The Translation Style of Old Greek Habakkuk: Methodological Advancement in Interpretative Studies of the Septuagint 9783161543869, 3161543866

Table of contents :
Cover
Preface
Contents
List of Abbreviations
Chapter 1: Habakkuk Speaks Greek – Translation, Interpretation and Transformation
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Provenance of the Old Greek (OG)
1.3 Later Greek Revisions
1.3.1 Hexaplaric Versions
1.3.2 Lucianic Recension
1.3.3 Summary Conclusion
1.4 Translation Studies and the Septuagint
1.4.1 Linguistic Transformations
1.4.2 Relevance Theory
1.5 Recent Scholarship in Relation to Ambakoum
Chapter 2: Methodology – The Current State of Affairs
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Statistical Literalism
2.3 Categories of Improvisation
2.3.1 Contextual Guesses
2.3.2 Contextual Changes
2.3.3 Double Translation
2.3.4 Untranslated Words
2.3.5 Reliance on Parallelism
2.3.6 Etymological Renderings
2.4 Paradigms, Evidence & Translational Tradition
2.4.1 Multiple-Causation & Literalism
2.4.2 Contextual Exegesis
2.4.3 Interlinear Paradigm or Solo Septuaginta
2.4.3.1 Text-Produced & Text-Received
2.4.3.2 Literary Composition, Translation & Interpretation
2.4.4 The Text as Read & Received
2.4.4.1 On Acceptability
2.4.4.2 On The Independence of the Septuagint
2.5 Summary Conclusion
Chapter 3: Greek Rhetoric and Linguistic Transformations – The Translator and His Style
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Greek Rhetoric in Ambakoum
3.2.1 Greek Rhetoric via Literary Composition
3.2.1.1 Variation
3.2.1.2 Polyptoton (Variation of Forms)
3.2.1.3 Assonance, Consonance and Alliteration
3.2.1.4 Homeoteleuton (End-Rhyming)
3.2.2 Greek Rhetoric via Hebrew Interference
3.2.2.1 Assonance, Consonance and Alliteration
3.2.2.2 Homeoteleuton
3.2.3 Summary Conclusion
3.3 Linguistic Transformations
3.3.1 Neologisms and Inventive Phrases
3.3.2 Aramaic Interference
3.3.2.1 Behold! If He Draws Back
3.3.2.2 The Prayer of My Lips
3.3.2.3 Be Amazed at the LORD’s Deeds
3.3.3 Exegetical Disambiguation
3.3.3.1 The Chaldeans, The Warriors
3.3.3.2 Be Destroyed You Scoffers!
3.3.3.3 His Heart is Made Glad in These Things
3.3.3.4 A Mighty Love of His Strength
3.3.3.5 “Seven Sceptres,” Says the LORD
3.3.4 Semantic Shift: חמס to ΑΣΕΒΕΙΑ
3.3.5 Toponyms
3.3.5.1 Wolves of Arabia
3.3.5.2 A Place like Jerusalem
3.4 Conclusion
Chapter 4: Theology and Exegesis – Theological Interpretation in Ambakoum
4.1 Introduction
4.2 The Prophetic Characteristics of Ambakoum
4.2.1 The Suffering Prophet
4.2.2 The Disciplinary Teacher
4.2.3 Exile
4.3 Eschatology
4.3.1 The Day of the LORD
4.3.2 End-Time Destruction
4.4 His Faith and Messianic Faith
4.4.1 Eschatology in Ambakoum 2:4
4.4.2 The NT Eschatological Vision
4.5 The Idolatry Polemic
4.5.1 Φαντασία in Classical and Post-classical Thought
4.5.1.1 Plato on Phantasia
4.5.1.2 Aristotle on Phantasia
4.5.1.3 The Stoics on Phantasia
4.5.1.4 Summary
4.5.2 Φαντασία in the Twelve
Conclusion
Appendix A: Translation of Ambakoum and Habakkuk
Amb/Hab 1:1
Amb/Hab 1:2–4
Amb/Hab 1:5–11
Amb/Hab 1:12–17
Amb/Hab 2:1–2
Amb/Hab 2:3–5
Amb/Hab 2:6–19
2:6–8
2:9–11
2:12–14
2:15–17
2:18–19
Amb/Hab 2:20
Amb/Hab 3:1
Amb/Hab 3:2–7
Amb/Hab 3:8–15
Amb/Hab 3:16–19
Bibliography
Index of References
Index of Authors
Index of Subjects

Citation preview

Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe Herausgegeben von Konrad Schmid (Zürich) · Mark S. Smith (New York) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen)

86

James A. E. Mulroney

The Translation Style of Old Greek Habakkuk Methodological Advancement in Interpretative Studies of the Septuagint

Mohr Siebeck

James A. E. Mulroney, born 1977; 2010 MAR, 2011 ThM from Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia); 2015 PhD from the University of Edinburgh; currently lecturer in Old Testament at London Theological Seminary.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-154387-6 ISBN 978-3-16-154386-9 ISSN 1611-4914 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2016 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Gomaringen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

For April Renée

Preface This study is a revised version of my doctoral thesis, which I completed at the University of Edinburgh in 2014. Some of this work has already seen publication over the past few years, in the Journal for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 45 (2012), the Southeastern Theological Review 61 (2015), and research presented at a seminar will be in the XV Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (SBL Press, 2016). These works have been adapted for this edition, and used with permission. As happens with a project of this kind, I have many people to thank. I must first thank the administrative and library staff at New College. In particular, the efficiency of the staff to turn around interlibrary loan requests during the period of 2013–14 was of immense help to me. I am deeply grateful to my supervisor Dr David J. Reimer for his perceptive and incisive critiques of my work, along with encouraging feedback over the years. He has pastored me with his gracious manner. Thank you very much. The community at New College was very positive and intellectually challenging. I gained much from the discursive and ad hoc conversations with peers and teachers. Chats with new friends and old made learning there a memorable and life-changing experience. In addition, opportunities to do study and research at various institutes of learning enriched me and my work immeasurably. The time I spent at Tyndale House, Cambridge in summer 2012 provided another helpful sounding board for analytical thinking in the complex world of biblical studies. I am grateful to Pete Williams for taking the time to read some of my early work, and to Dirk Jongkind for the stimulating and impromptu conversations. And the staff at La Bibliothèque Oecuménique et Scientifique d’Études Bibliques helped me with a wealth of resources while I also had the privilege of participating in classes at L’École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales during 2012–13. I remember that time fondly. I wish to express my gratitude to Jim Aitken for the many hours of conversations since my viva, which have been so formative in the preparation of this manuscript. I hope some of his wisdom shines through. I am also thankful to have had so many scholars read my research and/or listen to it at conferences, and to have received helpful critiques along the way. My work has been improved because of the open and positive way by which communities of learning have helped me. Sometimes the smallest conversation or comment made the most difference. My gratitude to: Fred Putnam, Jan Joosten,

viii

Preface

Larry Hurtado, Cécile Dogniez, Hermann Spieckermann and Anja Klein (OTSEM), John Lee, Trevor Evans, Sean Adams, Matthew Novenson, Michaël van der Meer, Koert van Bekkum, James Eglinton (ATSF), Adam Eitel and Sandy Finlayson (for always making room for me). I am truly grateful for the tireless work of scholars within the field of Septuagint studies. I have been able to stand upon the shoulders of those who have laboured faithfully before me. And I am thankful that Will Ross cared to read my entire manuscript and offer ways in which it may be improved. Yet, with so much help, I am sure that there are areas where I could have done better; such shortcomings are all mine. Friends praying for and encouraging me along the way have been of real support. Most of all, I could not have completed this project without the loving and wise support of my wife. What a wonderful journey this is together. You excel them all ὅτι γυνὴ δυνάμεως εἶ σύ! Soli Deo Gloria James A. E. Mulroney

Contents Preface ........................................................................................................ vii List of Abbreviations .................................................................................. xiii

Chapter 1: Habakkuk Speaks Greek – Translation, Interpretation and Transformation............................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 1 1.2 Provenance of the Old Greek (OG) ..................................................... 8 1.3 Later Greek Revisions ........................................................................12 1.3.1 Hexaplaric Versions ....................................................................15 1.3.2 Lucianic Recension .....................................................................17 1.3.3 Summary Conclusion ..................................................................18 1.4 Translation Studies and the Septuagint ..............................................18 1.4.1 Linguistic Transformations .........................................................19 1.4.2 Relevance Theory .......................................................................21 1.5 Recent Scholarship in Relation to Ambakoum ....................................22

Chapter 2: Methodology – The Current State of Affairs ............25 2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................25 2.2 Statistical Literalism ..........................................................................26 2.3 Categories of Improvisation ...............................................................33 2.3.1 Contextual Guesses .....................................................................35 2.3.2 Contextual Changes ....................................................................35 2.3.3 Double Translation ......................................................................36 2.3.4 Untranslated Words.....................................................................38 2.3.5 Reliance on Parallelism ...............................................................38 2.3.6 Etymological Renderings ............................................................39 2.4 Paradigms, Evidence & Translational Tradition ................................39 2.4.1 Multiple-Causation & Literalism.................................................41 2.4.2 Contextual Exegesis ....................................................................46 2.4.3 Interlinear Paradigm or Solo Septuaginta ....................................51 2.4.3.1 Text-Produced & Text-Received ..........................................57

x

Contents

2.4.3.2 Literary Composition, Translation & Interpretation .............61 2.4.4 The Text as Read & Received .....................................................66 2.4.4.1 On Acceptability ..................................................................72 2.4.4.2 On The Independence of the Septuagint ...............................74 2.5 Summary Conclusion ..........................................................................77

Chapter 3: Greek Rhetoric and Linguistic Transformations – The Translator and His Style......................................................79 3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................79 3.2 Greek Rhetoric in Ambakoum .............................................................79 3.2.1 Greek Rhetoric via Literary Composition ....................................84 3.2.1.1 Variation ..............................................................................84 3.2.1.2 Polyptoton (Variation of Forms) ..........................................85 3.2.1.3 Assonance, Consonance and Alliteration .............................86 3.2.1.4 Homeoteleuton (End-Rhyming) ...........................................93 3.2.2 Greek Rhetoric via Hebrew Interference .....................................95 3.2.2.1 Assonance, Consonance and Alliteration .............................96 3.2.2.2 Homeoteleuton ................................................................... 101 3.2.3 Summary Conclusion ................................................................ 105 3.3 Linguistic Transformations .............................................................. 105 3.3.1 Neologisms and Inventive Phrases ............................................ 106 3.3.2 Aramaic Interference................................................................. 111 3.3.2.1 Behold! If He Draws Back ................................................. 111 3.3.2.2 The Prayer of My Lips ....................................................... 114 3.3.2.3 Be Amazed at the LORD’s Deeds ....................................... 115 3.3.3 Exegetical Disambiguation........................................................ 116 3.3.3.1 The Chaldeans, The Warriors............................................. 117 3.3.3.2 Be Destroyed You Scoffers! .............................................. 118 3.3.3.3 His Heart is Made Glad in These Things ............................ 119 3.3.3.4 A Mighty Love of His Strength .......................................... 121 3.3.3.5 “Seven Sceptres,” Says the LORD....................................... 122 3.3.4 Semantic Shift: ‫ חמס‬to ΑΣΕΒΕΙΑ ............................................ 123 3.3.5 Toponyms ................................................................................. 125 3.3.5.1 Wolves of Arabia ............................................................... 125 3.3.5.2 A Place like Jerusalem ....................................................... 126 3.4 Conclusion ....................................................................................... 128

Contents

xi

Chapter 4: Theology and Exegesis – Theological Interpretation in Ambakoum .................................................... 131 4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 131 4.2 The Prophetic Characteristics of Ambakoum.................................... 136 4.2.1 The Suffering Prophet ............................................................... 137 4.2.2 The Disciplinary Teacher .......................................................... 140 4.2.3 Exile ......................................................................................... 146 4.3 Eschatology ...................................................................................... 148 4.3.1 The Day of the LORD ................................................................149 4.3.2 End-Time Destruction ............................................................... 150 4.4 His Faith and Messianic Faith ......................................................... 156 4.4.1 Eschatology in Ambakoum 2:4 ................................................. 159 4.4.2 The NT Eschatological Vision .................................................. 172 4.5 The Idolatry Polemic ........................................................................ 179 4.5.1 Φαντασία in Classical and Post-classical Thought ..................... 181 4.5.1.1 Plato on Phantasia .............................................................. 181 4.5.1.2 Aristotle on Phantasia ........................................................ 183 4.5.1.3 The Stoics on Phantasia ..................................................... 185 4.5.1.4 Summary ........................................................................... 187 4.5.2 Φαντασία in the Twelve............................................................. 189

Conclusion ............................................................................... 199 Appendix A: Translation of Ambakoum and Habakkuk .......... 203 Amb/Hab 1:1 .......................................................................................... 203 Amb/Hab 1:2–4 ...................................................................................... 203 Amb/Hab 1:5–11 .................................................................................... 204 Amb/Hab 1:12–17 .................................................................................. 206 Amb/Hab 2:1–2 ...................................................................................... 209 Amb/Hab 2:3–5 ...................................................................................... 209 Amb/Hab 2:6–19 .................................................................................... 211 2:6–8.................................................................................................. 211 2:9–11 ................................................................................................ 212 2:12–14 .............................................................................................. 213 2:15–17 .............................................................................................. 214 2:18–19 .............................................................................................. 215 Amb/Hab 2:20 ........................................................................................ 216 Amb/Hab 3:1 .......................................................................................... 216

xii

Contents

Amb/Hab 3:2–7 ...................................................................................... 216 Amb/Hab 3:8–15 .................................................................................... 218 Amb/Hab 3:16–19 .................................................................................. 221

Bibliography ............................................................................ 225 Index of References ................................................................. 243 Index of Authors ...................................................................... 257 Index of Subjects ..................................................................... 261

List of Abbreviations Biblical books and other ancient sources follow the abbreviations laid out in the SBL Handbook of Style, as do the common and technical abbreviations. α´ σ´ θ´ 1QpHab 8ḤevXIIgr AB ABU AI AJBI Akk. ALHR Amb AR AT ATD BA Barb BBR BdA BDAG

BDB BECNT BETL BFC BGS BHQ BHS Bib BIOSCS BJGS BQ

Aquila Symmachus Theodotion Habakkuk Pesher from Qumran Cave 1 Greek version of Habakkuk from Naḥal Ḥever, Cave 8 The Anchor Bible (Commentary) Alliance Biblique Universelle (United Bible Society) Artificial Intelligence Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute Akkadian (a language of ancient Mesopotamia) American Lectures in the History of Religions Ambakoum, Old Greek of Habakkuk Archiv für Religionsgeschichte Ancien Testament Das Alte Testament Deutsch. Neues Göttinger Bibelwerk Biblical Archaeologist Barberini version of Habakkuk 3 Bulletin for Biblical Research La Bible d’Alexandrie A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Edited by Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, William Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. 3d Ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium La Bible en français courant. Edition révisée. Villiers-le-Bel: Société biblique française, 1997. La Biblia griega Septuaginta Biblia Hebraica Quinta Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by Karl Elliger and Wilhelm Rudolph. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983. Biblica Bulletin of the International Organization of Septuagint and Cognate Studies (now known as JSCS) Bulletin of Judaeo-Greek Studies Biblia Qumranica

xiv Brenton BT BTS BZAW CAD CAT CB CEB chp(s). CJB CQS CTAT

DCH DJD DJPA DNTB DSS DTS ESV ETL FAT FOAC FRLANT G GA GB GL GQ GR GS GV GW/* GSB HALOT HB

HCSB HOAC HT HTR HUB

List of Abbreviations The English Translation of The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament. Sir Lancelot Charles L. Brenton. London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1851. The Bible Translator Biblical Tools and Studies Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft The Assyrian Dictionary of the University of Chicago. Edited by Leo Oppenheim et al. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1956– Michée, Nahoum, Habacuc, Sophonie. René Vuilleumier, and Carl A. Keller. 2d ed. Commentaire de l’ancien testament XIb. Genève: Labor et Fides, 1990. Coniectanea Biblica Old Testament Series Common English Bible chapter(s) Complete Jewish Bible Version Companion to the Qumran Scrolls Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. Edited by Dominique Barthélemy. 4 vols. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 50.1–4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982–2005. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Edited by David J. A. Clines. 8 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993–2011. Discoveries in the Judean Desert A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period. Edited by Michael Sokoloff. Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003. Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000. Dead Sea Scrolls Descriptive Translation Studies English Standard Version Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses Forschungen zum Alten Testament First-Order Acts of Communication Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments (Old Greek manuscript[codex] type, note superscript) Alexandrinus Vaticanus Lucianus Marchialanus Veronensis Sinaiticus Venetus Washintonianus / * redactor’s hand Genfer Studien Bibel The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by Ludwig Koehler, and Walter Baumgartner. Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000. Hebrew Bible Holman Christian Standard Bible High-Order Acts of Communication Helps for Translators Harvard Theological Review Annual of the Hebrew University Bible Project

List of Abbreviations IDBSup IEJ ILP interj. IOSCS IP Jastrow JBL JBS JNSL JSJ JSCS JSOT JSOTS JSS JTS KAT KJV KR LHB/OTS LNTS LOAC LSV LSJM LXX LXX.D LXX.E LXX.H MUS MNTS MP MS(S) MT MurXII NA NASB NET NETS

xv

The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume. Edited by K. Crim. Nashville, Tenn., 1976. Israel Exploration Journal Independent Literary Paradigm Interjection International Organization of Septuagint and Cognate Studies Interlinear Paradigm A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. Edited by Marcus Jastrow. London: Luzac, 1903. Repr. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2006. Journal of Biblical Literature Jerusalem Biblical Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal of Septuagint and Cognate Studies Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies The Journal of Theological Studies Kommentar zum Alten Testament King James/Authorised Version The manuscripts described in editions of Kennicott and de Rossi Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies Library of New Testament Studies Low-Order Acts of Communication Louis Segond Version A Greek-English Lexicon, With a Revised Supplement. Edited by Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, Sir Henry Stuart Jones, and Roderick McKenzie. 9 ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Pentateuch, Old Greek version of the Torah Septuaginta Deutsch. Das griechische Alte Testament in deutscher Übersetzung. Edited by Eberhard Bons, et al. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2009. Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament. Band 1 und 2. Edited by Martin Karrer, and Wolfgang Kraus. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011. Einleitung in der Septuaginta. Handbuch zur Septuaginta. Edited by Siegfried Kreuzer. Munich: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2016. Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen McMaster New Testament Studies Hebrew (MT) Minor Prophets manuscript(s) Masoretic Text Hebrew text from Murabba’at, Cave 12 Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum, all versions New American Standard Bible New English Translation A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title. Edited by Albert Pietersma, and Benjamin G. Wright. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

xvi NIV NT NTTS Odes OED OG OS OSB OT OTG OTL P PHK Psh R RB RBS RQ RSV RT RTP Rudolph

SB SBG SBL SBLCP SCS SCSer SEÅ SGLG SL ST STDS STTAASF Syr. Tg. TL TT TWOT UBS v(v). Vg. VT VTG

List of Abbreviations New International Version New Testament / Nouveau Testament New Testament Tools and Studies Book of Odes, ecclesiastical canticles found in GA.R Oxford English Dictionary (online at http://www.oed.com) Old Greek Oudtestamentische Studiën The Orthodox Study Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008. Edited by Maximos, Metropolitan, Eugen Pentiuc, Michel Najim, and Jack Norman Sparks. Old Testament Old Testament Guides The Old Testament Library Papyri Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen: Philologisch-Historische Klasse Peshiṭta Revisor of Greek Habakkuk from Naḥal Ḥever, Cave 8 (8ḤevXIIgr) Revue biblique Resources for Biblical Study Revue de Qûmran Revised Standard Version Relevance Theory Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie Micha, Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja and Haggai, Sacharja, Maleachi. Wilhelm Rudolph. Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Band 13,2. Edited by Wilhelm Rudolph, Karl Elliger, Franze Hesse and Otto Kaiser. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1977. Subsidia Biblica Studies in Biblical Greek Society of Biblical Literature Society of Biblical Literature Centennial Publications Septuagint and Cognate Studies Septuagint Commentary Series Svensk exegetisk årsbok Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker Source Language Source Text Studies on the Text of the Desert of Judah Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia Annales Academiæ Scientiarum Fennicæ Syriac Targum Target Language Target Text Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Edited by Laird R. Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke. 2 vols. Chicago: Moody Press, 1980. United Bible Society (Alliance Biblique Universelle) verse(s) Vulgate Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum Graecum cum Variis Lectionibus

List of Abbreviations VTSup WUNT YCS ZAW ZNW

Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Yale Classical Studies Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

xvii

Chapter 1

Habakkuk Speaks Greek – Translation, Interpretation and Transformation 1.1 Introduction Toute traduction requiert inévitablement une transformation de l’ordre, du rythme et du son de l’original et de plus, cette traduction bonne et poétique nécessite souvent (mais non pas toujours) bien davantage de changement.1

It is widely agreed that all translation involves interpretation. Perhaps this is why teachers of Classical Greek have, at one point, turned to a student body and expressed the well-known adage that one has not read Homer until one has read him in Greek. Readers of a foreign language (e.g. Homeric/Classical Greek) tend to read through the paradigm of their own world.2 Their own cultural idioms, linguistic structures and even metaphors, are the lens through which the text – a verbal expression of a foreign people – is often haplessly read. This process of linguistic interference is quite unintentional.3 And it is exacerbated when the translation process is confined to a textual form. It affects modern translations of not just the Septuagint but of all literature from a bygone age – true also of the Septuagint translators. The further one gets from the original culture the greater the effort to bring over the meaning into a new and

1 My translation of: “All translation necessarily involves transformation of the order and rhythm and sound of the original, and that good poetic translation often (not always) requires much more transformation.” See Burton Raffel, The Forked Tongue. A Study of the Translation Process (The Hague; Paris: Mouton, 1971), 100. 2 Modern Greek students, upon entering into the gymnasium, begin to read the classics of their heritage. Like books from the Loeb Library, they are given the classical text, say Plato, on one page, and a Modern Greek translation on the facing page. The difference between the stages of the Greek language is far greater than, for example, between Modern and Jacobean English, so that a translation is required. 3 For example, students who had to learn Greek in order to read, for example, Homer face this kind of challenge. This is often because they have associated words, syntax, sentence structures, verbal tense/aspect, and so forth, through a formal academic system that is learned by rote, and not derived from cultural immersion. By learning words from glosses, students almost unconsciously associate the gloss meaning as the real meaning for every subsequent occurrence of the word. Later readings are often mired by the gloss meaning, which may have no relation to the contextual meaning whatsoever! This is not simply a pedagogic issue.

2

Chapter 1: Habakkuk Speaks Greek

different one. It is sometimes an insuperable burden for translators working centuries down the road. This translational complexity does not belie the enterprise of translation, but draws attention to the point that all kinds of interpretations occur during the process of reading and then translating an ancient text. It thus arises within the translation process. Structurally speaking, no literary translation has ever been made that did not require an intermediary to wrestle with the words, clauses, sentences and meaning of the source text (ST). The changes that occur in the process of conveying, or bringing forth, the meaning of a ST to a new audience, into a target text (TT), may be called transformational.4 The translator is an author, or as Eco calls him, a “negotiator,”5 working in an atmosphere of compromise, choosing which elements of the original to emphasise or even omit. This process of transformation is not located merely in words, something which is also true for the Septuagint, as if a translator moved his eyes across the text, from word to word, translating each one as he best understood it. This sort of atomistic approach in translation studies is unhelpful.6 Many years ago Thackeray worked up a number of descriptors to classify the respective styles of the Septuagint. His analysis was mostly concerned with the quality of the Greek. The text was a mixture of literalism (as he may have 4 The term “transformation” has been used in translation studies for some years. In this study “transformation process” is a noun phrase in reference to this. It is often used in relation to the cognitive aspect of the translational process. There are numerous aspects that inhere the act of making a change; it refers to a human process. Van der Louw’s succinct definition is: “Transformations or shifts are changes (linguistic or otherwise) with respect to an invariant core that occur in translation from source text to target text.” See Theo A. W. van der Louw, Transformations in the Septuagint. Towards an Interaction of Septuagint Studies and Translation Studies (Dudley: Peeters, 2007), 383. 5 Umberto Eco, Mouse or Rat? Translation as Negotiation (London: Phoenix, 2003), 6–7. 6 Although this approach might occur with students as an academic exercise when first learning a second language later in life, viz. after formative years, it is not good practice. Moreoever, with respect to the Septuagint translators, this approach can be considered in the following two ways. First, as van der Kooij rightly points out, variant readings must be considered within their respective historical and cultural contexts because they are part of a reading tradition: “translations of the biblical books were produced by scholars who were able to read (aloud) and interpret the ancient books; in other words, translations were the work of learned scribes.” Scribes knew large sections of their texts very well, and had more than likely committed sections to memory from heart. This is a high-level perspective. Second, on the word-level, scribes would also be keenly aware of their word selections. For example, as Aitken recently argued, the Aquilan choice of σύν for ‫ ֶאת‬is not necessarily caused by a hyper-literalistic or morphemic approach. It had a high linguistic register within Homeric Greek, marking it as quality prose, not the other way round. See James K. Aitken, “Lessons for Modern Translation Theory from Aquila and Other Odd Ancient Predecessors,” (paper presented at The Signs of the Times Conference, Heythrop College, University of London, 2013).

1.1 Introduction

3

understood it) and quality Greek. He did not, unfortunately, go to any great length to qualify his specific conclusions, except to explain broad grammatical components of the Septuagint in general.7 In retrospect, one might say he identified the general nature of the transformations of the texts in question; but this was mostly concerned with understanding the grammatical phenomenon of Koine in light of Classical forms. He called the Twelve (OG Minor Prophets)8 “indifferent,”9 by which he meant that there was no specific style. The tendency of the earliest translators to follow, in varying degrees, the word-order of the ST shows something of their appreciation for its nature. Its word-order was obviously important, which is more acutely seen by the fact that they were likely native speakers of Greek and Aramaic (perhaps also Egyptian), not of Hebrew.10 So decisions to not follow it, even when it was possible in Greek (true also for other linguistic features, i.e. semantics), indicates that the translators were free to do otherwise. Meaning, clarity, and style, including consideration of the literary shape of a section of text, were also attendants upon their decision processes. There are many factors that make up the translator’s style in Ambakoum.11 What deviates from the predetermined categories of literalism is not 7 Although his work regarding the common authorship between the Twelve, Jer α, and Ezekiel α and γ makes some gains in this direction, it does not explain the nature of the changes. See Henry St John Thackeray, “The Greek Translators of the Prophetical Books,” JTS 4 (1903). 8 In this study, the abbr. LXX refers to the OG translation of Torah, the Pentateuch, something about which Jerome was emphatic (Greenspoon). The use of the abbr. OG (Old Greek) refers to the earliest translation of other books that are in relative continuity with the LXX, e.g. OG Hab would refer to the OG translation that occurred after the LXX in the second century, see n. 11 below. Critically speaking, OG often refers to the eclectic texts from the Septuaginta-Unternehmen of Göttingen. Deviations from this general rule are made clear in the study. I will use the term Septuagint in the broadest sense, relating to the body of text as in, for example, Rahlfs-Hanhart. Other abbrs. in relation to this exist and are clearly defined throughout, especially when referring to specific MSS or textual traditions. Also, all dates are B.C.E. unless otherwise noted, and, unless otherwises stated, biblical references are to the Septuagint, not MT – this is sometimes obvious by the reference, e.g. 1 Sam instead of 1 Kgdms. Cf. Leonard J. Greenspoon, “The Use and Abuse of the Term ‘LXX’ And Related Terminology in Recent Scholarship,” BIOSCS 20 (1987): 27. 9 Henry St John Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint. Vol. 1. Introduction, Orthography and Accidence (Cambridge: University Press, 1909), 13. 10 See Jan Joosten, Collected Studies on the Septuagint. From Language to Interpretation and Beyond (FAT 83; eds. Bernd Janowski, Mark S. Smith, and Hermann Spieckermann; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 32. Also n. 21. 11 In this study, Ambakoum (Αμβακυμ), abbr. Amb, always refers exclusively to the OG translation of Hab, or its literary character/prophet Αμβακυμ. The difference between these two is clear from context, e.g. “Ambakoum suffers at the hands of the unrighteous” refers to the character from the book, not the text. Also, all references that do not reference a specific

4

Chapter 1: Habakkuk Speaks Greek

necessarily that which is free, leaving the latter open to many kinds of speculative definitions. A detailed discussion in this regard is found in chapter two. For the time being, what is key here is that when the Greek is read as a literary artefact on its own, and then compared to its Hebrew counterpart, numerous changes appear related to the translational activity. The TT reads well and is a sound and coherent text. Some of the changes in the TT can be explained through common categories of improvisation, e.g. guessing at word meaning. Yet some changes seem to have occurred with a greater degree of intentionality, which implies at least a freer approach to the TT, having its own thematic content and literary patterns. These changes reveal the translator’s literary understanding of his TT within the confines of a translational boundary, i.e. the general structure of the ST. An explanation of his style teases out what he understood of his source: its interpretation. The essential task of the present study is to demonstrate that through an understanding of the translator’s style one may then explain in what ways he understood the prophecy of Habakkuk. This approach provides a basis upon which to deduce the translator’s theological and exegetical orientation, which is, no less, an expression of that scribal community. It should be expected that since each book of the Twelve contains different characters, themes and linguistic hurdles, e.g. rare or difficult words, there will be some translational differences even when the same translator is at work. It seems that the translator did not intend to flatten the contours of each book. For example, there is an obvious stylistic variation between the Psalm of Ambakoum (Amb 3:1–19) and the previous two chapters, the former being attributed, for the most part, to the variation that exists with the ST. Moreoever, there is no text in the Twelve that matches the literary composition of the Psalm. Yet the Twelve is all by the same hand, which further proves that Ambakoum may be studied as an individual unit with its own themes and literary structures.12 The translator was sensitive to the literary sections within the body of his overall text. In reference to the literary edges mentioned above, there are all kinds of boundaries that the translator of Ambakoum bumped up against. The addition of clauses, for example (aside from points of Vorlagen), indicates that such a boundary was not unbreachable. Moreover, modification of broad literary structures, creating contrasts where they hitherto did not exist (2:3–5), or inventing variations out of an apparent love for literary rhetoric (2:6, 9, 12, 15, 19), shows the translator’s view of his source text and style. Patterns that occur across sentence and paragraph boundaries also indicate that the translator had book are in reference to Amb, e.g. 1:17 = Amb 1:17. I think the first English use of this form of the name (Ambacum) was by Brenton. 12 Moreover, the evidence of the pesherim also indicates that each book could be commentated upon as a distinct unit.

1.1 Introduction

5

a high-level literary comprehension of his ST – no word-level atomism. He had a pre-existing interpretation of the book before he translated it. Such things are not, however, limited to syntagmatic or paradigmatic correspondences, for they also pertain to semantics. This is more hotly debated. Translators clearly made mistakes. To err is human. Though, as translators can be shown to have woven some literary flourish into their works, the same can be said of their intentional breach of semantic boundaries. The translator’s ability to know whether or not to leave a domain of meaning altogether implies that he saw the text from another point of view, even if, for example, a particular Hebrew word was obscure. Rabassa humorously points this out: “When asked by the evangelist, ‘Friend, have you found Jesus?’ [The] perfectly logical reply is, ‘…I didn’t know he was lost.’”13 It is not just a matter of perspective, but how one wishes to take the given question – or read the given word/clause form on the parchment. The answer, if not the question, has to make sense – it has to arise within a certain domain of interpretative acceptability. The translator sought to create texts that spoke with clarity, drawing out the meaning from within his habit of reading. Sometimes, when a Hebrew word was foggy to the translator he improvised. He made sense of it as best he could. But in the process of doing so he showed his cards. By making sense of the text before him, which included more than just one or two confusing words, scholars today may get a glimpse into how the translator understood his text. It was not always true that the difficult parts of texts were shrouded in misunderstanding. Moreover, when a passage was entirely clear there was a tendency to ensure that it properly connected with the passage in which it was found. Every case differs from one instance to the other. From fairly mundane concerns, such as how to translate a relative particle (3:16), to a complicated concern over the role of the prophet (1:12), different circumstances raised different questions, which yielded differing results. This point pushes us back into the linguistic struggle between languages. Most notably, there are no word equivalences between languages. A word choice can evoke similar emotions that are perceived differently between languages and cultures, and therefore “only approximates its synonym without ever replacing it.”14 More often it is not the actual source language (SL) or ST that is causing the translator difficulty but his own, the TT. As Raffel explains: [L]inguistic knowledge is not the best nor even a good road toward successful translation. The translator’s problems are verbal, but it is the words into which he is translating, not those 13 Gregory Rabassa, “No Two Snowflakes Are Alike: Translation as Metaphor,” in The Craft of Translation (eds. John Biguenet and Rainer Schulte; Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1989), 12. 14 John Biguenet and Rainer Schulte, eds., The Craft of Translation (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1989), xiv.

6

Chapter 1: Habakkuk Speaks Greek

from which he is taking his leave, that create his problems. What the translator most needs – always given that minimal standard of merely linguistic achievement – is thus the ability to manipulate and mold the receiving rather than the lending tongue.15

The trained scribe of Ambakoum then faced the challenge of communicating well, rather than simple conformity to a kind of literalism. With this goal in mind, there would then have been a high degree of Greek interference as the teaching of the Hebrew Scriptures was carried over into a foreign language – a new culture. At this stage my point is purely linguistic and not ideological. (What theological ideas existed for the translator sat in the background, of course, but are not core to this point.) At each linguistic level the translator had to make decisions that, more often than not, were concerned with effectively presenting and conveying the message of the ST, without too much attrition to the target language (TL). It is also quite likely that more decisional avenues were opened up because of the multi-lingual environment in which the translation came into existence; there was also contemporaneous lingual flux of the TL. Changes were occurring within Hellenistic Greek throughout this period. What might have previously been considered odd – and frankly unacceptable – ended up as not only permissible, but in some instances quite creative.16 After all, LXX was well received, revealing something of the sociolect of the community in which it was formed. This then lends further credence to the compositional capability of the translator. Incidentally, this point somewhat diminishes concern over how well the translator of Ambakoum knew Hebrew.17 It would seem he knew more than enough to get the job done, but perhaps not enough to breathe the air of the classical language. The transformation process, therefore, encompassed a vast array of literary and cultural features, all of which contributed at different levels and stages of the process. Van der Louw’s excellent inventory enumerates some of the aspects of the process; as research in the field continues, more items need to be added to the cache. In Ambakoum, some of the translational decisions appear to have been crafted so it spat of Greek literary rhetoric. This study is concerned with how one may understand some of the textual evidence of the Septuagint. It amounts to working with the lexical data, nature of the syntax, overall shape of the literature in question, content and context. As the SL and TL are non-isomorphic, there is a high degree of transformation. Yet, there is also another layer of analysis that must be considered. In a number 15

Raffel, The Forked Tongue, 105. See p. 106. 17 Tov is right that translators did guess at some word meanings, misread others, etc., but the gravity of this is much less significant, which has real implications for using the Septuagint for MT textual criticism. Cf. Emanuel Tov, “Did The Septuagint Translators Always Understand their Hebrew Text?” in De Septuaginta. Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on his sixty-fifth birthday (eds. Albert Pietersma and Claude E. Cox; Mississauga: Benben Publications, 1984), 53–70. 16

1.1 Introduction

7

of instances in Ambakoum, there are strong linguistic connections that appear to allude to other parts of scripture.18 Such relationships can be quite tough to pin down, especially for the modern scholar. Quite simply, allusions between collated texts can make sense to one person and not another. It is like seeing faces and shapes in the clouds; a friend says to the other, “Look at that cloud! It looks like an old man’s face,” and the friend replies, “Where? I don’t see it.” So it sometimes is with inner-biblical allusions. On this basis, I tread slowly and carefully forward. Inner-biblical allusions can be found between both MT and OG texts (Septuagintal connections often must be chronologically aligned). This means that an OG text can have allusive qualities to a context of MT, which may also include Septuagintal thematic content in each respect. It is a symbiotic relationship that may exist within a large corpus of literature (HB) and with its translational representative (LXX/OG) by those who know both. So, a multilingual scribe of living and academic languages would have more decisional pathways along which to interpret his text. Knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek texts, in conjunction with a reading tradition of the day, might then affect the transformation process in an unexpected way. For example, consider the relationship between MT Job 19:7 and Amb 1:2. In the latter text, the prophet suffers, which is not true of Hab 1:2: Hab 1:2 Amb 1:2 MT Job 19:7

‫אזעק אליך חמס ולא תושיע‬ βοήσομαι καὶ πρὸς σὲ ἀδικούμενος καὶ οὐ σώσεις; ‫הן אזעק חמס ולא אענה \ אשוע ואין משפט‬

However, Hab 1:2 has lexica that correspond with the lexica of MT Job 19:7, where Job complains about his suffering. Literarily speaking, Ambakoum suffers, which may be due to both the inner-biblical connection of Hab 1:2 with MT Job 19:7 and also to the immediate context of Amb 1:2 – the lack of justice and deliverance (1:2–4). This connection is also in spite of the differences that exist with OG Job 19:7. Therefore, there is an allusion to the unjust suffering of the righteous in MT Job 19:7 with Amb 1:2. Allusions are related to conceptual realms, which in this kind of literature are often linked to theological constructs. Of course the scribe had theological ideas, but these were partly shaped by his ST and his religious tradition. There 18 An allusion can be understood through the recurrence of a general theme that is connected by either the repetition of the same or synonymous lexica (maybe with different vocabulary) that evokes similar ideas in another text that are derived from an earlier one. The sharing of lexica rather than vocabulary (pace Stead) gives the author more strength to his argument. Without such, it would seem that only the weight of much circumstantial data can prove a connected thematic allusion. Cf. Michael R. Stead, The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1–8 (LHBOTS 506; eds. Claudia V. Camp and Andrew Mein; New York; London: T&T Clark, 2009), 19–21, 37–9.

8

Chapter 1: Habakkuk Speaks Greek

really is no evidence to prove that he sought to shape his TT in a way that was alien to the ST. In fact, it is much more likely that he never even considered, especially in the modern sense, any kind of modifications that were not acceptable. This means that there was not, specifically for Ambakoum, a widescale attempt to meddle with the teaching of the ST. Baer has helpfully provided three different levels on which translators thought themselves authorised to modify their texts.19 Ambakoum shows some evidence of these kinds of authorisation. This places the translator of Ambakoum in a tradition very similar to, if not the same as, the tradition expressed by Baer. Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that the translator integrated alien ideas, a sort of intelligent re-designing of the text and its message.20 In sum, the translator of Ambakoum was an astute scribe who knew both Greek, Aramaic, and perhaps also Egyptian,21 with an academic grasp of Classical Hebrew. He sought to draw out the meaning of his ST without much loss to the communicative quality of the TL, during the process of creating his TT. Chapter two explains that a number of influences may have caused him to make the decisions that he did.

1.2 Provenance of the Old Greek (OG) As Orlinsky and Bratcher rightly noted, LXX came into existence through linguistic necessity more than anything else.22 While remaining in the Land would never have truly guarded against inter-lingual diffusion – let alone the natural evolution of any language – the simple nature of the Diaspora, along with the central and governing textual tradition, meant that, at some point, communication in a different language(s) would become a reality. And so it did. The creation of a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures had much to do with the new cultural situation of its hearers, no less its scribal overseers.23 19

See p. 36. Thanks to Peter J. Williams for drawing my attention to this. 21 The translators were likely native speakers of at least two languages (Aramaic and Greek), perhaps three (Egyptian), cf. Sebastian P. Brock, “The Phenomenon of Biblical Translation in Antiquity,” in Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations (ed. Harry M. Orlinsky; New York: Ktav Publishing, 1974); Jan Joosten, “A Syntactic Aramaism in the LXX: ἰδού in temporal expressions,” JSCS 45 (2012): 44. 22 See Harry M. Orlinsky and Robert G. Bratcher, A History of Bible Translation and the North American Contribution (SBLCP; eds. Paul J. Achtemeier et al.; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1991), 1–5; Morton Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics (ALHR 9; New York; London: Columbia University Press, 1971), 57–81; Thackeray, A Grammar of the OT in Greek, 28–9. 23 The translation was likely not just for pedagogic or linguistic reasons, but also culturally (politically) necessary. Cf. Tessa Rajak, Translation and Survival. The Greek 20

1.2 Provenance of the Old Greek (OG)

9

The necessity of the translational effort further implies the central authority and importance of the textual tradition for its religious adherents. It is commonly held that LXX was first translated some time in the late third century.24 On the heels of this came the translation of other significant corpora, which are not necessarily in the order one might expect. This alternate ordering may have indicated priority for a community. This being true, the Twelve was of high priority.25 It was translated around the same time as Isaiah and the Psalter in the early-to-middle second century.26 There are no superscripts, notes, marginalia, etc., to indicate precisely when and where the Twelve was translated. It must be derived by other means. Ambakoum may be dated through a number of different ways.27 Its place in the unified corpus of the Twelve, which was considered a literary unity as far back as Ben Sira,28 means that what is true for the Twelve is true of Ambakoum in respect to dating. On the one hand, the translation has to come after LXX, which was created sometime before the second century; yet, on the other hand, it has to have been made before the well-known Levantine redaction (8ḤevXIIgr), mid-to-late in the first century. 29 Hence, it would also be necessary to allow some time for concerns related to this translation to arise before embarking on a revisionary activity, which was not meant to be a new translation.30 This leaves a period of about 100 years or so in which to place the original translation of Ambakoum. Working from the belief that Isaiah was perhaps the first prophet to be translated after LXX,31 we can narrow down a little more on the timing of Ambakoum. There is a number of shared vocabulary between Isaiah, the Bible and the Ancient Jewish Diaspora (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 30–4; John Wm. Wevers, “An Apologia for Septuagint Studies,” BIOSCS 18 (1985): 16–7; Jennifer M. Dines, The Septuagint (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 28–30. 24 See Marguerite Harl et al., eds., La Genèse (BdA 1; Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1994), 7; Gilles Dorival, Marguerite Harl, and Olivier Munnich, La Bible grecque des Septante (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1988), 93; John Wm. Wevers, “Barthélemy and ProtoSeptuagint Studies,” BIOSCS 21 (1988): 24; Karen H. Jobes and Moisés Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000), 31. 25 A similar perspective is illustrative from the Qumran community, see Takamitsu Muraoka, “Introduction aux douze petites prophètes,” in Les Douze Prophètes (trans. Jan Joosten; eds. Marguerite Harl et al.; BdA 23.1; Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2002), ii. 26 See Dorival, Harl, and Munnich, La Bible grecque, 110–2. 27 Dorival’s three points are helpful: first, particular use of vocabulary; second, historical allusions; and, third, the translation procedure. See ibid., 93–4. 28 See Muraoka, “Introduction aux XII,” ii–iii. 29 This might have been as late as the first-century C.E., cf. James K. Aitken, “The Origins of ΚΑΙ ΓΕ,” in Biblical Greek in Context (eds. James K. Aitken and T. V. Evans; Leuven: Peeters, 2015). 30 See Muraoka, “Introduction aux XII,” viii. 31 See Thackeray, “The Greek Translators of the Prophetical Books,” 585.

10

Chapter 1: Habakkuk Speaks Greek

Psalter and the Twelve. This implies some degree of shared ideas, which is particularly true of Ambakoum.32 Thackeray argued for confluence between Ezek α and γ, in addition to Jer α.33 All this data does seem to point to, at least, translators working out of the same kinds of thoughts, ideas and stylistic concerns, thus placing them together in either the same school of thought or place – Thackeray called them les collaborateurs.34 Seeligmann also sees some dependence on Isaiah in the work of the Twelve.35 Therefore, this data, and in agreement with a number of scholars,36 indicates a date sometime in the earlyto-middle part of the second century.37

32 This is evident from: the use of Ἀραβία in 1:8 (see p. 125) and the use of πυξίον in 2:3. In addition, use of the eschatologically charged word συντέλεια, which is used throughout Psalter, is used in the same way within Amb. Schaper is right about the theological connection of this word, but does, however, on tenuous grounds (heavy dependence on one word, βᾶρις, an argument supported by van der Kooij, but rejected recently by Aitken; certain Rabbinic exegetical methods; and an eschatological interpretation of Moab) try to place its translation to somewhere in the Levant. Cf. Joachim Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter (WUNT 76; eds. Martin Hengel and Otfried Hofius; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1995), 34–45; 65–8; Arie van der Kooij, “On the Place of Origin of the Old Greek of Psalms,” VT 33, no. 1 (1983): 70–1; James K. Aitken, No Stone Unturned. Greek Inscriptions and Septuagint Vocabulary (CSHB 5; eds. Anselm C. Hagedorn, Nathan MacDonald, and Stuart Weeks; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2014), 92–5. 33 See Henry St John Thackeray, “The Greek Translators of Ezekiel,” JTS 3 (1903): 399; Thackeray, “The Greek Translators of the Prophetical Books,” 578. 34 See Thackeray, “The Greek Translators of the Prophetical Books,” 579. Also, cf. Jennifer M. Dines, “The Minor Prophets,” in T&T Companion to the Septuagint (ed. James K. Aitken; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 241. 35 See Isaac L. Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of Its Problems (Leiden: Brill, 1948), 73. See also p. 125. 36 See Dorival, Harl, and Munnich, La Bible grecque, 93, 111; Dines, The Septuagint, 46. 37 Additional support may also be drawn from Lee’s lexical analysis. The dominance of ὁράω (pres.) over βλέπω, and that of βοάω and κράζω, in the Twelve, indicates an early date in the second century. As he postulates, the evidence shows that LXX may, based on the lexical study, be consistently dated to the third century. The use of βλέπω in the poetic texts of the Twelve indicates an early date. See John A. L. Lee, A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch (SCS 14; ed. Harry M. Orlinsky; Chico, Cal.: Scholars Press, 1983), 129–44.

1.2 Provenance of the Old Greek (OG)

11

It is commonly believed that the Twelve was translated in Alexandria,38 and by one hand,39 something with which Howard40 and Harrison41 disagree. The place of translation is commonly understood by what appears to be a lack of knowledge concerning non-Egyptian toponyms,42 and also from evidence that Theocharous calls “techniques attested in Alexandrian world-analysis.”43 There is also some evidence to support a possible difference in Vorlage for the translator of the Twelve.44 The differences are not great,45 and some Greek variants can now be supported from discovered Hebrew texts.46 There seems to have been a fairly high degree of textual stability at these early stages.47 38

Dines points out that this has not been seriously challenged, and I add that evidence from continued research does seem to point towards an Alexandrian locale. Theocharous sees Alexandrian translation technique at home in the Twelve. And Aitken recently argued that the combination of Egyptian linguistic features and Aramaic word equivalents confirm at least that Egypt was the setting. See Jennifer M. Dines, “The Septuagint of Amos. A Study in Interpretation,” (PhD diss., University of London, 1991), 313; Dines, The Septuagint, 42; Myrto Theocharous, Lexical Dependence and Intertextual Allusion in the Septuagint and the Twelve Prophets. Studies in Hosea, Amos and Micah (LHBOTS 7; ed. R. P. Gordon; London: T&T Clark, 2012), 17; James K. Aitken, “Introduction,” in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint (ed. James K. Aitken; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 3. 39 See Jennifer M. Dines, “Was LXX Pentateuch a Style-Setter for LXX Minor Prophets?” in XIV Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Helsinki, 2010 (ed. Melvin K. H. Peters; SCS 59; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), 397; Theocharous, Lexical Dependence, 8; Takamitsu Muraoka, “In Defence of the Unity of the Septuagint Minor Prophets,” AJBI 15 (1989): 25–34; Takamitsu Muraoka, “Hosea IV in the Septuagint Version,” AJBI 9 (1983): 40; James Karol Palmer, “‘Not Made with Tracing Paper.’ Studies in the Septuagint of Zechariah,” (PhD diss., Cambridge University, 2004), 17; Joseph Ziegler, Sylloge. Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Septuaginta (MSU 10; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), [37]11, [41]15. 40 Cf. George E. Howard, “Some Notes on the Septuagint of Amos,” VT 20 (1970): 108– 12. 41 Cf. Robert C. Harrison, “The Unity of the Minor Prophets in the LXX: A Reexamination of the Question,” BIOSCS 21 (1988): 55–72. 42 See p. 125. 43 Theocharous, Lexical Dependence, 17. 44 See ibid., 9; Edward W. Glenny, Finding Meaning in the Text: Translation Technique and Theology in the Septuagint of Amos (VTSup 126; eds. H. M. Barstad et al.; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2009), 13–4. 45 Fuller’s analysis of Hosea, and its related evidence from Qumran, led him to conclude: “it is clear that the majority of Hebrew manuscripts of the XII discovered in cave IV are closer to the Greek tradition or family than to the tradition or family of M.” See Russel E. Fuller, “Textual Traditions in the Book of Hosea and the Minor Prophets,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress (eds. Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner; STDS 1, Brill: Leiden, 1992), 253. See also n. 65. 46 See Jan Joosten, “Exegesis in the Septuagint Version of Hosea,” in Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel (ed. Johannes C. de Moor; OS 40; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 63. 47 Cf. Jan Joosten, “A Septuagintal Translation Technique in the Minor Prophets: The Elimination of Verbal Repetions,” in Interpreting Translation: Studies in the LXX and

12

Chapter 1: Habakkuk Speaks Greek

The earliest exemplar for Ambakoum is GW, dated to around the third century C.E.48 Ambakoum is also represented in five more majuscule texts (i.e. GA.B.Q.S.V),49 though the Twelve have different canonical orders.50 The relationship between these MSS is still undetermined.51 The eclectic text of Ziegler (1984) is used in this study with some minor modifications.52

1.3 Later Greek Revisions A proper analysis of the later Greek revisions of the Septuagint would go far beyond the scope of this study. Yet, because of the influence of OG and the clear development of ancient views on translational style(s), a brief discussion

Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust (eds. Florentino García Martínez, Marc Vervenne, and B. Doyle; BETL 192; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005), 222. Also, Harper suggests that, “[t]he relationship may be similar to that between MT and the text of Habakkuk in 1QpHab,” cf. Joshua L. Harper, Responding to a Puzzled Scribe. The Barberini Version of Habakkuk 3 Analysed in Light of the Other Greek Versions (LHBOTS 608; ed. R. P. Gordon; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 11. 48 Cf. Carl Schmidt and Henry Arthur Sanders, The Minor Prophets in the Freer Collection and the Berlin Fragment of Genesis (New York; London: The Macmillan Co., 1927), 7. Also, as an exemplar prior to the Hexapla, it provides some insight into the use of OG in Alexandria of that period. 49 There are also a number of minuscules in which the Twelve may be found, see Joseph Ziegler, ed., Duodecim prophetae (Septuaginta 13; 3d rev. ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 8–12. 50 GS follows MT; GA.B.Q.W = Hos, Amos, Mic, Joel, Obad, Jonah, Nah, Hab, Zeph, Hag, Zach, Mal; GV = Hos, Amos, Joel, Obad, Jon, and Mic. There are also other variations among the Greek Fathers, see Muraoka, “Introduction aux XII,” v–vi. Variation is observed in the first six books of the collection, notwithstanding their placement in the biblical canon. Dines (What Are They Saying?) notes that these different orders are, however, stable, which I take to mean that there is no fluidity, i.e. they cannot be in any order anyone wishes, but have been ordered with specific intention within each MS type. It may be that the order was the result of later changes, with the Twelve being originally translated in the order of MT, something to which 8ḤevXIIgr would “be the earliest witness” (Dines, Verbal and Thematic Links). Later canonical shapes indicate that “there may have been a plurality of versions circulating together.” See Jennifer M. Dines, “What Are They Saying About the Minor Prophets?” SB 42, no. 1 (2012): 3, and n. 14; Jennifer M. Dines, “Verbal and Thematic Links between the Books of the Twelve in Greek and Their Relevance to the Differing Manuscript Sequences,” in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations – Redactional Processes – Historical Insights (eds. Rainer Albertz, James D. Nogalski, and Jakob Wöhrle; BZAW 433; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), 363–4. 51 See Muraoka, “Introduction aux XII,” vii. 52 See Ziegler, ed., Duodecim prophetae, 261–75. Also, Barb may have been the first retranslation (recension) of OG that we have, cf. Harper, Puzzled Scribe, 9.

1.3 Later Greek Revisions

13

is offered here.53 Now, in the centuries that followed the first translation of Ambakoum numerous editions of the text emerged. In a way, the initial translation became a theological and linguistic canon by which to measure later works. But this only went so far because later concerns clearly seem to be centred on the nature of the translation in light of MT. Later revisions would have operated within a minimal paradigm of: OG version(s), MT (in some cases proto-MT) and the new TT.54 I think this basic framework is important to point out because later translators would have had some version of OG in view while they worked. The respective text would have been close to any one of the major exemplars, depending on a number of factors. The difference, then, between a recension, revision and version, is also important to recognise.55 The first evidence of revisionary activity on the Septuagint is the different Greek version of a large portion of the Minor Prophets, dating to the end of the first century.56 This is a very fragmentary scroll that was found in cave eight in Naḥal Ḥever (8ḤevXIIgr).57 It would have in its original state been about 10m in length, and was the work of at least two scribes.58 It showed that there was a development in how the interpretation of the proto-MT was rendered into its TT. This was part of what Barthélemy rightly argued was a καίγε recensional 53 I will only take a cursory look at the most well-known Greek translations. The point here is to show that OG was important throughout its transmissions as the work of the earliest translators, and to also to demonstrate that later translations were made in light of it, even if in conformity to a developing Hebrew textual tradition. 54 From a maximal standpoint, a later recensor would have perhaps had more than one copy of OG or proto-MT. As the years rolled on, possibilities for the paradigm would be expanded, as seen in GL, see p. 17. 55 Discussing this difference, Wevers notes that, first, with a recension “the text being revised must be identifiable, must shine through…[it is] a revision of an existing text.” Therefore, second, “a recension is a standard used for determining what needs revision and what can be left unrevised.” And third, there must be a degree of continuity between both texts. See Wevers, “Barthélemy and Proto-Septuagint Studies,” 33–4. 56 See Emanuel Tov, Robert A. Kraft, and P. J. Parsons, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Naḥal Ḥever (8ḤevXIIgr) (The Seiyâl Collection, I) (DJD 8; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), 19–26. 57 Cf. Dominique Barthélemy, “Redécouverte d’un chaînon manquant de l’histoire de la Septante,” RB 60 (1953): 19–20; Robert A. Kraft, “Review of ‘Les Devanciers d’Aquila by Dominique Barthélemy’,” Gnomon 37 (1965): 475. The cave was first called the “Cave of Horrors” because human remains were found there. It has since been concluded that the people who hid in the cave were likely burned alive by vats of burning oil, thrown into the cave by their attackers. The only known survivors were bits of damaged parchment. 58 See Tov, Kraft, and Parsons, DJD 8, 8–9, 14; 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 les traductions et recensions grecques de la Bible réalisées au premier siècle de notre ère sous l’influence du rabbinat palestinien. (VTSup 10; eds. G. W. Anderson et al.; Leiden: Brill, 1963), 164–5.

14

Chapter 1: Habakkuk Speaks Greek

activity. It sought to bring the OG translation into conformity with certain literary and translational ideals, which were not the same as those of the OG translator. These details are not to be rehashed here, except to point out that since his “epoch-making”59 work, a number of his conclusions have been refined.60 Although 8ḤevXIIgr was a revision of OG towards the proto-MT, it retained significant continuity with the OG text. There are similarities and dissimilarities, which mark R’s style and viewpoint to some degree. As Tov noted, there was a “special relationship between the two translations which is explained here in terms of a translation and its revision.”61 A comparison of R with Amb shows a number of verbal and lexical affinities.62 What R reveals is a later tradition that had different concerns. It is also likely that, as a result, theological persuasions were drawn back to a less free reading of the protoMT, rather than the slightly more interpretative character of OG. What is noteworthy is that (aside from Barb) the first overhaul of the Twelve was a revision, not a new translation. Continuity with OG appears to have been quite important.63

59

Sidney Jellicoe, “Some Reflections on the ΚΑΙΓΕ Recension,” VT 23 (1973): 15. See Leonard J. Greenspoon, “Recensions, Revisions, Rabbinics: Dominique Barthélemy and Early Developments in the Greek Traditions,” Textus 15 (1990): 153–167; Wevers, “Barthélemy and Proto-Septuagint Studies,” 33–4; Geza Vermes, “A Review of: Devanciers d’Aquila,” JSS II (1966): 261–4; Natalio Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context. Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible (trans. Wilfred G. E. Watson; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 152–3. 61 Tov, Kraft, and Parsons, DJD 8, 104. 62 There is greater consistency by R to match verbal tense with what appears to be a “fixed system” for corresponding with the Hebrew. This is more frequent when the conjugation is yiqtol or weyiqtol. In the latter case, the translator of OG and R both read a number of wayyiqtol as weyiqtol, with a number of differences in lexical choice. There may have been an alternate vocalisation system at different points of the text. The qatal is the more frequent form in Habakkuk. As a result of a similar vocalisation system between OG and R passages such as 2:3–5 retain similar verbal aspect, notwithstanding changes in grammatical number. See ibid., 120–6. 63 Details from the Letter of Aristeas come to mind. Changing the translation would have violated the injunction (διαράσασθαι) made against those who might add (προστίθημι), modify (μεταφορέω) or delete (ἀφαίρεσις) any part of the Hellenistic text. But in the same way that scribes thought themselves warranted to make certain changes to their Hebrew Scriptures, some modifications were then likely deemed not only permissible but also necessary in light of later concerns. The standardisation of the Hebrew Scriptures became increasingly important in the tradition. Cf. Rajak, Translation and Survival, 139–42; Henry Barclay Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (2d ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902), 572. 60

1.3 Later Greek Revisions

15

1.3.1 Hexaplaric Versions Origen’s Hexapla was a very early and comprehensive attempt to interact critically with the OT texts of his day. By placing in parallel the different Greek text-types with his received Hebrew text, he sought to provide a critical Greek text for the Christian tradition. It was to account for the differences between the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures. Unfortunately, our access to this data is through fragmentary MSS and citations from Church Fathers.64 Versions of the translation of Habakkuk reveal a base text that would be quite similar to MT.65 In addition to The Three, i.e. α´, σ´ and θ´, the text in the respective commentaries of Jerome, Cyril of Jerusalem, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Augustine, along with the Syro-Hexaplar, are important to mention. Field made extensive use of the Syriac in an attempt to reconstruct parts of his monumental work.66 Such retroversions are, however, not without their difficulties.67 The Aquilan version (α´) of OG was produced by its namesake, a Jewish convert from Christianity who lived during the reign of Emperor Hadrian (117– 138 C.E.).68 He is also by tradition the author of Tg. Onqelos, perhaps also indicating his new Jewish name.69 He was a disciple of Aqiba and his translation of the Septuagint dates around the middle of the second century (terminus post quem 140 C.E.).70 Fernández Marcos calls α´ (the third column of the Hexapla) a “calque-translation” with “Semitised syntax.” 71 It has also been called morphemic, which “logically arises from reverence for the sanctity of the original’s Wortlaut.”72 This assessment is commonly understood by his so-called very literalistic approach towards morphosyntactic and lexical choices.73 His style appears to have imported rabbinical exegetical ideas into the translation, thus correcting perceived deficiencies by that Jewish community. It became a standard text for Jewish Greek-speaking readers, and was used for centuries afterwards. There are numerous α´ readings for parts of 64

See Jobes and Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, 37–8. See Theocharous, Lexical Dependence, 9–10. 66 See Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, 115. 67 For example, as Jobes and Silva pointed out, retroversion from Coptic to Greek is made difficult by the fact that the Coptic verb system has only an act. voice, see Jobes and Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, 67. 68 See Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, 111. 69 See ibid., 112. 70 Fernández Marcos argues that because he would have had to learn Heb. as an adult, and become familiar with rabbinic interpretation, he would unlikely have finished his task before 140 C.E. See Jobes and Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, 39; Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, 112. 71 Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, 109, 115. 72 Quoting Vermeer, cf. van der Louw, Transformations in the Septuagint, 11. 73 Two very well-known examples are: Gen 1:1, ἐν κεφαλαίῳ for ‫ ;בראשית‬or his common use of σύν for the definite object marker ‫את‬. 65

16

Chapter 1: Habakkuk Speaks Greek

Ambakoum. From the available evidence, it appears to be the most divergent of The Three, and, notwithstanding synonymous lexical choices (i.e. Amb 2:3, 11, 15. 17; 3:3, 11, 14), or close syntax (Amb 2:4; 3:2, 5, 13), only once agrees exactly with Ambakoum (Amb 3:3).74 There is also some indication that his translation registered certain classical Greek features, which, as study in this area progresses, may lower the degree of calque-specific critiques75 – preceived as “barbarism.”76 The fourth column of the Hexapla is attributed to Symmachus (σ´). Not much is known about him, and Salvesen thinks that he knew both α´ and θ´.77 Although a revision of the Septuagint, “his respect for the LXX [Septuagint] is evident…preserving smooth diction where he found it and extending it where it was absent.”78 His style was “midway between Aquila and the Septuagint.” 79 This can be seen in how he sometimes follows α´ (Amb 1:13; 2:2, 3; 3:1),80 but at other points remains close to OG, though with varying degrees of linguistic variation (Amb 2:11, 17; 3:2). Often changes in his lexical choices (Amb 2:2, 9) remain within the same semantic domain as OG, revealing something of his stylistic tendency. The idea of a third version written in the first century C.E. by Theodotion (θ´), a Jewish proselyte from Asia Minor,81 is probably incorrect. The sixth column of the Hexapla probably points to a much earlier revision, now commonly called proto- or καίγε-Theodotion (so Barthélemy), which would have been in circulation at least a century earlier, making it one of the earliest revisions of OG.82 This detail might have in some way been understood by Origen, hence it was placed after OG, and not after σ´.83 This theory implies that later revisionists may have had both OG and θ´ in hand, along with MT.84 74 Sometimes obscurity might have also afflicted his understanding, for example his choice of μᾶζα for ‫ כפיס‬in Amb 2:11. 75 Cf. James K. Aitken, “Rhetoric and Poetry in Greek Ecclesiastes,” BIOSCS 38 (2005): 55–6; Aitken, “Lessons for Modern Translation Theory.” 76 Wevers, “Barthélemy and Proto-Septuagint Studies,” 34. 77 Quoting Salvesen, see Jobes and Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, 41. 78 Ibid. 79 Ibid. 80 Leonard Greenspoon has argued that Symmachus was revising θ´. Cf. Ibid., n. 28. 81 Even this is in dispute. Jerome believed him to be an Ebionite (so Fernández Marcos), and Barthélemy argued in favour of Irenaeus’s view that he was the same person as Jonathan ben ‘Uziel, author of Tg. Jonathan. Cf. Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, 142– 3; Barthélemy, Les devanciers, 148–56. 82 Cf. Jobes and Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, 42. 83 But as Fernández Marcos points out, this may just as well been due to the character of the text, being closer to GA. Cf. Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, 143. 84 See Jobes and Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, 42. This was also likely true for the author of θ´ because he completed the rest of the book of Job, which is in sequence with MT. See Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, 143.

1.3 Later Greek Revisions

17

This work is characterised by transliteration, which might have been an influence for α´, and, what Fernández Marcos calls, “slight Hebraising.”85 1.3.2 Lucianic Recension The Lucianic recension (GL) was an Antiochene translation of the Old and New Testaments.86 The traditional author of this work was the Christian martyr Lucian of Antioch who died, ca. 312 C.E., in the persecution of Maximus.87 His work was very significant and he may have been influenced “by the method and results of Origen’s Hexapla”88 – an influence that Jerome tacitly supports in defence of Lucian’s Psalter.89 Also, a large number of MSS for the Twelve seem to be GL.90 Similar to the proto-Theodotion evidence, some aspects of GL appear to predate it.91 Two main guiding principles are deduced from his style: first, to correct the current text to a Hebrew Vorlage;92 and second, to introduce uniformity and explain elements that might otherwise appear obscure.93 Postdating The Three, he would have been able to style his recension in light of other previous versions. The result was to correct forms by using Attic Greek, for example: use of the second aorist third person plural – ον;94 use of the middle for passive γίνεσθαι, etc.;95 “interpolations,” which smoothed out the reading or sense of the passage,96 hence his style was close to σ´ (these 85

Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, 148. Cf. Jobes and Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, 53–6; Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, 223–38; Frederick Field, AA. M. and Bernard de Montfaucon, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt; sive, Veterum interpretum Graecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum fragmenta. Post Flaminium Nobilium, Drusium, et Montefalconium, adhibita etiam versione Syro-Hexaplari, concinnavit, emendavit, et multis partibus auxit. (2 vols.; vol. 1 & 2; Oxonii: Oxonii Typographeo Clarendoniano, 1875), 1:LXXXIV–XCIV; Swete, Intro to the OT in Greek, 80–86; Dorival, Harl, and Munnich, La Bible grecque, 168–71; Bruce M. Metzger, Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism (NTTS 4; ed. Bruce M. Metzger; Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1963), 7–14. 87 See Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historical Writings, etc. (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers; vol. 3; 2d ed.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), 378. 88 Edwin M. Good, “The Text and Versions of Habakkuk 3. A Study in Textual History,” (PhD diss., Columbia University, 1965), 82. 89 See Metzger, Chapters in the History of NT Text. Crit., 5. 90 Good, “The Text and Versions of Habakkuk 3,” 87. 91 Cf. Metzger, Chapters in the History of NT Text. Crit., 5; Harper, Puzzled Scribe, 18. On MSS, cf. Good, “The Text and Versions of Habakkuk 3,” 82; Ziegler, ed., Duodecim prophetae, 70–80. 92 See Metzger, Chapters in the History of NT Text. Crit., 6, 8. 93 See Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, 230–1. 94 See ibid., 231. 95 See ibid. 96 See ibid., 230. 86

18

Chapter 1: Habakkuk Speaks Greek

points seem to want to reduce influence of poor grammar resulting from Hebraic interference); and various theological re-writes. 97 Fernández Marcos thinks this latter feature might have been for public reading.98 There are some GL readings in the recension attributed to him for Ambakoum (1:5; 2:7),99 which are marked by the siglum λ̣ in the relevant Greek MSS,100 notably cod. 86.101 1.3.3 Summary Conclusion The influence of OG is apparent in the numerous versions that followed, even though later translators held to translational ideals that were not the same as the original translator(s). It seems that these later versions/recensions worked with a copy of OG. Because translators were concerned with a particular kind of faithfulness to their Vorlage, in dialogue with OG, as they sought to bring over the meaning into a respective TT, the text-critical usefulness of OG for MT is somewhat diminished: To render a Hebrew text into Greek was to interpret it. Competing interpretations much later down the road simply muddy the text-critical waters.

1.4 Translation Studies and the Septuagint Every translation undergoes a process of linguistic transformation. This is a challenge that every translator in every age must face.102 The translators of the Septuagint were no exception. What has become known as literalism in the Septuagint is a way to describe an aspect of the style, or technique, that they 97 There is also a tendency to simplify compound words, also known as moving from composita to simplex verbal forms. This stylistic measure is similar to the work of R. Cf. Ibid. 98 See ibid., 231. 99 See Ziegler, ed., Duodecim prophetae, 70; Field and Montfaucon, Origenis Hexaplorum, 1003–11. These corrections can here be understood in light of the stylistic nature explained above, i.e. Amb 3:7 (Atticism), 10 (MT conformity), 18 (theologising). 100 It has been determined that in fact it was more than a siglum that marked GL readings. As Field, and later Metzger, pointed out, in various Greek MSS, the shorthand οἱ λοιποί indicates Λουκιανός, which then refers to καὶ λ̣ – the Lucianic reference marker (the mark under the lamed is an open circle, not a solid dot). In the Syro-Hexaplar this was done using the lomadh ‫ܠ‬. Cf. Field and Montfaucon, Origenis Hexaplorum, 1003; Metzger, Chapters in the History of NT Text. Crit., 8; Jobes and Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, 54. 101 The VTG reading (εξαναςησονται [sic.]) does not agreed with Field (ἐξυπνισθήσονται) in cod. 86 for the reference in Amb 2:7. Cf. Field and Montfaucon, Origenis Hexaplorum, 1005. Also, a GL reading in agreement with Ambakoum is found in 2:7 (εἰς διαρπαγήν / αὐτοῖς), cf. Ziegler, ed., Duodecim prophetae, 71. 102 See van der Louw, Transformations in the Septuagint, 57.

1.4 Translation Studies and the Septuagint

19

used. When they did not follow these specific (now pre-defined) categories, they did not lapse or stray into the realm of freer renderings. The picture is more comprehensive and complex. It is quite unlikely that they even thought in such a paradigm. Their system might be irretrievable from the data at hand. Moreover, the work of the Septuagint was accomplished by translators of differing linguistic abilities and stylistic proclivities, which spanned centuries and probably regions. In recent years, strides have been made to bridge the distance between formal translation studies, which is inherently tied to theorectical linguistics, and that of Septuagintal studies. Scholars are increasingly aware of the importance that formal translation and linguistic studies play in the study of the Septuagint. As a related field, it has much to offer the analyst. It is also not simply a matter of having more tools in one’s toolbox. Some evidence requires a paradigmatic shift through which to understand it aright. As interdisciplinary fields, the Septuagint offers much in return, contributing to the body of knowledge within translation studies through advancing “the knowledge of translation practice in pre-Ciceronian antiquity.”103 A number of scholars have made different and valuable contributions in this area.104 On the one hand, there is the attempt to show how the transformation process can explain a number of text critical features. In this regard the process is able to provide insight into the nature of the change without delving too much into linguistic theories. On the other hand, scholars (mostly those working in the field of linguistics) have broached the problem of how to transform a ST into a meaningful text for a new culture, and therefore language. In this approach there is much theorising, but it may pay dividends if rightly applied. 1.4.1 Linguistic Transformations Van der Louw’s work on transformations, published in 2007, has done a splendid job at moving forward this conversation between translation studies and the Septuagint. The slow but steady influence of the various branches of linguistics, process-orientated research (Rabin’s dragoman concept), corpusbased translation studies (translation specific features using computers), the functionalist approach (Skoposadäquat), communication-orientated studies 103

Ibid., 12. See also p. 80. See Randall X. Gauthier, “Toward an LXX Hermeneutic,” JNSL 35, no. 1 (2009): 45– 74; van der Louw, Transformations in the Septuagint; Albert Pietersma, “LXX and DTS: A New Archimedean Point for Septuagint Studies?” BIOSCS 39 (2006): 1–11; Gideon Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies – and beyond (Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2012); 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): 12–25. 104

20

Chapter 1: Habakkuk Speaks Greek

(Nida, Gutt, et al.)105 and – quite importantly – Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS), stand to benefit Septuagintal studies in different ways.106 With respect to DTS, and in conjunction with the Leiden conference in 2004, scholars in the field are now aware of its particular benefits for Septuagint study.107 For the most part, understanding the nature of the translational approaches across the numerous Septuagintal books has been done by way of its linguistic mooring to the ST. What DTS has done is provide a way to understand translations as cultural artefacts: they are “facts of the culture that would host them.”108 The contextual nature of the translation, which seriously takes into account the cultural/linguistic other-world, is essential, so that “no translation should ever be studied outside of the context in which it came into being.”109 Such summary conclusions, as van der Louw quickly points out, indicate that the Septuagint had a certain degree of immediate acceptability.110 Its textual and literary nature was not only justifiable, but also preferable than, say, a modern-orientated free or paraphrastic approach. What we see today, bearing in mind Conybeare and Stock’s famous point that the Septuagint is merely Greek vocabulary in Hebrew syntax,111 was in fact very intentional – and numerous reasons attributed to the phenomena. A source feature, such as syntagmatic correspondence, is part of the interference from the source. The translator’s attempts to improvise or adapt to the numerous linguistic details of the text were by and large to do with the target culture and its verbal (textual) expression, not the other way round.

105 Cf. Eugene A. Nida and Charles R. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation (HT 8; 2d ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1982). 106 The ideological orientated approach appears more rash than helpful. This list is reproduced here from van der Louw, Transformations in the Septuagint, 13–23. 107 Gideon Toury is probably the most well-known proponent of DTS. His work on moving this area of study forward is remarkably helpful. DTS, as a formal descriptive branch of the empirical science of translation studies, seeks “to confront the position a certain translation…has actually assumed in the host culture with the position it was intended to have, and offer explanations for the perceived differences.” Whereas van der Louw’s inventory of transformations is concerned with what has occurred in the specific translation (the act of translation, which involves a number of different types of translational decisions), Toury provides a descriptive framework for the evidence. DTS connects to the theoretical aspect of translation studies through the nature of the act itself. There is no such thing as a translation act without an applied theory, whether stated or implied; hence, the theory and the act work together. See Toury, DTS – and beyond, 8–9. 108 Ibid., 18. 109 Ibid., 22. 110 Also cf. James K. Aitken, “The Language of the Septuagint: Recent Theories, Future Prospects,” BJGS 24 (1999): 27–8. 111 Cf. F. C. Conybeare and George St Stock, Selections from the Septuagint. According to the Text of Swete (London: Ginn & Company, 1905), §38.

1.4 Translation Studies and the Septuagint

21

1.4.2 Relevance Theory Another, but lesser known, applied translation theory is Relevance Theory (RT). This influence from the humanities (i.e. Sperber & Wilson) has been adapted to the translation of biblical texts,112 and has been applied elsewhere to the Septuagint with some success.113 Because it involves an analysis of the translator’s cognitive process, it shares something in common with processorientated research. RT is a model for understanding the psychology of communication. It provides a framework that explains how an act of communication is meant to be understood by a person or group to another. The efficiency of the communicative process is in view, and there is an appreciable optimisation of the communicative act, whereby the communicator adapts the verbal message according to the new situation.114 RT gets behind the translation process and seeks to explain why a translator sought to use a certain verbal (in the linguistic sense) structure in order to communicate a message. The mental processing effort is calculated as part of the cost of the cognitive mandate.115 The intended recipient receives different and re-communicated details in line with what was originally said and, quite importantely, meant. In summary, the ever increasing advancements in linguistics must be carefully weighed with the evidence of the Septuagint. The counter-balance of newly discovered (or re-discovered) paleographical, inscriptional and archaeological evidence from the Hellenistic period is crucial. The Septuagint is a verbal expression as a translated text, and found its acceptability and form within a fixed societal and historical context. Present scholarship is working to understand how this all fits together.

112

See Ernst-August Gutt, “On the Significance of the Cognitive Core of Translation,” Tr 11, no. 1 (2005): 25–51. 113 See Gauthier, “LXX Hermeneutic,” 52. 114 In brief, the RT model (developed by Gutt) explains that there are two kinds of acts of communication. The first is a high order act of communication (HOAC) and the second is a low order act of communication (LOAC). The latter is connected to what is called a first order act of communication (FOAC), which is centred on the initial stimulus of a verbal message and its meaningful intention. The HOAC builds upon this by re-packaging the originally encoded verbal act and what was meant by it into two additional sub-modes of operation (cf. Gutt, “Cognitive Core,” 33–9). Adherents of RT argue that a Septuagint translator could choose (though of course not in these terms) between these different modes of communication in the process of communicating to the new audience. As Gauthier succinctly explains: “Will the HOAC emphasize ‘what was said’ by the FOAC, like a direct quotation, thus proceeding along the orientation of the original stimulus (s-mode), or will it emphasize ‘what was meant,’ like an indirect quotation, thus proceeding along the orientation of the originally intended interpretation (i-mode)?” Ibid., 57. 115 Cf. Gutt, “Cognitive Core,” 31.

22

Chapter 1: Habakkuk Speaks Greek

1.5 Recent Scholarship in Relation to Ambakoum The most recent and complete analytical study on Ambakoum, published in 1999, is found in the 23rd volume of La Bible d’Alexandrie (BdA). Due to the size, scope and basic philosophy of the project its contribution can be felt throughout this study.116 Since then a number of other projects have surfaced, which either directly relate to a formal analysis of Ambakoum, or, due to working on another book within the Twelve, contribute to the general study of the corpus. One such recent study of mention is the Septuaginta Deutsch project. Set in what appears to be three parts, this research effort by a number of eminent scholars provides a published translation (in deutscher Übersetzung, LXX.D),117 and also notes and brief commentary (Erläuterung und Kommentare, LXX.E)118 in two large tomes. The third part of the project is a series of manuals that will provide various studies of research in the field, the first of which is scheduled for release early in 2016 (Einleitung in die Septuaginta. Handbuch zur Septuaginta, Band 1, LXX.H).119 The LXX.E provides a number of helpful and incisive elucidations on the nature of the text. It is accompanied by an up-to-date introduction to each book. In addition, a number of translations into English of Ambakoum now exist. The NETS (A New English Translation of the Septuagint) project has produced 116 This magisterial and perceptive work provides notes on the nature of the Greek and its Heb. Vorlage (and Aramaic), and also details on the text reception, especially with that of the Fathers. Although the BdA project is not yet complete, its contribution today is immense. It has yet to make its mark outside of the Septuagint within the English-speaking world. Marguerite Harl laid out the translational principles, which offers some insight into the raison d’être for the project in her article of the tenth congress of the IOSCS. Arie van der Kooij’s brief comments on comparing the NETS and BdA projects should also be noted. See Marguerite Harl, “La Bible d’Alexandrie. I. The Translation Principles,” in X Congress of the International Organization of Septuagint and Cognate Studies (ed. Bernard A. Taylor; SCS 51; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1998), 181–97; Arie van der Kooij, “Comments on NETS and La Bible d’Alexandrie,” in X Congress of the International Organization of Septuagint and Cognate Studies (ed. Bernard A. Taylor; SCS 51; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001), 229–31. 117 See Eberhard Bons et al., eds., Septuaginta Deutsch. Das griechische Alte Testament in deutscher Übersetzung (eds. Wolfgang Kraus and Martin Karrer; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2009). 118 See Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus, eds., Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament. Genesis bis Makkabäer (2vols.; vol. 1; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011); Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus, eds., Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament. Psalmen bis Danielschriften (2 vols.; vol. 2; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011). 119 Siegfried Kreuzer, ed., Einleitung in die Septuaginta (LXX.H 1; ed. Siegfried Kreuzer; Munich: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2016).

1.5 Recent Scholarship in Relation to Ambakoum

23

an excellent translation;120 and the recent publication of the Orthodox Study Bible (OSB) has also provided a translation with a brief literary introduction of themes and structure along with study notes. 121 The fourth volume of Nicholas King’s new translation of the Septuagint also provides a brief introduction with translation.122 There is also the Spanish translation project, La Biblia griega – Septuaginta, which has recently completed four volumes: El Pentateuco, Libros históricos and Libros Poéticos y Sapienciales and, most recently, Los Libros Proféticos.123 Worthy of special mention is the recently published T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint, edited by James K. Aitken. This is an accessible handbook on the Septuagint that provides up-to-date studies, covering different areas of research depending on the book(s) in view. This volume is commendable for its wide draw of scholars from around the world, including fresh, insightful and quality research.124 The three most recent monographs on specific books of the Twelve deserve mention. First, W. Edward Glenny has provided an analysis of Amos.125 In light of Palmer’s thesis,126 he applied the features of literalism (Tov and Barr) in order to discern the translator’s technique and theological posture. Changes apart from the ST can often be discerned when there is a difficulty with the passage, often involving some kind of textual obscurity. Second, Myrto Theocharous’s study on intertextual allusions within Hosea, Amos and Micah has, among other helpful features, i.e. use of the Pentateuch as a lexicon for 120

See Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included Under That Title (New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). 121 See Metropolitan Maximos et al., eds., The Orthodox Study Bible (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008). 122 See Nicolas King, The Old Testament. The Prophets. A New, Cutting-edge Translation of the Septuagint (5 vols.; vol. 4; Stowmarket, Suff.: Kevin Mayhew, 2013). 123 See Natalio Fernández Marcos, Ma Victoria Spottorno Díaz-Caro, and José Manuel Canas Reíllo, eds., I. El Pentateuco: 1 (Biblioteca Estudios Bíblicos) (BGS 1; Salamanca: Ediciones Sígueme, 2008); Natalio Fernández Marcos et al., eds., II. Libros históricos: 2 (Bibioteca de Estudios Bíblicos) (BGS 2; Salamanca: Ediciones Sígueme, 2011); Natalio Fernández Marcos et al., eds., III. Libros Poéticos y Sapienciales: 3 (Bibioteca de Estudios Bíblicos) (BGS 3; Salamanca: Ediciones Sígueme, 2013); Natalio Fernández Marcos et al., eds., IV. Los Libros Proféticos: 4 (Bibioteca de Estudios Bíblicos) (BGS 4; Salamanca: Ediciones Sígueme, 2015). 124 James K. Aitken, ed., T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint (London; New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015). See also the recent review, cf. William A. Ross, review of James K. Aitken, T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint, BBR 25, no. 4 (2015): 551–3. 125 Glenny, Finding Meaning in the Text. 126 See Jennifer M. Dines, review of Edward W. Glenny, Finding Meaning in the Text: Translation Technique and Theology in the Septuagint of Amos, BIOSCS 43 (2010): 128–30.

24

Chapter 1: Habakkuk Speaks Greek

later translators, further bolstered the thesis that there was one translator.127 And lastly, Joshua Harper has published his work on the Barberini text of Habakkuk, which is a comparative study of Barb with Amb and MT.128 Studies abound on Habakkuk, and there is some attention within numerous articles to specific parts of OG, i.e. 2:2, 4; 3:1–19, having most often to do with interpretation within the NT (Rom 1:17; Gal 3:11; Heb 10:37–38). I interact with these sources where appropriate. This study is the first to analyse the Greek style of Ambakoum as a Greek (Hellenistic) historical, religious and linguistic artefact in its own right. The theology of Ambakoum arises out of this analysis, highlighting the linguistic transformations and the nature of its translation effort with its socio-linguistic context. The language of the period and the interpretative posture of the Hellenistic language community serve as good aids to understanding the nature of the translation.

127 128

Theocharous, Lexical Dependence. Harper, Puzzled Scribe.

Chapter 2

Methodology – The Current State of Affairs “No digo que la traducción literal sea imposible, sino que no es una traducción.”1 “Ego enim non solum fateor, sed libera voce profiteor me in interpretatione Graecorum absque scripturis sanctis ubi et verborum ordo mysterium est non verbum e verbo sed sensum exprime de sensu.” – St. Jerome

2.1 Introduction On the writing of translation technique in the Septuagint there is no end. This study is further proof of that. It is also true that the lion’s share of discussions on this subject seem to have accepted, for the most part, an axiomatic paradigm: the technique in the Septuagint was mostly literal and sometimes free, with few exceptions, e.g. Proverbs and Job being freer than most. In the first case, it is classed as literal due to the presence of certain features such as stereotypical word-choices, matching of word-order, etc. When it deviates from this statistical pattern, notwithstanding errors, the technique is classed as free, which is sometimes exegetical. This puts things rather simply. But discussion on the nature of a given translator’s style seems incapable of leaving the orbit of this dialectic. The force of attraction to this model appears to be indomitable. This is understandable. With additional help from computer technology there is good evidence that the translators followed an approach to certain “norms of quantitative and serial fidelity.”2 There is a significant degree of isomorphic correspondence to the ST. This way of interpreting the statistical data – as data cannot speak for itself – does lend merit to this particular view of literalism. However, one must be careful to not beg the question on this subject. The conclusion that the translation technique was literal is already assumed in the 1 Octavio Paz, Traducción: literatura y literalidad (Cuadernos Marginales 18; Barcelona: Tusquets Editor, 1971), 10. I first saw this quote (and Jerome’s Latin) in David Bellos’s essay, “The Myth of Literal Translation,” in his excellent book on the nature of translation in general, which I recommend to the reader, see David Bellos, Is That a Fish in Your Ear? Translation and the Meaning of Everything (London: Penguin Books, 2011), 103–17. 2 Ross J. Wagner, Reading the Sealed Book (FAT 88; eds. Konrad Schmid, Mark S. Smith, and Hermann Spieckermann; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 228.

26

Chapter 2: Methodology

premise of the argument. The translation of Ambakoum does show certain kinds of literalistic features, but that evidence does not restrict the conclusion. The data must also be reconciled with all the kinds of data: literary, linguistic, historical, and cultural, to name but a few. Before digging into an extended discussion on this subject, including the nature of interlinearity, I shall first review statistical literalism and the nature of the translator’s task when he improvised, notwithstanding how a free approach may be discerned.3 What will emerge is that the current framework of Septuagintal literalism appears to limit one’s ability to grasp the nature of the translator’s style. It is too rigid. It is not just that an increasing amount of data falls outside of its bounds, but that some evidence is overlooked or misconstrued. I do, however, emphasise that this does not do away with computational precision, for such evidence is essential in the analytical process. The call here is to re-think interpretation of the data within its cultural, religious and linguistic context(s) as part of an interpretative act.

2.2 Statistical Literalism Barr’s seminal work entitled The Typology of Literalism (1979) addressed the commonly held belief that the translation technique of the Septuagint was either literal or free, or somewhere in between, as if on a sliding scale. In general, scholars think of a translation as either literal or free. 4 When it is literal it may be free in certain respects, and when free also be literal in others. What Barr primarily argued for in his work was that the Septuagintal translators maintained both literal and free aspects “at the same time but in different modes or on different levels.”5 He was principally correct. Yet, still, much of the academic field remains committed to the the idea that these features of literalism are “defined more easily than for those for free renderings,” so that,

3

The following discussion on the view of literalism by both Barr and Tov bears the need for review once more. The prominence and influence of these works in this field is significant. This lays the groundwork for the following section on how to best understand these respective works in light of further advancements of translation studies and the Septuagint. Previous discussions on this subject have been handled by both Glenny and Palmer. My hope is that a fresh look at this and with a different approach will benefit the reader, cf. Glenny, Finding Meaning in the Text, 32–6; Palmer, “‘Not Made with Tracing Paper.’ Studies in the Septuagint of Zechariah,” 20–5. 4 The even more statistical approach of the Finnish school is nicely summarised by Glenny and will not be covered here, see Glenny, Finding Meaning in the Text, 39–42. 5 James Barr, The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 280.

2.2 Statistical Literalism

27

“[r]enderings and translation units which do not fulfil these criteria for literalness are considered non-literal.”6 Now, whether considered literal or free, Barr argued that the source and target languages must have some degree of semantic (or perhaps even conceptual) overlap. When a text “shows substantial semantic agreement” with its source, then it is mostly literal in character. Although a free rendering must not have the same substantial agreement, it must have some.7 In fact, when no semantic relationship can be identified then the target version is, so Barr, no longer even a “free rendering.” Therefore, by first order, whether literal or free, there must be some semantic correspondence.8 Some exegesis will inevitably stretch this view beyond certain bounds. Due to the interpretative process of translational work there are very different decisions about the ST that must be made from, for example, a copyist who is operating in the same language. The translator must consider the lexical domain of both the ST and TT. He must wrestle with difficult words and phrases that may be obscure, idiomatic or esoteric in order to bring them over to his TT. This might result in what might be deemed as free: …he may opt for free translation, making a general estimate of the total meaning, or simply guessing at it, and ignoring the details; but he may also do the opposite, and decide to give a precise impression in Greek of the detailed form of the Hebrew, leaving it to his readers to work out, if they can, what the general purport of this may be. 9

These two tendencies within the translation process are not mutually exclusive, so that both may be employed at the same time. This is close to what occurred in the Septuagint. Hence, in one word or phrase the translator may render something quite literally, and in another part of the clause render a word or phrase more freely, which Barr explains may be caused by “intrinsic obscurity”10 of the Hebrew. It is precisely at this point that literal and free techniques combine together, showing they are not opposite ends of a pole. I suggest, moreover, that this occurs with non-linearity, viz. non-syntagmatic matching, so that such phenomena arise because of the presence of a word or phrase, in relation to all the other parts, of the clause or sentence. The syntagmatic relationship of all literary components of the TL are affected by the existence and pattern of certain elements in the ST. An obscure word at the end of a sentence or clause may cause a clause- or sentence-wide improvisation, which may also involve some level of exegesis. This suits the theory that translators had a sentence/text level grasp of their STs. 6

Emanuel Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (JBS 8; 2d ed.; Jerusalem: Simor, 1997), 20. 7 See Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 286–7. 8 See ibid., 289. 9 Ibid., 290. 10 Ibid.

28

Chapter 2: Methodology

Barr is quick to point out that intrinsic obscurity is not the only cause for this sort of evidence in the Septuagint. Without trying to address every kind of cause for a translator’s decision, Barr brings into focus two basic levels of interpretation that may also have affected the production of the TT: first, a linguistic comprehension of the text on the syntactic and semantic levels; and second, “theological exegesis,” which is derived from the translator’s linguistic comprehension.11 What this means is that a translator, having a relatively good grasp of the meaning of his Hebrew source and its syntax (though not defined in those terms), may enter into this second level of interpretation. It is not necessary, but due to the nature of translational work, the translator may have made a decision to make clear or emphatic what may be unclear or implied in the source.12 In this sense the translator is by no means changing his text or altering it, something he would not have entered into lightly (e.g. Deut 4:2). As Barr points out, some of this could be due to the fact that “the two linguistic systems [of Hebrew and Greek]…are non-congruent.”13 From this standpoint, the more literal a translated text the less likely there was any kind of exegetical evidence, and the more free, the more likely the translator explained “the meaning of the text.”14 One might say that the ideas of the translator are found more in the latter, which is how recent works in the Twelve understand this.15 Hence, due to the religious importance of the texts in question, the likelihood that a translator engaged in widespread, or even small-scale, exegetical tampering is probably quite low. The kind of literalism found in the Septuagint, a posteriori, indicates this, as is particularly evident in Ambakoum. An important contribution by Barr in his work is that a free expression within the context of literalism exists. Barr provided a number of categories by which one may decide to what degree a Greek translation is literal, most of which Tov employed in his own study on literalism. These “modes of difference”16 move from a linguistic to literary level of analysis. (1) Division or representation of constituent elements or segments. Barr sees this as the most prominent area of distinction to categorise a text as either literal or free. This first category is Tov’s second one in his list on this same subject. It identifies a matching syntagmatic correspondence between the components of the ST to that in the TT. It is concerned with how the translator divided the Hebrew words meaningfully, representing each constituent part in the Greek text. Every word and its counterpart is accounted for between the languages, apparently assessing whether the translation moves along, per se, word-for-word. 11

See ibid., 291. See ibid. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid., 293. 15 See p. 22. 16 Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 294. 12

2.2 Statistical Literalism

29

In the following example, each syntagmatic element of the ST is reflected in the TT, corresponding to the syntagmatic order of the parent, including inseparably prefixed prepositions: Hab 1:16 Amb 1:16

‫על כן יזבח לחרמו ויקטר למכמרתו‬ ἕνεκεν τούτου θύσει τῇ σαγήνῃ αὐτοῦ καὶ θυμιάσει τῷ ἀμφιβλήστρῳ αὐτοῦ

The degree to which a translation does not conform to the details of this category is often noted as the degree to which it is freer. This is somewhat true. Underlying this view is often the assumption that the translator was working atomistically, unaware of the surrounding words and context until he came upon them, so that when he made a mistake in one word he would be forced to rectify it by making requisite changes to the following word(s)/phrase(s). While such instances may exist it ought not to be a de facto presupposition. Translators would have had a keen grasp of their base text(s), for they already knew the context and its teaching. Barr explains this first category with a simple concept: input side/expression [output] side: “The input is the translator’s recognition of the meanings of the original. The expression is the way in which he expresses this recognition in the versional language.”17 An essential premise here is that words are truly only understandable in context, which is intrinsic to the nature of language. The difference for the literal translation and the freer one would be, therefore, in the expression of the representation of “each word or element as a separate unit of meaning for the purpose of translation.”18 This expression is discreet. The work of the literalist is not necessarily identified by a switching back and forth between comprehension and incomprehension of his ST. (2) Quantitative addition or subtraction of elements. The degree of literalness in this second category is understood by the “quantitative representation”19 of source words in the target work. The more words added to the Greek text the freer the work may be considered.20 It explains the compression or expansion of translational elements into Greek, “in accordance with…[the translator’s] literary taste and the nature of the Greek language.”21 Of course, semantic knowledge is essential to assessing this category. The omission of a word, or series of words, may be due to non-isomorphism between the two languages, but could indicate an exegetical hand. Redundant words, due to Greek style and/or grammar, would therefore suggest omissions, which is also true for Greek compound words. 17

Ibid., 296. Ibid., 297. 19 Tov, The Text-Critical Use of LXX, 23. 20 Barr explains that in Midrash this was quite common, and particularly so in the Aramaic Targumim, see Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 304–5. 21 Tov, The Text-Critical Use of LXX, 23–4. 18

30

Chapter 2: Methodology

In the following example, the definite article in the Greek represents an addition to the TT, for it does not exist in the text of the Hebrew. It is necessary in the Greek for readability, but when working from within the paradigm of literalism it represents an addition in spite of its function. Hab 2:1 Amb 2:1

‫ומה אשיב על תוכחתי‬ καὶ τί ἀποκριθῶ ἐπὶ τὸν ἔλεγχόν μου

(3) Consistency and non-consistency in the rendering. This category offers a basic framework in which to understand what Barr calls “stereotyped equivalents.”22 This additional layer of analysis offers further insight into the literal nature of a translation. It examines the degree by which a translator consistently translates the same words and, or, phrases with the same translational equivalents. Termed “stereotyping” by Tov, it is not necessarily a system, in a modern sense, but perhaps part of an ancient tradition, derived from a “rabbinic approach to the Bible.”23 It reflects the attempt by ancient translators to consistently choose a particular Greek word, as often as possible, for every occurrence of a particular Hebrew word. Such lexical consistency would occur irrespective of whether it obscured the meaning, as it is presently understood through philological analysis. This consistency, Tov argues, was due to reverence for the text.24 Such a view might guard against anachronistic ideas concerned with the intentions and methods of the ancient translators, which were unlikely to have been systematised at this early stage. These stereotyped instances can be statistically tallied by their distribution throughout OG.25 Naturally, this distribution does not take into account the literary context of the words occurrences, but, as Tov argues, this is not problematic because “the translators themselves usually disregarded the context when using stereotyped equivalents.”26 This practice of stereotyping produced “Hebraisms”27 in the Greek language, which, in effect, created new idioms and ideas that were modelled after the form of the Hebrew language. Tov concludes that the degree of stereotyping apparent in the translated units of the Septuagint reflects literalism.28 But such phenomena are common to translations in general, especially for a religion with a central textual tradition. 22

Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 306. Tov, The Text-Critical Use of LXX, 20. 24 He states that this stemmed from “the belief that the words of Scripture should be rendered consistently in order to remain faithful as possible to the source language,” see ibid. 25 Ibid., 22. 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid. 28 See ibid. Also, at the end of his discussion on this category he briefly mentions that “Hebrew words belonging to one word-group (root) with Greek words also belonging to one 23

2.2 Statistical Literalism

31

Also, like the other categories, this analysis, especially when performed statistically, must be tempered by the regular expression of common equivalents, such as, for example, οὐρανός for ‫שמים‬, or γῆ for ‫ ארץ‬or ‫אדמה‬.29 Such agreement between the languages, therefore, does not truly reveal literalism. Moreover, because of synonyms in the TL, the regular expression of a particular Hebrew word with one or more different Greek words may be due to stylistic concerns, and not a literal attempt whatsoever. This is true, notwithstanding errors in judgement, perhaps with homonyms. In sum, Barr offers four ways to understand this particular category: first, there is a high proportion of common translational equivalences of Hebrew expressions in the Greek, which may be observed with words and phrases that change very little in translation against those which undergo regular change;30 second, an intent for precision, known as “stereotyping,”31 which may even run roughshod over semantic nuance and general context; third, “imitative style,”32 where the translator sought to imitate the form of the Hebrew in lieu of some, or all, of its sense;33 and lastly, a non-descript variety, which is how a translator may use a variety of Greek words to translate the same Hebrew word (normally an example of a freer hand) for reasons unrelated to free translation, such as, for example, Greek synonyms.34 (4) The linguistic accuracy and the level of semantic information. This category by Barr is used to assess the range of overlap that the Greek word has with the semantic domain of the corresponding Hebrew word. The semantic suitability of a given Greek word in light of its Hebrew equivalent is in question. This is not working from the far literal-side of a spectrum (literal vs. free), but from the dominal centre of semantic meaning. When the Greek word does not map to the semantic value of the Hebrew, it is moving in either of two directions: “‘inexact,’ ‘inaccurate,’ or ‘rough’ or ‘free.’”35 Hence, a translator may have misread his text and inaccurately chosen a Greek word for the Hebrew equivalent. But, alternately, in a freer expression, the translator may word-group.” It is unclear how this relates to consistency, and this subject seems to relate directly to Barr’s fifth category concerning coded etymologising. Palmer also makes this observation. 29 There are many others that are well attested by scholars, Barr picks the common equivalents of ‫ ברית‬with διαθήκη, and ‫ עולם‬with αἰών or αἰώνιος, see Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 307. 30 Ibid., 310. 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid., 311. 33 As these languages are non-isomorphic this point may be understood as “clues communicated through the forms and the semantics of the Greek words used,” see ibid. 34 He adds a cautionary point: “the fact that a translator in rendering a given word uses a different rendering from that which he has used somewhere before does not neceasarily mean that he intended any variety or that he noticed the matter at all.” Ibid., 312–3. 35 Ibid., 314.

32

Chapter 2: Methodology

choose to refer to the metaphysical reality of the Hebrew word, such as with idioms and metaphors relating to God.36 During a translation, “linguistic precision meant that exegetical elements lying beyond the mere understanding of the words were excluded from the translation.”37 The evidence for this kind of precision points towards this categorical kind of literalism, which was based upon the translator’s grasp of his text. What this also seems to imply is that a lack of understanding, through confusion, misreading or something else, would affect the ability of the translator to render his translation in accord with other literalistic categories. Therefore, word choices will differ from translator to translator, especially in the area of either linguistic or contextual exegesis – both quite difficult to determine. Hence, the regular occurrence of a word may reveal what is “the most accurate rendering”38 for a given translator, which Tov sees as bound intrinsically to statistical data of consistency.39 In the following example, working with Barr’s definitions, we find an approach that is rougher or freer, rather than inexact. The placement of a verbal (πλάσσω) is brought forward in the clause, replacing the Hebrew appellative for the LORD (‫)צוּר‬, and the Hebrew verbal (‫ )יסד‬and its suffix is replaced by a Greek accusative phrase (παιδείαν αὐτοῦ). In essence the clause is syntactically flipped around the infinitive (ἐλέγκειν), the meaning of which is centred on the Hebrew verbal (‫)יכח‬. Hab 1:12 Amb 1:12

‫וצור להוכיח יסדתו‬ καὶ ἔπλασέν με τοῦ ἐλέγκειν παιδείαν αὐτοῦ

Therefore, a literal translation may be discerned, in this category, by how it centrally overlaps with the semantic value from the source language. Barr points out that this feature may, indeed, have been a cause for the stereotyping that occurred throughout the text. To avert misunderstanding of the text, in relation to its source, the word choices ought to have as little deviation as possible in their semantic correspondences. (5) Word-order. This is a category added to this discussion by Tov and may be loosely called syntagmatic equivalence or correspondance. Tov provides no detail for this category, perhaps due to it being self-evident: “Some translators adhered as much as possible to the word-order of MT.”40 (6) Coded “etymological” indication of formal/semantic relationships obtaining in the vocabulary of the original language. This very selective 36

Ibid., 314–5. Tov, The Text-Critical Use of LXX, 24. 38 Ibid. 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid., 23. 37

2.3 Categories of Improvisation

33

category of literalism (in translation) sought to render an equivalent word by deriving its “semantic value” from a collection of similar Hebrew words, and accepting a dominant meaning.41 While the Hebrew words would have a “formal element” they do not necessarily have the same etymologies.42 This was not a haphazard approach, but accomplished by the presence of Hebrew homonyms and the segmentation “of words below the word level.”43 On the one hand, this is easy to understand because of the consonantal nature of Hebrew, where words looks the same or very similar, so that a translator may have associated them differently in his mental lexicon. On the other hand, parts of the form of a word may have also contributed to a translator’s choice to associate words together. Thus, it is not the word itself, but its constituent parts, or how it was associated in form to other similar words, that may have given a translator license for this kind of approach. Fortunately, as Barr points out, this approach was not common, otherwise meaning would have been regularly obfuscated in the translated product.44 (7) Level of text and of analysis. Barr’s sixth category for determining literalism in a text is concerned with how the translator read his consonantal Vorlage. In general, he comments that literalism “can be characterized as having very close relations with the verbal form of the original text.”45 However, because the written consonantal text was more open to other readings, within this literalism is a “principle which itself tended in a freer direction.”46 Even in lexical analysis, akin to the previous category, there is freedom in translation when it comes to word-order. This infringes on literal technique. It can involve alternate uses of prepositions or even double translation.47 This translational latitude, being dependent on the nature of the textual structure, may indicate some freedom in the form.

2.3 Categories of Improvisation The above discussion was concerned with how to identify what may be termed Septuagintal literalism, while at the same time grasping something of the free aspects of any given translator’s style. This section now considers the ways in which a translator would have handled textual difficulties, which is couched by Tov as misunderstanding (with respect to the Hebrew Vorlagen). When a 41

Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 322. Ibid. 43 Ibid., 321. 44 See ibid., 322. 45 Ibid. 46 Ibid., 323. 47 Barr offers examples of these, cf. Ibid. 42

34

Chapter 2: Methodology

translator encountered a textual difficulty he probably improvised in order to sensibly arrange the TT. Improvisation is what occurs when a Septuagint translator encounters a difficulty with the ST and tries to ensure clarity in the TT by recourse through a number of different decisions. The ST problem is usually linguistic.48 This improvisational process involves a higher degree of conscious effort than, for example, a stereotypical word-choice. The causes can be different from case to case. The vast majority of these instances are due to some kind of obscurity with the Vorlage. The intention of the translator was to ensure that the translation clearly expressed the meaning of a passage. These improvisational attempts of the translator to provide a faithful translation should not be confused with contextual exegesis. The strictures of the source grammar and even word forms constrained the work of the translator of Ambakoum. It does not seem that the translator wanted to convey the general purport of the text, as a free translation might, perhaps even colouring it with alien ideas.49 An entirely natural reading in the TL was not the goal,50 but a faithful interpretation. At the points where improvisation may be detected, often involving a greater degree of conscious effort, we then get a larger view into the translator’s ideas. In his essay, “Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand their Hebrew Text?” Tov presents six categories that explain the nature and cause of particular differences in the Septuagint.51 Of his six categories, five are used here to explain the nature of improvisation – the kinds of decisions translators 48 Naturally, a physical defect in a bad MS could result in some divergent readings from the ST. 49 Cf. Johann Cook, The Septuagint of Proverbs: Jewish and/or Hellenistic Proverbs? Concerning the Hellenistic Colouring of LXX Proverbs (VTSup 69; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 318. 50 In a free translation the translator would seek to convey the concepts of the source in the world, words and structures of the TL. New concepts, metaphors, idioms, and so forth, would thereto be found in the new work, quite intentionally too. Cf. van der Louw states that this is a fundamental principle of free translations, “linguistic or ideological…,” see Theo A. W. van der Louw, “Linguistic or Ideological Shifts? The Problem-oriented Study of Transformations as a Methodological Filter,” COLLeGIUM 7 (2012): 23. 51 Also, in his slightly earlier work on the text-critical use of the Septuagint, he provides an additional category that he terms contextual exegesis, which has distinctly different features from the first six categories. The category “employment of general words” does not occur in Amb, so I have excluded it in this method. It is a category that tries to show that if a translator was ignorant of a word he may have “disguised” it by using a more general word. Tov does concede that this is “not easy to prove.” In contrast, a translator may have used general words in some instances for a variety of factors, perhaps for reasons of style, e.g. Amb 1:17. Each occurrence needs to be carefully weighed. Cf. Tov, “Did The Septuagint Translators Always Understand their Hebrew Text?” 53–70, 66 on general words; Tov, The Text-Critical Use of LXX, 45–50.

2.3 Categories of Improvisation

35

made when they misunderstood, or struggled with, their text(s). In addition, I have included the category of double translation as postulated by Talshir.52 In this study, improvisation is not simply a marker for where translators fouled up. Rather, it is how they sought to resolve some of the difficulties they faced. It is one more door through which to enter into the translator’s translational process. 2.3.1 Contextual Guesses When a translator had difficulty with a word he may have resorted to guessing at its meaning. The nature of the guess was likely restricted to the context of the passage. The translators “adapted the translation of the ‘difficult’ word to the different contexts.”53 While recurrence is a valid evidential feature, there are some “isolated instances”54 where phrases are rendered differently in alternate contexts due to the difficulty of many words in close proximity. 2.3.2 Contextual Changes The concept of contextual changes55 pertains to intentional alteration of Hebrew consonants that better fit the context of a passage.56 Tov offers two reasons for this approach to the text: first, the Vorlage was incomprehensible, either due to word or phrase obscurity; and second, that due to other changes made in the course of the translation additional changes were necessary. Gelston sees several of such occurrences of the latter phenomenon in the Twelve, though he does not seem to accept the general theory by Tov.57 Palmer sees this approach in Zechariah as the “translator’s preferred way of dealing with difficult words.”58

52 See Zipora Talshir, “Double Translations in the Septuagint,” in VI Congress of the International Organization of Septuagint and Cognate Studies (ed. Claude E. Cox; SCS 23; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1987), 21–63. 53 Tov, “Did The Septuagint Translators Always Understand their Hebrew Text?” 56. 54 Ibid., 60. 55 Authors have changed this to “contextual manipulation,” which carries a negative connotation in English (Tov first in ’99). The word “change” is more diplomatic and retained here. Cf. Glenny, Finding Meaning in the Text, 26–7, 72, 85–99; Palmer, “‘Not Made with Tracing Paper.’ Studies in the Septuagint of Zechariah,” 47–55; Emanuel Tov, The Greek and Hebrew Bible. Collected Essays on the Septuagint (VTSup 72; eds. H. M. Barstad et al.; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 1999), 204; Tov, “Did The Septuagint Translators Always Understand their Hebrew Text?” 55. 56 See Tov, “Did The Septuagint Translators Always Understand their Hebrew Text?” 61. 57 Cf. Anthony Gelston, ed., The Twelve Minor Prophets (BHQ 13; eds. A. Schenker et al.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2010), 109, 117, 118, 122, 127, 128, 148. 58 Palmer, “‘Not Made with Tracing Paper.’ Studies in the Septuagint of Zechariah,” 47.

36

Chapter 2: Methodology

The overriding intention of the translator is to make sense of the passage,59 not to manipulate the text – a pejorative term. I also think there is more validity to the first cause rather than the second. That a translator would have conceived of a variant within the confines of an immediate or wider-context, and sought to reconcile the lexical difficulty through observation of the consonants, is an entirely good argument. I maintain that the translator had a comprehensive (sentence level and higher) understanding of his text. What this means is that the translator was not working atomistically as he moved across his text. It is, therefore, difficult to easily accept that a mistake, let us say, at the beginning of a phrase caused subsequent (pseudo-)variants in the following words. While this is a possible solution, due perhaps also to the difficulty and cost of the scribal activity, it is not immediately the most constructive recourse of explanation. Moreover, the idea that a translator would manipulate his translation intentionally is a difficult pill to swallow. It “may appear to do violence to the text.”60 Baer shows that this process itself operated on various levels of authorisation. Translators were permitted to re-vocalise the consonantal text in order to produce an alternate Greek translation. He offers a three-tier system by which to understand this kind of phenomenon, which he terms “imperativization.” It has three basic categories of substantial authorisation: first, authorised, where the translator simply vocalised the consonants of his Vorlage; second, semi-authorised, which reflects divergent vocalisation from MT and also some “consonantal alteration;” and third, unauthorised, where changes occurred without any clear relation to the text of MT.61 These categories are helpful to help understand the scale of differences in such an improvisational process as this. In Ambakoum there are no examples of unauthorised changes, but such an approach might have influenced some of the changes in Ambakoum: authorised (Amb 1:9, 12, 15) and semi-authorised (Amb 1:12b; 3:16). 2.3.3 Double Translation A double translation is where a word or phrase in the Hebrew is duplicated in the Greek, usually adjacently, and is sometimes joined by a copula.62 Cook defines this phenomenon as “used solely with reference to a translator who endeavours to elucidate a problematic Hebrew/Aramaic reading that appears in his Vorlage. He therefore sees the need to explicate and uses more than one 59

Glenny, Finding Meaning in the Text, 16. Palmer, “‘Not Made with Tracing Paper.’ Studies in the Septuagint of Zechariah,” 47. 61 David A. Baer, When We All Go Home. Translation and Theology in LXX Isaiah 56– 66 (JSOTS 318; eds. Andrew Mein, David J. A. Clines, and Philip R. Davies; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 28–9. 62 See Talshir, “Double Translations in the Septuagint,” 21, 27, 37–8, 47. 60

2.3 Categories of Improvisation

37

word or phrase in order to do so.”63 As Talshir points out, this problematic reading is not due to a difference in the Vorlage.64 It is not that the source word was the cause for the double translation “but its function in the sentence.”65 Hence, this was not the result of a free exegetical technique because the translator is, in a sense, wrestling with how to convey the Hebrew word in the context of his Greek translation. It is the result of the translator’s process of improvisation. Talshir offers three essential principles for understanding double translation: first, it came from the hand of a single translator, which precludes the work of a redactor; second, it was intentional; and three, it was part of an exegetical process, which is not to be confused with contextual exegesis.66 The final point pertains to the effort involved by the translator to offer two possibilities for the reading of his Vorlage. He, in various ways, draws out from the text what may be suitable options for the difficult reading. This process involved either, or both, semantic and etymological distinctions.67 It is noteworthy that there are a number of double translations throughout the Septuagint (though not very common to Amb), and one wonders which of these were meant to remain as part of the final form of the text. This issue, related to textual transmission, perhaps has two sides to it:68 either a translator wished to leave both for the reader to decide which was the most suitable reading, or he had intended to remove one of the options.69 Lastly, the addition of more words would have also been dependent on a single, or series of, word(s) so that the subsequent phrase, clause or sentence was repeated as a variation of a first attempt to translate it (e.g. p. 139).70 This is not meant to give the air of playing fast and loose with the text, as if a translator was practicing how to render a certain passage. Rather, because of reverence for the text and its meaning, he would have been deeply concerned with accurately bringing over the meaning of the passage, without also conveying the difficulty encountered in the Vorlage. Very narrowly, this tendency pertains to a difficulty with the ST, which was resolved via 63

Cook, Septuagint of Proverbs, 16. See Talshir, “Double Translations in the Septuagint,” 22. 65 Ibid., 24. 66 See ibid., 31–7. 67 See ibid., 35. 68 See ibid., 27–8. 69 The translator may have been the only person aware of the doublets. As a result, if he was prevented for some reason from rectifying these doublets by choosing what he thought was the most appropriate, then there was a possibility that it found its way into a textual family. The major problem with this part of the theory is that the cost of scribal activity was significant. It is, therefore, slightly less likely he intended to return to the parchment/scroll and erase one of them, leaving a lacuna (or mess). 70 See Talshir, “Double Translations in the Septuagint,” 47. 64

38

Chapter 2: Methodology

improvisation, rather than a form of contextual/exegetical disambiguation, which shares a similar trait (see p. 116). The high degree of conscious decision by the translator in making a double translation makes it a highly improvisational process for the translator. 2.3.4 Untranslated Words Tov explains that an untranslated word is one that has been transliterated, it “demonstrates beyond doubt that at least some words in the Hebrew Bible were unknown to the translators…because the translators did not know their meaning.”71 One must, however, be cautious to ascribe ignorance to a translator, because what was common to a translator may be now beyond our understanding, and what tradition of interpretation existed may not square with modern sensibilities. Still, in the vast majority of instances these are hapax legomena.72 There are numerous possible reasons for such phenomena. What we can probably deduce rightly is that transliteration was often the translator’s approach to rare words. 2.3.5 Reliance on Parallelism This category suggests that a translator may have relied upon nearby words in order to make a translational choice. Tov prefers this method over contextual choice. He explains that this kind of decision by a translator is similar to contextual guesses.73 The difference between the two is slight. The essential point here is that instead of using a “vague” parallel context, the translator would simply use a “parallel word.”74 This can only be discerned when “reliance on the parallel word created unusual equivalents.”75 He offers two different kinds of parallel reliance: first, reliance on parallel Greek words, where the translator used the parallel context of his translated text and not the Hebrew; and second, and more frequently, repetition of a parallel Hebrew word, which may be located within lines or chapters from the specific hapax word in consideration.76 This reliance would surely lead to some restriction on the distance between the translator’s present word and the parallel one; the greater the distance the harder it is to justify.

71 Tov, “Did The Septuagint Translators Always Understand their Hebrew Text?” 55 (emphasis mine). 72 See ibid., 55. 73 See ibid., 64. 74 Ibid. 75 Ibid. 76 Ibid., 64–5.

2.4 Paradigms, Evidence & Translational Tradition

39

2.3.6 Etymological Renderings In this last category, one can discern a few ways in which a translator sought to resolve a translational decision along some kind of etymological path. In the first instance, a translator may have incorrectly vocalised a “conjugated verb form from the wrong root,”77 other forms notwithstanding. Second, what Tov calls “etymological renderings” is a process of deduction whereby a translator, encountering a difficult Hebrew word, sought to find a relevant Greek word, having a related stem, which was translated elsewhere for other Hebrew words, and which was “linked” to the Hebrew word being translated.78 Tov also calls these “root-linked renderings,”79 and it is meant to indicate the translator’s ignorance. Another suggestion is that translators may have made “etymological guesses”80 as part of their renderings. He explains that this may occur “only when a translation is based on a certain manipulation of the consonants, sometimes involving disregard of prefixes and suffixes.”81 This kind of guess work is well attested as a reliable form of recourse for Septuagint translators struggling with a text. Thackeray also identified this sort of thing many years ago. His assessment pertained to similar sounding words. He stated that this kind of decision by a translator was often due to “doubt as to the exact meaning of the Hebrew.”82

2.4 Paradigms, Evidence & Translational Tradition So, on the basis of the above discussion, how else can one understand the nature of the translational style(s) within the Septuagint, Ambakoum in particular? At a statistical level much of the evidence at first seems to support the above discussions, to a technique called Septuagintal literalism. But use of the word literal (literalism) may, however, skew the analysis. The word literal is very common in general dialogue, referring to ideas of faithfulness to represent something else. For example, a person can insist on a precise report by saying, “Just tell me, what did she literally say?” The interlocutor gets the sense of what is being asked. It is a demand for precision, a verbatim response perhaps. Or one might ask, “Now tell me word-for-word, what did he say?” Somehow the answer following this question is the right report, will push aside any

77 Jan de Waard, “Old Greek Translation Techniques and the Modern Translator,” BT 41, no. 3 (1990): 313. 78 See Tov, “Did The Septuagint Translators Always Understand their Hebrew Text?” 68. 79 Ibid. 80 Ibid. 81 Ibid., 68. (Italics mine.) 82 Thackeray, A Grammar of the OT in Greek, 36.

40

Chapter 2: Methodology

subjective colouring of interpretation and get to the heart of the matter.83 There is a sense, which exists as jargon amongst many modern Bible translation societies, that a literal translation is more faithful. This is compounded by the fact that the ability for scholars to clearly identify the nature of the translational style of any given Septuagintal book is, according to Robert Kraft, still in its infancy.84 Although writing in the seventies his assessment still rings true. In fact, what he calls “the science of identifying translation patterns” may in fact be as much art as science. The reasons are legion. In one respect, this is because translators were not self-conscious of their styles as might be thought of in translation studies today – they had no identifiable scientific or mechanical method. Hence, to refer to the earliest translators as having a technique is probably anachronistic. It implies a more formal and established approach. Whereas, in all likelihood, decisions were a combination of the translator’s prior-understanding, which he received from within his community of reading, and choices made on-the-fly, together occurring in agreement with the literary proclivities of the period.85 On the classification of the style of the Twelve, as previously noted, Thackeray called it “indifferent,”86 as opposed to good Koine, literal or free, “c’est-à-dire les traductions que ne sont ni tout à fait littérales ni tout à fait libres.”87 Although Thackeray does not go on to explain this in greater detail, as an eminent, classically trained scholar, he had an excellent sense for the text. Today it is common to call the style of the Twelve “creatively faithful.”88 83

RT may have much to offer on this subject. See Robert A. Kraft, “Septuagint,” in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (IDBSup; ed. Keith R. Crim; 5 vols.; vol. 5; Nashville: Abingdon, 1976), 807–15. 85 This study follows the approach, and general opinion of various scholars, that the translator possessed a high reverence for his text and work, and his motivations that affected his lexical and grammatical choices were deeply rooted in a desire to faithfully carry over the meaning of the ST into the TT. For various discussions surround this point, cf. Anneli Aejmelaeus, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays (Revised and expanded ed.; Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 295–7, 307; Brock, “Phenomenon of Biblical Translation,” 314, 550; van der Louw, “Linguistic or Ideological Shifts?” 25ff. 86 Thackeray, A Grammar of the OT in Greek, 13. 87 Cécile Dogniez, “Fautes de traduction, ou bonnes traductions? Quelques exemples pris dans la LXX des Douze Prophètes,” in X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (ed. Bernard A. Taylor; SCS 51; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1998), 243. 88 Joosten, Collected Studies on the Septuagint, 15, 22. Furthermore, although stylistic marks may indicate the same, or at least very similar, hand in other parts of the Septuagint (see p. 10.), it does not appear to have any revisionary features, unlike other parts of the Septuagint. There is no apparent evidence for a revisionary or recensional work earlier than the one demonstrated by Barthélemy. This means that the Twelve might be one of the oldest parts of the Septuagint and closely resemble the original translator’s work. The assumption may be that if the subsequent revisionary work was meant to be for the entire Septuagint, then those books without this specific trait might be dated earlier than that activity. Of 84

2.4 Paradigms, Evidence & Translational Tradition

41

2.4.1 Multiple-Causation & Literalism The terms literal or literalism connote a number of different ideas on the nature of the translational style employed by those who created the Septuagint. So, some cautionary points must be considered. First, as McLay points out: “the translators of the LXX [Septuagint] were generally not intentionally striving for literal translations.”89 He notes that not only does the evidence too frequently point away from such a technique, but to assume so could skew the interpretation of the data. The degree to which a translator was literal is a “gauge to measure how well they achieved the standard.”90 The evidence does reveal a different standard in favour of this point. Second, building upon the first point, a bias against the translator’s style in the vein of literalism might cause the analyst to miss the nature of the translator’s free hand. As McLay explains, “it is the type and frequency of nonliteral renderings in the translation units that provide the most distinguishing characteristics of…[Translation Technique].”91 The deviations from literalism, irrespective of the reasons at this point, further reveal the translators’ approach, limits and, in some cases, theological concern. Third, because the translations mostly reflect an individual’s effort, the details that distinguish them from each other may be overlooked. This is a crucial point: “it is the idiosyncrasies of the individual translators that provide the most distinguishing features of…[Translation Technique].”92 The emphasis here lies in the criteria that determine literalism. If the translator deviates from the criteria that govern how one is to understand what is literal then the translation is subject to nonliteral criticism. And lastly, McLay is concerned that an over-emphasis on formal equivalence as the technique for the translators has affected use of the Septuagint in textual criticism.93 As the translators operated within the confines course, those texts that we have which do not have the καίγε revision may show evidence of an alternate kind of revision, and therefore dating that specific text would be related to that other activity. But until such activity can be demonstrated I take the Twelve to be earlier than the καίγε work, without any evidence of revision activity. 89 R. Timothy McLay, The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research (Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2003), 57. 90 See ibid. 91 Ibid., 58. 92 Ibid., 59. 93 See ibid., 60–1. Pietersma argues that the technique of the Septuagint translators was formal correspondence/equivalence and not dynamic. But these modern categories do not correspond to the evidence. An assumption that the translators’ methods was formal correspondence in order to then determine the method one ought to employ in a modern translation today does not follow. Moreover, ancient methods were varied. For example, evidence such as R, and the methods to which R held, refers to a “system of ancient linguistics, grammar and rhetoric, [which] was applied to translation” within locales of, and

42

Chapter 2: Methodology

of their TL, making translation choices that were drawn from a wide-range of possible influences, the ability for a modern scholar to retrovert the Hebrew Vorlage based upon this Greek text is extremely difficult. These four cautionary points by McLay provide some buffers against overstating the purpose, intention and nature of Septuagintal literalism. As the scale between the two extremes of literal and free likely refers to an ancient concept, irretrievable for us as a system, each descriptive instance of Greek style may in fact invoke multiple criteria rather than a spectral dialectic between literal and free. As Dines explains, there are “many intermediate stages and combinations, on which the different translations, or even different parts of the same translation, can be located.”94 It is not necessary to hold to the notions of literalism and then explain the derivations from it. Such a presupposition tacitly imputes a mind-set or approach to the translators – a rather tenuous one. Numerous causes, whether linguistic, social, theological and literalistic influenced a translator at the same time in various degrees.95 This study takes a linguistic approach to interpreting the evidence of Ambakoum. It explains the nature of the translation as a verbal expression within and for a new culture. There were numerous causes for many of the textual features, which had much to do with the place of the translation within Jewish Hellenistic culture of the time. Factors, notwithstanding an alternate Vorlage, such as literary style and shape, logic and coherence, exegesis, cultural concerns, a translator’s Weltanschauung (if it is even possible to deduce), and of course concerns of literalism, along with ideology and theology are considered.96 The number of divergences from literalism within the Twelve

not exclusive to, the Hellenistic Period (van der Louw). Cf. Albert Pietersma, “Translating a Translation with Examples from the Greek Psalter,” in Translating a Translation. The LXX and Its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism (eds. H. Ausloos et al.; BETL 213; Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 178–9. Also see van der Louw, Transformations in the Septuagint, 39. 94 Dines, The Septuagint, 121. 95 There is evidence derived from statistical patterns for literalness. This likely had a lot to do with the translators’ reverence for their ST. This reverence is a little bit of a vague notion, especially for us many centuries down the road, and certainly not the same as the extremely careful techniques and perceptions of later sopherim and of the Masoretes; cf. Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2d rev. ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 9. 96 The theological explanation is in final position to ensure against falsely imputing to the translator a highly conscious textual manipulation to which he may not have been committed. Moreover, his theological reflection while improvising cannot be dismissed. This point is to guard against quickly asserting theological reasons too quickly, not a rejection of their existence. The ordering and some of the terms are re-used here from van der Louw’s discussion, see van der Louw, “Linguistic or Ideological Shifts?” 26.

2.4 Paradigms, Evidence & Translational Tradition

43

make a distinction of either literal or free, especially for Ambakoum, inapplicable.97 Now, the inventory of transformations offered by van der Louw is a great start for understanding the nature of translational features in the Septuagint. Not only has he rigorously introduced the translation studies’ notion of transformation, but he has provided numerous ways by which to understand these in some Septuagintal texts. No doubt due to the constraints of a single volume, he did not, however, provide the many more kinds of, or causes for, transformations that occur in translation. A last point of note is with respect to recent studies on multiple-causation – another friend from the humanities. It argues that in translation studies appeal to literalism is an insufficient and imprecise method to explain all the textual phenomena. [I]n translation [it] shares many features with functional theories of translation, in that it looks at the various explanations, often acting simultaneously, that generate the phenomena.98

Multiple-causation is not a system but a way of looking at translational data. The analyst is encouraged to think more liberally with respect to how the data is interpreted, because the starting point for many of us is “why things happened.”99 As Pym rightly points out, we may ask many questions of a translation, “but none of our findings will be properly historical until we can hypothesize why certain translations were carried out in certain ways.”100 It is probably not an overstatement that translation studies in the Septuagint would do well to advance in light of answering this first question of why, embracing what we know of the occasion in which the activity arose. Factors such as “individual situation…textuality…[and] translators’ norms”101 are inherent to application of the theory. There are multiple sources of explanation for the complex process of translation.102 This is always true.103 As the present research shows, if the answer to the question of why, with respect to the translation style of the Ambakoum, is located in alignment to the 97

See Dines, The Septuagint, 120. Aitken, “The Origins of ΚΑΙ ΓΕ,” 37. 99 Anthony Pym, Method in Translation History (Manchester: St Jerome Publishing, 2010), 143. 100 Ibid. 101 Siobhan Brownlie, “Investigating Explanations of Translational Phenomena. A Case for Multiple Causality,” Target 15, no. 1 (2003): 111. 102 Ibid., 112; Pym, Method, 149. 103 When software generates translations (e.g. Bing Translator, http://bing.com/translator) the algorithms are ever-changing because the programmers seek to improve the generated output. Even in the conceptual realm of artificial intelligence (AI), the system will never cease to require adaptation to a new language and, therefore, culture. Contextual adaptation forces the intermediary to consider relevant and ever-new data. 98

44

Chapter 2: Methodology

Hebrew base text, then it is out of step with what we know of translation studies, life in 2nd C. Alexandria, what we know of Koine Greek, and so forth. The language of the Septuagint is undoubtedly different from its Classical parentage, but it is meant to be that way. Moreover, when the Septuaguint is compared to other Hellenistic evidence it in fact reads as merely a form of “eclectic” Koine.104 This point corresponds to the morphosyntax and semantic layers of the language used. Its eclectic character is mostly caused by interference from the ST. Naturally, because multiple-causation includes causes derived from the social background, linguistic ability, situation, etc., of a translator, it is crucial that such causes be carefully scrutinised, otherwise, circular reasoning can run amuck. This is particularly true of the Septuagint because little is known of the translators and their philosophy, except what we can glean from their work and the scant evidence concerning them. If a textual feature is used to explain the social background of the translator, and that same feature is read back into the text as a sociological proof for the change, it would then be circular. But when the nature of the language of the Septuagint is compared to other evidence from the period, such as other papyri, inscriptions, archaeology (i.e. ostraca, art), then we have a way forward, a way to advance in order to answer the questions on the nature of the language of the Septuagint. Therefore, this study does not consider the TT as literal with some free parts. This way of looking at the text does not in any way throw out literalism because its statistical data is part of the analysis. Literalism is part of the translator’s technique. The value of the numerous causes or motivators in the process of translation are essential. So, Septuagintal literalism does not reside on one end of the spectrum with a free approach on the other, something which Barr clearly brought to the fore. As there can be multiple causes for a particular translational choice, the methodological system that encapsulates what the translator’s style was, must be expansive enough to include new categories and causes, in step with the emergence of new research, to explain why. An appeal to literalism quite simply does not explain the reason for most choices.105 It may well be that a stereotypical choice determined the translator’s decision, i.e. διαθήκη for ‫ברית‬.106 The use of multiple-causation is not meant to overcomplicate the reasoning behind the decision-making process. Of course, some decisions required much less mental effort than others. The choice to 104 See James K. Aitken, “The Language of the Septuagint and Jewish Greek Identity,” in The Jewish-Greek Tradition in Antiquity and the Byzantine Empire (eds. James K. Aitken and James Carleton Paget; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 127–32. 105 For example, a catch-word in a new social context can be based on a combination of euphemism, phonetic similarity and phonology alone. See James K. Aitken, “Multiple Causation of Translation Features and the Case of Aquila’s σύν,” (paper presented at Die Septuaginta: Text, Wirkung, Rezeption, Wuppertal, 2012). 106 See Tov, The Text-Critical Use of LXX, 21.

2.4 Paradigms, Evidence & Translational Tradition

45

improvise during the act of translation could have been due to only one factor, i.e. unknown word meaning, but the actual writing decision within that process would have had many influences. The style of a trained scribe would have had influences that were derived from his training in language (figures and tropes), his social background, interferences from the text and influence from the translated text (embodying thematic allusions), (contextual) linguistic challenges in the language with which he was communicating, theological touchpoints, and above all, from his habit of reading in Hebrew and Greek. It is then difficult to call such a style either literal or free. Multiple causes existed for a number of textual features. Lastly, there are some exegetical features of the translation that clearly reflect the translator’s theological Denkart. Some changes in the text exist as a result of theological reflection or perspective, but they did not arise necessarily out of theological motivation. The intent was to create a faithful and meaningful translation. Improvisational decisions in the process of translation would obviously have been affected by the translator’s theological orientation. Such textual elements can be observed in Ambakoum. What appears free in one respect may in fact be an attempt to provide meaning or clarity to a passage. In agreement with van der Louw,107 attributing theological motivation to the translator should probably be the choice of last resort when trying to understand a specific transformation. Such things do, however, provide us with a vantage into the translator’s hermeneutic.108 This kind of theological exegesis is derived from the context of the passage, indicating the translator’s theological Tendenz. Sometimes the mixture of error and intentional change can provide further evidence of the translator’s view of his material.109 Determining whether this is the case may be done after each specific textual change has been analysed and then collated. Theological exegesis did occur to some degree in Ambakoum. The translator’s theological perspective, which was part-andparcel of his thinking, would have influenced him by degrees. Such phenomena are irregular; but, nonetheless, sometimes the best way to explain a particular change.

107

See van der Louw, Transformations in the Septuagint, 57. In this case I mean the translator’s interpretative lens through which he understood his specific text, not his hermeneutic in a more general, or perhaps modern, sense, e.g. historical grammatical, or allegorical, etc. Therefore, with respect to Amb, it is the nature of his interpretative lens through which he understood the text. 109 See pp. 136–148. 108

46

Chapter 2: Methodology

2.4.2 Contextual Exegesis Having discussed literalism at some length, let us now consider the ideas behind what is called free. Quite often, when the Septuagint is not literal scholars will invoke the concept of free technique, which is sometimes explained as contextual exegesis. Free translation is notoriously difficult to systematically pin down.110 Similar to literalism, the concept of free translation lacks “adequate terminology,” and as a result is essentially a vague notion of what occurs when something is not literal.111 It is generally thought to be what a translator does when he attempts to carry over the sense or purport of the ST by use of a TL into a TT. It aims “to give the translator’s understanding of the original rather than to reproduce it quantitatively.”112 Septuagintal literalism is concerned with observing features such as word-order, and, as much as possible, semantic correspondence, at the expense of the TL’s grammatical, idiomatic or natural linguistic strictures.113 Often, the kind of contextual exegesis of the Septuagint is what, on the surface, occurs as a pattern of changes that can be understood through the addition, omission or substitution of parts of speech in the TT in comparison to the ST. Naturally this process requires aligning the texts in question. Again, these changes are frequently found and sometimes suggested as deviations from so-called literalism. Whereas addition or omission of textual elements are often related to TL concerns, a translator may, in the act of substitution, insert into the “translation any idea the source text called to mind.”114 As the argument flows, the textual context may have affected the mind of the translator, which could have been immediate, perhaps the current phrase, sentence, or strophe, or could have been remote, perhaps incorporating conceptual ideas from other biblical books, or conceptual elements from the

110

Cf. van der Louw, Transformations in the Septuagint, 8. Van der Louw explains that the lack of “methodological clarity” is due to several factors, including the tendency of the Septuagint towards literalism, the use of the Septuagint in text critical studies and the shifting sands of free translation when compared to literal ones, hence making literalism easier to study. Cf. Ibid., 8–9. 112 Dines, The Septuagint, 120. 113 Barr comments: “It is our custom, when talking about translations, to work with the simple pair of opposed categories ‘literal’ and ‘free’. A free translation, people usually think, gives an impression of the general purport or meaning of a text, without concerning itself too much for individual details; a literal translation, it is felt, concerns itself for details as well as giving the general meaning, or indeed it may concern itself with details to such a degree that it gives a false impression of the meaning as a whole. Thus literal translations are often described as being ‘word for word’: they give, it is implied, a rendering of each discrete element but fail to give an adequate picture of the sense of the whole,” see Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 279; van der Louw, “Linguistic or Ideological Shifts?” 23. 114 Tov, The Text-Critical Use of LXX, 45–6. 111

2.4 Paradigms, Evidence & Translational Tradition

47

world-of-the-translator.115 Linked themes should be determined through common lexica.116 As a first step, the STs are properly compared to the TTs in order to determine whether contextual exegesis is the sufficient explanation for the difference. This is a process of assessing the pluses and minuses. Contextual exegesis is also different from linguistic exegesis. The latter comparatively interprets the grammar, words and semantics. But, this may occur without consideration of context. Contextual exegesis, therefore, incorporates all aspects of linguistic exegesis but is also concerned with the wider literary context and conceptual content. This may then also connect to both the context of inner-Septuagintal and Hebrew Vorlagen. Although every translation includes varying degrees of interpretation, not every difference away from the ST should be elevated to a level of theological exegesis.117 Any element substituted, omitted or “added to the source text by the translation,”118 may mark theological exegesis. However, the ability for a modern scholar to know the “intellectual background of its translator(s),”119 discern the manifold “ideas and knowledge reflected in the choice of terms or methods of expression in the translation,”120 and have enough accurate information concerning the cultural and political Sitz im Leben of a given translator is quite a difficult endeavour. Sometimes it is insurmountable. What might superficially appear to be theological exegesis may be due to a misreading, an obscurity, a grammatical function or a linguistic development. That the translator had a theological opinion of his text and world is hopefully beyond dispute. But knowing that this was the primary cause for a textual 115 Cf. Ibid., 46. Joosten sees this within certain bounds, usually it is the immediate context, cf. Joosten, “Exegesis in the Septuagint Version of Hosea,” 75–6. 116 An implied idea by a modern scholar might not have existed for the translator. The context must retain a conceptual overlap with the other remote one, while also maintaining lexical (or synonymous) linguistic data, which is often helped by similar/same grammar too. 117 Tov explains that there is specific criteria to determine the degree of theologically motivated exegesis. Also, Aejmelaeus explains that there were likely different levels of motivation for the changes that are more than linguistic differences, as she explains, “[i]t is obvious that the various translators of the Septuagint – each in their individual ways – at times departed from the strict word-for-word procedure in order to give expression to their understanding of the source text and in doing this occasionally revealed a motivation other than linguistic. It is not a question of whether there was interpretation, even reinterpretation and adaptation of the text to new situations, the question that I wish to discuss is how to recognize different kinds of interpretation or to distinguish between different levels of interpretation in the work of the Septuagint translators.” See Emanuel Tov, “Theologically Motivated Exegesis Embedded in the Septuagint,” (paper presented at Proceedings of a Conference at the Annenberg Research Institute May 15–16, Philadelphia, 1989); Aejmelaeus, Trail of the Septuagint Translators, 296. 118 Tov, The Greek and Hebrew Bible, 259. 119 Ibid. 120 Ibid.

48

Chapter 2: Methodology

alteration should be weighed with as much data as possible. The translators left no commentaries or notes. And as we do not have access to the translator, prudence points away from epistemological fallacies that (pre)suppose what a translator’s motivations and reasons were. We only have access to the text.121 In each case for contextual exegesis there is either an addition, omission or substitution of a textual element. When these are combined there may be a higher degree of contextual exegesis. While also considering semantic choice, a theologically motivated exegesis may be put forth as the reason for the alteration. (1) Additions. When the translator added words to his translation it was most often to improve the “readability”122 in the Greek language, and for subtle clarification of content.123 (2) Omissions. This practice can be understood in the following two ways: first, through either compound words or the ability to choose a lexical equivalent that corresponded to one or more elements of the Hebrew, the translator would omit certain parts of the Vorlage; and second, due to stylistic or grammatical considerations, the translator may have omitted elements in his translation(s).124 (3) Substitutions. The choice to substitute an element with a word that had little or no semantic overlap with the Hebrew text is common.125 It occurs with such regularity for certain words that there is likely a tradition of interpretation behind such a change.126 The decision to alter the text in this fashion more readily reveals the exegetical character of the style. Often the meaning is not drastically altered, as in Num 12:8, where the translator substituted δόξα for ‫;תמונה‬127 the logical step here is easy to see. Tov is right to point out that this reveals an introduction of “new ideas…often clad in the form of theological ideas.”128 Theological exegesis, even inconspicuous, is said to be observed through carefully observing the

121

This is also in consideration of supplementary texts. Should a translator have written down why he made his choices then we would have access to that information, akin to a journal or commentary. Also cf. Palmer, “‘Not Made with Tracing Paper.’ Studies in the Septuagint of Zechariah,” 81. 122 Tov, The Text-Critical Use of LXX, 46. 123 See ibid. 124 See Tov, The Greek and Hebrew Bible, 131. 125 See Tov, The Text-Critical Use of LXX, 49. 126 There are a variety of such examples. The change from ‫( צוּר‬πέτρα) to κύριος might have been due to a concern over how one might perceive God, which resulted in concretisation of the metaphor in translation. But Peters argues it simply indicates an alternate Vorlage. See pp. 136–148. 127 This is one of Tov’s examples; see Tov, The Text-Critical Use of LXX, 49. 128 Ibid.

2.4 Paradigms, Evidence & Translational Tradition

49

phenomena of addition, omission or substitution in the text.129 Therefore, having established sufficient reasons for the various changes of a text, if new ideas arise from the translation, then there is warrant to begin to discuss this kind of exegesis as clothed in theological garb. More common than not, such changes were probably linguistic rather than theological, and located in the translator’s improvisational task within the translational effort. The translator attempts to explain the teaching of his ST, not to intentionally alter it so that some other theology alien to the text comes through. There is no evidence for such an approach. In fact, certain words and phrases likely had certain register within his language community. This leads us, however, to the somewhat unsatisfying approach of determining the nature of free technique or contextual exegesis in the Septuagint. If these things, as Tov points out, pertain to new ideas, different from those of the source, and perhaps to different theology, then does this not indicate more than simply what randomly occurred in the mind of the translator? If the translator is a trained scribe who would have already had a keen understanding of his text(s),130 then to some degree even his improvisations would have connected with what he already understood of the text, which would have had some degree of relationship to the reading held by his community. Moreover, consistent semantic difference indicates a relatively high degree of intentionality. If, as is commonly agreed, contextual exegesis indicates a greater degree of intention to any given textual divergence, then might those ideas be located in the translator’s reading tradition rather than in his random

129 Tov states that “[t]heological exegesis of the LXX may be defined as any theological element added to the source text by the translator,” cf. Tov, The Greek and Hebrew Bible, 259. 130 I am using the term scribe, not in reference to a dragoman, a professional translator who worked up ad hoc translations (Rabin), nor in reference to an individual who, though like a dragoman, employed a technique that was mostly literal and, because of his familiarity with Jewish scribal practices, used exegetical devices at different points (van der Kooij), but, as a way to refer to a translator from a language/religious community who was very familiar with his texts, and possessed an understanding of his texts in Hebrew and Greek – a reading and interpretative tradition (not necessarily involving an actualization, per van der Kooij) – prior to translating them, which was clear to him and those with whom he worked. His translation is, therefore, a version of that Jewish Hellenistic community’s view of the Hebrew teaching. See n. 131 below.

50

Chapter 2: Methodology

idiosyncrasies?131 Now, before I endeavour to explain how these things relate, I would like to first bring to the fore two present-day competing paradigms.132 131

The phrase “reading tradition” can mean different things to different authors. I am using this term with one of two particular linguistic scenarios in view. It seems to have been established and agreed for sometime now that the Hebrew texts were read out loud (Barr, Tov, van der Kooij, et al.). This reading would have had a certain pronunciation, and words could be vocalised according to an interpretation. A scribe’s reading tradition was due to the fact that he was “trained in the reading of biblical texts” (van der Kooij). This reading would have occurred in a particular social construct, about which van der Kooij argued in his monograph (1998) and recent essay (2012). Boyd-Taylor and Pietersma also think the setting is a school. (Cf. pp. 15–16 and n. 3 & 4 in van der Kooij’s 2012 essay for a good list of different views on the provenance of the translators.) Van der Kooij explains that these Jewish scribes would have been taught “the ‘reading’ of these literary texts, in the setting of a ‘school’, [which] implies that a ‘reading’ was transmitted by teachers.” He argues that an “actualizing interpretation” occurred, which, in this setting, was what happened when the text was read in Hebrew in such a way as to bring the reading of certain events forward to the present-day of the hearers. This is the “interpretation” he discusses, which would have been authorised by the attendant High Priest. The interpretation is derived from the reconstruction of “the ‘reading’…of the Hebrew on which the translation is based.” And with respect to the reading out loud, I am sure that such a scenario like this existed, and that words were pronounced a certain way. This is a Hebrew reading tradition and its interpretation. But what happened – linguistically – after this Hebrew reading and before the Greek rendering? In the majority of this study I use the phrase reading tradition in reference to what transpired after the Hebrew reading. Having read and pronounced the Hebrew (interpretation being inherent to reading), the community discussed it in Greek (and possibly Aramaic). As Hebrew may not have been the mother-tongue (at this time) of this diasporic community, an oral “reading” in Greek would most likely have ensued. As Aejmelaeus notes, “there must have been an increasing need to find Greek expressions for central concepts of the Jewish religion and the content of the Torah. What could have been more natural than translating Scripture orally into Greek for those members of the community who could not follow Hebrew reading?” (Though I do not agree entirely with the assumption about their ability to follow the Hebrew reading.) The more this occurred the more the community had a Greek (linguistically) habit of reading and understanding of the text, which has the unintended effect of further dismantling the theory of a dragoman (Rabin). All this would have been especially true in the time before even LXX was created. There would have been an interpretation/understanding of the text in Greek before the translation(s) was even conceived of. Consider that the Hebrew text can be read out loud in Greek. This is not uncommon even today in schools, where a teacher passes her eyes over, let’s say, a Hebrew text, and speaks out loud in, for example, French. She is able, through familiarity with the text, to immediately transform the text and offer a vocal reading in another language. It is transformed on-the-fly. It is not necessarily her personal translation, though in today’s context(s) it may be styled by a French version with which she is familiar. It is an audible reading in a language different than the Vorlage. Now van der Kooij could be close to the money on the social-historical setting, but I shall not comment on that here. What is important to indicate here is my emphasis on a Greek reading tradition. Moreover, when I speak of interpretation I do not see it formed through a

2.4 Paradigms, Evidence & Translational Tradition

51

The choice of paradigm determines much with respect to how one understands both the nature of the translations and their literary/cultural function. 2.4.3 Interlinear Paradigm or Solo Septuaginta The Interlinear Paradigm (IP) looks at the Septuagint as a crib for reading the underlying Hebrew text. This was in view by the translators of NETS.133 It Hebrew reading that then followed a pattern of literalism with some free elements here and there (Jewish exegesis). I get the sense that van der Kooij is moving away from this earlier point when, in his 2003 article, he writes, “…as a scribe he [the translator] was familiar with matters of content and of interpretation of the Biblical book involved. It means, in principle that he did not produce his translation on an ad hoc basis, nor intuitively (Helsinki school), but as one acquainted with the Biblical text he was going to translate.” This is where I take leave of many contemporary views on the subject. The complete translation is reflective of the teaching/interpretation in Greek of the language community. Aitken refers to the translator as “accurate,” neither a dragoman nor a scribe familiar with exegetical traditions. This oral reading tradition is very normal in a multi-linguistic setting, especially when one (or more) language is more natural than another. At the point of translation this “reading tradition,” viz. the way it was handled regularly in Greek, would have heavily influenced each translator. As a result, the translator would have been bound up in the tradition, or the translator-scribe was a conduit of it. This linguistic backdrop provides a helpful and straightforward way to understand that the translators made the texts they desired. Cf. James K. Aitken, review of Arie van der Kooij, The Oracle of Tyre, VT 51, no. 3 (2001): 409–10; C. Rabin, “The Translation Process and the Character of the Septuagint,” HUB 6 (1964): 1– 26; Arie van der Kooij, The Oracle of Tyre (VTSup 61; eds. H. M. Barstad et al.; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 1998), 112–22; Arie van der Kooij, “The Septuagint of Zechariah as Witness to an Early Interpretation of the Book,” in The Book of Zechariah and Its Influence (ed. C. M. Tuckett; Aldershot, Hants.: Ashgate, 2003), 54; Tov, The Text-Critical Use of LXX, 105; James Barr, “‘Guessing’ in the Septuagint,” in Studien zur Septuaginta - Robert Hanhart zu Ehren (PHK 190; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 21–3; Barr, The Typology of Literalism, 291; Johann Cook and Arie van der Kooij, Law, Prophets, and Wisdom: On the Provenance of Translators and their Books in the Septuagint Version (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 15–62; Anneli Aejmelaeus, “The Septuagint and Oral Translation,” in XIV Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Helsinki, 2010 (ed. Melvin K. H. Peters; SCS 59; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), 8. 132 LXX.D does not really present an alternate paradigm. It shares much in common with BdA, taking its leave at different points, i.e. less consideration given to patristic sources, etc. The choice to not deviate from the Septuagint in favour of a modern translational model derived from the Heb., so NETS, does push it away somewhat from the NETS philosophy. Cf. Martin Karrer, “Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D). Characteristics of the German Translation Project,” in Translating a Translation. The LXX and Its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism (eds. H. Ausloos et al.; BETL 213; Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 116–8. 133 Cf. Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, “To the Reader of NETS,” in A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included Under That Title (New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), xiii–xx. I

52

Chapter 2: Methodology

theorises that the Septuagint was invented as a way to bring the Greek reader “closer to the Hebrew text” in circulation at that time.134 It was only later that “the version [was] used and read as an independent text.”135 By virtue of the interlinearity of the paradigm the Hebraic interference in the TT is understandable. Linguistic features, such as word-order, were important for the very reason stated above – this is the order of the Hebrew, ipso facto. The term “‘interlinear’ refers to a linguistic relationship, not a historical entity.”136 Although its most well-known promulgators are Albert Pietersma and Benjamin Wright,137 a number of publications by Cameron Boyd-Taylor have further clarified our understanding of the paradigm. The strengths of the view are quite easily grasped. First, the syntagmatic structure of the TT often follows the pattern of the ST. This seems to kick against the linguistic demands of the TL. Second, Pietersma has argued that the presence of interlinear Greek and Latin texts in the Hellenistic and Roman periods is circumstantial proof of this idea behind the Septuagint.138 The text is meant to be read dependent upon (as a textual form), and subservient to (concerned with “inter-textual relations”), the base Hebrew text.139 The setting is an educational one, perhaps a school, and meant for readers who would want this kind of translation.140 Therefore, the “translated books of the LXX are interlinear, until proven otherwise.”141

assume this is not the case where a Heb. base text does not exist, i.e. Wisdom of Solomon, cf. Michael A. Knibb, “To the Reader of Wisdom of Salomon,” in A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included Under That Title (New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 698–99. 134 See Cameron Boyd-Taylor, “An Ear for an Eye – Lay Literacy and the Septuagint,” in Scripture in Transition. Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo (eds. Anssi Voitila and Jutta Jokiranta; JSJ 126; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 131; Cameron Boyd-Taylor, ed., A Question of Methodology. Albert Pietersma Collected Essays on the Septuagint (BTS 14; eds. B. Doyle, G. van Belle, and J. Verheyden; Leuven: Peeters, 2013), 167. 135 Jan Joosten, “Reflections on the ‘Interlinear Paradigm’ in Septuagintal Studies,” in Scripture in Transition. Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo (eds. Anssi Voitila and Jutta Jokiranta; JSJ 126; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 162. 136 Boyd-Taylor, ed., A Question of Methodology, 367. 137 Cf. Pietersma and Wright, “To the Reader of NETS,” xiii–xx; Cameron Boyd-Taylor, “A Place in the Sun: The Interpretative Significance of LXX-Psalm 18:5c,” BIOSCS 31 (1998): 71–105; Albert Pietersma, “A New English Translation of the Septuagint,” in X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (ed. Bernard A. Taylor; SCS 51; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1998), 217–28. 138 See Joosten, “Reflections on the ‘Interlinear Paradigm’,” 166. 139 Boyd-Taylor, “An Ear for an Eye,” 130; Pietersma and Wright, “To the Reader of NETS,” xiv. 140 Joosten, “Reflections on the ‘Interlinear Paradigm’,” 165. 141 Boyd-Taylor, ed., A Question of Methodology, 167.

2.4 Paradigms, Evidence & Translational Tradition

53

There are three essential premises to IP, which as Boyd-Taylor has pointed out, are very similar to some of the conclusions reached by Rabin concerning the nature of the Septuagint:142 first, the Septuagint’s use of “translationese,” or “quantitative equivalence to the Hebrew” is elucidated by IP’s superior explanatory model – linguistic interlinearity; second, the “unintelligibility of the Greek qua text is one of its [the Septuagint’s] inherent characteristics;” and third, IP “safeguards the Greekness of the Septuagint by emphasising that its linguistic strangeness…was made to serve a specific (possibly pedagogical) purpose.”143 The idea of translationese is part of the literalism to which the translators adhered. Different Hebrew syntactical structures and even word choices are conveyed in Greek “at the expense of Greek idiom.”144 Boyd-Taylor is quick to point out that this is different from “mere literalism.”145 As he summarises: On this hypothesis, the contravention of Greek linguistic convention was deemed acceptable because the aim of the translator was not to produce an independent Greek text but one conceived within the model of a Greek-Hebrew diglot, i.e. an interlinear text, and this involved quantitative fidelity.146

But the intent to often match the syntagmatic correspondence of the Hebrew is a part of Septuagintal literalism, as pointed out by Barr and Tov. It is hard to see how this is not part of the translator’s literalistic technique. A policy of following word-order, which is manifestly clear across swathes of the Septuagint, does seem to be embedded within this kind of literalism. It is one component of it. The second assumption of IP is that the Septuagint is “at times virtually unintelligible and that this feature often stems from its relationship to the source language.”147 The only way to understand the lexical choices, and often the nature of the bizarre syntax, is by recourse to the Hebrew parent text. The Septuagint is thus inherently bound to it. Many passages of the Septuagint are quite simply “meaningless in themselves,”148 rendering the need for the Hebrew base text alongside as imperative. It is not necessarily that the Hebrew was confusing to a translator, as if the unintelligibility existed because of confusion at the point of translation. The idea that “the Greek text qua text has 142 Cf. Pietersma and Wright, “To the Reader of NETS,” xiv–xv; Cameron Boyd-Taylor, Reading Between the Lines. The Interlinear Paradigm for Septuagint Studies (BTS 8; eds. B. Doyle, G. van Belle, and J. Verheyden; Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 328–9; Rabin, “Translation Process,” 22–25. 143 Cf. Boyd-Taylor, Reading Between the Lines, 91. 144 Ibid. 145 Ibid., 92. 146 Ibid., 92–93. 147 Ibid., 93. 148 Ibid.

54

Chapter 2: Methodology

a dimension of intelligibility”149 is determined by how the Greek reads in the context of Hellenistic literature. Pietersma notes Barr’s well-known example of how ἐν ἐμοί translates ‫בי‬,150 of which “no sense can be made…unless one has recourse to the Hebrew source text.”151 Hence, by use of IP, one can understand the reason for the prepositional choice and grasp its purpose – to access the Hebrew, and for pedagogical reasons. Yet this appears to be in spite of the numerous instances of liberty by the translator to make do as best he can when the parent text was unclear to him. To this point I shall return shortly. But with respect to this second aspect of IP, what is central here is that in following an isomorphic approach, the translator “apparently does not aim at representing the literal sense of the parent but only its form.”152 Because of this the TT is said to not have required independent intelligibility. It did not need to function as an independent literary artefact, hence it could be pretty much meaningless at various junctures, because it was not meant to be independently meaningful. It is a text to bring the reader to the Hebrew. The next premise provides assumed support for the model. The strangeness of the Greek is protected against what Boyd-Taylor calls dubious inferences: that the “usage of the translators was itself in some way aberrant,” or “that it represents the conventions of a Jewish dialect.”153 The linguistic oddity was suitable or acceptable to the school environment for which the Septuagint was designed. It would seem that the readers of this setting were either monolingual – unlikely – or at least did not know Hebrew well enough to read the text directly, or naturally.154 The reader is brought to the Hebrew ST via the Greek

149

Boyd-Taylor, ed., A Question of Methodology, 157. Ibid. 151 Joosten, “Reflections on the ‘Interlinear Paradigm’,” 166. 152 Boyd-Taylor, Reading Between the Lines, 93. 153 Ibid., 95. He later on points out that the discovery of papyri destroys the dialectical theory. On dialectical Greek see G. H. R. Horsley, “The Fiction of ‘Jewish Greek’,” in New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. Linguistic Essays (vol. 5; Sydney: Macquarie University. The Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, 1989), 5–40. 154 Cf. Joosten, “Reflections on the ‘Interlinear Paradigm’,” 165; Boyd-Taylor, Reading Between the Lines, 35. When one speaks of the early readers of the Septuagint we are then referring to a specific construct. First, the translator is truly the first real reader. After completing sections of his text he was the first one to read and re-read what he wrote. This means that there was an amount of comprehension and acceptability within the mind of the translator as to the accuracy, or rightness, of his work. The subsequent readers would be those of his language (scribal) community, perhaps first an overseer for the work itself. Together this very early construct, of which we critically know next to nothing, would make up the reader at the point of the first produced text. 150

2.4 Paradigms, Evidence & Translational Tradition

55

language.155 The Septuagint is therefore “only [to] be understood in its entirety with the help of the Hebrew.”156 Awareness of the drawbacks to IP are, however, increasing, in spite of its scientific modelling.157 As Wagner recently remarked: [t]he presence of source-language interference in a translated text from this later period does not, by itself, indicate that the translator followed an ‘interlinear’ model of translation – as Boyd-Taylor’s own careful studies of OG Reigns and OG Job clearly demonstrate. Such interference may largely be due, rather, to the translator’s effort to locate his work within the broader literary system of Hellenistic Judaism by conforming to translational norms deriving from the Greek Pentateuch.158

Schaper also argued many years ago that the Septuagint (Psalter specifically) contained exegesis, which must by its nature preclude a model such as IP.159 And as Joosten rightly points out, the theory that the Septuagint was aligned to a Hebrew text, as found with Hellenistic and Roman texts, is purely conjectural. There is no evidence for it.160 As Joosten explains: A weakness in the presentation of the interlinear hypothesis is the near-total absence of positive evidence that would favour it. No bilingual Hebrew-Greek manuscripts have been

155

Boyd-Taylor, Reading Between the Lines, 348. Pietersma and Wright, “To the Reader of NETS,” xv. The IP is presently discussed in tight relation to DTS. The schematic structure of DTS is invaluable because it provides a way to describe how and why translated texts came into being, DTS being a sub-discipline of translation theory/studies. For the proponents of IP, the nature of the Septuagint is understand to be a linguistic activity with a high degree of negative transfer through interference from the ST by use of SL constructs. This description is in light of alternative kinds of literature from the period. Moreover, the acceptability feature of DTS is an important description for IP. 157 See Joosten, “Reflections on the ‘Interlinear Paradigm’,” 168; Stanley E. Porter, review of Eberhard Bons and Thomas J. Kraus, eds., Et Sapienter et eloquenter: Studies on Rhetorical and Stylistic Features of the Septuagint, JSCS 46 (2013): 122–5. 158 He further states: “[t]he ‘biblical’ sound of these later translations (including the occasional ‘unintelligibility’ of their translationese) would have assured a monolingual audience that the Greek versions of these scriptural texts faithfully represent their Hebrew parents.” It is not clear, however, how this last point can be proven true; moreover, the audience would likely have not been monolingual. He also states later on that due to the linguistic, literary and textual features of his Isaiah study (at least chp. 1) was not meant to replace its Heb. and was also not “designed simply to assume a subservient position in relation to its source” (italics mine). Cf. Wagner, Reading the Sealed Book, 62, 234. 159 Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter, 16–25. However, as Pietersma rightly pointed out, Schaper does not delineate between textual features introduced at the stages of text-production and those made by later reception communities, cf. Boyd-Taylor, ed., A Question of Methodology, 135–41. 160 See Joosten, “Reflections on the ‘Interlinear Paradigm’,” 170–1. 156

56

Chapter 2: Methodology

found, proving that the Septuagint was used in Jewish schools for teaching the Hebrew Bible.161

It is one thing to demonstrate evidence of interlinear school texts in the GrecoRoman world, and quite another to suggest this for the Septuagint,162 especially if the intended audience was very select.163 Moreover, the evidence is not only lacking for an IP of LXX/OG, but also for all later versions.164 No one later conceived of such interlinearity, which leaves us wondering – as it naturally pertains to at least LXX – if such an idea for the Septuagint ever existed in the first place. Furthermore, the “stylistic register,” “internal characteristics” (i.e. linguistic irregularities that have an internal correspondence within the corpus) and exegesis, all point away from the idea of interlinearity.165 Because differences of style, away from literalism, exist for different books of the Septuagint, it can be “exceedingly difficult to decide to which Hebrew elements the Greek words correspond.”166 Quite simply, additions and omissions break the model. Joosten concludes that, “the Septuagint was intended from the start to function as a stand-in, a substitute for the Hebrew Scriptures.”167 Often in distinction to IP is a view advocated by a number of scholars who argue that the Septuagint was created as an independent literary artefact, which means it is meant to (free to) be read without the Hebrew. In this scenario, it is meant to be read on its own, not in subservience to the Hebrew, which might even extend to whether it was to be even read with it. This philosophy of approach is followed by the translators of La Bible d’Alexandrie,168 who are producing French annotated translations of the Septuagint. The purpose of their work is to translate the text “according to the Greek;” to establish and understand the “divergencies of the Septuagint context,” which pertains to those between the TT and ST; and provide a study of the “ancient reception 161

Ibid. As van der Kooij rightly suggests, “[i]t must be asked however whether this type of text [created for a school setting like other Greco-Roman schools] represents an adequate parallel to the OG or the Pentateuch, or of other books. The difficulty is that this type of text does not present a translation of Homer into another language. It was put into Koine in order to provide the Greek reader a help in matters of grammar, so it seems,” see Arie van der Kooij, “The Old Greek of Isaiah and Other Prophecies Published in Ptolemaic Egypt,” in Die Septuaginta – Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse (eds. Martin Meiser, Wolfgang Kraus, and Martin Karrer; WUNT 252; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 75. 163 See Joosten, “Reflections on the ‘Interlinear Paradigm’,” 171. 164 One might think that α´ reflects such an approach, but current Aquilan research appears to be moving in another direction, see p. 15. 165 Joosten, “Reflections on the ‘Interlinear Paradigm’,” 172. 166 Ibid., 177. 167 Ibid., 178. 168 See Harl, “BdA, I. Translation Principles,” 181–97. 162

2.4 Paradigms, Evidence & Translational Tradition

57

and interpretation of the LXX [Septuagint].”169 Therefore, concerns such as a translator’s intention can only be deduced from the Greek, and is not meant to be derived directly from the Hebrew. The Septuagint is, therefore, “not a shadow copy” of the source, but “depends equally on the conditions where it emerged.”170 The Septuagint is considered a Greek literary artefact in its own right, which is observed in its comprehensibility and coherence. The translators showed creativity, being “concerned with logic and clarity as well as expression and stylistic device.”171 2.4.3.1 Text-Produced & Text-Received In spite of the criticisms against IP, this entire discussion within the field today has raised the spectre of sound methodology. And rightly so. The difference between text-production, the text as it was produced, and text-reception, the text as it was received through history, is crucial. It is core to philology and linguistics in the study of the Septuagint, itself a product spanning centuries. Pietersma is right that this distinction is axiomatic to sound exegesis of the Septuagint;172 it is “the Septuagint as produced that forms the basis for the hermeneutics of the translated text.”173 When one discusses a Septuagintal translator’s technique one is concerned with the nature of the production when it occurred. It is related to that activity of a translator at a given point in time. This is obviously synchronic. A translator’s semantic and morphosyntactic choices can only be understood within the social conditions in which they arose. The paradigm through which to understand the translator’s work is, according to adherents of IP, best achieved through appreciation and application of the interlinearity model. Text-reception is, however, bound up with the history of interpretation. It refers to how later language and religious communities received (handled) it. It is a diachronic analysis. Now, while most scholars would agree with this distinction, what Pietersma means by text-production is more nuanced than noted above. It does not merely refer to the initial production of a Septuagintal translator within his Sitz im Leben, as I have briefly indicated. For Pietersma it refers to this activity as an interlinear one – text-production is an interlinear activity for the Septuagint. This brooks truck with the basic structure of Septuagintal literalism. As he writes: If the original text form can only be established by a painstaking analysis of both the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the text, it follows that the verbal make-up of the target text must be laid bare in essentially the same inductive way, namely, through a detailed 169

Ibid., 183. Ibid., 184–5. 171 Ibid., 185. 172 Boyd-Taylor, ed., A Question of Methodology, 276. 173 Ibid. 170

58

Chapter 2: Methodology

analysis not only of the process by which the target text was derived from its source, but also of the literary product that resulted from this activity. 174

He further explains that the vertical and horizontal components indicate a twodimensional model. He writes: On the horizontal plane morphemes are knit together into syntactic units to convey information, on the vertical plane, the parent text forms the de facto context for units of meaning, and as a result of excessive one-for-one dependence on the source text the receptor text may be rendered disjointed or worse.175 Vertical Relationship y-Axis

Horizontal Relationship x-Axis

TT ST

Figure 1: Interlinear Textual Relationship

The above diagram helps show this. He does not suggest that Hebrew semantics “eclipses Greek meanings,”176 which is different from how words are used in different ways, such as with stereotyping, where a word is used outside of what might be considered the right context for it. The meaning of Greek words is still bound to the normal rules of lexicography and semantics.177 This model is constrained by an important concept in IP known as the “constitutive character” of the text as it was produced, which is said to be synonymous with the phrase Sitz im Leben.178 An analysis of the translator’s work, thus formed, within a particular socio-cultural context, must square with “the conditions which gave rise to the text rather than the history of its reception.”179 Reckoning with that initial activity against later readings should 174

Ibid., 275. Ibid., 158. 176 Ibid., 159. 177 John A. L. Lee, “A Note on Septuagint Material in the Supplement to Liddel and Scott,” Glotta 47, no. 1/4 (1969): 234, 238. 178 Boyd-Taylor, Reading Between the Lines, 35–37. 179 Ibid., 53. 175

2.4 Paradigms, Evidence & Translational Tradition

59

also act as a guard against anachronistic ascriptions to a translator’s intent. The pursuit of a translator’s intentions is admittedly fraught with problems. I think all would agree that we need to work with the text before us, attributing very little to what a translator’s thoughts were, not having access to him.180 Certainly, as Boyd-Taylor points out, “[b]y putting the question [re: an original text] in terms of the cultural assumptions under which the translator’s intentions were formulated and expressed, we avoid the fallacy of solving the problems of the text by appeal to putative mental states.”181 Furthermore, when IP refers to the readers or receivers of OG it is very clear that this is for real readers within an educational setting at the time when the given text was produced.182 But what do we actually know about the original setting? This theory of a school setting is derived from an analysis of the nature of the text, through IP, within the Hellenistic and Roman literary worlds.183 It may well have been a school or scribal setting, but IP does not really demonstrate this. The kind kind of school setting in view is an assumption that is heavily weighted upon a theory (constitutive character) of the linguistic make-up of the Septuagint.

180 Aejmeleus makes a number of good points in her article on intention. In one section she argues that the translators worked intuitively. I think this is helpful from a psychological standpoint in those cases where the translator might have improvised. Cf. Anneli Aejmelaeus, “Translation Technique and the Intention of the Translator,” in VII Congress of the International Organization of Septuagint and Cognate Studies (ed. Claude E. Cox; SCS 31; Leuven: Society of Biblical Literature, 1991), 23–36. 181 Boyd-Taylor, Reading Between the Lines, 53. 182 Ibid. 183 If the school setting is close to the mark, it may also be prudent to suggest that this environment was within that of a group of, what we might (anachronistically) call, synagogues for the diasporic community of Alexandria, which may indicate a sort of scribal organisation – not lay. It seems quite probable that there would have been collaboration between the translators of the same timeframe and locale. Thus when we speak of the readers of the Septuagint, viz. the first readers, we should probably imagine educated people, students and senior scribes alike, or as Thackeray called them, les collaborateurs. Moreover, as Lester Grabbe has pointed out, “evidence for institutions generally accepted as synagogues is known for the Diaspora as early as Ptolemaic times. But when we look at Palestine itself, evidence for the existence of synagogues is lacking before the first century BCE and perhaps even until the first CE” (Grabbe). Van der Kooij posits that the community was a “scribal milieu” made up of a “priestly class,” who were trained in Jewish scribal exegetical practices. He argues that they were similar to dragomans but with exegetical/interpretative differences. Cf. van der Kooij, Oracle of Tyre, 112–21. Also cf. van der Kooij’s discussion on a proposal for a socio-historical occasion. Cf. Lester L. Grabbe, “Synagogues in Pre-70 Palestine: A Re-Assessment,” JTS 39 (1988): 410. Also Cook and van der Kooij, Law, Prophets, and Wisdom: On the Provenance of Translators and their Books in the Septuagint Version, 15–62.

60

Chapter 2: Methodology

A third important concept of IP is that there was no translational Tendenz,184 no overarching interpretational activity in the Septuagint. This, Boyd-Taylor remarks, is “a key tenet of the interlinear paradigm.”185 As Pietersma is at pains to point out, the interpretational activity of those many years down the road from the original translators must be distinguished from the activity of the translators. This is basic to exegesis of OG texts. Yet, as IP is a lens through which to understand the nature of what the translators accomplished, the level on which interpretational activity occurred is likely at the clause, being mostly linguistic. The atomistic approach is to be matched by atomistic decisions. As Pietersma points out, “one expects the interlinear translator to render his source text a small unit at a time.”186 This is not compositional literature but translational, and what is more, interlinear. He writes: Axiomatic for all Septuagintal exegesis is the presupposition that, due to the translator’s peculiar translation technique, a Hellenistic reader might have understood the text quite differently from what was intended.187

The history of interpretation must be held in suspension during exegesis of the text. It may be, though unlikely, that a later interpretation is precisely the early one of OG, but therein lies a fundamental problem. Later translations are working from a different translational model than OG. When, for example, the Palestinian redactor(s) made changes, he did so in light of OG and the protoMT, which may have included a number of variant manuscripts or readings. To know what was the interpretation of an OG translator is to exegete the text of OG. His interpretation is located in the produced text. Pietersma is absolutely correct that the history of interpretation should not bemire the first task of establishing the meaning of OG. But, even when this has been done, the actual evidence, so Pietersma, for a translator’s exegesis amidst the translational activity is scant. This view is governed by the interlinear model. Because of this, a translator worked very atomistically, probably clause-wide, so that changes do not extend beyond that domain. So when the translator has trouble with his text at some point he does what he can to still render it grammatically, but does so without reaching out to thematic or linguistic features beyond it. He has no other thoughts about the text; “a specific translation problem arises and is solved locally.”188 He adds: As a result of this procedure it becomes very difficult to speak of ‘the translator’s view or conception of…’ since the translator cannot be said to be engaged in exegesis, in the standard use of that term. Any failure to recognize this limitation inherent in formal correspondence-

184

Boyd-Taylor, Reading Between the Lines, 269. Ibid. Emphasis mine. 186 Boyd-Taylor, ed., A Question of Methodology, 163. 187 Ibid., 298–9. 188 Ibid., 163. 185

2.4 Paradigms, Evidence & Translational Tradition

61

type translations – whether or not one subscribes to the strictures of the interlinear paradigm – can result in some far-fetched claims being made.189

The IP is a hermeneutical model for literalism, and has redefined textproduction for study of Septuagintal texts. It borrows the formal schematic of DTS as a way to explain the data-slots for the textual phenomena. It provides some insight into the purpose of the translation by working from the nature of the texts within their occasion: a school setting for educational purposes. But text-production is this precise concept and does not encompass larger notions of textual exegesis, or that of interpretative reading traditions (in Greek or Hebrew) that gave rise to those elements that do not follow the model. And it must, therefore, reject any notions of literary composition. It cannot account for the translator’s interpretational activity that occurred within the transformational process, because, so IP, such things are only found within the composition of original literature. 2.4.3.2 Literary Composition, Translation & Interpretation By comparing the textual composition of the Septuagint to Classical or Hellenistic Greek works, it might seem that the vast majority of the Septuagint was not written as an independent piece of literature, to stand alongside other Hellenistic Greek texts. I refer here only to the nature of the textual composition, not whether it was meant to replace the Hebrew source.190 The style of the literature shows a significant degree of negative transfer. Every translated book shows striking evidence of Hebrew interference on the morphosyntactic level. Even word choices are sometimes unexpected, which has since been explained as an approach we call stereotyping. Greek idiom is

189

Ibid. Followers of IP hold that at the stage of text-production the Septuagintal texts were not meant to replace the parent text. As Boyd-Taylor notes, “That the Septuagint was designed to occupy the place of its parent is not only improbable, it is inconsistent with the constitutive character of the texts themselves.” (Boyd-Taylor, Reading Between the Lines, 340.) In various places Boyd-Taylor and Pietersma concede that the Septuagint became an independent artefact that was used independently of the Hebrew. But if so, when? I am not saying it is necessarily wrong, but there is a timing problem here. When did the Septuagint become an independently read series of books? Was it after the Pentateuch or work(s) of the second-century? As is commonly acknowledged, the Septuagint was created over generations, some books being listed as coming into existence late in the first century BCE. Moreover, unless it is argued that the Septuagint only obtained this status after all the books were completed, then at some point before other books had even been written/translated the Septuagint was perceived of in this way. This means that translators may have considered their translational activity in light of this so that when composing, for example, Bel, the translator/author wrote it to be read in relation to the material that preceded it. On the independence of the Septuagint, see p. 74. 190

62

Chapter 2: Methodology

sometimes rejected in favour of Hebraisms, which can increase the presence of pleonasms and seemingly odd constructions. If one thinks of the surface of the Greek text conceptually as a wave, it is in many parts rather flat.191

Figure 2: Textual Surface and Literalism

At first glance, it does not seem to reflect the literary flavours of compositional literature of the period. What it does appear somewhat close to is the way that legal documents were translated. This view on contemporaneous literature, so Boyd-Taylor, may indicate some motive behind use of the interlinear pattern.192 On the one hand, one has literature that was composed with rhetorical and poetical forms, being originally designed; on the other hand, in the translation of legal documents, one finds a system of very similar morphemic rules as suggested by IP.193 Thus there was a marked difference in the Hellenistic period in the approach to these different kinds of literature. Each kind, one compositional, the other translational, arose out of different motivations, being different “socio-linguistic activities.”194 Boyd-Taylor argues that, much of what a translated text says is conditioned by the technique of translation itself…The intentions of the translator do not as much underly the translation, for underlying the text is the task of translation itself, rather, they are to be found at those points where his task, however conceived by the translator, simply broke down; the idiosyncratic trace of his hand is to be found precisely where it slipped.195

With respect to the Septuagint, this seems to mean that only in those places where the surface of the text breaks away from the interlinear model is where interpretational elements may be found, if at all. Such things then came into existence purely through the translator’s desire to make his text, for example, 191 Flat with respect to only Hebrew linguistic interference conceptualised as a wave, but not the entire text as suggested by Rabin (quoting Ottley), where he argues (using a different metaphor) that the whole thing is a “flat bald surface.” Cf. Rabin, “Translation Process,” 22. 192 Boyd-Taylor, Reading Between the Lines, 341–52. 193 Boyd-Taylor argues that with the Pentateuch functioning as a legal document for the Jewish diasporic community the interlinear model makes sense. What this does show is that the idea may have been borrowed by the earliest translators. It could have been chosen due to considerations of fidelity to the source, but unlikely because the Pentateuch was thought of as a legal document on the level of judicial proceedings. The two documentary types hold different conceptual domains, even in spite of the Levitical code being what it is. See ibid., 327–41. 194 Boyd-Taylor, “A Place in the Sun,” 72. 195 Ibid.

2.4 Paradigms, Evidence & Translational Tradition

63

grammatical and sensible, at least to himself, though perhaps with some consideration of the receptor audience, let alone any kind of interpretation or exegesis. If this is correct, then on what grounds, out of what theological framework did the translator make sense of the text? As Joosten points out, “[b]ecause languages are incompatible…translation is necessarily mediated by an understanding of the meaning of the source text.”196 I do not think these were professional translators (dragomans),197 but scribes within a linguistic and religious community. They would have been already aware of the meaning of the texts, which would naturally have included those parts that were less clear than others. Hence, when the translator is more actively engaged in interpretation, and therefore makes changes away from the ST, both semantically and syntactically, we then see something of not only his interpretative view, but also that of his community’s reading. This did not occur only in those instances where the translator apparently “slipped”198 up. In fact, in such instances we probably see a good amount of what the translator’s views were because of the unconscious flow of his ideas into the text. But there is nothing to compel the modern exegete to think that the interpretation and, therefore, the translator’s style can be observed only in those instances where the translator fouled up. The reading tradition sits behind the entire task of translation, so that the complete textual set reflects the interpretation of its source. Moreover, compositional features had to fit within the immediate textual framework, which included lexical, semantic, grammatical and thematic elements from within the translator’s comprehension of his text. His theological framework would have been a significant help to both limit and free the translator to make certain decisions away from his pattern of literalism. This framework would have not been limited to obscure or difficult passages because it arose from a complete textual set, which would have had some degree of relationship to other related sets of texts, i.e. shared themes and lexica.199 This formal grasp of biblical texts, in either Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek,200 means that there would also have been some tradition through which to understand the texts in question. A minimalist position would see the translator alone making sense of his passage (see p. 132). This would need to 196 Jan Joosten, “Interpretation and Meaning in the Septuagint Translation,” (paper presented at Translation-Interpretation-Meaning, Helsinki Collegium of Advanced Studies, 2005): 1. 197 See n. 131 in this chapter. 198 Boyd-Taylor, “A Place in the Sun,” 72. 199 The Masorah, though a much later project, reflects a very comprehensive and complete (not perfect) grasp of the textual relationships of HB. 200 This would naturally depend on the timing of the translated books so that there would have been an increasing number of books that a scribe would have come to learn in both languages.

64

Chapter 2: Methodology

push aside all external influences and let the linguistic difficulty alone be the cause for the translator’s struggle. But this situation does not appear realistic, and does, in fact, appear quite modern. A translator working in a silo without appeal to any interpretative tradition spats of something like a Victorian ideal.201 Working away from this position would, instead, head towards a position that sees the translator working from within the confines and liberties of his interpretative tradition, something which he would have received from within his Jewish Hellenistic (Greek language) community – those who translated the Septuagint. This other position appreciates the translator’s setting by highlighting that the translators already knew their Hebrew texts, and probably quite well, so that when it came to translate them the difficult texts were of little surprise.202 Difficult and easy passages were both foreknown to some degree in Hebrew before the act of translation, but – and I emphasise – this was also true for their Greek interpretation. The attempt to make sense of difficult passages would not have been an isolated event at the point of the first creation of the translation. Rather, the translators’ activity would be a direct line into the tradition, or, the translation is an expression of the tradition – how it was interpreted – so that the text as a whole, clear and unclear sentences, reflects the complete interpretation. Thus the implementation of socalled literalistic and non-literalistic categories is how the interpretation is meant to be rendered in textual form. So why is it that these interpretational details only arose when the translator “slipped” up or the task of translation “broke down?”203 Today, formal adherence to interlinearity seems to be the reason for this. Because IP argues for a complete model through which to understand the nature of Septuagintal literalism, it self-consciously pushes the exegete away from interpretational features that are generated apart from the linguistics of the source. IP is a model of literalism and provides a control for the exegete.204

201 As Schaper points out, criticising the Finnish school, these scholars (translators) “were Jews working for Jewish communities, coming from a Jewish Hellenistic background.” To ignore this, he argues is “ahistorical.” He notes that the large failing of the Finnish school is that “[t]heir presupposition seems to be that of a translator working according to certain linguistic principles without in any way being influenced by his religious and general cultural environment.” See Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter, 21. 202 The translator-scribes would have known their texts very well, so much so that some would likely have known sections off by heart, see n. 6 on p. 2. 203 Boyd-Taylor, “A Place in the Sun,” 72. 204 Boyd-Taylor, “An Ear for an Eye,” 127.

2.4 Paradigms, Evidence & Translational Tradition

65

Figure 3: Actual/Normal OG Textual Surface

So, when the surface of the text appears no longer flat, appearing to have occurred apart from error in the translational process, one is compelled to see the translator’s interpretational hand. One may observe the real ebb and flow, within which are certain literal norms. This is normal; it is precisely how the translation was meant to be accomplished. This most often occurs with lexical choice, but does also on the level of morphosyntax. How the translator read the complete text is indicative of how he translated it altogether. IP does not seem to sufficiently explain the non-literal components of the Septuagint. A form of literalism was employed by the translators during text-production, viz. when a translator crafted his work he employed literalistic categories. Indeed, it was a a part of the text’s production, occurring in the language community’s life situation, and it had a certain purpose, and so forth. But the concept of textproduction in Septuagint studies should be re-assessed with the full result of the textual evidence, and set free from adherence to IP. The degree by which translator’s may have been involved in interpretation of their texts will likely become clearer when a more encompassing hermeneutical paradigm is offered. Otherwise, if we only understand the texts from within the framework of formal correspondance (translation technique) with IP as our model, we will find what we expect, that the amount of compositional features is next to nil. But as Pietersma quite rightly points out, let the evidence take us where it leads through an inductive analysis. Let the evidence provide the bricks and mortar for the paradigm or model so that we can accurately speak of this or that translator’s style. When the flat surface of the text departs from the literalistic categories, apart from error or an alternate base text, then the paradigm must be able to explain it, not explain it away. The problem that faces the present exegete is whether or not the IP model, so conceived, is pushing aside evidence of compositional features simply because it is assumed, viz. already decided beforehand because of the evidence of other relevant data, that the translators could or would not interpret beyond the clause-level, let alone ornament their texts. What the translators did appears to not conform entirely to formal correspondence, or to dynamic equivalence or to interlinearity. Their system

66

Chapter 2: Methodology

is, from the evidence I demonstrate in this study on Ambakoum, altogether theirs.205 It looks much more like the rendering of a tradition of interpretation. In the case of interpretation of a text we do find interpretational activity that is not caused by the linguistics of the source. Aside from more compositional literature (i.e. Job, Proverbs) or extended texts (e.g. Esther), most of this activity is said to reside on the clause-level. As for ornamentation of the text, which refers to the use of Greek rhetorical and poetical devices, Pietersma has perfunctorily dismissed such evidence as “a coincidence.”206 Dealing with a theory of human cognition would certainly take us far afield. But I hasten to suggest that, so Longacre, there are no unmotivated choices in verbal communication.207 Translators made the texts they desired. This also seems to be agreed. What I further add is that this desire to ornament the text can be discerned within the corpus as non-accidental, nor coincidental. 2.4.4 The Text as Read & Received The translators had a certain method that they used in their translations.208 The vast majority of Septuagintal scholarship has focused on the kind of literalism that they employed as a way to explain the technique. What I suggest is that the translators’ conformity to an ancient kind of literalism was probably a well integrated part of their Greek reading tradition. This means that the interpretational features, changes away from the general approach, are to be considered just as intentional and, therefore, part of the applied technique. The interpretation did not inhibit the ability to render a section because of adherence to literalism, nor were lapses in the task like unexpected golden nuggets for the modern exegete. The text was crafted with every bit of intention as we would expect from a trained scribe. The interpretational parts inhered the interpretative tradition, rather than over-emphasising a translator’s personal procliv205 Wright asutely notes that, “perhaps for those Jews in Alexandria who felt the need to have their scriptures in Greek necessity was indeed the mother of invention. Perhaps no model sufficed, and what they arrived at was a process that essentially followed the parent text, if not word for word, at least syntactical unit by syntactical unit while at the same time enshrining their own hermeneutical understanding of particular texts in the translation. Those who translated the Septuagint were clearly men of great ingenuity, and whatever their model, they transformed the Hebrew Pentateuch into a unique creation that served the needs of Greek-speaking Jews so well that its status in many areas eclipsed that of its Hebrew progenitor.” See Benjamin G. Wright, Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction. Essays on Ben Sira and Wisdom, the Letter of Aristeas and the Septuagint (JSJSup 131; eds. John J. Collins, Florentino García Martínez, and Hindy Najman; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008), 211– 2. 206 Boyd-Taylor, ed., A Question of Methodology, 309. 207 Robert E. Longacre, The Grammar of Discourse (2d ed.; New York: Plenum Press, 1996), 30–1. 208 Contra Aejmelaeus, “Translation Technique,” 25, 27.

2.4 Paradigms, Evidence & Translational Tradition

67

ities. The general literalistic approach was common to the translators, and we can detect the stylistic approach of each via the distinct linguistic patterns to each translator, which may include compositional elements (rhetorical features). For example, the discovery of a translator’s theology is, therefore, not located in the points of translational breakdown, viz. when he failed to conform to literalism. It is fundamentally necessary that all of the features of the translation are considered to gain insight into the translator’s theological perspective. The most fruitful area here is that of semantics. The problem that faces the Septuagintal exegete when following literalism is that contextual changes are said appear in the pluses and minuses between aligned texts, working along an x- and y-axis. It tacitly supports a model of interlinearity, which is a hermeneutical and heuristic tool that cannot explain the compositional and interpretational elements of the complete textual set.209 Any interpretation is relegated to this area of comparison (often classed as contextual exegesis). It misses the fact that the interpretation of the proto-MT is located in OG as OG, and the translation holistically incorporated literalism as a facet of the technique. The semantic departures and syntactical reorganisations (away from literalism) must then also be considered as equally intentional as literalism. We do not find the interpretational features when literalism “broke down,” viz. the translator “slipped” up,210 just like we do not find non-interpreted features when the translator was literalistic. And the greater the semantic departure from the source the more we see exegesis,211 which may be couched in the literal framework. The capacity of the translator to perform his task as part of his pre-existing understanding indicates something of his interpretative and reading tradition.

209 On the level of interpretation within the Septuagint, using the Psalter as an example, Pietersma concludes that changes may occur on the clause-level, but not sentence. His example of paragraph level interpretation is actually pertaining to a thematic interpolation of an explanatory superscription. The sum of his close exegesis of the superscriptions in the Psalter is that interlinearity explains why there is very little interpretation. It was almost impossible because of the nature of the horizontal and vertical alignment of the parent and target texts. Cf. Boyd-Taylor, ed., A Question of Methodology, 214–27. 210 Boyd-Taylor, “A Place in the Sun,” 72. 211 This is not to be confused with van der Kooij’s view of “exegetical ‘devices’,” which he explains was a way for a “Jewish scribe of the time…to interpret words and phrases in a way which, in some respects, is incompatible with a modern philological approach.” While he juxtaposes this view with that of a dragoman, he still locates the interpretation in each specific scribe, not giving way to the most likely linguistic setting of an interpretative tradition that existed in Greek. I certainly concede, as explained earlier in this methodology, that translators had ways of handling difficult texts, or ways in which they made mistakes. Cf. van der Kooij, Oracle of Tyre, 121.

68

Chapter 2: Methodology

Figure 4: z-Axis of Interpretation

This tradition can be, first, identified in the translator’s semantic choices, which can be conceptualised as working on a z-axis. Alternate word choices (including stereotypes) provided a conceptual and meaningful line of departure from the parent text. The morphosyntactic choices were often limited by a horizontal linguistic boundary, but do provide a secondary level of analysis.212 The grammatical strictures were overcame in the textual transformation via semantic shifts, variance in domains of meaning, even between synonyms.213 The different words would have had degrees of linguistic register, which would have arisen from within the language community’s handling of their text. Moreover, certain word choices would also make additional connections to thematic elements from within the biblical corpus and that of the literature of the period.214 The translator would only have employed a free technique within the confines of his understanding of the text, so that those things that “called to mind”215 ideas from the ST, in the process of translation, corresponded to the interpretative tradition in the world-of-the-translator. But this was not “any idea,” 216 but ideas generated from within that socio-cultural context in which there was a habit of reading and interpretation.

212 The vertical dimension exists for any translation, being in some way formed by its parent. 213 The instance of the first translation (LXX) would create an interpretational base for later works, both in style but also in semantics, so that each successive instance of a translation further limited (or merely influenced) the new tradition. It would then be necessary to make a hard break from an interpretational mould, for which we have evidence (e.g. 8ḤevXIIgr, α´, σ´, etc.), in order to re-interpret what had been done. 214 See secion 4.5 on phantasia. 215 Tov, The Text-Critical Use of LXX, 45–46. 216 Ibid., 45–6.

2.4 Paradigms, Evidence & Translational Tradition

69

As it is true that translational words only approximate their source word synonymously,217 when the semantic domain common to each is too distant or entirely other than the expected equivalent, viz. to evoke the same/similar emotion or idea in the new culture, then one must consider a greater degree of intention behind it. Such translational semantic shifts indicate the translator’s interpretation or alternate reading – exegesis – of his text. This is also marked in some degree by the reorganisation of syntax against the translator’s normative use of literalism, which shows change on the horizontal level. This may be due to a variety of factors, such as, for example, the translator’s approach to make his clauses grammatical in light of textual obscurity. Now, when such things are combined we find larger windows through which we can see the translator’s ideological world. So, the Hebrew text would have been handled in a very specific way. Then, having studied the texts in a Greek linguistic setting, when it came to translate them, there would have been a significant degree of interference from the Greek (oral) reading tradition of the time.218 This context would have been a strong interpretational mould. What the text meant to the translator is what it likely meant to the language community in which it was translated. This restricted group of scholar/scribes were, then, the first recipients of each produced text. At each stage of completion for each book, the first recipients are the scribal community. The OG text is the interpretation, acceptable, or perhaps even “accurate,”219 translation, of the reading tradition of the community of each book that was translated. To paraphrase Aitken, how one reads a text is indicative of how one would translate it; how one interprets a text is indicative of how one would translate it. The multiplication of translators would then also invoke diversity of style, pushing the transformational bounds. When one speaks of what something meant to a translator one is (perhaps unconsciously) reaching into the reading and interpretative tradition of a community and its translator. The first reader, the translator, of the text then rendered a text that was acceptable within the reading community. As a conduit of the tradition it would be stylised with his personal touch, but must by and large carry the purport of the interpretation at the time.220 217

Biguenet and Schulte, eds., The Craft of Translation, xiv. See n. 131 in this chapter. 219 Aitken, review of van der Kooij, 409–10. 220 I like very much Aejmeleus’s helpful metaphor that such things are like the translator’s “fingerprints.” She refers, however, only to those parts of the translation that reveal the translator’s free approach against the technique of literalism. As she states: “Such good free renderings are like fingerprints of the translator, revealing something of his individual competence and character.” But it does seem that the complete textual set reflects the applied style of the translator, indicating his overall competence and the character of the work. Cf. Aejmelaeus, Trail of the Septuagint Translators, 307. 218

70

Chapter 2: Methodology

The OG translation is therefore the textual rendering of the interpretation of the reading tradition. The vocal reading of the Hebrew teaching, followed by the interpretation in the Greek language, was rendered into a textual form. 221 The interpretational features are then not entirely free, because this is reflective of the meaning of the source. It attributes too much to a translator’s personal liberties. Certainly, these things have free aspects, but the impetus and result is not. The translator is not freely – personally – drawing out the meaning, but conveying what the text meant within the community of which he was a part. In fact, the task of improvisation, which is closer to Boyd-Taylor’s description of when the task “broke down,”222 is closer to free. On those occasions the translator worked harder to render those things that might have been more difficult. The translator of the Twelve clearly stood in a very similar tradition to that of the earliest translators, appreciating the so-called strangeness of the Greek. The transformation process in his translation encompassed exegetical elements alongside of errors and improvisation. Taken together we can begin to see what the translator understood of his text. Those interpretational features may, depending on the kind, connect with the improvised or error-wrought ones. In the mind of the translator there would have been a degree of coherence of the textual set, from the semantics to the clause structure to that of the paragraph.223 This would likely not have been wide-scale, but as is demonstrated in chapter four, the best explanation for consistent patterns of change.224 As the translator is also not simply an author, exegesis in this translational activity should probably not be explained entirely as authorship, itself bound to the concept of authorial intent. In this context, when I speak of exegesis, I am referring specifically to the activity of the translator to draw out the meaning of the text as it made sense to him within his language community. It was not a hostile activity, as if playing fast and loose with the text. It was quite simply the fruit of the translator’s understanding of it. Now, as explained above, this would often occur with difficult passages where it appears that literalism was not meant to be followed by the translator. With respect to the evidence for demonstrating features of rhetoric the stakes are probably fairly high.225 It would likely be imprudent to sift the Septuagint to seek patterns of vowel or consonant rhyming and then on that basis alone argue that such things were worked into the text for the purpose of textual 221

See n. 131 in this chapter. Boyd-Taylor, “A Place in the Sun,” 72. 223 It could be that the rhetorical features that came into existence not through literalism but through literary composition – be it small – would then have also been considered acceptable within the confines of the present view of literalism. They were within acceptable parameters of the translational tradition. They fit within their paradigm. 224 Exegesis of the prophet Ambakoum, pp. 136–148. 225 See pp. 79–105 for the use of rhetoric in the Ambakoum. 222

2.4 Paradigms, Evidence & Translational Tradition

71

ornamentation. Euphony exists naturally in most highly developed languages, especially in extended prose. It does not evade the intention to use certain words that sound well together. But phonic patterns of particular words does not prove a poetic preoccupation for a passage. Therefore, there needs to be some restriction on the claim for rhetorical features in the Septuagint. This is seen even more accutely for those parts of it that indicate a high level of literalism.226 Because the use of rhetorical devices is normally associated with an authorial act in literary composition, it is necessary to establish how to discern such things in the translational literature of the Septuagint.227 I offer two fundamental premises by which one can examine whether the textual evidence in the Septuagint can be considered an intentional effort to use rhetoric. First, the device must be shown to have been chosen in rejection of literalistic and non-rhetorical choices. It cannot be generated by the ST. Because of the nature of the literalism used, which significantly impedes natural Greek literary composition, it has to be shown that the device replaced any set of literal choices. This must, therefore, appeal to what we know of our categories of literalism. When morphological, or even syntactic, choices reject literal ones, which must be consistent with the overall style of the translator in question,228 there is then a basis upon which to discuss the use of rhetoric. This is in concert with the second premise: a semantic shift away from the Hebrew word(s). This is also key. It is not any semantic shift but one that occurs with the above first point. The meaning of the passage is altered and there is the clear play on sound. The meaning does not need to be greatly affected, but it must be demonstrated that the word choice was outside of, or far from, the central domain of meaning, away from a more literalistic, and therefore semantically closer, one. This should, where possible from the evidence, be demonstrated as inconsistent with the translator’s literalistic choices. For example, in 1:8 the translator has made choices away from expected literal ones. In conjunction with semantic shifts, we find that the 226 Whether or not the rhetorical devices were part of the interpretative tradition is hard to distinguish. The rhetorical features that are present might point more towards the translator’s stylistic hand rather than the tradition. They are the translator’s personal touch, embodying freedom in translation (see n. 21 in chp. 3). As the translation is consonant with the tradition – the earliest readers’ acceptance of these features – it is unclear to what degree the rhetorical features are the translator’s salting of his production, or reflective of his interpretative community. Yet in either case, the features reflect the socio-cultural interpretative work of at least the translator in rejection of other linguistic choices. 227 The use of rhetorical devices must be culturally situated so that the kind of devices, and appreciation of them, at a given point in time is also true. 228 This particular detail may be much more difficult to establish when multiple hands can be detected in a work. But in such a scenario we still find a group mindset for such things.

72

Chapter 2: Methodology

translator has employed a pleasant device of alliteration, which marks for the reader the actions of the Chaldeans in their conquest.229 One could say that the end-rhyming of the Hebrew is changed to alliteration in the Greek: Hab 1:8 ‫וקלו מנמרים סוסיו‬ ‫וחדו מזאבי ערב‬ ‫ופשו פרשיו‬ ‫ופרשיו מרחוק יבאו‬

aA aB bA bB

Amb 1:8 καὶ ἐξαλοῦνται ὑπὲρ παρδάλεις οἱ ἵπποι αὐτοῦ καὶ ὀξύτεροι ὑπὲρ τοὺς λύκους τῆς Ἀραβὶας καὶ ἐξιππάσονται οἱ ἱππεῖς αὐτοῦ καὶ ὁρμήσουσιν μακρόθεν

There are twelve examples of different kinds of rhetoric in the short book of Ambakoum that were generated by the translator’s appreciation of Greek euphony. Such things are like a layer of icing within a cake. It does not define the cake, i.e. that the Septuagint was compositional in nature, but that such things exist within it. Now while this instance of rhetoric was caused by the translator’s artistic style, it cannot be defined as the total sum of the translator’s style with respect to rhetorical art. It would lead the exegete away from the translator’s overall style, away from those features that are brought over into the TT through his grasp of serial and morphemic fidelity. There are other translational features that bear the marks of rhetoric that were caused by the translator’s literalistic approach via Hebrew interference. The combined value of these features make up the rhetorical elements caused by the translator’s overall style. They have different causes, being motivated by different concepts of how to read and translate the text. Both literalism and compositional intent caused the appearance of rhetorical devices in the TT. It would seem more probable that the reason behind the rhetorical devices is to lift the literary quality of the text in those places where there was freedom to do so. As can be seen in a handful of instances within Ambakoum, this occurs when there is a textual difficulty. It supports the translator’s appreciation for such things, reflecting his training and background, but unlikely to provide a strong premise for an independent reading of the rendered product. 2.4.4.1 On Acceptability Acceptability here refers to a translated text that is considered acceptable within a target culture. As Toury puts it, “when a text is offered as a translation, it is quite readily accepted bona fide as one, no further questions asked.”230 The nature of the text reflects the acceptance of the host target culture; he further states that, “translations be regarded as facts of the cultures that would host 229 230

See p. 89 for exegesis of this example. Toury, DTS – and beyond, 20.

2.4 Paradigms, Evidence & Translational Tradition

73

them … these are constituted within the target culture and reflect its own systemic constellation.”231 The important thrust of DTS is that it seeks to explain how and why a translated product exists, not the acceptance by way of its reception, which is akin to clearly delineating the difference between the text that was produced and the text that was received. Employing the descriptive framework of DTS does not, of course, prove a theory of Septuagintal literalism; it provides a framework in which data may be interpreted according to certain norms. Thus as we turn briefly to discuss acceptability of the Septuagint we must be concerned with the acceptability of the product as an act of translation, “for its own purposes.”232 Toury provides three different modes by which translations come into existence: linguistically-motivated, textually-dominated, and literary.233 In the first two modes there is are degrees of source interference, whereas in the latter the target text is rendered entirely with a view to the literary tastes and structures of the target culture. At first blush, it seems that the data of the Septuagint points towards a linguistically-motivated mode, whereby the souce language heavily influences the translated product. This is ascertained by “from the character of a specific text, not from translating as a verbal behaviour.”234 An examination of the Septuagint gives us the much-needed data to understand what mode or slot in the schema makes the most sense, which, in turn, provides us added insight into the pursuit of explaining what the style of the translators was. This style is “mandated by the constitutive character of the text.”235 Pietersma is probably correct that there is no “bone of contention in our discipline”236 on whether the Septuagint shows evidence of both negative and positive transfer. The reasons for the acceptability of these things as part of the translator’s mode of translation is part of what is debated, this in relation to translation technique. To accept that the translation was linguistically motivated is tacit support for IP. It provides added impetus for arguments against an interpretative bent of the translator, simply fulfilling the desire to 231

Ibid., 18. Ibid., 203. 233 Ibid., 201–3. In the first case, the target product is “well-formed in terms of the target syntax, grammar and lexicon, even if it does not fully conform to any target model of text formation.” In the second, the product is “well-formed in terms of general conventions of text formation pertinent to the target culture even if they do not conform to any recognizable literary model of it,” and lastly, literary composition, “involves the imposition of ‘conformity conditions’ beyond the linguistic and/or general-textual ones, namely, to models and norms which are deemed literary at the target end.” Pietersma rightly indicates that in the case of literary composition Toury makes no “overt mention of interference from the source text.” Pietersma, “Translating a Translation in the Psalter,” 171. 234 Pietersma, “Translating a Translation in the Psalter,” 181. 235 Ibid. 236 Ibid., 171. 232

74

Chapter 2: Methodology

produce the “kind of text he [the translator] did.”237 Of course this would have happened in instances where the translator “slipped,” as Boyd-Taylor suggests. However, as this study shows, we find both linguistic and literary modes of translation, the latter working within the framework of the former. Therefore, translational acceptability must encompass the reading tradition of at least the translator. This tradition sits before, or resides behind, the three categories of linguistic, textual and literary acceptability. The act of making a linguistically acceptable text that shows a “relatively high tolerance”238 for source language interference was itself framed from within an oral Greek reading tradition. This language community probably interpreted the texts in the TL by appeal to the source text beforehand. The textual make-up of the TT did not catch the translator(s) off guard.239 Hence, the interpretational – perhaps corrective – elements would have been part of that reading. The linguistic mode offered by DTS seems the most accurate, yet it begs one to consider whether the literary mode may have been used, so that both modes worked together at times. 2.4.4.2 On The Independence of the Septuagint Was the Septuagint initially intended to replace the reading of the Hebrew Bible? This kind of question continues to divide Septuagint scholars with respect to whether the OG is to be read on its own independently qua Greek, or in subservience to the Hebrew, so the school of interlinearity. As BoydTaylor explains, “[t]hat the Septuagint was designed to occupy the place of its parent is not only improbable, it is inconsistent with the constitutive character of the texts themselves.”240 It is assumed that it was not possible for the Septuagint to replace the parent text because of its inherent deficiencies, “inadequacy as something that was assumed from the start.”241 There is presently no middle ground that I am aware of, and I think that this is partly due to the nature of the question. Let us remember, however, what we know of textual plurality in the Second Temple Period. Much of the assumption behind this question appears to miss, 237

Ibid., 175. Boyd-Taylor, Reading Between the Lines, 359. 239 Boyd-Taylor notes that “the translators evidently made little attempt to assimilate the word order of the Hebrew to Greek norms. Rather, what has happened is that a formal feature of the source text, i.e. its word order, was permitted to govern the selection of target constituents in such a way that rules hitherto unknown to the target language came into play.” This valid point then asks us to examine why these came into existence. The self-conscious approach of the translators most likely indicates that this was the correct or normative way to translate this particular text, including the interpretational features. The burden of proof that the translators did not properly understand their texts lies with the exegete. Cf. Ibid., 377. 240 Ibid., 340. 241 Ibid. 238

2.4 Paradigms, Evidence & Translational Tradition

75

for example, some of the salient points raised by Norton in his 2011 study.242 We could, by analogy, ask a different question with respect to the scribes of the Septuagint as Norton pointed out with respect to first-century Jewish exegetes: text-critically, how did the Septuagint translators perceive the creation of their translation? Did they see it as a new text-type, much as modern scholars do today? For example, if the first-century C.E. exegetes were comfortable with, to borrow Norton’s term, multivalence,243 then have we tacitly assumed otherwise for the translators? The trajectory of textual conformity for the Hebrew and Greek scriptures is known to have been a later activity, and not necessarily related to Jewish and Christian tensions. Furthermore, the apparent problem of the Septuagint not reflecting the literary flavours of the period is yielding diminishing returns. As is often argued, it is grammatical but not literary. This is an important concern for adherents of IP. It is assumed that only literary compositions would possess the intention of being read on their own. In antiquity, a translation of this kind would have been unsuitable as a literary artefact.244 Unfortunately, arguments for the independent reading of the Septuagint often stem from the context of text-reception, viz. consideration given to how later recipients, in particular the early church and its fathers, handled the Septuagint. I make two small suggestions in the hope of advancing this discussion. First, it does seem that everyone agrees that the Septuagint quite quickly became an independently read literary artefact. But the question here is that of timing, which is further compounded by use of the term “Septuagint.” If the independent reading occurred fairly quickly, how quickly?245 Scholars from both sides suggest that it was adopted early on as a replacement. If so, was this true after the Pentateuch but before, for example, Isaiah? What of the Twelve or Ezekiel? Did this happen before the Psalter? Any answer to these can affect much with respect to how one looks at the translational activity, considering also the use of the Hebrew with respect to those later translational activities. Furthermore, some books are suggested to have not been translated until the turn of the millennium.246 If the term “Septuagint” includes later books, then that would not be a quick turn-around for an independent reading tradition.

242 Jonathan D. H. Norton, Contours in the Text. Textual Variation in the Writings of Paul, Josephus and the Yahad (LNTS 430; ed. Mark Goodacre; London: T&T Clark, 2011), 39–45. 243 Ibid., 43. 244 Boyd-Taylor, Reading Between the Lines, 341–52. 245 Joosten comments: “When, at the end of the third century B.C.E., the Septuagint becomes visible to the historian, in quotations and manuscript evidence, its independent use appears to be well established,” see Joosten, “Reflections on the ‘Interlinear Paradigm’,” 167. 246 Cf. Dorival, Harl, and Munnich, La Bible grecque, 111.

76

Chapter 2: Methodology

And if it is earlier, which books are independent and which are dependent, and how does one know either way? The historical motion toward an independent reading does not indicate that this was in some way true from the start. Other factors, such as linguistics, religious tensions, and so forth, which are not to be rehashed here, most likely contributed to the OG as an independent witness to the Hebrew Bible. But at the earliest stage of production it would be most likely have been unconscionable for the translators to have disregarded their Hebrew texts in lieu of Greek ones. I do not think this is in dispute, but it does reflect the extreme of the one side of view. Second, and going back to the issue of timing, simply because the Septuagint was read as a Greek document (not necessarily independently) many years down the road, does not prove that it was meant to be read apart from the Hebrew early on. There is nothing to compel us to think of this as an independent text. It is quite simply a Greek translation. Consider, for example, how the prologue to Sirach in no way suggests that once the Greek was rendered that the Hebrew would then be put aside. It was done to help Greek speakers know how to walk according to the law. Ben Sirach’s grandfather, προήχθη καὶ αὐτὸς συγγράψαι τι τῶν εἰς παιδείαν καὶ σοφίαν ἀνηκόντων (was led to compose something for instruction and fit for wisdom), and for the purpose that, οἱ φιλομαθεῖς … πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἐπιπροσθῶσιν διὰ τῆς ἐννόμου βιώσεως (lovers of learning…might gain all the more through an upright way of life). On the one hand, it may suggest that the readers needed this in order to know what the law said, perhaps implying that its recipients were unable to clearly read Classical Hebrew.247 It was for instruction in the law, practical theology, if you will. Or, on the other hand, as van der Kooij points out, because the author of the prologue invites the reader to “compare his text with the Hebrew original…It indicates that the Jewish scholars of the time [of the recipient community] read a Greek version in conjunction with the Hebrew text, as was done by the grandson himself with other books of the LXX.”248 There is, in fact, much more to suggest that both texts were read together in the first place, with no intention of reading the Greek independently from the start. Both texts were most likely viewed as part of the same tradition, both helpful to understand the law, the prophets and the writings. The Septuagint was an aid to undertstanding the Bible, the community’s interpretation of it, 247 Cf. “Why a Prologue? Ben Sira’s Grandson and His Greek Translation” in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (eds. Shalom M. Paul, Robert A. Kraft, Lawrence H. Schiffman and Weston W. Fields; VTSup 72; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 640. Yet the arguments for IP remain too circular: proof of the Septuagint’s subservience is in its constitutive character; the constitutive character of the Septuagint proves that it was meant to be read subservient to the Hebrew text. 248 Arie van der Kooij, “The Origin and Purpose of Bible Translations in Ancient Judaism: Some Comments,” AR 1/2 (1999): 213.

2.5 Summary Conclusion

77

not something to replace the Hebrew. This very fact may have, in the first place, been why the Septuagint got air under its wings to be read independently later on. As an interpretative lens for its source, not a crib, its relatively quick development into an independently read artefact would have been in dissonance with its original real readers. Rather, what may have been of importance is the interpretation of the Hebrew. This is located in the translation of the Septuagint. By reading the Septuagint alongside of the Hebrew the reader has in textual form the interpretation of his language community. As van der Kooij also suggests: It is conceivable that it was also meant, at least at the outset, for bilinguial readers as an aid in the sense of an interpretative one. That is to say, not as a source mediating the meaning of the Hebrew text in a modern sense of the word, but as a text providing insight in a particular reading and interpretation of the Hebrew as reflected in the Greek version of the book.249

While the source interference may explain some of the linguistic make-up of the Greek text, its place within the community that translated it would have been of paramount importance because it was the textual form of their interpretative tradition in the common vernacular. A position in subservience to the source would then have made little sense.

2.5 Summary Conclusion Literalism is, therefore, an insufficient term to explain the translational style of Ambakoum. It implies a polarised system, where degrees of literal renderings can be understood in relation to those categorised as free, or vice versa. It also unwittingly instills ideas of faithfulness that do not square with the evidence. The categories of literalism offered by Barr and Tov most certainly explain some of the aspects of the overall style. Yet there are other, numerous textual changes that are best explained through a number of different causes. These are not free. As IP is a heuristic tool for literalism it also falls short of explaining such evidence. For example, when a translator reads connective particles differently across sentence boundaries this is not a free approach.250 Nor is the clarification of an antagonist through addition of a phrase not free – it is essential to understand the text.251 The interpretations of Ambakoum do not indicate a liberal and unfettered free hand, nor one of interlinearity. These things are further explained in the next two chapters. This will include a detailed analysis of the use of Greek rhetoric, various kinds of linguistic adaptations, and a complete discussion on the theology of the book. The 249

Van der Kooij, “OG of Isaiah,” 76. See p. 146–148 and pp. 156–179. 251 See pp. 118–119. 250

78

Chapter 2: Methodology

application of this method in the following chapters demonstrates that OG was the fruit of a language community’s habit and tradition of reading.

Chapter 3

Greek Rhetoric and Linguistic Transformations – The Translator and His Style 3.1 Introduction “All acts of communication are acts of translation.” 1

There are numerous rhetorical devices and stylistic features in the translation of Ambakoum. The translator’s style may be deduced from the combination of these features and the literalistic ones. The present chapter explores these elements more closely, also placing them within their historical context. These studies show the nature of the translator’s decisions at different points of his work. Like a craftsman, he decked his literature with some rhetoric. He showed consideration for the poetic genre, used inventive phrases and subtly introduced new themes. These kinds of stylistic proclivities occurred within a fairly close quantitative representation of words to the ST. What is also clear is that such things occur with and without correspondence to Hebrew poetics. While it is true that the translator’s fidelity to a kind of literalism generated rhetorical features, this is not always the case. In numerous instances an appeal to the ST cannot explain the semantic and morphological linguistics of the TT. These instances touch upon literary composition, and not by accident. Drawing out the translator’s particular style is crucial to help provide a basis upon which to then demonstrate the translator’s understanding of his text. As this venture transpired in the early part of the second century, probably in Alexandria, this trained scribe would have been inculcated within some sort of Jewish Hellenistic scribal place of learning (a gymnasium).

3.2 Greek Rhetoric in Ambakoum This discussion of rhetoric within the Septuagint texts must, by first order, distinguish between an oral or high form of rhetoric that was developed significantly by Plato with respect its use by a professionally trained orator,2 1

Biguenet and Schulte, eds., The Craft of Translation, ix. Today’s system of rhetoric (ῥητορική) has developed much beyond its conception by Plato in the fourth century (Kennedy). Although forms of rhetoric existed earlier, with 2

80

Chapter 3: Greek Rhetoric and Linguistic Transformations

and that of written composition, which is the use of euphony in a literary form. Increased use of euphony was especially true in literature of the last threecenturies B.C., where “much Greek and Latin literature is overtly rhetorical in that it was composed with a knowledge of classical rhetorical theory and shows its influence.”3 Moreover, the dispersion of Greek literature and thought meant that other cultures, absorbed into this milieu, began to contribute literarily, having been studied in the forms.4 Pernot goes so far as to state that “[l]a constitution de la rhétorique en système est la grande création de l’époque hellénistique.”5 There has always existed some negative connotations to the uses of rhetoric, which has been concerned mostly with the motivation behind this art of persuasion, or whether it is done well. The Greek system of rhetoric affected numerous European cultures, and its expression can be observed in different ways within each of them today. It may be positively defined as a system “of effective and artistic composition, whether in speech or in writing, originally concerned with public address in civic and religious life…[and] adapted to literary composition, including poetry, and letter-writing.”6 Not many ancient translations into Greek have survived when compared to Latin. Although van der Louw notes a handful of important translations, such as the Imuthes-Asclepius and the Tefnut legend, 7 the Septuagint is the largest body of Ptolemaic Greek along with thousands of documents and ostraca from the Koine period.8 As a result, it provides evidence of the “Greek Koine spoken Hermes considered the inventor, so Pernot, Plato’s stern criticism led to a change in its nature. His dialogues (Gorgias, Menexenus, Symposium and Phaedrus) significantly developed its definition and application, such that later systems would borrow heavily from him, and to some extent also Aristotle. Later sophists would focus more on style and communicative form. The importance of truth became garbed in the “expression of emotion,” which became known as poetry and rhetoric. This was not to detract from logical coherence. Truth conveyed in words, which was often concerned with what they denoted as expressions of reality, could be “shared or strengthened by way of persuasion” (van der Louw). Cf. George A. Kennedy, “Historical Survey of Rhetoric,” in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period (330 B.C. – A.D. 400) (ed. Stanley E. Porter; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 3–20; Laurent Pernot, La Rhétorique dans l’Antiquité (Paris: Librarie Générale Française, 2000), 13–23, 54–77; van der Louw, Transformations in the Septuagint, 27, 29. 3 George A. Kennedy, A New History of Classical Rhetoric (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 4. 4 See Pernot, La Rhétorique, 82–3; John Vanderspoel, “Hellenistic Rhetoric in Theory and Practice,” in A Companion to Greek Rhetoric (ed. Ian Worthington; Chichester: Blackwell Publishing, 2010), 124. 5 Pernot, La Rhétorique, 83. 6 Kennedy, “Historical Survey of Rhetoric,” 5. 7 Van der Louw, Transformations in the Septuagint, 32–35. 8 See Francis T. Gignac, “The Papyri and the Greek Language,” in Papyrology (ed. Naphtali Lewis; YCS 28; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 155.

3.2 Greek Rhetoric in Ambakoum

81

and written within the confines of Egypt,”9 reflecting something of the dialect of Egyptian Greek literature. It is “[t]he largest extant piece of Ptolemaic literature, and one of the first works of Hellenistic Judaism.”10 For linguistic evidence it is a work of sub-literary Greek, providing a lexical resource for lesser-known Koine words…And for translation studies it is (possibly) the largest work of translation literature from antiquity, offering valuable insight for translation studies on both bilingual interference and translation technique.11

By virtue of this, it provides insight into “developments within the Greek language”12 during the Hellenistic period. Its value is too often overlooked by scholars of related fields. The significance of the Septuagint situated within Hellenistic Judaism is hard to overstate. Some years ago Aitken showed that translators were concerned with ensuring that their translated texts possessed a degree of literary quality, emulating in some measure the rhetorical devices of natural Greek literature – even in a very literal translation.13 As Dines also recently noted “the importance of euphony and variety in a text is stressed in manuals of Greek rhetoric and it is hard to imagine that these well-established norms did not affect his [i.e. the translator’s] work.”14 What may be observed in this study is that the translator of the Twelve, Ambakoum in particular, creatively captured the meaning and general thrust of his ST while also working Greek rhetorical devices into the TT.15 These devices were caused by different aspects of the translator’s style. It is encouraging that in recent years scholars have begun to point out that the Septuagint shows evidence of these literary devices.16 Although pre9

Ibid. Aitken, “Introduction,” 2. 11 Ibid. 12 Gignac, “The Papyri and the Greek Language,” 155. 13 See Aitken, “Greek Ecc,” 55–77. 14 Dines, “Was LXX Pentateuch a Style-Setter for LXX Minor Prophets?” 410. The discussion by van der Louw on the nature and function of rhetoric in the Roman Period also supports this point, see van der Louw, Transformations in the Septuagint, 35–46. 15 See also the recent work by Vorm-Croughs on such features within Isaiah, cf. Mirjam van der Vorm-Croughs, The Old Greek of Isaiah. An Analysis of Its Pluses and Minuses (SCS 61; ed. Wolfgang Kraus; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014). 16 There are a handful of recent works in the use of Greek rhetoric throughout literaltranslated texts of the Septuagint: Aitken, “Greek Ecc,” 55–77; “The Significance of Rhetoric in the Greek Pentateuch,” in On Stone and Scroll (eds. James K. Aitken, Katherine J. Dell, and Brian A. Mastin; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011), 507–21; Eberhard Bons, “Rhetorical Devices in the Septuagint Psalter,” in Et Sapienter et eloquenter. Studies on Rhetorical and Stylistic Features of the Septuagint (eds. Eberhard Bons and Thomas J. Kraus; FRLANT 241; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 69–79; Dines, “Was LXX Pentateuch a Style-Setter for LXX Minor Prophets?” 397–411; Jennifer M. Dines, “Stylistic Invention and Rhetorical Purpose in the Book of the Twelve,” in Et Sapienter et eloquenter. Studies 10

82

Chapter 3: Greek Rhetoric and Linguistic Transformations

sentation of this evidence is not a new venture, 17 it is gaining the attention it deserves. This might be because of the moors that have historically bound the reading of the Septuagint to the Hebrew are being let go. When the TT is set free in this respect the features are quite evident. It is unclear whether or not these features were made in order that the text may communicate on its own two feet,18 or simply highlight the translator’s personal style. This does raise a methodological question, however. Although these stylised and literary features may have been appreciated by the recipients of the text, to what extent can such things be attributed to the production of the work, and away from the grammatical and semantic structures of the ST? A number of Hebrew phonological connections were matched by Greek rhetorical devices. Yet in a number of instances the translator introduced devices that were not generated from the Hebrew poetics, nor from the accidence of the words. The translator’s nonconformity to literalism is demonstrated in these instances. This could indicate that the translator of Ambakoum was aware of both linguistic and literary distinctions in both languages. It is unclear whether he understood such literary features of the ST to heighten its meaning.19 But what is apparent is that he sought, for example, to match lexical variations, use paronomasia and alliterative clauses in order to embellish the text in rejection of so-called literalistic choices. It is in the instances where the translator deviates from the pattern of literalism that such features are evident. This is not always due to some sort of textual problem.20 In a number of instances, the choice of alternate words, which must consider the semantics and morphosyntax, instead of more literalistic ones, especially those that introduce rhetorical devices, indicates that the translator was more compositional in some parts of his literature, while at the same time maintaining a high degree of serial fidelity. The combination of the translator’s on Rhetorical and Stylistic Features of the Septuagint (eds. Eberhard Bons and Thomas J. Kraus; FRLANT 241; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 23–48; Jan Joosten, “Rhetorical Ornamentation in the Septuagint: The Case of Grammatical Variation,” in Et Sapienter et eloquenter. Studies on Rhetorical and Stylistic Features of the Septuagint (eds. Eberhard Bons and Thomas J. Kraus; FRLANT 241; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 11–22. Aitken also mentions a handful of scholars of the past century that have also pointed to this same kind of literary feature, see Aitken, “Greek Ecc,” n. 7. 17 See Aitken, “Greek Ecc,” n. 7. 18 Harl is right to ask rhetorically: “Ceux d’entre nous qui considèrent la LXX seulement comme une traduction hésitent à chercher dans elle des traits stylistiques propres. Mais si l’on est persuadé que toute traduction est à son tour ‘texte’, pourquoi ne pas observer les ‘effets’ de ce texte ?” See Dorival, Harl, and Munnich, La Bible grecque, 265–6. 19 See Adele Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), 1–10; 130–41. 20 Boyd-Taylor distinguishes between literary composition and literary translation such that they exist as exclusive and different efforts of work, cf. Boyd-Taylor, “A Place in the Sun,” 71–3.

3.2 Greek Rhetoric in Ambakoum

83

improvisation and contextual adaptation that produced rhetorical devices demonstrates an aspect of his style. While it is true that the translator’s style must be deduced from the complete textual set, the features that most indicate his personal touch are likely to be observed in his use of rhetorical devices.21 The literary features that were generated because of the Hebrew syntax or accidence of words, for example, simply prove that the translator employed a form of literalism. This occurred despite the non-isomorphism of the languages. It can naturally occur between very different languages when linguistic features are repeated, such as articles, pronouns, or case endings, etc.; it is most unlikely when the device is dependent on a language specific feature, e.g. repetition of a Hebrew sibilant (although a switch to another kind of vowel or consonant rhyme in the TL is a transformative possibility). The degree by which this specific characteristic was appreciated by the translater may have been less than those who received the text, reading it as an independent artefact at a later stage. Surely he would have appreciated the borrowed euphony, but its significance to him would probably not have been as great as those that he worked harder to create. Those features that show he was “concerned with the literary interests of the day”22 draw attention to appreciation of a personal style. And these would have been immediately appreciated by the translator as the first real reader of the newly formed text. But later, when Ambakoum was read as an independent literary artefact, the holistic expression of the style, in the reading out loud of the text for Greek readers/hearers, would have been lauded. In fact, it likely indicates that the product could be “enjoyed as a Greek text and as a faithful representation of the Hebrew.”23 Together these elements reflect the eclectic style used by the translator(s). It appears that the translator was able to adapt his TT by selecting words that, although have less semantic correspondence (and sometimes none) with the ST, when combined, had meaningful literary organisation and semantic register in the TL. Sometimes this is accomplished without great difference in the meaning of the text. When the text of Ambakoum is read in literary chunks these rhetorical features are more obvious, further indicating that the translator read his text literarily, not atomistically. Such appreciation for the nature of the TT is a mark of literary creativity amidst literalism. In sum, as van der Louw comments, “the task of rhetoric is to adorn the content in such a way that it will not only reach the addressee, but actually be effective with him.”24 The addressee in this case would have likely been the language community in which the translator worked. Such things would have 21

Cf. Aitken, “The Significance of Rhetoric in the Greek Pentateuch,” 520–1. Aitken, “Greek Ecc,” 73. 23 Ibid., 75. 24 Van der Louw, Transformations in the Septuagint, 39. 22

84

Chapter 3: Greek Rhetoric and Linguistic Transformations

appealed to them and have also been consonant with the interpretative tradition in place. After all, these structural cues were meant to be heard, “intended for the ear, not the eye.”25 The implication is that in having made one specific set of choices the translator had rejected others, ones that were literalistic. And those rejected choices do not bear the marks of rhetorical play, as is shown in the following analysis. In the cases were the translator was not improvising we are then confronted with how the reading and interpretative tradition – noting its acceptability – sat behind (or before) the text. 3.2.1 Greek Rhetoric via Literary Composition 3.2.1.1 Variation One well-known Greek rhetorical device is μεταβολή, or “elegant variation” (variatio) between connective parts of speech.26 This is often (ironically) more obvious when compared to the ST because in every instance shown here the same Hebrew particle or adverbial construct is repeated. This occurs in a number of places within Ambakoum. First, in chapter one, the translator has alternated repetition of the Hebrew phrase ‫ על־כן‬by use of διὰ τοῦτο and ἕνεκεν τούτου respectively:27 Hab 1:4 …‫על כן‬ ...‫כי‬ …‫על כן‬

aA aB bA bB

Amb 1:4 διὰ τοῦτο διεσκέδασται νόμος καὶ οὐ διεξάγεται εἰς τέλος κρίμα ὅτι ὁ ἀσεβὴς καταδυναστεύει τὸν δίκαιον ἕνεκεν τούτου ἐξελεύσεται τὸ κρίμα διεστραμμένον

Similarly in chapter two, the translator has varied his choice for the Hebrew particle ‫כי‬. The translator could have easily re-used διότι (cf. Hos 4:1; 9:12; Nah 2:3; Zeph 3:8; Zech. 2:12–13; 3:8). The alternate choice confirms the translator was free to vary it.28

25

Paul Achtemeier, “Omne Verbum Sonat: The New Testament and the Oral Environment of Late Western Antiquity,” JBL 109, no. 1 (1990): 25. See also Aitken, “The Significance of Rhetoric in the Greek Pentateuch,” 516. 26 See John A. L. Lee, “Translations of the Old Testament. I. Greek,” in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period (330 B.C.–A.D. 400) (ed. Stanley E. Porter; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 776. 27 This kind of variation can also be observed by other translators. Sometimes διὰ τοῦτο is repeated, but more often, when ‫ על־כן‬recurs in close proximity to itself, an alternate Greek rendering, e.g. ὅτι, is selected, i.e. Est 9:26; Isa 24:6; 30:16; 50:7; Jer 48:36. 28 There is no evident pattern in the Twelve to indicate why the translator would specifically choose any combination of ὅτι and διότι for the translation of ‫כי‬. The translation is, quite simply, varied.

3.2 Greek Rhetoric in Ambakoum Hab 2:3–4a ...‫כי‬

...‫הנה‬ ...‫כי‬

aA aB aC bA bB bC

85

Amb 2:3–4a διότι ἔτι ὅρασις εἰς καιρὸν καὶ ἀνατελεῖ εἰς πέρας καὶ οὐκ εἰς κένον ἐὰν ὑστερήσῃ ὑπομεινον αὐτόν ὅτι ἐρχόμενος ἥξει καὶ οὐ μὴ χρονίσῃ

In another sweeping example, the translator chose to alternate ‫ הוי‬across chapter two, first with the less common οὐαί and then alternating with the general ὦ (2:6, 9, 12, 15, 19).29 This pattern indicates that the translator understood the broad literary comport of his TT. The interjectional particle forms the literary backbone of chapter two, each designed to introduce a calamity against the impious. The decision to switch between the synonymous Greek particles has literarily improved the TT. 3.2.1.2 Polyptoton (Variation of Forms) The Greek rhetorical device of polyptoton (πολύπτωτος) is the repetition of variant forms of the same, or very similar (related), lexeme or root, through case or inflection, within the same sentence.30 There are two such features of verbal variation in Ambakoum generated by the translator’s stylistic adaption. The first example is in 2:16. Here, two similar verbals are used in parallel to explain the shaking that will occur to the scoffers. It is likely that the translator felt cut-off from the meaning of the word ‫( ערל‬to count as uncircumcised, show the foreskin), perhaps due to confusion of its form (this is the only [nipʿal] imperative in the HB) and its use in context.31 It may be that the translator improvised in order to make the text meaningful and clear, hence he used διασαλεύω followed by its much more common synonym σείω. These passive words were probably used to indicate divine judgement. As the translator 29

The likelihood that this is pattern of a larger chiastic pattern that extends from Amb 2:6 to Zech 2:18, as noted by Dines, is very low. The pattern here creates a chiasmus (ABAB´A´). The variation in Amb also exists in GA where, if the interj. is not at the beginning of the physical line, a small space of about three to four letters sets off the start of the next woe interj. from the end of the previous text. This partly demonstrates the literary backbone of this section of the book, and also that the variation was appreciated by later copyists, not being altered back to a Heb. Vorlage. See Dines, “Was LXX Pentateuch a StyleSetter for LXX Minor Prophets?” 407; Dines, “Stylistic Invention in the Twelve,” 40–1. And cf. Porter, review of Bons and Kraus, eds., 123. 30 Cf. OED “polyptoton”. Also, the device of anaphora (ἀναφορά or ἐφαναφορά) is not present in Amb. e.g. Ps 23:8. 31 Haak argues for emendation of MT because of the difficulty of “understanding the significance of ‘circumcision’ in the context,” see Robert D. Haak, Habakkuk (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 70.

86

Chapter 3: Greek Rhetoric and Linguistic Transformations

struggled with semantics, there is no alternative to demonstrate that literal options were rejected. This might indicate a reading tradition for this uncommon word; the translator often rendered difficult parts of his text with such rhetorical features. He appears to implement compositional elements when he was freer with respective to literalism.32 Hab 2:16 ‫שבעת קלון מכבוד שתה גם אתה‬ ‫והערל‬

aA aB

Amb 2:16 πλησμονὴν ἀτιμίας ἐκ δόξης πίε καὶ σὺ καὶ διασαλεύθητι καὶ σείσθητι

The other example of this kind of variation is in 3:2. In this passage, which is a bit of a textual enigma, the translator seems to have expanded his text for theological reasons. The text has been expanded by three additional clauses, with modifications to another. The expansion of the text, not uncommon to the style in Ambakoum, was likely to disambiguate a reference to the L ORD appearing in the temple at an appointed time. The use of γινώσκω followed by its cognate ἐπιγινώσκω, especially in light of the textual expansion, is a very clear use of polyptoton. Hab 3:2 ‫בקרב שנים חייהו‬ ‫בקרב שנים תודיע‬

aA aB aC

Amb 3:2 ἐν μέσῳ δύο ζῴων γνωσθήσῃ ἐν τῷ ἐγγίζειν τὰ ἔτη ἐπιγνωσθήσῃ ἐν τῷ παρεῖναι τὸν καιρὸν ἀναδειχθήσῃ

3.2.1.3 Assonance, Consonance and Alliteration There are a number of Greek rhetorical devices that were similar in the way they sounded words together (συνήχησις). The idea here is that an echo can be heard between the parts of words as they are set together in clauses and across sentences. When this is done in near repetition, with the right cadence, there is a kind of aural harmony between the words, which can happen naturally, or unintentionally. A word of caution though, as Silk points out, “recurrence over a longer space tends to be less perceptible; intermediate distractions similarly

32 Later witnesses indicate that σείω was preferred and διασαλεύω dropped (Field), though some retained both. The editors of DJD 8 note that there is room for either word on that parchment. This indicates that later copyists and redactors did not intend to retain the rhetorical device in spite of (possible) continued ignorance of the Hebrew word. Here, word correspondence was more important than meaning. It points to the translator’s approach to this, which may further indicate a tradition of interpreting this part of the text. Also, the repetition of destructive words in the passive is indicative of divine wrath, so Harper, Puzzled Scribe, 115.

3.2 Greek Rhetoric in Ambakoum

87

reduce perceptibility.”33 The “expressive function,”34 unmediated by the ST, in brief recurrence is what I will show exists in Ambakoum. This device strikes the hearer with meaning and audible art. The effect is pleasant to the ear, and often appears interpretative. The difference between consonance (consonant-rhyming), which “designates the repetition of the same or similar sequence of consonants with a change in the intervening vowels,”35 and alliteration (παρήχησις), is that, in the latter, the phonetic connection is repeated at the beginning of a clauseinitial word. Alliteration is clause initial dependent, being a class of “soundpatterning and sound-repetition.”36 Assonance is vowel-rhyming between two or more words, syllables or diphthongs in “nonrhyming stressed syllables near enough to each other for the echo to be discernible.”37 In 1:4 the translator used a combination of compound verbs (διεσκέδασται and διεξάγεται) as part of the final point of the prophet’s complaint. Consonantal alliteration is evident through the repetition of the conjunction διά. There may also have been an intent to link this device to the consonance heard with the word καταδυναστεύει, which is also not generated by the ST. Though as Silk cautiously points out, “[t]here is usually no possibility of associating so many words and no incentive to decide which should be associated with which. The link, therefore, tends to involve simple alliteration.”38 All of these words also reflect a rejection of other more standard words, viz. words that are usually used to translate these Hebrew ones within Ambakoum. Hab 1:4 ‫על כן תפוג תורה‬ ‫ולא יצא לנצח משפט‬ ‫כי רשע מכתיר את הצדיק‬ ‫על כן יצא משפט מעקל‬

aA aB bA bB

Amb 1:4 διὰ τοῦτο διεσκέδασται νόμος καὶ οὐ διεξάγεται εἰς τέλος κρίμα ὅτι ὁ ἀσεβὴς καταδυναστεύει τὸν δίκαιον ἕνεκεν τούτου ἐξελεύσεται τὸ κρίμα διεστραμμένον

In the first instance, the word διασκεδάζω does not correspond to the semantics of the verbal ‫פוג‬, which means grow numb, cold or be powerless (nipʿal).39 The word διασκεδάζω is well-known and means to scatter abroad [viz. far and

33 M. S. Silk, Interaction in Poetic Imagery with Special Reference to Early Greek Poetry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), 174. 34 Ibid., 176. 35 T. V. F. Brogan, ed., The New Princeton Handbook of Poetic Terms (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 103–4. 36 Silk, Poetic Imagery, 173. 37 This term may sometimes refer to word-initial consonants that are unstressed, cf. Brogan, ed., The New Princeton Handbook of Poetic Terms, 12, 21. 38 Silk, Poetic Imagery, 177. 39 DCH notes that it is synonymous with ‫דכה‬, meaning to be crushed. Cf. DCH, “‫”פוג‬.

88

Chapter 3: Greek Rhetoric and Linguistic Transformations

wide].40 Throughout the Septuagint ‫ פוג‬is never translated by a semantic equivalent,41 e.g. ψυχρόσαρκος (perhaps also ψυχρόομαι), ναρκάω or interpretatively for the nipʿal, ἀδυναμέω.42 Due to the source word infrequency it is unclear whether or not the translator just guessed at its meaning, or if the Hebrew word had alternate interpretative choices at the time, perhaps due to obscurity in meaning.43 Second, the translation of the very common word ‫ יצא‬is peculiar. Within the Twelve, for example, it is commonly translated with expected equivalents, e.g. ἐξέρχομαι.44 Elsewhere the Greek word διεξάγω never translates this Hebrew word. It is a common Greek word, though uncommon to the Septuagint. It has a variety of different meanings depending on context. The legal situation of the prophet’s complaint may suggest use of its legal sense for which this word was sometimes used, meaning to settle, bring to an end or be gone through.45 In context, the law, from the previous line, is paradigmatically related to the judgement in this line. The wicked oppress, καταδυναστεύω (not surround, ‫)כתר‬, the righteous.46 The vowel υ is very close in pronunciation with the other vowels with which it is in parellel, i.e. dieksághete / katadinasteúo, etc.47

40

See LSJM, “διασκεδάζω”. Andersen notes that the Hebrew word is rare “and most of its occurences are accompanied by textual difficulties.” The word may not have been clearly understood, and then resolved with a reading tradition. See Francis I. Andersen, Habakkuk: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 25; New York; London: Anchor Bible/Doubleday, 2001), 118. 42 It is likely that the word was “adapted” to the context. The translators likely had a way of handling it, which is evidentially interpretative, cf. Gen. 45:26; Pss 38:9; 77:3. 43 LXX.D interestingly suggest that he may have read it √‫פוץ‬, sich zerstreuen (to scatter or dissipate), cf. Karrer and Kraus, eds., LXX.E. Band 2, 2418. 44 Also ἐκπορεύομαι, ἐξάγω, and ἐκφέρω, passim. 45 See LSJM, “διεξαγνέω”. 46 The word ‫ עשק‬is a better more literal source equivalent, meaning to oppress or crush, e.g. Hos 5:11; 12:8; Amos 4:1; Mic 2:2; Mic 7:10. The word καταδυναστεύω is used in reference to how rulers oppress their subjects, indicating the socio-judicial breakdown about which Ambakoum is complaining. It is a specific wide-scale problem. The more common συνέχω might have invoked too much ambiguity, having many different meanings, and seldom that of surround or encompass. Even the closer κυκλόω was rejected in favour of this interpretation of what it meant for the righteous to be surrounded and hemmed in: oppressed. This is evident from numerous passages, where καταδυναστεύω was chosen instead of obvious so-called literal equivalents in order to explain the passage, e.g. Exod 1:13; 21:16. This is a clear example of how variant semantic choice enables a translator to exegete his text while conforming to his form of literalism. So, in this passage, law and justice appear to have been banished from the court at the whim of a specific judge (τὸ κρίμα), the article in the final line perhaps having a deictic function. 47 See W. Sydney Allen, Vox Graeca. A Guide to Pronunciation of Classical Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 62–6; Constantine R. Campbell, Advances 41

3.2 Greek Rhetoric in Ambakoum

89

The choice of these two Greek verbals (διασκεδάζω and διεξάγω) did not arise from the semantics of their corresponding Hebrew words. It may well be that the second word was styled on the free rendering of the first, which points to the interpretative origin of this approach. There were also very obvious alternative choices that would have agreed with a more so-called literalistic approach. But if the translator had chosen the other options then alliteration between the words would have not existed. The word choice marks a conscious choice by the translator to reject certain words in favour of those that enabled him to compose his literature with some rhetorical flourish. Moreover, the interpretative shift in the choice of such different words, with a relatively high degree of intent, points to an interpretative tradition of such a reading. In the second example of 1:8 the euphony is heard in the consonantal alliteration of the first three lines, which appears as a switch from the endrhyming in the ST (‫וּפשׁוּ‬ ַ , ‫וְ ַחדּוּ‬, ‫)וְ ַקלּוּ‬. This is a good example of literary audible art. There is a clear attempt to make certain alliterative choices for the Hebrew words, slightly altering the meaning of the passage of the TT. Hab 1:8 ‫וקלו מנמרים סוסיו‬ ‫וחדו מזאבי ערב‬ ‫ופשו פרשיו‬ ‫ופרשיו מרחוק יבאו‬

aA aB bA bB

Amb 1:8 καὶ ἐξαλοῦνται ὑπὲρ παρδάλεις οἱ ἵπποι αὐτοῦ καὶ ὀξύτεροι ὑπὲρ τοὺς λύκους τῆς Ἀραβίας καὶ ἐξιππάσονται οἱ ἱππεῖς αὐτοῦ καὶ ὁρμήσουσιν μακρόθεν

First, the choice for ἐξάλλομαι is interpretative of ‫קלל‬, which means swift or light in the qal. While the quality of levity could be interpreted as being able to leap, it is not within the semantic domain of ‫קלל‬, whereas other descriptive words are, such as ἐλαφρός or κοῦφος.48 The later version of 8ḤevXIIgr changed this to the latter (κουφότεροι), which flattens the alliterative force of OG. Some of this might also have been affected by the interpretation of the prepositions. The Greek preposition (ὑπέρ) is best taken as comparative (‫)מן‬ rather than spatial. His horses do not leap above, or higher than, leopards, but

in the Study of Greek. New Insights for Reading the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015), 201–3. 48 There is also the metaphorical sense of heaviness in relation to honourableness, where being dishonoured is understood as being lightened, cf. 1 Kgdms 2:30 use of ἀτιμόω. This word is more suitable for the translation of swift, rather than leap, which is more interpretative in OG, cf. 2 Kgdms 2:18; Ecc 9:11; Isa 5:26; 18:2; 19:1; 30:16; Jer 26:6 [46:6]; Lam 4:19. Also ὀξέως, which is used in Joel 4:4; Amos 2:15. Also, but not contextually relevant (horses don’t run), δρομεύς, cf. Amos 2:14. Another option is ἐλαφρός, cf. Job 24:18. Jer 2:23 – misreading for ‫קול‬.

90

Chapter 3: Greek Rhetoric and Linguistic Transformations

more than them.49 Because of the verbal semantic shift the meaning is clearly altered away from MT. The same prepositional sense is also observed in the second clause. The adjective in the following clause ὀξύς is semantically on target with ‫חדד‬, both meaning sharp.50 Thus having compared the Chaldeans to leopards, a comparison is then made with keenness of intellect (metaphorically sharper: ὀξύτεροι) and not speed. This is also grasped by the paradigmatic relationship of wolves and leopards, of which wolves are understood to be keener and leopards swifter. Further elaboration continues in the succeeding two verses, where horses (ἵπποι) are paradigmatic to cavalry (ἱππεῖς). The final line is terse and epigrammatic, likely expanding the thought of cavalry coming from afar, rather than wolves, which are not known for long-distance ventures.51 So the keenness of the wolves of Arabia should strike fear into the hearts of the would-be hearer.52 The verbal predicate of the cavalry advance is ‫פוש‬, which means to skip about,53 frisk or paw the ground like an animal would.54 It seems closer in meaning to ἐξάλλομαι rather than ἐξιππάζομαι, which means to ride out – not a common word – and much closer would be σκιρτάω, meaning to skip, or λεπτύνω, having the sense of beating something to a reduced state as in winnowing or threshing.55 The word ‫ פוש‬is translated differently by this translator in each instance of the Twelve (Nah 3:18, Mal 3:20),56 to which it is almost exclusive, being found only once elsewhere (Jer 27:11). The word was 49 If the Heb. had a different verbal it could have implied the sense of higher than, but then the translator would likely have used ἀπό instead, e.g. Job 35:5; Isa 55:9, 9, or rendered the clause adjectivally with ὑψηλός. 50 It is unlikely that the translator read this as an adjective. Cleaver-Bartholomew argues that he overlooked the final wāw and read this as ‫חד‬. ַ But, in so doing, he would have read it differently from every instance where this rare adjective exists in the MT. It is always vocalised with a final hê, ‫( ַח ָדּה‬Isa 49:2; Ezek 5:1; Ps 57:5; Prov 5:4). Cf. David CleaverBartholomew, “An Analysis of the Old Greek Version of Habakkuk,” (PhD diss., The Claremont Graduate University, 1998), 119. 51 The word ὁρμάω does refer metaphorically to quick striking animals, i.e. lions (Isa 5:29), which hasten to strike, to rushing waters (Josh 4:18) and also to people who rush (Gen 31:21; Num 17:7; Josh 6:5). But due to the adverb it seems more logical to make reference to the horsemen (locusts also act in this way, see Nah 3:16). Moreover, the translator has changed the word order of the final line, bringing the verbal predicate forward and omitting the subject in an effort to reduce repetition, which is entirely stylistic. It may have been to reduce the perceived repetition of words, cf. Joosten, “Elimination of Verbal Repetions,” 220; Gelston, ed., BHQ, 115–6. 52 See p. 125. 53 DCH, “‫ פושׁ‬I”. 54 Holladay, “‫”פּושׁ‬. 55 See LSJM, “λεπτύνω”. 56 Nahum seems interpretative, whereas Mal 3:20’s use of σκιρτάω is also the same as Jer 27:11 [50:11], meaning leap.

3.2 Greek Rhetoric in Ambakoum

91

known to the translator, see Mal 3:20, but, as Vienès points out, used differently in the other instances where it is found,57 which in each case was contextually adapted – interpreted. So, again, the translator has chosen an alternate word that does not mean the same thing as the Hebrew word. This choice is combined with the literalistic choice for the second clause. The change in 8ḤevXIIgr, ὁρμάω, meaning in this instance to rush headlong,58 is the semantically closer choice. But by choosing these words the translator of the Twelve has alliterated these three lines, repeating similar sounding word-initial syllables containing ξ, also offering a slightly more interpretative sense for the passage. The translator created a sort of rhetorical sandwich, a literal choice in the middle surrounded by compositional elements. It indicates his complete understanding of his text and ability to craft these together. In 1:17 the use of ἀμφίβληστρον for ‫ חרם‬is at first puzzling because the translator had in the previous verse made the closer semantic choice of σαγήνη for ‫( חרם‬both meaning a kind of dragnet).59 Hab 1:17 ‫העל כן יריק חרמו‬ ‫ותמיד להרג גוים לא יחמול‬

aA aB

Amb 1:17 καὶ ἀμφιβαλεῖ τὸ ἀμφίβληστρον αὐτοῦ καὶ διὰ παντὸς ἀποκτέννειν ἔθνη οὐ φείσεται

However, when this is viewed from within the paradigm of Greek stylistic concern, the anaphoric relationship between the verbal ἀμφιβάλλω and the substantive ἀμφίβληστρον is apparent. What might appear on the surface to be a translational error looks like a subtle use of rhetoric. The choice was not generated by the semantics of the Hebrew word. It refers to a casting net, which in this verse amplifies the interpretation while offering an appreciable increase in alliteration, being measured across the first three syllables of each word.60 57

Cf. Laurence Vienès, ed., Malachie (BdA 23.12; Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2011),

162. 58

See LSJM, “ὁρμάω”. This word has also been alternately read as ‫ ַח ְרבּוֹ‬in 1QpHab and 8ḤevXIIgr, cf. Andersen, Habakkuk, 186–7; Marguerite Harl et al., eds., Les Douze Prophètes: Jöel, Abdiou, Jonas, Naoum, Ambakoum, Sophonie (BdA 23.4–9; Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1999), 271. 60 Furthermore, the translator has changed the sentence from an interrogative one to a statement of fact. The change from a question to statement in the final verse is obvious, and should be attributed to the rare interrogative form in the ST, ‫העל‬. The translator omitted it, perhaps unsure how to render the TT because of the following particle, ‫כן‬. This syntax is odd, having no precedence in MT, i.e. inter. + prep. + ‫כן‬. However, the use of διὰ τοῦτο is reflective of the translation of ‫לכן‬, which looks like the omission of the first two consonants in this case. In every instance throughout the Twelve ‫ לכן‬is translated by διὰ τοῦτο. The instance of Zech 11:7 ignores the presence of the adverb. When ‫ כן‬is found alone or prefixed with a wāw it is handled a number of different ways, which further supports the specific style 59

92

Chapter 3: Greek Rhetoric and Linguistic Transformations

Hence the Chaldean invader will keep casting his fishing net – not empty it (‫ – )ריק‬and not just against Israel, but against the nations; he will slay without sparing, like a fisherman continually casting his net into a teeming shoreline. This combination is also found in a fragment61 purported to be by the wellknown grammarian Philoxenos where we find grammatical instructions on how to form the compound word, which tacitly suggests that the translator may have been likewise instructed; thus when the opportunity came to show his literary craft he was familiar enough with the basics of the language to do so: διὰ τὸ ἀμφιβάλλεσθαι ἀμφίβληστρον ἀπὸ τοῦ βάλλω κατὰ συγκοπὴν γίνεται βλῶ, ὁ μέλλων βλήσω, βλῆτρον καὶ μετὰ τῆς ἀμφὶ προθέσεως καὶ πλεονασμῷ τοῦ σ ἀμφίβληστρον So to form the word ἀμφίβληστρον: It comes from βλῶ by syncopy from βάλλω, the future is βλήσω, and with ἀμφὶ added to the front of the substantive βλῆτρον, and by pleonasm of the sigma, one gets ἀμφίβληστρον.62

The next and final example is another case of using a rhetorical device where there was likely a textual issue. It points towards the translator’s stylistic intentions rather than rejection of literal choices, caused by reading the text differently. This is probably the reason behind how he translated the idiomatic phrase ‫ עריה תעור קשתך‬in 3:9. Consonantal similarity of the word ‫ערה‬, to lay bare, or uncover, with the substantive ‫ עריה‬is apparent. In the old script, the first word can easily be read as an infinitive absolute.63 The following word, omitting the wāw, may be read as a 2ms imperfect, an adaptation not

of this translator to read ‫ לכן‬as διὰ τοῦτο (cf. Hos 4.7 for κατά; Hos 11:2; Joel 2:4; Amos 5:14; Nah 1:12; Hag 2:14 [x3]; Zech 1:6; 7:13; 8:13, 15 for the common rendering of οὔτως; Joel 3:1; Amos 3:12, [οὗτος]; Zech 14:15 for a more interpretative reading; Amos 4:5 for ὅτι τοῦτα, which is a similar reading to the second occurrence in Amb 1:4; and Nah 1:12; Zech 11:11 where it is omitted). The pattern is unique to this body of literature, which makes Amb 1:17 entirely anomalous to the pattern. Even the conj. ‫ על כן‬has no such regularity, though διὰ τοῦτο translates it a handful of times in the Twelve. The pesher also has ‫על כן‬, and the Vg. and Syr. also read this as a statement, hence probably revealing reliance on the reading from OG. 61 This is briefly noted in Theodoridis’s monograph without a translation, cf. Christos Theodoridis, ed., Die Fragmente des Grammatikers Philoxenos (SGLG 2; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1976), (fragment 39) 113–4. 62 My translation, and with thanks to John Lee for correcting me on my first run at it. 63 Harper sees the OG changes caused by the translator’s possible ignorance and textual difficulty, so that the result is contextual manipulation (change) (see Tov’s category earlier). Harper makes the insightful point that there would have been some lexical register in the choice because τόξον is often the object of ἐντείνω. This does, however, throw us back into a fundamental premise of this study: if the translator was aware of such register in his base text, then he would have known beforehand: τόξον follows the idiomatic phrase, thus the entire clause was to some degree known or considered at the point of translation, cf. Harper, Puzzled Scribe, 166.

3.2 Greek Rhetoric in Ambakoum

93

uncommon when improvising for a translated text, thus ‫ערו ֺה ַתּ ֲע ֵרה‬. ָ 64 Read this way the translator may then adapt the words to the context, employing the translation formula of a participle plus a finite verb (akin to the inf. abs. + finite verb) to affirm an action. By reading his text this way, the two words rhyme and thus improve the reading. Hab 3:9 ‫עריה תעור קשתך‬ ‫שבעות מטות אמר סלה‬

aA aB

Amb 3:9 ἐντείνων ἐντενεῖς τὸ τόξον σου ἑπτὰ σκῆπτρα, λέγει κύριος. διάψαλμα

3.2.1.4 Homeoteleuton (End-Rhyming) The implementation of end-rhyming (ὁμοιοτέλευτον) occurs in a number of places throughout the translation, as is also observed in other places of the Septuagint.65 Due to the nature of the Greek language, this is most acutely heard in the near repetition of case endings. There are a handful of instances of this device in Ambakoum. The first example of end-rhyming is observed in the use of aorist passive imperatives in both 2:16, 19. As explained earlier, the employment of the two words in 2:16 shows some degree of added conscious effort because the MT word was doubly translated. It is noteworthy that in every instance where the translator improvised using double translation he employed a Greek rhetorical device.66 The first line in v. 16 reflects the terse and choppy nature of its source. It heaps condemnation on the instigator of a drinking scheme. Drink! An abundance of dishonour is derived from his glory. Apparent glory has been reduced to shame. It was a flash in the pan. The quick switch from imperative, πίε, to pronoun, σύ, is paired to the rhetorical device with the aorist passives διασαλεύθητι / σείσθητι. The familiar use of destructive verbals like these implies divine judgement in Ambakoum. As noted above, 64 The word ‫ ערה‬has varied meaning depending on the stem, e.g. qal is closer to the substantive, meaning to expose oneself (in nakedness); or once in the nipʿal, which seems to mean pour out; and the hitpaʿel without the conj., so Weiser, indicates a meaning of “sich spreizen” (to stretch oneself out), e.g. MT Ps 37:25. This latter meaning, though not reflexive, was made the dominant in the Greek in order to make sense of the phrase, which helps to explain the semantic choice for the verbal interplay of ἐκτείνω. It may also indicate that this meaning could be derived from the Grundstamm. Cf. Artur Weiser, Die Psalmen. Erster Teil: Psalm 1–60 (ATD 14; eds. Walther Eichrodt et al.; 2 vols.; vol. 1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959), 211, 217; HALOT, “‫”ערה‬. See also Andersen, Habakkuk, 320; Wilhelm Rudolph, Micha, Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja (KAT 13,2; eds. Wilhelm Rudolph et al.; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1975), 235; Harper, Puzzled Scribe, 164–6. 65 See Aitken, “Greek Ecc,” 55–77; Lee, “Translations of OT,” 775–83. 66 See Amb 1:5; 2:16. See also 3:9 (p. 92), which is not strictly a double translation but reflects this stylistic approach.

94

Chapter 3: Greek Rhetoric and Linguistic Transformations

this was not in rejection of literal choices, word obscurity likely giving freedom to a more compositional – free – hand. Hab 2:16 ‫שבעת קלון מכבוד שתה גם אתה‬ ‫והערל‬

aA aB

Amb 2:16 πλησμονὴν ἀτιμίας ἐκ δόξης πίε καὶ σὺ καὶ διασαλεύθητι καὶ σείσθητι

The opening of the final woe oracle in 2:19, which itself has been carefully structured with rhetorical variation, phonetically links the follies of speaking to inanimate objects, as if they were alive. Akin to 2:16, there is a textual (semantic) inconsistency in relation to the ST. The passage has been read differently so that the first two Hebrew imperatives, ‫ הקיצה‬and ‫עורי‬, refer to the tree/wood, and the final adverb, ‫דומם‬, is read imperatively in reference to the ָ is always translated in the stone.67 First, the masculine imperative of ‫)עוּרה( עור‬ Septuagint with the aorist passive from ἐξεγείρω, thus ἐξεγέρθητι. The Hebrew word always has the paragogic hê. This is also true of the hipʿil (‫)ה ִע ָירה‬, ָ cf. Ps 35:23 (the only two stems in which this is found in the imperative). By and large, the most regular way that the feminine imperative, ‫עוּרי‬, ִ is translated is with the present middle, thus ἐξεγείρου (cf. Judg [B] 5:12; Isa 51:9; 52:1).68 There is nothing to commend the translator to take it here in the aorist except, perhaps, how the parallel line is also read: Hab 2:19 ‫הוי אמר לעץ הקיצה עורי‬ ‫לאבן דומם‬

aA aB

Amb 2:19 οὐαὶ ὁ λέγων τῷ ξύλῳ Ἔκνηψον ἐξεγέρθητι καὶ τῷ λίθῳ Ὑψώθητι

67 The interj. here has the tacit effect of responding to the introductory material from the previous verse. The change marks for the reader this apex woe, introducing a condemnation against the idol maker (sg., ὁ). What is deaf by nature should not be spoken to. The folly deepens because the maker knows the wood or stone product is an inanimate thing, but he treats it as if it were alive. To the wooden object he gives two commands: wake up, get up! And to the stone: be exalted! The first imperative is the same word used of the creditors in the first woe (2:7). It can only refer to a living thing because it involves recovery from some earlier state of stupor (usually from alcoholic abuse). The inference here is that the idol got too drunk and needs a little jolt to get going (ἔκνηψον): Sober up! Wakey wakey! You’ve a job to do. (Harl et al. see this as ironic.) It connects the Chaldean, his drunken cavorting and his wooden idol – were they all drinking together? Then, what seems to be humorous mockery (cf. 3 Kgdms 18:25–29) darkens quickly upon the blasphemy of the whole activity. The command to the stone, be exalted (ὑψώθητι), is elsewhere only ever used of the LORD in the Psalter (Pss 7:7; 20:14; 56:6; 12; 93:2; 107:6). Comparison and competition between any other thing and the LORD is clearly denounced (Exod 20:5; 23:24; 34:14; Deut 5:9; Isa 43:10–13; 46:9). Cf. Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 284. 68 The translator also used the aorist passive in Zech 13:7 to translate the same form, but with no rhetorical effect. And the other instance of use of the aorist passive for this form is Cant 4:16.

3.2 Greek Rhetoric in Ambakoum

95

The rare adverb ‫ דומם‬has been read as the verbal ‫רומה‬, which is then naturally translated by an imperative of ὑψόω. It is standard to translate the qal imperative, ‫רוּמה‬, ָ as ὑψώθητι, which is often in reference to God (Pss 7:7; 20:14; 56:6; etc.), and the paragogic hê might invoke an honorific sense.69 If the meaning of this word eluded the translator, then he improvised by employing meaningful rhetoric. The result also heightened or increased the sense of rebuke against the idolaters. The worship of the stone is semantically tied to proscribed worship. Later scribes were, however, aware of the meaning of the word, i.e. σιωπῶν.70 In OG it is never translated with the sense of silently (Lam 3:26; Isa 47:5); it is rare. I am inclined to suggest that if the word was unknown to the scribes at Alexandria, then the tradition was to read it through its similarity in form to ‫רומה‬. By translating both words in the aorist tense form, there was the freedom to employ a little end-rhyme, which would not have occurred should the translator have translated this into the present tense, i.e. ἐξεγείρου / ὑψοῦσθε, or with some alternate more literalistic choice. Thus the choices of aorist middle and passive inflected imperatives artfully lifted the reading. As a result, the stupidity of calling out to rocks and trees is made with rhyme. Another example of this kind of interchange between the use of the aorist passives and infinitives is heard in the second section of the expanded text of 3:2. As this does not correspond literally to MT, it is further evidence that the translator was free to compose his literature, and thus employ rhetorical device when a text was authorised for expansion. Commenting on the aorist forms, Dines notes that this is “a particularly striking example…creating a strong rhyme-like effect not found in MT”:71 Hab 3:2 bA bB

‫בקרב שנים חייהו‬ ‫בקרב שנים תודיע‬

cA

[?‫]ברגז רוחי‬ ‫ברגז רחם תזכור‬

bA bB bC bD bE

Amb 3:2 ἐν μέσῳ δύο ζῴων γνωσθήσῃ ἐν τῷ ἐγγίζειν τὰ ἔτη ἐπιγνωσθήσῃ ἐν τῷ παρεῖναι τὸν καιρὸν ἀναδειχθήσῃ ἐν τῷ ταραχθῆναι τὴν ψυχήν μου ἐν ὀργῇ ἐλέους μνησθήσῃ

3.2.2 Greek Rhetoric via Hebrew Interference Some examples of rhetoric within Ambakoum came about through the translator’s use of literalism. If it were not for his adherence to this form of literalism some of the following examples may not have been possible. 69

Cf. Paul Joüon and Takamitsu Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (SB 27; Rev. English ed.; Roma: Pontificio istituto biblico, 2006), §48.d. 70 See Tov, Kraft, and Parsons, DJD 8, 55. 71 Dines, “Was LXX Pentateuch a Style-Setter for LXX Minor Prophets?” 403.

96

Chapter 3: Greek Rhetoric and Linguistic Transformations

Moreover, because they matched the natural phonetics of the Hebrew this might have been appreciated by the translator himself. The Greek repeats sounds like the Hebrew ones, positively reinforcing the use of literalism. There are ten instances of rhetorical devices caused by the translator’s pattern of literalism. End-rhyming is common, and also instances of assonance, consonance and alliteration. 3.2.2.1 Assonance, Consonance and Alliteration In 1:10 the translator has made a literal choice in rejection of one that would have created a nice assonant pairing in the TT. In this case there is a poetic parallelism in the MT heard through repetition of ‫שחק‬. The translator has, however, opted for παίγνια to translate ‫מ ְשׂ ָחק‬, ִ which means here a play-toy as for an infant. The choice of ἔμπαιγμα, meaning jest or mockery, would have been a better nominal equivalent, because it would have been alliterative and also conveyed a double sense of consonance with the following verbal ἐμπαίξεται.72 While there is some consonance with the syllable -παί, it is more diminished than would have been with the alternative. In either case, the choice to repeat π, which is known to have been favoured by the ancients in alliteration,73 does have some audible echo between the two lines: Hab 1:10 ‫והוא במלכים יתקלס‬ ‫ורזנים משחק לו‬ ‫הוא לכל מבצר ישחק‬ ‫ויצבר עפר‬ ‫וילכדה‬

aA aB bA bB bC

Amb 1:10 καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν βασιλεῦσιν ἐντρυφήσει καὶ τύραννοι παίγνια [ἔμπαιγμα] αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτὸς εἰς πᾶν ὀχύρωμα ἐμπαίξεται καὶ βαλεῖ χῶμα καὶ κρατήσει αὐτοῦ

In another example from 2:9, the verse opens with assonance between the subject and verbal – variations of each other. The use of ν within these two words is alliterative, clearly sounding an audible reverberation between them as it is repeated. This continued repetition of the letter ν is followed closely by the following adjective (κακήν), which is heard in the following parts of speech. In each instance a pattern of conformity to literalism generated use of the

72 Other such obvious examples, some noted by Muraoka, indicate at least nothing else except that translators were not consistent, which is not uncommon among translators in general. See Takamitsu Muraoka, “Literary Device in the Septuagint,” HUB 8 (1973): 20– 30. On the other hand, Harl et al. indicate that “[l]a littérature postclassique atteste d’emploi d’entrupháō au sense de ‘prendre un malin plaisir à, dénigrer,’” which may point towards a certain verbal choice which caused related nominal choices. Cf. Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 266. 73 See Aitken, “Greek Ecc,” n. 26.

3.2 Greek Rhetoric in Ambakoum

97

accusative case, which, when thus composed, strikes the ear in a way that the ST does not: Hab 2:9 ‫הוי בצע בצע רע לביתו‬ ‫לשום במרום קנו‬ ‫להנצל מכף רע‬

aA aB aC

Amb 2:9 ὦ ὁ πλεονεκτῶν πλεονεξίαν κακὴν τῳ οἰκῳ αὐτοῦ τοῦ τάξαι εἰς ὕψος νοσσιὰν αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἐκσπασθῆναι ἐκ χειρὸς κακῶν

We now turn to a couple of examples of alliteration. A number of grammatical and semantic changes have occurred in this sentence (2:5) that have also introduced some rhetorical features. Because of the general import of the Hebrew semantics I include this example here as having mostly to do with the meaning of the source. The context of this passage and the earlier reference to the scoffers from 1:5 also seems to be connected. 74 The intentionality behind the misreading is not easy to determine, especially as the two contexts of Ambakoum both direct an invective judgement against this specific group. Moreover, the textual problem of 2:5 is no less complicated than 1:5 as it has a number of linguistic changes that differ with MT.

aA aB

74

Hab 2:5 ‫ואף כי היין בוגד‬ ‫גבר יהיר ולא ינוה‬

aA

Amb 2:5 ὁ δὲ κατοινωμένος καὶ καταφρονητὴς – ἀνὴρ ἀλαζών – οὐδὲν μὴ περάνῃ

The nominal καταφρονηταί translates the Heb. in 1:5 ‫בגוים‬, which is commonly understood as a misreading for ‫ה\בוגדים‬. The presence of ‫ בגוים‬in MurXII and other translation witnesses, such as in Jerome’s notes on his Heb. text, numerous Greek witnesses (α´, σ´, θ´), including the Tg. (‫ )בעממיא‬and Vg. (in gentibus), makes the start of a good case for an original reading as found in Hab 1:5. While this might have been an accidental misreading it may have been due to an inner-thematic connection of the book. First, the translator would have been aware of the reading ‫( בוגדים‬Hab 1:13), which is thematically linked to 1:5–6 – it is the other section of the first oracle. The second imperative here is ‫הביטו‬, and the poignant reading in 1:12 ‫הביט אל־עמל לא תוכל‬, followed by ‫למה תביט בוגדים‬ likely affected the reading back in 1:3, something Harl et al. sees as anticipatory of also 2:5. Those committed to impiety and injustice in 1:2–4, about whom Amb has been complaining, are implied in the pl. imperatives of 1:5. These people that swallow the righteous, in 1:13, and sate themselves like Sheol, in 2:5, are read back into this text thematically by the translator. Technically speaking, the translator may have simply metathesised the wāw and gîmmel, and having done so, easily added the dālet (‫)בוגדים‬. The addition of the article does not have to imply a misreading for it; such parts of speech are often added/omitted for stylistic measure. This is probably an interpretative misreading, which was due to the implied subj. of the imperatives, but unfortunately forced upon the reading of among the nations. Cf. also Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 261; Rudolph, Micha-Zephanja, 213; Andersen, Habakkuk, 140–1, 182.

98

Chapter 3: Greek Rhetoric and Linguistic Transformations

The first main clause is an extended description of an arrogant man, ἀνὴρ ἀλάζων, which is contrasted, δέ, to a righteous individual.75 He is contemptuous, a scoffer, one who shall not finish the task before him. The verbal κατοινόομαι is hapax76 and here translates the substantive ‫יין‬, which retains the sense of inebriation77 – this individual is a sot – and καταφρονητής, which

75

Instead of following the phrase ‫ וְ ַאף ִכּי‬as the mark of a new literary section, which Andersen suggest is best taken “as a link that secures continuity between v4 and v5,” continuity by contrast is made. The addition of the wāw partly secures this view. See Andersen, Habakkuk, 216–7; Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 276. Furthermore, there is no standard way to translate the Hebrew coordinating phrase ‫ וְ ַאף ִכּי‬in the Septuagint. The translator’s use here indicates he was perhaps free to make sense of it according to how he understood the passage, which is centred on the difference between the righteous and arrogant man, hence the contrast. 76 The word κατοίομαι is not to be confused with κατοινόομαι, see n. 77 below. The word κατοίομαι is also very rare, and Thackeray accepted this reading. It is used in Arist. §122 to positively refer to the translators of LXX, who excelled beyond such things as κατοίεσθαι καὶ νομιζειν ὐπεφρονεῖν. In this context it seems best to take the sense of “supercilious” (Thackeray) or “conceited of oneself” (LSJM), because the other words relate to concepts of pride and self-aggrandisement. See Thackeray, A Grammar of the OT in Greek, 279; Swete, Intro to the OT in Greek, 540; LSJM, “κατοίομαι”. 77 I suppose it is possible that the translator misread the first MT noun ‫( היין‬a form of haplography where he read the two yôds as a wāw), and so had a pseudo-variant of ‫ַהוָּ ן‬ meaning presumptuous (Gelston). In 1QpHab the text is ‫הון‬, which leaves open the reading of either ‫( הו ֺן‬wealth) or ‫הוָּ ן‬. ַ This gives some weight to the presence of a variant with the proto-MT, which, due to the translator’s choice, seems in line with the second vocalisation. This is in spite of the sectarian reading of 1QpHab, which, as Lim explains, functioned “only in the limited sense that both 1QpHab and CD drew upon a textual variant because it suited their concerns.” Such an approach is not clearly evident in Amb. But this must also bear in mind that the articulate word ‫ היין‬is fairly common throughout MT, and is always translated by οἶνος in the Twelve, though not always with the article (see Joel 4:3; Mic 2:11; Hag 2:12). A misreading then seems quite unlikely. That this should be emended as another vocative (‫)הוי‬, pace BHS, Wellhausen, et al., lacks sufficient evidence. On this basis, if the translator added the article to the text then he framed “les deux premiers qualitatifs,” (Harl et al., and Ziegler) which explains it away for ‫יין‬. This provides an interpretative basis upon which to understand the choice of κατοιόμενος, to be conceited of oneself. This reading is found in all but one Greek MS (534), and as Harl et al. points out, “un mot considéré comme absent de la langue grecque (inconnu des dictionnaires [except one fragment].” But this indicates we know too little of the history of the language, rather than proof for another word. Albeit, there is a possibility he read this in line with the common Heb. semantics, which is how it was corrected, κατοινωμένος, to be drunk, by Rahlfs and Ziegler, who followed Shleusner’s conjecture. This is the preferred reading, which also considers the recurrent denouncement against drinking within the prophecy. Cf. Gelston, ed., BHQ, 118–19; William H. Brownlee, The Text of Habakkuk in the Ancient Commentary from Qumran (JBL 11; Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1959), 46, 47; Timothy H. Lim, Pesharim (CQS 3; London: Sheffield Academic Press / Continuum, 2002), 57; Karl Elliger, ed., Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997), 1051; Andersen,

3.2 Greek Rhetoric in Ambakoum

99

translates the participle ‫בוגד‬, is common. In fact the entire verse is now one clause in the TT. The adjectival phrase, ‫גבר יהיר‬, is now the subject of the sentence: ἀνὴρ ἀλαζών (an arrogant man). Appreciation of literalism has caused the translator to work closely with the syntax and semantics of the source words, even if making slight semantic and grammatical changes in order to render the text properly. On the one hand, the translator has read the Hebrew meaning for wine, but not chosen a more literal word for drunkenness, e.g. μεθύω or μεθύσκω. On the other hand, the semantic choice was clearly derived from the Hebrew. It is then true that the translator chose a rare word to pair with the recurrent theme of how the scoffers act within the prophecy, which condemns drunken cavorting (2:6, 15, 19),78 and in this Habakkuk, 218; Ziegler, Sylloge, 340; Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 277; LSJM, “κατοίομαι”, “κατοινόομαι”. 78 In the first woe oracle (2:6b–8) there is drunkenness shared between the invaders and the scoffers. The paradigmatic pairing is with the plotters and schemers (ἐπίβουλοι) who are associated with the plunderers. What must not be overlooked is the connection between the invective against the drunkenness of the plunderers and that of the schemers who come to their senses, ἐκνήψουσιν. This word for the latter is chiefly used in reference to those who “sleep off a drunken fit, [or] become sober again” (LSJM). The implication here is that the schemers may have somehow been in league with the plunderers; but what goes around comes around, and they will at some point suddenly come to their senses – they have bite too (δάκνοντες). The final result of the first woe is that the plunderer will become the plundered. The bird of prey will become the catch, διαρπαγή. GA preserves the guttural switch to δάγνοντες, what Thackeray thinks are indications of Egyptian provenance for that MS (noting also other similar features of this kind), perhaps reflecting a sociolectal distinction. This is the only majuscule to have this spelling (cf. GW.S.B). This change also does not exist in the Polyglot Complutensia. If Thackeray is correct, then OG should be changed to reflect is original provenance. See Thackeray, A Grammar of the OT in Greek, 101–2; LSJM, “ἐκνήφω”. The fourth woe (2:15–17) rebukes the neighbour who commits acts of lewdness. This is also a failure to keep the command to love one another (Lev 19:18). The drink in question, given by the neighbour, is potent. The phrase ἀνατροπῄ θολερᾷ is translated a number of different ways, which appears due to obscurity of the phrase even today. Brenton more idiomatically, and now archaically, translated this as, “the thick lees of wine,” which refers to the matter (lees) that settles in some liquids, in this case wine. Even more interpretatively, BdA’s translation, a murky or cloudy glassful (une rasade trouble), is similar, if not from another point of view. LXX.D seems to refer to a specific kind of drink, trüben Sturztrunk. NETS seems to have understood the dat. as means. Cf. Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 280–2; Sir Lancelot Charles L. Brenton, The English Translation of The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1851), 1107; Karrer and Kraus, eds., LXX.E. Band 2, 1205. It seems that the adjectival phrase is the thing that the drinker gives his neighbour. If so, NETS is not far off, the dative refers to the means by which the action (ποτίζω) occurs. The dative should be taken as instrumental. The tippler gives his neighbour a drink with turbid upset. As BdA notes, the word ἀνατροπή, meaning upturned, was often used as a medical term that related to the feeling of an upset abdomen. The murky or turbid liquid then likely refers to a substance that has malignant potency. This

100

Chapter 3: Greek Rhetoric and Linguistic Transformations

immediate instance is used to contrast the righteous with the arrogant (haughty/wicked). As a result, there are two clear phonological variations that are alliterative. Each compound substantive employs the prepositional form κατά. The combination of these things creates euphony amidst literalism. There is one example of consonance in Amb, which is heard between the first two clauses of 2:8, also conveying a small sense of alliteration. This long verse appears to possess multiple instances of rhyming, which is somewhat in contrast to the ST. The first two clauses follow the MT pattern, which has the same verbal (‫ )שלל‬repeated with differing inflection (‫)שׁלּו ָֺת \ יְ ָשׁלּוָּך‬, ַ producing an end-rhyme. The final clause is a repeated stock-phrase from the refrain of Ambakoum (2:8, 17) that connects the letter ν to successive words. The verse then opens and closes with a nice play on the sound of the words. Hab 2:8 ‫כי אתה שלות גוים רבים‬ ‫ישלוך כל יתר עמים‬ ‫מדמי אדם וחמס ארץ‬ ‫קריה וכל ישבי בה‬

aA aB bA bB

Amb 2:8 διότι σὺ ἐσκύλευσας ἔθνη πολλά σκυλεύσουσί σε πάντες οἱ ὑπολελειμμένοι λαοὶ δι’ αἵματα ἀνθρώπων καὶ ἀσεβείας γῆς πόλεως καὶ πάντων τῶν κατοικούντων αὐτήν

Two final examples of a similar kind of alliteration exist in chapter three. In the first case, it is heard in the creatively expanded text of 3:2. Each successive clause begins with the preposition ἐν, and lines bB-bD begin with a double alliteration of this preposition plus the dative article.79 This is caused by the is not a casual drink with a neighbour, but hard drinking – binge-drinking – to excess, καὶ μεθύσκων. In this passage, such intoxication is intended for only one purpose (ὅπως), to look upon their caverns, σπήλαιον (cp. Gen 9:21). Brenton redacted his translation in what appears to be a softening of the passage (“secret parts”); it refers to the nether regions of his neighbours (‫)מעור‬. The singular subject, ὁ ποτιζῶν, is the same as the one who looks on, ἐπιβλέπῃ. Though he gives a turbid substance to a certain neighbour (τὸν πλησίον), his sin multiples because he looks upon many, αὐτῶν. The hapax word ‫ מעור‬was perhaps unknown to the translator, and perhaps also to R, i.e. ἀσχημος]ύνην αὐτῶν. It is a little difficult to agree that the translator misread the form as ‫( ְמ ָערו ָֺתם‬pace Fabry, Cleaver-Bartholomew), and therefore misread the second wāw for a yôd and overlooked the first (‫)מעוריהם‬. It is more probable, as has been shown elsewhere, that the translator resolved the difficult reading through very subtle shifting of consonants, ‫ מערהם‬from ‫( מערה‬cave), the latter being the regularly translated in the Septuagint by σπήλαιον. The alternate reading was either part of the translator’s improvisational method, or he just read it without the yôd. Cf. Heinz-Josef Fabry, “Ambakum / Habakuk,” in Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament. Psalmen bis Danielschriften (eds. Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus; vol. 2; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011), 2423; CleaverBartholomew, “An Analysis of the Old Greek Version of Habakkuk,” 209; Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 282. 79 Cf. also Harper, Puzzled Scribe, 86–9.

3.2 Greek Rhetoric in Ambakoum

101

repetition of the ST prepositional phrases that begin with bêt. There is also a rarer grammatical chiasmus (χιασμός),80 which does not, however, have any correspondence to the ST. All the lines audibly connect, and a little more than the Hebrew. Hab 3:2 …‫בקרב‬ …‫בקרב‬ [?‫] ִבּ ְר ֹגז רוּ ִחי‬ …‫ברגז‬

bA bB bC bD bE

Amb 3:2 ἐν μέσῳ… ἐν τῷ ἐγγίζειν… ἐν τῷ παρεῖναι… ἐν τῷ ταραχθῆναι… ἐν ὀργῇ…

Similarly in 3:8 the first three lines have a combination of alliteration through a like repetition of particles and prepositions, followed by assonance with the first two substantives, ποταμός. The first negative particle followed by a preposition is generated by the Hebrew phrase ‫הבנהרים‬, literally translating the same elements in syntagmatic correspondence. The Greek particle marks a rhetorical question by asking it negatively, and the conjunction ἤ translates the Hebrew conjunction ‫ אם‬in sequence in each successive clause.81 The Greek aspirated vowel η gives voice to the alliteration across all three lines.82 Hab 3:8 …‫הבנהרים‬ …‫אם בנהרים‬ …‫אם בים‬

aA aB aC

Amb 3:8 μῆ ἐν ποταμοῖς… ἤ ἐν ποταμοῖς… ἤ ἐν θαλάσσῃ…

3.2.2.2 Homeoteleuton There are five examples of end-rhyming that were generated by the translator’s use of literalism. The first example is in 1:4. Here there are two kinds of endrhyming. First, the third person endings -ταί recur four times in two small patterns. This is observed in the first two lines, and then the final line of v. 4 with the first line of v. 5. The first pattern is primarily caused by the translator’s desire to alliterate the lines, but because he also followed literalism the verbal number was matched and therefore created this feature that was generated by the ST. Second, the accusative endings in the final two lines of v. 4 repeat the 80

Another example of a chiasmus is in 3:13–14a. The use of this interrogative neg. particle is stylistic, and when occurring in the Twelve always introduces a question (Amos 2:11; 5:25; Mic 4:9; 6:10; Zech 1:5; 7:5). Also the pattern in MT of an interrogative followed by subordinate ‫ אם‬clause is rare (Gen 4:7; Isa 10:9; Hab 3:8), and it is translated differently in each case. 82 Cf. also Harper, Puzzled Scribe, 88. 81

102

Chapter 3: Greek Rhetoric and Linguistic Transformations

sound from the singular case ending -ον. The combination of accusative and nominative case endings connect the words with word-final echoes that are beyond that in MT, though caused by it: Hab 1:4 ‫על כן תפוג תורה‬ ‫ולא יצא לנצח משפט‬ ‫כי רשע מכתיר את הצדיק‬ ‫על כן יצא משפט מעקל‬ …‫ראו בגוים‬

aA4 aB4 bA4 bB4 aA5

Amb 1:4 διὰ τοῦτο διεσκέδασται νόμος καὶ οὐ διεξάγεται εἰς τέλος κρίμα ὅτι ὁ ἀσεβὴς καταδυναστεύει τὸν δίκαιον ἕνεκεν τούτου ἐξελεύσεται τὸ κρίμα διεστραμμένον ἴδετε οἱ καταφρονηταί…

The other similar example along these lines is in v. 11. In this case there is a kind-of inversion of the ST assonance. The end-rhyme consonance through the repetition of the third person case endings (καὶ διελεύσεται / καὶ ἐξιλάσεται) is grammatically altered in the sentence from the final syllable assonance, by use of pronouns, in the ST (ֺ ‫)זוּ כֹחו ֺ לֵ אֹלהו‬.83 Literalism caused the translator to match the grammar of the Hebrew, thus giving rise to a choice of verbals that matched the singularity of the subject, πνεῦμα.84 83 Arguably, the pharyngeal fricative pronunciation (sound) of the hêt in the first clause, lost in the Greek, is also a poetic device that is not carried over into the TT. 84 The final literary change in this pericope is marked by the temporal adverb in v. 11, τότε. The adverb logically links the texts, showing the next event succeeds the former in continuity. The linguistic link is met by a thematic change. This judgement will not last forever; the wind that seemed to bear the Chaldeans up like eagles will change course, μεταβάλλω. The choice of μεταβάλλω for ‫ חלף‬is unique in the Septuagint. There are a handful of alternate one-off choices for ‫ חלף‬throughout the Septuagint. It is often translated with the sense of physically changing course (e.g. 1 Kgdms 10:3; Job 4:15; 9:11; Ps 89:5; Cant 2:11; Isa 21:1), or with a change in situation, e.g. to change one’s clothes, or wages or to a floral blossom (e.g. Gen 31:7, 41; 41:14; 2 Kgdms 12:20; Job 14:7; Ps 89:6). This particular reference in Amb would be the only instance that has a cognitive sense. Moreover, μεταστρέφω (close in meaning to μεταβάλλω) usually translates ‫הפך‬, which does include conceptual domains, e.g. 1 Kgdms 10:9; Ps 104:25. The translator may have misread ‫ חלף‬for ‫הפך‬, which is quite feasible due to the similarity of the first and final consonants, especially with the latter also a long final form, but it’s a stretch. It is common for πνεῦμα to be followed by a genitive and therefore refer to a quality or state of being, e.g. Gen 1:2; 6:3; Exod 15:10; Deut 2:30, passim. Furthermore, some Greek MSS have πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ for this clause (notably a Lucianic sub-group text). Ziegler notes that “[d]iese Minuskeln sind mehr oder minder stark lukianisch gefärbt. Den stärksten lukianischen Einfluß zeigen 407 (manchmal steht hier die lukianische Lesart noch am Rand, häufig ist sie bereits in den Text eingedrungen) und 613. [Herv. D. Verf.].” Brenton has translated his text that way. This emendation may be also due to a syntactical pattern that exists across the Septuagint (Rahlfs). In every instance that πνεῦμα is in the accusative and preceded by a verb it is followed by a pronoun. (Whenever πνεῦμα follows a verbal in the acc. it is always articular and a pron. follows [Gen 6:3; Exod 15:10; Jdt 16:14; Tob 3:6; 4:3; Pss 30:6; 103:29, 30; 105:33; 147:7; Odes 1:10; Amb 1:11; Isa 42:1; 44:3; 63:10; Ezek

3.2 Greek Rhetoric in Ambakoum Hab 1:11 ‫אז חלף רוח ויעבר‬

aA4

Amb 1:11 τότε μεταβαλεῖ τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ διελεύσεται καὶ ἐξιλάσεται

aB4

αὕτη ἡ ἰσχὺς τῷ θεῷ μου

‫ואשם‬ ‫זו כחו לאלהו‬

103

In 1:6 the Chaldean nation is described as the LORD’s instrument of judgement, which is eschatological in scope (1:7).85 The clever use of accusative case endings creates a three-times-heard phonetic pattern. Although the first two Hebrew words have a similar phonological connection through repetition of the article and the letter reš, the Greek increases the phonetic connection by the use of a participle. The Hebrew participial form cannot do this, though repetition of articles is clearly heard. Hab 1:6b ‫הגוי המר‬ ‫והנמהר‬ …‫ההולך‬

aBα aBβ bAα

Amb 1:6b τὸ ἔθνος τὸ πικρόν καὶ τὸ ταχινόν τὸ πορευόμενον…

There is another example in 1:7 where repetition of the singular -ται case ending creates an end-rhyme in the final two lines. This is also in light of the fact that line aB7 in MT is one clause, but changed to two clauses in OG.86 The expansion provided some room for a simple rhyme. The introduction of the common word εἰμί is by implication of the terse Hebrew, also required by splitting the clause into two.

37:14], which is true of texts for which we do not have a ST. In the case of 2 Kgdms 13:21 there remains the possessive character of a gen. pron. Furthermore, all the refs. in the MT are anarthrous, except Isa 63:10 and Ps 106:33, which have the direct object marker, and Exod 15:10 has the preposition bêt prefixed.) The only instance where this pattern does not exist is here. But, if a pronoun should be inferred, the sense would be changed, and the implied metaphor lost. Instead of the wind it would be his spirit. (See discussion and references in Harl et al.) It seems obvious that this is a metaphor in Hab 1:11 and an emendation for a possessive pron. would muddy the waters of interpretation. The metaphor refers to the Chaldean and has thematic payback (1:9), perhaps also hinting back to v. 6 where they move around as they wish, much like the wind (Andersen). Cf. Ziegler, ed., Duodecim prophetae, 78, 262; Brenton, English Translation of LXX, 1106; Andersen, Habakkuk, 159; Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 266–7. 85 Cf. 117. 86 Verse seven opens with an eschatological register. The coming invader is described as fearful and magnificent. The lexical pair immediately connotes the Day of the LORD. It is a great manifestation, ἐπιφανής, see p. 149.

104

Chapter 3: Greek Rhetoric and Linguistic Transformations Hab 1:7

aA7 aB7

‫אים ונורא הוא‬ ‫ממנו משפטו ושאתו יצא‬

aA7 aB7 aC7

Amb 1:7 φοβερὸς καὶ ἐπιφανής ἐστιν ἐξ αὐτοῦ τὸ κρίμα αὐτοῦ ἔσται καὶ τὸ λῆμμα αὐτοῦ ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἐξελεύσεται

In the final example, akin to other such cases, there is a combination of multiple kinds of rhetorical device at play.87 In 3:8–9, as we saw above, the translator employed alliteration and assonance. He also used end-rhyming through repetition of the second person pronoun, something which is not uncommon to a TT that matches such a linguistic feature of the source. These features combine as part of the theophany of chapter three concerned with expressing the LORD’s sovereignty and power:88

87

Cf. also Harper, Puzzled Scribe, 87–8. The question of v. 8 is set in three lines with assonance and end-line rhyming: O LORD, were you angry with the rivers? The use of a negative interrogative particle is stylistic, and when occurring in the Twelve always introduces a question (Amos 2:11; 5:25; Mic 4:9; 6:10; Zech 1:5; 7:5). Also the pattern in MT of an interrogative followed by subordinate ‫ אם‬clause is rare (Gen 4:7; Isa 10:9; Hab 3:8), and it is translated differently in each case. It is also not clear to which rivers and sea the prophet is referring. The LORD’s power over water is an important concept in this section of the prayer, reappearing a number of times. In this case it has a purpose. Wrath was meted out with the intent (ὅτι) of demonstrating the deliverance of the LORD. Whereas the Chaldean horsemen came for destruction (1:8), the LORD mounts up upon his chariots/cavalry (ἱππασία) – they are salvation, look for them! The Greek word ἱππασία is very rare (LSJM; Muraoka; Harper). Taken in paradigmatic relationship with ἵππος, its meaning may be inferred as pertaining to horsemanship. The carnage of the Chaldean upon the rivers is matched by the fury of the L ORD who raised them up. The word σωτηρία functions adjectivally, hence the nominative clause is read with an implied copulative, your chariots are salvation. From upon his chariot the LORD will bend his bow for battle like a warrior. There is plenty of anthropomorphic imagery here. The syntax of participle plus cognate finite verb is a grammatical feature of OG. In the Twelve this occurs a number of times (Hos 1:2, 6; 4:16; 18; Amos 5:5; Mic 2:12, 12; Joel 1:7; Nah 1:3, 4; 2:3; 3:13; Amb 2:3; Zech 6:15; 11:17, 17; 12:3), but sometimes is more idiomatic (Harper). The MT idiomatic phrase ‫עריה תעור קשתך‬ likely caused the translator to improvise. It is meant to emphasis the nature of the action. This is best translated with an adverb, e.g. surely. The object of the attack is Chaldean authority (σκῆπτρον), see n. 180 on p. 123. Cf. LSJM, “ἱππασία”; Takamitsu Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint; Louvain: Peeters, 2009), “ἱππασία”; Henry St John Thackeray, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: A Study in Origins (London: H. Milford, 1921), 51; Ziegler, ed., Duodecim prophetae, 270; Harper, Puzzled Scribe, 163–4. 88

3.3 Linguistic Transformations Hab 3:8aB–9aA ‫אם בהנרים אפך‬ ‫אם בים עברתך‬ ‫כי תרכב על סוסיך‬ ‫מרכבתיך ישועה‬ ‫עריה תעור קשתך‬

aB8 aC8 bA8 bB8 aA9

105

3:8aB–9aA ἢ ἐν ποταμοῖς ὁ θυμός σου ἢ ἐν θαλάσσῃ τὸ ὅρμμά σου ὅτι ἐπιβήσῃ ἐπὶ τοὺς ἵππους σου καὶ ἡ ἱππασία σου σωτηρία ἐντείνων ἐντενεῖς τὸ τόξον σου

3.2.3 Summary Conclusion The above analysis has shown that the translator of Ambakoum was keenly aware of both the poetic nature of his ST and that of Greek rhetoric. Sometimes the translator followed the Hebrew poetical device(s) through his use of literalism, which was easier to do with final syllable assonance. Sometimes he could not match the phonological connection and created a uniquely Greek pattern, which was generated by his desire to work a little composition into his work, hence literalism did not guide it. As has been proven here these things did not occur by accident, but were chosen in rejection of other literal choices. In a number of instances the translator chose to use rhetorical devices as a way to resolve translational difficulties. Such problems were like an open door; he improvised by implementing meaningful rhetoric. This may also indicate how the interpretative tradition was happy to handle such things. By creating a text that would be creatively literary, in relative accord with contemporaneous ideas, the translator appealed to the sensibilities of his scribal audience. This would be in spite of the slight awkwardness that would have been felt in the re-organisation of the grammar in the TT, indicating its “eclectic Koine” character. In addition to the use of Greek rhetorical devices, the translator made a number of choices that can be termed linguistic transformations.

3.3 Linguistic Transformations The second section of this study now focuses on some of the linguistic phenomena of Ambakoum. The following five sections lay out some additional ways that the translator’s style can be showcased. These examples consider the translator’s tradition of linguistic inventiveness (including neologisms), his probable Aramaic background, improvisation, exegetical disambiguation (changes due to ideology) and toponymic problems.

106

Chapter 3: Greek Rhetoric and Linguistic Transformations

3.3.1 Neologisms and Inventive Phrases An example of a neologism is the use of λῆμμα (1:1, and also cf. Jer α, chps. 1–28),89 which, in the Twelve, was a neologism solely for the purpose of introducing an oracle. It corresponds somewhat to one of the senses of the word that it translates (‫)משא‬, which often means burden or load,90 but can mean proclamation (of an oracle).91 It is also meant to be understood differently from λόγος. As Harl pointed out in her extensive essay on the use of λῆμμα in the Septuagint, it is used in essentially three contexts where it means: a charge, either physically or mentally, as in a heavy responsibility (Lam 2:14; Job 31:23); a proclamation or oracle; and profit.92 The meaning of profit, found regularly outside of the Septuagint, is found only in Hag 2:14 (“…leurs profits matutinaux”).93 Otherwise, its most frequent use in the Septuagint is to introduce a prophetic discourse. This unique approach was used by this translator.94 The only place where the word λῆμμα can be understood to convey a similar meaning of ‫משא‬, i.e. burden, is in Jeremiah (Jer 23:33–38). But this must be understood within context and in light of its nuances of meaning. As Harl explains, this was employed as part of a word-play by the false prophets to give the appearance of a divine charge, whereas in fact they “bercent le peuple d’illusions d’en est pas un, mais ils sont, eux, les prophètes, la ‘charge’ du Seigneur.”95 In the Jeremian discourse the word λῆμμα is found seven times to translate ‫משא‬, where it is used to translate both senses of the Hebrew word.96 As λῆμμα appears to be a stereotypical word for the translator of Jeremiah and the Twelve,97 it is therefore repeated throughout the Jeremian discourse. Hence, in the translation of Jer 23:33–38 it is used to mean both burden and oracle (pronouncement), just like the Hebrew. However, in spite of this single 89

See also pp. 150–156 on συντέλεια as a technical word. See HALOT, “‫”מ ָשּׂא‬. ַ 91 On the introduction of a Heb. oracle see Mark Boda, “Freeing the Burden of Prophecy: Maśśā’ and the Legitimacy of Prophecy in Zech 9–14,” Bib 87, no. 3 (2006): 338–57; Michael H. Floyd, “The ‫( ַמ ָשּׂא‬Maśśā’) As a Type of Prophetic Book,” JBL 121, no. 3 (2002). 92 Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 302–10. 93 Michel Casevitz, Cécile Dogniez, and Marguerite Harl, eds., Les Douze Prophètes: Aggée – Zacharie (BdA 23.10–11; Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2007), 86. 94 Another sense is that of “anything received.” Interpretatively the Chaldeans (Amb 1:7) received the right to destroy, resulting in “unjust gain.” Cf. LSJM, “λῆμμα”. 95 Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 305. 96 See also 4 Kgdms 9:25, where it should be translated as oracle and not burden (pace Brenton). It is unclear how λῆμμα within the Septuagint came to mean issue (so NETS). This appears to have been derived from Hellenistic use where it was used within argumentation (logic). Cf. Brenton, English Translation of LXX, 502; Pietersma and Wright, eds., NETS, 327. 97 Thackeray referred to λῆμμα in his list of words to identify the same hand in Jer α as that of the Twelve, see Thackeray, “The Greek Translators of the Prophetical Books,” 581. 90

3.3 Linguistic Transformations

107

example, it appears that this translator did not perceive λῆμμα to normally mean burden. Its recurrence in this instance is mostly due to stereotyping. The word has, therefore, developed a new meaning outside of its classical, or nonbiblical, uses. Because of its restriction to these new contexts, it is therefore understood as “une traduction mécanique, en un néologisme sémantique, au sens de ‘proclamation, oracle’.”98 Similarly to the way that ‫ משא‬marks the introduction of an oracle, so does λῆμμα.99 The new contextual use had a certain degree of register with its hearers, so that a literal use of, for example, φορτιόν or ἄρμα (α ),100 would have made much less (or perhaps no) sense in the sociolectal context of the Twelve. Similar to this use of λῆμμα, the translator also stood in a tradition of such changes. This had much to do with the act of interpretation within the translation process, being also in relative conformity to what was linguistically acceptable at the time. In the second example of this study, LXX was, to borrow Dines’s phrase, a style setter for the translational use of ἕως τίνος (1:2; 2:6) and ἵνα τί (1:3, 13). Although it is sparsely found in the Twelve, the phrase ἵνα τί is always used to translate ‫( למה‬Amos 5:18; Mic 4:9; Amb 1:3, 13).101 Similarly, ἕως τίνος translates the interrogative phrases ‫ עד אנה‬or ‫עד מתי‬. In both of these phrases the pronoun τίς translates either ‫אן‬, meaning where?,102 or ‫מתי‬, meaning when? Together with ‫ עד‬these Hebrew constructs respectively mean how long? or until when?103 But ἕως τίνος is found only twice in Hellenistic works, where it also does not appear to introduce a question.104 It seems that the translators 98

Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 310. The Tg. draws out the sense derived from ‫ משא‬and the new use of λῆμμα with the interpretational choice of the noun ‫ ;נבואה‬thus, the prophecy the prophet Habakkuk prophesied. Cf. Alexander Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic. Based on Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts (5 vols.; vol. 1–3; 3d ed.; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 459; Kevin J. Cathcart and R. P. Gordon, eds., The Targum of the Minor Prophets (The Aramaic Bible 14; eds. Kevin J. Cathcart, Michael Maher, and Martin McNamara; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989), 145. 100 See Field and Montfaucon, Origenis Hexaplorum, 1003. 101 In Joel 2:17 ‫ למה‬is translated in the negative, but still retains a synonymous conj.: ὅπως μή. The only instance of ‫ מדוע‬is also translated by τί ὅτι (Mal 2:10). 102 The final hê is directional/accusative. 103 There are thirteen references for ‫עד אנה‬, twenty-nine for ‫ עד מתי‬and five for ‫עד מה‬. They are never syntactically combined and only once found in close proximity to each other (Exod 16:28; Num 14:11, 11; Josh 18:3; Job 18:2; 19:2; Pss 13:2, 2, 3, 3; 62:4; Jer 47:6; Hab 1:2; and then Exod 10:3, 7; Num 14:27; 1 Sam 1:14; 16:1; 2 Sam 2:26; 1 Kgs 18:21; Neh 2:6; Pss 6:4; 74:10; 80:5; 82:2; 90:13; 94:3, 3; Prov 1:22; 6:9; Isa 6:11; Jer 4:14, 21; 12:4; 23:26; 31:22; 47:5; Dan 8:13; 12:6; Hos 8:5; Hab 2:6; Zech 1:12; and Num 24:22; Pss 4:3; 74:9; 79:5; 89:47. The only anomaly is the proximity of both ‫ עד אנה‬and ‫ עד מתי‬in Jer 47:5– 6). Also see Alexis Léonas, Recherche sur le langage de la Septante (Fribourg; Göttingen: Academic Press; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 201ff. 104 See Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1159a.4; Chrysippus, Logic and Physics (frag.) 298a.9.17. It is also never found once in the NT. 99

108

Chapter 3: Greek Rhetoric and Linguistic Transformations

chose the Greek preposition ἕως in order to translate the Hebrew particle ‫עד‬ literally. The pronoun τίς then renders the Hebrew pronoun or particle, ‫ אן‬and ‫ מתי‬respectively. More often ‫ עד מתי‬is translated with the adverb πότε, as ἕως πότε.105 But in the Twelve ‫ מתי‬is always translated with τίνος. These two Greek phrases appear lexically indistinguishable. The same evidence also exists for ‫עד אנה‬.106 The phrase ἕως πότε is unattested prior to LXX. The Greek phrase ἵνα τί is found thirty-two times in LXX and its lexical meaning appears to be mostly derived from the presence of the conjunction.107 It is glossed as “why? for what reason?”108 and also given a teleological sense with the renderings “for what purpose?”109 or “to what end.”110 It is listed under ἱνατί in BDAG, which apparently assumes they are synonyms, the former found exclusively in the NT.111 While the phrase ἵνα τί is found 133 times in the Septuagint, it is seldom found in Hellenistic literature.

105 See 1 Kgdms 1:14; 16:1; 3 Kgdms 18:21; 2 Esdras 12:6; Pss 6:4; 74:10; 80:5; 82:2; 90:13; 94:3, 3; Isa 6:11; Jer 4:14, 21; 12:4; 23:26; 31:22; Dan [TH] 12:6. Although ἕως τίνος is not found in the NT, ἕως πότε is found a handful of times (Mat 17:17, 17; Mark 9:19; Luke 9:41; John 10:24; Rev 6:10). 106 It is translated by ἕως τίνος (Exod 16:28; Num 14:11, 11; Josh 18:3; Job 19:2; Ps 12:3; Jer 47:6; Amb 1:2), ἕως πότε (Pss 12:2, 2, 3; 61:4) and twice in Job by μέχρι τίνος (Job 8:2; 18:2). 107 In the vast majority of its occurrences in LXX ἵνα τί is used in rhetorical questions. Their contexts and rhetorical effect differ, but in each case the speaker is seeking to persuade or influence the hearer, or is structuring a defensive argument. In a very few instances speakers seem to be asking a simple (i.e. not rhetorical) question. 108 Cf. BDAG, “ἱνατί”. 109 See Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, “ἵνα”. 110 See J. Lust, Erik Eynikel, and K. Hauspie, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1992), “ἵνα”. 111 The lexicographers are in agreement with Novum Testamentum Græce in this regard, whereas the Robinson-Piermont majority text in each NT occurrence printed the phrase as found in the Septuagint (Matt 9:4; 27:46; Luke 13:7; Acts 4:25; 7:26; 1 Cor 10:29). It is not entirely clear why the word has been compounded by the editors of NA. The pron. τίς commonly forms phrases with other particles of speech. Also, there appears to be no indication, for example in a selection of refs in GA.S, that the phrase should be compounded. Moreover, the reference in Matt 27:46 refers to Jesus speaking Aramaic. Therefore, if ἵνα τί later on in the Koine period of the NT should still reflect the invention of the LXX translators, then it should be un-compounded in the NT. This would reflect the linguistic stylisation from which the NT authors likely borrowed. However, if the purpose of the compounded word in the NT is meant to reflect the unity of the Heb. word ‫למה‬, then the alternative approach would be to keep it compounded in those instances, i.e. when the Greek (Acts 4:25) quotes the Heb. (Ps 2:1), and separated when it reflects the Aramaic, i.e. Matt 27:46. But the first suggestion is preferred in light of developmental use of the Greek language instead of using printed editions to mark linguistic critical details, and for those instances where such a distinction between Aramaic and Heb. is not in question (i.e. Luke 13:7; Acts 7:26; 1 Cor 10:29).

3.3 Linguistic Transformations

109

The phrase occurs only fifteen times before LXX.112 However, the majority of the references are found in Æsop’s Fables, which is very questionably from the sixth century.113 It is also found once on its own, which is never true in the Septuagint, making its meaning a little more ambiguous than the standard gloss.114 Lastly, in one instance it seems that the combination of ἵνα and τί is used elliptically – a phenomenon not uncommon with other parts of speech.115 This evidence suggests the following: first, the phrase ἵνα τί had some semantic fluidity; and, second, in the scope of pre- and classical Greek writings it was hardly ever used. It is unclear why this was so uncommon, compared to other similar constructs that use τίς, for example διὰ τί. This evidence points out that this phrase is far more common in LXX. It has, in a sense, taken on a life of its own within this Ptolemaic translational activity. It is also noteworthy that the phrase continues to be rare outside of the Septuagint during the Koine period.116 For the most part, its recurrent use during the Common Era is due to authors quoting the Septuagint. These inventive interrogative phrases would have had literary register during the period of the translation. It is unclear to what degree this introduction into the language at that time then influenced later translators.117 Use of these phrases reflects the translator’s understanding of both Pentateuchal translational style(s) – something also used in Isaiah and the Psalter – and his 112

See Æsopus, Fabulae 23.4; 70.5; 136.4; 192.3; 217.2; 228.6; 247.5; 282.20; Heraclitus, Ephesius, (frag.) 127.2; Ecclesiazusae 719; Plato, Apology 26d.1; Symposium 205a.2; Demosthenes, On the False Embassy 257.4, 7; Alcaeus, Comic (frag.) 17.1. 113 My gratitude to James K. Aitken for pointing out that Æsop’s work may be from the same period as LXX, and that “INA TI” is also found in a Roman inscription. In addition to this, the vast majority of references prior to LXX are then reduced to very few indeed. 114 Vince translated this as “And all for what?” and then later simply as “And why?” Cf. Dem. 19.257.4–7; and also see J. H. Vince, ed., Demosthenes / with an English Translation (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1926). 115 In this one example the conj. begins a question, which is followed by another question that begins with the pron. τί. Cf. Euripides, Medea 200. In addition there are two kinds of patterns where the interrogative phrase ἵνα τί is split by either: 1) a particle, i.e. ἵνα δὴ τί, which may be translated as now why? or then why? depending on the context; and 2) once with a pron., i.e. ἵνα ἡμῖν τί. None of these interrogative patterns exist within LXX or NT (note that the use of ἵνα in Ps 38.5 and Luke 19.15 is substantival). For ἵνα δὴ τί see Aristophanes, Clouds 1192; Peace 409; Ecclesiazusae 791; and for ἵνα pron. τί see Andocides, On the Peace 26.8; and also Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament with Scripture, Subject, and Greek Word Indexes (4th rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 678. 116 For example, when it does crop up it has similar usage to its classical one, i.e. as an interj. on its own, see Life of Æsop, Vita G 3.32.3. 117 For example, regarding R, unfortunately all evidence for these interrogative phrases is absent from 8ḤevXIIgr except in Amb 1:13. Cf. Tov, Kraft, and Parsons, DJD 8. Ego et al. has included ἵνα τί as part of the reconstruction for Mic 4:9, see Beate Ego et al., eds., Biblia Qumranica (vol. 3B; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 102. However, see n. 111 on p. 108.

110

Chapter 3: Greek Rhetoric and Linguistic Transformations

own reading of the Twelve. In each case the translator was neither slavish to the source, nor did he break from the stylistic use that existed within the project in which he worked. Furthermore, as Joosten has pointed out, translators thinking in a foreign language(s) may make translational decisions that might otherwise be considered incorrect, but in the case of the Septuagint be quite understandable.118 First, it is not clear from all the contexts in which these Greek phrases (ἵνα τί and ἕως τίνος) are used that they actually have their own centres of meaning apart from each other – similar to Barr’s conclusions in his article regarding ‫ למה‬and ‫מדוע‬.119 The Hebrew words mean the same thing, and so do the Greek phrases. The translators’ choices for alternate words for either Hebrew word, in particular ‫למה‬, may then be explained, in part, according to a stylistic predilection. As stereotyping is a feature of literalism, it stands to reason that the translators might have attempted to standardise their choice for ‫למה‬, and in the Twelve for ‫ עד אנה‬or ‫עד מתי‬. Furthermore, this would have affected later translators within the tradition of LXX, so that greater regularity of this translation choice is found in post-Pentateuchal books. This is what the evidence shows.120 While there are one-off choices in later books, the lion’s share is regularly translated according to the data presented here. Moreover, because ἵνα τί was a kind of neo-linguistic construct to mark interrogation, the phrase was carried over into later apocryphal and pseudepigraphal works, including the NT.121 Second, although the Aramaic consonantal form of ‫ למה‬is identical to its Hebrew cognate, the pronunciation is slightly different. The “reduction of

118

See Joosten, “A Syntactic Aramaism in the LXX,” 44. See James Barr, “‘Why?’ in Biblical Hebrew,” JTS 36.1 (1985): 1–33. 120 Aside from translation of the emphatic ‫למה זה‬, textual additions (Judg (A) 5:15; 2 Kgdms 11:22, 22; 3 Kgdms 12:24; 4 Kgdms 18:26; Ps 41:6; Hos 10:13; Isa 36:11; 58:4), and references in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (Tob 3:15; Tob (S) 3:15; 1 Macc 2:7, 13; 12:44; Sir 14:3; Ps. Sol. 3:1; 4:1), outside of LXX ἵνα τί translates ‫ מדוע‬four times (2 Kgdms 19:44; Job 3:12; Jer 14:19; 15:18) and ‫ מה‬and ‫ מה זאת‬nine times (Judg (A) 15:11; Ps 41:6, 12, 12; 42:5, 5; 49:16; Job 3:12). If we ignore the extra-MT translated works, and the textual additions, this represents less than ten per cent. 121 It is found only in the NT as a single word, ἱνατί, which due to the evidence presented here in this study might indicate that it is made up of two words. This point is further supported, but not necessarily proven, by the fact that τίς is often used with other particles to frame questions in a certain kind of way. Also, διὰ τί is the most common choice after ἵνα τί, and is used only thirteen times across a variety of books. Moreover, being a very common Greek form it would be a stylistic and natural selection for questions (cf. Exod 2:13; 5:22; Num 11:11; 22:37; Josh 9:22; 1 Kgdms 26:15; Ps 41:10; Job 3:11; 7:20; 13:24; 19:22; Jer 36:27 [MT 29:27]). 119

3.3 Linguistic Transformations

111

originally pretonic short vowels”122 meant that an Aramaic speaker might have been inclined to separate conceptually the prefixed preposition lāmed from the pronoun (e.g. ‫)לְ ־ ַמה‬, or (in other words) to have thought of it etymologically, rather than as a single expression. The result might then yield the predicable use of the conjunction ἵνα for the telic lāmed. The use of the pronoun τίς for ‫ מה‬is then obvious. As ἵνα τί was a known phrase this would then have been a literal, logical and creative solution for translation word choice in this case. Third, linguistic development in the use of ἵνα during the Koine period may have provided further recourse for the translators’ decision. The Koine period saw the broadening use of the conjunction, in particular its universalising use with infinitives.123 Moulton further suggests that, pertaining to the author of the fourth Gospel and Revelation, an Aramaic thinker might have been inclined to make “very free use of ἵνα” for the corresponding Aramaic lāmed, which is related to the author’s “[s]emitic habit of speech.”124 Malleable use of the conjunction earlier on, related to the Aramaic vernacular of the translators, offered a sort-of linguistic freedom to remain “creatively faithful”125 to the text. Lastly, as a result, the newly coined phrase ἵνα τί was also then used to translate other parts of speech. This would have been more experimental than stereotypical. It also means that once it became a Pentateuchal phrase for asking questions, it could be used in later books and other contexts. To a lesser degree, this may parallel the use of τί ὅτι, which translates ‫ למה‬or ‫( מדוע‬Gen 18:13; 44:4; 2 Kgdms 7:7; 11:10, 20; 19:26; Isa 58:3) and ‫( מה‬1 Kgdms 11:5; 4 Kgdms 1:5; Mal 2:14), among others (Gen 3:1; 26:9; 4 Kgdms 1:16).126 3.3.2 Aramaic Interference 3.3.2.1 Behold! If He Draws Back Scholars seem to agree that the translators of the Septuagint would have lived and worked in a multi-glossal environment. The degree to which this would have affected their work is still debated. The evidence above demonstrates that the translators may have indeed resolved linguistic hurdles, or simply have 122

Frederick E. Greenspahn, An Introduction to Aramaic. Corrected Second Edition (RBS 46; ed. Steven L. McKenzie; 2d ed.; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007), 8. 123 See James Hope Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek (3 vols.; vol. 1; 3d ed.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 205–6; Wallace, Greek Grammar, 20. Also, concerning bilingual interference on ἵνα see Gignac, “The Papyri and the Greek Language,” 164. 124 James Hope Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek (3 vols.; vol. 2; London: T&T Clark / Continuum, 2004), 484. 125 Joosten, Collected Studies on the Septuagint, 15. 126 Cf. 1 Kgdms 14:41; 4 Kgdms 1:16; Tob (S) 5:18; Sir 51:24; Bar 3:10. Moreover, with respect to τί ὅτι, as Aramaic lacks a cognate to ‫מדוע‬, a similar logic may have been followed, seeing ‫ מה‬as prefixed (so to speak) to the word in question (knowing ὅτι does not mean ‫)ידוע‬. But as ὅτι τί existed in pre-Koine works (LSJM), they likely styled it after that.

112

Chapter 3: Greek Rhetoric and Linguistic Transformations

been inventive, through their grasp of Aramaic. More evidence of this is presented here.127 What we find is that in a handful of instances the translator seems to have negotiated the meaning for his TT by thinking in Aramaic, while reading Hebrew, as he translated into common Greek. In the first example (2:4), there were likely a number of factors that contributed to the changes in the translation,128 notwithstanding the interpretative concern over who is the subject of ‫עפל‬. First, the translator has not employed the common particle ἰδού for the interjection ‫הנה‬.129 The first clause, now a protasis (ἐάν), seems to require a referent from the previous verse: the one who will not tarry.130 The problem is that the positive arrival of the visionary individual from v. 3 is now cast as the same person who might displease the LORD, viz. should he shrink back. But this apparent interpretative difficulty ought to be read in light of the grammatical conditionality, not as a matter of fact. It appears that the translator may have followed this line of thought. The grammatical interpretation likely contributed to a number of the changes that occurred. The similarity between ‫ הנה‬and the Aramaic conditional particle ‫הן‬ may have provided the translator with a basis upon which to make a number of alternate choices across the sentence.131 By reading the second hê as prefixed to the following verb the translator could then read the next word as a hopʿal, thus perhaps ‫הן ָה ֳע ְפּלָ ה‬. ֵ 132 Then, second, the subsequent pseudo-variant of ‫ אפל‬would then have been read interpretatively. It means inflate, puff up, or become weak,133 and is 127

I am indebted to Jan Joosten on this subject of Aramaisms in the Septuagint, see his essays: Joosten, Collected Studies on the Septuagint, 211–23; Joosten, “A Syntactic Aramaism in the LXX,” 39–45. 128 See pp. 156–179. 129 But this is common to the translator of Hab, where once out of the four instances where this Heb. particle occurs (1:6; 2:4, 13, 19) is it translated by ἰδού (1:6). Furthermore, this is the only time in the Twelve where this particle is translated by ἐάν. The Heb. interj. is regularly translated by ἰδού with few exceptions (Hos 2:8, 16; 9:6; Joel 2:19; 4:1, 7; Amos 2:13; 4:2, 13; 6:11, 14; 7:1, 1, 4, 7, 8; 8:1, 11; 9:8, 9, 13; Obad 1:2; Mic 1:3; 2:3; Nah 2:1, 14; 3:5, 13; Amb 1:6; Zeph 3:19; Zech 1:8, 11; 2:1, 5, 7, 13, 14; 3:8; 4:2; 5:1, 7, 9; 6:1; 8:7; 9:4; 11:6, 16; 12:2; 14:1; Mal 2:3; 3:1, 1, 19, 23), which, excepting Amb 2:4, are: οὕτος in Mal 2:13; γίνομαι in Hag 1:9; καὶ αὗται for ‫ ולהנה‬in Zech 5:9; διὰ τοῦτο in Zech 9:4; and is omitted in Zech 3:9. 130 See Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 275–6. 131 A similar phenomenon also occurs in Hag 2:12 where the interj. ‫ הן‬is translated likewise. Following Dietrich-Alex Koch, Karrer notes that sometimes ἐάν translates ‫הנה‬, but this is not standard. See Wolfgang Kraus, “Hab 2:3–4 in the Hebrew Tradition and in the Septuagint, with its Reception in the New Testament,” in Septuagint and Reception (ed. Johann Cook; VTSup 127; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 110; Rudolph, Micha-Zephanja, 213. 132 There is some question here over how this might have been pronounced. See Gelston, ed., BHQ, 118. 133 Cf. HALOT, “‫ ; ”אפל‬BDB, “‫”ע ַפל‬. ָ

3.3 Linguistic Transformations

113

translated by the very common word ὑποστέλλω, meaning to draw or shrink back [from something]. The Greek word is well attested outside of LXX, and also occurs in a small handful of instances in the rest of the Septuagint and also the NT.134 It is unlikely that he misread it √‫עלף‬,135 which has a semantic range beyond that of ὑποστέλλω. The translator likely made a contextual change, perhaps improvised from the difficulty of the reading. It could easily have been the interpretation derived from the Middle Hebrew meaning to be impudent, cognate with the Arabic for foolish.136 Third, this change would have been made in light of the entire sentence. If rarity of the first MT verb ‫ אפל‬caused the translator some difficulty, the following finite verb ‫ ישר‬certainly would not.137 In this case, the choice would have been partly determined by: 1) a desire to make literary sense of the apodosis;138 which, 2) should be ideologically/theologically consistent. The choice was perhaps derived from the interpretation of the verbal and nominal lexeme ‫ ישר‬within LXX, which is centred on how the upright please God by their life – they are holy (ὁσιότης).139 134

Cf. LSJM, “ὑποστέλλω”. In all instances in the Septuagint it is used to translate different Heb. words (Exod 23:21; Deut 1:17; Job 13:8; Amb 2:4; Hag 1:10), whereas in the NT it is always used to mean withdraw or draw back (Acts 20:20, 27; Gal 2:12; Heb 10:38). 135 Cf. Cleaver-Bartholomew, “An Analysis of the Old Greek Version of Habakkuk,” 168–9; Rudolph, Micha-Zephanja, 213. 136 See HALOT, “‫”עפל‬. This may provide tacit evidence that the translator’s community had a working ability with Late Hebrew, even though Greek was the language of the people. 137 It is found many times throughout the HB. Although ‫ ישר‬is used a small number of times in the MP (Hos 14:10; Mic 2:7; 3:9; 7:2, 4; Hab 2:4), it does, however, undergo some interpretative changes in the Twelve, i.e. Mic 7:2, 4. Amb 2:4a is the only instance where it is translated by εὐδοκέω. 138 Also, the subj. of the second clause is changed in accord with the translator’s style to alter pronouns to suit the context of the passage. Instead of ‫נפשו‬, the translator has contextually changed the noun to make the LORD the referent by interpreting the suf. as a first per., thus ἡ ψυχή μου (‫)נַ ְפ ִשׁי‬. The same form ‫ נפשו‬is translated in the following verse without any trouble. This same emendation also occurs in the parallel line, 2:4b, so that in each case it is the soul and faith of the LORD, instead of the proud individual’s soul, or the faith of the righteous one. This kind of change occurs often throughout the Twelve and in almost all instances has the LORD as grammatical referent. In summary, the broad changes were, in part, permissible because of the freedom to read the initial particle as an Aramaic word. This inventive use of shifting consonants provided more decisional paths for the translator. It also indicates that languages other than the translational one, i.e. Koine Greek, had a degree of cognitive interference. Concerning later witnesses, α is entirely at home with the OG reading in the first line and the MT reading in the parallel one. If there was an alternate reading tradition for this passage, partly observed by α , it was changed by the time of R, which corrected the pronouns back towards MT. This might provide additional support for OG’s dependence by α while making his version. Also, the addition of the article in the final line is a free addition by the translator and occurs a number of times in Amb. 139 It is translated mostly by ἀρεστός (Exod 15:26; Deut 6:18; 12:8, 25, 28; 13:9; 21:9) or once verbally by ἀρέσκω (Num 23:27). The interpretation is more literal in 8ḤevXIIgr,

114

Chapter 3: Greek Rhetoric and Linguistic Transformations

3.3.2.2 The Prayer of My Lips Hab 3:16a–c ‫שמעתי‬ ‫ותרגז בטני‬ ‫לקול צללו שפתי‬

a b c

Amb 3:16a–c ἐφυλαξάμην καὶ ἐπτοήθη ἡ κοιλία μου ἀπὸ φωνῆς προσευχῆς χειλέων μου

Chapter three of Ambakoum has two more examples of Aramaising. In 3:16 it seems that the translator read ‫ צללו‬as an Aramaic substantive, thus making a dependent subordinate prepositional clause. The verbal is never translated from Hebrew correctly, viz. with the same semantic quality, being most often translated by ἠχέω (Exod 15:10; 1 Kgdms 3:11; 4 Kgdms 21:12; Jer 19:3),140 which means to sound or ring out. But when translated from Aramaic the semantic correspondence is right, i.e. προσεύχομαι (Ezra 6:10; Dan 6:11). It is quite doubtful that the choice in Amb 3:16 was due to a misreading, or a similar kind of error, but to word obscurity and/or consonantal familiarity with Aramaic. This is for two reasons. First, the Aramaic substantive, from ‫צלי‬,141 is feminine. Hence, second, the inflected construct state of this substantive would have been sufficiently different from the MT form (e.g. ‫)צ ָלת‬. ַ What this means is that the translator likely sought recourse through the similarity of consonants by a related language that he knew better rather than simply misread his text.

which draws focus back to upright or straight actions by using εὐθεῖα, which is naturally closer to MT (more common to the Psalter). In Num 23:10 the word is translated by δίκαιος (ἀποθάνοι ἡ ψυχή μου ἐν ψυχαῖς δικαίων, per Wevers: “may I die among the righteous ones”), which might be part of a clause wide change to offer an interpretation of the Heb. text, ‫תמת‬ ‫נפשי מות ישרים‬. Also, in Deut 9:5 and 32:4 ὁσιότης and ὅσιος are respectively used to interpret those who please the LORD and to the LORD himself. In the latter respect it might have seemed inappropriate or odd to translate it by either εὐθής or ἀρεστός. See John Wm. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Numbers (SCS 46; ed. Claude E. Cox; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), 390; John Wm. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy (SCS 39; ed. Claude E. Cox; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 159, 511. 140 The lexeme ‫ צלל‬is found infrequently and seldom translated the same way. Although it has a few different meanings based on the different contexts where it is used, most translators appear to have adapted it to suit the context due to difficulty of word meaning, cf. Exod 15:10; 1 Kgdms 3:11; Jer 19:3; 4 Kgdms 21:12; Neh 13:19; Ezek 31:3; Amb 3:16. This may also have contributed to the word being omitted in Barb and Psh. 141 It is unlikely that the paʿel form suggested by Muraoka (also Harper) made little difference to the translator’s decision to make this a substantive. Note the distinctly different verbal forms from MT Dan 6:11 and Ezra 6:10. Cf. Jastrow, “ ‫ ;”צלי‬HALOT, “‫;”צלה‬ Takamitsu Muraoka, A Greek ≈ Hebrew/Aramaic Two-way Index to the Septuagint (Louvain: Peeters, 2010), 101; Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 298; Harper, Puzzled Scribe, 191.

3.3 Linguistic Transformations

115

3.3.2.3 Be Amazed at the LORD’s Deeds In light of the above evidence, another such example might also exist in 1:5. In this case, the proclamation of the coming Chaldean invasion is the context in which the translator interpreted the asyndetic syntax of ‫והתמהו תמהו‬. These two imperatives are not repeated in Ambakoum. Rather, the translator has opted to take the second verbal as a substantive, and with similar meaning to the preceding word. First, the translator could have either misread ‫ תמהו‬for the Middle Hebrew word ‫( תמהון‬adding the nûn in his mind as a pseudo-variant),142 which is, however, slightly different in meaning (confusion or bewilderment),143 or he simply derived the same semantic sense from the first Greek verbal, grasping the semantic agreement between the two words via consonantal similarity. In the latter case he would have then pluralised the substantive for contextual and exegetical reasons.144 But in each case these things require slightly more justification. Alternatively, he may have simply read the following word nominally through the Aramaic substantive ‫תּ ַמהּ‬, ְ (mis)reading the final wāw as a plural form, e.g. ‫תּ ְמ ִהין‬. ִ 145 The translator’s grasp 142 The Heb. substantive cognate of ‫ תמהּ‬is ‫תמהון‬. In spite of the latter’s rarity this translator understood its semantics by rendering it as ἔκστασις in Zech 12:4, perhaps learned from Deut 28:28 – the only two occurrences. Second, although the Hebrew verbal ‫ תמהּ‬is not common, it is regularly translated as either ἐξίστημι or θαυμάζω. There was, thus, a translational and semantic connection of θαυμάζω for ‫תמהּ‬. Now if the translator read the nûn in his mind then he might have read the text as ‫וְ ִה ְתּ ָמּהוּ ִתּ ָמּהו ֺן‬. Even if he read this through Heb. and noticed the absence of the nûn, he may have thought it a textual corruption and so corrected it. But this theory along with such related evidence is not found in Amb, making it the only, and then tenuous, occurrence. Also, Harl et al. notes that “[l]es mots thaumázō, thaumastós, thaumásios sont également employés en correspondance avec pālā’,” which is common to the Psalter. The marvellous deeds being referred to here are these things. It is noteworthy that while the first impv. is retained in R the substantive is not, nor is the expanded text of Amb. The impv. is followed by a conj. (διότι in OG). It would be unusual for R to omit a word, but perhaps he thought it an asyndetic textual corruption of the two same lexeme. Cf. Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 262; Jastrow, ‫;תּ ָמה‬ ְ Tov, Kraft, and Parsons, DJD 8, 50–1, 182. 143 See HALOT, “‫”תּ ָמּהו ֺן‬. ִ 144 The scoffers, who in this context are likely the same group as the impious, are charged to look, gaze and be amazed at some marvellous things, θαυμάσια. It is not the one great event, about to be pronounced in the next half of the verse, but a number of other marvellous acts that are in view. There are numerous allusive connections to the Psalter. The LORD’s many works are wonderful (θαυμάσια). His marvellous deeds are for everyone to see everywhere (Pss 77:4; 85:10; 88:6; 95:3; 106:8, 15, 21, 24, 31). But the surprise turn is that this command to the scoffers will lead to their destruction, ἀφανίσθητε, rather than, perhaps, their repentance. One might infer that they simply continue to scoff at them. 145 It is cognate with the Heb. word ‫ תמהון‬and often has the same meaning. See HALOT, “‫;”תּ ָמה‬ ְ Jastrow, “‫” ִתּ ָמּהוֹן‬, “‫” ְתּ ָמה‬. Andersen suggests that the asydenton be corrected by adding a wāw between the two MT verbals, which does not, however, explain the translator’s choice for a substantive, except that the final word ἀφανίσθητε in Amb could point to the

116

Chapter 3: Greek Rhetoric and Linguistic Transformations

of Aramaic and his desire to smooth out some readings in this way explain the nature of the textual change. As we have seen, in a couple of occasions, the translator will, through Aramaising, adapt a verbal to the context. The assonance between the two words is retained here, including the meaning, which is disambiguated by the following (additional) OG clause. 3.3.3 Exegetical Disambiguation There are a handful of transformations in Ambakoum that occurred through a process of recursion. The result is a textual characteristic of doubling.146 In the strict sense from my outline in chapter two, when a word is doubled it is usually due to the act of improvisation. This is often caused by what I suggest is a kind of difficulty with the text, e.g. semantic obscurity. Yet, in a number of instances, the addition of what looks like a doubling effect is to be understood as a form of contextual exegesis, not a double translation nor Tov’s category of parallelism, which is caused by misunderstanding. When the translator contextually adapted his translation through reference to a previous word, phrase, clause or sentence, this was a recursive activity. This involves adding words in order to explicate the meaning of the passage, sometimes even adding “verbs for clarification.”147 It appears to be epexegetical in nature. This points to not simply theological concerns, but has much to do with a desire to “improve the source text and to adapt it to the taste of the TL readership.”148 Hence not all such features exist for the same reasons. In the following examples each textual feature as a translational phenomenon is only understood properly when compared to the ST, which also requires that the Vorlage did not contain the additional element(s).

earlier presence of the Hebrew infinitive absolute “tāmôah, lost by haplography” (Andersen). But I find it hard to agree that the choice a Greek substantive followed by the additional verbal in Amb reflects either a desire to form a “conflate reading of originally alternate renderings of the final verb” (Andersen), or “an attempt [by the translator] to give a fuller rendering to the longer hithpalel form” (Roberts). The more likely scenario is that the last verbal was added for contextual and discursive reasons, or it reflects, so Andersen, a missing word, see p. 118. Cf. Andersen, Habakkuk, 141–2; J. J. M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991), 91. 146 Not all these same features are discussed here because they connect with a theological interpretative framework that is discussed in chp. four of this study, i.e. Amb 3:2, 16. Other changes occurred because of Aramaising (3:9) or, through improvisation, were worked into the translation by use of rhetoric (2:16). The descriptive phrase of 3:3 for ‫ מהר־פראן‬is explained in the section below on toponyms. 147 Dines, “Verbal and Thematic Links,” 359. 148 Van der Louw, Transformations in the Septuagint, 75. I am not presenting the numerous additions of pronouns, articles, etc.

3.3 Linguistic Transformations

117

3.3.3.1 The Chaldeans, The Warriors The first example of this sort of disambiguation is in 1:6. In this key passage the LORD announces that he is raising up the Chaldeans in response to the injustices of vv. 2–4. The proper noun ‫ כשדים‬is found many times throughout the HB, as is Χαλδαῖοι within the Septuagint. Hence the addition of the substantive μαχητής is a slight oddity because they are a well-known character in the historical and prophetic literature. This appears to be an attempt to disambiguate who these Chaldeans are. Harl et al. further explains that “J. Ziegler juge que l’hébreu ne présentait que le mot kaśidīm et qu’il est inutile de supposer un deuxième mot, gibbōrīm,”149 where he has placed τοὺς Χαλδαίους in square brackets to dispense with the difficult reading τοὺς μαχητάς.150 Il est possible…que l’addition ‘les guerriers’ soit une glosse insérée pour préciser qu’il s’agit ici non pas des Chaldéens-astrologues célèbres et admirés pour leur culture, mais Chaldéensenvahisseurs, des ennemis.151

Although the Babylonians had practiced astrology long before the Hellenistic period, a practice that thrived under Nebuchadnezzar,152 the eastern thrust of Alexander the Great’s conquests meant that Greek and Eastern theology began to syncretise in a way hitherto unknown.153 More to the point, later Greek 149

He has also omitted the additional reading of ἐφ’ ὑμας, which is retained in Rahlfs’s text. There is no evidence for the prepositional phrase in MurXII, which reflects MT, and 1QpHab, which only has an articulate and variant spelling for the Chaldeans (‫)הכשדאים‬, or in 8ḤevXIIgr, which simply does not have the variant reading. It is attested in a handful of MSS. Also, as Cleaver-Bartholomew points out, the CTAT committee see this as an editorial addition, because “the Chaldeans could no longer realistically be viewed as instruments of divine action.” Cf. Ziegler, ed., Duodecim prophetae, 261–2; Alfred Rahlfs, (Altes Testament. Gesamtausgabe): Septuaginta Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes. Editio altera quam recognovit et emendavit Robert Hanhart. (2 vols.; vol. 1 & 2; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006), 533; Ego et al., eds., BQ, 129–30; Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 263; Cleaver-Bartholomew, “An Analysis of the Old Greek Version of Habakkuk,” 117. 150 Perhaps following Procksch, cf. Brownlee, The Text of Habakkuk, 9. 151 Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 263. Cf. also Brownlee’s discussion on this, Brownlee, The Text of Habakkuk, 9. 152 See Franz Valery Marie Cumont, Astrology and Religion Among the Greeks and Romans (ALHR Series of 1911–12; New York; London: Putnam Press, 1912), 15. 153 See ibid., 17, 22; Carl Bezold and Franz Boll, Sternglaube und Sterndeutung (Leipzig; Berlin: Berlag und Drud, 1918), 25–6. Although Greek culture had penetrated much of the Near East as early as the late Bronze Age, much of this was due to the influence from Greek mercenaries (some very large battalions), which interacted with the cultures of different regions throughout the Near East. What is pertinently important here is that Hellenism was not simply a brace placed upon foreign cultures. There was a confluence of both Greek and Eastern cultures, see Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament, 76.

118

Chapter 3: Greek Rhetoric and Linguistic Transformations

scholars borrowed heavily from Chaldean wisdom in matters related to astrology. This change in 1:6 would then make contextually and precisely clear to which aspect of the Chaldean peoples is being referred, thus not a misreading of ‫ הגבור‬for ‫הגוי‬.154 The change seems to have been freely applied in order to head off any possible misunderstanding, which points to “its interpretive origin.”155 It indicates the translator’s awareness of the historical distinction between Israel’s old enemy and the contemporaneous understanding. It may have also been constrained by the literary context of this prophecy because the “‘Chaldaeans’ even in Hebrew and Aramaic Daniel frequently means ‘astrologers’.”156 The need for a historical clarification in this instance of Ambakoum can, on this basis, be understood. 3.3.3.2 Be Destroyed You Scoffers! In the second example, it is difficult to know whether the additional clause at the end of v. 5 was due to some kind of improvisation, or was a free contextual addition. Hab 1:5 ‫ראו בגוים והביטו‬ ‫והתמהו תמהו‬

a b c

Amb 1:5 ἴδετε οἱ καταφρονηταί καὶ ἐπιβλέψατε καὶ θαυμάσατε θαυμάσια καὶ ἀφανίσθητε

Technically speaking, this could have been classed as a double translation because of the use of the conjunction plus the invective, which is in sequence with three prior imperatival words.157 However, there are two reasons why this should likely be considered a form of exegetical disambiguation, akin to the change in 1:6. First, the decision for a substantive to translate ‫ תמהו‬seems to indicate that the translator interpreted the Hebrew word directly through his 154 In every instance in OG where it translates ‫ הגוי‬it does so as either ἔθνος (Gen 15:14; 20:4; Exod 33:13; Lev 18:28; 20:23; Deut 4:6; Judg 2:20; 4 Kgdms 6:18; Ps 32:12; Amb 1:6; Zeph 2:1; Hag 2:14; Mal 3:9; Isa 60:12; Jer 7:28; 12:17; 18:8; 25:12; 27:8, 13; 49:36), λαός (Josh 3:17; 4:1; Isa 9:2), χώρα (3 Kgdms 18:10), or is untranslated (Josh 5:8; Jer 27:28 [second ref. untrans.]; 27:13). It is used in construct to define the men of war in Josh 5.6, but this is not taken interpretatively in the manner suggested by Procksch. See Brownlee, The Text of Habakkuk, 9. 155 Ibid. 156 Ibid.; René Vuilleumier and Carl A. Keller, Michée, Nahoum, Habacuc, Sophonie (CAT XIb; 2d ed.; Genève: Labor et Fides, 1990), 148, n. 1. 157 Field notes that other exemplars add καὶ ἴδετε after θαυμάσετε, perhaps to reduce the sense of asyndeton, which could imply a number of things, perhaps a desire to expunge the use of that rhetorical device. The addition of this text is witnessed only by the Syro-Hexaplar, noting that the obelus was not present in the Hexaplar. See Field and Montfaucon, Origenis Hexaplorum, 1003. Also see n. 145 on p. 115.

3.3 Linguistic Transformations

119

grasp of Aramaic, rather than double it in order to make sense of it, e.g. 2:16 (see p. 115). Second, the additional clause καὶ ἀφανίσθητε epexegetically clarifies what is meant, in context, for the scoffers to marvel at marvellous things. It guards against any possible misunderstanding about who is to be destroyed. In fact, that scoffers marvel and do not respond commensurately with what they have seen is certainly judgement against them. It is their undoing, something which is tacitly disambiguated here and further clarified later in the prophecy. It should also be noted that this must have also been in light of the change in subject (καταφρονητής) at the beginning of the sentence.158 The translator expanded the text for the sake of clarity.159 From this standpoint, it may well be that he meant for this to remain in the final form of his text.160 3.3.3.3 His Heart is Made Glad in These Things The third example is a free contextual addition of ἡ καρδία αὐτοῦ in 1:15. It improves the reading of the TT. This addition to the text changes the subject, and most Septuagint MSS omit the phrase except GW.161 There is no sufficient evidence for emending the final MT clause with ‫ לבו‬as suggested by BHS.162 In this respect, there is a remote possibility that the translator misread the following compound conjunction ‫על כן‬. The kāp and nun are quite similar in the old script and might be misread as bêt and wāw respectively.163 But this would also require the omission of ʿayin, with consideration given to the fact that there is no evidence of Hebrew (or Moabite, Ugaritic or Early Phoenician

158

Cf. Andersen, Habakkuk, 140–1. Gelston refers to this as amplification and Barthélemy as a reading tradition, cf. Gelston, ed., BHQ, 92; Dominique Barthélemy, A. R. Hulst, and ABU, eds., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament (OBO 50; vol. 3; Fribourg, Suisse; Göttingen: Editions universitaires; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), cxlvii. 160 Remains from 8ḤevXIIgr indicate that the obj. of θαυμάσατε and this additional line, i.e. “θαυμάσια καὶ ἀφανίσθητε,” were omitted from the redaction. It was noted by Origen as an addition to the text by use of the obelus; cf. Ego et al., eds., BQ, 128; Ziegler, ed., Duodecim prophetae, 261; Field and Montfaucon, Origenis Hexaplorum, 1003. 161 Although Origen retains the phrase, it is not found in major witnesses, especially the Syro-Hexaplar. The reading in GW was likely dependent on the work of Amb. See Ziegler, ed., Duodecim prophetae, 263; Schmidt and Sanders, The Minor Prophets in the Freer Collection, 102; Field and Montfaucon, Origenis Hexaplorum, 1004. 162 Also there is no evidence in the biblical reference of 1QpHab, or the interpretation in col. 6, for such an emendation. Cf. Elliger, ed., BHS, 1050; David Noel Freedman, Astrid B. Beck, and James A. Sanders, eds., The Leningrad Codex: A Facsimile Edition (Grand Rapids; Leiden: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing; Brill, 1998), 637. 163 Though the prevailing view seems to now be that “the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint as a whole is believed to have been written in the Aramaic square script,” see Theocharous, Lexical Dependence, 9. 159

120

Chapter 3: Greek Rhetoric and Linguistic Transformations

text) written scriptio continua.164 This would also be a bit of a calamitous misreading as he continued to then write ἕνεκεν τούτου, which could be explained as paratactic, but does further complicate the theory. A double translation is ruled out because this does not fall within its definition. A defective MS might add some weight to this argument, similar to Gelston’s approach in his article on Amos.165 Though as Glenny responded, many such examples can be adequately explained through a translator’s stylistic approach.166 Moreover, there is no evidence of such an error on such a scale anywhere in the translation, implying that at least the MS was in good condition. The most straightforward view is that what came to the translator’s mind, in the process of the translation, was this additional subject. It has a thematic parallel to both MT and OG Zech 10:7. In MT we find the only other juxtaposition of ‫ שמח‬and ‫גיל‬, which both have the hearts of the warriors as subject, ‫לבם‬: Hab 1:15 MT Zech 10:7 Amb 1:15 Zech 10:7

‫ על כן ישמח ויגיל‬... ‫ ובניהם יראו ושמחו יגל לבם ביהוה‬... ‫ ושמח לבם‬... ἕνεκεν τούτου εὐφρανθήσεται καὶ χαρήσεται ἡ καρδία αὐτοῦ καὶ χαρήσεται ἡ καρδία αὐτῶν… καὶ εὐφρανθήσονται καὶ χαρεῖται ἡ καρδία αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τῷ κυρίῳ

As argued elsewhere in this study, the translator’s knowledge of the proto-MT would have permitted more pathways for inner-biblical allusions, which may come to mind during the translation process. In the Zecharian passage the children of Emphraim (Empharaim called a mighty man, ‫ )גבור‬celebrate and their hearts are made glad. Although in Zechariah this refers to Ephraim in a positive light, it is not meant to equate the Chaldeans with them as the people of the LORD. The connection is to the act of rejoicing and celebrating, how it makes the heart glad. The drinking of wine in MT/OG Zech 10:7 provides ancillary support for this view because in Amb 1:16 the Chaldean victors have succulent food as part of their spoil – they have a celebratory feast. The point is that they sup and drink with joy in their hearts. A Greek reading tradition would also anticipate this passage, and its allusive connection to Ambakoum. This subtle thematic link provides the most straightforward explanation for the textual change, which Barthélemy noted as perhaps either “inspirée à LXX ou

164

See Alan R. Millard, “In Praise of Ancient Scribes,” BA 3 (1982): 147. Cf. Anthony Gelston, “Some Hebrew Misreadings in the Septuagint of Amos,” VT 52, no. 4 (2002). 166 See Edward W. Glenny, “Hebrew Misreadings or Free Translation in the Septuagint of Amos,” VT 57, no. 4 (2007). 165

3.3 Linguistic Transformations

121

à son substrat hébraïque par des parallèles du type de Za X 7.”167 Later translators clearly saw this as an addition and omitted it. 3.3.3.4 A Mighty Love of His Strength We now turn to the Psalm of Ambakoum (chp. 3) for the final two examples. In v. 4 the translator improvised by making a contextual change as he sought to reconcile the meaning of the hapax word ‫חביון‬.168 It was probably not a double translation because he employed a descriptive phrase, ἀγάπησιν κραταιάν, rather than simply provide a couple of nominal options.169 Semantics likely also afflicted the translator of Barb (δόξα).170 The Greek phrase is unique, being found in later Christian literature in reference to this passage. The rare word may not have affected the Targumist, who interpreted the entire line in relation to how Sinai was a place of revelation (‫ )תמן גלא ית שכינתיה‬rather than concealment, i.e. hiding place, ‫חביון‬, which was likely influenced by the interpretation of the previous verse ( ‫במיתן אוריתא‬ ‫)לעמיה אלהא מדרומא‬.171 Later Greek translators understood the word.172 The choice was likely contextually derived from the interpretation of horns in his hands, an image of strength, which is then followed by the specific reference to his strength (ἰσχύς) at the end of the line.173 The entire second line, therefore, functions epexegetically. Instead of guessing at the meaning, the translator, contextually changed the word for a descriptive phrase that made sense.

167

Barthélemy, Les devanciers, 187. Contra BdA, cf. Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 289. 169 Harper sees this as a double translation, ‫ עז‬by κραταιός and ἰσχύος, and the hapax word ‫ חביון‬resolved with √‫( חבב‬to love). But the difficult word (‫ )חביון‬appears to have been translated with a phrase, not doubled, which is in relation to the subsequent phrase ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ, which nicely translates ‫עזה‬. Difficulty of word meaning also probably affected the translator of Barb (ἡ δύναμις), see n. 170 below. Cf. Harper, Puzzled Scribe, 150; Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 289; Pietersma and Wright, eds., NETS, 809; Karrer and Kraus, eds., LXX.E. Band 2, 2424; Field and Montfaucon, Origenis Hexaplorum, 1008. 170 Good notes the shift in word order where δύναμις is expected for ‫עז‬. Following Margolis, he suggests that the text for the Barb translator was either corrupted to ‫צביון עזה‬, hence he read δόξα from ‫צ ִבי‬, ְ meaning splendour (cf. Isa 28:1), or he simply guessed at the meaning of ‫חביון‬. See Edwin M. Good, “The Barberini Greek Version of Habakkuk III,” VT 9, no. 1 (1959): 13. 171 See Cathcart and Gordon, eds., The Targum of the Minor Prophets, 157; Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, 463. 172 See Field and Montfaucon, Origenis Hexaplorum, 1008. 173 Gelston explains that the choice was due to the final word, but here it is suggested that both the final word and preceding line informed the translator’s choice. Cf. Gelston, ed., BHQ, 123. 168

122

Chapter 3: Greek Rhetoric and Linguistic Transformations

3.3.3.5 “Seven Sceptres,” Says the LORD The nature of the textual difference in the last example, found in v. 9, is somewhat elusive. The divine appellative, κύριος, is added so that the LORD is the subject of the final verb, which is immediately followed by a psalmic pause. The problem here is at least two-fold. First, it is unlikely to indicate the presence of the name YHWH in the proto-MT. For example, the editors of 8ḤevXIIgr, indicate that a reconstruction of “λέγει te[tr”, so Barthélemy, extends beyond the remaining space, in spite of some four letters appearing after the text.174 It would be too long175 after R’s choice of ῥάβδους for σκῆπτρα (‫)מטות‬, which probably precedes a transliterated word for the psalmic pause (´σελε). Moreover, no other Greek MSS (including other versions) have the divine name,176 making it unlikely that it was in the OG translator’s Vorlage. Second, its placement is at an odd juncture, especially if it is to represent an alternate Vorlage to MT. There is no other Hebrew poet that wraps up a section of poetry with a verb followed by YHWH, then followed immediately by ‫סלה‬ (e.g. ‫)אמר יהוה סלה‬. It could be construed as bad Hebrew style. It is, however, very common to find ‫ נאם יהוה‬at the end of direct speech, which is often translated as λέγει κύριος in the Twelve.177 The translator may have read the substantive verbally and then freely added the divine name.178 This could easily indicate the freedom of the reading tradition to interpret (vocalise) and expand the text.179 But this is only in light of MT. Gramamtically speaking, it indicates that this is the same speaker from v. 8 (κύριε), and also the referent of σύ in the

174

See Tov, Kraft, and Parsons, DJD 8, 80. Ibid. 176 Field also notes the presence of the obelus in the Syro-Hexaplar, which indicates that this was an addition to the text. See Field and Montfaucon, Origenis Hexaplorum, 1009. 177 While there is no evidence for ‫ נאם יהוה‬followed by the psalmic pause ‫סלה‬, it is not uncommon for this idiomatic phrase to close a sentence or section of reading, e.g. Hos 2:15, 18; 11:11; Amos 4:6. Cf. also Harper, Puzzled Scribe, 167 (n. 187). 178 Cf. Gelston, ed., BHQ, 124; Andersen, Habakkuk, 323. Also, that the OG translator stumbled upon the MT substantive, finding “‫ אמר‬left over” (Harper) at the end of the sentence, is a remote possibility. This point reveals, however, a fundamental difference in methodology within Septuagintal studies, in this case, atomism vs. what is known already through a habit of reading. A reader, foreknowing the text in Hebrew, who then translated it, would know who the speaker was as he began the relevant literary sections. I also note Gheorghita’s interesting view that this is a dialogue between two LORDs (κύριοι). Cf. Harper, Puzzled Scribe, 167 (n. 187); Radu Gheorghita, The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews. An Investigation of its Influence with Special Consideration to the Use of Hab 2:3–4 in Heb 10:37–38 (WUNT 2 160; eds. Jörg Frey, Martin Hengel, and Otfried Hofius; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 206, 214. 179 There is no doubt that the word is oddly placed. But the point here is that the tradition could interpret the word phrasally, i.e. when reading ‫אמר‬, interpret λέγει κύριος. A Hebrew reading tradition could be quite similar, i.e. when reading ‫אמר‬, interpret '‫ ָא ַמר יה‬. 175

3.3 Linguistic Transformations

123

following verse. The symbol of Chaldean authority is thus broken by the LORD.180 3.3.4 Semantic Shift: ‫ חמס‬to ΑΣΕΒΕΙΑ There is a consistent change in meaning that can be observed in the translational choice for ‫ חמס‬throughout the Twelve. This feature is so common that it should also be considered stereotypical. It is certainly interpretative, and the linguistic relationship is hypernymic. Van der Louw calls this a lexical “generalization,” which is a concept borrowed from structural semantics.181 In Ambakoum ‫ חמס‬it is always translated nominally or adjectively by ἀσέβεια or ἀσεβής respectively, and once verbally by ἀδικέω (1:2, 3, 4, 9, 13; 2:8, 17, 17). There are also no additional instances of these Greek words in Ambakoum. Throughout the Twelve there is only a slight deviation from this translational choice, where, in a small number of instances, it is also translated by ἀδικία and ψευδής.182 But none of these words translate the violence and injustice in Habakkuk unless the Hebrew word ‫ רע‬is used (1:13). Only once in the Septuagint does ἀσέβεια translate ‫( רעה‬Jer 6:7).183 180

In the parallel line σκῆπτρα is the translation of ‫מטות‬, and ἐπὶ τὰ of ‫שבעות‬. The word σκῆπτρα was used symbolically to refer to the wielder’s authority and power to rule. In some non-biblical ancient texts it was considered magical, endowing the holder with the perception of supernatural authority. It is found a number of times in this context within Second Temple Pseudepigrapha (BDAG). It is noteworthy that in Ep Jer, and in light of the idolatry polemic in Amb, an idol is given a sceptre with which he fails to execute judgement. The choice for the number seven in Amb 3:9 is somewhat enigmatic. It may have been derived from the Heb. idea that the number seven represented perfection, or to something that, quite simply, made sense to the translator, reading ‫ ְש ֻב עוֹת‬for ‫שׁ ְב ַעת‬. ִ Andersen provides some interesting background on ancient traditions that have various non-Israelite gods with clubs, and also briefly suggests some views on use of the number seven. These things relate to the Hebrew text, but could have influenced Amb via an alternate Vorlage or reading. Thackeray’s suggestion that MT was read as ‫ ָשׁ ֻבעו ֺת‬is too difficult to support. Ziegler is correct that ἑπτά has been corrupted to the prepositional ἐπὶ τά (cf. Ezek 45:21). The passage is obscured by this reading, which may have caused later emendation where the article is omitted, cf. GB.S, et al. (Ziegler). Cf. Thackeray, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship, 51; Ziegler, ed., Duodecim prophetae, 270; Andersen, Habakkuk, 323–5. 181 See van der Louw, Transformations in the Septuagint, 67–68, 379–80. 182 Translation of ‫ חמס‬by these Greek variations is also common and regular in the prophetic books (and relevant sections of books) that Thackeray identified as being written by the same translator of the Twelve, though he did not draw this specific semantic conclusion. Cf. Thackeray, “The Greek Translators of the Prophetical Books,” 578–85. 183 See Ἀδικία: Joel 4:19; Amos 3:10; Jon 3:8; ψευδής: Amos 6:3; ἀσέβεια: Obad 1:10; Mic 6:12; Zeph 1:9; 3:4 [ἀσεβέω]; Mal 2:16. In addition to translating ‫חמס‬, the word ἀσέβεια is the stereotypical choice for translating ‫ פשע‬in the Twelve. For the references in the Twelve see Hos 10:13; 12:1; Amos 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 13; 2:1, 4, 6; 3:14; 5:12; Mic. 1:5, 5, 13; 3:8; 6:7, 12; 7:18; Obad 1:10; Amb 1:3; 2:8, 17, 17; Zeph 1:9; Mal 2:16. Outside of the Twelve ἀσέβεια is used with more variation: ‫ רשע\רשעה‬in Deut 9:4, 5; 25:2; Isa 59:20; Jer 5:6; Ezek

124

Chapter 3: Greek Rhetoric and Linguistic Transformations

The concept of impiety in the TT offers an alternate understanding of those who do violence or wrong-doing.184 As Pons showed some years ago, the word ‫ חמס‬underwent semantic changes within Hebrew literature over time. 185 In numerous instances another word could quite happily replace it, semantically speaking, to clarify the nature of a sin, e.g. a lie (Hos 12:2) or another kind of violence (Jer 48:3).186 After the exile, the concept of violence associated in the contextual uses of ‫חמס‬, be it in war, destruction, nature, sexual or social,187 was altered. The kinds of oppression that the prophets were banging on about in the 8th–6th cent. changed. The connotation thus drawn from the word was “finalement le mode d’être et de vivre des ‘méchants’.”188 In the end, to commit ‫ חמס‬is to sin, or militate against the revealed law.189 This semantic change in Hebrew at this very late stage may have left its mark through this latent idea. The concept of impiety within a biblical context corresponded to the multi-faceted ways that ungodly living was expressed. This view, linguistically set in contrast to piety (εὐσέβεια) and righteousness (δίκαιος), was, so Weiger, contrary to its use in Classical Greek.190 It also seems 18:28, 30, 31; Prov 4:17; 11:5; 28:4; Job 35:8; Lam 1:5; Eccl 8:8; ‫ זדון‬in Deut 18:22; ‫ סרה‬in Deut 19:16; ‫ פשע‬in 1 Kgdms 24:12; Ezek 21:29; Pss 5:11; 31:5; 65:4; Prov 28:13; ‫ עון‬in Ezek 33:9; ‫ חמס‬in Ezek 12:19; Ps 72:6; ‫ רעה‬in Jer 6:7; ‫ תועבה‬in Ezek 14:6; 16:58; ‫ זמה‬in Ezek 16:43; 22:11; 23:29, 35, 48, 48, 49; ‫ עלילה‬in Ezek 21:29; ‫ זנות‬in Ezek 23:27; ‫ רוש‬in Prov 28:3, which may have been a misreading (‫ )רש‬for ‫ ;רשע‬Prov 1:19, 31 and 29:25 are interpretative and have no precise correspondent; and ‫ ספק‬is interpretative in Job 36:18. 184 The word in ‫ חמס‬means violence or wrong-doing, see DCH, “‫;”ח ָמס‬ ָ “‫ ;”חמס‬HALOT, “‫ ;”חמס“ ;” ָח ָמס‬BDB, “‫”ח ָמס‬. ָ It would seem that Greek words that approximate the meaning of violence, were the translation more literal, would be βία (βιάζω) and πονηρός (πονηρεύομαι), or perhaps also κακοποίησις (κακοποιέω), see LSJM, “βία”; “κακοποιέω”. 185 See Jacques Pons, L’oppression dans l’ancien testament (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1979). For example, Clines and Gunn even suggest that the use of ‫ חמס‬between Jer 20:8 and 15:20 reflects shades of difference in meaning, which is perhaps related to earlier and later redactors. See David J. A. Clines and D. M. Gunn, “‘You Tried to Persuade Me’ and ‘Violence! Outrage!’ in Jeremiah XX 7–8,” VT 28, no. 1 (1978): 25. 186 See Pons, L’oppression dans l’AT, 33. 187 Also, the context of Hab, in particular the nature of the woe oracles, indicates that ‫חמס‬ was connected to social injustice, as Snyman indicates for Amos. See Andersen, Habakkuk, 112; S. D. Snyman, “‘Violence’ in Amos 3,10 and 6,3,” ETL 71, no. no. 1 (1998): 37, 46, 47. 188 Pons, L’oppression dans l’AT, 46–48. 189 See ibid., 48–49. 190 This view is balanced by the fact that these words, and their Septuagint-related synonyms, e.g. ἁμαρτία, ἀνομία, etc., were widely attested within the Hellenistic period. As Cox has also pointed out, ἀσέβεια and ἀδικία were used in a decree by King Lysimachus in the third century, and other such examples exist later in Philo and Josephus. Cf. Madeleine Weiger, “Εὐσέβεια et ‘crainte de Dieu’ dans la Septante,” in Septuagint Vocabulary. PreHistory, Usage, Reception (eds. Jan Joosten and Eberhard Bons; SCS 58; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 102; Claude E. Cox, “Vocabulary for Wrongdoing and Forgiveness in the Greek Translations of Job,” Textus 15 (1990): 123.

3.3 Linguistic Transformations

125

from the evidence that the words used to express impiety were more general than ‫חמס‬, which had a limited degree of semantic generality.191 This translator certainly thought that the choice of ἀσέβεια (and related words) covered the many different senses the translation of ‫ חמס‬could have – clearly not all concerned with the social oppression in Ambakoum. In one respect this was likely a matter of cultural and semantic register. The idea was likely embedded in the societal context in which he lived. Impiety was tantamount to the Hebrew idea of violence, viz. ways that are contrary to God. Therefore, true piety, which was expressed by the faith of the righteous (2:4), was like a well-spring for doing good: “Jewish piety became the true paideia and the synagogue, which non-Jews also frequented [at this time], became the nursery for the teaching of such true paideia.”192 3.3.5 Toponyms The toponymic references in Ambakoum serve to indicate both the provenance of the work, and how the translator dealt with unknown regions. They provide some insight into his stylistic approach and possible setting. 3.3.5.1 Wolves of Arabia In the first example, the word ‫ ערב‬has been translated as Ἀραβίας (1:8). This change is simply explained as a repointing of the same consonants, switching from evening (‫)ע ֶרב‬ ֶ to Arabia (‫)ע ַרב‬. ֲ 193 The keenness of the wolves of Arabia, τοὺς λύκους τῆς Ἀραβίας, might have had a political undertone, which is also similar to the reading in Isa 15:7. Seeligmann made the case that the Isaian translator read this in light of the conquests by the Nabatean Kingdom of that period.194 During the middle of the second century, the Nabateans were entering into a period of geo-political expansion. Their conquest of the Transjordan would have been worrying to the

191 For example, Pons comments that “ḥamas n’est pas que violence, et tout péché n’est pas ḥamas.” See Pons, L’oppression dans l’AT, 28. 192 Cox, “Vocabulary, Greek Translations of Job,” 120. 193 It should be noted that this was not changed by Origen, who retained OG. See Field and Montfaucon, Origenis Hexaplorum, 1003; Ego et al., eds., BQ, 128. 194 See Seeligmann, LXX Version of Isaiah, 89; Jobes and Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, 22 n. 6. Troxel has, however, shown that not all toponyms in Isaiah were used as “stock ciphers for places of his day,” indicating political entities. But it did exist. He also did not make objection to this specific use in Isaiah. Cf. Ronald L. Troxel, “What’s in a Name? Contemporization and Toponyms in LXX Isaiah,” in Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of His Sixty-fifth Birthday (eds. Ronald L. Troxel, Kelvin G. Freibel, and Dennis R. Magary; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 327–44.

126

Chapter 3: Greek Rhetoric and Linguistic Transformations

eastern border of the Ptolemaic kingdom, which reached into the Cisjordan.195 With Isaiah and the Twelve likely written around the same period and place, this similar reading can be understood as a semantic jump within the reading tradition of the period.196 This also means that although it had a degree of error associated with it there was a circumstantial sensibility for the choice. 3.3.5.2 A Place like Jerusalem In the second example, rather than translate the well-known place ‫( הר פארן‬3:3) the translator has used a descriptive phrase. The word Θαιμαν, with which it is in paradigmatic relationship, is a transliteration of the toponym ‫תימן‬. The sense from the Greek word must be southerly, derived from the Hebrew,197 so that God will come from somewhere-southward, likely in reference to Jerusalem. God’s passage will be made through the wilderness.198 In spite of the cosmological features of chapter three, the phrase ὄρους κατασκίου δασέος likely indicates divine deliverance.

195 The reading was changed in numerous later translations. Although we have evidence of the correction in 8ḤevXIIgr to ἐσπέρας, which is also the case with α , the relevant portion of Zeph did not survive (3:3). The influence of OG was probably quite high. It is indeterminable in 1QpHab whether this is to be vocalised differently, the interpretation referring only to the Kittim. The Tg. interpreted this in line with MT (‫)דיבי רמשא‬. Cf. Ego et al., eds., BQ, 128–6, 151; Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, 459; García Martínez and Tigchelaar, DSS Study Ed., vol. 1, 198–9. 196 If this motivation behind the misreading is accurate, the semantic connotation drawn from the consonantal reading from within the political world-of-the-translator then caused the misreading, whether from ‫ ערבי‬or ‫ערב‬. An interpretative connotated sense such as “desert wolves,” so Andersen, is compelling. The alternate reading of ‫ ֲע ַבר‬could be due to a combination of errors. Not only was the word vocalised differently (pseudo-variant), but likely evoked the political reading (cf. also 3:3). First, the word ‫ ֲע ַבר‬is not very common in the HB, found only four times (2 Chr 9:14; Ezek 27:21; Isa 21:13, 13). Second, although it is always translated by Ἀραβία, this Greek word translates a number of other Heb. words and phrases. Third, additional references to Ἀραβία or Ἄραψ crop up a number of times in the Septuagint without any textual correspondence to the Heb. consonants in question. In each respect a blunt misreading should probably be ruled out for what seems to be interpretative translations that make reference to a region east of the Ptolemaic Kingdom. See Andersen, Habakkuk, 154. 197 The MT word ‫ תימן‬is a derivation from the word for right-side, or right-hand side, which would therefore have a southward direction (because one is facing east). It is also a person’s name (Gen 36:11, 15, 42; 1 Chr 1:36, 53) and also a place (Jer 49:7, 20; Ezek 20:46; 25:13; Amos 1:12; Obad 1:9). There is also the sense from MT Ps 78:26 that Teman is in the east. Although Andersen contests that ‫ תימן‬and ‫ פראן‬are not synonyms, the Hebrew author has clearly paralleled these two proper nouns, perhaps indicating otherwise. Cf. Ibid., 293. 198 Harper notes, “The Wilderness of ‫ארן‬ ָ ‫ ָפּ‬is the desert region northwest of the Sinai Peninsula, south of Judah, and southwest of Edom, through which the people journeyed toward the end of the wanderings under Moses.” See Harper, Puzzled Scribe, 145.

3.3 Linguistic Transformations

127

ὁ θεὸς ἐκ Θαιμαν ἥξει καὶ ὁ ἅγιος ἐξ ὄρους κατασκίου δασέος [ἥξει] Instead of translating ‫ פארן‬as Φαραν the translator has described the mount, ὄρος, with an adjectival phrase.199 This particular literary phenomenon does fall within the category of a double translation, where the two adjectives are employed as options for the corresponding Hebrew toponym. The doubling effect is likely related to the translator’s unsurety of the placename. He most likely sought to disambiguate the reference: 1) the translator did not transliterate the toponym, i.e. Φαραν,200 as a way to resolve the ambiguity, which is common to the Septuagint (i.e. Θαιμαν), and 2) the nature of the change in Amb reflects a more conscious effort to resolve what is meant by ὁ θεὸς ἐκ Θαιμαν ἥξει / καὶ ὁ ἅγιος ἐξ…, etc. The word κατάσκιος has both positive (Amb 3:3; Zech 1:8) and negative (Jer 2:20; Ezek 20:28) connotations in the Septuagint.201 In Zechariah the horseman stood between the two shady mountains (ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν δύο ὀρέων τῶν κατασκίων), which in MT is between the myrtle trees that were in the ravine (‫)בין ההדסים אשר במצלה‬. The rest of Zechariah’s vision offers hope (v. 13, 17) as the LORD will once again rescue Jerusalem and Zion (vv. 14–15), the temple shall be rebuilt and the land prosper once more (vv. 16–17). The jealousy of the LORD is specifically directed against the nations that – only in OG, see v. 15 – amassed together to attack her. Yet this subtle lexical link with the broadly common theme of divine rescue must also be reconciled with the use of δασύς.202 On its own this word immediately marks the leafy places under which proscribed worship occurred, e.g. Deut 12:2; Isa 57:5.203 However, when these words are used together they may denote a different sense. In this case it is not just a shady or leafy place, but a “thickly [or densely] wooded” mountain.204 The idea here is that the LORD will come from a densely wooded area, implying 199 See Gen 21:21; Num 10:12; 12:16; 13:3, 26; Deut 1:1; 33:2; 1 Kgdms 25:1; 3 Kgdms 11:18, 18. Also, Harper suggests that this may not refer to the high places, “under which idolatrous sacrifices are performed,” but may in fact imply a “positive connection between the LORD and a hill sanctuary, rather than a judgmental outburst against such a place.” See ibid., 146. 200 An appeal to a misreading of ‫ פארן‬does not shed much light on the doubling. Cf. Karrer and Kraus, eds., LXX.E. Band 2, 2424. 201 In Classical and Hellenistic literature it may refer to a shaded place or a region. See LSJM, “κατάσκιος”. 202 This word form might preserve the old Attic form δασέος, which fluctuated in use, see Thackeray, A Grammar of the OT in Greek, 172. 203 Lust notes that the MT word might have been read as ‫ארה‬ ָ ‫פ‬, ֻ leafy branches; but, although helpful, this would then leave the previous word unexplained. Cf. Lust, Eynikel, and Hauspie, A Greek-English Lexicon, “δασύς”. 204 Cf. Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, “κατάσκιος”.

128

Chapter 3: Greek Rhetoric and Linguistic Transformations

a lush and rich place where there is living water. As Harl et al. asks, “avait-il l’intention de faire allusion à un autre lieu,” perhaps a place, ideologically speaking, like Jerusalem?205 This would be much in line with the reference from 3:2, which interpreted the meaning and timing of the LORD’s revelation in his sanctioned dwelling place. He comes in from the South, which “est parfois considérée comme une allusion à la conduite du peuple hors d’Égypte.”206 As a future reference it further indicates an epiphany.207 Thus, after following the ancient wilderness passage he then makes himself known among a rich and luscious place, a paradise. The translator sought an alternate reading and doubled it in order to further explicate the passage. It may be that the translator, writing from Alexandria, was unsure of the locale. But as a biblical toponym one might have expected him to follow the wording from Deuteronomy. His relative knowledge of Hebrew toponyms also points away from a Palestinian provenance, lending additional support for an Alexandrian (or non-Palestinian) one. This evidence has ramifications for other books that share similarities with the Twelve that are suggested to have been crafted outside of Egypt. 208

3.4 Conclusion The creative style of this translator has been understood through his use of Greek rhetoric and how he handled various linguistic details. The evidence for these rhetorical devices in Ambakoum adds further proof that the translator was a well-trained scribe. Although his Hebrew was by no means perfect, his stylistic concerns were highlighted when he had to make improvised choices. On a number of occasions he was able to steer his translation in such a way 205

Although the interpretation of Jerusalem as the reference place is a later Christian one (Harl et al.), due to the changes here in OG this appears to have been the subtle link made by the translator. Moreover, a translator working in Alexandria might not have had a clear understanding of precisely where the location was, though he would have recognised it as a locale instead of a common noun (Eidsvåg). This may then fall under Eidsvåg’s third category for the “translation of names.” See Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 288; Gunnar Magnus Eidsvåg, “The Rendering of Toponyms in the LXX-Minor Prophets. An Indication of Alexandrian Provenance,” in XIV Congress of the International Organization of Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Helsinki, 2010 (ed. Melvin K. H. Peters; SCS 59; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), 449–54. 206 Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 287. 207 See ibid. 208 Wagner provides more recent and compelling evidence from his analysis of Isaiah 1 for an Egyptian, no less Alexandrian, provenance for the writing of Isaiah; contra Schaper. Cf. Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter, 34–45; Eidsvåg, “The Rendering of Toponyms in the LXX-Minor Prophets,” 453–4; Wagner, Reading the Sealed Book, 232–3, 237.

3.4 Conclusion

129

that he retained certain ST poetic features. These things show the translator as an adept linguistic negotiator. Though LXX was probably translated a generation before this translation, the evidence here also shows that he was aware of the technique(s) used therein. This was observed in the translator’s use of the interrogative phrases ἵνα τί and ἕως τίνος. Though I do concede that such things might have already become integrated into the literary sociolect, such uses might have been considered quite normal, or at least acceptable linguistic developments. This concession should, however, be considered in light of the similar approach of the translator to use λῆμμα in a new literary context. We also observed how some textual phenomena were likely due to Aramaic interferences. These things also indicate that the translator was not only aware of linguistic and textual contexts, but that he had a certain pre-conceived notion of the Twelve, and in particular Ambakoum. We now finally turn to see how some textual changes reveal certain theological perspectives of the translator.

Chapter 4

Theology and Exegesis – Theological Interpretation in Ambakoum “A translation is a fact of whatever target sector it is found to be a fact of.”1 “…καὶ εἶπεν Αμβακουμ κύριε ὁ θεός οὐχ ἑώρακα τὴν Βαβυλῶνα καὶ τὸν λάκκον οὐ γινώσκω ποῦ ἐστι καὶ ἐπιλαβόμενος αὐτοῦ ὁ ἄγγελος κυρίου τοῦ Αμβακουμ τῆς κόμης αὐτοῦ τῆς κεφαλῆς ἔθηκεν αὐτὸν ἐπάνω τοῦ λάκκου τοῦ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι” (Bel 1:35–36)

4.1 Introduction The theology of Ambakoum follows the general theological thrust of MT. This is true while theological elements seem to have been added (or modified), conveying theological nuance that is not as easily identified in the ST. Although Ambakoum is only three chapters in length, it has received a somewhat disproportionate degree of attention in the Second Temple period, i.e. Qumran (1QpHab) and in the apocryphal work of Bel (see also Odes). A full analysis on the reasons behind this influence goes beyond the scope of this study. But to comment very briefly, the influence of Habakkuk/Ambakoum may be due to its poignant and catastrophic leitmotifs of exile and the antiidolatry polemic of chapter two (cf. Bel). Moreover, the victorious military struggle of the LORD against his enemies, set in a terse psalmic song, may have also held sway over some minds. The prophet Ambakoum also stands in the tradition of the Major Prophets, suffering while denouncing the unrighteousness and lawlessness surrounding him, with very familiar invocations of the LORD. Grasping the nature of any given interpretation within the translational activity is difficult enough, let alone for the Septuagint. When trying to understand the theology of the Septuagint, a major problem that one faces is how to understand the numerous textual changes. This problem would be greatly diminished if the ST were not available, with the translational approach clearly bearing marks of a foreign kind of literalism. For example, if the translator made unconscious errors, which were rooted in a form of improvis1

Toury, DTS – and beyond, 23.

132

Chapter 4: Theology and Exegesis

ation, then is it really fair to call the differences theological, viz. should they be incorporated into the theology of any given book?2 After all, if these were not intended, and in some cases edited out in later recensions, then should these make up part of a theology of Ambakoum? If a change is linguistic in nature, ought it to be included in theological discussion? Are “contextual changes” the only kind to be considered under the rubric of theology? As Joosten asks: Comment faire la part entre ce que le traducteur a voulu ajouter à sa version, ce qu’il y a mis de façon inconsciente et ce qui insinué de façon aléatoire?3

As explained in chapter two, the choice between a free and literal rendering, including both mishaps and intentional changes, is fluid, occurring sometimes within the same clause or sentence. Many factors could have been present in any given change that were not related to a determinate literalism. This places intended and unintended changes within the same context of the transformation process, at least on the clause-level, notwithstanding the interpretative tradition of the scribal community. Rösel is right that, in spite of these phenomena, the fact is these changes literarily exist and must be considered as part of the literary-theological teaching.4 They were formed as part of the translator’s communicative act, which was originally intended for a certain audience – it had an occasioned mind-set. The “downstream” 5 recipient would have initially been the language community for which the text was produced. By way of text reception, this is true for each revision or recension, whether being the result of inner-Jewish tensions that pre-date Christianity,6 or of those afterwards.7 The present state of this discussion is set upon a spectrum with one group (maximalists) seeing extensive theological/exegetical evidence throughout the translated texts, and the other (minimalists) accepting the differences as more linguistic. Pietersma explains this as the difference between the translator as a conduit (minimalist), who “does not add to nor subtract from the source text,” and the translator as author (maximalist), who substitutes the source work for

2

Cf. Jan Joosten, “Une théologie de la Septante,” RTP 132 (2000): 33. Ibid., 35. 4 See Martin Rösel, “Towards a Theology of the Septuagint,” in Septuagint Research. Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures (eds. Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden; SCS 53; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 251. 5 Ibid., 252. 6 See Siegfried Kreuzer, “From ‘Old Greek’ to the Recensions: Who and What Caused the Change of the Hebrew Reference Text of the Septuagint?” in Septuagint Research. Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures (eds. Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden; SCS 53; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 231–5. 7 One need only mention GL and Hexaplaric recensional features, the Hesychian being even more difficult to determine. For an extended discussion on this see, Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, 53–65. 3

4.1 Introduction

133

his own.8 Of course, this operates along a continuum so that the actual evidence, from book to book, suggests degrees of change, rather than holding to any one position in extremis. On the one hand, the translators most likely sought to faithfully convey the meaning of the ST without making inappropriate (unauthorised) changes. But, on the other hand, they encountered various textual difficulties, whether linguistic or otherwise, and therefore made modifications. The dichotomy between either author or conduit appears too vague and imprecise, because both are very much true, even simultaneous. He was a conduit, but of the reading (interpretative) tradition, and an author in how he crafted the text with compositional elements. The translator is, therefore, an interpreter – a negotiator. The possible idea that the very earliest translators had no prior methodological basis from which to work – not that we really know of – is something that was not true for later translators and redactors, having the benefit of OG before them.9 The interpretative act of translation involved many decisions. When the text, for whatever reason, caused the translator to work harder, he most likely sought to make it clear and understandable within the schema of his interpretative tradition. This technique might have involved the process of improvisation, which, due to its nature, leaves much room to cross over into a so-called freer approach. This approach creates unintended opportunities for theological interference. It is possible that a theological concept or idea would have come to the translator’s mind, as he sought to explicate a linguistically difficult text. Although in many instances the translator followed a kind of literalism, in a handful of instances he negotiated the meaning by employing an interpretation that fit within his theological framework.10 However, even this point is debated among scholars. So, if any given (or even all) change could be explained as a mistake or adaptation, then, within a minimalist system, there is not much of a foundation upon which to build a Septuagintal theology. It would have to arise from within the context of text reception. Though, as suggested here, if the new content was constructed from 8

Albert Pietersma, “Exegesis in the Septuagint: Possibilities and Limits (The Psalter as a Case in Point),” in Septuagint Research. Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures (eds. Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden; SCS 53; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 35–6. 9 The redactors and translators of later periods also had their own a priori views that partly controlled their own translation approaches. But they had a Greek literary point of reference that the first translator(s) did not have. 10 Glenny finds this sort of approach true throughout the translation of Amos, likely translated by the same person as Amb. De Sousa also finds a similar phenomenon in LXX Isa. See Glenny, Finding Meaning in the Text; Rodrigo Franklin De Sousa, Eschatology and Messianism in LXX Isaiah 1–12 (LHBOTS 516; eds. Claudia V. Camp and Andrew Mein; New York; London: T&T Clark, 2010), 17.

134

Chapter 4: Theology and Exegesis

an interpretative tradition or framework, which itself may at times be reasonably connected to other inner-Septuagintal changes, and in some cases to Hebrew-based content, then that theology must be properly reckoned with and not discarded. This tradition, taken as a whole, is a bridge to systematics (dogmatics) at the time of text-production. Furthermore, this is more prominent when both sides of the link are suggested to have been made by the same translator, as with the Twelve. It is presupposed that the TT possessed a high degree of coherence to its translator, which leads us to another important issue discussed by scholars: How many theologies are there in the Septuagint? As Cook points out, scholars “differ rather dramatically”11 on this area too. First, as already mentioned, the theology of the Septuagintal books does not differ greatly from the main theological points of the STs. While there are some important differences, the overall message of the Septuagint conveys that of its source. Much like modern translations of the Bible, the Septuagint is a reliable translation in which is conveyed the biblical message. This is, second, due in part to the degrees of literalism present in each book, so that changes lend the books towards divergent theologies. The “commitment to the Vorlage, which no translation can ever completely repudiate, will always, somewhat, disqualify it [the Septuagint] as a document of an independent theology.”12 Lastly, as each translator will encounter different linguistic or contextual challenges in each book, the kind of changes will therefore differ, potentially pushing the theology of the TT away from that of the source. This departure will either refine or break systematic touch points, held together in a dogmatic schema, bound to the ST, possibly (though not necessarily) creating new ones exclusive to the Septuagintal-only content. Conceptually speaking, such changes might possess some kind of semblance across texts that are made by a single translator, or even a group with a similar mind-set and approach. This set of changes would naturally include theological alterations that might appear alien to the modern reader, but which might have entirely made sense to that group/individual. Both Cook and Rösel have independently put forward proposals on how to understand and formulate a Septuagintal theology.13 In both respects the authors have argued that a theology, or theologies, of the Septuagint is possible. Cook states that a “‘theology,’ or ‘ideology’ for that matter, is to be [first] 11 Johann Cook, “Towards a Formulation of a Theology of the Septuagint,” in Congress Volume Ljubljana 2007 (ed. André Lemaire; VTSup 133; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 621. 12 Isaac L. Seeligmann, “Problems and Perspectives in Modern Septuagint Research,” Textus 15 (1990): 223. 13 See Cook, “Formulation of a Theology.”; Rösel, “Theology of LXX.”; Martin Rösel, “Schreiber, Übersetzer, Theologen. Die Septuaginta als Dokument der Schrift-, Lese- und Übersetzungskulturen des Judentums,” in Die Septuaginta - Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten (eds. Wolfgang Kraus and Martin Karrer; WUNT 219; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008).

4.1 Introduction

135

located in the way any given translator in fact renders his parent text.”14 He offers three ways to understand his paradigm for determining a theology of the Septuagint: first, it must be done with the OG text; second, because of the different views of each book many theologies should be expected; and third, working from the second point, “a theology…of the LXX [Septuagint] should be more than, and hence different from, what is formulated in a theology of the Hebrew Bible.”15 This is close to what the evidence shows. There are multiple theological points located in the different books of the Septuagint. The literary cohesiveness of the overall biblical message, due in part to the variant and tradent nature of the translations, means that there is significant systematic overlap. The systematic biblical message, derived from a canon of texts, is true for the Septuagint as much for MT, the former having more books and therefore more texts from which to draw. But one must be cautious to state that the theology is not in MT, or as Cook states above, “different from it,” because the interpretation is rooted in an understanding of the Hebrew Vorlage. It is very much related. In theological terms, one may postulate that for the translator(s) the interpretation is inherent to the theology expressed in the Hebrew. To disconnect them on behalf of the translator(s) might do violence to the interpretative framework, which includes both the ST and TT. These differences are probably, for the most part, located in the Septuagintal theological nuances, which are unique to the different texts. In one sense, this is no different than original (non-translated) texts by disparate authors. These differences exist because of both textual and contextual reasons. The introduction of a new theological perspective, hence, finds a degree of theological coherence within the mind of the translator/author, reflecting in some way the interpretation of his language group. Not having access to the translator, therefore, is problematic, but not insurmountable. It does not introduce uncertainty as a principle because there is no guarantee of certainty gained from having access to him, especially if he was improvising during the translation.16 14

Cook, “Formulation of a Theology,” 622. Ibid., 636. 16 A translator, much like those in the modern industry, does his best with a certain word of part of a text that, upon later reflection, he may change in any given direction given another opportunity to do so. But in the process of making the first choice the translator found it to be sensible and right – it then acts like a yard-stick for later changes. As Nick King pointed out at the Heythrop conference on translation (The Signs of the Times, 2013), translators will often use a first instinct approach that then measures further thoughts. Sometimes the initial decision is right and the translator keeps going; there is no absolute rule or guide on this, especially within such an ancient context as proposed for the translator/scribe of the Septuagint. Moreover, modern translations are now dominated by levels of editorial committees, no one person has the final comment or view of how to translate any word, phrase or sentence. Everything is reviewed extensively in light of a predetermined translational and theological approaches. 15

136

Chapter 4: Theology and Exegesis

Moreover, appeal to subjective reasoning as the basis upon which to explain a translator’s decisions can push analysis into difficult terrain – the argument becomes unassailable. This simply means that great caution is required when determining whether a textual feature is in or out of the theological stew. As Joosten further points out: Le contenu de la version, ou plutôt la divergence du contenu par rapport à celui du texte hébreu, permet un certain accès aux idées des traducteurs. Mais cet accès reste en général limité à des cas d’interférence inconsciente; les auteurs de la Septante visent le plus souvent à transmettre le sens de l’hébreu tel qu’ils le perçoivent, et non corriger la teneur théologique de leur texte-source d’après leur propre agenda.17

In sum, that we find amounts of so-called unintended theology within the Septuagint probably does not square with the tradition of the translator(s). It clouds the analysis. As the translators would have been motivated in different ways for each verbal act, what may have been unconsciously done revealed a certain theological posture. As Glenny notes on Amos, “…the reader catches snippets of the translator’s biases and the influences of his environment and culture in small and subtle differences between the Vorlage and the translation.”18 I am not aware of any wide-scale or systematic (alien) theological rewriting in Ambakoum, which seems to have some agreement with recent studies on Amos and Zechariah. But there is a development of themes that are not as clearly present in MT. These Septuagintal distinctions together make up the theology of Ambakoum.

4.2 The Prophetic Characteristics of Ambakoum There are a number of characteristics of the prophet Ambakoum that are different from MT. These differences may be understood through a combination of lexical variation, which is sometimes accompanied by a shift in syntax, expansion of the text, and sometimes through an alternate reading of ST consonants. These features are related by how they expand the experiences and role of the prophet: he suffers along with God’s people at the hands of the impious, identifies with those of the exile – a key concept of the book – and is tacitly established as a pedagogue to explain the invasion by idolaters. These occur across all three chapters of the book, incidentally (and probably) indicating textual unity of the book at the time of the OG translation.

17 18

Joosten, “Une théologie de la Septante,” 46. Glenny, Finding Meaning in the Text, 240.

4.2 The Prophetic Characteristics of Ambakoum

137

4.2.1 The Suffering Prophet The subject of Ambakoum’s suffering occurs in Amb 1:2; 3:2, 16. In each case, it is not clear that this subject is implied in MT. The prophet Habakkuk is frustrated and vexed by the injustice around him (Hab 1:2). Although this same theme exists in Ambakoum, the description of the prophet’s suffering (ἀδικέω) is particular to the TT: Hab 1:2c–d ‫אזעק אליך חמס‬ ‫ולא תושיע‬ Shall I cry out to you, “Violence!” and you not save?

aA aB

Amb 1:2c–d βοήσομαι πρὸς σὲ ἀδικούμενος καὶ οὐ σώσεις Being wronged, shall I cry out to you, and you not save?

First, the alternate reading of the vocative ‫ חמס‬is both a grammatical and a semantic difference. One could simply repoint (revocalise) the nominal’s consonants as a passive participle for a simple explanation, e.g. ‫ח ֻמס‬. ָ However, there is no evidence to support an alternate Hebrew reading tradition.19 Second, the use of the passive participle ἀδικούμενος was a way to express a judicial complaint against unmerited legal claims in the Hellenistic period.20 Therefore, this change is likely related to a translational tradition over how the word ‫חמס‬ is understood in this context as it relates to the innocent suffering of the prophet.21 The subject of the suffering prophet occurs again in Amb 3:2 and 3:16. In each instance there is an apparent textual difficulty that caused the translator to adapt. Amb 3:2 is a fairly well-known complicated series of doublets. The example of this translation unit reflects the translator’s penchant to sometimes double words and clauses. Whether this is due to difficulty with the text (2:16), or a form of exegetical recursion (1:5, 6; 3:3), is very difficult to pin down. This is due to the conflated nature of the expanded text, which also leaves open the question as to whether this was meant to remain in the final text-form. There is here a combination of literal and free renderings of the ST that exist in addition to the doublets.

19

The pass. ptc. of ἀδικέω usually translates ‫( עשק‬Deut 28:29, 33; Pss 102:6; 145:7), with what seems to be some interpretative variations in Isa (Isa 1:17; 25:3, 4). This pass. ptc. is also in 3 Macc 3:8; Sir 4:9; 35:13; Ep Jer 1:53. 20 See Cox, “Vocabulary, Greek Translations of Job,” 127. 21 See p. 123.

138

Chapter 4: Theology and Exegesis

Amb 3:2 a κύριε εἰσακήκοα b τὴν ἀκοήν σου

Hab 3:2 ‫יהוה שמעתי‬ ‫שמעך‬

c καὶ ἐφοβήθην d κατενόησα

‫יראתי‬

e

‫יהוה‬

f τὰ ἔργα σου g καὶ ἐξέστην

‫פעלך‬

h ἐν μέσῳ δύο ζῴων γνωσθήσῃ i ἐν τῷ ἐγγίζειν τὰ ἔτη ἐπιγνωσθήσῃ

‫… ְשׁנַ יִ ם…] ִתּוָּ ֵד ַע?[ בקרב שנים חייהו‬ ‫בקרב שנים תודיע‬

j ἐν τῷ παρεῖναι τὸν καιρὸν ἀναδειχθήσῃ k ἐν τῷ ταραχθῆναι τὴν ψυχήν μου l ἐν ὀργῇ ἐλέους μνησθήσῃ

…‫ִבּ ְקר ֹב‬ [‫] ִבּ ְר ֹגז רוּ ִחי‬

‫ברגז רחם תזכור‬

Amb Barb Hab

κύριε εἰσακήκοα τὴν ἀκοήν σου καὶ ἐφοβήθην κύριε εἰσακήκοα τὴν ἀκοήν σου καὶ εὐλαβήθην ‫יהוה שמעתי שמעך יראתי‬

Amb Barb Hab

------ κατενόησα τὰ ἔργα σου καὶ ἐξέστην κύριε κατενόησα τὰ ἔργα σου καὶ ἐξέστην ‫יהוה פעלך‬

The first set of doublets is observed in the juxtaposition of εἰσακούω (‫ )שמע‬and φοβέομαι (‫)ירא‬, which is paralleled in the second line by the pairing of κατανοέω and ἐξίστημι. The second vocative for the LORD is dropped entirely. It is quite unlikely that there was a problem understanding the common Hebrew words, thus the problem for the translator is how to interpret or transform the text. Eaton is right that ‫ שמע‬should go with ‫ירא‬, and therefore the second line is an interpretative re-working of the previous one. This makes the conjectural reading of ‫ ראיתי‬for κατενόησα unnecessary.22 Hence the exegetical object of ‫פעלך‬, ἐξέστην, is a free contextual addition. The following clauses, lines h-j, are not straightforward to understand when compared to the ST. It is evident that the translator correctly read (vocalised) the first two words of MT (‫)בקרב שנים‬,23 but mixed them between the lines, thus paralleling ἐν μέσῳ (‫)בּ ֶק ֶרב‬ ְ with ἐν τῷ ἐγγίζειν (‫) ִבּ ְקר ֹב‬, and δύο (‫ ) ְשׁנַ יִ ם‬with τὰ ἔτη (‫) ָשׁנִ ים‬. In the first line there are at least three possible options to explain the differences with MT. First, if the phrase ‫ חייהו‬is to match ζωών, then the 22 Cf. J. H. Eaton, “The Origin and Meaning of Habakkuk 3,” ZAW 35, no. 2 (1964): 147. Also cf. Harper, Puzzled Scribe, 142; Rudolph, Micha-Zephanja, 233. 23 If he read these as infinitives, so Soisalon-Soininen, the result was interpretative based on the analysis presented here, cf. Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, Die infinitive in der Septuaginta (STTAASF 132,1; ed. Veikko Väänänen; Helsinki: Suomalaien Tiedeakatemia, 1965), 200.

4.2 The Prophetic Characteristics of Ambakoum

139

translator likely sought a translational equivalent through the adjective ‫חי‬ (‫)חיים‬, and then added γινώσκω,24 which according to MT is from the following line (‫)ידע‬. Or, if he understood ‫ חייהו‬through √‫( חוה‬γνωσθήσῃ),25 he then added the adjective anaphorically with the plural substantive (ζωών).26 Alternatively, he may have made a contextual change by reading the form as two different ַ and then made the substantive plural. In each case the words,27 e.g. ‫חי יְ ַחוֶּ ה‬, pronoun ‫ הו‬is absent and the translator has omitted or added something, further exemplifying his knowledge of the surrounding text.28 The concept suggested by use of the pronoun was likely to the LORD’s appearance in the temple at Jerusalem, perhaps spurring these interpretations.29 The third Greek clause, line j, is the most free. It was likely an exegetical rendering, just one more effort to explain the meaning of the passage. The multiplication of translational attempts shows both an interpretative hand, and use of contextual changes. In the final doublet (ἐν τῷ ταραχθῆναι…), line k textually precedes its MT referent. It is unclear whether the translator intentionally sought to embed a theological point in reference to the prophet’s troubles. On the one hand, if the translator began with an alternate reading (‫)בּ ְרגֹז‬ ִ and misread the subsequent word as ‫רוּחי‬, ִ he may have then realised his mistake and began again, hence the terseness of the line. With the increased sense of alliteration of the previous clauses, it could have been a simple mistake. But on the other hand, as this occurs on the heels of the previous interpretations, it may indicate an adaptation here too. In either case, the translator has, once again, presented Ambakoum as a travailing prophet. This harkens back to Amb 1:2–4 where the prophet cries out about the injustice around him that he himself experiences. The next thematic link of this suffering prophet is in Amb 3:16. A misreading of the very common relative particle has been suggested, so that he read the rare ‫א ֻשׁר‬, ֲ and added the possessive pronoun, thus ‫א ֻשׁ ִרי‬. ֲ 30 This is translated with the common substantive ἕξις. Neither of these words mean the 24

Cf. Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 286. See Gelston, ed., BHQ, 122. 26 Also see the discussion, Rudolph, Micha-Zephanja, 233. 27 Cleaver-Bartholomew suggests an alternate reading, but it is unclear what the translator would have understood of the supposed form ‫( יהו‬after removing ‫)חי‬. Even if this was read verbally √‫היה‬, i.e. ‫ ְיהוּ‬from late Hebrew (HALOT) (aside from the proper name, of course), a meaningful explanation for all the linguistic details remains. Cf. David CleaverBartholomew, “One Text, Two Interpretations,” BIOSCS 42 (2009): 64; HALOT, “‫”היה‬. 28 The translator always recognises the rarer pron. ‫ הו‬in the Twelve, changing it once to a pl. in Joel 2:4. On this basis, confusion of pron. is best ruled out. 29 See F. F. Bruce, “Habakkuk,” in The Minor Prophets (ed. Thomas McCormiskey; vol. 2; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 880; Roberts, Nah, Hab, and Zeph, 131; Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 286. 30 See Eaton, “Habakkuk 3,” 157; Karrer and Kraus, eds., LXX.E. Band 2, 2427. Alternatively, it is suggested that the MT be emended to reflect to the translation, so that the substantive with the pronoun was the Vorlage. See n. 31 below for references. 25

140

Chapter 4: Theology and Exegesis

same thing, and it seems very unlikely that the translator misread the prosaic particle. So why would he change the meaning if it was clear? Amb 3:16d–g d καὶ εἰσῆλθεν τρόμος εἰς τὰ ὀστᾶ μου / e καὶ ὑποκάτωθέν μου ἐταράχθη ἡ ἕξις μου f ἀναπαύσομαι ἐν ἡμέρᾳ θλίψεως / g τοῦ ἀναβῆναι εἰς λαὸν παροικίας μου And trembling entered into my bones, and my gait was troubled beneath me; I will rest in a day of affliction, to go up to a people of my sojourning.

Hab 3:16d–g \ ‫יבוא רקב בעצמי‬ ‫ותחתי ארגז‬ \ ‫אשר אנוח ליום צרה‬ ‫לעלות לעם יגודנו‬ Decay enters into my bones, and I tremble in my place; yet I will wait for a day of distress, to come up against a people who attack us.

It does not seem likely that he misread his Vorlage. The initial problem here seems to be the balance of parallel lines (something the Masoretes fixed: ֑‫ֶא ְרגָּ ז‬ ‫שר‬ ֤ ֶ ‫;א‬ ֲ and through typesetting is further clarified in BHQ 13).31 The translator may have preceived the particle to be at an odd juncture (clause-initial), either making line e shorter or line f longer than its parallel line. The solution was to interpret the particle as being part of line e. The difficulty of the reading was not the semantics of the words but the logical (grammatical) relationship between the lines,32 so that he adapted the word to the context. This change is exegetical. The added personal pronoun also makes immediate contextual sense, due to the presence of the other aspects of the prophet’s present distress (and in the case of Ambakoum his identification with those of the exile). It is also another broad literary link across the rest of the previous chapters of the book. It further develops the theme of a suffering prophet, and therefore the literary character of Ambakoum. 4.2.2 The Disciplinary Teacher Ambakoum 1:12 deviates quite clearly from its ST, making alternate lexical choices and inverting the syntax. The first noun is taken verbally, and the controlling finite verb is substantive, though a pronoun is retained. Harl et al. explains this change as highly interpretative. It directs the reader away from the thought that God is personally involved in the judgement of his people:

31

See Eaton, “Habakkuk 3,” 157; Gelston, ed., BHQ, 102. Also cf. Harper, who also provides a list of references on this textual feature, Harper, Puzzled Scribe, 193 (n. 376). 32 If Holmstedt is correct, then this might also tacitly point to the translator’s difficulty with the grammar of the Hebrew language, but not necessarily his miscomprehension of words. On this basis he is correct that emendation of the MT be avoided. Cf. Robert D. Holmstedt, “Habakkuk 3:16 – Where Did the ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר‬Go?” HS 44 (2003): 129–38.

4.2 The Prophetic Characteristics of Ambakoum

141

peut-être choqué par l’idée que l’envahisseur puisse être chargé par Dieu de châtier Israël, le traducteur reporte cette fonction sur le prophète qui reçoit un rôle pédagogique.33

This may be explained in two ways. First, instead of following the Hebrew across the two lines (‫)יהוה למשפט שמתו \ וצור להוכיח יסדתו‬, which makes one fundamental point regarding the Chaldean chastening of Israel, the translation instead makes two. The first line agrees that the Chaldean is to invade (Seigneur, pour le jugement tu l’as placé [κύριε εἰς κρίμα τέταχας αὐτόν]), which is a close representation of the Hebrew; then the second line announces a new role for Ambakoum (et il m’a façonné pour que j’atteste son enseignement [καὶ ἔπλασέν με τοῦ ἐλέγκειν παιδείαν αὐτοῦ])34 – implying he must explain why God’s people suffer.35 This second line seems to have a different meaning from the source. Most critiques of the translator’s approach explain that his word-choices were sought atomistically; hence each word-choice is understood by how each translated word corresponds, in sequence, with its source word.36 This means that the way to understand καὶ ἔπλασέν [με] is through a misreading of ‫וצור‬,37 and in turn παιδείαν αὐτοῦ through misreading ‫יסדתו‬. Because of the matching of word-order within the book this approach has some merit, but if made determinative, it might inadvertently rule out other factors that were inherent to the translator’s choices. As argued here, the evidence shows that the translational choices were due to linguistic factors that were part of at least a clause-wide decision.38 33

Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 268. Ibid. 35 A role change also occurred in 1QpHab where God hands over judgement into the hand of ‫ בחירו‬to judge all the nations. This shift in sense, explained later in the pesher, moves judgement from the hand of the nations, i.e. the Kittim, to the agency of God’s elect. God is still judge of the nations, but not the one directly executing it. But these interpretational activities should probably not be considered related. 36 See Arie van der Kooij, “Textual Witnesses to the Hebrew Bible and the History of Reception. The Case of Habakkuk 1:11–12,” in Die Textfunde vom Toten Meer und der Text der Hebräischen Bibel (eds. Ulrich Dahmen, Armin Lange, and Hermann Lichtenberger; Neukirchen-Vluyn, Germany: Neukirchener Verlagsgesellschaft, 2000), 91. 37 Peters, however, argues for a different Vorlage to that of MT, so that, “The LXX translator read his text as a verb coming from ‫…יצר‬and it appears that verb was suffixed with the first person singular.” Cf. Melvin K. H. Peters, “Revisiting the Rock: TSUR as a Translation of Elohim in Deuternonomy and Beyond,” in Text-Critical and Hermeneutical Studies in the Septuagint (eds. Johann Cook and Hermann-Josef Stipp; VTSup 157; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 48. 38 A comparison between MurXII and 1QpHab to MT demonstrates negligible differences in the biblical text for Hab 1:12. It is a little unfortunate that MurXII has not been preserved to reveal the phrases of major interest in our study, viz. ‫וצור‬, and ‫יסדתו‬. 1QpHab differs in the prepositional phrase of line four by taking the hipʿil inf. as a hipʿil ptc., thus ‫למוכיחו‬, plus suf. This is unlikely the result of a misreading, and, as Kim explains, altered for interpretative 34

142

Chapter 4: Theology and Exegesis

Scholars have pointed out that the difference in translation of the first word could be the result of either a vocalisation change39 or a misreading, so that ‫צור‬ is taken verbally.40 However, none of the suggestions satisfactorily explains reasons. The suf. was likely added cataphorically so that it anticipates the interpretation. Because its absence leaves open the interpretation, it was, therefore, added intentionally to concretise the referent. As Kim concludes, “In 1QpHab wurden beide Wörter, deren Adressaten in MT nicht konkret sind, durch die bloße Hinzufügung eines Pronominalsuffixes am Ende des lemmas konkretisiert.” Moreover, as Brownlee notes, “this widely divergent text is essential to the interpretation given in the document [1QpHab].” Lastly, Andersen also comments that the first word of this clause, ‫צור‬, can here be only understood as a noun, and in this context, as a vocative in poetic apposition to ‫יהוה‬, as in MT. In sum, there is so little difference between MSS that an alternate Vorlage for either the copyist of MurXII or 1QpHab does not seem likely, at least in this section. See Jong-Hoon Kim, “Intentionale Varianten der Habakukzitate im Pesher Habakuk: Rezeptionsästhetisch untersucht,” Bib 88, no. 1 (2007): 31–2; Brownlee, The Text of Habakkuk, 26–7; Andersen, Habakkuk, 180. 39 Brownlee’s case for a misreading of the Heb. is derived from an understanding through either ‫ צור‬or ‫יצר‬. As he explains, “…one has a choice between ‫ צור‬II, [‫ ]צור‬III, and ‫ צרר‬I & III, with common meanings such as ‘bind, besiege, show hostility, distress.’ It would appear best to derive the term from ‫ צור‬in both G [OG] and DSH [Dead Sea Habakkuk, i.e. 1QpHab]; for this would yield a common term from which the divergent senses of fashion and distress were drawn. If one reads the inf., he may retain MT ‫ וצור‬but interpret it as a verb form.” The first choice is more likely due to the non-quiescent first radical yôd. In this case the form would be very similar. The first option would yield a reading such as ‫וצרני‬. In this case we have a difference of three consonants: the middle component, and the pronominal suf. In the second option there is also a consonantal difference of three, ‫ויצרני‬. There is a yôd for the first radical and also the obj. suf. He concludes, however, that the MT form may be retained by instead reading it as an inf. and thus “interpret it as a verb form.” This might fall under the category of vocalic variant if further developed. See Brownlee, The Text of Habakkuk, 27. 40 Gelston suggests that the translator saw a verb instead of a noun and merely added the obj., noting also the same interpretation by the Syr. translator. But the latter change might have been caused by the former. However, none of this adequately explains the presence of the pron. Cleaver-Bartholomew provides a complicated solution to try and address the presence of the pron. He suggests that, while the Vorlage was likely the same as MT, in light of the accurate reading from 2:18, the translation difference may be understood as: first, a confusion of yôds for wāws; and second, a transposition of the final rêš for the pron. The result would be a pseudo-variant of ‫ ;יצרי‬the process is: ‫יצרי > יציר > וצור‬. But, first, did the translator really mix up the difference between an obj. suf. on a pf. verb for a poss. one? Second, orthographically speaking, the reading between a yôd and wāw could just have easily gone in the other direction. Hence the idea of transposition between the rêš and yôd is moot. Incidentally, this leaves the addition of the Greek conj. unexplained. And third, although the form ‫ יצרי‬could be explained as a misreading for a part. with suf., i.e. Isa 49:5, the translational choice would not be consistent with the translation of verbal participles throughout the book. Thus the problem is regularly compounded by the presence of all syntactic parts. A literal retroversion, in this case, must consider a form and vocalisation such as ‫וַ יְּ ָצ ַרנִ י‬. See Gelston, ed., BHQ, 117; Cleaver-Bartholomew, “An Analysis of the Old Greek Version of Habakkuk,” 142–3.

4.2 The Prophetic Characteristics of Ambakoum

143

the presence of all the syntactic parts, particularly that of the object pronoun.41 The logical implication is that this text was based either on a different reading or Vorlage, which must then consider the suffix, conjunction and other words in syntagmatic relationship, and/or be attributed to the translator’s style. Scholars also argue that similarity of consonants caused the final word to be mistranslated as παιδείαν αὐτοῦ, misreading it through a form of ‫יסר‬, though rightly identifying the third-person pronoun.42 Gelston’s observation that the change is a result of what occurred in the first noun is partly correct, as I explain below.43 All of these theories have some appeal through the similarity found between the forms of each possible solution. The verbal root ‫ צור‬is identical in form to the noun ‫צור‬, and ‫ יסד‬is very similar to ‫יסר‬. Moreover, as Rudolph suggests, the translator may have understood this reading through the variant root ‫יִ סוּר‬, thus ‫יִ סּוּרוֹ‬, which is also found in 4QBeat (‫)ביסוריה‬.44 So should this not be simply put to rest as a series of straightforward misreadings? It would be easy to conclude that the presence of the pronoun was just the translator’s way of making sense of things – end of story. But this leaves unanswered questions. Did the translator really misread a word (‫ )צור‬so common throughout the HB that it is always correctly understood (eighty-two times) by all translators, across all books, including its uses as a metaphor for, or pertaining to, the LORD?45 Quite notably it is never taken verbally except in this case. Moreover, 41 Fabry, although discussing the Heb. reception of Hab in Qumran, has pointed out the allusive reference of Hab 1:12 in 1QHa, where the text reads, ‫למשפט יסדתני‬. There is a vague reference here to Hab 1:12, but more so with Amb 1:12 via the presence of the first per. suf. The similarity is observed across the two final Heb. lines of the verse. However, the problem here is that πλάσσω usually translates ‫( יצר‬also cf. n. 52), and θεμελιόω usually ‫יסד‬. Hence, while there is not a clear quotation, there exists a similar idea of one being established for judgement. See Hartmut Stegemann and Eileen Schuller, eds., 1QHodayota (DJD 40; ed. Emanuel Tov; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2009), 167; Heinz-Josef Fabry, “The Reception of Nahum and Habakkuk in the Septuagint and Qumran,” in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (eds. Shalom M. Paul et al.; VTSup 94; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 255. 42 Muraoka notes (†) that the Gk. word παιδεία is found twice in reference to an understanding through the Heb. word ‫ מוסר‬through the root ‫יסר‬. This is noted for both Amos 3:7 and Amb 1:12. See Takamitsu Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Twelve Prophets) (Louvain: Peeters, 1993), 181. 43 See Gelston, ed., BHQ, 94, 117. 44 See Rudolph, Micha-Zephanja, 209; Martin G. Abegg et al., eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance. The Non-Biblical Texts from Qumran [Part One] (2 vols.; vol. 1; Leiden; Boston, Mass.: Brill, 2003), 314. 45 There are sixteen nominal references in LXX. Of these it is used in three ways: a proper noun (Num 23:9; 25:15; 31:8); a common noun, such as an inanimate obj. like a rock or crag (Exod 17:6, 6; 33:21, 22; Deut 8:15; 32:13); and in allusion or direct reference to divinity (Deut 32:4, 15, 18, 30, 31, 31, 37). Notably, in every instance in Deut the metaphor πέτρα is changed to θεός (see also Exod 17:6). Outside of LXX there are sixty-six nominal references

144

Chapter 4: Theology and Exegesis

why would he choose a first person pronoun and not perhaps a third? On what basis did he think himself warranted to recast the prophet as a pedagogue of sorts? This does not mean the translator did not have difficulty with his text. The question is where. How can we explain his approach so that we can rightly understand the reason(s) behind the evidence? First, as explained above, there are textual phenomena across all three chapters of the TT that are related through literary and thematic alterations to the prophet. This is true whether it is a change to his experiences or role. It is far more likely (for linguistic reasons stated below) that the translator recognised the divine appellative here in Hab 1:12. But, because it was part of a translational approach to concretise it, i.e. make it less metaphorical (something which is also common to translations in general), he may have sought to change it accordingly (cf. n. 45). In addition, at the occasion of the translation there might have been some aversion to presenting God as an inanimate object.46 But this theological point is in present dispute. Second, he was perhaps unsure of the meaningful application of the final word.47 This difficulty would have given the translator pause for further that have a number of similar usages. While in every instance where it is used as a metaphor it is made explicit through translation by θεός, or something interpretative of the character of God or his deeds, i.e. helper, strong tower, etc., only in Amb 1:12 is the metaphor taken in a verbal and distinctly different sense. This change might have been part of a translation tradition that subtly addressed an anti-anthropomorphic Denkart. Olofsson’s statistical work is helpful on this specific subj.; cf. Staffan Olofsson, God Is My Rock: A Study of Translation Technique and Theological Exegesis in the Septuagint (CB 31; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1990), 44–5, 140–2, 149–51; Dines, The Septuagint, 132; Wevers, Notes on Deuteronomy, 518. 46 In fact, so consistent is the inner-Septuagint evidence for how this is translated that Olofsson points out, “The translator of the Book of Psalms always treated ‫ צור‬as a divine title differently from its literal and its ordinary metaphorical meaning and the same is true of the translators of the other LXX books. A literal rendering of ‫ צור‬was consistently avoided when it referred to God.” This is something with which Peters vigorously opposes, arguing well for an alternate Vorlage in all these instances. It is not clear from this evidence in Amb whether or not this was caused by an anti-anthropomorphic stance. Cf. Olofsson, God Is My Rock, 45, 140; Peters, “Revisiting the Rock,” 37–51. 47 If the translator knew the meaning of ‫ יסד‬he likely changed it here for linguistic reasons, rather than because of a mistake. It is found only once in LXX (Exod 9.18) where it is nipʿal. Outside of this, it is found forty-four times with a number of references each in the Psalter, Isa and Twelve. In a similar form as found in Hab 1:12, i.e. 2ms pf., it is found six times, with the five other references only in the Psalter. It is often translated by θεμελιόω (always except once in the Psalter) but contextually altered for different meanings in different books. This is also true in the Twelve, except in Amb, which points away from a misunderstanding of the word. It is understood verbally by α (θεμελιόω) and σ (ἵστημι), which also take the word rock substantively and interpretatively, στερέος and κραταιός respectively. Incidentally, these other translations tacitly point to an interpretative stance towards this portion of Amb, which might indicate the translational paradigm, see p. 12.

4.2 The Prophetic Characteristics of Ambakoum

145

consideration of his choices. The flow of analysis is not always linear because the translator would be aware of his sentence, and therefore other elements in his clause. He is making sense of the entire passage, not progressing from word to word, having some degree of knowledge of the passage before making his translation. His recourse was to assess what was the most logical semantic choice, which was probably not related to Amos 3:7 through visual association with the noun ‫סוד‬, in spite of the similarities. The fact that the translator chose παιδεία is, third, most likely due to the semantics derived from the infinitive. The word ἐλέγχω is used to translate ‫ יכח‬in the hipʿil when the context is concerned with instruction or teaching. Although the Hebrew meaning is often associated with chastening, the other sense, as Harl et al. points out, of “réfuter, donner la preuve, prouver, attester”48 is the better sense for the passage. This probably explains the difference between the English translations and both BdA and LXX.D.49 In this sense, discipline is bound up in the concept of God’s desire to reprove his people, so that “l’expression signifie que le prophète serait chargé de justifier le bien fondé du châtiment à venir.”50 Therefore, in summary, the clause-wide choices were probably to some degree affected by obscurity of the final word in context.51 Because it was the controlling finite verb the translator sought a decision that made sense in the context of the passage. The approach was thus a logical improvisation by contextual change, rather than a misreading or some guess-work. The choice for the verbal form of ‫ צור‬is likely derived from its use in LXX.52 In this case, God remains the 48 Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 269. Also, Cleaver-Bartholomew has explained that in the process of time the Greek word underwent a change in meaning from “scorn,” to include meanings such as “to expose, resist, interpret and expound,” and also “to investigate.” This “includes all aspects of education from the conviction of the sinner to chastisement and punishment, for the instruction of the righteous by severe tests to his/her direction by teaching and admonition.” Notably, it is also commonly found “in conjunction with ‫מוּסר‬/‫יסר‬.” ָ This, he concludes, gives it a pedagogic sense. See Cleaver-Bartholomew, “An Analysis of the Old Greek Version of Habakkuk,” 152; Muraoka, Greek/Hebrew/ Aramaic Two-way Index, 220. 49 Both the BdA and LXX.D/E projects have taken the interpretation along the line of the second sense (enseignement instead of perhaps châtiment, and Erziehung instead of perhaps Züchtiger) rather than the other sense of discipline taken by some English translations (NETS, “chastening;” Brenton, “correction”). See Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 268; Bons et al., eds., LXX.D, 1204; Pietersma and Wright, eds., NETS, 808; Brenton, English Translation of LXX, 1106. 50 Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 269. 51 If Peters is right that there was an alternate Vorlage then there probably ought to be an alternate reading for the final form too. This is not clearly addressed. But the slightly unique nature of this change in Amb might point away from such things. Cf. Peters, “Revisiting the Rock,” 48. 52 In the vast majority of instances πλάσσω translates ‫יצר‬. It also sometimes translates the verb ‫( צור‬Exod 32:4; Ps 138:5). In a number of other instances it translates words with very different meanings, e.g. ‫בדא‬, or ‫יצב‬, or ‫חול‬, to name a few (3 Kgdms 12:33; 4 Kgdms 19:25;

146

Chapter 4: Theology and Exegesis

subject, and the addition of the pronoun in reference to the prophet is literarily consistent.53 4.2.3 Exile The next series of interpretative changes are related to the leitmotif of exile. They are all made possible by the so-called reading of a wāw for a yôd (Amb 1:11, 12; 3:16).54 In Amb 1:11 the translator interpreted the suffix on the final word as a first instead of third person possessive pronoun. It is probably not due to a misreading through the orthographic similarity between the wāw and yôd, but the uniqueness of the MT form.55 The alternate spelling for ‫אלהים‬, ‫אלוה‬, never Pss 89:2; 118:73; Prov 24:12; Job 10:8, 9; Isa 29:16, 16; 38:14). It is also used exegetically without a source word per se (Gen 2:15; Job 34:15; Isa 53:11), and is also used in a handful of apocryphal writings. The translation, however, of a substantive in Amb 1:12 is unique. This information points in a number of directions. First, in a handful of instances πλάσσω was used somewhat interpretatively for different reasons, which seem to be restricted to each individual context. Second, the majority of evidence supports the fact that πλάσσω is used for ‫ יצר‬I and ‫ צור‬III. Due to the aforementioned textual difficulties of Hab 1:12, the translation process was different in Amb 1:12 from the instances where this Greek word was used. It does appear, however, that consonantal similarity was likely a factor that helped the translator resolve the textual issue he faced. But, and it is emphasised, the essential problem here in Hab was difficulty in another part of the clause. The consonantal similarity between this noun and the verbs ‫ יצר‬and ‫ צור‬was like a stepping stone to help the translator with his decision, which was how to reconcile the well-known divine appellation in light of the entire linguistic problem. Furthermore, a thematic link may have existed. The poignant content of Exod 32:1–6 is thematically linked to Amb 2:18–19 where πλάσσω also translates ‫יצר‬. Moreover, the Greek word πλάσσω is more semantically suitable to the context of Amb 1:12 than, for example, ποιέω. 53 Harl et al. goes on to explain that this is a thoroughly biblical, non-Hellenistic, chastening that creates an inner-biblical theological point (e.g. Lev 26:18; Deut 8:5.). This linguistic development from the Greek/Heb. to reprove is thus completed, in translation, by pairing it to his discipline/education. This, therefore, leaves the prophet in a peculiar situation whereby he must justify the validity of the chastisement. Also, Harl, commenting on Deut, notes that “[s]i un caractère est commun à ces divergences et aux mots ‘supplémentaires’ que nous avons relevés pour cette partie, il s’explique par le souci de précision, d’actualisation, de mise en accord avec les traditions et les pratiques juives de l’époque. Les divergences ne semblent pas résulter d’un projet global d’interprétation théologique” (emphasis mine). See Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 268; Marguerite Harl and Cécile Dogniez, eds., Le Deutéronome (BdA 5; Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1992), 39. 54 Cleaver-Bartholomew has noted that in the majority of instances within Amb (40/52x) the translator always translated (understood) the suffixes with the same grammatical number, but in only a small number of instances did not. Cf. Cleaver-Bartholomew, “One Text, Two Interpretations,” 58. 55 Contra Gelston, ed., BHQ, 117. There would have been a reasonable degree of orthographic comprehension so that scribes understood the difference between a wāw and a yôd.

4.2 The Prophetic Characteristics of Ambakoum

147

has a suffix except in Habakkuk. The slight oddity of the form might have caused the translator to interpret this as a first person suffix (he also shows no trouble translating ‫ אלהים‬in construct state in Hab 3:18). Although translators show a tendency to change the pronoun on this proper noun,56 this change in Ambakoum is, however, unique. It would seem that the oddity of the form contributed to part of the translator’s interpretation of the passage. Hab 1:11 …‫ואשם‬ ‫זו כחו לאלהו‬ …and [he] incurred guilt; – he whose strength is his god.

aA aB

Amb 1:11 …καὶ ἐξιλάσεται αὕτη ἡ ἱσχὺς τῷ θεῷ μου …and [he] will propitiate. This strength belongs to my God.

There is no confusion with the pronoun ‫זו‬, which is translated αὕτη. The change to the more regular spelling of ‫ זה‬in 1QpHab is merely a spelling variation. The demonstrative precedes and emphasises the subject ἡ ἰσχύς, like MT, but the translator has omitted the suffix on the substantive ‫כח‬. The pronoun is evident in both 1QpHab and MurXII, the former having a plene spelling. The translator of Ambakoum seldom omits suffix pronouns. In each instance it appears to be due to, perhaps, difficulty with the passage, as is the case here.57 The final word likely caused the translator to omit the first possessive pronoun here to ensure clarity in the reading, which is a free contextual omission. The MT prepositional phrase is interpreted as a dative possessive. The translation of a lāmed plus the substantive ‫ אלוה \ אלהים‬is handled many different ways throughout the Septuagint, changing case, omitting the preposition, etc. It appears that context decides. In this case the same is true, and the new phrase has clarified an underlying theological point. The source of the Chaldean strength to propitiate for their misdeeds against Israel comes from the God of Ambakoum.58 They do not derive their strength from their idols because the LORD raised them up for his purposes – the exile of his people This does not do away with all mistakes but such appeals ought to be limited. Rather, a translator might have sought an alternate reading through the switch between these two similar looking letters due to other linguistic difficulties. 56 In the 119 instances where ‫ אלהי‬is found in MT, the majority of translations keep the pron. However, there are a number of instances where the entire phrase/form is omitted, or changed to ἡμῶν, or the noun is interpretatively changed to τὸ γλυπτόν μου or replaced by κύριε though still omitting the pron. 57 See Amb 1:8; 2:6, 15; 3:14, 14, 19. The prepositional phrase in Amb 2:18 is re-ordered to smooth out the Greek. 58 The Tg. reading of ‫לטעותיה‬, as an exegetical translation choice, may hint at an understanding that the strength of the invaders was limited because their strength was rooted in the error of idolatry and not the living God of Habakkuk. Cf. DJPA, “‫;”טעוּ‬ ָ Jastrow, “‫;”טעוּ‬ ָ Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, 460.

148

Chapter 4: Theology and Exegesis

according to promise (Deut 28:49–68). While this theological interpretation may not have been the primary reason for altering the text, it was how the translator made sense of it. It occurred through a combination of improvisation and style. The last instance of this kind of textual change is the interpretation of the final word in Hab 3:16. The similarity between this form and the final word in Hab 1:12 is that the translator, in each case, sought to retain the pronominal object. In this case, if the translator was unsure of the meaning of the word, the interpretation may have been to resolve it through √‫גור‬. Eaton notes that he may have read it as ‫גוּרנִ י‬ ֵ ְ‫( י‬that makes me sojourn), and then translated it exegetically to suit the context.59 A change through similarity between the third radical and dālet, and the change in person of the suffix, is consistent with the translator’s style.60 But a contextual change, or even a guess, which involved a grammatical alteration, is more likely than a misreading, the latter being more difficult to support. The translator has, therefore, resolved a difficulty by yet again adapting the prophet to the context. The prophet personally identifies with the people of the exile.

4.3 Eschatology Eschatology in this study refers to the way(s) that Hellenistic Jews interpreted the end of the age. The English word eschatology in part comes from the Greek adjective ἔσχατος, which generally means last, final, furthest, etc., and its technical definition comes from its use in theological contexts, e.g. Deut 4:30; Mic 4:1; Isa 2:2; Jer 23:20; Dan 2:28; John 6:39; 2 Tim 3:1; 1 Pet 1:5, etc. In this period of study, the “later days” (e.g. ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν / ‫)האחרית הימים‬ came to be understood in reference to how the L ORD would bring an end to injustice and institute his rule on the earth. This event would be marked in very particular ways, which were naturally deduced from a close reading of the scriptures.61 There were different opinions on precisely how this new kingdom would emerge, or what its signs would be. While this theological construct can be derived from interpreting MT, there are certain ideological changes along these lines within Ambakoum that point towards the translator’s understanding of these things. 59 See Eaton, “Habakkuk 3,” 157. Also, Good suggests ‫גּוּרנִ י‬, ֵ which would still require adaptation to the context by the translator. Harper sees this as contextual manipulation. Cf. Good, “The Text and Versions of Habakkuk 3,” 112; Harper, Puzzled Scribe, 195. 60 Rudolph suggests that the substantive use occurred through dittography with the mêm from the previous construct ‫לעם‬, hence ‫גוּרּי‬ ַ ‫מ‬. ְ See Rudolph, Micha-Zephanja, 238. 61 Modern scholarship often discusses this in relation to messianic belief, see discussion and references on this in n. 94 and 96 of this chapter.

4.3 Eschatology

149

4.3.1 The Day of the LORD In Ambakoum, the act of raising up the Chaldeans is ideologically associated to the eschatological Day of the LORD (1:7). This connection to an end-time event is clearer in Ambakoum than in MT. It is identified through the alternate choice of lexeme regarding the LORD’s instrument of wrath: the Chaldean: Hab 1:7 aA aB

‫אים ונורא הוא‬ ‫ממנו משפטו ושאתו יצא‬ He is dreadful and fearful, His jutice and his authority go out from him.

aA aB aC

Amb 1:7 φοβερὸς καὶ ἐπιφανής ἐστιν ἐξ αὐτοῦ τὸ κρίμα αὐτοῦ ἔσται καὶ τὸ λῆμμα αὐτοῦ ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἐξελεύσεται He is fearful and glorious, His judgement will be from him, And his warrant [to destroy] will go out from him.

Of the twenty-one instances of the Greek adjective ἐπιφανής in the Septuagint, the most well-known is its use in the appellative Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανής (1 Macc 1:10; 10:1; 2 Macc 2:20; 4:7; 10:9, 13; 4 Macc 4:15). Aside from this it almost always translates the Hebrew verb ‫( ירא‬1 Chr 17:21; Judg (A) 13:6; Prov 25:14; Joel 2:11; 3:4; Amb 1:7; Zeph 3:1; Mal 1:14; 3:22).62 It has a wide variety of use and meaning in Hellenistic literature. Within the Septuagint it generally means notable or distinguished, perhaps with an embedded sense of gloriousness or splendidness, and can also mean renowned (Mal 1:14).63 The regular translation choice for ‫ירא‬/‫ יראה‬is φοβεόμαι/φοβός. The adjective is formed with the nipʿal participle,64 and in each instance within the Twelve 62 This might exempt Zeph 3:1, but this might to be a misreading for the hipʿil ptc. of ‫ראה‬. See Gelston, ed., BHQ, 108. 63 Proverbs 25:14 is the only reference to translate an alternate word, ‫( הלל‬to glory or shine forth), which is in reference to the visual manifestation of the elements. All the untranslated or expanded texts also have the same meaning of distinguished or glorious (Esth 5:1; 2 Macc 6:23; 14:33; 15:34; 3 Macc 5:35). See Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, 286. Also, Harl, et al., argue that “le traducteur [de la douze] a pu choisir à bon escient epiphanḗs dans le sense du grec : quelqu’un se manifeste de façon soudaine, ‘éclatante,’ parfois pour secourir…souvent pour provoquer l’effroi, comme ici l’arrivée d’envahisseurs puissants.” Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 264. 64 The majority of these participial forms are likewise translated by φοβερός, with a handful of exceptions: θαυμαστός in Exod 15:11; 34:10; Deut 28:58; Pss 45:5; 65:6 (5); 68:36 (Dan [TH] 9:4); κραταιός in Deut 7:21; ἔνδοξος in Deut 10:21; Isa 64:2; the interpretative use of τιμή in Job 37:22; χαλεπός in Isa 18:2; and ἰσχυρός in Dan 9:4; otherwise φοβερός is used for the majority (Gen 28:17; Deut 1:19; 8:15; 10:17; 1 Chr 16:25; Neh 1:5; 4:8; 9:32; Pss 47:3; 66:3; 66:5; 76:8; 76:13; 89:8; 96:4; 99:3; 106:22; 111:9; 139:14; 145:6; Isa 21:1). Outside of the Twelve the only place where ‫ נורא‬is translated with ἐπιφανής is Judg 13:6, where it is used to describe the manifestation of the angelic being, and 3 Kgdms 17:21, where it is used to describe the glorious name of the LORD. Otherwise, the rest of the references

150

Chapter 4: Theology and Exegesis

where ἐπιφανής is used it is in reference to the Day of the LORD. Although it is used this way outside of the Twelve, its use within it marks this eschatological event, and is said to be a particular style of the Twelve.65 Whereas the ST gives the sense that this judgement will be fearful or awesome, the TT expresses this as a great manifestation, a great epiphany. When the context pertains to the Day of the LORD the translator of the Twelve always uses ἐπιφανής instead of φοβερός to translate ‫נורא‬. The phrase φοβερὸς καὶ ἐπιφανής is also unique, as is ‫אים ונורא‬.66 And φοβερός never translates ‫ אים‬elsewhere, which might have been better translated with θαμβός, as in 8ḤevXIIgr.67 The Greek juxtaposition of these words has explicitly connoted the Day of the LORD with the description of the Chaldean. This is not a reference to the L ORD himself, in spite of the semantics derived from the Greek adjective.68 There is no indication of a change of subject. The immediate logical and grammatical antecedent is the subject from the previous line, the Chaldean nation (τὸ ἔθνος). The nation, in this epigrammatic verse, is the manifestation of the LORD’s act of judgement.69 The Chaldean is, therefore, meant to be understood as an instrument of divine judgement. The subtle thematic link through these Septuagintal semantics invokes the concept of the future (ἔσται) Day of the LORD. This is a free contextual change where the translator substituted an accepted translational equivalent, such as φοβερός, for something more conceptual (theological). 4.3.2 End-Time Destruction The idea of consummative destruction (συντέλεια) is common to a number of books of the Septuagint: the Psalter, Ezekiel, Daniel and the Twelve. This kind are found in the Twelve with only three minor exceptions (There is the expanded text of Esth 5:1, where it retains the similar meaning of majestic or remarkable, and the interpretative use in Prov 25:14 where it is superlative [ἐπιφανέστατοι]. Note also the nominal use [ἐπιφάνεια] in 2 Kgdms 7:23). 65 Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 263–4. 66 The Heb. word ‫ אים‬is a very rare word and is found twice more in Song 6:4, 10. It means terrible or dreadful, and derived from the word ‫אימה‬, which is found throughout scripture a number of times. See HALOT “‫”אימה‬. 67 There is not enough evidence in 8ḤevXIIgr to prove a system wide change from ἐπιφανής to φοβερός, but it may indicate such a redaction. See Ego et al., eds., BQ, 128. 68 The reason that the Chaldean is referred to as glorious is because he has been raised up by the LORD for judgement, and so this eschatological event has to be marked properly for the reader – he is the LORD’s work, hence glorious he must be. The switching back and forth of referents for the pronouns in v. 7 is grammatically unsound. Moreover, the relative neut. pron. in v. 5, ὅ, refers to the work ἔργον, which is also neut., in the preceding clause. There does not, therefore, appear to be any evidence of grammatical shifting, contra CleaverBartholomew, “An Analysis of the Old Greek Version of Habakkuk,” 130–4. 69 In addition to the above references see also: Pss 65:3; 66:5; 76:7; 75:13; 89:8; 95:4; 98:3; 105:22; 110:9; 144:6; Odes 12:3; Sir 1:8; 43:29; Dan 2:31; 4:37; 9:4.

4.3 Eschatology

151

of consummation is close to the idea of annihilation and has an eschatological bent to it. Having a relatively wide use in pre- and Hellenistic works, the word has a variety of meanings.70 In the more mundane sense of consummation, as in to complete a task, there are various uses.71 From the data at hand, it seems that when the context of a passage had some sort of eschatological notion, the word was used in a novel way. Schaper calls this a technical term,72 which is not far from calling it a neologism. To be clear, it is not that whenever συντέλεια is used that it carries the meaning of consummative destruction, but that in some instances it does. And, because it is used dozens of times in different contexts in the Septuagint, its nuanced senses of meaning can be understood in those instances. What does emerge in a palaeographical analysis is that the idea of wrathful (divine) destruction is a sense that is new to the Septuagint. Within Ambakoum there are at least two different meanings whereby the word is used.73 The first reference in 1:9 pertains to the consummative destruction of the impious.74 This pericope (Amb 1:5–11) is a terse description of the nature of the Chaldean invasion. Within the text there are eschatological signals that may be, in part, (Amb 1:7, 9), due to the invasion being understood as a mini-episode of the final great judgement. The reference to the Day of the LORD in 1:7 is only two verses before the interpretative reading of 1:9. The choice to alternately read the particle ‫ כל‬plus a suffix (‫ )כלה‬as the substantive ‫ ָכּ ָלה‬was most likely interpretative, not due to a misreading. One of the meanings of συντέλεια (to complete, stop something) does have semantic correspondence with the Hebrew lexeme ‫כּלָ ה‬. ָ The word συντέλεια, however, is also used interpretatively throughout the Septuagint. One might say that it translates a number of different words, e.g. ‫( אסיף‬Exod 23:16), ‫( אחרית‬Deut 11:12), ‫( מספר‬Josh 4:8), ‫( בצע‬1 Sam 8:3), ‫( תכלית‬Job 26:10), ‫( כול‬Ezek 21:23), ‫( סופה‬Amos 1:14; Nah 1:3), ‫( תקופה‬2 Chr 24:23), with special mention of the 70 The substantive has a handful of different meanings, which are from a number of classical Greek writings, mostly Polybius’s Historiae. It is mostly used in reference to the joint gathering of public contributions or collection of military provisions (recruits). It has a variety of similar meanings related to a “body of citizens,” the “union of communities” and also to the company of the gods. Aside from these the word commonly means the “consummation of a scheme.” See LSJM, “συντέλεια”. 71 It is not until LXX that use of συντέλεια began to mean “complete, end,” or “to make an end of [something],” which in turn, has come to mean destruction. BDAG explains this to mean “a point of time marking completion of a duration, completion, close, end.” It also distinguishes between the different senses within OG. See ibid.; BDAG, “συντέλεια”. 72 Cf. Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter, 67. 73 NETS seems to be sensitive to the distinctions, cf. 3:19. The awkwardness of 1:15 is unfortunately still left hanging in light of the alternate use in 1:9. See Pietersma and Wright, eds., NETS, 807–10. 74 Harl, et al., goes on to explain that the preposition was replaced with ἐπί in “la tradition manuscrite…plus habituel en grec pour exprimer une attaque.” Harl, et al., 265

152

Chapter 4: Theology and Exegesis

lexeme ‫( כליל‬Judg 20:40) and the Aramaic word ‫( כֹּלָּ א‬Dan 4:28); it is also used in other Jewish Hellenistic works bearing the same variable meaning as that found within the Septuagint (Schaper points out that in T. Benj. it is used with the same eschatological sense of Daniel).75 Its use was determined by the respective translator’s decision to contextually adapt his text.76 As a result, there really should no longer be any good reason to think that the translator merely (mis-)read the word as ‫( ָכּ ָלה‬or some variation, e.g. ‫)כֹּלת‬, ָ pace Gelston, et al.77 The apocalyptic meaning of the word is understood within an eschatological context. As Delling correctly explained, the understanding of “final end”78 is quite clear from its various uses within Daniel where it translates this concept derived from ‫קץ‬. The essence of this point might explain why the new meaning of the word was adapted for this use in Jewish Hellenistic works rather than Greek ones, the latter having no such genre. In Amb 1:9 the impious (ἀσεβής) are said to meet a consummative end. Yet this is not the only significant change in the sentence, where the following clause reads, hardening their faces in opposition: Hab 1:9 ‫כלה לחמס יבוא‬ ‫מגמת פניהם קדימה‬ ‫ויאסף כחול שבי‬

aA aB aC

Amb 1:9 συντέλεια εἰς ἀσεβεῖς ἥξει ἀνθστηκότας προσώποις αὐτῶν ἐξ ἐναντίας καὶ συνάξει ὡς ἄμμον αἰχμαλωσίαν

This second clause does not seem to refer to the Chaldean invader, although continuity with the change to the plural for reference to him in the previous verse would have grammatical concord. The change to the singular in the third clause gives the sense (anaphorically) that the first two lines were an interlude, referring to someone else known as impious – or perhaps a group introduced 75

Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter, 67. This does not mean that translators did not encounter textual difficulties, or even make mistakes, e.g. Job 30:2, so that use of συντέλεια was used by means of, perhaps, improvisation. Such an example of this exists in Amb 3:19 where the translator appears to have improvised his text, as explained below. But it is important to bear in mind that the abstract substantive ‫( ֻכֹּלה‬meaning a “totality…all and every [of something]”) is more often translated by the semantically closer ὅλος or πᾶς. In some contexts it has the adverbial meaning, “totally, entirely,” and with a suf. has “the vague meaning of totality of that = each.” The interpretative use of both συντέλεια and συντελέω reflects a particular orientation, perhaps even a tradition, towards translation of the consonants (or similar looking) ‫כלה‬ within certain books, but not restricted to this. The Pentateuch never translates this literally. Cf. Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §139e, g; §146j. 77 Cf. Mozley in Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter, 66.; and also Gelston, ed., BHQ, 116; Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 265; Karrer and Kraus, eds., LXX.E. Band 2, 2419; Good, “The Text and Versions of Habakkuk 3,” 114. 78 Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter, n. 266. 76

4.3 Eschatology

153

earlier (1:4), which will also be later mentioned in the refrain of chapter two (2:8, 17). The question is whether or not this destruction shall come against only those who caused (implicitly) the invasion, or if both are considered as impious, perhaps even creating one collective group arraigned for judgement. The former seems more plausible in light of how the impious are referred to throughout Ambakoum’s first two visions (chps. 1–2). It is the impious who afflict the prophet (1:2), surround the righteous (1:4), will be held to account (1:9), persecute the righteous in the land (1:13) and the Chaldean ravages the land because of the impious (2:8, 17). The two are closely connected, but initial fault seems to lie with the impious, being the wicked among the people of Judah. The contextual meaning of complete destruction is further understood by its proximity to the subsequent relative clause. No one knows anymore what the hapax word ‫( מגמת‬from ‫ )?מגמה‬means. Various meanings are offered, such as “hordes,” or an “assembling,” or a “totality, all of [something],” Gesamtheit,79 and even breath.80 Modern translations struggle to understand this, yielding diverse results.81 Although it is reasonable to conclude that the translator made

79

See Takamitsu Muraoka, “Hebrew Hapax Legomena and Setpuagint Lexicography,” in VII Congress of the International Organization of Septuagint and Cognate Studies (ed. Claude E. Cox; SCS 31; Leuven: Society of Biblical Literature, 1991), 215. 80 Cf. HALOT, “‫;”מגַ ָמּה‬ ְ BDB, “‫ ;”גמץ‬TWOT, “‫;”מגַ ָמּה‬ ְ Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (2 vols.; vol. 1; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 13. 81 It is sometimes translated as a substantive, e.g. horde (CEB, NASB, NIV, and RSV). Other times it is taken adjectivally, e.g. avides (LSV), and the ESV omits it. It is also commonly adverbial, e.g. eagerly, avidement, stracks or drängt (CJB, BFC, GSB and Rudolph). The NET, HCSB and KJV are interpretative. The meaning is simply uncertain and most are guesses based on context or by particularising consonants, i.e. ‫ גם‬or ‫גמא‬, so BDB meaning, “eagerness, comparing (questionably) ‫ גָּ ָמא‬swallow Jb 39:4” or “ingurgiter…on interprète en supposant que le mot exprime un désir ardent” (CAT). Andersen asks if it should be terror from měgôrat. Cathcart and Gordon point out that the Targumist may have “regarded (m)gmt as equivalent to (l)‘mt, which is regularly translated by (l)qbyl (‘in front of’).” The Tg. reads, opposite their faces they appear like the east wind. The interpretation of the pesher focuses on how the anger of the Kittim shall be observed in their faces, And in rage they heat up, and in burning wrath, and (with) enraged faces they will speak ( ‫ובחמה‬ ‫)יכ]מרו וב[חרן אף וזעף אפים‬. The introduction of the comparative ‫ דמה‬and preposition ‫ ְכּ‬to Tg. may have been, in part, due to the difficulty of the reading. Also, the place where this word was translated in 8ḤevXIIgr is now lost. In each respect, based on this evidence, scribes sought to explain this through either explicit metaphor or commentary. Cf. CAT, p. 148; BDB, ‫;מגַ ָמּה‬ ְ Cathcart and Gordon, eds., The Targum of the Minor Prophets, 146; García Martínez and Tigchelaar, DSS Study Ed., vol. 1, 14; Rudolph, Micha-Zephanja, 203; Andersen, Habakkuk, 155.

154

Chapter 4: Theology and Exegesis

a contextual guess of ‫מגמת‬,82 the presence of other common words likely contributed to his overall decision process. The clarity of other words from the clause meant the translator may have had certain liberty to manipulate the context through careful guesswork. The Hebrew form ‫ קדימה‬is sometimes translated using the sense of before or opposite instead of east, or eastwind. Although the translator’s choice of ἐξ ἐναντίας is semantically quite different,83 this kind of translation choice exists elsewhere in the Septuagint.84 These instances provide a basis upon which to understand the translator’s choices. One might wonder why he did not simply translate this as (prep. +) ἀνατολή. It would have been consistent with many other uses. However, it may have been additionally caused by the problem of reading ‫ מגמת‬followed by ‫פניהם‬. The latter is often translated as ἐξ ἐναντίας (e.g. Num 16:22; 17:10; Deut 11:4; Ps 21:13; Ezek 1:10).85 The translator was then compelled to take ‫ פניהם‬nominally, in turn ‫ קדימה‬was interpreted adjectivally.86 82 In the process of translation, the translator of Amb may have made a contextual guess, perhaps similar to σ´ attempt with ἡ πρόσοψις (the appearance), or there may have been a specific (more interpretative) reading tradition behind this section of the text. 83 It is also the most divergent from other ancient translations and witnesses. 1QpHab has copied this as ‫קדים‬, with Tg. also similar with its interpretation of ‫רוח קדומא‬. As already noted, 8ḤevXIIgr is also semantically close with its choice of only καύσων, and σ somewhat with ἄνεμος καύσων. The Vg. is ventus urens. Cf. García Martínez and Tigchelaar, DSS Study Ed., vol. 1, 12; Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, 459; Ego et al., eds., BQ, 128; Field and Montfaucon, Origenis Hexaplorum, 1003. 84 For example, in Ezek 47:3 and 41:14 the speaker is facing eastward so that the choice of κατέναντι and ἐξ ἐναντίας respectively is opposite from where he is standing. Ezek 41:14 has a similar use (κατέναντι) except that the direction in mind appears to be more difficult to understand, with perhaps the translator entering into the speaker’s commentary and having this open area at the side of the temple before him in his mind. Moreover, due to the regular use of ἀνατολή as a translation choice throughout Ezek it does not seem that the selection was in any way stereotypical. Contextual sense seems to have been the route of the translator’s choice. In short, these words, in Ezek, were alternate translation options for ‫קדים‬. Outside of Ezek this is translated by ἐξ ἐναντίας in four other locations except Amb. Notably, in the Joshua ref-erences it is combined with ἀνατολή, which is the most common translation choice for ‫קדים‬. In these instances ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν translates ‫מזְ ַרח‬. ִ The locative hê for the Heb. form gives direction, whereas in Greek it is the nature of the gen. with the second proper noun that makes clear the boundary lines. 85 In Ezek 40:6, 22; 42:15; 43:4 the following construct ‫ פניו דרך הקדימה‬is regularly translated as τὴν βλέπουσαν κατὰ ἀνατολάς. See also Ezek 42:12; 47:1; Amb 1:9. 86 Moreover, although the explicit sense of eastward (ἀνατολάς) is lost in the translation, there are two thematic links that may have further contributed to the current translation choices. First, the word ‫ קדים‬is translated in contexts where there is the sense of either judgement (Gen 41:6, 23, 27; Exod 10:13; Isa 27:8; Jer 18:17) or salvation (Exod 14:21; Ps 47:8; Hos 5:1;). In the latter the wind, under the power of the LORD, is directed to do his bidding. Second, with the general theme of the Day of the LORD, a descriptive explanation of the LORD’s judgement upon the impious, may have further helped define how he made

4.3 Eschatology

155

Therefore, the translator appears to have adapted the second line in light of both the context and syntagmatic relationships of the words and phrases. The reading was eschatological destruction for the enemies of the L ORD. Use of the word ἀνθίστημι (ἀνθεστηκότας) echoes the enemies of the conquest, who opposed God’s people in war (Num 10:9; Deut 28:7). At the word level, the translator’s choice for an adjectival participle may have partly been through similarity to the feminine singular form from Aramaic or Hebrew. The other sense of the word συντέλεια, which is closer to its nonJewish/religious uses, is that of destruction in general. The idea of completing or consummating a destructive action or scheme is evident with its use in Amb 1:15. Here the Chaldean invader is described as he who will bring up (ἀνασπάω) destruction or consummation in a hook, like a fisherman who draws up his nets and brings an end to the life of his catch. The implied metaphor is that Israel are fish, basically helpless. It might be inappropriate, however, to adduce that the meaning is the same here as in 1:9 – though it might be open for rhetorical effect, to which the Psalm of chapter three answers. This nuance of meaning may be observed by how the objects of the Chaldean invasion include, in this case, the suffering righteous. They suffer along with the impious. In a post-Deuteronomistic context the righteous are not utterly destroyed because in the end they will be delivered from the ends of the earth (Deut 28). The LORD will be compassionate. While the Chaldean does indeed sow destruction he does not obliterate. The proximity of difference in meaning is slight. Both indicate destruction, but each of a different kind. Lastly, another sense used in Amb 3:19 is not destructive, though it could possibly fit within the conceptual realm of eschatology. In this instance it may be positively translated with the general sense of completion. The LORD will strengthen to completion – “guide to the end”87 – his prophet Ambakoum as part of exalting him. It may be that the translator misunderstood the uncommon lexeme ‫( אילה‬hind, or doe), or the rarer phrase ‫כאילות‬, even though most other translators had no trouble with it.88 sense of a difficult passage. In MT Isa 27:8 the day of the eastwind, ‫ביום קדים‬, known for its scorching heat, is taken quite interpretatively as a wrathful wind, πνεύματι θυμοῦ. The easterly wind that beat down on Jonah’s head caused him to complain so much he wished for death. The choice word in this instance was a burning wind (καύσωνος), as used in 8ḤevXIIgr. These thematic links may have contributed to the translator’s choices in the face of a probable contextual guess, or how it was meant to be understood in the tradition. 87 King, The OT. The Prophets, 400. (Emphasis added.) Also, the presence of the preposition “might suggest” the presence of lāmed, though “there are a handful of examples where no preposition is present in Hebrew,” Harper, Puzzled Scribe, 200. 88 The substantive is commonly translated by the semantic equivalent ἔλαφος (2 Kgdms 22:34; Pss 17:34; 29:9; Prov 5:19; Job 39:1; Jer 14:5). It appears to be interpretative in Cant by use of ἰσχύς (Cant 2:7; 3:5), which has some conceptual overlap with Barb, ἀσφάλεια (“security from stumbling,…steadfastness”), and also Ps 21:1, ἀντίλημψις. Fabry suggests the translator of Cant may have sought his understanding through the close homophone ‫ַאיָּ ל‬

156

Chapter 4: Theology and Exegesis

4.4 His Faith and Messianic Faith Of all the passages from the prophecy of Habakkuk, more ink has probably been spilt on chapter two verse four than any other. In spite of its brevity, the passage has a long history of interpretation in the present era, mostly as it relates to teaching from the NT. Recently it has become increasingly common to assert that this OT text (often made in reference to MT, but sometimes to OG) is messianic in origin, and therefore it refers to Jesus Christ. The crux of the argument is understood by holding to the view that the Apostle Paul quoted Ambakoum 2.4b in Rom 1.17b because it was a messianic text that supported the core thesis of his epistle: the righteous (one) shall live by faith, and not by works of the law. It has been argued that this central article – to live by faith – is then unpacked throughout the rest of the epistle as the author explains what this means in light of the coming of Christ. The apostle’s citation is often handled as if it were a proof-text, lifted out of Ambakoum to suit the purpose of the epistle. Support for the messianic background comes from studies by Dodd and Strobel, which have asserted that, in the case of the former, Paul was working out of a messianic interpretative tradition of the passage,89 and in the latter, the translator of Ambakoum introduced a messianic reference at Amb 2:3a.90 In addition to the reference of a coming, unnamed individual in Amb 2:3a, modern studies also suggest that the use of ὁ δίκαιος is an epithet for the

(fallow deer), cf. ‫איִ ל‬. ַ Ambakoum 3:19 is the only reference to change entirely the semantics. If the translator was unaware of the word he may have sought recourse through the consonantal similarity of the inf. piʿel (‫ )כלות‬of ‫( כלה‬Fabry), while of course knowing that this was not the same lexeme. This would be improvisational. There is also the possibility that he sought to concretise the explicit metaphor (simile), which is quite common in Amb. See LSJM, “ἀσφάλεια”; HALOT, “‫ ;” ַאיִ ל” ;“ ַאיָּ ל‬Fabry, “Ambakum / Habakuk,” 2428. 89 Cf. C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures. The Sub-structure of New Testament Theology (London: Nisbet & Co., 1953). 90 Strobel is quite clear that a comparison between Hab 2:3 and Amb 2:3 reveals a messianic reference, which he assumes on the basis of the later Qumranic tradition of interpretation, arising, he argues, from those expectations of the Maccabean struggle; he writes, “Sie scheint, soweit wir heute die Ursprünge der apokalyptischen Hoffnungen von Qumran festzulegen vermögen, veranlaßt und getragen von der Erwartung der Makkabaerkämpfe. In dieser Zeit verdichteten sich nationale Hoffnungen und religiöses Erwarten zur Schärfe der uns hinlänglich bekannten Messianologie der urchristlichen und tannaitischen Zeit…Alles spricht dafür, daß sie selbst schon ein – zunächst im weitesten Sinne verstanden – messianisches Verständnis der Stelle Hab 2,3 kannte und angestrebt hat.” Cf. A. Strobel, Untersuchungen zum eschatologischen Verzögerungsproblem. Auf Grund der spätjüdisch-urchristlichen Geschichte von Habakuk 2,2ff (NovTSupp 2; ed. W. C. van Unnik; Leiden: Brill, 1961), 47.

4.4 His Faith and Messianic Faith

157

messiah,91 and observe the syntagmatic movement of the personal pronoun in Amb 2:4b (noting the difference in MT).92 On account of these things, and because this righteous person will live “by faith,” it is argued that the OG text indicates the coming of a messiah.93 Amb 2:3–4 is thus listed as part of the

91 Schreiner disagrees that there is any sound evidence for this claim. Also studies abound on this within the faith of Christ debate. Cf. Douglas A. Campbell, “Romans 1:17 – A Crux Interpretum for the ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ Debate,” JBL 113, no. 2 (1994): 282; Richard P. Carlson, “Whose Faith? Reexamining the Hab 2:4 Citation within the Communicative Act of Romans 1:1–17,” in Raising Up a Faithful Exegete: Essays in Honor of Richard D. Nelson (eds. K. L. Noll and Brooks Schramm; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 315; A. T. Hanson, Studies in Paul’s Technique and Theology (London: SPCK Publishing, 1974), 13–51; Richard B. Hays, “ΠΙΣΤΙΣ and the Pauline Christology. What Is at Stake?” in SBL 1991 Seminar Papers (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 719–20; Richard B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ. The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1 – 4:11 (Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2002), 134–5; Richard B. Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination. Paul as Interpreter of Israel's Scripture (Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2005), 119–42; Ian G. Wallis, The Faith of Jesus Christ in Early Christian Traditions (SNTSMS 84; ed. Margaret E. Thrall; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 81. Also Manson argues that the new subject of Amb 2:3 is marked titularly in Hebrews by addition of the article, ὁ ἐρχομένος, and theologically echoes Matt 11:3, cf. T. W. Manson, “The Argument from Prophecy,” JTS 46, no. 183/184 (1945): 134. Gheorghita’s extensive study, and BdA, also concludes that this is a messianic text at the point of production, cf. Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 275; Gheorghita, The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews. See also Thomas R. Shreiner, Romans (BECNT 6; ed. Moisés Silva; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998), 59–76. 92 There are two important linguistic details of note. First, of the major majuscules (GB.Q.S.V.W), the possessive pronoun μου is in syntagmatic relationship with πίστις, whereas in GA it is brought forward to δίκαιος, hence, ὁ δίκαιός μου ζήσεται ἐκ πίστεως (also P46). Second, MT has a third person pronoun in the phrase ‫אמונתו‬, whereas in OG this is first person, hence πίστεώς μου. The NT omits the pronoun altogether. I disagree with the idea that Paul introduced ambiguity in Rom 1:17b and Gal 3:11 so that the omission creates some sort of a harmonious-theological-ambiguity: faith is a gift, therefore it is the LORD’s, and the recipient exercises it, therefore it is the individual’s – both are true. This actually seems even more unclear. It is far more likely that Paul omitted the pronoun of his text (assuming it was present in his Vorlage) because he was making the point clearer, not less. As Siefrid notes, “[t]o ‘live by my [i.e., the LORD’s] faithfulness’ is to live by faith.” Fitzmyer thinks Paul intentionally did so for theological reasons, filling “that word with his own Christian meaning of ‘faith.’” Studies on this point can be found in those mentioned in n. 91, and also cf. Mark A. Seifrid, “Romans,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (eds. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 608– 11; Joseph A. Fitzmyer S. J., “Habakkuk 2:3–4 and the New Testament,” in De la Torah au Messie. Études d’exégèse et d’herméneutique bibliques offertes à Henri Cazelles pour ses 25 années d’enseignement à l’Institut catholique de Paris, octobre 1979 (eds. M. Carrez and J. Doré; Paris: Desclée, 1981), 452. 93 Bird notes that this was introduced by the translation, and Hays indicates this may have happened unintentionally, cf. Michael F. Bird, Are You the One Who Is to Come? The

158

Chapter 4: Theology and Exegesis

Second Temple milieu of messianic expectation,94 and is said to be confirmed by Paul’s appropriation of the text in Romans and Galatians.95 In this part of the study I will first make a literary and linguistic analysis of Amb 2:2–5 on the level of text-production, pushing aside later interpretations in order to identify what the translator was communicating. After that I will then analyse the claim of the text’s messianic reference more closely.96 I will Historical Jesus and the Messianic Question (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 45; Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ, 135. 94 Cf. Dodd, According to the Scriptures, 51; Strobel, Untersuchungen zum eschatologischen Verzögerungsproblem, 19–55; Wallis, The Faith of Jesus Christ; Bird, Are You the One Who Is to Come? See also refs. in n. 91. But this is not true of some of the weightiest contributions to this discussion, which do not list Hab 2:4 as a messianic reference, making no mention of it at all, cf. Joseph A. Fitzmyer S. J., The One Who Is to Come (Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2007); John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star. Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2010); William Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1998); Sigmund Mowinckel, He That Cometh. The Messiah Concept in the Old Testament and Later Judaism (trans. G. W. Anderson; Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2005). 95 Cf. Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination, 136–42; Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ, 135–141. 96 When I say messianic I am considering how most scholars use the term today to refer to the messiah himself, or to a specific messianic figure(s), not to the notionally implied aspects of messianism that are embedded intrinsically in the concept of eschatology. Scholars use the term messianic (messianism) differently in this way. Sometimes it is clear that it refers to a specific figure, a coming one, warrior, helper, etc., but at other times it appears related to his work and its effects, such as, for example, the nature of justification for one who believes in the messiah. So, stating that the NT is messianic can mean one thing or another depending on context/usage. Messianism in the Second Temple period could have quite different meanings, referring to a political warrior (e.g. 4QpIsaa), maybe a dying servant (e.g. 4Q285), priestly figure (e.g. 1QS 9:11), “future eschatological teacher” (Wolters) (e.g. CD 7:18; 4Q174) or in some cases duumvirates (Bird). Most often the role of this figure is associated with any combination of royal, priestly or prophetic functions. In each respect there is the expectation of a future figure who will come and perform some kind of extraordinary act(s). This human agent was to bring a kind of deliverance. Evans sees this future anointed person as “part of a larger eschatological drama, whereby human activity on earth is appreciably altered.” Of all the expectations, it seems that the prevailing one was restoration of the Davidic kingship. The coming of the messiah would inaugurate the end of days, an eschatological period. Hence messianism refers to a specific person, whereas eschatology refers to a period of “future hope” at the end of time (Mowinckel). Fitzmyer and Boda connect this idea with eschatological beliefs. The presence of the word ‫( ְמ ִשׁ ַיח‬or related words, i.e. ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ָחה‬, ‫ָמ ְשׁ ָחה‬ ‫ ָמ ַשׁח‬,) is not necessary (Bird/Boda/Collins). The concept can be articulated through the use of other words. The idea of a person(s) who will come in the future has its roots in the HB, which some call proto-messianic, e.g. Gen 49: 10–11; Num 24:17; and Isa 11:1–6. But whether such ideas are clearly identifiable in the Septuagint is very debatable for the earliest translations (Knibb). The development of Christian ideas of messianism, in light of the

4.4 His Faith and Messianic Faith

159

show how the thematic and semantic content of the OG passage could have given rise to its use in the NT, so that it could be adapted to a particular messianic context, not that it was so when it was crafted. 4.4.1 Eschatology in Ambakoum 2:4 An examination of Amb 2:2–5 – the literary context of Amb 2:4 – points to an eschatological period in which God will render judgement. There is a vision that is to reach an eschatological goal (marked in the source text [ST] by ‫)קץ‬,97 which means that it will occur at the end of the age. Within the framework of this vision an unnamed individual will arrive. Just as the vision will occur at the eschatological end of time, so also will this person appear. Then, the parallel sentence (paradigmatic) refers again to a person who will walk by faith. This individual will be tested, and if he succeeds, the LORD will be pleased with him. Careful exegesis of this passage really does not have a “messianic tone,”98 at least not on the level of text-production. Furthermore, this so-called messianic claim is set within a literary “frame.”99 Amb 2:2–5 exhibits a “paragraph cohesion,” to borrow Cranmer’s phrase, which needs to be considered when assessing the eschatological character of the text. It is this structure that indicates that the OG translator had a paragraph level grasp of his ST. My intention is to study this passage as discourse, above the level of the clause or even sentence, in order to see how a non-atomistic approach to evaluating the translation yields more detail than considering, for example, the placement or omission of a pronoun. Each chapter of the book of Ambakoum is a coherent unit that builds upon the previous chapter, just like the ST. In chapter one the prophet introduces his complaint about the wickedness and injustice in his midst. He asks the LORD why he has not answered his pleading and cries (1:2–4). But the LORD answers by proclaiming that he is raising up the Chaldeans as a scourge for his people (1:6). This new enemy will be terrifying (1:7), and they will not only judge appearance of Christ, are certainly not unwarranted, but must be held in suspense, especially when dealing with the idea generated by a translator. Cf. Craig Evans, “Messianism,” in Dictionary of New Testament Background (eds. Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 698; Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 17; Glenny, Finding Meaning in the Text, n. 120; Bird, Are You the One Who Is to Come?, 31– 62; Fitzmyer S. J., The One Who Is to Come, 1–7; Mark Boda, “Figuring the Future: The Prophets and Messiah,” in The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments (MNTS Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2007), 35–48, 73–4; Al Wolters, “The Messiah in the Qumran Documents,” in The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments (MNTS Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2007), 76–9. Also cf. essays in Michael A. Knibb, ed., The Septuagint and Messianism (BETL 195; Leiden: Brill, 2006). 97 Cf. n. 149 below. 98 Hanson, Paul’s Technique and Theology, 42. 99 David J. Cranmer, “Translating for Paragraph Cohesion,” BibT 35, no. 4 (1984): 432.

160

Chapter 4: Theology and Exegesis

Judea but many nations (1:17). It is an international punishment against wickedness and idolatry (cf. 2:18–19). The second chapter addresses the situation after the invasion, but Ambakoum receives it in advance, having set himself up as a watchman of the LORD (2:1). He stands upon his parapet and looks for the LORD’s deliverance. Yet his purview yields a verbal response from the LORD. Hab 2:2 ‫ויענני יהוה‬ ‫ויאמר כתוב חזון‬ ‫ובאר על־הלחות‬ ‫למען ירוץ קורא בו‬

aA aB bA bB

Amb 2:2 καὶ ἀπεκρίθη πρός με κύριος καὶ εἶπεν γράψον ὅρασιν καὶ σαφῶς ἐπὶ πυξίον ὅπως διώκῃ ὁ ἀναγινώσκων αὐτά

In verse two the LORD commands Ambakoum to write down a vision, which is to be made clear or plain for the recipient. Although the adverb σαφῶς is very common, the verbal it translates, ‫באר‬, is not, used only twice elsewhere of Moses (expounding the Law [Deut 1:5] or writing down clearly the law of God [Deut 27:8]). Like Moses, Ambakoum writes down his vision onto tablets. But unlike Habakkuk, who etches his vision onto tablets (‫)לוחות‬, his namesake Ambakoum writes this onto a single plank of box-wood. Although the Greek substantive πυξίον is by no means rare, it is seldom used in the Septuagint. In fact, the Septuagintal translators choose different words for the common Hebrew nominal ‫( לוח‬tablet), depending on the context with the most common being πλάξ. Among the prophets of Isaiah and Moses who write upon a πυξίον (Exod 24:12; Isa 30:8), Ambakoum is like them in writing down an important oracle that is to stand as a witness. The purpose of the vision is so that he who reads them will run,100 ὅπως coordinates the two verses. The neuter plural object of the final clause αὐτά does not have a near grammatical referent like in the Hebrew (the suffix pronoun on the phrase ‫ בו‬refers to ‫)חזון‬.101 The only logical referent is the 100 The English optative mood, which is common in English translations, lessens the clear sense of “will run.” At the reading of the tablets the individual will run, or flee. It is the only logical course of action; only a fool would stay to suffer the judgement of God (Haak), though Andersen sees this as a reference to the prophet. He is the one who reads out loud the judgements and runs. Cf. Haak, Habakkuk, 56; Andersen, Habakkuk, 204–5. 101 Whenever a verbal precedes a participial substantive that is then followed by the prepositional objective phrase, ‫בו‬, it always has the spatial sense of “in it” (Neh 7:5; 13:1; Ps 127:1; Nah 1:7). Though the translators of the Psalter and Twelve, however, never read it this way, offering instead the accusative pronoun for the phrase. This use of bêt is probably best thought here as to “express participation in something,” cf. Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §133c., perhaps indicating that the tablets were to be setup somewhere where everyone could read them. Perhaps a public square (Andersen)? It might convey the idea that one would be without excuse. Cf. Andersen, Habakkuk, 202–3.

4.4 His Faith and Messianic Faith

161

contents of the vision, which have been written down on the box-wood. The change is slight but apparent. If either δικαίωμα or κρίμα were implied (consider also μαρτύριον), all in grammatical concord, then there would be a lexical link to a Deuteronomic leitmotif.102 The reader must consider the judgements or precepts of the L ORD that are contained in the verbal expression of the vision. This reading then naturally leads one to ask what the precise contents of the vision are. If these are judgements or precepts, then what kind are they and how do they relate to the vision of Ambakoum? Andersen thinks that these are the five woe oracles that make up the bulk of chapter two (vv. 6–20).103 In them the LORD denounces the Chaldean invader and those of Judah who colluded with them. The woes increase in intensity, culminating in a famous denunciation of the utter foolishness of idolatry. But Möller’s suggestion is more compelling.104 The content of the vision is 1:5–11 (and also vv. 13–17): the announcement and description of the Chaldean invasion, which is the unbelievable thing the LORD is doing. The reintroduction of this proclamation in Amb is also a marker for an eschatological context, because the Chaldean invader was already described this way in the opening vision (1:7, 9).105 The coming Chaldean is awful and terrifying, and has the L ORD’s warrant to destroy (Amb 1:7).106 The Chaldean is the judgement of the LORD. It is this opening 102

The word λόγος is masc., and the choice of ῥῆμα would be slightly unusual within the Twelve (stylistically uncharacteristic). Also, it is unsound to find the grammatical referent of the neuter plural substantive through recourse to the Hebrew ST in the word ‫לחות‬, as some scholars have argued. The text is meaningful on its own, therefore the right logical (and grammatical) inference is required through the context of the passage. Contra. CleaverBartholomew, “An Analysis of the Old Greek Version of Habakkuk,” 166–7, 175. See also Gheorghita, The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews, 212–3. 103 Though working from the Hebrew text, he does, also, oddly enough, suggest that the contents of Hab 3 are included in the vision, which is confusing. Also, Watson thinks that the vision is “the book [of Habakkuk] in its entirety”, cf. Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 142–3. 104 Möller’s general conclusion on this very subj. for MT, by analogy, corresponds to the question of the content of the vision in OG, even if for different reasons. The material from vv. 5–11, different from MT (to the scoffers and impious), also bears witness against the activities described in the coming woe oracles. The material from chp. three is a response to the situation(s) iterated in the previous chps., and therefore it is unlikely to be that hymn. However, it could include material from that chp., especially that which corresponds to the victory of the invader. Cf. Julie Clinefelter Möller, “The Vision in Habakkuk: Identifying Its Content in the Light of the Framework Set Forth in Hab. 1,” (PhD diss., University of Gloucestershire, 2004), 184–90; William H. Brownlee, “The Placarded Revelation of Habakkuk,” JBL 82/83 (1963): 319–20. 105 See pp. 149–155. 106 The subject throughout Amb 1:7 remains the Chaldean (see pp. 149–150), and does not change to the LORD or his work. First, the immediate referent for the final pron. in v. 6, αὐτός, refers to τὸ ἔθνος. This is the Chaldean, the grammatical object raised up by the L ORD

162

Chapter 4: Theology and Exegesis

context in v. 2 that is seldom considered in studies that suggest Amb 2:4 to contain a messianic reference. The eschatological context of this specific passage is first marked in v. 2. Like the Pauline quotation, Amb 2:4 does not match exactly the morphosyntax of MT. The translator appears to have taken leave of his Vorlage, which seems to point towards a more interpretative approach to the overall passage. There is an alternate literary unity to the passage that is seldom considered. The grammatical and semantic changes are stitched together differently than in the ST – the connective particles of vv. 2–5 differ from MT.107 A discourse analysis flags this up. The contextual reading of 2:4 indicates that it must be read in light of the previous verses (back to 2:2), and also the subsequent one (2:5). Verse two sets the context for the next three verses (2:3–5), which elucidate (διότι) the charge given to the prophet to clearly write down a vision given to him. The translator seems to have read the text differently so that the meaning has changed beyond the unexpected choice of a word or pronoun, which is where most studies, especially in the NT, focus. Yet when these details are taken together the character of certain theologically orientated changes are better understood. There are three important concepts that are introduced in this passage: an eschatological vision (2:2–3a), and the righteous and arrogant man (2:3b–5):

in v. 5. Second, the change from pl. to sg. is normal in the prophecy of Amb, e.g. vv. 6–7, 8 and 10–11, within certain literary bounds. The logical antecedent in v. 7 is the subj. from the previous clause, irrespective of the semantic application of ἐπιφανής. The Chaldean is then the judgement of God, which is awesome and fearful, etc. There is nothing here to indicate confluence of referents, contra Cleaver-Bartholomew. Moreover, the Chaldean will render his own kind (τὸ κρίμα αὐτοῦ) of judgement, which will be measured out with a divine proclamation proceeding from him. The use of λῆμμα in this context is unsettling as divine warrant is given to the gentile nation to sweep into the Land and render judgement. Then, after an extended metaphorical description in v. 8, verse nine introduces another eschatological reference through reference to the destruction of the impious by use of the keyword συντέλεια. Cf. Cleaver-Bartholomew, “An Analysis of the Old Greek Version of Habakkuk,” 131, 136. 107 This literary and grammatical structure does not reflect the ST, where ‫ אם‬is paired to ‫( הנה‬both translated by ἐάν), indicating that a parallelism of the same kind in the TT was not intended. The option to read the Hebrew interj. with the following verbal was also made possible through an Aramaic interference – a semi-authorised reading (cp. 111). There is here a rhetorical structure that is bound up with the translator’s interpretative view. The coming righteous individual shall neither be late in his arrival, nor shrink back, because he shall live by faith; but the arrogant man is the one who draws back, he displeases the LORD. This is how the passage should be understood. Likewise, and alternatively, the passage could be read: “si quelqu’un ‘recule,’ alors qu’il faut ‘attendre’ la vision, Dieu ne se complaît pas en cet homme.” See Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 275–6.

4.4 His Faith and Messianic Faith

§

Hab 2:3–5bB

Amb 2:3–5bB

163 §

διότι ἔτι ὅρασις εἰς καιρὸν

3aA

‫ויפח לקץ‬

καὶ ἀνατελεῖ εἰς πέρας

3aB

3aC

‫ולא יכזב‬

καἰ οὐκ εἰς κενόν

3aC

3bA

‫אם יתמהמה‬

3aA

‫כי עוד חזון למועד‬

3aB

3bAα 3bB 3bC

‫חכה לו‬ ‫כי בא יבא‬ ‫לא יאחר‬

4aA 4aB 4bA

ἐὰν ὑστερήσῃ ὐπόμεινον αὐτόν ὅτι ἐρχόμενος ἥξει καὶ οὐ μὴ χρονίσῃ

‫הנה עפלה‬ ‫לא ישרה נפשו בו‬ ‫וצדיק באמונתו יחיה‬

ἐὰν ὑποστείληται οὐκ εὐδοκεῖ ἡ ψυχὴ μου ἐν αὐτῳ ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεώς μου

3bA 3bAα 3bB 3bC 4aA 4aB 4bA

ζήσεται 5aA

‫ואף כי היין בוגד‬

ὁ δὲ κατοινωμένος καὶ καταφρονητὴς

5aA

ἀνὴρ ἀλάζων οὐδὲν μὴ περάνῃ 5aB 5bA

‫גבר יהיר ולא ינוה‬ ‫אשר הרחיב כשאול‬ ‫נפשו‬

5bB

‫והוא כמות ולא‬ ‫ישבע‬

ὅς ἐπλάτυνεν καθὼς ὁ ᾅδης τὴν

5bA

ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ καὶ οὕτος ὡς θάνατος οὐκ

5bB

ἐμπιπλάμενος

The identification of the grammatical subject(s) of vv. 3–4 is not a simple puzzle. It is not entirely unwarranted for scholars to think καιρός, from the prepositional phrase in 3a, is carried forward as the subject for each succeeding clause, throughout the entire verse, up to and including 4a.108 This is because the referent of the pronoun in the fifth clause, αὐτός (3bAα) must be masculine, and therefore cannot refer to the vision, ὅρασις. Some scholars resolve the necessary grammatical congruence by suggesting that it must refer to an appointed time (καιρός), which is both masculine and a near referent:

108 Cf. Ibid., 274; Rudolph, Micha-Zephanja, 211–2; Kraus, “Hab 2:3–4 in the Heb Tradition and in the LXX,” 106–10.; et al. I take it from the translation in LXX.D (wenn er sich verzögert, warte auf ihn, weil er gewiss kommen…) that Fabry understands this in reference to a coming person (ihn not sie), therefore not a vision (eine Vision). Also, Strobel sees the interpretative key here in semantics, indicating an “eschatologischen Klang,” and that “[d]as umso mehr als die Wendungen εἰς καιρόν und εἰς πέρας die ‘eschatologische Stunde’ bezeichnen.” See Strobel, Untersuchungen zum eschatologischen Verzögerungsproblem, 48; Bons et al., eds., LXX.D, 1204.

164

Chapter 4: Theology and Exegesis

[καιρός] ἀνατελεῖ εἰς πέρας καὶ [καιρός] οὐκ εἰς κενόν ἐὰν [καιρός] ὑστερήσῃ ὑπόμεινον αὐτόν ὅτι ἐρχόμενος ἥξει καὶ οὐ μὴ χρονίσῃ…

But not all scholars agree. The long-held historical view that a new subject is introduced in 3b remains true.109 The pronoun refers to the newly introduced implied subject of 3b.110 This is poetically disambiguated as the poem is read, being grasped when the text is read as a whole. My argument is broken into two main parts: logic and grammar. First, the connective particles throughout the pericope help mark a qualitative distinction for the subject in question. The new subject of 3b should have the same kind of qualities of that to which it is contrasted in 4b, ὁ δὲ δίκαιος. This is an important point. The subject must logically correspond to what the LORD is not pleased with in the previous line (4a). The idea that the LORD is not pleased with an appointed time, which is given to the prophet to write down (2:2), does not make much sense.111 It is also positively described in 3a. Second, a contrast between the success of an appointed time and the righteous one in 4b makes no sense. If the contrast is with one who lives by my faith (objective genitive), what does that mean for this appointed time? The qualitative contrast is unnaturally forced. It is nonsensical. Clearly someone is in view in 3b, not something; the reader is caused to replay back the subjects of 3a and 3b.112 After introduction of the vision, a new subject emerges in 3b so that the rest of the passage clearly shows a person is being contrasted with another kind – a person who lives by faith and one that recoils, i.e. may not live by faith. In this sense, metaphorically 109 Janzen’s article on reading this MT passage through an Isaian lens is compelling. If the translator also held to a similar view of prophecy and that of the interpretation of Amb 2:2–4, in conjunction with the analysis below, there is then ancillary support for a very similar reading of the Heb. as that which is transformed into the Greek. See in particular J. Gerald Janzen, “Habakkuk 2:2–4 in the Light of Recent Philological Advances,” HTR 73, no. 1/2 (1980): 72–8. Also see Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 272–5. 110 Some scholars restrict the subject of the vision to 2:2, and introduce a new subject for each following protasis, but with differing results, cf. Gheorghita, The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews, 222. As explained, none of these options are followed in this study. 111 In reference to NETS, Kraus also senses the same discontunity between the contrast of these different subjects, though he draws different conclusions than this study. His argument is mostly based upon the lack of literary Greek in the translation (if a new subject is in fact introduced in 3b it would have the pronoun τις), which further supports his view on a pronoun for my soul. But I am not sure this is the best approach. The translator is following a pattern of literalism, cf. Kraus, “Hab 2:3–4 in the Heb Tradition and in the LXX,” 111–2. 112 Such poetic disambiguation of is often done unconsciously by readers through recursion as they move through the text.

4.4 His Faith and Messianic Faith

165

speaking, faith is the act of taking hold of something/someone, whereas faithlessness is to recoil. Therefore, the first change of subject is marked by the particle ἐάν, something which is clearer in the whole scope of the pericope. There is, second, a question of grammar. As observed in the above chart, conditionality in v. 4 does not exist in MT. Instead we have two paradigmatic conditional sentences in OG, vv. 3b-4. In each case the protasis has to be resolved.113 The choices here must be understood as being made with a high degree of intentionality. The translator had to choose ἐάν over εἰ, and, in so doing, had to be aware (even unconsciously) that he would then be introducing the subjunctive mood, which will then limit and affect his choices for the apodosis. His choice of ἐάν in 4a instead of a Greek interjection, e.g. ὦ or οὐαί, shows a recurrent degree of intentionality. And reaching forward to v. 5a where the phrase ‫ אף כי‬is translated by δέ, we are given the broad overarching alternate structure for OG. The entire passage is styled through the use of conditionality and contrastive emphases. It is like MT in that two kinds of people are juxtaposed, but it is more emphatic via mood and choice of literary particles. One might say that a teaching of the Hebrew is drawn out and composed into Greek. On this level of analysis there is no hint of messianism, simply a future vision and a coming individual. The semantic content marks the eschatological content for the reader, which still does not give us a clear future hope of a messiah. In MT the interjection of v. 4 is clearly felt: Behold! The sense of the passage is interruptive: look for someone in light of what has been said about this vision. In the first clause of Hab 2:4 the same subject is read for both verbals. The subject is the soul of an individual, ‫נפשו‬, it is puffed up and not upright, which is contrasted to an individual that will live by his faith – faithfulness to the covenant. The normal sense of the preposition bêt is to be read here as the individual’s soul in him.114 In light of the previous verse, we are looking for an individual, though presently unnamed, who will live by his faith. The wāw of v. 4b is contrastive, based upon the reading of the passage. The righteous individual is being compared to one who is puffed up and proud. However, in OG, the first sentence of 3b is paradigmatic to the subsequent one (4a), where both pronouns, αὐτός, seem to refer to the same implied subject of the subjunctive verbs.115 So, having introduced the eschatological vision of divine judgement in v. 2, being marked literarily and thematically (εἰς πέρας / ‫)לקץ‬,116 OG indicates that this will also be known by the arrival of an 113 See Dietrich-Alex Koch, “Der Text von Hab 2:4b in der Septuaginta und im Neuen Testament,” ZNW 76, no. 1 (1985): 73. 114 Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §133c. 115 Harl et al. also thinks that the subject of the initial verbals of vv. 3–4 “suggests a parallelism,” see Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 275. 116 Cf. Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter, n. 266; Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 274.

166

Chapter 4: Theology and Exegesis

individual. Now, the immediate mental link is to a person who lives by faith – everyone is thinking of Amb 2:4b – but the text does not yet make that point. The parallel sentence flags up the possibility that this person may incur the displeasure of the LORD. The first conditional sentence has an imperative in the apodosis, which is followed by an explanation, ὅτι. In the second protasis there is a general assertion of response (4a), which is, instead of being explained, contrasted to how things should be – the righteous will live by the LORD’s faith (4b). Both verses must be read together and sequentially: Ref 3b

Protasis ἐὰν ὑστερήσῃ

Apodosis ὑπόμεινον αὐτόν

Explanation/Contrast ὅτι ἐρχόμενος ἥξει καὶ οὐ μὴ χρονίσῃ

4

ἐὰν ὑποστείληται

οὐκ εὐδοκεῖ ἡ ψυχή μου ἐν αὐτῳ ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεώς μου ζήσεται

When these verses are read in unity, i.e. without verse dividers, the repetitive conditionality is obvious.117 The new (subsequent) subject is introduced in 3b with a protatic third class clause ἐὰν ὑστερήσῃ, which is then syntactically repeated in v. 4 as ἐὰν ὑποστείληται: if he tarries / if he shrinks back.118 This is a double use of a third class condition structure. It is marked in the protasis by ἐάν plus a verb in the subjunctive mood (any tense), 119 which is the main grammatical feature, and also lacks ἄν in the apodosis, with the verbal in any mood and tense.120 It is a fairly common Hellenistic literary device. Although this class can suggest a condition with a likelihood of occurrence, it does in fact “encompasses a broad range of potentialities in Koine Greek,” which may include a “mere hypothetical situation or one that will probably not be

117 Kraus sees these conditional sentences in antithesis with each other, not parallel. It is noteworthy to mention that he also does not see a messianic reference introduced in v. 3, but does think the subject of καιρός is maintained from 3a. Cf. Kraus, “Hab 2:3–4 in the Heb Tradition and in the LXX,” 111. 118 Contra Gheorgitta, who disagrees on the grounds that the subject for the first protasis is the LORD, cf. Gheorghita, The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews, 214–7. See also n. 115 above. 119 Also some grammarians have argued that because the mood is the main grammatical marker one can also see this same semantic use with the syntax εἰ + subj., which was not uncommon in Homeric and Classical Greek. Clearly the importance placed on this syntax and the mood was consistently important through the developments of the language. Cf. Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood (SBG 1; ed. D. A. Carson; New York; Bern: Peter Lang, 1989), 309. 120 See Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar (Oxford: Benediction Classics, 2010), §1387–93; Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the NT, 307–11; Wallace, Greek Grammar, 689.

4.4 His Faith and Messianic Faith

167

fulfilled.”121 Boyer statistically determined that in the majority of instances such probability is unlikely to be fulfilled.122 What is emphasised here is that the displeasure of the LORD is contingent upon the life of this futuristic individual. One has to see how things play out. Because the “conditional establishes a relation between a protasis and apodosis,”123 context is essential to derive the correct logical inference, which has much to do with conditions that refer to the nature of human affairs. In this poetic framework there are two categorically different answers to each protasis. In the first apodosis there is the ground of conditionality (if he tarries) that explains the correct inference, set in the imperative: wait for him. This is explained in the following clause, marked clearly by ὅτι. He’ll be there, and shan’t be late. Then, in the paradigmatic sentence, the second apodosis is a category of cause and effect, where the cause of the LORD’s displeasure is the condition of the individual’s recoil. The use of the present indicative suggests a simple general supposition,124 and the pairing of the conjunctions οὐκ…δέ (4a–b) is clearly contrastive.125 By implication, the nature of the withdrawal (lack of faith) is contrasted to the kind of life which ought to be lived out, hence, the LORD is pleased with the righteous who will live by his faith (cp. Pss 50:21; 146:11). This is marked by δέ, rather than explained as in the previous sentence. A further contrast is made in v. 5 between this righteous individual and the kind of person that recoils and does not walk by faith.126

121 Wallace, Greek Grammar, 696–7. Porter also notes that it conforms to general usage of the subj. mood to express projection without any statement of the probability of its coming to pass. Also, the idea that some concern over the conditionality and identification of the individual seems to have caused the clauses to be inverted in the quotation of Heb 10:38 is not necessarily correct. The text is modified in order to apply it to the life of the believer, connecting the righteous (as a group) as those who must strive to please the LORD – they must not recoil. Hence the one who draws back is then the one who does not persevere, which is juxtaposed to the one who is coming and lives by faith – the Christ. The author of Hebrews switched the clauses around, clearly without following the broader distinction made here in this study. For example, one does not need v. 5 in order to make sense of the passage, it is simply an additional contrast, and it certainly does not significantly affect the exegesis here. Yet, what the reading from Hebrews does provide is ancillary support that the subj. of 3b could be read as a person, not a coming vision. See p. 172ff., and also Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the NT, 307. 122 See Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the NT, 308. As Porter argued, a number of Boyer’s references are not ironclad, but the statistical analysis indicates a general sense that the event is not necessarily a likely occurrence. 123 Ibid., 320. 124 See Ernest De Witt Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek (3d ed.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1898), 107. 125 See Wallace, Greek Grammar, 672. 126 Harl, et al., sees this final contrast as in relation to the Chaldean, reaching back to the previous chapter, although not making all the linguistic connections. Quite simply, the final

168

Chapter 4: Theology and Exegesis

This suggests that the one who in fact does recoil is like an arrogant man – bold, self-willed, his trust is not in the LORD (Prov 21:24). This is marked by the particle δέ, which translates the phrase ‫אף כי‬.127 This contrast is not as clear in the ST.128 In OG, the person who recoils is like one deceived by wine, who will never complete anything. He will come to no good end; he is like Sheol, never satisfied. The contrast is stark. It is unclear from the context whether ὁ δίκαιος should be taken as a singular or collective reading, which, in the context of OG, is contrasted to an arrogant man (ἀνὴρ ἀλαζών). The ambiguity, like much of prophecy, must be resolved in its fulfilment. Scholars have argued that the first clause of 4a was simply read errantly,129 the rare verbal ‫ עפל‬was read perhaps √‫אלף‬,130 but it seems hard to imagine that the translator misunderstood the following finite verb ‫ישר‬.131 The usual claim that the translator (perhaps the same person who had copied the Hebrew scroll) misread a wāw for a yôd also persists. The subject of the second clause is changed to the LORD’s soul (ἡ ψυχή μου),132 and the following prepositional subject of 2:4b is only contrasted to 2:5a. Cf. Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 276. 127 The coordination of verse five by ‫ ואף כי‬can suggest the opening of new material, but both Andersen and Haak think not. As Andersen notes, “The initial ‘and’ shows that v5 continues something, but it need not be coordinated with the immediately preceding clause” (Andersen). The phrase is not entirely uncommon, sometimes with the wāw, sometimes without. It appears that the function of this use, along with ‫כי‬, may double up as serving to both line “up the situation of its clause with that of the previous clause,” (Waltke & O’Connor) and emphasise the situation, the latter restricted more to the additional presence of ‫כי‬. It is “asseverative,” (Andersen) connecting, “indeed,” (Andersen; Haak) or “furthermore,” (Smith) to the preceding material by noting more information. Cf. Andersen, Habakkuk, 217; Haak, Habakkuk, 59; Bruce K. Waltke and Michael Patrick O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), §39.3.4d; Ralph L. Smith, Micah-Malachi (WBC 32; eds. David A. Hubbard et al.; Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1984), 105. 128 See n. 127 above. 129 Cf. Koch, “Der Text von Hab 2:4b,” 73; Brownlee, “The Placarded Revelation of Habakkuk,” 323. See p. 111. 130 See Gelston, ed., BHQ, 118; Brownlee, “The Placarded Revelation of Habakkuk,” 323; Cleaver-Bartholomew, “An Analysis of the Old Greek Version of Habakkuk,” 184. 131 It is found many times throughout the HB. Although ‫ ישר‬is used a small number of times in the MP (Hos 14:10; Mic 2:7; 3:9; 7:2, 4; Hab 2:4), it does, however, undergo some interpretative changes, e.g. Mic 7:2, 4. Moreover, Amb 2.4a is the only instance in the Twelve where it is translated by εὐδοκέω. The interpretative choice for the latter was perhaps derived from LXX, where in Num 23:27 is translated with the similar sense from ἀρέσκω. In both respects the interpretation is centred on how the upright please God by their life. The interpretation is more literal in R, which draws focus back to upright or straight actions by use of the adjective εὐθεῖα – closer to MT. 132 Both pronominal suffixes are read in the third per. in 8ḤevXIIgr. But the first line is read as a verbless clause, with the initial verb (‫ )עפל‬read as a metaphorical substantive (σκοτία), hence, ἰδ[οὺ] σκοτία οὐκ εὐθεῖα ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ [ἐν αὐτῳ]. Brownlee understands the

4.4 His Faith and Messianic Faith

169

phrase is altered in a similar way, the righteous will live by the LORD’s faith (ἐκ πίστεώς μου). Emphasis is clearly placed on the L ORD.133 This change most likely denotes a theological orientation at the time of production.134 Noticeably, sense for ‫ עפל‬II of “be covered, obscured, swoon,” to be the thought behind the change in the Palestinian recension. This means that the original translator read it through ‫ עפל‬I, and the recensor the second. In each respect a lack of faith is attributed to the individual, hence failure to persevere, or darkness clouding one’s inner person. This interpretative point likely lies at the root of the sentence-wide changes. It may be, in conjunction, that the translator intentionally read the consonants in a way that helped him to structure the meaning of the verse. Cf. Ego et al., eds., BQ, 132; Tov, Kraft, and Parsons, DJD 8, 52; Brownlee, The Text of Habakkuk, 43; DCH, “‫”עפל‬. 133 There is a broad stylistic tendency of the translator to introduce a first per. perspective into the text of the Twelve. It seems that the change here in Amb 2:4 is related to that activity. This translational effort alters the speaker or subj. to make reference to the LORD. As we also saw, sometimes the prophet’s experience or role is altered, which appears to be unique in the corpus. In the vast majority of instances the change is not due to reading a wāw for a yôd, though oddly enough this particular phenomenon is most common to Amb. On the nature of this change: for pronominal: Hos 2:4; 4:4, 11; 6:5; 11:2, 11:3, 4; 12:5; 13:4; Amos 4:10; Mic 6:6, 7, 15; Joel 1:8; 2:27; 4:1; Jon 2:3; Amb 1:11, 12; 2:4, 4; 3:2, 16, 16; Zeph 2:8; Zech 1:6, 10, 17, 17; 2:4; 7:12; 8:12; 14:2; Mal 3:5, 10; for verbal: Hos 10:11, 15; 11:2, 10; Amos 3:15; 4:7; 9:11; Mic 7:3; Joel 2:20; Obad 1:1; Amb 1:2; 3:2; Zech 4:7; 8:8, 12; 13:6; Mal 1:9, 13; 2:2, 3, 13; 3:11. In every instance, except for the majority of references in Amb, the change in speaker or subj. refers to God (note the three anomalies below). Of all these instances, eighteen times a clause is altered through the addition of a personal pron. or phrase, or change in verbal per. Often this is for emphasis or clarification, e.g. ‫ ויאמר‬/ εἶπεν πρός με (Zech 1:10), or ‫ ונשא‬/ καὶ λήμψομαι (Mal 2:3). Other times a suf. is changed to the first per., whether it was pl., second per., or fem. in MT. There are very few instances where the wāw (3ms) is taken for a yôd (1cs) (Hos 11:3; 12:5; Amb 1:11, 12; 2:4, 4). In fact, the most regular change is in Amb (the change in Hos 11:3 is read as part of the literary flow of the previous verses, and Hos 12:5 is an exegetical change to show anew that this applies, so Joosten, “aux contemporaires d’Osée.” Neither change alters the experiences or role of the prophet). As for the three anomalies, first, in Hos 11:10 the change is said to be attributed to the final clause of the preceding verse so that the speaker is perhaps Judah, thus not the prophet himself. Second, in Zech 4:7, it is the LORD who brings out the stone of inheritance instead of Zorobabel. This perhaps diminishes the prophet’s role. Incidentally, this first per. reading is rejected by Ziegler. And lastly, the addition in Joel 1:8 is a misreading of the impv., which leaves the subj. ambiguous. The Tg. added ‫( כנשיא דישראל עבידי‬O assembly of Israel) beforehand in order to disambiguate it. Again interpretation is shifted away from the prophet unlike in Amb. Therefore, the result is that Amb seems to stand alone in the Twelve as emended in markedly similar ways across all three chps. of the book. Cf. Eberhard Bons et al., eds., Les Douze Prophètes: Osée (BdA 23.1; Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2002), 146, 150; Casevitz, Dogniez, and Harl, eds., Les Douze: Aggée – Zacharie, 253; Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 50; Ziegler, ed., Duodecim prophetae, 298. 134 The Tg. may also point to an interpretative understanding of the passage in general, which interprets the first two clauses as, ‫“( הא רשיעיא בלביהון לית כל אלין‬Behold, the wicked think in their hearts that these things are not so”) (Cathcart/Gordon). In light of all this evidence, there is no version of this text that has not undergone some significant change with

170

Chapter 4: Theology and Exegesis

the translator has no trouble translating ‫ נפשו‬in the following sentence (v. 5), τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ – what would have been a catastrophic mistake with the LORD as speaker (ὅς ἐπλάτυνεν καθὼς ὀ ᾅδης). The textual differences (or literary distinctions) between the two subjects of v. 4 also point toward an alternate understanding of the text. As stated, the subject of ὑποστέλλω is determined by the literary flow of the text from v. 3. The LORD is then speaker of εὐδοκέω. This is the logical sequence of the conditional sentence (if…then).135 As a future eschatological event, the success of this visionary person is set on edge. He is coming. But will he keep faith? What is clear is that the coming, unnamed individual of Amb 2:3 arrives as part of the vision of judgement of Amb 2:2, which was first announced in Amb 1:5. This is a reference to the Chaldean, God’s instrument of judgement.136 It has been marked as an eschatological event in Amb 1:7 and 9, having the strength and fear of the LORD – he raised them up for this purpose. The still-future interpretation of OG implies more than just the historical scenario that resulted in the Babylonian incursion and exile. Literarily speaking, he who is coming is, quite simply, the future eschatological Chaldean (often referred to in the singular, see n. 106 on p. 161) – not the historical one.137 It is God’s instrument

the first two clauses of v. 4. Cf. Cathcart and Gordon, eds., The Targum of the Minor Prophets, 150–1. 135 But this is contrary to MT, where the same feminine subject (‫ )נפשו‬is read for both verbals, which quite obviously have feminine forms (‫)ישרה \ עפלה‬. 136 For BdA the Chaldean does not emerge until v. 5a, even though the oracle is noted as starting in v. 3 as “une visée eschatologique.” Cf. also Gheorgita, who thinks his is possibly a reference to Babylonian judgement, harkening back to 1.9, but who thinks this “ultimately describes God’s coming in the theophany (3:2 ff.)…The essence of Hab 2:3 LXX is the coming of God. His coming, though initially covert in the form of the Chaldean invasion, will certainly manifest itself in an overt form during the apocalyptic judgement announced by the prophet.” This view of a theophany for the vision (Amb chp. 3) could be a matter of reading NT ideas (now clearly seen in Christ) into the OG text. Cf. Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 274–6; Gheorghita, The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews, 214. 137 Because, it seems, Strobel reads this through a NT lens, he thinks that the coming reference is limited to three other possibilities. He explains: “Drei Möglichkeiten bieten sich zur Erklärung an: Der kommende Äon im engeren Sinn…, der erhoffte Messias, oder die letzte große Selbstoffenbarung Gottes.” He argues against the first option. The third option has real promise if placed within the context of Habakkuk’s vision(s) of judgement, which is the literary context. This final Selbstoffenbarung saw God as both judge and judged – a very promising point – which thematically agrees in one sense with the context of Habakkuk, rather than “Hab 2,3 LXX erweist sich demnach als das älteste Zeugnis.” But what I think is crucial in all this analysis is maintaining a grammatical respect for the referents of the passage, trying not to read much later ideas into the text, and also bearing in mind what we already know of what a messianic text looks like, i.e. royal, priestly, prophetic, etc. Therefore, as the Chaldean is the subject then what does the text suggest by way of eschatological triggers, which would have been within the theological framework of the

4.4 His Faith and Messianic Faith

171

of judgement that is in view. The association of judgement remains, but it is heightened or elevated to a yet future time when another kind of judgement (final) is made. The reference in 2:4b likely refers to this future judge, which would make sense when this motif is rightly grasped (Isa 45:1, 13 as a corollary),138 perhaps also functioning as an interlude (a “parenthesis”) to the whole passage (vv. 2–5), which Watson, working from MT, nicely suggests.139 The veracity of the judge is set on edge by the introduction of conditionality in Amb 2:4a. This is set within the context and complexity of human experience and the endeavour to please the LORD.140 In the transmission of OG, there may have been some concern over the placement of the second person possessive pronoun. In GA 2:4b, and notably Heb 10:38a,141 the pronoun has been brought forward to the subject, hence ὁ δὲ δίκαιός μου ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται;142 whereas GB.S.Q.W* have the pronoun in the prepositional phrase, ἐκ πίστεως μου, which is in syntagmatic agreement with MT. Placement of the pronoun rather than the semantics between ‫ צדק‬and δίκαιος was the primary concern.143 As Fabry explains, the crucial point here translator, not later NT recipients. Cf. Strobel, Untersuchungen zum eschatologischen Verzögerungsproblem, 53–4, 56. 138 In the end the historical Chaldean withdrew and is found wanting throughout the woe oracles, of which he is indeed a winebibber, Amb 2:5. In the end he trusted in his gods and not the LORD who raised him up (2:18–19, cf. 1:11). It is the truly righteous one who will live by the faith of the LORD. 139 Because of the structure of the passage in OG Watson’s point is harder to prove apart from MT, cf. Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, 152. 140 There may also be a meaningful relationship between the righteous one and the vision, which is suggestive by their respective descriptions and literary proximity. It may suggest that as the righteous one will neither be untimely nor draw back, the timing and quality (οὐκ εἰς κενόν) of the vision is also unchangeable. The vision will not lie as it will produce the desired effect, and therefore not be found empty or vain, i.e. “without purpose or effect” (BDAG). In a handful of instances a verbal form is substituted for the prepositional phrase in the Twelve, εἰς + n. / adj. (for nouns: Hos 2:14; 13:6; Amb 2:9; Zeph 3:8; and for adjs.: Joel 2:26; Amb 2:3.) See BDAG, “κενός”. Hence, much like the vision will occur at the right time, so will this person not tarry (μὴ χρονίσῃ). These two seem to be inextricably linked. If the vision were vain and untimely the quality of this visionary individual would be in question. 141 Koch provides a list of other notable witnesses, for example P46, and some Coptic and Armenian texts, see Koch, “Der Text von Hab 2:4b,” 70. See also Schmidt and Sanders, The Minor Prophets in the Freer Collection, 193. 142 Schmidt and Sanders commented that the correction in GW may have been added from memory, indicating knowledge of another MS. There is, in fact, textual support for the different readings in later texts, which Koch helpfully tabulates in his article. See also Fabry, “Ambakum / Habakuk,” 2416; Fitzmyer S. J., “Hab 2:3–4 and NT,” 450; Schmidt and Sanders, The Minor Prophets in the Freer Collection, 193–4; Koch, “Der Text von Hab 2:4b,” 70. 143 Cf. Tov, The Greek and Hebrew Bible, 262.

172

Chapter 4: Theology and Exegesis

is, “der „Treue Gottes“, denn der Gerechte wird „aus meinem Glauben“ leben.”144 The keywords of righteous (gerecht) and faith (Glaube) are thus central to the interpretation of the concept of faith (der Deutung des Glaubensbegriffes), indicating the “Verhältnis des Menschen zu Gott [oder] moralisches Verhältnis des Menschen untereinander.”145 This theological concern, which gave rise to a textual alteration, would then sit within the same broad milieu as R (who corrected the text towards the proto-MT), along with later translators.146 If GA preserves an old concern over the nature of faith, then this gives ancillary support to the concern that was placed over how to translate the passage in the best attested text. 4.4.2 The NT Eschatological Vision This leads us to consider the text’s reception in the NT. So first things first. None of this research so far seems to indicate the coming of a messiah, someone sent or anointed of God, to restore the Davidic kingdom or reinstitute the temple system, etc. The Pauline use of Ambakoum stands out as quite possibly the oddest so-called messianic reference. It has no clear royal, prophetic or priestly dimension to it. Manson’s bold assertion that the text is “through and through Messianic”147 rings hollow against the evidence. Dodd might have felt this lack of textual clarity, stopping short of making the claim that the individual of 2:4b refers to the messiah. The only indication is that it refers to someone who “will come,”148 which is contextually linked to the coming of a vision that will reach its goal.149 This person is an end-time judge. Verse four could either indicate that the judge will walk by faith, and therefore his judgements are the result of the LORD’s administration (my faith), or it could indicate that the end-time period will be marked by him who does not recoil but lives by faith. The subtlety of a new subject in v. 3 could now also be true of v. 4. It seems that we know this text was translated as a messianic reference based on how it was read by later communities, which again raises the spectre of 144

Fabry, “Ambakum / Habakuk,” 2416. Ibid. 146 R clearly has chosen the 3ms prn. for both ψυχή and πίστις. MurXII does not preserve the reading, though it would likely match MT. Also, both α (αὐτοῦ) and σ (ἐαυτοῦ) reflect a desire to place emphasis on the nature of faith, not the righteous individual. See Tov, Kraft, and Parsons, DJD 8, 52; Ego et al., eds., BQ, 132; Field and Montfaucon, Origenis Hexaplorum, 1005. 147 Manson, “Argument from Prophecy,” 134. 148 Also, simply because Hab 2:3 refers to someone who “will come” does not mean it is messianic, as, by analogy, Gathercole and Bird note with respect to the “have come” statements of Jesus, cf. Bird, Are You the One Who Is to Come?, 113–4. 149 Strobel, Untersuchungen zum eschatologischen Verzögerungsproblem, 49–53; Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter, n. 266. 145

4.4 His Faith and Messianic Faith

173

proper methodology. The interpretations that are formed in the transformational process of translation can be different from those that are formed by its recipients. The later traditions of interpretation in Second Temple Judaism, which all vary,150 and that of the NT and its recipients (e.g. the early Church Fathers) indicate that a messianic interpretation for Amb 2:4b is by and large not confirmed.151 Nor – and this is key – do these later traditions prove a messianic interpretation by the translator of Ambakoum. Since the translator did not introduce a messianic point, we therefore cannot say that Amb 2:3–4 refers to the messiah; we can only say that a NT author(s) interprets part of the text this way. On this point Lust helpfully suggests that we should, then, consider these things (which exist for other parts of the Septuagint, e.g. Num 24:7) as christological – interpretations in light of Christ. As explained in this study, it is core to sound exegesis to have in mind the life of a text, from the time it was produced down to its uses within receiving communities. However, some scholars wish to break down this distinction, especially in relation to Second Temple texts. A few years ago Bird sought to flatten this kind of methodology. He no longer wants scholars to be concerned over whether or not OG/OT texts initially contained messianic references if they are used in that way in the NT. He gives four reasons why “messianic readings of Old Testament texts can be considered legitimate even if a messianic sense is not explicit in the original context.”152 Of these four, his second reason is that “reinterpretation of sacred traditions is already taking place within the development of the Old Testament corpus,”153 of which he briefly cites Amb 2:3. But as is shown in this study, the text of Ambakoum does not introduce a messianism in v. 4 (or v. 3). The only reason modern 150 Cf. n. 94; Seifrid, “Romans,” 609–10; Thierry Legrand, “‘Son interprétation concerne tous ceux qui pratiquent la Torah...’ Relecture et interprétation d’Habacuc 2,4 dans le Pesher d’Habacuc (1QpHab VII–VIII) et le Targum d’Habacuc,” in ‘Le juste vivra par sa foi’ (Habacuc 2,4) (eds. Matthieu Arnold, Gilbert Dahan, and Noblesse-Rocher Annie; vol. 3; Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2012), 11–40. 151 On the Church Fathers, see Roy A. Harrisville III, “ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ: Witness of the Fathers,” NovT 36, no. 3 (1994): 233–41; Martine Dulaey, “Habacuc 2, 1–4 dans les premiers siècle du christianisme,” in ‘ Le juste vivra par sa foi ’ (Habacuc 2,4) (eds. Matthieu Arnold, Gilbert Dahan, and Noblesse-Rocher Annie; vol. 3; Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2012), 41–73. Also Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 274–6. 152 Bird, Are You the One Who Is to Come?, 44. 153 Ibid. Moreover, as the Septuagint project spanned centuries (and likely different locations), with some books not appearing within its corpus until the turn of the millennium, it is a very tenuous enterprise to make intertextual links between books that span as much time as was needed for earlier books to be received with an alternate reading(s). The myth that the entire Septuagint was created by 70 (72) scribes at one point in time must be finally dispelled forever. We are looking at a very large body of work that came into existence from the late third century that did not finish “growing” until the first century. Questions of canon of course take us beyond this study.

174

Chapter 4: Theology and Exegesis

scholars seem to think that it does is because of how the text was later interpreted. A reinterpretation should not round off the edges that distinguish between the original intention(s) in translation and the multi-varied life of a text by later language communities. So, while I am happy to agree that the text of Ambakoum reflects the interpretative tradition of its community, I think we give up too much if we allow our hermeneutics to become either anachronistic or monolithic.154 I sympathise greatly with Bird’s point that certain texts were open or free to be used by later communities, such as the authors of the NT, but without differentiating between the two one can obfuscate an understanding of the original translator’s work. There is a real risk of running roughshod over the original interpretation, which would have been located within that community’s habit and tradition of reading the Hebrew Bible. It has its own voice. Interpretative developments should not be squashed. When one says “this” or “that” is in the Septuagint at the time of its composition, then we ought to be clear that we are, in fact, actually relying upon – rightly I hope – the NT interpretation of it. The text became messianic, which is fine. But it was not so when it was translated. Moreover, much of NT scholarship relies upon the assumption that Amb 2:4b is a reference to a future messiah – Jesus – for the argument of a subjective reading of Rom 1:17b. Yet this is a case of reading a NT idea into an OT (OG) text. Now, we know very little about the original translator of the Twelve. There are no notes, commentaries, marginalia, etc. What we can know of the translator’s interpretation (or reading) of the Hebrew book of Habakkuk, we only get from an analysis of Ambakoum within its cultural (and therefore linguistic) setting.155 As I have explained above, I am sure that the passage of Amb 2:2–5 is eschatologically charged (and explain more below),156 but the 154 What I mean by the latter term is that the text in question was interpreted differently by different communities. To say Amb 2:3 was interpreted messianically means something different from group to group. It is not sufficient to simply say it was messianic as if it in some wobbly way ended up meaning it related to Jesus. If it was meant to prophetically point towards the appearance of Jesus, then does it mean other groups were wrong? Let the differences in interpretative communities be known. 155 From a text-critical standpoint we are on shaky grounds here too. Our earliest exemplars are from the 4th C., and are all Christian, which is not inherently problematic, but even of these there is evidence of recensional activity in order to bring the OG reading into conformity with its use in the NT, i.e. Heb 10:37–38. 156 Eschatology is possibly today what a word like messiah was for Jews of the Second Temple period. While Christians all affirm that Jesus is the Christ – the Messiah – definitions of eschatology are diverse and vigorously debated. In this study, eschatology is, as the word indicates, a study of the end times. The arrival of the messiah is intrinsically tied to it. It refers to an age, epoch or time in which God acts to save his people through executing his divine judgement against their enemies, abolishing sin and wickedness. I take the position that the NT presents an already/non-yet dimension of God’s actions, so that the present age is entirely eschatological; Christ has already died and risen. God has already judged sin at

4.4 His Faith and Messianic Faith

175

idea that this future individual refers to a messiah is highly tendentious. When Dodd claims that Paul “drew upon a tradition which already recognized the passage from Habakkuk as a testimonium of the coming of Christ,” he, I take it, is not referring to the interpretation of Ambakoum, but to a Jewish tradition that preceded Paul that used this text that way. Dodd makes this suggestion based on NT exegesis, not a thorough-going exegesis of Ambakoum. Moreover, it is not entirely necessary for Paul to lean upon such a tradition (we don’t know if it even existed). The text of Amb 2:2–5 has an eschatological dimension from which Paul could have easily drawn in order to make his theological case. The eschatological context and contrastive emphases of Ambakoum would have been a sufficient contextual and theological trigger for Paul’s use in, for example, Rom 1:17. I think that Paul would have been aware of the eschatological character of his ST. His reading of Amb 2:4 would have been within the context of Amb 2:2–5. He would have seen the parallelism of 2:3 with 2:4, so that the vision is connected to “he who is coming,” and the one that lives by faith is in turn connected to him who is coming, viz. in response he must persevere, walk by faith. The NT authors’ interpretative adaptations of Amb 2:2–5 appear sensitive to the structure of OG and its nascent eschatology:157 The vision in which the coming one will come is of the final end-time judgement – something seldom considered by scholars today for this OG literary context. The text looks forward to the final age, at least that’s how Paul and the author of Hebrews seem to have understood it ex eventu of the first parousia. It is because of this that the NT authors saw it as open to a messianic interpretation in light of Christ’s appearance. A messianic NT interpretation is, therefore, not unwarranted. The NT authors worked within a post-resurrection eschatological framework; Christ was understood to have mediated God’s judgement through his suffering on the Cross. This act of mercy meant that God’s people were entirely rescued from holy, divine wrath. So from within this general framework, the NT authors considered the text of Ambakoum that spoke of a vision of end-time judgement that would arrive with its judge. This eschatological Chaldean is sent by God to judge his people. In this sense Jesus takes on the mantle of the Chaldean, God’s judge, but controverts the point by taking on the judgement himself. The text was open to such a reading, but only after Jesus fulfilled the various facets of his ministry. This is partly why preChristian interpretations do not follow the line of NT thinking, which harkens to the point made earlier on method. the Cross, yet the future final judgement, when all sin is put away forever and creation restored, has yet to occur. 157 For the purposes of this study I am referring to the Apostle Paul and the author of Hebrews when I say, “NT authors.” This is a shorthand phrase, and I do not mean that they share the same theology on all things, but in this case there is some overlap in the use of the Ambakoum reference.

176

Chapter 4: Theology and Exegesis

The author of Hebrews picks up on this theme of judgement.158 Heb 10:30ff indicates that the LORD will judge his people. The author offers a stern warning to those who drift away: It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Confidence is commended in light of the temporariness of present afflictions. A reward awaits those who press on. In verse thirty-seven the author seems to have “conflated”159 the Ambakoum text as, ἔτι γὰρ μικρόν ὅσον ὅσον (see chart below).160 What this probably means is that the entire section of Amb 2:3–3bAα amounts to this phrase. There is no need to repeat the conditionality of 3bA; Jesus has already come. The time of the vision has been revealed, and the identity of the coming individual has been made known. The author then does something unexpected with the text; a future judgement is still yet to come, being accompanied, once more by the same person who appeared in the time of the vision. This could not be any more eschatological! Jesus has already come in the judgement of the cross, and in a sense has he has not yet completed the final end time judgement while mercy is now extended to the whole world. He is yet coming again to render it accordingly. 161 This is further adduced by

158

Gheorghita’s study closely examines the use of Hab/Amb 2:4 in the context of the Epistle to the Hebrews. While he makes a number of keen observations, he sees an innertextual allusion from the Psalm of Ambakoum (chp. 3), which speaks of the coming of God in victory, as the referent for Amb 2:3, either God’s representative or God himself. This is also tied to his view on Amb 3:9, which he sees as a dialogue between two divine beings. His study seems sensitive to Christian interpretation in Hebrews so that the way he resolves the OG text is through an interpretative lens arising out of a NT understanding. In sum, the presupposition that the unnamed person of Amb 2:3 is the divine theophany of Amb chp. 3 means that, even when he identifies similar grammatical/literary patterns, as in Amb 2:3–4 (e.g. parallel conditional sentences), the force of the already-known referent means that it is “inconceivable to imply that the one who ὑποστείληται is ὁ κύριος.” Cf. Gheorghita, The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews, 216–8. 159 Fitzmyer S. J., “Hab 2:3–4 and NT,” 453. See also Guthrie’s study on thematic links to Isaiah, George H. Guthrie, “Hebrews,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (eds. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 982. 160 Numerous references within Daniel make use of ἔτι γάρ in the context of a coming eschatological vision. The use of μικρόν ὅσον ὅσον may have been drawn from Isa 26:20 for similar reasons; Fitzmyer thinks that “the author of Hebrews has conflated the verses of Habakkuk with a phrase from Is 26,20 LXX.” Cf. Fitzmyer S. J., “Hab 2:3–4 and NT,” 453. 161 The event of the coming one is, however, once more set again in the future, but based upon the accomplished work of Christ’s Cross (Heb 10:1–22). The author obviously has identified the Messiah with Jesus of Nazareth, for “we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb 10:10). Yet at the same time he is coming again, and this is still part of the same vision of final judgement. This already/nonyet paradigm means that the believer is to have confidence in the finished work of Christ, and also a fearful confidence to persevere in light of the future coming judgement mediated through Christ as sovereign.

4.4 His Faith and Messianic Faith

177

the definite article of the verbal adjective, ὁ ἐρχόμενος in v. 37. The citation of Amb 2:4 is inverted so that it made sense in context:162 §

§

Amb 2:3–5bB

Heb 10:37–38

3aA

διότι ἔτι ὅρασις εἰς καιρὸν

ἔτι γὰρ μικρόν ὅσον ὅσον

37aA

3aB

καὶ ἀνατελεῖ εἰς πέρας

ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἥξει

37aB

3aC 3bA 3bAα 3bB 3bC 4aA

καἰ οὐκ εἰς κενόν ἐὰν ὑστερήσῃ ὐπόμεινον αὐτόν ὅτι ἐρχόμενος ἥξει καὶ οὐ μὴ χρονίσῃ ἐὰν ὑποστείληται

καὶ οὐ χρονίσει ὁ δὲ δίκαιός μου ἐκ πίστεως

37aC 38aA

ζήσεται 4aB

οὐκ εὐδοκεῖ ἡ ψυχὴ μου ἐν αὐτῳ

4bA

ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεώς μου ζήσεται

καὶ ἐὰν ὐποστείληται

38bA

οὐκ εὐδοκεῖ ἡ ψυχή μου ἐν

38bB

αὐτῷ

Some have pointed out that this inversion was most likely to avert any consideration that Jesus would have even possibly displeased God.163 But the text of Amb 2:4 is applied not to Jesus, the person identified in the vision, but to a newly introduced subject: the believer. And it is only this new subject that has any grammatical conditionality associated with the practical outworking of his life.164 The contrast of Amb 2:4b is removed. Now the contrast is between the future prospect of the LORD’s return in judgement and how one lives in light of this (Heb 10:37–38). A christological interpretation of the eschatology of Ambakoum is here creatively handled. With respect to Paul’s use of Ambakoum, the point is not much different. The eschatological context of Paul’s experience with the risen Christ meant a re-thinking (re-reading) of OT texts, a matter of searching the scriptures to 162 Cp. Gheorghita, The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews, 218–24; Manson, “Argument from Prophecy,” 133–5. 163 Cf. Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 275–6. 164 Hanson suggests that Jesus’s test in Gethsemane is the fulfilment of this part of the text, hence Jesus obtains the pleasure of the L ORD. There are numerous problems with this, most notably the Father already pronounced his pleasure with Jesus at his baptism (Matt 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22), and on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt 17:5; 2 Pet 1:17), cf. Hanson, Paul’s Technique and Theology, 45. Also, I think that the change in conditionality is what Kraus is trying to get at when he says that we find this sentence in Hebrews “the other way round,” cf. Kraus, “Hab 2:3–4 in the Heb Tradition and in the LXX,” 115. Also cf. Gheorghita, The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews, 220–1.

178

Chapter 4: Theology and Exegesis

understand wherein the Christ is.165 As Amb 2:3–4 did not originally make a messianic claim there is no reason to think that the connection between 2:3 and 2:4b should be for Paul a messianic one. There is clear evidence here that one should read Hab 2:4 in reference to the believer or worshipper. Both the Apostle Paul and the author of Hebrews have referenced Amb 2:4 within the context of end-time divine judgement, seeing the fulfilment of the prophecy in the kind of person that shall mark the final age. The idea that Jesus has met the lawful demands of holy justice is implied in the core thesis: the just shall live by faith and not by works of the law. The text of Amb 2:4 comes alive in the post-resurrection hermeneutic employed by the apostle and the author of Hebrews. It is the eschatological character of Amb 2:2–5 that gave it air under its wings in Pauline hermeneutics, for example, not because it was already considered explicitly messianic. The righteousness of God (Rom 1:17) then seems to be implicitly related to the announcement embedded in Amb 2:2– 3. In summary, it is only when the righteous one of Amb 2:4b is read intertextually with messianic texts, e.g. Ps 2; 110 and then with Hab 3:1–19, that its integration with the larger discussion on messianism may apparently be understood: Jesus (the messiah) will shepherd his flock faithfully (ἐκ πίστεως), thus becoming a better king than David, he is the coming of God in victory, etc. Much of this seems driven, however, by a subjective reading of Rom 1:17b on theological grounds – Amb 2:4 is a messianic reference ipso facto it refers to Jesus. But on this basis it can just as easily indicate the kind of people that would mark the eschatological era about which Ambakoum speaks. The case for messianism in Amb 2:3–4 quite simply rests upon a certain kind of NT scholarship: 1) a subjective genitive reading of Rom 1:17b, and 2) affirmation that the epithet ὁ δίκαιος refers to Jesus. These premises indicate how the expectation and identity of the referent in Amb 2:3a, of a person who will come in the future,166 and of 2:4b, who will live by faith, were then fulfilled by Jesus.167 165 As Strobel explains, “Das messianische Zeitalter ist angebrochen und von hierher stehen alle Begriffe unseres Textes in einem neuen Licht,” see Strobel, Untersuchungen zum eschatologischen Verzögerungsproblem, 177. See also the brief and interesting discussion on anacritical reading or epideictic writing in Gheorghita, The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews, 230–1. 166 Of course the many studies of the period do indicate that the idea of messianism and a sense of future hope existed. I am here only addressing the question of whether this was true for Ambakoum. 167 Gheorghita’s study does not exactly follow this argument from NT scholarship, but still finds a messianic reference, having agreement with Manson’s conclusion. He is absolutely correct that the author of Hebrews read the text of Amb 2:3–4 as two different masculine subjects. But this does not prove it was so for the translator, as I have shown above. Cf. Gheorghita, The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews, 222.

4.5 The Idolatry Polemic

179

In light of this study, it is then incorrect to use Amb 2:4b as a reference to Jesus (as fulfilment of it) in order to postulate a subjective genitive reading of Rom 1:17b. The particular character of the text’s eschatology would have given the NT authors good reason for using it in the messianic context of their time. Although the text of Amb 2:2–5 became messianic, it only did so in part. Because of the transformation into Greek, the alternate TT’s structure meant that the messiah could be adapted to v. 3 and his adherent to v. 4. Notwithstanding the traditional view of Rom 1:17b, in addition to recent linguistic evidence for an objective genitive reading,168 it seems to me that this brief discourse analysis further points away from using this text to prove a subjective genitive reading. This was clearly not a messianic text, and only part of it became so. In conclusion, the central concern of this passage in OG is to highlight that in an eschatological vision the righteous one shall live by faith. This is divulged through contrastive emphases. The unnamed, future individual will arrive at the appointed time of a vision. A terse and poetic tension exists between whether or not he will please the LORD, viz. live uprightly. If he really is righteous, the genuine article, then he will succeed. The theological reading, then, leads the reader to consider a life lived by the faith that the LORD gives as a gift, per se. It pushes away from a personal faith derived from upright living to one that is found in, or more specifically given by, the LORD. Moreover, the effect of the LORD speaking concerning his faith has real impact. The integrity of the individual righteous person is overshadowed by highlighting the LORD’s faithful and immutable character. This may show some kind of theological development during the time of the translation, where faith, or faithfulness, began to be understood as derived from the LORD. This eschatological passage was a trigger for the authors of the NT.

4.5 The Idolatry Polemic In this final section of study, we turn to the last woe oracle of Amb 2:18–19 where the prophet Ambakoum denounces idolatry. He does so by using a word that is highly charged with Hellenic philosophical meaning. Similarity between this passage and the more well-known Isaian rebuke of chapter forty-four is apparent (Isa 44:9–20). Idolatry is folly. The idol-sculptor ought to know better as he is the one that made the thing. It did not exist beforehand. Ambakoum first asks: What profit is a graven image, simply because they engraved it? The 168

See Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts, “Πίστις with a Preposition and Genitive Modifier: Lexical, Semantic, and Syntactic Considerations in the πίστις Χριστοῦ Discussion,” in The Faith of Jesus Christ. Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies (eds. Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle; Milton Keynes, Bucks.: Paternoster, 2009).

180

Chapter 4: Theology and Exegesis

translation closely represents MT Hab 2:18 in this first sentence with small grammatical changes. However, in the following sentence the translation makes a stark semantic departure. The following terse sentence of MT reads, ‫וּמוֹרה ָ ֑שּׁ ֶקר‬ ֶ ‫ ַמ ֵסּ ָכה‬. Again, in the lengthier v. 19, the idol teaches (‫)יוֹרה‬. ֶ In each case the word ‫ ירה‬is read in Amb as a substantive. In v. 18 this is grammatically correct, noting the hipʿil participle; however, in v. 19 the MT word is verbal. It has been suggested that the translator misread the word through ‫ראה‬,169 so that the use of φαντασία through a semantic path of something like light, eyes then see (teach, perhaps?) is how the translator made sense of the text.170 But the translator also used this same Greek word in Amb 3:10, which syntagmatically corresponds to the phrase ‫ידיהו‬, which is again said to have been adapted through ‫ראה‬.171 Yet again, the same translator used the word φαντασία in Zech 10:1, which corresponds to the Hebrew substantive ‫חזיז‬. In this instance the translator is suggested to have read the word through ‫חזה‬.172 The word φαντασία also crops up once more in the Septuagint (Wis 18:17) where it is used without a translational reference.173 Now, if the translator read the different Hebrew forms through the common semantics of either ‫ חזה‬or ‫ראה‬, then he would most likely not have used the word φαντασία. It is also mistaken to understand this word generally through its etymon φῶς without reference to the philosophical debate in which φαντασία was defined. As Watson notes, from the Classical period to late in the Hellenistic one, the word was “a term practically confined to technical philosophical debate in epistemology.”174 The meaning of φαντασία was very specifically defined within respective philosophical schools, being debated from one to the next. The definition given by the Stoa likely bore quite heavily upon its Greek usage during the various stages of Hellenism. It had, depending 169

Cf. Gelston, ed., BHQ, 98. LXX.D suggests that instead of reading ‫ ירה‬he read it from the noun ‫אור‬, which seems too figurative and interpretative, especially with respect to this study. Cathcart and Gordon note that the Tg. reading may be midrashic, mwrh as mwr’, see Cathcart and Gordon, eds., The Targum of the Minor Prophets, 153; Karrer and Kraus, eds., LXX.E. Band 2, 2423. 170 LXX.E suggests “Licht, Schein, Lichterscheinung” from ‫אור‬. See Karrer and Kraus, eds., LXX.E. Band 2, 2423. 171 For this change Rudolph suggests that “führt wohl auf die Lesung ‫מ ְר ֵאהוּ = מריהו‬.” ַ See Rudolph, Micha-Zephanja, 236. Cf. also Gelston, ed., BHQ, 100. 172 Cf. Casevitz, Dogniez, and Harl, eds., Les Douze: Aggée – Zacharie, 313; Karrer and Kraus, eds., LXX.E. Band 2, 2466. 173 The word φαντασία is translated in a number of different ways within modern translations of the Septuagint. While this fact is no shock, the differences often, but not always, seem to indicate a different understanding of the word’s use in relation to its Vorlage, rather than its use within the cultural context of its day, see p. 196. 174 Gerard Watson, Phantasia in Classical Thought (Galway: Galway University Press, 1988), 59.

4.5 The Idolatry Polemic

181

on the school, a technical and stable meaning. Therefore, I think it is prudent to first understand what the word meant in this very confined context. During this period of time, it did not quite mean illusion, nor representation or image, and certainly not imagination.175 4.5.1 Φαντασία in Classical and Post-classical Thought 4.5.1.1 Plato on Phantasia The first literary use of the word φαντασία appears in Plato’s (424/423– 348/347) Republic, and then in Theaetetus and the Sophist. The nature of its use in the Republic suggests that the reader needed no further explanation as Plato does not define it. Here, in the midst of a dialogue at 382e, he states that God does not mislead (μεθίστημι) or deceive (ἐξαπατάω) us κατὰ φαντασίας οὔτε κατὰ λόγους οὔτε σημείων πομπάς (according to phantasia, or words or the sending of signs).176 Here Shorey translates φαντασία as visions. Nothing more is added in the discourse by way of definition of the word, hence its assumed intelligibility. It is in the subsequent works where we find a fuller philosophical discussion of the word and the concepts to which it relates. The two following works, the Theaetetus and Sophist, are in depth discussions on epistemology, the latter builds upon the discussions of the former. To put things plainly, Plato is sorting through the distinctions between judgement (δόξα), thinking (διάνοια) and φαντασία, as they convey how one may truly know something.177 Plato asks rhetorically, τί δὲ δή; διάνοιά τε καὶ δόξα καὶ φαντασία, μῶν οὐκ ἤδη δῆλον ὅτι ψαῦτα τὰ γένη ψευδῆ τε καὶ ἀληθῆ πάνθ’ ἡμῶν ἐν ταῖς ψυχαῖς ἐγγίγνεται; (is it not indeed already clear that these classes, thinking, judgement and φαντασία, arise in various ways within our minds as both true and false?).178 It is important to note that, with respect to dialogue, the process of thinking is different from discourse (λόγος) only in that 175 As Watson rightly pointed out, a study on the concept of imagination in Plato could be written and never once mention the word φαντασία. On the same token, modern (Renaissance) ideas of human imagination for the creation of art or literature cannot be directly drawn from Plato. The use of the word φαντασία did not connote the modern concept of imagination in the ancient world. See ibid., ix. 176 Plato The Republic. With an English Translation (eds. E. T. Page, E. Capps, and W. H. D. Rouse; trans. Paul Shorey; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1938). 177 Sheppard refers to this discussion as “a blend of perception and and judgement (δόξα),” see Anne Sheppard, “Phantasia,” in Encyclopedia of Philosophy (ed. Donald M. Borchert; 10 vols.; vol. 7; Detroit: Thomas Gale, 2006), 270–1. 178 Cp. Watson’s translation, “…thinking and judgement and φαντασία all these occur within our souls as true or false.”; Fowler’s (note the translation of phantasia), “Is it, then, not already plain that the three classes, thought, opinion, and fancy, all arise in our minds as both true and false?” (emphasis mine). Cf. Watson, Phantasia in Classical Thought, 2; Plato with an English Translation. Theaetetus and Sophist, (eds. E. T. Page et al.; trans. Harold North Fowler; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1961), 440–1 (263d).

182

Chapter 4: Theology and Exegesis

the former is performed as an internal dialogue. Either way, when a conclusion is arrived at, this he calls judgement or opinion (δόξα). Then, “when judgement occurs, not independently, but by means of sensation (di’aisthēsēos) this is called phantasia.”179 Plato uses the verbal φαίνεται in relation to this word, which Fowler translates in his classic work as it seems.180 Plato is explaining how we obtain knowledge (ἐπιστήμη) of the world. He “introduces φαντασία into this discussion [in Theaetetus] to mark what we call the distinction between sensation and perception.”181 Because the senses are fallible, a line has to be drawn on how one obtains true knowledge. The slight but essential difference, then, is that between sensation and senseperception.182 It is observed in the comparison between human and animal kind, where the former can reflect on reality with time, effort and also education,183 and the latter cannot. For example, the internal dialogue of a human being, where judgements of reality can be made, rightly or wrongly, not only sets animals and humans apart, but distils the nature of sensation with reason. These things can also be vocalised thus φαντασία λογική. As Watson explains: Plato, in Theaetetus seems to be suggesting that phantasia is the proper term for human sense-perception, and that each such phantasia is a judgement, an expressed discourse.184

This fits accordingly with Plato’s concept of the Ideal (the noumenon) and the Forms (the phenomenon). The most accurate knowledge of the Forms was found through physical senses, and reconciled within the human person through φαντασία. It provided a kind of epistemological certitude to what was naturally experienced. Thus φαντασία became the term by which Plato defined how we obtain “knowledge of the sensible word,”185 even if it was not fully deployed as a technical term in that way.186 That is perhaps because of the 179

Watson, Phantasia in Classical Thought, 2. He also translates φαντασία as fancy, which appears quite interpretative, see Plato with an English Translation. Theaetetus and Sophist, 442–3. With respect to the verbal, Watson (quoting Schofield) goes on to explain, “Schofield’s valuable note on the verb up to and including Plato concludes: ‘Notice how in these Platonic examples the guises described by means of the verb are all deceptive guises, guises which are at odds with reality’. He continues: ‘We should consequently expect φάντασμα to mean ‘appearance’, ‘apparition’, ‘guise’, ‘presentation’, often with the strong implication of unreality. The pre-Aristotelian evidence in general bears out this expectation’.” See Watson, Phantasia in Classical Thought, 10. 181 Watson, Phantasia in Classical Thought, 3. 182 If αἴσθησις means perception then that is φαντασία, but not if it means sensation (partly addressing the ambiguity or multivalence of the word αἴσθησις). See ibid. 183 Ibid., 5. 184 Ibid., 6. 185 Ibid., 10. 186 Sheppard’s view that Plato is suggesting a link between imagination, dreams, and inspired prophecy appears anachronistic. This link does not emerge until later in the 180

4.5 The Idolatry Polemic

183

degree by which φαντασία connoted the idea of deceptiveness, such as with φαντάζω and φάντασματα – related words. It is suggested that in light of Plato’s construct of reality a full force use of φαντασία, for how we obtain knowledge of the Forms, might indicate that knowledge to be deceptive. Hence the gods do not have φαντασία in their obtaining of knowledge, for they have “perfect knowledge of reality.”187 Therefore, in the material world, one needs φαντασία in order to rightly handle (interpret) αἴσθησις. For example, if I am walking in the park on a foggy morning and see something leaning against a tree, through my perceptive abilities I can determine whether it is a boy leaning or a fallen branch. The ability for one to perceive the difference is related to φαντασία. This concept is more than sense, but not necessarily reason or discourse; it somehow aspectually connects them. 4.5.1.2 Aristotle on Phantasia Aristotle’s (384–322) understanding of φαντασία was very much a reaction to Plato’s, hence they should be read in sequence. Φαντασία is central to Aristotle’s theory of human cognition.188 In De Anima he describes it as, a movement which comes about in beings that perceive of things of which there is perception and because of an actual perception.189

He is quite clear that φαντασία occurs to both animals and humans,190 they both have it, but because of rationality, i.e. deliberation, humankind has something more. Animals move on desire, whereas a person moves upon desire plus deliberation or cognitive reflection. The former has φαντασία αἰσθητική, whereas a human has φαντασία λογική or βουλευτική.191 For example, a person may have the desire to do an evil thing, but upon reflection may choose not to because of the consequence to, perhaps, reputation. An animal cannot do this; it acts without such consideration.

Hellenistic period, mostly in the Neoplatonists, cf. Sheppard, 270–1. The issue of truth was inherent to this discussion, and Plato’s “hesitation to deploy phantasia fully as a term for our knowledge of the sensible world” (Watson), may have been the seed that gave rise to the scepticism that would later develop in the Academy, something which would be hotly debated with the Stoa. Watson, Phantasia in Classical Thought, 10. 187 Watson, Phantasia in Classical Thought, 10. 188 See ibid., 26. 189 Ibid., 15. Also, cf. Aristotle. De Anima. With Translation, Introduction and Notes (The Loeb Classical Library; trans. R. D. Hicks; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1907), 126–9 (III 3, 428b–429a9). 190 Sheppard, 270–1. 191 See Watson, Phantasia in Classical Thought, 18.

184

Chapter 4: Theology and Exegesis

The movement, which is φαντασία, is provoked by a perception, thus it comes about only with beings that perceive.192 He also argues that those who have this movement, which seems to be related to a φάντασμα193 – something passing before the eyes – “do or experience much of it, and it can be veridical or misleading.”194 This is dependent on the nature of the αἴσθησις, e.g. a far-off object might appear to be something it is not. So, while φαντασία is not αἴσθησις, so Plato, it only occurs with it. Φαντασία is “not perception, nor knowledge, nor intuitive apprehension, nor belief, nor any form of combination such as Plato proposed.”195 This is where perhaps Aristotle is less clear because φαντασία is “like perception,”196 being a cause for action by human and animal kind. But, as Watson helpful concludes, “phantasia is simply involved in the process of supplying the materials on which the mind builds judgements: it is only in this sense that it is κριτικόν, connected with judgement.”197 In this way φαντασία is broader than Plato’s definition, thus further distinguishing φαντασία from perception. Aristotle is arguing that humans can grasp with understanding the material world. Φαντασία sits between perception and the intellect. While it is not ὑπόληψσις (assumption or notion) it is related to it because it converts “perceptions into thoughts.”198 The objects of knowledge are known as φαντάσματα – immaterial sense-perceptions – and “the soul never thinks without a φάντασμα (421a8–17).”199 These images imprint themselves in the soul, and are able to be recalled later. This is because, borrowing from Plato the now well-known metaphor, the soul is like wax, and impressions made upon it are like those from a signet ring. A picture of reality is imprinted in the person’s being, which is possible because of φαντασία. These impressions occur whether they are true or false, an argument which may have greatly influenced the later scepticts. So a person may falsely perceive something and maintain a belief that is true. A child may see a fallen tree half in a lake and think that, when it was still upright, it was crooked, not knowing – remedied through education – that it is the refraction of the light that makes it appear bent in the water. 192

But Aristotle also argues that φαντασία is a power or activity in the soul, and is distinct from thought. It is connected to consciousness because through φαντασία one can visualise certain things; whereas thoughts, or beliefs, may be tested in discourse, whether internal or external. See ibid., 20–22. 193 See n. 211 below. Also, Hicks translates φαντασία as imagination and φάντασμα as image, cf. De Anima. 194 Watson, Phantasia in Classical Thought, 25. 195 Ibid., 24. 196 Ibid., 26. 197 Ibid.6 198 Ibid., 28. 199 See ibid., 27.

4.5 The Idolatry Polemic

185

4.5.1.3 The Stoics on Phantasia The influence of Stoic philosophy was far and wide during the Hellenistic period. Watson notes that “in the process of thought and language phantasia comes first in Stoic theory.”200 Its place in Stoic epistemology was foundational. On the nature of the soul, Chrysippus, one of the most prodigious of all the Stoics, argued that changes on the soul were not impressions, like wax, but alterations to it (ἀλλοίωσις).201 At birth, the soul (and mind) is like a blank slate (a notion picked up again much later in the Renaissance) yet with certain proclivities. Through the process of many “sense impressions”202 over life, the φαντασία would render certain effectual changes. This was the introduction of a new category, built in some ways upon Platonic epistemology, and was in addition to thought and belief – the three having separate and distinct centres of meaning in Stoic thought. This additional category sought to alleviate the tension within the framework in order to arrive at a necessary degree of epistemological certitude. The rise of scepticism within the Academy that held (ironcically) to the well-known dogma that “nothing can be known and that one ought therefore to suspend judgment about all matters,”203 was “directed primarily against the knowledge claims of the Stoic philosophers, to show that nothing could be known.”204 The Stoa argued that, the soul being impressionable, imprints from the material world could be truly made.205 The avoidance of the metaphor of a signet ring pressed into a wax seal was avoided due, perhaps, to its reference in Platonism – an effort to maintain a coherent materialistic system.206 This was important to ensure the veracity of knowledge within their empirical framework, and was accomplished through the added condition of “perceptual impression.”207 What this means is that a situation had to impart “clarity and distinctness”208 to the individual, which was through cognitive assent to that knowledge. This was the central argument attacked by the Academy. This understanding for the sound epistemological apprehension of knowledge was famously described by the renowned Roman politician Cicero (106– 200

Ibid., 44. See ibid., 45. 202 Ibid. 203 James Allen, “Carneades,” in Encyclopedia of Philosophy (ed. Donald M. Borchert; 10 vols.; vol. 2; Detroit: Thomas Gale, 2005), 47. 204 Richard Popkin, “Skepticism, History of,” in Encyclopedia of Philosophy (ed. Donald M. Borchert; 10 vols.; vol. 9; Detroit: Thomas Gale, 2005), 48. 205 Allen, 46–8. 206 Also see Watson on the avoidance. On the metaphor see David Sedley, “The School, from Zeno to Arius Didymus,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics (ed. Brad Inwood; CCP Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 15–6. 207 Allen, 46–8. 208 Ibid. 201

186

Chapter 4: Theology and Exegesis

43) in reference to Zeno: He [Zeno] would put out his hand, palm up, with fingers outstretched, and say this is φαντασία (visum); then he would curl his fingers a bit, this is συγκατάθεσις (assensus); and then he would make a fist, this is κατάληψις (comprehensio).209 As Schofield further explains, this pertains to an: [a]ssent that is unquestionably right. The need for a concept of secure rational understanding – episteme – on the Platonic model is not denied. Zeno illustrated this by clasping his clenched right fist tightly and forcibly with his left hand. The point? Contra Plato, there can be no secure understanding without the kind of cognitive grasp of the sensible world that is made available to everyone by a providential Nature.210

Φαντασία makes comprehension of something possible because it is the impression within the human soul, a necessary first condition.211 Its presence naturally leads to a power that in some way takes hold of an individual. It does not have to be desired or willed, it can simply occur because of whatever is in view. Assent is to the φαντασία, whereupon the observer will make a judgement decision. For example, from a distance one sees the lights of a car coming toward them at dusk, but upon closer inspection it is actually a motorbike with a side-car. This tests the observation through judgement. Cognitive assent, apprehension or grasp of the φαντασία is the final step. This is what the Stoics called a φαντασία καταληπτική; it is “the foundation of knowledge,”212 the “criterion of truth,”213 it, is one which comes from an existing object and is shaped and stamped on the perceiver in accordance with the existing object and is of such a kind as could not be derived from a nonexisting object.214

209 See Malcolm Schofield, “Zeno of Citium,” in Encyclopedia of Philosophy (ed. Donald M. Borchert; 10 vols.; vol. 9; Detroit: Thomas Gale, 2005), 870; Watson, Phantasia in Classical Thought, 45–6. But it must be remembered that the Academy at the time argued against this, most notably Carneades. 210 Schofield, 869–70. 211 Chrysippus is said to have broken down the difference between the related words and how they work in Stoic theory. They all have different meanings: 1) φαντασία is an impression, which is the change/effect that occurs in the soul; 2) φανταστός is the impressor, which is the cause for the change; 3) φανταστικός is the imagination, or the faculty and refers to “an empty attraction,” which refers to an affection that has no impressor, i.e. shadows; and 4) φάντασμα is the figment, “is that to which we are attracted in the empty attraction of imagination.” See A. A. Long and D. N. Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers. Translations of the Principle Sources with Philosophical Commentary (2 vols.; vol. 1; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 237. 212 Watson, Phantasia in Classical Thought, 47. 213 James Allen, “Arcesilaus,” in Encyclopedia of Philosophy (ed. Donald M. Borchert; 10 vols.; vol. 1; Detroit: Thomas Gale, 2005), 247. 214 Watson, Phantasia in Classical Thought, 47. See also Long and Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers, 243.

4.5 The Idolatry Polemic

187

All human φαντασία is influenced by reason (λόγος), which comes about through meaningful language. This is first internal. And the possession of the “phantasia of transition and composition τῃ μεταβατικῇ καὶ συνθετικῇ,”215 distinguishes between human and animal kind. The former is able to grasp the nature of a sign, to what it signifies and its object. For example, the statue of Zeus is the object and speech signifies it. Both of these are considered corporeal. Whereas what is signified, the λεκτόν, is its meaning, which in this case is the reality/meaning of Zeus.216 Here is the close proximity between language and φαντασία in Stoic theory. The physical imprint of the φαντασία “provokes a statement, internal or external, in words.”217 The Stoic theory of φαντασία possessed similar attributes to both Plato and Aristotle, but sought to, as far as possible, remove the logic of incorporeality, i.e. noumenon in Plato. It was absolutely central to Stoic epistemology and linguistics, because this is the only form of true knowledge available, and is the pathway to wisdom. Their view of φαντασία was thus an admixture of both δόξα and αἴσθησις, with some Aristotelian views on associations drawn from images.218 Now, within this heady philosophical discussion, Chrysippus promulgated a great aesthetic theory, the so-called phantasia-theory.219 One aspect of this pertained to the ability of a craftsman to skilfully perform his work with the help of mental images – impressions in the mind. It meant that the idolsculptor’s (creative artist’s) “intuition could penetrate as if by divine inspiration directly to the heart of his subject.”220 This sort of mind’s eye contemplation of a divine subject was meant to aid the idol-sculptor in his material work. It is recorded that Cicero praised “Pheidias’s [the renowned sculptor] ‘perfection’ then adds that ‘when he created his Zeus or Athena, he did not contemplate any persons from whom he drew a likeness, but rather a sort of extraordinary apparition of beauty resided in his mind, and, concentrating on it and intuiting its nature, he directed his art and his hand towards reproducing it’” (emphases mine). 221 4.5.1.4 Summary As I explained on Plato, φαντασία was essential to explain a theory of knowledge in the world of senses. Use of the word was not overtly technical in 215

Watson, Phantasia in Classical Thought, 50. Cf. Ibid., 48. 217 Ibid., 53. 218 Ibid., 56. 219 Long and Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers, 249–53. 220 Andrew Stewart, Greek Sculpture: An Exploration (2 vols.; New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1990), 361, 372. 221 Ibid. 216

188

Chapter 4: Theology and Exegesis

Plato’s theory, for it was also used in a somewhat general way in the Republic where it had a vague notion of something seen. The fact that Aristotle did not choose a different word when he took on Plato’s argument indicates that the word had obtained real currency in the debate. Perhaps from this stage on the word obtained a common technical meaning only in reference to epistemology. It was the Epicurean and,222 in particular, the Stoic systems that moved the discussion much further forward. These debates occurred at a time of advancement for Greek civilisation, most notably for Alexandria. From the third-century onwards Alexandria is said to have begun to “replace Athens as the centre of Greek civilisation and Alexandria was in turn replaced by Rome in the first century BC.”223 This expansion and separation of Greek centres of learning throughout the Mediterranean basin meant that, along with the multiplication of philosophies, an environment for syncretism could more easily exist. A student/scribe in Alexandria could have come into contact with any number of major schools of thought, even if being taught a prominent one, e.g. Stoic. As Stoic epistemology was the most influential during this period, with φαντασία central to its system, this environment would then have likely generated different conceptual ideas on the meaningful and contextual uses for φαντασία outside of dogmatic philosophical debate.

222

The Epicurean school of philosophy was founded by Epicurus in Athens just five years before Zeno founded the Stoa in about 307–6. As an explanation here on Epicureanism does not benefit the study I have passed over it, offering only the following brief words. Both materialistic schools sought to advance or alter major theories in both Plato and Aristotle. Working out of his atomistic theory, Epicurus, in his Letter to Herodotus, argued that copies of the physical world that we observe exist as εἴδωλα (phantom or unsubstantial form). These flow unhindered from their physical objects at incredible speeds and have a very fine quality to them. This is how we see forms, because something comes to us from outside of them. The image of the physical object as εἴδωλα fly at the observer and “therefore give us the phantasia of a single continuous thing, and preserve the similarity of effect from the existing object.” We receive a φαντασία in accord with its imprint, which makes a “composite picture” of the object. What is also worthy of note is that Epicurus argued for φαντασία to move directly upon the mind, apart from normative perception. Hence, “we do not see the gods with our eyes, but we know they exist because we have, in our mind’s eye, pictures of them which otherwise cannot be accounted for.” This, incidentally, accounts for the concept and design of mythical beasts, e.g. minotaur, typhon, etc. The falsity of a φαντασία is determined through the correct application of judgement thereafter. In a way this is an advancement on Plato because Epicurus draw the argument right back to sense-perception. He preserved the “immediacy of sense experience even in the most abstract forms of speculation.” He was quite clear that through a proleptic understanding via φαντασία a person may grasp a vision of the gods. All quotes are from Watson, see Watson, Phantasia in Classical Thought, 38–45. Cf. also Phillip Mitsis, “Epicurus,” in Encyclopedia of Philosophy (ed. Donald M. Borchert; 10 vols.; vol. 3; Detroit: Thomas Gale, 2005), 264–70. 223 Watson, Phantasia in Classical Thought, 59.

4.5 The Idolatry Polemic

189

4.5.2 Φαντασία in the Twelve The Twelve was most likely translated in Alexandria during this time of philosophical and cultural change. As shown in this study, the translation of Ambakoum betrays marks of scribal learning in rhetoric, and now also of awareness of philosophy. It is, therefore, highly likely that a Jewish scribe from Alexandria, having been formally trained, would have known of the debate(s) concerning φαντασία. So, what did φαντασία mean to a Jewish scribe living in Alexandria in the second century? From the time of Plato the word could have evoked the sense that “when an artist wants to create a vision of the gods, it is this form of knowledge, phantasia, he must rely upon.”224 There is also some scant evidence that the word was sometimes used to refer to pomp and pageantry, or prestige and reputation, but this developed late in the Hellenistic and then Roman periods, which, however, was seldom used.225 Second, the word φαντασία is etymologically related to the word φάος, for light.226 Aristotle mentions that this is true because without light we cannot see, and, therefore, obtain knowledge through the sense of sight, φαντασία being 224

Ibid., xi. It may be better to place this meaning within the Roman period. See LSJM, “φαντασία”. In fact it was not until later in the Roman period that fuller discussions involving syncretistic meaning occurred. Modern philosophers accept this without consideration of the Septuagint or the evidence from 8ḤevXIIgr. In the scroll discovered from Naḥal Ḥever the use of φαντασία is retained in the revisionary translation of Amb 2:18. It is, however, modified in the following verse, and in spite of some destruction to the scroll, it is probably correct that the translator sought to match the proto-MT by using a verbal (Tov, Ego). In this case the suggestion is that φαντασία may be verbalised by φωτίζω (φωτιεῖ). It follows other translational words for ‫ ירה‬in the Septuagint that often use φωτίζω. It also suggests that this verbal was suitable to replace φαντασία. R would no doubt have had a version of OG before him, hence he was bringing it into line with his translational, and therefore ideological, concerns in light of the proto-MT. Also, regarding Amb 3:10, in the last stich, the remaining text suggested by BQ is: ΑΒΥΣΣΟ[ς φωνης αυτης … ]ΣΙΣ. If this is correct, it may suggest the substantive φαντασίς, which was less common, but certainly used in relation to the discussions on φαντασία (Watson). It referred to the visionary object, a thing observed, and a term which had far more life in Neoplatonic thought. This may indicate early signs of philosophic syncretism in the first century, which emerged in a systematic way much later with the resurgence of interest in Late Hellenistic philosophy. That R thought φαντασία still relevant probably indicates at least three things. First, the influence of OG as the prominent translation of the proto-MT is here made evident, as is the case elsewhere. Second, this may also tacitly indicate the continued understanding and influence of Hellenistic thought at the period, something I would think less so in Palestine of the first century. R made numerous lexical changes so that there was plenty of latitude to change this here. The fact that he did not supports my two points. Lastly, it may further suggest development in the meaning (or use) of φαντασία at this later stage. Cf. Tov, Kraft, and Parsons, DJD 8, 185; Ego et al., eds., BQ, 134; Watson, Phantasia in Classical Thought, 13. 226 See Watson, Phantasia in Classical Thought, 33. 225

190

Chapter 4: Theology and Exegesis

somehow related to perception.227 Within philosophic debate it is discussed in relation to other words, such as φαίνω,228 φαντάζω, φάντασμα and φανταστικός, this last term given to describe the faculty of φαντασία itself.229 Yet in spite of these relationships, there is no additional light shed on the meaning of the word except that derived from its technical use within these debates. Quite simply, it was so restricted to these epistemological discussions, having precise definitions, that there is little else to go on. As this pertains to the Septuagint, this does not mean, necessarily, that translators would have sought to integrate alien philosophical concepts. In some books there is said to be some colouring of Hellenistic ideas, and, as shown in chapter three of this study, there is evidence of Greek rhetoric. But it would be imprudent to suggest that we dive back into the text and try and find philosophical debates, and to some extent concepts, hidden therein. On the contrary, the main question here is how to rightly understand the contextual use of the word φαντασία within the Septuagint, which should be understood in relation to its own cultural context. Later meanings that have come to us many years down the road via numerous semantic shifts are to be pushed aside. Also, the presence of the word in the Twelve further indicates something concerned with the ideas and thoughts of that translator (or of the collection) specifically, rather than the Septuagint as a whole. Does the context of Ambakoum elucidate why the translator would have chosen φαντασία rather than another word closer to the meaning of either ‫ ירה‬or ‫ ראה‬or ‫ ?חזה‬As we have seen, φαντασία does not come close to the meaning any of these Hebrew words. Furthermore, how does this bear on the use in Zech 10:1 and in Wisdom of Solomon? Can Amb 3:10 be translated with the same meaning as in 2:18– 19? The commonality between the two instances of φαντασία in Amb 2:18–19 is that both describe a graven image. They are each part of terse descriptive phrases. In Hab 2:18 it is a false or deceitful graven image, ‫ ;מורה שקר‬and in v. 19 it teaches, ‫ – הוא יורה‬it has a pedagogic quality for the observer.230 In each instance the different forms of ‫ ירה‬are translated by φαντασία. Gelston notes that the translator exegetically read these through ‫ראה‬.231 However, what is quite noticeable is that throughout the Twelve the translator always understood the meaning of ‫ראה‬, yet translating it by either ὁράω, ἐπιβλέπω, βλέπω,

227

See ibid., 25. In Classical works the verbal for φαντασία was φαίνω. 229 See Watson, Phantasia in Classical Thought, 35. 230 In Ezek 18 the wicked man lifts up his eyes to idols as a form of worship and is condemned for doing so. 231 The exegetical point is explicit in his notes for v. 19. I take it that he also means this for v. 18, hence √‫ראה‬. Cf. Gelston, ed., BHQ, 98. 228

4.5 The Idolatry Polemic

191

δείκνυμι, ἐφοράω, or ἀφοράω – never with a related verbal to φαντασία.232 Of all these sixty occurrences, seven are true for Ambakoum (1:3, 5, 13; 2:1; 3:6, 7, 10). Of course there are nuances in meaning between the Greek verbals, but these differences reflect contextual and stylistic changes that share some semantic correspondence with the Vorlage. The same is also true for the less frequent ‫חזה‬. This is again regularly translated by ὁράω, and once by ὅρασις.233 It is also notable that the word φαντασία is seldom used. Because the contexts where it is used are not the same, understanding what senses are implied for these instances of φαντασία poses added difficulty. The context in Habakkuk pertains to an important concern that frequently comes up in the Hebrew Bible: idolatry. Habakkuk shares in the prophetic heritage of denouncing such activity. The rebuke in Habakkuk is nuanced by the instructive nature of the idol – it teaches in v. 19. Idols are not usually given to teaching, and the similar phrase in MT Isa 9:14 (‫)מורה שקר‬234 has a false prophet as subject, which is translated as a teacher of lawlessness, προφήτην διδάσκοντα ἄνομα. Sometimes ‫ ירה‬is translated by φωτίζω, which, in this case, figuratively has the sense of giving light to an individual, i.e. Jodae enlightened Joas (4 Kgdms 12:3). It is also more common for it to translate ‫ אור‬and ‫נהר‬.235 And as noted above, the verbal for φαντασία was, early on, φαίνω. Furthermore, the translator of the Twelve does also seem to be very aware of the difference between the verb ‫ יורה‬and its nominal homonym ‫יורה‬, late rains. When the homonym of late rains is the word in context he correctly translates it with ὄψιμος (Hos 6:3).236 When translating the hipʿil of ‫( ירה‬Mic 3:11 and 4:2) corresponding verbals are also used, similar to how other parts of the Septuagint are translated, noting the use of ἀποκρίνομαι. This sort of statistical analysis is particularly helpful in the context of the Twelve because the corpus was translated by the same person. Moreover, the passage in Ambakoum repeats the use of φαντασία, it does not just turn up once. In each 232 Discounted here are the instances where it was read from ‫ירא‬, φοβέω (Mic 6:9), or omitted (Zech 9:14). In Zech 3:4 and 6:8 ἰδού is used for the imperative ‫ר ֵאה‬,ְ still retaining that sense of look! And in Mal 3:2 the translator has interpreted it nominally using ὀπτασία. 233 This nominal word refers to an appearance of something in relation to the faculty of sight. It does not have the same philosophical dimensions and connotations derived from φαντασία. 234 The omission of the final letter in 1QpHab is likely intentional to avoid any misunderstanding with the context of the pesher itself, thus no connotation may be drawn with the Teacher of Righteousness. Martínez et al. translates ‫( מרי שקר‬perhaps from ‫)מ ִרי‬ ְ as a “sham oracle.” The Psh follows OG. Also, Cathcart and Gordon suggest that Tg. was based on a midrashic reading of mwrh as mwr’, hence an idol of deceit. Cf. Cathcart and Gordon, eds., The Targum of the Minor Prophets, 153; Gelston, ed., BHQ, 121; García Martínez and Tigchelaar, DSS Study Ed., vol. 1, 21. 235 The choice of φοτίζω and φῶς in Hos 10:12 is just fine, pace Gelston. The translator interpreted the meaning of lamp and extended it to his word choices. Gelston, ed., BHQ, 20. 236 The substantival use of γενήματα in Hos 10:12 appears to be a contextual adaptation.

192

Chapter 4: Theology and Exegesis

instance it is in reference to idolatry. From this information it does not appear that the translator accidently, or even through some form of improvisation, misread the word through a word of similar consonants, and then choose a word highly charged with philosophic meaning. The semantic and contextual jump is too great. Before drawing final conclusions on this I will first examine the cases of Amb 3:10 and Zech 10:1. Hab 3:10bA–B Amb 3:10bA–B

[‫נתן תהום קולו רום ידיהו ]נשא‬ ἔδωκεν ἡ ἄβυσσος φωνὴν αὐτῆς ὕψος φαντασίας αὐτῆς

In the first case, Amb 3:10 is a little odd. On the one hand, the meaning of φαντασία could be the rarer Roman sense of pomp or pageantry.237 Yet, on the other hand, if vision is the right sense, which corresponds to Zech, then it may once more be connected to the meaningful use from a Stoic debate. But both work. For example: the deep lifted up her voice / her pomp/vision was on high. It is not precisely clear how the translator could have misread the phrase ‫ידיהו‬ through the verb ‫ראה‬.238 It is true that the form is unique, and the common phrase is more often rendered by the more common suffix ‫יו‬, than the rarer ‫הו‬, but this could be a poor guide. Also, it has been recently documented that the guttural ʾaleph was sometimes interchanged by the consonantal yôd in Qumranic Hebrew.239 Yet, still, in spite of the fact that this refers to Qumranic orthography, this would leave the translator with a clear verbal form that he translated nominally. But, even if there was truly some trouble with understanding the form, φαντασία would likely not be the choice for ‫ראה‬, which, as I have shown, was regularly translated by other semantically similar words, viz. if image or appearance was the semantic target – there were other more common and less technically charged words for such concepts.240

237

Cf. Harl et al., eds., Les Douze: Jöel – Sophonie, 294. Pace Gelston. Also, φαντασία is not semantically related to the Heb. lexeme ‫ראה‬. Cf. Gelston, ed., BHQ, 100. 239 Also, Reymond’s examples are mostly of proper names. I am not aware of evidence for the word ‫ ראה‬being interchanged this way. There is an example of ʿayin substituting ʾāleph with the word ‫( נראתה‬1QS VII, 14). But this is rare, and moreover, probably sufficiently different in consonants from the present form to rule out at least a misreading. Yet, if on the chance the translator did not know the phrase, he may have sought recourse through these things. See Eric D. Reymond, Qumran Hebrew. An Overview of Orthography, Phonology, and Morphology (RBS 76; ed. Harry M. Orlinsky; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014), 124, 94. 240 There is the slight possibility that the translator interpreted this passage as another reference to idolatry. With the exaltation of natural elements for proscribed worship, and in light of the transformational changes in OG, there is a sense that the sun and moon are more than just metaphors, against which the LORD acts in the following verse. 238

193

4.5 The Idolatry Polemic

Second, in Zech 10:1 φαντασία translates the word ‫חזיז‬, meaning a thunderclap, lightening or stiff wind.241 In context, the passage refers to the LORD giving the early and late rains to those who ask; he is the one who makes fruitful those who seek him. In the midst of this passage we find κύριος ἐποίησεν φαντασίας. Clearly it is a positive affirmation. The object of the LORD’s action is φαντασίας. The Hebrew word in question is very rare, and the form is unique. The context has nothing to do with idolatry, but the LORD’s sovereignty in agrarian needs. The meaning of pomp or reputation also does not fit within the context. But, if we consider another detail from Stoic theory, it would seem to convey some aspect of the technical sense from the philosophical debate. MT Zech 10:1aA–B Zech 10:1aA–B

‫שאלו מיהוה מטר באת מלקוש‬ ‫יהוה עשה חזיזים‬ αἰτεῖσθε ὑετὸν παρὰ κυρίου καθ᾽ ὥραν πρόιμον [καὶ ὄψιμον] κύριος ἐποίησεν φαντασίας

This word is translated by NETS with representation, which obfuscates the meaning, and appears to have stereotypically done so because of the uses in Ambakoum. LXX.D has chosen sichtbare Zeichen, visible signs, which seems to have perhaps been influenced by Brenton’s interpretation.242 It is translated by BdA as les fulgurances, which approximates to flashes or sparkles – in reference to something moving brightly and fast. This French translation is based upon the idea that φαντασία refers to une vision extraordinaire.243 It comes close to the meaning derived from a Stoic discussion that also had φαντασία relate to “dreams and visions and any ‘movement’ of consciousness.”244 In Plato these were known as φαντάσματα, which Aristotle also picked up on in respect to the images of the material world, and the interaction of the φαντασία between the perception and the intellect.245 In this case, like 241

See HALOT, “‫;”חזִ יז‬ ָ DCH, “‫”חזִ יז‬. ָ Rudolph’s promising suggestion that the translator interpreted the odd form via ‫חזיון‬ or ‫ חזון‬runs into difficulty when one considers that the translator of the Twelve always translated ‫ חזיון‬from ὅρασις, which is also common to the rest of the Septuaignt. He would have simply used that word again – but translators were not consistent. Or, if he borrowed from the semantics derived from ‫חזיון‬, considering the form of the hapax, he may have chosen φαντασία for other contextual reasons. Cf. Bons et al., eds., LXX.D, 1222; Karrer and Kraus, eds., LXX.E. Band 2, 2466; Rudolph, Haggai-Maleachi, 190. 243 Muraoka rightly sees that the contexts of phantasia are different within the Twelve and notes that the use in Amb 3:10 is to “what visibily manifests itself, ‘image’: of some unusual natural phenomenon,” and in Zech 10:1 and Wis 18:17 “‘in dreams’.” See Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, 710–11. 244 J. M. Cocking, Imagination (London: Routledge, 1991), 23; Watson, Phantasia in Classical Thought, 45. 245 See Watson, Phantasia in Classical Thought, 12, 19. 242

194

Chapter 4: Theology and Exegesis

Plato, the material world and light form together to produce a vision that enters the eye. In Aristotle φαντασία could be a form of vision, though in his discussion this is quite nascent. Stoic, in spite of its materialism, gave dreams a prominent place in its system. It was the interpreters, προφῆται, of dreams who were more desirable than the dreamers, μάντιδες. The mantic may speak without understanding. The mark of a true prophet was one who could interpret. 246 The images drawn from the lower part of his soul were next to meaningless without explanation. This lower aspect of the soul, which was metaphorically described in Platonism as a mirror, produced visions (φαντασίς or φαντάσματα), which is where thoughts gathered from the mind. This is from where divination came, a concept that would be developed in Neoplatonsim.247 Stoicism retained much of this Platonic idea, developing the rise of visions to the role of the φαντασία. This was mostly accomplished by the fact that the materialistic system made no difference between internal and external perception248 – there was nothing ethereal or incorporeal. A thing seen from the mirror-like change (ἑτεροίεσις) in the soul could be called a φαντασία, which pointed to the visionary aspect involved rather than the object, φάντασμα.249 This was a development on Platonism. Therefore, the conceptual roots are here for a sort-of aberrant vision as suggested by Casevitz, Dogniez and Muraoka. In Wisdom of Solomon 18:17, the Egyptians are smote with φαντασίαι: τότε παραχρῆμα φαντασίαι μὲν ὀνείρων δεινῶν ἐξετάραξαν αὐτούς (then suddenly phantasiai, indeed, terrible dreams troubled them). The relationship between φαντασία and ὄνειρος here is clearly made. The kind of φαντασία in view is indicated by the immediately following phrase, μέν. In Zechariah the LORD gave the φαντασία, which appears to have a positive connotation, and likely refers to a waking-vision; whereas in Wisdom of Solomon those of a terrifying and fearful kind are meted out.250 Both connote that aspect of φαντασία in Hellenistic (Stoic) thought with respect to mental-images. What the evidence of this study has shown is that, first, a development on the meaning of φαντασία may have begun earlier than modern philosophers are aware. The Septuagint, as the largest translation of Ptolemaic Greek literature, is, quite surprisingly, often overlooked by scholars of Greek and Roman philo246

See Cocking, Imagination, 25–26. See Watson, Phantasia in Classical Thought, 13. 248 See Eduard Zeller, Outlines of the History of Greek Philosophy (trans. L. R. Palmer; 13th ed.; New York: Dover Publications, 1980), 212–3. 249 In GA Job 20:8 ‫( חזיון‬vision) is translated with φαντάσματα, rather than the OG use of φάσμα (apparition, or visionary appearance). The meaning of both Greek words are, as shown, sufficiently different from φαντασία. A number of φά- (and φάν-) words clearly connote vision(s), perceived objects – the application of light, even in the mind – in a variety of contexts. Cf. also Rudolph, Micha-Zephanja, 190. 250 In NETS “apparitions”. 247

4.5 The Idolatry Polemic

195

sophy. Watson dates the first literary evidence of syncretism with the Neoplatonist Philostratus late in the second century C.E.251 In these later debates, φαντασία is given a new kind of prominence.252 Second, when the translator of Ambakoum chose the word φαντασία in the last woe oracle against idolatry, he would most likely have been aware of its specific sense(s). The context of idolatry and choice of this word would have had a reasonably high degree of register with his real readers. I am inclined to suggest that this translator was perhaps working out of a more Stoic philosophy than otherwise, simply because of the way he uses φαντασία in cognitive senses, including dream states.253 So, in Amb 2:18–19, by using this word, the text would likely have evoked for the reader a conceptual domain. The φαντασία ψευδή is not the object itself, viz. the graven image, but what the image causes within the cognitive process. By indicating that the φαντασία is deceitful, the individual must not assent nor grasp the signification of the graven image.254 251

See Watson, Phantasia in Classical Thought, 60–1. In time it was argued that φαντασία was a better guide for artistic works, such as poetry and sculpting, than say mimicry (μίμησις). The ability for an artist to hold in his mind’s eye the object that he wished to create, which often occurred over long periods of time, can be seen in the seminal discussions of Plato, Aristotle and the Stoics in particular. The φαντασία that resides within the individual gives a kind of enlightenment for artistic design, whether for literary or physical representations. Jumping over Augustine and the Medievals, who used this to explain a number of theological phenomena, the European Renaissance saw a surge of this kind of view. The ability to imagine, or fantasise, was a guide to creating great works of art and beauty. The artist was exalted within societies, which fuelled the love of music, paintings and sculptures. Watson and Cocking have extended discussions on this subject cf. Ibid.; Cocking, Imagination. 253 This may also be true for the author of Wis. 254 Muraoka is very close to the right definition in his lexicon, but still has, unfortunately, retained the use of the word imagination, i.e., “deceptive imagination.” See Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, 710. Also, I leave open the somewhat remote possibility that this word meant something to this translator, and also to the author of Wis, entirely different from this philosophic definition, intending to generate other ideas by its use. As Larry Hurtado very helpfully pointed out to me in a seminar, it could be similar to the way that a word such as ἀνάθεμα was used in the NT, in a semantic way that was entirely novel to its prior usages. It only made sense in its new context. Hence a neologism of sorts. But this is rather difficult to accept here for two reasons (as I explained in the seminar at New College, Edinburgh, Spring 2013). First, in the contexts where we find the word φαντασία in Greek literature it is almost always used as a technical word within epistemological debates. This is unmistakeable, as shown in this study. Second, then, as we plot the trajectory of its contextual uses from Plato to the Neoplatonists, and even on through to Augustine, there is a clear development of philosophically derived ideas tied directly to the use of this word. It is this line of historical development, where we can watch it undergo slight changes in meaning (and great changes by Augustine). Until the Neoplatonists it denoted very particular epistemological concepts, 252

196

Chapter 4: Theology and Exegesis

This leads us to ask whether translational equivalents of “illusion” (BdA), “representation” (NETS), or “Trugbild” (LXX.D) really convey the meaning of the word in its cultural context. Of course, this problem relates to how one may evoke the same emotions or ideas through transference in a different culture – today. In the first instance, the choice of “representation” by NETS in every instance of Ambakoum does not seem to consider the contextual subtleties. Representation calls to mind the physical thing in question, rather than the use of φαντασία in its cultural milieu. Second, the choices of Trugbild and illusion might be somewhat closer to bringing over the meaning intended by OG. But, still, illusion, as an example from French, is itself in modern vernacular bound to other conceptual domains quite distant from the contemporaneous meaning of φαντασία: Ver./OG NETS BdA LXX.D

Amb 2:18 representation illusion Trugbild

Amb 2:19 representation illusion Trugbild

Amb 3:10 representation illusion Trugbild

Rudolph Brenton OSB

Erscheinung image image

Erscheinung image fantasy

– form form

Zech 10:1 representations fulgurances sichtbare Zeichen Erscheinungen bright signs great display

There does not appear to be an exact equivalent, because the central meaning of the word has been greatly affected through its transliterated and conceptual developments through time (fantasy, Lat. imaginatio). The word impression is how some modern philosophers understand it, and this may be the best choice here.255 It may require a phrase in some instances, especially when the context suggests deception, something like not what it seems or a false impression or an unseemingly thing (archaic). What is clear is that in some way, what is being referred to is not so much the physical object of a graven image, but what is meant as part of an observer’s process of apprehension. Hence the idol is a false teacher – a liar – and to accept anything from it as true, good or beautiful, would be to kick against the goads of Ambakoum’s rebuke. By using the technical jargon of his day, the translator undermined the stupidity of idolatry, which depended on the school in which the hearer/author was trained. And, with respect to its use in the Septuagint, the philosophic meaning fits in the contexts in which it is found. 255 Variation between modern philosophers is also true for the translation of φαντασία, or its verbal φαίνω, i.e. fancy/vision or it seems (Shorey/Fowler), impression (Long & Sedley), representation (Zeller/Palmer), appearance (LSJM) and even imagination (Cocking). See Cocking, Imagination, 20–6; LSJM, “φαντασία”; Plato with an English Translation. Theaetetus and Sophist, 428; Long and Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers; Plato The Republic. With an English Translation, §382.E; Zeller, Outlines of the History of Greek Philosophy, 212.

4.5 The Idolatry Polemic

197

and headed-off any epistemological misconception concerning the nature of true divinity.

Conclusion This study has shown that the translator of Ambakoum was a trained scribe, who sought to creatively render the teaching of his Hebrew text into his familiar Greek tongue. The creativity in question was not one of freedom to create something like a personal translation. Rather, it explains how he handled a number of difficult linguistic details, while conveying the interpretative reading tradition of which he was a part. The struggle to reduce the attrition of meaning in the transformation from one language to another was a real hurdle for the translator, much as it is for every translator. Selection of the most appropriate words, in light of the surrounding text, as it was composed (the syntagmatic and paradigmatic relationships), in his native Ptolemaic Greek – borrowing from Aramaic at times – was his greatest linguistic struggle. It is the language into which the translator was working, adding, omitting and substituting words, thereby altering the semantic freight – registering with the reader certain ideas and concepts – that revealed the translator’s style and interpretative tradition. Hence, with these things in mind, and then by carefully reading the translation as a Greek document, this study has drawn out the new sense of the transformed text. What was shown is that the translation hangs together a little differently than the source. While we may expect such things, to some degree, of any and perhaps every translation, the burden of many Septuagintal texts is that they are called literal. As a result, they are said to be in and of themselves sometimes meaningless without recourse to their Hebrew parent text(s). But what this study demonstrated is that this sort of view does not bear up under further scrutiny. The Septuagint as a Greek document does in fact communicate on its own two feet. Ambakoum as a case study demonstrates this. On the basis that Ambakoum is a complete, communicable text, this study enquired into the theology of the text without deriving it from only those areas of comparison that differ between the source and target text. Theology is conveyed in the flow of discourse, set within linguistic, contextual boundaries that are meaningful. It is true that the areas of comparative difference are of interest, for they do highlight more acutely a different handling of sections of the text, which does affect meaning, and perhaps some theological point. Yet this study has hesitated to impute ignorance to the translator at various junctures during the translation, as has been argued much elsewhere, which is

200

Conclusion

often how some of the differences are explained, especially with respect to the translator’s inability with the source text/language. Rather, in spite of the translational hurdles, whether borne out of a misreading, or an obscure word, when the changes are taken together, in the literary flow of the whole passage, we are given an opportunity to enter into the tradition of interpretation that shaped such things. The translator’s style is identified in how he handled the entire Hebrew text when he rendered it into Greek, and the subtle and overt changes in domains of meaning flag up the theological reading, the interpretation out of which such things arose. What was discussed at some length in chapter two was that, while a certain kind of literalism is a valid term for specific sections of the translation, e.g. word-order, literalism does not accurately explain the style and nature of the translated text. It quite simply cannot properly explain all the data, which by extension is true of the Interlinear Paradigm. In the first case, the text has unmistakable evidence of Greek euphony. It is well known that style in Greek literature was important. It would in fact be surprising to find no stylistic evidence within a Greek work of this kind. The translators of the Septuagint, whose level of training in the language and literature of the period is still under debate, would most likely have wanted to employ what they knew of quality Greek literature. Yet this is not a matter of finding what one wants, a case of if you seek it you will find it. Greek rhetoric and poetry followed certain rules, and could be observed quite readily. So this is more a case of reading the text of Ambakoum as a Greek document, unbound from statistical literalism as the mould or lens through which it is often read. When read this way, there are numerous examples in Ambakoum of simple forms of Greek rhetoric. Because the translator employed an ancient form of, for example, serial fidelity to word-order or stereotyping, literary euphony could not become more complex, as was possible in untranslated Greek poetry. Hence, some parts of the translator’s technique restricted other aspects of it. The natural rise of euphony in complex languages, when set in textual form, has, also, to be differentiated from the translator’s intention to create rhetorical forms. And, the translator’s pattern of literalism also meant that rhyming patterns would find their way into the target text as part of that aspect of the translator’s approach: his use of literalism. When combined we then found that the overall text possessed numerous rhetorical devices. If, as is often quipped, the translators created the texts they desired, then, on the level of Greek rhetoric, the translator of Ambakoum intended his product to possess such things. This marks his style. And it also suggests, quite strongly, that this completed product was an acceptable and accurate rendering of the interpretation that he himself received. So if the rhetorical devices were his personal touch,1 there was room (approval) within the tradition for him to 1

Cf. n. 226 in chp. 2, and n. 21 in chp. 3.

Conclusion

201

design such things, to ornament his text a little here and there. Furthermore, it is not only the studies on rhetoric that show how the translator understood the book of Habakkuk, but also the various linguistic transformations. In some instances the textual transformations were caused by translational improvisation, which often had to do with some kind of linguistic obscurity with the Vorlage. Instead of suggesting that the translator was ignorant or misunderstood a text with which he most likely very familiar, the translator’s ability to adapt via improvisation, which was most likely couched within an interpretative framework of understanding, is a better way to understand the differences. With Greek as the native language of the community of the translator, there would have been a particularly Greek way of handling the text before it was translated. There are only so many ways to revocalise the Hebrew text. Beyond this linguistic limit of authorised revocalisation was how the community interpreted the text in Greek. The Minor Prophets were an important body of prophetic literature, and it would beggar belief that the text, after having been interpretatively read in Hebrew, was not then discussed in Greek, for some period of time, before it was translated. This linguistic environment would have been of significant influence upon the mind of the translator when handling his text(s). We can see this at some points, where there appears to have been some careful exegesis. Such things are often called part of the free aspect of the technique. But it is more compelling to see the translator express what he knew from within his community’s tradition of its reading. Patterns of changes, such as the suffering of Ambakoum, do seem to suggest a conscious intention to make such changes. Moreover, often the textual differences to MT find innerTwelve and -Septuagintal thematic and lexical connections. This means that if one were to remove any number of apparently isolated semantic or grammatical shifts from the theological mix (because of supposed error in the translation process), one may be unwittingly excising ideas that were intentionally wrought. Because of the symbiotic relationship between (proto-)MT and Septuagintal texts for themes and ideas, numerous avenues along which to understand the nature of any given change existed. This indicates that the translator, in this case, was aware of the wider theological perspectives of the biblical books, and in particular those for which he was responsible. Joosten helpfully notes: Un passage ou un mot qui n’exprime pas ce que dit son équivalent dans le texte hébreu peut fournir une clé pour l’idéologie du traducteur. Si le passage, ou le mot, est chargé théologiquement, la théologie de la Septante semble à portée de main.2

The theological or ideological Tendenz of the translator is more-or-less emphasised through these differences, but only as they exist within the context 2

Joosten, “Une théologie de la Septante,” 35.

202

Conclusion

in which they are found as part of the complete textual set. Should the text have been inaccurate – wrong – it would surely have been immediately recommissioned. A senior scribe would have guided or approved the rendering of the final text. Therefore, the theology of the text was most likely brought about as part of a Jewish Hellenistic (Greek) interpretative tradition. This was how to handle the Hebrew in Greek. This study has narrowly examined Ambakoum within the wider scope of the Twelve. Additional work could now be done to understand the nature of similar evidence within all the other books of the Twelve, and perhaps also the parts of Ezekiel and Jeremiah, to which Thackeray had linked it (though on this last point it may test his thesis, rather than mine). Because these stylistic devices are from the same hand they can also be seen in some degree throughout the other parts. Analysis to the degree done here would be of real benefit. It would, for example, add support to the arguments laid out here, and also lend additional support for the singularity of the translational hand of the Twelve. The translator’s personal technique can be seen from grammatical choices, but also by his attempts to integrate rhetorical flourish. What may also be noticed is that the theological contours of each respective book of the Twelve, which are essential to them, are not flattened by the translator. This is quite important in such a wider endeavour. The translator does not seem to have only translated a theology of the Twelve, but each book expresses its own prophetic burden. The contemporaneous relevance of these things is observed throughout different junctures within each book. The striking nature of the prophecy of Ambakoum, e.g. the LORD himself is raising up the Chaldeans for an awful judgement, might have spurred textual changes. Such leitmotifs likely caught the imagination of the translator, being bound up within the interpretative tradition of his community. The original real readers were likely the scribal class, who for a period of time found the nature of the Twelve acceptable: an accurate interpretation of their Hebrew reading, fashioned through an oral Greek interpretation, and then formed and fixed into a literary product. The perceived textual drift, however, was not agreeable to later communities, hence we have seen changes, by way of revisions, throughout the centuries that followed. But in spite of the disagreements that ensued, OG retained a strong interpretative position. The fact that it existed and had had some acceptance was probably very influential to later authors or translators, perhaps giving rise to the apocryphal work Bel, where Ambakoum reappears as a messenger of succour – he announced the exile, he now helps those suffering in it. The translation of Ambakoum was done faithfully to the reading of its day. And it carries over the biblical message: the LORD shall deliver his people, and the impious shall in no wise be acquitted.

Appendix A

Translation of Ambakoum and Habakkuk Amb/Hab 1:1 τὸ λῆμμα ὅ εἶδεν Ἀμβακουμ ὁ προφήτης The oracle that Habakkuk the prophet saw: ‫ַה ַמּ ָשּׂא ֲא ֶשׁר ָהזָ ה ֲה ַבקּוּק ַהנָּ ִביא‬ The oracle that Ambakoum the prophet saw:

Amb/Hab 1:2–4 § G1aA2 G1aB2 G1bA2 G1bB2

G1aA3 G1aB3 G1bA3 G1bB3

G1aA4 G1aB4 G1bA4 G1bB4 Ge1aA2 Ge1aB2

Ambakoum Ἕως τίνος κύριε κεκράξομαι καὶ οὐ μὴ εἰσακούσῃς βοήσομαι πρὸς σὲ ἀδικοὺμενος καὶ οὐ σώσεις

ἵνα τί μοι ἔδειξας κόπους καὶ πόνους ἐπιβλέπειν ταλαιπωρίαν καὶ ἀσέβειαν ἐξ ἐναντίας μου γέγονεν κρίσις καὶ ὁ κριτὴς λαμβάνει

διὰ τοῦτο διεσκέδασται νόμος καὶ οὐ διεξάγεται εἰς τέλος κρίμα ὅτι ὁ ἀσεβὴς καταδυναστεύει τὸν δίκαιον ἕνεκεν τούτου ἐξελεύσεται τὸ κρίμα διεστραμμένον How long, O LORD, shall I cry out, And you not listen,

Habakkuk ‫ד־אנָ ה ְיהוָ ה ִשׁוַּ ְע ִתּי‬ ָ ‫ַע‬

§ H1aA2

‫וְ ל ֹא ִת ְשׁ ָמע‬

H1aB2

‫ֶאזְ ַעק ֵא ֶליָך ָח ָמס‬

H1bA2

‫תוֹשׁ ַיע‬ ִ ‫וְ ל ֹא‬

H1bB2

‫ָל ָמּה ַת ְר ֵאנִ י ָאוֶ ן‬

H1aA3

‫וְ ָע ָמל ַתּ ִבּיט‬

H1aB3

‫וְ שׁ ֹד וְ ָח ָמס לְ נֶ גְ ִדּי‬

H1aC3

‫וַ ְי ִהי ִריב‬

H1bA3

‫וּמדוֹן יִ ָשּׂא‬ ָ

H1bB3

‫תּוֹרה‬ ָ ‫ל־כּן ָתּפוּג‬ ֵ ‫ַע‬

H1aA4

‫וְ לֹא־יֵ ֵצא לָ נֶ ַצח ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט‬

H1aB4

‫ת־ה ַצּ ִדּיק‬ ַ ‫ִכּי ָר ָשׁ ע ַמ ְכ ִתּיר ֶא‬

H1bA4

‫ל־כּן ֵי ֵצא ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט ְמ ֻע ָקּל‬ ֵ ‫ַע‬

H1bB4

How long, O Yhwh, shall I call out, And you not listen,

He1aA2 He1aB2

204 Ge1bA2 Ge1bB2 Ge1aA3 Ge1aB3 Ge1bA3 Ge1bB3

Ge2aA4 Ge2aB4 Ge2bA4 Ge2bB4

Translation of Ambakoum and Habakkuk Being wronged, shall I cry out to you, And you not save?

Shall I cry out to you, “Violence!” And you not save?

He1bA2

Why did you make me look at toils and distresses, To look upon misery and impiety? Justice has come before me, And the judge receives it.

Why do you make me see iniquity, And look at toil, So that destruction and violence are before me? There has been strife, And contention is lifted up.

He1aA3

Because Torah is benumbed, Justice will not come to fruition. Because the wicked surrounded the righteous, So justice comes out crooked.

He1aA4

Therefore law has been scattered abroad, And judgement is not fully accomplished; For the impious man oppresses the righteous; Because of this judgement will come out crooked.

He1bB2

He1aB3 He1aC3

He1bA3 He1bB3

He1aB4 He1bA4

He1bB4

Amb/Hab 1:5–11 G1aA5 G1aB5 G1aC5 G1bA5 G1bB5 G1aA6 G1aB6 G1bA6 G1bB6

G1aA7 G1aB7 G1aC7

ἴδετε οἱ καταφρονηταί καὶ ἐπιβλέψατε καὶ θαυμάσατε θαυμάσια καὶ ἀφανίσθητε διότι ἔργον ἐγὼ ἐργάζομαι ἐπ’ ὑμᾶς ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ὑμῶν ὃ οὐ μὴ πιστεύσητε ἐάν τις ἐκδιηγῆται διότι ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐξεγείρω τοὺς Χαλδαίους τοὺς μαχητάς τὸ ἔθνος τὸ πικρὸν καὶ τὸ ταχινὸν τὸ πορευόμενον ἐπὶ τὰ πλάτη τῆς γῆς τοῦ κατακληρονομῆσαι σκηνώματα οὐκ αὐτοῦ φοβερὸς καὶ ἐπιφανής ἐστιν ἐξ αὐτοῦ τὸ κρίμα αὐτοῦ ἔσται καὶ τὸ λῆμμα αὐτοῦ ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἐξελεύσεται

‫ְראוּ ַבגּוֹיִ ם וְ ַה ִבּיטוּ‬

H1aA5

‫וְ ִה ַתּ ְמּהוּ ְתּ ָמהוּ‬

H1aB5

‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ימ‬ ֵ ‫ִכּי־פ ַֹעל פּ ֵֹעל ִבּ‬

H1bA5

‫ל ֹא ַת ֲא ִמינוּ ִכּי ְי ֻס ָפּר‬

H1bB5

‫י־הנְ נִ י ֵמ ִקים ֶאת־‬ ִ ‫ִכּ‬

H1aA6

‫ַה ַכּ ְשׂ ִדּים‬ ‫ַהגּוֹי ַה ַמּר וְ ַהנִּ ְמ ָהר‬

H1aB6

‫י־א ֶרץ‬ ֶ ‫ַההוֹלֵ ְך ְל ֶמ ְר ֲח ֵב‬

H1bA6

‫ָל ֶר ֶשׁת ִמ ְשׁ ָכּנוֹת לֹּא־לוֹ‬

H1bB6

‫נוֹרא הוּא‬ ָ ְ‫ָאי ֹם ו‬

H1aA7

‫וּשׂ ֵאתוֹ ֵי ֵצ א‬ ְ ‫ִמ ֶמּנּוּ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּטוֹ‬

H1aB7

205

Amb/Hab 1:5–11 G1aA8

‫סוּסיו‬ ָ ‫וְ ַקלּוּ ִמנְּ ֵמ ִרים‬

H1aA8

‫וְ ַחדּוּ ִמזְּ ֵא ֵבי ֶע ֶרב‬

H1aB8

‫וּפשׁוּ ָפּ ָר ָשׁיו‬ ָ

H1bA8

‫וּפ ָר ָשׁיו ֵמ ָרחוֹק יָ בֹאוּ‬ ָ

H1bB8

καὶ ἐξαλοῦνται ὑπὲρ παρδάλεις οἱ ἵπποι αὐτοῦ καὶ ὀξύτεροι ὑπὲρ τοὺς λύκους τῆς Ἀραβίας καὶ ἐξιππάσονται οἱ ἱππεῖς αὐτοῦ καὶ ὁρμήσουσιν μακρόθεν καὶ πετασθήσονται ὡς ἀετὸς πρόθυμος εἰς τὸ φαγεῖν

‫יָ ֻעפוּ ְכּנֶ ֶשׁ ר‬

H1cA8

‫ָחשׁ לֶ ֱאכוֹל‬

H1cB8

‫ֻכֹּּלה ְל ָח ָמס יָ בוֹא‬

H1aA9

‫ימה‬ ָ ‫יהם ָק ִד‬ ֶ ֵ‫ְמגַ ַמּת ְפּנ‬

H1aB9

G1bA9

συντέλεια εἰς ἀσεβεῖς ἥξει ἀνθεστηκότας προσώποις αὐτῶν ἐξ ἐναντίας καὶ συνάξει ὡς ἄμμον αἰχμαλωσίαν

‫וַ יֶּ ֱאסֹף ַכּחוֹל ֶשׁ ִבי‬

H1aC9

G1aA10 G1aB10 G1bA10 G1bB10 G1bC10

καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν βασιλεῦσιν ἐντρυφήσει καὶ τύραννοι παίγνια αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτὸς εἰς πᾶν ὀχύρωμα ἐμπαίξεται καὶ βαλεῖ χῶμα καὶ κρατήσει αὐτοῦ

‫וְ הוּא ַבּ ְמּלָ ִכים ִי ְת ַק ָלּס‬

H1aA10

G1aB8 G1bA8 G1bB8 G1cA8 G1cB8 G1aA9 G1aB9

G1aA11 G1aB11 Ge1aA5 Ge1aB5 Ge1aC5 Ge1bA5 Ge1bB5

Ge1aA6

Ge1aB6 Ge1bA6 Ge1bB6

‫וְ ר ֹזְ נִ ים ִמ ְשׂ ָחק לוֹ‬

H1aB10

‫ל־מ ְב ָצ ר ִי ְשׂ ָחק‬ ִ ‫הוּא לְ ָכ‬

H1bA10

‫וַ יִּ ְצבֹּר ָע ָפר‬

H1bB10

‫וַ יִּ לְ ְכּ ָדהּ‬

H1bC10

τότε μεταβαλεῖ τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ διελεύσεται καὶ ἐξιλάσεται αὕτη ἡ ἰσχὺς τῷ θεῷ μου

‫רוּח וַ יַּ ֲעבֹר וְ ָא ֵשׁם‬ ַ ‫ָאז ָחלַ ף‬

H1aA11

‫זוּ כ ֹחוֹ ֵלאֹלהוֹ‬

H1aB11

Look, you scoffers, and gaze! And be amazed at marvellous things, And be destroyed! Because I am doing a work in your days, Which you would not believe, even if someone should carefully explain.

Look among the nations, and observe! Gaze and be astounded! For I am doing a work in your days – You would not believe it, even if it was recounted.

He1aA5

For behold, I am raising up upon you the Chaldeans, the warriors! The bitter and swift nation, That moves upon the broad places of the land, To possess dwellings not his own.

For behold, I am raising up the Chaldeans! The bitter and impetuous nation, Who march throughout the earth, To seize dwellings not belonging to him.

He1aA6

He1aB5 He1bA5 He1bB5

He1aB6 He1bA6 He1bB6

206 Ge1aA7 Ge1aB7 Ge1aC7

Ge1aA8 Ge1aB8

Ge1bA8 Ge1bB8 Ge1cA8 Ge1cB8 Ge1aA9 Ge1aB9 Ge1bA9

Ge1aA10 Ge1aB10 Ge1bA10 Ge1bB10 Ge1bC10 Ge1aA11

Ge1aB11

Translation of Ambakoum and Habakkuk His is fearful and glorious, His judgement will be from him, And his warrant [to destroy] will go out from him.

He is dreadful and fearful, His justice and authority go out from him.

He1aA7 He1aB7

Now, his horses will leap more than leopards, And will be more cunning than the wolves of Arabia, His cavalry will ride forth, And will charge headlong from afar; And will spread out like an eagle, Eager to devour.

Now, his horses are swifter than leopards, And keener than the evening wolves, And his horsemen come galloping, His horsemen will come from afar, They fly like an eagle, Swooping down to devour.

He1aA8

Destruction will come to the impious, Hardening their faces in opposition, And he will gather captives like sand.

All of them come for violence, A mgmt is eastward before them; And he gathered captives like sand.

He1aA9

And he will scoff at kings, Tyrants will be his play-toy, He will mock at every fortress, And will heap-up earth, And take hold of it.

And he mocked at kings, And rulers were a laughingstock to him, He scoffed at every fortress, And piled up rubble, And captured it.

He1aA10 He1aB10

Then the wind will change, and he will pass through, and propitiate. This strength belongs to my God.

Then he swept by as a wind, and crossed over, and incurred guilt; He whose strength is his god.

He1aA11

He1aB8 He1bA8 He1bB8 He1cA8 He1cB8

He1aB9 He1aC9

He1bA10 He1bB10 He1bC10

He1aB11

Amb/Hab 1:12–17 G1aA12 G1aB12 G1bA12 G1bB12

οὐχὶ σὺ ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς κύριε ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἅγιός μου καὶ οὐ μὴ ἀποθάνωμεν κύριε εἰς κρίμα τέταχας αὐτον καὶ ἐπλασέν με τοῦ ἐλέγχειν παιδείαν αὐτοῦ

‫ֹלהי‬ ַ ‫ֲהלו ֺא ַא ָתּה ִמ ֶק ֶדם יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬

H1aA12

‫ְקד ִֹשׁי‬ ‫ל ֹא נָ מוּת‬

H1aB12

ֺ ‫ְיהוָ ה ְל ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט ַשׂ ְמתּו‬

H1bA12

ֺ ‫וְ צוּר לְ הו ִֺכ ַיח יְ ַס ְדתּו‬

H1bB12

207

Amb/Hab 1:12–17

G1aA13 G1aB13 G1bA13 G1bB13

G1aA14

G1aB14

G1aA15 G1aB15 G1aC15

G1aA16 G1aB16 G1bA16 G1bB16 G1cA16 G1cB16

G1aA17 G1aB17 G1aC17 Ge1aA12 Ge1aB12

καθαρὸς ὀφθαλμὸς τοῦ μὴ ὀρᾶν πονηρά καὶ ἐπιβλέπειν ἐπὶ πόνους οὐ δυνήσῃ ἵνα τί ἐπιβλέπεις ἐπὶ καταφρονοῦντας παρασιωπήσῃ ἐν τῳ καταπίνειν ἀσεβῆ τὸν δίκαιον

‫ְטהו ֺר ֵעינַ יִ ם ֵמ ְראו ֺת ָרע‬

H1aA13

‫תוּכל‬ ָ ‫ל־ע ָמל ל ֹא‬ ָ ‫וְ ַה ִבּיט ֶא‬

H1aB13

‫ָל ָמּה ַת ִבּיט בּו ֺגְ ִדים‬

H1bA13

‫ַתּ ֲח ִרישׁ ְבּ ַב ַלּע ָר ָשׁע ַצ ִדּיק ִמ ֶמּנּוּ‬

H1bB13

‫וַ ַתּ ֲע ֶשׂה ָא ָדם ִכּ ְדגֵ י ַהיָּ ם‬

H1aA14

ֺ ‫ְכּ ֶר ֶמשׂ לֹא־מ ֵֹשׁל בּו‬

H1aB14

‫ֻכֹּּלה ְבּ ַח ָכּה ֶה ֲעלָ ה‬

H1aA15

‫ְיג ֵֹרהוּ ְב ֶח ְרמוֹ‬

H1aB15

ֺ ‫וְ ַי ַא ְס ֵפהוּ ְבּ ִמ ְכ ַמ ְרתּו‬

H1aC15

‫ל־כּן יִ ְשׂ ַמח‬ ֵ ‫ַע‬

H1bA15

‫וְ ָיגִ יל‬

H1bB15

‫ל־כּן ְיזַ ֵבּ ַח לְ ֶח ְרמוֹ‬ ֵ ‫ַע‬

H1aA16

ֺ ‫וִ ַיק ֵטּר לְ ִמ ְכ ַמ ְרתּו‬

H1aB16

ֺ ‫ִכּי ָב ֵה ָמּה ָשׁ ֵמן ֶחלְ קו‬

H1bA16

‫וּמ ֲא ָכלו ֺ ְבּ ִר ָאה‬ ַ

H1bB16

διὰ τοῦτο ἀμφιβαλεῖ τὸ αμφίβληστρον αὐτοῦ καὶ διὰ παντὸς ἀποκτέννειν ἔθνεν οὐ φείσεται

ֺ ‫ַה ַעל ֵכּן ָי ִריק ֶח ְרמו‬

H1aA17

‫וְ ָת ִמיד לַ ֲהר ֹג גּו ֺיִ ם‬

H1aB17

‫ל ֹא יַ ְחמו ֺל‬

H1aC17

Are you not from of old, O LORD, my holy God? We shall not die.

Are you not from of old, O Yhwh, my God, my holy One? We shall not die.

καὶ ποιήσεις τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ὡς τοὺς ἰχθύας τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ ὡς τὰ ἐρπετὰ τὰ οὐκ ἔχοντα ἡγούμενον συντέλειαν ἐν ἀγκίστρω ἀνέσπασεν καὶ εἵλκυσεν αὐτὸν ἐν ἀμφιβλήστρῳ καὶ συνήγαγεν αὐτὸν ἐν ταῖς σαγήναις αὐτοῦ ἕνεκεν τούτου εὐφρανθήσεται καὶ χαρήσεται ἡ καρδία αὐτοῦ ἕνεκεν τούτου θύσει τῇ σαγήνῃ αὐτοῦ καὶ θυμιάσει τῷ ἀμφιβλήστρῳ αὐτοῦ ὅτι ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐλίπανεν μερίδα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰ βρώματα αὐτοῦ ἐκλεκτά

He1aA12

He1aB12

208 Ge1bA12 Ge1bB12

Ge1aA13 Ge1aB13 Ge1bA13 Ge1bB13

Ge1aA14 Ge1aB14

Ge1aA15 Ge1aB15 Ge1aC15

Ge1aA16 Ge1aB16 Ge1bA16 Ge1bB16 Ge1cA16 Ge1cB16 Ge1aA17 Ge1aB17

Translation of Ambakoum and Habakkuk O LORD, you have appointed him for judgement, And have made me to reprove his discipline

O Yhwh, you have ordained him for judgement And, O Rock, you established him for reproof.

He1bA12

Eyes so pure as to not see evil, You are unable to look upon toils. Why do you make me look at scoffers, You pass by silently while the impious swallow the righteous?

Eyes too pure to see evil, And you are unable to look upon toil. Why do you make me look upon scoffers, You pass over silently while the wicked swallow the one more righteous than he.

He1aA13 He1aB13

And you shall make men as the fish of the sea, And as the creeping things who have no ruler.

But you made man like the fish of the sea, Like the creeping things who have no one ruling over them.

He1aA14

He will bring all of them up by a fishhook, He will drag him away by his net, And gather him into his dragnet; So he will rejoice, And be glad.

He1aA15

So he will rejoice, And his heart will be made glad, Because he will sacrifice to his casting-net, And burn incense to his dragnet. Therefore, in these things he enriched his portion, And his food was choice.

So he will sacrifice to his net, And offer incense to his dragnet, Because in these his portion is fattened, And his food rich.

He1aA16

Therefore he will cast his casting-net, And through it all he will mercilessly slay nations.

Will he thus empty his net, And continue to slay nations without sparing?

He1aA17

He drew up destruction with a fish-hook, And dragged him away in his casting-net, And gathered him into his dragnet.

He1bB12

He1bA13 He1bB13

He1aB14

He1aB15 He1aC15 He1bA15 He1bB15

He1aB16 He1bA16 He1bB16

He1aB17

209

Amb/Hab 2:1–2

Amb/Hab 2:1–2 G2aA1 G2aB1 G2bA1 G2bB1

G2aA2 G2aB2 G2bA2 G2bB2 Ge2aA1 Ge2aB1 Ge2bA1 Ge2bB1

ἐπὶ τῆς φυλακῆς μου στήσομαι καὶ ἐπιβήσομαι ἐπὶ πέτραν καὶ ἀποσκοπεύσω τοῦ ἰδεῖν τί λαλήσει ἐν μοι καὶ τί ἀποκριθῶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἔλεγκόν μου

‫ל־מ ְשׁ ַמ ְר ִתּי ֶא ֱעמ ָֹדה‬ ִ ‫ַע‬ ‫ל־מצוֹר‬ ָ ‫וְ ֶא ְת ַי ַצּ ָבה ַע‬

H2aB1

‫ר־בּי‬ ִ ‫וַ ֲא ַצ ֶפּה לְ ראוֹת ַמה־יְ ַד ֶבּ‬

H2bA1

‫יח ִתּי‬ ְ ‫וּמה ָא ִשׁיב ַעל־תּו ִֺכ‬ ַ

καὶ ἀπεκρίθη πρός με κύριος καὶ εἶπεν Γράψον ὅρασιν καὶ σαφῶς ἐπὶ πυξίον ὅπως διώκῃ ὁ ἀναγινώσκων αὐτά Upon my watch-post I will take my stand, And I will mount up upon a rock, And I will look steadfastly to see what he will say to me, And what I may answer for my reproof.

H2aA1

‫וַ יַּ ֲענֵ נִ י ְיהוָ ה וַ יּא ֶֹמר‬

H2bB1

H2aA2

‫ְכּתו ֺב ָחזו ֺן‬

H2aB2

‫ל־ה ֻלּחו ֺת‬ ַ ‫וּב ֵא ר ַע‬ ָ

H2bA2

ֺ ‫ְל ַמ ַען יָ רוּץ קו ֵֺר א בו‬

H2bB2

May I make a stand upon my guard post, And station myself upon a fortified place, So I may keep watch to see what he will say to me, And what I may answer for my reproof.

He2aA1 He2aB1 He2bA1 He2bB1

Amb/Hab 2:3–5 G2aA2 G2aB2 G2bA2 G2bB2

G2aA3 G2aB3 G2aC3 G2bA3 G2bB3 G2bC3

καὶ ἀπεκρίθη πρός με κύριος καὶ εἶπεν Γράψον ὅρασιν καὶ σαφῶς ἐπὶ πυξίον ὅπως διώκῃ ὁ ἀναγινώσκων αὐτά διότι ἔτι ὅρασις εἰς καιρὸν καὶ ἀνατελεῖ εἰς πέρας καὶ οὐκ εἰς κένον ἐὰν ὑστερήσῃ ὑπομεινον αὐτόν ὅτι ἐρχόμενος ἥξει καὶ οὐ μή χρονίσῃ

‫וַ יַּ ֲענֵ נִ י ְיהוָ ה וַ יּא ֶֹמר‬

H2aA2

‫ְכּתו ֺב ָחזו ֺן‬

H2aB2

‫ל־ה ֻלּחו ֺת‬ ַ ‫וּב ֵא ר ַע‬ ָ

H2bA2

ֺ ‫ְל ַמ ַען יָ רוּץ קו ֵֺר א בו‬

H2bB2

‫ִכּי עו ֺד ָחזו ֺן ַלמּו ֵֺעד‬

H2aA3

‫וְ ָי ֵפ ַח לַ קּץ‬

H2aB3

‫וְ ל ֹא יְ ַכזֵּ ב‬

H2aC3

ֺ ‫ִאם־יִ ְת ַמ ְה ָמהּ ַח ֵכּה־לו‬

H2bA3

‫ִכּי־ב ֹא יָ ב ֹא‬

H2bB3

‫ל ֹא יְ ַא ֵחר‬

H2bC3

210 G2aA4 G2aB4 G2bA4

G2aA5

G2bA5 G2bB5 G2cA5 G2cB5 Ge2aA2 Ge2aB2 Ge2bA2 Ge2bB2

Ge2aA3 Ge2aB3 Ge2aC3 Ge2bA3 Ge2bB3 Ge2bC3 Ge2aA4 Ge2aB4 Ge2bA4

Ge2aA5

Translation of Ambakoum and Habakkuk ἐὰν ὑποστείληται οὐκ εὐδοκεῖ ή ψυχή μου ἐν αὐτῳ ὁ δὲ δίκαιος πίστεώς μου ζήσεται ὁ δὲ κατοινωμένος καὶ καταφρονητὴς – ἀνὴρ ἀλαζών – οὐδὲν μὴ περάνῃ ὃς ἐπλάτυνεν καθὼς ὁ ᾅδης τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ καὶ οὗτος ὡς θάνατος οὐκ ἐμπιπλάμενος καὶ ἐπισυνάξει ἐπ’ αῦτὸν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη καὶ εἰσδέξεται πρὸς αὐτὸν πάντας τοὺς λαούς

‫ִהנֵּ ה ֻע ְפּלָ ה‬

H2aA4

ֺ ‫לֹא־ ָי ְשׁ ָרה נַ ְפשׁו ֺ בּו‬

H2aB4

‫וְ ַצ ִדּיק ֶבּ ֱאמוּנָ תו ֺ יִ ְחיֶ ה‬

H2bA4

‫וְ ַאף ִכּי ַהיַּ ִין בּו ֺגֵ ד‬

H2aA5

‫גֶּ ֶבר ָי ִהיר וְ ל ֹא ִינְ וֶ ה‬

H2aB5

ֺ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר ִה ְר ִחיב ִכּ ְשׁאו ֺל נַ ְפשׁו‬

H2bA5

‫וְ הוּא ַכ ָמּוֶ ת וְ ל ֹא יִ ְשׁ ָבּע‬

H2bB5

‫ל־הגּו ֺיִ ם‬ ַ ‫וַ יֶּ ֱאסֹף ֵא ָליו ָכּ‬

H2cA5

‫ל־ה ַע ִמּים‬ ָ ‫וַ יִּ ְקבֹּץ ֵא ָליו ָכּ‬

H2cB5

And LORD answered me, And said, “Write down an oracle, And make it plain upon a wooden tablet, So that he who reads them may run.

And Yhwh answered me and said, “Write down a vision, And make it plain upon the tablets, So that he who reads it may run.

For the vision is yet for an appointed time, And shall rise up to the end, And not be vain. If he seems to tarry, wait for him; For he who is coming will come, And he will not delay.

Because the vision is for the designated time, And it will breathe out to the end, And it will not lie. If it tarries, wait for it. For he who is coming will come, And he will not delay.

If he withdraws, My soul is not pleased with him, But the righteous will live by my faith.

Behold, it is puffed up, His soul is not right within him, But the righteous will live by his faith.

But an arrogant man – a sot and scoffer – won’t amount to much;

But yet indeed wine is a scoffer, An arrogant man, and will not rest,

He2aA2 He2aB2 He2bA2 He2bB2

He2aA3 He2aB3 He2aC3 He2bA3 He2bB3 He2bC3 He2aA4 He2aB4 He2bA4

He2aA5 He2aB5

211

Amb/Hab 2:6–19 Ge2bA5 Ge2bB5 Ge2cA5 Ge2cB5

Who opened wide his soul like Hades, And like death is never satisfied. And he gathered to himself all nations, And welcomed to himself all peoples.

Who enlarges his soul as Sheol, And is never satisfied like death. And he gathered all nations to himself, And collected all peoples to himself.

He2bA5 He2bB5 He2cA5 He2cB5

Amb/Hab 2:6–19 2:6–8 G2aA6 G2aB6 G2bA6 G2bB6 G2bC6

G2aA7 G2aB7 G2aC7 G2aA8 G2aB8 G2bA8 G2bB8 Ge2aA6 Ge2aB6 Ge2bA6

Ge2bB6

οὐχὶ ταῦτα πάντα παραβολὴν κατ’ αὐτοῦ λήμψονται καὶ πρόβλημα εἰς διήγησιν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐροῦσιν Οὐαὶ ὁ πληθύνων ἑαυτῷ τὰ οὐκ ὄντα αὐτοῦ ἕως τίνος καὶ βαρύνων τὸν κλοιὸν αὐτοῦ στιβαρῶς

‫א־אלֶּ ה ֻכלָּ ה ָע ָליו ָמ ָשׁל יִ ָשּׂאוּ‬ ֵ ֹ ‫ֲהל‬

H2aA6

‫יצה ִחידו ֺת לוֹ‬ ָ ‫וּמ ִל‬ ְ

H2aB6

‫אמר הו ֺי ַה ַמּ ְר ֶבּה לֹּא־לוֹ‬ ַ ֹ ‫וְ י‬

H2bA6

‫ד־מ ַתי‬ ָ ‫ַע‬

H2bB6

‫וּמ ְכ ִבּיד ָע ָליו ַע ְב ִטיט‬ ַ

H2bC6

ὅτι ἐξαίφνης ἀναστήσονται δάκνοντες αὐτόν καὶ ἐκνήψουσιν οἰ ἐπίβουλοί σου καὶ ἔσῃ εἰς διαρπαγὴν αὐτοῖς

‫ֲהלוֹא ֶפ ַתע יָ קוּמוּ נ ְֹשׁ ֶכיָך‬

H2aA7

‫וְ ִי ְקצוּ ְמזַ ְעזְ ֶעיָך‬

H2aB7

‫ית ִל ְמ ִשׁסּוֹת ָלמוֹ‬ ָ ִ‫וְ ָהי‬

H2aC7

διότι σὺ ἐσκύλευσας ἔθνη πολλά σκυλεύσουσί σε πάντες οἱ ὑπολελειμμένοι λαοὶ διὰ αἵματα ἀνθρώπων καὶ ἀσεβείας γῆς πόλεως καὶ πάντων τῶν κατοικούντων αὐτήν

‫לּוֹת גּוֹיִ ם ַר ִבּים‬ ָ ‫ִכּי ַא ָתּה ַשׁ‬

H2aA8

Will they not all take up a parable against him, And a proverb for a narrative against him? And they will say, “Woe to him who increases for himself things that don’t belong to him!” – how long? –

‫יְ ָשׁלּוָּך ָכּל־יֶ ֶרת ַע ִמּים‬

H2aB8

‫ס־א ֶרץ‬ ֶ ‫ִמ ְדּ ֵמ י ָא ָדם וַ ֲח ַמ‬

H2bA8

‫ִק ְר ָיה וְ ָכל־י ְֹשׁ ֵבי ָבהּ‬

H2bB8

Will not they all take up a taunt against him, With mockings and riddles for him? And he will say, “Woe to him who enlarges for himself things not his.” – how long? –

He2aA6 He2aB6 He2bA6

He2bB6

212

Translation of Ambakoum and Habakkuk

Ge2bC6

And who is heavily weighed down by his ornate neckchain.

And who loads himself with a burden of debt.

He2bC6

Ge2aA7

For suddenly those who bite him will rise up, And your plotters will come to their senses, And you will be spoil for them.

Will not your creditors suddenly rise up, And those who make you tremble awake? And you become plunder for them.

He2aA7

Because you plundered many nations, All the remnant peoples shall plunder you; On account of the blood of men and impiety of the land and city, and all those living in it.

Because you despoiled many nations, All the remnant of the peoples shall despoil you; Because of the blood of man and the violence of the land, city, and all those living in it.

He2aA8

Ge2aB7 Ge2aC7

Ge2aA8 Ge2aB8 Ge2bA8

Ge2bB8

He2aB7 He2aC7

He2aB8

He2bA8

He2bB8

2:9–11 G2aA9 G2aB9 G2aC9

G2aA10 G2bA10 G2bB10 G2aA11 G2aB11

ὦ ὁ πλεονεκτῶν πλεονεξίαν κακὴν τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ τοῦ τάξαι εἰς ὕψος νοσσιὰν αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἐκσπασθῆναι ἐκ χειρὸς κακῶν

‫הוֹי בּ ֵֹצ ַע ֶבּ ַצע ָרע ְל ֵביתוֹ‬

H2aA9

‫ָלשׂוּם ַבּ ָמּרוֹם ִקנּוֹ‬

H2aB9

‫ף־רע‬ ָ ‫לְ ִהנָּ ֵצל ִמ ַכּ‬

H2aC9

ἐβουλεύσω αἰσχύνην τῷ οἴκῳ σου συνεπέρανας λαοὺς πολλούς καὶ ἐξήμαρτεν ἡ ψυχή σου

‫יתָך‬ ֶ ‫יָ ַע ְצ ָתּ בּ ֶֹשׁת לְ ֵב‬

H2aA10

‫צוֹת־ע ִמּים ַר ִבּים‬ ַ ‫ְק‬

H2bA10

‫חוֹטא נַ ְפ ֶשָׁך‬ ֵ ְ‫ו‬

H2bB10

διότι λίθος ἐκ τοίχου βοήσεται καὶ κάνθαρος ἐκ ξύλου φθέγξεται αὐτά

‫י־א ֶבן ִמ ִקּיר ִתּזְ ָעף‬ ֶ ‫ִכּ‬

H2aA11

‫וְ ָכ ִפיס ֵמ ֵעץ יַ ֲענֶ נָּ ה‬

H2aB11

213

Amb/Hab 2:6–19 Ge2aA9

Ge2aB9 Ge2aC9

Ge2aA10 Ge2bA10 Ge2bB10

Ge2aA11 Ge2aB11

“Woe to him who covets an evil coveting for his house! To put his lair up on high, To be out of reach from the power of evils. You devised shame for your house, You destroyed many peoples, And your soul sinned.”

For a stone will cry out from a wall, And a beetle will utter back with these judgements:

“Who to him who profits from evil profiting for his house, To put his nest in the high place, To be out of harm’s way.

He2aA9

You devised shame for your house, Cutting off many peoples, So your soul sins.”

He2aA10

For a stone will cry out from a wall, And a rafter will answer it from the woodwork.

He2aA11

He2aB9 He2aC9

He2bA10 He2bB10

He2aB11

2:12–14 G2aA12 G2aB12 G2aA13 G2bA13 G2bB13 G2aA14 G2aB14

G2aA12 G2aB12

G2aA13 G2bA13 G2bB13

οὐαὶ ὁ οἰκοδομῶν πόλιν ἐν αἵμασι καὶ ἑτοιμάζων πόλιν ἐν ἀδικίαις οὐ ταῦτά ἐστι παρὰ κυρίου παντοκράτορος καὶ ἐξέλιπον λαοὶ ἱκανοὶ ἐν πυρί καὶ ἔθνη πολλὰ ὠλιγοψύχησαν

‫הוֹי בֹּנֶ ה ִעיר ְבּ ָד ִמים‬

H2aA12

‫וְ כוֹנֵ ן ִק ְר ָיה ְבּ ַעוְ לָ ה‬

H2aB12

‫ֲהלוֹא ִהנֵּ ה ֵמ ֵאת ְיהוָ ה ְצ ָבאוֹת‬

H2aA13

‫י־אשׁ‬ ֵ ‫וְ ִייגְ עוּ ַע ִמּים ְבּ ֵד‬

H2bA13

‫י־ריק ִי ָעפוּ‬ ִ ‫וּלְ ֻא ִמּים ְבּ ֵד‬

H2bB13

ὅτι ἐμπλησθήσεται ἡ γῆ τοῦ γνῶναι τὴν δόξαν κυρίου ὡς ὕδωρ κατακαλύψει αὐτούς

‫ת־כּבוֹד‬ ְ ‫ִכּי ִתּ ָמּ ֵלא ָה ָא ֶרץ ָל ַד ַעת ֶא‬

H2aA14

“Woe to him who builds a city in blood, And establishes a city in unrighteousness!

“Woe to him who builds a city in blood, And founds a city in iniquity.

H2aA12

Are not all these things from LORD Almighty? And peoples were exhausted in fire, And many nations have fainted.”

Is it not – behold! – from Yhwh of Hosts? And peoples have striven only for fire, And nations fainted for nothing.”

H2aA13

‫ְיהוָ ה‬ ‫ַכּ ַמּיִ ם יְ ַכסּוּ ַעל־יָ ם‬

H2aB14

H2aB12

H2bA13 H2bB13

214 G2aA14

G2aB14

Translation of Ambakoum and Habakkuk For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of LORD, It shall cover them as water.

For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of Yhwh, As the waters cover the sea.

H2aA14

H2aB14

2:15–17 G2aA15 G2aB15 G2bA15

G2aA16 G2aB16 G2bA16 G2bB16

G2aA17 G2aB17 G2bA17 G2bB17 Ge2aA15

Ge2aB15 Ge2bA15

Ge2aA16

Ge2aB16 Ge2bA16

ὦ ὁ ποτίζων τὸν πλησίον αὐτοῦ ἀνατροπῇ θολερᾷ καὶ μεθύσκων ὅπως ἐπιβλέπῃ ἐπὶ τὰ σπήλαια αὐτῶν πλησμονὴν ἀτιμίας ἐκ δόξης πίε καὶ σὺ καὶ διασαλεύθητι καὶ σείσθητι ἐκύκλωσεν ἐπὶ σὲ ποτήριον δεξιᾶς κυρίου καὶ συνήχθη ἀτιμία ἐπὶ τὴν δόξαν σου διότι ἀσέβεια τοῦ Λιβάνου καλύψει σε καὶ ταλαιπωρία θηρίων πτοήσει σε διὰ αἵματα ἀνθρώπων καὶ ἀσεβείας γῆς πόλεως καὶ πάντων τῶν κατοικούντων αὐτήν

‫הוֹי ַמ ְשׁ ֵקה ֵר ֵעהוּ‬

H2aA15

‫ְמ ַס ֵפּ ַח ֲח ָמ ְתָך‬

H2aB15

‫וְ ַאף ַשׁ ֵכּר‬

H2aC15

‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫עוֹר‬ ֵ ‫ל־מ‬ ְ ‫ְל ַמ ַען ַה ִבּיט ַע‬

H2bA15

‫ָשׁ ַב ְע ָתּ ָקלוֹן ִמ ָכּבוֹד‬

H2aA16

‫ם־א ָתּה וְ ֵה ָע ֵרל‬ ַ ַ‫ְשׂ ֵתה ג‬

H2aB16

‫ִתּסּוֹב ָע ֶליָך כּוֹס יְ ִמין ְיהוָ ה‬

H2bA16

‫בוֹדָך‬ ֶ ‫ל־כּ‬ ְ ‫וְ ִק ָיקלוֹן ַע‬

H2bB16

ָ‫ִכּי ֲח ַמס ְל ָבנוֹן ְי ַכ ֶסּךּ‬

H2aA17

‫יתן‬ ַ ‫וְ שׁ ֹד ְבּ ֵהמוֹת יְ ִח‬

H2aB17

‫ס־א ֶרץ‬ ֶ ‫ִמ ְדּ ֵמ י ָא ָדם וַ ֲח ַמ‬

H2bA17

‫ִק ְר ָיה וְ ָכל־י ְֹשׁ ֵבי ָבהּ‬

H2bB17

“Woe to him who gives his neighbour a drink with turbid upset! Then makes him drunk. Just so you can look upon their nether parts.

“Woe to him who makes his neighbour drink, Pouring out your wrath And even makes him drunk, So that he looks upon his nakedness.

He2aB15

Drink! – even you – dishonourable indulgence from glory, And shake and quake! The cup of the right hand of LORD came around to you,

You drank shame instead of glory, Drink – you also! – and be circumcised. The cup of the right hand of Yhwh will come to you, And shame upon your glory.”

He2aC15 He2bA15 He2bB15

He2aA16 He2aB16 He2bA16 He2bB16

215

Amb/Hab 2:6–19 Ge2bB16

And dishonour was gathered upon your glory.”

Ge2aA17

For the impiety of Lebanon will cover you, And the distress of wild beasts will startle you, On account of the blood of men and impiety of the land and city, and all those living in it.

Because the violence against Lebanon will cover you, As the destruction against the beasts terrified them. From the blood of man and violence of the land, city, and all those living in it.

Τί ὠφελεῖ γλυπτόν ὅτι ἔγλυψεν αὐτό ἔπλασεν αὐτὸ χώνευμα φαντασίαν ψευδῆ ὅτι πέποιθεν ὁ πλάσας ἐπὶ τὸ πλάσμα αὐτοῦ τοῦ ποιῆσαι εἴδωλα κωφά

‫ה־הוֹעיל ֶפּ ֶסל‬ ִ ‫ָמ‬

H2aA18

‫ִכּי ְפ ָסלוֹ י ְֹצרוֹ‬

H2aB18

‫וּמוֹרה ָשּׁ ֶקר‬ ֶ ‫ַמ ֵסּ ָכה‬

H2aC18

Ge2aB17 Ge2bA17

Ge2bB17

He2aA17

He2aB17 He2bA17 He2bB17

2:18–19 G2aA18 G2aB18 G2bA18 G2cA18 G2dA18 G2dB18 G2aA19 G2aB19 G2bA19 G2cA19 G2cB19 Ge2aA18 Ge2aB18 Ge2bA18 Ge2cA18 Ge2dA18 Ge2dB18 Ge2aA19

Ge2aB19 Ge2bA19

οὐαὶ ὁ λέγων τῷ ξύλῳ Ἔκνηψον ἐξεγέρθητι καὶ τῷ λίθῳ Ὑψώθητι καὶ αὐτὸ ἐστι φαντασία τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν ἔλασμα χρυσίου καὶ ἀργυρίου καὶ πᾶν πνεῦμα οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν αὐτῷ

‫ִכּי ָב ַטח י ֵֹצ ר ִי ְצרוֹ ָע ָליו‬

H2bA18

‫ילים ִא ְלּ ִמים‬ ִ ‫ַל ֲעשׂוֹת ֱא ִל‬

H2bB18

‫יצה‬ ָ ‫הוֹי א ֵֹמר ָל ֵעץ ָה ִק‬

H2aA19

‫דּוּמם‬ ָ ‫עוּר י לְ ֶא ֶבן‬ ִ

H2aB19

‫יוֹרה‬ ֶ ‫הוּא‬

H2bA19

‫ִהנֵּ ה־הוּא ָתּפוּשׁ זָ ָהב וָ ֶכ ֶסף‬

H2cA19

‫וְ ָכל־רוּח ֵאין ְבּ ִק ְרבּוֹ‬

H2cB19

What profit is a graven image, Because they engraved it? He made it a cast metal image – a false impression – For the maker trusts in his work, To make dumb idols.

What profit is an idol, When its maker carves it? A metal image, a teacher of a lie. For he who makes his creation has trusted in it, When he makes dumb idols.

He2aA18 He2aB18 He2aC18

“Woe to him who says to a wooden thing, “Sober up! Wake up!” And to a stone, “Be exalted!” Even it is an impression.

“Woe to him who says to wood, ‘Wake up!’ ‘Get up!’ to a dumb stone. It teaches.

He2bA18 He2bB18

He2aA19 He2aB19 He2bA19

216 Ge2cA19 Ge2cB19

Translation of Ambakoum and Habakkuk This is overlain with gold and silver, And there is no breath in it.”

Behold it is overlain with gold and silver, And there is no breath in its midst.”

He2cA19 He2cB19

Amb/Hab 2:20 G2aA20 G2aB20 Ge2aA20 Ge2aB20

ὁ δὲ κύριος ἐν ναῷ ἁγίῳ αὐτοῦ εὐλαβείσθω ἀπὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ πᾶσα ἡ γῆ But LORD is in his holy temple, Let the whole earth make obeisance before his presence.

‫יכ ל ָק ְדשׁוֹ‬ ַ ‫וַ יהוָ ה ְבּ ֵה‬

H2aA20

‫ל־ה ָא ֶרץ‬ ָ ‫ַהס ִמ ָפּנָ יו ָכּ‬

H2aB20

But Yhwh is in his holy temple, Hush! All the earth before his presence.

He2aA20 He2aB20

Amb/Hab 3:1 Προσευχὴ Αμβακουμ τοῦ προφήτου μετὰ ῳδῆς A prayer of Ambakoum the prophet with song: ‫ְתּ ִפלָּ ה ַל ֲח ַבקּוּק ַהנָּ ִביא ַעל ִשׁגְ י ֹנו ֺת‬ A prayer of Habakkuk the prophet upon a shigionoth:

Amb/Hab 3:2–7 G3aΑ2 G3aB2 G3bA2 G3bB2 G3bC2 G3bD2 G3cA2

Κύριε εἰσακήκοα τὴν ἀκοήν σου και ἐφοβήθην κατενόησα τὰ ἔργα σου καὶ ἐξέστην ἐν μέσῳ δύο ζῴων γνωσθήσῃ ἐν τῷ ἐγγίζειν τὰ ἔτη ἐπιγνωσθήσῃ εν τῷ παρεῖναι τὸν καιρὸν ἀναδειχθήσῃ ἐν τῷ ταραχθῆναι τὴν ψυχήν μου ἐν ὀργῇ ἐλέους μνησθήσῃ

‫ְיהוָ ה ָשׁ ַמ ְע ִתּי ִשׁ ְמ ֲעָך‬

H3aA2

‫אתי ְיהוָ ה ָפּ ָע ְלָך‬ ִ ‫יָ ֵר‬

H3aB2

‫ְבּ ֶק ֶרב ָשׁנִ ים ַחיֵּ יהוּ‬

H3bA2

‫ְבּ ֶק ֶרב ָשׁנִ ים תּו ִֺד ַיע‬

H3bB2

‫ְבּר ֹגֶ ז ַר ֵחם ִתּזְ כּו ֺר‬

H3cA2

217

Amb/Hab 3:2–7 G3aA3 G3aB3 G3aA3 G3aB3

G3aA4 G3aB4 G3aC4

G3aA5 G3aB5

G3aA6 G3aB6 G3bA6 G3bB6

G3aA7 G3aB7 G3aC7 Ge3aA2 Ge3aB2 Ge3bA2

Ge3bB2 Ge3bC2

Ge3bD2

ὁ θεὸς ἐκ Θαιμαν ἥξει καὶ ὁ ἅγιος ἐξ ὄρους κατασκίου δασἐος διάψαλμα ἐκάλυψεν οὐρανοὺς ἡ ἀρετὴ αὐτοῦ καὶ αἰνέσεως αὐτοῦ πλήρης ἡ γῆ καὶ φέγγος αὐτοῦ ὡς φῶς ἔσται κέρατα ἐν χερσὶν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔθετο ἀγάπησιν κραταιὰν ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ πρὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ πορεύσεται λὸγος καὶ ἐξελεύσεται εἰς πεδία οἱ πόδες αὐτοῦ ἔστη καὶ ἐσαλεύθη ἡ γῆ ἐπέβλεψε καὶ διετάκη ἔθνη καὶ διεθρύβη τὰ ὄρη βίᾳ ἐτάκησαν βουνοὶ αἰώνιοι

πορείας αἰωνίας αὐτοῦ ἀντὶ κώπον εἶδον σκηνώματα Αἰθιόπων πτοηθήσονται καὶ αἱ σκηναὶ γῆς Μαδιαμ O LORD, I have heard of your report and feared; I considered your works, and was amazed; In the midst of two living creatures you will be known, In the approaching years you will be made known, In the coming of the appointed time you will be manifested, In the troubling of my soul,

‫ימן יָ בו ֺא‬ ָ ‫לוֹה ִמ ֵתּ‬ ַ ‫ֱא‬

H3aA3

‫ר־פּארן ֶסלָ ה‬ ָ ‫וְ ָקדוֹשׁ ֵמ ַה‬

H3aB3

‫ִכּ ָסּה ָשׁ ַמיִ ם הו ֺדוֹ‬

H3bA3

‫וּת ִמלָּ תו ֺ ָמ ְל ָאה ָה ָא ֶרץ‬ ְ

H3bB3

‫וְ נֹגַ הּ ָכּאו ֺר ִתּ ְה ֶיה‬

H3aA4

‫ַק ְרנַ יִ ם ִמיָּ דו ֺ לוֹ‬

H3aB4

‫וְ ָשׁם ֶח ְביו ֺן ֻעזֹּה‬

H3aC4

‫ְל ָפנָ יו יֵ ֶלְך ָדּ ֶבר‬

H3aA5

‫וְ ֵי ֵצא ֶר ֶשׁף ְל ַרגְ ָליו‬

H3aB5

‫ָע ַמד וַ ְימ ֶֹדד ֶא ֶרץ‬

H3aA6

‫ָר ָאה וַ יַּ ֵתּר גו ֺיִ ם‬

H3aB6

‫י־עד‬ ַ ‫וַ יִּ תּפּ ְֹצצוּ ַה ְר ֵר‬

H3bA6

‫ַשׁחוּ גִּ ְבעו ֺת עו ָֺלם‬

H3bB6

ֺ ‫ֲהלִ יכו ֺת עו ָֺלם לו‬

H3bC6

‫כוּשׁן‬ ָ ‫ַתּ ַחת ָאוֶ ן ָר ִא ִירי ָא ֳה ֵלי‬

H3aA7

‫יִ ְרגְּ זוּן ְי ִריעו ֺת ֶא ֶרץ ִמ ְד ָין‬

H3aB7

I have heard, O Yhwh, of your report, I fear, O Yhwh, your work; In the midst of the years revive it, In the midst of the years you will be made known, In wrath you will remember mercy.

He3aA2 He3aB2 He3bA2 He3bB2 He3cA2

218

Translation of Ambakoum and Habakkuk

Ge3cA2

In wrath you will remember mercy.

Ge3aA3 Ge3aB3

God will come from Thaiman, And the Holy One from a densely wooded mountain. Pause. His glory covered the heavens, And the earth is full of his praise

God will come from Teman, And the Holy One from Mount Paran. Selah. His glory covered the heavens, And his praise fills the earth.

His brightness will be like light, Horns are in his hands, And he established a mighty love of his strength.

And his radiance will be like sunlight, And horns in his hands. And there is the hiding place of his strength.

He3aA4

A report will proceed before him, And he will go out, his feet onto the planes.

Before him goes pestilence, And plague goes out from his feet.

He3aA5 He3aB5

He stood, and the earth was shaken, He looked, and the nations melted away; The mountains were violently burst through, The eternal hills melted away.

He stood, and shook the earth, He looked, and stirred up the nations; And the perpetual mountains were shattered, The eternal hills were bowed low, His ways are everlasting.

He3aA6

Ge3bA3 Ge3bB3

Ge3aA4 Ge3aB4 Ge3aC4

Ge3aA5 Ge3aB5

Ge3aA6 Ge3aB6 Ge3bA6 Ge3bB6

Ge3aA7 Ge3aB7 Ge3aC7

I saw his eternal footpaths instead of toil, The tents of Ethiopia were shaken, Even the tent curtains of the land of Midian.

Instead of iniquity I saw the tents of Cushan, The tent curtains of the land of Midian were shaken.

He3aA3 He3aB3 He3bA3 He3bB3

He3aB4 He3aC4

He3aB6 He3bA6 He3bB6 He3bC6 He3aA7 He3aB7

Amb/Hab 3:8–15 G3aA8 G3aB8

μὴ ἐν ποταμοῖς ὠργίσθης, κύριε ἢ ἐν ποταμοῖς ὁ θυμός σου

‫ֲה ִבנְ ָה ִרים ָח ָרה ְיהוָ ה‬

H3aA8

‫ִאם ַבּנְּ ָה ִרים ַא ֶפָּך‬

H3aB8

219

Amb/Hab 3:8–15 G3aC8 G3bA8 G3bB8 G3aA9 G3aB9 G3aC9 G3aA10 G3aB10 G3bA10 G3bB10

G3aA11 G3aB11 G3aC11

ἢ ἐν θαλάσσῃ τὸ ὅρμημά σου ὅτι ἐπιβήσῃ ἐπὶ τοὺς ἵππους σου καὶ ἡ ἱππασία σου σωτηρία ἐντείνων ἐντενεῖς τὸ τόξον σου ἑπτὰ σκῆπτρα, λέγει κύριος διάψαλμα ποταμῶν ῥαγήσεται γῆ ὄψονταί σε καὶ ὠδινήσουσι λαοί σκορπίζων ὕδατα πορείας ἔδοκεν ἡ ἄβυσσος φωνὴν αὐτῆς ὕψος φαντασίας αὐτῆς

ἐπήρθη ὁ ἥλιος, καὶ ἡ σελήνη ἔστη ἐν τῇ τάξει αὐτῆς εἰς φῶς βολίδες σου πορεύσονται εἰς φέγγος ἀστραπῆς ὅπλων σου

G3aA12 G3aB12

ἐν ἀπειλῇ ὀλιγώσεις γῆν καὶ ἐν θυμῷ κατάξεις ἔθνη

G3aA13

ἐξῆλθες εἰς σωτερίαν λαοῦ σου τοῦ σῶσαι τοὺς χριστούς σου ἔβαλες εὶς κεφαλὰς ἀνόμων θάνατον ἐξήγειρας δεσμοὺς ἕως τραχήλου διάψαλμα

G3aB13 G3bA13 G3bB13

G3aA14 G3aB14 G3bA14 G3bB14

διέκοψας ἐν ἐκστάσει κεφαλὰς δυναστῶν σεισθήσονται ἐν αὐτῇ διανοίξουσι χαλινοὺς αὐτῶν ὡς ἔσθων πτωχὸς λάθρᾳ

‫ִאם ַבּיָּ ם ֶע ְב ָר ֶתָך‬

H3aC8

‫ל־סוּסיָך‬ ֶ ‫ִכּי ִת ְר ַכּב ַע‬

H3bA8

‫שׁוּעה‬ ָ ‫ַמ ְר ְכּב ֶֹתיָך ְי‬

H3bB8

‫ֶע ְר ָיה ֵתעוֹר ַק ְשׁ ֶתָּך‬

H3aA9

‫ְשׁ ֻבעוֹת ַמטּוֹת א ֶֹמר ֶסלָ ה‬

H3aB9

‫קּע־א ֶרץ‬ ָ ‫נְ ָהרוֹת ְתּ ַב‬

H3aC9

‫ָראוָּך ָי ִחילוּ ָה ִרים‬

H3aA10

‫זֶ ֶרם ַמיִ ם ָע ָבר‬

H3aB10

‫נָ ַתן ְתּהוֹם קוֹלוֹ‬

H3bA10

‫רוֹם יָ ֵדיהוּ נָ ָשׂא‬

H3bB10

‫ֶשׁ ֶמשׁ יָ ֵר ַח ָע ַמד זְ ֻב ָלה‬

H3aA11

‫ְלאוֹר ִח ֶצּיָך ְי ַה ֵלּכוּ‬

H3aB11

‫יתָך‬ ֶ ִ‫לְ נֹגַ הּ ְבּ ַרק ֲחנ‬

H3aC11

‫ד־א ֶרץ‬ ָ ‫ְבּזַ ַעם ִתּ ְצ ַע‬

H3aA12

‫ְבּ ַאף ָתּדוּשׁ גוֹיִ ם‬

H3aB12

‫את ְליֵ ַשׁע ַע ֶמָּך‬ ָ ‫יָ ָצ‬

H3aA13

‫יחָך‬ ֶ ‫ת־מ ִשׁ‬ ְ ‫ְליֵ ַשׁע ֶא‬

H3aB13

‫ָמ ַח ְצ ָתּ רּ ֹאשׁ ִמ ֵבּית ָר ָשׁע‬

H3bA13

‫ָערוֹת ְיסוֹד ַעד־צוָּ אר ֶסלָ ה‬

H3bB13

‫נָ ַק ְב ָתּ ְב ַמ ָטּיו ר ֹאשׁ ְפּ ָרזָ ו‬ ‫יצנִ י‬ ֵ ‫יִ ְס ֲערוּ לַ ֲה ִפ‬ ‫מוֹ־ל ֱאכֹל ָענִ י‬ ֶ ‫יצ ָתם ְכּ‬ ֻ ‫ֲע ִל‬ ‫ַבּ ִמּ ְס ָתּר‬

H3aA14 H3aB14 H3bA14

220

G3aA15 G3aB15 Ge3aA8 Ge3aB8 Ge3aC8 Ge3bA8 Ge3bB8

Ge3aA9 Ge3aB9 Ge3aC9

Ge3aA10 Ge3aB10 Ge3bA10 Ge3bB10 Ge3aA11 Ge3aB11 Ge3bA11 Ge3bB11

Ge3aA12 Ge3aB12

Ge3aA13 Ge3aB13 Ge3bA13

Translation of Ambakoum and Habakkuk

καὶ ἐπεβίβασας εἰς θάλασσαν τοὺς ἵππους σου ταράσσοντας ὕδωρ πολύ

‫סוּסיָך‬ ֶ ‫ָדּ ַר ְכ ָתּ ַביָּ ם‬

H3aA15

‫ח ֶֹמר ַמיִ ם ַר ִבּים‬

H3aB15

Were you angry against the rivers, O LORD, Or was your anger against the rivers, Or was your wrath against the sea? For you will mount up upon your horses, And your cavalry is salvation.

Were you angry against the rivers, O Yhwh, Or was your anger against the rivers, Or your wrath against the seas? For you rode upon your horses, Your chariots of salvation.

He3aA8

Surely you bent your bow; “Seven sceptres,” says the LORD. Pause. A land of rivers will be ripped up.

You stripped bare your bow, Oaths of rods were sworn. Pause. You tore up a land of rivers.

He3aA9

The mountains saw you and writhed, Stormy waters swept by; The deep lifted up its voice, Its hands lifted up high.

He3aA10

Peoples will see you and travail, scattering the waters of a course. The deep lifted up her voice, Her impression was on high. The sun was lifted up, And the moon stood in its lofty place; At the light of your arrows they went away, At the flash of your glittering spear. In a threat you will diminish the land, And in anger you will break the nations. You went out for the salvation of your people, To save your anointed ones; You cast death upon the heads of the lawless,

He3aB8 He3aC8 He3bA8 He3bB8

He3aB9 He3aC9

He3aB10 He3bA10 He3bB10

The sun and moon stood in their lofty place, At the light of your arrows they fled, At the flash of your lightning spear.

He3aA11

You marched upon the earth in fury, You threshed the nations in anger.

He3aA12

You went out for the salvation of your people, For the salvation of your anointed one;

He3aA13

He3aB11 He3aC11

He3aB12

He3aB13

221

Amb/Hab 3:16–19 Ge3bB13

Ge3aA14

Ge3aB14 Ge3bA14 Ge3bB14

Ge3aA15 Ge3aB15

You raised up fetters to the neck. Pause.

You smote the head of the house of evil, To strip bare from base to neck. Pause.

He3bA13

You cut-through in bewilderment the heads of the mighty, They will be shaken by this. They will open up their bridles, As a poor man eating secretly.

You bore through with his rods the heads of his warrior princes, They stormed in to scatter me, Their exultation was like those who devour the afflicted in the secret place.

He3aA14

And you caused your horses to go upon the sea, Troubling much water.

You marched upon the sea with your horses, A surge of many waters.

He3aA15

He3bB13

He3aB14 He3aC14

He3aB15

Amb/Hab 3:16–19 G3aA16 G3aB16 G3bA16 G3bB16 G3cA16 G3cB16

G3aA17 G3aB17 G3bA17 G3bB17 G3cA17 G3cB17

ἐπυλαξάμην, καὶ ἐπτοηθή ἡ κοιλία μου ἀπὸ φωνῆς προσευχῆς χειλέων μου καὶ εἰσῆλθε τρόμος εἰς τὰ ὀστᾶ μου καὶ ὑποκάτωθέν μου ἐταράχθη ἡ ἕξις μου ἀναπαύσομαι ἐν ἡμέρᾳ θλίψεως τοῦ ἀναβῆναι εἰς λαὸν παροικίας μου διότι συκῆ οὐ καρπορφορήσει, καὶ οὐκ ἔσται γενήματα ἐν ταῖς ἀμπέλοις ψεύσεται ἔργον ἐλαίας καὶ τὰ πεδία οὐ ποιήσει βρῶσιν ἐξέλιπον ἀπὸ βρώσεως πρόβατα καὶ οὐκ ὑπάρχουσι βόες ἐπὶ φάτναις

‫ָשׁ ַמ ְע ִתּי וַ ִתּ ְרגַּ ז ִבּ ְטנִ י‬

H3aA16

‫ְלקו ֺל ָצלֲ לוּ ְשׂ ָפ ַתי‬

H3aB16

‫יָ בו ֺא ָר ָקב ַבּ ֲע ָצ ַמי‬

H3bA16

‫וְ ַת ְח ַתּי ֶא ְרגַּ ז‬

H3bB16

‫נוּח לְ יו ֺם ָצ ָרה‬ ַ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר ָא‬

H3cA16

‫גוּדנּוּ‬ ֶ ‫לעם ְי‬ ַ ‫ַל ֲעלו ֺת‬

H3cB16

‫ִכּי ְת ֵאנָ ה ל ֹא ִת ְפ ָרח‬

H3aA17

‫וְ ֵאין יְ בוּל ַבּגְּ ָפנִ ים‬

H3aB17

‫ִכּ ֵחשׁ ַמ ֲע ֵשׂה זַ יִ ת‬

H3bA17

‫וּשׂ ֵדמו ֺת ל ֹא ָע ָשׂה א ֶֹכל‬ ְ

H3bB17

‫גָּ זַ ר ִמ ִמּ ְכלָ ה צ ֹאן‬

H3cA17

‫וְ ֵאין ָבּ ָקר ָבּ ְר ָפ ִתים‬

H3cB17

222

G3aA18 G3aB18

G3aA19 G3aB19 G3bA19 G3bB19 Ge3aA16

Translation of Ambakoum and Habakkuk

ἐγὼ δὲ ἐν τῷ κυρίῳ ἀγαλλίασομαι χαρήσομαι ἐπὶ τῷ θεῷ τῷ σωτῆρί μου κύριος ὁ θεὸς δύναμίς μου καὶ τάξει τοὺς πόδας μου εἰς συντέλειαν ἐπὶ τὰ ὑψηλὰ ἐπιβιβᾷ με τοῦ νικῆσαι ἐν τῇ ᾠδῇ αὐτοῦ

‫וַ ֲאנִ י ַבּיהוָ ה ֶא ְעלו ֺזָ ה‬

H3aA18

‫אֹלהי יִ ְשׁ ִעי‬ ֵ ‫ָאגִ ילָ ה ֵבּ‬

H3aB18

‫ילי‬ ִ ‫ְיהוִ הּ ֲאד ֹנָ י ֵח‬

H3aA19

‫וַ יָּ ֶשׂם ַרגְ ַלי ָכּ ַאיָּ לו ֺת‬

H3aB19

‫וְ ַעל ָבּמו ַֺתי יַ ְד ִר ֵכנִ י‬

H3bA19

‫ַל ְמנַ ֵצּ ַח ִבּנְ גִ ינו ָֺתי‬

H3bB19

I took my guard, and my inwards trembled, From the sound of the prayer of my lips. Trembling also entered into my bones, and my gait was troubled beneath me; I will rest in a day of affliction, To go up to the people of my sojourning.

I heard, and my belly trembled, At the sound, my lips quivered, Decay enters into my bones, And I tremble in my place; Yet I will wait for a day of distress, To come up against a people who attack us.

For though the fig tree will bear no fruit, And there will be no produce in the vineyard, The work of the olive tree lies, And the plains not produce food, The sheep perish away from the pasture, And there are no oxen in the stalls,

For though the fig tree bears no fruit, And there is no produce in the vineyard, The olive tree feigns, And the fields produce no food, The sheep are driven from their pen, And there is no cattle in the enclosure,

Ge3aA18 Ge3aB18

Yet I will exult in LORD, I will rejoice in God my saviour.

Yet I shall exult in Yhwh, I shall rejoice in the God of my salvation.

He3aA18 He3aB18

Ge3aA19 Ge3aB19

LORD God is my strength, And he will perfectly order my feet,

Yhwh God is my strength, And he has set my feet as a deer,

He3aA19 He3aB19

Ge3aB16 Ge3bA16 Ge3bB16 Ge3cA16 Ge3cB16

Ge3aA17 Ge3aB17 Ge3bA17 Ge3bB17 Ge3cA17 Ge3cB17

He3aA16 He3aB16 He3bA16 He3bB16 He3cA16 He3cB16

He3aA17 He3aB17 He3bA17 He3bB17 He3cA17 He3cB17

Amb/Hab 3:16–19 Ge3bA19 Ge3bB19

He puts me upon high places, To conquer by his song.

223

And upon my high places he has caused me to tread.

He3aC19

For the music director with stringed instruments.

He3bA19

Bibliography Abegg, Martin G., James E. Bowley, Edward M. Cook, Emanuel Tov, and Eugene Charles Ulrich, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance. The Non-Biblical Texts from Qumran [Part One]. Vol. 1. Leiden; Boston, Mass.: Brill, 2003. Achtemeier, Paul. “Omne Verbum Sonat: The New Testament and the Oral Environment of Late Western Antiquity.” Journal of Biblical Literature 109, no. 1 (1990): 3–27. Aejmelaeus, Anneli. “Translation Technique and the Intention of the Translator.” Pages 25– 36 in VII Congress of the International Organization of Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Edited by Claude E. Cox. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 31. Edited by Claude E. Cox. Leuven: Society of Biblical Literature, 1991. –. On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays. Revised and expanded ed. Leuven: Peeters, 2007. –. “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. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 59. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013. Aitken, James K. “The Language of the Septuagint: Recent Theories, Future Prospects.” Bulletin of Judaeo-Greek Studies 24 (1999): 24–33. –. Review of Arie van der Kooij, The Oracle of Tyre. Vetus Testamentum 51, no. 3 (2001): 409–10. –. “Rhetoric and Poetry in Greek Ecclesiastes.” The Bulletin of the International Organization of Septuagint and Cognate Studies 38 (2005): 55–77. –. “The Significance of Rhetoric in the Greek Pentateuch.” Pages 507–21 in On Stone and Scroll. Edited by James K. Aitken, Katherine J. Dell and Brian A. Mastin. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011. –, “Multiple Causation of Translation Features and the Case of Aquila’s σύν.” Paper presented at Die Septuaginta: Text, Wirkung, Rezeption, Wuppertal, 2012. –, “Lessons for Modern Translation Theory from Aquila and Other Odd Ancient Predecessors.” Paper presented at The Signs of the Times Conference, Heythrop College, University of London, 2013. –. “The Language of the Septuagint and Jewish Greek Identity.” Pages 120–34 in The Jewish-Greek Tradition in Antiquity and the Byzantine Empire. Edited by James K. Aitken and James Carleton Paget. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. –. No Stone Unturned. Greek Inscriptions and Septuagint Vocabulary. Critical Studies in the Hebrew Bible 5. Edited by Anselm C. Hagedorn, Nathan MacDonald and Stuart Weeks. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2014. –. “Introduction.” Pages 1–12 in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint. Edited by James K. Aitken. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. –. “The Origins of ΚΑΙ ΓΕ.” Pages 21–40 in Biblical Greek in Context. Edited by James K. Aitken and T. V. Evans. Leuven: Peeters, 2015.

226

Bibliography

–, ed. T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint. London; New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. Allen, James. “Arcesilaus.” Pages 247–8 in vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Donald M. Borchert. 10 vols. Detroit: Thomas Gale, 2005. –. “Carneades.” Pages 46–8 in vol. 2 of Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Donald M. Borchert. 10 vols. Detroit: Thomas Gale, 2005. Allen, W. Sydney. Vox Graeca. A Guide to Pronunciation of Classical Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968. Andersen, Francis I. Habakkuk: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 25. New York; London: Anchor Bible/Doubleday, 2001. Aristotle. De Anima. With Translation, Introduction and Notes. Translated by R. D. Hicks. The Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1907. Baer, David A. When We All Go Home. Translation and Theology in LXX Isaiah 56–66. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 318. Edited by Andrew Mein, David J. A. Clines and Philip R. Davies. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Barr, James. The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979. –. “‘Why?’ in Biblical Hebrew.” Journal of Theological Studies 36.1 (1985): 1–33. –. “‘Guessing’ in the Septuagint.” Pages 19–34 in Studien zur Septuaginta - Robert Hanhart zu Ehren. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen: PhilologischHistorische Klasse 190. Edited by Detlef Fraenkel, Udo Quast and John Wm. Wevers. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990. Barthélemy, Dominique. “Redécouverte d’un chaînon manquant de l’histoire de la Septante.” Revue biblique 60 (1953): 18–29. –. 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. Edited by G. W. Anderson, P. A. H. de Boer, G. R. Castellino, Henry Cazelles, E. Hammershaimb, H. G. May and Walther Zimmerli. Leiden: Brill, 1963. Barthélemy, Dominique, A. R. Hulst, and ABU, eds. Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. Vol. 3. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 50. Fribourg, Suisse; Göttingen: Editions universitaires; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. Bauer, Walter, Frederick W. Danker, William Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, eds. A GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Bellos, David. Is That a Fish in Your Ear? Translation and the Meaning of Everything. London: Penguin Books, 2011. Berlin, Adele. The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985. Bezold, Carl, and Franz Boll. Sternglaube und Sterndeutung. Leipzig; Berlin: Berlag und Drud, 1918. Biguenet, John, and Rainer Schulte, eds. The Craft of Translation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1989. Bird, Michael F. Are You the One Who Is to Come? The Historical Jesus and the Messianic Question. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009. Boda, Mark. “Freeing the Burden of Prophecy: Maśśā’ and the Legitimacy of Prophecy in Zech 9–14.” Biblica 87, no. 3 (2006): 338–57.

Bibliography

227

–. “Figuring the Future: The Prophets and Messiah.” Pages 35–74 in The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments. McMaster New Testament Studies. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2007. Bons, Eberhard. “Rhetorical Devices in the Septuagint Psalter.” Pages 69–79 in Et Sapienter et eloquenter. Studies on Rhetorical and Stylistic Features of the Septuagint. Edited by Eberhard Bons and Thomas J. Kraus. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 241. Edited by Jan Christian Gertz, Dietrich-Alex Koch, Mattias Köckert, Hermut Löhr, Joachim Schaper and Christopher Tuckett. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Bons, Eberhard, Kai Brodersen, Helmet Engel, Heinz-Josef Fabry, Siegfried Kreuzer, Wolfgang Orth, Martin Rösel, Helmet Utzschneider, Dieter Vieweger, and Nikolaus Walter, eds. Septuaginta Deutsch. Das griechische Alte Testament in deutscher Übersetzung. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and Martin Karrer. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2009. Bons, Eberhard, Jan Joosten, Stephan Kessler, and Philippe Le Moigne, eds. Les Douze Prophètes: Osée. La Bible d'Alexandrie 23.1. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2002. Boyd-Taylor, Cameron. “A Place in the Sun: The Interpretative Significance of LXX-Psalm 18:5c.” Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 31 (1998): 71–105. –. “An Ear for an Eye – Lay Literacy and the Septuagint.” Pages 127–45 in Scripture in Transition. Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo. Edited by Anssi Voitila and Jutta Jokiranta. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 126. Edited by John J. Collins, Florentino García Martínez and Hindy Najman. Leiden: Brill, 2008. –. Reading Between the Lines. The Interlinear Paradigm for Septuagint Studies. Biblical Tools and Studies 8. Edited by B. Doyle, G. van Belle and J. Verheyden. Leuven: Peeters, 2011. –, ed. A Question of Methodology. Albert Pietersma Collected Essays on the Septuagint. Biblical Tools and Studies 14. Edited by B. Doyle, G. van Belle and J. Verheyden. Leuven: Peeters, 2013. Brenton, Sir Lancelot Charles L. The English Translation of The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament. London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1851. Brock, Sebastian P. “The Phenomenon of Biblical Translation in Antiquity.” Pages 541–71 in Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations. Edited by Harry M. Orlinsky. New York: Ktav Publishing, 1974. Brogan, T. V. F., ed. The New Princeton Handbook of Poetic Terms. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, Charles A. Briggs, and Wilhelm Gesenius, eds. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament With an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907. Brownlee, William H. The Text of Habakkuk in the Ancient Commentary from Qumran. The Journal of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 11. Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1959. –. “The Placarded Revelation of Habakkuk.” Journal of Biblical Literature 82/83 (1963): 319–25. Brownlie, Siobhan. “Investigating Explanations of Translational Phenomena. A Case for Multiple Causality.” Target 15, no. 1 (2003): 111–52. Bruce, F. F. “Habakkuk.” Pages 831–908 in The Minor Prophets. Edited by Thomas McCormiskey. Vol. 2. The Minor Prophets. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009.

228

Bibliography

Burton, Ernest De Witt. Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek. 3d ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1898. Campbell, Constantine R. Advances in the Study of Greek. New Insights for Reading the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015. Campbell, Douglas A. “Romans 1:17 – A Crux Interpretum for the ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ Debate.” Journal of Biblical Literature 113, no. 2 (1994): 265–85. Carlson, Richard P. “Whose Faith? Reexamining the Hab 2:4 Citation within the Communicative Act of Romans 1:1–17.” Pages 293–324 in Raising Up a Faithful Exegete: Essays in Honor of Richard D. Nelson. Edited by K. L. Noll and Brooks Schramm. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010. Casevitz, Michel, Cécile Dogniez, and Marguerite Harl, eds. Les Douze Prophètes: Aggée – Zacharie. La Bible d’Alexandrie 23.10–11. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2007. Cathcart, Kevin J., and R. P. Gordon, eds. The Targum of the Minor Prophets. The Aramaic Bible 14. Edited by Kevin J. Cathcart, Michael Maher and Martin McNamara. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989. Cleaver-Bartholomew, David. “An Analysis of the Old Greek Version of Habakkuk.” PhD diss., The Claremont Graduate University, 1998. –. “One Text, Two Interpretations.” Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 42 (2009): 52–67. Clines, David J. A., ed. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 8 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993–2011. Clines, David J. A., and D. M. Gunn. “‘You Tried to Persuade Me’ and ‘Violence! Outrage!’ in Jeremiah XX 7–8.” Vetus Testamentum 28, no. 1 (1978): 20–7. Cocking, J. M. Imagination. London: Routledge, 1991. Collins, John J. The Scepter and the Star. Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2010. Conybeare, F. C., and George St Stock. Selections from the Septuagint. According to the Text of Swete. London: Ginn & Company, 1905. Cook, Johann. The Septuagint of Proverbs: Jewish and/or Hellenistic Proverbs? Concerning the Hellenistic Colouring of LXX Proverbs. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 69. Leiden: Brill, 1997. –. “Towards a Formulation of a Theology of the Septuagint.” Pages 621–40 in Congress Volume Ljubljana 2007. Edited by André Lemaire. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 133. Edited by Christl M. Maier. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Cook, Johann, and Arie van der Kooij. Law, Prophets, and Wisdom: On the Provenance of Translators and their Books in the Septuagint Version. Leuven: Peeters, 2012. Cox, Claude E. “Vocabulary for Wrongdoing and Forgiveness in the Greek Translations of Job.” Textus 15 (1990): 119–30. Cranmer, David J. “Translating for Paragraph Cohesion.” Bible Translator 35, no. 4 (1984): 432–36. Cumont, Franz Valery Marie. Astrology and Religion Among the Greeks and Romans. American Lectures on the History of Religions Series of 1911–12. New York; London: Putnam Press, 1912. De Sousa, Rodrigo Franklin. Eschatology and Messianism in LXX Isaiah 1–12. Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies 516. Edited by Claudia V. Camp and Andrew Mein. New York; London: T&T Clark, 2010. Dines, Jennifer M. “The Septuagint of Amos. A Study in Interpretation.” PhD diss., University of London, 1991. –. The Septuagint. London: T&T Clark, 2004.

Bibliography

229

–. Review of Edward W. Glenny, Finding Meaning in the Text: Translation Technique and Theology in the Septuagint of Amos. Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 43 (2010): 128–30. –. “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 J. Kraus. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 241. Edited by Jan Christian Gertz, Dietrich-Alex Koch, Mattias Köckert, Hermut Löhr, Joachim Schaper and Christopher Tuckett. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. –. “Verbal and Thematic Links between the Books of the Twelve in Greek and Their Relevance to the Differing Manuscript Sequences.” Pages 355–70 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations – Redactional Processes – Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz, James D. Nogalski and Jakob Wöhrle. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 433. Edited by John Barton, F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, Reinhard Gregor Kratz and Markus Witte. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012. –. “What Are They Saying About the Minor Prophets?” Scripture Bulletin 42, no. 1 (2012): 2–12. –. “Was LXX Pentateuch a Style-Setter for LXX Minor Prophets?” Pages 397–412 in XIV Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Helsinki, 2010. Edited by Melvin K. H. Peters. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 59. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013. –. “The Minor Prophets.” Pages 438–55 in T&T Companion to the Septuagint. Edited by James K. Aitken. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. Dodd, C. H. According to the Scriptures. The Sub-structure of New Testament Theology. London: Nisbet & Co., 1953. Dogniez, Cécile. “Fautes de traduction, ou bonnes traductions? Quelques exemples pris dans la LXX des Douze Prophètes.” Pages 241–62 in X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Edited by Bernard A. Taylor. Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series 51. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1998. Dorival, Gilles, Marguerite Harl, and Olivier Munnich. La Bible grecque des Septante. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1988. Dulaey, Martine. “Habacuc 2, 1–4 dans les premiers siècle du christianisme.” Pages 41–73 in ‘ Le juste vivra par sa foi ’ (Habacuc 2,4). Edited by Matthieu Arnold, Gilbert Dahan and Noblesse-Rocher Annie. Vol. 3. Études d’histoire de l’exégèse. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2012. Eaton, J. H. “The Origin and Meaning of Habakkuk 3.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 35, no. 2 (1964): 144–71. Eco, Umberto. Mouse or Rat? Translation as Negotiation. London: Phoenix, 2003. Ego, Beate, Armin Lange, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Kristin De Troyer, eds. Biblia Qumranica. Vol. 3B. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Eidsvåg, Gunnar Magnus. “The Rendering of Toponyms in the LXX-Minor Prophets. An Indication of Alexandrian Provenance.” Pages 445–56 in XIV Congress of the International Organization of Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Helsinki, 2010. Edited by Melvin K. H. Peters. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 59. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013. Elliger, Karl, ed. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997.

230

Bibliography

Evans, Craig. “Messianism.” Pages 698–709 in Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000. Fabry, Heinz-Josef. “The Reception of Nahum and Habakkuk in the Septuagint and Qumran.” Pages 241–56 in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. Edited by Shalom M. Paul, Robert A. Kraft, Lawrence H. Schiffman and Weston W. Fields. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 94. Leiden: Brill, 2003. –. “Ambakum / Habakuk.” Pages 2413–18 in Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament. Psalmen bis Danielschriften. Edited by Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus. Vol. 2. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011. Fernández Marcos, Natalio. The Septuagint in Context. Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible. Translated by Wilfred G. E. Watson. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Fernández Marcos, Natalio, Ma Victoria Spottorno Díaz-Caro, José Manuel Canas Reíllo, Mercedes López Salva, Inmaculada Delgado Jara, Antonio Piñero Sáenz, and Lorena Miralles Maciá, eds. III. Libros Poéticos y Sapienciales: 3 (Bibioteca de Estudios Bíblicos). La Biblia griega – Septuaginta 3. Salamanca: Ediciones Sígueme, 2013. –, eds. IV. Los Libros Proféticos: 4 (Bibioteca de Estudios Bíblicos). La Biblia griega – Septuaginta 4. Salamanca: Ediciones Sígueme, 2015. Fernández Marcos, Natalio, Ma Victoria Spottorno Díaz-Caro, and José Manuel Canas Reíllo, eds. I. El Pentateuco: 1 (Biblioteca Estudios Bíblicos). La Biblia griega – Septuaginta 1. Salamanca: Ediciones Sígueme, 2008. Fernández Marcos, Natalio, Ma Victoria Spottorno Díaz-Caro, José Manuel Canas Reíllo, Mercedes López Salva, and Inmaculada Delgado Jara, eds. II. Libros históricos: 2 (Bibioteca de Estudios Bíblicos). La Biblia griega – Septuaginta 2. Salamanca: Ediciones Sígueme, 2011. Field, Frederick, AA. M., and Bernard de Montfaucon. Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt; sive, Veterum interpretum Graecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum fragmenta. Post Flaminium Nobilium, Drusium, et Montefalconium, adhibita etiam versione Syro-Hexaplari, concinnavit, emendavit, et multis partibus auxit. Vol. 1 & 2. 2 vols. Oxonii: Oxonii Typographeo Clarendoniano, 1875. Fitzmyer S. J., Joseph A. “Habakkuk 2:3–4 and the New Testament.” Pages 447–55 in De la Torah au Messie. Études d’exégèse et d’herméneutique bibliques offertes à Henri Cazelles pour ses 25 années d’enseignement à l’Institut catholique de Paris, octobre 1979. Edited by M. Carrez and J. Doré. Paris: Desclée, 1981. –. The One Who Is to Come. Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2007. Floyd, Michael H. “The ‫( ַמ ָשּׂא‬Maśśā’) As a Type of Prophetic Book.” Journal of Biblical Literature 121, no. 3 (2002): 401–22. Freedman, David Noel, Astrid B. Beck, and James A. Sanders, eds. The Leningrad Codex: A Facsimile Edition. Grand Rapids; Leiden: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing; Brill, 1998. Fuller, Russel E., “Textual Traditions in the Book of Hosea and the Minor Prophets.” Pages 247–56 in The Madrid Qumran Congress. Edited by Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner. Vol. 1 of Studies on the Text of the Desert of Judah 11.1. Edited by Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner. Brill: Leiden, 1992. García Martínez, Florentino, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Vol. 1. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Gauthier, Randall X. “Toward an LXX Hermeneutic.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 35, no. 1 (2009): 45–74.

Bibliography

231

Gelston, Anthony, ed. The Twelve Minor Prophets. Biblia Hebraica Quinta 13. Edited by A. Schenker, Y. A. P. Goldman, A. van der Kooij, G. J. Norton, S. Pisano, J. de Waard and R. D. Weis. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2010. Gheorghita, Radu. The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews. An Investigation of its Influence with Special Consideration to the Use of Hab 2:3–4 in Heb 10:37–38. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 160. Edited by Jörg Frey, Martin Hengel and Otfried Hofius. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Gignac, Francis T. “The Papyri and the Greek Language.” Pages 155–67 in Papyrology. Edited by Naphtali Lewis. Yale Classical Studies 28. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Glenny, Edward W. Finding Meaning in the Text: Translation Technique and Theology in the Septuagint of Amos. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 126. Edited by H. M. Barstad, R. P. Gordon, A. Hurvitz, G. N. Knoppers, A. van der Kooij, A. Lemaire, C. A. Newsom, H. Spieckermann, J. Trebolle Barrera and H. G. M. Williamson. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2009. Good, Edwin M. “The Barberini Greek Version of Habakkuk III.” Vetus Testamentum 9, no. 1 (1959): 11–30. –. “The Text and Versions of Habakkuk 3. A Study in Textual History.” PhD diss., Columbia University, 1965. Grabbe, Lester L. “Synagogues in Pre-70 Palestine: A Re-Assessment.” Journal of Theological Studies 39 (1988): 401–10. Greenspahn, Frederick E. An Introduction to Aramaic. Corrected Second Edition. 2d ed. Resources for Biblical Study 46. Edited by Steven L. McKenzie. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007. Greenspoon, Leonard J. “The Use and Abuse of the Term ‘LXX’ And Related Terminology in Recent Scholarship.” Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 20 (1987): 21–9. –. “Recensions, Revisions, Rabbinics: Dominique Barthélemy and Early Developments in the Greek Traditions.” Textus 15 (1990): 153–67. Guthrie, George H. “Hebrews.” Pages 919–95 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Gutt, Ernst-August. “On the Significance of the Cognitive Core of Translation.” The Translator 11, no. 1 (2005): 25–51. Haak, Robert D. Habakkuk. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Hanson, A. T. Studies in Paul’s Technique and Theology. London: SPCK Publishing, 1974. Harl, Marguerite. “La Bible d’Alexandrie. I. The Translation Principles.” Pages 181–89 in X Congress of the International Organization of Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Edited by Bernard A. Taylor. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 51. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1998. Harl, Marguerite, Monique Alexandre, Cécile Dogniez, Gilles Dorival, Alain Le Boulluec, Olivier Munnich, Pierre Sandevoir, and Françoise Vinel, eds. La Genèse. La Bible d’Alexandrie 1. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1994. Harl, Marguerite, and Cécile Dogniez, eds. Le Deutéronome. La Bible d’Alexandrie 5. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1992. Harl, Marguerite, Cécile Dogniez, Laurence Brottier, Michel Casevitz, and Pierre Sandevoir, eds. Les Douze Prophètes: Jöel, Abdiou, Jonas, Naoum, Ambakoum, Sophonie. La Bible d’Alexandrie 23.4–9. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1999.

232

Bibliography

Harper, Joshua L. Responding to a Puzzled Scribe. The Barberini Version of Habakkuk 3 Analysed in Light of the Other Greek Versions. Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies 608. Edited by R. P. Gordon. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. Harris, Laird R., Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, eds. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Chicago: Moody Press, 1980. Harrison, Robert C. “The Unity of the Minor Prophets in the LXX: A Reexamination of the Question.” Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 21 (1988): 55–72. Harrisville III, Roy A. “ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ: Witness of the Fathers.” Novum Testamentum 36, no. 3 (1994): 233–41. Hays, Richard B. “ΠΙΣΤΙΣ and the Pauline Christology. What Is at Stake?” SBL 1991 Seminar Papers. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991. –. The Faith of Jesus Christ. The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1 – 4:11. Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2002. –. The Conversion of the Imagination. Paul as Interpreter of Israel's Scripture. Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2005. Holmstedt, Robert D. “Habakkuk 3:16 – Where Did the ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר‬Go?” Hebrew Studies 44 (2003): 129–38. Horbury, William. Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1998. Horsley, G. H. R. “The Fiction of ‘Jewish Greek’.” Pages 5–40 in New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. Linguistic Essays. Vol. 5. Sydney: Macquarie University. The Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, 1989. Howard, George E. “Some Notes on the Septuagint of Amos.” Vetus Testamentum 20 (1970): 108–12. Janzen, J. Gerald. “Habakkuk 2:2–4 in the Light of Recent Philological Advances.” Harvard Theological Review 73, no. 1/2 (1980): 53–78. Jastrow, Marcus, ed. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. London: Luzac, 1903. Repr., Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2006. Jellicoe, Sidney. “Some Reflections on the ΚΑΙΓΕ Recension.” Vetus Testamentum 23 (1973): 15–24. Jobes, Karen H., and Moisés Silva. Invitation to the Septuagint. Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000. Joosten, Jan. “Exegesis in the Septuagint Version of Hosea.” Pages 62–85 in Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel. Edited by Johannes C. de Moor. Oudtestamentische Studiën 40. Leiden: Brill, 1998. –. “Une théologie de la Septante.” Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie 132 (2000): 31–46. –, “Interpretation and Meaning in the Septuagint Translation.” Paper presented at Translation-Interpretation-Meaning, Helsinki Collegium of Advanced Studies, 2005. –. “A Septuagintal Translation Technique in the Minor Prophets: The Elimination of Verbal Repetions.” Pages 217–23 in Interpreting Translation: Studies in the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust. Edited by Florentino García Martínez, Marc Vervenne and B. Doyle. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 192. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005. –. “Reflections on the ‘Interlinear Paradigm’ in Septuagintal Studies.” Pages 163–78 in Scripture in Transition. Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo. Edited by Anssi Voitila and Jutta Jokiranta. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 126. Edited by John J. Collins, Florentino García Martínez and Hindy Najman. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

Bibliography

233

–. “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 J. Kraus. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 241. Edited by Jan Christian Gertz, Dietrich-Alex Koch, Mattias Köckert, Hermut Löhr, Joachim Schaper and Christopher Tuckett. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. –. Collected Studies on the Septuagint. From Language to Interpretation and Beyond. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 83. Edited by Bernd Janowski, Mark S. Smith and Hermann Spieckermann. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. –. “A Syntactic Aramaism in the LXX: ἰδού in temporal expressions.” Journal of Septuagint and Cognate Studies 45 (2012): 39–45. Joüon, Paul, and Takamitsu Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Rev. English ed. Subsidia Biblica 27. Roma: Pontificio istituto biblico, 2006. Karrer, Martin. “Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D). Characteristics of the German Translation Project.” Pages 105–18 in Translating a Translation. The LXX and Its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism. Edited by H. Ausloos, Johann Cook, F. García Martínez, B. Lemmelijn and M. Vervenne. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 213. Leuven: Peeters, 2008. Karrer, Martin, and Wolfgang Kraus, eds. Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament. Genesis bis Makkabäer. Vol. 1. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011. –, eds. Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament. Psalmen bis Danielschriften. Vol. 2. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011. Kennedy, George A. A New History of Classical Rhetoric. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. –. “Historical Survey of Rhetoric.” Pages 3–41 in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period (330 B.C. – A.D. 400). Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Kim, Jong-Hoon. “Intentionale Varianten der Habakukzitate im Pesher Habakuk: Rezeptionsästhetisch untersucht.” Biblica 88, no. 1 (2007): 23–37. King, Nicolas. The Old Testament. The Prophets. A New, Cutting-edge Translation of the Septuagint. Vol. 4. 5 vols. Stowmarket, Suff.: Kevin Mayhew, 2013. Knibb, Michael A. “To the Reader of Wisdom of Salomon.” Pages 697–9 in A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included Under That Title. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. –, ed. The Septuagint and Messianism. Bibliotecha Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 195. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Koch, Dietrich-Alex. “Der Text von Hab 2:4b in der Septuaginta und im Neuen Testament.” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 76, no. 1 (1985): 68–85. Köhler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, Johann Jakob Stamm, Benedikt Hartmann, Ze’ev Ben-Hayyim, Eduard Yechezkel Kutscher, and Philippe Reymond, eds. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000. Kooij, Arie van der. “On the Place of Origin of the Old Greek of Psalms.” Vetus Testamentum 33, no. 1 (1983): 67–74. –. The Oracle of Tyre. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 61. Edited by H. M. Barstad, Phyllis A. Bird, R. P. Gordon, A. Hurvitz, Arie van der Kooij, A. Lemaire, R. Smend, J. Trebolle Barrera, James C. VanderKam and H. G. M. Williamson. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 1998.

234

Bibliography

–. “The Origin and Purpose of Bible Translations in Ancient Judaism: Some Comments.” Archiv für Religionsgeschichte 1/2 (1999): 204–14. –. “Textual Witnesses to the Hebrew Bible and the History of Reception. The Case of Habakkuk 1:11–12.” Pages 91–108 in Die Textfunde vom Toten Meer und der Text der Hebräischen Bibel. Edited by Ulrich Dahmen, Armin Lange and Hermann Lichtenberger. Neukirchen-Vluyn, Germany: Neukirchener Verlagsgesellschaft, 2000. –. “Comments on NETS and La Bible d’Alexandrie.” Pages 229–32 in X Congress of the International Organization of Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Edited by Bernard A. Taylor. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 51. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001. –. “The Septuagint of Zechariah as Witness to an Early Interpretation of the Book.” Pages 53–64 in The Book of Zechariah and Its Influence. Edited by C. M. Tuckett. Aldershot, Hants.: Ashgate, 2003. –. “The Old Greek of Isaiah and Other Prophecies Published in Ptolemaic Egypt.” Pages 72– 84 in Die Septuaginta – Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse. Edited by Martin Meiser, Wolfgang Kraus and Martin Karrer. Wissenshaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Terstament 252. Edited by Jörg Frey, Friedrich Avemarie, Markus Bockmuehl and Hans-Josef Klauck. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Kraft, Robert A. “Review of ‘Les Devanciers d’Aquila by Dominique Barthélemy’.” Gnomon 37 (1965): 474–83. –. “Septuagint.” Pages 807–15 in vol. 5 of The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by Keith R. Crim. 5 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1976. Kraus, Wolfgang. “Hab 2:3–4 in the Hebrew Tradition and in the Septuagint, with its Reception in the New Testament.” Pages 101–17 in Septuagint and Reception. Edited by Johann Cook. Supplements to the Vetus Testamentum 127. Edited by H. M. Barstad, R. P. Gordon, A. Hurvitz, G. Knoppers, A. van der Kooij, A. Lemaire, C. A. Newsom, H. Spieckermann, J. Trebolle Barrera and H. G. M. Williamson. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Kreuzer, Siegfried. “From ‘Old Greek’ to the Recensions: Who and What Caused the Change of the Hebrew Reference Text of the Septuagint?” Pages 225–37 in Septuagint Research. Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 53. Edited by Melvin K. H. Peters. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. –, ed. Einleitung in die Septuaginta. Handbuch zur Septuaginta 1. Edited by Siegfried Kreuzer. Munich: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2016. Lee, John A. L. “A Note on Septuagint Material in the Supplement to Liddel and Scott.” Glotta 47, no. 1/4 (1969): 234–42. –. A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 14. Edited by Harry M. Orlinsky. Chico, Cal.: Scholars Press, 1983. –. “Translations of the Old Testament. I. Greek.” Pages 775–84 in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period (330 B.C. – A.D. 400). Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Legrand, Thierry. “‘Son interprétation concerne tous ceux qui pratiquent la Torah...’ Relecture et interprétation d’Habacuc 2,4 dans le Pesher d’Habacuc (1QpHab VII-VIII) et le Targum d’Habacuc.” Pages 11–40 in ‘Le juste vivra par sa foi’ (Habacuc 2,4). Edited by Matthieu Arnold, Gilbert Dahan and Noblesse-Rocher Annie. Vol. 3. Études d’histoire de l’exégèse. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2012. Léonas, Alexis. Recherche sur le langage de la Septante. Fribourg; Göttingen: Academic Press; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005. Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, Sir Henry Stuart Jones, and Roderick McKenzie, eds. A Greek-English Lexicon: With a Revised Supplement. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.

Bibliography

235

Lim, Timothy H. Pesharim. Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 3. London: Sheffield Academic Press / Continuum, 2002. Long, A. A., and D. N. Sedley. The Hellenistic Philosophers. Translations of the Principle Sources with Philosophical Commentary. Vol. 1. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Longacre, Robert E. The Grammar of Discourse. 2d ed. Topics in Language and Linguistics. New York: Plenum Press, 1996. Louw, Theo A. W. van der. Transformations in the Septuagint. Towards an Interaction of Septuagint Studies and Translation Studies. Dudley: Peeters, 2007. –. “Linguistic or Ideological Shifts? The Problem-oriented Study of Transformations as a Methodological Filter.” COLLeGIUM 7 (2012): 23–41. Lust, J., Erik Eynikel, and K. Hauspie. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1992. Manson, T. W. “The Argument from Prophecy.” Journal of Theological Studies 46, no. 183/184 (1945): 129–36. Maximos, Metropolitan, Eugen Pentiuc, Michel Najim, and Jack Norman Sparks, eds. The Orthodox Study Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008. McLay, R. Timothy. The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research. Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2003. Metzger, Bruce M. Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism. New Testament Tools and Studies 4. Edited by Bruce M. Metzger. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1963. Millard, Alan R. “In Praise of Ancient Scribes.” Biblical Archeologist 3 (1982): 143–53. Mitsis, Phillip. “Epicurus.” Pages 264–70 in vol. 3 of Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Donald M. Borchert. 10 vols. Detroit: Thomas Gale, 2005. Möller, Julie Clinefelter. “The Vision in Habakkuk: Identifying Its Content in the Light of the Framework Set Forth in Hab. 1.” PhD diss., University of Gloucestershire, 2004. Moulton, James Hope. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Vol. 1. 3 vols. 3d ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. –. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Vol. 2. 3 vols. London: T&T Clark / Continuum, 2004. Mowinckel, Sigmund. He That Cometh. The Messiah Concept in the Old Testament and Later Judaism. Translated by G. W. Anderson. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2005. Muraoka, Takamitsu. “Literary Device in the Septuagint.” Annual of the Hebrew University Bible Project 8 (1973): 20–30. –. “Hosea IV in the Septuagint Version.” Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute 9 (1983): 24–64. –. “In Defence of the Unity of the Septuagint Minor Prophets.” Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute 15 (1989): 25–36. –. “Hebrew Hapax Legomena and Setpuagint Lexicography.” Pages 205–22 in VII Congress of the International Organization of Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Edited by Claude E. Cox. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 31. Leuven: Society of Biblical Literature, 1991. –. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Twelve Prophets). Louvain: Peeters, 1993. –. “Introduction aux douze petites prophètes.” Pages 1–23 in Les Douze Prophètes. Translated by Jan Joosten. Edited by Marguerite Harl, Cécile Dogniez, Laurence Brottier, Michael Casevitz and Pierre Sandevoir. La Bible d’Alexandrie 23.1. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2002. –. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Louvain: Peeters, 2009.

236

Bibliography

–. A Greek ≈ Hebrew/Aramaic Two-way Index to the Septuagint. Louvain: Peeters, 2010. Nida, Eugene A., and Charles R. Taber. The Theory and Practice of Translation. 2d ed. Helps for Translators. Prepared Under the Auspices of the United Bible Societies 8. Leiden: Brill, 1982. Norton, Jonathan D. H. Contours in the Text. Textual Variation in the Writings of Paul, Josephus and the Yahad. Library of New Testament Studies 430. Edited by Mark Goodacre. London: T&T Clark, 2011. Olofsson, Staffan. God Is My Rock: A Study of Translation Technique and Theological Exegesis in the Septuagint. Coniectanea Biblica Old Testament Series 31. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1990. Orlinsky, Harry M., and Robert G. Bratcher. A History of Bible Translation and the North American Contribution. Society of Biblical Literature Centennial Publications. Edited by Paul J. Achtemeier, Adela Yarbo Collins, Eldon Jay Epp, Edwin S. Gaustad, E. Brooks Holifield, Douglas A. Knight, Harry M. Orlinsky, Kent Harold Richards, Gene M. Tucker, Maurya P. Horgan and Paul J. Kobelski. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1991. Palmer, James Karol. “‘Not Made with Tracing Paper.’ Studies in the Septuagint of Zechariah.” PhD diss., Cambridge University, 2004. Paz, Octavio. Traducción: literatura y literalidad. Cuadernos Marginales 18. Barcelona: Tusquets Editor, 1971. Pernot, Laurent. La Rhétorique dans l’Antiquité. Paris: Librarie Générale Française, 2000. Peters, Melvin K. H. “Revisiting the Rock: TSUR as a Translation of Elohim in Deuternonomy and Beyond.” Pages 37–51 in Text-Critical and Hermeneutical Studies in the Septuagint. Edited by Johann Cook and Hermann-Josef Stipp. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 157. Edited by Christl M. Maier. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Pietersma, Albert. “A New English Translation of the Septuagint.” Pages 217–28 in X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Edited by Bernard A. Taylor. Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series 51. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1998. –. “Exegesis in the Septuagint: Possibilities and Limits (The Psalter as a Case in Point).” Pages 33–45 in Septuagint Research. Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 53. Edited by Melvin K. H. Peters. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. –. “LXX and DTS: A New Archimedean Point for Septuagint Studies?” Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 39 (2006): 1–11. –. “Translating a Translation with Examples from the Greek Psalter.” Pages 169–82 in Translating a Translation. The LXX and Its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism. Edited by H. Ausloos, J. Cook, F. García Martínez, B. Lemmelijn and M. Vervenne. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 213. Edited by J.-M. Auwers, E. Brito, L. De Fleurquin, J. Famerée, É. Gaziaux, J. Haers, A. JoinLambert, L. Kenis, M. Lamberigts, G. Van Belle and J. Verheyden. Leuven: Peeters, 2008. Pietersma, Albert, and Benjamin G. Wright. “To the Reader of NETS.” Pages xiii–xx in A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included Under That Title. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Bibliography

237

–, eds. A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included Under That Title. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Plato The Republic. With an English Translation. Translated by Paul Shorey. The Loeb Classical Library. Edited by E. T. Page, E. Capps and W. H. D. Rouse. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1938. Plato with an English Translation. Theaetetus and Sophist. Translated by Harold North Fowler. The Loeb Classical Library. Edited by E. T. Page, E. Capps, W. H. D. Rouse, L. A. Post and E. H. Warmington. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1961. Pons, Jacques. L’oppression dans l’ancien testament. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1979. Popkin, Richard. “Skepticism, History of.” Pages 47–61 in vol. 9 of Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Donald M. Borchert. 10 vols. Detroit: Thomas Gale, 2005. Porter, Stanley E. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood. Studies in Biblical Greek 1. Edited by D. A. Carson. New York; Bern: Peter Lang, 1989. –. Review of Eberhard Bons and Thomas J. Kraus, eds., Et Sapienter et eloquenter: Studies on Rhetorical and Stylistic Features of the Septuagint. Journal of Septuagint and Cognate Studies 46 (2013): 122–5. Porter, Stanley E., and Andrew W. Pitts. “Πίστις with a Preposition and Genitive Modifier: Lexical, Semantic, and Syntactic Considerations in the πίστις Χριστοῦ Discussion.” The Faith of Jesus Christ. Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies. Edited by Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle. Milton Keynes, Bucks.: Paternoster, 2009. Pym, Anthony. Method in Translation History. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing, 2010. Rabassa, Gregory. “No Two Snowflakes Are Alike: Translation as Metaphor.” Pages 1–12 in The Craft of Translation. Edited by John Biguenet and Rainer Schulte. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1989. Rabin, C. “The Translation Process and the Character of the Septuagint.” Annual of the Hebrew University Bible Project 6 (1964): 1–26. Raffel, Burton. The Forked Tongue. A Study of the Translation Process. The Hague; Paris: Mouton, 1971. Rahlfs, Alfred. (Altes Testament. Gesamtausgabe): Septuaginta Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes. Editio altera quam recognovit et emendavit Robert Hanhart. Vol. 1 & 2. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006. Rajak, Tessa. Translation and Survival. The Greek Bible and the Ancient Jewish Diaspora. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Reymond, Eric D. Qumran Hebrew. An Overview of Orthography, Phonology, and Morphology. Resources for Biblical Study 76. Edited by Harry M. Orlinsky. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014. Roberts, J. J. M. Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: A Commentary. The Old Testament Library. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991. Rösel, Martin. “Towards a Theology of the Septuagint.” Pages 239–52 in Septuagint Research. Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 53. Edited by Melvin K. H. Peters. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. –. “Schreiber, Übersetzer, Theologen. Die Septuaginta als Dokument der Schrift-, Lese- und Übersetzungskulturen des Judentums.” Pages 83–102 in Die Septuaginta - Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and Martin Karrer. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 219. Edited by Jörg Frey. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.

238

Bibliography

Ross, William A. Review of James K. Aitken, T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint. Bulletin for Biblical Research 25, no. 4 (2015): 551–3. Rudolph, Wilhelm. Micha, Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja. Kommentar zum Alten Testament 13,2. Edited by Wilhelm Rudolph, Karl Elliger, Franze Hesse and Otto Kaiser. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1975. –. Haggai, Sacharja, Maleachi. Kommentar zum Alten Testament 13,2. Edited by Wilhelm Rudolph, Karl Elliger, Franze Hesse and Otto Kaiser. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1976. Schaff, Philip, and Henry Wace. Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historical Writings, etc. Vol. 3. 2d ed. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004. Schaper, Joachim. Eschatology in the Greek Psalter. Wissenshaftliche Unterschungen zum Neuen Testament 76. Edited by Martin Hengel and Otfried Hofius. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1995. Schmidt, Carl, and Henry Arthur Sanders. The Minor Prophets in the Freer Collection and the Berlin Fragment of Genesis. New York; London: The Macmillan Co., 1927. Schofield, Malcolm. “Zeno of Citium.” Pages 869–70 in vol. 9 of Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Donald M. Borchert. 10 vols. Detroit: Thomas Gale, 2005. Sedley, David. “The School, from Zeno to Arius Didymus.” Pages 7–32 in The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics. Edited by Brad Inwood. Cambridge Companions to Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Seeligmann, Isaac L. The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of Its Problems. Leiden: Brill, 1948. –. “Problems and Perspectives in Modern Septuagint Research.” Textus 15 (1990): 181–201. Seifrid, Mark A. “Romans.” Pages 607–94 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Sheppard, Anne. “Phantasia.” Pages 270–1 in vol. 7 of Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Donald M. Borchert. 10 vols. Detroit: Thomas Gale, 2006. Shreiner, Thomas R. Romans. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament 6. Edited by Moisés Silva. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998. Silk, M. S. Interaction in Poetic Imagery with Special Reference to Early Greek Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974. Smith, Morton. Palestinian Parties and Politics. American Lectures in the History of Religions 9. New York; London: Columbia University Press, 1971. Smith, Ralph L. Micah-Malachi. Word Biblical Commentary 32. Edited by David A. Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker, John D. W. Watts and Ralph P. Martin. Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1984. Smyth, Herbert Weir. Greek Grammar. Oxford: Benediction Classics, 2010. Snyman, S. D. “‘Violence’ in Amos 3,10 and 6,3.” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 71, no. no. 1 (1998): 30–47. Soisalon-Soininen, Ilmari. Die infinitive in der Septuaginta. Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia Annales Academiæ Scientarum Fennicæ 132,1. Edited by Veikko Väänänen. Helsinki: Suomalaien Tiedeakatemia, 1965. Sokoloff, Michael, ed. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period. The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, Md., 2003. Sperber, Alexander. The Bible in Aramaic. Based on Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts. Vol. 1–3. 5 vols. 3d ed. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

Bibliography

239

Stead, Michael R. The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1–8. Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies 506. Edited by Claudia V. Camp and Andrew Mein. New York; London: T&T Clark, 2009. Stegemann, Hartmut, and Eileen Schuller, eds. 1QHodayota. Discoveries in the Judean Desert 40. Edited by Emanuel Tov. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2009. Stewart, Andrew. Greek Sculpture: An Exploration. 2 vols. New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1990. Strobel, A. Untersuchungen zum eschatologischen Verzögerungsproblem. Auf Grund der spätjüdisch-urchristlichen Geschichte von Habakuk 2,2ff. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 2. Edited by W. C. van Unnik. Leiden: Brill, 1961. Swete, Henry Barclay. An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. 2d ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902. Talshir, Zipora. “Double Translations in the Septuagint.” Pages 21–63 in VI Congress of the International Organization of Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Edited by Claude E. Cox. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 23. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1987. Thackeray, Henry St John. “The Greek Translators of Ezekiel.” The Journal of Theological Studies 3 (1903): 398–411. –. “The Greek Translators of the Prophetical Books.” The Journal of Theological Studies 4 (1903): 578–85. –. A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint. Vol. 1. Introduction, Orthography and Accidence. Cambridge: University Press, 1909. –. The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: A Study in Origins. Schweich Lectures 1920. London: H. Milford, 1921. Theocharous, Myrto. Lexical Dependence and Intertextual Allusion in the Septuagint and the Twelve Prophets. Studies in Hosea, Amos and Micah. Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies 7. Edited by R. P. Gordon. London: T&T Clark, 2012. Theodoridis, Christos, ed. Die Fragmente des Grammatikers Philoxenos. Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker 2. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1976. 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 for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 39 (2006): 12–25. –. Descriptive Translation Studies – and beyond. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2012. Tov, Emanuel. “Did The Septuagint Translators Always Understand their Hebrew Text?” Pages 53–70 in De Septuaginta. Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on his sixtyfifth birthday. Edited by Albert Pietersma and Claude E. Cox. Mississauga: Benben Publications, 1984. –, “Theologically Motivated Exegesis Embedded in the Septuagint.” Paper presented at Proceedings of a Conference at the Annenberg Research Institute May 15–16, Philadelphia, 1989. –. The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. 2d ed. Jerusalem Biblical Studies 8. Jerusalem: Simor, 1997. –. The Greek and Hebrew Bible. Collected Essays on the Septuagint. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 72. Edited by H. M. Barstad, Phyllis A. Bird, R. P. Gordon, A. Hurvitz, Arie van der Kooij, A. Lemaire, R. Smend, J. Trebolle Barrera, James C. VanderKam and H. G. M. Williamson. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 1999. –. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2d rev. ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001.

240

Bibliography

Tov, Emanuel, Robert A. Kraft, and P. J. Parsons. The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Naḥal Ḥever (8ḤevXIIgr) (The Seiyâl Collection, I). Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 8. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990. Troxel, Ronald L. “What’s in a Name? Contemporization and Toponyms in LXX Isaiah.” Pages 327–44 in Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of His Sixty-fifth Birthday. Edited by Ronald L. Troxel, Kelvin G. Freibel and Dennis R. Magary. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Vanderspoel, John. “Hellenistic Rhetoric in Theory and Practice.” Pages 124–38 in A Companion to Greek Rhetoric. Edited by Ian Worthington. Chichester: Blackwell Publishing, 2010. Vermes, Geza. “A Review of: Devanciers d’Aquila.” Journal of Semitic Studies II (1966): 261–64. Vienès, Laurence, ed. Malachie. La bible d’Alexandrie 23.12. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2011. Vince, J. H., ed. Demosthenes / with an English Translation. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1926. Vorm-Croughs, Mirjam van der. The Old Greek of Isaiah. An Analysis of Its Pluses and Minuses. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 61. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014. Vuilleumier, René, and Carl A. Keller. Michée, Nahoum, Habacuc, Sophonie. 2d ed. Commentaire de l’ancien testament XIb. Genève: Labor et Fides, 1990. Waard, Jan de. “Old Greek Translation Techniques and the Modern Translator.” The Bible Translator 41, no. 3 (1990): 311–19. Wagner, Ross J. Reading the Sealed Book. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 88. Edited by Konrad Schmid, Mark S. Smith and Hermann Spieckermann. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament with Scripture, Subject, and Greek Word Indexes. 4th rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Wallis, Ian G. The Faith of Jesus Christ in Early Christian Traditions. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 84. Edited by Margaret E. Thrall. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Waltke, Bruce K., and Michael Patrick O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Watson, Francis. Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith. London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004. Watson, Gerard. Phantasia in Classical Thought. Galway: Galway University Press, 1988. Weiger, Madeleine. “Εὐσέβεια et ‘crainte de Dieu’ dans la Septante.” Pages 101–56 in Septuagint Vocabulary. Pre-History, Usage, Reception. Edited by Jan Joosten and Eberhard Bons. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 58. Edited by Melvin K. H. Peters. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Weiser, Artur. Die Psalmen. Erster Teil: Psalm 1–60. Vol. 1. 2 vols. Das Alte Testament Deutsch. Neues Göttinger Bibelwerk 14. Edited by Walther Eichrodt, Karl Elliger, Kurt Galling, H. W. Herkberg, Otto Kaifer, Martin Noth, Norman W. Porteous, Gerhard von Rad, Helmer Ringreen, Ernst Würthwein and Walther Zimmerli. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959. Wevers, John Wm. “An Apologia for Septuagint Studies.” Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 18 (1985): 16–38.

Bibliography

241

–. “Barthélemy and Proto-Septuagint Studies.” Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 21 (1988): 23–34. –. Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 39. Edited by Claude E. Cox. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. –. Notes on the Greek Text of Numbers. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 46. Edited by Claude E. Cox. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Wolters, Al. “The Messiah in the Qumran Documents.” Pages 75–89 in The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments. McMaster New Testament Studies. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2007. Wright, Benjamin G. Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction. Essays on Ben Sira and Wisdom, the Letter of Aristeas and the Septuagint. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 131. Edited by John J. Collins, Florentino García Martínez and Hindy Najman. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008. –. “Why a Prologue? Ben Sira’s Grandson and His Greek Translation.” Pages 633–44 in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. Edited by Shalom M. Paul, Robert. A. Kraft, Lawrence. H. Schiffman and Weston W. Fields. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 72. Edited by H. M. Barstad, Phyllis A. Bird, R. P. Gordon, A. Hurvitz, A. van der Kooij, A. Lemaire, R. Smend, J. Trebolle Barrera, J. C. Vanderkam and H. G. M. Williamson. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Zeller, Eduard. Outlines of the History of Greek Philosophy. Translated by L. R. Palmer. 13th ed. New York: Dover Publications, 1980. Ziegler, Joseph. Sylloge. Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Septuaginta. Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen 10. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971. –, ed. Duodecim prophetae. Septuaginta 13. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984.

Index of References All OT references are to the Septuagint. Both the order and names of books follow those of the Septuagint as given in Rahlfs-Hanhart.

Old Testament Genesis 1:1 1:2 3:1 4:7 6:3 9:21 15:14 18:13 20:4 21:21 26:9 26:11 MT 26:15 MT 26:42 MT 28:17 MT 31:7 31:21 31:41 41:6 41:14 41:23 41:27 44:4 45:26

15 102 111 101, 104 102 100 118 111 118 127 111 126 126 126 149 102 90 102 154 102 154 154 111 88

Exodus 1:13 2:13 5:22 9:18 10:3 MT 10:7 MT

88 110 110 144 107 107

10:13 14:21 15:10 15:11 15:26 16:28 16:28 MT 17:6 20:5 21:16 23:16 MT 23:21 23:24 24:12 32:4 33:13 33:21 33:22 34:10 34:14

154 154 102, 114 149 113 108 107 143 94 88 151 113 94 160 145 118 143 143 149 94

Leviticus 18:28 19:18 20:23

118 99 118

Numbers 10:9 10:12 11:11 12:8 12:16 13:3

155 127 110 48 127 127

244

Index of References

(Numbers cont.) 13:26 14:11 14:11 MT 14:27 MT 16:22 17:7 17:10 22:37 23:9 23:10 23:27 24:7 24:22 MT 25:15 31:8

127 108 107 107 154 90 154 110 143 114 113 173 107 143 143

Deuteronomy 1:1 1:5 1:17 1:19 MT 2:30 4:2 4:6 4:15 4:30 5:9 6:18 7:21 MT 8:15 MT 9:4 9:5 10:17 MT 10:21 MT 11:4 11:12 MT 12:2 12:8 12:25 12:28 13:9 18:22 19:16 21:9 25:2 27:8 28 28:7

127 160 113 149 102 28 118 143 148 94 113 149 149 123 114, 123 149 149 154 151 127 113 113 113 113 124 124 113 123 160 155 155

28:28 28:29 28:33 28:49–68 28:58 32:4 32:13 32:15 32:18 32:30 32:31 32:37 33:2

115 137 137 148 149 114, 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 127

Joshua 4:18 4:8 MT 5:8 6:5 9:22 18:3 18:3 MT

90 151 118 90 110 108 107

Judges 2:20 5:12 5:15 13:6 15:11 20:40 MT

118 94 110 149, 150 110 152

1 Kingdoms 1:14 1:14 MT 2:30 3:11 8:1 MT 10:3 10:9 11:5 14:41 16:1 MT 16:1 24:12 25:1 26:15

108 107 89 114 151 102 102 111 111 107 108 124 127 110

2 Kingdoms 2:18

89

245

Index of References (2 Kingdoms cont.) 2:26 MT 7:7 7:23 11:10 11:20 11:22 12:20 13:21 19:26 19:44 22:34

107 111 150 111 111 110 102 103 111 110 155

3 Kingdoms 12:24 11:18 12:33 18:10 18:21 (MT) 18:21 18:25–29

110 127 145 118 107 108 94

4 Kingdoms 1:5 1:16 6:18 9:25 12:3 18:26 19:25 21:12

111 111 118 106 191 110 145 114

1 Paralipomenon 1:53 (MT) 1:36 MT 16:25 (MT) 17:21 17:21 (MT)

126 126 149 149 149

2 Paralipomenon 9:14 (MT) 24:23 MT 2 Esdras 12:6 12:6 (MT) 6:10 (MT) 11:5 (MT) 15:8 (MT)

126 151

108 107 114 149 149

17:5 (MT) 19:32 (MT) 23:1 23:11

160 149 160 114

Esther 5:1 9:26

149, 150 84

Judith 16:14

102

Tobit 3:6 3:15 4:3 5:18

102 110 102 111

1 Maccabees 1:10 2:7 2:13 10:1 12:44

149 110 110 149 110

2 Maccabees 2:20 4:7 6:23 10:9 10:13 14:33 15:34

149 149 149 149 149 149 149

3 Maccabees 3:8 5:35

137 149

4 Maccabees 4:15

149

Psalms 2 2:1 4:3 MT 5:11 6:4 6:4 MT 7:7

178 108 107 124 108 107 94, 95

246 (Psalms cont.) 12:3 13:2 MT 13:3 MT 17:34 20:14 21:1 21:13 23:8 29:9 30:6 31:5 32:12 35:23 38:5 38:9 37:25 MT 41:6 41:10 41:12 42:5 45:5 MT 47:3 MT 47:8 49:16 50:21 56:6 56:12 57:5 MT 62:4 MT 65:3 65:4 65:6 MT 66:3 MT 66:5 68:36 MT 72:6 74:9 MT 74:10 74:10 MT 75:13 76:7 76:8 MT 76:13 MT 77:3 77:4 79:5 MT 80:5 80:5 MT

Index of References

108 107 107 155 94, 95 155 154 85 155 102 124 118 94 109 88 93 110 110 110 110 149 149 154 110 167 94, 95 94 90 107 150 124 149 149 149, 150 149 124 107 108 107 150 150 149 149 88 115 107 108 107

82:2 82:2 MT 85:10 88:6 89:5 89:6 89:8 89:8 MT 89:47 MT 90:13 90:13 MT 93:2 94:3 94:3 MT 95:3 95:4 96:4 MT 98:3 99:3 MT 102:6 103:29 103:30 104:25 105:22 105:33 106:8 106:15 106:21 106:22 MT 106:24 106:31 106:33 107:6 110 110:9 111:9 MT 127:1 138:5 139:14 MT 144:6 145:6 MT 145:7 146:11 147:7

108 107 115 115 102 102 150 149 107 108 107 94 108 107 115 150 149 150 149 137 102 102 102 150 102 115 115 115 149 115 115 103 94 178 150 149 160 145 149 150 149 137 167 102

Odes 1:10 12:3

102 150

247

Index of References Wisdom of Solomon 18:17 180, 190, 194 Sirach / Ecclesiasticus Prologue 76 1:8 150 4:9 137 14:3 110 35:13 137 43:29 150 51:24 111 Psalm of Solomon 3:1 110 4:1 110 Job 3:11 3:12 4:15 7:20 9:11 13:8 13:24 14:7 18:2 MT 19:2 19:2 MT 19:7 MT 19:22 24:18 26:10 MT 30:2 31:23 35:5 35:8 36:18 37:22 MT 39:1

110 110 102 110 102 113 110 102 107 108 107 7 110 89 151 152 106 90 124 124 149 155

Canticles (Songs) 2:7 2:11 3:5 4:16 6:4 6:10

155 102 155 94 150 150

Proverbs 1:19 1:22 MT 1:31 4:17 5:4 MT 5:19 6:9 MT 11:5 21:24 25:14 28:4 28:3 28:13 29:25

124 107 124 124 90 155 107 124 168 149, 150 124 124 124 124

Ecclesiastes 8:8 9:11

124 89

Hosea 1:2 1:6 2:4 2:8 2:14 2:15 2:16 2:18 4:1 4:4 4:7 4:11 4:16 4:18 5:1 5:11 6:3 6:5 8:5 MT 9:6 9:12 10:11 10:12 10:13 10:15 11:2 11:3

104 104 169 112 171 122 112 122 84 169 92 169 104 104 154 88 192 169 107 112 84 169 191, 192 110, 123 169 92, 169 169

248

Index of References

(Hosea cont.) 11:4 11:10 11:11 12:1 12:2 12:5 12:8 13:5 13:6 14:10 MT

169 169 122 123 124 169 88 169 171 113, 168

Amos 1:3 1:6 1:9 1:11 1:12 MT 1:13 1:14 MT 2:1 2:4 2:6 2:11 2:14 2:15 2:13 3:7 3:10 3:12 3:14 3:15 4:1 4:2 4:5 4:6 4:7 4:10 4:13 5:5 5:12 5:14 5:18 5:25 6:3 6:11 6:14 7:1 7:4

123 123 123 123 126 123 151 123 123 123 101, 104 89 89 112 145 123 92 123 169 88 112 92 122 169 169 112 104 123 92 107 101, 104 123 112 112 112 112

7:8 8:1 8:11 9:8 9:9 9:11 9:13

112 112 112 112 112 169 112

Micah 1:3 1:5 1:13 2:2 2:3 2:7 MT 2:11 2:12 3:8 3:9 MT 3:11 4:1 4:2 4:9 6:6 6:7 6:9 6:10 6:12 6:15 7:2 7:2 MT 7:3 7:4 7:4 MT 7:10 7:18

112 123 123 88 112 113, 168 98 104 123 113, 168 192 148 192 101, 104, 107, 109 169 123, 169 191 101, 104 123 169 113 113, 168 169 113 113, 168 88 123

Joel 1:7 1:8 2:4 2:11 2:17 2:19 2:20 2:26 2:27 3:1 3:4

104 169 92 149 106 112 169 171 169 92 149

Index of References 1:9

(Joel cont.) 4:1 4:3 4:4 4:19 4:7

112, 169 98 89 123 112

Obadiah 1:1 1:2 1:9 MT 1:10

169 112 126 123

1:11 MT 1:12

Jonah 2:3 3:8

169 123

Nahum 1:3 1:3 MT 1:4 1:7 1:12

104 151 104 160 92

1:13–17 1:15 1:15 MT 1:16 1:16 MT 1:17 1:17 MT 2:1 2:1 MT 2:2

Ambakoum (Habakkuk) 1:2 7, 108, 123, 137, 153, 169 1:2 MT 7, 107, 137 1:2–4 7, 97, 116, 159 1:3 97, 107, 123, 170, 191 1:4 84, 87, 92, 101, 102, 123, 153 1:4 MT 87, 102 1:5 18, 93, 97, 101, 103, 115, 118, 137, 155, 160, 162, 170, 191 1:5–11 151, 161 1:6 103, 112, 116, 118, 137, 159 1:6–7 162 1:6–20 161 1:7 103, 104, 149, 151, 159, 161, 170 1:7 MT 149 1:8 10, 72, 89, 104, 125, 147, 162 1:8 MT 89

1:9 MT 1:10 1:10–11 1:11

1:12 MT 1:13

2:2 MT 2:2–3 2:2–4 2:2–5 2:3

2:3 MT 2:3–4 2:3–4 MT 2:3–5 2:3–5 MT 2:4

2:4 MT

249 36, 103, 123, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 161, 170 152 96 162 102, 103, 147, 169, 171 147 5, 32, 36, 97, 140, 143, 144, 169 32, 143, 144, 148 16, 97, 107, 109, 123, 153, 191 161 36, 119, 120, 151 120 29, 120 29 34, 91, 92, 160 91 30, 160, 191 30 16, 24, 160, 162, 164, 166, 170 160 162, 178 164 158, 159, 162, 171, 174, 175, 178, 179 10, 16, 104, 156, 164, 165, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 178, 179 156 85, 157, 163, 165, 173, 176, 178, 179 85 4, 14, 162, 163, 177 163 24, 112, 113, 125, 156, 157, 159, 162, 164, 165, 166, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179 113, 158, 165, 168, 176

250

Index of References

(Ambakoum cont.) 2:5 97, 162, 167, 168, 170, 171 2:6 4, 85, 99, 147 2:6 MT 107 2:6–8 99 2:7 18, 94 2:8 100, 123, 153 2:8 MT 100 2:9 4, 16, 85, 96, 97, 171 2:11 16 2:12 4, 85 2:13 112 2:15 4, 16, 85, 99, 147 2:15–17 99 2:16 85, 86, 93, 94, 116, 119, 137 2:16 MT 86 2:17 16, 123, 153 2:18 142, 147, 180, 189, 191, 196 2:18–19 160, 171, 180, 190, 195 2:19 4, 85, 93, 94, 99, 112, 180, 191 3:1 16 3:1–19 4, 24, 178 3:2 16, 86, 95, 100, 101, 116, 128, 137, 138, 169, 170 3:2 MT 86, 101 3:3 16, 116, 125, 126, 127, 137 3:6 191 3:7 18, 191 3:8 101, 104 3:8 MT 101 3:8–9 104, 105 3:9 92, 93, 116, 122, 123, 176 3:10 18, 180, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193 3:10 MT 192 3:11 16 3:13–14 101 3:14 16, 147

3:16

3:16 MT 3:18 3:19

5, 36, 113, 114, 116, 137, 139, 140, 169 148 18, 147 147, 151, 152, 155

Zephaniah 1:9 2:1 2:8 3:1 3:8 3:19

123 118 169 149 84, 171 112

Haggai 1:9 1:10 2:12 2:14

112 113 98, 112 92, 106, 118

Zechariah 1:5 1:6 1:8 1:10 1:11 1:12 MT 1:17 2:1 2:4 2:5 2:7 2:12–13 2:13 2:14 2:18 3:4 3:8 3:9 4:2 4:7 5:1 5:7 5:9 6:1 6:8 6:15 7:5

101, 104 92, 169 112, 127 169 112 107 169 112 169 112 112 84 112 112 85 191 84, 112 112 112 169 112 112 112 112 191 104 101, 104

251

Index of References (Zechariah cont.) 7:12 7:13 8:7 8:8 8:12 8:13 8:15 9:4 9:14 10:1 10:1 MT 10:7 10:7 MT 11:6 11:7 11:11 11:16 11:17 12:2 12:3 12:4 13:6 13:7 14:1 14:2 14:15

169 92 112 169 169 92 92 112 191 180, 190, 192, 193, 194, 196 193 120 120 112 91 92 112 104 112 104 115 169 94 112 169 92

Malachi 1:9 1:13 1:14 2:2 2:3 2:10 2:13 2:14 2:16 3:1 3:2 3:5 3:9 3:10 3:11 3:19 3:20 3:22 3:23

169 169 149 169 112, 169 107 112, 169 111 123 112 191 169 118 169 169 112 90, 91 149 112

Isaiah 1:17 2:2 5:26 5:29 6:11 6:11 MT 9:14 MT 10:9 15:7 18:2 MT 19:1 21:1 21:1 MT 21:13 24:6 25:3 25:4 26:20 27:8 27:8 MT 30:8 30:16 36:11 42:1 43:10–13 44:9–20 44:3 45:1 45:13 46:9 47:5 49:2 MT 49:5 50:7 51:9 52:1 55:9 57:5 58:3 58:4 59:20 60:12 63:10 64:2 MT

137 148 89 90 108 107 191 101, 104 125 89, 149 89 102 149 126 84 137 137 176 154 155 160 84, 89 110 102 94 180 102 171 171 94 95 90 142 84 94 94 90 127 111 110 123 118 102 149

Jeremiah 1–28 2:20

106 127

252 (Jeremiah cont.) 2:23 4:14 4:14 MT 4:21 4:21 MT 5:6 6:7 7:28 12:4 12:4 MT 12:17 14:5 14:19 15:18 18:8 18:12 19:3 23:20 23:26 23:26 MT 23:33–38 25:12 26:6 27:8 27:11 27:13 27:28 31:22 31:22 MT 36:27 47:5 MT 47:5–6 MT 47:6 47:6 MT 48:36 49:7 MT 49:20 MT 49:36

Index of References

89 108 107 108 107 123 123, 124 118 108 107 118 155 110 110 118 154 114 148 108 107 106 118 89 118 90 118 118 108 107 110 107 107 108 107 84 126 126 118

Baruch 3:10

111

Lamentations 1:5 2:14 3:26 4:19

124 106 95 89

Epistle of Jeremiah 1:53 137 Ezekiel 1:10 5:1 MT 12:19 14:6 16:43 16:58 18 18:28 18:30 18:31 20:28 20:46 MT 21:23 MT 21:29 22:11 23:27 23:29 23:35 23:48 23:49 25:13 MT 27:21 MT 31:3 33:9 37:14 40:6 40:22 41:14 42:12 42:15 43:4 45:21 47:1 47:3

154 90 124 124 124 124 191 124 124 124 127 126 151 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 126 126 114 124 103 154 154 154 154 154 154 123 154 154

Daniel 2:20 2:31 4:28 MT 4:37 6:11 MT 8:13 MT 9:4 9:4 MT 9:4 [TH]

148 150 152 150 114 107 150 149 149

253

Index of References (Daniel cont.) 12:6 [TH] 12:6 MT

Bel 108 107

1:35–36

202 131

Ancient Authors Chrysippus

Aesop Fabulae 23.4 70.5 136.4 192.3 217.2 228.6 247.6 282.20

109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109

109

Andocides On the Peace 26.8

109

Aristophanes 109

Peace 409

109

109

109

Epicurus

Heraclitus Ephesius 127.2

109

Ecclesiazusae [general]

109

Vita G 3.32.3

108

Plato Apology 26d.1

109

Symposium 205a.2

Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics 1159a.4 107 De Anima 421a8–17 428b–429a9

Medea 200

Life of Aesop

Clouds 1192

Ecclesiazusae 791

Euripides

Letter to Horodotus [general] 188

Alcaeus Comic 17.1

Logic and Physics 298a.9.17 107

184 183

Republic 382e

181

Theaetetus and Sophist 263d 182

254

Index of References

Qumran 4QpIsaa 158

4Q285 158

1QS 9:11

4QBeat 143

158

Damascus Document (CD) 7:18 158 1QpHab (Habakkuk Pesher) 2:11 117 3:7 126 3:14 154 4:13 147 5:1–4 141, 142 5:14–6:1 119 6:8 91 7:15 173 8:3 98 12:14–15 191 4Q174

Murabba’ât (MurXII) 97, 117, 141, 142, 147, 172 Naḥal Ḥever (8ḤevXIIgr) 9, 12, 13, 14, 68, 109 16:22 119 16:25–26 117 16:29–31 150 16:31–36 89, 91, 126 16:36–38 153, 154, 155 17:18 91 17:29–31 113, 169 18:32 189 19:26 122

158

Targum Targum Jonathan Joel 1:8 Hab 1:1 Hab 1:5 Hab 1:8

169 107 97 126

Hab 1:9 Hab 1:11 Hab 2:4 Hab 2:19 Hab 3:3

153, 154 147 169 180, 191 126

New Testament Matthew 3:17 9:4 17:5 17:17 27:46 Mark

177 108 177 108 108

1:11 9:19 Luke 3:22 9:41 (Luke cont.) 13:7

177 108

177 108 108

255

Index of References 19:15 John 6:39 10:24 Acts 4:25 7:26 20:20 20:27

Romans 1:17

1 Corinthians 10:29

109

Galatians 2:12 3:11

113 24, 157

Hebrews 10:1–22 10:10 10:30–38 10:37–38 10:38

176 176 176 24, 174, 177 113, 167

1 Peter 1:5

148

24, 156, 174, 175, 178, 179

2 Peter 1:17

177

108

Revelation 6:10

108

148 108

108 108 113 113

Index of Authors Abegg, Martin G., 143 Achtemeier, Paul, 8, 84 Aejmelaeus, Anneli, 40, 47, 50, 51, 59, 66, 69 Aitken, James K., 2, 9, 10, 11, 16, 20, 23, 43, 44, 51, 69, 81, 82, 83, 84, 93, 96, 109 Allen, James, 185, 186 Allen, W. Sydney, 88 Andersen, Francis I., 88, 91, 93, 97, 98, 103, 115, 119, 122, 123, 124, 126, 142, 153, 160, 161, 168 Aristotle, 80, 107, 183, 184, 187, 188, 189, 193, 195 Baer, David A., 8, 36 Barr, James, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 44, 46, 50, 51, 53, 54, 77, 110 Barthélemy, Dominique, 9, 13, 14, 16, 40, 119, 120, 121, 122 BDAG, 108, 123, 151, 171 BDB, 112, 124, 153 Bellos, David, 25 Berlin, Adele, 82 Bezold, Carl, 117 Biguenet, John, 5, 69, 79 Bird, Michael F., 157, 158, 172, 173, 179 Boda, Mark, 106, 158 Boll, Franz, 117 Bons, Eberhard, 22, 55, 81, 124, 169 Boyd-Taylor, Cameron, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 70, 74, 75, 82 Brenton, Sir Lancelot Charles L., 4, 99, 100, 102, 106, 145, 193, 196 Brock, Sebastien P., 8, 40 Brogan, T. V. F., 87

Brownlee, William H., 98, 117, 118, 142, 161, 168 Brownlie, Siobhan, 43 Bruce, F. F., 17, 139, 168 Burton, Ernest De Witt, 1, 167 Campbell, Constantine R., 88 Campbell, Douglas A., 157 Carlson, Richard P., 157 Casevitz, Michael, 106, 169, 180, 194 Cathcart, Kevin J., 107, 121, 153, 169, 180, 191 Charles, Eugene, 143 Cleaver-Bartholomew, David, 90, 100, 113, 117, 142, 145, 146, 150, 161, 162, 168 Clines, David J. A., 36, 124 Cocking, John J., 193, 194, 195, 196 Collins, John J., 66, 158 Conybeare, F. C., 20 Cook, Edward M., 143 Cook, Johann, 34, 36, 37, 51, 59, 112, 134, 135, 141 Cox, Claude E., 6, 35, 59, 114, 124, 125, 137, 153 Cranmer, David J., 159 Cumont, Franz Valery Marie, 117 DCH, 87, 90, 124, 169, 193 De Sousa, Rodrigo Franklin, 133 De Troyer, Kristin, 25, 109, 117, 119, 125, 126, 150, 154, 169, 172, 189 Dines, Jennifer M., 9, 10, 11, 12, 23, 42, 43, 46, 81, 85, 95, 107, 116, 144 Dodd, C. H., 156, 158, 172, 175 Dogniez, Cécile, 40, 106, 146, 169, 180, 194 Dorival, Gilles, 9, 10, 17, 75, 82 Dulaey, Martine, 173

258

Index of Authors

Eaton, J. H., 138, 139, 140, 148 Eco, Umberto, 2 Ego, Beate, 25, 109, 117, 119, 125, 126, 150, 154, 169, 172, 189 Eidsvåg, Gunnar Magnus, 128 Evans, Craig, 159 Fabry, Heinz-Josef, 100, 143, 155, 163, 171, 172 Fernández Marcos, Natalio, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 132 Field, Frederick, AA. M., 17, 18, 107, 118, 119, 121, 122, 125, 154, 172 Fitzmyer, S. J., Joseph A., 157, 158, 171, 176 Floyd, Michael H., 106 Fowler, Harold North, 181, 182, 196 Fuller, Russel E., 11 García Martínez, Florentino, 12, 66, 126, 153, 154, 191 Gauthier, Randall X., 19, 21 Gelston, Anthony, 35, 90, 98, 112, 119, 120, 121, 122, 139, 140, 142, 143, 146, 149, 152, 168, 180, 190, 191, 192 Gheorghita, Radu, 122, 157, 161, 164, 166, 170, 176, 177, 178 Gignac, Francis T., 80, 81, 111 Glenny, Edward W., 11, 23, 26, 35, 36, 120, 133, 136, 159 Good, Edwin M., 17, 121 Gordon, R. P., 11, 12, 107, 121, 153, 169, 180, 191 Grabbe, Lester L., 59 Greenspahn, Frederick E., 111 Greenspoon, Leonard J., 3, 14, 16 Gunn, D. M., 124 Guthrie, George H., 176 Gutt, Ernst-August, 20, 21 Haak, Robert D., 85, 160, 168 HALOT, 93, 106, 112, 113, 114, 115, 124, 150, 153, 156, 193 Hanson, A. T., 157, 159, 177 Harl, Margeurite, 9, 10, 17, 22, 56, 75, 82, 91, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 103, 106, 107, 112, 114, 115, 117, 121,

128, 139, 140, 141, 145, 146, 149, 150, 151, 152, 157, 162, 164, 165, 167, 169, 170, 173, 177, 180, 192, 194 Harper, Joshua, 12, 17, 24, 86, 92, 93, 100, 101, 104, 114, 121, 122, 126, 127, 138, 140, 148, 155 Harrison, Robert C., 11 Harrisville III, Roy A., 173 Hays, Richard B., 157, 158 Hicks, R. D., 183, 184 Holmstedt, Robert D., 140 Horbury, William, 158 Horsley, G. H. R., 54 Howard, George E., 11 Janzen, J. Gerald, 164 Jastrow, Marcus, 114, 115, 147 Jellicoe, Sidney, 14 Jobes, Karen H., 9, 15, 16, 17, 18, 125 Joosten, Jan, 3, 8, 9, 11, 40, 47, 52, 54, 55, 56, 63, 75, 82, 90, 110, 111, 112, 124, 132, 136, 169, 201 Joüon, Paul, 95, 152, 160, 165 Kennedy, George A., 79, 80 Kim, Jong-Hoon, 141 Knibb, Michael A., 52, 158 Koch, Dietrich-Alex, 112, 165, 168, 171 Kooij, Arie van der, 2, 10, 22, 49, 50, 51, 56, 59, 67, 69, 76, 77, 141 Kraft, Robert A., 13, 14, 40, 86, 95, 109, 115, 122, 169, 172, 189 Kraus, Wolfgang, 22, 55, 56, 81, 85, 88, 99, 100, 112, 121, 127, 132, 133, 134, 139, 152, 163, 164, 166, 177, 180, 193 Kreuzer, Siegfried, 22, 132 Lange, Armin, 25, 109, 117, 119, 125, 126, 150, 154, 169, 172, 189 Lee, John A. L., 10, 58, 84, 92, 93 Legrand, Thierry, 173 Léonas, Alexis, 107 Lichtenberger, Hermann, 25, 109, 117, 119, 125, 126, 150, 154, 169, 172, 189 Lim, Timothy H., 98

Index of Authors Long, A. A., 186, 187, 196 Longacre, Robert E., 66 Louw, Theo A. W. van der, 2, 6, 15, 18, 19, 20, 34, 40, 42, 43, 45, 46, 80, 81, 83, 116, 123 LSJM, 88, 90, 91, 98, 99, 104, 106, 113, 124, 127, 151, 156, 189, 196 LXX.D, 22, 51, 88, 99, 145, 163, 180, 193, 196 LXX.E, 22, 88, 99, 121, 127, 139, 152, 180, 193 Manson, T. W., 157, 172, 177, 178 McLay, R. Timothy, 41 Metzger, Bruce, 17, 18 Millard, Alan R., 120 Mitsis, Phillip, 188 Möller, Julie Clinefelter, 161 Moulton, James Hope, 111 Mountfaucon, Bernard de, 17, 18, 107, 118, 119, 121, 122, 125, 154, 172 Mowinckel, Sigmund, 158 Muraoka, T., 9, 11, 12, 95, 96, 104, 108, 114, 127, 143, 145, 149, 152, 153, 160, 165, 193, 194, 195 NETS, 22, 51, 52, 53, 55, 99, 106, 121, 145, 151, 164, 193, 194, 196 Nida, Eugene A., 20 Norton, Jonathan D. H., 75 Olofsson, Staffan, 144 Orlinsky, Harry M., 8, 10, 192 OSB, 23, 196 Palmer, James Karol, 11, 23, 26, 31, 35, 36, 48 Palmer, L. R., 194, 196 Parsons, P. J., 13, 14, 86, 95, 109, 115, 122, 169, 172, 189 Paz, Octavio, 25 Pernot, Laurent, 80 Peters, Melvin K. H., 11, 48, 51, 128, 141, 144, 145 Pietersma, Albert, 6, 19, 23, 41, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 60, 61, 65, 66, 67, 73, 106, 121, 132, 133, 145, 151

259

Plato, 1, 79, 109, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 188, 189, 193, 195, 196 Pons, Jacques, 124, 125 Popkin, Richard, 185 Porter, Stanley E., 55, 80, 84, 85, 159, 166, 167, 179 Pym, Anthony, 43 Rabassa, Gregory, 5 Rabin, C., 19, 49, 50, 51, 53, 62 Raffel, Burton, 1, 5, 6 Rahlfs, Alfred, 3, 98, 102, 117 Rajak, Tessa, 8, 14 Reymond, Eric D., 192 Roberts, J. J. M., 116, 139 Rösel, Martin, 132, 134 Rudolph, Wilhelm, 93, 97, 112, 113, 138, 139, 143, 148, 153, 163, 180, 193, 194, 196 Sanders, Henry Arthur, 12, 119, 171 Schaff, Philip, 17 Schaper, Joachim, 10, 55, 64, 128, 151, 152, 165, 172 Schmidt, Carl, 12, 119, 171 Schofield, Malcolm, 182, 186 Schuller, Eileen, 143 Schulte, Rainer, 5, 69, 79 Sedley, David N., 185, 186, 187, 196 Seeligmann, Isaac L., 10, 125, 134 Seifrid, Mark A., 157, 173 Sheppard, Anne, 181, 182, 183 Shorey, Paul, 181, 196 Shreiner, Thomas R., 157 Silk, M. S., 86, 87 Silva, Moisés, 9, 15, 16, 17, 18, 125, 157 Smith, Morton, 8 Smith, Ralph L., 168 Smyth, Herbert Weir, 166 Snyman, S. D., 124 Soisalon-Soininen, Ilmari, 138 Sperber, Alexander, 21, 107, 121, 126, 147, 154 St Stock, George, 20 Stead, Michael R., 7 Stegemann, Hartmut, 143 Stewart, Andrew, 187

260

Index of Authors

Strobel, A., 156, 158, 163, 170, 171, 172, 178 Swete, Henry Barclay, 14, 17, 20, 98 Taber, Charles R., 20 Talshir, Zipora, 35, 36, 37 Thackeray, Henry St John, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 39, 40, 59, 98, 99, 104, 106, 123, 127, 202 Theocharous, Myrto, 11, 15, 23, 24, 119 Theodoridis, Christos, 92 Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C., 12, 66, 126, 153, 154, 191 Toury, Gideon, 19, 20, 72, 73, 131 Tov, Emanuel, 6, 13, 14, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 42, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 68, 77, 92, 95, 109, 115, 116, 122, 143, 169, 171, 172, 189 Troxel, Ronald L., 125 TWOT, 153 Vanderspoel, John, 80 Vermes, Geza, 14 Vienès, Laurence, 91 Vince, J. H., 109

Vorm-Croughs, Mirjam van der, 81 Vuilleumier, René, 118 Waard, Jan de, 39 Wace, Henry, 17 Wagner, Ross J., 25, 55, 128 Wallace, Daniel B., 109, 111, 166, 167 Wallis, Ian G., 157, 158 Waltke, Bruce K., 168 Watson, Francis, 161 Watson, Gerard, 180 Watson, Wilfred G. E., 14 Weiger, Madeleine, 124 Weiser, Artur, 93 Wevers, John Wm., 6, 9, 13, 14, 16, 114, 144 Wolters, Al, 158 Wright, Benjamin G., 23, 51, 52, 53, 55, 66, 76, 106, 121, 145, 151 Zeller, Eduard, 194, 196 Ziegler, Joseph, 11, 12, 17, 18, 98, 102, 104, 117, 119, 123, 169

Index of Subjects Allusion, 7, 9, 11, 23, 45, 120, 128, 143, 176 Ambakoum, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 18, 22, 24, 26, 28, 34, 36, 39, 42, 43, 45, 70, 72, 77, 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 91, 93, 95, 97, 100, 105, 114, 115, 116, 118, 120, 121, 123, 125, 128, 129, 131, 132, 136, 137, 139, 140, 141, 147, 149, 151, 153, 155, 156, 159, 160, 161, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 178, 179, 180, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 195, 196, 197, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 217 Aquila, 2, 13, 14, 16, 44 Aramaic, 3, 8, 11, 22, 29, 36, 50, 63, 105, 107, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 118, 119, 121, 129, 145, 148, 152, 154, 155, 162, 199 Aramaism, 8, 110, 112 Aristeas, 14, 66 Aristotle, 80, 107, 183, 184, 187, 188, 190, 194, 195 Author of Hebrews, 167, 175, 176, 178, 179 Barberini, 12, 14, 24, 114, 121, 138, 155 Ben Sira, 9, 66, 76 Chaldean (Babylonian), 72, 90, 92, 94, 102, 103, 104, 115, 117, 118, 120, 123, 141, 147, 149, 150, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 162, 168, 170, 171, 176, 202, 206 Christ (see also Messiah), 156, 157, 158, 159, 167, 170, 173, 174, 175, 176, 178, 179 Christological, 173, 178

Christology, 157 Chrysippus, 107, 185, 186, 187 Church Fathers, 15, 173 Codex – Alexandrinus, 12, 16, 85, 99, 108, 157, 171, 194 – Lucianus, 13, 17, 18, 132 – Sinaiticus, 12 – Vaticanus, 123, 157, 171 – Venetus, 12 – Washintonianus, 12, 99, 119, 171 Contextual Exegesis, 32, 34, 37, 46, 48, 49, 67, 116 David/davidic, 25, 36, 90, 119, 124, 146, 158, 159, 168, 172, 178, 186 Dialect, 25, 42, 54, 81, 99 Discipline, 55, 73, 145, 146, 208 Epicurus, 188 Eschatology, 10, 55, 64, 103, 128, 133, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 155, 158, 159, 166, 172, 174, 175, 178, 179 Exegetical, 4, 10, 15, 25, 28, 29, 32, 37, 38, 45, 48, 49, 51, 59, 67, 70, 105, 109, 115, 116, 118, 132, 137, 138, 139, 140, 147, 169, 179, 191 Exile, 124, 131, 136, 140, 146, 148, 170, 202 Faith/Faithfulness, 18, 39, 77, 113, 125, 156, 157, 158, 159, 161, 162, 164, 165, 166, 167, 169, 170, 171, 172, 175, 178, 179, 211 Faithful, 30, 34, 40, 45, 83, 111, 157, 179 Fulfilment, 168, 177, 178, 179

262

Index of Subjects

Greek Language – Classical, 1, 88, 124, 166 – Koine, 3, 40, 44, 56, 80, 81, 105, 108, 109, 111, 113, 167 Habakkuk, 1, 4, 12, 14, 15, 17, 24, 85, 88, 90, 91, 93, 97, 98, 100, 103, 107, 113, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126, 131, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 145, 147, 148, 150, 152, 154, 156, 157, 159, 160, 161, 162, 164, 168, 169, 170, 174, 176, 191, 200, 203, 204, 217 Habit of Reading, 5, 45, 50, 68, 78, 111, 122, 174 Hebrew Language, 29, 30, 140 Hebrews, Epistle of, 122, 157, 161, 164, 166, 167, 170, 176, 177, 178, 179 Hellenistic, 6, 14, 21, 24, 34, 42, 44, 49, 52, 54, 55, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 79, 80, 81, 84, 106, 107, 108, 117, 124, 127, 137, 146, 148, 149, 151, 152, 167, 181, 183, 185, 186, 187, 189, 190, 195, 196, 201 Idiom, 27, 46, 53, 61, 92, 99, 104, 122 Idolatry, 123, 131, 148, 160, 161, 180, 191, 192, 193, 195, 197 Interference – Aramaic, 111, 129, 162 – Hebrew, 61, 72, 95 – Linguistic, 1, 62 Interlinear (Paradigm), 26, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 200 Interpretative Tradition, 49, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 77, 84, 89, 105, 132, 133, 134, 156, 174, 199, 201, 202 Intertextual, 11, 23, 173 Jerome, 3, 15, 16, 17, 25, 43, 97 Jesus (see also Christ), 5, 108, 156, 157, 158, 172, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179 Jewish Exegesis, 51 Judgement, 31, 86, 88, 93, 97, 102, 119, 123, 140, 141, 143, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154, 159, 160, 161, 162, 166, 170, 173, 175, 176, 177, 178, 181,

182, 184, 186, 188, 202, 204, 206, 208, 213 Leitmotif, 146, 161 Literary, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 14, 20, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 40, 42, 47, 50, 51, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 89, 92, 96, 98, 102, 105, 109, 113, 118, 122, 127, 129, 132, 133, 135, 140, 144, 158, 159, 162, 164, 165, 167, 169, 170, 171, 175, 176, 181, 195, 200, 202 LXX, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 19, 21, 22, 29, 30, 32, 34, 36, 40, 41, 42, 44, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 56, 57, 68, 76, 81, 82, 85, 88, 95, 98, 99, 103, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113, 117, 120, 121, 125, 127, 128, 129, 133, 134, 135, 139, 141, 143, 144, 145, 151, 152, 163, 164, 166, 168, 170, 171, 176, 177, 180, 193, 196 Masoretic Text, 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 32, 36, 85, 90, 91, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 110, 113, 114, 115, 117, 119, 120, 122, 123, 126, 127, 131, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 147, 148, 149, 155, 156, 157, 159, 161, 162, 164, 165, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 180, 189, 191, 193, 201 Maximalist, 132 Messiah (see also Christ), 158, 159, 174, 176 Messianism, 133, 148, 156, 157, 158, 159, 162, 165, 166, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 178, 179 Minimalist, 63, 132, 133 Minor Prophets, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 35, 81, 85, 95, 107, 119, 121, 128, 139, 153, 170, 171, 172, 180, 191, 201 Neologism, 106, 151, 196 Old Greek, 3, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 24, 30, 55, 56, 59, 60, 67, 69, 70, 74, 76, 77, 78, 89, 92, 95, 99, 103,

Index of Subjects 104, 113, 115, 116, 118, 120, 122, 125, 126, 127, 128, 135, 136, 142, 151, 156, 157, 159, 161, 165, 168, 170, 171, 173, 174, 175, 176, 179, 189, 191, 193, 194, 196, 202 Oral, 50, 51, 69, 74, 79, 84, 202 Origen (Hexapla), 15, 16, 17, 119, 125 Paul, Apostle, 8, 10, 75, 84, 95, 143, 156, 157, 158, 159, 161, 162, 171, 172, 175, 177, 178, 181 Phantasia, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 215 Philosophy, 22, 44, 51, 56, 180, 181, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 193, 194, 195, 197 Philoxenos, 92 Plato, 1, 79, 109, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 188, 189, 194, 195, 196 Poetry, 16, 80, 87, 122, 195, 200 Prophet, 3, 5, 7, 9, 70, 87, 88, 104, 107, 131, 136, 137, 139, 140, 144, 146, 148, 153, 155, 159, 160, 162, 164, 169, 170, 180, 191, 194, 203, 217 Proto-MT, 13, 14, 60, 67, 98, 120, 122, 172, 189 Ptolemaic, 56, 59, 80, 109, 126, 195, 199 Qumran, 9, 11, 98, 131, 143, 156, 159, 192 Reading Tradition, 2, 7, 49, 50, 51, 61, 63, 66, 67, 69, 70, 74, 75, 86, 88, 113, 119, 120, 122, 126, 137, 154, 199 Relevance Theory, 21, 40 Rhetoric, Greek, 4, 6, 16, 41, 70, 71, 72, 77, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 91, 95, 105, 116, 128, 189, 190, 200 – Anaphora, 85 – Assonance, 86, 87, 96, 101, 102, 104, 105, 116 – Consonance, 86, 87, 96, 100, 102 – Homeoteleuton, 93, 101

263

– Variatio, 4, 12, 16, 37, 75, 82, 84, 85, 86, 94, 123, 136, 147, 152, 196 Rhetorical, 55, 62, 66, 70, 71, 72, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 101, 104, 105, 108, 118, 128, 155, 162, 200, 202 Rhetorical Device, 71, 72, 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 92, 93, 95, 96, 104, 105, 118, 128, 200 Righteous One, 113, 114, 164, 171, 178, 179 Roman, 52, 55, 56, 59, 81, 109, 186, 189, 192, 195 Scriptures, 14, 66, 132, 133, 148, 156, 158, 178 – Greek Scriptures, 75 – Hebrew Scriptures, 6, 8, 14, 15, 56 Septuagintal, 7, 11, 19, 20, 26, 33, 39, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 52, 53, 57, 60, 61, 64, 66, 67, 73, 122, 133, 134, 135, 136, 150, 160, 199, 201 Sitz im Leben, 47, 57, 58, 65 Sociolect, 6, 107, 129 Stoic, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 192, 193, 194, 195 Suffering, 3, 7, 131, 136, 137, 139, 140, 155, 175, 201, 202 Symmachus, 16 Text-Criticism, 6, 41 Text-Production, 55, 57, 61, 65, 134, 158, 159 Text-Reception, 57, 75 Theodotion, 16, 17 Theology (incl. Septuagintal), 11, 23, 24, 36, 42, 49, 67, 76, 77, 117, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 156, 157, 159, 175, 177, 199, 201, 202 Theophany, 104, 170, 176 Toponym, 126, 127, 128 Translation (Technique) – Atomistic, 2, 5, 29, 36, 60, 83, 122, 141, 159, 188 – Literalism, 2, 3, 6, 18, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 51, 53, 56, 57, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72,

264

Index of Subjects

73, 77, 79, 82, 83, 86, 88, 95, 96, 99, 101, 102, 105, 110, 131, 132, 133, 134, 164, 200 – Mistake, 5, 29, 36, 67, 133, 139, 144, 147, 152, 170 – Tradition (see also Reading Tradition), 70, 137, 144 – Transformation, 1, 2, 6, 7, 18, 19, 43, 45, 68, 70, 132, 179, 199 – Translation Technique, 11, 23, 25, 26, 39, 41, 59, 60, 65, 66, 73, 81, 144 Twelve, Book of, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 22, 23, 28, 35, 40, 42, 70, 75, 81,

84, 85, 88, 90, 91, 98, 101, 104, 106, 107, 110, 112, 113, 122, 123, 126, 128, 129, 134, 139, 143, 144, 149, 150, 151, 161, 168, 169, 171, 174, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 201, 202 Vorlage, 4, 11, 17, 18, 22, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 47, 48, 85, 116, 119, 122, 123, 134, 135, 136, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 157, 162, 180, 191, 201 Zeno, 186, 188