Methodological Issues Preliminary to a Lexicon of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion

Ephemerides TheologicaeLEXICON Lovanienses OF AQUILA, 81/1 (2005) SYMMACHUS 165-176 / Doi:AND 10.2143/ETL.81.1.616507THEODOTION

Katrin HAUSPIE Centre for Septuagint Studies and Textual Criticism, K.U.Leuven

This article will not deal with the questions whether it would be preferable to make a lexicon of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion respectively (i.e. of each reviser separately) or one that integrates the vocabulary of the Three into one and the same lexicon, or whether the lexicon should constitute an independent work or a Supplement to already existing Septuagint lexicons e.g. to Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Revised Edition of Lust-Eynikel-Hauspie1. The questions dealt with here are preliminary to any lexicographic work on the hexaplaric material. There are a number of methodological remarks that one simply cannot avoid once the decision to compile a lexicon of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion has been taken. For such a lexicon of the Three to be fruitful, it will have to over- come some serious obstacles from the very start. First, the data to be incorporated in the lexicon will have to be collected from different sources. Second, the sources used include at their best but a few fragments consisting of a couple of sentences and, in most cases, just single words. Third, we will investigate the implications of the lack of a context for the Three. Fourth, we will analyse the purposes or motives of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion for making their translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, attempting to see in what way this influences the lexicographic work.

1. Collection of Data of a Lexicon of the Three

E. Hatch and H.A. Redpath, who at the end of the 19th century compiled a concordance of the Greek words of the Septuagint, list in their Concordance at the end of each lemma the occurrences of the headword in the Three, if available. HATCH & REDPATH dates from 1897; its data concerning the Three are based on the work of Field, who at that time had just published his Hexapla in 18752. Field based his work on that of his predecessors Flaminius Nobilius († 1590), Drusius (1622) and de Montfaucon (1713), who all edited the Hexapla, or better still, the

1. This article was read at the Symposium Septuagint Lexicography and Beyond: Symmachus, Aquila and Theodotion (Leuven, 31st of October 2003), on the occasion of the publication of the revised one volume edition J. LUST – E. EYNIKEL – K. HAUSPIE, Greek- English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Revised Edition, Stuttgart, 2003 (= LEH). 2. E. HATCH – H.A. REDPATH, Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Ver- sions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books), Oxford, 1897; reprint Graz, 1954; second edition, Grand Rapids, MI, 1998 [pp. 217-368: T. MURAOKA, Hebrew/Ara- maic Index to the Septuagint], p. IX. 166 K. HAUSPIE remains thereof. The Hexapla, this enormous work of Origen comparing the Greek versions of the Old Testament known to him with the Hebrew text of his day, has not survived in its entirety. The Hexapla is nowadays preserved only in marginal notes in some manuscripts, in very few fragments of copies of the Hexapla and in quotations of the Fathers. Field also added in his edition of the Hexapla a lot of retranslations from the Syro-Hexaplar. These are Greek translations from Field’s hand based on the Syro-Hexaplar or Syriac translation of the fifth column containing the Septuagint text of the Hexapla3. These retranslations cannot be part of a lexicon of Symmachus, Aquila and Theodotion; although some of these retranslations have been proved justified as later discoveries of fragments of the Hexapla have shown, others were just guesses. Hatch and Redpath rightly do not include Field’s retranslations in their Concordance. In 1906 a new edition of HATCH & REDPATH appeared, together with four appendi- ces, one of them being Appendix 3 Hexaplaric Fragments; Redpath states in his introduction that newly discovered Hexaplaric material has been included here4. These are fragments from the Psalter5, Genesis, Job, Habakuk, and 1, 2 and 4 Kings. Newly discovered material from 1906 onwards has not been collected yet in a systematic way6. Schenker gives a survey of manuscripts with hexaplaric material and their publication, after Field7; also Harl gives a list of the more re- cent material8. There are now plans for a new edition of Field’s Hexapla, with insertion of new hexaplaric data9. Hexaplaric material is also accessible in the second apparatus of the critical edition of Göttingen; it is drawn from the margin of some manuscripts, and from commentaries containing hexaplaric material. As far as the Bible book is avail-

3. This Syriac version of the Hexapla is from Paul of Thella (616-617); it is partly preserved in a manuscript from the 8th century in Milan, published by A.M. Ceriani in 1874. The text translates Origens Septuagint text (fifth column), and also adopts the critical signs in the text; in the margin Syriac and Greek readings of Jewish revisors are inserted. 4. HATCH – REDPATH, Concordance (n. 2), p. 197. 5. At that time Mercati had not published his hexaplaric fragments of the Psalter yet, but Redpath could make use of a copy of a transcript of the fragments of the Psalter (HATCH – REDPATH, Concordance [n. 2], p. 197). 6. N.R.M. DE LANGE, Some New Fragments of Aquila on Malachi and Job?, in VT 30 (1980) 291-294. G. NORTON, Collecting Data for a New Edition of the Fragments of the Hexapla, in B. TAYLOR (ed.), IXth Congress of the IOSCS Cambridge 1995 (Septuagint and Cognate Studies, 45), Atlanta, GA, 1997, 251-262, pp. 252-253 states: “hexaplaric material published since Field is often ignored because it is unwieldy, and hidden away in obscure series of journals. […] Something is needed that will complement this material, and draw out the information that is already potentially there”. 7. A. SCHENKER, Hexaplarische Psalmenbruchstücke. Die Hexaplarische Psalmenfrag- mente der Handschriften Vaticanus graecus 752 und Canonicianus graecus 62 (Orbis biblicus et orientalis, 8), Freiburg – Göttingen, 1975, pp. 4-6. 8. G. DORIVAL – M. HARL – O. MUNNICH, La Bible grecque des Septante. Du judaïsme hellénistique au christianisme ancien (Initiations au christianisme ancien), Paris, 1988, pp. 143-155. 9. This project is called The Hexapla Project of the Hexapla Institute. More information about this project in: K.H. JOBES – M. SILVA, Invitation to the Septuagint, Grand Rapids, MI, 2000, p. 317. See also A. SALVESEN, Origen’s Hexapla and Fragments. Papers pre- sented at the Rich Seminar on the Hexapla, Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies, 25th-3rd August 1994 (Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum, 58), Tübingen, 1998, and NORTON, Collecting Data (n. 6), pp. 251-262. LEXICON OF AQUILA, SYMMACHUS AND THEODOTION 167 able in this edition, the readings of Symmachus, Aquila and Theodotion can be consulted. But as Norton clearly stated at the IOSCS meeting in Cambridge in 1995 the hexaplaric material in the Göttingen edition is spread over the first and the second apparatus, although the main part of this material is included in the second apparatus, exclusively containing hexaplaric material10. To deal with all hexaplaric material of a Bible book, both the first and the second apparatus should be gone through. Beside these tools, hexaplaric material has also been published in a scattered way in different articles and books. Collecting all these material is a work on its own. In real terms, to collect the data for the Symmachus lexicon of the Psalms11 the following works have been used12: the Greek-Hebrew index of the edition of the fragments of Psalms of Symmachus of Busto Saiz of 197813, and Schenker’s Griechisches Wörterverzeichnis of two manuscripts with Psalm fragments of Symmachus of 197514. For Ezekiel the following tools have been utilised to collect the data15: the Concordance of Hatch and Redpath and the second apparatus of the Göttingen edition of Ezekiel16. These two examples illustrate the complex- ity of the collection of the simple data, which will finally be used as headwords in the lexicon. This collection work however precedes and facilitates the real lexicographic work. The basis for lexicographic work is an index or a concordance which contains all words of the corpus with the passages in which they occur and/or with the quotation of their context which will at a later stage be incorporated into the lexicon as headwords. For the Symmachus lexicon of the Psalms Lust was able to benefit from the indexes of Busto Saiz and of Schenker. For the other Bible books the situation is less propitious, as Lust himself states in his introduction of the Symmachus lexicon of the Psalms: for the remaining materials of the Three other than the Psalms of Symmachus, he had to rely on the list provided by Hatch and Redpath17. For Aquila we have the index of Reider-Turner18. This index was compiled by Reider in 1913, but never published; later Nigel Turner updated the data with new materials and published it in 1966. Although this work suffered from sharp criticisms19, it is still the only tool which collects all the data on Aquila. Since 1966 new Aquila material came to light.

10. NORTON, Collecting Data (n. 6), p. 253. 11. http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol05/Lust2000.html. 12. J. LUST, A Lexicon of Symmachus’ Special Vocabulary in His Translation of the Psalms, on http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol05/Lust2000.html [= J. LUST, A Lexicon of Symmachus’ Translation of the Psalms, in ETL 74 (1998) 87-92, p. 87]. 13. J.R. BUSTO SAIZ, La Traducción de Simaco en el libro de los Salmos (Textos y Stu- dios «Cardenal Cisneros», 22), Madrid, 1978, pp. 457-610. This index incorporates the Symmachus material of the Psalms (taken from Field, Mercati, Taylor and Wessely) known and published until then. 14. SCHENKER, Hexaplarische Psalmenbruchstücke (n. 7), pp. 374-398. 15. Work in progress at the Centre for Septuagint Studies and Textual Criticism (Fac- ulty of Theology, K.U.Leuven), compiled by dr. S. Scatolini and prof. J. Lust. 16. I got this information from prof. J. Lust and dr. S. Scatolini. 17. LUST, Lexicon (n. 12), §3 [= ETL 74 (1998), p. 88]. 18. J. REIDER – N. TURNER, An Index to Aquila: Greek-Hebrew, Hebrew-Greek, Latin- Hebrew with the Syriac and Armenian Evidence (Supp. to VT, 12), Leiden, 1966. 19. Review of J. BARR in JSS 12 (1967) 296-304, of R. HANHART in TRev 64 (1968) 391-394 and of E. TOV, Some Corrections to Reider-Turner’s Index to Aquila, in Textus 8 (1973) 164-174. 168 K. HAUSPIE

For Symmachus and Theodotion an index is still a desideratum, already formu- lated by Tov in an article in 197320. Lexicons of hexaplaric material appearing at this stage of availability of hexaplaric tools, need to be both a lexicon and an index. This has some practical implications on the formal and accordingly substantive level of a possible hexaplaric lexicon: words in indexes are put in alphabetical order, and within this order various occurrences of one headword are arranged according to their ap- pearance in the subsequent Bible books, chapters, and verses. In a lexicon, the alphabetical order is, of course, maintained as well, but different occurrences of one and the same headword are arranged and grouped according to their meaning. A lexicon offers meanings for words in a way in which those meanings and their relationship come to the fore. Being both an index and a lexicon, the lexicon, I’m afraid, loses lexical and/or semantic value.

2. Determining Meanings from the Context: Which Context?

Words are mostly not used on their own but in conjunction with (an)other word(s). These words, the context, contribute to the actualisation of a word. Con- sulting the context should allow us to determine the meaning of a word21. A lexicon of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion wants to give the meaning of a word as it is used by Aquila, Symmachus or Theodotion. We are not satisfied with lexical meanings22. E.g. peribolß means on the one hand covering, garment, dress (sth. you throw around your shoulders or body), on the other hand circumference, circuit (sth. that encompasses); its lexical meaning can be defined as to throw sth. round sth. For Ezek 17,17 Symmachus has ên peribol±Ç tafroÕ, which ap- plies for the latter meaning with an encompassment by a ditch, with a surrounding by a ditch; it is this kind of information the user of, in this case of the Sym- machus lexicon, is looking for. We do not have a continuous text of Aquila, Symmachus or Theodotion, ex- cept for some rare fragments. This missing continuous text has been considered as an important difficulty for compiling a lexicon of the Three23, even as an insuf- ficient basis for lexicographic work on the hexaplaric material24. Such considera- tions corner every attempt at making such a lexicon immediately into a dead end project.

20. TOV, Some Corrections (n. 19), p. 164. 21. D. GEERAERTS – S. GRONDELAERS – P. BAKEMA, The Structure of Lexical Variation: Meaning, Naming and Context, Berlin – New York, 1994, pp. 1-5; K. HAUSPIE, Contribu- tion of Semantic Flexibility to Septuagint Greek Lexicography, in K. FEYAERTS (ed.), The Bible through Metaphor and Translation. A Cognitive Semantic Perspective (Religions and Discourse, 15), Bern, 2003, 221-222. 22. Lexical meaning is defined as “meaning of a word in isolation from the sentence containing it, and regardless of its grammatical context” (The New Oxford Dictionary of English). 23. “Der fehlende Zusammenhang der hexaplarischen Lesarten, die ais ihrem Kontext gerissen sind, führte ebenfalls zu falschem Verständnis und Irrtum” (SCHENKER, Hexapla- rische Psalmenbruchstücke [n. 7], p. 4). 24. Recently this criticism was once more repeated by Muraoka in the Introduction of his lexicon A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint Chiefly of the Pentateuch and the Twelve Prophets, Leuven, 2002, p. X. LEXICON OF AQUILA, SYMMACHUS AND THEODOTION 169

Most of the hexaplaric material came to us through marginal notes in a few Septuagint manuscripts. These notes contain mainly single words provided with a sign referring to the identical sign in the body of the manuscript, denoting the word it should replace. A sign for Aquila (a), Symmachus (s) and/or Theodotion (q) goes with the note referring to the author. The word in the margin should replace the marked word in the text of the Septuagint. By doing so, the context of the marginal word in that manuscript is the context of the word it replaces. That context will suffice for determining the meaning of the marginal word. This method has been employed during the compilation of the Symmachus lexicon of the Psalms and certainly of Ezekiel (still in progress). Judging from the current preserved material, however, we cannot know the ac- tual context of e.g. Symmachus. The context is logically, one should think, the Septuagint text of the manuscript that contains the hexaplaric notes in the margin. For Ezekiel Q25 (6th century) and ms 88 (10th century) bear such notes. We do not even know whether the scribe systematically signalled every difference between e.g. the translation of Symmachus and the Septuagint text by a marginal note. The translation of Symmachus that the scribe had in front of him may have differed in many more places from the Septuagint text than the marginal notes make us to believe. These marginal notes (in Q and ms 88) would then represent the selective copying judgements of the scribe. When compiling a lexicon of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, we only have the marginal word as the vocabulary of Symmachus, Aquila or Theodotion, and can only incorporate this word in the lexicon. We can make use of the context of the Septuagint text to determine the meaning of the hexaplaric word, but we can hardly speak of the “context of Symmachus”, or of the “text of Symmachus”. We can even go one step further and ask ourselves: is it even academically justified to take this Septuagint text as context for determining the meaning of the words in the hexaplaric notes?

3. Lacking of Context: Does This Really Compromise the Lexicographic Work of the Three?

The text of Symmachus, Aquila and Theodotion is a translation of a Hebrew Vorlage. Also the Septuagint is a translation of a Hebrew Vorlage. We do not have the Vorlage of the Three nor of the Septuagint26. Even though these Hebrew texts certainly did not seem to have contained major differences in relation to each other, they still display some minor ones. Nonetheless, despite these differences, they all generally convey the same content27. The Greek translations intend 25. The text of Q probably is the Septuagint text of the Hexapla with the marginal notes of the Tetrapla; these marginal notes were on the one hand variant readings and readings from the Three, on the other hand glosses. Q contains thus a lot of hexaplaric material in its text itself. A later redactor (Qc, Qmg) marked those readings with an asterisk in case of addition (to bring the text closer to the Massoretic text); in the margin he noted the author of the addition, mostly q. He also added missing readings in the margin and provided them with an asterisk. See J. ZIEGLER, Ezechiel, 2., durchgesehene Auflage mit einem Nachtrag von D. FRAENKEL (Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scien- tiarum Gottingensis editum, 16/1), Göttingen, 1977, pp. 32-34, esp. 34. 26. Cf. BUSTO SAIZ, Traducción (n. 13), p. 291. 27. For the Symmachus fragments of the Psalms Busto Saiz agrees that Symmachus did not use the unified proto-Massoretic text established in Jamnia. The official proto- 170 K. HAUSPIE to render the Hebrew text as faithfully as possible. One may presume therefore that the content of the various Greek translations must also have been the same, even in those cases in which they phrase their content differently. For the Three we only have, in most of the cases, single words; the context of the Three is missing but we can assume that it mostly conveys the same content as the Septuagint. This is an important boundary to a theoretical whole range of possible contexts of a single word from the margin of a manuscript. All Greek contexts should be in line with the content dictated by or of the Old Testament. This is at least one ground, albeit a small one, upon which we can base ourselves in our lexicographic work of the Three. “Context” has been defined as: “the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed”; “the parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its meaning” (The New Oxford Dictio- nary of English). The expression “in context” refers to words when they are “considered together with the surrounding words or circumstances” (The New Oxford Dictionary of English). “Content” has in turn been defined as “the substance or material dealt with in a speech, literary work, etc. as distinct from its form or style” (The New Oxford Dictionary of English). Building on these definitions we may conclude that the substance or material dealt with in the translations of the Three and in the Septuagint is the same, since they all mean to render the Hebrew Old Testament (that is their point of conver- gence) even in cases where they actually produced different final renditions. The final form of their text contains words that are not necessarily the same lexemes or that differ morphologically from other translations. The common content, however, creates an opening for lexicographic work of the Three.

With this conclusion we may be walking on thin ice, but we can still ask ourselves: could these contexts of the Septuagint and the Greek translations of the Three in fact have been so different from one another? Let us turn to a concrete example: Aq 3 Kings 21,10-1328.

Aquila. LXX. (Cod. B) 10 kaì âpésteilen pròv aûtòn uïòv 10 kaì âpésteilen pròv aûtòn uïòv Ädèr légwn Táde poißsai moi ö Qeòv Ädàd kaì e¤pen Táde poißsaisán moi kaì táde prosqeíj, eî êkpoißsei ö xoÕv qeoì kaì táde prosqeíjsan, eî êzar- Samareíav ta⁄v âlÉpezin pantì t¬ç la¬ç kései xoÕv Samaríav to⁄v lixásin toÕ to⁄v peho⁄v mou. 11 kaì âpekríqj ba- pantòv toÕ laoÕ Ωv ên posín mou. 11 kaì sileùv Îsra®l kaì e¤pen Ïkanoúsqw· âpekríqj basileùv Îsra®l kaì e¤pen m® kauxásqw ö kurtòv Üv ö ôrqóv. 12 Lalßsate M® kauxásqw hwnnúmenov

Massoretic text was actually not so easily imposed, as it may have been the intention of the meeting in Jamnia (Traducción [n. 13], pp. 287 and 292). Some readings of Symmachus coincide with readings in other Hebrew manuscripts, differing from the Massoretic text as found in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. This was a sufficient reason for Busto Saiz to conclude to a Hebrew Vorlage different from the proto-Massoretic text. By lack of Hebrew witnesses he concludes to a corruption in the Greek manuscript transmission or to a stylis- tic attempt of Symmachus himself (Traducción [n. 13], pp. 288 and 292). 28. Both text fragments are taken from H.B. SWETE, An Introduction to the Old Testa- ment in Greek, Cambridge, 1900, p. 35. LEXICON OF AQUILA, SYMMACHUS AND THEODOTION 171 kaì êgéneto ºte âpekríqj aût¬ç tòn Üv ö periluómenov. 12 kaì êgéneto Üv lógon toÕton, pínwn ¥n aûtòv kaì ≠kousen sùn tò Å±ma toÕto, kaì aûtòv pántev basile⁄v met’ aûtoÕ ên skjna⁄v· ∂pinnen aûtòv kaì oï basile⁄v ên kaì e¤pen to⁄v paisìn aûtoÕ Oîkodo- suskiasmo⁄v· kaì e¤pen pròv doúlouv mßsate xáraka· kaì ∂qento xáraka êpì aûtoÕ Qéte· kaì ∂qjkan êpì t®n pólin. t®n pólin. 13 kaì îdoù profßtjv efiv 13 kaì îdoù profßtjv efiv prosßggisen pros±lqen t¬ç basile⁄ Îsra®l kaì pròv Âàb basiléa Îsra®l kaì e¤pen e¤pen Táde légei Kúriov Eî ëórakav Táde légei Kúriov E¤dev sùn pánta tòn tòn ∫xlon tòn mégan toÕton; îdoù êgÑ ∫xlon tòn mégan toÕton; îdoù êgÑ dídwmi aûtòn sßmeron eîv xe⁄rav sáv, dídwmi aûtòn eîv xe⁄rá sou sßmeron, kaì gnÉsjÇ ºti êgÑ Kúriov. kaì gnÉsjÇ ºti êgÑ Kúriov.

If we read the text of B and then the one of Aquila, we will see that both of them present the same content. The marked words (see underlining) in Aquila are different from the choice of the Septuagint translator. If we consider these words in context, the contexts of Aquila and the Septuagint are different in some cases, but they convey the same content. By replacing the corresponding Greek word of the Septuagint by the marked word of Aquila, thus placing the Aquila word in the Septuagint context, the context of the Septuagint hardly differs from that of Aquila. E.g. êzarkései and êkpoißsei, Å±ma and lógon, prosßggisen and pros±lqen. kaì e¤pen in Aquila differs from légwn in the Septuagint. But this does not influence the content of the text. The sense of the sentence is the same. Also the other Aquila fragments of the Cairo Genizah, 4 Kings 23,21-24, Ps 90,6b-13 and Ps 91,5-10, argue in favour of the same results after comparing the Aquila fragment with the text of B. These fragments are some of the few continuous texts of Aquila. After comparison of some of the fragments of Symmachus and Aquila for the Psalms (edited by Mercati), with the Septuagint text, we do not notice major differences between the respective contexts29. It is maybe too premature to make general assessments for the entire corpus of Symmachus or Aquila on the basis of a handful of fragments. Yet in most of the cases the context of the Septuagint suffices for determining the meaning of the hexaplaric word in the margin.

Still, there are limitations to the use of the context of the Septuagint for lexicographic work of the vocabulary of the Three. Without the context, we cannot determine the meaning of e.g. âkoúw: it is important to know whether an accusative or a genitive follows, and whether the auditory perception is result-oriented or process-oriented30. When this informa-

29. E.g. Ps 30,24-25. 30. The case in Greek of the object of âkoúw informs us about how to translate âkoúw: the accusative draws the attention to the object, the result, of the auditory perception, i.e. result-oriented; the genitive draws the attention to the auditory perception itself, the verb thus, i.e. process-oriented (K. HAUSPIE, La version de la Septante d’Ézéchiel: Traduction annotée d’Ez 1-24 et étude du grec d’Ézéchiel par une sélection de particularités lexicales et grammaticales, Leuven, Doctoral Dissertation, 2002, pp. 207-208). This dichotomy process versus result also affects the auditory verbs in English, which distinguishes between to hear, i.e. result-oriented, and to listen, i.e. process-oriented (differently from French which discerns between auditory perception as a passive reception, entendre, and as an intentional action, écouter); see Y. TOBIN, Aspect in the English Verb: Process and Re- sult in Language, London – New York, 1993, p. 95. 172 K. HAUSPIE tion is not provided in the marginal note, we have to give both meanings, leaving the treatment of the word undecided. For these cases the context of the Septuagint does not give comfort. The marginal notes sometimes contain more than just one word: in Ezek 20,39 üme⁄v eîsakoúeté mou is replaced by üm¢v âkoúein mou by Symmachus; the note on Symmachus also gives the surrounding words, which facilitates our study of the context.

From this insight and the definition of “context”, we can give an answer to the question with which we finished our preceding section: is it even academically justified to start from this Septuagint text as context for determining the meaning of single words in the hexaplaric notes? I think we may answer this question affirmatively, bearing in mind the restrictions imposed by the Septuagint context for lexicographic work on the Three, and the fact that the marginal notes may be a selection of the original adaptations and translation of the Three. Another difficulty linked to the lack of a continuous text will also be the fact that you do not have a complete running text at your disposal, e.g. Aquila. We shall turn to this last point in the following section.

4. Objectives of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion

In the time of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion (the 1st and 2nd century CE) there already existed a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. The Septuagint circulated in even more than one version. The rationale behind the translation work of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion was to bring the Greek text closer to its original, the Hebrew text known to them. This activity has to be seen over against the Jewish-Christian disputes of the time. As the Greek Old Testament was generally used by the first Christians, becoming more and more the Bible of the Christians, there was fierce reaction from the Jewish side31. Where the Septuagint diverges from the Hebrew text, the Jewish revisers im- proved and adapted the Greek towards their Hebrew model. The Hebrew text was after all the basis. The concrete realisation of this purpose, however, differed from translator to translator. In order to show this we shall now deal with Aquila and Symmachus, in particular. Aquila’s translation is marked, on the lexical level, by a literal, word-for-word rendition of the Hebrew text, without any concern of how this text could have been understood or appreciated by a Greek reader; it is therefore often labelled as translation by etymology32. Indeed, a lot of Greek words are etymologising translations: the Greek word expresses the etymology present in the Hebrew word it translates33. One example may illustrate this. Suntomß in Isa 28,22 is chosen as means חרץ ptc. ni. fem.) decision, edict. The verb) נחרצה rendition of the Hebrew

31. BUSTO SAIZ, Traducción (n. 13), p. 293. 32. The vocabulary of Aquila has been studied by Busto Saiz in respect to new word formations or new meanings attributed to existing words (El léxico peculiar del traductor Aquila, in Emerita 48 [1980], 31-41). Hyvärinen comes to the same conclusion as far as ,for instance ,אמן the vocabulary is concerned (even all derivations from the Hebrew root should be reflected in paronymous Greek words), but at the same time he argues for nu- ances on behalf of the syntactic level, where Aquila shows himself as more concerned with the grammatical rules of the Greek (Die Übersetzung von Aquila [Coniectanea Biblica, 10], Lund, 1977, pp. 42 and 86-87). 33. See HYVÄRINEN, Übersetzung (n. 32), pp. 40-41 and BUSTO SAIZ, Léxico (n. 32), p. 38. We only mention here one example suntomß. LEXICON OF AQUILA, SYMMACHUS AND THEODOTION 173 to cut off and to decide, which can perfectly be translated by suntémnw, also is a participle נחרצה meaning to cut off, to cut short and to decide. The Hebrew .functioning as a substantive things determined, decision ,חרץ form of the verb Aquila adopted this etymology into his translation: starting from the verb suntémnw he arrives at suntomß. This word exists, yet with the meaning cutting down, reduction. Suntomß builds upon one meaning of the verb suntémnw, the one that is not dealt with in the translation of Aquila. To understand this passage in the text of Aquila, it is good to be aware of his way of translating. It also becomes clear from this example, that we do not argue in favour of an automatic transfer of the Hebrew meaning to the Greek word; the role of the Hebrew is merely that of an eye-opener for the possible meanings in the Greek word, and calls upon the meaning potential of the Greek word34. Some words of Aquila were chosen, not for semantic reasons, that is correspondence of meaning between the Hebrew and the Greek, but for reasons of big tree, the אלון ,homoeophony35, as in Deut 11,30: the Hebrew text has Septuagint has druóv oak, and Aquila has aûl¬nov valley36. The word aûlÉn any semantic correspondence is ;אלון contains similar sounds as in the Hebrew absent. By putting such a homoeophonic word in the context, of Aquila or of the Septuagint, the sentence becomes odd. In order to describe the location of mount Garizim and mount Gaibal in Deut 11,30, reference is made to an oak (Septuagint), to a valley (Aquila), to the oaks of Moreh (Massoretic text); in a is always אלון context of mountains a valley is not strange at all. In the Targum rendered by the Aramaic word for valley or the Aramaic word for crossroad37; so near the Plains of סמיך למישרי 38חזוזה the Targum Neofiti renders Deut 11,30 as the Vision39. In case of Aramaic influence there is semantic correspondence be- ,and aûlÉn. The text given by Aquila does make sense. It is, however אלון tween not always that simple. Aquila’s choice of some words is sometimes difficult to explain, even hardly understandable in the Greek text. So âpórreusiv flowing from, pouring out, dis- folly, and replaces נבלה sipation in Deut 22,21 and 1 Kings 25,25: it translates âfrosúnj of the Septuagint. In Deut 22,21 and 1 Kings 25,25 it deals with a foolish attitude (a young woman lost her virginity before being married, =

34. HAUSPIE, Contribution of Semantic Flexibility (n. 21), p. 228. 35. For an explanation of this term see G.B. CAIRD, Homoeophony in the Septuagint, in R. HAMERTON-KELLY – R. SCROGGS, Jews, Greeks and Christians Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity. FS W.D. Davies, Leiden, 1976, 74-88, esp. 74. Cf. E. TOV, Loan-words, Homophony and Transliterations in the Septuagint, in Biblica 60 (1979) 216-236, p. 224; but Tov wrongly talks of homophony, a style characteristic within one and the same language, instead of homoeophony which describes a sound resemblance between two lan- guages. 36. BUSTO SAIZ, Léxico (n. 32), p. 37 (sic Deut 9,30). 37. Cf. F. GARCIA MARTINEZ, Sodom and Gomorrah in the Targumim, in E. NOORT – E. TIGCHELAAR (eds.), Sodom's Sin: Genesis 18–19 and Its Interpretations (Themes in Biblical Narrarive, 7), Leiden, 2004, 83-96. 38. The word is not attested elsewhere, and probably due to an inaccuracy of the In the Targum Pseudo-Jonatan Deut .חזו Targum Neofiti. The Aramaic word for vision is A. DIEZ MACHO, Biblia Polyglotta Matritensia. Series) בסיטרי חזוי ממרא is rendered 11,30 IV: Targum Palaestinense in Pentateuchum additur Targum Pseudojonatan ejusque hispanica versio. L. 5: Deuteronomium, Madrid, 1980, p. 115). 39. A. DIEZ MACHO, Neofiti 1. Targum Palestinense MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana. Tomo V: Deuteronomio: edición príncipe, introducción y versión castellana, Madrid, 1978, pp. 115 and 489. 174 K. HAUSPIE

êpoíjsen âfrosúnjn) or (a pestilent man, = âfrosúnj met’ aûtoÕ). The use of âpórreusiv hardly fits the context; this must have been the impression of every Greek reader. The missing continuous context maybe bears the key, absent in the Septuagint text, to justify the choice of this word; unfortunately we cannot open Aquila’s text at Deut 22,21 and check it. This is an example of what I meant when I spoke above of the serious difficulties posed by the lack of a running text. In the Aquila lexicon the meaning attributed to âpórreusiv should not be the one of the corresponding Hebrew word (as wrongly happened in LSJ, then sur- prisingly was not revised in the Revised Supplement of 1996, which is generally more sceptic towards transfer of the Hebrew meaning to the Greek, and it even reappears in the Diccionario griego-español of Adrados40!), completely strange to the meaning potential of the Greek word; it is better to give the usual meaning of the Greek word, together with the Hebrew word it renders, pointing to the lack of correspondence between both meanings. It is good to bear in mind that Aquila was more concerned with the Hebrew text which had to be transparent in his Greek text than with the clarity of the Greek text itself. This peculiarity can be signalled in an Aquila lexicon, by giving the Hebrew word it translates. This was the conclusion of Busto Saiz, certainly for the use of words like âpórreusiv41. A lexicographer of Aquila, however, should always start from the point of view: what can this word mean here in Aquila, starting from the meaning potential of the Greek word itself? The He- brew can help us to analyse the word that Aquila used or to trace the reason why he did it (e.g. suntomß). The translation of Aquila has been commonly used in Jewish circles42. It became the text for the Greek-speaking Jews, in opposition to the Septuagint that became the Bible of the Christians. This text functioned in a Greek-speaking en- vironment and should be read as a Greek document. Insofar as it translates a He- brew model, moreover, insofar as it has brought the Greek text closer to its He- brew model in the choices of words, the Hebrew can help to address new notions attributed to the Greek word43. The translation of Symmachus, too, was intended to bring the Greek text closer to the Hebrew, but in a different way. Symmachus avoided hebraisms44, or con- structions in which the Hebrew text became transparent; he preferred good idiomatic Greek above calques from the Hebrew. He merely dug up existing rare words; his text abounds in hapax legomena as far as the Bible is concerned. These words are common in writers of his time, and often only there45. 40. Madrid, 1980-. 41. BUSTO SAIZ, Léxico (n. 32), p. 40. 42. The discovery of fragments of Aquila in the Cairo Genizah and in the Fayoum, prove the popularity of the text of Aquila among the Jews. Later in the 6th century Justinianus (Novellae 146) orders to read Aquila in the synagogues (DORIVAL – HARL – MUNNICH, Septante [n. 8], p. 147). This last fact goes back to a dispute in the diaspora on the subject of the language used in the liturgy in the diaspora: Hebrew or Greek. Justi- nianus settles this dispute by authorising the translation of Aquila as official text (DORIVAL et al., Septante [n. 8], p. 124). 43. Some scholars agree that Aquila’s translation was meant as a basis text for rabbinic exegese of that time; this may explain Aquila’s oddities in his text (DORIVAL et al., Septante [n. 8], p. 146). 44. BUSTO SAIZ, Traducción (n. 13), pp. 279-286. 45. BUSTO SAIZ, Traducción (n. 13), pp. 319 et 282-283. Busto Saiz found out 204 words in the Psalms of Symmachus, that did not figure in the other bible versions, but they did in the contemporary authors of the 2nd century CE. LEXICON OF AQUILA, SYMMACHUS AND THEODOTION 175

Symmachus, while making his translation, was really concerned with his Greek reader (by use of variation, more idiomatic Greek). In Christian circles Symmachus was more appreciated than Aquila46. The func- tion of the Hebrew to address a specific notion of a Greek word, is less active in Symmachus than in Aquila. Mostly the lexical choices of Symmachus are in agreement with the Hebrew word, and the meaning of the Greek word arises from the components and the formation of the Greek word itself. E.g. ümnopoiéomai to praise; also the הלל in Ps 55,11(56,11), expresses the same as the piel of Septuagint has the same meaning aînéw; the same can be said of xaropoiéw in and the Septuagint eûfraínw. In some cases ,חדה Ps 20,7(21,7), for the Hebrew Symmachus has a translation which is in accordance with the Hebrew, in opposition to the text of the Septuagint. E.g. bóraton juniper tree in Ps 103,17(104,17), juniper tree, Septuagint ™ge⁄tai47. And galßnj calm sea in Ps ברושׁ Hebrew the calm, in fact in this context it refers to the) דממה Hebrew ,(107,29)106,29 sea), Septuagint a∆ra breeze. But in all these cases, we do not need the Hebrew to understand the Greek.

5. Conclusion

Once the decision to compile a lexicon of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion has been taken, we have to consider the following points. The collecting of data is a work on its own; as there are no indexes or concord- ances at least for Symmachus and Theodotion. We have to be aware of the difficulties entailed by the collection of our data. But the presentation of the lexicon, finally, should give full priority to the lexical value. Is it academically justified to start off from the Septuagint text as context for determining the meaning of the single words in the hexaplaric notes? I think we may answer this question affirmatively, bearing in mind the restrictions imposed by the Septuagint context for any lexicographic work on the Three and the fact that the marginal notes may be a selection of the original adaptations and translation of the Three. The fact that there is no complete running text will mean that you can never read an entire text of e.g. Aquila. This missing context makes it difficult to determine the meaning of words that do not really fit within the context, that do not correspond with the Hebrew or that cannot be explained in terms of their Greek meaning potential. The treatment of the vocabulary of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion should not be conducted in the same way for each author separately. For Aquila, the im- pact of the Hebrew is more obvious than it is for Symmachus. The whole process must not be influenced primarily by the opinion that translation was determined by the desire to transfer the meaning of Hebrew words into Greek words irrespec- tive of the semantic potentials of the Greek language itself.

Faculty of Theology Katrin HAUSPIE K.U.Leuven Postdoctoral Fellow Sint-Michielsstraat 6 F.W.O.-Vlaanderen B-3000 Leuven

46. Jerome easily made use of the translation of Symmachus while compiling his Vulgate (DORIVAL et al., Septante [n. 8], p. 150). .ברושׁים for ב/רושׁ/ם :See LEH (n. 1) s.v. ™géomai .47 176 K. HAUSPIE

ABSTRACT. – This article does not deal with the question whether it would be preferable to make a lexicon of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion respectively (i.e. of each reviser separately) or one that integrates the vocabulary of The Three into one and the same lexicon, or whether the lexicon should constitute an independent work or a Supplement to already existing LXX lexicons. The questions dealt with here are preliminary to any lexicographic work on the hexaplaric material. There are a number of methodological remarks that one simply avoid once the decision to compile a lexicon of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion has been taken. For such a lexicon of The Three to be fruitful, it will have to over- come some serious obstacles from the very beginning. First, the data to be incorporated in the lexicon will have to be collected from different sources. Second, the sources used will be, at their best, but a few fragments consisting of a couple of sentences and, in most cases, just single words. The article also considers the implications of the lack of context for The Three and analyses the purposes or motives of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion for making their translation of the Hebrew OT, attempting to determine the extent to which this influences the work of lexicography.