Hebrew, Greek, Septuagint

This article presents the topic of the conference that was held at Polis Institute in January 2015 and the different contributions that were made there and that have been published in the proceedings. The article presents as well the conclusions were reached on the library of Alexandria at the end of the conference.

This dissertation comprises a translation technical study of the Septuagint version of the book of Jeremiah (Jer LXX) conducted for the purpose of characterizing the translation. The last two centuries of scholarship on Jer LXX have produced diverse descriptions of the translator’s product, ability and approach to translation, ranging from a free and arbitrary translation to a literal and faithful one. Though modern scholars mostly agree that the translation attempts to follow its Hebrew Vorlage very closely, it contains several indicators of free and less formal equivalence. In addition, discrepancy between certain renderings within chapters 1–28 (Jer a’) and chapters 29–52 (Jer b’) have borne debate regarding the unity of the translation, particularly whether these differences reflect the work of multiple translators, a later revision, or the peculiarities of a single translator.

A translation technical study has the potential to account for the different factors within Jer LXX in a way that previous studies on the character of the translation have been unable to do. Earlier research, though pivotal and pertinent in its own ways, relies on a minimal analysis of the syntactical and semantic contexts in which the Hebrew words and their Greek equivalents occur. A closer look at these contexts by means of a translation technical analysis allows a more precise determination of the character of the translation and its place in the history of the Septuagint, pertaining in particular to the relation between the Greek and Hebrew texts of Jer and to the cause of the differences between Jer a’ and Jer b’.

The study of translation technique constitutes a comparison between Hebrew words and expressions and their counterparts in the Greek translation, and it is the primary means by which to identify the different factors that influenced the product of translation. Three factors, and the extent of their influence, need to be taken into account when evaluating a translation in the LXX: the syntax and grammar of the Hebrew Vorlage, the requirements of the Greek language, and the individual translator’s own peculiarities. This type of analysis provides answers to questions regarding the nature of Jer LXX as a textual witness to the Hebrew text, the development of the Greek text of Jer LXX, and the translation character of Jer LXX.

The method is applied to the renderings of Hebrew words and expressions for which a difference between Jer a’ and Jer b’ has been identified. This choice of material has been made in order that the issue regarding the bisectioning of Jer LXX can be addressed to the fullest possible extent by this study. Since the question of a revision in Jer LXX revolves around the translation differences between Jer a’ and Jer b’, the character of these differences will be further delineated in relation to the revisional character of the kaige tradition, an exemplar of early jewish revision that is universally accepted as such. This comparison allows a further differentiation of the characteristics among the differences that can be categorised as revisional in nature and those that cannot, which in turn enables a more precise placement of Jer LXX within the history and development of the LXX as a whole.

The conclusions of this study draw from the distinction of the different types of changes that occur between Jer a’ and Jer b’. Certain differences between the two do reflect the revisional characteristics of the kaige tradition, which suggests that they were produced by a reviser who was invested in a revisionary tradition similar to kaige. This correlates with earlier suggestions that Jer b’ contains a revision. A number of the differences, however, indicate that the character of the revision is not as developed in its system and consistency as are the later exemplars of the kaige tradition. This distinguishes the revision in Jer b’ from other known revisions and allows its placement as prior to the later kaige revisers. Third, certain differences constitute a change toward more natural Greek expression, which is the opposite of what one would expect from a revision since Greek idiom usually does not reflect the formal characteristics of Hebrew. These differences are to be understood as reflecting a change towards more intuitive use of the Greek language by the first translator of Jer.

This third conclusion provides a window into understanding the motive of the revision. The need for revisions came from a perceived disparity between the Septuagint translation and the Hebrew text used by the reviser. The latter half of the translation of Jer LXX evinces a number of changes toward less formal equivalents of the Hebrew text, which was unappealing to the reviser. This, together with the possibility of later growth in the reviser’s Hebrew text after the initial translation into Greek, combine to form conducive conditions for revision.

The preparation of a modern lexicon dedicated to the vocabulary of the LXX is most welcome. Yes, one can find all the words in the unabridged Liddell & Scott  A Greek-English Lexicon, Ninth Edition with a Revised Supplement , but the latter volume is not very portable, and it has far more information than a reader of the LXX will need.

A more important difference, though, is that the present volume addresses many matters of lexical meaning that are peculiar to the LXX. Many senses given are followed by verse references. An exceptionally helpful feature, and one which I am sure took much time to develop, is the inclusion of hypotheses about how certain odd-looking translations in Greek may have been derived from the Hebrew text. This may be due to a different assumed voweling, a slightly different consonantal text or a simple misunderstanding by the Greek translators.

Words unique to the LXX and literature based on it are marked, as are words found in the NT. Corrections to Rahlf's  Septuaginta , to which this is a companion volume, are also indicated.

While my overall impression of this volume is very good, there are a few desiderata I have for a subsequent edition:

1. Many of the translations are rather old-fashioned, and some are positively obsolete. I burst out laughing when I found "conjure" as the translation of *exorkizo*, which means 'to put under oath'. The fact that this gloss is found in Liddell & Scott suggests that the authors depended too much on its quaint 19th-century and earlier vocabulary, rather than giving modern English equivalents in all cases.

2. Occasionally an additional gloss is needed. For example, *elegcw* (elenkho) needs the gloss 'to prove to be' for Wisdom 2:11.

3. This lexicon has extremely few cross-references for unexpected or irregular forms. A few more would be highly desirable as an aid to students. Among them are *arnos* referring to *amnos* 'lamb, sheep' and *qhmwnia* (themonia) referring to *qimwnia* (thimonia) 'heap'.

The Septuagint--the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible--was an influential translation for Jews and Christians of the first century. When the New Testament writers quoted the Old Testament, they most often used the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX) translation. Thus the vocabulary and thought forms of the LXX had a significant impact on the development of New Testament theology. Although the LXX and the New Testament were both written in Koiné Greek, much of their vocabulary and word forms are different. Thus students and scholars who desire to read the LXX need a reliable reference guide that will help them decode the host of word forms and meanings that go beyond New Testament Greek.
The Analytical Lexicon to the Septuagint lists alphabetically every Greek word form found in the standard Rahlfs LXX text, along with a detailed parsing of each form. Besides correcting errors found in the previous (1994) edition, this expanded edition also includes basic glosses (definitions) for each Greek word from Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, compiled by Johan Lust, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie. These glosses are translation equivalents rather than technical definitions, and provide literal meanings as well as metaphorical ones. In many cases, the glosses are accompanied by grammatical and contextual information that sheds additional light on the word's meaning. The combination of the exhaustive grammatical analysis of the Analytical Lexicon and the helpful glosses of the Greek-English Lexicon make this expanded edition an indispensible tool for everyone engaged in the study of the Septuagint.

First, a word about the actual physical book: It is a sturdy volume of quality binding, and has a quality feel and look to the covers and spine. The pages are quality clean white opaque pages, as one would expect in a quality reference book, and not transparent onion-skin. Printing is sharp and clear, albeit quite small. The English is smaller than the Greek. The English I believe is 6 pt. type. Rather uncomfortable for lengthly reading- it appears to be included only as a help to those who would be reading the Greek. The Greek print is larger and easier to read.

The binding is sturdy. This book will last.

My biggest complaint about this volume is the lack of chapter demarcations. Verses are fairly well marked, but trying to figure out what chapter you are in is basically a crap-shoot, aided by page headings and memory. Personally, when making notes, I look it up in the King Jimmy to be sure.

This book seems to be intended for those who want to read the Greek, with Mr. Brenton's excellent translation into English being added for reference, presumably for those of us who are not expert in Greek.

I purchased this merely wanting an English translation (and Mr. Brenton's in particular) of the LXX. I do not read Greek. I do also have the Apostolic Polyglot, which, for a non Greek-reader such as myself, is actually a better study tool, as it places each Greek word directly above the English word which translates it, and also includes the Strong's number of each Greek word- neither of which this volume does- but, alas, the Apostolic Polyglot is not very practical for actual reading.

Ultimately, someone such as I needs both books- The Apostolic Polyglot for word studies (I love to see how New Testament words are used in the LXX! -it really gives insight!), and this version of the LXX for actual reading of the English translation of the LXX.

Just to be clear about this version of the LXX: It is formatted so that each page contains two columns of text: The outer, narrower column (and in smaller type) is the English; and the inner column, which is somewhat wider, and of somewhat larger type, is the corresponding Greek. That is it.

If you don't read Greek, this book is only helpful as an English translation- but in rather small print. No Strong's numbers; and you won't know which Greek word corresponds to which English word- as the English text is only there as a help to those who are at least fairly familiar with the Greek.

Personally, what I am really looking for, is JUST an English version of Mr. Brenton's translation of the LXX. As far as I know, that does not currently exist though, so if you're looking to read this widely accepted translation of the LXX, this is pretty much it. Suffer through the small print and narrow columns! If the preceding describes you, then get this!

If, on the other hand, you are looking to do Greek word studies from the LXX, and don't fluently read Greek, but need the corresponding English and the Strong's numbers...get the Apostolic Polyglot.(Be warned: The Apostolic Polyglot's binding is NOT of the same quality, and it falls apart quite easily!). Better yet, get both books, and you'll be fully armed!

A note about the LXX in general: I'm a big advocate of the KJV, and reject all of the modern Bible [per]versions- but there is just no denying that when it comes to the Old Testament, the LXX is just more accurate than the Masoretic Text (Which basically was put together in the 9th century AD. by the Jews, and edited or at least "tweaked" a little to hide many of the Messianic prophesies).

No matter how many times you've read the Bible, you will gain insight and knowledge the first time you read the LXX. You will see things which just don't appear in the standard English translations of the Masoretic text- bearing in mind that Greek is a much more precise language than Hebrew/Aramaic; the LXX has not been messed with as much as the Masoretic; and, as will be obvious to you when you read it, if you are familiar with the New Testament, this is the version which Jesus and the Apostles quoted. It also does not contain the contradictions and errors found in the Masoretic text/English translations/KJV.

Orthographic variation within the manuscripts of the Greek NT is seldom a cause célèbre beyond the ranks of diehard textual critics. Even among these most will concede that orthographic irregularities amount to little more than evidence of scribal incompetency or inconsistency in their spelling practices. To find the same word both spelled correctly and misspelled with a single manuscript b the same scribe is not uncommon. It approaches the  norm. The critical editions of our Greek NTs have therefore opted, on good grounds, to exclude textual variants displaying non-standardized spelling. To include them would make it impossible for anyone to use the critical apparatuses in a meaningful way. The deluge of senseless errors would drown out variants of demonstrable textual significance.

It is the purpose of this study to examine all the verbal forms pointed in MT Twelve Prophets as infinitives absolute [IA] and the ways in which they have been translated into Greek.  Overall the data point toward a relatively unified translation of the Twelve, and the translator gives relatively idiomatic, contextually fitted translations of the IA. 
Published in JSCS 49 (2016): 96.

summAry: Fabrics such as byssus and crimson wool can provide us with a surprisingly large amount of information about the circumstances of Biblical books origin. Analysis of lexis related to mentioned textiles, present in Exodus and in Chronicles, allows to notice a meaningful change, occurring in technical biblical terminology. In Exodus, byssus is represented by ‫ׁש‬ ֵ ‫ׁש‬ and crimson – by ‫ִי‬ ‫נ‬ ָ ‫ׁש‬ ‫ַת‬ ‫ַע‬ ‫,ּתֹול‬ whilst in Chronicles naming is changed respectively to ‫ּבּוץ‬ and ‫יל‬ ִ ‫מ‬ ְ‫ַר‬ ‫.ּכ‬ Analysis of etymology leads to the conclusion, that textiles mentioned in Torah belong to an early vocabulary, created in the times before the exile, in Chronicles, on the other hand, encountered terms belong to period of Babylonian captivity or after the exile. Confrontation of these textiles with the other, non-biblical sources, provides a confirmation of proposed dating and facilitates identification of mysterious biblical byssus, which turns out to be a very thin linen and not – as sometimes confused – sea silk. Juxtaposition of the Greek equivalents allows to draw a conclusion, that terminology of both Torah and Chronicles was known to the LXX translators, who – despite a clear caesura – translate terms consequently: ‫ׁש‬ ֵ ‫ׁש‬ and ‫ּבּוץ‬ to βύσσος/βύσσινος, and ‫ִי‬ ‫נ‬ ָ ‫ׁש‬ ‫ַת‬ ‫ַע‬ ‫ּתֹול‬ and ‫יל‬ ִ ‫מ‬ ְ‫ַר‬ ‫ּכ‬ to κόκκινος. T he research on the Biblical material culture constitutes mainly the archeological domain. The Biblicists reach for it readily in order to come to conclusions as regards the text. What is of a popular interest here is mainly sculpture, glyptic, writing culture and architecture. It is rare for the research to focus on the more prosaic elements of everyday life, such as wine, food or textile production. As far as the last case goes, the most numerous are the studies regarding purple. It is one of many fabrics (we are considering here not the color but the wool dyed

Semantics of Ancient Hebrew Database, 2017 -

The Hebrew word מחרשׁה/מחרשׁת occurs three times in 1 Samuel 13:20-21. Especially the twofold occurrence in the same list of agricultural implements in 13:20 raises questions. The word has cognates in other Semitic languages and occurs also in the Mishnah. Apparently, however, part of the earliest translators were confused about its meaning. One of the occurrences refers to a traditional scratch plough or to its metal plough-point. The other occurrence may represent a hoe, a mattock, an adze, or another agricultural implement. For this and other lexicographical articles, see https://sahd-online.com/

A comparison of English Bibles from 1537 to today, and how they chose between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint to translate key passages in the Old Testament. Also considers the Orthodox Study Bible, which is translated from the Septuagint.

The Septuagint renderings of recurring Hebrew phrases that are found in different biblical books have been used as a means to characterize a translation and to identify its relationship to the translations of other books. The translation of the Pentateuch, for example, is thought to have been used as an example by later translators of other books. Deuteronomistic phrases occur in a wide array of biblical texts and usually occur more than once. Within the text of the book of Jeremiah, numerous deuteronomistic phrases have been identified, and they therefore provide a good opportunity to evaluate the character of Jeremiah LXX as a translation and its relationship to the translations of other deuteronomistic books. My paper will consider the value of comparing translations of recurring Hebrew phrases in an attempt to determine the relationship between the translations of various books. I will use Jer 11:1–14 as a case study in an attempt to identify any precedent translation that the translator of Jeremiah LXX might have used to make his translation of this passage.

Septuagintal studies has risen in recent years, but a substantial introduction to the discipline was lacking for students and scholars alike.  The technical nature of the discipline left many students unfamiliar with how to proceed into the fray.  Karen Jobes and Moises Silva initially filled that hole in 2000, but they have updated and expanded to the second edition of their primer to account for changes in the field of the LXX studies.  The second edition responds to a lengthy criticism of the first edition from James Barr whereby the authors supposedly deemed the LXX unhelpful for determining the Hebrew text (xii n.1).  The second edition has been updated the bibliography with references from the last fifteen years. Both authors are world renown scholars for their scholarship in Greek lexicography and the use of the Old Testament in the New Testament.  Hereafter, the authors will be referred to as J.S.

The Old Greek translation of Isaiah is notorious for the liberties it takes with its source text. Septuagint scholars have disagreed about the reason for the numerous differences between the Greek and Hebrew of Isaiah. Over a century ago, the tendency was to consider these differences mistakes made either by a Hebrew copyist or by the translator. However, in the last hundred years, the prevailing view has shifted, and the trend has been to suggest the numerous differences between the Hebrew and Greek are intentional. Since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, it has become commonplace to argue that the translator of Isaiah created pesher-like allusions to contemporary events because he thought Isaiah was referring to the translator's own time. Yet the evidence for this " fulfilment-interpretation " has not convinced everyone, and Troxel and de Sousa have recently argued that it is unable to adequately account for the changes made by the translator. I argue that the significant differences between the Greek and the Masoretic Text are mainly the result, not of a contemporizing method, but rather of the translator's carelessness. I am led to this conclusion by three kinds of observations: (1) the translation includes frequent changes equally attributable to the Vorlage or to the translator, but rarely includes changes attributable only to the Vorlage; (2) most minor differences are explainable as either mistakes or updating with no change of referent; (3) the major differences cannot be attributed to a consistent intentional method.

Abstract: This article will begin by describing an ancient document that connects the library in ancient Alexandria with the Septuagint. In the process it will outline some of the history reflected in the document and offer clarifications of key terms. After addressing the problem of recovering both the original translation and the source text from which it was made, the article will finally discuss the Septuagint as a translation in comparison to its source text. It will conclude with an example, drawn from the early chapters of the book of Genesis, of how the Greek translation nuances the meaning found in the Hebrew.

Any reader of the Septuagint will, at some point or another, come across the collocation of the particles ἀλλά and ἤ (commonly written as ἀλλ ̓ ἤ). Out of about 550 occurrences of ἀλλά in the Septuagint, almost 140 of them co-occur with the particle ἤ. Despite representing twenty-five percent of the uses of ἀλλά in the Septuagint, ἀλλ ̓ ἤ has received very little treatment in lexicons, grammars, and scholarship on Septuagintal translation technique. At worst, the collocation is ignored altogether; at best, it is assumed to be functionally equivalent to ἀλλά.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the use of ἀλλ ̓ ἤ in the Septuagint and what a translator may be communicating about his understanding of his source text by choosing this collocation, rather than ἀλλά alone or ἐὰν μή, to render various Hebrew particles. Instead of ignoring ἀλλ ̓ ἤ or simply equating it with ἀλλά, a functional description will be offered that takes into account the discourse context and the relevance constraints of the collocation. In addition, evidence from contemporary papyri will aid the discussion, helping to delimit the function of ἀλλ ̓ ἤ and clarify its use in comparison with ἀλλά. As will be seen, ἀλλ ̓ ἤ serves a slightly different function than ἀλλά. While the two are related, ἀλλ ̓ ἤ is frequently used as a limiting construction, both actual and metaphorical. The use of this collocation by the Septuagint translators is significant, especially in the many instances in which it is not lexically motivated by the underlying Hebrew. Understanding its function and paying attention to its use may provide further insight into the translators and how
they read their Vorlagen.

In Lamentations 1 the judgment imagery and its reasoning concern particularly the intimate relationship between God and the personified female City shown in images of a (lost) marital relationship. Indeed, Jerusalem, devastated, despised and ridiculed by her enemies, has reached the painful fragility and social vulnerability of a widow. The image begs, so to say, for an emotional response from the audience. But, unlike the Hebrew text, the Greek version of Lamentations 1 evokes the miserable situation of the Daughter Zion which is explicitly and repeatedly attributed to the humiliation incurred as punishment for haughtiness and rebellion. This emphasis in Lamentations 1 LXX reveals a subtly thought-out alignment of Daughter Zion with the arrogant Daughter Babylon in Isaiah 47 LXX. As we will point out, the stylistic device of personifying and feminizing Jerusalem provides an exemplary insight into the development of Old Testament theology over half a millennium.