירחא דניסן‬

καὶ κατεστρατοπέδευσαν ‫ושרו בגלגלא בסיפי מדנח‬ οἱ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ ἐν ‫יריחו׃‬ Γαλγαλοις κατὰ μέρος τὸ πρὸς ἡλίου ἀνατολὰς ἀπὸ τῆς Ιεριχω. 4:20

4:21

καὶ τοὺς δώδεκα λίθους τούτους

‫ויחנו בגלגל בקצה מזרח‬ ‫יריחו׃‬

‫ ואת שתים עשרה האבנים וית תרתא עסרי אבניא‬4:20 ‫האלין‬ ‫האלה‬

οὓς ἔλαβεν ἐκ τοῦ Ιορδάνου

‫דנסבו מן ירדנא‬

‫אשר לקחו מן הירדן‬

ἔστησεν Ἰησοῦς ἐν Γαλγαλοις

‫אקים יהושע בגלגלא׃‬

‫הקים יהושע בגלגל׃‬

Οἱ λοιποί· καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς τοὺς υἱοὺς Ἰσραήλ

——————

O’ οἱ υἱοὶ ὑμῶν ※ αὔριον ⸔ ὑμᾶς] α’ *τοὺς πατέρας ὑμῶν

Ὅταν ἐρωτῶσιν ὑμᾶς οἱ υἱοὶ ὑμῶν — — — —

λέγων

λέγοντες 4:22

‫ ויהי‬4:18

‫אתנגידא פרסת רגלי‬ ‫כהניא‬

ὥρμησεν τὸ ὕδωρ τοῦ Ιορδάνου κατὰ χώραν

4:19

‫והוה‬

Vs.

ὡς ἐξέβησαν οἱ ἱερεῖς οἱ ‫בעלות (קכעלות) הכהנים כד בעו (עלין) למסק‬ αἴροντες τὴν κιβωτὸν τῆς ‫כהניא נטלי ארון קימא דיי‬ ‫נשאי ארון ברית יהוה‬ διαθήκης κυρίου ἐκ — ‫מגו ירדנא‬ ‫מתוך הירדן‬ τοῦ Ιορδάνου

O’ τοὺς πόδας ※ οἱ καὶ ἔθηκαν — — τοὺς ἱερεῖς ⸔ πόδας — — v.l. ἐπὶ τῆς ξηρᾶς

MT (ed. BHS)

Tg (ed. Sperber)

‫ואמר לבני ישראל‬

‫ ויאמר אל בני ישראל‬4:21

‫למימר‬

‫לאמר‬

‫דישאלון בניכון מחר ית‬ )‫אבהתהון (לאבהתהון‬

‫אשר ישאלון בניכם מחר‬ ‫את אבותם‬

‫למימר‬

‫לאמר‬

Τί εἰσιν οἱ λίθοι οὗτοι;

‫מא אבניא האלין׃‬

‫מה האבנים האלה׃‬

ἀναγγείλατε τοῖς υἱοῖς ὑμῶν

‫ותהודעון ית בניכון‬

‫ והודעתם את בניכם‬4:22

93

the GREEK & ARAMAIC VERSIONS OF JOSHUA 3–4 (cont.) Vs.

Recentiores (ed. Field)

lxx (ed. Margolis) ὅτι

Οἱ λοιποί· τοῦτον > Ο’ ※ τοῦτον ⸔ 4:23

Ἐπὶ ξηρᾶς διέβη Ισραηλ τὸν Ιορδάνην —, ἀποξηράναντος κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν τὸ ὕδωρ τοῦ Ιορδάνου ἐκ τῶν ἔμπροσθεν αὐτῶν μέχρι οὗ διέβησαν· καθάπερ ἐποίησεν κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν τὴν ἐρυθρὰν θάλασσαν,

4:24

Vs.

‫למימר‬

‫לאמר‬

‫ביבשתא עבר ישראל ית‬ ‫ירדנא הדין׃‬

‫ביבשה עבר ישראל את‬ ‫הירדן הזה׃‬

‫ אשר הוביש יהוה אלהיכם ארי דיביש יי אלהכון ית‬4:23 ‫מי ירדנא מן קדמיכון‬ ‫את מי הירדן מפניכם‬

‫עד מעברכון (עד‬ )‫דעברתון‬

‫עד עברכם‬

‫כאשר עשה יהוה אלהיכם כמא דעבד יי אלהכון‬ ‫לימא דסוף‬ ‫לים סוף‬

ἣν ἀπεξήρανεν κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν ἔμπροσθεν ἡμῶν

‫דיביש מן קדמנא‬

‫אשר הוביש מפנינו‬

ἕως παρήλθομεν.

‫עד דעברנא (עד‬ ‫מעברנא)׃‬

‫עד עברנו׃‬

ὅπως γνῶσιν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τῆς γῆς ὅτι ἡ δύναμις τοῦ κυρίου — ἰσχυρά ἐστιν, Οἱ λοιποί πάντες· ἐν παντὶ χρόνῳ

MT (ed. BHS)

Tg (ed. Sperber)

‫בדיל דידעון כל עממי‬ ‫(עמי) ארעא‬

‫ית גבורתא דיי‬

‫ למען דעת כל עמי הארץ‬4:24

‫את יד יהוה‬

‫ארי תקיפא היא‬

‫כי חזקה היא‬

καὶ ἵνα ὑμεῖς σέβησθε ‫בדיל דתדחלון קדם (מן‬ κύριον τὸν θεὸν ὑμῶν ἐν ‫קדם) יי אלהכון כל יומיא׃‬ παντὶ χρόνῳ.

‫למען יראתם את יהוה‬ ‫אלהיכם כל הימים׃‬ ‫ס‬

a Fredericus Field, Origenis hexaplorum quae supersunt sive veterum interpretum graecorum in totum vetus testamentum fragmenta 1 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1875). b Max L. Margolis, The Book of Joshua in Greek According to the Critically Restored Text with an Apparatus Containing the Variants of the Principal Recensions and of the Individual Witnesses, Publications of the Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation, Parts 1–4 (Paris: Geuthner, 1931– 38), part 5, edited by Emanuel Tov (Philadelphia: Annenberg Research Institute, 1992). c Alexander Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic 2. The Former Prophets according to Targum Jonathan, 3rd impression (Leiden: Brill, 2004). d Rudolf Meyer, “Libri Josuae et Judicum,” in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, ed. Karl Elliger, Wilhelm Rudolph (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1977).

94

van der Meer

Bibliography Aejmelaeus, Anneli, “Ὅτι recitativum in Septuagintal Greek,” in Studien zur Septuaginta—Robert Hanhart zu Ehren, ed. Detlef Fraenkel, Udo Quast, John W. Wevers, MSU 20 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 74–82, reprinted in On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators. Collected Essays, Revised and Expanded Edition, ed. Anneli Aejmelaeus, CBET 50 (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 31–41. Alexander, Philip, “Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures,” in Mikra. Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Martin Jan Mulder and Harry Sysling, CRINT 2.1 (Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 217–53. Assis, Elie, “A Literary Approach to Complex Narratives: An Examination of Joshua 3–4,” in The Book of Joshua, BETL 250 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 401–414. Barthélemy, Dominique, Les devanciers d’Aquila, VTSup 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1963). Barthélemy, Dominique, “Qui est Symmaque?” CBQ 36 (1974): 451–65, reprinted in Études d’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament, OBO 21 (Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 307–21. Barthélemy, Dominique, “Pourquoi la Torah a-t-elle été traduite en grec?” in On Language, Culture and Religion. In Honor of E.A. Nida, Approaches to Semiotics 56 (Den Haag: Mouton, 1974), 23–41, reprinted in Études d’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament, OBO 21 (Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 322–40. Barthélemy, Dominique, Critique textuelle de l’ancien Testament 1. Josué, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther, OBO 50.1 (Fribourg: Éditions universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982). Beekes, Robert, Etymological Dictionary of Greek, Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 10 (Leiden: Brill, 2009). Benjamin, Charles D., The Variations between the Hebrew and Greek Texts of Joshua: Chapters 1–12 (Leipzig: Drugulin, 1921). Bickerman, Elias, “The Septuagint as a Translation,” PAAJR 28 (1959), reprinted in Studies in Jewish and Christian History 1, AGJU 9.1 (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 167–200. Bieberstein, Klaus, Josua-Jordan-Jericho. Archäologie, Geschichte und Theologie der Landnahmeerzählungen Josua 1–6, OBO 143 (Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995). Boyd-Taylor, Cameron, “Toward the Analysis of Translational Norms: A Sighting Shot,” BIOSCS 39 (2006): 27–46. Boyd-Taylor, Cameron, Reading between the Lines: The Interlinear Paradigm for Septuagint Studies, BTS 8 (Leuven: Peeters, 2011).

the GREEK & ARAMAIC VERSIONS OF JOSHUA 3–4

95

Brock, Sebastian, “The Phenomenon of the Septuagint,” in The Witness of Tradition. Papers Read at the Joint British-Dutch Old Testament Conference Held at Woudschoten, 1970, OtSt 17 (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 11–36. Brockington, L.H., “LXX and Targum,” ZAW 66 (1954): 80–86. Butler, Trent C., Joshua, WBC 7 (Waco: Word, 1983). Butler, Trent C., Joshua 1–12. Second Edition, WBC 7a (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014). Churgin, Pinkhos, “The Targum and the Septuagint,” AJSL 50 (1933–34): 41–65. Collins, Nina L., The Library in Alexandria and the Bible in Greek, VTSup 82 (Leiden: Brill, 2000). Cook, Johann and Arie van der Kooij, Law, Prophets, and Wisdom. On the Provenance of the Translators and their Books in the Septuagint Version, CBET 68 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012). Cowey, James M.S. and Klaus Maresch, eds., Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis (144/3–133/2 v. Chr.) (P.Polit.Iud.), Pap.Colon. 29 (Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag, 2001). Delekat, Lienhard, “Ein Septuagintatargum,” VT 8 (1958): 225–52. Dozeman, Thomas B., Joshua 1–12, AncYB 6B (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015). Field, Fredericus, Origenis hexaplorum quae supersunt sive veterum interpretum graecorum in totum vetus testamentum fragmenta 1 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1875). Fraade, Steven D., “Locating Targum in the Textual Polysystem of Rabbinic Pedagogy,” BIOSCS 39 (2006): 69–91. Frankel, Zacharias, Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Her­meneutik (Leipzig: Vogel, 1851). Fritz, Volkmar, Das Buch Josua, HAT 1/7 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994). García Martínez, Florentino, Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, eds., Qumran Cave 11.II 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31, DJD XXIII (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 87. Gordon, Robert P., Studies in the Targum to the Twelve Prophets from Nahum to Malachi, VTSup 51 (Leiden: Brill, 1994). Guggenheimer, Heinrich W., The Jerusalem Talmud. Third Order. Našim. Tractates Soṭah and Nedarim, Studia Judaica 31 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005). Harl, Marguerite, Gilles Dorival, Olivier Munnich, La Bible grecque des Septante. Du judaïsme hellénistique au christianisme ancien, 2nd ed. (Paris: Cerf, 1994). Harrington, Daniel J. and Anthony J. Saldarini, Targum Jonathan on the Prophets, ArBib 10 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987). Hill, Robert C., Theodorete of Cyrus. The Questions on the Octateuch 2, LEC 2 (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 2007). Hollenberg, Johannes, Der Charakter der alexandrinischen Uebersetzung des Buches Josua und ihr textkritischer Werth untersucht, Wissenschaftliche Beilage zu dem Oster-Programm des Gymnasiums zu Moers (Moers: Eckner, 1876).

96

van der Meer

Honigman, Sylvie, The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria. A Study in the Narrative of the Letter of Aristeas (London: Routledge, 2003). Jastrow, Marcus, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York: Judaica, 1903). Joosten, Jan, “Reflections on the ‘Interlinear Paradigm’ in Septuagintal Studies,” in Scripture in Transition. Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo, ed. Anssi Voitila, Jutta Jokiranta; JSJSup 126 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 163–178, reprinted in Collected Essays on the Septuagint, 225–39. Joosten, Jan, Collected Studies in the Septuagint. From Language to Interpretation and Beyond, FAT I 83 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012). Katz, Peter, “Coincidences between LXX and Targum in Gen. xv:4,” JTS 47 (1946): 166–69. Kooij, Arie van der, Die alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches. Ein Beitrag zur Textgeschichte des Alten Testaments, OBO 35 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vanden­ hoeck & Ruprecht, 1981). Kooij, Arie van der, “The Septuagint of the Pentateuch and Ptolemaic Rule,” in The Pentateuch as Torah. New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance, ed. Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 289–300. Koorevaar, Hendrik, De opbouw van het boek Jozua (Heverlee: Centrum voor Bijbelse vorming, 1990). Kraus, Hans-Joachim, “Gilgal. Ein Beitrag zur Kultusgeschichte Israels,” VT 1 (1951): 181–98. Kühner, Raphael, Bernhard Gerth, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, 3rd ed. (Hannover: Hahn, 1909). Langlamet, François, Gilgal et les récits de la traversée du Jourdain ( Jos., III–IV), CahRB 11 (Paris: Gabalda, 1969). Le Déaut, Roger, “La Septante, un Targum?” in Études sur le judaïsme hellénistique; Congrès de Strasbourg, ed. Raymund Kuntzmann, Jacques Schlosser, Lectio divina 119 (Paris: Cerf, 1984), 146–95. Lee, Eun-Woo, Crossing the Jordan. Diachrony versus Synchrony in the Book of Joshua, LHBOTS 578 (London: Bloomsbury, 2013). Loiseau, Anne-Françoise, L’influence de l’araméen sur les traducteurs de la LXX principalement, sur les traducteurs grecs postérieurs, ainsi que sur les scribes de la Vorlage de la LXX, SBLSCS 65 (Atlanta: SBL, 2016). Louw, Theo van der, Transformations in the Septuagint: Towards an Interaction of Septuagint Studies and Translation Studies, CBET 47 (Leuven: Peeters, 2007). Louw, Theo van der, “Linguistic or Ideological Shifts? The Problem-oriented Study of Transformations as a Methodological Filter,” in Scripture in Transition. Essays on

the GREEK & ARAMAIC VERSIONS OF JOSHUA 3–4

97

Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo, ed. Anssi Voitila, Jutta Jokiranta; JSJSup 126 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 107–25. Margolis, Max L., “των ενδοξων Josh. 4,4,” in Studies in Jewish Literature Issued in Honor of Professor Kaufmann Kohler, Ph.D. President Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, Ohio, on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday (Berlin: Reimer, 1913), 204–209. Margolis, Max L., The Book of Joshua in Greek According to the Critically Restored Text with an Apparatus Containing the Variants of the Principal Recensions and of the Individual Witnesses, Publications of the Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation, Parts 1–4 (Paris: Geuthner, 1931–38), part 5, edited by Emanuel Tov (Philadelphia: Annenberg Research Institute, 1992). Mayser, Edwin, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1934). Meer, Michaël N. van der, Formation and Reformulation. The Redaction of the Book of Joshua in the Light of the Oldest Textual Witnesses, VTSup 101 (Leiden: Brill, 2004). Meer, Michaël N. van der, “Provenance, Profile, and Purpose of the Greek Joshua,” in XII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Leiden, 2004, ed. Melvin K.H. Peters, SBLSCS 54 (Atlanta: SBL, 2006), 55–80. Meer, Michaël N. van der, “‘Sound the Trumpet!’ Redaction and Reception of Joshua 6:2–25,” in The Land of Israel in Bible, History, and Theology. Studies in Honour of Ed Noort, VTSup 124 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 19–44. Meer, Michaël N. van der, “Visions from Memphis and Leontopolis: The Phenomenon of the Vision Reports in the Greek Isaiah in the Light of Contemporary Accounts from Hellenistic Egypt,” in Isaiah in Context. Studies in Honour of Arie van der Kooij on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, eds. Michaël N. van der Meer, Percy van Keulen, Wido van Peursen and Bas ter Haar Romeny, VTSup 138 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 281–316. Meer, Michaël N. van der, “The Question of the Literary Dependence of the Greek Isaiah upon the Greek Psalter Revisited,” in Die Septuaginta—Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse, ed. Wolfgang Kraus, Martin Karrer, Martin Meiser, WUNT 252 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 162–200. Meer, Michaël N. van der, “Literary and Textual History of Joshua 2,” in XV Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Munich 2013, eds. Wolfgang Kraus, Michaël N. van der Meer, and Martin Meiser, SBLSCS 64 (Atlanta: SBL, 2016), 565–91. Meer, Michaël N. van der, “Symmachus, the Septuagint and the Sages. An Examination of the References to Sumkhos ben Joseph in the Mishnah, Tosefta and Talmudim,” in Septuagint, Sages and Scripture: Studies in Honour of Johann Cook, eds. Randall X. Gauthier, Gideon R. Kotzé, and Gert Steyn, VTSup 172 (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 336–55.

98

van der Meer

Meer, Michaël N. van der, “Symmachus’s Version of Joshua,” in Found in Translation: Essays on Jewish Biblical Translation in Honor of Leonard J. Greenspoon, ed. James W. Barker, Anthony Le Donne, Joel N. Lohr, Shofar Supplements in Jewish Studies (Purdue: Purdue University Press, 2018), 53–94. Mélèze Modrzejewski, Joseph, The Jews of Egypt from Ramesses II to Emperor Hadrian (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995). Meyer, Rudolf, “Libri Josuae et Judicum,” in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, ed. Karl Elliger, Wilhelm Rudolph (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1977). Milik, Józef T., “Targum du Lévitique (156),” in Qumrân grotte4.II, ed. Roland de Vaux, Józef T. Milik, DJD VI (Oxford: Clarendon, 1977), 86. Moatti-Fine, Jacqueline, Jésus ( Josué), La Bible d’Alexandrie 6 (Paris: Cerf, 1996). Moor, Johannes C. de, and Floris Sepmeijer, “The Peshitta and the Targum of Joshua,” in The Peshitta as a Translation. Papers Read at the II Peshitta Symposium Held at Leiden 19–21 August 1993, ed. Piet B. Dirksen, and Arie van der Kooij, Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Leiden 8 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 129–76. Muraoka, Takamitsu, “With the Publication of NETS,” in Biblical Greek in Context. Essays in Honour of John A.L. Lee, ed. James K. Aitken and Trevor Evans, BTS 22 (Leuven: Peeters, 2015), 145–64. Muraoka, Takamitsu, A Syntax of Septuagint Greek (Leuven: Peeters, 2016). Noort, Ed, Das Buch Josua. Forschungsgeschichte und Problemfelder, EdF 292 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaft­liche Buchgesellschaft, 1998). Orth, Wolfgang, “Ptolemaios II. und die Septuaginta-Übersetzung,” in Im Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta. Studien zur Entstehung und Bedeutung der griechischen Bibel 1, BWANT 153 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001), 97–114. Otto, Eckart, Das Mazzotfest in Gilgal, BWANT 107 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1975). Pietersma, Albert, “A New Paradigm for Addressing Old Questions: The Relevance of the Interlinear Model for the Study of the Septuagint,” in Bible and Computer. The Stellenbosch AIBI-6 Conference. Proceedings of the Association Internationale Bible et Informatique “From Alpha to Byte.” University of Stellenbosch 17–21 July, 2000, ed. Johann Cook (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 337–64. Pietersma, Albert, “LXX and DTS: A New Archimedean Point for Septuagint Studies?” BIOSCS 39 (2006): 1–12. Polzin, Robert, Moses and the Deuteronomist. A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History 1. Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges (New York: Seabury, 1980). Prijs, Leo, Jüdische Tradition in der Septuaginta (Leiden: Brill, 1948). Rajak, Tessa, Translation and Survival. The Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish Diaspora (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). Rudolph, Wilhelm, Der “Elohist” von Exodus bis Josua, BZAW 68 (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1938).

the GREEK & ARAMAIC VERSIONS OF JOSHUA 3–4

99

Schwyzer, Eduard, Albert Debrunner, Griechische Grammatik (München: Beck, 1959). Seeligmann, Isac L., The Septuagint Version of Isaiah. A Discussion of Its Problems, MEOL 9 (Leiden: Brill, 1948) reprinted in The Septuagint Version of Isaiah and Cognate Studies, eds. Robert Hanhart and Hermann Spieckermann, FAT I 40 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 119–234. Shepherd, David, Targum and Trans­lation. A Reconsideration of the Qumran Aramaic Version of Job, SSN 45 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 2004). Sipilä, Seppo, “The Septuagint Version of Joshua 3–4,” in VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leuven 1989, ed. Claude E. Cox, SBLSCS 31 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1991), 63–74. Smelik, Willem, The Targum of Judges, OtSt 36 (Leiden: Brill, 1995). Smolar, Leivy and Moses Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, Pinkhos Churgin, Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, ed. Harry M. Orlinksy (New York: Ktav, 1983). Soggin, J. Alberto, “Gilgal. Passah und Landnahme. Eine neue Untersuchung des kultischen Zusammenhangs des Kap. III–VI des Josuabuches,” in Volume du Congrès International pour l’étude de l’Ancien Testament. Genève 1965, ed. Pieter H.A. de Boer, VTSup 15 (Leiden: Brill, 1966), 263–277. Sokoloff, Michael, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1990). Sokoloff, Michael, A Syriac Lexicon. A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns; Piscataway: Gorgias, 2009). Sperber, Alexander, The Bible in Aramaic 2. The Former Prophets according to Targum Jonathan, 3rd impression (Leiden: Brill, 2004). Staalduine-Sulman, Eveline van, The Targum of Samuel, Studies in Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2002). Stec, David M., The Targum of Psalms, ArBib 16 (London: Continuum, 2004). Stricker, Bruno H., De brief van Aristeas. De Helleense codificaties der prae-helleense godsdiensten, Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, afd. Letterkunde 62.4 (Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij, 1956). Thackeray, Henry St. John, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909). Thackeray, Henry St. John, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship. A Study in Origins, The Schweich Lectures 1920 (London: British Academy, 1921). Tov, Emanuel, “Midrash-type Exegesis in the Septuagint of Joshua,” RB 85 (1978): 50–61, reprinted in The Greek and Hebrew Bible. Collected Essays on the Septuagint, VTSup 72 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 153–63.

100

van der Meer

Tov, Emanuel, “The Growth of the Book of Joshua in the Light of the Evidence of the Septuagint,” in Studies in Bible, ed. Sara Japhet, ScrHier 31 (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986), 321–39, reprinted in The Greek and Hebrew Bible. Collected Essays on the Septuagint, VTSup 72 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 385–96. Tov, Emanuel, “4QJoshb,” in Qumran Cave 4.IX. Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, ed. Eugene C. Ulrich et al., DJD XIV (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 153–60. Tov, Emanuel, “The Rewritten Book of Joshua as Found at Qumran and Masada,” in Biblical Perspectives. Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 May, 1996, eds. Michael E. Stone and Esther G. Chazon, STDJ 27 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 233–56; reprinted in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran. Collected Essays, ed. Emanuel Tov, TSAJ 121 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 71–91. Tov, Emanuel, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Third Edition, Revised and Expanded (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012). Weitzman, Michael, The Syriac Version of the Old Testament. An Introduction, University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 56 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer­sity Press, 1999). Wijngaards, J.N.M., The Dramatization of Salvific History in the Deuteronomic Schools, OtSt 16 (Leiden: Brill, 1969).

Chapter 4

Optimal Translation in lxx and Tg. Jon. of 1 Samuel 1:1–5: Outline of a Comparative Theory of Translation Technique Jeremy M. Hutton 1 Introduction The myriad divergent readings of the Hebrew Bible’s early versions present several challenges to interpreters. In studies focused predominantly on the Hebrew Bible itself, these variant readings have traditionally been used as leverage on accessing the earliest text forms—the hypothetical Ur-text or the reconstructed archetype—of the Hebrew Bible.1 I say “forms” here because there appears to be a (nearly) universally-held consensus that the earliest reconstructable text of the Hebrew Bible was already pluriform, and that variation (rather than identity) was the norm.2 In studies lodged more firmly within parallel fields such as New Testament Criticism or Rabbinics, the focus on Septuagint or Targum seems to lie more on the interpretive trends visible in each text’s semantic and pragmatic departures from the Hebrew source text.3 As Albert Pietersma has argued, Descriptive Translation Studies speaks directly to this divergence of purpose, reminding us that while both types of study are worthwhile, the former focuses on the text (of the Septuagint, Targum, etc.) as produced, and the latter on the text as received.4 In the context of the present paper, I orient my comments to the former focus: the texts of the Septuagint 1  For a recent review of text-critical concepts such as Ur-texts and archetypes, see, e.g., Brennan W. Breed, Nomadic Text (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2014), 15–51; and Michael V. Fox, Proverbs: An Eclectic Edition with Introduction and Textual Commentary, HBCE 1 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015), 1–15. 2  The textual plurality of those writings that would later come to be included in the Hebrew Bible is so axiomatic in our field that it barely bears justification. It is the idea that underlies such venerable texts as Emanuel Tov’s magisterial Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), as well as recent volumes situated in widely-ranging sub-fields, such as Molly M. Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture, STDJ 95 (Leiden: Brill, 2011); and Breed, Nomadic Text. 3  For an earlier statement of this general situation, see Albert Pietersma, A Question of Methodology, ed. Cameron Boyd-Taylor; BTS 14 (Leuven: Peeters, 2013), 135–141, 203–270. 4  E.g., Pietersma, Question of Methodology, 143–170, 244–246, 275–277, 359–360.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004416727_006

102

Hutton

(that is, the Old Greek)5 and of the Targum as they were produced. Specifically, I propose a theory-based method that will enable researchers to “track and rank the [socially- and linguistically-imposed] norms employed in various translational works,” and “thereby [to] creat[e] and manag[e] sets of the constraints operative in individual translations of the Hebrew Bible.”6 This method should allow us to compare and contrast the various translation strategies employed by the Bible’s early translators, insofar as we are able to diagnose those strategies from the textual-linguistic products that we have received. The purposes of this exercise are twofold. The first is local: Qualitative analyses are undoubtedly important—I recognize here those studies in Septuagint translation by, for example, Anneli Aejmelaeus, Theo A.W. van der Louw, and Cameron Boyd-Taylor, to name only a few.7 But qualitative analysis does not lend itself to easy comparison across the versions. Take, for example, the schematic chart by Boyd-Taylor describing the translation style of Aquila (Table 4.1). Despite the sophisticated methods used to describe individual versions, cross-traditional comparison remains difficult. Vague or impressionistic qualifications such as “primary” vs. “secondary” and “highly favoured” vs. “permitted” may accurately capture overall trends in the translation style, but do not facilitate a finer-grained analysis of morpheme-specific trends in each category. For example, serial fidelity might be “highly favoured” in a translation while at the same time permitting a consistent linear rearrangement of a particular syntactic feature (e.g., the consistent post-positioning of Greek δέ to adhere to the particle’s normal syntactic position in compositional Greek rather than the linear ordering of the Hebrew source text). The model presented in this paper seeks not only to identify the conflicting constraints and principles with which translators worked—at both the macro- and micro-linguistic levels—but also to show that it is possible to compare the translation styles of two different versions through a shorthand system of representation that captures the basic principles underlying each translation and that isolates specific grammatical anomalies characterizing the translation style. In other words, I propose a 5  As Pietersma has forcefully argued (Question of Methodology, 230–231, 274–275), the term “Septuagint” displays a variety of nuances—one must stipulate the body of literature to which one is referring. 6  Jeremy M. Hutton, “Optimality in the ‘Grammars’ of Ancient Translations,” JHebS 15 (2015): art. 7, page 35. 7  See, e.g., Theo A.W. van der Louw, Transformations in the Septuagint: Towards an Interaction of Septuagint Studies and Translation Studies, CBET 47 (Leuven: Peeters, 2006); Anneli Aejmelaeus, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays, rev. ed.; CBET 50; (Leuven: Peeters, 2007); Cameron Boyd-Taylor, Reading between the Lines: The Interlinear Paradigm for Septuagint Studies, BTS 8 (Leuven: Peeters, 2011).

OPTIMAL TRANSLATION IN LXX & tg. jon. of 1 samuel 1:1–5

103

Table 4.1 Boyd-Taylor’s chart, Aquilianic Mode of Translation

Indices of Relative Acceptability Regulative Norms 1) Grammatical clauses. 1) Quantitative fidelity (primary). 2) Negative and positive transfer. 2) Serial fidelity (primary). 3) Morphosyntactical correspondence 3) Textual linguistic ill-formedness. (secondary). 4) Stock pairing (secondary). 5) Lexical correspondence (secondary). Maximal Accommodation Minimal Assimilation Constitutive Norms 1) Grammatical well-formedness highly favoured. 2) Semantic well-formedness favoured. 3) Atomism highly favoured. 4) Isomorphism highly favoured. 5) Minimalism highly favoured. 6) Linguistic interference permitted. 7) Textual linguistic ill-formedness permitted.

quantitative analysis that goes beyond simply counting examples or tracking the larger trends of translation phenomena. In turn, this analysis leads to an evaluation of how the interaction of those constraints and principles affects the specific shape of the texts under scrutiny. The second purpose of this paper is global; that is to say, it attempts to understand, categorize, and quantify some of the foundational principles of translation in antiquity, particularly from the perspective of Descriptive Translation Studies. I expect to have just as much—maybe more—to say about theory and method in Descriptive Translation Studies [or “DTS”] as I might say about Hebrew–Greek or Hebrew–Aramaic translation specifically. I will assume that most of the principles of this paradigm are widely known enough so as to bear only cursory mention here: its focus on description rather than prescription, as laid out by John S. Holmes in the 1970s;8 its acceptance of translations as norm-governed “facts of the target culture,” as articulated by Gideon Toury in 8  James S. Holmes, “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies,” in The Translation Studies Reader, ed. Lawrence Venuti; 2nd ed. (Routledge: London and New York, 2000), 172–85.

104

Hutton

the 1990s;9 and the importance of the translator’s “commission” or “brief” in clarifying for the translator how the text is to be translated. The functionalist school of translation studies (including Hans J. Vermeer and Christiane Nord)10 has stressed this last point, but descriptivists have come to accept this premise as a necessary precondition to understanding the translation’s intended role within the literary “polysystem” (i.e., the full literary culture) of the target culture.11 These features have been interwoven into the modern discourse in the field, and lie at the heart of what Boyd-Taylor and Pietersma call the “constitutive character” of the translated text. 2 Optimality Translations as Optimal Forms 2.1 One aspect of DTS that has gone underappreciated in recent studies is the extent to which it recognizes that the final form of the ancient translation must be considered to have been the optimal form within the constraints imposed by the target culture, the target language, and the translator’s commission— whatever that happened to entail. This assumption of optimality is foundational, albeit undertheorized, in DTS. The term appears not only in works by Toury, but also in various other forms in studies by theorists Andrew Chesterman and Christiane Nord.12 For the purposes of this study, I follow Toury in his insistence that the theorist’s task is to identify the linguistic, cultural, and literary norms under which the translator worked so as to produce the optimal representation of the source text: As Toury observes, “norms … will still need to 9  Gideon Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies—and Beyond, rev. ed.; Benjamins Translation Library 100 (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2012); Andrew Chesterman, Memes of Translation, Benjamins Translation Library 22 (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1997; repr., 2000). 10  Hans J. Vermeer, “Skopos and Commission in Translation Theory,” in The Translation Studies Reader, ed. Lawrence Venuti; 3rd ed. (London: Routledge, 2012), 191–202; Christiane Nord, Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained (Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 1997). 11  Itamar Even-Zohar, “The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem,” and André Lefevere, “Mother Courage’s Cucumbers: Text, System and Refraction in a Theory of Literature,” in Venuti, The Translation Studies Reader, 162–67 and 203–19 (respectively). 12  E.g., Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies, 32; Chesterman, Memes of Translation, 69 (“to optimize communication,” “optimal similarity”), 80 (“an optimal solution”), 88 (“the optimal translation”), etc.; Nord, Translating as a Purposeful Activity, 63 (“optimal ‘transfer’ procedures”), 116 (“optimal”).

OPTIMAL TRANSLATION IN LXX & tg. jon. of 1 samuel 1:1–5

105

be recovered from instances of [translational] behaviour, using the observed regularities as a clue…. [N]orms do not appear as entities at all, but rather as explanatory hypotheses for actual behaviour and its perceptible manifestations.”13 2.2 Optimality Theory as Explanatory Paradigm Recognizing that “optimality” fueled the textual-linguistic character of the translation allows us to adduce an appropriate theoretical apparatus for tracking these constraints—i.e., Toury’s various norms—whose reflection can be seen in the text. I utilize a theory derived from contemporary linguistic research, Optimality Theory, which analyzes constraints on linguistic output and ranks these constraints in a hierarchy.14 We may abstract four basic premises that are held in common between DTS and Optimality Theory: (1) First: in both systems, speakers (or translators) select from a range of possible alternatives, some of which are more well-formed than others. (2) Second: as articulated above, both systems assume that the output form exhibits the optimal form after the input has been subjected to the various operative constraints. (3) Third: each field assumes the existence of universal constraints that are always operative, even if their effects are not seen (i.e., “masked”). (4) Fourth: relatedly, in both systems the constraints on speakers and on translators are finite in number and hierarchical in arrangement. It is this hierarchical arrangement that causes masking, since effects generated by adherence to higher-ranked constraints can, ultimately, mask the effects of adherence to lower-ranked constraints. It is the task of the Optimality Theorist—even one dealing with optimality in translation—to discover and arrange the constraints in the proper hierarchy such that the greatest levels of adherence to the most highly-ranked constraints produces the translation under scrutiny. In the words of Prince and Smolensky, the originators of Optimality Theory, we have access to “empirically correct output, which must be optimal under the constraint hierarchy, if the grammar is to be successful.”15 For the purposes of the present project, our “empirically correct output” is given in the text produced by the translator. The text produced by the translator is, of course, approachable only insofar as our critical editions demonstrate a perfectly accurate assessment of the 13  Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies, 65 (emphasis original). 14  For a fuller explanation of the system than can be included here, the reader is referred to Hutton, “Optimality in the ‘Grammars’ of Ancient Translations.” 15  Alan Prince and Paul Smolensky, Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar (Malden: Blackwell, 2004), 129.

106

Hutton

history of transmission (rarely a likelihood) and display the translator’s accurate understanding of the source text (a premise that can at times prove to be faulty, for instance in cases of misunderstanding by the translator). It falls to the researcher, then, to reconstruct the “grammar”—alternatively stated, the constraint hierarchy—in an Optimal Translation model. 3

The Study

3.1 Preliminaries In the following study, I use examples drawn from 1 Sam 1:1–5 to build the constraint hierarchies governing the translators who produced the Old Greek’s and Targum Jonathan’s respective representations of 1 Sam 1:1–5. For the text of the Old Greek, I have relied on Rahlfs’s Septuagint, while also checking Brooke, McLean, and Thackeray’s edition; for the text of Targum Jonathan, I have employed the text given in Sperber’s The Bible in Aramaic. In each case, I have balanced the translation-critical analysis with text-critical observation. Especially in the case of the Septuagint, I have taken into consideration semantic and syntactic departures from mt, and have attempted to understand those departures as representations of a Vorlage that may have diverged in form from the mt.16 My methodology is thus a relatively minimalist one, sharing basic tenets with both the so-called “Finnish School” and adherents of the “Interlinear Paradigm.” Although my interests depart from those of both schools in different measure, I view this “Optimal Translation” paradigm as basically consonant with the general premises—if not the particulars—of both. Given the principles enumerated above, which are held in common by DTS and Optimality Theory, we can begin to analyze the constraints governing the translation techniques of the Old Greek and Targum Jonathan representations of 1 Sam 1:1–5. I begin by proposing some basic norms, formulated here as Optimality Theoretic constraints. These constraints are intuitive, and, since they describe many of the features that we regularly associate with translations, we can provisionally consider them to be universal.

16  The textual problems inherent in 1–2 Samuel are well known and need not be discussed here. It is sufficient to note that, although neither of the three Samuel texts found at Qumran contains the passage under discussion here, 4QSamb exhibits many agreements with the families of the lxx, over against MT; see Frank Moore Cross, Donald W. Parry, Richard J. Saley, and Eugene Ulrich, Qumran Cave 4, vol. XII: 1–2 Samuel, DJD XVII (Oxford: Clarendon, 2005), 221–224.

OPTIMAL TRANSLATION IN LXX & tg. jon. of 1 samuel 1:1–5

107

3.2 The Constraint System “Change Linguistic System” vs. “Transliterate Proper Nouns” 3.2.1 Our first constraint is a restatement of Chesterman’s dictum that translators first and foremost “Change something.”17 Chesterman understands this dictum as being applied first “in an obvious sense”—i.e., vacuously—to the fact that translation is typically understood as the replacement of one text with a corresponding text in another language. To render the “Change something” constraint less vacuously (while still retaining the global implications of the principle), we must reformulate the principle as (1): (1) Change Linguistic System (siglum: ChLingSys) The original message of the source text must be transferred from one linguistic system to another. Change Linguistic System is avoided only in a few circumstances. First and foremost among these circumstances is a translator’s decision to transliterate a name rather than translating its semantic value.18 For example, the Septuagintal and Targumic translators apparently had the option to transliterate the Hebrew personal name ‫( אלקנה‬ʾelqānā; literally, “God has created” or “God has acquired”) or to translate it into Greek, perhaps something like θεός ἐκτήσατο. As the appearance of the transliterated name in v. 1 shows, the Greek translator has chosen to replace the name with its phonological counterpart Ελκανα rather than attempt a componential analysis of its semantics (v. 1).19 The possibility of transliteration, even in cases where a geographic or personal name could be translated,20 suggests that the Septuagintal translator experienced a conflict between Change Linguistic System and another

17  Chesterman, Memes of Translation, 92. 18  We ignore here the problems posed by various intermediate strategies. For example, in translating many Hebrew names, Jerome Latinized them, accommodating the names to the phonotactics of his Latin Target language (e.g., Heb. ‫ ~ ׁשמואל‬Vulg. Samuhel). Optimality Theory does permit constraints with graded degrees of violations (e.g., Prince and Smolensky, Optimality Theory, 86–88, 97), but this theoretical construct need not be elaborated here. 19  Cf. Μααναιν (lxxOG Josh 13:26); Μαναεμ (lxxOG 2 Sam 2:8); etc.; see Jeremy M. Hutton, review of Ancient Place Names in the Holy Land, by Yoel Elitzur, Maarav 14 (2007): esp. 84–96. For wider discussion of the problem, see Jože Krašovec, Transformation of Biblical Proper Names (LHBOTS 418; London: T&T Clark, 2010). 20  Pietersma aptly describes the problem as one in which some names or words “had semantic transparency in the source language [Hebrew],” but lost that transparency in their phonological adoption into the new linguistic system (Question of Methodology, 213).

108

Hutton

constraint, which demanded that translators avoid simple semantic replacement of the name: (2) Transliterate Proper Nouns (siglum: TrPropNs) Whenever a proper noun is recognized, replace it with a corresponding phonological string that is similar, if not identical, to the replaced string. This replacement should adhere to the phonotactic repertoire of the target language as much as possible. In the Septuagint, wherein names are predominantly transliterated, Transliterate Proper Nouns ranks higher than (that is, in the parlance of Optimality Theory, it dominates) Change Linguistic System. That the same holds true for the Targum (which reads ‫[ אלקנה‬ʾalqānā]) is not necessarily demonstrable from the Targumic text. In the case of Heb. ʾelqānā ~ Aram. ʾalqānā, the similarity in phonological form may be due to the usage of a cognate translation. The verbal root √‫ קנה‬occurs in both the Jewish Babylonian [JBA] and Jewish Palestinian [JPA] dialects of Aramaic.21 Similarly, JPA evidences the simple noun ‫ ֵאל‬, mitigating the usefulness of comparison.22 The inclination of the Targumic translator to preserve the phonological form over the translated form might be deduced from the nearly identical transliteration of the Hebrew names ‫(‏ירחם‬yǝrōḥām) ~ ‫(‏ירוחם‬yǝrôḥām), ‫( אליהוא‬ʾĕlîhû) ~ ‫( אליהוא‬ʾəlîhû), ‫( תחו‬tōḥû) ~ ‫(‏תחו‬tōḥû), and ‫( צוף‬ṣûp) ~ ‫( צוף‬ṣûp), which appear in the lineage of Elqanah. Most obviously, this trend toward transliteration of proper names can be seen in the orthographic and phonological rendering of the divine epithet ‫[( יי ‏צבאות‬ʾădōnay] ṣǝbāʾōt), whose /-ōt/ suffix demonstrates Hebrew, not Aramaic, phonology (v. 3). Thus, each translator seems to have chosen to satisfy Transliterate Proper Nouns while violating Change Linguistic System because violation of the latter constraint could be undertaken with fewer negative repercussions than could violation of the former. We represent this hierarchy of domination with the double-arrow (≫) as: (3) TrPropNs ≫ ChLingSys

21  Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods (Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar Ilan University Press, 2002), 1027a–1028a, s.v. qny (Pe.); idem, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (2nd ed.; Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar Ilan University Press, 2002), 497a–b. 22  Ibid., 58.

OPTIMAL TRANSLATION IN LXX & tg. jon. of 1 samuel 1:1–5

109

This is not to say, however, that the Targumic translator always rendered proper nouns with phonological correspondents. In two cases from our small sample, the Hebrew name was effectively translated. Elqanah’s city is called ‫( הרמתים‬hā-rāmātayim) in the Hebrew text, which gives it as an articulated form (meaning “[place of] the height”). The Targum renders with a similarly articulated common noun, ‫( רמתא‬rāmǝtā[ʾ]), “the height.” This is not an inversion of the two constraints Transliterate Proper Nouns and Change Linguistic System, however: The Targumic translator simply did not analyze the Hebrew name as a proper noun, but rather understood it to be a common noun instead.23 The same analysis must apply to the Targumist’s replacement of Hebrew ‫( צופים‬vocalized, probably mistakenly, as ṣôpîm, “the look-outs, sentries”)24 which the Targumist rendered as ‫( תלמידי ‏נבייא‬talmîdê nǝbīyayyā[ʾ]), “the students of the prophets.” We will not deal with this replacement further; for now, it is enough to show that the Targumist adhered to the constraint hierarchy TrPropNs ≫ ChLingSys, even though some Hebrew proper nouns may have been analyzed as common nouns. This is a difference in construal of the source text, not a fluctuation of the constraint hierarchy. The Septuagintal translator was also not immune from construal error or misanalysis, as is shown by the replacement of Hebrew ‫( בן ‏ צוף אפרתי‬ben-ṣûp ʾeprātî), “… the son of Ṣûph, an Ephraimite,” with ἐν Νασιβ Εφραιμ, “in Nasib [of?] Ephraim.” It is clear here that something has happened in the transmission of this variant. At least two scenarios are possible: (1) A Hebrew scribe mistakenly analyzed the graphic string ‫ בן צוף‬as a single word (likely before medial and final nun and pe had become differentiated, thus ‫)בנצופ‬. This was accompanied by a corresponding alternation between the graphically similar 23  Although the -áyim ending is now known to be a locative ending inherited from earlier stages of Northwest Semitic (Hutton, Review of Yoel Elitzur, Ancient Place Names, 85), it was frequently mistaken for the dual ending in antiquity (and, unfortunately, in the modern day as well; cf. P. Kyle McCarter, I Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 8 [New York: Doubleday, 1980], 58: “the Double Height”). This confusion introduces an additional problem into this discussion, since one would expect the Targumist to render a Hebrew dual with the Aramaic dual. But the feminine dual is not preserved in Biblical Aramaic, and the emphatic dual of masculine nouns had fallen together with the plural in emphatic forms. It would thus seem that the translator may have been limited by the productive possibilities of Aramaic grammar, and was thus forced to accommodate the number of the noun to the exigencies of Aramaic grammar. This conflict of constraints would be represented as *EmphDual (i.e., No Emphatic Dual, a grammatical rule operative in the Aramaic dialect of the translator) ≫ Ident:morph (i.e., Morphological Identity, the basic principle underlying isomorphic, i.e., “morpheme-for-morpheme” translation; see below). 24  See McCarter, I Samuel, 51. We will see below that even though the Hebrew text is most likely corrupt here, the translations have both produced grammatical, sensible translations.

110

Hutton

yod and waw at the same time or at a later stage, possibly under pressure from elsewhere in the book of Samuel: the construct form of the common noun ‫נציב‬ (nǝṣîb) “garrison” appears three more times in 1 Sam (10:5 [pl.]; 13:3; 13:4; also 1 Kgs 4:19 [= lxx 4:18]). In this case, the translator received a Hebrew Vorlage that was already corrupt. (2) Alternatively, the translator personally misanalyzed the Hebrew as a prepositional ‫ ב‬attached to the string ‫נצופ‬. Not recognizing any Hebrew root √‫( נצף‬for comparison, none is listed in BDB or HALOT), the translator understood this to be a place name (cf. ‫ ~ נציב‬Νασ[ε]ιβ in Josh 15:43 and lxx 3 Kgdms 16:28ε).25 To complete this pair-wise analysis of two high-level constraints, we can conclude that both the Targumist and the Septuagint translator adhered to the constraint hierarchy TrPropNs ≫ ChLingSys, even though each seems at times to have analyzed items of the Hebrew text differently. Constraints Driving Isomorphism 3.2.2 The next analysis of constraint interactions that we can make is to be traced in those constraints that contribute to the larger phenomenon known as isomorphism.26 In common parlance, this is the word-for-word or even morpheme-for-morpheme style of translation found throughout most books of the Septuagint, and which comprises the bulk of Targumic translation style.27 3.2.2.1 Morphosemantic Correspondence The Morphosemantic Identity28 constraint recognizes that translational adequacy depends in part upon the close correspondence of the translation’s morphosemantic value to that of its source. 25  I thank Amanda Morrow for drawing my attention to the Joshua passage. 26  Isomorphism is introduced, e.g., in Boyd-Taylor, Reading between the Lines, 80 and passim. He glosses it as “the tendency of a translation to mirror the formal features of its source” (80 n. 66). 27  E.g., Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2002). 28  I dentity (Ident) is perhaps not the most appropriate word here: as linguists have recognized, two different languages may both contain lexemes denoting similar semantic fields, but rarely, if ever, are those semantic fields coterminous with one another, nor do they usually evoke exactly the same constellation of culturally-specific associations. Nonetheless, we use “Identity” to indicate rough correspondence as it would have been understood by ancient translators (whatever that may have been, exactly) because of its ensconced position in Optimality Theory as a whole. See, e.g., René Kager, Optimality Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999) 14–17; see also Hutton, “Optimality in the ‘Grammars’ of Ancient Translations,” 23, where the constraint (IO-)Ident:sem was first proposed.

OPTIMAL TRANSLATION IN LXX & tg. jon. of 1 samuel 1:1–5

111

(4) Morphosemantic Identity (siglum: Ident:morphsem)29 The semantic value of each morphological unit of the Source Text (M1) must be reproduced in the semantic value of the corresponding morpheme in the Target Text (M2). We could probably break this constraint into two separate constraints. One, Ident:morph, would govern the use of historically correspondent morphemes. (For example, although the Hebrew qātal and Aramaic qǝtal are not, phonologically and morphologically speaking, identical, their shared historical origins would qualify them as corresponding morphologically).30 (4a) Morphological Identity (siglum: Ident:morph) Each morphological unit of the Source Text (M1) must be reproduced by a corresponding morpheme in the Target Text (M2). The other, Ident:sem, would govern the (approximation of) semantic correspondence: (4b) Semantic Identity (siglum: Ident:sem) Each semantic value of the Source Text (|M|1) must be reproduced by a corresponding semantic value in the Target Text (|M|2). In Aramaic translation, the high-ranking Morphological Identity is dominated by the even higher-ranking Semantic Identity, since the latter is (generally speaking) more important than shared surface-level morphological correspondence. As one example of this principle, the Hebrew way-yiqtōl, formally derived from the conjunction + prefix-form, bears a high degree of morphological correspondence, at least at the surface level, with the Aramaic wǝ-yiqtōl (conjunction + prefix-form). Their meanings diverge greatly, however, in terms of aspect and tense. This is, of course, due to the effects of historical developments in Hebrew that brought the Northwest Semitic *yaqtul into rough phonological correspondence with the underlying *yaqtulu. The former verbal morpheme had been lost entirely in Aramaic (as it was eventually by Hebrew), meaning that their morphology is only partly correspondent anyway. 29  In the original publication of these ideas, I gave this constraint’s siglum as IO-Ident:sem, which stands for Input-Output Identity of semantics; that locution is abbreviated here as Semantic Identity (see below). 30  This vicissitude was pointed out to me by a reviewer of the original publication (Hutton, “Optimality in the ‘Grammars’ of Ancient Translations”) and bears repeating here.

112

Hutton

But notice: the Semantic Identity constraint wins out here: in instances of the Hebrew way-yiqtōl denoting the narrative preterit, the Aramaic translator generally used the completely unrelated conjunction + suffix-form, because the semantic value corresponds more closely: (5) Aramaic translation, pairwise comparison: Ident:sem ≫ Ident:morph

Instances can be found throughout Targum Jonathan, but our short text (vv. 1–5) contains only two instances of Hebrew way-yǝhî being rendered with Aramaic wa-hǝwā in vv. 1 and 4 and with wa-hǝwû in v. 2. (The latter instance demonstrates that some contextual considerations dominate Morphosemantic Identity; these considerations will be discussed further below—see example [25]). In comparison, Greek translation shares the same hierarchy between these two constraints: Semantic Identity necessarily dominates Morphological Identity. But because Greek and Hebrew morphologies do not share a common morphological history or synchronic system, the constraint Morphological Identity is ranked significantly lower in the hierarchy—so low, in fact, that it figures much less prominently in the hierarchy. We may posit that a number of other constraints intervene in the hierarchy: (6) Greek translation, pairwise comparison: Ident:sem ≫ C1 ≫ … ≫ Cn ≫ Ident:morph

3.2.2.2 Linear Fidelity Although we have just analyzed the pair of constraints that compels “adequacy” in translation, we have not yet isolated all the constraints underlying isomorphism. We need to propose a few more in order to handle the quantity and linear order of the morphemes, lexemes, etc. In Optimality Theory, Linearity constraints compel the linear ordering of the output (or Target Text) to match that of the Source Text: (7) Morphological Linearity (siglum: Linear:morph) The order of morphemes in the Target Text is consistent with the order of morphemes in the Source Text.31

31  See Kager, Optimality Theory, 251. In Boyd-Taylor’s Reading between the Lines, this concept is described as “serial fidelity” (e.g., 73).

OPTIMAL TRANSLATION IN LXX & tg. jon. of 1 samuel 1:1–5

113

In the Targum, the Morphological Linearity ranks highly; where Targum Jonathan is not expansionistic, it tends to follow the Hebrew order of words closely. However, the language-specific rules of Aramaic demand that the definite article appear postpositively: (8) Postpositive Definite Article (siglum: PP-DefArt) The definite article always follows its head. (Aramaic-specific) This very specific constraint is inviolable—or at least nearly so—because of the grammatical structure of Aramaic. It therefore necessarily ranks above the more general constraint Morphological Linearity: (9) PP-DefArt ≫ Linear:morph

3.2.2.3 Quantitative Fidelity Along with correspondence in the order of morphemes, we frequently see— especially in isomorphic texts—attempts to retain a correspondence in the number of morphemes. Maximality constraints prohibit the loss of elements: (10) Morphological Maximality (siglum: Max:morph) For each morpheme of the Source Text (M1) there must be a morpheme in the Target Text (M2).32 The Morphological Maximality constraint recognizes that one of the most common tactics in translational behavior is to render each sourcelanguage morpheme with a corresponding target language lexeme or morpheme. Differently stated, translators working in a strictly morpheme-bymorpheme manner normally will not drop morphemes. (Notice that this is not the same constraint as Morphological Identity, since we are dealing with quantity here rather than quality). Conversely, Dependency constraints prohibit the addition of elements: (11) Morphological Dependency (siglum: Dep:morph) For each morpheme of the Target Text (M2) there must be a morpheme in the Source Text (M1).

32  See the locution of Kager, Optimality Theory, 205: “Every element of S1 has a correspondent in S2.”

114

Hutton

In other words, any morpheme in the target text must have its warrant in the presence of a corresponding morpheme in the source text. That is to say, translators working in a strictly morpheme-by-morpheme manner normally will not add morphemes, either. Now, in all but the most “literal,” or perhaps better, isomorphic, translations the translator adds and subtracts occasionally at the lexical level. This is a signal that our Maximality and Dependency constraints are not ranked at the highest end of the hierarchy, but rank rather somewhere further down the spectrum. We thus need to adduce the relative ordering of these and other constraints. Moreover, scholars who talk about the “quantitative fidelity” or “quantitative equivalence” of the translator typically have only the first of these constraints, Morphological Maximality, in mind, since it prohibits subtracting morphemes.33 Take for example occurrences of the Hebrew definite direct object marker (DDOM) ‫את‬, which some scholars analyze as being “replaced” by the Greek article in order to maintain rigid quantitative fidelity in Aquila.34 A convenient example is found in 3 Reigns 21:15 (= mt 1 Kgs 20:15): (12) mt ‫‏את נערי ׂשרי המדינות‬ OG τὰ παιδάρια τῶν ἀρχόντων τῶν χωρῶν AQ τοὺς παῖδας ἀρχόντων τῶν ἐπιαρχίων Boyd-Taylor observes, “Since ‫ נער‬is in a bound construction and lacking an article, AQ supplies a definite article preceding παῖς as a replacement for ‫ את‬without redundancy.”35 This tactic stands in contrast to the use of ‫ את‬immediately before articulated nouns, where AQ adds σύν in order to adhere very closely to the quantity of mt. Compare 3 Reigns 21:12 (= mt 1 Kgs 20:12): (13) ‫‏‬m t ‫את הדבר‬ OG τὸν λόγον AQ σὺν τὸ ῥῆμα 33  For example, Boyd-Taylor (Reading between the Lines, 91–93, summarizing Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, “To the Reader of NETS,” in A New English Translation of the Septuagint and Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under that Title: The Psalms, ed. Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright [New York: Oxford University Press, 2000], xiii–xx) glosses quantitative equivalence as “an approach to translation which mandates the replacement of each item in the parent text.” That is, the term is taken to involve Morphological Maximality, but not necessarily Morphological Dependency, which prohibits further additions. 34  E.g., Boyd-Taylor, Reading between the Lines, 146, 164. 35  Ibid., 164.

OPTIMAL TRANSLATION IN LXX & tg. jon. of 1 samuel 1:1–5

115

Boyd-Taylor summarizes: “When Hebrew ‫ את‬marks the accusative, it is rendered by the Greek definite article. As Greek lacks a marker of the accusative, this solution to the problem of translating the source item maintains quantitative fidelity with minimal violence to the linguistic norms of the target language. But where ‫ את‬occurs together with an article, such a solution is not possible and in these cases σύν is supplied.”36 A slightly different account proves to be the case in the og (consult the data above, corroborated by the data given below from just outside of our small sample text [1 Sam 1:16, 20]). Where the DDOM ‫ את‬appears on an unarticulated noun in mt, the Greek definite article fills the quantitative slot of ‫ את‬in OG: (14) 1 Sam 1:16 1 Sam 1:20

ʾet τὴν ʾet τὸ

ʾămāt- δούλην šǝm- ὄνομα

ǝkā σου ô αὐτου

But where the noun is articulated, often the direct object marker is not matched by a Greek morpheme. Compare, for example: (15) 1 Sam 1:25

ʾet han- ∅ τὸ

naʿar παιδάριον

This means that the translator of og was more tolerant of dropping morphemes (specifically, ‫ )את‬in order to adhere to standard Greek syntax and semantics than was Aquila. The two translators thus adhere to different constraint hierarchies, at least with respect to the translation of Hebrew ‫את‬. Thus, we use here a restricted version of the broad constraint Max:morph, provisionally called Max:morph ‫—את‬i.e., Max:morph as it applies specifically to cases of rendering ‫את‬. The variant styles of Aquila and og given in examples (12)–(15) allow comparison in (16): (16) OG AQ

Ident:sem ≫ Max:morph ‫את‬ Max:morph ‫ ≫ את‬Ident:sem

But we might be able to slightly expand the range of this sub-constraint of Max:morph. Combination with other word classes beyond the DDOM also seems to trigger regular omissions or additions of the article in OG. For 36  Ibid., 146, citing Sidney Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968; repr., Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 81, and literature cited there.

116

Hutton

example, morphemic loss also occurs with the dropping of a proposition in 1 Sam 1:2: (17) 1 Sam 1:2

wǝ- l- ô καὶ ∅ τούτῳ

Here again, og demonstrates a constraint hierarchy in which Ident:sem dominates a sub-constraint of Max:morph. (Appropriately restricted, the constraint would have to be called provisionally Max:morph ‫)ל‬. Translation effects bearing on Greek articular usage do not only involve omission, however. In other verses of our sample text we occasionally find that a Greek article has been added to the linear order, probably in keeping with the linguistic sensibilities of the translator (since no morphological warrant exists in the Hebrew that would justify the inclusion of a definite article). In some cases, the number of morphemes does not change because a preposition has been lost: (18) 1 Sam 1:2

wa- yhî καὶ ἦν

li- τῇ

pǝninnā … Φεννανα …

û- καὶ

lǝ- ḥannā … τῇ Αννα …

The addition of the definite article in the Greek might recommend yet another sub-constraint, Dep:morph ‫ל‬. Before we assent to a never-ending proliferation of such sub-constraints, however, we should observe larger generalizations to be made. Clearly, the problem is not simply one of numerical consistency, as suggested by the outright lack of correspondence of Hebrew ‫ את‬in (15), or of the preposition ‫ ל‬in (17). Nor is it a matter of simple preservation of morphosemantics, since the Hebrew preposition ‫ ל‬has been replaced with a determiner—the definite article—in two instances in (18). But numerical consistency does seem to be involved somehow: after all, the cases in (14) suggest a consistency of semantic value, as do the cases in examples (15), (17)–(18). Can we justify calling this a case of the “relaxing” of “quantitative fidelity,” as does Boyd-Taylor?37 And do we have to propose a host of highly-restrictive sub-constraints such as Max:morph ‫את‬, Max:morph ‫ל‬, and Dep:morph ‫?ל‬ I suggest that the finely-grained analysis provided by using Optimality Theory’s basic repertoire of constraints provides a more satisfactory analysis, 37  E.g., Boyd-Taylor, Reading between the Lines, 214.

OPTIMAL TRANSLATION IN LXX & tg. jon. of 1 samuel 1:1–5

117

and captures at a finer level of detail what is actually going on here, while at the same time capturing broadly applicable norms. Being beholden to several constraints, the Greek translator was forced to negotiate the set of inclinations leading in different directions. It is possible to collapse the effects of our provisional sub-constraints hypothesized above into a single Greek-specific constraint, Greek Articular Usage: (19) Greek Articular Usage (siglum: GkArt) Use the definite article in accordance with compositional Greek idiomatic usage and with the practice established by previous lxx translators, including declining indeclinable nouns such as names and demonstrating dative movement towards a goal. (Greek-specific)38 This constraint recommends the use of the Greek article when possible (before definite nouns, including personal names when not standing in a subject (i.e., nominative) position.39 It seems to have operated at a high level in the constraint hierarchy of the og translator, dominating other more general (and universal) translational constraints such as Max:morph and Dep:morph. The Greek Articular Usage constraint forces a closer grammaticalsemantic analysis of the Hebrew and Greek language systems: differences in the two systems force a redistribution of definiteness across morphemes. Specifically, the use of the Greek article has the effect of shifting case from where it resides in the Hebrew—namely, in either the preposition (in prepositional phrases) or in the nomen rectum in construct phrases. Accordingly, if we consider our Maximality and Dependency constraints to operate not at the lexical (surface) level of the morphemic particle, but rather at the level of morphemic semantics, then everything becomes clear. The Hebrew particle ‫ את‬carries both case and definiteness. Therefore, the article carries definiteness redundantly. Interlinear morphemic notation can help elucidate the 38  We should ignore v. 2, where Hebrew ‫“ ‏ׁשם אחת‬the name of one [of Elqanah’s wives]” contains an indefinite numerical value, but the Greek contains the definite ὄνομα τῇ μιᾷ “the name of the one.” We should probably view this instance as a textual matter, however. In Hebrew environments where two people (or items) are being distinguished on the basis of names, the definite form ‫ …‏ׁשם‏הׁשני …‏ׁשם האחד‬is used ubiquitously (‫‏ׁשם האחד‬ or ‫ׁשם האחת‬: Gen 2:11; 4:19; 10:25; Exod 1:15; 18:3, 4; 11:26; 1 Sam 14:4; 2 Sam 4:2; Job 42:14; Ruth 1:4; 1 Chr 1:19). Not surprisingly, we find ‫“‏ׁשם הׁשנית‬the name of the second” later in the same verse. Either the MT somehow lost its article or, if the MT’s reading is original— and an otherwise unpreserved idiom—the Vorlage of the lxx assimilated this reading to all the others in the Hebrew corpus. 39  The only case in vv. 1–5 in which a name is not declined through use of a definite article is when it stands in subject position (i.e., καὶ ἔθυσεν Ελκανα; v. 4).

118

Hutton

shifts of semantic value in our examples (14–15, 17–18), which I reproduce here as (20a–d): (20a) v. 16 v. 20

ʾet def.acc τὴν def.f.sg.acc ʾet def.acc τὸ def.n.sg.acc

ʾămāt- ǝkā servant-f.sg(def>)40 poss.pro.2.m.sg δούλην σου servant-f.sg.acc poss.pro.2.sg šǝm- ô name-m.sg(def>) poss.pro.3.m.sg ὄνομα αὐτου name-n.sg.acc poss.pro.3.m.sg

(20b) v. 25 ʾet han- naʿar def.acc lad-m.sg ∅ τὸ παιδάριον def.n.sg.acc child-n.sg.acc (20c) v. 2

wǝ- l- ô conj dat pro.3.m.sg καὶ ∅ τούτῳ conj dat.dem.pro.3.m.sg

(20d) v. 2

wa- yhî conj be-pst.3.m.sg καὶ ἦν conj be-pst.3.sg û- conj καὶ conj

li- pǝninnā dat PN(def).f.sg τῇ Φεννανα def.f.sg.dat PN.f.sg lǝ- ḥannā dat PN(def).f.sg τῇ Αννα def.f.sg.dat PN.f.sg

In every case, the interlinear morphemic notation shows that neither Maximality nor Dependence has been violated in significant ways, and where they have experienced violation, it has been either (a) through the loss 40  I use the notation “(def>)” here to show that the noun derives its grammatical definiteness from the following possessive suffix. Underlined interlinear morphemic notation is redundant.

OPTIMAL TRANSLATION IN LXX & tg. jon. of 1 samuel 1:1–5

119

of a datum that cannot be rendered in Greek, such as the loss of masculine specification in the transition from ‫ך‬- (-ǝkā) to σου in (20a); or (b) through the addition of a datum that is redundant, but necessary because of the linguistic structure of Greek. Our identity constraint also has been only minimally violated in a few places where the grammatical gender of the Greek replacement does not match that of the Hebrew original (see, for example, the switch from masculine gender to neuter in the replacement of ‫ ׁשם‬with ὄνομα). In all these cases, the constraints are subordinate to our high-ranked linguistic constraint, Change Linguistic System, and follow from it. Linearity, too, remains relatively unviolated, and anywhere it is violated is also occasioned for the most part by Change Linguistic System. The replacement of ‫ לו‬with τούτῳ in (20c) may be subordinate to a stylistic, rather than linguistic constraint. But, as descriptivists are well aware, linguistic and stylistic systems are interrelated. We can thus provide the hierarchy—the relative ordering—of pertinent constraints that we have discussed: (21)  C hLingSys (of which GkArt is a sub-constraint and from which it follows) ≫ Max:morph, Dep:morph, Linear:morph

A similarly high ranking of ChLingSys and GkArt is evident in the use of the article to show dative movement towards, even when the Hebrew did not warrant the addition of a morphemic article. We take the report of Peninnah’s name in v. 2 as an example: (22) wǝ- šēm haš- conj name-m.sg(def>) def καὶ ὄνομα conj name-n.sg

šēnît pǝninnā second-f.sg.(gen) PN

τῇ δευτέρα def.f.sg.dat second-f.sg.dat

Φεννανα PN

The use of the definite article τῇ here is warranted by the Hebrew, which shows articulation on ‫ׁשנית‬. But the syntactic relationship in each of the two languages is different. Hebrew’s genitive relationship, indicated by the use of the construct state (i.e., by a linear arrangement), has been replaced in the Greek text by the dative article. This slight reconfiguration is subservient to Greek usage, where naming often takes the dative of possession in 1–2 Samuel (cf. 1 Sam 1:1;

120

Hutton

9:1, 2; 14:4 [2×], 49 [2×], 50 [2×]; etc.),41 although sometimes the genitive is used in the lxx (e.g., 1 Sam 1:20; 7:12; 8:2 [2×]; 12:22; 14:49). Further study would be necessary to trace any patterns in this set of replacements. 3.2.2.4 Summary To summarize this section briefly, we have isolated a group of universal constraints: Morphosemantic Identity (composed of its sub-constraints morphological Identity and semantic Identity), Morphological Linearity, Morphological Maximality, and Morphological Dependency. We have also identified a Greek-specific constraint, Greek Articular Usage, which proceeds from the localization of the universal Change Linguistic System as it is tailored to the specific language of translation. This group of constraints might be called a “suite” (as in the “Microsoft Office suite” of applications) of constraints that compels isomorphism. This group of constraints works together to govern the contours of the particular type of isomorphism demonstrated by og, and small adjustments in the hierarchy can produce different surface-level realizations, as in the differences between og and AQ abstracted in (16). 3.3 The Tableau System 3.3.1 “Change Linguistic System” vs. “Transliterate Proper Nouns” In the preceding discussion, we have intentionally adopted a relatively simple pairwise ranking of constraints. As the computations involved in ranking constraints become more complex, however, it is increasingly necessary to manage sets of constraints, not all of which interact with one another in obvious ways. Optimality Theory has developed a formal mechanism for tracking these non-binary interactions and establishing multiple-term hierarchies. Although a thorough description cannot be given here, a brief introduction to the Optimality Theoretic tableau is necessary. In this short discussion, we will consider the interactions of constraints in both the Greek and Aramaic of 1 Sam 1:2. Our input (i.e., the source text) is the clausal verse fragment, v. 2bα, the same textual segment that was discussed above in (18):

41  Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar, rev. ed., ed. Gordon M. Messing (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984), 341, § 1478.

121

OPTIMAL TRANSLATION IN LXX & tg. jon. of 1 samuel 1:1–5

(23) mt Tg. Jon. OG

‫‏וַ יְ ִהי ‏ ִל ְפנִ ּנָ ה יְ ָל ִדים‬ ‫וַ ְהוֹו ִלפנִ נָ ה ְבנִ ין‬

καὶ ἦν τῇ Φεννανα παιδία

We focus on the predicate ‫ויהי לפננה‬, comprising verb + prepositional phrase and reproduced in og as καὶ ἦν τῇ Φεννανα. We build our tableau as in Tableau 1 (24), with our input in the top left panel. The constraints are listed across the top. (We give here the actual constraint order, but normally this is a process that must be deduced; the process as presented here is heavily schematized and we deal only with the constraints relative to the local problem at hand). Optimality Theorists process the tableau from left-to-right, in an order of descending constraint hierarchy. Along the left side are realistic, plausible translation possibilities, including here the actual output, καὶ ἦν τῇ Φεννανα, as well as two competitors, both of which use a preposition. (The preposition πρός has been selected to mimic the lexical category of Hebrew ‫ל‬, even though the Greek of the Septuagint far more commonly uses the dative. The reader should remember that we are analyzing here the constraints that the translator is following, not proposing viable alternatives—in fact, this analysis is straightforward because there aren’t viable alternatives.) (24) Tableau 1: og Rendering of 1 Sam 1:2bα ‫‏וַ יְ ִהי ִל ְפנִ ּנָ ה‬

GkArt

Dep:morph

☞ (a) καὶ ἦν τῇ Φ.

(b) καὶ ἦν πρὸς Φ.



(c) καὶ ἦν πρὸς τὴν Φ.

Max:morph *

*!

* *!

Being subject to several constraints, the Greek translator was forced to negotiate a set of inclinations leading in different directions. Foremost among the constraints was the Greek-specific Greek Articular Usage, as described above. Candidate (b), which did not use the article in the way practiced by the Greek translators of the Septuagint, violates this constraint. Because the constraint is ranked so highly in the hierarchy, the violation is fatal, meaning the candidate is no longer in consideration beyond this constraint. Accordingly, the asterisk marking violation is marked with an exclamation point, and the candidate’s remaining panels are shaded. Candidate (c) violates the Morphological Dependency constraint, so it too is eliminated from consideration. Finally, although our candidate (a) violates the Morphological Maximality constraint, it outlasts its competitors,

122

Hutton

presenting the optimal—or most harmonious—output. That is, it satisfies the constraint hierarchy optimally among the possible replacements, even though it does not satisfy all the constraints equally well. In the same clause, the Targum demonstrates a noticeable shift from the Hebrew locution. Whereas the Masoretic Text inflects the verb ‫ וַ יְ ִהי‬in the 3.m.sg. (with the subject presumably interpreted as a dummy-pronoun: literally, “There was to Peninnah children”), the Targumist inflected the verb as a 3.m.pl., reinterpreting Peninnah’s children as the pertinent subject: ‫‏וַ ְהוֹו ‏‏ ִלפנִ נָ ה‬ ‫“( ‏ ְבנִ ין‬And sons were to Peninnah”). This shift indicates a constraint that is ranked higher than Morphological Correspondence: for now we can call it Contextual Subject-Verb Matching: (25) Contextual Subject-Verb Matching (siglum: ContextS-V) Context determines proper subject-verb agreement. Now let’s consult Tableau 2 (26) to see how these constraints interact: (26) Tableau 2: Tg. Jon. Rendering of 1 Sam 1:2bα ‫‏וַ יְ ִהי ִלפנִ נָה‬

ContextS-V

Ident:sem

☞ (a) ‫‏וַ ְהוֹו ִ‏‏לפנִ נָ ה‬

** (num, form)

(b) ‫‏‏לפנִ נָ ה‬ ִ ‫‏וַ ֲהוָ ה‬

*!

(c) ‫יהי ִלפנִ נָ ה‬ ֵ ִ‫ו‬

*!

(d) ‫וִ יהן ִלפנִ נָ ה‬

Ident:morph * (form)

* (tense) *! (tense)

* (num)

Candidates (b) and (c), both of which retain a singular subject, must be eliminated by the highly-ranked candidate Contextual Subject-Verb Matching. Candidate (d) corrects to the plural, along with our preferential candidate (a). But it also changes tense, along with candidate (c), in order to preserve the historical morphology corresponding to the Hebrew form’s morphology. Thus, although it satisfies the Morphological Identity constraint with respect to the verbal morphology, that constraint must be outranked by the Semantic Identity constraint. Thus, all reasonable competitors of the actual output violated higher-ranked constraints. Our preferred output (‫ )‏וַ ְהוֹו ִלפנִ נָ ה‬can afford to violate Morphological Identity doubly (different morphological form and number), since it satisfies all higher-ranked constraints.

OPTIMAL TRANSLATION IN LXX & tg. jon. of 1 samuel 1:1–5

123

4 Conclusion I conclude with a brief reflection on how our model interacts with one of the prominent paradigms in Septuagintal (and, increasingly, in Targumic) studies: I appreciate the focus on translation norms that proponents of the interlinear paradigm have brought to the study of the Septuagint. The “Optimal Translation” paradigm presented here stands in overwhelming agreement with practitioners such as Pietersma and Boyd-Taylor when they assume that translational norms have acted to constrain and motivate certain translational behaviors with respect to other norms. On this, I think, the two paradigms are in fundamental agreement. Moreover, translation “strategies” clearly cannot be discussed as translator’s methods or motives independent of the norms by which the translators are—or feel themselves to be—constrained. And as we have attempted to demonstrate here, the effects of the constraints felt by the translator are revealed precisely in the textual-linguistic data at our disposal. We have seen in the optimality analysis that patterns emerge from a (relatively) systematic adherence to certain constraints. We are able to reconstruct several of these constraints on the basis of text-linguistic character, linguistic-grammatical knowledge (often external to the text at hand), and cross-translation comparison (what theorists call “translation universals”). Many of the constraints operate in tandem, and often produce larger-scale effects. This was the case, we saw, with Morphosemantic Identity, Morphological Maximality, Morphological Dependency, and Morphological Linearity. We saw above that these constraints, along with language-specific sub-constraints of Change Linguistic System, together motivate the larger effect known as “Quantitative fidelity.” Insofar as we take the more minimalist statements of Pietersma’s recent essays at the end of his book, A Question of Methodology, to comprise the determinative description of the Interlinear Paradigm, I believe we are in essential agreement.42 Both models view the textual-linguistic data of the translations as produced as the primary object of study; both look to the Hebrew original as informing and constraining the readings we attribute to the Greek and Aramaic; both highlight the importance of attending to the lowrank choices made by translators when moving the work from one linguistic system to another. 42  Pietersma, Question of Methodology, 315–378.

124

Hutton

But much of the skepticism directed at the Interlinear Paradigm has focused on Pietersma’s extrapolation of an original educational setting of the Septuagint. Although I am perfectly willing to concede an educational context for the translation of the Targums or for the Septuagint, I wonder whether it is indeed possible to use the textual-linguistic data at our disposal to reconstruct the full commission, or “translator’s brief” underlying the translation.43 I continue to suspect, along with my colleague Ronald Troxel, that “the translators seem to have been driven more ‘by intuition and spontaneity.’ Accordingly, what is often called ‘translation technique’ merely describes the effects of the translator’s work rather than ‘the system used by the translator.’”44 (Troxel here was quoting from Anneli Aejmelaeus’s 1991 article, “Translation Technique and the Intention of the Translator.”45 In the same essay, Aejmelaeus refers to Barr’s rejection of the idea that the Septuagint translator was following a deliberate “policy,” and was instead practicing “an easy technique.”)46 I would clarify here that I would not concede positing a “flight-of-fancy” type of spontaneity to the translator. Rather, the translator was free to act so as to satisfy as many highly ranked constraints as possible, and to balance that adherence with the often necessary violation of lower-ranked constraints. An Optimal Translation system, then, proceeds in the opposite direction of the Interlinear Paradigm. Boyd-Taylor states: “The distinctive prose style of the Greek translation arises from a constitutive norm of isomorphism. In fact the isomorphism of the text is such that it takes on a systemic quality and can be characterized by rules. These rules were not followed by the translator. Rather, they are epiphenomena arising from the interlinear character of the text.”47 Accordingly, the interlinear context demands the ideal of isomorphism, which in turn fuels the surface-level phenomena that manifest as “rules.” I would order the components of the argument differently: translators know the “rules” (norms or 43  For the translator’s “commission” or “brief,” see, e.g., Vermeer, “Skopos and Commission in Translation Theory”; Nord, Translating as a Purposeful Activity; and, for a helpful overview, Anthony Pym, Exploring Translation Theories (New York: Routledge, 2010), 43–63. 44  Ronald L. Troxel, LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation: The Strategies of the Translator of the Septuagint of Isaiah, JSJSup 124 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 73. 45  Anneli Aejmelaeus, “Translation Technique and the Intention of the Translator,” in VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, ed. Claude E. Cox (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 23–36, here 25 and 27; republished in idem, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators, 59–69, here 60 and 63. 46  Aejmelaeus, “Translation Technique,” 61 (book version), citing James Barr, The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations, MSU 15 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 26 and 50 (both quotations appear on page 26, but the gist is recapitulated on page 50). 47   Boyd-Taylor, Reading between the Lines, 378.

OPTIMAL TRANSLATION IN LXX & tg. jon. of 1 samuel 1:1–5

125

constraints) to which they are subject and under which they stand to be “sanctioned,” in Toury’s terminology, if acting in violation of those rules. In part, these constraints are socially imposed, arising from the conventions of the target culture’s literary “polysystem” or from universals associated with translation. In part, these constraints are imposed by the target language’s specific grammatical and lexical character. And in part, these constraints are derived from the translation “brief”—the commission under which the translator views him- or herself to be working. The origin of some of these constraints may be obvious. Consider again the fact that Greek δέ always appears in the second syntactic slot, even when rendering the Hebrew disjunctive ‫ו‬, which always stands clause-initially: this is clearly a language-specific constraint, as may be corroborated by inspection of Greek compositional literature. But the motivation behind other constraints may not be so clear. Is the selection of a small segment size—usually the lexeme or even the morpheme—part of the translator’s brief? Or is it a nearly universal constraint imposed by the literary “polysystem”? Historical investigation of ancient Near Eastern bilingual texts would suggest that “translation” was ubiquitously performed in an isomorphic style, as evidenced by a few 9th–8th century Akkadian–Aramaic bilinguals (especially the Fekheriyeh inscription [KAI § 309]).48 This generalization may be supported by the numerous Sumerian–Akkadian word- and phrase-lists in existence—alluded to obliquely by James Barr’s reference to “primitive wordlists.”49 Although further research may prove otherwise, it is my impression that only during the transition from the Hellenistic period to the Roman period did varieties of translation appear in which the clause—and not simply the word—became a common unit of segmentation. (This inference is drawn particularly in light of the Latin–Palmyrene Aramaic bilinguals from around the Roman Empire.)50 This near ubiquity of isomorphic translation suggests that we may be dealing here with a conglomeration of constraints deriving from the linguistic philosophy of the wider ancient Near East: if lexical meaning was 48   See also the Arslan Tash Trilingual and the Incirli Trilingual. I thank Professor K. Lawson Younger, who kindly pointed these instances out to me and provided advanced views of the now-appeared Context of Scripture, vol. 4 (Leiden: Brill, 2016) entry for the Arslan Tash trilingual, including prior bibliography (personal communication). 49  Barr, Typology of Literalism, 50. 50   See, e.g., Jeremy M. Hutton and Catherine E. Bonesho, “Interpreting Translation Techniques and Material Presentation in Bilingual Texts: Initial Methodological Reflections,” in Epigraphy, Philology, and the Hebrew Bible: Methodological Perspectives on Philological and Comparative Study of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of Jo Ann Hackett, ed. Jeremy M. Hutton and Aaron D. Rubin; SBL ANEM 12 (Atlanta: SBL, 2015), 253–292.

126

Hutton

perceived to be located in the word, then Barr’s suggestion that segmentation occurred primarily at the lexical and morphemic levels may not be far off the mark. In contrast to Boyd-Taylor, I would suggest that “interlinearity” as a paradigm was the epiphenomenon, which resulted from the peculiar hierarchies of constraints adopted by the translators of the ancient world. Each of these hierarchies privileged the linguistic philosophy perceiving lexical meaning to exist at the word level and believing morphemic linearity to be the simplest style of organization. In short, there was no overarching foundational premise on which “translational technique” was based; there were only constraints. Translators sought to satisfy those constraints optimally, with interlinearity as a phenomenon emerging from translators’ efforts over swaths of texts. The “Optimal Translation” model provides both theoretical motivation for this argument and a quantifiable system of discovery procedures that may assist the researcher in evaluating data. Bibliography Aejmelaeus, Anneli, “Translation Technique and the Intention of the Translator,” in VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, ed. Claude E. Cox (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 23–36; republished in On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays, rev. ed.; CBET 50 (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 59–69. Aejmelaeus, Anneli, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays, rev. ed.; CBET 50 (Leuven: Peeters, 2007). Barr, James, The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations, MSU 15 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979). Boyd-Taylor, Cameron, Reading between the Lines: The Interlinear Paradigm for Septuagint Studies, BTS 8 (Leuven: Peeters, 2011). Breed, Brennan W., Nomadic Text (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2014). Chesterman, Andrew, Memes of Translation, Benjamins Translation Library 22 (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1997; repr., 2000). Cross, Frank Moore, Donald W. Parry, Richard J. Saley, and Eugene Ulrich, Qumran Cave 4, vol. XII: 1–2 Samuel, DJD XVII (Oxford: Clarendon, 2005). Even-Zohar, Itamar, “The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem,” in The Translation Studies Reader, ed. Lawrence Venuti; 3rd ed. (London: Routledge, 2012), 162–67. Fox, Michael V., Proverbs: An Eclectic Edition with Introduction and Textual Commentary, HBCE 1; (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015).

OPTIMAL TRANSLATION IN LXX & tg. jon. of 1 samuel 1:1–5

127

Holmes, James S., “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies,” in The Translation Studies Reader, ed. Lawrence Venuti; 2nd ed. (Routledge: London and New York, 2000), 172–85. Hutton, Jeremy M., review of Yoel Elitzur, Ancient Place Names in the Holy Land, by Yoel Elitzur, Maarav 14 (2007): 84–96. Hutton, Jeremy M., “Optimality in the ‘Grammars’ of Ancient Translations,” JHebS 15 (2015): art. 7. Hutton, Jeremy M. and Catherine E. Bonesho, “Interpreting Translation Techniques and Material Presentation in Bilingual Texts: Initial Methodological Reflections,” in Epigraphy, Philology, and the Hebrew Bible: Methodological Perspectives on Philological and Comparative Study of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of Jo Ann Hackett, ed. Jeremy M. Hutton and Aaron D. Rubin; SBL ANEM 12 (Atlanta: SBL, 2015), 253–292. Jellicoe, Sidney, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968; repr., Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013). Kager, René, Optimality Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). Krašovec, Jože, Transformation of Biblical Proper Names (LHBOTS 418; London: T&T Clark, 2010). Lefevere, André, “Mother Courage’s Cucumbers: Text, System and Refraction in a Theory of Literature,” in The Translation Studies Reader, ed. Lawrence Venuti; 3rd ed. (London: Routledge, 2012), 203–19. Louw, Theo A.W. van der, Transformations in the Septuagint: Towards an Interaction of Septuagint Studies and Translation Studies, CBET 47 (Leuven: Peeters, 2007). McCarter, P. Kyle, I Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 8 (New York: Doubleday, 1980). Nord, Christiane, Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained (Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 1997). Pietersma, Albert and Benjamin G. Wright, “To the Reader of NETS,” in A New English Translation of the Septuagint and Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under that Title: The Psalms, ed. Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000). Pietersma, Albert, A Question of Methodology, ed. Cameron Boyd-Taylor; BTS 14 (Leuven: Peeters, 2013). Prince, Alan and Paul Smolensky, Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar (Malden: Blackwell, 2004. Pym, Anthony, Exploring Translation Theories (New York: Routledge, 2010). Smyth, Herbert Weir, Greek Grammar, rev. ed., ed. Gordon M. Messing (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984). Sokoloff, Michael, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (2nd ed.; Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar Ilan University Press, 2002).

128

Hutton

Sokoloff, Michael, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods (Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar Ilan University Press, 2002). Staalduine-Sulman, Eveline van, The Targum of Samuel, Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2002). Toury, Gideon, Descriptive Translation Studies—and Beyond, rev. ed.; Benjamins Translation Library 100 (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2012). Tov, Emanuel, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012). Troxel, Ronald L., LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation: The Strategies of the Translator of the Septuagint of Isaiah, JSJSup 124 (Leiden: Brill, 2008). Vermeer, Hans J., “Skopos and Commission in Translation Theory,” in The Translation Studies Reader, ed. Lawrence Venuti; 3rd ed. (London: Routledge, 2012), 191–202. Zahn, Molly M., Rethinking Rewritten Scripture, STDJ 95 (Leiden: Brill, 2011).

Chapter 5

No Death without Sin on the New Earth: Isaiah 65:20 in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic Paul Sanders In this contribution, I reconsider the interpretation of the Hebrew text of Isaiah 65:20 and describe the ways in which the verse was rendered in the Septuagint and Targum Jonathan. Obviously, the early translators experienced the Hebrew original as problematic and consciously decided to refrain from a literal rendering in Greek and Aramaic. Modern exegetes regard especially the final colon of the Hebrew verse as enigmatic. Their objections concur only partially with the reasons why the text raised questions in early Judaism. 1

Masoretic Text

Isa 65:20 is part of a description of life after God will establish ‫ָׁש ַמיִ ם ֲח ָד ִׁשים‬ ‫“ וָ ָא ֶרץ ֲח ָד ָׁשה‬new heavens and a new earth” (65:17), including a trouble-free and joyful Jerusalem (65:18–19). The Masoretic text of Isa 65:20 reads: ‫יָמים‬ ִ ‫לֹא יִ ְהיֶ ה ִמ ָּׁשם עֹוד עּול‬ ‫יָמיו‬ ָ ‫וְ זָ ֵקן ֲא ֶׁשר לֹא יְ ַמ ֵּלא ֶאת‬ ‫ִּכי ַהּנַ ַער ֶּבן ֵמ ָאה ָׁשנָ ה יָמּות‬ ‫חֹוטא ֶּבן ֵמ ָאה ָׁשנָ ה יְ ֻק ָּלל‬ ֶ ‫וְ ַה‬

a A aB bA bB

1.1 Text and Context The first pair of cola is relatively unproblematic.1 A literal translation is: aA There will no more be from there (i.e. Jerusalem) a suckling of days, aB nor an old man who does not fill out his days.

1  The Tiberian accentuation suggests that ‫( וְ זָ ֵקן‬with the disjunctive accent zaqef) is part of the first colon. The Masoretes possibly assumed that the phrase ‫יָמיו‬ ָ ‫ ֲא ֶׁשר לֹא יְ ַמ ֵּלא ֶאת‬relates to the suckling as well as the old man.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004416727_007

130

Sanders

The expression ‫“ עּול ִיָמים‬a suckling of days” is commonly assumed to refer to an infant that lives but a short time and dies an untimely death.2 The second colon confirms the impression that 65:20aA concerns the prospect of a long life. This interpretation suits the context quite well. Isa 65:17–25 describes the blissful future of the faithful after God’s recreation of heaven and earth. On the new earth, God’s servants will live long enough to enjoy the fruit of their labour and will stay alive as long as the trees (65:21–22). Also, children will not run the risk of a premature death (65:23). The idea that longevity is one of the most desirable divine blessings occurs not only in the Hebrew Bible but also in many other texts from the ancient Near East.3 The final two cola of Isa 65:20 are more enigmatic. However, some aspects are clear: – The parallelism between the two cola is strong. Both cola contain the expression ‫ ֶּבן ֵמ ָאה ָׁשנָ ה‬, “a one-hundred-years-old person.” In each colon the expression is preceded by what can only be the subject of the verb, ‫ ַהּנַ ַער‬in colon bA and ‫חֹוטא‬ ֶ ‫ ַה‬in colon bB. The expression is followed by a verbal form (imperf. 3ms): ‫ יָמּות‬in colon bA and ‫ יְ ֻק ָּלל‬in colon bB, which seem to express similar ideas (cf. the parallel nouns ‫ ָמוֶ ת‬and ‫ ְק ָל ָלה‬in Deut 30:19). – Exactly the same consonantal text is found in 1QIsab.4 In 1QIsaa 65:20b contains only two orthographic differences: ‫ כיא‬instead of ‫ כי‬and ‫ יקולל‬instead of ‫יקלל‬.5 The spelling ‫ יקולל‬is exegetically relevant, confirming the Masoretic interpretation of ‫ יקלל‬as a pual form of ‫קלל‬: “he will be (considered) accursed.” – Although some of the oldest translations do not show a literal rendering of the Masoretic text, there are no reasons to assume that the Hebrew source text underlying these translations diverged from the Masoretic text. The Hebrew text used by the translators was probably equal to the Masoretic text, apart from possible orthographic and morphological variants. This will be shown below.

2  E.g., Jan L. Koole, Isaiah, Part III, Vol. 3: Chapters 56–66, HCOT (Leuven: Peeters, 2001), 456; Shalom M. Paul, Isaiah 40–66: Translation and Commentary, ECC (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2012), 604. 3  See the conditional promise of prolonged days in Deut 4:40; 5:16, 33; 1 Kgs 3:14, etc., and the wish that the gods may prolong the king’s days and years in the Phoenician inscriptions KAI 4, 6, 7, 10. Cf. also Exod 23:26; Zech 8:4. 4  Eugene Ulrich and Peter W. Flint, Qumran Cave 1, II: The Isaiah Scrolls, Part 1: Plates and Transcriptions, DJD XXXII/1 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2010), 150. The text of Isa 65:20 is only slightly damaged. 5  Ulrich and Flint, Qumran Cave 1, II: The Isaiah Scrolls, Part 1, 106. The text of Isa 65:20 has been preserved entirely.

NO DEATH WITHOUT SIN ON THE NEW EARTH: ISA 65:20

131

Assuming that the words of the final two Hebrew cola have the meanings that predominate in the rest of the Hebrew Bible, the following translation is possible: bA For the youth will die a hundred years old bB and the sinner will be accursed a hundred years old. Colon bA seems to indicate that if people were to die at the age of hundred, they will be considered as dying young. Apparently, most people will reach a much higher age, comparable to those of the trees (65:22), or the antediluvian humans (Genesis 5).6 At first sight, colon bB seems to say that some people who will reach this age will be struck by a curse due to their sinning. However, this understanding is contested. 1.2 Sinning or Missing? Although the translation of 20bAB given above may seem self-evident, the context has induced exegetes to look for a different interpretation. In 1894, the Danish exegete Frants Buhl argued that the text cannot possibly assume the existence of “sinners” in the new, recreated world, and neither a reprieve of their punishment until the age of one hundred. He pointed out that the form used here is part. ‫חֹוטא‬ ֶ , while ‫ ַח ָּטא‬is the usual word denoting a sinner. Buhl defended the meaning “to miss, to fail to reach” for the verb ‫ חטא‬in Isa 65:20, a meaning that he assumed also in Judg 20:16 and Prov 8:36. He regarded the word ‫ בן‬in the final colon as a secondary doubling of the same word in the penultimate colon and proposed to interpret the expression ‫ החוטא מאה שנה‬as referring to a person who did not reach the age of a hundred years.7 Buhl’s interpretation became widespread thanks to its adoption in the leading lexica.8 The interpretation was taken over in many commentaries,9 often 6   See, e.g., Roger Norman Whybray, Isaiah 40–66, NCB (London: Oliphants, 1975), 277; John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1998), 658; Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah, OTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 528; Koole, Isaiah, Part III, Vol. 3, 457. 7  Frants Buhl, Jesaja, oversat og fortolket (København: Gyldendalske, 1894), 771–72. 8  Wilhelm Gesenius, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament, rev. by Frants Buhl, 17th ed. (Leipzig: Vogel, 1921), 223; KBL; HAL; HALOT (s.v. ‫חטא‬, all requiring deletion of ‫ ;)בן‬Wilhelm Gesenius, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament, 18th ed., Vol. 2: ‫( י–ד‬Berlin: Springer, 1995), 338; DCH III (1996), 194–95 (both omitting the reference to the deletion of ‫)בן‬. Several lexica regard “to miss (a mark)” as the basic meaning of the verb. 9  E.g., Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), 407, 409; Whybray, Isaiah 40–66, 277; John D.W. Watts, Isaiah 34–66, WBC 25 (Waco, TX: Word

132

Sanders

with the assumption that ‫ יְ ֻק ָּלל‬must not be taken in its factitive sense but in an estimative or delocutive sense: “he will be considered accursed.”10 Several Bible translations reflect this alternative interpretation: Every boy shall live his hundred years before he dies, whoever falls short of a hundred shall be despised. New English Bible 1970

For one who dies at a hundred years will be considered a youth, and one who falls short of a hundred will be considered accursed. New Revised Standard Version 1989

Other translations and commentaries, however, resisted the temptation to follow the interpretation of the lexica and continued to interpret ‫חֹוטא‬ ֶ ‫ ַה‬as “the sinner.” Jan Koole pointed out that the deletion of ‫ בן‬is unfounded and took the verb ‫ חטא‬in its common sense of “to sin.”11 John Goldingay points to the parallelism between the last and the penultimate colon and concludes that the Targum aptly connects the words ‫חֹוטא‬ ֶ ‫ ַה‬and ‫ ַהּנַ ַער‬: Indeed, Tg. assumes that the two cola have the same reference; the youth is the sinner: if someone dies at a hundred, he will be seen as a youth and his death assumed to be due to sin and to God’s curse.12 This observation shows how useful it is to study the oldest translations more systematically. Such an analysis will show how the Hebrew parent text was interpreted. However, it remains to be seen whether the early translations may be adduced to defend a certain interpretation of the Masoretic text.

 Books, 1987), 349, 351; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 19B (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 283, 284, 288–89; Childs, Isaiah, 528; Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 604–05. 10  For these different senses of the pual, see Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 419. 11  Koole, Isaiah, Part III, Vol. 3, 446, 447, 458. 12  John Goldingay, Isaiah 56–66, ICC (London: Bloomsbury, 2014), 471. The meaning “sinner” was maintained in the Revised Standard Version, the English Standard Version and the World English Bible. It is also retained by Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 653, 659.

NO DEATH WITHOUT SIN ON THE NEW EARTH: ISA 65:20

2

133

Ancient Translations

The most interesting ancient translations of Isa 65:20 are found in the Septuagint and Targum Jonathan. The Peshitta and Vulgate offer translations that remain very close to the Hebrew parent text and do not have a significant role in the present paper. However, it is apt to note that they interpret ‫ החוטא‬as referring to a “sinner.”13 2.1 Septuagint In the Septuagint, Isa 65:20 reads as follows:14 καὶ οὐ μὴ γένηται ἐκεῖ ἄωρος καὶ πρεσβύτης ὃς οὐκ ἐμπλήσει τὸν χρόνον αὐτοῦ ἔσται γὰρ ὁ νέος ἑκατὸν ἐτῶν ὁ δὲ ἀποθνῄσκων ἁμαρτωλὸς ἑκατὸν ἐτῶν καὶ ἐπικατάρατος ἔσται. NETS gives the following translation of the Greek text:15 And there shall not be there one [who dies] untimely or an old person who will not fulfill his time; for the young person will be a hundred years old, but the one who dies a sinner will be a hundred years old and accursed.16

̈ ̈ 13  Peshitta: ‫ ܡܛܠ‬.‫ܝܘܡܬܗ‬ ‫ܝܘܡܬܐ ܇ ܘܣܒܐ ܕܠܐ ܢܡܠܐ‬ ‫ܘܬܘܒ ܠܐ ܢܗܘܐ ܬܡܢ ܛܠܐ‬ ̈ ‫ ܘܐܝܢܐ ܕܚܛܐ ܒܪ ܡܐܐ‬.‫“ ܕܛܠܝܐ ܒܪ ܡܐܐ ̈ܫܢܝܢ ܢܡܘܬ‬and there will .‫ܫܢܝܢ ܢܬܠܝܛ‬ no more be a youth of days there, nor an old man who does not fill out his days; for the youth will die a hundred years old, and the one who sins will be accursed a hundred years old.” Vulgate: non erit ibi amplius infans dierum et senex qui non impleat dies suos quoniam puer centum annorum morietur et peccator centum annorum maledictus erit “there will no more be an infant of days there, nor an old man who does not fill out his days; for the boy will die a hundred years old, and the sinner will be accursed a hundred years old.” 14   Joseph Ziegler, ed., Isaias, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum 14 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1939), 363. For the most relevant textual variants within the Greek tradition, see footnote 18. An early discussion of Isa 65:20 lxx is offered by Richard R. Ottley, The Book of Isaiah According to the Septuagint (Codex Alexandrinus), Vol. 2: Text and Notes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1906), 382–83. 15  Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title (New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). 16  N ETS, 874. The square brackets indicate that the words “who dies” do not have a counterpart in the Greek text.

134

Sanders

A footnote mentions an alternative translation of the final colon: but the sinner who dies a hundred years old will also be accursed. In many respects, the Greek translation of the verse corresponds quite closely to the Hebrew text as we know it. In general, it uses stereotyped lexical equivalents and follows the word-order of the source text, representing each Hebrew lexeme with one Greek word. Several minor deviations from the Hebrew Text can be explained as slightly freer translations of the transmitted Hebrew text.17 However, a more fundamental divergence concerns the unexpected connection of the words ‫( ימות‬in Hebrew the final word of bA) and ‫( והחוטא‬in Hebrew the first word of bB): ὁ δὲ ἀποθνῄσκων ἁμαρτωλὸς “but the one who dies a sinner …” It is clear that ἀποθνῄσκων represents Hebrew ‫ימות‬. Also, it is beyond doubt that ἁμαρτωλὸς renders Hebrew ‫ החוטא‬and that the latter word was interpreted as a form of the verb ‫ חטא‬with the meaning “to sin.”18 By connecting the words ‫ ימות‬and ‫והחוטא‬, the translators separated the notion of dying from the earlier word ‫“ הנער‬youth.”19 17  In 20a, ἄωρος “untimely” is “a fine translation of the freer kind” (Ottley, The Book of Isaiah, 2, 382). Both in the third and the fourth colon, ἑκατὸν ἐτῶν renders ‫בן מאה שנה‬. Mirjam van der Vorm-Croughs, The Old Greek of Isaiah: An Analysis of Its Pluses and Minuses, SBLSCS 61 (Atlanta: SBL, 2014), 137, regards the omission of ‫ בן‬as a “free translation of Hebrew idiomatic and grammatical features.” Also in the rest of lxx Isaiah most pluses and minuses can be explained with recourse to characteristic translation tendencies and do not point to a Hebrew parent text differing from MT (Van der Vorm-Croughs, The Old Greek of Isaiah, 512, 518–19). The Lucianic (or “Antiochene”) reading νέος υἱός ἑκατὸν ἐτῶν (20bA) is a secondary correction toward MT, just like the secondary addition of ἡμέραις after ἄωρος in 20a; see Natalio Fernández Marcos, “Is there an Antiochene Reading of Isaiah?” in Isaiah in Context: Studies in Honour of Arie van der Kooij on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, VTSup 138, ed. Michaël N. van der Meer et al., VTSup 138 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 247–60, here 252. 18  In Isaiah lxx, ἁμαρτωλός renders ‫חֹוטא‬ ֶ (1:4; 65:20), ‫( ַח ָּטא‬1:28; 13:9), and ‫“ ָר ָׁשע‬evildoer” (14:5). The expression ὁ δὲ ἀποθνῄσκων ἁμαρτωλὸς ἑκατὸν ἐτῶν is translated by “wer aber sterbend die hundert Jahre verfehlt” (“but who while dying misses the one hundred years”) in Septuaginta Deutsch: Das griechische Alte Testament in deutscher Übersetzung, ed. Wolfgang Kraus and Martin Karrer (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2009), 1285. This translation is influenced by the alternative interpretation of ‫ חוטא‬in the Hebrew text; see Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament, eds. Martin Karrer und Wolfgang Kraus, Vol. II (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011), 2688. Of course, the German translation is not a justifiable rendering of the Greek reading. 19  For other cases of rearrangement, see Van der Vorm-Croughs, The Old Greek of Isaiah, 517– 18: “… most separate Hebrew words or phrases did receive counterparts in the Greek, but often ones which deviate semantically and/or grammatically from their Hebrew source.

NO DEATH WITHOUT SIN ON THE NEW EARTH: ISA 65:20

135

How can the deviation from the Hebrew source be explained? I assume that the translators tried to avoid a stumbling block in the parent text. The idea in 20bA mt that even in the recreated world humans could die at a relatively young age met with resistance, since these “youths” may include innocent ones. Thanks to the disconnection of ‫ ימות‬from 20bA, the Greek translation of the first clause implies only that people at the age of hundred will be regarded as youths, not that people may die at that age. This difference between the Greek text and the Hebrew source is crucial. Obviously, the final part of the Greek verse does imply that certain people will die a hundred years old. However, by specifying that the sinner will die at that age, the translators express that in the restored world dying relatively early is a deserved curse.20 In the recreated world only a specific group of people will not reach an exceptionally high age, namely the sinners. People who avoid sin are assumed not to live for a century but for a much longer era. The idea that the righteous residents of Jerusalem will enjoy a very long lifespan is also expressed in 65:22bA mt: ‫“ ִּכי ִכ ֵימי ָה ֵעץ יְ ֵמי ַע ִּמי‬for like the days of the tree(s) shall the days of my people be.” In the Septuagint this prospect is radicalized: κατὰ γὰρ τὰς ἡμέρας τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς ἔσονται αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ λαοῦ μου “for like the days of the Tree of Life shall the days of my people be.” Since the renowned Tree of Life (cf. Gen 2:9; 3:22, 24) was assumed to live on forever in the garden of Eden, the Greek text seems to offer the faithful the prospect of a life that is (close to) eternal.21

Besides, the way in which they are joined together into a sentence also differs from the Vorlage. This has resulted in clauses which have not only a distinct syntax but also a different content from their Hebrew original.” 20  Of course, the idea that divine justice requires a strong relationship between sin and dying is widespread in the Hebrew Bible. See, e.g., Gen 2:17; 6:3; Exod 28:43; Lev 22:9; Num 18:22; 27:3; 1 Sam 12:19; 2 Sam 12:13; Ezek 18:4, 20, 24; Sir 41:8–9. 21  Cf. Ps Sol. 14:3; T. Levi 18:10–11; Rev 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19. See Ottley, The Book of Isaiah, 2, 383; Klaas Spronk, Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East, AOAT 219 (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1986), 20; Goldingay, Isaiah 56–66, 473 (with n. 234). Van der Vorm-Croughs, The Old Greek of Isaiah, 362, interprets the Greek phrase differently: “in future God’s people will be living as though in paradise.”

136

Sanders

2.2 Targum Jonathan Just like the other mediaeval Targumim, Targum Jonathan translates a Hebrew source very similar to the Masoretic text.22 In Isa 65:20 Targum Jonathan reads:23 ‫ולא יהי מיתמן עוד יניק יומין וסבא דלא ישלים יומוהי‬ ‫ארי דחאיב עולים בר מאה שנין יהי מאית ודחטי בר מאה שנין יתרך‬

aA aB bA bB

And there will no more be from there a suckling of days, nor an old man who does not fill out his days; for who becomes guilty as a young man will die a hundred years old, and who sins will be banished a hundred years old.

Only in 20b are there some relevant deviations from the Masoretic text. Contrary to the Hebrew source, the Targum indicates explicitly that the young man who will die at the age of hundred is guilty: ‫( חאיב‬bA, part. ‫)חוב‬. Apparently, the translators experienced the same difficulty with the Hebrew phrase as the translators of the Septuagint: How can there still be innocent people who die at the relatively young age of one hundred in the era of salvation? However, the Targum finds a solution that differs from the choice of the Greek translators. It does not disconnect the words ‫“ ַהּנַ ַער‬the youth” and ‫“ יָמּות‬he will die” in the Hebrew text, but adds that the dying youth is guilty. In that way, the Targum specifies that in the recreated world those who die a hundred years old deserve this relatively early death. Contrary to the Septuagint, the Aramaic reading does not say explicitly that a one-hundred-years-old person will be regarded as young, although this is certainly implied; cf. ‫“ כיומי אילן חייא יומי עמי‬for like the days of the Tree of Life shall the days of my people be” (65:22; similarly lxx). The rendering of Hebrew ‫ יקלל‬by ‫( יתרך‬ithpaal of ‫“ ;תרך‬to be banished”) may be due to the assumption that 20bB must relate to another punishment than 20bA, although it may also be a metaphor for the curse of death.

22  Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 148–49; Beate Ego, “Targumim,” in Textual History of the Bible, Vol. 1A, ed. Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 239–62, here 253–54. For the translation technique of Targum Jonathan, see Gudrun E. Lier, “Targum,” in Textual History of the Bible, ed. Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov, Volume 1B (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 623–30. 23  Alexander Sperber, ed., The Bible in Aramaic Based on Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts, Vol. 3: The Latter Prophets according to Targum Jonathan (Leiden: Brill, 1962), 129.

NO DEATH WITHOUT SIN ON THE NEW EARTH: ISA 65:20

137

3 Evaluation The translations of Isa 65:20 and 65:22 in the Septuagint and Targum Jonathan imply that in the radically new era of salvation people are to enjoy a lifespan of at least several centuries. The two translations show that already at an early stage the Hebrew text of 65:20bA raised questions. Not surprisingly, the idea that there would be “young” people dying at the age of hundred was experienced as offensive, since this group might include innocent people. Apparently, the text of 65:20bB was regarded as less problematic. Like the Peshitta and the Vulgate, the translators of the Septuagint and Targum Jonathan interpreted the Hebrew word ‫ החוטא‬as referring to a sinner. They did not make an effort to avoid the notion that there would still be sinners on the new earth. Their acceptance of this element of the text seems to be due to the prospect that such sinners would be struck by a divine curse (‫)יקלל‬. The Septuagint avoids the idea that the νέος “youth” (20bA) will die. Instead of the youth, the ἁμαρτωλὸς “sinner” (20bB) is said to die, namely at the age of hundred. Like the ‫ חוטא‬of the Hebrew text, this person is described as “accursed.” Contrary to the Septuagint, Targum Jonathan maintains the connection between the “youth” and death (20bA). However, the Aramaic translation adds that the “youth” is guilty, which offers an explanation for the early termination of his life. Each in its own way, the Septuagint and Targum Jonathan evade the suggestion that innocent people will die at the age of one hundred years. In scholarly literature, 20bB is regarded as more problematic than 20bA. Frants Buhl’s creative proposal to interpret ‫ החוטא‬as “one who is missing …” arose from several assumptions. One of them was that the new era of salvation must be so discontinuous with current reality that sinners and sinning will no longer exist. Nevertheless, Buhl had an eye for the limited nature of Old Testament expectations for the future. Although Buhl’s proposal is attractive and was followed by many scholars, the ancient translators’ interpretation of ‫ חוטא‬as “sinner” may do more justice to the intentions of the Hebrew parent text. The following reasons can be mentioned. – The Masoretic text represents the oldest recoverable version of Isa 65:20. The deletion of ‫ בן‬in the final colon has no basis in the oldest Hebrew manuscripts and the early translations. – The parallelism between cola bA and bB of the Masoretic text is strong. This suggests not only that ‫ ֶּבן ֵמ ָאה ָׁשנָ ה‬has the same function in each colon but also that ‫ יָמּות‬and ‫ יְ ֻק ָּלל‬have similar referents. In view of the parallelism with ‫יָמּות‬, it is most likely that ‫ יְ ֻק ָּלל‬has a factitive sense and not only an

138

Sanders

estimative or delocutive sense.24 See also the parallelism of ‫ ָמוֶ ת‬and ‫ ְק ָל ָלה‬in Deut 30:19. – The early translations took the verb ‫ חטא‬in its common sense of “to sin.” Because of its predominance, the sense “to sin” must be supposed to be the original, essential meaning of the verb.25 The sense “to miss (a mark)” is possible in only a limited number of verses.26 – Buhl’s interpretation of 20bB removes the idea that in the new world order there will still be sinners, but creates a new stumbling block: Contrary to the traditional interpretation, it implies that certain people will not reach the age of a hundred years but will die before that age. For these reasons, the early translators were probably right when they interpreted ‫ חוטא‬as “sinner.” What we observe in the Hebrew text seems to be a typical case of “parallelism of greater precision.” David J.A. Clines described this phenomenon and showed that in many pairs of cola the second colon specifies the first colon or some element of it. What was vague in the first colon is disambiguated or explicated in the following colon.27 The first colon of Isa 65:20b concretizes what was said in 20a: people will reach the minimum age of a hundred years. However, the colon raises a new question. Why will people die at this relatively early age of hundred? Colon 20bB answers this question by explicating that the ‫“ נַ ַער‬youth” is a ‫חֹוטא‬ ֶ “sinner.” If this interpretation is correct, Targum Jonathan’s rendering of 20bA is a fine expression of the intention of the Hebrew text. The Targum assumes that colon 20bB specifies the character of the ‫“ נַ ַער‬youth” in 20bA by rendering the word by ‫“ דחאיב עולים‬who becomes guilty as a young man.” In that way, it avoids ambiguity with regard to the character of the youth. Of course, the reference to a ‫חֹוטא‬ ֶ “sinner” in 20bB is unique in the context of Isa 65:17–25. However, it is not illogical to see a connection with the description of curses for evildoers in 65:11–16. In Isaiah 65 God addresses those who 24  Cf. James K. Aitken, The Semantics of Blessing and Cursing in Ancient Hebrew, ANESSup 23 (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 240–41. 25  See Klaus Koch, “‫חטא‬,” in TDOT vol. 4 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980), 309–311; Gesenius, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch, 18th ed., 338–339. 26  Even in some of these rare cases, the meaning “to sin” is probable. For ‫חֹוטא‬ ֶ in Qoh 2:26 and 7:26, see Paul Sanders, “A Human and a Deity with Conflicting Morals (Qohelet 2.26),” in Open-mindedness in the Bible and Beyond: A Volume of Studies in Honour of Bob Becking, ed. Marjo C.A. Korpel and Lester L. Grabbe, LHBOTS 616 (London: Bloomsbury, 2015), 237–46. 27  David J.A. Clines, “The Parallelism of Greater Precision: Notes from Isaiah 40 for a Theory of Hebrew Poetry,” in New Directions in Hebrew Poetry, ed. Elaine R. Follis, JSOTSup 40 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1987), 77–100. One of the examples adduced by Clines is Isa 40:22, where ‫“ ַכּד ֹק‬like a thin thing” is specified by ‫“ ָּכא ֶֹהל ָל ָׁש ֶבת‬like a tent to dwell in.”

NO DEATH WITHOUT SIN ON THE NEW EARTH: ISA 65:20

139

disobey him as well as those who serve him and describes the future of both groups. In 65:13–16 he holds out an unfavourable prospect to the unfaithful and contrasts this prospect with the bright future of those who obey him. Then, God continues to describe a blissful prospect to the latter group, his servants, for whom he will create a new heaven and a new earth without sorrow and grief (65:17–25). In Biblical thinking, a reference to the elimination of “sinners” is not out of place in such a description of salvation.28 As the early translators were familiar with this thinking, they did not resent the concept. The Septuagint and Targum Jonathan exclude only the suggestion that innocent people may undergo the same fate as sinners. Acknowledgements Many thanks are due to Thomas Bakker (Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam) for his assistance. Bibliography Aitken, James K., The Semantics of Blessing and Cursing in Ancient Hebrew, ANESSup 23 (Leuven: Peeters, 2007). Blenkinsopp, Joseph, Isaiah 56–66: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 19B (New York: Doubleday, 2003). Buhl, Frants, Jesaja, oversat og fortolket (København: Gyldendalske, 1894). Childs, Brevard S., Isaiah, OTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001). Clines, David J.A., “The Parallelism of Greater Precision: Notes from Isaiah 40 for a Theory of Hebrew Poetry,” in New Directions in Hebrew Poetry, ed. Elaine R. Follis, JSOTSup 40 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1987), 77–100. Ego, Beate, “Targumim,” in Textual History of the Bible, Vol. 1A, ed. Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 239–262. Fernández Marcos, Natalio, “Is there an Antiochene Reading of Isaiah?” in Isaiah in Context: Studies in Honour of Arie van der Kooij on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, VTSup 138, eds. Michaël van der Meer et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 247–60. Gesenius, Wilhelm, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament, rev. by Frants Buhl, 17th ed. (Leipzig: Vogel, 1921). Gesenius, Wilhelm, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament, 18th ed., Vol. 2: ‫( י–ד‬Berlin: Springer, 1995). 28  See, e.g., Pss 37:9–13; 104:35; Ps Sol. 3:9–12.

140

Sanders

Goldingay, John, Isaiah 56–66, ICC (London: Bloomsbury, 2014). Koch, Klaus, “‫חטא‬,” in TDOT vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980), 309–319. Koole, Jan L., Isaiah, Part III, Vol. 3: Chapters 56–66, HCOT (Leuven: Peeters, 2001). Kraus, Wolfgang and Martin Karrer, eds., Septuaginta Deutsch: Das griechische Alte Testament in deutscher Übersetzung (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2009). Kraus, Wolfgang and Martin Karrer, eds., Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011). Lier, Gudrun E., “Targum,” in Textual History of the Bible, ed. Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov, Volume 1B (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 623–30. Oswalt, John N., The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1998). Ottley, Richard R., The Book of Isaiah According to the Septuagint (Codex Alexandrinus), Vol. 2: Text and Notes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1906). Paul, Shalom M., Isaiah 40–66: Translation and Commentary, ECC (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2012). Pietersma, Albert and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title (New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). Sanders, Paul, “A Human and a Deity with Conflicting Morals (Qohelet 2.26),” in Marjo C.A. Korpel and Lester L. Grabbe, eds., Open-mindedness in the Bible and Beyond: A Volume of Studies in Honour of Bob Becking, LHBOTS 616 (London: Bloomsbury, 2015), 237–46. Sperber, Alexander, ed., The Bible in Aramaic Based on Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts, Vol. 3: The Latter Prophets according to Targum Jonathan (Leiden: Brill, 1962). Spronk, Klaas, Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East, AOAT 219 (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1986). Tov, Emanuel, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012). Ulrich, Eugene and Peter W. Flint, Qumran Cave 1, II: The Isaiah Scrolls, Part 1: Plates and Transcriptions, DJD XXXII/1 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2010). Vorm-Croughs, Mirjam van der, The Old Greek of Isaiah: An Analysis of Its Pluses and Minuses, SBLSCS 61 (Atlanta: SBL, 2014). Waltke, Bruce K. and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990). Watts, John D.W., Isaiah 34–66, WBC 25 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987). Westermann, Claus, Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969). Whybray, Roger Norman, Isaiah 40–66, NCB (London: Oliphants, 1975). Ziegler, Joseph, ed., Isaias, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum 14 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1939).

Chapter 6

The Old Greek of Isaiah and the Isaiah Targum: What Do They Have in Common? Arie van der Kooij 1 Introduction This essay is about the relationship, if any, between two very intriguing ancient versions of the book of Isaiah—the Old Greek of Isaiah (lxx Isaiah) and the Targum of Isaiah (Tg. Isaiah). Its focus is on the question what these two translations may have in common. Up to the present only a few scholars have dealt with this issue into some detail. In an article published in 1958, Delekat1 discussed a number of specific lexical agreements shared by lxx Isaiah, Tg. Isaiah as well as Peshitta Isaiah. In his view, these agreements strongly suggest that the Old Greek of Isaiah went back to an early version of Isaiah in Aramaic,2 produced in Egypt, a version that also laid at the root of both Tg. Isaiah and Peshitta Isaiah. This hypothesis, which as far as lxx Isaiah is concerned was a new one,3 must be considered too farfetched however because an Aramaic version of the book of Isaiah dating to the late Persian period is very unlikely.4 Hence, specific agreements (equivalents) between lxx Isaiah and Tg. Isaiah require another explanation,5 for example such as the one proposed by Brockington a few years earlier.6 In dealing with what he calls “an emphasis on salvation”7 in lxx Isaiah and Tg. Isaiah because the use of the relevant terminology in both of them is far more frequent than in mt, Brockington stated, that “the versions do not agree in the places at 1  Lienhard Delekat, “Ein Septuagintatargum,” VT 8 (1958): 225–52. 2  Delekat speaks of lxx Isaiah as “eine Superversion eines ägyptisch-aramäischen Targums” (“Septuagintatargum,” 244). 3  For the hypothesis that lxx Pentateuch shows traces of an early Aramaic version familiar with the later Targum Onkelos, see Zacharias Frankel, Historisch-kritische Studien zu der Septuaginta I (Leipzig: Vogel, 1841), 34–36. 4   Cf. Arie van der Kooij, Die alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches, OBO 35 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 30–31. 5  For the agreements between lxx Isaiah and Peshitta Isaiah, see van der Kooij, Textzeugen, 287–289. 6  Leonhard H. Brockington, “Septuagint and Targum,” ZAW 66 (1954): 80–86 (80). 7  Brockington, “Septuagint and Targum,” 80.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004416727_008

142

van der Kooij

which soteriological interpretation is introduced, a fact which would suggest that the two targumists (Greek and Aramaic) were following a common tradition of exegetical method but did not borrow from each other’s version.”8 He thus put forward the idea of “a common tradition of exegetical method,” which seems to be more plausible and realistic than the bold hypothesis of Delekat.9 Reading both versions, and comparing them with mt, one is struck by the many striking differences in rendering and interpreting the book of Isaiah to be found both in lxx Isaiah and Tg. Isaiah. Both are characterized by a large number of modifications and transformations. To give two examples: Isa 4:2 mt In that day the branch of the Lord shall be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the land shall be the pride and the glory of the survivors of Israel lxx But on that day God will shine on the earth in counsel with glory, to uplift and glorify that which is left of Israel Tg In that time the Messiah of the Lord shall be for joy and for glory, and those who perform the law for pride and for praise to the survivors of Israel Isa 21:10 mt O my threshed and winnowed one, what I have heard from the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, I announced to you lxx Hear, you who have been left and you who are in pain, hear the things I have heard from the Lord Sabaoth; the God of Israel has announced them to us Tg Kings who are skilled in waging war will come against her to plunder her even as the farmer who is skilled in threshing the grain. The prophet said, What I have heard before the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, I announce to you These examples, which speak for themselves, reveal yet another striking feature—that of mutual divergences between both versions. lxx Isaiah and Tg. Isaiah indeed represent different worlds so to say, which justifies the assumption that the one (Tg) is not dependent on the other (lxx). This is not meant to say however that they have nothing in common. In order to illustrate this I shall focus on a number of instances where both versions apply certain 8  Brockington, “Septuagint and Targum,” 80. 9  For the influence of Aramaic on lxx Isaiah, see below.

The Old Greek of Isaiah & THE ISAIAH TARGUM

143

devices and strategies as well as share, in one way or another, specific and striking renderings. 2

lxx Isaiah and Tg. Isaiah

2.1 Lexical Choices Both versions are marked by a variety of lexical or interpretive choices of certain Hebrew words or forms. Here I will note a few cases of unusual lexical choices, they have in common. Isa 34:1 mt Draw near, O nations, to hear, and hearken, O peoples (‫!)לאמים‬ lxx Draw near, O nations, and hear, O rulers (ἄρχοντες)! Tg Draw near, O peoples, to hear, and hearken, O kingdoms! For Hebrew ‫לאם‬, “nation, people” in this and other places (Isa 41:1; 43:4, 9), lxx offers “ruler,” whereas in these passages Tg has a rendering which though being not the same, is quite similar—“kingdom.” It is of note that in yet another instance where this Hebrew word occurs (Isa 51:4), both versions agree in having an alternative rendering—“kings” in lxx, and “my congregation” in Tg (compare “my people,” in the first half of the verse). Notably, the same picture is to be found in Gen 27:29 where the same Hebrew term is used as well (“Let peoples serve you and nations bow down to you”), where lxx too reads “rulers” (ἄρχοντες), and Tg. Onq. “kingdoms.”10 For this latter rendering see also Tg. Onq. Gen 25:23, the other instance in Genesis where the Hebrew word is found. In this case though lxx offers another equivalent (λαός). Among the cases of renderings being based on a vocalization different from mt, there are a few where lxx and Tg share the same reading over against mt. For example,

10  For a discussion, see Isac L. Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah, MEOL 9 (Leiden: Brill, 1948), 51; Delekat, “Septuagintatargum,” 243–44; James Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1968), 254–55; Jean Koenig, L’herméneutique analogique du Judaïsme antique d’après les témoins textuels d’Isaïe, VTSup 33 (Leiden, Brill, 1982), 161–72.

144

van der Kooij

Isa 3:12 mt and women (nashim) rule over them lxx and your creditors (noshim) lord it over you Tg and as the creditors rule over it Instead of the reading ‫ נשים‬in the sense of “women,” both versions are based on the understanding of this reading as ptc. of the root ‫( נשא‬with shin). There are also cases where the equivalent given reflects an interpretation by applying rules typical of ancient philology. For example: Isa 7:2 mt Syria (Aram) has come down (‫ )נחה‬on Ephraim lxx Aram has made an agreement (συνεφώνησεν) with Ephraim Tg The king of Syria has allied himself (‫ )אתחבר‬with the king of Israel lxx and Tg: via the root ‫“ אחה‬to join.” Isa 9:4 mt For every boot of the trampling warrior in storm (‫)ברעש‬ lxx For they will repay for every robe acquired by deceit (δόλῶ) Tg For all their dealing (lit. “their taking and giving”) is with wickedness (‫)ברשע‬ lxx and Tg: via ‫רשע‬, a case of metathesis.11 As is well known, lxx Isaiah and Tg. Isaiah contain instances which in one way or another attest to influence of Aramaic.12 For a common case, the following well-known example is of note: 11  Cf. Joseph Ziegler, Untersuchungen zur Septuaginta des Buches Isaias, ATA XII, 3 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1934), 195. 12  For the issue of influence of Aramaic on lxx (Isaiah), see e.g. Johann Fischer, In welcher Schrift lag das Buch Isaias den LXX vor? BZAW 56 (Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1930), 9–10; Seeligmann, Septuagint Version, 49–50; 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. by M.F.J. Baasten and W.Th. van Peursen. OLA 118 (Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 587–600, and most recently, Anne-Françoise Loiseau, L’influence de l’araméen sur les traducteurs de la LXX principalement, sur les traducteurs grecs postérieurs, ainsi que sur les scribes de la Vorlage de la LXX, SBLSCS 65 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016), and Seulgi L. Byun, The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic on the Translator of Septuagint Isaiah (London: Bloomsbury / T&T Clark, 2017). For similar cases in Tg. Isaiah, see van der Kooij, Textzeugen, 179–180.

The Old Greek of Isaiah & THE ISAIAH TARGUM

145

Isa 53:10 mt Yet it was the will of the Lord to bruise him (‫)דכאו‬, he made him sick lxx And the Lord desires to cleanse (καθαρίσαι) him from his blow Tg Yet before the Lord it was a pleasure to refine (‫ )למצרף‬and to cleanse (‫ )לדכאה‬the remnant of his people lxx and Tg share the lexical choice via ‫ דכא‬in Aramaic, although it is important to note that the immediate context in both versions differs greatly from each other.13 Interestingly, in verse 5 where the same verb in Hebrew (‫מדכא‬, ptc. pual) occurs, both versions share a rendering via the root in Hebrew: mt […] he was bruised for our iniquities lxx […] and has been weakened (μεμαλάκισται) because of our transgressions Tg (And he will build the sanctuary which was profaned for our sins,) handed over (‫ )איתמסר‬for our iniquities. The respective renderings in v. 5 are based on the idea of “being crushed” (said of a person in lxx, and of a building, the temple, in Tg [“handed over (to be crushed)”]). The difference between v. 5 and v. 10 indicates that the interpretation via Aramaic in v. 10 was made deliberately in the two versions. 2.2 Converse Translation In an article published in 1976 Klein showed that in a number of cases the Targums offer a rendering, which actually is saying the opposite of mt (hence the designation, “converse translation”).14 As has been pointed out by scholars this phenomenon is also typical of lxx Isaiah.15 To give an example from lxx Isaiah: Isa 54:6 mt For like a wife forsaken and grieved in spirit the Lord called you, like a wife of youth when she is cast off 13  For a discussion, see Loiseau, L’influence, 33–37. 14  Michael L. Klein, “Converse Translation: A Targumic Technique,” Bib 57 (1976): 515–37. See also Robert P. Gordon, “‘Converse translation’ in the Targums and beyond,” JSP 19 (1999): 3–21. 15  See Ziegler, Untersuchungen, 95–96; Seeligmann, Septuagint Version, 57; Gordon, “Converse Translation,” 14–15, and see also Ronald L. Troxel, LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation. The Strategies of the Translator of the Septuagint of Isaiah, JSJSup 124 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 94–100.

146

van der Kooij

lxx Not as a woman forsaken and faint-hearted the Lord called you, nor as a woman hated from her youth Interestingly, instead of “like a wife forsaken etc.” lxx reads “not as a woman forsaken […], nor as a woman etc.” This may be a case of “simple amelioration of the text,”16 or as suggested by Ziegler this change might have been made in view of the law of Deut 24:1–4: a husband having written a bill of divorce and having sent his wife out of his house, may not her take again to be his wife after she had a second husband who also had sent her away.17 It seems more likely however, to explain the shift as follows: the phrase “a woman hated from her youth” in lxx (mt diff.) would suggest a long period of time, which would be in contrast with what is said in the following verse (v. 7): “For a brief moment I forsook you….” Hence, the negation was introduced. As far as I know Tg. Isaiah does not contain cases of converse translation, but Tg. Jeremiah does.18 To give an example from this part of Tg. Prophets: Jer 14:9 mt Why should you be like a man confused, like a mighty man who cannot save? Tg Who does your anger hover over us when we are taken into exile and forsaken? You, O mighty One, are able to redeem. 2.3 Metaphorical Interpretation I now turn to the phenomenon of the interpretative rendering of metaphors and metaphorical language in the underlying Hebrew text. This feature is typical of the Targums,19 but hardly of the books making up the Greek Bible (lxx). It is a rule that in these books metaphors have been translated in a literal fashion, lxx Isaiah though being an exception to this rule.20 Examples of instances where both versions share this type of rendering are: 16  Gordon, “Converse Translation,” 15. 17  Ziegler, Untersuchungen, 96. 18  See Robert Hayward, The Targum of Jeremiah. Translated, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes, ArBib 12 (Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1987), 22–23. 19  See e.g. Pinkhos Churgin, Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, Yale Oriental Series Researches, 14 (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1980 (reprint of 1907, i.e. 1927)), 84–90. 20  See Ziegler, Untersuchungen, 80–91; Arie van der Kooij, “The Interpretation of Metaphorical Language: A Characteristic of LXX-Isaiah,” in Jerusalem, Alexandria, Rome. Studies in Ancient Cultural Interaction in Honour of A. Hilhorst, ed. by Florentino García Martínez and Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, JSJSup 82 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 179–85; Benjamin M. Austin, “The Old Greek of Isaiah: An Analysis of its Translation of Plant Metaphors” (PhD diss.,

The Old Greek of Isaiah & THE ISAIAH TARGUM

147

Isa 1:25 mt I will melt away your dross (‫ )סיגיך‬as with lye and remove all your alloy (‫)בדיליך‬ lxx I will purge you into purity, but those who are disobedient will I destroy, and take away all the wicked ones from you and will humble all the arrogant ones Tg I will separate, as those who purify with lye, all your wicked and I will remove all your sinners Instead of “dross” lxx reads “the disobedient ones,” and instead of “alloy” it has “the wicked ones” as well as “the arrogant ones.” The rendering of the latter (“alloy”) obviously is a case of interpreting metaphorical language, which may also apply to the former case (“dross”). It is however possible that the translation of “dross” is due to a different Vorlage (see 1QIsaa) or, alternatively, to an interpretation based on the association between the roots ‫ סיג‬and ‫סוג‬.21 Tg offers a similar interpretation. Isa 8:8 mt and it will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass through; to the neck it will reach lxx and he will take away from Judea a man who will be able to lift (his) head, or (a man) capable to accomplish things Tg […] he will reach to Jerusalem lxx: the clause “it will reach to the neck” has been interpreted as a figurative reference to the “head” in the sense of a leader, someone who is able to exert power. Tg offers a similar though different interpretation: “to the neck” > “to the head” in the sense of the capital, Jerusalem (cf. Jerome). Isa 10:33–34 mt Behold the Lord, the Lord of Hosts, will lop the boughs with terror, and the great in stature will be cut off, and the lofty will be brought low. He will cut down the thickets of the forest with iron and Lebanon shall fall by (or, with) a majestic one lxx For behold, the ruler, the Lord Sabaoth, will confound the glorious ones (τοὺς ἐνδόξους) with (his) power, and the haughty in pride (οἱ Leiden University, 2014).—A few instances in lxx Pentateuch are lxx Gen 49:10 and Num 24:7. 21  Van der Kooij, “Metaphorical Language,” 181.

148

van der Kooij

ὑψηλοὶ τῇ ὕβρει) shall be crushed, and the lofty ones (οἱ ὑψηλοὶ) shall be humbled. The lofty ones shall fall by the sword, and the Lebanon shall fall with his lofty ones Tg Behold, the master of the world, the Lord of Hosts, casts slaughter among his armies as grapes trodden in the press; and the great in stature will be hewn down and the strong will be humbled. And he will slay the mighty men of his armies who make themselves mighty with iron, and his warriors will be cast on the land of Israel In lxx the imagery of high “boughs” or “branches” (‫ )פארה‬and of the “thickets” has been interpreted in terms of the “glorious ones” (via ‫ )פאר‬and the “lofty ones,” i.e., to people of the Assyrian army, respectively.22 Tg offers a similar interpretation: the “branches” has been interpreted as the “armies” (of “the Assyrian” [v. 5]), and the “thickets of the forest” as “the mighty men of his armies.” Note that this interpretation of the imagery in Isa 10:33–34 is also attested by 4QpIsaa (4Q161) (e.g. the “tallest branches” are the “soldiers of the Kittim”). Isa 22:22 mt And I will place the key of the house of David on his shoulder lxx And I will give the glory of David (τὴν δόξαν Δαυιδ) unto him, and he shall rule (ἄρξει) Tg And I will place the key of the sanctuary and the authority of the house of David in his hand lxx: the “key (of the house of David)” has been interpreted as symbol of power and glory, whereas “shoulder” has been taken as conveying the notion of “rule” (cf. Isa 9:6: “upon his shoulder was the government”). Tg offers a double rendering of “key”: first as the key of the sanctuary (not in mt), and next, just as in lxx, as symbol of “authority” (relating to the house of David). Isa 22:23 mt And I will fix him as a peg (‫ )יתד‬in a sure place lxx And I will set him as a ruler (ἄρχοντα) in a sure place Tg And I will appoint him a faithful officer (‫ )אמרכל מהימן‬ministering in an enduring place

22  See van der Kooij, “Metaphorical Language,” 182.

The Old Greek of Isaiah & THE ISAIAH TARGUM

149

In lxx the image of the “peg” has been interpreted as “ruler.” Compare v. 25 where “the peg” has been rendered as “the man.” Both here and in v. 25 Tg has “a faithful ruler” (in the temple) for “peg.” Isa 22:24 mt And they will hang (‫ )תלו‬on him the whole weight of his father’s house lxx And everyone who is glorious in his father’s house will trust (ἔσται πεποιθὼς) in him Tg And all the glorious ones of his father’s house will rely on him lxx and Tg: “to hang on someone” has been explained as “to trust in, rely on, someone.” 2.4 Explicitation lxx Isaiah and Tg. Isaiah both abound with cases of explicitation, that is to say, pluses which in one way or another provide information that the source text contains, or is considered to contain, in an implicit way.23 Examples of cases in which they share this tendency are the following: Isa 35:2 mt They shall see the glory of the Lord, the majesty of our God lxx and my people shall see the glory of the Lord and the loftiness of God Tg The house of Israel—these things are said to them—they shall see the glory of the Lord, the brilliance of the celebrity of our God “My people” in lxx actually is not a plus, as is “the house of Israel” in Tg. It is rather an explicitation of “they” in the light of “Sharon” in the preceding clause (“Sharon” is left untranslated in lxx) via an association with “Jeshurun” in 44:2 = “the beloved Israel” in lxx.24 Isa 40:1–2 mt Comfort, comfort my people, says your God. Speak to the heart of Jerusalem 23  For a discussion, see Mirjam van der Vorm-Croughs, The Old Greek of Isaiah. An Analysis of Its Pluses and Minuses, SBLSCS 61 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014), 31–33. 24  Arie van der Kooij, “Rejoice, O Thirsty Desert! (Isaiah 35). On Zion in the Septuagint of Isaiah,” in ‘Enlarge the Site of Your Tent’. The City as Unifying Theme in Isaiah. The Isaiah Workshop—De Jesaja Werkplaats, ed. by Archibald L.H.M. van Wieringen and Annemarieke van der Woude, OtSt 58 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 11–20, here 14.

150

van der Kooij

lxx Comfort, O comfort my people, says God. O priests, speak to the heart of Jerusalem Tg Prophets, prophesy consolations to my people, says your God. Speak to the heart of Jerusalem Though not at the same place in the verse, lxx and Tg both contain an explicitation regarding those who are called on to comfort “my people”: “priests” in lxx, and “prophets” in Tg. The term “priests” of lxx is not a reference to the priests in general, but rather to high ranking priests being authorized to “comfort,” i.e., to provide insight in what is about to come. One could think here of the leading priests alluded to in lxx Isa 9:6–7—the high priest together with his colleagues (brothers), the chief priests.25 Tg speaks of “prophets.” It is of note that in the light of other data in Tg. Prophets this term can be understood as referring to leading “priests.”26 Their consolations concern the good tidings, as stated in Tg. Isa 40:9: “The kingdom of your God is revealed!” (mt: “Behold your God!”). Isa 60:1 mt Arise, shine; for your light has come lxx Shine, shine, Jerusalem; for your light is come Tg Arise, shine, Jerusalem; for the time of your salvation has come This example speaks for itself.27 2.5 Free / Interpretive Rewriting Unlike many other books of the lxx, the Old Greek of Isaiah contains a number of passages due to a free or interpretive rewriting, or rephrasing, of the underlying Hebrew text, a feature, which is also typical of Tg. Isaiah. In some cases both versions share this tendency in the same place as the following two examples show. 25  See Arie van der Kooij, “The Old Greek of Isaiah 9,6–7 and the Concept of Leadership,” in Die Septuaginta—Text, Wirkung, Rezeption. 4. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 19.–22. Juli 2012, ed. Wolfgang Kraus und Siegfried Kreuzer, WUNT 325 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 333–45. 26  For “prophets” as “leading priests” in Tg. Prophets, see Arie van der Kooij, “Josephus, Onkelos and Jonathan. On the Agreements between Josephus’ Works and Targumic Sources,” in Studies on the Text and Versions of the Hebrew Bible in Honour of Robert Gordon, ed. Geoffrey Khan and Diana Lipton, VTSup 149 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 262–65. 27  Cf. David A. Baer, When We All Go Home. Translation and Theology in LXX Isaiah 56–66, JSOTSup 318, The Hebrew Bible and its Versions 1 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 219.

The Old Greek of Isaiah & THE ISAIAH TARGUM

151

Isa 22:5 mt For the Lord God of hosts has a day of tumult and trampling and confusion in the valley of vision, a battering down (‫ )מקרקר‬of walls (‫)קר‬ and shouting (‫ )שוע‬to the mountains lxx Because it is a day of trouble and destruction and trampling, and there is wandering (πλάνησις) from the Lord Sabaoth in the valley of Sion; from small to great they wander, they wander on the mountains Tg For there is a day of tumult and trampling and killing before the Lord God of hosts in the city, which lies in the valley, against which the prophets prophesied. They are searching through houses, encircling the towers on the tops of the mountains As far as the second half of the verse is concerned, lxx reads “from small to great they wander, they wander on the mountains (πλανῶνται ἀπὸ μικροῦ ἕως μεγάλου πλανῶνται ἐπὶ τὰ ὄρη)” providing in this way a paraphrase linked up with the term πλάνησις (“wandering”; mt “confusion”) in the preceding clause of the verse. It depicts a situation of people “wandering around” on the mountains, outside the city of Jerusalem. This piece of rewriting seems to be based on the following understanding of the Hebrew: “one is tearing down the wall (i.e., the wall of houses; cf. the motif of ‘houses’ in the Greek of v. 1 and vv. 8–9!), and there is a crying out to the mountain(s),” which evokes the idea of people wandering around in great distress. Tg reads: “they are searching through houses, encircling the towers on the top of the mountains.” This rewriting is based first of all on the meaning “searching through” for ‫ קרר‬which by the way is also found in the Peshitta and the Vulgate. Next, in line with the implied understanding in lxx, the “wall” (‫ )קר‬has been taken as the wall of “houses.” The second part of the passage in Tg, though, is more difficult to explain. One could argue that the “crying for help related to a mountain, or mountains,” was taken as a reference to people being in distress due to the fact that the enemy is encircling towers, fortresses, on mountains. Isa 28:8 mt For all tables are full of vomit, no place (‫ )בלי מקום‬is without filthiness lxx A curse will devour this counsel; for this counsel is for the sake of greed (ἕνεκεν πλεονεξίας) Tg For all their tables are full of defiled and abominated food, no place of theirs is innocent of oppression

152

van der Kooij

Troxel rightly observed that πλεονεξία in lxx is “impossible to align with an equivalent in the mt.”28 As so often in cases of rewriting, the “equivalence” approach does not help us further. How to explain then the notion of “greed”? It can be explained by looking at Isa 5:8 which reads (mt): “Woe to those who join house to house, who add field to field, until there is no more room/place (‫)מקוםעד אפס‬.” The phrase “no place” in 28:8 was apparently interpreted in the light of “no more place/room” in 5:8, conveying in this passage the notion of greed.29 This is even more plausible if one takes also lxx Isa 5:8 into account: “Ah, those who join house to house and bring field next to field, so that they may take something from their neighbour!” The idea of leaving no room in mt has been interpreted as taking fields of others into possession (cf. greed). The Tg version of 28:8b—no place of theirs is innocent of oppression—too seems to be linked up with 5:8 which in Tg reads thus, “Woe to those who join house to house, adding the field of oppression to their fields, saying: Until we possess every place.” Exegetical Traditions 2.6 Finally, I would like to give two examples from lxx Isaiah and Tg. Isaiah which not only show a similar exegesis but which also seems to testify to an exegetical tradition. A well-known case in this regard is the passage of Isa 19:25: Isa 19:25 mt (Israel) whom the Lord of hosts has blessed, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel my heritage lxx (Israel … blessed on the earth) that the Lord Sabaoth blessed by saying, Blessed be my people in Egypt and among Assyrians, and my inheritance Israel Tg (Israel) whom the Lord of hosts has blessed, saying, Blessed are my people whom I brought forth from Egypt; because they sinned before me I exiled them to Assyria, and now that they repent they are called my people and my heritage, Israel.30 28  Troxel, LXX-Isaiah, 268. 29  Cf. Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament. Band II: Psalmen bis Daniel, ed. Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011), 2575; Ronald L. Troxel, “BOYLH and BOYLEYEIN in LXX Isaiah,” in The Old Greek of Isaiah: Issues and Perspectives, ed. by Arie van der Kooij and Michaël N. van der Meer, CBET 55 (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 153–70, here 166–67. Compare also Micah 2:2. 30  Cf. e.g. Baer, When We All Go Home, 217. For lxx Isa 19:25, see also Arie van der Kooij, “The Septuagint of Isaiah,” in Johann Cook and Arie van der Kooij, Law, Prophets, and

The Old Greek of Isaiah & THE ISAIAH TARGUM

153

Another case concerns the way the prophecy on Shebna and Eljakim in Isa 22:15–25 has been interpreted in lxx Isaiah and Tg. Isaiah. Both versions share a particular interpretation of the two officials involved, Shebna and Eliakim. In mt these figures are presented as officials of the king, just as is the case in Isa 36–37. In lxx and in Tg, however, things are different because unlike Isa 36–37, the two officials turn out to be leading priests of the temple.31 It is arguable that this reading of Isa 22:15–25 is due to an exegetical tradition as it is also attested in other sources: see Eusebius, Commentary on Isaiah, ad loc. (“the Hebrew [Jew] said that Somnas was a high priest”; cf. Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah); and see Lev Rab. 5,5 (R. Juda: Shebna was an amarkal, a high temple official, not a high priest; R. Eleazar: Shebna was a high priest). 3

Concluding Remarks

What to make of all this? Although the number of cases dealt with in the above is limited, it can be said that both versions, lxx Isaiah and Tg. Isaiah, not only represent highly interpretative translations but also share in several respects a common approach towards the underlying Hebrew text. This concerns the aspect of lexical choices as well as characteristics such as converse translation, metaphorical interpretation, and free rewriting. In some of the instances both versions end up with the same rendering or a similar interpretation, while in others, though applying the same devices, they show up mutual divergences. Of course, the above discussion of the examples is very brief, as it focuses only on the way, how (i.e., by which device or characteristic) a particular rendering came into being. More should be said and searched about the content of a given translation and interpretation including the question of its place and role in the context of either version. Such a broader analysis may lead to what, as noted in the introduction, Brockington typified as a “common tradition of exegetical method.” The thesis of a common approach is not meant though to deny that cases of agreement on content level may point to a lexical or exegetical tradition. As Wisdom. On the Provenance of Translators and their Books in the Septuagint Version, CBET 68 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 63–86, here 74–76. 31  For details, see van der Kooij, Textzeugen, 56–60 (lxx), 161–164 (Tg); LXX.D Erläuterungen und Kommentare II, 2560–561 and Bruce D. Chilton, The Isaiah Targum. Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and Notes, ArBib 11 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987), 45. It is worthy of note that the combination of priestly and royal power in Tg. Isa 22:22 (“the key of the sanctuary and the authority of the house of David” [MT “the key of the house of David”]) points to Hasmonean rulership.

154

van der Kooij

suggested above, I think here of Isa 19:25 and Isa 22:15–25 as translated and interpreted in the two versions. In addition, it may well be, as has been argued by scholars, that the specific rendering of ‫ לאם‬discussed above in lxx Isaiah and Tg. Isaiah reflects “an old lexicological tradition.”32 Nevertheless, in view of the many mutual striking divergences between lxx Isaiah and Tg. Isaiah, the idea of a common approach or method seems the most appropriate one. The two versions are marked by a literary translation style33 and by a strong interest in interpretive modifications. All this indicates that they are the work of Jewish people, who were highly educated people being able to read and interpret literary texts such as the book of Isaiah.34 Needless to say that more research should be carried out in order to get a more detailed picture of the relationship between these two fascinating versions. One of the issues involved concerns yet another feature they may have in common—the application of the prophecies in the ancient book of Isaiah. Bibliography Austin, Benjamin M., “The Old Greek of Isaiah: An Analysis of its Translation of Plant Metaphors” (PhD diss., Leiden University, 2014). Baer, David A., When We All Go Home. Translation and Theology in LXX Isaiah 56–66, JSOTSup 318, The Hebrew Bible and its Versions 1 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001). Barr, James, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968). Brockington, Leonhard H., “Septuagint and Targum,” ZAW 66 (1954): 80–86. Byun, Seulgi L., The Influence of Post-Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic on the Translator of Septuagint Isaiah (London: Bloomsbury / T&T Clark, 2017). Chilton, Bruce D., The Isaiah Targum. Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and Notes, ArBib 11 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987). Churgin, Pinkhos, Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, Yale Oriental Series Researches, 14 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980, reprint of 1907, i.e. 1927). Delekat, Lienhard, “Ein Septuagintatargum,” VT 8 (1958): 225–52. 32  Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version, 51. Cf. Koenig, L’herméneutique analogique, 172. 33  It may be noted here that Tg. Isaiah is a written targum, which should be distinguished from the oral one in the synagogue. See e.g. Willem F. Smelik, The Targum of Judges, OtSt 36 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 28–35. 34  I regard the scholar-translators of Tg. Prophets as people like Josephus; see van der Kooij, “Josephus, Onkelos and Jonathan,” 261–65.

The Old Greek of Isaiah & THE ISAIAH TARGUM

155

Fischer, Johann, In welcher Schrift lag das Buch Isaias den LXX vor? BZAW 56 (Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1930). Frankel, Zacharias, Historisch-kritische Studien zu der Septuaginta I (Leipzig: Vogel, 1841). Gordon, Robert P., “‘Converse translation’ in the Targums and beyond,” JSP 19 (1999): 3–21. Hayward, Robert, The Targum of Jeremiah. Translated, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes, ArBib 12 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987). Joosten, Jan, “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. by M.F.J. Baasten and W.Th. van Peursen. OLA 118 (Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 587–600. Karrer, Martin and Wolfgang Kraus, eds., Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament. Band II: Psalmen bis Daniel (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011). Klein, Michael L., “Converse Translation: A Targumic Technique,” Bib 57 (1976): 515–37. Koenig, Jean, L’herméneutique analogique du Judaïsme antique d’après les témoins textuels d’Isaïe, VTSup 33 (Leiden: Brill, 1982). Kooij, Arie van der, Die alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches, OBO 35 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981). Kooij, Arie van der, “The Interpretation of Metaphorical Language: A Characteristic of LXX-Isaiah,” in Jerusalem, Alexandria, Rome. Studies in Ancient Cultural Interaction in Honour of A. Hilhorst, ed. by Florentino García Martínez and Gerard P. Luttikhuizen. JSJSup 82 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 179–85. Kooij, Arie van der, “Rejoice, O Thirsty Desert! (Isaiah 35). On Zion in the Septuagint of Isaiah,” in ‘Enlarge the Site of Your Tent’. The City as Unifying Theme in Isaiah. The Isaiah Workshop—De Jesaja Werkplaats, ed. by Archibald L.H.M. van Wieringen and Annemarieke van der Woude, OtSt 58 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 11–20. Kooij, Arie van der, “Josephus, Onkelos and Jonathan. On the Agreements between Josephus’ Works and Targumic Sources,” in Studies on the Text and Versions of the Hebrew Bible in Honour of Robert Gordon, ed. Geoffrey Khan and Diana Lipton, VTSup 149 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 262–65. Kooij, Arie van der, “The Septuagint of Isaiah,” in Johann Cook and Arie van der Kooij, Law, Prophets, and Wisdom. On the Provenance of Translators and their Books in the Septuagint Version, CBET 68 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 63–86. Kooij, Arie van der, “The Old Greek of Isaiah 9,6–7 and the Concept of Leadership,” in Die Septuaginta—Text, Wirkung, Rezeption. 4. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 19.–22. Juli 2012, ed. Wolfgang Kraus und Siegfried Kreuzer, WUNT 325 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 333–45.

156

van der Kooij

Loiseau, Anne-Françoise, L’influence de l’araméen sur les traducteurs de la LXX principalement, sur les traducteurs grecs postérieurs, ainsi que sur les scribes de la Vorlage de la LXX, SBLSCS 65 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016). Seeligmann, Isac L., The Septuagint Version of Isaiah, MEOL 9 (Leiden: Brill, 1948). Smelik, Willem F., The Targum of Judges, OtSt 36 (Leiden: Brill, 1995). Troxel, Ronald L., LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation. The Strategies of the Translator of the Septuagint of Isaiah, JSJSup 124 (Leiden: Brill, 2008). Troxel, Ronald L., “BOYLH and BOYLEYEIN in LXX Isaiah,” in The Old Greek of Isaiah: Issues and Perspectives, ed. by Arie van der Kooij and Michaël N. van der Meer, CBET 55 (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 153–70. Vorm-Croughs, Mirjam van der, The Old Greek of Isaiah. An Analysis of Its Pluses and Minuses, SBLSCS 61 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014). Ziegler, Joseph, Untersuchungen zur Septuaginta des Buches Isaias, ATA XII, 3 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1934).

Chapter 7

Targum Jonathan and Its Relation to the Septuagint in the Book of Hosea Jan Joosten The relationship between the Septuagint and the Targums is a rather neglected chapter in Old Testament textual criticism. Where these versions go together in diverging from the received Hebrew text, explanation is usually sought in directions that do not require direct contact between them: the two versions may independently preserve a non-Masoretic variant; they may be based on exegetical traditions known in various circles; or the similarity between them may be due to polygenesis—two translators independently coming up with a similar solution for the same problem.1 When direct contact is envisaged, the usual view is that the Septuagint depends in one way or another on the Targum. Zacharias Frankel argued in the early nineteenth century that the Greek translators of the Pentateuch consulted Targum Onkelos, or an early form of it, in their work on the Hebrew text. Pinchos Churgin and Lienhard Delekat have pursued this line of argument in the mid-twentieth century.2 The approach is counter-intuitive because of the relative chronology of these versions on which scholars have increasingly agreed.3 While the Septuagint goes back in the main to the Hellenistic period, the Rabbinic Targums were hardly put into writing before the end of the Second Temple period. Nevertheless, something remains to be said for

1  See e.g. Willem F. Smelik, The Targum of Judges, OtSt 36 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 1–74. For methodological prolegomena, see Michael P. Weitzman, “Peshitta, Septuagint and Targum” in VI Symposium Syriacum 1992, edited by René Lavenant; OCA 247 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1994), 51–84. 2  See Zacharias Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta (Leipzig: Vogel, 1841); Ueber den Einfluss der Palästinensischen Exegese auf die Alexandrinische Hermeneutik (Leipzig: Barth, 1851); Pinkhos Churgin, “The Targum and the Septuagint,” AJSL 50 (1933): 41–65; Lienhard Delekat, “Ein Septuagintatargum,” VT 8 (1958): 225–52. 3  See e.g. Uwe Glessmer, Einleitung in die Targume zum Pentateuch, TSAJ 48 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995); Paul V.M. Flesher, Bruce Chilton, The Targums. A Critical Introduction, Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 12; (Leiden: Brill, 2011).

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004416727_009

158

Joosten

Frankel’s idea. It may well be that the Septuagint incorporates elements of an Aramaic, proto-Targumic tradition.4 What is completely uncommon is to postulate the reverse, the dependence of Rabbinic Targums on the Septuagint. John Pairman Brown has argued that the source of some Greek loanwords in the Targums must be the Septuagint.5 More recently, Beate Ego has pointed to some striking similarities between the Septuagint and the Targum Sheni to Esther.6 Whether or not these studies are persuasive, the general idea is not absurd. Although the Septuagint was established as the Christian Old Testament early in the common era, it was never entirely abandoned among Jews.7 Some Targumists may have consulted the Septuagint as one of their sources in translating the Hebrew. Any testing of these possibilities needs to be done on the separate books of the Bible. The absence of evidence in one book does not dispense one from checking the others: different translation units may well have been rendered following different principles. In preparation of the Hosea volume of the Bible d’Alexandrie, a systematic comparison was made between the Septuagint and Targum Jonathan as edited by Sperber.8 A number of readings in the Targum turned out to agree with the Septuagint against the mt. This by itself, of course, does not suffice to argue for influence from one version on the other. Nevertheless, the typology of some of the shared variants does seem to indicate direct influence. Moreover, in Hosea the direction of influence appears to go from the Septuagint to the Targum.

4  See Jan Joosten, “Des targumismes dans la Septante ?” in The Targums in the Light of Traditions of the Second Temple Period, ed. Thierry Legrand, Jan Joosten, JSJSup 167 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 17–53; Anne-Françoise Loiseau, L’influence de l’araméen sur les traducteurs de la LXX principalement, sur les traducteurs grecs postérieurs, ainsi que sur les scribes de la Vorlage de la LXX, SBLSCS 65 (Atlanta: SBL, 2016). 5  John P. Brown, “The Septuagint as a Source of the Greek Loan-Words in the Targums,” Bib 70 (1989): 194–216. 6  Beate Ego, “Retelling the Story of Esther in Targum Sheni in Light of Septuagint Traditions— Main Outlines,” in The Targums in the Light of Traditions of the Second Temple Period, 72–83. 7  See e.g. Nicholas De Lange, Julia G. Krivoruchko, Cameron Boyd-Taylor, eds., Jewish Reception of Greek Bible Versions, Texts and Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Judaism 23 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009); Giuseppe Veltri, Eine Tora für den König Talmai—Untersuchungen zum Übersetzungsverständnis in der jüdisch-hellenistischen und rabbinischen Literatur, TSAJ 41 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994). 8  Jan Joosten, Eberhard Bons, Stephan Kessler, Les Douze Prophètes. Osée, La Bible d’Alexandrie 23, 1 (Paris: Cerf, 2002).

HOSEA IN TARGUM JONATHAN & SEPTUAGINT

1

159

A List of Agreements between lxx and Targum in Hosea9

The following list purports to give all cases where lxx and Targum significantly diverge from the mt in the same way (lxx = Tg ≠ mt).10 Each instance is followed by a short comment. Hos 1:2 mt ‫הֹוׁש ַע‬ ֵ ‫ְּת ִח ַּלת ִּד ֶּבר־יְ הוָ ה ְּב‬ When the Lord first spoke through Hosea11 lxx Ἀρχὴ λόγου κυρίου πρὸς Ωσηε The beginning of the word of the Lord in Hosee12 Tg. Jon. ‫שריות פתגמא דיוי בהושע‬ = lxx Instead of the Piel 3 m. perfect “he spoke,” both the Septuagint and the Targum reflect a noun in the status constructus (vocalizing deḇar).13 Hos 4:11 mt lxx Tg. Jon.

‫ח־לב‬ ֵ ‫זְ נוּת וְ יַ יִ ן וְ ִתירֹושׁ יִ ַקּ‬

whoredom, wine and new wine take away the understanding14 Πορνείαν καὶ οἶνον καὶ μέθυσμα ἐδέξατο καρδία λαοῦ μου (… whoredom.) And the heart of my people has received wine and intoxicating drink ‫זנותא וחמרא ורויותא שליף ומטעי ית ליבהון‬

whoredom, wine and intoxicating drink draws away their heart and leads it astray

The Aramaic word rewyu “drunkenness” (see Ezek 39:19) does not render the Hebrew well, but corresponds to a possible meaning of the Greek word μέθυσμα.15 9   Chapter and verse numbering follow BHS. 10  The notion of significance introduces an element of subjectivity. In any case, the list does not pretend to be absolutely exhaustive. 11  English translations follow the nrsv unless it is indicated otherwise. 12  Translations of the Septuagint follow nets. 13  Alternatively, one might argue that lxx and Targum identified the word as the noun dibber “word” (cf. Jer 5:13). 14  The nrsv here follows the Septuagint, reading against the Masoretic verse division. 15  See also Mic 2:11 where the same constellation is found: ‫ = שכר‬μέθυσμα = ‫רויו‬. In Ezek 39:19 ‫ רויו‬renders Hebrew ‫“ שכרון‬drunkenness.”

160 Hos 4:19 mt lxx Tg. Jon.

Joosten

‫חֹותם‬ ָ ‫וְ יֵ בֹׁשּו ִמּזִ ְב‬

and they shall be ashamed because of their sacrifices16 καὶ καταισχυνθήσονται ἐκ τῶν θυσιαστηρίων αὐτῶν and they will be ashamed because of their altars ‫ויבהתון מאוגרי טעותהון‬

and they will be ashamed because of the altars of their false gods

For the mt’s “sacrifices,” both our versions read “altars” (reflecting a Hebrew reading: ‫ ;)ממזבחותם‬in the Targum this was further interpreted as “the altars of their false gods.” Hos 5:1 mt lxx Tg. Jon.

‫ל־ּתבֹור‬ ָ ‫רּוׂשה ַע‬ ָ ‫יתם ְל ִמ ְצ ָּפה וְ ֶר ֶׁשת ְּפ‬ ֶ ִ‫י־פח ֱהי‬ ַ ‫ִּכ‬

for you have been a snare at Mizpah, and a net spread upon Tabor ὅτι παγὶς ἐγενήθητε τῇ σκοπιᾷ καὶ ὡς δίκτυον ἐκτεταμένον ἐπὶ τὸ Ἰταβύριον because you have become a snare to the lookout and like a net stretched over Itabyrion ‫ארי תקלא הויתון למלפיכון כמצדא דפריסא על טור רם‬

for you have been a snare for your teachers as a net spread out over a high mountain17

Both versions add a word meaning “as” in order to qualify the “net” explicitly as a simile. Hos 5:5; 7:10 mt ‫וְ ָענָ ה גְ אֹון־יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ְּב ָפנָ יו‬ Israel’s pride testifies against him lxx καὶ ταπεινωθήσεται ἡ ὕβρις τοῦ Ισραηλ εἰς πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ and Israel’s pride will be brought low against him Tg. Jon. ‫וימאך יקר ישראל ואנון חזן‬ the glory of Israel will be humiliated before their eyes

16  The nrsv here follows the Septuagint, rendering “altars” instead of “sacrifices.” 17  A variant reading signaled in Sperber’s edition has ‫וכמצדא‬, where the waw conforms the text to the MT and the Septuagint.

HOSEA IN TARGUM JONATHAN & SEPTUAGINT

161

Both versions take the Hebrew verb ‫ ענה‬to mean “to be humiliated,” although the meaning “to answer, to testify” is preferable for the mt.18 Hos 5:9 mt lxx Tg. Jon.

‫ֶא ְפ ַריִ ם ְל ַשׁ ָמּה ִת ְהיֶ ה‬

Ephraim, you shall become a desolation19 Εφραιμ εἰς ἀφανισμὸν ἐγένετο Ephraim has become an annihilation ‫דבית אפרים לצדו יהון‬

the house of Ephraim will become a desolation

The Greek and Aramaic translators have a 3rd person verb as against mt’s 2nd person (or 3fs, but Ephraim is usually masculine). Hos 5:15–6:1 mt ‫ׁשּובה ֶאל־יְ הוָ ה‬ ָ ָ‫ַּב ַּצר ָל ֶהם יְ ַׁש ֲח ֻרנְ נִ י ְלכּו וְ נ‬ In their distress they will approach me early, “Let us go and return …”20 lxx ἐν θλίψει αὐτῶν ὀρθριοῦσι πρός με λέγοντες Πορευθῶμεν καὶ ἐπιστρέψωμεν πρὸς κύριον Tg. Jon. ‫כד תיעוק להון ויתבעון דחלתי יימרון איתו ונתוב לפלחנא דיוי‬ Both versions add a verbal form introducing the direct discourse.21 Hos 6:5 mt ‫וּמ ְשׁ ָפּ ֶטיָך אֹור יֵ ֵצא‬ ִ your judgments are light going forth22 lxx καὶ τὸ κρίμα μου ὡς φῶς ἐξελεύσεται and my judgement will go forth as light Tg. Jon. ‫ודיני כניהור נפיק‬ = lxx

18  Note however the midrash quoting this verse in reference to humiliation quoted in The Bible in Rabbinic Interpretation: Rabbinic Derashot on Prophets and Writings in Talmudic and Midrashic Literature. Volume One: Hosea, ed. Menahem Ben-Yashar, Isaac Gottlieb, Jordan S. Penkower (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 2003), 244–245. 19  n rsv: Ephraim shall become a desolation. 20  n rsv: In their distress they will beg my favor, saying, “Let us go and return …” 21  Similarly the Peshitta. 22  n rsv follows the Septuagint: and my judgment goes forth as the light.

162

Joosten

Both Septuagint and Targum reflect the division ‫ משפטי כאור‬against the mt. Hos 6:11 mt lxx Tg. Jon.

‫ָׁשת ָק ִציר ָלְך‬

for you (…) a harvest is appointed Ἄρχου τρυγᾶν σεαυτῷ begin to reap for yourself ‫שריאו לאסגאה חובין‬

they began to multiply sins

Although our versions diverge in the division of the clauses, they both interpret the first word as a verb meaning “to begin” and take the following word as an infinitive. Hos 7:5 mt lxx Tg. Jon.

‫ֶה ֱחלּו ָׂש ִרים ֲח ַמת ִמּיָ יִ ן‬

the officials became sick with the heat of wine ἤρξαντο οἱ ἄρχοντες θυμοῦσθαι ἐξ οἴνου the rulers began to be enraged with wine ‫שריאו רברביא למשתי עמיה חמר‬

the rulers began to drink wine with him

Septuagint and Targum concur in parsing the verb as a form of ‫ חלל‬hif. “to begin,” against the Masoretic vowels and the context. Hos 9:1 mt lxx Tg. Jon.

‫ל־ּת ְׂש ַמח יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ֶאל־ּגִ יל ָּכ ַע ִּמים‬ ִ ‫ַא‬

Stop rejoicing, O Israel, to exultation like the peoples23 Μὴ χαῖρε, Ισραηλ, μηδὲ εὐφραίνου καθὼς οἱ λαοί ‫לא תחדון דבית ישראל לא תבועון כנמוסי עממיא‬

do not rejoice, O house of Israel, do not exult according to the custom of the nations

For the puzzling phrase ‫ אל גיל‬in mt,24 both our versions read a negation followed by a verbal form. 23  n rsv follows the Septuagint: Do not rejoice, O Israel! Do not exult as other nations do. 24  But see Job 3:22 (cf. Dominique Barthélemy, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament 3. Ézéchiel, Daniel et les 12 Prophètes, OBO 50.3 [Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992], 558–559).

HOSEA IN TARGUM JONATHAN & SEPTUAGINT

Hos 11:2 mt lxx Tg. Jon.

163

‫יהם‬ ֶ ֵ‫ָק ְראּו ָל ֶהם ֵּכן ָה ְלכּו ִמ ְּפנ‬

As they called them, so they went from them25 καθὼς μετεκάλεσα αὐτούς, οὕτως ἀπῴχοντο ἐκ προσώπου μου as I recalled them, so they went from me ‫שלחית נביי לאלפא להון ואנון טעו מקביל אפיהון‬

I sent my prophets to teach them and they strayed from before their faces

Both Septuagint and Targum change the 3rd plural of the initial verbal form in the mt to a first singular. Hos 11:11 mt lxx Tg. Jon.

‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ל־ּב ֵּת‬ ָ ‫הֹוׁש ְב ִּתים ַע‬ ַ ְ‫ו‬

and I will make them dwell in their houses26 καὶ ἀποκαταστήσω αὐτοὺς εἰς τοὺς οἴκους αὐτῶν and I will restore them to their homes ‫ואתיבינון בשלם לבתיהון‬

and I will return them in peace to their homes

Our versions appear to derive the verbal form from the root ‫שוב‬, not ‫ ישב‬as in the mt. Hos 12:1 (11:12 in the nrsv) mt ‫דֹוׁשים נֶ ֱא ָמן‬ ִ ‫ם־ק‬ ְ ‫וְ ִע‬ and is faithful to the Holy One lxx καὶ λαὸς ἅγιος κεκλήσεται θεοῦ and he shall be called “holy people of God”27 Tg. Jon. ‫ואנון דהוו פלחין קדמי בבית מקדשא מתקרן עמא קדישא בכין הוו קיימין‬ and they who served me in the Temple are called a holy people, therefore they were preserved

25  n rsv follows the Septuagint: The more I called them, the more they went from me. 26  n rsv: and I will restore them to their homes. 27  n ets: the holy people shall be called God’s.

164

Joosten

Instead of mt’s preposition ʿim “with,” Septuagint and Targum reflect the noun ʿam “people,” and the final word neʾeman “faithful” is reflected as ‫נאמר‬ “to be said.”28 Hos 13:2 mt lxx Tg. Jon.

‫וַ ּיַ ְעׂשּו ָל ֶהם ַמ ֵּס ָכה ִמ ַּכ ְס ָּפם ִּכ ְתבּונָ ם ֲע ַצ ִּבים‬

and make a cast image for themselves, idols of silver made according to their understanding καὶ ἐποίησαν ἑαυτοῖς χώνευμα ἐκ τοῦ ἀργυρίου αὐτῶν κατ᾿ εἰκόνα εἰδώλων and made a cast image for themselves from their silver according to the likeness of idols ‫ועבדו להון מתכא מכספהון כדמותהון צלמנין‬

and they have made themselves a molten image of their silver, idols in their likeness

In both Septuagint and Targum, the difficult ‫ תבונם‬of the mt (“according to their understanding”?) is interpreted as “in their likeness,” perhaps reflecting the Hebrew word ‫“ תמונה‬image.” Hos 13:4 mt lxx Tg. Jon.

‫ֹלהיָך ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָריִ ם‬ ֶ ‫וְ ָאנ ִֹכי יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬

I have been the LORD your God ever since the land of Egypt ἐγὼ δὲ κύριος ὁ θεός σου … καὶ ἐγὼ ἀνήγαγόν σε ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου ‫ואנא יוי אלהך דאסיקתך מארעא דמצרים‬

Both versions have a short phrase “I led you up” absent from the mt.29 Hos 13:13 mt lxx

‫יֹול ָדה יָ בֹאּו לֹו‬ ֵ ‫ֶח ְב ֵלי‬

the pangs of childbirth come for him ὠδῖνες ὡς τικτούσης ἥξουσιν αὐτῷ pains as of one in childbirth will come to him

28  See Barthélemy, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament 3, 597, 10. Note that the Targum reflects both the variant reading, ‫נאמר‬, and the Masoretic ‫נאמן‬. 29  Note however that in Hos 12:10, where the MT is similar, lxx and Targum add different verbs (ἀνήγαγόν σε “I led you up” vs ‫“ אפקתך‬I led you out”).

HOSEA IN TARGUM JONATHAN & SEPTUAGINT

Tg. Jon.

165

‫עקא וזיע כחבלין על ילדא ייתון עלוהי‬

trouble and shiver will come upon him as pangs on a woman in childbirth

As in Hos 5:1, our versions add an element explicitly indicating the figurative nature of the “birth pangs.” Arguably, the addition implies a different interpretation of the entire verse: in mt, Ephraim is compared to an unborn baby who refuses to leave the womb when the pangs of childbirth arrive; in the versions, the pangs of a woman in childbirth are a figure for distress coming upon Ephraim.30 Hos 13:15 mt lxx Tg. Jon.

‫וְ יֵבֹוׁש ְמקֹורֹו‬

and his fountain shall disappoint31 καὶ ἀναξηρανεῖ τὰς φλέβας αὐτοῦ and it will dry up its aquifers ‫ויחריב בית גנזוהי‬

and he will destroy his treasure-house

The verb is intransitive in mt and derives from the root ‫ ;בוש‬in the versions the verb is transitive and is derived from the root ‫יבש‬. In the Targum, the drying up is further interpreted as destruction. 2 Discussion Comparative reading of the mt, the Septuagint and Targum Jonathan, brought to light 19 passages where the two versions diverge from the mt in a similar way (18 cases because the divergence in 5:5 recurs in 7:10; but note that 12:1 involves two readings). Proportionally, this may look like a small number. The received text of the Book of Hosea is very difficult, and both the lxx and the Targum diverge from the mt in hundreds of places. It seems only natural that there should be some overlap in the divergences. Against this stands the fact that our two versions do not generally stray from the Hebrew in the same way. While the Septuagint of Hosea reflects a great deal of what to the modern scholar can

30  In 2 Kgs 19:3 and Isa 37:3 a similar image in the MT gives rise to similar divergences in lxx and Targum. More research is required on this point. 31  n rsv: his fountain shall dry up.

166

Joosten

only be defined as misreadings of the Hebrew text,32 the Targum is more open to paraphrase but can usually be made sense of as an interpretation of the mt. Most of the shared readings can be broadly categorized as “exegetical.” Where the exegesis is straightforward or self-evident one can easily imagine that it arose in each version independently The addition of a preposition meaning “like” to a figurative expression (you are “like a net” instead of you are “a net” in 5:1), the addition of a verb of speech (5:15–6:1), and the harmonization of grammatical person (5:9; 11:2) are changes any translator of Hosea might make. The fact that such interpretative elements turn up in the same passages in the Greek and Aramaic versions is not significant. Some of the shared interpretations are more puzzling: thus ‫“ שת‬to put” seems to interpreted as “to begin” (6:1), and ‫“ ענה‬to answer, to witness” is interpreted as “to be humiliated” (5:5; 7:10). Even these can sometimes be explained from the context.33 If so, the Greek translator and the Targumist may again have come up with these readings independently. Consequently, such divergences do not provide strong proof of direct dependence. Some of the shared divergences can be traced back to variant readings. Cases involving only vocalization (1:2; 7:5; 9:1; 12:1 ʿim/ʿam) are on the borderline of text and interpretation. But several cases involve variant readings in the consonantal text: 4:19 ‫ ≠ *ממזבחותם‬mt ‫מזבחותם‬ 6:5 ‫ ≠ *משפטי כאור‬mt ‫משפטיך אור‬ 11:11 ‫ ≠ *והשיבותים‬mt ‫והושבתים‬ 12:1 ‫ ≠ *נאמר‬mt ‫נאמן‬ 13:2 ‫ ≠ *תמונם‬mt ‫תבונם‬ 13:15 ‫ ≠ *ויובישו‬mt ‫ויבושו‬ Hebrew readings diverging from the mt are reflected in the Septuagint far more often than in the Targum. Nevertheless, such readings are at times attested in the Targum. Note the following example: Nah 3:6 mt ‫וְ ַשׂ ְמ ִתּיְך ְכּר ִֹאי‬ and I will make you a spectacle 4Q169 f3–4 iii 1–2 ‫ושמתיך כאורה‬ I will make you repulsive 32  See Joosten et al., Osée, 33–43. 33  See e.g. above in note 18.

HOSEA IN TARGUM JONATHAN & SEPTUAGINT

Tg. Jon.

167

‫ואשויניך מכערא לעיני כל חזך‬

I will make you ugly to the eyes of all who see you

In the absence of the text quoted in 4QpNah, Targum Jonathan might be considered a simple paraphrase of the mt. The Pesher shows, however, that a reading ‫“ כאורה‬disfigured” (or something similar) circulated during the Second Temple period. In light of this reading, it is better to consider the Targumic reading as a double rendering reflecting both the mt and the early variant.34 The Septuagint of Nah 3:6 reflects the mt (καὶ θήσομαί σε εἰς παράδειγμα). If Targum Jonathan does occasionally attest non-Masoretic readings independently, this means the possibility of chance agreement between Septuagint and Targum cannot be excluded in the cases enumerated above.35 A Septuagintal Pseudo-Variant in the Targum

3

A mere enumeration of shared divergences cannot clinch the question at issue in this paper. More detailed analysis is necessary. Hos 12:1

‫דֹוׁשים נֶ ֱא ָמן‬ ִ ‫ם־ק‬ ְ ‫ם־אל וְ ִע‬ ֵ ‫יהּודה עֹד ָרד ִע‬ ָ ִ‫ּוב ִמ ְר ָמה ֵּבית יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ו‬ ְ ‫ְס ָב ֻבנִ י ְב ַכ ַחׁש ֶא ְפ ַריִ ם‬

Ephraim has surrounded me with lies, and the house of Israel with deceit; but Judah still walks with God, and is faithful to the Holy One. Ἐκύκλωσέν με ἐν ψεύδει Εφραιμ καὶ ἐν ἀσεβείαις οἶκος Ισραηλ καὶ Ιουδα. νῦν ἔγνω αὐτοὺς ὁ θεός, καὶ λαὸς ἅγιος κεκλήσεται θεοῦ. Ephraim surrounded me with a lie, and the house of Israel and Judah with impiety; now God has come to know them, and he will be called “holy people of God.”36

34   See Anthony Gelston, The Twelve Minor Prophets, BHQ 13; (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2010), 113*. 35  Note, however, Barthélemy’s remark in Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament 3, 527 (on Hos 6:5): “La traduction textuelle de T n’ayant d’ordinaire aucune relation avec celles du G (alors que la S est, par contre, souvent influence par le G), il est très frappant que le T lise ici, lui aussi, la variante.” It is regrettable that Barthélemy didn’t observe here that there are several more instances like this, where the Targum reads a non-Masoretic variant attested also in the Septuagint. 36  n ets: “Ephraim has surrounded me with a lie, and the house of Israel and Ioudas with impiety now God has come to know them, and the holy people shall be called God’s.”

168

Joosten

‫ית ְק ִפין ְב ֻפל־‬ ַ ‫הוּדה ֲהוֹו ִמ‬ ָ ְ‫וּבית י‬ ֵ ‫כלין ֵבית יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ִ ִ‫אַפריִ ם וּבנ‬ ַ ‫דבין ֵבית‬ ִ ‫אַסגִ יאוּ ֳק ָד ַמי ְב ַכ‬ ‫תק ַרן‬ ְ ‫קד ָשׁא ִמ‬ ְ ‫גלא ַע ָמא ַד ֲא ָל ָהא ֵמ ֲא ַרעהֹון וְ ִאנוּן ַד ֲהוֹו ָפ ְל ִחין ֳק ָד ַמי ְב ֵבית ַמ‬ ָ ‫ָחנָ א ַעד ִד‬ ‫ימין׃‬ ִ ָ‫ישׁא ְב ֵכין ֲהוֹו ַקי‬ ָ ‫ַע ָמא ַק ִד‬

The House of Ephraim multiplied sins before me, and the House of Israel lies; but the House of Judah held fast to the (temple) service until the people of God were exiled from their land. And those who had been serving before me in the sanctuary were called “Holy People”—therefore they survived. There are important differences between the lxx and the Targum. The Targum agrees with mt in opposing Ephraim to Judah while the Septuagint does not distinguish the fate of the two groups. The Targum is also more paraphrastic than the Septuagint, which follows its perceived Vorlage word for word except for the addition of θεοῦ “of God” at the end. 4

A Hebrew Variant

These differences should not let us lose sight of an important shared divergence. Both the Septuagint and the Targum state that Judah/Israel, in some indeterminate future, will be called “holy people.” The mt has nothing of the sort. This is not merely an exegetical rendering. As was observed above, the variant version of Septuagint and Targum goes back to a different Hebrew reading of the last three words of the verse. The variant reading can be identified most easily on the basis of the Septuagint: mt lxx =

‫דֹושׁים נֶ ֱא ָמן‬ ִ ‫ם־ק‬ ְ ‫וְ ִע‬

καὶ λαὸς ἅγιος κεκλήσεται ‫ועם קדושים נאמר‬ ַ

The same variant Hebrew text—reading ‫“ ַעם‬people” instead of the preposition, and ‫ נאמר‬instead of ‫—נאמן‬is reflected also in the Targum: ‫תק ַרן ַע ָמא‬ ְ ‫ִמ‬ ‫ישׁא‬ ָ ‫“ ַק ִד‬they are called a holy people.” In the Aramaic the verb is put in the plural and the word order has been altered. As was established in the previous section, shared variant Hebrew readings do not provide a secure basis when one wishes to argue for direct influence of one version on the other. The same Hebrew variants may have been known independently to the Septuagint translator and the Targumist. In the present case, however, one needs to envisage the possibility that the variant reading

HOSEA IN TARGUM JONATHAN & SEPTUAGINT

169

was never physically found in a Hebrew manuscript, and existed only in the mind of the translator. At first sight, the Hebrew readings reflected in the versions seem plausible enough. The variation between ʿim and ʿam would not be encoded in a consonantal text, and variation between the roots ‫ אמר‬and ‫ אמן‬is attested in several other biblical passages.37 Nevertheless, the meaning attributed to the clause in the versions is hardly possible. In Biblical Hebrew, the niphal of ‫ אמר‬can be used in the meaning “to be called something or other” only in combination with the preposition ‫ל‬, e.g. Isa 4:3 ‫“ ָקדֹוׁש יֵ ָא ֶמר לֹו‬he will be called holy” (literally “it will be said to him: holy”).38 This preposition is missing in Hos 12:1. The reconstructed Hebrew text is ungrammatical. This suggests that, rather than representing a genuine Hebrew variant—whether the original text of Hosea, or a later development of it—the reading on which the versions are based was produced in the process of translation. It is a “mental text” that never physically existed or, as Tov has defined it, a pseudo-variant.39 5

The Origin of the Reading

If so, the overwhelming likelihood is that the variant version first emerged in the Septuagint. The Septuagint of Hosea has several other cases of renderings based on Hebrew readings that appear to have existed only in the translator’s mind.40 Hos 10:12 mt lxx

‫נִ ירוּ ָל ֶכם נִ יר וְ ֵעת ִל ְדרֹושׁ ֶאת־יְ הוָ ה‬

break up your fallow ground; for it is time to seek the LORD φωτίσατε ἑαυτοῖς φῶς γνώσεως ἐκζητήσατε τὸν κύριον enlighten yourselves with the light of knowledge. Seek the Lord

The consonants ‫ ועת‬were read as the noun ‫“ דעת‬knowledge.”

37  See e.g. Jer 15:11, MT and lxx, and 1 Kgs 1:36, MT and lxx. 38  See also Isa 19:18; 32:5; 61:6; 62:4; Hos 2:1. 39  See now John Screnock, Traductor Scriptor. The Old Greek Translation of Exodus 1–14 as Scribal Activity, VTSup 174 (Leiden: Brill, 2017). 40  See Jan Joosten, “Exegesis in the Septuagint Version of Hosea,” in Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel, ed. Johannes C. de Moor; OtSt 40 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 62–85; reprinted in idem, Collected Studies on the Septuagint. From Language to Interpretation and Beyond (FAT I, 83; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2012), 123–145, in particular 133, note 36.

170

Joosten

Moreover, some of those non-Masoretic readings are ungrammatical in a similar way as the reading in Hos 12:1. Hos 13:5 mt lxx

‫ֲאנִ י יְ ַד ְע ִתּיָך ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָבּר ְבּ ֶא ֶרץ ַתּ ְל ֻאבֹות‬

It was I who fed you in the wilderness, in the land of drought ἐγὼ ἐποίμαινόν σε ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ ἐν γῇ ἀοικήτῳ It was I who tended you in the wilderness, in an uninhabitable land

Apparently unfamiliar with the rare word ‫ ַתּ ְל ֻאבֹות‬, the translator disregarded the taw and interpreted the remainder as a composite word consisting of the negation and the word ‫“ בית‬house” (through confusion of waw and yod). But Biblical Hebrew has no composite words like this.41 The Septuagint of the Minor Prophets is never arbitrary, and it never blatantly expresses the translator’s agenda. But the Hebrew text of Hosea offered many challenges, and sometimes “playing” a bit with the vocalization and the consonantal framework seems to have been a conscious technique of the translator. Confusion of letters of similar shape or sound, metathesis of successive consonants, and re-division of words happen throughout the book of Hosea, but they are particularly frequent with rare words and forms or where the Hebrew text is otherwise enigmatic. In Hos 12:1, the interpretation on the basis of the variant Hebrew fits the wider context beautifully. The phrase “(Israel) will be called holy people” allows the translator to pick up on a theme developed in the beginning of the book: after the people’s initial apostasy, the Lord will turn back to them, and they will again be called by a propitious name. Note particularly Hos 2:1, “And in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ they will be called, Children of the living God.” 6

The Targumic Interpretation

As was already pointed out, the Hebrew reading underlying the Septuagint reverberates in Targum Jonathan. Admittedly, the Masoretic reading ‫“ נאמן‬faithful” is reflected in the Targum as well: “therefore they persisted” (via the root meaning of ‫“ אמן‬to be steadfast”). The Targum has a double rendering. All the

41  Joosten et al., Osée, 34 for other Greek renderings that presuppose a grammatically problematic Hebrew text.

HOSEA IN TARGUM JONATHAN & SEPTUAGINT

171

same, the Targum has the entire Hebrew phrase rendered into Greek, except for the final “of God” which had no equivalent at all in the Hebrew text. In light of what was said above on the status and origin of the variant reading, the chance of the Targumist having come across this reading in a Hebrew manuscript is practically nil. Nor is it likely that the Targumist manipulated the Masoretic text in the same way as the Greek translator. If the Vorlage of the Septuagint only ever existed in the imagination of the Greek translator, the conclusion must be that the Targumist got it from the Greek version. The Targum does not blindly follow the Septuagint. Many elements in the Targumic rendering come from elsewhere. Nevertheless, the philological data leave little room to avoid the conclusion that the Targumist used the Septuagint of Hosea as one of his textual sources. 7 Conclusions While the enumeration of shared divergences from the Masoretic text cannot establish that the Targum of Hosea depends in part on the Septuagint, a penetrating analysis of one passage, Hos 12:1, does make that view very likely. If the evidence of this verse is accepted, many of the other shared readings will also be admitted to stem from this dependence, and not from parallel developments in the two versions. The Targumist would seem to have consciously used the Greek version in forming his understanding of the Hebrew text. The Septuagint would have been one source of interpretation among others, and not a particularly authoritative one. However, where no other source was available to clear up a difficult passage, the Targumist could turn to the Septuagint and use its renderings as building blocks for his own interpretation. It may seem perilous to base this conclusion on a single passage. In truth, it would be helpful if other passages were found to support the thesis defended in the present paper. Interesting examples in Hosea would be 6:11, where the reading in Septuagint and Targum diverges from the mt in a way that is hard to understand, and 13:13, where our versions interpret the mt in a way that seems contrary to the context. Extending the investigation to the entire Dodecapropheton would probably turn up other persuasive cases.42 But such further development of the thesis must be left for future occasions. 42  See Cécile Dogniez, “Some Similarities between the Septuagint and the Targum of Zechariah,” in Translating a Translation. The LXX and its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism, ed. Hans Ausloos, Johann Cook, Florentino García Martínez, Bénédicte Lemmelijn, Marc Vervenne; BETL 213 (Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 89–102.

172

Joosten

The objective of the present paper is merely to point out the likelihood of a possible hypothesis that has been explored very little in Biblical research. Bibliography Barthélemy, Dominique, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament 3. Ézéchiel, Daniel et les 12 Prophètes, OBO 50.3 (Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992). Ben-Yashar, Menahem, Isaac Gottlieb, Jordan S. Penkower, eds., The Bible in Rabbinic Interpretation: Rabbinic Derashot on Prophets and Writings in Talmudic and Midrashic Literature. Volume One: Hosea (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 2003). Brown, John P., “The Septuagint as a Source of the Greek Loan-Words in the Targums,” Bib 70 (1989): 194–216. Churgin, Pinkhos, “The Targum and the Septuagint,” AJSL 50 (1933): 41–65. De Lange, Nicholas, Julia G. Krivoruchko, Cameron Boyd-Taylor, eds., Jewish Reception of Greek Bible Versions, Texts and Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Judaism 23 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009). Delekat, Lienhard, “Ein Septuagintatargum,” VT 8 (1958): 225–52. Dogniez, Cécile, “Some Similarities between the Septuagint and the Targum of Zechariah,” in Translating a Translation. The LXX and its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism, ed. Hans Ausloos, Johann Cook, Florentino García Martínez, Bénédicte Lemmelijn, Marc Vervenne; BETL 213 (Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 89–102. Ego, Beate, “Retelling the Story of Esther in Targum Sheni in Light of Septuagint Traditions—Main Outlines,” in The Targums in the Light of Traditions of the Second Temple Period, ed. Thierry Legrand, Jan Joosten, JSJSup 167 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 72–83. Flesher, Paul V.M., Bruce Chilton, The Targums. A Critical Introduction, Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 12; (Leiden: Brill, 2011). Frankel, Zacharias, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta (Leipzig: Vogel, 1841). Frankel, Zacharias, Ueber den Einfluss der Palästinensischen Exegese auf die Alexandrinische Hermeneutik (Leipzig: Barth, 1851). Gelston, Anthony, The Twelve Minor Prophets, BHQ 13 (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2010). Glessmer, Uwe, Einleitung in die Targume zum Pentateuch, TSAJ 48 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995). Joosten, Jan, “Exegesis in the Septuagint Version of Hosea,” in Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel, ed. Johannes C. de Moor; OtSt 40 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 62–85; reprinted

HOSEA IN TARGUM JONATHAN & SEPTUAGINT

173

in idem, Collected Studies on the Septuagint. From Language to Interpretation and Beyond, FAT I 83 (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2012), 123–145. Joosten, Jan, Eberhard Bons, Stephan Kessler, Les Douze Prophètes. Osée, La Bible d’Alexandrie 23, 1 (Paris: Cerf, 2002). Joosten, Jan, “Des targumismes dans la Septante ?” in The Targums in the Light of Traditions of the Second Temple Period, ed. Thierry Legrand, Jan Joosten, JSJSup 167 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 17–53. Loiseau, Anne-Françoise, L’influence de l’araméen sur les traducteurs de la LXX principalement, sur les traducteurs grecs postérieurs, ainsi que sur les scribes de la Vorlage de la LXX, SBLSCS 65 (Atlanta: SBL, 2016). Screnock, John, Traductor Scriptor. The Old Greek Translation of Exodus 1–14 as Scribal Activity, VTSup 174 (Leiden: Brill, 2017). Smelik, Willem F., The Targum of Judges, OtSt 36 (Leiden: Brill, 1995). Veltri, Giuseppe, Eine Tora für den König Talmai—Untersuchungen zum Übersetzungsverständnis in der jüdisch-hellenistischen und rabbinischen Literatur, TSAJ 41 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994). Weitzman, Michael P., “Peshitta, Septuagint and Targum” in VI Symposium Syriacum 1992, edited by René Lavenant; OCA 247 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1994), 51–84.

Chapter 8

The Premature Death of the Wicked in the Old Greek of Proverbs Anne-Françoise Loiseau 1 Introduction In a book recently published by SBL1 I endeavoured to demonstrate the clear influence of the Aramaic language and/or of the exegetical proto-targumic traditions on the Septuagint translators, on the later Greek revisers and on the circle of scribes who transcribed the lxx Vorlage. The book develops numerous concrete examples, some of which are based on the existing literature2 but for the most part originate from my own research. A Multilingual Environment 1.1 Insofar as the lxx (my main subject) is concerned, it is obvious that the lxx translators lived, as all literate members of the Jewish community did at that time, in a multilingual environment where Greek and Aramaic were among the commonly used languages. Indeed, it is well known that Aramaic was firmly established as the lingua franca (vehicular language) throughout the entire

1  Anne-Françoise Loiseau, L’influence de l’araméen sur les traducteurs de la LXX principalement, sur les traducteurs grecs postérieurs ainsi que sur les scribes de la Vorlage de la LXX, SBLSCS 65 (Atlanta: SBL, 2016). The book is in French, but an English summary is provided (241–55). The SBL legal team most graciously granted me their permission to set out here some of the ideas developed in the book. 2  The most exhaustive article in my opinion is: Jan Joosten, “On Aramaizing 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 Wido Van Peursen, OLA 118 (Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 587–600, reprinted in Collected Studies on the Septuagint. From Language to Interpretation and Beyond, FAT I 83 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 53–66. Cf. also Folker Siegert, Zwischen Hebräischer Bibel und Altem Testament. Eine Einführung in die Septuaginta (Münster, Lit, 2001), 126–28, who devoted two sections of his introduction to the Septuagint to the influence of post-biblical Hebrew (3.1.3) and to Aramaisms in the Greek translation (3.1.4).

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004416727_010

the Premature Death of the Wicked

175

Ancient Middle East during the Persian domination, and probably even before, while the knowledge of Hebrew was in steady decline.3 1.2 Translation Greek The Greek coined by the translators of the lxx can certainly be called a “translation Greek,”4 for it often reproduces the peculiarities of its source language. Indeed, one of the characteristics of this translation Greek is that it adopts, for some lexemes, the constructions and the semantic field of its Hebrew model. In doing so, it expands or diverges from the meaning that these lexemes had in Classical Greek, without this semantic evolution necessarily having to be attributed to the Koine. 1.3 The Influence of the Aramaic Language But there is certainly another element that should to be taken into account. Indeed, the influence of the Aramaic language on this translation Greek must not be underestimated. We can most likely surmise that the Greek translators based their translations on known Hebrew-Aramaic equivalents perhaps in the form of lists or even drawn from oral or written, “proto-Targumim,” predecessors of our Targumim (such as those found at Qumran?).5 Hence, we should not be surprised that the lxx translators provide evidence of Aramaic interference. They probably did not define very clear boundaries between Hebrew and Aramaic (or late Hebrew, perhaps influenced by Aramaic), given that the semantic field of one language quite naturally encroached upon the other.6 However, we certainly can also identify examples where resorting to Aramaic seems to have been deliberate. More generally, we may say that in order to meet the needs of the translation/interpretation, the translators sometimes drew upon extensions made possible by the semantic fields of Late Hebrew, Aramaic and Syriac.7 3  Cf. 2 Kings 18:26: Eliakim son of Hilkiah, Shebna, and Joah said to the chief adviser: “Speak to your servants in Aramaic, for we understand it. Don’t speak with us in the Judahite dialect in the hearing of the people who are on the wall.” 4  Cf. Johan Lust, “La syntaxe et le grec de traduction,” in L’apport de la Septante aux études sur l’Antiquité, ed. Jan Joosten and Philippe Le Moigne, Lectio Divina 203 (Paris: Cerf, 2005), 37–55: “A mon sens, le grec de la LXX, pour autant qu’il s’agit des livres traduits de l’hébreu, doit avant tout être considéré comme un grec de traduction, et seulement après être considéré comme un représentant du grec de la Koinè.” (40–41). 5  For evidence that these Qumran versions lack the distinctive features of targum, see the contribution of Thomas in this volume. 6  Cf. Joosten, “On the LXX Translators’ Knowledge of Hebrew,” 165–78. 7  Admittedly, the Peshitta was written at a later date, but the Aramaic dialect from the Edessa region was most certainly spoken before the appearance of the written form of the language

176 2

Loiseau

Six Categories of Aramaic Interference

I was able to differentiate and classify these types of interference into six distinct categories: 1. Cases where a Hebrew lexeme was interpreted from a linguistic or semantic Aramaic / Late Hebrew equivalent; for example, (Aramaic) Dan 11:45, mt ‫הר צבי קדׁש‬, “the magnificent holy mountain” (Jerusalem)—lxx τοῦ ὄρους τῆς θελήσεως τοῦ ἁγίου, “the mountain of the will/favour of the Saint.” The Hebrew lexeme ‫ ְצ ִבי‬, “ornament, splendour, honour, magnificence,” was interpreted from the Aramaic lexeme ‫צבי‬, “to be willing, to find pleasure in, to choose, desire.” Certainly, the lexicographers (BDB, HALOT) derive the substantive ‫ ְצ ִבי‬from a Hebrew hypothetical root ‫*צבה‬, which would be the equivalent of the Aramaic ‫צבי‬, but the classical Hebrew language knows only the verb ‫צבה‬, “to swell,” whereas the Aramaic ‫ צבי‬is very often used. It may be that the same phenomenon offers an explanation for Tg. Isa 4:2; 13:19; 24:16; 28:5; Jer 3:19; Ezek 7:20; 25:9, where mt ‫ ְצ ִבי‬was translated in the Targum by ‫חדוא‬, “joy” (Late Hebrew). In Zeph 1:12b, the metaphor ‫הקפאים על ׁשמריהם‬, “(I shall punish) the men who are thickening over the remains of their wine,” was translated: τοὺς καταφρονοῦντας ἐπὶ τὰ φυλάγματα αὐτῶν, “the people who scorn their commandments,” most likely according to the meaning of the verb ‫ קפא‬in late Hebrew, which means: “to be on top, to float on the surface, to be light”; pass. part.: “light of weight, little esteemed.” Moreover, the translator probably also took into consideration the similarity in Aramaic between ‫ ִׁש ְליָ א‬, “wine sediment, dregs,” and ‫ ִׁש ְליָ א‬, “quiet, unconcern”/‫ׁשלי‬, “to be at ease, quiet, unconcerned; to neglect, forget.” 2. Cases where the translation depends on the Hebrew semantic field expanded upon by that of the Aramaic equivalent; for example, the verb ἐντέλλομαι, “to command, to charge,” in Classical Greek is the typical translation of the Hebrew equivalent ‫צוה‬, but in 1 Sam 25:7, 15, 21; 2 Chr 36:23 and Is 13:4, 11, ἐντέλλομαι is used to translate the verb ‫פקד‬, “to inspect,” because, in Aramaic, ‫ פקד‬means “to command.” In the minds of at least some Greek translators, ἐντέλλομαι had probably totally taken over the semantic field of the Hebrew ‫פקד‬, “to inspect, to appoint, to chastise,” expanded upon by that of the Aramaic ‫פקד‬, “to command.” (the first century of the common era, for the first inscriptions) and seems to have influenced in one manner or another the translation of the lxx. Cf. Michael P. Weitzman, The Syriac Version of the Old Testament. An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 1.

the Premature Death of the Wicked

3.

4.

5.

6.



177

Cases where the translation depends on the polysemous semantic field of the Aramaic equivalent; for example, in Hos 2:17a, the “door of hope” (‫ )פתח תקוה‬from the mt has become “to open (διανοῖξαι = ‫ )לפתח‬her understanding” (σύνεσιν αὐτῆς),” a translation most likely based on the very common Aramaic root ‫סבר‬, which means both “to look for, hope, trust,” (mt) and “to be bright, intelligent, to understand” (lxx).8 Cases where the conjoined semantic field of two Aramaic homonyms/ homographs seems to have given rise to a translation; for example, in Ezek 21:14, the lxx translated the mt, “A sword, a sword is sharpened, and also polished (‫)מרוטה‬,” by an order: “Sword, sword, be sharpened and rage (θυμώθητι),” perhaps on the basis of the two Aramaic homonym roots: ‫ צהב‬I, “to polish,” ‫ צהב‬II, “to be angry.” And finally, cases where the translation seems to originate from a confusion between two very similar (paronymous) Aramaic lexemes: for example, the lxx translation of Isa 8:20a: “To the teaching and to the testimony!” (‫ )לתורה ולתעודה‬in the lxx: “For He has given the Law for a help (νόμον γὰρ εἰς βοήθειαν ἔδωκεν),” is probably based on the quite similar Aramaic roots ‫סהד‬, “to testify,” and ‫סעד‬, “to support, to help.” Moreover, there are numerous correspondences with the translation traditions or exegetical traditions found in the Targumim. An example of a translational correspondence may be found in the Greek translation of Ezek 13: 5a (mt ‫פרץ‬, “breach, gap,”—lxx στερέωμα, “firmness, strength; solid part, foundation, fortress; firmament”) coincides with the standard translation of mt ‫ ָפ ַרץ‬/ ‫ ֶפ ֶרץ‬in the Targum (by the root ‫תקף‬, “to be strong.”). Another example, this time of an exegetical correspondence, relates to the enigmatic and ambiguous metaphor in Deut 29:18 (‫למען ספות הרוה‬ ‫את הצמאה‬, “so as to sweep away the moist with the dry,” (?) / “so that

8  A homonymous root exists: ‫ סבר‬II poel, “to carry, to bear, endure.” This Aramaic verb is consistently used to translate the Hebrew verb ‫ כול‬pilpel, “to contain, endure, sustain with food,” (e.g. Tg. 2 Sam 19:33, 34; 20:30; 1 Kgs 4:7; 5:7; 8:27, 64; 17:4, 9 etc.). This root could explain Vg Mal 3:2a. The mt reads: “Who can endure (MT ‫—מכלכל‬Tg. ‫מסובר‬, idem Peshitta) the day of his coming? Who can keep standing when he appears?”—Vg: et quis poterit cogitare diem adventus eius et quis stabit ad videndum eum?, “Who can imagine the day of his coming? Who can keep standing when he appears?” But consider Jerome’s Commentary (Comm. Mal., CCSL 76, 930): “Si cogitare prae potentia maiestatis eius nemo potest, ferre quis poterit?” (If nobody can imagine it because of his mighty greatness, who will be able to endure it?) Clearly, Jerome knows the meaning of the Hebrew verb ‫ ( מכלכל‬ferre), but deliberately chooses to switch to cogitare, “consider, reflect on, imagine, picture,” influenced as he was by targumic traditions and the polysemous semantic field of ‫סבר‬.

178

Loiseau

the moist can destroy/suppress the dry,” (?).9 This prompts a moral interpretation focused on sins/the sinner in both the Tg. and the lxx, which supplies ἵνα μὴ συναπολέσῃ ὁ ἁμαρτωλὸς τὸν ἀναμάρτητον (“in order that the sinner would not destroy at the same time the non-sinner”). The Greek translator thus articulates a recurring theme in the Bible, alluding to Gen 18:23ff. (and using the same verb): “Wouldest thou destroy (μὴ συναπολέσῃς) the righteous with the wicked, and shall the righteous be as the wicked?” On the other hand, the substantives are different; in particular the use of the very rare ἀναμάρτητος.10 Tg. Deut 29:18 reads: “to add for him unintentional sins onto sins of wilfulness” (‫לאוספא ליה חטאי‬ ‫)ׁשלותא על זידנותא‬. The meturgeman already converted the metaphor from the preceding verse concerning idolatry: mt: “beware that there is among you no root producing poisonous and bitter fruit” (‫—)ראׁש ולענה‬Tg: “… no man meditating sins or insolence” (‫)גבר מהרהיר חטאין או זדון‬. Insolence, for the biblical writers, is a religious notion referring to the attitude of the “free thinkers” that rebel against God or deny his existence (e.g., Deut 1:43; 17:12–13; Neh 9:16, 29; Jer 50:29;11 Ps 86:14; 119:21; Mal 3:15): it’s “a great sin” (Ps 19:14). Thus, in the next verse, the meturgeman continues to expand on the subject of sins, all the more so since the terms expressing “insolence” in Hebrew (‫ )זדון‬and the “sin of wilfulness” in Aramaic (‫ )זידנותא‬are very similar. 3

The Fate of the Wicked in the Old Greek of Proverbs

3.1 The Aramaic Bipolar Root ‫“ חטף‬to Seize”—“to Do a Thing in Haste” The example I propose to develop more extensively hereafter belongs to the third category. The Greek translator of the Proverbs most likely drew his inspiration from the broad semantic field of the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew lexeme ‫ ָח ָמס‬, which we surmise he found in the (oral? written?) “proto-targum” on which he based his translation. The lxx translators do not all nor always translate the substantive ‫“ חמס‬violence, wrong,” in the same manner, but their translations generally revolve 9   Cf. Carmel McCarthy, Deuteronomy, BHQ 5 (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2005), 130*–31*, gives those two possible interpretations of the MT and explains the Versions. 10  Used only in Deut 29:18; 2 Macc 8:4; 12:42; Od 14:33. 11  The Tg considered the affirmation in the MT, “For she (= Babylon) has proudly defied me, the Holy One of Israel,” so outrageous that it diverted the contempt towards the people: “For she despised the people of Yhwh and she said words that are not suitable before Yhwh, the Holy One of Israel.”

the Premature Death of the Wicked

179

around notions of wrong-doing, injustice or ungodliness, impiety.12 Likewise, the Greek translator of the Proverbs translated different occurrences of ‫ חמס‬largely in accordance with the meaning of the substantive in Hebrew.13 However, on several occasions, he proposes a translation which deviates from its Hebrew model: Prov 10:6 mt ‫ברכות לראש צדיק ופי רשעים יכסה חמס‬, “Blessings are on the head of the righteous, but the speech of the wicked conceals violence.”14 (Peshitta = mt: ‫ חמס‬is translated by the Syriac lexeme ‫)ܥܘܠܐ‬ lxx εὐλογία κυρίου ἐπὶ κεφαλὴν δικαίου στόμα δὲ ἀσεβῶν καλύψει πένθος ἄωρον, “The blessing of the Lord is upon the head of the just: but untimely grief shall cover the mouth of the ungodly.”15 Prov 13:2 mt ‫מפרי פי איש יאכל טוב ונפש בגדים חמס‬, “From the fruit of his speech a person eats good things, but the faithless desire the fruit of violence.” lxx ἀπὸ καρπῶν δικαιοσύνης φάγεται ἀγαθός, ψυχαὶ δὲ παρανόμων ὀλοῦνται ἄωροι, “A good man shall eat of the fruits of righteousness: but the lives of transgressors shall perish before their time.” ̈ ̈ ‫ܕܥܘܠܐ‬ ̈ Pesh .‫ܢܐܒܕܢ‬ ‫ܘܢܦܫܬܗܘܢ‬ , “… but the lives of transgressors shall perish.” Prov 10:11 mt ‫מקור חיים פי צדיק ופי רשעים יכסה חמס‬, “The teaching of the righteous is a fountain of life, but the speech of the wicked conceals violence.” (Peshitta = mt ‫ חמס‬is translated by the Syriac lexeme ‫)ܥܘܠܐ‬ lxx πηγὴ ζωῆς ἐν χειρὶ δικαίου στόμα δὲ ἀσεβοῦς, καλύψει ἀπώλεια, “There is a fountain of life in the hand of a righteous man; but destruction shall cover the mouth of the ungodly.” 12  ἀδικία Gen 6:11, 13; 49:5; Judg 9:24; Ps 7:17; 11[10]:5; 27[26]:12; 58[57]:3; 72[71]:14; Ezek 45:9; Joel 4:19; Amos 3:10; Jonah 3:8; ἀδικέω Gen 16:5; Hab 1:2; ἄδικος Exod 23:1; Deut 19:16; 2 Sam 22:3; Job 16:17; Ps 18[17]:49; 25[24]:19; 35[34]:11; 140[139]:2, 5, 12; ἀδίκημα 2 Sam 22:49; ἀνομία Ps 55[54]:10; 74[73]:20; Isa 53:9; 59: 6; 60:18; Ezek 7:23; 8:17; 28:16; ἀσέβεια Ps 73[72]:6; Jer 6:7; Ezek 12:19; Obad 1:10; Mic 6:12; Hab 1:3; 2:8; 2:17.17; Zeph 1:9; Mal 2:16; ἀσεβής Hab 1:9; ἀσεβέω Prov 8:36; ὄνειδος Job 19:7; Prov 3:31; 26:6; παράνομος Prov 4:17; 16:29; ἀθεσία Jer 20:8; μόχθος Jer 51[28]:35; ψευδής Amos 6:3. 13  For example, ἀσεβέω, “to be impious, to act profanely, to act wickedly against,” in Prov 8:36; or παράνομος, “lawless, wicked,” in Prov 4:17 and 16:29. 14  The translations are those of the net, unless otherwise specified. 15  The translations are those of Brenton, unless otherwise specified.

180

Loiseau

In the Old Greek version of Proverbs, the two translations “untimely grief, premature death” (and the translation by ἀπώλεια, which is undoubtedly related: “destruction, annihilation, loss”) strongly diverge from the usual translations. Does this necessarily require us to accept the hypothesis that, for these verses, the Vorlage was different from the mt? Or do we have to assume an unfamiliarity with the meaning of ‫? ָח ָמס‬16 Or may these translations be explained in purely literary terms? In Prov 10:6, David-Marc d’Hamonville emphasizes that the Greek translation offers a better transition to the verse which follows: “The memory of the righteous is a blessing, but the name of the wicked will rot.” (mt)—“… will be extinguished” (lxx).17 In Prov 10:11, he rightfully comments that the Greek translation displaces the opposition in the mt between the “mouth of the righteous” and the “mouth of the wicked” onto the pair “life”—“death.”18 For Michael V. Fox, these lxx translations are simply interpretations of ‫ ָח ָמס‬. Thus, in relation to Prov 10:6, he remarks: “G interprets ‫ חמס‬as πένθος ἄωρον (“untimely grief”) because it assumes that 10:6b alludes to the evildoers’ future punishment rather than to their deeds.” On Prov 13:2b: “G avoids an apparent truism by treating ‫ חמס‬as the violence done to transgressors and rendering it ὀλοῦνται ἄωροι.”19 But are these explanations sufficient? In fact, these literary and interpretive explanations seem unnecessary given that an Aramaic bipolar root may offer a simpler account of the origin of this divergence. Indeed, the Hebrew root ‫ חמס‬is nearly universally translated with the Aramaic root ‫ חטף‬in the Targum, including in Targum Proverbs in these very verses.20 However, this Aramaic root which has as its primary meaning “to seize, rob, snatch, tear” (as in Hebrew) developed a secondary meaning: “to do a thing with haste, to hurry,

16   David-Marc d’Hamonville, Les Proverbes, La Bible d’Alexandrie 17 (Paris: Cerf, 2000), 235: “le thème de la mort ‘précoce’ de l’impie (voir 10, 6) prend la place d’un mot hébreu que le traducteur traduit presque toujours de façon différente, comme s’il ne le comprenait pas….” In his introduction (126), nevertheless, d’Hamonville explains that this was his first impression but given the translator’s insistence on the perdition of the wicked, “il est impossible de faire de ce thème un simple bouche-trou.” 17  D’Hamonville, Proverbes, 217–18: “L’évocation propre au grec d’un ‘deuil prématuré’ […] prépare assez logiquement ‘l’extinction du nom’ au v. 7b.” 18  D’Hamonville, Proverbes, 219: “Dans la LXX, l’opposition signifiante est dans le couple ‘vie / perdition.’” 19  Michael V. Fox, Proverbs. An Eclectic Edition with Introduction and Textual Commentary, HBCE (Atlanta: SBL, 2015), 175, 206. 20  M  T Prov 10:6 ‫—חמס‬Tg. Prov 10:6 ‫ ;חטופא‬10:11 ‫ ;חטופיא‬13:2 ‫תתחטף‬.

the Premature Death of the Wicked

181

to precipitate oneself.” Moreover, the expression in Aramaic and in Syriac (‫ )ܡܘܬܐ ܚܛܝܦܐ‬signals an abrupt, premature death.21 The Greek translator of the Proverbs, familiar with the equivalence of Hebrew ‫ חמס‬with Aramaic ‫חטף‬, obviously wanted to confer a moral sense on his maxim, as he often did. Johann Cook has devoted numerous very interesting studies to this subject, including his “Exegesis in the Septuaginta,” in which he presents examples from lxx Proverbs to underline the fact that: the text is coloured in religious terms. There are three trends in this approach. Firstly, a stressing of the positive aspect of religion, namely underscoring of the righteous, righteousness, etc. Secondly, the underlining of the negative with accent on the evil. And thirdly, the Greek text contains more contrasts, a religious category, than its Semitic parent text.22 According to this author, and with reason, we can genuinely speak of a theology of the Greek translator of Proverbs.23 According to my theory, it is therefore on the basis of the Aramaic bipolar semantic field ‫חטף‬ (“to snatch” / “to do a thing with haste”) that the Greek translator inscribed the deserved destiny of the wicked in his translation: a premature death. Now let us examine Prov 11:30b: 21  Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York: Pardes, 1950), s. v. ‫חטף‬: “if one dies suddenly it is called an abrupt death (‫)מיתא חטופא‬.” Robertus Payne Smith, Thesaurus syriacus (Oxford: Clarendon, 1879–1901), col. 1248: “mors praeceps, subita.” 22  Johann Cook, “Exegesis in the Septuaginta,” JNSL 30 (2004): 1–19; here 7. Note that these moralistic translations can sometimes provide an insight into the Greek translator’s familiarity with a double textual tradition. For example, mt Prov 13:11a reads: “Wealth (gained from) vanity / an idol (‫ )הֹון ֵמ ֶה ֶבל‬will dwindle away.” However, the Greek translator offers a double translation of ‫ ֵמ ֶה ֶבל‬: “Wealth gotten hastily (ἐπισπουδαζομένη = Heb. ‫מהבל‬, probably the original lesson; idem Vg: festinata) with iniquity (μετὰ ἀνομίας = mt ‫ ) ֵמ ֶה ֶבל‬will dwindle away.” Hence, the second stich was also “moralized” through the addition of “with godliness” (μετ’ εὐσεβείας): “but he that gathers for himself with godliness shall be increased. The righteous is merciful, and lends.” 23  Cf. for example concerning Proverbs 1, 2 and 8: Johann Cook, “A Theology of the Greek Version of Proverbs,” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 71 (2015), Art. #2971, http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts.v71i1.2971 (page 10): “I have demonstrated that the translator of the Septuagint Proverbs adopted a contextual approach towards its parent text. Hence inter- and intra-textual interpretations abound. In some instances he applied external exegetical perspectives, primarily Jewish-orientated traditions in order to formulate an ideological view. Three aspects play a role in connection with the formulation of a theology of lxx Proverbs: 1. 1:1–7 indicates what Proverbs is not, i.e. speculative philosophical ideas 2. Chapter 2 demonstrates that the wisdom is foreign wisdom—the Hellenism of the day 3. Sophia in chapter 8 has a subordinate role in relation to God.”

182

Loiseau

mt

‫פרי צדיק עץ חיים ולקח נפשות חכם‬, “The fruit of the righteous is like a tree producing life, and the one who wins souls is wise.” (net); “… and he that winneth soules, is unwise.” (gnb); “… and he who wins souls is wise.” (nkjv); “… and whoever captures souls is wise.” (esv); “… and he who is wise wins souls.” (cjb and nas); “… the sage captivates souls.” (njb) The main French and German translations of the Bible offer a similar translation for this second stich. In French: “… le sage captive les âmes.” (bj); “… et le sage captive les gens.” (tob); “… et le sage attire à lui les âmes.” (Pléiade); “… Le sage gagne les cœurs.” (bfc); “… Et le sage s’empare des âmes.” (lsg).24 In German: “… und ein Weiser nimmt sich der Leute herzlich an.” (L45); “… und der Weise gewinnt Seelen.” (scl).25 … et qui suscipit animas sapiens est. “… and he who accepts / supports souls is wise.”26 ‫ ומקבלא נפׁשיה חכמתא ריעיתא‬/ ‫ומקבלנא‬, “… and he who accepts his own soul, this is sound wisdom.”27

Vg Tg

Unfortunately, the translations of the Greek revisers for this second stich have not been preserved. These translations, both ancient and recent, are certainly attractive because each of them makes sense, but they ignore the fact that the expression ‫ לקח‬+ ‫ נֶ ֶפׁש‬cannot have the positive meaning that they extract from it because it means “to take a life” in the concrete sense of “to make someone die, to

24  Cf. also d’Hamonville, Proverbes, 229: “Le parallèle antithétique est propre à la LXX, qui donne aux v. 27–31 une certaine unité autour du thème de la rétribution; TM, corroboré par les autres traducteurs pour le stique a: ‘le fruit du juste [est] un arbre de vie; le sage s’attire [litt. “prend”] les âmes.’—prématurément, aôros, rappelle 10, 6b, original lui aussi.” 25  The abbreviations are those from BibleWorks. 26  For the meaning “to support” of suscipere, cf. Isa 42:1: ‫הן עבדי אתמך בו‬, “Here is my servant whom I support”—Vg: ecce servus meus suscipiam eum. 27  Jacob Levy, Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Targumim und einen grossen Teil des rabbinischen Schrifttums (Leipzig: Baumgärtner, 1867), s.v. ‫מקבלנא‬: “der Weise nimmt Seelen für sich ein.” Jastrow, Dictionary, s.v. ‫מקבלנותא‬: “(the art of) winning souls is wisdom.” Levy and Jastrow read ‫ נפׁשי‬and not ‫נפׁשיה‬. John F. Healey, The Targum of Proverbs, ArBib 15 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 30, keeps the variant ‫ נפׁשיה‬and translates: “and the winner of his soul is wisdom,” which does not really make sense. Healey explains the difficulty of mt on page 31, n. 17: “V. 30b causes considerable problems to commentators on mt (e.g. McKane) and to ancient versions. Tg is rather obscure. S and lxx share at this point the notion of scattering of the souls of the wicked, while Tg remains close to mt.”

the Premature Death of the Wicked

183

kill.”28 We also find the expression with the verb ‫צוד‬, “to hunt down a life,” in Ezek 13:18ff. As a result, for the mt ‫ ָח ָכם‬, it is undoubtedly necessary to follow the suggestions of the critics (cf. HALOT) and read ‫ ָח ָמס‬instead of ‫ח ָכם‬: ָ ‫ולקח נפשות חמס‬, “the one who takes lives: this is violence!” This corrected text then offers a perfect contrast to the tree of life in the first stich. A few judicious translators have preferred this emended text ‫ ָח ָמס‬, thus, in English: “The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, but lawlessness takes away lives” (rsv); or in German: “Die Frucht der Gerechtigkeit ist ein Baum des Lebens; aber Gewalttat nimmt das Leben weg.” (lut). In any case, this emendation in favour of ‫ חמס‬is clearly reflected in the lxx, which presents nonetheless a very different formulation: ἐκ καρποῦ δικαιοσύνης φύεται δένδρον ζωῆς ἀφαιροῦνται δὲ ἄωροι ψυχαὶ παρανόμων, “Out of the fruit of righteousness grows a tree of life; but the souls of transgressors are cut off before their time.” The Greek translator, who must have read ‫חמס‬, interpreted it twice: ἄωροι, “untimely,” (according to the second meaning of the Aramaic equivalent ‫חטף‬: “to do a thing in haste,” “abrupt [death]”) and παρανόμων, “transgressors,” (according to the meaning of the Hebrew ‫ חמס‬/ Aramaic ‫חטף‬, “to snatch with violence” / “violence”). I do not think that ‫ וְ � ֵַֹלקח‬vocalised as ‫ וְ ֻלּקחּו‬suffices to explain ἀφαιροῦνται + ἄωροι, as is suggested in the critical apparatus of the BHQ (Jan de Waard), nor that ἄωροι was added simply because it was “logical,” as Michael Fox suggests.29 The Peshitta also invokes the fate of the wicked, which could suggest that ‫ חמס‬was also part of its Vorlage. It could also however simply be due to the ̈ ̈ influence of the lxx as is often the case:30 ‫ܘܡܬܒܕ̈ܪܢ ܢܦܫܬܐ ܕܥܘܠܐ‬, “(the fruits of the righteous are a tree of life) but the souls of the wicked are scattered 28  1 Sam 24:12; 1 Kgs 19:10.14; Ps 31:14; Prov 1:19; Ezek 33:6; Jonah 4:3. 29  Fox, Proverbs, 196: “De Lagarde retroverts ἄωροι to ‫( נׁשף‬lit. “evening”), an equivalence found in Ps 119[118]/147. In that case, ‫ נׁשף‬would be a partial dittography of ‫נפׁשות‬. But it is more likely that ἄωροι was added for the sake of the logic: since everyone is ultimately ‘removed,’ ‘untimely’ clarifies why being removed is a special punishment in this case.” Lagarde’s retroversion is convincing at first sight, but if we put into perspective the translations of ‫ חמס‬by ‫ חטף‬in the Targum, this retroversion becomes irrelevant. 30  The translator of the Peshitta Proverbs most certainly drew from the lxx, more than all the other translators of the Peshitta, at least for the passages where its Hebrew Vorlage presented textual or ethical difficulties: cf. Pieter E. Steyn, “External Influences in the Peshitta Version of Proverbs,” PhD diss., University of Stellenbosch, 1992. Regarding the Syriac translator’s knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, cf. the diverging opinions of Jan Joosten, “Doublet Translations in Peshitta Proverbs,” in The Peshitta as a Translation: Papers Read at the II Peshitta Symposium Held at Leiden 19–21 August 1993, ed. Pieter B. Dirksen and Arie

184

Loiseau

abroad.” The verb ‫ܒܕܪ‬, “to scatter, dissipate,” possibly comes from ‫לקח‬, read as ‫חלק‬, “to divide, to distribute, to scatter,”31 (metathesis). The Proximity between ‫ חתף‬and ‫חטף‬ 3.2 The case of lxx Prov 13:23 is slightly different but in other ways quite similar to the preceding examples: Prov 13:23 mt ‫רב אכל ניר ראשים ויש נספה בלא משפט‬, “The great man devours the tillage of the poor, and some people are swept away without justice (?)”32 lxx δίκαιοι ποιήσουσιν ἐν πλούτῳ ἔτη πολλά ἄδικοι δὲ ἀπολοῦνται συντόμως, “The righteous shall spend many years in wealth: but the unrighteous shall perish suddenly.”33 The mt ‫בלא משפט‬, “without justice / without judgment,” was translated by the Greek lexeme ἄδικοι, “wrong-doing, unrighteous, unjust”; the verb ‫ נספה‬corresponds to ἀπολοῦνται συντόμως. How should this translation be understood? According to Michael Fox the intention is simple: “G expresses confidence in recompense while M recognizes the existence of iniquities.”34 But again, is this “ideological motivation” a sufficient explanation? In Gen 18:23, 24; 19:15; Num 16:26; and Deut 29:18, this verb ‫ספה‬, “to sweep away, to snatch away,” is translated by (συν)απόλλυμι “to destroy utterly, kill”; Med. “to perish utterly, die (with others)”; in Gen 19:17 by συμπαραλαμβάνω, “to take along with one”; Pesh “to be overtaken together with someone else”; in Ps 40[39]:15, by ἐξαίρω, “to lift up”; and in Isa 7:20 by ἀφαιρέω, “to remove, to

van der Kooij, MPIL 8 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 63–72; and Michael V. Fox, “How the Peshitta of Proverbs Uses the Septuagint,” JNSL 39 (2013): 37–56. 31  For example, for the meaning “to scatter”: Gen 49:7 (MT ‫—חלק‬Pesh ‫ܦܠܓ‬, “to divide” // MT ‫—פוץ‬Pesh ‫ )ܒܕܪ‬and Lam 4:16. 32  The MT is not clear. Some have translated: “There is abundant food in the field of the poor, but it is swept away by injustice.” (net) I have adopted Fox’s translation (with his changes in vocalization), 214. Note that the Tg presents two different translations according to the manuscripts: “… and there is a field which perishes because it is not cultivated according to its tradition” (Z) and “… and there is a man who faints / dies without judgement” (L). This verb ‫ספה‬, “to take away, carry away,” appears in Gen 18:23ff. (“Abraham approached and said, ‘Will you sweep away the godly along with the wicked?’”) 33  The Peshitta uses an adverb, as does the lxx, but with a different meaning: Peshitta Prov 13:23 ‫ܘܐܢܫܝܢ ܐܒܕܘ ܓܡܝܪܐܝܬ‬, “… and men have perished completely.” 34  Fox, Proverbs, 214–15.

the Premature Death of the Wicked

185

take away.”35 Why then did the Greek translator of the Proverbs add the adverb συντόμως “shortly, immediately, suddenly, quickly, speedily”? This expression ἀπολλύναι συντόμως is a medical expression in Classical Greek, and may be found for example in Hippocrates, Aph. 3.1236 (5th c. bce), or in Erasistratus Medicus, Testimonia et fragmenta 286.437 (3rd c. bce). In the lxx the adverb συντόμως only appears twice,38 in this verse and in Prov 23:28. lxx Prov 13:23 seems to have been influenced by lxx Prov 23:28 although the formulation in Hebrew is very different. In both verses, the lxx proposes the expression “perish suddenly.” Prov 23:28 mt ‫אף היא כחתף תארב ובוגדים באדם תוסף‬, “Indeed, she (= the harlot) lies in wait like a robber, and increases the unfaithful among men.” lxx οὗτος γὰρ συντόμως ἀπολεῖται καὶ πᾶς παράνομος ἀναλωθήσεται, “For such a one (= a strange house) shall perish suddenly; and every transgressor shall be cut off.”39 Pesh … ‫ܘܡܢ ܫܠܝܐ ܡܘܒܕܐ‬, “and suddenly she (= the harlot) exterminates …” Why was the mt ‫כחתף‬, “like a robber,” translated by συντόμως, “suddenly”? Is it a logical inference (a robber has to operate quickly!), as suggested by Michael Fox?40 This is a possibility, but the phonetic and semantic proximity of ‫חתף‬ and ‫ חטף‬suggests another explanation. The substantive ‫ ֶח ֶתף‬, “robbery, robber,” comes from the verb ‫חתף‬, “to snatch away,” probably related to the Aramaic

35  In 1 Sam 12:25; 16:10 and 27:1, the Greek translator interpreted ‫ספה‬, “to sweep away,” from ‫יסף‬, “to add,” (προστίθημι), but he understood it in the sense of “to be joined to the forefathers in the grave,” which is close to the meaning of the MT: “to be carried away, to be swept away, destroyed.” 36  William H.S. Jones, Hippocrates 4. Nature of Man. Regimen in Health. Humours. Aphorisms. Regimen 1–3. Dreams. Heracleitus: On the Universe, LCL 150 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1943), 125: “But if the winter prove southerly, rainy and calm, and the spring dry and northerly, […] among the rest prevail dysentery and dry diseases of the eyes, and, in the case of the old, catarrhs that quickly prove fatal.” (κατάρροοι συντόμως ἀπολύντες). 37  “If the patient is not helped quite quickly, he immediately dies of choking.” 38  Except for 3 Macc 5:25: αὐτοῖς βοηθῆσαι συντόμως (they prayed God) “to help them immediately.” The adjective σύντομος, “cut short, abridged, concise, speedy,” is found in Wis 14:14; 2 Macc 2:31; 4 Macc 14:10. 39  m t ‫ּתֹוסף‬ ִ (root ‫ )יסף‬was understood as a form of ‫סוף‬, “to come to an end, perish,” or ‫ ָס ָפה‬, “to sweep away.” 40  Fox, Proverbs, 317: “συντόμως is a reasonable construal of ‫ כחתף‬as ‘suddenly’ (“like a snatch” ≈ in an instant).”

186

Loiseau

‫חטף‬.41 However, in Sir 15:14 (Ms A), ‫( חוטף‬either participle or substantive) seems to be a synonym of the parallel substantive ‫יֵ ֶצר‬, “inclination, striving”: it is probably necessary to widen the scope of the meaning attributed to ‫חתף‬ by the lexicographers. In any case, whatever the exact meaning may be of the root ‫ חתף‬and of the relationship between the two roots ‫ חטף‬/ ‫חתף‬, the Greek translation (followed by the Peshitta) reflects, in my estimation, another example of the second meaning of ‫חטף‬: “to do a thing in haste” / participle: “an abrupt (death).” Note that the verb ‫חתף‬, “to snatch away,” appears in Job 9:12: “If He snatches away (‫)יַ ְחּתֹף‬, who can turn him back? Who dares to say to Him: ‘What are You doing?’” It is translated more or less faithfully in the lxx (by ἀπαλλάσσω, “to put away from, to remove from”),42 but the Vulgate presents the following translation: Si repente interroget quis respondebit ei (“if He suddenly asks questions, who will answer Him?”). Jerome was undoubtedly also influenced by the Aramaic semantic field of ‫חטף‬. Indeed, ‫ חטף‬also acquired the meaning “to pronounce hastily.” Thus, b. Ber. 47a: “Whoever answers […] a hurried (‫ )חטופה‬Amen, his days will be hurried (‫)יתחטפו ימיו‬,” i.e. he will die an untimely, sudden death. In the same manner, the Hebrew verb ‫ חטף‬was colored by the Aramaic meaning in Vg Judg 21:21, as there too Jerome added the adverb “repente” (suddenly): cumque videritis filias Silo ad ducendos choros ex more procedere exite repente de vineis et rapite eas singuli uxores singulas … (“When you see the daughters of Shiloh coming out to dance in the celebration, come suddenly out from the vineyards. Each one of you, seize for yourself a wife …”)

3.3 Two Free Translations In my opinion, these translations from lxx Prov reflect deliberate modifications aimed at expressing the moralistic intention of the translator concerning the wicked based on the large semantic field of the Aramaic equivalent ‫חטף‬.43 Indeed, this conviction that the wicked will die prematurely is expressed by

41  Cf. HALOT 365: “JArm. to tear away (?) Mnd. MdD 155b, Syr. pa. to break into pieces, Akk. ḫatāpu to slaughter, Arb. ḥatf death (Guillaume 1:25f) → ‫חטף‬, Nöldeke Mand. Gramm. 421.” 42  Amongst the Greek revisers, only Symmachus’ translation has been preserved: the verb ἀναρπάζω, “to snatch away, kidnap, plunder.” 43  Job 15:33a also uses the root ‫חמס‬: MT ‫יחמס כגפן בסרו‬: (the wicked), “Like a vine he will let his sour grapes fall,” and the Greek translation also evokes something premature (τρυγηθείη δὲ ὥσπερ ὄμφαξ πρὸ ὥρας, “let him be gathered as the unripe grape before the time”), however, apart from this mention of unripe fruit, it only comes back to this idea that was already present in the preceding verse.

the Premature Death of the Wicked

187

the Greek translator in another verse, even though the substantive ‫ ָח ָמס‬or ‫ֶח ֶתף‬ does not appear: Prov 11:3 mt ‫תמת ישרים תנחם וסלף בגדים ישדם‬, “The integrity of the upright guides them, but the crookedness of the unfaithful destroys them.” lxx ἀποθανὼν δίκαιος ἔλιπεν μετάμελον πρόχειρος δὲ γίνεται καὶ ἐπίχαρτος ἀσεβῶν ἀπώλεια, “When a just man dies, he leaves regret: but the destruction of the ungodly is speedy, and causes joy.” Insofar as the participle ἀποθανών is concerned, it may well be explained by an inversion of the consonants (metathesis) between the roots ‫“ תמם‬to be innocent, perfect,” (mt) and ‫“ מות‬to die” (lxx).44 The translation “he leaves regret” can be easily explained by the confusion between the root ‫“ נחה‬to guide, lead, conduct,” + suffix -em and the root ‫נחם‬, “to regret, to be sorry, to console oneself,” The adjective πρόχειρος means “at hand, ready, readily accessible, common, ordinary, easy, hasty” (LSJ; cf. the adverb προχείρως, “offhand, readily, hurriedly, rashly, bluntly.”) The adjective is used in the latter sense of “hasty, rash,” for example, in Plutarch, Brutus 34, with σφοδρός, “violent, impetuous, vehement.”45 According to the lxx, the demise of the wicked is thereby already prepared for them, it will come quickly.46 This translation of the root ‫סלף‬, “to twist, to bring to ruin” / “perversity,” by πρόχειρος, “speedy,” (hapax in the lxx) + ἐπίχαρτος, “delightsome, wherein one feels malignant joy,” (hapax in the lxx) is unique in the lxx and thus deviates from the usual translations of ‫סלף‬, that largely reflect the meaning of the root.47 As indicated by d’Hamonville, this 44  Unless the Greek translator translated the verb ‫ תמם‬according to its other meaning “to come to an end, cease, perish”: cf. Num 14:35 ‫ תמם‬// ‫ מות‬but the Greek translator has a different translation for the two verbs: ἐξαναλίσκω and ἀποθνῄσκω. We do find the same inversion, but in the opposite direction, in Prov 14:32: MT ‫במותו‬.—lxx τῇ ἑαυτοῦ ὁσιότητι (= original reading ‫)בתומו‬. 45  Bernadotte Perrin, Plutarch. Parallel Lives 6. Dion and Brutus. Timoleon and Aemilius Paulus, LCL 98 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1943), 203, translates: “It was no easy matter, however, to stop Favonius when he sprang to do anything, for he was always vehement and rash.” 46  D’Hamonville, Proverbes, 222, translates into French: “elle est commode et plaisante, la perdition de l’impie.” This translation to the French “commode” (easy) does not seem appropriate to me given the context. Fox, Proverbs, 185, translates like Brenton: “but the destruction of the wicked is speedy and joyful.” 47  In lxx Prov: φαῦλον ποιέω (13:6) and φαυλίζω “to despise, to consider worthless” (21:12; 22:12); λυμαίνομαι “to maltreat; to harm, to injure; to corrupt, to cause ruin” (19:3).

188

Loiseau

amplification is very likely reflects an intentional emphasis of the immediate retribution against the wicked.48 Finally, let us mention lxx Prov 25:19, which also evokes the perdition of the wicked, even though it is not specified that it will occur quickly or suddenly: mt lxx

‫ׁשן רעה ורגל מועדת מבטח בוגד ביום צרה‬, “Like a bad tooth or a foot out of

joint, so is confidence in an unfaithful person at the time of trouble.” δοὺς κακοῦ καὶ ποὺς παρανόμου ὀλεῖται ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κακῇ, “The tooth49 of the wicked and the foot of the transgressor shall perish in an evil day.”

Did the translator have no knowledge of the meaning of the substantive

‫?מבטח‬50 That seems unlikely because in the other passages, he translates it

without any problem.51 Perhaps he was influenced by the similar root (metathesis) ‫חבט‬, “to press down, to force open, to mash, to knock, strike, punish”; or ‫חטב‬, “to split, cut, shop, to erase”; or ‫טבח‬, “to slaughter”? In any case, he reaffirms his conviction that there is divine justice in this world. This view regarding immediate earthly retribution against the wicked was the traditional conception found in the Ancient Near East.52 Through these different theological translations, the Greek translator of the Proverbs reconnects with a classic theme found in the ancient books of wisdom, including in the 48  D’Hamonville, Proverbes, 126. 49  I have followed the variant reading selected by Rahlfs, in conformity with the mt. 50  Cf. D’Hamonville, Proverbes, 314: “‘périront’, oleitai: résolution habituelle pour le traducteur d’une difficulté de compréhension …” (“will perish,” oleitai: the translator’s usual solution in the face of incomprehension). 51  Prov 14:26; 22:19: ἐλπίς; Prov 21:22: πέποιθα. What is the origin of the common translation ἐλπίς / ἐλπίζω, (ἐλπίς 20× for substantive ‫ּב ַטח‬, ֶ ‫ּב ָּטחֹון‬, ִ ‫ ; ִמ ְב ָטח‬ἐλπίζω approx. 40× for the verb ‫ ?)בטח‬As the semantic field for confidence extends logically toward hope (cf. Job 18:11), the translation is not incomprehensible. What is interesting is to notice is that we find the same translation in the Tg, which attests to a certain homogeneity in the interpretive traditions. Indeed, if the usual translation for the Hebrew ‫ בטח‬is the Aramaic ‫ רחץ‬/ substantive ‫רוחצן‬, we also find—albeit only in the Ps and Prov Tg—the root ‫סבר‬, “to hope”; e.g. Ps 4:6: MT ‫—ובטחו‬lxx καὶ ἐλπίσατε—Tg ‫ ;וסברו‬Ps 4:9: MT ‫—לבטח‬lxx ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι—Tg ‫ ;בסיברא‬idem Tg. Ps 37:5; 40:4; 52:9, 10; 56:12; 62:9; 119:42; 143:8; Prov 1:33; 3:5, 23; 10:9; 11:15, 28; 14:16; 16:20; 28:1; 28:25; 29:25. 52  Cf. for example, The Shamash Hymn, 88–91: “A man who covets his neighbour’s wife will […] before his appointed day (i-na u4-um la ši-ma-ti = lit. at the day not of his destinies). A nasty snare is prepared for him […]. Your weapon will strike at him, and there [will be] none to save him.” (translation by Wilfred G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature [Oxford: Clarendon, 1960; repr. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1996], 130–31).

the Premature Death of the Wicked

189

book of Proverbs itself. Thus, in Prov 10:27, we read: “Fearing the Lord prolongs life, but the life span of the wicked will be shortened.” Or in Job 22:15–16: “Will you keep to the old path that evil men have walked—men who were carried off before their time (mt ‫—ולא עת‬lxx ἄωροι), when the flood was poured out on their foundations?” Or in Job 31:2–3: “What then would be one’s lot from God above, one’s heritage from the Almighty on high? Is it not misfortune for the unjust, and disaster for those who work iniquity?” This notion was of course contested, for example by Qohelet,53 but we still find it asserted even in later writings.54 Indeed, translations found elsewhere in the lxx also reveal this conception. Thus, in Job 9:29, the mt affirms: ‫אנכי‬ ‫ארשע למה זה הבל איגע‬, “If I am guilty, why then weary myself in vain?” However, the Greek translator, encouraged by the resemblance between the substantive ‫ הבל‬and the poetic adverb of negation ‫בל‬, and the proximity of the roots ‫יגע‬, “to labour, struggle, grow weary,” and ‫גוע‬, “to pass away, perish,” translates as follows: ἐπειδὴ δέ εἰμί ἀσεβής διὰ τί οὐκ ἀπέθανον, “But since I am ungodly, why have I not died?” In this lxx formulation, Job is certain that, if he were guilty, he would have paid for it with his life.

53  Qohelet denies the principle of just retribution (Eccl 7:15: “During the days of my fleeting life I have seen both of these things: Sometimes a righteous person dies prematurely in spite of his righteousness, and sometimes a wicked person lives long in spite of his evil deeds”; 8:14: “There is a vanity which is done upon the earth; that there are righteous persons to whom it happens according to the doing of the ungodly; and there are ungodly men, to whom it happens according to the doing of the just: I said, This is also vanity”). For Qohelet, “Everyone shares the same fate—the righteous and the wicked, the good and the bad, the ceremonially clean and unclean, those who offer sacrifices and those who do not. What happens to the good person, also happens to the sinner; what happens to those who make vows, also happens to those who are afraid to make vows. This is the unfortunate fact about everything that happens on earth: the same fate awaits everyone …” (Eccl 9:2–3). Cf. Already in the Babylonian Job: “Those who neglect the god go the way of prosperity, while those who pray to the goddess are impoverished and dispossessed” (“The Babylonian Theodicy,” 70–71, in Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, 75). 54  Cf. Wis 4:3–5; Sir 5:4; 9:11–12. Philo, Praem. 110: “But no man shall die prematurely (ὠκύμορος) or without having fulfilled the legitimate end of his being among those men who observe the laws, nor shall such fail to reach the age which God has allotted to the race of man. But the human being proceeding upwards from childhood, as it were by the different stages of a ladder, and at the appointed periods of time fulfilling the regularly determined boundaries of each age, will eventually arrive at the last of all, that which is near to death, or rather to immortality; being really and truly happy in his old age, leaving behind him a house happy in numerous and virtuous children in his own place.”

190 4

Loiseau

The Fate of the Righteous in the Old Greek of Proverbs

Let us take a last example from lxx Proverbs that is related to this recurring theme of the fate of the righteous and the wicked. In Prov 12:21a, the lxx, as well as the Peshitta and the Targum,55 have a first stich that is very different from the mt: mt lxx Pesh Tg

‫לא יאנה לצדיק כל און ורשעים מלאו רע‬, “The righteous do not encounter

any harm, but the wicked are filled with calamity.” οὐκ ἀρέσει τῷ δικαίῳ οὐδὲν ἄδικον οἱ δὲ ἀσεβεῖς πλησθήσονται κακῶν, “No injustice will please a just man; but the ungodly will be filled with mischief.” ‫ܠܐ ܫܦܝܪ ܠܓܒܪܐ ܙܕܝܩܐ ܡܕܡ ܕܥܬܐ‬, “Nothing criminal is right to a righteous man …” ‫רעאתא‬‎ ‫לא ׁשפיר לצדיקא כל מידעם‬, “No perversity is right to a righteous man …”

The Greek translator, followed by the translator of the Peshitta (and the Peshitta then by the Targum),56 is convinced that the wicked will be overwhelmed by evils as the second stich affirms, and that they will be afflicted by a premature death as we observed earlier. On the other hand, he is less affirmative as regards to the fate of the righteous, who would, according to mt, necessarily be spared from all misfortune;57 he is happy to proclaim more modestly that the righteous repudiate iniquity. As Michael Fox rightly observes,58 this interpretation reflects not a reading of the rare verb ‫ אנה‬piel, “to cause to happen to someone”; pual, “to befall” (mt), but the closely related verb ‫נאה‬, “to be pleasing, beautiful, delightful” (metathesis), or perhaps on the Syriac ‫ܗܢܐ‬, “to be agreeable, grateful, pleasant.” We probably also see this in the translation of mt verb ‫ אנה‬piel (“God hates abominable wickedness and He will not let it befall 55  Aharon Kaminka, “Septuaginta und Targum zu Proverbia,” HUCA 8–9 (1931–32): 169–91, mentioned the agreement between the versions for this verse (182) but did not develop it. 56  The Aramaic and the Syriac ‫ܫܦܝܪ‬/‫ ׁשפיר‬do indeed correspond with the Greek ἀρέσκω: cf. lxx and Tg. Gen 34:18; 41:37; Lev 10:20; Deut 1:21, etc. 57  Note that the similar wording in Ps 91[90]:10a (with the same verb ‫)אנה‬, was literally translated: οὐ προσελεύσεται πρὸς σὲ κακά, “No evils shall come upon thee”; idem Vg: non accedet at te malum…. We find similar affirmations in Sir 7:1: “Do no evil, and evil will not befall you”; (njb) et Eccl 8:5a: “Whoever obeys his command will not experience harm.” 58  Fox, Proverbs, 203. And he comments with insight: “Perhaps M’s flat promise that ‘no misfortune will happen to the righteous man’ did not seem credible.”

the Premature Death of the Wicked

191

those who fear Him”) with the lxx adj. ἀγαπητός (“God hates all abominations, and they are not loved by those who fear Him”) in Sir 15:13. Texts such as Wis 4:7–17 probably felt compelled to consider the possibility of the premature death of the righteous because of the common human experience, not least after the persecutions of the martyrs of Judaism at the time of the Maccabees and also later at the time of Hadrian.59 According to Wisdom, the premature death of the righteous is now justified by the will of God to prevent his pure soul being defiled: “He has been carried off so that evil may not warp his understanding or deceitfulness seduce his soul” (Wis 4:11). Accordingly, Vg Prov 12:21 deliberately deviated from the mt: non contristabit iustum quicquid ei acciderit impii autem replebuntur malo (“Nothing that happens to him will sadden the righteous man, but the unrighteous will be burdened with evils.”) This deviation in the Vg can easily be explained: instead of the root ‫אנה‬, Jerome interpreted the verse in light of the root ‫ ינה‬hiphil: “to oppress, to mistreat,”60 and thus paints the portrait of a stoic righteous man faced with the vicissitudes of life. 5 Conclusions To the extent that this volume is devoted mainly to the connections between the lxx and the Targumim and the Aramaic language, it is with some reflections on them that I will conclude. We have seen above that in the four verses where the Hebrew substantive ‫“ חמס‬violence” was used in the mt, the Greek translator of the Proverbs was able to interject the idea of the untimely death of the wicked. This was probably done by exploiting the polysemantic nature of the Aramaic root ‫“ חטף‬to seize, rob, snatch, tear” and “to do a thing with haste, to hurry, to precipitate oneself.” Jerome, in the Vulgate, has also exploited the second meaning “to hurry,” but in its more specific meaning “to 59  Cf. Efraim E. Urbach, The Sages. Their Concepts and Beliefs, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1979), 442: “The conventional ‘doctrine of reward and punishment’ underwent a grave crisis in the period of Hadrian’s religious persecution, which led to a change in Rabbinic thinking on theodicy. It was not the tribulation that came upon the righteous from a higher power that called for an explanation, nor the bitter outcry against the troubles that were equally the lot of the wicked and the righteous that demanded an answer, but the fact that the resolve to observe the commandments was itself the cause of death and suffering!” 60  Cf. MT ‫—ינה‬Vg contristare: Vg Gen 22:21; Exod 22:21; 25:14; Lev 25:14; Deut 23:17, etc. This leads me to reject the proposition in the BHQ (critical apparatus and commentary, 42*), according to which Jerome based himself on the substantive ‫ ֲאנּיָ ה‬, “mourning.”

192

Loiseau

pronounce hastily.” We cannot therefore neglect this phenomenon of the Aramaic influence on the Greek translators and on Jerome when studying these texts. Bibliography Cook, Johann, “Exegesis in the Septuaginta,” JNSL 30 (2004): 1–19. Cook, Johann, “A Theology of the Greek Version of Proverbs,” HTS Teologiese Studies/ Theological Studies 71 (2015), Art. #2971, http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts.v71i1.2971. d’Hamonville, David-Marc, Les Proverbes, La Bible d’Alexandrie 17 (Paris: Cerf, 2000). Fox, Michael V., “How the Peshitta of Proverbs Uses the Septuagint,” JNSL 39 (2013): 37–56. Fox, Michael V., Proverbs. An Eclectic Edition with Introduction and Textual Commentary, HBCE (Atlanta: SBL, 2015). Healey, John F., The Targum of Proverbs, ArBib 15 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991). Jastrow, Marcus, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York: Pardes, 1950). Jones, William H.S., Hippocrates 4. Nature of Man. Regimen in Health. Humours. Aphorisms. Regimen 1–3. Dreams. Heracleitus: On the Universe, LCL 150 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1943). Joosten, Jan, “Doublet Translations in Peshitta Proverbs,” in The Peshitta as a Translation: Papers Read at the II Peshitta Symposium Held at Leiden 19–21 August 1993, ed. Pieter B. Dirksen and Arie van der Kooij, MPIL 8 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 63–72. Joosten, Jan, “On Aramaizing 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 Wido Van Peursen, OLA 118 (Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 587–600, reprinted in Collected Studies on the Septuagint. From Language to Interpretation and Beyond, FAT I 83 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 53–66. Kaminka, Aharon, “Septuaginta und Targum zu Proverbia,” HUCA 8–9 (1931–32): 169–91. Lambert, Wilfred G., Babylonian Wisdom Literature (Oxford: Clarendon, 1960; repr. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1996). Levy, Jacob, Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Targumim und einen grossen Teil des rabbinischen Schrift­tums (Leipzig: Baumgärtner, 1867). Loiseau, Anne-Françoise, L’influence de l’araméen sur les traducteurs de la LXX principalement, sur les traducteurs grecs postérieurs ainsi que sur les scribes de la Vorlage de la LXX, SBLSCS 65 (Atlanta: SBL, 2016).

the Premature Death of the Wicked

193

Lust, Johan, “La syntaxe et le grec de traduction,” in L’apport de la Septante aux études sur l’Antiquité, ed. Jan Joosten and Philippe Le Moigne, Lectio Divina 203 (Paris: Cerf, 2005), 37–55. McCarthy, Carmel, Deuteronomy, BHQ 5 (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2005). Payne Smith, Robert, Thesaurus syriacus (Oxford: Clarendon, 1879–1901). Perrin, Bernadotte, Plutarch. Parallel Lives 6. Dion and Brutus. Timoleon and Aemilius Paulus, LCL 98 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1943). Siegert, Folker, Zwischen Hebräischer Bibel und Altem Testament. Eine Einführung in die Septuaginta (Münster: Lit, 2001). Steyn, Pieter E., “External Influences in the Peshitta Version of Proverbs,” PhD diss., University of Stellenbosch, 1992. Urbach, Efraim E., The Sages. Their Concepts and Beliefs, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1979). Weitzman, Michael P., The Syriac Version of the Old Testament. An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).

part 2 Beyond Targum and LXX

∵

Chapter 9

The Septuagint and Jewish Translation Traditions James K. Aitken At first sight the relation of the Septuagint to Targum is not obvious. While similarities can be identified between the Septuagint translations and the Targumim on certain passages, the differences in time, place and purpose raise questions as to any direct links between the two.1 Recognition of apparent connections, nonetheless, was made early in the nineteenth century. As ever Frankel led the way in his Ueber den Einfluss.2 He noted many parallels between the Septuagint and Onqelos, including the use of free translations, alternation between active and passive, change of interrogative clauses into affirmative statements, and the avoidance of anthropomorphisms.3 It should be borne in mind, however, that he was working with a different presumption regarding the historical origins of the Targum. For he assumed that the Targum antedated the lxx, tracing it back to oral traditions in the post-exilic period. Justification for this was to be found in the biblical text itself: So they read from the book, from the law of God, with interpretation (‫)מפרש‬. They gave the sense (‫)ושום שכל‬, so that the people understood the reading. (Neh 8:8) Frankel was thus able to trace midrashic elements within the lxx back to Onqelos, which was viewed as the source.4 He perceptively identified some similarities of approach, but worked from a historical assumption that would no longer be held today in Targum studies. Even if the origins of the Targum lie in the period of the Second Temple, the written Targum itself is a product of a 1  See the comments of Jan Joosten, “Des targumismes dans la Septante ?” in The Targums in the Light of Traditions of the Second Temple Period, ed. Thierry Legrand and Jan Joosten, JSJSup 167 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 54–71 (54). On the uncertainty of the social context for the targum, see Paul V.M. Flesher, “Targum as Scripture,” in Targum and Scripture: Studies in Aramaic Translations and Interpretation in Memory of Ernest G. Clarke, ed. Paul V.M. Flesher, Studies in the Aramaic interpretation of Scripture 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 61–75 (61–62). 2  Zacharias Frankel, Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese auf die Alexandrinische Hermeneutik (Leipzig: Barth, 1851). Cf. too Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta (Leipzig: Vogel, 1841). 3  Ueber den Einfluss, 21–25. 4  “Zur Frage über das Verhältniss des alexandrinischen und palästinischen Judenthums, namentlich in exegetischer Beziehung,” ZDMG 4 (1850): 102–11.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004416727_011

198

Aitken

later period and similarities cannot be attributed to direct influence. After the fall of the Second Temple, and after the effects of the First and Second Revolts, the Targums would have been shaped in a period of rabbinic formation and would have not been passed down unchanged.5 Transition from oral to written also involves significant editing in the final stages of transmission that questions the simple antiquity of some Targumic readings. Frankel was followed by other nineteenth-century figures such as Geiger, Berliner, and Fürst.6 Geiger drew heavily upon the Palestinian Targums and not just Onqelos of Frankel’s work,7 and thereby antedated some of the discussions of the twentieth century that have seen the importance of some Palestinian Targums for preserving early traditions. Berliner and Fürst followed suit in also considering the Palestinian traditions.8 This trend continued in the twentieth century with studies by Churgin and Prijs who were optimistic over finding Targumic influence on the lxx.9 They saw common traits of double translations, corresponding use of vocabulary (e.g., distinguishing two functions of a Hebrew word), figurative translations of anthropomorphisms, exegetical agreements, and so on. As their nineteenth-century forebears these authors held to the assumption that Targumic sources were older than the lxx,10 but sought new means to explain the comparisons.11 Churgin even argues for a revision of the lxx on the basis of Onqelos to account for some late lxx readings reflecting midrashic elements.12 5  See discussion of Targum Jonathan, which has wider applicability to other targums, in Willem F. Smelik, The Targum of Judges, OtSt 36 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 24–41. 6  For a general survey of studies on the relation of the Targum to other Versions, see Roger Syrén, The Blessings in the Targums: A Study on the Targumic Interpretations of Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33, Acta Academiae Aboensis. Ser. A, Humaniora 62.1 (Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 1986), 31–39. 7  Abraham Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwickelung des Judenthums (Breslau, J. Hainauer, 1857), 161–64; 451–80. 8  Abraham Berliner, Targum Onkelos, herausgegeben und erläutert (Berlin: Gorzelanczyk; London: Nutt, 1884), II, 114ff.; Julius Fürst, “Spuren der palästinisch-jüdischen Schriftdeutung und Sagen in der Uebersetzung der LXX,” in Semitic Studies in Memory of Rev. Dr. Alexander-Kohut, ed. George Alexander Kohut (Berlin: S. Calvary & Co., 1897), 152–66. 9  Pinkhos Churgin, “The Targum and the Septuagint,” AJSL 50 (1933–1934): 41–65; Leo Prijs, Jüdische Tradition in der Septuaginta (Leiden: Brill, 1948). 10  See, e.g., Churgin, “The Targum,” 41–42. This is described by Syrén as “only a tacit assumption” (Blessings in the Targums, 33), although it is addressed explicitly by Churgin in his opening page. 11  See the discussion of Churgin by Joosten, “Des targumismes,” 56. 12  Churgin, “The Targum,” 55. David W. Gooding, “On the Use of the LXX for Dating Midrashic Elements in the Targums,” JTS 25 (1974): 1–11, examines the potential of midrashic revisions in the lxx, but remains cautious of such possibilities.

the SEPTUAGINT & JEWISH TRANSLATION TRADITIONS

199

The question presents itself as to what these authors have identified and why they wish to trace the origins back so far. In the 1970s and 1980s a different approach was taken in which the traditions of the Targum were dated early on the basis of comparisons with Second Temple sources, including the Septuagint, while recognizing that the Targums in their current forms are later.13 Meanwhile, the reverse procedure was being applied in Septuagint studies where the Septuagint was being used to prove the antiquity of some midrashic readings.14 Under the influence of the work of Churgin and Prijs, Schaper took this one stage further in his work on the Greek Psalter, where the Targum was used to identify and justify exegesis in the Septuagint.15 The drive to find comparisons between the two sources can lead in two alternative directions. One direction is to conclude that there are historical connections, an approach seen since the nineteenth century, but one that is viewed with greater scepticism today. There may have been some knowledge of the Septuagint still in Jewish circles,16 and it is possible that traditions of translation were carefully preserved in Jewish communities, but it is difficult to identify the precise means of transmission. A commonality in interpretation could derive from polygenesis since all are translating and interpreting the same Hebrew text. The second direction is to see common approaches to the biblical text without specifying historical connections.17 Although in this view there is no provable historical connection, an implied social connection lies behind such an analysis, since for them to be worthy as an object of comparison there must have been a connection at some point.

13   See, e.g., C.T. Robert Hayward, “Red Heifer and Golden Calf: Dating Targum Pseudo-Jonathan,” in Targum Studies, Volume One: Textual and Contextual Studies in the Pentateuchal Targums, ed. Paul V.M. Flesher (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992), 9–32. The relation of Targum to the New Testament was also an area of debate at this time; see especially Martin McNamara, Targum and Testament: Aramaic paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible: a light on the New Testament (Shannon: Irish University Press, 1972). 14  A highly cautious approach was taken by Gooding, “On the Use of the LXX.” Cf. Roger Le Déaut, “La Septante, un Targum ?” in Études sur le Judaïsme hellénistique, ed. Roger Arnaldez, Raymond Kuntzmann, and Jacques Schlosser, Lectio divina 119 (Paris: Cerf, 1984), 149–95. 15  Joachim Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter, WUNT 76 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995). 16  For a speculative approach to this, see James K. Aitken, “Jewish Use of Greek Proverbs,” in The Jewish Reception of Greek Bible Versions, ed. Nicholas de Lange, Julia G. Krivoruchko, and Cameron Boyd-Taylor (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 53–77. 17  Martin McNamara, “Targums and New Testament, A Way Forward?: Targums, Tel-Like Character, a Continuum,” in Targum and New Testament: Collected Essays (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 518–31.

200

Aitken

A middle position between these two directions is seen in some work. Brockington’s early study, for example, was sympathetic in suggesting a shared common purpose and background in the Septuagint and the Targumic tradition, and noted how each was directed towards a different audience. In other words he felt that the two translation traditions share a common oral background of traditional exegesis and Targumic translation, without there being any clear evidence of borrowing to be found.18 Most recently Joosten has shown there are similarities but emphasizes that we cannot determine the historical relations. He draws attention to the differences in time period, location and purpose, as well as the likelihood that the Targum may have begun orally. Both Brockington and Joosten draw attention to Aramaic influence in the lxx and Aramaic words attested later in Targum that suggest a linguistic tradition over time.19 There are then some comparisons to be made between the two translation versions, but the difference in time and purpose renders historical explanation difficult. 1

The Separation between Septuagint and Targum

The differences between the two translation traditions are many and notable. The Septuagint largely derives from the third to second century bce, while the Targum in its written form spans much of the first millennium CE. Even those Targumim that have often been considered early Palestinian such as Neofiti have been shown to contain in the earliest layers of its written form Aramaic of the second to fourth centuries CE.20 The Septuagint (before the revisions) is a product of Egypt, qualified only by some debated exceptions. The Targum derives from Palestine or further East. Perhaps most significant of all is that the Targum was to be used alongside the Hebrew text, at least according to rabbinic ruling, while the Septuagint was an independent standalone translation.21 18  Leonard H. Brockington, “Septuagint and Targum,” ZAW 66 (1954): 80–86. For Brockington, the Aramaic background did not derive from a Targum but it could be used to explain certain lxx renderings. He particularly felt that the lxx shows a familiarity with spoken Aramaic (84). 19  Joosten, “Des targumismes,” 62. 20  See a summary in Daniel A. Machiela, “Hebrew, Aramaic, and the Differing Phenomena of Targum and Translation in the Second Temple Period and Post-Second Temple Period,” in The Language Environment of First Century Judaea: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels, ed. Randall Buth and R. Steven Notley, Jewish and Christian Perspectives 26 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 209–46 (217–18). 21  The suggestion that the “interlinear” nature of the Septuagint translation could imply it was used in parallel to the Hebrew text—see Cameron Boyd-Taylor, “In a Mirror,

the SEPTUAGINT & JEWISH TRANSLATION TRADITIONS

201

These differences might not seem to be insurmountable if we consider the role of the latest Septuagint translations. Some of the kaige traditions can be placed as late as the first century CE, and these include not mere revisions but likely original compositions, such as Lamentations, Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes.22 These translations therefore are produced near to the time of the beginnings of the written Targumic tradition and in their practice of translation, adhering closely to the Hebrew source text, come close in their methods to Onqelos. Sadly, the latest translations in the Septuagint are also the latest in Targumic tradition (Meghillot), perhaps arising from their lack of liturgical use until late on, and therefore there is a significant time gap between them of many centuries. These Targumim also happen to be highly midrashic and therefore not fit for comparison with the close translation equivalence of the Septuagint kaige books. As we shall see below, it might still be possible to restore the later Greek translations to a rabbinic world from which they have been divorced in recent scholarship, but it is not precisely the world of the Targum. An alternative method is to seek an integrative approach to Jewish translation, something that Smelik achieves so well for the Targum tradition.23 We need a full history of Jewish translation, placed within the context of translation in antiquity. In other words, we need to reconsider the development of Septuagint translation traditions and how it can inform on Targum. I shall highlight briefly three aspects of this, while space and time do not permit such a grand ambition:

Dimly: Reading the Septuagint as a Document of its Times,” in Septuagint Research; Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures, ed. Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 15–31. Nevertheless, the Septuagint translation style seems to be typical of translations in antiquity and not reflective of interlinear use: see James K. Aitken, “The Septuagint and Egyptian Translation Methods,” in XV Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Munich 2013, ed. Wolfgang Kraus, Michaël N. van der Meer, Martin Meiser, SBLSCS 64 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016), 269–93. 22  On the argument for a late dating of lxx Lamentations, even to after 70 CE, see Philip S. Alexander, “The Cultural History of the Ancient Bible Versions: The Case of Lamentations,” in The Jewish Reception of Greek Bible Versions, ed. Nicholas de Lange, Julia G. Krivoruchko, and Cameron Boyd-Taylor (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 78– 102 (80–90). On linguistic evidence for the dating of Ecclesiastes, see James K. Aitken, “Phonological Phenomena in Greek Papyri and Inscriptions and their Significance for the Septuagint,” in Studies in the Greek Bible: Essays in honor of Francis T. Gignac, S.J., ed. Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp, CBQMS 44 (Washington DC: CBA, 2008), 256–77. 23  Willem F. Smelik, Rabbis, Language and Translation in Late Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013).

202

Aitken

– Traditions of Jewish translation (Section 2) – Septuagint and its relation to rabbinic scholarly traditions (Section 3) – The varying translation techniques (Section 4) 2

Traditions of Jewish Translation

It could be argued that there were few Jewish translations in antiquity and that the lxx is the sum or at least the major part of what existed. Any scribal activity had to have justifiable and economic reasons for the labour expended upon it. Consequently, it is possible that the books of the Hebrew canon were gaining such importance in Judaism at the time that these were the only ones considered worthy of translating into Greek. The common presumption of the lxx translation as a unique enterprise or major undertaking underscores this position. However, the Septuagint should be seen within ancient translation practice. The supposed uniqueness of the Septuagint or the claims of there being no other translations like it, has prevented it being placed in the historical context of translation. Despite Brock’s very positioning of the Septuagint within ancient translation,24 his studies have ironically led to its isolation by being viewed as a unique literary translation, employing a special translation method. Brock himself described the translation as unique, and this has been echoed in many other writers.25 Translation was an everyday and inevitable activity in a multilingual environment; indeed it is possible that it was both so ubiquitous and so small scale, that we encounter so few explicit references to it.26 My own recent work has sought to show that the methods employed by the translators of the Pentateuch were the same as those used by translators of documentary texts, as evidenced in Greek translations of Demotic texts27— these features could as well be seen in the Res Gestae of Augustus and in other bilingual inscriptions.28 While reflecting standard translation practices, the translations can be seen as reflecting a concern for status, given the element of 24  Sebastian P. Brock, “The Phenomenon of the Septuagint,” OtSt 17 (1972): 11–36; “Aspects of Translation Technique in Antiquity,” GRBS 20 (1979): 69–87. 25  “Phenomenon,” 11; cf. Tessa Rajak, Translation and Survival: The Greek Bible and the Jewish Diaspora (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 1. 26  As observed by Rajak, Translation, 138. 27  Aitken, “Egyptian Translations.” 28  On translation features in the Res Gestae, see Alison E. Cooley, Res Gestae Divi Augusti: Text, Translation, and Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 26–29.

the SEPTUAGINT & JEWISH TRANSLATION TRADITIONS

203

prestige associated with the target language. The status of Greek in the ancient world, and especially in Egypt, means that we need to consider the importance of the language and not merely the loss of Hebrew.29 In Egypt native Egyptians, who had not lost knowledge of Demotic, also came to translate religious and nationalistic works into Greek, which is an indication of the high social status accorded the language.30 Viewing the Septuagint from this perspective, it may be decoupled from its association with a single moment in time when an authoritative translation was produced, and rather be seen as part of a rich translation tradition, both in the classical world and within Jewish tradition. The need for the translation was not an attempt to preserve a dying tradition that was being lost with the forgetting of the Hebrew language (a tradition that needed Aristeas to bolster it). It was instead part of a lively engagement with text and language, and as such a participation in a cultural system of language use and translation production. There has been a tendency among writers, particularly those whose research is not focussed upon the Septuagint, to suggest the Septuagint in its broad sense was translated between the third and second centuries bce.31 This opinion is not entirely restricted, however, to non-specialists, although in so specifying the date range, the scholars concerned narrow the range of the translation process to little more than one or two centuries.32 This is despite the fact that in standard introductions one can find a much broader range of 29  See Dorothy J. Thompson, “Literacy and Power in Ptolemaic Egypt,” in Literacy and Power in the Ancient World, ed. Alan K. Bowman and Greg Woolf (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 67–83; Emilio Crespo, “The Linguistic Policy of the Ptolemaic Kingdom,” in Φωνῆς χαρακτὴρ ἐθνικός. Actes du V Congres international de dialectologie grecque, Athènes, 28–30 septembre 2006 = Μελετήματα. 52, ed. M.B. Hatzopoulos (Athènes/ Paris: Diffusion de Boccard, 2007), 35–49. 30  See Jacco Dieleman and Ian Moyer, “Egyptian Literature,” in A Companion to Hellenistic literature, ed. James J. Clauss and Martine Cuypers (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 429–47; and further discussion in Ian S. Moyer, Egypt and the Limits of Hellenism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011). 31  E.g., Christine Schams, Jewish Scribes in the Second-Temple Period, JSOTSup 291 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 72, places the Septuagint in the third-second centuries (based on Sirach), but admits it is not clear how far all writings were available; Lawrence H. Schiffman, Understanding Second Temple and rabbinic Judaism (Jersey City, NJ: Ktav, 2003), 129 attributes completion to the second century bce, except for some writings in the first century. 32  A nuanced statement can be found in Karen H. Jobes and Moisés Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 31–32, that the books were translated “independently into Greek by different translators over several centuries,” although further down the page they define the period as “two centuries,” which would only take us to the beginning of the first century bce.

204

Aitken

dates for the translations, beginning in the third century bce and extending as far as the first or even second centuries CE.33 The helpful, if necessarily conjectural, table prepared by Dorival and colleagues graphically displays this.34 In such presentations, the kaige style of translated books are usually viewed as late, the very latest being Song of Songs and the Aquila-like Ecclesiastes, taking us comfortably into the first century CE, if not later. We cannot be sure of the date of the translations of most books of the Septuagint apart from the Pentateuch,35 but the desire to see a narrow range of dates seems to stem from two reasons. One arises from actual historical citation, namely from the preface to the Greek version of Sirach. There the translator, said to be his “grandson,” laments that words rendered into Greek do not have the same force as in Hebrew. He notes that this does not only apply to his own translation but to others as well: For what was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated into another language. Not only this book, but even the law itself, the prophecies, and the rest of the books (ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ νόμος καὶ αἱ προφητεῖαι καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν βιβλίων) differ not a little when read in the original. (ll. 21–26) The implication here, although, it should be noted, not elsewhere in the prologue where he appears to be speaking of the Hebrew version, is that other biblical books are already translated into Greek. This may well be correct, but a number of words of caution should be made. There is no indication what 33  We may note, for example, Natalio Fernández Marcos, Introducción a las versiones griegas de la Biblia, 2nd ed. (Madrid: Instituto de Filología del CSIC, Departamento de Filología Bíblica y de Oriente Antiguo, 1998), 61, who explains that the translation of the Bible into Greek took four centuries, since many books were completed by the 2nd or 1st centuries bce, but some, namely Songs of Songs and Ecclesiastes, might not have been finished until the first century ce. I refer to the Spanish edition, since the English edition (The Septuagint in Context, 50) speaks of ce when it means bce, and omits mention of the first-century ce translations, rendering the four centuries meaningless. See too Nicholas R.M. de Lange, “An Early Hebrew—Greek Bible Glossary from the Cairo Genizah and its Significance for the Study of Jewish Bible Translations into Greek,” in Studies in Hebrew Literature and Culture Presented to Albert van der Heide on the Occasion of his Sixty-fifth Birthday, ed. Martin F.J. Baasten and Reinier Munk, Amsterdam Studies in Jewish Thought (Dordrecht: Springer 2007), 31–39 (32). 34  Gilles Dorival, Marguerite Harl, and Olivier Munnich, La Bible grecque des Septante: Du judaïsme hellénistique au christianisme ancien (Paris: Cerf, 1988), 111. 35  Dating is clear from citations in the second century bce, as well as from the evidence of the language, see: John A.L. Lee, A Lexical Study of the Septuagint version of the Pentateuch, SBLSCS 14 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), 139–44.

the SEPTUAGINT & JEWISH TRANSLATION TRADITIONS

205

the contents of these various books of law and prophecies are, or that it is complete. We do not know that both Former and Latter Prophets would have at this stage been recognized as “prophets.” The phrase “the rest of the books” is particularly vague, and it has been rightly noted that this could just refer to other literature and not specifically to the canonical Writings (ketuvim).36 The other reason for seeing a narrow range of dates for translation arises from a largely unstated presumption. It is certain that many books were gaining authority in this period, as can be seen from the manuscripts at Qumran, and inevitably the demand for copies or even translations in certain cases would have been high. But a canonical perspective that presumes all the books in what later became the canon would have been translated soon after the Pentateuch does not seem to be justified. Nevertheless, in older scholarship this has been assumed. Swete does state it explicitly: But when the example had once been set of rendering sacred books into Greek, it would assuredly be followed as often as fresh rolls arrived from Jerusalem which bore the stamp of Palestinian recognition, if a bilingual Jew was found ready to undertake the task.37 A “canonical imperative” for translation presumes too much of the fixed canonical picture. Pfeiffer’s influential Introduction seems to have that presumption underlying his work, although admittedly also under the influence of the Sirach prologue: It seems likely that soon after a work attained canonical standing or at least considerable popularity in Palestine, it was rendered into Greek, generally under private auspices.38 The problem encountered is that we do not have a full perspective on ancient Jewish translation into which to fit the Septuagint translation. In examining other Jewish Greek translations, we see a wider movement of translation and one continuing into the common era. Focus on the canonical lxx has excluded from consideration other ancient Jewish Greek translations that provide evidence of the translation phenomenon per se. In a similar fashion to our recognition of the status of authoritative books in ancient Judaism beyond the 36  Jonathan G. Campbell, “4QMMTd and the Tripartite Canon,” JJS 51 (2000): 181–90. 37  Henry B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914), 24. 38  Robert H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament (London: Black, 1952), 106.

206

Aitken

confines of the later canon,39 we may see the flux of a wider group of translated books beyond the limits of the Septuagint. The existence of Greek translations of other Jewish books has been discussed in brief by Stone, but he does not consider the historical significance of them.40 His focus was understandably on the transmission of Pseudepigrapha rather than the phenomenon of translation per se. He does at least recognize that the Pseudepigrapha are witnesses to translations into Greek. Until now, works that seem to be translations of Hebrew/Aramaic originals have been discussed for what they tell us regarding the compositions themselves, namely within the realm of the Pseudepigrapha, but not what they tell us about translation as an ancient scribal activity. It is a rather obvious if neglected point that those Pseudepigrapha that were originally composed in a Semitic language and are now preserved in Greek or a daughter version (Ethiopic, Armenian, Old Slavonic, etc.) are witnesses to translation into Greek in antiquity, if we may assume that Greek was the intermediary language. The existence of such translations, it will be argued here, has profound socio-historical significance beyond the important preservation of lost works, and also can make a small contribution to the study of translation technique. 2.1 Translation Activity among Jews Ancient Jewish translation probably continued for a much longer time than is sometimes envisaged. We can see of course the three main translation traditions attributed to Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, but they can easily be seen in isolation, the tender strands of a dying tradition. They are very often cited as the one evidence of activity in the second century CE.41 Rather, the proposal here is that they could alternatively be fragmentary evidence of what would have been a long and strong tradition. One effect of the isolation of biblical translations within a canonical context is that translations traditionally considered very late, such as Ecclesiastes and other translations of the kaige group, appear isolated after most other biblical translations are seen as completed by the second century bce. This tends to narrow the range of dates, and

39  James C. VanderKam, “Authoritative Literature in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” DSD 5 (1998): 382–402, especially 401. 40  Michael Stone, Ancient Judaism: New Visions and Views (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011). 41  A careful discussion of the importance of this evidence is given by James Carleton Paget, Jews, Christians and Jewish Christians in Antiquity, WUNT 251 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 409–12.

the SEPTUAGINT & JEWISH TRANSLATION TRADITIONS

207

many doubt that translations were produced as late as the second century.42 The picture of an inevitable canonical need for translation pushes such translations earlier in history to be part of a translated canon. 2.2 The Evidence of Translations There was an active and perhaps long tradition of translation into Greek, although few such translations can be dated with any certainty. This translation activity has been overlooked in discussions of biblical translation.43 It is of course not one process, and revisions or new versions of existing translations, such as the kaige tradition, are already signs of an ongoing translation process. In arguing for the existence of a variety of Jewish translations in antiquity, certain presuppositions must be made. The first is the ability to identify that a text is a translation and not an original composition.44 The work of Davila has explored this issue in detail, including the questioning of the Jewish origin of some works.45 In certain cases we now have a Hebrew or Aramaic Vorlage to confirm that these are translations (such as Enoch and Jubilees), although in some cases the relation of the extant Semitic version to the translation is not necessarily genetic (Testament of Levi, Prayer of Manasseh).46 Where no Vorlage is extant, it can be readily admitted that some writers might have composed in a translation style of Greek, imitating scriptural works, and therefore we cannot presume the work is a translation (the position of Davila). Certainly for some works, though, the ideology of the author would necessitate a Hebrew version being likely, as in the case of the author of 1 Maccabees. Where we have daughter versions (e.g., Pseudo-Philo, Slavonic Enoch) we must presume the 42  Many now speak of Ecclesiastes and other kaige translations as first century productions. George A. Barton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1908), 8, places it at the end of the first century CE. 43  In Theo A.W. van der Louw’s discussion of translation in Hellenistic and Roman antiquity (Transformations in the Septuagint: Towards an Interaction of Septuagint Studies and Translation Studies, CBET 47 [Leuven: Peeters, 2007], 25–55) to place the Septuagint in context, other Jewish translations are not mentioned at all. 44  Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, Volume 3, Part 2, revised by Géza Vermès, Martin Goodman, Fergus Millar (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987), 705–6, who note the problem of identifying original language of source or location. 45  James R. Davila, “(How) Can we tell if a Greek Apocryphon or Pseudepigraphon has been translated from Hebrew or Aramaic?” JSP 15 (2005): 3–61. 46  For the relationship of the Greek Testament of Levi to Aramaic Levi see Marinus de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Study of their Text, Composition and Origin (2nd ed.; Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1975), 38–52; Robert A. Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest: The Levi-Priestly Tradition from Aramaic Levi to Testament of Levi, SBLEJL 9 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1996). On the Qumran prayer of Manasseh, see William M. Schniedewind, “A Qumran Fragment of the Ancient ‘Prayer of Manasseh’?” ZAW 108 (1996): 105–7.

208

Aitken

daughter version derived at some point from a Greek version and that that (no longer extant) Greek version itself is a translation of a Semitic original. A second presupposition is that though they are Christian copies, the translations themselves were Jewish, especially as they would require knowledge of Hebrew or Aramaic. Even if some of the supposed translations prove not to be actual Jewish translations, there are still a significant number of likely translations for a case to be made. Possible examples can be catalogued according to the date of composition (see Table 9.1). Table 9.1 Jewish texts translated in Antiquity

Text

Date of translation

Epistle Jeremiah Tobit G I Tobit G II 1 Enoch Jubileesc

2nd cent. bce (7QlxxEpJer) 2nd cent. bce? Date uncertain? 1st cent. bce or ce;a 1st cent. bceb 1st cent. bce? The important place Jubilees had in Second Temple Judaism might have initiated translation early on (cf. Enoch). 1st cent. bce 1st cent. bce (assuming a Hasmonean translation) ca. 114 bce to ca. 48 bce (“fourth year of Ptolemy and Cleopatra”), but possibly translated over time. 1st cent. bce / ce late 1st cent. bce or 1st cent. ce. Original setting after 63 bce Translated at same time as other psalms or later?f Date uncertain? Date uncertain? ca. 80 ce 1st cent. ce 1st cent. ce 1st cent. ce Late 1st cent. cek

Kaige revision—Minor Prophets 1 Maccabees Additions Esther A, C, D, and Fd

Judithe Psalms of Solomon Psalms 151–155 Testament of Levig Testament of Naphtalih Josephus, J.W. 2 Enochi Apocalypse of Moses Ps-Philo, LABj lxx Lamentations

the SEPTUAGINT & JEWISH TRANSLATION TRADITIONS

209

Table 9.1 Jewish texts translated in Antiquity (cont.)

Text

Date of translation

2 Esdras (translation of Ezra-Nehemiah)

early 2nd cent. ce (based on translation style, neologisms, phonetics of transcriptions;l and citation only from church fathers in the later second century).m early-mid 2nd cent. ce; dependent on 2 Esdras (= Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch) early-mid 2nd cent. ce (= Paralipomena of Jeremiah) 2nd cent. ce 1st or early 2nd cent. ce? From school of Aquila, but not work of Aquilan 1st to 2nd cent. ce ca. 125 ce 2nd century ce 2nd century ce Late antiquityp

2 Baruch 4 Baruch Esdras B’ (IV Ezra) lxx Ecclesiastes History of Rechabites (?)o Aquila Theodotion Symmachus Later Jewish versions

a Barr compares the translation to og Daniel: James Barr, “Aramaic-Greek Notes on the Book of Enoch,” Part I JSS 23 (1978): 184–98, Part II JSS 24 (1979): 179–92. b Erik W. Larson, “The Relation between the Greek and Aramaic Texts of Enoch” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after Their Discovery. Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20– 25, 1997, ed. Lawrence Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James VanderKam (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 434–44. c Greek translation no longer extant apart from quotations, but there probably lies a Greek version behind the Ethiopic, if transmitted via Syriac or Arabic. A Hebrew version has been found at Qumran. d Each Addition might originally have had different origins. e It has been doubted whether there ever was a Semitic Vorlage behind the Greek. See Jan Joosten, “The Original Language and Historical Milieu of the Book of Judith,” Meghillot 5–6 (2007): 159–76; Jeremy Corley, “Septuagintalisms, Semitic Interference, and the Original Language of the Book of Judith,” in Studies in the Greek Bible, ed. Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp, CBQMS 44 (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2008), 65–96. f Of the additional Psalms only Ps 151 survived in Greek. A translation of a possibly conflated Hebrew source. g This appears to be more of a paraphrase than a translation of the Aramaic Levi found in Qumran and the Cairo Genizah. h Hebrew Naphtali, surviving in a medieval version in the Chronicles of Jerahmeel, shares a common source with Greek.

210

Aitken

i Slavonic translation of Greek, with traces still present of Greek Vorlage. j Latin dependent on Greek translation of Semitic original. k Alexander (“Cultural History”) argues the translation derives from a context after the destruction of after 70 CE. l Richard C. Steiner, “On the Dating of Hebrew Sound Changes (*Ḫ > Ḥ and *Ġ > ʿ), and Greek Translations (2 Esdras and Judith),” JBL 124 (2005): 229–67. m See Glenn Wooden, “2 Esdras,” in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint, ed. James K. Aitken (London: T&T Clark, 2015), 196–97. n See Kyösti Hyvärinen, Die Übersetzung von Aquila, ConBOT 10 (Lund: Gleerup; Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1977), 89–99; John Jarick, “Aquila’s Kohelet,” Textus 15 (1990): 131–39. o Composite work, perhaps parts coming from 1st century CE. Its origins as a translation is found in a colophon to B.M. Add. MS 12174, f. 209v: “But it was translated from Hebrew into Greek, and then from Greek into Syriac by the Holy Mar Jacob of Edessa.” Its provenance is doubted by James R. Davila, The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian, or Other?, JSJSup 105 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 210–15; Ronit Nikolsky, “The History of the Rechabites and the Jeremiah Literature,” JSP 13.2 (2002) 185–207. p See Nicholas R.M. de Lange, Greek Jewish Texts from the Cairo Genizah, TSAJ 51 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996).

This catalogue of possible Greek translations shows that we may speak of a continuity of Jewish translation antiquity from the first translation of the Pentateuch in the third century bce through into the Roman period. To this list could be added other possible translations, such as the possibly Jewish prayers in the Apostolic Constitutions and sections of the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs.47 It is doubtful, however, whether or not they are translations or indeed whether they should be considered Jewish at all. The list does make clear that translations appeared at different times, some preceding the translation of books that were to be included in the canon later on. The case of 1 Enoch and Jubilees are informative in this regard. Barr undertook a study of the Greek of Enoch and identified that the most important connection is to be found with og Daniel, although this is not surprising given the similar subject matter and the source language of each being Aramaic. He also saw other contacts with Tobit, Sirach, and 1 Esdras. He concludes, “It seems at first sight probable that the translation of Enoch into Greek belonged to the same general stage and stratum of translation as the lxx translation of Daniel.”48 This would indicate that the question of the date can be closely aligned with og Daniel, even if we accept the possibility that there could be influence of Daniel upon Enoch, 47  These have been identified by Rajak among possible post-70 Jewish translations: Tessa Rajak, “The Mediterranean Jewish Diaspora in the Second Century,” in Christianity in the Second Century: Themes and Developments, ed. James Carleton Paget and Judith Lieu (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 39–56 (52). 48  Barr, “Aramaic-Greek Notes,” 191.

the SEPTUAGINT & JEWISH TRANSLATION TRADITIONS

211

and some of the features could arise in transmission history. The final form of the book of Daniel had to be around 164 bce, and the og version is generally dated towards the beginning of the first century bce.49 In broad terms, though, Barr’s observations would locate the translation of Enoch in the first century bce or CE, a time after which the Enoch tradition as represented in Qumran had formed.50 Larson largely accepts this dating as well, and places it in the period of 150 to 50 bce.51 Further confirmation of a date in the pre-Christian era, before the turn of the first century ce, has recently been brought to light by the use made of the Greek version of Enoch by Philo of Alexandria.52 In certain passages it appears that Philo could not have been using only the account of Genesis, and vocabulary alignments with the Greek version of 1 Enoch suggest that this was his source through which he interpreted the biblical text. The consequences of this go beyond the question of dating, however. It shows that these ancient translations had as wide a circulation as the canonical Septuagint books, and had become well-known in the Greek-speaking Diaspora so as to be part of Philo’s cultural background.53 The translation of such an important book as 1 Enoch was undertaken relatively early in the translation process and gained importance within the Jewish community. The manuscript evidence itself from Qumran of the Aramaic fragments contributes to this picture of the importance of the book and corroborates the time for translation. Stone 49  For date of Daniel see Timothy R. McLay, “The Old Greek Translation of Daniel iv–vi and the Formation of the Book of Daniel,” VT 55 (2005): 304–23 (317). Cf. James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1927), 38; Louis F. Hartman and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, AB 23 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977), 78. 50   Emanuel Tov, “Reflections on the Septuagint with Special Attention paid to the Post-Pentateuchal Translations,” in Die Septuaginta—Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse: 2. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch. Wuppertal 23.–27. 7 2008, ed. Wolfgang Kraus, Martin Karrer and Martin Meiser, WUNT 252 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 3–22 (20), notes the translations of Enoch and Jubilees, but attributes these to a later date. He is probably following the dating of Matthew Black (The Book of Enoch, or 1 Enoch: A New English Edition with Commentary and Textual Notes, SVTP 7 [Leiden: Brill, 1985], 87). 51  Erik W. Larson, “The LXX and Enoch: Influence and Interpretation in Early Jewish Literature,” Enoch and Qumran Connections: New Light on a Forgotten Connection, ed. Gabriele Boccaccini (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 84–89. 52  Ekaterina Matusova, “1 Enoch in the Context of Philo’s Writings,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures, ed. Armin Lange, Emanuel Tov, and Matthias Weigold, in association with Bennie H. Reynolds, VTSup 140 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 385–97. 53  Matusova, “1 Enoch,” 397.

212

Aitken

has indicated how the status or authority ascribed to works at Qumran, although not necessarily representative of Judaism in other circles, may well have changed over time. He illustrates this by comparing the manuscript witnesses for two works, 1 Enoch and Jubilees, and their distribution over time periods.54 Although it is likely that Enoch held a special place in Qumran and therefore we should be cautious not to draw too immediate a conclusion for other spheres of Judaism, it does appear that its height of popularity was in the first century bce (see Table 9.2, reproduced from Stone, Ancient Judaism, 135). Table 9.2 Qumran distribution of Enoch and Jubilees MSS

Enoch

Jubilees

4QEnoch astra 4QEnocha W 4QEnochb W 4QEnochf D

200 bce 200–150 bce 150 bce 150–125 bce

4QEnoch astrb 4QEnoche D

Early 1st c. bce 100–50 bce

4QEnoch astrc 4QEnochg D 4QEnoch astrd 4QEnochc D 4QEnochc W E 4QEnochd D

ca. 50 bce 50 bce 50–1 bce 30–1 bce 30–1 bce 30–1 bce

4QJubileesa

125–10 bce

4QJubileesd 4QJubileesg 4QJubileesh 4QJubileesf 4QpapJubileesb? 1QJubileesa 4QJubileesc 1QJubileesb 4QJubileese 2QJubileesa 2QJubileesb 3QJubilees 11QJubilees

100–50 bce 75–50 bce 75–50 bce mid-1st c. bce 50 bce 50–31 bce 30–20 bce 30–1 bce 30–1 bce 31–1 bce 25–50 ce 25–50 ce ca. 50 ce

From Table 9.1 we can see that 1 Enoch was copied from the third century bce up to the late first century bce, while Jubilees begins in the late second century bce and continues into the middle of the first century ce. The manuscript distribution for 1 Enoch is dense in the last half of the first century bce, with 54  Stone, Ancient Judaism, 134–35.

the SEPTUAGINT & JEWISH TRANSLATION TRADITIONS

213

no manuscripts attested after this time. Of course we are at the mercy of the haphazard nature of survival, but in comparison to Jubilees the difference is clear. Had Enoch had a high status we might expect it, as Stone questions, to have had such an even distribution in the manner of Jubilees. Stone leaves the question open, but it could imply that Enoch was most popular only up to the mid-first century bce. As such we might conclude that this is the latest date at which it would likely have been translated. This picture is not conclusive since Philo and the epistle of Jude indicate the ongoing popularity of Enoch (at least in Greek), but we might infer that at a time of more frequent copying there would have been the drive for a translation as well. The Greek version of Jubilees is lost, but for a brief summary in Epiphanius. The popularity of the book is well demonstrated by the number of copies at Qumran.55 We can use the same reasoning regarding the evidence of manuscript distribution to suggest it might have been translated in the later first century bce when it seems to have been most popular. Indeed, suggested dates for the Greek versions of Tobit, which are uncertain at most, can also be compared to the copying of manuscripts at Qumran. There are copies of four Aramaic and one Hebrew versions from Qumran (4Q196–4Q200): 4QTobd ar ca. 100 bce 4QTobc ar ca. 50 bce 4QpapToba ar 50–25 bce 4QTobe 30 bce–ce 20 4QTobb ar 25 bce–ce 25 The predominance of manuscript evidence appears to be in the later first century bce, possibly suggesting a time of popularity when or after which the book might have been translated. 2.3 Implications It can be seen from this evidence that Jewish translation into Greek was an ongoing process for some centuries and that the Septuagint should be placed within it. It coincides with other translation movements in Judaism at the time: a translation into Hebrew of the Aramaic of Tobit (4QTobe) in the early Herodian period and the appearance of an Aramaic version of Job (11QtgJob)

55  Cf. Charlotte Hempel, “The Place of the Book of Jubilees at Qumran and Beyond,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context, ed. Timothy H. Lim (London: T&T Clark, 2000), 187–96.

214

Aitken

at a similar time.56 There is less need to consolidate the Septuagint books into one movement of translation when they can be located within a much wider tradition of translation. It is likely that revision began soon after the first translation of the Pentateuch, such that alternate versions and scribal corrections arose.57 These led in time to more formal revisions, which would have been undertaken by Jewish scholars. The same scholars were also translating other works of Jewish literature into Greek alongside their biblical revisions. The acceptance of the fluid status of authoritative books in ancient Judaism can be applied to translations as well. As different works became important the need for a translation of them also became pressing. For some this would have been a speedy process (as I suggest for 1 Enoch), for others, whether in the later canon or not, this might have been much slower (as perhaps for Canticles and Ecclesiastes). Key to this, though, is the recognition that there is a broad stream of Jewish translations, and that the hegemony of focussing on the biblical does not obscure this Jewish literary Greek production.58 An important consequence of recognizing this ongoing translation tradition is the picture it reveals of a literate Jewish Greek tradition beyond the Hellenistic Jewish Greek compositions which we already know about. In particular, while Greek compositions are usually seen as deriving from the diaspora, usually but not exclusively Egypt, it might be possible to place some of the translations within Palestine. They would thereby attest to a lively Palestinian Jewish Greek tradition.59 In the Roman period Alexandria lost some of the status it held as the preeminent city of culture, and rival centres emerged in Pergamum and Jerusalem. As a result it may be possible to see Jerusalem emerging as a place of Greek learning, especially after Herod the Great’s promotion of Greek education and culture.60 Evidence for a Palestinian provenance seems to be clear in some cases, especially from the Esther colophon (though some see the translation as more likely coming from Egypt), and from Ecclesiastes in the style of Aquila and other kaige translations (Canticles, Lamentations, Ruth). Those compositions focussed on the Temple and politics 56  Johannes P.M. van der Ploeg and Adam S. van der Woude, Le Targum de Job de la grotte XI de Qumrân, avec la collaboration de B. Jongeling (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 2–3. 57  On this point the well-known problem in the Letter of Aristeas may have some basis on historical fact. 58  For this concept, see Eva Mroczek, “The Hegemony of the Biblical in the Study of Second Temple Literature,” Journal of Ancient Judaism 6 (2015): 2–35. 59  Indeed, Tov (“Reflections”) proposes with regard to the Septuagint that the default assumption for the post-Pentateuchal books should be that they were produced in Palestine, and not in Alexandria or any other part of the Jewish Diaspora. 60  Samuel Rocca, Herod’s Judaea: A Mediterranean State in the Classical World, TSAJ 122 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 240–48.

the SEPTUAGINT & JEWISH TRANSLATION TRADITIONS

215

in Judea (Psalms of Solomon, IV Ezra) may also derive from there. It is more likely that the evidence of these other translations, assuming they were made from Aramaic or Hebrew, would in the later period (first to second century ce) fit better Palestine where we might suppose a more learned Hebrew reading community. Some of the translations are also, in the manner of Aquila, closely tied to the Hebrew text in their close representation of the Hebrew. 3

Septuagint and Its Relation to Rabbinic Scholarly Traditions

The tradition of associating the later translation methods with rabbinic scholars has fallen into disfavour in recent years.61 If there is no connection, the later translations that we have surveyed here, and especially those displaying high formal equivalence of the kaige group, would then be distant from the world of the Targum, whether that world be ascribed to synagogue alone or also to the school house. Barthélemy has argued the most for the development of the translation style that culminated in Aquila being within Palestinian rabbinic circles.62 His dating of the rabbinic movement to the early first century and his uncritical use of rabbinic sources (in the pre-Neusnerian era),63 have weakened his argument by modern standards. However, his attempt to relate specific hermeneutical rules of certain rabbis to translation features in the kaige and Aquila tradition were unconvincing and have been strongly opposed.64 It is the specificity of the rabbinic hermeneutics and the association with individual rabbis that seem to be the undoing of his argument. It does not mean that there is no basis to his suggestion. The lack of sources means there is no clarity over the formation and consolidation of rabbinic authority. However, the rabbis appear to have emerged from school circles, probably originating in pre-70 ce Palestine,65 and in the first centuries may have been little more 61  See most recently, however, Anthony Giambrone, “Aquila’s Greek Targum: Reconsidering the Rabbinical Setting of an Ancient Translation,” HTR 110 (2017): 24–45. He writes in response to Jenny Labendz, “Aquila’s Bible Translation in Late Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Perspectives,” HTR 102 (2009): 353–88, and argues for a high status for Aquila in rabbinic circles, endorsing the theory that there were two editions of Aquila’s translation. 62  Dominique Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila, VTSup 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1963). 63  Cf. Giambrone, “Aquila’s Greek Targum,” 45. 64  Lester L. Grabbe, “Aquila’s Translation and Rabbinic Exegesis,” JJS 33 (1982): 527–36, See too Olivier Munnich, “Contribution à l’ étude de la première révision de la Septante,” in ANRW 20:1 (1983): 190–220; André Paul, “La Bible grecque d’Aquila et l’idéologie du judaïsme ancien,” ANRW 20:1 (1983): 221–45. 65  On the problems of the division between pre- and post-70 rabbinic Judaism, see Annette Y. Reed, “When Did the Rabbis Become Pharisees: Reflections on Christian

216

Aitken

than teachers in school houses. As a teacher with disciples there is little to distinguish such disciple circles from schools, but their focus would have been on the teaching of Torah.66 Turning to the later Septuagint translations and revisions, one can easily imagine the precise representation in Greek of formalities of the Hebrew text coming from similar schools where knowledge of the Hebrew would be expected and where close translation of the Hebrew would have fitted in with exegesis and analysis of the text. It is more than a simple aid for learning the Hebrew, as sometimes proposed,67 since it requires a sophisticated sensitivity to register and meaning in both Hebrew and Greek. I have tried to demonstrate this in the case of the well-known equivalent καί γε as a rendering of ‫גם‬ and ‫וגם‬.68 It can be explained by a number steps in the translation process or at least in the thinking behind the translation choice. To summarize the principles involved, the first step is to recognize that both γε and ‫ גם‬share the semantic function of inclusion. This lexical equivalence is matched by the same word position of the two words in both the Greek and Hebrew phrases. Although the pronunciation of Greek gamma and Hebrew gimel may have differed at this time, with gamma becoming a voiced velar fricative, some phonetic or at least graphical matching of γε and ‫ גם‬may have been intended. Development in the Greek language at the time has resulted in γε having shifted to a position earlier in the clause, leading to the natural formation, for Koine of the first century bce, of the phrase καί γε. Finally, the decrease in the use of the particle γε in the Hellenistic period and its marginal revival in the Roman period leads to the form being assigned to a high register of Greek. In all, the use of καί γε, despite its unnatural frequency, is consistent with standard Greek of the time, and conveys a higher register of Greek while also imitating the Hebrew

Evidence for Post-70 Judaism,” in Envisioning Judaism: Studies in Honor of Peter Schäfer on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, ed. Ra’anan S. Boustan, Klaus Herrmann, Reimund Leicht, Annette Y. Reed and Giuseppe Veltri, 2 vols. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 2: 859–96. 66  For an overview of the development of the early rabbinic movement, see Philip S. Alexander, “The Rabbis and Their Rivals in the Second Century CE,” in Christianity in the Second Century: Themes and Developments, ed. James Carleton Paget and Judith Lieu (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 57–70. 67  This is the suggested use for Aquila’s version by of Geza Vermes, review of Les devanciers d’Aquila, by Dominique Barthélemy, JSS 11 (1966): 261–64 (264); it is further discussed by Philip S. Alexander, “How did the Rabbis learn Hebrew?” in Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda, ed. William Horbury (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 71–89. 68  James K. Aitken, “The Origins of καί γε,” in Biblical Greek in Context, ed. James K. Aitken and Trevor V. Evans, BTS 22 (Leuven: Peeters, 2015), 21–40.

the SEPTUAGINT & JEWISH TRANSLATION TRADITIONS

217

formally. It would have been appreciated by those with a strong command of both Hebrew and Greek. A similar explanation can be offered for the most distinctive of Aquila’s renderings, the preposition σύν to render the Hebrew direct object marker ‫את‬ (nota accusativi). This is not merely a formal representation of the Hebrew, although it does allow for precise tracking of each Hebrew appearance of the particle (and accordingly has been associated with rabbinic hermeneutics). On the level of Hebrew grammar it is a learned use of the language, since it is not a mistaken confusion of the object marker ‫ את‬with the preposition ‫—את‬in the later biblical books the preposition ‫ את‬is infrequent (appearing a total of 13 times in Esther, Ezra, Daniel and Chronicles combined), eventually entirely disappearing by Mishnaic Hebrew.69 It rather appears to be a school reference to a meaning that is no longer preserved in the language at the time of the translators. Meanwhile, on the level of the Greek language, at this time the preposition σύν was in decline in favour of μετά, and therefore σύν can be said to be of a higher register. Finally, the apparently ungrammatical use in such expressions as καὶ ἐμίσησα σὺν τὴν ζωήν (Eccl 2:17a) indicates a further motivation behind the translation. As an adverb σύν can be found with verbs in Homer, and this feature was revived by Hellenistic writers imitating Homer (e.g., Apollonius Rhodius).70 Therefore this translation feature would require of its readers both knowledge of Classical Hebrew and appreciation of educated levels of Greek. These two features alone, καί γε and the particular use of σύν, are indications of the social milieu of the translations, and can be supplemented by examination in both kaige and Aquila of such features as etymologizing renderings and morphology.71 These aspects of linguistic acceptability, semantic matching, and a high educated register suggest the translations were produced in and for circles of educated scholars who could appreciate the subtlety of the rendering of the Hebrew and the register of the Greek. There is no need to seek an explanation in rabbinic hermeneutics for such attention to a close representation of the Hebrew in Greek, although the rabbinic writings reveal close attention accorded to such grammatical features. Nevertheless, these translation features do suggest some possible circles in which such translations would have found 69  Paul Joüon and Takamitsu Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 2nd ed. (Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto biblico, 2006), § 103j. 70  Full justification of this use of σύν requires a detailed analysis, which I shall offer in a future monograph discussing literal translation technique in the Septuagint. 71  On Aquila’s style see Frederick Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt; sive, Veterum interpretum Graecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum fragmenta. Post Flaminium Nogilium, Drusium, et Montefalconium, adhibita etiam versione syro-hexaplari, concinnavit, emendavit, et multis partibus auxit Fridericus Field (Oxford: Clarendon, 1875), 1: xxi–xxvii.

218

Aitken

favour. There would have been few who appreciated all aspects of καί γε and σύν as translation equivalents, able to recognize both the careful representation of the Hebrew and the subtle function in Greek. But this reflects the small educated circle of translators and their audience. The translators were those familiar with educated Greek but also paying attention to the Hebrew, and the recipients of these translations would have appreciated them best if they were aware of both these aspects. Even if they were not the rabbis of later tradition, they were moving in educated circles like them and probably taught in schools like them. Certainly the early rabbis were the scholars of Palestine, many of whom had deep knowledge of Greek, and therefore are the most likely translators of these works. It was a sophisticated translation movement. It certainly cannot be easily located in any one geographical location, but the attribution to Palestine is possible if not necessary. By the first century in Palestine there would have been knowledge in educated circles of Hebrew while Greek had become a language of importance for communication and literary composition thanks to the Hasmonean and the Herodian courts. 4

The Varying Translation Techniques

Finally, a word may be said on the differing techniques of the Jewish Greek translations. Where we do not have extant Vorlagen, it is difficult to be specific regarding translation technique. Nevertheless, word order and syntax can indicate where a translation is following the syntax of Hebrew closely, and lexical choice can indicate the level of dependency on earlier Septuagint books. In the fullest recent study of Enoch by Larson, he has demonstrated how Greek Enoch shows traces of its translation technique, even though we lack for the most part its Vorlage. It often seems to follow Semitic word order and syntax, containing transliterations and omissions, but it also chooses words that can be classed as literary (as Barr had already noted).72 Larson also saw the translator nesting genitives and displaying a degree of variation and alliteration, which are not the best examples as they cannot be proven without a Vorlage with which to compare. Nonetheless, Larson concluded that the translator had made some attempt to produce a literary and idiomatic translation of Enoch, adding that the features allow this translation to be assigned to the category of

72  Larson, “Relation,” 440–41.

the SEPTUAGINT & JEWISH TRANSLATION TRADITIONS

219

“freely translated books” such as Job, Proverbs, and Isaiah.73 1 Enoch as a translation therefore fits well in its technique into the group of translations that we see appearing in the second or first centuries bce. If we survey the other extant translations, we may note that we are in fact dealing with two translation traditions. The one is the isomorphic method associated with the kaige and Aquila traditions. This is reflected in the biblical translations of Lamentations and Ecclesiastes in this period, and already attested since the first century bce in the revised version of the Minor Prophets scroll from Naḥal Ḥever. It is also seen at this time in such works as 2 Esdras that might derive from the first century ce. However, it is remarkable that not all of these translations reflect this precise formalistic method, as far as we may judge. In the first century bce, for example, the cases of Tobit and Additions to Esther suggest a continuation of a moderate Pentateuchal style of translation, and then by the Roman era there appears to be a similar style in works such as 2 and 4 Baruch. The Testaments, if we can deem any of them to be translations, follow a free method, and Josephus applies a literary translation style. This puts translations such as kaige into a new light, as it was not a natural or inevitable development from older unprincipled methods of translation, since we seem to have parallel translation techniques coexisting. Instead, it suggests that there was an intentional choice by the translator to translate in the way he did, and indeed it is presumably reflective of particular school choices. It is consequently possible to picture Symmachus in a new light, not as a response to Aquila per se, but as a parallel tradition and alternative method of translation. Little more can be said on this as the theories are necessarily speculative. Nonetheless, given more than one strand of translation style, we might speculate as to the distribution of styles. It is possible that the isomorphic translations were closer to the school circles of Palestine than the literary versions. Indeed, on that basis the literary versions could be diaspora literature, but that assumption does not hold sway. The content of the versions still might place them in Palestine, and just because one follows more closely Hebrew syntax need not imply a group more in favour of Hebrew. In the first place even the literary translations are obviously based on a Semitic original and so require scribes knowledgeable in Hebrew or Aramaic. Second, if there are strong literary features observable even in the Aquila tradition, then the circles in Palestine could have produced literary translations had they wished. 73  Erik W. Larson, “The Translation of Enoch: From Aramaic into Greek” (PhD dissertation; New York University, September 1995), 349.

220

Aitken

Significantly, the two parallel translation traditions might themselves be compared with the Targumic tradition. Alexander distinguished between two basic types of Targum, Type A and Type B. Type A is a one to one base translation with explanatory additions that could be detached. In Type B the biblical text is dissolved in paraphrase.74 There have been various criticisms and refinements of Alexander’s description, not least the question of how far elements can be detached from a one-to-one translation,75 but it reflects a general pattern, perhaps more on a sliding scale than an opposition of two methods. What we see in Targumic tradition and in the Greek translations is a variety of translation method. We do not have a dichotomy between literal and free, expositor and interpreter, but a variety of approaches. We also do not have a movement towards isomorphic or slavishly literal translations, but a creative translation tradition. 5 Conclusions While we have avoided identifying connections between the Septuagint and the Targums, it has been possible to reconfigure our understanding of the ancient Jewish Greek translations. There was a diverse and ongoing practice of translation into Greek into the Roman period. Although produced in a different language, the Targums are in some ways the inheritors of the Jewish translation tradition, a strand of a much wider movement of translation than it might first seem if focussed on the canonical Septuagint. Jewish translations can be placed into the wider picture of Jewish literary composition, and placed in parallel to Jewish writings. As works gained authority they were copied and expanded, and in the same way translations were made, revised and expanded. It was a process that did not stop and was probably an inevitable feature of the multilingual environment in which Jews lived. The consequence for the relation between Septuagint and Targum is that there is no gap between the production of the Septuagint and the movement towards a writing down of the Targum. They were continuing alongside each other and probably even in 74  Philip S. Alexander, “The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum,” in Congress Volume, Salamanca, 1983, ed. John A. Emerton, VTSup 36 (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 17–28; “Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism & Early Christianity, ed. Martin J. Mulder and Harry Sysling (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988), 228–37. 75  See Alberdina Houtman and Harry Sysling, Alternative Targum Traditions: The Use of Variant Readings for the Study in Origin and History of Targum Jonathan, Studies in the Aramaic interpretation of Scripture 9 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 19–21.

the SEPTUAGINT & JEWISH TRANSLATION TRADITIONS

221

the same location as Palestine. The educated circles in which the Greek translations would have to have been produced are the schools where advanced Hebrew grammar and a high level of literary Greek language were known.76 Further investigation should shed more light on the evidence for translation behind the Pseudepigrapha. Focus on the content of pseudepigraphic works has obscured the nature of the translations and their historical significance, although the very fact that there was a demand for works to be translated is itself significant evidence for the use of Greek both in the spread of translation of texts and in the role of Greek in education. This has implications too for the language environment of Palestine. Machiela has argued that the lack of an early Targum is indicative that Hebrew continued to be widely understood and spoken in Palestine into the first century ce.77 In other words, the late appearance of Aramaic as a translation language implies that Hebrew was still widely used, perhaps even in Galilee. While, as I have suggested, translation can say much about the cultural importance as it does about the loss of a language, this Greek evidence needs to be taken into consideration as well. Works had begun to be translated, but into Greek rather than Aramaic. The Jewish Greek literary culture is a complex one, encompassing translations, revisions, and literary compositions. The Septuagint as a field of study has stayed somewhat distant from the wider field of Hellenistic Jewish studies. This separation is in part due to disciplinary distinctions and the specialisation of each discipline. The possibilities for placing the Septuagint into the larger pictures of Jewish literacy, Greek translation and composition, and Hellenistic literary activity, are obvious for the effect in can have on understanding the Jewish use of Greek. It could also have repercussions on other fields of Jewish studies, including the study of Aramaic and Hebrew literature. Bibliography Aitken, James K., “Phonological Phenomena in Greek Papyri and Inscriptions and their Significance for the Septuagint,” in Studies in the Greek Bible: Essays in honor of Francis T. Gignac, S.J., ed. Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp, CBQMS 44 (Washington DC: CBA, 2008), 256–77. 76  For the purpose of the Targum as more than a translation but an exegetical commentary, and therefore close to the environs of the school house, see the summary of the work of Philip S. Alexander and Alexander Samely among others in Machiela, “Hebrew, Aramaic,” 222–26. 77  Machiela, “Hebrew, Aramaic.”

222

Aitken

Aitken, James K., “Jewish Use of Greek Proverbs,” in The Jewish Reception of Greek Bible Versions, ed. Nicholas de Lange, Julia G. Krivoruchko, and Cameron Boyd-Taylor (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 53–77. Aitken, James K., “The Origins of καί γε,” in Biblical Greek in Context, ed. James K. Aitken and Trevor V. Evans, BTS 22 (Leuven: Peeters, 2015), 21–40. Aitken, James K., “The Septuagint and Egyptian Translation Methods,” in XV Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Munich 2013, ed. Wolfgang Kraus, Michaël van der Meer, Martin Meiser, SBLSCS 64 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016), 269–93. Alexander, Philip S., “The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum,” in Congress Volume, Salamanca, 1983, ed. John A. Emerton, VTSup 36 (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 17–28. Alexander, Philip S., “Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism & Early Christianity, ed. Martin J. Mulder and Harry Sysling (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988), 228–37. Alexander, Philip S., “How did the Rabbis learn Hebrew?” in Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda, ed. William Horbury (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 71–89. Alexander, Philip S., “The Cultural History of the Ancient Bible Versions: The Case of Lamentations,” in The Jewish Reception of Greek Bible Versions, ed. Nicholas de Lange, Julia G. Krivoruchko, and Cameron Boyd-Taylor (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 78–102. Alexander, Philip S., “The Rabbis and Their Rivals in the Second Century CE,” in Christianity in the Second Century: Themes and Developments, ed. J. Carleton Paget and J. Lieu (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 57–70. Barr, James, “Aramaic-Greek Notes on the Book of Enoch,” Part I JSS 23 (1978): 184–98, Part II JSS 24 (1979): 179–92. Barthélemy, Dominique, Les devanciers d’Aquila, VTSup 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1963). Barton, George A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1908). Berliner, Abraham, Targum Onkelos, herausgegeben und erläutert (Berlin: Gorzelanczyk; London: Nutt, 1884). Black, Matthew, The Book of Enoch, or 1 Enoch: A New English Edition with Commentary and Textual Notes, SVTP 7 (Leiden: Brill, 1985). Boyd-Taylor, Cameron, “In a Mirror, Dimly: Reading the Septuagint as a Document of its Times,” in Septuagint Research; Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures, ed. Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 15–31. Brock, Sebastian P., “The Phenomenon of the Septuagint,” OtSt 17 (1972): 11–36. Brock, Sebastian P., “Aspects of Translation Technique in Antiquity,” GRBS 20 (1979): 69–87.

the SEPTUAGINT & JEWISH TRANSLATION TRADITIONS

223

Brockington, Leonard H., “Septuagint and Targum,” ZAW 66 (1954): 80–86. Campbell, Jonathan G., “4QMMTd and the Tripartite Canon,” JJS 51 (2000): 181–90. Carleton Paget, James, Jews, Christians and Jewish Christians in Antiquity, WUNT 251 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 409–12. Churgin, Pinkhos, “The Targum and the Septuagint,” AJSL 59 (1933–1934): 41–65. Cooley, Alison E., Res Gestae Divi Augusti: Text, Translation, and Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009). Corley, Jeremy, “Septuagintalisms, Semitic Interference, and the Original Language of the Book of Judith,” in Studies in the Greek Bible, ed. Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp, CBQMS 44 (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2008), 65–96. Crespo, Emilio, “The Linguistic Policy of the Ptolemaic Kingdom,” in Φωνῆς χαρακτὴρ ἐθνικός. Actes du V Congres international de dialectologie grecque, Athènes, 28–30 septembre 2006 = Μελετήματα. 52, ed. M.B. Hatzopoulos (Athènes/Paris: Diffusion de Boccard, 2007), 35–49. Davila, James R., “(How) Can we tell if a Greek Apocryphon or Pseudepigraphon has been translated from Hebrew or Aramaic?” JSP 15 (2005): 3–61. Davila, James R., The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian, or Other?, JSJSup 105 (Leiden: Brill, 2005). de Lange, Nicholas R.M., Greek Jewish Texts from the Cairo Genizah, TSAJ 51 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996). de Lange, Nicholas R.M., “An Early Hebrew–Greek Bible Glossary from the Cairo Genizah and its Significance for the Study of Jewish Bible Translations into Greek,” in Studies in Hebrew Literature and Culture Presented to Albert van der Heide on the Occasion of his Sixty-fifth Birthday, ed. Martin F.J. Baasten and Reinier Munk, Amsterdam Studies in Jewish Thought (Dordrecht: Springer, 2007), 31–39. Dieleman, Jacco and Ian Moyer, “Egyptian Literature,” in A Companion to Hellenistic literature, ed. James J. Clauss and Martine Cuypers (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 429–47. Dorival, Gilles, Marguerite Harl, and Olivier Munnich, La Bible grecque des Septante: Du judaïsme hellénistique au christianisme ancien (Paris: Cerf, 1988). Fernández Marcos, Natalio, Introducción a las versiones griegas de la Biblia, 2nd ed. (Madrid: Instituto de Filología del CSIC, Departamento de Filología Bíblica y de Oriente Antiguo, 1998). Field, Frederick, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt; sive, Veterum interpretum Graecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum fragmenta. Post Flaminium Nogilium, Drusium, et Montefalconium, adhibita etiam versione syro-hexaplari, concinnavit, emendavit, et multis partibus auxit Fridericus Field (Oxford: Clarendon, 1875). Flesher, Paul V.M., “Targum as Scripture,” in Targum and Scripture: Studies in Aramaic Translations and Interpretation in Memory of Ernest G. Clarke, ed. Paul V.M. Flesher, Studies in the Aramaic interpretation of Scripture 2. (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 61–75.

224

Aitken

Frankel, Zacharias, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta (Leipzig: Vogel, 1841). Frankel, Zacharias, “Zur Frage über das Verhältniss des alexandrinischen und palästinischen Judenthums, namentlich in exegetischer Beziehung,” ZDMG 4 (1850): 102–11. Frankel, Zacharias, Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese auf die Alexandrinische Hermeneutik (Leipzig: Barth, 1851). Fürst, Julius, “Spuren der palästinisch-jüdischen Schriftdeutung und Sagen in der Uebersetzung der LXX,” in Semitic Studies in Memory of Rev. Dr. Alexander-Kohut, ed. George Alexander Kohut (Berlin: S. Calvary & Co., 1897), 152–66. Geiger, Abraham, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwickelung des Judenthums (Breslau: J. Hainauer, 1857). Giambrone, Anthony, “Aquila’s Greek Targum: Reconsidering the Rabbinical Setting of an Ancient Translation,” HTR 110 (2017): 24–45. Gooding, David W., “On the Use of the LXX for Dating Midrashic Elements in the Targums,” JTS 25 (1974): 1–11. Grabbe, Lester L., “Aquila’s Translation and Rabbinic Exegesis,” JJS 33 (1982): 527–36. Hartman, Louis F. and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, AB 23 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977). Hayward, C.T. Robert, “Red Heifer and Golden Calf: Dating Targum Pseudo-Jonathan,” in Targum Studies, Volume One: Textual and Contextual Studies in the Pentateuchal Targums, ed. Paul V.M. Flesher, (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992), 9–32. Hempel, Charlotte, “The Place of the Book of Jubilees at Qumran and Beyond,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context, ed. Timothy H. Lim (London: T&T Clark, 2000), 187–96. Houtman, Alberdina and Harry Sysling, Alternative Targum Traditions: The Use of Variant Readings for the Study in Origin and History of Targum Jonathan, Studies in the Aramaic interpretation of Scripture 9 (Leiden: Brill, 2009). Hyvärinen, Kyösti, Die Übersetzung von Aquila, ConBOT 10 (Lund: Gleerup; Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1977). Jarick, John, “Aquila’s Kohelet,” Textus 15 (1990): 131–39. Jobes, Karen H. and Moisés Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000). Jonge, Marinus de, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Study of their Text, Composition and Origin (2nd ed.; Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1975). Joosten, Jan, “The Original Language and Historical Milieu of the Book of Judith,” Meghillot 5–6 (2007): 159–76. Joosten, Jan, “Des targumismes dans la Septante ?” in The Targums in the Light of Traditions of the Second Temple Period, ed. Thierry Legrand and Jan Joosten, JSJSup 167 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 54–71.

the SEPTUAGINT & JEWISH TRANSLATION TRADITIONS

225

Joüon, Paul and Takamitsu Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 2nd ed. (Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto biblico, 2006). Kugler, Robert A., From Patriarch to Priest: The Levi-Priestly Tradition from Aramaic Levi to Testament of Levi, SBLEJL 9 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1996). Labendz, Jenny, “Aquila’s Bible Translation in Late Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Perspectives,” HTR 102 (2009): 353–88. Larson, Erik W., “The Translation of Enoch: From Aramaic into Greek” (PhD dissertation; New York University, September 1995). Larson, Erik W., “The Relation between the Greek and Aramaic Texts of Enoch” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after Their Discovery. Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997, ed. Lawrence Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James VanderKam (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 434–44. Larson, Erik W., “The LXX and Enoch: Influence and Interpretation in Early Jewish Literature,” Enoch and Qumran Connections: New Light on a Forgotten Connection, ed. Gabriele Boccaccini (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 84–89. Le Déaut, Roger, “La Septante, un Targum ?” in Études sur le Judaïsme hellénistique, ed. Roger Arnaldez, Raymond Kuntzmann, and Jacques Schlosser, Lectio divina 119 (Paris: Cerf, 1984), 149–95. Lee, John A.L., A Lexical Study of the Septuagint version of the Pentateuch, SBLSCS 14 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983). Louw, Theo A.W. van der, Transformations in the Septuagint: Towards an Interaction of Septuagint Studies and Translation Studies, CBET 47 (Leuven: Peeters, 2007). Machiela, Daniel A., “Hebrew, Aramaic, and the Differing Phenomena of Targum and Translation in the Second Temple Period and Post-Second Temple Period,” in The Language Environment of First Century Judaea: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels, ed. Randall Buth and R. Steven Notley, Jewish and Christian Perspectives 26 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 209–46. Matusova, Ekaterina, “1 Enoch in the Context of Philo’s Writings,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures, ed. Armin Lange, Emanuel Tov, and Matthias Weigold, in association with Bennie H. Reynolds, VTSup 140 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 385–97. McLay, Timothy R., “The Old Greek Translation of Daniel iv–vi and the Formation of the Book of Daniel,” VT 55 (2005): 304–23. McNamara, Martin, Targum and Testament: Aramaic paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible: a light on the New Testament (Shannon: Irish University Press, 1972). McNamara, Martin, “Targums and New Testament, A Way Forward?: Targums, Tel-Like Character, a Continuum,” in Targum and New Testament: Collected Essays (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 518–31.

226

Aitken

Montgomery, James A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1927). Moyer, Ian S., Egypt and the Limits of Hellenism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011). Mroczek, Eva, “The Hegemony of the Biblical in the Study of Second Temple Literature,” Journal of Ancient Judaism 6 (2015): 2–35. Munnich, Olivier, “Contribution à l’étude de la première révision de la Septante,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Part 2: Principat, Vol. 20:1: Halbband Religion (Hellenistisches Judentum in römischer Zeit, ausgenommen Philon und Josephus) (ed. W. Haase; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1987), 190–220. Nikolsky, Ronit, “The History of the Rechabites and the Jeremiah Literature,” JSP 13.2 (2002) 185–207. Paul, André, “La Bible grecque d’Aquila et l’idéologie du judaïsme ancien,” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Part 2: Principat, Vol. 20:1: Halbband Religion (Hellenistisches Judentum in römischer Zeit, ausgenommen Philon und Josephus) (ed. W. Haase; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1987), 221–45. Pfeiffer, Robert H., Introduction to the Old Testament (London: Black, 1952). Ploeg, Johannes P.M. van der and Adam S. van der Woude, Le Targum de Job de la grotte XI de Qumrân, avec la collaboration de B. Jongeling (Leiden: Brill, 1971). Prijs, Leo, Jüdische Tradition in der Septuaginta (Leiden: Brill, 1948). Rajak, Tessa, Translation and Survival: The Greek Bible and the Jewish Diaspora (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). Rajak, Tessa, “The Mediterranean Jewish Diaspora in the Second Century,” in Christianity in the Second Century: Themes and Developments, ed. James Carleton Paget and Judith Lieu (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 39–56. Reed, Annette Y., “When Did the Rabbis Become Pharisees: Reflections on Christian Evidence for Post-70 Judaism,” in Envisioning Judaism: Studies in Honor of Peter Schäfer on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, ed. Ra’anan S. Boustan, Klaus Herrmann, Reimund Leicht, Annette Y. Reed and Giuseppe Veltri, 2 vols. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 2: 859–96. Rocca, Samuel, Herod’s Judaea: A Mediterranean State in the Classical World, TSAJ 122 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008). Schams, Christine, Jewish Scribes in the Second-Temple Period, JSOTSup 291 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998). Schaper, Joachim, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter, WUNT 76 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995). Schiffman, Lawrence H., Understanding Second Temple and rabbinic Judaism (Jersey City, NJ: Ktav, 2003).

the SEPTUAGINT & JEWISH TRANSLATION TRADITIONS

227

Schniedewind, William M., “A Qumran Fragment of the Ancient ‘Prayer of Manasseh’?” ZAW 108 (1996): 105–7. Schürer, Emil, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, revised by Géza Vermès, Martin Goodman, Fergus Millar (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987). Smelik, Willem F., The Targum of Judges, OtSt 36 (Leiden: Brill, 1995). Smelik, Willem F., Rabbis, Language and Translation in Late Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013). Steiner, Richard C., “On the Dating of Hebrew Sound Changes (*Ḫ > Ḥ and *Ġ > ʿ), and Greek Translations (2 Esdras and Judith),” JBL 124 (2005): 229–67. Stone, Michael, Ancient Judaism: New Visions and Views (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011). Swete, Henry B., An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914). Syrén, Roger, The Blessings in the Targums: A Study on the Targumic Interpretations of Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33, Acta Academiae Aboensis. Ser. A, Humaniora 62.1 (Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 1986). Thompson, Dorothy J., “Literacy and Power in Ptolemaic Egypt,” in Literacy and Power in the Ancient World, ed. Alan K. Bowman and Greg Woolf (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 67–83. Tov, Emanuel, “Reflections on the Septuagint with Special Attention paid to the Post-Pentateuchal Translations,” in Die Septuaginta—Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse: 2. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch. Wuppertal 23.–27. 7 2008, ed. Wolfgang Kraus, Martin Karrer and Martin Meiser, WUNT 252 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 3–22. VanderKam, James C., “Authoritative Literature in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” DSD 5 (1998): 382–402. Vermes, Geza, review of Les devanciers d’Aquila, by Dominique Barthélemy, JSS 11 (1966): 261–64. Wooden, Glenn, “2 Esdras,” in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint, ed. James K. Aitken (London: T&T Clark, 2015), 196–97.

Chapter 10

See God and Die? Job’s Final Words (42:6) according to His First Aramaic and Greek Interpreters David J. Shepherd While the Targumim associated with the Rabbinic tradition are undoubtedly considerably less ancient than the oldest of the Greek translations, the Targumim are not the only, nor indeed the earliest Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Bible bequeathed to us by antiquity.1 In fact, the Aramaic version of Job found in cave 11 at Qumran may make a legitimate claim to being very nearly as old as the earliest of the Greek translations, and quite possibly as ancient as the Old Greek of Job (og Job). The form of Aramaic into which the Hebrew of Job has been rendered in Qumran Aramaic Job (QarJob)2 suggests the translation may have been produced as early as the 3rd century bce, although paleographic analysis and a selection of later linguistic traits may indicate an origin nearer to the turn of the era, at which time the extant manuscript appears to have been copied in a Herodian hand.3 Apart from furnishing a likely terminus ad quem of 70 ce, 1  For recent discussion of the dating of the Pentateuchal Targumim see Paul V.M. Flesher and Bruce Chilton, The Targums: A Critical Introduction (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2011), 151–166, though there seems no credible reason for dating Onkelos and Jonathan earlier than the 2nd century ce and most of the Targumim were produced considerably later; see David Shepherd, “Targumim,” in T&T Clark Encyclopedia of Second Temple Judaism, eds. Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Daniel M. Gurtner (London; T&T Clark / Bloomsbury, forthcoming). 2  While the fragments of 4QarJob (4Q157) contain only an Aramaic version of a few verses of Job 3–5, 11QarJob (11Q10) preserves a translation of much of the dialogues of Job 17:14–36:3 on a collection of over 30 leather fragments, and the better part of Job 37:10–42:11 on a single roll. Because the Cave 4 and Cave 11 fragments do not translate the same portion of the Hebrew text of Job, synoptic comparison is not possible. However, the supplying of the Aramaic consecutive conjunction on two occasions in 4Q157’s meager fragments where it is not attested in the mt finds a clear correspondence in 11Q10, where the same conjunction is regularly supplied for linguistic/stylistic purposes even when unprompted by the Hebrew. See David Shepherd, “What’s in a Name? Targum and Taxonomy in Cave 4 at Qumran,” JSP 17.3 (2008), 189–206. For the purposes of this study, QarJob will be used to refer to 11Q10 because the texts referred to are all drawn from this text. 3  On the dating of 11QarJob specifically see the discussion in David Shepherd, Targum and Translation: A Reconsideration of the Qumran Aramaic Version of Job, SSN 45 (Assen: Van

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004416727_012

SEE GOD & DIE ?

229

the Qumran provenance of the fragments may well point toward a Palestinian origin, though few have been persuaded by arguments for a specifically sectarian association.4 Such antiquity compares favourably with og Job which most agree is likely to have been translated in the late second or perhaps first century bce.5 As is well known, this og Job—considerably shorter than the Masoretic Text (mt) of Job—was later supplemented with a Hebraizing translation not dissimilar (but also not identical) to that of Theodotion—with these interpolations being preserved and asterisked by Origen and some other Greek and Latin witnesses.6 In light of their comparable antiquity, it is not surprising that early analyses of QarJob were undertaken with one eye on the Greek. While the original editors did little more than note basic parallels, one of their Dutch compatriots, Evert Tuinstra, devoted a chapter to their comparison, before the original text edition of 11Q10 had even appeared.7 In his study of the two texts, Tuinstra noted various points at which the og and Qar translators of Job had made comparable adjustments in their versions in order to accommodate the Hebrew to the linguistic/stylistic demands of their respective Greek and Aramaic idioms. Such agreements include offering the Aramaic and Greek singular in place of a plural Hebrew form and vice-versa, change of person in verbal forms, and the addition of conjunctions, prepositions, personal pronouns and suffixes etc.8 That such linguistic/stylistic adjustments found in QarJob are often shared with other Aramaic versions, especially the Syriac Peshitta of Job (Pesh. Job), Gorcum, 2004), 3–6. “Qumran Aramaic Job” is used for convenience, but also with fullawareness that “Qumran Aramaic” when applied to this literature may imply a variety of assumptions about provenance and/or linguistic, literary or ideological coherence, not all of which are mutually exclusive. See Andrew B. Perrin, The Dynamics of Dream-Vision Revelation in the Aramaic of the Dead Sea Scrolls, JAJSup 19 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 26. 4  As presented particularly by Evert Tuinstra, “Hermeneutische aspecten van de Targum van Job uit Grot XI” (PhD diss. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 1970). 5  See Marieke Dhont, “The Language and Style of Old Greek Job in Context” (PhD diss. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2016), 58, n. 61 and 66–69 for a recent canvassing of the literature and an astute critique of the limitations of the evidence for this date, including the oft-noted reference to Job in Aristeas, On the Jews, excerpted by Alexander Polyhistor who was in turn quoted by Eusebius. As Dhont rightly notes, a safer guide to determining the terminus ante quem is the first century CE papyrus (P.Oxy. L 3522) containing a Greek version of a few verses of Job (42:11–12). 6  The asterisked material in Old Greek Job has been dealt with by Peter J. Gentry, The Asterisked Materials in the Greek Job, SBLSCS 38 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995). 7  Tuinstra, “Hermeneutische aspecten,” 58–64. 8  Tuinstra, “Hermeneutische aspecten,” 61–62.

230

Shepherd

has already been well-documented,9 and it should hardly be surprising that some of these would also be shared with the Greek version of Job. Yet, Tuinstra also suggests that some parallels go beyond merely shared linguistic/stylistic accommodation. While Tuinstra observes that at some points, the Greek and Aramaic may be dependent on a common Hebrew text which diverges from the mt,10 he also makes mention of what he considers to be exegetical parallels in the two versions, including a shared replacement of “all the sons (‫ )בני‬of God” in Job 38:7 with “all the angels (Aram. ‫ ;מלאכי‬Gk. ἄγγελοι) of God.”11 That the later Tg. Job and Pesh. Job offer comparable adjustments at this point does suggest a shared exegetical aversion within the wider Judaeo-Christian tradition. However, Tuinstra’s suggestion that both QarJob and og Job offer a more palatably pious Job can hardly be sustained on the basis of their treatment of Job 42:6 as we will see below. What invites further comparison of the most ancient Aramaic translation of Job with the most ancient Greek one is the fact that as I have sought to demonstrate for some time, QarJob is so fundamentally unlike its counterpart in the later targumic tradition in terms of translational approach. Because the argument has been made at length elsewhere,12 it may be summed up here as follows: while the later Tg. Job is relatively free in interpolating additional material into its translation, but will not omit or depart from the word order when it is translating the Hebrew, QarJob interpolates very little and happily omits elements and departs from the word order of the Hebrew of Job in rendering it into more idiomatic Aramaic. Such differences would seem to invite comparison of the Qumran translation with Greek translations of equal antiquity, but also comparison of later Greek traditions with Tg. Job itself in terms of their representation of the linguistic form of the Hebrew.13 What is offered here is a rather more limited and exegetical comparison of the og and Qar versions of Job’s famous last words in Job 42:6, with some attention also afforded to the later Aramaic versions found in the Targum and Peshitta.14 Because 42:6 contains only the last of Job’s famous last words, we must begin with some preliminary comments on the treatment of the preceding verses. 9  See Shepherd, Targum and Translation, for a comparison of QarJob with Pesh. Job. 10  Tuinstra, “Hermeneutische aspecten,” 62. 11  See Shepherd, Targum and Translation, 176. 12  See Shepherd, Targum and Translation. 13  See the contribution of Alun Thomas in this volume on Leviticus and a larger forthcoming study by the same author which focuses on Job. 14  For a brief discussion of various versions’ awareness of Job’s expectation of his death in 42:6 see Thomas Krüger, “Did Job Repent?” in Das Buch Hiob und seine Interpretationen, ed. Thomas Krüger, Manfred Oeming, Konrad Schmid and Christoph Uehlinger (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2007), 219–222.

SEE GOD & DIE ?

231

In Job 42:4, Job appears to offer a virtual quotation of God: (“Hear, and I will speak; I will question you, and you declare to me.” (nrsv). In ֹhis last words of verse 5, Job then picks up on the verb ‫“ שמע‬to hear.” According to the nrsv: “I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you.” mt QarJob15 og Job16

‫לשמע אזן שמעתיך ועתה עיני ראתך‬ ‫למׁשמע אדן שמעתך וכען עיני חזתך‬

ἀκοὴν μὲν ὠτὸς ἤκουόν σου τὸ πρότερον νυνὶ δὲ ὁ ὀφθαλμός μου ἑόρακέν σε ‫למשמ{א} דאודנא שמעית יתך ועיני לא חמיית יתך‬

Tg. Job17 Pesh. Job18 ‫ ܘܗܫܐ ܥܝܢܝ ܗܘ ܚܢܬܟ‬.‫ܠܫܡܥܐ ܗܘ ܕܐܕܢܐ ܫܡܥܬܟ‬ nrsv I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you;

The only interpretive issues of any substance—and they will seem very slight in comparison with those of the next verse—concern first, whether the wav conjunction between the two clauses is contrastive or not and second, whether Job is claiming to have heard God, or heard of God. While it is not impossible that the Hebrew author has Job say here that he has heard and now he has seen, the contrastive sense, “I have heard, but now I have seen” is almost certainly confirmed by the presence of the temporal adverb ‫עתה‬, “now/then,” which appears to require a contrastive sense.19 Indeed with the exception of Tg. Job, which fails to include an equivalent of the adverb, the other Aramaic and Greek versions all render ‫ עתה‬with adverbs of their own (‫ܗܫܐ‬, ‫ כען‬and νυνί), making clear their understanding of the contrastive nature of the clauses. On the second question of whether Job claims to have heard God or heard of God, the Hebrew is less forthcoming.20 The contrast between formerly hearing and subsequently seeing appears to require Job’s hearing of God to have taken place before his eventual “beholding” of God in chapters 38–41, but of course Job’s persistent complaint before the theophany is precisely that he has not 15  Florentino García Martínez, Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar and Adam S. van der Woude, Qumran Cave 11.II: 11Q2–18, 11Q20–30, DJD XXIII (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998). 16  Joseph Ziegler, Iob, Septuaginta: Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum 11.4 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982). 17  David Stec, The Text of the Targum of Job: An Introduction and Critical Edition, AGJU 20 (Leiden: Brill, 1994). 18  Lars G. Rignell, Job, The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshitta Version II.1a (Leiden: Brill, 1982). 19  For discussion of the rather unpersuasive arguments against the contrastive understanding of these clauses see David J.A. Clines, Job 38–42, WBC 18B (Nashville: Nelson, 2011), 1206, 1216–17. 20  Despite the Hebrew appearing to leave little room for Job hearing “about” God.

232

Shepherd

heard God,21 unless this is referring to a time in Job’s life before the afflictions chronicled in the opening chapter of the book.22 This then encourages the suggestion that Job’s former hearing is a hearing of or about God, which he then contrasts with his subsequent seeing in much the same way that in 1 Kgs 10:1–7, the narrative contrasts the Queen of Sheba’s hearing (10:1) of Solomon’s great fame, with her observation (10:4) of his wisdom and wealth, leading to her observation in vv. 6–7: … The report was true that I heard in my own land of your accomplishments and of your wisdom, but I did not believe the reports until I came and my own eyes had seen it…. nrsv

While Job 42:5 is unclear as to whether Job’s former hearing of, or about, God is a reference to the theologizing of the friends, or some earlier direct or mediated revelation of the divine, there can be little doubting the Hebrew text’s intention to allow Job to voice his conviction that his earlier hearing (of whatever sort) has been somehow superseded or indeed perhaps confirmed by his subsequent seeing first-hand. While this conviction is reproduced by the Qumran Aramaic, Old Greek and Syriac versions, the Targum stands apart from these translations in categorically contradicting the Hebrew of the second clause, inserting a negative in order to allow the Job of the Targum to hear God, but still insist that ‫( ועיני לא חמיית יתך‬and/but) my eye has not seen you.”23 The Targum’s circumventing of the idea that Job has seen God is, of course, hardly surprising given that as Andrew Chester has shown in his magisterial study of the subject, the Targumim deploy a range of translational techniques in order to ensure that the God who is seen at various points in the Hebrew Bible remains quite consistently unseen in the Targumic translation of it.24 This targumic tendency may be explained in part by the meturgemanim’s perception of the appearance of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to Moses in Exodus as posing a deadly danger (e.g. Exod 33:20). The mortal danger of perceiving a theophany is similarly reflected prior to the giving of the law in Exod 19:21: “Then the 21  So Clines, Job 38–42, 1217. 22  Clines, Job 38–42, 1216–17, does not appear to consider this possibility. 23  While Celine Mangan, The Targum of Job, ArBib 15 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press / Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 90 notes that the negative particle is deleted in MS Or. Ee. 5.9 and omitted altogether in the late printed editions (Biblia Regia and Miqra’ot Gedolot) this only confirms the likelihood that the majority reading is original. 24  Andrew Chester, Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim, TSAJ 14 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), esp. 31–99 and 361–62.

SEE GOD & DIE ?

233

LORD said to Moses, ‘Go down and warn the people not to break through to the LORD to look; otherwise many of them will perish.’” (nrsv). While the Targum’s prevention of Job from seeing God in verse 5 would appear to confirm its perception of this theophanic threat, this same deadly danger is also perceived by the other translators and because it is not pre-empted, prompts a variety of interpretations of 42:6. mt QarJob og Job Tg. Job Pesh. Job rsv 1

‫על כן אמאס ונחמתי על עפר ואפר‬ ‫לע ̊פ ̊ר וקטם‬ ̊ ‫על כן אתנסך ואת׳ה׳א ואהוא‬

διὸ ἐφαύλισα ἐμαυτὸν καὶ ἐτάκην ἥγημαι δὲ ἐμαυτὸν γῆν καὶ σποδόν

‫מטול היכנא מאסית עותרי ואתניחמית על בניי דהנון עפר וקטם‬

‫ ܘܐܬܢܚܡ ܥܠ ܥܦܪܐ ܘܥܠ ܩܛܡܐ‬.‫ܡܛܠ ܗܢܐ ܐܫܬܘܩ‬ therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes.

The Targum of Job: Job Renounces Wealth and Is Comforted regarding His Dead Children

The Targum, along with many modern authorities, evidently understands ‫ מאס‬as “to despise.”25 The absence of an explicit object in the Hebrew, however encourages the meturgeman to clarify that what Job despises is in fact, ‫“ עתרי‬my wealth”—an interpretation which no modern commentator follows, but which offers either a renunciation (resigned or otherwise) of the material possessions he has already lost or a pre-emptory renunciation of the material possessions which are about to be restored to Job two-fold in both the mt and the Targum (42:9, 12). It is, however, in the Targum’s sophisticated treatment of the last words of 42:6 where we discover the exegetical impact of the Targum’s circumventing of the visual theophany and its threat. Because the deadly danger of seeing God has been pre-empted, the death (‫“ עפר ואפר‬dust and ashes”) for which the Job of the Targum confesses himself to be comforted in verse 6, need not be his own but might instead be the death of others. Encouraged by Job 42:11 where Job is comforted concerning the evil which has already befallen him,26 the Targum here in verse 6 is free then to have Job comforted (mt ‫ )נחמתי על‬not concerning his own mortality, but rather concerning the death of ‫“ בניי דהנון עפר וקטם‬my sons who are dust and ashes.” (42:6).

25  For the long list of modern authorities who understand it this way, see Clines, Job, 1207. 26  As noted by Mangan, Targum of Job, 91. The transformation of the Hebrew active “I repent” into a passive construction in Tg. Job facilitates the new interpretation of the translator.

234 2

Shepherd

Peshitta-Job: Job Expects to Die and Be Resurrected

In rendering the verb ‫אמאס‬, the Syriac translation ‫“ ܐܫܬܘܩ‬I will be silent” appears to reflect the understanding of ‫ מאס‬as “to despise,” with Job’s own words being assumed as the implicit object.27 While it might be assumed that Job’s promise or expectation of his own silence (cf. also Job 40:4–5) here points toward nothing more than a simple abandoning of Job’s claim against the Almighty in response to the theophany, Job’s expectation of his resurrection (see below), suggests instead the Peshitta’s interpretation of Job’s silence here as a prelude to his death. Such a suggestion seems most plausible given the Syriac translator’s use of precisely the same form here in 42:6 (‫“ ܐܫܬܘܩ‬I am/ will be silent”) as is used rendering the final word of Job 13:19, where Job associates his silence with the threat of death: See, he will kill me; I have no hope; but I will defend my ways to his face. This will be my salvation, that the godless shall not come before him. Listen carefully to my words, and let my declaration be in your ears. I have indeed prepared my case; I know that I shall be vindicated. Who is there that will contend with me? For then I would be silent and die. (mt: ‫אחריש‬ ‫ ;ואגוע‬Pesh. Job: .‫)ܐܫܬܘܩ ܘܐܬܬܢܝܚ‬ Job 13:15–19, nrsv28

Unwilling to pre-empt the mortal threat of the theophany as the meturgeman does in 42:5, the Syriac translator would appear to interpret Job’s silence (renunciation of words) as a prelude to his own death, perhaps as a consequence of seeing the divine. That the Syriac Job expects his own death in 42:6a would also seem to be required by the Peshitta’s rendering of mt ‫ נחמתי‬by means of the Syriac ‫ܐܬܢܚܡ‬, a form which should be understood as “I am or I will be resurrected.”29 The import of the preposition ‫ ܥܠ‬is unclear, but Pesh. Job’s faithful rendering of ‫ עפר ואפר‬would seem to imply a resurrection from “dust and ash(es),” which suggests something comparable here to the Syriac translator’s radical reversal of the meaning of Job 30:23 in which as we will see 27  While it is not impossible that the Syriac here offers nothing more than a guess based on the context, it is not implausible to see silence as reflecting a despising of words (as many modern interpreters have seen the Hebrew to imply [see Clines, Job, 1207]). 28  As a simple search in the database of the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon (http://cal .huc.edu/) will demonstrate, this conjugation of the Syriac verb is often used to refer to the rest associated with death. 29  See Jessie Payne Smith (Margoliouth), A Compendious Syriac Lexicon, founded upon the Thesaurus Syriacus of R. Payne Smith (Oxford: Clarendon, [1903] 1976), 335.

SEE GOD & DIE ?

235

below Job’s expectation is that he will not be brought “to death (‫ ”)מות‬as in the Hebrew, but rather ‫“ ܡܢ ܡܘܬܐ‬from death,” to the meeting place of all the living.30 While the Syriac translation does not make clear whether Job’s expectation of his own death in 42:6 relates to the threat of the theophany or some other cause, we will see in what follows that the Greek translation is rather more forthcoming. 3

Old Greek: Job Expects to Die from His Original Afflictions

The Old Greek translator agrees with the Targum and Peshitta in rendering

‫ אמאס‬with ἐφαύλισα “I despised,”31 but differs from them in supplying the re-

flexive pronoun ἐμαυτὸν “myself” which suggests that in the Greek, Job has descended into self-loathing rather than silence or a renunciation of wealth. The Greek ἐτάκην “I am (or have) dissolved” appears to be a second rendering of ‫אמאס‬, rather than a rendering of ‫ נחמתי‬and suggests that og Job may have read ‫ אמאס‬as a niphal form of the rare secondary meaning of the same root ‫“ מאס‬to melt/flow” which appears in Ps 58:8a (Engl. v. 7): “Let them melt like water that runs away.”32 Apart from 42:6, the only other appearance in Job of ‫ מאס‬with the meaning to flow, is to be found in Job 7:5(–10): My flesh is clothed with worms and a crust of dirt, My skin hardens and runs (‫ ;וימאס‬og Job: φύρεται δέ μου τὸ σῶμα ἐν σαπρίᾳ σκωλήκων τήκω δὲ βώλακας γῆς ἀπὸ ἰχῶρος ξύων; og Job Engl.: “As well, my body is defiled with the rot of worms, and I dissolve (τήκω), scraping away lumps of dirt 30  See Michael P. Weitzman, The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 223. 31  See also Job 31:13 where this same Greek verb (ἐφαύλισα) is used to render ‫אמאס‬. 32  Tuinstra, “Hermeneutische aspecten,” 44, notes the appearance of just such a form in Ps 22:15 (Engl. v. 14) “I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted (‫ )נמס‬within my breast; (nrsv).” While Tuinstra finds this to be sufficient evidence of QarJob’s dependence on this verse, and understands this “interpretation” of Psalm 22 in terms of the righteous sufferer tradition attested by the New Testament, one wonders whether such a slight similarity is really sufficient evidence of dependence, or indeed whether such a recourse to the book of Psalms is necessary at all, given that, as will become clear, the translator’s analysis and translation of the rest of the book of Job itself offers him or her sufficient resources to arrive at the rendering of ‫אתנסך‬ “I am poured out” as an equivalent of ‫אמאס‬. It is not impossible that the Aramaic translator has read ‫ אמאס‬as the niphal of the geminate ‫מסס‬, a verb used much more frequently in the Hebrew Bible with the meaning “to melt” and often with ‫ לב‬as an idiomatic expression of “fear.”

236

Shepherd

with the pus.)33 My days are swifter than a weaver’s shuttle, And come to an end without hope. Remember that my life is but breath; My eye will not again see good. The eye of him who sees me will behold me no longer; Your eyes will be on me, but I will not be. When a cloud vanishes, it is gone, So he who goes down to Sheol does not come up. He will not return again to his house, Nor will his place know him anymore. Two things are worth noting here. First the verb ‫מאס‬, which appears here in the niphal with the meaning of “to flow/run” will have acquainted the og Job translator with the basic semantic component of fluidity which the verb shares with the more common ‫מסס‬. Second, the verb’s usage here in 7:5 is saturated with a sense of rapidly impending doom, relentlessly reiterated in the five verses which follow it. (Note the going down to “Sheol” in verse 9 above.) The og translation of Job 7:5 duly observes with forensic detail, Job’s physical decay, but instead of having Job claim that it is his skin which “flows” (as in the Hebrew ‫)וימאס‬, the Greek translator has Job declare that he himself is dissolving with the first person form τήκω. That the Greek translator understands Job to be making the same claim in Job 42:6, explains why his rendering has Job “despising” himself in the first portion of 42:6. Indeed Job’s expectation of his decay and death in chapter 7 leads him to express this very same self-loathing by means of ‫ מאס‬a few verses later in verses 13 through 16: When I say, “My bed will comfort me, my couch will ease my complaint,” then you scare me with dreams and terrify me with visions, so that I would choose strangling and death rather than this body. I loathe my life (‫ ;)מאסתי‬I would not live forever. Let me alone, for my days are a breath (og Job: οὐ γὰρ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ζήσομαι ἵνα μακροθυμήσω ἀπόστα ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ κενὸς γάρ μου ὁ βίος; og Job Engl.: For I will not live forever, or I would be patient. Let me alone, for my life is empty.)34 That the Job of the earliest Greek translation of 42:6 expects his own imminent death is finally confirmed by the treatment of ‫“ על עפר ואפר‬concerning or upon dust and ash.” While it is difficult to be sure that the Greek ἥγημαι δὲ ἐμαυτὸν “I consider myself” reflects the translator’s actual analysis of Hebrew ‫נחמתי‬,35 33  C  laude E. Cox, “Iob,” in A New English Translation of the Septuagint, ed. Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 667–96. 34  Ibid. 35  As one anonymous peer reviewer of this essay has helpfully pointed out, in Gen 6:6, where ‫ נחם‬also appears and is more universally understood to signal “repentance,” lxx translates with a form of ἐνθυμέομαι “to consider”—perhaps because of a discomfort with

SEE GOD & DIE ?

237

there can be little doubting from where the Greek translator has drawn inspiration for the translation of γῆν καὶ σποδόν “earth/dust and ashes” in 42:6. The collocation of ‫ עפר ואפר‬is found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible as a means of expressing the comparative frailty of human flesh (see. e.g. Gen 18:27, Sir 10:9), but its only appearance in Job apart from 42:6, is in Job 30:19: He has cast me into the mire, and I have become like dust and ashes. (mt:

‫ ;הרני לחמר ואתמשל כעפר ואפר׃‬og Job: ἥγησαι δέ με ἴσα πηλῷ ἐν γῇ καὶ

σποδῷ μου ἡ μερίς) I cry to you and you do not answer me; I stand, and you merely look at me. You have turned cruel to me; with the might of your hand you persecute me. You lift me up on the wind, you make me ride on it, and you toss me about in the roar of the storm.23 I know that you will bring me to death, and to the house appointed for all living (30:23: mt: ‫ ;כי ידעתי מות תשיבני ובית מועד לכל חי‬Pesh. Job: ‫ܡܟܝܠ ܿܝܕܥ ܐܢܐ ܕܡܢ‬ ‫ܡܘܬܐ ܬܗܦܟܢܝ ܠܒܝܬ ܘܥܕܐ ܕܟܠܗܘܢ ܚܝܐ‬. “Now I know you will bring me back from death to the meeting place of all the living.”) The fact that in verse 19, Job claims to have “become” like ‫ עפר ואפר‬precludes the possibility that “dust and ash” refers to human flesh simpliciter, for Job has never been anything but human. Indeed, that it is instead human mortality which the dust and ash signify is confirmed not only by the reference to death (‫ )מות‬in verse 23 (Pesh. Job’s interpretation notwithstanding), but also by the appearance of the word for “mire,” ‫ חמר‬with ‫ אפר‬in 13:1236 and with ‫ עפר‬in 10:9 (Remember that you fashioned me like clay (‫ ;)חמר‬and will you turn me to dust (‫ )עפר‬again?). It is not without cause therefore that the Old Greek translator interpreted Job’s final reference to dust and ash in 42:6 in light of the dust and ash which symbolize his death here in Job 13:19. Nor is it any wonder that having supplied a form of the verb ἡγέομαι in interpreting 13:19, the Greek translator supplies in Job 42:6, a form of precisely the same verb to allow Job to be persuaded of his doom: “I consider myself (ἥγημαι) dust and ash.” It would appear that if the Job of the Old Greek is not actually dead, he apparently considers himself “as good as dead.” Unlike the mt, which does not mention Job’s physical healing as part of his restoration in 42:16 (‫“ ויחי איוב אחרי זאת‬and after this, Job lived”), og Job the notion of God repenting. Here in Job 42:6, ἡγέομαι “to consider (myself)” seems to reflect the use of this verb in 30:19 (see below). Cf. og Job’s treatment of ‫ נחם‬where it appears in Job 7:13. 36  Job 13:12: “Your maxims are proverbs of ashes, your defenses are defenses of clay.” The association of such language with the expectation of death may be seen in Job 13:15: “See, he will kill me; I have no hope; but I will defend my ways to his face.”

238

Shepherd

supplies (ἔζησεν δὲ Ιωβ μετὰ τὴν πληγὴν) “and after the plague/misfortune, Job lived …” which if it implies a physical restoration, perhaps serves to explain how the Job of the Old Greek version who expects to die of his afflictions in Job 42:6, lives on to a ripe old age.37 Indeed, whatever its relationship to og Job,38 the Testament of Job dwells at some length on Job’s physical rehabilitation in Test. Job 47, where Job explains to his daughters the origins of the cords which he is bequeathing to them: The Lord considered me worthy of these in the day in which he wished to show me mercy and to rid my body of the plagues (πληγάς) and the worms (σκώληκας). Calling me, he furnished me with these three cords and said, “Arise, gird your loins like a man. I shall question you, and you shall answer me. So I took them and put them on. And immediately from that time the worms disappeared from my body and the plagues, too. And then my body got strength through the Lord as if I actually had not suffered a thing. I also forgot the pain in my heart …” Test. Job 47:4–839

While we have seen that og Job understands 42:6 to be expressing Job’s expectation that his physical afflictions will be terminal, T. Job omits any reference to 42:6 and backdates Job’s divinely orchestrated physical restoration to either the beginning (38:3) or the middle (40:2) of the theophany. Nevertheless, the mention of the plague (42:16) and the worms with which we have seen og Job associates Job’s dissolution (7:5; 42:6) establishes beyond doubt their shared understanding of the threat posed to Job’s body—an understanding which differs sharply from that of the Qumran Aramaic translator to whose version we now turn.

37  The only other appearance of πληγή in Job is in 2:13 where it renders MT ‫כאב‬, the “suffering/pain” which is so great that it causes Job’s friends to sit with him in silence. 38  The relationship is by no means clear. See for instance Berndt Schaller, “Das Testament Hiobs und die Septuaginta-Übersetzung des Buchs Hiob,” Bib 61 (1980): 377–406, who argues that the Testament is dependent on lxx Job (see also Russell P. Spittler, “Testament of Job,” in OTP 1: 831) contra the earlier opinion of Montague R. James, Apocrypha Anecdota, 2nd Series, TS 5.1 (Cambridge, 1897); lxxii–cii, 104–37, followed by Delcor and Philonenko et al. that lxx Job was dependent on the Testament. 39  Transl. Spittler, “Testament of Job,” 865. Greek text: Ian W. Scott, ed., “Testament of Job,” Edition 1.0; in The Online Critical Pseudepigrapha, ed. Ken M. Penner, David M. Miller, and Ian W. Scott (Atlanta: SBL, 2006. Online: http://www.purl.org/net/ocp/TJob.html).

SEE GOD & DIE ?

4

239

Qumran Aramaic: Job Expects to Die of Exposure to Heat

The Qumran Aramaic version’s provision of ‫“ אתנסך‬I am poured out” suggests that like the Greek translator, this translator may have read ‫ אמאס‬as a niphal form of the rare secondary meaning of the same root ‫“ מאס‬to melt/flow.” As was the case in the Greek, the appearance of this verb in 7:5 in the niphal with the meaning of “to flow/run” (see above) will have acquainted the QarJob translator with the basic semantic component of fluidity which the verb shares with the more common ‫ מסס‬and also associated it with the sense of impending physical death which pervades this passage (7:5–9). However, confronted with a first person singular form of this verb in Job 42:6, the Qumran Aramaic translator was required to consider what Job might mean by stating that not merely his skin, but he himself would “flow.” The translator’s understanding of the nature of Job’s fatal “flow” is confirmed by his rendering of ‫ אמאס‬with ‫“ אתנסך‬I am poured,” a verb which he uses in verse 15 of the previous chapter in attempting to convey the impermeable and impregnable quality of Leviathan’s armour-like scales: [‫“ נסיכי̊ [ן כפרזלא‬they are poured like iron.”40 That the Qumran Job expects the heat of a smelter to have a very different effect on his own fragile flesh41 becomes clear from his rendering of ‫נחמתי‬ as being derived from ‫“ חמם‬to be heated.” And he does so for good reason, in fact, for a passive reflexive form of this verb (in the hithpael) has already appeared in Job 31:20 (‫ יתחמם‬with the meaning “to be warmed”). Indeed, ‫נחמתי‬, is precisely the form we and evidently the translator too would expect the first common singular niphal weqatal form of a first guttural geminate verb to take.42 Indeed, if such a parsing is eminently defensible morphologically, it is perhaps almost inevitable in light of the translator’s previous analysis of ‫אמאס‬ as “I will be melted down.” Having already understood Job to have expressed his expectation that he will be heated to the point of liquidity, the Qumran translator now quite plausibly has Job predict in Aramaic that ‫“ אתמהא‬I will be boiled/dissolved.”43 Moreover,

40  In Job 30:16, the more typical Hebrew ‫“ תשתפך‬to be poured out” is rendered by QarJob with the conventional Aramaic rendering ‫תתאׁשר‬. 41  In Ps 22:15, the speaker complains that “I am poured out like water” (‫)כמים נשפכתי‬, but even here, his liquidation is associated with heat: “my heart is like wax; it is melted within my breast” (‫)לבי כדונג נמס בתוך מעי‬. 42  See also Job 39:14: ‫( תחמם‬piel), “to warm.” 43  Michael Sokoloff, The Targum to Job (Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University, 1974), 167, deriving the form from Aramaic ‫ו‬/‫“ מחי‬to dissolve/boil.” See also Payne Smith, A Compendious Syriac Lexicon, 254 and CAL (http://cal.huc.edu/) s.v.

240

Shepherd

QarJob supplies not “I became dust and ash” as the original editors suggest,44 but rather ‫לע ̊פ ̊ר‬ ̊ ‫“ וקטם ואהוא‬I will become” or even perhaps “am becoming dust and ash.”45 While QarJob does not preserve a rendering of Job 30:19 (see above), confirmation of its understanding of “dust and ash” as representing death is amply furnished by its translation of Job 40:(12–)13, where God challenges Job to demonstrate his power by imposing judgment on the wicked: Look on all who are proud, and bring them low; tread down the wicked where they stand. Hide them all in the dust together; bind their faces in the world below. (mt: ‫ ;טמנם בעפר יחד פניהם חבש בטמון‬QarJob: ‫[ה]מון בעפר‬ ̊ ‫בקטם תכסה‬ ̊ ‫כח[ד …]הון‬ ̊ ) It is quite clear that the ‫ עפר‬in which Job is invited to hide the proud in 40:13 is representative of the dust to which all return at death.46 And indeed, QarJob has no qualms about rendering it with the Aramaic cognate ‫ עפר‬which he will subsequently use again in 42:6. What confirms the Aramaic translator’s association of ‫ עפר ואפר‬with death in 40:13 is his rendering of the final word, ‫טמון‬. The obscurity of ‫—טמון‬literally “the hidden thing”—evidently prompted the Qumran translator to render it with the most obvious synonymous parallel to ‫ עפר‬in the first half of the verse, namely: ‫ק]טם‬, the same Aramaic word for “ash” which he would eventually supply in 42:6. While og Job’s expectation that his skin will inexorably dissolve into the dust seems to reflect nothing more than his original physical afflictions finally taking their ultimate toll, we have seen that QarJob does not expect to merely dissolve, but rather to be incinerated—becoming more ash perhaps than dust. Why the Job of the Qumran Aramaic version might expect to be fatally superheated is of course hinted at ironically by the Targum’s rendering of 42:5, in which the idea that Job’s eye has seen God is circumvented and the associated theophanic threat pre-empted. As noted above, the mortal danger of the perception of the theophany is reflected in Exodus 19:21, but it may also be seen in 19:18, where the tradition offers an insight into the particularities of the theophanic threat: “Now Mount Sinai was wrapped in smoke, because the LORD had descended upon it in fire (‫ ;)באש‬the smoke went up like the smoke of a kiln, while the whole mountain shook violently.” (nrsv).

44  Johannes P.M. van der Ploeg and Adam S. van der Woude, Le targum de Job de la grotte XI de Qumran (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 85. 45  D JD XXIII, 169: “I will turn into dust and ash(es).” 46  See Clines, Job 38–42, 1149, and esp. 1182.

SEE GOD & DIE ?

241

Whether, as has been suggested by some, the very purpose of the smoke is to “obscure what man cannot look upon and live,”47 on Sinai at least there’s no smoke without fire—fire being that most common natural manifestation of theophany in the Hebrew Bible and its most obvious threat.48 That the awareness of such a theophanic threat lies behind the Qumran Job’s expectation of his own imminent combustion becomes clear when we return to the translator’s treatment of God’s appearance in Job chapters 38–41. While QarJob does not preserve a rendering of the first announcement of the voice from the whirlwind in 38:1, it does include a translation of the second announcement in 40:6: “Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind”: (mt: ‫ ויען יהוה את איוב מן סערה ויאמר‬QarJob: ‫ענא אלהא לאיוב מן רו̊ [חא] ועננ̊ ̊א ו̊ ̊אמר‬ ‫)לה‬. Otherwise unremarkable, the Qumran Aramaic translation does depart somewhat unexpectedly in having the divine voice speak to Job not merely ‫מן‬ ]‫“ רו̊ [חא‬from the wind” but also from the “cloud” (Aramaic ‫)עננ̊ א‬. While Hebrew ‫“ סערה‬whirlwind/storm” has a reasonably distinguished theophanic pedigree thanks to various passages beyond Job (incl. Ezek 1:4 and Zech 9:14), it does not feature within the Sinaitic theophany traditions of Exodus, nor indeed anywhere within the five books of Moses. What does, however, feature in the Sinai theophany of Exodus, alongside the fire already discussed are “clouds” and indeed, clouds of some distinction. Thus in advance of the preparatory instructions in Exodus 19, we read in verse 9 that “… The LORD said to Moses, ‘I am going to come to you in a dense cloud (‫)עב הענן‬, in order that the people may hear when I speak with you and so trust you ever after.’” (nrsv). So too, in verse 16, just two verses before the appearance of the theophanic fire, the text makes clear that on that morning, “… there was thunder and lightning, as well as a thick cloud (‫ )ענן כבד‬on the mountain….” (nrsv). Adjectival qualifiers make it clear that this is no ordinary cloud—a fact which will become even clearer in 19:18 with the appearance of fire itself. That the Aramaic “cloud” (‫ )עננ̊ א‬supplied by QarJob in 40:6 in rendering Hebrew “storm” (‫ )סערה‬really does possess the same incendiary qualities as those found in Exodus might be doubted, were it not for the very telling translation of Job 37:11, where Elihu foreshadows the divine speeches themselves by emphasizing the divine sovereignty and superintending of all things meteorological: “He loads the thick cloud with moisture; the clouds scatter his lightning.” (mt: ‫ ;אף ברי יטריח עב יפיץ ענן אורו‬QarJob: ‫וינפק‬ ̊ ]‫אף בהון ימרק ̊ענ̊ נ̊ [ין‬ ‫)מן ענן נורה‬. The meaning of ‫“ עב‬cloud” in the first half of the verse is perfectly clear, but the presence of not one but two hapax legomena (‫)ברי יטריח‬ 47  See John Durham, Exodus, WBC 3 (Waco: Word, 1987), 271. 48  For a picturesque portrayal of theophanic fire see 2 Sam 22:9 || Psalm 18:8 (9).

242

Shepherd

leaves interpreters both ancient and modern in some doubt.49 The provision of Aramaic “with them” suggests that the Qumran translator has either read mt ‫ ברי‬as Hebrew ‫“ בם‬with them” or found the latter already in his Hebrew Vorlage. What “they are” is unclear, but the translator has evidently seen them as the means by which a cloud may be “cleansed” or “brightened,” rendering ‫ יטריח‬with a form of the Aramaic verb ‫מרק‬. Whether the cloud of the first half of the verse is “purified” or “brightened,” such a rendering does not sit uncomfortably with the Qumran translator’s approach to the Hebrew of verse 11b: ‫יפיץ ענן אורו‬. While none of these words are exceptional in and of themselves, their significance taken together is rather more opaque—not least because “scattering” seems to be typical behaviour neither for clouds nor light.50 Indeed in place of “scattering” the Qumran translator supplies the more generic ‫וינפק‬ ̊ “he will send forth” and even more revealingly, renders the mt ‫“ אורו‬his light” with instead Aramaic ‫“ נורה‬his fire.” Whether or not the Qumran translator has simply read ‫“ אורו‬his light” as “his fire” (the difference being evident only when vocalized) or read “light” but rendered “fire,” the fact that QarJob associates the divine fire with the cloud in its rendering Job 37:11 strongly suggests that this same cloud—also supplied unprompted by the translator to describe the theophany in Job 40:6—is of a similar incendiary quality. While the above is not entirely conclusive, it does suggest the possibility that QarJob’s declaration of his own meltdown and ultimate incineration in 42:6, whether imminent or already in progress, may be explained by the translator’s conviction that Job’s visual perception of an Exodus-like theophany led him to expect precisely the same fatal consequences envisioned there and elsewhere. If such an interpretation may be doubted on the basis that Job is more than fully restored even in the Aramaic version and does not suffer anything like the fatal consequences he anticipates, it should be remembered that the Qumran Aramaic version of 42:6 does not pretend to record the realization of Job’s demise, but merely the expectation of it, as indeed do the Old Greek and Syriac versions. That the Qumran Aramaic translator seems to understand this mortal threat to Job to be posed by the theophany he experiences/observes, is worthy of further consideration given that Jewish literature of the Second Temple period is not short of accounts of theophanies or human responses to them.51 Of these, 49  See discussion in David J.A. Clines, Job 21–37, WBC 18A (Waco: Word, 1989), 841–842. 50  For discussion of various suggestions see Clines, Job 21–37, 841–2 who finds the traditional interpretation “the cloud scatters his light” unpersuasive and reads ‫ אורו‬as a corruption of ‫“ אדו‬flood” and eliminates the notion of “light” altogether. 51  For a study of such accounts, see now Andrei Orlov, Divine Manifestations in the Slavonic Apocalypses Pseudepigrapha (Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2009).

SEE GOD & DIE ?

243

the most interesting in light of the Qumran Aramaic version’s treatment of Job, are the theophanic traditions associated with Enoch. In 1 Enoch 14, the account of the divine manifestation contains frequent allusions to Enoch’s fear (14:9, 13, 14) and attempts to allay it (15:1) as well as regular references to one aspect of the theophany which Enoch finds so fearful, namely: fire (14:9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 19, 21–22). While there is clearly an awareness of the danger of looking directly at God’s face (14:21, 25), so too looking directly at the fire itself (14:19) is also perceived as impossible (without incurring some sort of physical harm). That the fire “burns” (17, 19) undoubtedly explains in part at least why Enoch expresses anxiety at the approach of it (14:9: “And I proceeded until I came near to a wall which was built of hailstones, and a tongue of fire surrounded it, and it began to make me afraid.”),52 though Enoch seems to overcome this fear in some measure (14:10). While the subsequent theophany in 71:11 includes Enoch referring to the “melting” (Eth. tamaswa) of his body, the shortage of fire imagery in the context suggests a metaphorical melting in fear rather than any literal, physical superheating.53 Indeed, even if some sort of literal dissolving of flesh is imagined here (71:11),54 it is clear that this results in Enoch’s transfiguration rather than his destruction. In 2 Enoch, however, the notion of a genuinely physical threat posed by the heat of the divine manifestation reappears, specifically in 2 Enoch 22:1, 4–5: And on the 10th heaven, Aravoth, I saw the view of the face of the LORD, like iron burning hot in a fire [and] brought out, and it emits sparks and is incandescent. Thus even I saw the face of the LORD. But the face of the LORD is not to be talked about, it is so marvellous and supremely awesome and supremely frightening … … And I fell down flat and did obeisance to the LORD. And the LORD, with his own mouth, said to me,

52  Transl. from Michael Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments, vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), 98, who clarifies that it is the fire which has made Enoch afraid (cf. also the variant “tongues” (plural) in Codex Panopolitanus (Grpan) noted by Knibb which would seem to point in the same direction). 53  See Matthew Black, The Book of Enoch or I Enoch. A New English Edition with Commentary and Textual Notes, SVTP 7 (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 251. Cf. also the use of the Eth. tamaswa in 60:3 in a theophanic context. 54  Both the translations of George W.E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: A New Translation Based on the Hermeneia Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004), 94 (“all my flesh melted”) and Knibb, Ethiopic Book of Enoch, 166 (“my whole body melted”) reflect the corporeality of the language here.

244

Shepherd

“Be brave Enoch! Don’t be frightened! Stand up, and stand in front of my face forever.” J [longer recension]55

In recounting for the reader his encounter with the divine, Enoch’s characterisation of the intensity of the theophanic heat prompts, as in Job, the evocation of the smelter (“like iron”). Moreover, Enoch hints at the threat posed by the intense heat of the divine face by noting that it gives off sparks and indeed it burns, which is of course the primary quality of the fire noted in 1 Enoch 14 and the one which inspires such fear in Enoch there, as it does also here.56 The tradition’s awareness that such heat might pose a physical threat to the onlooker is also to be found in chapter 37.57 Here, however, Enoch recounts the measures taken to allow him to survive the danger entailed by proximity to the heat of the LORD’s incandescent presence: And the LORD called one of the senior angels, terrifying and frightful, and he made him stand with me. And the appearance of that angel was as white as snow, and his hands like ice, having the appearance of great frigidity. And he chilled my face, because I could not endure the terror of the LORD, just as it is not possible to endure the fire of a stove and the heat of the sun and the frost of death. 2 Enoch 37:1 (J [longer recension])58

The angelic intervention to cool Enoch’s face is evidently required to allow Enoch to avoid the otherwise inevitable consequence of proximity to something as hot as the “fire of a stove” or “the heat of the sun,” which otherwise could not be survived. The longer recension of the text goes on to suggest that just as the heat of the divine face might pose a threat to Enoch himself, so too 55  Unless otherwise noted, translation from Francis I. Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in OTP 1: 92–221 and following Andersen (98–99) in allowing J [MS BAN 13.3.25] to represent the longer recension and A (MS BAN 45.13.4) to represent the shorter. For the textual witnesses to 2 Enoch more generally see ibid., 92–93 but now esp. Grant Macaskill, The Slavonic Texts of 2 Enoch, Studia Judaeoslavica 6 (Leiden: Brill, 2013). 56  Fear as an emotional response to revelation is by no means restricted to the Enochic traditions; see for instance, the discussion in Perrin, The Dynamics of Dream-Vision, 112–113. 57  While some MSS have ch. 37 following ch. 39, see Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” 160 for the argument that the longer recension here preserves the more logical order, if not necessarily the more original one. 58  Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” 160. The shorter recension (37:1) here covers the same ground but lacks the poetic detail of the longer recension: “And he refreshed my face, because I could not endure the terror of the burning of the fire.”

SEE GOD & DIE ?

245

the heat of his own face would, if left uncooled, pose a threat to others: “Enoch, if your face had not been chilled here, no human being would be able to look at your face.” (2 Enoch 37:2). When Enoch eventually addresses the people in 2 Enoch 39:3, he reiterates the threat to his person posed by the theophanic heat in terms nearly identical to 22: For the lips of the LORD are a furnace of fire and his words(/angels)59 are the flames which come out. But you, my children, you see my face, a human being created just like yourselves; but I am one who has seen the face of the LORD, like iron made burning hot by a fire, and it is brought out and it emits sparks and it is incandescent. J [longer recension]60

Here Enoch goes beyond chapter 22 to unpack in what way the divine face is similar to the iron; like the iron, the lips of the LORD are the source of the heat and like the sparks which the iron emits, so too the “flames which come out” (whether verbal or angelic) explain the threat posed to anything combustible in its vicinity. To make the point perfectly clear, Enoch goes on to compare being in the presence of a mortal king with standing before the king of heaven (in the shorter recension [A] of 2 Enoch 39:8): It is dangerous and perilous to stand before the face of an earthly king, terrifying (and very perilous) it is, because the will of the king is death and the will of the king is life. To stand before the face of the King (of kings), who will be able to endure the infinite terror (of that), or of the great burnings?61 While the final rhetorical question seems to distinguish between the “infinite terror” and “great burnings” associated with standing before the heavenly king, the collocation of the two here and elsewhere in both 1 and 2 Enoch suggests that Enoch’s fear is not unrelated to the divine fire he has encountered. Indeed, the notion that this is not merely some unreasonable pyrophobia, but a credible and justifiable and indeed mortal fear is encouraged by Enoch’s 59  While “words” fits the context better, the similarity of a(g)gly “angels” (J) and gly, “words” (A) makes it difficult to know which is more original (cf. Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” 162–3). 60  Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” 163. 61  Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” 165.

246

Shepherd

underlining of what is frighteningly perilous about standing before the earthly king, namely that death might follow.62 While the traditions associated with Enoch which emerged before and shortly after the turn of the era could hardly be more different from the book of Job in various ways, the Qumran Aramaic translator’s reading of Job’s reaction to the theophany clearly displays a fear of the mortal threat posed by the intense heat of the divine manifestation as the traditions of 1 and 2 Enoch (and others) do. Indeed, the similarities would seem to run still deeper, given that as Andrei Orlov has highlighted in his own work on 2 Enoch, it contains the same kinds of Sinai theophanic resonances (esp. with Exodus 34) which we have detected in the Qumran Aramaic version of Job.63 5

Concluding Reflections: Job’s Last Words in Aramaic and Greek

It is worth reflecting finally on what the significance of this modest example might be for the comparison of ancient Aramaic and Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible. We have seen above that the later Targum intervenes quite intentionally and obviously to discount the possibility of Job’s expectation of his own death in Job 42:5–6. Here, the Targum’s interpretation offers a striking contrast to that of the Old Greek which insists in its translation that Job expects to die of his original bodily afflictions. In this respect at least, the Old Greek shares more with the other Aramaic translations than the Targum, for as we have seen, whether Qumran Aramaic Job anticipates his own immolation/ incineration as a result of experiencing a theophany or not, it is clear that the Qumran translator understands and renders Job as someone who is expecting to die in the opening verses of chapter 42. We have also seen that the same may be said of the Syriac Job, even if it is less clear of what he expects to die (and when he will be resurrected).64 While what is offered here is but one example, it would seem to suggest the value of exploring whether the Old Greek may well be more closely aligned with other, earlier Aramaic versions than with the

62  For a discussion which focuses on fear rather than fire see Andrei Orlov, “Glorification through Fear in 2 Enoch,” JSP 25.3 (2016), 171–88; though the wider argument offered there is beyond the purview of our discussion. 63  Andrei Orlov, The Enoch-Metatron Tradition, TSAJ 107 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 254–303. 64  For modern interpretations of the Hebrew of 42:6 which understand Job to be anticipating his own death see Thomas Krüger, “Did Job Repent?” 226 and William P. Brown, Wisdom’s Wonder: Character, Creation and Crisis in the Bible’s Wisdom Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 126–127, where the Sinai theophany is also noted.

SEE GOD & DIE ?

247

targum not only in terms of translation approach,65 but in terms of interpretive traditions as well. Bibliography Black, Matthew, The Book of Enoch or I Enoch. A New English Edition with Commentary and Textual Notes, SVTP 7 (Leiden: Brill, 1985). Brown, William P., Wisdom’s Wonder: Character, Creation and Crisis in the Bible’s Wisdom Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014). Chester, Andrew, Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim, TSAJ 14 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986). Clines, David J.A., Job 21–37, WBC 18A (Waco: Word, 1989). Clines, David J.A., Job 38–42, WBC 18B (Nashville: Nelson, 2011). Cox, Claude E., “Iob,” in A New English Translation of the Septuagint, ed. Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). Dhont, Marieke, “The Language and Style of Old Greek Job in Context” (PhD diss. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2016). Durham, John, Exodus, WBC 3 (Waco: Word, 1987). Flesher, Paul V.M. and Bruce Chilton, The Targums: A Critical Introduction (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2011). García Martínez, Florentino, Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar and Adam S. van der Woude, Qumran Cave 11.II: 11Q2–18, 11Q20–30, DJD XXIII (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998). Gentry, Peter J., The Asterisked Materials in the Greek Job, SBLSCS 38 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995). James, Montague R., Apocrypha Anecdota, 2nd Series, TS 5.1 (Cambridge, 1897). Knibb, Michael, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978). Krüger, Thomas, “Did Job Repent?” in Das Buch Hiob und seine Interpretationen, ed. Thomas Krüger, Manfred Oeming, Konrad Schmid and Christoph Uehlinger (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2007), 217–229. Macaskill, Grant, The Slavonic Texts of 2 Enoch, Studia Judaeoslavica 6 (Leiden: Brill, 2013). Mangan, Celine, The Targum of Job, ArBib 15 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press/Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991). Nickelsburg, George W.E. and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: A New Translation Based on the Hermeneia Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004). Orlov, Andrei, The Enoch-Metatron Tradition, TSAJ 107 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005).

65  See, for instance, the essay in this volume by Thomas.

248

Shepherd

Orlov, Andrei, Divine Manifestations in the Slavonic Apocalypses Pseudepigrapha (Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2009). Orlov, Andrei, “Glorification through Fear in 2 Enoch,” JSP 25/3 (2016), 171–188. Payne Smith, Jessie (Margoliouth), A Compendious Syriac Lexicon, founded upon the Thesaurus Syriacus of R. Payne Smith (Oxford: Clarendon, [1903] 1976). Perrin, Andrew B., The Dynamics of Dream-Vision Revelation in the Aramaic of the Dead Sea Scrolls, JAJSup 19 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015). Ploeg, Johannes P.M. van der and Adam S. van der Woude, Le targum de Job de la grotte XI de Qumran (Leiden: Brill, 1971). Rignell, Lars G., Job, The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshitta Version II.1a (Leiden: Brill, 1982). Schaller, Berndt, “Das Testament Hiobs und die Septuaginta-Übersetzung des Buchs Hiob,” Bib 61 (1980): 377–406. Scott, Ian W., ed., “Testament of Job,” Edition 1.0; In The Online Critical Pseudepigrapha, ed. Ken M. Penner, David M. Miller, and Ian W. Scott (Atlanta: SBL, 2006. Online: http://www.purl.org/net/ocp/TJob.html). Shepherd, David, Targum and Translation: A Reconsideration of the Qumran Aramaic Version of Job (Assen: Van Gorcum, 2004). Shepherd, David, “What’s in a Name? Targum and Taxonomy in Cave 4 at Qumran,” JSP 17/3 (2008): 189–206. Shepherd, David, “Targumim,” in T&T Clark Encyclopedia of Second Temple Judaism, eds. Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Daniel M. Gurtner (London: T&T Clark / Bloomsbury, forthcoming). Sokoloff, Michael, The Targum of Job (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1974). Spittler, Russell P., “Testament of Job,” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1983) 1: 831. Stec, David, The Text of the Targum of Job: An Introduction and Critical Edition, AGJU 20 (Leiden: Brill, 1994). Tuinstra, Evert, “Hermeneutische aspecten van de Targum van Job uit Grot XI” (PhD diss. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 1970). Weitzman, Michael P., The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). Ziegler, Joseph, Iob, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum 11.4 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982).

Chapter 11

A Comparative Study of the Translation Techniques of the Old Greek and Qumran Aramaic (4Q156) Versions of Leviticus Alun Morton Thomas The relationship between the Aramaic and Greek translations of biblical texts is an old and vexing question which has yet to be fully addressed with respect to the Aramaic translations from Qumran.1 Previous scholarship on the Aramaic Versions of Job and Leviticus from Caves 4 and 11 has mainly considered these texts in relation to later Aramaic translations such as the Targumim and Peshitta.2 Palaeographic analysis suggests that the oldest fragments of the Qumran Aramaic Versions are the two Leviticus fragments (4Q156) from Cave 4 which date from approximately the late 2nd or early 1st century bce.3 The comparable antiquity of the Qumran Aramaic with the Old Greek versions presents us with an opportunity to compare some of the trans-linguistic similarities and differences in translation technique between the earliest known Aramaic and Greek translations.4 1  Early investigations into the relationship between Targum and Septuagint have mainly been conceived in terms of the dependence of one tradition upon another; see esp. Zacharias Frankel, Historisch-kritische Studien zu der Septuaginta (Leipzig: Vogel, 1841); Pinkhos Churgin, “The Targum and the Septuagint,” AJSL 50.1 (1933): 41–65; Lienhard Delekat, “Ein Septuagintatargum,” VT 8 (1958): 225–52. Some initial studies have drawn attention to points of similarity in translation technique between 11Q10 and OG Job, namely Evert W. Tuinstra, “Hermeneutische aspecten van de Targum van Job uit Grot XI van Qumrân,” (PhD diss. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 1970), 58–64. 2  For a detailed bibliography see Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “Bibliography on 4QTgLev (4Q156),” JSP 5 (1992): 53–55, and more recently David Shepherd, “What’s in a Name? Targum and Taxonomy in Cave 4 at Qumran,” JSP 17.3 (2008): 189–206; David A. Freedman and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “The Fragments of a Targum to Leviticus in Qumran Cave 4 (4Q156): A Linguistic Comparison and Assessment,” in Targum and Scripture: Studies in Aramaic Translations and Interpretation in Memory of Ernest G. Clarke, ed. Ernest G. Clarke and Paul V.M. Flesher (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 79–96. 3  Roland de Vaux and Józef T. Milik, eds., Qumrân grotte 4.II. Archéologie. Tefillin, Mezuzot et Targums (4Q128–4Q157), DJD VI (Oxford: Clarendon, 1977), 86. In this paper 4Q156 shall be referred to as QarLev rather than as a targum, as such a designation may prejudice its perceived relationship with later targumim. 4  Henry B. Swete, Henry. St J. Thackeray, and Richard R. Ottley, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914), 23–28. For introductory material on the Greek version of Leviticus and its setting see esp. Paul Harlé and © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004416727_013

250

Thomas

The two Qumran Aramaic Leviticus fragments partially preserve six verses from Leviticus 16 detailing aspects of the Yom Kippur ritual.5 Besides its provenance at Qumran, little is known concerning the social context which gave rise to QarLev; doubts have even been raised regarding whether these Aramaic fragments are part of some other composition such as a ritual text.6 What makes the QarLev fragments particularly interesting is that they give us an insight into an Aramaic translation from the Pentateuch dating from the Second Temple period.7 This affords us a point of comparison with the Pentateuchal

Didier Pralon, Le Lévitique, La Bible d’Alexandrie 3 (Paris: Cerf, 1988), 13–81. Details concerning the translation of OG Lev together with the rest of the Pentateuch remain unclear; however, it is thought to have been produced sometime during the third century bce see Jennifer M. Dines and Michael A. Knibb, The Septuagint (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 41–62. Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012).   Like their Aramaic counterparts from Qumran, the two earliest extant manuscripts of a Greek translation of Leviticus have also been dated to approximately the 1st century bce. Whether early lxx manuscripts reflect a tendency to revise the Greek text to make it conform more closely to a Hebrew Vorlage is contested; see Patrick W. Skehan, Eugene Ulrich, and Judith E. Sanderson, eds., Qumran Cave 4.IV: Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts, DJD IX (Oxford: Clarendon, 1992), 161–186. See also Theo A.W. van der Louw, “Translation and Writing in 4QlxxLeva,” in The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. Thomas Römer, BETL 215 (Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 383–97. The two Greek manuscripts of Leviticus from Qumran either represent a translation which used a Vorlage close to the proto-mt and is therefore a relatively free translation of the proto-MT; or, 4QlxxLeva is a more literal translation of a variant Vorlage and the text in the Göttingen edition is a revision toward a proto-mt text. See also Kristin De Troyer, “The Hebrew Text Behind the Greek Text of the Pentateuch,” in XIV Congress of the IOSCS, Helsinki, 2010, ed. Melvin K.H. Peters, SBLSCS 59 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), 15–32. 5  As noted in the editio princeps De Vaux and Milik, eds., Qumrân grotte 4.II., 86, some scholars have questioned the assumption that these fragments are part of a translation of the book of Leviticus arguing that this might merely be a citation of Leviticus in an otherwise unknown composition. For arguments against the notion that these verses were part of a non-biblical ritual text see Klaus Beyer, ed., Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer samt den Inschriften aus Palästina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 278–79. The arguments concerning the literary context of these verses are by their nature ex silentio; what we do have is a translation into Aramaic of a portion from the book of Leviticus. 6  De Vaux and Milik, eds., Qumrân grotte 4.II., 86.; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Study of the Aramaic Background of the New Testament,” in A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays, ed. Joseph A. Fitzmyer (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979), 5. 7  Both Aramaic Job texts from Cave 4 and 11 have been dated on palaeographic grounds to the 1st century ce, see De Vaux and Milik, eds., Qumrân grotte 4.II; Florentino García Martínez, Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, and Adam S. van der Woude, Qumran Cave 11. II, 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31, DJD XXIII (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 79–81. The palaeographic dating of 4Q156 at least indicates a terminus ad quem for the translating of this text and leaves open the possibility that it was translated even earlier during the Second Temple Period.

LEVITICUS IN OLD GREEK & QUMRAN ARAMAIC

251

Targumim which were probably produced at a slightly later date.8 The present study will also reference the Samaritan Targum, Peshitta as well as later Jewish Greek versions so as to illustrate some of the diachronic similarities and differences between Aramaic and Greek translations which date from before and after the Second Temple period.9 1 Methodology Scholars have long been aware of the need for a more nuanced understanding of the ways in which the translation technique of a work may be described as “literal” or “free.” Notably in this regard, James Barr has shown that without further qualification the use of such terms provide us with limited insight into the translation technique of the translator. For instance, a translation may be very “literal” in one respect by following the word order of the Vorlage on the one hand, while being entirely “free” or inconsistent in rendering a certain lexeme on the other.10 Following Barr, scholars engaged in the study of the early versions of the Hebrew Bible have developed an array of quantitative and qualitative approaches in order to more adequately describe translation technique.11 Still more recent research into the translation techniques of both 8    For an introduction to some of the issues relating to dating the Targumim see Paul V.M. Flesher and Bruce Chilton, The Targums: A Critical Introduction, Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 12 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 151–66. 9   This paper represents an initial “probe” assessing the translation technique of the Qumran Aramaic Version of Leviticus with the corresponding sections of the Old Greek and relates to my doctoral research on comparing the translation technique of the more substantially preserved Qumran Aramaic Version of Job with the Old Greek of Job. 10  See James Barr, The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations, MSU 15 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 6. 11  For example, Emmanuel Tov or Benjamin Wright’s use of quantitative criteria to assess translation technique. Note also the studies of scholars such as Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, Anneli Aejmelaeus and Raija Sollamo who have analysed how specific Hebrew constructions are rendered in Greek. Emanuel Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research, JBS 3 (Jerusalem: Simor, 1981); Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, Die Infinitive in der Septuaginta, Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia Sarja B 132.1 (Helsinki: Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemia, 1965); Benjamin G. Wright, “The Quantitative Representation of Elements: Evaluating ‘Literalism’ in the LXX,” in VI Congress of the IOSCS, Jerusalem, 1986, ed. Claude E. Cox, SBLSCS 23 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 311–35; Raija Sollamo, Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions in the Septuagint, AASF 19 (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1979); Anneli Aejmelaeus, Parataxis in the Septuagint: A Study of the Renderings of the Hebrew Coordinate Clauses in the Greek Pentateuch, AASF 31 (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1982).

252

Thomas

Aramaic and Greek Versions have attempted to draw more explicitly from the field of Translation Studies in their methodological approach.12 The present analysis will make use of Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS) as a methodological framework while, the consonantal Masoretic Text has been adopted as an initial basis from which to compare each element (corresponding to Toury’s notion of “segments”)13 of QarLev and the corresponding sections in the other versions. All departures from the presumed source text (mt) in the respective target texts such as additions / pluses, omissions / minuses,

  Similarly, scholars engaged in the study of the Aramaic Versions, such as Smelik in his work on the Targum of Judges, have also developed methods to analyse these translations while also giving attention to the Greek versions of these texts; see Willem F. Smelik, The Targum of Judges, OtSt 36 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 189–322. 12  See especially Theo A.W. van der Louw, Transformations in the Septuagint: Towards an Interaction of Septuagint Studies and Translation Studies, CBET 47 (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 25–55. See also Cameron Boyd-Taylor, Reading between the Lines: The Interlinear Paradigm for Septuagint Studies, BTS 8 (Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 55–87. Tully’s work on the Peshitta of Hosea adapts Andrew Chesterman’s “Causal Model of Translation”: Eric J. Tully, The Translation and Translator of the Peshitta of Hosea, Monographs of the Peshiṭta Institute, Amsterdam—Studies in the Syriac Versions of the Bible and Their Cultural Contexts (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 15–37. Note also his discussion of the relationship between Chesterman’s and Toury’s models. Table taken from Tully, The Translation and Translator, 32. Causal model (Chesterman)

descriptive studies (Toury)

Cognitive/Behavioral/Sociocultural effects (on target language, on actions, reception etc.)

Study the translation in terms of acceptability in the target system

Translation Profile (linguistic features)

Compare the textual segments

Translation Act (cognitive: state of knowledge, mood, self-image)

Establish translation relationships

Establish the identity of the source text Identify Shifts

Translation Event (situational: Skopos, source text, deadline etc.)

Describe the equivalence

Socio-cultural Context (norms, history, ideologies, languages, etc.)

Explain the overall concept of translation

Operational Norms

Preliminary Norms

13  Gideon Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond, Benjamins Translation Library 100 (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1995), 88–89.

LEVITICUS IN OLD GREEK & QUMRAN ARAMAIC

253

substitutions and transpositions have been noted and categorized.14 In order to ascertain whether a particular element or expression observed in the target text is idiomatic in the target language a comparison with compositional texts in the respective target languages provides a necessary control. At the same time, some aspects of the translation technique are more appropriately described quantitatively as seen, for example, by Emanuel Tov’s or Ben Wright’s use of quantitative criteria to assess the “literalness” of a translation. In this respect, it seems helpful to refer to “isomorphism,” a term first introduced by Cameron Boyd-Taylor into lxx studies to describe a specific type of quantitative representation where a one to one relationship exists between items in the source and target texts.15 Before positing the existence of a variant Hebrew Vorlage behind particular departures, other possible explanations have been considered such as the linguistic or stylistic constraints of the target language as well as extra-linguistic factors such as the exegetical activity or intervention of the translator. It is these departures from a “formally equivalent” rendering which most clearly reveal the translator’s “Operational Norms” (i.e. those patterns in the target text which indicate the translator’s values and approach to translation).16 It is the Operational Norms in turn which provide a basis for making evaluations concerning the circumstances of the translation, such as the choice of the source text—what Toury calls the “Preliminary Norms.”17 Given what little of QarLev has been preserved it must be stated at the outset of this investigation that one should remain realistic about how much of the translator’s approach and the circumstances surrounding the translation can be revealed by a study such as this. For the purposes of this study we will discuss the following indices of the translators’ approach: (1) the Hebrew nota accusativi ‫( ;את‬2) the semipreposition ‫( ;על־פני‬3) the use of pronominal suffixes; (4) departures from the word order of the source text (or transpositions); (5) the nature of the pluses in both QarLev and og Lev; and (6), instances of “lexical substitutions.”

14  For the use of pluses and minuses see Tov, Textual Criticism, 221–25. 15  Cameron Boyd-Taylor, “A Place in the Sun,” BIOSCS 31 (1998): 71–105, here 75. See also Wade Albert Wright’s discussion on isomorphism (on pages 145–146) in his article “A Devil in the Making: Isomorphism and Exegesis in OG Job 1:8b,” in Septuagint Research: Issues … Scriptures, ed. Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden, SBLSCS 53 (Leiden: Brill, 2006). 16  Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies, 54. 17  Ibid., 58.

254 2

Thomas

Rendering of Nota Accusativi ‫את‬

The first index of translation which we shall consider is the rendering of the Hebrew direct object marker ‫ את‬which usually occurs before a definite noun phrase.18 The Aramaic Targumim display considerable care to render each instance of the direct object marker ‫ ;את‬compositional Aramaic texts however show varying degrees of the use or non-use of the direct object marker.19 For that matter, the Targumim show a remarkable reluctance to omit any element of the Hebrew source text.20 This concern to represent the Hebrew direct object marker ‫ את‬is not unique to the Targumim for we also observe that the lxx version of Qoheleth, as well as Aquila, attempt to represent this element in translation.21 The Greek translator, unlike the Targumist, faces a greater difficulty in isomorphically representing the direct object marker ‫ את‬because the object may simply be expressed with the use of the accusative case in Greek. As is well known, in order to overcome this difficulty, Aquila forms an equivalence between the nota accusativi and the preposition ‫ את‬meaning “with” so that both Hebrew words are consistently represented by the same word σύν. In these instances, σύν is chosen where ‫ את‬is followed by a definite article or ‫כל‬, or where a detached pronoun follows. In instances where there is no definite article, such as when the Hebrew construct state occurs, ‫ את‬is itself simply 18  Bruce K. Waltke and Michael P. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990); Rivka Shemsh, “Object,” in Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, ed. Geoffrey A. Khan (Leiden: Brill, 2013), II.917. Paul Joüon and Takamitsu Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 2nd ed. (Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2006), 414–17. 19  Margaretha L. Folmer, “The Use and Form of the nota accusativi in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic Inscriptions,” in Aramaic in its Historical and Linguistic Setting, ed. Holger Gzella and Margaretha L. Folmer, Veröffentlichungen der orientalischen Kommission Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz 50 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2008), 131– 58. David Shepherd, Targum and Translation: A Reconsideration of the Qumran Aramaic Version of Job, SSN 45 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 2004), 117–124. 20  Alexander Samely, The Interpretation of Speech in the Pentateuch Targums: A Study of Method and Presentation in Targumic Exegisis, TSAJ 27 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1992), 179. 21  For a general introduction to Aquila’s recension see Natalio Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 109–22. For a discussion of the dissimilarities between Aquila’s recension and lxx Qoheleth see Kyösti Hyvärinen, Die Übersetzung von Aquila, ConBOT 10 (Lund: Gleerup; Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1977), 89–99. The use of σύν in Qoheleth has in some instances been understood as adverbial and thereby imitates Homeric Greek see Dominique Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila: Première publication intégrale du texte des fragments du Dodécaprophéton, VTSup 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1963), 16. On some of the difficulties of identifying Aquila with Rabbinic Exegesis see Lester L. Grabbe, “Aquila’s Translation and Rabbinic Exegesis,” JJS 33 (1982): 527–36.

LEVITICUS IN OLD GREEK & QUMRAN ARAMAIC

255

rendered with the definite article and so quantitative equivalence with the source text is maintained.22 In contrast to both the Targumim and Aquila’s version, both QarLev and og Lev share a willingness to leave this Hebrew element unrepresented where it does not suit the idiom of the respective target languages. On two occasions in Lev 16:21 we find that whereas the Targumim represent ‫ את‬with cognate Aramaic ‫ית‬, the Qumran Aramaic, as well as the Peshitta, simply omit the direct object marker altogether. As noted by Shepherd, the willingness of the Peshitta and Qumran Aramaic to omit the direct object marker appears to be related to the relative infrequency of the use of ‫ ית‬in compositional Middle Aramaic and Syriac texts.23 We do observe, however, that in verse 20 the Qumran and other Aramaic versions (with the exception of Targum Neofiti which uses ‫ )ית‬render ‫ את‬with ‫על‬. The use of ‫ על‬to represent ‫ את‬can be explained by observing that when the verb ‫ כפר‬is used, the noun is typically governed by the preposition ‫על‬ in compositional Middle Aramaic texts.24 In an analogous manner to QarLev, the og shows a willingness to omit the nota accusativi as the accusative case in Greek is sufficient to denote the object of the sentence. In verse 20 we observe that the Hebrew ‫ את הקדש‬is simply rendered as τὸ ἅγιον and the direct object marker is left unrepresented in translation (the Greek article representing the Hebrew article ‫)ה‬. We find that in the other two parallel instances in verse 21 where QarLev omits the direct object maker, og Lev is able to represent this element quantitatively by means of the idiomatic use of the Greek definite article. With respect to the rendering of the nota accusativi then, both QarLev and og Lev display a willingness to leave the Hebrew nota accusativi unrepresented according to the demands of their respective Aramaic and Greek target languages. 3

The Rendering of ‫על־פני‬

The second aspect of translation technique which we shall consider is the rendering of the semi-preposition ‫ על־פני‬in verse 14. In this case, both QarLev and og Lev offer a similar departure from the source text in that they leave the 22  See Francis C. Burkitt, Fragments of the Books of Kings According to the Translation of Aquila (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1897), 12.; Swete, Thackeray, and Ottley, Introduction, 38–41.; Hyvärinen, Die Übersetzung von Aquila, 26–29.; James K. Aitken, “Ecclesiastes,” in The T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint (London: T&T Clark, 2015), 362. 23  Shepherd, “What’s in a Name?,” 198. 24  Ibid., 197.

256

Thomas

second element of the semi-preposition ‫ פני‬unrepresented. In this connection, it is worth noting that some forms of Aramaic tolerate the isomorphic rendering of the Hebrew semi-preposition with its Aramaic cognate ‫( על־אנפי‬see, for instance, the Aramaic texts from Elephantine and 4Q550 and 4Q573).25 Given this, the Qumran Aramaic translator’s decision to adopt a non-isomorphic rendering of Hebrew ‫ על־פני‬here may reflect an attempt to harmonise the different prepositions used in verses 14 and 15 to refer to where specifically the blood is to be sprinkled upon the ‫כפרת‬.26 By using the preposition ‫ על‬to harmonise the readings in verses 14 and 15, the translator has produced a simplified rendering of the Hebrew text.27 This is in contrast to Targum Onqelos, Neofiti and Pseudo-Jonathan which render the Hebrew semi-preposition isomorphically with Aramaic ‫ על־אנפי‬on the three occasions it appears in Leviticus. The Peshitta does likewise offering a Syriac semi-preposition in all three cases, yet this version shows less rigidity than the Targumim by using different equivalents: twice ‫( ܠܐܦܝ‬Lev 14:7 and 16:14) and once ‫ ܥܠ ܐܦܝ‬in Lev 17:5. The Samaritan Targum adopts ‫ על־אפי‬in Lev 14:7 and Lev 17:5 but in 16:14 substitutes ‫ עם־קדם‬which has the sense of “before, in front of.”28 The substitution in the Samaritan Targum appears to harmonise the two actions in verse 14 (the blood in both instances being sprinkled “before” the altar). As in the case of QarLev, we observe that in og Lev the same preposition (ἐπί) is used to render ‫ על‬in verse 15 and ‫ על־פני‬of verse 14. By using the same preposition in verses 14 and 15 og Lev, like QarLev, achieves a harmonised reading of the text. However, there is one notable difference in that og Lev is more constrained by the demands of the Greek target language than QarLev (which could have used the idiomatic and isomorphic cognate ‫על־א(נ)פי‬. While there are instances in the Old Greek Pentateuch where the semi-preposition is rendered isomorphically as ἐπὶ πρόσωπον or ἐπὶ προσώπου where it has the sense of “on the surface of,” no such occurrences are attested in compositional Koine texts.29 In all three instances of the rendering of ‫ על־פני‬in og Lev, 25  TAD B2.6.19: ‫“ כל זי איתי לה על אנפי ארעא‬all that he has on the face of the earth.” From Qumran: 4Q550 frg. 8, ln. 5 and 4Q573 frg. 1, ln. 6. The isomorphic rendering ‫ על־אנפי‬is used twice in 11Q10 (col. xxix line 1 and 3). 26  Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 3 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 1032. 27  See Shepherd, Targum and Translation, 117–22. 28  Abraham Tal, A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 757. 29  In the Greek Pentateuch we find that the semi-preposition ‫ על־פני‬is rendered in a number of different ways depending on the meaning of the semi-preposition. Raija Sollamo distinguishes between instances where the semi-preposition is taken to mean “in front of, before” from cases where it has the sense of “on the surface of, upon” (as in Lev 16:14). In cases where it has the sense “on the surface of, upon” (as in Lev 16:14) only non-isomorphic

LEVITICUS IN OLD GREEK & QUMRAN ARAMAIC

257

each occurrence is rendered non-isomorphically using prepositions attested in compositional Koine texts (OG Lev 14:7 εἰς; 16:14 ἐπί; 17:5 ἐν). That the Old Greek translator of Leviticus adopts different non-isomorphic renderings in each instance where the mt has the semi-preposition ‫ על־פני‬further supports the notion that the translator’s technique (and not necessarily a variant Vorlage) is the reason for the observed omission in verse 14. In places where Aquila’s version is extant, we observe that ‫ על־פני‬is consistently rendered isomorphically with ἐπὶ πρόσωπον (and on two occasions ἐπὶ προσώπου) thereby achieving quantitative equivalence with the source text.30 We also observe in Theodotion’s additions in the book of Job that ‫ על־פני‬is rendered isomorphically as ἐπὶ πρόσωπον.31 We see then that both QarLev and og Lev render the Hebrew preposition ‫ על־פני‬with a preposition consistent with the idiom of the target languages and share a willingness to omit an element of the source text which contrasts with some of the later Greek and Aramaic translations such as that of Aquila and the Targumim. 4

Representation of Hebrew Pronominal Suffixes (Addition and Omission)

The next aspect of translation technique to which we shall now turn our attention is the use of pronominal suffixes in each of the target texts. In this respect, Aramaic and Greek show a marked difference with respect to the acceptability of this construction in their respective target languages. In Hebrew, the use of pronominal suffixes is commonly used to express possession;32 the same is also true of Aramaic.33 While possessive suffixes are found in compositional Koine Greek texts, their rarity in Classical Greek and the abundance of possessive pronouns attested in the books of the Septuagint makes it a distinctive feature of its language as a translation of the Hebrew.34 Nevertheless, Soisalon-Soininen notes that in the case of pronominal suffixes attached to body parts and animal sacrifices in the mt of Leviticus, in over half of the instances (78 out of a total 136 times) the Old Greek translator leaves the pronominal suffix of the renderings (such as ἐπάνω, εἰς, ἐπι etc.) find any parallels in Greek texts outside of the Septuagint. Sollamo, Renderings, 102–13. 30  See Hyvärinen, Die Übersetzung von Aquila, 46. 31  Job 18:17; 24:18; 26:10. 32  Joüon and Muraoka, Grammar, 262–267. 33  Takamitsu Muraoka, A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic, ANESS 1 (Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 37–47. 34  Raija Sollamo, Repetition of the Possessive Pronouns in the Septuagint, SBLSCS 40 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1995), 2–3.

258

Thomas

body part unrepresented.35 This is seen in Lev 16:12 where the Greek translator does not translate the suffix relating to the High Priest’s handfuls (‫)חפניו‬ whereas a Hexaplaric reading renders the Hebrew element with αὐτου. We also observe that the Greek translator leaves the pronominal suffix of ‫( באצבעו‬v. 14) untranslated as the translator does in all suffixed instances of ‫ אצבע‬in the book of Leviticus.36 While the series of pronominal suffixes attached to coordinate nouns in the Hebrew of v. 21 are all represented in the Old Greek, these are the only two instances in og Lev (apart from 14:28) where the pronominal suffixes are represented for three coordinate nouns; in the other five instances the pronominal suffixes are left unrepresented altogether.37 Sollamo attributes this discrepancy to human inconsistency and the fact that the genitive case alone in Greek is sufficient to connect multiple coordinated nouns; hence the repetition of a possessive pronoun is not needed with the second or third noun.38 Given the number of times that the Greek translator does render the Hebrew suffix one cannot assert that the Old Greek translator has a deliberate strategy of leaving the pronominal suffix unrepresented in translation. Nevertheless, what can be observed is a willingness on the part of the og translator to leave the pronominal suffix unrepresented in a way which is consistent with the idiom of the target language. QarLev consistently renders the pronominal suffix of the Hebrew with the cognate Aramaic suffix in contrast to the Old Greek translator who is willing to leave the pronominal suffix unrepresented.39 In fact, at Lev 16:19 QarLev includes an additional pronominal suffix ‫ טמאתהון‬where none is present in the Masoretic Text to render the Hebrew construct state ‫מטמאת בני ישראל‬.40 The anticipatory pronominal suffix is attested in the Hebrew Bible and occurs primarily although not exclusively (see Lev 13:57 and Josh 1:2) in “Late Biblical Hebrew” texts (Dan 11:13; 1 Chron 4:42; 2 Chron 26:14); it is nevertheless a 35  Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, “Die Auslassung des Possessivpronomens im Griechischen Pentateuch,” in Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax, ed. Anneli Aejmelaeus and Raija Sollamo, Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia Sarja B 237 (Helsinki: Suomelainen Tiedeakatemia, 1987), 94–96. 36  Ibid., 96. 37  Sollamo, Repetition, 99. 38  Ibid., 96, 99. 39  There is some uncertainty regarding the reading of fragment 1 line 7, where some scholars read a suffixed feminine plural noun ‫ ;באצבעתה‬see De Vaux and Milik, eds., Qumrân grotte 4.II. See also Freedman and Stuckenbruck, “The Fragments of a Targum,” 88. 40  This form of the pronominal suffix rather than the ‫ ־הום‬ending seems to resist the standardising tendency under the Persian administration although it is attested at Elephantine, and especially among the Hermopolis papyri, see Freedman and Stuckenbruck, “The Fragments of a Targum,” 91.

LEVITICUS IN OLD GREEK & QUMRAN ARAMAIC

259

relatively uncommon construction in Hebrew.41 Given that this construction is attested in Hebrew it may be possible that the pronominal suffix in verse 19 may be attributed to QarLev’s Vorlage.42 This plus, however, may perhaps be more easily explained as a result of the translator’s attempt to accommodate the text to the idiom of the target language. The use of an anticipatory pronominal suffix is widely attested among the Elephantine Papyri, and may be found in Biblical and Middle Aramaic as well as in later Aramaic dialects.43 Moreover, although the Peshitta does not show the plus found in QarLev at this point, an anticipatory suffix is often added by its translator in a genitive construction to further specify the nomen rectum in keeping with Syriac idiom.44 While both QarLev and og Lev show a divergence in translation technique at this point (one more willing to omit the pronominal suffix while the other adds a pronominal suffix), both renderings better accord with the idiom of their respective target languages. 5

Transposition (Word Order)

When rendering the source text into the target language, a translator may depart from the word order of the source text for reasons of style or syntax.45 In the text under consideration both QarLev and og Lev show one clear 41  Wilhelm Gesenius and Emil Kautzsch, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, trans. A.E. Cowley, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910), 425–26. The evidence from Hebrew compositions from Qumran is contested; see Takamitsu Muraoka, “An Approach to the Morphosyntax and Syntax of Qumran Hebrew,” in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, ed. Takamitsu Muraoka and John Elwolde, STDJ 36 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 193–214, here 199–200; and Martin F.J. Baasten, “Anticipatory Pronominal Agreement and Qumran Hebrew Phraseology,” in MEAH 53 (2004): 59–72. 42  Among the 14 Hebrew manuscripts of Leviticus from Qumran and Masada no variants have been preserved which include a plus of an anticipatory pronominal suffix. 43  Hans Bauer and Pontus Leander, Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1927), 314. Franz Rosenthal, A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic, 4th ed., Porta Linguarum Orientalium 5 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1974), 20, 25, 50–51. Abraham Tal, Samaritan Aramaic, Lehrbücher orientalischer Sprachen III.2 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2013), 85. Margaretha L. Folmer, The Aramaic Language in the Achaemenid Period: A Study in Linguistic Variation, OLA 68 (Leuven: Peeters, 1995), 261; Emil Kautzsch, Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen: Mit einer kritischen Erörterung der aramäischen Wörter im neuen Testament (Leipzig: Vogel, 1884). Milik’s edition of 4Q156 reconstructs enough space in the lacunae after ‫ ]ט]מאת[הו]ן‬to include ‫די בני ישראל‬. 44  David J. Lane, The Peshiṭta of Leviticus, Monographs of the Peshiṭta Institute Leiden 6 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 106–07. 45  Shepherd, Targum and Translation, 125–27.

260

Thomas

departure from the word order of the mt. The instance of the departure from the word order of the Hebrew in og Lev is found in verse 12 where the phrase ‫“ מלא המחתה גחלי אש‬a full firepan of coals of fire” is rendered as τὸ πυρεῖον πλῆρες ἀνθράκων πυρὸς “fire-pan full of coals of fire.”46 Adhering to the word order of the Hebrew in this case would have made for a difficult Greek reading. Soisalon-Soininen remarks that in the Greek Pentateuch, Hebrew technical terms, especially in relation to ceremonial rites, are often rendered idiomatically in Greek simply by departing from the Hebrew word order.47 In order to make better sense of the Hebrew expression, the Old Greek translator transposes the Hebrew element ‫ מלא‬so as to clarify for the Greek reader what it is that the fire-pan is full of.48 A number of manuscripts, likely due to Hexaplaric influence, attest a rendering which more closely follows the word order of the Hebrew source text (τὸ πλῆρες πυρεῖον ἀνθράκων πυρὸς).49 In QarLev, the transposition occurs in verse 14 at a point where an ambiguity in the Hebrew text arises concerning where precisely the blood is to be sprinkled in the Holy of Holies. Firstly, the Hebrew suggests that the blood should be sprinkled upon the ‫ כפרת‬itself without reference to a particular side or direction. It is with the second action that the ambiguity arises as it is less clear whether the blood is to be sprinkled on the eastern side of the ‫ כפרת‬itself or on the floor beyond the ‫כפרת‬.50 The Qumran Aramaic translator transposes the Hebrew element ‫“ קדמה‬towards the east” so that it is placed after the second occurrence of ‫ כפרת‬so that the clause now reads ‫“ וקדם כסיא למדנחא‬and in front of the cover, towards the east.” As Shepherd argues, the transposition effectively reads the adverb ‫ קדמה‬in association with the subsequent clause.51 By transposing ‫ למדנחא‬in this way, the Qumran Aramaic translator interprets the action as consisting first of the High Priest sprinkling the ‫ כפרת‬itself (as is stated in v. 15) and then the eastern part of the adytum i.e. the portion of the floor between its entrance and the ‫כפרת‬. This kind of transposition which 46  One may also note a similar construction in the Hebrew of Isaiah 6:3: ‫מלא כל הארץ כבודו‬ “the fullness of all the earth is His glory” where the Old Greek translator of Isaiah renders the phrase isomorphically. Such as in Exod 13:3, 14, 16; Num 14:19 Deut 22:14; 24:1; 32:13; Soisalon-Soininen, 47   “Verschiedene Wiedergaben der Hebräischen Status-Constructus-Verbindung im griechischen Pentateuch,” in Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax, 67. 48  Note the position of πληρες in the following phrases: πληρες οἰκιέων “full of houses” Herodotus Hist. 1.180; ὁμίχλα … πλήρης δακρύων “a mist … full of tears” Aeschylus, Prom. 145; ποταμὸν … πλήρη δ᾽ ἰχθύων “a river … full of fish” Xenophon, Anab. 1.4.9. 49  John W. Wevers, Text History of the Greek Leviticus, MSU 19 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 246. 50  Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1034. 51  Shepherd, “What’s in a Name?,” 202.

LEVITICUS IN OLD GREEK & QUMRAN ARAMAIC

261

further specifies and hence clarifies the meaning of the Hebrew can also be seen in 11Q10 and the Peshitta.52 This is in contrast to the Targumim which seldom transpose elements of the Hebrew source text.53 Thus here both the Targumim and Hexaplaric readings show a greater tendency to follow the word order of the Hebrew source text than the og Lev and QarLev which both show a willingness to transpose elements of the source text. 6

Pluses in QarLev and og Lev

The Targumim, as has already been noted, rarely omit or transpose elements of their source text when translating; when adding elements in translation they do so in a way which is dependent on the wording of the Hebrew source text. This is seen for instance in Lev 16:13 with Pseudo-Jonathan’s expansion ‫באישא‬ ‫ מצלהבא קדם ייי‬explaining how the person would die if the procedure in the Holy of Holies is not followed correctly. While neither Onqelos nor Neofiti witness the kind of exegetical additions included in Pseudo-Jonathan (in the portions paralleled by QarLev), Targum Neofiti and the Peshitta do attest some pluses which are stylistic in nature such as the prepositional use of dalath (Tg. Neof. Lev 16:13; 18; 20 and Pesh. Lev 16:18). With respect to QarLev itself, one plus has already been touched upon in the above discussion of the anticipatory suffix found in verse 19. The other plus present in QarLev is that of ‫ בית‬in Lev 16:20, which renders Hebrew ‫“ הקדש‬the sanctuary” as ‫בית קדשא‬. The addition of ‫ בית‬when rendering ‫ הקדש‬is attested in the Targumic tradition. Targum Onqelos, for example, renders Hebrew ‫ הקדש‬at Lev 10:18 with ‫( בית קדשא‬where it is rendered by Grossfeld as “the sanctuary.”)54 52  Shepherd, Targum and Translation, 125–57. 53  See Samely, The Interpretation of Speech, 180. Observing the same difficulty in the Hebrew text, the og translator adopts a different strategy to resolve the tension in verse 14. Rather than transposing an element of the Hebrew source text the og translator leaves the third waw of verse 14 unrepresented. The asyndetic clause may, in some cases, express an inference, conclusion, result, consequence, or explanation. Aejmelaeus, Parataxis in the Septuagint, 85. Hence, the asyndetic clause in Lev 16:14 may be the og Lev translator’s attempt at clarifying the preceding clause by indicating that the blood is to be sprinkled “in front” or before the ‫ כפרת‬rather than on the eastern side of the ‫ כפרת‬itself, similar to QarLev’s understanding of the verse. Like og Lev, QarLev is also willing to omit the waw in translation such as in verse 20 where the translator marks the temporal clause with ‫כדי‬. Peshitta also makes a similar stylistic change by introducing a temporal conjunction of its own, ‫ ܘܡܐ‬see Shepherd, “What’s in a Name?,” 196. 54  Bernard Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Leviticus and the Targum Onqelos to Numbers, ArBib 8 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988), 20.

262

Thomas

We also find that on a number of occasions Targum Neofiti renders ‫ הקדש‬as ‫ ;בית קדשא‬in Leviticus 16 alone, Neofiti renders the Hebrew in this way on three occasions (Lev 16:17, 23, 32 and also in the margin of verse 16). The Old Greek on the other hand simply renders the Hebrew term isomorphically as τὸ ἅγιον “the adytum.” The interpretation of ‫ בית‬in this instance may be understood as a status constructus of the Aramaic noun ‫“ ביתא‬house”; indeed a number of English translations of QarLev render this phrase as “holy house.”55 However, ‫ בית‬in Aramaic may also be understood prepositionally as an “area designator” which would suggest the reading “the place of the sanctuary.”56 The possibility that ‫ בית‬should be understood as a preposition is further supported by the existence of the prepositional use of ‫ בית‬in Aramaic texts from Qumran as in the expression ‫ לבית קבורה‬in 4Q562.57 The plus of ‫ בית‬then may be explained on idiomatic grounds as designating the area of the sanctuary. Turning to the Old Greek we find a plus of 5 words (καὶ περὶ τῶν ἱερέων καθαριεῖ·) at Lev 16:20 with respect to the mt.58 This plus can be understood as arising from an attempt to reconcile verse 20 with verse 33, which explicitly mentions that the atonement ritual is effective for the priests as well as the Israelites. The issue here is whether such a plus is to be attributed to the Old Greek translator or to the Hebrew Vorlage used. John Wevers attributes this harmonization to the translator,59 however we do find at Qumran, harmonisations in the Old Greek which are already attested in the Hebrew manuscripts.60 Thus, while no known Hebrew manuscript of Leviticus attests the 55  Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Targum of Leviticus from Cave 4,” Maarav 1.1 (1978): 5–23, here 8. Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Leiden: Brill; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 303. Freedman and Stuckenbruck, “The Fragments of a Targum,” 81. Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer, 278–79. 56   Bernard Grossfeld, “The Derivative Meaning of the Particle ‫ בית‬in Compound Constructions in the Targum,” JSP 19 (1999): 23–34, here 25. Grossfeld lists a number of instances where ‫ בית‬is understood prepositionally in the Targumim. His argument recalls E. Nestle’s observation that Syriac ‫ ܒܝܬ‬is used prepositionally as well as A. Berliner’s observation of a similar usage in both Talmud and Targum. Such a prepositional use of ‫ בית‬which denotes locality as well as time is also seen in the Akkadian particle bit; see Grossfeld, “The Derivative Meaning,” 24. 57  4Q562 frg 7. ln 3 ‫“ אתר לבית קבורה‬the place of the cemetery.” 58  While verse 20 hasn’t been preserved completely in QarLev, enough of the fragment has survived to allow a reasonable estimate of the size of the lacuna. According to Milik’s reconstruction, there is insufficient space to include the plus found in the Old Greek. 59  John W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Leviticus, SBLSCS 44 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 251–52. 60  Sidnie W. Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times, Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 23–24.; Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 258–59.

LEVITICUS IN OLD GREEK & QUMRAN ARAMAIC

263

plus found in the Old Greek here, we do observe a few harmonisations among the Hebrew texts of Leviticus from Qumran. For example, in Lev 26:24 we observe that the plus θυμῷ πλαγίῳ (which harmonises with Lev 26:28) is reflected in 11QpaleoLeva as ‫בחמת קרי‬. While agreement among the 12 Hebrew manuscripts of Leviticus and harmonizing pluses in the Septuagint are rare, what the example from 11QpaleoLeva shows is that such harmonising pluses may be found in Hebrew manuscripts. In relation to the extant fragments of QarLev, while a harmonising tendency has been argued above with respect to the rendering of the semi-preposition ‫ על־פני‬in verse 14, no such harmonising tendency involving a plus is seen in QarLev. 7

Lexical Substitution

The final index of translation technique which we shall consider is lexical substitution. This kind of substitution may be the result of a particular exegetical understanding or the result of rendering a word in the source text which has no known corresponding lexeme in the target language.61 The first example which we shall consider is the rendering of ‫ כפרת‬in both QarLev and og Lev. The importance of the ‫ כפרת‬as a cultic and ceremonial object is seen in its location at the physical centre of the sanctuary and its centrality as a focus for both the revelation of God (Exod 25:22; Lev 16:2) and atonement for sin (Lev 16).62 The exact function which this object had in the sacrificial system is less clear. It is remarkable then, that QarLev chose to render this Hebrew term in Aramaic simply by using the noun “cover” ‫כסיא‬.63 The rendering of ‫ כפרת‬as ‫ כסיא‬in QarLev represents a definite attempt to translate the term into Aramaic rather than what appears to be a conjectural translation by the Targumim which render it as ‫;כפרתא‬64 this is in distinction to what is observed in verse 13 61  See Sebastian P. Brock, “Aspects of Translation Technique in Antiquity,” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 20 (1979): 84. John A.L. Lee, A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch, SBLSCS 44 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1983), 31–52. In rendering certain lexemes of the source text, Lee notes three different approaches which the translator may adopt: transcription, etymological translation or cultural equivalent. 62  See De Vaux and Milik, eds., Qumrân grotte 4.II., 92–93. 63  Another possible substitution in QarLev may be found in verse 13 however the reading is uncertain. Milik reconstructs ‫ ]—[ ̇כש‬and suggests the reading ‫ כשת‬or ‫כשרת‬. Freedman and Stuckenbruck suggest the reading ‫ ̇ב ̇ש[מין‬see Freedman and Stuckenbruck, “The Fragments of a Targum,” 89. 64  The use of ‫ כפרתא‬is not attested in Aramaic documents prior to its appearance in the Targumim.

264

Thomas

where QarLev renders the term ‫ פרכת‬with the apparent Hebraism ‫פרכתא‬.65 As noted by Freedman and Stuckenbruck, the decision to use ‫ כסיא‬may be due to the influence of the verbal root ‫ כסי‬earlier in verse 13 which may reflect a simplifying tendency with respect to related nouns and verbs.66 The og Lev on the other hand, supplies the term ἱλαστήριον (Vulgate propitiatorum) in its rendering of the Hebrew term which suggests something of the cultic significance of this object. This also appears to be a new word formation in Greek which is peculiar to the Septuagint.67 In this case QarLev and og Lev differ in their approach to the rendering of this term. Another instance of a lexical substitution in og Lev is found in Lev 16:13 where ‫“ ענן‬cloud” is translated by ἀτμίς and not the usual rendering νεφέλη.68 An ἀτμίς is essentially a mist or vapour, hardly a thick cloud to hide the ‫כפרת‬ from the view of the priests. The translator had previously used νεφέλη for ‫ענן‬ in verse 2 in the context of the Lord’s self-revelation through the “cloud.” The substitution of ἀτμίς then, appears to be a deliberate theologically motivated substitution in order to make a distinction between the divine self-revelation in verse 2 and the atonement ritual. Targum Neofiti and Pseudo-Jonathan both reflect a similar exegetical understanding of the verse as Neofiti substitutes the noun ‫“ תננה‬smoke” and Pseudo-Jonathan renders the noun as ‫“ ענן תנן‬cloud 65  Christian Stadel, Hebraismen in den aramäischen Texten vom Toten Meer, Schriften der Hochschule für Jüdische Studien Heidelberg 11 (Heidelberg: Winter, 2008), 104–06. It should also be noted that in other places QarLev displays a reluctance to use the cognate Aramaic root to render the Hebrew such as when rendering ‫ נתן‬as ‫ שוה‬in verse 13 (contra Targums and Peshitta). Freedman and Stuckenbruck suggest that the decision to use the Aramaic noun ‫ כסיא‬may be a reflection of the circles which gave rise to the translation, a group who did not attach a specific theological significance to the sheet of gold that covered the ark of the testimony in the Holy of Holies; see Freedman and Stuckenbruck, “The Fragments of a Targum,” 92. While this interpretation is possible, this is perhaps to read too much into the rendering given that this item was such an important part of the Yom Kippur ritual. 66  Freedman and Stuckenbruck, “The Fragments of a Targum,” 92. A cognate noun ksy’ is also attested among the Aramaic inscriptions from Hatran (H 281) within a list of Temple items. Klaus Beyer, ed., Die Aramäischen Inschriften aus Assur, Hatra und dem übrigen Ostmesopotamien (datiert 44 v. Chr. bis 238 n. Chr.) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 81. 67  Lee, A Lexical Study, 51. In the first occurrence of the term in the Greek Pentateuch the notion of a “cover” is not entirely lost ἱλαστήριον ἐπίθεμα (Exod 25:17). See Fitzmyer, “The Targum of Leviticus from Cave 4,” 15–17. The 1st c. ce writer Dio Chrysostom (Or. 11.121) uses this noun ἱλαστήριον or “propitiatory gift” to designate the Trojan Horse, called a θελκτήριον or “charm” by Homer (Od. 8.509). 68  Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text, 247.

LEVITICUS IN OLD GREEK & QUMRAN ARAMAIC

265

of smoke.” On this occasion QarLev renders the Hebrew term isomorphically with the cognate term ‫ ענן‬as does Onqelos, Peshitta and the Samaritan Targum. 8 Conclusions To summarise, both QarLev and og Lev show a greater willingness to render the source text according to the linguistic or idiomatic demands of their respective target languages than do the later Targumim or Aquila’s version. In this respect QarLev most closely resembles the Peshitta in its willingness to accommodate the source text to the idiom of the target language. The difference between QarLev and og Lev and the later Targumim and Hexaplaric witnesses can be seen in their willingness to omit elements of their source texts such as the nota accusativi and to adopt non-isomorphic renderings of the semipreposition ‫( על־פני‬see Table 11.1 below). Another point of agreement between og Lev and QarLev in distinction to later Targumim and Hexaplaric readings is that they show a willingness to transpose elements of their Hebrew Vorlagen. We also note points of divergence between QarLev and og Lev due to language specific constraints such as the use of the pronominal suffixes; while both versions differ at this point both do so in order to better accommodate the text to the idiom of the target language. With respect to the two pluses noted in QarLev, both can be explained on idiomatic grounds as accommodations to the target language. The harmonising plus attested in og Lev is not attested in the extant fragments of QarLev. Furthermore, QarLev and og Lev differ in their approach to rendering the lexemes ‫ כפרת‬and ‫ענן‬. QarLev does not opt for a new word formation to render ‫ כפרת‬and simply translates using the noun ‫ ;כסיא‬and unlike og Lev, Neofiti or Pseudo-Jonathan, the Hebrew noun ‫ ענן‬is rendered literally without any exegetical addition or substitution. The fragmentary nature of QarLev is such that the results of this study remain tentative and only indicative of the translator’s approach to translation; more remains to be said concerning the Aramaic Versions of Job and Leviticus from Qumran. Nevertheless, it is hoped that this brief study has shown that the earliest known Aramaic and Greek translations of Leviticus from the Second Temple period demonstrate in certain respects a similar kind of approach, or genus, of translation which differs in important ways from the later Targumic and Jewish Greek versions.

266

Thomas

Table 11.1 Quantitative agreement of the 4Q156 and versions with the Masoretic text Minuses

Pluses

Transpositions

Substitutions

Qumran Aramaic Leviticus (4Q156)

3

2

1

3

Old Greek Leviticus

6

5

1

1

Onqelos

0

0

0

0

Neofiti

0

5

0

1

Pseudo-Jonathan

0

14

0

1

Peshitta

3

7

0

3

Samaritan

0

0

0

4

Acknowledgements I would like to express my gratitude to Dr David Shepherd in particular and others at IOSOT 2016 for their comments and suggestions. Responsibility for any deficiencies in what follows rests with the author. Bibliography Aejmelaeus, Anneli, Parataxis in the Septuagint: A Study of the Renderings of the Hebrew Coordinate Clauses in the Greek Pentateuch, AASF 31 (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1982). Aitken, James K., The T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint (London: T&T Clark, 2015). Barr, James, The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations, MSU 15 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979). Baasten, Martin F.J., “Anticipatory Pronominal Agreement and Qumran Hebrew Phraseology,” MEAH 53 (2004), 59–72. Bauer, Hans and Pontus Leander, Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1927). Barthélemy, Dominique, Les devanciers d’Aquila: Première publication intégrale du texte des fragments du Dodécaprophéton, VTSup 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1963). Beyer, Klaus, ed., Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer samt den Inschriften aus Palästina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984).

LEVITICUS IN OLD GREEK & QUMRAN ARAMAIC

267

Beyer, Klaus, ed., Die aramäischen Inschriften aus Assur, Hatra und dem übrigen Ostmesopotamien (datiert 44 v. Chr. bis 238 n. Chr.) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998). Boyd-Taylor, Cameron, “A Place in the Sun,” BIOSCS 31 (1998): 71–105. Boyd-Taylor, Cameron, Reading between the Lines: The Interlinear Paradigm for Septuagint Studies, BTS 8 (Leuven: Peeters, 2011). Brock, Sebastian P., “Aspects of Translation Technique in Antiquity,” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 20 (1979): 84. Burkitt, Francis C., Fragments of the Books of Kings According to the Translation of Aquila (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1897). Churgin, Pinkhos, “The Targum and the Septuagint,” AJSL 50.1 (1933): 41–65. Crawford, Sidnie W., Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times, Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2008). Delekat, Lienhard, “Ein Septuagintatargum,” VT 8 (1958): 225–52. De Troyer, Kristin, “The Hebrew Text Behind the Greek Text of the Pentateuch,” in XIV Congress of the IOSCS, Helsinki, 2010, ed. Melvin K.H. Peters, SBLSCS 59 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), 15–32. De Vaux, Roland and Józef T. Milik, eds., Qumrân grotte 4.II. Archéologie. Tefellin, Mezuzot et Targums (4Q128–4Q157), DJD VI (Oxford: Clarendon, 1977). Dines, Jennifer M. and Michael A. Knibb, The Septuagint, Understanding the Bible and its World (London: T&T Clark, 2004). Fernández Marcos, Natalio, The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 2000). Fitzmyer, Joseph A., “The Study of the Aramaic Background of the New Testament,” in A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays, ed. Joseph A. Fitzmyer (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979). Flesher, Paul V.M. and Bruce Chilton, The Targums: A Critical Introduction, Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 12 (Leiden: Brill, 2011). Folmer, Margaretha L., The Aramaic Language in the Achaemenid Period: A Study in Linguistic Variation, OLA 68 (Leuven: Peeters, 1995). Folmer, Margaretha L., “The Use and Form of the nota accusativi in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic Inscriptions,” in Aramaic in its Historical and Linguistic Setting, ed. Holger Gzella and Margaretha L. Folmer, Veröffentlichungen der orientalischen Kommission Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz 50 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2008), 131–58. Frankel, Zacharias, Historisch-kritische Studien zu der Septuaginta (Leipzig: Vogel, 1841). Freedman, David A. and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “The Fragments of a Targum to Leviticus in Qumran Cave 4 (4Q156): A Linguistic Comparison and Assessment,” in

268

Thomas

Targum and Scripture: Studies in Aramaic Translations and Interpretation in Memory of Ernest G. Clarke, ed. Ernest G. Clarke and Paul V.M. Flesher (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 79–96. García Martínez, Florentino, Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, and Adam S. van der Woude, Qumran Cave 11. II, 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31, DJD XXIII (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998). García Martínez, Florentino and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Leiden: Brill; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000). Gesenius, Wilhelm and Emil Kautzsch, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, trans. A.E. Cowley, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910). Grabbe, Lester L., “Aquila’s Translation and Rabbinic Exegesis,” JJS 33 (1982): 527–36. Grossfeld, Bernard, The Targum Onqelos to Leviticus and the Targum Onqelos to Numbers, ArBib 8 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988). Grossfeld, Bernard, “The Derivative Meaning of the Particle ‫ בית‬in Compound Constructions in the Targum,” JSP 19 (1999): 23–34. Harlé, Paul and Didier Pralon, Le Lévitique, La Bible d’Alexandrie 3 (Paris: Cerf, 1988). Hyvärinen, Kyösti, Die Übersetzung von Aquila, ConBOT 10 (Lund: Gleerup; Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1977). Joüon, Paul and Takamitsu Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2006). Kautzsch, Emil, Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen: Mit einer kritischen Erörterung der aramäischen Wörter im neuen Testament (Leipzig: Vogel, 1884). Lane, David J., The Peshiṭta of Leviticus, Monographs of the Peshiṭta Institute Leiden 6 (Leiden: Brill, 1994). Lee, John A.L., A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch, SBLSCS 44 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1983). Louw, Theo A.W. van der, Transformations in the Septuagint: Towards an Interaction of Septuagint Studies and Translation Studies, CBET 47 (Leuven: Peeters, 2007). Louw, Theo A.W. van der, “Translation and Writing in 4QlxxLeva,” in The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. Thomas Römer, BETL 215 (Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 383–97. Margolis, Max L., A Manual of the Aramaic Language of the Babylonian Talmud: Grammar, Chrestomathy and Glossaries, Clavis Linguarum Semiticarum 3 (München: Beck, 1910). Milgrom, Jacob, Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 3 (New York: Doubleday, 1991). Muraoka, Takamitsu and John F. Elwolde, “An Approach to the Morphosyntax and Syntax of Qumran Hebrew,” in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, STDJ 36 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 193–214. Muraoka, Takamitsu, A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic (Leuven: Peeters, 2011).

LEVITICUS IN OLD GREEK & QUMRAN ARAMAIC

269

Rosenthal, Franz, A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic, 4th ed., Porta Linguarum Orientalium 5 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1974). Samely, Alexander, The Interpretation of Speech in the Pentateuch Targums: A Study of Method and Presentation in Targumic Exegisis, TSAJ 27 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1992). Shemsh, Rivka, “Object,” in Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, ed. Geoffrey A. Khan (Leiden: Brill, 2013), II.917. Shepherd, David, Targum and Translation: A Reconsideration of the Qumran Aramaic Version of Job, SSN 45 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 2004). Shepherd, David, “What’s in a Name? Targum and Taxonomy in Cave 4 at Qumran,” JSP 17/3 (2008): 189–206. Skehan, Patrick W., Eugene Ulrich, and Judith E. Sanderson, eds., Qumran Cave 4.IV: Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts, DJD IX (Oxford: Clarendon, 1992). Smelik, Willem F., The Targum of Judges, OtSt 36 (Leiden: Brill, 1995). Soisalon-Soininen, Ilmari, Die Infinitive in der Septuaginta, Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia Sarja B 132.1 (Helsinki: Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemia, 1965). Soisalon-Soininen, Ilmari, “Die Auslassung des Possessivpronomens im Griechischen Pentateuch,” in Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax, ed. Anneli Aejmelaeus and Raija Sollamo, Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia Sarja B 237 (Helsinki: Suomelainen Tiedeakatemia, 1987), 94–96. Sollamo, Raija, Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions in the Septuagint, AASF 19 (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1979). Sollamo, Raija, Repetition of the Possessive Pronouns in the Septuagint, SBLSCS 40 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1995). Stadel, Christian, Hebraismen in den aramäischen Texten vom Toten Meer, Schriften der Hochschule für Jüdische Studien Heidelberg 11 (Heidelberg: Winter, 2008). Stuckenbruck, Loren T., “Bibliography on 4QTgLev (4Q156),” JSP 5 (1992): 53–55. Swete, Henry B., Henry. St J. Thackeray, and Richard R. Ottley, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914). Tal, Abraham, A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic (Leiden: Brill, 2000). Tal, Abraham, Samaritan Aramaic, Lehrbücher orientalischer Sprachen III.2 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2013). Toury, Gideon, Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond, Benjamins Translation Library 100 (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1995). Tov, Emanuel, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research, JBS 3 (Jerusalem: Simor, 1981). Tov, Emanuel, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012). Tuinstra, Evert W., “Hermeneutische aspecten van de Targum van Job uit Grot XI van Qumrân,” (PhD diss. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 1970).

270

Thomas

Tully, Eric J., The Translation and Translator of the Peshitta of Hosea, Monographs of the Peshiṭta Institute, Amsterdam—Studies in the Syriac Versions of the Bible and Their Cultural Contexts (Leiden: Brill, 2015). Waltke, Bruce K. and Michael P. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990). Wevers, John W., Text History of the Greek Leviticus, MSU 19 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986). Wevers, John W., Notes on the Greek Text of Leviticus, SBLSCS 44 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1997). Wright, Benjamin G., “The Quantitative Representation of Elements: Evaluating ‘Literalism’ in the LXX,” in VI Congress of the IOSCS, Jerusalem, 1986, ed. Claude E. Cox, SBLSCS 23 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 311–35. Wright, Wade Albert, “A Devil in the Making: Isomorphism and Exegesis in OG Job 1:8b,” in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of Jewish Greek Scripture, ed. Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden, SBLSCS 53 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 145–156.

Chapter 12

More Evidence for a Samaritan Greek Bible: Two Septuagint Translation Traditions in the Samaritan Targum Christian Stadel In Late Antique Palestine, knowledge of Greek was widespread among Jews, Christians, and pagans, and levels of proficiency presumably ranged from monolingual Greek native-speakers to Greek-Aramaic bilinguals to Aramaic speakers with only a smattering of Greek. In Samaritan circles, too, Greek was used in various contexts; it is for example surprisingly frequent in synagogue inscriptions, i.e., in one section of the religious sphere.1 We may safely assume, then, that Greek-speaking Samaritans both in their homeland and in the diaspora used a Greek translation of the Pentateuch, either in lieu of the Hebrew Torah or supplementing it, as a means to better understand the elusive language of their sacred scripture. Indeed, remnants of such a translation have been identified in Samaritan Greek inscriptions that contain biblical verses, and in certain glosses to Septuagint manuscripts that are tagged as τὸ Σαμαρειτικόν, Samareitikon.2 But since the material consists only of scattered fragments, the nature of the Samareitikon and its relation to the Septuagint are debated: Was it a complete translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch or just a collection of variant readings? And does it represent an independent translation into Greek, or rather a Samaritan reworking of the Septuagint? The fact that some Samareitikon readings include Greek words synonymous with the Septuagint and do not affect the overall meaning of the verse is difficult to reconcile with the assumption of select glosses. It would rather seem that such readings originated in a complete translation.3 And since other readings 1  For an overview on the use of Greek among the Samaritans see Pieter W. van der Horst, “The Samaritan Languages in the Pre-Islamic Period,” JSJ 32 (2001): 178–92 (182–92). In earlier surveys of Samaritan languages, e.g., the section “Samaritan Languages” in The Samaritans, ed. Alan D. Crown (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989), 517–623, Greek is conspicuously absent. 2  Reinhard Pummer, “The Greek Bible and the Samaritans,” REJ 157 (1998): 269–358 presents the status quaestionis. 3   Jan Joosten, “Septuagint and Samareitikon,” in From Author to Copyist: Essays on the Composition, Redaction, and Transmission of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of Zipi Talshir, ed. Cana Werman (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 1–15 (8–9); This argument was first brought

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004416727_014

272

Stadel

evince a dependency on the text of the Septuagint, or display clear idiomatic affinities,4 the Samareitikon is best seen as a Samaritan recension of the Septuagint. When Greek ceased to be spoken in the Samaritan community, the Samareitikon fell out of use and was no longer copied.5 Hence, not much survives of this Samaritan Septuagint recension. To the bits and pieces mentioned above one may add anonymous glosses in Septuagint MS M that have parallels in the Samaritan Targum.6 However, only a small number of readings that are unique to the Samaritan tradition and do not occur in Jewish Targums can be classified with certainty as Samareitikon.7 As this short survey shows, all previous research on the Samaritan Greek Pentateuch translation is based on Greek sources, mostly non-Samaritan manuscripts. However, the methodology employed by Wevers and Pummer to identify anonymous Samareitikon readings in Septuagint manuscripts can—mutatis mutandis—also be used to identify plain Septuagint renderings (as against those glosses specifically labeled Samareitikon) in the Samaritan Targum. Such renderings can then be interpreted as reflecting influence of the Samaritan version of the Septuagint on the Aramaic Targum. In a previous study, we suggested that the startling Samaritan Targum rendering ‫כרוז‬ for Hebrew ‫ אברך‬in Gen 41:43 goes back to the Greek κῆρυξ in the Samaritan Septuagint recension.8 Indeed, more examples for shared Samaritan Targum– Septuagint translation traditions would constitute additional indirect evidence for a running Samaritan Greek reworking of the Septuagint, and—more importantly—would suggest that this Greek recension shaped the Samaritan Aramaic tradition. This, in turn, implies that the Samaritan Greek and Aramaic translations of the Pentateuch were to some extent interdependent.

forward by Samuel Kohn, “Samareitikon und Septuaginta,” Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 38 (1894): 1–7, 49–67 (51). 4  Joosten, “Septuagint and Samareitikon,” 5–6. 5  Even single Greek words were hardly understood by Samaritans in Islamic times, cf. Eduard Vilmar, Abulfathi annales samaritani (Gotha: Perthes, 1865), 5 (Arabic pagination), xxvii–xxviii. 6  Pummer, “Greek Bible,” 287–95 has a discussion. The phenomenon was first noted by John William Wevers, Leviticus, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum II.2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 30–31. 7  With Pummer, “Greek Bible,” 295; But Joosten, “Septuagint and Samareitikon,” 4–5 correctly asserts that Jewish parallels cannot invalidate the hypothesis of a Samaritan origin for these passages. They only make it impossible to positively prove it. 8  Christian Stadel, “A Septuagint Translation Tradition and the Samaritan Targum to Gen 41:43,” JBL 131 (2012): 705–13.

MORE EVIDENCE FOR A SAMARITAN GREEK BIBLE

273

In the present article, we will present two additional examples of possible Septuagint translation traditions in the Samaritan Targum. We have chosen these particular cases for methodological reasons: they exemplify the two kinds of agreement between the Targum and the Septuagint that we consider relevant for identifying with relative certainty a direct dependency between the texts. In the first case, the rendering of Hebrew ‫שוטר‬, the common ground is semantic: both the Targum and the Septuagint assign the same meaning to a Hebrew word, and this meaning is unattested in other translations, such as the Jewish Targums. Presumably, different traditions regarding how to understand a certain word could develop only for hapax legomena and rare words, or for lexemes that are restricted in use to specific contexts. The example from Gen 41:43 mentioned in the previous paragraph also belongs to this category.9 In the second case, the rendering of Exod 15:3, we base our argument not on Hebrew semantics but on a characteristic of the Samaritan Targum, namely its strictly literal translation technique. Wherever the Targum does not offer a literal translation (e.g., by adding or skipping a word, or by changing the syntax), and the deviation is paralleled by the Septuagint, but not by other translations, we may surmise influence of the Greek version. As an aside, we shall also consider a third way to identify dependencies between the Samaritan Targum and the Septuagint, viz. the use of rare Greek words that could be interpreted as transcriptions, i.e. instances of code-switching. The findings have implications for our understanding of both the processes that shaped the composition of the Samaritan Targum and, more generally, the language situation in the Samaritan community of Late Antiquity. 1 Hebrew ‫‘ שוטר‬Teacher, Schoolmaster’ The Biblical Hebrew noun ‫ שוטר‬is nowadays usually translated as “official,” “officer,” or by other terms that designate a person with administrative functions.10 This definition is based on the context of the word in the 24 verses in which it occurs—especially since it is often paired with other administrative titles such as ‫“ זקנים‬elders” (e.g., Num 11:16) or ‫“ שרים‬officials” (e.g., Deut 1:15). 9   It is thus not very surprising that a number of potential examples come from linguistically difficult poetic contexts such as Genesis 49. Consider, e.g., Sam. Tg. MS J to Gen 49:15 ‫“ אריס משמש‬a laboring peasant” for SP ‫ מוס עבד‬in light of lxx ἀνὴρ γεωργός “a farmer,” mentioned already by Kohn, “Samareitikon und Septuaginta,” 3–4; In this case, the Samareitikon variant is even closer to the Aramaic. 10  E.g., DCH, 8:333–34; HALOT, 1441–42; Wilhelm Gesenius, Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament, 18th ed. (Berlin: Springer, 1987–2010), 1346.

274

Stadel

The Hebrew word is etymologically connected to the Akkadian root √šṭr “to write,” as well as to Arabic √sṭr and Ancient South Arabian √s1ṭr, of the same meaning;11 Some have even suggested that it is a loan from Akkadian (via Aramaic), but this is doubtful.12 The double meaning of the root—“to write” and “to arrange, order”—probably dates back to a time when most literate persons served in administrative functions, and vice versa, most administrators and officials were literate.13 In Hebrew, as in the other languages, one of the two meanings became dominant, to the exclusion of the other. One could hypothesize that this semantic change occurred as literacy spread and the close association of scribes with bureaucrats was broken up. Be that as it may, the traditional Jewish translations from Roman times and Late Antiquity, such as Targum Onqelos and the Palestinian Targums, consistently gloss the Hebrew word with the Aramaic noun ‫“ סרך‬commander,” “officer”14 and thus make it clear that, in Jewish circles, the word was understood as an administrative title. In fact, the modern interpretation probably also rests, at least in part, on this traditional Jewish understanding. The meaning of ‫ שוטר‬reflected in the earlier Greek translation of the Septuagint, however, is slightly different. The Hebrew noun is usually rendered as γραμματεύς, e.g., in Exod 5:10. While many would intuitively presume this word to convey the notion “scribe,” it is actually as ambivalent as the Semitic root—and supposedly for the same reason—and can designate either a scribe or an official.15 Thus, it is not of much help in determining the precise meaning assigned to Hebrew ‫ שוטר‬in early Hellenistic times.16 However, in four verses in Deuteronomy (vv. 1:15; 16:18; 29:9; 31:28), the Seventy used a different gloss, viz. γραμματοεισαγωγεύς.17 This Septuagint neologism is rendered as “instructor,” 11  E.g., Gesenius, Handwörterbuch, 1346. 12  Paul V. Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, HSS 47 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 142–44. 13  For another hypothesis on the original meaning of the root and its secondary semantic developments see James E. Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 155. 14  Edward M. Cook, A Glossary of Targum Onkelos According to Alexander Sperber’s Edition, Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 6 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 201; Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period, 2nd ed. (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002), 389. Cf. also “praefectus” in the Vulgate, e.g., in Exod 5:6. 15  E.g., LSJ, 358–59; LEH1, 92; GELS, 136. 16  But note that Greek γραμματεύς often translates Hebrew ‫סופר‬, especially in the Prophets and Writings, HRCS, 275. 17  This reading is shared by codices Alexandrinus and Vaticanus, but not by all later manuscripts.

MORE EVIDENCE FOR A SAMARITAN GREEK BIBLE

275

“schoolmaster” or “instructor in the law” in modern lexica.18 Assuming that the translators employed γραμματοεισαγωγεύς and γραμματεύς as synonyms— for both render the same Hebrew word—the use of the former has implications for our interpretation of the latter: Supposedly, both Greek terms were intended to convey the notion “instructor,” “schoolmaster,” not “official.” We may thus presume that the Seventy understood the Hebrew ‫ שוטר‬in this sense. Incidentally, such an understanding of the Hebrew is also reflected in the later (and Christian) translation into Syriac, for the Peshitta consistently employs ‫“ ܣܦܪ‬scribe” where the Masoretic text has ‫שוטר‬.19 With regard to the meaning that the Seventy in early Hellenistic Alexandria attributed to the word, we conclude that the synonymous neologism and the Peshitta rendering tip the scales in favor of “instructor,” “schoolmaster.” The Jewish Greek and Aramaic translations thus preserve two distinct traditions as to the semantics of the Hebrew noun. In the only non-Jewish translation which can claim to reflect a tradition of Hebrew as a living language, the Samaritan Targum, ‫ שוטר‬is interpreted in line with the Septuagint, not the Jewish Targums. All manuscripts of the Samaritan Targum consistently gloss the Hebrew word as ‫ספר‬,20 and the same rendering is also found in the Samaritan glossary Hammeliṣ.21 Here, too, one could in principle argue for the ambivalence of the Aramaic: It could theoretically be interpreted as “scribe-official” or “scribe-teacher.” Indeed, it would seem that ‫ف‬ the later Samaritan Arabic translation ���‫“ �عر�ي‬overseer,” “head” points in this 18  E.g., LEH1, 93; GELS, 136 (with reservations). But Evangelinus A. Sophocles, Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1900), 338–39 regards the noun as synonymous with γραμματεύς, and George B. Caird, “Towards a Lexicon of the Septuagint I,” JTS 19 (1968): 453–75 (465) considers it the title of an official. The latter interpretation could receive support from the addition of γραμματοεισαγωγεύς in codex Alexandrinus to Exod 18:21, 25, respectively, where the ‫ שוטר‬is not mentioned in the Masoretic text. But simple contamination, without semantic implications for the Hebrew, is possible as well, cp. Alain Le Boulluec and Pierre Sandevoir, L’Exode, La Bible d’Alexandrie 2 (Paris: Cerf, 1989), 197. 19  While it is general consensus that the Old Testament Peshitta was translated from the Hebrew, there is evidence that other versions—the Septuagint in particular—were consulted during the translation process, cp., e.g., Michael P. Weitzman, The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction, University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 56 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 15–86. Whether or not such a direct connection can be assumed in the case of the rendering of ‫ שוטר‬is impossible to tell. 20  Abraham Tal, The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch, 3 vols. (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1980–1983), ad loc. The only exceptions are variant readings to MS M, see below. 21  Ze’ev Ben-Ḥayyim, The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic Amongst the Samaritans, 5 vols. (Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1957–1977), 2:600 ll. 182–84 (in Hebrew).

276

Stadel

direction.22 However, Samaritan Aramaic usage of the noun (in different texts, not only the Targum) is unequivocal: ‫ ספר‬means “teacher.”23 What’s more, all other derivatives of the root √spr are connected to the semantic fields of “writing” and “school” and thus fit such an interpretation.24 One text in particular drives home the point that—in the Samaritan Aramaic tradition—the Biblical ‫שוטרים‬, the ‫ ספרין‬of the Samaritan Targum, were teachers, not officials. It comes from the 4th century ce midrash Tibat Marqe, a composition from the heyday of Samaritan Aramaic literary activity, and (in terms of its language) contemporaneous to some of the Targum manuscripts. The piece reads:25 ‫כד עמו פרעה מתגבר קמיון נפקו משמעין לגו קהלה כן לא אסכמו תרי נבייה ממללה‬ ‫אלא וכרוזין נפקין במצרים כל ספר דלגו ביספרה פעלין לא יתיהב לון תבן בעבדת‬ ‫לבניה‬

When they saw Pharaoh flex his muscles in front of them, they went out and told it to the congregation. The two prophets had only just finished speaking, when heralds went out in Egypt: “Every teacher who works in the schoolhouse, no straw shall be given to them for making bricks.” The sentence set in bold is an exegetical embellishment of Exod 5:10:26

22  Haseeb Shehadeh, The Arabic Translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch, 2 vols. (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1989–2003), ad loc. (in Hebrew); Ben-Ḥayyim, Literary and Oral Tradition, 2:600 ll. 182–84. For the meaning of the Arabic term, see Lane, 2016. In addition, the SP reading ‫ שטריך‬for mt ‫ שפטיך‬in Deut 21:2 could be marshaled to support an understanding of the noun as a title of an official, even in Hellenistic times. But such an argument would only be conclusive if the SP reading was secondary to the mt, which is impossible to prove. 23  Abraham Tal, A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic, HdO I.50; (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 606. Note that Tal’s second gloss, “officer,” is restricted to the Targum, and is based on the Hebrew. There is no evidence from non-Targum contexts for such a meaning of the Aramaic word. The meaning ‘teacher’ for Samaritan Hebrew ‫ שוטר‬is already recorded in HALOT, 1441, with reference to the Samaritan Targum, but without further discussion. See also the short remark by Tal apud Reinhard Pummer, Samaritan Marriage Contracts and Deeds of Divorce (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1997), vol. 2, 212 n. 265. 24  Tal, Dictionary, 606–7. 25  Ze’ev Ben-Ḥayyim, Tībåt Mårqe: A Collection of Samaritan Midrashim (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1988), 65 (20a), ll. 441–45 (in Hebrew); My English translation in based on Ben-Ḥayyim’s Hebrew rendering. 26  Here and elsewhere in this article, we follow Abraham Tal and Moshe Florentin, The Pentateuch: The Samaritan Version and the Masoretic Version (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 2010) for the text of SP.

MORE EVIDENCE FOR A SAMARITAN GREEK BIBLE

277

:‫ויצאו נגשי העם ושוטריו וידברו אל העם לאמר כה אמר פרעה אינני נתן לכם תבן‬ And the taskmasters of the people and their šūṭā̊rǝm went out and spoke to the people: “Thus said Pharaoh: ‘I will not give you straw’” The piece in Tibat Marqe clearly connects the Aramaic ‫ספר‬, the Hebrew ‫שוטר‬, with a schoolhouse.27 Apparently, whoever compiled the midrash, choose to project the social institutions of his time, the teacher and schoolhouse, back into Egypt at the time of the Exodus.28 Since Exod 5:10 mentions a ‫שוטר‬, which translates as ‫ ספר‬in Aramaic, and such a ‫ ספר‬is a teacher in a schoolhouse, the biblical ‫ שוטר‬can also, by implication, be understood to have worked in a school. The midrash thus makes it clear that for the Samaritans in the first centuries of the Common Era, the ‫ שוטר‬was a teacher, and the rendering in the Samaritan Targum is to be understood in the same way. We are left with the vexing question of the origin of the Samaritan understanding of ‫שוטר‬: Did the Samaritans preserve an original meaning of the Hebrew, or is their interpretation secondary? The question defies a definite answer, but I find the latter explanation more compelling, for the Samaritans demonstrably had two divergent translation traditions for this word: The “teacher” tradition we discussed at length, and the “officer” tradition that is reflected throughout their Arabic translation, and perhaps also in variant readings to Exodus 5 in the Samaritan Targum manuscript M.29 Since the “officer” tradition is prevalent in Jewish Aramaic sources and was also known to 27  This was already noted by Simeon Lowy, “Some Aspects of Normative and Sectarian Interpretation of the Scriptures,” ALUOS 6 (1966–1968): 98–163 (119–20 with n. 179) and Steven Fine, “‘For This Schoolhouse is Beautiful’: A Note on Samaritan ‘Schools’ in Late Antique Palestine,” in Shoshannat Yaakov: Jewish and Iranian Studies in Honor of Yaakov Elman, ed. Shai Secunda and Steven Fine, BRLA 35 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 65–75 (67), who missed Lowy’s contribution. Fine struggled with the Aramaic of our piece and offers an inaccurate translation. 28  Cp. also Fine, “Schoolhouse,” 68 for another piece in Tibat Marqe that attests to the same phenomenon. Pace Fine, the Aramaic text there does not support the assumption that the author of Tibat Marqe was aware that his interpretation was unhistorical, and that the Samaritans would only in the future, i.e., in Late Antiquity, attend schools; The Aramaic word ‫ עתיד‬used in the text does not necessarily indicate future tense, but can also be employed in the literal meaning “to be ready,” cp. Christian Stadel, The Morphosyntax of Samaritan Aramaic (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 2013), 192–93, § 233 (in Hebrew). 29  E.g., in Exod 5:6, 10 we find the variant reading ‫עצוף‬, which could mean “strongman,” “foreman,” Tal, Dictionary, 291. This rendering has no parallels in Jewish Targums and thus certainly represents an independent Samaritan tradition. But Lea Goldberg, Das samaritanische Pentateuchtargum: Eine Untersuchung seiner handschriftlichen Quellen (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1935), 52, has suggested the meaning “insolent” and argued for a

278

Stadel

the Samaritans, it seems plausible to assume that it hearkens back to living Hebrew. The “teacher” tradition could thus be secondary, perhaps exegetical. Once we assume that the translation tradition “teacher” for ‫ שוטר‬is not original, the fact that it is attested both in the Septuagint and in Samaritan Aramaic sources, and that it contrasts with what is consistently found in Jewish Targums, becomes relevant and leaves but two possible explanations: Either, this is an old tradition that reached the Samaritans and the Seventy independently (and is by chance restricted to these two sources),30 or it reflects influence of the Greek Septuagint on the Samaritan Targum. As more such unique parallels between the translations of the Seventy and the Samaritans are uncovered, the second explanation becomes ever more attractive. 2 A Non-Literal Translation in Sam. Tg. Exod 15:3 In the previous section, we identified a unique translation tradition for one Hebrew word that is common to the Samaritan Targum and the Septuagint. In that case, these two sources (and they alone) agree in attributing a certain meaning to a Hebrew word that is otherwise understood differently. The agreement between the sources led us to postulate a dependency between them. In this, our second example, the semantics of the relevant Hebrew words are the same in all sources, Samaritan and Jewish. Rather than an unmotivated change in meaning shared by the Targum and the Septuagint, it is a deviation from the characteristic translation technique of the Samaritan Targum that lets us suspect external influence in the rendering of Exod 15:3. For the Samaritan Targum in all manuscripts is a strictly literal word-for-word translation,31 which copies the syntax of its source (e.g., in the use of prepositions)32 and even mimics midrashic rendering. I thank Alina Tarshin for this reference and her critical remarks on this section. 30  This was the line of thought of Lowy, “Some Aspects,” 119–20 with n. 179, repeated in his The Principles of Samaritan Bible Exegesis, StPB 28; (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 135, who first noted the parallel translation in the sources. 31  On the extreme literalness of the Samaritan Targum see Abraham Tal, “L’exégèse sama­ ritaine à travers les manuscrits du Targoum,” in Études samaritaines: Pentateuque et Targum, exégèse et philologie, chroniques, ed. Jean-Pierre Rothschild and Guy Dominique Sixdenier (Leuven: Peeters, 1988), 139–47 (139–40). For more on the relationship between the literalness of Aramaic and Greek translations see the essay by Thomas in this volume. 32  Jean Margain, Les particules dans le Targum samaritain de Genèse–Exode: Jalon pour une histoire de l’araméen samaritain (Geneva: Droz, 1993), 294–96. See also the comparative discussion of Gen 28:12 in different Targums by Paul V.M. Flesher and Bruce Chilton, The Targums: A Critical Introduction, Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 12 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 126–27.

MORE EVIDENCE FOR A SAMARITAN GREEK BIBLE

279

certain aspects of the Hebrew morphology.33 So pronounced was their insistence on a literal translation, that the targumists even employed un-Aramaic syntax or morphology, if this likened the text to the Hebrew. It is this literalness, so characteristic of the Samaritan Targum, which is surprisingly absent from the rendering of Exod 15:3 in manuscripts A and B:34 SP Sam. Tg.

‫יהוה גיבור במלחמה יהוה שמו‬ ‫יהוה נצחוי קרביה יהוה שמה‬

In the Samaritan Pentateuch, ‫ גיבור‬is followed by an adjunct prepositional phrase with a singular noun ‫במלחמה‬, hence “The Lord is a hero in war, the Lord is his name.” The Samaritan Targum differs on four levels: First, it uses ‫נצחוי‬ (MS B has the variant spelling ‫)נצועי‬, a nomen agentis of the root √nṣḥ “to fight,” “to battle.”35 This choice of a different root is in itself telling, for Hebrew ‫גיבור‬ is elsewhere in the Targum glossed by this very same form, or by the cognate ‫גיבר‬.36 Secondly, in addition to the lexical difference, the syntactical interpretation of the form ‫ נצחוי‬is ambivalent: It can be understood as a noun “fighter” (corresponding to the syntax of the Hebrew) or as a verbal form “fighting,” “he fights,” for in Samaritan Aramaic the nominal pattern qātōl was increasingly employed in lieu of an active participle.37 Thirdly, ‫ נצחוי‬is not followed by an adjunct prepositional phrase: the words ‫ נצחוי קרביה‬either form a genitive construction (if ‫ נצחוי‬is interpreted as nomen agentis), viz. “fighter of the wars,” or ‫ קרביה‬functions as direct object to a quasi-participle ‫נצחוי‬, viz. “fighting the wars.”38 And lastly, it’s “the wars” in the plural, whereas the Hebrew has the singular.39 Thus, in the first part of this short verse, we have three certain and one possible deviation from the principle of literal translation so typical of the Samaritan Targum.

33  See, e.g., Christian Stadel, “Second Person Suffix Conjugation Endings with ⟨k⟩ on tertiae y Verbs in Samaritan Aramaic,” Le Muséon 128 (2015): 127–156 (132–34, with additional references). 34  Tal, Samaritan Targum, ad loc. Note that all other manuscripts mimic the Hebrew syntax and have a literal translation. 35  Tal, Dictionary, 542–43. 36  E.g., Gen 10:8, Deut 10:17; cp. Tal, Dictionary, 127. 37  Stadel, Morphosyntax, 158–59, § 193c; Abraham Tal, Samaritan Aramaic, Lehrbücher orientalischer Sprachen III.2 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2013), 94. 38  In Samaritan Aramaic, indefinite as well as definite direct objects of participles need not be marked (e.g., by l-), cp. for example ‫“ הוא קטל ברך בכירך‬he will kill your son, your firstborn” in Ben-Ḥayyim, Tībåt Mårqe, 85 (37b), ll. 768–69 (MS Kahle has ‫)קטול‬. 39  This feature even persists in the later Samaritan Arabic translation of the verse, see Shehadeh, Arabic Translation, ad loc.

280

Stadel

In the few cases, where a Targum manuscript does not present a strict wordfor-word translation, it is usually easy to identify an exegetical or linguistic reason for this deviation.40 But this is not the case in Exod 15:3, where the changes are apparently unmotivated. They are, however, paralleled by the Septuagint rendering of the verse:41 κύριος συντρίβων πολέμους κύριος ὄνομα αὐτῷ The Lord, shattering wars, the Lord is his name.42 Both the Samaritan Targum and the Septuagint employ a participle (in lieu of the nouns sp ‫ גיבור‬or mt ‫)איש‬, followed by a direct object (though the Targum is syntactically ambivalent) in the plural (as against the singular forms in SP and mt). But despite these surprising parallels, one could argue against a direct connection between the sources, since the various Jewish Targums between them also attest to most of the elements we just identified. Tg. Onq. Tg. Neof. Frg. Tg. MS FF

‫יוי מרי נצחן קרביא יוי שמיה‬

The Lord is the lord of victory in the wars, the Lord is his name. … ‫ייי גוברא עבד קרביא ייי שמיה‬ The Lord is a man waging the wars, the Lord is his name … … ‫יי ג[י]ברא הוא דעבד לכון סדרי נצחני קרביכון יי שמיה‬ The Lord, he is the man who made for you battle orders of victories in your wars, the Lord is his name …43

40  For an exegetically motivated deviation see, e.g., Tal, “L’exégèse,” 141 on Exod 15:27; Linguistically motivated deviations usually conform to Samaritan Aramaic usage patterns (against Hebrew ones), see the general remarks in Stadel, Morphosyntax, 19–20, § 11f and examples passim. 41  The text is identical in all major manuscripts. 42  There has been a debate on how the Greek of the verse should be understood. We find the argument by Larry Perkins, “‘The Lord is a Warrior’—‘The Lord Who Shatters Wars’: Exod 15:3 and Jdt 9:7; 16:2,” BIOSCS 40 (2007): 121–38 convincing and have translated accordingly. The text has no pacifistic intend, i.e., “the Lord, shattering wars” does not express the notion that God is putting an end to wars, but rather that he helps fighting them. The same basic ambivalence can also be read into the text of the Samaritan Targum, but the insertion of the Aramaic ‫ יהוה נצועי קרביה‬as a cryptogram into the Hebrew text of Exodus 14 in some Samaritan codices confirms the bellicose understanding for the Samaritan Aramaic tradition, too. August von Gall, Der hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner (Gießen: Töpelmann, 1914–1918), 2:144 notes the various spellings attested for the cryptogram. 43   Michael L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, 2 vols. (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1986), ad loc. The text from Geniza MS FF is

MORE EVIDENCE FOR A SAMARITAN GREEK BIBLE

281

All Jewish Targums have a plural ‘the wars’ for mt ‫מלחמה‬, the later Palestinian Targums also include a participle, ‫עבד‬, (though it does not come in lieu of ‫)איש‬, and both Targum Onqelos and the Targum fragments add the noun ‫נצחן‬, the root of which is also employed in the Samaritan Targum. The ancient translations we reviewed—all Jewish Targums, the Septuagint, and the Samaritan Targum—all have in common a shared intention (spelled out in greater detail in the more expansive Targums): God is fighting Israel’s wars. Why not assume that the resemblance between the Samaritan Targum and the Septuagint reflects this common interpretation of the verse (and is thus part of a wider phenomenon), rather than a direct dependency? Indeed, it would seem that the similarities between the Jewish Targums and the Septuagint are best explained by assuming such a common translation tradition: None of them, not even Targum Onqelos, is a word-for-word translation, and therefore non-literal renderings do not per se necessitate an explanation (for example assuming external influence). What’s more, the syntax of Targum Onqelos, with its noun phrase ‫מרי נצחן קרביא‬, is actually closer to mt than to the Septuagint, and the more expansive Palestinian Targums do not precisely match the Greek neither. Assuming a common Jewish translation tradition suffices to explain the renderings. However, this is different in the case of the Samaritan Targum, for the following reasons. First, in the Samaritan Targum, non-literal renderings are extraordinary and require an explanation. Secondly, in the Samaritan tradition, the Septuagint-like rendering from MSS A and B is one of two variant translations; The other, attested in MSS J, C, V, and E, is literal. This fact only strengthens the need for an explanation of the non-literal rendering. And thirdly, while it clearly deviates from the Hebrew of SP, the Samaritan Targum rendering can be interpreted as a word-for-word translation of the Septuagint. Thus, assuming direct influence of the Septuagint on the Samaritan Targum rendering in MSS A and B receives support from the Aramaic wording, and it can account for the deviation from the literal translation technique. For the Samaritan Targum, this explanation is preferable to assuming a common tradition.44 representative of the renderings of the verse in the Fragment Targums from the Genizah and elsewhere; Indeed, most other preserved versions are even more expansive. 44  Even the conspicuous use of the plural ‘the wars’ for MT and SP ‫ מלחמה‬in all translations can be marshaled to support our conclusion. For in the Jewish versions, the plural could have arisen independently through contamination with Isa 42:13, where God is referred to as ‫( איש מלחמות‬though for the Septuagint, this assumption is not without problems, cp. Perkins, “The Lord is a Warrior,” 137 n. 60). But this explanation cannot be valid for the plural in the Samaritan Targum, which either remains unexplained or goes back to the Septuagint.

282

Stadel

Having established that the Samaritan Targum rendering ‫יהוה נצחוי קרביה‬ to Exod 15:3 probably reflects influence from the Septuagint, we need to address one additional caveat: How can it be that a translation that draws on the Septuagint is attested only in linguistically late Targum manuscripts composed in Islamic times,45 when Greek was no longer spoken among the Samaritans? As in the previous case, other Samaritan Aramaic texts help us resolve the issue. For the locution ‫ נצחיו קרביה‬is also attested as a divine epithet in one of Marqe’s Aramaic liturgical poems from the 4th century ce.46 In another poem, also with a (somewhat dubious) attribution to Marqe, we even find all three words from the Targum, ‫יהוה נצחיו קרביה‬.47 The epithet was employed in the later parts of Tibat Marqe as well,48 and it is found in abbreviated form on Samaritan amulets from Byzantine times (though both these latter sources are difficult to date with precision).49 It is thus not restricted to Islamic times and was already in use in Samaritan circles when the Greek language was still prevalent in Palestine. 3

Excursus: Greek Words in the Samaritan Targum

We add here a brief methodological excursus. Apart from unique shared Hebrew semantics and deviations from the literal translation technique that are paralleled by the Greek, there is an additional possibility to prove direct influence of the Septuagint on the Samaritan Targum (or at least make it likely): the use of words of Greek origin.50 Of course not every Greek word in the Targum necessarily points to a direct connection to the Septuagint; like all other Late Western Aramaic dialects (and Syriac), Samaritan Aramaic absorbed and 45  For an overview of the linguistic dating of the language in MSS A and B see Tal, Samaritan Targum, 3:102 (Hebrew pagination). 46   Ben-Ḥayyim, Literary and Oral Tradition, 3B:201 l. 54. Marqe used the same imagery in yet another poem (ibid., 3B:171 l. 82), but there the wording is different. 47  Ze’ev Ben-Ḥayyim, “Studies in Palestinian Aramaic and Samaritan Poetry,” in Hayyim (Yefim) Schirmann Jubilee Volume, ed. Shraga Abramson and Aaron Mirsky (Jerusalem: Schocken Institute, 1970), 39–68 (64 l. 123; in Hebrew). 48   Ben-Ḥayyim, Tībåt Mårqe, 287 (230a), l. 887. 49  Christian Stadel, “Two Remarks Pertaining to the Use of Ex 15:3 on Samaritan Amulets,” RB 121 (2014): 404–13 (405–8), with a discussion of all the sources mentioned above. 50  J ohn P. Brown, “The Septuagint as a Source of the Greek Loan-words in the Targums,” Bib 70 (1989): 194–216 used a methodology that is in part similar to ours for establishing a literary relationship between the Septuagint and Targum Onqelos. However, his findings should be taken cum grano salis. Weitzman, Syriac Version, 76–78 discusses a few cases of similar Greek influence on the Peshitta.

MORE EVIDENCE FOR A SAMARITAN GREEK BIBLE

283

incorporated many words from colloquial Greek and from the language of government and administration.51 Such Greek loanwords are of no use in determining a connection with the Septuagint. Rather, Greek words in the Targum can only be interpreted as a hint to Septuagint influence if three preconditions are met: 1) The Greek word is attested in the same verse in the Septuagint. 2) The word is not a common Greek loanword in Samaritan Aramaic. Ideally, its use would be restricted to these verses in the Targum where it is paralleled by the Greek; It could then be interpreted as resulting from code-switching. 3) The word is not found in the Jewish Targums to the verse. Since influence from Targum Onqelos in particular is known to exist in some Samaritan Targum manuscripts, it has to be ruled out. Additionally, one could take into consideration the distribution of the word in other contemporaneous Aramaic dialects, notably those from Palestine, viz. Jewish and Christian Palestinian Aramaic. If the word is uncommon in these dialects, too, Septuagint influence (and the interpretation as code-switching rather than a loanword) becomes more likely. A systematic survey of Greek loanwords in Samaritan Aramaic yielded three possible examples and thus demonstrates the feasibility of the approach.52 The noun ‫“ מרצף‬bag” is attested solely in variant readings to Targum MS M, where it translates the Hebrew ‫ אמתחת‬in Gen 43:23; 44:1, 2, 8, 11.53 All Jewish Targums use ‫ טוען‬and similar forms to render the word, but the Septuagint has μάρσιππος “bag” in all verses, which is probably the source of the Samaritan variant. However, one caveat has to be voiced: ‫ מרצף‬was a common loanword in neighboring Aramaic dialects, and in Tannaitic Hebrew.54 Similarly, the noun ‫“ רטיני‬resin” is attested only in the trilingual word list Hammeliṣ, which is based on Targum traditions.55 It glosses Hebrew ‫ צרי‬from Gen 37:25; 43:11, which is rendered by ‫ קטף‬or related forms in Jewish Targums to these verses. But the Samaritan word could be a transcription of the Septuagint rendering ῥητίνη. This explanation is even more likely in light of the fact that this Greek word is unattested in other Western Aramaic dialects.

51  For a comprehensive discussion see Christian Stadel and Mor Shemesh, “Greek Loanwords in Samaritan Aramaic,” AS 16 (2018): 144–81. 52  Stadel and Shemesh, “Greek Loanwords in Samaritan Aramaic,” ad ##35, 69, 29. 53  Tal, Dictionary, 487. 54  Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, 332; idem, A Dictionary of Christian Palestinian Aramaic (OLA 234; Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 248; Shai Heijmans, “Greek and Latin Loanwords in Mishnaic Hebrew: Lexicon and Phonology” (PhD diss., Tel-Aviv University, 2013), 134–35 (in Hebrew). 55  Tal, Dictionary, 831; Ben-Ḥayyim, Literary and Oral Tradition, 2:573 l. 120.

284

Stadel

The last example is ambiguous. The rare form ‫ כליתבי‬designates a reptile in Targum MSS M and B to Lev 11:30.56 While the etymology of the form remains uncertain,57 it could be connected to Greek καλαβώτης “spotted lizard.” If so, the Samaritan Aramaic word (which is unknown in other Aramaic dialects) was probably taken over ad hoc from the Septuagint to the verse. 4 Conclusion While most evidence for a Samaritan Septuagint recension comes from Greek sources, we have tried to show that Samaritan Aramaic texts—the Targum in tandem with contemporaneous liturgical poems and midrashic works—can also be mined successfully for hints of a Samaritan Greek Bible. Apparently, some renderings preserved in Samaritan Targum manuscripts were inspired by a Greek translation resembling the Septuagint, either in their general tendency or in the very wording.58 We propose that such renderings can be identified with relative certainty in two, or possibly three cases: 1) When the Samaritan Targum and the Septuagint share an understanding of a Hebrew word that differs from the traditional Jewish understanding; 2) When the Samaritan Targum deviates from its strict verbatim translation technique, and the rendering is paralleled by the Septuagint; 3) When the Samaritan Targum uses Greek words from the Septuagint that are unattested in other Samaritan Aramaic sources. In this article, we provided one example for each of the above categories. Evidence for influence of a Samaritan Septuagint recension on the Samaritan Aramaic Targum raises important questions, on at least two levels. On the one hand, it has implications for our understanding of the Samaritan Targum, which—despite its slavishly literal character—also relied on sources other than the Hebrew Pentateuch. The seemingly random distribution of the Septuagint translation traditions in the various manuscripts is interesting: the translation of ‫ שוטר‬is shared by all manuscripts, the translation of ‫ אברך‬is found in MSS J, C, N, V, B, and E (but only MSS C and V are completely in line with the Greek of the verse),59 the free translation in Exod 15:3 is restricted to MSS A and B, the Greek word ‫ מרצף‬is found solely as a variant reading in MS M, ‫ רטיני‬is a hapax from the Hammeliṣ, and ‫ כליתבי‬is attested in Targum MSS M and B. Only a more systematic study of Septuagint translation traditions in the 56  Tal, Dictionary, 390. 57  Stadel and Shemesh, “Greek Loanwords in Samaritan Aramaic,” ad #29. 58  For comparable influence of Greek translations (though usually not the Septuagint) on rabbinic sources cp. Saul Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1942), 47–59. 59  Stadel, “Septuagint Translation Tradition,” 709 with n. 16; 711 n. 25.

MORE EVIDENCE FOR A SAMARITAN GREEK BIBLE

285

Samaritan Targum can help clarify how the different renderings found their way into the manuscripts.60 On the other hand, the findings have implications for our understanding of the language situation among the Samaritans in Late Antiquity, and for the intellectual context in which Samaritan Aramaic literature took shape. For while we know that there were Greek-speaking Samaritans (as evinced, e.g., by most synagogue inscriptions)61 as well as Aramaic-speaking Samaritans (as evinced, inter alia, by Samaritan Aramaic literary compositions), there is surprisingly little positive proof that their respective worlds overlapped. The very meager evidence we have for Samaritan Greek-Aramaic bilingualism or language contact often comes from epigraphic sources: the Samaritan synagogue from Tell Qasile had inscriptions in both Greek and Aramaic,62 but the former seems to have been the major spoken language.63 A building in Apollonia-Arsuf featured a mosaic with a short Samaritan Greek-Aramaic bilingual inscription,64 and in the synagogue in Beth-Shean, a Greek dedication was set in Samaritan letters.65 In the literary sources, transcriptions in other scripts are also occasionally attested:66 a poem by Marqe concludes with four words of corrupted Greek, which in the manuscripts are transcribed in Samaritan script.67 Among the anonymous variant readings in Septuagint manuscripts that are by some associated with the Samareitikon survives a Greek transcription γοβα of the 60  Note that the anonymous Samareitikon glosses in Septuagint MS M also have parallels in different Samaritan Targum manuscripts, cp. Pummer, “Greek Bible,” 287–95. This is also true if one disregards all readings that are shared by Jewish Targums. 61  Reinhard Pummer, “Samaritan Synagogues and Jewish Synagogues: Similarities and Differences,” in Jews, Christians, and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue: Cultural Interaction During the Greco-Roman Period, ed. Steven Fine (London: Routledge, 1999), 118–60 (132–38) has an overview on the synagogues. 62  Haya Kaplan, “A Samaritan Church on the Premises of ‘Museum Haaretz’,” Qadmoniot 42–43 (1978): 78–80 (in Hebrew). 63  This is suggested by the Greek transcription ιστραελ, with epenthesis of /t/, a common phenomenon in Greek transcriptions of Semitic words, Harald Samuel, “ΙΣΤΡΑΕΛ: Anmerkungen zu einem altbekannten Phänomen und einem neuentdeckten Amulett aus Halbturn,” ZDPV 127 (1978): 185–96. Presumably, a native-speaker of Aramaic would not have had to add the /t/ to ease the pronunciation. 64  Oren Tal, “A Bilingual Greek-Samaritan Inscription from Apollonia-Arsuf/Sozousa,” ZPE 194 (2015): 169–75. 65  Joseph Naveh, “A Greek Dedication in Samaritan Letters,” IEJ 32 (1981): 220–22. 66  There are of course numerous Greek loanwords in Samaritan Aramaic texts (Stadel and Shemesh, “Greek Loanwords in Samaritan Aramaic”), but these were integrated into the language and probably also understood by Aramaic monolinguals. The cases treated here rather resemble code-switching of bilinguals. The choice of script was determined by the wider context, and not by the language of the individual words. 67   Ben-Ḥayyim, Literary and Oral Tradition, 3B:262 ll. 49–50, with the lengthy explanation ad loc.

286

Stadel

Aramaic ‫“ גובה‬locust.”68 Much more pertinent for the present discussion is the use in Samaritan Aramaic prose of inquits, i.e. quotative frames inserted after the first two or three words of the quoted direct discourse. This “un-Semitic” stylistic device probably imitates the ubiquitous φησί from Greek prose.69 Indeed, the evidence we assembled for Septuagint translation traditions in the Samaritan Targum and the use of Greek-like inquits as a stylistic device are the only cases that unequivocally attest to the knowledge not only of the Greek language, but of Hellenistic Greek literature in those Samaritan circles that produced Samaritan Aramaic literary compositions. The Greek- and Aramaic-speaking Samaritans of Late Antiquity certainly interacted with one another, and their languages and literary traditions were amalgamated, at least to a certain extent. Acknowledgements The work for this article was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (grant no. 1229/15). Bibliography Ben-Ḥayyim, Ze’ev, The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic Amongst the Samaritans, 5 vols. (Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1957–1977). Ben-Ḥayyim, Ze’ev, “Studies in Palestinian Aramaic and Samaritan Poetry,” in Hayyim (Yefim) Schirmann Jubilee Volume, ed. Shraga Abramson and Aaron Mirsky (Jerusalem: Schocken Institute, 1970), 39–68 (in Hebrew). Ben-Ḥayyim, Ze’ev, Tībåt Mårqe: A Collection of Samaritan Midrashim (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1988). Brown, John P., “The Septuagint as a Source of the Greek Loan-words in the Targums,” Bib 70 (1989): 194–216. Caird, George B., “Towards a Lexicon of the Septuagint I,” JTS 19 (1968): 453–75. Cook, Edward M., A Glossary of Targum Onkelos According to Alexander Sperber’s Edition, Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 6 (Leiden: Brill, 2008).

68  Joosten, “Septuagint and Samareitikon,” 7. Note, however, that the association of this reading with the Samareitikon is conjectural: The transcription could also originate from a Jewish Targum. 69  See Christian Stadel, “Quotative Frames in Samaritan Aramaic,” ZDMG 167 (2017): 47–70 (52–59) for a comprehensive discussion of the phenomenon.

MORE EVIDENCE FOR A SAMARITAN GREEK BIBLE

287

Crown, Alan D., The Samaritans (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989). Flesher, Paul V.M. and Bruce Chilton, The Targums: A Critical Introduction, Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 12 (Leiden: Brill, 2011). Gall, August von, Der hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner, 5 vols. (Gießen: Töpelmann, 1914–1918). Gesenius, Wilhelm, Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament, 18th ed. (Berlin: Springer, 1987–2010). Goldberg, Lea, Das samaritanische Pentateuchtargum: Eine Untersuchung seiner handschriftlichen Quellen (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1935). Heijmans, Shai, “Greek and Latin Loanwords in Mishnaic Hebrew: Lexicon and Phonology” (PhD diss., Tel-Aviv University, 2013) (in Hebrew). Hoch, James E., Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994). Horst, Pieter W. van der, “The Samaritan Languages in the Pre-Islamic Period,” JSJ 32 (2001): 178–92. Joosten, Jan, “Septuagint and Samareitikon,” in From Author to Copyist: Essays on the Composition, Redaction, and Transmission of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of Zipi Talshir, ed. Cana Werman (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 1–15. Kaplan, Haya, “A Samaritan Church on the Premises of ‘Museum Haaretz’,” Qadmoniot 42–43 (1978): 78–80 (in Hebrew). Klein, Michael L., Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, 2 vols. (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1986). Kohn, Samuel, “Samareitikon und Septuaginta,” Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 38 (1894): 1–7, 49–67. Le Boulluec, Alain and Pierre Sandevoir, L’Exode, La Bible d’Alexandrie 2 (Paris: Cerf, 1989). Lieberman, Saul, Greek in Jewish Palestine (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1942). Lowy, Simeon, “Some Aspects of Normative and Sectarian Interpretation of the Scriptures,” ALUOS 6 (1966–1968): 98–163. Lowy, Simeon, The Principles of Samaritan Bible Exegesis, StPB 28; (Leiden: Brill, 1977). Mankowski, Paul V., Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, HSS 47 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000). Margain, Jean, Les particules dans le Targum samaritain de Genèse–Exode: Jalon pour une histoire de l’araméen samaritain (Geneva: Droz, 1993). Naveh, Joseph, “A Greek Dedication in Samaritan Letters,” IEJ 32 (1981): 220–22. Perkins, Larry, “‘The Lord is a Warrior’—‘The Lord Who Shatters Wars’: Exod 15:3 and Jdt 9:7; 16:2,” BIOSCS 40 (2007): 121–38. Pummer, Reinhard, Samaritan Marriage Contracts and Deeds of Divorce, 2 vols. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1997). Pummer, Reinhard, “The Greek Bible and the Samaritans,” REJ 157 (1998): 269–358.

288

Stadel

Pummer, Reinhard, “Samaritan Synagogues and Jewish Synagogues: Similarities and Differences,” in Jews, Christians, and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue: Cultural Interaction During the Greco-Roman Period, ed. Steven Fine (London: Routledge, 1999), 118–60. Samuel, Harald, “ΙΣΤΡΑΕΛ: Anmerkungen zu einem altbekannten Phänomen und einem neuentdeckten Amulett aus Halbturn,” ZDPV 127 (1978): 185–96. Shehadeh, Haseeb, The Arabic Translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch, 2 vols. (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1989–2003). Sokoloff, Michael, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period, 2nd ed. (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002). Sokoloff, Michael, A Dictionary of Christian Palestinian Aramaic (OLA 234; Leuven: Peeters, 2014). Sophocles, Evangelinus A., Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1900). Stadel, Christian, “A Septuagint Translation Tradition and the Samaritan Targum to Gen 41:43,” JBL 131 (2012): 705–13. Stadel, Christian, The Morphosyntax of Samaritan Aramaic (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 2013). Stadel, Christian, “Two Remarks Pertaining to the Use of Ex 15:3 on Samaritan Amulets,” RB 121 (2014): 404–13. Stadel, Christian, “Second Person Suffix Conjugation Endings with ‹k› on tertiae y Verbs in Samaritan Aramaic,” Le Muséon 128 (2015): 127–156. Stadel, Christian, “Quotative Frames in Samaritan Aramaic,” ZDMG 167 (2017): 47–70. Stadel, Christian and Mor Shemesh, “Greek Loanwords in Samaritan Aramaic,” AS 16 (2018): 144–81. Tal, Abraham, The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch, 3 vols. (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1980–1983). Tal, Abraham, “L’exégèse samaritaine à travers les manuscrits du Targoum,” in Études samaritaines: Pentateuque et Targum, exégèse et philologie, chroniques, ed. Jean-Pierre Rothschild and Guy Dominique Sixdenier (Leuven: Peeters, 1988), 139–47. Tal, Abraham, A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic, HdO I.50; (Leiden: Brill, 2000). Tal, Abraham and Moshe Florentin, The Pentateuch: The Samaritan Version and the Masoretic Version (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 2010). Tal, Oren, “A Bilingual Greek-Samaritan Inscription from Apollonia-Arsuf/Sozousa,” ZPE 194 (2015): 169–75. Vilmar, Eduard, Abulfathi annales samaritani (Gotha: Perthes, 1865). Weitzman, Michael P., The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction, University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 56 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). Wevers, John William, Leviticus, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum II.2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986).

Chapter 13

Targum Onqelos and Rabbinic Interpretation in the Jewish Greek Translations of the Bible Shifra Sznol 1 Introduction Greek in Hebrew characters appears in a few words of the book of Daniel (ca. third century bce) of the Hebrew Bible and in many inscriptions from the Second Temple period until the end of the Byzantine period. A rich vocabulary in Greek was incorporated in the rabbinic literature from its early stages in the mishnaic period until that of the geonim in the early Middle Ages. This vocabulary is the main evidence for the influence of Greek and its use in daily life in Judea and in the Greek-Jewish communities of the Mediterranean. It was carefully researched by nineteenth- and twentieth-century scholars and denominated “Rabbinical Greek.”1 The only surviving Greek texts in Hebrew characters from this period are prayers in the Book of the Secrets2 and a few sentences in Rabbinic Greek quoted by Saul Lieberman.3 A full text of Greek in Hebrew characters appeared for the first time in Bible translations and glossaries of “Judeo-Greek.”4 The designation “Judeo-Greek,” like those of other Jewish languages, was coined by the gifted lexicographers of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. This language was spoken and written 1  Samuel Krauss, Griechische und lateinische Lehnwörter im Talmud, Midrasch und Targum, mit Bemerkungen von Immanuel Löw (Berlin: Calvary, 1898–1899; repr., Hildesheim: Olms, 1964), 221–23. On the influence of the Greek language on Rabbinic Hebrew see also Nicholas de Lange, “Greek Influences on Hebrew,” in A History of Ancient Greek: from the Beginnings to Late Antiquity, ed. A.-F. Christidis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 805–10. 2  Mordecai Margalioth, Sepher Harazim: a Newly Recovered Book of Magic from the Talmudic Period (Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Yediot Aḥronot, 1966), 99; Sepher ha-razim, trans. Michael A. Morgan, SBLTT 26 (Chico: Scholars Press, 1983), 71–72. 3  Saul Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Life and Manners of Jewish Palestine in the II–IV Centuries (New York: Feldheim, 1965), 144–60, and see in the index, s.v. Phrases and proverbs. 4   On Jewish Greek see Rachel Dalven and Ciril Aslanov, “Judeo-Greek,” in EncJud 11: 545–46; Hans Levy, “Jüdisch-Griechisch,” in Encyclopaedia Judaica (Berlin: Eschkol, 1932), 9: cols. 551–55. For a more detailed bibliography see Shifra Sznol, “Mediaeval Judeo-Greek Bibliography—Texts and Vocabularies,” Jewish Studies 39 (1999): 112–16.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004416727_015

290

Sznol

in the Romaniote communities in Greece (Thebes, Ioannina, Chalcis, Preveza, Volos, and Corinth), in the islands of Corfu, Lesbos, Chios and Crete, as well as in Turkey and in the Karaite communities in the East. These communities emerged and existed from the end of ancient times and the early Middle Ages until the Second World War. The aim of the present article is to summarize the main features of the translation of the Bible into Judeo-Greek in the Jewish communities and to focus on the influence of the Aramaic translations of Onqelos and Jonathan and other rabbinic exegeses on the shaping of these Judeo-Greek translations. The earliest documentation of the reading and interpretation of the Torah already appears in the late biblical books, ca. the fifth century bce: “… they read from the book, from the law of God, with interpretation. They gave the sense, so that the people understood the meaning” (Neh. 8:8). During the Persian period (the so-called Shivat Zion, or Restoration period– fifth century before the Common Era), the Hebrew language underwent linguistic developments both in its vocabulary and in its syntax, which by then differed from that of the Hebrew of the First Temple, or so-called biblical, period.5 Also in this period, Aramaic became the “lingua franca”: the official language as well as that most widespread among the common people. For both reasons it was necessary to explain the Hebrew text and even to translate it.6 The sages of the rabbinic literature claimed that the term ‫( ְמפ ָֹרׁש‬typically taken to imply “interpretation”) might be understood as translation (Gen. Rab. 36,8; b. Meg. 3a) into the common language spoken by the people. For translating the biblical Hebrew text in the synagogue during the first centuries before and after the common era they also adopted the rules which were applied in the Achaemenid Empire for official documents in the royal chancellery. This method of translation was part of the Mesopotamian cultural heritage of the Achaemenid scribes who read the official document in its original language (Akkadian or Aramaic, for example) and then translated it orally into Persian for the authorities.7 Translation was done “word for word,” despite the possibility that such an approach might alter the exact meaning of 5  On this period see Joseph Naveh and Jonas C. Greenfield, “Hebrew and Aramaic in the Persian Period,” in CHJ 1: 115–29. On the Targum Aramaic language see F. Rosenthal, “Aramaic I. Jewish Aramaic,” in EIr 2: 354. 6  On the early Aramaic translations and the rulings of the sages see Rimon Kasher, “Aramaic Bible Translations” (Hebrew), Pe‘amim 83 (2000): 70–107; Avigdor Shinan, The Biblical Story as Reflected in Its Aramaic Translations (Hebrew) (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1993), 13–31. 7  For the Aramaic written text, its simultaneous translation into Iranian languages and the influence of this process in the writing system of these languages see Shaul Shaked, EIr 2: 259–61, and the bibliography there.

TARGUM ONQELOS & RABBINIC INTERPRETATION

291

the paragraph.8 This literal translation was always subordinated to the “source text,” which suggested to Chaim Rabin the notion of a “di-glossic” translation, because at times the translation appears to consist of little more than glosses added to the original document.9 This translation process also underlines the authority of the original document. Thus was established the rule of reading the Pentateuch during the synagogue ritual and translating it orally.10 While the written text was the “sacred document,” and it was forbidden to change it, the oral translation was by definition always open to additions or comments as necessary to make it clear to the audience. Definitive rules for the reading and translation of the Bible were established in the rabbinical literature11 and subsequently adopted by Jewish communities throughout the centuries. For example, in Yemenite synagogues to this very day, it is customary to hear the Bible read along with its translation into Aramaic (Targum Onqelos) or Judeo-Arabic (Sa‘adiah Gaon). Indeed, most of the Jewish languages known today emerged from just such translations. However, this kind of literal “word for word” translation had an impact on the target language into which the text was translated and sometimes left unclear the meaning of an entire paragraph. Haim Vidal Sephiha accordingly sees

8   Hans Heinrich Schaeder, Esra der Schreiber (Tübingen: Mohr, 1930). 9   Chaim Rabin, “The Translation Process and the Character of the Septuagint,” Textus 6 (1968): 1–26. For a comprehensive overview of the translation tradition in the rabbinic acad10   emies and synagogue see Willem F. Smelik, Rabbis, Language and Translation in Late Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 122–26. For the suggestion that Nehemiah 8 is not to be understood in the sense of translation and was thus misread by the Rabbis, see Arie van der Kooij, “Nehemiah 8:8 and the Question of the ‘Targum’ tradition,” in Tradition of the Text. Studies offered to Dominique Barthélemy in Celebration of his 70th Birthday, ed. Gérard J. Norton and Stephen Pisano, OBO 109 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 79–90. 11  For the reading of the Torah in the synagogue in the earlier period see Israel L. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 245–48; Nicholas de Lange, Japheth in the Tents of Shem: Greek Bible Translations in Byzantine Judaism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 55–60. A detailed list of the rules of translation is discussed in Philip S. Alexander, “The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum,” in Congress Volume, Salamanca, 1983, ed. John A. Emerton, VTSup 36 (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 17–28.

292

Sznol

Ladino as a “calque language,”12 while in a detailed article, Julia Krivoruchko concludes the same for Judeo-Greek.13 Since the Ladino translations enlighten our comprehension of the Judeo-Greek translations, it is worthwhile to note Eleazar Gutwirth’s claims that medieval Jewish translators in Spain knew full well when a translation was on one hand purely literal and even incomprehensible and on the other when it conveyed the full meaning of the source text.14 Jewish Spain was the home of the school of translators who set rules for translation. There is no doubt that Spanish Jews understood the literal translation. However, this manner of oral literal translation of the Bible into Ladino survived for centuries, and there may be more than one reason for that. It is also worth noting the definition of Ladino presented at the Ferrara Congress by Manuel Álvarez and others: … from a syntactic point, “Ladino” is a calque language, which was never spoken, or if you like, that no Spanish Jew spoke like that. And we will say [this was] because the lexicon is modified, the phonetics too, the syntax as well, but the basic syntactic structures remain and are the fundamental part of the linguistic support, and when one reads the Bible of Ferrara or another Ladino text, one gets the feeling that it is a strange language. And by this liturgical sense, the structures are maintained throughout the centuries, although the phonetics and the lexicon are modified.15 We may assume the same definition for Judeo-Greek. The fixed nature of the literal translation and the subordination of its syntax to the Hebrew text served 12  For an exhaustive study of Ladino, as well other Jewish languages, as a calque language, see Haïm Vidal Sephiha, La Ladino: judéo-espagnol, 2 vols. (Paris: Université de la Sorbonne-Nouvelle [Paris III], 1982). Sephiha was also the editor of a valuable critical edition of the book of Deuteronomy from the Constantinople Pentateuch and of the Bible of Ferrara in a careful study of the characteristics of a “calque language”: Le Ladino, judéoespagnol calque: Deutéronome, versions de Constantinople, 1547 et de Ferrare, 1553 : édition, étude linguistique et lexique (Paris: Institut d’études hispaniques, 1973). 13  Julia Krivoruchko, “Medieval and Early Modern Judaeo-Greek Biblical Translations: A Linguistic Perspective,” in The Jewish-Greek Tradition in Antiquity and the Byzantine Empire, ed. James K. Aitken and James Carleton Paget (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 152–70; De Lange, Japhet, 96. 14  Eleazar Gutwirth, “Religión, historias y las Biblias romanceadas,” Revista Catalana de Teología 13.1 (1988): 115–33, esp. 119–20. 15  Manuel Álvarez, Manuel Ariza, and Josefa Mendoza Abreu, “La lengua castellana de la Biblia de Ferrara,” in Introducción a la Biblia de Ferrara: actas del simposio internacional sobre la Biblia de Ferrara, Sevilla 25–28 de noviembre de 1991, ed. Iacob M. Hassán and Angel Berenguer Amador (Madrid: Sefarad, 1992, Comisión Nacional Quinto Centenario: CSIC, 1994), 505–24, here 23.

TARGUM ONQELOS & RABBINIC INTERPRETATION

293

to maintain the structure of the language throughout the centuries and maintain its status as a liturgical language. The main Aramaic translations are Onqelos16 for the Pentateuch and that of Jonathan ben Uzziel for the Prophets, being the best known of all Aramaic translations and used most widely in most Jewish communities. Both Targums17 emerged in Palestine18 during the early centuries ce and were influenced by rabbinic interpretations of the Bible. At the same time, the reverse is also true: these Targums influenced rabbinic commentators in various ways. In addition to these translations, attention should also be drawn to other Aramaic translations of the Pentateuch such as Neofiti, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (or Targum Yerushalmi), and the Cairo Genizah19 fragments. Neither the Rabbinic translations into Aramaic, nor those into other Jewish languages, were ever endowed with the status of exclusively authoritative translations. This is why there were many different Aramaic versions and indeed, often more than one translation of the same verse. As we shall see in the list of examples, the latter is also true of the Judeo-Greek which supplies one translation in the Constantinople Pentateuch and another in the Glossary (Gen 49:10; Exod 9:28). While the Judeo-Greek translations were shaped by the rabbinical tradition of reading and translating the Bible into the vernacular language, they were also influenced by the earliest Greek translation—the Septuagint. Alongside Aramaic and Hebrew, the Greek-speaking Jewish communities of the Hellenistic kingdoms in the East produced a written Greek translation of the Bible known as the Septuagint during the early centuries bce.20 16  Targum Onqelos is the name of the Aramaic translation attributed to Onqelos. The author and his origin are unknown, but it was probably composed in Eretz Israel and later edited in Babylon. It is the most famous Aramaic translation and widely spread throughout the Jewish communities in the East and West. For editions see the appended bibliography. Targum Onqelos is characterized as a literal and simple translation. It deletes all anthropomorphic representations of God, and sometimes includes midrashic or halakic interpretations. 17   For a comprehensive introduction see Michael Klein, “The Aramaic Targumim: Translation and Interpretation,” in Michael Klein on the Targums: Collected Essays 1972– 2002, ed. Avigdor Shinan and Rimon Kasher, with Michael Marmur and Paul V.M. Flesher; Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 11 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 3–18. 18  On the language of Targum Jonathan see Avraham Tal, The Language of the Targum of the Former Prophets and Its Position within the Aramaic Dialects (Hebrew) (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1975). 19   Michael Klein, ed., Targumic Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). 20  For the Septuagint as one of the earliest Targum translations see Georges Drettas, “The Translation (Targum) of the Septuagint,” in A History of Ancient Greek, ed. Christidis, 886–96.

294

Sznol

The Septuagint translation was adopted by the Church and was also a main source of three different recensions associated with Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. Aquila was the translation closest to the rabbinical interpretation of the Masoretic text.21 These versions, and especially Aquila’s translation, were adopted by the new Jewish Greek communities and influenced the shaping of the Judeo-Greek translations. The main question is the link between the Septuagint and the translations in Judeo-Greek. One of the chief difficulties of comparing the two translations is that while we have the Septuagint translation of the full Bible, only the Pentateuch and a few chapters of other books remain of the Judeo-Greek translations. Only after the complete decoding of all Judeo-Greek manuscripts, including glossaries, and their publication will it be possible to overcome this difficulty and to get a clear picture of the two Greek Biblical translations and the relations between them. While a connection between the Septuagint and the Judeo-Greek translations has been denied by, for example, Dirk C. Hesseling22 and others, after the important contributions of David Simon Blondheim,23 Natalio Fernández Marcos,24 and Nicholas de Lange25 in the twentieth century, it is widely accepted that there are links between Judeo-Greek, the Septuagint and other Judeo-Greek translations, mainly through the above-mentioned recessions. 21  For the Three versions see Henry Barclay Swete, An introduction to the Old Testament in Greek; rev. by Richard R. Ottley (Cambridge: University Press, 1914), 31–53; Natalio Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible, trans. Wilfred Watson (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 109–54: “The Septuagint in Jewish Tradition, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion,” and see there an exhaustive bibliography; Timothy Michael Law, “Kaige, Aquila and Jewish Revision,” in Greek Scripture and Rabbis, ed. Timothy Michael Law and Alison Salvesen; CBET 66 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 39–64. 22  D  irk C. Hesseling, Les cinq livres de la loi (le Pentateuque), traduction en néo-grec publiée en caractères hébraiques à Constantinople en 1547, transcrite et accompagnée d’une introduction d’un glossaire et d’un facsimile (Leiden: van Doesburgh; Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1897), ii. 23  D  avid S. Blondheim, “Échos du judéohellénisme: Étude sur l’influence de la Septante et d’Aquila sur les versions néogrecques des Juifs,” REJ 8 (1924): 1–14, repr. in idem, Les Parlers judéo-romans et la Vetus Latina (Paris: Champion, 1925), Appendix B, 157–70. 24  Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, 174–87: “Jewish Versions into Mediaeval and Modern Greek”; idem, “El Pentateuco Griego de Constantinopla,” Erytheia 6.2 (1985): 185–203. 25  Nicholas de Lange, “The Jews of Byzantium and the Greek Bible: Outline of the Problems and Suggestions for Further Research,” in Rashi, 1040–1990: hommage à Ephraïm E. Urbach, ed. Gabrielle Sed-Rajna (Paris: Cerf, 1993), 203–10; idem, “La tradition des ‘revisions juives’ au Moyen Âge: Les fragments hébraïques de la Geniza du Caire,” in “Selon les Septante”: trente études sur la Bible grecque des Septante en hommage à Marguerite Harl, ed. Gilles Dorival and Olivier Munnich (Paris: Cerf 1995), 133–43; idem, Japhet, esp. Part 2: “The Greek Bible in Byzantine Judaism,” 53–117.

TARGUM ONQELOS & RABBINIC INTERPRETATION

295

As already noted, Judeo-Greek was written in Hebrew characters, like other Jewish languages such as Judeo-Arabic, Ladino, Judeo-Persian, and Yiddish (Judeo German) from the earlier period until the Second World War.26 In all of these, the Hebrew characters symbolize identification with the community and tradition.27 However, there are also a few Judeo-Greek documents with Greek characters which testify to knowledge of the Greek script by the Romaniotes.28 We may assume that the Greek alphabet was known in some communities, but the Judeo-Greeks kept the Hebrew alphabet for their biblical translations and later for their liturgy and poetic creativity. Judeo-Greek in Hebrew characters was established in its written forms following the establishment after the Masoretic text with its Tiberian Hebrew vocalization between the seventh and tenth centuries. The Judeo-Greek copyists and writers made clever use of the Tiberian Hebrew vocalization for their transcription of Greek in Hebrew characters. For instance, the use of original Hebrew characters was helpful for the writing of Jewish names of persons and places, ‫ירדן‬, ‫אהרון‬, ‫משה‬, ‫אברהם‬, ‫ סיני‬etc. as opposed to the Greek transliteration of Hebrew names found in the Septuagint or the Latin transliteration in the Vulgata.29 The Hebrew characters were also essential for words which cannot be translated into Greek because they are part of Jewish religious traditions or customs, such as ‫פסח‬, ‫שבת‬, ‫ שופר‬etc.30 The Judeo-Greek writers did not establish a normative orthography for their transcription, nor did authors in Rabbinic Greek nor those in other Jewish 26  For a detailed list of the use of Hebrew characters in European languages see Adolf Neubauer, “On Non-Hebrew Languages Used by Jews,” JQR 13 (1891): 9–19. 27  For this aspect in Judeo-Spanish or Ladino translations see David Bunis, “Writing Systems as a National Religious Symbol: On the Development of Judezmo Writing” (Hebrew), Pe‘amim 101–102 (2004–2005): 111–70; Ora (Rodrigue) Schwarzwald, “Spelling and Orthography in Ladino Translations of the 16th Century” (Hebrew), Pe‘amim 101–102 (2004–2005): 173–85. 28  It should be borne in mind that there were Jewish texts and documents with words and sentences in Greek characters; for a detailed list see Nicholas de Lange, “Glosses in Greek Script and Language in Medieval Hebrew Manuscripts,” Scriptorium 68 (2014): 253–64. 29  The same manner of recording Hebrew names was adopted in Ladino translations and as such were helpful in distinguishing the Jewish origin of the translation. See Ora (Rodrigue) Schwarzwald, “Proper Nouns in Ladino Translations” (Hebrew), Pe‘amim 84 (2000): 66–77; id., “On the Jewish Nature of Medieval Spanish Biblical Translations: Linguistic Differences between Medieval and Post-exilic Spanish Translations of the Bible,” Sefarad 70.1 (2010): 117–40, esp. 123–24. 30  This feature of keeping the Hebrew component in the Greek Jewish translation is common also to other Jewish languages. See, for example, in Ladino: Lorenzo Espada Amigo, El Pentateuco de Constantinopla y la Biblia Medieval Romanceada Judeoespañola: criterios y fuentes de traducción (Salamanca: Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca, 1983), 77–81.

296

Sznol

languages. The text was transmitted orally, while the written text illustrates how the language was spoken. After a comprehensive study of the transliteration of European languages in Hebrew characters, Hesseling, in his introduction to the Pentateuch, also mentions the use of Hebrew characters in the Judezmo or Ladino tradition. He points to two contemporary Ladino journals, El Tiempo and El Telegrafo, published in Istanbul. Hesseling is aware of the importance of this system of transcription and transliteration in Hebrew characters for the study of medieval and modern Greek.31 The Judeo-Greek translators were also influenced by rabbinic sources, especially by the midrash and medieval commentators such as Rashi,32 David Kimḥi,33 and occasionally Abraham Ibn Ezra34 and others. We can conclude that the translation of the Bible into Judeo-Greek began orally according to the rabbinic tradition. This was done mainly using the Greek vocabulary of the Middle Ages and of the beginning of modern times.35 Today a rich collection of manuscripts (some published), and a version of the Constantinople Pentateuch (also published) justify this hypothesis. This written evidence enables us to establish the final date when these translations were done. The Judeo-Greek biblical translations were composed not only after the Tiberian traditional reading was adopted,36 but also after the Masoretic order of the books was fixed, and the traditional weekly Torah portions (parashah) 31  Hesseling, Les cinq livres, ix. On the contribution of the cp for Greek studies see also Pedro Bádenas de la Peña, “La lengua judeogriega y el Pentateuco de Constantinopla (1547),” in Identities in the Greek World ( from 1204 to the Present Day): Proceedings of the 4th European Congress of Modern Greek Studies, Granada, 9–12 September 2010, ed. Konstantinos A. Dimadis (Athens: European Association of Modern Greek Studies, 2011– 12), vol. 3, 209–22. 32  Rashi is the acronym of Rabbi Shlomo Itzhaki (France 1040–1105), a medieval French rabbi, teacher, and famous author of a comprehensive commentary on the Tanakh and the Talmud. 33  Rabbi David Kimhi (also Kimchi or Qimḥi; Provence 1160–1235), also known by the Hebrew acronym of RaDaK, was a medieval rabbi, biblical commentator, philosopher, and grammarian. He is well known for his Hebrew grammar Mikhlol (‫ )מכלול‬and his dictionary of the Hebrew language Sefer Hashorashim. 34  Rabbi Abraham ben Meir Ibn Ezra (Tudela, Navarra 1089–1167) was one of the most remarkable Jewish Bible commentators, poets, and philosophers of the Middle Ages. His biblical commentary is characterized by grammatical accuracy and rational interpretation. 35  Hesseling, Les cinq livres, ix, n. 4. 36  On the Tiberian tradition see Israel Yeivin, Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah, translated and edited by E.J. Revell, MasS 5 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1980), 12–15; Aron Dotan, “Masora,” in EncJud 13: 603–56, esp. 607–14. The translations were probably done after the Aleppo Codex was written in the tenth century ce.

TARGUM ONQELOS & RABBINIC INTERPRETATION

297

and their denomination, as well as the traditional portion from the Prophets (haftarah) were canonized in the synagogue liturgy.37 We come to this conclusion not only from the Constantinople Pentateuch,38 but also from manuscripts of glossaries from the Cairo Genizah39 and the testimony provided by the haftaroth for Holy Days, such as the book of Jonah40 for Yom Kippur, and the haftarah “Naḥamu”41 for the “Consolation Sabbath” after the Ninth of Av, as well part of the scroll of Qohelet42 (Ecclesiastes) for Sukkot. Though Judeo-Greek emerged from the translation of the Bible in the synagogue and was an integral part of the liturgy, it eventually developed into a very rich literary language. Today we know of glossaries, liturgy, poetry, translations, etc. Although the Judeo-Greek text strives to maintain a literal translation, it is sometimes necessary to refer to Targum Onqelos for a better comprehension of the Greek translation. At times we also find an exegetical commentary collated from rabbinic sources in the Judeo-Greek translations. Another important feature of the Judeo-Greek translation is the presence at times of the mt verse in its Hebrew form (dibur hamatḥil) followed by the translation into Greek43 as is found in the Constantinople Pentateuch, as well as in the translations of Qohelet, Isaiah and others. This presentation highlights the idea of the connection between the glosses and the formation of the full text of the translation. Indeed, the glossaries make an important contribution to the study of the Greek translation and the reconstruction of its oral tradition. One good example is the glossary I discovered during my research in the National Library of Israel from MS Jewish Theological Seminary 5321 which quoted parallels to the Constantinople Pentateuch. I conclude this study with a list of examples of targumic and rabbinic exegesis in the Judeo-Greek translations. These examples are classified into two groups: a) the influence of the main Aramaic translations, Targum Onqelos and Targum Jonathan, on the Judeo-Greek translations; b) the influence of rabbinic and medieval exegesis on the Judeo-Greek translations. These examples

37  See for example Elisabeth Hollander and Johanan Niehoff-Panagiotidis, “Mahzor Romania and the Judeo-Greek Hymn ένας ο κύριος,” REJ 170 (2011): 117–71. 38  See the title page of the Constantinople Pentateuch. 39  See De Lange, Greek Jewish Texts, no. 11, 85–116, Scholia on the Pentateuch. 40  D  irk C. Hesseling, “Le livre de Jonas,” ByZ 10 (1901): 208–17. 41  Tg. Isa 40. 42  De Lange, Greek Jewish Texts, no. 9, 71–78. 43  On the importance of the insertion of Hebrew words or a full verse see De Lange, Greek Jewish Texts, 72, n. 2.

298

Sznol

will enlighten our comprehension of the Judeo-Greek translations, which are similar to other targumic translations. 1.1 Sources of Examples Constantinople Pentateuch (cp) Full edition: Dirk C. Hesseling, Les cinq livres de la loi (le Pentateuque) traduction en néo-grec publiée en caractères hébraiques à Constantinople en 1547, transcrite et accompagnée d’une introduction d’un glossaire et d’un facsimile (Leiden: van Doesburgh; Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1897). Bibliography: Abraham Yaari, Hebrew Printing at Constantinople (Hebrew), Supplement to Kirjath Sepher 42 (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1967), no. 144, pp. 102–3,197; De Lange, Japhet, 129–35. A new edition of the Constantinople Pentateuch is now being prepared by Pedro Bádenas de la Peña (Madrid: Spanish National Research Council–CSIC). Scholia on the Pentateuch (gjt) Nicholas de Lange, Greek Jewish Texts from the Cairo Genizah (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), no. 11, pp. 85–116. For additional notes and commentaries on the manuscript see De Lange, Japhet, 101–2; for a description of the manuscript and further bibliography see ibid., 172–73. Judeo-Greek Translation of Isaiah 40 (Tr. Isa.) Shifra Sznol, “A Judeo-Greek Translation of ‘Haftarat Va’etḥanan’ for the Consolation Sabbath (Isaiah 40:1–26)” (Hebrew), Textus 20 (2000): 9–32.44

Bible and Bible Translations

(1547) ‫ ׁש״ז‬.‫ חמׁשה חמׁשי תורה קוׁשטא‬,‫א׳ ׁשנצין‬

The Complete Parallel Bible: Containing the Old and New Testaments with Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books: New Revised Standard Version, Revised 44  The manuscript contains six pages, paper without watermarks. The first pages (1–4) include the haftarah for “Shabbat Naḥamu” (Isaiah 40:1–26). The text is written entirely in black ink on both sides of the page. There are ruptures at the bottom, and the text is missing in some places.   The dimensions of each page are 180 × 120 mm, of which the text occupies 60 × 102 mm. The Judeo-Greek text is in large square letters, and the Hebrew verse of the lemma is in cursive script.   The text is well vocalized and there are a few signs of cantillation (ta’mei hamikra). On every page there is a running title of the parashah “Va’etḥanan.” The manuscript is late and can be dated to the eighteenth century/nineteenth century.

TARGUM ONQELOS & RABBINIC INTERPRETATION

299

English Bible, New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993). The English translation of the Masoretic text is according to the New Revised Standard Version (nrsv). Whenever the translation quoted is from a different source, this will be noted. Targum, Targum Translations and Commentaries Menachem Cohen, ed., Mikra’ot Gedolot “Haketer”: A Revised and Augmented Edition of Mikra’ot Gedolot’ (Hebrew) 13 vols. (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1997). www.mechon-mamre.org Chumash with Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth and Rashi’s Commentary. Translated into English and annotated by Abraham M. Silbermann, in collaboration with M. Rosenbaum (Jerusalem: Silbermann Family, [1985]). Bernard Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis with Apparatus and Notes, ArBib 6 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988). Bernard Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Exodus with Apparatus and Notes, ArBib 7 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988). Israel Drazin, Targum Onkelos to Exodus: an English Translation of the Text with Analysis and Commentary (based on the A. Sperber and A. Berliner editions) (Hoboken: Ktav, 1990).

DGE Du Cange

EIr EncJud

HALOT

Kriaras

Dictionaries and Encyclopedias

Francisco R. Adrados, Diccionario Griego-Español. 7 vols. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 2008–in progress. Charles du Fresne du Cagne, Glossarium ad scriptores mediae & infimae Graecitatis, 2 vols. (Paris: Anissonios, Posuel & Rigaud, 1688, repr. Paris: Welter, 1905) Encyclopaedia Iranica, Edited by Ehsan Yarshater. 17 vols. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1982–2013. Encyclopaedia Judaica. Edited by Fred Skolnik and Michael Berenbaum. 22 vols. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA in association with Keter Pub. House, 2007. Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann J. Stamm, eds. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, transl. Mervyn E.J. Richardson, 5 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000). Emmanouel Kriaras, Lexikotes mesaionikes Hellenikes demodous grammateias, 1100–1669. 14 vols. (Thessaloniki: Royal Hellenic Research Foundation, 1968–1997).

300

Sznol

LBG

Erich Trapp, Lexikon zur byzantinischen Gräzität, 6 vols. (Wien: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1994–2007). Liddell, Henry, Robert Scott, and Henry S. Jones. Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed., with revised supplement (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996). Evangelinus A. Sophocles, Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (from B.C. 146 to A.D. 1100) (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1914).

LSJ Sophocles

2

Influence of Targum Onqelos and Targum Jonathan on the Judeo-Greek Bible Translations

Gen 26:26 cp καί μάζωμα της συντροφίας του, καί ο Πικολ αρχοστράτοράς του … with the assembly of his friends and Pikol, the commander of his army

Tg. Onq.

;‫ ֲא ָתא ְלוָ ֵתיּה ִמּגְ ָרר‬,‫וַ ֲא ִב ֶימ ֶלְך‬

ִ ,‫ֲמו ִהי‬ ֹ ‫ ֵמ ָרח‬,‫יעת‬ ַ ‫וְ ִס‬ ‫ ַרב‬,‫ּופיכֹול‬ ‫ֵח ֵיליּה‬ Now Abimelech had come to him from Gerar with a company of his friends

mt

‫ימ ֶלְך ָה ַלְך ֵא ָליו‬ ֶ ‫וַ ֲא ִב‬ ‫ּופיכֹל‬ ִ ‫ִמּגְ ָרר וַ ֲאחֻ ַ ּזת ֵמ ֵר ֵעה ּו‬ ‫ר־צ ָבאֹו‬ ְ ‫ַׂש‬ Now Abimelech went to him from Gerar, with Ahuzzath his adviser and Phicol the commander of his army

The Hebrew phrase “Ahuzzath his adviser” was translated in Onqelos as “his friends.” This interpretation was also adopted by the Greek translator. Gen 25:27

Tg. Onq.

CP: κάθεται εις τα σκολιά

‫וְ יַ ֲעקֹוב ּגְ ַבר ְׁש ִלים ְמ ַׁש ֵּמיׁש‬ .‫ּ ֵבית אֻ ְלפָ נָא‬ Jacob was a perfect man who attended the house of study

Jacob was sitting in a house of study

mt ‫וְ יַ ֲעקֹב ִאיׁש ָּתם י ֵֹׁשב אֹהָ ִלים‬

Jacob was a quiet man dwelling in the tents

301

TARGUM ONQELOS & RABBINIC INTERPRETATION

Targum Onqelos interpreted the phrase “dwelling in tents” as living in a house of study. The same expression is well known in Midrash Gen. Rab. 63:10 “in two tents, in the Academy of Shem and the Academy of Eber.”45 The JudeoGreek translator also adopted the interpretation of tents as “scholia,” a house of study. Gen 42:23 CP … ότι ο δραγουμάνος ανάμεσά τους Since there was a translator among them

Tg. Onq.

mt

‫ֲא ֵרי ְמתֻ ְר ְ ּג ָמן ֲהוָ ה ֵּבינֵ יהֹון‬ since there was a translator among them

‫ִּכי הַ ּ ֵמלִ יץ ֵּבינ ָֹתם‬ since he spoke with them through an interpreter

There are different glosses which correspond to the biblical Hebrew word ‫מליץ‬: “interpreter,” “envoy,” “subordinate,” “heavenly being,” etc. (HALOT, s.v.). Onqelos preferred interpretation is that of “translator” and this was also adopted by the translator of CP. Gen 49:10

Tg. Onq.

mt

cp … και γραφεάς απο ποδαρία του

‫ָלא יִ ְע ֵּדי ָע ֵביד ֻׁש ְל ָטן ִמ ְּד ֵבית‬ ָ ְ‫י‬ ‫נֹוהי ַעד‬ ִ ‫הּודה וספרא ְּבנֵ י ְּב‬ ‫ָע ְל ָמא‬ The ruler shall never depart from the House of Judah, nor the scribe for evermore

‫יהּודה ו ְּמח ֵֹקק‬ ָ ‫לֹא־יָ סּור ֵׁש ֶבט ִמ‬

And the Scribe from his feet

‫ִמ ֵּבין ַרגְ ָליו‬

The scepter shall not depart from Judah nor the ruler’s staff from his feet

The meaning of the word ‫ ְמח ֵֹקק‬is “ruler’s staff.” Tg. Onq. translated it as “scribe,” as did the Jewish Greek translator.

45  Harry Freedman and Maurice Simon, Midrash Rabbah 2. Genesis (London: Soncino, 1939), 566.

302 Gen 49:26 cp … χωρισμένος των αδερφιών του Separated from his brothers

Sznol

Tg. Onq.

‫חֹוהי‬ ִ ‫ישא ַּד ֲא‬ ָ ׁ ‫ּגֻ ְב ָרא ּ ְפ ִר‬ … one who has separated from his brothers Rashi gives the same interpretation.

mt

‫ּול ָק ְדקֹד נְ זִ יר ֶא ָחיו‬ ְ ‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫ְלרֹאׁש‬ On the “crown” of the one dedicated from among his brothers (New Jerusalem Bible) who was set apart from his brothers

There are two interpretations of the word ‫“ נָ זִ יר‬nazir.” The first is “separated” from his brothers as in Onqelos, cp (χωρισμένος), and Rashi’s commentary. The second, “crown,” derives from the Hebrew ‫“ נֵ זֶ ר‬nezer” and was adopted by Abraham Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, and modern translations. Exod 1:11

Tg. Onq.

cp Και έβαλαν απάνου του ‫טונִ ין ַמ ְבאֲ ִׁשין‬ ֹ ‫ּומּנִ יאּו ֲע ֵליהֹון ִׁש ְל‬ ַ αρχούς χαρατσάρους They appointed over them So they appointed over them supervisors (which demand) cruel supervisors Drazin translates: They heavy tasks appointed over them “evil doing”

mt ‫וַ ּיָ ִׂשימּו ָע ָליו שָׂ ֵרי ִמ ִּסים‬

Therefore they set taskmasters over them

The meaning of the Hebrew word ‫ מס‬is “tax,” or “forced labor.” The compound of ‫ ָׂש ֵרי ִמ ִּסים‬means “taskmasters.” “Cruel supervisor” is the interpretation of Targum Onqelos which perhaps was influenced by different midrashim that detailed the cruelty of the taskmasters.46 This interpretation was adopted also by the Judeo-Greek translator: supervisors who demand “heavy tasks.” 46   See Mordecai Margulies, ed., Midrash Hagadol on Pentateuch: Exodus (Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1956), 13; Netanel ben Yeshayah, Maor ha ’Aphelah, ed. Yosef ben David Qapah (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1957), 185; Menaḥem M. Kasher, ed., Torah Shelemah 3 (Jerusalem: Beth Torah Shelemah Institute, 1992), 26; Raphael B. Posen,

303

TARGUM ONQELOS & RABBINIC INTERPRETATION

Exod 4:16

Tg. Onq.

CP … να είνε εσέν δραγουμάνος ‫יהי הּוא יְ ֵהי ָלְך ִל ְמתֻ ְר ְ ּג ָמן‬ ֵ ִ‫ו‬ He will be a translator for He will be a translator you for you

mt ‫ה־ּלָך ְלפֶ ה‬ ְ ֶ‫וְ ָהיָ ה הּוא יִ ְהי‬ he shall serve as a mouth for you

The word “mouth,” Hebrew ‫ ֶפה‬, was interpreted by Onqelos as “translator” and the same translation (δραγουμάνος) appears in the Judeo-Greek translation. Exod 9:28

Tg. Onq.

gjt, 11 Scholia 4 v, 15, ‫מֹוהי ְרוַ ח‬ ִ ‫ַצלֹו ֳק ָדם יְ יָ וְ ַסגִ י ֳק ָד‬ p. 103 (μέγαν) ‫ורב; ומיגן‬ Much Pray before the Lord ⟨let there proceed⟩ from him much relief Grossfeld translation: Pray before the Lord that there be a great (salvation) (Nathan Adler) CP … καὶ να πάψη Drazin translation, 106: let be Should stop (enough) sufficient Rashi: and it is enough.

mt ‫ַה ְע ִּתירּו ֶאל־יְ הוָ ה וְ ַרב‬

Pray to the Lord enough

This is a difficult verse which was interpreted by two different translations of the word ‫רב‬. The literal meaning of ‫ רב‬is “much,” but in the context of the verse it has to signify “enough.” It was translated as “much” by the Cairo Glossary, in Tg. Onq. according to the translation of Nathan Adler quoted by Drazin (p. 106), by Grossfeld, and the commentary Leqaḥ Tov of Tobiah ben Eliezer (11th century). For the translation of ‫ רב‬as “enough,” see the lxx translation of this passage: καὶ παυσάσθω (let him cause the thundering of God to cease), the cp translation, Rashi’s commentary, and all modern translations. Parshegan: Explanations, Commentaries, and Sources to Targum Onqelos, 3 vols. (Jerusalem: Makhon Parshegan, 2012–2016), vol. 2: Exodus, 20, Tg. Onq., trans. Grossfeld, 3 n. 5.

304 Exod 15:8 cp Εστάθηκαν σαν τείχο The waters stood up like a wall

Sznol

Tg. Onq.

mt

‫ימר ֻּפ ָּמְך ֲח ִכימּו ַמּיָ א‬ ַ ‫ּוב ֵמ‬ ְ ‫ָקמּו ְּכ ׁשוּר אָ זְ לַ ּיָא‬ And by the command of Your mouth … the waters … stood up like a wall

‫רּוח ַא ֶּפיָך נֶ ֶע ְרמּו ַמיִ ם‬ ַ ‫ּוב‬ ְ ‫מו־נד נֹזְ ִלים‬ ֹ ‫נִ ְּצבּו ְכ‬ And by command of Your mouth. The flood stood up in a heap

The Hebrew compound ‫ נד נֹזְ ִלים‬whose meaning is a “heap of water,” was translated in Onqelos as a “wall.” There is an identical translation in the cp and other rabbinical commentaries.47 Tr. Isa. 40:5 …ο λόγος του ‫ ה‬ομίλησε The word of God has spoken

Tg. Jon.

mt ‫מימרא דיי‬

The memra of God

‫ִּכי ּ ִפי יְ הוָ ה ִּד ֵּבר‬ for the mouth of God has spoken

Targum Jonathan, like Onqelos, follows the tendency to avoid the anthropomorphisms of the Masoretic text. In the present verse the Greek translates “the mouth of God” by the word “logos.” It seems to approximate the translation of “memra” in Aramaic translations and other intertestamental literature.48

47  Rashi. ‫—חומה כתרגומו שור‬as its translation: wall., The same Abraham Ibn Ezra, as a wall. 48  On the use of “memra” in the Targumim see Bruce Chilton, “Typologies of memra and the Fourth Gospel,” in Targum Studies 1. Textual and Contextual Studies in the Pentateuchal Targums, ed. Paul V.M. Flesher, SFSHJ 55 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 89–100 and his extensive bibliography; Michael Klein, “The Translation of Anthropomorphisms and Anthropopathisms in the Targumim,” in Michael Klein on the Targums: Collected Essays 1972–2002, ed. Avigdor Shinan and Rimon Kasher with Michael Marmur and Paul V.M. Flesher, Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 11 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 59–75; Domingo Muñoz León, Dios-palabra: Memrá en los Targumim del Pentateuco (Granada: Editorial-Imprenta Santa Rita, 1974).

305

TARGUM ONQELOS & RABBINIC INTERPRETATION

Tr. Isa. 40:15

Tg. Jon.

mt

…οι νησιώτες The islanders

‫נְ גָ ווָ ָתא‬ The islanders

‫ֵהן ִא ִ ּיים ַּכ ַּדק יִ ּטֹול‬ He takes up the isles like fine dust

The Hebrew word ‫( איים‬isles) is translated by Jonathan as “islanders,” and this translation was also adopted by the Judeo-Greek translator. 3

Influence of Rabbinic Literature on the Translations

Gen 41:8

Rabbinic literature

gjt, 11 Scholia 3 v, 14, p. 94 Και εμετα κουνίστηνη πνοάτου cp Και εμετα κουνίστηνη πνοάτου His spirit was troubled. It struck like a bell

Midrash Tanḥuma49 His spirit was troubled … it rang—within like a bell

mt

ֹ‫וַ ִּת ּ ָפ ֶעם רוּחו‬

His spirit was troubled

Midrash Tanḥuma compares Pharaoh’s troubled spirit to a bell. The same interpretation was quoted by Rashi. This metaphor was adopted by the author of the Cairo glossary and by the translator of CP.50

49  Shlomo Buber, ed., Midrash Tanḥuma (Wilna: ha-Almanah veha-Aḥim Rom, 1885; repr. Jerusalem, 1964), vol. 1, 190. 50   “… that his spirit was troubled in that it was beating against him like a gong,” John T. Townsend, Midrash Tanhuma S. Buber recension (Hoboken: Ktav, 1989–2003), vol. 1, 253. This interpretation explains the root ‫“ פעם‬knock/to disturb” from which the word ‫“ פעמון‬bell” is also derived.

306 Gen 49:10

Sznol

Rabbinic literature

cp Και αυτουνού μάζωμα Rashi: an assemblage of the λαών peoples and to him the assembly of the nations

mt

‫וְ לֹו יִ ְ ּקהַ ת ַע ִּמים‬ and the obedience of the people

This interpretation is according to by Koehler and Baumgartner, is from the root ‫ קוה‬II “to assemble,” and is so interpreted by Rashi and the cp translator. See also cp to Gen 1:10 and 17:4 where the translation is from the same root ‫קוה‬ with the meaning “to assemble.” Gen 49:25 cp … και τον ικανό και να σε ευλογήση By the Almighty who will Bless you

Rabbinic literature

‫וְ יָת ׁ ַשדַּ י וִ ָיב ְר ִכּנָ ְך‬

mt ‫ֵמ ֵאל ָא ִביָך וְ יַ ְעזְ ֶרּךָ וְ ֵאת ׁ ַשדַּ י‬

ָ‫וִ ָיב ְר ֶכּך‬

By the God of your father, by the Almighty who will bless you

“Ikanos” (enough) is the common translation of the name of God, “Shaddai,” in Judeo-Greek, as well as in other Jewish languages (e.g. “Abastado” in Ladino and “alkafi” in Judeo-Arabic). Shaddai in biblical Hebrew is the name of a deity and may be derived from the root shadd. In rabbinical sources it was interpreted as a name of God composed of (‫“ )ש‬who” and (‫“ )די‬enough.” Ikanos (enough) is an interpretation in rabbinical sources of the completion of God’s creation of the World. See for example b. Hag. 12a: “I am Almighty (Shadai) (it means:) I am he who said to the world: Enough!” Rashi on Gen 17:1: “I am Almighty— I am he whose (‫ )ש‬Godship is sufficient (‫ )די‬for every creature.

307

TARGUM ONQELOS & RABBINIC INTERPRETATION

Gen 49:27

Rabbinic literature

Rashi: “ad” (‫ )עד‬is an Aramaic gjt, 11 Scholia 4 v, 12, p. 100 word synonymous with ‫ עד כמו בבוקר יאכל עד‬the Hebrew word ‫ בזה‬and ‫“—שלל פרדא‬prey”—and in Tg. Onq. as in the morning he de- to Num 31:11. ‫עדאה‬. The same vours his prey (“praida”) interpretation is offered by Ibn CP Ezra and by Kimḥi. … το βράδυ ναμοιράση κρούσος In the morning he devours his booty (cursus)

mt

‫אכל ַעד וְ ָל ֶע ֶרב‬ ַ ֹ ‫ַּבּב ֶֹקר י‬ ‫יְ ַח ֵּלק ָׁש ָלל‬ In the morning devouring the prey

The Hebrew word ‫ עד‬has various meanings, but is used mainly as a preposition (“as far as”) or as a conjunction (“until,” cf. HALOT). In the present verse it is interpreted as “booty” because of the context and similarity with the Aramaic ‫“ עדאה‬prey” (Tg. Onq. to Num 31:11). The author of the glossary chooses a Greek loan word πραίδα from the Latin praeda, “booty,” and the cp translator also uses a Greek loan word κούρσον from the Latin cursus.51 Exod 15:11

Rabbinic literature

Τις σαν εσέν εις τους δυνατούς Κύριε,

Rashi: among the mighty, just as Ezek 17: 13; Ps 22:20 etc. lxx: τίς ὅμοιός σοι ἐν θεοῖς. Who is like you among the gods Vulgata ad. loc.: quis similis tui in fortibus Domine Who is like you among the strong, God.

Who is like you among the strong

mt

‫ִמי־כָ מֹכָ ה ּ ָבאֵ ִלם יְ הוָ ה‬

Who is like You among the gods

51  For the meaning of this word as “pillage” see the dictionaries of Kriaras and Du Cange, s.v.

308

Sznol

The literal translation of the verse is “who is like You among the gods.” Due to the fear of idolatry, later commentators changed it from “gods” to the “strong,” for example the Vulgata and CP. Abraham Ibn Ezra, who was more sensitive to the original meaning, explained this expression, “the angels and the stars.” Exod 25:30; 39:36

Rabbinic literature

διπρόσωπος LSJ: “two-faced,” see there in the Supplement DGE s.v. papyri

Tg. Onq.: display bread Set the show bread (Drazin)

mt

‫ֶל ֶחם ָּפנִ ים‬ And you shall set the bread of the presence

‫ ֶל ֶחם ָּפנִ ים‬is the bread placed on the golden table in the Temple (Exod 25:30; 1 Sam 21:7; 1 Kgs 7:48; 2 Chr 4:19), the word “face” ‫ פנים‬is ambiguous, and seems to be a plural form of *‫( פנה‬HALOT). In the rabbinical literature there was a debate about the definition of ‫ ֶל ֶחם ָּפנִ ים‬. Ben Zoma said: “bread with faces”

(m. Menaḥ. 11:4–5), while Maimonides insists: “that it has many faces,”52 similar to Rashi who understands Exod 25:30 as implying that it has faces that they can see from one side and the other, etc. The Greek translation διπρόσωπος means double face or both sides (LSJ and DGE for more detailed documentation of the use of this compound in the papyri). The Septuagint is translated as “showbread” (ἄρτους ἐνωπίους), but the translation in manuscript Fb 56, which has many sources in common with CP, is διπρόσωπος, as in CP.53 Tr. Isa. 40:1

Rabbinic literature

mt

… εσώστεψε ο καιρός της Completed his time

Rashi: ‫צבאה‬, her time Kimḥi: she completed her time, to be in exile

‫ִּכי ָמ ְל ָאה ְצבָ אָ ּה‬ That she has served her term

52  Moses Maimonides, The Code of Maimonides, transl. Mendell Lewittes, 13 vols. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1949–2004), vol. 8: The Book of the Temple Service, ch. 5, halakhah 9, p. 269. 53  See John W. Wevers, Exodus, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum II.1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 44.

309

TARGUM ONQELOS & RABBINIC INTERPRETATION

One of the meanings of the word ‫ צבא‬is “compulsory labor,” (see HALOT, 995). Rashi and Kimḥi interpreted it as “her time.” The same translation was chosen by the Judeo-Greek translator. Tr. Isa 40:10

‫ אידו ה או תיאוס מי‬:‫הנה‬ ‫כירא דינטי תא רטי‬ Εδώ ο θεός μεχέρα δυνατή θα έρτει Here God will come with a strong hand

Rabbinic literature

mt

Kimḥi: The Lord will come with his strong hand

‫ִהּנֵ ה ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוִ ה ְּבחָ זָ ק יָבֹוא‬ See, the Lord comes with might

This verse announces the arrival of God with might. Kimḥi and the translator into Judeo-Greek interpret it literally as “his strong hand.” 4

Concluding Remarks

The examples presented above enable us to recognize that the creation of these new Greek translations of the Bible in the Judeo-Greek communities was influenced not only by the “Septuagint recensions,” but also by the rabbinic tradition of Aramaic translations and rabbinic commentaries. The presence of intercalations or interpretations of the Targum in these translations, as well the midrashic commentaries and medieval exegesis, point to the various periods in which these translations were created, no earlier than the seventh-eighth centuries, and probably later. The most important collections of Judeo-Greek translations available today are found in Columbia University and the Ben-Zvi Institute. Another important source of information on these translations is the Cairo Genizah documentation thanks to the pioneering efforts of Nicholas de Lange in deciphering and publishing these texts. In addition to these centers of study and research, the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts (IMHM) at the National Library of Israel in Jerusalem is probably today the holder of the most complete collection of Judeo Greek manuscripts on microfilm. The aim of this institute is to collect microfilms of all manuscripts in Hebrew characters wherever they are found throughout the world. The Institute, which was founded in 1950 by

310

Sznol

the Hebrew scholar Nehemiah Allony and is an integral part of the National Library of Israel in Jerusalem. Its collection of microfilm includes more than 80,000 Hebrew manuscripts from various collections and thousands of fragments from the Cairo Genizah. The Institute serves as a laboratory or workshop for a number of prestigious projects of Jewish studies. The information supplied by the IMHM catalog includes a brief description of each manuscript, paleographical and codicological information, the total number of leaves, date of the manuscript, name of the scribe, place of writing, and decorations, language, etc. The collection of microfilmed manuscripts is not devoted solely to Hebrew texts but also to manuscripts written in Jewish languages, or what are today sometimes called the languages of the Jews: Yiddish, Ladino, Judeo-Arabic, and Judeo-Greek. From these collections we gladly refer to two manuscripts which confirm the thesis argued above and illustrate the knowledge of Aramaic translations and of Hebrew commentators within in the Judeo-Greek communities. The first is a manuscript of Columbia University Library,54 which contains a translation of Targum Jonathan into Judeo-Greek. The second is also a manuscript held by that library,55 which contains a translation into Judeo-Greek of the “Book of the Roots” (Sefer ha-Shorashim) of Kimḥi. When we began our research we were quite certain that the Judeo Greek biblical translations were greatly influenced by the early Aramaic translations and rabbinic commentaries, but now we have discovered proof for our assumption. As we have seen, the Judeo Greek translations reflect the confluence of recensions of the Septuagint from a very early period and—though we do not know how and when this happened—the main corpus of these translations was shaped by the rabbinic tradition of translation of and commentary on the Pentateuch in the Middle Ages. Our analysis finds parallel examples in Ladino, because the history of this Jewish language is comparable to that of Judeo-Greek due to the great number of its sources and because it affords intensive research. Indeed, the same results would probably be found in other 54  Isaac Mendelsohn, Descriptive Catalogue of Semitic Manuscripts (Mainly Hebrew), in the Libraries of Columbia University (New York: Columbia University Libraries, 1950–?), MS no. 922: ‫= מגילת שיר השירים עם תרגום יונתן מתורגם ליונית כפי מנהג יאנינא וארטא‬ The Song of Songs with Targum Jonathan translated into Greek according the custom of Ioannina and Arta. 55  Ibid., MS no. 926: –‫קצור ספר השרשים לרד״ק (תרגום השרשים ליונית באותיות עבריות‬ )‫ = הערות בשולים ביונית באותיות יוניות‬Abstract of the “Book of the Roots’” by RaDaK (translation of the roots into Greek with Hebrew characters, marginal notes in Greek with Greek characters).

TARGUM ONQELOS & RABBINIC INTERPRETATION

311

Jewish languages. After all, the emergence of the Judeo-Greek translations was not an isolated phenomenon but an integral part of the translation of biblical traditions in the Jewish Diaspora. Research of the Judeo-Greek translations began in the sixteenth century with the printed edition of the Constantinople Pentateuch and continued vigorously into the twentieth century, but some questions remain unresolved. Only after arduous and rigorous study of the rich material which is yet to be deciphered and published, shall we be able to provide a full answer to such questions. Acknowledgements I would like to thank Uri Melammed (Academy of the Hebrew Language, Jerusalem) for his advice on the Targum literature and Avigdor Shinan (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) for his careful reading of the article and important observations on the text. Special thanks to Yohai Goell (Ben-Zvi Institute of Jerusalem) for his assistance in the preparation of the article and his linguistic editing. Bibliography Adrados, Francisco R., Diccionario Griego-Español. 7 vols. (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 2008ff.). Aitken, James K. and James Carleton Paget, eds., The Jewish-Greek Tradition in Antiquity and the Byzantine Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014). Alexander, Philip S., “The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum,” in Congress Volume, Salamanca, 1983, ed. John A. Emerton, VTSup 36 (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 17–28. Álvarez, Manuel, Manuel Ariza, and Josefa Mendoza Abreu, “La lengua castellana de la Biblia de Ferrara,” in Introducción a la Biblia de Ferrara: actas del simposio internacional sobre la Biblia de Ferrara, Sevilla 25–28 de noviembre de 1991, ed. Iacob M. Hassán and Angel Berenguer Amador (Madrid: Sefarad, 1992, Comisión Nacional Quinto Centenario: CSIC, 1994), 505–24. Amigo, Lorenzo Espada, El Pentateuco de Constantinopla y la Biblia medieval romanceada judeo española: criterios y fuentes de traducción (Salamanca: Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca, 1983). Bádenas de la Peña, Pedro, “La lengua judeogriega y el Pentateuco de Constantinopla (1547),” in Identities in the Greek World ( from 1204 to the Present Day): Proceedings of

312

Sznol

the 4th European Congress of Modern Greek Studies, Granada, 9–12 September 2010, ed. Konstantinos A. Dimadis (Athens: European Association of Modern Greek Studies, 2011–12), vol. 3, 209–22. Blondheim, David S., “Échos du judéohellénisme: Étude sur l’influence de la Septante et d’Aquila sur les versions néogrecques des Juifs,” REJ 8 (1924): 1–14, repr. in idem, Les Parlers judéo-romans et la Vetus Latina (Paris: Champion, 1925), Appendix B, 157–70. Buber, Shlomo, ed., Midrash Tanḥuma (Wilna: ha-Almanah veha-Aḥim Rom, 1885; repr. Jerusalem, 1964). Bunis, David, “Writing Systems as a National Religious Symbol: On the Development of Judezmo Writing” (Hebrew), Pe‘amim 101–102 (2004–2005): 111–70. Chilton, Bruce, “Typologies of memra and the Fourth Gospel,” in Targum Studies 1. Textual and Contextual Studies in the Pentateuchal Targums, ed. Paul V.M. Flesher, SFSHJ 55 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 89–100. Chumash with Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth and Rashi’s Commentary. Translated into English and annotated by Abraham M. Silbermann, in collaboration with M. Rosenbaum (Jerusalem: Silbermann Family, [1985]). Cohen, Menachem, ed., Mikra’ot Gedolot “Haketer”: A Revised and Augmented Edition of Mikra’ot Gedolot’ (Hebrew) 13 vols. (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1997). Dalven, Rachel and Ciril Aslanov, “Judeo-Greek,” in EncJud 11: 545–46. De Lange, Nicholas, “The Jews of Byzantium and the Greek Bible: Outline of the Problems and Suggestions for Further Research,” in Rashi, 1040–1990: hommage à Ephraïm E. Urbach, ed. Gabrielle Sed-Rajna (Paris: Cerf, 1993), 203–10. De Lange, Nicholas, “La tradition des ‘revisions juives’ au Moyen Âge: Les fragments hébraïques de la Geniza du Caire,” in “Selon les Septante”: trente études sur la Bible grecque des Septante en hommage à Marguerite Harl, ed. Gilles Dorival and Olivier Munnich (Paris: Cerf, 1995), 133–43. De Lange, Nicholas, “Greek Influences on Hebrew,” in A History of Ancient Greek: from the Beginnings to Late Antiquity, ed. A.-F. Christidis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 805–10. De Lange, Nicholas, “Glosses in Greek Script and Language in Medieval Hebrew Manuscripts, “Scriptorium 68 (2014): 253–64. De Lange, Nicholas, Japheth in the Tents of Shem: Greek Bible Translations in Byzantine Judaism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015). Dotan, Aron, “Masora,” in EncJud 13: 603–56. Drazin, Israel, Targum Onkelos to Exodus: an English Translation of the Text with Analysis and Commentary (based on the A. Sperber and A. Berliner editions) (Hoboken: Ktav, 1990). Drettas, Georges, “The Translation (Targum) of the Septuagint,” in A History of Ancient Greek: from the Beginnings to Late Antiquity, ed. A.-F. Christidis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 886–96.

TARGUM ONQELOS & RABBINIC INTERPRETATION

313

du Fresne du Cagne, Charles, Glossarium ad scriptores mediae & infimae Graecitatis, 2 vols. (Paris: Anissonios, Posuel & Rigaud, 1688, repr. Paris: Welter, 1905). Fernández Marcos, Natalio, “El Pentateuco Griego de Constantinopla,” Erytheia 6.2 (1985): 185–203. Fernández Marcos, Natalio, The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible, transl. Wilfred G.E. Watson (Leiden: Brill, 2000). Freedman, Harry and Maurice Simon, Midrash Rabbah (London: Soncino, 1939). Grossfeld, Bernard, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis with Apparatus and Notes, ArBib 6 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988). Grossfeld, Bernard, The Targum Onqelos to Exodus with Apparatus and Notes, ArBib 7 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988). Gutwirth, Eleazar, “Religión, historias y las Biblias romanceadas,” Revista Catalana de Teología 13.1 (1988): 115–33, esp. 119–20. Hesseling, Dirk C., Les cinq livres de la loi (le Pentateuque), traduction en néo-grec publiée en caractères hébraiques à Constantinople en 1547, transcrite et accompagnée d’une introduction d’un glossaire et d’un facsimile (Leiden: van Doesburgh; Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1897). Hesseling, Dirk C., “Le livre de Jonas,” ByZ 10 (1901): 208–17. Hollander, Elisabeth and Johanan Niehoff-Panagiotidis, “Mahzor Romania and the Judeo-Greek Hymn ένας ο κύριος,” REJ 170 (2011): 117–71. Kasher, Menaḥem M., ed., Torah Shelemah 3 (Jerusalem: Beth Torah Shelemah Institute, 1992). Kasher, Rimon, “Aramaic Bible Trans­lations” (Hebrew), Pe‘amim 83 (2000): 70–107. Klein, Michael, ed., Targumic Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). Klein, Michael, “The Aramaic Targumim: Translation and Interpretation,” in Michael Klein on the Targums: Collected Essays 1972–2002, ed. Avigdor Shinan and Rimon Kasher, with Michael Marmur and Paul V.M. Flesher; Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 11 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 3–18. Klein, Michael, “The Translation of Anthropomorphisms and Anthropopathisms in the Targumim,” in Michael Klein on the Targums: Collected Essays 1972–2002, ed. Avigdor Shinan and Rimon Kasher with Michael Marmur and Paul V.M. Flesher, Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 11 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 59–75. Komlosh, Yehuda, The Bible in Light of the Aramaic Translations (Hebrew) (Tel Aviv: Bar-Ilan University and Dvir, 1973). Kooij, Arie van der, “Nehemiah 8:8 and the Question of the ‘Targum’ tradition,” in Tradition of the Text. Studies offered to Dominique Barthélemy in Celebration of his 70th Birthday, ed. Gérard J. Norton and Stephen Pisano, OBO 109 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 79–90.

314

Sznol

Krauss, Samuel, Griechische und lateinische Lehnwörter im Talmud, Midrasch und Targum, mit Bemerkungen von Immanuel Löw (Berlin: Calvary, 1898–1899; repr., Hildesheim: Olms, 1964). Kriaras, Emmanouel, Lexikotes mesaionikes Hellenikes demodous grammateias, 1100– 1669, 14 vols. (Thessaloniki: Royal Hellenic Research Foundation, 1968–1997). Krivoruchko, Julia, “Medieval and Early Modern Judaeo-Greek Biblical Translations: A Linguistic Perspective,” in The Jewish-Greek Tradition in Antiquity and the Byzantine Empire, ed. James K. Aitken and James Carleton Paget (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 152–70. Law, Timothy Michael, “Kaige, Aquila and Jewish Revision,” in Greek Scripture and Rabbis, ed. Timothy Michael Law and Alison Salvesen; CBET 66 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 39–64. Levine, Israel L., The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000). Levy, Hans, “Jüdisch-Griechisch,” in Encyclopaedia Judaica (Berlin: Eschkol, 1932), 9: cols. 551–55. Lieberman, Saul, Greek in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Life and Manners of Jewish Palestine in the II–IV Centuries (New York: Feldheim, 1965). Maimonides, Moses, The Code of Maimonides, transl. Mendell Lewittes, 13 vols. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1949–2004). Margalioth, Mordecai, Sepher Harazim: a Newly Recovered Book of Magic from the Talmudic Period (Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Yediot Aḥronot, 1966). Margulies, Mordecai, ed., Midrash Hagadol on Pentateuch: Exodus (Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1956). Mendelsohn, Isaac, Descriptive Catalogue of Semitic Manuscripts (Mainly Hebrew), in the Libraries of Columbia University (New York: Columbia University Libraries, 195–?). Morgan, Michael A., Sepher ha-razim, SBLTT 26 (Chico: Scholars Press, 1983). Muñoz León, Domingo, Dios-palabra: Memrá en los Targumim del Pentateuco (Granada: Editorial-Imprenta Santa Rita, 1974). Naveh, Joseph and Jonas C. Greenfield, “Hebrew and Aramaic in the Persian Period,” in CHJ 1: 115–29. Neubauer, Adolf, “On Non-Hebrew Languages Used by Jews,” JQR 13 (1891): 9–19. Posen, Raphael B., Parshegan: Explanations, Commentaries, and Sources to Targum Onqelos, 3 vols. (Jerusalem: Makhon Parshegan, 2012–2016). Rabin, Chaim, “The Translation Process and the Character of the Septuagint,” Textus 6 (1968): 1–26. Rabin, Chaim, “Cultural Aspects of Bible Translation,” in Armenian and Biblical Studies, ed. Michael E. Stone (Jerusalem: St. James Press, 1976), 35–49.

TARGUM ONQELOS & RABBINIC INTERPRETATION

315

Safrai, Shmuel, ed., The Literature of the Sages. 2: Midrash and Targum, Liturgy, Poetry, Mysticism, Contracts, Inscriptions, Ancient Science and the Languages of Rabbinic Literature (Assen: Van Gorcum, 2006). Schaeder, Hans Heinrich, Esra der Schreiber (Tübingen: Mohr, 1930). Schwarzwald, Ora (Rodrigue), “Proper Nouns in Ladino Translations” (Hebrew), Pe‘amim 84 (2000): 66–77. Schwarzwald, Ora (Rodrigue), “Spelling and Orthography in Ladino Translations of the 16th Century” (Hebrew), Pe‘amim 101–102 (2004–2005): 173–85. Schwarzwald, Ora (Rodrigue), “On the Jewish Nature of Medieval Spanish Biblical Translations: Linguistic Differences between Medieval and Post-exilic Spanish Translations of the Bible,” Sefarad 70.1 (2010): 117–40. Shinan, Avigdor, The Biblical Story as Reflected in Its Aramaic Translations (Hebrew) (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1993), 13–31. Smelik, Willem F., Rabbis, Language and Translation in Late Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013). Sophocles, Evangelinus A., Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (from B.C. 146 to A.D. 1100) (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1914). Swete, Henry Barclay, An introduction to the Old Testament in Greek; rev. by Richard R. Ottley (Cambridge: University Press, 1914). Sznol, Shifra, “Mediaeval Judeo-Greek Bibliography—Texts and Vocabularies,” Jewish Studies 39 (1999): 112–16. Sznol, Shifra, “Text and Glossary: Between Written Text and Oral Tradition,” Greek Scripture and the Rabbis, ed. Timothy Michael Law and Alison Salvesen; CBET 66 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 217–32. Sznol, Shifra, “Traces of the Targum Sources in Greek Bible Translations in the Hebrew Alphabet,” JSP 23.3 (2014): 239–56. Tal, Avraham, The Language of the Targum of the Former Prophets and Its Position within the Aramaic Dialects (Hebrew) (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1975). Ta-Shma, Israel M., “Leqaḥ Tov,” in Studies in Medieval Rabbinic Literature, vol. 3: Italy and Byzantium (Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2005), 259–68. Townsend, John T., Midrash Tanhuma S. Buber recension (Hoboken: Ktav, 1989–2003). Trapp, Erich, Lexikon zur byzantinischen Gräzität, 6 vols. (Wien: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1994–2007). Vidal Sephiha, Haïm, Le Ladino, judéo-espagnol calque: Deutéronome, versions de Constantinople, 1547 et de Ferrare, 1553 : édition, étude linguistique et lexique (Paris: Institut d’études hispaniques, 1973). Vidal Sephiha, Haïm, La Ladino: judéo-espagnol, 2 vols. (Paris: Université de la Sorbonne-Nouvelle [Paris III], 1982).

316

Sznol

Wevers, John W., Exodus, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum II.1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991). Yeivin, Israel, Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah, translated and edited by E.J. Revell, MasS 5 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1980). Yeshayah, Netanel ben, Maor ha ’Aphelah, ed. Yosef ben David Qapah (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1957).

Chapter 14

Simeon the Just, the Septuagint and Targum Jonathan Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman 1 Introduction1 The New Testament narrates how Joseph and Mary present their first-born son, Jesus, in the Temple. Two persons recognize the child as someone special. Their names are Simeon and Anna. First in Eastern and then later in Western Christianity, the figure of Simeon especially spoke to the imagination. Of him Luke says: Now in Jerusalem there was a man named Simeon. He was an upright and devout man. He looked forward to the restoration of Israel and the Holy Spirit rested on him. It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death until he had set eyes on the messiah of the Lord. Luke 2:25–26

It is in the twelfth century that Dionysius bar Salibi († 1171) in his commentary on Luke sums up who this Simeon is said to be. He offers seven different explanations, five of which identify Simeon with someone long-ago.2 Evidently, Simeon’s hymn suggested that he was a very old man: “Now, Lord, you can let me, your servant, die in peace as you said: With my own eyes I have seen your salvation …” (Luke 2:29–32). Some thought that he lived before and during the Babylonian exile, and lived on more than five hundred years until he saw Christ. In that case he might be identified as Simeon son of Jeshua son of Jozadak (mentioned, e.g., in Neh 12:26). There were those who considered him one of the 72 translators of the Septuagint. In that case he lived 278 years until 1  This article is based on a lecture given during the conference of the IOTS and IOSCS in Stellenbosch, South Africa (5–6 September 2017). 2  J.F. Coakley, “The Old Man Simeon (Luke 2.25) in Syriac Tradition,” OCP 47 (1981), 189–212, esp. 189–190; see also Wido van Peursen, “The Book of Ben Sira in the Syriac Tradition,” in The Texts and Versions of the Book of Ben Sira. Transmission and Interpretation, ed. Jean-Sébastien Rey and Jan Joosten; JSJSup 150 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 143–165.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004416727_016

318

van Staalduine-Sulman

Christ. Others regarded him as Simeon the son of Onias the high priest and the father of Jesus bar Asira (Ben Sira), who then lived 219 years until he saw Christ. These identifications belong to the Eastern part of Christianity. In Europe, Simeon did not receive such a legendary position or such a great age. It was not until the twelfth or thirteenth century that he was identified with Simeon the son and pupil of Hillel, by Raymond Martín in his Pugio Fidei. It is this identification that links him to the Targum of the Prophets, because in that capacity he is the co-disciple of Jonathan ben Uzziel. Why did the figure of Simeon speak so profoundly to the Christian imagination? And what made him so suitable to be linked to Jewish Bible translations, even if both the Septuagint and Targum Jonathan were interpreted christologically in Christian tradition? Moreover, is there any connection between the Eastern Septuagint tradition and the Western Targum tradition with regard to the Lukan Simeon? 2

Simeon and the Septuagint

It is in the tenth century that the name of Simeon appears in a story about the origins of the Septuagint. Wasserstein and Wasserstein discuss several stories in their book on the legends concerning the Septuagint, of which I give two examples:3 2.1 An Unbelieving Simeon Eutychius, a Melkite patriarch of Alexandria (877–940) wrote, in Arabic, a history of the world from Adam until the year of his writing. It was called Nazm alJauhar. The production of the Septuagint is mentioned as an idea of Ptolemy Alexander, king of Egypt, who sent to Jerusalem to summon seventy Jewish men. These men translated the Torah and the Prophets from Hebrew into Greek, each and every one in a separate place. And when they had translated the books, he looked at their translations and the translation was identical. He then placed the 70 books in the temple of Serapion. The story goes on with Simeon as one of the translators: And among the seventy was a man whose name was Sam‘an al-Siddiq who took our Lord the Masih from the Temple. And when Sam‘an translated the Torah and the books of the Prophets from Hebrew to Greek, 3  Abraham Wasserstein and David J. Wasserstein, The Legend of the Septuagint: From Classical Antiquity to Today (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 141.

SIMEON THE JUST, the SEPTUAGINT & TARGUM JONATHAN

319

whenever he translated a word in which there was a prophecy about the Lord the Masih he would deny that in his heart and say: “This is what cannot be.” But God made him live long so that he lived three hundred and fifty years until he saw our Lord the Masih. And when he saw him he said, “Now, O Lord, release Your servant in accordance with Your word, in peace, for my eyes have seen Your redemption, which You prepared before all the peoples.”4 This Simeon the Just is a composite figure, as father and son Wasserstein state. First, it is the Simeon from the second chapter of Luke, who is described as “just” (2:25). Second, it could be one of the three Simons who were mentioned in the list of seventy-two names by Pseudo-Aristeas (§§ 47–49). He would have been an old man in his translating days, and lived on for three centuries. Third, it could be Shim‘on ha-Tsaddiq, a figure that plays a role at the beginning of the Talmud tractate Avot. He is called there “one of the last of the men of the great synagogue” (Avot 1:2) and is identified with both Simeon I the son of Onias I (310–291 bce or 300–270 bce) and with Simeon II the son of Onias II (219–199 bce).5 The dates of Simeon I stand out as fitting the date of the origins of the Septuagint, according to the Letter of Aristeas. Eutychius’ story stands in the apologetic tradition of legends concerning the Septuagint as an excellent translation, a tradition that started with the letter of Aristeas but was perpetuated in early Jewish and Christian sources. What stands out in Eutychius’ version, however, is the Christian view that the Hebrew Bible—and especially the Greek translation of it—is full of references to the Messiah, that is, to Jesus Christ. Simeon the Just did not know about all these texts, until he was translating the Torah and the Prophets into Greek. The Simeon of Eutychius is thus a negative prototype of the “modern” Jews in Christian eyes (cf. 2 Cor 3:7–16): unbelieving and unacquainted with their own Scriptures. 2.2 An Expectant Simeon A slightly different Simeon appears in another world history, Al-Majmu‘ alMubarak (“Blessed Collection”) of Jirjis al-Makin (Ibn al-‘Amid), a Coptic civil servant in the administration in Cairo (1203 or 1205–1273).6 The start of his story about the origins of the Septuagint is identical to that of Eutychius, 4  Wasserstein and Wasserstein, The Legend of the Septuagint, 141. 5  See further Amram Tropper, Simeon the Righteous in Rabbinic Literature: A Legend Reinvented, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 84 (Leiden: Brill 2013). 6  See Wasserstein and Wasserstein, The Legend of the Septuagint, 163.

320

van Staalduine-Sulman

whom he also mentions as one of his sources. Here, too, seventy-two learned men from Jerusalem came to Ptolemy Alexander, also known as Philadelphus. They translated the Hebrew books of Moses and the Prophets, each and every one in his own place, and yet they produced one and the same translation. Simeon is again mentioned after the closure of the story, but in a very positive way: And Sam‘an al-kahin, whenever he translated something of the Torah and the books of the Prophets and the prophecies which they contain about the appearance of the lord Messiah, this would hurt him in his heart, and he would say, When will this be? And he asked God, may He be exalted, to lengthen his life so that he could see the lord Messiah; and God, may He be exalted, did lengthen his life, and he lived 350 years, until the Masih was born and they brought him over to the Temple, and Sam‘an placed him on his arms and said, Now, O Lord, release thy servant in peace, for my eyes have seen they salvation, and he died at once.7 This Simeon is more strongly identified with Simeon the son of Onias, whether the first or the second: he is called “the priest.” He is a believer and well acquainted with Scripture. He does not deny the possibility of messianic prophecies, but he longs to see their fulfilment. In this, he might be a positive prototype of the “ancient” Jews in Christian eyes: true to Scripture and longing to see the Messiah. It is in this respect explicable that the 70 men from Jerusalem did not only translate the Torah—as the Letter of Aristeas seems to imply—but also the books of the Prophets, in which Christians find a number of messianic prophecies. Another positive version of the story is found in later Coptic and Ethiopic Church calendars. There Simeon knows how to translate Isaiah 7, but hesitates to translate that a virgin shall conceive. He is afraid that King Ptolemy will not accept what he has written. God, however, sends a dream to tell him that he would live to see the Messiah. The apologetical background of the legend is focused on the translation of Isaiah 7:14.8 2.3 Greek Origin Several features in the Arabic and Syriac traditions hint at a Greek origin. The Byzantine historian George Cedrenus (11th–12th century) attribute the identification to Chrysostom in his Synopsis: 7  Wasserstein and Wasserstein, The Legend of the Septuagint, 163. 8  See further Wasserstein and Wasserstein, The Legend of the Septuagint, 165–66.

SIMEON THE JUST, the SEPTUAGINT & TARGUM JONATHAN

321

This Simeon θεοδόχος, being a Jew, was one of the seventy translators of the divine Hebrew Old Testament into the Greek language under Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt (…) before the appearance of Christ, as the divine Chrysostom says in his Hexaemeron …9 Coakley, discussing this text in his article on “The Old Man Simeon,” sighs, “if this could only be traced.” In any case, Simeon became known in the Greek and later in the Slavonic tradition as Simeon θεοδόχος, “the God-Receiver.” On websites of the Orthodox Church in America Simeon is presented as one of the translators of the Septuagint. Their story is almost identical to that of Eutychius, in which Simeon did not believe that the word “virgin” would be an accurate translation: Ancient historians tell us that the Egyptian pharaoh Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–247 bce) wished to include texts of Holy Scripture in the famous Library at Alexandria. He invited scholars from Jerusalem, and the Sanhedrin sent their wise men. The Righteous Simeon was one of the seventy scholars who came to Alexandria to translate the Holy Scriptures into Greek. The completed work was called “The Septuagint,” and is the version of the Old Testament used by the Orthodox Church. St Simeon was translating a book of the Prophet Isaiah, and read the words: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a Son” (Isa 7:14). He thought that “virgin” was inaccurate, and he wanted to correct the text to read “woman.” At that moment an angel appeared to him and held back his hand saying, “You shall see these words fulfilled. You shall not die until you behold Christ the Lord born of a pure and spotless Virgin.” From this day, St Simeon lived in expectation of the Promised Messiah.10 2.4 Preliminary Conclusion In Eastern Christianity Simeon the God-Receiver was identified with one of the 72 translators in Egypt, among many other identifications. The story consistently reflects messianic prophecies and finally focuses on the interpretation of 9  Translation from Coakley, “The Old Man Simeon,” 207–208. 10  The description of “Holy, Righteous Simeon the God-Receiver” on the website of the Orthodox Church in America, see http://oca.org/saints/lives/2013/02/03/100409holy-righteous-simeon-the-god-receiver (accessed 3 June 2016). A query “Simeon the God-Receiver” on the web reveals that this is a more or less standardized version of the orthodox legend.

322

van Staalduine-Sulman

one word in Isaiah 7 and thus on the virginity of Jesus’ mother Mary. Basically, the story is an apology for using the Septuagint and for the christological interpretation of the Old Testament, focusing on perhaps the most difficult aspect. That Simeon was very old is inferred from his own words, as if his death was long overdue. 3

Simeon the Just and Targum Jonathan

A similar, albeit not identical, connection appears to have been made between the Lukan Simeon and the Aramaic translation of the Prophets. The connection is more indirect, because Simeon is seen as the son and disciple of Hillel and co-disciple of Jonathan ben Uzziel. The production of the Targum to the Prophets was therefore not Simeon’s work, but he is closely connected to it and regularly mentioned by sixteenth- and seventeenth-century scholars in this connection.11 Paul Fagius 3.1 Paul Fagius (1504–1549) was the first scholar to translate a Targum text of the second Rabbinic Bible into Latin. He had studied Hebrew and theology in Strasbourg, and became a minister in Isny. Here he established the first Hebrew printing press in Germany and edited some books with Elias Levita, including a Talmudic dictionary and a work on the explanation of Hebrew and Aramaic sentences.12 To these Fagius had added Latin annotations and prefaces. In the summer of 1544 he became professor of Old Testament in Strasbourg, and transferred to Heidelberg in 1546.13 He died in Cambridge, having been appointed a Hebrew lecturer there a while earlier. In 1542, Fagius published an extensive commentary on the first four chapters of Genesis, providing the Hebrew text, a Latin translation of it and an explanation of almost every word.14 The subtitle suggests that he made it for 11  The introductions to Paul Fagius, Jean Cinquarbre, William Bedwell, and Brian Walton including the descriptions of their Targum editions/translations stem quite literally from Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman, Justifying Christian Aramaism: Editions and Latin Translation of the Targums from the Complutensian to the London Polyglot Bible (1517–1657), Jewish and Christian Perspectives 33 (Leiden: Brill, 2017). 12  Elias Levita, Tishbi (Isny: Paulus Fagius, 1541); Meturgeman (Isny: Paulus Fagius, 1541). 13  Biography from Georg Biundo, “Fagius,” in: Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, Volume 6 (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1959), 744. 14  Paulus Fagius, Perush hammilloth … Id est, exegesis sive expositio dicitonum Hebraicarum literalis et simplex, in quatuor capita Geneseos, pro studiosis linguae hebraicae (Isny: n.pr., 1542).

SIMEON THE JUST, the SEPTUAGINT & TARGUM JONATHAN

323

students of Hebrew. At the end of the book a second introduction to the reader is given, explaining that the paraphrase of Onkelos will follow, but only for those verses in which it deviates from the Hebrew text.15 These specific verses are offered in Hebrew, followed by his own translation into Latin translation (not the Vulgate), and in Aramaic, also followed by a Latin translation. It is not the Latin translation of Targum Genesis from the Complutensian Polyglot Bible, but a much more literal one. In 1546 Fagius published a complete Latin translation of Targum Onkelos,16 of which the first four chapters largely contain a less literal version of the translation of Onkelos published earlier. In his preface Fagius sums up three reasons for studying Onkelos. The first reason is its antiquity, because the author, the proselyte Onkelos, is considered to be a nephew of the Roman Emperor Titus. Fagius stated that it was the second translation of the Hebrew Bible ever, after the translation of the Septuagint.17 The production of Targum Jonathan is located “before the fall of the Temple,” with Jonathan ben Uzziel being seen as a disciple of Hillel and a co-disciple of Simeon, who held Christ in his arms (Luke 2:25–35).18 Fagius refers to the third chapter of the first book of Petrus Galatinus (1460–1540), namely De arcanis Catholicae veritatis contra obstinatissimum Judaeorum nostrae tempestatis persfidian. 3.2 Pietro Colonna Galatino This apologetic book was first edited in 1518, but reprinted at least six times during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.19 The author, Pietro Collona Galatino (1460–1540), was a Franciscan monk who maintained friendships with Agostino Giustiniani, the editor of a Psalter in six languages (among which was Targum Psalms), Joannes Potken—the producer of a Psalter in four

15  Fagius, Perush hammilloth, 155. 16  Paulus Fagius, Thargum, hoc est, Paraphrasis Onkeli Chaldaica in Sacra Biblia, ex Chaldaeo in Latinum fidelissime versa, additis in singula fere Capita succinctis Annotationibus (Strasbourg: Georgius Machaeropoeum, 1546). 17  Fagius, “Praefatio ad lectorem,” in: Idem, Thargum, 1. 18  Fagius, “Praefatio ad lectorem,” 1: “Symeonis iusti, qui Christum infantulum suscepit in brachijs, condiscipulus …,” a clear quotation of Galatinus. 19  Petrus Galatinus, De arcanis Catholicae veritatis contra obstinatissimum Judaeorum nostrae tempestatis persfidian (Orthonae Maris: Hieronymus Sunsinus, 1518), reprinted in 1550, 1561, 1602, 1603, 1612, and 1672; see Peter T. van Rooden, Theology, Biblical Scholarship, and Rabbinical Studies in the Seventeenth Century, Studies in the History of Leiden University 6 (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 177, n. 325.

324

van Staalduine-Sulman

languages—and Elias Levita as well.20 Galatino learnt Ethiopic from Potken and Hebrew from Levita.21 The place in Galatino’s book to which Fagius refers states that Jonathan ben Uzziel made his translations about 42 years before Christ’s birth. He is called22 Jonathas Uzielis filius, Hillelisque auditor, atque Simeonis justi, qui Christum infantulum suscepit in brachiis, condiscipulus

Jonathan the son of Uzziel and the pupil of Hillel and of Simeon the Just, who held the child Christ in his arms, the co-disciple

In the same paragraph Jonathan ben Uzziel is said to have translated the entire Old Testament into Aramaic, not literally but sensum è sensu. The result was not only a translation, but one with glosses and explanations.23 One chapter before this paragraph, Galatinus explains that Simeon was the son and pupil of Hillel. He refers there to Pirqe Avot, where Simeon is mentioned, and calls him Simeon Iustus, qui Christum suscepit in ulnis, “Simeon the Just, who held Christ in his arms.”24 So readers of Galatinus would identify the Simeon of Avot with the Lukan Simeon—as was done in the Eastern tradition—and ascribe the Targum to his co-disciple. The book of Galatinus was “one of the most widely dispersed books of the Renaissance and remained so until Justus Scaliger damaged its reputation by exposing its plagiarism of the Pugio Fidei of Raymond Martín and the Gale Razeia of Paul de Heredia.”25 Now, Martín indeed knew of Simeon the son of Hillel, although it struck him that Simeon was not mentioned at the right place 20  Agostino Giustiniani, Psalterium Hebraeum, Graecum, Arabicum, et Chaldaeum: cum tribus Latinis interpretationibus et glossis (Genoa: Petrus Paulus Porrus, 1516); Joannes Potken, Psalterium in quatuor linguis Hebraea Graeca Chaldaea Latina (Coloniae: Johannes Soter, 1518). 21  Robert J. Wilkinson, Orientalism, Aramaic and Kabbalah in the Catholic Reformation: The First Printing of the Syriac New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 58. 22  Galatinus, De arcanis, 8F. 23  Galatinus, De arcanis, 8G–9A. 24  The verb suscepit (instead of the Vulgate accepit) is also used by Bernard of Clairvaux, In festo purificationis Beatae Mariae Virginis, Sermo V: De mundanda et adornanda Christo anima, par. 17; see http://www.binetti.ru/bernardus/168_1.shtml (accessed 20 May 2016), as well as in liturgical texts, see, e.g., https://www.heiligenlexikon.de/ActaSanctorum/8. Oktober.html (accessed 20 May 2016), s.v. De S. Simeon Propheta Hierosolymus. 25  Wilkinson, Orientalism, Aramaic and Kabbalah, 59. It is Scaliger who produced the first edition of the Pugio Fidei (written c. 1270). The Gale Razeia was written in 1486.

SIMEON THE JUST, the SEPTUAGINT & TARGUM JONATHAN

325

in the Pirqe Avot. Martín then goes on to acknowledge that many people estimate he should be identified with the one who had held Christ in his arms (eum enim esse plerique existimant qui Christum brachiis excepit).26 Thus if Galatinus depended on Martín, he went beyond what Martín had written. 3.3 Jean Cinquarbre From 1553 through 1564 Paris usurped the pre-eminence of Venice with regard to Hebrew printing. Following the burning of Talmuds in Rome in 1553 and a ban on the Talmud and other Jewish books in 1559, Venice declined as a centre for printing Jewish literature. By contrast, Paris, a city without Jews, saw the growth of a “Jewish” quarter, where scholars and printers collaborated in the production of Hebrew and Aramaic texts.27 The Collège Royal became famous for its study of Biblical languages: Hebrew was taught by François Vatable (Franciscus Vatablus, d. 1547) and Paul Paradis, a Jewish convert from Venice (from 1530–1549). Jean Cinquarbre (Iohannes Quinquarboreus, 1514–1587) was professor of Hebrew and Syriac at the Collège de France from 1554 onward. In 1549 he published a Latin translation of Targum Lamentations.28 Next to the Latin translation of the Hebrew text, referred to here as Vetus Aeditio, a Latin translation of Targum Lamentations is offered in italics, under the rubric of Versio ex Chald. The margins are used for references to other Biblical verses, while notes in the Targum translation refer to the scholia, in the form of endnotes, which explain grammar, historical circumstances or poetical phenomena. In some cases, references to the New Testament are made to explain historical background. In 1554 Cinquarbre produced a Latin translation of Targum Hosea (probably based on the Rabbinic Bibles) accompanied by explanations of difficult verses.29 In his preface, dedicated to Cardinal Charles de Lorraine, Cinquarbre praises Jonathan ben Uzziel as a very trustworthy interpreter and translator of the sacred Old Testament books prior to the birth of Christ. Jonathan’s translation had been hidden for Christians for a long time, he continues, “because 26  Raymund Martín, Pugio Fidei (Paris: Mathurinus Henault & Ioannes Henault, 1651), 9–10 and 13. 27  Cf. Theodor W. Dunkelgrün, “The Multiplicity of Scripture: The Confluence of Textual Traditions in the Making of the Antwerp Polyglot Bible (1568–1573)” (PhD diss., University of Chicago, 2012), 75. 28  Iohannes Quinquarboreus, Targum seu paraphrasis Caldaica in Lamentationes Ieremiae Prophetae, nun primum latini donata (Paris: Martinus Iuvenus, 1549). 29  Iohannes Quinquarboreus, Targum seu paraphrasis Caldaica, quae etiam Syriaca dicitur, Ionathae Caldaei antiquissimi … Scriptuarum interpretis, in Hoseae prophetae … nunc primum latinate donata (Paris: Martinus Iuvenus, 1554).

326

van Staalduine-Sulman

of the mysteries of our faith that it contains,” but had served to open up the obscure passages of Christ in the Old Testament.30 Cinquarbre then expresses a hope that he might not only edit Latin translations of all the Minor Prophets, but also all the other Aramaic books of the Old Testament. Accordingly, in 1556, Cinquarbre augmented his existing translations with that of Joel, Amos, and Ruth, in which the same prefatory dedication to the Cardinal is now accompanied by a letter to the reader.31 In this letter he refers to the apologetic work of Galatinus and explains that Jonathan ben Uzziel had been a pupil of Hillel and a co-disciple of Simeon the Just, who had had the infant Christ in his arms.32 This was evidently intended to establish that the book had been produced before the rejection of Christ by the Jews, and was therefore free from suspect rabbinic theories and tales. William Bedwell 3.4 William Bedwell (Gulielmus Bedwellus; 1563–1632) studied in Cambridge and started, soon after his graduation, to compose an Arabic dictionary.33 In 1601 he became rector of the church of St Ethelburgha, Bishopsgate, but his scholarly work continued. In that same year he published original Latin translations of the Hebrew and Aramaic texts of Obadiah, followed by Latin translations of the comments of Rashi, Ibn Ezra and David Kimhi with Biblical references in the margins.34 He also added his own comments to the edition, under the title Scholia, including explanations and variant readings in the different versions of the text and referencing the three rabbis and Jean Mercier.35 The booklet can be seen as an aid for “beginning Hebrew students in learning to read the Rabbinic Bible.”36 In his commentary on Targum Obadiah 5–6, Bedwell 30  Quinquarboreus, Targum … in Hoseae prophetae, 3. 31  Iohannes Quinquarboreus, Targum, seu paraphrasis Chaldaica, quae etiam Syriaca dicitvr, Ionathani Caldaei … in Hoseae, Joelis, et Amosi, gravissimas prophetias, atque etiam in Ruthae historiam et Lamentationes Ieremiae Prophetae incerto authore Caldaeo, nunc primum latinitate donata (Paris: Martinus Iuvenus, 1556). 32  Quinquarboreus, Targum, seu paraphrasis Chaldaica, 3: “… atque Symeonis Iusti, qui Christum infantulum brachus suscepit suis, condiscipulus …,” a clear quotation from Galatinus. 33  Alistair Hamilton, William Bedwell the Arabist: 1563–1632, Publications of the Sir Thomas Browne Institute Leiden, New Series 5 (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 12. 34  Gulielmus Bedwellus, Prophetia Hhobadyah. Ex fonte Hebraico et antiquissima Ionathanis Paraphrasi Chaldaica: cum commentarijs trium doctissimorum & praecipuae inter Iudaeos authoritatis Rabbinorum, Shelomoh Yarchi, Aben Hhezra, et Dauid Kimchi … (London: Richard Field, 1601). 35  Hamilton, William Bedwell the Arabist, 19. 36  Stephen G. Burnett, “The Strange Career of the Biblia Rabbinica Among Christian Hebraists, 1517–1620,” in Shaping the Bible in the Reformation: Books, Scholars and Their

SIMEON THE JUST, the SEPTUAGINT & TARGUM JONATHAN

327

explains that Jonathan ben Uzziel translated the entire Old Testament into Aramaic in the year 42 before the birth of Christ and did so under the guidance of R. Hillel and Simeon the Just, who held the infant Jesus in his arms.37 Note that Simeon has been upgraded from co-disciple to co-rabbi of Jonathan ben Uzziel. This could have happened in the following manner: the fact that Bedwell dates Targum Jonathan in the year 42 suggests that he, too, used Galatinus as his source. Bedwell then quotes the first half of the sentence verbatim and paraphrased the other half. The first half runs, Hillelisque auditor, atque Simeonis justi, qui Christum infantulum suscepit in brachiis, condiscipulus (see above), but Bedwell forgets to quote the last word. In this way, Jonathan ben Uzziel is transformed from co-disciple into teacher of Simeon. The fact that Bedwell closes his statement about Jonathan ben Uzziel with totum vetus testamentum in linguam Chaldaicam Paraphrasticè vertit, “he rendered the entire Old Testament into the Aramaic language in a paraphrastical manner,” confirms that Galatinus is his source. Galatinus had stated totum vetus Instrumentum in Chaldaeam vertit linguam, “he rendered the entire Old Testament into the Aramaic language,” after which he explains that it is more a paraphrase with glosses and explanations than a translation. 3.5 Brian Walton Between 1654 and 1657 a Polyglot Bible was produced under the direction of Brian Walton (c. 1600–1661). The Bible consisted of texts in Hebrew, Latin, Greek, Aramaic, Syriac and Arabic, the Samaritan Pentateuch and an Ethiopic version of the Psalter as well as Targum pseudo-Jonathan and the Fragment Targum in an appendix to the fourth volume. Walton is convinced of the value and the authority of the Targums. He defends this authority in his prolegomena (XII.16): What authority they [the Targums, EvS] have to Christians will appear from what we will discuss later. They must be accepted, when they agree with Scriptures and not contradict common sense, even if they originate from the Jews. One must not throw away the gold because of the slag. For all that is true comes from God, who is the Truth itself. There are people that declare all the books of the Jews—as being sworn enemies of Christ—and also the [Targums] useless, impious and intolerable for Readers in the Sixteenth Century, ed. Bruce Gordon and Matthew McLean; Library of the Written Word 20 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 63–83, esp. 72, n. 40. 37  “Ionathan (…) fait auditor R. Hillelis & Simeonis Iusti, qui Christum infantulum ulnis suis suscepit …”

328

van Staalduine-Sulman

Christians. But one cannot say so about all the Jews, because Jonathan and perhaps also Onkelos (as can be concluded from what is written above) wrote before the coming of Christ … The date of a Jewish book turns out to be an important determinant of its value. In discussing the provenance of Onkelos and Jonathan in section 10 of his preface, Walton accepts Jonathan ben Uzziel as the author of the Targum to the Prophets. Indeed, Walton regards him, “if it is true what the Jews say about him,” as one of Hillel’s disciples, together with Simeon the Just and Gamaliel. He also accepts Onkelos as a contemporary of Jonathan. This dating makes the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan acceptable for Walton, because they were written before or during Jesus’ life on earth. In that period, the Jews were (not yet) enemies of Christ, and therefore their books were not affected by their enmity.38 3.6 Preliminary Conclusion In the Western tradition Simeon, “who had held Christ in his arms,” was considered an old man, but not as old as in the Eastern tradition. He was—at least from the twelfth century onwards—regarded as the son and successor of Rabbi Hillel, and co-disciple of Jonathan ben Uzziel. The circle in which Targum Jonathan was produced was therefore one of messianic expectation. That would explain for Christian Aramaists why Targum Jonathan seems to be filled with messianic prophecies and even trinitarian translations, so they claimed. This identification confirmed the date of Targum Jonathan, namely that is was written before the rejection of Christ by the Jewish leaders. This made it possible to use this Targum in Christian theology. This identification also made it possible to defend a christological interpretation of Targum Jonathan, because Jonathan ben Uzziel must have known the messianic expectations witnessed by Simeon, his co-disciple.

38  See the same way of reasoning in Luther’s estimation of Jewish literature; Hans-Martin Kirn, “Traces of Targum Reception in the Work of Martin Luther,” in A Jewish Targum in a Christian World, ed. Alberdina Houtman, Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman and Hans-Martin Kirn, Jewish and Christian Perspectives 27 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 266–88, here 281. And in general, David Stern, “Erhard von Pappenheim. A Portrait of a Hitherto Unstudied Early Christian Hebraist,” in Envisioning Judaism. Studies in Honor of Peter Schäfer on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, ed. R.S. Boustan et al. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 2: 1261–1284, esp. 1283–84.

SIMEON THE JUST, the SEPTUAGINT & TARGUM JONATHAN

4

329

An Apt Identification

Simeon who held Jesus in his arms appears to have been identified with several known persons in the history of the Jews, that is to say, by Christian authors. He is identified with the son of Onias, the priest; with the father of Jesus ben Sira; with one of the seventy Septuagint translators; and with the son and pupil of Hillel. The identification of minor persons in history with major ones is common, because people are inclined to see history more in terms of unity than a long series of coincidences.39 Indeed, Simeon is just such a minor individual in the Lukan Gospel, without any relation or connection to the major characters of the Biblical story. Still, Christians were daily confronted with him, because his hymn, Nunc dimittis, was sung at the completion of the day from the fourth century onwards and eventually also used at the end of Lutheran and Anglican communion services.40 4.1 Similar But Not Identical Identifications The identification of the Lukan Simeon with major historical figures in the East differs from that in the West, although the tractate Avot plays a role in both areas. Eastern Christianity identifies him with Simeon the Just in Avot, who is identified with the priest, the son of Onias. He would have been one of the seventy-two translators. The identification is based on the designation “the just” in Avot and other Jewish books, which fits Luke’s description of Simeon as just and god-fearing (Luke 2:25). This is combined with Luke’s suggestion that Simeon was an old man, who did not mind dying now that he finally had seen the messiah. The identification in the West also uses the designation “the just” in Avot, but this Simeon the Just is not identified with the priestly son of Onias, but with the son and pupil of Hillel. It is Raymond Martín—and in his wake Pietro Galatino—who puts this identification in writing and introduces it to Western Christianity. Both legends about Simeon serve apologetical motives. The translation with which Simeon is connected is “ancient” in both cases, that is, from the time before the rejection of Jesus as the Messiah by the Jewish authorities. Both translations could therefore be acceptable in Christian eyes. The distinction between “ancient” and “modern” Jews was important, because it made the distinction 39   For this phenomenon in the Targums, see Alberdina Houtman and Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman, “Joden, christenen en hun Targoem,” in Joden, christenen en hun Schrift: een bundel opstellen aangeboden bij het afscheid van C.J. den Heyer, ed. Cees Houtman, L.J. Lietaert Peerbolte (Baarn: Ten Have, 2001), 147–160. 40  Harold M. Daniels, To God Alone Be Glory: the Story and Sources of the Book of Common Worship (Louisville: Geneva Press, 2003), 156.

330

van Staalduine-Sulman

between reliable and unreliable sources in Christian eyes.41 Also Galatino had elaborated on this theme in this famous book. The antiquity of the Septuagint was not in question, since the Letter of Aristeas had made its antiquity known to Western and Eastern Christianity. But the age of the official Targums was discussed over and over again in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Western Europe, because its known authors—Jonathan ben Uzziel and Onkelos—were more or less contemporaries of Jesus and had to be categorized as “ancient” or “modern.” Christian Aramaists tend to date them as early as possible, while opponents did the other way round. Early dating served the apologetics of a Christian appropriation of the (official) Targums, parallel to the existing appropriation of the Septuagint. Both translations were considered to be full of messianic explanations of prophecies which were only vaguely messianic in the Hebrew texts themselves. In Eastern Christianity the glorification of the Septuagint focuses on Isaiah 7:14, but the defence of the Targums in Western Christianity was always articulated in general terms, although there were some favourite texts, such as Genesis 49:10. Nevertheless, in both areas, the focus remains on the Aramaic and Greek versions’ explanation of certain translated texts in a christological way. 4.2 Simeon as an Early Trope Why Simeon? Several elements from Luke’s Gospel induced the identification, but there are additional advantages to seeing Simeon as the godfather of the Septuagint or the Targum, especially if they are to be read christologically. Simeon is the ultimate trope of the “old” Jewish people, living and dying before Jesus walked on this earth. I will support this claim by referring to the reception history of Luke’s story in general, and for the Western part of the story to the early sixteenth century reformers, who had a great influence on the mostly Protestant Aramaists of those days.42 This is not the place for an exhaustive overview of Simeon’s reception history, but the sources mentioned are wellknown enough to allow us to come to a conclusion. Although Simeon’s first prophecy became famous through its use in the daily liturgy, Origen draws attention to the second prophecy, “Behold, this child is appointed for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is opposed …” (Luke 2:34). His literal explanation of this text appears to relate to the parting of the ways, although his more spiritual explanation refers to the battle between orthodox and heretic Christians: 41  Cf. Kirn, “Traces of Targum Reception in the Work of Martin Luther,” 272. 42  Both Catholic and Protestant scholars in the sixteenth and seventeenth century followed the earlier suggested identification of Simeon as the son and pupil of Hillel.

SIMEON THE JUST, the SEPTUAGINT & TARGUM JONATHAN

331

It says, “Behold, this child has been destined for the falling and the rising of many in Israel.” I found something similar to this written in the Gospel According to John. It says, “I came into this world for judgment, so that those who are blind might see, and those who see might become blind.” (Jn. 9:39) He can “for judgment,” so that the blind among the Gentiles might see, and those of Israel who had previously had their sight might become blind.43 In later times Simeon is regularly regarded as a model for Judaism, that is, Judaism before Christ. In the Eastern tradition Methodius (815–885) considers Simeon and Anna as models for Judaism and the Church: Simeon, I mean, and Anna, bearing in themselves most evidently the images of both peoples (…) for by the old man was represented the people of Israel, and the law now waxing old; while the widow represents the Church of the Gentiles, which had been up to this point a widow—the old man, indeed as personating the law, seeks dismissal …44 A similar idea was already proposed by Aurelius Augustine (354–430), who suggests in his De Civitate Dei that Simeon is one of the last prophets. When he sums up these prophets, it is striking that all of them are old, except John the Baptist. These old prophets represent “ancient” Judaism: believing in the coming of the Messiah, but “old” and soon to die: Zechariah, the father of John, and Elisabeth his wife, when the nativity of Christ was already close at hand; and when He was already born, Simeon the aged, and Anna the widow, and now very old; and, last of all, John himself …45 On some occasions, Bede the Venerable (672/3–735) seems not to distinguish between Simeon and Anna in their symbolic meaning. In one of his homilies on the gospels he states that figuratively speaking, their encounter with the baby Jesus denotes “the synagogue, the Jewish people, who, wearied by the 43  Translation from Joseph T. Lienhard, Origen: Homilies on Luke. Fragments on Luke, FC 94 (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1996), 66. 44  Methodius, Oration on Simeon and Anna, 9. Translation from New Advent, see http://www. newadvent.org/fathers/0627.htm (accessed 24 May 2016). Methodius was archbishop of Great Moravia and one of the main translators of the Bible into Old Church Slavonic. 45  Aurelius Augustinus, The City of God, 17:24. Translation from New Advent, see http://www. newadvent.org/fathers/120117.htm (accessed 24 May 2016).

332

van Staalduine-Sulman

long awaiting of his incarnation, were ready with both their arms (their pious actions) and their voices (their unfeigned faith) to exalt and magnify him as soon as he came.”46 In his exposition of the Gospel of Luke, however, Bede supposes that “in a mystical sense Anna stands for the church, which in this present world is as it were widowed by the death of her spouse.”47 Simeon and Anna then stand for the old and the new people of God, just as in the explanation of Methodius. Because Bede is cited by Thomas Aquinas in his Catena Aurea, his image of Simeon is reflected in later traditions: Now the righteous man, according to the law, received the Child Jesus in his arms, that he might signify that the legal righteousness of works under the figure of the hands and arms was to be changed for the lowly indeed but saving grace of Gospel faith. The old man received the infant Christ, to convey thereby that this world, now worn out as it were with old age, should return to the childlike innocence of the Christian life.48 4.3 Reformation Does this image of Simeon survive into the sixteenth century? Let us turn to some influential leaders of the Reformation and their description of Simeon. Martin Luther (1483–1546) indeed sees Simeon as the representative of the Old Testament prophets. Just like them he was filled with the Holy Spirit, and just like them “he waited for the coming of Christ.”49 And therefore, “Simeon had to be an aged man, so that he might completely and suitably represent the prophets of old.”50 He is therefore an image of the christological interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures, for he held Christ in his arms, just as the prophecies held Christ in their words.51 In John Calvin’s commentary to the Gospel Harmony, 46  Bede, Homilies on the Gospels, 1.18; translation from Arthur A. Just, ed., Luke, ACCNT 3 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 48. 47  Bede, Exposition of the Gospel of Luke, 2.38; translation from Just (ed.), Luke, 51. 48  Translation from Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, collected out of the works of the fathers by S. Thomas Aquinas. St. Luke, Vol. 1 (Oxford: Parker, 1874), 84. 49  T  hrough the Year with Martin Luther: A Selection of Sermons Celebrating the Feasts and Seasons of the Christian Year (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007), 161. See also Richard Marius, Martin Luther: The Christian Between God and Death (Cambridge: Belknap, 1999), 308. 50  T  hrough the Year with Martin Luther, 162. 51  Elsewhere Luther compares the Hebrew Scriptures with the swaddling cloths and the manger in which Christ lies, see Martin Luther, “Preface to the Old Testament,” in Luther’s Works, ed. E. Theodore Bachmann (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1960), Volume 35; quoted by Richard B. Hays, Reading Backwards. Figural Christology and the Fourfold Gospel Witness (London: SPCK, 2015), 1.

SIMEON THE JUST, the SEPTUAGINT & TARGUM JONATHAN

333

Simeon is described as the only prophet who had “a nearer view,” because all the prophets and kings have desired to see the Messiah (Luke 10:24), yet they only saw him from afar (cf. John 8:56).52 Simeon’s old age does not merely represent the earlier times, it also refers to the passing nature of the people of Israel. This becomes clear, when Luther explains the function of Anna, the prophetess who was in the Temple at the same time as Simeon: And as Mary signifies the Christian Church, the people of God after the birth of Christ, so Anna signifies the people of God before Christ’s birth. Therefore, Anna is well-nigh a hundred years old and near her death, while Mary is young and in the prime of life. Thus the synagogue was on the wane at the time of Christ, while the church was in its beginning.53 That the synagogue was waning is also made clear by Martin Bucer (1491–1551), who stresses that Simeon was one of the few in Israel that still awaited the consolation of the coming kingdom of God. “Most of those left among the people were not concerned about the kingdom of God and Christ, and whence the consolation of Israel would come …”54 William Tyndale (c. 1494–1536) had preached on another aspect of Simeon, similar to Origen, namely his second prophecy that Christ was a sign which shall be resisted and spoken against.55 The parting of the ways between Judaism and Christianity was predicted by Simeon, but later Christian Aramaists did not want to concede the Targums to the Jewish camp. 5

Spread and Influence

The identification between the Lukan Simeon and Hillel’s son was widespread in the sixteenth and seventeenth century. When Johann-Wilhelm Wolf in the

52  John Calvin, Commentaries on The Harmony of the Gospels, transl. John King; Vol. 2 (Altenmünster Jazzybee Verlag, 2012), s.v. Luke 10:24. 53  T  hrough the Year with Martin Luther, 179; Marius, Martin Luther, 308. 54  Martin Bucer, In Sacra Quatuor Evangelica … (Basel: Ioan. Hervagius, 1536), 545; translation from Beth Kreitzer, ed., Luke, Reformation Commentary on Scripture; New Testament III (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2015), 60. 55  Karl Gunther, Reformation Unbound: Protestant Visions of Reform in England, 1525–1590 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 69.

334

van Staalduine-Sulman

eighteenth century56 made mention of it in his lemma Rabban Schimon filius Hillelis Senioris, he could mention thirteen sources pro (by eleven authors), two con and three who doubted the identification.57 His categorisation, however, is not entirely trustworthy. For example, Johann Buxtorf Sr. admits his doubts, yet is categorised as pro. Buxtorf writes: “Whether he is the one about whom the Gospel writer Luke says that he is a just and pious man and that he held Christ in his arms is uncertain. If he would be so, it is strange why he did not induct his own son Gamaliel in the faith of Christ.”58 Wolf’s book is an authoritative reference work. In 1966, Allan Cutler used this book in order to breathe new life into the old legend. He wrote an article “Does the Simeon of Luke 2 Refer to Simeon the Son of Hillel?” without mentioning the old legend, but giving eleven arguments why the two Simeons should be identified.59 His arguments have nothing to do with Simeon as a trope of ancient Judaism, but they are instead academic, ranging from similar56  At this point heavily depending on Guilielmus Henricus Vorstius, Chronologia sacraprofana a mundi conditu … (Lugduni Batavorum: J. Maire, 1644), 283. 57   Johann-Wilhelm Wolf, Bibliothecae Hebraeae, Pars II: Quae praeter historiam Scripturae sacrae veteris instrumenti … (Hamburg: Theodor Christoph. Felginer, 1721), 861–862.   Sources pro identification are: Martinus Chemnitius & Polycarpus Leyserus, Harmonia Evangelica, 2 Volumes (Frankfurt: Spies, 1593), 223; Jacobus Altin, Schilo seu de vaticinio patriarchae Jacobi … (Franeker: Joh. Wellens, 1609), 21; Johann Buxtorf Sr., De abbreviaturis hebraicis liber novus et copiosus … (Basel: C. Waldkirchius, 1613), 172; Abraham Scultetus, Exercitationes evangelicae … (Amsterdam: Henricus Laurentus, 1624), Vol. I, 61; Wilhelmus Schickardus, Bechinath Happeruschim, hoc est examinis commentationum rabbinicarum in Mosen prodomus … (Tübingen: Cellius, 1624), 26; Idem, Jus Regium Hebraeorum (Argentinae, 1625), 426; Antonius Hulfius, Theologia Judaica de Messia (Breda, 1653); John Lightfoot, The harmony, chronicle and order of the New Testament (London: Simon Miller, 1655), s.v. Luke 2; Johannes Gerhardus, Exegesis Sive uberior Explicatio Articulorum de Scriptura sacra … (Frankfurt: Hertel, 1657); Michael Walther, Officina Biblica: noviter adaperta … (Wittenberg: Fincelius Meyer, 1668), 256; Johann Heinrich Otho, Historia doctorum misnicorum … (Amsterdam: Thomas Myls, s.d.); Idem, Lexicon Rabbinico-Philologicum … (Geneva: Ioh. Herm. Widerhold, 1675), 606; Giulio Bartolocci, Bibliotheca magna Rabbinica de scriptoribus et scriptis Hebraicis (Rome, 1675), Vol. 3, 327.   Sources con are: Vorstius, Chronologia sacra-profana a mundi conditu, 283; Johannes Wandalinus, De feria passionis et triduo mortis Domini & Servatoris nostri Jesu Christi … (Lipsiae: Lanckisianis, 1651), 29–30.    Sources with doubts: Hermannus Witsius, In Mescellaneis sacris … (Wittenberg: Henckelius, 1692), Vol. II, Chapter 21, section 14; Jo. Benedictus Carpzov, who is spoken to in Wilhelmus Schickardus, Jus Regium Hebraeorum (Lipsiae: Johannis Colerius, 1674), 426. 58  Buxtorf, De abbreviaturis hebraicis liber novus et copiosus, 62: An autem de illo Evangelista Lucas dicat, fuisse hominem justum & pium, & Christum brachiis amplexum, incertum est. Si fuit, mirum, quare non etiam filium suum Gamalielem in fide Christi instituerit. 59  Allan Cutler, “Does the Simeon of Luke 2 Refer to Simeon the Son of Hillel?,” JBR 34.1 (1966): 29–35.

SIMEON THE JUST, the SEPTUAGINT & TARGUM JONATHAN

335

ity in name, time, place, temperament, interest and theology to some references to the Acts of Pilate and other apocryphal books. Nevertheless, his academic approach was not convincing enough to revive the identification. 6 Conclusions The Lukan Simeon fired the Christian imagination as a famous character in the nativity story and as the author of a very often sung hymn, the Nunc dimittis. He is, however, almost anonymous in the Gospel of Luke. His character required elaboration, which is done in both Eastern and the Western Christianity in several ways. Why Simeon is associated with two Jewish Bible translations is explained by how he is interpreted in Bible commentaries, from Origen onwards and well into the sixteenth century. He was the image of the “old” Jewish people: expecting the Messiah, yet fading away and making room for a new stage in God’s work in the world. Simeon is also seen as predicting the parting of the ways between Judaism and Christianity. This identification functions as an apology for the use of two different translations—and specifically for their christological interpretations—in the church, the Septuagint in the East and Targum Jonathan in the West. It is no wonder that these translations were regularly preferred over the Masoretic Texts, for as they were read by Christians, the translations served Christian theology better than the Hebrew texts did. Bibliography Altin, Jacobus, Schilo seu de vaticinio patriarchae Jacobi … (Franeker: Joh. Wellens, 1609). Aquinas, Thomas, Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, collected out of the works of the fathers by S. Thomas Aquinas. St. Luke, Vol. 1 (Oxford: Parker, 1874). Augustinus, Aurelius, The City of God, 17:24. Translation from New Advent, see http:// www.newadvent.org/fathers/120117.htm (accessed 24 May 2016). Bartolocci, Giulio, Bibliotheca magna Rabbinica de scriptoribus et scriptis Hebraicis (Rome, 1675). Bedwellus, Gulielmus, Prophetia Hhobadyah. Ex fonte Hebraico et antiquissima Ionathanis Paraphrasi Chaldaica: cum commentarijs trium doctissimorum & praecipuae inter Iudaeos authoritatis Rabbinorum, Shelomoh Yarchi, Aben Hhezra, et Dauid Kimchi … (London: Richard Field, 1601).

336

van Staalduine-Sulman

Bernard of Clairvaux, In festo purificationis Beatae Mariae Virginis, Sermo V: De mundanda et adornanda Christo anima, par. 17; see http://www.binetti.ru/bernar dus/168_1.shtml (accessed 20 May 2016). Biundo, Georg, “Fagius,” in: Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, Volume 6 (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1959), 744. Bucer, Martin, In Sacra Quatuor Evangelica … (Basel: Ioan. Hervagius, 1536). Burnett, Stephen G., “The Strange Career of the Biblia Rabbinica Among Christian Hebraists, 1517–1620,” in Shaping the Bible in the Reformation: Books, Scholars and Their Readers in the Sixteenth Century, ed. Bruce Gordon and Matthew McLean; Library of the Written Word 20 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 63–83. Buxtorf Sr., Johann, De abbreviaturis hebraicis liber novus et copiosus … (Basel: C. Waldkirchius, 1613). Calvin, John, Commentaries on The Harmony of the Gospels, transl. John King (Altenmünster Jazzybee Verlag, 2012). Chemnitius, Martinus & Polycarpus Leyserus, Harmonia Evangelica, 2 Volumes (Frankfurt: Spies, 1593). Coakley, J.F., “The Old Man Simeon (Luke 2.25) in Syriac Tradition,” OCP 47 (1981), 189–212. Cutler, Allan, “Does the Simeon of Luke 2 Refer to Simeon the Son of Hillel?,” JBR 34.1 (1966): 29–35. Daniels, Harold M., To God Alone Be Glory: the Story and Sources of the Book of Common Worship (Louisville: Geneva Press, 2003). Dunkelgrün, Theodor W., “The Multiplicity of Scripture: The Confluence of Textual Traditions in the Making of the Antwerp Polyglot Bible (1568–1573)” (PhD diss., University of Chicago, 2012). Fagius, Paulus, Perush hammilloth … Id est, exegesis sive expositio dicitonum Hebraicarum literalis et simplex, in quatuor capita Geneseos, pro studiosis linguae hebraicae (Isny: n.pr., 1542). Fagius, Paulus, Thargum, hoc est, Paraphrasis Onkeli Chaldaica in Sacra Biblia, ex Chaldaeo in Latinum fidelissime versa, additis in singula fere Capita succinctis Annotationibus (Strasbourg: Georgius Machaeropoeum, 1546). Galatinus, Petrus, De arcanis Catholicae veritatis contra obstinatissimum Judaeorum nostrae tempestatis persfidian (Orthonae Maris: Hieronymus Sunsinus, 1518, repr. 1550, 1561, 1602, 1603, 1612, and 1672). Gerhardus, Johannes, Exegesis Sive uberior Explicatio Articulorum de Scriptura sacra … (Frankfurt: Hertel, 1657). Giustiniani, Agostino, Psalterium Hebraeum, Graecum, Arabicum, et Chaldaeum: cum tribus Latinis interpretationibus et glossis (Genoa: Petrus Paulus Porrus, 1516).

SIMEON THE JUST, the SEPTUAGINT & TARGUM JONATHAN

337

Gunther, Karl, Reformation Unbound: Protestant Visions of Reform in England, 1525–1590 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014). Hamilton, Alistair, William Bedwell the Arabist: 1563–1632, Publications of the Sir Thomas Browne Institute Leiden, New Series 5 (Leiden: Brill, 1985). Hays, Richard B., Reading Backwards. Figural Christology and the Fourfold Gospel Witness (London: SPCK, 2015). Houtman, Alberdina and Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman, “Joden, christenen en hun Targoem,” in Joden, christenen en hun Schrift : een bundel opstellen aangeboden bij het afscheid van C.J. den Heyer, ed. Cees Houtman, L.J. Lietaert Peerbolte (Baarn: Ten Have, 2001), 147–160. Hulfius, Antonius, Theologia Judaica de Messia (Breda, 1653). Just, Arthur A., ed., Luke, ACCNT 3 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003). Kirn, Hans-Martin, “Traces of Targum Reception in the Work of Martin Luther,” in A Jewish Targum in a Christian World, ed. Alberdina Houtman, Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman and Hans-Martin Kirn, Jewish and Christian Perspectives 27 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 266–88. Kreitzer, Beth, ed., Luke, Reformation Commentary on Scripture; New Testament III (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2015). Levita, Elias, Tishbi (Isny: Paulus Fagius, 1541). Levita, Elias, Meturgeman (Isny: Paulus Fagius, 1541). Lienhard, Joseph T., Origen: Homilies on Luke. Fragments on Luke, FC 94 (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1996). Lightfoot, John, The harmony, chronicle and order of the New Testament (London: Simon Miller, 1655). Luther, Martin, “Preface to the Old Testament,” in Luther’s Works 35, ed. E. Theodore Bachmann (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1960). Luther, Martin, Through the Year with Martin Luther: A Selection of Sermons Celebrating the Feasts and Seasons of the Christian Year (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007). Marius, Richard, Martin Luther: The Christian Between God and Death (Cambridge: Belknap, 1999). Martín, Raymund, Pugio Fidei (Paris: Mathurinus Henault & Ioannes Henault, 1651). Methodius, Oration on Simeon and Anna, 9. Translation from New Advent, see http:// www.newadvent.org/fathers/0627.htm (accessed 24 May 2016). Otho, Johann Heinrich, Historia doctorum misnicorum … (Amsterdam: Thomas Myls, s.d.). Otho, Johann Heinrich, Lexicon Rabbinico-Philologicum … (Geneva: Ioh. Herm. Widerhold, 1675). Peursen, Wido van, “The Book of Ben Sira in the Syriac Tradition,” in The Texts and Versions of the Book of Ben Sira. Transmission and Interpretation, ed. Jean-Sébastien Rey and Jan Joosten; JSJSup 150 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 143–165.

338

van Staalduine-Sulman

Potken, Joannes, Psalterium in quatuor linguis Hebraea Graeca Chaldaea Latina (Coloniae: Johannes Soter, 1518). Quinquarboreus, Iohannes, Targum seu paraphrasis Caldaica in Lamentationes Ieremiae Prophetae, nun primum latini donata (Paris: Martinus Iuvenus, 1549). Quinquarboreus, Iohannes, Targum seu paraphrasis Caldaica, quae etiam Syriaca dicitur, Ionathae Caldaei antiquissimi … Scriptuarum interpretis, in Hoseae prophetae … nunc primum latinate donata (Paris: Martinus Iuvenus, 1554). Quinquarboreus, Iohannes, Targum, seu paraphrasis Chaldaica, quae etiam Syriaca dicitvr, Ionathani Caldaei … in Hoseae, Joelis, et Amosi, gravissimas prophetias, atque etiam in Ruthae historiam et Lamentationes Ieremiae Prophetae incerto authore Caldaeo, nunc primum latinitate donata (Paris: Martinus Iuvenus, 1556). Rooden, Peter T. van, Theology, Biblical Scholarship, and Rabbinical Studies in the Seventeenth Century, Studies in the History of Leiden University 6 (Leiden: Brill, 1989). Schickardus, Wilhelmus, Bechinath Happeruschim, hoc est examinis commentationum rabbinicarum in Mosen prodomus … (Tübingen: Cellius, 1624). Schickardus, Wilhelmus, Jus Regium Hebraeorum (Argentinae, 1625). Scultetus, Abraham, Exercitationes evangelicae … (Amsterdam: Henricus Laurentus, 1624). Staalduine-Sulman, Eveline van, Justifying Christian Aramaism: Editions and Latin Translation of the Targums from the Complutensian to the London Polyglot Bible (1517–1657), Jewish and Christian Perspectives 33 (Leiden: Brill, 2017). Stern, David, “Erhard von Pappenheim. A Portrait of a Hitherto Unstudied Early Christian Hebraist,” in Envisioning Judaism. Studies in Honor of Peter Schäfer on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, ed. R.S. Boustan et al. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 2: 1261–1284. Tropper, Amram, Simeon the Righteous in Rabbinic Literature: A Legend Reinvented, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 84 (Leiden: Brill, 2013). Vorstius, Guilielmus Henricus, Chronologia sacra-profana a mundi conditu … (Lugduni Batavorum: J. Maire, 1644). Walther, Michael, Officina Biblica: noviter adaperta … (Wittenberg: Fincelius Meyer, 1668). Wandalinus, Johannes, De feria passionis et triduo mortis Domini & Servatoris nostri Jesu Christi … (Lipsiae: Lanckisianis, 1651). Wasserstein, Abraham and David J. Wasserstein, The Legend of the Septuagint: From Classical Antiquity to Today (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). Wilkinson, Robert J., Orientalism, Aramaic and Kabbalah in the Catholic Reformation: The First Printing of the Syriac New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 2007). Witsius, Hermannus, In Mescellaneis sacris … (Wittenberg: Henckelius, 1692). Wolf, Johann-Wilhelm, Bibliothecae Hebraeae, Pars II: Quae praeter historiam Scripturae sacrae veteris instrumenti … (Hamburg: Theodor Christoph. Felginer, 1721).

Index of Ancient Sources 1

Ancient Near Eastern Texts

Arslan Tash Trilingual 125n48 189n53 Babylonian Theodicy Incirli Trilingual I 125n48 264n66 Inscr. Hatran (H) 281 130n3 KAI 4 (Jehimilk inscr.) 130n3 KAI 6 (Elibaʿal inscr.) 130n3 KAI 7 (Šipiṭbaʿal inscr.) KAI 10 (Jeḥaumilk inscr.) 130n3 KAI 309 (Fekheriyeh inscr.) 125 Shamash hymn 88–91 188n52 TAD B2 256n25

2

Hebrew Bible (and its ancient versions)

Genesis 1–2 4, 13–36 1:1 15–16, 19, 27 1:2 16, 19–22, 28–30 1:8 24 1:9 25 1:10 306 1:11–12 31 1:20 17, 23 1:26–30 22–23 1:26–27 4 1:26 16–17, 29 1:27 17–18 2 24 2:1 27 2:4 29 2:7 27 2:9 24, 135 2:15 31 2:17 135n20 2:18 28 2:19 24 3:22 135

3:24 135 4:3–16 46n27 5 131 5:1 29 6:6 236–237 10:8 279n36 17:1 306 17:4 306 18:23 178, 184 18:24 184 18:27 237 19:15 184 21:2 79 21:14 79 21:15 79 21:16 79 21:17 79 21:19 79 21:21 14 25:8 46 25:17 46 25:23 143 25:27 300 26:26 300 27:29 143 37:25 283 37:28 46n22, 47 41:8 305 41:43 272–273 42:23 301 43:11 283 43:23 283 44:1 283 44:2 283 44:8 283 44:11 283 49:7 184n31 49:10 147n20, 293, 301, 306 49:15 273n9 49:25 306 49:26 302 49:27 307

340 Exodus 1:11 302 3:16 45 3:18 45 4:16 303 4:29 45 5:6 277n29 274, 276–277 5:10 293, 303 9:28 4, 37–57 12 12:3 54n43 12:5 49–51, 53 12:9 39–42, 53 12:11 37 12:13 38, 53 42–44, 53 12:16 12:17 54n43 12:19 4, 37, 53 12:21 44–48, 53 12:23 38–39, 53 38–39, 53 12:27 12:29 52–53 12:40 54n43 12:41 54n43 13:3 260n47 13:14 260n47 13:16 260n47 15:3 273, 278–284 79, 304 15:8 15:11 307 15:17 45 18:21 275n18 18:25 275n18 19:9 241 19:13 46n22, 47 19:18 240 19:21 232, 240 23:26 130n3 25:17 264n67 25:22 263 25:30 308 28:43 135n20 29:17 41 29:38 50–51 33:20 232 34 246 39:36 308

Index of Ancient Sources Leviticus 1:9 41 1:13 41 4:11 41n13 4:14 51n39 8:21 (lxx 8:19) 41 9:14 41 10:18 262 11:25 41n13 11:30 283–284 12:6 51n39 13:57 258 14:7 256–257 14:28 258 16:2 263 16:12–15 250–266 16:12 258 261, 264 16:13 255–258, 260 16:14 16:15 257 16:17 262 16:18–21 250–266 16:18 261 258, 261 16:19 16:20 255, 261–262 255, 258 16:21 16:23 262 16:32 262 16:33 262 17:5 256–257 22:9 135n20 23:12 49n34 49n34, 51n39 23:18 26:24 263 26:28 263 Numbers 7:69 51n40 7:88 51n40 11:16 273 14:19 260n47 14:35 187n44 16:26 184 18:22 135n20 49n34, 50n36 19:2 21:18 45 24:7 147n20

341

Index of Ancient Sources 27:3 135n20 28:3 50–51 28:27 51n39 31:11 307 Deuteronomy 1:15 273–274 1:43 178 2:15 68 4:40 130n3 5:16 130n3 5:33 130n3 10:17 279n36 16:18 274 17:12–13 178 21:2 276n22 46n22, 47 21:3 22:14 260n47 63n18, 146 24:1–4 24:1 260n47 28:10 68 29:9 274 177–178, 184 29:18 30:19 138 31:28 274 32:13 260n47 Joshua 1:2 258 1:3 73 4, 58–100 3–4 3:1 72 3:2–3 68 3:3 70–71 3:4a 68 3:4b 68 72, 76 3:5 3:6 73 3:7–13 68 68, 76 3:7 68, 73, 76–77 3:10 3:11 68 3:12 73 3:13 68, 74, 79–80 3:14 77 3:15–4:3 68 3:15b–16 69 3:16–17 67

3:16 5, 79–80, 82 4:2 73 4:3 74 4:4–14 75 4:4–5 70 4:4 72–73 4:5 70 4:6 71–72 70, 74 4:7 4:9–14 68 68, 74 4:9 68, 75 4:10 4:14 68, 75 4:15–19 68 70, 72, 74, 77 4:18 4:19 69 68, 74 4:20 4:21–24 68 4:21 71–73 4:22 70 4:23 68 68, 77–78 4:24 5:9 68 5:10–12 68 9 79 13:7–8 70 13:26 107n19 15:43 110 15:59 79 20:4–6 70 21:36–37 70 22:4 77 22:6 77 22:7 77 22:8 77 Judges 20:16 131 21:21 186 1 Samuel 5, 101–128 1:1–5 1:1 119 1:2 116, 120–122 1:16 115 115, 120 1:20 1:25 115 7:12 120

342 1 Samuel (cont.) 8:2 120 9:1 120 10:5 110 12:19 135n20 12:22 120 12:25 185n35 13:3 110 13:4 110 14:4 120 14:49 120 14:50 120 16:10 185n35 21:7 308 25:7 176 25:15 176 25:21 176 27:1 185n35 2 Samuel 2:8 107n19 12:13 135n20 19:33 177n8 19:34 177n8 22:9 241n48 1 Kings 1:36 169 3:14 130n3 4:7 177n8 4:19 (lxx 4:18) 110 5:7 177n8 7:48 308 8:27 177n8 8:64 177n8 10:1–7 232 16:28e (lxx) 110 17:4 177n8 17:9 177n8 20:12 (lxx 21:12) 114 20:15 (lxx 21:15) 114 2 Kings 18:26 175n3 19:3 165n30 Isaiah 1:25 147 3:12 144

Index of Ancient Sources 4:2 142, 176 5:8 152 7:2 144 7:14 320–322, 330 8:8 147 8:20 177 9:4 144 9:6–7 150 9:6 148 10:33–34 147–148 13:4 176 13:19 176 17:1 79 19:18 169n38 19:25 152, 154 19:35 6 21:10 142 22:1 151 22:5 151 22:8–9 151 22:15–25 6, 153–154 22:22 148 22:23 148–149 22:24 149 22:25 149 24:16 176 28:5 176 28:8 151–152 32:5 169n38 34:1 143 35:2 149 36–39 153 37:3 165n30 40:1–2 149–150 40:1 308–309 40:5 304 40:9 150 40:10 309 40:15 305 40:22 138n27 41:1 143 42:1 182n26 43:4 143 43:9 143 44:2 149 45:3 30 51:4 143 53:5 145 53:10 145

343

Index of Ancient Sources 54:6 145–146 54:7 146 61:6 169n38 62:4 169n38 65:11–16 138 65:13–16 139 65:17–25 130, 138–139 65:17 5 65:18–10 129 5, 129–140 65:20 65:21–22 130 131, 135, 137 65:22 65:23 130 Jeremiah 3:19 176 5:13 159n13 15:11 169n37 50:29 178 Ezekiel 1:4 241 7:20 176 13:5 177 13:18 183 17:13 307 18:4 135n20 18:20 135n20 18:24 135n20 21:14 177 25:9 176 39:19 159 Hosea 159, 166 1:2 2:1 169n38 2:17 177 4:3 169 4:11 159 160, 166 4:19 5:1 160, 165–166 5:5 160, 165–166 5:9 161, 166 5:15–6:1 161, 166 6:1 166 161, 166, 167n35 6:5 6, 162, 171 6:11 162, 166 7:5

7:10 160–161, 165–166 162, 166 9:1 10:12 170 163, 166 11:2 163, 166 11:11 12:1 (11:12 nrsv) 163, 166–171 164, 166 13:2 13:4 164 13:5 170 164–165, 171 13:13 165, 166 13:15 Obadiah 5–6 326–327 Micah 2:11 159n15 Nahum 3:6 166–167 Zephaniah 1:12b 176 Zechariah 8:4 130n3 9:14 241 Malachi 3:2 177n8 3:15 178 Psalms 241n48 18:8 (9) 19:14 178 235n32, 239n41 22:15 (et 22:14) 22:20 307 33:7 79–80 37:9–13 139n28 40:15 (lxx 39:15) 184–185 235 58:8 (et 58:7) 69:3 80n81 69:16 80n81 78:13 79–80 86:14 178 91:10 (lxx 90:10) 190n57 104:35 139n28 119:21 178

344 Job

2:13 238n37 3–5 228n2 7:5–10 235–236 7:5–9 239 7:5 238–239 7:13–16 236 7:13 237n35 9:12 186 9:29 189 13:12 237 13:15–19 234 13:15 237n36 234, 237 13:19 13:28 79 15:33 186n43 17:14–36:3 228n2 18:11 188n51 18:17 257n31 22:15–16 189 24:18 257n31 26:10 257n31 30:16 239n40 237, 240 30:19 234, 237 30:23 31:2–3 189 31:20 239 37:11 241–242 7, 231 38–41 38:1 241 38:3 238 38:7 230 39:14 239 40:2 238 40:4–5 234 40:6 241 40:12–13 240 42:4 230 42:5–6 7 232–233, 240 42:5 7, 228–248 42:6 42:9 233 42:11–12 229n5 42:11 233 42:12 233 42:16 238

Index of Ancient Sources Proverbs 3:19 21 8:36 131 10:6 179–180 10:11 179–180 10:27 189 11:3 187 11:30 182 12:21 190–191 13:2 179–180 13:11 181n22 13:23 184–185 14:26 188n51 14:32 187n44 21:22 187n51 22:19 188n51 23:28 185 25:19 188 Ecclesiastes 2:17a 217 7:15 189n53 8:14 189n53 8:5a 190n57 9:2–3 189n53 Lamentations 4:16 184n31 Daniel 11:13 258 11:45 176 Nehemiah 197, 290–291 8:8 9:16 178 9:29 178 12:26 317 1 Chronicles 4:42 258 2 Chronicles 4:19 308 26:14 258 36:23 176

345

Index of Ancient Sources

3

Greco-Roman Authors

Aeschylus Prometheus victus 145 260n48 Apollonius Rhodius

217

Aristotle Physica 209b 30

51a–b 26 51d 30 52b 30 92c 29 Plutarch Brutus 34 187 Xenophon Anabasis 1.4.9 260n48

Berossus Babyloniaka 63 Dio Chrysostomus Orationes 11.121 264n67 Diodorus Siculus 1.95 63 Erasistratus Medicus Testimonia et fragmenta 286.4 185 Herodotus Historiae 1.180 260n48 Hippocrates Aphorismata 3.12 185 Homer 217 Odyssea 8.509 264n67 Manetho Aigyptiaka 63 Plato Timaeus 27c–29d 30 30d 29 33b 29 50c–d 26 50c 30

4

Documentary papyri and inscriptions

Demotic Chronicle 63n18 Edict Canopus 62 Edict Raphia 62 Edict Rosetta 62 62 Inscr. Asoka 62 Inscr. Behistun 62 Inscr. Lethon P.Mattha 63n18 P.Oxy. viii 1099 62n15 63n18 P.Oxy. xlvi 3285 P.Oxy. l 3522 229n5 P.Polit.Iud. 63n18 PSI xii 1276 62

5

Second Temple Literature

Additions to Esther

208, 219

Alexander Polyhistor

229n5

Aristeas the Exegete On the Jews 229n5 Artapanus 63 Aristobulus 63 2 Baruch

209, 219

346

Index of Ancient Sources

4 Baruch

209, 219

Cleodemus Malchus

63

Demetrius the Chronographer 63 1 Enoch 207–214, 218–219 14 243–244 14:9 243 14:10 243 14:11 243 14:12 243 14:13 243 14:14 243 14:15 243 14:17 243 14:19 243 14:21–22 243 14:25 243 15:1 243 71:11 243 2 (Slavonic) Enoch 22:1–5 37:1 37:2 39:3 39:8

207 243–244 244 245 245 245

Epistle of Jeremiah

208

1 Esdras

210

Eupolemus 63 4 Ezra

209, 215

History of the Rechabites

209

Josephus 219 Antiquitates judaicae 5.18 74n61 Bellum judaicum 208 Jubilees 207–208

Judith 208 9:7 280n42 16:2 280n42 Letter of Aristeas 203, 330 47–49 319 1 Maccabees

207–208

2 Maccabees 8:4 9:5 12:42

178n10 30 178n10

3 Maccabees 5:25

185n38

Odes 14:33

178n10

Philo 211 Legum allegoriae 1.56 31 De opificio mundi 28 De praemiis et poenis 110

189n54

Psalms 151–155

208

Psalms of Solomon 3:9–12 14:3

208, 215 139n28 135n20

Pseudo-Philo Liber Antiquitatum biblicarum 207–208 Sirach 210 Prologue 21–26 204 1:4 20 5:4 189n54 7:1 190n57 9:11–12 189n54 10:9 237 14:19 47 15:13 191

347

Index of Ancient Sources 15:14 41:8–9

186 135n20

Testament of Job 47:4–8

238

4QEnochd 212 4QEnoche 212 4QEnochf 212 4QEnochg 212 4QEnoch astra 212 4QEnoch astrb 212 4QEnoch astrc 212 4QEnoch astrd 212 4QJubileesa 212 4QJubileesb 212 4QJubileesc 212 4QJubileesd 212 4QJubileese 212 4QJubileesf 212 4QJubileesg 212 4Q378 (RewrittenJoshuaa) 68–69 4Q379 (RewrittenJoshuab) 68–69, 80, 82 4Q522 (RewrittenJoshuac) 69 4Q550 256n25 4Q562 262 4Q573 256n25 11QpaleoLeva 263 11QarJob (11QtgJob) 59n3, 213, 228–248, 249n1 11QJubilees 212 Mas 1039–211 69

Testaments of the xii Patriarchs 210, 219 Testament of Levi 18:10–11

207–208 135n21

Testament of Naphtali

208

Tobit

208, 210, 213, 219

Wisdom of Solomon 4:3–5 4:7–17 4:11

189n54 191 191

6

Dead Sea Scrolls 1QIsaa 130 1QIsab 130 1QJubileesa 212 1QJubileesb 212 2QJubileesa 212 2QJubileesb 212 3QJubilees 212 4QGenb 25 4QGenh1 24n62 4QJoshb 68–69 4QlxxLeva 250n4 4QpaplxxLevb 250n4 4QarLev (4QtgJob) 8, 59n3, 249–270 228n2 4QarJob (4QtgJob) 4QpIsaa 148 4QpNah 166–167 4QpapToba ar 213 4QTobb ar 213 213 4QTobc ar 4QTobd ar 213 4QTobe 213 4QEnocha 212 4QEnochb 212 4QEnochc 212

7

New Testament

Luke 2:25–35 323 2:25–26 317 2:25 319, 329 2:29–32 317 2:34 330 10:24 333 John 8:56 333 9:39 331 2 Corinthians 3:7–16 319 Hebrews 9:12–13 50n36 9:14 50

348

Index of Ancient Sources

1 Peter 1:19 50 Revelation 2:7 135n21 22:2 135n21 22:14 135n21 22:19 135n21

8

Christian Texts (Antiquity and Middle Ages)

Apostolic Constitutions

210

Aurelius Augustinus De civitate Dei 17:24 331 Bede Venerabilis 332 Expositio in evangelium Lucae 2.38 332n47 Omeliarum evangelii 1.18 332n46 Bernard of Clairvaux In festo purificatione beatae Mariae 5.17 324n24 Dionysius bar Salibi In Lucam Ad 2:25–26 Eusebius of Caesarea Commentaria in Hesaiam Ad 22:15–25

317–318 229n5 153

Jerome In Isaiam Ad 22:15–25

153

Jirjis al-Makin (Ibn al-ʿAmid) Al-Majmuʿ al-Mubarak 319–320 Justin Martyr Dialogus cum Tryphone 62 17n24 Methodius Oratio de Symeone et Anna 9 331 Origen Homiliae in Jesu Nave 5 80n80 Homiliae in Lucam Ad 2:34

330–331

Paul de Heredia Gale razeia 324 Raymond Martin Pugio Fidei 318, 324–325, 329 Theodoret of Cyrus Quaestiones in Octateuchum Quaest. Iosue 11

80n77, 80n81

Thomas Aquinas Catena aurea 332

9

Samaritan Texts

Eutychius of Alexandria Nazm al-Jauhar 318–319

Hammeliṣ 275–76

George Cedrenus Synopsis 320–321

Samareitikon 2–3, 8, 271–288 Tibat Marqe 85 (37b) 287 (230a)

276–277, 282 279n38 282n48

349

Index of Ancient Sources

10

Rabbinic Literature

Pisḥa 11:1–2 Pisḥa 11:14–18

45 48

Mishnah Beṣah 5:2 Megillah 1:5 Menaḥot 11:4–5

43, 44n18 43, 44n18 308

Sifre Numbers 147 43

Tosefta Soṭah 8

80n80

Pesiqta de Rab Kahana 5:19 40n9

Talmud yerushalmi Soṭah 7:5 Soṭah 7:6

73n59 80n79, 80n80

Genesis Rabbah 1,3 17 1,4 21 1,5 15 1,9 15 3,8 17 4,6 24 36,8 290 63,10 301

Talmud bavli Berakot 47a 186 Pesaḥim 41a 40 Yoma 28b 45 Megillah 3a 290 Ḥagigah 12a 15, 306 Soṭah 34a–36a 80n80 Avot 1:2 319, 329, 324–325 Mekilta de R. Ishmael Pisḥa 4:3 Pisḥa 6:65 Pisḥa 9:53–67

49 40n8 43

Midrash Tanḥuma

305

Leviticus Rabbah 5,5 153 Tobiah ben Eliezer Leqaḥ Tov 303

Index of Modern Authors Aberbach, Moses 13n4, 33, 59n4, 64n22, 77n70, 99 Adrados, Francisco R. 299, 311 Aejmelaeus, Anneli 70n43, 94, 102, 124, 126, 251n11, 261n53, 266 Aitken, James K. 7, 138n24, 139, 197–227, 255n22, 266, 311 Alexander, Philip S. 20, 33, 40n11, 54n42, 55, 59n5, 94, 201n22, 210, 216n66–67, 220, 222, 291n11, 311 Altin, Jacobus 334n57, 335 Álvarez, Manuel 292, 311 Amigo, Lorenzo Espada 295n30, 311 Andersen, Francis I. 244n55, 244n57–58, 245n59–61 Aquinas, Thomas see index of ancient sources Ariza, Manuel 292n15, 311 Aslanov, Ciril 289n4, 312 Assis, Elie 67n34, 94 Aufrecht, Walter E. 37n1, 55 Augustinus, Aurelius see index of ancient sources Austin, Benjamin M. 146n20, 154 Baasten, Martin F.J. 259n41, 266 Bádenas de la Peña, Pedro 296n31, 298, 311 Baer, David A. 150n27, 152n30, 154 Barr, James 124–126, 143n10, 154, 209–211, 218, 222, 251, 266 Barthélemy, Dominique 61n9, 63n17, 64n23–25, 75n64, 94, 162n24, 164n28, 167n35, 172, 215, 222, 254n21, 266 Bartolocci, Giulio 334n57, 335 Barton, George A. 207n42, 222 Bauer, Hans 259n43, 266 Baumgartner, Walter 299, 306 Bedwell, William 322n11, 326–327, 335 Beekes, Robert 72n49, 94 Beentjes, Pancratius C. 47n29, 55 Ben-Ḥayyim, Ze’ev 275n21, 276n22, 276n25, 279n38, 282n46–48, 285n67, 286 Benjamin, Charles D. 73n56, 94 Ben-Yashar, Menachem 161n18, 172

Ben Yeshayah, Netanel see Yeshayah, Netanel ben Berenbaum, Michael 299 Berliner, Abraham 198, 222 Bernard of Clairvaux see index of ancient sources Beyer, Klaus 250n5, 264n66, 266–267 Bickerman, Elias 63n17, 94 Bieberstein, Klaus 68n35, 73n57, 75n63, 94 Biundo, Georg 322n13, 336 Black, Matthew 211n50, 222, 243n53, 247 Blenkinsopp, Joseph 132n9, 139 Blondheim, David Simon 294, 312 Bonesho, Catherine E. 125n50, 127 Bons, Eberhard 158n8, 166n32, 170n41, 173 Boulluec, Alain le see Le Boulluec, Alain Bowker, John 14n6, 33 Boyd-Taylor, Cameron 4, 61–62, 94, 101n3, 102, 110n26, 112n31, 114–116, 123, 126, 157n7, 172, 200n21, 222, 252n12, 253, 267 Breed, Brennan W. 101n1–2, 126 Brock, Sebastian P. 38, 53, 55, 62, 95, 202, 222, 263n61, 267 Brockington, L.H. 60n6, 95, 141, 142n8, 153, 154, 200, 222 Brooke, Norman 106 Brown, John P. 158, 172, 282n50, 286 Brown, William 23, 33, 246n64 Buber, Shlomo (Salomon) 305n49, 312 Bucer, Martin 333n54, 336 Buhl, Frants 131, 137, 139 Bunis, David 295n27, 312 Burkitt, Francis C. 255n22, 267 Burnett, Stephen G. 326n36, 336 Butler, Trent C. 75n64, 95 Buxtorf sr., Johann 334, 336 Byun, Seulgi L. 144n12, 154 Caird, George B. 275n18, 286 Calvin, John 333n52, 336 Campbell, Jonathan G. 205n36, 223 Carpzov, Jo. Benedictus 334n57 Carleton Paget, James 206n41, 223, 311 Chemnitius, Martinus 334n57, 336

351

Index of Modern Authors Chester, Andrew 232, 247 Chesterman, Andrew 104, 107, 126, 252n12 Childs, Brevard S. 131n6, 132n9, 139 Chilton, Bruce D. 13n2–3, 14n5, 14n9, 14n12, 34, 40n11, 46n26, 54n42, 55, 153n31, 154, 157n3, 172, 228n1, 247, 251n8, 267, 278n32, 286, 304n48, 312 Churgin, Pinkhos 2, 9, 60n6, 79n76, 95, 146n19, 154, 157, 172, 198–199, 223, 249n1, 267 Cinquarbre (Quinquarboreus), Jean (Iohannes) 322n11, 325–326, 338 Clarke, Ernest G. 37n1, 55 Clines, David J.A. 138, 139, 231n19, 232n21–22, 233n25, 234n27, 240n46, 242n49, 247 Coakley, J.F. 317n2, 321, 336 Cohen, Menachem 299, 312 Collins, Nina L. 63n17, 95 Cook, Edward M. 274n14, 286 Cook, Johann 4, 13–36, 63n17, 64n21, 95, 152n30, 181, 192 Cooley, Alison E. 202n28, 223 Corley, Jeremy 209, 223 Cowey, James M.S. 63n18, 95 Cox, Claude E. 236n33, 247 Crawford, Sidnie W. 263n60, 267 Crespo, Emilio 203n29, 223 Cross, Frank Moore 106n16, 126 Crown, Alan D. 272n1, 286 Cutler, Allan 334, 336 Dalven, Rachel 289n4, 312 Daniel, Suzanne 43, 55 Daniels, Harold M. 329n40, 336 Davila, James R. 24, 34, 207, 210, 223 Déaut, Roger le see Le Déaut, Roger Deist, Ferdinand 32, 34 De Jonge, Marinus see Jonge, Marinus de De Lange, Nicholas R.M. 158n7, 172, 204n33, 210, 223, 289n1, 291n11, 294, 297n39, 297n42–43, 298, 309, 312 Delekat, Lienhard 2–3, 8, 9, 60n6, 95, 141–142, 143n10, 154, 157, 172, 249n1, 267 De Moor, Johannes C. see Moor, Johannes C. de

De Troyer, Kristin 250n4, 267 De Vaux, Roland 249n3, 250n5–7, 258n39, 263n62, 267 d’Hamonville, David-Marc 180n16–18, 182n24, 187–188, 192 Dhont, Marieke 229n5, 247 Dieleman, Jacco 203n30, 223 Díez Macho, Alejandro 14n11, 18n32, 19–20, 34, 37n1, 55 Di Lella, Alexander A. 47n29, 56, 211n49, 224 Dines, Jennifer M. 54n42, 55, 250n4, 267 Dogniez, Cécile 39, 55 Dorival, Gilles 45n20, 51n39, 55, 58n2, 60n6, 61n10, 95, 172, 204, 223 Dotan, Aron 296n36, 312 Dozeman, Thomas B. 82n82, 95 Drazin, Israel 299, 302, 303, 312 Drettas, Georges 293n20, 312 Du Fresne du Cagne, Charles 299, 307, 312 Dunkelgrün, Theodor W. 325n27, 336 Durham, John 241n47, 247 Ego, Beate 136n22, 139, 158, 172 Elitzur, Yoel 107n19, 109n23, 127 Elwolde, John F. 259n41, 269 Even-Zohar, Itamar 104n11, 126 Fagius, Paul 322–323, 336 Fernández Marcos, Natalio 134n17, 139, 204n33, 223, 254n21, 267, 294, 312 Field, Frederick 2n11, 9, 83–93, 95, 217n71, 223 Fine, Steven 277n27–28, 286 Fischer, Johann 144n12, 155 Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 250n6, 262n55, 264n67, 267 Flesher, Paul V.M. 13n2–3, 14n5, 14n9, 14n12, 34, 40n11, 46n26, 54n42, 55, 157n3, 172, 197n1, 223, 228n1, 247, 251n8, 267, 278n32, 286 Flint, Peter W. 130n4–5, 140 Florentin, Moshe 276n26, 288 Folmer, Margaretha L. 254n19, 259n43, 267 Fox, Michael P. 101n1, 126, 180, 183–185, 187n46, 190, 192

352 Fraade, Steven D. 61n11, 95 Frankel, Zacharias 2, 9, 60n6, 95, 141n3, 155, 157, 172–173, 197–198, 224, 249n1, 268 Freedman, David A. 249n2, 258n39–40, 262n55, 263n63, 264, 268 Freedman, Harry 301n45, 313 Fritz, Volkmar 73n56, 95 Fürst, Julius 198, 224 Galatino (Galatinus), Pietro C. 323–327, 329, 336 Gall, August von 280n42, 286 García Martínez, Florentino 59n3, 95, 231n15, 247, 250n7, 262n55, 268 Geiger, Abraham 198, 224 Gelston, Anthony 167n34, 173 Gentry, Peter J. 229n6, 247 Gerhardus, Johannes 334n57, 336 Gerleman, Gilles 31, 34 Gerth, Bernhard 70n41, 96 Gesenius, Wilhelm 131n8, 139, 259n41, 268, 273n10, 274n11, 287 Giambrone, Anthony 215n61, 215n63, 224 Ginsberger, Moses 15, 34 Giustiani, Agostino 323, 336 Gleßmer, Uwe 157n3, 173 Goldingay, John 132, 135n21, 139 Gooding, David W. 198n12, 199n14, 224 Gordon, Robert P. 59n4, 95, 145n14–15, 146n16, 155 Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe 40n9, 55 Gottlieb, Isaac 161n18, 172 Grabbe, Lester L. 45n20, 55, 215n64, 224, 254n21, 268 Greenfield, Jonas C. 290n5, 314 Grossfeld, Bernard 13n4, 33, 262n54, 262n56, 268, 299, 303, 313 Gruen, Erich S. 54n42, 55 Guggenheimer, Heinrich W. 73n59, 80n79, 95 Gunther, Karl 333n55, 337 Guthrie, William K.C. 30n93, 34 Gutwirth, Eleazar 282n14, 313 Hamilton, Alistair 326n33, 326n35, 337 Hamonville, David-Marc d’ see d’Hamonville, David-Marc

Index of Modern Authors Happ, Heinz 30n94, 34 Harl, Marguerite 58n2, 60n6, 61n10, 95, 204n34, 223 Harlé, Paul 249n4, 268 Harrington, Daniel J. 59n4, 76n67, 77n69, 95 Hartman, Louis F. 211n49, 224 Hays, Richard B. 332n51, 337 Hayward, C.T. Robert 4, 37–57, 146n18, 155, 199n13, 224 Healey, John F. 182n27, 192 Heijmans, Shai 283n54, 287 Hempel, Charlotte 213, 224 Hendel, Ronald 23, 34 Hengel, Martin 21, 31–32, 34 Hesseling, Dirk C. 294, 296, 297n40, 298, 313 Hiebert, Robert J.V. 23, 26, 34 Hill, Robert C. 80n77, 95 Hoch, James E. 274n13, 287 Hollander, Elisabeth 297n37, 313 Hollenberg, Johannes 73n57, 75n64, 75n66, 95 Holmes, James S. 103, 127 Honigman, Sylvie 64n19, 96 Horst, Pieter W. van der 26, 34, 271n1, 287 Houtman, Alberdina 220n75, 224, 329n39, 337 Hulfius, Antonius 334n57, 337 Hurd, J.C. 37n1, 55 Hutton, Jeremy 5, 101–128 Hyvärinen, Kyösti 210, 224, 254n21, 255n22, 268 James, Montague R. 238n38, 247 Jarick, John 210, 224 Jastrow, Marcus 79n74, 96, 181n21, 182n27, 192 Jellicoe, Sidney 115n36, 127 Jobes, Karen H. 203n32, 224 Jones, Henry S. 300 Jones, William H.S. 185n36, 192 Jonge, Marinus de 207n46, 224 Joosten, Jan 2n7, 3n12–14, 5, 9, 37–39, 55, 60n6, 62n16, 96, 144n12, 155, 157–173, 174n2, 175n6, 184n30, 192, 197n1, 200, 209, 224, 271n3, 272n4, 286n68, 287

Index of Modern Authors Jouön, Paul 217n69, 225, 254n18, 257n32, 268 Just, Arthur A. 332n46–47, 337 Kager 110n28, 112n31, 113n32, 127 Kaminka, Aharon 190n55, 192 Kaplan, Haya 285n62, 287 Karrer, Martin 32, 35, 134n18, 140, 152n29, 155 Kasher, Menaḥem 302n46, 313 Kasher, Rimon 290n6, 313 Katz, Peter 60n6, 96 Kaufman, Stephen A. 15n17, 35 Kautzsch, Emil 259n41, 259n43, 268 Kessler, Stephan 158n8, 166n32, 170n41, 173 Kirn, Hans-Martin 328n38, 330n41, 337 Klein, Michael L. 20n35, 35, 37n1, 49n34, 55, 145n14, 155, 280n43, 287, 293n17, 293n19, 304n48, 313 Knibb, Michael 243n52, 243n54, 247, 250n4, 267 Koch, Klaus 138n25, 139 Koehler, Ludwig 299, 306 Koenig, Jean 143n10, 154n32, 155 Kohn, Samuel 2, 9, 272n3, 273n9, 287 Komlosh, Yehuda 313 Kooij, Arie van der 5, 32n98, 33, 59n4, 63n17, 64n21–25, 96, 141–156, 291n10, 313 Koole, Jan L. 130n2, 132, 139 Koorevaar, Hendrik 67n34, 96 Krašovec, Jože 107n19, 127 Kraus, Hans-Joachim 82n82, 96 Kraus, Wolfgang 134n18, 140, 152n29, 155 Krauss, Samuel 289n1, 314 Kreitzer, Beth 333n54, 337 Krüger, Thomas 230n14, 246n64, 247 Kriaras, Emmanouel 299, 307, 314 Krivoruchko, Julia G. 158n7, 172, 292, 314 Kugler, Robert A. 207n46, 225 Kühner, Raphael 70n41, 96 Labendz, Jenny 215n61, 225 Lambert, Wilfred G. 188n52, 189n53, 192 Lane, David J. 259n44, 268 Lange, Nicholas de see De Lange, Nicholas Langlamet, François 66n33, 96 Larson, Erik W. 209, 211, 218–219, 225

353 Lauterbach, Jacob Z. 40n8, 55 Law, Timothy Michael 294n21, 314 Lawson Younger, K. 125n48 Leander, Pontus 259n43, 266 Le Boulluec, Alain 43n15, 43n17, 45n20, 47n28, 54n43, 56, 275n18, 287 Le Déaut, Roger 40n11, 46n26, 56, 60n6, 96, 199n14, 225 Lee, Eun-Woo 73n56, 96 Lee, John A.L. 204n35, 225, 263n61, 264n67, 268 Lee, Kyong-Jin 40n7, 56 Lefevere, André 104n11, 127 Lella, Alexander A. di see Di Lella, Alexander A. Levine, Israel L. 291n11, 314 Levita, Elias 322n12, 324, 337 Levy, Barry B. 40n10, 56 Levy, Hans 289n4, 314 Levy, Jacob 182n27, 192 Leyserus, Polycarpus 334n57, 336 Liddell, Henry 300 Lieberman, Saul 289, 314 Lienhard, Joseph T. 331n43, 337 Lier, Gudrun E. 136n22, 140 Lightfoot, John 334n57, 337 Loiseau, Anne-Françoise 6, 60n6, 96, 144n12, 156, 158n4, 173, 174–193 Louw, Theo A.W. van der 27n76, 35, 62n16, 96, 102, 127, 207n43, 225, 250n4, 268 Lowy, Simeon 277n27, 278n30, 287 Lust, Johan 175n4, 193 Luther, Martin 332–333, 337 Macaskill, Grant 244n55, 247 Machiela, Daniel A. 200n20, 221, 225 Maher, Michael 14n7–8, 15n14, 15n18, 35, 46n24, 56 Maimonides, Moses 308n52, 314 Mangan, Celine 232n23, 233n26, 247 Mankowski, Paul V. 274n12, 287 Maresch, Klaus 63n18, 95 Margain, Jean 278n32, 287 Margalioth, Mordecai 289n2, 314 Margolis, Max L. 72, 83–93, 97, 259n43, 268 Margulies, Mordecai 302n46, 314 Marius, Richard 332n49, 337

354 Martin, Malachi 18n32, 35 Martin, Raymond see index of ancient sources Matusova, Ekaterina 211n52–53, 225 Mayser, Eduard 70n41, 97 McCarthy, Carmel 178n9, 193 McKarter, Patrick K. 109n23–24, 127 McLay, Timothy R. 211n49, 225 McLean, Alan E. 106 McNamara, Martin 13n4, 14n10, 19n34, 45n21, 46n24, 56, 199n13, 199n17, 225 Meer, Michaël N. van der 4, 26–27, 35, 58–100 Mélèze Modrzejewski, Joseph 63n18, 98 Mendelsohn, Isaac 310n54–55, 314 Mendoza Abreu, Josefa 292n15, 311 Meyer, Rudolf 93, 98 Milgrom, Jacob 256n26, 260n51, 268 Milik, Józef T. 59n3, 98, 249n3, 250n5–7, 258n39, 263n62, 266 Moatti-Fine, Jacqueline 71n46, 72n53, 75n66, 76n68, 77n71, 78n72, 98 Montgomery, James A. 211n49, 226 Moor, Johannes C. de 65, 98 Morgan, Michael A. 289n2, 314 Moyer, Ian 203n30, 223, 226 Mroczek, Eva 214n58, 226 Munnich, Olivier 58n2, 60n6, 61n10, 95, 204n34, 215n64, 223, 226 Muñoz León, Domingo 304n48, 314 Muraoka, Takamitsu 62n16, 70n42, 98, 217n69, 225, 254n18, 257n33, 259n41, 269 Naveh, Joseph 285n65, 287, 290n5, 314 Neubauer, Adolf 295n26, 314 Nickelsburg, George W.E. 243n54, 247 Niehoff-Panagiotidis, Johanan 297n37, 313 Nikolsky, Ronit 210, 226 Noort, Ed 68n35, 98 Nord, Christiane 104, 124n43, 127 O’Connor, Michael P. 132n10, 140, 254n18, 270 Orlinsky, Harry M. 54n42, 56 Orlov, Andrei 242n51, 246, 247 Orth, Wolfgang 63n17, 98 Oswalt, John N. 131n6, 132n12, 140 Otho, Johann Heinrich 334n57, 337

Index of Modern Authors Ottley, Richard R. 133n14, 135n21, 140, 249n4, 255n22, 269 Otto, Eckart 82n82, 98 Parry, Donald W. 106n16, 126 Paul, André 215n64, 226 Paul, Shalom M. 130n2, 132n9, 140 Payne Smith (Margoliouth), Jessie 234n29, 239n43, 247 Payne Smith, Robert 181n21, 193 Penkower, Jordan S. 161n18, 172 Perkins, Larry 280n42, 281n44, 287 Perrin, Andrew B. 229n3, 244n56, 247 Perrin, Bernadotte 187n45, 193 Peursen, Wido Th. van 317n2, 337 Pfeiffer, Robert H. 205, 226 Pietersma, Albert 4, 61–62, 98, 101, 107n20, 114n33, 123, 127, 133n15, 140 Ploeg, Johannes P.M. van der 214n56, 226, 240n44, 247 Polzin, Robert 67n34, 98 Posen, Raphael B. 302n46, 314 Potken, Joannes 323–324, 338 Pralon, Didier 249n4, 268 Prijs, Leo 60n6, 98, 198–199, 226 Prince, Alan 105, 107n18, 127 Propp, William H.C. 44n18, 56 Pummer, Reinhard 271n2, 272n6–7, 276n23, 285n60–61, 287 Pym, Anthony 124n43, 127 Quinquarboreus, Iohannes see Cinquarbre, Jean Rabin, Chaim 291, 314 Rahlfs, Alfred 106 Rajak, Tessa 38n3, 56, 64n19, 98, 202n25–26, 210n47, 226 Reed, Annette Y. 215n65, 226 Reiterer, Friedrich V. 20n41, 35 Rieder, David 15, 35 Rignell, Lars G. 231n18, 247 Rocca, Samuel 214n60, 226 Rooden, Peter T. van 323n19, 338 Rösel, Martin 4, 23, 25n63, 25n65, 27–32, 35–36 Rosenbaum, M. 299, 312 Rosenthal, Franz 259n43, 269, 290n5

Index of Modern Authors Rossi, Azariah de 1–3, 9, 10 Rudolph, Wilhelm 68n36, 75n64, 98 Runia, David 26, 36 Safrai, Shmuel 315 Salderini, Anthony J. 59n4, 76n67, 77n69, 95 Saley, Richard J. 106n16, 126 Salvesen, Alison 1n1–2, 10, 39n6, 52n41, 56 Samely, Alexander 254n20, 261n53, 269 Samuel, Harald 285n63, 287 Sandelin, Karl-Gustav 32n97, 36 Sanders, Paul 5–6, 129–140 Sanderson, Judith 250n4, 269 Sandevoir, Pierre 43n15, 43n17, 45n20, 47n28, 54n43, 56, 275n18, 287 Schaeder, Hans Heinrich 291n8, 315 Schäfer, Peter 20, 36 Schaller, Berndt 238n38, 248 Schams, Christine 203n31, 226 Schaper, Joachim 199, 226 Schenker, Adrian 32, 36 Schickardus, Wilhelmus 334n57, 338 Schiffman, Lawrence H. 203n31, 226 Schniedewind, William M. 207n46, 227 Schürer, Emil 45n20, 56, 207n44, 227 Schwarzwald, Ora (Rodrigue) 295n29, 315 Schwyzer, Eduard 70n41, 99 Scott, Ian W. 238n39, 248 Scott, Robert 300 Screnock, John 169n39, 173 Scultetus, Abraham 334n57, 338 Seeligmann, Isac L. 64n21, 99, 143n10, 145n15, 154n32, 156 Sephiha, Haim Vidal see Vidal Sephiha, Haim Sepmeijer, Floris 65, 98 Shaked, Shaul 290n7 Shehadeh, Haseeb 276n22, 279n39, 288 Shemesh, Mor 283n51, 284n57, 288 Shemsh, Rivka 254n18, 269 Shepherd, David J. 7, 59n3, 99, 228–248, 249n2, 254n19, 255, 256n27, 259n45, 260, 261n52–53, 269 Shinan, Avigdor 290n6, 315 Siegert, Folker 174n2, 193 Silbermann, Abraham M. 299, 312 Sipilä, Seppo 66, 69, 72n55, 73n56, 99 Silva, Moisés 203n32, 224 Simon, Maurice 301n45, 312

355 Skehan, Patrick W. 47n29, 56, 250n4, 269 Skolnik, Fred 299 Smelik, Willem 1n1–2, 10, 61, 99, 154n33, 156, 157n1, 173, 198n5, 201, 227, 252n12, 269, 291n10, 315 Smolar, Leivy 59n4, 64n22, 77n70, 99 Smolensky, Paul 105, 107n18, 127 Smyth, Herbert W. 120n41, 127 Soggin, J. Alberto 82n82, 99 Sokoloff, Michael 79n74–75, 99, 108n21–22, 127–128, 239n43, 248, 274n14, 283n54, 288 Soisalon-Soininen, Ilmari 251n11, 257–258, 260, 269 Sollamo, Raija 251n11, 256n29, 257n34, 258n37, 269 Sophocles, Evangelinus A. 275n18, 288, 300, 315 Sperber, Alexander 18, 36, 37n1, 56, 83–93, 99, 106, 136n23, 140, 158 Spittler, Russell P. 238n38, 248 Spitzer, F. 37n1, 55 Spronk, Klaas 135n21, 140 Staalduine-Sulman, Eveline van 1n3, 9, 10, 59n4, 99, 110n27, 128, 317–338 Stadel, Christian 8, 264n65, 269, 271–288 Stamm, Johann J. 299 Stec, David M. 80n81, 99, 231n17, 248 Steiner, Richard C. 210, 227 Stern, David 328n38, 338 Steyn, Pieter E. 183n30, 193 Stone, Michael 206, 212, 227 Stricker, Bruno H. 63n17, 99 Stuckenbruck. Loren T. 249n2, 258n39–40, 262n55, 263n63, 264, 269 Swete, Henry B. 205n37, 227, 249n4, 255n22, 269, 294n21, 315 Syrén, Roger 198n6, 227 Sysling, Harry 220n75, 224 Sznol, Shifra 8, 289–316 Tal, Abraham 256n28, 259n43, 269, 275n20, 276n23–24, 276n26, 277n29, 278n31, 279n34–37, 280n40, 282n45, 283n53, 283n55–56, 288, 293n18, 315 Tal, Oren 285n64, 288 Ta-Shma, Israel M. 315 Thackeray, Henry St. John 58n2, 60, 74n61, 99, 106, 249n4, 255n22, 269

356 Thomas, Alun 8, 249–270 Thomas Aquinas see index of ancient sources Thompson, Dorothy J. 203n29, 227 Tigchelaar, Eibert J.C. 59n3, 95, 231n15, 247, 250n7, 262n55, 268 Toury, Gideon 5, 103–105, 125, 128, 252–253, 269 Tov, Emanuel 66, 68n37, 69, 72, 73n56, 75n63, 75n65, 93, 99–100, 101n2, 128, 136n22, 140, 211n50, 214n59, 227, 250n4, 251n11, 253, 263n60, 270 Townsend, John T. 305n50, 315 Trapp, Erich 300, 315 Tropper, Amram 319n5, 338 Troxel, Ronald L. 124, 128, 145n15, 152, 156 Troyer, Kristin de see De Troyer, Kristin Tuinstra, Evert 229–230, 235n32, 248, 249n1, 270 Tully, Eric J. 252n12, 270 Tyndale, William 333 Ulrich, Eugene C. 106n16, 126, 130n4–5, 140, 250n4, 269 Urbach, Efraim E. 17n26, 36, 191n59, 193 Van der Horst, Pieter W. see Horst, Pieter W. van der VanderKam, James C. 206n39, 227, 243n54, 247 Van der Kooij, Arie see Kooij, Arie van der Van der Louw, Theo A.W. see Louw, Theo A.W. van der Van der Meer, Michaël N. see Meer, Michaël N. van der Van der Ploeg, Johannes P.M. see Ploeg, Johannes P.M. van der Van der Vorm-Croughs, Mirjam see Vorm-Croughs, Mirjam van der Van der Woude, Adam S. see Woude, Adam S. van der Van Peursen, Wido Th. van see Peursen, Wido Th. van Van Rooden, Peter T. see Rooden, Peter T. van Vaux, Roland de see De Vaux, Roland Veltri, Giuseppe 158n7, 173 Vermeer, Hans J. 104, 124n43, 128 Vermes, Geza 46, 56, 216n67, 227

Index of Modern Authors Vidal Sephiha, Haim 291–292, 315 Vilmar, Eduard 272n5, 288 Von Gall, August see Gall, August von Vorms-Croughs, Mirjam van der 134n17, 134n19, 135n21, 140, 149n23, 156 Vorstius, Guilielmus Henricus 334n56–57, 338 Waard, Jan de 183 Walther, Michael 334n57, 338 Waltke, Bruce K. 132n10, 140, 254n18, 270 Walton, Brian 322n11, 327–328 Wandalinus, Johannes 334n57, 338 Wasserstein, Abraham 318n3, 319n4, 319n6, 320n7–8, 338 Wasserstein, David J. 318n3, 319n4, 319n6, 320n7–8, 338 Watts, John D.W. 131n9, 140 Weber, Robertus 52n41, 56 Weinberg, Joanna 5n5, 10 Weiss, Hans-Friedrich 20n38, 36 Weitzman, Michael P. 58n1, 100, 157n1, 173, 176n7, 193, 235n30, 248, 275n19, 288 Westermann, Claus 23n50, 36, 131n9, 140 Wevers, John W. 37n1, 42n14–43n15, 49, 54n43, 56–57, 260n49, 262n59, 264n68, 270, 272n6, 288, 308n53, 316 Whybray, Roger N. 131n6, 131n9, 140 Wilkinson, Robert J. 324n21, 324n25, 338 Wijngaards, J.N.M. 82n82, 100 Witsius, Hermannus 334n57, 338 Wolf, Johann-Wilhelm 333–336, 338 Wooden, Glenn 210, 227 Woude, Adam S. van der 214n56, 226, 231n15, 240n44, 247, 250n7, 268 Wright, Benjamin G. 114n33, 127, 133n15, 140, 251n11, 253, 270 Yaari, Abraham 298 Yarshater, Ehsan 299 Yeivin, Israel 296n36, 316 Yeshayah, Netanel ben 302n46, 316 York, Anthony D. 54n42, 57 Zahn, Molly M. 101n2, 128 Zeller, Eduard 30n92, 36 Ziegler, Joseph 133n14, 140, 144n11, 145n15, 146n17, 146n20, 156, 231n16, 248