A New Index to Hatch and Redpath1

A NEW INDEX TO HATCH AND REDPATH1

Throughout the ages people were interested in the relationship between a given word in the LXX and its Hebrew or Aramaic equivalent, and this for a whole range of reasons. New Testament scholars, particularly those working on the Synoptic Gospels, were desperately in need of such infor- mation2. Those who regarded the LXX primarily as a rich mine of possible variants for the text-critical study of the Hebrew Bible had to be able to retrovert the Greek of the LXX to Hebrew, and such a task naturally presupposed the presence of the sort of information we are talking about here. One of the uses to which Hatch and Redpath's concordance (hence- forward: HR) has been put over the past hundred years is precisely this3. Obviously HR themselves regarded this information of vital importance, hence the list of numbered Hebrew/Aramaic words at the beginning of each entry and an index of Hebrew/Aramaic words as part of the Supple- ment volume. More than thirty years ago the present writer also got interested in this very question. Whereas the value and the admirable degree of accuracy of the concordance of HR is in no doubt whatsoever, it soon became apparent that there are ways to enhance its usefulness further and there is some scope for improvement. One obvious way of making a better tool of it was to convert the references to page and column in the above-mentioned index of Hebrew/Ara- maic words in the Supplement to actual Greek words they represent. The inconvenience of the current format has been keenly felt by many users of it, particularly where a given Hebrew or Aramaic word is of high frequency and/or corresponds to many Greek words. For instance, the verb dba qal is said to have been translated by thirty (!) different Greek words.

1. T. MURAOKA, A Hebrew/Aramaic Index to the Septuagint: Keyed to the Hatch and Redpath Concordance, to be published in early 1998 by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI. Abbreviations used: BZAW = Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wis- senschaft; HR = E. HATCH – H.A. REDPATH, 1897-1906, Oxford, Clarendon Press [Repr. Graz, Austria, Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1954]; ICC = The International Critical Commentary; SCS = Septuagint and Cognate Studies. 2. The late Robert Lindsey, who published a Hebrew (not Modern) translation of the second Gospel, is one such, and my copy of Hatch and Redpath purchased from him bears tell-tale marks of how intensively he used it. 3. One would find a most useful essay on this very subject in E. TOV, The Text-critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (Jerusalem Biblical Studies, 3), Jerusalem, 1981, pp. 142-158, which is a reworked version of his The Use of Concordances in the Reconstruction of the Vorlage of the LXX, in CBQ 40 (1978) 29-36. One of the central concerns of Tov is, furthermore, precisely the question of retroversion of genuine or pseudo-variants in Greek to their Hebrew form. 258 T. MURAOKA

There are worse cases. My wife kindly agreed to undertake this time-con- suming mechanical work, completing in 1971 a neatly handwritten manuscript running to 503 quarto sheets. In the meantime a young Brazillian by the name of Elmar Camilo dos Santos was working on a similar proj- ect, without my knowledge, and his work appeared in Jerusalem, pre- sumably in 19734. Dos Santos added another valuable feature, with an incredible degree of tenacity and hard work: frequency count. One learns that baï is translated with patßr 1035 (!) times, and that rma Qal is translated with eîpe⁄n – êre⁄n 3334 (!) times, and 7 times in Nifal. For critical scholarship, however, was more significant the policy adopted and followed by Hatch and Redpath (and their team of coworkers). The policy is stated in the Preface in no ambiguous terms, and must be quoted here in extenso5:

As far as possible, and without making the assumption that the Greek is a word-for-word translation of the Hebrew [emphasis added: TM], the Con- cordance gives the Hebrew equivalent of every Greek word in each passage in which it occurs. … There are many passages in which the Massoretic text differs from that which is implied in the Septuagint version, and there are others in which that version is rather a paraphrase than an exact translation. There are consequently many passages in which opinions may properly dif- fer as to the identification of the Greek and the Hebrew: it must be understood in regard to such cases that the aim of the present work, from which philological discussions are necessarily excluded, is rather to give a tenable view than to pronounce a final judgement. Suggestions were made to the present Editor [Redpath] from more quarters than one, that, where the vari- ant reading followed by the Septuagint version was obvious, such readings should also be noted in the list of Hebrew equivalents at the head of each article; but it has been found impossible to do this without altering the scope of the whole work. On the other hand, Hebrew words may occasionally be found in this concordance, of which the connexion with the Geek is not very obvious: such cases may well be pardoned on the ground that it is better to err by inserting too many references than by rejecting some which after all upon further investigation may be found to have considerable importance with regard to the matter in hand.

Many would say that this is a reasonable and defensible position attesting to a typically British mixture of sound scholarship and common sense. Nonetheless, we believe that there are weighty arguments for attempting to improve the quality of this essential outil de métier.

4. An Expanded Hebrew Index for the Hatch-Redpath Concordance to the Septuagint, published by Dugith Publishers, Baptist House, Jerusalem. The publisher of our index, despite repeated efforts, was not able to establish contact with neither Dugith Publishers nor Dos Santos. Hence they turned to the present author for permission to publish his manuscript. 5. HR, vol. I, p. VI. A NEW INDEX TO HATCH AND REDPATH 259

REASONS FOR REVISION

1. Since the publication of HR in 1897 the Septuagint studies have never stood still, and especially in the wake of the discovery of Qumran and associated documents we have witnessed a strong upsurge and revival in the Septuagint studies6. Results of these studies need to be taken into account. 2. Some of the results just mentioned relate to the textual basis of our studies, namely discovery of new Greek and Hebrew texts. Even the Hebrew text of Ben Sira or Ecclesiasticus, the Genizah fragments of which had been made available to HR and been taken into account in the form of a valuable special appendix in the Supplement volume, has become known to a greater extent due to the discovery of further Genizah fragments and fragments from the Judaean Desert, notably the Massada fragments: for details, see below. 3. On the side of the Greek text of the LXX the past century has witnessed a significant number of publications and studies. The Larger Cambridge Bible (1906-40), Swete's three-volume edition of the LXX (1930-34), Margolius' edition of the LXX Joshua (1931), the publication of which was completed by Tov (1992), Rahlfs' Handausgabe (1935), and the Göttingen edition (1939-) represent some of the landmarks in this respect. 4. HR state that “the absence of a number after a quotation implies that the passage does not exist in Hebrew” (HR: p. vi). This statement surely cannot be made to apply to the apocryphal book of 1 Esdras except its mid-section, which is assumed to have been composed originally in Greek. As a consequence no quotation from this book carries a number. This deficiency has been rectified in Muraoka's Index to I Esdras7. As a consequence, no small number of Hebrew and Aramaic equivalents which are not listed anywhere by HR have been retrieved. 5. HR themselves appended to vol. 2 of their concordance a few pages of addenda and corrigenda. Some more, but by no means many, which

6. Apart from the formation of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cog- nate Studies in 1968 (see L. GREENSPOON, The IOSCS at 25 Years, in ID. – O. MUNNICH [eds.], VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Paris 1992 [SCS, 41], Atlanta, GA, pp. 171-181), there is no more eloquent witness to this phenomenon than the fact that S.P. BROCK – C.T. FRITSCH – S. JELLICOE, A Classified Bib- liography of the Septuagint, Leiden, 1973 (with 217 pages covering the modern times) has had to be supplemented by C. DOGNIEZ, Bibliography of the Septuagint. Bibliographie de la Septante 1970-1993 (VTSuppl, 59), Leiden, 1995 (with 329! pages covering a mere 20 odd years: 1970-1993). 7. T. MURAOKA, A Greek-Hebrew / Aramaic Index to I Esdras (SCS, 16), Chico, CA, 1984. A recent study on the putative original language of this section is D. TALSHIR and Z. TALSHIR, On the Question of the Source of the Story on the Three pages: The Apoc- ryphal Ezra 3-4), in M. FISHBANE – E. TOV (eds.), Sha‘arei Talmon [FS Talmon], Winona Lake, IN, 1992, pp. 63*-75*. 260 T. MURAOKA have a bearing on the identification of the Greek and Hebrew, have been spotted in their index of Hebrew words and elsewhere. 6. With due respect to the policy formulated by HR we believe that the problems mentioned by them regarding the identification of equivalents must be squarely faced. There are cases which could not even in their time be defended. One cannot escape the conclusion that on many occasions HR and their team adhered too rigidly to their policy, even bordering on mechanical identification of the Greek and Hebrew8. An example is their identification ëkáterov jo∆y∆ at Ez 37,7: kaì prosßgage tà ôst¢ ëkáteron pròv t®n ärmonían aûtoÕ, MT vmo∫yÎ-la∆jo∆y∆hvmoïy∏ VbrßqßHÆvÌ. Or their identification of êke⁄ en∂c∏MÎBÎ at Jo 6,10(11): kaì êkoimß‡j êke⁄, MT en∂c∏MÎBÎ VnilÆIîvÌ.

PROCEDURES FOLLOWED

The primary concern in our work of revision of HR has been the question of identification of Hebrew or Aramaic equivalents9. With this purpose in mind we have conducted our work in the following manner. First, we cast a glance at the list of equivalents at the head of each entry, asking ourselves whether there are any which appear intrinsically unlikely, questionable, problematic or downright impossible. We closely studied the passages concerned in both the Greek and Hebrew texts. Then, we studied those passages marked by HR with an obelus (†) sig- nifying that “the identification of the Greek and Hebrew is doubtful or at least that a student should examine the passage for himself” (HR: p. VI). In the course of this work of revision we have made constant use of the new text editions and text fragments the more important of which have been mentioned above. Among Greek fragments we would mention sections of Ezekiel in Papyrus 967 and those of Daniel in the same papyrus which were published too late to be used by Ziegler, the editor of the two books in the Göttingen Septuagint10.

8. There are indications, however, that the editors did not always pick up occasional departures attempted by some of their coworkers from this policy. 9. This concern was central to J.F. SCHLEUSNER, Novus Thesaurus philologico-criticus sive Lexicon in LXX…, Leipzig, 1820-1821, and it constitutes a prominent feature in another two recent LXX lexicons, namely J. LUST – E. EYNIKEL – K. HAUSPIE, A Greek- English Lexicon of the Septuagint, 2 vols., Stuttgart, 1992-1996, and T. MURAOKA, A Greek- English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Twelve Prophets), Leuven, 1993 (though less promi- nently than in the former). Works such as J.R. ABERCROMBIE, et al., Computer Assisted Tools for Septuagint Studies (CATSS). Vol. I: Ruth, Atlanta, GA, 1986, and J. JARICK, A Comprehensive Bilingual Concordance of the Hebrew and Greek Texts of Ecclesiastes (SCS, 36), Atlanta, GA, 1993, also attest to this interest. 10. On the Ezekiel fragments, see M. FERNÁNDEZ-GALLIANO, Nuevas páginas del códice 967 del A.T. griego (Ez 28,19–43,9), in Studia Papyrologica 10 (1971) 1-80, and for the bibliographical information on the Daniel fragments, see S.P. JEANSONNE, The Old A NEW INDEX TO HATCH AND REDPATH 261

We further share the position taken by HR that a concordance or a tool such as the present one is not the right forum for presenting one's arguments in full. And yet we cannot emphasise too strongly that in reaching decisions incorporated in the index of ours we have made grateful and profitable use of the text editions mentioned above and literally countless studies, whether monographs or journal articles, penned by a host of fellow scholars who remain unnamed in the index itself. Nonetheless, we do wish to single out some of the major contributions, other than the text editions and the standard grammars and lexica of Greek and Hebrew (including the recent Liddell and Scott supplement by P.G.W. Glare, Oxford, 1996), which have been our constant vade me cum: Schleusner's lexicon; the studies of Z. Frankel (1841, 1851) and L. Prijs (1851)11, Jüdische Tradition in der Septuaginta, Leiden, 1948; S.R. Driver's ICC commentary on Deuteronomy (1902) and his commentary on Samuel (1913), J.A. Montgomery on Daniel (1927), G.A. Cooke on Ezekiel (1936), W. McKane on Jeremiah (1986, 1996), all in the same series; C.H. Cornill on Ezekiel (1886), E. Dhorme on Job (1926, 1967), M.H. Segal and R. Smend on Ben Sira (1958 and 1906 respectively), J.A. Bewer on I Esdras (1922); A.B. Ehrlich's Randglossen (1908-1914); various commentaries and textual studies on individual LXX books including A.W. Streane on Jeremiah (1896), R.R. Ottley on Isaiah (1904-06), La Bible d'Alexandrie series edited by M. Harl (1986-), J.W. Wevers Notes (1990-), M. Rösel's study on Genesis 1–11 (1994), I.L. Seelig- mann's on Isaiah (1948), P. Walters's Text of the Septuagint (1973), J. Ziegler's two Beiträge12, and J. Lust et al.'s Lexicon (1992-96). On the following pages we wish to discuss some of the main matters which have engaged us as we have compiled our revised index, and how we have gone about dealing with those matters. Our task was threefold. 1. We have examined, as stated above, the list of Hebrew /Aramaic equivalents which is found at the head of nearly every entry. We have studied the list to identify equivalents which appeared to us improbable, implausible or definitely impossible. We have then studied every passage where one of those problematic equivalents is said to occur, always comparing the LXX with MT. Our special attention has been paid to those passages marked with an obelus. We have also taken into account a few pages of addenda and corrigenda appended by HR at the end of Vol. 2 of

Greek Translation of Daniel 7-12 (CBQ Monograph Series, 19), Washington, DC, 1988, p. 11 n. 17. 11. Z. FRANKEL, Historisch-kritische Studien zu der Septuaginta. Erster Band, Erste Abtheilung: Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta, Leipzig, 1841; ID., Über den Einfluß der palästinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik, Leipzig, 1851; L. PRIJS, Jüdische Tradition in der Septuaginta, Leiden, 1948. 12. Beiträge zum griechischen Dodekapropheton (Nachrichten von der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Phil.-hist. Klasse, 1943/10), Göttingen, 1943; Beiträge zur Jeremias Septuaginta (Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens), Göttingen, 1958. 262 T. MURAOKA their concordance. As we went along, we noticed some fresh errors, though not many by any means, in the Hebrew index and the body of the concordance. 2. The same method has been applied to Part II of the Supplement, namely the data concerning Ecclesiasticus. Our revision has taken into account all the Hebrew manuscripts which have been published since the publication of HR. They include a fragmentary manuscript published by Di Della in 198813 and not included in the Hebrew Language Academy edition of the Hebrew Ben Sira (1973)14, which has otherwise served as our basis as far as the Hebrew fragments are concerned. 3. Data concerning I Esdras, as mentioned above, have been incorporated into the present index. Issues encountered in attempting to establish the Hebrew/Aramaic equivalents may be classified into various categories. We shall attempt below to illustrate some of those categories. Needless to say, nothing more than illustration by means of a few examples will be attempted, for one can cite and discuss literally tens of examples for each category.

TYPES OF PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED IN RETROVERSION

1. MT ≠ LXX Vorlage

The Hebrew text which lay before the translator, the so-called Vorlage, differed from the Massoretic text (= MT). Here and elsewhere one can not of course be absolutely certain of this: one can only speak of varying degrees of probability and likelihood. If there is actually a Hebrew vari- ant diverging from the MT, which for our pupose equals the Codex Leningradensis as printed in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia15, one's argu- ment begins to leave the domain of mere speculation. In the last analysis, however, whether the translator's Vorlage did factually read this way or that becomes, for our purpose, immaterial and a question of how circum- spect one ought to be in phrasing and wording one's arguments. Variation between Ketiv and Qere is an obvious case in point. E.g., Is 65,4 oï ∂s‡ontev kréa Àeia hwmòn ‡usi¬n, MT qrpv rizæc∏eÎ rÎw∫B jilÆk∫aïe jilÆNêPÆ where Q has qrÌm∫V. At this passage HR list qrÌmï as well as qrîPï. The question would be whether the translator, by using hwmóv “soup, sauce”, meant qrÌmï generally considered to denote roughtly the same kind of food

13. A.A. DI LELLA, The Newly Discovered Sixth Manuscript of Ben Sira from the Cairo Geniza, in Biblica 69 (1988) 226-38 14. The Book of Ben Sira, Text, Concordance and an Analysis of the Vocabulary, Jerusalem, 1973. 15. HR do not specify in their Preface any edition or manuscript of the Hebrew Bible, on which they based their work. A NEW INDEX TO HATCH AND REDPATH 263 or he somehow knew the meaning of the hapax noun qrp, however he may have vocalised it. There are two pieces of evidence supporting the former supposition. The Qumran text, IQIsa, reads here qrm. Secondly, this Heb. word occurs twice more, and twice only, and was rendered with hwmóv each time: Jd 6,19 and 20. Moreover, as against HR, who establish the correspondence hwmóv = ecïqîrßm∆ at Ez 24,10, we submit that at this latter passage the translator meant qrÌmï: Ez 24,10 êlattw‡±Ç ö hwmóv “may the soup diminish”, MT ecïqîrßM∆eÎcqÌrßeÎ. The difficult Heb. text is generally emended to qrîMïeÎqr©eï “Empty the soup”. However that may be, the Heb. word of the MT, which is rendered with reasonable accuracy at Job 41,23 by means of êzáleiptron “unguent-box” was most unlikely in the mind of our Ez translator. Another example where a Qumran biblical fragment attests to a Heb. word which can be conjectured on the basis of the LXX is De 32,43 eûfrán‡jte, oûranoí, †ma aût¬ç, MT vMyÎjiævg VninærßeÎ. Here a 4QDeutq has jimw instead of jivg, preserving one of the doublets, the other being represented by 32,43c eûfrán‡jte, ∂‡nj, metà toÕ laoÕ16. The recensional development of the Hebrew text and its interaction with the Greek text is well known. We shall not enter into that question here. We have not allowed our imagination to run wild in that in seeking to identify equivalents we have sought to rely on some tangible evidence on the side of the Hebrew/Aramaic. To seek evidence in variants in Hebrew manuscripts including those from the Judaean Desert is one man- ifestation of this policy. Thus, in some cases the equivalent we wish to identify differs from the MT form by one consonantal letter: Ez 3,8 tò n⁄kóv sou katisxúsw, MT qzîcïàc∏o∫mÆ-ha∆, where we propose to identify àc∏o∫næ. HR have an obelus at this passage. Another example is Jb 6,7 paúsas‡ai (MT ÎyvGnßlÆ), which appears to be a rendering of ÎyvGrßlÆ. Thus we can replace the obelus in HR at this passage by this new equivalent, ygÌrî.

Graphic similarity, namely similar-looking letters of the Hebrew alphabet, should also be taken into account17. Pairs such as Daleth and Resh, He and Heth, Yodh and Waw and a few others are meant here. Thus HR's striking identification êgeírein ydÌiî qal at Ez 38,14 ought to be evaluated in this light, for êger‡ßsjÇ no doubt presupposes rvyH¢, maybe spelled defectively, and not MT ydîH¢. Likewise, Za 12,10 where the LXX hapax katorxe⁄s‡ai “to dance triumphantly” is marked by HR with an obelus. However, the translator most likely meant vdqr for MT VrqîDî. Under mátjn we find in HR an obelus for Is 29,13 mátjn dè

16. For details, see E. ULRICH – F.M. CROSS, et al., Qumran Cave 4. IX. Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings (Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, 14), Oxford, 1995, p. 141. 17. It should not of course be simplicistically assumed that the LXX's Vorlage was always in a sort of square script. See J. FISCHER, In welcher Schrift lag das Buch Isaias den LXX vor? Eine textkritische Studie (BZAW, 56), Giessen, 1930. 264 T. MURAOKA sébontaí me ihÆa jhïaïrßiæieÆH∫vÌ where the translator apparently read Waw at the end of the first word, which gives us a new equivalent for this Greek word: VeH.

Not only graphic, but also phonetic similarity need to be taken into account. A case in point is matamele⁄n “to regret”, which, according to HR, renders jeÎnî qal at Pr 5,11. But the Heb. verb means “to growl; to groan”. The far more likely equivalent would be jcn ni., an equivalence attested 7 more times in the LXX. At Pr 23,28 one reads oœtov gàr suntómov âpole⁄tai “he will suddenly perish”. HR have an obelus. The MT br·Ha∆uh∆c∆K∫ aieÆuaÎ was probably construed by our translator as … utck ave ua where the last word was further associated with dba, thus an exchange of Resh for Daleth18. The pair Sin/Shin involves both graphic and phonetic similarity. Thus diaxe⁄n said by HR to correspond to ‹rp hi. at Pr 23,32 diaxe⁄tai aût¬ç ö îóv “venom is spread through him” must actually be a translation of wrp qal: MT ‹ræp∫iÌinæy∫opÆK∫. Simi- larly HR's equation proságein wgn ni. at 1 Ki 13,6 must be replaced by proságein ‹gn ni. The generally weak articulation of gutturals appears to be playing a role here: e.g., 3 Ki 10,15 t¬n fórwn “the tributes” is to be equated not with MT i‹¢nßaÎ, but rather with i‹¢nßyï. This Heb. word, ‹n∂y “fine (to be paid)”, corresponds to fórov at 4 Ki 23,33 in the Lucianic version, but the codex B is defective here, and Rahlfs restores ∂dwken hjmían. The equation suggested by us is further attested at 2 Ch 36,3, which is a parallel passage of 4 Ki 23,33.

Metathesis, namely positions of letters within a word-form being swapped, is another pertinent consideration. Postulating such can also lead to an identification different than that of HR. At Jl, 1,7 they identify êreÕnan with uÎwïc qal. But the translator no doubt meant wpc qal or pi.: êreun¬n êzjreúnjsen, MT Epïïw∏uc wïc. Likewise HR's identification kómj “hair of the head” = ur∂y (Jb 16,13[12]) should be replaced by kómj yrÌP∆, a correspondence attested at Nu 6,5 and Ez 44,20. At 1 Ki 20,30 HR equate, with some uncertainty (as indicated by a question mark), métoxov e¤nai “to be associate” with rcb qal. The translator most likely had rb¢cï in mind19. Similarly parabiáhes‡ai “to urge”: -∫xrB ÌPï qal at 1 Ki1 28,23 where a probable equation is with -∫roB ÎPï, though some caution is not out of place, since the same Hebrew idiom occurs also at 2 Ki 13,25 and 27 in which latter two passages also the same word is used in the Greek (so in the Lucianic recension and other

18. See L. PRIJS, Jüdische Tradition (n. 11), p. 58. 19. The editor of the text, DE BOER, mentions in the critical apparatus Ps 119,63,rb¢cï àVar©ißr‹∆a∏-lkïl∫ibÆaï, which is rendered as métoxov êgÉ eîmi pántwn t¬n fobouménwn se. The unusual preposition Lamedh at 1Sm. 20.30 may have also influenced the translator. On this last point, see also S.R. DRIVER, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topogra- phy of the Books of Samuel, Oxford, 21913, p. 171 ad loc. A NEW INDEX TO HATCH AND REDPATH 265 witnesses besides the simplex biáhomai in Vaticanus, and such a frequent scribal error in the Hebrew text is somewhat unlikely. In their dictionary, Gesenius-Buhl (s.v.) may be right in postulating a homonym. At Jb 35,11 ö dioríhwn me âpò tetrapódwn g±v “one who makes me different from the quadrupeds of the earth” xr∂aïhvme∏BÎmÆ Vnp¢L∫mÎ “he who instructs us (= Vnp¢L∫aÎm∫) by the beasts of the earth” we have to do with a combination of two factors, the above-mentioned weakening of the gut- tural and metathesis. The two BH roots, alp and elp, appear to be mutu- ally related20. More importantly, the predominant meaning of the two verbs in BH, “wonder, excellence”, is obviously related to the notion of separation, distinguishing, a sense which is actually attested in Rabbinic Hebrew, Jewish Aramaic, Syriac, etc.21. Cf. English distinguished in the sense of excellent, and German ausgezeichnet, namely “marked out”. This very semantic connection is evident in the equation diaxwríhein alp hi. at Jd 13,19 diexÉrise poi±sai where the translator appears to be working rather mechanically, rendering MT hvw∏lyÎalÆp∫mÎ and it is difficult to make out what he wanted us to make of his translation, though he undoubtedly recognised the sense of the verb under discussion22. The equation diastéllein alp pi. can also be understood in this light, an equation attested at Le 22,21 diasteílav eûxßn, rd∂n∂aL¢pÎl∫. The Hebrew phrase is often taken in the sense of fulfilling a vow. Hebrew lexicogra- phers, however, have trouble relating this sense to the more general one of being wonderful, working wonders and the like. Gesenius-Buhl's “ein Gelübde aussondern, d. Zshg. nach … erfüllen” in their dictionary23 can be understood in this light. So also Zorell's “persolvere votum … (pro- prie separare rem votam a ceteris et Deo tradere)”24. On the other hand, the Greek verb in our Leviticus passage can mean “to discharge” as well as the more usual “to separate”. The sense “to pay” related to the former is attested in a papyrus from the second century C.E., and that of “to make

20. On this point, see also E. BEN YEHUDA, A Complete Dictionary of Ancient and Modern Hebrew, Berlin – Jerusalem – New York, 1909-1958, vol. VI, p. 4919 n. 2 there, most likely added by Tur-Sinai. See also ibid., p. 4923 n. 4. 21. C. BROCKELMANN, Lexicon Syriacum, Halle, 21928, p. 569b, mentions Classical Ethiopic falaya “separavit”. For further Semitic etymological data, see W. LESLAU, Com- parative Dictionary of Ge‘ez (Classical Ethiopic), Wiesbaden, 1991, p. 161. There is no need to postulate an Aramaism here, as done by LUST, Lexicon (n. 9), p. 112 and J. SCHREINER, Septuaginta-Massora des Buches der Richter. Eine textkritische Studie (Analecta Biblica, 7), Roma, 1957, p. 111. 22. The quoted LXX reading of Jd 13.19 is of codex B, among others, considered by W.R. BODINE, The Greek Text of Judges – Recensional Developments (Harvard Semitic Monographs, 23), Chico, CA, 1980, to be a major witness to the kaige recension, the other major being ‡aumastóv. The profile of variants at this point, however, is somewhat complicated. 23. W. GESENIUS, Wilhelm Gesenius' hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament … Bearbeitet von F. BUHL, Leipzig, 171915, p. 641b. 24. F. ZORELL, Lexicon Hebraicum et Aramaicum Veteris Testamenti, Roma, 1968, p. 649a. 266 T. MURAOKA an order for payment” from a document of the second/third century C.E. Seeing that the sense “to give orders in writing” is attested in a document of the third century B.C.E. the sense “to pay” may have developped from this latter. Be that as it may, it is, however, difficult to see the two Hebrew senses as related, particularly because BH uses jl‹ pi. as the standard component of the collocation with rdn as object. Another line of Jewish tradition represented by Targum Onqelos with its a‹rpl and followed by Ibn Ezra clearly points to the basic notion of separation. The Hebrew collocation in question, rd∂n∂aL¢PÆ, is rendered at Nu 15,3.8 with megalÕnai eûxßn, pointing to the other sense of the verb.

Another significant factor is that of vocalisation. One can safely assume that our translators' Vorlage was unvocalised, though vowels were often, albeit imperfectly, indicated by means of matres lectionis, and it is quite probable that our translators were familiar with a more or less firm reading tradition of the Hebrew Bible, especially that of the Penta- teuch and possibly parts of the rest of the Bible which were publicly recited as parashoths or the five Megilloths recited on the fixed holidays. Even so, our translators must have had to deal with thousands of word forms which they would have vocalised or pronounced differently, in respect of vowels, than what we find in the MT. Thus Ps 47(48),13 dijgßras‡e ên ta⁄v púrgoiv aût±v “Tell amongst her towers” must represent ïile ∆DîgßmÆb∫ VrP∫sÎ instead of MT ïile ∆DîgßmÆ Vrp∫sÆ “Count her towers”. Another example is Pr 18,16 parà dunástaiv ka‡ihánei “it seats him next to powerful people”, where the translator must have read VNc∆iNæiÌ for MT VNc∆nßiÌ jilÆdßing ©p∫lÆ.

2. LXX Only Apparently or in Minor Ways Diverging from MT

In many cases the translators seem to have had effectively the same text as MT and pronounced or vocalised it more or less the same way, but in order to arrive at the correct equivalents some other factors need to be borne in mind. Transposition. Words juxtaposed to each other or with one or more intervening words appear to have been swapped. Whether the translator's Vorlage showed such a text form or he executed the change himself for whatever reason is no immediate concern for us. For example, Ps 42(43),1 âpò ân‡rÉpou âdíkou kaì dolíou “from an unrighteous and deceitful person” for MT elïvßyÎvßemïrßmÆ ‹iaÆm¢. The equation recorded by HR, dóliov elïvßyÎ, occurs only here. The other equation, ãdikov emïrßmÆ, is equally unique. One cannot think of any reason why the Ps translator should depart from the pattern he has adopted elsewhere in the book and what prevails also elsewhere in the LXX. At Ps 120(121),8 kúriov fulázei t®n e÷sodón sou kaì t®n ∂zodón sou, àa∆vbV àh∫ao¢-rmï‹∫iæ evei A NEW INDEX TO HATCH AND REDPATH 267 where our translator probably thought entrance followed by exit a more logical sequence. There is no justification for HR's identification of e÷sodov aoi qal on the one hand and e÷sodov avb qal on the other. HR equate mólibov “lead” with lidæB∫ at Nu 31,22 molíbou kaì kassitérou for MT hr∂p∆yï-hae ∆vß lidæB∫eÎ-ha∆. One would rather accredit our translator with better knowledge of metals in the ancient world. mólibov is the standard translation of hr∂p∆y throughout the LXX, 7 times, whereas kassíterov and kassitérinov translate lidæB∫ 5 times (including Si 47,18) and once respectively. Similar transposition can be assumed at Ez 22,20 kassíterov kaì mólibov lidæb∫V hr∂p∆vy. In an earlier study of ours we examined the possibility that some LXX translators arranged a series of multiple, co-terminous adjectives or nouns in the alphabetical order irrespective of the Hebrew sequence25. We have another similar instance at Pr 29,13 danistoÕ kaì xreofeilétou âllßloiv sunel‡óntwn “a creditor and a debtor having come together” for MT V‹Gîp∫næ jikÆkïH∫ ‹iaÆvß‹rî. It is quite a commonplace that the LXX, probably in the interest of clarity, replaced an anaphoric pronoun in the Hebrew text with a noun or a name being referred to thereby and present in the immediate context: e.g., De 29,25(24) to⁄v patrásin aût¬n for jMïyÆ; Ps 18(19),7 ∏wv ãkrou toÕ oûranoÕ jhïvoqßlyÎ. In this way a considerable number of obeli in HR can be replaced with a concrete equivalent. Furthermore, there are naturally familiar cases of haplography, dittog- raphy, and word-division different than in the MT. These are all very well known to every text-critic of the Greek or Hebrew Bible. We shall mention only a couple of cases illustrating the last category. At Ez 30,16 kaì diaxu‡ßsetai Àdata “and waters will be poured out” cannot be reconciled with MT jmïviir©oïunßv except by postulating something like Vorßp∫nævß jiæmÎ. On this new equation, cf. Ho 4,2 moixeía êpì t±v g±v “adultery is poured out on the earth” for MT VorîPïuaîn26. The identification HR make between katakljronome⁄n and cvn hi. for 2 Ki 7,1 katekljronómjsen aûtón (MT vlcÎinæe¢) cannot be right. The LXX presupposes vlicÆnßeÆ, thus involving metathesis as well and different vocalisation. Lastly, kaitoike⁄n ‹i© (so HR) at Jn 4,11 ên ¯ç kaioikoÕsi EBï-‹i∂r‹∆a∏. In this case, one could perhaps argue that the translation is rather free, though b‹i qal immediately springs to one's mind. With all our attention to the Hebrew/Aramaic side of the equation, our primary task has not been a textual criticsm of the Hebrew/Aramaic text as such. It has not been our aim to attempt to establish or reconstruct the best possible Hebrew text on the basis of the LXX, not even in establish- ing the putative Vorlage of the LXX in all its details, but determining what Hebrew/Aramaic word and its form the translator conceivably had

25. T. MURAOKA, Literary Device in the Septuagint, in Textus 8 (1973) 20-30, esp. pp. 26-28. 26. See ID., Hosea IV in the Septuagint Version, in Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute 9 (1983) 24-64, esp. pp. 28-29. 268 T. MURAOKA in mind. To illustrate, when we compare Pr 27,22 êàn mastigo⁄v ãfrona ên méswç sunedríou âtimáhwn, oû m® periéljÇv t®n âfrosúnjn aûtoÕ “even if you humiliate a fool with whips in a gathering of people, you would in no way remove his folly” with MT ‹H¢k∫MÎBÎ livæa·eï ha∆ ‹vHk∫HÆ jaÆ vHlVÌaÆ vilïyïm¢ rVshï al ilÆy·BÎ hvpiræeï ÀvhB∫ we are led to believe that the translator somehow associated hvpire with the root urc meaning “humilia- tion, taunting”, representing it with âtimáhwn27, and it did not matter to him how that would fit into the Hebrew sentence as a whole.

3. Textual Criticism of the Greek Text

As part of our general policy we have stated above that we ought to avail ourselves of important advances made in the textual studies in the field of the LXX and various editions of it during the last century. As far as the LXX is concerned, HR's textual basis was “(1) that of the Codex Alexandrinus A; (2) that of the codex Vaticanus B; (3) that of the Codex Sinaiticus S; (4) that of the Sixtine Edition of 1587 R, with corrections of its obvious mistakes and blunders” (HR, Preface, p. V). Identification of equivalents, if it is to be attempted today, is obliged to take into account the endeavours and their fruits gained during the past hundred years28. It is no longer permissible to keep identifying dólov with rbïDî at 2 Ki 14,20 B êpoíjsen … tòn dólon (A and Rahlfs: lógon) toÕton (MT: eze rbde ha ewy). Even the fact that “the matter” is concerned with a case of treachery does not justify the identification: it is more likely a case of mere graphic confusion in the Greek text, which has nothing to do with the form of the Hebrew Vorlage or its subtle interpretation: LOGOS corrupted to DOLOS. Nor do we gain much by identifying kopß “blow” with ugn ni. at De 28,25, for we are dealing here with a case of wrong division between words in the Greek text, which is correctly given in most editions as dÉjÇ se kúriov êpikop®n ênantíon t¬n êx‡r¬n sou. Similarly a ghost entry such as eîsjge⁄s‡ai identified by HR with digænî at 2 Ki 5,2 B must be eliminated in favour of ∂sjÇ eîv ™goúmenon (Rahlfs: MT digænîl∫ei∂e∫HÆ). For the book of Joshua one could benefit from Margolis's critical edi- tion29. At Jo 1,8, for instance, he reconstructs the Old Greek as ÿna eîd±Çv

27. Thus pace S.R. DRIVER, Notes (n. 19), p. 324, this difficult Heb. word does not correspond to sunédrion. 28. One does not, of course, have blindly to follow even the best of the editions. If Rahlfs and Ziegler, for instance, disagree among themselves, one would need to exercise a measure of critical judgement anyway. Thus at Ze 1,9 we are inclined to follow, against Ziegler and others, P. WALTERS, The Text of the Septuagint: Its Corruptions and their Emendation, ed. D.W. GOODING, Cambridge, 1973, p. 137, in reading êfallómenov instead of êmfan¬v and identifying the former with gld qal. 29. M.L. MARGOLIS, The Book of Joshua in Greek, Paris, 1931, with the last fascicule published by E. TOV (Philadelphia, 1992). A NEW INDEX TO HATCH AND REDPATH 269 poie⁄n pánta tà gegramména (MT: vb bvhke lkk hvwyl rm‹h fyml). We prefer eîd±Çv to Rahlfs's sun±Çv, which seems to us to have resulted from an attempt to harmonise the reading with sunßseiv at the end of the verse. At Ez 28,7 we prefer Ziegler's trÉsousi “injure” (MT VlL∫cÆ) to Rahlfs's strÉsousin “spread”; Da LXX 12,12 sunácei (Ziegler in the footsteps of Segaar and others: MT ÎiGy æiÌ) better than sunázei (Rahlfs); Je 45(38),22 katadúsousin (MT VyB∫t∫eï: Ziegler following Bos) preferable to katalúsousin (Rahlfs); Je 32,15 (25,29) êgÑ ãrxomai (Rahlfs and Ziegler) superior to ∂rxomai (MT lc¢m¢ikÆnïa); Ex 21,21A diab¬sin identified by HR with dmy qal to be rejected in favour of diabiÉsjÇ (so Wevers). A vast number of Greek variants involves simplex words, especially verbs, as against compound words expanded with the addition of one or more prepositions30. Where a simplex and its compositum have two distinct meanings as in lúein “to resolve” vs. katalúein “to lodge” or ∂xein “to have” vs. proséxein “to offer” the choice is relatively sim- ple. The choice of the compositum diágein at Ez 16,25 made by Ziegler is of crucial importance for the correct understanding of the text, which reads dißgagev [A: ≠g.] tà skélj sou pantì paródwç for MT rb¢vylkïl∫ÀiælÎgßrÌha∆iqæ∫wÎHp∫vÌ. It is no good to cite the passage under both ãgein and diágein and list qwp pi. as their equivalent. For only the compositum denotes a particular obscene action, as attested by two medical texts (Hippolytus and Aretas) where diágein is used with skeléa “legs” and ôdóntav “teeth” respectively in the accusative. But cases such as ∂rxes‡ai vs. eîsérxes‡ai or prosérxes‡ai are a different story. Rigid and general rules are difficult to lay down. Each case must be looked at individually. So at Si 43,2 we prefer, with Ziegler, diaggéllwn to Sc âggélwn.

4. Aramaism and Post-biblical Hebrew

The earliest of our LXX translators lived sometime in the third century B.C.E. when the golden age of Classical Biblical Hebrew had past long since. This period and the subsequent centuries when the rest of the Sep- tuagint was first produced belong to the so-called Late Biblical Hebrew period, and that the closing phase of the period, characterised by the growing influence and penetration of Aramaic among the children of Israel both in Palestine and in the Diaspora. It is then only to be expected that the LXX should reflect in its interpretation and translation of both

30. This was a central issue addressed by Margolis in M.L. MARGOLIS, Entwurf zu einer revidierten Ausgabe der hebräisch-aramäischen Äquivalente in der Oxforder Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the OT, in ZAW 25 (1905) 311-19, and ID., Kaíein (einschliesslich der Komposita und Derivata) und seine hebräisch-aramäischen Äquivalente im Gräzismus des AT, in ZAW 26 (1906) 85-90. 270 T. MURAOKA

Classical Biblical Hebrew and a more or less contemporaneous Late Bib- lical Hebrew the linguistic milieu just outlined31. Aramaism or Aramaising tendencies may be illustrated in the following passages: Ps 16(17),11 êkbállontév me nunì perikúklwsán me (MT invbbs eHïyÎ Vnir©›ÊaÎ) where inæVd‹ï is indicated, thus a common Aramaic verb ed‹ tag">pe. “to throw”, though ed‹ is not attested as a Hebrew lexeme anywhere; Ps 59(60),8; 107(108),9 Mwab lébjv t±v êlpídov mou (MT ioÆc∫rÌ risÆ bavm “Moab my wash-basin” where the last Heb. word was interpreted in the light of the common Aram. root meaning “trust, confi- dence”); Pr 10,5 uïòv paránomov “a lawless son” where HR equate the adjective with ‹vb hi. (here ‹ibÆm¢), but Arm. ‹iBÆ is indicated instead. At Ge 49,6 m® êreísai tà Øpatá mou “let my liver not get fixed firmly”32 for the difficult MT idæb∫dcK ÎH¢laÎ the translator seems to be thinking of Aram. dca “to grasp”. As examples of translation pointing to post-biblical Hebrew usage we would mention Jd 5,4A ö oûranòv êzestá‡j (from êzistánai) “the heaven was astonished” for MT VptïnîjiæmÎ‹ï “heaven dripped”. The translator possibly had in mind urt ni., which in Rabbinic Hebrew means, among other things, “to be bewildered”33. In Da. LXX 8,2.3.6 the name of the river lbïVa is rendered as púlj “gate”, which points to lVBaÆ “cite gate-way” in Rabbinic Hebrew. Manía “madness”, which HR equate with emït¢∫wÎm at Ho 9,7.8, reminds one rather of RH et‹ qal, non-attested in BH. Ps 39(40),4 maníav ceude⁄v with an obelus in HR also belongs here. Another common RH, but not BH, word rby pi. “to become preg- nant” is identifiable behind sullambánein at Jb 39,13 êàn sullábjÇ asida kaì nessa “if the stork and ostrich conceive” (MT erîb∫a·jaÆ eoïnßedv îisÆc∏ where erîB∫yÆ is indicated). At Pr 19,27 meletßsei Åßseiv kakáv “will ponder evil sayings” where hvg‹l of MT hyÎdÌir©m∫aÆm¢hvG‹∫lÆ was possibly read as hvn‹l from en‹ qal “to study”. At Ez 17,9 ö karpòv sapßsetai “the fruits will turn sour” the BH hapax ssq in MT ss¢vqißEiîrßPÆ is a well-established RH verb meaning the same as the Greek verb used here to render it. RH ivæ‹∫ “price” may be identified at Jb 34 19 timßn (MT Îyv‹). See also 1 Es 1,19 katoíkjsiv which formally corresponds to 2 Ch 35,18 ib‹vi, which was probably understood as ib¢V›iæ. At times we need to cast our net farther and seek evidence even in the post-Talmudic period. At Jb 30,17 we read nuktì dé mou tà ôst¢

31. See J. BARR, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek in the Hellenistic Age, in W.D. DAVIES – L. FINKELSTEIN (eds.), The Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. II: The Hellenistic Age, Cambridge, 1989. 32. On the intransitive sense of the active form of the verb, see Acts 27.41 and Harl's translation “ne prennent pas appui sur leur association” (M. HARL, La Bible d'Alexandrie. La Genèse, Paris, 1986, p. 306). J. BARR, ˆEríhw and êreídw in the Septuagint: A Note Principally on Gen. XLIX. 6, in JSS 19 (1974) 198-215, argued for reading rch and êrísai, a form of êreídein “to contend, strive”. But see J.W. WEVERS, Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis (SCS, 35), Atlanta, GA, 1993, p. 823. 33. Cf. SCHREINER, Septuaginta-Massora (n. 21), pp. 117-118. A NEW INDEX TO HATCH AND REDPATH 271 sugkékautai “at night my bones have been burnt out”. The verb occu- pies the slot of rQÌnæ in MT ilïyïm¢rQÌnæimÎoïy∏elïißlÎ. A niphal of dqi is indicated, though such a form seems to be attested only in the mediaeval period in authors like Jehuda Halevy and Moses Ibn Ezra34. In one case the affinity between the two phases of Hebrew seems to go beyond the lexical into the morphological area. Pr 27,15 Üsaútwv kaì gun® loídrov “likewise an abusive woman” evîHï‹∫næ jinvdm h‹∆a¢ where the morphologically difficult evh‹n was perhaps taken à la RH as ehïVßHÎ‹∫næ, namely a typically RH nitpael form35.

5. Free Translation

As is well known, the degree of correspondence between the original Hebrew/Aramaic text and its Greek translation differs considerably from translator to translator. As a result, to retrovert a LXX book such as Proverbs, Job or Isaiah is immensely difficult in comparison with, say, Genesis, Ecclesiastes, and the so-called Kaige sections of the books of Kingdoms. Even translators who are thought to be literalists do not con- sistently adhere to their literalist policy. By implication, we are here dealing with cases in which, although the translator's Vorlage may be assumed to have been identical with the textus receptus for all intents and purposes, with the important exception of vocalisation and the use of matres lectionis, words or phrases in the Greek version cannot be easily matched with the assumed Vorlage. These discrepancies appear to be of various kinds and to have been occasioned by various factors and consid- erations on the part of the translator. It is a fair assumption that, thanks to their much greater proximity in time and general milieu to the original authors of the biblical books, our translators had an edge over us in their knowledge of Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic. This has been indirectly demonstrated from time to time, when what appears to be impossible translation in the LXX of a given Hebrew word has been confirmed by further philological studies or com- parative Semitic linguistics. A case in point is the use of diafulássein at Le 19,20 oîkétiv diapefulagménj ân‡rÉpwç “female slave carefully preserved [i.e. till the time of marriage] for a man” as a rendering of the hapax and homophonous urc in ‹iaÆl∫hp∆r∂c·n∂ecïp∫‹Æ. In their dictionary (p. 261 s.v.) Gesenius-Buhl noted cautiously: “In der späteren Zeit bed. epïVrc∏ in Judäa: zur Ehe bestimmt”. It is now common knowledge that Akkadian has a word Ìarupu meaning “betrothed”. For this very reason we have decided not to delete even those suspect or unlikely equivalents given by HR, but typographically mark them as such in our revised index.

34. For details, see A. EVEN-SHOSHAN, ‹dce fvlme, vol. II, Jerusalem, 1966, p. 504c. 35. See G. BERGSTRÄSSER, Hebräische Grammatik, Leipzig, 1929, II § 20 b. 272 T. MURAOKA

And yet, with all due respect to our predecessors of the closing centuries B.C.E., there is no denying that they also had their own cruces inter- pretum. At the risk of sounding uncharitable to them it must be bluntly stated that at times they simply did not know the meaning of certain words. This seems to apply, for instance, to the verb ylg hith., which occurs three times in Pr, and nowhere else in the Bible, and it is translated differently each time for no apparent reason: 17,14 ‹vtnß biræeïyLÎGÌh∫eÆin©p∫lÆ, “Stop before the quarrel breaks out”, projge⁄tai dè t±v êndeíav stá- siv kaì máxj “sedition and fight precede poverty”; 18,1 eIî‹ÆVH-lkïB∫ yLÎGÌh∫iæ, ên pantì dè kair¬ç êponeídistov ∂stai, “he will be reproached at every turn”; 20,3 yLÎGÌh∫iæ livæa·-lkïvß, p¢v dè ãfrwn toioútoiv sumpléketai, “every fool is entangled with such matters”. The Heb. verb is generally thought to have to do with a strife breaking out. At Ex 23,5 we meet with quite a common verb bzy qal, the precise meaning of which is, however, rather puzzling: “when you see the don- key of your enemy lying under its burden vMyÆbvzy∏HÎbzïy vlbz∏my¢Hïl∫dÌcïvß, which is rendered in the LXX as êàn dè ÷djÇv tò üpohúgion toÕ êx‡roÕ sou peptwkòv üpò tòn gómon aûtoÕ, oû pareleúsjÇ aûtó, âllà sunegeire⁄v aûtò met' aût¬ç “… you must not pass it by, but raise it [= the beast] with it [= its burden]”. The ancient translator must have felt as helpless as modern exegetes36. If he meant rzy, why use such a rare Greek word and an extremely rare equivalent? That one false step could lead to another is illustrated by Ps 118(119),85 dijgßsantó moi paránomoi âdolesxíav “lawless people told me idle tales” where the misinterpretation of hvci‹Æ “pits” as hvciÆw led to the choice of a unique equivalent, dijge⁄s‡ai, a free rendering based on the general context, for our translator is not ignorant of the usual meaning of the verb. In Ps 56(57),7, for instance, the general context of the verse prevented him from falling into the pit: “They set a net for my steps; my soul was bowed down. They dug a pit in my path (inæpïl∫ VrKï ecïi‹Æ) but they have fallen into it themselves”. At Ps 21(22),9 ≠lpisen êpì kúrion, Åusás‡e aûtón “he placed his hope on the Lord. Let him rescue him” for MT Vet¢L∫pÎiß evei-la·lG HR equate êlpíhein with llg qal, the unique example of the equation, which is rather implausible. The choice of êlpíhein seems to have been occasioned by the unusual Hebrew syntax in that the transitive verb lacks a direct object, displaying thus an elliptic construction. The reason why this particular verb was chosen may be sought in Ps 36(37),5 vilïyïcÎtÎb∫V àK∆rßDÎ evei-lyÎlvG, âpokálucón pròv kúrion t®n ödón sou kaì ∂lpison êp' aûtón where, though the translator interpreted the same introductory verb differently (eL¢GÌ), the second verb is noteworthy.

36. See J.W. WEVERS, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus (SCS, 30), Atlanta, GA, 1990, p. 360, and A. LE BOULLUEC – P. SANDEVOIR, La Bible d'Alexandrie. L'Exode, Paris, 1989, p. 233. To take vl bzym cldcv as a rhetorical question is rather harsh. If anything, the second half of the verse could be so interpreted. A NEW INDEX TO HATCH AND REDPATH 273

The use of multiple equivalents of too diverse meanings may also be indicative of the difficulty on the part of a translator37. For instance, the adjective xVrcï “diligent”, which occurs only in Proverbs, is rendered by its LXX translator with ândre⁄ov “manly” (10,4; 13,4) and êklektóv “chosen, select” (12,24); ka‡aróv “clean” (12,27)38. At innumerable places our translators seem to have felt the urge to depart significantly from their Hebrew text. It is not always easy to make out what possibly motivated the translator to allow himself such a lati- tude. From his translation of uls pi. with faulíhein at Pr 21,12 and that of ul∆s∆, with faúlouv poie⁄n the translator apparently knew the meaning of the two related Hebrew words. But why he should have used elsewhere próxeirov “speedy” (11,3) and suntjre⁄n “to keep” (15,4) is not immediately apparent. Though remaining in the pejorative domain, lumaínes‡ai (19,3) can be hardly said to be synonymous with any of the other equivalents. This is particularly true where we find a correct rendering next to a dubious one as in the equation piaínein “to fatten” = lh‹ qal “to plant” at Ez 17,8.10, whereas at vss. 22.23 we find katafuteúein “to plant”. A similar variation can occur not only in close proximity, but even referring to the same event: Nu 13,33(32) kaì êzßnegkan ∂kstasin (“disconcert- ing report”) t±v g±v (MT xrae hBÎDæ vaioviv); 14,36 êzenégkai Åßmata ponjrà t±v g±v (MT xrae ly rBïDæ aiovel); 14,37 oï ân‡rwpoi oï katateípantev katà t±v g±v “people who had spoken unfavourably of the land” (MT eyr xrae hbd ia¢oÆvm ji‹nae). In one case the exactly same Hebrew sentence is made in its second occurrence to mean something quite different: Pr 10,8 tb¢LïiæjiæhÎpï∫w livæa· “a babbling fool will come to ruin” (NRSV) rendered ö dè ãstegov xeílesin skoliáhwn üposkelis‡ßsetai “one who does not guard his lips will, in his crooked ways, come to a fall” as against Pr 10,10 ö dè êlégxwn metà parrjsíav eîrjnopoie⁄ “one who boldly remonstrates makes peace”. The difference in the first hemistich of the two verses cannot account for this striking difference. Did the translator find it silly and tasteless to repeat himself? The choice at Is 46,1 of the passive suntríbes‡ai “to be crushed” for a rare verb jrq qal generally considered to mean “to bend over” may not be that far-fetched as might appear on the surface: ∂pesen Bjl, sunetríbj Dagwn (MT vbnßsr©q lB¢yrÌKï), for semantically it is pretty close to the parallel ∂pesen39. Yet, when we look at what he did with the

37. Of course, due allowance needs to be made here for the possibility and likelihood that a biblical book was translated by more than one person. Thus e‹ïtÆnß is correctly rendered with kl±ma “branch” at Je 31(48),32, but with üpostßrigma “support” at 5,10. 38. Some would emend jioÆiræyï to jioÆVrcï at Pr 11.16 where the LXX shows ândre⁄oi. 39. See R.R. OTTLEY, The Book of Isaiah according to the Septuagint (Codex Alexan- drinus), Cambridge, 1906, p. 322: “LXX may have guessed at the meaning” Cf. further M.H. GOSHEN-GOTTSTEIN, Theory and Practice of Textual Criticism: The Text-critical Use 274 T. MURAOKA only other occurrence of the word in the Bible in the very next verse we begin to wonder whether he really knew its meaning: pein¬nti kaì êkleluménwç “to one who is famished and exhausted” (MT Vyrßkï Vsrßqî), the syntax influenced by the end of the preceding verse, epïiÌy∏lÎ kopi¬nti. If the pattern of equivalents chosen by a translator, even though they may look odd or implausible in the light of our present knowledge, is consistent, he may have had some good reason for his choice. Thus at Ps 69(70),3 paraútika “immediately” appears for bq©y¢lyÎ “on account of, as recompense for”: âpostrafeíjsan parautíka aîsxúnomai “may they turn to their heels at once, feeling shame” for MT jHï‹∫Bïbq∂y¢lyÎ VbV‹iî “let they turn back because of their shame”. This striking translation needs to be compared with Ps 39(40),16 komisás‡wsan paraxr±ma aîsxúnjn “let them receive shame immediately”40 for MT f. bq∂y¢lyÎVM‹îi jHï‹∫Bï “let them be appelled because of their shame”. The notion of immediacy is not that far-fetched when one takes the noun as a form of bq©yï “heel”. Cf. the English idiom at someone's heels41. For both Ps. passages HR placed an obelus.

6. Miscellaneous Types

Even when the meaning of the Heb. or Arm. text is in no doubt, a translator may still present a thought rather removed from that of his original, as can be illustrated by Da TH 5,22 eily jq©eïißeB¢o∫iæiDæfmÎl∫ “he will set over it [i.e. the kingdom] whomever he pleases” is rendered ˜ç ån dózjÇ, dÉsei aûtßn “to whomever he thinks fit, he will give it”. Here might belong the equation êpibibáhein = dri hi. at 2 Ch 23,20B ênebíbasen [A: âne-] tòn basiléa eîv tòn o¤kon toÕ kuríou for MT eiei hibm çlme ha dr∂vIvÌ êzeikoníhein “to be fully shapen” (LSJ) = fvsaï Ex 21,22.23 (the Greek word occurs nowhere else in the LXX)42. Some equivalents on HR's list which might look strange must be viewed in conjunction with their collocation, namely other words which go towards making a semantically coherent unit. Thus eîpe⁄n = çry qal at Jb 23,4 e÷poimi dè êp' aûtoÕ kríma = tPï‹∫mÆ vinîpïl∫ekïrßy∆a∆43; êkdidó- of the Septuagint, in Textus 3 (1963) 130-158, esp. p. 144 and I.L. SEELIGMANN, The Sep- tuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of its Problems, Diss. Leiden, 1948, p. 56. 40. Brenton's “reward” is unduly influenced by the Hebrew, as often is the case with his translation: “Let those … quickly receive shame for their reward” (L.C.L. BRENTON, The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English, London, 1851, p. 722). Similarly the translation put out by Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Boston, MA (1974), entitled The Psalter according to the Seventy. 41. SCHLEUSNER, Lexicon (n. 9), vol. IV, p. 226 mentions Latin e vestigio “instantly”. EVEN-SHOSHAN (n. 34), vol. II, p. 1008c, cites Mishna Sota 9.15 aci‹m hvbqyb, and inter- prets it as meaning “immediately with the arrival of the Messiah”. 42. Cf. LE BOULLUEC – SANDEVOIR, L'Exode (n. 36), pp. 219-220 and WEVERS, Notes (n. 35), p. 333. 43. In our index this appears as: “çry qal + kríma tpï‹∫mÆ Jb 23,4)”. A NEW INDEX TO HATCH AND REDPATH 275 nai = eie qal at Le 21,3, where we would add “(+ ândrí ‹iaÆl∫)”; ênnoe⁄n = jvw qal at Is 41,20, where the object bl¢ was mentally supplied. Somewhat akin to collocaltion is the matter of idiomatic renderings. Here, too, when one looks at a Greek translation equivalent in isolation, it could look odd. So is ∂xein listed by HR as a rendering of jvl‹ï. When we look at the whole sentence in the Greek and Hebrew, we see what is going on: ©rÉtjsen dè aûtoùv· p¬v ∂xete; jvl‹ïl∫ jel laÎ‹∫IævÌ. Similarly noe⁄n = jVw qal at Is 47,7 oûk ênójsav taÕta ên t±Ç kardíaç sou ÀB¢lÆ ly ela H∫m∫Îw al; ‡élein = çle qal at Ex 2,7 ‡éleiv kalésw soi guna⁄ka … e‹a çl iharqv Àl¢a¢eÎ. Finally, the factor of harmonisation or mutual influence of similar or related passages must be taken into consideration. Thus a seemingly striking equation h±n = qzc qal at De 11,8 (ÿna h±te kaì poluplasias‡±te … … = vqzch fyml) may be evaluated in the light of De 8,1 where exactly the same Greek expression is a rendition of jh∆ibÆrßV fvich fyml, which also accounts for the plus, the second verb, at the former passage. Likewise pepoi‡énai “to be persuaded, confident” at 2 Ch 32,15 m® pepoi‡énai üm¢v (MT jk∆h∫a∆ hiSÆHÎlaÎ “let him not deceive you”) is under the influence of vv. 10f. “What are you putting your trust in (jicÆt∫B pepoí‡ate)? … Isn't Hezekiah misleading you? (oûxì Ehekiav âpat¢ç úm¢v;). Such a feature may be observed even within a single verse: Is 10,27 “On that day his burden will be gone from your shoulder, and his yoke from your neck, and a yoke will be destroyed on account of fatness” where the LXX repeats hugón three times whereas the MT begins with a form of lb∆s followed by ly twice. The participle eîsel‡oÕsa at Ge 19,35 corresponding to jqîHïvÌ seems to be an attempt to harmonise the translation to vss. 33-34 where the same word in the same form had been used to render abïvHÌ and iaÆB respectively. In an earlier study of ours44 we argued that a striking translation at Jb 3,16 ¿sper ∂ktrwma êkporeuómenon êk mßtrav mjtróv “like a child pre- maturely emerging from the mother's womb” for MT fVmtïlp∆n∂K∫ “like a concealed, miscarried foetus” is best understood by the supposition that the translator, as he came to this Hebrew phrase, remembered its rendition in the LXX at Nu 12,12 Üseì ÷son ‡anátwç, Üseì ∂ktrwma êkporeuó- menon êk mßtrav mßtrov, which follows the MT pretty closely (vMaÆjc∆r∂m¢ vhao¢B∫r‹∆a∏hM¢KÎ). Note that Üseì ∂ktrwma is a plus at Nu 12,12, and perhaps the repeated feature of alliteration was found pleasing to the literary taste of our translator.

One aspect which we have decided to leave for future research is the question of recensional layers within the Septuagint manuscript tradition. HR did take that into account to a certain extent, though lacking our modern, new perspective on the question. Thus they have fully utilised the

44. Literary Device (n. 25), p. 29-30. 276 T. MURAOKA data contained in two major and distinct forms of the text in the books of Judges and Daniel, and the book of Job was treated by them in its entirety without making a distinction between the “Old Greek” and the asteri- cised sections of the book. They also paid attention to the Hexaplaric materials, without, however, attempting to establish the Semitic equivalents of the Greek words therein45.

In sum, our index does not represent a systematic and complete revision of HR, but is concerned principally with the Hebrew/Aramaic equivalents. Even this limited revision, though we have invested literally thousands of hours in it, still remains incomplete. A thorough revision would have required studying every single verse of those parts of the Septuagint which have been translated from Hebrew or Aramaic and comparing both texts, Greek with Hebrew or Aramaic. Such would constitute a wholly new venture, and no longer a revision of HR. Even so, this index is hoped to add somewhat to the usefulness and quality of this essential instrument which has served us so well and so long.

SUMMARY

Reasons for Revision (259-260) Procedures Followed (260-262) Types of Problems Encountered in Retroversion (262-276) 1. MT ≠ LXX Vorlage (262-266) 2. LXX Only Apparently or in Minor Ways Diverging from MT (266-268) 3. Textual Criticism of the Greek Text (268-269) 4. Aramaism and Post-biblical Hebrew (269-271) 5. Free Translation (271-274) 6. Miscellaneous Types (274-276)

Rijksuniversiteit Leiden Takamitsu MURAOKA Faculteit der Letteren Postbus 9515 NL-2300 RA Leiden

45. In addition to a team of scholars working towards a new edition of the Hexaplaric remains, we warmly welcome the news that our colleagues at Leuven are working on a lexicon of the Hexaplaric materials; cf. LUST, Lexicon (n. 9), vol. II, p. I.