Introduction
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Introduction I. Overview For anyone familiar with original Greek compositions, reading the translation Greek of the Septuagint (lxx) for the first time can be a surprising experience. While the words are Greek, for the most part their order reflects the underlying idiomatic Hebrew and (in portions of Ezra and Daniel) Aramaic, and parataxis is the norm. Beneath the surface, however, the general syntax is that of Koiné Greek. At the same time, lxx Greek has much in common with classical or Attic Greek. For the most part, one may use either classical or New Testament (nt) grammatical paradigms in one’s study of the lxx, since those para- digms share so much in common. While several lxx grammars exist, they are far from complete. Indeed, the primary focus of such grammars has been upon the grammatical differences between classical and Koiné Greek. This emphasis on the differences makes them appear to be numerous and hides the commonality that exists between the two. Appreciating the extent of this commonality simplified the process of checking the data, since many apparent exceptions could be recognized as errors in parsing. a. The Rahlfs Text In retrospect, the publication of the Rahlfs text1 in 1935 was a watershed in Sep- tuagint studies. Its immediate predecessor, the three volume Swete text,2 which formed the running text for the Larger Cambridge Septuagint,3 was based on Codex Vaticanus, supplemented from other uncial manuscripts. In contrast, the Rahlfs text is a (semi )criti- 1 A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta, id est Vetus Testmentum Graece iuxta lxx Interpretes (2 vols.; Stuttgart, 1935). 2 H. B. Swete, The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint (3 vols.; Cambridge 1887–1912). 3 A. E. Brooke, and N. McLean, with H. St J. Thackeray, The Old Testament in Greek Ac- cording to the Text of Codex Vaticanus, Supplemented from Other Uncial Manuscripts, with a Critical Apparatus containing the Variants of the Chief Ancient Authorities for the Text of the Septuagint (3 vols.; 1906–1940). Analytical Lexicon to the Septuagint cal edition based on the three uncial manuscripts Alexandrinus (A), Vaticanus (B), and but also citing the evidence of other sources such as Origen’s Hexapla, the ,(א) Sinaiticus Complutensian Polyglot, and the Lucianic text. Like the Swete text, the Rahlfs text is com- plete and to this date is still the only complete critical text.4 The Analytical Lexicon to the Septuagint (ALS) is based on the Rahlfs text, not including the variants listed in the critical apparatus. In the analytical listings of the ALS, all words and forms, including those of declining proper nouns, are parsed, and parsed in the context of the Rahlfs text. There are, however, certain anomalies within that text. For the most part, ancient manuscripts do not have accents, breathing marks, or punctuation. Rather, these are supplied by the editors of the modern texts. While in the main the meaning is clear, inevitably some readings are open to alternative interpretations.5 Furthermore, as is perhaps inevitable, the Rahlfs text is not without typographical errors. The existence of such errors can be established by first of all checking to see whether the Rahlfs text itself has a note in the apparatus to account for the particular form. Where they are included, these notes are a mine of information since at times they go beyond simply recording the manuscript evidence to citing page numbers in works such as Thackeray’s Grammar.6 Where there is no such note, or where the evidence is inconclusive, the other relevant and available texts7 have been compared for the word in question. On the basis of the Rahlfs notes and comparisons with other texts, it has been possible to determine which words in the Rahlfs text contain errors,8 and these are noted in ALS using the formula “xxx see yyy”: 4 The Rahlfs text is being superseded book by book by the volumes of the Göttingen Sep- tuagint, a full critical edition, as they become available. In the meantime, Septuaginta: Editio altera of the Rahlfs text, edited by Robert Hanhart, has been published (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2006). The result is a light revision that leaves “the text established by Alfred Rahlfs largely untouched” and restricts “revisionary activity to the most inevitable changes” (p. xi). Three distinct areas are included: correcting errors and misprints; changes of accentua- tion (within the context of the original text), and three substantive changes of the text word- ing; corrections and clarifications within the apparatus. Only one form needed to be added to this work in the light of the new text wording. 5 An example of this is found in 1 Rgns 24:17 (with the same expression found in 1 Rgns 26:17): Rahlfs: ἦ φωνῆ σου Cambridge: ἡ φωνῆ σου. 6 Henry St. John Thackeray,A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge, 1909). 7 Göttingen, The Larger Cambridge Septuagint, the portions of text included in Hatch and Redpath, and Bagster. The last, The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament, with an English Translation; and with various readings and critical notes (Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1851), in- cludes the translation by Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton, and was republished by Hendrickson as The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English in 1986. 8 While these sorts of anomalies have been corrected in the new edition of the Rahlfs text (see n. 5, above), no list of the minor changes made currently exists. xvi Introduction ἐπελειώθη see ἐπελιώθη αὑτός see αὐτός In addition to citing errors, this formula is also used to list the full word for elided forms, such as: ἀλλ᾽ see ἀλλά In the case of crasis, forms are listed in the text in the following manner: τἀνδρός = τοῦ + ἀνδρός The parsing of each element is found elsewhere at the appropriate place in the alphabetical listing. b. Lexical Forms For each analytical entry in ALS, the root form is listed so that the user is able to locate the word and its meanings in a lexicon. While it was in print and available, the work of Schle- usner9 helped in this regard, though it was not without its problems. In the final analy sis, its forte was in the area of Greek /Hebrew parallels, rather than precise meanings of words. Were it still in print, it would be of little practical use for most, since it was in Latin. Some progress can be made using the standard nt lexicons, especially BDAG10; but according to G. Abbott-Smith, whose Manual Lexicon was a pioneer in sensitivity to the importance of the lxx in understanding nt vocabulary, these cover only forty percent of the lxx words.11 Since the publication of the first edition ofALS in 1994, the Lust-Eynikel- Hauspie lxx lexicon has been completed, and its word glosses are being used in this ex- panded edition.12 In addition, the Muraoka lexicon, which originally covered the Minor Prophets and then added the Pentateuch, is now complete.13 For a long time the only available work was the standard classical Greek lexicon of Liddell, Scott, and Jones (LSJ).14 While LSJ does not ignore Koiné Greek, it does not do it justice. First, Hebrew meanings are too easily transferred to the correspond- 9 J. F. Schleusner, Novus Thesaurus philologico criticus, sive Lexicon in lxx et reliquos Inter- pretes Graecos ac Scriptores Apocryphos Veteris Testamenti. Post Bielium, et alios viros doctos congessit et edidit Joh. Fried. Schleusner (3 vols.; Leipzig, 1820–21). 10 A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (third revised edition; ed. Frederick W. Danker; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000). 11 G. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (Edinburgh, 1937). 12 Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (revised edition; compiled by J. Lust, E. Eynikel and K. Hauspie; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1992). 13 T. Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Louvain: Peeters, 2009). 14 A Greek-English Lexicon, compiled by Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, rev. and augmented throughout by Sir Henry Stuart Jones, with the assistance of Roderick McKenzie and with the cooperation of many scholars, 19th ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940, ninth xvii Analytical Lexicon to the Septuagint ing Greek words, even though there is no evidence in non-translation Greek that the word ever had that meaning. Second, lxx forms are subsumed under the classical headwords, even when the lxx forms are clearly different. Coupled with this is the penchant of Hatch and Redpath to typically list classical forms ahead of Koiné forms in their Concordance. For instance, they list νεομηνία under νουμηνία. So long as classical (Attic) forms are perceived as the norm, this approach can be defended. The problem is that lxx lexicography is thereby easily subsumed under the classical ru- brics as some sort of illegitimate step child. What to LSJ are “later forms” are for the lxx often normative. Contrariwise, the manifest classicism of 1–4 Maccabees, and especially 4 Maccabees, is a reversion to classical Greek; it is not normative. lxx Greek is first and foremost Koiné Greek. In the ALS analytical listings, then, words are listed in the form in which they actually occur in the lxx rather than forcing them into a classical mold. The form ἐπανιστανόμενοι, for instance, derives from ἐπανιστάνω, not the earlier—and classical—ἐπανίστημι. c. Entries In the analytical listings there is only one part of speech (noun, verb, etc.) per lemma. If a particular form has more than one parsing or shares more than one part of speech, the form—along with its parsing—is listed once for each parsing.15 Thus when an adjec- tive is used adverbially, or when a verb may be parsed either as a future indicative or an aorist subjunctive, the forms have separate parsings.