05-Deut-Nets.Pdf

05-Dt-NETS-4.qxd 11/10/2009 10:20 PM Page 141 DEUTERONOMION TO THE READER EDITION OF THE GREEK TEXT The NETS translation of Deuteronomion has been based on the edition by John William Wevers (Septu- aginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum III.2: Deuteronomium [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977]). This fully critical edition is the best avail- able. Its printed text was modified only where Wevers himself, in Appendix A of his Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy (SBLSCS 39; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), proposed that changes be made. Most of the forty-four suggested modifications involve matters of punctuation or accentuation. Others consist of variation in pronouns due to itacisms (u9mw~n/h9mw~n, etc.), changes in the form of the nomina sacra, the odd omission of a possessive or a copula and so on. Only a single reading in the list (the metathesis of lambda and alpha in lao/n 28.9) was a genuine printing error. But in one or two cases such as 28.62 or 30.13, readings that the editor initially considered secondary and therefore placed in the apparatus, he deemed on further reflection to be primary. In every instance, such changes that can be shown are noted in the brief apparatus to NETS Deuteronomion, where WeN is made to contrast with Weed. TRANSLATION PROFILE OF THE GREEK General Comment The aim here is not to present a complete picture of the character of the translation of Greek Deuteron- omy within the constraints of a brief introduction. What follows, rather, is a discussion of some features that might interest the NETS reader conversant with Hebrew and Greek and interested in the relationship of the latter to the former. It may be assumed that the translator of Greek Deuteronomy (hereafter DeutTr) had before him a text similar in the main to the printed text of BHS and that the printed text of Weed (as modified by WeN) is representative of the original Greek translation. Every translation must be examined, of course, for its own peculiarities, and each translator evaluated in relation to the content of the material on which he worked. Statistical representations are relevant only when judged against patterns and practices of a particular translator and the choices he faced. Deuteron- omy is noted for its hortatory style and repetitive content. Thus its study, even though tedious, can be in- structive to a textual critic evaluating whether and when formulaic expressions are accurately transmit- ted. But Deuteronomy also repeats legal material found in earlier books of the Pentateuch and contains more sustained poetry than any of the others. Furthermore, if we assume that the Pentateuch was translated sequentially, Deuteronomy, given its position, might reflect knowledge of the work of previous translators, and so we might look for evidence along those lines. These factors add a unique dimension to the task of evaluating Greek Deuteronomy. It is fair to say that DeutTr typically maintains a very close relationship to his source text, though, within a linguistically rather constricting framework, one can nev- ertheless speak of an interpretative dimension. I discuss each aspect in turn. Formal Correspondence and Representation The indicators of a close connection between a Greek translation and a Hebrew source text are well established. Some are attested throughout the Pentateuch, others in the larger corpus of LXX translation Greek and even in the NT. These include for example: fixed lexical equivalents on the content side (verbs and nouns) and even non-content elements—particles, prepositions and the like; the use of le/gwn as a consistent translation for rm)l; o3ti as a translation for yk irrespective of contextual concerns; b for e0n; the use of a Greek conjunctive participle with a cognate finite verb to represent the Hebrew free infinitive (absolute) used for emphasis before a cognate finite verb; the (related) practice of using a participle plus finite verb to represent two successive Hebrew verbs describing the same or related activity; e0n tw~| + infinitive + pronoun for b + bound infinitive (construct); the ubiquitous kai/ for w even in places where standard Greek would opt for postpositive de/ and so forth. Beyond these lie matters of quantitative representation—the tendency to represent one word in Hebrew by one in Greek as far as possible, often 05-Dt-NETS-4.qxd 11/10/2009 10:20 PM Page 142 142 to the reader of deuteronomion down to the morphemic level—and matters of strict adherence to Hebrew word order at the expense of standard Greek style. A translation that conforms regularly to these patterns exhibits formal correspondence with its source text—the conventions and demands of that source being dominant throughout. One that takes serious- ly the needs and expectations of the reader—the target audience—might be expected to deviate from these patterns regularly and demonstrate what is termed dynamic equivalence. Few translations exhibit one or the other pattern exclusively; Deuteronomion is no different in this respect. Each of the above examples of formal correspondence can be demonstrated, though some are more worthy of attention than others. I discuss a few below. The first chapter should provide representative examples since it would presumably show DeutTr’s ini- tial approach to his task. Indeed, a look at the very first verse demonstrates a number of DeutTr’s charac- teristic features. One will note: (1) an almost isomorphic relationship to the source text; (2) identical word order to the source text; (3) occasional translation of names; (4) at times excessive focus on indi- vidual items; (5) a certain freedom vis-à-vis the source text. DeutTr selected pe/ran to represent rb(b and maintained it throughout the book even though he seemed unsure at that stage whether the b should be represented discretely or not; by verse 5 he has decided that it should be, since there (and in 3.20, 4.46) he preceded pe/ran with e0n tw|~. In all but two (30.13 2x) of thirteen places, the reference is to the Jordan. The preposition lwOm here is a hapax as point- ed in BHS; its variant form lw%m occurs rarely in BHS and only four more times in Deuteronomy (2.19; 3.29; 4.46; 34.6). Of course, it cannot be known whether or not DeutTr read his unpointed text just as the Masoretes did, since the meaning of both forms of the preposition remains the same. It may be en- tirely coincidental but noteworthy, however, that only in 1.1, where the variant Masoretic vocalization appears, does plhsi/on appear and there in relation to the Red Sea. But plhsi/on is never used again as a translation of lw%m; by the time DeutTr next encountered it in 2.19, he had decided that e1gguj or su/neg- guj = lw%m and that either pe/ran or e0n tw~ pe/ran = rb(b. Thus, by 4.46 when rb(b and lw%m appear in the same verse, he rendered them e0n tw|~ pe/ran tou= 0Iorda/nou, . e1gguj oi1kou Fogw/r “beyond the Jor- dan . near the house of Phogor.” The variation in the gloss for lw%m, however, can be accounted for on contextual grounds. Towards the end of the first verse, DeutTr seemed confident that Pharan, Tophol, and Lobon were place names because they were clearly set off by Nyb, even though the second is left un- translated (cf. infra), but he seems unsure that trcx and bhz yd were. He therefore translated them as faithfully as he could—Au0lw~n “Courts” and Kataxru/sea “Goldplaces.” Oddly, though, the last named is in the wrong case to be a constituent of the preceding series. Consequently, it dangles rather uncer- tainly at the end. One well-established marker of a translator’s dependence on his source is the treatment of clause connectors. A. Aejmelaeus has noted the importance of this issue in several publications.1 If a translator selected o3ti instead of ga/r (even when standard Greek style would suggest the latter) to render yk, it is one of many signs that the source text controlled the process. She cites 4.6 “because this is your wis- dom,” 16.3 “because you came out . in haste,” and 22.5 “for anyone doing these things is an abhor- rence to the Lord your God,” and especially 30.11 o#ti h( e0ntolh_ au3th, h4n e0gw_ e0nte/llomai/ soi sh/meron = NETS: “because this commandment that I command you today” as examples where the o3ti stands first in its clause under Hebrew influence but a postpositive ga/r would seem perfectly warranted in the con- texts. Another clear example of DeutTr’s heavy dependence on the source is his literal rendering of pleonas- tic expressions—“the land which you are crossing the Jordan there to inherit it.” This type of syntactical structure is typical and frequent in Deuteronomion. Full lexeme-for-lexeme representation is always evi- dent in Greek. Likewise, free infinitives are juxtaposed before or after cognate verbs frequently in Deuteronomion. DeutTr made no attempt to interpret the sense of such Hebraistic expressions but rendered them quite literally, word for word, striving to imitate his source text by utilizing cognate roots in Greek. Singular and plural forms of address in Hebrew are almost religiously followed in Greek, and the few variations can usually be explained reasonably. Neologisms Throughout Deuteronomion one finds new words (neologisms) or instances of known words com- bined in new ways. Some are unique to the Pentateuch; almost forty appear for the first time in 1 See for example her collection of essays on this subject On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators (Kampen, The Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1993) and particularly the essays on OTI.

Load more