Style and Context of Old Greek Job 9004358498, 9789004358492

Table of contents :
Introduction..............1
Chapter 1 Studying Style in the Old Greek Book of Job..............7
Chapter 2 Descriptive Translation Studies and Polysystem Theory..............48
Chapter 3 The JewishGreek Polysystem..............66
Chapter 4 Septuagintal and Natural Greek Usage in Old Greek Job..............94
Chapter 5 High Register Greek in Old Greek Job..............142
Chapter 6 Studying the Use of Rhetorical Features in Old Greek Job..............180

Citation preview

Style and Context of Old Greek Job

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 – Y. Furstenberg O. Irshai – S. Kattan Gribetz – S. Mason – 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 J.C. de Vos

VOLUME 183

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

Style and Context of Old Greek Job By

Marieke Dhont

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Dhont, Marieke, author. Title: Style and context of old Greek Job / by Marieke Dhont. Description: LEIDEN ; BOSTON : Brill, 2017. | Series: Supplements to the  Journal for the study of Judaism, ISSN 1384-2161 ; Volume 183 | Includes  bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2017048726 (print) | LCCN 2017061116 (ebook) | ISBN  9789004358492 (E-book) | ISBN 9789004358485 (hardback : alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Job—Criticism, interpretation, etc. | Bible.  Job—Versions—Septuagint—Criticism, interpretation, etc. | Bible. Old  Testament. Greek—Versions—Septuagint—Criticism, interpretation, etc. |  Bible. Old Testament—Translating. Classification: LCC BS1414.G7 (ebook) | LCC BS1414.G7 S43 2017 (print) | DDC  223/.1048—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017048726

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 1384-2161 isbn 978-90-04-35848-5 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-35849-2 (e-book) Copyright 2018 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense and Hotei Publishing. 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 Acknowledgements vii List of Illustrations viii Abbreviations ix Introduction 1 1 Studying Style in the Old Greek Book of Job 7 1 Introducing the Translator of Old Greek Job 7 2 The Translation Technique of Old Greek Job 18 3 The Style of Old Greek Job 34 4 Language and Hellenization 43 5 The Nature of the Present Research 47 2 Descriptive Translation Studies and Polysystem Theory 48 1 Introduction 48 2 Descriptive Translation Studies 49 3 Polysystem Theory 61 3 The Jewish-Greek Polysystem 66 1 The Literary Polysystem of the Septuagint 66 2 The Jewish-Greek Literary Polysystem 71 3 Development within the Polysystem 81 4 Conclusion 92 4 Septuagintal and Natural Greek Usage in Old Greek Job 94 1 Introduction 94 2 Word Order 96 3 Syntactic and Grammatical Features of the Hebrew 108 4 Koine Greek 122 5 Transliteration 127 6 Septuagintalisms 132 7 Conclusion 140 5 High Register Greek in Old Greek Job 142 1 Introduction 142 2 Vocabulary 143 3 Syntactic Features 149

vi

CONTENTS

4 Rhetorical Features on the Colonic Level 160 5 Conclusion 178 6 Studying the Use of Rhetorical Features in Old Greek Job 180 1 Preliminary Observations 180 2 Remarks on the Approach of the Present Study 189 3 From the Viewpoint of the Hebrew Text 194 4 Variatio 205 5 From the Viewpoint of the Greek Text 211 6 Conclusion 217 7 Rhetorical Features in the Greek Text of Job 219 1 Symmetry and Chiasm in Parallel Cola 219 2 Anadiplosis 233 3 Anaphora 241 4 Epiphora 243 5 Parenthesis 246 6 Mesodiplosis 248 7 Conclusion 258 8 Increasing Complexity: Different Rhetorical Tactics at Once 260 1 Introduction 260 2 Clusters of Rhetorical Features in Units of Two to Four Cola 260 3 Increasing Interaction in Five or More Consecutive Cola 278 4 Translating Hebrew Poetry into Greek? 298 9 Old Greek Job in its Literary Environment 303 1 The Background of the Translator of Old Greek Job 303 2 Explaining the Translation Technique 309 3 Attitude Towards Translating the Book of Job 327 Conclusion 332 Bibliography 335 Index of Ancient Sources 388

Acknowledgements My sincerest gratitude goes out to: Prof. Dr. Hans Ausloos and Prof. Dr. Bénédicte Lemmelijn, my doctoral supervisors, for granting me the opportunity to engange in my passion and guiding me through the process of writing my doctoral dissertation. Dr. Jim Aitken, a genuine inspiration, whose profound knowledge, witty insights, and ever-friendly encouragement have been of immeasurable worth to me. I was honored to learn from him during and beyond my time in Cambridge, and his impact on my thinking can only be underestimated. Prof. Dr. Eibert Tigchelaar, who has been a genuine mentor to me from the moment I started my academic adventure. Dr. Claude Cox, whose willingness to grant me access to unpublished materials as well as help unravel many different aspects of Job has been invaluable. His careful reading of different versions of this work has greatly benefited its quality. Prof. Dr. Ben Wright and Prof. Dr. Karina Hogan, who have accepted my manuscript for publication in this series and whose comments have helped me improve my work. The members and staff of the institutions where I conducted this research and prepared the manuscript for publication: the KU Leuven Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies; the Institut de recherche Religions, Spiritualités, Cultures, Sociétés at the Université catholique de Louvain; the Divinity Faculty of Cambridge University; and St. John’s College at the University of Manitoba—each for creating a stimulating atmosphere to work. Jan Demarcke, my highschool teacher, who instilled in me a profound love for Greek, which became a source of joy, inspiration, and perseverance. Styx, my pug. The hours I spent walking him were moments of welcome relief, the hours he spent laying by my side next to my desk moments of enjoyable company. My mother, whose sacrificial support got me where I am today. She stood behind every decision I made and did everything she possibly could to make it easier on me. My friends, for supporting me each in ways only they knew how to: Xanne, Liesbeth, Bram, Eva, Sharyne, Laura, and Britt and Bernard. What I am indebted to you all surpasses every wording. Jeremy, with whom I am lucky to share my life. If it was not for the research that lies at the heart of this book, I would not have met you; if it was not for you, this book would not exist.

List of Illustrations Tables 1 Defining features in Hebrew and Greek 185 2 Definitions of features under examination 192 Figure 1 The Jewish-Greek literary polysystem 73

Abbreviations 1

Journals and Series

In general, I have followed the conventions of the Society of Biblical Literature Handbook of Style (2nd ed.) for the abbreviation of the titles of journals and series.

2

Reference Works

Accordance Accordance Bible Software. Version 11.0.8. Oaktree Software, 2015. BDB Francis Brown, Samuel R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament with an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic, Based on the Lexicon of William Gesenius. 4th ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959. CATSS Emanuel Tov and Frank Polak, The Revised Computer Assisted Tools for Septuagint/Scriptural Study Hebrew/Greek Parallel Text. Jerusalem, 2009. Via Accordance. DCH David J. A. Clines, The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 8 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 1993–2011. DGE Francisco R. Adrados and Juan Rodríguez Somolinos, Diccionario GriegoEspañol. 7 vols at present. Madrid: CSIC, 2011–. Online: http://dge.cchs .csic.es/xdge/). Currently only available are the letters α–ε (ἔξαυος). HALOT Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann J. Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. 5 vols. Translated and edited under supervision of Mervyn E. J. Richardson. Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000. HR Edwin Hatch, Henry A. Redpath et al. A Concordance to the Septuagint and the other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books). 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. JM Paul Joüon and Takamistsu Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Subsidia Biblica 27. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2006. LEH Johan Lust, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie, Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Revised ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003. LSJ Henry G. Liddell, Robert Scott, and Henry S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th revised ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. NETS Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. E. Wright, eds. A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under that Title. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

x NRSV Muraoka Pap

SEG TLG

ABBREVIATIONS New Revised Standard Version of the Bible (1989). Takamitsu Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Leuven: Peeters, 2009. Duke Data Bank of Papyri produced by The Duke Collaboratory for Classics Computing and the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World. Online: http://papyri.info. Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Online: http://referenceworks .brillonline.com/browse/supplementum-epigraphicum-graecum. Thesaurus Linguae Graecae: A Digital Library of Greek Literature, produced by the University of California. Online: http://stephanus.tlg.uci .edu/.

All reference works have been used with caution in full awareness of their respective limitations.

Introduction People tend to think of multilingualism and multiculturalism as modern-day realities that characterize our globalized world. Migration, however, is an ageold phenomenon that inevitably results in new multicultural and/or multilingual living environments. The Septuagint (LXX1) came out of such a rich and diverse context. In the Hellenistic age, a significant Jewish community was established in the Mediterranean world, a home these Jews shared with many other people from different backgrounds. By the third century BCE, Greek had become their common language. The process of translating biblical books from Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek is often understood as a process of acculturation of Jews into Greeks. To what extent, however, is a transition of language a transition of culture? The translation of the LXX, in particular the Pentateuch, is seen as the starting point of the development of a body of Jewish texts in Greek. What happens when a community adopts a new language and starts to build a literary corpus in this language? The present study focuses on a particular LXX book that is regarded as a “literary” translation and that has taken an important place in the debate about the relationship between Hebrew and Greek and between Hellenism and Judaism: the book of Job. This monograph, a revised version of my doctoral dissertation completed under the joint auspices of the Université catholique de Louvain 1  The term “LXX” can be used to denote a range of things. It can either refer to the first Greek translation of the Pentateuch (such as in the Letter of Aristeas), or to a body of Greek texts containing translations (including the LXX Pentateuch) as well as untranslated compositions, see e.g., Kristin De Troyer, “The Septuagint,” in The New Cambridge History of the Bible From the Beginnings to 600 (ed. James Carleton Paget and Joachim Schaper; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 267–88; Peter J. Williams, “The Bible, the Septuagint, and the Apocrypha: A Consideration of their Singularity,” in Studies on the Text and Versions of the Hebrew Bible in Honour of Robert Gordon (ed. Geoffrey Khan and Diana Lipton; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 169–80, 173–78. I will use the term “LXX” in the second, broader sense. The term “LXX translations” will refer to those books within the LXX corpus that are translations from a Hebrew source text. Many of the Greek translations, however, underwent revisions. The use of the term “LXX” will always refer to the version of the text as represented by the editions in the series Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum (Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931–). For those books for which a Göttingen edition is not available, the edition used is that of Alfred Rahlfs and Robert Hanhart, eds., Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes (2nd ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi ��.��63/9789004358492_002

2

Introduction

(Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium) and the KU Leuven (Leuven, Belgium),2 started out as a study on the translation technique of the Old Greek (OG) book of Job seeking “to describe how translators customarily work when they translate Hebrew into Greek.”3 Examining the translation technique is important for the field of textual criticism, but the LXX is much more than a textual witness to the Hebrew Bible (HB). The composition of a translated LXX book is not only determined by the Hebrew source text; it is determined by the intended (target) setting as well. This means that the LXX is also a socio-cultural document of Hellenistic Judaism in its own right. The aim of this book, then, is to describe the language and style of OG Job within its literary and cultural context and explain why the book of Job was translated the way that it was. Previous scholarship on OG Job has traditionally characterized its translation technique as “free,” its style as “good,” “literary” Greek—in contrast to the presumed substandard Greek of the majority of LXX translations—and its cultural outlook as “Hellenized.” We may, however, question the standards scholars adopt when using such descriptions for LXX translations. The use of the binary continuum from “literal” to “free” to characterize a translation has already been put to question by modern translation scholars and by LXX scholars; yet, LXX scholars continue to use this disputed continuum. The “freedom” of Job is frequently understood in terms of the translator’s use of “good” Greek style.4 But what is “good” Greek? The language of the LXX was often character2  This research was made possible by funding from the KU Leuven research fund (project OT 09/001), the Fonds Spéciaux de Recherche of the Université catholique de Louvain, and the Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique-FNRS. I was fortunate to receive a grant from the latter for extended research stays at the University of Cambridge in 2015 and 2016. I revised my dissertation for publication while staying as a Visiting Fellow at St. John’s College (University of Manitoba, Winnipeg) in 2016–2017. 3  Raija Sollamo, “The Study of Translation Technique,” in Die Sprache der Septuaginta (ed. Eberhard Bons and Jan Joosten; vol. 3 of Handbuch zur Septuaginta; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2016), 143–53, 144. 4  See in particular Claude E. Cox, Iob (SBLCS; forthcoming), s.v. 5:6–7 (all references to this commentary are based on a provisional copy of this work generously provided in advance of its publication. Since page numbers were not yet included in this copy, I refer to the biblical verse under which the information in question can be found in the commentary, using the abbreviation for sub verbo, s.v.); Harry Orlinsky, “Studies in the Septuagint of the Book of Job. Chapter II: The Character of the Septuagint Translation of the Book of Job,” HUCA 29 (1958): 229–71; Harry Orlinsky, “Studies in the Septuagint of the Book of Job. Chapter III: On the Matter of Anthropomorphisms, Anthropopathisms, and Euphemisms,” HUCA 30 (1959): 153–67; Harry Orlinsky, “Studies in the Septuagint of the Book of Job. Chapter III (continued),” HUCA 32 (1961): 239–68.

Introduction

3

ized as substandard Greek, until the studies of scholars such as A. Deissmann,5 J. A. L. Lee,6 T. V. Evans,7 and J. K. Aitken8 demonstrated that the Greek of the Pentateuch (the books on which such research has focused) is for the most part “standard,” vernacular Koine. If the Pentateuch is “standard” or “good”9 Greek, how, then, do we describe the style of OG Job? Another characterization of OG Job’s style that one often encounters in scholarly literature is “literary.” But, again, what exactly is “literary,” and according to whom? A more nuanced understanding of OG Job is a desideratum. Style pertains to the way in which something is done or made.10 When it comes to written texts, style can be defined as the conscious or subconscious selection of a set of linguistic features from all the possibilities in a language.11 In a translation, word choices and word order are inherently intertwined with the translation technique because they are often determined by the source text. Yet, not all decisions regarding the style that the translator had to make were governed by the Hebrew source text. Hence, characterizing the style of OG Job as a “free” translation only pertains to the Greek text in relation to a 5  Adolf Deissmann, Licht vom Osten: Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der hellenistisch-römischen Welt (4th ed.; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1923; originally published in 1908) and Adolf Deissmann, Bible Studies: Contributions, Chiefly from Papyri and Inscriptions, to the History of the Language, the Literature, and the Religion of Hellenistic Judaism and Primitive Christianity (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1901; originally published in German in 1895 and 1897). 6  John A. L. Lee, A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch (SCS 14; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983). 7  Trevor V. Evans, Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). 8  James K. Aitken, No Stone Unturned: Greek Inscriptions and Septuagint Vocabulary (CSHB 5; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2014). 9  The descriptor “good” is used by, for example, Henry St. J. Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909), 13; Cox, Iob, passim; Mark Janse, “Aspects of Bilingualism in the History of the Greek Language,” in Bilingualism in Ancient Society: Language Contact and the Written Text (ed. James N. Adams, Mark Janse, and Simon Swain; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 332–92, 389. 10  Jeffrey Dolven, “Style,” in The Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics (ed. Roland Greene et al.; 4th ed.; Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2012), 1369–70, 1369; Nicholas Coupland, Style: Language Variation and Identity (Key Topics in Sociolinguistics; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 1–2. See also Gérard Genette, Fiction et diction (Collection Points-essais; Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1991). 11  David Crystal, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language (3rd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 68.

4

Introduction

Hebrew source text, thus implicitly ignoring other factors that can influence a text’s style, namely the abilities and idiosyncracies of the author or translator, as well as the socio-cultural context in which the text or translation originated. Scholars sometimes mention the context in which OG Job originated as an explanation for the outlook of the translation or features of the text. OG Job is characterized as “Hellenized.” The use of “Hellenized” as a descriptor often relies on intuition and presupposes a dichotomy between Judaism and Hellenism. What does it mean for a translation to be Hellenized, when Jews had adopted the Greek language and the target audience for the Greek translation of Job was Jewish? In previous descriptions of OG Job, its translation technique, its style, and its cultural outlook tend to be confused. In this study, I propose an alternative approach to OG Job as a translation, an artefact of Hellenistic Jewish literature, and a product of an intercultural context in which Jews did not simply adopt elements commonly associated with Hellenism, but in which Hellenism, in turn, is approached as a culturally diverse environment that includes Judaism and that undergoes change as Judaism evolves. The aim is to reach a more nuanced characterization of OG Job and a better understanding of the book’s position in the cultural world of the Hellenistic era. This study engages with recent trends in LXX scholarship by using contemporary literary theory and being attentive to the use of rhetorical features in the Greek translation independently from the Hebrew. Yet it goes further in its explanation of why these features are there by looking at the literary context from which OG Job emerged, a context that will be studied by means of a methodological framework that has not been applied to the study of the LXX before, namely Polysystem Theory (PST). The book begins with a discussion of what it means to study the language and style of OG Job. Chapter 1 serves partially as an introduction to the Greek text of Job and the issues related to its study, such as the question of the relation between the Hebrew and Greek texts of Job and OG Job’s complex character as a translation. This chapter examines the ways in which previous scholarship has characterized OG Job as a “free” translation, written in “good,” “literary” Greek and with a tendency towards cultural “Hellenization.” I argue that a more refined approach to the question of the style and literary context of Job is required. I propose a new theoretical framework that allows us to problematize these descriptors and deal with the subtleties of the study of a LXX book, namely PST. It is a target-oriented way of thinking about cultural artefacts, such as texts. A systemic approach to a text aims to understand the relations between the text and its context. This model is common in modern cultural and literary studies but has not been used systematically to study the LXX. PST is not as much a method as it is a framework of thought that allows

Introduction

5

one to structure one’s argument. The choice of PST as a theoretical model will be discussed in chapter 2. In chapter 3, I use PST to illustrate the literary context in which the LXX, and specifically OG Job, is located. The initial positioning of OG Job establishes a frame of reference and is a condition for a meaningful analysis of the translation itself.12 A study of the text of OG Job facilitates a nuanced contextualization of OG Job from a literary perspective. Chapters 4 to 8, therefore, represent a thorough literary study of the OG translation of Job from the viewpoint of style. Readers are guided hierarchically through the different levels of the text. Chapters 4 and 5 focus on phenomena within single cola. Chapters 6 to 8 look at phenomena that occur in units of two cola or more, with the phenomena under discussion becoming increasingly complex. Under investigation are indications of natural and Septuagintal usage of the Greek language as well as the use of a variety of rhetorical features. The argument builds the cumulative case that the lower-level examples justify the examples that span more cola and that show a combination of features used. These chapters provide the first systematic literary study of OG Job, approaching it both as a translation of a Hebrew source and as a creation in its own right. In chapter 9, the final chapter, I look at what we can infer from a literary analysis, first about the translator himself, and secondly about the position of the translation within its context. I reflect on the translation technique and style of OG Job. The notoriously “free” translation approach and “Hellenizing” outlook of the translation make it seem like OG Job is an odd one out in a corpus of LXX translations that usually stay close to their source text, at least in terms of form. How do the translation technique and style of OG Job as described in chapters 4 to 8 fit in within the context of LXX translations? Chapter 9 finetunes our insights into the position of OG Job within its literary environment as explored in chapter 3. I argue that we can explain the character of Job as a LXX translation and a Jewish composition on the basis of developments within the Jewish-Greek literary corpus. As this corpus grew as a result of translational and compositional activity, Greek-speaking Jews developed their own literary traditions. Rather than seeing OG Job as an example of Jewish acculturation to the Hellenistic world, I argue that we should see the evolution of Jewish-Greek literature in terms of an appropriation of all aspects of the Greek language. This evolution, however, is not simply linear. When the position of Job within this literary development has been explained, I address 12  José Lambert and Hendrik Van Gorp, “On Describing Translations,” in The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation (ed. Theo Hermans; London: Croom Helm, 1985), 42–53.

6

Introduction

the translator’s attitude towards the book of Job. The translation technique of the book of Job has often been explained as the result of a wilful translator working on a book that does not share the same high status in Jewish circles as the Pentateuch, for example, did, and that could, therefore, be handled “freely.” This question will be reassessed in light of the evidence offered in this book. With this study I attempt to provide a new answer to the question of why Job was translated into Greek the way that it was.

chapter 1

Studying Style in the Old Greek Book of Job 1

Introducing the Translator of Old Greek Job1

1.1 Four Case Studies I will consider four examples that illustrate the different ways in which the translator of Job handles the translation task in order to familiarize the reader with the translation technique and style of OG Job.

1  It is generally accepted that the LXX translators were individuals, each translating a different book. See Anneli Aejmelaeus, “Characterizing Criteria for the Characterization of the Septuagint Translator: Experimenting on the Greek Psalter,” in The Old Greek Psalter: Studies in Honour of Albert Pietersma (ed. Robert Hiebert, Claude E. Cox, and Peter Gentry; JSOTSup 332; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 54–73, 55; Martin Rösel, “Translators as Interpreters: Scriptural Interpretation in the Septuagint,” in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism (ed. Matthias Henze; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2011), 64–91, 69. The assumption that each LXX book has been translated by a different translator is an important prerequisite for LXX studies in general and for translation studies in particular. See Emanuel Tov, “Approaches towards Scripture Embraced by the Translators of Greek Scripture,” in Der Mensch vor Gott: Forschungen zum Menschenbild in Bibel, antikem Judentum und Koran. Festschrift für H. Lichtenberger zum 60. Geburtstag (ed. Ulrike Mittmann-Richert et al.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003), 213–28, and his revised version in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible and Qumran: Collected Essays (TSAJ 121; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 325–38, 328. This matter, however, is far from certain. Some scholars have remarked that one and the same biblical book can display a wide range of translation techniques, indicating that more than one translator might have worked on the translation (see for example Natalio Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible [trans. Wilfred Watson; Leiden: Brill, 2000], 22–23; Gilles Dorival, Marguerite Harl, and Olivier Munnich, La Bible grecque des Septante: Du judaïsme hellénistique au christianisme ancien [Initiations au christianisme ancien; Paris: Cerf, 1988], 108). Secondly, some scholars argue that the translations of certain individual books reveal a very similar translation technique, concluding that they were probably the work of the same translator. For instance, one translator is sometimes believed to be responsible for both Qohelet and Song of Songs. See, for example, Jennifer Dines, The Septuagint: Understanding the Bible and its World (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 20. Job and Proverbs have been ascribed to the same translator as well. This will be discussed briefly in the final chapter.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi ��.��63/9789004358492_003

8

chapter 1

Job 15:192 αὐτοῖς μόνοις ἐδόθη ἡ γῆ, καὶ οὐκ ἐπῆλθεν ἀλλογενὴς ἐπ᾿ αὐτούς. To them alone the earth was given, and no stranger went over them.

‫להם לבדם נתנה הארץ‬ ‫ולא עבר זר בתוכם‬

To them alone the earth was given, and no stranger passed among them.

Job 15:19 represents what is traditionally labelled a “literal” translation. The word order of the Greek follows the word order of the Hebrew. Every element of the Hebrew is reflected in the Greek, both in terms of segments within one lexical item, such as ‫—בתוכם‬ἐπ᾿ αὐτούς, as well as in terms of different lexical items. The meaning of the verse is the same in Hebrew and in Greek. Even the word choices represent common LXX equivalences (see CATSS and HR): ‫להם‬ ‫לבדם‬ ‫נתנה‬

αὐτοῖς μόνοις ἐδόθη

The function of ‫ ל‬in ‫ להם‬is reflected in the dative case e.g., Gen 2:18; 42:38; Exod 18:14; Num 11:14; Deut 8:13 e.g., Lev 19:20; Eccl 10:6; Ezek 11:15; 35:12

2  When citing examples, I have opted to outline the biblical texts according to their natural writing directions whenever possible. At the time of the Septuagint translation, the Hebrew text was unpointed, see James Barr, “Vocalization and the Analysis of Hebrew among the Ancient Translators,” in Hebräische Wortforschung: Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag von W. Baumgartner (ed. Benedikt Hartmann et al.; VTSup 16; Leiden: Brill, 1967), 1–11; James Barr, “Reading a Script without Vowels,” in Writing without Letters (ed. William Haas; Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1976), 71–100; Stefan Schorch, “Die hebräische Sprachgeschichte und die Vokalisierung(en) der Hebräische Bibel,” in Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt (ed. Reinhard G. Lehmann; Waltrop: Hartmut Spenner, 2002), 55–70; Stefan Schorch, “Die Rolle des Lesens für die Konstituierung alttestamentlicher Texte,” in Was ist ein Text? Ägyptologische, altorientalische und alttestamentliche Perspektiven (ed. Ludwig Morenz and Stefan Schorch; BZAW 362; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007), 108–22; Stefan Schorch, “The Septuagint and the Vocalisation of the Hebrew Text of the Torah,” in XII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leiden 2004 (ed. Melvin K. H. Peters; SBLSCS 54; Atlanta, Ga.: SBL Press, 2006), 41–54. The choice of primary texts for the book of Job will be discussed in more detail below. The translation of the Hebrew biblical text is based on the NRSV, with my own revisions. For the translation of the Hebrew text of Job specifically, I have made additional use of Choon-Leong Seow, Job 1–21 (Illuminations; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2013); David J. A. Clines, Job (3 vols; WBC 17; 18a; 18b; Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson, 1989–2011). The translation of Greek biblical texts is cited from NETS, with my own revisions. For the translation of the Greek text of Job, I take into account Cox’s revisions to his printed NETS translation, as included in Cox, Iob. Regarding the choice of primary texts, see below.

9

Studying Style In The Old Greek Book Of Job

‫הארץ‬

‫ולא‬

‫עבר‬ ‫זר‬ ‫בתוכם‬

ἡ γῆ καὶ οὐκ ἐπῆλθεν ἀλλογενής ἐπ᾿ αὐτούς

e.g., Gen 1:1; Exod 2:15; 10:5; Lev 4:27; 25:2 e.g., Num 5:14; 5:30; 6:5; Hos 10:11; Zech 9:8 e.g., Exod 29:33; 30:33; Lev 22:10; Num 1:15; 3:10

For a book that is infamous for being a “free” translation, it might come as a surprise that we encounter renderings that are so “literal.” Although many have observed that OG Job does indeed contain “literal” renderings,3 scholarship has focused primarily on the differences. These deviations can be of a varied nature, as the rendering of Job 5:6–7 will illustrate. Job 5:6–7 οὐ γὰρ μὴ ἐξέλθῃ ἐκ τῆς γῆς κόπος, οὐδὲ ἐξ ὀρέων ἀναβλαστήσει πόνος· ἀλλὰ ἄνθρωπος γεννᾶται κόπῳ, νεοσσοὶ δὲ γυπὸς τὰ ὑψηλὰ πέτονται. For hardship shall not come from the earth, nor will trouble sprout from mountains, but a human being is born into hardship, whereas the vulture’s young soar on high.

6 7

‫כי לא יצא מעפר און‬ ‫ומאדמה לא יצמח עמל‬ ‫כי אדם לעמל יול‬ ‫ובני רׁשף יגביהו עוף‬

For misery does not come from the earth, nor does trouble sprout from the ground; but a human being is born into trouble and the offspring of pestilence soar high.

These two verses contain several examples of “free” translational choices. The translator renders the first instance of ‫ עמל‬as πόνος and the second as κόπῳ. This can be explained in terms of a variation of lexical equivalents: the translator wants to avoid a repetition that is present in the Hebrew.4 This observation, however, is contradictory to the observation that the translator introduces

3  Claude E. Cox, “Job,” in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint (ed. James K. Aitken; Bloomsbury Companions; London: Bloomsbury, 2015), 385–400, 391; Gillis Gerleman, Studies in the Septuagint I: Book of Job (Lunds Universitets årsskrift 43/2; Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1946), 5–6. 4  See the notion of variatio discussed in more detail in chapter 4.

10

chapter 1

a repetition into the Greek text that is not present in the Hebrew: he5 uses κόπος again in 6a, this time for ‫און‬, which is a unique equivalence in OG Job.6 Scholarship has not yet paid due attention to the phenomenon of repetition within consecutive verses introduced by the translator of Job independently from the Hebrew. The Greek has ἐξ ὀρέων for ‫ ומאדמה‬in 6b, a rendering that does not reflect the same form or meaning as the Hebrew (“mountains” versus “ground”). ἀναβλαστέω occurs only in the book of Job, whereas its Hebrew source word, ‫צמח‬, occurs over thirty times in the HB. The translator also uses several particles: ‫ לא‬in 6a is rendered as a double negation (οὐ μή), ‫ ו‬in 6b is rendered as the negative connector οὐδέ whereas in 7b it is rendered as δέ, and ‫ כי‬is reflected in the use of ἀλλά, an uncommon equivalent. In addition, the word order of 7a is different: ‫—לעמל יולד‬γεννᾶται κόπῳ. The Hebrew has first the complement, then the verb, whereas the Greek puts the verb first. Furthermore, the rendering of 7b is difficult to link to the Hebrew text.7 Furthermore, many scholars have noted the translator’s tendency to paraphrase.8 This can pertain to the rendering of a colon in a more dense way, such as in Job 13:23, or to rendering two cola as one, such as in Job 33:13. Job 13:23 πόσαι εἰσὶν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι μου καὶ αἱ ἀνομίαι μου; δίδαξόν με τίνες εἰσίν. How many are my sins and my acts of lawlessness? Teach me what they are.

‫כמה לי עונות וחטאות‬ ‫פׁשעי וחטאתי הדיעני‬

How many are my iniquities and sins? Make me know my transgression and my sin.

5  I will use the masculine pronoun to refer to the translator of Job, not because of a genderbias, but for the sake of easy reading. Scribes in antiquity were likely to have been men, but the possibility exists that the translator of Job could have been a woman. 6  Outside the book of Job, this equivalence occurs only four times (see Mic 2:1; Hab 1:3; 3:7; Zech 10:2), even though ‫ און‬occurs over eighty times in the HB. 7  The rendering of Job 5:6–7 will be analyzed in detail in chapter 8. 8  See, among others, Cox, “Job,” 385 and 393; Peter Gentry, The Asterisked Materials in the Greek Job (SBLSCS 38; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1995), 85; Gerleman, Job, 32; Maria Gorea, Job repensé ou trahi? Omissions et raccourcis de la Septante (EB 56; Paris: Gabalda, 2007), 226–28; Orlinsky, “Studies II,” 252–53.

Studying Style In The Old Greek Book Of Job

11

These cola correspond clearly to one another in the Hebrew text. ‫פׁשעי וחטאתי‬ parallels ‫ עונות וחטאות‬in 23a. ‫ פׁשעי וחטאתי‬in 23b is the direct object to the verb ‫הדיעני‬. The Greek rendering is slightly different in form because the second colon of this verse is rendered paraphrastically in Greek. Instead of rendering the phrase ‫ פׁשעי וחטאתי‬in 23b as a direct object, the translator constructs the object in the second colon as an indirect question by means of the interrogative τίνες. Another example of a paraphrase can be found in 33:13. In this example, the Greek text is a monocolon, even though the Hebrew has a bicolon. Job 33:13 λέγεις δέ Διὰ τί τῆς δίκης μου οὐκ ἐπακήκοεν πᾶν ῥῆμα; But you say, “Why has he not heeded one word of my case?”

‫מדוע אליו ריבות‬ ‫כי כל דבריו לא יענה‬

Why do you contend against him, saying, “He will answer none of my words?”

Commentators of the Hebrew text often interpret only the second colon as Job’s words. The Greek translator, however, seems to have understood the entire verse as words spoken by Job. He has reduced a bicolon to a monocolon, while using elements from both cola in the Hebrew. The interrogative διὰ τί represents ‫מדוע‬, τῆς δίκης is based on ‫ ריבות‬but is taken as a genitive governed by πᾶν ῥῆμα, and οὐκ ἐπακήκοεν πᾶν ῥῆμα represents the second colon in the Hebrew text.9 These four examples may serve as an introduction to the translation of Job. What we see is an approach characterized by variation: sometimes the translator renders each element in the Hebrew text in the same order in Greek with lexical choices that we see often in the LXX, while in other instances the translator may change the word order, alternate lexical equivalents, eliminate a repetition in the Hebrew while adding a different one into Greek, or choose not to render each element but, instead, offer a paraphrase. This already indicates that the translation of Job is complex in nature. The book’s complexity can be illustrated further by a discussion of what we know about the origins of OG Job in terms of its date and provenance, as well as of its “free” translation technique, which will be discussed in section 2 of this chapter.

9  Cox, Iob, s.v. 33:13.

12

chapter 1

1.2 The Origins of OG Job 1.2.1 Date The book of Job is generally accepted to have been translated into Greek in the late second or early first century BCE.10 The terminus post quem is based on the translator’s practice of quoting other LXX books, such as the Pentateuch and Isaiah. The terminus ante quem has been determined on the basis of the oldest surviving papyrus containing a Greek version of a few verses of Job (42:11–12), P.Oxy. L 3522, dating to the first century Ce.11 The papyrus contains a few textual variants compared to the OG text, but is considered to correspond sufficiently to the OG to be regarded as convincing evidence for establishing a date for OG Job. Another observation relevant to a terminus ante quem for OG Job is Aristeas’s reference to Job in his work On the Jews.12 A passage from that text excerpted by Alexander Polyhistor (first century BCE13) contains a summary of the story

10  See, for example, among many others, Johann Cook, “The Septuagint of Job,” in Law, Prophets, and Wisdom: On the Provenance of Translators and their Books in the Septuagint Version (CBET 68; Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 175–219, 175–76; Claude E. Cox, “The Historical, Social and Literary Context of Old Greek Job,” in XII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leiden 2004 (ed. Melvin K. H. Peters; SBLSCS 54; Atlanta, Ga.: SBL Press, 2006), 105–16, 106–8; Cox, “Job,” 388–89; Dorival, Harl, and Munnich, La Bible grecque, 110–11; Gerleman, Job, 73–75; Natalio Fernández Marcos, “The Septuagint Reading of the Book of Job,” in The Book of Job (ed. Willem A. M. Beuken; BETL 114; Leuven: Peeters, 1994), 251–66, 251; Homer Heater, A Septuagint Translation Technique in the Book of Job (CBQ MS 11; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1982), ix; Hervé Tremblay, Job 19,25–27 dans la Septante et chez les pères grecs: Unanimité d’une tradition (Paris: J. Gabalda, 2002), 64; Markus Witte, “The Greek Book of Job,” in Das Buch Hiob und seine Interpretationen: Beiträge zum Hiob-Symposium auf dem Monte Verità vom 14.–19. August 2005 (ed. Thomas Krüger et al.; ATANT 88; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2007), 33–54, 53. In addition to the above mentioned arguments, Witte also mentions the following observations: 1) Philo of Alexandria (ca. 25 BCE–50 CE) quotes OG Job 14:4–5 in De mutatione 48.4; 2) OG Job is quoted in the New Testament (Job 5:12–13 in 1 Cor 3:19; Job 13:16 in Phil 1:19; Job 41:3 in Rom 11:35). On Philo’s use of Job, see also Dominique Mangin, “Le texte court de la version grecque du livre de Job et la double interprétation du personnage jusqu’au IIe siècle” (Ph.D. diss., Université d’Aix-Marseille-I, 2005), 120–22. 11  Alan K. Bowman et al., eds., The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Vol. 50 (Graeco-Roman Memoirs 70; London: Egypt Exploration Society for the British Academy, 1983), 1–3. 12  This author is not to be confused with the Aristeas associated with the Letter of Aristeas. 13  Franco Montanari, “Alexander [23, Polyhistor],” in Der Neue Pauly 1 (1996) 478–79; Menahem Stern, “Alexander Polyhistor,” in Encyclopedia Judaica (2007) 629.

Studying Style In The Old Greek Book Of Job

13

of Job,14 which includes an identification of Job as Jobab as well as the titles βασιλεύς and τύραννος for Job’s friends. Both elements also occur in the plus in the Greek text of Job 42:17 and have no counterpart in the Hebrew text of the Masoretes (MT).15 The appendix in the Greek of 42:17, however, cannot be attributed to the OG translator and is generally seen as a later addition.16 This viewpoint presupposes the pre-existence of a Greek version of Job. Yet, one might reverse the question and ask whether Aristeas might have influenced these elements in the plus rather than the other way around.17 The parallels specifically between Aristeas and the oldest parts of the text of Job are more telling. First, the location of Job’s home ἐν τῇ Αυσίτιδι χώρᾳ with the typically Hellenistic adjectival ending -ιτις for the representation of ‫ עוץ‬is characteristic of OG Job (see 1:1; 32:2; 42:17) and may offer a linguistic clue for its dating. ‫ עוץ‬is rendered as Οὗς in the versions of Aquila and Theodotion. The adjectival ending -ιτις does not occur in any of the other LXX books and appears to have been used mainly in the second century BCE.18 Second, there are several specific word choices in On the Jews that are typical of the OG text and that mark a deviation from the MT.19 The first example is πῦρ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ “fire from heaven,” which also occurs in Job 1:16. In the OG text, the second part of the construction, ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, is not a standard rendering or a precise representation of the meaning of ‫ אלהים‬in MT ‫“ אׁש אלהים‬fire from God.”20 The 14  See Praeparatio Evangelica 9.25.1–4 (ed. Karl Mras and Édouard des Places; 2nd ed.; 2 vols; GCS 43/2; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1982–1983). The text of this fragment of Aristeas can be found in Carl R. Holladay, Historians (SBLTT 20, Pseudepigrapha 10; vol. 1 of Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983), 261–75. 15  Cox, “Job,” 388; Claude E. Cox, “The Text of Old Greek Job: A History of its Trans­ mission,” n.p. Cited 10 March 2017. Online: http://www.academia.edu/9585809/_The_ Text_of_Old_Greek_Job_a_History_of_its_Transmission_; Mangin, “Le texte court,” 114–15; Annette Yoshiko Reed, “Job as Jobab: The Interpretation of Job in OG Job 42:17b–e,” JBL 120/1 (2001): 31–55. 16  Cox, “History of its Transmission”; Cox, Iob, s.v. 42:17. 17  Holladay, Historians, 261–62; Seow, Job 1–21, 7–8. See also Johann Cook, “The Provenance of Old Greek Job,” in XIV Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Helsinki 2010 (ed. Melvin K. H. Peters; SBLSCS 59; Atlanta, Ga.: SBL Press, 2013), 73–92, 88; Mangin, “Le texte court,” 118. Robert Doran, “Aristeas the Exegete,” in OTP 2 (1985), 855–59, 857 argued that both Aristeas and the translator of Job relied on a common source. 18  Mangin, “Le texte court,” 114–15 and 272. 19  Mangin, “Le texte court,” 114–17. 20  The expression πῦρ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ occurs several times in other LXX books: Gen 19:24 (‫אׁש‬ ‫“ מאת יהוה מן הׁשמים‬fire from the Lord out of heaven”—πῦρ παρὰ κυρίου ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ “fire from the Lord out of heaven”); 3Kgdms 18:38 (‫“ אׁש יהוה‬the fire of the Lord”—πῦρ

14

chapter 1

second example is ὄνοι θήλειαι νομάδες πεντακόσιαι “five hundred she-donkeys at pasture,” which occurs in Job 1:3, rendering ‫“ חמׁש מאות אתונות‬five hundred donkeys.” Here, the Greek has a plus of νομάδες. The third example is the specification of Zophar as ὁ Μιναίων for ‫ הנעמתי‬in 2:11 (Symmachus has Ναμαθίτης). These deviations between the Hebrew and the Greek should probably be attributed to the translator. Unless the word choices in OG Job and On the Jews go back to a shared oral tradition, it seems probable that Aristeas has used these specific phrases in his work because he found them in the Greek text of Job. We should not forget, however, the fact that we only know Aristeas’s On the Jews via indirect traditions, specifically through the writings of Polyhistor, in turn cited by Eusebius. Aristeas could have used a Greek translation of Job as a source for his work that is different from the version we use, or perhaps even offered his own translation: we cannot disregard the possibility that either Polyhistor or Eusebius might have harmonized the word choice of the text with what has become our Greek text. S. Inowlocki, however, has studied Eusebius’s use of citations of Jewish writings and determined that while Eusebius does, on occasion, change the cited text, he copied his text faithfully for the majority of the instances.21 To summarize, OG Job could have been translated as early as the second century BCE, and would have been translated no later than the first century BCE.

παρὰ κυρίου ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ “fire from the Lord out of heaven”); 4Kgdms 1:10 and 1:14 (‫אׁש‬ ‫“ מן הׁשמים‬the fire from heaven”—πῦρ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ “the fire out of heaven”); 1:12 (‫אׁש‬ ‫“ אלהים מן הׁשמים‬the fire of God from heaven”—πῦρ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ “the fire out of ­heaven”); 1 Chr 21:26 (‫“ באׁש מן הׁשמים‬with fire from heaven”—ἐν πυρὶ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ “with fire out of heaven”). 21  Sabrina Inowlocki, Eusebius and the Jewish Authors: His Citation Technique in an Apologetic Context (AJEC 64; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 290–93. Inowlocki offers the most detailed study of this topic. The reliability of Alexander and Eusebius has also been addressed by John J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (2nd ed.; BRS; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000), 32; Jacob Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhaltenen Restejüdischer und samaritanischer Geschichtswerke, Band 1 (Hellenistische Studien 1; Breslau: H. Skutsch, 1874), 17–34; Ben Zion Wacholder, Eupolemus: A Study of Judaeo-Greek Literature (Monographs of the Hebrew Union College 3; Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1974), 44–52 (on Alexander and Eusebius as indirect sources in general) and 69 (specifically on their reliability). Compare also the observation that neither Alexander nor Eusebius seem to have harmonized the passages cited above from the writings of Demetrius and Aristobulus to our LXX version.

Studying Style In The Old Greek Book Of Job

15

1.2.2 Provenance The translation of Job has traditionally been situated in Alexandria.22 However, we do not have much evidence to support this claim. OG Job contains only a few convincing linguistic clues regarding its provenance. According to some, the occurrence of the word φορολόγος “tax-gatherer” in Job 3:18 and 39:7 can be seen as an indication of an Alexandrian setting.23 This word, and the related φορολογία, however, occur frequently in papyri from the third to the first century BCE found all over Egypt; this includes, but is certainly not limited to, Alexandria.24 The same goes for the use of πρόσταγμα “decree” to refer to God’s law (see Job 4:9; 39:27), which indicates a Ptolemaic setting. This, again, includes all of Egypt.25 OG Job is often connected with Alexandria owing to its “literary” and “Hellenized” nature. Because we have clear evidence of the existence of Jewish intellectual activity in Alexandria from the second century BCE onwards,26 with prominent writers such as the author of the Letter of Aristeas (second century Bce27) and Philo (first century Bce–first century Ce), placing Job in this context can be attractive. It creates a Jewish literary continuity from 22  Cook, “Provenance of OG Job,” 73–93; Cook, “Septuagint of Job,” 175–77; Cox, “Historical, Social, and Literary Context,” 106–8; Cox, “Job,” 388; Gerleman, Job, passim. 23  Cox, “Historical, Social, and Literary Context,” 105–7; Gerleman, Job, 36–37 mixes the use of the terms “Egyptian” and “Alexandrian” to describe OG Job’s setting. See also the discussion of the word by R. Glenn Wooden, “The φορολόγος of 2 Esdras,” in Die Septuaginta: Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D). Wuppertal, 20.–23. Juli 2006 (ed. Martin Karrer, Wolfgang Kraus, and Martin Meiser; WUNT 219; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 248–57. 24  See, for example, BGU 6 1238 (Arsinoïtes, 257–239 BCE); SB 24 15972 (Lykopolis, 190 BCE); P.Lips 2 124 (Herakleopolites or Arsinoïtes, 137 BCE); BGU 16 2605 (Herakleopolites, 7–4 BCE). Nevertheless, people in Palestine were familiar with this Hellenistic Greek tax system, see Martin Hengel, “The Political and Social History of Palestine from Alexander to Antiochus III (333–187 B.C.E.),” in The Hellenistic Age (ed. William D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein; vol. 2 of The Cambridge History of Judaism; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 35–78, 43–44; Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period (2nd ed.; 2 vols; trans. John Bowden; Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1974), i:18–23 (“Administration and Taxation in Palestine under Hellenistic Rule”). 25  Carl Schneider, Kulturgeschichte des Hellenismus (2 vols; Munich: Beck, 1967), ii:882, followed by Cox, “Historical, Social, and Literary Context,” 108 n. 13. 26  Cox, “Job,” 388. 27  For a full discussion of the date of the composition of the Letter, see Benjamin G. E. Wright, The Letter of Aristeas: ‘Aristeas to Philocrates’ or ‘On the Translation of the Law of the Jews’ (CEJL; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015), 21–30.

16

chapter 1

the translation of the Pentateuch, situated in Alexandria mainly because of the account in the Letter of Aristeas28 and often considered to be the foundation of Jewish literature in Greek,29 to Philo from Alexandria. In the same vein, scholars often argue for (or simply assume) an Alexandrian provenance for the writings of Jewish authors such as Demetrius, but it is a tell-tale sign that scholars frequently conflate Alexandria with Egypt as the author’s provenance in their discussions.30

28  Dines, Septuagint, 42 notes that “it should be remembered that there were other major cities with flourishing Jewish communities in Egypt (e.g., Memphis) and elsewhere in North Africa (e.g., Gyrene) and Asia Minor (e.g., Ephesus) which could conceivably have provided a suitable milieu.” 29  See, for example, Dines, Septuagint, 135–36; Lester L. Grabbe, “Jewish Identity and Hellenism in the Fragmentary Jewish Writings in Greek,” in Scripture and Traditions: Essays on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of C. R. Holladay (ed. Patrick Gray and Gail R. O’Day; NovTSup 129; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 21–32, 30; Tessa Rajak, Translation and Survival: The Greek Bible and the Jewish Diaspora (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), passim; Emil Schürer, Das Judentum in der Zerstreuung und die jüdische Literatur (vol. 3 of Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi; 3rd ed.; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1898), 474; Günter Stemberger, “Jews and Graeco-Roman Culture: From Alexander to Theodosius II,” in The Jewish-Greek Tradition and the Byzantine Empire (ed. James K. Aitken and James Carleton Paget; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 15– 36, 27; Victor A. Tcherikover, “Prolegomena,” in vol. 1 of Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum 1 (ed. Victor A. Tcherikover and Alexander Fuks; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957), 1–111, 31–32; Victor A. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (trans. Shimon Applebaum; Philadelphia, Pa.: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1966), 348; Wacholder, Eupolemus, 262; Nikolaus Walter, “Jewish-Greek Literature in the Greek Period,” in The Hellenistic Age, 385–408, 385. 30  Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, 420–716, gives a summary of the scholarly consensus regarding the Alexandrian provenance of Jewish literature in Greek. His work has remained influential to this day. Regarding Demetrius specifically, see, for example, Holladay, Historians, 51–52. In his notes (p. 55 n. 4) he does provide a more nuanced view on the problems involved when discussing this question. John S. Hanson, “Demetrius the Chronographer (Third Century B.C.): A New Translation and Introduction,” in OTP 2 (1985), 843–54, 844, has located Demetrius slightly more generally in Egypt, but remains in favor of a specifically Alexandrian setting, without giving any clear arguments. Both authors, however, even acknowledge the possibility that Demetrius wrote in Palestine. Maren Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), assumes an Alexandrian provenance for Demetrius and Aristobulus.

Studying Style In The Old Greek Book Of Job

17

Alexandria was not the only multilingual polis in Egypt, which, as a whole, had become a multilingual society with Greek as the lingua franca.31 Schools offering a Greek language education were established throughout Egypt,32 along with many libraries.33 Jewish literary activity can therefore, in fact, be envisioned outside of Alexandria.34 We may ask ourselves where people would have studied scriptural texts and where the translation of a book such as Job would have taken place. We know little about the Jewish educational system in Ptolemaic Egypt.35 Even if one would wish to refrain from connecting scribal activity with religious centers, we still need to envision a social system of individuals supporting scribes and the production of books. This, too, might have taken place in Alexandria, but would probably not have been limited solely to this polis. Furthermore, the type of exegesis in OG Job is said to have belonged to the same school as the Greek version of the Pentateuch.36 Specifically the identification of Job with Jobab in 42:17, which is typical of Jewish-Hellenistic exegesis and unknown in the rabbinic tradition, has been considered to be a convincing indication of its Alexandrian provenance.37 However, 42:17aα and 42:17bα–eα 31  See Alex Mullen, “Introduction: Multiple Languages, Multiple Identities,” in Multilingualism in the Graeco-Roman Worlds (ed. Alex Mullen and Patrick James; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 1–35; Sofía Torallas Tovar, “Linguistic Identity in Graeco-Roman Egypt,” in The Multilingual Experience in Egypt, from the Ptolemies to the ­Abbasids (ed. Arietta Papaconstantinou; Farnham: Ashgate, 2010), 17–46. 32  Dorothy J. Thompson, “Language and Literacy in Early Hellenistic Egypt,” in Ethnicity in Hellenistic Egypt (ed. Per Bilde et al.; Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 3; Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1992), 39–52; Torallas Tovar, “Linguistic Identity,” 31–32. Greek literary papyri have been found throughout Egypt. See, for example, Roger A. Pack, The Greek and Latin Literary Texts from Greco-Roman Egypt (2nd ed.; Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press, 1965); Eric G. Turner, Greek Papyri: An Introduction (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980); William H. Willis, “A Census of the Literary Papyri from Egypt,” GRBS 9 (1968): 205–41. 33  Hatto H. Schmitt, “Buchwesen. II: Bibliotheken,” in Lexikon des Hellenismus (ed. Hatto H. Schmitt and Ernst Vogt; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2005), 214–17. 34  This has already been argued by Jacob Freudenthal, Die Flavius Josephus beigelegte Schrift über die Herrschaft der Vernunft (IV Makkabäerbuch): Eine Predigt aus dem ersten nachchristlichen Jahrhundert (Breslau: Schletter, 1869), 112–13. 35  See, for example, Wright, Letter of Aristeas, 42–43. 36  Henry S. Gehman, “The Theological Approach of the Greek Translator of Job 1–15,” JBL 68 (1949): 231–40, 231 (he does not offer further elaboration on this statement). 37  Gerleman, Job, 75. Some scholars like Dorival, Harl, and Munnich, La bible grecque, 105 and Fernández Marcos, Septuagint in Context, 59 state that the Alexandrian provenance of Job is certain.

18

chapter 1

are later additions to the OG. Moreover, when we take into account the translator’s use of intertextual references to other LXX books, we may conclude that the translator of Job had a thorough knowledge of the Pentateuchal books and had enjoyed a Jewish education. This does not imply that he necessarily worked in the same environment as any of the Pentateuch translators. Mobility between Jewish centers of learning could have been common, given that travel and cultural exchange were generally prevalent in antiquity.38 While we cannot exclude the possibility that Alexandria was indeed the provenance of OG Job, we still need to consider the possibility that Job could have been translated anywhere in Egypt. The uncertainties regarding OG Job’s origins are often used as a speculative basis for extensive arguments regarding its position in the corpus of Jewish translations. The aim of this book, however, is to provide a new approach to locating OG Job, not just as a textual witness to the Hebrew text and not so much in time and place, but rather as a translation within its literary context. Our understanding will be based, at least in part, on insights from the translation technique and style of the book. 2

The Translation Technique of Old Greek Job

The field of LXX studies has long focused on characterizing the translation technique of individual LXX books. Using the term “technique” can misleadingly give the impression that the LXX translators employed a conscious strategy or methodological tactic in translating the Hebrew text.39 However, “the 38  James K. Aitken, “The Social and Historical Setting of the Septuagint: Palestine and the Diaspora,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Septuagint (ed. Timothy M. Law and Alison G. Salvesen; Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming), n.p. See also Martin Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2002), 82; 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. Juli 2008 (ed. Wolfgang Kraus, Martin Karrer, and Martin Meiser; WUNT 252; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 3–22, repr. in vol. 3 of Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint: Collected Essays (VTSup 167; Leiden: Brill, 2015), 429–48, 441. 39  Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, “Methodologische Fragen der Erforschung der SeptuagintaSyntax,” in VI Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Jerusalem 1986 (ed. Claude E. Cox; SCS 23; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1987), 425– 44; Anneli Aejmelaeus, “What We Talk about when We Talk about Translation Technique,” in X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Oslo 1998 (ed. Bernard A. Taylor; SBLSCS 51; Atlanta, Ga.: SBL Press, 2001), 531–52, repr. in On

Studying Style In The Old Greek Book Of Job

19

ineluctable and persistent cognitive quest to make sense of communicative events can operate on both conscious and subconscious levels alike to create textual differences.”40 In other words, a translation is the result of a translator’s conscious and unconscious approaches toward the source text. Consequently, it is often heterogeneous in character. 2.1 “Literal” and “Free” A traditional way of describing translation is by using a binary continuum of “literal” to “free”. I use quotation marks around these terms in order to achieve a sense of critical distance from them. In LXX studies, “literalness” has traditionally been described on the basis of a set of criteria, such as internal consistency of lexical choices (i.e., one Hebrew word is consistently represented by the same Greek word), segmentation (i.e., representation of the constituents of Hebrew words by individual Greek equivalents), word-order, quantitative representation (i.e., each lexical item in the Hebrew is reflected in the Greek), and linguistic adequacy of lexical choices.41 A translator’s “freedom,” however, has been described in terms of “non-literalness” or on the basis of scholars’ intuitive understanding of “freedom.”42 Recently, T. van der Louw has offered a counterweight by proposing an extensive typology of “freedom.”43 the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays (rev. and exp. ed.; CBET 50; Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 205–22, 213. See also the survey of the origins of the study of LXX translation technique by Sollamo, “Study of Translation Technique,” 143–45. 40  David A. Teeter, Scribal Laws: Exegetical Variation in the Textual Transmission of Biblical Law in the Late Second Temple Period (FAT 92; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 10. 41  See most importantly James Barr, “The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations,” Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen: Philologischhistorische Klasse. MSU 15 (1979): 279–325; Emanuel Tov and Benjamin G. E. Wright, “Computer-Assisted Study of the Criteria for Assessing the Literalness of Translation Units in the Septuagint,” Textus 12 (1985): 151–87; Emanuel Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (3rd ed.; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 22–25; Benjamin G. E. Wright, No Small Difference: Sirach’s Relationship to Its Hebrew Parent Text (SBLSCS 26; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1989). 42  Tov, Text-Critical Use, 26 n. 38. See also Anneli Aejmelaeus, “What Can We Know about the Vorlage of the Septuagint Translators?” ZAW 99 (1987) 58–89, repr. in On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators, 71–106, 77; Bénédicte Lemmelijn, “Two Methodological Trails in Recent Studies on the Translation Technique of the Septuagint,” in Helsinki Perspectives on the Translation Technique of the Septuagint: Proceedings of the IOSCS Congress in Helsinki 1999 (ed. Raija Sollamo and Seppo Sipilä; PFESH 82; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), 43–63; Theo van der Louw, Transformations in the Septuagint: Towards an Interaction of Septuagint Studies and Translation Studies (CBET 47; Leuven: Peeters, 2007), passim. 43  Van der Louw, Transformations.

20

chapter 1

It has been aptly pointed out, however, that even those translations traditionally characterized as “literal” contain elements of “freedom,” and even those LXX books that are characterized as “free” translations contain “literal” renderings.44 The research of several Louvain scholars in this specific area has been influential in mapping a new direction.45 With regard to OG Job specifically, it has already been shown above that the translation of Job is not always “free,” but that renderings can sometimes

44  See, for example, 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; Dorival, Harl, and Munnich, La Bible grecque, 230–31. 45  See, for example, Hans Ausloos, “The Septuagint’s Rendering of Hebrew Hapax Legomena and the Characterization of its ‘Translation Technique’: The Case of Exodus,” APB 20 (2009): 360–76; Hans Ausloos, “The Septuagint’s Rendering of Hebrew Toponyms as an Indication of the Translation Technique of the Book of Numbers,” in Textual Criticism and Dead Sea Scrolls Studies in Honour of Julio Trebolle Barrera: Florilegium Complutense (ed. Andres Piquer Otero and Pablo Torijano Morales; JSJSupp 157; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 35–50; Hans Ausloos and Bénédicte Lemmelijn, “Rendering Love: Hapax Legomena and the Characterization of the Translation Technique of Song of Songs,” in Translating a Translation: The LXX and Its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism (ed. Hans Ausloos et al.; BETL 213; Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 43–61; Hans Ausloos and Bénédicte Lemmelijn, “Characterizing the LXX Translation of Judges on the Basis of ContentRelated Criteria: The Greek Rendering of Hebrew Absolute Hapax Legomena in Judg 3,12–30,” in After Qumran: Old and Modern Editions of the Biblical Texts. The Historical Books (ed. Hans Ausloos et al.; BETL 246; Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 171–92; Hans Ausloos, Bénédicte Lemmelijn, and Valérie Kabergs, “The Study of Aetiological Wordplay as a Content-Related Criterion in the Characterization of LXX Translation Technique,” in Die Septuaginta: Entstehung, Sprache, Geschichte. 3. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D). Wuppertal 22.–25. Juli 2010 (ed. Siegfried Kreuzer et al.; WUNT 286; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 273–94; Valérie Kabergs, “Puns Within the Context of Name Explanations in MT and LXX Exodus,” in Die Septuaginta: Texte, Wirkung, Rezeption. 4. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D). Wuppertal 19.–22. Juli 2012 (ed. Wolfgang Kraus and Siegfried Kreuzer; WUNT 325; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 215–33; Valérie Kabergs, “Creativiteit in het spel? De Griekse weergave van Hebreeuws expliciet woordspel op basis van eigennamen in Pentateuch en Twaalf Profeten” (Ph.D. diss., KU Leuven, 2014); Bénédicte Lemmelijn, “Flora in Cantico Canticorum: Towards a more Precise Characterisation of Translation Technique in the LXX of Song of Songs,” in Scripture in Transition: Essays on the Septuagint, Hebrew Bible and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of R. Sollamo (ed. Anssi Voitila and Jutta Jokiranta; JSJSupp 126; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 27–52; Bénédicte Lemmelijn, A Plague of Texts? A Text-Critical Study to the So-Called “Plagues Narrative” in Exodus 7:14–11:10 (OTS 56; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 108–14.

Studying Style In The Old Greek Book Of Job

21

be characterized as “literal.”46 Moreover, the translator could be “free” in some respects and “literal” in others. The latter can be clearly demonstrated by referring to the results of the study of J. Beck, who statistically analyzed the “literalness” of Job 1–2.47 Though one needs to be careful when using statistical data,48 it can be telling that with regard to grammatical features, for example, OG Job is 100% “literal” in translating volitional forms, but only 58% “literal” in translating participles.49 This concise overview indicates that “literal” and “free” are not adequately functional in describing a translation. No translation is solely one or the other, and generalizations are made frequently. Moreover, scholarship seems to have difficulty describing a book like OG Job which is generally seen as a “free” translation but still shows “literal” renderings. Research on OG Job has focused on the differences between the Hebrew and the Greek texts of Job without reflecting on the varied nature of the translation technique. 2.2 Features of OG Job as a Translation 2.2.1 General On the basis of previous scholarship, a number of characteristics and features typical of the translation of OG Job can be presented. With regard to word choice, one may note the varied rendering of one Hebrew word by different Greek words in the course of the text.50 For example, 46  Robert Althann, “Reflections on the Text of the Book of Job,” in Sôfer Mahîr: Essays in Honour of A. Schenker Offered by the Editors of Biblia Hebraica Quinta (ed. Yohanan A. P. Goldman, Arie van der Kooij, and Richard D. Weis; VTSup 110; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 7–14, 7; Cox, “Job,” 391; Fernández Marcos, “Septuagint Reading,” 254; Donald H. Gard, “The Concept of Job’s Character According to the Greek Translator of the Hebrew Text,” JBL 72 (1953): 182–86, 186; Gehman, “Theological Approach,” 240; Gerleman, Job, 5; Karl Kutz, “Characterization in the Old Greek of Job,” in Seeking out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor M. V. Fox on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. Κelvin Friebel, Dennis Magary, and Ronald Troxel; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 345– 55; Orlinsky, “Studies III,” 153–67; Orlinsky, “Studies III (continued),” 239–68. 47  John A. Beck, Translators as Storytellers: A Study in Septuagint Translation Technique (Studies in Biblical Literature 25; New York: Lang, 2000), 44–46. 48  For an evaluation of the use of statistical data to study the LXX translation techniques, one may consult Lemmelijn, “Two Methodological Trails,” 43–63; Lemmelijn, A Plague of Texts? 108–25; Wright, No Small Difference, 33–34. 49  Beck, Translators as Storytellers, 45. 50  Cox, “Job,” 391; Joseph Ziegler, “Der textkritische Wert der Septuaginta des Buches Job,” Miscellanea Biblica 2 (1934): 277–96, repr. in Sylloge: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Septuaginta (MSU 10; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), 9–28, 13–14. The tendency towards variation has also been noted by Cox, Iob, passim and Robert Gordis, The Book

22

chapter 1

the verb ‫“ אכל‬to eat” is rendered with a variety of synonyms in Greek: ἐσθίω in 1:4 and 5:5; κατεσθίω in 1:16; βιβρώσκω in 6:6. The translator is sensitive to contextual meanings and reflects these in the translation. For example, in 15:34b, the Hebrew has ‫“ ואׁש אכלה אהלי ׁשחד‬fire consumes the tents of bribery,” with “fire” as the subject of the verb “to eat.” This expresses the idea of the fire consuming the tents. In the Greek version of this colon, πῦρ δὲ καύσει οἴκους δωροδεκτῶν “and fire will burn the houses of bribe-takers,” we can observe that the translator has rendered ‫ אׁש אכלה‬as πῦρ καύσει, “the fire burns,” since being consumed by fire implies being burnt. The rendering of the second part of this colon, in particular the equivalence of ‫“ ׁשחד‬bribery” and δωροδεκτῶν “bribe-takers,” illustrates another aspect of the translation technique of OG Job. The translator often renders an abstract Hebrew word by a more concrete Greek equivalent, and vice versa. For example, in 15:5, the word ‫“ לׁשון‬tongue” is rendered as ῥήματα “words,” and in 4:10, ‫“ ׁשאגת‬roaring” is rendered as σθένος “strength.”51 With regard to grammatical and syntactical elements the following observations can be made. The translator of Job sometimes changes the grammar (in particular the alternation between the plural and singular52) or the syntax (such as the alternation between the passive and active53) in the translation vis-à-vis the Hebrew text. We may observe the tendency to render verbal parataxis either as participial constructions or as subordinate clauses of various kinds (adverbial, conditional, objective, and relative—with attention given to the use of verbal moods in the Greek). The construction in Hebrew of ‫ ו‬+ verb + ‫ ו‬+ verb, for example, is often rendered by participle + δέ + verb. There are almost one hundred cases of this kind of construction, not just in the formulaic introductions to the speeches but also in other contexts. The first example of this in OG Job appears in 1:4.54

of Job: Commentary, New Translation and Special Studies (Moreshet 2; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1978), 509. 51  Karl Kutz, “The Old Greek of Job: A Study in Early Biblical Exegesis” (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin, 1997), 132–33; Orlinsky, “Studies II,” 256–58; Ziegler, “Der textkritische Wert,” 16–18. 52  Kutz, “Old Greek of Job,” 139; Orlinsky, “Studies II,” 269–71. 53  See the following example borrowed from Kutz, “Old Greek of Job,” 138: Job 10:16 (‫תצודני‬ “you hunt me”—ἀγρεύομαι “I am hunted”). 54  Claude E. Cox, “Tying it all Together: The Use of Particles in Old Greek Job,” BIOSCS 38 (2005): 41–54, 44. This example is borrowed from Cox.

Studying Style In The Old Greek Book Of Job

23

Job 1:4 συμπορευόμενοι δὲ οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτοῦ πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἐποιοῦσαν πότον καθ᾿ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν συμπαραλαμβάνοντες ἅμα καὶ τὰς τρεῖς ἀδελφὰς αὐτῶν ἐσθίειν καὶ πίνειν μετ᾿ αὐτῶν.

‫והלכו בניו‬ ‫ועׂשו מׁשתה בית איׁש יומו‬ ‫וׁשלחו וקראו לׁשלׁשת אחיתיהם‬ ‫לאכל ולׁשתות עמהם‬

Now his sons used to gather with one another His sons used to go And hold a feast each day; and hold feasts in one another’s houses in turn They used to take along their three sisters as and they would send and invite their well three sisters to eat and drink with them. to eat and drink with them.

In this case, a series of verbs in the Hebrew, joined by ‫ו‬, is rendered by a participle, a finite verb, and another participle: ‫וקראו‬ … ‫וׁשלחו‬ … ‫ועׂשו‬ … ‫—והלכו‬ συμπορευόμενοι … ἐποιοῦσαν … συμπαραλαμβάνοντες. The last participle in the Greek represents ‫ וׁשלחו וקראו‬together. This example also shows that the translator does not render ‫ ו‬in a consistent manner and that he uses particles according to the rules of Greek usage. On the basis of examinations of the translator’s use of pronouns, prepositions, connectors, and other particles (in particular δέ and γάρ), either as a plus or a minus vis-à-vis the MT, scholars have shown that the translator paid attention to the connectedness of the narrative.55 The translator may use converse or inverse translations,56 that is, the representation of a word or phrase by having the Greek text deny the opposite, or vice versa, by rendering a negative in the Hebrew as a positive.57 A word is sometimes rendered as a Greek word carrying the opposite meaning with a 55  Orlinsky, “Studies II,” 256–60; Cox, “Tying it all Together,” 41–54; Kutz, “Characterization,” 354–55. See also Cameron Boyd-Taylor, Reading between the Lines: The Interlinear Paradigm for Septuagint Studies (BTS 8; Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 403: “The Greek text exhibits an even stronger formal unity than its parent.” 56  The term “converse translation” is used by Michael V. Fox, “LXX-Proverbs as a TextCritical Resource,” Textus 22 (2005) 95–125, 116. Kutz, “Old Greek of Job,” 134–36 uses “inverse translation.” 57  See Kutz, “Old Greek of Job,” 134–36, who has elaborated on Orlinsky, “Studies II,” 229–71, and presented an extended list of examples. I cite a number of examples from Orlinsky, “Studies II,” 229–71.

24

chapter 1

negative particle, such as in 3:19 (‫“ חפׁשי‬he is free from”—οὐ δεδοικώς “he does not fear”) and 19:14 (‫“ חדלו‬they have failed”—οὐ προσεποιήσαντο “they have not acknowledged”). A word with a negative particle may be rendered as a Greek word of opposite meaning, such as in 20:26 (‫“ לא נפח‬it [i.e., the fire] does not breath”—ἄκαυστον “unlit”). The use of converse translations ties in with an earlier observation regarding lexical choices: the translator does not always adhere to standard equivalents. The translator may also alter the sentence type, pertaining to the substitution of one type, such as assertive, interrogative, or imperative, for another. See, for example, the change from a question to an imperative in Job 40:8 (‫האף‬ ‫“ תפר מׁשפטי‬will you put me in the wrong?”—μὴ ἀποποιοῦ μου τὸ κρίμα “do not shrug off my judgment”).58 A transformation of the sentence type and inversion may go together, such as when an assertive sentence in the negative is rendered as an interrogative or rhetorical sentence implying the negative, see 12:14 (‫“ הן יהרוס ולא יבנה יסגר על איׁש ולא יפתח‬If he tears down, no one can rebuild; if he shuts someone in, no one can open up”—ἐὰν καταβάλῃ, τίς οἰκοδομήσει; ἐὰν κλείσῃ κατὰ ἀνθρώπων, τίς ἀνοίξει; “If he tears down, who can rebuild? If he shuts out people, who can open?”).59 The translator had to make sense of a Hebrew text that can be difficult at times.60 He sometimes based his rendering on the parallelism in the Hebrew.61 See, for example, Job 12:16, where the word ‫—תוׁשיה‬the meaning of which is uncertain62—is rendered as ἰσχύς, on the basis of ‫ תוׁשיה‬being part of the word 58  The example is borrowed from Kutz, “Old Greek of Job,” 137. 59  Kutz, “Old Greek of Job,” 137–39; Orlinsky, “Studies II,” 240–48. 60  Gustav Bickell, De Indole ac Ratione Versionis Alexandrinae in Interpretando Libro Jobi (Marburg: C. L. Pfeilii, 1862), §13; Édouard Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job (trans. Harold Knight; London: Nelson, 1967), cxci; Fernández Marcos, “Septuagint Reading,” passim; Gehman, “Theological Approach,” 231; Gerleman, Job, 17–18; Gorea, Job repensé, 226–27; Edward J. Kissane, The Book of Job: Translated from a Critically Revised Hebrew Text with Commentary (Dublin: Brown & Nolan, 1939), xlv; Kutz, “Old Greek of Job,” 22–26. 61  Orlinsky, “Studies II,” 270. See, for example, Job 12:16. The meaning of the word ‫תוׁשיה‬ is vague and uncertain (see HALOT; Samuel R. Driver and George B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job together with a New Translation [ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1921; repr. 1964], 30–32 of the philological notes; Clines, Job, 299–300; Seow, Job 1–21, 634). It is rendered as ἰσχύς, on the basis of ‫ תוׁשיה‬being part of the word pair ‫“ עז ותוׁשיה‬strength and wisdom,” rendered in Greek as a near-synonymous wordpair, κράτος καὶ ἰσχύς “power and strength.” 62  See HALOT; Driver and Gray, Job, 30–32 of the philological notes; Clines, Job, 299–300; Seow, Job 1–21, 634.

Studying Style In The Old Greek Book Of Job

25

pair ‫“ עז ותוׁשיה‬strength and wisdom,” rendered in Greek as a near-synonymous wordpair, κράτος καὶ ἰσχύς “power and strength.” The translator could rely on a collection of favorite words when encountering a seemingly obscure word or phrase in the Hebrew text.63 The translator’s favorite words include ἀδύνατος “powerless,”64 ἀποβαίνω “to turn,” and τιτρώσκω “to wound.” These words are usually not common in other LXX books but used repeatedly in OG Job. The translator sometimes seems to have taken recourse to a metathesis of consonants to figure out the meaning of the Hebrew. For example, in 21:10 the translator read ‫“ כשל‬falter” instead of‫“ שכל‬miscarry” (as reflected by ἔσφαλεν “he slipped”).65 The translator of Job can also reduce, rewrite, or summarize the Hebrew text in such a way that an equivalence or a relationship between the Greek and the Hebrew can often only be formulated in terms of semantics, not form.66 The third colon of Job 3:6 provides an example.67 Job 3:6 ἀπενέγκαιτο αὐτὴν σκότος· μὴ εἴη εἰς ἡμέρας ἐνιαυτοῦ μηδὲ ἀριθμηθείη εἰς ἡμέρας μηνῶν.

‫הלילה ההוא יקחהו אפל‬ ‫אל יחד בימי ׁשנה‬ ‫במספר ירחים אל יבא‬

63  Ziegler, “Der textkritische Wert,” 14. See also Cox, “Job,” 390; Evangelia G. Dafni, “ΒΡΟΤΟΣ: A Favourite Word of Homer in the Septuagint Version of Job,” Verbum et ecclesia 28 (2007): 35–65; Mangin, “Le texte court,” 141–47. 64  See Claude E. Cox, “Vocabulary for Wrongdoing and Forgiveness in the Greek Translations of Job,” Textus 15 (1990): 119–30. 65  This could perhaps reflect the translator’s expectation that the parent text would have contained copyists’ errors that required correction; see Claude E. Cox, “Iob,” in NETS, 668; Cox, “Job,” 388. One may not forget, however, that certain deviations between the Hebrew and the Greek may be the product of scribal errors on the part of the translator, such as graphic mistakes, misreadings, linguistic confusion, memory lapses, and so on (see, for example, Tov, Text-Critical Use, 43–187). Moreover, metathesis has been argued to be one of the Jewish exegetical techniques capitalizating on properties of a consonantal Hebrew text which were not secondary to reading a text but rather provided a lens for reading it. See Jonathan D. H. Norton, Contours in the Text: Textual Variation in the Writings of Paul, Josephus and the Yaḥad (LNTS 430; London: T&T Clark, 2011), 55; Teeter, Scribal Laws, 20–21. 66  Orlinsky, “Studies II,” 252–53. 67  Example borrowed from Orlinsky, “Studies II,” 253.

26 May darkness carry it away! May it not exist among the days of the year or be numbered among the days of the months.

chapter 1 That night—let thick darkness seize it! let it not rejoice among the days of the year; let it not come into the number of the months.

The expression ‫“ במספר יבא‬to come in the number” is reflected by means of the passive of the verb ἀριθμέω “to number.” The paraphrastic tendency may also pertain to the rendering of a colon in a more dense way or to rendering two cola as one, which we often encounter in OG Job. As a result of this tendency, it is often difficult or even impossible to list the exact Greek lexical equivalents of Hebrew words.68 Because the translator of Job seems to have taken the colon as his basic unit and because the equivalence between the Hebrew and the Greek text of Job can often not be described on the level of words or word groups but only on the level of cola, one must take the colon as the basic unit of the text when studying OG Job.69 So far we have focused mainly on aspects pertaining to the observation that the Greek text of Job is shorter than the Hebrew. At times, however, the translation represents a longer version than the Hebrew text.70 Aside from pronouns, particles, and prepositions, the plus may pertain to a word (or word groups) as a result of double translation,71 pleonastic renderings,72 or attempts at clarification on the part of the translator.73 In some cases, such as in 1:5; 19:4; 33:23, the plus can be explained on the basis of the translator’s working methods. 68  Cox, “Job,” 391; Kutz, “Old Greek of Job,” 124–25; Gentry, Asterisked Materials, 85. 69  See Jan P. Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Poetry: An Introductory Guide (trans. Ineke Smit; London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 226. Regarding the colon as the basic unit with which the translator of Job worked, see Cox, “Job,” 387; Kutz, “Old Greek of Job,” 124–47. 70  I do not take into account the pluses in Job 2:9 and 42:17 since these are not ascribed to the translator (see above). 71  Marieke Dhont, “Double Translation in OG Job,” in Die Septuaginta: Orte und Intentionen. 5. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D). Wuppertal, 24.–27. Juli 2014 (ed. Wolfgang Kraus and Siegfried Kreuzer; WUNT 361; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 475–90. See, for example, Job 3:7 (εὐφροσύνη μηδὲ χαρμονή “gladness and joy” for ‫“ רננה‬joyful cry”). 72  This indicates the use of two or more words to express what is indicated in the Hebrew with one single word. Ziegler, “Der textkritische Wert,” 14–15. See, for example, Job 30:25 (‫“ אביון‬a poor man”—ἄνδρα ἐν ἀνάγκαις “men in distress”). 73  Orlinsky, “Studies II,” 265–69. See, for example, the plus of δύναμαι in 7:20 (‫מה אפעל לך‬ “What do I do to you?”—τί δύναμαί σοι πρᾶξαι “What am I able to do to you?”).

Studying Style In The Old Greek Book Of Job

27

In the latter two instances, the plus represents extended paraphrases of the Hebrew text.74 In 1:5 we find a plus of καὶ μόσχον ἕνα περὶ ἁμαρτίας περὶ τῶν ψυχῶν αὐτῶν “and one bull calf as a sin offering for their souls.” The translator introduced this phrase on the basis of Lev 4:14, a passage that applies to sins committed in ignorance.75 With this, we touch upon another aspect of the translation technique of Job, namely intertextuality.76 The translator frequently repeats his own words and phrases as well as “borrows” from other LXX books. He does so sometimes as a plus, such as in 1:5, but most of these references are incorporated in the Greek text instead of a rendering that reflects the Hebrew version of (a portion of) the colon in question. This is the so-called anaphoric or associative translation method.77 The translator of OG Job draws upon his own translation (for example the plus of δεδοικὼς τὸν κύριον αὐτοῦ in 7:2 is based on the OG rendering of 3:1978), as well as the Greek translations of the books of Leviticus (e.g., Job 1:5 above); Numbers (e.g., Job 3:16a is based on Num 12:12a79); Deuteronomy (e.g., Job 9:33b is based

74  See Cox, Iob, s.v. 19:4 and 33:23. 75  See Cox, Iob, s.v. 1:5; Cox, “Vocabulary for Wrongdoing,” 128; Gerleman, Job, 12; Heater, A Septuagint Translation Technique, 14–17. Heater accurately points out that the translator of Job constructed his plus on the basis of different verses, citing Lev 4:8.20; 8:2, as well as Num 15:11, to account for both the type of offering and the number of animals. 76  See Kutz, “Old Greek of Job,” 10–11. I define “intertextuality” as the various relationships that a given text may have with other texts, see Chris Baldick, The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 171. Intertextuality in scriptural texts is a debated issue. I will use “intertextuality” broadly, to refer to any textual relation between a passage in OG Job to any other text, primarily another passage of OG Job or of another biblical book. It is beyond the scope of this book to deal with this any further. All examples of intertextuality in Job discussed in the course of this research are constituted by the translator of Job finding some kind of inspiration in another (part of the) text to render his source text into Greek. 77  Heater opts for the term “anaphoric method” (see A Septuagint Translation Technique). Cox, however, prefers the term “associative translations” so as to place the translator’s approach in a larger framework to indicate that the transferring of passages from elsewhere in Job or in other LXX books does not have to be a word-for-word citation, but can also be an allusion, see Cox, “Historical, Social and Literary Context,” 116; Cox, “Job,” 387–88. This terminology is borrowed from Michael L. Klein, “Associative and Complementary Translation in the Targums,” Eretz-Israel 16 (1982): 134–40. 78  Heater, A Septuagint Translation Technique, 49. 79  Heater, A Septuagint Translation Technique, 41–42.

28

chapter 1

on Deut 1:1680); Isaiah (e.g., Job 4:21a is based on Isa 40:2481); and the Psalter (e.g., Job 40:13b is based on Ps 82[83]:17a82). This list of observations shows that OG Job is a complex translation. The translator of OG Job is not concerned with strict segmentation, quantitative representation, or lexical consistency. Rather than focusing on rendering form, the translator’s main concern is the rendering of meaning.83 The relation between the Hebrew and the Greek can often only be understood when one takes into account a wide variety of factors. When it comes to the relation between the Hebrew and the Greek texts of Job, it is imperative from a methodological viewpoint to discuss the difference in length between both versions and take a stand regarding the origins of this difference before continuing the present study on OG Job. 2.2.2 Source Text versus Translator The Hebrew and the Greek texts of Job do not correspond in length. There are a number of larger pluses in the Greek text, most notably in 2:9a-d; 42:17aα; and 42:17bα-eα. Additionally, in 1:5; 19:4; and 33:23 one finds that the Greek text contains two additional cola in comparison to the Hebrew text of the Masoretes (MT84). The pluses in 2:9a–d and 42:17aα and bα–eα are generally regarded as later additions,85 but the pluses in 1:5; 19:4; 33:23 have been ascribed to the 80  Cox, Iob, 9:33; Heater, A Septuagint Translation Technique, 54. 81  Georg Beer, Der Text des Buches Hiob (2 vols; Marburg: N. G. Elwert, 1895–1897), 28; Dhorme, Job, 55; Heater, A Septuagint Translation Technique, 46–47. 82  Cox, “Job,” 388. On the influence of the Greek Psalter on Job, see also Olivier Munnich, “Étude lexicographique du Psautier des LXX” (Ph.D. diss., Université Paris-Sorbonne, 1982). 83  See Harry Orlinsky, “Studies in the Septuagint of the Book of Job. Chapter V: The Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint of Job. The Text and the Script,” HUCA 35 (1964): 57–78, 57. 84  The edition of the MT as found in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (ed. Karl Elliger and Wilhelm Rudolph; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1990) is taken as a point of departure (abbreviated BHS). The book of Job has not yet been edited for Biblia Hebraica Quinta, the Hebrew University Bible Project, or Oxford University’s The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Edition. 85  See Johann Cook, “Are the Additions in OG Job 2,9a–e to be Deemed as the Old Greek Text?” Bib 91 (2010): 275–84; Claude E. Cox, “The Text of Old Greek Job: A History of its Transmission” (paper delivered at the 2014 annual SBL meeting in San Diego; provisional copy available via academia.edu); Gentry, Asterisked Materials, 586; George B. Gray, “The Additions in the Ancient Greek Version of Job,” The Expositor 19 (1920): 422–38; Heater, Septuagint Translation Technique, 31–36; Kutz, “Old Greek of Job,” 5–9; Reed, “Job as

Studying Style In The Old Greek Book Of Job

29

translator, since they can be explained on the basis of the translator’s working methods.86 In spite of these pluses, the Greek text is about one sixth shorter than the Hebrew text. S. Driver and G. Gray have calculated the approximate percentage of the number of missing cola in the Greek text compared to the MT in relation to the poetic composition of the book: 4% in the first cycle of speeches (Job 3–14), 16% in the second cycle (Job 15–21), 25% in the third cycle (Job 22–31), 35% in the speech of Elihu (Job 32–37), and 16% in the speeches of God (Job 38–42:6).87 Already in the third century Ce, this quantitative discrepancy has led Origen to fill in the gaps in the Greek text. He included these pluses in his Hexapla88 and marked them with asterisks and obeli.89 To fill in the gaps, Origen used what was long believed to be the Greek translation of Theodotion. The version of Theodotion, however, has been situated within a broader movement ever since the discovery of the Minor Prophets scroll of Naḥal Ḥever. This movement is often referred to as the καίγε-tradition. It indicates a nonuniform group of Hebraizing revisions of the Greek text that started by the end of the first century Bce.90 Scholars such as H. Heater and, most importantly, P. Gentry, have aptly shown that the asterisked material in Job has a distinctively Jobab,” 31–55. They do, however, belong to the early stages of the transmission of the text. See Cox, “Job,” 386. 86  Cox, “History of its Transmission”; Cox, Iob, s.v. 1:5; 19:4; 33:23; and Heater, Septuagint Translation Technique, 14–16; 67; 104–6, respectively. 87  Driver and Gray, Job, lxxv. 88  Not all of the lacunae were filled: MT Job 10:4a; 18:9a.18b; 20:2b; 23:14; 24:1b; 28:26aβ–b; 29:10a; 30:26b; 33:30; 36:17; 37:21c; 40:25b; 41:24a do not have a counterpart in the OG nor in the asterisked material. This is likely due to the complexity of synchronizing the OG, the Hebrew source text, and Theodotion’s translation. See Cox, “History of its Transmission.” 89  The manuscript tradition is not entirely uniform when it comes to marking the asterisked lines. This issue has been dealt with by Gentry, The Asterisked Material, as well as by Joseph Ziegler, Iob (Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum 11/4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982). See also Cox, “History of its Transmission”; Claude E. Cox, “Job—11.3.1 Septuagint,” in Textual History of the Bible (ed. Armin Lange et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2015). Cited 10 March 2017. Online: http://www.brill.com/products/onlineresources/textual-history-bible-online. In addition, Origen marked the pluses in 2:9 and 42:17 with obeli. Moreover, after publication of Ziegler’s edition of OG Job, scholars have made suggestions for better readings that I will take into account. See Cox, “History of its Transmission”; Albert Pietersma, Review of J. Ziegler, Iob, JBL 104 (1985): 305–11; Gentry, Asterisked Materials. 90  Dominique Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila: Première publication intégrale du texte des fragments du Dodécaprophéton trouvés dans le désert de Juda, précédée d’une étude sur

30

chapter 1

different translation character from the OG text and that the material carries some, but not all characteristics of the καίγε-recension.91 The origin of the asterisked passages in Job remains uncertain, but it is clear that they have been added to the OG text of Job at a later stage. Gentry dates them to the early first century Ce.92 Since these asterisked cola were not part of the OG text and differ significantly in translation style, any research on the OG text of Job should not take this material into account.93 I will thus use the term “OG” for the stage of the Greek text of Job that is represented hypothetically in the Göttingen volume on Job edited by J. Ziegler. I will not take the asterisked material into consideration.94 I do not include the asterisked material in the passages under discussion because it allows me to focus on the OG. This results in a versification of the Greek that differs from the Hebrew. Since there is no edition of the Greek text of Job that does not include the asterisked material and that can be used as a standard for the versification of the Greek, and since I want to facilitate the analysis of case studies, I follow the verse references of the Greek text as printed by Ziegler. It is conventionally argued that when there are no deviations between the Hebrew text of the MT and the Greek text of the LXX, the Hebrew source text of the translator was in all probability identical to the MT.95 When deviations do occur, one is confronted with the crucial question of whether to ascribe a difference between the Hebrew and the Greek to a different source text or to the translator. The origins of the shorter OG text of Job have been explained along these lines, too. Some scholars have argued that the translator of Job used a corresponding Hebrew parent text in relation to which the MT was a

les traductions et recensions grecques de la Bible réalisées au premier siècle de notre ère sous l’influence du rabbinat palestinien (VTSup 10; Leiden: Brill, 1963). 91  Gentry, Asterisked Materials; Heater, Septuagint Translation Technique, 131. 92  Gentry, Asterisked Materials, 497. 93  See Cox, “Job,” 396–98; Cox, “History of its Transmission”; Harry Orlinsky, “Studies in the Septuagint of the Book of Job. Chapter I: An Analytical Survey of Previous Studies,” HUCA 28 (1957): 53–74, 55–56. 94  Compare also the Greek text as presented in Cox’s forthcoming commentary on Job. 95  Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3rd ed.; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2012), 116. This statement is not unproblematic, either, since it raises the question of how to determine equivalence.

Studying Style In The Old Greek Book Of Job

31

later elaboration,96 or which stemmed from a different tradition.97 Others, however, have tried to explain the shorter text as the result of the translator’s working methods.98 Many have noted the translator’s tendency to paraphrase.99 He often expresses the content of the Hebrew in fewer words than the original Hebrew does. The translator also frequently seems to avoid repetition, which can account for the shortening on two levels of the text. On the micro-level (i.e., the level of the colon and verse), the Greek translator of Job often destroyed the poetical structure of a synonymous parallelism by depriving one parallel line of its fellow, without, however, destroying the main structure of the book or the sequence of its narrative.100 On the macro-level (i.e., the level of the text as a whole), the repetitive character of the speakers’ arguments could have led the translator to abbreviate the text.101 M. Gorea has analyzed the omitted lines in OG Job carefully,102 concluding that the translator made segments of the text more concise and simplified the text, seemingly according to the principle of parsimony, “comme si la transposition en langue grecque du texte hébreu requérait une réduction de la prolixité vers une expression plus

96  See, for example, Bickell, De indole ac ratione versionis, §§16–18; Edwin Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1889), 215–18. Yet even recently, scholars have expressed this opinion as well. See Frank M. Cross, “Some Notes on a Generation of Qumran Studies,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March 1991 (2 vols; ed. Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner; Leiden: Brill, 1992), i: 1–14, 10 (“We should also term the contrasting texts of Job in Hebrew and in the Old Greek two editions, and jettison explanations which assert that the Greek translator abbreviated his text”); Folker Siegert, Zwischen Hebräischer Bibel und Altem Tesament: Eine Einführung in die Septuaginta (Münsteraner Judaistische Studien 9; Münster: LIT, 2001), 97. 97  Carl Siegfried, The Book of Job: Critical Edition of the Hebrew Text (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Press, 1893); August Klostermann, “Hiob,” in vol. 8 of Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirch (ed. Johann Herzog et al.; 3rd ed.; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1900), 97–126, 103. 98  A discussion of currently outdated research on this topic from the late nineteenth and early twentieth century can be found in Orlinsky, “Studies I,” 53–68; I will limit myself to referring to the most relevant studies. 99  Cox, “Job,” 385 and 393; Gentry, Asterisked Materials, 85; Gerleman, Job, 32; Gorea, Job repensé, 226–28; Orlinsky, “Studies II,” 252–53. 100  Driver and Gray, Job, lxxv–lxxvi; Fernández Marcos, “Septuagint Reading,” 263; Gerleman, Job, 23. 101  Cox, “Job,” 387; Fernández Marcos, “Septuagint Reading,” 263; Gray, “Additions,” 425. 102  Gorea, Job repensé, 15–221.

32

chapter 1

concise.”103 Gorea adds that the absent part of the text is not always nor totally absent. One can often find traces or similarities in the order of the ideas or even the words,104 as we have seen in our introductory discussion of Job 33:13 above. Aside from studies on the translation technique of Job that attempt to show the translator’s responsibility for the shorter OG text, the material evidence seems to point in the same direction. The earliest textual witnesses aside from OG Job are fragments found among the Dead Sea scrolls, namely 2Q15, 4Q99, 4Q100, and 4Q101 for the Hebrew,105 as well as 4Q157 and 11Q10 for the Aramaic.106 These corroborate the structure of the book as represented in 103  Gorea, Job repensé, 226. 104  Gorea, Job repensé, 226. This was also noted by Heater, Septuagint Translation Technique, 10–11: “The old Greek has a tendency to abridge two cola of a bicolon apparently in the interest of providing a single Greek colon containing elements from both Hebrew components.” See also Gerleman, Job, 23. 105  An overview of the Hebrew fragments can be found in Eugene Ulrich, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls (VTSup 134; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 727–31. The scrolls only cover Job 8:15–17 (4QJobb); 9:27 (4QJobb); 13:4 (4QJobb); 13:18–27 (4QPaleoJobc); 14:4–6 (4QJobb); 14:13–18 (4QPaleoJobc); 31:14–19 (4QJoba); 31:20–21 (4QJobb); 32:3–4 (4QJoba); 33:10–11 (4QJoba); 33:24–30 (4QJoba); 33:28–30 (2QJob); 35:16 (4QJoba); 36:7–11 (4QJoba); 36:13–24 (4QJoba); 36:25–27 (4QJoba); 36:32–37:5 (4QJoba); 37:14–15 (4QJoba). The editio princeps of these texts can be found in Maurice Baillet, “Job,” in Les “Petites Grottes” de Qumrân: Exploration de la falaise, les grottes 2Q, 3Q, 5Q, 6Q, 7Q à 10Q, le rouleau de cuivre (ed. Maurice Baillet et al.; DJD 3; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), 71; Sarianna Metso and Eugene Ulrich, “4QJoba,” in Qumran Cave 4: IV. Psalms to Chronicles (ed. Eugene Ulrich et al.; DJD 16; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000), 171–80; Eugene Ulrich et al., “4QPaleoJobc,” in Qumran Cave 4: XI. Paleo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts (ed. Eugene Ulrich et al.; DJD 9; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), 155–58. A brief description of these scrolls and their importance for the textual history of Job can be found in Armin Lange, “Job—11.2.1. Ancient and Late Ancient Manuscript Evidence,” in Textual History of the Hebrew Bible. However, all of these are fragmentary. The fragments have been consulted as textual witnesses to the Hebrew text in the course of this research but in only a few cases did they supply variants relevant to the present discussion. These cases are noted. 106  See respectively Józef T. Milik, “Targum de Job,” in Qumrân Grotte 4: II, II. Tefillin, Mezuzot et Targums (4Q128–4Q517) (ed. Roland de Vaux and Józef T. Milik; DJD 4; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), 90 and Florentino García Martínez, “11QTargumJob,” in Qumran Cave 11: II, 11Q2–8, 11Q20–31 (ed. Florentino García Martínez, Eibert Tigchelaar, and Adam S. van der Woude; DJD 23; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 79–180 (see also Jan P. M. van der Ploeg and Adam S. van der Woude, Le targum de Job de la grotte XI de Qumran [Leiden: Brill, 1971]). On the relation between the targums, see Robert I. Vasholz, “4QTargumJob versus 11QTargumJob,” RQ 11 (1982): 109. On the relation between the targums and the MT,

Studying Style In The Old Greek Book Of Job

33

the MT. As a result, the scholarly consensus tends to be of the opinion that the parent text of the Greek translator of Job did not differ extensively from the MT in length and that the origin of the shorter OG text lies with the translation technique.107 The paraphrastic nature of the translation is at times related to the style of the book. H. Orlinsky, for example, has stated that “our translator had a penchant for paraphrasing—usually in good Greek.”108 This brings us to the question of Greek style in OG Job.

see John Gray, “The Massoretic Text of the Book of Job, the Targum and the Septuagint Version in Light of the Qumram Targum (11QtargJob),” ZAW 86 (1974): 331–50; Francis J. Morrow, “11Q Targum Job and the Masoretic Text,” RQ 8 (1973): 253–56; Seow, Job 1–21, 13–14. From a text-critical perspective, I do not take indirect textual evidence such as the targums into account, since using such translations for text-critical purposes would presuppose a thorough insight into the translation technique of the translation in question. To the extent that this study deals with the study of the translation technique of Job, it may contribute to a more nuanced approach when wanting to use the Greek text of Job for textual criticism of the Hebrew text. 107  See, for example, Althann, “Reflections on the Text of the Book of Job,” 7–14; Moses Buttenwieser, The Book of Job (New York: The McMillan Company, 1922), viii–ix; Claude E. Cox, “Methodological Issues in the Exegesis of LXX Job,” in VI Congress of the Inter­ national Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Jerusalem 1986 (ed. Claude E. Cox; SBLSCS 23; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1987), 78–89, 80; Claude E. Cox, “Does a Shorter Hebrew Parent Text Underlie Old Greek Job?” in In the Footsteps of Sherlock Holmes: Studies in the Biblical Text in Honour of Anneli Aejmelaeus (ed. Kristin De Troyer, Timothy M. Law, and Marketta Liljeström; CBET 72; Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 451–62; Cox, “Job,” 385–96; Hans Debel, “Greek ‘Variant Literary Editions’ to the Hebrew Bible?” JSJ 41 (2010): 161–90, 174–75 and 189–90; Driver and Gray, Book of Job, lxxiv–lxxvi; Fernández Marcos, “Septuagint Reading,” 252–54; Donald H. Gard, The Exegetical Method of the Greek Translator of the Book of Job (JBL MS 8; Philadelphia, Pa.: SBL Press, 1952), 93; Gerleman, Job, 23; Gray, “Massoretic Text of the Book of Job,” 339–45; Heater, Septuagint Translation Technique, 5; Kutz, “Characterization in the Old Greek of Job,” 345–46; Seow, Job 1–21, 6; Tov, Textual Criticism, 138. Some opt to strike the golden mean by advocating a middle position of both a free translational approach and a shorter source text. See Johann Cook, “Aspects of Wisdom in the Texts of Job (Chapter 28): Vorlage(n) and/or Translator(s)?” OTE 5 (1992): 26–45; John Gray, The Book of Job (THB 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2010), 76–77. 108  Orlinsky, “Studies II,” 252–53.

34 3

chapter 1

The Style of Old Greek Job

3.1 Attention to Greek Usage In the first half of the twentieth century, research on the translation technique of OG Job concentrated primarily on the translator’s supposed exegetical motivations in order to explain deviations between the Hebrew and the Greek. Examples of such motivations include the avoidance of anthropomorphisms in reference to God or the toning down of Job’s criticism towards God.109 As part of a series of articles published in the 1950s and 1960s, Orlinsky has argued convincingly against the theory of a strongly theologically motivated translation.110 While acknowledging that certain renderings may have a theological background,111 Orlinsky has concentrated on the way in which many of the differences between the Hebrew and the Greek texts can be explained on the basis of linguistic and stylistic considerations, since the translator was “quite conscious of good Greek style.”112 A simple example may suffice. Job 11:4 μὴ γὰρ λέγε ὅτι Καθαρός εἰμι τοῖς ἔργοις, καὶ ἄμεμπτος ἐναντίον αὐτοῦ.

‫ותאמר זך לקחי‬ ‫ובר הייתי בעיניך‬

109  Bickell, De Indole ac Ratione; Gehman, “Theological Approach,” 231–40, upon which elaborated Donald H. Gard elaborated in The Exegetical Method of the Greek Translator of the Book of Job (JBL MS 8; Philadelphia, Pa.: SBL Press, 1952); Donald H. Gard, “The Concept of Job’s Character According to the Greek Translator of the Hebrew Text,” JBL 72 (1953): 182–86; Gerleman, Job, 59. 110  See in particular Orlinsky, “Studies III,” 153–67 and “Studies III (continued),” 239–68. See also the brief discussion by Heater, Septuagint Translation Technique, 3–4. On the importance of Orlinsky’s work for modern scholarship on Greek Job, see Cox, “Job,” 392. 111  Orlinsky, “Studies II,” 269. See also Cox, “Vocabulary for Wrongdoing,” 119–30; Fernández Marcos, “Septuagint Reading,” 255; Gerleman, Job, 53; Kutz, “Old Greek of Job,” passim. Any researcher should indeed avoid the traps of “historical blindness” by fixating solely on linguistics. See Anneli Aejmelaeus, “Übersetzungstechnik und theologische Interpretation: Zur Methodik der Septuaginta-Forschung,” in Der Septuaginta-Psalter: Sprachliche und theologische Aspekte (ed. Erich Zenger; HBS 32; Freiburg: Herder, 2001), 3–18, 9; Karen H. Jobes and Moisés Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005), 94–97; Sollamo, “Study of Translation Technique,” 150–51; Theo van der Louw, “Linguistic or Ideological Shifts? The Problem-Oriented Study of Transformations as a Methodological Filter,” in Scripture in Transition, 107–25, 107–8. 112  Orlinsky, “Studies II,” 242. See also Boyd-Taylor, Reading between the Lines, 428. The possibility of several explanations for the same translation phenomenon is a reminder of how careful one has to be to ascribe a feature in the translation to a particular motivation.

Studying Style In The Old Greek Book Of Job

35

For example, do not say, “I am pure in my actions For you say, “My conduct is pure and blameless before him.” and I am clean in your sight.”

For the moment I will focus on the rendering of ‫ בעיניך‬as ἐναντίον αὐτοῦ. The text no longer reads “in your eyes” (i.e., the eyes of God), but simply “before God.” The elimination of the reference to God’s eyes is seen as evidence of the translator’s avoidance of anthropomorphism. When singling out this verse,113 one risks overlooking the fact that the Hebrew expression “in the eyes of” has often been rendered using a simple preposition in the Greek text of Job. Such a rendering reflects the common prepositional function of ‫בעין‬.114 This equivalent is also found when this expression in the Hebrew text is used in reference to “in the eyes of” a person, such as in Job 19:15:115 Job 19:15 γείτονες οἰκίας θεράπαιναί τέ μου, ἀλλογενὴς ἤμην ἐναντίον αὐτῶν. As for neighbors next door and my servant girls, I became an alien to them.

‫גרי ביתי ואמהתי לזר תחׁשבני‬ ‫נכרי הייתי בעיניהם‬

My houseguests and my housemaids think of me as a stranger, I am a foreigner in their eyes.

This example demonstrates that in 11:4 the translator was not trying to avoid an anthropomorphism. We may also compare other instances in which the expression ‫ עין‬+ ‫“ ב‬in the eyes of” occurs in the Hebrew text, such as in 15:15; 18:3; 25:5; and 32:1. In each case, it is rendered in Greek as ἐναντίον,116 regardless of whether the eyes referred to are of God or of a human being.117 The use of

113  This is what Gerleman, Job, 59 does; see the criticism offered by Orlinsky, “Studies III,” 164–65. 114  See Raija Sollamo, Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions in the Septuagint (Annales Academiae Scientiarium Fennicae, Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum 19; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1979), 123–46. 115  See Orlinsky, “Studies III,” 164–65. 116  The only exception is Job 40:24, the Greek text of which is asterisked material. Here, it is rendered as ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλμῷ αὐτοῦ, which is a good example of the different translation character of the asterisked materials. 117  On the use of ἐναντίον in instances in which it does not render the Hebrew expression “in the eyes of,” see chapter 4.

36

chapter 1

ἐναντίον in these instances is, according to Orlinsky, a sign of the translator’s attention to Greek style.118 The description of “good Greek” style can be used to cover anything from the use of grammatically correct to idiomatic to literary Greek. A discussion of the Greek rendering of Job 5:20 will illustrate the difficulty in conceptualizing the notion of “good Greek.” Job 5:20 ἐν λιμῷ ῥύσεταί σε ἐκ θανάτου, ἐν πολέμῳ δὲ ἐκ χειρὸς σιδήρου λύσει σε.

‫ברעב פדך ממות‬ ‫ובמלחמה מידי חרב‬

In famine he will rescue you from death, In famine he will redeem you from death, and in war he will free you from the hand and in war from the power of the sword. of a blade.

This verse has not raised any major text-critical concerns among commentators.119 The deviation between the Hebrew and the Greek, that is, the plus of λύσει σε, has been ascribed to the translator. He is said to have added λύσει σε to supply a corresponding element to the verb in the first colon, thus producing a more balanced clause.120 This is considered to be “good Greek” style.121 Nonetheless, such a rendering is markedly different from the use of ἐναντίον in Job 11:4, discussed above, also explained as “good Greek,” or from the use of δέ for ‫ו‬, a minor example of the translator’s use of Greek particles, which has also been described as an aspect of “good Greek,” even “literary” style.122 This illustrates the problematic nature of the notion “good Greek” and of the relation between style and translation technique in scholarly discussions. We can go even further in the discussion of this verse and look at another element of the second clause of Job 5:20, namely the rendering of the prepositional phrase ‫מידי חרב‬. The expression ‫“ מידי חרב‬from the power of a sword” is rendered as ἐκ χειρὸς σιδήρου “from the hand of a blade.” First, ‫—יד‬χείρ is a standard lexical equivalent (HR). ‫יד‬, however, is often used to designate “power” (HALOT; DCH), as in Job 5:20. In these cases, too, LXX translators consistently render the word as χείρ. The noun χείρ, however, does not have a semantic range comparable to ‫ יד‬in Hebrew: χείρ primarily means “hand,” from 118  Orlinsky, “Studies III,” 164–66. 119  Beer, Hiob, 33; Clines, Job, 151; Dhorme, Job, 69; Seow, Job 1–21, 444. 120  Orlinsky, “Studies II,” 269; Cox, Iob, s.v. 5:20. 121  Orlinsky, “Studies II,” 269. 122  Cox, “History of its Transmission.”

Studying Style In The Old Greek Book Of Job

37

which meanings derive such as “act, deed” of a human being, but it does not denote “power” as such in any non-Jewish writings (LSJ). This does not necessarily imply that the translator of Job was not aware of the connotation of ‫ יד‬in this context, but that he chose the most standard Greek equivalent. The rendering in Job 5:20 is “literal” insofar as it reproduces form, not meaning. It is not a natural Greek construction, even though the construction of the whole colon is grammatically correct. Second, the rendering σίδηρος for ‫“ חרב‬sword” is striking as well. The adjective σίδηρος originally means “iron,” which as a metonym can designate any iron tool, such as a weapon (LSJ). This metonym123 occurs in Greek literature (see Homer, Od. 16.294). As a rendering of ‫חרב‬, however, it is unique to Job, occurring only in 5:20 and 39:22 (HR).124 In the rest of the LXX, σίδηρος quite consistently represents ‫“ ברזל‬iron” (HR).125 The rendering of ‫חרב‬ as σίδηρος in Job is a literary element. When it comes to literary elements in the Greek translation of Job, the text attests to what has been described as “an evident effort at style, aiming at a dignified and even poetic language.”126 Even though the translator’s literary and stylistic achievements have not been treated systematically, they have often been mentioned by scholars in the past.127 A first observation pertains to the translator’s vocabulary. OG Job’s vocabulary is varied and exhibits knowledge of Greek literature, from Homeric epic to tragedy and philosophy.128 Secondly, the translator shows concern for the balance of the cola in the translation. 123  A definition of features relevant to this study will be presented in chapter 5. 124  Other renderings of ‫ חרב‬in Job include μάχαιρα “sword” (see 1:15—this is the most common equivalent in the rest of the LXX) and λόγχη “spear” (see 41:18). 125  The only instances in which one finds a comparable metonymous use of σίδηρος in the LXX occur at Deut 20:19 for ‫“ גרזן‬axe,” at Judg 13:5 and 1 Kgdms 1:11 for ‫“ מורה‬razor,” and at Jdt 6:6; 8:9. 126  Gerleman, Job, 14. Compare also Thackeray’s categorization of the LXX books “from the point of view of style” (Thackeray, Grammar of the Old Testament, 12–13), with Job being classed as “literary.” Thackeray’s categorization is known to be unclear, largely because intuitive conceptions of translation approaches and the style of the translation are not distinguished, see, for example, Raija Sollamo, “Some ‘Improper’ Prepositions, such as ΕΝΩΠΙΟΝ, ΕΝΑΝΤΙΟΝ, ΕΝΑΝΤΙ, etc. in the Septuagint and Early Koine Greek,” VT 25 (1975): 773–83, 775. 127  See, for example, Cook, “Provenance of Old Greek Job,” 76; Cox, “Job,” 390–91; Fernández Marcos, “Septuagint Reading,” 256; Gerleman, Job, 14; John G. Gammie, “The Septuagint of Job: Its Poetic Style and Relationship to the Septuagint of Proverbs,” CBQ 49 (1987): 13–31; Witte, “Greek Book of Job,” 38–40. 128  Cox, “The Historical, Social, and Literary Context,” 111; Fernández Marcos, “Septuagint Reading,” 259; Joseph Ziegler, Beitrage zum griechischen Job (MSU 18; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 110–12.

38

chapter 1

He may introduce a verb in the Greek text that has no equivalent in the Hebrew in order to correspond to the verb in a parallel stich,129 as well as use particles for the purpose of creating balanced clauses.130 Thirdly, the translator shows a tendency towards stylistic variation. We encounter variation not only in lexical choices,131 but also in the rendering of cola that are repeated in the Hebrew text (often at the macro-level).132 These variations, too, are often regarded as evidence of “good Greek” style.133 However, this seems contradictory to the observation that the translator introduces repetitions of his own.134 The introduction of repetitions in the Greek text has been observed mainly with reference to the translator’s use of favorite words.135 The extent to which the translator uses repetition independently from the Hebrew text on the micro-level, such as within the framework of rhetorical features, has not yet been studied. Regarding the use of literary features in the Greek text, G. Gerleman has observed that the word order can be changed according to what the translator finds most suitable stylistically, citing only Job 24:3 as an example. In this verse, the cola have been made parallel in structure. Job 24:3 ὑποζύγιον ὀρφανῶν ἀπήγαγον καὶ βοῦν χήρας ἠνεχύρασαν. They led away the orphans’ beast of burden and took the widow’s ox in pledge.

‫חמור יתומים ינהגו‬ ‫יחבלו ׁשור אלמנה‬

They drive away the orphans’ donkey; they take the widow’s ox for a pledge.

129  Orlinsky, “Studies II,” 269. See the example of 5:20 above. 130  Cox, “Tying it all Together,” 50–52. 131  Cox, Iob, passim; Gordis, Job, 509; Orlinsky, “Studies II,” passim; Ziegler, “Der textkritische Wert,” 13–14. See the notion of variatio discussed in more detail in chapter 5. 132  Gerleman, Job, 9–10: Compare the rendering of ‫“ ואמלטה רק אני לבדי להגיד לך‬I alone have escaped to tell you” in 1:15 as σωθεὶς δὲ ἐγὼ μόνος ἦλθον τοῦ ἀπαγγεῖλαί σοι, whereas in 1:1.17.19 the same Hebrew text is rendered paratactically as ἐσώθην δὲ ἐγὼ μόνος καὶ ἦλθον τοῦ ἀπαγγεῖλαί σοι. Another example is the varying renderings of ‫תם ויׁשר ירא אלהים‬ ‫“ וסר מרע‬blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil” in 1:1.8 and 2:3. 133  Jennifer Dines, “Was LXX Pentateuch a Style-Setter for LXX Minor Prophets?” in XIV Congress of the IOSCS, 397–411, 405. 134  That the translator sometimes introduces a repetition has been noted by Cox, “Does a Shorter Hebrew Text,” 458; Heater, Septuagint Translation Technique, 6; Kissane, Job, xlv. 135  Heater, Septuagint Translation Technique, passim; Ziegler, “Der textkritische Wert,” 14.

Studying Style In The Old Greek Book Of Job

39

The Hebrew text is structured as AB/B’A’: object (consisting of a construct state)—verb / verb—object. In the OG text, the word order of the second colon is different, so that the cola are arranged symmetrically, twice displaying the order object—verb. Such an isolated observation fails to take into account the many cases in which the word order is retained, as well as cases in which the exact opposite tendency occurs (i.e., making symmetrical cola chiastic), or cases in which the word order is changed so that a symmetrical or chiastic construction in the Hebrew is not reflected in the Greek. The most systematic examinations of rhetorical features in OG Job so far has been presented by J. Gammie and S. Noegel. Gammie has discussed several cases in which the translator of OG Job made use of assonance, repetition of words, and corresponding syllable stress and count to bring into relation two or more hemistichs.136 Unfortunately, Gammie did not always relate the translator’s lexical choices to the Hebrew text, thus undermining the methodological reliability of his findings. Noegel’s study of Janus parallelisms in the Hebrew book of Job entailed a brief discussion of the Greek translation of each Janus parallelism.137 He argued that in several cases the Greek translator has recognized the polysemy inherent in the Hebrew text and has tried to render it accordingly by choosing words that result in an ambiguity in the Greek text. This, according to Noegel, shows the translator’s creativity. Noegel’s study, however, fails to recognize the methodological hazards related to the study of wordplay.138 Furthermore, he does not aptly distinguish between the OG text and the asterisked material. The latter is, in fact, a tendency found in many modern commentaries on Job as well, such as those of M. Pope, J. Gray, and D. J. A. Clines.139 As a result of this overview, it becomes clear that we have yet to gain a clear and systematic insight into the nature of the language and style of OG Job. This pertains in the first place to the ways in which the translator pays attention to Greek usage, and in the second place to the ways in which the translator can stylize the Greek text. In order to answer the question of how we can adequately describe the OG translation of Job, we need to develop an approach 136  Gammie, “Septuagint of Job,” 13–31. 137  Scott Noegel, “Wordplay and Translation Technique in the Septuagint of Job,” Aula Orientalis 14 (1995): 33–44; Scott Noegel, Janus Parallelism in the Book of Job (JSOTSup 223; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996). 138  See the review of Noegel’s book by Stuart Creason in JAOS 118 (1998): 602–3. 139  See Claude E. Cox, “Some Things Biblical Scholars Should Know about the Septuagint,” Restoration Quarterly 56 (2014): 85–97, 88–89. The commentaries referred to are respectively Marvin H. Pope, Job: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB 15; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1965); Gray, Job; Clines, Job.

40

chapter 1

that allows for a systematic study of the translator’s use of style and pays due attention to the many factors that influence the translation process and end result. In order to do so, it is important to be aware of the presuppositions as well as the implications of the use of descriptors such as “good,” “idiomatic,” “standard,” or “literary” Greek. 3.2 Language about the Language of OG Job 3.2.1 Style and Translation Technique The above mentioned aspects of “freedom” of OG Job are seen in terms of the translator’s desire to compose a translation in “good” or “literary” Greek. In other words, scholarship often does not make a clear distinction between the translation technique of a LXX book and the book’s style. This not only holds true for previous studies on Job, but also for scholarship on other LXX books.140 Style and translation technique, however, pertain to different aspects of a translated text. Style involves word choice and word order.141 It implies choice and comparison. A translator has a choice among alternatives and the choices he made may be compared to the choices made by other translators.142 Yet, style is inherently related to, but distinct from, the translation approach.143 The translation approach pertains to the Greek text in relation to a Hebrew source. A translation approach governs the ways in which the translator will render the source text and will thus guide the choices made. For example, a translator can do so with a focus on the form of the source, or on the meaning. If a translator focuses on the form of the source text, there will be limitations regarding lexical choices and word order choices. However, the translation approach is only one element that constitutes style. The latter also pertains to the register of the language of a translated text, for example. Register can be defined as a variety of language used for a specific purpose or in a specific social setting.144 Any 140  See James Mulroney, The Translation Style of Old Greek Habakkuk (FAT 2. Reihe 86; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 40. 141  George A. Kennedy, A New History of Classical Rhetoric (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994), 5–6; George A. Kennedy, “Historical Survey of Rhetoric,” in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period, 330 BC–AD 400 (ed. Stanley E. Porter; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 3–42; Galen Rowe, “Style,” in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric, 121–58. For classical rhetorical theory, see, for example, the third book of Aristotle’s Ars rhetorica (1403a–1420a1). 142  Kenneth J. Dover, The Evolution of Greek Prose Style (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 1. 143  Compare John A. L. Lee, “The Literary Greek of Septuagint Isaiah,” Semitica et classica 7 (2014): 135–46, 136–39; Mulroney, Translation Style of Old Greek Habakkuk, 40. 144  Douglas Biber and Edward Finegan, “Introduction: Situating Register in Sociolinguistics,” in Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register (ed. Douglas Biber and Edward Finegan; Oxford:

Studying Style In The Old Greek Book Of Job

41

one speaker has different registers to choose from, depending on contextual factors. For instance, a speaker will address a close friend differently from the way he or she does a head of state. The register a translator chooses can depend on factors that are not related to the source text. Characterizing a written text as composed in the vernacular or in a literary style pertains, in fact, to the register. When it comes to translation, a translator can adopt different registers. For example, the Hebrew word ‫“ אנוׁש‬man” can have different equivalents in the Greek translation of the HB. The common equivalent of this word, which occurs mainly in Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Psalter, and Job, is ἄνθρωπος “man, human” in all books except for Job (see, for example, Isa 8:1; 13:7; Jer 17:9; Ps 8:5; 9:20). In OG Job, the rendering can be ἄνθρωπος (see Job 5:17; 7:1.17; 25:6; 33:26), but a preferred equivalent is βροτός “mortal,”145 a word that is unique to the book of Job within the LXX corpus (see Job 4:17; 9:2; 10:4; 15:14; 25:4; 28:4.13; 32:8; 33:12; 36:25). The translator of Job did not follow the equivalence that we see in other books strictly (i.e., one without any literary connotation), but instead opted for a poetic alternative. While it is an aspect of the translation technique (i.e., a matter of lexical consistency) that might allow for this variation, the use of βροτός is motivated by the conventions of the target language and pertains to an element of Greek style. It is thus important to make a distinction between the translation technique and the style of a LXX text. 3.2.2 Descriptors of Style When coming across descriptions of OG Job in terms of a “good” or “literary” style, it raises the question of the standards one employs when using such a characterization. The style of the Septuagint has often been evaluated negatively. Within this context of LXX translations, the style of OG Job stands in contrast to that of the majority of other books, such as the Pentateuch, the Minor Prophets, and the Psalter. On the one hand, there is less interference in Job than in many other LXX books. On the other hand, the text of OG Job shows a poetic vocabulary and efforts at stylization. Therefore, the language of OG Job has been dubbed as “good” and “literary” Greek. A first question we may ask is the following: what is “good” Greek? Scholarship has shown that the Greek of the Pentateuch is essentially the vernacular Koine. Oxford University Press, 1994), 3–12, 4; K. Malmkjaer, “Functionalist Linguistics,” in The Routledge Linguistics Encyclopedia (ed. Kirsten Malmkjaer; 3rd ed.; London: Routledge, 2010), 177–80, 179–80. See also Crystal, Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, 38–49. 145  On the use of this word in Job, see Dafni, “ΒΡΟΤΟΣ,” 35–65 and Mangin, “Le texte court,” 141–47.

42

chapter 1

It is not written in “bad” Greek, but in a register that is lower than the register generally used by classical and some Hellenistic Greek authors whose works have been preserved. Evaluative descriptions, often made on the basis of scholarly intuitions, can be vague and do not teach us much about the character of a text or its linguistic or literary position within its socio-cultural context. The use of “standard” as a characterization in this context is not undisputed either: “[i]t presupposes that there is a set of linguistic forms whose social value is known and uniform—they have an establishment-endorsed value, often called ‘prestige.’ ‘Non-standard’ forms carry an expectation of being ‘stigmatised’ and of having ‘low prestige.’ ”146 The argument regarding a connotation of prestige also holds true for the descriptor “literary.” Moreover, the use of the term “literary language/style” raises issues of authorial (or in this case, translatorial) intent, genre, and reception. “Educated Greek” has therefore been suggested as an alternative, more neutral description.147 It denotes phenomena that are not part of everyday language and reveal that the translator had possessed some degree of Greek rhetorical education. Examples include the use of vocabulary typical of epic poetry.148 However, the absence of signs of educated language in a LXX translation cannot automatically be related to the translator’s level of education. Doing so would be making an argument from silence. After all, in antiquity, being able to write in Greek indicates the translator was educated (we will return to this issue below). The term “high register” is, in my opinion, a neutral alternative. I define a high register as those elements of vocabulary, grammar, and syntax that are characteristic of literary or poetic texts rather than of documentary and administrative texts. Furthermore, another question that the use of a characterization such as “literary” leaves unaddressed is, what is literary, and to whom? What is good and bad, standard and non-standard, literary and non-literary is for a large part in the eye of the beholder and, as such, related to a specific context. Sociolinguistics has therefore introduced the value-neutral notion of “conventional” language.149 This term refers to “a piece of language that speakers recognise and ‘agree’ about in terms of what it means and how it is used.”150 It emphasizes the fact that language usage is context-specific. Different groups 146  Coupland, Style, 43. 147  Aitken, “Language of the Septuagint,” 128. 148  Aitken, “Language of the Septuagint,” 128–29. 149  I thank Will Ross for this reference. 150  Vyvyan Evans and Melanie Green, Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006), 12.

Studying Style In The Old Greek Book Of Job

43

of people have different conventions, and these conventions may change over time. For example, the use of the optative in subordinate clauses had declined significantly in Koine Greek. In Attic Greek, such a construction would have been a common expression that would not be considered particularly indicative of an elevated register. Yet the use of this feature—however natural—in a Koine environment points to a specific register use of language that is not the vernacular. At this point, it is important to distinguish between the terms “conventional” and “idiomatic” language. The term “idiomatic” refers to something more specific: an idiom is a construction whose meaning is not predictable from the integrated meanings of the individual words. Such a construction (i.e., a formmeaning pairing) has specific formal grammatical patterns associated with it. For example, in English, “he kicked the bucket” is an idiom, but as soon as we change the grammatical construction into “the bucket was kicked by him,” we lose the idiomatic meaning.151 This is not the case for a construction like “he fed the dog” and “the dog was fed by him.” Idiomatic implies conventional, not vice versa. I will use the term “natural Greek” to refer to the language as it is used conventionally within the broader Hellenistic Greek world. This means that if a word or construction can be found in sources, either literary and/or non-literary, that do not depend on the LXX, it is considered natural Greek. The description “unnatural Greek” refers to lexical uses or syntactic constructions that do not appear outside of the LXX or literature dependent on the LXX and holds no evaluative connotation. It should be noted that natural Greek can pertain to different registers. In the aforementioned example of the equivalence of ‫אנוׁש‬ and ἄνθρωπος / βροτός, while ἄνθρωπος and βροτός indicate a different register, they are both well attested in Greek sources outside of the LXX. 4

Language and Hellenization

The differences between the Hebrew and Greek texts of Job have often been explained in terms of “Hellenization.” The expression of the original Hebrew text is said to have been deprived of its Hebrew-Oriental color, while instead having been given a Greek-Hellenistic character, as is illustrated by the rendering of ‫“ כׂשדים‬Chaldeans” as οἱ ἱππεῖς “horsemen” in Job 1:17.152 Scholars have written about the updating and Hellenizing of the religious universe of the 151  This example is borrowed from Evans and Green, Cognitive Linguistics, 12–13. 152  Gerleman, Job, 33–34.

44

chapter 1

book153 or the translator’s openness towards Greek culture.154 Examples include Bildad’s title τύραννος in 2:11 and 42:17,155 or the rendering of ‫קרן הפוך‬ “the horn of Happuch” as Ἀμαλθείας κέρας “the horn of Amalthea” in 42:14 (Amalthea is the name of the goat who nourished Zeus, and whose broken horn Zeus transformed into a cornucopia).156 While the use of ᾅδης (often for ‫ׁשאול‬, see Job 7:9; 11:8; 14:13; 17:13.16; 21:13) is generally argued not to have brought about any Greek-Hellenistic associations, as it is the most natural translation occurring as an equivalent for ‫ ׁשאול‬in other LXX books as well,157 the use of τάρταρος in Job 40:20 and 41:24 would have.158 As Van der Louw points out, such deviating renderings are often regarded as “visible traces of the translator in which his (Midrashic or actualizing) exegesis shows.”159 Scholars have tried to reconstruct the historical background of the LXX and the translators’ Hellenistic and/or Jewish ideology on the basis of those deviations. Yet “this concern can easily miss the fact that free renderings are first of all linguistic material.”160 Certainly, every translation is an 153  Fernández Marcos, “Septuagint Reading,” 265. See also Cox, “Job,” 394: OG Job “is an attempt to put that document into a different space, time and culture. This new location has different ways of thinking theologically”; Witte, “Greek Book of Job,” 38: OG Job “should be interpreted against the backdrop of the cultural and spiritual worlds of Hellenism.” 154  Dhorme, Job, cxcvi; Gammie, “Septuagint of Job,” 28–29; Witte, “Greek Book of Job,” 39. See also Kutz, “Old Greek of Job,” 36, who goes as far as saying that “the influence of Greek mythology on the OG translator is particularly interesting because it was viewed to be a valid source for interpretation and consistent with his biblical worldview” and that the incorporation of literary vocabulary reflects “an effort within Hellenistic Judaism to demonstrate a connection between the Jewish Scriptures and Greek thought and to raise the status of the Hebrew Bible in the eyes of the Greek community.” 155  Gerleman, Job, 35. 156  Anna Angelini, “Biblical Translation and Cross-Cultural Communication: A Focus on Animal Imagery,” Semitica et Classica 8 (2015): 33–43, 36; Cox, Iob, s.v. 42:14; Dhorme, Job, cxcvi–cxcix; Fernández Marcos, “Septuagint Reading,” 258–59; Gerleman, Job, 38; Karl Unsener, “Literarische Anspielungen in der LXX,” in Die Sprache der Septuaginta, 119–26, 123–24. This rendering will be discussed in more detail in chapter 4. 157  Gerleman, Job, 35; Fernández Marcos, “Septuagint Reading,” 257–58; Sidney Jellicoe, “Hebrew-Greek Equivalents for the Nether World, Its Milieu and Inhabitants, in the Old Testament,” Textus 8 (1973): 1–19. Witte, “Greek Text of Job,” 39, however, argues that because of the use of ᾅδης, the statements in OG Job about the realm of dead are related to the Greek conception of the underworld. 158  Gerleman, Job, 35. 159  Van der Louw, Transformations, 9. 160  Van der Louw, Transformations, 9 (author’s italics). See also Orlinsky’s criticism towards scholars such as Gard and Gerleman regarding OG Job’s exegetical translation technique, see Orlinsky, “Studies I,” 70–71 and “Studies III,” 153–67.

Studying Style In The Old Greek Book Of Job

45

interpretation. The issue with these descriptions of the Greek translation of Job, however, is that scholars do not distinguish between language and culture. The underlying notion is the idea that Hebrew was part of an intellectual system that was different from the Mediterranean system.161 However, language does not necessarily define culture; rather, it is an aspect of it.162 It has been demonstrated that Jews did not become less Jewish from a religious or cultural perspective once they adopted the Greek language.163 Hebrew Job and OG Job are often approached as texts of two cultures in opposition, but did the text’s transition from one language into another also mark a cultural transition? Scholarship has struggled with terminology in this respect. The question of how to define Hellenistic Judaism and how to understand the process of Hellenization is a highly debated issue.164 “Greek” can refer to, among other things, a language, an ethnicity, or (any aspect of) a culture. In the former sense, it can be contrasted with Hebrew. In the latter sense, especially from the third century Bce onwards, the term becomes less of an indication of ethnicity

161  See most notably James Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1999), 157–68. See also Lee, Lexical Study, 17–18. 162  See, for example, Mullen, “Introduction: Multiple Languages, Multiple Identities,” 31. 163  Shaye J. D. Cohen, “ ‘Those Who Say They Are Jews and Are Not’: How Do You Know a Jew in Antiquity When You See One?” in Diasporas in Antiquity (ed. Shaye J. D. Cohen and Ernest S. Frerichs; Brown Judaic Studies 288; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1993), 1–46, 8–9. See also Sylvie Honigman, “ ‘Jews as the Best of All Greeks’: Cultural Competition in the Literary Works of Alexandrian Judaeans of the Hellenistic Period,” in Shifting Social Imaginaries in the Hellenistic Period: Narrations, Practices, and Images (ed. Eftychia Stavrianopoulou; Mnemosyne Supplementum 363; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 207–32; Joseph Mélèze-Modrzejewski, “How to Be a Greek and Yet a Jew in Hellenistic Alexandria,” in Diasporas in Antiquity, 65–92, 80. 164  Some of the most important publications on the topic include: John M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 B.C.E.–117 B.C.E.) (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1996); Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem; John J. Collins and Gregory E. Sterling, eds., Hellenism in the Land of Israel (Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 13; Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001); Louis H. Feldman, Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered (JSJSupp 107; Leiden: Brill, 2006); Erich S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1998); Erich S. Gruen, Diaspora: Jews amidst Greeks and Romans (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2002); Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism (see also the useful review with extensive bibliographical references by James K. Aitken, Review of M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, JBL 123 [2004]: 331–41); Joseph Mélèze-Modrzejewski, Les Juifs d’Égypte: De Ramses II à Hadrien (Paris: Éditions Errance, 1991); Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization.

46

chapter 1

and more of education.165 “Jewish” refers to a religion (and by extension a culture), but the extent to which one can contrast it to “Greek” is a complex issue that requires nuance. “Hellenistic” can refer to a time period (generally from the third to the first century Bce) or a cultural phenomenon. As an indication of a culture, it covers a geographically extensive and intrinsically complex and diversified world,166 also in regard to religion.167 Is Hellenistic Judaism simply a temporal reference, or are we talking about the cultural changes that Judaism undergoes due to its contact with Greek culture? In the case of the former, it would be less confusing to talk about Judaism in the Hellenistic era. In the case of the latter, the term “Hellenization” is frequently used to describe the process. The Jews’ adoption of Greek as a language (and hence the translation of the Jewish scriptures into Greek), for instance, can be described as Hellenization.168 As a result, Hellenism and Judaism are often placed in opposition. The adoption of the Greek language, however, does not imply that Jews would automatically acculturate to other aspects of Greek culture, leaving behind their Jewishness. Rather than thinking of Hellenism as the dominant culture to which a subservient Judaism acculturated, it seems more accurate to conceptualize the relationship between Hellenism and Judaism in terms of a mutual exchange to describe the complex socio-cultural interactions.169 After all, “Judaism and Hellenism were overlapping, not clashing, cultures.”170 165  Lester L. Grabbe, The Early Hellenistic Period (335–175 B.C.E.) (Library of Second Temple Studies 68; vol. 2 of A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period; London: T&T Clark, 2008), 142. See also the remarks on the link between religion and ethnicity in Aaron P. Johnson, “Ethnicity: Greeks, Jews, and Christians,” in A Companion to Ethnicity in the Ancient Mediterranean (ed. Jeremy McInerney; Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World; Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2014), 376–89, 376–77. 166  Susan E. Alcock, “Surveying the Peripheries of the Hellenistic World,” in Centre and Periphery in the Hellenistic World (ed. Per Bilde et al.; Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 4; Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1993), 162–75, 162–63. 167  Jon D. Mikalson, “Greek Religion—Continuity and Change in the Hellenistic Period,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Hellenistic World (ed. Glenn R. Bugh; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 208–22. 168  See, for example, Peter M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (3 vols; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), i:83; Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 347–48. 169  See Aitken, Review of Hengel, 333–35; Erich S. Gruen, “Hellenism, Hellenization,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism (ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010), 723–26. See also Stemberger, “Jews and Graeco-Roman Culture,” 35. 170  Gruen, “Hellenism, Hellenization,” 275. One of the most important contributions on modern cultural hybridity is Homi K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture (London: Routledge, 1994).

Studying Style In The Old Greek Book Of Job

5

47

The Nature of the Present Research

This book is in the first place a literary study that analyzes an aspect of the character of OG Job from a new perspective. Defined earlier as the selection of a set of linguistic features from all the possibilities in a language, style pertains to all levels of the text: the choice of words, the order in which those words are combined to form phrases and clauses, and the ways in which different clauses are combined to form a larger unit. The point of departure of the present study is a close-reading of the Hebrew and the Greek texts of Job with special attention given to issues of style. Since it is a translation, the phenomena in the Greek text must always be discussed in relation to the Hebrew text. Consequently, this book is a study in translation.171 The descriptive analysis of style in OG Job implies the ability to gain new insights into the translator’s working method and abilities.172 A translation technical study makes it possible to evaluate the nature of the Greek language and style used in the LXX more accurately, since it prevents one from ascribing features in the Greek text to the translator when, in fact, that feature has its origins in the source text.173 A descriptive analysis also almost automatically leads to questions about the context. How does OG Job fit in its literary environment? OG Job is not only a Hellenistic product, but is also part of a specific corpus within Hellenistic literature, namely that of Jewish-Greek literature. The latter developed on the basis of the LXX translation of the Pentateuch174 and contains translated as well as non-translated texts. It is the aim of this research to situate OG Job in this development from a literary point of view. As such, this book is also a study of OG Job in its wider literary context. In order to answer this question, an adequate approach has to be identified, one that will allow us to study OG Job as a translation from a Hebrew text and as a product of the target culture, namely of the Greek-speaking Jews in the Hellenistic era. The following chapter discusses the selection of an appropriate theoretical framework. 171  On the method of the study of LXX translation technique, which takes as its point of departure the translational nature of the LXX, see Sollamo, “The Study of Translation Technique,” 145. 172  Aejmelaeus, “Characterizing Criteria,” 56. For a nuanced approach to the use of the term, see Joachim Schaper, “The Concept of the Translator(s) in the Contemporary Study of the Septuagint,” in In the Footsteps of Sherlock Holmes, 31–46, 34–39. It is generally accepted that the LXX translators were individuals, each translating an individual book, although this statement needs to be nuanced. This will be discussed in more detail below. 173  On this second aspect of the method of the study of LXX translation technique, see Sollamo, “Study of Translation Technique,” 147–48. 174  Walter, “Jewish-Greek Literature in the Greek Period,” 385.

chapter 2

Descriptive Translation Studies and Polysystem Theory 1 Introduction T. Hermans, a translation scholar, has adequately summarized the development of the field of translation studies as the evolution from translation primarily seen in terms of relations between texts or between different language systems, to studying it as a complex transaction taking place in a communicative, socio-cultural context.1 We see a similar evolution in the specific field of LXX studies. The focus has shifted from regarding the LXX as a text-critical source, which went hand in hand with a focus on the relationship between the Hebrew and the Greek and a preference for “literal” translations,2 to studying the LXX as a socio-cultural document. Although, unfortunately, the LXX is not taken into consideration much at all in the field of (modern) translation studies,3 biblical scholars are becoming increasingly aware of the usefulness of theories and approaches of modern translation studies for LXX studies.4 Recently, LXX studies have benefited particularly from the application of G. Toury’s Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS).5 DTS would appear to 1  Theo Hermans, “Norms and the Determination of Translation: A Theoretical Framework,” in Translation, Power, Subversion (ed. Román Alvarez and Carmen-Africa Vidal; Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1996), 25–51, 26. 2  See John W. Wevers, “An Apologia for Septuagint Studies,” BIOSCS 18 (1986): 16–38, 38: “The LXX is far too important to be treated as a grab-bag for conjectures and for rewriting the MT.” 3  For an overview, see Dries De Crom, “The LXX Text of Canticles” (Ph.D. diss., KU Leuven, 2014), xxii–xxviii; Van der Louw, Transformations, 9–12. 4  See Boyd-Taylor, Reading between the Lines; De Crom, “LXX Text of Canticles”; Van der Louw, Transformations; Ross Wagner, Reading the Sealed Book: Old Greek Isaiah and the Problem of Septuagint Hermeneutics (FAT 88; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013). 5  See most notably Gideon Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond (Benjamins Translation Library 4; Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1995), which has been the basis of the ongoing discussion in translation studies and influential for many other translation scholars cited below. A slightly revised and expanded edition was published in 2012. See Gideon Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond (2nd rev. ed.; Benjamins Translation Library 100; Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2012). The chapter on translational norms in particular has been expanded. The premises and arguments,

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi ��.��63/9789004358492_004

Descriptive Translation Studies And Polysystem Theory

49

provide a useful framework for the study at hand, too. After all, Van der Louw has stated that “the approach called Descriptive Translation Studies seems to be an ideal tool for the descriptive study of the Septuagint.”6 However, the caveats when wanting to apply a model proposed by modern translation studies to the study of ancient translation cannot be underestimated. I will concisely present the model of DTS and discuss its application in LXX studies, in order to make clear why DTS does not provide a suitable framework for the present research, before presenting Polysystem Theory (PST) and explaining why PST, in my opinion, is a more satisfactory alternative to answering the questions that guide this study. 2

Descriptive Translation Studies

2.1 The Theory I. Even-Zohar’s PST provided the basis for the development of DTS by Toury, who was a student of Even-Zohar.7 A system denotes a “multi-layered structure of elements which relate to and interact with each other.”8 Even-Zohar posited that semiotic phenomena, such as literature, are more adequately understood “as systems rather than conglomerates of disparate elements” and that they should be approached functionally based on an analysis of relations.9 Any semiotic system is a heterogeneous, dynamic, open structure, consisting of a complex set of relations. It can be related to other systems in many different ways—hence, the term polysystem.10 The goal of this approach is “the detection however, have remained the same, and a comparison of the bibliography of both editions shows little updating. As a result, the criticisms towards DTS discussed below, although cited from publications antedating the publication of Toury’s revised edition in 2012, still hold true. References to Toury’s work will always be taken from the 2012 edition, unless otherwise noted. In the new edition, Toury briefly mentions the LXX on p. 24, but does not discuss it in detail. 6  Van der Louw, Transformations, 20 (Van der Louw’s italics). Regarding DTS in LXX studies, see in particular Albert Pietersma, “LXX and DTS: A New Archimedean Point for Septuagint Studies?” BIOSCS 39 (2006): 1–11 and Gideon Toury, “A Handful of Methodological Issues in DTS: Are They Applicable to the Study of the Septuagint as an Assumed Translation?” BIOSCS 39 (2006): 13–25. 7  Itamar Even-Zohar, Polysystem Studies (= PT 11/1 [1990]). 8  Mark Shuttleworth, “Polysystem Theory,” in Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (ed. Mona Baker and Gabriela Saldanha; 2nd ed.; London: Routledge, 2009), 197–200, 197. 9  Itamar Even-Zohar, “Polysystem Theory,” PT 11 (1990): 9–26, 9. 10  Even-Zohar, “Polysystem Theory,” 11–15.

50

chapter 2

of the laws governing the diversity and complexity of phenomena rather than the registration and classification of these phenomena.”11 PST is in essence a theory of culture, but is used most often in the study of literature, and of translations as part of the literary system. After all, translation, as a cultural phenomenon, is a system in and of itself.12 With regard to translation studies, Even-Zohar’s theory marked the transition from studying translations from a static linguistic point of view, focusing on one-for-one equivalence between source text and target text, to studying the position of translated literature as a whole in the historical and literary systems of the target culture.13 DTS builds upon PST. Whereas PST is a broad framework that can be used for the study of different phenomena, DTS is an applied model to study translation. It is a target-oriented approach that offers an inductive method to study individual translations of all kinds on different levels within the literary polysystem.14 A descriptive study of a translation consists of three constitutive parts, which form one complex and interrelated whole: the study of the function, the product, and the process.15 A translation is made to meet a need or fill a slot in the target culture. As such, it should be studied as a fact of the target culture.16 The prospective position and function of a translation within that target culture will determine the textual-linguistic composition of the translation (the product) and govern the strategies used during the production of the translation (the process).17 In that process, the translator serves a social role in the sense that he fulfills a function allotted by a community.18 He operates under a set of norms, that is, different types of constraints that affect the translation.19 In each community, there is a knowledge of what counts as appropriate behavior, including communicative behavior. This knowledge exists in the form of norms, which function intersubjectively as models for behavior to the members of a community. Norms are defined as “the translation of general values or ideas shared by a community—as to what is right 11  Even-Zohar, “Polysystem Theory,” 9. 12  See Itamar Even-Zohar, “The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem,” PT 11 (1990): 45–51. 13  Jeremy Munday, Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications (2nd ed.; London: Routledge, 2008), 122. 14  Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies, 26–27. See also De Crom, “LXX Text of Canticles,” xxix. 15  Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies, 4–8. 16  Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies, 17–34. 17  Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies, 6–7. 18  Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies, 53 (1995) and 62–67 (2012). 19  Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies, 61–77.

Descriptive Translation Studies And Polysystem Theory

51

or wrong, adequate or inadequate—into performance ‘instructions’ appropriate for and applicable to concrete situations.”20 These norms regulate not only individuals’ behavior, but also the expectations concerning the behavior and the products of this behavior.21 Normativity in translation studies implies that the target culture has expectations regarding what a translation should be like, expectations that differed from those regarding non-translated compositions.22 Norms thus play a mediatory role between the socio-cultural context and the ­translation.23 Of major importance is the historical variability of translations, since there are differences across cultures, variation within one culture, and change over time.24 As a result, translations need to be contextualized in order to be studied adequately.25 Τhrough studying the translation process one can gain insight into the norms that governed a translation.26 The preliminary norm relates to the translation policy (i.e., those factors govern the choice of texts to be imported in the target culture) and the directness of translation.27 The so-called “initial norm” refers to the translator’s general attitude, that is, whether the translator subjects himself of herself mainly to the source text (i.e., the adequacy of the translation as a representation of the source text) or is more focused on the target culture (i.e., the acceptability of the translation as a product of the target culture).28 The end result as a whole will always be heterogeneous in this regard,29 since any adequacyoriented translation involves shifts from the source text and any acceptabilityoriented translation will contain a degree of interference from the source text, 20  Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies, 63. This definition of norms is exactly the same in his 1995 edition; see p. 55. 21  Christina Schäffner, “The Concept of Norms in Translation Studies,” in Translation and Norms (ed. Christina Schäffner; Current Issues in Language and Society; Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1999), 1–9, 1. 22  Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies, 72–73. 23  De Crom, “LXX Text of Canticles,” 171. See also Hermans, “Norms and the Determination of Translation,” 29–31; Schäffner, “Concept of Norms,” 5. 24  Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies, 26. 25  Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies, 22–25. 26  Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies, 56–57. 27  Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies, 82. The directness of translation pertains to the tolerance towards translating a text from a language other than the ultimate source language, that is, the language in which the text was composed originally. 28  Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies, 79–81. Note that the concept of an adequacyoriented translation does not undermine the target-oriented approach: it remains a norm in the target culture that governs the attitude towards the source text. 29  Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies, 80.

52

chapter 2

indicating linguistic transfer from the source language to the target language. DTS makes a useful distinction between positive interference, indicating instances in which a “normal” (i.e., in the terminology of this book, natural) item in the target language is used disproportionally often in the translation, because it happens to resemble a feature in the source language, and negative interference, indicating non-normal (i.e., non-natural) items in the target language.30 Operational norms, then, guide the decision-making process during the translation act.31 The starting point of any descriptive study of a translation lies within its function, which has logical priority over the product and the process.32 As a subject of study, however, the position of a translation, as it was initially described, may be no more than tentative and in need of revision as the study of that translation proceeds.33 Consequently, a study of the position of the text leads to a functional hypothesis,34 which can be tested through the study of the product and the process. 2.2 DTS and LXX Studies DTS has been considered a useful framework for LXX studies. In his monograph, Reading Between the Lines, C. Boyd-Taylor has integrated DTS within LXX studies while developing an interlinear paradigm. This may give the impression that DTS and the interlinear paradigm are closely connected.35 BoydTaylor’s study has demonstrated that DTS may offer adequate conceptual tools to study the LXX, but the interlinear paradigm can be questioned. It takes as a point of departure the assumption that “the (prospective) systemic position and function of the typical Septuagintal translation was conceived of as the Greek half of a Greek-Hebrew diglot,”36 which does not work for all LXX books, and is especially unsuitable for the study of OG Job since—using the terminology of a DTS approach—the translator is more oriented towards the target 30  Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies, 311. This difference, too, has been noted by biblical scholars trying to describe the language of the LXX, see, for example, Dines, Septuagint, 117; Coulter H. George, “Jewish and Christian Greek,” in A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language (ed. Egbert J. Bakker; Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World; Oxford: Blackwell, 2010), 267–80. 31  Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies, 82–85. 32  Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies, 14. 33  Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies, 32. 34  Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies, 30. See also De Crom, “LXX Text of Canticles,” xxxiii. 35  See, for example, the discussion in Randall X. Gauthier, Psalms 38 and 145 of the Old Greek Version (VTSup 166; Leiden: Brill, 2014), 41–62. 36  Boyd-Taylor, Reading between the Lines, 101.

Descriptive Translation Studies And Polysystem Theory

53

culture than he is towards the source text.37 In addition, many scholars argue that the LXX translations did stand alone and were understandable within the Greek linguistic system without recourse to the Hebrew.38 Boyd-Taylor’s methodology underlies J. R. Wagner’s recent study on Greek Isaiah, and even though Wagner carefully distinguishes DTS from the interlinear model,39 he does explicitly use a combined framework throughout.40 D. De Crom, in his dissertation on LXX Song of Songs, made a similar observation, namely that the application of DTS to LXX studies does not imply an automatic acceptance of the interlinear paradigm, and he presents the first adoption of DTS in LXX studies without an a priori reference to interlinearity.41 Yet, some issues arise when applying DTS to LXX studies. We will look at the main points of criticism to which DTS itself has been subjected.42 These need to be taken into consideration when building an appropriate model for LXX studies. The difficulties with DTS pertain to the “adequate”/“acceptable” continuum, the issue of the cultural context, and the concept of norms. 2.2.1 Describing Renderings The continuum “adequate”/“acceptable” risks leading to a similar problem as the continuum “literal”/“free.”43 Specifically within DTS, the notion of adequacy is problematic because there is no such thing as a perfectly adequate translation. Boyd-Taylor has therefore attempted to describe aspects of the translation 37  Boyd-Taylor, Reading between the Lines, 393–94 and 428; Wagner, Reading the Sealed Book, 27. In his book on the interlinear paradigm Boyd-Taylor analyzes Job 41:17–26 from a DTS perspective, because, from the viewpoint of interlinearity, OG Job is an “atypical Septuagintal translation” (Boyd-Taylor, Reading between the Lines, 393). 38  Natalio Fernández Marcos, “Reactions to the Panel on Modern Translations,” in X Congress of the IOSCS, 233–40, 235–36; Jan Joosten, “Reflections on the ‘Interlinear Paradigm’ in Septuagintal Studies,” in Scripture in Transition, 163–78, repr. in Collected Studies on the Septuagint: From Language to Interpretation and Beyond (FAT 83; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 225–40, 235–40. 39  Wagner, Reading the Sealed Book, 17. Wagner pointed out that Boyd-Taylor “does not suppose that all—or even most—LXX/OG translations will ultimately be found to be interlinear in nature. What he does claim is that these texts ‘are best characterized in relation to the interlinear translation as a paradigm from which they would have varied according to the specific circumstances of their production’ ” (Wagner, Reading the Sealed Book, 17, citing Boyd-Taylor, Reading between the Lines, 103). 40  Wagner, Reading the Sealed Book, 2–36. 41  De Crom, “LXX Text of Canticles,” xxvii. 42  For a detailed overview and bibliographical reference list, see Munday, Introducing Translation Studies, 110–17. 43  Munday, Introducing Translation Studies, 115–17.

54

chapter 2

in terms of relative acceptability.44 De Crom, in turn, has argued that the concepts of adequacy and acceptability can be maintained, but that one has to be aware of the level on which one is talking about adequacy or acceptability (i.e., the linguistic, textual, or literary level) and of the need for proper contextualization (i.e., what is acceptable to whom and in what context?), in order for these descriptive categories to remain functional.45 The problem, however, is that the levels to which the continuum “adequate”/“acceptable” apply focus solely on aspects of language. Yet one can hypothesize that what can be described as an “adequate” translation from a textual-linguistic or literary point of view might be “acceptable” for a target audience from a broader cultural point of view. The linguistically “adequate” translation of Aquila is a case in point. The “adequacy” of his translation was a desired feature in the context of a rejection of previous LXX translations that were deemed too “acceptable.” This is what A. Chesterman calls “pragmatic appropriateness.”46 If one cannot avoid having to use such descriptors, Hermans, in turn, prefers to use “target text oriented” and “source text oriented,”47 but as he aptly states: “If translating is a socio-cultural activity, as the norms concept suggests, there seems little point in trying to conceptualize it in terms of a choice along a single axis.”48 This realization opens the way to a multidimensional explanation of translational phenomena, that is, the recognition that various explanations, often acting simultaneously, generate the phenomena we encounter in a translation.49 An appropriate theoretical model for the study at hand should approach translation as a socio-cultural activity and leave room for multicausality as a way of looking at the data. 2.2.2 Language and Culture With the discussion of “adequacy” and “acceptability,” two other related issues arise. First, Toury argues that one should rely on the insights of linguistic 44  Boyd-Taylor, Reading between the Lines, 68–71. 45  De Crom, “LXX Text of Canticles,” 181–82. 46  Andrew Chesterman, “From ‘Is’ to ‘Ought’: Laws, Norms and Strategies in Translation Studies,” Target 5 (1993): 1–20, 10. 47  Theo Hermans, “Revisiting the Classics: Toury’s Empiricism Version One,” The Translator 1 (1995): 215–23, 218. 48  Theo Hermans, Translation in Systems: Descriptive and Systemic Approaches Explained (Translation Theories Explained 7; Manchester: St. Jerome, 1999), 76. 49  Siobhan Brownlie, “Investigating Explanations of Translational Phenomena: A Case for Multiple Causality,” Target 15 (2003): 111–52, 111.

Descriptive Translation Studies And Polysystem Theory

55

translation theory to study the product and the process.50 A linguistic study underexposes the impact of socio-cultural factors as well as of the translator’s abilities.51 In other words, DTS risks neglecting the connections between the product under investigation and aspects related to the setting in which it came about. Taking into account more contextually oriented approaches to translation studies is, therefore, useful.52 Second, DTS is a framework developed for the study of modern literature. It presupposes a thorough knowledge of the source and target cultures, which is evidently problematic when it comes to the field of LXX studies. Moreover, DTS applies a strict distinction between source culture and target culture.53 We thus encounter the same problem as we have come across earlier when discussing previous characterizations of OG Job in terms of “Hellenization.”54 Although they were written in different languages, Hebrew Job and OG Job both remain Jewish in cultural outlook. As such, language and culture cannot be equated. Since the LXX translations are a cultural artefact of Hellenistic Judaism, we may question whether it is possible to uphold the view of a text travelling from a homogeneous Hebrew context to a homogeneous Greek context, when in fact both the Hebrew and Greek milieus are part of one, albeit hybrid, culture.55 Hence, contextualization becomes all the more important. 50  Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies, 85. 51  Munday, Introducing Translation Studies, 115. 52  Munday, Introducing Translation Studies, 115. See in particular the seminal volume by Susan Bassnett and André Lefevere, eds., Translation, History, Culture (London: Pinter, 1990). This goes hand in hand with the observation that early applications of PST— albeit fundamentally a theory of culture—focused on the study of literature as a relatively autonomous system. More recent studies have focused on the connections of the literary system and other semiotic systems, which is, in fact, implied in PST (see chapter 2). 53  Reine Meylaerts, “La traduction dans la culture multilingue: À la recherche des sources, des cibles et des territoires,” Target 16 (2004): 289–317; Anthony Pym, Method in Translation History (Manchester: St. Jerome, 1998), passim. 54  See above. Compare also Gerleman, Job, 34: “The translation of a text from one language to another involves eo ipso to some extent a transposition of the entire cultural milieu.” 55  De Crom, “LXX Text of Canticles,” 144. See also Dorival, Harl, and Munnich, La Bible grecque, 254–59 (the section is entitled “Y a-t-il eu ‘hellénisation’ de la Bible hébraïque lors de son passage dans la language grecque?”). See also Bhabha, The Location of Culture, 5: “The very concepts of homogenous national cultures, the consensual or contiguous transmission of historical traditions, or ‘organic’ ethnic communities—as the grounds of cultural comparativism—are in a profound process of redefinition” (italics original). Even though the author writes with modern cultures in mind, this statement is also applicable to our approach to Hellenistic Judaism.

56

chapter 2

At this point, the introduction of A. Pym’s notion of “interculturality” becomes relevant: [T]he term “interculture” [refers] to beliefs and practices found in intersections or overlaps of cultures, where people combine something of two or more cultures at once. (…) [I]nterculturality is not to be confused with the fact that many cultures can be found within the one society or political unit (the term for which is multiculturality), nor with the fact that things can move from one culture to another (which should be referred to as “crosscultural” transfer).56 Pym himself referred briefly to the LXX translation as an instance of interculture.57 The Hellenistic context in which the LXX came about was a multicultural one, and crosscultural transfer could have taken place. The translation of the LXX, however, cannot be described as the transition from a fundamentally Jewish culture to a fundamentally Greek culture, as we have seen. Judaism in the Hellenistic era was evolving, at least in part due to contact with Hellenistic-Greek culture, but the subculture of Greek-speaking Jews simultaneously constitutes a factual component of Hellenistic culture.58 The LXX translators would have operated in what can be regarded as an intercultural space. They were active in a Hellenistic Jewish setting in which they translated a Jewish text from Hebrew to Greek. In other words, the LXX remained Jewish literature,59 written in Greek, in a context of cultural plurality which characterized the Hellenistic world. LXX studies is in need of a theoretical model which allows for such a complexity more naturally than DTS does. 56  Pym, Method in Translation History, 177. Toury responded to Pym’s notion of interculture in his revised edition of Descriptive Translation Studies: “What is totally unthinkable is a translation that hovers in limbo between cultures, sometimes referred to as an ‘interculture’ (…). As long as a (hypothetical) interculture has not developed into an autonomous (target!) systemic entity, e.g., in processes analogous to pidginization and creolization, it is necessarily part of an existing system” (p. 23). This statement implies that Toury continues to equate language and culture, which is fundamentally problematic. 57  Pym, Method in Translation History, 72. 58  The way in which these terms will be used in the course of this study will be discussed in chapter 2. 59  At this point, it is indispensible to briefly address what I refer to by the term “Jewish literature.” A maximalist perspective would see Jewish literature as everything written by Jews. A minimalist approach would take only those writings into account in which specifically Jewish themes are discussed. By way of a middle road, we may define Jewish literature as any writings used in a Jewish situation or expressing a Jewish identity.

Descriptive Translation Studies And Polysystem Theory

57

2.2.3 Norms According to Toury, one can identify norms on the basis of the collection of verbal statements by actors or of the observation of behavior through the texts.60 With regard to the majority of the LXX corpus, we do not have such verbal statements at our disposal.61 The only extant external information regarding LXX translations is embedded in sources such as the Letter of Aristeas, the historical value of which is doubtful, and the Prologue to the LXX translation of Ben Sira, which will be discussed in more detail below. For the book of Job specifically, there are no sources. Consequently, we can only look at the Greek text of Job itself, but we are then confronted with the problem of the lack of an exact source text to which we can compare the Greek translation. Toury did establish the importance of norms for translation studies, leading to a substantial corpus of literature on the subject.62 Nevertheless, his conceptualization of the notion is problematic.63 An important criticism towards Toury’s proposed set of norms is that they focus too much on the translator, leaving out socio-culturally determined elements.64 It would lead us too far astray to discuss this issue in detail. Rather, we may focus on what norms essentially are. When translating, a translator continually has to make decisions on how to render the source text. For every individual translation problem or source text, one can envisage a whole range of possible or theoretical solutions or target texts (i.e., all what the translation can be).65 The translator cannot go about the task freely, as there are culture-bound constraints (i.e., notions what 60  Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies, 87–89. 61  See, for example, Abraham Wasserstein and David J. Wasserstein, The Legend of the Septuagint: From Classical Antiquity to Today (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). 62  Toury’s 2012 revision of his 1995 book pertained mostly to the concept of norms. He has incorporated a lot of the criticism and revision into his work, but the question of how to study translational norms within a DTS framework (see Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies, 87–92) remains problematic for LXX studies. 63  See Mona Baker, “Norms,” in Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, 189–93; Schäffner, “Concept of Norms,” 1: the value of norms “has been both asserted strongly and called into question.” See also Siobhan Brownlie, “Investigating Norms,” in Translation and the (Re)location of Meaning: Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminars in Translation Studies 1994–1996 (ed. Jeroen Vandaele; Leuven, Belgium: CETRA, 1999), 7–21; Munday, Introducing Translation Studies, 118. 64  Hermans, Translation in Systems, 79. 65  Dirk Delabastita, “Status, Origin, Features: Translation and beyond,” in Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies: Investigations in Homage to Gideon Toury (ed. Anthony Pym, Miriam Shlesinger, and Daniel Simeoni; Benjamins Translation Library; Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2008), 233–46, 234.

58

chapter 2

the translation should be), namely norms.66 Norms regulate and negotiate between what must be said (prescribed behavior), what may be said (tolerated or permitted behavior), and what may not be said at all (forbidden behavior).67 These norms are acquired by a translator in the process of socialization, that is, an individual’s lifelong process of appropriating habits, conventions, values, and ideologies.68 Moreover, especially in the past, translators were often simultaneously scribes, scholars, teachers, lawyers, and so on. Therefore, insight is needed into the translators’ “various and variable internalization of broader social, cultural, political and linguistic structures.”69 Next, during the translation process, there is an ongoing tension between the norms acquired by the translator and his or her own individuality.70 The translation itself shows the empirical discursive practice, namely, what the translation actually is.71 Cultural systems are complex and dynamic, and translation is anchored in several systems at once. Therefore, at any given time, there are a variety of competing, conflicting, and overlapping norms pertaining to a whole array of other social domains.72 Determining norms on the basis of the observation of behavior is, however, a difficult task due to the complexity of human activity, which is characterized by varied and irregular behavior. Even though norms can accommodate a large variation in behavior, the same data might be interpreted in different ways. As a result, the formulation of an interpretation of the data by a researcher is not the same as the actual functioning of the norm effectively guiding actions in particular situations. It has therefore been argued that it is desirable to see norms as broadly as possible.73 In a working model suitable for the study of LXX translations, an open conceptualization of norms is required in order to be able to explain the wide 66  Delabastita, “Status, Origin, Features,” 234. 67  Delabastita, “Status, Origin, Features,” 234; Hermans, “Norms and the Determination of Translation,” 39–40; Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies, 63–64. See also De Crom, “LXX Text of Canticles,” 183–84. 68  Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies, 62–67. See also Reine Meylaerts, “Translators and (their) Norms: Towards a Sociological Construction of the Individual,” in Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies, 91–102; Daniel Simeoni, “The Pivotal Status of the Translator’s Habitus,” Target 10 (1998): 1–39. 69  Meylaerts, “Translators and (their) Norms,” 91–102, 95. 70  Meylaerts, “Translators and (their) Norms,” 92; Simeoni, “The Pivotal Status,” 23. 71  Delabastita, “Status, Origin, Features,” 234. 72  Hermans, “Norms and the Determination of Translation,” 39. See also Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies, 76–77. 73  Brownlie, “Investigating Norms,” 7–21; Hermans, “Norms and the Determination of Translation,” 34–36.

Descriptive Translation Studies And Polysystem Theory

59

variety of translational phenomena that are exhibited by these translated texts. It is also important to be able to pay attention to the socio-cultural elements that influence the translation precisely because we have so little information about the translator. 2.3 The Causal Model In short, when dealing with LXX translations, DTS raises the right questions but does not offer the appropriate tools to provide the answers. We cannot simply describe the characteristics of OG Job and explain them on the basis of a framework of a linguistically oriented “adequacy”/“acceptability” continuum. Rather, we are invited to take into account the multidimensionality of the translation act, which needs to be properly contextualized. The recognition that one translational phenomenon can have multiple explanations has become an important criterion in modern translation studies.74 An apt plea for the adoption of a multidimensional model in LXX studies has already been made by some scholars.75 A more elaborate theoretical model that takes into account the criticisms directed towards DTS by paying more attention to socio-cultural factors may be found in Chesterman’s so-called causal model for translation studies,76 which was recently applied to the study of the Peshitta of Hosea.77 The main issue with this model, too, is that it is a recently developed framework accommodating the study of modern translations. This model benefits from the fact that 74  Brownlie, “Investigating Explanations,” 111–52; Andrew Chesterman, “Causes, Translations, Effects,” Target 10 (1998): 201–30; Andrew Chesterman, “On Explanation,” in Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies, 363–81, 375–76; Pym, Method in Translation History, passim. 75  James K. Aitken, “Neologisms: A Septuagint Problem,” in Interested Readers: Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honour of D. J. A. Clines (ed. James K. Aitken, Jeremy M. S. Clines, and Christl M. Maier; Atlanta, Ga.: SBL Press, 2013), 315–29, 328–29; James K. Aitken, “The Origins of KAI GE,” in Biblical Greek in Context: Essays in Honour of John A. L. Lee (ed. James K. Aitken and Trevor V. Evans; BTS; Leuven: Peeters, 2015), 21–40; Mulroney, Translation Style of Old Greek Habakkuk, 41–45; Carsten Ziegert, “Das Buch Ruth in der Septuaginta als Modell für eine integrative Übersetzungstechnik,” Bib 89 (2008): 221–51. 76  Andrew Chesterman, “A Causal Model for Translation Studies,” in Textual and Cognitive Aspects (ed. Maeve Olohan; vol. 1 of Intercultural Faultlines: Research Models in Translation Studies; Manchester: St. Jerome, 2000), 15–28 (diagram on p. 20). 77  Eric J. Tully, The Translation and Translator of the Peshitta of Hosea (Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Amsterdam 21; Leiden: Brill, 2015). The author did adopt Chesterman’s causal model, seeing it as an elaboration on Toury’s DTS model, but ignored any criticism by Chesterman or other translation scholars regarding the concept of norms as formulated by Toury.

60

chapter 2

significantly more information is available on the identity and social context of the translator,78 the initiator, the source text, the target audience, etc. of modern translations. Conversely, within the study of ancient translations, such as the LXX, the ability to reach safely grounded conclusions on these social contextual aspects is hindered by the limited availability of historical evidence.79 Not only is our knowledge of the origins of the LXX translations mainly based on hypotheses, but also the lack of a definitive source text and the availability of only an approximation of the target text are issues that LXX scholars need to accommodate. A more flexible approach is therefore required. In my opinion, our limited knowledge regarding the origins of the translation of OG Job prevents us from adopting this model fully. We do not know any details about the translation event of OG Job. We can only contextually approach the translator’s state of knowledge and make speculations regarding his changing mood throughout the translation process.80 We know something about the reception of OG Job on the basis of the existence of revisions or new translations by later Jewish translators such as Theodotion, Symmachus, and Aquila, and of patristic commentaries, but we do not know much about the reception of OG Job by contemporary readers from the first century bce. Focusing on such unknown elements leads us away from what we can know on the basis of the study of the translated text. In other words, the field of LXX studies is characterized by specific problems that approaches derived from modern translation studies often do not consider. This does not imply that we do not stand to gain from taking insights from modern translation studies such as DTS into account throughout our own studies, but that the application of one readily provided theoretical model derived from modern translation studies is not always desirable. Since the questions posed by DTS are the ones that this study is asking regarding OG Job, and since the framework of thought developed by DTS goes back to a systemic way of thinking, I argue for a return to the basis of DTS, namely PST. This would allow us to adopt a suitable target-oriented 78  Nowadays, translators are often professionals. See Christine Nord, Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained (3rd ed.; Manchester: St. Jerome, 2007) for a passim overview of how modern translation theories are developed mainly against the background of a professional context. 79  See also Van der Louw, Transformations, 20–21. 80  Speculation regarding the translator getting tired or lazy has been used as an argument to explain the increasing percentage of minuses in the book, see Dhorme, Job, clxii; Fernández Marcos, “Septuagint Reading,” 262–63. This phenomenon has, however, been explained by other scholars in different ways, such as the elimination of repetitive arguments, see Cox, “Job,” 387; Gray, “Additions,” 425.

Descriptive Translation Studies And Polysystem Theory

61

approach, and at the same time helps us avoid the methodological pitfalls that are associated with DTS as an application of PST. 3

Polysystem Theory

3.1 Back to Basics Within PST, literature is regarded not as an isolated activity in society but as an integral (and often powerful) factor within it.81 Like any socio-semiotic system, literature can be conceived of as a heterogeneous, open structure. It is a so-called polysystem, “a multiple system, a system of various systems which intersect with each other and partly overlap, using concurrently different options, yet functioning as one structured whole, whose members are interdependent.”82 This means that literature as a polysystem is a complex of (sub)systems that influence one another but that are in themselves likewise related to and influenced by other polysystems, such as cultural, social, educational, and political systems.83 Any concrete cultural artefact, such as a text, is an actual constituent of a specific polysystem.84 To study a phenomenon as a system is to focus on the relations that structure the system and that are mainly conceptualized as oppositions, such as center/periphery, primary repertoire/secondary repertoire, or canonized/non-canonized. a) Center and periphery—The (sub)systems within a polysystem are not equal, but hierarchized within the polysystem. There is a permanent tension between the various strata, which determines the system’s synchronic state. Since a system is heterogeneous, there is a competition among the strata for dominance. Change on the diachronic axis is caused by a growing prevalence 81  Itamar Even-Zohar, “Introduction,” PT 11 (1990): 1–6, 2. 82  Itamar Even-Zohar, “Polysystem Theory (Revised),” in Papers in Cultural Research (Tel Aviv: Unit of Culture Research, Tel Aviv University, 2010), 40–50, 42. Cited 10 March 2017. Online: http://www.tau.ac.il/~itamarez/works/books/EZ-CR-2005_2010.pdf. 83  Philippe Codde, “Polysystem Theory Revisited: A New Comparative Introduction,” PT 24 (2003): 91–126, 112 rightfully points out that this leads to infinity: “The postulated characteristics of the polysystem’s intra-relations also extend to the inter-relations between the polysystem and the adjacent polysystems. For if one generalizes the relationships among the various subsystems of a particular polysystem, one arrives at the idea of a ‘megapolysystem’, consisting of various polysystems belonging to different cultures. Needless to say, these notions hurl one toward infinity, as every subsystem of a polysystem is in itself a polysystem consisting of several polysystemic (sub)systems, while every megapolysystem is the subsystem of a still larger entity.” 84  Even-Zohar, “Polysystem Theory (Revised),” 45.

62

chapter 2

of one set of systemic options over another. Systemic options may be driven away from the center to a more marginal position, while others may become central. Within a polysystem, more than one center can be hypothesized.85 By way of illustration, we may consider the existence of different genres within the contemporary literary polysystem. Children’s literature is peripheral when compared to adult literature. For example, up until this day, the Nobel Prize for Literature has not been awarded to a writer of children’s literature. Children’s literature, however, forms a subsystem of itself, in which certain authors or works are more central than others. The works of J. K. Rowling, for example, have had a major influence on this subsystem and the broader literary system. Rowling’s books have affected the publishing industry, promoting fantasy literature for children as well as for adults. b) Primary and secondary repertoire—A repertoire is defined as “the aggregate of rules and materials which govern both the making and handling, or production and consumption of any given product.”86 The repertoire includes all norms, behaviors, and policies that govern the production of written texts. For instance, in the fourteenth century, Italian poets such as Giacomo da Lentini and Petrarch laid out the rules of composition for the production of a sonnet, a poem consisting of fourteen lines with a strict rhyme scheme and structure. The opposition between primary and secondary is that of innovativeness and conservatism in the repertoire. If all texts derived from an established repertoire are constructed in full accordance with what the repertoire allows, the repertoire (and the system) are conservative, that is, secondary. Every individual product of the system will then be highly predictable, and deviations will be considered outrageous. By introducing new elements, a repertoire can be augmented and restructured, resulting in less predictable products. This is an expression of an innovatory or primary repertoire. The condition for the functionality of these primary models is the discontinuity of established models (or elements of them). Even-Zohar notes that this is a purely historical notion: “It does not take long for any ‘primary’ model, once it is admitted into the center of the (…) system, to become ‘secondary.’ ”87 The concept of a repertoire assumes the existence of shared knowledge and values within a system. An example may be found in twentieth century literature. In the 1960s, 85  Even-Zohar, “Polysystem Theory (Revised),” 44; Codde, “Polysystem Theory Revisited,” 102. 86  Itamar Even-Zohar, “Factors and Dependencies in Culture,” in Papers in Cultural Research, 15–34, 17. 87  Even-Zohar, “Polysystem Theory,” 21. See also Codde, “Polysystem Theory Revisited,” 99–100.

Descriptive Translation Studies And Polysystem Theory

63

contemporary literature had been characterized by realism. Realism had dominated literary fictional writing to the extent that critics started to address the “exhausted possibility.”88 The possibilities authors had within the genre were used up. In other words, realism had become secondary in the literary system. The literary stock needed replenishment, or in other words, innovation. This came about in the literary movement of magical realism. The inclusion of fantastic elements can at this point be described as a primary repertoire.89 c) Canonicity—Components of a repertoire tend to cluster around social statuses. Canonicity traditionally pertains to the distinction between “highlevel” and “low-level” literature. The British literary polysystem includes works of authors such as Julian Barnes and David Mitchell, who are accepted as “literature” by the dominant circles of the culture, as opposed to romantic fiction such as Mills & Boon novels, which are non-canonical. For Even-Zohar, the center of a polysystem is equal to the most prestigious canonized repertoire.90 P. Codde, however, elaborates on this notion, pointing out that the canonical status of models is not related to a central, influential position in the literary system. For example, a Shakespearean sonnet is clearly canonical in Western literature, in the sense that it enjoys cultural prestige, but no longer serves as a model for the production of contemporary texts and is as such no longer central.91 Codde suggests eliminating the notion of canonicity, since PST is not interested in questions of canon formation but in models that influence the production of new texts, thus focusing on centrality alone.92 The center is prone to ossification and automatization and needs renewal through elements penetrating from the periphery. The openness of any system means that it is continually subject to change, which is what allows a system to survive.93 If no change is permitted, a system can either be gradually

88  John Barth, “The Literature of Exhaustion,” in The Friday Book: Essays and Other NonFiction (Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984), 62–76 (first printed in The Atlantic in 1967). 89  See, for example, Richard Todd, “Convention and Innovation in British Fiction 1981–1984: The Contemporaneity of Magic Realism,” in Convention and Innovation in Literature (ed. Theo D’Haen, Rainer Grübel, and Helmut Lethen; Utrecht Publications in General and Comparative Literature 24; Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1989), 361–88. 90  Even-Zohar, “Polysystem Theory (Revised),” 47. 91  Codde, “Polysystem Theory Revisited,” 103. 92  Codde, “Polysystem Theory Revisited,” 104. 93  Handling an open system is more difficult than handling a closed one, and therefore, the level of exhaustiveness in any analysis conducted within a PST framework may be more limited. See Even-Zohar, “Polysystem Theory (Revised),” 42. On the dynamics of

64

chapter 2

abandoned or collapse altogether.94 It is important to be aware of the fact that the primary/secondary opposition does not correspond to the central/peripheral opposition. Central repertoires tend to be consolidated and, therefore, secondary, attempting to maintain their position by blocking out innovative, threatening elements. The peripheral elements tend to be marked by dynamic innovation.95 The only necessary condition for change is the availability of an alternative repertoire.96 Translated literature is an integral system within any literary polysystem.97 It behaves as a system in the way the target culture selects works for translation and in the way translation norms and behavior are influenced by other co-systems.98 Although generally located at the periphery of the broader literary system,99 translations may occupy a central position in the broader literary system, (a) when a polysystem has not yet been crystallized, that is to say, when a literature is “young,” in the process of being established; (b) when a literature is either “peripheral” (within a large group of correlated literatures) or “weak,” or both; and (c) when there are turning points, crises, or literary vacuums in a literature.100 In translation research inspired by PST, which operates with mutually exclusive terms, it is important to always pay attention to context and not to be blind to ambivalent, hybrid, unstable, mobile, or overlapping elements that might escape binary classification.101 Furthermore, polysystemic studies have been accused of a lack of interest in the socio-cultural context,102 but this is a the system, see also Itamar Even-Zohar, “System, Dynamics, and Interference in Culture: A Synoptic View,” PT 11 (1990): 85–94. 94  Codde, “Polysystem Theory Revisited,” 105; Even-Zohar, “Polysystem Theory (Revised),” 46–47 and 49–50. 95  Codde, “Polysystem Theory Revisited,” 105. 96  Codde, “Polysystem Theory Revisited,” 106. 97  Even-Zohar, “The Position of Translated Literature Within the Literary Polysystem,” PT 11 (1990): 45–51, 46. 98  Munday, Introducing Translation Studies, 108. 99  Even-Zohar, “Position of Translated Literature,” 45–52. 100  Even-Zohar, “Position of Translated Literature,” 47. 101  See Hermans, Translation in Systems, 119. 102  This criticism was formulated by, most importantly, Pierre Bourdieu; see, for example, Pierre Bourdieu, The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature (ed. Randal Johnson; Cambridge: Polity Press, 1993), 33.

Descriptive Translation Studies And Polysystem Theory

65

problem of specific studies using PST, and not of the framework as such. Taking this into account, PST may be regarded as an approach which can account for the behavior and evolution of a literary system in an adequate, nuanced way.103 3.2 PST and LXX Studies PST is not as much a model to study texts as it is a way to think about a text in its context, providing a framework to structure thought and argument. It offers a framework to conceptualize the literary context in which to situate the LXX, which is particularly useful when we rely on questionable hypotheses because we lack linguistic or other factual evidence. PST allows us to approach any translation functionally as part of a network of texts and in relation to other cultural phenomena.104 It enables us to consider the corpus of Jewish-Greek writings as a whole, and not in terms of binary oppositions such as Judaism and Hellenism. Rather than focusing on JewishGreek literature as a static corpus, PST approaches it as a dynamic system. This allows for a clearer explanation of the relation between literature and other aspects of culture such as religion, history, politics, education, and so on—all of which can be conceptualized as polysystems. Gaining insight into the different relations that structure the literary polysystem to which OG Job belongs will allow for a nuanced, multicausal description of a wide variety of translational features as witnessed by a text which came about in a multicultural environment. Moreover, PST allows for the incorporation of insights from other fields, such as sociolinguistics, from which the field of LXX studies stands to gain. The flexibility and relative freedom from a priori structures makes PST a suitable framework. It is precisely in this regard that at least for the present study, PST is preferable over DTS as an applied methodology. Due to the limited framework of this research and its focus on OG Job, this book will represent a frame of reference that calls for further elaboration and refinement of the use of PST in LXX studies and, as such, opens up new paths of investigation.

103   See Dirk De Geest, “The Notion of ‘System’: Its Theoretical Importance and Its Methodological Implications for a Functionalist Translation Theory,” in Geschichte, System, Literarische Übersetzung/Histories, Systems, Literary Translations (ed. Harald Kittel; Berlin: Erich Schmidt, 1992), 32–45; Moira Cowie and Mark Shuttleworth, Dictionary of Translation Studies (London: Routledge, 1997), 127. 104  Reflections on the relevance and sustainability of PST for all fields of cultural studies can be found in Codde, “Polysystem Theory Revisited,” 91–126; Chang Nam Fung, “Towards a Macro‐Polysystem Hypothesis,” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 8 (2000): 109–23.

chapter 3

The Jewish-Greek Polysystem 1

The Literary Polysystem of the Septuagint

PST has been applied to bodies of ancient literature occassionally in the past.1 It has not yet been applied to the study of the LXX specifically in any systematic way. However, since PST provided the basis for DTS, scholars who have studied the LXX within the methodological framework of DTS have at times touched upon PST, usually by hypothesizing about the source and/or target culture in which the LXX is to be situated. The first noteworthy attempt at approaching the LXX from a systemic perspective can be attributed to Boyd-Taylor. Regarding the source and target cultures of the LXX translations, he writes the following: For a source culture, we may hypothesize a circle whose education stemmed primarily from Hebrew school traditions and whose literary system consists of Semitic texts. For a target culture, let us hypothesize a circle of non-Hebrew readers, whose education was indebted to Greek school traditions and whose literary system included the Greek literary canon.2 Though Boyd-Taylor acknowledges the possibility of an intercultural position for the translators of the LXX,3 he does not do so for the target audience. He does move on to posit a fundamentally Jewish target audience,4 and even describes the development of a Jewish-Greek literary system,5 in which the LXX

1  See Steven Fraade, “Locating Targum in the Textual Polysystem of Rabbinic Pedagogy,” BIOSCS 39 (2006): 69–91; Orly Goldwasser, “Literary Late Egyptian as a Polysystem,” PT 13 (1992): 447–62. See also Teeter, Scribal Laws, who touches upon PST towards the end of his book to explain exegetical variation in scribal traditions. His use of PST will be discussed in more detail in chapter 9. 2  Boyd-Taylor, Reading between the Lines, 326. 3  Boyd-Taylor, Reading between the Lines, 326–27. 4  Boyd-Taylor, Reading between the Lines, 326–27. 5  Boyd-Taylor, Reading between the Lines, 319–24.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi ��.��63/9789004358492_005

The Jewish-greek Polysystem

67

Pentateuch took a central position.6 Yet, the relationship between language and culture in his hypothesis remains fundamentally unclear. Moreover, the layout of this Jewish-Greek system as well as its dynamics in terms of interand intrarelations within the Hellenistic macrosystem remain without further elaboration. Even though Boyd-Taylor briefly situates the translation of the LXX Pentateuch within the context of the phenomenon of translation in antiquity,7 he does not bring this into conversation with the subsequent development of the Jewish-Greek system and LXX translations. The question of the centrality of the LXX Pentateuch within the Greco-Jewish system requires more attention,8 as does the development of the system itself. Specifically regarding his description of OG Job, it is unclear how that which Boyd-Taylor calls a “literary” translation within the target culture (i.e., a Hellenistic audience9) fits within a specific system in which the Pentateuch would have been the literary center. In his dissertation on LXX Song of Songs, De Crom presents a more nuanced approach to the Hellenistic polysystem in which to situate the LXX books: When speaking of the Hellenistic polysystem, I am therefore referring to the conglomerate of literatures that emerged during the Hellenistic age (i.e., from the end of the fourth century bce onwards). Greek literature was the unchallenged dominant force in this polysystem, influencing and being influenced by both emerging literary systems (e.g. Latin) and longstanding traditions (e.g. Hebrew, Egyptian), in addition to concomitant lower-level processes such as the interaction of Hebrew and Aramaic.10 De Crom’s perspective provides room for the multilingual situation of the Jews in the Hellenistic age. He acknowledges explicitly that there is no one-for-one relationship between language and culture in Hellenistic Judaism.11 This idea clearly resonates in his study. Within the Hellenistic macro-polysystem, the phenomenon of translation into Greek forms a subpolysystem of its own. 6  Boyd-Taylor, Reading between the Lines, 337. It can be added that Boyd-Taylor does not distinguish between the canon and the center of a literary system which may lead to confusion (see, for example, p. 337). 7  Boyd-Taylor, Reading between the Lines, 328–36. 8  Boyd-Taylor, Reading between the Lines, 336–41. 9  Boyd-Taylor, Reading between the Lines, 424–25. 10  De Crom, “LXX Text of Canticles,” 101–2. 11  De Crom, “LXX Text of Canticles,” 146.

68

chapter 3

Any translation or translator has (positive or negative) connections with other translations and translators.12 De Crom aptly conceptualizes the Hellenistic macrosystem as a conglomerate of literary systems in which the phenomenon of translation into Greek forms a subsystem of its own. One example of such a subsystem is Hebrew-Greek translations, to which the translated books of the LXX belong.13 De Crom, like Boyd-Taylor, places the translation of the LXX Pentateuch in the context of translation in antiquity.14 One difficulty is that both scholars rely on the studies of E. J. Brickerman, C. Rabin, and S. P. Brock to do so.15 While these contributions were important landmarks in the contextualization of LXX translations, Bickerman’s and Rabin’s studies especially are often rejected in contemporary scholarship, mainly because of their tendency to make assumptions regarding a translator’s behavior without sufficient evidence.16 Therefore, after recognizing these weaknesses, De Crom comes to the following conclusion:

12  Lambert and Van Gorp, “On Describing Translations,” 45. 13  De Crom, “LXX Text of Canticles,” 117–61. 14  See respectively Boyd-Taylor, Reading between the Lines, 328–36 and De Crom, “LXX Text of Canticles,” 117–61. 15  Elias J. Bickerman, “The Septuagint as a Translation,” PAAJR 28 (1959): 1–39; Sebastian P. Brock, “To Revise or not to Revise: Attitudes to Jewish Biblical Translation,” in Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings: Papers Presented to the International Symposium on the Septuagint and its Relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Writings (Manchester, 1990) (ed. George J. Brooke and Barnabas Lindars; SBLSCS 33; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1992), 301–38; Sebastian P. Brock, “The Phenomenon of Biblical Translation in Antiquity,” Alta 2 (1969): 96–102, repr. in Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations (ed. Sidney Jellicoe; Library of Biblical Studies; New York: Ktav, 1974), 541–71; Sebastian P. Brock, “Aspects of Translation Technique in Antiquity,” GRBS 20 (1979): 69–87; Chaim Rabim, “The Translation Process and the Character of the Septuagint,” Textus 6 (1968): 1–26. 16  James K. Aitken, “The Septuagint and Egyptian Translation Methods,” in XV Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Munich 2013 (ed. Martin Meiser and Michaël N. van der Meer; SBLSCS 64; Atlanta, Ga.: SBL Press, 2016), 269–94. See also Benjamin G. E. Wright, “The Jewish Scriptures in Greek: The Septuagint in the Context of Ancient Translation Activity,” in Biblical Translation in Context (ed. Frederick W. Knobloch; Studies and Texts in Jewish History and Culture 10; Bethesda, Md.: University of Maryland Press, 2002), 3–18, repr. in Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction: Essays on Ben Sira and Wisdom, the Letter of Aristeas and the Septuagint (JSJSupp 131; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 197–212.

The Jewish-greek Polysystem

69

We may not know why LXX Pentateuch was translated in the way that it was, but for all subsequent translations we have to take into account the fact that they were not made into a vacuum. In other words, HebrewGreek translations can be said to have developed their own normativity.17 The translation of the LXX Pentateuch, however, was not made in a vacuum. It was already governed by a normativity, namely that of translations from other languages into Greek. Recently, Aitken has pointed out the existence of connections between the translation methods of Egyptian documentary texts into Greek and the translation methods of the LXX.18 He listed the following translation features of Egyptian texts into Greek, which can be found in different LXX books as well:19 a lack of connective particles; a high degree of equivalence (consistent vocabulary and translation equivalents); reflection of the source text’s word order; omission or abbreviation; the use of everyday Koine Greek (i.e., the common language of the Greek-speaking world all over the Mediterranean during the Hellenistic age);20 frequent use of transliterations;21 stereotyped translation of prepositions; the rendering of lists in such a way that the repeated use of copula might be unnatural Greek or that the first word is in a different case, as required by the syntax of the Greek sentence, whereas the following elements are in the nominative; context-sensitive renderings; attempts at literary embellishment. By way of summary, Aitken states that the Egyptian translations “reflect a method of close adherence to the source text

17  De Crom, “LXX Text of Canticles,” 135. 18  This was briefly addressed by Sebastian P. Brock, “The Phenomenon of the Septuagint,” OtSt 17 (1972): 11–36, but elaborated on most importantly by James K. Aitken, “The Language of the Septuagint and Jewish-Greek Identity,” in The Jewish-Greek Tradition, 120–34, 127. See also Rachel Mairs and Cary J. Martin, “A Bilingual ‘Sale’ of Liturgies from the Archive of the Theban Choachytes: P.Berlin. 5507, P.Berlin. 3098 and P.Leiden 413,” Enchoria 31 (2008–2009): 22–67; Michael E. Stone, Ancient Judaism: New Visions and Views (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2011), 181. 19  Aitken, “Egyptian Translation Methods,” 269–94. 20  Koine is based on colloquial Attic with some input of other dialects, primarily Ionian. See Geoffrey Horrocks, Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers (2nd ed.; West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, 2010), 32–42; Anssi Voitila, “Septuagint Syntax and Hellenistic Greek,” in Die Sprache der Septuaginta, 93–102, 93. 21  Aitken describes this as code-switching in order to maintain Egyptian identity and express the Egyptian nature of the legal issues through Greek language, comparable to the way transliterations in the LXX Pentateuch are primarily used for institutions or realia that have no obvious equivalent in Greek.

70

chapter 3

in word order, lexical consistency, phrasing, and parataxis,”22 which is how the translation of the LXX Pentateuch can be characterized, too. The translations from Egyptian into Greek discussed by Aitken date back to the second century bce, whereas the Pentateuch is generally dated to the third century bce.23 The translation approaches we find in these texts are nonetheless similar. There is little reason to doubt that the methods seen in these Egyptian texts were practiced a century earlier, when translation was already a necessary daily activity in Egypt. It is likely that a translation approach will not have changed much for texts that did not have an extensive literary afterlife, which the Pentateuch did have.24 The above does not imply that the translators of the LXX Pentateuch were necessarily familiar with any translated texts from Egyptian into Greek. It does imply that there was an awareness of what a translation into Greek could and/or should look like.25 Ascribing such a translation approach to a so-called “easy technique” of translating would therefore not give an entirely adequate representation of the question. The term “easy technique” denotes the fact that many translational phenomena were the result of the LXX translators going about their work without a conscious policy, searching for the easiest way to render their source text.26 Within a systemic framework, however, the notion 22  Aitken, “Egyptian Translation Methods,” 292. 23  On the date, see, among many others, Anneli Aejmelaeus, “The Septuagint and Oral Translation,” in XIV Congress of the IOSCS, 5–14, 13; Arie van der Kooij, “The Septuagint of the Pentateuch,” in Law, Prophets, and Wisdom, 15–62; Fernández Marcos, Septuagint in Context, 18, 35–51, 67; Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, 689; Jobes and Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, 31; Hengel, Septuagint as Christian Scripture, 75–76; Jan Joosten, “Varieties of Greek in the Septuagint and the New Testament,” in The New Cambridge History of the Bible From the Beginnings to 600, 22–45, 25; Rajak, Translation and Survival, 15; Timothy M. Law, When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 35–36. This dating, however, relies on the narrative of the Letter of Aristeas. Some scholars admit that if it would not have been for this Letter, scholarship could probably favour a later date of the second century bce, see Frank Clancy, “The Date of LXX,” SJOT 16 (2002): 207–25, 207–8 and 212–13; De Troyer, “Septuagint,” 272–73; Dines, Septuagint, 41–42. 24  Aitken, “Egyptian Translation Methods,” 292–93. 25  This has to be distinguished from the idea that the LXX translators were consciously aware of a model. See Wright, “Jewish Scriptures in Greek,” 17; Tov, “Approaches towards Scripture,” 330–31. 26  See Barr, “Typology of Literalism,” 300, which inspired Anneli Aejmelaeus, “Translation Technique and the Intention of the Translator,” in VII Congress of the International Organ­ ization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leuven 1989 (ed. Claude E. Cox; SBLSCS 31;

The Jewish-greek Polysystem

71

of an “easy technique” becomes thoroughly nuanced. It is a rather vague description of a complex process that is, in fact, governed by a set of specific norms that determines the translation process as a socio-cultural activity. Hebrew-Greek translations are a subsystem of a system that includes all translations into Greek during the Hellenistic age, and the translated books of the LXX are products within that subsystem. The translations of the LXX were, however, also part of another literary system within the broad Hellenistic polysystem.27 After all, Jews did not only translate writings into Greek, they also composed new works in Greek from the third to second century bce onwards. These works came about in the same context as the LXX, namely as the product of Greek-speaking Jewry in the Hellenistic Middle East. The translations together with the compositions form a corpus of Jewish literature in Greek, which can be viewed as a polysystem, too. 2

The Jewish-Greek Literary Polysystem

2.1 The Location of the Jewish-Greek Polysystem The Jewish-Greek literary polysystem in the Hellenistic age developed over an extensive period of time, from the third century bce until approximately the second century ce.28 The LXX Pentateuch is believed to have been translated first. The translation of the other LXX books came about gradually over the course of several centuries—with the most recent translations being dated to the first century ce—probably in different geographical settings across Egypt Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1991), 23–36, repr. in On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators, 59–70. See also Lemmelijn, “Two Methodological Trails,” 57 n. 46 for a concise overview of the use of the term. 27  De Crom does not envision the development of a Jewish-Greek literary system and does not acknowledge a relation between translations and compositions within this specific system. 28  On the body of Jewish-Greek literature, see, for example, Grabbe, History of the Jews, 84; Pieter W. van der Horst, “Greek in Jewish Palestine in Light of Jewish Epigraphy,” in Hellenism in the Land of Israel, 174–94, repr. in Japheth in the Tents of Shem: Studies on Jewish Hellenism in Antiquity (CBET 32; Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 9–26, 21 (Van der Horst states that whereas “the production of Jewish literature in Greek seems to have decreased after 70 [CE], the proportion of [Jewish] Greek inscriptions as compared to Hebrew and Aramaic ones increases”); Folker Siegert, Einleitung in die hellenistisch-jüdische Literatur: Apokrypha, Pseudepigrapha und Fragmente verlorener Autorenwerke (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015), 1–7; Walter, “Jewish-Greek Literature in the Greek Period,” 385–408.

72

chapter 3

and Palestine.29 While different LXX books were in the process of being translated, literature was simultaneously being composed in Greek that was distinctively Jewish in character. In the Hellenistic age, the Jewish-Greek system was a young and marginal subsystem within the larger Hellenistic macro-polysystem, that is, the broader context in which the Greek-speaking Jews had to position themselves. This does not imply an evaluative statement of the status or quality of Jewish writings. It allows us to conceptualize the Jewish polysystem as a phenomenon in itself and within its broader framework—a framework characterized by diversity,30 in terms of aspects such as religion,31 literature,32 and society.33 The following diagram represents a visualization of the JewishGreek literary polysystem as a subsystem of the Hellenistic system (see Fig. 1). Jewish-Greek literature belongs to the Hellenistic Greek literary polysystem, in that it is written in Greek during the Hellenistic era and seen as an artifact of Hellenistic culture.34 I will refer to this broader Hellenistic Greek literary polysystem as the Hellenistic macrosystem. This macrosystem is characterized by great diversity in many respects. The Jewish-Greek literary system would have taken a peripheral position within the broader Hellenistic Greek 29  For an overview, see, for example, Cook and Van der Kooij, Law, Prophets, and Wisdom; Dines, Septuagint, 41–62; Fernández Marcos, Septuagint in Context, 53–66; Tov, “Reflections on the Septuagint,” 7–15. The sequence in which the books of the HB were translated is not known with certainty. The hypothesis of the Pentateuch having been translated first is generally based on the Letter of Aristeas (see Emanuel Tov, “The Septuagint Translation of Genesis as the First Scripture Translation,” in In the Footsteps of Sherlock Holmes, 47–64, 47–48). J. Barr, for example, has expressed the opinion that the Greek translation of Isaiah preceded that of the translations of the Pentateuch because of the lack of consistency in translation approach (see Barr, “Did the Greek Pentateuch really Serve as a Dictionary?” 540). I will argue below that the translation approach that we encounter in the Minor Prophets, for example, on the one hand, and that of Isaiah or Job, on the other, can both be explained as evolutions from the Pentateuchal translation approach, that can, in turn, be contextualized within Egyptian translation practices. I therefore build a picture of the evolution of the polysystem on the assumption that the translation of the Pentateuch came first. I will return to this question below. 30  Bugh, ed., Cambridge Companion to the Hellenistic World, passim; Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, 189–301. 31  Mikalson, “Greek Religion,” 208–22. 32  James J. Clauss and Martine Cuypers, eds., A Companion to Hellenistic Literature (Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World; Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010). 33  See, for example, Sheila L. Ager and Riemer A. Faber, eds., Belonging and Isolation in the Hellenistic World (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2013). 34  Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 30–31; De Crom, “LXX Text of Canticles,” passim; Hengel, Septuagint as Christian Scripture, xii.

The Jewish-greek Polysystem

73

Hellenistic Greek literary polysystem

Translated texts into Greek

Figure 1

JewishGreek literature

The Jewish-Greek literary polysystem.

polysystem.35 Several reasons can be identified. The reception of contemporary literature into the intellectual milieu of the (culturally) Greek people in Egypt was limited, even though the literary output of the Hellenistic period was great.36 Moreover, the style of LXX books, which were at the center of the Jewish-Greek system, would not have been considered “literary” according 35  See, for example, Boyd-Taylor, Reading between the Lines, 321; De Crom, “LXX Text of Canticles,” 119; Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, 687–716; Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 70; Wacholder, Eupolemus, 95–96. 36  Alan E. Samuel, From Athens to Alexandria: Hellenism and Social Goals in Ptolemaic Egypt (Studia Hellenistica 26; Leuven: n.n., 1983), 67. See also p. 87: “All in all, what was Greek literature for readers of Greek [in Egypt] was largely the literature of the classical period, and there is very little that belongs to the period after Alexander. Most of the papyri represent writers of the fifth century [bce] and earlier, there is little contemporary science, a surprisingly poor showing for the Alexandrians, and little crossover influence from the Egyptian milieu. What little Greek writing shows a relation to Egyptian prototypes is probably translation, and even then, the paucity of such texts shows how small the audience for, and interest in, such translation must have been. (…) The evidence of literature suggests that in the cultural sphere, as in economics and practical affairs, Greeks showed no interest in novelty, in different modes of expression, in other traditions however honourable.”

74

chapter 3

to the standards of the Hellenistic system, and would not have been central in the polysystem—that is, Jewish-Greek literature did not actively or significantly shape literary activity outside of its own circles.37 The Hellenistic literary system had a broad repertoire that governed the production of new texts. It is in this context that we should situate the translation of the Pentateuch. The translation of the Pentateuch was governed by the conventions of the broader Hellenistic polysystem. At this point in time, Jews did not yet have literary traditions of their own in Greek: the Pentateuch marked the start of this development. Therefore, Jews looked at the broader macro-polysystem to which they belonged, that of Hellenistic literature, to translate their Scriptures into the Greek language. In other words, the translation of the Pentatech is modelled according to the norms that were already conventionally established by an already dominant type in the target literature.38 Since a literary polysystem is constituted by individual texts, we can only speak of a literary system once the first texts of this system were produced. Once the Jews had their first writing in Greek, the translation of the Pentateuch, the Jewish-Greek literary system could grow as a subsystem of the Hellenistic macrosystem and develop its own characteristics. To the extent that Jewish-Greek literature is Jewish, it belongs to another polysystem, namely a Jewish literary system, regardless of what language in which Jewish texts are written. In other words, the Jewish literary system, in which the Jewish-Greek literature equally partakes, also includes Jewish writings in Hebrew and Aramaic. My research focuses on the Jewish-Greek literary polysystem as part of the Hellenistic system. Research into a broader Jewish literary polysystem would be beneficial, because it would allow scholars to gain insight into the development of Jewish literature across language borders, to nuance the opposition between language and culture that has especially dominated the discourse regarding Hellenism and Judaism, and to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of ancient Jewish literary activity. 2.2 The Development of the Jewish-Greek Polysystem The LXX Pentateuch is believed to have been translated first. This translation act is situated in the third century BCE. In the centuries that followed, Jews rendered other scriptural texts into Greek, but also composed original works in Greek. As the corpus of Jewish literature in Greek grew, Jews developed 37  See, for example, John J. Collins, “Artapanus (Third to Second Century B.C.),” in OTP 2 (1985), 889–904, 895. 38  On the translators’ orientation towards dominant types, see Even-Zohar, “Position of Translated Literature,” 48.

The Jewish-greek Polysystem

75

their own literary tradition in Greek. This implies that the repertoire at the disposal of Greek-speaking Jews expanded. After all, when a new (sub-)system develops, it cannot remain functional with a small literary repertoire.39 This is what Even-Zohar has called the law of proliferation: “In order to operate and remain vital, a system has to be always enhanced with a growing inventory of alternative options.”40 Jews no longer needed to look at the broader Hellenistic system for models to shape their own literary activity. They now functioned within a new, young subsystem of their own. The translations that are to be located in this system—all LXX translations, but also later revisions, for example—do not attest to a rigid set of norms. When one compares the translation character of different LXX books, one notices even without sustained analyses that the norms that governed the translation of the Pentateuch seem to have been different from the norms that governed the translation of books such as Song of Songs or Job. Studies on the translation technique of the LXX have shown that there are differences in translation approaches among different books and revisions, even if the descriptions of these approaches are not formulated in terms of norms. In other words, we can observe change in the norms that govern translations within a developing polysystem. The development of different sets of norms for the translation of texts within a literary polysystem is a complex process. Aside from developing a specific normativity when it comes to translating (scriptural) texts into Greek, Greekspeaking Jews developed their own normativity regarding compositions as well. Albeit preserved only fragmentarily in the works of Christian authors,41 these Jewish-Greek compositions represent a variety of literary genres and demonstrate a literary development.42

39  Even-Zohar, “Polysystem Theory (Revised),” 50. What exactly the size of a repertoire should be in order for a culture to be functional has not yet been clearly specified. 40  Even-Zohar, “Polysystem Theory (Revised),” 49. 41  Most of the preserved material comes from a collection made by Alexander Polyhistor (first century bce). His work is now lost, but was cited by Eusebius, whose writings did come down to us (see especially the ninth book of his Praeparatio Evangelica). Some fragments are also preserved by Josephus and Clement of Alexandria. The indirect nature of these witnesses complicates any attempt at a survey of Jewish-Greek literature and due caution is required. 42  Grabbe, History of the Jews, 84; Carl R. Holladay, “Jewish Responses to Hellenistic Culture,” in Ethnicity in Hellenistic Egypt, 139–63, 143.

76

chapter 3

The Pentateuch was not only the beginning of the Jewish-Greek literary system.43 It also shaped the production of new texts. Aside from being a source for subsequent translational and compositional activity, the LXX Pentateuch would also become a model for the translation of subsequent LXX books in different ways. It provided translators with a lexicon for standard Hebrew-Greek lexical equivalences and for the use of specific expressions44 (whether this was due to subsequent translators using the actual Pentateuchal texts or whether certain equivalences or constructions would have become embedded in an oral tradition following the translation of the Pentateuch, we do not know45). It provided a model in terms of the translation approach: the translation approaches we see in other LXX books are often explained as a development of the Pentateuchal translation approach. We will return to this below. The LXX Pentateuch also set the standard for the acceptability of the use of vernacular Koine to translate the Scriptures. This means, in systemic terms, that the LXX Pentateuch stood at the center of the Jewish-Greek literary polysystem. Whereas the translators of the Pentateuch looked towards translation models in the broader Hellenistic macro-system, the translators of later books had 43  We may need consider the possibility of the existence of an oral tradition preceding the written translation. 44  See, for example, Johan Lust, “The Vocabulary of LXX Ezekiel and its Dependence upon the Pentateuch,” in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic Literature: Studies in Honour of C. H. W. Brekelmans (ed. Johan Lust and Marc Vervenne; BETL 133; Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 529–46; Myrto Theocharous, Lexical Dependence and Intertextual Allusion in the Septuagint of the Twelve Prophets: Studies in Hosea, Amos and Micah (LHBOTS 570; London: T&T Clark, 2012), 23–66; Emanuel Tov, “The Impact of the LXX Translation of the Pentateuch on the Translation of the Other Books,” in Mélanges D. Barthélemy: Etudes bibliques offertes à l’occasion de son 60e anniversaire (ed. Pierre Casetti, Othmar Keel, and Adrian Schenker; OBO 38; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 577–92; Emanuel Tov, “The Septuagint Translation of the Torah as a Source and Resource for the Post-Pentateuchal Translators,” in Die Sprache der Septuaginta, 316–28; Peter Walters, The Text of the Septuagint: Its Corruptions and their Emendation (ed. David W. Gooding; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 150–53; Isaac L. Zeligman, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of Its Problems (Mededelingen en verhandelingen van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap “Ex oriente lux” 9; Leiden: Brill, 1948), 48. This idea has been nuanced, though not entirely denied, by James Barr, “Did the Greek Pentateuch really Serve as a Dictionary for the Translation of the Later Books?” in Hamlet on a Hill: Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of his SixtyFifth Birthday (ed. Martin F. J. Baasten and Wido T. van Peursen; OLA 118; Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 523–44. 45  See Wright, No Small Difference, 137.

The Jewish-greek Polysystem

77

a model within their own Jewish-Greek system towards which they would orient themselves. Because Jews developed their own normativity regarding the production of texts, they also developed a framework of reference of their own in which their works were read, received, and evaluated. With this, we touch upon the meaning of “literary” in terms such as “the literary polysystem.” 2.3 The Concept of “Literary” in the Jewish-Greek Literary Polysystem The use of the term “literary” in the expression “literary polysystem” does not imply any evaluative notion regarding whether or not the written works within the system would have been received as “artful” (i.e., “literary” as an adjective denoting something appropriate to literature rather than everyday speech or writing) or not. One can include any written texts in a literary polysystem, regardless of their function.46 Things are different when one speaks of a “literary text” or, in the case of the LXX, a “literary translation.” As Toury aptly points out, the use of the word “literary” in the term “literary translation” is afflicted by systematic ambiguity. It can either refer to the translation of texts that are regarded as literary in the source culture, or to the translation of a text in such a way that the translation is acceptable as literary in the target culture.47 These two senses might concur in a translation, but do not necessarily do so: Neither the ‘literariness’ of the source, nor even the careful embodiment of its web of relationships within a [target-language] textual entity, is enough to secure a position for the end product in the recipient literature, much less a position which would simply reflect the one the original enjoyed in its own cultural environment.48 In other words, the idea of “literary” does not exist independently: it is not an ahistorical given, but a socio-cultural institution.49 46  Teeter, Scribal Laws, 256 uses the term “textual polysystem”; see chapter 9 of this book for a more detailed discussion of Teeter’s use of PST. 47  Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies, 199. 48  Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies, 200. Even-Zohar does not appear to make a clear distinction between these two notions. See Even-Zohar, “Position of Translated Literature,” 45–51. 49  Dora Sales Salvador, “In Conversation with Itamar Even-Zohar about Literacy and Culture Theory,” CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 4 (2002): 1–10, 7 (accessible via http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/1481-4374.1162).

78

chapter 3

Even though the LXX Pentateuch might have been read by a non-Jewish Greek audience, within the broad Hellenistic polysystem, we may question whether it would have been regarded as a literary text,50 if by “literary” we refer to that which is appropriate to literature rather than everyday speech or writing. The hypothesis that the Hebrew text of the Torah would have been regarded as a literary text by a specific group of people does not automatically lead to any implications regarding the translation models used to render the text in Greek or to the reception of that translation as a literary text.51 In other words, the source text does not presume how a translation is intended or received. For example, it has been shown that the approach of the Pentateuch translators was similar to that of other translators who rendered administrative documents or private letters.52 This approach was not linked to any specific literary genre or religious status of the text. Moreover, since we encounter literary embellishments in the translation of administrative and other documents, the use of literary features in a LXX translation does not automatically mean that the text was intended as literary by the translator, or received as literary by the audience. Consequently, we cannot argue that the Pentateuch was translated in a way that indicates the production of a literary translation. The question is, what is “literary” and to whom is it “literary”? We need to take into account that different polysystems can have different evaluations of a text as “literary.” The use of hyperbaton as a stylistic device, for example, could be literary in an esthetic sense to a broader Hellenistic Greek audience, and to Greek-speaking Jews to the extent that they speak Greek and participate in the Hellenistic polysystem. The pervasive use of parallelism in LXX translations, on the contrary, would be a sign of positive interference within the broader Hellenistic polysystem. An AB/A’B’ arrangement of consecutive lines is a recognized rhetorical feature already in classical Greek literature. The use of such a construction can thus be considered literary, but the frequency with which it occurs in the LXX would hardly be considered a sign of stylization according to the conventions of the broader Greek macrosystem.53 Within the 50  See, for example, De Crom, “LXX Text of Canticles,” 119–20; Dorival, Harl, and Munnich, La Bible grecque, 259; Wright, “Scribes, Translators and Formation,” 23. 51  Scholars often assume that the translation of the Pentateuch was a “literary” translation. See, for example, Joosten, “Varieties of Greek,” 25–28; Rajak, Translation and Survival, 1; Rösel, “Schreiber, Übersetzer, Theologen,” 88. 52  Aitken, “Egyptian Translation Methods,” 269–94. 53   See especially the notion of hellenismos. Cf. Lara Pagani, “Language Correctness (Hellenismos) and Its Criteria,” in Between Theory and Practice (ed. Franco Montanari, Stefanos Matthaios, and Antonios Rengakos; vol. 2 of Brill’s Companion to Ancient Greek Scholarship; Brill’s Companions in Classical Studies; Leiden: Brill, 2015), 798–849.

The Jewish-greek Polysystem

79

Jewish-Greek polysystem, however, it becomes an established literary technique. We see this in the Wisdom of Solomon, for example.54 In other words, the degree of interference could perhaps have prevented translated LXX books from having been read as a text seen as esthetically pleasing (and perhaps by extension, literary) in its own right by a non-Jewish Greek-speaking audience, even in spite of certain literary embellishments one may be able to identify occasionally. Within the broader Hellenistic system, there is one indication of the literary status of the LXX. In his overview of literary texts that inspire religious awe, De sublimitate, Pseudo-Longinus (first century ce) referred to Jewish religious texts and includes a citation from LXX Genesis, namely 1:3 (see De sublimitate 9.9).55 It would be worthwhile to investigate the question why Pseudo-Longinus included this reference to Genesis. Such a recognition of LXX Genesis as a literary text is rare. Aside from this first century citation, no other evidence is available to argue that the Pentateuch would have been considered a Greek literary work, especially not in the centuries before the common era.56 Within the context of the norms and conventions of its own specific Jewish-Greek polysystem, however, there are more indications of the status of the LXX Pentateuch. At this point we touch upon the reception history of the LXX Pentateuch. A first indication can be found in the Letter of Aristeas.57 Ptolemy himself is said to have ordered an original copy of the LXX Pentateuch to be deposited in the royal library (§9–11). This discourse implies an acknowledgement of the idea that the Law of the Jews is a Greek literary work, since the royal collection would only include writings belonging to the literary tradition of the culturally Greek world.58 A second indication of the literary status of the LXX 54  See Alexis Léonas, “The Poetics of Wisdom: Language and Style in the Wisdom of Solomon,” in Et sapienter et eloquenter: Studies on Rhetorical and Stylistic Features of the Septuagint (ed. Eberhard Bons and Thomas J. Kraus; FRLANT 241; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 99–126. 55  See Gilles Dorival, “La Bible des Septante chez les auteurs païens (jusqu’au PseudoLongin),” Cahiers de Biblia Patristica 1 (1987): 9–26; Léonas, “Poetics of Wisdom,” 124–25. 56  See Dorival, “La Bible des Septante,” 9–26 for a full discussion of possible allusions to the LXX in the writings of pagan authors, but none of these attest to the Pentateuch having had a literary status. 57  On the Letter of Aristeas as a witness to the reception history of the LXX, see Wright, Letter of Aristeas, 14–15. 58  James Carleton Paget, “The Origins of the Septuagint,” in The Jewish-Greek Tradition, 105–19, 107; Honigman, “ ‘Jews as the Best of All Greeks,’ ” 228; George Howard, “The Letter of Aristeas and Diaspora Judaism,” JTS 22 (1971): 337–48; Victor A. Tcherikover, “The Ideology of the Letter of Aristeas,” HTR 51 (1958): 59–85, 67–68; Benjamin G. E. Wright,

80

chapter 3

Pentateuch is its use as a source of intertextuality, both in other LXX books, such as Job,59 the Psalter,60 Judith,61 and the Prayer of Azariah (Dan LXX 3),62 among others,63 as well as in Jewish-Greek writings. The author of the Letter of Aristeas, for example, uses LXX quotations side by side with textual references from the (non-Jewish) Hellenistic Greek literary tradition, thus inserting the LXX Pentateuch as a new literary source in the Greek tradition.64 Ezekiel the Tragedian wrote a tragedy, Exagoge, based on the Exodus narrative. The text displays a sound knowledge of tragedy as a literary form and a learned vocabulary, drawing on the tragedians of Athens.65 By casting the LXX in a culturally Greek literary form, these texts are awarded a wider literary status.66 Assuming that the Pentateuch was translated first, we must sketch the development of the polysystem at least in broad terms in order to be able to form an initial idea of where the translation of Job would have fit in.

“Transcribing, Translating, and Interpreting in the Letter of Aristeas: On the Nature of the Septuagint,” in Scripture in Transition, 147–62, 151–54; Wright, Letter of Aristeas, 71–72. 59  Heater, Septuagint Translation Technique, passim; Cox, “Job,” 387–88; Cox, Iob, passim. See also examples discussed in chapters 5–7. 60  Jan Joosten, “The Impact of the Greek Pentateuch on the Greek Psalms,” in III Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Ljubljana 2007 (ed. Melvin K. H. Peters; SBLSCS 55; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 2008), 197–224, 197–205. 61  Joosten, “Original Language,” 159–76. 62  Jan Joosten, “The Prayer of Azariah (DanLXX 3): Sources and Origin,” in Septuagint and Reception: Essays Prepared for the Association for the Study of the Septuagint in South Africa (ed. Johann Cook; VTSup 127; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 5–16, 6. 63  See, for example, Robert Hanhart, “The Translation of the Septuagint in Light of Earlier Tradition and Subsequent Influences,” in Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings, 339–79 discusses the relation between Dan 11 and the Balaam prophecies in Numbers; Theocharous, Lexical Dependence and Intertextual Allusion, 107–244 discusses the relation between the LXX versions of Hosea, Amos, and Micah and the LXX Pentateuch; Heater, Septuagint Translation Technique discusses the borrowing of the translator of Job, particularly from Deuteronomy and Leviticus; Joosten, “Impact of the Greek Pentateuch” discusses intertextual exegesis on the basis of the Pentateuch in Psalms (see pp. 201–204). 64  Honigman, “ ‘Jews as the Best of All Greeks’,” 228–29. 65  Ezekiel will be discussed in more detail in the final chapter (including bibliography). 66  It is possible that more tragedies from the Hellenistic era with Jewish themes would have been written; see Agnieszka Kotlińska-Toma, Hellenistic Tragedy: Texts, Translations, Critical Survey (London: Bloomsbury, 2015), 234–42.

The Jewish-greek Polysystem

3

81

Development within the Polysystem

3.1 The Development of Translation Techniques A good indication of the fact that the translation approach of the Pentateuch became a model for translations can be found in the Prologue to LXX Ben Sira. The Prologue is written in highly stylized Greek, whereas the translation of the book itself shows a high degree of interference from the Hebrew and is not stylized from a broad Hellenistic Greek literary point of view. This difference in stylistic character reflects a difference in expectations on the part of the audience: it is acceptable for translations to look different from compositions. B. G. E. Wright has stated that the translation was modeled on the translated texts that were already there, because that was how Hebrew-Greek translations were supposed to look: As he [that is, the translator of Ben Sira] cast about for a way to approach his recently formulated project he came upon a readily available model, one the Jewish community was already using and with which it was familiar. If the character of his Greek translation is like that of the JewishGreek scriptures [that is, the LXX Pentateuch], as he himself points out, that may not be accidental.67 The LXX Pentateuch contained a (relatively) high degree of interference resulting from the standard mode of translating at the time, but later LXX translations looked to the LXX Pentateuch, thus following a similar approach in terms of lexical consistency, segmentation, quantitative representation, and word order, as well as tolerating such interference.68 The above has made clear that translation actively shaped the Jewish-Greek polysystem. We can thus say that translation is central within this specific literary system. Translation often takes a central role in young and/or marginal 67  Benjamin G. E. Wright, “Access to the Source: Cicero, Ben Sira, the Septuagint and their Audiences,” JSJ 34 (2003): 1–27, 19. See also p. 22: “To the degree that we lack a clear originating context for the Septuagint, we will struggle to ascertain why the translators took the approach that they did; one that seemed to become the norm for translation as time went on.” See De Crom, “LXX Text of Canticles,” 135–36; Van der Louw, Transformations, 42–43. 68  Aitken, “Language of the Septuagint,” 134; Nicholas De Lange, “Jewish Greek,” in A History of Ancient Greek: From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity (ed. Anastassios-Fivos Christidis; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 638–45, 639–43.

82

chapter 3

polysystems.69 When translation takes a central position, according to EvenZohar, the translator will not look for ready-made models in the home repertoire. Consequently, a translator will be more easily willing to violate the home conventions.70 In the case of the LXX, this means that the translators’ main concern is not the acceptability71 of their work according to the norms and conventions borrowed from the Hellenistic macrosystem, which is the broader home repertoire of Jewish-Greek literature. Rather, the main concern of the translators was within their own developing system. This description characterizes many of the translated books of the LXX: rather than being oriented towards the Hellenistic polysystem, the translators oriented themselves towards the Pentateuch and followed a similar translation approach. As a result, interference had become acceptable to translators and their audience. This implies that it might have become a conscious choice for LXX translators not to employ a natural Greek style. It has been argued that such a method of translation, based on the “easy technique,” only became a conscious decision from the time of the revisions and the translation of Aquila onwards.72 From a systemic point of view, however, this development would have come about significantly earlier in the translation process of the different LXX books (but after the translation of the Pentateuch). Moreover, it implies that within the specific Jewish-Greek system these texts may well have been read as literary texts,73 albeit with their own style, distinctive from what was regarded as literary in the Hellenistic macrosystem. The Pentateuchal approach to translating Hebrew biblical texts remained highly operational in the growth of the Jewish-Greek polysystem. In fact, it appears to have been taken further. The rise of the καίγε-movement in the first century bce is a development of the earlier Pentateuchal translation method.74 The approach of the translators and revisors within this movement 69  Even-Zohar, “Position of Translated Literature,” 47. 70  Even-Zohar, “Position of Translated Literature,” 50. 71  This should not be confused with Toury’s understanding of this notion. 72  Aejmelaeus, “Translation Technique and the Intention of the Translator,” 25–26. 73  See Jan Joosten, “Rhetorical Ornamentation in the Septuagint: The Case of Grammatical Variation,” in Et sapienter et eloquenter, 11–22, 14: “While Greek readers unfamiliar with the Bible and with Jewish religion may have experienced some confusion in reading the [Greek] version, Jewish readers, who possessed some familiarity with the Bible, may have appreciated the exotic quality of the Septuagint.” See also Jennifer Dines, “Stylistic Invention and Rhetorical Purpose in the Book of the Twelve,” in Et sapienter et eloquenter, 23–48, 45. 74  Aitken, “Social and Historical Setting.” See also Siegfried Kreuzer, “Origin and Development of the Septuagint in the Context of Alexandrian and Early Jewish Culture and Learning,”

The Jewish-greek Polysystem

83

was characterized by an increasing degree of quantitative equivalence, reflection of Hebrew word order, and lexical consistency. This method of working is characteristic of such books as Ruth, Song of Songs, and Lamentations.75 In contrast, the Greek translations of the books of Job, Isaiah, and Proverbs, for example, attest to a different attitude towards translation.76 Their translators seem to have been less occupied with following the word order of the Hebrew and with lexical consistency than many of the other LXX translations. Moreover, from a viewpoint that compares these translations to other LXX translations and that uses original Greek writings belonging to the broader Greek polysystem (often classical works) as a point of reference, the Greek versions of Isaiah, Proverbs, and Job have all been deemed “literary” by LXX scholars.77 When correspondence to the Hebrew in terms of word order, quantitative representation, and lexical choices is no longer the main concern of translators, there indeed might have been more room to include literary embellishments. 3.2 The Development of Style 3.2.1 Jewish Style or Dialect? Because there is an interaction between translations and compositions within the polysystem, we are able to explain why it also became a matter of style for non-translated Jewish-Greek compositions to include elements that in a translation would be seen as “interference.” Jewish compositions in Greek often combine natural Greek usage with a particular usage of Greek that find its in The Bible in Greek: Translation, Transmission, and Theology of the Septuagint (SBLSCS 63; Atlanta, Ga.: SBL Press, 2015), 3–46, 23 (translation of “Entstehung und Entwicklung der Septuaginta im Kontext alexandrinischer und frühjüdischer Kultur und Bildung,” in Septuaginta-Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament [2 vols; ed. Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011], i:3–39). 75  Jean-Marie Auwers, “Canticles (Song of Songs),” in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint, 370–83, 371; Aitken, “Social and Historical Setting.” It might be possible that developments in different translation approaches are to be related to the geographical setting of the translations in question (see, for example, Aitken, “Social and Historical Setting”; Tov, “Reflections on the Septuagint,” 7–15). A καίγε(-related) approach, for example, has been associated primarily with a Palestinian provenance. This issue requires further elaboration from a polysystemic point of view. 76  See, for example, Wright, No Small Difference, 117. 77  For Isaiah see the recent contributions of Abi T. Ngunga and Joachim Schaper, “Isaiah,” in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint, 456–68, 457 and Lee, “Literary Greek,” 135–46, among others. For Proverbs, see James K. Aitken and Lorenzo Cuppi, “Proverbs,” in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint, 341–55, 341. For Job, see above.

84

chapter 3

origins in features of Hebrew interference in the LXX but came to be used independently from a Hebrew source. They are therefore called “Septuagintalisms.” In other words, the position of the Greek Pentateuch was so central that it “soon established a Jewish style of writing not only for translators of biblical books but even for Jewish authors of Greek compositions.”78 This citation leads to a question: how should we understand a “Jewish style of writing”? When we look at Jewish-Greek literary products, they seem to have been governed, at least partially, by specific literary conventions in terms of language and style. Different Greek books, translated as well as non-translated, display certain similarities in style that we do not encounter in non-Jewish texts written in Greek. This has raised the question about the nature of LXX Greek. The debate concerning the nature of the language used in the LXX has a long tradition.79 The hypothesis of the existence of a Jewish-Greek dialect has, in my opinion, convincingly been discredited, and the contextualization of LXX Greek in its Koine setting has led to a much more nuanced view on LXX Greek.80 However, some remarks are in order. First, one should be aware of the dangers of making generalizations about the language of the LXX, as each book has distinctive linguistic characteristics.81 Second, it is important to realize on what level of the text one is describing the possible presence of interference. It can occur on the level of words. For example, when the translator does not opt for an existing Greek word to render the Hebrew, he can take recourse to assimilating a Hebrew word in Greek (i.e., transcription), in some cases adapting 78  James K. Aitken, “Outlook,” in The Reception of Septuagint Words in Jewish-Hellenistic and Christian Literature (ed. Eberhard Bons, Ralph Brucker, and Jan Joosten; WUNT 2/367; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 183–94, 183. 79  An overview of the question with bibliographical references can be found in James K. Aitken, “The Language of the Septuagint: Recent Theories, Future Prospects,” BJGS 24 (1999): 24–33; Fernández Marcos, Septuagint in Context, 3–17; Gregory H. R. Horsley, “Res bibliographicae: Divergent Views on the Nature of the Greek of the Bible,” Bib 65 (1984): 393–403; Gregory H. R. Horsley, “The Fiction of ‘Jewish Greek’,” in Linguistic Essays (vol. 5 of New Documents Illustrating Christianity; North Ryde: Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, 1989), 5–40; Alexis Léonas, Recherches sur le langage de la Septante (OBO 211; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 1–26; Kurt Treu, “Die Bedeutung des Griechischen für die Juden im römischen Reich,” Kairos 15 (1973): 123–44. The most recent overview of scholarship on this matter is offered by Stanley E. Porter, “History of Scholarship on the Language of the Septuagint,” in Die Sprache der Septuaginta, 15–38. 80  See, for example, Aitken, No Stone Unturned; De Lange, “Jewish Greek,” 640; Evans, Verbal Syntax; Evans, “Approaches to the Language,” 25–33; Horsley, “Divergent Views,” 393–403; Lee, Lexical Study. 81  Evans, “Approaches to the Language,” 25; See also Dorival, Harl, and Munnich, La Bible grecque, 231–33; Evans, Verbal Syntax, 3–4; Lee, Lexical Study, 11.

The Jewish-greek Polysystem

85

the form to Greek morphology.82 There may also be interference on the level of syntax. The result might be syntactically unnatural or even unidiomatic Greek, but often the Greek remains understandable.83 A third example of interference pertains to the rendering of Hebrew idiom by using stereotypical equivalences for the Hebrew words in question.84 The result is a Greek construction that might be grammatically correct but that does not reflect the underlying, non-literal meaning of the Hebrew idiom. It has become clear that many of the similarities of the translated LXX books regarding style are not due to the existence of a specific variant of Greek, but to similarities in translation mode.85 A fundamental question to keep in mind when studying the Greek of the LXX is the following: at what point can we start applying a specific label to language usage that is slightly different from what is known to be the regular usage? It is not necessary to go as far as positing the existence of Pentateuchal Greek.86 Such approaches to the language of the LXX tend to put the emphasis on the Hebraistic features while overlooking not only the significance of natural Greek phenomena,87 but also the observation that the translation method can adequately account for most of the Hebraistic cast of the LXX.88 Boyd-Taylor speaks of the Greek of the LXX as an 82  Van der Louw, Transformations, 62–63. For the book of Job, the clearest example can be given by looking at the use of proper names: the name of Job is simply transliterated, whereas the name of Elihu is transcribed and becomes declinable according to Greek morphology. Transliteration in OG Job will be discussed in chapter 4. 83  See Evans, “Approaches to the Language,” 25–33. 84  John A. L. Lee, “Equivocal and Stereotyped Renderings in the LXX,” RB 87 (1980): 104–17. See also Van der Louw, Transformations, 63–64. 85  Evans, “Approaches,” 25–33. See also Aitken, “Egyptian Translation Methods,” 269–94 who shows that many of the aspects of LXX translations also occur in translations of Egyptian texts into Greek. 86  Such as is done by Georg Walser, The Greek of the Ancient Synagogue: An Investigation on the Greek of the Septuagint, Pseudepigrapha and the New Testament (Studia Graeca et Latina Lundensia 8; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2001) (the notion of “Pentateuchal Greek” as a specific variety of Greek; see also Georg Walser, “The Greek of the Bible: Translated Greek or Translation Greek?” in Scripture in Transition, 449–61, in which translated Greek is contrasted to translation Greek). 87  Evans, “Approaches,” 33. See also Dorival, Harl, and Munnich, La Bible grecque, 233–51. Compare the notion of positive interference. 88  Evans, Verbal Syntax, 4; Ralph Marcus, “Hellenistic Jewish Literature,” in vol. 2 of The Jews: Their History, Culture and Religion (ed. Louis Finkelstein; 3rd ed.; New York: Harper and Bros., 1960), 1077–148; Staffan Olofsson, The LXX Version: A Guide to the Translation Technique of the Septuagint (Coniectanea biblica Old Testament Series 30; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1990), 35–39.

86

chapter 3

interlanguage.89 This term denotes the systematic nature of the language of a translation that is characterized by interference from the source language. It is a term borrowed from the study of second-language acquisition, to refer to a form of the newly acquired language that shows a lot of interference from the speaker’s first tongue. In other words, interlanguage refers to the transitional form of a language spoken by a second-language speaker due to limited competence of that new language. Such a hybrid language may become institutionalized under certain conditions, especially within a translational system, but it has connotations of limited linguistic competence.90 The assumption that LXX translators had limited knowledge of Greek, especially by the second century bce, is questionable. Moreover, even if one accepts this characterization, two questions remain unsolved: How may we account for the different translation styles, and hence the different types of interlanguages, within the LXX corpus? Moreover, what do we make of the particular Septuagintal style of non-translated LXX books? 3.2.2 Hebraistic Style within the Polysystem: Concise Case Studies By conceptualizing translated literature as a subsystem of the broader literary polysystem, we are able to study its interactions with the broader polysystem. Translated literature can actively shape the center of a polysystem. In other words, translations can change the dynamics and conventions of a polysystem and thus influence the production of subsequent works, both compositions and translations. Through translations, features can be introduced into the literary system that were not known before, such as a new (poetic) language or compositional patterns and techniques.91 According to Even-Zohar, in a situation in which translation is central, no clear-cut distinction is maintained between “original” and “translated” writings,92 because translation takes on such an important role in the polysystem and because the models used for their production are similar as those for composition. This seems to have been the case for the Jewish-Greek system. The clearest example of how the LXX translations helped shape the production of non-translated texts within the Jewish-Greek polysystem is provided 89  Boyd-Taylor, Reading between the Lines, 367–92; Cameron Boyd-Taylor, “Lexicography and Interlanguage: Gaining our Bearings,” BIOSCS 37 (2004): 55–72; Cameron Boyd-Taylor, “Calque-culations: Loanwords and the Lexicon,” BIOSCS 38 (2005): 79–100. 90  De Crom, “LXX Text of Canticles,” 477. 91  Even-Zohar, “Position of Translated Literature,” 47. See also Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies, 21–22. 92  Even-Zohar, “Position of Translated Literature,” 46–47.

The Jewish-greek Polysystem

87

by those Jewish-Greek texts regarding which a scholarly debate exists ­whether they are translations of a Hebrew source text or original compositions in Greek.93 A text may contain features that are unfamiliar to the broader Greek system but that reflect a Hebraistic influence—in some cases so much so, that it has led scholars to debate whether or not the text in question was translated from a Semitic parent text. In other words, for some scholars, a relatively high frequency of Hebraisms is sufficient evidence that the Greek text was a translation. However, we may consider the possibility that Hebraisms became part of the repertoire of authors composing in Greek. Discussion about the answer to the question “translation into Greek or original Greek composition?” exists for the Additions to the book of Esther,94 Wisdom of Solomon,95 Baruch,96 1–2 Esdras,97 and 1 Maccabees,98 for example. A first illustrative text is the Wisdom of Solomon, which is now generally thought to be an original composition in Greek.99 The author of the text is shown to have been familiar with Greek literature and rhetoric, but composed a text that is largely divergent from Greek models.100 A. Léonas raises the crucial question, assuming that the text is an original composition, “How do the ‘Hebraic’ elements of Wisdom’s composition fit into the book’s aesthetic system?”101 He studies some of the most salient “Hebraic” turns of Wisdom, which include a number of formulations such as the use of χείρ, the expression υἱοὶ ἀνθρώπων, and the etymological figure κρίσιν κρίνειν,102 as well as the use of parallelism as a literary form.103 Léonas thus shows that the author of 93  For a full discussion of relevant texts, see Davila, “(How) Can We Tell,” 3–61. 94  See Cameron Boyd-Taylor, “Esther and Additions to Esther,” in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint, 203–21. 95  Marcus, “Hellenistic Jewish Literature,” 770; David Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 43; New York: Doubleday, 1979), 12–20. 96  See Daniel Ryan, “Baruch,” in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint, 487–99. 97  See Hector M. Patmore, “1 Esdras” and R. Glenn Wooden, “2 Esdras,” in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint, resp. 167–77 and 178–94. 98  See David S. Williams, “1 Maccabees,” in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint, 261–72. 99  James K. Aitken, “Wisdom of Solomon,” in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint, 401–9, 405. 100  Léonas, “Poetics of Wisdom,” 104. On the Hellenistic vocabulary and style of Wisdom, see most notably James M. Reese, Hellenistic Influence on the Book of Wisdom and Its Consequences (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970). 101  Léonas, “Poetics of Wisdom,” 105. 102  Léonas, “Poetics of Wisdom,” 114–24. 103  Léonas, “Poetics of Wisdom,” 105; 111; 124. See also Reese, Hellenistic Influence, 25–26.

88

chapter 3

Wisdom not only draws upon the style of LXX, but uses “Hebraizing” forms that are not attested in the LXX. This pertains both to vocabulary and literary forms. He concludes by saying that the book attests to “a conscious attempt to imitate the Septuagint idiom as it could have been seen from within the Greek linguistic and literary system.”104 This implies that “instead of being more or less a literary outcast, the Septuagint should be regarded as having a literary appeal of its own.”105 For the book of Judith, a second example regarding which it has long been uncertain whether the Greek text was a translation from a Hebrew parent text or an original Greek composition,106 Joosten writes the following: Among Jewish Hellenistic writings, some come to mind that were almost certainly written in Greek, but whose style is marked by Hebraisms. The Testament of Abraham is one example, the Gospel of Luke another. They testify to a tendency on the part of certain authors to imitate the style of the Septuagint. Their presumed Hebraisms are in fact Septuagintalisms. The question arises, then, whether Judith may not be regarded as an early example of this tendency. In this view, a Greek author, intending to create a “biblical” story, adopted the biblical style he knew from the Septuagint. This model would accommodate the numerous Hebraisms encountered in the text, which might as well be Septuagintalisms. The model would also explain the occasional “lapse” into good Greek: since the writer was composing the text freely, he tended to fall back on his own Greek idiom.107 I would not call the writer’s attention to Greek usage a “lapse.” Rather, it is as much part of the style as the so-called Hebraisms. After all, the Pentateuch had established natural, vernacular Koine as an acceptable register. The 104  Léonas, “Poetics of Wisdom,” 124. See also Aitken, “Wisdom of Solomon,” 404–5; De Lange, “Jewish Greek,” 643; Stone, Ancient Judaism, 181–82. 105  Léonas, “Poetics of Wisdom,” 124. 106  See Jeremy Corley, “Septuagintalisms, Semitic Interference, and the Original Language of the Book of Judith,” in Studies in the Greek Bible: Essays in Honor of Francis T. Gignac (ed. Jeremy Corley and Vincent T. M. Skemp; CBQ MS 44; Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2008), 65–96; Jan Joosten, “The Original Language and Historical Milieu of the Book of Judith,” in Meghillot V–VI: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls. A Festschrift for Devorah Dimant (ed. Moshe Bar-Asher and Emanuel Tov; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2009), 159–76 (both Corley and Joosten argue in favor of Judith being a composition); Carey A. Moore, Judith: A New Translation With Introduction and Commentary (AB 40B; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985), 66–67 (who argues for Judith being a translation). 107  Joosten, “Original Language and Historical Milieu,” 162–63.

The Jewish-greek Polysystem

89

further the Jewish-Greek polysystem developed, the more extensive the repertoire became. It was acceptable for actants within the system to use both Septuagintalisms as well as natural Greek. Joosten has also addressed the question of the original language of the Prayer of Azariah in Dan LXX 3, as well as of the Psalms of Solomon.108 In Joosten’s opinion, neither one of these texts is a Greek translation of a Hebrew original. In spite of the “Hebraic” elements on the basis of which scholars had previously argued these texts were translations, these texts are now regarded by some scholars as original Greek compositions in which the authors employed Hebraistic expressions and constructions. These texts show that the models and norms governing translations and those governing compositions within this specific system are characterized by a mutual influence. If these texts are indeed Greek compositions rather than translations into Greek on the basis of a Hebrew source text, they provide additional support for the hypothesis that the LXX translations could indeed have been regarded as “literary” within the Jewish-Greek polysystem. 3.3.3 A Literary Code Translation scholars have shown that a target audience can have different expectations regarding original compositions and translations.109 What is acceptable in a translation does not necessarily have to be acceptable in original compositions. Moreover, features introduced via translations might become part of the literary conventions for compositions. Interference from the Hebrew seems to have been acceptable for the target audience of the LXX Pentateuch. For subsequent LXX translations, however, it appears that it would not merely have been acceptable but that it would become an aspect of the normativity governing these translations.110 108   See respectively Joosten, “Prayer of Azariah (DanLXX 3),” 5–14 and Jan Joosten, “Reflections on the Original Language of the Psalms of Solomon,” n.p. Cited 10 March 2017. Online: http://www.academia.edu/10173758/Reflections_on_the_Original_Language_of_ the_Psalms_of_Solomon. 109  See particularly Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies, 72–73. 110  See many of the descriptions of the language of the individual books in Aitken’s T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint. For example, Michaël N. van der Meer, “Joshua,” 86–101, 89: “The language and translation technique employed by the Greek translator of Joshua resemble that of the Greek Pentateuch”; Roger Good, “1–2 Chronicles (Paraleipomena),” 167–77, 169: “The language of the translation of Chronicles is Hellenistic Greek (Koine). However, interference form the Hebrew source language may be seen throughout. For example, the translation follows closely the Hebrew word order and has its characteristic propensity for paratactic clauses (…). Certain structures also occur more frequently, such

90

chapter 3

In several books, the level of interference is significantly higher than in the LXX Pentateuch.111 Moreover, interference-like constructions become used in books that are not translations. In other words, within the Jewish-Greek polysystem, the norms for the production of translations had influenced the norms for compositions. Translation had become central in the polysystem and the distinction between composition and translation is not always clear. This explains the debate regarding the books listed above for which we have no extant Semitic source text to prove that a given text was, in fact, a translation. In other words, although the LXX was generally written in a contemporary Koine Greek, there are certain features specific to the written language of the LXX. There is no evidence that a Jewish-Greek dialect existed that the Jews spoke already before translating the LXX and composing their own writings. I argue that the LXX translations established and developed a vocabulary and typical expressions as well as literary forms (primarily parallelism) that would be adopted by Jews. We thus see the development of a standardization of a Septuagintal style as part of the literary polysystem. It is due to the reception of LXX translations and their absorption into the Jewish tradition that we may speak of the development of a Jewish-Greek literary code.112 The term “literary code” refers to a system of shared conventions necessary to assign meaning to a text—what Y. Lotman calls “the idiom”113—of a specific literary tradition.114 as καὶ ἐγένετο for the introductory ‫ויהי‬. Prepositions are often used in non-standard Greek ways.” See Jennifer Dines, “Minor Prophets,” 438–55, 441: “Like other parts of LXX, it [that is, Minor Prophets] is a hybrid of normal Koine Greek and a Semitised form which follows the Hebrew word order rather than that natural to Greek, and translates many Hebrew idioms literally.” 111  For example Good, “1–2 Chronicles,” 170. 112  A noteworthy theoretically oriented essay on linguistic variety in Greek is written by Christopher D. Land, “Varieties of the Greek Language,” in The Language of the New Testament: Context, History, and Development (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts; Early Christianity in its Hellenistic Context 3; Linguistic Biblical Studies 6; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 243–60. In a way, I agree with Rajak, Translation and Survival, who explains the Greek used by the Jews as a code, but, according to her, the Pentateuch translators were already aware of this code and the process of developing this code happened consciously (see in particular p. 134). De Lange, “Jewish Greek,” 645 has briefly suggested that the peculiarities of a Jewish-Greek language might have to be understood as a literary language. It is interesting to note in this context that departure from “common usage” (in this case, natural Greek) was a rhetorical tactic recognized by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (e.g., De Demosthene 10; and 13). 113  This should not be confused with the term “idiom” as defined from the viewpoint of sociolinguistics in chapter 1. 114  De Crom, “LXX Text of Canticles,” 477. On the language of the Septuagint as a sociolect, see Joosten, “Varieties of Greek,” 29–30 (who argues that this variety was spoken). I chose

The Jewish-greek Polysystem

91

Lotman has defined a code as a “closed set of meaningful units and rules governing their combination, rules which allow for the transmission of certain messages.”115 He distinguishes between the linguistic code (i.e., the language in which a text is written and which allows a reader to recognize the text as having been written in that specific language) and the literary code (i.e., elements that concern genre and style as well as other artistic conventions specific to a particular period or culture). The literary code is supralingual and may contradict or overrule the specific linguistic code.116 A reader of a linguistic message needs to know the linguistic code to be able to interpret the message. A reader of a text needs to know the literary code, in addition to the linguistic code of the text, in order to be able to think of that text as a literary text. If readers do not know the literary code, they might not be able to interpret the text and even if they do, they will generally not accept the text as “literary.”117 The observation that such Septuagintalist expressions came to be used in Jewish-Greek works independent from a Hebrew source indicates that the conventions of Greek usage in the Jewish-polysystem underwent change and that the Jewish-Greek polysystem would develop its own linguistic conventions specific to the polysystem. Since both the macrosystem of Hellenistic literature as a whole and the subsystem of Jewish-Greek literature use Greek as their linguistic code, the conventions between both systems can overlap. There are, however, certain elements that are conventional specifically for Hellenistic Jews that would not be recognized as conventional by non-Jews who are situated somewhere within the macrosystem but outside of the Jewish-Greek polysystem. This I define as the Jewish-Greek literary code. The Jewish-Greek literary code can pertain to any aspect of the language, such as vocabulary, syntax, idiom, or literary forms. This also means that the Jewish-Greek polysystem would have its own notion of what would make a text be received as “literary.” In other words, the notion of “conventional” Greek is relative: the conventions regarding the use of Greek within the Hellenistic macrosystem can differ from the conventions that govern the use of Greek in the Jewish-Greek literary the term “literary code” so that no connection with the spoken language of the Jews has to be implied. 115  Yuri M. Lotman, The Structure of the Artistic Text (trans. Ronald Vroon; Michigan Slavic Contributions 7; Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press, 1977), 20. 116  Lotman, Structure of the Artistic Text, passim. See also the elaboration on this notion by Douwe W. Fokkema, Literary History, Modernism, and Postmodernism (Utrecht Publications in General and Comparative Literature 19; Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1984). 117  Lotman, Structure of the Artistic Text, 87–89. See also Douwe W. Fokkema and Elrud Ibsch, Theories of Literature in the Twentieth Century: Structuralism, Marxism, Aesthetics of Reception, Semiotics (2nd rev. ed.; London: Hurst & Company, 1995), 42.

92

chapter 3

polysystem. The distinction between the linguistic code and the literary code of a text can help us differentiate in this regard. The fact that conventions regarding Greek usage are relative and contextual is the reason why I have opted for the term “natural Greek” to refer to the usage of Greek in the Hellenistic macrosystem. Generally, that which is non-natural Greek in a LXX translation, can either be due to interference from the source (i.e., pertaining to the translation technique) or to the use of Septuagintalisms independently from a Semitic source (i.e., pertaining to Greek style, though often having their origins in the translation technique). These conventions pertain not only to linguistic aspects of the text, but also to the use of rhetorical features, such as parallelism. Interference and Septuagintalisms should not be regarded negatively as deviations from Greek conventions, but regarded within the context of the conventions of the Jewish-Greek system. They constitute a literary tactic serving a function within the Jewish-Greek literary polysystem. They are part of a literary code, specific to Jewish literature, that is superimposed on the Greek linguistic code, common to all actants within the Hellenistic macrosystem. 4 Conclusion In this chapter I have shown how Jewish-Greek literature develops as a system. The translation of the Pentateuch marks the origins as well the center of this system. While the translators of the Pentateuch had to look to the Hellenistic macrosystem for the norms regarding translational behaviour, subsequent translators had the Pentateuch as a center. I have argued that the translation method of the Pentateuch became a literary trope in the polysystem and that through the translation of the Pentateuch and later books, a specific literary code was established, a code that went beyond the linguistic code of Greek and that would allow Jews to recognize a text as “literary” within their specific system. The majority of LXX translations can be easily located in the system in relation to the LXX Pentateuch in terms of a translations approach that is oriented towards a formal representation of the Hebrew source and in terms of the acceptability of interference. Where, then, does OG Job fit in, a translation that does not seem to emphasize formal representation and contains less interference? Scholarly attention with regard to OG Job has focused mainly on the differences between the Hebrew and the Greek texts, so that it becomes difficult to envision a clear location for this translation within the Jewish-Greek polysystem. How do we explain OG Job’s notoriously “free” translation approach? What is OG Job’s relation with the center of the polysystem? If the use of

The Jewish-greek Polysystem

93

language in Job can be described as “good Greek,” how does this fit in with the type of Greek we see in the Pentateuch? How does a text that has been deemed “literary” according to measures outside of the specific Jewish-Greek polysystem fit in with the standards of what is literary within its specific polysystem? From a polysystemic approach, understanding the location of Job means answering questions that pertain to the relation between OG Job and other constituents of the Jewish-Greek literary polysystem. We are confronted with questions such as, To what extent and in what way(s) is the OG translation of Job different from the translation of the Pentateuch? What are the peculiarities of the style of OG Job? How does this relate to other products within the Jewish-literary system? A systemic approach in which we describe texts on the basis of a variety of textual and contextual relationships allows for a multidimensional approach to explaining different aspects of OG Job, rather than in binary oppositions such as “free” and “literal” vis-à-vis a hypothetical source text. Only when we have a clear overview of the style of OG Job can we adequately evaluate the text and describe its place in the Jewish-Greek literary polysystem.

chapter 4

Septuagintal and Natural Greek Usage in Old Greek Job 1 Introduction A reader can often quickly get a sense of the style of a text. The effect that style has on a reader is usually only perceived intuitively. Sometimes, however, a more analytical approach is required—this is the field of stylistics.1 The book of Job has not yet been studied systematically from this perspective. There is no a priori limit to the number of respects in which we can study style, nor is there a principle regarding what parameters to look at first.2 Starting at the lower levels of the text, namely that of vocabulary and syntax in single cola, and gradually building up to more complex structures, such as the use of rhetorical features in increasingly intricate literary units, will build up a detailed, systematic, yet nuanced picture of the style of OG Job. If we do not simply want to look for what others have been looking for in previous studies nor start from scratch, we may begin with examining those phenomena that strike us as unusual for whatever reason and then discover whether our impression is correct.3 Many features that characterize the language of the LXX Pentateuch also characterize the language of other LXX translations. This is the result of their respective translators having adopted a more or less similar translation approach. A similar translation approach will often lead to similarities in style. OG Job appears to have been characterized by a translation method in which formal correspondence between the Hebrew and the Greek was less important while concern for a natural Greek style was more important. Previous scholarship has placed significant emphasis on the differences between the Hebrew and the Greek in Job, to the point that it is difficult to get a nuanced picture of the stylistic character of OG Job, especially in relation to other LXX books. In order to come to a better understanding, we need to analyze how the styles of different books can be compared, both in terms of 1  Crystal, Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, 66; Rosemary Winslow, “Stylistics,” in The Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics, 1370–72; Soma Zyngier, “Towards a Cultural Approach to Stylistics,” CAUCE. Revista de Filología y su didáctica 24 (2001): 365–80. 2  Dover, Greek Prose Style, 43. 3  Dover, Greek Prose Style, 43.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi ��.��63/9789004358492_006

Septuagintal And Natural Greek Usage In Old Greek Job

95

similarities and differences. When trying to see how approaches to translating change over time, Hermans has pointed out the following: Picking one option means that the alternatives are excluded, although they remain latent as a store of future possibilities. For the researcher it pays to have an idea of which options are realistically available to a translator, for instance because they have been chosen before by other translators in comparable cases.4 I will first turn my attention to the Pentateuch. On the basis of a concise analysis of Exod 6:5–6, Aitken has characterized a number of features distinctive of the Greek of the LXX Pentateuch:5 a) the word order of the Hebrew is closely adhered to in the Greek; b) as a result, the paratactic structure of the Hebrew (using waw) is often reflected, leading to a repeated use of καί; c) syntactic features of the Hebrew are represented in the Greek translation, such as the rendering of the particle ‫ אשר‬by a resumptive pronoun; d) the representation of Hebrew idiom, such as λέγων as the equivalent of the introductory formula for direct speech ‫ לאמר‬and the rendering of Hebrew infinitive absolute by cognates in Greek, both of which are examples of positive interference; e) the frequent use of auxiliary verbs (such as θέλω6); f) the development of specific terminology or the extension of the semantics of words; g) the inclusion of words typical of Koine but not of classical Greek; h) the frequent omission of the copula in the Greek text, which is also an example of positive interference; i) transliteration of names or terms is common; in such cases the transliterations can be non-declinable;7 j) compound words are common, perhaps reflecting a development in Koine; k) the representation of the Hebrew prepositions by a standard Greek equivalent, which can lead to both positive as well as negative interference; l) the marking of verbal agents can also be influenced by the Hebrew in the same way as other prepositions.8 I will take Aitken’s list of distinctive features of the language of the LXX Pentateuch as a point of departure and demonstrate whether or not each of 4  Hermans, Translation in Systems, 87–88. 5  Aitken, “Language of the Septuagint,” 121–22. See also Aitken, “Egyptian Translation Methods,” 269–94. 6  See John A. L. Lee, “Auxiliary θέλω,” in The Language of the Papyri (ed. Trevor V. Evans and Dirk D. Obbink; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 15–34. 7  See also Willy Clarysse, “Egyptian Scribes Writing Greek,” Chronique d’É gypte 68 (1993): 186– 201, 198. 8  See George, “Jewish and Christian Greek,” 267–80.

96

chapter 4

these features occurs in the language of OG Job, and if so, to what extent. All of these elements characterizing the translation approach pertain to word choice and/or word order and can as such be considered to have a bearing on the style of OG Job. I will look at aspects of the translation of Job that share similarities with the Pentateuch translation, but also at aspects that pertain to a divergence of the Pentateuchal style towards Greek usage. This comparison will allow a description of the style of OG Job on the lowest level of the text, which will help us get to know our translator and his abilities as a Greek writer, while simultaneously enabling us to get a sense of the nature and extent of the differences between the language of OG Job and that of the Pentateuch. 2

Word Order

2.1 General Observations As in the Greek translation of the Pentateuch, OG Job regularly reflects the word order of the Hebrew text. Job 12:13 presents us with a straightforward example. Every element of the Hebrew appears in the Greek in the same order. Job 12:13 παρ᾿ αὐτῷ σοφία καὶ δύναμις, αὐτῷ βουλὴ καὶ σύνεσις. With him are wisdom and power with him are counsel and understanding.

‫עמו חכמה וגבורה‬ ‫לו עצה ותבונה‬

With him are wisdom and strength; with him are counsel and understanding.

See also 5:12; 7:10; 8:4.11; 9:5; 10:6; 15:12.17.18.19 to list but a few examples. The translator of OG Job does not seem to focus on quantitative representation. It may therefore be more difficult at times to compare Hebrew and Greek word order. The translator often renders particles such as ‫ ו‬or ‫ כי‬with γάρ or δέ, uses natural Greek constructions to render Hebrew conditional clauses, and may leave Hebrew particles untranslated or add them in the Greek (on the use of particles, see below). The position of such particles in Greek is fixed, and the translator’s correct use indicates a sign of natural Greek. It does not, however, influence the order of the main constituents of the cola, such as in 4:9; 5:2.10.13.17.22; 6:24; 7:6.15; 9:6; 12:7; 13:11, for example.9 9  Compare Van der Louw, Transformations, 92 who describes such cases as “obligatory changes of word order.” See also Takamitsu Muraoka, A Syntax of Septuagint Greek (Leuven: Peeters, 2016), 624–26.

Septuagintal And Natural Greek Usage In Old Greek Job

97

The Greek text of Job can sometimes have pluses or minuses compared to the Hebrew. In an example such as 15:22, even though there is one minus (‫)הוא‬ and two pluses (ἤδη and χεῖρας) in the OG text, the word order remains the same. Job 15:22 μὴ πιστευέτω ἀποστραφῆναι ἀπὸ σκότους· ἐντέταλται γὰρ ἤδη εἰς χεῖρας σιδήρου.

‫לא יאמין ׁשוב מני חׁשך‬ ‫וצפו [ו][צפוי] הוא אלי חרב‬

Let him not believe he will return from darkness for he has already been consigned to a blade’s power.

They despair of returning from darkness, and they are destined for the sword.

Compare, for example, Job 1:12.13.14; 3:4.10.12.13.17.18.19.25; 5:4.10.20.25; 6:3.23.27; 8:2.7; 12:2, among many others. Since the translator does not formally adhere to the source text in a systematic manner, the word order of the Greek is often different. K. Kutz, for example, calculated that of the 499 lines in MT Job 3–12 that are reflected in the OG, 121 lines contain departures from the Hebrew word order, concluding on the basis thereof that OG Job can be expected to follow Hebrew word order about 76% of the time.10 Word order in OG Job can be significant from the viewpoint of Greek usage, as for example in the following instances: – In the Hebrew text of Job, cardinals are placed before the noun. In OG Job the word order of the Hebrew is reflected in Job 1:4.19; 2:11.13; 32:1.3; 42:7.8. In Greek, however, a cardinal number may be placed after its noun, 10  Kutz, “Old Greek of Job,” 140–41. Kutz discusses the underlying methodological hazards of the percentage offered by Galen Marquis, “Word Order as a Criterion for the Evaluation of Translation Technique in the LXX and the Evaluation of Word Order Variants as Exemplified in LXX-Ezekiel,” Textus 13 (1986): 59–84, 64–66. The latter calculated that the statistics regarding word order in Job 1–30 are 53,8%, resulting from a comparison of the number of transpositions to the total number of verses, but the workable unit for the book of Job is the colon; since one colon may contain more than one transposition, such a calculation would give a misleading impression. Wright, No Small Difference, 46–47 calculated the ratio of word order differences to the number of lines in various LXX books. He found that LXX Genesis has a ratio of 1108/772 and OG Job a ratio of 952/338, which shows that the translator of Job does not follow the word order of the Hebrew as the translator of Genesis does.

98

chapter 4

such as in Job 1:1.2.17; 42:12.13.16, marking a deviation from the Hebrew word order.11 – A change in word order may also pertain to the position of the subject vis-àvis its verb, such as in 1:6 (‫“ ויבוא גם הׂשטן בתוכם‬and Satan also came among them”—καὶ ὁ διάβολος ἦλθεν μετ᾿ αὐτῶν “and the slanderer came with them”; see also 1:17; 3:7; 11:4; 15:13), or the object vis-à-vis its verb, such as in 1:8 (‫“ ויאמר יהוה אל הׂשטן‬and the Lord said to Satan”—καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ κύριος “and the Lord said to him”; see also 7:17; 8:21; 11:20; 13:24.27). The example of 1:6 may suggest that the subject may be put in the initial position to give it an emphatic or contrastive focus:12 ὁ διάβολος is focal after mentioning the assembly of οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ. This seems to indicate that the differences in word order between the Hebrew and Greek are not necessarily random or purely stylistic.13 The word order of the Greek of 1:8, comprising of verb— clitic pronoun—subject, became an increasingly standard word order in Koine.14 See also 1:17 and 3:7, for instance, where due to a change in word order, the verb occurs in the first position. A sustained investigation could shed light on the pragmatics of word order in OG Job. At this point, the examples above suffice as indicators of the translator’s use of natural Greek with regard to word order. Two particular phenomena can now be highlighted, the use of a genitive before its antecedent as well as the position of the pronoun. These phenomena reflect the use of constructions that are typical of Greek and do not exist in Hebrew. There are also instances in which I would argue that the difference in word order in the Greek text can be interpreted as a sign of the translator’s literary sensitivity. Such cases will be addressed particularly in chapters 7 and 8. It is imperative to show in what way(s) and to what extent the translator employs natural Greek style before we search for indications of literary concern regarding word order.

11  See also Ziegler, Iob, 74, on the position of the adjective before the noun in Job. 12  See Horrocks, Greek, 109. When an element has focus, the word order will be focus— clitic—verb—rest. 13   Contra Kutz, “Old Greek of Job,” 141. 14  Horrocks, Greek, 108–9; Voitila, “Septuagint Syntax,” 94–95. In the presence of an object, the standard word order would be verb—clitic—subject—object—rest. The position of the clitic pronoun will be discussed in more detail below.

Septuagintal And Natural Greek Usage In Old Greek Job

99

The Use of a Genitive before its Antecedent in Rendering a Construct State In Hebrew, the order of the nomen regens and the nomen rectum in a construct state is fixed. In Greek, however, there is relative freedom when it comes to the position of the genitive vis-à-vis its governing noun.15 When a translator follows the word order of the Hebrew, the Greek will stereotypically follow the same pattern, namely the governing noun followed by the genitive. This occurs in OG Job as well. See, for example, 3:6 (‫—ימי ׁשנה‬ἡμέρας ἐνιαυτοῦ “the days of the year”); 5:17 (‫—מוסר ׁשדי‬νουθέτημα (…) παντοκράτορος “the discipline of the Almighty”); 6:12 (‫—כח אבנים‬ἰσχὺς λίθων “the strength of stones”); 7:11 (‫—מר נפׁשי‬πικρίαν ψυχῆς μου “the bitterness of my soul”); 9:9 (‫—חדרי תמן‬ταμιεῖα νότου “the chambers of the south”), to list but a few instances. The translator of Job, however, exploits the possibilities of Greek syntax by playing with the word order within these word groups,16 such as in Job 13:26. 2.2

Job 13:26 ὅτι κατέγραψας κατ᾿ ἐμοῦ κακά, περιέθηκας δέ μοι νεότητος ἁμαρτίας.

‫כי תכתב עלי מררות‬ ‫ותוריׁשני עונות נעורי‬

Because you wrote harmful things against me For you write bitter things against me, and surrounded me with the sins of my and make me reap the iniquities of youth. my youth.

Similar examples can be found in 2:11 (‫אליפז התימני ובלדד הׁשוחי וצופר הנעמתי‬ “Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite”— Ελιφας ὁ Θαιμανων βασιλεύς, Βαλδαδ ὁ Σαυχαίων τύραννος, Σωφαρ ὁ Μιναίων βασιλεύς “Eliphaz, the king of the Thaimanites, Baldad, the tyrant of the Sauchites, Sophar, the king of the Minites”); 6:25 (‫“ אמרי יׁשר‬the words of uprightness”—ἀληθινοῦ ῥήματα “words of a genuine person”); 21:17 (‫—נר רׁשעים‬ἀσεβῶν λύχνος “a lamp of the wicked”); 42:14 (‫“ קרן הפוך‬the horn of Happuch”— Ἀμαλθείας κέρας “the horn of Amaltheia,” see the discussion below). We may 15  On the position of the genitive in a noun phrase in ancient Greek, see Stéphanie J. Bakker, The Noun Phrase in Ancient Greek: A Functional Analysis of the Order and Articulation of NP Constituents in Herodotus (Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology; Leiden: Brill, 2009); Carlotta Viti, “Genitive Word Order in Ancient Greek: A Functional Analysis of Word Order Freedom in the Noun Phrase,” Glotta 84 (2008): 203–38. 16  See the concise remarks by Ziegler, Iob, 75.

100

chapter 4

here also include the use of the reflexive pronoun in the genitive, such as in 2:12 (‫—מעלו‬τὴν ἑαυτοῦ στολήν “his robe”) or 17:9 (‫—דרכו‬τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ὁδόν “his way”).17 Here we touch upon the position of the pronoun, which will be discussed in more detail below. There are several other instances in which the genitive precedes its governing noun, in cases in which the Greek version of the text contains other differences vis-à-vis the Hebrew aside from word order, often as a result of the translator’s attempt at a clarification or an interpretative rendering of the Hebrew text. We can consider the following example: Job 4:19 τοὺς δὲ κατοικοῦντας οἰκίας πηλίνας, ἐξ ὧν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ πηλοῦ ἐσμεν, ἔπαισεν αὐτοὺς σητὸς τρόπον. But as for those that inhabit houses of clay— being their offspring, we ourselves too are of the same clay— he struck them like a moth!

‫אף ׁשכני בתי חמר‬ ‫אׁשר בעפר יסודם‬ ‫עש‬ ׁ ‫ידכאום לפני‬

How much more those who live in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust, who are crushed like a moth.

Commentators on Job do not tend to ascribe a meaning to ‫ לפני‬other than “before,”18 although the interpretation of ‫ לפני‬as the introduction to a comparison is also said to be possible, often referring to a similar instance in Job 3:24.19 The meaning of the colon then becomes problematic to some. “Crushed before the moth” would be an image for the perishable, but in biblical texts the moth is proverbial, not for its fragility, but rather for its destructiveness.20 Commentators therefore sometimes suggest possible alternative readings:21 they read ‫ עׁש‬either as “bird’s nest” (‫אוׁש‬, cognate to the 17  On the use of the genitive adnominal reflexive pronoun in the LXX, see Muraoka, Syntax, 52–54. 18  See most notably Seow, Job 1–21, 407. 19  Only a few commentators maintain that ‫ לפני‬in the Hebrew should be interpreted in the manner of the Greek, that is, as a comparison. See, for example, Clines, Job, 113; Dhorme, Job, 54; Harold H. Rowley, Job (Century Bible New Series; London, Nelson, 1970), 50. 20  Clines, Job, 135. See also Norman Habel, The Book of Job: A Commentary (OTL; London: SCM Press, 1985), 116. 21  For a discussion of different views, see Clines, Job, 113; Luis Alonso Schökel and José L. Sicre Diaz, Job: Comentario teológico y literario (Nueva Biblia española; Madrid: Cristiandad, 1983), 130; Seow, Job 1–21, 407.

101

Septuagintal And Natural Greek Usage In Old Greek Job

Arabic ʿuššun)22 or “maker” (from the verb ‫עׁשה‬, with absence of the final mater lectionis).23 The OG interprets ‫ עׁש‬as “moth,” and takes ‫ לפני‬as the introduction to a comparison.24 This is rendered in a natural Greek way with τρόπον in the accusative. The genitive is placed before the noun. Job 8:21 ἀληθινῶν δὲ στόμα ἐμπλήσει γέλωτος, τὰ δὲ χείλη αὐτῶν ἐξομολογήσεως. But he will fill the mouths of the sincere with laughter and their lips with confession.

‫עד ימלה ׂשחוק פיך‬ ‫וׂשפתיך תרועה‬

He will yet fill your mouth with laughter, and your lips with shouts of joy.

In the latter instance, instead of ‫“ פיך‬your mouth,” the Greek generalizes the statement by talking about ἀληθινῶν (…) στόμα “the mouth of the sincere.” The genitive is put before the noun. See also 5:8 (τὸν πάντων δεσπότην “the ruler of all”); 5:18 (ἀδίκου […] στόμα “the mouth of the unjust”); 20:19 (πολλῶν […] ἀδυνάτων οἴκους “the houses of many poor”); 28:25 (ἀνέμων σταθμὸν ὕδατός τε μέτρα “the weight of winds and the measures of water”); 30:8 (ἀφρόνων υἱοὶ καὶ ἀτίμων ὄνομα “sons of fools and of those dishonored in name”); 31:11 (ἀνδρὸς γυναῖκα “the woman of [another] man”); 32:2 (τῆς Αυσίτιδος χώρας “of the land of Uz”); 38:36 (ὑφάσματος σοφίαν “skill in weaving”); 40:30 (Φοινίκων γένη “the races of Phoenicians”). This typical Greek construction is not entirely absent in the Pentateuch. The difference is that the frequency of its occurrence is considerably higher in OG Job. By way of comparison, the book of Genesis contains only one example: τόξου βολήν for ‫“ מטחוי קׁשת‬a bowshot” in Gen 21:16. The frequency with which this phenomenon occurs in OG Job is a sign of the translator’s natural usage of Greek language.

22  See, for example, Georg Fohrer, Das Buch Hiob (KAT 16; Gütersloh: Herd Mohn, 21989), 131; Gordis, Job, 50. 23  For the former, see Seow, Job 1–21, 407. With regard to the latter opinion, a related suggestion is to take the ‫ מ‬of the following verse (‫ )מבקר‬together with ‫ עׁש‬to form ‫עׁשם‬. See N. Herz, “Some Difficult Passages in Job,” ZAW 20 (1900): 160–63, 160; James A. Rimbach, “Crushed before the Moth (Job 4:19),” JBL 100 (1981): 244–46. 24  Cox, Iob, s.v. 4:19.

102

chapter 4

2.3 The Position of the Pronoun 2.3.1 Introduction In Hebrew, the pronoun, indicating the possessor (to a noun) or the object (to a verb), is often a suffix. When a Greek translator adheres to the word order of the Hebrew, he will place the pronoun in the Greek text after its governing word.25 In Greek, however, the clitic pronoun can be prepositioned. OG Job contains many instances of this phenomenon.26 The clitic pronoun can be placed before or after its governing word. Based on comparative syntax of early Indo-European languages, it was observed that Proto-Indo-European had a set of clitics that tended to follow the first stressed word of the sentence and were collocated with sentence connectives in the second position. This position of the clitic pronoun is now often referred to as Wackernagel’s position.27 Herodotus, Hist. 6.63.2 provides an example:28 ἐν δέ οἱ ἐλάσσονι χρόνῳ (…) ἡ γυνὴ αὕτη τίκτει (…) “and in less time this woman bears for him (…).” As a result, pronouns were frequently widely separated from their naturally governing word, which created tension. This led to a tendency to place the clitic immediately after the relevant head in a syntactic phrase, instead of in the second position in the clause.29 In other words, prepositioning of the clitic pronoun vis-à-vis its governing word is generally triggered by the presence of a preceding word in the sentence that is heavily accented.30 25  Janse, “Aspects of Bilingualism,” 379–80; Muraoka, Syntax, 476–78 and 633–35; Albert Wifstrand, “Die Stellung der enklitischen Personalpronomen bei den Septuaginta,” Arsberatteise, Kungl. Humanistiska Velenskupssamfundet i Lund (1949–1950): 44–70, 44. See also Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, “Die Wiedergabe des Hebräischen Personalpronomens als Subjekt im griechischen Pentateuch,” in De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of J. W. Wevers for his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. Claude E. Cox and Albert Pietersma; Mississauga: Benben, 1984), 115–28; Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, “Die Auslassung des Possessivpronomens im griechischen Pentateuch,” in Studia Orientalia memoriae Jussi Aro dedicata (ed. Francesco Pomponio; Studia Orientalia 55; Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica, 1984), 279–94 (both repr. in Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen: Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 4. Juni 1987 [ed. Anneli Aejmelaeus and Raija Sollamo; Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae B 237; Helsinki: Suomalin Tiedeakatemia, 1987], resp. 71–85 and 86–103). 26  See the remarks by Ziegler, Iob, 71–74. 27   Jacob Wackernagel, “Über ein Gesetz der Indogermanischen Wortstellung,” Indo­ germanische Forschungen 1 (1892): 333–434. 28  This example is borrowed from Horrocks, Greek, 108. 29  Horrocks, Greek, 108. For a detailed discussion of the topic, see Geoffrey Horrocks, “Clitics in Greek: A Diachronic View,” in vol. 2 of Greek Outside Greece: Issues of Language, Literature and Education (ed. Stavros Panteli and Maria Roussou; Athens: Diaspora Books, 1990), 35–52. 30  Janse, “Aspects of Bilingualism,” 381.

Septuagintal And Natural Greek Usage In Old Greek Job

103

Another way to solve the tension of the separation of clitic and governing word was to start placing the verb in the initial position, that is, before the clitic pronoun that occupied Wackernagel’s position. This resulted in an evolution in Greek word order. Instead of the classical verb-final order, the standard word order of Koine Greek moves towards verb—clitic—subject—object—rest.31 2.3.2 Positioning the Possessive Pronoun The translator of Job varies the position of the possessive pronoun. Whereas in many cases the word order of the Greek follows that of the Hebrew, we frequently encounter instances of prepositioning of the pronoun within a word group, such as in Job 5:5 (‫—חילם‬αὐτῶν ἡ ἰσχύς “their strength”32); 5:24 (‫—אהלך‬ σου ὁ οἶκος “your house”); 6:8 (‫—ׁשאלתי‬μου ἡ αἴτησις “my request”); 6:11 (‫—כחי‬ μου ἡ ἰσχύς “my strength”; ‫—קצי‬μου ὁ χρόνος “my time”; ‫—נפׁשי‬μου ἡ ψυχή “my soul”); 7:7 (‫—חיי‬μου ἡ ζωή “my life”); 7:16 (‫—ימי‬μου ὁ βίος “my life”); 13:27 (‫“ כל ארחותי‬all my ways”—μου πάντα τὰ ἔργα “all my actions”); 14:13 (‫—אפך‬σου ἡ ὀργή “your wrath”); 14:17 (‫“ פׁשעי‬my transgression”—μου τὰς ἀνομίας “my transgressions”); 16:20 (‫—עיני‬μου ὁ ὀφθαλμός “my eye”), to give but a few examples. Those instances in which the genitive is placed in between the article and the noun, such as in 2:12; 5:8; 17:9, can be considered hyperbata. A hyperbaton is a typically Greek phenomenon, which can be defined as “a wider than necessary separation of two of more syntactically closely connected words or group of words.”33 There are different types of hyperbaton; at this point, we focus on the separation of a pronoun from its governing noun. The translator can also preposition the clitic to follow an accented word in the sentence. In Job 8:9, for example, we read ‫“ כי צל ימינו עלי ארץ‬for our days on earth are but a shadow”—σκιὰ γάρ ἐστιν ἡμῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ὁ βίος “for our life is a shadow on the earth.” The translator separates the connective γάρ and the pronoun ἡμῶν (which is in turn separated from its governing noun ὁ βίος) by the enclitic copula ἐστιν.34 In some cases, the separation of the pronoun from its governing word is the result of the translator’s following of Wackernagel’s law. These, too, are examples of hyperbata. In each of the following examples, the possessive pronoun is separated from its governing noun that, as a word group, renders a Hebrew

31  Horrocks, Greek, 108–109. 32  The classical third person anaphoric pronoun αὐτόν, although accented, functions here as a clitic. See Horrocks, Greek, 109. 33   Daniel Markovic, “Hyperbaton in the Greek Literary Sentence,” GRBS 46 (2006): 127–45, 127. 34  See also Muraoka, Syntax, 484.

104

chapter 4

noun with a suffix pronoun. The clitic is placed in Wackernagel’s position, after the particle which, according to natural Greek usage, has to be placed right after the opening word of the clause. Job 8:14 ἀοίκητος γὰρ αὐτοῦ ἔσται ὁ οἶκος, ἀράχνη δὲ αὐτοῦ ἀποβήσεται ἡ σκηνή.

‫אׁשר יקוט כסלו‬ ‫ובית עכביׁש מבטחו‬

For his house will be uninhabited, Their confidence is gossamer, and his tent will prove to be a spider’s web. a spider’s house their trust.

See also 17:15 (‫“ ואיה אפו תקותי‬where then is my hope?”—ποῦ οὖν μου ἔτι ἐστὶν ἡ ἐλπίς; “where then is yet my hope?”); 20:26 (‫“ ירע ׂשריד באהלו‬what is left in their tent will be consumed”—κακώσαι δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐπήλυτος τὸν οἶκον “may a stranger afflict his house”); 20:27 (‫“ יגלו ׁשמים עונו‬the heavens will reveal his iniquity”— ἀνακαλύψαι δὲ αὐτοῦ ὁ οὐρανὸς τὰς ἀνομίας “may heaven uncover his lawless acts”); 22:5 (‫“ ואין קץ לעונתיך‬there is no end to your iniquities”—ἀναρίθμητοι δέ σού εἰσιν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι; “are your sins without number?”); 22:25 (‫והיה ׁשדי בצריך‬ “and the Almighty is your gold”—ἔσται οὖν σου ὁ παντοκράτωρ βοηθὸς ἀπὸ ἐχθρῶν “thus the Almighty will be your help from enemies”). Although in this chapter the focus lies mainly on vocabulary and syntax in single cola, I already want to point to the translator’s use of possessive pronouns in parallel cola. When rendering two parallel cola—structured either symmetrically or chiastically (see below, chapter 7)—in which two corresponding elements are both determined by the same pronoun, the translator may opt for the same position for the pronoun in both cases, such as in Job 13:1 (preceding the noun) and 14:8 (following the noun). Job 13:1 ἰδοὺ ταῦτα ἑώρακέν μου ὁ ὀφθαλμὸς καὶ ἀκήκοέν μου τὸ οὖς. Look, my eye has seen these things, and my ear has heard them.

‫הן כל ראתה עיני‬ ‫ׁשמעה אזני ותבן לה‬

Look, my eye has seen all this, my ear has heard and understood it.

Job 14:8 ἐὰν γὰρ γηράσῃ ἐν γῇ ἡ ῥίζα αὐτοῦ, ἐν δὲ πέτρᾳ τελευτήσῃ τὸ στέλεχος αὐτοῦ.

‫אם יזקין בארץ ׁשרׁשו‬ ‫ובעפר ימות גזעו‬

Septuagintal And Natural Greek Usage In Old Greek Job For, if its root grow old in earth and the crown of its root die in a rock.

105

Though its root grows old in the earth, and its stump dies in the ground.

For similar examples, see 5:25; 6:11–12; 7:12; 8:7.14; 10:5.6; 13:14; 14:8.22; 15:12.32; 16:19; 21:24; 22:22; 31:22; 33:22; 40:18; 41:7. Sometimes, however, the translator exploits the possibility to add variation,35 as we see in Job 28:23. Job 28:23 ὁ θεὸς εὖ συνέστησεν αὐτῆς τὴν ὁδόν, αὐτὸς δὲ οἶδεν τὸν τόπον αὐτῆς. God has established well its way, and he himself knows its place.

‫אלהים הבין דרכה‬ ‫והוא ידע את מקומה‬

God understands the way to it, and he knows its place.

Other examples can be found in Job 5:24; 6:2.8; 17:15; 20:6; 22:5; 30:17.31; 33:21; 34:5b–6a; 39:2. In these cases it is difficult to determine whether the variation is linguistically motivated or whether an element of stylistic variation in word order plays a role. 2.3.3 Positioning the Pronoun as Object A similar variation can be found in the position of the pronoun as object in relation to its main verb in cases in which the object in the Hebrew text is expressed by a suffix pronoun. In Greek the pronoun can be placed after the verb, which is the standard position when reflecting Hebrew word order. It can, however, also be placed before the verb (at least when the verb does not occur in clause-initial position). This occurs, for example, in Job 1:11 (‫—יברכך‬σε εὐλογήσει “he will bless you”); 5:19 (‫—יצילך‬σε ἐξελεῖται “he will deliver you”); 6:9 (‫—ויבצעני‬με ἀνελέτω “let him cut me off”); 7:14 (‫—תבעתני‬με καταπλήσσεις “you terrify me”); 8:10 (‫—יורוך‬σε διδάξουσιν “they will teach you”); 9:17 (‫—יׁשופני‬ με ἐκτρίψῃ “he crushes me”); 9:31 (‫—תטבלני‬με ἔβαψας “you plunged me”); 9:34 (‫—תבעתני‬με στροβείτω “let him terrify me”); 10:9 (‫—עׂשיתני‬με ἔπλασας “you made me”); 10:11 (‫—תלביׁשני‬με ἐνέδυσας “you clothed me”; ‫—תסככני‬με ἐνεῖρας “you framed me”); 10:18 (‫—הצאתני‬με ἐξήγαγες “you brought me forth”; ‫—לא תראני‬με οὐκ εἶδεν “he did not see me”); 22:11 (‫—תכסך‬σε ἐκάλυψεν “it covered you”); 29:2 (‫—יתנני‬με θείη “he had put me”). Job 19:22 offers a good example of how the prepositioning of the pronoun functions when it comes to pronouns expressing the object. In this instance, the object με is collocated with the connective δέ. 35  Muraoka, Syntax, 476.

106

chapter 4

Job 19:22 διὰ τί δέ με διώκετε ὥσπερ καὶ ὁ κύριος, ἀπὸ δὲ σαρκῶν μου οὐκ ἐμπίπλασθε; But why do you pursue me just as the Lord does, and are you not satisfied with my flesh?

‫למה תרדפני כמו אל‬ ‫ומבׂשרי לא תׂשבעו‬

Why do you, like God, pursue me, and are never satisfied with my flesh?

As we have seen with the possessive, with respect to the object, too, the position of the pronoun after the accented element in the clause could lead to a separation of the pronoun from its governing word, such as in 29:2, where the object of the verb ἐφύλαξεν is placed after the relative pronoun ὧν. Job 29:2 τίς ἄν με θείη κατὰ μῆνα ἔμπροσθεν ἡμερῶν, ὧν με ὁ θεὸς ἐφύλαξεν;

‫מי יתנני כירחי קדם‬ ‫כימי אלוה יׁשמרני‬

Who might put me in a month of former Oh, that I were as in the months of old, days, when God watched over me? as in the days when God watched over me.

See also Job 39:9 (‫“ היאבה רים עבדך‬is the wild ox willing to serve you?”— βουλήσεται δέ σοι μονόκερως δουλεῦσαι “will the unicorn be willing to be your slave?”). The Hebrew has ‫עבדך‬, which is rendered with the grammatically natural construction δουλεύω + dative σοι, but the pronoun is put in the second position of the clause. Sometimes, the position of the pronoun is varied in parallel cola, such as in Job 7:14. Job 7:14 ἐκφοβεῖς με ἐνυπνίοις καὶ ἐν ὁράμασίν με καταπλήσσεις. You scare me with dreams and terrify me with visions.

‫וחתתני בחלמות‬ ‫ומחזינות תבעתני‬

You scare me with dreams and terrify me with visions.

Septuagintal And Natural Greek Usage In Old Greek Job

107

The direct object, in Hebrew expressed by a suffix in both cola, is in the Greek text placed after the verb in the first colon and before the verb in the second. Compare also, for example, Job 23:636 and 42:4. In the following example, the object in the first colon is expressed by a prepositional phrase (‫)לי‬. In Greek, the object is constructed in the dative (μοι), as a complement to the verb. In this case, too, the word order follows Wackernagel’s law, by placing μοι after δέ, which marks a deviation from the word order of the Hebrew, since ‫ לי‬occurs in the final position in the colon. Job 30:21 ἐπέβης δέ μοι ἀνελεημόνως, χειρὶ κραταιᾷ με ἐμαστίγωσας. Yes, you fell upon me without mercy; with a strong hand you have scourged me.

‫תהפך לאכזר לי‬ ‫בעצם ידך תׂשטמני‬

You have turned cruel to me; with the might of your hand you persecute me.

2.3.4 Pronouns as a Sign of Fluency? Prepositive pronouns are a clear sign of natural Greek usage. This brings us to the question of the extent of the translator’s fluency in Greek. M. Janse suggested that if the LXX translators were able to deal with subtleties of the Greek language such as prepositive pronouns, it must be assumed that they were native speakers of the Egyptian Koine.37 He came to this conclusion regarding the translators of the Pentateuch, since in those books, too, pronouns are sometimes prepositioned.38 Even if one did not want to go as far as positing that Koine Greek was the mother tongue of the translators, which in a multilingual Egyptian society is, in fact, difficult to maintain, it does indicate that the translators were familiar with natural Greek usage and mastered the language at a high level.

36  In the Hebrew text the construction is verb—prepositional phrase, in that order, in both cola. In the Greek, the pronoun is used in the dative to complement the verb, first following and then preceding the verb. 37  Janse, “Aspects of Bilingualism,” 383. 38  Wifstrand, “Die Stellung,” 44–45, lists a number of LXX translations with almost exclusively postpositive enclitic pronouns. These are identical to the assumably later LXX books. See Janse, “Aspects of Bilingualism,” 380.

108

chapter 4

The frequency with which the phenomenon of prepositioning occurs is significantly higher in OG Job than in the LXX Pentateuch. The ratio postpositive to prepositive enclitic pronouns in LXX Genesis has been estimated at 850 to 65.39 Non-biblical Greek may show a similar ratio, especially in vernacular Greek. The ratio will be different, shifting towards more prepositive pronouns, when the text is written in a higher register.40 In OG Job, the ratio is approximately 665 to 210. The translator of Genesis is formally bound to the source text to a large extent. The ratio in Job is another sign that the translator is much less concerned with the formal make-up of the Hebrew. It shows him to be a natural Greek writer, and perhaps even suggests the use of a higher register of Greek. If the prepositioning of the enclitic pronouns is an aspect of natural Greek usage, the occurrence of variation in the position of the pronoun in parallel cola is not necessarily a stylistic element: the translator might have done so unconsciously. It could also be both natural usage and stylistic embellishment, but conscious awareness on the part of the translator cannot be proven. 3

Syntactic and Grammatical Features of the Hebrew

3.1 Parataxis A paratactic clausal structure is common in Hebrew. Greek, in turn, has a greater capacity for hypotaxis than Hebrew does. While parataxis is not unnatural in Greek, occurring increasingly, especially in the vernacular Koine, the frequency with which paratactic structures occur in the LXX Pentateuch can be a sign of positive interference.41 This interference is a result of the translation approach of the translators of the books in question. The Pentateuch translators do, however, exploit the variety of subordinating constructions that the Greek has to offer, in particular through the use of participles.42 Regarding verbal usage, the translators made choices—probably unconsciously for the 39  Wifstrand, “Die Stellung,” 50. See also Janse, “Aspects of Bilingualism,” 380. 40  Janse, “Aspects of Bilingualism,” 380; Albert Wifstrand, “A Problem Concerning the Word Order in the New Testament,” ST 3 (1949): 172–84, 178–79. 41  See especially Anneli Aejmelaeus, Parataxis in the Septuagint: A Study of the Renderings of the Hebrew Coordinate Clauses in the Greek Pentateuch (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum 11; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1982). 42  Aejmelaeus, Parataxis in the Septuagint, passim; Trevor V. Evans, “A Hebraism of Mixed Motivation,” in Helsinki Perspectives, 211–28, 223–24; Frank H. Polak, “Context Sensitive Translation and Parataxis in Biblical Narrative,” in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible,

Septuagintal And Natural Greek Usage In Old Greek Job

109

most part—related less to the Hebrew source text but more so to natural Greek usage.43 This tendency comes to the fore more clearly in OG Job. The translator often uses participial constructions or subordinate clauses of various kinds (adverbial, conditional, objective, and relative).44 In this section I will focus on the genitive absolute, a typical Greek construction, frequently used in Greek. In the translated LXX books, it is relatively rare, appearing a little over two hundred times, with significant difference among the different books.45 In LXX Genesis, twelve cases have been identified,46 whereas in OG Job there are ­twenty-two (Job 1:16.17.18; 2:9; 6:17; 8:15; 13:17; 14:21; 22:27; 24:13; 27:3.9.10; 31:13.25.31; 32:11; 34:20.37; 39:25; 41:17; 42:10.).47 The rule that in classical Greek the subject of the main clause must be different from the subject of the genitive absolute, is no longer operational in Koine Greek.48 In Job 38:8, for example, we read ἔφραξα δὲ θάλασσαν πύλαις, ὅτε ἐμαίμασσεν ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς αὐτῆς ἐκπορευομένη “I shut up the sea with gates, when it quivered with eagerness, as it issued from its mother’s womb.” The subject of the main verb ἐμαίμασσεν, as well as of ἐκπορευομένη in the genitive absolute, is the sea, mentioned in the first part of the verse. The result is that the Greek translation of Job is composed in a more natural Greek style. Moreover, since it was written at a time in which parataxis had become increasingly frequent even in non-translated Greek texts, the observation that the translator strives towards subordination indicates that he might have aimed at a higher register of Greek.

Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (ed. Shalom M. Paul et al.; VTSup 94; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 525–40. 43  Evans, Verbal Syntax, 52 and 134–35. See esp. p. 134: “Given the linguistic coding differences between the Greek and the Hebrew verbal systems (…), the fact that the Greek system is so fully manifested in the Pentateuch is itself a sign of independence [from the Hebrew].” Compare also Voitila, “Septuagint Syntax,” 96–97. 44  Cox, “Tying it all Together,” 44. 45  Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, “Der Gebrauch des genitivus absolutus in der Septuaginta,” in vol. 4 of Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies (ed. Pinchas Peli; Jerusalem: Magness Press, 1973), 131–36, repr. in Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax, 175–80, 176. 46  Soisalon-Soininen, “Gebrauch des genitivus absolutus,” 177 does not provide a full list of verse references, but refers to examples such as Gen 44:26 and 44:34. 47  Soisalon-Soininen, “Gebrauch des genitivus absolutus,” 177 stated that there were twentyone cases, but does not provide verse references. I counted twenty-two cases. 48  Soisalon-Soininen, “Gebrauch des genitivus absolutus,” 177.

110

chapter 4

3.2 The Use of Pronouns 3.2.1 The Resumptive Pronoun One of the features of LXX translations include the use of a resumptive pronoun in the relative clause. In Hebrew, the indeclinable ‫ אשר‬cannot indicate a syntactic relation. Therefore, a resumptive pronoun in the relative clause is often used. In Greek, there is no need for a resumptive pronoun since the declinable relative pronoun can express a syntactic function. Where it does occur in original Greek compositions, the use of the resumptive pronoun is considered pleonastic. The high frequency of resumptive pronouns in the LXX translations are a sign of positive interference.49 We encounter the resumptive pronoun as a translational feature once in OG Job, namely in 6:4 (‫“ חצי […] אׁשר חמתם ׁשתה רוחי‬the arrows […] whose wrath drinks my spirit”— βέλη […] ὧν ὁ θυμὸς αὐτῶν ἐκπίνει μου τὸ αἷμα “the arrows […] whose wrath drinks my blood”).50 Similar constructions in the Greek text, however, can be found in two other instances which mark deviations from the Hebrew, namely in 6:10 (πόλις […] ἐφ᾿ ἧς ἐπὶ τειχέων ἡλλόμην ἐπ᾿ αὐτῆς “the city […] whose walls I used to leap upon”51) and 30:6 (ὧν οἱ οἶκοι αὐτῶν ἦσαν τρῶγλαι πετρῶν “whose houses were the caves of the rocks”52). In these cases, the use of the resumptive pronoun appears in contexts that do not reflect the use of a relative clause in Hebrew.

49  See, for example, Willem F. Bakker, Pronomen Abundans and Pronomen Coniunctum: A Contribution to the History of the Resumptive Pronoun within the Relative Clause in Greek (Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks 82; Amsterdam; North-Holland Publishing Company, 1974), 16–46; Muraoka, Syntax, 50; Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, “The Rendering of the Hebrew Relative Clause in the Greek Pentateuch,” in vol. 1 of Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies (ed. Avigdor Shinan; Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1980), 401–6, repr. in Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax, 55–61; Raija Sollamo, “The Pleonastic Use of the Pronoun in Connection with the Relative Pronoun in the Greek Pentateuch,” in VII Congress of the IOSCS, 75–85. 50  Mangin, “Le texte court,” 648. 51  The rendering can be partially explained on the basis of a different reading of the Hebrew text (‫“ עירי‬my city” for ‫“ עיד‬still” and ‫“ מנחתי‬my resting place” for ‫“ נחמתי‬my comfort”) as well as the translator trying to make sense of the Hebrew (see Cox, Iob, s.v. 6:10), but the use of the resumptive pronoun remains a feature the translator seems to have introduced himself. 52  See Gerleman, Job, 6. The OG version is a paraphrastic rendering of the Hebrew, see Cox, Iob, s.v. 30:6.

Septuagintal And Natural Greek Usage In Old Greek Job

111

3.2.2 The Redundant Use of the Possessive Pronoun Aside from the resumptive pronoun, OG Job also contains many instances that attest to the redundant use of pronouns. This is typical of LXX Greek, although it could also reflect a development in Koine Greek.53 In OG Job we encounter such redundancy in 1:10.13.18; 2:5; 4:6; 7:15; 14:5.8.22; 21:24; 28:23; 30:4; 33:22; 40:18; 42:11. Of particular interest, however, are those instances in which successive nouns govern a single possessor. Hebrew syntax is not able to express one possessor to two coordinated entities and will often explicate the possessor for each noun individually. There are many examples of interference of this typical Hebrew construction in the Greek of the translated books of the LXX.54 For the book of Job, examples of the redundant use of the possessive pronoun can be found in 1:18 (‫—בניך ובנותיך‬τῶν υἱῶν σου καὶ τῶν θυγατέρων σου “your sons and your daughters”); 2:5 (‫“ אל עצמו ואל בׂשרו‬his bone and his flesh”—τῶν ὀστῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν σαρκῶν αὐτοῦ “his bones and his flesh”); 42:11 (‫כל אחיו וכל אחי־‬ ‫“ תיו‬all his brothers and all his sisters”—πάντες οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ αἱ ἀδελφαὶ αὐτοῦ “all his brothers and his sisters”55). Job 13:23 provides an interesting example in which the successive nouns in Hebrew do not have a possessive suffix; rather, the possessor is expressed by the preposition ‫ל‬. In Greek, however, the translator repeats the possessive pronoun. Job 13:23 πόσαι εἰσὶν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι μου καὶ αἱ ἀνομίαι μου; δίδαξόν με τίνες εἰσίν. How many are my sins and my acts of lawlessness? Teach me what they are.

‫כמה לי עונות וחטאות‬ ‫פׁשעי וחטאתי הדיעני‬

How many are my iniquities and my sins? Make me know my transgression and my sin.

53  Aitken, “Language of the Septuagint,” 121 n. 4; Raija Sollamo, Repetition of the Possessive Pronouns in the Septuagint (SBLSCS 40; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1995). 54  Raija Sollamo, “The Koine Background for the Repetition and Non-Repetition of the Possessive Pronoun in Co-ordinate Items,” in Studien zur Septuaginta—Robert Hanhart zu Ehren. Aus Anlass seines 65. Geburtstages (ed. Detlef Fraenkel, Udo Quast, and John W. Wevers; MSU 20; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 52–63. See also Joosten, “Reflections on the Original Language.” 55  Note that πάντες is not repeated in the Greek text as opposed to ‫ כל‬in the Hebrew.

112

chapter 4

The natural Greek way of expressing one possessor, in which a single possessive genitive governs two nouns, is extremely rare in the translated books of the LXX.56 In Job, however, there are some striking examples. Job 17:14 θάνατον ἐπεκαλεσάμην πατέρα μου εἶναι, μητέρα δέ μου καὶ ἀδελφὴν σαπρίαν.

‫לׁשחת קראתי אבי אתה‬ ‫אמי ואחתי לרמה‬

I called on death to be my father and decay to be my mother and sister.

If I say to the Pit, “You are my father,” and to the worm, “My mother,” or “My sister.”

Whereas in the Hebrew text the suffix pronoun ‫ י‬is repeated in the construction ‫אמי ואחתי‬, in Greek we encounter one pronoun μου which refers to both μητέρα and ἀδελφήν. Constructions similar to 17:14 can be found in Job 4:15;57 9:33; 19:15; and 31:13. To summarize, we encounter a number of examples of the use of the pronoun which indicate interference from the Hebrew but which can also reflect regular Koine Greek usage. Although the translator is not consistent, there are many instances that demonstrate that he paid attention to a natural Greek usage of pronouns. 3.3 The Use of Prepositions and Cases In Koine, we see a decreased use of simple cases in favor of an increase in the use of prepositions.58 Within the LXX translations, this development in the Greek language interacts with the tendency of a translator to formally represent a preposition in the Hebrew text by means of a preposition in the Greek text where, in fact, a simple case would have sufficed.59 A typical example is the use of ἐν + dative instead of the simple dativus instrumentalis, often rendering a prepositional phrase in Hebrew introduced by ‫ב‬.60 Hence, the frequent use of prepositions in the LXX again balances on the fine line between positive interference and developments within Koine. A stereotyped translation of prepositions can lead to odd uses in Greek where interference can be

56  Joosten, “Reflections on the Original Language,” only mentions Tob 4:13. 57  The construct state ‫“ ׂשערת בׂשרי‬the hair of my flesh” is rendered as μου τρίχες καὶ σάρκες “my hair and flesh.” 58  Horrocks, Greek, 97. 59  See Sollamo, Hebrew Semiprepositions, 280–89; Voitila, “Septuagint Syntax,” 100–102. 60  Aitken, “Language of the Septuagint,” 122; Voitila, “Septuagint Syntax,” 100.

Septuagintal And Natural Greek Usage In Old Greek Job

113

prominent,61 in particular syntactically—that is, when certain prepositions are connected with certain verbs, resulting in an unnatural construction. OG Job shows different tendencies with regard to the use of prepositions, as the following examples indicate. – There are numerous examples that show the translator’s use of grammatically correct Greek in using cases instead of reflecting the use of prepositions as in Hebrew, such as in 1:2 (‫“ ויולדו לו‬there were born to him”—ἐγένοντο δὲ αὐτῷ “there were born to him”) and 20:6 (‫“ לעב יגיע‬he reaches to the cloud”— νεφῶν ἅψηται “he touches the clouds”). Another example is 16:4, where the Hebrew repeats ‫ עליכם‬in the third and fourth colon as a mesodiplosis, which is rendered in natural Greek respectively as ὑμῖν (after ἐναλοῦμαι) and καθ᾿ ὑμῶν (after κινήσω). Compare also 19:5 (mesodiplosis of ‫—עלי‬ἐπ᾿ ἐμοί / μοι). These cases need not be discussed in detail here, but the observation that the translator frequently uses cases to render prepositions “is a sign of good competence in Greek and of a way of translating where the sense was more important than the formal or grammatical correspondence.”62 – There is significant variation in the course of the book on the macro-level. In 1:15.17; 7:14b; 8:4; 15:3; 23:6, for example, the translator uses ἐν + dative, whereas in 2:12; 7:14a; 9:30; 31:1, the translator uses a simple dative, to express means. Agency with a passive verb can, in conformity with low register Koine, be expressed by ἀπό + genitive (see 16:16; 17:7a; 19:22; 21:20, with ἀπό reflecting ‫ מן‬in the Hebrew text), or as in a higher register of Koine by the neutral ὑπό + dative (6:18; 12:5; 13:25; 17:7b; 38:14; 40:19—all of them in the context of a colon in which there is no direct one-for-one relation between the Hebrew and the Greek).63 – The translator uses many compound verbs, and often repeats the prefix as a preposition to introduce what could sufficiently be expressed with a simple case. This happens with many different prepositions/prefixes:64

61  Aitken, “Egyptian Translation Methods,” 269–94; De Lange, “Jewish Greek,” 641; Dorival, Harl, and Munnich, La Bible grecque, 239. 62  Raija Sollamo, “Repetitions of Prepositions in the Septuagint of Genesis,” in Interpeting Translation: Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust (ed. Florentino García Martínez and Marc Vervenne; BETL 192; Leuven: Peeters, 2005), 371–84, 380. 63  Geoffrey Horrocks, “Syntax: From Classical Greek to the Koine,” in A History of Ancient Greek, 618–31, 630. 64  This list is not exhaustive, but does aptly give the impression that the most frequent prepositions used as prefixes are ἀπό and ἐκ, and to a lesser extent ἐπί, and that εἰς, ἐν, διά, and κατά are much less frequent to rare.

114

chapter 4

• ἀπό

in 7:9 (ἀποκαθαίρω); 7:15 (ἀπαλλάσσω); 7:16 (ἀφίστημι); 9:34 (ἀπαλλάσσω); 13:21 (ἀπέχω); 15:22 (ἀποστρέφω); 19:9 (ἀφαιρέω); 24:24 (ἀποπίπτω), among others; ἐκ in 3:11 (ἐξέρχομαι); 8:10 (ἐξάγω); 8:16 (ἐξέρχομαι); 10:7 (ἐξαιρέω); 18:14 (ἐκρήγνυμι); 20:15 (ἐξέλκω); 22:22 (ἐκλαμβάνω); 24:12 (ἐκβάλλω); 38:8 (ἐκπορεύομαι); 38:13 (ἐκτινάσσω), among others; ἐπί in 10:1 (ἐπαφίημι); 10:17 (ἐπανακαινίζω); 15:19 (ἐπέρχομαι); 17:8 (ἐπανίστημι); 19:29 (ἐπέρχομαι); 38:5 (ἐπάγω), among others; εἰς in 15:28 (εἰσέρχομαι); 21:5 (εἰσβλέπω), among others; ἐν in 18:8 (ἐμβάλλω); 19:24 (ἐγγλύφω); 40:30 (ἐνσιτέομαι); διά in 20:25 (διεξέρχομαι); κατά in 9:7 (κατασφραγίζω); 13:26 (καταγράφω). This leads to a significant amount of repetition within single cola of prefixes and prepositions. There is, however, variation on the macro-level. For example, ἐπιπίπτω is complemented with ἐπί + dative in 4:13; 6:27; 33:15, but with a simple dative in 6:16; 13:11. See also, to name but a few: ἐνάλλομαι, constructed with ἐπί + dative in 6:27 and a simple dative in 16:4 and 19:5; ἐπανίστημι, with ἐπί + dative in 17:8 but with a simple dative in 19:19; 20:27; 30:5; ἐπέρχομαι, with ἐπί + accusative in 3:5; 4:15; 15:19; 19:29; 20:22; 25:3; 40:20 but with a simple dative in 2:11; 20:28; 21:17; 23:6.17; 27:9. A possible explanation for this variation might lie in the observation that the prepositional phrase is often used when reference is made to a noun, whereas in cases where we encounter a simple dative, the indirect object is a pronoun. However, it is not a rule that pronouns occur in a simple case and nouns in a prepositional phrase. For example, in 9:34 we encounter ἀπαλλαξάτω ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ and in 10:17 ἐπανακαινίζων ἐπ᾿ ἐμέ. Most telling is that the same verb may occur with different constructions. We encounter ἐπέλθοι αὐτῷ “let it come upon him” in 20:28, whereas ἐπέρχομαι occurs in the construction ἐπέλθοι ἐπ᾿ αὐτήν “let it come upon her” in 3:5. – Even though the translator of Job often pays attention to natural Greek usage and can hardly be said to use stereotypical renderings of prepositions, the book is not devoid of examples of negative interference in this regard either.65

• • • • • •

65  In addition to the following examples, we may also compare the construction ἡγέομαι with a comparative particle in Job, discussed below.

Septuagintal And Natural Greek Usage In Old Greek Job

115

a) The verb ἐνάλλομαι is a rare word in the LXX. It occurs twice in the books of Maccabees, and four times in Job as an inconsistent rendering.66 In 1 Macc 3:23 and 4 Macc 6:8 ἐνάλλομαι is complemented with a prepositional phrase governed by εἰς, and in Job 16:4.10; 19:5 with the simple dative. Only in Job 6:27 is the complement governed by ἐπί. Whereas ἐνάλλομαι + dative or + εἰς are natural Greek, ἐνάλλομαι + ἐπί is a sign of negative interference,67 with ἐπὶ φίλῳ ὑμῶν rendering ‫על ריעכם‬. In other words, even though the translator knows how to construct a clause with ἐνάλλομαι naturally, he does not necessarily do so. b) Another example of negative interference is found in Job 19:29. We read εὐλαβήθητε δὴ καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀπὸ ἐπικαλύμματος “do as well be afraid of a cover-up.” εὐλαβέομαι is complemented here with a preposition,68 but in natural Greek it would be constructed with the accusative to indicate the object. It is difficult to prove that there is actual interference, as the meaning of the Greek does not reflect the meaning of the Hebrew (ἀπὸ ἐπικαλύμματος for ‫“ מפני חרב‬of the sword”) and ‫ מפני‬does not have a stereotypical rendering in OG Job,69 although in 35:12 and 39:22 ‫ מפני‬is also represented by ἀπό. c) The translator of Job uses πιστεύω “to trust” with an object three times, each time rendering the hiphil of ‫“ אמן‬to trust” (see Job 4:18; 15:15; 24:22).70 The latter is complemented with a prepositional phrase ‫ ב‬to indicate the object. The translator of Job complements πιστεύω each time with κατά. This construction might seem surprising: on the one hand, the preposition κατά is not a stereotypical rendering of ‫ב‬,71 and on the other, in natural Greek, the object to πιστεύω is expressed with a simple case (usually a dative, see LSJ), not with a prepositional phrase. Why, then, does the translator use the construction πιστεύω κατά? The verb καταπιστεύω “to trust” is attested in Greek literature. It is rare in classical literature (only one attestation in Aesop’s Fabulae is listed in TLG), appears four times in Polybius, and only once in the LXX (Mic 7:5), seemingly without a significant semantic difference compared to πιστεύω. 66  Rendering ‫“ כרה‬to bargain” in 6:27, ‫“ חבר‬to compose” in 16:4, ‫“ לטׁש‬to sharpen” in 16:10, and ‫“ יכח‬to reprove” in 19:5. 67  I did not find similar constructions in literature (TLG), papyri (Pap), or inscriptions (SEG). 68  I did not find this construction in literature (TLG), papyri (Pap), or inscriptions (SEG). 69  Other occurrences of ‫ מפני‬and their renderings are Job 13:20 (asterisk); 17:12 (asterisk); 19:29 (ἐπί); 23:15 (reflected in the dative case); 23:17 (πρὸ προσώπου); 30:10 (ἀπὸ προσώπου); 30:11 (asterisk); 37:19 (no equivalent). 70  Other constructions with πιστεύω occur in 9:16; 15:13; 39:12 (complement with ὅτι); in 15:22 (with infinitive); or in 29:24; 39:24 (absolute). 71  The preposition κατά can occur as a plus (e.g., 1:4.5) or for ‫( על‬e.g., 1:8; 12:14; 13:26; 33:10), ‫( כמו‬e.g., 2:3; 9:32; 12:3; 40:9); ‫( בעד‬e.g., 3:23; 9:7), ‫( כ‬e.g., 4:8; 16:4; 29:2; 40:9), ‫( ל‬e.g., 8:8), or ‫( ב‬aside from constructions with πιστεύω e.g., 19:18; 32:3).

116

chapter 4

This could perhaps explain the translator’s choice for κατά as a complement to πιστεύω.72 I am of the opinion that we could gain new insight into the developments of Koine Greek from a thorough analysis of the use of prepositions in the book of Job in particular, because the use of prepositions is not on a systematic basis formally determined by the Hebrew but does show certain deviations when compared to classical usage. 3.4 The Omission of Copula The omission of copula is acceptable in natural Greek, but its frequent occurrence in the LXX Pentateuch is a sign of positive interference.73 One can find nominal phrases without a copula, reflecting the same construction in the Hebrew text, such as in Job 5:17: Job 5:17 μακάριος δὲ ἄνθρωπος, ὃν ἤλεγξεν ὁ κύριος· νουθέτημα δὲ παντοκράτορος μὴ ἀπαναίνου. But happy is the one whom the Lord reproved, and do not reject the admonition of the Almighty.

‫אנוש יוכחנו אלוה‬ ׁ ‫אשרי‬ ׁ ‫הנה‬ ‫ומוסר ׁשדי אל תמאס‬

How happy is the one whom God reproves; therefore do not despise the discipline of the Almighty.

Comparable constructions can be found in 1:1; 6:11; 7:7.16; 8:2; 12:10.12.13.16; 13:12; 14:1.5; 15:14.21.34; 16:2.16.17.19; 17:13; 18:6; 20:5.29; 21:4.8; 23:7; 25:2; 26:3; 27:3.13; 30:8.23; 32:1.19; 33:3; 37:17; 38:19.21; 40:9.16.18; 41:6.7.10.22. In some instances, the translator himself seems to have opted for an omission of the copula. In certain renderings, in which the translation of the Greek deviates from the Hebrew to the extent that a one-for-one relationship between the Hebrew and the Greek cannot be established, the translator may opt for an omission of the copula, such as in 3:23.

72  On the meaning of neologisms for the study of biblical Greek as Koine, see below in chapter 5. We need to consider the possibility that πιστεύω κατά was used in Koine, even if it is unattested outside of the ancient Greek translations of the HB. 73  Aitken, “Language of the Septuagint,” 122; De Lange, “Jewish Greek,” 641.

Septuagintal And Natural Greek Usage In Old Greek Job

117

Job 3:23 θάνατος ἀνδρὶ ἀνάπαυμα, συνέκλεισεν γὰρ ὁ θεὸς κατ᾿ αὐτοῦ. Death is rest for such a man for God shut him in.

‫לגבר אׁשר דרכו נסתרה‬ ‫ויסך אלוה בעדו‬

To a man who cannot see the way, whom God has fenced in?

The nominal clause of OG 23a does not contain a form of εἰμί. One encounters comparable examples in Job 7:4; 11:2.17.20; 31:11; 34:26; 37:21. There are, however, a number of renderings in which a phrase in Hebrew does not have a copula, but the translator does supply a form of εἰμί,74 such as in 3:19; 6:4; 7:1.12.17; 8:9.16; 9:4.32; 10:15.20; 11:14; 12:2; 13:23; 16:3.17; 17:15; 21:9.16; 22:5; 23:2; 27:8.11.14; 28:12.20.28; 29:16; 32:1.6.8; 33:9; 34:21; 36:22; 38:19; 40:19. Especially when the clause is introduced by an interrogative, the translator tends to supply a copula, such as in 17:15 (‫“ איה אפו תקותי‬where then is my hope?”—ποῦ οὖν μου ἔτι ἐστὶν ἡ ἐλπίς; “where then is yet my hope?”) or 28:12 (‫—ואי זה מקום בינה‬ποῖος δὲ τόπος ἐστὶν τῆς ἐπιστήμης “and where is the place of understanding?”). See also 20:7; 28:20; 38:19. When the Hebrew text has the interrogative ‫“ מי‬who?” (as subject) followed by a finite verb, the translator of Job will often opt for a cleft construction of τίς ἐστιν + participle (either with or without the article), such as in 13:19. Job 13:19 τίς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ κριθησόμενός μοι;

‫מי הוא יריב עמדי‬ ‫כי עתה אחריׁש ואגוע‬

For who is there that will find fault with me? Who is there that will contend with me? For then I would be silent and die.

Similar renderings appear in 23:13; 24:25; 26:4; 34:13; 36:23; 38:6; 39:5; 41:2. The standard method of translation is a construction that reflects the Hebrew form, namely with τίς + finite verb. This can be found in Job 4:2; 9:12.19; 19:23; 23:3; 26:14; 31:31; 38:25.29.36.41; 41:3.5.6. 74  Note that the translator uses γίνομαι as a plus in the rendering of Hebrew nominal phrases once, in 12:14. A nominal phrase in the Hebrew may also be rendered using a finite verb, such as in 2:6 (‫“ הנו בידך‬Behold, he is in your power”—ἰδοὺ παραδίδωμί σοι αὐτόν “Behold, I hand him over to you”). See also 13:16.

118

chapter 4

The translator’s use of copula in parallel cola is notable from a stylistic point of view. In 20:5.29; 40:16.18; 41:22, the verse contains two parallel cola in which the copula is omitted in both instances, reflecting the construction of the Hebrew. In 8:9; 28:28; 32:6.8; 33:9, both cola contain a copula which is a plus compared to the Hebrew.75 In some instances, however, the Hebrew does not have a copula in either colon, but the Greek supplies it in in least one of the cola, such as in Job 10:5: Job 10:5 ἦ ὁ βίος σου ἀνθρώπινός ἐστιν ἢ τὰ ἔτη σου ἀνδρός; Is your life human, or your years those of a man?

‫הכימי אנוׁש ימיך‬ ‫אם ׁשנותיך כימי גבר‬

Are your days like the days of mortals, or your years like human years?

Similar examples of such variation can be found in 4:6; 5:25; 6:12; 7:1; 18:21. Only in 5:25 and 6:12 does the copula occur in the second colon. It is interesting to add that in 11:4, the parallel cola in the Hebrew text vary regarding their construction, with a copula occurring in the second colon. In the Greek, the location of the copula is different: Job 11:4 μὴ γὰρ λέγε ὅτι Καθαρός εἰμι τοῖς ἔργοις καὶ ἄμεμπτος ἐναντίον αὐτοῦ. For do not say, “I am pure in my actions and blameless before him.”

‫ותאמר זך לקחי‬ ‫ובר הייתי בעיניך‬

For you say, “My conduct is pure, and I am clean in God’s sight.”

We may thus conclude that there is no clear sign of interference in the OG translation of Job when it comes to the use of copula. Again we observe variation both on the macro-level—that is, in different verses in the course of the text of Job—but also on the micro-level—that is, within consecutive cola. 3.5 The Hebrew Infinitive Absolute The paronomastic construction consists of an infinitive absolute and a finite verb of the same stem and emphasizes the idea of the verb (JM §123). It is a 75  This appears unrelated to the form of the copula. The copula appears in the same form in both cola in 28:28; 32:8; 33:9.

Septuagintal And Natural Greek Usage In Old Greek Job

119

linguistic aspect typical of the Hebrew language.76 The LXX rendering of these constructions in the Pentateuch has been surveyed by R. Sollamo.77 She observed the following types of renderings: – – – –

The use of a participle + finite verb of either the same or a synonymous root. The use of a finite verb + cognate noun, most often in the dative. The use of an adverbial construction. The emphatic notion is not rendered at all.

This construction is not frequent in MT Job. There are eight examples in the Hebrew text.78 We find one example of each type of rendering, except for the second: the use of a finite verb and a cognate noun does not occur in OG Job. In 13:10 the translator uses an adverbial construction (‫“ הוכח יוכיח אתכם‬he will surely rebuke you”—οὐθὲν ἧττον ἐλέγξει ὑμᾶς “he will convict you nonetheless”) and in 13:5 the translator does not render the emphatic notion at all (‫“ מי יתן החרׁש תחריׁשון‬if you would only keep silent”—εἴη δὲ ὑμῖν κωφεῦσαι “but oh that you would be quiet”). The paronomastic construction is rendered formally equivalent to the MT in Job 6:2 (‫“ לו ׁשקול יׁשקל כעׂשי‬oh that my vexation were weighed”—εἰ γάρ τις ἱστῶν στήσαι μου τὴν ὀργήν “if someone really sets about to weigh my anger”). This is the only example of this type of negative interference in OG Job and can indeed be called “unexpected.”79 Note that in Job one encounters a possible fifth way of rendering the paronomastic construction, namely by repeating the verb, in Job 13:17 and 21:2 (twice ‫ׁשמעו ׁשמוע מלתי‬ “listen carefully to my words”—rendered respectively as ἀκούσατε ἀκούσατε τὰ ῥήματά μου and ἀκούσατε ἀκούσατέ μου τῶν λόγων “listen, listen to my words”). 76  It also occurs in other Semitic languages. See, for example, Eran Cohen, “Paronomastic Infinitive in Old Babylonian,” JEOL 38 (2004): 105–12; Rainer Degen, Altaramäische Grammatik der Inschriften des 10.–8. Jh. v. Chr. (AKM 38/3; Wiesbaden: Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft, Kommissionsverlag Franz Steiner, 1969), 116–17; W. Randall Garr, Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000–586 B.C.E. (Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 180–84; Yoo-Ki Kim, The Function of the Tautological Infinitive in Classical Biblical Hebrew (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 112–28. 77  Raija Sollamo, “The LXX Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute Used with a Paronymous Finite Verb in the Pentateuch,” in La Septuaginta en la investigacion contemporanea (V Congreso de la IOSCS) (ed. Natalio Fernández Marcos; Testos y Studios “Cardenal Cisneros”; Madrid: Instituto Arias Montano CSIC, 1985), 101–13. 78  Job 6:2.25; 13:5.10.17; 21:2; 27:22; 37:2. In 6:25; 27:22; 37:2, the Greek does not allow a discussion of the equivalence as such (due, respectively, to a different way of vocalizing the Hebrew text as well as to a rewriting of the Hebrew in 6:25, and the colon in question being asterisked material in 27:22 and 37:2). 79  Cox, Iob, s.v. 6:2.

120

chapter 4

One could argue, however, that the translator might have read ‫ ׁשמעו ׁשמעו‬80 (compare, for example, Job 19:21: ‫—חנני חנני‬ἐλεήσατέ με, ἐλεήσατέ με “pity me, pity me”). 3.6 Interference when Using ἡγέομαι The translator of Job sometimes uses ἡγέομαι denoting “to consider” naturally, that is, with a double accusative (“to consider X as Y”), such as in 13:24: Job 13:24 διὰ τί ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ κρύπτῃ, ἥγησαι δέ με ὑπεναντίον σοι; Why do you hide from me and regard me your opponent?

‫למה פניך תסתיר‬ ‫ותחׁשבני לאויב לך‬

Why do you hide your face, and count me as your enemy?

See also 41:19 (‫“ יחׁשב לתבן ברזל‬it counts iron as straw”—ἥγηται μὲν γὰρ σίδηρον ἄχυρα “for it regards iron as chaff”); 41:20 (‫“ נהפכו לו אבני קלע‬slingstones, for it, are turned to chaff”—ἥγηται μὲν πετροβόλον χόρτον “it regards a catapult as grass”) and 42:6 (‫“ נחמתי על עפר ואפר‬I repent in dust and ashes”—ἥγημαι δὲ ἐμαυτὸν γῆν καὶ σποδόν “and I regard myself as dust and ashes”81). In 33:10, however, the exact same Hebrew construction used in 13:24 reappears, but the rendering here is not natural.82 Job 33:10 μέμψιν δὲ κατ᾿ ἐμοῦ εὗρεν, ἥγηται δέ με ὥσπερ ὑπεναντίον. But he found a basis for complaint against me and has reckoned me as an adversary.

‫הן תנואות עלי ימצא‬ ‫יחׁשבני לאויב לו‬

Look, he finds occasions against me, he counts me as his enemy.

80  Dhorme, Job, 188. We may add the observation that in 37:2, 4QJoba has the defective ‫ׁשמע‬ ‫ ׁשמע‬for MT ‫ׁשמעו ׁשמוע‬. 81  The meaning of the Hebrew is heavily debated (see especially Clines, Job, 1218–23 for an overview of the scholarly discussion). The relationship between the Hebrew and the OG is therefore complicated, but the Greek does reflect a natural use of the verb. 82  A database search showed that this construction does not occur in other literary texts (TLG), papyri (Pap), or inscriptions (SEG).

121

Septuagintal And Natural Greek Usage In Old Greek Job

The translator uses a preposition to introduce the predicative, a construction that does not occur in classical or Koine Greek. In the translation, the preposition reflects the use of the preposition in Hebrew ‫ל‬. Similar unnatural constructions of ἡγέομαι with a preposition occur in 19:11 (‫ויחׁשבני לו כצריו‬ “and he counts me as his adversary”—ἡγήσατο δέ με ὥσπερ ἐχθρόν “and he has counted me as an enemy”); 30:19 (‫“ הרני לחמר‬He has cast me into the mire”—ἥγησαι δέ με ἴσα πηλῷ “and you have regarded me as clay”); 41:23 (‫“ ים יׂשים כמרקחה‬it makes the sea like a pot of ointment”—ἥγηται δὲ τὴν θάλασσαν ὥσπερ ἐξάλειπτρον “and it regards the sea as a pot of ointment”). Since this is not an example of a stereotyped rendering of a preposition, these cases show interference from Hebrew idioms. In 41:19, both constructions even occur next to one another, which appears to be an element of variation, as the construction in the Hebrew text is identical in both cola. Job 41:19 ἥγηται μὲν γὰρ σίδηρον ἄχυρα, χαλκὸν δὲ ὥσπερ ξύλον σαθρόν. For it regards iron as chaff and bronze as rotten wood.

‫יחׁשב לתבן ברזל‬ ‫לעץ רקבון נחוׁשה‬

It counts iron as straw, and bronze as rotten wood.

The use of ἡγέομαι in the sense of “to consider” is typical of Job. To denote “to consider,” the LXX most commonly uses λογίζομαι.83 In other LXX books, ἡγέομαι primarily occurs in the sense of “to lead” (over one hundred forty times, often as the participle ἡγούμενος “leader”). Only in 2 Macc 4:15; 3 Macc 5:42; 4 Macc 14:11; Prov 5:19; Wis 1:16; 7:8 does ἡγέομαι occur in the sense of “to consider.”84 In the examples listed outside OG Job, ἡγέομαι is consistently complemented naturally with a double accusative. Hence, the non-natural construction is an example of negative interference which is unique to OG Job in the corpus of LXX translations.

83  This verb occurs only twice in Job, in 31:28 and 34:47, in the context of a verse that does not formally correspond to the Hebrew. 84  See Gerleman, Job, 15.

122 4

chapter 4

Koine Greek

4.1 Spelling We could first look at aspects related to spelling. In certain instances, when alternative spellings are not included in the apparatus—and if we can conclude on that basis that the manuscript tradition is uniform and would represent the original spelling—we see indications of the use of Ionic forms, which is typical of Koine,85 such as οἴδασιν (Job 9:5; 32:7.9; 36:28) instead of the Attic ἴσασιν.86 Matters of spelling are, however, often difficult to evaluate. A clear example is the use of the Koine forms γίνομαι and γινώσκω for the Attic γίγνομαι and γιγνώσκω.87 With regard to the text of Job, a verbal form with the praesens stem of γι(γ)νώσκω occurs only in 36:5. A. Rahlfs printed γίγνωσκε, while Ziegler printed γίνωσκε. The latter did include γίγνωσκε in the apparatus, referring to the Codex Vaticanus and two manuscripts from the seventh to eighth century and the tenth century, respectively.88 It is unclear whether γίγνωσκε would have been original—and hence indicating a strong Atticizing tendency in the language of the translator himself—or whether it would have been the result of Atticizing corrections in the process of the transmission of the text.89 The praesens stem of γί(γ)νομαι occurs eight times (7:4; 11:3; 28:1.2; 29:22; 37:6; 38:33; 40:32); in all cases Rahlfs and Ziegler print the same spelling, but in 11:3 and 40:32, the Attic form is included in Ziegler’s apparatus.90 Similar considerations can be made with regard to the use of the Ionic -σσ-, typical of Koine, instead of the Attic -ττ-. See, for example, νεοσσός, which occurs in 5:7; 38:41; 85  Dorival, Harl, and Munnich, La Bible grecque, 244. 86  Horrocks, Greek, 38. 87  Horrocks, Greek, 82. 88  Athos, Λαύρα Γ 51 (291) and the Vatican manuscript Regin.gr. 1, both in minuscule script. 89  An Atticizing tendency, that is, the pursuit of allegedly Attic Greek literary standards, was alive from the first century BCE. See John N. Kazazis, “Atticism,” in A History of Ancient Greek, 1200–12; Kennedy, A New History of Classical Rhetoric, 152–53; Joy Connolly, “The New World Order: Greek Rhetoric in Rome,” in A Companion to Greek Rhetoric (ed. Ian Worthington; Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World, Literature and Culture; Oxford: Blackwell, 2007), 139–65, 155–57; John A. L. Lee, “The Atticist Grammarians,” in The Language of the New Testament, 283–308. 90  In 11:3 the Attic form is only attested in one minuscule manuscript from the National Library in Vienna, Theol.gr. 230 (sixteenth century). In 40:32 there are two praesens forms. For the first one, γινόμενον, the Attic spelling only occurs in the Codex Alexandrinus. For the second one, γινέσθω, the Attic form only occurs in one group of three related manuscripts from the Lucianic recension.

Septuagintal And Natural Greek Usage In Old Greek Job

123

39:30. Only in 5:7 is the variant spelling with -ττ- included in the apparatus, attested only in manuscripts including writings of later Christian commentators. πράσσω occurs only once in a form in which the praesens stem is used, namely in 34:21. Here, Ziegler also includes a few manuscripts reading -ττ- in the apparatus, attested in a significant number of manuscripts.91 With regard to the use of θάλασσα, which occurs nine times in Job (7:12; 9:8; 11:9; 14:11; 26:12; 38:8; 38:16; 41:22; 41:23), the variant spelling θάλαττα is only listed in the apparatus of 41:22 and 23.92 In 4:4 and 17:9, we read the Koine θάρσος, with the Attic spelling θάρρος only listed as a variant by Ziegler in the former.93 Hence, if we follow Ziegler, the translator appears to have used many Ionic forms, typical of Koine. 4.2 Vocabulary More significant than spelling is the use of certain words that are typical of Koine or classical words that have a typically Koine meaning. OG Job includes the use of ὑποζύγιον meaning “ass” (24:3),94 πεδίον denoting “agricultural territory” rather than “plain land”95 (Job 39:10.21), μέρος referring to “side” rather than “part”96 (Job 31:12), ἀναστρέφω “to return”97 (Job 10:21), ἀντίκειμαι “to resist, to be an adversary”98 (Job 13:25), ἐντρέπω “to be ashamed”99 (Job 32:21), παρακαλέω “to comfort”100 (Job 2:11; 7:13; 21:34); συναντάω “to befall” (a person, in the dative)101 (Job 3:12.25; 4:14; 5:14; 27:20; 30:26; 39:22; 41:18). The frequent use of λαλέω may also be included.102 It is used over forty times in the book of 91  The Attic spelling is attested in manuscripts from the Lucianic recension, as well as in a group of catenae manuscripts, the oldest of which date back to the eleventh and twelfth century (the Vatican manuscripts Palat.gr. 230 and Vat.gr. 1231). 92  For v. 22 θάλαττα is attested in three manuscripts of catenae, from the twelfth to the fourteenth century. For v. 23 θάλαττα is attested in one catenae manuscript from the thirteenth century. 93  Only in Athos, Λαύρα Γ 51 (291). 94  See Deissmann, Bible Studies, 160–61; Jan Joosten, “Language as Symptom: Linguistic Clues to the Social Background of the Seventy,” Textus 23 (2007): 69–80, repr. in Collected Studies, 185–96, 186; Lee, Lexical Study, 58 and 140–44; Orsolina Montevecchio, La Papirologia (Trattati e Manuali; Milan: Vita e Pensiero, 1988), 79. 95  Montevecchio, Papirologia, 140. 96  Lee, Lexical Study, 73. 97  Lee, Lexical Study, 82. 98  Lee, Lexical Study, 82. 99  Lee, Lexical Study, 83. 100  Lee, Lexical Study, 83. 101  Lee, Lexical Study, 84. 102  Lee, Lexical Study, 83.

124

chapter 4

Job. For the sake of completeness, I add that εἶπεν occurs about fifty-five times and λέγω over forty times. In addition, Koine vocabulary contains a large number of new formations, that is, words newly formed on existing stems by means of suffixes or compounds,103 such as ἀμπελών “vineyard” (Job 24:6), πρωϊνός “in the morning”104 (Job 38:12), μίσθιος “hired laborer”105 (Job 7:1), εὐδοκέω “to be well pleased”106 (Job 14:6), ἐξαποστέλλω “to send away”107 (Job 12:19; 14:20; 22:9; 30:11; 39:3). With this, we touch upon the use of compound verbs which are composed of a simplex with a preposition as prefix, a so-called preverb. The frequent presence of compounds in LXX books reflects a development in Koine. Lee has argued that the LXX translators’ use of compounds, whose connotations are often varied and natural, is indicative of their familiarity with Greek usage.108 The text of OG Job is only a third in length of that of LXX Psalter, but contains about twice as many prepositional compounds,109 including typically Koine compounds, such as ἐξαποστέλλω, εἰσακούω,110 and ἐκπορεύω.111 The preverb is often repeated as a preposition that functions as a complement. 4.3 Syntax Aside from developments in vocabulary, Greek syntax also undergoes certain changes in Koine. In OG Job we encounter some syntactical constructions typical of Koine. I have already mentioned an increase in the use of prepositions, for example to express a dative of means. Other elements related to syntax include:

103  Lee, Lexical Study, 85–113. 104  Lee, Lexical Study, 110; Thackeray, Grammar of the Old Testament, 90. 105  Lee, Lexical Study, 112. 106  Lee, Lexical Study, 97. 107  John A. L. Lee, “Exapostellô,” in Voces Biblicae: Septuagint Greek and its Significance for the New Testament (ed. Jan Joosten and Peter J. Tomson; Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 99–113. 108  Lee, Lexical Study, 35. 109  Gerleman, Job, 7. On the translator’s tendency to use compounds, see also Claude E. Cox, “The Wrath of God Has Come to me: Job’s First Speech According to the Septuagint,” SR 16 (1987): 195–204, 203. 110  Aitken, “Language of the Septuagint,” 122. 111  Lee, Lexical Study, 85–86 and 91–92.

Septuagintal And Natural Greek Usage In Old Greek Job

125

– A neuter plural subject may take a verb in the singular, namely in Job 3:9; 5:25; 17:11; 30:4; 38:28; 40:15(?);112 40:17. This is the so-called σχῆμα Ἀττικόν.113 A subject in neuter plural is often, however, also followed by a verb in the plural, namely in 1:19; 3:12; 16:22; 21:11; 29:6; 38:7; 40:22.30. This type of variation between both constructions is typical of Koine.114 – Also typical of Koine is the use of the articular infinitive, that is, an infinitive with an article. A substantivized infinitive in the genitive may express purpose,115 such as in Job 1:15.16.17.19; 2:11; 31:34; 33:24; 34:8; 38:4. The rendering of Job 38:4 is a telling example of the use of the articular infinitive. In Hebrew, we read ‫“ ביסדי ארץ‬in my establishing of the earth,” which is rendered as ἐν τῷ θεμελιοῦν με τὴν γῆν. This example shows the prepositional strengthening of the dative of time, also typical of Koine,116 with a substantivized infinitive complemented by an accusative subject in a complex structure.117 Another example of the use of the articular infinitive can be found in the construction παρὰ τὸ μή + infinitive. This construction is known from classical literature (see, for example, Thucydides, Hist. 1.77.3.2), but its use increases in Koine. There are several occurrences in the LXX (e.g., Exod 14:11; Num 14:16; Deut 9:28; 23:5; 4 Kgdms 1:3.6; Isa 6:11; Jer 2:15; 4:7; 9:9; Bar 3:28). It is used a number of times in Job as well (e.g., 4:11.20.21; 24:8; 36:12). It can also be found in papyri (Pap), such as in P.Cair.Zen. 3 59377 (Arsinoïtes, third century bce), P.Enteux. 91 (Magdola [Arsinoïtes], 221 bce), and P.Lond. 7 2017 (unknown provenance, 242–241 bce). – On a related note, we may discuss the occurrence of a peculiar syntactical rarity in translated Greek texts. A notable aspect of translations—both 112  In the second colon, ἐσθίει is used in the singular. This may represent the use of the singular ‫ יאכל‬in the Hebrew text. In the Hebrew, the subject is ‫בהמות‬, mentioned in 17a. In Greek, we read θηρία (plural) rather than a reference to a mythical creature (see below). In the Greek text, it is not entirely clear whether θηρία is regarded as the subject of ἐσθίει, and would hence be a fitting example in this list, or whether it simply represents the Hebrew. One could argue that 17a and 17b have different subjects, and that the subject of ἐσθίει is not mentioned but should be a singular noun, since v. 16 reads ἰσχὺς αὐτοῦ “his strength.” See Mangin, “Le texte court,” 371 n. 537. 113  See Gerleman, Job, 6. 114  Mangin, “Le texte court,” 630. See also Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, “Die Konstruktion des Verbs bei einem Neutrum plural im griechischen Pentateuch,” VT 29 (1979): 190–200, repr. in Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax, 189–99. 115  Horrocks, Greek, 94. See also Muraoka, Syntax, 338. 116  Horrocks, Greek, 95. 117  Horrocks, Greek, 95–96.

126

chapter 4

in Greek papyri which contain translations from Egyptian as well as in the LXX—pertains to the inflection in noun phrases, namely “the placement of a nominative in apposition to a noun in a different case (especially in lists).”118 Job 7:1–2 offers an example. Job 7:1–2 πότερον οὐχὶ πειρατήριόν ἐστιν ὁ βίος 1 ἀνθρώπου ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ ὥσπερ μισθίου αὐθημερινοῦ ἡ ζωὴ αὐτοῦ; ἢ ὥσπερ θεράπων δεδοικὼς τὸν κύριον αὐτοῦ 2 καὶ τετευχὼς σκιᾶς ἢ ὥσπερ μισθωτὸς ἀναμένων τὸν μισθὸν αὐτοῦ. Is not the life of a human being on earth a trial, and is not his life like that of a day-laborer? Or like an attendant who fears his master and finds shadow, or life a wage-earner waiting for his wages?

‫הלא צבא לאנוׁש על ארץ‬ ‫וכימי ׂשכיר ימיו‬ ‫כעבד יׁשאף צל‬ ‫וכׂשכיר יקוה פעלו‬

Does not a human being have a hard service on earth, and are not his days like the days of a laborer? Like a slave who longs for the shadow, and like laborers who look for their wages.

In 1b, the life of a human (‫ )ימיו‬is compared to the life of a laborer (‫)כימי ׂשכיר‬. In the Hebrew text the next verse is not connected to the previous one with a copula. In Greek, however, it is: ἡ ζωὴ αὐτοῦ is first compared to the life of a day-laborer. In the Hebrew ‫ ים‬is repeated, but in the Greek, a noun is omitted in the expression ὥσπερ μισθίου αὐθημερινοῦ. We are supposed to read ὥσπερ [ζωή, or any other word denoting life] μισθίου αὐθημερινοῦ “like [the life of] a day-laborer.” Such an ellipse is acceptable in natural Greek. In Greek, however, the comparison is explicitly continued in the next verse, by the use of the particle ἤ at the beginning of both 2a and 2b. This reflects a natural Greek use of particles. By introducing v. 1 with πότερον, the translator indicates that a complex question will follow in which two or more options will be offered. Each of the options is introduced by ἤ (LSJ). Hence, both cola of v. 1, connected 118  Aitken, “Egyptian Translation Methods,” 269–94. See also R. Glenn Wooden, “Interlinearity in 2 Esdras: A Test Case,” in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures (ed. Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden; SBLSCS 53; Atlanta, Ga.: SBL Press, 2006), 119–44, 133–43; Thackeray, Grammar of the Old Testament, 23.

Septuagintal And Natural Greek Usage In Old Greek Job

127

by καί, present the first part of the question. The second option, which elaborates on 1b, is presented in 2a, and a third in 2b. By repeating the comparative particle ὥσπερ, it is clear that the structure of 1b–2b is as follows: ἡ ζωὴ αὐτοῦ ὥσπερ (…) ἢ ὥσπερ (…) ἢ ὥσπερ (…). This can be regarded as a list. With μισθίου αὐθημερινοῦ in the genitive in 1b to a presupposed noun denoting “life,” Greek grammar would require a similar construction in 2a and 2b, with the nouns in the genitive, but instead, the translator uses the nominative, θεράπων in 2a and μισθωτός in 2b. 4.4 Summary Describing the language of OG Job as “linguistically (…) approach[ing] to the Attic”119 is a statement that lacks nuance. There might be some Atticizing features in the text, which I will discuss in more detail in the next chapter. Yet the language of Job clearly attests to a Koine Greek setting on different textual levels, such as vocabulary and syntax. There are several Koine features in OG Job, however, that suggest that this book has been written in a register of Koine that transcends the vernacular Koine of the LXX Pentateuch. 5 Transliteration 5.1 The Names of Job’s Friends and Family Transliteration appears mainly in the asterisked material of Job.120 In the OG it is rare. Only the names of Job and his friends are transliterated and remain indeclinable for the most part:121 ᾽Ιώβ; ᾽Ελιφάς; Βαλδάδ; Σωφάρ; (son of) Βαραχιήλ; (of the family) ῾Ράμ. The names of Elihu as well as of Uz get a Greek equivalent in declinable form: ᾽Ελιοῦς (see Job 38:1, the use of the accusative) and Αὐσίτις (see the dative in 1:1 and the genitive in 32:2). The gentilicia are rendered as declinable forms: Θαιμάν (only occurring in the genitive plural) and Θαιμανίτης; Σαυχαῖος and Σαυχίτης; Μιναῖος; Βουζίτης. The names of Job’s new daughters, listed in 42:14, are not transliterated. They each get a Greek counterpart that seems to reflect an etymologically 119  Gerleman, Job, 13. See also Zacharias Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta (Leipzig: Fr. Chr. Wilh. Vogel, 1841), 239; Richard Meister, “Prolegomena zu einer Grammatik der LXX,” Wiener Studiën. Zeitschrift für klassische Philologie 29 (1907): 228–59, 248; Thackeray, Grammar, 13. 120  Gentry, Asterisked Material, 305–13; Mangin, “Le texte court,” 478. 121  On the formation of proper names in the LXX, see Aitken, “Language of the Septuagint,” 122.

128

chapter 4

inspired rendering of the Hebrew: ‫“ ימימה‬Jemimah”—Ἡμέρα “Day,” ‫קציעה‬ “Keziah”—Κασία “Casia,” and ‫“ קרן הפוך‬Horn of Happuch”—Ἀμαλθείας κέρας “Horn of Amaltheia.” The rendering ‫—ימימה‬Ἡμέρα seems based on the etymological connection of ‫ ימימה‬to ‫“ יום‬day.”122 The middle one can be been as a transliteration, ‫—קציעה‬Κασία.123 Though here used as a proper name, ‫קציעה‬ is also a noun, referring to a spice like cinnamon made from the bark of a tree (HALOT; DCH).124 The Greek equivalent is of a similar nature. Although indicating a proper name, the noun κασία appears in Greek literature from Sappho and Herodotus onwards125 to denote what we know as cassia, a type of plant (LSJ). The use of Ἀμαλθείας κέρας especially has sparked debate regarding the translator’s proneness to incorporating culturally Greek elements, as we have seen in the first chapter. Already in the fourth–fifth century ce, Theodore of Mopsuestia expressed his discontentment with Ἀμαλθείας κέρας as the name of Job’s daughter in his Expositio in Jobum.126 Ἀμαλθείας κέρας can, however, be explained on a linguistic rather than a cultural basis. It has been suggested that the translator read ‫ הפוך‬as the passive participle of ‫“ הפך‬to transform,” and as a result interpreted ‫ קרן הפוך‬as “horn of changing; transformed horn,”127 referring to the cornucopia. The cornucopia is a Jewish symbol that appeared in Jewish art from the second century bce onwards.128 The term Ἀμαλθείας κέρας is the standard Greek term to refer to the cornucopia (LSJ). Like with the term ᾅδης “Hades” for ‫ׁשאול‬, such a Greek 122  Commentators on the Hebrew often interpret ‫ ימימה‬as “dove,” see Clines, Job, 1238; Gordis, Job, 498; Gray, Job, 506; Pope, Job, 292; Rowley, Job, 268; Alonso Schökel and Sicre Diaz, Job, 604; Samuel Terrien, Job (Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament 13; Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1963), 273; Naftali H. Tur-Sinai, The Book of Job: A New Commentary (Jerusalem: Kiryath Sepher, 1967), 581. 123  The only other occurrence of ‫ קציעה‬in the LXX appears in Ps 44(45):9, which is also rendered as κασία in the LXX. 124  See also commentators such as Clines, Job, 1238; Gordis, Job, 498; Gray, Job, 506; Pope, Job, 292; Rowley, Job, 268; Alonso Schökel and Sicre Diaz, Job, 604; Terrien, Job, 273; Tur-Sinai, Job, 581. 125  See, for example, Herodotus, Hist. 3.110, where the plant’s use by Arabians is described. 126  See the edition by Jacques-Paul Migne, PG 66, col. 697–98. 127  Gerleman, Job, 38. HALOT suggests an interpretation of ‫ קרן הפוך‬as “little make-up box,” and some scholars interpret it as eye-paint (e.g., Clines, Job, 1238; Gray, Job, 506; Habel, Job, 585; Rowley, Job, 268; Tur-Sinai, Job, 581–82), whereas others link it to perfume (e.g., Terrien, Job, 273). In the context of the present study, however, the focus lies on the way in which the Greek translator has interpreted the name. 128  See, for example, Erwin R. Goodenough, Pagan Symbols in Judaism (Bollingen Series 37; vol. 8 of Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period; New York: Pantheon Books,

Septuagintal And Natural Greek Usage In Old Greek Job

129

rendering may bring about mythological associations, but the Greek language did not have another way of expressing the concept mentioned in the Hebrew text.129 As such, it is not a sign of the translator’s cultural Hellenization.130 Elements of Greek culture appear in the text because the text in question is translated into the Greek language, but that does not imply that the text is, therefore, culturally Greek. All three names demonstrate that the translator provides a linguistically Greek equivalent that retains the semantic element of the source text (respectively the reference to the day, the plant, and the cornucopia) and are part of a strategy to give Job’s daughters actual Greek names, rather than transliterated ones. 5.2 The Names of the Sea Creatures The sea creatures mentioned in the Hebrew text, Leviathan, Behemoth, and Rahab, also get Greek equivalents in the OG text. ‫ לויתן‬becomes τὸ μέγα κῆτος “the great seamonster” in Job 3:8 and δράκων “serpent” in Job 40:25. Outside of Job, ‫ לויתן‬appears in Isa 27:1bis and Ps 73(74):14; 103(104):26 and is each time rendered as δράκων. In OG Job both κῆτος and δράκων occur more often than just as a rendering of Leviathan. In other LXX books, κῆτος does not refer to a mythological creature (see Gen 1:21; 3 Macc 6:8; Jon 2:1.2.11; Dan 3:79). Of particular interest is Gen 1:21, where τὰ κήτη τὰ μεγάλα renders ‫התנינם הגדלים‬, to denote the great sea monsters that God created. Moreover, κῆτος occurs twice more in Job (9:13 and 26:12), apparently for the Hebrew ‫ רהב‬in 26:12 and ‫“ עזרי רהב‬helpers of Rahab” in 9:13. Rahab is also

1958), ii:106–14; Paul Romanoff, “Jewish Symbols on Ancient Jewish Coins (Continued). Chapter IV: Cornucopia,” JQR 34 (1943): 161–77. 129  Theocharous, Lexical Dependence and Intertextual Allusion, 46 classes this rendering in the Pentateuch as a rendering which was readily available from the Hellenistic context. 130  At this point we may also briefly address the use of σειρήν in 30:29, which Angelini, “Biblical Translation and Cross-Cultural Communication,” 36; Gerleman, Job, 38 and 44; Kutz, The Old Greek Job, 36; Witte, “Greek Book of Job,” 39 also argue as being an indication of influence from Greek mythology. The noun σειρήν is used five more times in other LXX books: in Mic 1:8; Isa 13:21; 34:13; 43:20; Jer 27:39. In Isa 34:13 and 43:20 the word occurs in a word pair with στρουθός, as it does in Job 30:29. Moreover, in both cases, the word renders ‫תנים‬, as it does in Job; σειρήν does not only refer to the mythical creature known from Homer’s Odyssey, but can also designate a bee or a bird (LSJ). There is no clear evidence to argue that the translator of Job was incorporating Greek mythology here. Rather, especially since the translator of Job was familiar with Greek Isaiah, it could have been an associative translation.

130

chapter 4

known as a sea creature (see Isa 51:9; Ps 88[89]:11).131 As a result, Rahab and Leviathan are both rendered as κῆτος. The helpers of Rahab are κήτη τὰ ὑπ᾿ οὐρανόν (this is the only plural attestation of κῆτος in Job). Leviathan is τὸ μέγα κῆτος. C. E. Cox argues in favor of there being a mythological undertone in the Greek text of 3:8, because of the use of the definite article. In an Egyptian context, according to Cox, the readers of OG Job might identify the great sea monster with Apophis, a serpent deity.132 Note, however, that in 26:12, the translator uses a definite article before κῆτος, too. I would suggest, especially in light of the translator’s concern for coherence of the translation’s narrative,133 as well as of his thorough familiarity with the Pentateuch and Isaiah (see below), that by rendering ‫ לויתן‬and ‫ רהב‬as τὸ (μέγα) κῆτος, the creatures referred to are demythologized and explicitly diminished to one of God’s creations. In 9:13 and 26:12, too, κῆτος is explicitly subject to God. By rendering ‫ לויתן‬as δράκων in 40:25, any reader who is not familiar with the Hebrew text of Job or with oral traditions would not know that τὸ μέγα κῆτος and δράκων refer to the same creature. δράκων appears to be the standard rendering for ‫ לויתן‬outside of Job (see Isa 27:1; Ps 73[74]:14; 103[104]:26). In OG Job, δράκων is used five more times. It appears twice for ‫“ כפיר‬young lion” in 4:10 and 38:39. In both cases it forms a word pair with λέων, a combination that is well known in classical Greek literature and that also occurs in Sir 25:16; Ps 90(91):13; Ezek 32:2.134 In the other three instances, it renders ‫ תנין‬in 7:12, ‫ פתן‬in 20:16, and ‫ נחׁש‬in 26:13. It is important to keep in mind that our notion of dragon does not coincide with the ancient δράκων. Although it might have an extraordinary or mythological character, it can also be used purely stylistically in a word pair with ὄφις or indicate different types of snake species (LSJ; DGE).

131  Clines, Job, 233; Gray, Job, 196; Gordis, Job, 105; Pope, Job, 70; Rowley, Job, 78 (who, in fact, identifies Rahab with Leviathan); Seow, Job 1–21, 561; Tur-Sinai, Job, 164. For a discussion of the sea monsters in OT literature, see John Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985) (on the helpers of Rahab, see in particular p. 41). In Isa 51:9, the Greek does not offer an equivalent to ‫רהב‬. In the Psalter, ‫ רהב‬is transliterated in 86(87):4, but rendered as ματαιότης “futility” in 39(40):5 and as ὑπερήφανος “proud” in Ps 88(89):11. 132  Cox, Iob, s.v. 3:8. 133  Cox, “Tying it all Together,” 53–54 (regarding the use of particles to create coherence between textual units); Kutz, “Characterization,” 354 (regarding the book’s content as a whole). Note that this does not imply a concern for consistency of lexical choices. 134  Cox, Iob, s.v. 4:10.

Septuagintal And Natural Greek Usage In Old Greek Job

131

If ‫ בהמות‬is indeed to be understood as the sea-monster Behemoth,135 then it is unique to Job (40:15). It can also be understood as an intensive plural.136 It is rendered as such in OG Job, represented by θηρία “wild beasts.” The noun ‫ בהמה‬occurs twice more in Job, in 18:3 (in the singular) and 35:11 (in the plural) and is rendered as τετράποδα (plural) “four-footers” in both instances. The noun θηρίον occurs thrice more in Job, in 5:22; 37:8; 41:17, always in plural, rendering ‫ חיה‬in 5:22 and 37:8. In 41:17 we read θηρίοις τετράποσιν “four-footed beasts,” in the context of a verse that does not appear to be equivalent to the Hebrew of 41:17. While the equivalence ‫—בהמות‬θηρία is unique in Job, it is not unique in the LXX as a corpus, where θηρία renders ‫ בהמות‬in the context of “wild animals” in Deut 28:26; 32:24; Hab 2:17; Isa 18:6bis; Jer 7:33; 15:3; 16:4; 19:7; 41:20.137 As such, in my opinion, 40:15 does not contain an ideologically motivated reference to Greek mythology in the Greek translation either. Rather, by using θηρία the translator places ‫ חיה‬and ‫ בהמות‬within one semantic domain. Taken together, δράκων, θηρία, and κῆτος are all part of the semantic domain of monstrosity.138 As such, the Greek text is clear and coherent. 5.3 Summary The observation that transliteration is scarce in OG Job is not surprising when we take into consideration that natural Greek usage is important to the translator. He opts for Greek equivalents, except for the names of Job, his friends, and their region of provenance, although these, too, appear mostly in a natural Greek declinable form. The Greek equivalents chosen for the names of Job’s daughters and the sea monsters have often been used as a evidence of Hellenization. In my opinion, however, the data suggests there is a purely linguistic basis for these renderings, either because there were no other options in the Greek language to express the translator’s interpretation of the Hebrew or because he aimed at an understandable, coherent translation in natural Greek. This means that there is no need to presuppose any cultural “Hellenizing” of the book of Job to motivate these renderings. 135  Clines, Job, 1183–86 and Rowley, Job, 255, for example, argue that Behemoth as well as Leviathan should be seen as real creatures. Terrien, Job, 261–62 argues that it is a mythological creature. 136  Dhorme, Job, 619; Pope, Job, 268. Gordis, Job, 475–76 and Gray, Job, 492 acknowledge the intensive plural but suggest that it may be an adaptation of the Egyptian word for “water-ox.” 137  See Cox, Iob, s.v. 40:15. 138  Angelini, “Biblical Translations and Cross-cultural Communication,” 41. Contra Angelini, however, I see no reason for assuming a mythological undertone.

132

chapter 4

6 Septuagintalisms 6.1 Introduction As we have seen in the previous chapter, the hypothesis of the existence of a Jewish-Greek dialect should be nuanced. However, such a view does not exclude the possibility of the existence of some features peculiar to the written Greek of Hellenistic Jews. These features can include loanwords such as σάβαττα but also certain expressions that do not occur in Greek sources which do not in one way or another depend on the LXX and go back to the language of the LXX.139 The translator of Job, too, employs such “Septuagintalisms.” I do not mean the incorporation of intertextual references to other LXX books—as part of the so-called anaphoric or associative renderings—but the use of expressions that occur in LXX Greek and do not appear to reflect natural (Koine) Greek usage. There are no relevant loanwords in OG Job, an observation that can be linked to the avoidance of transliteration, but there are some peculiar constructions in the Greek language of Job that are pertinent to the present discussion. 6.2 The Use of ἡ ὑπ’ οὐρανόν This construction occurs a dozen times in OG Job (see 1:7; 2:2; 5:10; 9:6; 18:4; 18:19; 28:24; 34:13; 38:18.24; 41:3; 42:15). The expression ἡ ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν occurs in the Pentateuch, namely at Exod 17:14; Deut 25:19; 29:19.140 In later books ἡ ὑπ’ οὐρανόν was preferred. This is the form we encounter in OG Job.141 The occurrences of this expression outside of the Pentateuch are mostly in books that fall into the category of “literary” Greek.142 The construction itself, however, does not reflect Greek idiom. Lee points out that the phrase ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν occurs less than a handful of times in Greek literature. Xenocrates (fourth century bce) uses τῆς ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν λήξεως (Frag. 15 Heinze), but there are no parallels for the construction ἡ ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν or ἡ ὑπ’ οὐρανόν. He does suggest that the combination of a feminine article + prepositional phrase can be seen as a normal Greek formation, but its usage is typically Septuagintal.143 It occurs in the LXX Pentateuch to represent ‫מתחת הׁשמים‬. In OG Job ἡ ὑπ’ οὐρανόν renders a Hebrew construction similar to ‫ מתחת הׁשמים‬only twice, namely ‫תחת‬ ‫( כל הׁשמים‬Job 28:24; 41:3), but the translator uses it on ten other occasions. 139  Lee, Lexical Study, 30. 140  John A. L. Lee, “Accuracy and Idiom: The Renderings of Mittahat in the Septuagint Pentateuch,” in In the Footsteps of Sherlock Holmes, 79–99, 85–91. 141  Lee, “Accuracy and Idiom,” 89. 142  Esth 13:10; Prov 8:26; 8:28; PsSol 2:32; Bar 5:3. 143  Lee, “Accuracy and Idiom,” 88–90.

Septuagintal And Natural Greek Usage In Old Greek Job

133

The translator had a precedent for the idea in the Hebrew of Job as well as in the Pentateuch.144 The expression in Greek appears to have become what has been called a “stylish periphrasis” for the world or the earth.145 The periphrastic meaning is clear in OG Job. In seven other cases, it renders ‫( ארץ‬Job 2:2; 9:6; 18:4; 38:18.24.33; 42:15; compare also 1:7 where it is the equivalent of ‫“ בה‬on it,” with the suffix referring to ‫)ארץ‬. It renders ‫“ תבל‬world” once (34:13). In two cases there is either no clear equivalent to ἡ ὑπ’ οὐρανόν in the Hebrew text (9:13; 18:19).146 This indicates that the construction became operational in Greek, as is shown in PsSol 2:23, 2 Macc 2:18, or Luke 17:24. The observation that ἡ ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν or ἡ ὑπ’ οὐρανόν may be deemed “stylish,” even though the construction is not an element of broader Hellenistic Greek style, implies that Jewish-Greek writings could have developed a notion of stylistics within their own polysystem. 6.3 The Use of θαυμάζω πρόσωπον Under the lemma θαυμάζω, Muraoka lists the expression θαυμάζω πρόσωπον, “by acceding to a request or demand,” as typically Septuagintal (Muraoka). Searching the available databases for Greek literature (TLG), papyri (Pap), and inscriptions (SEG) shows that the expression indeed does not occur in Greek outside of the LXX and can be considered an example of negative interference. It occurs four times in the book of Job. In two instances, it renders the Hebrew expression ‫ נׂשא פנה‬in 13:10 and 22:8,147 as it often does elsewhere in the LXX, such as in Lev 19:15; Deut 10:17; 28:50; 4 Kgdms 5:1; Isa 9:14; Prov 18:5. The Hebrew ‫ נׂשא פנים‬is an idiomatic Hebrew expression. It can literally be taken as “to lift someone’s face,” but often carries a figurative meaning, “to show partiality to someone.” Its rendering in the LXX often reflects the individual elements of which the expression is made up (ἐπαίρω πρόσωπον; λαμβάνω πρόσωπον), rather than the meaning of the idiom. Harl has argued that a rendering such as θαυμάζω πρόσωπον can be described as having “plus ou moins décalquée” the Hebrew expression “to lift someone’s face” by rendering it as “to admire the face.”148 The expression in Greek might no longer be seen as a “true” calque, but the construction as a whole has a meaning that is not equal to the sum of the individual constituents θαυμάζω and πρόσωπον. It does not occur in 144  Heater, Septuagint Translation Technique, 16–17. 145  Lee, “Accuracy and Idiom,” 90. 146  Lee, “Accuracy and Idiom,” 87. 147  Note, however, the paraphrastic nature of the rendering. See Cox, Iob, s.v. 22:8. 148  Marguerite Harl, La langue de Japhet: Quinze études sur la Septante et le grec des chrétiens (Paris: Cerf, 1992), 152.

134

chapter 4

Greek literature or papyri outside of the LXX and is as such not idiomatic in the Greek language as used in the macrosystem. It can perhaps best be described as “an independent Greek adaptation within the framework of a Hebraistic construction.”149 The occurrence of θαυμάζω πρόσωπον in Job 32:22 and 34:19 requires more explanation. I would argue that in these cases, θαυμάζω πρόσωπον possibly reflects the use of ‫ נׂשא פנה‬in the Hebrew text, too, but not in a clear cut one-forone manner. Job 34:19 ὃς οὐκ ἐπῃσχύνθη πρόσωπον ἐντίμου οὐδὲ οἶδεν τιμὴν θέσθαι ἁδροῖς θαυμασθῆναι πρόσωπα αὐτῶν. [He] who felt no reticence before a person of worth nor knows how to accord honor to the prominent so that their persons be respected.

‫אׁשר לא נׂשא פני ׂשרים‬ ‫ולא נכר ׁשוע לפני דל‬ ‫כי מעׂשה ידיו כלם‬

[He] who shows no partiality to nobles, nor regards the rich more than the poor, for they are all the work of his hands?

A repetition of ‫ פנה‬may be found in the Hebrew text of Job, if one wants to analyse ‫ לפני‬as consisting of the preposition ‫ ל‬and the noun ‫פנה‬, rather than as a semi-preposition.150 We encounter a repetition of πρόσωπον in the Greek text which could reflect the one in the Hebrew text, were it not for the fact that the repetition in the Hebrew is found in the first and second colon and in the Greek in the first and third colon. OG 19a is a first translation of MT 19a. OG 19b paraphrases MT 19b. OG 19c, then, rather than rendering MT 19c, appears to be a second translation of MT 19a.151 The sense of the expression ‫ נׂשא פנה‬seems to be translated in two different ways: in OG 19a, it is rendered as ἐπαισχύνομαι “to be ashamed”— which may be compared to the rendering of ‫ נׂשא פנה‬in Job 32:21 as αἰσχύνω “to be ashamed”—and in 19c it is rendered as θαυμάζω πρόσωπον. Interestingly, as opposed to in Job 32:21, in 34:19a, the expression ‫ נׂשא פני‬gave rise to the rendering ἐπαισχύνομαι, but, by including πρόσωπον in the translation, it seems a reflection of ‫ פנה‬separately. In 32:21–22 αἰσχύνω also occurs in a word pair with θαυμάζω πρόσωπον. 149  Evans, Verbal Syntax, 189 uses these words to describe the rendering τίς δῴη for ‫מי יתן‬. 150  See Sollamo, Hebrew Semiprepositions, 13–80. 151  Cox, Iob, s.v. 34:19; Dhorme, Job, 517.

Septuagintal And Natural Greek Usage In Old Greek Job

135

Job 32:21–22 ἄνθρωπον γὰρ οὐ μὴ αἰσχυνθῶ, ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ βροτὸν οὐ μὴ ἐντραπῶ· οὐ γὰρ ἐπίσταμαι θαυμάσαι πρόσωπον· εἰ δὲ μή, καὶ ἐμὲ σῆτες ἔδονται. For I will not be in awe of a human being; to the contrary, I will have no regard for any mortal, for I do not know how to show respect; if that is not so, moths will also eat me!

21 22

‫אל נא אׂשא פני איׁש‬ ‫ואל אדם לא אכנה‬ ‫כי לא ידעתי אכנה‬ ‫כמעט יׂשאני עׂשני‬

I will not show partiality to any person or use flattery toward anyone. For I do not know how to flatter— or my Maker would soon put an end to me!

In the Hebrew text, one finds an epiphora of ‫אכנה‬, which is not reflected in the Greek translation. The first ‫ אכנה‬is rendered with ἐντραπῶ. The rendering of the second occurrence of ‫אכנה‬, namely in 22a, as θαυμάσαι πρόσωπον, can be explained as an example of variatio, that is, the rendering of a repetition in the Hebrew text by the use of near-synonymous words in Greek (see below). For this rendering, however, the translator appears to have been inspired by the Hebrew wording of 21a (‫)נׂשא פנה‬.152 In 21a, however, this particular expression was rendered as αἰσχύνω. Its object is ἄνθρωπον, which reflects ‫איׁש‬, and does not include a reference to the literal meaning of ‫ פנה‬as in 24:19. These latter two passages, Job 32:21–22 and 34:19, demonstrate that the translator knew the figurative meaning of the Hebrew expression ‫נׂשא פנה‬ and had the option of rendering it in natural Greek, by means of αἰσχύνω or ἐπαισχύνομαι. Yet the translator chose to include the construction θαυμάζω πρόσωπον in his end product, even at times when the Greek text cannot be explained as the result of formal adherence to the Hebrew text. Moreover, θαυμάζω πρόσωπον occurs also in a possibly non-translated LXX book, namely in PsSol 2:18. This occurrence indicates that the expression had become operational in the language of the Jews. This implies that the expression would have been understandable—both for the translator as well as for the audience—in isolation from the Hebrew text, even though it seems that the expression had its origins precisely in a rendering of a Hebrew expression. In other words, the expression θαυμάζω πρόσωπον, originally an example of an unnatural Greek expression that was the result of interference from the Hebrew, came to be used independently (i.e., without a Hebrew source word) in Jewish texts. 152  Cox, Iob, s.v. 32:22; Dhorme, Job, 485. See also the discussion of the epiphora of ‫אכנה‬ below in chapter 6.

136

chapter 4

6.4 The Use of χείρ The most basic meaning of ‫ יד‬is “hand,” in other LXX books as well as in Job, such as in ‫“ מעׂשה ידיו‬the work of his [i.e., Job’s] hands” (Job 1:10); ‫ׁשלח נא ידך‬ “stretch out your hand” (Job 1:11; 2:5); ‫“ וׂשימו יד על פה‬and put your hand on your mouth” (Job 21:5). As a result, the most common rendering of ‫ יד‬is χείρ. The Hebrew ‫יד‬, however, is often used to express “power.”153 LXX translators oftentimes consistently render χείρ, but the Greek noun χείρ does not have a semantic range similar to that of ‫ יד‬in Hebrew (for the semantic range of χείρ, see LSJ). A careful reading of the different connotations of χείρ in LSJ shows that “power” is a meaning specific to Jewish-Greek text, but that this semantic development is not surprising given that χείρ can be used in expressions pertaining to power, such as ἐν χερσὶν ἔχω τι “to be in charge of” or διὰ χειρὸς ἔχω “to hold in the hand,” that is, “to have under control” (LSJ). Nevertheless, χείρ does not carry the connotation of “power” itself. The use of χείρ as “power” in the LXX is an example of negative interference.154 Still, OG Job contains several renderings that do not show interference, such as in 2:6 (‫“ בידך‬he is in your power”—παραδίδωμί σοι αὐτόν “I am handing him over to you”) and 20:22 (‫“ כל יד עמל‬all the force of misery”—πᾶσα δὲ ἀνάγκη “every distress”). When compared to 2:6, the same expression ‫ בידך‬earlier in 1:12 gave rise to the more standardized equivalent δίδωμι ἐν τῇ χειρί σου “I am giving into your hand.” A number of examples from the book of Job, however, do show interference in the rendering of ‫יד‬. In 8:4, for example, the translator renders ‫“ ביד פׁשעם‬the power of their transgression” as ἐν χειρὶ ἀνομίας αὐτῶν “by the hand of their lawlessness.” We may also refer back to the example cited in chapter 1 of this study, namely Job 5:20 (‫“ מידי חרב‬from the power of the sword”—ἐκ χειρὸς σιδήρου “from the hand of the sword”). This does not necessarily imply that the translator was not aware of the connotation of ‫ יד‬in this context; he simply chose the more standard equivalent.155 I want to discuss the example of Job 5:20, cited already in the first chapter, again at this point. In this verse, ‫“ מידי חרב‬from the power of the sword” is rendered as ἐκ χειρὸς σιδήρου “from a blade’s power.”156 The rendering ‫ יד‬as χείρ is an element of interference: it is a standard lexical equivalent that does not carry the same contextual meaning as the Hebrew does in this specific context. 153  HALOT; DCH. See also Peter R. Ackroyd, “‫יד‬,” in TDOT 5 (1986): 393–426. 154  Lee, Lexical Study, 51; Sollamo, Hebrew Semiprepositions, 160–64. 155  The author of Wisdom of Solomon, too, plays with the notion of χείρ reflecting a Septuagintal infleunce, see Léonas, “Poetics of Wisdom,” 120–21. 156  Here I opt to cite the NETS translation without adjustment to demonstrate that modern translations assume that χείρ in Greek means “power” like ‫ יד‬does in Hebrew.

Septuagintal And Natural Greek Usage In Old Greek Job

137

The rendering σίδηρος for ‫“ חרב‬sword” is interesting: the noun σίδηρος originally means “iron,” which as a synecdoche can designate any iron tool, such as a weapon (LSJ).157 σίδηρος as a synecdoche occurs in Greek literature (see, for example, Homer, Od. 16.294), but as a rendering for ‫ חרב‬it is unique to Job, occurring only in Job 5:20 and 39:22. In the rest of the LXX, it quite consistently represents ‫“ ברזל‬iron” (HR).158 As such, the rendering ‫ חרב‬as σίδηρος is a literary element. The expression ‫ ידי חרב‬occurs also in Jer 18:21 (rendered as χεῖρας μαχαίρας “to a dagger’s hand”); Ezek 35:5 (ἐν χειρὶ ἐχθρῶν μαχαίρᾳ “by the hand of enemies with a dagger”);159 Ps 62(63):11 (εἰς χεῖρας ῥομφαίας “to a sword’s hand”). Of particular interest is that the translator of Job uses this expression twice more, in cases that mark a deviation from the Hebrew text, namely in 15:22 (‫“ אלי חרב‬for the sword”—εἰς χεῖρας σιδήρου “to a blade’s hand”) and 20:24 (‫“ מנׁשק ברזל‬from an iron weapon”—ἐκ χειρὸς σιδήρου “from a blade’s hand”), as associative translations.160 As such, the translator allows this expression to resonate throughout the text. In the latter two cases, the use of χείρ cannot be seen as an accidental case of interference from the Hebrew. Rather, the translator chose to incorporate this Septuagintalism in the translation. This specific use of χείρ is an element of interference that became operational in the Greek language of Jewish translators such as the translator of OG Job, but also in original compositions, such as the Wisdom of Solomon and the Exagoge by Ezekiel the Tragedian (see chapter 4). It is significant that the Jewish author Aristobulus in his Explanations of the Book of Moses (second century bce161), explained to King Ptolemy VI Philometor (181–145 bce) that

157  A synecdoche is a type of metonymy, when a part of something is signified by the whole or the whole is signified by its part. On metonymy and synecdoche in Greek rhetoric, see Heinrich Lausberg, Handbook of Literary Rhetoric: A Foundation for Literary Study (trans. Matthew T. Bliss, Annemiek Jansen, and David E. Orton; ed. David E. Orton and R. Dean Anderson; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 256–62; Rowe, “Style,” 126–27. 158  The only instances in which one finds a comparable metonymous use of σίδηρος in the LXX occur in Deut 20:19 for ‫“ גרזן‬axe,” in Judg 13:5 and 1 Kgdms 1:11 for ‫“ מורה‬razor,” and in Jdt 6:6; 8:9. 159  The translation is by J. W. Olley, who does not comment on ἐχθρῶν as a plus. See John W. Olley, Ezekiel: A Commentary Based on Iezekiel in Codex Vaticanus (SC Series; Leiden: Brill, 2009). It seems like the translator wanted to provide a standard lexical equivalent for both elements of the Hebrew, ‫ יד‬and ‫חרב‬, but added ἐχθρῶν because “the hand of the sword” might not have been acceptable to him from the viewpoint of Greek semantics. 160  Cox, Iob, s.v. 15:22; Heater, Septuagint Translation Technique, 69–70. 161  On the date of Aristobulus, see most recently Sean A. Adams, “Did Aristobulus Use the LXX for His Citations?” JSJ 45 (2014): 185–98.

138

chapter 4

the use of χείρ—in this case specifically in reference of God162—should not be taken “literally” but that it is a metaphorical expression of power (see fragment 2.2). Aristobulus had to explain a typical Jewish usage of a Greek word to a Greek-speaking non-Jew—a usage that is not merely employed in instances in which it reflects a Hebrew text, but that also came to be used independently, as part of the literary code of the Jewish-Greek polysystem. 6.5 The Use of ἐναντίον and ἔναντι The preposition ἐναντίον occurs twenty-one times in Job, rendering a variety of Hebrew (semi-)prepositions.163 Aside from those instances in which it renders the expression “in the eyes of” (such as in 11:4; 15:15; 18:3; 19:15; 25:5; 32:1), ἐναντίον appears in Job only in reference to God. Compare also the use of ἔναντι,164 occurring sixteen times, always in reference to God (Job 2:1; 13:7bis; 15:4.13.25; 16:20.21; 19:28; 22:23.26; 25:4; 27:10; 34:10bis; 35:2). The referent is determined by the source text. The so-called “distancing” use of prepositions such as ἐναντίον and ἔναντι in reference to God is typical of LXX translations and finds no parallels in Greek writings that are not influenced by the LXX.165 It occurs most frequently with verbs of “to sin”—one may sin against a human being, but before God—but also with verbs of “to say,” for example. We see this in the Greek text of Job, too. Regarding “to sin,” we may cite Job 1:22 (‫“ לא חטא איוב‬Job did not sin”— οὐδὲν ἥμαρτεν Ιωβ ἐναντίον τοῦ κυρίου “Job did not sin before the Lord,” in which ἐναντίον τοῦ κυρίου is a plus ascribed to the translator); 2:1 (‫לא חטא איוב בׂשפתיו‬ “Job did not sin with his lips”—οὐδὲν ἥμαρτεν Ἰὼβ τοῖς χείλεσιν ἐναντίον τοῦ θεοῦ “Iob did not sin at all with his lips before God,” with ἐναντίον τοῦ θεοῦ being, again, a plus); 8:4 (‫“ אם בניך חטאו לו‬if your children sinned against him [i.e., God]”—εἰ οἱ υἱοί σου ἥμαρτον ἐναντίον αὐτοῦ “if your sons sinned against him”). The construction of ἐναντίον + genitive in 1:22 and 2:1 does not reflect the 162  The translator of Job uses the word χείρ in reference to God where the Hebrew has ‫( יד‬see, for example, 19:21; 27:11), but also incorporates the expression ἐκ χειρὸς κυρίου “from the hand of God” in an instance in which the MT reads ‫מאת האלהים‬. 163  On the use of ἐναντίον as a stereotypical rendering of ‫ לפני‬in the LXX, see Raija Sollamo, “Some ‘Improper’ Prepositions, such as ΕΝΩΠΙΟΝ, ΕΝΑΝΤΙΟΝ, ΕΝΑΝΤΙ, etc. in the Septuagint and Early Koine Greek,” VT 25 (1975): 773–83; Sollamo, Hebrew Semiprepositions, passim. ἐναντίον occurs as a rendering of ‫ לפני‬in OG Job in 13:16 and 35:14. ἔναντι renders ‫ לפני‬once (15:4). 164  On ἔναντι as a by-form of ἐναντίον, see Aitken, No Stone Unturned, 81–82. 165  Jan Joosten, “L’agir humain devant Dieu: Remarques sur une tournure remarquable de la Septante,” RB 113 (2006): 5–17; Jan Joosten, “The Aramaic Background of the Seventy: Language, Culture and History,” BIOSCS 43 (2010): 53–72, 57–58; Jan Joosten, “Septuagint Greek and the Jewish Sociolect in Egypt,” in Die Sprache der Septuaginta, 246–56, 249–50.

Septuagintal And Natural Greek Usage In Old Greek Job

139

Hebrew source text and is to be ascribed to the translator. However, the construction of a verb with ἐναντίον is not found in Greek sources outside of the LXX, which indicates that the translator would have found a precedent for this construction in other LXX books. The same holds true when the opposite is being stated, namely, regarding being pure or righteous before God, such as in 4:17 (‫“ האנוׁש מאלוה יצדק‬can a mortal be righteous before God?”—μὴ καθαρὸς ἔσται βροτὸς ἐναντίον κυρίου “can a mortal be pure before the Lord?”). Compare also 11:4. With respect to other verbs, we find telling examples regarding “to say” in Job 1:9 (‫“ ויען הׂשטן את יהוה ויאמר‬the accuser answered the Lord and said”— ἀπεκρίθη δὲ ὁ διάβολος καὶ εἶπεν ἐναντίον τοῦ κυρίου “then the slanderer answered and said before the Lord”); 34:37 (‫“ וירב אמריו לאל‬and he multiplies his words against God”—πολλὰ λαλούντων ῥήματα ἐναντίον τοῦ κυρίου “while speaking many words before the Lord”). The use of ἐνώπιον falls in the same category:166 see 2:2 (‫“ ויאמר יהוה אל הׂשטן‬the slanderer said to the Lord”—εἶπεν ὁ διάβολος ἐνώπιον τοῦ κυρίου “the slanderer said to the Lord”) and 42:7 (‫כי לא דברתם אלי‬ ‫“ נכונה‬for you have not spoken to me what is right”—οὐ γὰρ ἐλαλήσατε ἐνώπιόν μου ἀληθὲς οὐδέν “for you have said nothing truthful to me”). These cases can be easily compared to instances in which the object of the verb “to say” is not God, such as in Job 1:7 (‫—ויאמר יהוה אל הׂשטן‬καὶ εἶπεν ὁ κύριος τῷ διαβόλῳ “and the Lord said to the slanderer”) and 1:14 (‫ומלאך בא אל‬ ‫“ איוב ויאמר‬a messenger came to Job and said”—καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος ἦλθεν πρὸς Ἰὼβ καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ “And, look, a messenger came to Job and said to him”). Compare also 1:8.12.14; 2:9.10; 28:28; 38:1.35; 40:6; 42:7. In all these cases, the verb “to say” is constructed with a dative to express to whom the subject speaks. This indicates that the translator of Job is able to construct the indirect object to verbs of “to say” according to the rules of natural Greek usage, by expressing that object in the dative. When God is the subject, however, he often prefers the unnatural use of the preposition—though not consistently so, as we can see in 9:12 (‫—מי יאמר אליו‬τίς ἐρεῖ αὐτῷ “who will say to him”, with ‫אליו‬/αὐτῷ referring to God). Compare also 2:4; 11:10. Here, too, we see variation in the working methods of the translator. Joosten has argued that the distancing use of prepositions in the Pentateuch might suggest an Aramaic background for the Pentateuch translators.167 For the translator of Job, one does not need to assume an Aramaic background. His distancing use of prepositions can be explained as an indication of language development within the Jewish-Greek literary system. 166   Joosten, “Aramaic Background,” 57–58; Joosten, “Septuagint Greek and the Jewish Sociolect,” 250. 167  Joosten, “Aramaic Background,” 53–72.

140

chapter 4

6.6 Summary I had already touched upon the observation that the translator of Job is not consistent in using the same word naturally in the course of the text, such as was the case with ἐνάλλομαι + ἐπί and ἡγέομαι. The present section took this observation further and investigated the use of Septuagintalisms in Job. Since no translated text is devoid of interference,168 Septuagintalisms, too, are an expected phenomenon in any LXX translation. Yet, strikingly, their use in Job does not always result from interference of a Hebrew source text. In many cases, they were introduced by the translator independently from the Hebrew. Since he did not have an exact precedent for any of these constructions outside of other LXX translations and these constructions do not represent natural Greek usage, it suggests that the translator used Septuagintal language willingly. Even though the translator is not always consistent, I suggest that the variation in constructions does indicate that the translator is familiar with both Greek usage and Septuagintal language and finds it acceptable to use both constructions alternatively.169 7 Conclusion The translation style of OG Job is different from that of the LXX Pentateuch. In polysystemic terms, OG Job attests to the existence of an alternative set of translation norms. The translator of Job can be said to be less bound by the textual-linguistic make-up of the source text. Consequently, the translator of OG Job has more opportunity to showcase the use of a more natural Greek style. In other words, the text of OG Job shows a translator who is comfortable with Greek usage. The result is a text that is more easily readable for a Greekspeaking audience, regardless of religious or cultural background. The difference between the translations of the Pentateuch and Job can be explained as a development, since many of the features we find in Job that indicate a natural Greek style can already be found in the Pentateuch translation. Yet they are more frequent or more prevalent in Job. The existence of a development does not imply that the translator of Job was consciously aware of these features in the translation of the Pentateuch, but that there was an 168  This is the so-called “law of interference.” See Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies, 310–15. 169  Compare also Jan Joosten, “Translating the Untranslatable: Septuagint Renderings of Hebrew Idioms,” in “Translation Is Required”: The Septuagint in Retrospect and Prospect (ed. Robert Hiebert; SBLSCS 56; Atlanta, Ga.: SBL Press, 2010), 59–70.

Septuagintal And Natural Greek Usage In Old Greek Job

141

evolution within the polysystem regarding the notion of what a translation could look like and what was considered acceptable behavior for a translator. Although interference is less prominent in OG Job than in the LXX Pentateuch, OG Job is not devoid of it either. Two aspects related to interference in Job are striking. First, the translator shows that he is highly capable of using natural Greek constructions. Yet he still allows himself to use constructions that are not natural Greek on a regular basis in the course of this translation. Especially telling is the observation that the same Hebrew construction might be rendered in different ways—both in natural and unnatural Greek ways—in the course of the book. Likewise, the same Greek word can be used in natural as well as in unnatural constructions. This means that the translator would have been perfectly able to adhere to natural usage, but does not always do so. This pertains to translation technique. Second, the translator sometimes uses typical Septuagintal vocabulary or constructions in instances in which their occurrence cannot be explained on the basis of interference from the Hebrew source text. At times the translator has introduced Septuagintalisms in the translation independently from the Hebrew. This indicates that those Septuagintalisms were operational within the polysystem. This pertains to style. Hence, interference and Septuagintalisms are not just tolerated when they creep in as a result of adhering to the form of the source text, as would have been the case at the time of the translation of the Pentateuch. By the time OG Job was translated, interference and Septuagintalisms had come to be acceptable, or even desirable, elements in the translation product. While these features may have been evaluated negatively from the viewpoint of the broad Hellenistic literary macrosystem, from a Jewish-Greek perspective, they seem to have become part of an acceptable style. In other words, OG Job attests to the functionality of a specific literary code within the literary polysystem. The translator of Job had linguistic means at his disposal to situate his translation in a corpus of Jewish texts written in Greek. The discussion of a range of features on the level of the colon has shown the translator’s abilities as a Greek writer. This forms a solid basis for continuing our examination into the style of OG Job. In the following chapter, I will look at features of the text that indicate the register of OG Job. With this, we move in the direction of discussing the stylistic awareness of the translator. Such an awareness is not necessarily surprising. After all, another norm of Egyptian translations into Greek that we also encounter in LXX translations is the incorporation of stylistic embellishments.170 To what extent do we see this feature in OG Job? 170  Aitken, “Egyptian Translation Methods,” 269–94.

chapter 5

High Register Greek in Old Greek Job 1 Introduction Even in LXX translations that formally adhere to the Hebrew quite strictly, one can observe moments of literary awareness, not just in those passages that are traditionally considered “poetic,” such as Exod 15 or Deut 32,1 but also in the prose sections of the Pentateuchal books.2 Any reader of the LXX will expect OG Job to contain such embellishments, too. “Literary embellishment” is a broad denominator, however, and may pertain to any level of the text, from the choice of vocabulary, to word order, to the shaping of different cola into units, and so on. Whether the translator of Job is capable of handling more complex relationships between different elements over the span of two or more cola can only be demonstrated in a convincing manner once it has been shown that we find embellishments on the level of the colon and of subsequent words within the verse. Therefore, I will continue in the same vein as the previous chapter and focus on these lower levels of the text first. So far I have only touched upon some phenomena that indicate the translator’s use of a higher register of Greek as I encountered them in the course of a discussion of linguistic features typical of LXX translations. In this chapter, I discuss a range of different aspects of the Greek text that are, for the most part, independent from the Hebrew.

1  James K. Aitken, “The Characterisation of Speech in the Septuagint Pentateuch,” in The Reception of the Hebrew Bible in the Septuagint and the New Testament: Essays in Memory of Aileen Guilding (ed. David J. A. Clines and Jo Cheryl Exum; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2013), 9–31; James K. Aitken, “The Significance of Rhetoric in the Greek Pentateuch,” in On Stone and Scroll: Essays in Honour of Graham Ivor Davies (ed. James K. Aitken, Katharine J. Dell, and Brian A. Mastin; BZAW 420; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011), 507–21; Deborah L. Gera, “Translating Hebrew Poetry into Greek Poetry: The Case of Exodus 15,” BIOSCS 40 (2007): 107–20. 2  Aitken, “The Significance of Rhetoric,” 507–21; Trevor V. Evans, “Numbers,” in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint, 58–67, 62–63; Kabergs, “Creativiteit in het spel?”.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi ��.��63/9789004358492_007

High Register Greek In Old Greek Job

143

2 Vocabulary 2.1 Lexical Consistency and Variation Lexical consistency is one of the features of translations of Egyptian texts into Greek. The adherence to lexical consistency may sometimes override a translator’s concern with contextual meaning. In some cases, however, translators show sensitivity to the nuance of a word and do not opt for a default equivalent.3 Consistency of word choice has often been discussed in reference to LXX translations.4 With regard to OG Job, some words are, in fact, rendered very consistently. For example, ‫“ חכמה‬wisdom” is always rendered as σοφία “wisdom” (Job 4:21; 11:6; 12:2.12.13; 13:5; 15:8; 26:3; 28:12.20.28; 32:7.13; 38:36.37). The verb ἀπόλλυμι “to perish” is a fairly consistent rendering of ‫ אבד‬in OG Job. Out of fifteen occurrences of ‫“ אבד‬to perish,” its rendering is ἀπόλλυμι in nine instances (3:3; 4:7.9.20; 6:18; 8:13; 18:17; 20:7; 31:19), and in two other cases a cognate is used, namely ὄλλυμι in 4:11 and ἀπώλεια in 11:20.5 Nevertheless, for the most part the translator of Job does not employ stereotypical equivalences.6 Throughout the translation, the translator shows himself to be sensitive to contextual meaning, as I have illustrated with the rendering of the verb ‫“ אכל‬to eat” earlier. He also often renders the Hebrew interpretatively, rather than focusing on formal representation or equivalence. Even when a word in the Hebrew text means the same thing, the translator may use synonyms. The qal of the verb ‫מות‬, for example, meaning “to die,” is most frequently rendered as τελευτάω (Job 1:19; 3:11; 12:2; 14:8; 21:25) or ἀποθνῄσκω (Job 14:14; 36:14). The relative lack of lexical consistency shows the translator’s inclination towards variation. In many cases, however, a Hebrew word will have one or two Greek equivalents that are the most common renderings in the book, against which rare or unique renderings can be weighed carefully. This consideration is important when one aims to explain certain lexical choices as being stylistically motivated. 3  See Aitken, “Egyptian Translation Methods,” 269–94. 4  See, for example, Barr, “Typology of Literalism,” 279–325; Galen Marquis, “Consistency of Lexical Equivalents as a Criterion for the Evaluation of Translation Technique as Exemplified in the LXX of Ezekiel,” in VI Congress of the IOSCS, 405–24; Staffan Olofsson, “Consistency as a Translation Technique,” SJOT 6 (1992): 14–30; Tov, Text-Critical Use, 22–25; Wright, No Small Difference, 91–112. 5  In 12:23; 14:19; 30:2, ‫ אבד‬occurs in a colon of which the Greek is part of the asterisked material. In 6:18, there is no clear one-to-one relationship between the Hebrew and the Greek. 6  Cox, “Job,” 391. It is difficult to establish equivalents in paraphrastic translations. See Gentry, Asterisked Materials, 85.

144

chapter 5

2.2 A Higher Register of Greek Vocabulary D. Mangin has presented an index of the vocabulary of OG Job as well as of the asterisked material,7 with comparative references to the LXX and other literary sources, so as to position the vocabulary of Job in the history of the Greek language.8 When analyzing the vocabulary of OG Job from a viewpoint of style, we need to take into account literary as well as documentary sources such as papyri and inscriptions in order to get a clear sense of how common or rare a certain word is in the body of Greek writings. Only when a word is exclusive to or clearly predominantly used in poetry, can it be interpreted as a sign of the translator seeking embellishment through his lexical choices.9 Given that Mangin’s index provides a useful reference work, and that word choices and vocabulary will be discussed more in the course of the present study, especially when we get to the analysis of rhetorical features, a handful of examples will suffice at this point. A clear example is the dual form δυεῖν in Job 13:20 (rendering ‫“ ׁשתים‬two”).10 The use of the dual is a sign of the use of educated Greek, since this form was obsolescent in the noun and verb morphology of Attic by the fourth century bce. Even in reference to the word for “two” (δύο), the dual δυεῖν (δυοῖν in the genitive and dative) had begun to disappear before the Koine period. It was no longer part of everyday speech, and the revival of the dual in writings is often regarded as part of an Atticizing tendency in Greek rhetoric from the first century bce onwards.11 In the LXX corpus, the dual only appears in a Greek 7  Mangin, “Le texte court,” 468–629. 8  Mangin, “Le texte court,” 470. 9  Aitken, “Language of the Septuagint,” 129. 10  The apparatus of Ziegler only lists the variant spelling δυοῖν, attested in a significant number of manuscripts from the Lucianic tradition, as well as several minuscule manuscripts, the oldest of which is again a catena manuscript dating to the eleventh century. See also Mangin, “Le texte court,” 635–36. We need to keep in mind, however, that this form might have been introduced by later copyists of the text. The only other use of δύο in Job, in 42:7 (οἱ δύο φίλοι σου “your two friends”), is in the nominative, and δύο itself is by origins, in fact, a dual, which came to be used as the standard form for “two.” Hence, Joosten, “Varieties of Greek,” 35 mistakenly concludes that the translator’s use of the form δύο in 42:7 reflects the prosaic nature of the epilogue as opposed to the use of the dative δυοῖν in the poetry of 13:20. In 42:7, again rendering ‫ׁשתים‬, the translator did not have another option than δύο. ‫ ׁשתים‬is rendered as ἀμφότεροι “both” in 9:33 and as δεύτερος “second” in 33:14 and 40:5. 11  Lee, “Atticist Grammarians,” 289; Horrocks, Greek, 138; Roberta Melazzo, “The Dual in Ancient Greek,” Incontri Linguistici 35 (2012): 49–92; Gerard Mussies, “Phonology and Morphology of Septuagint Greek,” in Die Sprache der Septuaginta, 89–97, 95.

High Register Greek In Old Greek Job

145

composition, in 4 Macc 1:28 and 15:2. In other books the form δύο is used for the genitive (e.g., Gen 31:41; Ruth 1:5) and δυσίν for the dative (e.g., Gen 9:22; Exod 4:9). Another relevant example pertains to the way in which the possessor is expressed. I have discussed the use of the pronoun in the genitive in the previous chapter, the position of which could indicate a high register. Throughout Job, however, we also find the use of the adjectives ἐμός (Job 2:9; 6:21; 16:4; 23:2; 29:21.22.23; 30:1; 41:3) and σός (Job 15:6; 39:26.2712), which likewise points towards an elevated register.13 OG Job contains a number of words that are rare or even unique within the body of the LXX but which appear prior to OG Job in Greek literary sources. ὄλλυμι “to perish” is typical of Attic poetry (especially of the tragedians Sophocles and Euripides) but not present in Hellenistic Greek prose.14 Within the LXX, it only occurs in the books of Job, Proverbs, and Jeremiah. The poetic term νέφος “cloud”, a favorite word of our translator, occurs seventeen times in Job and is indicative of its higher register vocabulary.15 Outside of Job it occurs only once in the Psalter (LXX Ps 103:3), twice in Ecclesiastes (Eccl 11:3; 12:2), and five times in Proverbs (Prov 3:20; 8:28; 16:15; 25:14.23). Its prosaic synonym, νεφέλη, is much more frequent in the LXX, with 125 occurrences. In Job, however, νεφέλη only occurs four times. σθένος “strength” occurs only in 3 Macc 2:2; Job 4:10; 16:15; 26:14; PsSol 17:14. It is a typically poetic word, appearing in epic poetry, tragedy, and hymns. It is employed in treaties, but hardly ever in prose (LSJ). In Job 39:25 we encounter ἅλμα “leap,” in a construction that is not a one-for-one rendering of the Hebrew (the rendering of 39:24–25 will be discussed in chapter 8). ἅλμα is unique to Job in the corpus of the LXX. It is a typically poetic word. Its prosaic equivalent would have been πήδημα (LSJ).16 The translator of Job uses ἀνορύσσω “to dig” for ‫“ חפר‬to dig” in 3:21 and 39:21, where other LXX translators opt consistently for the simplex ὀρύσσω (HR). The verb ἀνορύσσω is common in classical Greek literature and may be used interchangeably with ὀρύσσω (LSJ; see also its usage in sources via TLG). Lastly, in 22:12, we encounter another word that is unique to Job in the LXX corpus, 12  ἡμέτερος and ὑμέτερος do not occur in OG Job. ἐμός and σός occur in the Pentateuch, mostly in Genesis, and their use is particularly characteristic of Proverbs, but can also be found a few times in Psalms, Wisdom, and Isaiah, for example. See Muraoka, Syntax, 440–42. 13  See Van der Louw, Transformations, 258; Ziegler, Iob, 72. 14  Dover, Greek Prose Style, 99. 15  Aitken, No Stone Unturned, 86–87. 16  We encounter πηδάω, the verb from which πήδημα is derived, twice in the LXX, in Lev 11:21 and Song 2:8.

146

chapter 5

namely the verb ναίω “to dwell, to inhabit.” This word, too, is typically poetic. The Greek language had a range of synonyms to express “to dwell” or “to inhabit” which were more frequent in everyday language and also appeared in the LXX, such as καταγίνομαι (e.g., Num 5:3), κατασκηνόω (e.g., Deut 33:12), κατοικέω (e.g., Num 35:34, but also Job 4:19). One could speculate that the use of rare words in the Greek translation reflects the character of the Hebrew text, which contains a number of uncommon or unique words.17 In some cases, we may find an indication that a rare Greek word was chosen to represent a rare Hebrew word, such as in Job 7:5, where the rarely attested word βῶλαξ “dirt clod” renders the Hebrew hapax ‫גיׁש‬. Within the LXX this literary word is unique to Job and occurs only in the poetry of Pindar, Theocritus, Apollonius of Rhodos, and Nicander of Colophon. Its synonym βῶλος is more frequently used, also in the LXX, even in Job (Job 38:28; Sir 22:15; Ezek 17:7.10).18 This word is absent from documentary papyri but appears in some inscriptions, indicating that the word was known to educated writers and used in poetic expressions.19 2.3 Neologisms The question of neologisms has, together with that of Septuagintalisms, evolved significantly since the hypothesis of a Jewish-Greek dialect has been discarded.20 Contextualizing the language of the LXX means taking into account additional sources such as papyri and inscriptions as well as trends in

17  See David J. A. Clines, “On the Poetic Achievement of the Book of Job,” in Palabra, prodigio, poesía, in memoriam P. Luis Alonso Schökel (ed. S. J. Vincente Collado Bertomeu; ABib 151; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 2003), 243–52; Dhorme, Job, clxxv; David N. Freedman, “Orthographic Peculiarities in the Book of Job,” Eretz-Israel 9 (1969): 35–44; Edward L. Greenstein, “ ‘Difficulty’ in the Poetry of Job,” Online Proceedings of the Fifteenth World Congress of Jewish Studies (August 2–6, 2009) (2010): 1–15; Edward L. Greenstein, “Features of Language in the Poetry of Job,” in Das Buch Hiob und seine Interpretationen, 81–96, 81; Yair Hoffman, A Blemished Perfection: The Book of Job in Context (JSOTSup 213; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 176–221; Gregory W. Parsons, “Literary Features of the Book of Job,” BS 138 [551] (1981): 213–29; Choon-Leong Seow, “Putative Hapax Legomena in the Book of Job,” Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt 12–13 (2011): 145–82; Seow, Job 1–21, 17–25. 18  Mangin, “Le texte court,” 502; Elke Verbeke, “Hebrew Hapax Legomena and their Greek Rendering in OG Job” (Ph.D. diss., KU Leuven, 2011), 221–22. 19  Aitken, No Stone Unturned, 84–86. 20  Aitken, “Neologisms,” 317.

High Register Greek In Old Greek Job

147

language usage. Ancient Greek was receptive to neologisms,21 and speakers of Koine were particularly productive in generating new words.22 There are different types of lexical innovations, including new semantic developments in existing words, new formations on existing stems, or new words (primarily loanwords or dialectal variants).23 We have seen in the previous chapter that OG Job contains no transliterations, except in reference to proper names. Nevertheless, neologisms are frequent. They can be categorized either as new derivations on the basis of existing stems (e.g., λαλητός “endowed with speech” in 38:14, derived from the verb λαλέω; ἔξοικος “homeless” in 6:18, derived from the verb ἐξοικέω) or as newly formed compounds (e.g., παμβότανον “all the herbage” in 5:25, composed of πᾶς and βοτάνη; σητόβρωτος “moth-­ eaten” in 13:28, composed of σής and βιβρώσκω). The list of neologisms in OG Job24 consists entirely of words that result from normal formations.25 These words could have already existed in the language even though they have not previously been attested in any of our sources. Indeed, “if we recognize that the language of the Septuagint is the language of everyday use in Egypt, we also need to recognize that words could have been in use without our knowing them.”26 In addition, even if the word in question would indeed have been an actual neologism produced by the translator, its meaning was still intelligible for a Greek-speaking audience who would have been familiar with the meaning of the constituent parts.27 A good example is δωροδέκτης “a receiver of bribes” (Job 15:34), which does not occur elsewhere in Greek literature (TLG), papyri (Pap), or inscriptions (SEG) prior to the Greek translation of Job. It is a new compound based on δῶρον and

21  Aitken, “Neologisms,” 320. See, for example, Demetrius, Eloc. 97–98, who discusses the use of newly formed words as part of style (note that this Demetrius should not be confused with Demetrius the Chronographer). 22  Aitken, “Neologisms,” 320. See also Aitken, No Stone Unturned, 45–67. 23  Lee, Lexical Study, 53–128, followed by Aitken, “Neologisms,” 320. 24  A list of neologisms in Job can be found in Mangin, “Le texte court,” 480–583, and need not be repeated here, nor is it desirable within the framework of this study to present an analysis of a long list of examples. 25  Lee, Lexical Study, 47–48. 26  Aitken, “Neologisms,” 318. See also Lee, Lexical Study, 41–42. In addition, the evidence is by nature random: sources may be lacking outside the LXX, or the attestation of a word only in post-classical sources does not exclude the possibility that the word was older. 27  See Aitken, “Neologisms,” 320–21.

148

chapter 5

δέχομαι. Compounds in -δοκος and -δοχος were popular in ancient Greek,28 the oldest attestation being ἰοδόκος “holding arrows” in Homer, Od. 21.12. This type of compound occurs side by side with a less productive type ending in -δέκτης. The simplex δέκτης “receiver, beggar” occurs in Homer, Od. 4.248; in H. Hom. Cer. 9 we find πολυδέκτης “all-receiving,” for example. Still, compounds with -δέκτης are mostly post-classical.29 The word would have been easily understood by any reader of OG Job, and the formation would have been regarded as natural Greek. The use of neologisms contributes to variation in vocabulary. In addition, neologisms might have added a literary embellishment to the text, as the use of unfamiliar words is one of the markers of poetic language.30 This feature is already being discussed in ancient rhetorical treatises on style, such as Aristotle, Poet. 1458 and Rhet. 1404b. 2.4 Vocabulary and Language Competence A rich vocabulary is seen as one of the most basic indications of “a book’s literary ambitions,”31 but statements about the translator’s intentions are tentative. Nevertheless, we can make two observations. First, the extensive vocabulary of OG Job, which has been studied in detail by Mangin, is a clear indicator that the translator was fluent in Greek. Modern studies in the field of linguistics have shown that vocabulary is an important criterion in estimating one’s language proficiency. The acquisition of an elaborate vocabulary (either in one’s primary or in any secondary language) requires some direct instruction and strategy training, but is primarily achieved through extensive exposure to that language, especially through reading.32 When we take this observation together with those made in the previous chapter regarding word order in Greek and the position of the pronoun, we can conclude that OG Job shows the hand of a translator who enjoyed a Greek-language education and is proficient in Greek. 28  Reference can be made to Demetrius, Eloc. 91–93, who argues in favor of the use of compound words to attain an elevated style. 29  Olga Tribulato, Ancient Greek Verb-Initial Compounds: Their Diachronic Development Within the Greek Compound System (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015), 275–76. 30  Dover, Greek Prose Style, 96–112; Horrocks, Greek, 56. 31  Léonas, “Poetics of Wisdom,” 100. See also Dover, Greek Prose Style, 131–43. 32  See James Coady, “L2 Vocabulary Acquisition: A Synthesis of the Research,” in Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition: A Rationale for Pedagogy (ed. James Coady and Thomas Huckin; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 273–90, 277; Yunjung You, “Factors in Vocabulary Acquisition through Reading,” International Tinnitus Journal 8 (2011): 43–57. Modern literature on primary and secondary language vocabulary acquisition is substantial. See You, “Factors,” 43–44 for a concise state of the question and bibliography.

High Register Greek In Old Greek Job

149

Second, the use of an extensive vocabulary and rare words has an effect on the register in which OG Job is written. The vocabulary contributes to an elevated style. It indicates that the repertoire for word choice, that is, the options a Jewish-Greek translator had in terms of lexical choices within the polysystem, had expanded beyond the vernacular. 3

Syntactic Features

3.1 Verbal Usage We have shown in the previous chapter that OG Job was written in a Koine setting. Yet OG Job contains a number of phenomena that show that the language of Job is not the vernacular Koine. In this section I focus on verbs, since verbal usage has been shown to be an important criterion to describe the language of the LXX.33 3.1.1 τυγχάνω In the Koine period, τυγχάνω occurs most frequently in the sense “to be.” It is a sign of official or technical language, but would also appear in unpretentious literary compositions.34 In the LXX we encounter this verb mostly in the nontranslated books (1 Macc 11:42; 2 Macc 4:6; 5:8.9; 6:2.22; 9:1; 13:7; 14:6.10; 15:7; 3 Macc 2:33; 3:7; 5:35; 7:10). In the translated books, it appears only five times: once in Deuteronomy (19:5), once in Proverbs (30:23), once in Tobit (5:14), and twice in Job (7:2; 17:1). Nevertheless, the use of τυγχάνω with a participial construction (“X happens doing Y”) is distinctively literary in Koine. This usage appears once in Job, in 3:21. In the LXX corpus we find it only twice more, namely in 2 Macc 3:9 and 4:32. 3.1.2 The Optative The optative had three major functions in classical Greek. In main clauses it could express volition or potential, whereas in subordinate clauses it marks historic sequence.35 The use of the optative decreased from the third century bce onwards.36 The optative was eventually lost as a separate category, except 33  See most importantly Evans, Verbal Syntax. The criteria used for selecting the features discussed in this section are based on Horrocks, “Syntax,” 629–31. He provides a number of features typical of literary texts in Koine. 34  Horrocks, “Syntax,” 630. 35  Evans, Verbal Syntax, 176. 36  Evans, Verbal Syntax, 175–76.

150

chapter 5

in a few fossilized uses such as μὴ γένοιτο,37 and its functions were transferred to the subjunctive or periphrastic constructions.38 In the LXX Pentateuch, the optative volitive (in main clauses) is still well represented, but the potential (in main and subordinate clauses) and especially the comparative use of the optative (in subordinate clauses) are rare.39 In terms of frequency, the use of the volitive has often been influenced by the Hebrew jussive of wish and represents a sign of positive interference.40 The potential and historic sequence use of the optative, however, attest clearly to natural Greek usage, as they pertain to nuances of the Greek language that the Hebrew language does not have at its disposal. The whole of the LXX Pentateuch contains eighty optative forms. This is striking in comparison to the book of Job. The latter contains more than 115 optatives. I will look particularly at those instances in which the optative does not reflect a volitive.41 The potential optative in a main clause occurs only six times in the LXX Pentateuch (Gen 23:15; 44:8; Num 11:29; Deut 28:67bis; 33:7). Five times it is constructed with the particle ἄν.42 In each case, the potential force is a nuance introduced in the Greek without motivation from the Hebrew. Here, too, the frequency of this phenomenon is higher in OG Job: the construction optative + ἄν occurs six times (11:5; 19:23; 25:4; 29:2; 31:31; 41:5). The use of the optative in subordinate clauses is especially rare in the LXX.43 37  See in particular Trevor V. Evans, “The Last of the Optatives,” CP 98 (2003): 70–80. 38  Evans, Verbal Syntax, 53. See also Voitila, “Septuagint Syntax,” 97–98. 39  Evans, Verbal Syntax, 181. See also Muraoka, Syntax, 320–27; Turner, Greek Papyri, 119. 40  Evans, Verbal Syntax, 183–86. 41  The comparative optative, which appears nine times in the Pentateuch, is always introduced by ὡς or ὡς εἰ (ὡσει). It does not appear in OG Job. See Trevor V. Evans, “The Comparative Optative: A Homeric Reminiscence in the Greek Pentateuch?” VT 49 (1999): 487–504; Evans, Verbal System, 190–92; Jan Joosten, “Elaborate Similes—Hebrew and Greek: A Study in Septuagint Translation Technique,” Bib 77 (1996): 227–36, repr. in Collected Studies, 3–14. On the one hand, this is not surprising, since the use of the optative in comparative clauses with ὡς or ὡς εἰ (ὡσει) is not a common classical construction. In the corpus of Greek literature, it occurs only a handful of times in a few literary sources (among them Homer and Herodotus). On the other hand, its use in the LXX Pentateuch has been argued to be reminiscent of Homer. See Evans, Verbal Syntax, 196–97. The translator of Job has enjoyed a Greek education, which would have led to familiarity with Homer, among others (see below). Consequently, an occurrence of this construction in OG Job would not have been surprising either. 42  Evans, Verbal Syntax, 188–89. 43  Horrocks, “Syntax,” 631; Anwar Tjen, On Conditionals in the Greek Pentateuch: A Study of Translation Syntax (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 53.

High Register Greek In Old Greek Job

151

The optative occurs twenty six times in a conditional clause in the LXX, thirteen of which in 4 Maccabees, an original Greek composition that is often described as “literary.”44 We encounter four examples of this construction in Job, in 6:2 (εἰ γάρ τις ἱστῶν στήσαι μου τὴν ὀργήν “if someone really sets about to weigh my anger”; the natural use of the optative is used in combination with a rendering of the paronomastic construction that is not natural in Greek, see above); 6:8 (εἰ […] δῴη “if he would give,” rendering ‫ ;)מי יתן‬34:14 (εἰ […] βούλοιτο “for if he would”); 38:20 (εἰ ἀγάγοις “if you could bring”).45 The use of the optative in potential and conditional constructions not only implies a significant familiarity with natural Greek usage on the part of the translator, but also indicates a tendency of the translator to aim at writing in a higher register of Greek, in a linguistic environment in which the use of the optative was in decline in everyday language. 3.1.3 Periphrastic Constructions with ποιέω A periphrastic construction with ποιέω can be defined as the use of ποιέω in the active or middle voice together with an abstract noun in the accusative as direct object, instead of the verb derived from the noun, without a difference in meaning.46 An example is the construction ποιέω λήθην for λανθάνεσθαι “to forget” (LSJ).

44  See, for example, Dines, Septuagint, 19; Eduard Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa vom VI Jahrhundert v. Chr. bis in die Zeit der Renaissance (2nd ed.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1923), 416– 20; Henry B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (2nd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902), 312. 45  Tjen, On Conditionals in the Greek Pentateuch, 51–55. 46  The construction under discussion is not to be confused with the periphrastic causative, which is a serial verb construction consisting of a causative main verb (often ποιέω) plus an object and a verbal complement. See Diana Gibson, “Periphrastic Causatives with ποιέω in Ancient Greek Prose,” in Topics in Comparative Philology and Historical Linguistics (ed. Ina J. Hartmann and Andreas Willi; vol. 7 of Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology & Phonetics; Oxford, 2002), 27–40, 28 (online via http:// www.ling-phil.ox.ac.uk/files/uploads/OWP2002.pdf). On the use of the periphrastic causative in the LXX, see Evans, Verbal Syntax, 88; Soisalon-Soininen, Infinitive, 134–35; Emanuel Tov, “The Representation of the Causative Aspects of the Hiph’il in the LXX: A Study in Translation Technique,” Bib 63 (1982): 417–24. Gibson, “Periphrastic Causatives,” 27–40 has shown that this construction is not a Hebraism; see also Diana Gibson, “Causative Verbs in Ancient Greek: The Development of the Periphrastic Construction” (Ph.D. diss., University of Oxford, 2005).

152

chapter 5

The use of periphrases comprising an abstract noun with ποιέω is characteristic of Attic.47 The construction of ποιέω with an abstract noun as direct object instead of the verb is not typically Septuagintal. In several LXX books, however, we encounter ποιέω ἔλεος, but in these instances the Greek reflects the form of the Hebrew as a rendering of ‫“ עׂשה חסד‬to show steadfast love, to deal kindly”48 (HALOT). In these cases, it can therefore not be argued that the use of a periphrastic ποιέω is an attempt at a higher register of Greek on the part of the translator. In Job, this construction occurs several times without reflecting a similar construction in the Hebrew text. We can first consider the idiomatic Greek expression λόγον τινὸς ποιεῖσθαι, specifically meaning “to make account of, set a value on.”49 It occurs twice in Job, in 14:3 and 22:4. In the first instance it renders the expressions ‫פקחת עינך‬ “you fix your eyes,” in the second there is no clear equivalent in the Hebrew. λόγον τινὸς ποιεῖσθαι is a common expression in Greek (LSJ, see for instance Herodotus, Hist. 1.4.3, Polybius, Hist. 21.14.9; also in papyri: P.Cair.Zen. 1 59018 [Palestine, 258 bce]; P.Cair.Zen. 2 59207 [Philadelphia?, 255–254 bce]; BGU 4 1137 [Alexandria, 6 bce]). Since it does not reflect a similar construction in Hebrew, it is a sign of the translator’s use of natural Greek idiom. We encounter several other instances of a periphrastic ποιέω in OG Job with a variety of abstract nouns. These cases go beyond the level of natural Greek usage. The most straightforward instance can be found in 40:20, where one reads ἐποίησεν χαρμονήν (presumably rendering ‫)יׂשחקו‬, unique to OG Job. The verb ‫ ׂשחק‬is usually rendered with παίζω (or a composite form) in the LXX. In the Psalter, its standard rendering is ἐκγελάω. In the book of Job, ‫ׂשחק‬ occurs nine times. In the OG, καταγελάω renders ‫ ׂשחק‬five times, in 5:22; 30:1; 39:7.22; 41:21, and the simplex γελάω once, in 29:24. The verb παίζω also occurs once, namely in 40:29. The expression ποιέω χαρμονήν is in all ways unique to Job: as a rendering of ‫ׂשחק‬, but also as a construction in the LXX and in Greek writings in general. In OG Job, a periphrastic ποιέω occurs mostly in parallel cola, such as in 7:21. 47  Horrocks, Greek, 41. See also the entry ποιέω in LSJ. 48  See, for example, Gen 24:12.14.49; Exod 20:6 (in Gen 24:44 and Exod 34:7 it does not reflect ‫עׂשה חסד‬, but given the frequent use of this expression in the course of the book this example does not provide grounds for any argument); Deut 5:10; Josh 2:12; Judg 1:24; 1 Kgdms 15:6. 49  The construction λόγον ποιέω (active voice) occurs in other LXX books as well, but in those cases it usually renders ‫“ עׂשה דבר‬to do a thing” (see, for example, Judg 21:11; 2 Kgdms 7:21; Neh 5:9). In 1 Macc 2:34 it is used to express “to do the word [of the king]” that is, to follow his command. In these cases, it is not equivalent to the derived verb λογίζομαι.

High Register Greek In Old Greek Job

153

Job 7:21 καὶ διὰ τί οὐκ ἐποιήσω τῆς ἀνομίας μου λήθην καὶ καθαρισμὸν τῆς ἁμαρτίας μου; νυνὶ δὲ εἰς γῆν ἀπελεύσομαι, ὀρθρίζων δὲ οὐκέτι εἰμί. Why did you not assign my lawlessness to oblivion and my sin to purging? But now I shall depart to the ground, and early in the morning I shall be no more.

‫ומה לא תׂשא פׁשעי‬ ‫ותעביר את עוני‬ ‫כי עתה לעפר אׁשכב‬ ‫וׁשחרתני ואינני‬

Why do you not pardon my transgression and take away my iniquity? For now I shall lie in the earth; you will seek me, but I shall not be.

The first two cola represent a partial chiasm in the Greek, where the Hebrew has a partial symmetry due to the gapping of the interrogative in the second colon. The chiasm in the Greek text is of a different nature: it has been introduced by the use of a double periphrase with ποιέω, which does not represent the form of the Hebrew text. The constructions do represent the metaphorical meaning of the verbs used in the Hebrew, ‫( תׂשא‬from ‫“ נׂשא‬to lift”) and ‫תעביר‬ (from ‫“ עבר‬to pass over”). The chiasm in the Greek text is partial insofar as in the second colon the interrogative διὰ τί as well as the finite verb (with negation) οὐκ ἐποιήσω are gapped. The cross-correspondence pertains to the position of the direct objects λήθην and καθαρισμόν on the one hand and their genitives on the other, τῆς ἀνομίας μου, placed before the object in 21a, and τῆς ἁμαρτίας μου, placed after the object in 21b. ποιέω λήθην does not appear in other LXX books, but does occur, albeit infrequently, in Greek literature, such as Herodotus, Hist. 1.127.2; Aristotle, EN 1157b12; Theophrastus, HP 9.15.1.11. Polybius uses the construction five times in his Historiae (18.33.2.4; 18.33.3.1; 18.35.5.3; 20.11.7.6; 30.5.4.1). It does not occur in papyri. The construction with the noun καθαρισμός is unique to Job altogether. It occurs once in later literature in the NT (Heb 1:3). In both instances, the meaning is the same as when the verb derived from the noun is used, respectively λανθάνομαι and καθαρίζω. The use of ποιέω in different periphrastic constructions is also exploited in Job 31:14. Job 31:14 τί γὰρ ποιήσω, ἐὰν ἔτασίν μου ποιήσηται ὁ κύριος; ἐὰν δὲ καὶ ἐπισκοπήν, τίνα ἀπόκρισιν ποιήσομαι;

‫ומה אעׂשה כי יקום אל‬ ‫וכי יפקד מה אׁשיבנו‬

154

chapter 5

What then shall I do, if the Lord puts me under What then shall I do when God rises scrutiny. up? And if too he pays a visit, what answer shall I When he makes inquiry, what will I give? answer him?

In the first part of the first colon, the use of ποιέω clearly reflects the use of ‫ עׂשה‬in the Hebrew text, this being a common equivalence (HR). The Greek, however, uses ποιέω an additional three times, twice explicitly (ἔτασὶν ποιήσηται and ἀπόκρισιν ποιήσομαι) and once gapped (ἐπισκοπήν ⟨ποιέομαι⟩). The repetition of ποιέω can hardly be coincidental, since the verb is repeated in a similar construction with different abstract nouns. Two of these combinations are unique in the LXX. The expression ποιέω ἐπισκοπήν occurs four times in OG Job, in 7:18; 24:12; 29:4; 31:14. It renders ‫“ פקד‬to visit” in 7:18 and 31:14. In 24:12 and 29:4 there is no formal correspondence between the Hebrew and the Greek. God is always the subject of this construction. The construction ποιέω ἐπισκοπήν does not occur in classical literature or in papyri (note that ἐπισκοπή is a Koine word). It occurs only in the LXX, in two other instances, namely in Isa 23:17, where it renders ‫“ יפקד‬he will visit,”50 and in Prov 29:13, rendering ‫“ מאיר‬he gives light.” In these instances, too, God is the subject of the verb. ποιέομαι ἔτασίν and ποιέομαι ἀπόκρισιν, which render, respectively, the verbs ‫ קום‬and ‫ׁשוב‬, are both unique equivalents and unique constructions in the corpus of the LXX. ἔτασὶν ποιέομαι is not attested in other Greek writings. The first attestation of the noun ἔτασις is, in fact, in OG Job (used three times, also in 10:17 and 12:6). The translator could have used the simplex verbs cognate to the nouns, respectively ἐτάζω (see Job 33:27; 36:23, twice in a verse that is not a onefor-one rendering of the Hebrew) and ἀποκρίνομαι (see Job 1:7.9; 32:3; 38:3; 40:7, often rendering ‫“ ענה‬to answer”). ποιέω ἀπόκρισιν, in turn, is attested in Greek literature (see, for example, Plato, Leges 897d). It is comparable to another periphrastic construction in OG Job, δίδωμι ἀπόκρισιν. This construction is a favorite expression of the translator. It occurs five times, rendering ‫ ענה‬in 15:2, ‫ ׁשוב‬in 33:5; 35:4; 40:4, or used interpretatively for the noun ‫ דבר‬in 32:4. In the other LXX books it appears only in Sir 8:9. It is well-attested in Greek literature (see, for example, Plato, Soph. 239e5; Phil. 57c5; used frequently by Polybius) but only once in a papyrus containing a letter from 9 bce (BGU 16 2651; Herakleopolites). We encounter the related construction δίδωμι ἀνταπόκρισιν 50  Isa 23:17 is the only instance in which ἐπισκοπήν is used with the active voice of ποιέω instead of the middle voice, as in all other cases. The critical apparatus does not include the middle voice as a variant reading in Isa 23:17.

High Register Greek In Old Greek Job

155

twice, in 13:22 and 34:36 (each time rendering ‫)ׁשוב‬, which is unique to Job. In fact, the first attestation of ἀνταπόκρισις is in OG Job. Some of the periphrastic constructions are attested in Greek literature. The constructions that are unattested outside of OG Job provide examples of the translator possibly creating new constructions, the form of which follows natural formations in the Greek language and the meaning of which would have been clear to a Greek-speaking reader. As such, they can be compared to neologisms. They indicate a striving for a higher register of the Greek language. 3.2 The Use of Particles Cox has discussed the use of particles in OG Job.51 The translator may opt not to render the connectors in the Hebrew, especially when rendering lists (e.g., Job 1:1), when rendering verbal parataxis by using participial constructions or subordinate clauses (adverbial, e.g., 19:18; conditional, e.g., 9:11; objective, e.g., 23:2; relative, e.g., 3:25), or in asyndetic constructions for the sake of emphasis (e.g., Job 37:14). In some instances, both the Hebrew and the Greek text contain a particle, but the latter can hardly be seen as a true equivalent to the former (e.g., ‫—או‬δέ in 38:6). The translator, however, also incorporates many particles independently from the Hebrew. He has a preference for δέ and γάρ: γάρ occurs as a plus about one hundred times,52 and the list of instances in which δέ is a plus ascribed to the translator is almost three times as long.53 The translator adds coordinating particles in order to produce balanced clauses, such as εἴ … ἢ εἴ for the Hebrew ‫… ו‬ -‫ ה‬in Job 5:1 or the plus καθώς … οὕτως in 6:17–18.54 We also encounter a number of particle groups in OG Job, such as οὐ μὴν δὲ ἀλλά in 2:5; 5:8; 12:6; 13:3; 17:10; 21:17; 27:7; 33:1, or ὅτι μὲν γάρ in 9:19.55 The particles often serve to create connectedness between units of texts. What is of interest, at this point, is the use of particles within the linguistic context of Koine Greek. The use of particles diminished in Koine,56 to the 51  Cox, “Tying it all Together,” 41–54. 52  Cox, “Tying it all Together,” 45. 53  Cox, “Tying it all Together,” 47. 54  Cox, “Tying it all Together,” 50–51. 55  Cox, “Tying it all Together,” 49. 56  Jerker Blomqvist, Greek Particles in Hellenistic Prose (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1969), 132–77; Willy Clarysse, “Linguistic Diversity in the Archive of the Engineers Kleon and Theodoros,” in The Language of the Papyri, 35–50; Horrocks, Greek, 94. The scarcity of particles in the NT, for example, is well known; see John A. L. Lee, “Some Features of the Speech of Jesus in Mark’s Gospel,” NT 27 (1985): 1–26; Margaret E. Thrall, Greek Particles in the New Testament: Linguistic and Exegetical Studies (New Testament Tools and Studies 3; Leiden: Brill, 1962).

156

chapter 5

point that their use started to have a learned quality.57 Because of the paratactic nature of Hebrew and the limited number of conjunctive particles, particles are especially scarce in the Greek of the LXX,58 except for the equivalence of ‫—ו‬καί. OG Job stands out. The translator may have aimed at a natural Greek style consciously, but the use of particles may at times simply have been an unconscious result of a well-educated translator producing a text in a natural Greek style.59 The incorporation of such a wide variety of particles, and especially of particle groups, does provide another clear indication that the translator was well-educated and that he composed his translation of Job in a higher register of the Greek language, especially since OG Job was produced in a linguistic context in which the use of particles decreased rapidly. 3.3 Hyperbaton Hyperbaton can be defined as “a wider than necessary separation of two of more syntactically closely connected words or group of words.”60 Hyperbaton is rare in the translated books of the LXX, since it pertains to a typically Greek phenomenon.61 I have already discussed two uses of hyperbaton in Job, namely the separation of an article and its governing noun and the placement of the pronoun in Wackernagel’s position. At this point, I will discuss additional examples of different types of hyperbaton. A possessive pronoun can be separated from its governing noun, such as in Job 8:6 (δεήσεως ἐπακούσεταί σου “he will hear your entreaty,” which is considered to be an interpretative rendering of the Hebrew ‫“ כי עתה יעיר עליך‬surely then he will rouse himself for you”62); 30:9 (‫“ ועתה נגינתם הייתי‬and now they mock me in song”—νυνὶ δὲ κιθάρα ἐγώ εἰμι αὐτῶν “but now I am their lyre”); 33:1 (‫“ וכל דברי האזינה‬and listen to all my words”—καὶ λαλιὰν ἐνωτίζου μου “and give ear to my talking”).

57  Trevor V. Evans, “Standard Koine Greek in Third Century BC Papyri,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Congress of Papyrology, Ann Arbor, July 29–August 4, 2007 (ed. Traianos Gagos; American Studies in Papyrology; Ann Arbor, Mich.: Scholarly Publishing Office, University of Michigan Library, 2010), 197–206, 202. 58  See Aitken and Cuppi, “Proverbs,” 344. 59  Already in ancient Greek literary theory writers reflected on the use of particles as part of style. See, for example, Aristotle, Rhet. 1413b; Demetrius, Eloc. 53–64. 60  Markovic, “Hyperbaton in the Greek Literary Sentence,” 127; Rowe, “Style,” 136. 61  Léonas, “The Poetics of Wisdom,” 102; Reese, Hellenistic Influence, 26–27. See also Muraoka, Syntax, 484–85. 62  Cox, Iob, s.v. 8:6.

High Register Greek In Old Greek Job

157

In OG Job, a hyperbaton can also pertain to the position of the attributive adjective vis-à-vis its governing noun. Job 7:13 εἶπα ὅτι Παρακαλέσει με ἡ κλίνη μου, ἀνοίσω δὲ πρὸς ἐμαυτὸν ἰδίᾳ λόγον τῇ κοίτῃ μου. I said, “My couch will comfort me, and I will have a word with myself privately on my bed.”

‫כי אמרתי תנחמני ערׂשי‬ ‫יׂשא בׂשיחי מׁשכבי‬

When I say, “My bed will comfort me, my couch will ease my complaint.”

The cola of this verse are parallel to one another in the Hebrew text. The Greek of 13b, however, is significantly different. The translator takes Job to be the subject of the colon in the first person. This colon presents us with a rare example of a hyperbaton of adjective and noun. Another example can be found in the absolute genitive in Job 34:37 (πολλὰ λαλούντων ῥήματα ἐναντίον τοῦ κυρίου “while speaking many words before the Lord,” with πολλὰ λαλούντων ῥήματα rendering ‫“ וירב אמריו‬he multiplies his words”). The noun can, however, also precede the adjective. An example can be found in 18:12. Job 18:12 πτῶμα δὲ αὐτῷ ἡτοίμασται ἐξαίσιον.

But an extraordinary fall has been prepared for him.

‫יהי רעב אנו‬ ‫ואיד נכון לצלעו‬

Their strength is consumed by hunger, and calamity is ready for their stumbling.

The Greek does not offer a translation of MT 18:12a, but only of 18:12b. The use of ἐξαίσιος is typical of OG Job.63 The adjective is separated from its governing noun, πτῶμα. A similar hyperbaton in a case that is difficult to evaluate as a rendering of the Hebrew can be found in Job 4:12 (οὐθὲν ἄν σοι τούτων κακὸν ἀπήντησεν “nothing bad in them would have met you,” in which οὐθὲν κακόν is one syntactic unit). 63  Cox, Iob, s.v. 18:12 (“Excursus: ἐξαίσιος”).

158

chapter 5

A different type of hyperbaton is found in 33:13. The Greek text is paraphrastic, rendering a bicolon as a monocolon. The hyperbaton pertains to the separation of the genitive from its governing noun. Job 33:13 λέγεις δέ Διὰ τί τῆς δίκης μου οὐκ ἐπακήκοεν πᾶν ῥῆμα; But you say, “Why has he not heeded one word of my case?”

‫מדוע אליו ריבות‬ ‫כי כל דבריו לא יענה‬

Why do you contend against him, saying, “He will answer none of my words”?

Similar is the separation of the participium coniunctum and its antecedent. Job 24:6 ἀγρὸν πρὸ ὥρας οὐκ αὐτῶν ὄντα ἐθέρισαν, ἀδύνατοι δὲ ἀμπελῶνας ἀσεβῶν ἀμισθὶ καὶ ἀσιτὶ ἠργάσαντο. They reaped a field not their own before its time, but the powerless worked vineyards of the impious without pay or food.

‫בׂשדה בלילו יקצירו‬ ‫וכרם רׁשע ילקׁשו‬

They reap in a field not their own and glean in the vineyard of the wicked.

The prepositional phrase πρὸ ὥρας determines the verb ἐθέρισαν. The participial construction οὐκ αὐτῶν ὄντα, however, determines the noun ἀγρός. We may also encounter a separation of the pronoun in the accusative as the subject of the accusativus cum infinitivo vis-à-vis the verb. Job 38:2 τίς οὗτος ὁ κρύπτων με βουλήν, συνέχων δὲ ῥήματα ἐν καρδίᾳ, ἐμὲ δὲ οἴεται κρύπτειν; Who is this that hides counsel from me but confines words in his heart and thinks to hide them from me?

‫מי זה מחׁשיך עצה‬ ‫במלין בלי דעת‬

Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?

High Register Greek In Old Greek Job

159

Compare also the Greek of 42:3 (φειδόμενος δὲ ῥημάτων καὶ σὲ οἴεται κρύπτειν “[who] being sparing with words thinks to hide them from you as well”64). Job 7:13; 8:9.14; 17:15; 33:13; 38:2 clearly show that the hyperbaton serves to round off the sense of a syntactical unit.65 Hyperbaton is rare in LXX translations. Only two instances have been identified in the Greek Psalter66 and seven in Greek Isaiah.67 Hyperbaton occurs more frequently in non-translated compositions, such as the Greek additions to Esther: in the decree following 8:12, thirty-six examples have been identified in the fifty-six lines that the decree comprises in Rahlfs’s edition.68 In the Wisdom of Solomon, too, hyperbaton is frequent: J. M. Reese counts 240 instances.69 He then distinguishes between two types of hyperbata: those that pertain to the separation of the noun and its article and those that do not pertain to the article.70 All identified cases of hyperbaton in Psalms and Isaiah belong to the former category. As for Wisdom, half of the cases of hyperbaton (119 out of 240) are of the latter category.71 Similarly for Job, we find some cases of the former category, such as ὁ Θαιμανων βασιλεύς (2:11), τὴν ἑαυτοῦ στολήν (2:12), or τῆς Αυσίτιδος χώρας (32:2), but many cases are of the latter category. Hyperbaton is commonly used in Greek literature, and more so in Hellenistic than in classical Greek.72 When we are not dealing with a hyperbaton resulting from a pronoun in Wackernagel’s position, it is said that many instances of

64  For a discussion of the OG in 38:2 and 42:3, where Job is said to have kept his true feelings hidden, whereas in Hebrew he is said to have spoken without knowledge, see Kutz, “Characterization,” 345–55. 65  For the function of hyperbata, see Markovic, “Hyperbaton in the Greek Literary Sentence,” 131. 66  Reese, Hellenistic Influence, 26 n. 135 cites three: Ps 10(11):5; 112(113):5; 122(123):3. Ps 122(123):5, however, simply follows the word order of the Hebrew. Moreover, one need not assume that ἐξουδενώσεως belongs together with ἐπὶ πολύ (and would thus constitute a hyperbaton), since ἐπὶ πολύ requires no complement (LSJ) and the verb which separates ἐπὶ πολύ from ἐξουδενώσεως, ἐπλήσθημεν, is naturally constructed with a genitive. It is hence more likely that ἐξουδενώσεως needs to be taken with the verb rather than with the prepositional phrase. 67  Reese, Hellenistic Influence, 26 n. 135 cites eight examples: Isa 28:20; 29:15.18.24; 33:8; 50:4; 57:15. I, however, did not find a hyperbaton in 50:4. 68  Reese, Hellenistic Influence, 26 n. 135 (no verse references). 69  Reese, Hellenistic Influence, 26. 70  Reese, Hellenistic Influence, 26–27. 71  Reese, Hellenistic Influence, 27. 72  See John D. Denniston, Greek Prose Style (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952), 51.

160

chapter 5

hyperbata are a simple but deliberate stylistic choice.73 Hyperbata in Job show, again, a natural Greek writing translator who pays attention to the stylization of his product. 4

Rhetorical Features on the Colonic Level

4.1 Introduction Rhetorical features can be very broadly defined as “the shaping of groups of words.”74 As such, the use of rhetorical features can be an important aspect of style, since it pertains to word choice and word order. Rhetorical features can be used merely for the purpose of literary ornamentation,75 but they can also perform linguistic or pragmatic functions.76 Rhetorical tropes, which pertain specifically to the meaning of words77 and include phenomena such as metonymy, metaphor, or irony, will not be treated as a separate category in this study.78 Although these, too, to the extent that they involve word choice, are an aspect of the style of a text, the focus of this research lies on rhetorical features, also known as rhetorical schemes. Tropes will be mentioned when deemed relevant for the discussion (see also the use of metonymy in Job 5:20 discussed earlier). Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that a thorough analysis of the way in which any LXX translator handles tropes can be a worthwhile topic of study. This has proven to be the case for the book 73  Jonas Palm, Über Sprache und Stil des Diodoros von Sizilien: Ein Beitrag zur Beleuchtung der hellenistischen Prosa (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1955), 131–33; Monique van RossumSteenbeek, Greek Readers’ Digests? Studies on a Selection of Subliterary Papyri (Mnemosyne Supplementum 175; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 7–8. See also Rowe, “Style,” 136, who includes it in his list of Greek rhetorical figures. 74  Rowe, “Style,” 129. These features can occur in any type of text, poetry or prose, literary or non-literary. Consequently, the notion of a continuum of style is used. See Elizabeth Black, Pragmatic Stylistics (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006), 2; James Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and its History (New Haven: Yale University, 1981), passim. See also Luis Alonso Schökel, A Manual of Hebrew Poetics (SB 11; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1987), 19. 75  See Rowe, “Style,” 121–58. 76  See Stein H. Olsen, The Structure of Literary Understanding (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), 47–48. 77   R. Dean Anderson, Glossary of Greek Rhetorical Terms Connected to Methods of Argumentation, Figures and Tropes from Anaximenes to Quintilian (CBET 24; Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 58–59. 78  Even in ancient rhetorical theory, attention was paid to the use of tropes. See, for example, Aristotle, Poet. 1457 and Rhet. 1404a–6b, 1410a–11a; Demetrius, Eloc. 78–90.

High Register Greek In Old Greek Job

161

of Isaiah,79 for example, and has also been mentioned already with respect to the translation of Job.80 At this point, I will focus on the use of rhetorical features in OG Job on the level of the colon. I concentrate on those features that pertain to lexical choices determined by sound and by roots, respectively the use of alliteration and the use of cognates. I will pay more attention to the methodology involved in the study of rhetorical features in LXX translations in the next chapter. The present section serves to introduce the reader to the use of rhetorical features in OG Job and move the argumentation of this book from discussing elements pertaining to an elevated style to features that indicate tactics associated with Greek literary compositions. 4.2 Lexical Choices Determined by Sound Greek theoreticians of style recognized various forms of sound-patterning and sound-repetition.81 Word choices determined by sound may result in assonance, that is, the repetition of consonants or vowels in successive words. The occurrence of assonance has already been identified in OG Job.82 This section will focus specifically on alliteration, that is, the repetition of the first letter(s) in successive words.83 Especially in Hellenistic literature, alliteration is a

79  See, for example, Benjamin M. Austin, “The Translation of Metaphors in the Septuagint Version of Isaiah” (Ph.D. diss., University of Leiden, 2014). 80  Some interesting observations about the way in which the translator of OG Job handles metaphores have been made by Pierre Van Hecke, “Jobs pijn in beeld: Het gebruik van metaforen in Jobs zelfbeschrijvingen,” Collationes 39 (2009): 207–23; Pierre Van Hecke, “ ‘Is my Flesh Bronze?’ (Job 6:12): Metaphors of Fluidity and Solidity in the Description of the Body in the Book of Job,” Classical Bulletin 86 (2010): 101–15. 81  See, for example, Demetrius, Eloc. 26 and 69. For secondary literature on the importance of sound in Greek writing, see George A. Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric and its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times (2nd ed.; Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1999), 35; Paul J. Achtemeier, “Omne verbum sonat: The New Testament and the Oral Environment of Late Western Antiquity,” JBL 190 (1990): 3–27, 16–19. See also Anderson, Glossary, 91. 82  See, for example, Marieke Dhont, “A New Look at the LXX Rendering of Job 20,25,” ZAW 126 (2014): 111–16; Gammie, “Septuagint of Job,” 13–31 (though with caution, see chapter 1). 83  The Greeks did not explicitly recognize alliteration, but as a type of sound-repetition it is a feature in Greek literature. See, for example, Jean Defradas, “Le role de l’allitération dans la poésie grecque,” REA 60 (1958): 36–49; Ilona Opelt, “Alliteration im Griechischen?” Glotta 37 (1958): 205–32; Michael S. Silk, Interaction in Poetic Imagery: With Special Reference to Early Greek Poetry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), 173–93; William B. Stanford, The Sound of Greek: Studies in the Greek Theory and Practice of Euphony

162

chapter 5

common feature.84 It has also been recognized in different LXX books.85 As for Job, the feature has been recognized to be at play in 2:3: ἄνθρωπος ἄκακος, ἀληθινός, ἄμεμπτος “a man, innocent, genuine, blameless.”86 The use of asyndeton in OG Job is quite rare, and therefore considered to be striking, especially since the translator uses many particles.87 Because of the asyndeton the alliteration becomes more evident. A similar example of alliteration constituted by a repetition of the a-sound can be found in 20:18 and 24:6. Job 20:18 εἰς κενὰ καὶ μάταια ἐκοπίασεν πλοῦτον, ἐξ οὗ οὐ γεύσεται, ὥσπερ στρίφνος ἀμάσητος ἀκατάποτος. Vainly and foolishly he has toiled for wealth of which he will not taste; like tough meat, unchewable, impossible to swallow.

‫מׁשיב יגע ולא יבלע‬ ‫כחיל תמורתו ולא יעלס‬

They will give back the fruit of their toil, and will not swallow it down; from the profit of their trading they will get no enjoyment.

In this verse it is difficult to find precise lexical equivalences between the Hebrew and the Greek,88 if the latter is indeed a reflection of a similar Hebrew (Sather Classical Lectures 38; Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1967). See also Lausberg, Handbook, 432–33 (on homoeoprophoron) and 847 (on alliteration). 84  Barbara H. Fowler, The Hellenistic Aesthetic (Madison, Wisc.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989), 22. See also Dines, “Was LXX Pentateuch a Style-Setter?” 402, who remarks that alliteration also occurs in documentary papyri. 85  See, for example, Dines, “Was LXX Pentateuch a Style-Setter?” 399–400 and 402–3; Jennifer Dines, “Stylistic Features of the Septuagint,” in Die Sprache der Septuaginta, 350–60, 350–52; Takamitsu Muraoka, “Literary Device in the Septuagint,” Textus 8 (1973): 20–30; Van der Louw, Transformations, passim (see, for example, pp. 188, 210, 260, 297, 309, 351); Mirjam van der Vorm-Croughs, The Old Greek of Isaiah: An Analysis of its Pluses and Minuses (SBLSCS 61; Atlanta, Ga.: SBL Press, 2014), passim (see, for example, pp. 232, 242, 251, 265). 86  Muraoka, “Literary Device,” 27–30. Muraoka also cites 1:1 and 1:8, both of which will also be discussed below. Muraoka includes Job 3:16 as well (ἔκτρωμα ἐκπορευόμενον ἐκ μήτρας μητρός “a premature birth coming from a mother’s womb”) with reference to Num 12:12, from which OG Job 3:16 borrows its rendering. On the word choice of the translator in 2:3, see Dhont, “Double Translation,” 475–90. 87  See Cox, Iob, s.v. 20:18. 88  See HR, but also Beer, Hiob, 135–36 and Cox, Iob, s.v. 20:18, for example.

High Register Greek In Old Greek Job

163

text. In terms of meaning, many elements correspond. The translation displays known techniques of the translator, such as rewriting based on an interpretative rendering and the rendering of two parallel cola in such a way that the Greek is of a more varied nature. We also observe what could possibly be an associative translation in εἰς κενὰ καὶ μάταια ἐκοπίασεν. This brings to mind Isa 65:23 κοπιάσουσιν εἰς κενόν “they toil in vain” (see also Jer 28:58) and Isa 49:4 κενῶς ἐκοπίασα καὶ εἰς μάταιον καὶ εἰς οὐδὲν ἔδωκα τὴν ἰσχύν μου “I have labored vainly, and I have given my strength in vain and for nothing.” The adjectives κενός and μάταιος appear in the same context several more times in the LXX, such as in Hos 12:2; Isa 30:7; 59:4. The translator could have been inspired by Isaiah, since he includes intertextual links with the book of Isaiah several times in his work.89 The alliteration pertains to the last two words of this verse. The first attested use of ἀμάσητος in Greek literature is found in this verse,90 and ἀκατάποτος is not found in other Greek sources, except those directly dependent on the Greek text of Job, such as Origen’s Homiliae in Job. Even if one might want to assume a different source text for this verse, the word choices of the translator remain remarkable. The combination of both adjectives is likely due to alliteration, especially since they are used asyndetically, so that no conjunction interrupts the flow of the sound. Job 24:6 ἀγρὸν πρὸ ὥρας οὐκ αὐτῶν ὄντα ἐθέρισαν· ἀδύνατοι δὲ ἀμπελῶνας ἀσεβῶν ἀμισθὶ καὶ ἀσιτὶ ἠργάσαντο.

‫בׂשדה בלילו יקצירו‬ ‫וכרם רׁשע ילקׁשו‬

They reaped a field not their own before its time, They reap in a field not their own but the powerless worked vineyards of the and they glean in the vineyard of impious without pay or food. the wicked.

The Greek version represents an elaboration vis-à-vis the Hebrew, but it seems clear that the translator has used the Hebrew as a source, so that there is no reason to assume a source text that differs from MT.91 ‫“ כרם רׁשע‬the vineyard of the wicked” is rendered in plural as ἀμπελῶνας ἀσεβῶν. Each of these two Greek words is a standard rendering of its Hebrew source word in the LXX (HR). The 89  See Heater, Septuagint Translation Technique, passim. 90  Also (albeit rarely) in later Greek literature independent from the LXX, such as Apollonius, Lexicon Homericum, 37.33. See also Mangin, “Le texte court,” 486. 91  See Cox, Iob, s.v. 24:6.

164

chapter 5

word ἐργάζομαι is only used once in OG Job, although it is frequent in the LXX with over one hundred occurrences (HR). It does not render the (supposed) meaning of the word ‫ לקׁש‬as “to glean,” a verb that occurs only once in the HB. When comparing this verse in the OG to the MT, a subject has been added in the Greek, ἀδύνατοι, which is a favorite word of the translator.92 Whereas the impious continue to be the subject of 6b in the Hebrew, in Greek, the attention is shifted to the powerless. The apposition ἀμισθὶ καὶ ἀσιτί also constitutes a plus that, according to Cox, increases the plight of the powerless.93 While these differences between the Hebrew and Greek could have been motivated by a pursuit of clarification or were exegetical in nature, the words chosen by the translator to express this have, in my opinion, a stylistic dimension. Since ἀμπελῶνας ἀσεβῶν reflects the Hebrew, this word group might have been the translator’s point of departure for the word choices of the pluses. They were likely to have been guided by the assonance of the a-sound in the initial position of the words ἀδύνατοι, ἀμπελῶνας, ἀσεβῶν, ἀμισθί, and ἀσιτί and throughout the syllables of ἠργάσαντο. Readers of OG Job also come across alliteration constituted by a repetition of the p-sound. Job 8:2 μέχρι τίνος λαλήσεις ταῦτα; πνεῦμα πολυρῆμον τοῦ στόματός σου.

‫עד אן תמלל אלה‬ ‫ורוח כביר אמרי פיך‬

How long will you say these things? How long will you say these things, They are a wordy wind of your mouth! and the words of your mouth be a great wind?

Whereas in the expression πνεῦμα πολυρῆμον for ‫רוח כביר‬, the equivalence ‫—רוח‬πνεῦμα is a standard one (HR), the adjective πολυρήμων “talkative” does not occur in any Greek sources outside of OG Job. ‫“ כביר‬mighty” is always rendered differently in Job, depending on the context (see Job 31:25; 34:17.24; 36:5). The translator uses rare words and neologisms several times in the course of the book, but it seems likely that the alliteration of the p-sound has influenced word choices in the translation of this verse. One can perhaps speculate that the translator included this sound effect to compensate for the loss of sound effect of ‫ תמלל אלה‬in the Hebrew. Alliteration of the p-sound was popular in

92  See Cox, “Vocabulary for Wrongdoing,” 119–30. 93  Cox, Iob, s.v. 24:6.

165

High Register Greek In Old Greek Job

Greek literature.94 One can also compare 31:34 (πολυοχλίαν πλήθους “the populous multitude” for ‫[“ המון רבה‬I] greatly [feared] the multitude”) and 39:7 (πολυοχλίας πόλεως “the multitude of the city” for ‫“ המון קריה‬the multitude of the city”). πολυοχλία is a rare word that does not occur in classical Greek literature or Greek papyri, as opposed to its simplex ὄχλος “multitude.” πολυοχλία appears only once in Polybius, Hist. 10.14.15. Within the LXX, it is used once in Baruch (4:34),95 and twice in Job, each time rendering ‫המון‬, a noun that, in turn, occurs only twice in Hebrew Job. For 39:7, the alliteration might have been the coincidental result of the word choices. ‫ המון‬is used twice in the Hebrew text of Job and rendered twice as πολυοχλία. πόλις is a standard equivalent for ‫קריה‬ in the LXX (e.g., Num 21:28; Deut 2:36; Isa 1:21). It occurs eight times in Job, and renders ‫ קריה‬only in 8:2, although it must be noted that ‫ קריה‬only occurs once in Job. For 31:34, however, the observation that πλῆθος occurs only once in OG Job and that the translator could have rendered ‫ רב‬differently, could suggest that the alliteration has guided the translator’s word choices. Job 41:12 ἐκ μυκτήρων αὐτοῦ ἐκπορεύεται καπνὸς καμίνου καιομένης πυρὶ ἀνθράκων. From its nostrils proceeds smoke of a furnace burning with the fire of coals.

‫מנחיריו יצא עׁשן‬ ‫כדוד נפוח ואגמן‬

Out of its nostrils comes smoke, as a boiling pot and burning rushes.

In the Hebrew the second colon is subordinated to the first by a compound comparison introduced by ‫כ‬. The comparison is reflected in the Greek, but not introduced by a comparative particle or adverb. Rather, it consists of a word in the genitive case (καμίνου) plus a modifier, followed by a dativus instrumentalis, πυρί.96 The Greek thus becomes a metaphor, rather than a comparison, as in the Hebrew.97 καπνός is a standard equivalent of ‫ עׁשן‬in the LXX (see, for example, Exod 19:18; Josh 8:20; 2 Kgdms 22:9; Ps 67[68]:3). For ‫דוד‬, the translator might have read ‫“ כור‬little smelting furnace”98 (compare Ezek 22:20). It is noteworthy that καπνὸς καμίνου also occurs in Exod 19:18 94  Aitken, “Significance of Rhetoric,” 517–18. 95  Cox, Iob, s.v. 31:34. 96  The use of πυρὶ ἀνθράκων in this verse seems to have been based upon 41:13. This verse will be discussed in more detail in chapter 8. 97  Cox, Iob, s.v. 41:11–13. 98  Beer, Hiob, 252; Cox, Iob, s.v. 41:11–13; Dhorme, Job, 636–37.

166

chapter 5

(rendering ‫“ עׁשן הכבׁשן‬the smoke of a furnace”). The passive qal participle ‫ נפוח‬is rendered as καιομένης (compare Jer 1:13, where ‫ נפוח‬is rendered as ὑποκαιόμενον; see also Job 20:26, where ‫“ אׁש לא נפח‬a fire unfanned” is rendered as πῦρ ἄκαυστον “an unquenchable fire”). The resulting alliteration of the kasound could have been coincidental. It might nonetheless strike a reader. The gradual increase in syllable count could support the sound effect: the first word has two syllables (καπνός), the second has three (καμίνου), and the fourth has four (καιομένης). We encounter another example of alliteration on the k-sound in the plus of κόλπῳ κενῷ “with empty pockets” in 31:34.99 Because it is a plus, κόλπῳ κενῷ cannot have been the result of any standard lexical choices. It is not attested in Greek literature. Consequently, we can ascribe the alliteration to the translator. 4.3 Lexical Choices Determined by Repetition of Words We sometimes encounter a repetition of words within one colon in the Hebrew text. The rendering of the Hebrew paronomastic construction has already been discussed in chapter 4. The paronomastic construction pertains to Hebrew idiom and is thus often pragmatic rather than stylistic. At this point, we can include lexical repetitions that do not occur within the context of this idiom. A repetition in the Hebrew text can be reflected in the Greek text, such as in the following example. Job 27:12 ἰδοὺ δὴ πάντες οἴδατε ὅτι κενὰ κενοῖς ἐπιβάλλετε.

‫הן אתם כלכם חזיתם‬ ‫ולמה זה הבל תהבלו‬

Look here, you all know that you are piling nothing All of you have seen it; upon nothing. why then have you become altogether vain?

In the MT ‫ הבל תהבלו‬is pointed as ‫ ֶה ֶבל ֶת ְה ָבלּו‬, that is, a noun followed by a verb. While the Greek does not reflect the same form as the Hebrew, it does feature a repetition of the word that represents the meaning of the root ‫ הבל‬in terms of 99  Cox, Iob, s.v. 31:34 refers to Prov 17:23 and Jer 39:18 for the construction with κόλπος. Dhorme, Job, 467 assumes a different reading of the Hebrew for the translator to have arrived at this rendering.

High Register Greek In Old Greek Job

167

“vanity, emptiness,” κενός. κενά is the direct object and κενοῖς the indirect object of the verb ἐπιβάλλετε. We can compare also the repetitions of ‫“ כח‬strength”—ἰσχύς “strength” (6:12); ‫“ ידע‬to know”—οἶδα “to know” (15:9); ‫“ פרץ‬breach”—πτῶμα “fall” (16:14); ‫“ חנני‬have pity on me”—ἐλεήσατέ με “pity me” (19:21). A repetition on the level of the colon in the Hebrew text can also be eliminated in the Greek. The translator sometimes resorts to paraphrastic renderings, such as in 10:5 (repetition of ‫“ כימי‬like the days”); 16:4 (repetition of ‫נפׁש‬ “soul”); 30:8 (repetition of ‫“ בני‬sons”). He can also use variatio, such as in 36:15 (‫“ עני‬poor” rendered first as ἀσθενῆ “weak” and then as ἀδύνατον “powerless”100). In these cases, it seems that a paraphrase was a means for the translator to avoid repetition. Elimination, variatio, and avoidance of repetitions in the Greek will be examined in detail when I discuss repetition beyond the level of the colon in the next chapter. In only a few instances does the translator of Job introduce a lexical repetition in a colon where the Hebrew source has none, such as in 1:15. Job 1:15a καὶ ἐλθόντες οἱ αἰχμαλωτεύοντες ᾐχμαλώτευσαν αὐτὰς καὶ τοὺς παῖδας ἀπέκτειναν ἐν μαχαίραις σωθεὶς δὲ ἐγὼ μόνος ἦλθον τοῦ ἀπαγγεῖλαί σοι.

‫ותפל ׁשבא ותקחם‬ ‫ואת הנערים הכו לפי חרב‬ ‫ואמלטה רק אני לבדי להגיד לך‬

and marauders came and carried them off,

And the Sabeans fell on them and carried them off, and they killed the servants with daggers, and killed the servants with the edge of the sword; but when I alone escaped, I came to tell you. I alone have escaped to tell you.

100  HR cites ἀσθενής and ἀδύνατος both as renderings of ‫עני‬. The former renders ‫ עני‬twice more, in the book of Proverbs (22:22; 31:5 for ‫)בני עני‬. The latter, in turn, would be a unique rendering in the entire LXX, if it is, indeed, to be regarded as the rendering of ‫עני‬. In OG Job ἀδύνατος occurs mainly for ‫( אביון‬Job 5:15; 24:4; 29:16; 31:20) and for ‫(דל‬Job 5:16; 20:19; 31:16). Rather than as a rendering of ‫עני‬, Cox, Iob, s.v. 36:15 argues that the Greek translator added ἀδύνατος. This adjective is one of the favorite words of the translator of OG Job, relating this verse to other passages in Job describing the afflictions of the powerless.

168

chapter 5

The Greek uses a participle and a finite form of the verb αἰχμαλωτεύω. The participle renders ‫ׁשבא‬, and the finite verb ‫ותקחם‬. N. Fernández Marcos cited this feature as one of the examples showing the translator’s “literary achievements.”101 We encounter a similar use of these cognates several times in the LXX, such as in 2 Chr 6:36 (αἰχμαλωτεύσουσιν οἱ αἰχμαλωτεύοντες αὐτούς “their captors will take them captive,” rendering ‫“ וׁשבום ׁשוביהם‬they that take them captive will carry them away”).102 It is possible that the translator of Job was inspired by any of these passages.103 The translator also introduces lexical repetition on the level of the colon in a few other instances, such as in 3:8. In this instance, however, the repetition could be the result of coincidental lexical choices. Job 3:8 ἀλλὰ καταράσαιτο αὐτὴν ὁ καταρώμενος τὴν ἡμέραν ἐκείνην ὁ μέλλων τὸ μέγα κῆτος χειρώσασθαι. Rather, may he who curses that day curse it— he who is about to subdue the great seamonster.

‫יקבהו אררי יום‬ ‫העתידים ערר לויתן‬

Let those curse it who curse the Sea, those who are skilled to rouse up Leviathan.

The verb ‫ קבב‬occurs once more in Job in 5:3, where it is rendered as βιβρώσκω (marked with a dagger by HR). In the other books of the LXX, it occurs twelve times. It is always rendered as ἀράομαι, a composite or a derived noun or adjective,104 except for in Prov 11:26 (ὑπολείπω, marked with a dagger by HR). The verb ‫ ארר‬is unique in Job. Outside Job, it occurs sixty-three times, and in all but two cases105 its rendering involves the use of a form of the root ἀρα-.106 In this case, the repetition might add a stylistic effect to the Greek, but its occurrence could have been coincidental. 101  Fernández Marcos, “Septuagint Reading,” 259. 102  See also Judg 5:12; 2 Chr 6:36; 28:5.11.17; Ps 67(68):19; Isa 14:2; Amos 1:6; 5:5. For a discussion of these examples in Amos, see Dines, “Was LXX Pentateuch a Style-Setter?” 401 and 405. 103  See Cox, Iob, s.v. 1:15; Heater, Septuagint Translation Technique, 18–20. 104  See Num 22:11.17; 23:8.11.13.25.27; 24:10; Prov 24:24. 105  At Exod 22:28 the rendering is κακῶς εἶπον and at Mal 3:9 ἀποβλέπω. 106  See, for example, Gen 3:14; 4:11; 5:29; 9:25; Num 5:18; 22:6; 23:7; 24:9; Deut 27:15; 28:16; Josh 6:26; 9:23; Judg 5:23; 21:18; 1 Kgdms 14:24; 26:19; 4 Kgdms 9:34; Jer 11:3; 17:5; 20:14; 48:10; Mal 1:14; 2:2; Ps 118(119):21.

169

High Register Greek In Old Greek Job

4.4 Lexical Choices Determined by the Repetition of Roots 4.4.1 On the Level of the Colon In a few instances in the Hebrew text, one finds the use of cognates. This may be reflected in the Greek text, such as in the example cited below. Job 42:5 ἀκοὴν μὲν ὠτὸς ἤκουόν σου τὸ πρότερον, νυνὶ δὲ ὁ ὀφθαλμός μου ἑόρακέν σε. Whereas before I would hear an aural report of you, now, however, my eye has seen you.

‫לשמע אזן ׁשמעתיך‬ ׁ

‫ועתה עיני ראתך‬

I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you.

The Hebrew has a verb ‫ ׁשמע‬and a noun ‫ׁשמע‬, a use of cognates represented in the word choice of the Greek translator, ἀκοή and ἀκούω. The translator can also use cognates independently from the Hebrew.107 A play on cognates can only be ascribed to the translator when their use is not the coincidental result of standard lexical choices. For example, in 22:27, the use of εὔχομαι “to pray” rendering ‫“ עתר‬to entreat” and its cognate εὐχή “prayer” rendering ‫“ נדר‬prayer” are the result of standard word choices. An example of a play on cognates that seems to have been the result of stylistic considerations can be found in Job 7:9. Job 7:9 ὥσπερ νέφος ἀποκαθαρθὲν ἀπ᾿ οὐρανοῦ. ἐὰν γὰρ ἄνθρωπος καταβῇ εἰς ᾅδην, οὐκέτι μὴ ἀναβῇ. Like a cloud, cleared from the sky. For if a mortal goes down to Hades he does not come up again.

‫כלה ענן וילך‬ ‫כן יורד ׁשאול לא יעלה‬

As the cloud fades and vanishes, those who go down to Sheol do not come up.

Whereas the equivalence ‫—עלה‬ἀναβαίνω also occurs in Job 20:6 and in many other LXX books,108 within Job ‫ הלך‬is only rendered as καταβαίνω in the verse 107  This feature has been identified in other LXX books by Dines, “Stylistic Features of the Septuagint,” 354–55. 108  See Gen 2:6; 13:1; 19:30; 50:7; Exod 2:23; 7:28; 16:13; 40:37; Num 13:17; 14:42; Deut 1:24; 9:9, for example.

170

chapter 5

under discussion.109 While its equivalents are varied, ‫ הלך‬is never rendered by a cognate of βαίνω in OG Job.110 This could suggest that the translator chose καταβαίνω because he had used ἀναβαίνω. In several instances, the translator plays with the root οικ-. In Job 4:19, we encounter κατοικοῦντας οἰκίας for ‫ׁשכני בתי‬, with κατοικέω being quite a rare rendering of ‫ׁשכן‬. κατοικέω has over five hundred seventy occurrences in the LXX, rendering most commonly ‫“ יׁשב‬to dwell” (HR). As a rendering of ‫ׁשכן‬, it occurs only fourteen times (HR; see, for example, Gen 9:27; 14:13; 16:12; Num 23:9). In Job ‫ ׁשכן‬is rendered only once with κατοικέω. When ‫ ׁשכן‬has a clear equivalent in the Greek text, it is always, except in 4:19, translated with αὐλίζομαι (Job 11:14; 15:28; 38:19). The translator plays with the cognates ἀοίκητος and οἶκος twice, in 8:14 and 15:28. ἀοίκητος appears ten times in the LXX, three times in Job (8:14; 15:28; 18:4). In 15:28, ‫“ בתים לא יׁשבו‬houses they do not inhabit” is rendered as οἴκους ἀοικήτους “uninhabited houses.”111 In 8:14 we read ἀοίκητος γὰρ αὐτοῦ ἔσται ὁ οἶκος “for his house will be uninhabited” for ‫“ אׁשר יקוט כסלו‬their confidence is cut off.” The Hebrew is difficult, but most modern commentators argue against emendation of the text.112 If the translator’s source text for this verse was identical to the MT, perhaps this expression was used to solve the difficulty,113 inspired by the mention of a house in vv. 14–15. Another example can be found in 14:2, where ‫“ כציץ יצא וימל‬he comes up like a flower and withers” is rendered as ὥσπερ ἄνθος ἀνθῆσαν ἐξέπεσεν “like a flower that has bloomed, he drops off.” ‫ יצא‬is used with reference to a plant sprouting up for example in Isa 11:1, where ‫ נצר (…) יפרה‬is rendered as ἄνθος (…) ἀναβήσεται. The translator of Job renders the qal of ‫ יצא‬quite consistently with 109  καταβαίνω occurs twice more in OG Job, once rendering ‫“ ירד‬to go down,” also expressing “to descend Sheol/Hades” in 17:16, and once in a rendering that is not a one-to-one equivalent of the Hebrew (38:30). 110  Equivalents in Job include συμπορεύομαι (1:4); ἐμπεριπατέω (1:7; 2:2); πορεύομαι (10:21; 16:22; 23:8; 29:3; 31:5; 42:9); οἴχομαι (14:20; 19:10); περιπατέω (20:25; 38:16); διαπορεύομαι (22:14); ἐπακολουθέω (31:7); ἐκπορεύομαι (41:11). 111  The renderings of ‫ יׁשב‬vary. We encounter οἰκίζω once (22:8), κάθημαι twice (2:8; 38:40— compare also παρακαθίζω in 2:13), and πορεύομαι once (24:13, marked with a dagger by HR, but apparently a more interpretative rendering: ‫“ יׁשבו בנתיבתיו‬they do not stay in its paths”—οὐδὲ ἀτραποὺς αὐτῆς ἐπορεύθησαν “they did not travel its pathways”). 112  See Clines, Job, 200; Rowley, Job, 73; Alonso Schökel and Sicre Diaz, Job, 165; Seow, Job 1–21, 534. 113  The difficulty of the Hebrew has led to an array of interpretations and proposed emendations. See, for example, Dhorme, Job, 120–21; Driver and Gray, Job, 51–52; Gordis, Job, 91; Gray, Job, 188; Habel, Job, 169; Tur-Sinai, Job, 150.

171

High Register Greek In Old Greek Job

ἐξέρχομαι “to go out” (1:12.21; 2:7; 3:11; 5:6; 8:16; 24:5; 26:4; 31:34.40) or ἐκπορεύομαι “to go out” (29:7; 38:8.29; 39:21; 42:12.13). Once we encounter διεξέρχομαι “to go out through,” namely in 20:25, and once the more contextual δείκνυμι in 28:11 in the context of “to come out” meaning “to show.” In 14:2, too, the Greek rendering is based on the meaning of the word in the context rather than on the form of the Hebrew word itself. It is possible that the use of cognates in 14:2, which results in an alliteration,114 was meant to compensate for the loss of the consonantal soundplay present in the Hebrew (‫)ציץ יצא‬, but the translator uses cognates several times in the course of the translation so that such a link between the Hebrew and the Greek need not be assumed. In 17:13, we read ἔστρωταί μου ἡ στρωμνή “my bed has been spread” for ‫רפדתי‬ ‫“ יצועי‬I have spread my bed.” The equivalence ‫—יצוע‬στρωμνή appears in four out of six occurrences of ‫( יצוע‬aside from Job 17:13, see Gen 49:4; Ps 62[63]:7; 131[132]:3). It is not combined with στρωννύω (and variant forms such as στόρνυμι, στορνύω, and στρώννυμι) in any other instance, but the word ‫“ רפד‬to spread out” with which ‫ יצוע‬is paired in Job 17:13 occurs only three times in the HB, two of which are in Job (Job 17:13; 41:22; Song 2:5). It is rendered differently each time. στρωννύω and its variant forms occur frequently in Greek literature, also in reference to the spreading of a bed or couch (see, for example, Homer, Il. 9.621 and Herodotus, Hist. 6.139.3). In the LXX the specific form στρωννύω is used systematically, occurring eight times (see Esth 4:3; Jdt 12:15; Prov 7:16; 15:19; Job 17:13; Isa 14:11; Ezek 23:41; 28:7), but only in Job does it appear in reference to the making of a bed. The next example needs to be cited in full to allow for a clear discussion. Job 29:12 διέσωσα γὰρ πτωχὸν ἐκ χειρὸς δυνάστου καὶ ὀρφανῷ, ᾧ οὐκ ἦν βοηθός, ἐβοήθησα. For I delivered the poor from the hand of the powerful, and the orphan, who had no helper, I helped.

114  Cox, Iob, s.v. 14:2.

‫כי אמלט עני מׁשוע‬ ‫ויתום ולא עזר לו‬

Because I delivered the poor who cried, and the orphan who had no helper.

172

chapter 5

The Greek contains a plus in each colon. In the first colon, the translator probably read ‫ּׁשֹוע‬ ַ ‫ ִמ‬for ‫ ְמ ַשוֵ ַע‬.115 The plus pertains to χειρός in the phrase ἐκ χειρὸς δυνάστου. The expression “to save from the hand of” is a typically Semitic construction and made its way into the LXX through interference. The translator of Job seems to have used a typical Hebraistic phrasing in an instance in which it is not the result of a one-for-one rendering of the Hebrew source text. The second colon also contains a plus, namely ἐβοήθησα. It is possible to ascribe this plus to the translator since it ties in with the tendency to supply a corresponding verb for the verb in the first colon in parallel lines.116 The result is a play on cognates. Cox has suggested that the translator opted for a cognate of the noun βοηθός to highlight that Job gave precisely the help that was required.117 4.4.2 A Look Beyond the Level of the Colon There are several instances in which the translator plays with cognates beyond the level of the colon. This feature will not be treated as a separate category in the course of this study. I will, however, comment on this phenomenon several times in the following chapters, such as in the discussions of Job 9:14–16 (an alternating repetition of ὑπακούω and εἰσακούω) and 38:9–10 (a repetition of τίθημι and the use of the cognate περιτίθημι). I will therefore discuss only a few examples in detail at this point in order to illustrate this aspect of the translator’s working method.

115  Cox, Iob, s.v. 29:12; Dhorme, Job, 423. Compare also Ps 71(72):12, the Hebrew text being to Job 29:12 and its Greek translation attesting to the same reading of ‫מׁשוע‬. For Ps 71:12 the apparatus of BHS includes the reading ‫ּׁשֹוע‬ ַ ‫ ִמ‬. It does not do so for Job 29:12. Hebrew Job alludes to but does not cite the Psalter. The same goes for OG Job, but there are some striking formal resemblances between Greek Job and the Greek Psalter: πτωχός occurs only once in Job, rendering ‫עני‬. πτωχός, however, is used over thirty times in the Psalter. It renders ‫“ אביון‬needy” at Ps 71(72):12, while ‫( מׁשוע‬piel participle, “he who calls”) becomes ἐκ χειρὸς δυνάστου “from the hand of the mighty,” and ‫ואין עזר לו‬ “and there is no helper for him” is taken as a subordinate clause by both the translator of Psalter and the translator of Job. This provides a strong argument that the intertextual reference in Job is formally more explicit in Greek than in Hebrew. The use of πτωχός would suggest that the rendering of the Psalter influenced the translator of Job, and not the other way around—unless, of course, there was evidence that this is the result of later intertextual harmonization and should not be ascribed to the translator. A comparison of the use of intertextuality in Hebrew and Greek Job provides a worthwhile topic for further research. 116  Orlinsky, “Studies II,” 269; see also chapter 7. 117  Cox, Iob, s.v. 29:12.

173

High Register Greek In Old Greek Job Job 30:23 οἶδα γὰρ ὅτι θάνατός με ἐκτρίψει οἰκία γὰρ παντὶ θνητῷ γῆ. For I know that death will crush me, for earth is home to every mortal.

‫כי ידעתי מות תׁשיבני‬ ‫ובית מועד לכל חי‬

I know that you will bring me to death, and to the house appointed for all living.

Because of the change in subject in the first colon, Job makes a statement rather than an accusation.118 The equivalence ‫—מות‬θάνατος is common (HR). The word θνητός, however, occurs only once in Job. In the LXX as a corpus, θνητός appears nine times (see 2 Macc 9:12; 3 Macc 3:29; Prov 3:13; 20:24; Job 30:23; Wis 7:1; 9:14; 15:17; Isa 51:12). As an equivalent of ‫ חי‬it is unique. In Job ‫ חי‬is rendered twice with ἄνθρωπος (28:13.21) and once with the participle of ζάω “to live.” θνητός is a poetic word,119 likely occurring here under the influence of θάνατος in the first colon. Another example can be found in 16:6, in the use of the cognates τραῦμα and τιτρώσκω in Job 16:6.120 We can at this point also include the use of the same prefix in composite verbs in parallel cola. This is a known feature of LXX translations in general121 and occurs in OG Job as well. Job 9:30 ἐὰν γὰρ ἀπολούσωμαι χιόνι καὶ ἀποκαθάρωμαι χερσὶν καθαραῖς. For if I wash myself with snow and cleanse myself with pure hands.

‫אם התרחצתי במו ׁשלג‬ ‫והזכותי בבר כפי‬

Ιf I wash myself with soap and cleanse my hands with lye.

118  Cox, Iob, s.v. 30:23. 119  Mangin, “Le texte court,” 528. See also LSJ. 120  The use of a cognate in 16:6 has been discussed aptly by Cox, Iob, s.v. 16:6. 121  James K. Aitken, “The Literary Attainment of the Translator of Greek Sirach,” in The Texts and Versions of the Book of Ben Sira: Transmission and Interpretation (ed. Jan Joosten and Jean-Sébastien Rey; JSJSupp 150; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 95–126, 119; Dines, “Was LXX Pentateuch a Style-Setter?” 400 and 403–4; Dines, “Stylistic Features of the Septuagint,” 354.

174

chapter 5

The compound ἀπολούω is used only once in the entire LXX. ‫ רחץ‬is usually rendered by νίπτω,122 λούω,123 or πλύνω,124 but rarely with a compound (see ἐκπλύνω in Isa 4:4 and ἀπονίπτω in Prov 30:12). ‫ רחץ‬occurs once more in Job, in 29:6 in the qal, rendered as χέω “to pour out.” In addition, Job 9:30 features the only use of this verb in the hitpael in the HB. ἀποκαθαίρω, too, is rare. It occurs three times in the LXX, once in Proverbs (15:27) and twice in Job (7:9 [no one-for-one relationship with the Hebrew]; 9:30). The Hebrew verb it renders in 9:30, ‫“ זכך‬to be pure,” occurs twice more in Job, each time in the qal. and it is rendered in Greek as the adjective καθαρός used in a nominal phrase with a form of εἰμι having been omitted (15:15; 25:5). It is therefore likely that the use of prefixes here in 9:30 is an example of stylistics. Note in addition the play on the root καθαρ- in the second colon (ἀποκαθάρωμαι and καθαραῖς). We may also refer to the following examples: Job 4:9 (ἀπολοῦνται / ἀφανισθήσονται, with ἀπόλλυμι “to perish” being a common equivalent of ‫אבד‬ “to perish” but ‫“ כלה‬to complete” being rendered as ἀφανίζω “to destroy” only here,125 a verb that occurs three times in OG Job); 6:13b–14a (ἄπεστιν / ἀπείπατo, in which 14a is not a one-for-one rendering of the Hebrew and the verb ἀπαγορεύω “to renounce” is rare in the LXX and occurs only once in Job); 7:10 (ἐπιστρέψῃ / ἐπιγνῷ, however with ἐπιστρέφω “to turn back” for ‫“ ׁשוב‬to return” and ἐπιγινώσκω “to know” for the hiphil of ‫“ נכר‬to recognize” being common equivalents); 16:12 (διεσκέδασεν / διέτιλεν, with διασκεδάζω “to break” for ‫“ פרר‬to break” and διατίλλω “to pluck” for ‫“ פצץ‬to shatter” being unique renderings;126 διασκεδάζω occurs over forty times in the LXX, two of which occur in Job—the second time in 38:24 for ‫“ פוץ‬to break”—but διατίλλω occurs only once in the entire LXX). 4.5 Threefold Expressions In a previous publication, I have shown that the translator sometimes resorts to double translation.127 Double translation pertains to one item in the MT 122  See Gen 18:4; 19:2; Exod 30:18; Deut 21:6; 1 Kgdms 25:41; Ps 25(26):6. 123  See Exod 2:5; 29:4; Lev 8:6; Num 19:7; Isa 1:16; Ezek 16:4. 124  See Exod 29:17; Lev 1:9; 9:14. 125  ‫ כלה‬is rendered as συντελέω “to end” twice in OG Job (19:27; 21:13), and as each of the following only once: ἀπόλλυμι (7:6); ἀποκαθαίρω (7:9); τήκω (17:5); ἐκτήκω “to melt away” (31:16); σήπω “to rot” (33:21). 126  In the Hebrew text, both verbs occur in the pilpel. They do not occur in this specific form anywhere else in the HB. 127  Dhont, “Double Translation, 475–90.

175

High Register Greek In Old Greek Job

being matched with two items in the OG.128 Generally, double translation pertains either to the use of synonyms in the Greek or the expression of an ambiguity in the Hebrew by offering two different interpretations of the same word. The translator of Job, however, sometimes uses a tripartite structure where the Hebrew text has a bipartite expression.129 Job 16:7 νῦν δὲ κατάκοπόν με πεποίηκεν, μωρόν, σεσηπότα.

But as it is, he has made me worn out, a fool, wasted away.

‫אך עתה הלאני‬ ‫הׁשמות כל עדתי‬

Surely now God has worn me out; you have made desolate all my company.

In this paraphrastic rendering of the Hebrew, the translator resorts to a tripartite expression that does not represent the form of the Hebrew: κατάκοπόν— μωρόν—σεσηπότα. While νῦν δὲ κατάκοπόν με πεποίηκεν seems to reflect MT 7a, the last two adjectives of this verse in the Greek are considered to be an interpretation of MT 7b.130 The result is a monocolon in the Greek. The adjective μωρός occurs only once in Job. It appears thirty-four times in the LXX, of which twenty-five times in Sira. σεσηπότα is a participle from σήπω “to rot.” This verb occurs only eight times in the LXX, of which four times are in OG Job.131 It is used in a literal sense (of rotting flesh, see Job 19:20; 33:21) as well as in a metaphorical sense (16:7; 40:12). In three out of four instances σήπω occurs in a construction that is not a formal one-for-one rendering of the Hebrew (16:7; 19:20; 40:12).132

128  Zipora Talshir, “Double Translations in the Septuagint,” in VI Congress of the IOSCS, 21–63, 21. 129  Compare also the discussion of the use of tricolon by Van der Vorm-Croughs, The Old Greek of Isaiah, 283–86. 130  Cox, Iob, s.v. 16:7. 131  See Ps 37(38):6; Job 16:7; 19:20; 33:21; 40:12; Sir 14:19; Ezek 17:9. 132  Cox, Iob, s.v. 16:7.

176

chapter 5

Job 40:21 ὑπὸ παντοδαπὰ δένδρα κοιμᾶται παρὰ πάπυρον καὶ κάλαμον καὶ βούτομον. Under trees of every kind it lies down, by the papyrus and reed and sedge.

‫תחת צאלים יׁשכב‬ ‫בסתר קנה ובצה‬

Under the lotus plants it lies, in the covert of the reeds and in the marsh.

This case is more difficult to evaluate. Formally, the text of 21b reads three nouns in Hebrew, as it does in the Greek text. The difference lies in the observation that the Hebrew consists of a construct state, whereas the Greek has three nouns on the same syntactic level, dependent on the preposition παρά. κάλαμος renders ‫ ;קנה‬both refer to the same type of plant.133 With βούτομον for ‫בצה‬, the translator refers to a plant instead of to the place where it grows.134 βούτομον appears in close proximity to κάλαμος already in Greek literature: Theophrastus, HP 1.10.5.4 reads καὶ γὰρ ὁ κάλαμος καὶ ὁ κύπειρος καὶ ὁ βούτομος καὶ τἆλλα δὲ τῶν λιμνωδῶν τοιαῦτα. The main deviation between the Hebrew and the Greek pertains to the use of πάπυρος as a first element in the threefold structure of types of plants rather than as a location. The question is whether the use of πάπυρος (and hence the threefold structure) could have been be the result of a different reading of the Hebrew text instead of ‫סתר‬. No commentator sees any text-critical difficulty in the Hebrew text.135 The noun ‫ סתר‬occurs four more times in MT Job. In Job 13:10, where the same construction as in 40:21, ‫ בסתר‬is rendered as the adverb κρυφῇ “secretly.” In 22:14; 24:15; 31:27, it occurs in a line the Greek version of which is asterisked material. We may also compare the translator’s rendering of the verb ‫“ סתר‬to hide” in 3:10 with ἀπαλλάσσω “to remove” and in 13:24; 14:13; 34:22 with κρύπτω “to hide.” This demonstrates that the translator would, in fact, have known the meaning of the word ‫סתר‬. Moreover, βούτομον appears as a word pair with πάπυρος in Job 8:11. πάπυρος and κάλαμος, in turn, occur as a word pair in Isa 19:6. The three words might have been easily associated in the mind of the translator, especially because the three words contain the same number of syllables, and are each accented on the first syllable.136 The deviations between the Hebrew and the Greek can 133  Cox, Iob, s.v. 40:21. Dhorme, Job, 623 argues that πάπυρον καὶ κάλαμον is a double translation of ‫קנה‬. 134  Cox, Iob, s.v. 40:21. 135  Clines, Job, 1154; Dhorme, Job, 623; Driver and Gray, Job, 357; Pope, Job, 274; Cox, Iob, s.v. 40:21 states that “the ‘monster’ in the OG does not need a place to hide.” 136  Cox, Iob, s.v. 40:21; Ziegler, Untersuchungen Isaias, 190.

177

High Register Greek In Old Greek Job

be explained on the basis of the translator’s working methods. I would therefore suggest that the use of three nouns in conjunction can be ascribed to the translator’s stylistic considerations. The use of threefold structures need not be limited to single cola, as is illustrated by the next case. Job 34:8 οὐχ ἁμαρτὼν οὐδὲ ἀσεβήσας ἢ ὁδοῦ κοινωνήσας μετὰ ποιούντων τὰ ἄνομα τοῦ πορευθῆναι μετὰ ἀσεβῶν;

‫וארח לחברה עם פעלי און‬ ‫וללכת עם אנׁשי רׁשע‬

seeing that I have not sinned or acted impiously or shared a way with doers of lawless acts, Who goes in company with evildoers to walk with the impious. and walks with the wicked?

The first colon in the Greek text appears to be a plus that has no equivalent in the Hebrew. Some scholars have argued that it renders ‫ בלי פׁשע‬of 34:6, a verse that is part of the asterisked material in the Greek text.137 ‫ בלי פׁשע‬is rendered as a participle of ἁμαρτάνω with a negation also in 33:9. It has been suggested that οὐδὲ ἀσεβήσας is a double translation of ‫בלי פׁשע‬, but read as ‫בלי רׁשע‬.138 One need not assume a different reading to argue that the translator of Job opted for a double translation, since this phenomenon occurs in other places in OG Job.139 The translator seems to have provided a general word to denote Job’s wrongdoing (ἁμαρτάνω), followed by a more specific one explaining in what way Job has done wrong, that is, with respect to religion (ἀσεβέω).140 The second and third colon of the Greek text represent the Hebrew. A third participle is used, κοινωνήσας, connected to the previous two by ἤ. By rendering ‫ בלי פׁשע‬twice and using a third participle in the second colon, a tripartite construction is created.

137  Beer, Hiob, 215; Cox, Iob, s.v. 34:8; Dhorme, Job, 511; Heater, Septuagint Translation Technique, 108. 138  Dhorme, Job, 511; Heater, Septuagint Translation Technique, 108. 139  See Dhont, “Double Translation,” 475–90. 140  Cox, Iob, s.v. 34:8.

178

chapter 5

5 Conclusion In the previous chapter, I have demonstrated that the translator of Job mastered the Greek language well. In this chapter, I concentrated on elements that pertain to a literary sensitivity on the part of the translator. We can conclude that OG Job is not only different from the LXX Pentateuch in its translation approach, but also with regard to the choice of register. The translator could have followed the vernacular register used in the LXX Pentateuch, but opted for a different style. For many aspects of the Greek translation of Job, a precedent in the Pentateuch can be found, such as the use of rare words and particles, but the translator of Job takes the stylization of the target text further than the translators of the Pentateuch did. More words and expressions are used in OG Job that are rare or unique within the corpus of the LXX and at times even within the broader corpus of Hellenistic Greek literature. Constructions that are in decline in Koine occur in OG Job. These often attest to an elevated register. These observations indicate a development within the literary polysystem: the repertoire of options from which a Jewish-Greek translator could choose during the translation process had expanded. A translator was not restricted to the use of the vernacular but could use phenomena commonly associated with high register Greek in terms of vocabulary and syntax. Because the translator of Job did not follow a translation approach that is oriented towards the form of the source text, he could incorporate such features more easily in the translation than, for example, the translators of the Pentateuch could. The question is whether the translator was conscious of any stylistic choices he made during the translation process. The extent to which literary awareness is shown in a translation does not necessarily imply conscious choices on the part of the translator. When certain features in the Greek text do not reflect a feature of the Hebrew text, we can begin to speculate about their conscious use only when the rendering deviates from the Hebrew in a way that cannot be explained by a different reading of the Hebrew, by a parent text at odds with the MT, or by other aspects of the translator’s technique, such as standard lexical choices. The prepositioning of the article, but also the use of alliteration in the translation, for example, might have been the normal, unconscious result of a translator fluent in Greek, just as the use of Homeric vocabulary does not necessarily attest to any direct literary influence but might have been part of the natural vocabulary of a well-versed translator.141 Such elements cannot be 141  James K. Aitken, “Rhetoric and Poetry in Greek Ecclesiastes,” BIOSCS 38 (2005): 55–78, 72–73; Aitken, “Significance of Rhetoric,” 519–20.

High Register Greek In Old Greek Job

179

proven to be conscious but are nevertheless significant aspects of style and might tell us something about the socio-cultural context of the translator. If for certain renderings a conscious awareness can be argued for, such cases might be more significant in describing the translation processes. This is the direction in which the following chapters will move.

chapter 6

Studying the Use of Rhetorical Features in Old Greek Job 1

Preliminary Observations

1.1 Introduction I have already touched upon alliteration and the use of cognates as examples of rhetorical features used by the LXX translators. We can now move towards the discussion of rhetorical features used to link together syntactically nonrelated words across the boundaries of a single colon. I want to address the implications of the use of the term “rhetorical features” briefly. Nowadays, poetry and rhetoric are often seen in opposition. Whereas poetry is considered to be an expression of “the personal,” rhetoric is directed towards persuasion. The formal use of language, characteristic of poetry, however, was part of rhetorical theory in Greco-Roman antiquity. The difference between rhetoric and poetry was felt to reside in the degree to which poets and orators made use of the same expressive resources of languages.1 As such, skills taught during rhetorical formation on the basis of the study of literary and poetic texts could be applied by poets and orators alike.2 Within the field of LXX studies, the use of rhetorical features in different LXX books has been receiving an increasing amount of attention over the past two decades.3 Some scholars have aimed to demonstrate that LXX translators

1  Ruth Webb, “Poetry and Rhetoric,” in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric, 339–70, 339–42. See also Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 114–16; Thomas O. Sloane and Walter Jost, “Rhetoric and Poetry,” in The Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics, 1175–81. 2  Webb, “Poetry and Rhetoric,” 347. 3  In their 1988 volume, G. Dorival, M. Harl, and O. Munnich called the study of the style of the LXX “un vaste domaine est ouvert à l’investigation” (Dorival, Harl, and Munnich, La Bible grecque, 265). Recent studies include Aitken, “Rhetoric and Poetry,” 55–78; Aitken, “Significance of Rhetoric,” 507–21; Aitken, “Literary Attainment,” 95–126; all contributions in the volume Bons and Kraus, eds., Et sapienter et eloquenter; Dines, “Was LXX Pentateuch a Style-Setter?” 397–411; Dines, “Stylistic Features of the Septuagint,” 350–60; Gera, “Translating Hebrew Poetry,” 107–20; Kabergs, “Creativiteit in het spel?”; Nathan LaMontagne, “The Song of Deborah (Judges 5): Meaning and Poetry in the Septuagint” (Ph.D. diss., Catholic University of America, 2013); Gerhard Tauberschmidt, Secondary Parallelism: A Study of Translation

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi ��.��63/9789004358492_008

Studying The Use Of Rhetorical Features In Old Greek Job

181

had a keen eye for the use of rhetorical features in their translation by using the Greek text as a point of departure.4 The initial purpose of this line of research often seemed to be directed towards a more precise description of the character of the Greek text of a LXX book.5 Another line of research pertains to the selection of a specific feature in the Hebrew text as a point of departure and an examination of the different ways in which a certain feature was rendered in Greek.6 These studies are generally aimed at a more adequate characterization of the translation technique of the LXX, but do not address the question regarding the ways in which the Greek translator might have used specific features autonomously. If one aims at obtaining a detailed picture of the style of a specific LXX book while taking into account the translation technique as well as its literary context, it is indispensable to adopt a combination of these approaches.7 A good example of this necessity is provided by previous research on OG Job. From the point of view of the Hebrew text, several scholars have noted the translator’s inclination towards variatio in the translation. Variatio is “the use of synonyms to render close recurrences of the same Hebrew word.”8 It is said “to reflect one of the basic aims of Greek composition, that is, to achieve an interesting and Technique in LXX Proverbs (ABib 15; Atlanta, Ga.: SBL Press, 2004); Van der Vorm-Croughs, Old Greek of Isaiah. 4  For example, Aitken, “Rhetoric and Poetry,” 55–78; Bons and Kraus, eds., Et sapienter et eloquenter; Gammie, “Septuagint of Job,” 13–31; Gera, “Translating Hebrew Poetry,” 107–20; John A. L. Lee, “Translations of the Old Testament, Greek,” in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric, 775–83. 5  See Eberhard Bons and Thomas Kraus, “Preface,” in Et sapienter et eloquenter, 7–9. 6  For example, Ausloos, “Septuagint’s Rendering of Hebrew Toponyms,” 35–50; Ausloos, Lemmelijn, and Kabergs, “Study of Aetiological Wordplay,” 273–94; Jennifer Dines, “Grand Words for Grand Subjects: Bureaucratic and Literary Influences in the Style of the Septuagint,” Semitica et Classica 5 (2012): 69–81; Kabergs, “Puns Within the Context of Name Explanations,” 215–33; Kabergs, “Creativiteit in het spel?”; Lemmelijn, “Flora in Cantico Canticorum,” 27–52; Bénédicte Lemmelijn, “The Greek Rendering of Hebrew Hapax Legomena in LXX Proverbs and Job,” in In the Footsteps of Sherlock Holmes, 133–50; Philippe Le Moigne, “Le livre d’Esaïe dans la Septante: Ecdotique, stylistique, linguistique” (Ph.D. diss., École pratique des hautes études, 2001); Noegel, “Wordplay and Translation Technique,” 33–44; Noegel, Janus Parallelism; Tauberschmidt, Secondary Parallelism, 1–2; Van der Vorm-Croughs, Old Greek of Isaiah, 139–204; Verbeke, “Hebrew Hapax Legomena.” 7   Compare the so-called maximalist approach; see Albert Pietersma, “Exegesis in the Septuagint: Possibilities and Limits (The Psalter as a Case in Point),” in Septuagint Research, 33–46. 8  Dines, “Stylistic Invention,” 23; Dines, “Was LXX Pentateuch a Style-Setter?” 405. Regarding variatio in Job, see Cox, Iob, passim; Gordis, Job, 509.

182

chapter 6

harmonious text”9 and “for the sake of euphony.”10 This would imply a conscious intervention on the part of the translator. Yet, such statements ignore important aspects of the Greek language as well as of the LXX as translation. First of all, Greek literature (both poetry and prose) also uses repetitions,11 for example within the framework of rhetorical features (see below). Second, the tendency to reduce repetitions is a common characteristic of translations, not just within the LXX.12 Modern translation studies, in fact, regard it as one of the universals of translation.13 Third, singling out instances of variatio leads to disregarding the fact that the translator often included a repetition in his translation that does not reflect a repetition in the Hebrew text and that

9  Dines, “Was LXX Pentateuch a Style-Setter?” 405. See also Gordis, Job, 509: “It is by no means implausible that LXX, writing for non-Semitic readers, to whom even normal Hebrew parallelism would be alien and appear monotonous (…) would seek to avoid the repetition of the same word by a synonym, in order to placate the taste of Greek readers.” 10  Dines, “Stylistic Features of the Septuagint,” 354. 11  See in particular Dover, Greek Prose Style, 140–41. 12   Variatio has been observed in the LXX translation of the Pentateuch. See Dines, “Was LXX Pentateuch a Style-Setter?” 397–411; Lee, “Translations of the Old Testament, Greek,” 776–78; Gilles Dorival, Les Nombres (BdA 4; Paris: Cerf, 1976), 52–60, as well as in that of the Minor Prophets, see Dines, “Stylistic Invention,” 23–48; Dines, “Was LXX Pentateuch a Style-Setter?” 405–6; Marguerite Harl et al., Les Douze Prophètes: Joël, Abdiou, Jonas, Naoum, Ambakoum, Sophonie (BdA 23/4–9; Paris: Cerf, 1999), 122–23; Jan Joosten, “A Septuagintal Translation Technique in the Minor Prophets: The Elimination of Verbal Repetitions,” in Interpreting Translation, 217–23; Takamitsu Muraoka, “Introduction aux douze petits prophètes,” in Les Douze Prophètes: Osée (ed. Eberhard Bons et al.; BdA 23/1; Paris: Cerf, 2002), I–XXIII, XIX–XX; James K. Palmer, “ ‘Not Made with Tracing Paper’: Studies in the Septuagint of Zechariah” (Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 2004), 32– 33; Joseph Ziegler, “Die Einheit der Septuaginta zum Zwölfprophetenbuch,” Verzeichnis der Vorlesungen an der Staatlichen Akademie zu Braunsberg (1934–1935): 1–16, repr. in Sylloge, 29–42, 34–36. 13  Andrew Chesterman, “Hypotheses about Translation Universals,” in Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies: Selected Contributions from the EST Congress, Copenhagen 2001 (ed. Gyde Hansen, Kirsten Malmkjaer, and Daniel Gile; Benjamins Translation Library 50; Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2004), 1–13, 5 and 8; Nitsa Ben-Ari, “The Ambivalent Case of Repetition in Literary Translation. Avoiding Repetitions: A ‘Universal’ of Translation?” Meta: Translators’ Journal 43 (1998): 68–78; Van der Louw, Transformations, 23. Universals of translation can be defined as “certain inherent features [that] are found in all translations regardless of time period, translator, language, or texttype,” see Eric J. Tully, “Translation Universals and Polygenesis: Implications for Textual Criticism,” The Bible Translator 65 (2014): 292–307, 294. See also Sara Laviosa, “Universals,” in Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, 306–10.

Studying The Use Of Rhetorical Features In Old Greek Job

183

cannot be explained on the basis of standard lexical choices.14 With this last point, we touch upon the translator’s use of rhetorical features in the Greek independently from the Hebrew. 1.2 Rhetorical Features and Biblical Poetry 1.2.1 Rhetorical Features in Hebrew and in Greek “Rhetorical feature” is a broad denominator. For this study I have chosen to focus specifically on those features constituted by repetition. Patterns of repetition play an important role in the construction of rhetorical features. One can think of the repetition of a sound, which has already been discussed when we looked at sound effects, but also of the recurrence of a word, a word group, or a specific pattern of word order.15 Such an approach allows for an objective selection of examples to be discussed in this study. Even if a rhetorical theory of Hebrew was not yet conceptualized by the time of the composition of scriptural books and their translation into Greek, writers knew what they wanted to say and were aware of topics, formulae, and patterns of discourse, even if they would not have been able to give a systematic description of their method.16 While we do not know how Jews were taught to read and interpret Hebrew,17 and whether or not they had learned to pay attention to rhetorical features in Hebrew, it is not unlikely that, 14  The use of repetition in LXX books has been recognized by Dines, “Stylistic Features of the Septuagint,” 354. 15  For the importance of repetition in Greek rhetoric, see Dover, Greek Prose Style, 135; Jordi Redondo, “Some Linguistic Devices of the Greek Poetical Tradition,” in Poetic Language and Religion in Greece and Rome (ed. José Virgilio García and Angel Ruiz; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 29–38, 29; Rowe, “Style,” 135. On the importance of repetition and rhetorical features in Hebrew, see Alonso Schökel, A Manual of Hebrew Poetics, passim; Jean-Marc Heimerdinger, Topic, Focus and Foreground in Ancient Hebrew Narratives (JSOTSup 295; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 10–11; Léonas, Recherches sur le langage, 182–228 and 238–47; Nicholas P. Lunn, Word Order Variation in Biblical Hebrew Poetry: Differentiating Pragmatics and Poetics (Paternoster Biblical Monographs; Waynesboro, Va.: Paternoster, 2006); James Muilenberg, “A Study in Hebrew Rhetoric: Repetition and Style,” in Congress Volume: Copenhagen (ed. International Organization of Old Testament Scholars; VTSup 1; Leiden: Brill, 1953), 97–111; Alviero Niccacci, “Analysing Biblical Hebrew Poetry,” JSOT 22 (1997): 77–93; Eep Talstra, “Reading Biblical Hebrew Poetry: Linguistic Structure or Rhetorical Device?” JNSL 25 (1999): 101– 26; Wilfred G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques (JSOTSup 26; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), 274–82; Eduardo Zurro, Procedimientos iterativos en la poesía ugarítica y hebrea (BO 43; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1987). 16  Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 7 (see also pp. 120–125 on Old Testament rhetoric). 17  See Wright, Letter of Aristeas, 42–43.

184

chapter 6

owing to an educational background in reading and writing in Greek, a translator would have been trained to pay attention to such features in any text. After all, certain linguistic characteristics such as repetition and variation are universal, and research has shown that knowledge can be transferred easily from one language to another.18 This means that any background knowledge in language and linguistics acquired by the translator during his Greek training would be useful for the reading of a Hebrew text as well as for writing in Greek. Moreover, the range of rhetorical features that appear in both languages are largely similar. Repetition is, in fact, universal to all languages.19 Studies on rhetorical features in Hebrew and in Greek have demonstrated that both languages contain many of the same features, even though scholars may use a different terminology and/or present different categorizations.20 Three examples will suffice to illustrate this point at this moment:21

18  See in particular James Cummins, “The Role of Primary Language Development in Promoting Educational Success for Language Minority Students,” in Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretical Framework (ed. Charles F. Leyba; Los Angeles, Calif.: California State Department of Education, 1981), 3–49; Angela Carrasquillo, Diane Rodríguez, and Kyung Soon Lee, The Bilingual Advantage: Promoting Academic Development, Biliteracy, and Native Language in the Classroom (New York: Teachers College Press, 2014), 13–15. 19  Krystyna Mazur, “Repetition,” in The Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics, 1168–71. One may refer primarily to R. Jakobson’s theory of the linguistic features of poetry. He stated that “on every level of language the essence of poetic artifice consists in recurrent returns” (Roman Jakobson, “Grammatical Parallelism and Its Russian Facet,” Language 42 [1966]: 399–429, 399). Jakobson’s theory has heavily influenced biblical scholarship; see Ziony Zevit, “Roman Jakobson, Psycholinguistics, and Biblical Poetry,” JBL 109 (1990): 385– 401. Specifically on biblical Hebrew poetry, see, for example, Niccacci, “Analysing Biblical Hebrew Poetry,” 77–78; Talstra, “Reading Biblical Hebrew Poetry,” 103. On repetition in Greek literature, see Dover, Greek Prose Style, 131–43. 20  In her study entitled The Old Greek of Isaiah, M. van der Vorm-Croughs also uses Lausberg’s work to categorize Hebrew and Greek features. On the universality of rhetorical elements and the use of categories of Greek rhetoric to describe other rhetorical systems, see Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 7–8. 21  The terminology in the table is that of Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry for the Hebrew and that of Lausberg, Handbook for the Greek. The examples in Hebrew are borrowed from Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry; the examples in Greek I have selected myself.

Studying The Use Of Rhetorical Features In Old Greek Job Table 1

Features in Hebrew and Greek

Pattern

Term

Example

x / x …

Watson: terrace pattern/ anadiplosis

Ps 96:13a

Lausberg: reduplicatio/ anadiplosis

x…/ x …

185

Watson: repetition-initial Lausberg: anaphora

‫לפני יהוה כי בא‬ ‫כי בא לׁשפט הארץ‬

Before the Lord; for he is coming for he is coming to judge the earth.

Homer, Iliad 20.371–372 τοῦ δ᾽ ἐγὼ ἀντίος εἶμι καὶ εἰ πυρὶ χεῖρας ἔοικεν, εἰ πυρὶ χεῖρας ἔοικε, μένος δ᾽ αἴθωνι σιδήρῳ. Against him I will go out, even if his hands are like fire, even if his hands are like fire and his fury like blazing iron.a Prov 30:4

‫מי עלה ׁשמים וירד‬ ‫מי אסף רוח בחפניו‬ ‫מי צרר מים בׂשמלה‬ ‫מי הקים כל אפסי ארץ‬

Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in the hollow of the hand? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? Aeschylus, Seven Against Thebe 93–94 τίς ἄρα ῥύσεται, τίς ἄρ᾽ ἐπαρκέσει θεῶν ἢ θεᾶν; Who then can rescue, who then can succour us, what god or goddess?b

Jer 51:27a AB / A’B’ Watson: parallelism/proper congruence Lausberg: isocolon

‫ׂשאו נס בארץ‬ ‫תקעו ׁשופר בגוים‬

Raise a standard in the land, blow the trumpet among the nations.

186 Table 1 Pattern

chapter 6 Features in Hebrew and Greek (cont.) Term

Example

Isocrates, Helen 17 τοῦ μὲν ἐπίπονον καὶ φιλοκίνδυνον τὸν βίον κατέστησε, τῆς δὲ περίβλεπτον καὶ περιμάχητον τὴν φύσιν ἐποίησεν. He gave him a life full of labor and love of perils, and her he granted a nature that one must look at and that one would fight for.c a Trans. Augustus T. Murray, rev. William F. Wyatt (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999). b Trans. Herbert W. Smyth (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 71963). c Trans. La Rue Van Hook (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980), revised by myself.

The implications for LXX scholarship are important. When a feature occurs in the Greek text independently from the Hebrew, then the question arises whether this is, in fact, the result of a concern for style oriented towards the broader Hellenistic macrosystem. Such cases demonstrate the attention paid to style in the Greek text, but since most patterns constituting rhetorical features are neither specific nor exclusive to Greek, one needs to be careful when drawing conclusions. The pervasive use of isocola in the translated books of the LXX, for example, is a sign of positive interference. Symmetrical arrangements may occur in Greek, non-translated texts.22 Their frequency will, however, be significantly higher in translations from a Hebrew text since parallelism is a fundamental phenomenon in Hebrew poetics, which relies on the correspondence between lines. With this, we touch upon the difference between Hebrew and Greek poetics.

22  We do not have data regarding the frequency of the use of any schemes in Greek texts. Ancient rhetoricians sometimes reflected on the frequency of the use of rhetorical features, but presented only vague descriptions. See, for example, Demetrius, Eloc. 67.

Studying The Use Of Rhetorical Features In Old Greek Job

187

1.2.2 Hebrew and Greek Poetics23 As with the question of “the literary” discussed in chapter 3, the possibility that a text would have been regarded as poetry by the source culture does not enable us to draw any conclusions regarding either the models that were used for the translation or the reception of the translation by the target culture as “poetic.” Prior to R. Lowth’s De sacra poesi Hebraeorum,24 quantitative meter was believed to be the basis of Hebrew poetry, as it was in Greek and Latin. Lowth, however, argued that the laws constituting meter in biblical verse were impossible to discover (if it would exist at all). Rather, the foundation of Hebrew poetry was the relationship between poetic lines, described as the correspondence of one line or verse with another, the so-called parallelismus membrorum.25 Lowth then classified all parallelisms into one of three categories: synonymous (that is, poetic lines repeating the same sentiment in different yet equivalent terms26), antithetic (that is, when a sentiment is illustrated by its contrary27), and synthetic (that is, when sentences answer each other not by iteration of the same sentiment or by opposition of their contraries, but by the form of construction28). Since these three types do not cover all possible relationships between lines in the biblical texts, categories and subcategories were soon added.29 Ever since the important works of J. Kugel and A. Berlin, however, parallelism has been viewed in a new light.30 Scholarship has moved towards a more comprehensive view of what correspondence entails. Kugel formulates this as follows: “B, by being connected to A—carrying it further, echoing

23  Poetics is the study of specific compositional elements or a poet working within poetic genres (Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 115). 24  Robert Lowth, De sacra poesi Hebraeorum praelectiones academicae Oxonii habitae subiicitur metricae harianae brevis confutatio et oratio crewiana. Cum notis et epimetris Ioa. Dav. Michaelis suis animadversionibus adiectis edidit Ern. Frid. Car. Rosenmüller. Insunt Car. Frid. Richteri de aetate libri Iobi definienda atque Christ. Weisii de metro hariano commentationes (Lipsiae: Weigel, 1815). 25  Robert Lowth, Isaiah: A New Translation with Preliminary Dissertation and Notes, Critical, Philological, and Explanatory (10th ed.; Boston, Mass.: Hilliard, 1834), ix. 26  Lowth, De sacra poesi Hebraeorum, 208. 27  Lowth, De sacra poesi Hebraeorum, 218. 28  Lowth, De sacra poesi Hebraeorum, 221. 29  For an overview of different types, see Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 114–59. 30  See Kugel, The Idea, and Adele Berlin, Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism (rev. and exp. ed.; BRS; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008).

188

chapter 6

it, defining it, restating it, contrasting it, it does not matter which—has an empathic, ‘seconding’ character, (…) which is at the heart of biblical parallelism.”31 Berlin, in turn, specified that the correspondence involves equivalence and opposition: the seconding element can repeat or substitute the first element, or contrast it.32 This correspondence can be constituted by any component of the text. On the one hand, it can be about corresponding phonological, lexical, grammatical, syntactical and semantic elements.33 On the other hand, it can be about corresponding words, half-lines, lines, or even larger sections of the text—all of which can, but do not have to be consecutive.34 Within the Greek literary system, a text is deemed poetry when it is composed in meter. In poetry, the metrical structure of the verse would “provide the author with the means to clearly articulate his speech, and the audience with a set of expectations that could direct and facilitate their reception.”35 Various other devices, such as rhetorical features, could be used for additional reinforcement of metrical structure. In non-metrical texts, we may find rhythm, but since rhythm cannot support the entire structure of a discourse, rhetorical features become more important for the organization of a text.36 A consistent use of meter would be the clearest tell-tale sign of a translator’s poetic intentions.37 In the course of my research of OG Job, I have looked for metrical patterns. It has already been established that OG Job is not a metrical poetic composition. Yet even with regard to prose, rhythm was an important aspect of composition in Greek.38 The use of meter in prose has been discussed already by ancient rhetoricians such as Aristotle (see Rhet. 1408b, for 31  Kugel, The Idea, 51 (Kugel’s italics). 32  Berlin, Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism, 2. Hence, the classifications distinguished by Lowth (synonymous, antithetic, and synthetic parallelism) and those added to them by later scholars (among others incomplete, staircase, and metathetic parallelism, see Berlin, Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism, 2) will be avoided as much as possible, except in those cases where it seems to be relevant. 33  Berlin, Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism, 8 and 25. 34  Berlin, Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism, 25. 35  Markovic, “Hyperbaton in the Greek Literary Sentence,” 129. 36  Markovic, “Hyperbaton in the Greek Literary Sentence,” 129–30. 37   Hexametric patterns have been recognized in Greek Proverbs; see David-Marc d’Hamonville, Les Proverbes (BdA 17; Paris: Cerf, 2000), 92–98; Gillis Gerleman, Studies in the Septuagint. III: Proverbs (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1956), 15–57 (who nuanced Henry St. J. Thackeray, “The Poetry of the Greek Book of Proverbs,” JTS 13 [1912] 46–66); Van der Louw, Transformations, 249–58. Meter is used by Jewish-Greek writers, such as Ezekiel the Tragedian and Philo the Epic Poet. 38  See especially Dover, Greek Prose Style, 160–86.

Studying The Use Of Rhetorical Features In Old Greek Job

189

example), who argued that the paean, consisting of one long syllable and three short syllables, was the most suitable rhythm for prose because ἀπὸ μόνου γὰρ οὐκ ἔστι μέτρον τῶν ῥηθέντων ῥυθμῶν, ὥστε μάλιστα λανθάνειν “it is the only one of the rhythms mentioned which is not adapted to a metrical system, so that it is most likely to be undetected.”39 Unfortunately, I did not find any convincing illustrations of the use of a paean or any other recognized rhythms in OG Job. The translator of OG Job might, however, have used other ways to structure his text, such as through the use of rhetorical features. 2

Remarks on the Approach of the Present Study

2.1 Method There is no exhaustive list available of the rhetorical features in Job, either in Hebrew or in Greek.40 A close-reading of both the Hebrew and the Greek texts of Job was, therefore, my point of departure. For the definitions of the features under discussion I focus on repetition on the micro-level. Repetitions within non-consecutive cola that are in close proximity are taken into consideration. This approach may lead to a stretching of the standard definition of certain features, but within the framework of this research such an approach can be justified: I take specific patterns of repetition as a point of departure, which have only later been categorized and labelled using terms that I will clearly define below, in a text that has only centuries after its production been divided into chapters and verses. I do so with the following words of Toury in mind: “The obsession with restrictive definitions proves counter-productive precisely when the aspiration is […] to account for real-life phenomena in their immediate context.”41 Given that I do not take into account the asterisked material of OG Job, the sequence of cola in the Hebrew text might differ from the Greek 39  Trans. John H. Freese (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1926). The paean has also been discussed by Demetrius, Eloc. 38–43, for instance. 40  Commentators pay relatively little attention to stylistic features in MT Job. Scholarly studies on Hebrew poetry often cite examples from Job, such as Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, and Alonso Schökel, A Manual of Hebrew Poetics, but there are no systematic studies on the topic. The strophic structures of the Hebrew text of Job, however, have been treated systematically, in particular by Jan P. Fokkelman, Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible at the Interface of Hermeneutics and Structural Analysis, 4 vols (SSN 37; 41; 43; 47; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1998–2004), i:150–178 (Job 3); ii:325–82 (Job 4–14); iv (Job 15–42) and Pieter van der Lugt, Rhetorical Criticism and the Poetry of the Book of Job (OTS 32; Leiden: Brill, 1995). 41  See Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies, 26.

190

chapter 6

text. For example, the cola of MT 28:13 are followed by MT 28:14, but since 28:14–19 are asterisked in the Greek text, OG 28:13 is followed by 28:20. I do not necessarily aim for exhaustiveness, but to provide a nuanced and multifaceted treatment of the subject. 2.2 Parts of Speech One has to establish what the smallest lexical component is that can be considered to make up a rhetorical feature. Nouns and verbs are the building blocks of the cola42 and often constitute a repetition. No distinction is made between finite and non-finite verbs or between existential and auxiliary verbs, because this discussion of parts of speech is purely instrumental. Those parts of speech used to further modify nouns and verbs, such as adverbs and adjectives, are also taken into account. There are three frequently used parts of speech, however, that need further consideration, namely particles, prepositions, and pronouns. Their use in OG Job has already been addressed in detail above; what is under discussion here is repetitions of these parts of speech on the micro-level of the text. Particles are used to express the relationship between lines. Although the stylistic relevance of the repetition of particles in both languages has been demonstrated,43 it is difficult to assess this as a rhetorical feature because the particle system is so complex that including them would lead to an unworkable set of examples.44 I will only discuss the repeated use of particles in the context of cola in which other patterns of repetition are present. I will not take them into account in the discussion of word order, since their positions are fixed (as opposed to the prepositional phrase as a whole). Prepositions in Hebrew can be individual words (such as ‫ עם‬or ‫ )אלי‬or affixes (such as -‫ ב‬or -‫)ל‬, but are always individual words in Greek. Contrary to the Hebrew language, the Greek language has cases at its disposal, so that the function of a preposition in the Hebrew can be reflected in the use of a case in the Greek. Moreover, one and the same thing can often be expressed in different ways, that is, by using different prepositions (both in Hebrew and in 42  Michael P. O’Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure (2nd ed.; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 306. See also the discussion by William L. Holladay, “Hebrew Verse Structure Revisited (I): Which Words ‘Count’?” JBL 118 (1999): 19–32. 43  For the Hebrew, see Misop Park, “Repetition: Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew,” in vol. 3 of Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics (ed. Geoffrey Khan et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 373–75, 373. For the Greek, see John D. Denniston, The Greek Particles (ed. Kenneth J. Dover; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 21954), lxi–lxxxii (in particular lxii–lxiv). 44  See also O’Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure, 305–6.

Studying The Use Of Rhetorical Features In Old Greek Job

191

Greek) or by using a case (in Greek). One preposition can govern a variety of cases. In many instances, the use of a specific preposition (and/or case) depends on natural usage, though LXX translators often do not follow the conventions of natural Greek usage when rendering Hebrew prepositions. In addition, there are so many prepositions throughout the text that it is not plausible to assume that the repeated use of prepositions in and of itself always constitutes a repetitional pattern. As with the particles, I will only discuss a repetition of a preposition in those instances in which other rhetorical figures are present. In both languages, pronouns are used abundantly as well. Even though there might be a stylistic aspect to the (repeated) use and position of the pronoun, the same holds true for this part of speech as for prepositions and particles. Their function is often mainly pragmatic. Unless the repetition of pronouns serves within a broader framework of repetitions of nouns or verbs especially, I will not take pronouns into consideration here as it would result in discussing too many cases in which their occurrence is not stylistically relevant. 2.3 Definitions Most features have been conceptualized by Greek rhetoricians. These references are sometimes included in LSJ or H. Lausberg’s Handbook of Literary Rhetoric, for example. While the explicit recognition of a specific rhetorical feature in ancient sources may provide a basis for a list of these features,45 such a recognition is not a conditio sine qua non for a specific pattern to be included in the list below, since an author may have had notions of certain figures without having thought about them systematically or theoretically. A distinction is made between those rhetorical features that will be studied systematically as separate categories in this book, and those phenomena that will be discussed passim. 2.3.1 Features Under Examination The following features will be discussed individually. They are all constituted by a repetition, either in terms of word order or word choice, over the span of two (or more) cola.

45  Different writers or commentators may use different terms for the same pattern, so it is important to look at their descriptions and examples. R. D. Anderson’s Glossary of Greek Rhetorical Terms includes references to ancient sources when discussing rhetorical features and provides a sound point of departure.

192 Table 2

chapter 6 Definitions of features under examination

Pattern

Name

Explanation

AB/B’A’ ABC/C’A’; ABC/B’A’; ABC/C’B’; ABC/ A’C’B’; ABC/B’A’C’; and so on AB/A’B’ ABC/A’B’; ABC/ B’C’; ABC/A’C’; and so on / … x / x…/

Chiasm Partial chiasm*

A diagonal arrangement of corresponding elements in two cola,a recognized by Hermogenes, De inventione 4.3 (second century CE).

Symmetry Partial symmetry*

Two balanced cola in which the corresponding elements occur in the same order,b recognized by Demetrius, Eloc. 29 (second century CE). Repetition at the beginning of a colon of a word or word group which occurred at the end of a preceding colon.c Repetition at the beginning of two cola,d recognized by Demetrius, Eloc. 61–62. Repetition at the end of two cola;e the inverse of anaphora. Repetition of a word at the beginning of one colon and at the end of a following colon;f the inverse of anadiplosis.g Repetition of a word at least one of which occurs in the middle of the colon. This pattern was recognized by Demetrius, Eloc. 66. Some scholars distinguish between different types of middle-repetition, such as mesarchia and mesoteleuton.h Subcategorizing all different types of middle-repetition, however, is not functional in the context of this study, especially because categorization can at times be difficult.

Anadiplosis

/ x…/ x…/

Anaphora

/ … x / … x /

Epiphora

/ x…/ … x /

Parenthesis

/ x…/ … x…/ / … x / … x…/ / … x…/ x…/ / … x…/ … x / / … x…/ … x…/

Mesodiplosis

* The element(s) outside of the partial symmetry or the partial chiasm is called the anacrusis. a Anderson, Glossary, 20; Lausberg, Handbook, 322; For concrete studies on chiasm in Greek and Hebrew literature, see, for example, Mitchell Dahood, “Chiasmus in Job: A Text-Critical and Philological Criterion,” in A Light Unto My Path: Old Testament Studies in Honor of Jacob M. Myers (ed. Howard N. Bream, Ralph D. Heim, and Carey A. Moore; Gettysburg Theological Studies 4; Philadelphia, Pa.: Temple University Press, 1974), 119–30; Nils W. Lund,

Studying The Use Of Rhetorical Features In Old Greek Job

193

“The Presence of Chiasmus in the Old Testament,” AJSL 46 (1929–1930): 104–26; John W. Welch, “Chiasmus in Ancient Greek and Latin Literature,” in Chiasmus in Antiquity: Structures, Analyses, Exegesis (ed. John W. Welch; Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1981), 250–68; Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 201–7. Some distinguish between ABC/C’B’A’ and ABC/B’A’ patterns, using terms such as “inverted parallelism” versus “concentric parallellism.” See, for example, John Breck, The Shape of Biblical Language: Chiasmus in the Scriptures and Beyond (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1994), 15. Compare also Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Poetry, 65. In the course of this study, however, the term “(partial) chiasm” is used inclusively. b Anderson, Glossary, 90–91; Lausberg, Handbook, 320 (“isocolon”); Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 118 (“parallelism proper”). c Anderson, Glossary, 18; Lausberg, Handbook, 314–15. Anadiplosis is sometimes used to indicate the repetition of a word or phrase not necessarily in a fixed pattern, such as by Demetrius, Eloc. 66. d Anderson, Glossary, 19; Lausberg, Handbook, 318–20; Redondo, “Linguistic Devices,” 35; Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 276. e Anderson, Glossary, 54; Lausberg, Handbook, 320–21; Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 276–77. f Lausberg, Handbook, 317–18; Rowe, “Style,” 130. g To be distinguished from the repetition of key words to mark a literary unit (that is, the stanza or even the poem), often referred to as inclusio or envelope figure. It would be worth investigating the use of this phenomenon in OG Job, but this goes beyond the scope of the present research. h Mesarchia is the repetition of the same word or words at the beginning and in the middle of successive sentences. See, for example, Ethelbert W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1898), 260. Mesoteleuton is the repetition of the same word or words in the middle and at the end of successive sentences. See Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 280.

3.3.2 Other Rhetorical Phenomena All features presented in the table above are features that I will discuss systematically in the present and following chapters. We will, however, incidentally come across a number of other phenomena as well: – Asyndeton = Omission of conjunctive particles that usually join coordinate words or clauses.46 – Alliteration = The repetition of sounds at the beginning of consecutive words; see the discussion in chapter 5. – Antanaclasis = The use of the same word twice with two distinctively different meanings.47 46  Anderson, Glossary, 33–34. 47  Anderson, Glossary, 20.

194

chapter 6

– Assonance = The repetition of sounds within consecutive words; see chapter 5. – Complexio = A combination of an anaphora and an epiphora: / x  … y / x …y /).48 – Enjambment = A construction in which a sentence extends beyond the colon or verse boundary.49 – Polyptoton = The use of one noun in different cases or of one verb in different forms.50 In the course of this study, any polyptoton will be considered to constitute lexical repetition. – Polysyndeton = The repetitive use of conjunctive particles to join words or clauses;51 the inverse of asyndeton. 3

From the Viewpoint of the Hebrew Text

When encountering a rhetorical feature in the Hebrew text, the translator could have rendered it in such a way that the rhetorical feature in the Hebrew text is either reflected or not. 3.1 Imitation When a specific feature of the Hebrew text is reflected in the translation, little can be said about the LXX from a stylistic point of view. When it comes to word order, if we do not regard the translator’s natural usage of Greek particles as fundamentally affecting the word order of the Hebrew, then the (partial) symmetry in the Hebrew text is reflected in the Greek translation in all of the following instances: Job 3:13.25; 4:9; 5:2.10.18; 6:11; 8:8.10.17; 10:9.11; 12:11.13; 13:11; 14:20.22; 15:3.4.12.29; 19:7; 20:10.29; 23:16; 25:6; 26:12; 31:40; 32:9; 33:22; 35:5; 37:9; 38:23; 40:16; 41:14. The (partial) chiasm in the Hebrew is reflected in the Greek translation in 3:17.20; 5:21–22; 6:12.23.27; 7:3; 9:34; 10:6; 12:20.22; 14:8.10; 15:6.18; 16:5.19; 17:9.14; 18:6; 19:5; 19:9.19; 20:8.16.27; 21:13.16; 22:6.7.22; 28:1; 32:6; 38:16; 38:22.29.31; 40:10; 41:5. With regard to lexical repetitions, too, the Greek may reflect the Hebrew, such as in the following two examples.

48  Anderson, Glossary, 69. 49  Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Poetry, 226. 50  Anderson, Glossary, 103. 51  Anderson, Glossary, 103.

Studying The Use Of Rhetorical Features In Old Greek Job

195

Job 3:17 ἐκεῖ ἀσεβεῖς ἐξέκαυσαν θυμὸν ὀργῆς, ἐκεῖ ἀνεπαύσαντο κατάκοποι τῷ σώματι. There the impious have kindled a wrath of anger; There the weary of body have found rest.

‫ׁשם רׁשעים חדלו רגז‬ ‫ושם ינוחו יגיעי כח‬ ׁ

There the wicked cease from troubling, and there the weary of strength are at rest.

Job 18:5–6 καὶ φῶς ἀσεβῶν σβεσθήσεται, καὶ οὐκ ἀποβήσεται αὐτῶν ἡ φλόξ· τὸ φῶς αὐτοῦ σκότος ἐν διαίτῃ, ὁ δὲ λύχνος ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ σβεσθήσεται. Yes, the light of the impious will be put out, and their flame will not do well. His light is darkness in his dwelling, and his lamp will be put out on him.

‫גם אור רׁשעים ידעך‬

‫ולא יגה ׁשביב אׁשו‬ ‫אור חׁשך באהלו‬ ‫ונרו עליו ידעך‬

Surely the light of the wicked is put out, and the flame of their fire does not shine. The light is dark in their tent, and the lamp above them is put out.

In these cases, the Greek translation adheres closely to the Hebrew text, in such a way that both the repetitions as well as the structural features related to the word order are reflected in the translation. For 3:17, this means that the anaphora as well as the chiastic arrangement of the Hebrew is reflected. For 18:5–6, we see a double repetition, namely ‫—אור‬φῶς and ‫—ידעך‬σβεσθήσεται. The translator had the option to vary his word choice by using synonyms; we observe he often does so, and this will be discussed in more detail later on in this chapter. In the book of Job, ‫אור‬, for example, has also been rendered as φωτισμός (3:9) or φέγγος (22:28; 41:10). In addition, we observe a chiastic arrangement of 5a and 5b. The prepositioning of the pronoun αὐτῶν in 5b could be seen as adding to the variation in word order, but can also be explained as natural Greek usage (see chapter 4). It demonstrates how a multicausal explanation of a phenomenon adds nuance. Compare also the rendering of Job 7:14, a chiastic arrangement in both Hebrew and Greek, in which the Greek varies the position of the pronoun as object. We cannot say whether the translator did this consciously or not. The repetition of the Hebrew is reflected in Greek in all of the following instances:

196

chapter 6

– 3:3–4, with a mesodiplosis of ‫יום‬, rendered as ἡμέρα “day,” twice in the nominative; – 3:4–5, with a mesodiplosis of ‫חׁשך‬, rendered as σκότος “darkness”; – 3:6–7, featuring a mesodiplosis of ‫הלילה ההוא‬, rendered as ἡ νὺξ ἐκείνη “that night,” twice in the nominative; – 5:21–22, which features a parenthesis of ‫תירא‬, twice with a different negative particle, namely ‫ ולא תירא‬and ‫אל תירא‬. The Greek translates both negative particles with the double negative οὐ μή, followed by a subjunctive: οὐ μὴ φοβηθῇς “do not fear”; – 5:24–25, which contains an anaphora of ‫ וידעת כי‬in 24a and 25a, which is reflected in OG’s choice for γνώσῃ ὅτι twice. Note, however, that the translator introduces the particle εἶτα at the beginning of 24a; – 6:8, with a mesodiplosis of ‫יתן‬, twice rendered as δῴη “may he give”;52 – 9:9–10, with an anaphora of ‫( עׂשה‬qal participle), twice rendered as ὁ ποιῶν “he who makes”; – 21:16–17, with a mesodiplosis of ‫ רׁשעים‬rendered as ἀσεβῶν “wicked,” twice in the genitive which reflects the function of ‫ רׁשעים‬as nomen rectum; – 38:22, with a mesodiplosis of ‫אצרות‬, rendered as θησαυρούς “storehouses,” twice in the accusative as direct object; – 41:12–13, with a mesodiplosis of ‫( יצא‬qal imperfect third person masculine singular) rendered as ἐκπορεύεται “he goes out.” Sometimes, the repeated word will appear in different forms,53 such as in Job 10:7–8. Job 10:7–8 οἶδας γὰρ ὅτι οὐκ ἠσέβησα 7 ἀλλὰ τίς ἐστιν ὁ ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν σου ἐξαιρούμενος; αἱ χεῖρές σου ἔπλασάν με καὶ ἐποίησάν με, 8 μετὰ ταῦτα μεταβαλών με ἔπαισας.

‫על דעתך כי לא ארׁשע‬ ‫ואין מידך מציל‬ ‫ידיך עצבוני ויעׂשוני‬ ‫יחד סביב ותבלעני‬

52  For the rendering of ‫ מי יתן‬in the LXX, see Evans, Verbal Syntax, 189–90; Evans, “Approaches,” 29–30; Takamitsu Muraoka, “How to Analyse and Translate the Idiomatic Phrase ‫מי יתן‬,” BIOSCS 33 (2000): 47–52. 53  See Berlin, Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism, 71.

Studying The Use Of Rhetorical Features In Old Greek Job For you know that I did not act impiously, but who is there to deliver from your hands? Your hands fashioned me and made me; then you did an about face and struck me.

197

Although you know that I am not guilty, and there is no one to deliver out of your hand? Your hands fashioned and made me; and now you turn and destroy me.

In the Hebrew ‫ יד‬with the suffix is repeated, once in singular and once in plural, The Greek translator renders it twice as χείρ in the plural and with a possessive pronoun,54 but in the genitive after the preposition ἐκ (reflecting ‫ )מן‬in 7b and in 8a in the nominative as the subject. Since the extent of inflection in Greek is greater than in Hebrew, the lexical forms in which the repeated word appears may be affected when translating a text from Hebrew into Greek. We also know, on the basis of a survey of past scholarship on the translation technique of OG Job, that the translator can sometimes alter the grammatical number, for example, which also has an impact on the form of the repetition. This does not essentially change the observation that the repetition has been maintained in the translation. See, for example, the following verses: – 5:2–3, with a mesodiplosis of ‫“ אויל‬foolish” twice in the singular, reflected by ἄφρων, but once in the singular, once in the plural; – 5:23–24, with a mesodiplosis of ‫ׁשלם‬, which in the MT is pointed once as a hophal perfect and once as a noun, but which the translator likely inter­ preted as a verb in both instances, reflected by εἰρηνεύω, twice in the indicative future, but different in number; – 6:11–12, where the Hebrew has a threefold repetition of ‫“ כח‬strength,” twice with a suffix pronoun first person singular, reflected in the Greek by ἰσχύς; – 6:25–26, with a mesodiplosis of ‫“ אמר‬word” in the plural, reflected by ῥῆμα first in the plural, then in the singular (first in the nominative, then in the genitive); – 9:12–13, in which the Hebrew contains a mesodiplosis of ‫ ׁשוב‬in the hiphil “to turn back” rendered twice as ἀποστρέφω “to turn away”; – 10:1, which features a mesodiplosis of ‫“ נפׁשי‬my soul,” rendered twice as ψυχή μου, once with the definite article, once without (first in the dative, then in the genitive); 54  On the variation between the singular and the plural in the Greek translation of Job, see Kutz, “Old Greek of Job,” 139; Orlinsky, “Studies II,” 269–71.

198

chapter 6

– 10:21–22, which features an anaphora of ‫“ ארץ‬earth,” rendered as γῆν. Whereas the repetition in the Hebrew text pertains to the repetition of ‫ארץ‬ (i.e., ‫ ארץ‬in 21b and ‫ אל ארץ‬in 22a), in the Greek text it pertains to the repetition of εἰς γῆν, thus being a strict anaphora. The repetition of εἰς could be the result of dittography, but could also be due to an elaboration of the repetition; – 12:24–25, featuring an anaphora of ‫( ויתעם‬hiphil wayyiqtol), reflected in the translation by the repeated use of the verb πλανάω “to wander” in the active indicative aorist third person singular in 24b and in the passive optative aorist third person plural in 25b. The variation in form is due to the translator having made v. 25 direct speech, as a direct quotation of God, and the verbal forms in 25a and 25b correspond in form;55 – 14:5–6, with an epiphora of ‫ יום‬in 5a and 6c, first in the plural, then in the singular. βίος is often used as the equivalent of the plural of ‫ יום‬in OG Job, namely in eleven out of thirteen cases.56 The translator retains the repetition, but it is noteworthy that 14:6 is the only instance in Job in which ‫ יום‬in the singular is rendered as βίος.57 Due to a difference in word order, however, the repetition in Greek is a mesodiplosis; – 15:5–6, which features a mesodiplosis of ‫פיך‬. It is rendered twice with στόμα “mouth,” even though the OG of v. 5 does not correspond formally to the Hebrew. Note also the variation regarding the expression of the possessor: στόματός σου versus τὸ σὸν στόμα; – 28:12–13, which contains an anadiplosis of ‫תמצא‬, twice in the niphal imperfect, rendered as εὑρίσκω “to find,” twice in the passive aorist but in the indicative in 12a and in the subjunctive in 13b, since οὐδὲ μή (for ‫ )לא‬in 13b requires a subjunctive; – 32:2–3, with an anaphora and a mesodiplosis of ‫חרה אף‬. In the Hebrew we read first ‫ ויחר אף‬at the opening of 32:2a and then ‫ חרה אפו‬at the opening 32:2b and in the middle of 33:3a. In the Greek each of these is rendered as ὠργίσθη. The expression ‫ חרה אף‬is only in Exod 32:22 translated as ὀργίζω.58 55  Cox, Iob, s.v. 12:25. 56  Job 7:6.16; 8:9; 9:25; 10:5.20; 12:12; 14:5.14; 15:20; 21:13. 57  The standard rendering of ‫ יום‬singular is ἡμέρα, see Job 1:4.6.13; 2:1; 3:1.3.4.5.8; 15:23; 17:12; 20:28; 21:30; 38:23. 58  However, this is an infrequent rendering. The expression ‫ חרה אף‬is rendered as θυμόω (see Gen 30:2; Num 11:33; 24:10; 2 Kgdms 6:7), which can be considered to be equally natural Greek as ὀργίζω, or with a Septuagintalism that reflects the form of the Hebrew: ὀργίζω θυμῷ (Exod 22:24; 32:19; Num 22:22; Deut 7:4; Ps 105[106]:40) or θυμόω ὀργῇ (Gen 39:19; Exod 4:14; 32:10; Num 11:1; Deut 11:17; Josh 7:1; 1 Kgdms 20:30; Isa 5:25), the latter being the most common rendering.

Studying The Use Of Rhetorical Features In Old Greek Job

199

The choice of the aorist for two different tenses in Hebrew could have been a natural choice within the context of the narrative discourse. The use of tenses in OG Job is another topic worthy of examination that lies beyond the scope of this study; – 33:15–16, featuring an epiphora of ‫אנׁשים‬, rendered as ἄνθρωποι (first in the accusative, then in the genitive); – 38:28–29, with a mesodiplosis of ‫ילד‬, rendered as τίκτω “to beget,” in different forms: ‫ הוליד‬hiphil perfect—τετοκώς participle perfect and ‫ ילדו‬qal perfect—τέτοκεν indicative perfect; – 38:36–37, which contains an epiphora of ‫“ חכמה‬wisdom,” rendered as σοφία (first in the accusative, then in the dative); – 40:21–22, in which one finds a mesodiplosis of ‫“ צאלים‬trees,” rendered as δένδρα, twice in the same form but with a different function, namely the accusative in 21a after the preposition ὑπό (rendering ‫ )תחת‬and in the nominative as the subject in 22a; – 42:4–5, featuring a repetition of the verb ‫“ ׁשמע‬to listen,” reflected in the repetition of ἀκούω, first in the imperative, then in the qal/indicative. In what follows, I will not distinguish between the repetition of a word in identical forms and the repetition of a word in different forms. These examples demonstrate that a rhetorical feature in Greek may indeed go back to a rhetorical feature in the Hebrew. They show that the translator does not systematically avoid repetition in order to add variation. There are, however, a number of instances in which a rhetorical feature in the Hebrew text is not reflected in the Greek. 3.2 Elimination I use the term “elimination” as a descriptive term without any implications for the translator’s motive or intentions.59 When a specific feature is not reflected in the translation, this can be due to a variety of reasons. Some do not have a bearing on the use of rhetorical features in OG Job. These will be discussed concisely. They pertain to the translator’s sensitivity to contextual meaning, the shorter OG text, and the use of anaphoric translations. Others, however, do have a bearing on the style. First, the phenomenon of variatio, which has already been mentioned above, will be discussed in more detail. Second, the Greek may reflect a repetition present in the Hebrew text, but when the word order of the Greek is different from that of the Hebrew, the repetition will not constitute the same pattern and hence not the same feature. From the 59  See Kabergs, “Creativiteit in het spel?” 93.

200

chapter 6

viewpoint of the Hebrew text, both phenomena involve elimination. Because these do relate to style, I will discuss the former in a separate section in this chapter. The latter will be dealt with passim in the course of the next chapter. 3.2.1 Contextual Meaning The translator of OG Job is sensitive to contextual meaning. This might lead to an elimination of a rhetorical feature used in the Hebrew when the Hebrew word has two different contextual meanings and the Greek does not have a word with the similar semantic range at its disposal. Job 11:7 ἦ ἴχνος κυρίου εὑρήσεις ἢ εἰς τὰ ἔσχατα ἀφίκου, ἃ ἐποίησεν ὁ παντοκράτωρ; Can you find the Lord’s footprint, or have you reached the limits that the Almighty made?

‫החקר אלוה תמצא‬ ‫אם עד תכלית ׁשדי תמצא‬

Can you find out the deep things of God? Can you find out the limit of the Almighty?

The Hebrew ends both cola, which are semantically parallel and structured symmetrically, with the same verb in the same form (‫)תמצא‬. Though some commentators do not see a difference in use or meaning between both,60 most scholars are of the opinion that ‫ תמצא‬in 7b carries a different meaning than ‫ תמצא‬in 7a. This difference is motivated by the existence of the Aramaic verb ‫מטא‬, meaning “to reach,”61 and of the observation that ‫ מצא‬in Job 11:7 is used in a different construction twice,62 in 7a with a direct object and in 7b complemented with a prepositional phrase introduced by ‫עד‬. As such, Job 11:7 is an example of antanaclasis.63 This differentation in the use and meaning of ‫מצא‬

60  Gordis, Job, 122; Habel, Job, 202; Pope, Job, 80 and 82. Tur-Sinai, Job, 193 considers the repetition unlikely and suggests that the original had a different verb in the second colon. 61  Clines, Job, 255; Rowley, Job, 89; Alonso Schökel and Sicre Diaz, Job, 195; Seow, Job 1–21, 611. See also Anthony R. Ceresko, “The Function of Antanaclasis (ms’ “to find” // ms’ “to reach, overtake, grasp”) in Hebrew Poetry, Especially in the Book of Qohelet,” CBQ 44 (1982): 551–69, 560–61. Mitchell Dahood, “Northwest Semitic Philology and Job,” in The Bible in Current Catholic Thought: Gruenthaner Memorial Volume (ed. John L. McKenzie; New York: Herder and Herder, 1962), 55–74, 57 justifies this meaning from parallels with Ugaritic. Tur-Sinai, Job, 193 argues that the original text would, in fact, have contained ‫ מטא‬in 7b. 62  Dhorme, Job, 160. 63  Ceresko, “Function of Antanaclasis,” 551.

Studying The Use Of Rhetorical Features In Old Greek Job

201

in 11:7 appears to be attested in the Greek rendering,64 which does not display any lexical repetition.65 A similar example can be found in Job 15:30, where we find a repetition of the qal of ‫סור‬, namely ‫ יסור‬in 30a and ‫ ויסור‬in 30c in anaphoric position. The contextual meanings of this verb, however, are different.66 In 30a, ‫ יסור‬has “the wicked,” mentioned earlier in v. 20, as its subject and is constructed with the preposition ‫מן‬. This difference in contextual meaning is reflected in the Greek translation.67 These are rendered respectively as ἐκφύγῃ and ἐκπέσοι. This verse will be discussed in more detail as part of the stylistic unit 15:30–35 below in chapter 8. In some cases, a verb might be repeated in the Hebrew text, but in a different binyan. This often results in a different meaning. Job 20:27–28 ἀνακαλύψαι δὲ αὐτοῦ ὁ οὐρανὸς τὰς ἀνομίας, γῆ δὲ ἐπανασταίη αὐτῷ. ἑλκύσαι τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ ἀπώλεια εἰς τέλος, ἡμέρα ὀργῆς ἐπέλθοι αὐτῷ. And may heaven uncover his lawless acts, and earth rise up against him. May destruction drag his house to an end; may a day of anger come upon him.

‫יגלו ׁשמים עונו‬ ‫וארץ מתקוממה לו‬ ‫יגל יבול ביתו‬ ‫נגרות ביום אפו‬

The heavens will reveal their iniquity, and the earth will rise up against them. The possessions of their house will be carried away, dragged off in the day of God’s wrath.

64  This is the opposite of Job 28:12–13 (see above), where the exact same verbal form‫תמצא‬ is repeated and rendered in Greek as εὑρέθη in 12a and as εὑρεθῇ in 13b. 65  Moreover, as a result of the plus of ἃ ἐποίησεν (‫—תכלית ׁשדי‬τὰ ἔσχατα […] ἃ ἐποίησεν ὁ παντοκράτωρ) and a difference in word order (ἀφίκου following τὰ ἔσχατα), the verb no longer stands at the end of the colon. 66  Most commentators do translate the verb differently twice, regardless of whether or not they make note of the repetition in the Hebrew. See Clines, Job, 341; Kissane, Job, 88; Pope, Job, 107; Rowley, Job, 114; Alonso Schökel and Sicre Diaz, Job, 238; Seow, Job 1–21, 611. Habel, Job, 246 does not mark a difference in meaning. Scholars such as Clines, Job, 362; Dhorme, Job, 223; Pope, Job, 113 suggest deleting 30a from the MT because 30a has nothing to do with the plant metaphor present in the rest of the verse. The OG, however, does reflect it. 67  This does not mean that we necessarily need to emend the Hebrew. Gordis, Job, 165 has argued that the Greek translator read ‫ ויסור‬as equal to ‫ וִ יׁשֹור‬from ‫“ נׁשר‬to fall away.” Compare also the emendations of the Hebrew text proposed by Beer, Hiob, 97–98; Dhorme, Job, 223; Driver and Gray, Job, 143.

202

chapter 6

In the Hebrew text, one encounters a repetition of the verb ‫“ גלה‬to drag away” in the opening position of vv. 27 and 28. In the MT, these two forms are vocalized as representing different binyanim (according to Masoretic vocalization: piel versus qal). The possibility exists, however, that MT 28a could be pointed differently (‫ יָ גֹל‬instead of ‫)יִ גֶ ל‬, so that ‫ יגל‬is derived from the verb ‫“ גלל‬to roll away.”68 The Greek translator interpreted ‫ יגלו‬and ‫ יגל‬as having different meanings, rendering the verb respectively as ἀνακαλύψαι “to uncover” and ἑλκύσαι “to carry away.” While the former is a common rendering,69 the latter is unique in the LXX (HR).70 Compare also the rendering of ‫ חׂשך‬in 16:5–6. In 5b the verb is used in the qal (“to spare”) and rendered as φείσομαι “I will spare.” In 6a the verb is vocalized as a niphal (“to be spared, to stay away”), the rendering of which is no one-for-one equivalent.71 3.2.2 The Shorter OG Text There are many instances in which one colon in the Hebrew, that contains an element constitutive for a specific rhetorical feature, does not have a counterpart in the Greek. Even when these cola have been supplemented later, they do not bear any consequence for the present study on the OG of Job. The number of verses that do not have an equivalent in the Greek text increases as the book progresses; hence, more cases are found in the second half of the book than in the first. Examples of features of which one of the constitutive elements of the rhetorical feature are part of a colon in the Hebrew text that has no counterpart in the Greek include the following. – Anaphora: 22:30 (repetition of ‫ מלט‬in different binyanim; both cola are asterisked in the Greek); 28:25–26 (repetition of ‫ עׂשה‬in qal infinitive construct; in the Greek text 28:26b is asterisked); 36:17 (repetition of ‫ ;דין‬in the Greek

68  See, e.g., Beer, Hiob, 138; Cox, Iob, s.v. 20:27 and 20:28; Dhorme, Job, 305–6; Gordis, Job, 221; Habel, Job, 312; Pope, Job, 141; Alonso Schökel and Sicre Diaz, Job, 302. If this were the case, this Hebrew text does not contain a repetition, but an example of wordplay. Compare also the play on the consonants ‫ר‬, ‫צ‬, ‫ ב‬in Job 22:24, for example. 69  See also in the book of Job: in three out of four instances, ἀνακαλύπτω renders ‫גלה‬ (Job 12:22; 20:27; 33:16—the exception being Job 28:11, where the Hebrew reads ‫)חבׁש‬. The Hebrew verb in question, ‫גלה‬, occurs a total of eight times in Job. The four instances in which it is not rendered as ἀνακαλύπτω, ‫ גלה‬has the following Greek equivalents, all of them being unique renderings in the LXX: ἕλκω in 20:28, ἀνοίγω in 38:17, and occurring as part of a line rendered paraphrastically in 36:10 and 36:15. 70  The verb ἕλκω occurs once more in OG Job, namely in 39:10, rendering ‫“ ׂשדד‬to harrow.” 71  Cox, Iob, s.v. 16:6. HR marks the words ἀλγέω and τραῦμα in this case with a dagger.

Studying The Use Of Rhetorical Features In Old Greek Job

203

text 36:17a has no counterpart); 39:1–2 (repetition of ‫ ;ידע‬in the Greek 39:1a is asterisked); 41:20–21 (repetition of ‫ ;קׁש‬in the Greek 41:21a is asterisked). – Anadiplosis: 27:23–28:1 (repetition of ‫ ;מקום‬in the Greek text 27:23 is asterisked); 36:24–25 (repetition of ‫ ;אנוׁש‬in the Greek 26:24b–25a is asterisked); 40:2–3 (repetition of ‫ ;ענה‬in the Greek 40:2 is asterisked). – Epiphora: 22:24–25 (repetition of ‫ ;בצר‬in the Greek text 22:24 is asterisked); 24:17 (repetition of ‫ ;צלמות‬in the Greek text this verse is asterisked). – Mesodiplosis: 5:23 (repetition of ‫ ;ׂשדה‬in the Greek text 5:23a has no counterpart); 18:14–15 (repetition of ‫ ;אהל‬in the Greek 18:15 is asterisked); 24:18–19 (repetition of ‫ ;מים‬in the Greek 24:18a is asterisked); 36:5 (repetition of ‫;כביר‬ in the Greek 33:5b is asterisked); 39:1 (repetition of ‫ ילד‬in qal infinitive construct; in the Greek 39:1a is asterisked). Moreover, as previously mentioned, the tendency to paraphrase is frequent in Job. Oftentimes a repetition in the Hebrew text will not be reflected in Greek in cases in which the LXX offers a paraphrastic rendering of the Hebrew. Some examples of this phenomenon have been mentioned above, namely those that pertain to the level of single cola, but it also occurs across two cola. Job 13:23 provides a clear illustration. Job 13:23 πόσαι εἰσὶν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι μου καὶ αἱ ἀνομίαι μου; δίδαξόν με τίνες εἰσίν. How many are my sins and my acts of lawlessness? Teach me what they are.

‫כמה לי עונות וחטאות‬

‫פׁשעי וחטאתי הדיעני‬

How many are mine iniquities and sins? Make me know my transgression and my sin.

Instead of repeating an explicit reference to Job’s wrongdoings as in the Hebrew text (‫)פׁשעי וחטאתי‬, the translator uses the pronoun τίνες, which refers back to αἱ ἁμαρτίαι μου καὶ αἱ ἀνομίαι μου. Other examples in which the repetition in the Hebrew text is not reflected in the Greek because the Greek represents a paraphrastic rendering can be found in 10:21–22 (repetition of ‫ צלמות‬and of ‫;)כמו אפל‬72 12:4 (repetition of 72  For this case, too, the repetitions of ‫ צלמות‬and ‫ כמו אפל‬have led many commentators to argue that this passage is corrupted in the MT. See, for example, Beer, Hiob, 66; Dhorme, Job, 155–56; Fohrer, Hiob, 201; Gray, Job, 205. In favor of retaining the MT are scholars such

204

chapter 6

‫ ;)ׂשחק‬21:3 (repetition of ‫ ;)דבר‬28:25–26 (repetition of ‫ ;)עׂשה‬30:26 (repetition of ‫ ;)ויבא‬35:13–14 (repetition of ‫)ׁשור‬. In these cases, it seems that a paraphrastic rendering was a way for the translator to avoid a repetition. We will return to this below.

3.2.3 Anaphoric or Associative Translation The Hebrew might contain a rhetorical feature, but when the translator resorts to anaphoric translations, the Greek text does not actually reflect the Hebrew, thus leaving the colon or cola along with the rhetorical feature without a counterpart that is a formal or semantic representation of the Hebrew. In Job 22:2, for example, the Greek translator cites Job 21:22.73 Job 22:2 Πότερον οὐχὶ ὁ κύριός ἐστιν ὁ διδάσκων σύνεσιν καὶ ἐπιστήμην; Is it not the Lord who teaches understanding and knowledge?

‫הלאל יסכן גבר‬ ‫כי יסכן עלימו מׂשכיל‬

Can a mortal be of use to God? Can a wise man be of service to him?

A similar example can be found in Job 40:13, which contains a parenthesis of ‫טמן‬. OG 13b, however, is based on Ps 82(83):17a. While the use of citations from others parts of the LXX is relevant from a literary point of view, it does not affect the use of rhetorical features in any way other than in terms of elimination. 3.2.4 Harmonization The translator is concerned with the coherence and harmony of the Greek text. Apparent paradoxes in the Hebrew are sometimes changed in the Greek translation.74 In the following instance, the elimination of the anaphora of ‫תם‬ appears to be the result of the translator considering the notion of innocence to be out of place in the second verse. as Driver and Gray, Job, 66; Habel, Job, 181; Kissane, Job, 191; Pope, Job, 79; Rowley, Job, 87; Alonso Schökel and Sicre Diaz, Job, 181. 73  Heater, Septuagint Translation Technique, 70–71. 74   See, among others, Cox, “Tying it all Together,” 41–54; Cox, Iob, passim; Kutz, “Characterization,” 345–55; Orlinsky, “Studies II,” 229–71; Orlinsky, “Studies III,” 153–67; Orlinsky, “Studies III (continued),” 239–68.

Studying The Use Of Rhetorical Features In Old Greek Job

205

Job 9:21–22 εἴτε γὰρ ἠσέβησα, οὐκ οἶδα τῇ ψυχῇ, πλὴν ὅτι ἀφαιρεῖταί μου ἡ ζωή. διὸ εἶπον Μέγαν καὶ δυνάστην ἀπολλύει ὀργή.

For even if I acted impiously, I do not know it in my soul, except that my life is being taken away. Therefore I said, “Anger destroys the great and powerful.”

21 22

‫תם אני לא אדע נפׁשי‬ ‫אמאס חיי‬ ‫אחת היא על כן אמרתי‬ ‫תם ורׁשע הוא מכלה‬

I am blameless; I do not know myself; I loathe my life. It is all one; therefore I say, “He destroys the blameless and the wicked.”

In 21a, εἴτε γὰρ ἠσέβησα is the equivalent of ‫תם אני‬. This rendering can be characterized as a converse translation.75 With regard to the rendering of ‫ תם‬in v. 22, HR marks the equivalence ‫—תם‬μέγας with a dagger. The word ‫ רׁשע‬corresponds to δυνάστης, which is not the former’s standard equivalent but still belongs to the same semantic domain, that is, as a reference to wrongdoers. It has been argued that δυνάστης brought along the use of μέγας, which is not the equivalent of ‫תם‬. The translator considered a positive word like ‫ תם‬to have no place in his “rewriting of the text.”76 As a result, the repetition of ‫ תם‬is not reflected in the Greek text. 4

Variatio

The translator of OG Job tends to eliminate repetition within the context of parallel cola found in the Hebrew text,77 but this phenomenon has not yet been discussed in detail. The use of variatio, however, has a stylistic impact on the translation. Job 40:11–12 provides us with a clear example to start this overview.

75  The rendering of v. 21 will be discussed in more detail in chapter 8, since v. 21 forms a stylistic unit with v. 20. 76  Cox, Iob, s.v. 9:22. 77  Cox, Iob, passim; Gordis, Job, 509.

206

chapter 6

Job 40:11–12 ἀπόστειλον δὲ ἀγγέλους ὀργῇ, πᾶν δὲ ὑβριστὴν ταπείνωσον, ὑπερήφανον δὲ σβέσον, σῆψον δὲ ἀσεβεῖς παραχρῆμα.

11 12

Send forth messengers in wrath, Humble every insolent person,

‫הפץ עברות אפך‬ ‫וראה כל גאה והׁשפילהו‬ ‫ראה כל גאה הכניעהו‬ ‫והדך רׁשעים תחתם‬

Pour out the overflowings of your anger, and look on all who are proud, and abase them. Look on all who are proud, and bring them low; tread down the wicked where they stand.

Extinguish the proud, And at once make putrid the impious.

The Hebrew features an anaphora of ‫ראה כל גאה‬, underlining the symmetry of cola 11b and 12a (ABC/ABC’). The Greek version of these cola display a similar symmetrical structure, but in a denser form (AB/A’B’), without a lexical repetition. Where the Hebrew has ‫ראה‬, the OG twice displays a minus. The notion of “every, all” (‫ )כל‬is only represented in OG 11b; in 12a this is another minus. The adjective ‫ גאה‬is rendered differently in each colon: first as ὑβριστής, then as ὑπερήφανος. This Hebrew word occurs six more times in the MT, rendered as ὑβριστής in Isa 2:12; Prov 15:25; 16:19, as ὑβρίζω in Jer 48:29; and as ὑπερήφανος in Ps 93(94):2; 139(140):6(5). The terms ὑβριστής and ὑπερήφανος are thus known equivalents for ‫ גאה‬and are semantically closely related. The Greek text of 11b–12a is still symmetrically structured and, as such, contains a rhetorical ­feature. This structure is a reflection of the Hebrew. The translator added variation by rendering the repetition in the Hebrew by using different expressions in Greek. Another example can be found in Job 12:12–13. Job 12:12–13 ἐν πολλῷ χρόνῳ σοφία, ἐν δὲ πολλῷ βίῳ ἐπιστήμη. παρ᾿ αὐτῷ σοφία καὶ δύναμις, αὐτῷ βουλὴ καὶ σύνεσις. Wisdom comes with much time, and knowledge with much living. With him are wisdom and power; counsel and understanding are his.

12 13

‫ביׁשיׁשים חכמה‬ ‫וארך ימים תבונה‬

‫עמו חכמה וגבורה‬ ‫לו עצה ותבונה‬

Is wisdom with the aged, and understanding in length of days? With him are wisdom and strength; he has counsel and understanding.

Studying The Use Of Rhetorical Features In Old Greek Job

207

The Hebrew presents us with an epiphora of ‫תבונה‬. This word occurs twice more in Job,78 with ἐπιστήμη also appearing as its translation in 26:12 (of the Qere ‫)ובתבונתו‬, but with σύνεσις in 12:13 being a unique rendering.79 As for the Greek words in question, ἐπιστήμη occurs twelve times in Job, mostly for ‫בינה‬ (Job 28:12.28; 38:36; 39:26) and ‫( דע‬Job 32:6; 36:3),80 and σύνεσις occurs thirteen times, mainly for ‫( בינה‬Job 20:3; 28:20; 38:4; 39:17) and ‫( דעת‬Job 15:2; 21:22; 33:3; 34:35). An additional observation is that ἐπιστήμη and σύνεσις occur as a word pair in Job 12:16; 21:22 (in this verse ἐπιστήμη and σύνεσις can either be seen as a double translation of ‫דעת‬81 or as an example of the anaphoric translation technique when one considers 21:22 in relation to 22:282); 22:2; 34:35. One could get the impression that ἐπιστήμη and σύνεσις are almost interchangeable in the translation. As such, we have to discuss briefly the complex issue of wisdom terminology in Greek. These terms are not interchangeable in classical Greek, as has been argued most notably by B. Snell,83 who compared the usage of different terms for knowledge, namely σοφία, γνώμη/γνῶσις, σύνεσις, ἱστορία, μάθημα, and ἐπιστήμη. He concluded that these words each relate to a certain aspect or type of knowledge, ranging from practical knowledge such as skills (σοφία and ἐπιστήμη, each with subtle nuances) to perception knowledge (γνώμη) or faculty of quick understanding (σύνεσις). The lemmas in LSJ and DGE, however, already indicate that the terms become more and more intertwined semantically in post-classical Greek. In the LXX, too, there does not seem to be a clear system in the use of these words in terms of semantic connotation. Rather, their use is frequently determined by standard lexical equivalency. In OG Job specifically, however, the only consistency in word choice is σοφία for ‫( חכמה‬occurring twice in 12:12–13 as well—hence, in this case, the repetition is retained, which is an interesting example of the fact that the translator is not consistent), but the words themselves often seem interchangeable: aside from the word pair ἐπιστήμη and σύνεσις, ἐπιστήμη can also occurs in a word pair 78  The fourth rendering of ‫ תבונה‬in Job is ἀκούω in 32:11. 79  This translation does, however, occur more often outside of OG Job, especially in the books of Exodus, Proverbs, and Obadia (HR). 80  Other occurrences are 12:16; 22:2 (for these two, see below); 26:12 (see above); 34:35 (for ‫)ׂשכל‬. 81  Dhorme, Job, 318. 82  Heater, Septuagint Translation Technique, 70–71. 83  See especially Bruno Snell, Die Ausdrücke für den Begriff des Wissens in der vorplatonischen Philosophie (2nd ed.; Berlin: Weidmann, 1992), but also Bruno Snell, Die Entdeckung des Geistes: Studien zur Entstehung des europäischen Denkens bei den Griechen (4th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975). Though these works deal mainly with the presocratic philosophers and the lyrici, Snell presents a broader framework that is useful for any examination of this question.

208

chapter 6

with σοφία in 12:12; 28:12.28, and σύνεσις, in turn, appears with σοφία in 28:20. An additional hypothesis, that the word choice of the translator depends on the exegetical context, such as the reservation of certain terms to God or to humans, does not seem to hold true when analysing wisdom terminology in OG Job: σοφία, for example, refers to a human in 4:21; 12:2; 38:36, but to God in 12:13; 26:3; 38:37. The rendering of ‫ תבונה‬in Job 12:12–13 is likely an example of variatio.84 Many examples of variatio within the context of different rhetorical features in the Hebrew text can be found in OG Job. For the lion’s share of these cases, the repetition in the Hebrew has led nineteenth and early twentieth century commentators to suggest emendations of the Hebrew on the basis of the Greek. Later commentators, however, generally do not see any convincing indications to emend the Hebrew. Since I argue that variatio is part of the translator’s working methods, there is no need to discuss the text-critical emendations proposed by older commentators. – Anaphora: 18:13 (‫“ יאכל‬he will eat”—βρωθείησαν “may they be eaten” / κατέδεται “he will devour”); 31:17 (‫“ אכל‬to eat”—ἔφαγον “I ate” / οὐχὶ […] μετέδωκα “I have not shared”85); 33:25–26 (‫“ ׁשוב‬to return,” in the MT vocalized first as qal and secondly as hiphil, but without a clear difference in meaning—ἀποκαταστήσει “he will restore” / ἀποδώσει “he will give back”); 37:15–16 (‫“ התדע‬do you know”—οἴδαμεν “we know” / ἐπίσταται “he knows”86). – Epiphora: 12:7–8 (‫—ותרך‬ἐάν σοι εἴπωσιν “if they should speak to you” / ἐάν σοι φράσῃ “if they should declare to you”87); 15:22–23 (‫“ חׁשך‬darkness”—σκότους “darkness” / σκοτεινή “dark”88); 32:21–22 (‫“ אכנה‬I flatter”—ἐντραπῶ “I have regard” / θαυμάσαι πρόσωπον “to show respect”). 84  Cox, Job, s.v. 12:13. 85  Note also the difference in word order, and the fact that an affirmative sentence is rendered as a negation of the opposite (see Orlinsky, “Studies II,” 231–38). 86  In addition, the Greek has a different syntax: as opposed to the interrogative construction of the Hebrew text with the particle ‫“( ה‬do you know …?”), the Greek uses a declarative sentence twice, in v. 15 in the first person plural (οἴδαμεν) and in v. 16 in the third person singular (ἐπίσταται). As such, a distinction is made between what we, people, know and what God knows. A search in OG Job demonstrates that it is not the case that ἐπίσταμαι is used consistently to denote the divine knowledge as opposed to human knowledge. In Job 13:2 and 32:22, for instance, man is the subject of ἐπίσταμαι. 87  The change in number (twice the singular in Hebrew, first the plural then the singular in Greek) is to be explained as an harmonization of the Greek: in the Hebrew of 7a, ‫בהמות‬ (plural) is the subject. 88  The noun ‫ חׁשך‬is repeated at the end of 22a and of 23b. The Greek does not feature a similar epiphora. First, the Greek took ‫ יום חׁשך‬as the subject of the verb ‫ יבעתהו‬of v. 24,

Studying The Use Of Rhetorical Features In Old Greek Job

209

– Anadiplosis: 17:15 (‫“ תקוה‬hope”—ἐλπίς “hope” / ἀγαθά “good”); 29:14 (‫“ לבׁש‬to clothe”—ἐνεδεδύκειν “I put on” / ἠμφιασάμην “I was clothed”89). – Mesodiplosis: 3:25–26 (‫“ בוא‬to come”—ἦλθέν “it came” / συνήντησεν “it came upon”); 5:21–22 (‫“ ׁשד‬destruction”—κακῶν “bad things” / ἀδίκων “unjust things”); 8:3 (‫“ יעות‬he will pervert”—ἀδικήσει “he will be unjust” / ταράξει “he will pervert”); 10:20 (‫“ מעט‬little”—ὀλίγος “little” / μικρός “little”90); 13:7 (‫תדברו‬ “you will speak”—λαλεῖτε “you will speak” / φθέγγεσθε “you will utter”). The rendering of a repetition in the Hebrew text by two different words in the Greek text is not always an example of stylistic variatio, as shown by Job 38:17. Job 38:17 ἀνοίγονται δέ σοι φόβῳ πύλαι θανάτου, πυλωροὶ δὲ ᾅδου ἰδόντες σε ἔπτηξαν; Again, do the gates of death open to you out of fear, and did the porters of Hades cower when they saw you?

‫הנגלו לך ׁשערי מות‬ ‫ושערי צלמות תראה‬ ׁ

Have the gates of death been revealed to you, or have you seen the gates of deep darkness?

hence explaining the tricolonic division of v. 23 in the Greek (see e.g., Clines, Job, 343; Cox, Iob, s.v. 15:23; Dhorme, Job, 218–19; Pope, Job, 111; Rowley, Job, 112; Seow, Job 1–21, 718; Alonso Schökel and Sicre Diaz, Job, 239). Second, ‫ חׁשך‬occurs as the nomen rectum of a construct state in v. 23b, which the translator interpreted as a genitive of quality (JM §129f) and rendered as an adjective. Compare also Job 10:21, where ‫ ארץ חׁשך‬is rendered as γῆν σκοτεινήν. The translator, however, is not consistent in this regard: ‫ ארץ עיפתה‬in 10:22a, for example, also a construct state, is rendered as γῆν σκότους. 89  The Hebrew repeats the verb ‫ לבׁש‬in the first colon, but the Greek reflects a different colonic structure. The translator has taken the second occurrence of ‫ לבׁש‬as being part of the second colon, thus resulting in an anadiplosis. 90  In the Hebrew, ‫ מעט‬is used in reference to time. In the first colon the translator uses ὀλίγος to render ‫ מעט‬as an adjective with χρόνος. When it comes to expressing time in Greek, ὀλίγος and μικρός are interchangeable when used as an adjective with χρόνος: the expression μικρὸς χρόνος (e.g., Euripides, Medea 389; Sophocles, Oed. Col. 374; Herodotus, Hist. 3.133.4; 6.63.4; Plato, Crito 53d8; Symp. 192c2) stands next to ὀλίγος χρόνος (Homer, Il. 19.157; 23.418; Thucydides, Hist. 1.93.2.1; 5.112.2.3; Herodotus, Hist. 3.39.9; 7.14.7; Plato, Crito 52e2). In the second colon, the translator uses the adverb μικρόν, which is natural (LSJ mentions no usage of the adverb ὀλίγος as an indication of time). The translator could have opted for μικρός in the first colon, too, but avoided the repetition.

210

chapter 6

This verse is chiastically structured (AB/B’A’), with B/B’ containing a repetition of ‫ׁשער‬, read as a form of the noun ‫ ַׁש ַער‬twice. This word occurs twice in the construct state as nomen regens, followed by a nomen rectum, first ‫מות‬ and second ‫צלמות‬.91 In the first instance, ‫ ׁשער‬is translated as πύλαι. The Greek πύλη occurs only here as an equivalent to ‫ ;ׁשער‬in all other cases, it renders ‫דלת‬.92 The Hebrew ‫ ׁשער‬is always rendered differently in OG Job.93 In the second instance, ‫ ׁשער‬is rendered with πυλωροί, a cognate of πύλη. The noun πυλωρός occurs only once in OG Job. In general, it occurs thirty times in the LXX,94 of which twenty-six are for ‫ׁשוער‬. Hence, in this instance, it could be a matter of the LXX translator vocalizing the Hebrew text differently from the MT. Consequently, for this case, we cannot draw any conclusions.95 For all of the examples in this section listed prior to the example of 38:17, however, there are no clear indications to assume that the deviation between the Hebrew and the Greek are text-critical in nature. Rather, the observation that the chosen equivalents in the Greek texts are (near-)synonymous hints at the likelihood of the repetition in the MT also having been present in the source text of the Greek translator. There are, however, other ways for the translator to avoid repetition than through the use of synonyms. First, for example in 10:5, the paraphrase could be regarded as a way of adding variation 91  One could argue that ‫ מות‬and ‫ צלמות‬are cognates, if one assumes that ‫ צלמות‬is a compositum derived from ‫ צל‬and ‫מות‬. Some have regarded this as a pseudo-etymology, and that ‫ צלמות‬is cognate to the Semitic root ‫צלם‬. For an overview of the discussion, see David J. A. Clines, “The Etymology of the Hebrew ‫ ֶצ ֶלם‬,” JNSL 3 (1974): 19–25; Clines, Job, 68; Walter L. Michel, Prologue and First Cycle of Speeches, Job 1:1–14:22 (BO 42; vol. 1 of Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1987), 42–46. It should be mentioned, however, that the rendering of ‫ צלמות‬in OG Job is a witness to this pseudoetymology, since in four out of ten cases, ‫ צלמות‬is translated as σκιὰ θανάτου (Job 3:5; 12:22; 24:17; 28:3). If not cognates, ‫ מות‬and ‫ צלמות‬could be argued to constitute a wordplay, see James Barr, “Philology and Exegesis: Some General Remarks, with Illustrations from Job,” in Questions disputées de l’Ancien Testament: Méthode et théologie. XXIIIe session des Journées Bibliques de Louvain (ed. Christianus Brekelmans; BETL 33; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1974), 39–61. The latter can also be considered a rhetorical feature, but this lies outside of the scope of this research. It could be a point of departure for further research, if the necessary methodological precautions are taken, see Kabergs, “Creativiteit in het spel?” 92  See Job 3:10; 38:8.10; 41:5. 93  Aside from this verse, see also Job 5:4 (θύρα “door”); 29:7 and 31:21 (no clear equivalents). 94  This is as listed in Accordance; HR cites twenty-nine verses (the difference pertains to Ezra 7:7). 95  A different reading of ‫ מרי‬in 23:2 might also underly the repetition of χείρ in the Greek text of 23:2, for example (see Cox, Iob, s.v. 23:2).

Studying The Use Of Rhetorical Features In Old Greek Job

211

in the Greek text where the Hebrew features a repetition, as I have argued. Second, in 5:20; 19:23; 39:9–10 the repetition in the Hebrew is not reflected in the Greek because one of the words repeated in the Hebrew has no equivalent in the Greek. In 5:20 ‫ יד‬does not have an equivalent in the first colon. In 19:23 ‫ מי יתן‬is gapped in the parallelism in the Greek text. In 39:9–10 ‫ רים‬does not have an equivalent in 10b.96 The other elements of the cola in question are all represented in the Hebrew, and the meaning of the Greek and the Hebrew clearly corresponds.97 5

From the Viewpoint of the Greek Text

The Greek text of Job contains many rhetorical features that have no counterpart in the Hebrew. These cases are of particular interest to this study. First, it needs to be pointed out that a rhetorical feature in the Greek text that does not appear to reflect a similar feature in the Hebrew text does not necessarily occur independently from the Hebrew. Job 37:24 διὸ φοβηθήσονται αὐτὸν οἱ ἄνθρωποι, φοβηθήσονται δὲ αὐτὸν καὶ οἱ σοφοὶ καρδίᾳ. Therefore humans will fear him; yes, the wise in heart too will fear him.

‫לכן יראוהו אנׁשים‬ ‫לא יראה כל חכמי לב‬

Therefore mortals fear him; He does not see every wise of heart.

In the Hebrew text of this verse, ‫( יראוהו‬vocalized in the MT as a qal perfect, ‫ )יְ ֵראּוהּו‬is interpreted as derived from ‫“ ירא‬to fear” and ‫( יראה‬vocalized in the 96  A similar case is found in Job 19:20, in the sense that the repetition in the Hebrew (namely of ‫“ עור‬skin”) is not reflected in Greek due to a minus (in this case in the second colon). but This case is more difficult to assess from a stylistic point of view, since the Hebrew expression ‫“ בעור ׁשני‬with the skin of my teeth” in 20b is notoriously difficult, and the Greek translator might have tried to solve that problem by leaving ‫ עור‬untranslated. For the difficulty of the Hebrew, see, for example, Clines, Job, 430–31; Dhorme, Job, 279–80; Driver and Gray, Job, 340–41; Rowley, Job, 136–37; Alonso Schökel and Sicre Diaz, Job, 549; Seow, Job 1–21, 820–21. 5:20 and 39:9–10 do not appear to represent any interpretational difficulties for commentators. 97  A similar example could be provided by Job 19:20, although the LXX rendering of this verse could be influenced by the fact that the translator did not quite understand the Hebrew (see Cox, Iob, s.v. 19:20).

212

chapter 6

MT as a qal imperfect, ‫ )יִ ְר ֶאה‬often from ‫“ ראה‬to see.”98 Scholars have noted the ambiguity regarding the subject of ‫לא יראה‬. The subject could either be implied and be God, or be explicit and be the phrase ‫כל חכמי לב‬. There is, however, an exegetical difficulty, since ‫ חכמי לב‬is generally positive. Some therefore read ‫ יראה‬as ‫( יִ ָר ֻא ֻה‬imperfect of ‫“ ירא‬to fear”) instead of MT ‫יִ ְר ֶאה‬.99 The Greek renders φοβηθήσονται twice. This could be the result of a similar reading of the Hebrew text, interpreting both verbs as stemming from ‫ראה‬.100 This rendering is therefore difficult to evaluate from a stylistic point of view. A rhetorical feature in the Greek text could have been the coincidental result of stereotypical word choices. Job 28:10–11 δίνας δὲ ποταμῶν ἔρρηξεν, πᾶν δὲ ἔντιμον εἶδέν μου ὁ ὀφθαλμός· βάθη δὲ ποταμῶν ἀνεκάλυψεν, ἔδειξεν δὲ ἑαυτοῦ δύναμιν εἰς φῶς.

And he broke whirlpools of rivers— and my eye saw every precious thing. And he uncovered rivers’ depths, and showed his own power to the light.

10 11

‫בצורות יארים בקע‬ ‫וכל יקר ראתה עינו‬ ‫מבכי נהרות חבׁש‬ ‫ותעלמה יצא אור‬

He cut out channels in the rocks, and his eye sees every precious thing. He kept rivers from overflowing; hidden things he brings to light.

In spite of cola 10a and 11a having a different syntactical structure and a different meaning in the Greek text in comparison to the Hebrew, it is clear that ποταμός renders ‫ יאר‬in 10a and ‫ נהר‬in 11a. Both Hebrew nouns are often rendered as ποταμός in different LXX books.101 It is therefore difficult to argue that 98  Dhorme, Job, 573; Driver and Gray, Job, 324; Habel, Job, 501. 99  See, for example, Clines, Job, 850–51; Gordis, Job, 434; Kissane, Job, 256 and 258; Pope, Job, 246. 100  The minus of the negation in 24b might be a consequence of the translator having read the Hebrew text differently, too. 101  Regarding ποταμός for ‫יאר‬, see, for instance, Gen 41:1; 41:18; Exod 1:22; 2:3.5; 4:9; 7:15; 8:3; 4Kgdms 19:24; Amos 8:8; 9:5; Nah 3:8; Zech 10:11; Isa 7:18; 19:7.8; Jer 26(46):7.8; Ezek 29:3; 30:12. Regarding ποταμός for ‫נהר‬, see, for instance, Gen 2:10.; 2:13; 2:14; 15:18; 31:21; 36:37; Exod 7:19; 8:5; 23:31; Num 22:5; 24:6; Deut 1:7; 11:24; Josh 1:4; 24:2.; 24:15; Judg 3:8; 4 Kgdms 8:3; 10:16; 3Kgdms 4:24; 14:15; 4Kgdms 5:12; 17:6; 18:11; 23:29; 24:7; 1 Chr 1:48; 5:9; 18:3; 19:16; 2 Chr 9:26; Isa 7:20; 8:7; 11:15; 18:1; Jer 2:18; Ezek 1:1; 3:15.

Studying The Use Of Rhetorical Features In Old Greek Job

213

the repetition present in OG Job 28:10–11 was the result of any literary sensitivities. The same holds true for the repetition of ὠδῖνας in the following example. Job 39:1–2

1

ἐφύλαξας δὲ ὠδῖνας ἐλάφων; ἠρίθμησας δὲ αὐτῶν μῆνας πλήρεις τοκετοῦ, 2 ὠδῖνας δὲ αὐτῶν ἔλυσας;

And did you protect the birth pangs of the deer? And did you check off their months full of pregnancy, and did you relieve their birth pangs?

‫הידעת עת לדת יעלי סלע‬ ‫חלל אילות תׁשמר‬ ‫תספר ירחים תמלאנה‬ ‫וידעת עת לדתנה‬

Do you know when the mountain goats give birth? Do you observe the calving of the deer? Can you number the months that they fulfill, and do you know the time when they give birth?

OG 2b does not represent a rendering of MT 39:2b but of MT 39:3b (‫חבליהם תׁשל־‬ ‫“ חנה‬they send forth their labor pains”).102 MT 39:2b–3a are not reflected in the OG. The Greek contains a repetition of ὠδῖνας in 1b and 2b, with ὠδίν rendering respectively ‫ חלל‬and—considering the equivalence of MT 3b to OG 2b—‫חבל‬. Both are common equivalents.103 We may compare Job 4:10–11, where we find a mesodiplosis of λέων in the Greek, which renders first ‫אריה‬, then ‫לביא‬. In such cases, there is no reason to assume any additional stylistic motivations. In certain instances, however, a hint towards literary awareness can be found. Job 32:18–19 provides an example that could point towards the possibility of having to ascribe the deviation between the Hebrew and the Greek to the translator’s sensitivity towards a stricter application of rhetorical features present in the Hebrew.

102  Beer, Hiob, 241; Cox, Iob, s.v. 39:2; Dhorme, Job, 598. 103  Regarding ὠδίν for the root ‫חבל‬, see 4 Kgdms 22:6; Job 21:17; Ps 17(18):4.5; Ps 114 (116):3; Hos 13:13; Isa 13:8; 26:17; Jer 13:21, and for the root ‫חל‬, see Exod 15:14; Job 39:1; Ps 47(48):6; Mic 4:9; Nah 2:10(11); Jer 6:24; 27(50):43.

214

chapter 6

Job 32:18–19 πάλιν λαλήσω· πλήρης γάρ εἰμι ῥημάτων, ὀλέκει γάρ με τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς γαστρός· ἡ δὲ γαστήρ μου ὥσπερ ἀσκὸς γλεύκους ζέων δεδεμένος ἢ ὥσπερ φυσητὴρ χαλκέως ἐρρηγώς. I will speak again, for I am full of words; for the spirit of my belly is killing me; my belly is like a bound wineskin of new wine in ferment or like a burst bellows of a blacksmith.

18 19

‫כי מלתי מלים‬ ‫הציקתני רוח בטני‬

‫הנה בטני כיין לא יפתח‬ ‫כאבות חדׁשים יבקע‬

For I am full of words; the spirit in my belly constrains me. My belly is indeed like wine that has no vent like new wineskins it is ready to burst.

The Hebrew features a repetition of ‫בטן‬, used twice in the same form, that is, in the singular with a suffix indicating the first person singular. The Greek renders ‫ בטן‬twice as γαστήρ, but in different inflected forms as is linguistically required. The difference lies in the fact that the Hebrew particle ‫ הנה‬does not have a clear counterpart in the Hebrew. The translator has a preference for particles, especially δέ.104 It is difficult, however, to argue that δέ represents ‫הנה‬, since the latter is often rendered as ἰδού (1:12; 2:6; 5:27; 13:18; 16:19; 33:2; 40:16), sometimes as ἀλλά (3:7; 40:15), once adverbially (ἐξαίφνης in 1:19) and five times without clear equivalent (4:3; 5:17; 9:19; 32:19; 33:7) of which only 5:17 and 32:19 contain δέ in the same colon in the Greek text as the colon in which ‫ הנה‬appears in the Hebrew. The result of the translator’s rendering of 32:18–19 is an anadiplosis. The tendency towards a stricter application of rhetorical features becomes even clearer in the following example. Job 13:6 ἀκούσατε ἔλεγχον στόματός μου, κρίσιν δὲ χειλέων μου προσέχετε.

‫ׁשמעו נא תוכחתי‬ ‫ורבות ׂשפתי הקׁשיבו‬

Hear the refutation of my mouth, Hear now my reasoning, and give heed to the arguments of my lips. and listen to the pleadings of my lips.

104  Cox, “Tying it all Together,” 41–54.

Studying The Use Of Rhetorical Features In Old Greek Job

215

The Hebrew is structured chiastically, which is reflected in the Greek translation.105 Τhe Greek has a plus in the first colon, namely στόματός μου, as a genitive attribute to ἔλεγχον. It seems that στόματός μου is supplied in the first colon as a counterpart to χειλέων μου rendering ‫ ׂשפתי‬in the second colon, in order to balance both cola: ἔλεγχον στόματός μου corresponds perfectly to κρίσιν χειλέων μου. The object in both cola in Greek is a noun followed by a genitive indicating a bodily part. As a result, the terseness of the chiasm in the Greek text is increased. The more indications we find that the occurrence of a rhetorical feature in a certain verse could have been motivated by stylistics, the more telling the example becomes of the translator’s sensitivities to the form of the Greek text. This can be illustrated on the basis of the following two cases, Job 8:7 and 12:12. Job 8:7 ἔσται οὖν τὰ μὲν πρῶτά σου ὀλίγα, τὰ δὲ ἔσχατά σου ἀμύθητα. Then, though your first things be few, your last things will be unspeakably many.

‫והיה ראׁשיתך מצער‬ ‫ואחריתך יׂשגה מאד‬

Though your beginning was small, your latter days will be very great.

In this verse, the meaning of the Hebrew and the Greek corresponds, but regarding their forms, the rendering of 7b deviates from the Hebrew. The Hebrew text already featured a symmetrical arrangement in terms of meaning: ‫ראׁשיתך‬ and ‫ ואחריתך‬correspond, as do ‫ מצער‬and ‫יׂשגה מאד‬. The Hebrew uses a construction of ‫ היה‬+ predicate in 7a and a finite verb (‫יׂשגה‬, with an adverb ‫ )מאד‬in 7b. The Greek uses the same syntactical arrangement in 7b as in 7a, rendering ‫ יׂשגה מאד‬as ἀμύθητα, which serves as a predicate with an ellipse of the copula. The use of the word ἀμύθητος is in itself a sign of the translator’s education, occurring only five times in the LXX, three of them in Job (2 Macc 3:6; 12:16; Job 8:7; 36:28; 41:22). By using a predicate in both cola, the Greek rendering results in a distinctive formal ABC/B’C’ pattern. As a result, the semantic correspondence that was already present in the Hebrew is being underlined by a syntactic correspondence in the Greek. Job 12:12, already cited above as part of 12:12–13, shows how a semantically synonymous, symmetrically constructed parallelism can be rendered in such 105  The Greek leaves the particle ‫ נא‬untranslated. In OG Job, this is almost always the case, see Job 1:11; 2:5; 5:1; 8:8; 10:9; 12:7; 13:6.18; 17:3.10; 22:21.22; 32:21; 33:1.2; 38:3; 40:7.10.15; 42:4. Exceptions can be found in Job 4:7 (οὖν) and in 6:29 and 40:16 (δή).

216

chapter 6

a way that we encounter a lexical repetition where the Hebrew does not have one, in this case an anaphora. Job 12:12 ἐν πολλῷ χρόνῳ σοφία, ἐν δὲ πολλῷ βίῳ ἐπιστήμη. Wisdom comes with much time, and knowledge with much living.

‫ביׁשיׁשים חכמה‬ ‫וארך ימים תבונה‬

Wisdom is with the aged, and understanding in length of days.

The Greek rendering does not match the exact form of the Hebrew but does reflect its meaning. ‫ יׁשיׁש‬occurs three more times in OG Job, rendered as πρεσβύτης (29:8; 32:6), and once in a verse of which the Greek rendering is asterisked (15:10). The rendering in 12:12 is unique. The expression πολὺς χρόνος used to denote a long span of time is natural (see in Greek literature, e.g., Homer, Il. 2.343; 4.543; Thucydides, Hist. 1.12.4, among many others, and in papyri such as P.Sijp. 57 17 [Arsinoïtes, third or second century bce]; P.Tebt. 3.1 700 26 [Arsinoïtes, 125–124 bce]; P.Flor. 1 61 28–29 [unknown provenance, 85 ce]). The expression πολὺς βίος, however, does not occur elsewhere.106 It seems that the reason for the use of βίος lies in the Hebrew, since it often occurs as the rendering of the plural of ‫( יום‬see Job 7:6.16; 8:9; 9:25; 10:5.20; 14:5; 15:20; 21:13, as in other LXX books). The formal equivalence of ‫—ימים‬βίος has led to an unnatural Greek expression in the framework of a rendering in which the word group ἐν πολλῷ βίῳ as a whole is not a formal equivalence of the Hebrew (‫ )ארך ימים‬but does show literary sensitivity within the verse (ἐν πολλῷ χρόνῳ / ἐν πολλῷ βίῳ). Both cola seem to have mutually influenced one another in the process of the translation. It is precisely when there are aspects of the rendering relating to the word choice and word order that are demonstrably noteworthy, that one can begin to speculate about the translator’s stylistic choices. These examples provide a first glimpse of how the translator may introduce a rhetorical feature.

106  Note, however, the use of the expression πολὺν χρόνον βιούς “living a long time,” in Phrynicus, Fragmenta 31.1; Isocrates, Orat. 15.155.7, for example. The natural way of expressing a long life in Greek is by means of πολλὰ ἔτη, which also occurs in OG Job, namely in 32:7 (πολλοῖς ἔτεσιν for ‫)רב ׁשנים‬.

Studying The Use Of Rhetorical Features In Old Greek Job

217

6 Conclusion By the end of the previous chapter, this study had moved towards examining the way in which the Greek translator of Job dealt with rhetorical features that span more than one colon. The present chapter continued in this vein by focusing specifically on repetitions across cola. Because this study takes the translation technique into account, I first had to look at the way in which the translator handles features present in the Hebrew text. The translator can either imitate or eliminate them. He can, however, also show concern for the stylization of his target text, by rendering a feature such that it becomes more explicit in the translation or by adding a feature of his own independently from the Hebrew. For every time the Greek may seem to add variation, for example, we can find a counterexample in which the Greek reflects the repetition in the Hebrew. For every case in which the Greek seems to add a repetition, we can find an example where it eliminates a repetition in some other verse in the Hebrew,107 sometimes even within a range of two consecutive verses. This indicates that the translator did not have a default translation mode. As for the location of the translation of Job within the polysystem, this chapter has shown that the translator pays attention to the style of the source text, not just in terms of his choice of register, but also in terms of the use of features that are commonly associated with literary composition. We see that the repertoire of the Jewish-Greek polysystem had expanded in terms of the form on which the translator chooses to focus: that of the Hebrew source text or that of the Greek target text. This chapter has demonstrated that there are clear indications that the translator of Job often took the form of the Greek text into consideration when rendering the meaning of the Hebrew. In the following chapters, I will explore how far this consideration on the part of the translator can extend. A thorough study of rhetorical features in OG Job is important because it facilitates comparison with other writings and enables locating the translation in the polysystem more precisely. Rhetorical features often do not occur in isolation, but interact with one another in the Hebrew text. This interaction has a significant influence on the 107  For example, when we leave aside particles, prepositions, proper names, or paronomastic constructions, in the first cycle of speeches (Job 3–14), which has the lowest percentage of asterisked material, there are sixteen instances in which a repetition in the Hebrew text is rendered in Greek, seventeen instances in which the Greek eliminates a repetition present in the Hebrew text, and nineteen instances in which the Greek adds a repetition which has no direct basis in the Hebrew text. See Marieke Dhont, “Literary Features in the First Cycle of Speeches in LXX Job,” in XV Congress of the IOSCS, 357–74, 369–70.

218

chapter 6

Greek translation. Moreover, when the Greek text uses a combination of features autonomously, a similar interaction frequently plays a role. This demon­ strates how dynamic and multicausal the translation process can be. The following chapter focuses on simple examples of rhetorical features in units of two to four cola. With the term “simple,” I mean cases that attests to one type of repetition in the Greek, pertaining to either word order (symmetry and chiasm) or lexical items. Repetitions of words are often, but not necessarily, used within cola that are constructed symmetrically or chiastically. I therefore start chapter 7 by offering a survey of the use of symmetry and chiasm in OG Job, before discussing different patterns of lexical repetition, such as anadiplosis, anaphora, epiphora, and so on. Chapter 8, then, will be dedicated to more complex examples, in which several rhetorical features are combined or repetitions span over larger units of text.

CHAPTER 7

Rhetorical Features in the Greek Text of Job 1

Symmetry and Chiasm in Parallel Cola

1.1 Playing with the Terseness of the Parallelism Symmetry and chiasm are features related to the repetition and inversion of word order, often in semantically parallel cola.1 When the translator follows the word order of the Hebrew and reflects the same meaning, this may result in an imitation of the feature in question in Greek. Yet he does not always do so. I have demonstrated that the translator of Job often eliminates repetition or adds variation by rendering a lexical repetition using (near-)synonyms or by resorting to paraphrasing. Within the framework of parallel cola, this tendency could be seen as a relaxation of the formal correspondence between the cola. The translator has a number of additional methods to decrease the strict formal correspondence between parallel lines as well.2 For example, in Job 23:8, the translator changes the sentence type in the second colon and uses inversion, rendering an affirmative statement as a rhetorical question (‫“ ולא אבין לו‬I cannot perceive him”—τί οἶδα “what do I know?”), thus relaxing the formal correspondence between the cola of v. 8. The use of a conditional clause in the first colon and a genitive absolute in the second colon of 8:15 where the Hebrew has two perfectly symmetrical cola, has a similar effect. See also 14:21 (first a genitive absolute, then a conditional clause),3 for example. We may also include the use of a participle in one colon and a finite verb in another, instead of one finite verb in each colon as in the Hebrew, such as in 13:14; 21:12; 27:2; 38:5. The translator’s preference for subordination can, however, also be regarded as an aspect of the translator’s use of natural Greek, rather than as a stylistically motivated relaxation of the terseness of parallelism. 1  See Nigel Fabb, Linguistics and Literature: Language in the Verbal Arts of the World (Oxford: Blackwell, 1997), 137–38. 2  If we may indeed ascribe the shorter OG text to the interventions of the translator, then the cases in which he renders only one of two or more (near-)synonymous cola, too, are illustrations of the translator avoiding repetition. 3  The translator does use a repetition of γίνομαι in the subordinate clause: ‫—יכבדו‬πολλῶν γενομένων and ‫—ויצערו‬ὀλίγοι γένωνται. OG Job contains several repetitions of γίνομαι, such as in 14:21; 31:8.9.15; 40:32.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi ��.��63/9789004358492_009

220

chapter 7

Another example of formal variation can be found in Job 34:12. Job 34:12 οἴῃ δὲ τὸν κύριον ἄτοπα ποιήσειν; ἢ ὁ παντοκράτωρ ταράξει κρίσιν; Now, do you think the Lord will do what is amiss? Or will the Almighty pervert justice?

‫אף אמנם אל לא ירׁשיע‬ ‫וׁשדי לא יעות מׁשפט‬

Of a truth, God will not do wickedly, and the Almighty will not pervert justice.

Whereas the Hebrew features two declarative sentences, the translator uses rhetorical questions in both cola. The first colon is a question introduced by οἴῃ “do you think,” instead of the affirmative particle ‫ אף אמנם‬in the Hebrew. The translator of Job uses οἴομαι six times (11:2; 34:12; 37:23; 38:2; 40:8; 42:3), always independently from the Hebrew.4 It is complemented by an accusativus cum infinitivo, τὸν κύριον ἄτοπα ποιήσειν. The second question is linked to the first by the particle ἤ. Rather than being a second complement to οἴῃ, the construction of the second colon with a main verb in the indicative (ταράξει) indicates that a new main question is being asked, independently from οἴῃ. Consequently, variation in syntax is added in the Greek.5 In 12:10, we see different features of variation and repetition interacting. Job 12:10 εἰ μὴ ἐν χειρὶ αὐτοῦ ψυχὴ πάντων τῶν ζώντων καὶ πνεῦμα παντὸς ἀνθρώπου; Is not the life of all living things in his hand, and the breath of every human being?

‫אׁשר בידו נפׁש כל חי‬ ‫ורוח כל בׂשר איׁש‬

In his hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of every human being.

The translator combines two techniques mentioned earlier in chapter 1. He uses the plural in the first colon (where the Hebrew has the singular: ‫“ כל חי‬every living

4  Cox, Iob, s.v. 34:12. 5  Compare also Joosten, “Rhetorical Ornamentation in the Septuagint,” 11–22.

221

Rhetorical Features In The Greek Text Of Job

thing”—πάντων τῶν ζώντων “all living things”6) and the singular in the second (‫“ כל בׂשר איׁש‬all flesh of man”—παντὸς ἀνθρώπου “every man”). The rendering of an abstract notion (‫ )בׂשר איׁש‬by a more concrete one (ἀνθρώπου) might seem to make 10a and 10b correspond more closely, while the use of a plural and a singular has the opposite effect of variation.7 Job 30:25 provides us with yet another interesting example. Job 30:25 ἐγὼ δὲ ἐπὶ παντὶ ἀδυνάτῳ ἔκλαυσα, ἐστέναξα δὲ ἰδὼν ἄνδρα ἐν ἀνάγκαις. But I, I wept over every powerless person and I groaned when I saw men in dire straits.

‫אם לא בכיתי לקׁשה יום‬ ‫עגמה נפׁשי לאביון‬

Did I not weep for those whose day was hard? Was not my soul grieved for the poor?

The Hebrew has two synonymous cola, structured twice as verb—prepositional phrase. The Greek uses a converse translation, rendering (what is interpreted as) two rhetorical questions as affirmative statements. In the Greek, we see a verb—prepositional phrase order in the first colon (ἐπὶ παντὶ ἀδυνάτῳ ἔκλαυσα “I wept over every powerless man”) and a verb + participium con­ iunctum in the second colon (ἐστέναξα δὲ ἰδὼν ἄνδρα ἐν ἀνάγκαις “I groaned when seeing men in distress”). The participle corresponds semantically to the prepositional phrase in the first colon. In addition, the Greek varies between the singular and the plural (‫“ לקׁשה יום‬for him whose day is hard”—ἐπὶ παντὶ ἀδυνάτῳ “over every powerless man” and ‫“ לאביון‬for the poor man”—ἄνδρα ἐν ἀνάγκαις “men in distress”). Job 34:21 exemplifies a similar translation approach. Clear indications of variation with regard to syntax can be found, for example, in 10:10.

6  The construction ‫ כל חי‬appears three times in Job. In the other two instances, that is, in 28:21 and 30:23, the Greek reflects the singular (reading respectively πάντα ἄνθρωπον “every human” and παντὶ θνητῷ “every mortal”). 7  In 20:5, for example, the Hebrew varies between the plural and the singular (‫“ רננת רׁשעים‬the exulting of wicked men” in 5a and ‫“ וׂשמחת חנף‬the joy of a godless man”), whereas the Greek has the plural twice (respectively ἀσεβῶν and παρανόμων).

222

chapter 7

Job 10:10 ἦ οὐχ ὥσπερ γάλα με ἤμελξας, ἐτύρωσας δέ με ἴσα τυρῷ; Did you not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese?

‫הלא כחלב תתיכני‬ ‫וכגבנה תקפיאני‬

Did you not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese?

I will discuss the difference in word order in the Greek vis-à-vis the Hebrew below. At this point, I focus on the double simile, expressed in Hebrew twice with a ‫( כ‬in 10a ‫“ כחלב‬like milk” and in 10b ‫“ וכגבנה‬like cheese”). It is rendered by means of a ὥσπερ-construction in the first colon (ὥσπερ γάλα, with γάλα in the same case as the noun to which it is compared, με) and by means of an ἴσαconstruction in the second (ἴσα τυρῷ, with τυρῷ in the dative as a complement to ἴσα [LSJ]). As such, the translator adds variation. The same variation in the construction of the cola can be found in Job 13:28 and 27:16. We may also refer to 15:33, where the translator renders the repeated preposition ‫( כ‬expressing comparison in the Hebrew in two [near-]synonymous cola) first as ὥσπερ, then as ὡς,8 as well as to 15:25, an example which will be discussed in more detail below. The translator renders ‫ אל‬in the first colon as ἐναντίον and in the second colon as ἔναντι.9 However, we do find the opposite working method as well in the book of Job. In other words, the translator can also render parallel cola so that two cola in the Greek correspond more closely than they do in the Hebrew. Job 13:6 has already been discussed in detail in chapter 6. The first colon contained a plus in order to make the cola correspond more tightly to one another. Readers of OG Job encounter similar pluses which serve to balance out the cola in 5:20 (λύσει σε); 15:28 (εἰσέλθοι); 29:12 (ἐβοήθησα); 39:27 (γύψ). In these cases, the translator adds a verb in the second colon to correspond to the verb in the first colon, thus making a partial chiasm or symmetry into a complete chiasm or symmetry. In some cases a minus may serve the same purpose, such as in 29:6.

8  This is in contrast to 3:16; 7:2; 27:7; 30:15; 41:23, for example, where ‫ כ‬is rendered twice as ὥσπερ. 9  This is in contrast to 13:7, where ‫ ל‬is rendered using ἔναντι twice, for example.

223

Rhetorical Features In The Greek Text Of Job Job 29:6 ὅτε ἐχέοντό μου αἱ ὁδοὶ βουτύρῳ, τὰ δὲ ὄρη μου ἐχέοντο γάλακτι.

‫ברחץ הליכי בחמה‬ ‫וצור יצוק עמדי פלגי ׁשמן‬

When my roads were flowing with butter When my steps were washed with milk, and my hills were flowing with milk. and the rock poured out for me streams of oil!

The Hebrew has a parallel structure in which ‫“ חמה‬butter” corresponds to ‫“ פלגי ׁשמן‬streams of oil.” In the Greek, we encounter two simple datives, βουτύρῳ “butter” and γάλακτι “milk” (i.e., a minus of ‫)פלגי‬. In addition, we may note the use of the same verb, χέω, in the same form in both cola, where the Hebrew varies the syntax (a preposition + qal infinitive in 6a and a qal imperfect in 6b) and the word choice (‫ רחץ‬occurs only once more in Job, in 9:30, where it is rendered as ἀπολούω “to wash away”; ‫ צוק‬also occurs once more in Job, in 28:2, rendered as λατομέω “to hew”). For similar instances in which a minus serves to increase the formal correspondence between both cola in the Greek, see 13:1 (minus of ‫ ;)ותבן לה‬18:5 (minus of ‫ ;)אׁשו‬29:14 (minus of ‫ ;)צניף‬33:2 (minus of ‫)בחכי‬. The translator also has other ways of enhancing the terseness between parallel cola, as we have seen in 8:7, discussed above. Job 22:5 offers a second example. Job 22:5 πότερον οὐχ ἡ κακία σού ἐστιν πολλή, ἀναρίθμητοι δέ σού εἰσιν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι; Is your evil not abundant, and are your sins not without number?

‫הלא רעתך רבה‬ ‫ואין קץ לעונתיך‬

Is not your wickedness great? There is no end to your iniquities.

The translator interprets both cola as rhetorical questions. The first colon is rendered as a predicative (‫—רבה‬ἐστιν πολλή). In the second colon, the Hebrew uses a particle, ‫אין‬. This Hebrew particle is rendered in a variety of ways in OG Job. Most commonly the translator uses (a variant of) οὐκ ἔστιν (1:8; 2:3; 5:9; 7:21; 8:22; 9:10; 11:3.19; 41:25), but sometimes he opts for a more interpretative rendering such as ‫“ איננו‬it is not there for them”—οὐ τυγχάνουσιν “they do not obtain it” in 3:21 or ‫“ אין חקר‬there is no search”—ἀνεξιχνίαστα “unsearchable”

224

chapter 7

in 9:10. The latter rendering is similar to the one we encounter in 22:5: ‫אין קץ‬ “there is no end” is rendered as an adjective, ἀναρίθμητοι “countless.”10 Due to this rendering, the cola of 22:5 correspond entirely in a chiastic arrangement, which corresponds more closely in form in Greek than in Hebrew, due to the use of two adjectives: πότερον οὐχ ἡ κακία σού ἐστιν πολλή, A B ἀναρίθμητοι δέ σού εἰσιν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι; B’ A’ We can also compare the rendering of 27:14. Job 27:14 ἐὰν δὲ πολλοὶ γένωνται οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτοῦ, εἰς σφαγὴν ἔσονται· ἐὰν δὲ καὶ ἀνδρωθῶσιν, προσαιτήσουσιν.

‫וצאצאיו לא יׂשבעו לחם‬

Now if his sons be many, they shall be for slaughter, and if they reach manhood, they shall be beggars.

If their children are multiplied, it is for the sword; and their offspring have not enough to eat.

‫אם ירבו בניו למו חרב‬

The Greek constructs the second colon of this verse semantically parallel and structurally partially symmetrical to the first: first a protasis (ἐάν + subjunctive), followed by an apodosis (future indicative11). One may speculate whether the translator used the parallelism to make sense of the Hebrew, but even if one would argue that the translator could have read ‫ וצאצאיו‬differently—that is, as a form of the noun ‫“ צאצא‬offspring”—the apodosis reflects a related thought: having no food (MT) implies the necessity to beg (OG). This demonstrates that the translator may at times also introduce a formal correspondence where the Hebrew does not have one and that he is not opposed to the use of parallelism in the Greek text. In the following example, Job 36:5–10, I consider the translator’s use of parallel cola within the context of a minus in the Greek text.

10  Cox, Iob, s.v. 22:5. 11  See Tjen, On Conditionals in the Greek Pentateuch, 38–39.

Rhetorical Features In The Greek Text Of Job

225

Job 36:5–10 γίγνωσκε δὲ ὅτι ὁ κύριος οὐ μὴ ἀποποιήσηται τὸν ἄκακον

5

‫הן אל כביר ולא ימאס‬ ‫כביר כח לב‬ ‫לא יחיה רׁשע‬ ‫ומׁשפט עניים יתן‬ ‫לא יגרע מצדיק עיניו‬ ‫ואת מלכים לכסא‬ ‫ויׁשיבם לנצח ויגבהו‬ ‫ואם אסורים בזקים‬ ‫ילכדון בחבלי עני‬ ‫ויגד להם פעלם‬ ‫ופׁשעיהם כי יתגברו‬ ‫ויגל אזנם למוסר‬ ‫ויאמר כי יׁשבון מאון‬

6 7

8 9 ἀλλὰ τοῦ δικαίου εἰσακούσεται.

Know that the Lord will not reject the innocent;

rather, he will listen to the righteous.

10

Surely God is mighty and does not despise any; he is mighty in strength of understanding. He does not keep the wicked alive, but gives the afflicted their right. He does not withdraw his eyes from the righteous, but with kings on the throne he sets them forever, and they are exalted. And if they are bound in fetters and caught in the cords of affliction, then he declares to them their work and their transgressions, that they are behaving arrogantly. He opens their ears to instruction, and commands that they return from iniquity.

The shortening of this passage has been ascribed to the translator.12 He offers a general statement that softens the virulence of the Hebrew.13 The Greek text is, however, reminiscent of the Hebrew in two regards, that is, in the assertion 12  Cox, Iob, s.v. 36.5–23; Gorea, Job repensé, 184–89. 13  Gorea, Job repensé, 185.

226

chapter 7

that the Lord does not reject (MT 5a) and listens to his people (MT 7a, 10a, and also 11a),14 and in the mention of τοῦ δικαίου, said to be an echo of ‫ צדיק‬at MT 7a.15 OG 5a can be seen as an anaphoric translation of Job 8:20,16 and 10a is constructed as a strong contrast to v. 5a, drawing on generalized vocabulary which suits the larger context (that is, of Job’s claim that the Lord does not listen to him17), and possibly influenced by Job 9:15.18 The use of features in the Greek could possibly support the hypothesis that the translator would have been responsible for the abbreviation of the text. The way in which he handles the use of chiasm in the Greek text fits in with his general approach regarding rhetorical features. The cola that the translator does render, that is, 5a and 10a, would have been consecutive in the OG. The cola are structured partially chiastically: the ὅτι-clause consists of two parts (οὐ μὴ […] ἀλλά). The word order of the first part (verb—object) is inversed in the second part (object—verb). γίγνωσκε δὲ ὅτι ὁ κύριος

οὐ μὴ ἀποποιήσηται τὸν ἄκακον A B ἀλλὰ τοῦ δικαίου εἰσακούσεται· B’ A’

We encounter a similar use of chiasm in Job 19:23–24, for example. If we may indeed ascribe the minus in the Greek text to the translator, he constructs the lines he does render in such a way that the Greek contains a chiasm around the fragment that is left untranslated. Job 19:23–24 τίς γὰρ ἂν δῴη γραφῆναι τὰ ῥήματά μου, τεθῆναι δὲ αὐτὰ ἐν βιβλίῳ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἢ ἐν πέτραις ἐγγλυφῆναι;

23 24

14  Cox, Iob, s.v. 36.5–23. 15  Gorea, Job repensé, 185. 16  Heater, Septuagint Translation Technique, 117. 17  Cox, Iob, s.v. 36.5a, 10a. 18  Heater, Septuagint Translation Technique, 118.

‫מי יתן אפו ויכתבון מלי‬ ‫מי יתן בספר ויחקו‬ ‫בעט ברזל ועפרת לעד‬ ‫בצור יחצבון‬

Rhetorical Features In The Greek Text Of Job

227

For who would grant that my words be written O that my words were written down! and that they be put in a book forever O that they were inscribed in a book! O that with an iron pen and with lead or be carved in rock? they were engraved on a rock forever!

In the Hebrew we encounter an anaphora of ‫ מי יתן‬in 23a and 23b. 24b is partially symmetrical to 23b (prepositional phrase—verb), and 24a represents the means with which 24a is to be carried out. The Greek text does not reflect the anaphora, which fits in with the way in which the translator handles repetitions in the Hebrew text discussed above. The Greek text does not offer an equivalent of the means (‫ )בעט ברזל ועפרת‬mentioned in MT 24a. This could have been a way for the translator to create a clear tripartite structure, examples of which have been discussed above in chapter 5. The Greek text does, however, retain the echo to eternity (‫—לעד‬εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα). When looking at the Greek specifically, the tripartite expression shows a progression, from a general statement in 23a (i.e., Job’s wish to have his words written down), to two different ways in which this can be done (i.e., either written in a book or carved in rock). The Greek of 23b is partially symmetrical to 23a, which reflects a deviation in the word order when compared to the Hebrew (‫—בספר ויחקו‬τεθῆναι […] ἐν βιβλίῳ). The Greek of 24b reflects the same word order as the Hebrew, but because of the difference in 23b, cola 23b and 24b become chiastic: τίς γὰρ ἂν δῴη γραφῆναι τὰ ῥήματά μου, A B τεθῆναι δὲ αὐτὰ ἐν βιβλίῳ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα A’ B’ C ἢ ἐν πέτραις ἐγγλυφῆναι C’ A’’ With this case study, I mentioned a first example of the way in which the translator can at times change the word order and replace a symmetrical construction with a chiastic one, or vice versa. 1.2 Changing the Word Order 1.2.1 Case Studies In some cases, a difference in word order between the Hebrew and the Greek may result in a change of features. We sometimes encounter an exchange from a symmetry to a chiasm, such as in Job 10:10.

228

chapter 7

Job 10:10 ἦ οὐχ ὥσπερ γάλα με ἤμελξας, ἐτύρωσας δέ με ἴσα τυρῷ; Did you not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese?

‫הלא כחלב תתיכני‬ ‫וכגבנה תקפיאני‬

Did you not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese?

I have discussed the difference between the Hebrew and the Greek in terms of their expression of the simile. At this point, I look at the word order. Where the Hebrew has an AB/A’B’ arrangement consisting of prepositional phrase—verb, the Greek translator inverted the word order in the second colon, resulting in a AB/B’A’ pattern. Other cases in which a symmetry in the Hebrew is rendered as a chiasm in the Greek can be found in Job 28:24; 30:15; 31:22.19 We may also encounter the exact opposite, namely an exchange from chiasm to symmetry. Job 24:3 ὑποζύγιον ὀρφανῶν ἀπήγαγον καὶ βοῦν χήρας ἠνεχύρασαν. They led away the orphans’ beast of burden and took the widow’s ox in pledge.

‫חמור יתומים ינהגו‬ ‫יחבלו ׁשור אלמנה‬

They drive away the donkey of the orphan, they take the widow’s ox for a pledge.

Due to a difference in the word in the second colon, featuring object—verb in the Greek instead of verb—object as in the Hebrew, the Greek features a symmetrical construction. Other cases that display a similar exchange between chiasm and symmetry are Job 19:23; 22:26; 27:7; 32:21; 37:8; 39:12; 41:23. If the Greek exchanges a symmetrical construction for a chiastic one or vice versa, it is oftentimes the word order in the second line that is different from the Hebrew. Are there any indications for a systematized approach on the part of the translator when changing the word order and consequently exchanging a chiasm in the Hebrew for a symmetry in the Greek or vice versa? I have analyzed the cases in which the translator exchanges these features in relation 19  Compare also the variation in the use of ἔναντι and ἐναντίον when rendering ‫ אל‬in 15:25, discussed in more detail below.

Rhetorical Features In The Greek Text Of Job

229

to those cases in which a symmetry or a chiasm present in the Hebrew text is reflected in the Greek. There is no relation between the semantic content and the word order, since (near-)synonymous lines may be structured chiastically or symmetrically. Compare Job 10:10, cited above, a near-synonymous parallelism, structured chiastically in Greek as opposed to symmetrically in Hebrew, to 1) Job 3:25, a near-synonymous parallelism structured symmetrically both in Hebrew and in Greek; 2) Job 6:23, a near-synonymous parallelism structured chiastically both in Hebrew and in Greek. Another possible grounds of comparison may pertain to the syntax, that is, the way in which the translator structures similes. Perhaps the close correspondence of syntax between the cola might have led the translator to opt for a chiastic structure. However, 1) in Job 14:2 a parallelism expressing two similes is arranged chiastically in Hebrew as well as in Greek, and 2) in Job 40:29 a parallelism expressing two similes is arranged symmetrically in both versions. In addition, in 27:7, the construction is quite similar to Job 10:10, in that both cola contain a simile, but in 27:7, a chiasm is exchanged for a symmetry—the opposite of what happens in 10:10. A chiastic arrangement can be used in the case of non-synonymous lines, such as in 5:21, as well as in the case of (near-)synonymous lines, such as in 3:20. In both instances, the word order of the Greek reflects the Hebrew. The same thing holds true for a symmetrical arrangement, examples of which can be found respectively in 15:12 (non-synonymous) and 3:25 ([near-]synonymous). I have attempted to find a relation between the use of chiasm or symmetry on the one hand and the reflection of lexical repetitions on the other, taking into account imitation and elimination of repetitions in the Hebrew text, as well as the incorporation of repetitions in the Greek independently from the Hebrew. For example, one could hypothesize that lexical repetitions were more common in symmetrical arrangements than in chiastic ones. An examination of this hypothesis did not yield any conclusive results either. I then hypothesized that an exchange between symmetry and chiasm could be related to the pragmatics of Greek word order, since we have seen that the word order of the Hebrew may be changed in conformity with topic-focus structures in Greek, such as in the example of Job 1:6 discussed earlier in chapter 4. Symmetry and chiasm may have a pragmatic function in both languages. Nonetheless, oftentimes the word order of the second line is related to that of the first primarily stylistically, rather than to a pragmatic arrangement of the constituents.20 The pragmatics 20  For the Greek, see Helma Dik, Word Order in Greek Tragic Dialogue (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 23; Siem R. Slings, “Figures of Speech and Their Lookalikes: Two Further Exercises in the Pragmatics of the Greek Sentence,” in Grammar as Interpretation: Greek Literature in its Linguistic Contexts (ed. Egbert J. Bakker; Mnemosyne Supplementum 171; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 169–214. For the Hebrew, see Lunn, Word Order Variation.

230

chapter 7

of word order in the context of a translation which in many instances follows the word order of the Hebrew is even more difficult to assess. With regard to this, we must keep in mind that the standard word order in Greek is undergoing changes in the Koine period. Moreover, the translator of Job is far from consistent. I would therefore suggest that we cannot but observe and describe the differences individually, and perhaps suspect that sometimes it might have just sounded better to the translator to change the word order. When there are other notable aspects to the rendering in addition to a difference in word order, such as with regard to the translator’s word choices, differences in word order become more telling as indicators of a stylistic awareness on the part of the translator. 1.2.2 Word Order and Lexical Repetition The Greek translation may have a different word order than the Hebrew, but reflect the use of a lexical repetition. As a result, the pattern of repetition in the Hebrew text will be different in the Greek, thus resulting in a different rhetorical feature. I will discuss three examples at this point. Job 42:4–5 ἄκουσον δέ μου, κύριε, ἵνα κἀγὼ λαλήσω· ἐρωτήσω δέ σε, σὺ δέ με δίδαξον. ἀκοὴν μὲν ὠτὸς ἤκουόν σου τὸ πρότερον, νυνὶ δὲ ὁ ὀφθαλμός μου ἑόρακέν σε. Now hear me, Lord, that I too may speak; then I will question you, and you, teach me! Whereas before I would hear an aural report of you, now, however, my eye has seen you!

4 5

‫ׁשמע נא ואנכי אדבר‬ ‫אׁשאלך והודיעני‬ ‫לׁשמע אזן ׁשמעתיך‬ ‫ועתה עיני ראתך‬

Hear, and I will speak; I will question you, and you declare to me. I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you.

The repetition of the verb ‫ ׁשמע‬in the Hebrew is reflected in the translator’s use of ἀκούω. However, owing to the plus of τὸ πρότερον at the end of colon 5a, the repetition of ἀκούω does not constitute a parenthesis, but a mesodiplosis. The basis for the plus lies in the explication of the translator’s contrastive reading of the Hebrew of v. 5, expressed twofold by μέν/δέ and τὸ πρότερον/νυνί (with only the latter reflecting the Hebrew ‫)עתה‬.21 By juxtaposing τὸ πρότερον and 21  Cox, Iob, s.v. 42:5.

Rhetorical Features In The Greek Text Of Job

231

νυνί, the contrast is underlined. Reflecting the parenthesis of ἀκούω was of secondary importance to the translator. Job 34:5–6 ὅτι εἴρηκεν Ἰὼβ Δίκαιός εἰμι, ὁ κύριος ἀπήλλαξέν μου τὸ κρίμα ἐψεύσατο δὲ τῷ κρίματί μου.

Because Iob has said, “I am righteous; The Lord dismissed my case and played false in my judgment.”

5

‫כי אמר איוב צדקתי‬ ‫משפטי‬ ׁ ‫ואל הסיר‬ ‫משפטי אכזב‬ ׁ ‫על‬ ‫אנוׁש חצי בלי פׁשע‬

6

For Job has said, “I am innocent, And God has taken away my right; in spite of being right I am counted a liar. My wound is incurable, though I am without transgression.”

The Hebrew features an anadiplosis of the word ‫מׁשפט‬, which occurs twice in the same form (construct state, with suffix ‫ י‬for the first person singular), although in the first instance as part of the prepositional phrase. In the Greek translation, ‫ מׁשפט‬is rendered twice with κρίμα, which is one of the most common equivalents of ‫ מׁשפט‬in the LXX (HR).22 The word order, however, is changed, and as a result the Greek features a symmetrical construction with an epiphora. The opposite happens in 33:12–13, for example. Here, the repetition of ‫ ענה‬is reflected in a repetition of ἐπακούω, but due to a difference in word order, the Greek features a mesodiplosis whereas the Hebrew contains an epiphora. Another example can be found in 23:15–16. Job 23:15–16 διὰ τοῦτο ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ ἐσπούδακα· νουθετούμενος δὲ ἐφρόντισα αὐτοῦ. κύριος δὲ ἐμαλάκυνεν τὴν καρδίαν μου, ὁ δὲ παντοκράτωρ ἐσπούδασέν με.

15 16

‫על כן מפניו אבהל‬ ‫אתבונן ואפחד ממנו‬ ‫ואל הרך לבי‬ ‫וׁשדי הבהילני‬

22  Specifically in OG Job, ‫ מׁשפט‬is rendered as κρίμα in twelve out of twenty-three cases (see also the use of the cognates κρίσις five times and κρίνω twice). The noun κρίμα occurs fourteen times in total.

232 Therefore I am in haste about him, and when I was admonished, I gave heed to him. But the Lord enfeebled my heart, and the Almighty hurried me.

chapter 7 Therefore I am terrified at his presence; when I consider, I am in dread of him. God has made my heart faint; the Almighty has terrified me.

The repetition of ‫ בהל‬is reflected in σπουδάζω. In 16a, ‫ בהל‬has a suffix pronoun indicating the direct object. In Greek the pronoun is an individual word. Due to the fact that the direct object με succeeds the verb ἐσπούδασεν in 16b, this case can no longer be considered an epiphora stricto sensu, especially since the translator did have the option of placing the pronoun before the verb (see, for example, 5:19; 6:9; 7:14; 8:10; 9:17.31.34; 10:2.9.11.18; 19:22; 22:11; 29:2; 33:7).23 The translator adhered to the word order of the Hebrew in rendering the verb with a suffix as a verb followed by a pronoun, but we have seen that the translator may place the pronoun before the verb (see chapter 4). In other words, if the translator wanted to, the colon-final position of the verb could have been maintained. A possible reason why the translator placed the pronoun after the verb might lie in the strict symmetrical structure of the cola of v. 16, namely subject (i.e., God)—verb—object (τὴν καρδίαν μου and με, referring to the speaker, that is, Job). While the repetition itself is retained, the rhetorical features seem to have changed in the process of translation. These cases are worth of being taken into consideration, since they do, from the viewpoint of the Greek text, attest to the use of a rhetorical feature differently but not independently from the Hebrew. They will, therefore, be included in the literary study and discussed in the sections which focus on features constituted by lexical repetitions. 1.3 Summary On the basis of the discussion in the previous chapter as well as in this section, I have been able to give a sense of the different ways in which the Greek translator of Job handles chiasm and symmetry. His approach is characterized by variation: he may imitate a parallel correspondence present in the Hebrew; he may eliminate the correspondence, a working method which fits in with the translator’s recurring tendency to add variation in the Greek vis-à-vis the Hebrew; or he may introduce a parallelism in the Greek independently from the Hebrew. Now that repetitions of word order in OG Job have been discussed,

23  Note that, as with the possessive pronoun vis-à-vis its governing noun, the translator varies the position of the pronoun vis-à-vis the verb when the objects in parallel cola in the Hebrew are expressed by a suffix pronoun (see, for example, Job 6:9; 7:14; 10:14; 14:13).

Rhetorical Features In The Greek Text Of Job

233

I move on to examine patterns of repetition of lexical items. Such repetitions often function within chiastic or symmetric cola. 2 Anadiplosis Job 3:24–25 πρὸ γὰρ τῶν σίτων μου στεναγμός μοι ἥκει, δακρύω δὲ ἐγὼ συνεχόμενος φόβῳ· φόβος γάρ, ὃν ἐφρόντισα, ἦλθέν μοι, καὶ ὃν ἐδεδοίκειν, συνήντησέν μοι. For sighing comes instead of my food, and I cry, gripped by fear. For fear—which was my worry—came to me, and the fear I dreaded befell me.

24 25

‫כי לפני לחמי אנחתי תבא‬ ‫ויתכו כמים ׁשאגתי‬ ‫כי פחד פחדתי ויאתיני‬ ‫ואׁשר יגרתי יבא לי‬

For my sighing comes like my bread, and my groanings are poured out like water. For the thing that I fear comes upon me, and what I dread befalls me.

The first colon of v. 24 can be described as an almost word-for-word translation of the Hebrew. The second stich, however, is a paraphrastic translation, in which there is no one-for-one relationship between the Hebrew and the Greek. The rendering of the first colon of v. 25 is again word-for-word. At the beginning of the first colon of v. 25, φόβος is repeated as a rendering of ‫פחד‬, thus creating an anadiplosis. One could speculate that the translator wanted to compensate for the fact that the Hebrew used the cognates ‫ פחד‬as a noun and a verb in 25a, which was not rendered as such in the Greek. The hypothesis that the translator could have opted to render the verb ‫ פחד‬as φοβέω and consequently reflect the repetition of the root in his translation needs to be nuanced. ‫ פחד‬is rendered quite consistently in Job as φόβος (see Job 3:25; 13:11; 15:21; 21:9; 22:10; 23:15; 25:2; 31:23; 39:16—the only exceptions being 4:14 [φρίκη “shivering fear”] and 39:22a [not rendered24]). In the book of Job φοβέω is only used to render the verb ‫“ ירא‬to fear” (Job 5:21.22; 6:21; 9:35; 11:15; 32:6; 37:24). The qal of ‫ פחד‬occurs twice in Job, rendered each time as φροντίζω (3:25; 23:15). That an anadiplosis in the Greek would, in fact, compensate for an elimination of the loss of the use of cognates in the Hebrew text is, therefore, difficult to prove. In addition, the anadiplosis in the Greek text has a function of its own. 24  OG 39:22a presents a rendering of ‫ לקראת נׁשק‬in 21b and ‫ יׂשחק‬in 22a, leaving the rest of 22a (‫ )לפחד ולא יחת‬without an equivalent.

234

chapter 7

The repetition of φόβος gives continuity to the thoughts expressed. The Greek version of 24b anticipates the next verse,25 and the repetition functions within that framework. 25a becomes a qualification of the fear that has gripped Job in 24b: what Job feared would happen, has happened to him. Since OG 25a is a straightforward rendering of the Hebrew, the question is why the Greek of 24b is different from the Hebrew. Contemporary commentators do not see the need for any text-critical alterations of the Hebrew.26 There does not seem to be any additional explanations for the Greek translation except for a stylistic one. Job 3:25–26 φόβος γάρ, ὃν ἐφρόντισα, ἦλθέν μοι, 25 καὶ ὃν ἐδεδοίκειν, συνήντησέν μοι. οὔτε εἰρήνευσα οὔτε ἡσύχασα οὔτε ἀνεπαυσάμην, 26 ἦλθεν δέ μοι ὀργή. For fear—which was my worry—came to me and the fear I dreaded befell me. I was neither at peace, nor did I have quiet, nor was I at rest, but anger came to me.

‫כי פחד פחדתי ויאתיני‬ ‫ואׁשר יגרתי יבא לי‬ ‫לא ׁשלותי ולא ׁשקטתי‬ ‫ולא נחתי ויבא רגז‬

Truly the thing that I fear comes upon me, and what I dread befalls me. I am not at ease, nor am I quiet; I have no rest; but trouble comes.

The Hebrew has a repetition of its own (‫ בוא‬in 25b and 26b), which is not reflected in the Greek due to variatio. The repetition in the Greek text, in turn, does not reflect a similar feature in the Hebrew: we encounter an anadiplosis of ἦλθέν μοι in 25a and 26b. In this case, the repetition seems to underlie the chiastic structure of 25a and 26b. The rendering ‫—בוא‬ἔρχομαι is common (HR), but ‫—אתה‬ἔρχομαι is not. In Job, ‫ אתה‬occurs four times, its renderings being different each time. Aside from 3:25, it occurs in 16:22 (rendered ἥκω “to have come”); 30:14 (κατακοντίζω “to shoot down”); 37:22 (‫“ זהב יאתה‬golden splendor comes”—νέφη χρυσαυγοῦντα “clouds shining like gold”).27 It seems that the rendering of this verb is based on the broader context each time, rather than on the basic meaning of the verb itself. In 3:25, then, the rendering seems to 25  Dhorme, Job, 40. 26  See, for example, Clines, Job, 75; Dhorme, Job, 39–40; Gordis, Job, 39; Gray, Job, 147; Habel, Job, 102; Rowley, Job, 44; Seow, Job 1–21, 371–73. 27  Outside of Job, ‫ אתה‬occurs twenty times. Its renderings vary, but ‫—אתה‬ἔρχομαι occurs only in Isa 41:5 (compare also ἐπέρχομαι in Isa 41:23; 44:7; 45:11) and Jer 12:9.

Rhetorical Features In The Greek Text Of Job

235

have been influenced by the anadiplosis. Whereas the anadiplosis of 3:24–25 ensured continuity, in 3:25–26 it seems to serve a different purpose, namely one of contrast. Owing to the repetition, the transition from fear to anger seems emphasized. Job 5:8 οὐ μὴν δὲ ἀλλὰ ἐγὼ δεηθήσομαι κυρίου, κύριον δὲ τὸν πάντων δεσπότην ἐπικαλέσομαι. Nonetheless, I will entreat the Lord, and I will call on the Lord, the master of all.

‫אולם אני אדרׁש אל אל‬ ‫ואל אלהים אׂשים דברתי‬

As for me, I would seek God, and to God I would commit my cause.

In the Hebrew text, 5:8 represents an example that is similar to Job 8:5. It features a chiasmus (AB/B’A’), with B/B’ being a prepositional phrase introduced by ‫אל‬, twice governing a different divine name (‫ אל‬and ‫)אלהים‬. In 8:5, the Greek rendering is paraphrastic, resulting in a monocolon, perhaps in order to avoid the semantic repetition of the near-synonymous parallelism. The Greek rendering of 5:8, however, reflects the bicolonic structure of the Hebrew. It features an anadiplosis, not constituted by the repetition of the preposition—the function of the preposition in the Hebrew text is reflected in the use of cases in the Greek—but by repetition of the title used to refer to God, namely κύριος. In the MT we encounter a variety of divine names: the tetragrammaton, El, Eloah, Elohim, and Shaddai.28 In OG Job, however, God is referred to by only three different names. The most common is κύριος, which generally renders El, Eloah, or Elohim, thus occurring about one hundred times in the text. The two other divine titles used in OG Job are θεός (thirteen times29) and παντοκράτωρ (sixteen times, see below). The majority of references to God in the Greek are thus located in the same semantic sphere.30 What is comparable about this case and the first anadiplosis discussed in this section, Job 3:24–25, is that the repetition in the second colon of Job 5:8 28  Dhorme, Job, lxv–lxxii, thinks that the alternation between the divine titles in the Hebrew is mainly stylistic. Jean Lévêque, Job et son dieu: Essai d’exégèse et de théologie biblique (Paris: Gabalda, 1970), 173–78 even goes as far as saying that the names are interchangeable. Mangin, “Le texte court,” 40–41, however, argues that the use of different titles in the Hebrew text should be interpreted as a guide for the ancient reader in the context of a newly developing monotheism. 29  Job 1:5.6.9.22; 2:1.10; 3:23; 6:10; 28:23; 29:2.4; 34:27; 37:15. 30  See Cox, “Job,” 394; Mangin, “Le texte court,” 46–60.

236

chapter 7

introduces a qualification,31 the apposition τὸν πάντων δεσπότην, which represents a plus in the Greek text. Another similar example, also relating to the use of the divine name, is found in the next anadiplosis in 15:25. Job 15:25 ὅτι ἦρκεν χεῖρας ἐναντίον τοῦ κυρίου, ἔναντι δὲ κυρίου παντοκράτορος ἐτραχηλίασεν.

‫כי נטה אל אל ידו‬ ‫ואל ׁשדי יתגבר‬

Because he lifted his hands against the Lord Because they stretched out their hands against God, and stiffened his neck against the Lord and bid defiance to the Almighty. Almighty.

The Hebrew is partially chiastic (verb—prepositional phrase—object / prepositional phrase—object). The prepositional phrase, here like in 5:8, is introduced by a repeated ‫ אל‬followed by a title referring to God.32 In the Greek translation of this verse, the repetition of the preposition is varied regarding its form (ἐναντίον versus ἔναντι). The divine name, which is differentiated in the Hebrew text (‫ אל‬versus ‫)ׁשדי‬, is rendered twice as κύριος. In the second instance it is followed by the apposition παντοκράτωρ. As a whole, κυρίου παντοκράτορος for ‫ ׁשדי‬could perhaps be seen as a double translation,33 introduced for the sake of variety in parallel cola, as in 5:8. Alternatively, the translator might not have read ‫ אל‬as a preposition, which is unlikely given the presence of ἔναντι, or it might have been a case of dittography, with the translator reading ‫אל‬ twice, first as a preposition, then as the divine name. The word order in the colon, however, is different in the Greek text, which results in a stricter chiasm (verb + object—prepositional phrase / prepositional phrase—intransitive verb). Consequently, the prepositional phrases are placed in such a way that the Greek translation introduces an anadiplosis.34 In 5:8 and 15:25, the semantic relation between the parallel cola is one of near-synonymity, structured as a partial chiasm. The repeated element pertains to a divine title, but in the second colon, the mention of God includes a qualification referring to his omnipotence.

31  Alonso Schökel, A Manual of Hebrew Poetics, 78 recognizes this feature in Hebrew. 32  Compare also the Hebrew of Job 8:5, the OG rendering of which is paraphrastic. 33  For the phenomenon of double translation in Job, see Dhont, “Double Translation,” 475–90. 34  See also the following colon, 15:26a: ἔδραμεν δὲ ἐναντίον αὐτοῦ ὕβρει “and he ran against him with insolence,” where the preposition ἐναντίον is repeated mid-sentence, translating ‫אל‬.

Rhetorical Features In The Greek Text Of Job

237

We may at this point briefly consider the use of the title παντοκράτωρ “omni­ potent,” which is used sixteen times in OG Job,35 often rendering ‫ׁשדי‬.36 This title occurs sporadically in the Greek-speaking world as a title for Hermes (Epigr.gr. 815) or Zeus (P.Oxy. XVIII 2164, attributed to Aeschylus).37 παντοκράτωρ does not appear in the Pentateuch, but is used as an equivalent to ‫ צבאות‬in the expression “Lord of Hosts,” mainly in the books of Samuel and the Prophets. The tradition of God as the omnipotent has received a significant place in OG Job, comparable to the notion of God as τὸν πάντων δεσπότην in 5:8 above. The use of παντοκράτωρ in OG Job could indicate that Job was translated in a theological context in which παντοκράτωρ was a known title for God. This suggests that OG Job may have been translated after books such as Samuel and the Prophets (or at least some of them), translations which would have institutionalized παντοκράτωρ as a common title for God. Job 23:8–10 εἰς γὰρ πρῶτα πορεύσομαι καὶ οὐκέτι εἰμί· τὰ δὲ ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτοις τί οἶδα;

οἶδεν γὰρ ἤδη ὁδόν μου, διέκρινεν δέ με ὥσπερ τὸ χρυσίον. For I will go first and be no more, and what do I know about things at the end?

For he already knows my way and has discerningly judged me like gold.

8 9 10

‫הן קדם אהלך ואיננו‬ ‫ואחור ולא אבין לו‬ ‫ׂשמאול בעׂשתו ולא אחז‬ ‫יעטף ימין ולא אראה‬ ‫כי ידע דרך עמדי‬ ‫בחנני כזהב אצא‬

If I go forward, he is not there; or backward, I cannot perceive him; on the left he hides, and I cannot behold him; I turn to the right, but I cannot see him. But he knows the way that I take; when he has tested me, I shall come out like gold.

35  Job 5:17; 8:5; 11:7; 15:25; 22:17.25; 23:16; 27:2.11.13; 32:8; 33:4; 34:10.12; 35:13; 37:22. 36   ‫ ׁשדי‬is, however, rendered as κύριος in about half of the cases. See the remarks of Herbert Niehr and G. Steins, “‫ׁשדי‬,” in TDOT 14 (2004), 418–46, 445–46, as well as the excursus on the translation of ‫ ׁשדי‬in Cox, Iob, s.v. 5:17. 37  Evangelia G. Dafni, “Παντοκράτωρ in Septuaginta-Amos 4,13: Zur Theologie des Sprache der Septuaginta,” in The Septuagint and Messianism (ed. Michael A. Knibb; BETL 195; Leuven, Peeters, 2006), 443–54.

238

chapter 7

With v. 9 being asterisked material, it is necessary to regard vv. 8 and 10 as consecutive in the Greek text. Cola 8b and 10a are structured chiastically. The translator has interpreted ‫ קדם‬and ‫ ואחור‬in v. 8 as temporal rather than spatial references. Consequently, the mention of “left” and “right” in v. 9 no longer fits the context.38 The Hebrew text does not contain any lexical repetition. The Greek, however, features an anadiplosis. In v. 8 εἰδεῖν/εἰδέναι renders ‫ ;בין‬in v. 10 the same verb renders ‫ידע‬. εἰδεῖν/εἰδέναι is particularly frequent in OG Job, with forty-nine occurrences. Its most common base word is ‫ ;ידע‬only in four instances does εἰδεῖν/εἰδέναι render ‫( בין‬Job 23:8; 26:14; 32:9; 42:2). The Hebrew verb ‫ בין‬occurs thirty times in Job and is rendered in a varied way in the OG,39 indicating that in Job 23:8–10 is an example of the translator introducing this repetition in an instance where he could have opted not to. The same verb first has Job as the subject (in chapter 23 Job is speaking so the I-person refers to Job himself), then God. By repeating the verb, the fact that Job does not know that which God does, namely Job’s future path, appears to be contrasted. Job 23:11–12 ἐξελεύσομαι δὲ ἐν ἐντάλμασιν αὐτοῦ· ὁδοὺς γὰρ αὐτοῦ ἐφύλαξα καὶ οὐ μὴ ἐκκλίνω. ἀπὸ ἐνταλμάτων αὐτοῦ καὶ οὐ μὴ παρέλθω, ἐν δὲ κόλπῳ μου ἔκρυψα ῥήματα αὐτοῦ. But I will go forth according to his commands, for I have kept his ways and I will never turn aside. Nor shall I go away from what he commands, but I have treasured his words in my bosom.

11

‫באׁשרו אחזה רגלי‬ ‫דרכו ׁשמרתי ולא אט‬

12

‫מצות ׂשפתיו ולא אמיׁש‬ ‫מחקי צפנתי אמרי פיו‬

My foot has held fast to his steps; I have kept his way and have not turned aside. I have not departed from the commandment of his lips; I have treasured in my bosom the words of his mouth.

38  Gorea, Job repensé, 86. 39  The Greek translator of Job has rendered the verb differently in most cases, e.g., φράζω “to explain” (6:24); γινώσκω “to know” (9:11); ἀκούω “to listen” (13:1); ἐπίσταμαι “to know” (14:21; 38:20); συνίημι “to understand” (15:9; 32:12: 36:29); ἐπέχω “to notice” (18:2); αἰσθάνομαι “to perceive” (23:5); φροντίζω “to consider” (23:15); συνίστημι “to order” (28:23); διδάσκω “to teach” (32:8); νουθετέω “to warn” (37:14; 38:18).

Rhetorical Features In The Greek Text Of Job

239

Whereas the Hebrew text does not display any repetition, the Greek features an anadiplosis of the noun ἔνταλμα at the end of 11a and the beginning of 12a. This noun occurs only four times in the LXX, twice in Job (i.e., only in the present verses) and twice in Isaiah. In Job 23:12 and Isa 29:13 ἔνταλμα renders ‫מצוה‬. As for Isa 55:11, HR marks the noun with a dagger. In Job 23:11 it renders ‫אׁשור‬. In the Hebrew text of Job, ‫ אׁשור‬occurs twice—the second instance being in 31:7 (where it is translated as πούς, a unique rendering in the LXX [HR]40)—and ‫ מצוה‬occurs only once. Outside the book of Job, ‫ מצוה‬occurs over one hundred sixty times and is primarily rendered using the cognate noun ἐντολή (HR). The LXX contains the earliest extant attestation of ἔνταλμα, which is used frequently in the New Testament and by Christian commentators. It is an aspect of the literary characteristics of OG Job to resort to less commonly used vocabulary (see also chapter 5).41 With ‫ אׁשור‬and ‫ מצוה‬having distinct meanings (“step” versus “order”), ἔνταλμα reflects more closely the meaning of ‫ מצוה‬than that of ‫אׁשור‬. One could speculate that the translator did not know the exact meaning of ‫אׁשור‬.42 In any case, an anadiplosis has been introduced. In 11a ‫ רגלי‬is left untranslated, ἐξέρχομαι is rendered as ‫אחז‬,43 and ‫ אׁשור‬as ἔνταλμα. Thus the metaphor present in the Hebrew in 11a is changed altogether. Moreover, by altering the word order, 11a and 12a are made chiastic (verb—prepositional phrase / prepositional phrase—verb). ‫ ׂשפתיו‬in 12a is a minus in the Greek. As a result, 11a and 12a are linked together and correspond more closely with regard to meaning and form than in the Hebrew. Whereas in the Hebrew text v. 10 pertains to keeping the Lord’s ways and v. 11 to keeping the Lord’s words, in the OG, v. 11 represents a repetition of v. 10, as both verses refer to the Lord’s words.

40  Outside the book of Job, ‫( אׁשור‬meaning “step”) occurs only in the Psalter (MT Ps 17:5; 17:11; 37:31; 40:3; 44:19; 73:2), rendered as διάβημα (LXX Ps 16:5; 36:31; 39:3; 72:2), ἐκβάλλω (LXX Ps 16:11), and τρίβος (LXX Ps 43:19). 41  Cox, Iob, s.v. 23:11. 42  If one indeed assumes that the translator indeed not know this word, the renderings in 23:11 and 31:7 can both be explained as deriving from contextual understanding. With regard to the equivalence of ‫—אׁשור‬πούς in 31:7, one observes that within OG Job every occurrence of πούς is a rendering of ‫( רגל‬see Job 2:7; 13:27bis; 18:8.11; 29:15; 31:5; 33:11; 39:15) except in 18:13 (HR: dagger) and in 31:7. With regard to the latter, 7a mentions “deviating from one’s path” (‫)אם תטה אׁשרי מני הדרך‬. The metaphor would then have guided the translator to translate the unknown ‫ אׁשור‬as πούς (note that the word πούς occurs also in 31:5 and might have still been in the back of the translator’s mind). With regard to 23:11, the context explaining the rendering would then be stylistic. 43  Note that ἔρχομαι occurs as rendering of ‫ אחז‬in Job 18:9.

240

chapter 7

I would argue for a slightly different interpretation of these verses than the one presented in the NETS translation. In the Hebrew, ‫ מצות ׂשפתיו‬is interpreted as a casus pendens or an emendation is suggested to eliminate the ‫ ו‬in ‫ולא‬.44 One could also think of the possibility of an ellipse of ‫ ׁשמרתי‬in 12a. Whereas the word order of the Hebrew is reflected in the Greek, the syntax of the Greek is slightly different and makes sense in and of itself. ἀπὸ ἐνταλμάτων αὐτοῦ in 12a could be taken as a prepositional complement to οὐ μὴ ἐκκλίνω in 11b (thus constituting an enjambment if one retains the versification), rather than as the start of a new sentence. Consequently, 11a provides an introductory statement which is explained by what follows in 11b–12a. Cola 11b and 12a are tied to 11a by means of the particle γάρ. These two cola in turn consist of a tripartite structure, the elements of which are coordinated using καί: ὁδοὺς γὰρ αὐτοῦ ἐφύλαξα / καὶ οὐ μὴ ἐκκλίνω ἀπὸ ἐνταλμάτων αὐτοῦ / καὶ οὐ μὴ παρέλθω “for I have kept his ways and I would not turn away from his commands and I would not turn aside.” Colon 12b then closes this unit as is marked by the use of a different particle δέ. The use of the repetition of ἔνταλμα tightly links the introductory colon (11a) to the qualification presented by 11b–12a. Job 34:34–35 διὸ συνετοὶ καρδίας ἐροῦσιν ταῦτα, ἀνὴρ δὲ σοφὸς ἀκήκοέν μου τὸ ῥῆμα. Ἰὼβ δὲ οὐκ ἐν συνέσει ἐλάλησεν, τὰ δὲ ῥήματα αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἐν ἐπιστήμῃ. So, the intelligent of heart will say these things, and a wise man will have heard my word. But Iob did not speak with intelligence, and his words were without knowledge.

34

‫אנׁשי לבב יאמרו לי‬ ‫וגבר חכם ׁשמע לי‬ ‫איוב לא בדעת ידבר‬ ‫ודבריו לא בהׂשכיל‬

35

Those who have sense will say to me, and the wise who hear me will say, “Job speaks without knowledge, his words are without insight.”

The repetition of the root ‫ דבר‬in 35a and 35b is not reflected in the OG: the Greek translator uses the verb λαλέω in the first colon of v. 35 and the noun ῥῆμα in the second colon. Both are common equivalents in OG Job (HR). The Greek translator seems to have introduced a repetition of his own, however, by using ῥῆμα already in 34c, resulting in a construction “to my word” rather than the Hebrew “to me” (‫)לי‬. This anadiplosis, too, presents a qualification. 44  For an overview and discussion, see Clines, Job, 579.

Rhetorical Features In The Greek Text Of Job

241

The wise man will hear Job’s word (34b), but it is explained in 35b that his words had not been spoken in wisdom. 3 Anaphora Job 38:9–10 ἐθέμην δὲ αὐτῇ νέφος ἀμφίασιν, ὁμίχλῃ δὲ αὐτὴν ἐσπαργάνωσα· ἐθέμην δὲ αὐτῇ ὅρια περιθεὶς κλεῖθρα καὶ πύλας. and I made the cloud its clothing, and with mist I swaddled it; yes, I prescribed bounds for it, setting bars and gates around it.

 9 10

‫בשׂ ומי ענן לבׁשו‬ ‫וערפל חתלתו‬ ‫ואׁשבר עליו חקי‬ ‫ואשׂ ים בריח ודלתים‬

When I made the clouds its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band, and prescribed bounds for it, and set bars and doors.

The Hebrew features a repetition of ‫ ׂשים‬at the beginning of 9a and 10b. The Greek does not reflect this repetition in the translation, even though the translator could have easily chosen to do so. Instead, he uses τίθημι in 9a and the cognate composite περιτίθημι in 10b. He does, however, include a repetition of his own. OG 38:9–10 repeats the phrase ἐθέμην δὲ αὐτῇ at the beginning of v. 9a and v. 10b. It is possible that the translator has resorted to the use of this repetition in order to make sense of the Hebrew, if we assume that the translator would have had the same interpretative problems as modern commentators have, since the meaning of ‫ ׁשבר‬in 10a has led to discussion because it is considered to be unclear. Some scholars have offered a variety of different emendations, often in order to arrive at the meaning reflected in the Greek.45 Others have argued that ‫ ׁשבר‬could develop the connotation of “to decree, decide”46 or have suggested a different verb ‫“ ׁשבר‬to span.”47 In any case, the translator’s way of handling repetition in this case is not unique. OG 38:9–10 is comparable to the repetitions of ‫( בוא‬not reflected in the Greek as a result of variatio) and 45  Beer, Hiob, 237; Driver and Gray, Job, 300; Fohrer, Hiob, 491; Rowley, Job, 242. A transposition of the verbs of the cola of v. 10 has been proposed by Dhorme, Job, 578–79. See also the overview presented by Clines, Job, 1054–55. 46  Gordis, Job, 444. See also Habel, Job, 521; Alonso Schökel and Sicre Diaz, Job, 546. 47  Clines, Job, 1055.

242

chapter 7

ἦλθέν μοι (anadiplosis introduced by the translator) in Job 3:25–26, which has been discussed earlier. Job 41:19–20 ἥγηται μὲν γὰρ σίδηρον ἄχυρα, χαλκὸν δὲ ὥσπερ ξύλον σαθρόν· οὐ μὴ τρώσῃ αὐτὸν τόξον χάλκειον, ἥγηται μὲν πετροβόλον χόρτον. Or it regards iron as chaff and bronze as rotten wood. A bronze bow will never wound it; it regards a catapult as grass.

19 20

‫יחׁשב לתבן ברזל‬ ‫לעץ רקבון נחוׁשה‬ ‫לא יבריחנו בן קׁשת‬ ‫לקׁש נהפכו לו אבני קלע‬

It counts iron as straw, and bronze as rotten wood. The arrow cannot make it flee; sling stones, for it, are turned to chaff.

In the Hebrew text, one encounters a partially symmetrical construction of 19a and 19b (ABC/B’C’). These cola are semantically parallel. Moreover, there is a correspondence between 19a, 19b, and 20b: in all three cola it is stated that X is but Y for Leviathan. There are no lexical repetitions. In the Greek translation of v. 19, the translator’s striving towards natural Greek usage could explain the difference in word order. In the rendering of σίδηρον ἄχυρα for ‫ לתבן ברזל‬we can observe that the translator puts the object first, since there is no article to distinguish between object and predicate. In the second colon, 19b, the translator adds ὥσπερ before the second part of the complement. The construction ἡγέομαι X ὥσπερ Y (“considering X as Y”) occurs several times in OG Job, but is not natural Greek (see chapter 4). While leaving ‫ לו‬untranslated, the translator renders the preposition ‫ כ‬as ὥσπερ, even though this is unnecessary in Greek. The basic meaning of the verse, however, remains unchanged. The rendering of v. 20, in turn, deviates from the Hebrew with regard to its meaning. The Greek version of the first colon has been influenced by 20:24.48 With regard to the second colon of v. 20, one observes a repetition of ἥγηται μέν, which had introduced v. 19.49 As such, the correspondence in meaning between 19a, 19b, and 20b is made formally explicit on the basis of a symmetrical 48  Cox, Iob, s.v. 41:20; Heater, Septuagint Translation Technique, 129. Even though the Hebrew text of both verses is different, ‫ ברח‬and ‫ קׁשת‬occur in both instances. 49  If ‫ הפך‬is to be seen as its equivalent, the rendering is unique. In Job ‫ הפך‬is most often rendered with στρέφω or a composite thereof, see Job 9:5; 12:15; 28:9; 30:15. In the niphal, it is rendered as στρέφω in 28:5 and as ἐπιβαίνω in 30:21.

Rhetorical Features In The Greek Text Of Job

243

arrangement—19a and 20b are strictly symmetrical in the Greek, due to a change in word order in 20b—and an additional anaphora of ἥγηται μέν. The deviations in the rendering of v. 20 can all be explained on the basis of influence by other elements of OG Job, whether in direct proximity (41:19) or not (20:24). 4 Epiphora Job 4:7 μνήσθητι οὖν τίς καθαρὸς ὢν ἀπώλετο ἢ πότε ἀληθινοὶ ὁλόρριζοι ἀπώλοντο. Think now, who, being pure, perished, or when did the true perish root and all?

‫זכר נא מי הוא נקי אבד‬ ‫ואיפה יׁשרים נכחדו‬

Think now, who that was innocent ever perished? Or where were the upright cut off?

The Hebrew text features a parallel construction, both in meaning and in form. Both cola in the Hebrew text end with two different verbs, ‫ אבד‬and ‫כחד‬. The word order of the Hebrew is reflected in the Greek translation, but it contains a repetition that the Hebrew does not, namely of ἀπόλλυμι. In the LXX ἀπόλλυμι is more often used to render ‫אבד‬,50 but it is unique for ‫כחד‬.51 The verbal forms in Greek reflects those of the Hebrew (third person, respectively singular and plural). If the translator has indeed interpreted ‫ אבד‬and ‫ כחד‬as semantically closely related, but wanted to avoid a lexical repetition, he could have used a synonym for ἀπόλλυμι, such as τελευτάω (used, for example, in 1:19; 2:9; 3:11; 12:2; 14:8.10; 21:25; 27:15; 34:15; 42:17), but opted for a repetition. The use of ὁλόρριζοι is a plus. ὁλόρριζοι ἀπώλοντο has been seen as an elaboration of‫ נכחדו‬.52 The word ὁλόρριζοι occurs only twice in the LXX. The other instance is Prov 15:6, where the expression appears in quite a similar construction as in

50  For OG Job, this rendering occurs in eleven out of fifteen cases. See Job 3:3; 4:7.9.20; 6:18; 8:13; 12:23; 18:17; 20:7; 29:13; 31:19 (compare also ὄλλυμι in 4:11). Twice ‫ אבד‬occurs in a colon that is part of the asterisked material in the Greek. 51  Other renderings of ‫ כחד‬in OG Job are: ψεύδομαι “to lie” in 6:10; κρύπτω “to hide” in 15:18; 27:11; ἔρημος “desolate” in 15:28; ἀφανίζω “to hide” in 22:20. The seventh occurrence of ‫כחד‬ in 20:12 is part of a colon that is not rendered in the OG. 52  Seow, Job 1–21, 396.

244

chapter 7

Job 4:7b.53 These books are known for their similarity in translation technique and style, and may have originated in a similar context, which means that it is difficult to argue in favor of any dependency of OG Job on Greek Proverbs or vice versa. ὁλόρριζοι (ἀπ)όλλυμι is unique to these books in the whole corpus of Greek texts. It seems that the translator of Job might have added ὁλόρριζοι in the second colon of 4:7 to create a subtle play between repetition (ἀπόλλυμι) and variation (ὁλόρριζοι ἀπώλοντο).54 Additionally, the use of ὁλόρριζοι allows for an increase in balance between both cola in the Greek. Job 18:8–9 ἐμβέβληται δὲ ὁ ποὺς αὐτοῦ ἐν παγίδι· ἐν δικτύῳ ἑλιχθείη. ἔλθοισαν δὲ ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸν παγίδες.

But his foot has been thrust into a snare; may he be entangled in a net, and may snares come upon him!

8 9

‫כי ׁשלח ברׁשת ברגליו‬ ‫ועל ׂשבכה יתהלך‬ ‫יאחז בעקב פח‬ ‫יחזק עליו צמים‬

For they are thrust into a net by their own feet, and they walk into a pitfall. A trap seizes them by the heel; a snare lays hold of them.

The Hebrew does not feature a lexical repetition of any kind. The Greek, however, does, with παγίς occurring at the end of the first colon of v. 8 and at the

53  The Hebrew and Greek texts of Prov 15:6, and their translations, are as follows: ἐν πλεοναζούσῃ δικαιοσύνῃ ἰσχὺς πολλή, ‫בית צדיק חסן רב‬ οἱ δὲ ἀσεβεῖς ὁλόρριζοι ἐκ γῆς ὀλοῦνται. ‫ובתבואת רׁשע נעכרת‬ οἴκοις δικαίων ἰσχὺς πολλή, καρποὶ δὲ ἀσεβῶν ἀπολοῦνται. In abounding righteousness is great In the house of the righteous there is much strength, treasure, but the impious will be removed root but trouble befalls the income of the wicked. and branch from the earth. In the homes of the righteous there is much strength, but the fruits of the impious will perish. According to D’Hamonville, Les Proverbes, 248, these cola (ab versus cd) represent a double translation of the MT, with cd being a “literal” rendering. 54  See also Cox, Iob, s.v. 4:7.

Rhetorical Features In The Greek Text Of Job

245

end of (the first colon of) v. 9. In the first instance, παγίς renders ‫רׁשת‬. OG 9a, however, appears to be the equivalent of MT 9b rather than 9a.55 Thus, in 9a, παγίδες (plural) seemingly renders ‫ צמים‬in MT 9b, rather than ‫ פח‬in MT 9a. The lexical choices of the translator are intricate. In the HB, ‫ רׁשת‬and ‫ פח‬occur as a word pair in Hos 5:1 and Ps 140:6. In Hos 5:1 the translation varies: ‫—פח‬παγίς and ‫—רׁשת‬δίκτυον. In Ps 139(140):6 both Hebrew words are rendered as παγίς.56 The rendering of δίκτυον for ‫ ׂשבכה‬is rather frequent in the LXX.57 ‫ צמים‬only occurs in Job.58 It has been interpreted as derived from ‫“ צמה‬a trapping device.”59 The repetition of παγίς could perhaps have been coincidental, but one can additionally observe a change in word order in the Greek in 8a, since ‫ רׁשת‬does not occur at the end of the colon in the Hebrew. This hints at a stylistically motivated deviation, since no purely linguistic reason seems to explain the change in word order. Similarly as in Job 23:15–16, discussed earlier, it seems that the change of word order might be related to the chiastic pattern of 8a and 8b rather than to the epiphora of 8a and 9a. The epiphora appears to be secondary. Job 36:23–2460 τίς δέ ἐστιν ὁ ἐτάζων αὐτοῦ τὰ ἔργα; ἢ τίς ὁ εἴπας Ἔπραξεν ἄδικα; μνήσθητι ὅτι μεγάλα ἐστὶν αὐτοῦ τὰ ἔργα.

23 24

‫מי פקד עליו דרכו‬ ‫ומי אמר פעלת עולה‬ ‫זכר כי תׂשגיא פעלו‬ ‫אׁשר ׁשררו אנׁשים‬

55  Cox, Iob, s.v. 18:9; Dhorme, Job, 261–62; Fohrer, Hiob, 297. 56  The Greek παγίς for ‫ פח‬occurs twenty-four times in the LXX, but for ‫ רׁשת‬only eight times, of which only in the book of Job (once) and in the Psalter (seven times). It is a rather consistent rendering; only once is ‫ רׁשת‬rendered differently, namely in Ps 34(35):8, as θήρα (HR). 57  See 3 Kgdms 7:5.27.28; 2 Chr 4:12.13; Jer 52:22.23. The other most frequent underlying Hebrew word is ‫ ;רׁשת‬see Prov 1:17; 29:5; Hos 5:1; 7:12; Ezek 12:13; 17:20; 19:8; 32:3. 58  The other occurrence, in 5:5, does not have a clear equivalent in the Greek. 59  Dhorme, Job, 262; Pope, Job, 125; Seow, Job 1–21, 783. See also Karl G. Kuhn, Konkordanz zum den Qumrantexten (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960), 187 (followed by HALOT). 60  4QJoba contains a few variants: it reads ‫ פעלתה‬instead of ‫ פעלת‬in 23b, ‫ יאמר‬instead of ‫ אמר‬in 23b, and does represent the letters ‫ תׂשג‬in 24a but the ‫ ת‬has been erased. In any case, the repetition of the root ‫ פעל‬is reflected in the manuscript. The Greek seems to correspond to 4QJoba in representing the adjective ‫ ׂשגיא‬rather than a second person singular verb (see Ulrich and Metso, “Job,” 176), in which case the translator did supply the copula ἐστιν (on the use of the copula in OG Job, see chapter 4).

246 And who is it that examines his works, or who is it that states, “He has done injustice?” Remember that his works are great.

chapter 7 Who has prescribed for him his way, or who can say, “You have done wrong?” Remember to extol his work, of which mortals have sung.

The word order of the Hebrew is in both cola reflected in the Greek. In Hebrew, the root ‫ פעל‬is repeated, first as a verb (23b), then as a noun (24a). This use of cognates is not reflected in the OG because of the equivalence ‫—פעלת‬ἔπραξεν (see also Job 7:20 and 35:6). The Greek does feature a repetition of its own, namely αὐτοῦ τὰ ἔργα. In 24a, it renders ‫פעלו‬, and in 23a, ‫דרכו‬. The noun ‫פעל‬ is the base word for ἔργον in OG Job in 36:9 and 36:24,61 and ‫ דרך‬in 34:21 and 36:23. Both have, however, other possible renderings in OG Job,62 which could indicate that the repetition of this word in 36:24–25 was introduced by the translator. 5 Parenthesis Job 13:17 ἀκούσατε ἀκούσατε τὰ ῥήματά μου· ἀναγγελῶ γὰρ ὑμῶν ἀκουόντων. Hear, hear my words, for I will declare, while you listen.

‫ׁשמעו ׁשמוע מלתי‬ ‫ואחותי באזניכם‬

Listen carefully to my words, and let my declaration be in your ears.

The Hebrew text displays a paronomastic construction, ‫ׁשמעו ׁשמוע‬, rendered as a repetition of ἀκούσατε,63 but no other elements of lexical repetition. In contrast, the Greek features a repetition by using the verb ἀκούω a third time, at the end of the verse. The nominal phrase ‫אחותי באזניכם‬, paratactically linked to 17a, is rendered as an explanatory clause (γάρ). Whereas the equivalence

61  See also the verb ‫ פעל‬being rendered as ἔργον in 36:3. 62  The most common rendering of ‫ דרך‬is ὁδός (e.g., Job 4:6; 12:24; 17:9). ‫ פעל‬is rendered differently in each case (Job 7:2; 24:5; 34:11; 36:24). 63  On the rendering of paronomastic constructions in OG Job, see chapter 4.

247

Rhetorical Features In The Greek Text Of Job

between the Hebrew and the Greek seems clear (‫—אחותי‬ἀναγγελῶ and ‫—באזניכם‬ὑμῶν ἀκουόντων), the syntax is different. A nominal phrase consisting of a subject and a prepositional phrase is rendered as a verbal phrase (ἀναγγελῶ) and a genitive absolute (ὑμῶν ἀκουόντων). It is likely that the translator read ‫ אחותי‬as a verb (ἀναγγελῶ occurs as the rendering of ‫ חוה‬in the sense of “to declare” in 15:17; 32:6.1064), and ‫ באזניכם‬perhaps as a verbal form. Note that in Job 15:21, however, ‫ באזניו‬is rendered as ἐν ὠσίν.65 Moreover, the rendering of the root ‫ אזן‬with ἀκούω is unique in OG Job (HR).66 ἀκούω and ἀναγγέλλω do occur in each other’s proximity, most notably in pairs such as in Ps 43(44):1; Isa 40:21; Jer 4:5.67 As such, a parenthesis is introduced in the Greek rendering of 13:17. Job 15:17 ἀναγγελῶ δέ σοι, ἄκουέ μου· ἃ δὴ ἑώρακα, ἀναγγελῶ σοι.

‫אחוך ׁשמע לי‬ ‫וזה חזיתי ואספרה‬

But I will declare to you; hear me; I will show you; listen to me; indeed, what I have seen I will declare to you. what I have seen I will declare.

The Hebrew does not feature any repetition, while the Greek renders both ‫ אחוך‬and ‫ ואספרה‬as ἀναγγελῶ σοι. In OG Job, ἀναγγέλλω is used fifteen times for several different Hebrew words,68 rendering ‫ חוה‬in two other instances (see 32:6.10),69 but ‫ ספר‬only here. The piel of ‫ ספר‬is rendered a few times as ἀναγγέλλω only in the Psalter (see 43[44]:1; 95[96]:3; 101[102]:21). Both of the verses discussed in this section on parenthesis, 13:17 and 15:17, pertain to a 64  The verb ‫ חוה‬in the sense of “to declare” occurs only twice more in Job. In 1:20 ‫ חוה‬is rendered as εἶπον and in 36:2 as διδάσκω. 65  In Job 28:22, ‫ באזנינו‬does not have an equivalent. 66  The verb ‫ אזן‬occurs six times in Job, namely in 9:16 (εἰσακούω “to hearken”); 32:11 (no onefor-one equivalence); 33:1; 34:2.16; 37:14 (four times ἐνωτίζομαι “to pay close attention to”). The noun ‫ אזן‬occurs thirteen times: Job 4:12; 12:11; 13:1.17; 15:21; 28:22; 29:11; 33:8.16; 34:3; 36:10.15; 42:5. The rendering is generally οὖς “ear,” the exceptions being 13:17, as well as 28:22 (minus); 33:16 (νοῦς “mind”); 36:10.15 (twice no one-for-one equivalence). 67  Compare also Job 32:10. 68  For ‫( יגד‬Job 11:6; 26:4; 36:9.33; 38:18; 42:3); ‫( אחוה‬Job 13:17); ‫( ירה‬Job 27:11); ‫( אמר‬Job 8:10). 69   ‫ חוה‬meaning “to tell” occurs a total of five times in Job. In the other two instances, it has no equivalent (in 32:17, it occurs within the framework of a repetition of 32:10, the rendering of which is paraphrastic in 32:17) or is rendered as διδάσκω “to teach.”

248

chapter 7

similar statement of the speaker (respectively Job and Eliphaz), calling for attention. It seems that the repetition is emphatic. Parenthesis itself is not frequent in Job, neither in Hebrew nor in Greek. We have mentioned reflections of the repetition in the Hebrew in 5:21–22 and 42:4–5. Job 13:17 and 15:17 are the only cases in which the translator introduces a parenthesis of his own. The other features discussed in this chapter are more common in OG Job. Mesodiplosis, for example, is by far the most frequent pattern of repetition in OG Job. 6 Mesodiplosis Job 4:13 φόβοι δὲ καὶ ἠχὼ νυκτερινή, ἐπιπίπτων φόβος ἐπ᾿ ἀνθρώπους.

‫בׂשעפים מחזינות לילה‬ ‫בנפל תרדמה על אנׁשים‬

Now there was awe and a ringing sound in Amid thoughts from visions of the night, the night, an awe falling on mortals. when deep sleep falls on mortals.

In this verse we encounter a repetition of φόβος, first in the plural, then in the singular. In the first colon, it appears to render ‫“ ׂשעפים‬disquieting thoughts,” a unique equivalence. The word ‫ ׂשעפים‬occurs only twice in the HB, and only in Job (4:13 and 20:2). In 20:2, the Greek rendering deviates from the Hebrew (‫לכן‬ ‫“ ׂשעפי יׁשיבוני‬Pay attention! My disquieting thoughts urge me to answer”—οὐχ οὕτως ὑπελάμβανον ἀντερεῖν σε ταῦτα “I did not suppose that you would counter these things so”). In 4:13, the translator explicates in more concrete terms how one should imagine the night-time revelatory experiences mentioned in the Hebrew.70 It is possible that the use of φόβος in the first colon was influenced by its use in the second. φόβος ἐπιπίπτει is a typically Septuagintal expression and is not attested in Greek sources outside of the LXX.71 This expression occurs already in the Pentateuch as a rendering of the Hebrew idiom ‫אימה נפלה‬

70  Cox, Iob, s.v. 4:13. It is characteristic of the translator of Job to make expressions more concrete; see Orlinsky, “Studies II,” 256–58. 71  See Mur; TLG.

249

Rhetorical Features In The Greek Text Of Job

(see Gen 15:12; Exod 15:16; Josh 2:9). It appears three times in Job, rendering ‫נפל‬ ‫( תרדמה‬with ‫ נפל‬in the infinitive) twice, in 4:13 and 33:15, and once ‫ פחד יפל‬in 13:11. As a rendering for ‫תרדמה‬, φόβος brings about a different meaning (respec-

tively “a deep sleep” versus “dread”).72 φόβος ἐπιπίπτει, too, became operational in the language used for Jewish-Greek compositions, as its usage in Jdt 2:28 and 14:3 suggests. Job 5:15–16 ἀπόλοιντο δὲ ἐν πολέμω, ἀδύνατος δὲ ἐξέλθοι ἐκ χειρὸς δυνάστου· εἴη δὲ ἀδυνάτῳ ἐλπίς, ἀδίκου δὲ στόμα ἐμφραχθείη. And may they perish in war, and may the powerless escape from the hand of the mighty. So may the powerless have hope, but the mouth of the unjust be shut.

15 16

‫ויׁשע מחרב מפיהם‬ ‫ומיד חזק אביון‬ ‫ותהי לדל תקוה‬ ‫ועלתה קפצה פיה‬

But he saves the needy from the sword of their mouth, and from the hand of the mighty. So the poor have hope, and injustice shuts its mouth.

The adjective ἀδύνατος is one of the translator’s favorite words.73 In this verse ἀδύνατος is repeated, rendering ‫ אביון‬in 15b and ‫ דל‬in 16a. Both equivalences occur more often in OG Job,74 but ‫ אביון‬and especially ‫ דל‬have other renderings as well: ‫ דל‬can be rendered as ἥσσων (Job 20:10), ἁδρός (Job 34:19), or πένητος (Job 34:28), and the only other rendering of ‫ אביון‬in Job is the periphrase ἄνδρα ἐν ἀνάγκαις in Job 30:25. This implies that the translator had a choice to avoid the repetition in 5:15–16, but did not do so. In addition, the use of cognates in 15b (ἀδύνατος versus ἐκ χειρὸς δυνάστου) highlights a contrast.75

72  Outside Job, ‫ תרדמה‬appears five times, and has as equivalents ἔκστασις “trance” (Gen 2:21; 15:12); θάμβος “deep sleep” (1 Kgdms 26:12); κατάνυξις “astonishment” (Isa 29:10); and ἀνδρογύναιος “like an effeminate man” (Prov 19:15). 73  See Cox, “Vocabulary for Wrongdoing,” 119–30; Cox, Iob, s.v. 5:15 (excursus on ἀδύνατος in Job). 74  The adjective ἀδύνατος renders ‫ אביון‬in Job 5:15; 24:4; 29:16; 31:20 and ‫ דל‬in Job 5:16; 20:19; 31:16. 75  On the use of δυνάστης in OG Job, see Cox, “Vocabulary for Wrongdoing,” 124–25.

250

chapter 7

Job 10:8–9 αἱ χεῖρές σου ἔπλασάν με καὶ ἐποίησάν με, μετὰ ταῦτα μεταβαλών με ἔπαισας. μνήσθητι ὅτι πηλόν με ἔπλασας, εἰς δὲ γῆν με πάλιν ἀποστρέφεις. Your hands fashioned me and made me; then you did an about face and struck me. Remember that you fashioned me as clay, and you are going to return me again to earth.

‫ידיך עצבוני ויעשׂ וני‬

‫יחד סביב ותבלעני‬ ‫זכר נא כי כחמר עשׂ יתני‬

‫ואל עפר תׁשיבני‬

Your hands fashioned and made me; and now you turn and destroy me. Remember that you fashioned me like clay; and will you turn me to dust again?

In this case, the Hebrew displays an epiphora of the verb ‫עׂשה‬, twice in a different form. In the Greek, the epiphora is eliminated, but a repetition of πλάσσω is present. In 8a ‫ עצב‬is rendered as πλάσσω, and ‫ עׂשה‬as ποιέω. In 9a ‫ עׂשה‬is rendered as πλάσσω. The verb πλάσσω occurs twice more in OG Job (34:15; 38:14), but in neither case is there a clear equivalent in the Hebrew (HR). Outside of Job, πλάσσω generally renders ‫בדא‬, but never ‫עצב‬. The verb ‫עצב‬, in turn, occurs once in the Hebrew text of Job. Outside Job, it appears only in Jer 44:19,76 rendered as ποιέω. For the sake of completeness, I add that ἔπαισας in 8b is the rendering of ‫תבלעני‬. The equivalence ‫—בלע‬παίω is unique in the LXX. A possible explanation for the Greek translation, as offered by HR, is that ‫ עׂשה‬is in both instances represented by πλάσσω, but the translator changed the word order in 8a. If one does not follow this line of thought, but retains the equivalence as it meets the eye, this example displays the same translational tendency we see in other cases discussed in this book. The translator eliminates the repetition in the Hebrew but adds a repetition of his own. By repeating πλάσσω, the lexical connection between 8a and 9a is retained. An additional argument may pertain to end rhyme.77 Assonance is created between the verbs which conclude cola 8b and 9a, ἔπαισας and ἔπλασας—more so than if the latter would have been ἐποίησας. 76  This pertains to the use of ‫ עצב‬in the sense of “to shape.” ‫ עצב‬as “to hurt” (whether or not regarded as a separate root) is frequent in the HB. 77  The translator’s sensitivity towards sound-repetition has been discussed in chapter 5. End rhyme has not been discussed in detail as a separate category, but another example can be found in the deviating rendering of Job 5:5, with the use of ἔδονται and ἔσονται, for example.

Rhetorical Features In The Greek Text Of Job

251

Job 24:18–1978 18

καταραθείη ἡ μερὶς αὐτῶν ἐπὶ γῆς. ἀναφανείη δὲ τὰ φυτὰ αὐτῶν ἐπὶ γῆς ξηρά· OG 19 ἀγκαλίδα γὰρ ὀρφανῶν ἥρπασαν. MT 19

May their earthly portion be cursed, And may their plants on earth appear withered, for they seized the orphans’ armful.

‫קל הוא על פני מים‬ ‫תקלל חלקתם בארץ‬ ‫לא יפנה דרך כרמים‬ ‫ציה גם חם יגזלו מימי ׁשלג‬ ‫ׁשאול חטאו‬

Swift are they on the face of the waters; their portion in the land is cursed; no treader turns toward their vineyards. Drought and heat snatch away the snow waters; so does Sheol those who have sinned.

In this case, MT 18b corresponds to OG 19a. The clause ἐπὶ γῆς is repeated twice in the LXX. First it renders ‫ בארץ‬in MT 18b. In OG 19a, however, ἐπὶ γῆς does not have an equivalent in the MT. The relationship between OG 19a and MT 18c is difficult to establish. Cox argues that the translator uses ‫( ציה‬MT 19a), ‫ פנה‬as “to turn to look,” and ‫כרמים‬, as elements to produce a line that is parallel to 18b, stating that “the repetition of ἐπὶ γῆς (…) contributes to this intention.”79 OG 18b and 19a are indeed symmetrical, verb—subject—prepositional phrase, with an anacrusis of ξηρά in 19a as a predicate to the verb ἀναφανείη. Job 33:3 καθαρά μου ἡ καρδία ῥήμασιν, σύνεσις δὲ χειλέων μου καθαρὰ νοήσει.

‫יׁשר לבי אמרי‬ ‫ודעת ׂשפתי ברור מללו‬

My heart will be seen pure by my words, My words declare the uprightness of my heart, and the thought of my lips pure by my and what my lips know they speak interpretation. sincerely.

78  The verse division in the LXX differs from that in the MT. LXX 19a is the representation of MT 18c, and LXX 19b that of MT 19a, with MT 19b not being represented in the LXX. 79  Cox, Iob, s.v. 24:19.

252

chapter 7

The Greek translator introduces a repetition by rendering ‫ יׁשר‬and ‫( ברור‬interpreted as a passive participle of ‫“ ברר‬to cleanse”80) both as καθαρός.81 Whereas ‫ ברר‬occurs only once in Job, ‫ יׁשר‬is more common, but is rendered only here as καθαρός.82 The translator uses καθαρός often for a variety of different Hebrew words.83 This may indicate his attention for the cult.84 Moreover, by rendering ‫ מללו‬in 3b as a noun, νοήσει, the lines form a partial chiasm, in which μου ἡ καρδία corresponds to σύνεσις χειλέων and νοήσει corresponds to ῥήμασιν. Job 33:15–16 ἢ ἐν μελέτῃ νυκτερινῇ, ὡς ὅταν ἐπιπίπτῃ δεινὸς φόβος ἐπ᾿ ἀνθρώπους ἐπὶ νυσταγμάτων ἐπὶ κοίτης· τότε ἀνακαλύπτει νοῦν ἀνθρώπων, ἐν εἴδεσιν φόβου τοιούτοις αὐτοὺς ἐξεφόβησεν. Or during reflection by night— as when a fearful dread falls on people, while they slumber on their bed. Then he lays bare the human mind; he frightened them with such scary apparitions.

15 16

‫בחלום חזיון לילה‬ ‫בנפל תרדמה על אנׁשים‬ ‫בתנומות עלי מׁשכב‬ ‫אז יגלה אזן אנׁשים‬ ‫ובמסרם יחתם‬

In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falls on mortals, while they slumber on their beds, then he opens their ears, and terrifies them with a warning.

In the Greek, φόβος occurs twice. This repetition has no equivalent in the Hebrew text. In 15b δεινὸς φόβος is the equivalent of ‫( תרדמה‬see the discussion of 4:13 above). In 16b εἴδεσιν φόβου is the equivalent of ‫מוסר‬. This rendering brings about a different meaning (respectively “scary apparitions” versus “warning”). The change from singular to plural is an aspect of the translator’s working method. The noun ‫ מסר‬is always rendered differently in OG Job.85 Outside the book of Job ‫ מוסר‬in the sense “warning” is consistently rendered

80  Cox, Iob, s.v. 33:3. See also DCH; BDB. 81  The use of repetition in this specific case is discussed in detail by Cox, Iob, s.v. 33:3. 82  Its most frequent rendering in Job is ἀληθινός (see, for example, 4:7; 6:25; 8:6; 17:8; 23:7). 83  See ‫“ נקי‬pure” (Job 4:7); ‫“ צדק‬to be righteous” (Job 4:17); the root ‫“ זכך‬pure” (Job 8:6; 11:4; 15:15; 16:17; 25:5; 33:9); ‫“ טהור‬clean” (Job 14:4; 17:9); and not as a one-for-one rendering in 9:30; 11:13.15; 22:25; 33:26. 84  Cox, Iob, s.v. 33:3. 85  It is rendered as νουθέτημα “admonition” in 5:17, as παιδεία “instruction” in 20:3, and as δίκαιος “righteous” in 36:10. There is no equivalent in 12:18.

253

Rhetorical Features In The Greek Text Of Job

as παιδεία.86 Nowhere does the LXX contain any indication of the association of ‫ מוסר‬to φόβος, except in this specific instance in Job. Therefore, I would suggest that the explanation for this unique equivalent in 33:16 can be found in the immediate literary context, namely the use of φόβος in the previous verse. Job 34:9 μὴ γὰρ εἴπῃς ὅτι οὐκ ἔσται ἐπισκοπὴ ἀνδρός· καὶ ἐπισκοπὴ αὐτῷ παρὰ κυρίου. For do not say that there is no visitation of man— and there is visitation to him from the Lord!

‫כי אמר לא יסכן גבר‬ ‫ברצתו עם אלהים‬

For he has said, “It profits one nothing to take delight in God.”

The Hebrew features no repetition. The Greek translation of this verse deviates in terms of form and precise equivalences are difficult to establish. It appears that οὐκ ἔσται ἐπισκοπὴ ἀνδρός renders ‫לא יסכן גבר‬, and καὶ ἐπισκοπὴ αὐτῷ παρὰ κυρίου ‫ברצתו עם אלהים‬.87 This equivalence would imply that ἐπισκοπή first renders ‫סכן‬, then ‫רצה‬. This rendering is unique in both instances.88 The Greek translation of 34:9 may be described more aptly as first paraphrasing the Hebrew text of 9a and consequently constructing its b-colon on the basis of that paraphrase.89 Both cola are made semantically parallel, which is underlined by a repetition of ἐπισκοπή. The mesodiplosis seems to serve a similar function as do some of the cases of anadiplosis discussed above, namely qualification. The first colon expresses the prohibition that one cannot say there is no visitation. In the second colon, the emphasis is put on the statement that there is, in fact, visitation, namely from God (παρὰ κυρίου).

86  See, for instance, Deut 11:2; Ps 49(50):17; Prov 1:2; 3:11; 4:1; 13:18; 22:15; 23:12; 24:47; Zeph 3:2; Isa 26:16; 53:5; Jer 2:30; 5:3; 7:28; 17:23; 37:14 (compare also παιδευτής “instructor” in Hos 5:2). 87  CATSS; Dhorme, Job, 512. 88  Note that other Greek words related to ἐπισκοπή, in particular ἐπισκέπτειν, ἐπίσκεψις, ἐπισκοπεῖν, and ἐπίσκοπος, do not occur to render the roots ‫ סכן‬or ‫ רצה‬either. The most common source of these related nouns in Greek is the root ‫פקד‬. Within the book of Job, ‫ רצה‬occurs three more times (Job 14:6 [εὐδοκέω “to be well pleased”]; 20:10 [ὄλλυμι “to perish”—however, the equivalence is unclear]; 33:26 [δεκτός “acceptable”]) and ‫ סכן‬five more times (Job 15:3 [δεῖ “it is necessary”]; 22:2bis [no one-for-one relationship between the Hebrew and the Greek]; 22:21 [γίνομαι “to become”]; 35:3 [no one-for-one relationship]). 89  Cox, Iob, s.v. 34:9; Clines, Job, 747–48 (Clines gives an overview of the interpretational difficulty of the verb ‫“ רצח‬to be pleased” in this verse).

254

chapter 7

Job 39:19–20 ἦ σὺ περιέθηκας ἵππῳ δύναμιν, ἐνέδυσας δὲ τραχήλῳ αὐτοῦ φόβον; περιέθηκας δὲ αὐτῷ πανοπλίαν, δόξαν δὲ στηθέων αὐτοῦ τόλμῃ; Indeed, was it you that endowed the horse with power and clothed its neck with terror? And did you endow it with full armor and the majesty of its breast with courage?

19 20

‫התתן לסוס גבורה‬ ‫התלביׁש צוארו רעמה‬ ‫התרעיׁשנו כארבה‬ ‫הוד נחרו אימה‬

Do you give the horse its might? Do you clothe its neck with mane? Do you make it leap like the locust? Its majestic snorting is terrible.

In these verses, we encounter a repetition of περιτίθημι in Greek without there being a precedent for this repetition in the Hebrew text. The verb περιτίθημι occurs about fifty times in the LXX,90 of which seven are in OG Job (4:4; 13:26; 31:36; 38:10; 39:19.20; 40:25). In these seven instances, it always reflects a different Hebrew word.91 As in Job 39:19, περιτίθημι occurs for ‫ נתן‬also in Gen 41:42; Esth 1:20; Jer 34:2; Ezek 16:11; Ezra 16:11. Rather than simply meaning “to give,” περιτίθημι means “to bestow, confer upon” (LSJ), thus adding a connotation in the Greek.92 περιτίθημι is used with ἵππος in the dative as the indirect object in Greek literature, such as in Xenophon, De re equestri 5.3 and in Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. Hist. 17.77.5.5. The rendering of v. 19 reflects the Hebrew in terms of word order. As a result, the symmetrical construction is retained in the translation. The Greek version of v. 20, however, is quite different from the Hebrew. The occurrence of περιτίθημι in 20a is marked with a dagger (HR). One could speculate whether the translator had difficulty interpreting the Hebrew, a difficulty noted by some commentaries as well, but there is no indication that one should assume a different parent text.93 The translator continued the thought of v. 19. He constructed 20a symmetrical to 19a, with a repetition of the verb, thus creating an anaphora, and with αὐτῷ referring back to the horse. He then uses πανοπλία “full armor,” a word attested in Greek literature from the sixth century bce onwards 90  See, for example, Gen 24:47; 27:16; Exod 29:9; 34:35; Lev 8:13; 16:4; Num 27:7.8; Ruth 3:3; Esth 1:11.20; 5:11; 1 Macc 11:13; 12:39; Prov 7:3; 12:9; PsSol 2:21; Isa 5:2; 49:18; Jer 13:1; 28:3; 34:2; Ezek 16:11; 27:3; Dan 5:7.16.29. 91  See Job 4:4; 13:26; 31:36; 38:10; 39:19.20; 40:25. 92  Cox, Iob, s.v. 39:19. 93  Clines, Job, 1078 (Clines does give an overview of proposed emendations); Dhorme, Job, 607; Driver and Gray, Job, 345 (and the philological notes on pp. 320–321); Fohrer, Hiob, 494; Pope, Job, 262–63.

255

Rhetorical Features In The Greek Text Of Job

(TLG), but not in papyri (Pap). In the LXX, it occurs mainly in the untranslated books.94 The image of the leaping horse is eliminated, instead continuing the description of its (metaphorical) equipment. Colon 20b, a nominal clause without a copula in the Hebrew, is interpreted by the Greek translator along the lines of his interpretation of v. 20a, with an ellipse of the verb περιτίθημι. The use of cases in 20b, however, is remarkable. In all of the previous lines, a finite verb was complemented with two elements, namely, a word referring to the horse in the dative (respectively ἵππῳ, τραχήλῳ αὐτοῦ, and αὐτῷ) and the thing given to the horse in the accusative (respectively δύναμιν, φόβον, and πανοπλίαν). This construction is natural in the case of περιτίθημι (i.e., in 19a and 20a). ἐνδύω, however, is constructed with a double accusative in natural Greek (LSJ). In 19b, however, we see that the translator complemented this verb with a dative (τραχήλῳ) and an accusative (πανοπλίαν). As such, the syntax in all three cola, 19a–20a, is the same. In the last colon, the continuity of syntax is broken. The horse is referred to in the accusative (δόξαν στηθέων αὐτοῦ) and that which is given to the horse in the dative (τόλμῃ), even though περιτίθημι is still being presumed as the gapped verb and we know on the basis of 19a that the translator can use περιτίθημι according to the conventions of natural Greek. Ziegler’s apparatus indicates that a harmonization took place in the Lucianic tradition, matching the syntax of 20b to 20a.95 The change in syntax cannot be explained on the basis of interference from the Hebrew or linguistic developments in the Koine. Perhaps the fact that δόξα often occurs as the direct object to περιτίθημι in Greek literature could have played a role (see, for example, Isocrates, Philippus 149.9; Demosthenes, Eroticus 53.2; Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. Hist. 11.9.1—also in the LXX: Ezek 27:7; Esth 5:11, PsSol 2:21). Job 41:2–3 οὐ δέδοικας ὅτι ἡτοίμασταί μοι; τίς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ ἐμοὶ ἀντιστάς; ἢ τίς ἀντιστήσεταί μοι καὶ ὑπομενεῖ, εἰ πᾶσα ἡ ὑπ᾿ οὐρανὸν ἐμή ἐστιν; Do you not fear because it has been prepared for me? For who is it that withstands me? Or who will withstand me and survive, if the entire earth beneath the sky is mine?

‫לא אכזר כי יעורנו‬ ‫ומי הוא לפני יתיצב‬ ‫מי הקדימני ואׁשלם‬ ‫תחת כל הׁשמים לי הוא‬

No one is so fierce as to dare to stir it up. Who can stand before it? Who can confront it and be safe? —under the whole heaven, who?

94  See Jdt 14:3; 1 Macc 13:29; 2 Macc 3:25; 10:30; 11:8; 15:28; Wis 5:17; Sir 46:6. Aside from OG Job, only in 2 Kgdms 2:21 does it appear for a Hebrew equivalent, namely ‫“ חליצה‬spoil.” 95  See Cox, Iob, s.v. 39:20.

256

chapter 7

The Hebrew text contains only one element of lexical repetition, that is, an anaphora of ‫מי‬. The Greek, in turn, contains two repetitions: aside from a reflection of anaphora featured in the Hebrew text (‫—מי‬τίς), it also contains a repetition of ἀνθίστημι, first as an equivalent of ‫“ יצב‬to stand,” then of ‫“ קדם‬to meet.” Both are unique renderings in OG Job. Within the book of Job, ‫ יצב‬occurs five more times, rendered as παρίστημι in Job 1:6 and 2:1a or left without an equivalent in Greek in 2:1c; 33:5; 38:14. The verb ‫קדם‬, in turn, occurs in two other instances, rendered in 3:12 as συναντάω and occurring in 30:27 as part of a colon that is left untranslated in the OG. The verb ἀνθίστημι occurs once more in Job, rendering ‫ יעד‬in 9:19. Outside OG Job, ἀνθίστημι occurs over seventy times,96 its most common Hebrew equivalents being ‫ יצב‬97 and ‫עמד‬.98 Consequently, the rendering of ‫ קדם‬in 41:3 seems to have been influenced by 41:2, resulting in a repetition in the Greek. It has already been observed in chapter 4 that the translator of Job often opts for τίς ἐστιν + a participle to render the Hebrew ‫מי‬ + a finite verb, as in 2b. In 3a he chose a different construction which reflects the construction of the Hebrew. The function of the repetition resembles the function of the mesodiplosis in 34:9 discussed above. In 3a, the question of 2b (τίς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ ἐμοὶ ἀντιστάς) is repeated in different words (τίς ἀντιστήσεταί μοι) and qualified further, καὶ ὑπομενεῖ, with the condition presented in 3b that the universe belongs to God. For some cases, we can recognize a similarity in the way in which a specific rhetorical feature is used, such as for 34:9 and 41:2–3. The same holds true for the use of mesodiplosis in 31:15 and 33:6. Job 31:15 πότερον οὐχ ὡς καὶ ἐγὼ ἐγενόμην ἐν γαστρί, καὶ ἐκεῖνοι γεγόνασιν; γεγόναμεν δὲ ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ κοιλίᾳ.

‫הלא בבטן עשׂ ני עשׂ הו‬

‫ויכננו ברחם אחד‬

Just as I was conceived in the belly, were Did not he who made me in the womb not they also conceived? make them? Yes, we were conceived in the same cavity. And did not one fashion us in the womb?

96  In over twenty cases there is no known Hebrew source text at our disposal. 97  See, for example, Num 22:23.31.34; Deut 7:24; 9:2; 11:25; Josh 1:5; 2 Chr 20:6; Job 41:2. 98  See, for example, Josh 21:24; 23:9; Ps 75(76):7; Obad 1:11; Isa 50:8; Dan 10:13; 11:2.15.

Rhetorical Features In The Greek Text Of Job

257

The Hebrew contains a repetition of ‫ עׂשה‬in the first colon, reflected in the repeated use of γίνομαι in the Greek. In OG 15b, however, the same verb reappears a third time, this time as an equivalent of ‫כון‬. This equivalence is unique in OG Job.99 Consequently, a repetition was introduced in the Greek text. It is difficult to categorize this repetition, because on the basis of γεγόνασιν/γεγόναμεν, one could argue that it is an anadiplosis, but on the basis of ἐγενόμην/γεγόναμεν, a mesodiplosis. Since the three repetitions of γίνομαι do clearly belong together, I have opted to discuss this example in the section on mesodiplosis, especially because the repetition in 31:15 is strikingly similar to a mesodiplosis in 33:6, a verse that also expresses how a human comes into being. Job 33:6 ἐκ πηλοῦ διήρτισαι σὺ ὡς καὶ ἐγώ, ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ διηρτίσμεθα.

‫הן אני כפיך לאל‬ ‫מחמר קרצתי גם אני‬

You have been fashioned from clay, even as I am; See, to God I am as you are; we have been fashioned from the same thing. I too was formed from a piece of clay.

The Greek differs significantly from the Hebrew. The first colon in the MT is an abstract statement (“to God I am as you are”). It becomes more concrete in the second colon when the similarity is explained as pertaining to the idea that a human being has been made of clay. In the Greek text, however, the statement is concrete from the first colon onwards and immediately includes a reference to the clay, which is repeated in the second colon. There are no textcritically oriented explanations to account for the deviation in the Greek text,100 but the translation has proven to be difficult to explain. Some commentators 99  In OG Job γίνομαι occurs over forty times. HR marks thirteen cases with a dagger (Job 4:12; 11:3; 13:8; 14:21bis; 19:13; 22:21; 24:20; 29:22; 31:8; 38:7.33; 40:23). When an equivalent to γίνομαι is present in the Hebrew text, it renders a variety of different words, mostly ‫( היה‬Job 1:6; 2:1; 10:19; 12:4[?]; 16:8; 30:29; 37:6; 42:7). In fourteen other cases, the equivalence of the Hebrew verb represented by γίνομαι and γίνομαι is unique in OG Job, as it is in 31:15. The Hebrew ‫ כון‬is rendered as ἐξιχνιάζω “to explore” in 8:8 (‫ כון‬polel), as a periphrase καθαρὸν τίθημι “to make pure” in 11:13 (‫ כון‬hiphil), as ὑποφέρω “to endure” in 15:35 (‫ כון‬hiphil), as ἑτοιμάζω “to prepare” in 18:12 (‫ כון‬niphal) and in 27:16; 28:27, 38:41 (‫ כון‬hiphil), as τίθημι “to put” in 27:9 (‫ כון‬hiphil), as ἀληθής “true” in 42:7.8 (‫ כון‬niphal participle), and without a clear equivalent in 15:23; 21:8; 27:17. 100  Retaining the MT are scholars such as Clines, Job, 691; Dhorme, Job, 488; Driver and Gray, Job, 284; Gordis, Job, 372; Fohrer, Hiob, 454; Habel, Job, 457, again contra Beer, Hiob, 209 who suggests a retroversion from the Greek.

258

chapter 7

argue that the translator took ‫ הן אני כפיך‬with the previous verse and left ‫לאל‬ untranslated.101 MT 6b is represented by OG 6a, with the translator possibly reading ‫ קרצתי‬differently, not as a first person but as a second person, “you were formed,”102 or perhaps the translator changed the syntax of the colon. The verb διαρτίζω is unique to Job and is not attested outside of OG Job except for later occurrences in patristic or lexicographical writings. The Hebrew word it represents, ‫( קרץ‬only here in the pual or qal passive; “to be nipped off” [HALOT]), is likewise rarely attested.103 The second line is a plus ascribed to the translator as a restatement of Elihu’s words in 6a. I would argue that this restatement has been influenced by Job’s words in 31:15. The same idea is expressed in 31:15 and 33:6: the I-person (first Job, then Elihu) declares that he and others (either “they” or “you”) share the same origin. In both instances, the verb is repeated (γίνομαι in 31:15 and διαρτίζω in 33:6). The structure of the cola is partially symmetrical, though the order of verb and modifier in 31:15 differs from 33:6: Job 31:15

Job 33:6

(…) ἐγενόμην ἐν γαστρί (…) γεγόναμεν δὲ ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ κοιλίᾳ

ἐκ πηλοῦ διήρτισαι (…) ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ διηρτίσμεθα

The repetition of the verb may serve to express the similarity. 7 Conclusion I have offered a literary analysis of many different rhetorical features in the OG book of Job. It shows that the translator of Job used different translation techniques. While not every feature that occurs in the Greek text independently from the Hebrew reflects a conscious intervention of the translator of Job, we do observe awareness of detail on the part of the translator when it comes to the form of the Greek text. This chapter has shown that the stylization of the translation product is not incidental. The incorporation of literary embellishments, characteristic of translations into Greek in the Hellenistic era, has taken on a more central role as one of our translator’s norms. 101  Cox, Iob, s.v. 33:6; Dhorme, Job, 488. 102  Cox, Iob, s.v. 33:6. 103  TLG; see also Cox, Iob, s.v. 33:6.

Rhetorical Features In The Greek Text Of Job

259

For each feature, the list of case studies includes all occurrences of the rhetorical feature in question—except those instances in which the feature under discussion is used in a verse that includes other rhetorical features or literary tactics or in a larger unit. The examples discussed so far already hint at the fact that the translator can use several rhetorical features at once. While lexical repetitions often interact with chiastic or symmetrical constructions, different patterns of repetition can occur simultaneously. Moreover, it has been said that the translator of Job is capable of handling larger units of text,104 but this has not yet been systematically demonstrated. Rhetorical features are a sound point of departure to show the translator’s abilities in this regard. Therefore, in the following chapter, I will examine complex examples spanning over an increasing number of cola. 104  See Aejmelaeus, “What Can We Know?” 65.

CHAPTER 8

Increasing Complexity: Different Rhetorical Tactics at Once 1 Introduction Complex examples include those passages of the Greek text of Job that attest to (1) the use of more than one type of lexical repetition within a unit of two or more cola, (2) the use of one or more rhetorical features over the span of three cola or more, or (3) the use of intertextuality in combination with the use of rhetorical features. As such, the present chapter is set up to reflect a progression of the previous chapters. I will first focus on clusters within the framework of two to four consecutive cola, before moving on to cases that illustrate the interaction of these tactics in passages of five cola or more. The general approach is to discuss these passages in the order in which they appear in the Greek text. I have chosen examples that can be considered representative of the translator’s working methods, since an exhaustive discussion of every literary unit in the book of Job would not be feasible or necessarily desirable. The survey presented in the previous chapters, and in particular the discussion in chapter 6, as well as the gradual build-up of this study progressing through the different levels of the text, should prevent the reader from developing the impression that any of the following examples were chosen a priori. 2

Clusters of Rhetorical Features in Units of Two to Four Cola

2.1

Job 4:20–21

Job 4:20–21 καὶ ἀπὸ πρωίθεν ἕως ἑσπέρας οὐκέτι εἰσίν, 20 παρὰ τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι αὐτοὺς ἑαυτοῖς βοηθῆσαι ἀπώλοντο· ἐνεφύσησεν γὰρ αὐτοῖς καὶ ἐξηράνθησαν, 21 ἀπώλοντο παρὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν αὐτοὺς σοφίαν.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi ��.��63/9789004358492_010

‫מבקר לערב יכתו‬ ‫מבלי מׂשים לנצח יאבדו‬ ‫הלא נסע יתרם בם‬ ‫ימותו ולא בחכמה‬

increasing complexity And so between morning and evening they ceased to exist; they perished because they were not able to help themselves. That is, he breathed on them, and they withered; they perished, because they did not possess wisdom.

261 Between morning and evening they are destroyed; they perish forever without any regarding it. Their tent-cord is plucked up within them, and they die devoid of wisdom.

The Greek introduces two repetitions that are not present in the Hebrew. We observe a repetition of the construction παρὰ τὸ μή + infinitive in 20b and 21b, which goes hand in hand with an anadiplosis of ἀπώλοντο. This results in a very strict chiasm in which the corresponding elements A/A’ and B/B’ are closely linked to form a complexio. The construction παρὰ τὸ μή + infinitive occurs several times in OG Job (see 4:11.20.21; 24:8; 36:12). It is a construction used to render descriptively what is in the Hebrew text expressed by ‫ בלי‬+ complement (noun or verb)—except in 4:21, where it renders a simple parataxis (‫)ימותו ולא בחכמה‬. The translator seems to have introduced this construction in 4:21 in analogy to 4:20, thus creating a strictly chiastic construction. The Greek ἀπώλοντο renders ‫ יאבדו‬in 20b. This is a fairly consistent rendering in OG Job: out of fifteen occurrences, ‫ אבד‬is rendered as ἀπόλλυμι nine times (3:3; 4:7.9.20; 8:13; 18:17; 20:7; 29:13; 31:19; compare also Job 4:11 [ὄλλυμι] and 11:20 [ἀπώλεια]).1 In 21b, the same verb renders ‫ימותו‬, which is a unique rendering in OG Job. The verb ‫ מות‬is generally rendered as τελευτάω (Job 1:19; 3:11; 12:2; 14:8; 21:25; 42:17) or ἀποθνῄσκω (Job 14:14; 21:23; 36:14).2 As such, the rendering of ‫ מות‬in 4:21 is likely to have occurred under the influence of the rendering of ‫ אבד‬and to have been stylistically motivated. When we also consider the way in which the translator uses anadiplosis in those cases discussed in the previous chapter, there is again a similarity in function between the anadiplosis in 4:20–21 and those in 3:24–25; 15:25; 34:34–35. Colon 4:21b represents a qualification of 4:20b. In 20b it is stated that people will die because they were not able to help themselves. The reason for

1  In 12:23; 14:19; 30:2, ‫ אבד‬occurs in a colon of which the Greek is part of the asterisked material. In 6:18, there is no clear one-for-one relationship between the Hebrew and the Greek. 2  Less frequent renderings are: θανατόω “to put to death” (Job 5:2); ἐν θανάτῳ “in death” (Job 9:23); ἐν ᾅδῃ “in Hades” (Job 33:22).

262

chapter 8

this is then explained by 21b: they cannot help themselves because they do not possess wisdom. 2.2

Job 5:6–73

Job 5:6–7 οὐ γὰρ μὴ ἐξέλθῃ ἐκ τῆς γῆς κόπος, οὐδὲ ἐξ ὀρέων ἀναβλαστήσει πόνος· ἀλλὰ ἄνθρωπος γεννᾶται κόπῳ νεοσσοὶ δὲ γυπὸς τὰ ὑψηλὰ πέτονται. For hardship shall not come from the earth, nor will trouble sprout from mountains, but a human being is born to hardship, whereas the vulture’s young soar on high.

6 7

‫כי לא יצא מעפר און‬ ‫ומאדמה לא יצמח עמל‬ ‫כי אדם לעמל יולד‬ ‫ובני רׁשף יגביהו עוף‬

For misery does not come from the earth, nor does trouble sprout from the ground; but a human being is born to trouble and the offspring of pestilence soar high.

The Hebrew contains a parallelism in v. 6, with its two cola being synonymous. They are structured as a partial chiasm (ABC/B’A’C’). In addition, there is a mesodiplosis of ‫ עמל‬in 6b and 7a. The semantic correspondence between the cola of v. 6 is different in Greek, since the equivalent to ‫ מאדמה‬is ἐξ ὀρέων. The translator renders the first instance of ‫ עמל‬as πόνος and the second as κόπῳ. This could be seen as a case of variatio, were it not for the observation that the Greek contains a repetition (κόπος and κόπῳ in 6a and 7a) in an instance where the Hebrew text does not have one (‫ און‬and ‫)עמל‬. Moreover, the word order of v. 7a is different in Greek than it is in Hebrew. The Hebrew has particle— subject—prepositional phrase—verb; in the Greek the verb and the dative representing the Hebrew prepositional phrase have switched positions. This results in an epiphora of κόπος. In what follows, I will discuss the parallelism in v. 6, the lexical repetitions in the Hebrew and the Greek text, and the structure of vv. 6–7 as a unit. The translator has rendered ‫ מעפר‬as ἐκ τῆς γῆς. The equivalence of ‫ עפר‬and γῆ is frequent in OG Job (see 2:12; 7:5.21; 8:19; 10:9; 16:15; 19:25; 21:26; 27:16; 28:2; 30:19; 34:15; 38:38; 40:13; 41:25; 42:6). The corresponding element in the following colon, ‫מאדמה‬, has as its equivalent ἐξ ὀρέων, which does not reflect the 3  See Marieke Dhont, “Stylistic Features in OG Job: An Example, Job 5:6–7,” JNSL 42 (2016): 51–60.

increasing complexity

263

meaning of the Hebrew. The noun ‫ אדמה‬occurs only once more, in Job 31:38, rendered as ἡ γῆ. Whereas some commentators have proposed a retroversion on the basis of the OG (‫)מהרים‬,4 it is possible that we may ascribe this deviation to the translator, on the basis of his interest in variation, in this case variation in meaning.5 Because of this deviation, the wordplay that links 6b and 7a in the Hebrew is not reflected in the Greek. The translator renders ‫ עמל‬differently twice, even though the semantics of this Hebrew word seems to be identical in both cases. The translator could have used the same Greek word, but instead preferred synonyms, namely κόπος and πόνος. The Greek, however, contains a lexical repetition of its own in the next colon, with κόπος rendering ‫ און‬and ‫עמל‬. In order to assess this word choice, a concise survey is necessary. The noun ‫ עמל‬occurs ten times in Job, rendered in a variety of ways in the OG: πόνος (3:10; 5:6), πικρία (3:20), ὀδύνη (4:8; 7:3; 15:35; possibly also in 3:20 if one accepts a transposition of elements), κόπος (5:7; 11:16), and κακός (16:2). The noun ‫ און‬appears fourteen times in Job, rendered as ἄτοπος (4:8; 11:11; 36:21), ἄνομος (11:14; 34:22), ἀνομία (34:8), ὀδύνη (15:35), and κόπος (5:6). In Job 18:12 and 21:19 there is no one-for-one relationship between the Hebrew and the Greek, and in 22:15; 34:36; 36:10, ‫ און‬occurs in a colon of which the Greek rendering is part of the asterisked material. The nouns κόπος and πόνος occur several times in OG Job: κόπος occurs four times (4:2; 5:6.7; 11:166) and πόνος five times (2:9; 3:10; 4:5; 5:6; 15:27). In Job 5:6–7, they occur together as corresponding elements in semantically parallel cola. Both πόνος and κόπος occur occasionally for ‫עמל‬, but the rendering of ‫און‬ as κόπος is unique.8 This requires an explanation on the basis of its context. I would argue that the following elements influenced the rendering κόπος— πόνος—κόπος for ‫און—עמל—עמל‬. The use of two different words in the cola of v. 6, κόπος and πόνος, appears to be an element of variation in two parallel cola, just as the Hebrew text features 4  Beer, Hiob, 31; Dhorme, Job, 61; Fohrer, Hiob, 132. 5  Cox, Iob, s.v. 5:6. We may also identify a rendering which diminishes the synonymity between parallel cola in 4:9, for example. 6  In Job 4:2 there is no one-for-one equivalence between the Hebrew and the Greek. In Job 11:16 it renders ‫עמל‬. 7  In Job 2:9 it is part of a plus in the Greek text. In Job 3:10 it renders ‫עמל‬. In Job 4:5 πόνος is a plus. In Job 15:2 it seems to be equivalent to ‫קדים‬, but the meaning of the Hebrew text is altered in the OG (‫—וימלא קדים בטנו‬NRSV follows the OG [“And does he fill up the pain of his belly?”], Seow renders “And ⟨does he⟩ fill his belly with the east wind?”). 8  This equivalent does occur a few times in the Minor Prophets, namely in Mic 2:1; Hab 1:3; 3:7; Zech 10:2.

264

chapter 8

two different words. The repetition of κόπος in 6a and 7a, however, cannot in my opinion be merely coincidental on the basis of the observations that (1) it is a unique rendering in 6a and (2) the word order of 7a deviates from the Hebrew, giving κόπος the final position in each colon. The difference in word order cannot sufficiently be explained on the basis of natural Greek usage. Rather, the translator explicitly links 6a and 7a, instead of 6b and 7a, as in the Hebrew text. In order to find an explanation for this repetition, I suggest looking at the structure of vv. 6–7 as a unit. First, the syntax of the cola will be taken into account. At this point, it is indispensable to discuss the rendering of v. 7b, which appears to be a deviation from the Hebrew. Many commentators have discussed the unclear meaning of this colon in the Hebrew text.9 The OG offers an interpretation of the Hebrew in such a way that modern scholars do not doubt that the OG translation could reflect a parent text similar to the MT.10 The translator renders ‫ בני רׁשף‬as νεοσσοὶ γυπός, and ‫ יגביהו עוף‬as τὰ ὑψηλὰ πέτονται. The equivalence ‫—רׁשף‬γυπός is striking. It does not appear elsewhere in the LXX. The meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain. Some interpret ‫ רׁשף‬as a proper name, referring to a deity associated with fire and pestilence.11 The OG, like other ancient versions including Aquila and Symmachus, connects ‫ רׁשף‬with birds, possibly under the influence of the verb ‫“ עוף‬to fly.”12 However, we see a similar connection having been made by the Greek translator of Deuteronomy in 32:24 (‫—רׁשף‬ὀρνέων “birds”), even in absence of a verb “to fly.” The syntax of OG v. 7b is different when compared to the Hebrew: even though the Greek text is interpretative, the meaning of the elements correspond (high: ‫—יגביהו‬τὰ ὑψηλά / to fly: ‫—עוף‬πέτονται). These elements are syntactically structured to fit the pattern of vv. 6–7, as each verse is partially chiastic.13 6a verb—prepositional phrase—subject 6b prepositional phrase—verb—subject 7a subject—verb—complement 7b subject—complement—verb

= ABC = B’A’C’ = DEF = D’F’E’

9  For an overview of this discussion, see Clines, Job, 116 and 141–43. 10  Clines, Job, 116; Driver and Gray, Job, 29 of the philological notes; Alonso Schökel and Sicre Diaz, Job, 143; Seow, Job 1–21, 436–38. 11  For an overview, see especially Clines, Job, 116; Fohrer, Hiob, 148–49; Seow, Job 1–21, 437. 12  Cox, Iob, s.v. 5:7. 13  Note that the partial chiasm of v. 6 in the OG reflects a similar structure in the MT.

increasing complexity

265

The position of the verb progresses as the cola progress. The anacrusis is always the subject, which is located at the end of the cola in v. 6 (respectively κόπος and πόνος) and at the beginning of the cola in v. 7 (respectively ἄνθρωπος and νεοσσοὶ γυπός). The epiphora of κόπος in v. 6a and v. 7a stands in contrast to the different syntactical role it plays in each colon. Second, the epiphora will be discussed in relation to the thematic structure of the cola of these verses. 6a earth (γῆς) low 6b mountains (ὀρέων) high 7a man (ἄνθρωπος) 7b heights (τὰ ὑψηλά) high birds (νεοσσοὶ γυπός)

κόπος κόπος

Colon 6a refers to what is low (τῆς γῆς). Cola 6b and 7b both refer to that what is high, respectively the mountains (ὀρέων) and flying high (τὰ ὑψηλά). Colon 7a, the only colon in which there is no explicit reference to a location, is connected explicitly to 6a by means of of the epiphora of κόπος. Implied is the analogy of the relation between heights and birds on the one hand and the relation between lowness and man on the other. As such, a colonic AB/A’B’ structure is established. This pattern marks in itself a deviation from the Hebrew text in two ways. In the Hebrew text, the cola of v. 6 both refer to what happens on earth (‫ מעפר‬and ‫)מאדמה‬. Moreover, the repetition of κόπος does not reflect a similar repetition in the Hebrew text. If the OG would have contained a repetition reflecting that of ‫עמל‬, then 7a would have been linked to 6b, the result of which would be an explicit connection of man to what is high. This, however, would not make sense within the context of this unit in the Greek text. This thematic pattern can, in turn, be related to the use of the particles. The Greek translator uses two different particles to render ‫כי‬. The particle γάρ in v. 6a causatively links this textual unit to the previous one. The particle ἀλλά in v. 7a sharply contrasts v. 7 to v. 6. Misery does not originate from earth or from mountains; it does, however, come from humans.14 Within v. 7, the use of δέ (for ‫ )ו‬more subtly contrasts 7a to 7b, implying the bird’s freedom from misery.15 Furthermore, in cola 6a, 6b, and 7a, all verbs refer to the semantic field of originating. The only exception seems to be 7b. In this colon, however, the aspect of originating is captured by νεοσσοὶ γυπός (“the young of birds,” with νεοσσοί interpreting ‫בני‬, “sons”). The verb in 7b, πέτονται, located at the 14  On the interpretation of humans being the origin of misery, see, for example, Clines, Job, 116; Seow, Job 1–21, 437. 15  Cox, Iob, s.v. 5:7.

266

chapter 8

end of the sentence, points back to 6b in the sense that it refers to being high, yet simultaneously marks the end of the unit in a twofold manner, namely by being the only verb that does not refer to originating and by being the only word in this unit that ends a colon without referring to misery. The Greek text demonstrates the way in which the elimination of the synonymity of two parallel cola, a difference in word order, specific word choices, and the use of particles all interact in the translation process. It offers a telling example of the need for a multicausal explanation for translations. 2.3

Job 7:4

Job 7:4 ἐὰν κοιμηθῶ, λέγω Πότε ἡμέρα; ὡς δ᾿ ἂν ἀναστῶ, πάλιν Πότε ἑσπέρα; πλήρης δὲ γίνομαι ὀδυνῶν ἀπὸ ἑσπέρας ἕως πρωί. When I lie down, I say, “When will it be day?” But when I get up, I again say, “When will it be evening?” And I am full of pain from evening until morning.

‫אם ׁשכבתי ואמרתי מתי אקום‬ ‫ומדד ערב‬ ‫וׂשבעתי נדדים עדי נׁשף‬

When I lie down I say, “When shall I rise?” But the night is long, and I am full of tossing until dawn.

The first colon in the OG clearly represents the Hebrew in terms of content. In the Hebrew, the protasis is introduced by ‫ אם‬and the apodosis by ‫ו‬, a common practice in Biblical Hebrew (JM §167b) that occurs several times in MT Job (see for example 10:15; 16:6; 27:14). In natural Greek, the protasis is constructed as ἐάν + subjunctive, followed by the apodosis in the indicative. The first actual deviation in this colon lies in the rendering of ‫( אקום‬verb) as ἡμέρα (noun), since the translator opts for a nominal clause, πότε ἡμέρα, asking when it will be day, rather than representing the form of the Hebrew, which has a finite verb. The rendering of the second colon marks a deviation so that there does not seem to be a clear equivalence between both versions. The third colon in the OG, in turn, corresponds to the Hebrew, with the exception of one deviation: for MT ‫עדי נׁשף‬, the Greek has ἀπὸ ἑσπέρας ἕως πρωί—that is, the Greek contains a plus, ἀπὸ ἑσπέρας. While the Hebrew text of this verse concentrates on the unbearable length of the night, the Greek represents Job’s restlessness as lasting night and day. On

increasing complexity

267

the basis of the examples of anaphoric or associative translations presented by scholars such as É. Dhorme, Heater, and Cox, it is not unlikely that more subtle references to other texts can be found as well. In this case, OG Job 7:4 brings to mind Deut 28:67: τὸ πρωὶ ἐρεῖς Πῶς ἂν γένοιτο ἑσπέρα; καὶ τὸ ἑσπέρας ἐρεῖς Πῶς ἂν γένοιτο πρωί; ἀπὸ τοῦ φόβου τῆς καρδίας σου, ἃ φοβηθήσῃ, καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ὁραμάτων τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν σου, ὧν ὄψῃ. In the morning you shall say, “If only evening might come!” and at evening you shall say, “If only morning might come!”—because of the fear of your heart with which you shall fear and because of the sights of your eyes which you shall see. The correspondence between OG Job 7:4 and Deut 28:67 has been noted by Dhorme, among others, but he argues that the translator would have had a parent text different from the MT.16 Taking into account the translator’s associative translation method, there is no need for such an assumption. It is possible that the translator would have introduced the intertextuality in 7:4. As opposed to the Deuteronomic text, OG Job 7:4 starts with the question when the day will come. In this way, the Greek follows the Hebrew. The rewriting of 4b results in a nearly perfect formal symmetry, comparable to the symmetry of Deut 28:67. It follows the protasis—apodosis structure of 4a, with an ellipse of the predicate in the second apodosis but the use of the adverb πάλιν to emphasize the repetitiveness of Job’s discomfort. It appears as if the translator might have chosen ἡμέρα in 7a instead of πρωί, as in Deut 28:67, because of its assonance to ἑσπέρα (rendering ‫ )ערב‬in 7b: the correspondence between the questions in 7a and 7b is as such underlined by the sound. The duration of Job’s agony is again emphasized in 7c by the word group ἀπὸ ἑσπέρας ἕως πρωί. In the book of Job, the other rendering of ‫ נׁשף‬is ἑωσφόρος (Job 3:9).17 The plus of ἀπὸ ἑσπέρας can be explained on two different grounds. First, the formula ἀπὸ ἑσπέρας ἕως πρωί is not an invention of the translator of Job. It also appears in Exod 27:21; Lev 24:3; Num 9:21, each time rendering ‫מערב‬ 16  Dhorme, Job, 98–99. 17  The Hebrew ‫ נׁשף‬occurs once more in 24:15, a verse of which the Greek is asterisked material. In other LXX books ἑωσφόρος appears as its rendering in 1 Kgdms 30:17, but ‫ נׁשף‬is most often rendered as σκότος (4 Kgdms 7:5.7; Prov 7:9—see also σκοτεινός in Jer 13:16). Other renderings are ὀψέ “evening” (Isa 5:11); μεσονύκτιον “midnight” (Isa 59:10); ἀωρία “night” (Ps 118[119]:147) (all three are unique equivalences in the LXX).

268

chapter 8

‫עד בקר‬.18 As such, this formula is likely to be another example of an intertex-

tual reference in the book of Job. The reason why the translator would have included this reference to the night, and in that particular order, can be seen as an attempt to create an intricate pattern within the verse structure: 7a 7b 7c

Job goes to bed Asks when it will be day Job gets up Asks when it will be evening From evening till morning

evening–day day–evening evening–day

Although Cox admits the possibility that 7:4 presents an associative translation, he argues that “all the elements of the OG are present in the MT so it is uncertain that there is a textual connection to these other texts.”19 Since the OG represents a version of the text in which more emphasis is put on the duration of Job’s suffering, as opposed to the MT’s limitation of it to the nighttime only, there are new elements in the OG text that can in fact clearly be explained on the basis of a relation to other texts. One could speculate that the intertextual reference to Deuteronomy serves to emphasize Job’s pain by bringing to mind the terrible sufferings listed in Deut 28:15–68, or to suggest that Job’s suffering is a result of a divine curse, but we cannot make any assumptions about the translator’s intentions. This example shows, again, how familiar the translator was with other LXX books and how important multicausality in translation studies is. 2.4

Job 9:20–21

Job 9:20–21 ἐὰν γὰρ ὦ δίκαιος, τὸ στόμα μου ἀσεβήσει· ἐάν τε ὦ ἄμεμπτος, σκολιὸς ἀποβήσομαι. εἴτε γὰρ ἠσέβησα, οὐκ οἶδα τῇ ψυχῇ, πλὴν ὅτι ἀφαιρεῖταί μου ἡ ζωή.

20 21

‫אם אצדק פי ירׁשיעני‬ ‫תם אני ויעקׁשני‬ ‫תם אני לא אדע נפׁשי‬ ‫אמאס חיי‬

18  Heater, Septuagint Translation Technique, 49–51. Note that Heater only mentions Exod 27:21 and Num 9:21. 19  Cox, Iob, s.v. 7:4.

increasing complexity For should I be right, my mouth will turn out impious! And should I be blameless, I will prove to be perverse! For even if I acted impiously, I do not know it within myself except that my life is being taken away.

269 Though I am innocent, my mouth would condemn me; though I am blameless, he would prove me perverse. Though I am blameless; I do not know myself; I loathe my life.

In this instance, the phrase ‫ תם אני‬is repeated at the beginning of both 20b and 21a. In the Greek, this repetition is not reflected. MT 9:20 is bicolonic, with both cola being semantically parallel to one another. The cola are symmetrical in the sense that they each contain a protasis and an apodosis. The Hebrew has the following structure: 20a protasis conditional particle—verb apodosis subject—verb 20b protasis [conditional particle gapped20—] nominal phrase: predicate—subject apodosis conjunctive particle21—verb The structure of the protasis and the apodosis is different in each colon. This contrasts with the Greek, in which the structure of both protases is symmetrical: conditional particle—conjunctive particle—copula—predicative adjective. The structure of the apodosis in the Greek text, however, is different in each colon, but each apodosis reflects the meaning of the Hebrew. Aside from their symmetry, which links these cola together more closely, the use of the particle τε adds to this effect.22 In the Hebrew, 20b is explicitly connected to 21a on the basis of the anaphora of ‫תם אני‬. This phrase serves a different function in 21a than it did in 20b. 21a does not contain any particle that would indicate another conditional construction, so either ‫ תם אני‬in 21a is declarative, asyndetically followed by ‫ לא אדע נפׁשי‬and ‫אמאס חיי‬, or the conditional particle of 20a is gapped in 21a, as the Hebrew language allows. This seems to have been the interpretation of the translator—or, if he read 21a as declarative, he decided to add a particle, 20  See JM §167. 21  It is common in Biblical Hebrew to express the conditional relationship between two clauses by a ‫( ו‬see JM §167b). 22  Cox, Iob, s.v. 9:20. See also Cox, “Tying it all Together,” 41–54.

270

chapter 8

which would also conform with the translator’s working methods.23 With εἴτε γὰρ ἠσέβησα, the first part of 21a becomes concessive to the second part, οὐκ οἶδα τῇ ψυχῇ, followed by an exclusion, πλὴν ὅτι. This makes v. 21 a connected unit. The translator could have understood the verse in Hebrew ironically,24 or due to the concessive construction the meaning of ‫ תם אני‬did no longer fit the context, resulting in the deviating rendering ἠσέβησα. With the repeated use of ἀσεβέω in 21a, this colon is linked to 20a. To summarize, whereas the cola of v. 20 are closely linked both in Hebrew and in Greek, the construction of the two protases in the Greek results in a tighter connection between 20a and 20b than in the Hebrew. Cola 20b and 21a were connected in the Hebrew on the basis of an anaphora, but v. 21 in itself consisted of three asyndetic elements. The anaphora is not reflected in the Greek, but the elements of the cola of v. 21 are connected to one another by the use of different particles, and 21a is linked to 20a by a mesodiplosis. 2.5

Job 11:17–18

Job 11:17–18 ἡ δὲ εὐχή σου ὥσπερ ἑωσφόρος, ἐκ δὲ μεσημβρίας ἀνατελεῖ σοι ζωή· πεποιθώς τε ἔσῃ ὅτι ἔστιν σοι ἐλπίς, ἐκ δὲ μερίμνης καὶ φροντίδος ἀναφανεῖταί σοι εἰρήνη. And your prayer will be as the morning star, and at midday life will dawn for you. You will be confident because there is hope for you; and out of worry and care peace will appear clearly to you.

17

‫ומצהרים יקום חלד‬ ‫תעפה כבקר תהיה‬ ‫ובטחת כי יׁש תקוה‬ ‫וחפרת לבטח תׁשכב‬

18

And your life will be brighter than the noonday; its darkness will be like the morning. You will have confidence because there is hope; you will be protected and take your rest in safety.

There are no lexical repetitions in the Hebrew text. Each verse consists of two semantically parallel cola. The Greek translation deviates. Of interest at this point are the following elements.

23  Cox, “Tying it all Together,” 41–54. 24  Cox, “Tying it all Together,” 41–54; Seow, Job 1–21, 565.

increasing complexity

271

With regard to v. 17, the translator reversed the order of the Hebrew text: MT 17a is LXX 17b, and vice versa. This inversion is, according to Cox, “likely to bring about the logical order, morning followed by midday.”25 With regard to v. 18, the OG translation of the second colon bears little resemblance to the Hebrew. Cox considers the equivalence ‫—בטח‬εἰρήνη to be the translator’s starting point.26 The translator supplies a colon symmetrical to 17b, which is emphasized by an anaphora of ἐκ. The phrasing ἐκ δὲ μερίμνης καὶ φροντίδος, which does not reflect the Hebrew, might reveal familiarity with Greek literature. Both nouns are relatively rare in the LXX.27 They do, however, occur together in, e.g., Aeschylus, Agamemnon 1531, and Aristophanes, Nubes 952. Moreover, the phrasing indicates a sensitivity to homoioarkton, as the repetition at the beginning of cola 17a and 18a extends over ἐκ δὲ με- and the verb in each colon is a composite with ἀνα-. In these verses, ἀνατέλλω renders ‫( קום‬see also Isa 44:26). The verb ἀναφαίνω occurs only six times in the LXX, of which four are in OG Job. In 13:18 and 40:8 it renders ‫צדק‬, while its occurrences in 11:18 and 24:19 are marked by a dagger (HR).28 The repetition of the prefix in composite verbs in parallel cola has been discussed in chapter 5. 2.6

Job 19:4

Job 19:4 ναὶ δὴ ἐπ᾿ ἀληθείας ἐγὼ ἐπλανήθην, παρ᾿ ἐμοὶ δὲ αὐλίζεται πλάνος λαλῆσαι ῥῆμα, ὃ οὐκ ἔδει, τὰ δὲ ῥήματά μου πλανᾶται καὶ οὐκ ἐπὶ καιροῦ.

‫ואף אמנם ׁשגיתי‬ ‫אתי תלין מׁשוגתי‬

25  Cox, Iob, s.v. 11:17. 26  Cox, Iob, s.v. 11:18. 27  For μέριμνα, see Esth 12:2; 1 Macc 6:10; Ps 54(55):23; Prov 17:12; Job 11:18; Sir 30:24; 31:1.2; 38:29; 42:9; Dan 11:26. In the cases where an Hebrew equivalent can be found, μέριμνα renders ‫( יהב‬Ps 54:23 [HR]) or ‫( דאגה‬Sir 30:24; 31:1.2; 42:9—see the Hebrew text as edited by 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). HR marks the following cases with a dagger: Job 11:18; Prov 17:12; Dan 11:26. For φροντίς, see 4 Macc 16:8; Job 11:18; 15:20; Wis 5:15; 6:17; 7:4; 8:9; 15:9. In the case of the book being a translation (i.e., only the two verses in Job), HR marks the equivalent with a dagger. 28  The other two occurrences in the LXX are in 4 Macc 1:4 and Song 6:5 (for ‫“ גלׁש‬to move down”) (HR).

272

chapter 8

Yes indeed, I have truly erred, and error lodges with me— to have spoken a word that was not fitting, and my words err and are inappropriate.

And even if it is true that I have erred, my error remains with me.

LXX 19:4ab represents a rendering of the Hebrew text. The last two cola, 4cd, in turn, are a plus for which there is no equivalent in the Hebrew text of the MT. The plus offers an explanation of 4ab,29 and has been ascribed to the translator.30 It contains two repetitions, namely of πλανάω (4a and 4d) and of ῥῆμα (4c and 4d). The phrase λαλῆσαι ῥῆμα, ὃ οὐκ ἔδει (4c) is drawn from 15:3.31 Colon 4d was constructed parallel to 4c, drawing from 4a–c, not just with regard to meaning (i.e., Job’s sinning), but also with regard to the form, as is illustrated by the two repetitions. The repetition of ῥῆμα underlines the correspondence in meaning between 4c and 4d. The Hebrew contained a repetition of the root ‫ ׁשגה‬at the end of 4a and 4b which is reflected in the Greek by the use of πλανάω and πλάνος. The translator takes up πλανάω again in 4d, as part of three different terms used to express the inappropriateness of Job’s words: οὐκ ἔδει, πλανᾶται, and οὐκ ἐπὶ καιροῦ. 2.7

Job 27:9–10

Job 27:9–10 ἦ τὴν δέησιν αὐτοῦ εἰσακούσεται κύριος; ἢ ἐπελθούσης αὐτῷ ἀνάγκης μὴ ἔχει τινὰ παρρησίαν ἔναντι αὐτοῦ; ἢ ὡς ἐπικαλεσαμένου αὐτοῦ εἰσακούσεται αὐτοῦ; Will the Lord listen to his petition? Or when distress comes upon him, does he have any confidence before him? Or as he calls, will he listen to him?

 9

‫הצעקתו יׁשמע אל‬ ‫כי תבוא עליו צרה‬ ‫אם על ׁשדי יתענג‬ ‫יקרא אלוה בכל עת‬

10

Will God hear their cry when trouble comes upon them? Will they take delight in the Almighty? Will they call upon God at all times?

29  Cox, Iob, s.v. 19:4; Dhorme, Job, 271. 30  Cox, Iob, s.v. 19:4. 31  Cox, Iob, s.v. 19:4; Heater, Septuagint Translation Technique, 67.

increasing complexity

273

The Hebrew and the Greek of 9a correspond in a straightforward one-for-one manner. The Greek consists of three questions, coordinated by the connecting particle ἥ “or” in 9b and 10b. The translator has taken 9b together with 10a, whereas the NRSV and many commentators take 9b with 9a.32 In the Greek, then, 9b–10a and 10b are constructed in a similar fashion, that is first a genitive absolute (characteristic of the natural Greek style of the translator of Job, see chapter 4), followed by a main clause. The genitive absolute is constructed without a particle in 9b33 and introduced by ὡς in 10b. As such, the translator plays with repetition and variation. The translator interprets ‫ יתענג‬in 10a as meaning “having confidence in,” thus arriving at “being able to talk boldly.”34 The verb ‫ ענג‬occurs once more in Job, in 22:26, where it was rendered as παρρησιάζομαι “to speak with boldness.” The parallel between 22:26a and 27:10a is striking. The Hebrew is similar. In 22:26a we read ‫( כי אז על ׁשדי תתענג‬compare to 27:10a: ‫)אם על ׁשדי יתענג‬. The translator varies the rendering of the verb, using παρρησιάζομαι in the former instance and a periphrastic construction in the latter. In both instances, ‫ על‬is rendered as ἔναντι, since God is the one being referred to (see the distancing use of ἔναντι discussed in chapter 4). In both 22:26a and 27:10a the translator changes the word order, putting the predicate first (compare εἶτα παρρησιασθήσῃ ἔναντι κυρίου in 22:26a to μὴ ἔχει τινὰ παρρησίαν ἔναντι αὐτοῦ in 27:10a). The rendering of 10b, rather than reflecting the construction of the Hebrew, is built to correspond to 9b–10a.35 For the genitive absolute, the translator draws upon the words of the Hebrew: ‫ קרא‬is rendered as ἐπικαλέω several times in Job, namely in 5:1 and 17:14 (compare also ‫—קרא‬καλέω in 9:16; 13:22; 14:5; 42:14), and God (‫ )אלוה‬is being referred to as the subject of the main verb εἰσακούσεται.36 This verb is added by the translator on the basis of 9a. As a result, while the construction links 9b–10a to 10b, the repetition of εἰσακούσεται links 9a to 10b.

32  Compare also the translations of, for example, Clines, Job, 651; Dhorme, Job, 383; Driver and Gray, Job, 228; Pope, Job, 168. 33  Note also the use of a simple dative as a complement to the composite verb ἐπέρχομαι, rendering ‫בוא על‬. 34  Cox, Iob, s.v. 27:10. 35  Cox, Iob, s.v. 27:9–10. 36  Note that the first αὐτοῦ in 10b is the subject of the genitive absolute construction (ἐπικαλέω is generally not complemented by a genitive; see LSJ).

274

chapter 8

Job 28:1

2.8 Job 28:1

ἔστιν γὰρ ἀργυρίῳ τόπος, ὅθεν γίνεται, τόπος δὲ χρυσίῳ, ὅθεν διηθεῖται. For silver has a place from which it comes, and gold a place from where it is sifted.

‫כי יׁש לכסף מוצא‬ ‫ומקום לזהב יזקו‬

Surely there is a mine for silver, and a place for gold to be refined.

The rendering of 1a appears to have been influenced by 1b, and vice versa. The cola of this verse correspond more closely to each other in the Greek than in the Hebrew with regard to meaning. This correspondence is underlined by the structure of the cola and the lexical repetitions. The colonic structure is partially chiastic: ἔστιν γὰρ A

ἀργυρίῳ τόπος, ὅθεν γίνεται, B C D τόπος δὲ χρυσίῳ, ὅθεν διηθεῖται. C’ B’ D’

The translator plays with the gapping of ἔστιν. With regard to 1a, HR marks τόπος, ὅθεν γίνεται as the equivalent of ‫“ מוצא‬place of going out,” which is unique.37 ‫מקום‬, in turn, is more often rendered as τόπος in OG Job and seems to have been a default choice.38 The use of τόπος in the first colon prepares the formal link to the second colon. The meaning of the word ‫ מוצא‬in the first colon, together with the presence of the asyndetic ballast variant ‫ יזקו‬in the second colon (which was the basis for διηθέω), gave rise to the ὅθεν-clauses, constructed partially symmetrically. The structure of the relative clauses in this verse may be compared to that of the OG rendering of Job 3:3, where the Greek translator, too, creates formally tightly corresponding relative clauses by using ἐν ᾗ twice.

37  The Hebrew noun ‫ מוצא‬occurs only once more, in 38:27b. This colon is asterisked in the Greek. Outside the LXX, renderings are varied, but none of them includes the use of τόπος. 38  See Job 7:10; 8:18; 16:18; 18:21; 28:12.23; 38:19.

275

increasing complexity

2.9

Job 39:24–25

Job 39:24–25 καὶ ὀργῇ ἀφανιεῖ τὴν γῆν καὶ οὐ μὴ πιστεύσῃ, ἕως ἂν σημάνῃ σάλπιγξ· σάλπιγγος δὲ σημαινούσης λέγει Εὖγε, πόρρωθεν δὲ ὀσφραίνεται πολέμου σὺν ἅλματι καὶ κραυγῇ. And in rage it will stamp out the ground and will not steady itself until the trumpet sounds. But when the trumpet sounds, it says, “Good!” and from afar it scents battle with leap and cry.

24 25

‫ברעׁש ורגז יגמא ארץ‬ ‫ולא יאמין כי קול ׁשופר‬ ‫בדי ׁשפר יאמר האח‬ ‫ומרחוק יריח מלחמה‬ ‫רעם ׂשרים ותרועה‬

With fierceness and rage it swallows the ground It cannot stand still at the sound of the trumpet. When the trumpet sounds, it says “Aha!” From a distance it smells the battle, the thunder of the captains, and the shouting.

This passage refers to the horse as the subject of each colon. In the Hebrew text, we encounter a mesodiplosis of ‫ׁשפר‬. The Greek text reflects this repetition using σάλπιγξ, but in the form an anadiplosis. Because of the additional repetition of σημαίνω, the repetition in the Greek is more elaborate than in the Hebrew. It is only in these two verses in Job that the verb σημαίνω occurs. In 24b, σημάνῃ renders the noun ‫קול‬, while in 25a σημαινούσης seems to render ‫בדי ׁשפר‬. Both equivalences are unique. In neither colon is the use of this verb a formal reflection of the Hebrew text. In the LXX, σάλπιγξ occurs as a dative of means with σημαίνω (with a person or people being the subject of the verb) at Num 10:9; Neh 8:15; Jer 4:5; 6:1; Ezek 33:6, and as the subject of σημαίνω in 2 Chr 13:12. One can speculate that this word combination was in the mind of the translator when rendering this verse. In 24b, the Greek seems to represent the meaning of the Hebrew, but in 25a, the relationship between the Hebrew and the Greek appears to be more difficult. The meaning of ‫ בדי ׁשפר‬is often discussed in commentaries. First, some scholars consider the repetition of ‫ׁשפר‬ to be “strange.”39 The present study, however, has referred to many examples 39  Clines, Job, 1081. See also the emendations proposed by, for example, Driver and Gray, Job, 322 and Kissane, Job, 279.

276

chapter 8

of repetition in the Hebrew text, so that it can be safely concluded that repetition is a frequently occurring feature of the Hebrew text of Job.40 Second, the meaning of ‫ די‬is difficult. It may mean “sufficient,” and the phrase ‫ בדי‬occurs for instance in Nah 2:12(13) as “sufficient for” and in Hab 2:13 as “in exchange for.” From these instances the supposed meaning of ‫ בדי‬in Job is derived: “as often as.” Others have, on the basis of an Arab cognate dawiyy, argued for a different meaning of the word ‫די‬, namely as “echo.” This has led to emendations such as ‫“ בדוי‬at the sound of.”41 Perhaps the Greek translator did not know the exact meaning of the phrase and relied on the parallelism to render his text. In any case, the repetition in the Greek text has a function of its own. The formal element underlines the semantic chiasm of the cola: A καὶ οὐ μὴ πιστεύσῃ B’ σάλπιγγος δὲ σημαινούσης

B A’

ἕως ἂν σημάνῃ σάλπιγξ λέγει Εὖγε

Within the correspondence of B/B’, a chiasm is introduced in the words: (ἕως ἂν) A σημάνῃ B’ σάλπιγγος (δὲ)

B A’

σάλπιγξ σημαινούσης

The text of v. 25 following the repetition is a qualification, similar to the qualification that is often introduced by an anadiplosis, as we have seen in chapter 7. Job 39:25 explains what will happen once the trumpet sounds. 2.10

Job 40:19–20

Job 40:19–20 τοῦτ᾿ ἔστιν ἀρχὴ πλάσματος κυρίου, πεποιημένον ἐγκαταπαίζεσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀγγέλων αὐτοῦ. ἐπελθὼν δὲ ἐπ᾿ ὄρος ἀκρότομον ἐποίησεν χαρμονὴν τετράποσιν ἐν τῷ ταρτάρῳ.

19

‫הוא ראׁשית דרכי אל‬ ‫העׂשו יגׁש חרבו‬

20

‫כי בול הרים יׂשאו לו‬ ‫וכל חית הׂשדה יׂשחקו ׁשם‬

40  This fits in with Berlin’s view of biblical parallelism, in which the repetition of a word also constitutes a specific form of parallelism (see Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism, 64–102). 41  For an overview, see Clines, Job, 1082.

277

increasing complexity This is the chief of what the Lord created, made to be mocked at by his angels. But when it went up on a steep mountain, it brought gladness to the quadrupeds in Tartarus.

It is the first of the great acts of God— only its Maker can approach it with the sword. For the mountains yield food for it where all the wild animals play.

While the rendering of the first colon of v. 19 formally reflects the Hebrew, the second colon of v. 19 does not. Rather, 19b is based on Ps 103(104):26, but more so in meaning than in word choice: Ps 103(104):26 reads δράκων οὗτος, ὃν ἔπλασας ἐμπαίζειν αὐτῷ “this dragon, that you have formed to mock at him.”42 The phrasing of Job 40:19b is repeated later in 41:25b.43 In my opinion, the repetition indicates that this entire section, 40:19–41:25, refers to the dragon, only mentioned by name in 40:25, rather than to the “wild beasts” mentioned in 40:15.44 This is supported by the syntax, since the subject of the verb or the personal pronoun indicating the topic of this passage in the Greek is systematically a masculine singular. The deviation in 20a (and simultaneously the reference to Tartarus in 20b) is generally explained on the basis of a different reading of the Hebrew:45 ‫“ כי בוא להר משאל‬when he came to a mountain in the nether world.” If one would accept this explanation for the deviation between the MT and the OG, the Greek rendering contains a plus of ἀκρότομος “cut off sharp” (LSJ). In Greek literature, this word might have appeared once in a fragment ascribed to Pindar (Fragmenta 215b col. 1 line 10), but this occurrence is based on an uncertain reconstruction.46 In Koine Greek ἀκρότομος is used regularly (TLG).47 OG 20b, then, probably reflects the same Hebrew text, with ἐν τῷ ταρτάρῳ representing ‫משאל‬. The periphrastic use of ποιέω with a substantive instead of the 42  Cox, Iob, s.v. 40:19; Dhorme, Job, 621–22; Heater, Septuagint Translation Technique, 126–28 (compare also Cox’s critical remarks regarding Heater’s discussion of 40:19). On angels in OG Job, see Cox, Iob, s.v. 4:18 (excursus); Kutz, “Old Greek of Job,” 37–51. 43  MT 41:25b reads ‫“ העׂשו לבלי חת‬a creature without fear.” 44  As is argued by Cox, Iob, s.v. 40:19. 45  Dhorme, Job, 622; Gerleman, Studies in the Septuagint, 21; also Cox, Iob, s.v. 40:20. 46  See Hervicus Maehler, Pindari carmina cum fragmentis (2 vols; Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana; Leipzig: Teubner, 1989), ii:149. 47  It occurs eleven times in the LXX: Deut 8:15; Josh 5:2.3; 3 Kgdms 6:7; Ps 113(114):8; 135(136):16; Job 28:9; 40:20; Wis 11:4; Sir 40:15; 48:17.

278

chapter 8

verb cognate to the noun is typical of the translator of Job (see chapter 5). This construction, which results in an anaphora of ποιέω in 19b and 20b, allowed the translator to formally anchor the intertextual reference in the Greek text. 3

Increasing Interaction in Five or More Consecutive Cola

3.1

Job 3:4–748

ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνη εἴη σκότος, καὶ μὴ ἀναζητήσαι αὐτὴν ὁ κύριος ἄνωθεν, μηδὲ ἔλθοι εἰς αὐτὴν φέγγος· ἐκλάβοι δὲ αὐτὴν σκότος καὶ σκιὰ θανάτου, ἐπέλθοι ἐπ᾿ αὐτὴν γνόφος. καταραθείη ἡ ἡμέρα καὶ ἡ νὺξ ἐκείνη, ἀπενέγκαιτο αὐτὴν σκότος· μὴ εἴη εἰς ἡμέρας ἐνιαυτοῦ μηδὲ ἀριθμηθείη εἰς ἡμέρας μηνῶν· ἀλλὰ ἡ νὺξ ἐκείνη εἴη ὀδύνη, καὶ μὴ ἔλθοι ἐπ᾿ αὐτὴν εὐφροσύνη μηδὲ χαρμονή. May that day be darkness! And may the Lord above not seek it, or light come to it. But may darkness and deathly shadow seize it. May gloom come upon it. May that day and night be cursed; may darkness carry it away! May it not exist among the days of the year or be numbered among the days of the months. Rather, may that night be anguish, and may gladness and joy not come upon it.

4

‫היום ההוא יהי חׁשך‬ ‫אל ידרׁשהו אלוה ממעל‬ ‫ואל תופע עליו נהרה‬ ‫יגאלהו חׁשך וצלמות‬ ‫תׁשכן עליו עננה‬ ‫יבעתהו כמרירי יום‬ ‫הלילה ההוא יקחהו אפל‬ ‫אל יחד בימי ׁשנה‬ ‫במספר ירחים אל יבא‬ ‫הנה הלילה ההוא יהי גלמוד‬ ‫אל תבא רננה בו‬

5 6

7

Let that day be darkness! May God above not seek it, or light shine on it. Let gloom and deep darkness claim it. Let clouds settle upon it; let the blackness of the day terrify it. That night—let thick darkness seize it! let it not rejoice among the days of the year; let it not come into the number of the months. Yes, let that night be barren; let no joyful cry be heard in it.

48  See also Dhont, “Double Translation,” 475–90.

increasing complexity

279

Two things are noticeable upon a first glance at this passage. First, the versification of vv. 5 and 6 is different in the Hebrew and the Greek text. The first colon of OG v. 6 represents a paraphrase of the third colon of MT v. 5 plus the first colon of MT v. 6.49 The tendency to paraphrase is characteristic of the translator of Job. Second, the Greek text contains more repetitions than the Hebrew does, and all but two of the repetitions in the Greek text are introduced independently from the Hebrew. These two are ‫חׁשך‬, rendered twice as σκότος (v. 4 and v. 550), and ‫הלילה ההוא‬, rendered twice as ἡ νὺξ ἐκείνη (v. 6 and v. 7, albeit within the context of the paraphrastic rendering of v. 6). The noun σκότος appears a third time in the Greek text, rendering ‫ אפל‬in v. 6. The latter occurs six times in the Hebrew text book of Job, but is always rendered differently in the OG.51 The repetition here serves to build up a climactic process of what Job wishes would happen to the day: let it be darkness (4a), let darkness seize it (5a), let darkness even carry it away (6b), to the point that it will never be day again (6cd). The last two cola of v. 6 are parallel. The Hebrew is chiastic: verb—modifier / modifier—verb. In the Greek, the word order of the last colon is reversed, so that both lines are symmetrical: verb—modifier. Moreover, in this verse, the Greek repeats εἰς ἡμέρας, where the Hebrew has ‫ בימי‬in 6b (OG 6c) and ‫במספר‬ in 6c (OG 6d). The prepositional group εἰς ἡμέρας thus replaces ‫במספר‬, but the meaning of ‫במספר‬, with its reference to a number, is reflected in the verb ἀριθμηθείη “let it be counted.” The symmetrical structure appears to be underlined by this lexical repetition. Even though mention is made of the night in the paraphrastic rendering of OG v. 6a, the whole of vv. 5–6 in the Greek text refers mainly to the day. It is the day that should be darkness. Only in v. 7 does the translator move on to the night. Colon 7a is grammatically symmetrical to 4a, but with a strong contrast marked by ἀλλά. The symmetrical structure of these cola, however, points towards the similarity in the thoughts expressed. In the Hebrew text, the night is referred to already in v. 6, so that the turn between day and night is located in between v. 5 and v. 6. The turning point in the Greek text, in turn, lies in between v. 6 and v. 7. The cola of v. 6 are symmetrical, with a distinctive lexical repetition of εἰς ἡμέρας to emphasize the non-contrast. 49  Cox, Iob, s.v. 3:6. 50  However, Cox, “Wrath of God,” 201, states that in OG Job 3:3–10 the richness of the vocabu­ lary of the Hebrew has been retained in the Greek. OG Job indeed displays a rich vocabulary, but the use of repetitions and synonyms in the Greek differs from that in the Hebrew. 51  Job 3:6; 10:22bis (paraphrastic renderings; no clear equivalents); 23:17 (γνόφος “darkness”); 28:3 (asterisked material in Greek); 30:26 (paraphrastic rendering; no equivalent).

280

chapter 8

The repetition of ‫ אל‬+ a form of ‫ בוא‬in v. 6 and v. 7 is not retained in the Greek, because the turning point in the narrative of this unit is different in each version. In the Hebrew both vv. 6 and 7 refer to the night. This common reference is underlined by a lexical repetition. In the Greek text, however, the night is the focus. Consequently, the need might not have been felt for a lexical repetition to relate v. 7 to v. 6. Rather, v. 7 is linked to v. 5 with a lexical repetition, namely έλθοι ἐπί, occurring in 5b and 7b. With regard to 5b, ἐπέρχομαι renders ‫ׁשכן‬, which is a unique equivalence in the LXX (HR). Within OG Job, ‫ׁשכן‬ is rendered as κατοικέω “to settle” (4:19), αὐλίζομαι “to lodge” (11:14; 15:28; 38:19), and ἡσυχάζω “to be at rest” (37:8).52 In order to understand the relationship between vv. 5 and 7, we should first look at another deviation, namely the plus in 7b. In this instance, the Greek reads εὐφροσύνη μηδὲ χαρμονή, where the Hebrew only has ‫רננה‬. In the LXX corpus, ‫ רננה‬occurs four times (Ps 62[63]:6; 99[100]:2; Job 3:7; 20:5). In the Psalter, this noun is rendered as ἀγαλλίασις “great joy, exultation” and in Job it is rendered as εὐφροσύνη in 20:5, parallel to χαρμονή (rendering ‫“ ׂשמחה‬joy”). One could speculate that the parent text contained a doublet that was omitted in the course of the transmission of the Hebrew text. An additional and relevant observation at this point, however, is that εὐφροσύνη and χαρμοσύνη appear as a word pair in Jer 31:33 (MT 48:33)53; 40:11 (MT 33:11); Bar 2:23; 4:23. Within OG Job, εὐφροσύνη occurs only in 3:7 and 20:5. The noun χαρμονή occurs once more, in the construction ἐποίησεν χαρμονήν (NETS: “it brought gladness”) for the piel of ‫( ׂשחק‬HAL: “to mock”) in Job 40:20. Both nouns, εὐφροσύνη and χαρμονή, appear to be near-synonymous in the LXX (see LEH, Muraoka). Note, however, that εὐφροσύνη is much more frequent in the LXX (approximately one hundred seventy occurrences) than χαρμονή (only five occurrences, of which three are in Job). In this verse, they could, in fact, both represent ‫רננה‬. Consequently, this case can be regarded as a double translation.54 This plus might have served to add balance to the unit (2-1-1-2 in vv. 5 and 7): σκότος καὶ σκιὰ θανάτου / γνόφος // ὀδύνη / μὴ (…) εὐφροσύνη μηδὲ χαρμονή. The lexical repetition of ἐπέλθοι ἐπ᾿ αὐτήν (5b) and ἔλθοι ἐπ᾿ αὐτήν (7b) explicitly marks the relationship between these verses, each of which addresses a contrasting concept, respectively the day and the night. As such, owing to the double translation in 3:7, cola 5a and 7b on the one hand and cola 5b and 7a on the other are linked together, 52  The verb’s other occurrences in Job (see 18:15; 26:5; 29:25; 30:6; 39:28) have no equivalent in the Greek. Outside of the book Job, ‫ ׁשכן‬occurs another one hundred thirty times approximately. 53  See also Jer 38:13cd: στρέψω τὸ πένθος αὐτῶν εἰς χαρμονὴν καὶ ποιήσω αὐτοὺς εὐφραινομένους “and I will turn their mourning into joy, and I will make them glad.” 54  Dhont, “Double Translation,” 475–90.

281

increasing complexity

which—together with the repetition of έλθοι ἐπί in 5b and 7b—creates an intricate stylistic pattern. 3.2

Job 9:14–16

Job 9:14–16 ἐὰν δέ μου ὑπακούσηται, 14 ἦ διακρινεῖ τὰ ῥήματά μου. ἐάν τε γὰρ ὦ δίκαιος, οὐκ εἰσακούσεταί μου, 15 ἐάν τε καλέσω καὶ ὑπακούσῃ, οὐ πιστεύω ὅτι εἰσακήκοέν μου. But if he has me respond, he will surely judge my words with discernment. For if I am in the right, he will not listen to me; and if I call and he responds, I am not going to believe that he has given ear to me.

16

‫אף כי אנכי אעננו‬

‫אבחרה דברי עמו‬ ‫אׁשר אם צדקתי לא אענה‬

‫למׁשפטי אתחנן‬ ‫אם קראתי ויענני‬

‫לא אאמין כי יאזין קולי‬

How then can I answer him, choosing my words with him? Though I am innocent, I cannot answer him; I must appeal for mercy to my accuser. If I summoned him and he answered me, I do not believe that he would listen to my voice.

The Hebrew text features a repetition of ‫ ענה‬at the end of cola 14a, 15a, and 16a. In the Greek text, the epiphora is divided into two different epiphoras. Both epiphora are based on cognate verbs derived from ἀκούω, namely ὑπακούω and εἰσακούω. In 14a and 16a ‫ ענה‬is rendered as ὑπακούω.55 As such, part of the epiphora is retained. The repetition of ‫ענה‬/ὑπακούω contains an element of variation in both versions, but in a different way. The element of variation which the Hebrew displays—that is, ‫ אעננו‬being a first person singular with a suffix pronoun third person singular and ‫ ויענני‬being a third person singular with a suffix pronoun first person singular—is eliminated in the Greek: in both instances, ὑπακούω occurs in the third person singular twice and with the same subject, namely

55  This Greek word is used seven times in OG Job (5:1; 9:14.16; 13:22; 14:15; 19:16; 38:34), rendering ‫ ענה‬in all but one case (Job 38:34—marked with a dagger in HR). For 5:1; 9:14.16 εἰσακούω is listed as a variant reading in the apparatus.

282

chapter 8

God.56 The Hebrew text reads the qal twice. The Greek translator, in turn, adds an element of variation by using first the middle voice and then the active voice, even though the use of different voices does not bring about a significant difference in meaning (LSJ). In 15a ‫ ענה‬is rendered as εἰσακούω,57 a different composite of ἀκούω. One observes that εἰσακούω is repeated at the end of 16b, rendering ‫יאזין‬. A variation occurs regarding the voices in which εἰσακούω is used, similar to the variation regarding ὑπακούω. The translator first uses the middle voice, then the active voice, again with no substantial difference in meaning. The repetition of εἰσακούω constitutes a more elaborate epiphora, as it occurs twice at the end of the verse and is followed by the same object, μου.58 In 15a εἰσακούσεταί μου renders ‫( אענה‬qal imperfect first person singular), constituting a deviation with regard to its meaning (“I cannot answer” versus “he will not listen”). In 16b the same phrase renders ‫יאזין קולי‬, retaining the basic meaning of the Hebrew text (i.e., God hearing Job). As a result, the Greek text features a double epiphora of cognate verbs, whereas the Hebrew features one threefold epiphora. The translator introduces variation in rendering ‫ענה‬, but simultaneously introduces a repetition of its own by rendering both ‫ אענה‬and ‫ יאזין קולי‬as εἰσακούω + μου. 3.3

Job 15:30–35

οὐδὲ μὴ ἐκφύγῃ τὸ σκότος· τὸν βλαστὸν αὐτοῦ μαράναι ἄνεμος, ἐκπέσοι δὲ αὐτοῦ τὸ ἄνθος. μὴ πιστευέτω ὅτι ὑπομενεῖ, κενὰ γὰρ ἀποβήσεται αὐτῷ· ἡ τομὴ αὐτοῦ πρὸ ὥρας φθαρήσεται,

30

31 32

‫לא יסור מני חׁשך‬ ‫ינקתו תיבׁש ׁשלהבת‬ ‫ויסור ברוח פיו‬ ‫אל יאמן בׁשו נתעה‬ ‫כי ׁשוא תהיה תמורתו‬ ‫בלא יומו תמלא‬

56  I add that God is not the exclusive subject of ὑπακούω in OG Job. See 13:22 and 14:15, for example. 57  This verb occurs seven times in OG Job (9:15.16; 22:27; 27:9.10; 30:20; 36:10). In 9:15 ὑπακούω is listed as a variant reading. It is interesting that in OG Job, only God occurs as the subject of εἰσακούω. Note that ὑπακούω occurs twice in the protasis and εἰσακούω in the apodosis. One could hypothesize that this is a mode of the translator, using one verb systematically in the protasis and another in the apodosis, but a look at all occurrences of these verbs in OG Job does not support this hypothesis. 58  Note the variation in the position of μου in 14a (before the verb).

283

increasing complexity καὶ ὁ ῥάδαμνος αὐτοῦ οὐ μὴ πυκάσῃ· τρυγηθείη δὲ ὥσπερ ὄμφαξ πρὸ ὥρας, ἐκπέσοι δὲ ὡς ἄνθος ἐλαίας. μαρτύριον γὰρ ἀσεβοῦς θάνατος, πῦρ δὲ καύσει οἴκους δωροδεκτῶν. ἐν γαστρὶ δὲ λήμψεται ὀδύνας, ἀποβήσεται δὲ αὐτῷ κενά, ἡ δὲ κοιλία αὐτοῦ ὑποίσει δόλον. Nor shall he escape darkness. May the wind dry up his bud, and may his blossom fall off. Let him not believe that he will endure, for emptiness will turn out to be his lot. His stump will perish before its time, and his branch will provide no cover. But may he be picked like unripe grapes, before his time, and fall off, like an olive blossom. For the testimony of the impious is death, and fire will burn the houses of bribe-takers. And he will conceive sorrows, and his lot will turn out to be emptiness, and his belly will carry deceit.

33 34 35

‫וכפתו לא רעננה‬ ‫יחמס כגפן בסרו‬ ‫ויׁשלך כזית נצתו‬ ‫כי עדת חנף גלמוד‬ ‫ואׁש אכלה אהלי ׁשחד‬ ‫הרה עמל וילד און‬ ‫ובטנם תכין מרמה‬

They will not escape from darkness; the flame will dry up their shoots, and their blossom will be swept away by the wind. Let them not trust in emptiness, deceiving themselves; for emptiness will be their recompense. It will be paid in full before their time, and their branch will not be green. They will shake off their unripe grape, like the vine, and cast off their blossoms, like the olive tree. For the company of the godless is barren, and fire consumes the tents of bribery. They conceive mischief and bring forth evil and their heart prepares deceit.

This section is part of the second speech of Eliphaz, who narrates to Job the fate of the wicked. These verses have been taken together to constitute a unit on the basis of the translator’s use of repetitions. The rendering of ‫ יסור‬in 30a and of ‫ ויסור‬in 30c as ἐκφύγῃ and ἐκπέσοι, respectively, has been discussed in chapter 6. The elimination of the repetition of ‫ סור‬can be regarded as a result of a difference in contextual meaning which has been reflected in the Greek translation. The repetition of the prefix ἐκ- harmonizes the two verbal forms, perhaps as a compensation for the loss of the repetition of the verb. In other words, the translator has used a different tactic to create a formal connection in the Greek.

284

chapter 8

In the context of the broader stylistic unit to which 15:30 belongs, another significant observation can be made regarding the use of ἐκπέσοι in 30c. Colon 15:33a seems to have influenced the word choice in an earlier colon, namely, 15:30c. In the former, the Greek and the Hebrew share a straightforward equivalence, even though the translator has rendered ‫ כזית נצתו‬as a construct state (with a reversal of the word order, ἄνθος ἐλαίας), rather than as two different syntactical units, that is, a prepositional phrase and a direct object. In 30c, ‫ברוח‬ is a minus in the Greek. This minus might be ascribed to the translator, who was motivated by the striving for formal correspondence between cola 30c and 33a. Moreover, it appears that ‫ ברוח‬was taken together with 30b. Colon 30b represents a paraphrase in which the wind of the desert is held responsible for the withering.59 The repetition of ‫ ׁשוא‬60 at v. 31 is not reflected in the Greek, possibly owing to the translator’s tendency to add variation. ‫ בׁשו‬is a minus in the second colon, and ‫( נתעה‬niphal, “he has been led astray”) is said to be reflected in ὅτι ὑπομενεῖ.61 Colon 31b is rendered paraphrastically in the Greek. The translator chose one of his favorite words, ἀποβαίνω.62 This word occurs twenty times in the LXX, fifteen of which in OG Job. Even though the translator does not retain the repetition in the Hebrew, he does introduce another repetition of his own by repeating 15:31b anaphorically as a plus in OG 15:35b.63 The word order of OG 35b is different from that of OG 31b, however, the result of which is a chiastic arrangement of these two cola. OG 32a constitutes another paraphrastic rendering. The translator continues using imagery related to the agricultural domain. The future indicative φθαρήσεται renders ‫תמלא‬, interpreted as a form of the verb ‫“ מלל‬to whither,”64 which also appears in Job 14:2; 18:16; 24:24.65 τομή reflects ‫תמורתו‬, which in the Hebrew appears at the end of the previous verse and which the translator has taken with 32a. Perhaps the translator read ‫ תמורתו‬differently, as a form derived 59  Cox, Iob, s.v. 15:30. 60  The apparatus of BHS notes that many manuscripts read ‫ בׁשוא‬for ‫בׁשו‬. 61  Cox, Iob, s.v. 15:31. 62  Heater, Septuagint Translation Technique, 62–63; Orlinsky, “Studies IV,” 132. 63  Heater, Septuagint Translation Technique, 62–63. The construction κενὰ ἀποβαίνω + dative reccurs also in 34:20, where it does not formally correspond to the Hebrew text of this verse. 64  Gordis, Job, 166, followed by Cox, Iob, s.v. 15:32. 65  The Greek renderings are ἐκπίπτω in 14:2 and ἀποπίπτω in 24:24. 18:16 is asterisked in the Greek. φθείρω occurs only here in OG Job, but appears another eighteen times in other LXX books, e.g., Gen 6:11; Exod 10:15; Lev 19:27; Deut 34:7; 4 Macc 18:8; Wis 16:27; Isa 24:4; 54:16; Jer 13:9; Ezek 16:52.

increasing complexity

285

from ‫“ זמר‬to prune.” Compare the only other occurrence of τομή in Song 2:12, used to render the cognate noun ‫“ זמיר‬pruning.”66 C. L. Seow suggests that the translator might have read ‫תמרתו‬, from ‫“ תמרה‬stalk.”67 The result of taking ‫ תמורתו‬with 32a is that the verb of this colon has a subject and corresponds formally more closely to 32b.68 The prepositional phrase πρὸ ὥρας corresponds to ‫בלא יומו‬. πρὸ ὥρας is repeated two more times at different places within this unit. In 33a, πρὸ ὥρας is a plus. Cox states that “the translator’s understanding of the line is made clear by the addition of πρὸ ὥρας, ‘before his time,’ repeated from v. 32a.”69 This prepositional phrase is the anacrusis within the symmetric arrangement of 33a and 33b. It reflects the symmetry in the Hebrew. The translator has, however, added variation in the use of the comparative particle, with ὥσπερ in 33a and ὡς in 33b. OG 15:34 reflects the Hebrew in a straightforward manner and need not be analyzed further at this point. Instead, we turn to the next verse. The Hebrew features a bicolon consisting of three near-synonymous expressions: ‫ ובטנם תכין מרמה‬/ ‫ וילד און‬/ ‫הרה עמל‬. The Greek rendering, in turn, deviates. While the equivalence between the Hebrew and the Greek is clear in OG 35c (‫—בטן‬κοιλία, ‫—תכין‬ὑποίσει, ‫—מרמה‬δόλον), the translator has rendered the first colon in such a way that instead of featuring a repetition of the notion of conceiving evil (‫)הרה עמל וילד און‬, the Greek just has one clause, ἐν γαστρὶ δὲ λήμψεται ὀδύνας. This colon is constructed symmetrical to 35c. This can explain the plus of ἐν γαστρί, which was added to bring balance to both cola. Between 35a and 35c, the Greek has another colon, a repetition of 31b, thus making v. 35 tricolonic. With 35b corresponding chiastically to 31b, variation is introduced within the framework of the repetition. We may also hypothesize that 35b was inserted here as a way of adding some variety in between two cola that are semantically near-synonymous and symmetrically parallel. As a stylistic unit, the rendering of 15:30–35 shows clearly how the use of different features dynamically interacts within the translation process. 3.4 Job 28:12–23 The chapter on wisdom is significantly shorter in the OG than it is in the Hebrew text, with twenty-eight out of fifty-six cola being asterisked material. Some verses of Job 28 have already been discussed, such as 28:1 and 28:10–11. At this point I will discuss 28:12–23. 66  Beer, Hiob, 98; Dhorme, Job, 225; Forher, Hiob, 265; Herz, “Some Difficult Passages,” 162. 67  Seow, Job 1–21, 725. 68  Cox, Iob, s.v. 15:32. 69  Cox, Iob, s.v. 15:33.

286 ἡ δὲ σοφία πόθεν εὑρέθη; ποῖος δὲ τόπος ἐστὶν τῆς ἐπιστήμης; οὐκ οἶδεν βροτὸς ὁδὸν αὐτῆς, οὐδὲ μὴ εὑρεθῇ ἐν ἀνθρώποις.

chapter 8 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

ἡ δὲ σοφία πόθεν εὑρέθη; ποῖος δὲ τόπος ἐστὶν τῆς συνέσεως; λέληθεν πάντα ἄνθρωπον

Ἀκηκόαμεν δὲ αὐτῆς τὸ κλέος. ὁ θεὸς εὖ συνέστησεν αὐτῆς τὴν ὁδόν, αὐτὸς δὲ οἶδεν τὸν τόπον αὐτῆς. But wisdom—where was it found? And of what sort is the place of knowledge? No mortal knows its way, nor will it ever be discovered among human beings.

20 21 22 23

‫והחכמה מאין תמצא‬ ‫ואי זה מקום בינה‬ ‫לא ידע אנוׁש ערכה‬ ‫ולא תמצא בארץ החיים‬ ‫תהום אמר לא בי היא‬ ‫וים אמר אין עמדי‬ ‫לא יתן סגור תחתיה‬ ‫ולא יׁשקל כסף מחירה‬ ‫לא תסלה בכתם אופיר‬ ‫בׁשהם יקר וספיר‬ ‫לא יערכנה זהב וזכוכית‬ ‫ותמורתה כלי פז‬ ‫ראמות וגביׁש לא יזכר‬ ‫ומׁשך חכמה מפנינים‬ ‫לא יערכנה פטדת כוׁש‬ ‫בכתם טהור לא תסלה‬ ‫והחכמה מאין תבוא‬ ‫ואי זה מקום בינה‬ ‫ונעלמה מעיני כל חי‬ ‫ומעוף הׁשמים נסתרה‬ ‫אבדון ומות אמרו‬ ‫באזנינו ׁשמענו ׁשמעה‬ ‫אלהים הבין דרכה‬ ‫והוא ידע את מקומה‬

But where shall wisdom be found? And where is the place of understanding? Mortals do not know the way to it, and it is not found in the land of the living. The deep says, “It is not in me,” and the sea says, “It is not with me.” It cannot be gotten for gold, and silver cannot be weighed out as its price. It cannot be valued in the gold of Ophir, in precious onyx or sapphire. Gold and glass cannot equal it,

287

increasing complexity

But wisdom—where was it found? And of what sort is the place of knowledge? It has escaped notice by any human,

but we have heard of its renown. God has established well its way, and he himself knows its place.

nor can it be exchanged for jewels of fine gold. No mention shall be made of coral or of crystal; the price of wisdom is above pearls. The chrysolite of Ethiopia cannot compare with it, nor can it be valued in pure gold. Where then does wisdom come from? And where is the place of understanding? It is hidden from the eyes of all living, and concealed from the birds of the air. Abaddon and Death say, “We have heard a rumor of it with our ears.” God understands the way to it, and he knows its place.

In her analysis of the Greek text of Job, Gorea attributes the shortening of the text to the translator. He has left out the personifying references to ‫ תהום‬and ‫ים‬ as well as to ‫ אבדון‬and ‫—מות‬something he also did in 26:5–6.70 I will cite the Greek text without the asterisked materials in order to keep an overview of the Greek and facilitate a literary analysis of this passage. 12a 12b 13a 13b 20a 20b 21a 22b 23a 23b

ἡ δὲ σοφία πόθεν εὑρέθη; ποῖος δὲ τόπος ἐστὶν τῆς ἐπιστήμης; οὐκ οἶδεν βροτὸς ὁδὸν αὐτῆς, οὐδὲ μὴ εὑρεθῇ ἐν ἀνθρώποις. ἡ δὲ σοφία πόθεν εὑρέθη; ποῖος δὲ τόπος ἐστὶν τῆς συνέσεως; λέληθεν πάντα ἄνθρωπον Ἀκηκόαμεν δὲ αὐτῆς τὸ κλέος. ὁ θεὸς εὖ συνέστησεν αὐτῆς τὴν ὁδόν, αὐτὸς δὲ οἶδεν τὸν τόπον αὐτῆς.

70  Gorea, Job repensé, 116.

288

chapter 8

The Hebrew features many repetitions, some of which are reflected in the Greek, such as the recurrence of ‫ החכמה‬in 12a and 20a; ‫ מקום‬in 12b, 20b, and 23b; ‫ תמצא‬in 12a and 13b; ‫ ידע‬in 13a and 23b. The Hebrew text of v. 12 is similar to that of v. 20. While the similarity between v. 12 and v. 20 is also clear in the Greek text, there are two noteworthy differences between the Hebrew and the Greek. First, the variation present in the Hebrew text between ‫ תמצא‬in 12a and ‫ תבוא‬in 20a is not reflected in the Greek. The translator has used εὑρέθη twice, which results in a threefold repetition of the verb εὑρίσκω in this unit, thus elaborating on the repetition present in the Hebrew. Second, the Greek adds variation in the rendering of ‫בינה‬, by using τῆς ἐπιστήμης in 12b and τῆς συνέσεως in 20b, thus eliminating the repetition present in the Hebrew. The nouns ἐπιστήμη and σύνεσις are semantically closely related. This becomes clear especially on the basis of Job 12:16 and 22:2. In these passages, the translator uses ἐπιστήμη with σύνεσις without there being a basis for this specific word pair in the Hebrew text. These observations are consistent with the translator’s non-default approach. In 12b and 20b, the Hebrew text has two nominal clauses, but the Greek translator introduces the copula ἐστι, thus separating the genitives from their governing noun, τόπος. This is an indication of the use of natural Greek. This stands in contrast to the interference that characterizes 22b–23b, with the repeated use of αὐτῆς. The translator does, however, vary the position of the pronoun vis-à-vis its governing noun. In 13a we find the first use of ὁδός. This noun reoccurs in 23a, where it translates ‫דרך‬. In 13a, however, it renders ‫ערך‬. The apparatus of BHS includes a conjecture based on the Greek, namely ‫דרכה‬. While this would be possible, given the observation that the translator often introduces repetitions of his own, it need not be a text-critical issue, especially since ‫ דרכה‬is not attested in any manuscripts. We see in the following colon, 13b, that the translator makes two cola (13b and 21a) correspond more closely in the Greek than they do in the Hebrew. In 13b the Hebrew reads ‫ בארץ החיים‬where the Greek reads ἐν ἀνθρώποις, and in 21a, where the Hebrew has ‫מעיני כל חי‬, the Greek has πάντα ἄνθρωπον. These are the only instances in Job where ‫ חי‬is rendered by means of the word ἄνθρωπος.71 The Greek reflects the repetition of ‫ חי‬by repeating

71  In 12:10 it is rendered using the present participle of ζάω “to live” and in 30:23 using the poetic θνητός. The noun ‫“ חי‬life” is always rendered by means of a form of the root ζη- (see Job 3:20; 7:7; 9:21; 10:12; 24:22; 27:2; 33:30; only in 10:1 does ‫ חי‬represent a minus in the Greek).

289

increasing complexity

ἄνθρωπος, but by not rendering ‫ בארץ‬and ‫מעיני‬, the terseness of the correspondence increases. This, too, is consistent with the translator’s working methods.72 The opposite seems to have been the case for the rendering of 23a. In this colon, the deviation between the Hebrew and the Greek could be text-critical. The Hebrew text of v. 23 features two synonymous cola structured symmetrically (subject—verb—object). The Greek reflects the symmetrical arrangement, but does not reflect the synonymity. The translator sometimes makes two synonymous cola less synonymous (see Job 5:6–7, among others). Hence, this deviation could be explainable on the basis of the translation technique. A minority of Hebrew manuscripts, however, contain a variant reading for ‫הבין‬, namely ‫( הכין‬see the critical apparatus of BHS). It seems that this reading is reflected in the OG. As such, the Greek translator is likely to have read two symmetrically arranged but semantically different cola. 3.5

Job 31:8–11

Job 31:8–11 σπείραιμι ἄρα καὶ ἄλλοι φάγοισαν, 8 ἄρριζος δὲ γενοίμην ἐπὶ γῆς. εἰ ἐξηκολούθησεν ἡ καρδία μου γυναικὶ 9 ἀνδρὸς ἑτέρου, εἰ καὶ ἐγκάθετος ἐγενόμην ἐπὶ θύραις αὐτῆς, ἀρέσαι ἄρα καὶ ἡ γυνή μου ἑτέρῳ, τὰ δὲ νήπιά μου ταπεινωθείη· θυμὸς γὰρ ὀργῆς ἀκατάσχετος τὸ μιᾶναι ἀνδρὸς γυναῖκα. Then may I sow and others eat, and may I become without root on earth. If my heart followed another man’s wife, if in fact I lay in wait at her doors,

10 11

‫אזרעה ואחר יאכל‬ ‫וצאצאי יׁשרׁשו‬ ‫אשה‬ ׁ ‫אם נפתה לבי על‬ ‫ועל פתח רעי ארבתי‬ ‫אשתי‬ ׁ ‫תטחן לאחר‬ ‫ועליה יכרעון אחרין‬ ‫כי הוא זמה‬ ‫היא עון פלילים‬

Then let me sow, and another eat; and let what grows for me be rooted out. If my heart has been enticed by a woman, and I have lain in wait at my neighbor’s door;

72  One could speculate that by not rendering ‫ בארץ‬and ‫מעיני‬, wisdom is not associated as strongly with the physical world or the senses in the Greek as it is in the Hebrew, but this requires a thorough study of the representation of wisdom in the Greek text of Job.

290 then may my wife too be pleasing to another, and may my children be humiliated. For a fit of passion is uncontrollable, namely, the defiling of a man’s wife.

chapter 8 then let my wife grind for another, and let other men kneel over her. For that would be a heinous crime; that would be a criminal offense.

Cola 8b and 9b are symmetrically structured in the Greek text (adjective— noun—prepositional phrase), as opposed to the Hebrew text, in which no structural correspondence between these cola can be identified. Within this symmetry in the Greek, both prepositional phrases are introduced by ἐπί. This repetition constitutes an epiphora. The verb is twice a form of γίνομαι; this constitutes a mesodiplosis. OG 8b is characterized as a paraphrastic rendering based on a metaphorical understanding of the Hebrew.73 It appears that ἄρριζος γενοίμην represents ‫יׁשרׁשו‬. The occurrence of ἄρριζος in this verse is unique to the LXX.74 ‫ ׁשרׁש‬as a verb occurs three times in Job, rendered as ῥίζαν βάλλω in 5:3 and as ἐκ ῥιζῶν ἀπόλλυμι in 31:12.75 The Greek has no equivalent for the Hebrew ‫וצאצאי‬, but the Greek does have a plus, ἐπὶ γῆς, to clarify the meaning of the colon.76 Regarding colon 9b, ἐγκάθετος ἐγενόμην represents ‫ארבתי‬. The use of a descriptive copula + predicate for a qal perfect is striking, especially since (1) the predicate is not a participle77 but a rare adjective that does not occur in the LXX outside the book of Job,78 and (2) the translator does not use γίνομαι in a similar construction in any other instance. Moreover, the rendering is unique. The Hebrew verb ‫ ארב‬is usually rendered as ἐνεδρεύω,79 but never as ἐγκάθημαι or a form related to this verb, such as the circumlocution 73  Cox, Iob, s.v. 31:8. 74  It is, in fact, only rarely attested in Greek literature (TLG), and not in papyri (Pap) or inscriptions (SEG). 75  Compare the rendering of the verb ‫ ׁשרׁש‬in other LXX books, such as ῥιζόω “to take root” in Isa 40:24; Jer 12:2 and ῥίζωμα “root” in Ps 51(52):7. 76  Cox, Iob, s.v. 31:9. 77  This is a construction that is known to and used by the translator of Job, see, for example, 7:3 (‫“ מנו לי‬they are apportioned to me”—δεδομέναι μοί εἰσιν “they were given to me”); 11:18 (‫“ תחטב‬you will have confidence”—πεποιθώς ἔσῃ “you will be confident”); 19:21 (‫“ נגעה בי‬it has touched me”—ἁψαμένη μού ἐστιν “it has touched me”); 31:5 (‫“ הלכתי‬I have walked”—ἤμην πεπορευμένος “I had gone”). 78  The only occurrence of ἐγκάθετος appears in 19:12, rendering ‫סביב לאהלי‬. 79  See Deut 19:11; Josh 8:4; Judg 9:34.43; 16:2; 21:20; 1 Kgdms 15:5; Ps 9:30 (MT 10:9); Prov 7:12; Lam 3:10; 4:19—see also ἔνεδρον “ambush” in Judg 9:32. Other renderings of ‫ארב‬, each of them unique, are δικάζω “to condemn” in Mic 7:2; θηρεύω “to hunt” in Ps 58(59):4; κοινωνέω “to take part” in Prov 1:11; δόλιος “deceitful” in Prov 12:6; προσάγω “to bring to” in Prov 24:15; πολεμέω “to fight” in 2 Chr 20:22.

291

increasing complexity

ἐγκάθετος γίνομαι. It appears that the renderings of cola 8b and 9b have influenced one another, resulting in partially symmetrical cola with elements of repetition (adjective + γίνομαι followed by a prepositional phrase with ἐπί). The Hebrew displays an epiphora of ‫ אׁשה‬in vv. 9–10. In the Greek text, this repetition of ‫ אׁשה‬is reflected in the repeated use of γυνή, but not in the form of an epiphora. In the first colon of v. 9 the Greek contains a plus after γυναικί, namely ἀνδρὸς ἑτέρου. According to Dhorme, γυναικὶ ἀνδρὸς ἑτέρου is the result of joining ‫ רעי‬in 9b to ‫ אׁשה‬in 10a.80 In the first colon of v. 10 the word order is different in the Greek (‫—לאחר אׁשתי‬ἡ γυνή μου ἑτέρῳ). As a result, γυνή constitutes a mesodiplosis and the Greek text features an epiphora of its own, namely of ἕτερος. The observations that ἕτερος in 9a is part of a plus (or a transposition from ‫ רעי‬in 9b) and that the word order in 10a is different from the Hebrew indicate that the epiphora might not have been a coincidental element. In 11b, γυνή is used a third time and ἀνήρ a second time. OG 11b, rather than reflecting a translation of the Hebrew of the MT, presents an explanation of ‫זמה‬, in light of Num 5:11–31.81 As such, v. 11 does not represent a near-synonymous parallelism as in the Hebrew. There are two elements of variation in the repetitions. First, the constituents of the word group ἀνδρὸς γυναῖκα occur in a chiastic arrangement with γυναικὶ ἀνδρὸς ἑτέρου in 9a. Second, 9a reads ἀνδρὸς ἑτέρου, 10a ἑτέρῳ, and 11b ἀνδρός. This indicates again a stylistic awareness on the part of the translator. 3.6

Job 41:11–13

Job 41:11–13 ἐκ στόματος αὐτοῦ ἐκπορεύονται λαμπάδες καιόμεναι καὶ διαρριπτοῦνται ἐσχάραι πυρός· ἐκ μυκτήρων αὐτοῦ ἐκπορεύεται καπνὸς καμίνου καιομένης πυρὶ ἀνθράκων· ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ ἄνθρακες, φλὸξ δὲ ἐκ στόματος αὐτοῦ ἐκπορεύεται. From its mouth proceed flaming torches, and fiery braziers are being cast forth. From its nostrils proceeds smoke

11

12 13

‫מפיו לפידים יהלכו‬ ‫כידודי אׁש יתמלטו‬ ‫מנחיריו יצא עׁשן‬ ‫כדוד נפוח ואגמן‬ ‫נפׁשו גחלים תלהט‬ ‫ולהב מפיו יצא‬

From its mouth go flaming torches; sparks of fire leap out. Out of its nostrils comes smoke,

80  Dhorme, Job, 453. 81  Cox, Iob, s.v. 31:11; Dhorme, Job, 455; Heater, Septuagint Translation Technique, 94–95.

292 of a furnace burning with the fire of coals. Its soul is coals, and a flame comes out of its mouth.

chapter 8 as from a boiling pot and burning rushes. Its breath kindles coals, and a flame proceeds from its mouth.

This passage is characterized by a high concentration of repetitions, comparable to the example of Job 28:12–23 above. Job 41:11–13 contains many recurrences in the Greek text, only two of which reflect a repetition in the Hebrew, that is, ‫—מפיו‬ἐκ στόματος in 11a and 13b as well as ‫—יצא )…( מן‬ἐκ (…) ἐκπορεύεται in 12a and 13b. In the Greek, ἐκ (…) ἐκπορεύεται appears a third time. The additional repetition is located in 11a, where it reflects ‫מן (…) יהלכו‬. Whereas ἐκπορεύομαι is used for ‫ יצא‬in Job 29:7; 38:8.29; 39:21; 41:12.13, only in 41:11 does it render ‫ הלך‬qal “to go.”82 After a shared initial position of the prepositional phrase in 11a and 11b, the word order of the Greek deviates from that of the Hebrew. The Greek has a verb—subject order, whereas the Hebrew has subject—verb. This difference was possibly inspired by natural Greek order. The result is that both cola do still display a partial symmetry in Greek like in Hebrew, but in a different form. In the Greek, 11a and 11b thus also become symmetrical to 12a. This symmetry is emphasized by the repetition in 11a and 12a, which is not present in the Hebrew text. ἐσχάραι πυρός renders ‫כידודי אׁש‬. The word ‫ כידוד‬is a hapax legomenon, generally interpreted as “spark.” The Greek equivalent fits within the semantic domain of fire, and ἐσχάραι πυρός occurs several times in Greek literature (e.g., Homer, Il. 10.418 as “watch-fires”; Aeschylus, Eumenides 108 as “hearth of fire” [LSJ]). Colon 12a ends with καπνός, a common rendering of ‫( עׁשן‬HR). καπνός, in turn, is the beginning of a threefold alliteration of the ka-sound, καπνὸς καμίνου καιομένης. In a versified text, this alliteration marks the enjambment. καιομένης is the second occurrence of καίω, which already appeared as a plus in 11a. Regarding 11a, ‫—לפיד‬λαμπάς is a standardized equivalent in the LXX.83 The introduction of the repetition of καίω therefore seems stylistically motivated. Regarding 12b, καμίνου καιομένης πυρὶ ἀνθράκων is the equivalent of ‫כדוד נפוח ואגמן‬. Rather than interpreting the Hebrew ‫ כדוד‬as the preposition ‫ כ‬with the noun ‫“ דוד‬cooking pot,” the translator seems to have read ‫כור‬ “furnace.”84 For the participle ‫ נפוח‬the translator uses καίω (compare the ren82  For a list of possible renderings of ‫ הלך‬in OG Job, see above. 83  See, for example, Gen 15:17; Exod 20:18; Judg 7:16; Isa 62:1; Ezek 1:13; Nah 2:5; Dan 10:6. 84  Cox, Iob, s.v. 41:11–13. ‫ כור‬is rendered as κάμινος in Deut 4:20; Prov 17:3; Isa 48:10; Jer 11:4; Ezek 22:20.22; Prov 17:3.

293

increasing complexity

dering of ‫“ אׁש לא נפח‬a fire that is not fanned” as πῦρ ἄκαυστον “an unlit fire” in 20:26). The interpretation of ‫ אגמן‬has proven to be difficult and is often emended by commentators.85 Within the HB, ‫ אגמן‬only occurs in Isa 9:13; 19:15; 58:5; Job 40:26; 41:12. The Greek translator of Isaiah does not seem to know the meaning of the word, rendering ‫“ כפה ואגמון‬branch and reed” as μέγαν καὶ μικρόν “great and small” in 9:13, as ἀρχὴν καὶ τέλος “beginning and end” in 19:15, and ‫“ הלכף כאגמן ראׁשו‬does he bow down his head like reed?” as οὐδ᾿ ἂν κάμψῃς ὡς κρίκον τὸν τράχηλόν σου; “does he not bow your neck like a ring?” in 58:5. These three renderings make sense in the context but do not reflect a clear indication of an understanding of the actual meaning of ‫אגמן‬. As for the book of Job, the only other occurrence of ‫אגמן‬, in Job 40:26, is part of a colon where the Greek equivalent is asterisked. For 41:12b, we cannot say whether the translation represented a parent text similar to the MT. In any case, the translator drew on words appearing in the immediate environment to construct the colon: πῦρ, referring back to 11b, and ἄνθραξ, pointing forward to 13a. In 13a, ἄνθραξ renders ‫“ גחל‬burning charcoal,” as it often does in the LXX.86 In the case of 12b, repetition seems to have been used to make sense of a difficult Hebrew text. ‫ תלהט‬in 13a represents a minus in OG Job; OG 13a is a nominal sentence. 13b is a one-for-one rendering of the Hebrew, reflecting the features present in the Hebrew text, that is, the repetition of ‫( מפיו‬ἐκ στόματος αὐτοῦ) and of ‫יצא‬ (ἐκπορεύεται), as well as the word order. 3.7

Job 41:18–24

Job 41:18–24 ἐὰν συναντήσωσιν αὐτῷ λόγχαι, οὐδὲν μὴ ποιήσωσιν 18 ἥγηται μὲν γὰρ σίδηρον ἄχυρα, χαλκὸν δὲ ὥσπερ ξύλον σαθρόν· οὐ μὴ τρώσῃ αὐτὸν τόξον χάλκειον, ἥγηται μὲν πετροβόλον χόρτον· καταγελᾷ δὲ σεισμοῦ πυρφόρου. ἡ στρωμνὴ αὐτοῦ ὀβελίσκοι ὀξεῖς,

19 20 21 22

‫מׂשיגהו חרב בלי תקום‬ ‫חנית מסע וׁשריה‬ ‫יחׁשב לתבן ברזל‬ ‫לעץ רקבון נחוׁשה‬ ‫לא יבריחנו בן קׁשת‬ ‫לקׁש נהפכו לו אבני קלע‬ ‫כקׁש נחׁשבו תותח‬ ‫ויׂשחק לרעׁש כידון‬ ‫תחתיו חדודי חרׂש‬

85  Clines, Job, 1166; Dhorme, Job, 637; Fohrer, Hiob, 527; Habel, Job, 556. Retaining the MT are Driver and Gray, Job, 367 (though hesitantly). 86  See, for example, Lev 16:12; 2 Kgdms 14:7; 22:9.13; Ps 17(18):9; 119(120):4; Prov 6:28; Isa 44:19; Ezek 1:13; 10:2.

294 πᾶς δὲ χρυσὸς θαλάσσης ὑπ᾿ αὐτὸν ὥσπερ πηλὸς ἀμύθητος. ἀναζεῖ τὴν ἄβυσσον ὥσπερ χαλκεῖον, ἥγηται δὲ τὴν θάλασσαν ὥσπερ ἐξάλειπτρον, τὸν δὲ τάρταρον τῆς ἀβύσσου ὥσπερ αἰχμάλωτον.

If spears meet it, they will do nothing,

for it regards iron as chaff and bronze as rotten wood. A bronze bow will never wound it; it regards a catapult as grass

and laughs to scorn the waving of a firebrand. Its bed is sharp points, and all the sea’s gold under it is like untold clay. It makes the deep boil like a caldron and regards the sea as a pot of ointment and Tartarus of the deep as a captive.

chapter 8 ‫ירפד חרוץ עלי טיט‬

23 24

‫ירתיח כסיר מצולה‬ ‫ים יׂשים כמרקחה‬ ‫אחריו יאיר נתיב‬ ‫יחׁשב תהום לׂשיבה‬

Though the sword reaches it, it does not avail, nor does the spear, the dart, or the javelin. It counts iron as straw, and bronze as rotten wood. The arrow cannot make it flee; slingstones, for it, are turned to chaff. Clubs are counted as chaff; it laughs at the rattle of javelins. Its underparts are like sharp potsherds; it spreads itself like a threshing sledge on mire. It makes the deep boil like a pot; it makes the sea like a pot of ointment. It leaves a shining wake behind it; one would think the deep to be white-haired.

This passage is part of the description of the dragon mentioned in 40:25. The translator has presented these verses as a unit by introducing particles and repeating vocabulary independently from the source text.87 While Dhorme sees the rendering of v. 18 as a paraphrase,88 Cox argues that the translator translated 18a in a rather straightforward manner. The translator, however, did render ‫“ חרב‬sword” by means of λόγχη “spear,” because a spear is a more menacing weapon used from afar rather than a 87  Cox, Iob, s.v. 41:18–21. 88  Dhorme, Job, 640.

increasing complexity

295

handheld weapon used for individual combat. Alternatively, the translator could have regarded ‫ חנית‬as a collective singular or changed the number for the sake of emphasis,89 since one spear would not hurt a dragon,90 or he could have taken the four nouns in the Hebrew (‫ )חרב חנית מסע וׁשריה‬together into one.91 The rendering of 41:19 has been discussed earlier. In 41:19, ἡγέομαι renders the Hebrew ‫חׁשב ל‬. Whereas the first colon reflects a natural usage of ἡγέομαι with a double accusative, the second colon contains a sign of interference by complementing the verb with ὥσπερ. Both the Hebrew and the Greek reflect a symmetrical arrangement, but in the Greek, the object naturally has to come first (σίδηρον in 19a and χαλκόν in 19b).92 Job 41:19 is subordinate to 41:20 using γάρ. Consequently, v. 19 functions to explain why the dragon does not fear spears, even though, as mentioned in v. 18, they are made of iron and bronze.93 The two cola of v. 19 are structured using μέν/δέ. Job 41:20a is an example of inversion, with an emphatic double negation οὐ μή, typical of a higher register.94 The translator also uses one of his favorite words, τιτρώσκω. Colon 20a forms a semantic parallelism with 18a. The colon ends with a root play, forming a parenthetic construction of the cognates χαλκόν at the opening of 19b and χάλκειον at the end of 20a. τόξον χάλκειον already appeared in 20:24 as a rendering of ‫“ קׁשת נחוׁשה‬a bronze bow.” In 41:20b ἡγέομαι is repeated, this time rendering ‫“ נהפכו לו‬are turned into (…) for him,” thus linking 20b to 19a. The former is structured symmetrically to the latter. As for the rendering of ‫אבני‬ ‫“ קלע‬slingstones,” the translator emphasizes the weapon rather than the ammunition. As in 18a, the translator opts for a more powerful weapon, namely πετροβόλος “catapult.” Job 41:20b is, in turn, also tied to 41:21b by the use of ­μέν/δέ. MT 22a does not have an equivalent in the Greek text. Perhaps the repetition of something being compared to ‫קׁש‬, with ‫ קׁש‬constituting an anaphora in the Hebrew text of 20b and 21a, caused the translator to refrain from rendering it.95 OG 21b, then, reflects the Hebrew in the equivalences ‫—ׂשחק‬καταγελάω and ‫—רעׁש‬σεισμός (see HR for both). The rendering of ‫כידון‬, however, has been the subject of debate, as ‫ כידון‬is traditionally understood as a javelin (compare 89  The translator varying the grammatical number is a translational feature of OG Job (see chapter 1 of this book). 90  Cox, Iob, s.v. 41:18–21. 91  Gorea, Job repensé, 216. 92  Cox, Iob, s.v. 41:18–21. 93  Cox, Iob, s.v. 41:18–21. 94  Muraoka, Syntax, 709. The translator of Job uses this double negation forty-nine times. 95  Cox, Iob, s.v. 41:18–21; Gorea, Job repensé, 217. See also the different ways in which the translator may eliminate a repetition discussed in chapter 6.

296

chapter 8

the Greek translations of ‫ כידון‬in Josh 8:18 and Jer 6:23, for example),96 but in OG Job it is rendered as πυρφόρος.97 G. Beer has suggested that this translation reflects the reading ‫ כדוד‬in 41:11 (see above). It is possible that the reference to fire could be attributed to the translator, who has been listing a range of different weapons: spears (18a), a bow (20a), a catapult (20b), and now fire (21b). For “fire,” the translator uses the composite πυρφόρος, a word that occurs frequently in Greek literature (LSJ), but is unique in the LXX.98 If we may indeed assume that the OG does not reflect a different reading of the Hebrew, then ‫ תחתיו‬is being interpreted as what is physically underneath the dragon, that is, his bed (ἡ στρωμνή, also used in 17:13), rather than his underparts. ὀβελίσκοι ὀξεῖς renders ‫חדודי חרׂש‬. The translator has put the adjective after the noun, since adjectives in natural Greek word order can be placed either before or after their noun. The dragon can effortlessly lay on a bed of sharp nails. The translator then makes 22b a nominal clause, like 22a. Some word choices reflect the Hebrew: ‫—חרוץ‬χρυσός, which relies on a different interpretation of the word ‫חרוץ‬, often interpreted by modern commentators as “threshing floor”;99 ‫—טיט‬πηλός; ‫—רפד‬ὑπ᾿ αὐτόν.100 The pluses pertain to πᾶς, emphasizing χρυσός; θαλάσσης, which provides a locus for the dragon’s activity and anticipates the following cola; the particle ὥσπερ introducing a simile; and ἀμύθητος, a word indicating a literary register which had already been used in 8:7 and 36:28.101 The translator has added a simile in other instances, too, namely in both cola of Job 13:25.102 He may also elaborate on the simile present

96  Clines, Job, 1172; Dhorme, Job, 642; Fohrer, Hiob, 516; Alonso Schökel and Sicre Diaz, Job, 546. 97  On the syntax of σεισμοῦ πυρφόρου, see Cox, Iob, s.v. 41:18–21. 98  We may perhaps compare Obad 1:18, πυροφόρος “inflammatory missile, bearer of sacrificial fire,” whereas the semantic range of πυρφόρος seems broader (LSJ). Note that Polybius uses πυρφόρος in the sense of an engine for throwing fire, see Hist. 21.7.1 (see also BoydTaylor, Reading between the Lines, 403–6). 99  Clines, Job, 1173; Dhorme, Job, 642; Driver and Gray, Job, 369–70; Fohrer, Hiob, 527; Habel, Job, 552; Pope, Job, 281. 100  Cox, Iob, s.v. 41:22. 101  Outside of Job, this adjective appears only in 2 Macc 3:6 and 12:16. It occurs a few times in classical Greek (e.g., Demosthenes and Aristotle), but is frequent in the writings of Philo of Alexandria (about seventy times, see TLG). Regarding papyri (Pap), ἀμύθητος occurs only three times in sixth century papyri from Antinoopolis (P.Cair.Masp. 1 67002; 1 67004; 2 67151dupl). It is not attested in inscriptions (SEG). 102  For a discussion on elaborate similes (defined as “quasi-proverbial comparisons expressed by a complete sentence”) in OG Job, see Joosten, “Elaborate Similes,” 3–14.

increasing complexity

297

in the Hebrew text, such as in 5:25–26 and 27:7. The Greek version of 41:22 thus reads that the dragon is completely indifferent to wealth.103 In 41:23, there is clear equivalence between the Hebrew and the Greek. ἀναζέω renders ‫רתח‬. ἀναζέω occurs only four times in the LXX (Exod 9:9.10; 2 Macc 9:9; Job 41:23) and the specific equivalent here is unique.104 Also unique is the equivalence ‫—מצולה‬ἄβυσσος, the use of which here has probably been influenced by the Greek rendering of MT 24b (OG 24a105), where ἄβυσσος seems to render ‫תהום‬, a common equivalent in the LXX (HR). The translator renders ‫ סיר‬as χαλκεῖον (see also 2 Chr 35:13), thus repeating the root χαλκ-, which occurred in 20a. Both words appear in identical forms (the only difference between χάλκειον and χαλκεῖον is the accent), but they are not the same lexical item. In 23b the translator takes up ἥγηται again, which we have already encountered in 19a and 20b. It is probably based on ‫ חׁשב‬in MT 24b,106 since the Greek translator takes 23b and 24a together. ἡγέομαι is a common equivalent for ‫ חׁשב ל‬in Job. The word order of the cola of v. 23 in the Hebrew constitutes a chiasm (ABC/C’A’B’). The Greek translator, however, has made the cola symmetrical. Twice, the pattern is verb—object—ὥσπερ + noun. Cola 23b and 24a, then, constitute a partial symmetry, in which the verb ἥγηται in 23b also applies to 24a. We encountered the same construction in the cola of v. 19, in terms of the use of a symmetrical arrangement and an ellipse of the verb in the second colon. Cola 23b and 24a both display the unnatural use of the verb, as in 19b (in 19a ἡγέομαι was used in a natural way). ‫ תהום‬appears to be equivalent to τὸν δὲ τάρταρον τῆς ἀβύσσου, with ἄβυσσος being the common equivalent of ‫ תהום‬and τάρταρος being a plus. It is possible that the use of τάρταρος is based on an interpretation of ‫ אחריו‬in 24a as “its afterparts,” with the possessive suffix referring to the sea, but this is not necessarily the case. τάρταρος already appeared in 40:20 and was part of the vocabulary of the translator. He could have used it here for the sake of formal variation vis-à-vis 23a and to offer several different expressions to refer to the deep. Moreover, it balances out the cola of 23b and 24a in terms of length.

103  Cox, Iob, s.v. 41:22. 104  In Exodus, ἀναζέω renders ‫“ פרח‬to sprout, to break out” in both instances. 105  Origen marked 24b with an asterisk and added it from Theodotion’s translation, but in fact, OG 24a reflects MT 24b. The asterisked colon 24b thus represents a double translation of MT 24b. MT 24a is, consequently, still left without a counterpart. See Cox, Iob, s.v. 41:23–4. 106  Cox, Iob, s.v. 41:23–4.

298 4

chapter 8

Translating Hebrew Poetry into Greek?

Without neglecting textual criticism, this study has attempted to offer a dynamic and multicausal explanation for each individual case, while taking into account the form and meaning of the source and target texts, as well as contextual factors. Attention has been paid to the linguistic context—that is, the possibilities offered by the Greek language—as well as to the literary context, which is constituted by the book of Job itself, by other LXX translations, and by Jewish-Greek literature in general. As a translation, OG Job is essentially characterized by variation on all levels of the text: varied lexical choices, the diverse rendering of one and the same construction in Hebrew, the natural and unnatural usage of the same Greek word, and the varying way in which rhetorical features are rendered when they appear in the Hebrew and are used when they appear in the Greek independently from the Hebrew. The way in which the translator handles rhetorical features shows clearly that the norms of the translator pertain, on the one hand, to representing the meaning of the Hebrew, and, on the other hand, to paying attention to the form of the Greek. The Greek text of Job is imbued with signs of competence in the Greek language as well as of literary awareness on the part of the translator. Chapters 7 and 8 have shown how far the translator’s concern for the Greek form can go. He is capable of managing more than two consecutive cola as a unit107 and handling a wide variety of rhetorical features and other literary tactics, often within one and the same unit. A translator’s literary awareness is often formulated in terms of intent. While we do not know what went on in the translator’s mind108 and the translator of Job does not have a default approach, the many examples that have been presented and analyzed in this study allow me to suggest that the Greek translation attests to a conscious literary ambition on the part of the translator. After all, OG Job contains many features and phenomena that transcend an “easy technique,” that do not reflect (and may even constitute a departure from) the Hebrew source text, and that are part of the Greek translation as a stylized text in its own right. The extensive use of rhetorical features suggests that the translator would have gone through his translation to make adjustments. This 107  Another worthwhile path for further research would be a study of the way in which the translator stylizes his text on the macro-level. To what extent does the narrative structure of the Greek differ from that of the Hebrew and what are the effects of these differences? 108  Aejmelaeus, “Translation Technique and Intention,” 59; Van der Louw, Transformations, 14, who calls this “the black-box” of the translator.

increasing complexity

299

ties in with the question of the working methods of scribes and translators in antiquity: did the translator of Job draft and redraft? The use of rhetorical features in Job also brings us to another question, namely, whether OG Job represents a rendering of Hebrew poetry into Greek poetry. From the viewpoint of production, one cannot presume that a LXX translator would have recognized poetic passages or that any versification would have been indicated in the Hebrew source text.109 It is possible, however, that an awareness of the poetic character of the Hebrew text might have influenced the translator to pay more attention to vocabulary and rhetorical features.110 The Dead Sea scrolls attest to a versified structuring of the Hebrew text of Job. 4Q99 (4QJoba) and 4Q101 (4QPaleoJobc) suggest that the verses were arranged stichometrically.111 While the evidence is fragmentary and the edition includes reconstructions based on the MT, it seems that the beginning of a line in the manuscript oftentimes corresponds to the beginning of a colon or a verse as versified in the MT. 4QJoba frag. 1, containing Job 31:14–19, is a clear example, since the right margin is extant. It witnesses to the practice of starting each line with a new verse.112 Whether or not the Greek translator of Job had a stichometrically arranged text in front of him, we cannot know, but it is likely that he had some awareness of the poetic character of the Hebrew text. However, the nature of the source text does not allow us to draw any automatic conclusions regarding the nature of the target text. When we define Greek poetry in terms of meter,113 and observe that no meter can be found in OG Job,

109  Note that the Hebrew did show awareness of different literary genres, but there is no clear differentiation, see Alonso Schökel, A Manual of Hebrew Poetics, 8–19. 110  Aitken, “Significance of Rhetoric,” 514–15. Regarding the influence of aspects of the Hebrew source text on the translation process, see Raija Sollamo, “Translation Technique and Translation Studies: The Problem of Translation Universals,” in XIII Congress of the IOSCS, 339–51, 346; Sollamo, “Translation Technique as a Method,” 40. 111  For 4Q99, see Metso and Ulrich, “4QJoba,” 171–78 and plate XXI. For 4Q101, see Ulrich et al., “4QPaleoJobc,” 155–58 and plate XXXVII. For stichometry in the Dead Sea scrolls, see Shem Miller, “Innovation and Convention: An Analysis of Parallelism in Stichographic, Hymnic and Sapiental Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls” (Ph.D. diss., Florida State University, 2012); Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts found in the Judean Desert (STDJ 54; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 131–66. 112  This arrangement is not consistent. In 4QJoba frag. 7 col. ii, containing Job 36:13–24, we see that the reconstruction of vv. 13–18 indicates a versified arrangement, but v. 19 starts halfway through line 9, after having cited the last two words of the previous verse (‫)אל יטכה‬. 113  See, for instance, Arist. Poet. 1447b1–24.

300

chapter 8

then we have to conclude that the Greek translation is prosaic.114 R. Althann presented the following conclusion to his study on Job in the MT and the LXX: “The verses of Job 3 (…) show that while the MT presents the characteristics of Hebrew poetry including parallelism, chiasmus, merismus, the OG is prosaic.”115 However, an awareness of a versified structure of the Greek text may have existed.116 The oldest papyri containing Greek fragments of Job, P.Oxy. L 3522 (first century ce, containing Job 42:11–12) and Berlin Papyrus 11778 (ca. 220 ce, containing Job 33:23–24),117 display some spacing between the cola, yet no versified arrangement in which each new line corresponds to a colon. The cola of OG Job are arranged stichometrically in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus. More importantly, the extent to which the translator of OG Job pays attention to the form of the Greek text suggests a poetic awareness. The characteristics of Hebrew poetry mentioned by Althann are also known features used in Greek poetry, though the frequency with which some of these occur in the Greek translation are indicative of positive interference rather than natural Greek poetic form. With the term “natural Greek poetic form,” we touch upon the question of conventions: what is poetry, and to whom? From the viewpoint of reception, and in light of the conceptualization of Jewish-Greek literature as a polysystem, I would question the functionality of the distinction between poetry and prose in describing LXX translations, which is oriented towards the Hellenistic macrosystem. Even though one might be able to find some metrical patterns in the LXX,118 no passage can with certainty 114  See Cook, “Septuagint of Job,” 178; Law, When God Spoke Greek, 54. 115  Robert Althann, “Job 3 in the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint,” Orientalia 78 (2009): 337–57, 355. 116  Claude E. Cox, “Job,” in NETS, 667 (followed by Cook, “Septuagint of Job,” 179) states that the manuscript tradition arranges the text of Job stichometrically, but a look at the primary evidence requires that some nuance be added to this statement. 117  See respectively Bowman et al., eds., The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, 1–3 and Otto Stegmüller, Berliner Septuagintafragmente (Berliner Klassikertexte 8; Berlin: Weidmannsche Verlagsbuchandlung, 1939), 50–55. The third papyrus, BML inv. 19963 (fourth century ce), contains fragments of the prologue (1:19–2:1 and 2:6–9), which in the Hebrew is regarded as prose. This papyrus does not display any spacing in relation to the colonic structure of the text, see Kurt Aland, Repertorium der griechischen christlichen Papyri. Band 1: Biblische Papyri Altes Testament, Neues Testament, Varia, Apokryphen in Namen der patristischen Arbeitsstelle Munster (Patristische Texte und Studien 18; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1976), 172 (n° AT98). 118  See, for example, Van der Louw, Transformations, 249–58 for considerations on the use of Greek meter in Proverbs.

increasing complexity

301

be characterized as Greek poetry from the point of view of the Greek macrosystem. Nevertheless, one of the aims of the present study is to locate OG Job within its specific literary polysystem. I have attempted to demonstrate that LXX translations might well have been awarded a literary status, if not by the broader macrosystem, at least by a Jewish-Greek audience. There are some Jewish-Greek writings that would be considered poetry according to broader Greek standards, such as Ezekiel’s Exagoge and the hexametrical compositions of Theodotus. The picture might, however, be more complex for the JewishGreek polysystem, and the same question could be raised for poetry specifically as we have posed for literature in chapter 4. Perhaps OG Job would have been read as poetry, not because its parent text was considered poetry but because in the Jewish-Greek polysystem the notion of poetry might have been different from the broader Greek notion of poetry.119 The Jewish-Greek system could have been influenced by a notion of poetics similar to Hebrew poetics which was introduced into the system through translation and from then on had its own reception history. Léonas has made a similar suggestion with regard to the Wisdom of Solomon. Though Wisdom is not composed in a consistent metrical pattern, it is often considered to be poetry by ancient as well as modern commentators.120 This does not only show the inadequacy of using a “prose”/“poetry” continuum when describing LXX books, but also that any characterization of a book as “poetic” should consider the question, poetic to whom? In this light, we can refer back to the example of symmetrical and chiastic arrangements of cola. The frequency with which these features occur in the earlier LXX translations initially reflects a Hebraistic way of structuring texts. Although recognized as stylistic devices in ancient Greek rhetoric, LXX texts would probably not be regarded as “literary” by a non-Jewish Greek audience on the basis of the use of these features. Within the Jewish-Greek system, however, the use of parallelism

119  It is interesting to add that early reflections on the difference between prosaic and poetic Greek language concentrated on word choice (that is, when using poetic language one would choose an unfamiliar or new word rather than the standard one) and the use metaphors (see, for example, Arist. Poet. 1457–58). See Dover, Greek Prose Style, 96–98. 120  Léonas, “Poetics of Wisdom,” 104. An example of an ancient commentator includes Epiphanius, De mensuris et ponderibus 49c (fourth century ce). A modern commentator considering Wisdom as poetry is Paul Beauchamp, “Epouser la Sagesse—ou n’épouser qu’elle? Une énigme du livre de la Sagesse,” in La Sagesse de l’Ancien Testament: Journées bibliques 1977 (ed. Maurice Gilbert; BETL 51; Leuven: Peeters, 21990), 347–69, 358.

302

chapter 8

became operational in compositions such as in Wisdom, and possibly formed a basis for characterizing them as “literary” within this context. The literary study has shown that the translation of Job differs from many other LXX translations in different regards, such as the translation approach, the register of the Greek language used, and the attention paid to Greek form. We can now turn to the question of what these aspects of OG Job can tell us about the translator and the context in which this translation was produced.

CHAPTER 9

Old Greek Job in its Literary Environment 1

The Background of the Translator of Old Greek Job1

1.1 The Education of LXX Translators The presence of rhetorical features in the translation raises questions regarding the level of Greek-language education that the translators in the Eastern Mediterranean world attained.2 Some scholars have doubted that the translators of the LXX Pentateuch had studied classical writers,3 and have even questioned the Pentateuch translators’ mastery of Greek altogether.4 Others have attempted to demonstrate that familiarity with classical literature can be found in the LXX Pentateuch as evidence of the translators’ Greek education.5 We may briefly consider the likely educational background of LXX translators. The Jewish community in Egypt underwent significant growth in the Ptolemaic era.6 There appears to have been Jewish presence in Egypt already during the reign of Ptolemy I (304–283 bce). The community increased rapidly

1  On the importance of examining the context of the translators themselves, see especially Schaper, “Concept of the Translator(s),” 31. 2  Note that education can also be conceptualized as a polysystem. 3  Jan Joosten, “Le milieu producteur du Pentateuque grec,” REJ 165 (2006): 349–61, 352; Joosten, “Language as Symptom,” 185–94; Jan Joosten, “The Vocabulary of the Septuagint and Its Historical Context,” in Septuagint Vocabulary: Pre-history, Usage, Reception (ed. Jan Joosten and Eberhard Bons; SBLSCS 58; Atlanta, Ga.: SBL Press, 2011), 1–11; Olofsson, The LXX Version, 33; Rabin, “Translation Process,” 21. 4  Michael L. Satlow, How the Bible Became Holy (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2014), 158–59. 5  Aitken, “Characterisation,” 507–21; Aitken, “Language of the Septuagint,” 129–32; Michel Casevitz, “D’Homère aux historiens romains: Le grec du Pentateuque alexandrin,” in Le Pentateuque: La Bible d’Alexandrie (ed. Cécile Dogniez and Marguerite Harl; Paris: Cerf, 2001), 636–49 (see also the discussion by Aitken, “Language of the Septuagint,” 129); Evans, “Comparative Optative,” 487–504. 6  Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 27–34; Dorival, Harl, and Munnich, La bible grecque, 32–33; Grabbe, History of the Jews; Joosten, “The Aramaic Background,” 53–72; Mélèze-Modrzejewski, “How to Be a Greek and Yet a Jew,” 65–92; Bezalel Porten, “The Jews in Egypt,” in The Persian Period (ed. William D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein; vol. 1 of The Cambridge History of Judaism; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 372–400; Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 269–84.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi ��.��63/9789004358492_011

304

chapter 9

and by the second century bce, it seemed to have become influential.7 Jews were found in all socio-economic levels of the Egyptian society.8 C. Rabin has argued that by the third century bce, Jews would not have penetrated the Greek educational system and would consequently not have had access to the traditions of composing texts in a high register Greek.9 It has been aptly pointed out, however, that these claims are unsupported.10 Jews seem to have participated in the Greek educational system from an early stage onwards,11 as salt tax papyri from the early third century bce, for instance, indicate. These papyri already contain Jewish names, classing them as Hellenes.12 “Hellene” became a term which defined one’s education or role in the administration rather than one’s ethnicity.13 Moreover, we must regard the fact that the LXX translators were writing in Greek as a convincing indicator in itself of their participation in the Greek educational system.14 7  Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 20–34; Carleton Paget, Jews, 126–27; Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 3–5; Christopher Haas, Alexandria in Late Antiquity: Topography and Social Conflict (Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997), 95; Louis H. Feldman, “The Septuagint: The First Translation of the Torah and its Effects,” in Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered, 53–70, 53; Tcherikover, “Prolegomena,” 4. This does not imply that there were no intercultural contacts between Greek and Semitic people prior to the third century bce. See, for example, Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 20; John J. Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age (OTL; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 136; Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, 57 and 689–90. 8  Dorival, Harl, and Munnich, La bible grecque, 34; Gruen, Diaspora, 69–71; Haas, Alexandria in Late Antiquity, 95; Tcherikover, “Prolegomena,” 10–25. 9  Rabin, “Translation Process,” 21–22. 10  Wright, “Jewish Scriptures in Greek,” 201. 11  See Aitken, “Significance of Rhetoric,” 520. 12  For the papyri, see Willy Clarysse and Dorothy J. Thompson, Counting the People in Hellenistic Egypt (2 vols; Cambridge Classical Studies; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), ii:147–48. On the linguistic situation of the Jews in Ptolemaic Egypt, see Tcherikover, “Prolegomena,” 25–47 (on education, see specifically 37–41). 13  Grabbe, History of the Jews, 142: “In the centuries after Alexander the Great ‘Greek’ came less and less to be an ethnic designation and more and more one of education.” See also Edward M. Anson, “Greek Ethnicity and the Greek Language,” Glotta 85 (2009): 5–30; Mélèze-Modrzejewski, “How to Be a Greek and Yet a Jew,” 77–80; Sylvie Honigman, “The Birth of a Diaspora: The Emergence of a Jewish Self-Definition in Ptolemaic Egypt in the Light of Onomastics,” in Diasporas in Antiquity, 93–128, 94–95. 14  Aitken, “Significance of Rhetoric,” 508–9; Aitken, “Language of the Septuagint,” 129: Lee, “Translations of the Old Testament, Greek,” 776. On literacy as an indication of educational level, see also Raffaella Cribbiore, Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2001), 160–84; Teresa Morgan, Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds (Cambridge

Old Greek Job In Its Literary Environment

305

A Greek language education in the Hellenistic era was generally structured in a uniform manner.15 Primary education entailed the teaching of numeracy and literacy (both reading and writing). Secondary education by the grammarian included the teaching of grammar and of reading and interpreting poetry. The higher education by the rhetorician pertained to the study of prose works and the composition of discourses.16 Even though the demarcation between these stages was not strict and a lack of uniformity characterized the way in which education was organized,17 the knowledge provided at the higher levels was consistent owing to the homogeneity of the intellectual content.18 Grammarians dealt with historical, geographical, and mythological aspects of texts, as well as with prosody, vocabulary, figures, tropes, and intertextuality,19 primarily through the study of poetic texts (most importantly the writings of Homer and Euripides).20 If a student proceeded to the level of rhetorical education,21 which aimed at preparing them for participation in public life,22 the focus shifted towards the development of writing skills.23 At this point, Classical Studies; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998); Thompson, “Language and Literacy,” 39–52. 15  In Gymnastics of the Mind, R. Cribbiore paints a comprehensive picture of literary education in Greco-Roman Egypt on the basis of the available archeological, papyrological, and literary evidence. This section focuses on the Egyptian context, because we have more evidence when it comes to the use of Greek in Egypt on the one hand, and because it seems likely that OG Job was translated in Egypt on the other. Yet it is important to keep in mind that we know little about the provenance of LXX books and should therefore not neglect Palestine. As previously mentioned, Judea and Egypt might have not been too sharply distinguished (see Aitken, “Social and Historical Setting of the Septuagint”; Van der Horst, “Greek in Jewish Palestine in the Light of Jewish Epigraphy,” 9–26; Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 344–45). Moreover, the way in which Greek rhetorical education was taught was not limited to Egypt, see Catherine Heszer, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine (TSAJ 81; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 70. 16  Cribbiore, Gymnastics of the Mind, 2. Cribbiore discusses the layout of each stage in detail in chapters 6–8, on pp. 160–244. It should be noted, however, that students could disrupt their education at any point. 17  Cribbiore, Gymnastics of the Mind, passim; Morgan, Literate Education, passim; Jessica Wissmann, “Education,” in A Companion to Hellenistic Literature, 62–80. 18  Cribbiore, Gymnastics of the Mind, 36–37. 19  Cribbiore, Gymnastics of the Mind, 187; 206. 20  Cribbiore, Gymnastics of the Mind, 192–201. 21  Cribbiore, Gymnastics of the Mind, 56; 224. 22  Cribbiore, Gymnastics of the Mind, 239; Robert Smith, The Art of Rhetoric in Alexandria: Its Theory and Practice in the Ancient World (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1974), 110–15. 23  Cribbiore, Gymnastics of the Mind, 224–25.

306

chapter 9

studies included the analysis of arguments, the organization of ideas, style, and delivery.24 Although prose writings were added to the curriculum at this stage, the writing of verses remained popular.25 Since the main method of learning was memorization and imitation of classical authors, regardless of the level of education,26 a certain degree of familiarity with the Greek classics among the literate class may, in fact, be assumed.27 Since the LXX translators were able to read and write Greek, they were part of the Greek literate class. The educational level reached by each individual translator, however, might have differed. Yet, a translation does not always allow us to assess the precise level of education of the translator. After all, the style of a translated text is deeply intertwined with the translation approach. Aitken has rightly observed that “from a translation we cannot tell for sure if it reflects all that [the translators] had learnt at school, or whether it merely reflects all they were able to do within the confines of the translation discipline.”28 Claiming the opposite would be a case of argumentum ex silentio. For example, the translation of LXX Genesis was governed by principles concentrating on the formal representation of the source text. Adherence to the principle of lexical consistency would then prevent a translator from using an extensive vocabulary and adherence to the principle of reflecting Hebrew word order would limit a translator’s use of natural Greek word order. The observation that all LXX translators enjoyed some degree of Greek education implies that it should not come as a surprise that learned vocabulary or rhetorical features are present in any of their translations. Their frequency in OG Job, however, is significantly higher than in most other translated books. Yet, we must be careful when praising the translator of Job himself as necessarily more highly educated than other LXX translators. The translator of Job had a greater opportunity to showcase his linguistic abilities than many other LXX translators as the result of an evolution in the conventions regarding translational activity in the Jewish-Greek polysystem: formal representation of

24  Cribbiore, Gymnastics of the Mind, 220–43; Smith, The Art of Rhetoric in Alexandria, 121. 25  Cribbiore, Gymnastics of the Mind, 230. 26  Cribbiore, Gymnastics of the Mind, passim (see especially pp. 220–243); Kennedy, “Historical Survey of Rhetoric,” 15. 27  Aitken, “Significance of Rhetoric,” 519–20; Aitken, “Language of the Septuagint,” 129. 28  Aitken, “Significance of Rhetoric,” 521. See also Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. E. Wright, “To the Reader of NETS,” in NETS, xii–xx, xvi.

Old Greek Job In Its Literary Environment

307

the source text was not the translator’s main concern. We have yet to explain this evolution. Some have argued that the translation approach of Job, with its focus on Greek usage rather than Hebrew form, is related to the Hellenization of the translator. Herewith, I address the question of the translator’s cultural environment. 1.2 The Cultural Setting of the Translator of OG Job PST offers a valuable framework to consider the question of the “Hellenization” of a LXX book. By describing the target culture of the LXX in terms of a JewishGreek polysystem, the distinction between source culture and target culture, as well as their relation to the source language and the target language, is thoroughly nuanced. The style of the book on all levels of the language shows that Jews were comfortable using the Greek language, even if that implied the use of terms that have their roots in Greek mythology, such as Ἀμαλθείας κέρας (Job 42:14) or τάρταρος (Job 40:20; 41:24). OG Job might display Greek literary vocabulary, but does not contain any intertextual connections with classical or Hellenistic Greek literature. The translator pays attention to the stylization of the end result, but this literary awareness cannot be proven to have been dictated by stylistic conventions aimed specifically towards the Hellenistic macrosystem. Rather, the Greek translation of Job should be located within the Jewish polysystem as a part of the Hellenistic macrosystem. The specific Jewish target setting for OG Job is, in my opinion, illustrated most clearly by the use of anaphoric translations and the incorporation of elements associated with a Jewish-Greek literary code. Instances in which the translator picks up elements of his own translation may be seen as an extension of the translator’s use of favorite words. They serve to create coherence within the book of Job itself. Allusions to other LXX books place OG Job within a framework of Greek biblical texts. While Hellenistic literature became increasingly learned and allusive,29 intertextuality to the HB is also an important element of Jewish literature, regardless of the language, as becomes clear from the many intertextual links between different biblical

29  Horrocks, Greek, 99.

308

chapter 9

texts30 as well as biblical allusions in non-biblical texts, such as those found at Qumran.31 Albeit written in a more natural Greek style, OG Job is still characterized by recurring interference and Septuagintalisms. These features are not just accidental or the result of a so-called “easy technique.” Especially those instances in which the translator could have avoided them are convincing indications of the fact they were not merely acceptable, but even desirable, in the Greek text. I have noted several cases in which typically Septuagintal features occur in the Greek text of Job without being a reflection of a Hebrew source text. I have also pointed out instances of interference in the Greek text that show that even though the translator knew very well how to use the construction according to natural Greek usage, he sometimes opts for unnatural constructions. I would argue that these features reflect the use of the Greek language in literature amongst Jews. The language of OG Job cannot adequately be described as “Pentateuchal Greek,” “translation Greek,” or an interlanguage. After all, the translator shows himself to be highly competent in writing natural Greek and in using a high register in terms of vocabulary and syntax. Yet, OG Job contains elements typical of the language used in Jewish-Greek literature. The Greek book of Job reflects certain specifically Jewish-Greek literary conventions. These conventions would have dictated that it could be desirable to include such features in a Jewish-Greek text—whether in a translation or a composition. When we look at the Greek translations of the HB, we observe similarities between Job and other translated books in terms of a decreased emphasis on the formal correspondence between the Hebrew and the Greek regarding word order, lexical consistency, and quantitative representation. This often comes with a more natural usage of the Greek language and attention to literary embellishments. For example, the approach of the translator of the book of Isaiah already moves in this direction. The translator of Job takes the approach of the translator of Isaiah further. The Greek translation of Job has most often been compared to that of Proverbs, to the extent that both have been ascribed

30  Regarding intertextuality in the Hebrew text of Job specifically, see Katharine J. Dell and Will Kynes, eds., Reading Job Intertextually (T&T Clark Library of Biblical Studies; New York: Bloomsbury, 2013). 31  See, for example, Peter W. Flint, ed., The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001); Schaper, “Concept of the Translator(s),” 33.

Old Greek Job In Its Literary Environment

309

to the same translator.32 This identification has been refuted by others,33 and in my opinion, convincingly so. They do, however, show a similar attention to Greek usage and stylization. While the previous section on Greek-language education would explain why a translator would have been capable of stylizing a text, the question remains why it was acceptable for a translator to do so. This means that explanations are required regarding the translation technique—why it was acceptable for a translator not to be focused on consistently representing Hebrew form—and regarding style—why it was acceptable for a translator to aim at a more natural Greek language and a significantly higher register than other LXX translators. 2

Explaining the Translation Technique

2.1 Previous Explanations for Varying Translation Techniques Scholars have tried to explain the variation in translation techniques exhibited by the corpus of LXX books in several ways.34 – Some have argued that there would have been a linear, chronological development from “literal” to “free” translations, or vice versa.35 However, if OG Job were indeed situated in the first century bce, the book’s 32  The similarity in translation style between Job and Proverbs has been noted by, for example, Brock, “Phenomenon of Biblical Translation,” 551. For the identification of the translator of Proverbs and Job as one individual, see, for example, Gerleman, Job, 14–17; Jean-Daniel Kaestli, “La formation et la structure du canon biblique: Que peut appor­ ter l’étude de la Septante,” in The Canon of Scriptures in Jewish and Christian Tradition/ Le canon d’Écritures dans les traditions juive et chrétienne (ed. Philip S. Alexander and Jean-Daniel Kaestli; Publications de l’Institut romand des sciences bibliques 4; Lausanne: Éditions du Zèbre, 2007), 99–113, 106; Julio Trebolle Barrera, The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible: An Introduction to the History of the Bible (trans. Wilfred Watson; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 319. 33  See Cook, “The Septuagint of Proverbs” and “The Septuagint of Job,” in Law, Prophets, and Wisdom, resp. 93–133 and 175–219; D’Hamonville, Les Proverbes, 139–41; Gammie, “Septuagint of Job,” 13–31; Joosten, “Elaborate Similes,” 3–14; Lemmelijn, “Greek Rendering of Hebrew Hapax Legomena,” 133–50. 34  The dragoman hypothesis as well as the interlinear paradigm are left out. Each of these approaches have been criticized amply in previous scholarship, and neither are relevant to explain the translation technique of Job. 35  For the argument that translation would have developed from “free” to “literal,” see, for example, Sylvie Honigman, The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria: A Study in the Narrative of the ‘Letter of Aristeas’ (London: Routledge, 2003), 97–98 and 123–24.

310

chapter 9

trans­lation style would be contradictory to the observation of the emerging καίγε-recensions in the same time period. A systemic approach shows that it is more likely that different approaches would have coexisted simultaneously.36 – Others have argued that there is a relationship between the translation approach and the supposed provenance of the book in question. Greek had become the lingua franca for Jews in the diaspora, and superseded the Hebrew language to the extent that the need might have been felt for a translation of their religious writings into Greek,37 but in Palestine Jews continued to speak Hebrew for a longer period of time. Consequently, there was no need for a Greek translation, and when Greek translations did begin to appear in Palestine, the translation would correspond more closely to the Hebrew text on a formal level. This argument is based on the discovery of a καίγε-scroll displaying such a translation approach dating to the first century bce.38 Determining whether such an approach is typical of the region From “literal” to “free,” see, for example, Barr, “Did the Greek Pentateuch Really Serve as a Dictionary?” 539. 36  For the argument that different LXX translation approaches were coexisting, see Tov, “Approaches to Scripture,” 329–30. 37  Assuming this to be the reason for the translation of the LXX are, among others, Aejmelaeus, “Translation Technique and Intention,” 60; Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 27–34; James Barr, “Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek in the Hellenistic Age,” in The Hellenistic Age, 79–114, 102; Dines, Septuagint, 111–12; Dorival, Harl, and Munnich, La bible grecque, 32–33; Feldman, “Septuagint,” 54; Louis H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1993), 52; Fernández Marcos, Septuagint in Context, 19–20; Grabbe, History of the Jews; Paul Kahle, The Cairo Geniza (2nd ed.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1959), 209–15; Mélèze-Modrzejewski, “How to Be a Greek and Yet a Jew,” 65–92; Porten, “Jews in Egypt,” 372–400; Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 269–84. Indicative of a growing familiarity with the Greek language is the observation that Jewish inscriptions from Greco-Roman Egypt include over a hundred epitaphs, all written in Greek except for four or five, which were written in Hebrew or Aramaic, see William Horbury, “Jewish Inscriptions and Jewish Literature in Egypt, with Special Reference to Ecclesiasticus,” in Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy (ed. Jan Willem van Henten and Pieter W. van der Horst; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 9–43, 11; Willem F. Smelik, “The Languages of Roman Palestine,” in The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine (ed. Catherine Heszer; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 122–41. See also the use of Greek in epitaphs in Palestine analyzed by Van der Horst, “Greek in Jewish Palestine,” 9–26. 38  The argument was made particularly by Barthélemy, Devanciers. See also Honigman, Homeric Scholarship, 123–24.

Old Greek Job In Its Literary Environment

311

or not is, however, hardly possible.39 Attempts to do so are often based on presuppositions regarding the level of Greek used in Palestine. While we have less evidence at our disposal when it comes to the use of Greek in this region,40 we must be careful not to draw conclusions based on the absence of evidence. A similar uncertainty can be found regarding the provenance of JewishGreek authors, such as Demetrius,41 Theodotus,42 and Aristobulus.43 Both Alexandria and Palestine have been suggested. Geographical variety within the polysystem could be a possible subject for further research, but we need to keep in mind the possibility that there might not have been as sharp a distinction between Egypt (including Alexandria) and Palestine as scholars have previously assumed.44 – Some scholars explain the different translation styles of the LXX books in terms of the personal approaches of the individual translators.45 A formal approach to translation is at times seen as the result of a lack of experience.46 Such a viewpoint proves incapable of explaining the data as a whole. It disregards the fact that any translator was working within a sociocultural context. An awareness of a polysystem would have existed by the second century bce, as becomes clear from the Prologue to Greek Ben Sira. The translator opted for a specific translation approach because it was the model (see chapter 3).47

39  Aitken, “Social and Historical Setting of the Septuagint.” 40  Van der Horst, “Greek in Jewish Palestine,” 9–26 gives a fair amount. 41  Holladay, Historians, 52–53; Hanson, “Demetrius the Chronographer,” 844. 42  Carl R. Holladay, Poets: The Epic Poets Theodotus and Philo and Ezekiel the Tragedian (SBLTT 30, Pseudepigrapha 12; vol. 2 of Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1989), 70–72. 43  Holladay, Aristobulus (SBLTT 39, Pseudepigrapha 13; vol. 3 of Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1995), 75. 44  Aitken, “Social and Historical Setting of the Septuagint.” 45  Tov, “Approaches to Scripture,” 335–38. 46  Barr, “Typology of Literalism,” 26; Joosten, “Varieties of Greek,” 30; Van der Louw, “Approaches in Translation Studies,” 17–28, 20–21. 47  Another intriguing question that could be the subject of future research is the following: if the translation method of the Pentateuch was a model for translating Jewish religious texts into Greek, then this type of translation with a high degree of formal equivalence and interference is exactly what the target audience would have expected. Why then did the author of the Prologue to Ben Sira feel the need to justify his translation approach?

312

chapter 9

– Another argument to explain the translation approach is to refer to the authoritative status of the books under discussion. Job, as part of the Writings, was translated “freely” because it was less important than the Torah, which required a “literal” approach.48 However, the example of the “freely” translated Targumim undermines the assumption that a “free” translation approach would have been applied to texts that were regarded as less sacred,49 as does the “literal” translation of other Writings such as Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs.50 A scroll containing the text of Job in paleo-Hebrew script (4QPaleoJobc) may suggest that the book of Job did enjoy an authoritative status.51 Moreover, scholarship currently holds more nuanced views on the authoritative status of Jewish texts and the process of biblical canonization than the dichotomy between “sacred” and “non-sacred.”52 If one would indeed assume the existence of a link between the chosen translation technique and the authoritative status of the book in question—as is still being done with regard to Job53—it might to some extent explain why the Pentateuch or the book of Job would have been translated the way they were. Yet assuming such a connection does not explain the translation approach itself. 48  See, for example, Honigman, Homeric Scholarship, 98; Harry Orlinsky, “The Septuagint as Holy Writ and the Philosophy of the Translators,” HUCA 46 (1975): 89–114, 103; Harry Orlinsky, “The Septuagint and its Hebrew Text,” in The Hellenistic Age, 534–62, 554; Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 318; Henry St. J. Thackeray, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: A Study in Origins (Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stocks, 1920), 13. 49  Tov, “Approaches to Scripture,” 335. 50  De Crom, “LXX Text of Canticles,” 123–24. 51  See George J. Brooke, “Between Authority and Canon: The Significance of Reworking the Bible for Understanding the Canonical Process,” in Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran. Proceedings of a Joint Symposium by the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature and the Hebrew University Institute for Advanced Studies Research Group on Qumran, 15–17 January, 2002 (ed. Esther G. Chazon, Devorah Dimant, and Ruth A. Clements; STDJ 58; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 85–104, 92. 52  De Crom, “LXX Text of Canticles,” 124; Wright, “Scribes, Translators and Formation,” 4. See, for example, Philip R. Davies, “The Jewish Scriptural Canon in Cultural Perspective,” in The Canon Debate (ed. Lee M. McDonald and James A. Sanders; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002), 36–52; James A. Sanders, “The Issue of Closure in the Canonical Process,” in The Canon Debate, 252–63 (see also the other contributions in this volume); Eugene Ulrich, “Qumran and the Canon of the Old Testament,” in The Biblical Canons (ed. JeanMarie Auwers and Henk J. De Jonge; BETL 163; Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 57–80; Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible (VTSup 169; Leiden: Brill, 2015). 53  See Cox, “Job,” 387.

Old Greek Job In Its Literary Environment

313

All these hypotheses are insufficient when it comes to explaining the data as a whole, but do indicate that the phenomenon of translation is deeply embedded in its socio-cultural context. I suggest that a more comprehensive answer to explaining the variation in translation techniques and styles lies within the development of the Jewish-Greek literary system as a whole. A systemic approach, as explained in chapter 3, has accounted for the occurrence of interference and Septuagintalisms in the translation of Job, but OG Job also offers an example of the use of natural Greek in translation and a focus on the meaning of the Hebrew and the form of the Greek. Since OG Job belongs to the JewishGreek literary system, then, from a systemic viewpoint, the translator’s use of a high register and rhetorical features should also be contextualized within the development of Jewish literature in Greek. The translators of the Pentateuch had no other model for their work than the phenomenon of translations into Greek, usually administrative or private documents, located in the macrosystem of the Hellenistic world. Their translation, however, established the Jewish-Greek literary system as a separate subsystem of the Hellenistic macrosystem. By the second century bce we see the rise of Jewish literary activity in Greek. Jews developed their own literary traditions in Greek. In other words, the Jewish-Greek polysystem was not constituted merely by translations, but also by compositions. Jewish-Greek authors were active already while different LXX books were in the process of being translated and retranslated. PST states that the dynamics between composition and translation within a polysystem could have been one of mutual influence. In what follows, I argue that it is because of the development of Jewish-Greek compositional literature towards the use of a higher register of Greek, that it became acceptable for translators to use a more natural and elevated style of language as well, which subsequently influenced the translation technique used by Jewish translators of texts such as the book of Job. 2.2 A Systemic Explanation 2.2.1 The Development of Jewish-Greek Compositions I have described the growth of translational activity within the system in chapter 3. At this point, we may turn towards Jewish-Greek compositions. These include writings that became part of the LXX corpus, such as the book of 2 Maccabees, as well as the works of authors such as Demetrius, Eupolemus, Theodotus, and Ezekiel.54 These compositions helped shape the polysystem. Certain pseudepigrapha would also belong to this system, but it would not be feasible to include these in the discussion at this point. I would, however, 54  The fact that these texts have only come to us through indirect transmission is an important caveat.

314

chapter 9

highly encourage a study that takes these works into account as well so as to complete the picture I paint in what follows. Demetrius is considered to be the oldest Jewish-Greek author known to us. His activity is generally situated in the third century bce.55 His style is described as “simple, unadorned, totally without literary pretention.”56 Examples of low-level Greek mentioned in previous scholarship include Demetrius’s restricted vocabulary and the use of the resumptive pronoun in a relative construction (e.g., frag. 2, §5.2).57 We find similar negative evaluations of the work of Eupolemus, a Greekspeaking historian often dated to the second century bce.58 His style is described as “inferior, displaying crude, and sometimes unusual, constructions.”59 His syntax and sentence formations are said to have “left more of the Hebraic literary structure intact than did that of any other Hellenistic writer.”60 Examples listed by B. Z. Wacholder include the resumptive pronoun in a relative construction (e.g., frag. 2b, §32.1: περὶ ὧν […] περὶ τῶν), the use of καλῶς ποιέω + participle (frag. 2b, §34.3), the frequent use of the connector καί, or the “abused objective” ὅλος (i.e., ὅλος being used in the same way as the Hebrew

55  Elias J. Bickerman, “The Jewish Historian Demetrios,” in Judaism Before 70 (ed. Jacob Neusner; vol. 3 of Christianity, Judaism, and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty; Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity; Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 1975), 72– 84, revised version in vol. 2 of Studies in Jewish and Christian History, vol. 2 (AJEC 68/2; 2nd ed.; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 618–30, 623; Holladay, Historians, 52–53; Hanson, “Demetrius the Chronographer,” 844; Sylvie Honigman, “Demetrios (Jewish Historian/Chronographer),” in The Encyclopedia of Ancient History (ed. Roger S. Bagnall et al.; Malden, Mass.: WileyBlackwell, 2012), 2001. 56  Holladay, Historians, 52. Joosten, “Language as Symptom,” 188 n. 13 had argued that Demetrius does have an eye for natural Greek, as is shown from his paraphrase of Gen 25:6, in which Demetrius substitutes the Hellenistic verb ἐξαποστέλλω with the more classical πέμπω—that is, if he indeed had the same version of the Greek text in mind as has been transmitted to us. 57  Hanson, “Demetrius the Chronographer,” 843. 58  John R. Bartlett, Jews in the Hellenistic World: Josephus, Aristeas, The Sibylline Oracles, Eupolemus (Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World 200 BC to 200 AD 1/1; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 59; Frank Clancy, “Eupolemus the Chronographer and 141 B.C.E.,” SJOT 23 (2009): 274–81; Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 46–50; Francis T. Fallon, “Eupolemus (Prior to First Century B.C.),” in OTP 2 (1985), 861–72, 863; Grabbe, History of the Jews, 86–89; Grabbe, “Jewish Identity and Hellenism,” 26–27; Holladay, Historians, 95; Wacholder, Eupolemus, 5–7. 59  Holladay, Historians, 95. See also Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor, 109, for example. 60  Wacholder, Eupolemus, 255.

Old Greek Job In Its Literary Environment

315

uses ‫)כל‬.61 It has been suggested that this may be due to Eupolemus’s relatively limited mastery of Greek as a second or third language.62 Wacholder has even posited that “only the presumed existence of a distinct Judaeo-Greek dialect renders Eupolemus’s Greek tolerable.”63 Even though the existence of such a dialect cannot be maintained, the nature of Greek style of these authors requires explanation, especially since the supposed lack of literary ambition of these writers stands in contrast to the stylistic flourishes found in the works of Jewish-Greek authors such as Artapanus,64 Ezekiel the Tragedian, and the author of the Letter of Aristeas.65 Here, we see a parallel with the evolution of style in the corpus of LXX translations, when we compare the translation of the Pentateuch to that of OG Job, for example. I want to reconsider the works of these authors briefly and offer some remarks. First, we need to keep in mind that the literary output of the Hellenistic era was large, yet only part of it has been preserved—usually what is assumed to have been the best works, often by canonical authors. This implies the hypothesis that the works of Demetrius or Eupolemus could have been acceptable as everyday literature. Second, we should not forget to take into account that certain phenomena may reflect standard Koine Greek, such as the construction καλῶς ποιέω + participle.66 A sustained comparative analysis of the language used in the LXX, but also in Jewish-Greek compositions, and 61  Holladay, Historians, 100; Wacholder, Eupolemus, 256. Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor, 109 had based his negative evaluation of Eupolemus on only two examples of the resumptive pronoun. 62  See Kenneth Atkinson, “Eupolemus, Historian,” in The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, 2571–72, 2571; Grabbe, History of the Jews, 87; Grabbe, “Jewish Identity and Hellenism,” 26: Holladay, Historians, 95. 63  Wacholder, Eupolemus, 257. 64  On the date of Artapanus, see Howard Jacobson, “Artapanus Judaeus,” JJS 57 (2006): 210–21. There is some discussion as to whether or not Artapanus was, in fact, a Jewish writer. See Jacobson, “Artapanus Judaeus,” 210–21. Some scholars argue for a coherent Alexandrian Jewish setting for Artapanus. See Collins, “Artapanus,” 889–95; Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 37–46; Grabbe, History of the Jews, 90; Gruen, Diaspora, 201–12. 65  Hanson, “Demetrius the Chronographer,” 844; Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 351. 66  The construction with ποιέω is attested in translated and non-translated Greek sources. It occurs in 1 Maccabees 12:18 (καλῶς ποιήσετε ἀντιφωνήσαντες “you will do well to respond”) and 12:22 (καλῶς ποιήσετε γράφοντες “you will do well to write”). Note the similarity between Eupolemus’s phrasing καλῶς ποιήσεις ἀποστείλας and 1 Macc 11:43: ὀρθῶς ποιήσεις ἐπιστείλας “you will do right to send.” It can, however, also be found in papyri (see BGU 6 1238 [Arsinoïtes, third century bce]; BGU 10 1996 [location unknown, 241 bce]; BGU 8 1786 [Herakleopolites, 50 bce], among many others). It should therefore not be regarded as “unusual” (as stated by Wacholder, Eupolemus, 265).

316

chapter 9

that used in contemporary papyri can help us to refrain from “the tendency to equate oddities too readily with bilingual influences.”67 If we re-evaluate the primary evidence, we encounter several indications of familiarity with natural Greek usage, such as the following elements: – The position of the genitive before the governing noun (e.g., Demetrius, frag. 2, §3.2: τὴν ἑαυτῆς παιδίσκην “her own slave”; Eupolemus, frag. 2, §2.1 τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ βουλήσει “by the will of God”; §3.1: τὸν τούτου υἱόν “his son”; §7.1: εἰς τὴν Οὐφρῆ νῆσον “to the island of Ofir”); – The placing of the pronoun in Wackernagel’s position (e.g., Eupolemus, frag. 2, §31.2); – The use of the particles, such as τε or τε (…) καί (e.g., Demetrius, frag. 2, §3.2; frag. 4, §15.1; Eupolemus, frag. 1, §1.1; frag. 2, §3.1), as well as μέν (…) δέ (e.g., Demetrius, frag. 2, §9.2; frag. 4, §15.3; Eupolemus, frag. 2, §3.1); – Variation in the placement of the cardinal number before as well as after the noun (e.g. Demetrius, frag. 2, §3.1: ἐν ἑπτὰ ἔτεσιν “over the course of seven years” versus frag. 2, §6.1: ἔτη ἕξ “six years”; Eupolemus, frag. 2, §8.1: ὄντι ἐτῶν ιβʹ “who was twelve years old” versus τῶν δώδεκα φυλάρχων “the twelve rulers”); – Separation of an attribute from its noun (e.g., Eupolemus, frag. 2, §5.2: ἀξιοῦν τὸν θεὸν τόπον αὐτῷ δεῖξαι τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου “he asked God to show him a place for the altar”); – Variation between polysyndeton and asyndeton (e.g., Eupolemus, frag. 2, §6.2 χρυσίον, ἀργύριον, χαλκόν, λίθους, ξύλα κυπαρίσσινα καὶ κέδρινα “gold, silver, bronze, stone, cypress, and cedar wood” versus §8.1 τόν τε χρυσὸν καὶ ἄργυρον καὶ χαλκὸν καὶ λίθον καὶ ξύλα κυπαρίσσινα καὶ κέδρινα “gold and silver and bronze and stone and cypress and cedar wood”). These Jewish authors would have enjoyed a Greek-language education, as can be inferred from their ability to write. They are even said to have been familiar with Greek historiography.68 Furthermore, based on the subtleties of their language usage, their mastery of the Greek language was not rudimentary. Yet, their writings do not display sustained efforts to use a high register of Greek. There is no vocabulary that indicates a higher register and there are no constructions that clearly indicate a literary awareness. Negative value judgments such as “inferior,” however, are not helpful in relation to Jewish-Greek 67  Evans, “Standard Koine Greek,” 205. 68  Grabbe, History of the Jews, 87; Holladay, Historians, 52 (on Demetrius) and 95 (on Eupolemus); Wacholder, Eupolemus, 255–56.

Old Greek Job In Its Literary Environment

317

works. These evaluations raise the question of the standards used to make such statements. Holladay, for example, has explicitly evaluated the language of Eupolemus against the standard of classical Greek authors.69 However, JewishGreek writings need to be situated within the context of Koine, not classical, Greek. In addition, they function within their own polysystem. The central position in the Jewish-Greek literary system was not held by classical Greek literature, but initially only by LXX translations which were written in vernacular Koine Greek with a significant degree of interference from their Hebrew source text. Precisely because we can think of these authors functioning within their own system, there is no need for them to be evaluated as “good” or “literary” from a broader Hellenistic Greek perspective.70 Authors of new Jewish-Greek compositions had to position their writings in relation to the center of their own system, that is, the LXX, mainly the Pentateuch. These central texts were not literarily stylized according to broader Greek rules to constitute “literature” as an evaluative description in terms of whether their style was esthetically pleasing or not. Rather, the system to which these authors belonged and in which the LXX was central functioned with its proper conventions. From the viewpoint of style, Demetrius and Eupolemus seem to have looked mainly towards the LXX. The LXX had established the vernacular as a possible register for Jewish-Greek compositions. Hence, it was acceptable for Jewish authors to use the vernacular as well. Different models, however, were being introduced into the Jewish-Greek literary system as this system evolved. Since no polysystem can remain functional with a small repertoire, the incorporation of additional models was a necessary step in the growth of the system. Innovation can often take place more easily in composition than in translation, because translators have an additional constraint writers do not have: the source text. It became acceptable for Jewish-Greek authors to turn to the broader Hellenistic-Greek polysystem for models, which provided the JewishGreek polysystem with an increasingly extensive repertoire. These models might have been central within the Hellenistic system. In the Jewish-Greek system, however, with the Pentateuch at the center, they were peripheral, moving towards the center at a relatively slow pace, becoming new models for the 69  Holladay, Historians, 95. 70  Alcock, “Surveying the Peripheries,” 162–63. See especially p. 163: “Acknowledging the existence of [a Greco-Macedonian] core brings with it awareness of a peripheral presence, and challenges historians to be more aggressive in their attempts to recover alternative cultural traditions at work within the geographically extensive and diverse Hellenistic world.”

318

chapter 9

production of Jewish-Greek texts. These models allowed room for more natural Greek usage and even stylization according to Greek literary forms. Theodotus (ca. second–first century bce71), for example, wrote an epic poem in hexameters, which reflects the Hellenistic revival of epic poetry, using biblical material as his source. His work is characterized by a more independent stance towards the LXX in terms of style.72 His vocabulary contains poetic words used by Homer but not by later writers, as well as words used by Hellenistic-Greek poets such as Apollonius of Rhodes, Callimachus, or Theocritus. He prefers expressions that are not or only rarely found in the LXX. When he does cite the LXX, he often does so in slightly different wording or uses the LXX with a different sense.73 Ezekiel the Tragedian (ca. second century bce74), in turn, composed a tragedy based on the Exodus narrative, entitled Exagoge, in iambic trimeters and in a literary style reminiscent of the Attic tragedians Aeschylus and Euripides.75 In other words, he used a specifically Hellenistic Greek literary model. In terms of language, Ezekiel often uses words and constructions that bring to mind Exodus (e.g., line 163 ≈ Exod 3:21; line 185 ≈ Exod 12:22), but he does not use word-for-word citations of the LXX text as we have it now. Rather, Ezekiel’s usage of language conforms to natural Koine, while also incorporating a vocabulary strongly influenced by classical Greek poetry. The Exagoge is even said to have been devoid of Hebraisms or Septuagintalisms. However, one telling example can be identified, namely the Septuagintalistic use of χείρ 71  On the date and provenance of Theodotus, see Francis T. Fallon, “Theodotus (Second to First Century B.C.),” in OTP 2 (1985), 785–94, 785–89. 72  Fallon, “Theodotus,” 788; Holladay, Poets, 75; Marcus, “Hellenistic Jewish Literature,” 766. There has been scholarly debate about whether Theodotus was Samaritan or Jewish. See Fallon, “Theodotus,” 785–86; Wacholder, Eupolemus, 284–85. Given the close relationship between these traditions, I include Theodotus here. 73  Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 59; Fallon, “Theodotus,” 785; Grabbe, History of the Jews, 94; Gruen, “Jewish Literature,” 417; Holladay, Poets, 72–73. The lost work of Sosates, known as “the Jewish Homer,” would perhaps show a similar literary character. See Richard W. Burgess, “Another Look at Sosates, the ‘Jewish Homer,’” JSJ 44 (2013): 195–217. 74  On the uncertain dating of Ezekiel, see Pierluigi Lanfranchi, L’Exagoge d’Ezéchiel le Tragique: Introduction, texte, traduction et commentaire (Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 21; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 10. 75  Kathryn J. Gutzwiller, A Guide to Hellenistic Literature (Blackwell Guides to Classical Literature; Oxford: Blackwell, 2007), 122–23; Holladay, Poets, 303; Howard Jacobson, The Exagoge of Ezekiel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983); Lanfranchi, L’Exagoge d’Ezéchiel, 1–14; Ritchie G. Robertson, “Ezekiel the Tragedian (Second Century B.C.): A New Translation and Introduction,” in OTP 2 (1985), 803–20; Joseph Wieneke, Ezechielis Iudaei poetae Alexandrini fabulae quae inscribitur ΕΧΑΓΩΓΗ fragmenta (Münster: Aschendorff, 1931).

Old Greek Job In Its Literary Environment

319

as “power” in line 6 (δυναστείας χερός “the tyrant’s power”) and line 239 (χέρας ὑψίστου “the power of the Supreme one”). The hand as an image of power is common in Exodus,76 but the specific expressions that we encounter in Ezekiel’s text do not occur in LXX Exodus. As such, Ezekiel’s autonomous use of χείρ in these two instances constitute a hint towards the Jewish usage of χείρ and shows that a Jewish-Greek code can be operational even when the form is one derived from the broader macrosystem. The statement that “from a Hellenistic point of view, the most striking thing about [the Exagoge] is its thoroughly Jewish character”77 does not capture the essence of the composition. Within a culturally diverse Hellenistic context, such a composition can hardly be surprising. People of diverse ethnicities engaged in Greek-language literature.78 Ezekiel’s work exemplifies how Jewish authors used Greek language and Greek literary traditions to further develop their own literature.79 Even though his language is close to natural, Koine Greek, with a poetic vocabulary, there is still a hint of a Jewish-Greek literary code. A thorough study of the nature of the Greek language used by Jewish-Greek authors is desirable so as to complete the picture. Within the framework of the present study, it suffices to conclude that there was a development in the way in which Greek-speaking Jews used language and literary forms. We observe an increasingly natural usage of Greek language and literary style. In other words, [t]he translation [of the Pentateuch] created the language, concepts and general background on which a Jewish literature could be constructed in Greek. Its beginnings were feeble and unpretentious. (…) But in course of time the Jewish writers learned to express all their aspirations and hopes in Greek literary style.80 The above citation would imply a linear evolution of the Jewish-Greek system, but from a systemic point of view, it is possible that different developments took place at the same time and that there is a tension between the diachronic and synchronic layout of the system. Some authors would have focused on the LXX as a literary model, while others were more open to the incorporation of 76  Lanfranchi, Exagoge, 119. 77  Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 134. 78  Agnieszka Kotlinska-Toma, Hellenistic Tragedy: Texts, Translations, Critical Survey (London: Bloomsbury, 2015), 199. 79  Grabbe, “Jewish Identity and Hellenism,” 23. 80  Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 351. See also the overview by Holladay, “Jewish Responses,” 139–45.

320

chapter 9

new models. Eupolemus and Theodotus, for example, are both situated in the second century bce,81 but the style of their writings is fundamentally different. Whereas Eupolemus’s language is described as “more Graeco-Jewish than that of any other Hellenistic author,”82 Theodotus is praised as a “genuine poet” and “the greatest of the Hellenistic biblical authors”83 (however, according to what standards?). Nevertheless, within the Jewish-Greek literary system, the writings of both Eupolemus and Theodotus might have been regarded as “literary” by contemporary Jews, albeit in different genres, because the Jewish system would have operated with its own conventions, among them conventions regarding what makes a text “literary.” PST implies that Jewish-Greek works were not on the same level as Hellenistic works. This is not an evaluative statement from a modern scholarly perspective, in the sense that Jewish-Greek literature would have been of a lower quality or hold a lower significance than the works of the broader Hellenistic literary corpus. It also does not imply that non-Jews excluded Jewish literature. It does mean that Jewish-Greek literature was one specific corpus among many others that, taken together, constituted the body of Hellenistic literature. The literary impact of Jewish-Greek literature at the time does not seem to have exceeded the boundaries of the Jewish community. In other words, the Jewish-Greek literary corpus would have been peripheral in the macro-polysystem. However, precisely because one takes a systemic approach to the Jewish-Greek corpus as a (sub)system, one can investigate this body of texts in its own right and within its context. The Jewish-Greek system functioned with its own center, models, conventions, and normativity, but in constant dynamics with its macrosystem. The development towards using broader Greek models of natural language and a higher register style takes place within the broader socio-cultural setting of an evolving Judaism. Laying out the relations between the Jewish literary polysystem and other polysystems would, in my opinion, be a worthwhile undertaking and opens up exciting new paths of investigation.84 I will, however, 81  For Eupolemus, see above. For Theodotus, see, among others, Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 57–60; Fallon, “Theodotus,” 785–94; Grabbe, History of the Jews, 94: Holladay, Poets, 75. 82  Wacholder, Eupolemus, 257. 83  Wacholder, Eupolemus, 284. 84  It has, in fact, been one of the criticisms directed towards PST that in many studies too much focus is put on the literary polysystem and not enough on the relations between the literary system and other systems such as the political and the ideological systems. PST itself, however, does allow for such integration; see Fung, “Towards a Macro‐Polysystem Hypothesis,” 109–23. Since the cultural polysystem is infinitely complex, it is desirable “to break it down into sub-systems or components, and to describe or explain each of

Old Greek Job In Its Literary Environment

321

continue to focus on the literary system, and elaborate on the systemic link between compositions and translations, to explain the evolution in style and translation technique in LXX translations. 2.2.2 LXX Translations On the basis of the discussion above, we can hypothesize that as JewishGreek compositions became more stylized according to models derived from the broader Hellenistic-Greek macrosystem, LXX translations might attest to a similar evolution. The existence of such a connection between the models used by original compositions and translated literature is implied within a PST approach, in which every text as a constitution of its polysystem relates to other texts within that polysystem—a polysystem that is in turn inter- and intrarelated to other (not necessarily only literary) polysystems. Translation scholars have indeed argued that the expectations of the target language readership are crucial in the constitution of norms governing the translation, and that even though the expectations towards original compositions and translations could have been different, they would have influenced one another. In other words, the norms and behaviors demonstrated by translators may relate to the norms and behaviors of authors within the target culture.85 This implies, for example, that translators might introduce new features into the system which became operational in original compositions, especially when translation takes a central place in the system. This is the case for the use of Septuagintalisms. It also implies the reverse, namely, that authors, for whom it can be easier to incorporate innovation, can introduce new features into the polysystem that will then be used by translators. Moreover, with regard to innovation in translators’ style and performance, D. Simeoni has pointed out that these tend to be new more so on account of their novel (re)combination of already existing and often competing norms and models, rather than as the result of genuine “creation.”86 The original compositions of the Jewish-Greek system used new models, deriving their repertoires from the pre-existing Hellenistic marcopolysystem. This could have affected translators for whom Greek usage and the incorporation of a variety of Greek literary forms in Jewish writings was becoming acceptable. After all, Jewish circles had writings at their disposal that were the components separately.” See Patrick Cattrysse, “The Polysystem Theory and Cultural Studies,” Canadian Review of Comparative Literature 24 (1997): 49–55 (for the citation, see p. 52); Fung, “Towards a Macro‐Polysystem Hypothesis,” 118. 85  Chesterman, “From ‘Is’ to ‘Ought,’” 20; Even-Zohar, “Position of Translated Literature,” 46. 86  Simeoni, “Pivotal Status,” 6. See also De Crom, “LXX Text of Canticles,” 162.

322

chapter 9

culturally Jewish, but used high register Greek modes of expression and literary forms. In other words, the repertoire of the Jewish-Greek literary system had expanded. Translators had more choices when it came to their approach to translating. At this point, it could have become a conscious choice of the translator to do an unconscious, more natural Greek style. This would impact the translation method. I have stated that a translation approach that does not focus on formally representing the Hebrew allows for more natural Greek usage. I can now add nuance to this statement: I think that increased attention to natural Greek usage and style within Jewish compositions would have motivated Jewish translators to distance themselves, to varying extents, from formal representation of the Hebrew source. For the Greek translations of Isaiah, Job, and Proverbs, a Pentateuchal approach to translation no longer had to be the standard. A more natural Greek can be seen, apart from in these translations, also in LXX compositions such as 1 Esdras.87 In other words, one could think of a developing notion of what Jewish-Greek writings could look like. This included an evolving combination of interference, Septuagintalisms, and different registers of Koine Greek. 2.2.3 Tensions in the System Within the system, there were different evolutions in translation approach and style. There is a tension between the diachronic evolution from the vernacular towards more natural Greek usage and stylization of the Greek text and the synchronic state that different models operated at the same time within the polysystem. On the one hand, the Jewish-Greek polysystem moved in the direction of a καίγε-oriented approach. While written in vernacular Koine, formal representation of the Hebrew text became increasingly important and interference was highly tolerated—more so than in the translation of the Pentateuch. Some of our LXX books attest to a καίγε-related approach, such as Ruth and Song of Songs, as well as do some revisions and new translations, such as the versions of the Three, especially Aquila and Theodotion.88 A clear division cannot be drawn between the initial translations of different biblical texts into Greek and successive revisions that these texts underwent.89 This does not imply 87  Dorival, Harl, and Munnich, La Bible grecque, 232; Patmore, “1 Esdras,” 180. 88  Ziegler included the hexaplaric material in his edition of Job. A new edition of the hexaplaric material of Job has been provided by Nancy T. Woods, “A Critical Edition of the Hexaplaric Fragments of Job: Chapters 1–21” (Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009) and John D. Meade, “A Critical Edition of the Hexaplaric Fragments of Job: Chapters 22–42” (Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2012). 89  Fernández Marcos, Septuagint in Context, 109. See in particular Barthélemy, Devanciers.

Old Greek Job In Its Literary Environment

323

that any of the translators or revisors were necessarily familiar with contemporary translators or revisors, but that there was a changing cultural awareness of what a translation of a biblical text should look like, that existing versions were (­ re-)evaluated and, in some cases, no longer seen as fitting that criterion. When an existing translation is no longer deemed acceptable, a new translation will be offered.90 On the other hand, the polysystem moved towards the translation method demonstrated by the translators of Isaiah,91 Proverbs,92 and Job. Formal representation of the Hebrew in terms of lexical consistency, word order, and qualitative representation no longer needed to be the translator’s main concern. More attention was paid to natural Greek usage, particularly because the compositions in the Jewish-Greek polysystem had also been evolving from a lower level of register to a higher one. It can be hypothesized that the translators of Job and Proverbs had a similar context of origin,93 but a polysystemic perspective makes room for a similar approach to translating within the system without tying it to a specific geographical location. In other words, the framework of PST opens up possibilities to approach LXX translations in relative terms, so that the limited amount of absolute data at our disposal regarding the date and provenance of LXX translations becomes less problematic. This evolution in two directions illustrates the heterogenous character of the Jewish-Greek literary polysystem. This heterogeneity can be complicated. A comparison of the Greek translations of Job and Ecclesiastes may illustrate this point. Job and Ecclesiastes display vastly different translation methods. The Greek translation of Ecclesiastes is characterized by a high degree of equivalence to the point that it shows affinity with the καίγε-tradition. Every element in the Hebrew is rendered in Greek in the same order with a high degree of lexical equivalency.94 The Greek of Ecclesiastes cannot be described as natural Greek, although its language is generally grammatically correct. OG Job, as we have seen, is different. We see a departure from formal correspondence between the Hebrew and the Greek and the Greek of OG Job is generally natural. These differences aside, Job and Ecclesiastes both reflect a similar 90  See Even-Zohar, “Polysystem Theory,” 20; Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies, 76–78. 91  See Zeligman, Septuagint Version of Isaiah, 48 and Wagner, Reading the Sealed Book, passim on the relation between the translation approach of Isaiah and that of the Pentateuch. 92  See Aitken and Cuppi, “Proverbs,” 343: “The translation style, with its rephrasing and variation in equivalents, also appears to be a development of the earlier more formal style of translation seen in the Pentateuch and Minor Prophets.” 93  D’Hamonville, Les Proverbes, 141. The hypothesis that Job and Proverbs were translated by the same person has already been discarded; see above. 94  Aitken, “Rhetoric and Poetry,” 55; James K. Aitken, “Ecclesiastes,” in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint, 356–69, 356–57.

324

chapter 9

heightened awareness of literary embellishments.95 Symmachus, for example, too, is known for the incorporation of stylistic flourishes in his target text that are independent from the Hebrew source text, even though his general approach is one based on formal correspondence between the Hebrew and the Greek.96 This shows that attention to Greek style in the translated text can be observed in different translations, regardless of the chosen approach to rendering the source text, and that stylization of the Greek translation need not necessarily be associated with natural Greek language. In the book of Job, because formal representation was not one of the most essential norms, stylization of the Greek text often presupposed Greek usage. In the case of Greek Ecclesiastes and Symmachus, however, the norm of formally adhering to the form of the source text was more important than natural Greek usage, but these translators did try to show their literary awareness, to the extent they were able, within the chosen translation technique. This demonstrates that style has a place within the polysystem next to translation technique. 2.2.4 Explaining the Tension It is possible that the evolution in Jewish-Greek literature from the vernacular to higher register Greek or from few literary pretentions to significant literary awareness reflects an increase in Greek education among Jewish translators and authors and/or their target audience.97 Any writer’s or translator’s literary abilities are at least partially dependent on his or her educational background.98 Yet, we need to be careful when drawing conclusions about Jewish-Greek translators’ or authors’ education. Some LXX translations make it difficult to assess the educational background of the translators clearly, since the translation approach might not have allowed a translator to show his full range of abilities. When it comes to the target audience, we can speculate whether, as time passed by, more and more Jews found their way into the Greek education system. Since there is no uniform linear development in the evolution of translation approaches and style, it is difficult to maintain this viewpoint 95  For literary embellishments in Ecclesiastes, see Aitken, “Rhetoric and Poetry,” 55–78. 96  Alison G. Salvesen, Symmachus in the Pentateuch (JSSM 15; Manchester: University of Manchester, 1991). 97  Joosten, “Varieties of Greek,” 35–36 links the evolution in style to social mobility. 98  When it comes to the notions of competence and skill, modern translation studies regard the translator’s cognitive abilities as significantly less important than their socialization. See Reine Meylaerts, “Conceptualizing the Translator as a Historical Subject in Multilingual Environments: A Challenge for Descriptive Translation Studies?” in Charting the Future of Translation History (ed. Georges L. Bastin and Paul F. Bandia; Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 2006), 59–75.

Old Greek Job In Its Literary Environment

325

without having more elaborate evidence regarding the increased participation of Jews in the Greek educational system. A possible relation between the level of education and style in the Jewish-Greek polysystem does not undermine the way in which the development of the polysystem has been sketched so far. It simply indicates that the picture is a complex one and that it would benefit greatly from an in-depth study in Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek multilingualism in the Ptolemaic era. An alternative to linking the evolving style of Jewish-Greek writings to the level of education amongst Jews is an explanation that focuses on a changing awareness of standards in a dynamic, heterogeneous polysystem. This means that there is room for different attitudes to translation and composition simultaneously within one system. The observation that the Pentateuch functioned as the center of the literary system is important in this regard: it has shaped the development of the polysystem in different directions. These developments occurred because change is a necessary condition for a polysystem to remain functional. What we can observe is that the expectations that the translator of Job has of its readership are higher than those of the translators of the Pentateuch: the sentences in Greek are more complex from the viewpoint of vocabulary and syntax and there is a relatively high degree of intertextuality, for example. This could possibly be linked to the intended purpose of these books. Whereas the Pentateuch could have served legal, historical, or educational purposes,99 one could speculate that the translator of Job envisioned an intellectual purpose for his translation product. Potentially, these books could have been aimed at a similar audience—the anaphoric working method in OG Job implies that the translator would have expected his audience to know the Pentateuch—but they could have been read at different times and for different purposes. In other words, as the Jewish-Greek polysystem grew, being substantiated by translations as well as original Greek compositions, so did the models and options for the production of new texts and translations increase. PST enables the contextualization of the translation approach and style of different LXX books, so that we do not need to resort to speculative explanations for the variety of approaches and styles demonstrated by the corpus in terms of geography, educational development, and so on. These elements might still play a role in the evolution of the polysystem, but a systemic approach allows us to build an argument without having to take speculative arguments regarding these matters as point of departure. As a result, not only can we come to 99  For the purpose of the translation of the LXX Pentateuch, see, for example, Fernández Marcos, Septuagint in Context, 53–66; Honigman, Homeric Scholarship, 106–18.

326

chapter 9

understand the many other elements that play a role, but also see all these elements as somehow related. Acknowledging the complex web of relationships within polysystems allows us to get a better sense of the interaction between different literary products within the Jewish-Greek polysystem, as well as between the products of the Jewish-Greek system and those of the broader Hellenistic-Greek system. 2.2.5 The Jewish-Greek Polysystem as a Hellenistic System The way in which Jewish-Greek writers and translators made use of aspects of the repertoire of the broader Hellenistic Greek system in terms of language, style, and literary forms is often seen as assimilation or acculturation. E. Gruen argues that such a perspective: … misplaces the emphasis and misunderstands the process. Jews consistently employed Hellenic texts and conventions to express their own traditions, to recast and re-invigorate their ancient legends, and to convey their values in modes shared by the intellectual world of the Helle­ nistic era.100 With regard to the relationship between Judaism and Hellenism, “there was an exchange of relations rather than a dominant culture over a subservient entity.”101 Jews were insiders within the Greek-speaking communities of Hellenistic Egypt.102 They not only adopted a new language in the Ptolemaic era: they also adapted it, to the point that we may speak of a Jewish-Greek literary code, which pertains to all aspects of language, from vocabulary, to syntax, to style. This code is used in many Jewish texts in Greek, even in those texts that are generally praised for their high standard of Greek, such as in OG Job and 4 Maccabees, but also Ezekiel’s Exagoge. It would be a worthwhile prospect for further research to examine how the development of a specific Jewish-Greek literary code was an aid in the establishment of a Jewish cultural identity in a

100  Erich S. Gruen, “Jewish Literature,” in A Companion to Hellenistic Literature (Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World; Oxford: Blackwell, 2010), 415–28, 418. See also Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 96–98 and 191. Grabbe, History of the Jews, 125–36 presents a clear overview of the discussion on the Hellenization of Judaism. 101  Aitken, Review of M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 334. 102  See Anna C. F. Collar, “Networks and Ethnogenesis,” in A Companion to Ethnicity in the Ancient Mediterranean, 97–111, 106, who does identify a change in the Jewish attitude around 70 ce, following the destruction of the temple by the Romans.

Old Greek Job In Its Literary Environment

327

multicultural environment under Greek rule. As such, the study of translation may become the study of cultural history and intercultural exchange.103 3

Attitude Towards Translating the Book of Job

While I have now explained why it was acceptable for a Jewish translator to take a different approach to translating his Hebrew source text than the translators of, for example, the Pentateuch, I have yet to address the question of why the book of Job specifically was translated the way that it was. First, I will look for an explanation as to why the book of Job specifically would have been translated into Greek during the Hellenistic era. Second, I will discuss why Job would have been translated in the manner it was. In the previous section I have explained why the translation approach of OG Job was acceptable for Greekspeaking Jews in the Hellenistic era. At this point, I attempt to clarify why this approach was acceptable for translating the book of Job. 3.1 An Interest in Job The context in which OG Job is to be situated can provide a possible explanation. The selection of texts to be translated or not is often an ideologically motivated decision, in that it is governed by a socially shared belief system, patterns of ideas, values, or interpretations of the world by which the target culture group operates.104 On the one hand, we have seen that the JewishGreek literary polysystem was a peripheral system in which translational activity obtained a primary force. Translations were important for the growth of the polysystem. On the other hand, from the viewpoint of the broader Jewish system, we see an interest in the book of Job among Jews in this period in two regards.105 First, there is a systemic interest in Job as a figure. Job is the source for many intertextual references in the Hodayot as well as 1–3 Enoch.106 Job is mentioned 103  See Hermans, Translation in Systems, 118. 104  Christina Schäffer, “Crosscultural Translation and Conflicting Ideologies,” in Translation and Cultural Identity: Selected Essays on Translation and Cross-Cultural Communications (ed. Micaela Muñoz-Calvo and Carmen Buesa Gómez; Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2010), 107–28, 107. 105  See also Wagner, Reading the Sealed Book, 28 on the popularity of Job in the Second Temple Period. 106  Heidi M. Szpek, “On the Influence of Job on Jewish Hellenistic Literature,” in Seeking out the Wisdom of the Ancients, 357–70.

328

chapter 9

by name by Ben Sira (49:9), who praises Job as holding fast to the ways of righteousness. Furthermore, Job’s genealogy is discussed in the appendix in OG Job 42:17, a later addition to the Greek text, as well as by Aristeas the Exegete in On the Jews (see chapter 1). We also have at our disposal the so-called Testament of Job (first–second century ce),107 a pseudepigraphical narrative about Job. Second, possibly resulting from the interest in Job’s figure, we observe an interest in the text of the book of Job. For example, fragments of the Hebrew text as well as an Aramaic translation of the book of Job have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.108 This interest in the book of Job within a Jewish context could have generated a demand for a Greek translation in a context in which Jews lived in a Greek-speaking environment. 3.2 The Status of the Book of Job Each translator has his own attitude towards a source text. This attitude represents the decision to handle the text in a particular manner and should not be confused with the translator’s competence and skill. They may overlap at times,109 but are distinctly different aspects of translation. Negative evaluations regarding OG Job as a translation as wilful,110 vague,111 or unreliable112 stem from the perception that OG Job does not meet the expectations that contemporary scholars have constructed regarding the nature of ancient biblical translations.113 Most LXX books are characterized by quantitative representation, lexical consistency, and adherence to the Hebrew word order. It is generally believed that such translations are more readily usable for the purposes of textual criticism of the HB. This has shaped our modern “horizon of expectation.”114 Yet, we should refrain from imposing our standards onto an

107  For a discussion of the date and provenance of the Testament of Job, see William Gruen, “Seeking a Context for the Testament of Job,” JSP 18 (2009): 163–79; Maria Haralambakis, The Testament of Job: Text, Narrative and Reception History (Library of Second Temple Studies; London: Bloomsbury, 2012), 1. 108  See chapter 1 for the manuscript references. 109  Teeter, Scribal Laws, 243. 110  Frants P. W. Buhl, Canon and Text of the Old Testament (London: T&T Clark, 1892), 122. 111  Dhorme, Job, cxcvi. 112  Adalbert Merx, Das Gedicht von Hiob (Jena: Mauke’s Verlag, 1871), lxx–lxxi. 113  On the text-critical use of a translation such as Proverbs, however, see Fox, “LXX-Proverbs as a Text-Critical Resource,” 95–125. 114  “A horizon of expectation” is a crucial notion in Reception theory, developed by H. R. Jauss in the second half of the twentieth century. See most notably Hans R. Jauss, “Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory,” New Literary History 2 (1970): 7–37.

Old Greek Job In Its Literary Environment

329

ancient text and study the text as an artefact of its day and age.115 Different approaches to translation suggest the operation of different notions of what a translation can, could, or should look like within a given context.116 We should briefly reconsider the hypothesis that the translator of Job would have chosen the approach because the book of Job was less authoritative within the corpus of Jewish religious books. In fact, we may ask ourselves whether the reverse could be true: did the translator approach his source text the way he did because he saw his source text as authoritative? Parallels with D. A. Teeter’s study on the exegetical variation in the transmission of biblical legal texts in the Second Temple period provide an answer to this question.117 Teeter describes, analyzes, and contextualizes the procedures and strategies of the scribes in the transmission and interpretation of the legal parts of the Jewish Scriptures. He makes a basic distinction between a scribal approach that is geared towards producing a “faithful” (by our standards) copy of a source text and one that is more interventionist.118 Teeter argues that both approaches were in use simultaneously in a single textual polysystem: The simultaneous coexistence of both kinds of manuscripts in a single environment, the functional difference between the two attested by their distribution, and the structural and functional similarities to the classical Targumim, combine to suggest that the pluriformity of Hebrew manuscripts in the late Second Temple period … is not reflective of incompatible scribal mindsets, nor does it reflect the textual practice of mutually isolated or antagonistic communities; rather, it represents the complex reality of a multiform, multi-generic textual polysystem of scriptural study.119 The reason why this type of variation in the handling of texts was acceptable to Jews was “an awareness of an interrelated, sacred scriptural whole and the formative pressure that such a collective whole exerts upon texts and communities alike.”120 Variation became a highly productive and deliberate principle 115  See in particular Anna Valerio, “Translation and Ideology: A Critical Reading,” Procedia— Social and Behavioral Sciences 70 (2013): 986–96, 993–94. Compare also Tov, “Approaches towards Scripture,” 337–38. 116  Schaper, “Concept of the Translator(s),” 40; Valerio, “Translation and Ideology,” 994. 117  Teeter, Scribal Laws. 118  The distinction between faithful versus interventionist is Teeter’s. 119  Teeter, Scribal Laws, 264. 120  Teeter, Scribal Laws, 19–20.

330

chapter 9

of handling texts. This requires a certain awareness of textual multiplicity on the part of the scribes, but this does not mean that they thought about this plurality in text-critical terms.121 Many of the changes made by scribes serve to increase the cohesion and coherence of the scriptural text. Teeter argues that this coherence was already believed to exist, and the scribes’ interventions served to articulate or demonstrate that coherence. These interventions thus show “profound continuity with antecedent and subsequent scriptural interpretation in Judaism.”122 Teeter argues that such an approach … assumes the sanctity of the text and its meaning, though not—or rather, though only in a specific way—its wording. The wording, the surface structure of the text, does nonetheless play a crucial role in facilitating changes authorized in some sense by the deep structure of the text.123 It has already been argued that translating the LXX can be seen as a scribal activity.124 In the present study, different LXX translation approaches have been conceptualized as being part of one literary polysystem. The way in which the translator of Job handles linguistic elements and rhetorical features shows that he is concerned with the internal cohesion of the text. The use of anaphoric translations indicates that the Pentateuch plays an important role in the work of the translator of Job, as do the book of Isaiah and the Psalter, for example. Anaphoric translations occur even when the source text does not seem to have been problematic, indicating that they are more than a problem-solving tool. The translator of Job is concerned with locating his translation in a wider corpus of Jewish religious texts in Greek. The translator’s focus lies on the rendering of the meaning of the Hebrew. The translation fits in with the development within the Jewish-Greek polysystem that makes it acceptable for LXX translators to pay attention to the form of their translation.125 In that sense, attention to the form of the Greek trans121  See also, among others, George J. Brooke, “What is a Variant Edition? Perspectives from the Qumran Scrolls,” in In the Footsteps of Sherlock Holmes, 607–22; Wright, “Scribes, Translators and Formation,” 3–29. 122  Teeter, Scribal Law, 201. 123  Teeter, Scribal Law, 201 (original italics). 124  Teeter, Scribal Law, 4–5; Wright, “Scribes, Translators and Formation,” 3–29. 125  From a broader perspective, this ties in with the emphasis on the Hellenistic concept of φιλομάθεια “love of learning.” This is an important topic in the Letter of Aristeas, as well as in the Prologue to Greek Ben Sira (see Wright, Letter of Aristeas, 60; Wright, “Scribes, Translators and Formation,” 14–29).

Old Greek Job In Its Literary Environment

331

lation is a respectful way of handling the Hebrew text. Acceptability is a key notion when trying to explain a translator’s behavior. One might argue, from a contemporary point of view, that the correspondence between the Hebrew and the Greek texts of Job might make Greek Job a “variant literary edition” of the Hebrew, rather than a translation.126 The translator of Job, however, might not have thought in these text-critical terms. If one wants to ascribe the shortening of the Hebrew text to the translator, this feature might be taken as an indication of the incorporation of literary ideals from the broader Hellenistic system into Jewish literature. Redundancy was considered bad practice in Greek rhetoric.127 What is omitted in OG Job does not change the content of the book. Owing to his Greek education, the translator of Job would have been trained in paraphrasing.128 Abbreviation is, in fact, also a known scribal technique.129 Yet the translator also keeps many parallelisms intact. If the abbreviation of the Hebrew text should indeed be ascribed to the translator, he did so because he considered this approach acceptable. The same can be said for the qualitative differences between the Hebrew and the Greek. The environment of textual plurality in ancient Judaism, as well as the literary context in which different translation approaches coexisted made OG Job acceptable as a Jewish text. Revisions of the Greek text and new translations of the book of Job in later centuries reflect different notions regarding how one can acceptably translate a Jewish text.

126  See Debel, “Greek ‘Variant Literary Editions,’” 161–90. 127  Léonas, Recherches sur la langage, 183. 128  Cribbiore, Gymnastics of the Mind, 195; 205; 215. 129  Wright, “Scribes, Translators and Formation,” 12–14.

Conclusion The literary study has shown that, firstly, we see features of natural Greek usage in OG Job that point to a translator who was comfortable in Greek. Secondly, we see the use of literary Greek words and constructions that suggest an aim for a higher register of language, one that transcends the documentary and non-literary level. Thirdly, we find rhetorical features that indicate a level of literary composition. This is only one side of the story. The translator of Job tolerates interference— both positive and negative. He also introduces Septuagintalisms in cases in which such an Hebraistic usage of the Greek language is not the result of a formal rendering of the Hebrew source: Septuagintalisms are used as a feature of the Greek text as a composition. When thinking about the early stages of the development the Jewish-Greek polysystem, the occurrence of interference in LXX translations was no more than an acceptable phenomenon, typical of any translated text into Greek. In LXX studies, too, interference has often been seen as a result of the so-called “easy technique.” Yet, as the Jewish-Greek polysystem evolved, interference became a topos, that is, a conventional literary tactic in Jewish texts. Septuagintalisms, in turn, often resulting from interference, became part of a code used by Jewish authors—a literary code that is superimposed on the Greek linguistic code. Therefore, these aspects of the language used by Greek-speaking Jews should not be regarded negatively, but appreciated as literary conventions of a specific community. OG Job contains some striking examples indicating that interference and Septuagintalisms are not the automatic or coincidental result of an easy technique or a default approach on the part of the translator. The translator of Job has tried to find a balance between writing in a high register of Greek within a context in which Hebrew interference and Septuagintalisms are part of the literary style among Greek-speaking Jews. In other words, even though OG Job is characterized by the use of a different register of Koine Greek than many other LXX books, it also attests to the standardization of a Septuagintal style as a feature in the Jewish-Greek polysystem. I have explained this seemingly paradoxical development of style within Jewish-Greek writings by means of PST. This development can be understood, on the one hand, as a standardization of a formal approach to translating (i.e., tolerability towards interference) and adherence to a Pentateuchal style (i.e., the use of Septuagintalisms) and on the other hand, as an increased attention to Greek usage on the other hand. This framework allows for the existence of variation within a literary system without regarding it as problematic. With PST, we can describe this phenomenon in translation and composition and try © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi ��.��63/9789004358492_012

conclusion

333

to understand it on the basis of the many relations that structure translation and composition as cultural phenomena. As such, PST offers many prospects for further research in the field of LXX studies. The Pentateuch translators rendered their books into Greek according to the conventions of the broader Hellenistic literary system in which they were located. At that point in time, they had no other models and no other repertoire. Their translation, however, was the basis for the development of a Jewish literary system in Greek. All subsequent LXX translators were no longer just to be located in the Hellenistic macrosystem: they are to be situated in a specific Jewish-Greek literary system as part of the Hellenistic literary macrosystem. As a subsystem, Jewish-Greek literature could develop its own conventions in interaction with its broader context. In other words, a Jewish literary tradition in Greek had been created and would evolve. A two-fold development took place. On the one hand, writers and translators focused on the existing repertoire of the Jewish-Greek polysystem as it was established by the Pentateuch. This means that, in terms of style, they would use the vernacular Koine and include Septuagintalisms, and, in terms of translation approach, accept interference as a result of a focus on the form of the Hebrew source. The καίγε-recension shows that, in terms of translation approach, the attention paid to the form of the Hebrew text would become increasingly important to some actants within the polysystem. On the other hand, no polysystem can function with a small repertoire. This means that actants within the Jewish-Greek polysystem had to look for ways to expand their repertoire. They did so by looking at the broader Hellenistic macrosystem. This resulted in writers and translators paying more attention to Greek usage and Greek literary forms in order to stylize their product. In terms of style, we see an expansion of the registers in which Jewish authors and translators could write, and in terms of translation approach, we see a focus on the meaning of the Hebrew and the form of the Greek. I argue that this development of expanding the literary repertoire within the system happened first in compositions rather than in translations, because compositional activity is more prone to innovation since it has one less constraint than translational activity does, that is, a source text. Translators, however, picked up on this development quickly, and we see an ongoing mutual dynamic as the system develops. While the use of all aspects of the Greek language, from individual words to elaborate literary forms, has been seen as acculturating to the Greeks, I argue that the process should be understood as incorporation of broader Greek models into the Jewish system in order for that new system to be able to grow and evolve as part of the Hellenistic macrosystem. These two developments happened simultaneously and created a tension within the polysystem. LXX translations often show signs of this tension through their heterogeneous character. This is the case with OG Job, for

334

conclusion

example. We see an increased attention to Greek usage when compared to the Pentateuch, combined with an attitude that not only tolerates interference from the source text but deliberately includes Septuagintalisms. I have compared this to the Greek translation of Ecclesiastes, for example: this translation attests to an increased attention to representing the form of the Hebrew, while still including literary embellishments that attest to an increased awareness of the possibilities to stylize the final product. This monograph has answered a basic but important question regarding OG Job using PST. Why was Job translated the way that it was? This question should, in my opinion, be broken down into three aspects. First, why was Job translated? I have argued that there was a general interest in Job as a figure and as a text among Jews in the Hellenistic era. Second, why was it acceptable for a Jewish translator in the Hellenistic era to take the approach that the translator of Job did? I have argued that this is the result of the expansion of the repertoire of the Jewish-Greek literary polysystem. Third, why was it acceptable to translate the book of Job in particular in that manner? Rather than assuming a supposed lack of authority, I have argued that there were different ways of dealing with authority within a context of textual plurality in Hellenistic Judaism. The creativity of the translator of Job does not just pertain to his ability to formulate something in natural Greek or use an elevated style, but also to his ability to have the end result still be situated clearly within the context of Jewish-Greek literature by means of Septuagintalisms and intertextuality. This study has shown that the translation of Job is above all a Jewish document. OG Job is not just a Jewish text because the book was “rooted in the wisdom tradition of Israel,”1 but because its target context was Jewish, too. In other words, OG Job does not attest to a fundamentally distinguished source and target culture, with Hellenization being an external force of change that imposes itself on Judaism. It does not show a fundamental cross-cultural change. Rather, it reflects the setting in which Greek-speaking Jews found themselves in the Hellenistic era and offers a literary expression of a Judaism in development in an intercultural context.

1  Fernández Marcos, “Septuagint Reading,” 264.

Bibliography Achtemeier, Paul J. “Omne verbum sonat: The New Testament and the Oral Environment of Late Western Antiquity.” Journal of Biblical Literature 190 (1990): 3–27. Ackroyd, Peter R. “‫יד‬.” Pages 393–426 in vol. 5 of The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Jozef Fabry. Translated by David E. Green. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1986. Adams, James N., Mark Janse, and Simon Swain, eds. Bilingualism in Ancient Society: Language Contact and the Written Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Adams, Sean A. “Did Aristobulus Use the LXX for His Citations?” Journal for the Study of Judaism 45 (2014): 185–98. Aejmelaeus, Anneli. “Characterizing Criteria for the Characterization of the Septuagint Translator: Experimenting on the Greek Psalter.” Pages 54–73 in The Old Greek Psalter: Studies in Honour of Albert Pietersma. Edited by Robert Hiebert, Claude E. Cox, and Peter Gentry. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplements 332. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Aejmelaeus, Anneli. On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays. Revised and expanded ed. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 50. Leuven: Peeters, 2007. Aejmelaeus, Anneli. Parataxis in the Septuagint: A Study of the Renderings of the Hebrew Coordinate Clauses in the Greek Pentateuch. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum 11. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedea­ katemia, 1982. Aejmelaeus, Anneli. “The Septuagint and Oral Translation.” Pages 5–14 in XIV Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Helsinki 2010. Edited by Melvin K. H. Peters. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 59. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013. Aejmelaeus, Anneli. “Translation Technique and the Intention of the Translator.” Pages 23–36 in VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leuven 1989. Edited by Claude E. Cox. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 31. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1991. Aejmelaeus, Anneli. “Übersetzungstechnik und theologische Interpretation: Zur Methodik der Septuaginta-Forschung.” Pages 3–18 in Der Septuaginta-Psalter: Sprachliche und theologische Aspekte. Edited by Erich Zenger. Herders Biblische Studien 32. Freiburg: Herder, 2001. Aejmelaeus, Anneli. “What Can We Know about the Vorlage of the Septuagint Translators?” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 (1987): 58–89. Aejmelaeus, Anneli. “What We Talk about when We Talk about Translation Technique.” Pages 531–52 in X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and

336

Bibliography

Cognate Studies, Oslo 1998. Edited by Bernard A. Taylor. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 51. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001. Aejmelaeus, Anneli and Raija Sollamo, eds. Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen: Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 4. Juni 1987. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae B 237. Helsinki: Suomalin Tiedeakatemia, 1987. Aeschylus. Edited and translated by Alan H. Sommerstein. 3 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2009. Ager, Sheila L. and Riemer A. Faber, eds. Belonging and Isolation in the Hellenistic World. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2013. Aitken, James K. “The Characterisation of Speech in the Septuagint Pentateuch.” Pages 9–31 in The Reception of the Hebrew Bible in the Septuagint and the New Testament: Essays in Memory of Aileen Guilding. Edited by David J. A. Clines and Jo Cheryl Exum. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2013. Aitken, James K. “The Language of the Septuagint and Jewish-Greek Identity.” Pages 120–34 in The Jewish-Greek Tradition and the Byzantine Empire. Edited by James K. Aitken and James Carleton Paget. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Aitken, James K. “The Language of the Septuagint: Recent Theories, Future Prospects.” Bulletin of Judaeo-Greek Studies 24 (1999): 24–33. Aitken, James K. “The Literary Attainment of the Translator of Greek Sirach.” Pages 95– 126 in The Texts and Versions of the Book of Ben Sira: Transmission and Interpretation. Edited by Jan Joosten and Jean-Sébastien Rey. Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplements 150. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Aitken, James K. “Neologisms: A Septuagint Problem.” Pages 315–29 in Interested Readers: Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honour of D. J. A. Clines. Edited by James K. Aitken, Jeremy M. S. Clines, and Christl M. Maier. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013. Aitken, James K. No Stone Unturned: Greek Inscriptions and Septuagint Vocabulary. Critical Studies in the Hebrew Bible 5. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2014. Aitken, James K. “The Origins of KAI GE.” Pages 21–40 in Biblical Greek in Context: Essays in Honour of John A. L. Lee. Edited by James K. Aitken and Trevor V. Evans. Biblical Tools and Studies 22. Leuven: Peeters, 2015. Aitken, James K. “Outlook.” Pages 183–94 in The Reception of Septuagint Words in Jewish-Hellenistic and Christian Literature. Edited by Eberhard Bons, Ralph Brucker, and Jan Joosten. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II 367. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Aitken, James K. “Rhetoric and Poetry in Greek Ecclesiastes.” Bulletin of the International Organization of Septuagint and Cognate Studies 38 (2005): 55–78. Aitken, James K. “The Septuagint and Egyptian Translation Methods.” Pages 269–94 in XV Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies,

Bibliography

337

Munich 2013. Edited by Martin Meiser and Michaël N. van der Meer. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 64. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature Press, 2016. Aitken, James K. “The Significance of Rhetoric in the Greek Pentateuch.” Pages 507–21 in On Stone and Scroll: Essays in Honour of Graham Ivor Davies. Edited by James K. Aitken, Katharine J. Dell, and Brian A. Mastin. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 420. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011. Aitken, James K. “The Social and Historical Setting of the Septuagint: Palestine and the Diaspora.” To appear in The Oxford Handbook of the Septuagint. Edited by Timothy M. Law and Alison Salvesen. Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming. Aitken, James K. Review of M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period. Journal of Biblical Literature 123/2 (2004): 331–41. Aitken, James K., ed. T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint. Bloomsbury Companions. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Aitken, James K. “Wisdom of Solomon.” Pages 401–9 in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint. Edited by James K. Aitken. Bloomsbury Companions. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Aitken, James K., Jeremy M. S. Clines, and Christl M. Maier, eds. Interested Readers: Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honour of D. J. A. Clines. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013. Aitken, James K. and James Carleton Paget, eds. The Jewish-Greek Tradition and the Byzantine Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Aitken, James K. and Lorenzo Cuppi. “Proverbs.” Pages 341–55 in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint. Edited by James K. Aitken. Bloomsbury Companions. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Aitken, James K., Katharine J. Dell, and Brian A. Mastin, eds. On Stone and Scroll: Essays in Honour of Graham Ivor Davies. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 420. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011. Aitken, James K. and Trevor V. Evans, eds. Biblical Greek in Context: Essays in Honour of John A. L. Lee. Biblical Tools and Studies 22. Leuven: Peeters, 2015. Aland, Kurt. Biblische Papyri Altes Testament, Neues Testament, Varia, Apokryphen in Namen der patristischen Arbeits-stelle Munster. Vol. 1 of Repertorium der griechischen christlichen Papyri. Patristische Texte und Studien 18. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1976. Alcock, Susan E. “Surveying the Peripheries of the Hellenistic World.” Pages 162–75 in Centre and Periphery in the Hellenistic World. Edited by Per Bilde et al. Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 4. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1993. Alexander, Philip S. and Jean-Daniel Kaestli, eds. The Canon of Scriptures in Jewish and Christian Tradition/Le canon d’Écritures dans les traditions juive et chrétienne.

338

Bibliography

Publications de l’Institut romand des sciences bibliques 4. Lausanne: Éditions du Zèbre, 2007. Alonso Schökel, Luis. A Manual of Hebrew Poetics. Subsidia Biblica 11. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1987. Alonso Schökel, Luis and José L. Sicre Diaz. Job: Comentario teológico y literario. Nueva Biblia española. Madrid: Cristiandad, 1983. Althann, Robert. “Job 3 in the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint.” Orientalia 78/3 (2009): 337–57. Althann, Robert. “Reflections on the Text of the Book of Job.” Pages 7–14 in Sôfer Mahîr: Essays in Honour of A. Schenker offered by the Editors of Biblia Hebraica Quinta. Edited by Yohanan A. P. Goldman, Arie van der Kooij, and Richard D. Weis. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 110. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Alvarez, Román and Carmen-Africa Vidal, eds. Translation, Power, Subversion. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1996. Anderson, R. Dean. Glossary of Greek Rhetorical Terms Connected to Methods of Argumentation, Figures and Tropes from Anaximenes to Quintilian. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 24. Leuven: Peeters, 2000. Angelini, Anna. “Biblical Translation and Cross-Cultural Communication: A Focus on Animal Imagery.” Semitica et Classica 8 (2015): 33–43. Anson, Edward M. “Greek Ethnicity and the Greek Language.” Glotta 85 (2009): 5–30. Aristotle. Edited and translated by John H. Freese et al. 23 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1926–2011. Atkinson, Kenneth. “Eupolemus, Historian.” Pages 2571–72 in The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall et al. Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012. Ausloos, Hans. “Characterizing the LXX Translation of Judges on the Basis of ContentRelated Criteria: The Greek Rendering of Hebrew Absolute Hapax Legomena in Judg 3,12–30.” Pages 171–92 in After Qumran: Old and Modern Editions of the Biblical Texts. The Historical Books. Edited by Hans Ausloos, Bénédicte Lemmelijn, and Julio Trebolle Barrera. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 246. Leuven: Peeters, 2012. Ausloos, Hans. “The Septuagint’s Rendering of Hebrew Hapax Legomena and the Characterization of its ‘Translation Technique’: The Case of Exodus.” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 20 (2009): 360–76. Ausloos, Hans. “The Septuagint’s Rendering of Hebrew Toponyms as an Indication of the Translation Technique of the Book of Numbers.” Pages 35–50 in Textual Criticism and Dead Sea Scrolls Studies in Honour of Julio Trebolle Barrera: Florilegium Complutense. Edited by Andres Piquer Otero and Pablo Torijano Morales. Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplements 157. Leiden: Brill, 2012.

Bibliography

339

Ausloos, Hans et al., eds. Translating a Translation: The LXX and Its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 213. Leuven: Peeters, 2008. Ausloos, Hans and Valérie Kabergs. “The Study of Aetiological Wordplay as a ContentRelated Criterion in the Characterization of LXX Translation Technique.” Pages 273– 94 in Die Septuaginta: Entstehung, Sprache, Geschichte. 3. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D). Wuppertal, 22.–25. Juli 2010. Edited by Siegfried Kreuzer, Martin Meiser, and Marcus Sigismund. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 286. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Ausloos, Hans and Bénédicte Lemmelijn. “Content-Related Criteria in Characterising the LXX Translation Technique.” Pages 356–76 in Die Septuaginta: Texte, Theologien und Einflüsse. 2. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D). Wuppertal, 23.–27. Juli 2008. Edited by Martin Karrer, Wolfgang Kraus, and Martin Meiser. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 252. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Ausloos, Hans and Bénédicte Lemmelijn. “Rendering Love: Hapax Legomena and the Characterization of the Translation Technique of Song of Songs.” Pages 43–61 in Translating a Translation: The LXX and Its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism. Edited by Hans Ausloos et al. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 213. Leuven: Peeters, 2008. Ausloos, Hans, Bénédicte Lemmelijn, and Julio Trebolle Barrera, eds. After Qumran: Old and Modern Editions of the Biblical Texts. The Historical Books. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 246. Leuven: Peeters, 2012. Austin, Benjamin. “The Translation of Metaphors in the Septuagint Version of Isaiah.” Ph.D. diss., University of Leiden, 2014. Auwers, Jean-Marie. “Canticles (Song of Songs).” Pages 370–83 in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint. Edited by James K. Aitken. Bloomsbury Companions. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Auwers, Jean-Marie and Henk J. De Jonge, eds. The Biblical Canons. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 163. Leuven: Peeters, 2003. Baasten, Martin F. J. and Wido T. van Peursen, eds. Hamlet on a Hill: Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 118. Leuven: Peeters, 2003. Bagnall, Roger S. et al., eds. The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Malden, Mass.: WileyBlackwell, 2012. Baillet, Maurice. “Job.” Page 71 in Les “Petites” Grottes de Qumrân: Exploration de la falaise, les grottes 2Q, 3Q, 5Q, 6Q, 7Q à 10Q, le rouleau de cuivre. Edited by Maurice Baillet et al. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 3. Oxford: Clarendon, Press, 1962. Baillet, Maurice, Józef T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux, eds. Les “Petites Grottes” de Qumrân: Exploration de la falaise, les grottes 2Q, 3Q, 5Q, 6Q, 7Q à 10Q, le rouleau de cuivre. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 3. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962.

340

Bibliography

Baker, Mona. “Norms.” Pages 189–93 in Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. Edited by Mona Baker and Gabriela Saldanha. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2009. Baker, Mona and Gabriela Saldanha, eds. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2009. Bakker, Egbert J., ed. A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language. Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World. Oxford: Blackwell, 2010. Bakker, Egbert J., ed. Grammar as Interpretation: Greek Literature in its Linguistic Contexts. Mnemosyne Supplementum 171. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Bakker, Stéphanie J. The Noun Phrase in Ancient Greek: A Functional Analysis of the Order and Articulation of NP Constituents in Herodotus. Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Bakker, Willem F. Pronomen Abundans and Pronomen Coniunctum: A Contribution to the History of the Resumptive Pronoun within the Relative Clause in Greek. Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks 82. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1974. Baldick, Chris. The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Bar-Asher, Moshe and Emanuel Tov, eds. Meghillot V–VI: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls. A Festschrift for Devorah Dimant. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2009. Barclay, John M. G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 B.C.E.–117 B.C.E.). Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1996. Barr, James. The Concept of Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1999. Barr, James. “Did the Greek Pentateuch really Serve as a Dictionary for the Translation of the Later Books?” Pages 523–44 in Hamlet on a Hill: Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by Martin F. J. Baasten and Wido T. van Peursen. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 118. Leuven: Peeters, 2003. Barr, James. “Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek in the Hellenistic Age.” Pages 79–114 in The Hellenistic Age. Vol. 2 of The Cambridge History of Judaism. Edited by William D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Barr, James. “Philology and Exegesis: Some General Remarks, with Illustrations from Job.” Pages 39–61 in Questions disputées de l’Ancien Testament: Méthode et théologie. XXIIIe session des Journées Bibliques de Louvain. Edited by Christianus Brekelmans. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 33. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1974. Barr, James. “Reading a Script without Vowels.” Pages 71–100 in Writing without Letters. Edited by William Haas. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1976.

Bibliography

341

Barr, James. “The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations.” Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse. Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens 15 (1979): 279–325. Barr, James. “Vocalization and the Analysis of Hebrew among the Ancient Translators.” Pages 1–11 in Hebräische Wortforschung: Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag von W. Baumgartner. Edited by Benedikt Hartmann et al. Supplements to Vetus Testa­ mentum 16. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Barth, John. The Friday Book: Essays and Other Non-Fiction. Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984. Barth, John. “The Literature of Exhaustion.” Pages 62–76 in The Friday Book: Essays and Other Non-Fiction. Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984. First printed in The Atlantic in 1967. Barthélemy, Dominique. Les devanciers d’Aquila: Première publication intégrale du texte des fragments du Dodécaprophéton trouvés dans le désert de Juda, précédée d’une étude sur les traductions et recensions grecques de la Bible réalisées au premier siècle de notre ère sous l’influence du rabbinat palestinien. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 10. Leiden: Brill, 1963. Bartlett, John R. Jews in the Hellenistic World: Josephus, Aristeas, The Sibylline Oracles, Eupolemus. Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World 200 BC to 200 AD 1/1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Bassnett, Susan and André Lefevere, eds. Translation, History, Culture. London: Pinter, 1990. Bastin, Georges L. and Paul F. Bandia, eds. Charting the Future of Translation History. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 2006. Beauchamp, Paul. “Epouser la Sagesse—ou n’épouser qu’elle? Une énigme du livre de la Sagesse.” Pages 347–69 in La Sagesse de l’Ancien Testament: Journées bibliques 1977. Edited by Maurice Gilbert. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 51. Leuven: Peeters, 21990. Beck, John A. Translators as Storytellers: A Study in Septuagint Translation Technique. Studies in Biblical Literature 25. New York: Lang, 2000. Beentjes, Pancratius. 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. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 68. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Beer, Georg. Der Text des Buches Hiob. 2 vols. Marburg: N. G. Elwert, 1895–1897. Ben-Ari, Nitsa. “The Ambivalent Case of Repetition in Literary Translation. Avoiding Repetitions: A ‘Universal’ of Translation?” Meta: Translators’ Journal 43 (1998): 68–78. Berlin, Adele. Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism. Revised and expanded ed. Biblical Resource Series. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008.

342

Bibliography

Beuken, Willem A. M., ed. The Book of Job. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 114. Leuven: Peeters, 1994. Bhabha, Homi K. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge, 1994. Biber, Douglas and Edward Finegan. “Introduction: Situating Register in Sociolinguistics.” Pages 3–12 in Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register. Edited by Douglas Biber and Edward Finegan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. Biber, Douglas and Edward Finegan, eds. Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. Bickell, Gustav. De Indole ac Ratione Versionis Alexandrinae in Interpretando Libro Jobi. Marburg: C. L. Pfeilii, 1862. Bickerman, Elias J. “The Jewish Historian Demetrios.” Pages 72–84 in Judaism Before 70. Vol. 3 of Christianity, Judaism, and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty. Edited by Jacob Neusner. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity. Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 1975. Bickerman, Elias J. “The Septuagint as a Translation.” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 28 (1959): 1–39. Bickerman, Elias J. Studies in Jewish and Christian History: A New Edition in English Including “The God of the Maccabees.” Ed. Amram Tropper. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 68. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Bilde, Per et al., eds. Centre and Periphery in the Hellenistic World. Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 4. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1993. Bilde, Per et al., eds. Ethnicity in Hellenistic Egypt. Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 3. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1992. Black, Elizabeth. Pragmatic Stylistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006. Blomqvist, Jerker. Greek Particles in Hellenistic Prose. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1969. Bons, Eberhard et al. Les Douze Prophètes: Osée. Bible d’Alexandrie 23/1. Paris: Cerf, 2002. Bons, Eberhard and Jan Joosten, eds. Septuagint Vocabulary: Pre-history, Usage, Reception. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 58. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Bons, Eberhard and Jan Joosten, eds. Die Sprache der Septuaginta. Vol. 3 of Handbuch zur Septuaginta. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2016. Bons, Eberhard and Thomas Kraus, eds. Et sapienter et eloquenter: Studies on Rhetorical and Stylistic Features of the Septuagint. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 241. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Bons, Eberhard and Thomas Kraus. “Preface.” Pages 7–9 in Et sapienter et eloquenter: Studies on Rhetorical and Stylistic Features of the Septuagint. Edited by Eberhard Bons and Thomas Kraus. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 241. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011.

Bibliography

343

Bons, Eberhard, Ralph Brucker, and Jan Joosten, eds. The Reception of Septuagint Words in Jewish-Hellenistic and Christian Literature. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/367. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Botterweck, G. Johannes, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Jozef Fabry, eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. 15 vols. Translated by David E. Green et al. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1974–2006 (originally published in German, 1970–1995). Bourdieu, Pierre. The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. Edited by Randal Johnson. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1993. Bowman, Alan K. et al., eds. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Vol. 50. Graeco-Roman Memoirs 70. London: Egypt Exploration Society for the British Academy, 1983. Boyd-Taylor, Cameron. “Calque-culations: Loanwords and the Lexicon.” Bulletin of the International Organization of Septuagint and Cognate Studies 38 (2005): 79–100. Boyd-Taylor, Cameron. “Lexicography and Interlanguage: Gaining our Bearings.” Bulletin of the International Organization of Septuagint and Cognate Studies 37 (2004): 55–72. Boyd-Taylor, Cameron. Reading between the Lines: The Interlinear Paradigm for Septuagint Studies. Biblical Tools and Studies 8. Leuven: Peeters, 2011. Bream, Howard N., Ralph D. Heim, and Carey A. Moore, eds. A Light Unto My Path: Old Testament Studies in Honor of Jacob M. Myers. Gettysburg Theological Studies 4. Philadelphia, Pa.: Temple University Press, 1974. Breck, John. The Shape of Biblical Language: Chiasmus in the Scriptures and Beyond. Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1994. Brekelmans, Christianus, ed. Questions disputées de l’Ancien Testament: Méthode et théologie. XXIIIe session des Journées Bibliques de Louvain. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 33. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1974. Brock, Sebastian P. “Aspects of Translation Technique in Antiquity.” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 20 (1979): 69–87. Brock, Sebastian P. “The Phenomenon of Biblical Translation in Antiquity.” Alta 2 (1969): 96–102. Brock, Sebastian P. “The Phenomenon of the Septuagint,” Oudtestamentische Studiën 17 (1972): 11–36. Brock, Sebastian P. “To Revise or not to Revise: Attitudes to Jewish Biblical Translation.” Pages 301–38 in Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings: Papers Presented to the International Symposium on the Septuagint and its Relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Writings (Manchester, 1990). Edited by George J. Brooke and Barnabas Lindars. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 33. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1992. Brooke, George J. “Between Authority and Canon: The Significance of Reworking the Bible for Understanding the Canonical Process.” Pages 85–104 in Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran. Proceedings of a Joint Symposium by the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature

344

Bibliography

and the Hebrew University Institute for Advanced Studies Research Group on Qumran, 15–17 January, 2002. Edited by Esther G. Chazon, Devorah Dimant, and Ruth A. Clements. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 58. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Brooke, George J. “What is a Variant Edition? Perspectives from the Qumran Scrolls.” Pages 607–22 in In the Footsteps of Sherlock Holmes: Studies in the Biblical Text in Honour of Anneli Aejmelaeus. Edited by Kristin De Troyer, Timothy M. Law, and Marketta Liljeström. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 72. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. Brooke, George J. and Barnabas Lindars, eds. Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings: Papers Presented to the International Symposium on the Septuagint and its Relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Writings (Manchester, 1990). Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 33. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1992. Brownlie, Siobhan. “Investigating Explanations of Translational Phenomena: A Case for Multiple Causality.” Target 15 (2003): 111–52. Brownlie, Siobhan. “Investigating Norms.” Pages 7–21 in Translation and the (Re)location of Meaning: Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminars in Translation Studies 1994–1996. Edited by Jeroen Vandaele. Leuven, Belgium: CETRA, 1999. Bugh, Glenn R., ed. The Cambridge Companion to the Hellenistic World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Buhl, Frants P. W. Canon and Text of the Old Testament. London: T&T Clark, 1892. Bullinger, Ethelbert W. Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1898. Burgess, Richard W. “Another Look at Sosates, the ‘Jewish Homer.’” Journal for the Study of Judaism 44 (2013): 195–217. Cancik, Hubert, Helmuth Schneider, and August Fr. Pauly, eds. Der Neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike. 18 vols. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1996–2003. Carleton Paget, James. Jews, Christians and Jewish Christians in Antiquity. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 251. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Carleton Paget, James and Joachim Schaper, eds. The New Cambridge History of the Bible From the Beginnings to 600. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Carrasquillo, Angela, Diane Rodríguez, and Kyung Soon Lee, The Bilingual Advantage: Promoting Academic Development, Biliteracy, and Native Language in the Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press, 2014. Casetti, Pierre, Othmar Keel, and Adrian Schenker, eds. Mélanges D. Barthélemy: Études bibliques offertes à l’occasion de son 60e anniversaire. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 38. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. Casevitz, Michel. “D’Homère aux historiens romains: Le grec du Pentateuque alexandrin.” Pages 636–49 in Le Pentateuque: La Bible d’Alexandrie. Edited by Cécile Dogniez and Marguerite Harl. Paris: Cerf, 2001.

Bibliography

345

Cattrysse, Patrick. “The Polysystem Theory and Cultural Studies.” Canadian Review of Comparative Literature 24 (1997): 49–55. Ceresko, Anthony R. “The Function of Antanaclasis (ms’ “to find” // ms’ “to reach, overtake, grasp”) in Hebrew Poetry, Especially in the Book of Qohelet.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44 (1982): 551–69. Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1983–1985. Chazon, Esther G., Devorah Dimant, and Ruth A. Clements, eds. Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran. Proceedings of a Joint Symposium by the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature and the Hebrew University Institute for Advanced Studies Research Group on Qumran, 15–17 January, 2002. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 58. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Chesterman, Andrew. “A Causal Model for Translation Studies.” Pages 15–28 in Textual and Cognitive Aspects. Vol. 1 of Intercultural Faultlines: Research Models in Translation Studies. Edited by Maeve Olohan. Manchester: St. Jerome, 2000. Chesterman, Andrew. “Causes, Translations, Effects.” Target 10 (1998): 201–30. Chesterman, Andrew. “From ‘Is’ to ‘Ought’: Laws, Norms and Strategies in Translation Studies.” Target 5 (1993): 1–20. Chesterman, Andrew. “Hypotheses about Translation Universals.” Pages 1–13 in Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies: Selected Contributions from the EST Congress, Copenhagen 2001. Edited by Gyde Hansen, Kirsten Malmkjaer, and Daniel Gile. Benjamins Translation Library 50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2004. Chesterman, Andrew. Memes of Translation: The Spread of Ideas in Translation Theory. Benjamins Translation Library 22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1997. Chesterman, Andrew. “On Explanation.” Pages 363–81 in Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies: Investigations in Homage to Gideon Toury. Edited by Anthony Pym, Miriam Shlesinger, and Daniel Simeoni. Benjamins Translation Library. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2008. Christidis, Anastassios-Fivos, ed. A History of Ancient Greek: From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Clancy, Frank. “The Date of LXX.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 16 (2002): 207–25. Clancy, Frank. “Eupolemus the Chronographer and 141 BCE.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 23 (2009): 274–81. Clarysse, Willy. “Egyptian Scribes Writing Greek.” Chronique d’Égypte 68 (1993): 186–201. Clarysse, Willy. “Linguistic Diversity in the Archive of the Engineers Kleon and Theodoros.” Pages 35–50 in The Language of the Papyri. Edited by Trevor V. Evans and Dirk D. Obbink. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Clarysse, Willy and Dorothy J. Thompson, Counting the People in Hellenistic Egypt. 2 vols. Cambridge Classical Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

346

Bibliography

Clauss, James J. and Martine Cuypers, eds. A Companion to Hellenistic Literature. Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Clines, David J. A. “The Etymology of the Hebrew ‫ ֶצ ֶלם‬.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 3 (1974): 19–25. Clines, David J. Job. 3 vols. Word Biblical Commentary 17; 18a; 18b. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson, 1989–2011. Clines, David J. “On the Poetic Achievement of the Book of Job.” Pages 243–52 in Palabra, prodigio, poesía, in memoriam P. Luis Alonso Schökel. Edited by S. J. Vincente Collado Bertomeu. Academia Biblica 151. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 2003. Clines, David J. A. and Jo Cheryl Exum, eds. The Reception of the Hebrew Bible in the Septuagint and the New Testament: Essays in Memory of Aileen Guilding. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2013. Coady, James. “L2 Vocabulary Acquisition: A Synthesis of the Research.” Pages 273–90 in Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition: A Rationale for Pedagogy. Edited by James Coady and Thomas Huckin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Coady, James and Thomas Huckin, eds. Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition: A Rationale for Pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Codde, Philippe. “Polysystem Theory Revisited: A New Comparative Introduction.” Poetics Today 24 (2003): 91–126. Cohen, Eran. “Paronomastic Infinitive in Old Babylonian.” Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Gezelschap (Genootschap) Ex oriente lux 38 (2004): 105–12. Cohen, Shaye J. D. “‘Those Who Say They Are Jews and Are not’: How Do You Know a Jew in Antiquity when You See One?” Pages 1–46 in Diasporas in Antiquity. Edited by Shaye J. D. Cohen and Ernest S. Frerichs. Brown Judaic Studies 288. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1993. Cohen, Shaye J. D. and Ernest S. Frerichs, eds. Diasporas in Antiquity. Brown Judaic Studies 288. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1993. Collado Bertomeu, S. J. Vincente, ed. Palabra, prodigio, poesía, in memoriam P. Luis Alonso Schökel. Academia Biblica 151. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 2003. Collar, Anna C. F. “Networks and Ethnogenesis.” Pages 97–111 in A Companion to Ethnicity in the Ancient Mediterranean. Edited by Jeremy McInerney. Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2014. Collins, John J. Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora. 2nd ed. Biblical Resource Series. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000. Collins, John J. Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age. Old Testament Library. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. Collins, John J. and Gregory E. Sterling, eds. Hellenism in the Land of Israel. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 13. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001. Collins, John J. and Daniel C. Harlow, eds. The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010.

Bibliography

347

Connolly, Joy. “The New World Order: Greek Rhetoric in Rome.” Pages 139–65 in A Companion to Greek Rhetoric. Edited by Ian Worthington. Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World, Literature and Culture. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2007. Cook, Johann. “Are the Additions in OG Job 2,9a–e to be Deemed as the Old Greek Text?” Biblica 91 (2010): 275–84. Cook, Johann. “Aspects of Wisdom in the Texts of Job (Chapter 28): Vorlage(n) and/or Translator(s)?” Old Testament Essays 5 (1992): 26–45. Cook, Johann, ed. Septuagint and Reception: Essays Prepared for the Association for the Study of the Septuagint in South Africa. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 127. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Cook, Johann. “The Provenance of Old Greek Job.” Pages 73–92 in XIV Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Helsinki 2010. Edited by Melvin K. H. Peters. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 59. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013. Cook, Johann and Arie van der Kooij, Law, Prophets, and Wisdom: On the Provenance of Translators and their Books in the Septuagint Version. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 68. Leuven: Peeters, 2012. Corley, Jeremy. “Septuagintalisms, Semitic Interference, and the Original Language of the Book of Judith.” Pages 65–96 in Studies in the Greek Bible: Essays in Honor of Francis T. Gignac. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Vincent T. M. Skemp. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 44. Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2008. Corley, Jeremy and Vincent T. M. Skemp, eds. Studies in the Greek Bible: Essays in Honor of Francis T. Gignac. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 44. Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2008. Coupland, Nicholas. Style: Language Variation and Identity. Key Topics in Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Cowie, Moira and Mark Shuttleworth. Dictionary of Translation Studies. London: Routledge, 1997. Cox, Claude E. “Does a Shorter Hebrew Parent Text Underlie Old Greek Job?” Pages 451–62 in In the Footsteps of Sherlock Holmes: Studies in the Biblical Text in Honour of Anneli Aejmelaeus. Edited by Kristin De Troyer, Timothy M. Law, and Marketta Liljeström. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 72. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. Cox, Claude E. “The Historical, Social and Literary Context of Old Greek Job.” Pages 105–16 in XII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leiden 2004. Edited by Melvin K. H. Peters. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 54. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Cox, Claude E. “Job.” Pages 385–400 in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint. Edited by James K. Aitken. Bloomsbury Companions. London: Bloomsbury, 2015.

348

Bibliography

Cox, Claude E. “Job-LXX.” To appear in The Hebrew Bible. Vol. 1 of Textual History of the Bible. Edited by Armin Lange et al. Leiden: Brill, forthcoming. Online: http:// www.brill.com/products/online-resources/textual-history-bible-online. Cox, Claude E. “Methodological Issues in the Exegesis of LXX Job.” Pages 78–89 in VI Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Jerusalem 1986. Edited by Claude E. Cox. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 23. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1987. Cox, Claude E. “Some Things Biblical Scholars Should Know about the Septuagint.” Restoration Quarterly 56 (2014): 85–97. Cox, Claude E. “The Text of Old Greek Job: A History of its Transmission.” No pages. Cited 10 March 2017. Online: http://www.academia.edu/9585809/_The_Text_Of_ Old_Greek_Job_a_History_of_its_Transmission_. Cox, Claude E. “Tying it all Together: The Use of Particles in Old Greek Job.” Bulletin of the International Organization of Septuagint and Cognate Studies 38 (2005): 41–54. Cox, Claude E., ed. VI Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Jerusalem 1986. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 23. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1987. Cox, Claude E., ed. VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leuven 1989. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 31. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1991. Cox, Claude E. “Vocabulary for Wrongdoing and Forgiveness in the Greek Translations of Job.” Textus 15 (1990): 119–30. Cox, Claude E. “The Wrath of God Has Come to Me: Job’s First Speech According to the Septuagint.” Studies in Religion 16 (1987): 195–204. Cox, Claude E. and Albert Pietersma, eds. De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of J. W. Wevers for his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Mississauga: Benben, 1984. Creason, Struart. Review of S. Noegel, Janus Parallelism in the Book of Job. Journal of the American Oriental Society 118/4 (1998): 602–3. Cribbiore, Raffaela. Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2001. Cross, Frank M. “Some Notes on a Generation of Qumran Studies.” Pages 1–14 in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 1991. Edited by Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Crystal, David. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Cummins, James. “The Role of Primary Language Development in Promoting Educational Success for Language Minority Students.” Pages 3–49 in Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretical Framework. Edited by Charles F. Leyba. Los Angeles, Calif.: California State Department of Education, 1981.

Bibliography

349

Dafni, Evangelia G. “ΒΡΟΤΟΣ: A Favourite Word of Homer in the Septuagint Version of Job.” Verbum et ecclesia 28 (2007): 35–65. Dafni, Evangelia G. “Παντοκράτωρ in Septuaginta-Amos 4,13: Zur Theologie des Sprache der Septuaginta.” Pages 443–54 The Septuagint and Messianism. Edited by Michael A. Knibb. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 195. Leuven: Peeters, 2006. Dahood, Mitchell. “Chiasmus in Job: A Text-Critical and Philological Criterion.” Pages 119–30 in A Light Unto My Path: Old Testament Studies in Honor of Jacob M. Myers. Edited by Howard N. Bream, Ralph D. Heim, and Carey A. Moore. Gettysburg Theological Studies 4. Philadelphia, Pa.: Temple University Press, 1974. Dahood, Mitchell. “Northwest Semitic Philology and Job.” Pages 55–74 in The Bible in Current Catholic Thought: Gruenthaner Memorial Volume. Edited by John L. McKenzie. New York: Herder and Herder, 1962. Davies, Philip R. “The Jewish Scriptural Canon in Cultural Perspective.” Pages 36–52 in The Canon Debate. Edited by Lee M. McDonald and James A. Sanders. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002. Davies, William D. et al., eds. The Cambridge History of Judaism. 4 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990–2006. Davila, James R. “(How) Can We Tell if a Greek Apocryphon or Pseudepigraphon has been Translated from Hebrew or Aramaic?” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 15 (2005): 3–61. Day, John. God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Debel, Hans. “Greek ‘Variant Literary Editions’ to the Hebrew Bible?” Journal for the Study of Judaism 41 (2010): 161–90. De Crom, Dries. “The LXX Text of Canticles.” Ph.D. diss., KU Leuven, 2014. Defradas, Jean. “Le role de l’allitération dans la poésie grecque.” Revue des études anciennes 60 (1958): 36–49. De Geest, Dirk. “The Notion of ‘System’: Its Theoretical Importance and Its Methodological Implications for a Functionalist Translation Theory.” Pages 32–45 in Geschichte, System, Literarische Übersetzung/Histories, Systems, Literary Translations. Edited by Harald Kittel. Berlin: Erich Schmidt, 1992. Degen, Rainer. Altaramäische Grammatik der Inschriften des 10.–8. Jh. v. Chr. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 38/3. Wiesbaden: Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft, Kommissionsverlag Franz Steiner, 1969. Deissmann, Adolf. Bible Studies: Contributions, Chiefly from Papyri and Inscriptions, to the History of the Language, the Literature, and the Religion of Hellenistic Judaism and Primitive Christianity. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1901. Originally published in German in 1895 and 1897. Deissmann, Adolf. Licht vom Osten: Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der hellenistisch-römischen Welt. 4th ed. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1923.

350

Bibliography

Delabastita, Dirk. “Status, Origin, Features: Translation and beyond.” Pages 233–46 in Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies: Investigations in Homage to Gideon Toury. Edited by Anthony Pym, Miriam Shlesinger, and Daniel Simeoni. Benjamins Translation Library. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2008. De Lange, Nicholas. “Jewish Greek.” Pages 638–45 in A History of Ancient Greek: From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity. Edited by Anastassios-Fivos Christidis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Dell, Katharine J. and Will Kynes, eds. Reading Job Intertextually. T&T Clark Library of Biblical Studies. New York: Bloomsbury, 2013. Denniston, John D. The Greek Particles. Edited by John K. Dover. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 21954. Denniston, John D. Greek Prose Style. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952. De Troyer, Kristin. “The Septuagint.” Pages 267–88 in The New Cambridge History of the Bible From the Beginnings to 600. Edited by James Carleton Paget and Joachim Schaper. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. De Troyer, Kristin. “When Did the Pentateuch Come into Existence?” Pages 269–86 in Die Septuaginta: Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D). Wuppertal, 20.–23. Juli 2006. Edited by Martin Karrer, Wolfgang Kraus, and Martin Meiser. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 219. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. De Troyer, Kristin, Timothy M. Law, and Marketta Liljeström, eds. In the Footsteps of Sherlock Holmes: Studies in the Biblical Text in Honour of Anneli Aejmelaeus. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 72. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. de Vaux, Roland and Józef T. Milik, eds. Qumrân Grotte 4: II, II. Tefillin, Mezuzot et Targums (4Q128–4Q517). Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 4. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977. D’Haen, Theo, Rainer Grübel, and Helmut Lethen, eds. Convention and Innovation in Literature. Utrecht Publication in General and Comparative Literature 24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1989. d’Hamonville, David-Marc. Les Proverbes. La Bible d’Alexandrie 17. Paris: Cerf, 2000. Dhont, Marieke. “Double Translation in OG Job.” Pages 475–90 in Die Septuaginta: Orte und Intentionen. 5. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D). Wuppertal, 24.–27. Juli 2014. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and Siegfried Kreuzer. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 361. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Dhont, Marieke. “Literary Features in the First Cycle of Speeches in LXX Job.” Pages 357–74 in XV Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Munich 2013. Edited by Martin Meiser and Michaël N. van der Meer. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 64. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 2016.

Bibliography

351

Dhont, Marieke. “A New Look at the LXX Rendering of Job 20,25.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 126/1 (2014): 111–16. Dhont, Marieke. “Stylistic Features in OG Job: An Example, Job 5:6–7.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 42/2 (2016): 51–60. Dhorme, Édouard. A Commentary on the Book of Job. Translated by Harold Knight. London: Nelson, 1967. Dik, Helma. Word Order in Greek Tragic Dialogue. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Dines, Jennifer. “Grand Words for Grand Subjects: Bureaucratic and Literary Influences in the Style of the Septuagint.” Semitica et Classica 5 (2012): 69–81. Dines, Jennifer. “Minor Prophets.” Pages 438–55 in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint. Edited by James K. Aitken. Bloomsbury Companions. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Dines, Jennifer. The Septuagint: Understanding the Bible and its World. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Dines, Jennifer. “Stylistic Features of the Septuagint.” Pages 350–60 in Die Sprache der Septuaginta. Edited by Eberhard Bons and Jan Joosten. Vol. 3 of Handbuch zur Septuaginta. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2016. Dines, Jennifer. “Stylistic Invention and Rhetorical Purpose in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 23–48 in Et sapienter et eloquenter: Studies on Rhetorical and Stylistic Features of the Septuagint. Edited by Eberhard Bons and Thomas Kraus. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 241. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Dines, Jennifer. “Was LXX Pentateuch a Style-Setter for LXX Minor Prophets?” Pages 397–411 in XIV Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Helsinki 2010. Edited by Melvin K. H. Peters. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 59. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013. Dogniez, Cécile and Marguerite Harl, eds. Le Pentateuque: La Bible d’Alexandrie. Paris: Cerf, 2001. Dolven, Jeffrey. “Style.” Pages 1369–70 in The Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. Edited by Roland Greene et al. 4th ed. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2012. Doran, Robert. “Aristeas the Exegete.” Pages 855–59 in Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works. Vol. 2 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1985. Dorival, Gilles. “La Bible des Septante chez les auteurs païens (jusqu’au PseudoLongin).” Cahiers de Biblia Patristica 1 (1987): 9–26. Dorival, Gilles. Les Nombres. La Bible d’Alexandrie 4. Paris: Cerf, 1976.

352

Bibliography

Dorival, Gilles, Marguerite Harl, and Olivier Munnich. La Bible grecque des Septante: Du judaïsme hellénistique au christianisme ancien. Initiations au christianisme ancien. Paris: Cerf, 1988. Dover, Kenneth J. The Evolution of Greek Prose Style. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. Driver, Samuel R. and George B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job together with a New Translation. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1921. Reprint, 1964. Elliger, Karl and Wilhelm Rudolph, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1990. Evans, Trevor V. “The Comparative Optative: A Homeric Reminiscence in the Greek Pentateuch?” Vetus Testamentum 49 (1999): 487–504. Evans, Trevor V. “A Hebraism of Mixed Motivation.” Pages 211–28 in Helsinki Perspectives on the Translation Technique of the Septuagint: Proceedings of the IOSCS Congress in Helsinki 1999. Edited by Raija Sollamo and Seppo Sipilä. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society in Helsinki 82. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. Evans, Trevor V. “The Last of the Optatives.” Classical Philology 98 (2003): 70–80. Evans, Trevor V. “Numbers.” Pages 58–67 in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint. Edited by James K. Aitken. Bloomsbury Companions. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Evans, Trevor V. “Standard Koine Greek in Third Century BC Papyri.” Pages 197–206 Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Congress of Papyrology, Ann Arbor, July 29–August 4, 2007. Edited by Traianos Gagos. American Studies in Papyrology. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Scholarly Publishing Office, University of Michigan Library, 2010. Evans, Trevor V. Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Evans, Trevor V. and Dirk D. Obbink, eds. The Language of the Papyri. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Evans, Vyvyan and Melanie Green. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006. Even-Zohar, Itamar. Papers in Cultural Research. Tel Aviv: Unit of Culture Research, Tel Aviv University, 2010. Online: http://www.tau.ac.il/~itamarez/works/books/EZ-CR2005_2010.pdf. Even-Zohar, Itamar. “Factors and Dependencies in Culture.” Pages 15–34 in Papers in Cultural Research. Tel Aviv: Unit of Culture Research, Tel Aviv University, 2010. Even-Zohar, Itamar. “Polysystem Theory (Revised).” Pages 40–50 in Papers in Cultural Research. Tel Aviv: Unit of Culture Research, Tel Aviv University, 2010. Even-Zohar, Itamar. “Introduction.” Poetics Today 11/1 (1990): 1–6. Even-Zohar, Itamar. “Polysystem Theory.” Poetics Today 11/1 (1990): 9–26. Even-Zohar, Itamar. “The ‘Literary System.’” Poetics Today 11/1 (1990): 27–44. Even-Zohar, Itamar. “The Position of Translated Literature Within the Literary Polysystem.” Poetics Today 11 (1990): 45–51.

Bibliography

353

Even-Zohar, Itamar. “System, Dynamics, and Interference in Culture: A Synoptic View.” Poetics Today 11 (1990): 85–94. Fabb, Nigel. Linguistics and Literature: Language in the Verbal Arts of the World. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997. Fallon, Francis T. “Eupolemus (Prior to First Century B.C.).” Pages 861–72 in Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works. Vol. 2 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1985. Fallon, Francis T. “Theodotus (Second to First Century B.C.).” Pages 785–94 in Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works. Vol. 2 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1985. Feldman, Louis H. Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1993. Feldman, Louis H. Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered. Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplements 107. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Feldman, Louis H. “The Septuagint: The First Translation of the Torah and its Effects.” Pages 53–70 in Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered. Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplements 107. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Fernández Marcos, Natalio. “Reactions to the Panel on Modern Translations.” Pages 233–40 in X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Oslo 1998. Edited by Bernard A. Taylor. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 51. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature Press, 2011. Fernández Marcos, Natalio, ed. La Septuaginta en la investigacion contemporanea (V Congreso de la IOSCS). Testos y Studios “Cardenal Cisneros.” Madrid: Instituto Arias Montano CSIC, 1985. Fernández Marcos, Natalio. The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible. Translated by Wilfred Watson. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Fernández Marcos, Natalio. “The Septuagint Reading of the Book of Job.” Pages 251– 66 in The Book of Job. Edited by Willem A. M. Beuken. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 114. Leuven: Peeters, 1994. Finkelstein, Louis, ed. The Jews: Their History, Culture and Religion. 3rd ed. 2 vols. New York: Harper and Bros., 1960. Flint, Peter W., ed. The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001. Fohrer, Georg. Das Buch Hiob. Kommentar zum Alten Testament 16. Gütersloh: Herd Mohn, 21989.

354

Bibliography

Fokkelman, Jan. Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible at the Interface of Hermeneutics and Structural Analysis. 4 vols. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 37, 41, 43, 47. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1998–2004. Fokkelman, Jan. Reading Biblical Poetry: An Introductory Guide. Translated by Ineke Smit. London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. Fokkema, Douwe W. Literary History, Modernism, and Postmodernism. Utrecht Publications in General and Comparative Literature 19. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1984. Fokkema, Douwe W. and Elrud Ibsch, Theories of Literature in the Twentieth Century: Structuralism, Marxism, Aesthetics of Reception, Semiotics. 2nd revised ed. London: Hurst & Company, 1995. Fox, Michael V. “LXX-Proverbs as a Text-Critical Resource.” Textus 22 (2005): 95–125. Fraade, Steven. “Locating Targum in the Textual Polysystem of Rabbinic Pedagogy.” Bulletin of the International Organization of Septuagint and Cognate Studies 39 (2006): 69–91. Fraenkel, Detlef, Udo Quast, and John W. Wevers, eds. Studien zur Septuaginta—Robert Hanhart zu Ehren Aus Anlass seines 65. Geburtstages. Mitteilungen des SeptuagintaUnternehmens 20. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990. Frankel, Zacharias. Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta. Leipzig: Fr. Chr. Wilh. Vogel, 1841. Fraser, Peter M. Ptolemaic Alexandria. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972. Freedman, David N. “Orthographic Peculiarities in the Book of Job.” Eretz-Israel 9 (1969): 35–44. Freudenthal, Jacob. Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhaltenen Restejüdischer und samaritanischer Geschichtswerke. Hellenistische Studien 1. Breslau: H. Skutsch, 1874. Freudenthal, Jacob. Die Flavius Josephus beigelegte Schrift über die Herrschaft der Vernunft (IV Makkabäerbuch): Eine Predigt aus dem ersten nachchristlichen Jahrhundert. Breslau: Schletter, 1869. Friebel, Κelvin, Dennis Magary, and Ronald Troxel, eds. Seeking out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor M. V. Fox on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005. Fung, Chang Nam. “Towards a Macro‐Polysystem Hypothesis.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 8 (2000): 109–23. Gagos, Traianos, ed. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Congress of Papyrology, Ann Arbor, July 29–August 4, 2007. American Studies in Papyrology. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Scholarly Publishing Office, University of Michigan Library, 2010. Gammie, John G. “The Septuagint of Job: Its Poetic Style and Relationship to the Septuagint of Proverbs.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49 (1987): 13–31. García Martínez, Florentino. “11QTargumJob.” Pages 79–180 in Qumran Cave 11: II, 11Q2–8, 11Q20–31. Edited by Florentino García Martínez, Eibert Tigchelaar, and Adam S. van der Woude. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 23. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.

Bibliography

355

García Martínez, Florentino and Marc Vervenne, eds. Interpeting Translation: Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 192. Leuven: Peeters, 2005. García Martínez, Florentino, Eibert Tigchelaar, and Adam S. van der Woude, eds. Qumran Cave 11: II, 11Q2–8, 11Q20–31. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 23. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998. Gard, Donald H. “The Concept of Job’s Character According to the Greek Translator of the Hebrew Text.” Journal of Biblical Literature 72/3 (1953): 182–86. Gard, Donald H. “The Concept of the Future Life according to the Greek Translator of the Book of Job.” Journal of Biblical Literature 73/3 (1954): 137–43. Gard, Donald H. The Exegetical Method of the Greek Translator of the Book of Job. Journal of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 8. Philadelphia, Pa.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1952. Garr, W. Randall. Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000–586 B.C.E. Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985. Gauthier, Randall X. Psalms 38 and 145 of the Old Greek Version. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 166. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Gehman, Henry S. “The Theological Approach of the Greek Translator of Job 1–15.” Journal of Biblical Literature 68/3 (1949): 231–40. Genette, Gérard. Fiction et diction. Collection Points-essais. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1991. Gentry, Peter. The Asterisked Materials in the Greek Job. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 38. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1995. George, Coulter H. “Jewish and Christian Greek.” Pages 267–80 in A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language. Edited by Egbert J. Bakker. Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World. Oxford: Blackwell, 2010. Gera, Deborah L. “Translating Hebrew Poetry into Greek Poetry: The Case of Exodus 15.” Bulletin of the International Organization of Septuagint and Cognate Studies 40 (2007): 107–20. Gerleman, Gilles. Studies in the Septuagint. I: Book of Job. Lunds Universitets årsskrift 43/2. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1946. Gerleman, Gilles. Studies in the Septuagint. III: Proverbs. Lunds Universitets årsskrift 52/3. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1956. Gibson, Diana. “Causative Verbs in Ancient Greek: The Development of the Periphrastic Construction.” Ph.D. diss., University of Oxford, 2005. Gibson, Diana. “Periphrastic Causatives with ποιέω in Ancient Greek Prose.” Pages 27–40 in Topics in Comparative Philology and Historical Linguistics. Vol. 7 of Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics. Edited by Ina J. Hartmann and Andreas Willi. Oxford: n.n., 2002. Cited 10 March 2017. Online: http:// www.ling-phil.ox.ac.uk/files/uploads/OWP2002.pdf.

356

Bibliography

Gilbert, Maurice, ed. La Sagesse de l’Ancien Testament: Journées bibliques 1977. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 51. Leuven: Peeters, 21990. Goldman, Yohanan A. P., Arie van der Kooij, and Richard D. Weis, eds. Sôfer Mahîr: Essays in Honour of A. Schenker offered by the Editors of Biblia Hebraica Quinta. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 110. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Goldwasser, Orly. “Literary Late Egyptian as a Polysystem.” Poetics Today 13 (1992): 447–62. Good, Roger. “1–2 Chronicles (Paraleipomena).” Pages 167–77 in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint. Edited by James K. Aitken. Bloomsbury Companions. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Goodenough, Erwin R. Pagan Symbols in Judaism. Vol. 8 of Jewish Symbols in the GrecoRoman Period: Pagan Symbols in Judaism. 2 vols. Bollingen Series 37. New York: Pantheon Books, 1958. Gordis, Robert. The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation and Special Studies. Moreshet 2. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1978. Gorea, Maria. Job repensé ou trahi? Omissions et raccourcis de la Septante. Études bibliques 56. Paris: Gabalda, 2007. Grabbe, Lester L. The Early Hellenistic Period (335–175 BCE). Vol. 2 of A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period. Library of Second Temple Studies 68. London: T&T Clark, 2008. Grabbe, Lester L. “Jewish Identity and Hellenism in the Fragmentary Jewish Writings in Greek.” Pages 21–32 in Scripture and Traditions: Essays on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of C. R. Holladay. Edited by Patrick Gray and Gail R. O’Day. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 129. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Gray, George B. “The Additions in the Ancient Greek Version of Job.” The Expositor 19 (1920): 422–38. Gray, John. The Book of Job. Text of the Hebrew Bible 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2010. Gray, John. “The Massoretic Text of the Book of Job, the Targum and the Septuagint Version in Light of the Qumram Targum (11QtargJob).” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 86 (1974): 331–50. Gray, Patrick and Gail R. O’Day, eds. Scripture and Traditions: Essays on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of C. R. Holladay. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 129. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Greene, Roland et al., eds. The Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. 4th ed. Princeton, N.J.: University Press, 2012. Greenstein, Edward L. “‘Difficulty’ in the Poetry of Job.” Pages 1–15 in Online Proceedings of the Fifteenth World Congress of Jewish Studies (August 2–6, 2009). Cited 10 June 2015. Online: http://jewish-studies.org/ShowDoc.asp?MenuID=49.

Bibliography

357

Greenstein, Edward L. “Features of Language in the Poetry of Job.” Pages 81–96 in Das Buch Hiob und seine Interpretationen: Beiträge zum Hiob-Symposium auf dem Monte Verità vom 14.–19. August 2005. Edited by Thomas Krüger et al. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 88. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2007. Gruen, Erich S. Diaspora: Jews amidst Greeks and Romans. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2002. Gruen, Erich S. “Hellenism, Hellenization.” Pages 723–26 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010. Gruen, Erich S. Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1998. Gruen, Erich S. “Jewish Literature.” Pages 415–28 in A Companion to Hellenistic Literature. Edited by James J. Clauss and Martine Cuypers. Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World. Oxford: Blackwell, 2010. Gruen, William. “Seeking a Context for the Testament of Job.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 18 (2009): 163–79. Gutzwiller, Kathryn J. A Guide to Hellenistic Literature. Blackwell Guides to Classical Literature. Oxford: Blackwell, 2007. Haas, Christopher. Alexandria in Late Antiquity: Topography and Social Conflict. Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997. Haas, William. Writing without Letters. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1976. Habel, Norman. The Book of Job: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. London: SCM Press, 1985. Hanhart, Robert. “The Translation of the Septuagint in Light of Earlier Tradition and Subsequent Influences.” Pages 339–79 in Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings: Papers Presented to the International Symposium on the Septuagint and its Relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Writings (Manchester, 1990). Edited by George J. Brooke and Barnabas Lindars. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 33. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1992. Hansen, Gyde, Kirsten Malmkjaer, and Daniel Gile, eds. Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies: Selected Contributions from the EST Congress, Copenhagen 2001. Benjamins Translation Library 50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2004. Hanson, John S. “Demetrius the Chronographer (Third Century B.C.): A New Translation and Introduction.” Pages 843–54 in Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works. Vol. 2 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1985. Haralambakis, Maria. The Testament of Job: Text, Narrative and Reception History. Library of Second Temple Studies. London: Bloomsbury, 2012.

358

Bibliography

Harl, Marguerite. La langue de Japhet: Quinze études sur la Septante et le grec des chrétiens. Paris: Cerf, 1992. Harl, Marguerite et al. Les Douze Prophètes: Joël, Abdiou, Jonas, Naoum, Ambakoum, Sophonie. La Bible d’Alexandrie 23/4–9. Paris: Cerf, 1999. Hartmann, Benedikt et al., eds. Hebräische Wortforschung. Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag von W. Baumgartner. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 16. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Hartmann, Ina J. and Andreas Willi, eds. Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics. Oxford: n.n., 2002. Cited 10 March 2017. Online: http:// www.ling-phil.ox.ac.uk/files/uploads/OWP2002.pdf. Hatch, Edwin. Essays in Biblical Greek. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1889. Heater, Homer. A Septuagint Translation Technique in the Book of Job. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 11. Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1982. Heimerdinger, Jean-Marc. Topic, Focus and Foreground in Ancient Hebrew Narratives. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplements 295. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Hengel, Martin. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1974. Hengel, Martin. “The Political and Social History of Palestine from Alexander to Antiochus III (333–187 BCE).” Pages 35–78 in The Hellenistic Age. Vol. 2 of The Cambridge History of Judaism. Edited by William D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Hengel, Martin. The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2002. Henze, Matthias, ed. A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2011. Hermans, Theo, ed. The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation. London: Croom Helm, 1985. Hermans, Theo. “Norms and the Determination of Translation: A Theoretical Framework.” Pages 25–51 in Translation, Power, Subversion. Edited by Román Alvarez and Carmen-Africa Vidal. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1996. Hermans, Theo. “Revisiting the Classics: Toury’s Empiricism Version One.” The Translator 1 (1995): 215–23. Hermans, Theo. Translation in Systems: Descriptive and Systemic Approaches Explained. Translation Theories Explained 7. Manchester: St. Jerome, 1999. Herz, N., “Some Difficult Passages in Job.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 20 (1900): 160–63. Herzog, Johann et al., eds. Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche. 22 vols. 3rd ed. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1900.

Bibliography

359

Heszer, Catherine. Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine. Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 81. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Heszer, Catherine, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Hiebert, Robert, ed. “Translation Is Required”: The Septuagint in Retrospect and Prospect. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 56. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010. Hiebert, Robert, Claude E. Cox, and Peter Gentry, eds. The Old Greek Psalter: Studies in Honour of Albert Pietersma. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplements 332. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Hoffman, Yair. A Blemished Perfection: The Book of Job in Context. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplements 213. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Holladay, Carl R. Aristobulus. Vol. 3 of Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations 39, Pseudepigrapha 13. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1995. Holladay, Carl R. “Jewish Responses to Hellenistic Culture.” Pages 139–63 in Ethnicity in Hellenistic Egypt. Edited by Per Bilde et al. Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 3. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1992. Holladay, Carl R. Historians. Vol. 1 of Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations 20, Pseudepigrapha 10. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983. Holladay, Carl R. Poets: The Epic Poets Theodotus and Philo and Ezekiel the Tragedian. Vol. 2 of Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations 30, Pseudepigrapha 12. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1989. Holladay, William L. “Hebrew Verse Structure Revisited (I): Which Words ‘Count’?” Journal of Biblical Literature 118 (1999): 19–32. Homer. Edited and translated by Augustus T. Murray. Revised by William F. Wyatt. 4 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1919–1925. Honigman, Sylvie. “The Birth of a Diaspora: The Emergence of a Jewish Self-Definition in Ptolemaic Egypt in the Light of Onomastics.” Pages 93–128 in Diasporas in Antiquity. Edited by Shaye J. D. Cohen and Ernest S. Frerichs. Brown Judaic Studies 288. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1993. Honigman, Sylvie. “Demetrios (Jewish Historian/Chronographer).” Page 2001 in The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall et al. Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012. Honigman, Sylvie. “‘Jews as the Best of All Greeks’: Cultural Competition in the Literary Works of Alexandrian Judaeans of the Hellenistic Period.” Pages 207–32 in Shifting Social Imaginaries in the Hellenistic Period: Narrations, Practices, and Images. Edited by Eftychia Stavrianopoulou. Mnemosyne Supplementum 363. Leiden: Brill, 2013.

360

Bibliography

Honigman, Sylvie. The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria: A Study in the Narrative of the ‘Letter of Aristeas.’ London: Routledge, 2003. Horbury, William. “Jewish Inscriptions and Jewish Literature in Egypt, with Special Reference to Ecclesiasticus.” Pages 9–43 in Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy. Edited by Jan Willem van Henten and Pieter W. van der Horst. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Horrocks, Geoffrey. “Clitics in Greek: A Diachronic View.” Pages 35–52 in vol. 2 of Greek Outside Greece: Issues of Language, Literature and Education. Edited by Stavros Panteli and Maria Roussou. Athens: Diaspora Books, 1990. Horrocks, Geoffrey. Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers. 2nd ed. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, 2010. Horrocks, Geoffrey. “Syntax: From Classical Greek to the Koine.” Pages 618–31 in A History of Ancient Greek: From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity. Edited by Anastassios-Fivos Christidis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Horsley, Gregory H. R. “The Fiction of ‘Jewish Greek.’” Pages 5–40 in Linguistic Essays. Vol. 5 of New Documents Illustrating Christianity. Edited by Stephen Llewelyn and Gregory H. R. Horsley. North Ryde: Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, 1989. Horsley, Gregory H. R. “Res bibliographicae: Divergent Views on the Nature of the Greek of the Bible.” Biblica 65 (1984): 393–403. Howard, George. “The Letter of Aristeas and Diaspora Judaism.” Journal of Theological Studies 22 (1971): 337–48. Hughes Fowler, Barbara. The Hellenistic Aesthetic. Madison, Wisc.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989. International Organization of Old Testament Scholars, Congress Volume: Copenhagen. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 1. Leiden: Brill, 1953. Inowlocki, Sabrina. Eusebius and the Jewish Authors: His Citation Technique in an Apologetic Context. Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 64. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Isocrates. Edited and translated by George Norlin and La Rue Van Hook. 3 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1928–1945. Jacobson, Howard. “Artapanus Judaeus.” Journal of Jewish Studies 57 (2006): 210–21. Jacobson, Howard. The Exagoge of Ezekiel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Jakobson, Roman. “Grammatical Parallelism and Its Russian Facet.” Language 42 (1966): 399–429. Janse, Mark. “Aspects of Bilingualism in the History of the Greek Language.” Pages 332–92 in Bilingualism in Ancient Society: Language Contact and the Written Text. Edited by James N. Adams, Mark Janse, and Simon Swain. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Jauss, Hans R. “Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory.” New Literary History 2 (1970): 7–37. Jellicoe, Sidney. “Hebrew-Greek Equivalents for the Nether World, Its Milieu and Inhabitants, in the Old Testament.” Textus 8 (1973): 1–19.

Bibliography

361

Jellicoe, Sidney, ed. Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations. Library of Biblical Studies. New York: Ktav, 1974. Jobes, Karen H. and Moisés Silva. Invitation to the Septuagint. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005. Johnson, Aaron P. “Ethnicity: Greeks, Jews, and Christians.” Pages 376–89 in A Companion to Ethnicity in the Ancient Mediterranean. Edited by Jeremy McInerney. Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2014. Joosten, Jan. “The Aramaic Background of the Seventy: Language, Culture and History.” Bulletin of the International Organization of Septuagint and Cognate Studies 43 (2010): 53–72. Joosten, Jan. Collected Studies on the Septuagint: From Language to Interpretation and Beyond. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 83. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Joosten, Jan. “Elaborate Similes—Hebrew and Greek: A Study in Septuagint Translation Technique.” Biblica 77 (1996): 227–36. Joosten, Jan. “The Impact of the Greek Pentateuch on the Greek Psalms.” Pages 197– 224 in XIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Ljubljana 2007. Edited by Melvin K. H. Peters. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 55. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. Joosten, Jan. “L’agir humain devant Dieu: Remarques sur une tournure remarquable de la Septante.” Revue biblique 113 (2006): 5–17. Joosten, Jan. “Language as Symptom: Linguistic Clues to the Social Background of the Seventy?” Textus 23 (2007): 69–80. Joosten, Jan. “Le milieu producteur du Pentateuque grec.” Revue des études juives 165 (2006): 349–61. Joosten, Jan. “The Original Language and Historical Milieu of the Book of Judith.” Pages 159–76 in Meghillot V–VI: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls. A Festschrift for Devorah Dimant. Edited by Moshe Bar-Asher and Emanuel Tov. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2009. Joosten, Jan. “The Prayer of Azariah (Dan LXX 3): Sources and Origin.” Pages 5–16 in Septuagint and Reception: Essays Prepared for the Association for the Study of the Septuagint in South Africa. Edited by Johann Cook. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 127. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Joosten, Jan. “Reflections on the ‘Interlinear Paradigm’ in Septuagintal Studies.” Pages 163–78 in Scripture in Transition: Essays on the Septuagint, Hebrew Bible and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of R. Sollamo. Edited by Anssi Voitila and Jutta Jokiranta. Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplements 126. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Joosten, Jan. “Reflections on the Original Language of the Psalms of Solomon.” No pages. Cited 10 March 2017. Online: http://www.academia.edu/10173758/ Reflections_on_the_Original_Language_of_the_Psalms_of_Solomon.

362

Bibliography

Joosten, Jan. “Rhetorical Ornamentation in the Septuagint: The Case of Grammatical Variation.” Pages 11–22 in Et sapienter et eloquenter: Studies on Rhetorical and Stylistic Features of the Septuagint. Edited by Eberhard Bons and Thomas Kraus. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 241. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Joosten, Jan. “Septuagint Greek and the Jewish Sociolect in Egypt.” Pages 246–56 in Die Sprache der Septuaginta. Edited by Eberhard Bons and Jan Joosten. Vol. 3 of Handbuch zur Septuaginta. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2016. Joosten, Jan. “A Septuagintal Translation Technique in the Minor Prophets: The Elimination of Verbal Repetitions.” Pages 217–23 in Interpreting Translation: Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honor of J. Lust. Edited by Florentino García Martínez and Marc Vervenne. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 192. Leuven: Peeters, 2005. Joosten, Jan. “Translating the Untranslatable: Septuagint Renderings of Hebrew Idioms.” Pages 59–70 in“Translation Is Required”: The Septuagint in Retrospect and Prospect. Edited by Robert Hiebert. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 56. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010. Joosten, Jan. “Une théologie de la Septante? Réflexions méthodologiques sur l’interprétation de la version grecque.” Revue de théologie et de philosophie 132 (2000): 31–46. Joosten, Jan. “Varieties of Greek in the Septuagint and the New Testament.” Pages 22–45 in The New Cambridge History of the Bible From the Beginnings to 600. Edited by James Carleton Paget and Joachim Schaper. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Joosten, Jan. “The Vocabulary of the Septuagint and Its Historical Context.” Pages 1–11 in Septuagint Vocabulary: Pre-history, Usage, Reception. Edited by Eberhard Bons and Jan Joosten. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 58. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Joosten, Jan and Jean-Sébastien Rey, eds. Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew Language of the Hellenistic Period: Proceedings of a Fourth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 73. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Joosten, Jan and Jean-Sébastien Rey, eds. The Texts and Versions of the Book of Ben Sira: Transmission and Interpretation. Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplements 150. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Joosten, Jan and Peter J. Tomson, eds. Voces Biblicae: Septuagint Greek and its Significance for the New Testament. Leuven: Peeters, 2007. Kabergs, Valérie. “Creativiteit in het spel? De Griekse weergave van Hebreeuws expliciet woordspel op basis van eigennamen in Pentateuch en Twaalf Profeten.” Ph.D. diss., KU Leuven, 2014.

Bibliography

363

Kabergs, Valérie. “Puns Within the Context of Name Explanations in MT and LXX Exodus.” Pages 215–33 in Die Septuaginta: Texte, Wirkung, Rezeption. 4. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D). Wuppertal, 19.–22. Juli 2012. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and Siegfried Kreuzer. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 325. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Kahle, Paul. The Cairo Geniza. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1959. Karrer, Martin and Wolfgang Kraus, eds. Septuaginta-Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011. Karrer, Martin and Martin Meiser, eds. Die Septuaginta: Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D). Wuppertal, 20.–23. Juli 2006. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 219. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Kazazis, John N. “Atticism.” Pages 1200–12 in A History of Ancient Greek: From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity. Edited by Anastassios-Fivos Christidis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Kennedy, George A. Classical Rhetoric and its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times. 2nd ed. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1999. Kennedy, George A. “Historical Survey of Rhetoric.” Pages 3–42 in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period. 330 BC–AD 400. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Kennedy, George A. A New History of Classical Rhetoric. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994. Khan, Geoffrey et al., eds. Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Khan, Geoffrey and Diana Lipton, eds. Studies on the Text and Versions of the Hebrew Bible in Honour of Robert Gordon. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Kim, Yoo-Ki. The Function of the Tautological Infinitive in Classical Biblical Hebrew. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2009. Kissane, Edward J. The Book of Job: Translated from a Critically Revised Hebrew Text with Commentary. Dublin: Brown & Nolan, 1939. Kittel, Harald, ed. Geschichte, System, Literarische Übersetzung/Histories, Systems, Literary Translations. Berlin: Erich Schmidt, 1992. Klein, Michael L. “Associative and Complementary Translation in the Targums.” EretzIsrael 16 (1982): 134–40. Klostermann, August. “Hiob.” Pages 97–126 in vol. 8 of Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche. Edited by Johann Herzog et al. 3rd ed. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1900.

364

Bibliography

Knibb, Michael A., ed. The Septuagint and Messianism. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 195. Leuven: Peeters, 2006. Knobloch, Frederick W., ed. Biblical Translation in Context. Studies and Texts in Jewish History and Culture 10. Bethesda, Md.: University of Maryland Press, 2002. Kotlinska-Toma, Agnieszka. Hellenistic Tragedy: Texts, Translations, Critical Survey. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Kratz, Robert. The Testament of Job according to the SV Text. Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations 5. Pseudepigrapha Series 4. Missoula Mont.: Scholars Press, 1974. Kraus, Wolfgang, Martin Karrer, and Martin Meiser, eds. Die Septuaginta: Texte, Theologien und Einflüsse. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D). Wuppertal, 23.–27. Juli 2008. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 252. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Kraus, Wolfgang and Siegfried Kreuzer, eds. Die Septuaginta: Texte, Wirkung, Rezeption. 4. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D). Wuppertal, 19.–22. Juli 2012. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 325. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Kraus, Wolfgang and Siegfried Kreuzer, eds. Die Septuaginta: Orte und Intentionen. 5. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D). Wuppertal, 24.–27. Juli 2014. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 361. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Kraus, Wolfgang and R. Glenn Wooden, eds. Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 53. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Kreuzer, Siegfried. The Bible in Greek: Translation, Transmission, and Theology of the Septuagint. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 63. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2015. Kreuzer, Siegfried. “Entstehung und Entwicklung der Septuaginta im Kontext alexandrinischer und frühjüdischer Kultur und Bildung.” Pages 3–39 in SeptuagintaDeutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare. Edited by Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011. Kreuzer, Siegfried. “Origin and Development of the Septuagint in the Context of Alexandrian and Early Jewish Culture and Learning.” Pages 3–46 in The Bible in Greek: Translation, Transmission, and Theology of the Septuagint. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 63. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2015. Kreuzer, Siegfried et al., eds. Die Septuaginta: Entstehung, Sprache, Geschichte. 3. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D). Wuppertal, 22.–25. Juli 2010. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 286. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.

Bibliography

365

Krüger, Thomas et al., eds. Das Buch Hiob und seine Interpretationen: Beiträge zum Hiob-Symposium auf dem Monte Verità vom 14.–19. August 2005. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 88. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2007. Kugel, James. The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and its History. New Haven: Yale University, 1981. Kuhn, Karl G. Konkordanz zum den Qumrantexten. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960. Kutz, Karl. “Characterization in the Old Greek of Job.” Pages 345–55 in Seeking out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor M. V. Fox on the Occasion of his SixtyFifth Birthday. Edited by Κelvin Friebel, Dennis Magary, and Ronald Troxel. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005. Kutz, Karl. “The Old Greek of Job: A Study in Early Biblical Exegesis.” Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin, 1997. Lambert, José and Hendrik Van Gorp, “On Describing Translations.” Pages 42–53 in The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation. Edited by Theo Hermans. London: Croom Helm, 1985. LaMontagne, Nathan. “The Song of Deborah (Judges 5): Meaning and Poetry in the Septuagint.” Ph.D. diss., Catholic University of America, 2013. Land, Christopher D. “Varieties of the Greek Language.” Pages 243–60 in vol. 3 of The Language of the New Testament: Context, History, and Development. Early Christianity in its Hellenistic Context. Edited by Stanely E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts. Linguistic Biblical Studies 6. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Lanfranchi, Pierluigi. L’Exagoge d’Ezéchiel le Tragique: Introduction, texte, traduction et commentaire. Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 21. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Lange, Armin et al., eds. Textual History of the Bible. Leiden: Brill, forthcoming. Lausberg, Heinrich. Handbook of Literary Rhetoric: A Foundation for Literary Study. Translated by Matthew T. Bliss, Annemiek Jansen, and David E. Orton. Edited by David E. Orton and R. Dean Anderson. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Laviosa, Sara. “Universals.” Pages 306–10 in Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. Edited by Mona Baker and Gabriela Saldanha. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2009. Law, Timothy M. When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Law, Timothy M. and Alison Salvesen, eds. The Oxford Handbook of the Septuagint. Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming. Lee, John A. L. “Accuracy and Idiom: The Renderings of Mittahat in the Septuagint Pentateuch.” Pages 79–99 in In the Footsteps of Sherlock Holmes: Studies in the Biblical Text in Honour of Anneli Aejmelaeus. Edited by Kristin De Troyer, Timothy M. Law, and Marketta Liljeström. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 72. Leuven: Peeters, 2014.

366

Bibliography

Lee, John A. L. “The Atticist Grammarians.” Pages 283–308 in vol. 3 of The Language of the New Testament: Context, History, and Development. Early Christianity in its Hellenistic Context. Edited by Stanely E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts. Linguistic Biblical Studies 6. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Lee, John A. L. “Auxiliary θέλω.” Pages 15–34 in The Language of the Papyri. Edited by Trevor V. Evans and Dirk D. Obbink. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Lee, John A. L. “Equivocal and Stereotyped Renderings in the LXX.” Revue biblique 87 (1980): 104–17. Lee, John A. L. “Exapostellô.” Pages 99–113 in Voces Biblicae: Septuagint Greek and its Significance for the New Testament. Edited by Jan Joosten and Peter J. Tomson. Leuven: Peeters, 2007. Lee, John A. L. A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 14. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983. Lee, John A. L. “The Literary Greek of Septuagint Isaiah.” Semitica et classica 7 (2014): 135–46. Lee, John A. L. “Some Features of the Speech of Jesus in Mark’s Gospel.” Novum Testamentum 27 (1985): 1–26. Lee, John A. L. “Translations of the Old Testament, Greek.” Pages 775–83 in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period. 330 BC–AD 400. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Lehmann, Reinhard G., ed. Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt. Waltrop: Hartmut Spenner, 2002. Lemmelijn, Bénédicte. “Flora in Cantico Canticorum: Towards a more Precise Characterisation of Translation Technique in the LXX of Song of Songs.” Pages 27–52 in Scripture in Transition: Essays on the Septuagint, Hebrew Bible and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of R. Sollamo. Edited by Anssi Voitila and Jutta Jokiranta. Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplements 126. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Lemmelijn, Bénédicte. “Free and yet Faithful: On the Translation Technique of LXX Exod 7.14–11.10.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 33/1 (2007): 1–32. Lemmelijn, Bénédicte. “The Greek Rendering of Hebrew Hapax Legomena in LXX Proverbs and Job: A Clue to the Question of a Single Translator?” Pages 133–50 in In the Footsteps of Sherlock Holmes: Studies in the Biblical Text in Honour of Anneli Aejmelaeus. Edited by Kristin De Troyer, Timothy M. Law, and Marketta Liljeström. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 72. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. Lemmelijn, Bénédicte. A Plague of Texts? A Text-Critical Study to the So-Called “Plagues Narrative” in Exodus 7:14–11:10. Oudtestamentische studiën 56. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Lemmelijn, Bénédicte. “Two Methodological Trails in Recent Studies on the Translation Technique of the Septuagint.” Pages 43–63 in Helsinki Perspectives on the Translation Technique of the Septuagint. Edited by Raija Sollamo and Seppo Sipilä. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society in Helsinki 82. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001.

Bibliography

367

Le Moigne, Philippe. “Le livre d’Esaïe dans la Septante: Ecdotique, stylistique, linguistique.” Ph.D. diss., École pratique des hautes études, 2001. Léonas, Alexis. “The Poetics of Wisdom: Language and Style in the Wisdom of Solomon.” Pages 99–126 in Et sapienter et eloquenter: Studies on Rhetorical and Stylistic Features of the Septuagint. Edited by Eberhard Bons and Thomas Kraus. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 241. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Léonas, Alexis. Recherches sur le langage de la Septante. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 211. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005. Lévêque, Jean. Job et son dieu: Essai d’exégèse et de théologie biblique. Paris: Gabalda, 1970. Leyba, Charles F., ed. Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretical Framework. Los Angeles, Calif.: California State Department of Education, 1981. Lotman, Yuri M. The Structure of the Artistic Text. Translated by Ronald Vroon. Michigan Slavic Contributions 7. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press, 1977. Lowth, Robert. De sacra poesi Hebraeorum praelectiones academicae Oxonii habitae subiicitur metricae harianae brevis confutatio et oratio crewiana. Cum notis et epimetris Ioa. Dav. Michaelis suis animadversionibus adiectis edidit Ern. Frid. Car. Rosenmüller. Insunt Car. Frid. Richteri de aetate libri Iobi definienda atque Christ. Weisii de metro hariano commentationes. Lipsiae: Weigel, 1815. Lowth, Robert. Isaiah: A New Translation with Preliminary Dissertation and Notes, Critical, Philological, and Explanatory. 10th ed. Boston, Mass.: Hilliard, 1834. First published London: Dodsley & Cadelle, 1778. Lund, Nils W. “The Presence of Chiasmus in the Old Testament.” American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 46 (1929–1930): 104–26. Lunn, Nicholas P. Word-Order Variation in Biblical Hebrew Poetry: Differentiating Pragmatics and Poetics. Paternoster Biblical Monographs. Waynesboro, Va.: Paternoster, 2006. Lust, Johan. “The Vocabulary of LXX Ezekiel and its Dependence upon the Pentateuch.” Pages 529–46 in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic Literature: Studies in Honour of C. H. W. Brekelmans. Edited by Johan Lust and Marc Vervenne. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 133. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. Lust, Johan and Marc Vervenne, eds. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic Literature: Studies in Honour of C. H. W. Brekelmans. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 133. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. Maehler, Hervicus. Pindari carmina cum fragmentis. II: Fragmenta, Indices. Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana. Leipzig: Teubner, 1989. Mairs, Rachel and Cary J. Martin. “A Bilingual ‘Sale’ of Liturgies from the Archive of the Theban Choachytes: P.Berlin. 5507, P.Berlin. 3098 and P.Leiden 413.” Enchoria 31 (2008–2009): 22–67.

368

Bibliography

Malmkjaer, Kirsten. “Functionalist Linguistics.” Pages 177–80 in The Routledge Linguis­ tics Encyclopedia. Edited by Kirsten Malmkjaer. 3rd ed. London: Routledge, 2010. Malmkjaer, Kirsten, ed. The Routledge Linguistics Encyclopedia. 3rd ed. London: Routledge, 2010. Mangin, Dominique. “Le texte court de la version grecque du livre de Job et la double interprétation du personnage jusqu’au IIe siècle.” Ph.D. diss., Université d’AixMarseille-I, 2005. Marcus, Ralph. “Hellenistic Jewish Literature.” Pages 1077–148 in vol. 2 of The Jews: Their History, Culture and Religion. Edited by Louis Finkelstein. 3rd ed. New York: Harper and Bros., 1960. Markovic, Daniel. “Hyperbaton in the Greek Literary Sentence.” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 46 (2006): 127–45. Marquis, Galen. “Consistency of Lexical Equivalents as a Criterion for the Evaluation of Translation Technique as Exemplified in the LXX of Ezekiel.” Pages 405–24 in VI Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Jerusalem 1986. Edited by Claude E. Cox. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 23. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1987. Marquis, Galen. “Word Order as a Criterion for the Evaluation of Translation Technique in the LXX and the Evaluation of Word-Order Variants as Exemplified in LXXEzekiel.” Textus 13 (1986): 59–84. Mazur, Krystyna. “Repetition.” Pages 1168–71 in The Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. Edited by Roland Greene et al. 4th ed. Princeton, N.J.: University Press, 2012. McDonald, Lee M. and James A. Sanders, eds. The Canon Debate. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002. McInerney, Jeremy, ed. A Companion to Ethnicity in the Ancient Mediterranean. Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2014. McKenzie, John L., ed. The Bible in Current Catholic Thought: Gruenthaner Memorial Volume. New York: Herder and Herder, 1962. Meade, John D. “A Critical Edition of the Hexaplaric Fragments of Job: Chapters 22–42.” Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2012. Meiser, Martin and Michaël N. van der Meer, eds. XV Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Munich 2013. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 64. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2016. Meister, Richard. “Prolegomena zu einer Grammatik der LXX.” Wiener Studiën. Zeitschrift für klassische Philologie 29 (1907): 228–59. Melazzo, Roberta. “The Dual in Ancient Greek.” Incontri Linguistici 35 (2012): 49–92. Mélèze-Modrzejewski, Joseph. “How to Be a Greek and Yet a Jew in Hellenistic Alexandria.” Pages 65–92 in Diasporas in Antiquity. Edited by Shaye J. D. Cohen and Ernest S. Frerichs. Brown Judaic Studies 288. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1993.

Bibliography

369

Mélèze-Modrzejewski, Joseph. Les Juifs d’Égypte: De Ramses II à Hadrien. Paris: éditions Errance, 1991. Merx, Adalbert. Das Gedicht von Hiob. Jena: Mauke’s Verlag, 1871. Metso, Sarianna and Eugene Ulrich. “4QJoba.” Pages 171–78 in Qumran Cave 4: XI. Psalms to Chronicles. Edited by Eugene Ulrich et al. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 16. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000. Meylaerts, Reine. “Conceptualizing the Translator as a Historical Subject in Multilingual Environments: A Challenge for Descriptive Translation Studies?” Pages 59–75 in Charting the Future of Translation History. Edited by Georges L. Bastin and Paul F. Bandia. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 2006. Meylaerts, Reine. “La traduction dans la culture multilingue: À la recherche des sources, des cibles et des territoires.” Target 16 (2004): 289–317. Meylaerts, Reine. “Translators and (their) Norms: Towards a Sociological Construction of the Individual.” Pages 91–102 in Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies: Investigations in Homage to Gideon Toury. Edited by Anthony Pym, Miriam Shlesinger, and Daniel Simeoni. Benjamins Translation Library. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2008. Michel, Walter L. Prologue and First Cycle of Speeches, Job 1:1–14:22. Vol. 1 of Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic. Biblica et Orientalia 42. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1987. Migne, Jean-Paul, ed. Opera quae exstant omnia (Synesius); Scripta vel Scriptorum Fragmenta (Theodore of Mopsuestia). Patrologia Graeca 66. Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1864. Mikalson, Jon D. “Greek Religion—Continuity and Change in the Hellenistic Period.” Pages 208–22 in The Cambridge Companion to the Hellenistic World. Edited by Glenn R. Bugh. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Milik, Józef T. “Targum de Job.” Page 90 in Qumrân Grotte 4: II, II. Tefillin, Mezuzot et Targums (4Q128–4Q517). Edited by Roland de Vaux and Józef T. Milik. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 4. Oxford: Clarendon, 1977. Miller, Shem. “Innovation and Convention: An Analysis of Parallelism in Stichographic, Hymnic and Sapiental Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Ph.D. diss., Florida State University, 2012. Mittmann-Richert, Ulrike et al., eds. Der Mensch vor Gott: Forschungen zum Menschenbild in Bibel, antikem Judentum und Koran. Festschrift für H. Lichtenberger zum 60. Geburtstag. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003. Montanari, Franco. “Alexander [23, Polyhistor].” Pages 478–79 in vol. 1 of Der Neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike. Edited by Hubert Cancik, Helmuth Schneider, and August Fr. Pauly. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1996. Montanari, Franco, Stefanos Matthaios, and Antonios Rengakos, eds. Brill’s Companion to Ancient Greek Scholarship History, Disciplinary Profiles. 2 vols. Brill’s Companions in Classical Studies. Leiden: Brill, 2015.

370

Bibliography

Montevecchio, Orsolina. La Papirologia. Trattati e Manuali. Milan: Vita e Pensiero, 1988. Moore, Carey A. Judith: A New Translation With Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 40B. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985. Morenz, Ludwig and Stefan Schorch, eds. Was ist ein Text? Ägyptologische, altorientalische und alttestamentliche Perspektiven. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 362. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007. Morgan, Teresa. Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds. Cambridge Classical Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Morrow, Francis J. “11Q Targum Job and the Masoretic Text.” Revue de Qumrân 8 (1973): 253–56. Mras, Karl and Édouard des Places, eds. Eusebius Werke 8: Die Praeparatio Euangelica. 2 vols. 2nd ed. Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller 43/2. Berlin: AkademieVerlag, 1982–1983. Muilenberg, James. “A Study in Hebrew Rhetoric: Repetition and Style.” Pages 97–111 in Congress Volume: Copenhagen. Edited by The International Organization of Old Testament Scholars. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 1. Leiden: Brill, 1953. Mullen, Alex. “Introduction: Multiple Languages, Multiple Identities.” Pages 1–35 in Multilingualism in the Graeco-Roman Worlds. Edited by Alex Mullen and Patrick James. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Mullen, Alex and Patrick James, eds. Multilingualism in the Graeco-Roman Worlds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Mulroney, James. The Translation Style of Old Greek Habakkuk. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe 86. Tübingen: Morh Siebeck, 2016. Munday, Jeremy. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2008. Munnich, Olivier. “Étude lexicographique du Psautier des LXX.” Ph.D. diss., Université Paris-Sorbonne, 1982. Muñoz-Calvo, Micaela and Carmen Buesa Gómez, eds. Translation and Cultural Identity: Selected Essays on Translation and Cross-Cultural Communications. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2010. Muraoka, Takamitsu. “How to Analyse and Translate the Idiomatic Phrase ‫מי יתן‬.” Bulletin of the International Organization of Septuagint and Cognate Studies 33 (2000): 47–52. Muraoka, Takamitsu. “Introduction aux douze petits prophètes.” Pages I–XXIII in Les Douze Prophètes: Osée. Edited by Eberhard Bons et al. La Bible d’Alexandrie 23/1. Paris: Cerf, 2002. Muraoka, Takamitsu. “Literary Device in the Septuagint.” Textus 8 (1973): 20–30. Muraoka, Takamitsu. A Syntax of Septuagint Greek. Leuven: Peeters, 2016.

Bibliography

371

Mussies, Gerard. “Phonology and Morphology of Septuagint Greek.” Pages 89–97 in Die Sprache der Septuaginta. Edited by Eberhard Bons and Jan Joosten. Vol. 3 of Handbuch zur Septuaginta. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2016. Neusner, Jacob, ed. Judaism Before 70. Vol. 3 of Christianity, Judaism, and Other GrecoRoman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity. Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 1975. Ngunga, Abi T. and Joachim Schaper, “Isaiah.” Pages 456–68 in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint. Edited by James K. Aitken. Bloomsbury Companions. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Niccacci, Alviero. “Analysing Biblical Hebrew Poetry.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 22 (1997): 77–93. Niehoff, Maren R. Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Nier, Herbert and G. Steins. “‫ׁשדי‬.” Pages 418–46 in vol. 14 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and HeinzJozef Fabry. Translated by John T. Willis. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2004. Noegel, Scott. Janus Parallelism in the Book of Job. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplements 223. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Noegel, Scott. “Wordplay and Translation Technique in the Septuagint of Job.” Aula Orientalis 14 (1995): 33–44. Nord, Christine. Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained. 3rd ed. Manchester: St. Jerome, 2007. Norden, Eduard. Die antike Kunstprosa vom VI Jahrhundert v. Chr. bis in die Zeit der Renaissance. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Teubner, 1923. Norton, Jonathan D. H. Contours in the Text: Textual Variation in the Writings of Paul, Josephus and the Yaḥad. Library of New Testament Studies 430. London: T&T Clark, 2011. O’Connor, Michael P. Hebrew Verse Structure. 2nd ed. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1997. Olley, John W. Ezekiel: A Commentary Based on Iezekiel in Codex Vaticanus. Septuagint Commentary Series. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Olofsson, Staffan. “Consistency as a Translation Technique.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 6 (1992): 14–30. Olofsson, Staffan. The LXX Version: A Guide to the Translation Technique of the Septuagint. Coniectanea biblica Old Testament Series 30. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1990. Olohan, Maeve, ed. Intercultural Faultlines: Research Models in Translation Studies. Vol 1: Textual and Cognitive Aspects. Manchester: St. Jerome, 2000. Olsen, Stein H. The Structure of Literary Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978. Opelt, Ilona. “Alliteration im Griechischen?” Glotta 37 (1958): 205–32.

372

Bibliography

Orlinsky, Harry. “The Septuagint and its Hebrew Text.” Pages 534–62 in The Hellenistic Age. Vol. 2 of The Cambridge History of Judaism. Edited by William D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Orlinsky, Harry. “The Septuagint as Holy Writ and the Philosophy of the Translators.” Hebrew Union College Annual 46 (1975): 89–114. Orlinsky, Harry. “Studies in the Septuagint of the Book of Job. Chapter I: An Analytical Survey of Previous Studies.” Hebrew Union College Annual 28 (1957): 53–74. Orlinsky, Harry. “Studies in the Septuagint of the Book of Job. Chapter II: The Character of the Septuagint Translation of the Book of Job.” Hebrew Union College Annual 29 (1958): 229–71. Orlinsky, Harry. “Studies in the Septuagint of the Book of Job. Chapter III: On the Matter of Anthropomorphisms, Anthropopathisms, and Euphemisms.” Hebrew Union College Annual 30 (1959): 153–67. Orlinsky, Harry. “Studies in the Septuagint of the Book of Job. Chapter III (continued).” Hebrew Union College Annual 32 (1961): 239–68. Orlinsky, Harry. “Studies in the Septuagint of the Book of Job. Chapter IV: The Present State of the Greek Text of Job.” Hebrew Union College Annual 33 (1962): 119–51. Orlinsky, Harry. “Studies in the Septuagint of the Book of Job. Chapter V: The Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint of Job. The Text and the Script.” Hebrew Union College Annual 35 (1964): 57–78. Orlinsky, Harry. “Studies in the Septuagint of the Book of Job. Chapter V (continued).” Hebrew Union College Annual 36 (1965): 37–47. Pack, Roger A. The Greek and Latin Literary Texts from Greco-Roman Egypt. 2nd ed. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press, 1965. Pagani, Lara. “Language Correctness (Hellenismos) and Its Criteria.” Pages 798–849 in Between Theory and Practice. Vol. 2 of Brill’s Companion to Ancient Greek Scholarship. Edited by Franco Montanari, Stefanos Matthaios, and Antonios Rengakos. Brill’s Companions in Classical Studies. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Palm, Jonas. Über Sprache und Stil des Diodoros von Sizilien: Ein Beitrag zur Beleuchtung der hellenistischen Prosa. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1955. Palmer, James K. “‘Not Made with Tracing Paper’: Studies in the Septuagint of Zechariah.” Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 2004. Panteli, Stavros and Maria Roussou, eds. Greek Outside Greece: Issues of Language, Literature and Education. 2 vols. Athens: Diaspora Books, 1990. Papaconstantinou, Arietta, ed. The Multilingual Experience in Egypt, from the Ptolemies to the Abbasids. Farnham: Ashgate, 2010. Park, Misop. “Repetition: Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew.” Pages 373–75 in vol. 3 of Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics. Edited by Geoffrey Khan et al. Leiden: Brill, 2013.

Bibliography

373

Parsons, Gregory W. “Literary Features of the Book of Job.” Bibliotheca Sacra 138 [551] (1981): 213–29. Patmore, Hector M. “1 Esdras.” Pages 178–94 in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint. Edited by James K. Aitken. Bloomsbury Companions. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Paul, Shalom M. et al., eds. Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 94. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Peli, Pinchas, ed. Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies. 4 vols. Jerusalem: Magness Press, 1973. Peters, Melvin K. H., ed. XII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leiden 2004. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 54. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Peters, Melvin K. H., ed. XIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Ljubljana 2007. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 55. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. Peters, Melvin K. H., ed. XIV Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Helsinki 2010. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 59. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013. Pietersma, Albert. “Exegesis in the Septuagint: Possibilities and Limits (The Psalter as a Case in Point).” Pages 33–46 in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 53. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Pietersma, Albert. “LXX and DTS: A New Archimedean Point for Septuagint Studies?” Bulletin of the International Organization of Septuagint and Cognate Studies 39 (2006): 1–11. Pietersma, Albert. Review of J. Ziegler, Iob. Journal of Biblical Literature 104 (1985): 305–11. Piquer Otero, Andres and Pablo Torijano Morales, eds. Textual Criticism and Dead Sea Scrolls Studies in Honour of Julio Trebolle Barrera: Florilegium Complutense. Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplements 157. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Polak, Frank H. “Context Sensitive Translation and Parataxis in Biblical Narrative.” Pages 525–40 in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. Edited by Shalom M. Paul et al. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 94. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Pomponio, Francesco. Studia Orientalia memoriae Jussi Aro dedicata. Studia Orientalia 55. Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica, 1984. Pope, Marvin. Job: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. Anchor Bible 15. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1965.

374

Bibliography

Porten, Bezalel. “The Jews in Egypt.” Pages 372–400 in The Persian Period. Vol. 1 of The Cambridge History of Judaism. Edited by William D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Porter, Stanley E., ed. Diglossia and Other Topics in New Testament Linguistics. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Porter, Stanley E., ed. Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period. 330 BC–AD 400. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Porter, Stanley E. “History of Scholarship on the Language of the Septuagint.” Pages 15–38 in Die Sprache der Septuaginta. Edited by Eberhard Bons and Jan Joosten. Vol. 3 of Handbuch zur Septuaginta. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2016. Porter, Stanley E. and Andrew W. Pitts, eds. The Language of the New Testament: Context, History, and Development. Early Christianity in its Hellenistic Context 3. Linguistic Biblical Studies 6. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Pym, Anthony. Method in Translation History. Manchester: St. Jerome, 1998. Pym, Anthony, Miriam Shlesinger, and Daniel Simeoni, eds. Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies: Investigations in Homage to Gideon Toury. Benjamins Translation Library. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2008. Rabim, Chaim. “The Translation Process and the Character of the Septuagint.” Textus 6 (1968): 1–26. Rahlfs, Alfred and Robert Hanhart, eds. Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006. Rajak, Tessa. Translation and Survival: The Greek Bible and the Jewish Diaspora. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Redondo, Jordi. “Some Linguistic Devices of the Greek Poetical Tradition.” Pages 29–38 in Poetic Language and Religion in Greece and Rome. Edited by José Virgilio García and Angel Ruiz. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Reed, Annette Y. “Job as Jobab: The Interpretation of Job in OG Job 42:17b–e.” Journal of Biblical Literature 120 (2001): 31–55. Reese, James M. Hellenistic Influence on the Book of Wisdom and Its Consequences. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970. Rimbach, James A. “Crushed before the Moth (Job 4:19).” Journal of Biblical Literature 100 (1981): 244–46. Robertson, Ritchie G. “Ezekiel the Tragedian (Second Century B.C.): A New Translation and Introduction.” Pages 803–20 in Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works. Vol. 2 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1985. Romanoff, Paul. “Jewish Symbols on Ancient Jewish Coins (Continued). Chapter IV: Cornucopia.” Jewish Quarterly Review 34/2 (1943): 161–77. Rösel, Martin. “Schreiber, Übersetzer, Theologen: Die Septuaginta als Dokument der Schrift-, Lese- und Übersetzungskulturen des Judentums.” Pages 83–102 in Die

Bibliography

375

Septuaginta: Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D). Wuppertal, 20.–23. Juli 2006. Edited by Martin Karrer, Wolfgang Kraus, and Martin Meiser. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 219. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Rösel, Martin. “Translators as Interpreters: Scriptural Interpretation in the Septuagint.” Pages 64–91 in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism. Edited by Matthias Henze. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2011. Rowe, Galen. “Style.” Pages 121–58 in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period. 330 BC–AD 400. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Rowley, Harold H. Job. Century Bible New Series. London, Nelson, 1970. Sales Salvador, Dora. “In Conversation with Itamar Even-Zohar about Literacy and Culture Theory.” CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 4 (2002): 1–10. Cited 10 March 2017. Online: http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1162 &context=clcweb. Salvesen, Alison. Symmachus in the Pentateuch. Journal of Semitic Studies Monographs 15. Manchester: University of Manchester, 1991. Samuel, Alan E. From Athens to Alexandria: Hellenism and Social Goals in Ptolemaic Egypt. Studia Hellenistica 26. Leuven: n.n., 1983. Sanders, James A., “The Issue of Closure in the Canonical Process.” Pages 252–63 in The Canon Debate. Edited by Lee M. McDonald and James A. Sanders. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002. Satlow, Michael L. How the Bible Became Holy. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2014. Schäffner, Christina. “The Concept of Norms in Translation Studies.” Pages 1–9 in Translation and Norms. Edited by Christina Schäffner. Current Issues in Language and Society. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1999. Schäffner, Christina. “Crosscultural Translation and Conflicting Ideologies.” Pages 107–28 in Translation and Cultural Identity: Selected Essays on Translation and CrossCultural Communications. Edited by Micaela Muñoz-Calvo and Carmen Buesa Gómez. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2010. Schäffner, Christina, ed. Translation and Norms. Current Issues in Language and Society. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1999. Schaper, Joachim. “The Concept of the Translator(s) in the Contemporary Study of the Septuagint.” Pages 31–46 In the Footsteps of Sherlock Holmes: Studies in the Biblical Text in Honour of Anneli Aejmelaeus. Edited by Kristin De Troyer, Timothy M. Law, and Marketta Liljeström. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 72. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. Schmitt, Hatto H. “Buchwesen. II: Bibliotheken.” Pages 214–17 in Lexikon des Hellenismus. Edited by Hatto H. Schmitt and Ernst Vogt. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2005.

376

Bibliography

Schmitt, Hatto H. and Ernst Vogt, eds. Lexikon des Hellenismus. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2005. Schneider, Carl. Kulturgeschichte des Hellenismus. 2 vols. Munich: Beck, 1967. Schorch, Stefan. “Die hebräische Sprachgeschichte und die Vokalisierung(en) der Hebräische Bibel.” Pages 55–70 in Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt. Edited by Reinhard G. Lehmann. Waltrop: Hartmut Spenner, 2002. Schorch, Stefan. “Die Rolle des Lesens für die Konstituierung alttestamentlicher Texte.” Pages 108–22 in Was ist ein Text? Ägyptologische, altorientalische und alttestamentliche Perspektiven. Edited by Ludwig Morenz and Stefan Schorch. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 362. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007. Schorch, Stefan. “The Septuagint and the Vocalisation of the Hebrew Text of the Torah.” Pages 41–54 in XII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leiden 2004. Edited by Melvin K. H. Peters. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 54. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Schürer, Emil. Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi. 2 vols. 3rd ed. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1898. Seow, Choon-Leong. Job 1–21. Illuminations. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2013. Seow, Choon-Leong. “Putative Hapax Legomena in the Book of Job.” Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt 12–13 (2011): 145–82. Shinan, Avigdor, ed. Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies. 4 vols. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1980. Shuttleworth, Mark. “Polysystem Theory.” Pages 197–200 in Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. Edited by Mona Baker and Gabriela Saldanha. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2009. Siegert, Folker. Einleitung in die hellenistisch-jüdische Literatur: Apokrypha, Pseudepigrapha und Fragmente verlorener Autorenwerke. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015. Siegert, Folker. Zwischen Hebräischer Bibel und Altem Tesament: Eine Einführung in die Septuaginta. Münsteraner Judaistische Studien 9. Münster: LIT, 2001. Siegfried, Carl. The Book of Job: Critical Edition of the Hebrew Text. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Press, 1893. Silk, Michael S. Interaction in Poetic Imagery: With Special Reference to Early Greek Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974. Simeoni, Daniel. “The Pivotal Status of the Translator’s Habitus.” Target 10 (1998): 1–39. Slings, Siem R. “Figures of Speech and Their Lookalikes: Two Further Exercises in the Pragmatics of the Greek Sentence.” Pages 169–214 in Grammar as Interpretation:

Bibliography

377

Greek Literature in its Linguistic Contexts. Edited by Egbert J. Bakker. Mnemosyne Supplementum 171. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Sloane, Thomas O. and Walter Jost. “Rhetoric and Poetry.” Pages 1175–81 in The Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. Edited by Roland Greene et al. 4th ed. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2012. Smelik, Willem F. “The Languages of Roman Palestine.” Pages 122–41 in The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine. Edited by Christine Heszer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Smith, Robert. The Art of Rhetoric in Alexandria: Its Theory and Practice in the Ancient World. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1974. Snell, Bruno. Die Ausdrücke für den Begriff des Wissens in der vorplatonischen Philosophie. 2nd ed. Berlin: Weidmann, 1992. Snell, Bruno. Die Entdeckung des Geistes: Studien zur Entstehung des europäischen Denkens bei den Griechen. 4th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. Soisalon-Soininen, Ilmari. “Der Gebrauch des genitivus absolutus in der Septuaginta.” Pages 131–36 in vol. 4 of Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Edited by Pinchas Peli. Jerusalem: Magness Press, 1973. Soisalon-Soininen, Ilmari. “Die Auslassung des Possessivpronomens im griechischen Pentateuch.” Pages 279–94 in Studia Orientalia memoriae Jussi Aro dedicata. Edited by Francesco Pomponio. Studia Orientalia 55. Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica, 1984. Soisalon-Soininen, Ilmari. “Die Konstruktion des Verbs bei einem Neutrum plural im griechischen Pentateuch.” Vetus Testamentum 29 (1979): 190–200. Soisalon-Soininen, Ilmari. “Die Wiedergabe des Hebräischen Personalpronomens als Subjekt im griechischen Pentateuch.” Pages 115–28 in De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of J. W. Wevers for his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by Claude E. Cox and Albert Pietersma. Missisauga: Benbern, 1984. Soisalon-Soininen, Ilmari. “Methodologische Fragen der Erforschung der SeptuagintaSyntax.” Pages 425–44 in VI Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Jerusalem 1986. Edited by Claude E. Cox. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 23. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1987. Soisalon-Soininen, Ilmari. “The Rendering of the Hebrew Relative Clause in the Greek Pentateuch.” Pages 401–6 in vol. 1 of Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Edited by Avigdor Shinan. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1980. Sollamo, Raija. “The Koine Background for the Repetition and Non-Repetition of the Possessive Pronoun in Co-ordinate Items.” Pages 52–63 in Studien zur Septuaginta—Robert Hanhart zu Ehren. Aus Anlass seines 65. Geburtstages. Edited by Detlef Fraenkel, Udo Quast, and John W. Wevers. Mitteilungen des SeptuagintaUnternehmens 20. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990.

378

Bibliography

Sollamo, Raija. “The LXX Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute Used with a Paronymous Finite Verb in the Pentateuch.” Pages 101–13 in La Septuaginta en la investigacion contemporanea (V Congreso de la IOSCS). Edited by Natalio Fernández Marcos. Testos y Studios “Cardenal Cisneros.” Madrid: Instituto Arias Montano CSIC, 1985. Sollamo, Raija. “The Pleonastic Use of the Pronoun in Connection with the Relative Pronoun in the Greek Pentateuch.” Pages 75–85 in VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leuven 1989. Edited by Claude E. Cox. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 31. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1991. Sollamo, Raija. Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions in the Septuagint. Annales Academiae Scientiarium Fennicae, Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum 19. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1979. Sollamo, Raija. Repetition of the Possessive Pronouns in the Septuagint. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 40. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1995. Sollamo, Raija. “Repetitions of Prepositions in the Septuagint of Genesis.” Pages 371–84 in Interpeting Translation: Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust. Edited by Florentino García Martínez and Marc Vervenne. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 192. Leuven: Peeters, 2005. Sollamo, Raija. “Some ‘Improper’ Prepositions, such as ΕΝΩΠΙΟΝ, ΕΝΑΝΤΙΟΝ, ΕΝΑΝΤΙ, etc. in the Septuagint and Early Koine Greek.” Vetus Testamentum 25 (1975): 773–83. Sollamo, Raija. “Translation Technique and Translation Studies: The Problem of Translation Universals.” Pages 339–51 in XIII Congress of the International Orga­ nization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Ljubljana 2007. Edited by Melvin K. H. Peters. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 55. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. Sollamo, Raija. “Translation Technique as a Method.” Pages 35–41 in Translating a Translation: The LXX and its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism. Edited by Hans Ausloos et al. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 213. Leuven: Peeters, 2008. Sollamo, Raija. “The Study of Translation Technique.” Pages 143–53 in Die Sprache der Septuaginta. Edited by Eberhard Bons and Jan Joosten. Vol. 3 of Handbuch zur Septuaginta. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2016. Sollamo, Raija and Seppo Sipilä, eds. Helsinki Perspectives on the Translation Technique of the Septuagint: Proceedings of the IOSCS Congress in Helsinki 1999. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society in Helsinki 82. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. Stanford, William B. The Sound of Greek: Studies in the Greek Theory and Practice of Euphony. Sather Classical Lectures 38. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1967.

Bibliography

379

Stavrianopoulou, Eftychia, ed. Shifting Social Imaginaries in the Hellenistic Period: Nar­ rations, Practices, and Images. Mnemosyne Supplementum 363. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Stegmüller, Otto. Berliner Septuagintafragmente. Berliner Klassikertexte 8. Berlin: Weidmannsche Verlagsbuchandlung, 1939. Stemberger, Günter. “Jews and Graeco-Roman Culture: From Alexander to Theodosius II.” Pages 15–36 in The Jewish-Greek Tradition and the Byzantine Empire. Edited by James K. Aitken and James Carleton Paget. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Stone, Michael E. Ancient Judaism: New Visions and Views. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2011. Swete, Henry B. An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902. Szpek, Heidi M. “On the Influence of Job on Jewish Hellenistic Literature.” Pages 357– 70 in Seeking out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor M. V. Fox on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by Κelvin Friebel, Dennis Magary, and Ronald Troxel. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005. Talshir, Zipora. “Double Translations in the Septuagint.” Pages 21–63 in VI Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Jerusalem 1986. Edited by Claude E. Cox. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 23. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1987. Talstra, Eep. “Reading Biblical Hebrew Poetry: Linguistic Structure or Rhetorical Device?” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 25 (1999): 101–26. Tauberschmidt, Gerhard. Secondary Parallelism: A Study of Translation Technique in LXX Proverbs. Academia Biblica 15. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. Taylor, Bernard A., ed. X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Oslo 1998. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 51. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Tcherikover, Victor A. “The Ideology of the Letter of Aristeas.” Harvard Theological Review 51 (1958): 59–85. Tcherikover, Victor A. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. Translated by Shimon Applebaum. Philadelphia, Pa.: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1966. Tcherikover, Victor A. “Prolegomena.” Pages 1–111 in vol. 1 of Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum. Edited by Victor A. Tcherikover and Alexander Fuks. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957. Tcherikover, Victor A., Alexander Fuks, and Menahem Stern, eds. Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum. 3 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957–1964. Teeter, David A. Scribal Laws: Exegetical Variation in the Textual Transmission of Biblical Law in the Late Second Temple Period. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 92. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014.

380

Bibliography

Teeter, David A. “Scribes and Scribalism.” Pages 1201–4 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010. Terrien, Samuel. Job. Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament 13. Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1963. Thackeray, Henry St. J. A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909. Thackeray, Henry St. J. “The Poetry of the Greek Book of Proverbs.” Journal of Theological Studies 13 (1912): 46–66. Thackeray, Henry St. J. The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: A Study in Origins. Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stocks, 1920. Theocharous, Myrto. Lexical Dependence and Intertextual Allusion in the Septuagint of the Twelve Prophets: Studies in Hosea, Amos and Micah. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 570. London: T&T Clark, 2012. Thompson, Dorothy J. “Language and Literacy in Early Hellenistic Egypt.” Pages 39–52 in Ethnicity in Hellenistic Egypt. Edited by Per Bilde et al. Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 3. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1992. Thrall, Margaret E. Greek Particles in the New Testament: Linguistic and Exegetical Studies. New Testament Tools and Studies 3. Leiden: Brill, 1962. Tjen, Anwar. On Conditionals in the Greek Pentateuch: A Study of Translation Syntax. London: T&T Clark, 2010. Todd, Richard. “Convention and Innovation in British Fiction 1981–1984: The Contemporaneity of Magic Realism.” Pages 361–88 in Convention and Innovation in Literature. Edited by Theo D’Haen, Rainer Grübel, and Helmut Lethen. Utrecht Publication in General and Comparative Literature 24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1989. Torallas Tovar, Sofia. “Linguistic Identity in Graeco-Roman Egypt.” Pages 17–46 in The Multilingual Experience in Egypt, from the Ptolemies to the Abbasids. Edited by Arietta Papaconstantinou. Farnham: Ashgate, 2010. Toury, Gideon. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Benjamins Translation Library. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1995. 2nd revised ed., 2012. Toury, Gideon. “A Handful of Methodological Issues in DTS: Are They Applicable to the Study of the Septuagint as an Assumed Translation?” Bulletin of the International Organization of Septuagint and Cognate Studies 39 (2006): 13–25. Tov, Emanuel. “Approaches towards Scripture Embraced by the Translators of Greek Scripture.” Pages 213–28 in Der Mensch vor Gott: Forschungen zum Menschenbild in Bibel, antikem Judentum und Koran. Festschrift für H. Lichtenberger zum 60. Geburtstag. Edited by Ulrike Mittmann-Richert et al. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003.

Bibliography

381

Tov, Emanuel. Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible and Qumran: Collected Essays. Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 121. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Tov, Emanuel. “The Impact of the LXX Translation of the Pentateuch on the Translation of the Other Books.” Pages 577–92 in Mélanges D. Barthélemy: Études bibliques offertes à l’occasion de son 60e anniversaire. Edited by Pierre Casetti, Othmar Keel, and Adrian Schenker. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 38. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. Tov, Emanuel. “Reflections on the Septuagint with Special Attention paid to the Post-Pentateuchal Translations.” Pages 3–22 in Die Septuaginta: Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse. 2. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch. Wuppertal, 23.–27. Juli 2008. Edited by Martin Karrer, Wolfgang Kraus, and Martin Meiser. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 252. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Tov, Emanuel. “The Representation of the Causative Aspects of the Hiph’il in the LXX: A Study in Translation Technique.” Biblica 63 (1982): 417–24. Tov, Emanuel. Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts found in the Judean Desert. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 54. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Tov, Emanuel. “The Septuagint Translation of Genesis as the First Scripture Translation.” Pages 47–64 in In the Footsteps of Sherlock Holmes: Studies in the Biblical Text in Honour of Anneli Aejmelaeus. Edited by Kristin De Troyer, Timothy M. Law, and Marketta Liljeström. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 72. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. Tov, Emanuel. “The Septuagint Translation of the Torah as a Source and Resource for the Post-Pentateuchal Translators.” Pages 316–28 in Die Sprache der Septuaginta. Edited by Eberhard Bons and Jan Joosten. Vol. 3 of Handbuch zur Septuaginta. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2016. Tov, Emanuel. The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. 3rd ed. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd ed. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2012. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint: Collected Essays. Vol. 3. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 167. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Tov, Emanuel and Benjamin G. E. Wright, “Computer-Assisted Study of the Criteria for Assessing the Literalness of Translation Units in the Septuagint.” Textus 12 (1985): 151–87. Trebolle Barrera, Julio. The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible: An Introduction to the History of the Bible. Translated by Wilfred Watson. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Trebolle Barrera, Julio and Luis Vegas Montaner, eds. The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 1991. Leiden: Brill, 1992.

382

Bibliography

Tremblay, Hervé. Job 19,25–27 dans la Septante et chez les pères grecs: Unanimité d’une tradition. Paris: J. Gabalda et Cie, 2002. Treu, Kurt. “Die Bedeutung des Griechischen für die Juden im römischen Reich.” Kairos 15 (1973): 123–44. Tribulato, Olga. Ancient Greek Verb-Initial Compounds: Their Diachronic Development Within the Greek Compound System. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015. Tully, Eric J. The Translation and Translator of the Peshitta of Hosea. Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Amsterdam 21. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Tully, Eric J. “Translation Universals and Polygenesis: Implications for Textual Criticism.” The Bible Translator 65 (2014): 292–307. Turner, Eric G. Greek Papyri: An Introduction. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980. Tur-Sinai, Naftali H. The Book of Job. A New Commentary. Jerusalem: Kiryath Sepher, 1967. Ulrich, Eugene. The Biblical Qumran Scrolls. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 134. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Ulrich, Eugene. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 169. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Ulrich, Eugene. “Qumran and the Canon of the Old Testament.” Pages 57–80 in The Biblical Canons. Edited by Jean-Marie Auwers and Henk J. De Jonge. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 163. Leuven: Peeters, 2003. Ulrich, Eugene et al., “4QPaleoJobc.” Pages 155–58 in Qumran Cave 4: IV. Paleo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts. Edited by Eugene Ulrich et al. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 9. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992. Ulrich, Eugene et al., eds. Qumran Cave 4: IV. Paleo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 9. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992. Ulrich, Eugene et al., eds. Qumran Cave 4: XI. Psalms to Chronicles. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 16. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000. Valerio, Anna. “Translation and Ideology: A Critical Reading.” Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences 70 (2013): 986–96. Vandaele, Jeroen, ed. Translation and the (Re)location of Meaning: Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminars in Translation Studies 1994–1996. Leuven, Belgium: CETRA, 1999. van der Horst, Pieter W. “Greek in Jewish Palestine in Light of Jewish Epigraphy.” Pages 174–94 in Hellenism in the Land of Israel. Edited by John J. Collins and Gregory E. Sterling. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 13. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001. van der Horst, Pieter W. Japheth in the Tents of Shem: Studies on Jewish Hellenism in Antiquity. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 32. Leuven: Peeters, 2002.

Bibliography

383

van der Louw, Theo. “Linguistic or Ideological Shifts? The Problem-Oriented Study of Transformations as a Methodological Filter.” Pages 107–25 in Scripture in Transition: Essays on the Septuagint, Hebrew Bible and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of R. Sollamo. Edited by Anssi Voitila and Jutta Jokiranta. Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplements 126. Leiden: Brill, 2008. van der Louw, Theo. Transformations in the Septuagint: Towards an Interaction of Septuagint Studies and Translation Studies. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 47. Leuven: Peeters, 2007. van der Lugt, Pieter. Rhetorical Criticism and the Poetry of the Book of Job. Oudtestamentische studiën 32. Leiden: Brill, 1995. van der Meer, Michaël N. “Joshua.” Pages 86–101 in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint. Edited by James K. Aitken. Bloomsbury Companions. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. van der Ploeg, Jan P. M. and Adam S. van der Woude. Le targum de Job de la grotte XI de Qumran. Leiden: Brill, 1971. van der Vorm-Croughs, Miriam. The Old Greek of Isaiah: An Analysis of its Pluses and Minuses. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 61. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014. Van Hecke, Pierre. “‘Is my Flesh Bronze?’ (Job 6:12): Metaphors of Fluidity and Solidity in the Description of the Body in the Book of Job.” Classical Bulletin 86 (2010): 101–15. Van Hecke, Pierre. “Jobs pijn in beeld: Het gebruik van metaforen in Jobs zelfbeschrij­ vingen.” Collationes 39 (2009): 207–23. van Henten, Jan Willem and Pieter W. van der Horst, eds. Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Van Rossum-Steenbeek, Monique. Greek Readers’ Digests? Studies on a Selection of Subliterary Papyri. Mnemosyne Supplementum 175. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Vasholz, Robert I. “4QTargumJob versus 11QTargumJob.” Revue de Qumrân 11 (1982): 109. Verbeke, Elke. “Hebrew Hapax Legomena and their Greek Rendering in LXX Job.” Ph.D. diss., KU Leuven, 2011. Virgilio García, José and Angel Ruiz. Poetic Language and Religion in Greece and Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Viti, Carlotta. “Genitive Word Order in Ancient Greek: A Functional Analysis of Word Order Freedom in the Noun Phrase.” Glotta 84 (2008): 203–38. Voitila, Anssi. “Septuagint Syntax and Hellenistic Greek.” Pages 93–102 in Die Sprache der Septuaginta. Edited by Eberhard Bons and Jan Joosten. Vol. 3 of Handbuch zur Septuaginta. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2016.

384

Bibliography

Voitila, Anssi and Jutta Jokiranta, eds. Scripture in Transition: Essays on the Septuagint, Hebrew Bible and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of R. Sollamo. Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplements 126. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Wacholder, Ben Zion. Eupolemus: A Study of Judaeo-Greek Literature. Monographs of the Hebrew Union College 3. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College—Jewish Institute of Religion, 1974. Wackernagel, Jacob. “Über ein Gesetz der Indogermanischen Wortstellung.” Indo­ germanische Forschungen 1 (1892): 333–434. Wagner, Ross. Reading the Sealed Book: Old Greek Isaiah and the Problem of Septuagint Hermeneutics. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 88. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Walser, Georg. The Greek of the Ancient Synagogue: An Investigation on the Greek of the Septuagint, Pseudepigrapha and the New Testament. Studia Graeca et Latina Lundensia 8. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2001. Walser, Georg. “The Greek of the Bible: Translated Greek or Translation Greek?” Pages 449–61 in Scripture in Transition: Essays on the Septuagint, Hebrew Bible and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of R. Sollamo. Edited by Anssi Voitila and Jutta Jokiranta. Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplements 126. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Walter, Nikolaus. “Jewish-Greek Literature in the Greek Period.” Pages 385–408 in The Hellenistic Age. Vol. 2 of The Cambridge History of Judaism. Edited by William D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Walters, Peter. The Text of the Septuagint: Its Corruptions and their Emendation. Edited by David W. Gooding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. Wasserstein, Abraham and David J. Wasserstein. The Legend of the Septuagint: From Classical Antiquity to Today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Watson, Wilfred G. E. Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplements 26. Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1984. Webb, Ruth. “Poetry and Rhetoric.” Pages 339–70 in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period. 330 BC–AD 400. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Welch, John W. “Chiasmus in Ancient Greek and Latin Literature.” Pages 250–68 in Chiasmus in Antiquity: Structures, Analyses, Exegesis. Edited by John W. Welch. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1981. Welch, John W. Chiasmus in Antiquity: Structures, Analyses, Exegesis. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1981. Wevers, John W. “An Apologia for Septuagint Studies.” Bulletin of the International Organization of Septuagint and Cognate Studies 18 (1986): 16–38. Wieneke, Joseph. Ezechielis Iudaei poetae Alexandrini fabulae quae inscribitur ΕΧΑΓΩΓΗ fragmenta. Münster: Aschendorff, 1931.

Bibliography

385

Wifstrand, Albert. “Die Stellung der enklitischen Personalpronomen bei den Septuaginta.” Arsberatteise, Kungl. Humanistiska Velenskupssamfundet i Lund (1949–1950): 44–70. Wifstrand, Albert. “A Problem Concerning the Word Order in the New Testament.” Studia Theologica 3 (1949): 172–84. Williams, Peter J. “The Bible, the Septuagint, and the Apocrypha: A Consideration of their Singularity.” Pages 169–80 in Studies on the Text and Versions of the Hebrew Bible in Honour of Robert Gordon. Edited by Geoffrey Khan and Diana Lipton. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Willis, William H. “A Census of the Literary Papyri from Egypt.” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 9 (1968): 205–41. Winslow, Rosemary. “Stylistics.” Pages 1370–72 in The Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. Edited by Roland Greene et al. 4th ed. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2012. Winston, David. The Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 43. New York: Doubleday, 1979. Wissmann, Jessica. “Education.” Pages 62–80 in A Companion to Hellenistic Literature. Edited by James J. Clauss and Martine Cuypers. Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Witte, Marcus. “The Greek Book of Job.” Pages 33–54 in Das Buch Hiob und seine Interpretationen: Beiträge zum Hiob-Symposium auf dem Monte Verità vom 14.–19. August 2005. Edited by Thomas Krüger et al. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 88. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2007. Wooden, R. Glenn. “Interlinearity in 2 Esdras: A Test Case.” Pages 119–44 in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 53. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Wooden, R. “The φορολόγος of 2 Esdras.” Pages 248–57 in Die Septuaginta: Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D). Wuppertal, 20.–23. Juli 2006. Edited by Martin Karrer, Wolfgang Kraus, and Martin Meise. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 219. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Woods, Nancy T. “A Critical Edition of the Hexaplaric Fragments of Job: Chapters 1–21.” Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009. Worthington, Ian, ed. A Companion to Greek Rhetoric. Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World, Literature and Culture. Oxford: Blackwell, 2007. Wright, Benjamin G. E. “Access to the Source: Cicero, Ben Sira, The Septuagint and Their Audiences.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 34 (2003): 1–27. Wright, Benjamin G. “The Jewish Scriptures in Greek: The Septuagint in the Context of Ancient Translation Activity.” Pages 3–18 in Biblical Translation in Context. Edited

386

Bibliography

by Frederick W. Knobloch. Studies and Texts in Jewish History and Culture 10. Bethesda, Md.: University of Maryland Press, 2002. Wright, Benjamin G. The Letter of Aristeas: ‘Aristeas to Philocrates’ or ‘On the Translation of the Law of the Jews.’ Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015. Wright, Benjamin G. No Small Difference: Sirach’s Relationship to its Hebrew Parent Text. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 26. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1989. Wright, Benjamin G. Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction: Essays on Ben Sira and Wisdom, the Letter of Aristeas and the Septuagint. Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplements 131. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Wright, Benjamin G. “Transcribing, Translating, and Interpreting in the Letter of Aristeas: On the Nature of the Septuagint.” Pages 147–62 in Scripture in Transition: Essays on the Septuagint, Hebrew Bible and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of R. Sollamo. Edited by Anssi Voitila and Jutta Jokiranta. Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplements 126. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Wright, Benjamin G. “Scribes, Translators and the Formation of Authoritative Scripture.” Pages 3–29 in In the Footsteps of Sherlock Holmes: Studies in the Biblical Text in Honour of Anneli Aejmelaeus. Edited by Kristin De Troyer, Timothy M. Law, and Marketta Liljeström. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 72. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. You, Yunjung. “Factors in Vocabulary Acquisition through Reading.” International Tinnitus Journal 8 (2011): 43–57. Zeligman, Isaac L. The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of Its Problems. Mededelingen en verhandelingen van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap “Ex oriente lux” 9. Leiden: Brill, 1948. Zenger, Erich, ed. Der Septuaginta-Psalter: Sprachliche und theologische Aspekte. Herders Biblische Studien 32. Freiburg: Herder, 2001. Zevit, Ziony. “Roman Jakobson, Psycholinguistics, and Biblical Poetry.” Journal of Biblical Literature 109 (1990): 385–401. Ziegert, Carsten. “Das Buch Ruth in der Septuaginta als Modell für eine integrative Übersetzungs-technik.” Biblica 89 (2008): 221–51. Ziegler, Joseph. Beitrage zum griechischen Job. Mitteilungen des SeptuagintaUnternehmens 18. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. Ziegler, Joseph. “Die Einheit der Septuaginta zum Zwölfprophetenbuch.” Verzeichnis der Vorlesungen an der Staatlichen Akademie zu Braunsberg (1934–1935): 1–16. Ziegler, Joseph. Iob. Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum 11/4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. Ziegler, Joseph. Sylloge: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Septuaginta. Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens 10. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971.

Bibliography

387

Zurro, Eduardo. Procedimientos iterativos en la poesía ugarítica y hebrea. Biblica et Orientalia 43. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1987. Zyngier, Soma. “Towards a Cultural Approach to Stylistics.” CAUCE. Revista de Filología y su didáctica 24 (2001): 365–80.

Index of Ancient Sources Hebrew Bible/LXX The order and names of books follow those of the LXX as given in Rahlfs-Hanhart. Genesis 1:1 9 1:3 79 1:21 129 2:6 169n108 2:10 212n101 2:13 212n101 2:14 212n101 2:18 8 2:21 249n72 3:14 168n106 4:11 168n106 5:29 168n106 6:11 284n65 9:22 145 9:25 168n106 9:27 170 13:1 169n108 14:13 170 15:12 249 15:17 292n83 15:18 212n101 16:12 170 18:4 174n122 19:2 174n122 19:24 13n20 19:30 169n108 21:16 101 23:15 150 24:12 152n48 24:14 152n48 24:44 152n48 24:47 254n90 24:49 152n48 27:16 254n90 30:2 198n58 31:23 212n101 31:41 145 36:37 212n101 39:19 198n58 41:1 212n101 41:18 212n101

41:42 254 42:38 8 44:8 150 44:26 109n46 44:34 109n46 49:4 171 50:7 169n108 Exodus 1:22 212n101 2:3 212n101 2:5 174n123, 212n101 2:15 9 2:23 169n108 4:9 145, 212n101 4:14 198n58 6:5–6 95 7:15 212n101 7:19 212n101 7:28 169n108 8:3 212n101 8:5 212n101 9:9 297 9:10 297 10:5 9 10:15 284n65 14:11 125 15 142 15:14 213n103 15:16 249 16:13 169n198 17:14 132 18:14 8 19:18 165 20:6 152n48 20:18 292n83 22:24 198n58 22:28 168n105 23:31 212n101 27:21 267, 268n18 29:4 174n123 29:9 254n90

389

Index of Ancient Sources 29:17 174n124 29:33 9 30:18 174n122 30:33 9 32:10 198n58 32:19 198n58 32:22 198 34:7 152n48 34:35 254n90 40:37 169n108 Leviticus 1:9 174n124 4:14 27 4:27 9 8:6 174n123 8:13 254n90 9:14 174n124 11:21 145n16 16:4 254n90 16:12 293n86 19:15 133 19:20 8 19:27 284n65 22:10 9 24:3 267 25:2 9 Numbers 1:15 9 3:10 9 5:3 146 5:11–31 291 5:14 9 5:18 168n106 5:30 9 6:5 9 9:21 267, 268 10:9 275 11:1 198n58 11:14 8 11:29 150 11:33 198n58 12:12 26, 162n86 13:17 169n108 14:16 125 14:42 169n108 19:7 174n123 21:28 165

22:5 212n101 22:6 168n106 22:11 168n104 22:17 168n104 22:22 198n58 22:23 256n97 22:31 256n97 22:34 256n97 23:7 168n106 23:8 168n104 23:9 170 23:11 168n104 23:13 168n104 23:25 168n104 23:27 168n104 24:6 212n101 24:9 168n106 24:10 168n104, 198n58 27:7 254n90 27:8 254n90 35:34 146 Deuteronomy 1:7 212n101 1:16 28 1:24 169n108 2:36 165 4:20 292n84 5:10 152n48 7:4 198n58 7:24 256n97 8:13 8 8:15 277n47 9:2 256n97 9:9 169n108 9:28 125 10:17 133 11:12 253n86 11:17 198n58 11:24 212n101 11:25 256n97 19:5 149 19:11 290n79 20:19 37n125, 137n158 21:6 174n122 23:5 125 25:19 132 27:15 168n106 28:15–68 268

390 Deuteronomy (cont.) 28:16 168n106 28:26 131 28:50 133 28:67 150, 267 29:19 132 32 142 32:24 131, 264 33:7 150 33:12 146 34:7 284n65 Joshua 1:4 212n101 1:5 256n97 2:9 249 2:12 152n48 5:2 277n47 5:3 277n47 6:26 168n106 8:4 290n79 8:18 296 8:20 165 9:23 168n106 21:24 256n98 23:9 256n98 24:2 212n101 24:15 212n101 Judges 1:24 152n48 3:8 212n101 5:12 168 5:23 168n106 7:1 198n58 7:16 292n83 9:32 290n79 9:34 290n79 9:43 290n79 13:5 37n125, 137n158 16:2 290n79 21:11 152n49 21:18 168n106 21:20 290n79 Ruth 1:5 145 3:3 254n90

Index of Ancient Sources 1 Kingdoms 1:11 37n125, 137n158 14:24 168n106 15:5 290n79 15:16 152n48 20:30 198n58 25:41 174n122 26:12 249n72 26:19 168n106 2 Kingdoms 2:21 255n94 6:7 198n58 7:21 152n49 12:9 152n49 14:7 293n86 22:9 165, 293n86 22:13 293n86 3 Kingdoms 4:24 212n101 6:7 277n47 7:5 245n57 7:27 245n57 7:28 245n57 14:15 212n101 18:38 13n20 4 Kingdoms 1:3 125 1:6 125 1:10 14n20 1:12 14n20 1:14 14n20 1:28 145 5:1 133 5:12 212n101 7:5 267n17 7:7 267n17 8:3 212n101 9:24 168n106 10:16 212n101 15:2 145 17:6 212n101 18:11 212n101 19:24 212n101 22:6 213n103 23:29 212n101 24:7 212n101

391

Index of Ancient Sources 1 Paraleipomena/1 Chronicles 1:48 212n101 5:9 212n101 18:3 212n101 19:16 212n101 21:26 14n20 2 Paraleipomena/2 Chronicles 4:12 245n57 4:13 245n57 6:36 168 9:26 212n101 13:12 275 20:6 256n97 20:22 290n79 28:5 168n102 28:11 168n102 28:17 168n102 35:13 297 2 Esdras 7:7 (Ezra 7:7) 210n94 15:9 (Neh 5:9) 152n49 18:15 (Neh 8:15) 275 Esther 1:11 254n90 1:20 254 4:3 171 5:11 254n90, 255 8:12 159 12:2 271n27 13:10 132n142 Judith 2:28 249 6:6 37n125, 137n158 8:9 37n125, 137n158 12:15 171 14:3 249, 255n94 Tobit 4:13 112n56 5:14 149

1 Maccabees 2:34 152n49 3:23 115 6:10 271n27 11:13 254n90 11:42 149 11:43 315 12:18 315 12:22 315 12:39 254n90 13:29 255n94 2 Maccabees 2:18 133 3:6 215, 296n101 3:9 149 3:25 255n94 4:6 149 4:14 121 4:32 149 5:8 149 5:9 149 6:2 149 6:22 149 9:1 149 9:9 297 9:12 173 10:30 255n94 11:8 255n94 12:16 215, 296n101 13:7 149 14:6 149 14:10 149 15:7 149 15:28 255n94 3 Maccabees 2:2 145 2:33 149 3:7 149 3:29 173 5:35 149 5:42 121 6:8 129 7:10 149

392 4 Maccabees 326 1:4 271n28 6:8 115 14:11 121 16:8 271n27 18:8 284n65 Psalms 8:5 41 9:20 41 9:30 (mt 10:9) 290n79 10(11):15 159n66 16(17):5 239n40 16(17):11 239n40 17(18):4 213n103 17(18):5 213n103 17(18):9 293n86 25(26):6 174n122 34(35):8 245n56 36(37):31 239n40 37(38):6 175n131 39(40):3 239n40 39(40):5 130n131 43(44):1 247 43(44):19 239n40 44(45):9 128n123 47(48):6 213n103 49(50):17 253n86 51(52):7 290n75 54(55):23 271n27 58(59):4 290n79 62(63):6 280 62(63):7 171 62(63):11 137 67(68):3 165 67(68):19 168n102 71(72):12 172n115 72(73):2 239n40 73(74):14 129, 130 75(76):7 256n98 82(83):17 28, 204 86(87):4 130n131 88(89):11 130 90(91):13 130 93(94):2 206 95(96):3 247 95(96):13 185 99(100):2 280

Index of Ancient Sources 101(102):21 247 103(104):3 145 103(104):26 129, 130, 277 105(106):40 198n58 112(113):5 159n66 113(114):8 277n47 114(116):3 213n103 118(119):21 168n106 118(119):147 267n17 119(120):4 293n86 122(123):3 159n66 122(123):5 159n66 131(132):3 171 135(136):16 277n47 139(140):6(5) 206, 245 Proverbs 1:2 253n86 1:11 290n79 1:17 245n57 3:11 253n86 3:13 173 3:20 145 4:1 253n86 5:19 121 6:28 293n86 7:3 254n90 7:9 267n17 7:12 290n79 7:16 171 8:26 132n142 8:28 132n142, 145 11:26 168 12:6 290n79 12:9 254n90 13:18 253n86 15:6 243, 244n53 15:19 171 15:25 206 15:27 174 16:15 145 16:19 206 17:3 292n84 17:12 271n27 17:23 166n99 18:5 133 19:15 249n72 20:24 173

Index of Ancient Sources 22:15 253n86 22:22 167n100 23:12 253n86 24:15 290n79 24:24 168n104 24:47 253n86 25:14 145 25:23 145 29:5 245n57 29:13 154 30:4 185 30:12 174 30:23 149 31:5 167n100 Ecclesiastes 10:6 8 11:3 145 12:2 145 Song of Songs 2:5 171 2:8 145n16 2:12 285 6:5 271n28 Job

1–2 21 1–30 97n10 1:1 13, 38n132, 98, 116, 127, 155, 162n86, 215n105 1:2 98, 113 1:3 14 1:4 22, 23, 97, 115n71, 170n110, 198n57 1:5 26, 27, 28, 115n71, 235n29 1:6 98, 198n57, 229, 235n29, 256, 257n99 1:7 43, 132, 133, 139, 154, 170n110 1:8 28n132, 98, 115n71, 139, 162n86, 223 1:9 139, 154, 235n29 1:10 111, 136 1:11 105, 136 1:12 97, 136, 139, 159, 171, 214 1:13 97, 111, 198n57 1:14 97, 139

393 1:15 37n124, 38n132, 113, 125, 167 1:16 13, 22, 109, 125 1:17 38n132, 98, 109, 113, 125 1:18 109, 111 1:19 38n132, 97, 125, 143, 243, 261 1:20 247n64 1:21 171 1:22 138, 235n29 2:1 138, 198n57, 235n29, 256, 257n99 2:2 132, 133, 139, 170n110 2:3 38n132, 115n71, 162, 223 2:4 139 2:5 111, 136, 155, 215n105 2:6 117n74, 136, 214 2:7 171, 239n42 2:8 170n111 2:9 26n70, 28, 29n89, 109, 139, 145, 243, 263 2:10 139, 235n29 2:11 14, 44, 97, 114, 123, 125, 159 2:12 100, 103, 113, 262 2:13 97 3–12 97, 170n111 3–14 29, 217n107 3:1 198n57 3:3 143, 198n57, 243n50, 261, 274 3:3–4 196 3:3–10 279n50 3:4 97, 198n57 3:4–5 196 3:4–7 278–281 3:5 114, 198n57, 210n91 3:6 25–26, 99, 279n51 3:6–7 196 3:7 26n71, 98, 214 3:8 129, 130, 168, 198n57 3:9 125, 195, 267 3:10 97, 176, 210n92, 263 3:11 114, 143, 171, 243, 261 3:12 97, 123, 125, 256 3:13 97, 194 3:16 27, 162n86, 222n8 3:17 97, 194, 195 3:18 15, 97

394 Job (cont.) 3:19 24, 27, 97, 117 3:20 194, 229, 263, 288n71 3:21 145, 149, 223 3:23 115n71, 116–117, 235n29 3:24 100 3:24–25 233–234, 235, 261 3:25 97, 123, 155, 194, 229, 233, 234 3:25–26 209, 234–235, 242 4:2 117, 263 4:3 214 4:4 123, 254, 254n91 4:5 263 4:6 111, 118, 246n62 4:7 143, 215n105, 243–244, 252n82, 252n83, 261 4:8 115n71, 263 4:9 15, 96, 143, 174, 194, 243n50, 261, 263n5 4:10 22, 130, 145 4:10–11 213 4:11 125, 143, 243n50, 261 4:12 157, 247n66, 257n99 4:13 114, 248–249, 252 4:14 123, 233 4:15 112, 114 4:17 41, 139, 252n83 4:18 115 4:19 100, 146, 170, 280 4:20 125, 143, 243n50, 261 4:20–21 260–262 4:21 28, 125, 143, 208, 261 5:1 155, 215n105, 273 5:2 96, 194, 261n2 5:2–3 197 5:3 168, 290 5:4 97, 210n93 5:5 22, 103, 245n58, 250n77 5:6 10, 171 5:6–7 9, 10n7, 262–266, 289 5:7 10, 122, 123 5:8 101, 103, 155, 235, 236, 237 5:9 223 5:10 96, 97, 132, 194 5:12 96 5:12–13 12n10 5:13 96

Index of Ancient Sources 5:14 123 5:15 167, 249n74 5:15–16 249 5:16 167, 249n74 5:17 41, 96, 99, 116, 214, 237n35, 252n85 5:18 101, 194 5:19 105, 232 5:20 36–37, 97, 136, 137, 160, 211, 222 5:21 233, 281 5:21–22 194, 196, 209, 248 5:22 96, 131, 152, 233 5:23 203 5:23–24 197 5:24 103, 105 5:24–25 196 5:25 97, 105, 118, 125, 147 5:25–26 297 5:27 214 6:2 105, 119, 151 6:3 97 6:4 110, 117 6:6 22 6:8 103, 105, 151, 196 6:9 105, 232 6:10 110, 235n29, 243n51 6:11 103, 116, 194 6:11–12 105, 197 6:12 99, 118, 167, 194 6:13–14 174 6:16 113, 114 6:17 109 6:17–18 155 6:18 113, 143, 147, 243n50, 261n1 6:21 145, 233 6:23 97, 194, 229 6:24 96, 238n39 6:25 99, 119n78, 252n82 6:25–26 197 6:27 97, 114, 115, 194 6:29 215n105 7:1 41, 117, 118, 124 7:1–2 125–126 7:2 27, 149, 222n8, 246n62 7:3 194, 263, 290n77 7:4 117, 122, 266–268 7:5 146, 262

Index of Ancient Sources 7:6 96, 174n125, 198n56, 216 7:7 103, 116, 288n71 7:9 44, 114, 169, 174 7:10 96, 174, 274n38 7:11 99 7:12 105, 117, 123, 130 7:13 123, 157, 159 7:14 105, 106–107, 113, 195, 232 7:15 96, 111, 114 7:16 103, 114, 116, 198n56, 216 7:17 41, 98, 117 7:18 154 7:20 26n72, 246 7:21 152, 153, 223, 262 8:2 97, 116, 164, 165 8:3 209 8:4 96, 113, 136, 138 8:5 235, 236n32, 237n35 8:6 156, 252n82, 252n83 8:7 97, 105, 215, 223, 296 8:8 115n71, 194, 215n105, 257n99 8:9 103, 117, 118, 159, 198n56, 216 8:10 105, 114, 194, 232, 247n68 8:11 96, 176 8:13 143, 243n50, 261 8:14 104, 105, 159, 170 8:14–15 170 8:15 109, 219 8:15–17 32n105 8:16 114, 117, 171 8:17 194 8:18 274n38 8:19 262 8:20 226 8:21 98, 101 8:22 223 9:2 41 9:4 117 9:5 96, 122, 242n49 9:6 96, 132, 133 9:7 114, 115n71 9:8 123 9:9 99 9:10 223–224 9:9–10 196 9:11 155, 238n39

395 9:12 117, 139 9:12–13 197 9:13 129, 130, 133 9:14 281n55 9:14–16 172, 281 9:15 226, 282n57 9:16 115n70, 247n66, 273, 281n55, 282n57 9:17 105, 232 9:19 117, 155, 214, 256 9:20–21 268–270 9:21 288n71 9:21–22 205 9:23 117, 261n2 9:25 198n56, 216 9:27 32n105 9:30 113, 173–174, 252n83 9:31 105, 232 9:32 115n71, 117 9:33 27, 112, 144 9:34 105, 114, 194 9:35 233 10:1 114, 197, 288n71 10:2 232 10:4 29n88, 41 10:5 105, 118, 167, 198n56, 210, 216 10:6 96, 105, 194 10:7 114 10:7–8 196–197 10:8–9 250 10:9 105, 194, 215n105, 232, 262 10:10 221, 222, 228, 229 10:11 105, 194, 232 10:12 288n71 10:14 232n23 10:15 117, 266 10:16 22n53 10:17 114, 154 10:18 105, 232 10:19 257n99 10:20 117, 198n56, 209 10:21 123, 170n110, 209n88 10:21–22 198, 203 10:22 209n88, 279n51 11:2 117, 220 11:3 122, 223, 257n99

396 Job (cont.) 11:4 34–35, 36, 98, 118, 138, 139, 252n83 11:5 150 11:6 143, 247n68 11:7 200–201, 237n35 11:8 44 11:9 123 11:10 139 11:11 263 11:13 252n83, 257n99 11:14 117, 170, 263, 280 11:15 233, 252n83 11:16 263 11:17 117 11:17–18 270–271 11:18 271n27, 290n77 11:19 223 11:20 98, 117, 261 12:2 97, 117, 143, 208, 243, 261 12:3 115n71 12:4 203, 257n99 12:5 113 12:6 154, 155 12:7 96, 215n105 12:7–8 208 12:10 116, 220, 288n71 12:11 194, 247n66 12:12 116, 143, 198n56, 208, 215, 216 12:12–13 206–207, 208, 215 12:13 96, 116, 143, 194, 208 12:14 24, 115n71, 117n74 12:15 242n49 12:16 24, 116, 207, 288 12:18 252n85 12:19 124 12:20 194 12:22 194, 202n69, 210n91 12:23 143n5, 243n50, 261n1 12:24 246n62 12:24–25 198 13:1 104, 223, 238n39, 247n66 13:2 208n86 13:3 155 13:4 32n105 13:5 119, 143 13:6 214–215, 215n105

Index of Ancient Sources 13:7 209, 222n9 13:8 257n99 13:10 119, 133, 176 13:11 96, 114, 194, 233, 249 13:12 116 13:14 105, 219 13:16 12n10, 117n74, 138n163 13:17 109, 119, 138, 246–247, 248 13:18 214, 215n105, 271 13:18–27 32n105 13:19 117 13:20 115n69, 144 13:21 114 13:22 155, 273, 281n55, 282n56 13:23 10, 11, 111, 117, 203 13:24 98, 120, 176 13:25 113, 123, 296 13:26 99, 115, 254 13:27 98, 103, 239n42 13:28 147, 222 14:1 116 14:2 170, 171, 229, 284 14:3 152 14:4 252n83 14:4–6 32n105 14:5 111, 116, 198n56, 216, 273 14:5–6 198 14:6 124, 253n88 14:8 104–105, 111, 143, 194, 243, 261 14:10 194, 243 14:11 123 14:13 44, 103, 176, 232n23 14:13–18 32n105 14:14 143, 198n56, 261 14:15 281n55, 282n56 14:17 103 14:19 143n5, 261n1 14:20 124, 170n110, 194 14:21 109, 219, 238n39, 257n99 14:22 105, 111, 194 15–21 29 15:2 154, 207, 263 15:3 113, 194, 253n88, 272 15:4 138, 194 15:5 22 15:5–6 198 15:6 145, 194

Index of Ancient Sources 15:8 143 15:9 167, 238n39 15:10 216 15:12 96, 105, 194, 229 15:13 98, 115n70, 138 15:14 41, 116 15:15 35, 115, 138, 174, 252n83 15:17 96, 247, 248 15:18 96, 194, 243n51 15:19 8, 96, 114 15:20 198n56, 216, 271n27 15:21 116, 233, 247 15:22 97, 114, 115n70, 137 15:22–23 208 15:23 198n57, 257n99 15:24 208n88 15:25 138, 222, 228n19, 236, 237n35, 261 15:26 236n34 15:28 114, 170, 222, 243n51, 280 15:29 194 15:30 201 15:30–35 282–285 15:32 105 15:33 222 15:34 22, 116, 147 15:35 257n99, 263 16:2 116, 263 16:3 117 16:4 113, 114, 115, 145, 167 16:5 194 16:5–6 202 16:6 173, 266 16:7 175 16:8 257n99 16:10 115 16:12 174 16:14 167 16:15 145, 262 16:16 113, 116 16:17 116, 117, 252n83 16:18 274n38 16:19 105, 116, 194, 214 16:20 103, 138 16:21 138 16:22 125, 170n110, 234 17:1 149 17:3 215n105

397 17:5 174n125 17:7 113 17:8 114, 252n82 17:9 100, 103, 194, 246n62, 252n83 17:10 155, 215n105 17:11 125 17:12 115n69, 198n57 17:13 44, 116, 171, 296 17:14 112, 194, 273 17:15 104, 105, 117, 159, 209 17:16 44 17:19 123 18:2 238n39 18:3 35, 131, 138 18:4 132, 133, 170 18:5 223 18:5–6 195 18:6 116, 194 18:8 114, 239n42 18:8–9 244–245 18:9 29n88, 239n43 18:11 239n42 18:12 157, 257n99, 263 18:13 208, 239n42 18:14 114 18:14–15 203 18:15 280n52 18:16 284 18:17 143, 243n50, 261 18:18 29n88 18:19 132, 133 18:21 118, 274n38 19:4 26, 28, 271–272 19:5 113, 114, 115, 194 19:7 194 19:9 114, 194 19:10 170n110 19:11 121 19:12 290n78 19:13 257n99 19:14 24 19:15 35, 112, 138 19:16 281n55 19:18 115n71, 155 19:19 114, 194 19:20 175, 211n96, 211n97 19:21 120, 138n162, 167, 290n77

398 Job (cont.) 19:22 105–106, 113, 232 19:23 150, 211, 228 19:23–24 226–227 19:24 114 19:25 262 19:27 174n125 19:28 138 19:29 114, 115 20:2 29n88, 248 20:3 207, 252n85 20:5 116, 118, 221n7, 280 20:6 105, 113, 169 20:7 117, 143, 243n50, 261 20:8 194 20:10 194, 253n88 20:15 114 20:16 130, 194 20:18 162–163 20:19 101, 167n100, 249n74 20:22 114, 136 20:24 137, 242, 243 20:25 114, 170n110, 171 20:26 24, 104, 166, 293 20:27 104, 114, 194, 202n69 20:27–28 201–202 20:28 114, 198n57, 202n69 20:29 116, 118, 194 21:2 119, 204 21:3 204 21:4 116 21:5 114, 136 21:8 116, 257n99 21:9 117, 233 21:11 125 21:12 219 21:13 44, 194, 198n56, 216 21:16 117, 174n125, 194 21:16–17 196 21:17 99, 114, 155, 213n103 21:19 263 21:20 113 21:22 207 21:23 261 21:24 105, 111 21:25 143, 243, 261 21:26 262 21:30 198n57

Index of Ancient Sources 21:34 123 22–31 29 22:2 207, 253n88, 288 22:4 152 22:5 104, 105, 117, 223–224 22:6 194 22:7 194 22:8 133, 170n111 22:9 124 22:10 233 22:11 105, 232 22:12 145 22:14 170n110, 176 22:15 263 22:17 237n35 22:20 243n51 22:21 215n105, 253n88, 257n99 22:22 105, 114, 194, 215n105 22:23 138 22:24 202n68 22:24–25 203 22:25 104, 237n35, 252n83 22:26 138, 228, 273 22:27 109, 169, 282n57 22:28 195 22:30 202 23:2 117, 145, 155, 210n95 23:3 117 23:5 238n39 23:6 107, 113, 114 23:7 116, 252n82 23:8 170n110, 219, 238 23:8–9 237–238 23:11 239, 239n42 23:11–12 238–240 23:12 239 23:13 117 23:14 29n88 23:15 115n69, 233, 238n39 23:15–16 231–232, 245 23:16 194, 237n35 23:17 114, 115n69, 203, 279n51 24:1 29n88 24:3 38–39, 123, 228 24:4 167, 249n74 24:5 171, 246n62 24:6 124, 158, 162, 163–164 24:8 125, 261

Index of Ancient Sources 24:12 114, 154 24:13 109, 170n111 24:15 176, 267n17 24:17 210n91 24:18 251 24:18–19 203 24:19 135, 271 24:20 257n99 24:22 115, 71 24:24 114, 284 24:25 117 25:2 116, 233 25:3 114 25:4 41, 138, 150 25:5 35, 138, 174, 252n83 25:6 41, 194 26:12 129, 207n79 26:3 116, 143, 208 26:4 117, 171 26:5 280n52 26:5–6 287 26:12 123, 130, 194, 207 26:13 130 26:14 117, 145, 238 26:24 247n68 26:24–25 203 27:1 129 27:2 219, 237n35 27:3 109, 116 27:7 155, 222n8, 228, 229, 297 27:8 117 27:9 109, 114, 257n99, 282n57 27:9–10 272 27:10 109, 138, 273, 282n57 27:11 117, 138n162, 237n35, 243n51, 247n68 27:12 166 27:13 116, 237n35 27:14 117, 224, 266 27:15 243 27:16 222, 257n99, 262 27:17 257n99 27:20 123 27:22 119 27:23 203 27:23–28:1 203 28:1 122, 194, 274 28:2 122, 223, 262

399 28:3 210n91, 279n51 28:5 242n49 28:9 242n49, 277n47 28:10–11 212–213 28:11 171, 202n69 28:12 117, 143, 207, 208, 274 28:12–13 198, 201n64 28:12–23 285–289, 292 28:13 41, 173, 190 28:14 190 28:14–19 190 28:20 117, 143, 190, 207, 208 28:21 173, 221n6 28:22 247n65, 247n66 28:23 105, 111, 235n29, 238n39, 274n38 28:24 132, 228 28:25 101 28:25–26 202, 204 28:26 29n88, 202 28:27 257n99 28:28 117, 118, 139, 143, 207, 208 29:2 105, 106, 115n71, 150, 232, 235n29 29:3 170n110 29:4 154, 235n29 29:6 125, 174, 222, 223 29:7 171, 210n93, 292 29:8 216 29:10 29n88 29:11 247n66 29:12 171–172, 172n115, 222 29:13 243n50, 261 29:14 209, 223 29:15 239n42 29:16 117, 167, 249n74 29:21 145 29:22 122, 145, 257n99 29:23 145 29:24 115n70, 152 29:25 280n52 30:1 145, 152 30:2 143n5, 261n1 30:4 111, 125 30:5 114 30:6 110, 280n52 30:8 101, 116, 167 30:9 156

400 Job (cont.) 30:10 115n69 30:11 115n69, 124 30:14 234 30:15 222n8, 228, 242n49 30:17 105 30:19 121, 262 30:20 282n57 30:21 107, 242n49 30:23 116, 173, 221n6, 288n71 30:25 26n72, 221, 249 30:26 29n88, 123, 204, 279n51 30:27 256 30:29 129n130, 257n99 30:31 105 31:1 113, 155 31:5 170n110, 239n42, 290n77 31:7 170n110, 239, 239n42 31:8 219n3 31:8–11 289 31:9 219n3 31:11 101, 117 31:12 123 31:13 109, 112 31:14 153–154 31:14–18 32n105 31:15 219n3, 256–257, 258 31:16 167n100, 174n125, 249n74 31:17 208 31:19 143, 243n50, 261 31:20 167n100, 249n74 31:20–21 32n105 31:21 210n93 31:36 254n91 32:23 233 31:31 150 31:22 105, 228 31:34 125, 165, 171 31:25 109, 164 31:27 176 31:28 121n83 31:31 117 31:34 165 31:36 254 31:38 263 31:40 171, 194 32–37 29 32:1 35, 97, 116, 117, 138, 215n105

Index of Ancient Sources 32:2 13, 101, 126, 159 32:2–3 198 32:3 97, 115n71, 154 32:3–4 32n105 32:6 117, 118, 194, 207, 216, 233, 247 32:7 122, 143, 216n106 32:8 41, 117, 118, 237n35, 238n39 32:9 122, 194, 238 32:10 247 32:11 109, 207n79, 247n66 32:12 238n39 32:13 143 32:17 247n68 32:18–19 213, 214 32:19 116, 214 32:21 134, 215n105, 228 32:21–22 135, 208 32:22 134, 208n86 33:1 156, 215n105, 247n66 33:2 214, 215n105, 223 33:3 116, 207, 251–252 33:4 237n35 33:5 154, 203, 256 33:6 256, 257–258 33:7 214, 232 33:8 247n66 33:9 117, 118, 177, 252n83 33:10 115n71, 120 33:10–11 32n105 33:11 239n42 33:12 41 33:12–13 231 33:13 10, 11, 158, 159 33:14 144n10 33:15 114, 249 33:15–16 199, 252–253 33:16 202n69, 247n66 33:21 105, 123, 174n125, 175 33:22 105, 111, 194, 261n2 33:23 26, 28 33:24 125 33:24–30 32n105 33:25–26 208 33:26 41, 252n83, 253n88 33:27 154 33:28–30 32n105 33:30 29n88, 288n71

Index of Ancient Sources 34:2 247n66 34:3 247n66 34:5 207n79 34:5–6 105, 231 34:6 177 34:8 125, 177, 263 34:9 253, 256 34:10 138, 237n35 34:11 246n62 34:12 220, 237n35 34:13 117, 132, 133 34:14 151, 262 34:15 243, 250 34:16 247n66 34:17 164 34:19 134, 135, 249 34:20 109, 284n63 34:21 117, 123, 221, 246 34:22 176, 263 34:24 164 34:26 117 34:27 235n29 34:28 249 34:34–35 240–241, 261 34:35 207 34:36 155, 263 34:37 109, 139, 157 34:47 121n83 35:2 138 35:3 253n88 35:4 154 35:5 194 35:6 246 35:11 131 35:12 115 35:13 237n35 35:13–14 204 35:14 138n163 35:16 32n105 36:2 247n64 36:3 207, 246n61 36:5 122, 164, 203 36:5–10 224–226 36:7–11 32n105 36:9 246, 247n68 36:10 202n69, 247n66, 252n85, 263, 282n57 36:12 125, 261

401 36:14 143, 261 36:15 167, 202n69, 247n66 36:17 29n88, 202–203 36:13–24 32n105 36:21 263 36:22 117 36:23 117, 154, 246 36:23–24 245–246 36:24 246 36:24–25 203, 246 36:25 41 36:25–27 32n105 36:28 122, 215, 296 36:29 238n39 36:32–37:5 32n105 36:33 247n68 37:2 119, 120n80 37:6 122, 257n99 37:8 131, 228, 280 37:9 194 37:14 155, 238n39, 247n66 37:14–15 32n105 37:15 235n29 37:15–16 208 37:17 116 37:19 115n69 37:21 29n88, 117 37:22 234, 237n35 37:23 220 37:24 211–212, 233 38:1 127, 139 38:2 158, 159, 220 38:3 154, 215n105 38:4 125, 207 38:5 114, 219 38:6 117, 155 38:7 125, 257n99 38:8 109, 114, 123, 171, 210n92, 292 38:9–10 172, 241 38:10 210n92, 254 38:12 124 38:13 114, 280n52 38:14 113, 147, 256 38:16 123, 170n110, 194 38:17 202n69, 209–210, 210 38:18 132, 133, 238n39, 247n68 38:19 116, 117, 170, 274n38, 280

402 Job (cont.) 38:20 151, 238n39 38:21 116 38:22 194, 196 38:23 194, 198n57 38:24 132, 133, 174 38:25 117 38:27 274n37 38:28 125, 146 38:28–29 199 38:29 117, 171, 194, 292 38:30 170n109 38:31 194 38:33 122, 133, 257n99 38:34 281n55 38:35 139 38:36 101, 117, 143, 207, 208 38:36–37 199 38:37 143, 208 38:38 262 38:39 130 38:40 170n111 38:41 117, 122, 257n99 38–42:26 29 39:1 203, 213n103 39:1–2 203, 213 39:2 105 39:3 124 39:5 117 39:7 15, 152, 165, 165 39:9 106 39:9–10 211 39:10 123, 202n69 39:12 115n70, 228 39:15 239n42 39:16 233 39:17 207 39:19 254 39:19–20 254–255 39:20 254 39:21 123, 145, 171, 292 39:22 37, 115, 123, 137, 152, 233n24 39:24 115n70 39:24–25 145, 275–276 39:25 109, 145, 276 39:26 145, 207 39:27 15, 145, 222 39:28 280n52

Index of Ancient Sources 39:30 123 40:2–3 203 40:4 154 40:5 144n10 40:6 139 40:7 154, 215n105 40:8 24, 220, 271 40:9 115n71, 116 40:10 194, 215n105 40:11–12 205–206 40:12 175 40:13 28, 204, 262 40:15 125, 131, 214, 277 40:16 116, 118, 194, 214, 215n105 40:17 125 40:18 105, 116, 118 40:19 113, 117, 277 40:19–20 276–278 40:19–41:25 277 40:20 44, 114, 152, 277n47, 280, 297, 307 40:21 176 40:21–22 199 40:22 125 40:23 257n99 40:24 35n116 40:25 29n88, 129, 130, 254, 277, 294 40:26 293 40:29 229 40:30 101, 114, 125 40:32 122, 219n3 41:2 117, 256 41:2–3 255–256 41:3 12n10, 117, 132, 145, 256 41:5 117, 150, 194, 210n92 41:6 116, 117 41:7 105, 116 41:10 116, 195 41:11 170n110, 292, 296 41:11–13 291–293 41:12 165, 292, 293 41:12–13 196 41:13 165n96, 292 41:14 194 41:17 109, 131 41:18 37n124, 111, 123 41:18–24 293–297 41:19 120, 121, 243

403

Index of Ancient Sources 41:19–20 242–243 41:20 120 41:20–21 203 41:21 152, 203 41:22 116, 118, 123, 171, 215 41:23 121, 123, 222n8, 228 41:24 29n88, 44, 307 41:25 223, 262, 277 42:2 238 42:3 159, 220, 247n68 42:4 107, 215n105 42:4–5 199, 230, 248 42:5 169, 247n66 42:6 120, 262 42:7 97, 139, 144n10, 257n99 42:8 97, 257n99 42:9 170n110 42:10 109 42:11 111 42:11–12 12 42:12 98, 171 42:13 98, 171 42:14 44, 99, 127, 273, 307 42:15 132, 133 42:16 98 42:17 13, 17, 26n70, 28, 29n89, 44, 243, 261, 328 Wisdom of Solomon 1:16 121 5:15 271n27 5:17 255n94 6:17 271n27 7:1 173 7:4 271n27 7:8 121 8:9 271n27 9:14 173 11:4 277n47 15:9 271n27 15:17 173 16:27 284n65 Sirach Prologue 57, 81, 311, 330n125 8:9 154 14:19 175n131 22:15 146

25:16 130 30:24 271n27 30:1 271n27 30:2 271n27 38:29 271n27 40:15 277n47 42:9 271n27 46:6 255n94 48:17 277n47 49:9 328 Psalms of Solomon 2:18 135 2:21 254n90, 255 2:23 133 2:32 132n142 17:14 145 Hosea 5:1 245 5:2 253n86 7:12 245n57 10:11 9 12:2 163 13:13 213n103 Amos 1:6 168n102 5:5 168n102 8:8 212n101 9:5 212n101 Micah 1:8 129n130 2:1 10n6, 263n8 4:9 213n103 7:2 290n79 7:5 115 Obadiah 1:11 256n98 1:18 296n98 Jonah 2:1 129 2:2 129 2:11 129

404 Nahum 2:5 292n83 2:11(10) 213n103 2:13(12) 276 3:8 212n101 Habakkuk 1:3 10n6, 263n8 2:13 276 2:17 131 3:7 10n6, 263n8 Zephaniah 3:2 253n86 Zechariah 9:8 9 10:2 10n6, 263n8 10:11 212n101 Malachi 1:4 168m106 2:2 168n106 3:9 168n105 Isaiah 1:16 174n123 1:25 165 2:12 206 4:4 174 5:2 254n90 5:11 267n17 5:25 198n58 6:11 125 7:18 212n101 7:20 212n101 8:1 41 8:7 212n101 9:13 293 9:14 133 11:1 170 11:15 212n101 13:7 41 13:8 213n103 13:21 129n130 14:2 168n102 14:11 171 18:1 212n101 18:6 131

Index of Ancient Sources 19:6 176 19:7 212n101 19:8 212n101 19:15 293 23:17 154 24:4 284n65 26:16 253n86 26:17 213n103 27:1 130 28:20 159n67 29:10 249n72 29:13 239 29:15 159n67 29:18 159n67 29:24 159n67 30:7 163 33:8 159n67 34:13 129n130 40:21 247 40:24 28, 290n75 41:5 234n27 41:23 234n27 43:20 129n130 44:7 234n27 44:19 293n86 44:26 271 45:11 234n27 49:4 163 48:10 292n84 48:18 254n90 50:4 159n67 50:8 256n98 51:9 130 51:12 173 53:5 253n86 54:16 284n65 55:11 239 57:15 159n67 58:5 293 59:4 163 59:10 267n17 62:1 292n83 Jeremiah 1:13 166 2:15 125 2:18 212n101 2:30 253n86 4:5 247, 275

405

Index of Ancient Sources 4:7 125 5:3 253n86 6:1 275 6:23 293n86 6:24 213n103 7:28 253n86 7:33 131 9:9 125 11:3 168n106 11:4 292n84 12:2 290n75 12:9 234n27 13:1 254n90 13:9 284n65 13:16 267n17 13:21 213n103 15:3 131 16:4 131 17:5 168n106 17:9 41 17:23 253n86 18:21 137 19:7 131 20:14 168n106 26(46):7 212n101 26(46):8 212n101 27(50):39 129n130 27(50):43 213n103 28:3 254n90 28:58 163 31(48):33 280 34:2 254 37:14 253n86 39:18 166n99 40(33):11 280 41:20 131 44:14 250 48:10 168n106 48:29 206 51:27 185 52:22 245n57 52:23 245n57 Baruch 2:23 280 3:28 125 4:23 280 4:34 165 5:3 132n142

Lamentations 3:10 290n79 4:19 290n79 Ezekiel 1:1 212n101 1:13 292n83, 293n86 3:15 212n101 10:2 293n86 11:15 8 12:13 245n57 16:4 174n123 16:11 254 16:52 284n65 17:7 146 17:9 175n131 17:10 146 17:20 245n57 19:8 245n57 22:20 165, 292n84 22:22 292n84 23:41 171 27:3 254n90 27:7 255 28:7 171 29:3 212n101 30:12 212n101 32:2 130 32:3 245n57 33:6 275 35:5 137 35:12 8 Daniel 3 80, 89 3:79 129 5:7 254n90 5:16 254n90 5:29 254n90 10:6 292n83 10:13 256n98 11 79n63 11:2 256n98 11:15 256n98 11:26 271n27

406

Index of Ancient Sources

New Testament Luke 17:24 133 Romans 11:35 12n10

Aesop Fabulae 115 Alexander Polyhistor 12–13, 14n21, 75n41 Apollonius of Rhodes

146, 318

1 Corinthians 3:19 12n10

Apollonius the Sophist Lexicon Homericum 37.33 163n90

Philemon 1:19 12n10

Aristeas the Exegete On the Jews

Hebrews 1:3 153

Aristobulus 14n21, 16n30, 311 Explanations of the Book of Moses 2.2 137–138

Judaean Desert Scrolls

Aristophanes Nubes 952 271

2Q15 (2QJob)

32

4Q99 (4QJoba) frag. 1 frag. 7 ii

32, 120n80, 245n60, 299 299 299n112

4Q100 (4QJobb) 32 4Q101 (4QPaleoJobc) 32, 299, 312 4Q157 32 11Q10 32 8ḤevXII gr

29

Other Ancient Jewish and non–Jewish Authors and Works

12–13, 14, 328

Aristotle 296n101 Ars poetica 1447b1–24 299n113 1457 160n78, 301n119 1458 148, 301n119 Ars rhetorica 1403a–1420a1 40n141 1404b 148 1404a–1406b 160n78 1408b 188 1410a–1411a 160n78 1413b 156n59 Ethica Nicomachea 1157b12 153 Artapanus 315

1–3 Enoch 327

Callimachus 318

Aeschylus 237, 318 Agamemnon 1531 271 Eumenides 108 292 Seven Against Thebe 93–94 185

Demetrius the Chronographer 14n21, 16, 147n21, 311, 313–317, 317 Fragment 2 314, 316 Fragment 4 316

407

Index of Ancient Sources Demetrius De elocutione 26 161n81 29 192 38–43 189n39 53–64 156n59 61–62 192 66 192, 193 67 186n22 69 161n81 78–90 160n78 91–93 148n28 97–98 147n21 Demosthenes 296n101 Eroticus 53.2 255 Dionysius of Halicarnassus De Demosthene 10 90n112 13 90n112 Epiphanius De mensuris et ponderibus 49c 301n120 Eupolemus Fragment 1 Fragment 2

313–317, 320 316 314, 316

Euripides 145, 305, 318 Medea 389 209n90 Eusebius 14 Praeparatio Evangelica 9 75n41 9.25.1–4 13n14 Ezekiel the Tragedian 188n37, 313, 315 Exagoge 80, 137, 301, 318–319, 326 6 319 163 318 185 318 239 319

Hermogenes De inventione 4.3 192 Herodotus 128, 150n41 Historiae 1.4.3 152 1.127.2 153 3.110 128n125 3.39.9 209n90 6.63.2 102 6.63.4 209n90 6.139.3 171 7.14.7 209n90 Hodayot 327 Homer 37, 150n41, 178, 305, 318 Iliad 2.343 216 4.543 216 9.621 171 10.418 292 19.157 209n90 20.371–372 185 23.418 209n90 Odyssey 129n130 4.248 148 16.294 37, 137 21.12 148 Hymnus Homericus in Cerem 9 148 Isocrates Helen 17 186 Orationes 15.155.7 216n106 Philippus 149.9 255 Letter of Aristeas 1n1, 12n12, 15–16, 57, 70n23, 72n29, 79–80, 315, 330n125 9–11 79

408

Index of Ancient Sources

Nicander of Colophon

146

Testament of Job 328

Philo Epicus

188n37

Theocritus

146, 318

Theodotus

301, 311, 313, 318, 320

Philo of Alexandria 15–16, 296n101 De mutatione 48.4 12n10 Pindar 146 Fragmenta 215b1 277 Plato Crito 52e2 209n90 53d8 209n90 Leges 897d 154 Philebus 57c5 154 Sophist 239e5 154 Symposium 192c2 209n90 Phrynicus Fragmenta 31.1 216n106 Polybius 115, 154 Historiae 10.14.15 165 18.33.2.4 153 18.33.3.1 153 18.35.5.3 153 20.11.7.6 153 21.7.1 296n98 21.14.9 152 30.5.4.1 153 Pseudo–Longinus De sublimitate 9.9 79 Sophocles 145 Oedipus Coloneus 374 209n90 Sosates 318n73

Theophrastus Historia plantarum 1.10.5.4 176 18.33.2.4 153 Thucydides Historiae 1.12.4 216 1.77.3.2 125 1.93.2.1 209n90 5.112.2.3 209n90 Xenocrates 132 Xenophon De re equestri 5.3 254 Church Fathers Origen 29, 297n105 Homiliae in Job 163 Diodorus of Sicily Bibliotheca historica 11.9.1 255 17.77.5.5 254 Theodorus of Mopsuestia Expositio in Jobum 128 Other Sources (Inscriptions, Papyri, and Manuscripts) Athos Λαύρα Γ 51

122n88, 123n93

Berlin 11778

300

bgu 4 1137 6 1238

152 315n66

409

Index of Ancient Sources 8 1786 10 1996 16 2651

315n66 315n66 154

P.Enteux. 91

125

P.Flor. 1

216

bml inv. 19963

300n117

P.Lond. 7 2017

125 237 12, 300

Codex Sinaiticus

300

P.Oxy. xviii 2164 l 3522

Codex Vaticanus

122

P.Sijp. 57

216

Epigr.gr. 815

237

P.Tebt. 3.1

216

P.Cair.Masp. 1 67002 1 67004 2 67151dupl

296n101 296n101 296n101

Palat.gr. 230

123n91

Regin.gr. 1

122n88

P.Cair.Zen. 1 59018 2 59207 3 59377

Theol.gr. 230

122n90

152 152 125

Vat.gr. 1231

123n91

Codex Alexandrinus 122n90, 300