(VTS 172) Gauthier, Kotzé, Steyn (Eds.) - Septuagint, Sages, and Scripture - Studies in Honour of Johann Cook PDF

Septuagint, Sages, and Scripture
Supplements
to
Vetus Testamentum
Editor in Chief
Christl M. Maier
Editorial Board
H.M. Barstad - N. Calduch-Benages - D.M. Carr - R.P. Gordon - L.C. Jonker

J. Joosten - G.N. Knoppers - A. van der Kooij - S.L. McKenzie - C.A. Newsom
M. Nissinen - H. Spieckermann - N. Wazana - S.D. Weeks - H.G.M. Williamson
Volume 172
The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/vts

Johann Cook
Septuagint, Sages, and Scripture
Studies in Honour of Johann Cook
Edited by
Randall X. Gauthier
Gideon R. Kotz
Gert J. Steyn
LEIDEN | BOSTON
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Cook, Johann, honouree. | Gauthier, Randall X., editor.

Title: Septuagint, sages, and scripture : studies in honour of Johann Cook /
edited by Randall X. Gauthier Gideon R. Kotze Gert J. Steyn.
Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, 2016. | Series: Supplements to Vetus
Testamentum, ISSN 0083-5889 ; Volume 172 | Includes bibliographical
references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016020878 (print) | LCCN 2016021804 (ebook) | ISBN
9789004323827 (hardback : alk. paper) | ISBN 9789004325227 (E-book)
Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Old Testament. GreekVersionsSeptuagint.
Classification: LCC BS744 .S466 2016 (print) | LCC BS744 (ebook) | DDC
221.4/8dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016020878
Want or need Open Access? Brill Open offers you the choice to make your research freely accessible online
in exchange for a publication charge. Review your various options on brill.com/brill-open.
Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: Brill. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface.
issn 0083-5889
isbn 978-90-04-32382-7 (hardback)
isbn 978-90-04-32522-7 (e-book)
Copyright 2016 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi and
Hotei Publishing.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided
that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive,
Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.
This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

IOSOT President 20132016: Johann Cook
On August 9, 2013, it was announced at the business meeting of the International

Organization for the Study of the Old Testament (IOSOT) held at the Ludwig-
Maximilians-Universitt, Munich, that prof. Johann Cook from Stellenbosch
University would be the next president of the organization for the term 2013
2016. This announcement was the result of a successful nomination that was
submitted by the Old Testament Society of South Africa (OTSSA) to the Board
of the IOSOT. In their motivation letter to the IOSOT Board, the OTSSA men-
tioned the following:
We herewith nominate PROF. JOHANN COOK of the Department of

Ancient Studies, University of Stellenbosch as President of the IOSOT for
the term 20132016. Johann Cook (65 years old in 2013) is a well-known
and active member of the IOSOT, as well as of the associated organiza-
tions IOSCS and IOQS. Through the past years (since 1983) he delivered
numerous papers at the various conferences of these organizations, inter
alia as a presenter of a main paper in 2007. He is widely respected for his
excellent research on (particularly) LXX-Proverbs, and has gained inter-
national recognition in this field. His numerous publications (including
2 monographs) are often cited in the field. He was the (co-) organizer
of more than one international conference. We are therefore convinced
that Johann Cook will be a President worthy of the academic stature of
the IOSOT.
The announcement in Munich crowned the illustrious career of Johann Cook,

and put him at the helm for organizing the next IOSOT congress in 2016. It was
furthermore an acknowledgement of the significant scholarly contribution he
has made in the field of (particularly) Septuagint studies. He is a well-respected
member of the guild, and was also a founding member of the Association for
the Study of the Septuagint in South Africa in 2007.
His presidency of IOSOT contributes to a historic landmark for the organiza-
tion. The Stellenbosch congress in 2016 will be the first of its kind on African
soil, and will only be the second time that the IOSOT will convene outside of
Europe (the first time was in Jerusalem in 1986). Johann Cooks contribution to
enrich local South African and African continental scholarship in this mean-
ingful way is immeasurable.
vi jonker
As one of his former students, and together with Old Testament / Hebrew
Bible / Septuagint scholars in South Africa, on the African continent, and glob-
ally, I salute the president of IOSOT, Johann Cook, for his scholarship, but also
for his joie de vivre!
Louis Jonker
Congress Secretary IOSOT 2016
Contents
Prefaceix
Abbreviationsxi
List of Contributorsxvi
1 Isaak, die Tochter Jephthas und Iphigenie, Menschenopfer im Alten

Testament und im Alten Griechenland: Kulturkritische Beobachtungen
unter besonderer Bercksichtigung der Septuaginta1
Evangelia G. Dafni
2 Descartes Error and the Growth of Consciousness: A Non-Dualistic

Reading of Genesis 1:1731
Annette Evans
3 Greek Translations of Hebrew Left Dislocation Constructions in LXX

Genesis45
Gideon R. Kotz
4 A Commentary on Septuagint Leviticus 19:111566

Dirk Bchner
5 Where is Wisdom to be Found and How Do We Apprehend Her?84

Jessie Rogers
6 The Relation of the Septuagint of Proverbs to the Septuagint of

Psalms99
Jan Joosten
7 Possessing Wisdom: A Study of the Possessive Pronouns and Adjectives

in the Septuagint Version of Proverbs108
Randall X. Gauthier
8 Septuagint Proverbs 28:4 and Shielding the Righteous: Implications for

Understanding Sabbath Fighting in Josephus142
Kenneth Atkinson
9 A Man Shall Not Rise Again...: Job 14:12 in Hebrew and Greek159
Hans Ausloos
viii contents
10 Jobs Sohn Eine textgeschichtliche Notiz zu Job 42:17 (LXX)172

Markus Witte
11 Old Greek Job 42 A Surprise at the End of the Road: Intertextual

Connections between the Epilogue and the Prologue Introduced by
the Translator180
Claude Cox
12 Scholars and Officials in Early Judaism: The Sfer of Jesus

Ben Sira190
Arie van der Kooij
13 The Metatextual Marginal Notes of Ben Sira: Ideology and Theology in

the Geneva Bible (1560) and the King James Version (1611)205
Cynthia L. Miller-Naud and Jacobus A. Naud
14 Translating Wisdom in the Prophets: Ezekiel, Wisdom and

Translation259
Harry F. van Rooy
15 Enhanced and Revised: The Old Greek Edition of the Book of

Daniel279
Martin Rsel
16 Introductory Notes on Philo of Alexandrias Proverbs and Idiomatic

Expressions294
Gert J. Steyn
17 Whom the Lord Loveth He Chasteneth: About the Adoption of

Prov 3:11f. in Hebr 12:5f.323
Wolfgang Kraus
18 Symmachus, the Septuagint and the Sages: An Examination of the

References to Sumkhos ben Joseph in the Mishnah, Tosefta and
Talmudim336
Michal N. van der Meer
Index of Modern Sources357

Index of Ancient Sources363
Subject Index391
Preface
The studies collected in this volume were written in honour of Johann Cook,
emeritus professor in the Department of Ancient Studies at Stellenbosch
University, South Africa. Johann specialises in many areas of research and has
published articles on a wide range of subjects, including the Dead Sea scrolls,
the Peshitta version of the Pentateuch, deuterocanonical literature such as Ben
Sira and the Books of Maccabees, and textual criticism (or tekste kritiek, as he
likes to refer to the discipline). Nevertheless, Johann is probably most well-
known for his extensive work on the Septuagint versions of Hebrew wisdom
literature. His views on, especially, the translation technique, Vorlage, prov-
enance and readings of LXX Proverbs are widely acclaimed and often quoted,
even though not every colleague agrees with the interpretations that Johann
has put forward in his many publications on this translation unit. Not one to
shy away from debate or dialogue, Johann has continued to defend his posi-
tions, and has accepted both compliment and criticism with his characteristic
good-humoured attitude.
In recognition of Johanns many contributions to Septuagint and related
fields of research, the articles in this Festschrift were contributed by friends,
former students and fellow collaborators on A New English Translation of the
Septuagint (NETS) and the Society of Biblical Literature commentary on the
Septuagint project. As the title of the volume suggests, the contributions focus
on the Septuagint, sages and scriptures. They cover a variety of subjects such
as the translation of Hebrew expressions into Greek, the reception of LXX texts
in various contexts, topics related to wisdom and the LXX versions of sapien-
tial literature, Ben Sira as a scribe of the Second Temple period, themes in the
works of Philo and Josephus and the references to Sumkhos ben Joseph in rab-
binic writings. The contributions present the results of original research, iden-
tify new lines and topics of inquiry and make novel contributions to existing
insights.
It is a pleasure to dedicate these studies to Johann during his tenure as the
president of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament
(IOSOT). Johann was instrumental in arranging for the IOSOT and affiliated
organizations congresses to be held, for the first time, on the African continent
in 2016. This landmark occasion is another form of Johanns service to biblical
scholarship at home and abroad. The editors thank Prof. Louis C. Jonker, the
Congress Secretary, for writing a dedication to Johann on behalf of the IOSOT
2016 organising committee.
x preface
The editors also take this opportunity to thank all the authors for their
contributions to this volume. With articles by scholars from nine countries
(Belgium, Canada, England, Germany, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, South
Africa and the United States), the volume truly has an international scope. In
this regard, we wish to express our appreciation to Dr. Manitza Kotz for her
professional help in correcting the English of some of the articles.
A special word of thanks goes to Prof. Dr. Christl M. Maier and the editorial
board of Vetus Testamentum Supplements, for accepting the volume as part
of their august series, and to Liesbeth Hugenholtz, Ester Lels and the produc-
tion team at Brill, for all their hard work and assistance during the publication
process.
Finally, our very best wishes accompany Johann, Marie and his family.
We hope Johann will enjoy many more years of good health and productive
scholarship.
Randall X. Gauthier
Gideon R. Kotz
Gert J. Steyn
Abbreviations
AB Anchor Bible
AGAJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des
Urchristentums
AKM Abhandlungen fr die Kunde des Morgenlandes
AOAT Alte Orient und Altes Testament
ArBib The Aramaic Bible
ATD Das Alte Testament Deutsch
AThANT Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments
ATS Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament
BBB Bonner biblische Beitrge
BEvT Beitrge zur evangelischen Theologie
BdA La Bible dAlexandrie
BDAG Bauer, Walter, Frederick William Danker, William F. Arndt and F.
Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago / London: Chicago
University Press, 2000.
BDB Brown, Francis, Samuel R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew
and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: OUP, 1906.
BDF Blass, Friedrich, Albert DeBrunner and Robert W. Funk, A Greek
Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature.
Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1961.
BET Beitrge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie
BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium
BH Biblical Hebrew
BHS Elliger, Karl and Wilhelm Rudolph, ed., Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.
Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997.
Bib Biblica
BIOSCS Bulletin of the International Organization of Septuagint and Cognate
Studies
BJS Brown Judaic Studies
BK Bibel und Kirche
BKAT Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament
BThSt Biblisch-Theologische Studien
BU Biblische Untersuchungen
BWANT Beitrge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten un Neuen Testament
BZ Biblische Zeitschrift
BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
xii abbreviations
CAP Cowley, Arthur Ernest, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923.
CBET Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series
CC Continental Commentary
CG Classical Greek
CIJ Corpus inscriptionum judaicarum
ConBNT Coniectanea biblica: New Testament Series
CRINT Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum
DBSup Dictionaire de la Bible: Supplment
DCLS Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies
DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert
DSD Dead Sea Discoveries
EBib.NS Etudes bibliques nouvelle serie
EHAT Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament
EKK Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament
ETL Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses
FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament
FGH Jacoby, Felix, ed., Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Leiden:
Brill, 19541964.
FoSub Fontes et Subsidia ad Bibliam pertinentes
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen
Testaments
FS Festschrift
G The Translator
GELS Muraoka, Takamitsu, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint.
Louvain / Paris / Walpole: Peeters, 2009.
HAL Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, Hebrisches und
aramisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament. 2 vols. Leiden / Boston /
Kln: Brill, 1995.
HALOT Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic
Lexicon of the Old Testament. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 19941999.
HB Hebrew Bible
HCOT Historical Commentary on the Old Testament
HG Hellenistic Greek
HNT Handbuch zum Neuen Testament
HS Hebrew Studies
HSS Harvard Semitic Studies
HThK.AT Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament
abbreviations xiii
HTR Harvard Theological Review

HTS HTS Theological Studies
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
ICC International Critical Commentary
IBHS Waltke, Bruce K. and Michael OConnor, Introduction to Biblical
Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990.
JANES Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JJS Journal of Jewish Studies
JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages
JQR Jewish Quarterly Review
JSem Journal for Semitics
JSHRZ Jdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-rmischer Zeit
JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism
JSJSup Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series
JSS Journal of Semitic Studies
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
KAI Donner, Herbert and Wolfgang Rllig, Kanaanische und aramische
Inschriften. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 19661969.
KEK Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar ber das Neue Testament
KJV King James Version
KNT Kommentar zum Neuen Testament
KuD Kerugma und Dogma
KUSATU Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner
Umwelt
L.A.B. Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum
L&N Louw, Johannes P. and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of
the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. 2 vols. Cape Town:
Bible Society of South Africa, 1989.
LCL Loeb Classical Library
LEH Lust, Johan, Erik Eynikel and Katrin Hauspie, A Greek-English
Lexicon of the Septuagint. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft,
2003.
LSJ Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott and Henry Stuart Jones.
A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: OUP, 1996.
L bersetzung Martin Luthers (Luther Bibel)
LU Lunds universitets rsskrift
LXX Septuagint
xiv abbreviations
LXX.D Septuaginta Deutsch

MGWJ Monatschrift fr Geschichte und Wissenschaft des
Judentums
Moulton-Milligan Moulton, James Hope and Milligan, George, Vocabulary
of the Greek Testament. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997.
Ms(s) Manuscript(s)
MSU Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens
MT Masoretic Text
MVEOL Mededelingen en Verhandelingen Ex Oriente Lux
NAC New American Commentary
NCBC New Cambridge Bible Commentary
NEAEHL Ephraim Stern, ed., The New Encyclopedia of Archaeo
logical Excavations in the Holy Land. 4 vols. Jerusalem:
Israel Exploration Society, 1993.
NedTT Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift
NETS New English Translation of the Septuagint
NGTT Nederduitse Gereformeerde Teologiese Tydskrif
NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament
NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament
NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary
NIV New International Version
NJB New Jerusalem Bible
NRSV New Revised Standard Version
NT New Testament
OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis
OG Old Greek
OTE Old Testament Essays
OTL Old Testament Library
TK kumenischer Taschenbuch-Kommentar
OTS Old Testament Studies
PG Migne, Jacques Paul, ed., Patrologia Graeca. 161 vols.
Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 18571866.
PTS Patristische Texte und Studien
PVTG Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece
RB Revue Biblique
RevQ Revue de Qumran
RNT Regensburger Neues Testament
Robertson Robertson, Archibald Thomas, A Grammar of the
Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research.
Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934.
SAOC Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations
abbreviations xv
SBL Society of Biblical Literature

SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series
SBLCS Society of Biblical Literature Commentary on the Septuagint
SBLEJL Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature
SBLSCS Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies
SBS Stuttgarter Biblische Studien
SBT Studies in Biblical Theology
SJ Studia Judaica
SJLA Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity
SKI.NF Studia zu Kirche und Israel Neue Folge
Smyth Smyth, Herbert Weir. Greek Grammar. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 2002.
SP Samaritan Pentateuch
StPB Studia post-Biblica
STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah
TC TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism
TDOT Botterweck, G. Johannes, Helmer Ringgren and Heinz-Josef Fabry,
ed., Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. 15 vols. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 19752015.
TDNT Kittel, Gerhard and Gerhard Friedrich, ed., Theological Dictionary of
the New Testament. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 19641976.
TLOT Jenni, Ernst and Claus Westermann, ed., Theological Lexicon of the
Old Testament. 3 vols. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997.
TNK Tanakh: A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures According to the
Traditional Hebrew Text
TRE Gerhard Krause and Gerhard Mller, ed., Theologische
Realenzyklopdie. 36 vols. Berlin / New York: de Gruyter, 19772004.
TSAJ Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum
TTZ Trierer theologische Zeitschrift
TWNT Kittel, Gerhard and Gerhard Friedrich, ed., Theologische Wrterbuch
zum Neuen Testament. 9 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 19321979.
UTB Uni-Taschenbcher
VT Vetus Testamentum
VTSup Supplements to Vetus Testamentum
VuF Verkndigung und Forschung
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
WHJP World History of the Jewish People
WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
ZAW Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZNW Zeitschrift fr die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
List of Contributors
Kenneth Atkinson
Department of History, University of Northern Iowa, USA
Hans Ausloos
Universit catholique de Louvain, Facult de Thologie, Louvain-la-Neuve,
Belgium / Research Associate, Department of Old Testament, Faculty of
Theology, University of the Free State, South Africa
Dirk Bchner
Religious Studies, Trinity Western University, Canada
Claude Cox
McMaster Divinity College, Canada
Evangelia G. Dafni
Faculty of Theology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece / Research
Associate, Department of New Testament Studies, Faculty of Theology,
University of Pretoria, South Africa
Annette Evans
Research Associate, UFS Postgraduate School, University of the Free State,
South Africa
Randall X. Gauthier
Research Fellow, Department of Hebrew, University of the Free State
Louis C. Jonker
Department of Old and New Testament, Faculty of Theology, Stellenbosch
University, South Africa
Jan Joosten
Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford University, United Kingdom
Gideon R. Kotz
Department of Ancient Studies, Stellenbosch University, South Africa
list of contributors xvii
Wolfgang Kraus
Lehrstuhl fr Neues Testament, Universitt des Saarlandes, Germany /
Research Associate, Department of New Testament Studies, Faculty of
Theology, University of Pretoria, South Africa
Cynthia L. Miller-Naud
Department of Hebrew, University of the Free State, South Africa
Jacobus A. Naud
Department of Hebrew, University of the Free State, South Africa
Jessie Rogers
St Patricks College, Maynooth, Ireland / Research Associate, Department of
Old and New Testament, Faculty of Theology, Stellenbosch University, South
Africa
Martin Rsel
University of Rostock, Faculty of Theology, Germany
Gert J. Steyn
Department of New Testament Studies, Faculty of Theology, University of
Pretoria, South Africa
Arie van der Kooij

Faculty of Humanities, Leiden University, The Netherlands

Independent scholar in biblical studies and teacher of religious education
at a secondary school (Hermann Wesselink college) in Amstelveen, The
Netherlands
Harry F. van Rooy

Faculty of Theology, North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, South
Africa
Markus Witte
Seminar fr Altes Testament, Theologische Fakultt an der Humboldt-
Universitt, Germany
CHAPTER 1
Isaak, die Tochter Jephthas und Iphigenie,

Menschenopfer im Alten Testament und im Alten
Griechenland: Kulturkritische Beobachtungen
unter besonderer Bercksichtigung der
Septuaginta1
Evangelia G. Dafni
1 Einleitendes
Menschenopfer und die damit verbundenen, schmerzhaften und lebensver-

nichtenden Erlebnisse sind bereits seit der prhistorischen Zeit archologisch
belegt.2 Sie wurden im Laufe der Geschichte immer wieder neu verarbei-
tet3 und mndlich sowie schriftlich im kulturellen Gedchtnis gespeichert.4
Materielle Funde werden als Indizien dafr gedeutet, dass Menschenopfer
als Bestandteil des polytheistischen Kultes zur Nahrung der Gtter bzw. zur
Anthropophagie bei Nahrungsmangel oder als Ausdruck des Gtterzornes
oder als Rache gedient haben.5 Dichtung und Literatur alter Kulturen erzh-
len vor allem von extremen Notsituationen, die mit rituellen Ttungen von
Lebenden oder mit rituell behandelten und geopferten Toten verbunden
gewesen sind. Besonders zu erinnern sei an den Mythos des Tantalos, der
bestraft wurde, nachdem er seinen Sohn Pelops den Gttern als Opfer dar-
brachte, und den Mythos des Atreus, der die Shne des Thyestes, Sohn des
1 Vorliegender Beitrag, der erstmalig 2013 auf Einladung von Herrn Professor Aaron Schart an
der Universitt Duisburg-Essen vorgetragen wurde und von dem Einzelaspekte des Themas
im selben Jahr an der Philipps-Universitt Marburg, sowie bei IOSOT 2013 in Mnchen und
bei SASNES und SSA 2014 in Johannesburg SA prsentiert wurden, sei dem hochverehrten
Kollegen, Prof. Johann Cook, gewidmet.
2 Miranda Aldhouse Green, Menschenopfer: Ritualmord von der Eisenzeit bis zum Ende der
Antike (Magnus: Essen, 2003).
3 Walter Burkert, Homo Necans: Interpretationen altgriechischer Opferriten und Mythen
(Religionsgschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 32; Berlin: de Gruyter, 21997), 39ff; 45ff.
4 Aleida Assmann, Einfhrung in die Kulturwissenschaft: Grundbegriffe, Themen, Fragestellungen
(Grundlagen der Anglistik und Amerikanistik 27; Erich Schmidt Verlag: Berlin, 32011).
5 Ina Wunn, Die Religionen in vorgeschichtlicher Zeit (Religionen der Menschheit Bd. 2;
Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2005), 87, 162.
koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 6|doi .63/9789004325227_002

2 dafni
Pelops, ttete und sie Thyestes zum Verzehr vorsetzte.6 Menschenopfer

dienten aber auch zur Besnftigung von Gttern u.zw. als Dankopfer zur
Abwendung des Unheils oder als Fruchtbarkeitsopfer zum Erbitten des gtt-
lichen Segens oder als Begleitopfer zu Helden- oder Knigsbestattungen und
Vergeltungsopfer beim Krieg. Es wird angenommen, dass nicht blo gebrechli-
che und lebensunfhige, sondern vor allem gesunde Kinder und Erwachsene,
insbesondere Jungfrauen, als Schlacht- bzw. Brandopfer dargebracht wur-
den, wobei dem Feuer, das die Anwesenheit der Gottheit bei der Opfergabe
symbolisierte, eine reinigende und transformierende Wirkung zugesprochen
wird. Menschenopfer basieren auf der tief im polytheistischen System ver-
wurzelten, magischen berzeugung, dass fr den erfolgreichen Ausgang einer
wichtigen Unternehmung mglichst das allerbeste Opfer der Gottheit darge-
bracht werden soll u.zw. nicht ein Tier-, sondern ein Menschenleben. Dieser
Gedanke hat das Antike Griechenland sowie Israel anscheinend beschftigt.7
So erzhlt z.B. 2 Kn 3:27, dass der Moabiterknig seinen Sohn den Erbprinzen
an den Mauern Jerusalems opferte, um den Krieg zu gewinnen, was mensch-
lichen und gttlichen Zorn ber die Greueltat auslste. Erzhlte Zeit und
Erzhlzeit in griechischen und hebrischen Texten weisen darauf hin, dass
die kultische Ausbung von Menschenopferungen vermutlich seit dem 1. Jt.
v.Chr. an Bedeutung und Symbolkraft verloren hat, aber immer wieder in den
Zusammenhang mit archaischen Vorbildern gebracht und darauf weiter reflek-
tiert wird. Die alttestamentlichen ambivalenten Hinweise auf Menschenopfer
im Zusammenhang mit der prophetischen Polemik gegenber der polythei-
stischen Umwelt sind nicht abschlieend erklrbar, da die alten Erzhltexte
nicht nur einen Sinn haben, sondern unter mehreren Aspekten gesehen und
interpretiert werden knnen.8 So bleibt es nach wie vor sehr umstritten, ob
Menschenopfer vorexilisch tatschlich in Israel dargebracht wurden.9
6 Burkert, Homo Necans, 108ff; 119ff.

7 Jan N. Bremmer, Sacrificing a Child in Ancient Greece, in The Sacrifice of Isaak: The Aqedah,
Genesis 22 and Its Interpretations (ed. Edward Noort und Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar; Themes in
Biblical Narrative 4; Brill: Leiden, 2002), 2143; Gabriele Weiler, Human Sacrifice in Greek
Culture, in Human Sacrifice in Jewish and Christian Tradition (ed. Karin Finsterbusch,
Armin L. Lange, K.F. Diethard Rmheld; Numen Book Series 112, Leiden: Brill, 2007), 3564.
8 Vgl. Gen 22:2; Ex 22:29f.; Lev 27:28f.; Num 31:2530, 40f.; Jos 6:21; Ri 11:3039; 2 Kn 3:27. God
gegen Menschenopfer: Deut 12:31; 18:912; 2 Kn 16:3; Jer 19:4f.
9 Vgl. etwa Andreas Michel, Gott und Gewalt gegen Kinder im Alten Testament (FAT 37; Tbingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2003); Francesca Stavrakopoulou, King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice: Biblical
Distortions of Historical Realities (BZAW 338; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004); Michaela Bauks,
Menschenopfer in den Mittelmeerkulturen, VuF 56 (2011): 3344.
isaak, die tochter jephthas und iphigenie 3
Wenn nun nach groen Erzhleinheiten gefragt wird, die von Menschen
opfern im Alten Testament handeln, dann werden vor allem Isaaks Opferung
(Gen 22) und die auergewhnliche Opferung der anonymen Tochter
Jephthas (Ri 11), die als jdische Iphigenie angesehen wird, sozusagen eine
Gegenerzhlung10 zu Gen 22, herangezogen und diese beiden Meisterstcke
alttestamentlicher Erzhlkunst beilufig mit Iphigenies Opferung in Aulis,
als Folge des alten Atriden- bzw. Tantalidenfluches, verglichen, wovon zwar
Homers Ilias nichts erwhnt, wohl aber die gleichnamige Tragdie des
Euripides. Was ist nun wahr oder falsch an diesen drei Erzhlungen, die wegen
ihrer Qualitt und ihrer groen Wirkungsgeschichte zur Weltliteratur gehren?
Bestehen tatschlich motivliche oder auch literarische Beziehungen
bzw. Abhngigkeiten, und worin sind sie zu sehen? Wie lassen sich die
Menschenopfer mit den altgriechischen Auffassungen vom Naturrecht und
dem alttestamentlichen Offenbarungsglauben vereinbaren?
2 Isaaks Opferung (Gen 22)
Die Erzhlung wurde frher dem sogenannten Elohisten zugeschrieben (etwa

900 v. Chr.). Dies bedeutet, dass die Ereignisse der Vterzeit in der fernsten
Vergangenheit liegen. Viele Exegeten rechnen heute mit der Entstehung der
Geschichte in der Exilszeit (etwa 6. Jh. v.Chr.), der kultur- und literaturge-
schichtlich die mndliche berlieferung der homerischen Epen vorausging.
Es wird angenommen, dass auch die homerischen Epen etwa zur gleichen Zeit
von der Mndlichkeit in die Schriftlichkeit bergegangen sind.11 Andere setzen
die literarische Inszenierung des Textes sogar in der nachexilischen oder sogar
in der frhhellenistischen Zeit an.12 Bei dieser Datierung geht nun die griechi-
sche Tragdie der biblischen Erzhlung in ihrer Septuaginta-Form voraus.
10 Michaela Bauks, The Theological Implications of Child Sacrifice in and beyond the
Biblical Context in Religion to Genesis 22 and Judges 11, in Human Sacrifice in Jewish and
Christian Tradition (ed. Karin Finsterbusch et al.; Numen Book Series 112, Leiden: Brill,
2007), 6586; Walter Gro, Richter: bersetzt und ausgeleg (HThKAT; Freiburg / Basel /
Wien: Herder, 2009), 620f.
11 Gregory Nagy, Homer the Preclassic (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010).
12 Christo Lombaard, Isaac Multiplex: Genesis 22 in a New Historical Representation, HTS
64/2 (2008): 90719; idem, The Akedah: An Overview of Some Historical Interpretations,
Ekklesiastikos Pharos 93 (2011): 25967; idem, Five Historical Explanations for Genesis 22
and its Inclusion in the Scripture, in Global Perspectives on the Bible (ed. Mark Roncace
und Jospeh Weaver; London: Pearson, 2013), 3436.
4 dafni
Schon im ersten Vers des Kapitels macht der Erzhler darauf aufmerk-
sam, dass es sich dabei um die Erprobung des Glaubens Abrahams handelt
und nicht um einen gttlichen Befehl, der Abraham zur Ausfhrung einer
Greueltat treiben sollte.
1a 13 1a14
b b
c c
cV , d
d e
e . f
Es ist charakteristisch, dass derjenige, der Abraham auf die Probe stellt, nicht
Jahwe genannt wird, sondern einfach , den die LXX mit (Gott)
gleichsetzt und nicht mit (Engel/Gottesbote). Von dem Engel des
Herrn vom Himmel ( ) , spre-
chen eindeutig der MT sowie die LXX in Gen 22:11a, der wie ein deus ex machina
erscheint und die Lsung des Dramas in die Wege leitet. Dieser hat Abraham
gehindert, die von Gott befohlene Tat zu vollziehen. Unmittelbar darauf folgt
der Schwur Jahwes bei sich selbst, dass die Verheiung fr Abraham und seine
Nachkommen weiterbestehen wird.
Die Gottesnamen und im MT und in der LXX schei-
nen programmatisch verwendet zu sein. Genauso wie die Eigennamen Abram
und Abraham werden sie eingesetzt, um auf die existenzielle Verwandlung und
den bergang Abrahams vom Polytheismus zum Monotheismus hinzudeuten.
Um die Erprobung des Glaubens zum Ausdruck zu bringen, setzt der MT
das Verb ein, welches in der LXX durch , , ,
, , wiedergegeben wird.15 Das Verb
dient in der LXX als einziges Standardquivalent zur Wiedergabe des hebr-
ischen ( Pi.), welches im MT sowohl Gott16 als auch den Menschen zu
13 Griechische und hebrische Bibelzitate sind aus www.bibelwissenschaft.de/online-

bibeln entnommen.
14 Satzeinteilung nach Wolfgang Richter, Biblia Hebraica transcripta BHt, Genesis (ATS 33.1;
St Ottilien: Eos Verlag, 1991), 17279.
15 Takamitsu Muraoka, A Greek Hebrew / Aramaic Two-Way Index to the Septuagint
(Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 278.
16 Gott prft Abraham (Gen 22:1), Moses (Ex 15:25), die Israeliten (Ex 16:4; 20:20; Deut 8:2;
33:8), das Volk und die gypter (Deut 4:34).
Subjekt hat. drckt eine Erprobung / Prfung / ein Auf-die-Probe-

Stellen mit einer bestimmten, negativ nuancierten Absicht und nicht will-
krliches Handeln aus, welches das weitverbreitete abwertende Urteil von
einem Willkrgott des Alten Testaments bewahrheiten wrde.17 In LXX-
Ex 20:20 erklrt Moses dem Volk, dass Gott die Israeliten prft, damit sie
gottesfrchtig werden und nicht sndigen. Aber in LXX-Deut 13:4 wird gesagt,
dass Gott das Volk durch Propheten und Mantiker prft um festzustellen, ob es
Gott vom ganzen Herzen liebt. Beides, Gottesfurcht und Gottesliebe als Zweck
der Erprobung, werden explizit in den Botenworten der Erzhlung von Isaaks
Opferung erwhnt (Gen 22:12).
Beachtenswert ist, dass auch im Fall Salomos und der Knigin von Saba
sowohl im MT als auch in der LXX die Verben und ( Pi.) gebraucht
werden. Dies drfte jedoch als ein Hinweis auf die zeitlichen Rahmen der
schriftlichen Fixierung derartiger berlieferungen verstanden werden. In
Gen 22:1 gebraucht die LXX nicht den Aorist 18 fr sondern das
Prteritum , was darauf hindeutet, dass Gott Abrahams Gottesfurcht
und -liebe wiederholt auf die Probe stellte. Diesmal handelte es sich um die
Erprobung der uersten Grenzen seiner Beharrlichkeit und seiner Hoffnung.
In LXX-Jer 4:10ff. kommt das Problem der Versuchung des Menschen durch
Gott mit den Verben und zur Sprache. Es stellt sich die konkrete
Frage, ob Gott ein bzw. ein ist. LXX-Jeremia stellt die rhetori-
sche Frage und spricht von dem Geist der Verirrung (
). Der MT spricht metaphorisch nur von einem Wind der Wanderung
der Israeliten in der Wste, whrend die LXX auf die Ursache der Wanderung
hinweist, diese aber nicht mit Gott oder einem guten Geist Gottes identifiziert,
sondern mit einem bsen Geist.19 So bleibt die Frage bestehen: Wirkt Gott in
Gen 22:1 also wie ein bser Geist, der Abraham zur Wiederaufnahme von heid-
nischen religisen Praktiken irreleiten will?
17 Friedhelm Hartenstein, Die Verborgenheit des rettenden Gottes: Exegetische und theolo-
gische Bemerkungen zu Genesis 22, in Isaaks Opferung (Gen 22) in den Konfessionen und
Medien der Frhen Neuzeit (ed. Johann Anselm Steiger und Ulrich Heinen; Arbeiten zur
Kirchengeschichte 101; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), 122, hier 1.
18 Gott wird geprft von den Israeliten (Ex 17:2, 7 mit Volksetymologie des Ortes
. Num 14:22).
19 Evangelia G. Dafni, und die falsche Prophetie in I Reg 22, ZAW 112 (2000): 378f.
6 dafni
Das Wort Gottes an Abraham lautet genau:
2a 2a
b , b

bR , bR
b , b
c c

d d
,
dR . dR
Der Satz opfere ihn dort als Brandopfer bzw. fhre ihn zum Ganzfeueropfer
(2d) klingt wie eine Selbstverstndlichkeit und weist darauf hin, dass
Kinderopferungen im polytheistischen Kulturkreis des Patriarchen nicht
unbekannt waren. Whrend der MT hier wortspielerisch vorgeht, spricht die
LXX von , einem Begriff, der nicht an Opfer aus Fleisch und Blut,
sondern an Frchte erinnert (). Dabei ist anzumerken, dass von Gen 12
bis Gen 22 nur davon die Rede ist, dass Abraham einen Altar baut um den
Namen seines Gottes Jahwe anzurufen, im Sinne von Enosch in LXX-Gen 4:26,
und nicht um Schlachtopfer darzubringen, wie es bei dem von seinem Bruder
geschlachteten Abel in Gen 4:4ff. der Fall war. Abraham errichtete Altre
in Bet-El (Gen 12:8) und in Mamre (Gen 13:18), es wird aber nicht erzhlt, ob
und was fr Opfergaben Abraham darbrachte. Das einzige Schlachtopfer,
das der Patriarch in seinem Leben darbringen wrde und zwar auf Gottes
Befehl hin, wre im Lande Morija (2c ), einem Ort, der in I Chron 3:1 mit
Jerusalem gleichgesetzt wird und als tiologie verstanden werden drfte. In
der Rezeptionsgeschichte hat man hier einen Eigennamen gesehen, die LXX
allerdings ein Derivat von , dass sie mit wiedergibt. So spricht sie
einfach von . Dieser Terminus weist auf den Polytheismus als tat-
schliche Ursache der Menschenopferung hin und unterstreicht die polythei-
stische Herkunft des Patriarchen, da u.a. auch zur Bezeichnung der
heidnischen Kultorten dient. In diesem Sinne scheint Gott Abraham prfen zu
wollen, ob er denn bewusst am Jahwe-Glauben festhalten knnte oder rckfl-
lig wrde, indem er ihm den widersprchlichen Befehl erteilt, eine heidnische
Opferung zu vollziehen. Dabei drfte man ein tragisches, nicht entscheid-
bares Konfliktspiel zwischen Moral und Gtterwillen sehen. Es wird aber in
Wirklichkeit ein pdagogisches Verfahren verwendet, wobei Abraham stufen-
weise zum endgltigen Abschied von seiner polytheistischen Vergangenheit
gefhrt wird.
Bezglich des Opfers gebraucht der MT den Begriff ;die LXX aber spricht
von . Zur Wiedergabe des hebrischen werden in der LXX
zweierlei zusammengesetzte Vokabeln gebraucht: zum einem die am meisten
belegten und , die auch als bersetzungsquivalente
fr andere hebrischen Vokabeln stehen,20 und zum anderen 21
und ,22 die ausschlielich fr gebraucht werden. Geht man von
den Endungen aus, dann ist zu bemerken, dass die Endung das Ergebnis
einer Handlung bezeichnet, die Endung aber die Handlung selbst. Geht
man von den Komposita aus, dann bedeuten die ersteren die Handlung und
das Ergebnis des vernichtenden Brandes sie legen das Gewicht auf das Feuer
als Mittel, das letztere aber bezieht sich eher auf das brennende Objekt, wel-
ches als Frucht bezeichnet wird und die Vorstellung des Menschen als Blume
impliziert, die blht und dem Schpfer als Gaben darzubietende Frchte trgt.
Ersteres weist auf blutige und letzteres auf unblutige Opfergaben hin. So wird
bereits vorab in der LXX Isaaks Opferung als unblutige Gabe verstanden und
der Ausgang der Erzhlung vorweggenommen.
Beachtenswert ist, dass der hebrische Text von der Opferung des einzigen
Sohnes redet (Gen 22:2, 12, 16), die LXX hingegen vom geliebten Sohn, den
Abraham geliebt hat. Das hebrische ( 2b), welches eigentlich
eingeboren heit,23 wird in der LXX durch ersetzt. gilt
sonst als quivalent fr die hebrischen Vokabeln , , , und
(Pi.). Die LXX scheint zunchst wortspielerisch mit und umzu-
gehen. Dies hat auch eine logische Erklrung, die anscheinend die LXX signali-
sieren will, nmlich dass Isaak nicht der einzige Sohn Abrahams gewesen war.
Auch der erstgeborene Ismael, Sohn der Magd Hagar, war Abrahams Sohn.
Abraham hatte Ismael in gewissem Sinne geopfert, indem er ihn auf Saras
Wunsch zusammen mit seiner Mutter vertrieb, damit er keinen Erbenanspruch
erheben wrde. Mit dem Wortspiel und wird aber auch
auf die Terminologie von Jes 5:1 hingewiesen und die beiden Erzhlungen,
Isaaks Opferung und Weinberg Gottes, werden ideologisch sowie theologisch
miteinander verbunden.
20 Vgl. Friedrich Rehkopf, Septuaginta-Vokabular (Gttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht,

1989), 207.
21 Gen 8:20; 22:2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 13; Lev 4:34; 9:3; 1 Sam 6:14; Jes 40:16; 43:23.
22 Lev 5:10; 16:24; Num 15:3; Ri 16:16; Weis 3:6.
23 Muraoka, Index, 219; so Ri 11:34c.
8 dafni

.

.
Abraham begibt sich in die Ausfhrung des gttlichen Befehls, ohne etwas
zu sagen. Das Schweigen Abrahams ist charakteristisch. Es werden keine
Meinungs- oder Gemtsumschwnge geschildert. Abraham setzt bewusst
niemanden ber das eigentliche Ziel seiner dreitgigen Reise in Kenntnis, einer
Reise, die zugleich die Verzgerung oder sogar die Abwendung der Opferung
bedeutet knnte. Das bedeutet, Abraham htte die Mglichkeit, durch die zeit-
liche und rumliche Distanz zum Ort der Versuchung, sich rckzubesinnen
und umzukehren, wobei er in diesem Fall auch das Gottvertrauen verwirken
wrde.
3a 3a
b b
c c

d d
e e
f f
g ,
gR . fR

4aP 4aP

b a
c . b
5a 5a
b , b

c c

d d
e . e
6a 6a

b b
c c
,
d . d
Den Dienern sagt er einfach, dass er und sein Sohn Gott anbeten und dann
zurckkehren wrden (Gen 22:5), was sich zuletzt bewahrheitet hat. Man sah
in dieser Aussage Abrahams aber eine Lge, wenn auch eine Notlge, die er
ebenso bei der Gefhrdung Saras (Gen 20) verwendet hatte.
Messer und Feuer fr das Schlacht- bzw. Brandopfer hatte Abraham in
seine Hand genommen, Isaak nur Holzscheite. Besonders zu beachten ist, dass
Abraham diesen Altar mit seinen eigenen Hnden baute. So fragte Isaak, wo
das Opferlamm sei.
7a 7a

b b
bV . c
c d
d , e
dV eV
e f
f g
g h

8a 8a
b b

,
bV . bV
c c

Des Vaters Antwort lautet (7d): . Das hebrische wird in diesem Fall
nicht wrtlich wiedergegeben, sondern durch ; ersetzt, was die Absicht
des bersetzers verrt, nach dem Wesen und dem eigentlichen Sinn der bevor-
stehenden Handlung zu fragen. So wird dem Sohn versichert: Gott wsste
schon, wo das Schlachtopfer wre.
Aus Isaaks Perspektive vllig unerwartet bindet Abraham seinen Sohn und
legt ihn auf den Altar um ihn zu schlachten.
9a , 9a

aR . aR
b b

c c
d d
10 dafni
e e

.
Die LXX sagt, Abraham htte Isaak ein Bein gestellt () und ihn auf
den Altar gelegt. Der Gebrauch des Verbes 24 in der LXX deutet die
Absicht Abrahams, den Sohn wie ein Opferlamm zu schlachten und ihn bis
zum letzten Moment nichts merken zu lassen. Der MT verwendet hier das
Verb ( zusammenbinden/fesseln), von dem die jdische Tradition die
Idee der Aqeda, die Bindung/Fesselung Isaaks abgeleitet hat. Die Gleichung
begegnet uns nur in Gen 22:9 und deutet auf eine listige Art
zur Zweckerfllung hin, whrend das hebrische quivalent diese interpretie-
rende Pointe nicht beinhaltet. Somit wird aber die Abraham-Erzhlung mit
dem vierten Gottesknechtslied (MT) bzw. Gottessohnlied (LXX)25 direkt ver-
bunden (LXX.D-Jes 53:7):
Obwohl der hebrische Erzhler Raum dazu htte, einen Blick auf die Gedanken
oder Gefhle des Vaters und des Sohnes im Moment der Opferdarbringung zu
werfen, sagt er dabei nichts. Isaak klagt und bettelt nicht um sein Leben, und
der Vater fhrt wortlos seinen Auftrag aus.
10a 10a
aI1 b

aI2 . bI

24 Gen 22:9; Sach 13:3?; LXX-Dan 3:20, 21; Ps 17(18):39; 19(20):8; 77(78):31.
Hos 11:3. Ohne hebrische Entsprechung Tob 8:3; Prov 20:11; LXX-Dan 3:22, 23?+.
25 Evangelia G. Dafni, Die sogenannten Ebed-Jahwe-Lieder in der Septuaginta, in XII
Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leiden 2004
(ed. Melvin K.H. Peters; SBLSCS; Atlanta: Peeters), 187200.
Wie im antiken Drama gibt es eine Lsung: einen deus ex machina, hier der
Engel des Herrn vom Himmel:
11a 11a

b b
bV , . c
c d
d . e
12a 12a
b b

c c
d d
e e
f f

.
13a 13a

b , b
c c
cR

d d
e e
f f
.
Dieser Engel wird in V. 14 mit Jahwe identifiziert, was durch die Wiedergaben
fr ( 14b) in Bezug auf das Ereignis als solches und
fr ( 14dR) in Bezug auf die spteren Interpretation des
Ereignisses (14c) unterstrichen wird. Der unvokalisierte hebrische Text in 14b
und 14d ist identisch. Die LXX drckt mit (der Herr hat gesehen)
Gottes Anwesenheit aus und mit (der Herr lie sich schauen)
die Gottesoffenbarung und die Erkenntnis Gottes seitens der Trger dieser
berlieferung.
12 dafni
14a 14a

b , b
c c
d d
. dR
Anstelle des Sohnes bringt Abraham einen Widder als Brandopfer dar, der
pltzlich erschienen ist, und der Bund Jahwes mit Abraham wird mit
der Theophanie, einem Eidspruch Jahwes bei sich und der Wiederholung der
Verheiung besiegelt (Gen 22:15f., 17f. vgl. 12:1ff.).
15 15

16a 16a
b , b
c , bJ
d c

e d
,
17a 17a
b b

bR
,

c c

18a 18a

,

b . b
Die LXX fgt wiederholt die Bestimmung (meinetwegen) hinzu, um

zu zeigen, dass die Opferung des geliebten Sohnes kein Herzenswunsch
Abrahams gewesen war. Er tat alles, was in seiner Macht stand, fr Gott allein,
der ihm seinen Willen geoffenbart hat.
Die LXX-Erzhlung von Isaaks Opferung endet mit der Erwhnung der
Quelle des Eides ( ), an die Abraham zurckkehrte und dort
wohnte (Gen 22:19 vgl. 26:23, 33).
19a 19a
,
b b
c c
.
d d
.
Der MT spricht einfach von Beerscheba, einem Ortsnamen, ohne auf

die Etymologie, die Komposition des Namens und die Bedeutung der
Einzelkomponenten hinweisen zu wollen, was der Hebrer leicht verstanden
und assoziert htte, ohne die Vermittlung einer bersetzung.
3 Die Opferung der Tochter Jephthas (Ri 11)
Die literarische und sachliche Abhngigkeit der Erzhlung von Jephthas

Opfer bzw. vom Gelbde Jephthas von Gen 22 und die spontane assoziative
Verbindung beider Erzhlungen mit Iphigenies Opferung sind unbestritten.26
Es wird aber kaum erklrt, in welche Richtung die Abhngigkeiten gehen, da
nicht von der Sprache sondern von der berlieferungsgeschichte ausgegangen
wird. Dabei werden allgemeine berlieferungsgeschichtliche Verbindungen
von Stoffen, innerisraelitische und innergriechische Modifikationen und
Transformationen von Initiationsmythen und ein vordeuteronimistischer
Redaktionsprozess fr Ri 11 postuliert.
Die Erzhlung vom Opfer Jephthas lsst sich heute aufgrund der Petuchoth
deutlich abgrenzen. Der Erzhlabschnitt vom Gelbde Jephthas (Ri 11:29, 30f.,
3436) wird als ein spterer Einschub in die ursprngliche Kriegserzhlung
angesehen, whrend die Genealogie Jephthas (Ri 11:14a) dem lteren
26 Gro, Richter, 621 im Anschluss an Thomas C. Rmer, Why Would the Deuteronomists
Tell about the Sacrifice of Jephthas Daughter? JSOT 77 (1998): 2738; und Michel, Gott
und Gewalt gegen Kinder im Alten Testament; Michaela Bauks, Jephtas Tochter: Traditions-,
religions- und rezeptionsgeschichtliche Studien zu Richter 11, 2940 (FAT 71; Tbingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2010).
14 dafni
Kern zugeordnet wird.27 Sie weist Zge auf, die zwar verschiedenartig an
Abrahams und Agamemnons Opfer erinnern aber nicht deckungsgleich sind.
Bei nherem Hinsehen scheinen narrative Entsprechungen und inhaltliche
Verschiedenartigkeit aufgrund eines tieferen Wissens der Quintessenz der
Stoffe entstanden zu sein, welches seine Spuren im Sprachgebrauch und in der
Motivik hinterlassen hat.
a)Zur Genealogie Jephthas: In Ri 11:1 wird die Identitt dessen geschildert, der
auf die Anfrage der Israeliten reagierte (L-Ri 10:18): Wer ist der Mann, der
anfngt, mit den Ammonitern zu kmpfen? ( ,
) . Die Anfrage erinnert an die
gttliche Frage in den Visionen Michas (1 Kn 22:20 Wer wird Ahab betren?)
und Jesajas (Jes 6:8 Wen soll ich senden und wer wird fr uns gehen?), worauf
aber zum einen der Lgengeist und zum andern der wahre Prophet Jahwes
antworten und sich gleich danach zur Ausfhrung des gttlichen Befehls
begeben,28 ohne irgendwelche Gegenleistungen zu verlangen. In Ri 11:1 erklrt
sich Jephtha bereit, den Kampf gegen die Ammoniter aufzunehmen, um der
Oberste ber die Bewohner Gileads zu werden. Somit lsst sich bereits vorab
eine Doppeldeutigkeit hinsichtlich des Protagonisten und seiner Absichten
erkennen.
1a 1a29
30
b , b

c . c
2a 2a
b b

c c
d d
27 Gro, Richter, 618, 621. Ferner Wolfgang Richter, Die berlieferungen um Jephtah Ri
10,1712,6, Bib 47 (1966): 485556; idem, Das Gelbde als theologische Rahmung der
Jakobsberlieferungen, BZ 11 (1967): 2152.
28 Evangelia G. Dafni, und die falsche Prophetie in I Reg 22, ZAW 112 (2000):
36585.
29 Satzeinteilung nach Wolfgang Richter, Biblia Hebraica transcripta BHt, Josua, Richter
(ATS 33.4; St Ottilien: Eos Verlag, 1991), 316f.; 32429.
30 L XX-Richter Text A.
e e

,

f . f

3a 3a

b , b
c c

d . d
Jephtha wird zwar als ein starker Kriegsmann dargestellt, ebenso wie Abraham
(Gen 11) und Agamemnon, der laut Latacz der Oberkommandierende des
grten nationalen Unternehmens seit Menschengedenken gewesen ist.31
Aber er, der Anfhrer des israelitischen Heeres, wird auch als der Sohn einer
Hure bezeichnet. Dies wird sogar zweimal in der LXX gesagt (11:1b.2f) und
somit wird an die Kinder Hoseas erinnert, die als Hurenkinder zum Nicht-
Volk Gottes zhlen.32 Die LXX gebraucht zweierlei Bezeichnungen fr ,
nmlich und ,33 obwohl sie in Ri 11:2f. liest. So wird Jephtha
als ( 1b) und
( 2f) genannt. Damit unterscheiden sich vom Grunde die Identitten der
Opferbringenden in Ri 11 und Gen 22. Denn fr Abraham lautet der Gottessegen
in dir sollen gesegnet werden alle Geschlechter auf Erden (L-Gen 12:3),
whrend LXX-Deut 23:3[2] postuliert: Ein (Abkmmling) von einer Hure soll
nicht in die Versammlung des Herrn hinein gehen (LXX.D), ein in der LXX ein-
malig vorkommender Topos, abgewichen vom MT, der ( L Mischling)
liest. Damit wird in der bersetzung noch intensiver voraus gedeutet, dass das
Gelbde Jephthas nicht von Gott gewollt war und daher abgewiesen wurde.
In Ri 11:2ff. werden dem Portrait Jephthas noch weitere Informationen hin-
zugefgt, die zum einen an Abrahams Sohn Ismael, den Sohn Hagars, und zum
31 Joachim Latacz, Einfhrung in die griechische Tragdie (Uni-Taschenbcher 1745;

Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 22003), 366.
32 Evangelia G. Dafni, (LXX-Hos ix 12): Zur Theologie der Sprache der
Septuaginta, VT 51 (2001): 349.
33 Es ist zu bemerken, dass das quivalent nur viermal vorkommt. Hier ersetzt es das
hebrische , whrend es in Prov 19:13 fr steht. Ohne hebrische Entsprechung
in Sir 41:20 und 2 Makk 6:4. Bemerkenswert ist, dass Alexandrinus in Ri 11:2. Sir 41:20 und
2 Makk 6:4 liest.
16 dafni
anderen an Joseph, den Sohn Jakobs, sowie an deren Vertreibung erinnern.

a) Jephtha sowie Ismael kamen auf die Welt als leibliche Shne eines Patriarchen
und eines Nachkommens der Patriarchen Israels, Gileads des Sohnes Machirs
und Enkelsohnes Manasses und Urenkelsohnens Josephs, und einer Nebenfrau,
da die Ehefrau ursprnglich keine Kinder bekam. Whrend Ismaels Mutter
die Magd Hagar war, war die Mutter Jephthas eine anonyme Hure. Hagar und
ihr Sohn wurden von Sara, der legitimen Ehefrau Abrahams, wegen der
Erbrechte ihres eingeborenen Sohnes Isaaks verstoen. Der Sohn der anonymen
Hure wurde zwar aus demselben Grund, aber von den vielen Shnen Gileads
(vgl. die vielen Shne Jakobs) und seiner ebenso anonymen Ehefrau vertrieben.
Die Begrndung Du sollst nicht erben, in unserer Familie, denn du bist der
Sohn einer andern [nur MT-Ri 11:2f. LXX einer Hure]) erinnert an Joseph, den
Sohn Rachels, und seine Brder, die Shne Leas und der Mgde Jakobs.
In V. 3b wird der Bosheit der Brder, die Jephtha vertrieben, der Name seiner
neuen Heimat gegenbergestellt: gutes Land. Im Unterschied zum
( Land Moriah MT-Gen 22:2c), welches in der LXX durch
(das hohe Land) wiedergegeben wird, wird der Zufluchtsort Jephthas
in Ri 11:3, 5 blo mit einer Transkription ersetzt: . Die LXX bersetzt
nicht, sondern transkribiert es, als ob es sich um einen Eigennamen handele,
und lsst den hebrischen Effekt verloren gehen, da sie anscheinend das gute
Land mit dem darauf folgenden bsen Tun Jephthas nicht vereinbaren konnte.
b)Das Gelbde Jephthas: Weder Jahwe in Person noch ein Gottesbote fordert
die Opferung der Tochter Jephthas, sondern nachdem er herangezogen von
einem Geist des Herrn gegen die Ammoniter kmpft, kommt er selber auf die
Idee, dem Herrn ein Gelbde abzulegen, unter der Bedingung, dass Jahwe ihm
die Ammoniter ausliefern wrde. Also ist der Glaube Jephthas an Gott nicht
bedingungslos, wie der Glaube Abrahams, sondern Jephtha will einen Tausch
mit Gott machen, Opfer bzw. Menschenopfer (LXX) gegen Sieg:
29a , 29a
b b

c c

d d

.
30a 30a

b b

c c

,
31a 31a
bP
bR bPR

bRI bPRI
,
b , b
c . c
32a 32a

aI , aI
b b
.
Whrend der MT von spricht, welches ins Deutsche mit Gelbde,

einem im Polytheismus weit verbreiteten Brauch, bersetzt wird, ist in der
LXX von (Wunsch) die Rede. Damit wirft die LXX ein neues Licht auf
die Frage, ob das Gelbde (griechisch < ) tatschlich ein reiner
Frmmigkeitsausdruck in extremen Notsituationen einem Herrscher angemes-
sen ist oder ein mit magischem Denken und Handeln verbundener Tausch, bei
dem man durch Opfergaben Einfluss auf den Gotteswillen zu gewinnen sucht.
Jephtha verspricht das Erste und Beste, was ihm bei der Heimkehr begegnet,
zu opfern. MT-Ri 11:31bP.bPR ( das/der Entgegenkommende/
Entgegengehende) lsst die Alternative Tier oder Mensch offen, whrend die
LXX eindeutig von der Opferung eines Menschenlebens spricht. Dies kommt
in der Folge mit zahlreichen interpretierenden LXX-Zustzen noch strker zur
Sprache.
Wer sagte aber Jephtha, dass Jahwe ein Menschenleben verlangt (
?)Worauf basiert seine berzeugung? Ist sie etwa vom Geist Gottes (
) eingegeben oder hat V. 29a nichts mit V. 30f. zu tun? Und
wenn ersteres der Fall wre, welcher Geist hat in Jephtha gesprochen? Oder ist
nur davon die Rede, dass erst der Geist Gottes Jephtha genauso wie die anderen
Richter zur charismatischen Fhrung seines Volkes ermchtigte? Es sei daran
erinnert, dass die Bezeichnung ambivalent ist und je
nach Kontext sowohl auf den charismatischen Geist Gottes als auch auf einen
18 dafni
bsen Geist bezogen sein kann.34 So wird in 1 Sam 16:1416, 23; 18:10; 19:9; vgl. Ri
9:23; Tob 6:8 von dem bsen Geist ( ) gesprochen, der
Saul befiel, welcher dadurch auer sich geriet. In Hos 4:12 und 5:4 heit der im
Herzen des Volkes die Abwendung von Gott bewirkende Geist ( Geist
der Hurerei). atsache ist, dass der Geist Gottes nicht an den Anfang seines
Wirkens als Richter sondern unmittelbar vor das Gelbde gestellt wird, womit
aber alle Zukunftshoffnungen Jephthas zerschlagen werden, da mit der Ttung
seiner Tochter sein Geschlecht aussterben und sein Name ausgelscht wrde.
Daher liegt die Vermutung nahe, dass Jephtha nicht vom gttlichen Geist
erfllt, sondern von einem bsen Geist befallen wurde und dass er kinderlos
und ohne Zukunftsperspektive bleiben wrde. V. 29 scheint programmatisch
zu sein fr all das, was den Sieg Jephthas ber die Ammoniter betrifft: den
Tausch mit den Israeliten (Bereitstellung gegen Macht) und den Tausch mit
Jahwe (Menschenleben gegen Sieg).
Whrend in Gen 22 von Gott und die Rede ist, wird in Ri 11
von Jahwe und gesprochen. Im ersteren Fall wird nicht vollzu-
gen, was Gott befohlen hat, um seinen Auserwhlten zu prfen; im letzte-
ren Fall aber wird das vollzogen, was Jahwe nicht befohlen hat, sondern was
Herzenswunsch des vom bsen Geist getriebenen Jephtha gewesen ist. Der
Text B der Richter-Septuaginta hebt dies hervor, indem LXXB-Ri 11:1 bereits vor-
aussagt, dass Jephtha war, das heit, wegen seiner Macht
berheblich wurde, vgl. Ezek 28:5.
c)Die tragische Begegnung Jephthas und das Zwiegesprch mit seiner

Tochter: Im Unterschied zu der Erzhlung von Abrahams Opfer, in der die
Protagonisten dem Befehl Gottes ohne Widerrede gehorchen, findet sich hier
ein Zwiegesprch zwischen dem heimkehrenden Vater und der ihm freudig
entgegeneilenden eingeborenen Tochter statt, welches in zwei Redegnge
geteilt werden kann: V. 3536 und 3738. ei diesem Gesprch, welches die
feierliche Begrung des Siegers sein sollte, wird dem Vater bewusst, was
sein Gelbde wirklich bedeutet. Er gert in Verzweiflung, verwandelt die
empfundene Reue in eine Beschuldigung der ahnungslosen Tochter und, im
Unterschied zu Abraham, der sich ganz auf den Gotteswillen verlassen hatte,
gesteht er ein, dass er nun nicht mehr umkehren knne. Der Bewusstheitsgrad
des Vaters und der Kenntnisstand der Tochter lassen verstrkt die tragische
Ironie in den Vordergrund treten und erheben den heimkehrenden Vater und
34 Evangelia G. Dafni, (Hos 9,7): Zur Theologie der

Sprache des Hoseabuches, in Helsinki Perspectives on the Translation Technique of the
Septuagint (ed. Raija Sollamo und Seppo Sipil; Publications of the Finnish Exegetical
Society 82; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Helsinki, 2001), 257ff.
die mit Tamburinen und Reigentnzen heraustretende und ihm entgegenge-

hende, geliebte Tochter zu dramatischen Figuren.
Dramengeprgte Elemente gewinnen an Dominanz insbesondere ab
V. 34, wo die geliebte, eingeborene Tochter in der Weise einer Chorfhrerin
begleitet von musizierenden, tanzenden und singenden Frauen (vgl. Ex 15:20)
dem Sieger zur Begrung entgegenkommt. Die anderen Frauen wirken als
Begleiterinnen der Handlung mit. Daher ist die Tochter das Erste und Beste,
was dem Vater begegnet. So werden sozusagen die Scheinwerfer allein auf
Vater und Tochter gelenkt.
34a 34a
,
b b

c , c
d d

.
Die LXX gebraucht hier zwei quivalente zur Wiedergabe von ( 34c):
(eingeboren) und (geliebt). Es wird damit deutlich
zwischen Isaak und Jephthas Tochter unterschieden. Isaak war zwar geliebt
aber nicht wirklich eingeboren. Mit seinem Tod wrde das Geschlecht
Abrahams nicht aussterben, da ihm noch der erstgeborene Sohn der Magd
von Gott geschenkt wurde. Die anonyme Tochter Jephthas war seine einzige
Hoffnung. Ohne sie wrde er kinderlos und ohne Zukunftsperspektive blei-
ben. In Bezug auf die Art und Weise, wie Abraham seinen Sohn opfern wollte,
gebraucht die LXX die seltene Partizipialform fr ( 9d) mit dem
Opferbringenden als Subjekt; hinsichtlich der Opferung der Tochter Jephthas
wird im MT wortspielerisch mit und mit Bezug auf das Opfer umgegan-
gen. Die LXX gibt die hebrischen Vokabeln mit und
wieder. Das Verb fr ist ein hapax legomenon. In LXX- Chron
2:7 steht das hapax legomenon fr . Es handelt sich dabei um
Komposita, die aus ( + ) und gebildet sind, das heit, all
das, was vor dem Fu steht und das Gehen hindert (vgl. und in der
LXX ). In der LXX erfolgt durch anstatt und
den Zusatz eine Steigerung. Das Substantiv hat hier
keine tatschliche hebrische Entsprechung.35 Es wird nur selten gebraucht
und in Alexandrinus-Ri 8:27 mit vertauscht (vgl.
35 Ex 10:7; Deut 7:16; Ri 8:27, 11:35. 2 Chr 28:23; Jes 57:14.
20 dafni
Rm 9:33; 1 Pet 2:7). Aber die Tochter steht nicht nur als
ein Stein des Anstoes im Weg des Vaters, um sein siegreiches Voranschreiten
aufzuhalten, sondern auch als ein Dorn in seinem Auge, welcher des Vaters
Augenlicht endgltig auslschen wrde.
35a 35a
b , aI
c b
d c
e , dJ
eV , dV
f , d
g , e

h f

i g
iI . gI
Whrend der MT unpersnlich vom seinem Gelbde redet, identifiziert die

LXX in 35h durch den interpretierenden Zusatz (ber dich) das dem
Herrn versprochene Opfer mit seiner Tochter, indem er sagt, dass er ber sie
zum Herrn den Mund geffnet habe und es nun keine Umkehr mehr gbe.
Dem Vater gehorchend nimmt seine Tochter ihr Schicksal mit Fassung an:
36a 36a
bV , bV
b b

,
c c
d , d
e e
.

Bemerkenswert ist, dass die Tochter von den Worten aus dem Mund des
Vaters im Angesicht des Herrn redet und vom gttlichen rchenden Handeln
gegen die Ammoniter. Daraus schliet sie, dass sie sich ganz nach dem vter-
lichen Wunsch richten soll. Jahwe schweigt auch hier. Er ist nicht derjenige,
der Jephthas Mund ffnet, wie es bei den Propheten der Fall ist, die Gottes
Willen kundtun, sondern Jephtha selber machte den Mund auf und uerte
seinen Herzenswunsch. Die Tochter Jephthas, auf die sich nun die Erzhlung
ganz konzentriert, genau so wie ihr Vater, beruft sich auf den Herrn und seine
Rache, ohne den Herrn gesprochen zu haben. Vater und Tochter behaupten,
dass Jahwe bei ihren Entscheidungen und bei ihrem Handeln anwesend ist.
Mit Jahwes Schweigen deutet aber der Erzhler auf seine Abwesenheit hin: der
Geist des Herrn ist doch von ihnen gewichen und ein bser Geist leitet nun-
mehr ihr Tun in die Irre, wie es bei Saul der Fall ist (1 Sam 16:12 u.a.). Whrend
die LXX in der Erzhlung von Isaaks Opferung (fr mich/meinetwegen)
hinzufgt um zu zeigen, dass Abrahams ganzes Tun von Gott geleitet und fr
ihn getan wurde, fgt hier die LXX (36b) bei und unterstreicht somit,
dass von Anfang an der selbstschtig an die Tochter als Schlachtopfer den-
kende Vater aus bersteigertem Streben nach Macht getrieben war, und sie aus
Eigenliebe dem Gelbde ihres Vaters und seinem Eigenwillen unterwirft. So
wre m.E. auch der Einsatz des Ich-Stils zu verstehen.
d)Der Vollzug des Gelbdes Jephthtas: Ganz im Einklang mit dem Vater erklrt
die Tochter sich einsichtig (37b) unter der Bedingung, dass sie zwei Monate
mit ihren Gefhrtinnen auf den Bergen ihre Jungfrauschaft beweinen wolle
(37c38f).
37a 37a
b b
c , c
d d
e e
f , f

.
38a 38a
b b
c . c

d , d
,

e e

.
Zweimal wird nicht von der Jugend sondern von der Jungfrauschaft der
Tochter Jephthas gesprochen (37f, 38e), die nicht mit der Heirat sondern mit
der Opferung durch des Vaters Hand beendet wrde. So erhebt sich die Frage,
22 dafni
ob damit der Erzhler und vor allem der LXX-bersetzer, der nicht etwa durch
, sondern durch 36 (Jungfrulichkeitsmerkmale37) das hebr-
ische wiedergibt, darauf hindeuten wollte, dass es sich hier definitiv
nicht um eine Opferung fr Gott handelte, sondern um ein Opfer zum bsen
Geist.
Die Worte des Erzhlers im MT- und in der LXXA-Ri 11:39 lassen ein konven-
tionelles und ein unkonventionelles Verstndnis des Vollzugs des Gelbdes zu.
39a 39a
b , b

c , c
cR cR
d . d
e e
40a 40a

aI aI

.
Der MT wird fr ambivalent gehalten. Fr die LXX aber scheint eindeutig zu

sein, dass Jephtha sein Gelbde doch vollzogen hat:
, . Sonst wre die Klage der Tchter in Israel um Jephthas
Tochter willen vllig sinnlos. Diese Opferung wird aber im Sinne eines warnen-
den Zeichens fr die Israeliten dargestellt und geglaubt (V. 40). Als gemeinsame
Tendenz beider biblischen Erzhlungen (Gen 22 und Ri 11) ist zu betonen, was
den Glubigen Jahwes strengstens verboten ist. Abraham kommt in das Land
der Verheiung und lsst den polytheistischen Aberglauben zurck. Jephtha
aber nimmt im gelobten Land lngst berholte, polytheistische Praktiken wie-
der auf und fhrt sie eifrig aus. In Gen 22 schweigt Abraham und gehorcht;
in Ri 11 schweigt Gott und lsst zu. Die LXX betont den Nachklang der Tat
Jephthas, indem sie von ihm als einen Hurensohn redet, der keinen Platz in der
Versammlung des Herrn habe. Seine Tat wird indirekt als Hurerei im hosea-
nischen Sinne bezeichnet, nmlich als Abfall vom wahren Jahweglauben. Die
jhrliche Gedenkfeier der Tchter Israels, die die Tochter Jephthas beweinten,
36 Deut 22:14, 15, 17bis; Ri 11:37, 38.

37 L XX.D-Deut 22:14, 17.
war gegen und nicht fr die Wiederholung eines solchen apotropischen Akts,
den Gott nicht befohlen hatte, sondern der ein bser Herzenswunsch gewesen
war, wie auch LXXB-Ri 11:1 bereits voraussagt.
4 Euripides Iphigenie in Aulis
Die Tragdie Iphigenie in Aulis, ein Meisterwerk des Euripides, das schon frh
andere Dichter inspirierte,38 wurde zusammen mit den Bakchen und den verlo-
rengegangenen Alkmeon erst posthum aufgefhrt (etwa 408406 v.Chr). Prolog
und Epilog wurden vom gleichnamigen Sohn des Euripides nachtrglich ber-
arbeitet und eventuell auch von einem byzantischen Schreiber ergnzt.39
Die Tragdie Iphigenie in Aulis (des Weiteren IA) handelt von einer Sage
der Opferung Iphigenies, der Tochter Agamemnons und Klytaimnestras, zur
Beschwichtigung der Gttin Artemis, deren heilige Hirschkuh Agamemnon auf
einer Jagd gettet hatte. Auf Anweisung des Sehers Kalchas muss Agamemnon
nun seine eigene, am meisten geliebte Tochter Iphigenie unter dem Vorwand,
sie werde Gemahlin des Achilleus nach Aulis holen, um sie der Gttin Artemis
zu opfern, damit die Griechenflotte unter seiner Fhrung nach Troja segeln
kann. Die Tragdie setzt an dem Punkt ein, an dem Agamemnon auf die
Ankunft der unwissenden Tochter wartet, whrend in Jephthas Fall das Warten
auf die Tochter und ihre Gefhrtinnen in der Weise eines Chors erst am Ende
der Erzhlung steht. Auch in IA besteht der Chor aus jungen Mdchen aus
Chalkis, die, angelockt vom ruhmvollen Bild der Helden und der Griechenflotte,
nach Aulis kommen. Und auch hier htte die Verzgerung zur Abwendung der
Grueltat fhren knnen. Whrend sich niemand fr die Tochter Jephthas ein-
setzt, will Achilleus Iphigenie gegen den Ansturm des ganzen Griechenheeres
verteidigen. Somit geschieht aber auch die entscheidende Wendung im grie-
chischen Drama. In Iphigenie wchst die Erkenntnis einer hheren Berufung:
Sie wrde sich weder fr sich selbst noch fr ihre Familie, sondern fr ganz
Griechenland opfern (1397): .... Sie bietet sich
also bewusst als Selbstopfer fr die Idee des vereinigten Griechenlands an und
38 Susanne Aretz, Die Opferung der Iphigeneia in Aulis: Die Rezeption des Mythos in antiken
und modernen Dramen (Stuttgart: de Gruyter, 1999); Rosanna Lauriola und Kyriakos N.
Demetriou, ed., Brills Companion to the Reception of Euripides (Leiden: Brill, 2015).
39 Pantelis Michelakis, Euripides: Iphigenia at Aulis (Duckworth Companions to Greek and
Roman Tragedy; London: Duckworth, 2006); vgl. G. Mellert-Hoffmann, Untersuchungen
zur Iphigenie in Aulis des Euripides (Bibl. d. klass. Altertumswissenschaften NF; 2. Reihe,
28, Winter; Heidelberg, 1969).
24 dafni
will dann freiwillig fr das Griechen-Ideal, das sie verkrpert, in den Tod gehen.
Artemis lsst dies aber nicht zu. Sie schickt eine Hirschkuh als Ersatzopfer und
Iphigenie wird in das Land der Taurier entrckt. Homers Ilias scheint von die-
ser Sage nichts zu wissen, wenn sie das Portait Agamemnons skizziert (Ilias
2:9ff.), wohl aber Stesichorus (Fragm. 217:25ff.) und Pindarus (Pythie 11:22),
die darauf zur Begrndung des Mords an Agamemnon durch Klytaimnestra
hinweisen. Bei der Weiterfhrung des vielschichtigen Agamemnon-Portraits
in Agamemnon und der verlorengegangenen Iphigenie erhebt Aischylos diese
Sage zur Hauptachse der Handlung.
Das eigentliche Ziel der euripideischen Tragdie fasst Latacz folgenderma-
en zusammen:
Im Zentrum steht auch hier die Frage, wie der Zwang zur existenziellen
Entscheidung, der sich in Gtterforderungen ausdrckt, vom Menschen
angenommen, ausgehalten und in eine eigene freie Willensbildung
umgegossen werden kann. Damit verbunden ist auch hier latent die
zweite Frage, wie denn ein Gttliches vorzustellen sei, das den Menschen
in die Qual hineinzwingt und ihn zu Mitteln greifen lt, die jeglicher
Moral hohnsprechen.40
Junges Leben und Opfertod sind das Kennzeichen sowohl der Tragdie
Iphigenie in Aulis41 als auch der beiden biblischen Erzhlungen. Whrend aber
Gen 22 von einer Kinderopferung handelt, ist in Ri 11 und in der euripideischen
Tragdie von zwei Jungfrauenopferungen die Rede, von der Frage abgesehen,
ob sie vollzogen werden oder nicht.
In allen drei Fllen zeichnet sich die Frage nach dem eigentlichen Tter,
der Tatabsicht, der Schuld, den zu erwartenden Wirkungen fr das knftige
Leben des Tters sowie die Frage nach der Mglichkeit der Tatabwendung
ab. In Gen 22 fordert Gott direkt von Abraham, seinen eingeborenen Sohn zu
opfern. Nachdem er seinen Gehorsam erweist, bietet Gott durch seinen Engel
ein Ersatzopfer, um die Grueltat zu verhindern. Das eigene Gelbde fordert
von Jephtha seine eingeborene Tochter zu opfern, und es wird vollzogen. Die
Forderung der Gttin Artemis durch den Seher Kalchas fhrt Agamemnon zur
Inszenierung eines Intrigenspiels, um seine Tochter in den Tod zu locken, wobei
nun ein neues Element in den Vordergrund tritt: Die Entrckung des Opfers.
Auf diese Weise lassen sowohl das Alte Testament als auch das Altgriechische
40 Latacz, Einfhrung in die griechische Tragdie, 372.

41 Albin Lesky, Die griechische Tragdie (Krner Taschenausgabe 143, Stuttgart: Krner,
51984), 246.
Schrifttum ihre tiefe Abscheu gegen die Menschenopfer erkennen. Zugleich

schreiben sie die Menschenopfer der Eingebung eines bsen Geistes (AT) bzw.
eines bsen Dmons zu und stigmatisieren sie dadurch als moralisch-ethisch
inakzeptabel.
In Ri 11:29 wird ohne weitere Erklrung ein Geist Gottes erwhnt, obwohl
Jephtha unaufgefordert und eigenwillig zu entscheiden und ebenso eigen-
mchtig zu handeln scheint. Als Mittlerwesen zwischen Gttlichem und
Menschlichem dient in Gen 22 der Engel Jahwes vom Himmel und in IA der
Seher Kalchas.
Beachtenswert ist, dass Abraham in Gen 20:7 als Prophet bezeichnet
wird, nmlich als jemand, der mit Gott und im Namen Gottes redet und den
Menschen den Willen Gottes kundtut. Kalchas fordert die Opferung Iphigenies
im Namen der Gttin Artemis, der Schutzpatronin der Jungfrulichkeit, wie
die euripideische Tragdie Hippolitus erzhlt, und wird ebenfalls als Prophet
() angesehen. Die deutschen bersetzungen machen kaum einen
Unterschied zwischen und . Die allgemeine Formulierung in
Ri 11:29 deutet sowohl auf den charismatischen Geist der Prophetie als auch
auf den bsen Geist der Pseudoprophetie in Israel und lsst die Identifizierung
mit einem bsen Geist erst aufgrund des Ausgangs der Handlung erfolgen. Die
euripideische Kritik an der Prophetie bzw. an der Wahrsagerei ist eigenartig.
Euripides, der offensichtlich Vorstellungen und Probleme seiner Zeit in die
Erzhlung von Iphigenies Opferung hineingelesen hat, legt dem Achilleus fol-
gendes Urteil in den Mund (955ff.):

. ,
,
, ;
Somit lsst sich aber der euripideische Zweifel an der Wahrheit der
Prophetenworte deutlich erkennen.
Im Unterschied zu Abrahams und Jephthas Entschlossenheit, erscheint
Agamemnon mehrmals als Schwankender und entscheidet sich mehrmals
um. Laut Lesky steht in Agamemnon der Vater gegen den Feldherren zu
schwerem Kampfe auf.42 Hose meint, skrupelloser Ehrgeiz, Zweifel, Vaterliebe
und Zerrissenheit charakterisieren Agamemnon.43 hnlich wurde aber
42 Lesky, Die griechische Tragdie, 244.

43 Martin Hose, Euripides: Der Dichter der Leidenschaften (Mnchen: Beck, 2008), 223.
26 dafni
auch Jephthas Portrait und Gelbde in der Auslegungsgeschichte beurteilt,44

obwohl die biblische Erzhlung hinsichtlich der Entfaltung der Psyche
der Protagonisten uerst schweigsam bleibt. Abraham, der ebenfalls als
Kriegsherr dargestellt wird und zwar in den Streitigkeiten um den Lebensraum
von Kleinviehnomaden und damit um Brunnen (Gen 13), hlt an seinem
Glauben an Gott fest.
Ein Eid bzw. ein Gelbde spielt eine wichtige Rolle bei allen drei Erzhlungen.
In IA handelt es sich um den alten Eid an Tyndareo (59, 79). Bei Abraham
kommt der Eid erst nach der Opferdarbringung des Widders (Gen 22:13) zum
Tragen: In Gen 22:16 schwrt Gott bei sich selbst und erneuert den Bund mit
Abraham (Gen 22:17ff.). Jephtha fhlt sich seinem eigenen Versprechen Gott
gegenber verpflichtet. Abraham folgt treu dem Gebot des prfenden und
gerechten Gottes.
Prfung und Tuschung hngen in allen drei Erzhlungen eng zusammen.
Das Element der Tuschung kommt ausgeprgt in der euripideischen Tragdie
in Agamemnons Worten im Prolog vor (104f.):
,
.
Whrend in der Abraham-Opferung-Erzhlung die Versuchung und die

Prfung im Vordergrund stehen, ist hier von Tuschung, Betrung und
Verirrung die Rede und dies wird in mehreren Redegngen veranschaulicht
und exemplifiziert. In der Abraham-Erzhlung finden wir keine Spur von
einem inneren Kampf, ob man tun soll oder nicht, was Gott befohlen hat. In der
euripideischen Tragdie hingegen weisen sowohl Agamemnon (489) als auch
Menelaos (500) und schlielich auch Achilles genauso wie Iphigenie einen
ungleichmigen Charakter auf,45 besinnen und wandeln sich. Sie wechseln
mehrmals von der einen in die Gegenrichtung, bis sie selbst die Gtter ber-
listen wollen und Iphigenie nicht opfern. Sie haben aber Angst vor dem Zorn
des Heeres. Darber hinaus spricht IA 443ff. vom Schicksal ( ) /
von der Not () und von der berlistung Agamemnons durch einen listi-
gen Dmon.
.
,
.
44 Gro, Richter: 624ff.

45 Hose, Euripides, 219.
Im Streit mit seinem Bruder Menelaus, stellt Agamemnon fest (411):
n IA 1136f. heit es:
. .
. , .
Diese Vorstellungen erinnern an Saul, den ersten Knig und Heerfhrer Israels,
und sein Befallen-Sein vom bsen Geist (1 Sam 16:14
16:15 ) :
Agamemnon ist ganz bewusst, dass es sich bei der Forderung eines
Menschenlebens durch Kalchas eigentlich um Mord handelt und nicht um die
Erfllung eines gttlichen Gebots. Er fhlt sich aber an seinen alten Schwur
gebunden (394a399):
,
.

,
,
.
So erkennt er seine Gespaltenheit an, bei der er von der einen zu anderer
Meinung wechseln muss. Er gesteht, dass ihn die Besinnung verlassen habe
und er in tiefe Verblendung gesunken sei (136ff.), wenn er eine solche Tat
begehe. So bertrgt er die Verantwortung auf den Seher Kalchas (8993):
K
, ,
,

, .
Als Mitwissenden bei Klytaimnestras Tuschung durch ihren Mann werden

Menelaos, Kalchas und Odysseus genannt (107). a) Menelaus, der Ehemann
der untreuen Helena, durch die der alte Eid nun wirksam gemacht wird,
b) Kalchas, der Seher, der sich auf den alten Eid berufend eine Neuerung
vorschlgt, und c) der, nach Homer, gttergleiche Odysseus. Ahnungslos wird
28 dafni
auch Achilleus in die Angelegenheit verwickelt (128). In Wirklichkeit wer-

den drei Personen getuscht: a) Iphigenie, das Opfer, b) Klytaimnestra, die
Mutter des Opfers, und c) Achilleus, der angebliche Brutigam. Whrend
Klytaimnestra in der euripideischen Tragdie eine zentrale Rolle spielt, wer-
den die Ehefrauen Abrahams und Jephthas in den betreffenden Erzhlungen
berhaupt nicht erwhnt.
In Ri 11 und in der Tragdie Iphigenie in Aulis sprechen die Opfer Bittreden
unterschiedlicher Lnge aus. Isaak aber schweigt. Nachdem Isaak dem Tod
entzogen wurde, ist von der Opferung des Widders und von der Geburt sei-
ner zuknftigen Gattin und somit von der bestehenden Zukunftsperspektive
fr Abrahams Geschlecht die Rede. Nachdem das Gelbde Jephthas vollzogen
und seine Tochter geopfert wurde, wird von der jhrlichen Gedenkenklage
erzhlt. Dem Entziehen Iphigenies vom Tod bzw. ihrer Verschonung folgt im
echten Epilog das Versprechen von ihrer Entrckung, die auf entsprechende
alttestamentliche Erzhlungen hinweist.46 In Nachahmung des biblischen
Berichts spricht der sptere nacheuripideische bzw. byzantinische Epilog von
der Opferung der Hirschkuh.
Isaak wrde fr Gott sterben, Iphigenie aber am Altar der Artemis fr
den Namen und die Ehre ihres Volkes geschlachtet (1397). Jephthas Tochter
stimmt ihrem Vater zu und wird dann in Israel als Frauenvorbild wenn auch
in negativem Sinne erhoben und verehrt. Der Fall Jephthas setzt Abrahams
Opferung voraus bzw. entspricht einer spteren Religiosittsstufe, bei der der
Dialog von Gott und Mensch durch den Monolog des Menschen mit seinem
Herzen ersetzt wird. Sie scheint eher dem Fall Iphigenies angeglichen zu
sein, indem sie lteren biblischen und nicht-biblischen Stoff modifiziert und
transformiert.
Euripides gibt seine Erklrung ber die verwirrende Gotteserfahrung der
Tter eines Menschenopfers, indem er folgenden Satz formuliert (973f.):

, .
Die Formulierung erinnert stark an das gottgewollte Mose-Aaron-Verhltnis vor

dem Pharao (LXX.D-Ex 7:1 vgl. 4:16): ... Siehe, ich habe dich zu einem Gott fr
Pharao gemacht, und Aaron, dein Bruder, wird dein Prophet sein. Das gleiche
Schema wird hier gebraucht, um das verzogene Gott-Seher-Tter-Verhltnis
zu beschreiben. Somit kommt aber auch die Intensitt der sprachlichen
46 Evangelia G. Dafni, Euripidess Helena and Pentateuch Traditions: The Septuagint from
the Perspective of Ancient Greek Tragedies, HTS 71/1 (2015): 9.
und gedanklichen Begegnung des Euripides mit der biblischen Welt zum
Ausdruck.
5 Schlussfolgerungen
Abraham- und Richtererzhlungen zum einen und Erzhlungen vom Trojani

schen Krieg zum anderen bilden aus einer fernen Vergangenheit stammende
und tief im kulturellen Gedchtnis von Hebrern und Griechen verwurzelte
uralte Stoffe von Menschenopferungen. Sie sind aus der Interaktion von
Erinnerung und Geschichte entstanden und stellen Mosaiksteinchen eines
lebendigen Bewusstseins und einer gelebten Identitt dar, die ursprnglich
mndlich weitergegeben, zu einem spteren Zeitpunkt bildhaft verdichtet
und viel spter schriftlich festgelegt wurden, ber die sptere Generationen
sich Gedanken machten und die hebrische Schriftgelehrte sowie grie-
chische Dichter und Denker zur Nachahmung angeregt haben. Alle drei
Erzhlungen von Menschenopferungen in Gen 22, Ri 11 und in der euripide-
ischen Tragdie Iphigenie in Aulis weisen vergleichbare Schemata, Motivik
und Phraseologie auf, die kompositionell gewollt erscheinen. Sie fhren zu
der Grundannahme von einem wechselseitigen Aufeinander-Einwirken von
beiden Sprach- und Denksystemen, dem Hebrischen und dem Griechischen,
deren Weiterverfolgung zur grundlegenden nderungen der Datierung und
Interpretation der alttestamentlichen Texte fhren wrde.
Ri 11 nimmt die alten Abraham-, Isaak- und Jakoberzhlungen wieder auf
und interpretiert sie neu unter dem Gesichtspunkt der Eigenverantwortung.
Die euripideische Tragdie scheint beide biblische Erzhlungen (Gen 22 und
Ri 11) vorauszusetzen bzw. abgewandelt aufgenommen zu haben. Sie ist als ein
Teil einer auerisraelitischen Rezeption der biblischen Erzhlung zu verste-
hen. Mindestens fnf Ebenen des kulturellen Austausches von Griechen und
Hebrer lassen sich hier erkennen:
1) Gemeinsame Stoffe am Anfang des 1. Jt. v. Chr. oder ineinander gewobene

kulturbedeutende Traditionen mit entwickelten symbolischen Formen
des Rckbezugs, mndlich oder schriftlich weitergegeben, wovon wir
aber keine Textfunde haben, sind aufgrund des Endtextes anzunehmen.
2) Begegnung hebrischer und griechischer Stoffe in der Zeit der schriftli-
chen Fixierung der homerischen Epen (6. Jh. v. Chr.), wobei tiefgreifende
Umformungen der Stoffe und ein dynamischer Austausch zwischen
Speicherformen und gelebter Kommunikation von Hebrern und
Griechen anzunehmen sind.
30 dafni
3) Kritische Konfrontation in der Zeit des Euripides mit biblischem

Gedankengut in improvisierenden Teilbersetzungen, wobei die
Mglichkeit von etwas Eigenwilligem und Fremdartigem vereinnahmt zu
werden nicht ausgeschlossen werden darf.
4) Gebrauch euripidischer Sprache zur Wiedergabe der Hebrischen Bibel
ins LXX-Griechische, die in der hellenistischen Zeit von sehr verschiede-
nen Fragestellungen beleuchtet war. Die griechische Tragdie ist auch
ein Beispiel dafr, wie man ltere Erzhlungen in der Klassik gelesen hat.
5) Rezeption altgriechischer Tragdien in der byzantinischen Zeit, bei der
mglicherweise unter den Einfluss der Idee vom spermatikos logos bibli-
sche Motive in altgriechische Texte hinzugefgt worden sein knnten.
Alle zeitlichen und rumlichen Ebenen des kulturellen Austausches von

Hebrern und Griechen sind Produkte von Menschen, die ernsthaft nach der
Wahrheit fragten. Das Altgriechische Schrifttum stellt nicht blo den histori-
schen Kontext der modernen Griechen dar, sondern gehrt zum kulturellen
Kontext, mit dem das Volk Gottes bereits schon vor Alexander dem Groen in
einen direkten Kontakt gekommen ist.
CHAPTER 2
Descartes Error and the Growth of Consciousness:

A Non-Dualistic Reading of Genesis 1:17
Annette Evans
1 Introduction
In proposing a split between spirit and substance, Descartes (15961650) was

in reality doing no more than formalizing an idea with roots in pre-Christian
antiquity and later favoured by the Church.1 The creation myths of every cul-
ture have a profound influence on the nature of the traditions that culture
produces, principally through the mechanisms of both individual and collec-
tive identity formation. The story of creation in Gen 1 and 2 and the first dual
human agents has been used as a cornerstone in western culture, particularly
regarding the relationship between our religion and sexuality, and no less pow-
erfully with regard to the tension between equality and difference in gender
relationships, to say nothing of the continuing wrangling between religious
fundamentalists and concerned scientists.
In his celebrated statement Cogito ergo sum, Descartes implied that think-
ing, and awareness of thinking, is the real substrate of being, thus implying
that humankind is a thinking being, quite independent of natural substance,
and therefore independent of the body.2 Thus he revived the ancient Platonic
dualism between mind and matter, and stimulated anew the problem of the
relation between mind and body. Almost four hundred years later, Antonio
Damasio points out the incompatibility of the implications of dualism as
a major paradigm in our postmodern thinking about biblical studies and
1 In classical metaphysics, one of the most pressing issues was concerned with the relation-
ship between that which is mental and that which is physical. Plato originally propounded
a distinction between mind and matter. Platos conception was of eternal and immutable
patterns, spiritual and abstract in their nature, that all things are fashioned after...nothing
that exists in the world of the senses is lasting. Joosten Gaarder, Sophies World: A Novel about
the History of Philosophy (trans. Paulette Moller; London: Phoenix House, 1995), 6569.
2 Russel comments that Descartes formula is itself not very sound. Bertrand Russel, The
Wisdom of the West: A Historical Survey of Western Philosophy in its Social and Political Setting
(London: Macdonald, 1960).

32 evans
theology as a whole.3 Damasios criticism of Descartes is based on the dual-

ist notion with which Descartes separated the mind from the brain and body.
Damasio, from his point of view as a neuroscientist, insists that in the beginning
it was being, and only later was it thinking thinking is actually caused by the
structures and operations of being, it is not a matter of I think therefore I am.
We now know that long before the dawn of humanity when beings were sim-
ply beings, at some point in evolution, an elementary consciousness began.4
With elementary consciousness arose a simple mind; with greater complexity
of mind came the possibility of thinking, and, even later, of using language to
communicate and organize thinking in a more efficient way. Hence Damasio
regards Descartes error as:
the abyssal separation between body and mind...Specifically: the sep-

aration of the most refined operations of mind from the structure and
operation of a biological organism...between the sizable, dimensioned,
mechanically operated, infinitely divisible body stuff, on the one hand,
and the unsizable, undimensioned, un-pushpullable, nondivisible mind
stuff.5
2 Methodology
This article resorts to interdisciplinary discourses in order to reconsider the

traditional concept of dualism as a paradigm in our thinking about ourselves
and the Other.6 In the light of the many instances in the Hebrew Bible
where YHWH is stated to be the source of evil, Gericke has pointed out the
3 Antonio Damasio, Descartes Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain (London: Vintage
Books, 2006), 24849.
4 The behavioural ecologist Wrangham claims that it was the discovery of fire, and thereby
cooking of food to make it more easily digestible, that led to more energy being available for
the development of larger brains, and thus human beings. Richard Wrangham, Catching Fire:
How Cooking Made Us Humans (New York: Basic Books, 2009).
5 Damasio, Descartes Error, 24950.
6 The subject of this article was stimulated by research done by David Evans, who was a clinical
psychologist. He wanted to find coherence with, as he put it, where we have gotten to in our
self-understanding as religious human beings in the face of the vastness of diachronic and
synchronic global multidisciplinary research. He realised that this work would inevitably be
eclectic and represents the ideological bias of the mind that guides the hand that guides the
pencil. Although we cannot remove ourselves from the frame, he hypothesized that whereas
duality in our experience of things is inevitable, dualism has led us into some serious culs-de-
descartes error and the growth of consciousness 33
irrationality of monistic Yahwism which insists on the justice of an all good,

loving deity.7 In order to explore the possibility of bringing this cul de sac of
theodicy into coherence with current scientific realities, a non-dualistic read-
ing of Gen 1:17 is considered in this article.
3 The Traditional View of the Dualism of Body and Mind
Dualism codifies a number of philosophical positions which admit of two sep-

arate states of nature or two sets of fundamental principles in the universe.
The Cartesian position suggests that reasoning, and moral judgment exists
separately from physical activity. In contemporary debates, the issue is usually
divided along lines of mind and body. When it comes to consideration of the
word body, superficially things appear to be straight-forward; we each have
one a tangible one, with which we identify intimately and which consti-
tutes an irreplaceable component of our-selves; to some or other degree we
own it in various senses and we seem to inhabit it: I even em-body mine; our
bodies are the tangible manifestation of who and what we are as human beings
with our demonstrably unique identity and experience of life in the world,
and our various personal histories. We can feel our bodies in variously differ-
ent ways, and even sometimes those of our companions; within our body we
experience the polarities of pain and pleasure. However, the two innocuous-
looking four-letter words body and mind present problems when we begin to
consider the relationship between the two concepts as being represented as
polar opposites. A review of the use of the term mind reveals two conflicting
tendencies.
One tendency is to treat mind as a metaphysical explanatory entity sepa-
rate from biological systems, but nothing is gained by using synonyms such as
psyche, soul, self, nous, understanding. These get us no further in our quest and
merely serve to compound and confuse definitional issues. The problem is that
of the relationship between empirical observations of neural processes the
sac of reasoning, and even dogma. I am also indebted to Dr. Elmarie Kritzinger, a past student
of prof. Johann Cook, for helpful discussion and references on the subject of Dualism.
7 Jaco W. Gericke, Beyond Reconciliation Monistic Yahwism and the Problem of Evil in
Philosophy of Religion, Verbum et Ecclesia 26/1 (2005): 6492, here 64. Gericke recognizes
that reconciliation is a central concern in the religious discourse of biblical Yahwism, yet he
notes the weird side of many Yahwistic texts, such as YHWHs methodology of causing evil to
punish evil, and other bizarre acts of YHWHs tough love. Gericke, Beyond Reconciliation,
82, 8586.
34 evans
demonstrable, observable psychological functions, and our experiences and

constructs of cogitative, cognitive, conative events. Recourse has been taken
to viewing mind as a biologically based analogy representing the manifes-
tation of the-still-not-yet-understood neuro-physiological processes of the
central nervous system. Many colloquialisms imply that mind is a part of me
over which I have complete conscious, self-determining control, and of which
I am wholly and fully aware. In the past, the colloquial use of mind referred
to the vehicle of cognitive functioning or so-called intelligence. Mind as
equivalent to brain goes back to William James. Such an equation would be
valid if we are only talking in terms of the coordinated functioning of biologi-
cal organismic components of the body. But psychological theorists have yet
to reach a satisfactory consensus definition of intelligence, let alone mind, and
yet more challenging, consciousness.8 Reber indicated the quandary when he
said mind, as a term, is what remains of the battered offspring of the union of
philosophy and psychology.9 Thanks to science, we now know that both terms,
body and mind, refer to some or other cognitive processes which centrally
underlie our sense of self as a totality, a unit.
The perennial conflict of how to relate mind and body to each other is dem-
onstrated in the following example of how dualism is used to maintain an
emotional stance in spite of evidence to the contrary. In the celebrated mes-
sage that Pope John Paul II sent to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996,
he recognized that evolution is more than a hypothesis:
It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted

by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of know
ledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of
the work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argu-
ment in favour of this theory.10
However, as Pope John Paul II continued, he demonstrated the validity of

Theodosius Dobhzanskys (19001975)11 astute observation that no evidence
8 See Damasio, Descartes Error, 258: I wish I could say with certainty how the brain goes
about the business of making mind, but I cannot and, I am afraid, no one can.
9 Arthur S. Reber, The Dictionary of Psychology (London: Penguin, 1995), 460.
10 Pope John Paul II, Message du Saint-Pre Jean-Paul II aux membres de lAssemble plnire
de lAcadmie pontificale des Sciences, par. 4. 22, Oct 1996. Accessed February 2016 http://
w2.vaticvan.va; English translation accessed www.newadvent.org.
11 Theodosius Dobhzansky was the founder of evolutionary genetics.
is powerful enough to force acceptance of a conclusion that is emotionally

distasteful:
Theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspir-

ing them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter,
or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the
truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.12
In the following paragraph, 6, the Pope goes on to explain that inner experi-
ences and self-awareness, including all the metaphysical apparatus through
which we communicate with God, are impervious to the objective measure-
ments of science, falling instead within the realms of philosophy and theology.
In short, while conceding the reality of evolution, the Pope was careful to dif-
ferentiate the Magisterium of the Church as being above and beyond both the
processes of evolution, and the tools that science has developed to uncover and
expose evolutionary mechanisms. According to a participating scientist, what
the Pope effectively said was the scientists can have the brain, but the church
will keep the mind. To say that the human mind is forever beyond the domain
of science is utterly inconceivable without subscription to Cartesian dualism.
What then did the Pope have in mind when he expressed this view? As a
consequence of body and mind being conceived of as separate entities, the
implication is that science and theology must be ipso facto constituted as
unbridgeable epistemological categories. By logical extension this could mean
that we must perforce partition our cognitive processes and do our scien-
tific and our theological thinking/reasoning each quite independently of the
other. The Popes first dualistic assumption, mind/body, forces a second dual-
istic relationship: religion/science. Yet, in his own words, the Pope states The
Churchs Magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for
it involves the conception of man. Where then is the merit in continuing to
maintain this schizoid image of body/mind as separate entities? For exactly
the same reasons that the Pope is concerned with and accepts the theory of
evolution, scientists are concerned with theories of mind, which also in turn
involve the concept of evolution.
Even in the concept of mind as the totality of the conscious and uncon-
scious cogitative, conative and emotional experiences of an individual organ-
ism, the problem of how to characterize consciousness remains. The problem
is thus: if the mind is not just a product of evolution, what actually is it? How
12 John Paul II, Message du Saint-Pre Jean-Paul II, par 5. Note that the words lesprit have
been translated in this version as mind, whereas another version has spirit.
36 evans
does it interact with the brain? The human brain is obviously physical, so
presumably it is the product of evolution like all animal brains, with which it
shares many, if not all, structures. But Mind, or what we call consciousness,
seemingly located in the cranium, cannot be separated from the entire retic-
ulation of the motor, sensory, parasympathetic/autonomic nervous systems.
Consciousness is the prime example where the two magisteria of science and
religion meet, and overlap.13 We still do not know how our nerve cells produce
consciousness, but today the questions being posed can be explored via scien-
tific methodology.14
4 Consciousness and Gen 1:17
Consciousness changes endlessly, shifting from second to second through a

never-ending variety of states. Most neuroscientists distinguish between firstly,
primary/core consciousness that consists of emotions, motivations, a rudi-
mentary sense of self including pain, but lacking an awareness of objects in
the world, an autobiographical perspective, or a sense of death; and secondly,
extended consciousness, which encompasses the full glories of the human
mind, utterly unattainable without language, society, culture, but dependent
and built on the primary core. Few scientists today are Cartesian dualists
in the sense of believing in a separation between spirit and matter, yet the
13 Steven Gould, Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History (New York:
W. W. Norton, 1989).
14 Extended consciousness is programmable in so far as that language can be provided to a
robot and memory to a computer. Given a low-grade sense of awareness, there is nothing
about extended consciousness that transgresses our physical understanding of the world;
there is just daunting circuitry in the brain, embedded in the complex setting of soci-
ety. For instance, consider the dramatic results of recent neuro-surgery in the treatment
of Parkinsons disease. In the past few decades research in the new field of epigenetics
points to the possibility that behaviour during life can physically affect genes in such a
way that these changes can be passed on to subsequent generations. That the human
mind, soul, spirit, and brain, whose neurones behave in such a thoughtful manner, is
rooted in a non-divisible biological organism, is increasingly being confirmed scientifi-
cally (Damasio, Descartes Error, 251). Coyne reports that there is a very large category of
behaviours sometimes seen as adaptations, including moral codes, religion and music,
but about whose evolution we still know very little, and that rigorous research in the field
of evolutionary psychology is needed to clarify this question. Even the use of symbolic
language may be a genetic adaptation, with aspects of syntax and grammar somehow
coded in our brains. Jerry A. Coyne, Why Evolution is True (Oxford: OUP, 2009), 24, 250.
concept is not altogether ludicrous; in fact the explanations offered by dual-

ism are often the most plausible, being easy to grasp and virtually self-evident.
For instance, the following binary opposites are expressed in Gen 1 and 2:
heaven/earth, light/darkness, day/night, firmament/waters, waters above/
waters below, earth/seas, male/female, dust of the ground/living soul, good/
evil, alone/help meet, woman/man, naked/not ashamed. These twelve pairs
stand as evident, or can be implied to be polar oppositions. But do they jus-
tify a dualistic interpretation of the text? Or do they represent a statement of
original wholeness; thus in their manifested, immanent state ideally stand as
complementary to each other?
In Gen 1:1a , the pre-existence of is taken for
granted. The wind or spirit ( )of Elohim is already there, hovering over the
waters ( )before the onset of creation. So is the formless void and dark-
ness () .15 Gen 1:12 is basically an introduction of the idea of cre-
ation in which the stage is set before actually starts.16 It is only in v. 3 that
is actually set off, when Elohim says let there be light () . Gen 1:3
clearly indicates that it is who is responsible for bringing light into exis-
tence. In the next verse (v. 4), Elohim sees that the light is good. From the very
beginning, the author accepts as axiomatic that an agent, Elohim, exists, and
initiates the development of the world.17 Thus here Elohim exists as the agent
that makes an utterance which produces light. Only when Elohim sees, i.e.,
becomes conscious of light, does Elohim act: Elohims first action is to divide
(). Elohim divides light from the darkness which was already in existence.
Only after Elohims consciousness of light is development of the world started
through division. The very first action after the creation of light through
15 At this point, it is uncertain whether this element indicates existence or non-existence,
but see below.
16 Radice notes that Philo finds...that in Genesis the first day is not called first day, but
day one, that is, it is explicitly and intentionally differentiated from the other days that
are indicated by ordinal numbers. Moreover, the earth created on that day is said to be
invisible [Gen 1:2], which from Philos perspective would indicate that it is earth not per-
ceivable with the senses, but only with the mind. It would be, therefore, the Idea of earth.
And if this is true of the creation of the earth, so Philo thinks, it would also be true of all
the other parts of the world that are mentioned in connection with that day (heaven,
light, air/void, water, pneuma). One should note that this bold and complicated concep-
tion of creation finds considerable support in the fact that the account in Genesis is not
linear but recapitulative. Roberto Radice, Philos Theology and Theory of Creation, in
The Cambridge Companion to Philo (ed. Adam Kamesar; Cambridge: CUP, 2009), 12445,
here 132.
17 Russel, The Wisdom of the West, 8992.
38 evans
uttering, and then seeing, is to divide. The action of division is repeated twice
more in this short pericope. In v. 5, Elohim expresses the dualism by calling the
light day and the darkness night day one, even though the sun and moon
are not yet created. Then in the very next verse, Elohim says: let there be a fir-
mament, and let it divide ( )the waters. In v. 7, Elohim makes ( )the
firmament and Elohim continues the process of division: Elohim divides
( )the waters above the firmament from those below. Thus, in the descrip-
tion here, Gods consciousness that light is good precedes the first act of
creation: division the world develops through division.18
To summarize Elohims action in the first seven verses: Elohim sees once,
says twice, divides three times. The process of is actually one of saying let
there be and then dividing. In this regard, van Woldes controversial proposal
that could be translated as divided not created has double merit in that
the biblical description of creation division gains coherence with modern
science.19 Could it be that, after all, here in Gen 1, after what can perhaps be
called Elohims Big Bang, division is given as the key to how all life developed?20
To argue the case from the Septuagint, one must ask why the LXX author
would use in Gen 1:1 when is used in Gen 14:19 and Prov 8:22.21
Possibly, by using the translator realized that in that context meant
18 Interestingly, Philo (Her. 133229) hypothesizes that the world is the result of continuous
division, from an indistinct nature to single individual things. For his explanation, Philo
borrows the word logos from Stoic terminology and from Plato (Soph. 218c222e). Radice
describes Philos allegorical interpretation as follows: The creation of man appears to be
completely in line with the creation of the cosmos, in as much as it is double. Indeed,
it appears to be even more evidently so than the creation of the cosmos, because it is
mentioned two different times in the text, once in Gen 1:26 and again in Gen 2:7. And
because the two accounts are represented as referring to, on the one hand, a man after
the image, and on the other hand, a molded man, the notion of an ideal creation fol-
lowed by a physical creation comes easily to the fore. Radice notes that according to the
Platonic vision matter and the evil connected with it was non-being, and only the Ideas and
the sphere of the Ideas are true being. Radice Philos Theology and Theory of Creation,
134, 139, 145.
19 Van Wolde tests her hypothesis against external evidence from cognate literature in
Mesopotamia. Ellen van Wolde, Terug naar het begin: Inaugurele Rede door prof. dr. Ellen
J. van Wolde (Radboud Universiteit: Nijmegen, 2009); idem, Why the Verb Does Not
Mean to Create in Genesis 12.4a, JSOT 34.1 (2009): 323.
20 William F. Carroll, Creation and Science: Has Science Eliminated God? (London: The
Incorporated Catholic Truth Society, 2001), 3335.
21 The word appears 23 times in the wisdom writing Sirach. Johann Cook, The
Relationship between the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira and the Septuagint of Proverbs,
Paper delivered at University of Stellenbosch Department of Ancient Studies, 2015.
something other than acquire or create. Two further questions arise: What
could the very broadly definable have meant to the LXX translator; and
if in fact he did understand the meaning of in that context to be divided
why did he not use a word akin to ?22
5 Discussion
If one were to see the process of creation as one of division, at the very least
that would give coherence with our modern scientific understanding of the
process of all physical growth and development of any living organism through
cell division.23 Once the structure of DNA was discovered in 1952, the genius
and simplicity of Darwinian evolution was inescapable, and as Pope John Paul
II so rightly said, the convergence of results of subsequent research has been
cumulatively confirming.24 The implications of evolution for religious belief
are briefly considered below.
The Hebrew Bible implies that YHWH is ultimately in control of metaphysi-
cal, moral and natural evil in the world.25 In a monotheistic biblical context, we
are confronted with the dilemma of the relationship between an all-powerful,
22 This reasoning ends in stalemate unless the multi-layered meanings of ancient Scripture
are recognized and accepted. See for instance Eliot Wolfsons use of the concept border-
space in his study Bifurcating and Androgyne and engendering Sin: A Zohairic reading
of Gen 13, in Hidden Truths from Eden: Esoteric Readings of Genesis 13 (eds. Caroline van
der Stichele and Suzanne Scholz; Semeia Studies 76; Atlanta: SBL, 2014), 87120, here 114.
23 Every living cell produces growth through division (mitosis) of the chromosomes in the
nucleus in such a way that the DNA code of inheritable characteristics is preserved in
the nucleus of the new cells. Human cells have 46 chromosomes, which contain the DNA
which carries genetic instructions for growth. The process of cell division for sexual pair-
ing (meiosis) is a little more complicated, because the combination of male and female
sex cells at conception means that each must only have 23 chromosomes before pairing.
24 The double helix construction of DNA which is contained in each chromosome of the
nucleus of each living cell carries the code or pattern of each individual living organ-
ism which thus assures perpetuation of the genome. The physical arrangement of the
helix structure allows for a neat division during cell division into two identical units. DNA
(Deoxyribonucleic acid) is a molecule that consists of two long chains of specific atomic
constructions twisted in a double helix construction and bonded by hydrogen atoms. The
manner in which the specific combinations of atoms are arranged in the DNA produces
the genetic code or instruction necessary for the development, functioning, and repro-
duction of the cell.
25 Not even the New Testament completely severs the link between God and evil. Gericke,
Beyond Reconciliation, 89.
40 evans
just but loving Deity and the reality of suffering and evil. In terms of theodicy,
Gericke quotes Albert Camus: the world itself, whose single meaning I do not
understand, is a vast irrational.26 Perhaps the one person who is able to lead
us back to rationality is Darwin. The inarguable scientific proof of evolution
explains the inevitability of suffering and evil which we as human beings with
a moral and ethical consciousness recognize. The inescapable implication of
evolution is that the development of humankind is not the outcome of pre-
conceived design, but a natural process that is able to generate order, function-
ing creatively. Understood in scientific terms, it is not an intelligent designer
which determines the effectiveness or extent of success of the genetic muta-
tion. It is the element of chance in combination with interaction with the
environment that effects the development of different living species. Miller
observes:
We know from astronomy that the universe had a beginning, from physics
that the future is both open and unpredictable, from geology and paleon-
tology that the whole of life has been a process of change and transfor-
mation. From biology we know that our tissues are...a stunning matrix
of complex wonders, ultimately explicable in terms of biochemistry and
molecular biology. With such knowledge we can see, perhaps for the first
time, why a creator would have allowed our species to be fashioned by
the process of evolution.27
Where does this leave the traditional belief in creation of humankind in the
image of God? For monotheists challenging questions such as the follow-
ing arise from the implications of randomness in the process of evolution.
Firstly, the true gap in the scientific explanation of the origin of life is that
of agency.28 The problem is how to identify a first cause (a prime mover for
the universe) with a personal God. The need for revisioning divine agency has
26 Gericke, Beyond Reconciliation, 89.

27 Kenneth R. Miller, Finding Darwins God: A Scientists Search for Common Ground between
God and Evolution (Harper Perennial, 2007), 29, 274. Cf. Plato Tim. 41ad, where the speech
of the Demiurge to the assembled gods uses the basic metaphor of the craftsman using
his intelligence on resistant material: I shall begin by sowing the seed, and then hand it
over to you. The rest of the task is yours. Cf. Charles Kingsley, God makes things make
themselves, in The Water Babies (London: Macmillans Magazine, 1863).
28 Jeff Astley, David Brown, and Ann Lodes, eds., Science and Religion (vol. 4; Problems in
Theology; London: T. & T. Clark, 2004), 99.
been recognized as sciences greatest challenge to theology.29 The problem is

compounded by the question of whether the universe has a goal or purpose.30
Secondly, natural selection in the process of evolution inevitably entails suf-
fering. One has to ask, why would God not have used an indeterminate natu-
ral process for creation? A variety of solutions have been proposed.31 Morris
recognises that Christianity is an open-ended adventure, and he makes a per-
suasive case for convergent evolution, i.e., the continuing tendency of bio-
logical organization to arrive at the same solution to a specific problem. This
is possible because the process of natural selection orientates evolution in a
constructive direction, in that it eliminates those results of mutation which
turn out to be negative.32
The crucial question of monotheistic faith has been succinctly articulated
by Van Huyssteen who asks if there is some way in which the imago Dei can be
recovered after acceptance of the truth of evolution.33 Against the background
of Gen 1:2628, every human is created in the image of God. Does this neces-
sarily mean that there is a radical split between human beings and the rest
29 Riaan Venter, God after Darwin: The Promise of Trinitarian Theology, NGTT 50 (2009):
54151, here 541.
30 Keith Ward, The Big Questions in Science and Religion (West Conshohocken: Templeton
Foundation Press, 2008), 43.
31 Peacocke points out that in natural selection, pain and suffering is inevitable in terms
of the law of new life through death of the old, and that it is the mutual interplay of
chance and necessity that inevitably leads to the creative development of new life.
Arthur Peacocke, Intimations of Reality: Critical Realism in Science and Religion (Notre
Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984), 6871. Sweetman leaves us with the ques-
tion: could God have built a natural world which mostly followed the laws of physics
but which did not contain natural evils? Brendan Sweetman, Religion: Key Concepts in
Philosophy (London: Continuum, 2007), 94. Stoeger suggests that when considering theo-
dicy we need to keep in mind that the universe and nature are dynamic and evolving. Bill
W. R. Stoeger, Problem of Evil: The Context of a Resolution, in Can Nature be Evil or Evil
Natural? A Science-and-Religion View on Suffering and Evil (ed. Cornel du Toit; Proceedings
of the Twelfth Seminar of the SASREF; Pretoria: UNISA, 2006), 116, esp. 1214.
32 Simon Conway Morris, Hoe het Leven de Dingen Regelt: De Mens als Noodzakelijke Uitkomst
van de Evolutie (Diemen: Uitgeverij Veen Magazines B.V., 2004), x. See also Francisco J.
Ayala, Darwins Greatest Discovery: Design without Designer, in Adaptation and Complex
Design (ed. John Avise and Francisco Ayala; In the Light of Evolution vol. 1; Washington:
The National Academic Press, 2007), 321, esp. 20.
33 J. Wentzel van Huyssteen, Alone in the World? Human Uniqueness in Science and Theology
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 42, 10608, 314.
42 evans
of creation? Scientific disciplines concerned with consciousness and culture

accept that human uniqueness has evolved over a very long time period,
thus the assumption of biblical theology that there is a radical split between
human beings and the rest of creation must be reconsidered. These are very
real problems that have to be faced by monotheists in a scientific context. In
order to face up to these problems, the Bible must be accepted as having been
written by people in a historical and cultural context different to the one in
which we live now, and be studied in relevance to our current context.34 The
challenge for a monotheistic religion now, in the context of the ever increas-
ing evidence of the truth of the evolutionary process within all its complex
ramifications, is to explore the answer to van Huyssteens question: is there
some way in which the imago Dei can be recovered in our contemporary
global context?
6 Conclusion
Van Huyssteen makes the important point that theology has traditionally vir-
tually ignored the question of the evolution of human cognition.35 Evolution
has become the great unifying theory in biology. The concept of evolution
in the creation of life has solved many problems that confronted working
biologists, and it is becoming increasingly relevant for understanding human
society.36 Whatever we discover in the future, it is clear that the comprehen-
sive understanding of the human mind requires an organic perspective, that
soul and spirit are complementary states of an organism that is fully inter
active with a physical and social environment.37 Van Huyssteens question of
how theology should respond to the way the sciences are challenging and even
deconstructing the notion of human uniqueness impinges on the heart of the
Christian tradition of the imago Dei. Can the latter be revisioned through an
interdisciplinary dialogue with current scientific views on human uniqueness?
34 Christopher Rowland and Jonathan Roberts, The Bible for Sinners: Interpretation in the
Present Time (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2008), 22.
35 The discovery of Homo Naledi in 2013 in the Cradle of Mankind has again reminded us
of how recent in the history of the world the evolution of technologies and language is.
The skeleton indicates bipedalism, with a small, non-human brain size, yet the setting
indicates that these hominids buried their dead.
36 Sherrie Lyons, Evolution: The Basics (New York: Routledge, 2011), 14.
37 Damasio, Descartes Error, 252.
Van Huyssteen notes that it is precisely evolutionary epistemologys focus on

the evolution of human cognition that revealed embodied human cognition as
the mediator between biology and culture.38 Coyne recognizes that We are
the one creature to whom natural selection has bequeathed a brain complex
enough to comprehend the laws that govern the universe...the only species
that has figured out how we came to be.39 But does the possession of self-
consciousness make a qualitative difference between humankind and other
life-forms?40 And in what way does a non-dualistic understanding of Gen 1:17
support these new scientific facts? Damasio reassures us that:
To discover that a particular feeling depends on activity in a number of

specific brain systems interacting with a number of body organs does not
diminish the status of that feeling as a human phenomenon...Feelings
form the base for what humans have described for millennia as the
human soul or spirit.41
Ferguson, who notes the extent to which suffering, waste, and the compe-
tition for survival appeared to be the drivers of evolution, also remarks on
the extent to which Darwinism showed the Bible and the Christian tradition
capable of providing resources for dealing with a new set of problems.42 The
stage is set in Gen 1 and 2 for the development of consciousness in a physi-
cal environment. Middleton has pointed out that the words for image and
likeness in Gen 1:2627 are polysemous, and do not disclose exactly what the
38 Van Huyssteen, Alone in the World?, 37, 42, 10608, 314. On the basis of medical research
mostly on brain-damaged people, Ramachandran is able, to some extent, to provide the
scientifically informed view: what sets us apart from other mammals, including other
primates, is not any single structure...but a set of circuits. These structures are for con-
sciousness what chromosomes and DNA were for heredity. Know how they perform their
individual operations, how they interact, and you will know what it means to be a con-
scious human being. Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness
(New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2004), 112.
39 Coyne, Why Evolution is True, 253.
40 Caroline van der Stichele and Alastair Hunter, ed., Creation and Creativity: From Genesis to
Genetics and Back (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2006), 76.
41 Damasio, Descartes Error, xxvi.
42 David Ferguson, The Problem of Suffering, Creation: Guides to Theology (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2014), 88.
44 evans
resemblance or likeness of humanity to God consists in.43 I would suggest that

we should adjust our understanding of the term imago Dei to mean the image
of Gods consciousness.44
43 Richard J. Middleton, The Liberating Image, the Imago Dei in Gen 1 (Grand Rapids: Brazers
Press, 2005), 48.
44 The Coptic Christians interpret Clement of Alexandrias statement in Protrepticus 1.8.4,
The Word of God became man just that you may learn from a Man how it may be that
man should become god, in the sense of humankind allowing God to place himself in
us by giving him the central place in our lives, or God took our humanity, that man may
share His Life. T. Y. Malaty, The School of Alexandria, Book One: Before Origen (Jersey City:
St Marks Coptic Orthodox Church, 1994), 15, 16, 379. Vision and division have been major
drivers of the development of consciousness. Is it not interesting that our social chal-
lenges today are precisely to overcome division to see each other Afrikaans puts it very
well om mekaar raak te sien. We say we strive for world peace, we say we want to be
one with God, but the prophets of the monotheistic Hebrew Bible have warned us God
does not tolerate a relationship with Him that divides me from my neighbour. It is within
my own divided self that I have to become conscious of, and root out, evil.
CHAPTER 3
Greek Translations of Hebrew Left Dislocation

Constructions in LXX Genesis
Gideon R. Kotz
1 Introduction
The Septuagint (LXX) holds great significance for more than one field of
research. This corpus of Greek Jewish writings include translations of writ-
ings composed in Hebrew and Aramaic (especially, the so-called Old Greek
[OG] texts),1 as well as works that were originally written in Greek, such as the
Wisdom of Solomon and 24 Maccabees. As the earliest translations of Semitic
literature into an Indo-European language, the Old Greek texts are relevant to
translation studies and the examination of corpora of documents written in
Koin Greek. Although they are not eyewitness reports or mirror images of it,
these translations are, nevertheless, potential sources of knowledge about the
historical and cultural contexts in which they came into being.2 They embody
early interpretations of the wordings and contents of their Hebrew-Aramaic
1 Old Greek is the term used here for the earliest recoverable wording of the original Greek
translation of a writing.
2 Unfortunately, we know very little about the scribes who were responsible for the transla-
tions and the exact circumstances and procedures of the translation process. See Emanuel
Tov, The Septuagint Translation of Genesis as the First Scripture Translation, in In the
Footsteps of Sherlock Holmes: Studies in the Biblical Text in Honour of Anneli Aejmelaeus (ed.
Kristin De Troyer, T. Michael Law and Marketta Liljestrm; CBET 72; Leuven / Paris / Walpole,
2014), 4748. Nevertheless, there is some evidence that Greek translations were made in
Alexandria, Judaea and possibly in other places. Whereas the writings of the Torah were,
in all probability, translated by five different translators during the third century BCE, the
other translations were produced between the second century BCE and the second century
CE. See Ernst Wrthwein and Alexander Achilles Fischer, The Text of the Old Testament: An
Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica (3rd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 10002, and
Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3rd ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012),
13132. According to Johann Cook and Arie van der Kooij, Law, Prophets, and Wisdom: On the
Provenance of Translators and their Books in the Septuagint Version (CBET 68; Leuven / Paris /
Walpole: Peeters, 2012), 1011, internal data such as translation profile, translation equiva-
lents (for example, lexical choices) and contents, do not provide sufficient evidence alone
to determine the provenance of a translation unit. They suggest that external data from the

46 kotz
source texts, which often differ in small and large details from other textual
representatives of Hebrew Bible and early Jewish writings. The OG texts pro-
vide data on how, for example, lexemes, grammatical constructions, idioms
and imagery in the discourses of Hebrew-Aramaic literary writings were ren-
dered into Greek and, in translated form, facilitated or hindered the successful
transmission of information communicated by the Semitic source texts. They
are, therefore, important for philological examinations of the Hebrew Bible
and early Jewish writings, as well as for a better understanding of these texts
histories of development. In addition to their value for philology and textual
criticism, the data culled from analyses of the Greek translations as represen-
tatives of the wordings and contents of the Hebrew Bible and early Jewish writ-
ings might also be interesting to branches of linguistics.3 This study remains
within the ambit of the related fields of philology and textual criticism and
proposes to examine the Greek translations of a particular way of structuring
information in utterances found in the Hebrew Bible writings, namely left dis-
location constructions.
Left dislocation is a particular way of structuring information in an
utterance.4 A constituent (for example, a noun phrase, prepositional phrase,
or pronoun) is placed in a position outside the border of a matrix clause and
the referent of this dislocated element is related semantically or pragmatically
to a clause-internal item.5 With regard to the semantic relationship, Westbury
larger historical-cultural context are also needed to resolve the provenance issue (if it can be
established at all).
3 Seeing as the Greek translations of Jewish scriptures were used in the New Testament writ-
ings and early Christian compositions, they are essential to analyses of these works. These
interesting matters will, however, not be addressed in this study.
4 Joshua R. Westbury, Left Dislocation in Biblical Hebrew: A Cognitive Linguistic Account (Ph.D.
dissertation, Stellenbosch University, 2014), 22575, identifies seven types of left disloca-
tion constructions in his study of the examples in the Torah and Former Prophets (Gen-
2 Kgs): (1) prototypical left dislocation, (2) non-resumptive left dislocation, (3) multiple left
dislocation, (4) pronominal left dislocation, (5) left dislocation with anaphoric , (5) con-
ditional left dislocation, and (6) temporal left dislocation. For discussions of left dislocation
from different theoretical perspectives, see Robert D. Holmstedt, Critical at the Margins:
Edge Constituents in Biblical Hebrew, KUSATU 17 (2014): 10956, esp. 11832, Walter Gross,
Extraposition: Biblical Hebrew, in Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics (vol. 1;
ed. Geoffrey Khan; Leiden / Boston: Brill, 2013), 89293, idem, Die Pendenskonstruktion im
Biblischen Hebrisch (St. Ottilien: EOS, 1987), Jacobus A. Naud, A Syntactic Analysis of
Dislocations in Biblical Hebrew, JNSL 16 (1990): 11530.
5 Gross, Extraposition, 892, refers to left dislocation as a stylistic device and defines it in the
following terms: one part of a sentence, the so-called pendens, is removed from its nor-
mal contextual position and transferred to the beginning of the sentence; the remainder of
greek translations of hebrew left dislocation 47
claims that, in Biblical Hebrew, the referents of dislocated elements and con-
stituents in matrix clauses can be identical, they can exhibit a whole-part or
part-whole relationship, or the semantic attributes of the two constituents ref-
erents may partially overlap.6 In those cases where the dislocated element is
not related semantically to a corresponding element within the matrix clause,
the dislocate stands in a pragmatic relevance relation to the associated prop-
osition. The referent of the dislocated constituent pragmatically constrains
the interpretation of the following proposition to a certain semantic domain.7
In verbal clauses of prose texts composed in Biblical Hebrew, the basic func-
tion of left dislocation is to (re)activate referents that are assumed to enter-
tain low degrees of accessibility in the mind of the addressee.8 Activated
referents commonly point to the topic of the subsequent clause. When a topic
is discourse active, it can also be reintroduced with specific attributes in view
to compare or contrast it with another referent, or it can announce the focus of
the matrix clause.9 Furthermore, dislocated constituents can provide a frame
of reference or, in the case of adjuncts of time, a temporal point of orientation,
for the information in the matrix clause.10
An investigation of the renderings of Hebrew passages with left disloca-
tion in OG texts can shed light on how ancient translations reproduced the
forms and functions of the constructions in a non-Semitic language. This can
contribute to a better understanding of OG texts translational profiles, see-
ing as analyses of translation technique deal, inter alia, with the translators
adherence to the word order of the Vorlage and whether they consistently
the sentence is then called the pendens clause. Often, though not always, a pronominal
or deictic substitute, a so-called resumption, is inserted into the place where the extra-
posed elements should have stood within the pendens clause. This study makes use of
the designations dislocated element and matrix clause instead of pendens and pen-
dens clause.
6 Westbury, Left Dislocation, 23.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid., 340.
9 Concerning the pragmatic categories of topic and focus in Biblical Hebrew, see Adina
Moshavi, Word Order: Biblical Hebrew, in Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics
(vol. 3; ed. Geoffrey Khan; Leiden / Boston: Brill, 2013), 99395, and Christo H.J. van der
Merwe, Fronting: Biblical Hebrew, in Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics
(vol. 1; ed. Geoffrey Khan; Leiden / Boston: Brill, 2013), 933.
10 According to Gross, Extraposition, 893, the pragmatic functions of left dislocation con-
structions are to indicate a topic that is not the same as the subject of the sentence, to
mark the pendens as the focus, or to construct a sentence with two foci or intonational
peaks instead of just one.
48 kotz
represented all the constituents of Hebrew and Aramaic words, phrases and
clauses literally in Greek, or not.11 Such an investigation can also be relevant
to studies interested in the syntax of OG texts. In cases of left dislocation in a
Hebrew or Aramaic passage, where the OG text of the passage does not imi-
tate the construction, the question arises whether the translation presents a
faithful or different interpretation of the information communicated by the
Semitic source text, or whether it might be a literal rendering of a Vorlage that
was not the same as the wordings in the available Hebrew or Aramaic textual
representatives. This question is important from a text-critical point of view.
This study cannot address all of these matters in detail and the examples of
left dislocation in the Greek translations of Hebrew Bible and early Jewish writ-
ings are too voluminous for this study to discuss even a representative amount
of them. Therefore, the scope of the study will be limited to one translation,
the LXX translation of Genesis (LXX Gen).12 It only presents data concerning
this Greek translations treatment of the formal features of selected instances
of left dislocation constructions: passages where the OG text reproduced the
left dislocation constructions without changes to the dislocated constituent or
the matrix clause (Section 2.1), passages where the OG text reproduced the left
dislocation construction, but its wording of the dislocated element or matrix
clause exhibits differences when compared to the available Hebrew textual
representatives (Sections 2.2 and 2.3), and passages where the OG text did not
reproduce the left dislocation construction in translation (Section 3).13
Before presenting the data, brief comments on the translation profile of
LXX Gen and its Hebrew Vorlage are in order.14 Many scholars regard LXX Gen
11 See Emanuel Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (3rd ed.;
Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 2425.
12 It is a pleasure to dedicate this study to Johann Cook, who has also studied certain aspects
of LXX Gen. See Johann Cook, The Septuagint of Genesis: Text and/or Interpretation?,
in Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History (ed. Andr Wnin;
BETL 155; Leuven / Paris / Sterling: Peeters), 31529, idem, The Exegesis of the Greek
Genesis, in VI Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate
Studies, Jerusalem 1986 (ed. Claude E. Cox; SBLSCS 23; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987),
91125; idem, The Translator of the Greek Genesis, in La Septuaginta en la Investigacion
Contemporanea (V Congreso de la IOSCS) (ed. Natalio Fernndez Marcos; Madrid: CSIC,
1985), 16982.
13 The passages that are examined in this study were selected from a pool of examples of
left dislocation constructions where the dislocated element in the Hebrew wordings is
headed by a noun phrase, relative pronoun or prepositional phrase.
14 The following remarks on the translation technique of LXX Gen are based on the works
by Mark W. Scarlata, Genesis, in T & T Clark Companion to the Septuagint (ed. James K.
as the first writing of the Torah to have been rendered into Greek.15 It can be
described as a formal equivalent translation that generally follows the lin-
guistic structure of its Hebrew source texts wording. There are instances of
Hebraisms, calques, isolate translations and transliterations in LXX Gen, but
the translation is not characterised by a mechanical type of word-for-word
literalism. Rather, according to Tov,
Genesis displays a curious mixture of translation styles, often adher-

ing to fixed equivalents, but also allowing for contextual renderings.
Furthermore, one often notices the hesitations of the translator, his use
of different translation equivalents and his trying out different possibili-
ties in transferring grammatical categories from a Semitic to an Indo-
European language.16
In some passages, the translator coined neologisms to translate words and

phrases in the Vorlage and, at times, he deliberately adapted the wording of the
source text he translated. These adaptations were often motivated by contex-
tual and cultural factors. The translation also exhibits smaller content changes
and, especially, intertextual harmonisations. The Hebrew Vorlage of LXX Gen
seems to have been close to the consonantal base of the Masoretic text (MT)
and shared some readings with the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) over against
the MT, but it was not identical to these versions, nor with any of the Hebrew
Aitken; London: Bloomsbury, 2015), 1318; Tov, Septuagint Translation of Genesis, 4765;
Robert J.V. Hiebert, Textual and Translation Issues in Greek Genesis, in The Book of
Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation (ed. Craig A. Evans, Joel N. Lohr and
David L. Petersen; VTSup 152; Leiden / Boston: Brill, 2012), 40526; idem, Genesis, in
A New English Translation of the Septuagint (ed. Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright;
Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 15; idem, The Hermeneutics of
Translation in the Septuagint of Genesis, in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in
the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures (ed. Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden; SBLSCS
53; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 85103; idem, Translation Technique in
the Septuagint of Genesis and Its Implications for the NETS Version, BIOSCS 33 (2000):
7693; Peter Prestel and Stefan Schorch, Genesis / Das Erste Buch Mose, in Septuaginta
Deutsch: Erluterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament (ed. Martin
Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011), 14750; Martin
Rsel, bersetzung als Vollendung der Auslegung: Studien zur Genesis-Septuaginta (BZAW
223; Berlin / New York: de Gruyter, 1994), 24850.
15 See Tov, Septuagint Translation of Genesis, 47; Prestel and Schorch, Genesis, 150;
Hiebert, Textual and Translation Issues, 410; Rsel, bersetzung, 257.
16 Tov, Septuagint Translation of Genesis, 4950.
50 kotz
wordings represented by the manuscripts of Genesis from Qumran.17 Some

of the differences in wording between LXX Gen and the extant Hebrew tex-
tual representatives can be attributed to variant readings in the translations
source text.
2 Examples where LXX Gen Reproduces the Hebrew Left Dislocation

Construction in Translation
2.1 LXX Gen Reproduces the Left Dislocation Construction without

Changes to the Dislocated Constituent or the Matrix Clause
Gen 13:1518
MT (= SP)
Because all the land that you see I will give to you and to
your offspring forever.
LXX , ,

Because all the land that you see, I will give it to you and to
your offspring forever.
This passage presents an example where a left dislocation construction in the

Hebrew text was translated into Greek without any changes to the wording
17 Prestel and Schorch, Genesis, 146; Rosel, bersetzung, 248.

18 In this study, I quote the wording of the MT from the BHS edition, while for the SP
I make use of the eclectic edition prepared by August Freiherr von Gall, Der Hebrische
Pentateuch der Samaritaner (Giessen: Tpelmann, 1918). Unfortunately, the Genesis man-
uscripts amongst the Dead Sea scrolls do not preserve much of the wordings of the pas-
sages with left dislocation. In the few cases where some of the wordings have survived,
I cite the transcriptions in the DJD volumes. The edition of John W. Wevers, Septuaginta:
Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum I:
Genesis (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974) serves as the basis for the references
to the Greek translation. In some passages, I also refer to the wording in the edition of
Alfred Rahlfs, Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes. Editio
altera quam recognovit et emendavit Robert Hanhart (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft,
2006). The BHQ edition prepared by A. Tal appeared after this study was completed.
of the dislocated constituent or the matrix clause.19 The Greek translation

also faithfully renders the word order and constituents of the left dislocation
constructions in Gen 21:1213:
Gen 21:1213
MT

But God said to Abraham: Let it not be displeasing to you

on account of the boy and on account of your slave woman.
Everything that Sarah says to you, listen to her voice, because it is
through Isaac that offspring will be named for you. Furthermore,
regarding the son of the slave woman, I will make him into a
nation, because he is your offspring.
SP

But God said to Abraham: Let it not be displeasing to you

on account of the boy and on account of your slave woman.
Everything that Sarah says to you, listen to her voice, because it is
through Isaac that offspring will be named for you. Furthermore,
regarding the son of this slave woman, I will make him into a
great nation, because he is your offspring.
19 Cf. the Hebrew and Greek wordings of Gen 4:4; 28:13; 35:12; 49:19. Apart from the post-
positive conjunction , the word order of LXX Gen 6:21 is also the same as that of the left
dislocation construction in the Hebrew textual representatives. LXX Gen 44:17 is another
verse that faithfully represents the left dislocation construction in translation, although
, the relative clause that forms part of the dislocated constituent in
the Hebrew text, was not rendered word-for-word by the Greek translator:
. Cf. the similar Greek wording of LXX Gen 44:9,
, . Here, is a plus when compared to the Hebrew wordings of the
left dislocation construction in the MT, ( SP:
) . The plus in the Greek text makes implicit information explicit. Prestel and
Schorch, Genesis, 242.
52 kotz
LXX20
, ,
, .
, ,

But God said to Abraam, Do not let the matter be hard in your
sight on account of the child and on account of the slave-girl;
whatever Sarra says to you, obey her voice, for in Isaak offspring
shall be named for you. And as for the son of the slave-girl, I will
make him also into a great nation, because he is your offspring.
(NETS)
Gen 21:13 is an interesting case, because there is no corresponding word in the

MT for the adjective in the OG text of the verses matrix clause. This differ-
ence between the LXX and the MT need not be attributed to the Greek transla-
tor, seeing as the Hebrew text of the SP, as well as the wordings of the Peshitta,
Vulgate and Targum Neofiti bear witness to the same adjective in their respec-
tive wordings.21 The Vorlage of these Syriac, Latin and Aramaic translations
probably contained the same reading that is found in the SP, , and
20 Both the Gttingen edition of LXX Gen 21:12 and Rahlfss edition have the reading .
Wevers, Septuaginta, 208; Rahlfs, Septuaginta, 28. should, however, be changed into
. See John W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis (SBLSCS 35; Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1993), 30304.
21 With the exception of 5b1, the wordings of the Peshitta manuscripts have the adjective:
, And also the son of the slave woman I will
make into a great nation. Peshita Institute Leiden, The Old Testament in Syriac According
to the Peshita Version (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 38; Vulgate: sed et filium ancillae faciam in gen-
tem magnam, But also the son of the slave woman I will make into a great nation. Robert
Weber, Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem: Editionem quintam emendatam retracta-
tam praeparavit Roger Gryson (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007), 28; Targum
Neofiti: , And also the son of the slave woman
I will make into a great nation. Alejandro Dez Macho, Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense
MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana. Vol. 1: Gnesis (Madrid / Barcelona: CSIC, 1968), 119. The
wording of the verse in Targum Onqelos does not have an adjective and, therefore, agrees
with the MT: , And also the son of the slave woman I
will make into a nation. Alexander Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic. Vol. 1: The Pentateuch
According to Targum Onkelos (Leiden: Brill, 1959), 30. With regard to the interesting read-
ing in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, , And also the
son of the slave woman I will make into a nation of robbers, see Michael Maher, Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis (ArBib 1B; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992), 75 n. 14.
there is no reason to doubt that this is also true of LXX Gens source text. On
this assumption, LXX Gen 21:13 imitates the wording of the left dislocation
construction in its Hebrew source text, which was slightly different from the
wording preserved in the MT version of the verse.22
2.2 LXX Gen Reproduces the Left Dislocation Construction with Changes
to the Dislocated Constituent
Gen 15:4
MT (= SP)

But unexpectedly, the word of YHWH came to him: This

man will not be your heir, but none other than one who will
come from your body will be your heir.
LXX
, ,
And immediately a divine voice came to him: This one will

not be your heir, but one who will come out of you will be
your heir.
This verse forms part of the important episode where the word of YHWH comes
to Abram in a vision with the promise of a large progeny. YHWH also concludes
a covenant with Abram according to which the deity will grant the land from
the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates (v. 18) to Abrams
22 It is possible that the adjective was added secondarily to the wording of v. 13 at some
stage during the transmission history of the Hebrew wording. The addition could have
been added to harmonise v. 13 with in v. 18 of the same chapter. Prestel
and Schorch, Genesis, 193. This would mean that the MT preserves the more original
wording of Gen 21:13. Another theory is that both v. 13 and v. 18 originally included the
adjective . It might have been lost in the wording represented by the MT through a
scribal error. The phrase and the word have consonants and a vowel indicator in
common. These similarities between the two forms could have caused the eye of a copyist
to skip from to . Some commentators prefer the reading in the SP and ancient
translations over the shorter reading in the MT. See, for example, Claus Westermann,
Genesis 1236 (BKAT I/2; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), 412; and Ephraim
A. Speiser, Genesis (AB 1; Garden City: Doubleday, 1964), 154.
54 kotz
descendants. Before receiving the divine promises, Abram raises the issue of
his childlessness and draws YHWHs attention to the implication of the deitys
neglect to supply him with offspring; a member of his household will become
his heir (v. 3). The Hebrew text points out that YHWHs word came to Abram
with a reply to his quandary and the dislocated relative clause announces the
focus of this answer. YHWH assures Abram that none other than one who will
come from his own body will become his heir.
The Old Greek text has a free translation of the verses first clause.
was used as a rendering for ,23 the word of YHWH was substituted with
the voice of God and the Hebrew nominal clause of the Vorlage was changed
by inserting the verb in the wording of the translation. Thus, accord-
ing to the Greek text, the divine reply came immediately to Abram and the
deity spoke personally with the patriarch. With regard to the left dislocation
construction, the Greek translation includes both the dislocated element and
the resumptive pronoun, but the reading eliminates the
reference to a body part that is present in the Hebrew textual representatives.24
Prestel and Schorch suggest that the Greek text assumes the reading .25 In
view of the fact that other ancient translations support the reading in
the MT and SP,26 as well as LXX Gens penchant for harmonising readings, it
is likely that was not based on a variant reading in the Hebrew Vorlage,
but was chosen as translation equivalent for so that the wording of LXX
Gen 15:4 would agree with the divine promises of offspring to Abram and Israel
23 See also the translation of with at Gen 24:45 and 38:29.

24 See Marguerite Harl, La Gense (2nd ed.; BdA 1; Paris: Cerf, 1994), 163.
25 Prestel and Schorch, Genesis, 184.
26 The clauses ( your son who comes out of your hip), qui egredietur
de utero tuo (he who comes out of your belly), and ( he who comes
from your own bowels) in the Peshitta, Vulgate and Targum Neofiti versions of Gen 15:4
imply that their Hebrew source texts contained the reading , which is also found in
the MT and SP. The translation ( a son whom you will beget) in the Targums
Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan also do not presuppose a different Hebrew reading. Maher,
Targum, 60 n. 10, suggests that the Hebrew phrase must have seemed too crude
for Onq. and Ps.J. Cf. the editions and translations of these texts: Weber, Biblia, 20; Martin
McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis (ArBib 1A; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992), 95;
Ernest G. Clarke et al., Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance
(Hoboken: Ktav, 1984), 16; Dez Macho, Neophyti, 79; Peshita Institute Leiden, Old
Testament, 26; Sperber, Bible, 20. Although the broad attestation of the reading in
the textual representatives of Gen 15:4 lessens the likelihood that only the Hebrew source
text of LXX Gen had the reading instead of , this remote possibility cannot be
ruled out completely. Nevertheless, the translation of LXX Gen is not so mechanical that
a variant Hebrew reading should be accepted as a full gone conclusion in this case.
in LXX Gen 17:6 and 35:11. In both these passages, the relevant prepositional
phrase in the Hebrew texts is and it is rendered by in the Greek
translation.27 The harmonising reading in LXX Gen 15:4 could also have been
motivated by the fact that is biologically more appropriate for a male
than from your belly.28
Gen 24:7
MT (= SP)

YHWH, the God of heaven, who took me from my fathers

house and from the land of my birth, and who spoke to me
and who swore to me saying, To your offspring I will give
this land, he will send his angel before you, and you will
take a wife for my son from there.
LXX ,
, ,

,
,
The Lord, the God of heaven and the God of earth, who
took me from my fathers house and from the land where
I was born, who spoke to me and swore to me, saying, To
you I will give this land, and to your offspring, he will send
his angel ahead of you, and you shall take a wife for my son
Isaak from there. (NETS)
Gen 24 tells the story of how Abrahams servant travels to Mesopotamia and
finds Rebekah, a suitable wife for his masters son, Isaac. In response to the
servants question whether he should take Abrahams son back to his masters
former homeland, if Isaacs bride-to-be is not willing to accompany the servant
27 At Gen 25:23, in the colon was translated faithfully by

the translator in connection with Rebekahs pregnancy:
.
28 Wevers, Notes, 205.
56 kotz
to the familys present place of occupation, Abraham gives a negative answer.

He assures the servant that YHWH will send his angel to lead the servant so that
he will fulfil his duty of returning from his destination with a wife for Isaac. This
assurance and his refusal to repatriate Isaac to Mesopotamia are grounded in
Abrahams experience of YHWH. He briefly recounts this experience in three
relative clauses that, together with the appositional phrase , char-
acterise YHWH from Abrahams perspective. Abraham identifies YHWH as the
supreme deity,29 who guided the direction of his life up to this point in time
and who has made an oath regarding the future of his descendants.
This description of YHWH forms part of the dislocated constituent in the
Hebrew texts. The Greek version of the verse exhibits a few notable differences.
First, the Lord is not only referred to as the God of heaven as in the Hebrew
texts of Gen 24:7; the Greek translator also added the phrase
to harmonise the wording of v. 7 with the description of the Lord as the God
of heaven and earth in v. 3. Second, the third relative pronoun in the Hebrew
wording is left untranslated in the OG text. Finally, the quoted words of the
Lord are changed by adding and positioning the Greek equivalent of
after the verb and its direct object. This plus and changes to the word order
could have been made during the translation process to bring the deitys words
in the verse into closer agreement with the wordings of similar divine promises
in Gen 13:15 and 28:13.30 Scholars also note that, from the point of view of the
verses content, the addition of in the Greek translation creates a connec-
tion with the episode in the previous chapter where Abraham purchased a plot
of land to bury Sarah (Gen 23:1620). Abraham therefore already owns a part
of the land that the Lord here promises to give to him and his descendants.31
29 Regarding God of heaven as a designation of a supreme deity in the religions of the

Phoenicians, Arameans, Israelites and Judeans, as well as a title for YHWH, especially
from the Persian period onwards, see Izak Cornelius, Himmelsgott, WiBiLex Das
Bibellexikon. Online: http://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/wibilex/das-bibellexikon, and
Herbert Niehr, God of Heaven, in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd ed.;
ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking and Pieter W. van der Horst; Leiden / Boston / Kln
/ Grand Rapids: Brill / Eerdmans, 1999), 37072.
30 L XX Gen 24:14 and 25:10 are two more passages where the OG wordings show harmonis-
ing pluses in the renderings of the Hebrew dislocated constituents. The pluses agree with
related information in the surrounding literary contexts. Cf. also the changes to the word-
ing of the matrix clause in the Greek translation of Gen 17:15. These adaptations and the
plus of a verb in the third clause of the verse were introduced by the translator in order
to harmonise the wording of this passage about Sarais name change with the wording of
Abrams name change in v. 5.
31 Cf. Prestel and Schorch, Genesis, 197, and Wevers, Notes, 345.
2.3 LXX Gen Reproduces the Left Dislocation Construction with Changes
to the Matrix Clause
Gen 2:1617
MT (= SP)

4QGenb32
[] [ ]

[ ] []

And YHWH Elohim commanded the man: From every tree

in the garden you may freely eat, but from the tree of the
knowledge about good and evil you may not eat, for in the
day that you eat of it you will surely die.33
LXX
,
,
,
32 The transliteration of the verse in 4QGenb Frg. 1 Col ii, 34 is quoted from James R. Davila,
4QGenb, in Qumran Cave 4 VII: Genesis to Numbers (ed. Eugene Ulrich et al.; DJD 12;
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 36. The letters [ ]from v. 17 have also been pre-
served on the fragment of 4QGenh2. James R. Davila, 4QGenh, in Qumran Cave 4 VII:
Genesis to Numbers (ed. Eugene Ulrich et al.; DJD 12; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 62.
33 The infinitive absolute constructions in the two verses have been interpreted in different
ways. Cf. Scott N. Callaham, Modality and the Biblical Hebrew Infinitive Absolute (AKM 71;
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010), 78, 123, and Yoo-Ki Kim, The Function of the Tautological
Infinitive in Classical Biblical Hebrew (HSS 60; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 9293,
96. In v. 16, the yiqtol verb expresses the deitys permission to eat from all the trees
in the garden. Its accompanying infinitive absolute can be taken to communicate the
unrestricted nature of this permission. This unrestricted permission is then qualified by
the prohibition in the following clause. The command in v. 17 not to eat from the tree of
knowledge about good and evil is motivated with a threat of certain death. This threat is
predicated on the divine characters implicit authority to carry out capital punishment
for disobedience. Presumably, the idea is not that the eating from the tree in question
will automatically result in death. If this were the case, the threat would be based on sup-
posed divine foreknowledge about the causes and effects of eating from this particular
tree. Rather, in the context of the clause, the infinitive absolute construction indicates the
deitys resolve to immediately implement a death sentence in the future, if the man were
to transgress the command.
58 kotz
And the Lord God commanded Adam: From every tree

that is in the park,34 you may eat for food, but of the tree
of knowing good and evil, you may not eat of it; on the day
that you eat of it, you shall die by death.35
In these two verses, the word order of the OG text largely agrees with that of
the Hebrew texts represented by the MT, SP and 4QGenb. For the translation
of the initial conjunction in the opening prepositional phrase of the dislocated
constituent (), the translator used , which has a contrastive sense here.36
This helps to communicate a contrast between the permission granted by the
Lord God to eat from every tree that is in the as food and the prohi-
bition against eating from the tree of knowing good and evil.37 Such a contrast
is also inferable from the juxtaposition of the two clauses
and in the Hebrew texts.38 The latter, the left
dislocation construction, is central to the plot of the narrative. It presents the
34 The background of the translation equivalent in LXX Gen seems to have been
the Hellenistic royal parks with their trees, water sources and space for walking. The
parks of the Ptolemies in Alexandria were inspired by Persian predecessors. See Jan N.
Bremmer, Greek Religion and Culture, the Bible and the Ancient Near East (Leiden / Boston:
Brill, 2008), 3555.
35 and in LXX Gen 2:16 and 17 are examples where the trans-
lator rendered the infinitive absolute constructions by finite verbs and cognate nouns in
the dative case. See the comments of Emanuel Tov, Renderings of Combinations of the
Infinitive Absolute and Finite Verbs in the Septuagint: Their Nature and Distribution, in
The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (ed. Emanuel Tov; VTSup
72; Leiden / Boston / Kln: Brill, 1999), 249, 252; and Raija Sollamo, The LXX Renderings
of the Infinitive Absolute Used with a Paronymous Finite Verb in the Pentateuch, in La
Septuaginta en la Investigacion Contemporanea (V Congreso de la IOSCS) (ed. Natalio
Fernndez Marcos; Madrid: CSIC, 1985), 107, 108.
37 The use of the postpositive conjunction means that the word order of the Greek transla-
tion is not exactly the same as that of the Hebrew text. In this verse, the two wordings
communicate the same information. Cf., however, Gen 3:12, where the indirect object in
the Greek translation () does not follow after the verb like its Hebrew equivalent (),
but precedes it. This transposition of next to has a pragmatic effect. It stresses
the contrast of she and me more clearly than the Hebrew does. Wevers, Notes, 42. See
also the word order changes involving Greek personal pronouns in either the dislocated
element or the matrix clause in Gen 4:22; 28:2122; 50:5. These word order changes might
have a pragmatic effect in the contexts of the passages.
38 See Westbury, Left Dislocation, 32728, on the use of left dislocation to inflate the contras-
tive relationship between two propositions or entities.
human character with a divine test and thereby builds suspense around the
question whether the prohibition will be obeyed or not.39 Although the Greek
text replicates the word order of this left dislocation construction in a literal
fashion, the translator introduced a change to the wording of the matrix clause
by adapting the number of its finite verb. Whereas the Hebrew verb is
second-person masculine singular, its Greek equivalent, , is second-
person plural (cf. also and , the renderings of the infinitive
construct and the yiqtol in v. 17). Accordingly, in the Greek version
of the narrative, the Lord God addresses the prohibition against eating from
the tree of knowledge and the warning that disobedience will result in death
not only to Adam,40 but to Eve as well, despite the fact that, at this point in the
narrative, she has not yet been created.
Gen 9:6
MT (= SP)
He who sheds the blood of a person, for the sake of the per-
son should his blood be shed, for in the image of God he
made humankind.
LXX ,

The one who sheds human blood, at the price of his

blood will it be shed, because in the image of God I made
humankind.
This post-deluge divine proclamation in the Hebrew texts of Gen 9:6 possibly
has legal undertones and is formulated chiastically ( correspond to
and corresponds to ).41 This means that the punishment is
39 Tryggve N.D. Mettinger, The Eden Narrative: A Literary and Religio-historical Study of
Genesis 23 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 23, 27, 5355.
40 Interestingly, the Greek translator treats as a proper name and in doing so
personalizes the account by making it deal with Adam rather than with mankind.
Wevers, Notes, 30.
41 See Horst Seebass, Genesis I: Urgeschichte (1,111,26) (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener,
1996), 22425, Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 115 (WBC 1; Waco: Word Books, 1987), 193, Claus
Westermann, Genesis 111 (BKAT I/1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974), 62526,
60 kotz
supposed to parallel the crime. The shedding of human blood should be repaid
in kind. The preposition of can be understood as a beth pretii (not a beth
instrumenti) and as the referent of the resumptive pronominal suffix of
in the second colon.42 On this interpretation of the verses Talionsformulierung,
the deity demands that the blood of a murderer should be spilled to repay the
blood of his victim.
LXX Gen 9:6 reflects a similar interpretation of the Hebrew wording. There
is no literal equivalent for in the OG text. Hendel attributes the minus to
haplography by homoioteleuton.43 Seeing as the endings of and are
the same, it is possible that a copyist wrote down and then continued
writing thereby leaving out. Another explanation of the Greek
wording is that the translator used the preposition to represent in
the target text.44 The choice of this preposition indicates that the beth in the
Hebrew Vorlage was understood as a beth pretii.45 The nominativus pendens
marks the topic of the main clause and the pronoun refers back
to it.46 The blood of the victim would then be the subject of the future passive
and Gerhard von Rad, Das erste Buch Mose: Genesis (ATD; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1953), 109.
42 See Seebass, Genesis I, 225, Ernst Jenni, Die hebrischen Prpositionen, Band 1: Die
Prposition Beth (Stuttgart / Berlin / Kln: Kohlhammer, 1992), 154, and Alexander
Ernst, Wer Menschenblut vergiet... Zur bersetzung von in Gen 9,6, ZAW
102 (1990): 25253. For an interpretation that favours the understanding of the preposi-
tion as an instrumental beth, see Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis (The JPS Torah Commentary;
Philadelphia / New York / Jerusalem: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 62.
43 Ronald S. Hendel, The Text of Genesis 111: Textual Studies and Critical Edition (Oxford /
New York: OUP, 1998), 140.
44 Johan Lust, For Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: Gen 9:6 in Hebrew and in Greek, in
Tradition of the Text: Studies Offered to Dominique Barthlemy in Celebration of his 70th
Birthday (ed. Gerard J. Norton and Stephen Pisano; OBO 109; Freiburg / Gttingen:
Universittsverlag / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 9798, shows that in some cases, the
minuses in LXX Gen can be attributed to the translator who wanted to avoid certain per-
ceived redundancies. Lust argues that the translator considered in the second colon
of Gen 9:6 to be redundant in the context and therefore only translated the preposition.
A similar explanation can account for the minus in the dislocated constituent of LXX
Gen 26:15. The Greek translation faithfully represents the left dislocation construction,
but it does not contain a rendering of the proper name . In the context of the pas-
sage, it is known who the father of Isaac is and the translator might have considered it
unnecessary to explicitly mention his name in the translation.
45 Lust, For Man, 96; Ernst, Menschenblut, 253.
46 The NETS translation presents a different interpretation of the Greek wording: As for the
one who sheds a humans blood, in return for this blood shall it be shed. This transla-
verb . The Greek wording claims that human blood will be shed at
the cost of the blood of the one who sheds it. Thus, according to LXX Gen 9:6,
if someone were to spill human blood, he would thereby forfeit his life in order
to requite the loss of life he caused. Neither the Hebrew version, nor the Old
Greek text, elaborates on how or by whom the punishment will be executed.
3 Examples where LXX Gen Does not Reproduce the Hebrew Left
Dislocation Construction in Translation
Gen 34:8
MT (= SP)

But Hamor spoke with them, saying, My son, Shechem, is

in love with your daughter (lit. his being is attached to your
daughter). Please give her to him as a wife.
LXX

And Emmor spoke with them, saying, My son Suchem has

selected your daughter with the soul. Give her to him as a
wife.
The episode in Gen 34 begins with the sexual assault on Dinah, the daughter
of Leah and Jacob, by Shechem, the son of Hamor the Hivite, a local chief.
Verse 3 claims that the rapist developed affectionate feelings for47 and fell in
love with his victim. He consequently asked his father to arrange the marriage
tion seems to take as the referent of . See also the translations of Peter
Prestel and Stefan Schorch, Genesis / Das Erste Buch Mose, in Septuaginta Deutsch:
Das griechische Alte Testament in deutscher bersetzung (ed. Wolfgang Kraus and Martin
Karrer; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2009), 11; and Harl, Gense, 140, as well as the
remarks by Rsel, bersetzung, 197; and Lust, For Man, 9899.
47 Verse 3 states that his being clung to Dinah. This phrase denotes emotional attachment
in the sense of romantic affection. Cf. the remarks of Tiana Bosman, Biblical Hebrew
Lexicology and Cognitive Semantics: A Study of Lexemes of Affection (Ph.D. dissertation,
Stellenbosch University, 2011), 21718.
62 kotz
(v. 4). When the two patriarchs meet to discuss the proposal of marriage, the
indignant brothers of Dinah are also present (vv. 67). Therefore, in v. 8, Hamor
politely requests them to give Dinah to Shechem as a wife in view of his love
for her.48
The Greek translator did not replicate the Hebrew dislocation construction
in his rendering of the verse. The dislocated noun phrase was turned into the
subject of the verb , while , the constituent in the matrix clause
that links with the dislocated noun phrase, was translated with the equiva-
lent . This dative noun adverbially modifies the verb in the OG text
by indicated the manner in which Schechem has selected Dinah.49 A similar
change of the syntactic function of is found in the Greek translation of
v. 3.50 Whereas in the Hebrew clause, acts as the subject of the wayyiqtol
verb , in the Greek translation, its equivalent, , no longer refers to
Shechem, but is syntactically connected to Dinah ( is genitive) and func-
tions as the object of the verb .51 These changes in vv. 3 and 8 create
the impression that LXX Gen deliberately avoided speaking of the as the
subject of feelings of romantic attachment.52
Gen 47:2021
MT

48 Like the similar phrase in v. 3, the expression his being is attached to in this verse
describes feelings of romantic love. Cf. Bosman, Biblical Hebrew, 23536.
50 M T: , And his being clung
to Dinah, the daughter of Jacob. And he fell in love with the girl and he spoke tenderly
with the girl. (The SP text is almost the same as the MT. The only differences are the mor-
phology of the word girl, which has the form in the SP, and the final preposition in
the verse, which in the SP is instead of the MTs .) LXX:

, And he devoted himself to the person of Dina, the daughter of Iakob, and he loved
the girl and spoke with her according to the girls mind (NETS).
51 The verb can mean to turn to or towards something, to pay attention, give
heed, to attend to, as well as to devote oneself to something (with a dative). See GELS,
594; LEH, 401; LSJ, 1512.
52 Prestel and Schorch, Genesis, 220.
So Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh, because each
Egyptian sold his field, given that the famine was severe upon
them. And the land became Pharaohs. And as for the people, he
brought them over to cities from one end of Egypts border to its
other end.
SP

So Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh, because each
Egyptian sold his field, given that the famine was severe upon
them. And the land became Pharaohs. And as for the people, he
made them subservient as servants53 from one end of Egypts
border to its other end.
LXX
,
,

And Ioseph acquired all the land of the Egyptians for Pharao.
For the Egyptians sold their land to Pharao, because the famine
gained mastery over them. And the land became Pharaos and
the people he subjugated to him as slaves from the furthest
boundaries of Egypt to the furthest...(NETS)
The version of v. 21 in the OG and SP texts, with its reference to Josephs enslave-
ment of the Egyptian people, differs from the version represented by the MT,
according to which, Joseph removed the people to cities all over Egypt. The
former fits better than the latter in the context of vv. 1819. These verses related
how the Egyptians, without money or livestock, ask Joseph for food and offer
themselves and their land as capital: Buy us and our land in exchange for food,
then we ourselves with our land will be servants to Pharaoh. And give us seed
so that we may live and not die and the land will not become desolate (v. 19).
There can be little doubt that the Hebrew Vorlage of LXX Gen contained the
53 Cf. the translation of v. 21a in Benyamin Tsedaka, ed., The Israelite Samaritan Version of
the Torah: First English Translation Compared with the Masoretic Version (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2013), 115: And the people who worked for him he made to be slaves.
64 kotz
same reading as the one in the SP: .54 The Greek

translator, however, disregarded the left dislocation construction in this case
and rendered the object marker plus suffix with (for him) so that
it would be clear in the wording of the translation that Joseph turned the
Egyptians into servants for Pharaoh. Together with the repeated statements
in v. 20 that the Egyptians land became the possession of Pharaoh (
appears three times in the OG text of the verse, the second instances being
a plus when compared to the MT and SP), the Greek translations interpreta-
tion of v. 21 shows that Joseph complied with the peoples wishes expressed in
v. 19. Whereas the dislocation in the Hebrew textual representatives shifts the
topic from the land in v. 20 to the people in v. 21, the OG text of the two verses
seems to put the focus on Pharaoh as the beneficiary of the events surrounding
the famine.
4 Concluding Remarks
This study presents data regarding the wording of selected passages in LXX Gen
where, in the available Hebrew textual representatives, there are instances of
left dislocation. The study shows that the Greek translation does not exhibit
a uniform treatment of the left dislocation constructions in these passages.
There are passages where the Greek translation copies the wording of the left
dislocation construction with or without changes to the dislocated elements
or the matrix clauses. It is noteworthy that in the verses examined in this
study, there are no instances of changes to the wordings of both the dislocated
element and the matrix clause. There are, however, a few instances where
the translator decided not to replicate the Hebrew wording of left dislocation
constructions in the translation.
From the perspective of translation technique, it is interesting that the word
order of many of the passages are the same in the Hebrew and Greek versions,
whether the translator reproduced the left dislocation construction or not. The
instances where the wordings of the dislocated elements and matrix clauses in
LXX Gen differ from all the extant Hebrew textual representatives, the changes
in the clause constituents, pluses, minuses and harmonisations can be attrib-
uted to the translator. The discussion of passages in which the Greek transla-
54 The MT reading came into being through an interchange of the graphically similar
consonants daleth and resh. Such a scribal error could also have contributed to the differ-
ences between and , but the change of nouns could also have been made by
a scribe so that the phrase would make sense with the verb in the context.
tion does not replicate the left dislocation construction also indicate that, in
spite of variant readings in the Hebrew and Greek versions of the verses, there
is no reason to doubt that the wording of LXX Gens Hebrew Vorlage agreed
with the MT and / or the SP. These are important findings for the text-critic.
Although this study only examined a small sample of passages with left dis-
location in LXX Gen, it is striking that almost all of the resumptive elements
in the matrix clauses of the Greek translation fulfil the same syntactic roles as
their counterparts in the Hebrew texts. The exception is LXX Gen 9:6. Whereas
in the Hebrew wording of the matrix clause the noun with the resumptive
suffix serves as the object of main verb, its translation equivalent forms part of
a prepositional phrase as a result of the minus in the translations wording. Of
the LXX Gen passages in which the dislocated element is headed by a noun or
relative pronoun, the cases of the resumptive element and those of the noun
or relative pronoun only differ at Gen 9:6 and 21:12. Interestingly, these two
passages are instances where there exists a metonymic relationship between
the referents of the dislocated and resumptive elements. In those verses where
the Greek translation does not follow the Hebrew source text in using left dis-
location to structure the information of the passages, the translator altered the
syntactic functions of the resumptive elements. These syntactic changes also
affect the information communicated by the passages.55
This study focused only on the Greek renderings of the formal features of
the left dislocation constructions in selected passages from Genesis. Future
research needs to broaden the scope of such analyses not only to examine the
formal features of all the different types of left dislocation constructions in
Genesis and other Hebrew Bible writings, but also to investigate to what extent
the Greek translations endeavour to communicate the same semantic infor-
mation and pragmatic effects of these left dislocation constructions in their
Hebrew Vorlage.
55 Cf., however, cases such as Gen 19:38; 23:11 and 24:27. In these verses, the OG text and
Hebrew wordings convey similar information, despite the fact that the translation does
not reproduce the left dislocation constructions.
CHAPTER 4
A Commentary on Septuagint Leviticus 19:1115

Dirk Bchner
1 Introduction
In this article is found a small excerpt of what is intended to appear in the

Leuitikon volume of the Society of Biblical Literature Commentary on the
Septuagint (SBLCS).1 The practice of commenting on Greek texts has a long and
rich heritage. One thinks of Walbanks three-volume commentary on Polybius
Histories or Kleins commentary on Platos Meno, or Aulds on the book of
Joshua, the pioneer volume of the Brill Commentary on the Septuagint.2 LXX.D
has a companion volume of amplifying remarks,3 and the BdA volumes have
comments appearing immediately below the translation.4 Johann Cook, to
whom this essay is dedicated, has devoted more than two decades to analysis
and commentary on LXX Proverbs.5
It goes without saying that to comment on an ancient writing demands that
one determine what its character is. Klein, in the opening sentences of his
Introduction asks the question, what considerations should guide the writing
of a commentary on a Platonic Dialogue?6 For him the answer to that ques-
tion is provided by how exactly one defines what a Platonic Dialogue is, and
1 It is a pleasure to dedicate this essay to friend and colleague Johann. As one of his earliest
masters and doctoral students, I have his guidance and influence to thank for my academic
growth and career. I am grateful to him for introducing me to Septuagint Studies, and for
drawing me into the family of NETS.
2 Frank W. Walbank, Polybius: The Histories (Berkeley: University of California Press, 195779);
Jacob Klein, A Commentary on Platos Meno (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965);
A. Graeme Auld, Joshua: Jesus Son of Naue in Codex Vaticanus (Septuagint Commentary
Series; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2005).
3 Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus, ed., Septuaginta Deutsch: Erluterungen und Kommentare
zum griechischen Alten Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011), hereafter
LXX.D E. K.
4 Dogniez, Ccile and Harl, Marguerite, Le Pentateuque dAlexandrie: Texte Grec et Traduction
(Paris: Cerf, 2001).
5 See Johann Cook, The Septuagint of ProverbsJewish and/or Hellenistic Proverbs? Concerning
the Hellenistic Colouring of LXX Proverbs (VTSup 69; Leiden: Brill, 1997).
6 Klein, Meno, 1.

a commentary on septuagint leviticus 67
consequently he pays considerable attention to that definition in the pages that

follow. For us who write a commentary on the text of the Septuagint, it is a vital
starting point to state with certainty what is the nature of that Septuagintal
material.
Aulds commentary on Joshua in Codex Vaticanus is a valuable resource
and contains insights that have been helpful to my own work on Leviticus. For
instance, Auld views without the article as a proper name and translates
it by Lord, as I think Greek Leviticus also views it, and he observes a number
of times that his translator (hereafter Iesous) deliberately juxtaposes hebraic
and idiomatic renderings for the same Hebrew expression, as the Leviticus
translator appears to be doing also.7 And yet, one is not sure from his introduc-
tion how one goes about writing a commentary on Joshua in Codex Vaticanus
without extended reference to the Hebrew text, as the Brill Series describes its
characteristic approach.8 Instead, Auld goes to some trouble to tell us about
the sort of translation [Iesous] offers of the underlying Hebrew.9 He observes,
for instance, that
[i]n Vaticanus, we find in the main a mix of three different approaches

[to translation]: 1. There is much plain, sensible rendering into idiomatic
Greek. 2. There is a good deal of literal word-for-word rendering. 3. There
are many exegetical renderings in which the Greek expression chosen
by the translator strains at the meaning of the parent Hebrew, yet at the
same time alerts the reader to consider this passage in the light of a por-
tion of the Pentateuch.
A sentence or two lower down, he says,
Each of them is contributing in its own way to making not only the
meaning but also the flavour and the wider religious context of the
Hebrew original and even on occasion its sound available to a Greek
readership.
7 Auld, Joshua, 121, 147. See for example Alison Salvesens positive review in JTS ns 57/1 Apr
(2006): 17779.
8 See the rationale for the series on their website http://www.brill.com/publications/
septuagint-commentary-series.
9 Auld, Joshua, xii and xix. James Aitken in his review of Jesus (JSOT 30.5 [2006]: 53) feels that
not enough information is provided about conditions during the translators own time.
68 bchner
And finally, on p. xxiv, characterising the translation technique, I think I would

prefer the description flexible to free.
These observations address the crucial matters of translational approach,
of conveying the flavour and meaning of the Hebrew text to a readership,
and the technique of translation (flexible vs. free/literal). Now, to my mind
a difficulty arises when one talks in the same breath about the translational
approach and the readership of one of the great codices. Those communities
that preserved Vaticanus were quite removed from the original Jewish reader-
ship living in Ptolemaic Alexandria, for whom the translation was originally
intended. The issue to settle, therefore, is where a commentator should locate
the meaning of the Hebrew original as conveyed by the Greek. The concerns
of the first and later audiences would have been very different, and it doesnt
seem right to comment on the meaning held by Vaticanus for its readership by
attending to the translators approaches. It may be said, for instance, that the
Alexandrian community held the Semitic original in such high regard that they
expected its word order and syntax to be reflected accurately and faithfully.
This can be observed in Josh 3:4 in which is rendered
by which reflects the Hebrew relative pleonasm.
In the same verse the literalism merely represents,
rather than translates the Hebrew idiom .10 The later Christian
audience would have held the translated Greek text in the highest regard.11
Although they would have known it to rest on a Hebrew original, they would
not have had immediate insight into why their text was coloured by Semitic
syntax, nor could they have appreciated the translators use of variable ren-
derings for the same Hebrew. If one therefore speaks of meaning, one needs
to decide whether that meaning lies in the Christian readers world of under-
standing or in the mind of the readers for whom a translation was made that
contained non-standard Greek alongside well-formed Greek, as Auld puts
it.12 This is not to detract from Aulds careful philological work, but only to say
that at times it more closely resembles a commentary on how the translator
went about his task rather than a commentary on the meaning of Vaticanus
10 Auld, Joshua, 104.

11 See Eberhard Bons discussion of Jeromes attitude toward the LXX as the true rep-
resentation of Scriptures meaning, when there is a discrepancy between it and the
Hebrew. Eberhard Bons, Amos 5:26 berlegungen zur Textkritik, Textgeschichte und
bersetzung eines schwierigen Bibelverses, in Text-Critical and Hermeneutical Studies in
the Septuagint (ed. Johann Cook and Hermann-Josef Stipp; VTSup 157; Leiden: Brill, 2012),
297310, esp. 307.
12 Auld, Joshua, xviii.
in its own right, for which I am very grateful! This brings us back to the dis-
cussion of that translators habit of varying his rendition of the same Hebrew
expression. Auld draws from it the conclusion that Iesous was competent in
both languages, but stops short of saying what his initial audience might have
gained from being offered interchangeable expressions, or what expectation
of theirs that stratagem may have satisfied.13 Translation theorists have for
some time reminded us that the act of translation is hardly ever a phenome-
non of a translators idiosyncrasies alone, but also a phenomenon that reflects
the expectations of the intended audience. And so at this point some com-
ments about contemporary translation theory in relation to LXX studies may
be helpful.
Recent developments in translation theory have seen (1) a shift from source-
text oriented theories to target-text oriented theories and (2) the inclusion
of cultural factors in addition to linguistic elements in translation models.14
Together, these developments have freed theorists from being bound by such
a-historical notions as Chomskys deep structure / surface structure and Nidas
formal equivalence / dynamic equivalence. The chief impetus in the direction
of target-orientedness came from the functionalist movement, through figures
like Katharina Reiss, Hans Vermeer and Justa Holz-Mnttri, who began to
identify translators as active agents having a communicative goal according to
the cultural conditions and needs of their audience. For them, translators may
make use of both strategies of word-for-word or idiomatic rendering as the
need arises.15 While the functionalists were regarded as still too closely bound
by the need to establish equivalence of meaning between source and target
texts, their work was taken one step further by proponents of the so-called
early translation studies among whom James Holmes was the leading light.
Holmes depended on Ji Levs adoption into translation studies of Russian
Formalist ideas which privileged surface-structure characteristics over meta-
physical categories such as meaning, and through which Lev attempted to
measure the relationship between a text and its culture.16 Holmes insisted that
the focus of translation studies be the process of translation. That is, only once
13 Auld, Joshua, 147.

14 Edwin Genzler, Contemporary Translation Theories (Revised 2nd Edition, Topics in
Translation 21; Clevedon/ Toronto / Sydney: Multilingual Matters, 2001), 70.
15 Hans Vermeer, Skizzen zu einer Geschichte der Translation (Frankfurt: Verlag fr interkul-
turelle Kommunikation, 1992), 20, and by the same author, Is Translation a Linguistic or a
Cultural Process?, in Studies in Translation/Estudos in Traducao (ed. Malcom Coulthard,
Ilha do Desterro 28, 1992), 3749.
16 Genzler, Translation Theories, 8283.
70 bchner
a translators choices are understood, can one make value-judgements of a

translation as good or bad, understood or misunderstood.17 Out of early trans-
lation studies developed polysystem theory articulated by the Israelis Itamar
Even-Zohar and his student Gideon Toury who developed the formers work
more fully into what he eventually called descriptive translation studies.18 For
Even-Zohar and Toury, early translation studies as a model was too prescrip-
tive and failed to adequately describe the historical situation that conditioned
specific systems of representation. Toury conducted field studies of actual
decisions taken during the process of translation; that is, the childrens stories,
technical manuals and ideological material that were being translated into
modern Hebrew from Yiddish, Russian and French. His aim was to catalogue
these translational decisions and identify rules governing translational prac-
tice. From observed shifts that happen between source text and target text he
concluded that translators worked towards norms found in the target culture.
He predicted that such norms will specify the role expected of translations
over against their originals, depending on the place an original text occupies
as cultural artefact.19
Of interest to Septuagint studies is this comment made by Genzler about
the approach of the Israeli scholars:
The important theoretical difference between their work and the early
translation studies scholars is that the direction of thought about trans-
lation becomes reversed. Translation studies disciples...tended to look
at one-to-one relationships and functional notions of equivalence; they
believed in the subjective ability of the translator to derive an equiva-
lent text that in turn influenced the literary and cultural conventions in
a particular society. Polysystem theorists presume the opposite: that the
social norms and literary conventions in the receiving culture...govern
the aesthetic presuppositions of the translator and thus influence ensu-
ing translation decisions.20
17 James S. Holmes, Forms of Verse Translation and the Translation of Verse Forms, in
The Nature of Translation (ed. James S. Holmes, Frans de Haan and Anton Popovi; The
Hague: Mouton, 1970), 7980.
18 Itamar Even-Zohar, Polysystems Studies (Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and
Semiotics, 1990); Gideon Toury, In Search of a Theory of Translation (Tel Aviv: The Porter
Institute for Poetics and Semiotics, 1980); idem, Descriptive Translation Studies and
Beyond (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1995).
19 Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies, 5369.
20 Genzler, Translation Theories, 108.
Albert Pietersma and his student Cameron Boyd-Taylor have taken seriously
this shift from source oriented translation models to a model that focusses on
the nature of the target text, the process of translation and the conventions
of the receiving culture.21 One point that Pietersma has constantly pressed
is that the cultural factors operating during the time of the translations pro-
duction were very different from those during any subsequent moment in
history at which a translation was adopted by receptor communities who had
no recourse to the original.22 For that he is indebted to Toury, who says: There
is no way [later cultural constellations] can be part of the constraints under
which translational decisions were made and the translated text came into
being.23 This brings us back to the question of where to locate the Septuagints
reader and the meaning intended for that reader. For the SBLCS that means to
consider very closely the verbal make-up of the Septuagint as conceptualized
by each translator as they went about their work.24
In the short excerpt of commentary that now follows, an attempt will be
made to point out how the Leviticus translator went to work and made choices
to satisfy the norms and expectations of his target culture. Overall, his chief
intention is to be as faithful as possible to the Hebrew parent text. To achieve
this intention of fidelity, he transposes Hebrew phrases to Greek ones taking
great care to maintain quantitative equivalence and word order. In other
words, his translation as transposition evinces as little adjustment as possible.
For each verse, the Hebrew text, the Gttingen text, NRSV and NETS will
appear at the head of the commentary, and each entry selected for comment
will be introduced by the Greek word or phrase.25 The commentator is referred
to as G.
21 Apart from works cited below, two articles may be singled out. Albert Pietersma, LXX
and DTS: A New Archimedian Point for Septuagint Studies? BIOSCS 39 (2006): 112 and
in the same volume, Cameron Boyd-Taylor, Toward the Analysis of Translational Norms:
A Sighting Shot, 2747.
22 Pietersma, Archimedian Point, 46.
23 Gideon Toury, A Handful of Methodological Issues in DTS: Are they Applicable to the
Septuagint as an Assumed Translation?, BIOSCS 39 (2006): 15.
24 See the Guidelines for Commentators on the website located at http://ccat.sas.upenn
.edu/ioscs/commentary.
25 Lev 19:1115 was selected only because it contains a representative sample of the kind
of lexical, syntactical and interpretive investigations the LXX commentator must attend
to. Since the commentary is primarily interested in the process of translation, no more
than cursory attention is given to the meaning of the Hebrew original, except where
warranted. The primary commentary consulted is Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1722: A New
Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB; New York: Doubleday, 2000). Neither,
72 bchner
2 Commentary
Leuitikon 19:11
. . .
NRSV: You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; and you shall not lie
to one another.
NETS: You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; each of you shall not
falsely accuse his neighbor.
. G innovated the match of and , the former meaning

deny a truth, dissemble, while its synonym tends toward the idea affirm
a nontruth, lie.26 The Greek verb has a wide range of meanings: deceive by
lies, falsify, be false (LSJ).
. The copulative is also missing in Syriac. The Greek verb means

prosecute vexatiously, blackmail (LSJ). Its match with Piel trick, treat
falsely is unique to this verse. In the Pentateuch, the verb occurs only
once more (Gen 21:23) and there it is translated by . Presumably because
the two Hebrew verbs were too synonymous, G broadened the range of deceit-
ful activity.
. It is the second time in this chapter that G renders the

Hebrew distributive idiomatically (see 19:3). This rendering reveals some-
thing about the translator and what his audience expected from him. The
Hebrew idiom, as is well-known, expresses the idea of ones fellow-man. For
that, by itself is adequate. But the translator was concerned with faith-
fully rendering his original, rather than to translate as economically as pos-
sible. That is why the second element is also reflected, pleonastically, but not
for that matter are the publications by Wevers, Harl and Pralon or Vahrenhorst given
special acknowledgement since their observations largely overlap with my own. Only in
cases where there are differences of opinion will they be cited.
26 Milgrom, Leviticus 1722, 1630.
in a way that produces incomprehensible Greek.27 NETS therefore renders

it as good Greek as does LXX.D with Es soll nicht ein jeder den Nchsten
verleumden. No translator would have taken such an action unless it was to
satisfy an audience aware that reflected an item in the source text,
and therefore expected it to be present also in the translation. Having done
that, the translator needed to resolve the difficulty created by his opting for a
singular subject representing , and having to account for a plural
verb in the original. His solution is to have the Greek verb cohere with its
singular subject.
. The first appears in Chapter 5 and is a common term of Leviticus,

along with synonyms and . is the usual rendering for when-
ever the distributive formula occurs in Exodus, as well as in Lev 19:13, below.
Syriac and Targum Onkelos reflect Gs choice here and in v. 13 by rendering
with friend, companion, as if rendering both times. Perhaps all
three translations are harmonizing to a Hebrew formula. Harmonization is
another way in which a translator is motivated by concerns of his readership.
Leuitikon 19:12
NRSV: And you shall not swear falsely by my name, profaning the name of
your God: I am the LORD.
NETS: And you shall not swear by my name in an unjust matter, and
you shall not profane the name of your God; it is I who am the Lord your
God.
. The syntax of this clause, i.e., verb followed

by dative of the agent followed by prepositional phrase, mirrors the Hebrew
exactly. Under normal circumstances is followed by an accusative of
the thing by which one swears (LSJ) or person invoked (Moulton-Milligan),
27 This phenomenon is given some attention by Jan Joosten, Translating the Untranslatable:
Septuagint Renderings of Hebrew Idioms, in Translation is Required (ed. Robert J.V.
Hiebert; SBLSCS 56; Atlanta: SBL, 2010), 5970.
74 bchner
but here in imitation of the Hebrew syntax, a dative of the agent appears. It
makes perfect sense, but is not quite acceptable by the rules of the vernacular.
The examples cited by BDAG show how this usage is emulated by subsequent
Jewish and Christian Greek writings.
. Whereas the Hebrew prepositional phrase has adverbial value

(HALOT, by a breach of faith), in the same way that is employed in the
parallel passage Exod 20:7 (Greek, ), the identical function cannot
be assumed for the Greek phrase. About it we can only say that it resembles
a match established by the Exodus translator at 23:7, and thereafter used as a
fixed expression judging by the three occurrences in this chapter.
. Used of persons, the noun means one who plays unfairly, and of things,
unjust, unrighteous (LSJ; LXX.D, etwas Unrechtmssiges). False swearing
and swearing by the divine name in an unjust matter are different, legally
speaking. The translator may be broadening our understanding of the com-
mandment to refer to something concrete,28 or he might be influenced by
Genesis use of for mentioned above.
. The book of Leviticus presents us with a number of formu-

lations in which there is a cause and effect relationship between two actions
(you shall not do x lest it lead to y, or you shall not do y in doing x). It is fre-
quently a prohibition consisting of with yiqtol followed by the epexegetical
segment in the infinitive as in Lev 19:29a (NRSV, Do not profane your daugh-
ter by making her a prostitute).29 Three times in the book, however, negative
clauses having with yiqtol is followed by the consequence in the form of a
weqatal. In each case the negative of the first clause may be viewed as applying
to the second, inviting the English lest.30 These are presented below in table
form.
28 Martin Vahrenhorst, LXX.D E.K., 392.

29 Syntactically, you shall not x in order to do y is easily transferrable to Greek future plus
infinitive, but it is hard to justify the use of the Greek infinitive without the article to
express you shall not do x (fut) by doing y (inf). For the epexegetical use of lamed with
the infinitive, i.e., as a gerundive, see IBHS 36.2.3e. There is no corresponding function for
the Greek infinitive without the article, and so NETS might be in need of correction at
19:29.
30 So Milgrom, Leviticus, 1632.
TABLE 4.1
Negative clause Consequence
11:43 lest you become unclean

19:12

lest you profane

19:29b

lest land become full...

G renders each of the three consequence clauses by plus a future, which is

his customary way of rendering weqatal forms. But twice he adds the negative
to the consequence clause, though it is not physically present in the Hebrew.
In the third, he does not add the negative. What he does in the third instance
is worth contrasting with the others because it is almost as if he corrects
himself and reverts to his practice of careful rendering. This results in a loss
of logic (NETS, and the land will not fornicate, and the land shall be full of
lawlessness).
When a translator suspends a procedure employed earlier, it often provides
a clue to that former process. If in v. 12 he had carefully rendered each Hebrew
item as he would later do in v. 29, the result would have been:
that is, you shall not
swear by my name in an unjust matter, and you shall profane the name of your
God (exactly as it is in the Syriac and Targum Onkelos). But since a command
to profane the Divine name would be unacceptable to his audience, he adds
the negative to conform to similar instances in which the negative is repeated
(18:21, 21:12, 23). Where, more neutrally, the land is the subject in v. 29, no sec-
ond negative is added to the last half of the sentence, though the same state
of affairs are operative. Without this correction, we could agree with Zipor
who suggests that the translator simply regards the Hebrew negative to extend
to the second verb also.31 Zipors view could, however, be bolstered by the
31 Moshe Zipor, Notes sur les chapitres XIX XXII du Lvitique dans la Bible dAlexandrie,
ETL 67.4 (1991): 331 and John W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Leviticus (SBLSCS 44;
Atlanta: SBL, 1997), 296.
76 bchner
presence of rendering a vav in Exod 12:9. Whatever the explanation, a

result in Hebrew (thereby profaning) turns now into a prohibition in Greek
(you shall not profane).
Leuitikon 19:13
,
.
NRSV: You shall not defraud your neighbor; you shall not steal; and you
shall not keep for yourself the wages of a laborer until morning.
NETS: You shall not act unjustly towards your neighbor, and you shall
not plunder, and the wages of a day laborer shall not rest overnight with
you until morning.
.... The pairing of with and with is

already in the memory of the translator from Lev 5:23. G most often leant upon
established pairings, rather than seeking new ones. Or, if there is an avail-
able precedent for a pairing, that will often, though not always, determine
his choice. , meaning extort, oppress was already matched by in
Genesis (26:20). can be used absolutely in the sense of do wrong, but
also with the accusative of person to mean injure, ruin, harm. Another term
selected for its prior occurrence in Greek Genesis, is as counterpart of
. It generally prefers an accusativus rei, but carries also the absolute meaning
of practice robbery that fits well in the present context. The Hebrew verb is at
home in the realm of property rights, applicable to things like flocks and fields
which may be appropriated by illegal means. In contrast, the Greek verb when
used for cities or land, means plunder,32 and so this is the rendering chosen by
NETS.
. The Hebrew verb , although referring to the human act of

spending the night, is also used of inanimate subjects that may be left over-
night to be dealt with in the morning, in this case, unpaid wages. The Greek
word, meaning go to bed, sleep, lie with, never takes inanimate objects as
its subject, except in the LXX. This novelty may serve as an illustration of the
32 See references in LSJ II.

needs of the target culture. It will appear that the target culture approved the
selection of a term based on the regular, expected translational equivalent for
a Hebrew word rather than its suitability within the semantic field. Though far
from nonsensical, the resultant language may be categorized within the target
culture as adequate rather than acceptable.33 It is the Hebrew word that is held
in the background.
. Hebrew is what Milgrom calls a consequential meaning, in

other words, what results from work.34 It appears here for the first time in the
Pentateuch. G now provides a field-specific rendering whereas he might have
chosen a rendition such as , i.e., one that is closer to the etymology of
the Hebrew word, as do the translators of later LXX books.
. As one who is able to work only intermittently, the day-labourer,

, is landless, though of higher status than the slave.35 G employs a cognate
of the previous word, a match also made by Exodus. When used as a substan-
tive, it means hireling, hired servant, applicable also to mercenaries.
Leuitikon 19:14
NRSV: You shall not revile the deaf or put a stumbling block before the
blind; you shall fear your God: I am the LORD.
NETS: You shall not speak badly of the deaf and put an obstacle before
the blind, and you shall fear the Lord your God; it is I who am the Lord
your God.
. Four times in the Pentateuch (Exod 21:17; 22:28, here and Lev 20:9)
we find variations of revile, speak badly for , alongside a dozen
or so instances of call down curses upon. Gs rendering softens the
33 Boyd-Taylor, Sighting Shot, 4547.

34 Milgrom, Leviticus, 1639.
35 H ALOT; Milgrom, Leviticus, 1638.
78 bchner
Hebrew words harshness, and perhaps it is because of the recipients: the gods,
the deaf/mute and ones parents.
. Other compounds of are widely employed for by the

Pentateuch translators, but this is the one and only occurrence of .
Instances such as these are perhaps the best clues we have to understand what
may be happening in the mind of the translator. He may have a goal of adher-
ing to established ways of rendering, but he will not always be guided by it, and
will make adjustments of his own.
. In most of the reference works, is glossed as the later

form of , that is, a curved piece of wood of a certain length serving
as the trigger of an animal trap, to which the bait was fastened. Later it came
to mean the perch of an acrobat.36 In P. Cair. Zen 4.59608 of the 3rd century
BCE, one of Zenons agricultural foremen tells his underling:
(read ) now above all give a thought to
the traps. In the fragments previous sentence the sesame crop is mentioned,
suggesting that the verb is not negative in the sense of be careful
of but rather conveys the idea of looking to, or paying attention to the traps.
Perhaps they were snares for small animals as a source of income along with
the seed crop. Here in the LXX the noun is to be understood as the kind of trap
one sets in the path of an enemy. In other words, the action prohibited is not
merely placing an obstacle for the blind to stumble over, but a more malicious
way of snaring the helpless. Obstacles are passive, whereas traps have internal
operational devices that make them effective. The neutral rendering obstacle
of NETS may be replaced by a more suitable word such as snare.
The Hebrew word carries the metaphorical sense of the means or occa-
sion of stumbling, i.e., misfortune or calamity (see BDB). Since he had no prior
rendering of to take into consideration, G spontaneously selects the ren-
dition trap which connects nicely with the Hb words figurative sense. He
could quite easily have followed Exodus (23:33 and 34:12) whose
(for )!is suggestive of the action inherent in . But he decided for a
more expressive word instead.
36 Wilhelm Pape, Handwrterbuch der griechischen Sprache (Braunschweig: Vieweg, 1880),

889; Pierre Chantraine, Dictionnaire tymologique de la langue grecque (Paris: Klincksieck,
19681980), 1010; and see especially Moulton-Milligan, 576. A full treatment of the
NT usage is offered by Juan Mateos, Analysis Semantico de los Lexemas y
, Filologia Neotestamentaria 2/1 (1989): 5792.
Beyond the Pentateuch, the pairing and will only occur

twice more. In 1 Sam 25:31 is found for the expression , a
mental state rendered into English by remorse, pangs of conscience, faltering
courage (respectively, NJB, NRSV and TNK). The third instance is in Ps 119:165
(LXX 118:165). There, the emotional condition of having ... is anti-
thetically paralleled with one in which there is , implying that lovers
of the law possess wholeness or completeness and have nothing that might
occasion them to fall. So again the rendering works well: those who
love the law are free of snares. Apart from these three cases, and the
denominative verb are far more commonly paired with cognates of
meaning snare or trap, in other words, as a more direct semantic match
for the Hebrew. For instance, in Sir 9:5 and 23:8 the passive of
appears for Hofal.37 In non-translated books of the LXX the regular usage
also comes to the fore as in Wis 14:11 where is mentioned in the same
breath as . It is therefore curious that stumbling-block occurs as a regu-
lar gloss for in some English translations of the NT and in GELS,
whose entry is worth quoting in full: 1. an object deliberately placed
to make sbd trip, stumbling-block (punctuation original).38 The words in ital-
ics accurately present the evidence, but the inclusion of stumbling-block
seems to be no more than a transposition of the meaning of onto the
Greek, despite Moulton-Milligans warning against doing so. A comparison
of two modern translations of Rom 11:9 reveals that one follows the Hebraic
meaning, but that the other resists it. This verse contains a citation of LXX
Ps 68:23 (MT 69:23) where to be expected, renders . The NJB has:
May their own table prove a trap for them, a pitfall and a snare (),
while the NRSV has Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling
block (). Similarly intriguing is a look in the opposite direction as
it were, at NT Greek words that are translated into a Semitic language. The NT
Peshitta renders all occurrences of in the NT with either
and both of which mean stumbling-block, offence but never snare.
What exactly is implied by this will require further study. It could be that the
influence of Lev 19 was of such magnitude that the equivalence established
there coloured subsequent understanding of the Greek word and depending
37 I am grateful to colleagues Martin Abegg and Andrew Perrin for help in accessing the
Hebrew text of Sir.
38 G ELS, 622. The same is true for LEH, 554, which begins with the entries trap, snare,
temptation to sin, offence, but then also includes stumbling block with reference to Sir
27:23, where it is not an obvious nor necessary sense, (NETS offense). Unfortunately the
Hebrew is not extant at this verse.
80 bchner
on time and place, eclipsed the most common and semantically accurate col-
location i.e. - and .
. Five times in Leviticus we encounter the formula

that is, fear punishment from God, not to be confused with revere God
(without the preposition).39 Each time, G does not render the preposition,
which is surprising since he is normally quite careful to do so. There are no
alternative readings in the manuscript tradition.
Leuitikon 19:15

, .
NRSV: You shall not render an unjust judgment; you shall not be partial to
the poor or defer to the great: with justice you shall judge your neighbor.
NETS: You shall not do something unjust in judgment; you shall not
accept the person of the poor or admire the person of a high official; with
justice you shall judge your neighbor.
The wording of the Greek follows the Hebrew most precisely. This verse con-
tains a number of key Hebrew terms which are rendered by their known trans-
lational equivalents. A number of them are also frequently used in the NT.
. An example of such periphrastic usage when the verb

in its absolute sense of do wrong would have been sufficient on its own, is
found in Plato, Rep. 342c.3:
. For it is not the fear of doing but of suf-
fering wrong that calls forth the reproaches of those who revile injustice.40
This is a fine demonstration of the natural way in which Hebrew syntax and
39 See the discussion in Milgrom, Leviticus, 1641. The passages containing this formula have
to do with crimes done in secret that are nevertheless known to God.
40 Paul Shorey, Plato, The Republic Books 15 (LCL 237; Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1930), 436.
word order may be transposed into Greek without the result being Hebraic or
less than acceptable.
.... The Hebrew technical terminology of / in the

juridical sphere overlaps semantically with and cognates, where the lat-
ter connote actions of deciding disputes, giving judgement, bringing to trial or
accusing, and passing sentence or condemning.
. In the Pentateuch, occurs first in Gen 19:21 as

grant a favour; in Deut 10:17 for the Lord who shows no partiality and 28:50
for those who show no respect to the elderly (see below). The idiom is fairly
common in the rest of the Hebrew Bible. occurs only here
in the Pentateuch. In the passages mentioned above, is
employed for . So it appears as if the translator of Deuteronomy fol-
lows Genesis but the translator of Leviticus does not. Hebrew lifting the face
conveys a sympathetic attitude towards one that has become crestfallen due to
circumstance.41 Greek, on the other hand, does not attest an idiom in which a
persons as direct object of indicates a mental state. There is
of course the possibility that by itself could express the idea of receive
favourably (LSJ II.1.b). But the combination verb, noun plus genitive of person
is found in Aristomenes only to mean take the kings mask (along with his
cloak).42 NETS informs the English reader that the structure of the Hebrew
phrase is transferred onto the Greek but not its semantic value; hence we do
not read show partiality, but instead the less expressive accept the person.
LXX.D makes much the same point with Angesicht in Augenschein nehmen
(compare LSJ I.9).43 Elsewhere in the LXX, with gen. pers.
becomes the common rendition for the Hebrew expression. And as often hap-
pens due to repeated usage, such formulae are adopted into later sacred writ-
ings, in the sense of the original Hebrew for which they are the stand-in, rather
than their native Greek semantic value. So, in Luke 20:21,
is used for Jesus as an impartial teacher. In Gal 2:6, it is used of God (
) alluding to Deut 10:17 or 2 Chr 19:7 although there
41 Milgrom, Leviticus, 1643.

42 Aristomenes, Testimonia and Fragments (LCL 513; Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1955), 13233.
43 BdA accidentally omit this clause in their translation, although they discuss it in a
footnote.
82 bchner
occurs for ( see below). It is likely that Aramaic speakers hearing

the expression in Greek would have recognized in it a Semitism.
. G is here not following the Greek translator of Exodus who employed

and in his formulation of the prohibition (Exod 23:3,6 and
30:15, cf. Lev 14:21). The is slightly better-off than the by being
at least an earner of day-wages, or having to toil or else be in want. The latter
originally meant beggar, or beggarly in, with the action of suggest-
ing shrinking from, crouching, cringing in an attitude of begging. G therefore
intensifies, and adds colour of his own.
. The Greek verb by itself means honour or admire,

which expresses the sentiment of the Hebrew phrase. As before, the inclusion
of the direct object and gen. pers. is a pure Hebraism and detracts
from the Greek. It is of some interest that in Genesis, Deuteronomy and
beyond, this combination is the equivalent for . In the NT, the com-
bination is found only in Jude 1:16 and may be in imitation
of its occurrence here, or it may be that there, could simply mean
persons, with the verb meaning to flatter. 1 Esd 4:39 and Gal 2:6 appear to
make allusion to Deut 10:17 or 2 Chr 19:7 where in both cases a cognate of
occurs, though rendered by . But both 1 Esdras and Galatians employ
and not !
. as antithesis of suggests the wealthy. The Greek word is used

mainly of those who are great of stature in the political realm, as found in
Gen 50:4 for the members of Pharaohs house. G thus achieves a slight shift in
nuance.
3 Conclusions
The translators intended recipients were a learned audience of the middle-

class, perhaps a bilingual one, whose intellectual interests were served by
Alexandrian Jewish education.44 For their benefit and according to their appre-
ciation of the Hebrew source as cultural artefact, the translator of Leviticus
44 Martin Rsel, bersetzung als Vollendung der Auslegung: Studien zur Genesis-Septuaginta
(BZAW 223; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994), 258 and Chaim Rabin, The Translation Process and
the Character of the Septuagint, Textus 6 (1968): 21.
maps out the language structure of the Hebrew into Greek, sometimes allow-
ing Hebraistic additions that do not add to the Greek, for instance and
. Within that framework he makes clever choices that offer subtle
shifts in meaning, reflected by his use of the words and .
For the sake of his audience he tries as much as possible to replicate choices
made by Genesis and Exodus for the sake of consistency. Though it leads
him to select words not specific to the semantic field, e.g., , he will
sometimes select excellent field-specific words such as and .
Together, these strategies present a non-static mode of operation that provides
the commentator endless mysteries to unravel and avenues to explore.
CHAPTER 5
Where is Wisdom to be Found and How do We

Apprehend Her?
Jessie Rogers
This paper examines two particular aspects of poems in Proverbs, Job, Sirach,
Baruch and the Book of Wisdom which present personified wisdom in the con-
text of the wisdom quest.1 I analyse these passages through a two-fold lens:
spatial and sensory. For the first, I track the localities from where Sophia speaks
and also where she is sought or found. Is she in the public or domestic sphere,
inside or outside, in heaven or on earth, present or absent? The sensory aspect
revolves around how humans are imagined as getting wisdom and the answer
given in each text is analysed in terms of the senses invoked sight, hearing,
touch, taste and smell. Although I will note the suggestions or instructions for
gaining wisdom, such as study of the law or listening to wise people, it is the
sensory semantic range of the verbs employed that is my main focus. It is hoped
that highlighting these particular aspects of the literary presentation of Sophia
will illuminate subtle continuities and discontinuities in the conceptualisa-
tion of this figure across the canonical and deuterocanonical wisdom books.
Here I will largely limit myself to noting these aspects, but if, as Schroer has
claimed for Job 28 in comparison with Egyptian Wisdom, Hokma or Sophia
as a personification is actually a symbol for the theology of each individual
writing,2 then these literary details could profitably be mined for insights into
the distinctive approaches to meaning-making in these different works. For
clarity and to distinguish easily between the book, Wisdom of Solomon, and
the personification, I use the name Sophia for the latter, even in those books
which are written in Hebrew.
My chosen texts fall into two categories: wisdom poems which reflect on
Sophias relationship to God and humanity and her place in the cosmos; and
those describing the sages quest for wisdom. In both sets, Sophia can be said
1 Johann Cook introduced me many years ago to the enigmatic figure of Woman Wisdom in
Proverbs and expertly guided my engagement with her in Sirach. This is an aspect of the
Old Testament that has continued to fascinate and engage me, and so I offer this short essay
in gratitude to a great scholar and friend.
2 Silvia Schroer, Wisdom has Built her House (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000), 5.

where is wisdom to be found ? 85
to be personified in the majority of cases. Each author utilizes the device to

serve their own agenda, and creates her in their image, as it were. That said, the
similarities in genre and in tropes employed are quite striking and invite com-
parison. These tropes include the idea of seeking and finding wisdom, wisdom
as lover or bride, wisdoms home and the path to it.
The wisdom poems in Job 28, Prov 8, Sir 1 and 24, Bar 3:94:4 and per-
haps also Wis 79 share a number of features. In particular, they share the
topic of wisdoms place in the cosmos and wisdoms relationship to God and
to humanity and / or Israel. Newsom assigns all but Wis 79 to the genre
speculative wisdom poems,3 and even Wis 79, which is a royal autobiog-
raphy, has many elements in common with the others in the group, as does
Prov 3:1320. Newsom identifies a number of generic markers:
The topic is wisdoms place in the cosmos and at issue is her availability or
lack thereof to human beings.
The distinctive referent of wisdom is not simply the art of living well but a

transcendent reality or universal.
Tropes employed include: seeking / finding and the feminine personifica-

tion of wisdom; economic imagery or imagery of precious goods to describe
wisdoms value; imagery of benefits and consequences, and the imagery and
syntactical style of creation accounts.
The style is elevated poetry, and it has a didactic quality, with the speaker
be it Sophia or a sage possessing great knowledge.4
These poems are closely related to other poems featuring Sophia and to exhor-
tations to seek wisdom and / or descriptions of the wisdom quest in Proverbs,
Sirach and Wisdom. The passages, then, to which I will refer in this essay are:
Job 28; Prov 1:2033; 3:1620; 8:136; 9:16; Sir 1:110; 4:1119; 6:1831; 14:2015:8;
24:122; Wis 6:129:18,5 and Bar 3:94:4.
3 Carol A. Newsom, The Book of Job: A Contest of Moral Imaginations (Oxford: OUP, 2009), 172.
4 Newsom, Contest of Moral Imaginations, 17173.
5 There are a number of different proposals for the structure of Wisdom, and different
schemas break the text into sections at slightly different places. David Winston (The Wisdom
of Solomon [AB; New York: Doubleday, 1979]) works with three parts, having divisions after
Wis 6:21 and at the end of ch. 9, and Andrew T. Glicksman (Wisdom of Solomon 10: A Jewish
Hellenistic Reinterpretation of Early Israelite History through Sapiential Lenses [DCLS 9; Berlin:
de Gruyter, 2011], 41), following Addison Wright, also places a major division at 6:21. Joseph
Reider (The Book of Wisdom [Jewish Apocryphal Literature; New York: Harper and Brothers,
1957]) subdivides the first of two main parts into chs. 15 and 69. I have chosen to include
86 rogers
1 Job 28
It is admittedly a stretch to claim that this is a poem dealing with Sophia

because wisdom here is reified more than personified. The imagery and termi-
nology of path, place and seeking dominate the poem, as do comparisons with
precious metals and stones to underline wisdoms value. After a stanza praising
human technological ability to mine treasures from deep in the earth, we find
the question which becomes the refrain: Where shall wisdom be found? And
where is the place of understanding? (Job 28:12, cf. v. 20). The initial answer
given is that no one knows the way to it; it is not in any place within the cosmos
(vv. 1314) and even Death has only heard the rumour of it (v. 22). The answer,
ultimately, is: God knows. It is plausible, following Jones, to see Sophia in this
poem as the original foundations of the cosmos. Citing parallels with Akkadian
building texts, Jones argues that it was common practice when building or
rebuilding to survey for the original foundations. The verbs which have God as
subject and Sophia as object in 28:27 see, count, establish and search out fit
well with this interpretation.6 The implication of v. 27 would be that only God
can fully discern the wisdom with which the cosmos was constructed in the
first place. The concluding verse gives us the form in which wisdom is acces-
sible to humans, viz. as righteous living and the fear of the Lord (v. 28).
Where is Sophia conceived of as being? The places where she is not found
are named as land of the living (v. 13), the deep ( )or the sea (v. 14).
The negative results of the search for Sophia within the cosmos imply that
her location is utterly remote and inaccessible, what Newsom refers to as
occupying a place beyond places.7 Nevertheless, Sophia is hidden or concealed
(v. 23) more than absent. When the poem states that God knows the way to it, it is
because God can look to the ends of the earth and see everything under heaven
(v. 24). Sophia is therefore not sequestered in some heavenly realm, but is
under heaven, within the cosmos, albeit in a way that human beings cannot
discern. Newsom draws attention to the shift in v. 25 to verbs of creating and
infers that:
It is not because God sees further than human beings that God sees
wisdom, but because God sees differently. Wisdom, after all, is not in some
Wis 6:1225 with the royal autobiography that begins at Wis 7:1 because it concerns Sophia
and has material useful for my quest.
6 Scott C. Jones, Rumors of Wisdom: Job 28 as Poetry (BZAW 398; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009),
9499.
7 Newsom, Contest of Moral Imaginations, 180.
place beyond place but in the wind, waters, rain and thunderstorms, that
is, in all the aspects of creation. But it is not in them as an object but
in their construction and interrelationship, in their presence and limits
(weight, measure, limit, way) with respect to other aspects of the
created world.8
Sophia, then, is located within the patterns of the cosmos itself, observable in
her intricacies only by the Creator. She is this-worldly.
How do human beings apprehend her? They do not. Only God can do that.
God is said to see (), recount ( Piel), establish ( Hifil) and search out
( )Sophia (v 27). How exactly one imagines these actions depends upon
how one has presumed that Sophia is being conceptualised here. Only the first
is a sensory verb, from the domain of sight. In terms of the questions that con-
cern us in this essay, though, none of these are human means of apprehending
wisdom. Humanity can access Sophia not by apprehending her directly, but by
living piously and morally (v. 28). It cannot be apprehended but it can be lived.
2 Prov 19
The opening chapters of Proverbs provide a hermeneutical preamble9 to

the rest of the book. In them the wisdom teacher, styled as father exhorts the
student / son(s) to pursue wisdom and to avoid the pitfalls along the way. The
voice in the text is that of the sage, but these chapters also use the device of
quoted speeches, including the words of Sophia herself, to exhort, coerce and
encourage the student along the path to wisdom.10 Get wisdom is a frequent
injunction (Prov 4:5, 7) and the student is to love and to embrace her, perhaps
as a bride. Fox has described the structure of these chapters as consisting of ten
lectures or instructions interspersed with five interludes. Each instruction fol-
lows a pattern that includes an exhortation to hear / pay attention / remember
the words of the teacher. The transmission of wisdom is therefore conceived of
in oral / aural terms.11 To listen to the father is to listen to wisdom. Prov 2:12 is
indicative of this:
8 Ibid.
9 Michael V. Fox, Ideas of Wisdom in Proverbs 19, JBL 116/4 (1997): 61333, 613.
10 Carol A. Newsom, Woman and the Discourse of Patriarchal Wisdom: A Study of Proverbs
19, in Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel (ed. Peggy L. Day; Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1989), 14260.
11 Fox, Ideas of Wisdom, 614.
88 rogers
My son, if you accept my words and treasure my commandments within

you, making your ear attentive to wisdom and inclining your heart to
understanding...(NRSV)
The passages in which wisdom is personified as a woman, 1:2033, 8:136 and

9:16, comprise three of the interludes in Foxs schema, with Prov 3:1320
being a fourth. Prov 3:1320 also has some incipient personification in vv. 1618
and shares features with the other poems, as indicated earlier, and so will be
included alongside the others in the present discussion.
In Prov 1:2033 and ch. 8 Sophia is situated in public communal spaces
where she is reported as calling for attention before proclaiming in the first
person. Prov 1:2021 and 8:23 clearly place her outside ( 1:20). She is in
the plaza (), a broad open place in the city, in noisy boisterous places
( )of human interaction and social exchange, in the rough and tumble of
the marketplace where she has to raise her voice to be heard. She is at the city
gate (Prov 1:21, 8:3), site of economic, judicial and political transactions, where
legal and civil matters were disputed and settled.12 She is on the path and at the
crossroads (8:2) where the traveller can meet her.
Sophias speech in 8:2231 underlines her credentials as a wisdom teacher.
She places herself with the creator at the beginning of creation claiming,
I was there...constantly at his side. But this celebration of her presence at
creation has to do with her authority and perhaps divine status, not with locat-
ing her in heavenly places beyond human reach. To the contrary, it locates her
in the created world, though not as a creature alongside others. Fox argues
that the there in these verses is non-spatial, but refers to an event, the
work of creation.13 Prov 3:1920 The Lord by wisdom founded the earth; by
understanding he established the heavens (NRSV) may be a less figurative
statement of the same principle. Irrespective of how we understand Sophias
presence at creation in these verses, it is clear in the wider context of the
chapter that the locus for the speech in Prov 8:2231 is also public spaces. The
opening verses of the chapter have situated Sophia on a hilltop along the path
overlooking the crossroads, and at the entrance by the city gates (8:23). It is
from here that she addresses her audience as she recalls her origins.
In ch. 9 are two contrasting invitations to two houses, those of Sophia and
Dame Folly. In 9:16, the location is domestic. Wisdom has built her house and
prepared a feast to which she invites those outside. But the idea of speech in
12 Kathleen M. OConnor, The City Square and the Home: Wisdoms World, Journal for
Preachers XXII (Pentecost 1996): 1015.
13 Fox, Ideas of Wisdom, 629.
public places is not absent because Sophia, apparently through her servant-
girls, calls out her invitation in the street (9:3). Those who want wisdom must
enter Sophias house and partake of her feast. The house is Sophias and it
is open to all who are willing to respond. We will see how this portrayal of
Sophias house is modified slightly in later writings, viz. Sirach and Wisdom.
Sophia in Prov 19 is found at the centre of public life, and it is there that she
calls for disciples. The response she demands is that she be listened to. In her
speech in Prov 1 where she has been ignored, she warns that she in turn will
refuse to listen (1:29). The semantic domain here is one of orality and aurality,
speaking and listening. Immediately after her self-praise in ch. 8 she returns to
the exhortations to listen to me (8:32ff) but also invites the hearer to watch
and wait at her doors (8:34). This isnt conceived of as an invitation to gaze
upon Sophia, however, but to find her and draw close to her so that she can be
heard and obeyed.
Prov 3:21 warns against letting wisdom and understanding out of ones sight
(). This reference to eyes as the way one apprehends wisdom is a depar-
ture from the dominant concern with the ear and listening. Earlier the poem
describes Sophia as a tree of life, and one is to lay hold of her and hold her
fast (Prov 3:18, cf. Prov 4:13). There are also a few references to tasting and
eating in our chosen texts. In Prov 1:31, those who have spurned Sophia are
threatened with eating the fruit of their ways. In ch. 8, Sophia describes her
own fruit as better than fine gold and choice silver (a comparison that sug-
gests great value, but not a sumptuous meal!), but it is only in ch. 9 that Sophia
explicitly invites the wisdom seeker to eat: Come, eat of my bread and drink
of the wine I have mixed (Prov 9:5 NRSV). Sophia here is the hostess, however,
not the feast. In other words, one eats what Sophia offers; one does not taste
Sophia herself. But listening still plays a key role here: one will partake of the
feast in Sophias house only if one hears and responds to the announcement of
the invitation, to Sophias call (Prov 9:3).
3 LXX Prov 19
The Septuagint translator of Hebrew Proverbs adopts a flexible14 approach

to his source text, but does not substantially alter the picture of Sophia in
Prov 19. In chs. 1 and 8, Sophia is once again found proclaiming in public
14 Michael V. Fox, A Profile of the Septuagint Proverbs, in Wisdom for Life: Essays Offered
to Honor Prof Maurice Gilbert, SJ on the Occasion of his Eightieth Birthday (ed. Nuria
Calduch-Benages; BZAW 445; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014), 317.
90 rogers
spaces. Despite minor changes from the Hebrew parent text,15 the emphasis on
speaking and listening and on Sophias public proclamation remains. Cooks
translation of LXX Prov 1:2021 in the NETS16 version reflects the passive voice
of and by rendering these verses:
Wisdom is being celebrated in the streets

and in the squares she leads frankly,
and on the top of the walls she is proclaimed
and at the gates of the powerful she waits
and at the gates of the city she speaks boldly.17
However the middle (she herself sings) may be implicit in the more typically
active rendering of in LXX Prov 8:3. We are still in the domain of speak-
ing and being listened to, but may the use of the middle / passive voice hint
at a subtle erosion of the power of Sophias presence? Is her voice being lost
to others? This shift is certain in Prov 8:1 where, instead of the question of the
Hebrew text: Does not wisdom call / does not wisdom raise her voice?, the
Greek gives the command for the hearer to speak: You will proclaim wisdom /
in order that prudence may be obedient to you (NETS). One cannot make too
much of this, however, because Sophia is clearly the speaker in the majority of
cases (1:22 et passim). The addition to Prov 1:22 has Sophia seated at the gates
of the powerful. This may hint at a conflation of the images of chs. 1 and 8,
which do have similar introductions, because in 8:1516 Sophia is explicitly
linked with kings and rulers.
The Greek addition to 8:21 has Sophia declaring daily happenings and
recounting the things of old.18 This stress on orality is seen again in the addi-
tion to Prov 3:16, where, in addition to the gifts of wealth, longevity and honour
that Sophia holds in her hands, it is said that righteousness, law and mercy are
in her mouth / on her tongue (LXX Prov 3:16a).
15 For a detailed description, see Johann Cook, The Septuagint of Proverbs: Jewish and/or
Hellenistic Proverbs? Concerning the Hellenistic Colouring of LXX Proverbs (VTSup 69;
Leiden: Brill, 1997), 9799, 22526, 23435.
16 Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, ed., A New English Translation of the Septuagint
(New York: OUP, 2007).
17 Italics added.
18 This serves to introduce the narration of her presence with God, as a master worker at the
beginning of creation.
In Sophias description of her presence with God at the creation, the impres-
sion of her being there temporally remains, although in LXX Prov 8:31 it is
God who rejoices in the sons of men, not Sophia.
LXX Prov 9 does not make any adaptations to the Hebrew Proverbs with
respect to the locale of Sophia, the spoken invitation that must be listened to,
or her offer to eat the feast she has provided.
4 Sirach
Because some of the key passages are not extant in the Hebrew, I work with
the shorter Greek text as given by Ziegler in the Gttingen edition.19 It is gen-
erally recognised that Ben Sira is heavily indebted to Proverbs, including the
presentation of Sophia.20 The feminine personification of Sophia is developed
and maintained over a series of poems: 4:1119; 6:1831; 14:2015:8, 24:122 and
51:1330.21 Sirachs innovation is to identify Sophia explicitly with the Law of
Moses (Sir 24:23). Echoing the book of Proverbs, Ben Sira writes about seeking
and finding Sophia (Sir 4:12; 6:27, 51:1314, 26) and describes her in terms of a
tree (Sir 14:2627; 24:1317) and bride (Sir 15:2).
In the programmatic opening statement (Sir 1:110) where the personifica-
tion is incipient at best, Sophia is placed both with God (
Sir 1:1) and with all humanity ( ) and in particular those
who love God (Sir 1:10). This intriguing literary and theological arch between
the beginning and end of this pericope22 suggests that Sophias domain is
in both the divine and human realms, although she cannot be apprehended
in the latter except as the gift of God. The logic of the poem moves from
Sophias presence with God to being with humanity, but this is not a spatial
19 Joseph Ziegler, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae

Litterarum Gottingensis editum XII.2: Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1965).
20 Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39; New York:
Doubleday, 1987), 4045.
21 The authorship of Sir 51:1330 is questioned by some scholars, but it does include many
themes already introduced by Ben Sira in his descriptions of the search for Sophia, such
as her coming to him in her beauty, cultivating her, treading her paths and being infatu-
ated with her. Jeremy Corley (Sirach [New Collegeville Bible Commentary; Collegeville:
Liturgical Press, 2013], 147) concurs with its authenticity as the work of Ben Sira.
22 Pancratius C. Beentjes, Full Wisdom is From the Lord: Sir 1:110 and its Place in Israels
Wisdom Literature, Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology
(ed. Angelo Passaro and Guiseppe Bellia; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), 144.
92 rogers
translocation, since Sophia is with the Lord (Sir 1:1). There appear
to be deliberate echoes here of Job 28, particularly in v. 9 where God is said to
have created, seen and numbered wisdom.23 Although the poem suggests the
inaccessibility of wisdom apart from God gifting it, wisdom is seen to be pres-
ent in the created world.
Sir 24, where wisdom is explicitly personified, has Sophia recounting a jour-
ney that begins with God and ends in the Temple in Jerusalem. Sir 24:122 is
the only first-person speech by Sophia in Sirach. The location from which she
speaks is and (Sir 24:12). The sec-
ond phrase clearly locates her in the heavenly council. Who are her people
(v. 1b)? Smend took this as a reference to the heavenly assembly,24 but most
commentators accept that it is a reference to Israel among whom Sophia set-
tles in vv. 812.25 Since Sophias speech occurs after the events that she narrates
in vv. 312 (i.e., after she has made her dwelling in Jacob), I prefer the second
reading. She speaks, then, on both earthly and heavenly planes simultaneously,
an idea that is consonant with the movement of wisdom in Sir 1:110. Sophias
journey encompasses the far reaches of the cosmos the vault of heaven, the
depth the abyss, the waves of the sea and all the earth (Sir 24:56) but it
terminates in Israel, in the holy tent ( ) and in Jerusalem. Thus
she ends up in sacred space, ministering before the Lord in the Tabernacle /
Temple.
Sir 24:12 which describes Sophias settling in Israel as taking root provides
the bridge to the next metaphor Sophia as tree. She is likened to a number of
named varieties of tree, some of the finest among the flora of Palestine,26 in
specific places (Lebanon, Mount Hermon, Engedi, Jericho), perhaps to suggest
the geography of the promised land. Sophia then invites the hearer to eat of
her fruits (Sir 24:1921). The invitation is to taste Sophia herself, not just the
meal she has prepared as in Prov 9. Elsewhere in Sirach, Sophia has been the
nurturing mother feeding the bread of understanding and water of wisdom
to the seeker (Sir 15:3), but here Sophia is to be eaten and drunk by the one
who finds her (Sir 24:21). The imagery of eating Sophias fruits is also found in
23 Beentjes Full Wisdom is From the Lord, 150, lists the following echoes of Job 28 in
Sir 1:110: Sir 1:23 cf. Job 28:2426a; Sir 1:6 cf. 28:20; Sir 1:8 cf. 28:23; Sir 1:9 cf. Job 28:27.
24 Rudolf Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklrt (Berlin: Reimer, 1906), 216.
25 So Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 331; Judith E. McKinlay, Gendering Wisdom
the Host: Biblical Invitations to Eat and Drink (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996),
136; and John J. Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age (Louisville: Westminster John
Knox Press, 1997), 50.
26 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 334.
Sir 6:18. There Sophia is a field that has been ploughed, planted and reaped.
Sophia is also likened to a number of fragrant spices (Sir 24:15), implying
that she may also be smelled, but there is no explicit invitation to inhale her!
Ben Siras use of olfactory imagery is distinctive: Calduch-Benages has ascer-
tained that Sirach uses fourteen terms from the world of perfumes, all but one
directly or indirectly related to the cult.27
In the poems where Sophia is to be sought and found, she is found on the
path, at first a difficult and torturous one (Sir 4:17) but if one perseveres with
her and wins her trust, the path becomes pleasant (Sir 4:18). Sophia is pres-
ent but concealed until, having tested the seeker, she chooses to make her-
self known. The path may be outside, but it is a place where Sophia can be
ambushed (Sir 14:22); it isnt the place where she is publicly available as was
the case in Proverbs. Sophia also has a house, and Ben Sira instructs the seeker
to stalk her, lie in wait in her paths, peep into her windows, eavesdrop at her
doors28 and pitch his tent next to her house, until he eventually finds shel-
ter within her space, visualised now as the shelter of a tree (Sir 14:2025). The
response of Sophia is to eventually come to the seeker like a mother and a
bride (Sir 15:2). Corley has noted: there is a progression from observing where
wisdom dwells (14:2223) to encamping near her house (14:2425), and then
setting up home with her as his bride (14:26; 15:2).29 It is interesting, though,
that Sophia did not initially extend an invitation. In these texts, Sophia enters
and leaves her private space, but she does not enter or claim public economic
and social space the way she does in Proverbs.
In describing the quest for Sophia, Ben Sira repeatedly uses phrases like
lay hold of or hold fast (Sir 6:27; 15:1). And Sophia lays hold of the sage in
turn (Sir 4:11). These are not sensory but active verbs. Still, the semantic domain
here is quite tactile; but it is grasping rather than caressing. That impression
is compounded by the metaphors he uses alongside the personification of
Sophia. He speaks of ploughing and sowing her like a field (Sir 4:19), of car-
rying her like a heavy burden (Sir 6:21, 25; 51:26), of being entrapped by her
(Sir 6:24), and submitting to her yoke (Sir 51:26). What of listening to Sophia
or her spokespersons, the primary means of getting wisdom in Proverbs?
Ben Sira does mention lending ones ear to Sophia and listening to or for her
27 Nria Calduch-Benages, Aromas, Fragancias y perfumes en el Siracida, in Treasures

of Wisdom: Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom: Festschrift M Gilbert (ed. Nria
Calduch-Benages and Jacques Vermeylen; BETL 143, Leuven: Peeters, 1999), 1530, here 16.
28 But see Sir 21:2324 where Ben Sira labels peeking and listening at doors the behaviour of
an uneducated fool!
29 Corley, Sirach, 45.
94 rogers
(Sir 4:15; 14:23), but the exhortations to listen are made almost exclusively on
behalf of his own teaching or that of the sages (e.g., Sir 6:23, 33). In Proverbs
commands to listen to the father / teacher alternate with commands to listen
to Sophia directly, but in Ben Sira it is the sage whose voice predominates. Even
when the seeker is to listen at her doors (Sir 14:23), this is not so much to
hear her as to catch sight of her when she appears. In Prov 8:34, conversely, the
watching at Sophias gates and waiting beside her doors was in order to hear
her when she spoke. Sophia in the guise of tree of life does offer an invitation
in Sir 24:19, but the more frequent image is that Sophia is hard to find, that she
initially resists and makes life difficult for the seeker; only later does the hard
work of finding and cultivating her eventually yield rich rewards (Sir 6:28ff).
5 Bar 3:94:4
For the wisdom poem in Bar 3:94:4, I use the Greek text of the Codex Vaticanus
and translation provided by Adams.30 There is no robust personification of
wisdom in this poem and nothing particularly human-like in what is said of
her, apart perhaps from Bar 3:38 where she appears on earth and associates
with humans ( ). There are clear similarities here
with Job 28, so much so that Nickelsburg suggested it is a paraphrase of that
earlier text.31 That is an overstatement, but there are certainly echoes, includ-
ing the terminology of place and path, the inability of humans to get wisdom,
and God as being the only one who finds her. Close parallels with Deut 4 and
30 and with Sir 1 and 24 have also been noted.32 The poem stresses the impor-
tance of wisdom / understanding, its elusive character and, like Sir 24, identi-
fies Sophia with the Law. This is explicitly stated in Bar 4:1, She is the book of
the commandments of God and the law that endures forever.
30 Sean A. Adams, Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah: A Commentary Based on the Texts in
Codex Vaticanus (Septuagint Commentary Series; Leiden: Brill, 2014), 4044. It has fre-
quently been suggested that parts or all of Baruch have a Hebrew Vorlage and a number
of attempts have been made to reconstruct this (e.g., David G. Burke, The Poetry of Baruch:
A Reconstruction and Analysis of the Original Hebrew Text of Baruch 3:95:9 [SBLSCS 10;
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1982]), but I will work only with the Greek.
31 George W.E. Nickelsburg, The Bible Rewritten and Expanded, Jewish Writings of the
Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo,
Josephus (CRINT; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 89156, here 142.
32 Alice M. Sinnott, The Personification of Wisdom (Society for Old Testament Study
Monographs; Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005), 103.
The poem opens with an imperative reminiscent of Deuteronomy:

. The people of God are to hear and to give ear (Bar 3:9), which also
echoes the characteristic introduction to the wisdom instructions in Prov 19.
But the object of the listening activity isnt Sophia as a figure who speaks, but
the commandments of life / understanding. There is very little use of sensory
verbs for getting wisdom in this pericope. It is in the form of the com-
mandments of God that she can be grasped (Bar 4:1) and held fast (Bar 4:2).
Although one is not quite invited to gaze upon Sophia, she is presented as a
beacon of light on the path (Bar 4:2).
There is a richer harvest for the other aspect of our research the loca-
tion of wisdom. Israel, in exile because they have abandoned the fountain of
wisdom (Bar 3:12) is urged to learn where there is understanding (Bar 3:14).
This leads to the question: Who has found her place and who has entered into
her treasuries? (Bar 3:15). This question is first answered negatively. Human
rulers, despite their domination of the physical world and their accumulation
of silver and gold, have not found her, nor have their descendants. She is not
to be found by the nations on earth, even those of Israels neighbours known
for their wisdom, trade and wealth.33 Nor was she discovered by the mighty
giants of old. Her inaccessibility is underlined by further questions: Who has
gone up into heaven and taken her and brought her down from the clouds?
Who has gone across the sea and found her and will bring her for choice gold?
(Bar 3:2930). Wisdom is not on earth she is beyond, both vertically (into
heaven) and horizontally (across the sea). As in Job 28, only God knows her
and can find the way to her. God finds her and then bestows her upon Israel.
It is then, as Gods gift, that she appears on earth ( Bar 3:38).
Elusive Sophia has become present and accessible as Torah.
In Bar 3, it is not Sophia, but God, who has a house (Bar 3:2425). It is appar-
ent from the context that this house is not the Temple, but the whole of cre-
ation, stretching temporally and spatially to eternity. No wonder then that
Sophia does not evade God.
6 Book of Wisdom
In the Book of Wisdom, the presentation of Sophia echoes the descriptions

of Sophia in Proverbs and Sirach combined with descriptions reminiscent of
the goddess Isis. There are also echoes of the Stoic presentations of pneuma
33 Adams, Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah, 105.

96 rogers
and logos.34 Despite the marked differences in philosophical background and

in tone, we do still find the language of seeking and finding, of desiring and
loving (6:12, 14), and of taking Sophia as a bride (8:2, 9). The seeking of Sophia
and sage is mutual, and does not involve the arduous struggle that Ben Sira
describes (Wis 6:12 NETS, cf. 6:16):
[Sophia] is easily discerned by those who love her

and found by those who seek her;
She anticipates those who set their desire on her to make herself known
in advance.
Where is Sophia located? In more general terms we can say that she permeates
creation (Wis 7:24). She is also with the wise and the holy (Wis 7:27). As in the
other wisdom texts, Sophia is hidden in the cosmos, but she is not inaccessible
to Pseudo-Solomon who claims to know the constitution of the world and
the activity of the elements, the beginning and end and middle of times...
and all things, both what is secret and what is manifest because Sophia, the
fashioner of all things taught him (7:1722 NETS). This is because he has been
given Sophia as gift from God.
When the wisdom quest in envisioned, Sophia is found in the space of the
seeker: sitting by his gateway (6:14) and appearing to the worthy seeker in their
paths (6:16). When Sophia has been found and received, then she dwells with
the seeker in his home (8:16). She is not found there, but taken there. Note
that it is the sages domestic space into which Wisdom enters, not the other
way round. Indeed this was the sages stated intention: I determined then to
take her to live with me, knowing that she would be a good counselor for me
(Wis 8:9 NETS). When the sage asks God for Sophia, when she is sought through
prayer, Sophia is conceived of as being beside Gods throne, in heaven, and
being sent from there in order to be with Pseudo-Solomon in the building of
the Temple (Wis 9:4, 910).
How is Wisdom apprehended? Wisdom is seen: she appears to the one who
seeks her (Wis 6:16); she is radiant and outshines the sun and the stars and
even light itself (6:12, 7:2526, 29). I assume that the beauty of which the sage is
enamoured is her appearance (8:3). The semantic domain of sight and seeing
is operative here. Wisdom is also thought; she is reached through the mind.
34 Michael F. Kolarcik, Universalism and Justice in the Wisdom of Solomon, in Treasures

of Wisdom: Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom: Festschrift M Gilbert (ed. Nria
Calduch-Benages and Jacques Vermeylen; BETL 143, Leuven: Peeters, 1999), 289302,
here 293.
One is to fix ones thoughts on her, and she meets the sage in every thought
(6:1516). This is very different from the poem in Sirach 51 where the sages
belly (NETS) or bowels35 were stirred to seek out wisdom (Sir 51:21). That
suggests a much more visceral attraction to Sophia than the intellectual love of
Pseudo-Solomon. Wisdom does not speak in this text. As Webster perceptively
notes, She is seen but not heard (6:16), present but not touched (9:10), given
but not grasped (8:21).36
7 Conclusion
In each of the wisdom books under consideration, Sophia is situated with God.
But this is not a way of removing her from the earthly realm. She is with God
but also in the created world, even if she is hidden from human apprehen-
sion there. When she is inaccessible, it is because she is concealed more than
absent. Sirach and Baruch both locate Sophia in the Torah. For Sirach this is
linked with situating Sophia in sacred space, in the Temple and in Jerusalem,
among Gods people. For Baruch, ostensibly directed at a people in exile,
Sophia is in Gods house which is the cosmos. She is therefore not localised
in Israels territory even though she has been particularised in Israels tradi-
tions. In the texts dealing with Sophias relationship to God and to the cosmos,
the way humans can apprehend Sophia is not depicted in sensual terms. She
comes as gift, by listening to and obeying the wisdom teacher, through pious
living or through Torah observance.
In the passages dealing with the wisdom quest, there are interesting varia-
tions between Proverbs, Sirach and the Book of Wisdom. For how one appre-
hends Sophia, Proverbs stresses listening, Wisdom stresses sight, and Sirach
uses vocabulary that is sensuous and tangible. In Sirach, she is received not
only through the ear, but also tasted and perhaps even smelled. Ben Sira devel-
ops the proverbial injunction to lay hold of wisdom in very concrete images of
ploughing, hunting, stalking and possessing Sophia, unlike Pseudo-Solomon,
where the grasping of Sophia is through [in]sight, the activity of the eyes and
the mind. In Proverbs, Sophia is the host at a meal. She offers food in Sirach
too, but also invites the seeker after wisdom to eat and drink her.
35 Celia M. Deutsch, The Sirach 51 Acrostic: Confession and Exhortation, ZAW 94 (1982):
40009, here 402.
36 Jane S. Webster, Sophia: Engendering Wisdom in Proverbs, Ben Sira and the Wisdom of
Solomon, JSOT 78 (1998): 6379, here 75.
98 rogers
It is only in the earliest text, Proverbs, that Sophia is a public-loving figure,

active in the market-place and at the centres of social interaction, openly invit-
ing all who would listen to come to her. For Ben Sira, however, finding Sophia is
much harder work, as she is wont to conceal herself until the seeker has earned
her trust. She is not visible and easily found in public spaces. There are fasci-
nating variations in how Sophias house and the path leading to it are depicted.
In Proverbs, Sophia prepares a feast in her own house and then openly invites
all who wish to come to it. In Sirach, the invitation is not given, but the seeker
has to stalk Sophia, camp out beside her house and eventually insinuate him-
self into her domestic space. Only after he has made the effort will she come
out to meet him. In the Book of Wisdom, Sophia meets the seeker on his paths
and waits at his door. And, rather than going to live in Sophias home as in
Sirach, the sage in Wisdom brings Sophia to his own home.
This short investigation has pointed to some interesting variations in the
vocabulary and imagery used for the wisdom quest. The question of whether
and to what degree these differences reflect the broader theology and peda-
gogy of the particular books awaits a further study.
CHAPTER 6
The Relation of the Septuagint of Proverbs to the

Septuagint of Psalms*
Jan Joosten
The Greek version of Hebrew books that in time came to be regarded as canon-
ical in rabbinic Judaism manifests unity and diversity all at once. Each book
appears to have been translated by a different person,1 and some books by
more than one.2 The translation technique varies between books from very
free to very literal with many nuances in between. The dates of the Greek
translation units stretch out from the early third century bce to some point in
the second century CE. Most of the translation would seem to have been done
in Egypt, but some books were likely translated in Palestine. Nevertheless,
there is a distinct family relationship among them. Some of the agreement is
due no doubt to the impact of the Greek Pentateuch. The Pentateuch was in
all likelihood translated before the other books, and seems to have become
authoritative very soon. Later translators adopted much of its vocabulary,
style, and translational attitude.3 But the resemblances among the post-Pen-
tateuchal books of the Septuagint extend beyond the common Pentateuchal
heritage. An intertextual web of connections can be recognized, showing up in
common vocabulary, shared interpretations, and inner-Septuagintal borrow-
ings. Some of these similarities are striking enough to have led some schol-
ars to postulate that different books the Minor Prophets and Ezekiel, say, or
* This paper benefited much from a close reading of an earlier version of it by Lorenzo Cuppi.
I thank him for his generous comments.
1 Throughout this paper the Septuagint translators will be referred to as individuals, although
it is just as likely that different books were translated by small teams.
2 See the handy overview in Marguerite Harl, Gilles Dorival, and Olivier Munnich, La Bible
grecque des Septante: Du judasme hellnistique au christianisme ancient (second edition;
Paris: Cerf, 2003), 83111.
3 See, e.g., Emanuel Tov, The Impact of the Septuagint Translation of the Torah on the
Translation of the Other Books, in Mlanges Dominique Barthlemy (ed. Pierre Casetti et al.;
OBO 38; Fribourg / Gttingen: Universittsverlag / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 57792;
reprinted in Emanuel Tov, The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint
(VTSup 72; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 18394.

100 joosten
Job and Proverbs were translated by the same person.4 But the multiplicity of
connections, coupled with undeniable differences between translation units,
rather suggests a type of school consisting of different circles that knew of
one anothers work.
Much research remains to be done on the intertextual links between
Septuagint books. Many connections have been observed in passing, but few
studies have attempted to gather all the material. The nature of the phenom-
enon remains to be defined more precisely. Establishing the direction of bor-
rowing is often very hard to do. On the basis of a large collection of examples,
it may be possible to determine the relative chronology of the version. This
would be enormously helpful. In the present paper a small contribution will be
proposed to the question of intertextual connections between Greek Psalms
and Greek Proverbs.
1 A Review of Potential Evidence
Different types of evidence can be, and have been, brought to bear on our
question.5 There are many similarities between Greek Psalms and Proverbs.
A question that always needs to be asked is what can be learnt from the data.
Not all similarities necessarily indicate a direct connection, and some of the
most impressive signs of contact may not go back to the earliest stage of
the translation. As in regard to other important questions, research on links
between Septuagint books is hampered by a triple ignorance:6 we do not
posses the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint, we do not know the details of its
translation technique, and we cannot be certain that the text that has come
4 For the Minor Prophets and Ezekiel, see Henry St. John Thackeray, The Greek Translators of
the Prophetical Books, JTS 4 (1903): 57885; for Job and Proverbs, see G. Gerleman, Studies in
the LXX. III: Proverbs (Lund: Gleerup, 1956).
5 See, e.g., Johann Cook, Intertextual Relationships between the Septuagint of Psalms and
Proverbs, in The Old Greek Psalter: Studies in Honour of Albert Pietersma (ed. Robert J.V.
Hiebert, Claude E. Cox, and Peter J. Gentry; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 21828;
Tyler F. Williams, Toward a Date for the Old Greek Psalter, The Old Greek Psalter: Studies
in Honour of Albert Pietersma (ed. Robert J.V. Hiebert, Claude E. Cox, and Peter J. Gentry;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 24876, in particular 26870; Lorenzo Cuppi,
Concerning the Origin of the Addition Found in ProvLXX 1:7, in XIV Congress Of The IOSCS,
Helsinki, 2010 (ed. Melvin K.H. Peters; SBLSCS 59; Atlanta: SBL, 2013), 93103.
6 Anneli Aejmelaeus, What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint?, in
On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays (Kampen: Kok, 1993), 77115, in
particular 79.
the relation of the septuagint of proverbs to psalms 101
down to us is the original Greek version. Nevertheless, the combination of dif-

ferent types of evidence appears to allow a conclusion.
1.1 Shared Vocabulary and Translation Equivalents

In assessing the possible connection between two translation units, no impor-
tance should be given to features that may be attributed to common depen-
dence on the Pentateuch or other early translations. The translation of Hebrew
instruction as law is found in both Proverbs and Psalms. It not
only implies a definite interpretation on the lexical level, but also witnesses to
a nomistic view of Judaism.7 Nevertheless, it should not be used to argue for
a connection between the two translation units. Indeed, in both Psalms and
Proverbs, the lexical equivalence and the wider tendency to valorize divine law
may simply reflect influence of the Greek Pentateuch.8
Also to be excluded are common Greek words and expressions that may
have been used in both corpora by chance, even if they are found only in
these two books of the Septuagint. The adjective quick-tempered
is found once in the Psalms and three times in Proverbs, but nowhere else in
the Septuagint.9 It is, however, a common Greek word, and the natural way to
express the idea of irascibility.
Rare words are more significant. The adjective talkative, quar-
relsome seems to be unattested in Greek literature before the Septuagint. It
is attested once in Psalms and once in Proverbs.10 The word also occurs three
times in Ben Sira, but this translation unit is almost certainly later than Psalms
and Proverbs.11 The attestation of the word in Psalms and Proverbs suggests
that there is a link between the two units.12
Shared equivalents exclusive to our two translation units are suggestive as
well. The verb and its derivations are found twice in the Pentateuch
and once in Amos, but as a rendering of the Hebrew root to oppress the
7 See, for Proverbs, Martin Flashar, Exegetische Studien zum Septuagintapsalter, ZAW 32
(1912): 81116, 16189, 24168, in particular 16573; Frank Austermann, Von der Tora zum
Nomos: Untersuchungen zur bersetzungsweise und Interpretation im Septuaginta-Psalter
(MSU 27; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003). For Proverbs, see Johann Cook,
The Law of Moses in Septuagint Proverbs, VT 49 (1999): 44861.
8 Pace Cook, Intertextual Relationships, 22123.
9 David-Marc DHamonville, Les Proverbes (BdA 17; Paris: Cerf 2000), 281. In Ps 18(17):49 the
Hebrew equivalent is ;in Proverbs, other equivalents are found: in Prov 22:24;
29:22; in Prov 21:19.
10 DHamonville, Proverbes, 281. Again, the Hebrew equivalents are not the same.
11 The other writings mentioned in the prologue to Greek Ben Sira line 25 almost certainly
included both Psalms and Proverbs.
12 For an additional example, the verb to lend, see below.
102 joosten
Greek words are limited to Psalms, Proverbs and translation units belonging
to the kaige-Theodotion-Aquila group.13 Another striking similarity (although
not identity) is the rendering of Hebrew streams as rushings
in Ps 46(45):5 and rush in Prov 21:1.14 Like the shared vocabulary, these
renderings make it likely that there is a connection between the translations
of the two books.15
The features probably show that one of the two translations influenced
the other. But the direction of the influence cannot be determined on their
basis.
1.2 Phrases from Psalms Borrowed in Greek Proverbs?

Occasionally, an entire phrase is translated similarly in Psalms and Proverbs.
Both Ps 62(61):13 and Prov 24:12 have the expression
to give to each according to their deeds,16 a phrase not found else-
where in the Septuagint. The implication is not necessarily that one translator
followed the other. The identical phrase may have been used independently.
The case is different where a phrase from Psalms is added in the translation
of Proverbs, in excess of the attested Hebrew text. In the Septuagint of Prov 1:7,
two extra lines corresponding to Ps 111(110):10 are added before the translation
of the Hebrew text of Proverbs:17
,

(cf. Ps 111[110]:10
,
18)
13 The influence of Greek Psalms on the kaige-Theodotion group is well known. See, e.g.,
Olivier Munnich, La Septante des Psaumes et le groupe kaige, VT 33 (1983): 7589;
Staffan Olofsson, The Kaige Group and the Septuagint Book of Psalms, in IX Congress
of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Cambridge 1995 (ed.
Bernard A. Taylor; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 189230; Peter J. Gentry, The Greek
Psalter and the Tradition, in The Old Greek Psalter: Studies in Honour of Albert
Pietersma (ed. Robert J.V. Hiebert, Claude E. Cox, and Peter J. Gentry; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 2001), 7497.
14 Francis Woodgate Mozley, The Psalter of the Church (Cambridge: CUP, 1905), xiii.
15 Another striking equivalence limited to Psalms and Proverbs is , see
Ps 19(18):11; 21(20):4; Prov 8:19.
16 Note that the Hebrew of these two verses is rather different.
17 See notably Cuppi, ProvLXX 1:7 (with extensive discussion of earlier literature).
18 There are a number of differences between the Psalms text and Proverbs, see the discus-
sion in Cuppi.
,
(translation of Prov 1:7)
Beginning of wisdom is fear of God,

and understanding is good for all those who practice it,
and piety unto God is the beginning of perception;
the impious, however, will despise wisdom and discipline (NETS).
The additional lines undoubtedly have their origin in Psalms. The problem is
that it is hard to know at what stage the addition was made. It is possible that
the translator was the one who borrowed the addition from the Greek version
of Psalms.19 But other scenarios can be imagined as well. The additional lines
may have been present already in the Hebrew source text of Prov 1:7. If so,
the Greek translation could be original in Proverbs and borrowed in Psalms.20
Another possibility is that the additional lines were added into the Greek text
of Proverbs secondarily, in the course of scribal transmission.21
In Prov 13:11c the words a just person is compas-
sionate and lends are freely added after the translation of the Hebrew verse.
As many scholars have recognized, the vocabulary of the addition is close to
that of the Greek version of Ps 112(111):5a, one
who is compassionate and lends is a good man.22 This phrase corresponds to
the Hebrew source text in Psalms. The issue is complicated somewhat by two
additional facts: firstly, the thought expressed in the addition in Prov 13:11c is
paralleled more closely in Ps 37(36):21b, (again a
reasonable rendering of the source text in Psalms); secondly, the addition in
Prov 13:11 resembles an added line in verse 9:
but just people are compassionate and have pity.23
In spite of these complications, the use of the rare verb makes a
connection between Prov 13:11c and Ps 112(111):5a likely.24 The easiest way to
explain the facts is to suppose that the original translator of Proverbs borrowed
a thought from the Greek version of Psalms and reformulated it slightly.25
19 So Cook, Intertextual Relationships, 227 (with reference to earlier publications);

Williams, Toward a Date, 26970.
20 So Cuppi, ProvLXX 1:7.
21 See Paul de Lagarde, Anmerkungen zur griechischen bersetzung der Proverbien (Leipzig:
Brockhaus, 1863), 6. According to Cuppi, this was already the opinion of I. Drusius.
22 Cook, Intertextual Relationships, 22021; Williams, Towards a Date, 26970.
23 Note that to have pity, to lend and to give alms are more or less synonymous notions
in these contexts.
24 The verb is found also in 1 Sam 1:28, in a very different context.
25 As is argued by Cook, Williams and others, see n. 22 above.
104 joosten
As in the preceding example, other scenarios are no doubt possible, but they
do seem less probable.
1.3 Words from Psalms Borrowed in Proverbs

In a few passages, the Greek translation of Proverbs has been assimilated to
the text of Psalms through the addition of a word. This type of evidence may
be significant. Where an entire verse was added in the Septuagint of Proverbs
from Psalms (as in Prov 1:7), some scholars argued that the addition may have
been made secondarily, not by the original translator. However, where a single
word is added, the explanation of secondary importation becomes less likely.26
But the counsel of the Lord remains forever

Ps 33(32):11a

Prov 19:21b

In the Greek version, these half verses are identical.27 Their Hebrew equivalents
diverge, however, and only the Psalms text corresponds to the translation.28
The rendering in Proverbs differs from the Hebrew text in Proverbs in that the
third person pronoun it is omitted and the phrase forever added.29 The
Greek of Proverbs conforms to the Hebrew text of Psalms.30
There are several ways the Greek translation of Prov 19:21b could be
explained. One might argue that the identity with Ps 32:11a is due to accident.
The translation of with , of with , the omission of a pleonastic
pronoun and the addition of the phrase are all attested elsewhere
26 Muraoka points to a similar case establishing a connection between the Septuagint of

Isaiah and the Minor Prophets, in Jan Joosten et al., Ose (BdA 23.1; Paris, Cerf, 2002), XI.
27 In Prov 19:21b, instead of adopted by Rahlfs, Lagarde prefers the reading . This
may well be correct, but it would change nothing for the question of dependence. The
Septuagint of Proverbs often has God for the Hebrew Tetragram, see Cuppi, ProvLXX 1:7.
28 DHamonville, Proverbes, 271.
29 The verb to remain for Hebrew to stand is attested also for Isa 14:24 and
Prov 15:22.
30 Note that the particle is added in both passages. It hardly looks out of place in either
passage. In both Psalms and Proverbs, is often used without formal equivalent in
Hebrew.
in Septuagint Proverbs.31 Nevertheless, to postulate chance coincidence seems

far-fetched. One might also argue that the half verse was conformed to the
parallel in Psalms secondarily. However, in this case it must be supposed the
assimilation to Greek Psalms did away with the original rendering in Proverbs,
which seems unlikely. The best explanation, then, would be to accept that the
original translator of Proverbs adapted his rendering to the parallel in Psalms.
A persons steps are directed by the Lord

Ps 37(36):23a

Prov 20:24

Although in this case the Greek renderings are not entirely identical, they
resemble one another more than do their Hebrew equivalents. Notably, the
Greek text in Proverbs has a verbal form that finds no equivalent in the Hebrew
of Proverbs, but corresponds to the verbal form in Psalms.
Again the rendering in Proverbs could be held to resemble Psalms by acci-
dent. The addition of a verb in the translation of a nominal clause of the type
from the Lord (is) X is attested in Prov 29:26. Yet, as in the preceding example,
it is more plausible that the similarity between the two half verses in Greek is
due to the Proverbs translator, who consciously or not adapted his version
to the Greek text of Psalms which he knew. Secondary adaptation is in this case
less likely in view of the slight differences between the two texts.
1.4 Differences between Septuagint Psalms and Septuagint Proverbs

Having looked at different types of similarities it is not superfluous to end with
a reminder of some differences between the two translation units. Psalms is
generally a rather literal translation, with every Hebrew word rendered by a
corresponding Greek one, most often respecting the same word order. Proverbs
is freer, less respecting of one-to-one correspondence. Another way of looking
at this is that Proverbs is more oriented toward making the goal text accept-
able in the host culture, while Psalms is more foreignizing. An interesting
difference illustrating the two tendencies is the grammar of the proper noun
31 For , see Prov 8:14; for , see Prov 15:22; for the omission of the pro-
noun, see Prov 28:26; and for freely added see Prov 6:33.
106 joosten
Solomon, which in Psalms is indeclinable (Ps 72[71]:1; 127[126]:1), but

in Proverbs takes a Greek genitive ending, (Prov 1:1; 25:1).
The different translational attitudes might be explained from the subject
matter of the two books. The same translator might decide to render national-
religious hymns according to a different method than a more universalist wis-
dom book.32 But the rendering of some individual words and phrases shows
rather clearly that Psalms and Proverbs were not translated by the same
person. The rare Hebrew verb Hithpael, to heat oneself in vexation (BDB)
is rendered, defensibly, with to envy in Ps 37(36):1, 7, 8, but
with the highly remarkable to rejoice in Prov 24:19,33 even although
the phrases in which the verb occurs are similar in meaning. Other examples
of words translated differently in the two units include full moon,
path, drink and expectation.
These data plead strongly against common authorship of the Septuagint of
Psalms and Proverbs.
2 Conclusions
While it is unlikely that the same person translated Psalms and Proverbs, the
various types of shared features suggest some form of connection between the
translation units. Shared vocabulary and similar renderings show that one of
the translators linked up with the work of his colleague, although they do not
reveal who borrowed from whom. Whether the contact was purely textual or
involved personal acquaintance is hard to say. If the contact was exclusively
mediated by texts, it must have involved the Hebrew source text as well as the
translation. Shared equivalents cannot be explained on the basis of familiarity
with the Greek translation only.
Whole lines taken over from Psalms in Proverbs suggest that the latter was
on the receiving end, but the unknowns in the textual history of Proverbs do
not allow a definitive conclusion in each case. Perhaps the assimilation hap-
pened not in the original translation but secondarily in the textual history.
Finally, the borrowing of single elements from Psalms in the Greek transla-
tion of Proverbs confirms that a link existed between the two units, but also
that Proverbs was probably on the receiving side.
32 The freer approach in Proverbs does not, therefore, necessarily indicate an earlier date,
pace Cuppi.
33 This equivalence may be due to a kind of homophony.
Taking all the evidence together, the priority of Psalms seems rather likely.
The case is cumulative, and no single line of argument is entirely conclusive.
All the specific data point in the same direction, however. The translator of
Proverbs knew the Greek translation of Psalms and linked up with it in vari-
ous places. Although his own translation was freer than that of his colleague,
and more oriented toward the Hellenistic world of his intended readership,
he nevertheless viewed his work as a continuation of the version begun in the
Pentateuch and developed in Psalms. Although he was not afraid to introduce
diversity into the Greek version, and made some very singular choices (such as
giving the name of Solomon a Greek ending), he also manifested respect for
the unity of the expanding corpus. He wanted his version to belong to the same
family as the units translated earlier.
Although the result is reached here on the basis of a fresh investigation and
includes some previously overlooked data, it is not new. Johann knew it all
along. Johann Cook concluded an investigation into the relationship between
the Septuagint of Psalms and Proverbs in the following way: To me it is evi-
dent that the translator of Proverbs had prior knowledge of the Septuagint of
Psalms.34 Im happy to find myself in agreement with the honorand of the
present volume, a faithful friend of many years and a co-worker in the field of
textual studies.
34 Cook, Intertextual Relationships, 228.

CHAPTER 7
Possessing Wisdom: A Study of the Possessive

Pronouns and Adjectives in the Septuagint
Version of Proverbs
Randall X. Gauthier
1 Introduction
Observations of several peculiarities in LXX Proverbs (Prov) motivated the

topic of the present contribution.1 First, it is well-known that Prov has an abun-
dance of possessive adjectives (, , , ).2 With 119 in the
entire NT, it is comparatively striking that there are 111 in Prov alone,3 nearly
half of the occurrences in the Septuagint. Indeed, LXX Genesis comes in a
distant second place with only 19. This observation prompted my investigation
into other pronominal and adjectival forms4 that also signify some possessive
relationship, especially in light of the fact that the primary means to commu-
nicate these nuances in Hebrew is rather homogeneous, that is, by pronomi-
nal suffixes affixed to nouns.5 Upon closer examination, reflexive pronouns
1 It is with great pleasure that I dedicate this study to Johann Cook, who has given so much in
the area of the Septuagint and Proverbs, among many other areas of research. I completed
my doctoral research (20072010) at Stellenbosch University under his direction.
2 For example see David-Marc DHamonville, Les Proverbes (BdA 17; Paris: Cerf, 2000), 72; Theo
A.W. van der Louw, Transformations in the Septuagint: Towards an Interaction of Septuagint
Studies and Translation Studies (Leuven / Paris / Dudley: Peeters, 2007), 258.
3 Statistics throughout are derived from Accordance 11.1.0 2015 OakTree Software, though,
I do not always concur with their tagging.
4 This study is therefore not concerned with the common genitive of possession found with
substantive pairs, such as with (mans heart Prov 14:10) and
(fools mouth Prov 18:7).
5 Raija Sollamos study on the possessive pronouns in the Septuagint Pentateuch focused on
the phenomenon of repetitive pronouns, that is, instances in which possessive pronouns
render successive pronominal suffixes in a Hebrew construct chain. She placed her study
against the backdrop of extra-biblical Hellenistic texts (e.g., Polybius, Ptolemaic Papyri,
inscriptions, Pseudo-Aristeas, Josephus, Philo), and concluded that in the text corpus of
contemporary Koin sources [which she chose], non-repetition of the possessive pronoun
is a rule in coordinate items. That is, a single pronoun would normally govern multiple
head nouns. The significant abundance of pronouns in the LXX (more so than the increase

Possessing Wisdom 109
(as possessive genitives) in Prov are likewise some of the most abundant in the
literature. Given the wealth of number these two parts of speech enjoy, a closer
examination seemed warranted as to the comparative use of possessives more
broadly in Prov.
The aim of this study seeks to gain a greater understanding of the color-
ful translation technique in Prov, and to gain a clearer understanding of how
certain parts of speech are used in relation to others. The scope of this study
is limited to an examination of the most common possessive forms that occur,
noting other possibilities.6
The following chart approximates the ratio of the most common posses-
sives in Prov, from the use of the enclitic personal pronoun in the genitive case,
to the adjective .
Six sections in this study categorize these possessives by use and presumed
translational equivalence, as follows: Genitive Personal (Possessive) Pronouns;
Possessive Adjectives; , , and Implied Possession; Reflexive Pronouns; ;
Distribution and Parallelism of Possessives.
I take it for granted that the Greek text of Rahlfss Handausgabe needs criti-
cal refinement for the sake of determining the Old Greek.7 Likewise, much
has been discussed on the nature of the presumed Vorlage for this trans-
lation; neither text is settled. Until more definitive evidence is produced,
of pronouns in Hellenistic texts over against CG) is a Hebraism applicable to Prov as well.
However, Sollamos study examines the use and frequency of possessive pronouns among
coordinated nouns (e.g., often ... or simply ) in the Pentateuch. This phenomenon,
although it does occur in Prov (e.g., see the idiomatic use of a single Greek pronoun for a con-
struct chain in Prov 21:23; 25:10), is not strictly the same as what one finds in the parallelism
of poetic verse. Raija Sollamo, Repetition of the Possessive Pronouns in the Septuagint (SBLSCS
40; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), here 1618.
6 Some of these may include: possessive datives (e.g., Prov 5:10 / ;Prov 8:18
/ ;Prov 18:7 / ;23:26 / ;30:4
/ ;) anaphoric articles (e.g., that friend or your friend in Prov
25:10 references back to of v. 8); demonstrative pronouns (e.g., Prov 5:19
; in Prov 26:4 approximates the force of a possessive demonstrative the folly of
that one, or better his folly); and implicit possession via the vocative (e.g., see my son
throughout the book; many secondary variants include the personal pronoun following, e.g.,
Prov 7:1).
7 The critical Gttingen edition for Prov is not yet available. Therefore, this study makes use
of Alfred Rahlfs, Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes. Editio
altera quam recognovit et emendavit Robert Hanhart (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft,
2006). The BHS edition is the basis of the Hebrew. The English translation of Prov is NETS (by
Johann Cook) and the Hebrew translation used is the NRSV.
110 Gauthier
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
PRO GEN
PRO GEN POS POSADJ
ADJ IMPLIED
IMPLIED REFX REFXPRO
PRO

Figure 7.1 Comparative Frequency of Possessives in Prov.
I proceed on the assumption that the Vorlage was something similar to our MT.8
Both of these text-critical projects are ultimately necessary in order to
make statements with the greatest accuracy about Proverbs as a translation.
Nevertheless, it is justifiable to delve into a broad-level examination such as
this with translational considerations in focus.9
2 Genitive Personal (Possessive) Pronouns
1s , ; 1pl
2s , ; 2pl
3s /; 3pl
8 See especially Johann Cook, The Greek of Proverbs Evidence of a Recensionally Deviating
Hebrew Text?, in Emanuel: Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in
Honor of Emanuel Tov (ed. Shalom M. Paul, Robert A. Kraft, Lawrence H. Schiffman and
Weston W. Fields; Leiden / Boston: Brill, 2003), 60518. Cooks article above is partly in
response to Emanuel Tov, Recensional Differences between the Masoretic Text and the
Septuagint of Proverbs, in Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental
Judaism, and Christian Origins Presented to John Strugnell on the Occasion of his Sixtieth
Birthday (Theological Society Resources in Religion 5; ed. Harold W. Attridge, John J. Collins,
and Thomas H. Tobin; New York: University Press of America, 1990), 4356.
9 This study is therefore not text-critical in nature, but broadly interested in possessives
throughout and how they were derived in translation.
2.1 Overview
In Classical Greek (CG) personal pronouns tended to be used for emphasis or
clarity and were thus less frequent than we find in the Koin.10 Especially in
the LXX we find the rendering of a large number of Hebrew pronominal suf-
fixes with enclitic personal pronouns in oblique cases, but with no necessary
emphasis.11 With no special form for a possessive pronoun in CG or Hellenistic
Greek (HG),12 the personal pronoun in the genitive case (possessive genitive)
often has this function13 and in Prov there are 266 such examples.14 In this
capacity, for the sake of functional clarity, we may speak of them as possessive
pronouns (PRO).
2.2 Distribution of Forms

The chart below plots the distribution of 1st (short dash), 2nd (solid line),
and 3rd person (long dash) PRO forms across the 31 chapters of the book.15 It
becomes quickly evident that only 3rd person forms occur between chapters 10
and 18.16 In chapter 19 reemerges.
10 BDF278; Robertson, 677. See also the discussion in W.F. Bakker, Pronomen Abundans
and Pronomen Coniunctum: A Contribution to the History of the Resumptive Pronoun with
the Relative Clause in Greek (KNAW 82; Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company,
1974), 17.
11 Robertson, 68182; Sollamo, Repetition of the Possessive Pronouns, 24.
12 Modern Greek uses an indeclinable weak form of the personal pronoun in the genitive
and more emphatic possessive adjective ( - -) with the weak form (thus )
to indicate emphasis or to make a distinction.
13 In the attributive position the intensive pronoun means same and in the predicate
self. It is also used a personal pronoun in the 3rd person, and for our purposes in the
genitive, as a possessive pronoun.
14 Personal pronouns also have enclitic () and emphatic forms (). Robertson, 681.
15 The chapter divisions in Prov differ with the MT primarily in chs. 2431. Thus, in the
Greek, 30:114 follows 24:22 (from the standpoint of the Hebrew versification). Following
this is 24:2334, 30:1533; 31:19, chs. 2529, and finally 31:1031. There are numerous
versification differences as well. See Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible
(3rd ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 305. For the purposes of this study the sim-
plest solution is to retain the order of chapters from 1 to 31, as in the MT, which only
slightly affects the shape of the graphs throughout.
16 In Prov we encounter (107x/40% as a possessive), (2s; 84x/30%), (3fs;
44x/17%), (3mp; 17x/7%), and (1s; 14x, 1x).
112 Gauthier
25
20
15
10
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31
Figure 7.2 1st, 2nd, & 3rd person personal (possessive) pronouns.
2.3 Categorization of Uses

We now turn to the individual instances of possessive pronouns (PRO) and
consider their relationship to the MT. The following categories demonstrate
the frequency of each, from most frequent to least.17
2.3.1 Article + Substantive {Noun} + Genitive Personal Pronoun

(Possessive)
The Art Sub Pro construction occurs 168x (63%) and is found in the nomina-
tive (71x), genitive (11x), dative (22x), and accusative (64x) cases similarly.18 The
choice of dative tends to be more interpretive than the nominative or accu-
sative, since here we find instances in which the dative expresses means or
reference,19 in addition to interest (commodi/incommodi)20 as well as the more
typical pure use of the object/indirect object.21 The noun modified in the geni-
tive case occurs the least (4%).
17 Statistics do not include the presence of PRO in secondary variants such as in Prov 3:20;
4:5, 22; 5:11, 14; 7:1, 15, 25; 8:32; 9:18a; 19:13; 23:10; 24:27; 25:10; 26:11; 31:14, 28.
18 In total, 161 instances of Art Sub Pro substantives are nouns, 5 are adjectives, and 2 are
participles.
19 E.g., Prov 11:6(>A); 14:1, 2; 16:30; 19:3, 18; 30:13; 31:13, 25.
20 E.g., Prov 2:2; 3:8(2x), 22[a].
21 In Prov Art Sub Pro dative constructions occur 22x, most with a dative noun at the end
of their clause (10x), though they are also found within a clause (5x) and beginning of a
clause (4x) as well. In 11 instances it renders a construct noun (+ suff) and most of these
(a)In 119 (45%/266) instances Art Sub Pro renders a construct noun (sta-
tus constructus) with a pronominal suffix.22
Prov 18:7
(b)In 22 (8%) instances Art Sub Pro has no direct or obvious Hebrew
counterpart due to paraphrase, rewriting, plus material, or a different
Vorlage.23
Prov 7:17
,

I have sprinkled my bed with I have perfumed my bed with
saffron myrrh,
and my house with cinnamon aloes, and cinnamon.
(c)In 16 (6%) instances Art Sub Pro renders a bound (, , ) or rarely

an unbound ( )preposition + construct noun/participle/preposition +
suffix. The construct noun is the most common.24
occur with . In 10 instances it renders a Hebrew prep + construct noun (+ suff),

mostly and , where is slightly more prevalent.
22 Prov 1:15 ( A), 16 (v.16 is > BS*); 2:2, 18(2x); 3:1, 6, 10(2x), 17(2x), 23(2x), 27, 31; 4:16 (in
ASc is fronted, cf. Pro Art N below), 25(2x), 26; 5:5, 6, 12, 13, 18; 6:3 ( S), 6, 15,
31, 32, 33; 7:3, 11, 14, 16, 17, 25, 27; 8:7, 8, 21; 10:9; 11:17; 12:4; 13:24, 25; 14:2, 8, 12; 16:10, 11, 25, 30;
18:6, 7(2x), 21; 19:3(2x), 11, 12, 18; 20:7, 11, 13, 24, 28; 21:8, 23(2x), 25, 29; 22:25, 28; 23:8(2x), 9, 11,
12(2x), 14, 17, 18, 33(2x); 24:2(2x), 17, 18, 27(2x), 31, 34(2x, though the 2nd instance is lacking
in A); 25:5, 7, 10 (>S); 27:10, 13, 18, 22; 28:8, 9(2x), 27; 29:11, 14; 30:4, 13; 31:1, 11, 13, 17(2x), 18,
19(2x), 23, 28(2x).
23 Prov 2:2; 2:7; 3:6 ( is secondary, lacking in BS*A, and in O sub ); 4:27[b](2x); 5:19;
6:11[a] (though in S*); 7:17; 13:13[a]; 15:29[b]; 19:19; 20:9[a]; 22:20; 23:24, 31; 24:22[d];
25:10[a]; 26:10; 31:21, 25, 28, 31.
24 Nine times in the dative: Prov 3:8 (2x), 22[a]; 11:6(>A); 14:1, 26; 29:17; 30:6; 31:22. In 11:6 the
Hebrew noun is construct with another noun, with no suffix. Nominative, 3x: 2:15; 3:22;
4:21. Genitive following certain verbs, 3x: 23:3, 6; 25:18. Accusative, 1x: In this one instance
the Hebrew preposition is lexicalized in translation and functioning as the direct object
(LXX Prov 30:12 ).
114 Gauthier
Prov 2:15
Prov 3:8
(d)In 9 (3%) instances Art Sub Pro renders a noun in the absolute state
(status absolutus), with or without an expressed article.25
Prov 30:14
(e)In 2 instances (1%) Art Sub Pro renders a participle with pronominal
suffix.26
Prov 25:21
2.3.2 Noun + Genitive Pronoun used as a Possessive

In Prov, the second most frequent construction in which a personal pronoun
is used to convey possession is an anarthrous noun followed by a genitive per-
sonal pronoun, occurring 44x (16.5%). The case distribution in N Pro construc-
tions includes the nominative (3x), genitive (23x), and accusative (18x). From
this it is evident that the translator of Prov preferred N Pro over against Art Sub
Pro in order to convey possession when the noun modified by the pronoun was
to be a genitive noun. Indeed, dative N Pro never occurs in Prov,27 and the nom-
inative comprises only 7% of N Pro occurrences. Only the accusative remains
relatively constant when compared to Art Sub Pro above.
25 Prov 1:13; 7:19; 18:11; 22:19; 23:2, 5; 24:14; 30:14, 32.

26 Prov 8:35; 25:21.
27 Though there are anarthrous dative examples in 2 Chr 6:29; Ps 3:5; 76:2; 135:22; 141:2;
Eccl 8:1; Job 9:19; 30:14; 39:19; Sir 43:13, 23; Wis 4:17; Jer 8:23; 20:8; Bar 2:5; Lam 3:14.
(a)In 31 (12%) instances N Pro renders a construct noun with a pronomi-

nal suffix.28
Prov 1:8
, ,

(b)In 7 (3%) instances N Pro has no direct or obvious Hebrew counter-

part due to paraphrase, rewriting, plus material, or a different Vorlage.29
Prov 16:17
,

He who heeds his ways those who guard their way
preserves his own soul, preserve thzeir lives.
and he who loves his life
will spare his mouth.
(c)In 5 (2%) instances N Pro renders a noun in status absolutus, with or

without an expressed article.30
Prov 15:32
(d)In one instance N Pro renders a construct relationship between two

nouns.
Prov 12:14
28 Prov 1:8(2x); 2:2, 3; 5:8, 9, 11; 6:20(2x); 7:8, 24; 8:22; 12:10, 16; 14:10; 15:20; 16:30; 17:6; 18:20; 19:18;
22:8[a]; 27:23(2x); 29:3, 10, 15, 17; 31:16, 20, 27, 31.
29 Prov 6:34; 16:17(2x); 17:21; 19:20; 22:8; 31:25.
30 Prov 4:10; 9:11 (>A); 15:32; 16:24; 19:26.
116 Gauthier
2.3.3 Preposition + [Article +] Substantive {Noun} + Genitive Pronoun

used as a Possessive
In Prov, the third most frequent construction (43/16%) involves possessive pro-
nouns within a prepositional phrase. This grouping overlaps to some degree
with 2.3.1c (above) in the Hebrew, since those examples are also prepositional
phrases. In this category, prepositions taking the genitive ( sometimes
renders , ;/ ;/, ), dative ( usually renders but also ), and accu-
sative ( sometimes for ;/ ;; ) occur in roughly equal frequency.
The prepositional phrases either have the article (29x) or do not (14x). In either
format the general order is Preposition + Substantive + Pronoun.
(a)In 24 (9%) instances Prep Sub Pro corresponds to a prepositional

phrase in the MT.
(i)21 of these consist of a preposition + construct noun + suffix.
()In 14 instances the Greek prepositional phrase includes
the article.31
Prov 1:15
()In 7 instances the Greek prepositional phrase is anarthrous.32
Prov 8:22
(ii)In 3 instances Prep Sub Pro corresponds to a preposition affixed

to some other form + suffix. Examples in this category include
an infinitive construct (Prov 24:17), a preposition (Prov 22:27),
and a noun in status absolutus (Prov 26:15).
(b)In 19 (7%) instances Prep Sub Pro corresponds to Hebrew of the MT

that is not part of a prepositional phrase.
(i)In 11 instances Prep Sub Pro corresponds to a construct noun
with pronominal suffix.
31 Prov 1:15; 3:16(2x); 6:25; 7:25; 17:13; 18:9; 20:11; 22:18, 29; 24:12; 26:5, 14, 25.
32 Prov 2:6; 3:26; 7:20; 8:30; 14:32; 19:20; 20:8.
()In 6 instances the Greek prepositional phrase includes

the article.33
Prov 19:17

()In 5 instances the Greek prepositional phrase is anarthrous.34
Prov 4:13
(ii)In 6 instances there is no direct or obvious Hebrew counterpart

due to paraphrase, rewriting, plus material, or a difference in
the Vorlage.35
Prov 27:15

,

Drops on a rainy day drive a A continual dripping on
person from his house, a rainy day and a conten-
likewise also an abusive wife, tious wife are alike
from his very own house.
(iii)In 2 instances Prep Sub Pro corresponds with a noun in status

absolutus.36
Prov 11:20
33 Prov 5:21 ( A); 7:6, 20; 9:15; 19:17; 25:22.

34 Prov 3:6; 4:13; 5:18; 8:22; 18:20.
35 Prov 3:16[a]; 14:14; 24:22[b]; 27:15 (>BS ; possession would be implied by the article if
is omitted, see discussion in section 4), 27; 31:21.
36 Prov 11:20; 19:24.
118 Gauthier
2.3.4 Genitive Personal Pronoun (Possessive) + [Article] + Noun

(11x/4%)
In near-reverse order of category 1, Art Sub Pro, this construction begins with
the personal pronoun and is followed by the noun modified. It offers some of
the strongest examples in which emphasis is likely intended, not only by the
fronting of the pronoun, but also by other factors such as assonance and the
possibility of metrical considerations. The nominative case, in which the sub-
ject is made more emphatic, accounts for 6 of the 11 total occurrences of this
construction. In 3 instances the fronted pronoun appears in the last position of
a / clause, in each case following .37
(a)Pronoun + Article + Noun (8x)

(i)In 6 instances Pro Art N renders a construct noun with a pro-
nominal suffix.38
In Prov 22:19 three words are interposed between the fronted pro-
noun and the noun it modifies.
(ii)In 1 instance Pro Art N has no direct or obvious Hebrew coun-

terpart due to paraphrase, rewriting, plus material, or a differ-
ent Vorlage.
Prov 1:12

and let us remove his like those who go down
remembrance from the earth to the pit.
(iii)In 1 instance Pro Art N renders a preposition + construct noun

+ suffix.
37 Prov 23:22; 24:13; 27:11.

38 Prov 4:12; 22:19, 23; 23:15, 22; 27:11. In 4:12 one may notice the syllabic symmetry in each
clause (6x ; 6x ; 7x ), the quasi-assonance
achieved by fronting the pronoun (/ ), and the assonance
of / in the following stich. In 23:15 the fronted pronoun may allow both
stichs to end with .
Prov 24:13
(b)Pronoun + Noun (3x)

(i)In 2 instances Pro N occurs (without the article), also rendering
a construct noun with a pronominal suffix.39
Prov 11:17
(ii)In 1 instance Pro N corresponds to a preposition with pronomi-

nal suffix.
Prov 30:7
3 Possessive Adjectives
1s - -; 1pl - -
2s --; 2pl - -
3.1 Overview
Possessive adjectives (PAs) occur only in the 1st and 2nd person, decline like
adjectives, and agree in gender, number, and case with the nouns they m
odify.40
39 Prov 4:5; 11:17. In 11:17 we find the reflexive instead of (in Sc). The corrector
evidently wished to make this even more emphatic.
40 The grammars are divided in their classification of these forms as pronouns and
adjectives. For example, Karl Brugmann and Leopold Cohn classify them as adjec-
tives (Griechische Grammatik: Lautlehre, Stammbildungs- und Flexionslehre und Syntax
[3rd ed.; Mnchen: C.H. Beck, 1900], 291), Antonios Nicholas Jannaris classifies them
as pronouns (An Historical Greek Grammar [London: Macmillian and Co, 1897], 551
57), and Raphael Khner more exactly hybridizes them as adjectival (possessive) per-
sonal pronouns (Ausfhrliche Grammatik der Griechischen Sprache [vol. 2; Hannover:
Hahnsche Hofbuchhandlung, 1870], 454). Among other grammars see Smyth (poss.
120 Gauthier
PAs are beginning to phase out in the Hellenistic era and in the papyri.41
In the NT and other literature with the meaning mine they are pronominal
( ) and predicative ( ). Alternatively, they may stand in the first
( ) or second ( ) attributive position, meaning my.42

In Rahlfss LXX there are 266 PAs, appearing in order of frequency and rep-
resented in all cases43 as follows: (135/51%), (105/39%),
(22/8%), (4/2%). While PAs are relatively uncommon in the literature,
it is striking that there are 111 in Prov, or 42% of the total occurrences. The next
most frequent usage of PAs is in Genesis with 19 (7%), Psalms 15x (5.6%), the
Book of Wisdom 14x (5%), while Isaiah and 3 Maccabees both have 12 (4.5%).
The remaining occurrences of PAs in the LXX are scattered among all the other
books, with fewer frequencies than Isaiah.
When in the attributive position, PAs in the NT are typically articular (though
see in John 4:34).44 Prov stands in stark contrast, for the great
majority (106x/95%) occur in the first attributive position, two thirds of which
are anarthrous (71x/67%) and the remaining examples articular (35x/31%).45
In chs. 36 we encounter the greatest variance between anarthrous (39x) and
articular (8x) constructions, but the reason for this remains unclear. The default
attributive PA, especially the seemingly anomalous anarthrous, bespeaks their
pro.330), BDF (poss. adj.285), and Robertson (poss. adj. 288). Among the lexica see LSJ
(poss. adj.), LEH (poss. adj.), BDAG (pro. used as an adj.), and GELS (poss. pro.).
41 See BDF285: The possessive adjectives, which classical Greek employed for the
emphatic possessive genitive of the person pronoun, have to a great extent disappeared
in the Hellenistic period and so also in the NT and were replaced by the personal pronoun
(284(2)), () (286), and the like; this applies also to the papyri. See
also Robertson, 684.
42 See George D. Kilpatricks text-critical and statistical analyses of these constructions in
The Possessive Pronouns in the NT, JTS 42 (1941): 18486.
43 The case distribution among PAs in Prov is accusative (50/45%), dative (31/28%), geni-
tive (18/16%), and nominative (11/10%). This may be contrasted with the case distribution
in all of Rahlfss LXX (including Prov) with the nominative 69x, genitive 50x, dative 57x,
accusative 88x, and vocative 1x (1 Kgs 2:20).
44 Jannaris, An Historical Greek Grammar, 1210; Robertson, 685; though BDAG (687) says
[w]hen accompanied by the possessive pronouns...the noun always has the art.
45 See Henry St. J. Thackeray, The Poetry of the Greek Book of Proverbs, JTS 13 (1912): 4466,
for a discussion on poetic meter (iambic and hexameter) in Prov. Thackeray contends that
the presence or absence of the article before the possessive adjective, in those areas he
has identified as comprising iambic or hexameter patterns, is based on metrical consid-
erations. Since much of Prov is admittedly non-metrical (according to Thackeray), this
explanation cannot broadly account for the presence or absence of the article throughout.
25
20
15
10
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31
Figure 7.3 Distribution of Possessive Adjectives and Pronouns.
presence primarily as an alternative to PRO. In the NT both PRO and PA can

be found interchangeably (e.g. 1 Cor 16:18), and it is debated as to whether any
special emphasis is in force when used.46 The chart above plots the use of pos-
sessive adjectives (solid line) in Prov, now superimposed over instances of PRO
(dashed line).
From the distribution of PAs alone, one can detect a broad-level shape to
the book of Prov, as they only occur in chs. 19 and 2231. This confirms, on
one level, the over-arching shape to the MT text of Proverbs as well.47 Many
scholars are in general agreement as to the major division of collections of
proverbs that comprise the version in the MT: (I) 19; (II) 10:122:16; (III) 22:17
24:22; (IV) 24:2334; (V) 25:129:27; (VI) 30:114; (VII) 30:1533; (VIII) 31:19; (IX)
31:1031.48 There is much debate regarding delimitation of sub-collections, but
46 Robertson (68485) contends that there is emphasis when used in the NT, but see the
opposite in BDF285[1].
47 Indeed, James Crenshaw indicates that Prov 19 and 22:1724:22 share certain similarities,
not the least of which is the use of 2nd person address. James L. Crenshaw, Old Testament
Wisdom: An Introduction (3rd ed.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010), 6670.
There are a few 2nd person PRO forms in chs. 1920, but the shift in personal address
becomes pronounced in ch. 22.
48 See a similar outline of MT Proverbs in Crawford H. Toy, The Book of Proverbs (ICC;
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1899), vivii; Georg Fohrer and Ernst Sellin, Einleitung in das
Alte Testament (Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1965), 348; Robert Balgarnie Young Scott,
Proverbs/Ecclesiastes (AB 18; New York: Doubleday, 1965), 1415; William McKane, Proverbs:
A New Approach (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970), 10ff; Otto Kaiser, Einleitung in das
Alte Testament: Eine Einfhrung in ihre Ergebnisse und Probleme (Gtersloh: Gtersloher
Verlagshaus, 1975), 343; Philip Johannes Nel, The Structure and Ethos of the Wisdom
122 Gauthier
12
10
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31
Figure 7.4 Distribution of 1st and 2nd Person PAs.
these may prove to be instructive upon closer examination with respect to use
of the various possessives in Prov.49 When they overlap, PRO and PA follow
similar trends in both crest and trough. The chart above plots the use of 1st
(solid line) and 2nd person (dashed line) PAs.

PAs in Prov correspond to the following Hebrew constructions of the MT, from
greatest frequency to the least.
3.3.1 Attributive Possessive Adjective + Noun Modified (51/111x, 46%)
(a)In 31 (28%) instances PA N renders a construct noun with a pronomi-

nal suffix.50
Admonitions in Proverbs (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1982), 6; Leo G. Perdue, Proverbs (Interpretation;

Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000), 32; Crenshaw, Old Testament
Wisdom, 6670; James Alfred Loader, Proverbs 19 (HCOT; Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 67.
49 For example, Crenshaw further subdivides 19 into 10 Lectures (1:819; 2:122; 3:112;
3:2135; 4:19; 4:1019; 4:2027; 5:123; 6:2035; 7:127) and 5 Interludes (1:2033; 3:1320;
6:119; 8:136; 9:118) and 10:122:16 into two sub collections: 10:115:33 and 16:122:16.
Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom, 6670. See also Duane A. Garretts discussion of the
thirty-sayings in 22:1724:22 (Proverbs Ecclesiastes Song of Solomon [NAC 14; Nashville:
B&H Publishing Group, 1993], 189200).
50 Prov 1:23, 25, 30; 2:1; 3:1(2x), 26; 4:10, 20, 23, 27; 5:1, 2, 8, 9, 10; 6:1; 7:1, 2, 4; 8:4; 22:17; 23:19,
26(2x); 25:17; 31:2(2x), 3 ( A), 8, 9.
Prov 5:10
(b)In 13 (12%) instances PA N renders a Hebrew prepositional phrase. In

most of these examples the pure dative case construes the preposi-
tional phrase.
(i)In 12 instances PA N renders a preposition + construct noun +
pronominal suffix.51
Prov 6:4
(ii)In 1 instance PA N renders a preposition + absolute noun (

/, Prov 4:13).
(c)In 5 (4%) instances PA N has no direct or obvious Hebrew counterpart

due to paraphrase, rewriting, plus material, or a different Vorlage.52
Prov 22:23
,
.
For the Lord will judge his case, For the Lord pleads their cause
and you shall rescue and despoils of life those who
your life inviolate. despoil them.
(d)In 2 (2%) instances PA N renders a noun in status absolutus.53
Prov 3:21
51 Prov 1:9, 30; 4:20; 5:1(2x), 7; 6:1, 4(2x); 7:3; 24:28; 27:23.
52 Prov 5:3; 6:25; 8:34; 22:17, 23.
53 Prov 3:21; 5:19.
124 Gauthier
3.3.2 Article + Attributive Possessive Adjective + Noun Modified (33/111x,

30%)
(a)In 20 (18%) instances Art PA N renders a construct noun with a pro-

nominal suffix.54
Prov 25:8
(b)In 8 (7%) instances Art PA N renders a prepositional phrase. In most

of these examples the pure dative case construes the Hebrew prepo-
sitional phrase (cf. 3.3.1b above).55
Prov 24:14
(c)In 4 (3.6%) instances Art PA N has no direct or obvious Hebrew coun-

terpart due to paraphrase, rewriting, plus material, or a different
Vorlage.56
Prov 28:17[a]
,
.
Instruct a son, and he will love you, and he will give your soul an ornament.
You shall not obey a lawless nation.
3.3.3 Possessive Adjectives in Prepositional Phrases (22/111x, 20%)

Prepositions following the genitive include: , ; dative: ; , ; accusa-
tive: , , .
54 Prov 1:14, 23, 25; 4:2, 4:4, 26; 5:16; 7:1, 2, 15; 8:19; 22:17; 23:5, 15, 16; 25:8 (>A pl.); 27:2(2x); 30:1;
31:3. In 5:16 corresponds to a construct noun followed by an absolute noun
() .
55 Prov 1:26; 2:10; 4:9, 20; 9:5; 22:25; 23:4; 24:14.
56 Prov 3:22[a] ( in ASc); 8:34; 9:18[a]; 28:17[a]; 31:1 ( / . Lemuel is
rendered + , , HALOT, 532).
(a)Prep + PA + N
(i)In 17 (15%) instances a preposition + anarthrous possessive adjec-

tive + noun modified renders a Hebrew preposition + construct
noun + pronominal suffix.57
Prov 6:21
(ii)In 2 instances (2%) a preposition + anarthrous possessive adjec-

tive + noun modified renders a preposition + construct noun +
pronominal suffix.58 In the example below, the Hebrew subject is
transformed into a Greek prepositional phrase.
Prov 4:4
(iii)In 1 instance (1%) a preposition + anarthrous possessive adjec-

tive + noun modified renders Hebrew preposition + noun in
status absolutus. The Hebrew subject is transformed into a Greek
prepositional phrase.
Prov 5:16
(b)Prep + Art + PA + N
(i)In 1 instance (1%) a preposition + articular possessive adjective +

noun modified renders construct noun + pronominal suffix.
57 Prov 1:9; 2:10; 3:3, 5, 9(2x), 22, 29; 4:21 (> BS*); 5:15(2x); 6:21(2x); 8:34; 22:18; 24:28; 27:27.
58 Prov 4:4; 6:3.
126 Gauthier
Prov 5:16
(ii)In 1 (1%) instance a preposition + articular possessive adjective +

noun modified has no direct or obvious Hebrew counterpart due
to paraphrase, rewriting, plus material, or a different Vorlage.
Prov 23:16

, .
And your lips will hold My soul will rejoice

conversation when your lips speak what is
with my lips, if they are upright. right.
3.3.4 Possessive Adjectives in the Predicate Position

In 3 instances a PA stands in the predicate position to the noun modified (PA
N) in a nominal sentence. All three occur in Prov 8:14 where the Hebrew (of
the MT) likewise has a predicate construction (a personal pronoun [1x] and a
preposition with suffix [ 2x]).
Prov 8:14
,
,

Mine are counsel and I have good advice and sound
security, wisdom;
mine prudence I have insight,
and mine strength. I have strength.
3.3.5 Possessive Adjectives in Fourth Attributive Position

In 2 instances a possessive adjective follows the noun it modifies (N PA). In
both examples the assumed underlying Hebrew is a construct noun with a pro-
nominal suffix.
Prov 1:13
Prov 27:10
4 , , and Implied Possession
This section will consider examples in which possession must be determined

contextually, first by the use of the article (, , ) and second by purely
implicit means, i.e., with no linguistic marker. Since all examples in this sec-
tion are contextually determined, they are likewise subject to interpretation.
The following examples are not exhaustive, though substantial.
4.1 The Article

Prov, in accordance with both CG and HG, employs the article in place of a pos-
sessive pronoun when possession is obvious from the context.59
Prov 21:1360

He who blocks his ears He who shuts his ear
so as not to hear the weak to the cry of the poor
59 Smyth1121; Robertson, 769l. BDF278. The pronominal article was already common
in Homeric texts. Louis Basset, Apollonius between Homeric and Hellenistic Greek:
The Case of the Pre-Positive Article, in Ancient Scholarship and Grammar: Archetypes,
Concepts and Contexts (ed. Stephanos Matthaios, Franco Montanari, Antonios Rengakos;
New York: de Gruyter, 2011), 259.
60 Codex A reads .
128 Gauthier
Examples in this category consist of direct objects (accusative or genitive),

with a fair representation of indirect objects (dative) or objects of a preposi-
tion. The examples below consist of (a) a corresponding explicit pronominal
suffix in the Hebrew, sometimes with parallel possessive constructions, and
(b) instances in which the Greek is uniquely possessive, assuming the reading
in the MT. Further, it is normal Greek idiom to omit a pronoun with family
members and body parts.61
(a)Examples with an Explicit Hebrew Pronominal Suffix
6:8, its food 62 30:11, its mother

( par its father )
6:8, its provision 30:25, their food

19:24, his mouth 31:7, their poverty

20:9, his heart 31:7, their labor

26:14, its 31:12, her life
socket ( )
26:15, his hand 31:15, her household

26:15, his mouth 31:15, her
attendants
26:24, his heart

61 Sollamo, Repetition of the Possessive Pronouns, 20. See also Joshua Blau, Redundant
Pronominal Suffixes Denoting Intrinsic Possession, JANES 11 (1979): 317. Blau discusses
the notion of intrinsic possession, or nouns used within a shared context that need no
further explanation in a discourse to convey possession (e.g., husbands, wives, fathers,
body parts). They are sometimes used inexactly in number (Ps 115:56, they have a
mouth) or may be governed by an article (Qurn 4:23). Nevertheless, Blau explores a
feature in Biblical Hebrew (and other Semitic languages) in which intrinsic substan-
tives are deeply embedded in the context, or, tending toward concreteness, make use of a
redundant possessive pronoun.
62 In many instances there is a shift in person or number. That is to say, the implied posses-
sive in Greek may be plural, whereas the explicit suffix in Hebrew is sing., or a 3rd person
pro is shifted to the 2nd person, etc.
(b)Examples with no Hebrew Pronominal Suffix
6:8a, her work 25:28, its walls

9:12, your neighbors 26:27, his neighbor
19:24, his bosom 29:25, his master
20:9c, my enemy 31:12, her husband
24:27, your 31:28, her mouth
departure
4.2 Implicit Possession

Examples in this category are anarthrous, often following prepositions, and
almost always in the dative or genitive case. As ones body is intrinsic to the per-
son possession (in the broad sense) may be easily understood and assumed
from the context. Implicit possession occurs frequently with body parts (e.g.,
lips, mouth, eyes, heart, chest), though not always.63
(a)Examples with an Explicit Parallel Possessive

In Prov 3:5 is possessive: with all your heart. Not only is it
in keeping with idiomatic Greek, it also modifies the 2nd person imper-
ative (), and stands in parallel to a 2nd person possessive adjective
(). Moreover, the Vorlage was likely identical to the MT below, which
includes an explicit pronominal suffix.
Prov 3:5
,

Trust in God with all your Trust in the Lord with all your
heart, and do not be excited heart, and do not rely on your
by your wisdom. own insight.
The following examples of implicit possession stand in parallel to an

explicit possessive, following in parentheses. To aid in strengthening the
case for intended possession in the Greek, a corresponding Hebrew pro-
nominal suffix will be supplied if present. In any case, it is arguable that a
63 However, body parts are also expressed with explicit possessives such as
in 26:15.
130 Gauthier
Greek reader/listener would intuit possession from the context, and the
translator conveyed this idiomatically.64
3:16a, her tongue 21:29, his face

(par ) ()
5:19, your love ( 23:22, your father
) ()
13:3, his lips 26:24, his lips
() (... par 1a above)
16:23, his lips 30:4, his bosom
( ) ()
18:20, his 30:4, his garment
mouth ( ) ( )
(b)Examples without a Parallel Possessive

In the examples below, the anarthrous dative and genitive nouns (except-
ing ) may be understood to imply possession. The first list of exam-
ples includes (i) a corresponding Hebrew suffix while the second list (ii)
has no Hebrew suffix due to rewriting, glossing, or a difference in Vorlage.
Examples in list (ii) are naturally more debatable.
(i)Examples with a Corresponding Hebrew Suffix
Prov 4:3

,
For I became a son, and I am When I was a son with my
obedient to my father and father, tender,
beloved in the eyes of my mother and my mothers favorite
Additional examples include:
4:22, their flesh 10:19, your lips

6:13, his eye 15:5, his father
64 Two debatable examples, both accusative, are: 15:20; 19:26 his father ( ).
The juxtaposition between a father and his mother is also viable.
65 BS * include .
6:13, his foot 16:32, his temper

6:13, his fingers 17:25, his father

6:27, his lap 19:13, his father
7:2, your eyes 22:11, his lips
7:21, her lips 28:7, 65 his father

7:23, his life 31:21, his household

8:6, my lips
(ii)Examples with no corresponding Hebrew Suffix
9:12c, his hands 18:17, his

introduction
10:8, his lips 19:14, their children
10:10, his eyes 21:12, their evil
10:13, his lips 24:33, my hands
12:13, his lips 27:20a, / his
eye/their tongue66
13:1, his father 30:28, its hands
16:33, their laps 31:26, her
last days
17:23, his pocket
5 Reflexive Pronouns (Genitive of Possession)
1s ; pl
2s ; pl
3s /; pl
5.1 Overview
Reflexive pronouns (pers pro + ) are used when the action expressed
by the verb is referred back to its own subject (e.g., Prov 6:31
he will rescue himself).67 In the NT these frequently serve as the object of a
66 These are just as well definite with the eye and the tongue.
67 H.E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament
(New York: The Macmillan Company, 1967), 131.
132 Gauthier
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31
Figure 7.5 Distribution of Reflexive Pronouns (Genitive of Possession).
preposition, and more so, the object of an active verb to convey a middle force,
the so-called reflexive-active.68 Less common in the NT is the possessive geni-
tive reflexive pronoun (e.g., Matt 8:22; 1 Cor 10:33),69 but the reverse is true in
Prov.70 Indeed more than half of the reflexive pronouns (52x) are in the geni-
tive case functioning as possessives (GRP), and these are dispersed throughout
the entire book.

Of the disbursement above the following forms are found, the great majority
of which are 3ms reflexives (39x). Following these there are 6 plural 3rd per-
son forms , (5x in ch. 9), and only a single occurrence of
(Prov 25:17). Like the abundance of PAs in Prov (roughly half of the occur-
rences in Rahlfss LXX), it is also striking that GRPs occur significantly more
often in Prov than any other book.71 Whereas PAs are used as an alternative to
PRO in first and second person address/dialogue; GRP is used as an alternative
for PRO in the third person (), which helps bridge the narrative section
10:122:16 with an alternative possessive. It is also noteworthy that col-
locates with 9x; other potential collocations include (6x), (4x),
(3x), and (3x).
68 Smyth1723.
69 BDF283284.
70 The accusative reflexive as direct object occurs 14x and the dative RP 26x, with numer-
ous nuances that involve personal interest (e.g., Prov 7:1, hide my commandments with
yourself ).
71 After Prov, LXX Genesis has the most GRPs, with 19, followed by 2 Maccabees with 16.

1. In 41 (79%) instances a genitive reflexive pronoun (possessive genitive) renders
a construct noun with a pronominal suffix. These may fall within a preposi-
tional phrase, but in no instance listed here is the GRP governed directly by a
preposition.
(a)The normative construction in which these appear is in an articular

attributive position Art GRP N (39x).72
Prov 13:3
(b)In two instances we find anarthrous GRP + N and N + GRP.
Prov 12:26
Prov 28:13
2. In 7 instances a GRP has no direct or obvious Hebrew counterpart due to

paraphrase, rewriting, plus material, or a different Vorlage.73
Prov 12:11[a]
, He who enjoys himself in banquets

of wine shall leave behind disgrace
in his own strongholds
72 Prov 1:19, 31(2x); 5:22, 23; 8:36; 9:2(3x), 3, 14; 11:29; 12:11; 13:3(2x); 14:14, 32, 35; 16:17(2x), 26, 27;
17:18; 19:16(2x); 20:2; 22:5, 9; 25:17; 26:11(2x; in the 1st instance A reads, not ,
but ), 19, 26; 27:18; 28:19; 29:5(2x), 24; 30:26.
73 Prov 8:27; 9:12b; 12:11[a]; 16:26; 17:16[a]; 26:11; 30:23.
134 Gauthier
3. In 3 (%) instances a GRP renders a Hebrew noun in status absolutus.74
Prov 12:16
4. In Prov 22:16 GRP renders a Hebrew preposition with a pronominal suffix .
6.1 Overview
In CG the adjective75 is largely used to convey what is private or personal (as
opposed to public, ) such as ones personal property, or to private matters
or business, or to something intrinsically peculiar or pertaining to a particular
condition.76 It may be used with 1st (my/our own), 2nd (your own), or 3rd
person (his own) pronouns, function adjectivally (usually with the article,
),77 adverbially ( privately), or as a substantive ( comrades,
relatives, associates home, matters, affairs).78 Moulton contends that
there is a common tendency in HG, however, to weaken into a possessive
nearly identical to (e.g., John 4:44, , Mark 6:4,
) or (e.g., 1 Esdr 5:8 ; 2 Esdr 2:1 ),79
especially when the notion of belonging is associated.80 Other shifts to this
adjective may be observed in Byzantine and Modern Greek.81
74 Prov 12:16; 13:16; 26:6.

75 , like PAs, are often classified as pronouns in the grammars. Robertson, 685.
76 LSJ, 655; BDF286; BDAG, 466.1.
77 ChrysostomeLarcher contends that when used as an adjective, usually strengthens
the possessive with the sense of own separate, individual. ChrysostomeLarcher, Le livre
de la Sagesse ou la Sagesse de Salomon III (EBib.NS 5; Paris: Gabalda, 1985), 1054.
78 BDAG, 467; GELS, 337.b.
79 George Milligan, Selections from the Greek Papyri. Edited with Translations and Notes
(Cambridge: CUP, 1910), 25, 51. See also BDAG, 467.3.
80 See James Moultons discussion of the exhausted found in burial inscriptions,
papyri, and literary sources from the Hellenistic era. James Hope Moulton, A Grammar of
New Testament Greek. Vol 1: Prolegomena (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1906), 8791. Robertson
(691) notes, however, that in the NT may be used as a strong possessive reflexive.
81 In transition to Modern Greek, (as pro, own; as adj. same) is modified to
and then further to the more popular . Jannaris, An Historical Greek Grammar, 554.
See the discussion of in Artemis Alexiadou, A Possessive Adjective in the Greek DP,

In Prov the adjective , customarily with the article,82 occurs 14x. After
2 Maccabees (18x), is found in Prov more than any other book, the Book
of Wisdom following closely in third place. Perhaps most striking, however, is
that tends to be employed in gloss translations where the Greek expands
upon the Hebrew to convey possession more explicitly (like ), or where
the underlying Hebrew does not warrant it at all. The translator tends to
employ in nominal sentences, with middle and passive verbs, and with
non-indicative verbal forms (e.g., imperative, infinitive).

1. In 9 instances is used to gloss a Hebrew noun in status absolutus, or has
no direct or obvious Hebrew counterpart due to paraphrase, rewriting, plus
material, or a different Vorlage.83
Prov 20:25

.
Quickly to consecrate something It is a snare for one to say rashly,
of his own is a snare to a man, for It is holy, and begin to reflect
after making a vow a change of mind only after making a vow.
can happen.
2. In 5 instances renders a construct noun with a pronominal suffix.84
Prov 27:8
.. ,
... .
in Advances in Greek Generative Syntax: In Honor of Dimitra Theophanopoulou-Kontou

(Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 76; ed. Melita Stavrou, Arhonto Terzi; Amsterdam:
John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2005), 12752. the same in Modern Greek
is roughly synonymous to the intensive .
82 Robertson, 770m.
83 Prov 5:18, 19 (read in OScV), 20; 6:2; 9:12[b]; 11:24; 20:25; 22:7; 27:15.
84 Prov 6:2; 13:8; 16:23; 27:8(2x).
136 Gauthier
7 Distribution and Parallelism of Possessives
7.1 Distribution of Possessives

Where possessives are conveyed throughout Prov is telling. By adopting
the traditional layout of Proverb collections in the MT (see the discussion
on possessive adjectives above) now arranged as found in Rahlfss edition
(so codices B S A) we may achieve a birds eye view of their comparative use.
These collections, with the frequency of each form,85 are as follows:
I. 19 V. 24:2334
II. 10:122:16 VI. 30:1533
III. 22:1724:22 VII. 31:19
IV. 30:114 VIII. 2529
IX. 31:1031
Table 7.1 Distribution of Possessives across 9 Collections in Prov
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX
PA 78 15 1 2 7 8
PRO 54 5 21 1 4 1 12
1st & 2nd Person
IMP 5 2 1 2
GRP 1
3
PRO 39 64 17 5 1 1 20 21
3rd Person
IMP 13 24 3 2 3 7 5
GRP 13 24 2 12
3 5 3
85 Instances of contextual possession (e.g., article) are included for illustration, but these are
incomplete.
7.2 Overview of Parallelism

Every combination of (the above) possessive pronoun and adjective occurs
in a parallel construction in Prov. PRO/PRO parallelism is the most common
(47x). Of these, 1a (Art Sub Pro, see categories of PRO above) stands in parallel
with 1a 17x,86 and with some other construction 11x (e.g., 1b, 1e, 2a, 3a, 3b, 4a).87
In 15 instances PRO/PRO parallelism occurs among categories excluding 1a,88
and in 3 instances across three lines.89 Second, PAs are found in parallel con-
structions in roughly equal measure with another PA (i.e., PA/PA, 31x)90 or PRO
(i.e., PA/PRO, 25x).91 Following these we encounter 10 instances of GRP/GRP
parallelism,92 5 instances of PRO/GRP (or vice versa),93 2 instances of /
,94 2 of PRO/,95 and a single instance of PA/GRP (Prov 25:17)96 PA/
(Prov 9:12[b]),97 and PRO/ (Prov 5:19).98
Parallel possessives in general show no appreciable difference in force
or meaning, although the notion of ones own does manifest in intrinsic
86 Prov 2:18; 3:10, 17, 23; 4:25; 18:7; 19:3; 21:23; 23:8, 12, 33; 24:2, 24, 27; 28:9; 31:17, 19.
87 Prov 1:15; 5:18; 7:17, 25; 11:17; 16:30; 18:21; 19:18; 20:11; 24:17; 25:10a.
88 Prov 1:8; 3:8; 6:20; 7:20; 8:22; 16:17; 18:20; 19:20; 22:8+[a]; 24:22bd; 26:15; 29:17; 31:21, 25, 31.
89 Examples of tri-colic PRO/PRO parallelism include: Prov 2:2; 3:6 (the 3rd PRO is
spurious, lacking in BS*A, and in O sub ); 3:16[a]. Chapters 3 and 31 both have 6 instances
of PRO/PRO parallelism, with 5 in ch. 24.
90 Nearly half the occurrences of PA parallelism consist of a combination with 1a (see cat-
egories of PA above), where PA N renders a construct noun with a pronominal suffix
(Prov 1:23, 25, 30; 4:20; 5:1; 6:1; 7:1, 2; 22:17; 23:26; 31:2, 3), with the remaining examples
involving mixed combinations that do not include 1a (Prov 1:9; 2:10; 3:9; 4:4; 5:15, 16; 6:4, 21;
8:14, 34; 23:16; 24:28; 27:2). PAs occur more often (6x) in tri-colic parallelism than do PROs
(Prov 4:20; 5:1, 16; 8:4, 34; 22:17).
91 These occur with the PA appearing first (Prov 4:10, 13, 26; 5:8, 19; 6:3, 25; 7:3; 23:5; 24:24;
27:10; 31:1), second (Prov 1:13; 3:26; 4:21; 5:10; 22:18, 23, 25; 23:15; 27:27), or in mixed combina-
tions of PAs and PROs across 3 or 4 poetic lines (Prov 3:1, 22/a; 4:27/b; 27:23).
92 Prov 1:31; 9:2, 3; 12:11/[11a]; 13:3; 16:17, 26/27; 19:16; 26:11; 29:5. Notably there are four in suc-
cession in ch. 9.
93 Prov 5:21/23; 8:35/36; 12:16; 14:14, 32.
94 Prov 6:2; 27:8.
95 Prov 5:18; 27:15.
96 Although the parallelism does not reflect the normal parallelism of poetry (parallel-
ismus membrorum), the two different pronouns are juxtaposed and both render the
2ms pronominal suffix . The resulting assonance in ... ... ... is
unmistakable.
97 The second colon, though arguably slightly intensified, bears roughly the same idea in the
parallelism.
98 In this example is roughly equivalent to .
138 Gauthier
ownership with GRP and . Take for example the following combinations:
(PRO/PA) Prov 22:18, ...
souls of your flock...you shall fasten your heart to your herds; (PRO/GRP)
Prov 12:16, ... his anger...his own disgrace;
(PRO/) Prov 27:15, ... his house...his own
house (PA/GRP) Prov 25:17, ... your foot...your
own friend; (PA/) ... your favors...your
very own; (GRP/) ... his own vine-
yard...his own farm.
How all of this plays into a larger schema, however, is still in want of an
explanation. Crenshaws subdivisions (see n. 49 above), based on thematic
material, may provide us with a rough outline useful for placing possessives
into something of a literary logic, for Provs pronouns and adjectives tend to
constellate and alternate. For the sake of illustration we shall map the use of
possessives in Prov 19 and 31:19; 1031:
7.3 Chapters 19
1:17, No possessives
1:819, + PRO/PA PRO/PA PRO/GRP
1:2033, 7 PA / 2 GRP
2:122, + PA/PRO 4PA (1 impl. by )/4 PRO 2PA/2PRO
3:1320, 6PRO all (1 impl. by )
3:2135, + PA/PRO PA/PRO PA/PRO/PRO PRO/PA/PRO/PA/PRO
4:19, + 4PA (1 impl. by ) PRO/PA
4:1019, + PA/PRO PRO/PA/PRO/PRO PRO
4:2027, + 5PA (1 impl. by ) 5PRO/2PA
5:123, + 5PA 2PRO/2PA/2PRO/2PA 3PRO/5PA PRO//PRO/Impl./
PA//PRO /PRO/2GRP
6:119, + 2PA/2 PA/PRO/2PA/PRO 3 PRO/3 Impl./PRO
6:2035, + 2PRO/2PA (cf. 1:8) PA/PRO/Impl. 4PRO
7:127, + 6PA (1 Impl.)/PRO/PA 4PRO/PA/3PRO 3PRO/1 Impl. 1
Impl./4PRO
8:136, + PA Impl./2PRO 3PA PA/3PRO GRP PRO 3PA/PRO/
GRP
9:118, 4GRP/PA PRO/ / GRP//Impl./GRP/PRO PA
7.4 Chapter 31
31:19, PA/PRO 4PA 2/2PA
31:1031, / / 2/7 /Impl./4 2 /Impl. 4 2

PAs occur in 31:19 but not in 1031. On the other hand, does not occur in
19, but 21x in 1031. is prominent in the final verses, but it is really her
husband ( ) who takes the glory of her virtue (Prov 31:21, 22, 31), unlike in
the MT.
Further refinement specific to the Septuagint version could be given to the
sections above, but these must suffice to illustrate the poetic license involved
in the oscillation of possessives.
8 Summary and Conclusions
The book of Proverbs is loaded with possessive-heavy content and this study
examined the most common possessive pronouns and adjectives in the
Septuagint Version of Proverbs. The object of study included some 500 examples
in the Greek, and where available, the corresponding Hebrew from the MT.
8.1 Personal Pronouns in the Genitive

This article examined the use of possessive genitive personal pronouns (PRO)
in Prov and determined that there are four main categories in which these
occur, listed here by most frequent to least: Art Sub Pro, N Pro, Prep Sub Pro, Pro
N. Prep Sub Pro is a subset of the first two in that these occur with or without
an article. The great majority (79%) of the occurrences of PRO correspond to
a construct noun with a pronominal suffix in the MT, including prepositional
phrases, and across all four categories. The majority of these are in the form of
Art Sub Pro, and the substantives are usually nouns. When the noun modified
by the pronoun was to be a genitive noun, the translator preferred N Pro con-
structions over Art Sub Pro. In a minority of instances (37x) PRO has no direct
or obvious Hebrew counterpart due to paraphrase, rewriting, plus material,
or a different Vorlage. In fewer instances PRO corresponds to a noun in status
absolutus in the MT. The least frequent category of PRO is when the genitive
pronoun precedes the substantive (Pro [Art] N). These tend to modify nomina-
tive (subject) nouns and provide some of the clearest examples of emphasis
within this category.
8.2 Possessive Adjectives

Possessive adjectives (PAs) serve as 1st and 2nd person possessive alternative
to PRO, particularly where they are saturated in chapters 19 and 22:1731:9,
as they correspond to the individual collections of proverbs. Had there been
a need for first or second person possession in 10:122:16, we would expect
to see PAs throughout this collection as well. That 95% of PAs are in the first
140 Gauthier
attributive position, two-thirds of which are (unusually) anarthrous, is to sug-

gest that while their presence offers a colorful alternative to PRO, their actual
composition tends to be a lackluster default. PAs are found in Prov in the
following 5 categories from most frequent to least: PA N, Art PA N, PA in preposi-
tional phrases, in the predicate position, in the 4th attributive position. Like PRO,
the majority of PAs render construct nouns with suffixes (83%), 32% of those
in prepositional phrases with or without an article. In 8% (9x) of instances
there is no direct or obvious Hebrew counterpart due to paraphrase, rewriting,
plus material, or a different Vorlage. Other minor renderings occur (e.g., ren-
dering an absolute noun). In 8:14 we encounter 3 predicate position PAs, which
could have been more woodenly rendered with a dative personal pronoun, and
in 1:13 and 27:17 the rare occasion of the PA following the noun modified. The
latter examples may convey emphasis.
8.3 , , and Implied Possession

This section discussed the phenomenon of contextual possession. This
included more than 65 instances in which the article (, , ) stands in place
of a possessive pronoun, given clear contextual clues as to its function, or to
instances in which possession is contextually warranted, yet without any lin-
guistic markers. It was demonstrated that in Prov the article often takes an
idiomatic role (so also CG and HG) in conveying possession, especially with
nouns that are intrinsically possessive, such as with family members and
body parts. Many examples included the corresponding Hebrew with an
explicit suffix, though others did not. Examples of purely implicit possession
are anarthrous, occur almost exclusively in the genitive and dative cases, and
involve body parts, articles of clothing, or family relations. Given the nature of
this section accounting for what is not present the examples provided are
not exhaustive.
8.4 Reflexive Pronouns

Possessive genitive reflexive pronouns (GRPs) in Prov, like PAs, are significantly
more abundant than in other books in the LXX or NT. More than half of the
reflexive pronouns in Prov are GRPs, and the majority (98%) of these are in the
3rd person, falling into 2 categories: those that render a construct noun (79%),
and instances in which no direct or obvious Hebrew counterpart due to para-
phrase, rewriting, plus material, or a different Vorlage. GRPs are found in fre-
quency with and .
8.5
The pronominal adjective is largely used in its weakened form (so HG)
that closely approximates or , mostly in the 3rd person, though in
Prov these are often found in nominal sentences, with middle/passive verbs, or
with non-indicative verbals. Of those discussed in this study, is the only
possessive that is primarily used to gloss a Hebrew noun in status absolutus,
or has no direct or obvious Hebrew counterpart due to paraphrase, rewriting,
plus material, or a different Vorlage. The minority of instances represent con-
struct nouns with suffixes.
8.6 Distribution and Parallelism of Possessives

8.6.1 First, Second, and Third Person Address and Alternatives
The translator of Prov was not content with a homogenous use of possessives,
which is more characteristic of a book like Sirach with its overtly dominant use
of PRO, in contrast to other possibilities. Rather, even though PRO is the most
abundant single category of possessive in Prov, the translator made liberal use
of colorful alternatives, namely, PAs for 1st and 2nd person address (especially
19; 22:1731:9), and the article/implied possession, GRPs, and for 3rd per-
son address (especially 10:122:16).99
8.6.2 Parallelism and Corpus Delimitation

Parallel possessives in general show no appreciable difference in force or
meaning. Nevertheless, there may be ramifications for delimiting proverbial
collections based upon their juxtaposition, of course along with other linguis-
tic factors that would need to be determined. It was already shown that PAs,
alone, delimit 19 and 22:17ff. as linguistically distinct in terms of personal
address. However, upon closer examination, it is also evident that the transla-
tor catered to a poetic-logic with respect to the vertical dimension of these
proverbs, as shown especially in 19 and 31, for possessives constellate and
alternate. These patterns may help delimit thematic boundaries in the Greek
text as interpreted by the translator.
99 Both GRP and implied possession are apparently used with similar frequency, though this
study did not examine the instances of implied/articular possession exhaustively.
CHAPTER 8
Septuagint Proverbs 28:4 and Shielding

the Righteous: Implications for Understanding
Sabbath Fighting in Josephus
Kenneth Atkinson
Johann Cook is well known for his numerous publications on the ancient
versions of the Hebrew Bible, especially the Septuagint. His monograph on
Septuagint Proverbs displays a wealth of knowledge regarding ancient Jewish
exegetical traditions, Qumran texts, Hellenistic literature, and translation
techniques.1 In this essay, I would like to pay tribute to Cooks immense con-
tributions to scholarship by exploring an insight he briefly raises in one of his
studies on Septuagint Proverbs, namely his thoughts concerning the Law as a
wall around the righteous.2 I would like to accomplish this by investigating the
issue of Sabbath fighting in the writings of Josephus with a particular focus
on John Hyrcanus, whom Josephus portrays as the greatest of all high priests.
The selected passages explored in this contribution support several of Cooks
insights regarding Jewish exegetical oral traditions about shielding the righ-
teous from incorrect interpretations of the Law as described in LXX Prov 28:4.
1 John Hyrcanuss Observance of the Sabbath
Josephus portrays John Hyrcanus as the most blessed and successful of all the
Hasmonean rulers and high priests.3 He was the only high priest whom God
1 Johann Cook, The Septuagint of Proverbs Jewish and/or Hellenistic Proverbs? Concerning the
Hellenistic Colouring of LXX Proverbs (VTSup 69; Leiden: Brill, 1997).
2 Johann Cook, The Law of Moses in Septuagint Proverbs, VT 49 (1999): 44861.
3 See further, Clemens Thoma, John Hyrcanus I as Seen by Josephus and Other Early Jewish
Sources, in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period (ed. Fausto Parente and
Joseph Sievers; SPB 41; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 12740. John Hyrcanus is documented in the fol-
lowing sources: 1 Macc 16:1824; J.W. 1.5469; Ant. 13.228300. For accounts of his reign, see
further Edward Dbrowa, The Hasmoneans and their State: A Study in History, Ideology, and
the Institutions (Electrum 16; Krakw: Jagiellonian University Press, 2010), 6783; Joseph
Klausner, John Hyrcanus I, WHJP, 6.21121; Emil Schrer, The History of the Jewish People in
the Age of Jesus Christ (175 BCAD135) (ed. Geza Vermes, et. al., rev. ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,

LXX Prov 28:4 and Shielding the Righteous 143
granted the three highest privileges: the rule of the nation, the high priest-
hood, and the gift of prophecy ( J.W. 1.6869; Ant. 13.299300). Once, while
he was burning incense in the temple, God told him that two of his sons had
just defeated the Seleucid monarch Antiochus (IX) Cyzicenus at Samaria
(Ant. 13.282283). Josephus even claims God warned John Hyrcanus about
the future downfall of two of his children, Judah Aristobulus and Antigonus,
and the rise of their sibling, Alexander Jannaeus ( J.W. 1.69; Ant. 13.322323).
Because of his significance in the works of Josephus as a model of piety, John
Hyrcanuss observance of Jewish law is important for understanding Second
Temple Jewish religious practices and Scriptural interpretation. Of all the
legal issues Josephus mentions in his works, none was perhaps more impor-
tant for ancient Jews than Sabbath observance. It is this topic that I would like
to explore further, for John Hyrcanuss adherence to the Sabbath prohibitions
is problematic.
John Hyrcanus took power at a tragic time in Hasmonean history. His father,
Simon, was assassinated by his son-in-law, Ptolemy, at Jericho. Ptolemy had
little support for his act and fled to the fortress of Dok. John Hyrcanus gathered
an army and besieged him there.4 John Hyrcanus had a military advantage
since Dok was isolated on a mountaintop overlooking Jericho: Ptolemy was
certain to run out of supplies and nobody came to his aide. But then something
peculiar occurred. John Hyrcanus abruptly abandoned his siege and returned
to Jerusalem. Ptolemy fled to Philadelphia, east of the Jordan River, where he
received sanctuary from a local despot named Zenon.
Josephus insists John Hyrcanus had to stop his siege of Dok and allow his
fathers murderer to escape because of the arrival of the Sabbatical Year. He
explains to his readers: There came around that year in which the Jews are
required to remain inactive (), they observe this custom every seventh
year, just as on the seventh day (Ant. 13.234).5 In his War (1.59), Josephus uses
the same word, , to explain why John Hyrcanus had to end his siege at
Dok and let Ptolemy escape. Jews, Josephus insists, were required to remain
197387), 1.8999; Joseph Sievers, The Hasmoneans and their Supporters: From Mattathias to
the Death of John Hyrcanus I (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 10534; James C. VanderKam,
From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests After the Exile (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004),
27085.
4 Josephus mentions that Ptolemy had captured the mother of John Hyrcanus and his brothers
at Jericho and tortured them atop Doks walls during the siege ( J.W. 1.5760; Ant. 13.230235).
This conflicts with 1 Macc 16:16, which states he had previously murdered Simon along with
two of his sons at Jericho. This contradiction fortunately does not have any bearing on the
present study.
5 For Sabbatical Year regulations, see Exod 31:1217; Lev 25:117, 2328; Deut 14:2815:18.
144 Atkinson
inactive during the Sabbatical Year just like they were commanded to refrain
from any activity on the Sabbath. But despite Josephuss assertion this was
Jewish law, no such prohibition for the Sabbatical Year is known to biblical or
rabbinic law.
Several scholars, such as Sievers, Bickerman, and Schrer, have doubted
that a Sabbatical Year took place during John Hyrcanuss blockade of Dok.6
Because Egyptian documents indicate that the reign of John Hyrcanus actually
began in 135 BCE, and not 134 BCE as commonly assumed, there is no reason
to doubt this story since a Sabbatical Year occurred from October 135 BCE to
October 134 BCE.7 John Hyrcanus, therefore, could have terminated his siege
because of the arrival of a Sabbatical Year, during which he, at least accord-
ing to Josephus, believed Jewish law prohibited all work just like the Sabbath.
However, there is still an unresolved problem. After he left Dok, John Hyrcanus
returned to Jerusalem and fought the Seleucid monarch Antiochus (VII)
Sidetes during this same Sabbatical Year.8
In his account of this Seleucid kings siege of Jerusalem, Josephus appears
to refute his own claim that Jews were forbidden from fighting on the Sabbath
or during the Sabbatical Year. He portrays John Hyrcanus as putting up a fierce
resistance. His soldiers even made forays outside Jerusalems walls to attack
the Seleucid armys siege equipment, apparently when Antiochus Sidetess
men were idle (Ant. 13.239). But Josephus did not see any contradiction in
6 Sievers, Hasmoneans, 13566 n. 3; Elias J. Bickerman, Der Gott der Makkaber: Untersuchungen
ber Sinn und Ursprung der makkabischen Erhebung (Berlin: Schocken, 1937), 157 n. 2;
Schrer, History, 1.20203 n. 5.
7 Egyptian papyrological and epigraphic sources show that John Hyrcanus was high priest from
135 to 105 BCE and that the reigns of his two successors need to be adjusted to begin one year
earlier. For this evidence, see G. Cohen The Beginning of the Reign of Alexander Jannaeus,
in The Judean-Syrian-Egyptian Conflict of 103101 BC: A Multilingual Dossier Concerning
A War of Sceptres (ed. Edmond W. Van T Dack, et al.; Brussels: Publikatie van het Comit
Klassieke Studies, Subcomit Hellenisme Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen,
Lettern en Schne Kunsten van Belgi, 1989), 11821. For the date of this Sabbatical Year, see
Ralph Marcus, trans., Josephus: Jewish Antiquities, Books XIIXIV (LCL; Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1966), 19697 n. a; 345 n. b.; 69495 n. a; Stephen J. Pfann, Dated Bronze
Coinage of the Sabbatical Years of Release and the First Jewish City Coin, BAIAS 24 (2006):
110; Ben Zion Wacholder, The Calendar of Sabbatical Cycles During the Second Temple and
the Early Rabbinic Period, HUCA 44 (1973): 12527; idem, The Calendar of Sabbath Years
During the Second Temple Era: A Response, HUCA 54 (1983): 16365, 188.
8 For the events of the reign of Antiochus Sidetes (138129 BCE), see Kay Ehling, Untersuchungen
zur Geschichte der spten Seleukiden (16463 v. Chr.): vom Tode des Antiochos I. bis zur
Einrichtung der Provinz Syria unter Pompeius (Historia Einzelschriften 196; Stuttgart: Steiner,
2008), 20030.
the actions of John Hyrcanus fighting during the Sabbatical Year since he
consistently praises him in his books even though he explains to his read-
ers that all action was forbidden during it. How do we explain this inconsis-
tency? What makes Josephuss narrative even more problematic is that he also
claims that John Hyrcanus stopped his defense of Jerusalem when the Festival
of Tabernacles arrived in order to avoid fighting during this holiday. Clearly,
Josephus implies, John Hyrcanus believed that the Law forbade warfare on the
Sabbath or Jewish holidays. But there are problems with Josephuss account of
the Seleucid armys blockade of John Hyrcanus in Jerusalem.
Antiochus Sidetess siege of John Hyrcanus in Jerusalem must have taken
place sometime after the beginning of the Sabbatical Year of October 135 BCE.
It lasted for over one year and ended when the Festival of Tabernacles arrived.9
Its conclusion is quite puzzling. After mounting a spirited defense of the city
during the Sabbatical Year, Josephus insists that John Hyrcanus abruptly halted
fighting because of the arrival of the Festival of Tabernacles (Ant. 13.241242).
Once again, John Hyrcanus believed he could not wage war on a Jewish holiday.
He asked Antiochus Sidetes for a seven-day truce so he could observe the festi-
val and not fight. Antiochus Sidetes agreed; he even provided bulls with gilded
horns along with cups of gold and silver filled with a variety of spices for the
temple sacrifices. The two entered into negotiations: Jerusalem was spared and
John Hyrcanus became a Seleucid vassal. Josephus claims Antiochus Sidetes
received the sobriquet the Pious () because he respected this Jewish
holiday; he did not force the Jews to fight during it; and he did not harm the
sanctuary (Ant. 13.244; 7:393). Josephus praises John Hyrcanus throughout his
books as the ruler most blessed by God even though he violated the purported
prohibition against fighting during the Sabbatical Year. Although Josephus
does not mention the particular days of the week during the Sabbatical Year
when John Hyrcanus conducted military operations against the Seleucid army
besieging Jerusalem, it is probable that he fought them on the Sabbath since
his account does not mention that Antiochus Sidetes refrained from attacking
the city on the seventh day of each week. But the sieges of Dok and Jerusalem
9 For the siege, see Ant. 13.236248; J.W. 1.61. Josephus mentions that the setting of the Pleiades,
which occurs in November, coincided with a rainstorm that alleviated Jerusalems water
shortage. Cf. Pliny, Nat. 2.47.125. This chronological information shows that Antiochus
Sidetess cordon of the city lasted over a year since it was still in progress the following October
when the Festival of Tabernacles arrived. See further Benedict Niese, Zur Chronologie des
Josephus, Hermes 28 (1893): 223, 225. The account of Josephus is similar to the version of
Diodorus Siculus (Bibl. 3435.1.15), which suggests that the two used a common source.
A partial account of the siege is found in Plutarch, Mor. 184 EF.
146 Atkinson
were not the only occasions when John Hyrcanus ceased fighting to observe a
Jewish holiday.
Josephus records a third incident when the arrival of a religious festi-
val forced John Hyrcanus to halt military action. It took place in 129 BCE in
Parthia.10 John Hyrcanus had accompanied Antiochus Sidetes there the previ-
ous year when he invaded Parthia. He had attacked Parthia ostensibly to free
his brother and former king, Demetrius II Nicator.11 Antiochus Sidetes was vic-
torious in his initial battles with the Parthians. John Hyrcanus and his men
clearly fought in these engagements since they were part of the invasion force.
Then, according to Josephus, something unusual took place. John Hyrcanus
refused to continue further and the entire expedition halted because he and
his men could not fight during the approaching religious holiday. Josephus was
apparently so concerned his readers would doubt this story that he mentioned
his sources to show that he did not fabricate it:
On this we have the testimony of these things, also of Nicolaus of

Damascus, who writes as follows, After defeating Indates, the Parthian
general, and setting up a victory monument at the Lycus River, Antiochus
(Sidetes) remained there two days at the request of the Jew (John)
Hyrcanus because of a festival of his ancestors during which Jews are for-
bidden to travel. Nor does he speak falsely in saying this; for the Festival
of Pentecost had come round, following the Sabbath, and we are not per-
mitted to travel either on the Sabbath or on a festival (Ant. 13.250252).12
10 Josephus (Ant. 13.249253; cf. J.W. 1.62) and Diodorus Siculus (Bibl. 3435.155) are our
major witnesses for the invasion of Parthia by Antiochus Sidetes. For additional brief
references to this campaign, some of which may preserve ancient traditions, see fur-
ther Thomas Fischer, Untersuchungen zum Partherkrieg Antiochos VII. im Rahmen der
Seleukidengeschichte (Ph.D. diss., Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitt zu Mnchen, 1970),
2935.
11 The Parthians had captured Demetrius II nine years earlier, in 138 BCE, during his incur-
sion into their territory. For his reign, see Ehling, Untersuchungen, 4244. A notice in
an Astronomical Diary from Babylon shows that the Parthians captured Demetrius II
in iv.174 SE. (=7/8 July4/5 August 138, BCE). See Abraham Sachs and Hermann Hunger,
Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia: Volume 3: Diaries from 164 BC to
61 BC 161 (Wien: Verlag der sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1996), 16061,
No. -137A.
12 I follow the translation of this passage suggested by Miriam Pucci, Jewish-Parthian
Relations in Josephus, The Jerusalem Cathedra 3 (1983): 16. She comments that the posi-
tion of the word is significant and should be translated as also since Josephus implies
that he consulted other unnamed sources that were likely known to many of his readers.
Here, Josephus adds that there was also a prohibition against travelling dur-
ing Jewish holidays and the Sabbath. Because any fighting involved movement,
this prohibition presumably included all military action.
Josephus does not tell us what happened to John Hyrcanus or the army of
Antiochus Sidetes after they halted. His account implies that the Jews did not
participate in any further battles with the Parthians. Antiochus Sidetes was
killed sometimes afterwards; the Seleucid army was slaughtered; and only
John Hyrcanus and his men returned home. John Hyrcanus then began an
unprecedented series of conquests to capture lands in the Seleucid Empire
and elsewhere to expand the Hasmonean state. Josephus implies that he was
successful because of his zealous observance of Jewish law, which accounts for
his lengthy thirty-one year reign.
Josephuss accounts of John Hyrcanus raise some important questions con-
cerning Second Temple religious practices. Namely, were Jews allowed to fight
on the Sabbath or during religious holidays? Josephus describes John Hyrcanus
as both refraining from combat and fighting his enemy when Jews were pur-
portedly required to remain idle () during the Sabbatical Year. A look at
his predecessors raises more questions than answers concerning the basis for
the legal interpretations of John Hyrcanus, who was not an ordinary Jew but
his nations high priest.
2 Were Jews Allowed to Fight on the Sabbath or During Religious

Holidays?
The issue of whether Scripture allowed Jews to fight on the Sabbath or reli-
gious holidays is unclear. Although the Sabbath is described in many scrip-
tural and postbiblical texts as a day during which Jews must refrain from all
work, what exactly constitutes work is never fully described.13 The only clear
examples in the Pentateuch are found in Exod 16:2930, which bans leav-
ing ones place of residence or making a fire, and Num 15:3236, where the
gathering of wood is prohibited. One could add business transactions to this
list based on the prophets: this could account for the claim of Josephus that
Jews could not travel on a Sabbath or a festival.14 But several biblical passages
conflict with this interpretation. According to Josh 6:34, the siege of Jericho
occurred on a Sabbath since it lasted for seven days. Likewise, although it
13 For inactivity on the Sabbath, see Gen 2:14; Exod 16:29; 20:911; 31:1217; Lev 19:3; 23:3;
26:14; Deut 5:1215.
14 Isa 58:1314; Amos 8:5; Jer 17:2127; Neh 10:31; 13:1522; Ant. 13.253.
148 Atkinson
was an act of desperation to restore the Law, the coup against Athaliah led by
the priest Jehoiada took place on the Sabbath.15 Rabbinic literature is more
lenient and permits offensive war on the Sabbath as long as the siege begins
at least three days prior.16 The only Second Temple period text that explicitly
prohibits fighting on the Sabbath is Jub. 50:1213 where this ban is attributed
to Moses. This book is dated by the majority of scholars to the middle of the
second century BCE, which makes it nearly contemporary with the Maccabean
revolt of John Hyrcanuss ancestors when this first became a major issue.17
According to 1 and 2 Maccabees and Josephus, many Jews died during the
persecution of Antiochus IV Epiphanes because they refused to defend them-
selves when pagans attacked them on the Sabbath.18 Yet, it was during the
period of the Maccabees that Josephus believed a profound change occurred
in Jewish law regarding self-defense on the Sabbath. This modification took
place when Mattathias, the grandfather of John Hyrcanus and a Jewish priest
from Modein, refused to comply with the edict of Antiochus IV Epiphanes
and offer a pagan sacrifice. According to 1 Macc 2:27, Mattathais summoned
every one of you who is zealous for the law and strives to maintain the cov-
enant ( ) to follow me and resist the
order of Antiochus IV Epiphanes to break the Law. Josephus provides a more
detailed account of how Mattathias and his partisans hid in caves, and how
many of them perished under horrible circumstances when they fought the
Seleucid forces. Mattathias and his partisans were only successful, according
to Josephus, because he issued a decree that permitted fighting on the Sabbath
15 2 Kgs 11:420; 2 Chr 23:121;

16 t. Erub. 3.56; Sipra Deut. 20:19 (sec. 203); b. abb. 19a; y. abb. 1.7, 4a-b. See also,
Maimonides, Mishneh Torah Hilchot Melachim, 6.11.
17 For the date of Jubilees, see James C. VanderKam, The End of the Matter? Jubilees 50:613
and the Unity of the Book, in Heavenly Tablets: Interpretations, Identity, and Tradition in
Ancient Judaism (ed. Lynn LiDonnici and Andrea Lieber; JSJSup 119; Leiden: Brill, 2007),
26886. Although there have been additions to Jubilees, most notably in ch. 1, VanderKam
shows that the prohibition against warfare on the Sabbath is integral to the composition.
The Qumran text 1QM 2.69 states that the eschatological war is to be interrupted during
the Sabbatical Year while CD 12:6 bans the killing of gentiles on the Sabbath. However,
because there is no evidence the Hasmoneans considered these two texts or Jubilees
authoritative, I will not include them in the present discussion.
18 1 Macc 2:2938; 2 Macc 5:2526; 6:11; cf. 2 Macc 8:2129; Ant. 12.272274. Bar-Kochva
stresses that the issue in these texts is not whether fighting is permissible on the Sabbath,
but merely that these Jews refused to desecrate the Sabbath in any manner even if it
meant death. See Bezalel Bar-Kochva, Judas Maccabaeus: The Jewish Struggle against the
Seleucids (Cambridge: CUP, 1989), 48184.
(Ant. 12.277). His edict, moreover, was not confined to his partisans. Rather,
he intended it to apply to all Judeans.19 For Josephus, the pronouncement of
Mattathias marked a major change in Sabbath observance and Jewish law that
he appears to have endorsed since he praises the deeds of Mattathias and his
sons: their war brought about the cleansing and restoration of the temple and
its sacrifices and ultimately led to the creation of the Hasmonean state. But
upon which biblical law did Mattathias and Josephus base their belief that
Jews could fight on the Sabbath?
In 1 Maccabees law and covenant are closely related terms.20 The Greek
word covenant () appears frequently in 1 and 2 Maccabees.21 It occurs
only once in LXX Proverbs (2:17) where it is an addition by the Greek translator
to the corresponding Hebrew.22 In his examination of this verse, Cook observes
that the supplement to this chapters discussion of the issue of good and evil
contains the significant word combination bad counsel ( ), which
guides those who belong to the realm of the wicked and follow the paths of
the ungodly. He comments on the distinction between the bad counsel and
the good counsel ( ) of v. 11 for understanding this portion of LXX
Proverbs: These two counsels, according to the translator, guide the people of
these different realms the good and the evil.23 These both represent distinc-
tive ways of life in relation to the Law. In 1 Maccabees, Mattathias urges retreat
to caves and orders his partisans to fight the Syrian forces on the Sabbath to
live according to the precepts of the Torah, which the author equates with the
books of the law and the book of the covenant.24 The juxtaposition of law with
texts appears to presuppose exegetical activity: interpretations of the Torah are
based on a close reading of actual scrolls. The advice of Mattathias is portrayed
as the good council since it was intended to uphold both the text and the spirit
of the Law: it is better for Jews to kill gentiles on the Sabbath than to allow the
covenant community to be annihilated. While Josephus and 1 Maccabees por-
tray Mattathias as propagating this dramatic reinterpretation of existing prac-
tice, neither writer claims that Mattathias based his edict permitting defensive
19 See further, Francis Borchardt, Sabbath Observance, Sabbath Innovation: The Hasmo-
neans and Their Legacy as Interpreters of the Law, JSJ 46 (2015): 15981.
20 1 Macc 2:50, 56. Cook, Law, 453.
21 See 1 Macc 1:11, 15, 57, 63; 2:20, 27, 50, 54; 4:10; 11:9; 2 Macc 1:2; 7:36; 8:15.
22 See Cook, Law, 453; idem, Septuagint of Proverbs, 134.
23 Cook, Law, 452. See also, idem, Septuagint of Proverbs, 12427, 13537.
24 1 Macc 1:567 ( ... ). See also 1 Macc 2:50; 3:48; 4:47,
53; 12:9.
150 Atkinson
warfare on the Sabbath on the actual text of Scripture. Rather, it appears to be

his own exegesis of it.25
The Maccabean revolt would have been a failure if not for the decision
of Mattathias to resist, and kill gentiles, when attacked on the Sabbath.26
According to Josephuss understanding of his decision to permit such behav-
ior, Mattathiass edict to allow Sabbath fighting contradicted traditional Jewish
practice.27 If this had been an established view prior to Mattathias, he would
not have needed to make it. This implies that the previous custom was paci-
fism when attacked on the seventh day: Jews were supposed to die rather
than violate the Sabbath.28 Yet, despite Mattathiass edict, this interpretation
appears to have remained the norm afterwards. Josephus records several occa-
sions when gentiles used the Jewish restriction against fighting on the Sabbath
to their military advantage; Jews continued to refrain from self-defense on
this day as they had before Mattathias and died rather than take up arms to
preserve their lives.29 The most significant and problematic example occurred
during Pompeys 63 BCE siege of Jerusalem.
3 Sabbath Fighting and the 63 BCE Roman Siege of Jerusalem
Josephus provides some additional information pertaining to the prohibition

against fighting on the Sabbath that he appears to associate with a particular
25 Josephuss statements concerning the prohibition against warfare on the Sabbath and
religious holidays are important since he was not only a priest but an expert in Jewish law
(Life 79). He even mentions that he planned to write a four-volume work on religious
law (Ant. 1.25, 29; 20.268). Because few Jewish writers were as knowledgeable about Jewish
law as Josephus, his interpretations of Jewish religious practices and interpretations of
the Torah were likely followed by many Jews.
26 1 Macc 2:4243; 9:4353; Ant. 12.277.
27 See further, Borchardt, Sabbath, 17577.
28 Bar-Kochba ( Judas, 47493) doubts that Jews prior to Mattathias prohibited self-defense
on the Sabbath.
29 Josephus records several incidents when gentiles used the Jewish restriction against
fighting on the Sabbath to their military advantage. For example, Ptolemy Soter cap-
tured the town of Asochis on the Sabbath and took ten thousand of its inhabitants
prisoners ( J.W. 1.86; Ant. 13.337). Ptolemy Lagos captured Jerusalem because the Jews
refused to engage in battle on the Sabbath (Ant. 12.46). Apollonius entered Jerusalem
on the Sabbath because he knew that the Jewish community would not fight on this day
(2 Macc 5:2426). Vespasian won a victory over the Jews by attacking them on the Sabbath
(Frontinus, Strat., 2.1.17). See further Alger F. Johns, The Military Strategy of Sabbath
Attacks on the Jews, VT 13 (1963): 48286.
Jewish sect at the time of the Roman conquest. He makes the startling claim
that the Roman general Pompey was successful in his 63 BCE siege of Jerusalem
only because he took advantage of the strict Jewish injunction that prohibited
all work on the Sabbath. He ordered his soldiers to refrain from direct combat
on this day and only used it to fill in Jerusalems defensive fosse with timber
and earthworks to provide a level platform for his siege engines to attack the
Temple Mounts walls. According to Josephus:
If it were not our ancestral custom to rest on the Sabbath, the earthworks
would not have been completed, because the Jews would have prevented
this; for the Law permits us to defend ourselves against those who begin
a battle and attack us first, but it does not permit us to fight against an
enemy that does anything else. Of this fact the Romans were well aware,
and on the Sabbath they did not attack the Jews or meet them in hand
to hand combat, but instead raised their siege works and towers, and
brought their siege-engines near the walls so they could be used the fol-
lowing day. (Ant., 14.6364)
Josephus emphasizes that the partisans of Aristobulus II in control of the

temple did not stop Pompey from preparing to storm the Temple Mount on
the Sabbath because the Romans refrained from engaging them in combat
on that day. Therefore, the implication is that the edict of Mattathias did not
apply: there was no need for self-defense because the Romans did not actually
attack Jews on the Sabbath. Yet, the Roman preparations made while the Jews
remained idle guaranteed that those in the Temple Mount would die the next
day. But there is a problem with Josephuss narrative. The temple priests did
not resist the final Roman assault even though Josephus states that the Romans
breached the city walls and entered the sanctuary the day after the Sabbath
(Ant. 13.64) when they would have been permitted to defend themselves.
In his account of Pompeys siege, moreover, Josephus makes this clear when
he insists that Scripture permits self-defense on the Sabbath. Because this is
purportedly in the Law, Josephus implies that the partisans of Aristobulus II in
the temple had the right to fight the Romans when they began to murder Jews
following the Sabbath. But, for reasons Josephus does not explain, they did
not defend themselves and died. The day the Romans attacked the Jews in the
temple may provide an answer.
Josephus suggests there was some confusion in antiquity concerning when
the Romans captured the temple. He states that Pompeys men prepared to
breach Jerusalems wall and enter the Temple Mount the day after the Sabbath
(Ant. 14.64). But he also claims that the Romans captured the temple on
152 Atkinson
the fast day ( ), which would presumably mean the

Day of Atonement (Ant. 14.66).30 Cassius Dio records that the Temple fell
in both 63 BCE and 37 BCE on the day of Cronos ( )
which Smallwood observes is the first day of the Hellenistic week and which
she equates with the Sabbath.31 Herzfelds review of ancient Jewish literature
reveals that many pagan writers mistakenly believed the Sabbath was a day of
fasting.32 Josephus may have copied his information directly from his sources
and failed to explain to his readers that the phrase fast day was a common
gentile designation for the Sabbath. Smallwood suggests such a scenario and
proposes that Josephus took his account of the Roman siege from Nicholas of
Damascus, who only recorded the year when Pompey captured the temple,
and combined it with Strabos statement that Pompey seized Jerusalem after
watching for the day of fasting ( ) when its inhabitants
were required to abstain from all work.33 However, a possible Jewish tradition
that the Romans captured the temple on the Sabbath may be preserved in the
Syriac version of Pss. Sol. 2:1.34 It translates the Greek passage When the sinner
became proud he struck down the fortified walls ( ) with a battering
ram (), and you did not restrain him as In his arrogance the lawless one
cast down strong walls on the feast day (), and you did not restrain

him. This tradition when read in light of Josephuss account of the behavior
of the temple priests indicates that Pompeys pagan soldiers stormed the tem-
ple on the Sabbath as suggested by Cassius Dio, Strabo, and likely by Josephus
(Ant. 13.66) as well.
Josephus insists the temple priests were killed when the Romans stormed
the sanctuary, and that they continued to perform their religious duties, and
did not defend themselves, while the Romans slaughtered them. This strongly
30 In J.W. 1.149 Josephus merely writes that Pompey captured the temple during the third
month of the siege.
31 Hist. rom. 66.7.2; E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews Under Roman Rule: From Pompey to
Diocletian (SJLA 20; Leiden: Brill, 1981), 55657.
32 L. Herzfeld, Wissenschaftliche Aufstze, MGWJ 4 (1885): 10915.
33 Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.40.
34 For the dating of this poem to the 63 BCE conquest of Jerusalem by Pompey, see Kenneth
Atkinson, I Cried to the Lord: A Study of the Psalms of Solomons Historical Background and
Social Setting (JSJSup 84; Brill: Leiden, 2014), 1453. The Greek and Syriac contain several
notable differences that cannot be attributed to a common Vorlage, which suggests that
each version may have incorporated exegetical interpretations and ancient historical tra-
ditions. For this possibility, see further Joachim Begrich, Der Text der Psalmen Salomon,
ZNW 38 (1939): 16364; Joseph L. Trafton, The Psalms of Solomon: New Light From The
Syriac Version?, JBL 105 (1986): 23437.
suggests that the Romans captured the temple on the Sabbath. It has been pro-
posed that the supporters of Aristobulus II were primarily Sadducees who held
to the prohibition against Sabbath fighting. For this reason, they could not resist
Pompeys soldiers when they entered the temple to kill them. A close look at
the accounts of Josephus suggests that a significant number of the priests and
partisans of Aristobulus II were Sadducees.35 However, the situation was likely
more complicated. This restriction was not limited to Sadducees because John
Hyrcanus was a Pharisee when he both observed the prohibition against fight-
ing on Jewish holidays and when he fought the army of Antiochus Sidetes dur-
ing the Sabbatical Year.36 It, therefore, appears that we cannot claim that the
prohibition against Sabbath fighting was unique to either the Pharisees or the
Sadducees. LXX Proverbs may provide some important background regarding
this issue and help us understand Josephuss conflicting legal stances regard-
ing whether Jews could defend themselves on the Sabbath or Jewish holidays.
4 The Legal Basis for Sabbath Fighting
We find one consistency in John Hyrcanuss interpretation of the Sabbath and

religious holidays as recounted by Josephus. He never commenced warfare
on the Sabbath or any Jewish festival. He stopped his siege of Dok to avoid
waging warfare during the Sabbatical Year. He only fought Antiochus Sidetes
35 The author of the Nahum Pesher describes how in the last period the rule of the Sadducees
(= Manasseh) will collapse (4QpNah Frgs. 34 4 14). This text refers to Pompeys capture
and exile of Aristobulus II, along with his family and supporters, following the 63 BCE
Roman conquest of Jerusalem and provides evidence much earlier than Josephus that
many of them were Sadducees. See further Atkinson, I Cried to the Lord, 3653; Amusin,
The Reflection of Historical Events of the First Century B.C. in Qumran Commentaries
(4Q161; 4Q169; 4Q166), HUCA 48 (1977): 14246; Hanan Eshel, The Dead Sea Scrolls and
the Hasmonean State (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 13335; Eyal Regev, How Did the
Temple Mount Fall to Pompey?, JJS 48 (1997): 27689.
36 According to Josephus (Ant. 13.203206), Hyrcanus abandoned the Pharisees and became
a Sadducee after the death of Antiochus Sidetes. The Sadducees dominated the temple
cult for the rest of the reign of John Hyrcanus until Shelamzion Alexandra took power;
she allied herself with the Pharisees and allowed them to restore all the regulations that
had been abolished since the time of John Hyrcanus (Ant. 13.203206). Because she
appointed her son Hyrcanus II as high priest, he was clearly a Pharisee since Josephus
insists that during her reign the Pharisees dominated all matters that involved religion
(Ant. 13.408410). His brother, Aristobulus II, apparently remained a Sadducee like his
father since, according to Josephus, he opposed the Pharisees (Ant. 13.423) and remained
close to his late fathers former political and religious supporters.
154 Atkinson
when attacked during the Sabbatical Year, and presumably on Sabbaths that
occurred during it. When the Festival of Tabernacles arrived, John Hyrcanus
negotiated a surrender to avoid fighting Antiochus Sidetes: It appears that
John Hyrcanus accepted Mattathiass edict that fighting was permitted for self-
defense on the Sabbath since he likely fought Sidetes on the Sabbath during
the Sabbatical Year. But when it comes to the temple priests during Pompeys
siege, Josephus insists they died because they refused to defend themselves on
the Sabbath. A close look at Josephuss accounts suggests there was a reason
for their behavior.
Josephus writes that Sullas son, Cornelius Faustus, and his soldiers were the
first to enter the breach made by Pompeys siege engines and kill Jews in the
temple compound (Ant. 14.69; J.W. 1.149). Only a few Jews resisted them; others
committed suicide by jumping from the Temple Mount or setting fire to the
buildings in which they were hiding (Ant. 14.70; J.W. 1.150). It was only those
Jews who confronted the Romans in the temple who were killed by pagans:
they clearly believed self-defense on the Sabbath was permitted.
In his account of the final moments of the Roman siege, Josephus inserts
a neglected passage that may provide a key to understanding Second Temple
Period debates over Sabbath observance. He writes that most of the Jews
defending the Temple Mount were not killed by Romans, but by Jews belong-
ing to the faction of Hyrcanus II. He supported Pompey and fought with him
against the partisans of his brother, Aristobulus II, in control of the Temple
Mount ( J.W. 1.150; cf. Ant. 14.70). It appears that the Roman soldiers, whom
Josephus states only surrounded the priests in the temple courts but did not
touch them ( J.W. 1.149), tried to avoid fighting the Jews inside the sanctu-
ary and its courts. These Roman soldiers waited for the arrival of the parti-
sans of Hyrcanus II and allowed them to kill the priests and their supporters
in the temple.
Josephus suggests there was one exception to self-defense on the Sabbath
that the Sadducean partisans of Aristobulus II followed. They apparently
believed it was permitted to kill pagans but not fellow Jews on the Sabbath.
The Romans apparently realized this and allowed the faction of Hyrcanus II
to murder the priests and the other allies of Aristobulus II in the temple
because they knew they would not attack fellow Jews on the Sabbath when
they stormed the Temple Mount, but that they would defend themselves from
Roman assaults. This strategy minimized Roman causalities, it sped up the
final battle for control of Jerusalem, and it allowed Pompey to successfully cap-
ture the temple without any damage.37 Josephus also mentions that Pompey
37 Although Josephus (Ant. 14.7374; J.W. 1.152153) states that Pompey entered the temple
to see what was inside, he nevertheless praises him for his restraint and respect for the
immediately restored Hyrcanus II to his position as high priest because of his

enthusiastic support during the siege (Ant. 14.73; J.W. 1.153), which included the
killing of Jews.
Although it is difficult to reconstruct ancient oral interpretations of
Scripture, the stories regarding Sabbath fighting in Josephus suggest that
Jews held different views regarding fighting on the Sabbath and Jewish holi-
days during the Hasmonean period. These conflicting positions were based on
their oral interpretations of the Law and not on actual Scriptural texts. The
Nahum Pesher refers to such activity when it accuses Jews (= Ephraim), of lead-
ing astray other Jews by their false teaching (( ) 4Q168 Frgs. 34,
col. II, 8). Wacholder proposes that the use of talmd in this passage reflects a
dispute between the Pharisees (= Ephraim) and the Qumran sect over which
community taught the authoritative interpretation of the oral tradition.38 This
document suggests that debates over the validity of the oral law precipitated
sectarian conflicts during the Second Temple Period and that there was a great
diversity of opinion regarding how to fulfill the Law. One early precursor to this
belief may be found in LXX Proverbs.
In his comments on the addition to the MT by the translator of LXX
Prov 28:4, Cook comments that there is no logical relationship between the
Greek and Masoretic texts. This is especially true of the second stich that reads:
Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, but those who keep the law
struggle against them.
Likewise those who forsake the law and praise impious deeds; however,
those who love the law build a wall around them.39
sanctuary. Pompey, he insists, acted with honor and piety because he did not steal from
the temple. Cf. Cicero, Flac. 28.67.
38 Ben Zion Wacholder, A Qumran Attack on the Oral Exegesis?: The Phrase r btlmwd qrm
in 4QPesher Nahum, RevQ 5 (1966): 57578. In CD 912, we have examples of oral exegesis
of the Qumran sect, which shows that the oral tradition antedated the rabbinic period.
39 Translation, with authors italics, from Cook, Law, 457. I have provided the Hebrew text
without diacritics as the Septuagint translator would have read it.
156 Atkinson
Concerning the Greek addition regarding the building of a wall around the Law,
and the later rabbinic traditions pertaining to this concept, Cook suggests this
passage from the Septuagint could reflect an earlier tradition. Cook also notes
that the Septuagint here is not a literal reference to the Torah having a fence
around it as we find in later Jewish writings. Nevertheless, he does observe that
the Let. Aris. 139 preserves a remarkable correspondence. Cook writes on this
similarity: As in LXX Proverbs, it is not the law that has to be guarded from
incorrect interpretations, but the righteous that have to be shielded.40
The interpretation concerning the building of a wall in LXX Prov 28:4 clearly
predates Mattathias, and its understanding that the Law must be expanded to
protect it is the same logic upon which Mattathias based his innovative inter-
pretation of Sabbath fighting. In the case of Sabbath warfare, it appears that
many Jews believed it was acceptable to engage in self-defense against pagans
on the Sabbath to preserve the Law by keeping Jews alive. However, it seems
that the killing of Jews by the partisans of Hyrcanus II suggests that some
Jews in this instance those priests, many of whom were Sadducees allied with
Aristobulus II, trapped in the temple by the Romans believed that this fence
did not apply to fellow Jews. This was because only the righteous needed to be
shielded from incorrect interpretations of the Law. Fighting a gentile on the
Sabbath or Jewish holidays, therefore, was of no consequence, since pagans
did not observe either and were not bound to do so, because they belonged to
the unrighteous. The priests and other Jews in the temple, only a few of whom
defended themselves against the Romans, believed it was not acceptable to
break the Sabbath to kill fellow members of the covenant community under
any circumstance and therefore chose to die.41 The supporters of Hyrcanus II,
many of whom were Pharisees, clearly did not adhere to this belief and will-
ingly helped the Romans kill Jews in the temple, even though it was apparently
the Sabbath.
40 Cook, Law, 459.

41 See further Lev 19:18, which many in antiquity believed applied only to fellow Israelites.
See further, Harry Orlinsky, Nationalism-Universalism and Internationalism in Ancient
Israel, in Translating and Understanding the Old Testament: Essays in Honor of Herbert
Gordon May (ed. Harry Thomas Frank and William L. Reed; Nashville: Abingdon, 1979),
20636.
5 Conclusion
Cook concludes his essay on the Law of Moses in LXX Proverbs by comment-
ing that this particular book, like The Letter of Aristeas, emphasizes that it is
not the Law that has to be guarded from incorrect interpretations, but that it
is the righteous who must be shielded. The passages in Josephus regarding the
apparent inconsistency during the Second Temple Period concerning fighting
on the Sabbath, and by extension to Jewish holidays, provides evidence for oral
debates concerning this topic over the proper way to follow the Law to protect
the righteous that were still in a state of flux. LXX Proverbs bears witness to the
early stages of the development of oral interpretations and disputes concern-
ing the correct way to administer the Torah that eventually led to major divi-
sions in Judaism, as witnessed to in the Qumran texts and the later rabbinic
corpus. Many of these changes were brought about by encounters with outside
culture during the Maccabean period and led to new unwritten interpretations
of the Torah that subsequently came to be regarded as binding by many Jews.42
LXX Proverbs suggests that such debates began in the pre-Maccabean period,
during which Second Temple Judaism became quite diverse in its beliefs
and practices.
Josephus provides a valuable witness to ancient oral debates and traditions
that reflect a diversity of opinions as to whether it was permitted to defend
oneself on the Sabbath from attacks by Jews and gentiles. Cook makes the
astute comment that the Jewish exegetical traditions found in LXX Proverbs
should be attributable to the historical context in which the book was trans-
lated. In the case of Josephus, the differing attitudes towards Sabbath fight-
ing reflects the historical conditions at the time of Mattathias, John Hyrcanus,
Aristobulus II, and Hyrcanus II. They show that, in the instance of Hyrcanus II,
he and other Jews were willing to adopt the example of Phineas and use vio-
lence against fellow Jews to protect the Torah: they believed their situation
was like the time of Moses when righteous Jews had to use violence to protect
the covenant community from unrighteous Jews with false interpretations of
the Law by killing them.43 Many partisans of Aristobulus II believed otherwise
42 See, for example, the prohibitions regarding the temple and Jerusalem in Ant. 12.145146
for which there is no explicit mention in Scripture. For the importance of Mattathais
and his sons in reestablishing boundaries between Jews and gentiles they believed had
become lax, see further the discussion in Albert I. Baumgarten, The Flourishing of Jewish
Sects in the Maccabean Era (JSJSup 55; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 81113.
43 For the use of the Phinehas tradition by the Hasmoneans to endorse violence against
Jews, see further John J. Collins, The Zeal of Phinehas: The Bible and the Legitimation
158 Atkinson
and refused to use violence against Jews, even those they undoubtedly deemed
unrighteous.
Cook shows that LXX Proverbs is a valuable witness to the early stages of
Jewish exegetical traditions that are most fully delineated in rabbinic litera-
ture. Josephus provides an additional witness to Jewish exegetical activity and
debates over the proper way to protect the Law that postdate the Septuagint
and antedate the rabbinic literature, thereby providing additional support
for Cooks insight that LXX Proverbs is a significant witness to ancient Jewish
exegetical traditions and religious thought. These oral debates over the proper
way to shield the righteous became more intense over time, and led to a pro-
liferation of Jewish sects during the Maccabean period. Cooks brief insights
concerning the shielding of the righteous in LXX Prov 28:4 suggests that the
Septuagint is a largely neglected resource for uncovering some of these lost
oral traditions and debates concerning the correct application of the Torah
prior to the Maccabean period, some of which are documented or presup-
posed in both Josephus and the rabbinic corpus.
of Violence, JBL 122 (2003): 1214. Baumgarten (Flourishing, 8990) makes the important
observation that the early Maccabees were inconsistent in their own interpretations of
the Law. They sought to shield Jews from the influences of gentiles while employing for-
eigners in their army, and adopted many aspects of Hellenistic culture they had fought to
eradicate from Judea.
CHAPTER 9
A Man Shall Not Rise Again...: Job 14:12 in Hebrew

and Greek
Hans Ausloos*
Analyzing the Septuagint (LXX) version of Proverbs, Prof. Johann Cook soon
became interested in its relationship with the Greek version of the book of
Job.1 Later, his focus shifted to the Greek version of Job as such,2 and specifi-
cally to the question of whether the Septuagint (LXX) of Job manifested a par-
ticular concern in the belief in a life after death or accentuated the notion of
resurrection in some peculiar way.3 This specific interest should not surprise;
* The author is Chercheur qualifi of the F.R.S.-FNRS and professor of Old Testament exege-
sis at the Universit catholique de Louvain (Belgium), as well as Research Associate at the
University of the Free State (South Africa).
1 Johann Cook, Aspects of the Relationship between the Septuagint Versions of Proverbs and
Job, in IX Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies.
Cambridge, UK, 1995 (ed. Bernard A. Taylor; SBLSCS 45; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 30928;
idem, Were the Septuagint Versions of Job and Proverbs Translated by the Same Person?,
HS 51 (2010): 12956; idem, Contextuality in Wisdom Literature. The Provenance of LXX
Proverbs and Job as Case Studies, in Texts, Contexts and Readings in Postexilic Literature:
Explorations into Historiography and Identity Negotiation in Hebrew Bible and Related
texts (ed. Louis C. Jonker; FAT 53; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 14968; Johann Cook,
The Relationship Between the LXX Versions of Proverbs and Job, in Text-critical and
Hermeneutical Studies in the Septuagint (ed. Johann Cook and Hermann-Josef Stipp; VTSup
157; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 14556.
2 See i.a. Johann Cook, Aspects of Wisdom in the Text(s) of Job (Chapter 28) Translator(s)
and/or Vorlage(n)?, OTE 5 (1992): 2645; idem, Are the Additions in LXX Job 2,9a-e to be
Deemed as the Old Greek Text? Biblica 19 (2010): 27584; idem, In search of the Old Greek
of Job, JSem 20 (2011): 21332; idem, The Provenance of the Old Greek Job, in XIV Congress of
the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Helsinki 2010 (ed. Melvin
K.H. Peters; SBLSCS 59; Atlanta: SBL, 2013), 7392.
3 Johann Cook, The Profile and Some Theological Aspects of the Old Greek of Job
Resurrection and Life After Death as Points in Case, OTE 24 (2011): 32445, and, most
recently, the chapters Job 14 Life After Death?, Job 19 Resurrection?, and Job 42 The
Epilogue, in Law, Prophets, and Wisdom. On the Provenance of Translators and their Books in
the Septuagint Version (ed. Johann Cook and Arie van der Kooij; CBET 68; Leuven: Peeters,
2012), 194200; 20104; 20519.

160 Ausloos
if there is one biblical book that would be appropriate to deal explicitly with
the topic of life after death, it is the book of Job. In thematizing human suffer-
ing and death, it would be logical if the possibility of life-after-death would also
be a topic in Job.
In some recent contributions on this theme, Cook has focused particularly
on Job 14:12. His conclusion concerning its Greek version is unambiguous:
The LXX does not refer to life after death in this verse.4 Despite my high esteem
for prof. Cook as an eminent scholar and a loyal colleague, I do not agree with this
conclusion. Therefore, in this contribution, which I cordially dedicate to him,
I will present the results of a re-investigation of this verse from several perspec-
tives. First, due to the fact that the LXX is a translation of a Hebrew Vorlage,
I will deal with Job 14:12 against the background of the general question con-
cerning life-after-death within the Masoretic text (MT) of Job. Second, I will
focus on the Greek versions of Job 14:12. Finally, and against the background of
the generally accepted statement that the New Testament authors were depen-
dent on Old Testament literature, I will examine how and to what degree Job
14:12 was influential for the New Testaments presentation of resurrection.
1 Job 14:12 and the Question of Life after Death in the MT of Job
The quest for the articulation of a belief in life after death in the book of Job
must be seen in the context of the skepticism concerning belief in life after
death within the whole of the Hebrew Bible. Mllers opinion is paradigmatic
for this view. In his view, ancient Israel never believed in a life after death or
a resurrection of the dead. Referring to the book of Job specifically, Mller
argues that in the Hebrew Bible, death is seen as the final end.5 When one dies,
one arrives in the Sheol, a place or state where there is no hope; it is the empire
of the dead.6 According to Schnocks, one had to wait until the Hellenistic
period, when, under influence of the struggle against Antiochus Epiphanes
4 Cook, The Profile and Some Theological Aspects of the Old Greek of Job, 334 and idem,
Job 14, 198.
5 Karlheinz Mller, Das Weltbild der jdischen Apokalyptik und die Rede von Jesu Aufer
stehung, BK 52 (1997): 8 18, esp. 13: Die Erwartung eines endgltigen Aus.
6 Mller, Das Weltbild, 13: Dort in der Scheol versinken die Toten in vllige Bewusstlosigkeit.
Es ist ein Totenreich, das man sich als eine gewaltige Grube oder Zisterne vorstellte (Hiob
33,18.30, cf. Ps 88,5). It is not surprising that this author is very skeptical of the possibility of
an Old Testament basis for a belief in the New Testament resurrection: Das alte Israel kennt
keinen Glauben an eine Auferweckung aus den Toten. Wir brauchen also keinesfalls nur das
sogenannte Alte Testament aufzuschlagen, um dort bequem und ausreichend erlutert zu
A Man Shall Not Rise Again... 161
attempts to Hellenize Jewish religion, the notion of a life after death received
some impetus in certain apocalyptic scenes.7 As such, in Schnocks view,
a hope for resurrection cannot be shown to have existed in the Hebrew Book
of Job.8 On the basis of Job 14:710, Hieke concludes his study of the book of
Jobs presentation of the notion of death as follows: Death has the final word;
there is no single hope on salvation or resurrection.9
In my view, Mllers, Schnocks and Hiekes emphasis on the lack of a belief
in resurrection within the Hebrew text of Job should be nuanced. I completely
agree with their thesis that one finds in Job a radical treatment of the motif
of death. This is perhaps to be expected, given the general theme of the book.
erhalten, was die ltesten christlichen Bekenner und Gemeinden meinten, wenn sie von der
Auferweckung der Toten sprachen (ibid.).
7 Johannes Schnocks, Rettung und Neuschpfung: Studien zur alttestamentlichen Grundlegung
einer gesamtbiblischen Theologie der Auferstehung (BBB 158; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 2009), 14, summarizes the traditional belief in resurrection in the Hebrew Bible
as follows: Wo auch immer sich im Alten Testament Spuren einer Auferstehungshoffnung
finden, werden sie mit dem Danielbuch und den religionspolitischen Auseinandersetzungen
unter Antiochus IV. Epiphanes als terminus post quem frhestens in makkabische Zeit
datiert.
8 Johannes Schnocks, The Hope for Resurrection in the Book of Job, in The Septuagint and
Messianism (ed. Michael A. Knibb; BETL 195; Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 29199, esp. 298; see
equally idem, Rettung und Neuschpfung, 52: Hat sich fr das hebrische Ijobbuch keine
Auferstehungshoffnung nachweisen lassen (...).
There have been arguments that the theme of life after death in Job is limited to the
accentuation of living further through ones descendants. See, in this respect, Dominique
Mangin, Larbre et lhomme (gJob 14:717). Les prtendues allusions laprs-vie dans la ver-
sion grecque du livre de Job, RB 115 (2008): 46: Le livre de Job, en grec comme en hbreu,
mapparat reprsentatif de la croyance, prsente dans le Siracide, autre livre sapientiel,
et de la mme poque hellnistique que le traducteur grec qui affirme que fondamentale-
ment lhomme se survit lui-mme dans sa descendance et dans la transmission: cest la
raison pour laquelle la perte de ses enfants est pour Job un drame. Nevertheless, in Jobs case,
one has to admit that there is not much hope left for Job, since all his children have died, and
those who are younger than him, make fun of him (Job 30:1). Of course, Job accepts the
place of shades, the Sheol. However, in the Sheol, one cannot expect many things that inspire
hope (see Job 17:1315: If I look for Sheol as my house [...], where then is my hope?). The
only positive element of the Sheol is that everybody rich or poor can find rest here: Now
I would be lying down and quiet; I would be asleep; then I would be at rest with kings and
counselors of the earth who rebuild ruins for themselves, or with princes who have gold, who
fill their houses with silver (Job 3:1314).
9 Thomas Hieke, Sichtweisen des Todes im Alten Testament, in: idem, ed., Tod Ende oder
Anfang? Was die Bibel sagt (Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2005), 1355, esp. 41:
Der Tod hat das letzte Wort, es besteht keinerlei Hoffnung auf Rettung oder Auferstehung.
162 Ausloos
Nevertheless, Job is not a univocal book, which aims at giving a definite answer
to the existential question of suffering and death. Despite an extremely pes-
simistic, even fatalistic attitude towards death, there are, in my opinion, some
texts within the MT of Job that leave some openness towards the possibility
of life after death. In this regard, we must acknowledge that even an explicit
rejection of a life after death is at least an indication that the question has been
asked. Even if the author of Job gave a negative answer to this question, those
texts that deny the possibility of life after death at least demonstrate that this
belief has been an object of discussion.10
Contrary to those who deny that the book of Job evinces any openness
towards an afterlife, Mangin gives an overview of those passages that seem to
deal with the question of the belief in life after death or in the resurrection of
the dead (in the MT and in the LXX).11 It is interesting to note that frequently
the greatest attention is paid to Job 14:1417 and the well-known pericope Job
19:2527 (a passage that plays an eminent role in Hndels Messiah: I know
that my Redeemer liveth, and that He shall stand at the latter day upon the
earth. And though worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God).
For the most part, Job 14:12 is, however, missing from the surveys of texts that
would deal with life after death.12 Nevertheless, sound arguments can be given
10 This is also the position of Antoon Schoors, Jesaja (De boeken van het Oude Testament;
Roermond: Romen & Zonen, 1972), 158 with regard to Isa. 26:19.
11 Mangin, Larbre et lhomme (GJob 14:717), 2648; 17490, esp. 33 n. 25 refers to Donald
H. Gard, The Concept of the Future Life According to the Greek Translator of the Book
of Job, JBL 73 (1954): 13743; Henry S. Gehman, The Theological Approach of the Greek
Translator of Job 115, JBL 68 (1949): 23140; Gilles Gerleman, Studies in the Septuagint.
These scolars refer to the following passages as texts that could deal with life after death:
Job 3:1314, 1819, 2122; 4:20b; 5:11b; 6:10; 7:9, 21cd; 10:21; 14:10, 12, 14, 22; 16:22; 19:25; 40:13,
17a. Moreover, Mangin makes reference to Harry M. Orlinsky, The Hebrew and Greek
Texts of Job 14,12, JQR 28 (19371938): 5768 and Herv Tremblay, Job 19,2527 dans la
Septante et chez les Pres grecs: unanimit dune tradition (tudes Bibliques, 47; Paris:
Gabalda, 2002). Orlinsky refers to Job 7:67, 910, 16; 10:2022; 14:2, 710, 12, 14, 2022;
16:22; 19:2527; 20:711; 21:26. According to Tremblay Job 3:1213, 21, 22; 4:20; 5:11; 6:10; 7:9
10; 14:712; 14:22; 19:2527; 40:13; 42:17a should be mentioned as texts referring to afterlife.
12 See, however, Orlinsky, The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Job 14:12, 5768 and Tremblay,
Job 19,2527 dans la Septante. Arie van der Kooij, Ideas about Afterlife in the Septuagint,
in Lebendige Hoffnung ewiger Tod?! Jenseitsvorstellungen in Hellenismus, Judentum
und Christentum (ed. Michael Labahn and Manfred Lang; Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer
Geschichte, 24; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2007), 87102, esp. 93 does refer to
the verse, but seems to interpret the verse as denying resurrection. Mangin, Larbre et
lhomme, 33 doesnt even mention Job 14:12: Sur les dix-sept passages cits pour une
that this verse undoubtedly centers on this question. In order to defend this
thesis, reference could be made to Sawyers contribution Hebrew Words for
the Resurrection of the Dead.13 In this seldom cited article, Sawyer formulates
two important conclusions regarding the Old Testaments talk of resurrection
on the basis of a linguistic analysis: (1) Within the complete corpus of ancient
Hebrew literature, no more than eight verbs are used to express the notion of
resurrection as such: ( to live), ( to get up), ( to stand),
(to wake up), ( Nifal of : to awake), ( to come back), ( to
come up again) and ( to sprout forth);14 (2) In its present form here
Sawyer has the final form of the text15 in mind hardly twenty Old Testament
pericopes can be found that reference the resurrection of the dead as clear
expressions of belief in Gods power to create out of the dust and decay of the
grave a new humanity where good lives do not end in suffering and justice
prevails.16 As one of these passages, Sawyer mentions Job 14:12.17
Job 14:12 forms the continuation of Job 14:411. Here, Job, in addressing
Zophar, contrasts a tree from a human being: For there is hope for a tree, if
it is cut down, that it will sprout again (...) But mortals die, and are laid low;
humans expire, and where are they? As already indicated, scholars have often
referred to this pericope in order to deny any hint of a belief in resurrection
or life after death in the book of Job. However, scholars who argue thus gener-
ally do not refer to what follows in Job 14:12:
raison ou pour une autre, si lon met de ct 42:17a, qui nest pas une traduction de
lhbreu, et les six passages o laccord du grec et de lhbreu nest pas mis en question, il
y en a deux (14:14abc, 5:11b), pas plus, jinsiste, qui sont vritablement importants et qui
supportent pour ainsi dire seuls le poids de la thse; ces stiques on peut ajouter 19,25
27, qui est voqu sans tre analys par G. Gerleman et qui forme lobjet de louvrage
de H. Tremblay; il y en a un (7:9) qui est voqu pour des raisons contradictoires par G.
Gerleman et D. Gard; further, Mangin analyses Job 3:1819, 22; 4:20; 6:10; 14:22; 40:13. Also
Schnocks, The Hope for Resurrection, 292 only deals with Job 14:1317; 19:2527, passages
which he considers to be key passages that express the hope for resurrection in the book
of Job; See also idem, Rettung und Neuschpfung, 44.
13 John F.A. Sawyer, Hebrew Words for the Resurrection of the Dead, VT 23 (1973): 21834.
14 Besides these verbs, there are many noun-phrases and adverbial expressions which,
because of their recurring association with language about the resurrection of the dead,
would have to be included in this associative field (Sawyer, Hebrew Words, 225). So, for
example, the expression ( at the end of time) in Dan 12:2.
15 Ibid., 230.
16 Ibid.
17 Further, Deut 32:39; 1 Sam 2:6; 1 Kgs 17:22; Isa 26:14, 19; 53:11; 66:24; Ezek 37:10; Hos 6:2; Pss
1:5; 16:19; 17:15; 49:16; 72:16; 73:24; 88:11; Job 19:2527; Dan 12:2 (ibid.).
164 Ausloos
( so mortals lie down and do not rise again; until the

heavens are no more, they will not awake or be roused out of their sleep).
Nevertheless, within this verse, three of the eight terms that Sawyer has noted
as being related to the notion of resurrection occur: ( to come back),
( to wake up), and ( to wake up also in Nifal).18
The Hebrew text form of this verse is not without problems. The term
in particular has given rise to some discussion: should one relate to the
negative particle, or should the term rather be seen as a derivate of the root
?19 For Mangin, it is clear that the continuity of vegetal life is opposed to
the discontinuity of human life; human continuity is guaranteed by living
through descendants.20 In order to discover the meaning of Job 14:12, Mangin
refers specifically to Gen 1:6, with regard to the use of the term heaven. In
the Creation poem, God separated the waters that were under from the waters
that were above with a dome. This is an everlasting element, which will never
disappear.21 So, as long as the heavens exist, humans will not awake from
their sleep. Therefore, according to Mangin, a return from death is completely
impossible.22 Even though the continuation of the text seems to impel us
towards another conclusion i.e., in posing the question If mortals die, will
18 For analysis of this pericope from the perspective of the theme of hope, see Franoise
Mies, Lesprance de Job (BETL 193; Leuven/Paris/Dudley: University Press/Peeters, 2006),
esp. 150 54; 193 99.
19 See Mangin, Larbre et lhomme, 38. See, for example, BDB, 115 16: till there be no
heaven. Cf. also Orlinsky, The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Job 14:12, 61 62.
20 Mangin, Larbre et lhomme, 37: La continuit du monde vgtal soppose la discon-
tinut de lhumain, qui fonde prcisment la perptuation de la vie humaine dans une
descendance.
21 Ibid., 38: Dieu spare les eaux den haut des eaux den bas au moyen dun plafond solide,
le ciel, et lide que lhomme ne se relvera pas tant quest cousu le ciel signifie quil ne se
relverait que si lon revenait la situation antrieure au six jours de la cration, ce qui est
limpossible mme (...) Le ciel est prsent dans plusieurs passages de la Bible comme
limage de ce qui dure jamais.
22 Ibid. Nevertheless, there are some Old Testament texts that deal with a trembling of heav-
ens. See, e.g., Isa. 13:13; 24:4; also Isa 65:17 which concern the creation of new heavens
and thus seems to contradict Mangins interpretation. See also Matt 5:18; 24:35 and Rev
21:1. Although Mangin refers to these passages about the new heavens, his conclusion
is not convincing: Le ciel-image-de-ce qui-dure--jamais a donn naissance un nou-
veau motif dont tmoigne Is et qui sera continu dans lApocalypse (ibid., 39). Cf. also
Orlinksy, The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Job 14:12, 67.
they live again? Job 14:14 does not exclude the possibility of life after death
Mangin u nambiguously states that there is no resurrection in Job.23
For Mende, Job 14:14 is of secondary importance within Job 14:13a, 1516.24
In these verses, the author is convinced there will be universal salvation at the
end of time.25 Nevertheless, Job 14:13a, 1516 remains silent on the matter of
what happens to the individual who dies. This matter is not yet an urgent prob-
lem to the author of Job. It will become a theme for the second redactor of the
text in Job 14:14.26 Nevertheless, even for Mende, Job 14:14 is not a univocal yes
to the resurrection of the dead.27 Regardless of whether Job 14:14 takes a clear
position regarding life after death or not after all, the crucial sentence has
been formulated as a question there can be no doubt that one encounters
here one of Sawyers central resurrection lexemes, i.e., ( to live).
Against the backdrop of the previous presentation, I am of the opinion that
current scholarship on Job 14:12, 14 has been influenced too much by a yes
no mentality. The fact that there is typical resurrection vocabulary in Job 14:12,
14, inevitably leads to the conclusion that these verses deal with the theme of
resurrection. Anyway, the combination of four terms (, , , and )
within two verses clearly indicates that the author allows for the possibility
that God could have the power to raise the dead. This, however, does not imply
that this pericope presents a univocal doctrine of resurrection. Still, Job 14:12, 14
at least gives some indications that the author has been dealing with the ques-
tion of whether or not there is a possibility of new life after death, although it
is not clear how the author has answered this question. But is not precisely this
confusion one of the particularities of the book of Job, which reacts precisely
against univocal traditional answers to existential questions?
23 As to Job 14:14, see Ibid., 41: Lauteur lui-mme a insr dans son texte un fragment de
commentaire de son texte; nul besoin dimaginer une seconde main, une interpolation.
24 In her diachronic analysis of Job 1214, Mende sees a rupture between 14:12a and 14:13:
Whrend Ijob in V. 12a betont, da der Tod das unausweichliche Ende des Menschen ist,
setzt er in V. 13 voraus, da es einen nur vorbergehenden Aufenthalt in der Scheol gibt.
14,13 setzt somit nicht mehr die Textschicht von B2 in 13,2814,12* fort (Theresia Mende,
Die Wurzeln der Auferstehungshoffung im Ijobbuch, TTZ 102 [1993]: 133, esp. 10).
25 Ibid., 13: (...) die universale Heilsvollendung am Ende der Zeiten.
26 Ibid., 1213: Was allerdings mit jenen Menschen geschieht, die der Tod noch vor dem
Ende ereilt, wird in Ijob 14,13a.15f. nicht mehr reflektiert. Diese Frage, die schlielich
unmittelbar zur Frage nach der Auferstehung der Toten fhrt, bildete fr den Ijobdichter
noch kein drngendes Problem. Erst der zweite Bearbeiter machte sie zum Gegenstand
einer ausdrcklichen Reflexion (14,14).
27 Ibid., 30: Das eindeutige Ja zu ihr vermag er jedoch noch nicht zu sprechen.
166 Ausloos
2 The LXXs Interpretation of Job 14:12
Although it is sometimes argued that, in the Septuagint, there seems to be

a tendency toward greater optimism about the afterlife than is shown in the
Hebrew Text,28 several scholars have argued that, just like the absence of faith
in life after death within the MT, the LXX of Job also ignores this possibility.29
Here too, however, one has to be cautious in speaking about the LXX, since
the Greek text of Job is not unproblematic.
As is commonly known, there are important divergences between the
Hebrew and Greek form of the book of Job.30 The Hebrew text, as it has been
transmitted in the MT, is much longer than the so-called Old Greek (OG) text
of Job. The Vetus Latina also seems to reflect this shorter text of Job.
There is no unanimous view concerning the origin of the shorter text. Some
have argued that it has been translated on the basis of a Hebrew Vorlage that
was much shorter than the MT.31 Others argue that the translator of the OG
has shortened his Vorlage. In his introduction to the translation of the LXX
of Job for NETS, Cox summarizes the arguments as follows.32 The view that it
28 Outi Lehtipuu, Debates over the Resurrection of the Dead: Constructing Early Christian
Identity (Oxford Early Christian Studies; Oxford: OUP, 2015), 32.
29 For example, Gilles Gerleman, Studies in the Septuagint. I. Book of Job (LU 43/2; Lund:
Gleerup, 1946), 60, who mentions Job 3:1415; 7:910, 21; 10:21; 14:10; 16:22, together with
several other passages as indications that there is no evidence of a belief in life after
death within Job.
30 Cf. Natalio Fernndez Marcos, The Septuagint Reading of the Book of Job, in The Book
of Job (ed. Wim A.M. Beuken; BETL 114; Leuven: University Press/Peeters, 1994), 25166;
Markus Witte, The Greek Book of Job, in Das Buch Hiob und seine Interpretationen:
Beitrge zum Hiob-Symposium auf dem Monte Verit vom 14.-19. August 2005 (ed. Thomas
Krger et al.; AThANT 88; Zrich: Theologischer Verlag, 2007), 3354.
31 So Harry M. Orlinsky, Studies in the Septuagint of the Book of Job, HUCA 35 (1964):
5778, esp. 58: There remain numerous passages in our Book where there can be no
doubt that the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint differed from the preserved Hebrew
text our so-called masoretic text. Nevertheless, besides this OG, a longer Greek text
has also been transmitted, in which the minuses of the OG have been supplemented.
As such, this Greek textual form is, at least with regard to the number of stichoi, more or
less equivalent to the MT. Moreover, the LXX of Job also contains several plusses, among
which is Job 42:17ae.
32 Claude E. Cox, Iob. To the Reader, in A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the
Other Greek Translations Traditionally included under That Title (ed. Albert Pietersma and
Benjamin G. Wright; Oxford: OUP, 2007), 667. See also Fernndez Marcos, The Septuagint
Reading of the Book of Job, 264: The major part of the discrepancies against the Hebrew
are to be ascribed to the translation technique. Further Witte, The Greek Book of Job,
is a shortening by the OG seems to find support in two characteristics of the

Hebrew text: First, the meaning of the Hebrew is sometimes obscure; second,
the argumentation in the book is repetitious. A third consideration may have
made abbreviation acceptable: Iob may not have carried the same authority as
other books of the Hebrew Scriptures.33
The shorter version of Job is equally present in Origens Hexapla (3rd cen-
tury CE). The text rendered by Origen, which is called the ecclesiastical text, is
actually a combination of the OG and the Theodotion text.34 Moreover, Origen
marked the passages he added to the OG from Theodotion with an asterisk. The
end of the Theodotion text, he marked with a metobelus. According to Zieglers
critical edition, Origens Hexapla contained 389 stichoi that were preceded by
an asterisk.35 Ziegler himself, and modern translators of the Greek text follow-
ing in his footsteps, indicated plusses by an asterisk and a metobelus.36
Job 14:12 also confronts one with this problem. Job 14:12ab (
, NETS: But a person,
once lying down, shall never rise again until the sky become unstitched)
is part of the OG. Job 14:12c ( NETS:
37: The following facts favour the conclusion that the translators are essentially respon-
sible for the shortening of the source text: The omissions 1.) increase over the course
of the book, 2.) occur especially in difficult parts, 3.) reduce the redundancies in Elihus
speeches (chs. 3237) and as a result increase the compelling nature of the arguments
within the text as well as 4.) interfere with the poetic structure. However, this does not
imply that, according to Witte, the translator has been working systematically. Moreover,
it remains possible that the translator was aware of different versions of the Hebrew text
of Job. This can be argued on the basis of the fact that omissions are more frequently
attested to in the passages that are considered to be secondary.
33 Cox, Iob, 667.
34 This translation of Job, attributed to Theodotion, dates from the 1st century CE Cf. Martina
Kepper and Markus Witte, Das Buch Ijob (Hiob). Einleitung, in Septuaginta Deutsch:
Das griechische Alte Testament in deutscher bersetzung (ed. Wolfgang Kraus and Martin
Karrer; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2009), 1008; Jos Manuel Caas Reillo, Libro
de Job. Introduccin, in La Biblia Griega Septuaginta. III. Libros poticos y sapienciales
(ed. Natalio Fernndez Marcos and Mara Victoria Spottorno Daz-Caro; Biblioteca de
Estudios Bblicos 127; Salamanca: Ediciones Sgueme, 2013), 41324, esp. 416.
35 See the critical remarks by Albert Pietersma, Review of J. Ziegler, Iob (Septuaginta: Vetus
Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum 11/4),
Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1982, JBL 104 (1985): 30511 and Peter J. Gentry, The
Asterisked Materials in the Greek Job (SBLSCS 38; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995).
36 Joseph Ziegler, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae
Scientiarum Gottingensis editum 11/4: Iob (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982); see
Cox, Iob and Kepper and Witte, Das Buch Ijob.
168 Ausloos
and they will not be roused out of their sleep), however, is marked by an
asterisk and a metobelus, and thus is one of those texts that is missing in the
OG, but has been transmitted by Theodotion.37
In my view, there are no reasons to accept that the translator of the OG has
abbreviated his Vorlage in Job 14:12: the text is neither obscure, nor repetitious.
On the contrary, the term ( Hifil) in Job 14:12b is a hapax legomenon in the
book of Job. Moreover, the motif of awakening ( ) is also unique
within Job. Further, there do not seem to be theological reasons that led the
translator of the OG to delete Job 14:12c. If one would like to argue that the
translator of the OG has deleted Job 14:12c because it could be interpreted as
making reference to the resurrection, some problems arise in analyzing the
following verses.38 Indeed, the Greek text of Job 14:14 (OG) in any case seems
to take the possibility of life after death into account39 Fernndez Marcos
prefers to speak about a hope in a new life or palingennesia40 although
it makes use of a different vocabulary: ,
. As to the interpretation of these verses, the
opinions, however, diverge. NETS translates Job 14:14 in an affirmative way:
For, if a person died, then would live again, when he completed the days of
his life,41 whereas Brenton has interpreted the sentence as a question: For if a
man should die, shall he live again, having accomplished the days of his life?42
37 Mangin, Larbre et lhomme, 36, does not deal with Job 14:12c, presupposing that it did
not belong to the OG.
38 Cf. Orlinsky, Studies in the Septuagint of the Book of Job, 244 45.
39 According to Van der Kooij, Ideas About Afterlife, 95, the expression ,
(NETS: I would endure until I would be born again) in Job 14:14 does not
refer to resurrection, but should be understood as conveying the idea that his [Jobs] skin
will be recovered.
40 Fernndez Marcos, The Septuagint Reading of the Book of Job, 256 n. 52.
41 Cf. also Ibid.: Faced with the question of the Hebrew text If mortals die, will they live
again?, the Greek transforms the question into an assertion: If man dies, he will live.
42 Lancelot C.L. Brenton, The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English (London:
Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1851), 675. See equally Mangin, Larbre et lhomme, 36: J. Ziegler
ponctue avec un point en haut, mais je prfre la ponctuation point-virgule; Ibid., 4243:
Contrairement lhbreu, il ny a pas de marque dinterrogation en grec; mais il est pos-
sible de supposer que le texte grec traduise le texte hbreu, tel quil nous a t transmis.
En effet labsence de particule interrogative ne signifie pas ncessairement que lnonc
soit une dclarative; comme le rappellent toutes les grammaires, en introduction de leurs
tudes des mots interrogatifs, la particule en grec est facultative. Dans le texte grec de
Job, non seulement se rencontrent des phrases interrogatives sans particule, mais cest
mme un procd frquent dans les chapitres 38 et 39, quasiment toujours la deuxime
At any rate, there seems to be no evidence that the OG was reacting against
the notion of the resurrection by suppressing Job 14:12c. On the contrary, the
shorter text of the OG of Job 14:12 seems to bear witness to a more original text.
Therefore, Orlinsky is probably right when he assumes that ,
which disturbs the meter and adds nothing whatever to the context, was not
reproduced in the Old Greek simply because it did not exist in the Hebrew text
at the time of the translation.43
In conclusion, it can be argued that, completely in line with the MT, the
translator of the OG of Job 14:12 at least posed the question of whether there is
life after death. Nevertheless, neither the MT nor the OG permits one to con-
clude that he was either receptive or skeptical towards this idea. Aquila and
Theodotions revisions do provide an answer to the question, albeit a negative
one: the formulation of the question in Job 14:14 (/ ) entails a neg-
ative response.44 Here, the ambivalence of the MT and OG has been replaced
by a negation of life after death. Whether this was done as a reaction against
Christianity, in which the resurrection was professed as the basis of the new
religion, cannot be proven. In any case, in the last part of this contribution, I
will analyze how the New Testament authors used Job 14:12.
3 Job 14:12 and its Reception in the New Testament
As is commonly known, the authors of the New Testament have made abun-
dant use of the LXX.45 In my view, Job 14:12 could also be mentioned as one
of the passages that has been a source of inspiration to them. This becomes
clear from the vocabulary used in the Job pericope. Here, the rather seldom
used term (: future passive 3rd person plural) occurs.
personne. Nous sommes donc fonds interprter 14:14q comme une interrogation,
mme sil ne sera jamais possible de le prouver, lambigut tant grammaticalement
indcidable.
43 Orlinsky, The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Job 14:12, 6465.
44 Cf. Frederick Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt sive veterum interpretum graeco-
rum in totus Vetus Testamentum fragmenta. Vol. 2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1875),
27; see also Mangin, Larbre et lhomme, 43 and Mies, Lesprance de Job, 197 98.
45 On this New Testament Fortschreibung of Job 14:12, see already Hans Ausloos, Selon les
critures...? Job 14,12 comme racine vtrotestamentaire de Jean 11, in Resurrection of the
Dead: Biblical Traditions in Dialogue (eds. Geert Van Oyen and Tom Shepherd; BETL 249;
Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 5571.
170 Ausloos
Besides Job 14:12, this term is only used three times within the LXX.46 In itself,
the term, which means waking up from sleep, is not at all special. In the
story of Samson and Delilah, the B-text mentions twice that Samson awoke
from his sleep ( Judg 16:14, 20). In 1 Kgs 3:15, the
verb indicates that Solomon awoke after his dream in Gibeon (
). However, whereas the term in the narratives of Judges and Kings
denotes a human awakening after sleep, in Job 14:12 the term has a particular
connotation. If one takes the context into consideration, it becomes clear that
the translator refers to awakening after death.47 The New Testament authors
seem to have this use of the term in mind.
Within the New Testament, the verb is a hapax legomenon. It only
occurs in John 11:11, which is a text where the theme of the resurrection of the
dead takes a prominent place. When Mary and Martha send a message to Jesus
that their brother Lazarus is ill, Jesus decides to go to Bethany. When his disci-
ples warn Jesus that it could be dangerous to return to Judea because the Jews
have been trying to stone him (John 11:8), Jesus argues:
(Our friend Lazarus has fallen
asleep, but I am going there to awaken him). At first, the disciples interpret
Jesus words as referring to a human, normal sleep, from which he will awake
spontaneously. Jesus, however, was undeniably referring to an awakening from
death. Therefore, the evangelist clearly highlights that Jesus said: Lazarus is
dead (John 11:14).
If we take into consideration that John 11:11 and Job 14:12 are the only pas-
sages in the Bible where the verb has been used in the context of
speaking about resurrection, it is at least plausible that John 11:11 was paying
tribute to Job 14:12. Moreover, this intertextual dependence is not limited to the
term . Outside this rarely used verb, which both texts use in the con-
text of waking from death, both pericopes use the verb (to sleep) as a
euphemism of to die. Finally, one can point to the fact that the verb
(to raise up) occurs in both the Lazarus narrative (John 11:23, 24) and in
46 Cf. also its use in Pss 16(17):15 [Aquila and Symmachus]; 43(44):24 [Symmachus]
72(73):20 [Symmachus]; Prov 23:35 [Aquila; Symmachus and Theodotion]; Isa 26:19
[Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion]; Isa 29:8 [Aquila and Symmachus]; Jer 31(38):26
[Symmachus]; Hab 2:7 [Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion]; Hab 3:8 [Theodotion].
See, moreover, Gen 9:24; Ps 138(139):18 [Alii] and Cant 2:7 [Sexta] Edwin Hatch, Henry
A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old
Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books). Second Edition (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998),
501.
47 Cf. Horst Balz, , TWNT 8 (1969): 545 56.
Job 14:12. On the basis of all these elements, one can conclude that that the
author of John 11:11 did have Job 14:12 in mind, and that he has interpreted this
Old Testament passage as making reference to resurrection from death.48
4 Conclusion
The question of whether the book of Job evokes life after death is the object of
a great deal of discussion, both with regard to the Hebrew text and its Greek
translation, in its diverse textual forms. I deem it appropriate to conclude that
the theme of the resurrection plays a role in Job 14:12, although it is not possible
to determine whether the author of the MT or the translator (of the OG and of
the plus in Theodotion) took either a positive or a negative stance.
If one takes into account the close similarities between Job 14:12 and
John 11:11 at the level of the vocabulary, one can conclude that this New
Testament passage did indeed interpret Job 14:12 as making reference to
resurrection from death: Lazarus, who was dead, has been woken up from his
sleep by Jesus.49 If this conclusion is correct, this would then mean that the
author of the fourth gospel was referring to Theodotions version, since Job
14:12c is lacking from the OG of Job.
48 This motif of sleep and waking up is also present in Dan 12:2: Many of those who sleep
in the dust of the earth shall awake. In the Greek translation, however, one does not
encounter the vocabulary that is typical to John 11:11: The LXX of Dan 12:2 reads:
. See equally 2 Kgs 4:31, where it is nar-
rated how Elishas servant, after having put his staff on the face of a dead child, announces
to the prophet: The child has not awakened.
Although some New Testament scholars in the first decades of the 20th century
indeed do refer to Job 14:12, no single author, as far as I am aware, argues that John 11:11 has
to be read against the background of this passage. Cf., e.g., Theodor Zahn, Das Evangelium
des Johannes (KNT 4; Leipzig/Erlangen: Deichert, 61921), 479 80 n. 69; John Henry Bernard,
Gospel According to St. John. Vol. 2 (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928), 378 79.
49 In general, scholars are of the opinion that the fourth gospel is much more sparingly refer-
ring to the Old Testament than it is the case with the synoptic gospels. See, for example,
Bruce G. Schuchard, Scripture within Scripture: The Interrelationship of Form and Function
in the Explicit Old Testament Citations in the Gospel of John (SBLDS 133; Atlanta: SBL, 1992),
155. With regard to Jobs reception in the New Testament, Witte, The Greek Book of Job,
41, mentions the following passages: Job 1:1, 8; 2:3 (1 Thess 5:22); Job 1:7 (1 Pet 5:8);
Job 1:2122 (Jas 1:1218; 5:11); Job 3:21 (Acts 9:6); Job 5:1213 (1 Cor3:19); Job 7:21 (Heb 1:3);
Job 13:16 (Phlm 1:19); Job 37:15 (2 Cor 4:6); Job 38:17 (Matt 16:18; Acts 1:18); Job 38:41
(Matt 6:26; Luke 12:24); Job 41:3 (Rom 11:33).
CHAPTER 10
Jobs Sohn Eine textgeschichtliche Notiz zu

Job 42:17 (LXX)
Markus Witte
Kennst du den ganzen Namen deines Freundes Halef?

Ja. Wie lautet er?
Er lautet Hadschi Halef Omar.
Das ist nicht genug. Er lautet Hadschi Halef Omar Ben Hadschi Abul
Abbas Ibn Hadschi Dawud al Gossarah. Du hrst also, da er zu einer
frommen, verdienstvollen Familie gehrt,...1
Die Vorstellung des kleinen arabischen Freundes, der Carl Mays Helden Kara
Ben Nemsi auf seinen Abenteuern im Orient begleitet, steht ganz in der
Tradition altorientalischer Genealogien. Sie spiegelt die hohe Bedeutung,
welche im Vorderen Orient (bis heute) die Namen der Vorvter fr die eigene
Identitt bilden. Dies gilt in gleicher Weise fr reale wie fr literarische
Genealogien. Unabhngig davon, ob der jeweilige Stammbaum fiktiv ist,
erhlt er seine Strahlkraft vom Klang und der Symbolik der in ihm auftau-
chenden Namen. Umso erstaunlicher ist, dass der unbekannte Verfasser des
Jobbuches weder einen Namen des Vaters seines Helden nennt noch dessen
Shnen einen Namen gibt. So erhebt sich der leidende Gerechte aus dem
geheimnisvollen Land Uz (, LXX: )2 im Gegensatz zu den Patriarchen
der Genesis, an deren literarisches Setting die Rahmenerzhlung in Job 12
1 Durch Wste und Harem von Carl May (Carl Mays gesammelte Reiseerlebnisse, I; Freiburg i. B.:
Friedrich Ernst Fehsenfeld, 18921895), 39: http://www.karl-may-gesellschaft.de/kmg/primlit/
reise/gr/gr01/gr01-txt.pdf [S. 14] (Zugriff: 16.10.2015).
2 Wie schon Didymos der Blinde (Albert Henrichs, Didymos der Blinde: Kommentar zu Hiob,
pt. 1 [Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 1; Bonn: Habelt, 1968]: 5051) halte ich den
Namen fr einen Symbolnamen, der mit der Wurzel in Zusammenhang steht. Dement-
sprechend bedeutet das Land des Rates/des Ratens. Es ist auf keiner Landkarte zu
finden. Erst die LXX bietet im Appendix in 42:17b eine genaue geographische Lokalisierung
(Er wohnte in dem Land Ausitis an den Grenzen Idumas und Arabiens); cf. Markus Witte,
Der leidende Mensch im Spiegel des Hiobbuches, in Mut in Zeiten der Resignation: Betrach-
tungen zur Bestimmung des Menschen (ed. Boglarka Hadinger; Tbingen: Lebenskunst, 2004),
40421, hier: 40708.

Jobs Sohn 173
und 42:717 immer wieder anklingt, ohne Genealogie aus der Tiefe der Zeit.
Whrend sich das Fehlen eines namentlich genannten Vaters noch mit dem
Namen Jobs (< Wo ist der [gttliche] Vater?)3 und der Paradigmatik
der Figur erklren lsst, bleibt doch die Frage, weshalb die Shne, und zwar
die in Job 1:1819 genannten, ums Leben gekommenen und die in Job 42:13
neu geschenkten, ungenannt bleiben letzteres verblfft umso mehr als die
drei Tchter nach der Restitution Jobs ja besonders klangvolle Namen erhal-
ten (Job 42:14): Jemima (Tubchen), Kezia (Zimtblte) und Keren-Happuch
(Schminkbchsen).4 Die Shne Jobs bleiben anonym und so bildet die
Familie letztlich eine Staffage es berlebt allein der Name Jobs und mit ihm
die Suche nach dem Vater.
Schon die frhesten Rezeptionen des Buches haben diese Leerstellen des
hebrischen Textes gefllt. Das im ersten oder zweiten Jahrhundert n. Chr.
verfasste griechische Testament Jobs versieht zumindest die neuen Kinder mit
Namen.5 Das wohl aus dem ersten Jahrhundert n. Chr. stammende lateinische,
mglicherweise auf einer hebrischen Vorlage basierende Liber Antiquitatum
Biblicarum hlt fest, dass die Kinder Jobs vor und nach dem Unglck diesel-
ben Namen trugen.6 Die zwei sich unterscheidenden Namensketten in T. Job
und L.A.B. gehen im Fall der Namen der Tchter auf Job 42:14 zurck. Sie ver-
danken sich zudem gelehrter Spekulation und der Freude an symbolischer
Kombinatorik, sind aber teilweise bis heute ungedeutet.7
Einen Vorlufer dieser Benennung der Kinder im T. Job und im L.A.B. bie-
tet der zweite Teil des Appendix in der Septuaginta in Job 42:17be. Dieser
3 Cf. Hans-Peter Mathys, Knstliche Personennamen im Alten Testament, in ...der

seine Lust hat am Wort des Herrn!: Festschrift fr Ernst Jenni zum 80. Geburtstag (ed. Jrg
Luchsinger et al.; AOAT 336; Mnster: Ugarit, 2007), 21849, hier: 222.
4 L XX: Hemera (Tag), Kasia (Zimtblte) und Amaltheias Keras (Fllhorn); cf. Johann
Cook, In Search of the Old Greek of Job, JSem 20 (2011): 21332, hier: 21819.
5 T. Job 1:3: Tersi, Choros, Hyon, Nike, Phoros, Phiphe und Phruon sowie Hemera, Kasia und
Amaltheias Keras. Die Namen sind aber nicht in allen Handschriften erhalten. Sie fehlen im
Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1238 (V) und in der slavischen Version (Slav), cf. Sebastian P. Brock,
ed., Testamentum Iobi (PVTG 2; Leiden: Brill, 1967), 19.
6 L.A.B. 8,8: Elifac, Ermoe, Diasat, Filias, Diffar, Zellud und Thelon sowie Meru, Litaz und Zeli.
7 Cf. Berndt Schaller, Das Testament Hiobs (JSHRZ III/3; Gtersloh: Gtersloher Verlagshaus,
1979), 325, bzw. Howard Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philos Liber Antiquitatum
Biblicarum with Latin Text and English Translation (vol. 1; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 34950, der die
Namen der Shne in L.A.B. 8,8 auf Gen 36 (LXX) zurckfhrt. Einen spten Nachhall dieser
Erfindungskunst bietet Andre Chedid, La femme de Job. Rcit (Paris: Clamann-Lvy, 1993),
die den Kindern die Namen Samuel, Zebul, Makir, Aaron, Jacob, Ephes und Jonathan sowie
Jemima, Kezia und Keren gibt.
174 Witte
Nachtrag, in dem Job geographisch lokalisiert und mittels der Gleichsetzung

mit Jobab (, ) auf Basis von Gen 36:33 (par. 1 Chr 1:44) genealogisch
verortet wird, hat bis in die jngste Zeit immer wieder das Interesse der
Septuagintaforschung geweckt. Dabei sind es vor allem die Fragen nach dem
Verhltnis dieses Teils des Appendix zu der Parallele in Aristeas Exegeticus,8
nach seiner literarischen Herkunft und nach seiner textlichen Beziehung zum
sogenannten Old Greek Text (OG) des Jobbuches. Die Palette der Antworten
reicht von der Annahme, der Appendix stamme vom bersetzer des OG selbst,
ber die These, er gehe erst auf einen vororigenistischen Bearbeiter des OG
zurck, bis hin zu den Vorschlgen, er sei von Aristeas abhngig oder basiere auf
einer auch von Aristeas benutzten aramischen Quelle.9 Im Mittelpunkt aller
dieser Untersuchungen steht, neben der Interpretation der Auferstehungsnotiz
in 42:17a im ersten Teil des Appendix, die Korrelierung von 42:17be mit
Gen 36:3135. Auf den in 42:17c genannten Namen des Sohnes Jobs ,10 der
nur noch einmal in der Septuaginta in 1 Chr 4:8 (Cod. B) als Verschreibung von
vorkommt, wird dabei nicht eingegangen. Reed, die sich ausfhrlich mit
der literarischen Technik und der zeitgeschichtlichen Intention des Appendix
beschftigt hat, vermerkt nur: The final detail is difficult to identify with any
certainty and will thus remain absent from the discussion.11 Man muss schon
bis zu Michaelis (17171791) zurckgehen, um wenigstens dem Versuch einer
8 Cf. Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9,25 (FGH 273 F 19).

9 Zur Evaluation dieser Thesen siehe Karl Kutz, The Old Greek of Job: A Study of Early Biblical
Exegesis (Ph.D. diss. University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1997), 1317; Annette Yoshiko Reed,
Job as Jobab: The Interpretation of Job in LXX Job 42:17b-e, JBL 120 (2001): 3155; Markus
Witte, The Greek Book of Job, in Das Buch Hiob und seine Interpretationen (ed. Thomas
Krger et al.; AThANT 88; Zrich: TVZ, 2007), 3354; Maria Gorea, Job repens ou trahi?
Omissions et recourcis de la Septante (EBib.NS 56; Paris: Gabalda, 2007), 21921; Cook,
In Search, 21629; Claude Cox, The Text of Old Greek: a History of its Transmission
(paper presented at the annual meeting of the SBL, San Diego, 23 November 2014:
http://www.academia.edu/9585809/_The_Text_of_Old_Greek_Job_a_History_of_its_
Transmission_[Zugriff am 13. Oktober 2015].
10 In einigen Minuskeln und in der bohairischen bersetzung erscheint der Name in der
Schreibweise , in der sahidischen bersetzung in der Form (cf. Joseph Ziegler,
Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis
editum XI,4: Iob [Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982], 413). Die Vetus Latina (cf.
Petrus Sabatier, Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae Versiones Antiquae seu Vetus Italica[Bd. 1;
Remis: R. Florentain, 1743], 908) und Hieronymus (cf. Paul de Lagarde, Des Hieronymus
Uebertragung der griechischen Uebersetzung des Iob, Mittheilungen II/11 [Gttingen:
Dieterich, 1887], 237), transkribieren einfach Ennon.
11 Reed, Job, 42 Anm. 36; cf. Norbert Peters, Das Buch Job (EHAT 21; Mnster i. W.:
Aschendorff, 1928), 50304.
Jobs Sohn 175
Deutung zu begegnen, auch wenn diese einigermaen kurios ist: So vermutet

Michaelis, der Appendix sei gem 42:17b ursprnglich auf Syrisch geschrie-
ben worden, dort habe an der entsprechenden Stelle zunchst nwn mhn
dbnwhj (dies sind die Namen seiner Shne) gestanden, ein Abschreiber habe
dann die Worte mhn dbnwhj ausgelassen und aus nwn (dies sind) sei Ennon
geworden.12 Die Sache scheint mir aber sehr viel einfacher zu sein.
Die wesentlichen Informationen des Appendix stammen, wie in der
Forschung richtig gesehen, aus der Esau-Toledot und der Liste der edomiti-
schen Knige in Gen 36. Dementsprechend liegt es nahe, auch den Namen
Ennon aus Gen 36 abzuleiten. Die Vorlage bietet der in Gen 36:3839
(par. 1 Chr 1:4950) genannte , der in der Septuaginta mehrheitlich als
erscheint.13 Die vllige Entsprechung von und zeigt die
Syrohexapla mit nn.14 Fr die quivalenz von und sei exemplarisch auf die
Namen und (Gen 4:1) sowie und (Gen 4:17) verwiesen. Die
Auslassung des theophoren Elements erklrt sich vor dem Hintergrund der
Treue Jobs gegenber dem einen Gott Jhwh (cf. Job 6:10; 23:1012; 31:15, 2428).
Durch die Konzentration auf das Namenselement ( er hat sich erbarmt),
das epigraphisch und literarisch vielfach als eigener (Kurz-)Name belegt ist,15
wird ausgeschlossen, dass es sich bei , der in Gen 36:38 als Sohn Achbors
(/) erscheint, um denselben wie in Job 42:17c handelt. Dass die
Wahl aber ausgerechnet auf ( Baal hat sich erbarmt)16 fiel, hngt
12 Johann David Michaelis, Einleitung in die gttlichen Schriften des Alten Bundes. Des ersten
Theils der die Einleitung in die einzelnen Bcher enthlt erster Abschnitt (Hamburg: Bohn,
1787), 1617.
13 Die handschriftliche berlieferung weist hier eine sehr groe orthographische Vielfalt auf,
cf. John Willam Wevers, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae
Scientiarum Gottingensis editum I: Genesis (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974),
34950. In 1 Chr 27:28 gibt die LXX den Namen dann mit wieder.
14 Cf. John Daniel Meade, A Critical Edition of the Hexaplaric Fragments of Job 2242 (Ph.D.
diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, 2012), 43941.
15 Als Bezeichnung unterschiedlicher Personen im AT: Jer 35:4; Esr 2:46; Neh 7:49; 8:7; 10:11,
23, 27; 13:13; 1 Chr 8:23, 38; 9:44; 11:43. Zu epigraphischen Belegen siehe Johannes Renz
und Wolfgang Rllig, Handbuch der Althebrischen Epigraphik (Bd. II/1; Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1995), 6768; (Bd. II/2; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 2003), 21921. Zu unterschiedlichen Langformen mit entsprechen-
dem theophorem Element siehe ebenda sowie nach wie vor Martin Noth, Die israeliti-
schen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung (BWANT III/10;
Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1928; repr. Hildesheim/New York: Georg Olms, 1980), 187.
16 Cf. epigraphisch bei Noth, Personennamen, Nr. 289 und bei Dirk Schwiderski, ed., Die alt-
und reichsaramischen Inschriften (Bd. 12; FoSub 2, 4; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2004,
2008), IdOstr-EN:120(4),13.; IdOstr-EN:174(4),1, 3; IdOstr-L2:192(4),2f. und in der Form
176 Witte
mit der Wurzel gndig sein zusammen. So zieht sich diese Wurzel durch
das Buch vom Rat der Freunde, Job mge Gott um Gnade bitten (8:5), ber
Jobs Flehen um gttliche und menschliche Gnade (9:15; 19:16, 21) bis hin zur
Ankndigung Elihus, Gott werde sich schlielich gndig erweisen (33:2325):
33:23 wenn es dann ber ihm einen Engel gibt,

einen Mittler, einen unter den Tausend,
um im Blick auf den Menschen zu verknden, was dessen Integritt
ist,
33:24 und er (Gott)17 ihm dann gndig ist (nn) und sagt:
Befreie ihn vom Abstieg in die Grube,
ich habe ein Lsegeld gefunden,
33:25 dann wird sein Fleisch wieder jugendlich gekrftigt sein,
wird er zu den Tagen seiner Jugend zurckkehren.
Passender als //(Gott) ist gndig (gewesen) knnte der Name von
Jobs Sohn nach dem berstandenen Leid also kaum lauten. Gegen Olympiodor,
der immerhin in einem Nebensatz die Frage stellt, ob dieser Ennon zu den
ersten oder den zweiten Shnen Hiobs gehrte,18 drfte es sich doch um Jobs
Erstgeborenen nach seinem Leiden handeln.19 Allenfalls knnte man berle-
gen, ob der Name eher nn oder nn20 zu vokalisieren ist. Letzteres bietet
die arabische bersetzung des Appendix.
nbl (Hannibal) z. B. in der punischen Inschrift KAI 68,2 oder in der Form ynbl in der
punischen Inschrift KAI 80,2.
17 Zumeist wird der Frspracheengel als Subjekt angenommen, doch ist das unsichtbare
subiectum regens dieser Verse allein der sich erbarmende, gndige Gott (Harald-Martin
Wahl, Der gerechte Schpfer: Eine redaktions- und theologiegeschichtliche Untersuchung
der Elihureden Hiob 3237 [BZAW 207; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1993], 65).
18 Ursula Hagedorn und Dieter Hagedorn, ed., Olympiodor, Diakon von Alexandria:
Kommentar zu Hiob (PTS 24; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1984), 396, Zeile 12.
19 Das vermeintlich hohe Alter Jobs, der gem der LXX zum Zeitpunkt, da ihn das Unglck
traf, 78 Jahre alt war (cf. Job 42:16LXX), sollte angesichts von Gen 17 kein Gegenargument
sein. Job entsprche dann auch in dieser Hinsicht dem Erzvater, mit dem er bereits
im biblischen Buch, dann aber vor allem im frhmittelalterlichen Targum und den
Midraschim so viel teilt; cf. Markus Witte, Hiob und die Vter Israels: Beobachtungen
zum Hiobtargum, in Hiobs Gestalten: Interdisziplinre Studien zum Bild Hiobs in Judentum
und Christentum (ed. Markus Witte; SKI.NF 2; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012),
3961.
20 Cf. Noth, Personennamen, Nr. 503; 2 Sam 10:14; 1 Chr 19:24, 6; Neh 3:13, 30, inschriftlich
bei Schwiderski, Inschriften: AECT-L:3(7),13f.; IdOstr-LN:2(4),24; MurDoc:10(5),1.
Jobs Sohn 177
Die Wahl des Namens zeigt die literarische Technik des Verfassers, die zahl-
reiche Analogien in der Bildung von Genealogien im frhjdischen Schrifttum
besitzt: Aus vorgefundenen Texten in der Tora werden einzelne Namen aus-
gewhlt und neu kombiniert. Dabei spielt eine inhaltliche Affinitt zu der
Figur, fr die nun eine Genealogie konstruiert wird, eine entscheidende Rolle.
Das in dem Namen Ennon enthaltene Potential zur Deutung Jobs und sei-
ner Geschichte kommt nur in seiner hebrischen bzw. aramischen Fassung
zur Entfaltung, nicht in seiner griechischen Form, wo dieser Name in der
gesamten Grzitt nicht belegt ist. Damit bietet der Name Ennon ein Indiz
fr einen hebrischen bzw. aramischen Ursprung der Notiz in 42:17c und
zwar ganz unabhngig von der Frage, wie die vieldeutige Angabe in 42:17b
zu dem syrischen Buch zu verstehen ist.21 Wenn aber die Ennon-Notiz auf
eine hebrische oder aramische Vorlage zurckgeht, dann ist zu berlegen,
ob nicht auch 42:17d auf einer hebrischen (oder aramischen) Fassung von
Gen 36:3135 basiert.22 Die Konvergenz in der Schreibung der Namen zwi-
schen Job 42:17d und GenLXX 36:3135 muss nicht fr eine Abhngigkeit von
Job 42:17d von der griechischen Fassung von Gen 36 sprechen,23 sondern kann
auch mit einer identischen bersetzungspraxis oder sekundrer Angleichung
an die LXX erklrt werden.
Wollte man hingegen den Namen im Griechischen als einen spre-
chenden Namen deuten, muss man die Variante zugrundelegen.
Dann knnte man in entweder einen Hinweis auf die gyptische Stadt
Heliopolis/On (, III, vgl. Gen 41:45 u..)24 sehen und dies mit der im
T. Job 28:7 und 29:3 belegten Tradition, dass Job Knig in gypten war, verknp-
fen, oder man knnte gem der Suda (, Nr. 1412) und dem byzantinischen
Lexikon des Pseudo-Zonaras (13. Jh.) als Synonym zu dem philosophisch
geprgten Begriff existierend, in etwas seiend verstehen und
21 Zur Diskussion siehe Reed, Job, 357, und Markus Witte, Job: Das Buch Ijob/Hiob, in
Septuaginta Deutsch: Erluterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament
(Bd. 2; ed. Martin Karrer und Wolfgang Kraus; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011),
204850, 212526. Das Wort muss nicht zwangslufig auf eine aramische Quelle
verweisen (cf. 2 Kn 18:26; Esr 4:7; Jes 36:11; Dan 2:4; Cook, Search, 223), sondern knnte
auch fr eine hebrische stehen, cf. Origenes, Homiliae in Iobum zu Job 42:17c (Jean
Baptiste Pitra, Analecta sacra spicilegio Solesmensi parata [vol. 2; Paris: Tusculum, 1884],
39091; dieselbe uerung findet sich auch im Kommentar Julians zu Job 42,17c (Dieter
Hagedorn, Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian [PTS 14; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1973], 311).
22 Cf. Kutz, Job, 156; Cox, Text, 6.
23 So aber G. Buchanan Gray, The Additions in the Ancient Greek Version of Job, The
Expositor VIII/19 (1920): 42238, hier 432; Reed, Job, 3738.
24 Siehe auch Johannes Chrysostomus, Fragmenta in Ieremiam (PG 64:1012d).
178 Witte
das als Anspielung auf die fortdauernde Existenz Jobs deuten.25 Doch ist die
Variante textgeschichtlich eindeutig sekundr. Dass der byzantinische
Historiker Georgius Cedrenus (11./12. Jh.) als Sohn Kains bezeichnet, ist
Ergebnis einer Verschreibung von (vgl. Gen 4:17).26 Ebenso drfte der
Beleg fr als Name im Zitat von Joh 3:23 bei Basilius von Caesarea eine
Verschreibung von sein.27
Passend zum Namen ihres Sohnes und zur Geschichte ihres Mannes
erhlt die im Septuaginta-Nachtrag noch anonyme arabische Frau Hiobs
in muslimischen Hioblegenden aus dem Mittelalter den Namen Rama die
Barmherzige.28 So bilden der Appendix des griechischen Jobbuches und die
sptere Legendenbildung ein starkes Bekenntnis zu Gott als dem Gndigen und
Barmherzigen () , wie es die sich ber das gesamte Alte Testament
erstreckende Gnadenformel betont.29 Die schon im Prolog des Buches selbst
anklingende und von Job in seinen Reden immer wieder thematisierte Frage
25 Die von mir selbst frher geuerte Vermutung, knne in einem Zusammenhang
mit dem hebrischen Wort I (Zeugungskraft, Vermgen; cf. Gen 49:3; Dtn 21:17;
Job 20:10) stehen und so auf Jobs neue Lebenskraft verweisen, ist angesichts der hier nach-
gewiesenen Rckfhrung auf hinfllig, cf. Markus Witte, Hiob und seine Frau in jdi-
schen Schriften aus hellenistisch-rmischer Zeit, in Biblical Figures in Deuterocanonical
and Cognate Literature (ed. Hermann Lichtenberger und Ulrike Mittmann-Richert;
Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2008; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter,
2009), 35594: 374.
26 Georgius Cedrenus, Compendium historiarium, 15 (PG 121:3940b).
27 Basilius, Homilia in Psalmum XXVIII (PG 30:76c). Die Lokalisierung ist umstritten, nach
Eusebius (cf. E. Klostermann, ed., Eusebius: Das Onomastikon der biblischen Ortsnamen
[Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1904, repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olms 1966, 40]) lag das Gewsser
acht Meilen sdlich von Scythopolis (Beth-Shean/Besan). Fr den Hinweis danke ich
meinem Kollegen Christoph Markschies.
28 Zur Frau Jobs, die nach anderen antiken Traditionen auch Dina oder Sitis/Sitidos/Sigidos
heien kann, siehe ausfhrlich Witte, Hiob und seine Frau, 35594; Cook, Search, 224
26; zu Rama siehe Max Grnbaum, Neue Beitrge zur semitischen Sagenkunde (Leiden:
Brill, 1893), 266; Naftali Apt, Die Hiobserzhlung in der arabischen Literatur, 1. Teil: Zwei
arabische Handschriften der Kgl. Bibliothek zu Berlin herausgegeben, verglichen und ber-
setzt (Diss. phil. Heidelberg; Kirchhain N.-L.: Max Schmersow, 1913), 12. Die programma-
tische Kraft, die dem Namen der Frau Jobs beigemessen wird, spiegelt sich auch in der
modernen Literatur, so wenn z. B. die Frau von Joseph Roths Helden den Namen Deborah
trgt (Joseph Roth, Hiob. Roman eines einfachen Mannes [Berlin: Gustav Kiepenheuer,
1930]).
29 Cf. Exod 34:6; Joel 2:13; Jon 4:2; Ps 86:15; 103:8; 145:8; Neh 9:17; Sir 2:11. Hinzu kommen mehr
als 20 Anspielungen, in denen einzelne Elemente der Gnadenformel zitiert werden, sowie
auerkanonische Belege (CD-A II,4; 1QHa VIII,24; 4Q511 frg. 52, 5455, 5759,1 [col. III,1]).
Jobs Sohn 179
nach dem Wesen Gottes findet damit am Ende eine Antwort: die Job-Notiz des
Jakobus liegt ganz auf dieser Linie (cf. Jak 5:11). Schlielich fgt sich auch die
zunchst vielleicht nur auf lautlicher Assonanz beruhende Gleichsetzung von
/ mit /,30 dem Sohn des / (er [Gott] strahlt auf),31
inhaltlich bestens zum Geschick Jobs, wie es sein Pendant im Lobpreis auf den
Gerechten in Ps 112 findet:
112:4 Es erstrahlt (zra)32 in der Finsternis ein Licht fr die Aufrichtigen,
gndig (annn), barmherzig und gerecht.
112:5 Glcklich ist der Mann, der gndig (nen) ist und leiht,
er wird seine Dinge auf rechte Weise ausfhren;33
112:6 denn auf ewig wird er nicht wanken;
zu einem ewigen Gedenken wird der Gerechte sein.
Dieses ewige Gedenken gilt Job, es mag fr Ennon Ben Jobab Ben Zare gelten,
dessen wesentliche Bedeutung darin besteht, die Gnade ber den, der bestn-
dig zu Gott ruft, zu bezeugen, und es mag fr den Jubilar, dem diese Zeilen
gewidmet sind, gelten.
30 Die Bedeutung des Namens ist ungeklrt. Orientiert man sich an arab. wabba (sich
zum Kampfe bereiten, so Noth, Personennamen, 226), ergibt sich ein inhaltlicher
Bezug zu Job 31:37; 38:3; 40:7. Folgt man der mutmalichen Bedeutung des hebrischen
Hapaxlegomenon ybb (laut rufen/schreien/klagen, cf. Jdc 5:28), ergeben sich sachliche
Verbindungen zu Jobs fortwhrenden Klageschreien (cf. 7:11; 9:16; 10:1; 13:22; 19:7; 30:20, 28).
Im Blick auf die vermeintliche Vorlage von Job 42:17b-e lsst sich auch die Gleichsetzung
von mit vor einem hebrischen oder aramischen Hintergrund verstehen, selbst
wenn sich die Identifizierung im Griechischen lautlich etwas leichter nahelegen mag
(cf. Kutz, Job, 15).
31 Cf. fr unterschiedliche Personen Gen 36:33; 38:30; 46:12; Num 26:13, 20 u..; zur Motivik
siehe Deut 33:2; Jes 58:10; 60:13 und Mal 3:20; Noth, Personennamen, 184 (Nr. 443).
32 Zur Diskussion, ob das Subjekt in V. 4 das Licht, Gott oder der Gerechte ist, siehe Frank-
Lothar Hossfeld und Erich Zenger, Psalmen 101150 (HThKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2008), 233;
zum Motiv, bezogen auf Job, siehe Job 11:7; cf. Jes 58:10 (par. Job 31:1617, 31).
33 Cf. Sir 49:9 H A (Job!).
CHAPTER 11
Old Greek Job 42 A Surprise at the End

of the Road: Intertextual Connections between the
Epilogue and the Prologue Introduced by the
Translator
Claude Cox
It is a pleasure to contribute this study to the FS honouring our friend Johann

Cook. As will be true of some other contributors, I know Johann largely through
the IOSCS, and particularly through its gatherings in various cities over the
years. At such meetings Johann is among the most jovial attendees and is well
known for an infectious enthusiasm. As it happens our paths intersect in the
world shared by OG Iob and OG Proverbs, for which we have been translators
in the NETS project, as well as commentators on these works for the SBLCS ini-
tiative. For this volume that honours Johann I want to explore a surprise that
awaited when I came to comment on the last chapter of Iob, ch. 42.
1 Introduction
Scholarship thrives on the excitement of discovery. Arriving at ch. 42 of OG Iob,

I was unprepared for the surprise that awaited in Gs treatment of the Epilogue,
42:717. In the source text, there is a return to some degree to the Prologue,
1:12:13, because the misfortunes that Job suffered in the Prologue are reversed
in the Epilogue. What I discovered is that, in verse after verse of the Epilogue,
the translation makes small intertextual additions, and one or two deletions,
and some other changes on the basis of the Prologue, so that the end of Iobs
days mirror in a dramatic way his days before the misfortunes that the Lord
brought upon him. What we find in the OG goes far, far beyond the reconcilia-
tion found in the Hebrew.
2 A Comparison of the OG and MT on the Basis of the NRSV and NETS
In order to give a sense of the differences between the two texts that were the
cause of my surprise, I am going to begin with their translations in English.

Old Greek Job 42 181
Additions and changes are noted in NETS by the use of bold italics. Instances
of omissions by G are noted by placing such words in italics in the NRSV.
NRSV NETS
7After the LORD had spoken these 7Now it happened, after the Lord
words to Job, the LORD said to spoke all these words to Iob, that the
Eliphaz the Temanite: My wrath is Lord said to Eliphaz the Thaimanite:
kindled against you and against your You have sinned, and your two
two friends; for you have not spoken friends, for you have spoken nothing
of me what is right, as my servant Job true in my presence, as has my atten-
has. dant Iob.
8Now therefore take seven bulls 8Now then, take seven calves and
and seven rams, and go to my ser- seven rams, and go to my attendant
vant Job, and offer up for yourselves Iob, and he will make offerings for
a burnt offering; and my servant Job you, and Iob, my attendant, will pray
shall pray for you, for I will accept his for you, for, if not for him, I would
prayer not to deal with you according have destroyed you; for what you
to your folly; for you have not spoken spoke against my attendant Iob is
of me what is right, as my servant Job not true.
has done.
9So Eliphaz the Temanite and 9Then Eliphaz the Thaimanite
Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the went, and Baldad the Sauchite and
Naamathite went and did what the Sophar the Minite, and they did as
LORD had told them; and the LORD the Lord instructed them, and he
accepted Jobs prayer. absolved them of their sin on Iobs
account.
10And the LORD restored the for- 10And the Lord gave Iob increase,
tunes of Job when he had prayed for and when he also prayed for the
his friends; and the LORD gave Job friends, he forgave them their sin,
twice as much as he had before. and the Lord gave Iob twice as much
as he had before.
11Then there came to him all his 11Now all his brothers and his sisters
brothers and sisters and all who had heard about all that had happened
known him before, and they ate bread to him, and they came to him, and all,
with him in his house; they showed as many as had known him from the
him sympathy and comforted him for first. Now when they ate and drank
all the evil that the LORD had brought with him, they comforted him and
upon him; and each of them gave him wondered at all that the Lord had
a piece of money and a gold ring. brought upon him, and each gave
him a lamb and a four-drachma
weight of gold bullion.
182 Cox
12The LORD blessed the latter days 12Yes, the Lord blessed the last years
of Job more than his beginning; and of Iob more than the ones before, and
he had fourteen thousand sheep, his livestock was: fourteen thousand
[and] six thousand camels, [and] a sheep, six thousand camels, a thou-
thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand yoke of oxen, a thousand female
sand donkeys. donkeys at pasture.
13He also had seven sons and three 13And there were born to him seven
daughters. sons and three daughters,
14He named the first Jemimah, 14and he called the first Day and the
the second Keziah, and the third second Cassia and the third Horn of
Keren-happuch. Amaltheia.
15In all the land there were no 15And there were not found women
women so beautiful as Jobs daugh- more excellent than Iobs daughters
ters; and their father gave them an beneath heaven, and their father gave
inheritance along with their brothers. them an inheritance along with their
brothers.
16 After this Job lived one hundred 16Now Iob lived after his calamity
and forty years, and saw his chil- one hundred and seventy years, 16b
dren, and his childrens children, four and all the years he lived were two
generations. hundred and forty-eight years.
17 And Job died, old and full of days.
There are relatively few instances of omission in 42:717 that are the result
of Gs attempt to bring the Epilogue into closer agreement with the Prologue.
These are noted by print in italics among omissions marked in the NRSV col-
umn and are three in number. They are discussed immediately below. Zieglers
edition prints the conflated, ecclesiastical text.1 There, following Origen, are
two, more major omissions: v. 8e (because only his face will I accept) and
v. 16cde ([c] and Iob saw his sons [d] and the sons of his sons, a fourth genera-
tion, [e] and Iob died, old and full of days.) These do not concern us because G
does not intend, by their omission, to make the Epilogue more closely conform
to the Prologue.
1 Joseph Ziegler, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum

Gottingensis editum XI/4: Iob (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982). The Greek text
used in this paper is Zieglers; the MT is the text printed in BHS.
3 Gs Omissions Intended to Make the Epilogue Conform

to the Prologue
These are three in number and I take them up in order.
1. In v. 11e, G passes over the word in his house because, according to

1:12; 2:3, Iob had lost all his possessions; see also 1:19. In v. 10 the Lord gives
Iob increase, but it appears that Iob does not yet have a house. It is not
clear when the relatives and friends come (v. 11a), but the context seems
to suggest that they came immediately after his ordeal was finished.
2. In v. 11f, G passes over ( all) the evil (that the LORD had brought
upon him). In 2:10 Iob responded to his wife, Shall we receive the good
( )at the hand of God, and not receive the bad (( ?)In the OG
renders and translates ). That is, Job / Iob recog-
nizes that human beings receive both good and bad from the Lord. By
omitting in 42:11 G returns the reader to this more balanced assess-
ment. The relatives and friends wonder at all the Lord had brought
upon Iob, which leaves open the possibility that all includes not just the
bad but also the good that Iob had received in his life.
3. In v. 12 the text enumerates the livestock that belonged to Iob as a result
of the Lords increasing him. This list is identical to that in 1:3, except
that the numbers of sheep, camels, yoke of oxen, and donkeys are dou-
bled. In translating the list at 1:3 G does not represent the three waws that
join the last three items of the list to the first. The same is done in 42:12.
In the reproduction of the NRSV above the conjunctions have been
added, between square brackets. In a nod to English style the NRSV does
not represent the conjunctions, either in 1:3 or in 42:12. The omission of
the conjunctions in 42:12 contributes to the character of the enumeration
of the livestock as a list and gives it the same, precise form as its predeces-
sor at 1:3.
4 Gs Additions and Minor Changes that Make the Epilogue Conform

to the Prologue
There is a remarkable series of minor changes and additions to the source text
of 42:717 that make this passage mirror the Prologue. Standing outside this
specific intention but indicative of Gs approach more generally is the addition
of in 42:7, the first verse of the Epilogue. In the source text, v. 7 opens the
Epilogue as follows: After the LORD had spoken these words to Job... In the
184 Cox
OG we read, Now it happened, after the Lord spoke all these words to Iob...
In both source text and translation these words must refer back to 38:139:30;
40:641:26. The translation makes this emphatic by the addition of all.
In the remaining cases, changes and additions relate the Epilogue to the
Prologue. Before taking them up in order, the OG is reproduced with the words
in question in bold italics.
42:7 (a)
(b)
(c) (d)
. 8 (a) (b)
, (c) (d)
, (e) sub asterisk (f) ,
(g) .
9 (a)
(b) , (c)
. 10 (a) (b)
(c)
.2 11 (a)
(b) (c)
(d) (e)
, (f) ,
(g)
. 12 (a) (b)
, (c) ,
(d) , (e) . 13
14 (a) ,
(b) , (c) 15 (a)
(b)
. 16 (a)
, (b)
.
2 Zieglers text includes at the end of v. 10 the words so that he had double
(NETS). These words are marked with an asterisk in catena ms 788, the purest witness to
hexaplaric readings in Iob but not available to Ziegler. They translate in the source
text, already represented by G with twice. See John D. Meade, A Critical Edition of
the Hexaplaric Fragments of Job 2242 (Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary, 2012), ad loc. I am grateful to have had access to Dr. Meades work.
The remarkable intertextual connections that G introduces by changes and

additions are as follows, in the order the text unfolds.
1. 42:7b. . G changes My wrath is kindled

against you... to this, which introduces the verb , applied to
Eliphaz and the two other friends. At 1:5 G adds an intertextual reference
drawn from Leu 4 and 9, texts that deal with sin offerings (
[Leu 9:7, 8]). This change is significant because the translation
has Iob become priest and intercessor for the friends, offering up sacri-
fices on their behalf (v. 8c MT). Iob himself did not sin when the slan-
derer tried him (1:22; 2:10: = ) . Gs use of
leads, in turn, to the addition of
and he absolved them of their sin on Iobs account. This statement
shows that sacrifices made by Iob were efficacious, as they were at the
start of the story (1:5). Iob returns to that role in the community.
2. 42:7b, 8bdg. . At 2:3 G uses the word attendant to ren-
der the common word servant (approx. 860x in the HB). In the
LXX the default translations of are (ca. 335x, including Iob 1:8)
and (ca. 315x). is far less often employed (42x). It occurs
mostly outside Iob (10x) in the Pentateuch, either for Pharaos officials
(23x) or Moyses (6x). Indeed, its hard to avoid the conclusion that Iob as
is modeled on Moyses as (see Num 12:7, 8). It is a word
that denotes a person of higher status than either or . G uses
this word in the Epilogue for Iob, so identified in the Prologue.
3. 42:8b, c; 9b, c; 11c, d, f; 14a; 15. After the Prologue, replaces as Gs con-
junction of choice to render waw; virtually disappears. In the Epilogue
G returns to using often. This does not appear to be a case of a return
to narrative form, because 32:14 is in narrative form and G uses as
and but once (32:3c). Cf. Theodotion, who uses twice in 32:4.
4. 42:8c. = (1:5c).
In the source text the LORD tells Eliphaz and the two friends to
offer up for yourselves a burnt offering. G changes this: now
it is Iob who will offer up sacrifices for the three friends, just like he did
for his children in 1:5c. Iob takes up again the role of officiant, offering
sacrifices on behalf of others. G does not repeat the vocabulary of 1:5c.
That is not Gs style.
5. 42:8g. = against my
servant Iob (1:8). In the source text, the LORD accuses the three friends of
not speaking of me ( )what is right, as my servant Job ( ) has
done. BHSapp notes that many mss attest against my servant
186 Cox
Job rather than as... because - and - have been confused, a confu-
sion that easily occurs since the letters are similar in appearance. So far
as G is concerned, it could be said that 1:8 dictated -/- be read as
. Collaterally, Gs reading - / - as - led G to omit of me. Gs
translation at 42:8g reflects OG 1:8.
6. 42:10a. = you (i.e., the Lord) increased (his live-
stock) (1:10). The expression / lit. he turned back the
turning back must mean something like restored the fortunes of (Job),
and G represents it succinctly with increased (Iob). It is syn-
onymous with at 1:10, where it renders an equivalent, ,
whose subject is his possessions. At 1:10 G made the Lord the sub-
ject of the verb, hence you increased. There the slanderer complains
that the Lord protected Iob, blessed him, and increased his livestock. In
the Epilogue G introduces this same language: the Lord increased Iobs
farm animals before but now gives him an absolute increase.
7. 42:10c. + . Gs addition of before provides the standard by
which Iobs increase is to be measured. It is twice what it was before, a
reference to 1:3 of the Prologue, where the numbers of his livestock are
listed.
8. 42:11a. + = (2:11). Verse 11 is the most heavily
edited verse of the Epilogue. First, before Iobs family and friends visited
him, they heard about him, just like the three friends heard about Iobs
situation in the Prologue and then came to see him.
9. 42:11b. + = (a plus; 1:22a)
= (2:11a). G provides the content of what Iobs
brothers and sisters heard by drawing on the Prologue. At 1:22 the narrator
informs us that Iob did not sin in spite of all the things that happened to him;
later, the three friends came to visit when they heard about all the troubles
that had come upon Iob (2:11a). This too is what Iobs family heard, later.
10. 42:11d. . The source text says that Jobs brothers and sisters came
to him, as well as all who had known him before. This G makes
more specific with the unique rendering , which must take
the reader back to the start of the story, to the first, to the Prologue.
The adverb occurs 20x in the HB: in the LXX it is represented by
() 10x (Deut, Ies, Neh); 7x (Judg, 1 Rgns, Ier, Routh,
1 Suppl, 2 Suppl); (Ps 101:26); (Iob 42:11); it is not
represented 1x (Iob 17:6). Gs choice in 42:11d is unique because it places a
particular interpretation upon .
11. 42:11e. + . To they ate with him G adds they drank, so
when they ate and drank with him. G conflates
v. 11 by appealing to 1:4d, where Jobs (Iobs) sons used to take along their
sisters to eat and drink with them ( ). Now
like that earlier custom, Iobs brothers and sisters and acquaintances join
him to eat and drink together. This represents a return to custom.
12. 42:11ef. ( ) (v. 8f) . Compare
to comfort and to visit with him
(2:11g). The source text in 42:11ef attests ; that in 2:11 is
. In each case , the first verb in the Greek sequence
of two verbs, renders the second verb of the source text: com-
fort is a default translation of comfort in the LXX. In 42:11e-f, G has
followed the OG sequence of the verbs in 2:11g. (In 2:11 visit
renders shake the head, in grief; in 42:11f they wondered
represents again the verb is , shake the head, but this time in
amazement. G renders in each case appropriately for the context.)
13. 42:12b. G adds the words () (his) livestock as a general
designation before listing what types of livestock are involved, in depen-
dence on OG 1:3. At 1:3 translates its equivalent, . The
source text features the common construction lit. there were to
him, that is, simply he had...
14. 42:12cde. G passes over the waws that join the last three items in the enu-
meration of Jobs animals in the Hebrew, as in 1:3. It seems clear that G is
reproducing OG 1:3 in this respect.
15. 42:12e. G adds (donkeys) at pasture, as at 1:3.
16. 42:13. The source text of v. 13 begins with the same common construction
as in v. 12b, namely, he had. On the other hand, G has
there were born to him (Iob). This is a translation of there
were born to him, which appears in the source text at 1:2. What does G
have at 1:2? There the translation attests lit. there were to
him, that is, he had, a translation of , which, as noted, stands at
the head of 42:13. G has switched the verbs, believing that he had was
more appropriate at the beginning of the story, where Iobs life is taken
up in mid-stream. There were born to him is more appropriate in the
Epilogue, which sees Iobs life starting anew. The use of the Prologue is
unmistakable.
17. 42:15a. beneath heaven. G represents in all
the land with this elliptical expression that is a favourite of OG Iob (12x). G
first uses it in the Prologue, twice. At 1:7 what lies beneath
heaven renders ( ) ( from going to and fro on the
earth, and from walking up and down) on it. In this instance = ,
its referent. The content of 2:2 is almost the same as 1:7, but G changes
188 Cox
the translation slightly in order to avoid repetition. In this case

what lies beneath heaven translates )
( )from going to and fro) on the earth, (and from walking up and
down on it). That is, in the second case, G uses the expression for ,
whereas in the first case, G uses it for the that looks back to .
In using the expression from the Prologue, G passes over all. This
is clear from a comparison of 42:15a with 41:3b, where the of
under the whole heaven is represented by its equivalent
all in all that is under heaven.
18. 42:16a. G adds after the calamity on the basis of 2:13,
where the calamity renders the suffering, i.e., Jobs
suffering. The word occurs only at 2:13 and 42:16 in the LXX. The
latter is clearly dependent on the former. G uses the calamity to mark a
watershed in Iobs life, which of course it was. In the reckoning G offers
in 42:16, Iob lives 170 years after the calamity. Since Iob lived 248 years in
total (42:16b), the calamity occurred when he was 78.
5 Conclusion
The translator of Iob draws on the Prologue of the book (1:12:13) to flesh out
the picture of his renewed life in the Epilogue. As in the Prologue Iob is an
intercessor, as he was for his children earlier. In the source text, Job prays for
the three friends, but in the Epilogue, following the deitys direction, he offers
sacrifices on their behalf, as he did for his children. In the Prologue it is said
that Iob did not sin () in spite of the trials set upon him by the slan-
derer (1:22; 2:10) but this is the exact language of the wrongdoing of which the
deity accuses Eliphaz and his two friends (42:7b).
G introduces temporal clarifications that presume a knowledge of the
Prologue. Thus G adds the word before at 42:10c and renders
before with the clearer from the first (42:11d). Before refers to
the time before his calamity and from the first reaches back to the start of the
story, when Iob was well-off and a VIP. Similarly, in v. 16 G adds
after the calamity from 2:13 in order to provide for the reader the time when
this occurred in Iobs life, information not found in the source text. It is out of
a sensitivity to the sequence of events that G leaves out the word in his
house in the Epilogue, because it is not yet clear that Iob has a house restored
to him (42:11c).
The translations use of the Prologue permits a resolution of certain ten-
sions that exist in reading the Epilogue. In the source text, Jobs family and
friends come to visit him. Why did they come? By drawing on the Prologue and
its explanation for the three friends visit G explains that Iobs relatives and
friends heard ( [42:11a] = 2:11a). What did they hear? Again drawing on
the Prologue, G informs the reader that they had heard about all that had hap-
pened to Iob (42:11b, f = 2:11a). G omits the word the evil (42:11b), a word
that goes beyond the Prologue; its omission makes what was heard by Iobs
siblings and acquaintances inclusive of both good and bad.
Gs borrowing from the Prologue in the translation of the Epilogue extends
to minor details as well. The translation attendant for servant,
as at 2:3 is employed at 42:7b, 8bdg. The form of the listing of livestock in
21:12cde follows that in 1:3 where G did not represent the three conjunctions
(waw in each case) that join the last three items together. Speaking of conjunc-
tions, G returns to the use of for waw, largely given up in favour of after
the Prologue. Finally, it may be noted that ... there were born
to him (42:13) is a translation of its equivalent at 1:2, while
there were to him, i.e., he had is a translation of at 42:13, sensible
adjustments that G made to the storyline.
The number of Gs changes to the source text including plusses and omis-
sions to make the Epilogue mirror and relate sequentially to the Prologue, is
a surprise that awaits the researcher who makes it all the way through Iob to
the end of the story. It ends as it began, but more so in the OG translation than
in the original.
CHAPTER 12
Scholars and Officials in Early Judaism:

The Sfer of Jesus Ben Sira
Arie van der Kooij
1 Introduction
In this essay in honour of Johann Cook,1 scholar and teacher of wisdom

in Stellenbosch, I would like to present a picture of a colleague of him in
antiquity Jesus ben Sira,2 scholar and teacher of wisdom in Jerusalem. The
main focus will be on the issue of the position and function of Ben Sira, a scribe
himself, and of the scribe he writes about, in the society of his days. Scholars
have suggested that he might have been a member of priestly families residing
in Jerusalem, or one of the scribes of the temple, or someone belonging to the
lay nobility of the city. In dealing with this subject matter, I want to contribute
to the discussion on the question of who were the scribes in Early Judaism.
First, I shall describe the various proposals that have been made concerning
the issue at stake, and secondly, I shall present my own ideas on the basis of a
discussion of two passages in the Wisdom of Ben Sira Sir 38:3233 and 33:19.
2 Various Views
The passage to be found in Sir 38:2439:11, which is commonly regarded part

of the book in which Ben Sira in fact describes his own activities and skills,3
offers a most interesting portrayal of the scribe (sfer). Obviously, the sfer is
presented here as an intellectual, as someone belonging to the upper strata of
the Jerusalemite society, but it is disputed whether the text offers clues for the
question of whether he was a member of priestly families, or not.
1 It is a great pleasure to dedicate this essay to Johann Cook, who has contributed so much
to the study of wisdom literature in the Septuagint. I offer it with deep appreciation for his
friendship.
2 His full name in Hebrew: Yeshua ben Eleasar ben Sira (cf. Sir 50:27).
3 Pancratrius C. Beentjes, Scripture and Scribe: Ben Sira 38:34c-39:11, in Happy the One who
Meditates on Wisdom (Sir. 14,20). Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira (CBET 43; Leuven:
Peeters, 2006), 117.

The Sfer of Jesus Ben Sira 191
It has been argued that this passage makes clear how respected and influ-
ential the class of soferim was at the beginning of the second century bc.4
According to this view, in the earlier days the priests were at first the experts
in the Torah (cf. the figure of Ezra who was himself both priest and sfer), but
increasingly lay Israelites took over the study of the Torah, and side by side
with the priests an independent order of Torah scholars or scribes came into
being.5 This development is explained thus: In Hellenistic times some of the
priests of higher rank turned to Gentile culture, but the scribes set a very dif-
ferent example.6 Hence, the priests were no longer the spiritual leaders, but it
was the scribes who were the zealous guardians of the Torah.7 Consequently,
in the course of time the scribes were the real teachers of the people, a pro-
cess that is thought to be complete in New Testament times, because here the
scribes are represented as the undisputed spiritual leaders of the people.8
According to this theory, mainly to be found in scholarly literature of an ear-
lier date,9 the scribes are to be seen as a distinct group, which in the course
of time took over the leading position of the priests as teachers of the people.
This view, however, raises a number of questions. One wonders whether it does
justice to the data available in the sources of the time, including those to be
found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The history of the relationship between priest-
hood and scribes is a complex and multifaceted one, and hardly a matter
of rivalry only. In this regard, it is important to note that according to recent
scholarship Sir does not offer a picture of any conflict between priests and
scribes. On the contrary, as has been pointed out by a number of scholars,
Ben Sira actually supports and defends the leading priesthood, and the office
of the high priest in particular.10
4 Emil Schrer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 BCAD 135)
(A new English version revised and edited by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Matthew
Black; Vol. II; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979), 323.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid., 324.
9 See also Victor Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (trans. Shimon
Applebaum; New York: Atheneum, 1975), 124f.; Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time
of Jesus: An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament
Period (London: SCM Press, 1976), 237; Joseph L. Angel, Otherwordly and Eschatological
Priesthood in the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 86; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 211f.
10 See, e.g., Martin Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus: Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter
besonderer Bercksichtigung Palstinas bis zur Mitte des 2.Jh.s v.Chr. (2. durchgesehene
und ergnzte Auflage; WUNT 10; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1973), 244; Benjamin G. Wright,
Fear the Lord and Honour the Priest. Ben Sira as Defender of the Jerusalem Priesthood,
192 van der Kooij
Other issues involved concern the question of who the scribes were, as
well as the idea of scribes as a distinct group. The latter idea, as well as the
idea of scribes as the spiritual leaders of the people, seems to be based on the
picture of the scribes as provided by the New Testament, and not on sources
of an earlier date.11 Moreover, the theory implies that the scribes were lay peo-
ple only, but there is evidence that a priest could also be designated a scribe
(cf. Ezra in Ezra 7:11). These and other issues, however, cannot be dealt with in
this essay as its focus is on the scribe as depicted by Ben Sira.
As to Ben Sira himself, some scholars have argued that he was a priest,
and not a lay person as implied in the theory outlined above. So first of all
Stadelmann, who argued that since the study of the Torah was a priestly task,
Ben Sira, as expert of the Law, is to be seen as a priest.12 Scholars who share
this view include Mack, Schnabel, Olyan, Di Lella, Gammie, and Blenkinsopp
(Ben Sira was a scribe, perhaps also an inactive priest, to judge by his uncriti-
cal reverence for everything priestly).13
in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research: Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira
Conference 2831 July 1996 Soesterberg, Netherlands (ed. Pancratius C. Beentjes; BZAW 255;
Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997), 189222; Jeremy Corley, A Numerical Structure in Sirach 44:1
50:24, CBQ 69 (2007): 4363; Otto Mulder, Simon the High Priest in Sirach 50: An Exegetical
Study of the Significance of Simon the High Priest as Climax to the Praise of the Fathers in
Ben Siras Concept of the History of Israel (JSJSup 78; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 35473 (Ben Sira
sofer and counsellor of the High Priest); Richard A. Horsley and Patrick Tiller, Ben Sira
and the Sociology of the Second Temple, in Second Temple Studies III: Studies in Politics,
Class, and Material Culture (ed. Philip R. Davies and John M. Halligan; JSJSup 340; London:
Continuum, 2002), 74107 (scribal supporter of priestly aristocracy).
11 For critical comments on the scribes as class or distinct group, see Angel, Priesthood,
211f. n 11; Martin Goodman, Texts, Scribes and Power in Roman Judaea, in Literacy and
Power in the Ancient World (ed. Alan K. Bowman and Greg Woolf; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1994), 108 (perhaps there never existed a class of scribes [...] cf. silence
of Philo and Josephus about such a class); Christine Schams, Jewish Scribes in the Second
Temple Period (JSOTSup 291; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 101 n. 223; William
M. Schniedewind, How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel
(Cambridge: CUP, 2004), 201.
12 Helge Stadelmann, Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter (WUNT 2/6; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1980), 222. Other features, which in, his view, support this idea are: the Kultfreudigkeit
in Sir (ibid., 54f.), and the (alleged) agreement between 38:33 (scribe as teacher) and 45:17
(Aaron, the priest, as teacher) (ibid., 230).
13 Burton L. Mack, Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic: Ben Siras Hymn in Praise of the Fathers
(Chicago / London: University of Chicago Press, 1985), 105f.; Eckhard J. Schnabel, Law
and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul (WUNT 2/16; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985), 65; Saul
M. Olyan, Ben Siras Relationship to Priesthood, HTR 80 (1987): 26186 (262); Patrick W.
Others, however, have advanced the view that Ben Sira may have been one
of the scribes of the temple, a group of people referred to in a non-Jewish
document, the Letter of Antiochus III (see Josephus, Ant 12, 142). Scholars who
favour this option are Middendorp, Marbck, and, more recently, Horsley.14
Yet others have claimed that Ben Sira was not a priest but a lay person.
So for example Schrer (above); Beentjes, Schrader, Gilbert, and van der Kooij.15
One of the arguments is that the passage in Sir 3839 does not contain any
indication for the thesis that the scribe of Ben Sira was a priest.16 To quote
a few other scholars: as to the question of whether Ben Sira was a priest,
Himmelfarb states, In my view holding the priesthood in high regard is not
enough to indicate priestly heredity; and on the basis of a detailed analysis of
Sir 45:622, Reiterer drew the following conclusion: In important references
time and again we encounter expressions and formulations which are not in
use in cultic and priestly contexts (45:8b9a). These observations disprove the
presumption that Ben Sira was himself a priest.17
In sum, the scribe of Ben Sira, or Ben Sira the scribe, could have been a
priest, a scribe of the temple, or a layman. There are also scholars who hesitate
to make a choice. So for example Hengel:
Skehan and Alexander A. di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39; New York: Doubleday,
1987), 12 n. 6 (he may have been a priestly scribe); John G. Gammie, The Sage in Sirach,
in The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East (ed. John G. Gammie and Leo G. Perdue;
Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 364f.; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Sage, Priest, Prophet:
Religious and Intellectual Leadership in Ancient Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox
Press, 1995), 15. See also Wright, Fear the Lord, 219 (perhaps even a priest).
14 Johann Marbck, Weisheit im Wandel: Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie bei Ben
Sira (BBB 37; Bonn: Hanstein, 1971), 96; Theophil Middendorp, Die Stellung Jesu ben Siras
zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 84; Richard A. Horsley, Scribes,
Visionaries, and the Politics of Second Temple Judea (Louisville / London: Westminster
John Knox Press, 2007), 64.
15 Pancratius C. Beentjes, Recent Publications on the Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sira (Ecclesias
ticus), Bijdragen, Tijdschrift voor filosofie en theologie, 43 (1982): 19193; Lutz Schrader,
Leiden und Gerechtigkeit: Studien zu Theologie und Textgeschichte des Sirachbuches
(BET 27; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1994), 303; Maurice Gilbert, Siracide, DBS up
12:1405; Arie van der Kooij, Authoritative Scriptures and Scribal Culture, in Authorita-
tive Scriptures in Ancient Judaism (ed. Mladen Popovic; JSJSup 141; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 68.
16 Cf. also Hans-Friedrich Weiss, Schriftgelehrte: I. Judentum, TRE 30:512.
17 Martha Himmelfarb, A Kingdom of Priests: Ancestry and Merit in Ancient Judaism (Jewish
Culture and Contexts; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006), 30; Friedrich V.
Reiterer, Aarons Polyvalent Role according to Ben Sira, in Rewriting Biblical History:
Essays on Chronicles and Ben Sira in Honor of Pancratius C. Beentjes (ed. Jeremy Corley
and Harm van Grol; DCLS 7; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 52.
194 van der Kooij
Da er mehrfach auf das Auftreten des Weisen im Rat und der Volksver-
sammlung zu sprechen kommt, mchte man annehmen, dass er zeit-
weise auch ffentliche Funktionen innehatte, vielleicht war er Richter
oder Ratgeber und Mitglied der Gerusie, mglicherweise gehrte er auch
zu den im Erlass des Antiochos III. erwhnten Schriftgelehrten des
Tempels.18
Hengel thus holds that Sir contains indications (e.g., Sir 38:33) that the scribe
may have been a judge and member of the gerousia, while, as he adds, the
scribe might also have belonged to the group called the scribes of the temple.
Finally, in a detailed discussion of the subject under discussion, Horsley and
Tiller also focus on indications of social structure and roles in Sir.19 They rightly
argue that these indications may help us understand the position and function
of scribes in the society at the time of Ben Sira. In their view, passages like
38:2439:11 indicate that the position of the scribe (in the sense of sage) is
somewhere between, that is, above the plowmen and artisans [...] but below
and in service to those who rule.20 As to the latter category, several references
to rulers in Sir are discussed, the various terms employed by Ben Sira being
understood as referring to local rulers of the Jewish temple-state.21 They then
state: Assuming that Judea was a temple-state with the high priest as political
ruler, then these chiefs, rulers, judges and nobles must have been members of
the priestly aristocracy of Jerusalem.22 The primary role of the scribe was to
serve the chiefs (Sir 8:8), which is taken in the sense of serving the superiors
in the ruling priestly aristocracy of Jerusalem.23 Thus, the scribes are seen
as holding an office in service of the high-priestly regime. As to the question
whether the scribe was a priest or a lay it is argued that both could be the case
(scribes from non-priestly or ordinary priestly families),24 but a few years
18 Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus, 244. See also Oda Wischmeyer, Die Kultur des Buches
Jesus Sirach (BZAW 77; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995), 179; Heinz-Josef Fabry, Jesus Sirach und
das Priestertum, in Auf den Spuren der schriftgelehrten Weisen: Festschrift fr Johannes
Marbck anlsslich seiner Emeritierung (ed. Imtraud Fischer, U. Rapp und J. Schiller; BZAW
331; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 272f.
19 Horsley and Tiller, Ben Sira, 74107.
20 Ibid., 80.
21 Ibid., 8084.
22 Ibid., 82f.
23 Ibid., 85. In line with the sociological work of Gerhard Lenski he identifies the scribes as
retainers, i.e., a social class which supports the ruling class.
24 Ibid., 100. See also Benjamin G. Wright III, Conflicting Boundaries: Ben Sira, Sage and
Seer, in Congress Volume Helsinki 2010 (ed. Martti Nissinen; VTSup 148; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 250.
later, Horsley opts for the view that Ben Sira, the sage, was one of the scribes
of the temple.25
3 The Sfer of Ben Sira as Scholar and Official
3.1 Scholar-Scribe
As noted above, Sir 38:2439:11 is a key passage in Sir about the scribe.
Although, unfortunately, the Hebrew of this passage has not been preserved,
one can be certain that the word used in 38:24 () mirrors Hebrew
sfer. As scholars have observed, in sources dating to the late Persian and
Hellenistic periods the term sfer often denotes someone who is to be regarded
a sage or scholar rather than a secretary or copyist. This not only applies to
the way the scribe is depicted in Sir 3839, but also to Ezra, as presented in
Ezra 7, to Ahiqar, wise counsellor at the court of a king (Ahiqar 1.1), or to David
in 11QPsa 27:23. Both in Sir 38:24 (the wisdom of the scribe) and 11QPsa (wise
and scribe) the scribe is portrayed as a wise (man), a sage. It therefore is
justified to state with Schnabel that the scribe of Sir 3839 is an intellectual,
not a scribe in the old sense, a scholar, not a copyist, a sage, not a secretary.26
The scholar(-scribe)27 is a man of wisdom, which in Sir 39 implies first of all
the study of books, primarily of books belonging to the literary heritage of
Israel, but presumably also of literary works produced by ancients outside
Judaism.28 He is someone who had the ability and authority to interpret texts.
Hence, he was the appropriate person to teach others (cf. Sir 38:34). In addi-
tion, scholar-teachers were also able to produce literary works (as did Ben Sira
himself), but this was presumably not the first and foremost thing to do. Be that
as it may, it is important to note that the production of literary texts required a
great deal of study (reading), as the grandson of Ben Sira explains to us in the
Prologue to his translation of the work of his grandfather. It therefore makes
sense to distinguish between scribes as scholars and scribes as copyists.29
25 Horsley, Scribes, Visionaries, 147.

26 Schnabel, Law and Wisdom, 66. Cf. Johann Marbck, Der schriftgelehrte Weise. Ein
Beitrag zu Gestalt und Werk Ben Siras, in La Sagesse de lAncient Testament (ed. Maurice
Gilbert; BETL 51; Leuven: Peeters, 1990), 311 (der schriftgelehrte Weise); Schams, Jewish
Scribes, 125 (sfer in Sir 38 and 11QPsa more than a professional writer or secretary);
Horsley, Scribes, Visionaries, 67 (scribe-sage).
27 I prefer the general term scholar to the more specific sage, as the latter is not usual in
the literature on literacy and scholarship in antiquity at large.
28 Cf. Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 452.
29 Cf. also Johannes Unsok Ro, Socio-Economic Context of Post-Exilic Community and
Literacy, ZAW 120 (2008): 602; Henryk Drawnel, Some Notes on Scribal Craft and the
196 van der Kooij
It is important to note in this regard that sfer is not the only term used.
A number of sources do refer to literate people and interpreters of Scripture by
employing other, less ambiguous terms: so e.g. the book of Daniel, the Letter of
Aristeas, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.30
3.2 Sir 38:3233

In dealing with the issue of the function and position of the scholar-scribe,
I shall now discuss in what follows two passages from Sir, the first one being
Sir 38:3233. It reads:
But they are not sought after for the council of the people ( ),31
nor do they win a prominent position in the assembly ( ).
On the judges seat ( ) they will not sit,
nor can they understand law and justice.
Excepting Hengel and Horsley, in contrast to 39:111, scholars hardly pay atten-
tion to this passage when dealing with the profile of the scribe as portrayed
by Ben Sira. Di Lella is quite brief about 38:3233, noting that unlike the
scribes, the skilled workers are not trained for civic or religious leadership in
general.32 It is of interest that he uses the term civic, but he does not touch
on the question what the terminology employed in this passage, the council
of the people or the assembly, may convey.
3.2.1 The Council of the People and the Assembly

As noted above, according to Hengel, this and related passages may indicate
that the scribe was a member of the council in the sense of the gerousia.
Goodblatt wonders though whether the Greek should be rendered
as the council of the people. In his view, the context rather supports the idea
of a council. The sense of the passage is that the craftmans opinion is not
Origins of the Enochic Literature, Henoch 31 (2009): 6672. For the distinction between
two types of scribes 2 Chr 34 is of interest as it refers to Shaphan as scribe in the sense of
a scholar and royal official, on the one hand (v. 18), and to scribes of the Levites, on the
other (v. 13). The latter being of a lower rank are likely to be scribe-copyists. See also note
62 on the scribes of the temple.
30 On this, see van der Kooij, Authoritative Scriptures, 66. For the terminology used in
the Dead Sea Scrolls, see Armin Lange, Sages and Scribes in the Qumran Literature, in
Scribes, Sages, and Seers: The Sage in the Eastern Mediterranean World (ed. Leo G. Perdue;
FRLANT 219; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 27193.
31 This colon is attested by a small number of Mss only; see ed. Ziegler, ad locum.
32 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 451.
solicited in the deliberations at public assemblies.33 He is sceptical about the

idea that Sir might refer here to a council like the gerousia, since there is no
other evidence in Ben Sira for such an institution. In the same vein, Horsley
and Tiller argue that the phrase the peoples council, being used in parallel-
ism with assembly, probably does not refer to any legally constituted senate,
which in any case would not be referred to as a peoples council.34 In their
view, scribes were sought as advisers, if not members, of the collective leader-
ship of Jerusalem, the latter being understood in a more global sense.
They are thus sceptical whether Sir 38:3233 might testify to any specific
official body in Jerusalem. It is true that the term gerousia does not occur in
Sir, but this does not exclude the possibility that Ben Sira could have referred
to this or other official bodies by using alternative words or phrases. The issue
at stake here is the terminology employed in Sir 38:3233 and related passages
elsewhere, on the one hand, and the constitution of the Jews in the late Second
Temple period, on the other. It is of course unfortunate that we do not have the
Hebrew version of Sir 38:3233, but, as we will see, we do have a Hebrew text of
other relevant passages in Sir.
Greek scholars of the time, particularly Aristotle and his successors, showed a
great interest in constitutions and laws of several people. For example, Aristotle
informs his readers that the constitution of Carthage was composed thus:
the kings ( ),
the council of Elders (, ),
and the popular assembly ()(Pol. II, 8, 23).
Polybius, the well-known historian from the second century b.c.e., offers the
same picture for Carthage, employing though a slightly different vocabulary:
kings, the council of Elders ( ), and the multitude ( ), i.e.,
the popular assembly (Hist. 6, 51, 1). If Aristotle had also written about the Jews
in Jerusalem and Judea, the information would have been quite similar: (a) the
body of leading priests (i.e., the high priest together with the chief priests),
(b) the council of elders, and (c) the people, i.e., the popular assembly of the
Jews in Jerusalem.35
33 David Goodblatt, The Monarchic Principle: Studies in Jewish Self-Government in Antiquity

(TSAJ 38; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 92.
35 For this, see Johann Cook and Arie van der Kooij, Law, Prophets, and Wisdom. On the
Provenance of Translators and their Books in the Septuagint Version (CBET 68; Leuven:
Peeters, 2012), 5153.
198 van der Kooij
The first part of the passage in Sir 38 is marked by the expressions the coun-
cil of the people ( ), and the assembly (), and the question
arises whether they refer to particular bodies within the polity of the Jews in
Jerusalem. It is to be noted, first of all, that both expressions convey the notion
of being civic institutions. The council ()36 is said to be of the people
().37 Within the constitution of the time, the people is the lay people as
is clear from passages where it occurs in distinction with the priests of the
temple: 1 Macc 7:33; 14:28, 44; 1 Esdr 1:47 (cf. 2 Chr 36:14). This usage of the
people is also attested in the Hebrew Bible, in passages such as 2 Kgs 23:3 //
2 Chr 34:30. Hence, the council of the people is plausibly to be considered a
council composed of lay people.
And what about the assembly? The of our text is also best under-
stood as denoting a civic body, in line with its usage in Greek. As a number
of texts indicate, it refers to the assembly of the people, i.e., the lay people
that met in the great, or second, courtyard of the temple; see, e.g., Sir 50:13, 20
( / ), and 11QTa 39:45 (the assembly [ ]of the community of
[Israel]).38 An interesting passage in this regard is also found in 1 Esdr 9:6 the
whole multitude ( ) sat together in the spacious place of the tem-
ple (cf. Ezra 10:9). The phrase , for the people ( )in the Hebrew
text, is used here in the sense of the popular assembly, in line with the usage
of this term in non-Jewish authors like Polybius (for an example, see above).
The multitude (people) referred to in 1 Esdr 9 (Ezra 10) are all the men of
Judah and Benjamin, who assembled for a meeting in the temple of Jerusalem.
The next question that arises concerns the relationship between the council
of the people and the assembly in Sir 38:3233. As to this issue it is of note that
the two cola where both expressions occur are running parallel to each other:
But they are not sought after for the council of the people,
nor do they win a prominent position in the assembly
The parallelism implies that a position in the council of the people equals
a prominent one (cf. ) in the assembly. Before dealing with the
36 The term in the sense of council occurs in the LXX, in a few instances: see Num 16:2
(MT )and Ps 1:5 (MT ;)111(110):1 (MT ).
37 Cf. GELS, 121 (civic).
38 For the phrase the great court, the court where the Israelites were allowed to enter, see
2 Chr 4:9. Cf. the outer court in Ezek 44:19. Since 11QTa distinguishes between three
courts of the temple, instead of two, the court where the people could meet could be
called the middle one.
relationship between these two bodies, a note on the verb in the first colon
may be in order. The verb in case () is sometimes interpreted in a
way different from the translation provided here. Scholars like Goodblatt and
Horsley think of a position of being asked or solicited to give advice.39 The
Greek expression ( ), however, carries the meaning of
seeking after someone who is qualified to become a member of the council
rather than of seeking someone for advice.40
Regarding the parallelism between the council of the people and a promi-
nent position in the assembly, the following passages in 1 Macc are of interest:
Jonathan, the high priest, the gerousia of the ethnos,

the priests, and the rest of the demos of the Jews (1 Macc 12:6)
Simon, the high priest, the elders,
the priests, and the rest of the demos of the Jews (1 Macc 14:20)
These two passages, which obviously run parallel to each other, clearly indi-
cate that the people called the gerousia of the ethnos can also be designated
the elders.41 True, the term elders as such cannot be regarded synonym of
the gerousia,42 but in these two instances both expressions obviously allude
to the same institution. In both passages as a whole the two groups consti-
tuting the polity of the Jews are envisaged, (a) that of the priests (i.e., the
high priest together with the chief priests),43 and (b) that of the people,
the lay people (the gerousia / the elders and the rest of the demos).44
The gerousia / the elders and the demos belong to each other, as both consti-
tute the civic part of the constitution. This is also clear from 1QS 6:89 where it
39 Goodblatt, Monarchic Principle, 92; Horsley and Tiller, Ben Sira, 85. Cf. also Stadelmann,
Ben Sira, 230.
40 Cf. GELS, 314; Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 446. See also Sir 21:17; 39:16.
41 Cf. Maria Brutti, The Council of Elders during the Pre-Hasmonean Period, European
Journal of Jewish Studies 3 (2009): 180f.
42 Cf. Goodblatt, Monarchic Principle, 88f. For example, in 1 Macc 14:28, the elders of the
chora are not the people making up the gerousia.
43 On this group, see also below (sub 3.4).
44 Both passages in 1 Macc, however, mark a shift within the constitution because in pre-
Hasmonean times the high priest would not have been mentioned separate from his col-
leagues, the (leading) priests. See for instance the text (letter) dating to the late Persian
period, which reads to Johanan the high priest and his colleagues, the priests who are
in Jerusalem, and to Anani, and the nobles of the Jews (CAP 30,18). The mention of the
elders, gerousia, immediately after the high priest indicates that the former had become
more important.
200 van der Kooij
reads: (the priests,) the elders, and the rest of the people.45 The body of elders,
the gerousia,46 thus turns out to be part of the demos, or the people.
So far so good, but this does not yet answer the question why members
of the council of the people are considered holding a prominent position
in the assembly of the people.47 A prominent position evokes the idea that
the members of the council of the people held a leading position within
the assembly (of the people). This fits in with the just noted picture of the
gerousia / the elders as being part of the demos because this picture too
evokes the idea of the former as being the leaders of the latter. Jdt 4:8 offers a
phrase that conveys the same idea: the gerousia of the whole demos of Israel.
Here we touch on a specific aspect of the polity of the Jews, namely, the
members of the council as leaders of the assembly. There is another passage
in the work of Ben Sira which is of interest in this regard Sir 33:19, the second
passage I want to discuss.
3.3 Sir 33:19

Unlike Sir 38:3233, in the case of this passage we also have a Hebrew version
of the passage (Ms E), which reads (in translation) thus:
Listen to me, leaders of the numerous people () ,

rulers of the assembly () , give ear!
In these two lines, the phrase leaders of the numerous people runs parallel to
the expression rulers of the assembly. The latter is easily understood as refer-
ring to the leaders of the popular assembly, i.e., the assembly of 38:33, dis-
cussed above. In view of the parallelism of the text, this then would also apply
to the first colon. In the Greek text both expressions have been rendered thus,
and , presumably attesting to the same
idea (cf. and in Sir 38:3233!). The wording in Hebrew, ,
has a parallel in 2 Chr 36:14 if this passage speaks of the leaders ( )of the
priests and [those of] the people (), which at least is the way the text has
been interpreted, albeit with a different word order, in 1 Esdr 1:47 (
). Another instance where the term is used in
45 Italics mine. For this passage, see Arie van der Kooij, The Yahad What is in a Name?
DSD 18 (2011): 117.
46 On gerousia in Jewish sources, see further below (at the end of this essay). For a discussion
of the term gerousia in the Septuagint (Pentateuch and Joshua), see Goodblatt, Monarchic
Principle, 924, and Brutti, Council of Elders, 178.
47 For the phrase the council of the people a similar expression is found in 1 Macc 7:33 and
12:35 (the elders of the people).
a similar way, is to be found in Ezra 10:14.48 It offers the phrase our leaders
( )of the whole assembly () , which has been rendered in 1 Esdras
9:12 as .49 The Greek , for in Ezra 10:14, is
employed here as referring to the popular assembly. As to the leaders, 1 Esdr
offers yet another expression conveying the same notion:
, the presiding elders (9:4)!
The Hebrew after in Sir 33:19 is often considered superfluous,50 but it
actually makes perfect sense if read from the perspective of the popular assem-
bly. The latter was composed of a large number of people, all representatives of
Israel, the lay people. Hence, the term in Greek, or which is even more
interesting, the designation to be found in 1QS 5:22 the multitude ( )of
Israel, which in my view envisages the same group of people.51
In light of these data the rulers of the assembly are likely to be considered
the leaders of the popular assembly. If so, Sir 33:19 provides us with expres-
sions in Hebrew denoting the officials making up the council of the people
(gerousia), as proposed above.52
3.4 The Seat of the Judge

In addition to his position in the council referred to above, the scholar(-scribe) is
also someone who, according to Sir 38:33, will sit on the seat of the judge. How to
explain this part of the picture within the frame of the polity of the Jews?
The scholar-scribe as judge, in Jerusalem: this leads us to another institu-
tion of the time the High Court in Jerusalem. In 11QTa 57:1114 this Court is
described thus,
And twelve princes (leaders) of his people shall be with him (i.e., the
king), and twelve priests and twelve Levites who shall sit with him
together for judgment and for the law.53
According to this source, the High, or Central Court, was composed of three
groups, (12) priests, (12) Levites, and (12) princes (plus the king). It is of note
that 1QM 2:13 offers a piece of information which actually has the same (three)
48 For this term, see also Ezra 8:29.

49 Cf. Josephus, Vita 194: .
50 See, e.g., Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 403.
51 See van der Kooij, The Yahad, 122f.
52 Cf. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus, 49 n. 173.
53 See van der Kooij, The Yahad, 112. Usually, the council described here is called the royal
council, but this is misleading as it suggests a major role of the king within a body in
which the (12) priests are the highest authorities.
202 van der Kooij
groups of officials in view, and which moreover is more precise: the (12) chief
priests behind the High Priest, the (12) chiefs of the Levites, and the (12) chiefs
of the tribes, fathers of the congregation of Israel. Of each of these groups it is
stated in 1QM 2 that they served continually (i.e., for the time being elected)
in the temple. Hence, it makes perfect sense to assume that they were the ones
who made up the Central Court. Yet another passage of interest is 2 Chr 19:8,
which is about the appointment of certain priests, Levites, and, heads of fami-
lies of Israel to give judgment for the Lord and to decide disputed cases.54
As we know from later sources (e.g., Josephus), the heads of influential fami-
lies of Jerusalem were those who were also called the elders in the Sanhedrin.55
Alternatively, rewriting the text, which lies at the basis of the Central Court
(Deut 17:9; see also 19:17), Josephus employed the term gerousia for the lay
members of the High Court of Jerusalem (Ant. 4, 218).56
The above sheds light on the second position referred to in Sir 38:33 (sitting
on the seat of the judge). The lay people referred to as princes, and heads of
families, making up one of the three groups of the High Court, presumably is
the same group as the council of the people, the gerousia, dealt with above.
If so, it makes sense that the scholar being member of this council was also
someone who acted as one of the lay judges in the High Court.57
4 Concluding Remarks
Whether or not he himself was an (Aaronide) priest, he works in a world

where priests enjoy a godlike centrality (7:2931) and can be plausibly depicted
as the original and primary Torah-teachers of Israel (45:17).58 Indeed, he him-
self, i.e., Ben Sira, could have been a priest because the sources testify to a
close link between priesthood and scholarship. Priests, in particular the lead-
ing ones among them, carried not only authority because of their position, but
also because of their wisdom. For example, according to Jubilees, the office
54 This passage suggests that they were elected for a period of time; cf. Jeremias, Jerusalem,
222. For the three groups, see also Ezra 8:29 (the chief priests, the Levites, and the heads
of fathers houses in Israel at Jerusalem), and Neh 8:13.
55 Cf. Jeremias, Jerusalem, 223f.
56 For a detailed discussion of passages relating to the High Court (Deut 17:9 [MT and LXX],
2 Chr 19:8; 11QTa 57:1114; and Josephus), see Sarah J. K. Pearce, The Words of Moses: Studies
in the Reception of Deuteronomy in the Second Temple Period (TSAJ 152; Tbingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2013). She does not refer to 1QM 2:13.
57 I leave aside the aspect of the scholar-scribe as teacher (cf. Sir 38:34).
58 David M. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 211.
of priest is not only relating to the cult, but he is also engaged with schol-
arship: In Jubilees, the priestly line [...] is the keeper of a scribal tradition
that emphasizes the study and observance of the law and the preservation of
the tradition in written form.59 Other documents such as Aramaic Levi, also
emphasize the role of priest as a learned person.60 This is also true of the work
of Ben Sira, which presents the figure of Aaron as someone who was vested
with the authority of ruler and judge. And of primary teacher of the law as
well: He (i.e., Aaron) taught his people the statute and ordinance (Sir 45:17).61
However, it is my conclusion that the sfer of Ben Sira is not a member of
the priestly aristocracy, nor one of the scribes of the temple,62 but rather
someone belonging to the lay nobility living in Jerusalem. The passages dealt
with above (Sir 38:3233 and 33:19) indicate that he was a scholar who as a
lay official could be an elected member of the council of the people, i.e., one
of the presiding elders (gerousia), holding in this way a prominent position
within the popular assembly. In addition, by virtue of being a member of the
council, he also sat on the seat of the judge, i.e., also acted as one of the lay
judges of the High Court.
Thus, the sfer as depicted by Ben Sira is both a scholar and an official, thus
illustrating the very close relationship between the intellectual elite and the
ruling elite in Jewish society of the time. A telling case in this respect is the
figure of the High Priest who as head of the Jewish nation was also consid-
ered the primary interpreter of the law (cf., e.g., Hecataeus of Abdera; Letter of
Aristeas).63 Hence, the term sfer, as employed by Ben Sira, is not to be taken
in the sense of a particular profession, but rather as denoting a quality (of lit-
eracy) of people who belonged to aristocratic circles, and who could be elected
member of a ruling body.
59 Sidnie White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2008), 78. Cf. Jub 45:16: Jacob gave all the books and the books of his fathers to
his son Levi, so that he could preserve them and renew them for his sons until today.
60 See, e.g., Robert A. Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest: The Levi-Priestly Tradition from Aramaic
Levi to Testament of Levi (SBLEJL, 9; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 11829.
61 For this translation, see Reiterer, Aarons Polyvalent Role, 49.
62 The scribes of the temple are likely to be considered scribes of the Levites who acted
as writers and copyists in the temple. See Elias Bickermann, Gott der Makkaber:
Untersuchungen ber Sinn und Ursprung der Makkabischen Erhebung (Berlin: Schocken
Verlag / Jdischer Buchverlag, 1937), 56; Ephraim E. Urbach, The Sages Their Concepts
and Beliefs, Vol. I (trans. Israel Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1975), 568. The expres-
sion the scribes of the temple (in the Letter of Antiochus III) is not found in any Jewish
source, but it has a parallel in an Egyptian document of the time, the decree of Canopus
(in Greek).
63 On this, see Cook and van der Kooij, Law, Prophets, and Wisdom, 3941.
204 van der Kooij
Regarding Ben Sira himself, the first colon of Sir 33:19 (Listen to me, lead-
ers of the numerous people) suggests that he had the authority to address
the leaders of the popular assembly. This would be fully understandable if, as
Sir 38:3233 indicates, he himself had been member of the body of leaders of
the assembly.
For Horsley and Tiller, Sir 8:8 is most important as it indicates, in their view,
that the primary role of the scribe was to serve the chiefs, which is under-
stood as serving the superiors in the ruling priestly aristocracy of Jerusalem.64
This passage refers to scholars who have the abilities to take their position
before princes, or rulers. The wording in Hebrew ( ) is also found in
Sir 38:3 where it is stated that the medical knowledge makes the doctor distin-
guished so that he can stand before princes.65 It is possible that Sir 8:8 alludes
to the position of a lay scholar vis--vis higher ranking people within the polity
of the Jews,66 but on the basis of Sir 38:3 it is also possible to think of scholars
taking up positions at a court, like Ahiqar and Daniel.67
Finally, a note on the term gerousia may be in order. The fact that the term
gerousia occurs only a few times in Jewish sources68 has been interpreted as
an indication that there was no formal council like the gerousia elsewhere,
but rather a non-institutionalized oligarchy of elders.69 It is true that the
term elders outnumbers by far the occurrences of gerousia, but this does
not mean that in cases like 1 Macc 14:20 the elders should be considered a
rather vague term. The issue at stake here is a matter of vocabulary. The term
gerousia reflects constitutional terminology typical of Greek, non-Jewish lit-
erature, whereas the phrase the elders is scarcely ever used in non-Jewish
texts for high officials because in Greek the term normally refers
to old people only.70 The latter however is typical of Jewish sources as term
for officials (cf. zaqen in Hebrew: elder as official). Hence, it is appropriate
that the term gerousia is employed in 1 Macc 12:6, in a letter to the Spartans,
whereas on the other hand, the term the elders is found in a letter addressed
to the Jewish people (1 Macc 14:20).

65 See Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 441. For another passage, see Sir 47:1.
66 That is to say, vis--vis the High Priest, and his colleagues, the chief priests.
67 Cf. Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 212; see also Prov 22:29; Sir 39:4b.
68 Only once in 1 Macc (12:6), and only twice in 2 Macc (1:10; 11:27).
69 Goodblatt, Monarchic Principle, 99. Horsley, on the other hand, advanced a quite different
idea, namely, that the gerousia (in the Letter of Antiochus III) refers to the aristocracy of
the temple-state, first of all to wealthy priestly families (Scribes, Visionaries, 44). However,
it is unlikely that the term gerousia would be used for a body of priests.
70 Cf. Brutti, Council of Elders, 175.
CHAPTER 13
The Metatextual Marginal Notes of Ben Sira:

Ideology and Theology in the Geneva Bible (1560)
and the King James Version (1611)1
Cynthia L. Miller-Naud and Jacobus A. Naud
1 Introduction
1.1 Metatexts Ancient and Modern

The prefaces to Ben Sira were added in ancient times about fifty years after Ben
Siras death by the first translator, Ben Siras grandson, and an unknown person.
Some headings, which were added later, appear in Greek manuscripts: 18:29/30
(Self-control); 20:26/27 (Proverbial sayings); 23:6/7 (Instruction about the
mouth); 24:1 (Praise of Wisdom); 43:33/44:1 (Hymn to the ancestors); 50:29/51:1
(Prayer of Jesus, Sirachs son).2 Marginal notes, footnotes and supplementary
materials such as illustrations, maps and charts are routinely added by transla-
tors in modern times to their translations. All of these elements are described
by translation studies scholars as metatexts in that they stand alongside the
translated text and create frames for guiding the reader in how to read and
interpret a translation.3 Because a metatext is the invention of the translator,
it provides a window into the ideological context of the translation and also
1 It is a pleasure to dedicate this chapter to our good friend and colleague, Prof Johann Cook,
with thanks for his scholarship and friendship. This work is based on research supported
in part by the National Research Foundation of South Africa (Cynthia L. Miller-Naud UID
95926 and Jacobus A. Naud UID 85902. The grantholders acknowledge that opinions, find-
ings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in any publication generated by the
NRF supported research are those of the authors, and that the NRF accepts no liability what-
soever in this regard.
2 See also the manuscript notations indicting divisions, in Konrad Jenner and Wido van
Peursen, Unit Delimitation and the Text of Ben Sira, in Studies in Scriptural Unit Division
(ed. Marjo Korpel and Josef Oesch; Pericope 3; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2002), 144201.
3 Jacobus A. Naud, The Role of Metatexts in the Translations of Sacred Texts: The Case
of the Aristeas Book and the Septuagint in Septuagint and Reception: Essays Prepared for
the Association for the Study of the Septuagint in South Africa (ed. Johann Cook; VTSup 127;
Leiden: Brill, 2009), 28198.

206 Miller-Naud and Naud
calls attention to the participation of the translator in the work and to his/her
intervention in the final shape of the text and its interpretation.4
The research in this paper forms one part of a body of research on the
metatexts of Bible translations. This research began by exploring the role
of metatexts in various translations, in general, and the Aristeas Letter as a
metatext of the Septuagint, in particular.5 Then the various metatexts of the
King James Version of 1611 were analysed, especially the two prefaces, the dedi-
cation and the marginal notes.6 This research was expanded to consider the
metatextual marginal notes of KJV Lamentations and the ways in which they
served to distance the KJV from the theology and ideology of its predecessor
and competitor, the Geneva Bible.7 Recently, the metatextual marginal notes
of Maccabees were examined to see how the metatextual ideology of an apoc-
ryphal book differed among the various early European translations.8 In this
chapter, we explore marginal notes as metatexts of Ben Sira in the Geneva
Bible of 1560 and the King James Version of 1611.9
1.2 Marginal Notes of the Geneva Bible and the KJV

As preliminary to the study, we briefly comment on the two translations with
respect to the metatextual material around the body of the texts, namely, the
marginal notations. The Geneva Bible was produced in the 1550s by English
Puritans who fled Queen Marys bloody reign to find refuge in Calvins Geneva.
There were three main editions of the Geneva Bible, namely, the 1560, 1592 and
1602 editions.
4 Jacobus A. Naud, Metatexts and the Regulation of Reader Responses in the Translation
of Sacred Texts, in Festschrift for Andrzej Zaborski (ed. Tomasz Polaski and Joadhim liwa;
Folia Orientalia 49; Cracow: Polish Academy of Science, 2009), 33955; and idem, The Role
of the Metatexts in the King James Version as a Means of Mediating Conflicting Theological
Views, in The King James Version at 400: Assessing Its Genius as Bible Translation and Its
Literary Influence (ed. David G. Burke, John F. Kutsko and Philip H. Towner; Atlanta: Society
of Biblical Literature, 2013), 15794.
5 Naud, Metatexts and the Regulation of Reader Responses in the Translation of Sacred
Texts and idem, The Role of Metatexts in the Translations of Sacred Texts.
6 Naud, The Role of the Metatexts in the King James Version as a Means of Mediating
Conflicting Theological Views.
7 Jacobus A. Naud and Cynthia L. Miller-Naud, Lamentations in the English Bible
Translation Tradition of the King James Bible (1611), Scriptura 110/2 (2012): 20826.
8 Cynthia L. Miller-Naud and Jacobus A. Naud, The Metatexts of 1 and 2 Maccabees, JSem
24 (2015): 23770.
9 The facsimile editions of the two Bibles used for this research are: The Geneva Bible: A
Facsimile of the 1560 Edition (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007) and The Holy Bible: 1611 Edition,
King James Version (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2010).
The Metatextual Marginal Notes of Ben Sira 207
The marginal notes formed a central part of the Geneva Bible from the
very beginning. The title page of the New Testament, published in 1557,
mentioned that the translation included diversities of readings, and moste
proffitable annotations of all harde places.10 The preface of the entire Bible of
1560, addressed To Our Beloved in the Lord the Brethren of England, Scotland,
Ireland indicated that the translators used marginal notes for various
purposes to indicate that diversity of speech or reading which may also
seem agreeable to the mind of the holy Ghost and proper for our language,11
where the necessity of the sentence required anything to be added, principal
matters (important comments) noted with , and brief annotation on all the
hard places, as well for the understanding of such words as are obscure, and
for the declaration of the text, as for the application of the same as may most
appertain to Gods glory and the edification of his Church.12
The editions of the Geneva Bible went through various versions of marginal
notes. In the Old Testament, the notes of 1560 are retained in the 1592 and 1602
editions, but the source or author of those notes is unknown.13 In the New
Testament, the notes of 1592 were based on the notes written by the Huguenot
Pierre Loyseleur for Bezas Latin text.14 In 1602, the New Testament was further
revised in the Book of Revelation with the notes of Franciscus Junius.15
The marginal notes have been described as the single most important fea-
ture of the Geneva Bible, to both the laity and the clergy.16 So successful were
the notes as metatexts for guiding readers interpretation of the text that their
influence on the sermons and commentaries of the era has been discerned,17
as well as upon English literature based upon the biblical text.18 The notes
were strongly attacked by Archbishop Parker, who in a memorandum to the
10 Lloyd E. Berry, Introduction to the Facsimile Edition, in The Geneva Bible: A Facsimile of
the 1560 Edition (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007), 9.
11 Preface of the Geneva Bible 1560, iiii (=iv).
12 Preface of the Geneva Bible, v.
13 Maurice S. Betteridge, The Bitter Notes: The Geneva Bible and its Annotations, Sixteenth
Century Journal 14 (1983): 4162, esp. 44, 58.
14 Betteridge, The Bitter Notes, 45.
15 See ibid., 55 for an example from Rom 13:5 that illustrates the shifts in the notes in the
three editions.
16 Berry, Introduction to the Facsimile Edition, 15.
17 For theological contributions of the notes, see Dan G. Danner, The Contribution of the
Geneva Bible of 1560 to the English Protestant Tradition, The Sixteenth Century Journal
12/3 (1981): 518.
18 Berry, Introduction to the Facsimile Edition, 1920. The political influence of the mar-
ginal notes has been suggested, but is secondary to theological concerns; see Hardin Craig,
Jr., The Geneva Bible as a Political Document, Pacific Historical Review 7/1 (1938): 4049.
translators of the Bishops Bible shortly after the publication of the Geneva
Bible in 1650, ordered them not to make any bitter note upon any text, a
thinly veiled allusion to the marginal notes of the Geneva.19
The marginal notes in the Geneva Bible are extensive in the Old and New
Testaments. The notes are less copious in the Apocrypha,20 especially those
that provide theological interpretations, but they remain influential as
metatexts.
The translators of the King James Version were explicitly instructed by
Bishop Bancroft to avoid the use of theological and ideological notes; notes
could only be used as specified in his rule #6:
Rule 6. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation
of the Hebrew or Greek Words which cannot, without some circumlocu-
tion, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.21
The anti-note policy of the KJV as opposed to the Geneva Bible was intended to
mediate between the differing viewpoints of the Anglicans and the Puritans.22
Nonetheless, as recently demonstrated with respect to Maccabees, the KJV
translators deftly used marginal notes to guide the readers expectations in
reading the text.23 Thus, the Geneva Bibles extensive marginal notes as well as
the KJVs minimal but equally powerful marginal notes both served an inter-
pretive function.
The marginal notes in the Geneva and KJV are of five types in Ben Sira. First,
there are cross-references to biblical texts. In the Geneva, these are indicated
by the siglum * at the beginning of the verse. In the KJV, the siglum * occurs at
the beginning of the verse and before the reference in the margin.
19 Berry, Introduction to the Facsimile Edition, 15.

20 According to Daniell, There are ten or so pages in the Apocrypha with completely empty
margins, and about a dozen more with only one reference. The notes are provided for
every book in the Bible, though thinly in the Apocrypha. See David Daniell, The Bible in
English (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 304, 306.
21 Richard A. Burridge, Priorities, Principles, and Prefaces: From the KJV to Today (1611
2011), in The King James Version at 400: Assessing Its Genius as Bible Translation and Its
Literary Influence (ed. David G. Burke, John F. Kutsko, and Philip H. Towner; Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), 195226, esp. 204.
22 Naud, The Role of the Metatexts in the King James Version as a Means of Mediating
Conflicting Theological Views, 16979.
23 Miller-Naud and Naud, The Metatexts of 1 and 2 Maccabees, 23770.
Second, in the KJV, there are notes which provide a literal rendering of the
Greek text. The affected word or phrase is indicated in the text and in the mar-
gin with the siglum . In the Geneva, there is only one note that explicitly men-
tions text critical matters, namely at 1:1.
Third, there are notes that provide an alternative translation. In the Geneva,
these are indicated by a small superscript siglum before the affected text and
in the margin. In the KJV, these are indicated by the siglum || in the text before
the affected words and in the margin. The marginal note begins with Or,...
Fourth, there are notes which provide cultural explanations of the
source text.
Fifth, there are marginal notes which function as subheads to draw atten-
tion to the content of the text. In the Geneva, these are marked by the siglum
|| both in the text and in the margin. In the KJV, the marginal subheads are in
italics and have no siglum before them, either in the text or in the margin.
1.3 Outline of the Study

The structure of the chapter is as follows. The marginal notes of the Geneva
Bible and the KJV are examined both with respect to their format and their
function as metatexts. The following types are identified and analysed in sub-
sequent sections: cross-references, notes referring to the Greek, notes provid-
ing an alternative translation, notes with cultural explanations, and notes as
subheads. The penultimate section compares identical verses in the Geneva
and the KJV which have notes. The final section presents our conclusions.
2 Cross-References
In both the Geneva and the KJV, there are numerous cross-references to bib-
lical texts. Unlike the metatextual marginal notes in Maccabees, the cross-
references of both the Geneva and the KJV in Ben Sira relate only to the Old
Testament, New Testament, and Apocrypha, and not to any extra-biblical
sources.24 As an example of a marginal cross-reference in the Geneva,
see (1):
24 Ibid., 24750.
(1) Geneva Sir 9:825

verse: *Turne awaye thine eye from a beautiful woman, and loke not
vpon others beautie: for manie *haue perihed by the beautie of
women: for thorow it loue is kindled as a fyre.
note: Mat 5,28.
note: Gen 34,1. 2 Sam 11,2. iudeth 10,17.
As an example of a marginal cross-reference in the KJV, see (2):
(2) KJV Sir 35:12

verse: || Doe not thinke to corrupt with gifts, *for such he will not
receiue: and trust not to vnrighteous sacrifices, for he is iudge,
and with him is *no respect of persons.
note: Leuit. 22.21, 22. deut. 15.21.
note: Deut. 10.17, 2 chr. 19. 17, iob 34.19. wisd. 6.7. acts 10.34. rom, 2.11.
gal. 2.6. eph 6.9. colos. 3.25. 1. pet. 1.17.
In one instance, the Geneva includes a cross-reference to a biblical text in a

note explaining the cultural background of the verse (see also the description
of this verse and its note in connection with [37] below):
(3) Geneva Sir 50:3

verse: In his daies the places, to receiue water that were decaied, were
retored & the brae as about in meaure as the aea.
note: aWhich Salomon made, 1. Kings 7.23.
The theological implications of the extensive cross-references deserve a study

of their own, but will not be further explored in this study.
3 Notes Referring to Greek
The Geneva does not include marginal notes that refer to the Greek source
text, with one exception, at 1:1:
(4) Geneva Sir 1:1

note: That which is marked with thee two markes [ ] is red in the Latin
copies, & not in the Greeke.
25 Citations of the Geneva and KJV use the orthography and spelling of the original printing.
Versification follows that of each version.
By means of this note, the Geneva translators indicate that they are deeply con-
cerned with text critical matters and wish to indicate where their source text
is the Greek text (which has priority)26 and where it is the Latin text (which is
secondary).27
There is no comparable note in the KJV. However, the KJV translators placed
square brackets around two verses (1:7 and 17:5) to indicate that the transla-
tors did not know of any Greek manuscript containing these verses; they are
found in the Bishops Bible and the Latin.28 Furthermore, the KJV translators
produced twenty-two marginal notes that provide an alternative rendering of
the text explicitly based upon the Greek.29 Most of these notes (sixteen out
of twenty-two) provide a literal translation of the Greek source text alongside
the explicitising or interpretive translation found in the KJV text, as illustrated
in (5):30
26 It is notoriously difficult to determine precisely which texts of Ben Sira were available to
the translators. The Geneva translators of the Apocrypha had at their disposal at least
Cholins Apocrypha, Pagninuss Latin version, the Complutensian Polyglot, Leo Judas
Latin Version, Castalios Latin Version. The KJV translators had in addition Tremellius
Latin Old Testament with Apocrypha by Junius (15751579), Bezas Latin version (1556);
see Henry Barker, English Bible Versions: A Tercenary Memorial of the King James Version,
from the New York Bible and Common Prayer Book Society (Cambridge: CUP, 1911), 26566.
According to Kohlenberger, the KJV translators also had access to Robert Estiennes criti-
cal edition of the Vulgate, the 1547 Vulgate edition of Hentenius and the 1574 revision
by Aldus Montarius, the Sixtine Vulgate of 1590, Aldus complete Greek Bible edited by
Andreas Asolanus (15181519) and the Roman (Sixtine) Septuagint of 1586; see John R.
Kohlenberger, III, The Textual Sources of the King James Bible, in Translation that
Openeth the Window: Reflections on the History and Legacy of the King James Bible (ed.
David G. Burke; Biblical Scholarship in North America, 23; Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature, 2009), 4546. According to Scrivener, the KJV translation of Ben Sira
(Ecclesiasticus) in actual fact seems almost a copy of Cod. Vatican. 346 (Cod. 248
of Parsons), but they used with it the Aldine and Roman editions; see Frederick H.
Scrivener, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints and
Modern Representatives (Cambridge: CUP, 1884), 4748. On the division of the work of
translating the Apocrypha among the six KJV companies, see David Norton, A Textual
History of the King James Bible (Cambridge: CUP, 2005), 67.
27 The Geneva and the KJV also use italics to indicate words that are inferred in the transla-
tion but not present in the source text.
28 Scrivener, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), 48.
29 One anonymous reviewer suggests that the Hebrew text of Ben Sira must be taken into
account in the following discussion. However, neither the Geneva nor the KJV translators
had access to the Hebrew text, which was only rediscovered in 1896.
30 See also KJV Ben Sira 7:12,15; 11:5; 13:2; 20:21; 23:11; 26:16; 31:12 (the symbol for the note is,
however, incorrectly placed within the verse); 33:5, 20; 35:20; 36:8; 45:7; 50:5; 51:3. In a few
(5) KJV Sir 6:5

verse: Sweet language will multiply friends: and a faire speaking
tongue will increase kinde greetings.
note: Greeke, a sweet throat.
In one case, the literal translation in the note furthers the ideological stance of
the KJV translators as protecting hereditary kingship:
(6) KJV Sir 11:5

verse: Many kings haue sit downe vpon the ground, and one that was
neuer thought of, hath worne the crowne.
note: Gr. tyrants.
The Greek term refers to absolute sovereigns who are unlimited by

law or constitution; it was not applied to old hereditary sovereignties...the
term rather regards the irregular way in which power was gained, than the way
in which it was exercised.31 The concern of the KJV translators to protect the
office of the hereditary king through metatextual material has been demon-
strated in Maccabees and Lamentations (see also example [34] below).32
Another example of a literal rendering in a note is given in (7):
(7) KJv Sir 7:15

verse: Hate not laborious worke, neither husbandrie, which the most
High hath ordained.
note: Gre. created.
The note provides a literal rendering of the Greek in contrast to

the text of the verse, which provides a theologically loaded translation with
ordained. In this way, the KJV translators worked to de-emphasise a possible
Calvinistic interpretation of the text.
instances, the note does not precisely render the Greek, but it is still more literal than the
text (see 4:23; 20:14).
31 Henry G. Liddell and Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon (New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1889), 82425.
32 See 1 Macc 1:4 (discussed in Miller-Naud and Naud, The Metatexts of 1 and 2 Maccabees,
26263) and the discussion concerning the marginal notes in Lamentations (Naud and
Miller-Naud, Lamentations in the English Bible Translation Tradition of the King James
Bible (1611), 21822).
In three instances, the KJVs marginal notes are interpretive, as illustrated

in (8):33
(8) KJV Sir 26:5

verse: There bee three things that mine heart feareth: and for the fourth
I was sore afraid: the slander of a citie, the gathering together of
an vnruly multitude, and a false accusation: all these are worse
than death.
note: Gr. an euill report.
The Greek is literally translated in the text, not in the note.

An additional example of an interpretive note is given in (9):
(9) KJV Sir 21:6

verse: He that hateth to be reproued, is in the way of sinners: but hee
that feareth the Lord, will repent from his heart.
note: Gr. be converted.
The Greek verb is . The note is interpretive rather than literal and
it is in the passive voice, whereas the rendering in the text is active (follow-
ing the Greek). The theological stance of the text and the note are different as
well the verse focuses on the action of the sinner, whereas the note focuses
on divine action.
In three instances, the KJVs note is explicitising, as illustrated in (10):34
(10) KJV Sir 38:25

verse: How can he get wisdome that holdeth the plough, and that glo-
rieth in the goad: that driueth oxen, and is occupied in their
labours, and whose talke is of bullocks?
note: Greeke, of the breed of bullocks.
The Greek reads in the sons of bulls. The note is explicitising

by interpreting for the reader what the sons of bulls means; the rendering in
the text is literal.
In the six instances of interpreting or explicitising notes, it would have
been more consistent for the KJV translators to shape the notes as ones which
33 See also KJV Sir 43:5.

34 See also KJV Sir 40:12; 45:7. The distinction between explicitising and interpretive notes in
this regard is not always clear-cut.
provide alternative translations, which are introduced with the siglum || (see
the discussion in the following section), rather than as notes which reference
the Greek.
4 Notes with Alternative Translations
The most prevalent marginal notes in both the Geneva and the KVJ relate to
alternative renderings. These alternative translations of the notes can be sub-
divided into the following functional categories: (1) as providing different ren-
derings or readings of a source text;35 (2) as providing more literal translations
of the source text, (3) as providing translations that explicitise some aspect of
the source text, (4) as providing interpretive translations, or (5) as providing
translations that provide an alternative wording of the source text without a
different translation strategy. The first two categories are straightforward; the
third, fourth and fifth categories relate to identifying the translation strategies
employed by the translators.
An explicitising translation is one in which a source language term or phrase
is rendered in the target language with a more specific or expressive term than
that found in the source text.36 An interpretive translation is one in which the
translators provide a rendering of the source text that is theological or ideo-
logical in nature. While explicitising translations may also have a theological
or ideological motivation, an interpretive translation goes beyond a simple
explicitisation of the meaning implicit within the source text. In some cases,
however, translators have alternative renderings at their disposal which do not
reflect a different translation strategy, but simply utilise the resources of the
target language to render the source text in more than one way. It is impor-
tant to bear in mind, however, that it is not always possible to differentiate
these five functional categories in each instance, especially given the histori-
cal uncertainties concerning the source texts that the translators had at their
disposal.37 It is also important to mention that a single note may serve more
than one metatextual function; a note rendering an alternative source text, for
example, may also serve to explicitise or to interpret the text for ideological
reasons.
35 In the KJV, there are a few alternative notes whose relation to the text is uncertain: 7:26
(see Scrivener, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), 52); 10:21; 16:16.
36 Marlie van Rooyen and Jacobus A. Naud, A Model for the Translation of News Agency
Texts (Sapa) for Radio (OFM), Communicatio 35 (2009): 258.
37 See n. 25 above.
The Geneva and KJV differ in the extent to which they provide alternate
translations in the notes. The Geneva has a total of thirty-four alternative
notes, whereas the KJV has 171. The KJV therefore has five times the number of
alternative notes as the Geneva. This is quite a striking difference, especially in
terms of the general pattern of extensive notes in the Geneva Bible.
The distribution of the types of alternative notes in both translations is
given in Table 13.1:
TABLE 13.1 Types of Alternative Notes in the Geneva and the KJV
Types of Alternative Notes Geneva KJV

Number Percentage Number Percentage
Different reading of source text 5 14% 46 27%

Literal 10 29% 45 26%
Explicitising 15 43% 34 20%
Interpreting 5 14% 19 11%
Alternate without different 0 0% 27 16%
translation strategy
Total 35 100% 171 100%
The differences between the two versions in the ways that the notes functional
metatextually is striking. The KJV translators most frequently provide a render-
ing based upon a different reading of the source text (27%) or a rendering that
is more literal than the verse itself (26%). The Geneva translators, like the KJV
translators, favour a literal translation in the notes (29%), but they differ from
the KJV translators in their extensive use of explicitising notes (43%). The ratio
of interpreting notes in the Geneva and KJV is nearly identical at 14% and 11%,
respectively.
4.1 Literal Notes

Ten notes (29%) in the Geneva provide a literal translation of the text. Some
of these notes are based upon a different source text than that which is found
in the text:38
38 For clear cases where the note provides a literal rendering of the Greek, see also Geneva
Sir 37:30; 38:16; 42:25.

verse: Who o beleueth in *the Lord, kepeth the commandements: and
he that truteth in the Lord, hal take no hurt.
note: *Or, the Lawe.
The note provides a literal rendering of the Greek text (). The verse seems
to relate to the Latin text (Deo); although it is possible that the translators had
access to miniscule 248 which reads . However, not all literal renderings
are used to provide a translation in the note of a different source text than the
verse; some are simply more literal renderings.39
The KJV provides a literal translation of the Greek source text in 45 instances
(26% of alternative notes):40
(12) KJV Sir 6:20

verse: She is very vnpleasant to the vnlearned: he that is without ||
vnderstanding, will not remaine with her.
note: || Or, heart.
The note provides the literal translation of the Greek metaphor; the verse expli-
citises the metaphor to provide its meaning. This type of note is very similar to
the notes in the KJV that indicate the Greek source text, as exemplified by 6:5
in example (5) above (which also involves the explicitation of a metaphor in
the text and the literal rendering in the note).41 Often the KJV notes are literal
in cases where the translators have explicitised some other non-metaphorical
feature in the verse:
(13) KJV Sir 17:4

verse: And put the feare || of man vpon all flesh, and gaue him domin-
ion ouer beasts and foules.
note: || Or, of him.
39 See Geneva Sir 25:19; 37:9; 42:9; 44:23; 47:6; 49:6.

40 See also KJV Sir 1:28; 3:2; 4:5, 31; 6:24; 8:11; 10:5; 11:1; 12:10, 14; 16:4, 6; 17:4, 25; 19:26; 20:29; 22:4,
13 (twice); 23:24; 24:3, 18, 30; 26:12; 27:4; 28:15; 29:6; 30:9; 31:13; 33:9, 21; 36:14; 40:17, 27; 42:8;
48:10 (twice), 20; 49:5, 6; 50:16; 51:13, 21.
41 As Kohlenberger illustrates in detail, the KJV translators do not consistently introduce
marginal notes dealing with text-critical issues; see Kohlenberger, The Textual Sources of
the King James Bible, 5052.
In this case, the Greek text of the verse has only a pronominal reference; the
KJV translators explicitise the referent of the pronoun in the text and provide a
note to indicate a literal rendering of the text.42
In a few instances, the KJV note provides the reader with a rendering that is
close to the Geneva text:43
(14) KJV Sir 17:25

verse: Returne vnto the Lord, and forsake thy sinnes, make thy prayer
before his face, and || offend lesse.
note: || Or, lessen thy offense.
The Geneva text reads take away the offense.

In some cases, there is an important theological difference between the ren-
dering in the verse and that in the note. There are two instances of this phe-
nomenon in (15):
(15) KJV Sir 48:10

verse: Who was || ordained for reproofes in their times, to pacifie the
wrath of the Lordes iudgement before it brake foorth into fury,
and to turne the heart of the father vnto the sonne, and to ||
restore the tribes of Jacob.
note: || Or, written of.
note: || Or, establish.
The first note provides a literal rendering of the Greek written

for the explicitising rendering ordain in the text. The rendering ordain is a
bit surprising for its Calvinistic overtones, especially since the Geneva render-
ing is more neutral: was appointed. The note allows the translators to indicate
that their text is explicitising and theologically interpretive. The second note
also provides a literal rendering of the Greek () as opposed to the
explicitising rendering restore of the text. The second note also provides a
rendering closer to that in the Geneva verse set up.
Another example of how a literal note provides an alternative theological
interpretation is found in (16):
42 For modern approaches to the problem of pronominal ambiguity in this verse, Roger A.
Bullard and Howard A. Hatton, A Handbook on Sirach (UBS Translators Handbook Series;
New York: United Bible Societies, 2008), 338.
43 See also KJV Sir 22:13.
(16) KJV Sir 22:4

verse: A wise daughter shall bring an || inheritance to her husband: but
shee that liueth dishonestly, is her fathers heauinesse.
note: || Or, shal be the heire of her husband.
The note literally renders the Greek ( ) and provides

a contrastive interpretation to the rendering of the verse. The note says that
the daughter will be the heir of her husband, whereas the verse says that the
daughter will bring an inheritance to her husband.44 The Geneva verse has
is an heritage unto her husband, which could be understood literally with a
meaning similar to the KJV verse or metaphorically, providing a third interpre-
tation of the verse.
4.2 Explicitising Notes

Most (fifteen) of the alternative notes in the Geneva Bible provide an explici-
tising translation of the text, as in (17):45
(17) Geneva Sir 3:9

verse: ...that they mait haue *Gods blesing,...
note: Or, the blesing of men.
The Greek reads in order that a blessing

from him may come to you. The verse explicitises the pronoun him
as referring to God. The note explicitises the pronoun in another way, as
referring to men.46 The theological difference between the two renderings
is striking.
44 The interpretation of the text is supported by Sauer. See Georg Sauer, Jesus Sirach/Ben Sira
(ATD Apokryphen Band 1; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 165. Snaith trans-
lates A sensible daughter wins a husband (John G. Snaith, Ecclesiasticus, or The Wisdom
of Jesus Son of Sirach [Cambridge Bible Commentary; Cambridge: CUP, 1974], 107); Bullard
and Hatton translate similarly (A Handbook on Sirach, 439). The interpretive difference is
already found in the Latin rendering hereditas.
45 For instances where the Geneva note provides an explicitising translation that makes
explicit a pronominal reference, see also Geneva Sir 1:23; 23:1; 39:7. For additional explici-
tising notes, see Geneva Sir 4:9; 6:38; 7:32; 9:19; 23:1; 29:12; 37:19; 41:19; 47:23; 49:5; 51:8.
46 The reading of the note is also found in a few Greek miniscules, which might have been
available to the translators.
The third most common type of alternative translation in the KJV (34 exam-
ples, 20%) explicitises the source text.47 In many cases, the verse provides a
literal rendering and the note explicitises; note the two ways in which the
Greek is rendered in the verse and the note:
(18) KJV Sir 48:13

verse: || No word could ouercome him, & after his death his body
prophecied.
note: || Or, Nothing.
The verse provides a literal rendering, whereas the note explicitises with
nothing.
In other cases, the Greek text can be explicitised in more than one way the
KJV translators put their preferred translation in the verse and an alternative
explicitisation in the note:
(19) KJV Sir 4:14

verse: They that serue her shall minister || to the Holy one, and them
that loue her, the Lord doth loue.
note: || Or, in the sanctuary.
The Greek the holy [one] is explicitised as the Holy One in the verse
and as the sanctuary (that is, the holy place) in the note. Either explicitation
is possible; the rendering Holy One has connections to Jewish thought.48 The
example in 15:9 is similar:
(20) KJV Sir 15:9

verse: Praise is not seemly in the mouth of a sinner, for || it was not sent
him of the Lord.
note: || Or, he was not sent of, &tc.
The subject of the Greek verb may be explicitised as it (that is,

praise) as in the verse or as he (that is, a sinner) as in the note. Either
rendering is possible; by means of the metatextual rendering, the translators
provide two alternate possibilities for their readers.
47 K JV Sir 1:22 (the reading of the note might be the result of a variant source text); 3:13; 4:14;
6:30; 7:32; 8:3; 10:19; 11:10; 14:14; 15:9; 19:9; 20:1,13 (twice); 21:12, 18; 25:1; 26:7; 27:23; 30:2; 32:24;
33:16, 20; 34:2, 6; 36:24; 38:11; 39:30; 42:7; 43:19; 44:5; 47:10; 48:13; 51:20.
48 Snaith, Ecclesiasticus, 28.
Some notes provide an explicitising rendering of cultural items:
(21) KJV Sir 26:7

verse: An euil wife is a || yoke shaken to and fro: he that hath hold of her,
is as though he held a scorpion.
note: || Or, a yoke of oxen.
In some cases, the explicitising note provides a different theological interpre-

tation, as in (22):
(22) KJV Sir 14:14

verse: Defraud not they selfe of || the good day, and let not the part of a
good desire ouerpasse thee.
note: || Or, the feast day.
The verse of the KJV provides a literal rendering of , whereas the

note explicitises to the feast day. This rendering probably reflected better the
view of the church calendar promoted by the KJV translators.
In only one case is an explicitising note accompanied by a cross-reference to
a biblical text as support for the translation:
(23) KJV Sir 6:30

verse: For there is a golden ornament vpon her, and her bandes are ||
purple lace.
note: || Or, a ribband of blew silke, Numb. 15.38.
4.3 Interpretive Notes

Five notes in the Geneva provide an interpretive translation:49

verse: He that kepeth the Law of the Lord, *ruleth his owne affections
thereby....
note: Or, kepeth the undertanding thereof.
The note interprets the phrase .
49 See also Geneva Sir 2:13; 25:17 (unless the translators had access to a Greek text reading
), 46:6; 47:6.
The KJV contains notes that provide a different interpretation of the text
in 19 instances.50 These go beyond an explicitising translation to provide an
alternative interpretation:
(25) KJV Sir 25:20

verse: As the climbing vp a sandie way is to the feete of the aged, so is a
wife || full of words to a quiet man.
note: || Or, scolding.
The note is identical to the Geneva verse. It provides a negative interpretation

of the phrase full of words as referring to scolding.
In one instance, the translators use the culture of the Old Testament as a
way to interpret the text of Ben Sira:
(26) KJV Sir 33:3

verse: A man of vnderstanding trusteth in the Law, and the Law is faith-
full vnto him, || as an oracle.
note: || Or, as the asking of Vrim.
The translators render with oracle in the text. In the note they use the
asking of urim, an allusion to the use of to render
in 1 Sam 28:6.
See also the rendering of this Greek word in Sir 45:10 (example [42] below).
4.4 Alternative without Translation Strategy

Thus far we have examined notes which provide a rendering based upon a dif-
ferent translation strategy than that which was used in translating the verse,
namely, a literal translation strategy, an explicitising strategy or an interpre-
tive strategy. In some cases, however, a note provides an alternative rendering
which does not seem to be based on a different translation strategy. In other
words, the same translation strategy is used both in the verse and in the note,
but the note provides an alternative way to render the source text.
The Geneva translators do not provide such alternative notes without a
different translation strategy; their notes always reflect a different translation
strategy from that used in the verse. However, the KJV translators provide alter-
native notes without a different translation strategy in twenty-seven cases.51
50
K JV Sir 12:17; 15:9, 10; 19:18; 25:20; 26:16, 22; 30:25; 31:19; 33:3; 35:12; 38:30; 40:4; 42:5, 8; 48:3, 5,
6; 49:2.
51
K JV Sir 2:2; 3:28; 4:26; 7:14; 11:19, 22; 14:24; 17:26; 19:14, 16, 17, 25; 20:26; 21:12; 26:17; 27:1; 29:14;
30:14, 19, 22; 33:12; 36:23; 38:14; 39:11; 41:2; 42:3, 14.
The notes do not seem to relate to a different translation strategy, a different

source text or to a difference in meaning motivated by theological or ideologi-
cal concerns:
(27) KJv Sir 3:28

verse: || In the punishment of the proud there is no remedie: for the
plant of wickednesse hath taken roote in him.
note: || Or, the proud man is not healed by his punishment.
A similar example occurs in (28):
(28) KJV Sir 29:14

verse: An honest man is suretie for his neighbour: but hee that is impu-
dent, will || forsake him.
note: || Or, faile.
It is difficult to see a significant difference in meaning or ideology in these

examples.
4.5 Different Reading of Source Text

Both the Geneva and the KJV provide alternative translations in notes that
are based upon alternative readings of the source text. An example from the
Geneva is given in (29):52

verse: And giue ye a were mel as *incene, and bring forthe flowres as
the lilie: giue a mel and ing a ong of praie: blee the Lord in all
his workes.
note: *Or, Libanus
The verse translates the Greek as incense, which may relate directly to
the Latin libanus frankincense since refers first to the frankincense-
tree as producing incense.53 The note reads Libanus (that is, the proper
name Lebanon), which is an alternative translation of the Greek term.54
52 See also Geneva Sir 49:6 (twice), 50:1, 26.

53 L SJ, 1047.
54 A similar example occurs in Geneva Sir 50:26, where the note provides the Hebrew ren-
dering Sischem (Shechem) for the name Sicinus, which reflects the Greek and/
or Latin Sicimis.
An example from the KJV is given in (30):
(30) KJV Sir 37:30

verse: For || excesse of meates, bringeth sicknesse, and surfetting will
turne into choler.
note: || Or, varitie of meates.
The Greek in multitude of meats has been interpreted

as an excess of meats in the verse but as a variety of meats in the note. Both
interpretations reflect the source text.
In a number of cases, the note reflects a completely different source text
from that found in the text of the verse.
In the KJV, a different source text is represented in the note of (31):55
(31) KJV Sir 25:9

verse: Well is him that hath found || prudence, and he that speaketh in
the eares of him that will hear.
note: || Or, a friend.
The KJV verse is identical to the Geneva text; both follow the Greek source
text . The note, however, renders the Latin amicum; this rendering also
reflects the Coverdale Bible and the Bishops Bible.56 Additional examples in
which the KJV note reflects a Latin source text in contrast to a Greek source in
the verse, see 13:8, 11; 19:12; 25:9; 47:3; 49:9. In most cases, the reading in the note
is found in an earlier English translation, especially the Coverdale Bible or the
Bishops Bible.57
In the following example, the note uses a different Greek text:
(32) KJV Sir 25:17

verse: The wickednesse of a woman changeth her face, and darkeneth
her countenance like || sackecloth.
note: || Or, like a Beare.
The rendering sackcloth in the verse reflects the Greek of the Aldine
Septuagint and the Roman (Sixtine) Septuagint. The rendering of bear in
55 K JV Sir 8:14; 9:4; 11:9; 16:27; 19:8; 23:4; 24:14; 25:11; 26:18; 35:18; 36:3; 37:5, 8, 30; 42:3 (twice);
43:2, 22; 48:11.
56 Scrivener, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), 52.
57 See ibid., 523 for a detailed analysis of the manuscripts involved in each rendering.
the note reflects the Greek as found in the Greek miniscule 248 and the
Complutensian Polyglot.58 The Latin is expansive in combining both readings:
tamquam ursus et quasi saccum ostendit as a bear and shows it like sackcloth.
It is interesting that this is one of the few verses for which both the KJV and the
Geneva provide a note and they do so in precisely the same way:
(33) Geneva Sir 25:19 (= KJV 25:17)

verse: The wickednes of a woman changeth her face, and maketh her
countenance blacke as *a acke.
note: Or, a beare
Additional examples in which the KJV note uses a different Greek source
text than that of the verse occur in 1:13; 14:1; 20:19; 22:9, 17; 23:22, 23; 24:11, 14;
25:17; 30:2; 34:18; 36:14, 15, 17; 37:20, 26; 38:2, 22; 39:13; 42:18; 44:12; 47:11; 48:11.
As Scrivener has demonstrated, the impetus for these notes is often not a
preference for a different source text, but rather a concern to incorporate the
readings of previous English translations into the KJV translation, especially
the Coverdale Bible and the Bishops Bible.59 In some cases, however, the
ideology of the translators may sway their decision concerning which Greek
source text to use. As previously demonstrated with respect to the marginal
notes in Lamentations and Maccabees, the Geneva translators are negative to
the notion of kingship whereas the KJV translators are positive.60 In 47:11, the
Geneva and the KJV choose different source texts based upon their ideology
concerning the monarchy:
(34a) Geneva Sir 47:11

verse: The Lord toke away his innes, and exalted his horne for euer:
he gaue him ye couenant of the kingdome, and the throne of
glorie in Irael.
58 Ibid., 52.
59 Ibid., 5253; see Scriveners discussion for a detailed account of the various Greek manu-
scripts represented by both the renderings in the text and those in the notes.
60 See Naud and Miller-Naud, Lamentations in the English Bible Translation Tradition of
the King James Bible (1611), 20826 and Miller-Naud and Naud, The Metatexts of 1 and
2 Maccabees, 23770.
(34b) KJV Sir 47:11

verse: The Lord tooke away his sinnes, and exalted his horne for euer:
he gaue him a couenant of kings, and a throne ||61 of glory in
Israel.
note: || Or, of a kingdome.
The reading (kingdom) is found in manuscript 248 and the

Complutensian Polyglot; it is also the reading of the Geneva Bible as well as
the Coverdale Bible and the Bishops Bible. The reading (kings) is
found in the Aldine and Roman (Sixtine) editions of the Septuagint and is cho-
sen for the verse by the KJV translators. They relegated the reading
(kingdom), which had strong support from previous English translations, to
the note. By so doing, the KJV translators subtly promoted the notion of the
kingship as a divine gift.
5 Notes with Cultural Explanations
The Geneva Bible differs from the KJV in having a few notes that provide cul-
tural explanations of the text. In one instance, the siglum is used to indicate
the word to be explained in the note:

verse: What felowhip hathe hyena with a dogge? and what peace is
betwene the riche and the poore?
note: Which is a wilde beat that counterfaiteth the voyce of men, and
o entieth them out of their houes and deuoureth them.
In two places, a small siglum which looks like a superscript a precedes the word
to be explained:

verse: If he walk not in thine obedience, [he hal confound thee in the
fight of thine enemies.] Cut her of then from thy fleh: aGiue her,
and forake her.
note: aTo wit, the bill of diuorcement.
61 The placement of the siglum is incorrect; it should be before kings.


verse: In his daies the places, to receiue water that were decaied, were
retored & the brae as about in meaure as the aea.
note: aWhich Salomon made, 1. Kings 7.23.
6 Notes as Subheads
The Geneva Bible was unique for its time in providing subheads at the begin-
ning of each chapter, which provided metatextual assistance for the reader in
understanding the content and purpose of the chapter and in interpreting the
chapter in accordance with the translators perspective. The KJV continued the
metatextual practice of subheads at the beginning of each chapter, but used far
more detailed subheads.62 It is therefore striking that some marginal notes are
also subheads, intended to assist the reader in both finding particular topics
within the text and also in interpreting the text according to the perspective of
the translators. Furthermore there is some redundancy between the headings
at the beginning of each chapter and the marginal notes which are subheads.
The overlap between the marginal notes and the subheads can probably best
be explained by the fact that in earlier Bible translations, marginal notations
served as subheads. In the Lutherbibel von 1545, for example, titles of pericopes
formed part of the marginal notes (some of them in capital letters) in order to
help readers find a specific text.63 The Geneva, then, used both the tradition of
marginal notations as subheads and added headings at the beginning of each
chapter, resulting in an overlap of metatextual function between the two types
of metatextual materials.
In the Geneva Bible, the marginal notes as subheads are indicated with
the sigulum ||, in both the verse and the marginal note. In contrast with the
headings that are found at the beginning of each chapter, the marginal head-
ings seem to have been very inconsistently assigned, as evident in the fact
that the first subhead only appears more than half-way through the book, at
28:2. In addition, the marginal subheads exhibit less variety than the chapter
62 The differences exhibited in the headings between the two versions is explored in
Cynthia L. Miller-Naud and Jacobus A. Naud, Interpretation and Ideology in the
Metatexts of Ben Sira: The Headings of the Geneva Bible (1560) and the King James
Version (1611), in Construction, Coherence and Connotation in the Septuagint, Apocryphal
and Cognate Literature (ed. P.J. Jordaan and N.P.L. Allen; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,
forthcoming).
63 Lutherbibel 1545 Facsimile (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983).
headings. The most prevalent type involves a noun or noun phrase indi-
cating the topic of the verse or section, for example, The tongue (28:13),
Couetouness (31:1), The feare of the God (33:1).64 Especially prevalent are
the names of the individuals treated in chs. 4450.65 The redundance of the
personal names in the marginal notes and the chapter headings is especially
striking as illustrated in (38ab):
(38a) Geneva Sir 45 chapter headings

The praie of Moyes, Aaron, and Phinees.
(38b) Geneva Sir 45 marginal headings as subheads

at v. 1: || Moyes
at v. 6: || Aaron
at v. 23: || Phinees
Another kind of noun phrase that is attested in the marginal notes as well as in
the chapter headings is The praise of, as illustrated in The praie of health
(30:14).66
The second most common syntactic structure of the marginal headings
also mirrors that of the chapter headings, namely the use of the prepositional
phrase beginning with of as in Of friendhip (37:1):67
Rarely, the marginal subheadings consist of sentences with a modal verbal
of obligation (e.g., ought, ought not, must), as in (39):68
(39) Geneva Sir 38:11 marginal subhead

|| God betoweth firt his benefites, and we mut render a porcion
thereof to uche ves as he appointeth.
It is important to point out that these marginal subheads involve a theological

interpretation of the content of the text and its application to the readers of
the Geneva Bible.
64 See also Geneva Sir 31:12, 23; 32:1; 34:1, 14, 20; 35:1; 36:11; 40:1, 12; 41:13; 43:1.
65 See the marginal subheads at Geneva Sir 44:16, 17, 19, 23; 45:1, 6, 23; 46:1, 11, 13; 47:1, 2, 13, 23
(two notes); 48:1, 8, 12, 17; 49:1, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 (three notes); 50:1.
66 See also Geneva Sir 36:24.
67 See also Geneva Sir 29:1, 15; 37:7, 28; 38:1, 16; 39:1; 41:1, 16. The prepositional phrase against
is attested once (36:2).
68 See also Geneva Sir 28:2; 42:1. One subheading consisting of a prepositional phrase also
includes should (see 37:7).
In four instances, the note incorrectly has the siglum of a marginal subhead,
when it should have an asterisk to indicate an explanation of the text rather
than a summary of its contents. In (40), the note serves to explicitise the ren-
dering of the text:

verse: Who wil correct my thooght, and put the doctrine of widome in
mine heart, that they may not pare me in mine ignorace, nether
let ||their fautes pae?
note: ||That is of the tongue and lippes.
In (41), the note provides the cultural background of the verse, but does not
seem to function as a subheading of the section:

verse: Set him to worke, for that belongeth vnto him: if he be not obedi-
ent, || put on more heauie fetters.
note: || How elaues were ordered in olde time.
In (42), the note explicitises with respect to the cultural world of the Old
Testament:
(42) Geneva Sir 45:1069

verse: And with an holie garment, with golde alo, and blewe ilke,
and purple, & diuers kindes of workes, and with a bretlappe of
iudgement, & with the || ignes of truet,
note: || Urim and Thummim.
In (43), the note explicitises to indicate what specifically it is that the kings
should recompense:

verse: Which didet anoint Kings that they might || recompene, and
Prophetes to be thy ucceours:
note: || The wickednes of Achab and Iezabel.
For consistency, these four examples of interpretive or explicitising notes

should not have been introduced with the siglum used for marginal subheads.
69 See also the discussion on KJV Sir 33:3 in example (26) above.
The KJV Bible has far fewer marginal notes as subheads (only five) than does
the Geneva Bible (sixty-two). Furthermore, the KJV does not use any special
siglum but only places the marginal subhead in the text in italics.
Two of the marginal subheads take the form of the praise of, namely, The
praise of wisedome (24:1) and The praise of the fathers (44:1). Three of the
marginal subheads take the form of a prepositional phrase beginning with
of Of children (30:1), Of servants (33:24) and Of dreames (34:1). There
are none of the other kinds of subheads found in the chapter headings of
the KJV.
7 Notes on Identical Verses
In only twelve verses do the Geneva and KJV translators provide marginal
notes on the same verses. It is instructive, therefore, to see to what extent these
twelve notes are identical in the two versions.
In only four verses are the notes and the relevant portions of the text to
which they refer identical or nearly identical, as illustrated in (44ab):70

verse: Some man wil be wie in wordes, and is hated, yea, he is
detitute of all *foode,
note: *Or, widome.
(44b) KJV Sir 37:20

verse: There is one that sheweth wisedome in words, and is hated: he
shall be destitute of all || foode.
note: || Or, wisedome.
In this example, the verse and the note render different Greek source texts. The
verse renders (food) as found in the Aldine and Roman (Sixtine) edi-
tions of the Septuagint, whereas the note renders (wisdom) as found
in manuscript 248 and the Complutensian Polyglot. The rendering of the verse
is also found in the Coverdale Bible and the Bishops Bible.71
In one verse, the Geneva and KJV have identical readings, but the KJV trans-
lators put the Geneva reading in the note and the Geneva note in their text:
70 See also Geneva/KJV 7:32; Geneva 25:19 (cited above in [33]) = KJV 25:17; 49:6.
71 See the discussion in Scrivener, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), 52.

verse: Beware of the couneler, and be aduied afore *whereto thou
wilt ve him: for he wil counel for him elf, let he cat the lot
vpon thee,
note: *Or, what nede he hast
(45b) KJV Sir 37:8

verse: Beware of a counseller, and know before || what neede he
hath (for he will counsell for himselfe) lest hee cast the lot
vpon thee.
note: || Or, what vse there is of him.
In three verses, the Geneva and KJV translators provided notes to different
parts of the verse; in other words, they do not provide a metatextual comment
on the same portion of text (32:24; 38:11; 48:11). In three verses, the KJV has a
note commenting on the verse, whereas the Genevas marginal note is a sub-
head (31:12; 36:24; 40:12). In one case, both the Geneva and the KJV have a simi-
lar marginal subhead (34:1).
These relatively minor cases of overlap suggest that although the KJV trans-
lators constantly consulted the Geneva translation, both the verses and the
notes, they followed their own judgment concerning the placing of notes and
their content.
8 Conclusions
Although the Geneva Bible is famous for its extensive marginal notes, in
the Apocrypha, the notes are both less plentiful and less overtly theological.
Nonetheless, the notes of the Geneva Bible provide cross-references to other
biblical texts, provide alternative translations of texts (sometimes with theo-
logical and ideological overtones), explain culturally unfamiliar items, and
function as subheads to draw the readers attention to salient content within
the text.
The far more extensive marginal notes of the KJV provide a greater degree
of metatextual control over theological and ideological readings of the text,
often in conversation with the text and notes of the Geneva Bible. In subtle
ways, the translators of the KJV sought to both accommodate the viewpoints
of the Geneva Bible, to provide literal interpretations where the Geneva was
explicitising or interpretive, and to draw attention to the Greek source text as
the basis of their translation. The plentiful marginal notes thus provided the
KJV translators with a way to incorporate the renderings of the Geneva within
the KJV text and to distinguish their own translation from its powerful and
influential predecessor.
Appendix A
TABLE 13.2 Marginal Notes of the Geneva Bible (1560)
Ref Geneva verse Marginal note
1:1 That which is marked with thee

two markes [ ] is red in the Latin
copies, & not in the Greeke.
1:23 *She raineth downe knowledge Or, widome.
2:13 Wo vnto them, that haue a *feareful Or, double
heart....
3:9 ...that they mait haue *Gods Or, the blesing of men.
blesing,...
4:9 Deliuer him that uffreth wrong, from Or, to defende him.
the hand of the oppreour, & be not
faint hearted *when thou iudget.
6:38 Let thy minde be vpon the ordinances of Or, earnetly
the Lord, and be *continually occupied
in his commandments....
7:32 Stretche thine hand vnto the poore that Or, liberalitie
they *blesing,, [and reconciliacion] may
be accomplihed.
9:19 In *the hands of the craftemen hal the Or, the workeman is praied
workes be commended, and the wie according to the worke
prince of the people by his worde,
[& the worde by the widome of the
Elders.]
13:19 What felowhip hathe hyena with a Which is a wilde beat that
dogge? and what peace is betwene the counterfaiteth the voyce of men,
riche and the poore? and o entieth them out of their
houes and deuoureth them.
21:11 He that kepeth the Law of the Lord, Or, kepeth the undertanding
*ruleth his owne affections thereby.... thereof.
TABLE 13.2 Marginal Notes of the Geneva Bible (1560) (cont.)
23:1 O Lord, father & gouernour of all my Or, my lippes.

whole life, leaue me not to their counel,
and let me not fall by *them.
23:2 Who wil correct my thoooght, and put || That is of the tongue and
the doctrine of widome in mine heart, lippes.
that they may not pare me in mine
ignorace, nether let || their fautes pae?
23:13 Ve not they mouth to *ignorant rahnes: Or, inordinate wearing.
for therein is the occaion of inne.
24:16 I am exalted like a palme tre *about the Or, in Cades
bankes, and as a roe plante in Iericho,
as a faire olive tre in a pleaant field, and
am exalted as a plane tre by the water.
25:17 There is not a more wicked head then Or, woman.
the head of the erpent, and there is no
wrath aboue the wrath of an *enemie.
25:19 The wickednes of a woman changeth Or, a beare
her face, and maketh her countenance
blacke as *a acke.
25:28 If he walk not in thine obedience, [he aTo wit, the bill of diuorcement.
hal confound thee in the fight of thine
enemies.] Cut her of then from thy fleh:
aGiue her, and forake her.
28:2 || Forgiue thy neighbour the hurt that he || Man oght not to take
hathe done to thee, o hal thy innes be vengeance.
forgiuen thee alo, when thou praiet.
28:13 || *Abhorre the clanderer and double || The tongue
tongued: for uche haue detroyed many Chap. 21,30.
that were at peace.
29:1 He that wil hew mercie, || lendeth || Of weldoing.
to his neighbour: and he that hathe
power ouer him elf, kepeth the
commandments.
29:12 *Lay up thine almes in thy ecret *Or giue thine almes ecretly.
chambers, & it hal kepe thee from all
affliction.
29:15 An honet man is || uretie for his || Of uretiehippe.

neighbour: but he that is impudent,
foraketh him.
30:14 || Better is the poore, being whole, and || The praie of health.
trong, then a riche man that is afflicted
in his bodie.
31:1 Waking || after cihes pineth away the || Couetouness.
bodie, and the care thereof driueth away
lepe.
31:12 If thou it at a cotlie table, || open not || Temperancie.
thy mouth wide vpon it, & ay not,
Beholde muche meat.
31:23 Who o is || liberal in his meat, men hal || Liberalitie.
blee him: and the tetimonie of his
honetie hal be beleued.
32:1 If thou be made the mater of the feat, || Humblenes.
|| lift not thy elf vp, but be among them,
as one of the ret: take diligent care for
them, and o it downe.
32:24 Who o beleueth in *the Lord, kepeth *Or, the Lawe.
the commandements: and he that
truteth in the Lord, hal take no hurt.
33:1 There hal no euil come vnto him that || The feare of the God.
|| feareth the Lord: but when he is in
temtation, he wil deliuer im againe.
33:27 Set him to worke, for that belongeth || How elaues were ordered in
vnto him: if he be not obedient, || put olde time.
on more heauie fetters.
34:1 The hope of a foolih man is vaine & || Dreames
fale, || & dreames make fooles to haue
wings.
34:14 Who o || feareth the Lord, feareth no || The feare of the Lord.
man, nether is afraide: for he is in hope.
34:20 The mote High doeth not alowe the || The offrings of the wicked &
|| offrings of the wicked, neither is he their prayer
pacified for sinne by the multitude of
acrifice.
35:1 Whoo kepeth the Law, bringeth || True acrifices.

offrings ynough: he that holdeth fat the
commandements, || offreth an offring of
aluacion.
36:2 And end thy feare || among the nacions, || Againt the wicked.
which eke not after thee, ]that they
may know that there is no God but thou,
and that they may hewe thy wonderous
workes.]
36:11 || Gather all the tribes of Iacob together, || A prayer for the godlie.
[that they may knowe that there is none
other God but onely thoug, and that thei
may hew thy wonderous workes,] and
inherit thou them as from the beginning.
36:24 He that hathe || gotten a [vertuous] || The praie of a good woman.
woman, hathe begone to get a
poesion: he is an helpe like vnto him
elf, and a piller to ret vpon.
37:1 Everie friend aith, || I am a friend vnto || Of friendhip.
him alo: but there is ome friend, which
is onely a friend in name.
37:7 Seke || no counel at him of whome || Of whome we hulde take
thou art upected, and dicloe not thy counel.
counel vnto uche as hate thee.
37:9 Beware of the couneler, and be aduied *Or, what nede he hast
afore *whereto thou wilt ve him: for he
wil counel for him elf, let he cat the
lot vpon thee,
37:19 Some man wil be wie in wordes, and is *Or, widome.
hated, yea, he is detitute of all *foode,
37:28 Be not || griedie in al delites, and be not || Of temperancie.
to hatie vpon all meates.
37:30 By urfet haue manie perihed: but he Or, takest hede.
taht *dieteth him elf, prolongeth his
life.
38:1 Honor the || phyicion with that || Of phyicions & phiieke.

honor that is due vnto him, becaue of
necesitie: for the Lord hathe created
him.
38:11 Offer were incene, and fine floure for a || God betoweth firt his
remembrance: make the offring fat, for benefites, and we mut render a
thou art not the || firt giuer. porcion thereof to uche ves as
he appointeth.
38:16 My onne, powre forthe teares ouer the || Of mourning
dead, || and beginne to mourne, as if
thou hadet uffred great harme thy elf,
& then couer his bodie according to *his
appointment, and neglect not his buryal.
*Or, the cuteme.
39:1 He onelie that applieth his minde to the || Of true widome.
Law of the mote High, and is occupied
in the meditacion thereof, eketh out the
||widome of all the ancient, & exercieth
him elf in the prophecies.
39:7 *He hal direct his counel, & knowledge: Or, the Lord.
o hal he meditate in his ecrets.
39:14 And giue ye a were mel as *incene, *Or, Libanus
and bring forthe flowres as the lilie: giue
a mel and ing a ong of praie: blee the
Lord in all his workes.
40:1 Great || trauail is created for all men, and || The mieries of mans life.
an heauie yoke vpon the onnes of Adam
from the day that they go out of their
mothers wombe, til the day that thei
returne to the mother of all things.
40:12 All bribes and vnrighteounes hal be || Faithfulnes.
put awaye: but || faithfulness hal endure
for euer.
41:1 O || Death, how bitter is the || Of death.
remembrance of thee to a man that
liueth at ret in his poesions, vnto the
man that hathe nothing to vexe him,

and that hathe properitie in all things:
year, vnto him that yet is able to receiue
meat!
41:13 A good life hateh the dayes nombred: || A good name.
but || a good name endureth euer.
41:16 Therefore beare reuerence vnto my || Of hamefatnes.
wordes: for it is not good in all things
to be || ahamed: nether are all things
alowed as faithful in all men.
41:19 And of theft before the place where *Or, table.
thou dwellet, & before the trueth of
God & his couenant, and to leane with
thine elbowes vpon the *bread, or to be
reproued for giuing or taking.
42:1 Of thee things be not thou || ahamed, || In what things we oght not to
nether haue regare to offend for anie be ashamed.
perone,
42:9 The daughter *maketh the father to *Or, is a ecret watche to the
watche ecretly, and the carefulnes that father.
he hathe for her, taketh away his lepe
in the youth, let he hulde pae the
floure of her age: and when he hateh an
houband, let he hulde be hated:
42:25 The one *commendeth the goodnes of Or, tabliheth.
the other, & who can be atified with
beholding Gods glorie?
43:1 The high ornament || the cleare || The wonderful workes of God.
firmament, the beautie of the heauen o
glorious to beholde,
44:16 || Enoch pleaed the Lord God: therefore || Enoch.
wa she tranlated for an example of
repentance to the generacions.
44:17 || Noe was founde perfite, and in || Noe.
the time of wrath he had a rewarde:
therefore was he left as a remnant vnto
the earth, when the flood came.
44:19 || Abraham was a great father of manie || Abraham.

people: in glorie was there none like
vnto him.
44:23 And caued it to ret vpon the head of || || Iacob.
Iacob, and *made him elf knowen by *Or, knewe him.
his blesings, and gaue him an heritage
and deuided his porcions, and parted
them among the twelve tribes.
45:1 And || Moyes, the beloued of god || Moyes.
& men, broght he forthe, whoe
remembrance is bleed.
45:6 He exalted || Aaron an holie man like || Aaron.
vnto him, euen his brother of the tribe
of Leui.
45:10 And with an holie garment, with golde || Urim and Thummim.
alo, and blewe ilke, and purple, &
diuers kindes of workes, and with a
bretlappe of iudgement, & with the ||
ignes of truet,
45:23 The third in glorie is || Phinees the onne || Phinees.
of Eleazar, becaue he had zeale in the
feare of the Lord, & tode vp with good
courage of heart, when the people were
turned backe, and made reconciliation
for Irael.
46:1 Ieus || the onne of Naue was valiant || Ioue.
in the warres, & was the ucceor of
Moyes in prophecies, who according
vnto his name, was a great auiour of the
elect of God, to take vengeance of the
enemies that roe vp againt them, and
to et Irael in their inheritance.
46:6 He ruhed in vpon the nacions in battel, *Or, that the Lord fauored his
& in the going downe of Bethoron he battel.
detroied the adueraries, that they
might knowe his weapons, and that he
foght *in the fight of the Lord: for he
*followed the Almightie. *Or, purued the mightie

men.
46:11 Concerning the || Iudges, euerie one by || Iudges.
name, whoe heart went not a whoring,
nor departed from the Lord, their
memorie be bleed.
46:13 || Samuel the Prophet of the Lord, || Samuel.
beloued of his Lord, ordeined Kings, and
anointed the princes ouer his people.
47:1 After him roe vp || Nathan to prophecie || Nathan.
in the time of David.
47:2 For as the fat is taken away from the || Dauid.
peace offering, o was || Dauid choen
out of the children of Irael.
47:6 So *he gaue him the praie of ten *Or, the people.
thouand and honored him with *great *Or, with bleings of the
praies, and gaue him a crowne of glorie. Lord.
47:13 || Salomon reigned in a peaceable time, || Salomon.
and was glorious: for God made all quiet
rounde about, that he might buyld an
houe in his Name, and prepare the
Sanctuarie for euer.
47:23 Thus reted Salomon with his fathers, & || Roboam.
of his ede he left behind him || Roboam, *Or a mote euident foole.
euen *the foolihnes of the people, || Ieroboam.
and one that had no vnderstanding,
who turned away the people thorow
his counel, & || Ieroboam the onne of
Nabat, which caued Irael to inne, &
hewed Ephraim the way of inne.
48:1 Then tode vp || Elias the Prophete as a || Elias.
fyre, and his worde burnt like a lampe.
48:8 Which didet anoint Kings that they || The wickednes of Achab and
might || recompene, and Prophetes to Iezabel.
be thy ucceours:
48:11 Bleed were they that aw thee, & lept aThat is, they that are uche.
in loue: for awe hal liue.
48:12 When Elias was couered with the || Elieus.
torme, || Elieus was filled with his pirit:
while he liued, he was not moued for
any prince, nether colde any bring him
into ubiection.
48:17 || Ezekias made his citie trong, & || Ezekias.
conueied water into the middes thereof:
he digged thorow the rocke with yron,
and made fountaines for waters.
49:1 The remembrance of || Iuias is like the || Ioias.
compoition of the perfume that is made
by the arte of the apothecarie: it is wete
as honie in all mouthes, and as muicke
at a banket of wine.
49:5 Therefore he gaue their *horne vnto *Or, power.
other, and their honor to a trange
nacion.
49:6 He burnt the elect citie of the *Or, hand.
Sanctuarie, and detroied the tretes || Ieremias.
thereof according to the *prophecie of
|| Ieremias.
49:8 || Ezechiel awe the glorious viion, || Ezechiel.

which was hewed him vpon the charet
of the Cherubims.
49:11 How hal we praie || Zerobabel, which || Zerobabel.
was a ring on the right hand!
49:12 So was || Ieus alo the onne of Ioedec: || Ieus.
thee men in their time buylded th
houe, and et vp the Sanctuarie of the
Lord againe, which was prepared for an
euerlating worhip.
49:13 And among the elect was || Neemias || Neemias.

whoe renoume is great, which et vp for
vs the walles that were fallen, and et vp
the gates and the barres, and laied the
fundacions of our houes.
49:14 But vpon the earth was no mean created || Enoch.
like || Enoch: for he was taken vp from
the earth.
49:15 Nether was there a man like vnto || || Ioseph.
Ioseph the gouernour of his brethren, &
the vpholder of his people, whoe bones
were kept.
49:16 || Sem and || Seth were in great honour || Sem.
among men: and o was || Adam about || Seth.
euerie liuing thing in the creacion. || Adam.
50:1 || Simon the onne of Onias the hie || Simon
Priet, which in his life et vp the houe
againe, and in his dayes etablihed the
*Temple. Or, people.
50:3 In his daies the places, to receiue water aWhich Salomon made, 1. Kings
that were decaied, were retored & the 7.23.
brae as about in meaure as the aea.
50:26 They that it vpon the mountaine of *Or, Sischem.
Samaria, the Philitims, and the foolih
people that dwell in *Sicinus.
51:8 Then thoght I vpon thy mercie, o Lord, *Or, nacions.
and vpon thine actes of olde, how thou
deliuereth uche as waite for thee, and
auet them out of the hands of the
*enemies.
Appendix B
TABLE 13.3 Marginal Notes of the KJV (1611)
Ref KJV verse Marginal note
1:13 Who so feareth the Lord, it shall goe well || Or, shall be blessed.
with him at the last, & he || shall finde
fauour in the day of this death.
1:22 A furious man cannot || be justified, || Or, escape punishment.
for the sway of his fury shalbe his
destruction.
1:28 || Distrust not the feare of the Lord when || Or, be not idobedient to.
thou art poore: and come not vnto him
with a double heart.
2:2 Set thy heart aright, and constantly || Or, haste not.
endure, and || make not haste in time of
trouble.
3:2 For the Lord hath given the father honour || Or, iudgement.
ouer the children, and hath confirmed
the || authoritie of the mother ouer the
sonnes.
3:13 And if his vnderstanding faile, haue || Or, in all thine habilitie.
patience with him, and despise him not,
when thou art || in thy ful strength.
3:28 || In the punishment of the proud there is || Or, the proud man is not
no remedie: for the plant of wickednesse healed by his punishment.
hath taken roote in him.
4:5 Turne not away thine eye from || the || Or, him that asketh.
needy, and giue him none occasion to
curse thee.
4:14 They that serue her shall minister || to the || Or, in the sanctuary.
Holy one, and them that oue her, the Lord
doth loue.
4:23 And refraine not to speak, when there is Greeke, in time of sauing.
occasion to doe good, and hide not they
wisedome in her beautie.
TABLE 13.3 Marginal Notes of the KJV (1611) (cont.)
4:26 Bee not ashamed to confesse thy sinnes, || Or, and striue not against
|| and force not the course of the riuer. the streame.
4:31 Let not thine hand bee stretched out to || Or, giue.
receiue, and shut when thou shouldest
|| repay.
6:5 Sweet language will multiply friends: Greeke, a sweet throat.
and a faire speaking tongue will increase
kinde greetings.
6:20 She is very vnpleasant to the vnlearned: || Or, heart.
he that is without || vnderstanding, will
not remaine with her.
6:24 And put they feet into her fetters, and thy || Or, coller.
necke into her || chaine.
6:30 For there is a golden ornament vpon her, || Or, a ribband of blew
and her bandes are || purple lace. silke, Numb. 15.38.
7:12 Despise not a lie against they brother: Gre. plough not.
neither doe the like to thy friend.
7:14 Vse not many words in a multitude of || Or, vaine repetition.
Elders, and make not || much babbling
when thou prayest.
7:15 Hate not laborious worke, neither Gre. created.
husbandrie, which the most High hath
ordained.
7:26 Hast thou a wife after thy minde? forsake || Or, hateful.
her not, but giue not thy selfe ouer to a ||
light woman.
7:32 And stretch out thine hand vnto the || Or, thy liberality.
poore, that they || blessing may be
perfected.
8:3 Striue not with a man that is || full of || Or, of an evil tongue.
tongue, and heape not wood vpon his fire.
8:11 Rise not vp (in anger) at the presence of || Or, for thy mouth.
an iniurious person, least he lie in waite
to || entrap thee in thy words.a
a The siglum is incorrectly placed; it should precede in thy words; see Scrivener, The
Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), 200.
8:14 Goe not to law with a judge, for they will || Or, opinion.
judge for him according to his || honour.
9:4 Vse not much the companie of a woman || Or, playeth upon
that || is a singer, least thou be taken with instruments.
her attempts.
10:5 In the hand of God is the prosperities of || Or, face.
man: and vpon the || person of the scribe
shall he lay his honour.
10:19 They that feare the Lord are a sure seed, || Or, vnstable generation.
and tey that loue him, an honourable
plant: they that regard not the Law, are a
dishonourable seed, they that transgresse
the commandments, are a || deceiuable
seed.
10:21 The feare of the Lord goeth before || the || Or, principalitie.
obtayning of authoritie: but roughnesse
and pride, is the loosing thereof.b
11:1 Wisedome lifteh vp the head || of him || Or, of the lowly.
that is of low degree, and maketh him to
sit among great-men.
11:5 Many kings haue sit downe vpon the Gr. tyrants.
ground, and one that was neuer thought
of, hath worne the crowne.
11:9 Striue not in a matter that concerneth || Or, in the iudgement of
thee not: and sit not || in iudgement with sinners.
sinners.
11:10 My sonne, meddle not with many matters: || Or, escape hurt.
for if thou meddle much, thou shalt not
be innocent: and if thou follow after, thou
shalt not obtaine, neither shalt thou ||
escape by flying.
11:19 Whereas he sayeth, I haue found rest, and || Or, passe.
now will eate continually of my goods,
and yet hee knoweth not what time shall
|| come vpon him, and that hee must
leaue those things to others, and die.
b The siglum is incorrectly placed; it should precede authority; see ibid., 200.
11:22 The blessing of the Lord is || in the reward || Or, for a reward.
of the godly, and suddenly he maketh his
blesing to flourish.
12:10 Neuer trust thine enemie: for like as || || Or, brasse.
yron rusteth, so is his wickednesse.
12:14 So one that goeth to a sinner, and is || || Or, mingled.
defiled with him in his sinnes, who will
pitie?
12:17 If aduersitie come vpon thee, thou shalt || Or, supplant.
find him there first, & though he pretend
to helpe thee, yet shall he || vndermine
thee.
13:2 Burthen not they selfe aboue thy power, Gre. this shal smite
while thou liuest, and haue no fellowship against, it and be broken.
with one that is mightier, and richer than
thy selfe. For how agree the kettle and
the earthen pot together? for if the one
be smitten against the other, it shall be
broken.
13:8 Beware that thou bee not deceiued, and || Or, by thy simplicitie.
brought downe || in thy iolitie.
13:11 || Affect not to be made equall vnto him || Or, forbeare not.
in talke, || and beleeue not his many || Or, but.
words: for with much communication will
he tempt thee, and smiling vpon thee will
get out thy secrets.
14:1 Blessed is the man that hath not slipt with || Or, sorrow.
his mouth, and is not pricked with the ||
multitude of sinnes.
14:14 Defraud not they selfe of || the good || Or, the feast day.
day, and let not the part of a good desire
ouerpasse thee.
14:24 Hee that doeth lodge neere her house, || Or, stake.
shall also fasten a || pin in her walles.
15:9 || Praise is not seemly in the mouth of a || Or, a parable.

sinner, for || it was not sent him of the || Or, he was not sent of,
Lord. &tc.
15:10 For || praise shalbe vttered in wisdome, || Or, rather a parable.
and the Lord wil prosper it.
16:4 For by one that hath vnderstanding, shall || Or, tribe.
the city be replenished, but the || kindred
of the wicked, shall speedily become
desolate.
16:6 In the congregation of the vngodly, shall a || Or, hath bene.
fire be kindled, and in a rebellious nation,
wrath || is set on fire.
16:16 His mercy is manifest to euery creature, || Or, strong partition.
and hee hath separated his ligt from the
darkenesse with an || Adamant.
16:27 Hee garnished his workes for euer, and in || Or, beginnings.
his hand are the || chiefe of them vnto all
generations: they neither labour, nor are
weary, nor ceaase from their wisdom.
17:4 And put the feare || of man vpon all flesh, || Or, of him.
and gaue him dominion ouer beasts and
foules.
17:25 Returne vnto the Lord, and forsake thy || Or, lessen thy offense.
sinnes, make thy prayer before his face,
and || offend lesse.
17:26 Turne againe to the most High, and turne || Or, illumination.
away from iniquitie: for he will leade thee
out of darknesse into the || light of health,
and hate thou abomination vehemently.
19:8 Whether it be || to friend or foe, talk not || Or, of friend or foe.
of other mens liues, and if thou canst
without offence reueale them not.
19:9 For he heard and obserued thee, and || Or, shew his hatred.
when time commeth he will || hate thee.
19:12 As an arrow that sticketh in a mans thigh, || Or, heart.
so is a word within a fooles || belly.
19:14 || Admonish thy friend, it may be he hath || Or, reproue.

not said it, and if he haue, that he speake
it not againe.
19:16 There is one that slippeth in his speech, || Or, willingly.
but not || from his heart, and who is he
that hath not offended with his tongue?
19:17 || Admonish thy neighbour beofre thou || Or, reproue.
threaten hi, and not being angry giue
place to the Law of the most high.
19:18 The feare of the Lord is the first step || || Or, of receiuing him.
to be accepted [of him,] and wisdome
obtaineth his loue.
19:25 There is an exquisite subtilty, and the || Or, iudgeth.
same is vniust, and there is one that
turneth aside to make iudgement
appeare: sand there is a wise man that ||
iustifieth in udgement.
19:26 There is a wicked man that hangeth || Or, in blacke.
downe his head || sadly; but inwardly he is
full of deceit.
20:1 There is a reproofe that is not || comely: || Or, seasonable.
againe some man holdeth his tongue, and
he is wise.
20:13 A wise man by his words maketh himselfe || Or, pleasant conceits.
beloued: but the || graces of fooles shalbe || Lost, or spilt.
|| powred out.
20:14 The gift of a foole shall doe thee no Gr. for, his eyes are many
good when thou hast it: neither yet of for one to receive.
the enuious for his necessitie: for hee
looketh to receiue many things for one.
20:19 || An vnseasonable tale wil alwayes be in || Or, an vnpleasant fellow.
the mouth of the vnwise.
20:21 There is that is hindred from sinning Gr. shall not be pricked.
through want: and when hee taketh rest,
he shall not be troubled.
20:26 The disposition of a liar is || || Or, ignominie.

dishonourable, and his shame is euer with
him.
20:29 Presents and gifts blind the eyes of the || Or, as a muzzle in the
wise, and || stoppe vp his mouth that he mouth.
cannot reproue.
21:6 He that hateth to be reproued, is in the Gr. be converted.
way of sinners: but hee that feareth the
Lord, will repent from his heart.
21:12 He that is not || wise, will not be taught; || Or, wittie.
but there is a || wisedome which || Or, subtilitie.
multiplieth bitternesse.
21:18 As is a house that is destroyed, so is || Or, not to be enquired
wisedome to a foole: and the knowledge after.
of the vnwise, is as talke || without sense.
22:4 A wise daughter shall bring an || || Or, shal be the heire of her
inheritance to her husband: but shee husband.
that liueth dishonestly, is her fathers
heauinesse.
22:9 If children liue honestly, and haue || Or, an art.
|| wherwithall, they shall couer the
basenesse of their parents.
22:13 Talke not much with a foole, and goe || Or, when he shakes off his
not to him that hath no vnderstanding, filth.
beware of him, lest thou haue trouble, || Or, wearied.
and thou shalt neuer be defiled || with his
fooleries: depart from him, and thou shalt
find rest, and neuer bee || disquieted with
madnesse.
22:17 A heart setled vpon a thought of || Or, of a polished wall.
vnderstanding, is as a faire plaistering ||
on the wall of a gallerie.
23:4 O Lord, father and god of my life, giue me || Or, a giant like.
not a proud looke, but turne away from
thy seruants alwaies a || haughty minde:
23:11 A man that vseth much swearing shall Gre. iustified.

be filled with iniquity, and the plague
shall neuer depart from his house: If he
shall offend, his sinne shall be vpon him:
and if he acknowledge not his sinne, hee
maketh a double offence, and if he sweare
in vaine, he shall be innocent, but his
house shall be full of calamities.
23:22 Thus shall it goe also with the wife, that || Or, a stranger.
leaueth her husband, and bringeth in an
heire by || another:
23:24 Shee shall be brought out into the || Or, visitation.
congregation, and || inquisitions shalbe
made of her children.
24:1 Wisedome shall praise her selfe, and shall The praise of wisedome.
glory in the midst of her people.
24:3 I came out of the mouth of the most High, || Or, a miste.
and couered the earth as a || cloud.
24:11 Likewise in the || beloued citie he gaue || Or, holy.
mee rest, and in Ierusalem was my power.
24:14 I was exalted like a palme tree in || || Or, Cades.
Engaddi, and as a rose-plant in Iericho, as
a faire olive tree in a pleasant fielde, and
grew vp as a planetree || by the water.
|| Or, in the water.
24:18 I am the mother of faire loue, and feare, || Or, chosen.
and knowledge, and holy hope, I therefore
being eternall, am giuen to my children
which are || named of him.
24:30 I also came out as a ||brooke from a riuer, || Or, draine or ditch.
and as a conduit into a garden.
25:1 In three things I ||was beautified, and || Or, glorified.
stoode vp beautiful, both before God and
men: the vnitie of brethren, the loue of
neighbours, a man and a wife that agree
together.
25:9 Well is him that hath found || prudence, || Or, a friend.

and he that speaketh in the eares of him
that will hear.
25:11 But the loue of the Lord passeth all things || Or, to whom.
for illumination: he that holdeth it, ||
whereunto shall he be likened?
25:17 The wickednesse of a woman changeth || Or, like a Beare.
her face, and darkeneth her countenance
like || sackecloth.
25:20 As the climbing vp a sandie way is to || Or, scolding.
the feete of the aged, so is a wife || full of
words to a quiet man.
26:5 There bee three things that mine Gr. an euill report.
heart feareth: and for the fourth I was
sore afraid: the slander of a citie, the
gathering together of an vnruly multitude,
and a false accusation: all these are worse
than death.
26:7 An euil wife is a || yoke shaken to and fro: || Or, a yoke of oxen.
he that hath hold of her, is as though he
held a scorpion.
26:12 Shee will open her mouth as a thirstie || Or, stake.
traueiler, when he hath found a fountaine:
and drinke of euery water neere her: by
euery || hedge will she sit downe, and
open her quiuer against euery arrow.
26:16 As the Sunne when it ariseth in the high Gre. in the highest places
heauen: so is the beautie of a good wife in of the Lord.
the || ordering of her house. || Or, ornament.
26:17 As the cleare light is vpon the holy || Or, in constant age.
candlestick: so is hte beautie of the face ||
in the ripe age.
26:18 As the golden pillars are vpon the sockets || Or, comely.
of siluer: so are the || faire feete with a || Or, brest.
constant || heart.
26:22 An harlot shall bee accounted as || spittle: || Or, a swine.

but a maried woman is a towre against
death to her husband.
27:1 Many haue sinned for || a smal matter: & || Or, a thing indifferent.
he that seeketh for abundance will turne
his eies away.
27:4 As when one sifteth wiht a sieue, the || Or, thought.
refuse remaineth, so the filth of man in
his || talke.
27:23 When thou art present he will speake || Or, alter his speech.
sweetly, and will admire thy words: but
at the last he will ||writhe his mouth, and
slander thy sayings.
28:15 A || backbiting tongue hath cast out || Or, third.
vertuous women, and depriued them of
their labours.
29:6 If he preuaile, he shall hardly receiue || Or, if he be able.
the halfe, and he will count as if he had
found it: if not; he hath depiued him of
his money, and he hath gotten him an
enemy without cause: he payeth him with
cursigs, and raylings; and for honour he
will pay him disgrace.
29:14 An honest man is suretie for his || Or, faile.
neighbour: but hee that is impudent, will
|| forsake him.
30:1 He that loueth his sonne, causeth him to Of children.
feele the rodde, that hee may have ioy of
him in the end.
30:2 He that chastiseth his sonne, shall haue || Or, good by him.
|| ioy in him, and shall reioyce of him || Or, kinsefolke.
among his ||acquaintance.
30:9 Cocker they childe, and hee shall make || Or, astonished.
thee || afraid: play with him, and he will
bring thee to heauinesse.
30:14 Better is the poore being sound and || Or, health.

strong of constitution, then a rich man
that is afflicted in his body.
30:19 What good doth the offering vnto an || Or, afflicted.
idole? for neither can it eat nor smell: so
is he that is || persecuted of the Lord.
30:22 The gladnesse of the heart is the life || Or, exultation.
of man, and the || ioyfulnes of a man
prolongeth his dayes.
30:25 || A cherefull and good heart will haue a || Or, a noble.
care of his meat and diet.
31:12 If thou sit at a bountifull table, bee not Gr. open not any throat
greedy vpon it, and say not, There is upon it.
much meate on it.
31:13 Remember that a wicked eye is an euill || Or, before euery thing that
thing: and what is created more wicked is presented.
than an eye? therefore it weepeth || vpon
euery occasion.
31:19 A very little is sufficient for a man well || Or, & lieth not puffing and
nurtured, || and he fetcheth not his wind blowing it.
short vpon his bed.
32:24 He that beleeueth in the Lord, taketh || Or, shall not be hurt.
heed to the commandement, and he
that trusted in him, || shall fare neuer the
worse.
33:3 A man of vnderstanding trusteth in the || Or, as the asking of Vrim.
Law, and the Law is faithfull vnto him, ||
as an oracle.
33:5 The heart of the foolish is like a Greeke bowels.
cartwheele: and his thoughts are like a
rolling axeltree.
33:9 Some of them hath hee made high dayes, || Or, ordained for the
and hallowed them, and some of them number of dayes.
hath hee || made ordinary dayes.
33:12 Some of them hath hee blessed, and || Or, standings.
exalted, and some of them hath hee
sanctified, and set neere himselfe: but
some of them hath hee cursed, and

brought low, and turned out of their ||
places.
33:16 I awaked vp last of all, as one that || Or, gleaneth.
|| gathered after the grape-gatherers: by
the blessing of the Lord I profited, and
filled my wine-presse, like a gatherer of
grapes.
33:20 As long as thou liuest and hast breath in || Or, sell not.
thee || giue not they selfe ouer to any.
33:21 For better it is that thy children should || Or, looke to their hands.
seeke to thee, then that thou shouldst ||
stand to their courtesie.
33:24 Fodder, a wand, and burdens, are for the Of servants.
asse: and bread, correction, and worke for
a seruant.
33:30 If thou haue a seruant, let him bee vnto Greeke, in blood.
thee as thy selfe, because thou hast
brought him with a price.
34:1 The hopes of a man voyd of Of dreames.
vnderstasnding are vaine, and false: and
dreames lift vp fooles.
34:2 Who so || regardeth dreames, is like him || Or, hath his minde upon.
that catcheth at a shadow, and followeth
after the winde.
34:6 If they be not sent from the most high in || Or, regard them not.
thy visitation, || set not thy heart vpon
them.
34:18 Hee that sacrificeth of a thing wrongfully || Or, the mockeries.
gotten, his offering is ridiculous, and the ||
giftes of vniust men are not accepted.
35:12 || Doe not thinke to corrupt with gifts, for || Or, diminish nothing of
such he will not receiue: and trust not to thy offerings.
vnrighteous sacrifices, for the is iudge,
and with him is no respect of persons.
35:18 For the Lord will not be slacke, neither || Or, cruell oppressours.
will the mightie be patient towards them,
till he hath smitten in sunder the loines of
the vnmercifull, and repaid vengeance to
the heathen: till he haue taken away the
multitude of the || proud, and broken the
scepter of the vnrighteous:
35:20 Mercie is seasonable in the time of Gre. faire.
affliction, as cloudes of raine in the time
of drought.
36:3 Lift vp thy hand || against the strange || Or, vpon.
nations, and let them see thy power.
36:8 Make the time short, remember the Gre. othe.
couenant, and let them declare thy
wonderfull words.
36:14 Fill Sion with || thine vnspeakable oracles, || Or, that it may magnifie
and thy people with thy glory. thine oracles.
36:17 O Lord heare the prayer of thy ||seruants, || Or, suppliants.
according to the blessing of Aaron ouer
thy people, that all they which dwel vpon
the earth, may know that thou art the
Lord, the eternall God.
36:23 If there be kindnesse, meekenes, and || Or, common.
comfort in her tongue, then is not her
husband like || other men.
36:24 He that getteth a wife, beginneth || a || Or, to thriue.
possession, a helpe like vnto himselfe, and
a pillar of rest.
37:5 There is a companion which helpeth his || Or, in presence of the
friend for the belly, and taketh vp the enemie.
buckler || against the enemie.
37:8 Beware of a counseller, and know before || Or, what vse there is of
|| what neede he hath (for he will counsell him.
for himselfe) lest hee cast the lot vpon
thee.
37:20 There is one that sheweth wisedome in || Or, wisedome.
words, and is hated: he shall be destitute
of all || foode.
37:26 A wise man shall inherite || glory || Or, credit.

among his people, and his name shallbe
perpetuall.
37:30 For || excesse of meates, bringeth || Or, varitie of meates.
sicknesse, and surfetting will turne into
choler.
38:2 For of the most High commeth healing, || Or, a gift.
and he shall receiue || honour of the King.
38:11 Giue a sweet sauour, and a memoriall of || Or, as a dead man.
ifne flower: and make a fat offering, as ||
not being.
38:14 For they shall also pray vnto the Lord, that || Or, curing.
hee would prosper that, which they giue,
for ease and || remedy to prolong life.
38:22 Remember || my iudgement: for thine also || Or, the sentence vpon
shall be so; yesterday for me, and to day him.
for thee.
38:25 How can he get wisdome that holdeth Greeke, of the breed of
the plough, and that glorieth in the goad: bullocks.
that driueth oxen, and is occupied in their
labours, and whose talke is of bullocks?
38:30 He fashioneth the clay with his arme, and || Or, tempereth it with his
|| boweth downe his strength before his feet.
feet: he applieth himselfe to lead it ouer;
and he is diligent to make cleane the
furnace.
39:11 If hee die, he shall leaue a greater name || Or, gains vnto it.
than a thousand: and if he liue, he shall ||
increase it.
39:13 Hearken vnto me, ye holy children, and || Or, rivers of water.
budde foorth as a rose growing by the ||
brooke of the field.
39:30 Teeth of wild beasts, and scorpions, || || Or, vipers.
serpents, & the sword, punishing the
wicked to destruction.
40:4 From him that weareth purple, and a || Or, to the porter.
crown, || vnto him that is clothed with a
linnen frocke.
40:12 All briberies and iniustice shall be Gre. bribes.
blotted out: but true dealing shall endure
for ever.
40:17 Bountifulnes is as a most || fruitfull || Or, a garden that is
garden, and mercifulnesse endureth for blessed.
euer.
40:27 The feare of the Lord is a || fruitfull || Or, a garden that is
garden, and couereth him aboue all glory. blessed.
41:2 O death, acceptable is thy sentence vnto || Or, to whom euery thing is
the needy, and vnto him whose strength troublesome.
faileth, that is now in the last age, and is
|| vexed with all things, and to him that
despaireth and hath lost patience.
42:3 Of || reckoning with thy partners and || Or, of thy partners speech.
|| traueilers: or of the || gift of the heritage || Or, companions.
of friends. || Or, of the giuing.
42:5 And of merchants || indifferent selling, of || Or, without profit.
much correction of children, and to make
the side of an euill seruant to bleed.
42:7 Deliuer all things in number and weight, || Or, dealest for.
and put al in writing that thou || giuest
out, or receiuest in.
42:8 Be not ashamed to || informe the vnwise || Or, rebuke.
and foolish, and the extreme aged || that || Or, that is accused of
contendeth with those that are yong, fornication.
thus shalt thou bee truely learned and
approued of all men living.
42:14 Better is the || churlishnesse of a man, || Or, wickednesse.
then a courteous woman, a woman I say,
which bringeth shame and reproch.
42:18 He seeketh out the deepe and the heart, || Or, the highest.
and considereth their crafty deuices: for
|| the Lord knoweth all that may be
knowen, and he beholdeth the signes of
the world.
43:2 The Sunne when it appeareth, declaring || Or, vessell.
at his rising, a marueilous || instrument,
the worke of the most High.
43:5 Great is the Lord that made it, and at his Gr. hee stayed his course.
commandement it runneth hastily.
43:17 The noise of the thunder maketh the || Or, to grone as a woman
earth to || tremble, so doth the Northern in her trauails.
storme, and the whirlewinde: as birds
flying he scattereth the snow, and the
falling downe thereof, is as the lighting of
grasshoppers.
43:19 The hoare frost also as salt hee powreth || Or, it is as the point of
on the earth, and being congealed, || it sharp stakes.
lieth on the toppe of sharpe stakes.
43:22 A present remedy of all is a miste coming || Or, upon the heat.
speedily: a dew comming || after heate,
refresheth.
44:1 Let vs now praise famous men, and our The praise of the fathers.
Fathers that begat vs.
44:5 Such as found out musical tunes, and || Or, ditties.
reiected || verses in writing.
44:12 Their seed stands fast, and their children || Or, after them.
|| for their sakes.
45:7 An euerlasting couenant he made with Gr. he blessed.
him, and gaue him the priesthood among
the people, he beautified him with
comely ornaments, and clothed him with
a robe of glory.
47:3 Hee || played with Lions as with kids, and || Or, he smote Lions.
with beares as with lambs.
47:10 He beautified their feasts, and set in order || Or, perfectly.

the solemne times, || vntill the ende, that
they might praise his holy Name, and that
the Temple might sound from morning.
47:11 The Lord tooke away his sinnes, and || Or, of a kingdome.
exalted his horne for euer: he gaue him a
couenant of kings, and a throne ||c of
glory in Israel.
48:3 By the word of the Lord he || shut vp || Or, made heauen to holde
the heuen, and also three times brought vp.
downe fire.
48:5 Who didst raise vp a dead man from || Or, graue.
death, & his soule from the || place of the
dead by the word of the most High.
48:6 Who broughtest kings to destruction, and || Or, seate.
honourable men from their || bedde.
48:10 Who was || ordained for reproofes in their || Or, written of.
times, to pacifie the wrath of the Lordes || Or, establish.
iudgement before it brake foorth into fury,
and to turne the heart of the father vnto
the sonne, and to || restore the tribes of
Jacob.
48:11 Blessed are they that saw thee, and || slept || Or, were adorned with
in loue, for we shal surely liue. loue.
48:13 || No word could ouercome him, & after || Or, Nothing.
his death his body prophecied.
48:20 But they called vpon the Lord which is || Or, hand.
mercifull, and stretched out their hands
towards him, and immediately the holy
One heard them out of heauen, and
deliuered them by the || ministry of Esay.
49:2 He || behauved himselfe vprightly iin the || Or, prospered.
conuersion of the people, and tooke away
the abominations of iniquitie.
49:5 Therefore he gaue their || power vnto || Or, horne.
others & their glory to a stranger nation.
c The siglum should be before kings.

49:6 They burnt the chosen citie of the || Or, by the hand of
Sanctuarie, and made the streets desolate Ieremie.
|| according to the prophecie of Ieremias:
49:9 For he mad mention of the enemis vnder || Or, did good.d
[the figure of] the raine, and || directed
them that went right.
50:5 How was he honoured in the midst of Gr. the house of the vaile.
the people, in his comming out of the
Sanctuarie?
50:16 Then shouted the sonnes of Aaron, || Or, trumpets beaten forth
and sounded || the siluer trumpets, and with the hammer.
made a great noise to be heard, for a
remembrance before the most High.
51:3 And hast deliuered me according to the Gre. the gnashing of teeth.
multitude of thy mercies, and greatnesse
of thy name, from the teeth of them that
were ready to deuoure me, and out of the
hands of such as sought after my life, and
from the manifold afflictions which I had;
51:13 When I was yet yong, or euer I || went || Or, went astray.
abroad, I desire wisedome openly in my
prayer.
51:20 || I directed my soule vnto her, and I || Or, I got vnderstanding.
found her in purenesse, I haue had my
heart ioyned with her from the beginning,
therefore shall I not bee forsaken.
51:21 My || heart was troubled in seeking her: || Or, bowels.
therefore haue I gotten a good possession.
d According to Scrivener, the marginal note should read did good unto, a reading taken from
the Bishops Bible; see Scrivener, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), 200.
CHAPTER 14
Translating Wisdom in the Prophets: Ezekiel,

Wisdom and Translation
Harry F. van Rooy
1 Introduction
The prophetic books of the Hebrew Bible do not contain many references to
wisdom and sages.1 Whybray points out that with the exception of Isa 139,
Jeremiah and Ezek 28, the adjective does not frequently appear in the pro-
phetic books.2 There are references to the wisdom of the nations, but Whybray
is of the opinion that one cannot speak of wisdom influence on the prophets.3
He defines wisdom as a general term denoting superior intellectual ability,
whether innate or acquired, in God, men or animals.4 Magne Saeb states
that the word and the related noun and verb can indicate a mastery of
something, artisanship, political advising of a king, a person knowledgeable in
a special, professional manner.5 As in Jer 18, it can also denote a person who
gives counsel.
Gerhard von Rad says that the prophets regarded the wisdom of the nations
as under the judgment of God. In this regard, he refers to Isa 19 and Ezek 28.6
Hermann Mller is of the opinion that the prophets were the first to criticize
wisdom from a non-wisdom perspective.7 The prophets emphasized the rela-
tion between the acts and their consequences in the lives of individuals and
1 This work is based on the research supported by the National Research Foundation. Any
opinion, finding and conclusion or recommendation expressed in this material is that of the
author and the NRF does not accept any liability in this regard. It is an honour to dedicate
this contribution to my friend and colleague, Johann Cook. We have a common interest in
the ancient versions of the Hebrew Bible.
2 Roger Norman Whybray, The Intellectual Tradition in the Old Testament (BZAW 135; Berlin: De
Gruyter, 1974), 117.
3 Ibid., 119.
4 Ibid., 11.
5 Magne Saeb, km to be wise, TLOT 1, 41824, here 420.
6 Gerhard von Rad, Wisdom in Israel (London: SCM, 1997), 319 n. 32.
7 Hermann Paul Mller, km, TDOT IV, 36485, here 384.

260 van Rooy
nations, a common theme in wisdom literature.8 However, this cannot be

regarded as a specific wisdom influence on the prophets.
It is not the aim of this contribution to discuss wisdom in the prophets in
detail, but rather to inquire how the ancient versions dealt with references to
wisdom in translation. The focus will be on the book of Ezekiel, but with com-
parison to the other two Major Prophets, Isaiah and Jeremiah. Whybray is of
the opinion that these two prophets were acquainted with wise men at the
court in Jerusalem.9 However, he does not accept the idea of a class of wise
men at the court.10
2 The Noun
The noun occurs only five times in the book of Ezekiel, i.e., in Ezek 28:4,
5, 7, 12 and 17.11 Comparing this to the five occurrences in each of Isaiah (10:13;
11:2; 29:14, 33:6; 47:10) and Jeremiah (8:9; 9:22; 10:12; 49:7 twice; 51:15) it is evident
that Isaiah and Jeremiah had a good knowledge of the wisdom tradition.12
In all five instances where the noun is used in Ezek 28, it is only used with
reference to the king of Tyre. Wisdom was regarded as one of the charismatic
abilities of a king in the ancient Near East.13 In the first three instances, the
Lord states that the wisdom of the king of Tyre enabled him to amass great
wealth. In v. 4, wisdom ( ) is connected to understanding () .
Through his wisdom and understanding () , the king of Tyre
was able to prosper. The use of these two nouns together occurs frequently
8 Cf. Von Rad, Wisdom, 196.

9 Whybray, Intellectual Tradition, 118. For a general discussion of the relevant terminology,
cf. Mller, km; and Saeb, km.
10 Whybray, Intellectual Tradition, 98.
11 The following critical texts were used for this article: Karl Elliger and Wilhelm Rudolph,
ed., Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1984); Martin-
Jan Mulder, Ezekiel (The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshitta Version, vol. 3/3;
Leiden: Brill, 1985); Alexander Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic. Vol. III: The Latter Prophets
according to Targum Jonathan (Leiden: Brill, 1962); Robert Weber, Biblia sacra, iuxta vul-
gatam versionem (Stuttgart: Wrttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1969); and Joseph Ziegler,
Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis
editum XVI 1: Ezechiel (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006).
12 Cf. the discussion by Donn F. Morgan, Wisdom in the Old Testament Traditions (Oxford:
Basil Blackwell, 1981), 7689.
13 Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 112: A Commentary (CC; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 420.
Translating Wisdom in the Prophets 261
in the book of Proverbs (1:2; 4:5, 7; 9:10; 16:16).14 In vv. 5 and 7, wisdom is used
with the same connotation, but in vv. 5 and 6, the Lord states that the king of
Tyres wealth and wisdom has made him proud, which will lead to his downfall.
In the lament on Tyre (28:1219), the same conclusion is made. The king of
Tyre had been filled with wisdom (v. 12), but his splendour corrupted his
wisdom (v. 17). In this chapter, it is said wisdom deceived the king of Tyre,
caused hubris and contributed to his downfall. It is striking that the noun is
used only in Ezek 28 in the book of the prophet, and that it is linked to Tyre.15
In the other two Major Prophets, the noun for the wisdom occurs in a nega-
tive sense for the wisdom of foreign rulers as well. In Isa 10:13, it is used for the
king of Assyria and in 47:10 for Babylon. In Jer 49:7, the noun appears twice
with reference to the wisdom of Edom. In this instance, rhetorical questions
are implemented to ask whether wisdom is still found in Edom. In the bibli-
cal tradition, the wisdom of Edom was well known.16 Here, the word of the
prophet is contrasted with the wisdom of Edom.17
In Isaiah and Jeremiah, the noun is used in other contexts as well. Wisdom
is combined with understanding in Isa 11:2, which states the spirit of wisdom
and understanding ( ) will rest on the shoot from Jesses root.
Wisdom and understanding are two of the six gifts bestowed on the shoot.18
In Isa 33:6, the Lord is the source of wisdom and knowledge. In Jer 10:12, the
Lords wisdom is linked to his creational activities, and again wisdom and
understanding are used together () . Exactly
the same verse is found in Jer 51:15.
Isa 29:14 prophesies the wisdom of the wise in Israel will perish (
) . Their wisdom will be frustrated by God.19 Wisdom

and understanding are also used together in this context.
Jer 8 pronounces judgment on Gods people who consider themselves wise.
Jer 8:9 asks what kind of wisdom they possess. This is a negative view of the
peoples wisdom.20 The sages and scribes cannot be the true interpreters of
14 Craig G. Bartholomew and Ryan P. ODowd, Old Testament Wisdom Literature:

A Theological Introduction (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2011), 142.
15 Cf. Whybray, Intellectual Tradition, 100.
16 Gerald Keown, Pamela Scalise, and Thomas G. Smothers, Jeremiah 2652 (WBC 27; Dallas:
Word, 1998), 329 (here Jeremiah 4651 by Smothers).
17 William McKane, Prophets and Wise Men (SBT 44; London: SCM Press, 1965), 73.
18 Wildberger, Isaiah 112, 471.
19 Von Rad, Wisdom, 104.
262 van Rooy
the law.21 This view is also found in Jer 9:22 (23). The wise should not boast of
their wisdom. One cannot trust human wisdom.22
As far as the translation of the word in the four ancient versions is con-
cerned, one would expect that the two Semitic translations would normally
use the cognate word, whereas one would expect the Septuagint and Vulgate to
use the most common words for wisdom ( and sapientia). These transla-
tions can be regarded as the normal or usual translations. Before discussing
the use of in Ezekiel in the ancient versions, which is the primary goal
of this contribution, examples of the use of the word in a different context in
Isaiah and Jeremiah in the ancient versions will be discussed with a view to
comparing the use in the three Major Prophets.
A number of examples speak of Gods wisdom. In Isa 11:2, the Peshitta trans-
lates the phrase
(a spirit of wisdom and understanding) as
( a spirit of wisdom and understanding), and the
Targum as (a spirit of wisdom and intelligence or a spirit

of understanding). The Peshitta and Targum use the same cognate nouns in
Isa 33:6 and in Jer 10:12 and 51:15.
In Isa 11:2, the Vulgate uses sapientia (spiritus sapientiae et intellectus;
a wise and discerning spirit). Sapienta is also found in 33:6 (sapientia et scien-
tia; wisdom and knowledge). Jer 10:12 is translated as follows: qui facit terram
in fortitudine sua praeparat orbem in sapientia sua et prudentia sua extendit
caelos (who made the earth in his power, prepared the globe in his wisdom
and spread out the heavens in his foresight).23
In Isa 11:2, the Septuagint has (a spirit of wisdom
and understanding) and in 33:6, (wisdom and knowledge).
Jer 10:12 is translated as ,

(NETS: It is the Lord who made the earth by his strength, who set upright the
world by his wisdom, and by his prudence He stretched out the sky).
The translation of these examples is quite consistent in the four versions.
A number of examples deal with the wisdom of the people, usually with
a negative connotation. In Isa 29:14, the Peshitta and the Targum again have
similar translations, using the cognate terms. The Vulgate uses sapientia
and the Septuagint . The translations of Jer 8:9 are quite interesting.
21 William McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah. Vol. 1. (ICC;

Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986), 18586.
22 Von Rad, Wisdom, 103.
23 Where a source of a translation is not indicated, the translation is the authors.
The Hebrew has a question: What kind of wisdom do they have? (

) . The versions frequently have a problem with translating Hebrew ques-
tions, especially rhetorical questions. The Peshitta makes the question a state-
ment: Wisdom is not in them () . The Targum does
the same, but in a different way: There is no portion in wisdom for them
( ). The Vulgate is close to the Peshitta: et sapientia nulla

est in eis (there is no wisdom in them). The Septuagint is the only version that
retains the question of the Hebrew: (NETS: What wis-
dom is in them?). However, the translation of the Hebrew noun is consistent
in the versions. The same is true of Jer 9:22 (23).
The final examples deal with texts with the same kind of reference as the
examples from Ezekiel. In Isa 10:13, the king of Assyria speaks of his own wis-
dom () . The Peshitta has ( and by my wisdom), the Targum
( and by my wisdom), the Vulgate in sapientia mea (and by my wis-
dom), and the Septuagint (NETS: by the wisdom of my
understanding). The Septuagint differs from the Hebrew by not rendering the
pronominal suffix and reading the next verb in the Hebrew as a noun. The
Peshitta and Targum render the verb following as an adjective and pronoun,
while the Vulgate omits the particle between the two words in the Hebrew.
In Isa 47:10, the Hebrew has ( Your wisdom and
knowledge deceived you). Babylon is addressed in this example. The Peshitta,
Targum and Vulgate have the normal translations for wisdom. The Septuagint
differs substantially from the Hebrew where it has
(NETS: know that the understanding of these things...). It probably ren-
ders the Hebrew noun as . It may be that the Vorlage of the
Septuagint differed substantially from the Hebrew. The two instances of the
noun in Jeremiah 49:7 are rendered as the usual equivalents in the four versions.
The only deviation from the customary translations appears in Isa 47:10,
where the translation of the Septuagint deviates substantially from the Hebrew.
With this discussion as background, the five examples in Ezek 28 can be
discussed. In v. 4, wisdom ( ) is connected to understanding () :
. (NIV: By your wisdom and understanding you

have gained wealth for yourself).
The four versions translate this sentence as follows:
Peshitta: ( and by your understanding you have

gained wealth for yourself)
Vulgate: in sapientia et prudentia tua fecisti tibi fortitudinem (By your wis-
dom and prudence you have made strength/power for yourself)
264 van Rooy
Targum:

( Levey: By your wisdom and

understanding you have acquired for yourself material possessions)24
Septuagint:
(NETS: Surely, by your knowledge and by your prudence you did
not make for yourself power...?)
The Vulgate and the Targum follow the Hebrew closely, even with regard to the
word order. The Peshitta translates only one of the two nouns, probably only
the second one; therefore, the concept of wisdom is not given precedence
in this translation. The Septuagint starts the translation with the particle ,
probably used to make the statement of the Hebrew a question. NETS trans-
lates the whole verse as a question, as does Olley:25 Have you achieved...?
The question of this verse is then followed by a new question, introduced by
in the next verse. In this way, the Septuagint questions the validity of the
wisdom attributed to the king of Tyre. This may also account for the render-
ing of as . This Greek word is often used to render , as in
Exod 31:3. The Greek makes it clear that the rulers hubris is challenged.26
Although the previous verse refers to wisdom, the Hebrew noun is rendered as
knowledge in this verse, perhaps indicating that the false knowledge of the
ruler cannot be equated with wisdom.
In Ezek 28:5, the Hebrew begins with . Translations in the
Vulgate, Peshitta and Targum follow the normal translations. In this instance,
the Peshitta does have . As indicated above, the Septuagint makes the
statement of the Hebrew a question. It uses the same translation equivalent
as in v. 4. The Hebrew reads,

(NIV: By your great skill in trading you have increased your wealth, and
because of your wealth your heart has grown proud).
The Septuagint reads,
, (NETS: Or by your great
knowledge and commerce did you multiply power? Was your heart exalted
by your power?). It again does not use the expected word for wisdom in
this verse.
24 Some of the translations of the Targum are taken from Samson H. Levey, The Targum of
Ezekiel (ArBib 13; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1987).
25 John W. Olley, Ezekiel: A Commentary Based on Iezekil in Codex Vaticanus (Septuagint
Commentary Series; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 152.
26 Olley, Ezekiel, 430.
From v. 6 onwards, judgment is pronounced on the ruler of Tyre, referring to

his wisdom in v. 7. The Hebrew reads,
(NIV: they will draw their swords against your beauty and wisdom and pierce
your shining splendor).
The Targum, Peshitta and Vulgate use the normal equivalents for wisdom.
The Septuagint has
(NETS: and they shall
unsheathe their daggers against you and against the beauty of your knowledge
and wound your beauty unto destruction). It links the beauty and wisdom of
the Hebrew as the beauty of your knowledge,27 again not using the normal
Greek rendering of wisdom.
In the final two examples in Ezek 28, wisdom is linked to the king of Tyre.
Verse 12 states that he was full of wisdom () , but v. 17 says that he cor-
rupted his wisdom () . The prophet has to sing a lament on the king
of Tyre. Though the king had wisdom, it was eventually destroyed and had no
lasting positive impact.
In v. 12, the Hebrew reads,
(NIV: You were
the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty). In the original
Septuagint, the middle phrase of v. 12 is absent. It is added in some witnesses,
including Origin and the Lucianic recension; it is also included in Theodotion,
Aquila and Symmachus, using .
The Vulgate (plenus sapientia) and Peshitta ( ) translate the
phrase directly, while the Targum has ( Levey: fashioned in wis-

dom). The translation of this verse in the Targum does not follow the Hebrew
closely, but says that the king of Tyre resembles something that was put in
order through wisdom ( ; Levey: You were

like the scriptural mould, fashioned in wisdom and perfect in its beauty).
In v. 17, the Hebrew reads, ( NIV: Your
heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wis-
dom because of your splendor).
The Vulgate keeps the king of Tyre as the subject in the relevant phrase in
v. 17 (perdidisti sapientiam tuam; you ruined your wisdom). The Peshitta trans-
lates the phrase in the passive, with wisdom as the subject: ;
your wisdom was destroyed). The Targum does the same ( ;

your wisdom was destroyed).
The Septuagint has ,
(NETS: Your heart was exalted because of your
beauty; and your knowledge was corrupted by your beauty). It uses

266 van Rooy
again. The noun is the subject of a passive verb in this instance, as in the
Targum and Peshitta. The beauty of Tyre was well known, as was her know
ledge, but these attributes caused arrogance and hubris.28
The noun in the three Major Prophets occurs in different contexts. In
Ezekiel, it is only used in the context of the oracles against Tyre, where it is not
regarded in a positive light. It is used in this sense in Isaiah and Jeremiah as
well. The other two Major Prophets use the word in connection with wisdom
in Israel as well, but then also in a negative sense. Its use in connection with
God, in a positive sense, is rather infrequent.
As far as the translation is concerned, one would expect the Peshitta and
Targum to use the cognate terms, the Vulgate sapientia and the Septuagint
. This is the case in all the examples dealing with Gods wisdom and the
wisdom of people in Israel.
The only instance where the versions deviate in Isaiah and Jeremiah from
this example is the reference to the wisdom of foreigners in Isa 47:10, where the
Septuagint uses . In this instance, the Vorlage of the Septuagint might
have been different from the MT.
There are, however more deviations with regard to the five references in
Ezek 28. In v. 4, the Peshitta does not translate the Hebrew word, while the
Septuagint uses and changes the statement of the Hebrew into a
question, thereby questioning the validity of the statement. The Septuagint,
using the same Greek noun again, also changes the statement of v. 5 into a
question. The Septuagint uses the same noun in vv. 7 and 17. In v. 12, the re
levant section does not occur in the Septuagint. It is evident that the Greek
translator of Ezek 28 did not want to use the normal equivalent for wisdom.
The changes made in verses 4 and 5 make it clear that the translator wanted to
deny the possibility that the king of Tyre had any true wisdom.
2.1 The Noun/Adjective

The noun ( wise) occurs only three times in Ezekiel, viz. in Ezek 27:8, 27:9
and 28:3. It occurs more frequently in Isaiah and Jeremiah, where the word is
used in different contexts with different referents.
In Isa 3:3, the phrase ( NIV: skilled craftsman) occurs. In this
instance, the word is used to indicate a person who is a skilled artisan
or who is practising some profession. Because of the next phrase (;
clever enchanter), some see a reference to some kind of skilled magician in
this instance.29 This person is part of a larger group that will be removed from

29 McKane, Prophets, 96; Wildberger, Isaiah 112, 124.
Jerusalem when the Lord judges the city. In Isa 40:20, a similar phrase is used
for a skilled artisan making an idol () . In Jer 10:9, the phrases
( NIV: craftsmen) and ( NIV: skilled workers) are used in
parallelism for craftsmen of the nations. In Jer 4:22, the people are metaphori-
cally described as skilled to do evil () .30 The previous phrase
states that they do not have understanding ( ; NIV: They have no
understanding). This probably means not understanding what God expects
of his people because they do not know Him. McKane says that they have a
destructive cleverness.31 Jer 9:16 (17) refers to skilful women in this regard.
In Isa 5:21, the adjective is used in a negative sense for persons in Israel
who are wise in their own estimation ( ; NIV: Woe to those
who are wise in their own eyes).32 This phrase is paralleled with the next one
( ; NIV: and clever in their own sight) with the same intention.
Arrogance is a danger for true wisdom.33 Isa 29:14 has already been discussed
above as a similar example. Jer 8 about the people who regarded them-
selves as wise has been discussed above (cf. vv. 89). The same use occurs in
Jer 9:11 (12). In Jer 9:11 (12), the question is asked about who would be wise
enough to understand the work of the Lord, while 9:22 (23) says that the wise
should not boast about their wisdom.
The wise men or wise counsellors of other nations are often the object
of judgment as well, with a negative evaluation of their wisdom. Isa 19 con-
tains an oracle against Egypt, with judgment pronounced on different groups,
including the wise counsellors of Pharaoh in v. 11 () . Their advice
is regarded as stupid, and they cannot claim to be wise. These wise men can-
not reveal the Lords intention with Egypt to the Pharaoh (v. 12). Isa 44:25 states
that the Lord overturns the learning of wise men () , in this
instance wise men in Israel. The wise men of the nations cannot be compared
to the Lord (Jer 10:7). Two more examples can be found in Jer 50:35 and 51:57,
both in oracles against Babylon.
In Isa 31:2, the Lord is called wise. In this context, judgment is pronounced
on those who go to Egypt for help, and not to the Lord. Egypt may have had
wise counsellors, but the Lord is the only one who possesses true wisdom
() .34

31 McKane, Jeremiah, 105.
32 This contrast occurs frequently in Isaiah; cf. Morgan, Wisdom, 8081.
33 Wildberger, Isaiah 112, 209.
268 van Rooy
A number of instances raise the question whether there was an official posi-
tion for at the court in Jerusalem. Jer 18:18 is an example of this:
NIV: Come, lets make plans against Jeremiah; for the teaching of the law
by the priest will not cease, nor will counsel from the wise, nor the word
from the prophets.
Here priests, prophets and wise men are mentioned together in reporting the
conspiracy of people against Jeremiah.35 In this regard, one can also refer to
Isa 31. Williamson discusses the relationship between Isaiah and the counsel-
lors of the king in detail,36 and it is clear that he often clashes with the wise
men.37 Crenshaw discusses the idea of a professional class of wise men in some
detail.38 He accepts the existence of such a group in ancient Israel.
occurs only three times in Ezekiel, viz. in Ezek 27:8, 27:9 and 28:3. In
27:8 and 27:9, the word refers to skilled men on board the ships of Tyre. They
were sailors (v. 8) and shipwrights (v. 9). Ezek 28 has been discussed above.
The King of Tyre is the addressee. In v. 3, his wisdom is compared to the wis-
dom of Daniel. The verse can be understood as a question or a statement, Are
you wiser than Daniel? or You are wiser than Daniel. The rest of the chapter
makes it quite clear that his wisdom did not bring him any lasting advantage.
In a number of examples in all three Major Prophets, the word is used to
indicate an artisan of some kind. In Isa 3:3, the phrase is rendered
as (a wise master-builder) in the Septuagint. The Vulgate
has sapientem de architectis (a wise person from the master-builders), retain-
ing the plural of the Hebrew. The Peshitta has ( a wise one of the
35 Cf. Von Rad, Wisdom, 21.

36 Hugh G.M. Williamson, Isaiah and the Wise, in Wisdom in Ancient Israel: Essays in
Honour of J.A. Emerton (ed. John Day, Robert P. Gordon, and Hugh G.M. Williamson;
Cambridge: University Press, 1998), 13341.
37 Williamson, Isaiah and the Wise, 139.
38 James L. Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction (Third ed.; Louisville:
Westminster/John Knox, 2010), 2425. Cf. also Lester L. Grabbe, Prophets, Priests,
Diviners and Sages in Ancient Israel, in Of Prophets Visions and the Wisdom of Sages:
Essays in Honour of R Norman Whybray on his Seventieth Birthday (ed. Heather A. McKay
and David J.A. Clines; JSOTSup 162: Sheffield: Academic Press, 1993, 4362), 5758 and
McKane, Isaiah, 43536.
carpenters). The Targum has a periphrastic translation of the whole verse. It

translates the relevant phrase as , a wise and old person.
In Isa 40:20, the Hebrew commences with a hapax legomenon that has always
caused problems.39 The word has recently been taken as an Akkadian
loanword for a mulberry.40 The Hebrew reads,

( NIV: A person too poor to present such an
offering selects wood that will not rot; they look for a skilled worker to set up
an idol that will not topple). The rendering of the NIV follows the traditional
understanding of the hapax as a Pual participle of .41
The Septuagint reads as follows:
(NETS: For an artisan
chooses wood that does not rot, then inquires wisely how he should set up his
image and what to do so that it will not topple). It takes the hapax as a refer-
ence to some kind of wood and does not take the Hebrew phrase as
a unit. It renders the first word as artisan and takes it as the subject of the
verb to choose. It renders the second verb of the Hebrew as an adverb (;
wisely) and links it to the second verb in the verse in the Greek.
The Vulgate begins the translation with forte (perhaps), but it keeps the
Hebrew phrase as a unit: artifex sapiens quaerit (he looked for a wise artisan).
The Peshitta also has a free translation: and he selected for him a carpenter
and through his wisdom (skill) he carved it () .
The Targum translates it idiomatically with ( a skilled worker). The
two phrases in Jer 10:9 ( and ) are rendered once only
in the Septuagint ( ). BHS thinks that this is a translation of the
second phrase, but it could just as well be a translation of the first phrase. The
Vulgate uses the same noun in its rendering of the two phrases, with the num-
ber agreeing with the Hebrew (opus artificis, opus artificum; craftsman, crafts-
men). It understands the two nouns as referring to artisans. The Peshitta uses
( the work of a carpenter) and ( the weaving of wise
men). The rendering of the second phrase is very interesting and dynamic.
The Targum has (the work of a carpenter) and (the work

of wise men).
Jer 4:22 ( ) is rendered literally by the Septuagint (
; NETS: They are skilled to do evil), the Targum
39 Hugh G.M. Williamson, Isaiah 40,20 A Case of Not Seeing the Wood for the Trees,
Biblica 67 (1986): 120 has a good survey of proposed solutions.
40 Cf. Shalom M. Paul, Isaiah 4066: Translation and Commentary (Eerdmans Critical
Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 147.
41 Cf. HALOT.
270 van Rooy
( ; they are wise to do evil) and the Vulgate (sapientes

sunt ut faciant mala; they are wise to do evil deeds). The Peshitta translates
as , and uses the same noun in the absolute state in the next
phrase ( ; they are wise for evil). In Jer 9:16 (17), the
Septuagint, Targum and Peshitta use the feminine form of the noun to corre-
spond with the Hebrew . The rendering of the Vulgate is very interest-
ing. The Hebrew has
( Send for the wise women that
they should come). Because the word sapientes can be masculine or feminine
in the Latin, the Vulgate uses an expanded translation to clarify the reference
to females: et ad eas quae sapientes sunt mittite et properent (and send to those
[feminine] who are wise so that they should come).
Two of the three examples of in Ezekiel belong to this group, namely
Ezek 27:8 ( ; your wise men, Tyre) and 27:9 () , referring
to skilled sailors. The Septuagint translates both instances as . The
Vulgate translates the first instances as sapientes, but the second as prudentes
(skilled or experienced men). This second translation fits well in the context.
The Peshitta uses the cognate noun , as does the Targum () , in both
instances.
In the instances where the Hebrew is used with reference to persons in
Israel or in the nations, one would expect that the versions would be fairly
consistent in their renderings. This is not always the case.
The first example is Isa 5:21.
Masoretic Text: ( Woe to those who are

wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight)
Septuagint: (NETS:
Ah, those who are wise in themselves and knowledgeable in their own
sight)
Vulgate: vae qui sapientes estis in oculis vestris et coram vobismet ipsis pru-
dentes (Woe upon you who are wise in your eyes and who are skilled in
their own reckoning)
Peshitta: ( Woe
to those who are wise in their own eyes and intelligent/prudent in their
own sight)
Targum: ( Woe to those who

are wise in their own eyes and intelligent in their own sight)
The Septuagint deviates from the expected translation using (intel-

ligent). The other versions follow the usual translations. The Septuagint uses
this noun also in Jer 18:18, with the customary translation in the other versions.
The expected translations occur in all the versions in Isa 29:14 and Jer 8:8, 8:9
and 9:22 (23) with regard to wise men in Israel. The same happens with regard
to wise men outside Israel in Isa 19:11, 19:12 and Jer 51:57.
In Ezek 28:3, the Hebrew describes the king of Tyre being wiser than Daniel
is saying,
( translated as a statement it reads, Look, you are
wiser than Daniel; or translated as a question, it reads, Look, are you wiser
than Daniel?). This wisdom brought the king material success.42
The Septuagint uses the comparative (
; NETS: Surely, you are not wiser than Daniel?). The Greek must pro
bably be taken as a question. The comparative is also used in the Vulgate: ecce
sapientior es tu Danihele (Look, you are wiser than Daniel). This is a good
rendering of the Hebrew construction. The Targum and Peshitta use the same
construction as the Hebrew. Levey says that the Aramaic can be understood as
either a statement or a question.43 The Septuagint and the Targum probably
want to question the statement about the wisdom of the king of Tyre.
In Jer 9:11 (12), the Septuagint translates as , while the other
versions give the usual equivalent. The same noun is used in the plural in the
Septuagint of Jer 27:35 (= 50:35 in the MT), with the customary translation in
the other versions. In Isa 44:25, the Septuagint translates the noun as
(wise, prudent, clever), while the other versions have the customary
equivalents. Jer 10:7 is omitted in the Septuagint. The other versions have the
customary translations.
As far as is concerned, it is used in different contexts in the three Major
Prophets. In some instances, it refers to a skilled artisan. It can also refer to
wise people in Israel, especially in a negative sense of those who regarded
themselves as wise. The wise men or counsellors of the nations are often the
object of judgment. God can also be regarded as wise. In Ezek 27:8 and 27:9, the
word is used for skilled men on a ship and in 28:3, it refers to the king of Tyre.
When the word refers to an artisan, the Peshitta and Targum tend to use
the cognate words in translating, while the Septuagint and Vulgate attempt to
make the sense clear. In Isa 3:3, the versions try to indicate the sense of v. 3 by
the phrase . The Septuagint has (a wise master-
builder), the Vulgate has sapientem de architectis (a wise person from the
42 Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 2548 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1999), 97.
43 Levey, Ezekiel, 83 n. 5.
272 van Rooy
master-builders), and the Peshitta has ( a wise one of the car-

penters). All four versions have this kind of translation in Isa 40:20. Ezek 27:8
and 27:9 use the word in this sense. In these instances, the Septuagint trans-
lates as . The Vulgate has different words, with prudentes in the second
instance, representing the sense of the word.
The versions do not always use the expected translations where the Hebrew
refers to wise persons outside Israel (cf. Isa 5:21 and Jer 18:18 in the Septuagint).
They do have the expected translations in Ezek 28:3. Here again the Septuagint
uses a question to question the probability if the king of Tyre being wise.
2.2 The Noun and the Verb

The noun is used for a proverb, as in the title of the Biblical book Proverbs.
It is quite significant that this noun and the related verb occur frequently in
the book of Ezekiel and infrequently in the other two Major Prophets. Beyse
says that in prophetic contexts, the word often refers to an oracle spoken by a
prophet after having received a vision. It can also be used for a veiled state-
ment about the future, in which case it can be compared to a riddle or an
allegory.44
The noun occurs eight times in Ezekiel and the verb eight times. In
Ezek 12:23, 17:2, 18:2 18:3, 21:5 (20:49) and 24:3 the noun and verb are used
together. The noun occurs on its own only in 12:22 (but linked to v. 23) and in
14:8. The verb occurs twice in 16:44, without the noun. The noun occurs once
in both Isa (14:4) and Jer (24:9), and the verb twice in Isa (14:10 and 46:5).
The noun in Isa 14:4 is found in an instruction to the people to say a
against the king of Babylon. Oswalt says that the word originally indicated a
poetic comparison that became a mocking comparison and eventually a par-
able or proverb. In this sense, the king of Babylon became an example for
others.45 Watts calls it a taunting song.46 The Septuagint translates it as ,
a lamentation. The Peshitta and Targum translate it using the cognate word
(, ) and the Vulgate uses parabola in its translation. In Jer 24:9, the
noun occurs in a context of judgment, where the Lord says that He will make
Zedekiah and his people an object of ridicule and reproach. In this instance,
the noun indicates that they will become a byword, a proverbial example of
disaster. The Peshitta and Targum again use the cognate noun and the Vulgate
parabola. This is also the rendering of the Septuagint ().
44 K.M. Beyse, mal ml, TDOT IX, 6467.

45 John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah Chapters 139 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986),
311 n. 7.
46 John D.W. Watts, Isaiah 133 (WBC 24; Waco: Word, 1985), 203.
The verb is used in the Nifal in Isa 14:10 and in the Hifil in Isa 46:5, with
meanings not related to a proverbial expression.
In Ezek 14:8, the noun is in the plural in the Hebrew. The context is the same
as in Jer 24:9. In a pronouncement of judgment, the Lord says that He will
make the one He judges a sign and a byword for others to see. The Hebrew has
the plural, which is followed by the Targum, while the Peshitta and the Vulgate
have a singular. The translation of the Septuagint differs substantially from the
Hebrew and does not render this noun.
In most of the other instances, the verb and/or noun is used to introduce a
piece of popular wisdom that is subsequently refuted. Perhaps the most well-
known example of this is found in Ezek 18:2 and 18:3:

2
3

NIV: 2What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land
of Israel: The parents eat sour grapes, and the childrens teeth are set on
edge? 3As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, you will no longer
quote this proverb in Israel.
Verse 2 asks about the meaning of a proverb or popular saying and then quotes
the proverb. Verse 3 says that the proverb will not be used in Israel anymore.
An extensive disputation speech follows. The exiles used the proverb to blame
the previous generation(s) for the plight in which they found themselves.47
A far as the translation of the combination of the verb and the noun is con-
cerned, the Septuagint uses a shortened formula in v. 2, omitting the pronoun
and participle of the Hebrew: (NETS: Why do you have
this comparison...?). In v. 3, it also has a shortened formula:
(NETS: ...if this comparison comes to be spoken
again...). The Vulgate also cannot translate literally, but it tries to retain some-
thing of the Hebrews use of the cognate noun. In v. 2, it has quid est quod
inter vos parabolam vertitis in proverbium istud (What is it that you change this
comparison into a proverb?). It uses the same expression in v. 3, with the verb
to be: vivo ego dicit Dominus Deus si erit vobis ultra parabola haec in prover-
bium in Israhel (As I live, says the Lord God, if this comparison will longer be a
proverb in Israel). The Peshitta uses the cognate noun and verb, with the verb
47 Cf. Olley, Ezekiel, 346.

274 van Rooy
in the Afel. In v. 3, it has a participle for the Hebrew infinitive. The Targum also
uses the cognate words, retaining the infinitive of the Hebrew in v. 3.
As far as the popular saying is concerned, the Septuagint translates it
quite literally: ,
(NETS: The fathers ate unripe grapes, and the teeth of the children had pain).
The Vulgate has patres comederunt uvam acerbam et dentes filiorum obstupes-
cunt. It uses the normal words for grapes, but qualifies them as unripe with
the adjective acerbus. It uses the verb obstupesco for to be set on edge, to
become blunt. It is not a perfect fit (to become senseless, to be astounded
or benumbed), but fits in the context. The Peshitta follows the Hebrew very
closely, using the same words as the Hebrew (

; the fathers ate unripe grapes and the teeth of the children became
blunt). The Targum does not translate the saying literally, but rather gives its
meaning: ( The fathers sinned but the children suffered).
Another popular saying is found in Ezek 12:22:

( NIV: Son of man, what is this

proverb you have in the land of Israel: The days go by and every vision comes
to nothing?). In this instance, the popular saying reflects the reaction of the
people when Ezekiels pronouncement of judgment did not come to fruition
very quickly. They dismissed the idea of divine judgement.48
Septuagint:
(NETS: Son of man, what is this com-
parison of yours about the land of Israel, saying Distant are the days;
vision has perished?)
Vulgate: quod est proverbium istud vobis in terra Israhel dicentium in

longum differentur dies et peribit omnis visio (What is this proverb for
you about the land of Israel, saying, The days are delayed for a long time,
and every vision perishes?)

Peshitta:
( What is this proverb that you use as a
proverb in the land of Israel and say: The days drag on and every vision
perishes?)
48 Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1 (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 281.

Targum:

( Levey: What is this proverb that you have in the land of Israel,

saying: The days are extended and every prophecy ended?)
All the translations have a good rendering of the question on the popular
saying. Note the use of an adjective in the Septuagint. It also omits the and
before the second part of the saying and the all before the days. The Vulgate
has an explanatory translation of the first part of the saying, while the Peshitta
adds to the question. The Targum translates vision with . All
the versions retain the question and the popular saying, but with some modi-
fications in the renderings.
In Ezek 12:23, this popular saying is rejected. The Hebrew reads as follows:
NIV: Say to them, This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am going to
put an end to this proverb, and they will no longer quote it in Israel. Say
to them, The days are near when every vision will be fulfilled.
The Septuagint uses the usual translation for the noun, but renders the verb of
the Hebrew using the noun and a verb of saying:
, (NETS: And
I will turn back the comparison, and the house of Israel shall no longer speak
this comparison).
The Vulgate reads, quiescere faciam proverbium istud neque vulgo dicetur
ultra in Israhel (I will make this proverb inactive and it will no longer be spo-
ken in Israel). The Vulgate rendering is a free translation, with the passive dice-
tur used in the second part.
The Peshitta reads, .
(I will put an end to this proverb and it will not be used as proverb in Israel
again). It retains the noun and the verb and translates the impersonal third
person plural of the Hebrew with a passive.
The Targum also retains the noun and the verb and follows the Hebrew
closely.
In Ezek 16:44 the verb is used twice to introduce a proverb. In this instance,
it is not a popular saying that is quoted, but a common proverb:
( NIV: Everyone who quotes proverbs will quote this

proverb about you: Like mother, like daughter).
276 van Rooy
The Septuagint is quite different: 44 ,

, 45 (NETS: These are all the
things they say about you in a comparison saying, Like mother like daughter).
It does not use the verb at all, but has a noun referring to the things people say
about her and obscuring the comparison a bit.
The Vulgate also does not use the corresponding verb, but has a more faith-
ful and idiomatic rendering of the Hebrew: ecce omnis qui dicit vulgo prover-
bium in te adsumet illud dicens sicut mater ita et filia eius (Look, everyone who
says a proverb publicly about you, will use this one saying, Like mother so also
her daughter).
The Peshitta uses the verb twice and adds the noun as well. It changes the
order of the two nouns in the proverb:

( Everyone who utters a proverb about you, will say a
proverb and say, The daughter is like her mother).
The Targum is also quite close to the Hebrew, but mentions the works of
the mother, not just the mother. It does not have the noun, but rather uses the
verb twice:
( Levey: Behold,
everyone who uses a proverb, will apply this proverb to you, saying, Like the
deeds of the mother, so, too, the daughter).
In Ezek 24:3, the prophet receives an instruction to tell a parable to the
people:
. This is then followed by a parable about a cook-
ing pot and meat as introduction to the pronouncement of judgment. The
Septuagint does not use the verb in its rendering:
. (NETS: And speak an illustration to the embitter-
ing house). The Vulgate also uses the verb to say, but then the two nouns
proverbium and parabola: et dices per proverbium ad domum inritatricem
parabolam (and you must speak a parable through a proverb to the rebellious
up house).
The Peshitta has a literal translation, but changes the word order, placing
the verb and noun at the beginning (;
and speak through a proverb to the embittered house). It uses the preposition
. The Targum does not use the cognate words, but substitutes them with
words for prophecy and prophesy: . (Levey: And
proclaim a prophecy to the rebellious people).
The same kind of command occurs in Ezek 17:2, in a parallel expression:
( NIV: Son of man, set forth an allegory and

tell it to the Israelites as a parable). For the corresponding part, the Septuagint
uses the same translation as in the previous example, but without a cognate
verb: . (NETS:
Son of man, set forth an allegory and tell it to the Israelites as a parable).
The use of these two nouns together occurs in Deut 28:37 and 2 Chr 7:20 as well,
also pronouncing judgment.49 The Vulgate uses parabola: propone enigma et
narra parabolam ad domum Israhel (relate a riddle and recount a parable to
the house of Israel). The Peshitta uses the same translation as in the previ-
ous example: . (Pose a riddle
and speak a proverb about the house of Israel). This is also the case with the
Targum:
. (Levey: Compose a riddle and

draw a parable concerning the house of Israel).
In Ezek 21:5 (MT), the prophets say that the people state that he speaks only
in parables: ( NIV: ...they are saying of
me, Isnt he just telling parables?). Their problem was then that they could
not understand his message.50 The Septuagint again uses a normal word for
speak: (NETS: ...they
are saying to me: Has not this comparison been spoken?). This last part is inter-
esting, as it does not say that the prophet is speaking in parables all the time,
but that he is using one that is already known. The Vulgate also uses a word
for speaking: ipsi dicunt de me numquid non per parabolas loquitur iste (They
say about me: Does he not speak through parables?). The Peshitta makes it a
statement and changes the third person to the second person:
( Look, they say to me: You are speaking in parables).
The Targum follows the Hebrew closely: ,

Levey: They are saying Is he not a spinner of riddles? As far as the Septuagint
is concerned, is the usual translation of the Hebrew noun.51
The noun and the verb occur frequently in Ezekiel and infrequently
in the other Major Prophets. In Isa 14:4, the noun is used for a pronounce-
ment against Babylon. The Septuagint translates it as , a lamentation.
In Ezekiel, the Peshitta and Targum usually use the cognate words, while
the Vulgate uses proverbium or parabola for the noun. The latter is also fre-
quently found in the Septuagint. The Vulgate and Septuagint cannot use cog-
nate nouns and verbs in those instances where the Hebrew uses the verb and
noun together. They usually render the verb as a verb of saying. The Targum
uses prophecy for the noun in 12:22, and in 24:3, prophesy and prophecy.
The Septuagint also tends to translate more freely, as in 16:44. In this instance,
the Targum talks of the works of the mother.

50 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 424.
278 van Rooy
3 Conclusion
The details of the three sections have been dealt with in the summaries at
the end of the three major sections. In conclusion, it can be stated that the
Targum and Peshitta tend to follow the Hebrew closer than the Septuagint and
the Vulgate. That is the result of their use of cognate words, with some excep-
tions as indicated above. The Vulgate tends to follow the Hebrew closely as
well, but with deviations mainly for stylistic or idiomatic reasons. In Ezekiel,
the Septuagint tends to downplay wisdom attributed to foreigners in general,
and to rulers or kings in particular.
CHAPTER 15
Enhanced and Revised: The Old Greek Edition of

the Book of Daniel*
Martin Rsel
1 What is Truth?
The churches of our Lord and Saviour do not read the Prophet Daniel
according to the Seventy interpreters (interpretes), using instead the edi-
tion of Theodotion, and I dont know why this happened. For whether
because the language is Chaldean and differs in certain properties from
our speech, or the Seventy interpreters were not willing to keep the same
lines in the translation, or the book was edited under their name by some
unknown other who did not sufficiently know the Chaldean language,
or not knowing anything else which was the cause, I can affirm this one
thing that it often differs from the truth (veritas) and with proper judg-
ment is rejected.1
Scholars often refer to this testimony from Jeromes preface to his Latin
translation of the Book of Daniel when they are discussing the relationship
between the OG of Daniel and the version of Pseudo-Theodotion. Obviously,
Theodotion has replaced its predecessor nearly entirely, because it is much
closer to the Hebrew and Aramaic version of the Masoretic book of Daniel as
we have it today. Therefore, the notion that the OG differs from the veritas has
often been understood as veritas hebraica in contrast to Theodotion.
However, the situation is more complicated. The version of Theodotion also
differs considerably from the Hebrew and Aramaic text, because like the OG
* The title of this paper alludes to another piece on the OG of Daniel, which has been pre-
sented in Stellenbosch in 2011 on the invitation of Johann Cook (cf. n. 17). It seems appropri-
ate to dedicate Johann a kind of enhancement of the topic I have chosen at that time.
1 This translation is adapted from Kevin P. Edgecomb (2006): http://www.tertullian.org/
fathers/jerome_preface_daniel.htm; 30.10.2015; cf. the similar statement in Jeromes com-
mentary on Dan 4:6, cited in the latest commentary on Daniel by Carol A. Newsom (with
Brennan W. Breed), Daniel: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press,
2014), 4; here only one reason for the rejection of the book is given: it is not in agreement with
the Hebrew as Theodotion is.

280 Rsel
it has the expansions of the book in ch. 3 and chs. 1314 according to the tra-
ditional counting (the Prayer of Azariah, the Song of the Three Jews and
the story of Susanna (ch. 13 or prior to ch. 1) and the narrations about Bel
and the Dragon2); a fact, Jerome knew and commented upon in the follow-
ing passage of his preface. Thus, differing from the truth must mean more
than merely having a different Vorlage. This leads to the crucial question of my
paper: What can be said about the overall impression which the Greek book of
Daniel has made on its readers? How did its meaning differ from the Hebrew
and Aramaic, so that a new translation, Theodotion, became necessary?
I should add that at the current state of research it is not possible to attri-
bute the differences between the Hebrew and Aramaic text and the Greek ver-
sions and those among the Greek version either to a deviating Vorlage or to the
hermeneutical activity of the translators. Obviously, both explanations have
their merits in different passages of the book. For the purpose of this paper, it
is therefore appropriate to discuss the perspective of the history of reception:
How was the book read and understood? Only in a second step one can guess
when and why the meaning has been changed.
I understand this approach as part of a larger project of describing aspects
of a Theology of the Septuagint.3 Elements of a specific theology or ideol-
ogy of the Greek translations can be detected in the differences between the
presumed Vorlage of a translation and the result of the translation itself.4 In
the case of Daniel, the situation is different from other books, because here we
have not only those differences I just mentioned, but also those between the OG
and Theodotion, which can hint at theological re-adjustments. Therefore, my
2 As a recent introduction into these problems, cf. R. Timothy McLay, Daniel (Old Greek and
Theodotion), in The T & T Clark Companion to the Septuagint (ed. James K. Aitken; London:
Bloomsbury Companions, 2013), 54454, and Lawrence Lahey, The Additions to Daniel,
in The T & T Clark Companion to the Septuagint (ed. James K. Aitken; London: Bloomsbury
Companions, 2013), 55567. There is no explanation why in a handbook on the LXX there
are separate articles on Daniel and the additions; this distinction only makes sense in the
perspective of the Hebrew Bible. Cf. also O. Munnich, Texte Massortique et Septante dans
le Livre de Daniel, in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible (ed. Adrian Schenker; SBLSCS 52;
Atlanta: SBL, 2003,) 93120.
3 For a broader methodological discussion I have to refer interested readers to Martin Rsel,
Towards a Theology of the Septuagint, in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the
Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures (ed. Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden; SBLSCS 53;
Atlanta: SBL, 2006), 23952.
4 Johann Cook, Towards the Formulation of a Theology of the Septuagint, in Congress Volume:
Ljubljana 2007 (ed. Andr Lemaire; VTSup 133; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 62140, here 622.
Enhanced and Revised 281
interpretation is also reception-orientated,5 but it differs from the approach

of the project La Bible dAlexandrie in that I am not using citations or allusions
from later Jewish or Christian sources to determine theological alterations.
It should be added that in the special case of Daniel (as, e.g., in Jeremiah) it
is in some parts of the book difficult to determine which version is reception
and which is (more) original, because the translation can stem from a Vorlage
that is older than the Hebrew version we have today. Despite this methodologi-
cal issue, I think that this approach is worth trying and that it is justified by its
results.6
2 Introduction
It is well known that the literary history of the Book of Daniel must have been
rather complex. Several processes of composition, Fortschreibung, and re
daction led to the editions as we have them today. The text evolved slowly,
beginning with Aramaic legends from the Persian Diaspora. Obviously, differ-
ent versions of the Daniel tradition were transmitted separately, and this has
left its traces in the OG version. I will only mention some of them, for this will
suffice to clarify the problem:
Firstly, Dan 46 OG goes back to a Vorlage differing in parts considerably from

the Aramaic text of the MT. Most scholars agree that the version of the MT
stems from a later stage of the textual history than this Vorlage, even if there is
no agreement about the details.7 Moreover, according to scholars such as Koch
5 Ibid., 627.
6 It is interesting to notice that in John Collinss commentary, the history of interpretation
begins with Sib. Or. 3:397 and the texts from Qumran, not with the OG. Although he com-
ments intensively upon LXX matters, he does not bring the various observations together.
John Collins, Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 72. The same is true for
the passages on the reception history in Carol Newsoms commentary on Daniel, which are
written along with Brennan Breed. Newsom (with Breed), Daniel.
7 Regarding Dan 46, Munnich concludes that the LXX...is the faithful witness of a non-
Masoretic source text, and the Semitic text evolved before reaching its Masoretic form.
Olivier Munnich, The Masoretic Rewriting of Daniel 46: The Septuagint Version as
Witness, in From Author to Copyist: Essays on the Composition, Redaction, and Transmission
of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of Zipi Talshir (ed. Cana Werman; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns
2015), 14972, here 17172. Similarly, see Rainer Albertz, Der Gott des Daniel: Untersuchungen
zu Daniel 46 in der Septuagintafassung sowie zu Komposition und Theologie des aramischen
Danielbuches (SBS 131; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988), 76, and Collins, Daniel, 221.
282 Rsel
or Kottsieper the tale of Daniel in the Lions den in ch. 6 could well be younger
than the similar version of this particular story in the Bel and the Dragon nar-
ration in ch. 14.8
Secondly, between Dan 3:23 and 24 there is obviously a gap, because the
astonishment of King Nebuchadnezzar cannot be explained. This gap is filled
in the Greek versions with a short narration and the prayers, but one can only
guess whether or not a preliminary stage or the immediate Vorlage of these has
once been in the Aramaic text.9
And thirdly, in P. 967, even the order of the chapters is different (78 between
4 and 5; the chapters follow chronologically). Therefore, Lust has proposed
that this is not only the original order of the Greek tradition, but also that this
sequence of chapters is prior to the order in the MT and its Aramaic core.10
Scholars are far away from a consensus to explain these developments or even
from a judgment of which version may be the oldest. But it is clear that the
book has grown in several stages not only by redactional activity in the given
texts on the verse level, but also by the inclusion of larger units as the visions
in Dan 812, the prayers in Dan 3 and 9, the prologue with the Susanna story
and the Bel et Draco narrative. To give only one example: The OG version of the
Bel-narrative is introduced by From a prophecy of Hambakoum, the son of
Iesous of the tribe of Leui. There was a certain person, a priest, whose name
was Daniel... (Dan 14:1+2a; translation from NETS). It is obvious that this
8 Klaus Koch, Deuterokanonische Zustze zum Danielbild: Entstehung und Textgeschichte

(AOAT 38/12, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1987), 142202; Koch puts forward
the theory that the medieval Chronicle of Jerachmeel contains an Aramaic version which
can be seen as a development of the assumed Vorlage of the OG. Ingo Kottsieper, Zustze
zu Daniel, in Das Buch Baruch. Der Brief des Jeremia. Zustze zu Ester und Daniel (ed. Ingo
Kottsieper, Reinhard Gregor Kratz, and Odil Hannes Steck; ATD Apokryphen 5; Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 211328, esp. 25658. But see Carey A. Moore, Daniel,
Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions (AB 44, Garden City: Yale University Press, 1977), 149,
who sees little more than literary influences or contaminations.
9 Cf. Klaus Koch, Daniel (BKAT 22,1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2005), 26062,
for a detailed argumentation that the abrupt transition in the Aramaic text must be origi-
nal. Contrary to that, Moore, Daniel, 41, concludes that the prose section was part of the
original text. For a detailed analysis cf. also Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, Daniel 3 LXX et son
supplment Grec, in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings (ed. Adam S. van der
Woude; BETL 106; Leuven: Peeters, 1993), 1337.
10 Johan Lust, The Septuagint Version of Daniel 45, in The Book of Daniel in the Light of
New Findings (ed. Adam S. van der Woude; BETL 106; Leuven: Peeters, 1993), 3953.
was the heading of a separate text, which only later was included in a new
composition.11
The expansion of the Book of Daniel can be compared to the developments
at the end of the Book of Ezekiel (chs. 3648) or the growth of the Book of
Enoch. It proves that there has been an on-going interest in the book and
its message (such also in Qumran, where eight different manuscripts were
found).12 With every step of development, the general or overall meaning of
the book has also been altered, and these actualizations are the topic of my
next chapter.
3 The Greek Book of Daniel as a Whole
Some methodological considerations are necessary: The Aramaic or Hebrew

predecessors of the additions to the Book of Daniel in chs. 3 and 1314 cannot
be reconstructed with certainty, although Koch has put forward some strong
arguments that the medieval Chronicle of Jerachmeel contains Aramaic ver-
sions of the Prayers in Dan 3 and the Bel narrative, which are close to the pre-
sumed Vorlage of the Greek texts. He was able to identify several older readings
in the Aramaic text, which could explain Greek translations.13 Other scholars,
such as recently Lahey or Joosten, deny that this corpus or parts of it are indeed
translations but that they were originally formulated in Greek and aiming to
11 But see Collins, Daniel, 40910, who regards the superscription as secondary, but also con-
cludes that the story circulated independently. Cf. also the most recent publication on
the topic by Dalia Amara, who assumes two independent versions of the narrative which
are now reflected by the translations of the OG and Theodotion. Bel and the Dragon: The
Relationship between Theodotion and Old Greek, in From Author to Copyist: Essays on
the Composition, Redaction, and Transmission of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of Zipi Talshir
(ed. Cana Werman; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 12547.
12 It is interesting to notice that among these texts, only remnants of canonical chap-
ters have been found, not of the additions (cf. Eugene Ulrich, The Text of Daniel in
the Qumran Scrolls, in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. Vol. 2 [ed. John J.
Collins and Peter W. Flint; VTSup 83,2; Leiden: Brill, 2001], 57385). This can be an argu-
ment against a Judean background, as Lahey, Additions, 55759, assumes.
13 Klaus Koch, Deuterokanonische Zustze, 20305. Cf. also his reconstruction of the Aramaic
archetype (ibid., 20614). Collins, Daniel, 199205, 410, has accepted Kochs view; others
like Kottsieper, Zustze, 220, reject it without longer discussion.
284 Rsel
imitate the characteristics of a translation from a Semitic original.14 Because of

this state of research, one has to use the OG version as the oldest extant wit-
ness, although the textual attestation of the OG is weak because of its replace-
ment by Theodotion. Therefore, it is often difficult to decide about the oldest
stratum of the Greek translation.
Most scholars describe the OG of Daniel as a free or dynamic translation,15
especially when compared with the later, more literal version of Theodotion.
Nevertheless, it is disputed whether the translator was using his free approach
only to clarify the meaning of the text, e.g., by changing the word order or
by his choice of lexemes or neologisms.16 Others, myself included, have the
impression that the translator has introduced his own theological interpreta-
tion into the text in several instances.17
Because the characteristic term abomination of deso-
lation from Dan 11:31 was used in 1 Macc 1:54, the date of the translation is usu-
ally seen in the second half of the second century BCE, thus only very shortly
after the Maccabean crisis and after the Hebrew-Aramaic book has been fin-
ished around 165/4 BCE.18
It is not completely clear whether the LXX version of Daniel can be seen
as a unit; there are several differences between chs. 17, on the one hand, and
812 on the other. Moreover, even in the different parts of the Bel et Draco
14 Jan Joosten, The prayer of Azariah (DanLXX 3): Sources and Origin, in Septuagint and
Reception: Essays Prepared for the Association for the Study of the Septuagint in South Africa
(ed. Johann Cook; VTSup 127, Leiden: Brill, 2009), 516; Lahey, Additions, 559.
15 Frederick Fyvie Bruce even speaks of a paraphrastic style...remarkably close to that
of the Aramaic targums. The Oldest Greek Version of Daniel, in Instruction and
Interpretation: Studies in Hebrew Language, Palestinian Archaeology and Biblical Exegesis
(ed. Hendrik Antonie Brongers; OTS 20; Leiden: Brill, 1977), 2240, here 38.
16 Cf. R. Timothy McLay in NETS, 992 and idem, Daniel, 5478, who sees only minor
examples of exegesis (p. 550); e.g., the identification of the king of the south with Egypt
in 11:5. Similarly, see Sharon Pace Jeansonne, The Old Greek Translation of Daniel 712
(CBQMS 19; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1988), 13132.
17 Martin Rsel, Theology after the Crisis: The Septuagint Version of Daniel 812, in Text-
Critical and Hermeneutical Studies in the Septuagint (ed. Johann Cook and Hermann-Josef
Stipp; VTSup 157; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 20719. Cf. also one of the older voices: Frederick
Fyvie Bruce, The Earliest Old Testament Interpretation, in The Witness of Tradition:
Papers Read at the Joint British-Dutch Old Testament Conference Held at Woudschoten, 1970
(ed. Martinus Adrianus Beek; OTS 17; Leiden: Brill, 1972), 3752.
18 T. J. Meadowcroft, Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison (JSOTSup 198;
Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1995), 275; cf. also Dalia Amara, Daniel. Septuagint,
in Text History of the Bible (ed. Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov; vol 1; Leiden: Brill,
forthcoming).
stories, different strategies of translation seem to be visible.19 Therefore, cau-

tion is advised not to draw conclusions too quickly from one part of the book
to the other. Nevertheless, it is worth asking for the message of the book as a
unit.20
4 Susanna
It seems appropriate to start with the story of Susanna, because here Daniel is
presented as a young man21 to whom the spirit of understanding (NETS) has
been given (v. 44) by an angel. The story seems to be an alternate beginning of
the book. Its setting fits with the Diaspora legends in chs. 16, but the scope is
different: The focus of the narrative is exclusively on the Jewish community,
obviously in Babylon; nothing can be read about threats by the foreign and
gentile environment. The danger comes from within the community and its
corrupt leaders, who are not looking up to heaven (v. 9). Their behaviour fulfils
a saying by the lord that lawlessness comes from Babylon (v. 5). In
contrast to them, Susanna (perhaps personifying Israel) is depicted as a pious
woman who refuses to sin before the Lord (v. 22). She is saved because God
hears her prayer and sends his angel to Daniel, so that the two elders receive
their just punishment according to the (v. 60). The story ends with a
praise of the youth, whom the spirit of understanding is given because of their
moral integrity () and pious life ().
The Susanna story adds the idea to the Book of Daniel that God will save
his people even if their leaders are lawless people. Thus, it is easily
understandable why if the date of the translation after 150 BCE is correct
it has been incorporated in the Greek edition in the time of the Hasmonean
19 Koch (Deuterokanonische Zustze, 148, 20002) even assumes that in this part of the book
Theodotion is older than the OG, which is less convincing in my view.
20 A similar survey has been undertaken by Bruce, but he concentrates on different top-
ics so that our papers complement each other. Bruce, The Oldest Greek Version of
Daniel, 24.
21 In Theodotion, Susanna stands before Dan 1; in MS 88, Syro-Hexapla and the Vulgate it is
after ch. 12 and in P. 967 after Bel et Draco; cf. Josef Ziegler and Olivier Munnich, Septuaginta:
Vetus Testamentum Graecum, Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum
XVI/2: Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 2022.
It may well be that the figure of Daniel was originally not part of the Susanna story, thus
Lawrence M. Wills, The Jew in the Court of the Foreign King: Ancient Jewish Court Legends
(Harvard Dissertations in Religion 26; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 76, and Moore,
Daniel, 8990, who erroneously notes in n. 28 that in P. 967 Susanna stands before Dan 1.
286 Rsel
rulership even if it could well be older.22 Moreover, a reference to the nomos/

torah is introduced, which is not typical for the canonical parts of the book
besides Dan 9.
5 Developments in Daniel 12
Turning now to the canonical parts of the book in their Greek version, I am
starting by picking up a trace from the Susanna story: When the woman
utters her prayer, her heart trusts to , her God, and she addresses him:
Lord! Everlasting God! ( , v. 35). In the parallel passage of
Theodotion (v. 42), is not used, but Susanna calls O everlasting God!
( ) instead. This small difference becomes significant when we
turn to Dan 1: Throughout this chapter, is used as the name and desig-
nation of Israels God, even when the Hebrew text has ( v. 9) and not
( v. 2). One hint why this has happened is given already in v. 2, because
here the Greek text states that Nebuchadnezzar brought the sacred vessels of
the Lord (, MT has: vessels of the house of God; ) into his
idol temple ( ); not, as the MT states, in the treasury of his
Gods ( ) . A similar distinction can be seen in ch. 2: The Chaldeans

address their king Nebuchadnezzar by /Lord,23 where the Aramaic text
has King! ( v. 4). Daniel, on the other hand, turns in his prayers to the
Lord Most high and praises him (v. 18: ,
cf. v. 19). Throughout ch. 2, is often used to translate , God, when
Daniel speaks to or about his God;24 the more literal translation God is used
when it is clear that the God of Israel is meant.25 In 2:47, Lord
of Lords is added to the confession of the foreign king,26 and Daniel himself
makes his view clear in 2:37: The Lord of heaven has given the kingdom to
you ( ). Again, the Aramaic text has
22 Collins, Daniel, 438: ...could have been composed at any time in the Hellenistic or even
the late Persian period, cf. also Moore, Daniel, 91.
23 Thus already in Dan 1:10.
24 Dan 2:23: Lord of our fathers, while the MT has God of our fathers.
25 Cf. 2:44: God of the heaven, ; v. 45: great God, .
26 This phrase is missing in Theodotion, in the OG it is only attested by P. 967. On the prob-
lem of the translation of the divine names cf. also Klaus Koch, Sptisraelitisch-jdische
und urchristliche Danielrezeption vor und nach der Zerstrung des zweiten Tempels, in
Rezeption und Auslegung im Alten Testament und in seinem Umfeld (ed. Reinhard G. Kratz;
OBO 153; Freiburg: Universittsverlag, 1997), 93123, especially p. 97 on Dan 2:47.
God of heaven () , thus it is obvious that the Greek version under-

scores whom the Israelites accept as their sole Lord.27
6 The Prayers in Daniel 3
The aforementioned strategy of dealing with divine names and titles can be
found in chs. 16 and 9 of the OG of Daniel. It is also visible in ch. 3 with its
additions. The story is about the veneration of a statue () , which is through-
out the chapter translated by . But when the three men speak to the
king, they qualify this statue as idol (v. 18: for
). Moreover, in v. 16 the usual address Lord is avoided and

the vocative is inserted over against the Aramaic text. Verse 17, then,
makes the belief of the young men explicitly clear: There is God in Heaven,
who is our one Lord, whom we fear (
, ). The Aramaic text is much shorter and without the distinct
monotheistic statement: Behold, there is our God whom we fear (
) .

The three men were thrown into the furnace, and, as mentioned earlier,
there is a gap in the Aramaic text between vv. 23 and 24. Moreover, v. 23 in
the Aramaic text is redundant; it is missing in the OG, but not in Theodotion.
The men are now presented with their Hebrew names, not as in v. 12 with
their Chaldean names. The three, not only Azariah as in Theodotion, begin to
sing and pray to the Lord, (v. 24 OG: ; Theodotion:
). The first prayer, which is inserted at that
place, is a typical communal confession of sin and petition for mercy,28 which
can be compared to Dan 9, Bar 1:53:8 or to the dibre ha-meorot/Words of the
Luminaries from Qumran (4Q504506). However, there are some interesting
differences:
Firstly, the prayer of Azariah mentions an unjust king, to whom the Jews were
handed over (v. 32), and it states that there is no longer a ruler, prophet or
leader, nor a place for offerings (v. 38). Therefore, the text is best understood as
being written in the time of the Maccabean struggles.29
27 In the light of these observations, which will be increased when turning to the later parts
of the book, I cannot understand how one can get the impression that the OG does not
exhibit a concern for monotheism, as McLay (Daniel, 551) writes.
28 Cf. Collins, Daniel, 202f.; and the exposition by Koch, Deuterokanonische Zustze, 3584.
29 Joosten, Prayer, 7; Moore, Daniel, 46.
288 Rsel
Secondly, the prayer does not refer to the sins of the fathers (as Neh 9:16;
Dan 9:8), which were repeated by the sons. In contrary, only the contemporary
generation of the praying We is in the focus; the responsibility is not shifted
to someone else.
Thirdly, in v. 40 the idea of the substitute sacrifice of the three men is uttered,
the prayer thus gives a distinctively different theological answer why Israelites
have to suffer in these days; it links this text to the concept of martyrdom
which is, e.g., present in 2 Macc 7:37f.30 The later apocalyptic parts of the book
answer the question of suffering implicitly by a kind of historical determinism.
Again, as in the Susanna-story, we find allusions to the nomos/Torah (in vv.
29 and 30), which is not typical for the rest of the Book of Daniel besides ch. 9.
The prayer ends in v. 45 with a monotheistic confession: they shall know that
you alone are the Lord ( ),31 which fits to the use
of in the preceding chapters.32
Together with a short prose passage, a second prayer has been incorporated
at this point, the Song of the three young Men. It is a hymn of praise,33 whose
sections can be compared to Ps 144 or 148. This song brings a cosmological
component into the Book of Daniel: If the God of Israel is the Lord of the ,
the world and its time, then the question for his creation and all the elements
in the world can arise. Thus, a list is given of natural powers and phenomena,
which have to serve and praise the Lord. Such a list is typical for wisdom and
apocalyptic texts34 and it can be compared to Sir 42:1543:33 and 4 Ezra 7:39ff.35
Its structure follows Gen 1, but there is nothing like the idea of a dominium ter-
rae as in Gen 1:28: humankind is only part of the , not its crown. At the end
of the psalm, Israel is addressed with its priests and servants; this does not fit
to the situation of the Maccabean struggle, which obviously is the background
of the first prayer in Dan 3). In v. 86, the spirits and souls of the righteous are
30 Koch, Daniel, 351. Cf. also Ernst Haag, Das Shnopfer der Gotteszeugen nach dem
Asarjagebet des Buches Daniel, TTZ 116 (2007): 193220.
31 In this case, Theodotion is even more specific: .
32 Cf. Pieter W. van der Horst and Judith H. Newman, Early Jewish Prayers in Greek
(Commentaries on early Jewish Literature; New York: de Gruyter, 2008), 214.
33 Collins, Daniel, 207.
34 Koch, Deuterokanonische Zustze, 88114. For the background see Michael E. Stone, Lists
of Revealed Things in the Apocalyptic Literature, in Magnalia Dei, the Mighty Acts of God:
Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright (ed. Frank Moore Cross,
Ernst G. Wright, Werner E. Lemke and Patrick D. Miller; Garden City: Doubleday, 1976),
41454.
35 Koch, Deuterokanonische Zustze, 136.
asked to praise the lord; this resembles to 1 En. 22, where the dead are meant;36
perhaps the hope for resurrection from Dan 12 or Isa 26:19 lies behind this
allusion.37
7 Daniel 46
Going back to the Greek version of the canonical text, some significant changes
in meaning can be noted only briefly. In several instances, the critique con-
cerning the foreign king and his religion is strengthened. Thus, in 3:1 and 4:1,
the events concerning Nebuchadnezzar are dated into the 18th year of his rule,
which was, according to Jer 52:29, the year of the destruction of the temple
in Jerusalem. This is amplified in 4:19. Here it is stated that Nebuchadnezzar
has ravaged the house of the living God because of the sins of the people
( : cf. the
in 11:31); the Babylonian king can be seen as a prefiguration of Antiochus IV
Epiphanes.38 But the difference between these two kings is that, according to
the long addition in 4:34, Nebuchadnezzar has changed his mind so that he
now acknowledges the Most High and praises the creator of heaven and earth.39
Therefore, he is reinstalled as king. In a similar way, also king Darius in 6:27(29)
is confessing that from now on he is worshipping the God of Israel. This can be
understood that it is indeed possible that there is a divinely intended, eternal
kingdom on earth, if only the king confesses his belief in the true God. Again,
the Greek version has a remarkably different view on history.
As it was already seen in 1:2, the tendency towards criticism of foreign reli-
gions is expanded. In ch. 5, king Balthazar and his nobles not only drink from
36 Thus Koch, Deuterokanonische Zustze, 117; but see Moore, Daniel, 73: ...men who are
righteous and alive, not disembodied spirits or immortal souls. According to Kottsieper,
Zustze, 247 this (secondary) verse refers to the three men.
37 Collins, Daniel, 207, mentions the parallel to 1 En. 22, but nevertheless sees v. 86 as a pre-
sumable reference to the living righteous.
38 Jennifer Dines, The Kings Good Servant? Loyalty, Subversion, and Greek Daniel, in
Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers (ed. Tessa Rajak; Hellenistic Culture and Society
50; Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007), 20524, 206; cf. Meadowcraft, Aramaic
Daniel, 5253.
39 Cf. Matthias Henze, Babylon Remembered: Nebuchadnezzar in the Collective Memory
of Ancient Israel, in With Wisdom as a Robe: Qumran and Other Jewish Studies in Honour
of Ida Frhlich (ed. Kroly Dniel Dobos and Mikls Kszeghy; Hebrew Bible Monographs
21; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2009), 10820 (although without comments on
the OG).
290 Rsel
the vessels of the temple in Jerusalem, they also bless their handmade idols,
but not the eternal God, who alone had authority over their spirit (5:4, cf. v. 23);
thus the Greek version amplifies the conflict.40 The same can be seen in ch. 6,
where, without an equivalent in the Aramaic text, king Darius is named God
in v. 6:
; do not present a petition nor pray a prayer to any
god... except Darius. And again, the worship of this king Darius is depicted as
a veneration of handmade idols, which cannot save (v. 28(27):
; again without equivalent in the Aramaic text).
This critical tendency towards foreign religions may have been fuelled by the
events of the Maccabean era; tolerance against the Gods of the people around
is no longer an option. This tendency fits with the fact that in 6:27 the accent is
laid on the existence of the God of Israel (
) rather than on his kingdom and dominion, as the
longer text in MT or Theodotion suggests:
(6:26(27); cf. 3:17).
Finally, mention should made that the situation in the Diaspora is seen dif-
ferently in the OG version:41 In 6:4(5) not all of the satraps tried to find grounds
for complaints against Daniel, but only his two immediate colleagues. Thus,
the conflict is not general between Jews and pagans, but individual, between
a Jew and his envious neighbours. In 1:20, Daniel is not compared with magi-
cians and enchanters, but with wise men and philosophers (
), which fits better to the assumed situation in Ptolemaic
Alexandria. This fits to the fact that the foreign rulers are seen more positively
in the OG of Dan 36, because they turn more to the God of Israel than in the
Aramaic version. This may be seen as a hint that the origin of the translation
was in the Diaspora, presumably in Alexandria,42 therefore possible conflicts
are toned down.
40 For the purpose of this paper, it may suffice to point to these few characteristics of the
OG in Dan 5. An in-depth analysis will follow, which will also discuss the complex theory
of Munnich (Masoretic Rewriting, 16171), who sees Dan 56 as a late addition that has
been inserted at the same time as the deuterocanonical texts.
41 As Birte Braasch has shown in detail: Die LXXbersetzung des Danielbuches eine
Orientierungshilfe fr das religise und politisch-gesellschaftliche Leben in der ptol-
emischen Diaspora: Eine rezeptionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von Dan 17 (Hamburg,
2003), which has only been published as a dissertation.
42 Thus McLay, Daniel, 547; Braasch, LXXbersetzung, 29297.
8 Daniel 712
Also in the apocalyptic parts, we can find some important enhancements of

the message of the Book of Daniel. A slight modification can be seen already
in 2:28, where the Lord () kyrios, has disclosed what must happen
( ), while in the Aramaic text things only will happen () .
In 7:6, the third animal is depicted a bit more positively, because not power
() , but language was given to it ( ); perhaps
this is an indication that the third animal is seen as the Ptolemaic kingdom.43
I skip a discussion of the problem of how to understand the much debated
verse 7:13, because it has to be seen in the wider horizon of how the OG of
Daniels deals with the relationship of God and his angels.44
Much more important is the fact that the OG translation obviously has had
its own view on the prophecies of Daniel.45 Thus, some of the open questions
are solved: in every instance in 11:540, the Hebrew has been clarified
by (nine times). The enemy must then at the time of trans-
lation have been the Romans; therefore it is not surprising to find that in 11:30
the ships of the Kittim ( ) were correctly identified with the .
When it is about the events of the final days, one can notice that the Greek
version is still waiting for a final purification of the sanctuary, an idea that has
been formulated in three different texts: 8:14 (only here for
, is used), in 11:35 the intelligent ( ) are preparing for their purifi-
cation, in 12:6 two angels are talking about the consummation of the wonders
and the purification. One can suspect whether the translator held the position
that the temple still has to be cleaned, although the Maccabeans have recon-
quered and reconsecrated it. This is easily understandable as anti-Hasmonean
ideology.46
In ch. 11, one can read a short summary of the events in the days of the
desecration of the temple until the death of the wicked king. It is here in v. 34
that in the Hebrew text the Maccabeans are mentioned, being a little help
43 Braasch, LXXbersetzung, 267.

44 Cf. Martin Rsel, Die himmlische Welt der Septuaginta: Angelologische Akzentuierungen
am Beispiel des Danielbuches, in Die Septuaginta: Orte und Intentionen (ed. Siegfried
Kreuzer, Martin Meiser and Marcus Sigismund; forthcoming 2016).
45 In this section, I give a summary of my paper read in Stellenbosch Theology after the
Crisis (cf. n. 17).
46 Similarly, see A. McCrystall, Studies in the Old Greek Translation of Daniel (Ph.D. disser-
tation, Oxford University, 1980), 386: The Temple needs the true line of Priesthood to
return. He assumes that the translator of Daniel is opposed to pro-Seleucid members of
the Jewish community.
292 Rsel
( ) for the Maskilim only. In the Greek version, the text sounds quite
different, because here the Maskilim will gather a little strength after they are
broken ( ); the Maccabeans are no longer part of the
history. This again can be understood as an anti-Hasmonean punch.
The following events are also seen differently, because the Greek version of
vv. 4045 awaits a final battle between northern and Ptolemaic troops in Egypt
prior to the last days. Finally, also some verses in ch. 12 betray that the Greek
version has a different expectation of what will happen at the end of times:
Daniel is ordered to seal the book until the many rage violently and the earth
is filled with injustice (NETS); a similar expectation of a final battle is added in
v. 9, and in the final verse of the chapter Daniel is told that there are still days
and hours until the fulfilment of consummation (v. 13). To sum up, in the eyes
of the translator the events of the Maccabean crises have only been a kind of
prefiguration of what will come in the future. Thus, it is understandable why
the expectations of the Book of Daniel in its Greek wording could easily be
applied to the Roman Empire, although its predictions about the Hellenistic
rulers have failed.
9 Bel et Draco
Finally, a very short comment on the addition of the two stories about the gods
of the Babylonians, Bel et Draco, may suffice. It has already been seen that the
topic of polemics against the veneration of other gods was strengthened in chs.
16. Now several other undertones are added: Daniel is presented as a clever
detective as in the Susanna story, because he finds out how the deceit of the
priests works (vv. 1419). Moreover, he provokes the Babylonians rather than
being their victim as in Dan 6 (or the three men in Dan 3). More importantly,
these texts are more satiric, and the contrast between the religions is much
sharper than in the canonical parts. This fits to texts like Jub. 12:12 or the Letter
of Jeremiah, which may have been written at about the same time prior to the
Maccabean revolt. One small detail: In the strange Habakkuk scene there is
again a hint to the nomos/Torah, because Habakkuk has to travel to Babylon
and back at the sixth day; obviously because of the Sabbath (v. 3940).
10 Conclusions
Some concluding remarks: The survey through the OG of Daniel has shown
that the overall meaning of the book has received some important new facets.
It offers its readers more perspectives, its theology is more strictly monotheis-
tic, and especially in chs. 3 and 4, more emphasis is laid on God as creator of
heaven and earth. It works up the experience that the events of the Maccabean
crisis have not been the worst or the end of times, but it conveys confidence
that God will help his people against enemies from within and without.
It should also be added that some elements from the Hebrew/Aramaic book
are missing. As I have shown elsewhere, the Greek edition of Daniel shows an
expanded angelology, combined with a stricter hierarchy among the heavenly
powers.47 But the concept of guardian angels for every people is abandoned
in the translation. Moreover, also the concept of 70 weeks in Dan 9 has been
abandoned (9:26 reads 77+62 weeks instead of 62 weeks of the Hebrew text),
thus it is no longer possible to calculate the time of the end.
So one can easily understand why 400 years later, Jerome may have gotten
the impression that the book differs from its Vorlage or even from the truth.48
But in the view of a modern exegete, these differences allow glimpses into the
world of religious ideas of the translators and are therefore an important ele-
ment in describing a theology of the Septuagint.
47 Rsel, Die himmlische Welt, (forthcoming, see above fn. 45).

48 One element of his criticism may have been that in the Early Church the scheme of
70 weeks (missing in the OG) has become very prominent to calculate the coming of the
eternal kingdom, cf. Newsom, Daniel, 31420 and Gebern Oegema, Die Danielrezeption
in der Alten Kirche, in Europa, Tausendjhriges Reich und Neue Welt: Zwei Jahrtausende
Geschichte und Utopie in der Rezeption des Danielbuches (ed. Mariano Delgado, Klaus
Koch, and Edgar Marsch; Studien zur christlichen Religions- und Kulturgeschichte 1;
Freiburg: Universittsverlag, 2003), 84104.
CHAPTER 16
Introductory Notes on Philo of Alexandrias

Proverbs and Idiomatic Expressions
Gert J. Steyn
1 Introduction
Little research has been done to date on the use of proverbial sayings by Philo
of Alexandria (ca. 20 BCE40 CE).1 Studies occupying themselves with the role
of the influence of Wisdom traditions in the Corpus Philonicum are usually
restricted to Philos use of the biblical book of Proverbs and to his use of the
concepts of Logos and Sophia. Furthermore, the term is not only
restricted to Jewish Hellenistic literature, but also occurs frequently in classical
Greek literature. Plato, for instance, uses it at least 26 times, and Aristotle uses
it at least 67 times in his works alone. Philo distinguished himself clearly as a
Hellenised Jew, who lived in the Egyptian Greek city of Alexandria, by delib-
erately attempting to merge his Jewish religion with the Greek philosophy of
his day. It is therefore evident that Philos proverbs would have found their
way through both these trajectories: the Jewish Hellenistic trajectory from
his authoritative Jewish religious sources in their Greek form, but also through
the classical Greek trajectory from his training and engagement with classical
Greek literature, and in particular through Platonic and Stoic philosophy. Philo
envisaged, for instance, the concept of Logos as a function of Wisdom.
Philo uses the technical term proverb () only seven times.2 There
are, however, at least 20 more instances where Philo employs synonymous ter-
minology to explicitly quote or refer to a proverbial saying, i.e., a short saying in
fixed form, emphasizing some general truth.3 These include terms such as the
saying or the expression ( ), the word ( ) which might
also probably be translated as the Logos or even Wisdom, the expression
1 I am grateful for the assistance of Dr. Hanre Janse van Rensburg and Dr. Ronald van der Bergh
for their help on the primary texts in this essay.
2 Cf. Philo, Abr. 235; Mos. 1.22; 1.156; Mos. 2.29; Ebr. 84; Legat. 125; Praem. 150. See also the work
of Naomi G. Cohen, Philos Scriptures: Citations from the Prophets and Writings. Evidence for a
Haftarah Cycle in Second Temple Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 16165.
3 L&N, 390.

Philo of Alexandria s Proverbs and Idiomatic Expressions 295
(), and even once epically (; Conf. 134). A surprising phenomenon

surfaces in Philos use of, and reference to, proverbial sayings. The majority of
these 14 from at least a potential 23 can be traced back to classical Greek
literature. In the quest for the possible origin of Philos proverbs,4 one can
thus easily identify three major groups: Group A consists of those with clear
LXX attestation and exclusive connection to the book of Proverbs; Group B
consists of proverbial expressions with attestation from Greek classical
authors; and Group C comprises of proverbs that are of unknown origin and
without attestation in our extant corpus of Greek literature. In the analysis
below, each group will be structured according to the different introductory
formulae applied by Philo. The possible origin of each proverbial saying will
be traced in the corpus of pre-Philonic Greek literature and will then be briefly
situated within its literary Philonic context.
The primary aim of this study is the identification and categorization of
Philos proverbs and idiomatic expressions that are introduced by clear intro-
ductory formulae. In the light of these introductory notes, this study hopes to
open avenues for future research on some important questions, such as the fol-
lowing: Which particular classical Greek authors did Philo quote? Did he use
these expressions in the same sense as proverbs? Was Philo perhaps familiar
with Latin and Egyptian proverbs as well and could those of unknown origin
perhaps be traced back to such works? What role did oral tradition play in
Philos repertoire of proverbs? It is ultimately the intention of this investiga-
tion to provide an introduction to the broader field of Philos proverbs and
idiomatic expressions beyond his quotations from LXX Proverbs.
2 Group A: Philos Proverbs with Known LXX Attestation
The book of Proverbs can be divided into a pre-exilic section (Prov 1030,
consisting of individual sayings) and a post-exilic section (Prov 19; 31, con-
sisting of wisdom poems and speeches). It is well known that the Greek
translation of Proverbs represents a much freer version and not a literal
one. Some scholars, such as Johann Cook, perceive the LXX translator to be
a conservative Jewish translator with an excellent education in Judaism and
Hellenism, which he employs in order to make clear the intention of the text
4 This search was conducted by using the databases of the Perseus Digital Library (ed. Gregory
R. Crane; Medford: TUFTS University) and the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (University of
California, Irvine).
296 Steyn
he translated.5 Cook studied LXX Proverbs extensively from different angles

for many years. His studies included, for instance, the dating of LXX Proverbs,6
its translators,7 differences with the MT,8 its Hellenistic influence,9 its textual
problems,10 text-critical value,11 relationship with the Psalms,12 Job,13 Qohelet,14
5 Johann Cook, The Translator of the Septuagint of Proverbs Is His Style the Result
of Platonic and/or Stoic Influence?, in Die Septuaginta Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten (ed.
Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus; WUNT 219; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 54448,
on p. 558.
6 See Johann Cook, The Dating of Septuagint Proverbs, EThL 69 (1993): 38399.
7 Johann Cook, The Translator(s) of LXX Proverbs, TC 7 (2002): 150.
8 Johann Cook, The Greek of Proverbs Evidence of a Recensionally Deviating Hebrew
Text?, in Emanuel: Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor
of Emanuel Tov (ed. Shalom M. Paul, Robert A. Kraft, Lawrence H. Schiffman, and Weston
W. Fields; Leiden / Boston: Brill, 2003), 60518. See also in this regard, Emanuel Tov,
Recensional Differences between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint of Proverbs, in
Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian
Origins Presented to John Strugnell on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday (ed. Harold W.
Attridge, John J. Collins and Thomas H. Tobin; College Theological Society Resources in
Religion 5; New York: University Press of America, 1990), 4356.
9 See Johann Cook, Hellenistic Influence in the Septuagint Book of Proverbs, in VII
Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leuven
1989 (ed. Claude Cox; SBLSCSS 31; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 34153; Johann Cook, The
Septuagint of Proverbs Jewish and/or Hellenistic Proverbs? (Concerning the Hellenistic
Colouring of LXX Proverbs) (VTS 69; Leiden: Brill, 1997).
10 Johann Cook, Textual Problems in the Septuagint of Proverbs, JNSL 26 (2000): 7788.
11 Johann Cook, The Text-critical Value of the Septuagint of Proverbs, in Seeking out the
Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays in Honor of Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of His Sixty-
fifth Birthday (ed. Ronald L. Troxel; Kelvin G. Friebel and Dennis R. Magary; Eisenbrauns:
Winona Lake, 2005), 40719.
12 Johann Cook, Intertextual Relationships between the Septuagint of Psalms and
Proverbs, in The Old Greek Psalter: Studies in Honour of Albert Pietersma (ed. Robert J.V.
Hiebert, Claude E. Cox, and Peter J. Gentry; JSOTSup 332; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 2001), 21828.
13 See Johann Cook, Aspects of the Relationship between the Septuagint Versions of
Proverbs and Job, in IX Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and
Cognate Studies, Cambridge 1995 (ed. Bernard A. Taylor; SBLSCSS 45; Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1997), 30928.
14 Johann Cook, Aspects of the Relationship between the Septuagint Versions of Kohelet
and Proverbs, in Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom (ed. Antoon Schoors; BETL 136; Leuven:
Peeters Press, 1998), 48192.
Jeremiah,15 and with the Law,16 its apocalyptic terminology,17 and theological
tendenz.18
There are four clear LXX Proverbs quotations in three of Philos writings,
namely in his Preliminary Studies (177), On Dreams (2.144), and On Drunkenness
(84). The longest is introduced with , whilst the other three are intro-
duced with the formula .
Introduced with
A1 Philo, Congr. 177 LXX Prov 3:1112
, , , My son, neglect not the

, instruction of God, and
be not grieved when you
, are reproved by him; for
, , whom the Lord loves he
chastens; and scourges
. every son whom he
received.
This Proverbs quotation is lengthier than the others and taken from
Prov 3:1112.19 Philo quotes it in his Preliminary Studies (Congr. 177) and intro-
duces it with an extensive formula: , ,
, (one of the disciples of Moses, by
name the peaceful, who in his native language is called Solomon, says...).
15 Cf. Johann Cook, A Comparison of Proverbs and Jeremiah in the Septuagint, JNSL 20
(1994): 4958.
16 See Johann Cook, The Law of Moses in Septuagint Proverbs, VT 49 (1999): 44861; and
idem, The Law in the Septuagint Proverbs, JNSL 23 (1997): 21123.
17 Cf. Johann Cook, Apocalyptic Terminology in Septuagint Proverbs, JNSL 25 (1999):
25164.
18 Johann Cook, Theological/Ideological Tendenz in the Septuagint LXX Proverbs a Case
Study, in Interpreting Translation: Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust
(ed. Florentino Garca Martnez and Mark Vervenne; Leuven: University Press, 2005),
6579.
19 Prov 3:1112 belongs to the post-exilic section. Michael V. Fox labels Prov 3:112 the wis-
dom of piety in Proverbs 19 (AB; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 141.
298 Steyn
Philos introductory formula clearly indicates that he is quoting here a proverb

from Solomon.
There are some noticeable differences between the Hebrew and the Greek
versions of the quotation from Prov 3:1112, to which I have drawn attention
before:20
The word order between the MT and the LXX versions differ. The Hebrew
opens with the discipline of Yahweh, hence emphasizing this aspect. Phi-
los word order is in agreement with this (except for translating YHWH with
). The LXX, however, starts with the second part of the sentence, thus
opening with the vocative.
The MT has the first person singular suffix, my, attached to son, whereas
the LXX only has the vocative without the first person singular pronoun.
Philo is, in this instance, closer to the LXX than to the MT by excluding the
.
The Hebrew reads , like a father, whereas the Greek translator used
, which has the sense of scourges, and, hence, read the Hebrew as
the verb .21 It is interesting to note that Philo also follows the LXX read-
ing here (as Hebrews does).22
Amongst the LXX witnesses, Codices and A read 23 (as the book of
Hebrews also does),24 whilst Codex B and a few minuscules read 25
(as Philo does). It is clear that the reading of Hebrews is closer to that of the
LXX than to the MT. It follows the same word order in the first stich (contra
the MT and Philo) and also the same interpretation of (against the
MT, but with Philo). Despite the fact that it also follows the LXX (particularly
Codex A) in the second stich (contra MT), it is not identical to the LXX (or to
Philo in this instance), by its inclusion of which is in accordance with
the MT. Apart from these, Hebrews also differs from Philo by retaining the
20 Cf. Gert J. Steyn, A Quest for the Assumed LXX Vorlage of the Explicit Quotations in Hebrews
(Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 33738.
21 Cf. in LEH; Friedrich Schrger, Der Verfasser des Hebrerbriefes als
Schriftausleger (BU 4; Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 1968), 188; Frederick F. Bruce,
The Epistle to the Hebrews (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 357; Robert M. Wilson,
Hebrews (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 222.
22 Bruce, Hebrews, 357, is of the opinion that the LXX might represent the original sense, and
Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 648,
that it might represent a more primitive Hebrew text.
23 It is used in Prov 10:4a and 22:3 in the sense of being instructed. See in LEH.
24 Also followed by 1 Clem 56:4.
25 It is used in the LXX in the sense of reprove (cf. in LEH).
LXX readings (not ) and (not ). There is thus little

doubt that the Vorlage of Hebrews follows a LXX version, but one that dif-
fered from the one that was used by Philo.
Introduced with
A2 Philo, Somn. 2.144 LXX Prov 14:4 LXX Hab 3:17 / Ode 4:17
,

like oxen being slain at where there are no there are no oxen at the
their feeding crib oxen, feeding cribs feeding cribs
are empty
Philo introduces the saying () in his work On Dreams

(2.144) with the formula . He, therefore, clearly considered
this saying as a known expression despite the fact that it seems to be absent in
classical Greek literature. The combination of and occurs nowhere
prior to Philo in classical Greek. It seems logical, however, to also include the
verb in Philos quotation, although printed editions of Philos works26
only place the phrase in quotation marks. Some partial similar-
ity with the expression, with a similar implied motif as quoted by Philo, sur-
faces in the LXX tradition. Such allusions are to be found in Prov 14:4 (
, ), Hab 3:17 / Ode 4:17 ( ).
In his application of the saying, Philo pictures a scenario where many per-
sons who escaped wars of long duration, returned home unwounded without
even having a scratch on the surface of their skin. Upon their return, however,
they sometimes find themselves being targeted within their houses by those
least expected like oxen being slain at their feeding crib.
Philo quotes three times explicitly from the book of Proverbs within the
range of Prov 34. The first of these three quotations was discussed under A1
above (Prov 3:1112). The second is taken from Prov 3:4 and appears in his work
On Drunkenness (Ebr. 84). It is clearly introduced with the formula
. Based on his quotation from Gen 32:28 (about Jacobs name being
26 Cf. for instance Peder Borgen, Kare Fuglseth and Roald Skarsten, The Works of Philo: Greek
Text with Morphology (Bellingham: Logos Bible Software, 2005).
300 Steyn
Introduced with
A3 Philo, Ebr. 84 LXX Prov 3:4

They who give attention to what is And consider what is good before the
good before the Lord and people Lord and people!
changed to Israel), Philo argues that Jacob then is the name of learning and or
improvement and that Israel is the name of perfection (Ebr. 82). This leads
Philo to the question: What can be more perfect among all the virtues than
the sight of the only living God? (Ebr. 83). It is at this point where Philo refers
to the saying in the book of Proverbs by simply quoting the statement They
who consider what is good before the Lord and people (Prov 3:4 in Ebr. 84).
The text form of Philos quotation differs slightly on one point with that of his
LXX Vorlage. Whereas Prov 3:4 uses the imperative middle singular verb form
(, Consider!) Philo uses a participle active plural (, They
who consider) in Ebr. 84.
Philo hereafter immediately combines this statement with his next quota-
tion from Proverbs (4:3) by stating the condition () for men to attain
the complete possession of good. This is achieved by the aid of both these
( ), namely to observe the laws of your Father ( ) and
not to disregard the injunctions of your mother ( ) (Ebr. 84).
Introduced with
A4 Philo, Ebr. 84 LXX Prov 4:3
For I also was born

a son, subject to my
father, and beloved
before the face of my
mother
The next quotation from Proverbs appears in Philos work On Drunkenness

(Ebr. 84), and cites Prov 4:3. Philo introduces it with the phrase
(...you will be able to say with confidence and
pride...), after which he presents the quotation from Prov 4:3: For I also was
born a son, subject to my father, and beloved before the face of my mother.
The text form of both Philos quotation, as well as that of the LXX, is identical.
3 Group B: Philos Proverbs with Attestation from Known Greek

Classical Authors
The next fourteen wisdom sayings of Philo can clearly be traced back to
known Greek classical authors. Four of them are introduced with the formula
, seven of them with the formula , two of them with the
formula , and one with the formula .
Introduced with the formula
B1 Philo, Somn. 2.119; Legat. 22; Legat. 108 Scholiast to Plato, Leg. 739 A, 820 C;
Plutarch, De soll. 22

He began with the profane (like the move of a draughts-player)
(sacred line) who quits his sacred line
Philo introduces the saying (Somn. 2.119), or

(Legat. 22), in both instances with the formula although in the
latter case with an extended . There is a third instance, however, later
in Legat. 108, where the same saying occurs again ( ), but intro-
duced only with a mere .
The saying was known by the scholiast to Plato ( , Leg. 739 A,
820 C),27 as well as by Theocritus, who uses the image of the middle line on
a draughts board ( ) in a proverbial sense to move ones man from this
27 Thomas W. Allen, The Homeric Hymns, Edited, with Preface, Apparatus Criticus, Notes, and
Appendices (Medford: Macmillan, 1904).
302 Steyn
line, i.e., try ones last chance ( ).28 (See also the discussion
on saying B10 below.) The first literary evidence we have about this quotation
is, however, in Plutarch (De soll. 22).
Austin writes the following about a discussion of Pollux, who commented
on board-games and who used this exact Greek phrase:
The third of these Greek board-games is the so-called #32;

or five lines; we do not know its actual name, but this is a convenient
way of referring to it. It bristles with difficulties. Pollux describes it thus
(IX, 97): each of the players had five pieces on five lines, so that Sophocles
naturally says five-lined boards and the throws of the dice and of the
five lines on either side (? the Greek word is , which might
perhaps mean in either direction) there was a middle one called the
sacred line, and a player who moved a piece from it gave rise to a proverb
He moves the piece from the sacred line. Eustathius has substantially
the same account, but is rather fuller on the sacred line: he says the
beaten player goes to it last ( ), whence the proverb
to move the piece from the sacred line, referring to people who are des-
perate and need final help; he quotes the proverb in various forms from
Sophron, Alcaeus, and Theocritus, showing that the game goes back to a
respectable antiquity. Hesychius also refers to the sacred line, but does
not explain it; Suidas interprets the proverb either metaphorically of sail-
ors in desperate need, or of petteia-players, with whom there is a sacred
piece. The scholiast to Plato (Lg., 739a) also speaks of a sacred piece, not
a line, and adds, surprisingly, that it was immovable (). Pollux
mentions the proverb also in an earlier passage (VII, 206), after the list of
games which includes diagrammismos, apparently as an afterthought;
the reading there is uncertain, but there seems no reason for Lamers ten-
tative suggestion that diagrammismos too had its sacred line.29
In the first of these three instances, Philo applies the proverb to Xerxes, the
king of Persia, who sought to soar up to heaven, as if he would move what
cannot be moved, and would subjugate the host of heaven (Somn. 2.119), and
who aimed his arrows at the most excellent of the heavenly bodies, the sun
(Somn. 2.120). It is in this sense that Xerxes began with a sacred thing. In the
second occurrence of the proverbial saying, Philo applies it to the complete
recovery of the health of Gaius who was hereafter perceived by the populace to
28 L SJ, 169.
29 Roland G. Austin, Greek Board Games, Antiquity 14 (1940): 25771, on pp. 26768.
be a saviour and benefactor. Soon, however, Gaius who was only the adopted
grandson of Tiberius began with the profane by executing his cousin and
natural successor (Legat. 2223). In the third case where Philo refers to the
saying, he uses it in reference to the medical skill of the Greek god Apollo and
his ability to heal diseases (Legat. 106, 109) and in contrast to the reign of terror
and destruction by Gaius, the latter whom Philo calls: this hater of the citi-
zens, this devourer of the people, this pestilence, this destructive evil (Legat.
107108). Philo applies the saying here for a second time to Gaius who began
as if from holy ground.
B2 Philo, Spec. Leg. 2.6 Homer, Iliad 6

With unwashed feet
Philo introduces the saying with in Spec. Leg. 2.6.

The expression occurs already in Homers Iliad (
, Il. 6) and is frequently referred to in the Scholia on Homer
and the Commentaries on the Iliad by Eustathius. It is used four times in close
proximity of each other in Volume 2 of Eustathius commentary, where he
explicitly ascribed it to Homer ( , l. 6) and in
connection with Hector ( , l. 5). It is
re-quoted again shortly hereafter in v. 266:
(l. 15). The same expression also surfaces in this section as it occurs in Philo
( , l. 17) and later again in Volume 3 of Eustathius
commentary: , , (l. 16). Homers contemporary,
Hesiod, also uses the expression ( , Opera et dies 725), and
so do the scholia on his work.
Philo applies the proverb (or rather expression), within the broader con-
text of his discussion of the third commandment, i.e., not to take the name
of God in vain (Spec. Leg. 2.2). He refers to some men () who rise up
to the Creator and Father of the universe without taking cognizance of their
position in place and time, or of themselves, or the business, or the occasion.
Philo then makes reference to the proverb and states that they pollute every-
thing with unwashed feet, by alluding to their tongue which they let loose
unrestrained and unbridled (Spec. Leg. 2.6).
304 Steyn
B3 Philo, Spec. Leg. 4.202 Diogones, Vit. Phil. 2.136

To slay the slain
Philo introduces the saying (Spec. Leg. 4.202) with the

words: . This introductory for-
mula reveals the general familiarity with the expression in Philos time and
the frequency by which it was used: . The expression already
occurred in the work of Diogones on the lives of the philosophers (
, Vit. Phil. 2.136). The contexts in which was used, is
most probably that of sacrifices offered at a tomb as is clear from the works
of Euripides and Xenephon.30
In his deliberations on the sober state of priests who should bring the sacri-
fice (Spec. Leg. 4.194) and the unjust economic practices of those in the market-
place, such as the wicked manoeuvring () of merchants and
dealers (4.194), Philo warns against the exploitation of the poor and the arro-
gance of superiority (4.201). He asks why such people should triumph in and
insult the misfortunes of others, having no respect for justice (4.201). It is at this
point where Philo states: It seems to me that these men would not spare even
the dead, in the extravagance of their cruelty, but, according to the proverb
so commonly quoted, would even slay the slain over again (Spec. Leg. 4.202).
B4 Philo, Post. 151; Sacr. 38 Aeschines, Ctes. 3.109; 3.120;

Fals. Leg. 2.115

With hand and foot and all its power
With hand and foot and voice and
all its power
30
L SJ, 303.
Philo twice refers to the saying and he intro-

duces it in both cases with the formula: (Post. 151; Sacr. 38). The
saying was especially popular with Aeschines, who often quoted it in his works
(Ctes. 109, 120;31 Fals. Leg. 115).32 In at least the latter two cases, Aeschines
included between and . The inclusion of
in the third case (Ctes. 109) is doubtful.
In his use of the proverb in the Posterity of Cain, Philo is of the opinion that
Rebecca must be praised for taking down the vessel of wisdom (
) on her arm from a higher place and understood the pitcher to be that
teaching which is competent to be received by the disciple (Post. 146). He con-
tinues his allegorical interpretation of the narrative and reckons that Moses
camels, who received water from Rebecca, are to be understood symbolically
as memory ( , Post. 148). He refers to the soul of the
man devoted to learning ( , Post. 149) and to the nature
of the servant for the reception of virtue ( , Post.
150). The emptying of the pitcher into the cistern is symbolically understood by
Philo () as wisdom emptying the whole knowledge of the teacher into
the soul of the learner (
, Post. 150). In contrast to the Sophists (), who repress the
natural characters of their pupils and who keep quiet about many things
which ought to be mentioned, virtue on the other hand, does not hesitate to
assist another with hand and foot, as the proverb goes, and with all its power
(Post. 151). The repetitive action of drawing water from the well describes for
Philo the ever-flowing wisdom of God ( ) for
the wealth of the wisdom of God is illimitable (
, Post. 151).
In his Sacrifices of Abel and Cain, Philo uses the proverb for those who
always and continually ( ) labour with hand and foot and
with all their power (Sacr. 38). They include all those involved in elementary
instruction ( ), those who cultivate the land (
), and those who provide the means of subsistence by any regular
business ( ). Just as those who
labour to cultivate the virtues of the soul, so too should those who treasure
their bodies also cultivate health with unremitting and ceaseless labours
31 Cf. for Ctesiphontem: V. Martin and G. de Bud, Eschine. Discours (vol. 2; Paris: Les Belles
Lettres, 1928 [repr. 1962]), 25117.
32 Cf. for De falsa legatione: V. Martin and G. de Bud, Eschine. Discours (vol. 1; Paris: Les
Belles Lettres, 1927 [repr. 1962]), 11069; Charles D. Adams, The Speeches of Aeschines with
an English Translation (LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1919).
306 Steyn
(Sacr. 39). Philos conclusion is that all good things spring up and shoot out
from labour as from one general root (Sacr. 40).
B5 Philo
... (Simplicius, Comm.

(Immut. 168) Epict.)
...
(Somn. 2.70) (Scholia on Sophocles Ajax, 1229)
Touch with the tip of your finger
Philo uses the proverbial expression (to touch with) the tip of ones finger
twice in his works. Both cases are introduced by the identical formula
. The expression in its simplest form ( ) is more
usual in ancient Greek literature as can be expected. Simplicius, for instance,
in his commentary on Epictetus, uses the expression with the
reference according to the proverb.33 So, similarly, also in the scholia on
Sophocles Ajax (1229): .34 However, the
expression seems to be more frequent in later first century CE Hellenistic lit-
erature and surfaces in 4 Macc 10:7 ( ), Josephus (Ant.
11, 234) and the Gospel of Luke ( , Luke 16:24).
In Philos application of the proverbial expression in the Unchangeableness
of God, he elaborates on the destructive forces of the earthly Edom that
planted the fruitful trees of his soul for the destruction of insight (
, 166). Philo encourages his readers not to be intimi-
dated by the threats of this symbolic enemy and that they should pass by his
mountain which he interprets to be associated with high and sublime
powers, to investigate everything, to inquire into the reason of every-
thing. They should steer away from everything which is external and which
affects the body alone, for such things are lowly and grovelling in the ground
33 B DAG, 170.
34 Richard C. Jebb, Sophocles: The Plays and Fragments, with Critical Notes, Commentary, and
Translation in English Prose Part VII: The Ajax (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1907).
(Unchangeable 167). It is at this point where Philo applies the proverbial say-
ing stating that these things (i.e., the external and body alone) would receive
honour and dignity should they even be touched by the tip of our (plural)
finger (singular).
In Philos application of the proverbial saying within his work On Dreams,
he does so in addressing the soul which is obedient to its teacher (
). He renders a strong warning that it should cut off
its hand and its power if it begins to take hold of created things or of human
pursuits (Somn. 2.68). Philo then uses the example of Adam, the earthly mass,
who laid his hands upon the two trees. Hence, by preferring the number two
(the creation) above that of the unit (the Creator), Adam dies (Somn. 2.70).
Philo encourages the soul to go forth beyond the reach of the smoke and the
tempest, and to flee from the ridiculous pursuits of mortal life and not even
touch them with the tip of your finger (Somn. 2.70).
B6 Philo, Agr. 125; Her. 116 Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1098b.59

The beginning is half of the whole
Philo introduces the saying with the formula

, whereby it is clearly identified as a well-known expression in
Philos time. The expression is used at least twice in Philos works with min-
ute variation. He once introduces it with the formula
(Agr. 125) and once with the sentence someone seems to me to have said with
great felicity ( , Her. 116).
This proverb is widely attested in the classical Greek literature and quoted
by several ancient authors. The complete proverb is used by Aristotle (
, Eth. nic. 1098b.78),35 Polybius ( ,
35 J. Bywater, ed., Aristotelis ethica Nicomachea (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1894).
308 Steyn
Histories III 5.32.1)36 and Lucian ( ... , Hermot. 3).37

Furthermore, the partial fixed expression of the proverb, ,
occurs in Plato,38 Arrian,39 Strabo,40 and Athenaeus.41
In his work, On Husbandry (125), Philo uses this well-known proverb in his
interpretation of Gen 9:20: Noah began to be a husbandman (
). He quotes the proverb directly following onto the
quotation of Gen 9:20 and uses the link between (Gen 9:20) and
(proverb) to explain the former by means of the latter. This indicates for Philo,
that therefore, he is half of the distance removed from the end.
In his work, Who is the Heir of Divine Things, Philo situates his use of this
proverb between the discussions of two quotations. The first is a quotation in
Her. 113, taken from Exod 25:1, with the instruction to Moses and the Israelites
to bring their first-fruits () to the Lord (). The second is a quota-
tion in Her. 117, taken from Exod 13:2, with the instruction to sanctify the first-
fruits. Philo elaborates on the first quotation and argues that the instruction is
full of doctrine; for in real truth the beginnings both of bodies and of things are
investigated with reference to God alone (Her. 114). After a series of rhetorical
questions, Philo ends with the final question: Is not nature the fountain, root,
and foundation ( ) of all arts and sciences? (
, Her. 116). He calls nature the oldest of principles and con-
cludes that nature should first be laid as foundation, otherwise everything is
imperfect. It is at this point where Philo quotes the proverb (the beginning is
half of the whole, Her. 116) and states that: Very appropriately therefore does
the sacred scripture command the first-fruits to be offered up to the all-ruling
God (Her. 117).
36 William R. Paton, Polybius: The Histories III, Books 58 (LCL; Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1923).
37 K. Kilburn, Lucian with an English Translation VI (LCL; London: William Heinemann,
1959).
38 Plato, Leg. 690 E. Cf. R.G. Bury, Plato: Laws I, Books 16 (LCL; Cambridge: Harvard
39 Arrian, Tact. 17.2. Cf. A.G. Roos and G. Wirth, Flavii Arriani quae exstant omnia II (Leipzig:
Teubner, 1968).
40 Strabo, Geogr. I 2.2.2; and VI 14.5.22. Cf. Horace L. Jones, The Geography of Strabo I (LCL;
London: William Heinemann, 1917); and Horace L. Jones, The Geography of Strabo VI
(LCL; London: William Heinemann, 1929).
41 Athenaeus, Deipn. 5.207a. Cf. Charles B. Gulick, Athenaeus: The Deipnosophists II
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1928).
B7 Philo, Plant. 17

Being not a terrestrial, but a celestial plant
Philo introduces the proverb in his

work Concerning Noahs Work as a Planter (17) with the formula
. Although the precise formulation of the proverb itself is not to be found
in the extant corpus of classical Greek literature, a similar thought of the pre-
ceding image does occur in some ancient Latin authors close to Philos time.
These include Cicero, in his work On Laws (1.9),42 and also in versified form
by Philos contemporary, the poet Ovid, in his Metamorphoses (1.8486).43
Some allusions to the same thought might also possibly be present by Greek
authors such as Theophrastus (Historia Plantarum 4.11.13) and Athenagoras
(Apol. Legatio 31.4), as well as in the scholia on Homers Iliad (15, verse 193b1).
Philo argued elsewhere that it is God who sows and implants terrestrial
virtue in the human race, being an imitation and representation of the heav-
enly virtue (Leg. All. 1.45). In his argument leading to the application of the
proverb here (Plant. 17), Philo states that man has received a pre-eminently
superior formation. He then compares the vision of man with that of other
animals. Whereas the eyes of animals are bent downwards to the ground, those
of humans were raised so that he may behold the heaven (
). He then refers to the old expression ( ) that man
being not a terrestrial but a celestial plant (Plant. 17).
42
Nam cum cteras animantes abjecisset ad pastum, solum hominem erexit, ad clique,
quasi cognationis domiciliique pristini, conspectum excitavit (For while nature has kept
down the countenances of other animals on their food, she has bestowed on man alone
an upright form, and excited him to the contemplation of heaven, as it were the ancient
home of his immortal ancestor, Leg. 1.9/26). Craufurd T. Ramage, Scripture Parallels in
Ancient Classics; Or, Bible Echoes (Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1878).
43
Pronaque cum spectent animalia cetera terram, os homini sublime dedit, caelumque
videre iussit et erectos ad sidera tollere vultus (While the mute creation downward bend
their sight, and to their earthly mother tend, man looks aloft, and with erected eyes,
beholds his own hereditary skies, Met. 1.8486). Samuel Garth and John Dryden, Ovids
Metamorphoses (eBook; University of Adelaide, 2014).
310 Steyn
B8 Philo, Vit. Mos. 1.280 Anaxagoras, Frgm. 21a

The certain proves the uncertain44
Philo introduces the saying in his Vita Mosis (1.280)

with the formula clearly indicating its familiarity as an
ancient proverbial expression by his time. A brief survey of the classical Greek
literature confirms the high frequency of allusions that contain the Stichwrter
in combination with () and its derivatives especially in
the works of Galen.45 Diller46 already pointed to the probable origin of this
saying by Anaxagoras (ca. 500428 BCE) and its later occurrence through the
work of Sextus Empiricus (ca. 160210 CE; Adv. math. 7.140).47 Anaxagoras
has quoted a similar saying: (Frgm. 21a).48
Virtually the same slogan is also quoted by Athenagoras (
, Leg. 5.3) and by Crysippus (
, Fragmenta logica et physica, Frgm. 57). A further interesting
44 Translation of Hans Dieter Betz, The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon
on the Mount, Including the Sermon on the Plain (Matthew 5:37:27 and Luke 6:2049)
(Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 529.
45 See Galen, De placitis Hippocratis 5.7.84 (
); De venae sectione advers. 11 (
); De simplicium medicament. 11 (
). See also Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 6.24 (
); Diogenes Laertius, Vitae philosophorum 10.32 (
); and Diodorus Siculus, Biblioteca historica 10.34.10 (
).
46 Hans Diller, , in Kleine Schriften zur antiken Literatur
(Munich: Beck, 1971) 11943.
47 Cf. Hans Dieter Betz, Sermon on the Mount, 529, for further references.
48 S EXT.VII 140 [c. 76, 3]. Compare VII 374. III 23. 58. APPEND. proverb. 4, 50
(Leutsch Paroemiogr. I 444).
occurrence is that of Democritus49 and its duplicate in Diotimus with a cross-

reference to Anaxagoras.50
In Philos application of the proverb in his Life of Moses (1.280), he situates it
within his exposition about Balak who expressed his disillusionment with the
prophet Balaam whom he initially considered as a friend, but now discovers
to be an enemy. Instead of cursing Balaks enemies, Balaam secretly prayed in
their advance and aligned himself with them. It is this secret dislike to Balak
and his people which leads Philo to relate to the truth of the old proverb.
B9 Philo, Virt. 162; Abr. 228 Plato, Phaedeo 58 A

Satiety produces insolence51
Philo introduces the proverb in his work On the Virtues

(162) with the formula . Although the proverb surfaces
also in Philos work On Abraham (228) in a slightly variegated form (
), it is not explicitly introduced with any of the fixed introductory for-
mulas used by Philo at that point. This proverb occurs several times as a fixed
expression in the corpus of classical Greek literature, with clear examples in
Platos Phaedeo ( , 58 A),52 Aristotles Athenian Constitution
49 Cf. Democritus, (Testimonia Frgm. 112: SEXT. VII 140

(1) ).
50 Cf. Diotimus (Testimonia Frg. 3):
, [59 B 21a]) (SEXT. VII 140 .
[Demokrit, 68 A 111]).
51 More dynamically translated by Robert H. Charles: Satiety is shown in thanklessness
(Commentary on the Apocrypha of the Old Testament, Vol. 1 [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913],
680) and by Hugo Sharpley: Undeserved success puts the senseless on the road to folly
(Demosthenes: Olynthiacs I, II, III [English] [Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons,
1900], 45).
52 William W. Goodwin, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb (New York:
Macmillan and Co., 1889), 9.
312 Steyn
( , 12.2.5)53 and Theognis of Megaras Elegiac Poems (

, 153).54
In Philos application of the proverb in his work On the Virtues (162), he does
so when he airs his view on the evil of riches, glory, and authority (
) with which great men are filled. For
Philo, these men are like those who have drunk great quantities of strong wine
and became intoxicated. In their drunkenness they attack slaves and free per-
sons all alike and at times even whole cities (Virt. 162). Philo then refers to
the proverb of the ancients and applies it to this state of affairs: for satiety
produces insolence.
B10 Philo, Det. 33; Fug. 144 Theocritus, Idylls 6.1718

They leave no stone unturned
Philo introduces the proverb in Det. 33 with the for-

mula . He also alludes to the same proverb in Fug. 144, but
without any explicit introductory formula. There is some resemblance with the
expression discussed in B1 above, where Philo used the saying
(Somn. 2.119; Legat. 22; Legat. 108) and the scholiast on Plato had, for instance:
(Leg. 739 A, 820 C). The proverb is also found in a simi-
lar format by Theocritus: (Id. 6.1718),55 or
.56 The expression alludes to the middle line on a board also
called which implies to move ones man from this line and proverbially
means to try ones last chance.57
53 Cf. H. Oppermann, ed., Aristotelis (Leipzig: Teubner, 1928), and John M.

Edmonds, ed., Lyra Graeca: Being the Remains of all the Greek Lyric Poets from Eumelus to
Timotheus excepting Pindar III (LCL; London: William Heinemann, 1931).
54 Cf. D. Young, ed., Theognis (2nd ed.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1971).
55 Cf. A.S.F. Gow, Theocritus I (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952).
56 L SJ, 169.
57 Ibid.
In Philos application of this proverb, he relates it to the struggle in the arena

with those who honour virtue. Every kind of weapon would be used until they
compel their opponents to succumb, or else utterly destroy them (Det. 32).
The proverb is then applied that they leave no stone unturned, because they
argue that the body is the house of the soul and they ask Why, then, should
we not take care of the house that it may not become ruinous? (Det. 33).
B11 Philo, Sobr. 24 Homer, Odyssey 7.91111

While still in his swaddling clothes,
he will never grow old
Philo seems to have had a particular preference for the expression

and he quoted it at least six times in his works (Sobr. 24; Legat. 54,
170; Abr. 112; Vit. Mos. 1.88; Spec. 1.313). The only place, however, where Philo
explicitly refers to it as a proverbial expression is in his work Sobriety (24),
where he introduced it with the formula . In this case, the
intended proverb should be taken to be consisting of both elements before
( ) and after ( ) the introductory formula.
Philos intended proverb is thus likely meant to be:
(while still in his swaddling clothes, he will never grow old). It is
especially the latter part of the proverb which has a long tradition history as a
fixed proverbial expression.
The image of certain things that will never grow old appears a number
of times in ancient Greek literature. Although the concept occurs already in
Homer, the terminology used is different. In Homers Odyssey (7.91111), he
refers to the gold and silver mastiffs of Hephaistos which were immortal and
could never grow old ( ). Later (7.240258), Homer
mentions the utmost kindness of the great goddess Calypso to him on the
Ogygian island and how she wanted to make him immortal that he might
never grow old ( ), which he declined.58 Furthermore, an
allusion to a similar idea surfaces in the last of Aeschylus triad of plays that
58 Samuel Butler, The Odyssey (London: A.C. Fifield, 1900).

314 Steyn
were based on the theme of Oedipus. There is a warning against bloodshed by

men of the same blood and if that happens, the pollution from this act never
grows old ( , Sept. 680).59
Philos proverb itself can nonetheless be traced back to the famous state-
ment of Thucydides in his Peloponnesian Wars. Pericles pictures there in his
great oration (2.43.2) the courageous death of the Athenians in the war as an
offering of their lives and their sepulchres as eternal memory of their glory.
In their common offering, each of them received individually renown which
never grows old ( ).60 But it is particularly a para-
graph later (2.44.4) where Thucydides cites the famous statement of Pericles
that it is only the love of honour that never grows old (
).61 Plutarch would later refer to this statement by Thucydides
during the course of the first century CE, amending it to be not only the love
of honour that never grows old ( ), but
actually the spirit of service to the community and the State (
), which persists to the end even in ants and bees (An
Seni 1).62 Plutarch also discusses elsewhere the image of Osiris and explains the
Egyptians representation of heaven by a heart and a censer under it because
by reason of its eternity heaven never grows old (
, Is. Os. 10).63
Turning again to Philo, also this second part of his quoted proverb surfaces
a few times in his works.64 But in his lengthy deliberations (Sobr. 2024) on
Deut 21:15 about the legal obligations on inheritance regarding a mans oldest
son despite the fact of him being the son of the least loved of his two wives
Philos argument builds up to the point where both the wives become
mothers. He then allegorizes that the one brings forth that disposition in the
soul which loves pleasures and that the lover of pleasures is imperfect and
remains in reality a child. The other disposition, on the other hand, loves virtue
59 Cf. Herbert W. Smyth, Aeschylus with an English Translation I (LCL; London: William
Heinemann, 1926).
60 Cf. Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War (London: J.M. Dent, 1910).
61 Cf. Ibid.
62 Cf. Harold N. Fowler, Plutarchs Moralia X (LCL; London: William Heinemann, 1936);
Frank C. Babbitt, Plutarchs Moralia V (LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1936).
63 Cf. Frank C. Babbitt, Plutarch: Moralia II (LCL; London: William Heinemann, 1928); idem,
Plutarchs Moralia IV (LCL; London: William Heinemann, 1936).
64 Cf. Philo, Spec. Leg. 2.5 (the universe never grows old: ); Virt. 3738 (the ideal
of a glory which will never grow old or die: ); Agr. 171 (instruction
has a nature which never grows old: ).
and even though he might be aged in his wisdom, will never, while still in his
swaddling clothes, grow old like the proverb states (Sobr. 24).
B12 Philo, Vit. Mos. 1.156; Abr. 235 Pythagorean maxim

All the property of friends is common
Philo quoted the ancient proverb twice in his works (Vit. Mos.
1.156; Abr. 235) and introduced it both times with the formula ()
. The very same proverb was already frequently quoted in classical
Greek literature before Philos time. Diogenes Laertius mentions in his Lives
(8.10) that, according to Timaeus ( ), Pythagoras was the first who
said that the goods of friends ought to be in common.65 This Pythagorean
maxim is later often quoted by, amongst others, Plato (Rep. 4.424a; 5.449c;
Leg. 739c; Phaed. 279c; Lys. 207c),66 as well as by Aristotle ( :
Rhet. 2d.7; Eth. Eud. 1237b; 1238a; Eth. Nic. 9.11.1159b; 10.8.1168b; Pol. 1263a) the
latter who stated that the possessions of friends should be separate in owner-
ship but common in use, as at Sparta.67 In fact, a whole chapter in Aristotles
Nicomachean Ethics deals with this topic.68 The principle of common own-
ership of goods by friends, as expressed in the Pythagorean maxim, became
a guiding principle for their thinking and conduct69 and it turned out to be
one of the strongest bonds of union by which religious and political parties
65 Ramage, Scripture Parallels, 25051.

66 Cf. Robert G. Bury, Plato with an English Translation X (LCL; London: William Heinemann,
1926); James Adam, ed., The Republic of Plato: Edited with Critical Notes, Commentary and
Appendices (Cambridge: CUP, 1920).
67 Cf. Paul Shorey, Plato with an English Translation VI (LCL; London: William Heinemann,
1930).
68 Edward M. Cope, Commentary on the Rhetoric of Aristotle II (Cambridge: CUP, 1877), 45.
Cf. James Adam: Adimantus invites Socrates to explain the remark made by him in IV
423 Ef. and fully expound the principle of as it affects women and children
(The Republic of Plato, 274).
69 T DNT, 790.
316 Steyn
were held together.70 Even the Latin author Cicero, who lived just prior to
Philo, also refers to this Greek proverb: (ut in Graecorum proverbio est, amico-
rum esse communia omnia, Off. 1.51).71
In Philos application of the proverb in his work On the Life of Moses (1.156),
he pictures Moses as being obeyed as master by every one of the elements
when they changed the power which they had by nature and submitted to
Moses commands. Philo speculates that this might not be wonderful in itself,
for if the proverb is true that all the property of friends is common, and if
the prophet was truly called the friend of God, then it follows that he would
naturally partake of God himself and of all his possessions as far as he had
need (Vit. Mos. 1.156). Philo deduces this from his perception that Moses is a
prophet and a friend of God.
In Philos application of the proverb in his work On Abraham (235), he
describes Abrahams compilation of a military force through the assembly of
his domestic servants and placing his confidence in God. They then continu-
ally attacked and defeated their enemy at night. Abraham rescued his brothers
captured son and brought back an enormous quantity of spoil after their glo-
rious victory (Abr. 232234). Abrahams success is ascribed to the favour of
the divine wisdom and alliance. When the high priest saw him returning, he
praised Abraham and brought sacrifices of thanksgiving, whilst feasting with
those who returned. According to Philos interpretation of the events, this
behaviour concerned Abraham, as the proverb states that All that befalls from
friends we common call (Abr. 235).
B13 Philo, Vit. Mos. 1.22 Plato, Theaetetus 183

Like a horse over a plain
Philo introduces the proverb in his work On the Life of Moses

(1.22), with the formula . The same proverb was known
70 Cope, Rhetoric of Aristotle, 45.

71 Cf. Walter Miller, Cicero De Officiis with an English Translation (LCL; Cambridge: Harvard
and quoted by Plato ( , Theaet. 183 D.).72 After Philos time, allu-
sions can be found to it, amongst others, by Josephus (
, Bell. 5.2.13) and Lucian ( , Pisc. 9).73
In his application of the proverb in the Vita Mosis (1.22), Philo compares
a well-disposed soul ( ) with the examples of vigorous bodies
( ) and of good trees ( ). Such a soul dis-
plays three qualities: (a) It stretches forward in order to meet its lessons, (b) it
is improved by itself rather than by its teachers, and (c) it takes hold of some
principle of knowledge which let it bounds like a horse over the plain.
B14 Philo, Praem. 111
,
Neither in reason, nor in number
Philo introduces the saying , in his work On Rewards

and Punishments (111) with the simple formula: . The proverb occurs in
the Scholia to Theocritus (poem 14, verse 4849a) where a Delphic oracle is
given to the Megarians.74 The proverb can also be found in the collection of
Greek Anthology (Vol. 5).75 Both cases are, however, doubtful chronological
evidential support for the occurrence of the proverb in pre-Philonic times.
Philo applies the saying within the context of a biblical quotation that you
shall complete the number of your days. He understood this as that the law-
giver is prophesying thus with great beauty and using great propriety and
naturalness of language. This brings him to the conclusion that the man who
is destitute of all learning, and who disregards the law, does not speak, neither
in reason, nor in number. However, he who has a fair share of instruction and
72 Cf. Harold N. Fowler, Plato with an English Translation II (LCL; London: William
Heinemann, 1921).
73 Austin M. Harmon, Lucian with an English Translation III (LCL; London: William
Heinemann, 1921).
74 William W. Goodwin, ed., Demosthenes: On the Crown (London: CUP, 1904).
75 William R. Paton, The Greek Anthology with an English Translation V (LCL; London:
William Heinemann, 1928).
318 Steyn
who adheres to the holy laws, receives as his first reward a share in number
and arrangement, since he is proved to be a respectable and reputable man
(Praem. 111).
4 Group C: Unknown Proverbs with No Attestation in Extant

Greek Literature
The third group of proverbs and idiomatic expressions introduced by a

similar introductory formula as those in Groups A and B above are not to be
found in any extant classical Greek literature. Unless these expressions were
only orally transmitted through the ages in Greek, the only other explana-
tions might be that the piece(s) of Greek literature which contained it are lost,
or that it was known in another vernacular in Egypt (which still ought to be
investigated). Their origins might be sought perhaps in Latin, or even Egyptian
contexts two contexts in which Philo lived. It does pose the practical ques-
tion about Philos familiarity and competency with these languages, although
he might have had some understanding of it via oral interaction in his living
environment.
C1 Philo, Agric. 153

To go courting the old and withered dames
Philo introduces the proverb in

Agric. 153 with the formula . Both the formula of introduction, as
well as the expression itself, seem to point to a well-known saying in the time
of Philo. However, there are no traces in the complete corpus of extant Greek
literature (including the LXX), which testifies to this expression with its com-
bination of .
C2 Philo, Plant. 172

Both bad and good people partake of sobriety
Philo introduces the proverb in

his work Concerning Noahs Work as a Planter (172) with the formula
. This introduction leaves the impression that the proverb was
well-known in Philos time. However, there seems to be no evidence in the
extant corpus of Greek literature where the same proverb occurs with this for-
mulation. There is, nonetheless, an extremely high density in the use of
which is being contrasted with in the Aristotelian literature. Both Plato,
and especially Philo, show some preference for the word .
In constructing his argument in Plant. 172, Philo refers to opposites. He
firstly uses the example of the colours white and black, after which he moves
to the example of the opposites of being drunk and sober. Philo argues that
the states of being sober and being drunk are two opposite things and then
applies the proverb as substantiation of the fact that both good and bad per-
sons ( ) partake of sobriety ( ). He
concludes hereafter ( ) that drunkenness is suitable to both classes.
C3 Philo, Legat. 125

Heaping fire on fire
Philo introduces the proverb with the formula

in his work On the Embassy to Gaius (125). He alludes again
to the proverb in his exposition in the next paragraph:
(Legat. 126). There are, however, no clear traces of the proverb in ancient
Greek literature, despite its explicit introductory formula. The proverb remains
320 Steyn
unknown and its closest resemblance is the imagery of God of whom smoke
and fire came from his nostrils and mouth (LXX face) in Ps 18:8 (LXX 17:9):
, ,
. In Philos application of the proverb, he elaborates on
the plundering by the Alexandrians, how the Jews lost everything they had,
and how they were hurdled into a narrow space without any food (Legat. 119
125). He then describes how everyone got inflamed by fever due to the breath-
ing in of hot and tainted air through their nostrils and mouth.76 It is at this
point where Philo quotes his proverb, referring to the heaping of fire on fire
(Legat. 125). He explains the reason for this rise in fever, stating...
for the power which resides in the inmost parts changed its nature, and
became most excessively fiery; upon which, when the external breezes,
being moderately cool, blow, all the organs of the respiratory powers
flourish, and are in a good and healthy condition; but when these breezes
change and become hot, then those organs must of necessity be in a bad
state, fire being added to fire (Legat. 126).77
C4 Philo, Praem. 150

Sudden misfortunes which befell after prosperity
In Philos use of in his work On Rewards and Punishments (150), his

intention is not to quote and apply an established proverb, but rather to point
to the serious impact of the circumstances which he describes that will lead to
the establishment of a new proverb. He introduces the potential proverb with
the phrase . Philo elaborates on the consequences
of not abiding by the sacred laws and describes the natural disasters, misfor-
tunes, and calamities. Those who are disobedient will have their enemies as
76 T DNT, 957.
77 Charles D. Yonge, The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson,
1995), 76869.
their masters (Praem. 138) and they will experience illnesses and diseases all
the result of impiety and lawless iniquity (Praem. 143147). Philo then pictures
the disbelief about the total destruction of their cities as if they were never
inhabited. The scenario that such sudden misfortunes befell them after all
their prosperity will lead them to turn this fact into a proverb.
C5 Philo, Aet. 41
,
For even a womans wisdoms not so coarse; as to despise the good and
choose the worse
Philo quotes a long proverb in his work On the Eternity of the World (41):
,
[]. It is introduced with the simplistic formula . The proverb
is nowhere to be found in the whole corpus of Greek literature except per-
haps for its presence in Fragment 21 of the Fragmenta Varia of Aristotle, which
had been reconstructed from Pseudo-Philo. It remains unclear, however, if this
was indeed an existing saying, and if so, where it occurred in ancient literature.
The context within which Philo situates the proverb, deals with the issue
debated by philosophers about the possible reason for God destroying the
world. According to Philo, it can only be because God wants to never create it
again which is in opposition to Gods character. Alternatively, it could be that
God wants to create a new one. It is more acceptable that God would create
order from disorder, than vice versa. Such a new second world, would be either
worse than, or similar to, or better than the first. It cannot be worse as that
would imply that the Creator is also worse. On the contrary, all Gods works are
without blemish and faultless (Aet. 3941). It is at this point in his argument
where Philo quotes the proverb, stating that Gods works are wrought with the
most consummate skill and knowledge; as the proverb says: For even a wom-
ans wisdoms not so coarse; as to despise the good and choose the worse.
322 Steyn
5 Conclusion
This contribution attempted to identify and briefly introduce Philos

proverbs. The following observations were noted:
a. There is clear evidence of fixed introductory formulae that confirm the

familiarity of these proverbial sayings and expressions in Philos time.
b. Three groups of sayings were identified, namely those with LXX attesta-
tion (Group A), those with attestation from Greek classical authors
(Group B), and those of unknown origin (Group C).
c. Regarding the LXX, it is striking that only a small number of wisdom say-
ings were quoted from LXX Proverbs alone and none, for instance, from
Ben Sira especially in the light of its Egyptian connections or from the
Wisdom of Solomon.
d. The bulk of Philos proverbs has attestation in known classical Greek
literature. There is evidence of familiarity with a broad range of authors
which indicates either Philos direct knowledge of these sources, perhaps
attained through his education in Greek literature and philosophy, or his
indirect knowledge via oral traditions from these sources in his Hellenis-
tic environment.
e. It became clear from several instances listed above that Philo sometimes
used these proverbs in the same sense as wisdom sayings.
f. The fact that about a quarter of these fixed expressions is unknown and
unaccounted for, could imply that Philo might perhaps have been famil-
iar with proverbs from other sources beyond his Greek corpus as well.
Philos repertoire of proverbs and idiomatic expressions, which are all clearly
introduced through introductory formulae, thus reaches far beyond mere
knowledge of the LXX Proverbs and extends into the broader classical Greek
world and perhaps even beyond that.
CHAPTER 17
Whom the Lord Loveth He Chasteneth: About the

Adoption of Prov 3:11f. in Hebr 12:5f.
Wolfgang Kraus
1 Hebr 12:5f. in a Wider Context
The Epistle to the Hebrews (Hebr) is marked by an alternation of descrip-

tive and paraenetic/ paracletic passages.1 This is characteristic of fine rhetori-
cal art. Chapter 11 deals with faith as a substance () of things hoped
for, the evidence () of things not seen (v. 1). This is applied to the pious
men of the Old Testament. With , Hebr 12:1 directly aligns
itself with this.
The statements concerning faith in Hebr 11 are preceded by a request to the
addressees in 10:3239 to call to remembrance the former days, in which, after
they were illuminated by faith, they had to endure opposition: their fight of
affliction, abuses, oppression, and that they were publicly denounced. Still,
they bore everything in the knowledge of a better and lasting possession. They
were asked not to abandon their trust, as it was only a short while before the
one who is coming ( ) would appear and would not remain absent
and their souls would be saved.2
Hebr 11 then provides examples from the patriarchs. The chapter closes with
the prospect that the former believers had not yet accomplished the final goal,
since God had provided something better and they should not be perfected
without us. Thus, in ecclesiology, Hebr draws a line from the patriarchs to the
present. There is only one People of God.3
1 The following piece is in cordial regards to prof. Johann Cook, at the same time a remem-
brance of unforgettable days with him not only, but especially in Stellenbosch.
2 Cf. in more detail Wolfgang Kraus, Hab 2:34 in the Hebrew Tradition and in the Septuagint,
with its Reception in the New Testament, in Septuagint and Reception (ed. Johann Cook;
VTSup 127; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 10117.
3 Cf. in more detail Wolfgang Kraus, Das Heil fr Israel und die Vlker nach dem Hebrerbrief,
in Der eine Gott und die Vlker in eschatologischer Perspektive (ed. Luke Neubert and Michael
Tilly; BThSt 137; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2013), 11347.

324 Kraus
Hebr 12 builds on the prospect of Hebr 11 first by a reference to the cloud

of witnesses (v. 1) and then especially to Jesus (v. 23). In his conduct in which
he endured the cross and disregarded shame, he is the precursor/leader4 and
finisher of the faith and thus the archetype and model for those presently
arraigned. To remember him helps not to quail. The real antagonist is sin. That
is what needs to be fought.
Verses 411 contain the passage with the quote from Prov 3, which forms the
central focus in this piece. What the addressees experience is divine paideia.
Chastisement represents the relation between a father and his son. As hard as
chastisement may be during the actual experience, to that degree it is followed
by the rewarding fruits of peace and justice.5
Verses 1213, linked by , draw the following conclusion: strengthen the
tired (slackened) hands and the staggering (weakened) knees. Verses 14ff. con-
tain further concretions to pursue peace on the one hand, and on the other
hand, it holds memories of Esau and the people of Israel at Sinai with its outer,
frightening signs.
2 About the Situation of the Addressees
What is the situation of the addressees that they are in need of such paraenesis /
paraclesis? The discussion about this is vibrant.6
In his analysis, Grer assumes a rather typical situation at the end of the
1st century. He considers it impossible to identify a concrete problematic situa-
tion. Despite occasional direct address and concrete allusions (5:11f; 6:10; 10:32
34; 13:7), Hebr does not express the problems of a specific local congregation,
but the characteristic patterns of behaviour of Christianity generally at the
end of the 1st century. The author describes these with typical descriptions
rather than with specific statements as are relevant for many congregations in
or around the second or third generation.7
4 Herbert Braun, An die Hebrer (HNT 14; Tbingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1984), 404, uses the word
Fhrer (leader) which is a problematic term in German against the background of German
history.
5 Friedensfrucht der Gerechtigkeit. Cf. Braun, Hebrer, 418; and Hans-Friedrich Wei, Der
Hebrerbrief (KEK 13; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 644.
6 For more detail: Wolfgang Kraus, Wogegen richtet sich die Argumentation des
Hebrerbriefes?, in Gegenspieler (ed. Ulrich Mell and Michael Tilly; Tbingen: Mohr-Siebeck,
forthcoming).
7 Erich Grer, An die Hebrer (Hebr 16) (EKK XVII/1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener,
1990), 26, quoting Willi Marxsen: Trotz gelegentlicher direkter Anrede und auch konkreter
Whom the Lord Loveth he Chasteneth 325
Continuing the thoughts of Attridge, deSilva identifies a quite concrete

problem-situation for the addressees of Hebr, the social marginalisation that
induces Christians to leave the community.8 The community is under excep-
tional pressure, which assails it from the outside. The ancient world order of
honour and shame is supposed to be the background of these problems. Hebr
was situated in such a frame of humiliation of the community members.
The situation thus presented appears to be a crisis not of impending per-

secution, nor of heretical subversion, but rather of commitment occa-
sioned as a result of the difficulties of remaining long without honor in
the world. The danger of falling away stems from the lingering effects of
the believers loss of status and esteem in their neighbors eyes, and their
inability to regain a place in society, or approval from the outside world.9
Hebr 10:32ff. fits this perfectly: The believers have experienced the loss of
property and status in the host society without yet receiving the promised
rewards of the sect, and so are growing disillusioned with the sects promise
to provide.10 Time passes and nothing is done to improve their situation. This
demoralizes the community. They are afraid of utterly losing their reputation
amongst society.
This is supposed to be the real reason for their fatigue of faith and it seems
that community members were on the verge of leaving the community and
thus committing apostasy.11 Still, it is considered: Neither the threat of violent
persecution nor a new attraction to Judaism motivates this apostasy, but rather
the more pedestrian inability to live within the lower status that Christian
associations had forced upon them, the less-than-dramatic (yet potent) desire
once more to enjoy the goods and esteem of their society.12 In contrast, Hebr
Anspielungen (5,11f; 6,10; 10,3234; 13,7) stehen damit gleichwohl nicht die Probleme einer
bestimmten Ortsgemeinde, sondern die typischen Verhaltensweisen einer allgemeinen
Christlichkeit am Ende des 1. Jh.s vor Augen, denen unser Verf. weniger mit gezielten als
mit typischen Aussagen zu begegnen sucht, wie sie in (etwa) der dritten christlichen
Generation (2,3) fr viele Gemeinden von Belang sind.
8 David deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle
to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 18. Harold Attridge, The Epistle to the
Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), 2123.
9 DeSilva, Perseverance, 18.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid., 19.
12 Ibid.
326 Kraus
demands to disregard the shame with regard to Jesus: Despising Shame was
the title of the dissertation of deSilva.13
With this analysis, deSilva added an interesting aspect to the discussion.
When looking at contemporary societies (or parallel societies), where such a
value system still rules, it is imaginable how gruelling it must have been for the
addressees of Hebr to be subject to such a situation. It can and must be asked,
though, if it is enough to describe the situation of the addressees as deSilva
does. The extensive didactic passages, especially Hebr 710, are not taken into
account in this description of the situation. Neither the pontifical Christology
nor the speech of the newer Diatheke have a constitutive meaning. The amount
of text alone, with which we are concerned, makes it conspicuous. Therefore,
I am convinced that there must be another inner reason for the fatigue
of faith of the addressees. The passage of Hebr 710 might then be an answer
to this, but this is not the question discussed in this piece.14 Still, deSilva pro-
vided an important interpretational approach by applying the ancient scheme
of honour and shame. And the external pressure under which the addressees
were set may be considered as correctly depicted.
The quote from Prov 3 has major importance for the purpose of our
question it is to this we will now turn to.
3 Prov 3:11f. MT

11

12

11 My child, do not despise the Lords discipline or be weary of his

reproof, 12 for the Lord reproofs the one he loves, as a father the son in
whom he delights. (NRSV)
13 David deSilva, Despising Shame: Honor Discourse and Community Maintenance in the
Epistle to the Hebrews (SBLDS 195; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995).
14 Cf. for more detail Wolfgang Kraus, Die Rezeption von Jer 38,3134 (LXX) in Hebrer
810 und dessen Funktion in der Argumentation des Hebrerbriefes, in Text-Critical and
Hermeneutical Studies in the Septuagint (ed. Johann Cook and Hermann-Josef Stipp; VTSup
157; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 44762; Idem, Zu Absicht und Zielsetzung des Hebrerbriefes,
KuD 60 (2014): 25071; Idem, Zur Aufnahme und Funktion von Gen 14,1820 und Ps 109
LXX im Hebrerbrief, in Text-Textgeschichte-Textwirkung: Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag
von Siegried Kreuzer (ed. Thomas Wagner, Jonathan Miles Robker and Frank Ueberschaer;
AOAT 419; Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2014), 45974.
Prov 3:126 deals with positive consequences for fear of God and the striving
for wisdom. Plger qualifies the chapter as a lecturing admonition.15 The moti-
vational exhortation (motivierender Mahnspruch) is typifying.16
My son/child, do not forget my teaching, but let your heart keep my com-
mandments this is how Prov 3 begins with the first verse. In v. 11, my son/
child ( )is addressed, anew. The Hebrew text uses the word in v. 11a,
which stems from the root . There is rare evidence of in the Qal, where
it means to instruct. There are just as few evidences of it in the Nifal with
the meaning of to let oneself be instructed / taught. The majority of the evi-
dences of the verb are in the Piel, where it mainly means to chasten, to rebuke.
The meaning of to instruct, to educate is found three times, as is the mean-
ing of to guide.17 Khler/Baumgartner mainly translate the noun with
chastisement/discipline (as in Prov 3:11), and in some passages, they translate
with admonition/warning.18
In this context, physical chastisement plays an important role: Those who
spare the rod hate their children, but those who love them are diligent to dis-
cipline them (Prov 13:24). Discipline your children while there is hope; do
not set your heart on their destruction (Prov 19:18). Folly is bound up in the
heart of a boy, but the rod of discipline drives it far away (Prov 22:15). In Prov
23:13f., it similarly says: Do not withhold discipline from your children; if you
beat them with a rod, they will not die. If you beat them with the rod, you will
save their lives from Sheol (cf. Prov 29:1, 17). In Sir 22:6, a rigorous education is
linked to wisdom: A whipping and discipline are wisdom at any time (cf. Sir
30:1f.; Pss. Sol. 3:2; 13:9).
Prov 3:11b speaks of ( his admonition). The terms discipline ()
and admonition are closely related.
Then it says in v. 12: for the Lord reproofs the one he loves. The Hebrew
verb used for reproof is . The verb means to rebuke, to avenge, some-
times to decide, to mediate, to determine, but mostly to chasten, to punish,
to reproof, just as it is used in Prov 3:12, in the Hifil, where it is used the most.19
15 Belehrende Mahnrede. Otto Plger, Sprche Salomos (BKAT XVII; Neukirchen-Vluyn:

Neukirchener, 1984), 32; affirmatively adopted by Erich Grer, An die Hebrer (Hebr 10,
913, 25) (EKK XVII/3; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1997), 257, n. 70.
16 Anders Jrgen Bjrndahlen, Form und Inhalt des motivierenden Mahnspruchs, ZAW
82 (1970): 34761.
17 Evidence and meaning according to HAL II, 400.
18 HAL II, 528.
19 HAL II, 392.
328 Kraus
The comparison to the father is striking: ( keav). God acts like a father,
who chastens the son he loves. The application of a father-son-relationship to
the God-Israel-relationship in terms of discipline/education is also common in
other parts of the Old Testament.20 It is the background of Pss. Sol. 13:9, as well:
He (God) will admonish the just like a beloved son, and his chastisement is
as such of a firstborn. But the idea already occurs at the basic passage for God
as a nurturer: Deut 8:5: Know then in your heart that as a parent disciplines
a child so the LORD your God disciplines you.21 Again, the verb is used
twice.22
It is the love of God, his , which is the origin of education/chastise-
ment but it is a harsh love. Such a pedagogical programme of education by
harshness is common in the ancient world. Its aim is the shaping of character.
4 Prov 3:11f. LXX
11 ,
12 , .
11 My Son, do not belittle the Lords discipline nor break down when
you are reproved by him;
12 for whom the Lord loves, he disciplines, and he punishes every son
he accepts.23
20 According to Plger, Sprche, 33, in the book of Proverbs here, only.

21 Cf. Grer, Hebrer (Hebr 10, 913, 25), 257.
22 According to Pamela Eisenbaum, divine education is a peripheral idea in the Hebrew
Bible, which became a mainstream in rabbinic literature, and was called yisurin shel
ahava, which means chastisement of love. This might possibly have happened under
the influence of the hadrianic persecution. Eisenbaum gives the following evidence: Mek.
Bachodesh 10; b.Ber 5a; b. Sanh 101a; Gen. Rab. 42.1; Sifre Deut. 311. Pamela Eisenbaum,
The Letter to the Hebrews, in The Jewish Annotated New Testament (ed. Amy-Jill Levine
and Marc Zwi Brettler; Oxford: OUP, 2011), 40626, here 423.
23 Translation according to Johann Cook, Proverbs, in NETS. The French translation La
Bible dAlexandrie reads: Fils, ne nglige pas les corrections du Seigneur, ne taffranchis
pas quand il te fait des reproches: car celui quil aime, le Seigneur le corrige, il soumet au
fouet tout fils quil agre. David-Marc dHammonville, Les Proverbes (BdA, Paris: Cerf,
2000), 174.
The translation of the LXX widely adopts the Hebrew text, except for few
changes.24 The Septuagint represents the verb to discard in the MT with
: to pay little heed to sb./sth. (it is a hapax legomenon). is trans-
lated with . actually means education, learning, culture.25 The
term is found in the works of Aeschylus (Th. 18), first, in the meaning of to
bring up children.26 According to the interpreters, is bestowed with
another, new accent in Prov 3, namely chastisement as distinct from educa-
tion. This accentuation is supported by the use of , which means to
reprimand, to punish in sapiential literature.27
In Prov 3:12a, the LXX completely coincides with the MT. In v. 12b, the trans-
lator probably read the term ( keav) as keev, Piel of kaav. In the Piel, the verb
means to cause pain. Thus, the LXX represents it with .28 The transla-
tion therefore should be: Who the Lord loves, he chastens, and he beats/whips
each son that he affiliates.29
5 Hebr 12 and Ancient Paideia
4 .
5 , ,
6
, . 7
, . ;
24 A detailed analysis can be found in Gert J. Steyn, A Quest for the Assumed LXX Vorlage of the
Explicit Quotations in Hebrews (FRLANT 235; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011),
33339.
25 Dieter Bremer, Paideia, Historisches Wrterbuch der Philosophie (ed. Joachim Ritter,
Karlfried Grnder, and Gottfried Gabriel; vol. 113; Stuttgart: Schwabe, 19712007
[CD-ROM]), 7:3539; from the time of Plato on it becomes a synonym for civilization
(Ibid., 38); Georg Bertram, , , ., TWNT Vol. V (1954): 596635, here 600f.
26 Bremer, Paideia, 36.
27 Grer, Hebrer (Hebr 10, 913, 25), 259.
28 Cf. Friedrich Schrger, Der Verfasser des Hebrerbriefes als Schriftausleger (BU 4;
Regensburg: Pustet 1968), 188f; Bertram, TWNT V 608, 615 (so already Hugo Grotius, ibid.,
n. 70).
29 Grer, Hebrer (Hebr 10, 913, 25), 250, correctly reads: Wen der Herr lieb hat, den
zchtigt er, (und) er schlgt jeden Sohn, den er annimmt. Cf. Wei, Hebrer, 644: er
geielt einen jeden Sohn. Attridge, Hebrews, 359: for it is the one whom he loves that the
Lord disciplines, and he chastises every son whom he accepts.
330 Kraus
8 ,
.
4 You have not yet resisted unto blood in the fight against sin. 5 And you
forgot the solace which addresses you as sons: My son, do not disregard
the chastisement of your LORD and do not lose courage when you are
punished by him! 6 For whom the LORD loves, he chastens; like this, he
whips each son that he affiliates. 7 Your suffering serves the chastisement;
God treats you like sons. For where is there a son who is not chastened by
his father? 8 When you are without such chastisement which everyone
was part of, though, you are illegitimate and are not sons.30
Verses 411 can be separated into two paragraphs: 48, 911, signalized by
at the beginning of v.9. In substance, our passage is the paideia-text in the New
Testament and as such a support of the admonition 10:3511:1 = 12:13 by scrip-
ture which, similar to 3:74:11, contains an edifying interpretation in the fash-
ion of a short homily.31 The first paragraph wants to prove that chastisement
is an evidence of sonship, in the second paragraph, the divine chastisement
is concluded from the chastisement of a birth father, which is already consid-
ered best for the son, proceeding a minori ad maius. With its prospect of the
fruit of chastisement, v. 11 is supposed to be a consoling appeal to persevere.
Suffering is to be understood as a school of love (Schule der Liebe32). One
feels reminded of the trial of Christ, Hebr 2:9; 5:8f., but there is no explicit refer-
ence to Christ, which is why one needs to be cautious in terms of a parallelism.33
30 Translation according to Braun, Hebrer, ad loc: 4 Noch habt ihr nicht bis aufs Blut im
Kampf gegen die Snde Widerstand geleistet. 5 Und ihr habt den Zuspruch vergessen, der
zu euch als Shnen redet: Mein Sohn, schtze die Zchtigung seitens des Herrn nicht
gering und verliere nicht den Mut, wenn du von ihm gestraft wirst! 6 Denn wen der Herr
liebhat, den zchtigt er; so geielt er einen jeden Sohn, den er annimmt. 7 Der Zchtigung
dient euer Leiden; als Shne behandelt euch Gott. Denn wo gibt es einen Sohn, den ein
Vater nicht zchtigt? 8 Wenn ihr aber ohne Zchtigung seid, an der alle teilbekommen
haben, dann seid ihr ja illegitim und nicht Shne.
31 Grer, Hebrer (Hebr 10, 913, 25), 250 (quoting Hans von Soden).
32 Franz Delitzsch, Der Hebrerbrief (Leipzig: Drffling und Franke, 1857), 611 (Neuauflage;
Gieen: Brunnen, 1989); Gnther Bornkamm, Sohnschaft und Leiden: Hebrer 12,511,
in Geschichte und Glaube: Gesammelte Aufstze Band II (BEvT 53; Munchen: Kaiser, 1971),
21424, esp. 215f. Positively taken by Grer, Hebrer (Hebr 10, 913, 25), 251 (the pages for
Bornkamm in Grer, n. 10, have to be corrected).
33 William Loader, Sohn und Hoherpriester: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur
Christologie des Hebrerbriefes (WMANT 53; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981), 138f.
pace Grer, Hebrer (Hebr 10, 913, 25), 251 n. 12.
The paragraph, which is to be understood as solace (paraclesis), according

to v. 5, begins with a significant sentence: You have not yet resisted unto (as
far as) blood. How is this meant? Is the you to be stressed: You have not yet,
but Jesus has? Is it meant to be a review on v. 23? Or is martyrdom meant
by this phrase, as was consistently anticipated in the literature of the ancient
church?34 Or is there an allusion to the pankration, as Martin Karrer assumes,
based on the image of a competition in 12:1?35 The pankration was an Olympic
discipline in which everything was allowed to overcome the opponent, except
from indentation of the eyes and biting; a fight unto blood. The pankration was
highly estimated in the ancient world.
Seneca writes (Ep. 13:2): An athlete cannot raise enthusiasm for a fight, if
he never was beaten brown and blue. He who has seen his own blood, whose
teeth have cracked under the punch, he who, when he was overthrown, has
endured the whole weight of his opponent and still would not let his courage
sink, even if he was sunk, himself, he who, whenever he fell, arose all the more
defiant, he proceeds to the fight, full of hope.36
The addressees in Hebr 12 are asked to lead off the fight with every force-
ful harshness. They then hear Prov 3:11f. as a solace or encouragement. The
author accuses them of having forgotten about the solace that pertains to
them as the sons. So, Prov 3:11f. is used as a lively, contemporary solace to call
into remembrance the position of the sons. The same passage appears in Rev
3:19, slightly modified. God makes the angel tell the community in Laodicea,
which is marked by tepidity: As many as I love, I rebuke () and chasten
().
In Hebr, the address of the quote from Prov 3:11 LXX, which only reads son
(), is expanded by . This is in line with the MT, but can also be found in
LXX manuscripts.37 The rest of the quote in Hebr coincides with the text from
the LXX.
The same quote can be found in the works of Philo (Congr. 177). There, Philo
assumes that an affinity with God () arises from his chastisement.
In 1 Clem 56:4, Prov 3:12 is also quoted in the context of a chastisement by
God. In this passage, there also is a reference to Ps 117:18 LXX: The LORD has
34 Evidence in Grer, Hebrer (Hebr 10, 913, 25), 253 with n. 36.
35 Martin Karrer, Der Brief an die Hebrer (II). Kapitel 5,1113,25 (TK 20/II; Gtersloh/
Wrzburg: Gtersloher/Echter 2008), 317.
36 Quoted as well in Knut Backhaus, Der Brief an die Hebrer: bersetzt und Erklrt (RNT;
Regensburg: Pustet 2010), 420.
37 Cf. Karrer, Hebrer II, 319; Grer, Hebrer (Hebr 10, 913, 25), 256 (in Grer, n. 68 is not
sourced); Steyn, Quest, 338f.
332 Kraus
chastened me, but he did not surrender me to death, or to Ps 140:5, as well as

Job 5:1726. The passage from Job is a quote from the first speech of Eliphas,
which interprets the suffering of Job as the chastisement of God for the sins of
Job. Job cannot consent to this interpretation at all.
In the New Testament, the approach to understand suffering as can
also be found in Eph 6:4 and 2 Tim 3:16. 1 Cor 11:32 and 2 Cor 6:9 are also often
referred to in literature.38 In this case, though, the point is that God temporally
punishes to rescue from the Last Judgement. Paul does not understand suffer-
ing itself as a disciplinary measure or , as far as I can tell.
The first evidence of as a term is to be found as already
mentioned in the works of Aeschylus. From the second half of the 5th cen-
tury bce onwards, becomes the epitome of the ideal physical and
mental shaping, the kalos kagathos, which intentionally includes an actual
mental culture for the first time, according to Jger.39 That such pedagogics,
whose aim is the shaping of character, also uses harsh measures, was widely
accepted. Plutarch (De sera numinis vindicta), Philo (Det. 144146; Praem. 119;
Legat. 196), Seneca (Providentia 1:6; 4:7.11f.), Epictetus (Dissertationes 3:22, 56)
or Dio Chrysostom (Oratio 4:31) offer elaborations on this.40
It should not be withheld, though, that there also was critique on fusti-
gation: Euripides (Frgm 952), Quintilian (Inst. 1:3, 1417) or Plutarch (de lib.
Educat. 8F9A) can be named as examples.41
For our passage, another context is important, though, namely the context
arising from Prov 3:11: It is a central topos of the biblical-Jewish theology of suf-
fering, which especially manifested itself in both Jewish theology of wisdom
and Jewish Hellenism.42 The biblical background can be found for example
in Deut 8:5; 11:2; 2 Sam 7:14; Jer 20:30; 31:18. Suffering as is this topos serves
as chastisement by God and in this sense is no punishment or sign of remote-
ness of God, but quite on the contrary a sign of his closeness, of the love of
the father towards his sons.43 Philo (Congr. 177) writes: The punishment and
38 E.g., Grer, Hebrer (Hebr 10, 913, 25), 257.

39 Werner Jger, Paideia: Die Formung des griechischen Menschen (Berlin/New York: de
Gruyter, 21989), 364.
40 Evidence according to Backhaus, Hebrer, 421.
41 Evidence according to Backhaus, ibid.
42 Wei, Hebrer, 644f: Paideia becomes the zentralen Topos der biblisch-jdischen
Leidenstheologie [...], der sowohl in jdischer Weisheitstheologie als auch im jdischen
Hellenismus seine besondere Ausprgung gefunden hat; cf. Ibid., n. 2.
43 Wei, Hebrer, 645: Leiden so dieser Topos dient als Zchtigung, von Seiten Gottes
verstanden, und ist in diesem Sinne nicht Strafe oder Zeichen der Gottferne, sondern
ganz im Gegenteil Zeichen der Nhe, ja der Liebe des Vaters zu seinen Shnen.
rebuke is considered so nice that the commitment to God becomes an affinity

with God () by it. The chastisement by God arises from his mercy,
whereas his judgement arises from his ire about sin.44 Ps 6:2: Rebuke me not
in thine anger, the prayer of the psalm asks God.
In this context, 2 Macc 6:1216 (cf. 7:33) deserves particular attention.
Within the scope of a paraclesis to the reader, it is explicitly said that God did
not send the penal sufferings for doom but for education or for improvement.
In the background, there is also the idea of the so-called eschatological mea-
sure (eschatologisches Ma), according to which God always immediately
punishes his people to prevent the sin from accruing, whereas it defers for the
other nations, the Goyim.45
2 Macc 6:1416: For in the case of the other nations the Lord waits patiently
to punish them until they have reached the full measure of their sins; but he
does not deal in this way with us, in order that he may not take vengeance on
us afterward when our sins have reached their height. Therefore he never with-
draws his mercy from us. Although he disciplines us with calamities, he does
not forsake his own people.
According to Wisdom of Solomon, God chastens the enemies of Israel with
forbearance, but with his people, he deals even more thoroughly. In the judg-
ing of God, his mercy becomes visible: Wis 12:20ff; 16:10ff.
In 4 Macc 10:10, a text which probably stems from the end of 1st century ce,
it says: .
The list of evidence could be continued for example, the topos is also
found in the Apocalypse of Baruch (78:5), as well as in the writing of Josephus
(Ant. 3:311) and this idea is continued in rabbinic theology. Loveable are the
chastisements, is delivered by Rabbi Aqiba.46 Hebr unbrokenly adopted this
topos.47 The topos is unreservedly received in Hebr, which is demonstrated
above all by the adoption of the quote from Prov 3.48 The chastisement rep-
resents the bailment for sonship.49 If the addressees were illegitimate chil-
dren, the father would not care for them. But as they are sons, they experience
.
44 Cf. Otto Michel, Der Brief an die Hebrer (KEK 13; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
61966), 439.
45 Regarding the topic, see Rainer Stuhlmann, Das eschatologische Ma im Neuen Testament
(FRLANT 132; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983).
46 Cf. for this and further evidences, Michel, Hebrer, 440.
47 Wei, Hebrer, 645.
48 Cf. Ibid., 645.
334 Kraus
The following verses, Prov 3:911, contain consequences and arguments from
the comparison of human and divine education to stress the grandeur and
sense of divine . Verse 10 might harbour slight criticism on a humanly-
paternal method of education when it says that fathers educated
as they saw fit (if one wants to translate it like this).50 Generally, the
divine is considered to be concentrated on , though (to the
advantage of those who are blessed with it). And the overall aim of the whole
enterprise is sharing in the sacredness of God.
Indeed, education is painful as long as it takes place, but for the practised
ones, it will yield the justices fruit of peace. It remains crucial: Suffering is
proof of the paternal love of God (v. 7).51 Grer immediately adds to this
statement, though: Truly, it is no scope that is easily made comprehensible,
neither then nor now!52 And Wei resumes: Put like this, suffering in the sense
of chastisement is exactly the proof of sonship and not at all a reason for
discouragement. Taken by itself and in accordance to the norms of an ancient
patriarchalism, this surely is a coherent argument.53
6 Hermeneutic Thoughts
Ancient patriarchalism does not determine our realm of experience, anymore.

Does Hebr 12:5f. still signify it, nowadays? In our times, it is considered absurd
that physical punishment could favourably shape the character.54 That people
are educated by God survives as a part of the tradition of the Bible as well as
Jewish and Christian history. How can we approach the experience of suffering
to handle them productively rather than repressively?
1. To draw a connection between the experiences of suffering and God and

to understand them as divine education, originates from the endeavour
to think God historically powerful and to not spare the experience of
50 Cf. Ibid., 272: nach eigenem Gutdnken, cf. 276. Attridge, Hebrews, 363: as they deemed
fit; on the basis of arbitrary subjective judgement.
52 Ibid., 261: Wahrlich, kein leicht einsichtig zu machender Skopos, damals nicht und auch
heute nicht!
53 Wei, Hebrer, 650: So gesehen sind Leiden im Sinne der Zchtigung gerade die
Besttigung der Sohnschaft und ganz und gar nicht Anla zur Entmutigung. Fr sich
betrachtet bzw. nach den Normen eines antiken Patriarchalismus ist dies alles gewi eine
in sich schlssige Argumentation.
54 Backhaus, Hebrer, 421.
suffering from his actions. Undoubtedly, there are people who retrospec-
tively interpreted difficult situations in which they had found themselves
in a trial and considered themselves as having grown by it. People experi-
ence suffering, but they do not break under it, instead, they can relate this
to their faith in their confession, afterwards. To understand a phrase such
as the one in Prov 3:11f. or Hebr 12:5f. as a general statement is theologi-
cally not adequate, though. A personal confession to have grown by suf-
fering is an expression of personal trust in God and not a basis for
doctrines.55
2. The keyword paideia has a wide array. An adequate handling of Prov
3:11f./ Hebr 12:5f. may be to stress the positive educational aspects of the
term, which are concentrated on education and culture. Fustigation-
pedagogics were thus out of the question.
3. According to Rom 8, Paul understands the suffering in the world as an
expression of the waiting of the creature for salvation. Suffering is linked
to the imperfection of creation and looked at under eschatological signs,
here. Suffering is not considered as paideia of God, here, but as the signa-
ture of the sin-fallen and salvation-expecting creation. The origin of suf-
fering is not separated from God, but it is put into tension with the
eschatological clearance. The spirit is considered as the power which
supports human weakness in a situation of suffering.
4. The biblical tradition does not offer a universal answer to the question of
the origin of suffering. But in the late Wisdom, Psalms of Lament and the
Book of Job, the biblical tradition provides instructions on how to lament
against God, to not glorify suffering, but to dare to revolt against God
and to remain faithful to him in protest.56
55 Sensible thoughts on the topic can be found in Johannes B. Brantschen, Hat das Leiden
einen Sinn? in Gott ist anders: Theologische Versuche und Besinnungen (Luzern: Edition
Exodus, 2005), 10613.
56 Cf. Claus Westermann, Die Klagelieder (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990), esp. 87:
Wo aber die Anklage Gottes als Teil des Gebetes abgelehnt wird, weil es piettlos wre,
Gott etwas vorzuwerfen, ist die notwendige Folge, da diese ganze Seite der Wirklichkeit,
das Unbegreifliche und Schreckliche, aus der Gottesbeziehung herausfllt.
CHAPTER 18
Symmachus, the Septuagint and the Sages:

An Examination of the References to Sumkhos
ben Joseph in the Mishnah, Tosefta and Talmudim
1 Introduction: Who are the Translators?
It is the fate of many ancient translations of biblical books that they have been
produced anonymously. As a result, we can only make educated guesses with
respect to their historical and cultural contexts, their identity and intentions.
In the few cases where names of the translators have been preserved, the infor-
mation is often of little help. The Letter of Aristeas, for instance, does provide
the names of the seventy-two translators of the Pentateuch and gives a long
testimony of their philosophical competences, but that information seems
to be at odds with the very unsophisticated style of their translation work.
Furthermore, we lack the means to relate the information provided by the
Letter of Aristeas to that of people from Palestine in that early Ptolemaic period
and verify the disputed veracity of the pseudepigraphical composition at this
point. The information provided by the colophon to the Greek translation of
Esther, viz. that it was made by Lysimachus son of Ptolemeus from Jerusalem
in 7877 BCE, and the preface to the Greek translation to the wisdom of Ben
Sira made by his own grandson in Ptolemaic Egypt between 132117 BCE, do
offer us more reliable historical information,1 but hardly help us to get access
to their cultural background since we lack any further information about these
translators. Hence, this information hardly helps us to better understand the
motives and techniques behind the Greek translations.
More helpful, but also more problematic, is the procedure by which certain
characteristic features of a translation are connected with specific Jewish per-
sons in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Well-known examples are the con-
nections made by Gesenius, Seeligmann, van der Kooij and others to see the
* It is my pleasant duty to thank Prof. dr. Arie van der Kooij and the two anonymous reviewers
of this paper for their helpful comments and stimulating criticisms.
1 Elias Bickerman, The Colophon of the Greek Book of Esther, JBL 63 (1944), repr. in Elias
Bickerman, Studies in Jewish and Christian History 1 (AGAJU 9/1; Leiden: Brill, 1976), 22345.

Symmachus, the Septuagint and the Sages 337
Greek version of Isaiah as the product of the circle around the exiled high priest
Onias IV in Leontopolis.2 It is the special contribution of the honoree of this
volume to have investigated the question whether both the Old Greek versions
of Job and Proverbs stem from the same person and to identify that person as
Aristobulus, a second century BCE Jewish philosopher from Alexandria.3 In
my own studies of the Old Greek version of Joshua, I found it illuminating to
see the translation as the product of the Ptolemaic high official Dositheos son
of Drimylos.4 Heuristically helpful as these identifications of Greek translators
might be, they remain speculative until new, more definitive archaeological
proof becomes available.
2 Symmachus: The Translator of the Jews?
These questions do not pertain to the later Jewish revisers of the Old Greek
versions of Hebrew Scripture. Especially in the case of Symmachus, we seem to
be well informed about the identity of the translator and his intentions, even
though the translation itself has survived only in fragments, marginal notes
in Septuagint manuscripts, and quotations in patristic sources.5 Although the
2 Wilhelm Gesenius, Philologisch-kritischer und historischer Commentar ber den Jesaja 1

(Leipzig: Vogel, 1820), 62; Zacharias Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta (Historisch-
kritische Studien zu der Septuaginta 1.1; Leipzig: Vogel, 1841), 40, note f; Isaac L. Seeligmann,
The Septuagint of Isaiah: A Discussion of Its Problems (MVEOL 9; Leiden: Brill, 1948; repr.
in Robert Hanhart and Hermann Spieckermann, ed., The Septuagint Version of Isaiah and
Cognate Studies [FAT 40; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004]); Arie van der Kooij, Die alten
Textzeugen des Jesajabuches: Ein Beitrag zur Textgeschichte des Alten Testaments (OBO 35;
Fribourg / Gttingen: Universittsverlag / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 3365; Johann
Cook and Arie van der Kooij, Law, Prophets, and Wisdom: On the Provenance of Translators
and their Books in the Septuagint Version (CBET 68; Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 6385; Michal
N. van der Meer, Visions from Memphis and Leontopolis: The Phenomenon of the Vision
Report in the Greek Isaiah in the Light of Contemporary Accounts from Hellenistic Egypt,
in Isaiah in Context: Studies in Honour of Arie van der Kooij on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth
Birthday (ed. Michal N. van der Meer, Percy van Keulen, Wido van Peursen, and Bas ter Haar
Romeny; VTSup 138; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 283318.
3 Cook and Van der Kooij, Law, Prophets, and Wisdom, 87221.
4 Michal N. van der Meer, Provenance, Profile and Purpose of the Greek Joshua, in XII
Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leiden 2004
(ed. Melvin K.H. Peters; SBLSCS 54; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2006), 5580.
5 See, e.g., Alison Salvesen, Symmachus in the Pentateuch (JSS Monograph Series 15;
Manchester: University of Manchester, 1991); Natalio Fernndez Marcos, The Septuagint in
Context: Introduction to the Greek Versions of the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 12341; Michal N.
338 van der Meer
patristic data offered by Eusebius of Caesarea (Hist. eccl. 6.17; Dem. ev. 7.1.33),
Epiphanius of Salamis (De mesuris et ponderibus 16), and Palladius of Galatia
(Hist. laus. 64) offer different, if not contradictory data regarding Symmachus
religious background (Ebionite, Samaritan or Jewish), the testimonies agree
that the translation was made towards the end of the second century CE in
the northern part of the land of Israel, probably at Caesarea. Whereas scholars
of previous generations, such as Zahn and Schoeps,6 tried to connect render-
ings of Symmachus with Ebionite ideas, assumedly attested by the pseudo-
Clementine writings, most scholars nowadays regard Symmachus translation
as a Jewish, more precisely: a rabbinic Jewish interpretation of the Hebrew
Bible.
Already in 1862, Abraham Geiger made the suggestion to identify Symmachus
with the most important pupil of Rabbi Meir, Sumkhos ben Joseph, known
from Mishnah, Tosefta and the Talmudim.7 Geiger demonstrated that many
elements in Symmachus version reflect rabbinic concepts related to the unic-
ity of Israels God, the belief in the resurrection and certain halakhic rulings.
Geiger attached special weight to Symmachus rendering of Qoh 5:34, where a
subtle shift from the recommendation to pay whatever one vows (
, fulfill what you vow, cf. LXX , whatever you vow, pay
up) into an advice to be very reluctant to vow at all (Syh , , if
you vow (at all), then pay).8 This corresponds well with the opinion of rabbi
Meir that it is better not to vow at all (m. Ned 1:1; b. Ned. 9a; b. Hul. 2a; b. Men.
81a). Geiger also pointed to the proverbial acumen ascribed to Sumkhos in b.
Erub. 13b:9
van der Meer, Symmachus, in The Oxford Handbook of the Septuagint (ed. Alison Salvesen
and Timothy Michael Law; Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming).
6 Theodor Zahn, Herkunft und Lehrrichtung des Bibelbersetzers Symmachus, Neue
Kirchliche Zeitschrift 34 (1923): 197207; Hans-Joachim Schoeps, Symmachus-Studien IIII,
in Hans-Joachim Schoeps, Aus frhchristlicher Zeit: Religionsgeschichtliche Studien (Tbingen:
Mohr-Siebeck, 1950), 82119.
7 Abraham Geiger, Symmachus, der bersetzer der Bibel, Jdische Zeitschrift fr Wissenschaft
und Leben 1 (1862): 3964.
8 Geiger, Symmachus, 5557, 64.
9 Geiger, Symmachus, 62. The English translation of the Babylonian Talmud is taken from
Epsteins Hebrew-English Soncino edition; B.D. Klein, Nazir (Hebrew English edition of the
Babylonian Talmud; London: Soncino, 1985).
" " " R. Abbahu stated in the name of R.

Johanan: R. Meir had a disciple of the
name of Symmachus who, for every
rule concerning ritual uncleanness,
supplied forty-eight reasons in support
of its uncleanness, and for every rule
concerning ritual cleanness, forty-eight
reasons in support of its cleanness.
Sumkhos knowledge of Greek is proven by a statement in t. Naz. 1:2 (= y. Naz.

2b and b. Naz. 8b), where Greek numerals for twice (), thrice ()
and fourfold () are used by Sumkhos:10
" " He who says, Nazirite vows Rabban

[ " ] Simeon b. Gamaliel says, Lo, this one
][] [ ] [" is a Nazir for two spells. [If he said,]
" Lo, I am a Nazir and one, lo, this one
[ is a Nazir for two spells [m.Naz.1:3]. [If
] he said,] ...and more, lo, he is a Nazir
." for three spells. [If he said,] ...one and
more again, lo, this one is a Nazir for
four spells. Sumkhos says, [If he said,]
Lo, I am a Nazir tetragon, lo, this one
is a Nazir for four spells; ...digon, lo,
three Nazirite-spells [are incumbent
on him]; ...drigon, lo, two Nazirite-
spells [are incumbent on him].
Sumkhos Palestinian background, as well as his linguistic skills become evi-

dent in a tradition found in b. B. Bat.73a (cf. t. B. Bat. 4:1 and y. B. Bat. 5:1, 15b):11
10 Geiger, Symmachus, 64. The English translation of the Tosefta is taken from Jacob
Neusner, The Tosefta: Translated from the Hebrew with a New Introduction (New York: Ktav,
19771986; repr. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002).
11 Geiger, Symmachus, 63. The English translation of b. B. Bat. is taken from Maurice Simon
and Israel W. Slotki, Baba Bathra (Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud;
London: Soncino, 1976).
340 van der Meer
" Our Rabbis taught: He who sells a ship

sells [implicitly] its wooden imple-
ments and its [sweet water] tank.
R. Nathan says: He who sells a ship
sells implicitly its buzith. Symmachus
says: He who sells a ship sells [implic-
itly] its dugith. Raba said: Buzith
) , ( and dugith are the same: R. Nathan,
: the Babylonian, called it Buzith, as
they say [in Babylon] the Buziatha
of Maisan; while Symmachus, who
was a Palestinian, called it Dugith,
for so it is written: And your residue
[shall be taken away] in fishing boats.
(Amos 6:2)
Geiger saw another link between Rabbi Meirs pupil and the Greek translator
in the tradition found in b. B. Me. 29b about the use of biblical scrolls. Geiger
inferred from this passage that Symmachus was an experienced scribe, just as
his teacher, Rabbi Meir:12
Likewise, if one deposits a Scroll of the

Torah with his neighbour, he [the latter]
must roll it once every twelve months,
" and may open and read it. What busi-
ness has he with it? Moreover, if he
opens it in his own interests, It is for-
bidden; but have you not said, He
may open and read it! It means this:
If when rolling it he opens and reads
it, that is permitted; but if he opens
it in his own interests, it is forbidden.
Symmachus said: In the case of a new
one, every thirty days; in the case of an
old one, every twelve months.
12 Geiger, Symmachus, 63. Geiger erroneously referred to the passage as b. B. Me. 20b
instead of 29b. The English translation of b. B. Me. is taken from Salis Daiches and
H. Freedman, Baba Meia (Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud; London:
Soncino, 1971).
Finally, Geiger pointed to a possibly pedantic character trait of Symmachus

as recorded in b. Naz. 49b. Here it is told that Symmachus forced his way into
Rabbi Judahs court in order to correct the teachings of the Jewish patriarch
and de facto spokesman of Palestinian Jewry in the times of the Antonine and
Severan emperors:13
Our Rabbis taught: After the demise of

R. Meir, R. Judah said to his disciples,
Do not allow the disciples of R. Meir
to enter here, for they are disputa-
tious and do not come to learn Torah,
but come to overwhelm me with cita-
tions from tradition. Symmachus
forced his way through and entered.
He said to them, Thus did R. Meir
teach me: The nazirite must poll for
" [defilement contracted from] the
following sources of defilement:
for a corpses or for an olives bulk
of [the flesh of] a corpse. R. Judah
was wroth and said to them, Did I
not tell you not to allow the pupils of
R. Meir to enter here, because they are
disputatious? If he must poll for an
olives bulk of [the flesh of] a corpse,
then certainly he must poll for the
corpse itself.
In b. Qidd. 52b we find the same passage almost verbatim repeated:14
' Our Rabbis taught: After R. Meirs

demise, R. Judah announced to his dis-
ciples, Let not R. Meirs disciples enter
hither, because they are disputatious
13 Geiger, Symmachus, 62. For the historical background of the period see Michael Avi-
Yonah, Geschichte der Juden im Zeitalter des Talmud in den Tagen von Rom und Byzanz (SJ
2; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1962).
14 See H. Freedman, iddushin (Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud; London:
Soncino, 1977).
342 van der Meer
and do not come to learn Torah but to

' overwhelm one with halachoth. Yet
Symmachus forced his way through
' and entered. Said he to them: Thus
did R. Meir teach me: If one betroths
" [a woman] with his portion, whether
of the higher or of the lower sanctity,
' he has not betrothed [her]. Thereupon
R. Judah became incensed with him
and exclaimed, Did I not say to you,
Let not R. Meirs disciples enter hither,
because they are disputatious and
do not come to learn Torah but to
overwhelm me with halachoth: how
then does a woman come to be in the
Temple Court? Said R. Jose, Shall it be
said, Meir is dead Judah angry and Jose
silent: what is to become of the words
of the Torah?
Although both the Greek translator of the Hebrew Bible and Rabbi Meirs pupil
lived in the same time and place (northern Israel by the end of the second cen-
tury CE) and bore the same name, there are no explicit references in rabbinic
literature that Rabbi Meirs pupil produced a Greek translation of the Hebrew
Bible. Hence, Geigers proposal did not meet much support until Barthlemy
revisited the question of the identity of Symmachus.15 Barthlemy pointed
to some additional exclusive agreements between the exegesis of Rabbi Meir
and the Greek translation of Symmachus: (1) the fact that both did not attach
inclusive value to the particles and as Rabbi Akiba and Aquila had done;
(2) the fact that both deemed it legitimate to add or omit an alef in order to
explain the etymology of a Hebrew lexeme;16 (3) the exclusive interpretation
of in Lam 4:3 as sirens both by Symmachus () and Rabbi Meir
15 Dominique Barthlemy, Qui est Symmaque?, CBQ 36 (1974): 45165, reprinted in tudes
dhistoire du texte de lAncien Testament (OBO 21; Fribourg / Gttingen: ditions universi-
taires / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 30721.
16 Cf. Num 7:3 where the rare Hebrew word , which is usually understood as a certain
wagon based on Neo-Babylonian and Assyrian sources (HALOT, 994a), has been parsed
as a form of Hebrew , to be on duty (HALOT, 994b) cf. Symmachus and
Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15, line 2 (Piska 1.8).
(Lev. R. 16:1 on Lam 4:15 : ' .

;)17 and (4) the interpretation of the land of Israel as ) ( , an
ornament for all the nations (Jer 3:19; Ezek 20:6, 15), as , cultic insti-
tution, or religious observance,18 which according to Rabbi Meir has atoning
power (Sipre Deut 23:43, par. 343).19
Whereas the rabbinic background of Symmachus seems to be widely
acknowledged in modern scholarship,20 the identification between the Greek
translator of the Hebrew Bible and the self-willed student of Rabbi Meir
remains problematic up to the present. According to van der Kooij, the links
between Rabbi Meirs exegesis and Symmachus translations are not very con-
vincing. Rather, the Greek translation of Symmachus seems to endorse the
authority of Rabbi Judah and may have been produced in order to affirm the
latters status over the Greek-speaking Jewish communities in the diaspora.21
According to b. Soah 49b, Rabbi Judah allowed only for Greek as permissible
language spoken in the holy land besides Hebrew:
" For Rabbi said: Why use the Syrian lan-

guage in the land of Israel? Either use
the holy tongue or Greek!
Van der Kooij finds allusions to Rabbi Judah and his role in the compilation
of the Mishnah in several passages of Symmachus translation of the book of
17 Cf. Michael Sachs, Beitrge zur Sprach- und Alterthumswissenschaft 1 (Berlin: Veit, 1852),
25. See also Schoeps, Symmachusstudien 2, Bib 26 (1945): 10011, here 10608 (9597).
18 Barthlemy, Qui est Symmaque?, 46163 (31719); cf. Michal N. van der Meer, ,
Terra Incognita, and Terra Devastata: Vocabulary and Theology of Symmachus, in XIV
Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Helsinki,
2010 (ed. Melvin K.H. Peters; SBLSCS 59; Atlanta: SBL, 2013), 499514.
19 Cf. Wilhelm Bacher, Die Agada der Tannaiten 2: Von Akibas Tod bis zum Abschlu der
Mischna (135220 nach der gew. Zeitrechnung) (Straburg: Karl J. Trbner 1890), 28.
20 See, e.g., Jos Gonzles Luis, La versin de Smaco a los profetas mayores (Ph.D. thesis,
Madrid: Facultad de Filologia, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 1978); Jos R. Busto
Saiz, La traduccin de Smaco en el libro de los Salmos (Textos y Estudios Cardenal
Cisneros 22; Madrid: C.S.I.C., 1985); Natalio Fernndez Marcos, Smmaco y sus pre-
decesores judios, in Biblische und judaistische Studien: Festschrift fr Paolo Sacchi (ed.
Angelo Vivian; Judentum und Umwelt 29; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1990), 193
202; Fernndez Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, 12341; Salvesen, Symmachus in the
Pentateuch.
21 Van der Kooij, Die alten Textzeugen, 24855; Arie van der Kooij, Symmachus, de vertaler
der Joden, NedTT 42 (1988): 120.
344 van der Meer
Isaiah. In Isa 8:16, Symmachus altered the command of the prophet to seal his
instructions among his pupils (MT Theodotion
cf. Aquila ) into a com-
mand to lay down the (interpretation of the) law in written instructions
( ), i.e., the codification of the Mishnah.22
In Isa 9:6(5) Symmachus blended the notion of the rulership on the shoulders
of the messiah (MT cf. LXX )
with that of teaching ( () ) of world-
wide peace ( ).23
Besides the question of whose authority the Greek translator Symmachus
seeks to endorse (Rabbi Meir or Rabbi Judah), there is also a question of date,
according to van der Kooij. Rabbi Meir lived in the middle of the second cen-
tury CE, whereas the Greek translation was made around 200 CE according to
Epiphanius, De mesuris et ponderibus 16:24
Concerning Symmachus. In the time of Severus there was a certain

Symmachus, a Samaritan (
), of their wise men, but not honored by his own people. He
was afflicted with the lust for power and became angry with his tribe.
He approached the Jews, became a proselyte, and was circumcised a
second time...So this Symmachus, translating in order to pervert the
translation current among the Samaritans (
), published the
third translation.
This information dates the work of Symmachus to the reign of Lucius Septimius
Severus Pertinax (193211 CE). Since the Syriac version of De mesuris et
22 Van der Kooij, Die alten Textzeugen, 23839. For a different interpretation see Hans
Joachim Schoeps, Symmachusstudien I. Spuren ebionitischer Theologumena in seiner
Bibelbersetzung, ConBNT 6 (Uppsala: Seminarium Neotestamenticum Upsaliense,
1942), 6593; repr. in Schoeps, Aus frhchristlicher Zeit, 8289, here 85.
23 Van der Kooij, Die alten Textzeugen, 238; Arie van der Kooij, The Teacher Messiah and
Worldwide Peace: Some Comments on Symmachus Version of Isaiah 25:78, JNSL
24 (1998): 7582; Arie van der Kooij, Wie heit der Messias? Zu Jes 9,5 in den alten
griechischen Versionen, in Vergegenwrtigung des Alten Testaments: Beitrge zur bib-
lischen Hermeneutik (ed. Christoph Bultmann, Walter Dietrich, and Christoph Levin;
Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 15669.
24 P G 43.3:264; Elia D. Moutsoula,
, 44 (1973): 157208.
ponderibus reads Verus (fol. 55c, line 17: ),25 however, Barthlemy and
other scholars are inclined to date the translation of Symmachus several
decades earlier, viz. during the reign of Marcus Aurelius Verus (161180 CE).26
Yet, van der Kooij has demonstrated convincingly that the Syriac reading is
probably an error for .27
On the basis of both the issue of data and sponsorship, van der Kooij finds
it almost impossible to identify the Greek translator of the Hebrew Bible with
the pupil of Rabbi Meir.28 Yet, the problem of the date would only be relevant if
Rabbi Meirs pupil had died long before the time of Rabbi Judah. The references
in b. Naz. 49b and b. Qidd. 52b, however, make clear that the two were con-
temporaries. Hence, Salvesen and Fernndez Marcos are not so convinced that
the identification between the Greek translator and the pupil of Rabbi Meir is
as implausible as van der Kooij suggests.29 Nevertheless, Salvesen does add to
this discussion another argument. She argues that the name Symmachus was a
very common one. Hence the similarity in name is likely to be coincidental.30
3 References to Sumkhos ben Joseph in the Mishnah, Tosefta and

Talmudim
The question about the identification of the Greek translator Symmachus

with the rabbinic authority Sumkhos ben Joseph can probably not be settled
decisively before new data come to light. Nevertheless, the data that do exist,
25 James E. Dean and Martin Sprengling, Epiphanius Treatise On Weights and Measures
(SAOC 11; Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1935).
26 Giovanni Mercati, Let di Simmaco e S. Epifanio (Modena: Tipografia Pontificia ed
Arcivescoville dellImmacolata Concezione, 1892) repr. in Giovanni Mercati, Opere minore
1 (Studi e Testi 76; Vatican: biblioteca apostolica Vaticana, 1937), 21101; Barthlemy, Qui
est Symmaque?, 45456 (31012).
27 Van der Kooij, Die alten Textzeugen, 13336.
28 Van der Kooij, Die alten Textzeugen, 252: Da m.E. manches dafr spricht, die von Origenes
herrhrende Datierung bei Epiphanius fr zuverlssig zu halten, scheint es mir nahezu
ausgeschlossen, dass der bersetzer Symmachus derselbe wie Symmachus ben Joseph
gewesen sein kann, zumal jener erst zur Zeit des Kaisers Septimus Severus zum Judentum
bertrat.
29 Salvesen, Symmachus in the Pentateuch, 29394. Cf. Fernndez Marcos, The Septuagint in
Context, 126.
30 Alison Salvesen, Did Aquila and Symmachus Shelter under the Rabbinic Umbrella?, in
Greek Scripture and the Rabbis (ed. Timothy Michael Law and Alison Salvesen; CBET 66;
Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 10725, here 114.
346 van der Meer
especially concerning Rabbi Meirs pupil, can now be assessed in a much more
encompassing and balanced way than our predecessors in the pre-digital era
were able to do. In earlier studies, scholars investigating the rabbinic refer-
ences to Symmachus were confined to the remarks made by Geiger. The con-
cordances to personal names in the Mishnah by Duensing,31 the Babylonian
Talmud by Binyamin Kosovsky,32 and that to the Jerusalem Talmud by Moshe
Kosovsky could have helped to cover the references to Symmachus in that
corpus of rabbinic material, but have hardly been used.33 A comprehensive
examination of all references to this Sumkhos ben Joseph ( ) in all
of the halakhic compilations, including those of the Tosefta, remained out of
reach of biblical scholars. Such an examination may help to clear the question
about the relationship between Sumkhos and Rabbi Judah, which seems to be
one of the main reasons for van der Kooij to deny the identification between
the Greek translator and Rabbi Meirs pupil. A detailed examination of all
known Jewish names in the first centuries CE may also help us to assess the
question of how widespread and common the name Symmachus among Jews
was in that period.34
With the help of digitized databases of all rabbinic material in their original
languages and often also in English translations, we are now much closer to
the realization of that aim. A search on sefaria.org for and
produced 229 results, which after omission of the doublets in the material of
the Babylonian Talmud can be classified in the following overview:
31 Hugo Duensing, Verzeichnis der Personennamen und der geographischen Namen in der
Mischna (Studia Delitzschiana 6; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1960), 30a.
32 Binyamin Kosovsky, Oar ha-emot le-Talmud Bavli 3 (Jerusalem: Mirad ha-inukh
weha-tarbut el Memelet Yirael, 1977), 1126a28a.
33 Moshe Kosovsky, Concordance to the Talmud Yerushalmi (Palestinian Talmud):
Onomasticon. Thesaurus of Proper Names (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and
Humanities, 1985), 558ab; the reference to y. Ber. 12b is missing here; Cf. Alison Salvesen,
Did Aquila and Symmachus Shelter under the Rabbinic Umbrella?, 10825, here 114,
n. 30.
34 Tal Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity. 1: Palestine 330 BCE 200 CE (TSAJ 91;
Tbingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2002); idem, 2. Palestine 200650 (TSAJ 148; Tbingen: Mohr-
Siebeck, 2012).
References to Sumkhos ben Joseph (S.) in rabbinic literature
Mishnah:
1. m. Erub. 3:1 = y. Erub. 18a (cf. 19b) = b. Erub. 26b, 30b (3): ruling of S. (but
house of Shammai according to y. Erub. 19b) specifying the preparation of an
eruv with profane food for a kohen.
2. m. B. Me. 6:5 = t. B. Me. 7:6 = y. B. Me. 26b, 27a = b. B. Me. 80a (3): ruling of S.
in the name of R. Meir specifying the penalties of loss of wheat carried by a
either a camel or an ass (or wagon).
3. m. ul. 5:3 = t. ul. 5:1 = b. ul. 82a83a (6) cf. b. Ker. 14b15a: ruling of S. in
name of R. Meir specifying the penalty of 80 stripes for slaughtering a beast and
its daughter and granddaughter.
Additional references in the Tosefta

1. t. Ter. 7:7 = y. Ter. 31b (44a, 34): ruling of S. concerning unintentionally paying
restitution with unclean produce.
2. t. abb. 2:4 = b. abb. 26a (2): ruling of S. concerning lamp-oil: all oil derived
from animals is forbidden with the exception of fish-oil (cf. m. abb. 2:2).
3. t. Taan. 1:9 = y. Taan. 11a (65d, 60) = b. Taan. 17a: addition of S. to the seventh
of the 18 prayers of the Shemoneh Esreh concerning the humiliation of the
haughty, which, according to the Tosefta, would apply to the minim, i.e.,
Christians (cf. m. Taan. 2:2).
4. t. Ketub. 1:5(3) = y. Ketub. 5a = b. Ketub. 36a b (2): ruling of S. in name of R. Meir
that a blind woman is not subject to claims of missing virginity.
5. t. Naz. 1:2 = y. Naz. 2b = b. Naz. 8b: different forms of nazirut.
6. t. B. Qam. 1:5 = b. B. Qam. 17b (3): damage done by a pig.
7. t. B. Qam. 2:1 (2) = y. B. Qam. 2:2, 8b = b. B. Qam. 17b (3): damage done by fowl
to the leaves of plants.
8. t. B. Qam. 4:4: concerning the liability of a deaf-mute, idiot, or minor owner of a
goring ox, which S. exempts if the accident happens only once.
9. t. B. Qam. 5:14 (2): the Mishnaic rule (m. B. Qam. 5:1) that the owner of an ox
that gored a cow and her newly-born calf should pay half-damages for the dead
cow and quarter-damages for the dead offspring of that cow is ascribed here to S.
According to b. B. Qam. 17b18a, S. usually insists upon full repayment of dam-
age done by cattle (cf. b. B. Qam. 46b).
10. t. B. Qam. 6:3(12) = y. B. Qam. 4b: S. specifies the depth and breadth of a pit
deemed dangerous.
11. t. B. Me. 2:8 = b. B. Me. 29b (2): S. modifies Mishnaic ruling (m. B. Me. 2:8) that
states that one who finds scrolls should read in them once every thirty days,
should apply only to new scrolls (see above).
348 van der Meer
(cont.)
12. t. B. Me. 5:4 (2) = y. B. Me. 21b (5:6) = b. B. Me. 69a: S. determines the duration
of liability of someone taking over the rearing of unclean beasts.
13. t. B. Bat. 4:1 = y. B. Bat. 15b (5:1) = b. B. Bat. 73a (2): discussion about the inven-
tory of a small fishing-boat.
14. t. B. Bat. 6:5: He who sells to his fellow a share in a cistern has a right no less than
to a quarter (cf. b. B. Bat. 63a).
15. t. ul. 3(4):25: S. gives a fifth characteristic of a locust.
16. t. Neg. 1:3(5): S. specifies the brightness of the colours red and green (cf. y. Sukkah
15a [3:6; 53d]).
17. t. Nid. 1:4(7) = y. Nid. 3a = b. Nid. 8b: S. determines in the name of R. Meir that
pregnancy can be ascertained from the third month, cf. Gen 38:24 (cf. y. Yebam.
27a).
18. t. Nid. 4:1 = b. Nid. 21b (4): S. rules in the name of R. Meir that if a woman
aborted a shapeless object, one should cut it open to see if there is blood in it in
order to determine whether she is menstruating.
Additional references in Talmud Yerushalmi

1. y. Ber. 2:1, 12b = b. Ber. 13b: S. says anyone who prolongs echad (in reciting the
shema) has his days and his years prolonged.
2. y. Sukkah 15a (3:6; 53d): S. specifies the brightness of the colour green in an
explanation of R. Meirs allowance for green etrogs (m. Sukkah 3:6; cf. t. Neg.
1:3[5]).
3. y. Yebam. 27a (cf. t. Nid. 1:4[7] = y. Nid. 3a = b. Nid. 8b): S. determines in the name
of R. Meir that pregnancy can be ascertained from the third month, cf. Gen
38:24.
4. y. Yebam. 11:1, 60b (11b): S. transmits R. Meirs penalty of 80 instead of 40 lashes
for the man who raped the mother or daughter of his wife (cf. y. Sanh. 44b [2]).
5. y. Qidd. 29a (63a) = b. Qidd. 52b: S. enters R. Judahs house without invitation to
instruct about the use of most holy sacrifice for betrothal; in the Bavli the advice
infuriates R. Judah, whereas in the Yerushalmi there is no escalation.
6. y. B. Qam. 10:1, 43a: S. discharges underaged children from liability of inheri-
tance of stolen goods in case of hunger (cf. b. B. Qam. 112a b [3]).
7. y. B. Me. 30b 31a (2): S. rules that in cases of doubt about debt one splits evenly
(cf. b. B. Me. 2b3a, 98b).
8. y. Sanh. 44b (2) cf. y. Yebam. 11:1 (60b).
Additional references in Talmud Bavli:

1. b. abb. 27b (3): S. in name of R. Meir: If one covers a booth with spun [flax], it
is unfit, because it may be defiled by leprosy.
2. b. Erub. 13b: discussion about the cleverness of S. pupil of R. Meir who knew 49
rules for both cleanness and uncleanness (and was thus able to argue either way;
see above).
3. b. Yoma 18a: S. in name of R. Meir about the feeding of the high-priest on the eve
before atonement.
4. b. Yebam. 90a (3): S. in name of R. Meir states that if a man ate levitically
unclean terumah, he must pay compensation in clean unconsecrated produce.
5. b. Ketub. 52a (2): R. Nathan ascertained from S. that in case a wife is taking cap-
tive after her husband had made a vow that he would not let her derive any ben-
efit from him, the husband nevertheless needs to give her her ketubbah, but does
not have to ransom her.
6. b. Ketub. 81a: R. Abba ascertained from S. about how to proceed with a ketubbah
of a mans brother.
7. b. Nazir 49b: quarrel between S. and R. Judah when the former confronts the lat-
ter with R Meirs statement that the nazir must poll for (defilement contracted
from) a corpse or for an olives bulk of (the flesh of) a corpse.
8. b. Gi. 54a (2): an alleged difference between R. Meir and R. Judah is dissolved
with an appeal to Symmachus. The dispute concerns a layman who (inadver-
tently) ate terumah, even unclean, and made a restitution with (ritually) unclean
non-sacred food.
9. b. B. Qam. 19a (6): a dispute about an alleged difference of opinion between S.
and sages about the restitution (either in full, thus S., or only partly, sages) of
damage done by chicken to a second utensil.
10. b. B. Qam. 35b (4): discussion about the question whether S.s principle that
money of which the ownership cannot be decided has to be equally divided
between the two parties is also applicable to a situation in which the ownership
of a goring ox cannot be determined (cf. b. B. Qam. 46ab).
11. b. B. Qam. 37a (2): discussion about the correct explanation of S.s statement: If
an ox has a tendency to cause injuries (muad) to man, how much more so is it
muad to injure a beast?
12. b. B. Qam. 39b (4): Judah b. Nakosa rules on behalf of S. that in the case of an ox
whose owner has become a deaf-mute, or whose owner became insane or whose
owner has gone abroad, the ox would be considered as tam until witnesses could
give evidence in the presence of the owner.
350 van der Meer
(cont.)
13. b. B. Qam. 46a: discussion about the rule of S. that money, the ownership of
which cannot be decided has to be shared by the parties (cf. b. B. Qam. 35b).
14. b. B. Qam. 75b (5): S. ruling in case of double or triple repayment after a false
testimony concerning theft and subsequent selling or eating of an ox.
15. b. B. Bat. 12a: S. rules that in case one of two owners of a trench decides to sell his
part, he must not sell him less than three abs space.
16. b. B. Bat. 164b: discussion about the validity of deeds; in the case someone claims
to be a nazir, where S. employs Greek words.
17. b. Hor. 3b: difference between R. Meir and S. about the liability of an individual
who acted in accordance with an erroneous ruling of the court after it had been
rescinded.
The rabbinic material contains many quotations, allusions and cross-

references. Hence, a systematic sorting out of all the material according to the
tractates of the Mishnah and their additions and commentaries in Tosefta and
Talmudim is necessary. This kind of research has been performed by Neusner
and his students for the material relating to other rabbinical authorities
of the Tannaitic period, such as Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai and Eliezer ben
Hyrcanus.35 For the present purpose, only the issue of the alleged problematic
relationship between Sumkhos and Rabbi Judah is relevant.
35 Jacob Neusner, A Life of Yohanan ben Zakkai (Ca. 180 CE) (2nd ed.; StPB 6; Leiden: Brill,
1970); Idem, Eliezer ben Hycanus: The Traditions and the Man (SJLA 3; Leiden: Brill, 1973).
Interesting in this respect is also the examination by Neusners student Joel Gereboff,
Rabbi Tarfon: The Tradition, the Man, and Early Rabbinic Judaism. (BJS 7; Missoula: Scholars
Press, 1979). Like Sumkhos, Rabbi Tarfon bears a Greek proper name, . Although
disputed, it may well be possible that this rabbinical figure figures outside rabbinical lit-
erature as Justin Martyrs dialogue partner in the latters Dialogue with Tryphon, which
was written around 160 CE, i.e., at the same time Rabbi Meir and his pupil Symmachus
were active. However, here too an identification is not supported by references in rab-
binical literature and remains speculative until further evidence comes to light, see, e.g.,
Timothy J. Horner, Listening to Trypho: Justin Martyrs Dialogue Reconsidered (CBET 28;
Leuven: Peeters, 2001).
No comparable systematic examination exists for all the sayings of Rabbi Meir,
although a short biography is available: Adolf Blumenthal, Rabbi Meir: Leben und Wirken
4 Sumkhos and Rabbi Judah
When one takes into account all references to Sumkhos in the rabbinical lit-
erature, the alleged antagonism between Sumkhos and Rabbi Judah seems
to dissolve considerably. The passages that seem to indicate a problematic
relationship between the two rabbinical authorities are restricted to the
Babylonian Talmud and here only two out of the 17 passages in which Sumkhos
is mentioned. When one compares the passage from b. Qidd. 52b with the
corresponding passage in the Jerusalem Talmud (y. Qidd. 29a [63a]), one
notices that the antagonism between the two seems to be much sharper in
the Babylonian Talmud than in the Jerusalem Talmud, which stands in time
and place of composition (fourth century CE Galilee) much closer to that of
Sumkhos:36
' ' When Rebbi Mer expired, Rebbi Judah

. decided and said, Rebbi Mers stu-
. dents shall not enter here. Symmachus
. . squeezed by and entered. He said,
Most holy sacrifices for preliminary
marriage, how could a woman enter
the Temple courtyard?...
Whereas the parallel passage in b. Qidd. 52b reports that Rabbi Judah became
infuriated ( ) after Sumkhos entered the formers house of study
in spite of his verdict and concluded that he was right to prohibit Rabbi Meirs
pupils from entering his school, y. Qidd. 29a (63a) does not report such a reac-
tion. Although it is possible that the Babylonian Talmud has preserved a his-
torical tradition that has not been preserved in earlier halakhic traditions, it is
probably more likely that the compilers of the Babylonian Talmud have elabo-
rated earlier traditions found in the Jerusalem Talmud.
eines jdischen Weisen aus dem zweiten nachchristlichen Jahrhundert nach den Quellen
dargestellt (Frankfurt am Main: Kauffmann, 1888). See further Israel Konovitz, Rabbi
Meir: Collected Sayings in Halakah and Aggadah in the Talmudic and Midrashic Literature
(Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1967). An examination of part of this huge collection of
sayings has been undertaken by Robert Goldenberg, The Sabbath-Law of Rabbi Meir (BJS
6; Missoula: Scholars, 1978).
36 See Heinrich W. Guggenheimer, The Jerusalem Talmud: Third Order: Naim. Tractate
Qidduin (SJ 43; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), 24041.
352 van der Meer
Likewise, the only other passage in the rabbinical literature that seems to
point to strong antagonism between Rabbi Judah and Sumkhos, b. Naz. 49b, is
without parallels in earlier rabbinical literature. The passage about Sumkhos
correcting Rabbi Judah is found in the Babylonian gemara to m. Naz. 7:2. The
Jerusalem Talmud also contains an explanation of this mishnaic ruling (y.
Naz. 56b) in which an old man asking Rabbi Yohanan is repudiated. Here too,
we find a reference to pupils of a rabbinical authority, but here the rabbi in
question is Tannaitic Rabbi Yose ben Halaphta. In this case, it also seems likely
that Palestinian traditions have evolved over time and place when they eventu-
ally became adopted in the Babylonian Talmud.37
In all other passages in the Mishnah, Tosefta, Jerusalem Talmud and
Babylonian Talmud, Sumkhos is presented as just another rabbinical author-
ity, whose opinion deserves to be taken seriously. As late as the first decades of
the third century, Rab (Rabbi Abba Arika, founder of the academy of Sura in
219 CE) consulted Sumkhos (b. Ketub. 81a). Although Sumkhos did not seem to
have made a school of pupils for himself, we do occasionally find a rabbinical
authority speaking on his behalf. In t. B. Qam. 4:4 (cf. b. B. Qam. 39b), Rabbi
Judah ben Naqosa is said to speak on behalf of Sumkhos (
). More important of course is the fact that he transmitted the rulings of
the most important rabbinical authority of the Mishnah besides Rabbi Judah
himself. Furthermore, already in the Mishnah Sumkhos figures not only as a
spokesman for Rabbi Meir (m. B. Me. 6:5 cf. t. B. Me. 7:6, y. B. Me. 26b, 27a,
b. B. Me. 80a; m. ul. 5:3, cf. t. ul. 5:1, b. ul. 82a 83a, b. Ker. 14b 15a), but also
appears as an authority of his own (m. Erub. 3:1, cf. y. Erub. 18a [cf. 19b], b.
Erub. 26b, 30b). In the later compilations, Sumkhos appears as authority of his
own almost as often as transmitter of the sayings of Rabbi Meir.
37 For the problems concerning the relationship between historical accuracy and homi-
letical purpose in the Babylonian Talmud, see, e.g., Hermann L. Strack and Gnter
Stemberger, Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch. Siebente, vllig neu bearbeitete Auflage
(Mnchen: Beck, 1982), 18999; Abraham Goldberg, The Babylonian Talmud, in The
Literature of the Sages 1: Oral Tora, Halakha, Mishna, Tosefta, Talmud, External Tractates
(ed. Shmuel Safrai and Peter J. Tomson; CRINT 2.3.1; Assen / Philadelphia: Van Gorcum
/ Fortress Press, 1987), 32366. Dr. Eric Ottenheijm, Utrecht University, kindly brought
to my attention the work of Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, who places much emphasis on the
creative reworking of the redactors of the Babylonian Talmud, see his Talmudic Stories:
Narrative Art, Composition, and Culture (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999);
Idem, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University
Press, 2003); and idem, Stories of the Babylonian Talmud (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
Hence, the idea that Sumkhos would challenge the authority of Rabbi Judah
in order to defend that of his own teacher, Rabbi Meir, rests on an isolated
reading of b. Naz. 49b and b. Qidd. 52b and requires serious modification.
As a result, the objection to the identification of the Greek Bible translator
Symmachus with Rabbi Meirs pupil, Sumkhos ben Joseph, on the ground
that Symmachus seems to endorse the rule of Rabbi Judah, whereas Sumkhos
would challenge that, seems to be groundless.
5 The Diffusion of the Name Symmachus among Jews in the First

Centuries CE
The other main objection to the identification of Symmachus with Sumkhos

does not seem to hold much ground either. Although the name Symmachus
may have been used by any number of people in Late Antiquity,38 the lexica
of Jewish names prepared by Ilan mention only two Jewish people in Palestine
from the third century BCE until the third century CE, those of our Greek
translator and of Rabbi Meirs pupil.39 Only in the fourth and fifth century CE
some other Jews bore the same name. A third or fourth century CE from the
Jewish catacomb near the Via portuensis, Rome (CIJ 408) mentions a certain
Symmachus who was ()[][] .40 In Caesarea a Jewish epi-
taph (no. 171) contains the inscription: [][ ][ ][ ]
[], but dates from the fifth seventh century CE.41 A sarcophagus from
Hammat Tiberias dating from the third or fourth century CE contains the name
of Symmachus son of Justus, but it is doubtful whether this person is Jewish.42
The name Symmachus is completely absent from the corpus of Jewish docu-
mentary papyri from Egypt.43
38 See, e.g., the several volumes of Peter M. Fraser and Elaine Matthews, Lexicon of Greek
Personal Names (Oxford: Clarendon, 19872013).
39 Ilan, Lexicon 1, 307a b; Tal, Lexicon 2, 239ab.
40 P. Jean-Baptiste Frey and Baruch Lipschitz, Corpus of Jewish Inscriptions: Jewish Inscriptions
from the Third Century BC to the Seventh Century AD (New York: Ktav, 1975).
41 Clayton Miles Lehmann and Kenneth G. Holum, ed., The Greek and Latin Inscriptions of
Caesarea Maritima (The Joint Expedition to Caesarea Maritima. Excavation Reports 5;
Boston: The American School of Oriental Research, 2000), 147, no. 171.
42 Tal, Lexicon 2, 239ab.
43 CPJ I-III, see CPJ III, 16796: Prosopography of the Jews in Egypt. Searches on papyri.info
for the Greek papyri and http://epigraphy.packhum.org/ for Greek inscriptions did not
provide another attestation for a Jew bearing the name Symmachus.
354 van der Meer
There are two other epigraphical attestations for the name Symmachus in
third century CE. One is on an epitaph in Jaffa of (CIJ 952). The
other is an epitaph in catacomb 13, hall J, in Beth Shearim no. 170:
.44 Since the catacombs in Beth Shearim were used for important
Jewish leaders, including Rabbi Judah and many other rabbis from Palestine
and even abroad,45 one wonders whether the Symmachus whose wife Kyria
is buried here might perhaps be identified with our Sumkhos-Symmachus.
Something similar might apply to the father of the Samuel buried at Jaffa. Even
if the five attestations for Symmachus in Ilans second volume of her Lexicon
refer to different Jewish people all living in the same century in the same
region, we would still only have a handful of contemporary namesakes of the
scribe and translator under examination. As a result, the other main objection
to the identification of the translator with the pupil of Rabbi Meir seems to
dissolve as well.
6 Conclusions
We may thus conclude that there is a remarkable discrepancy between the

number of indications for the identification of the rabbinical Sumkhos with
the Greek translator Symmachus and the almost complete absence of evidence
for widespread use of this name among Jews in Late Antiquity. The use of the
Greek name for a Jewish learned scribe living in the region around Caesarea
around 200 CE is rare enough to question the statement that the similarity in
name between the Greek Bible translator and Rabbi Meirs pupil merely as
a matter of coincidence. In terms of probability the extant data provided by
patristic, rabbinical and epigraphic sources as well as the remains of the Greek
translation itself seem to point to the same individual. The perceived tension
between endorsement of Rabbi Judahs rule as attested by Symmachus trans-
lation and the statements in the Babylonian Talmud (b. Naz. 49b, b. Qidd. 52b)
that Rabbi Judah had a problematic relationship with Sumkhos probably rests
on a creative expansion of a more sober statement attested by y. Qidd. 29a
(63a). It may well be that Rabbi Judah and Sumkhos have held different opin-
ions about various halakhic matters, but this disagreement did probably not
exceed the boundaries of any rabbinical disputation.
44 Moshe Schwabe and Baruch Lifshitz, ed., Beth Shearim 2: The Greek Inscriptions
(Jerusalem: Massada, 1974), 140.
45 Nahman Avigad and Benjamin Mazar, Beth Shearim, NEAEHL 1:23648.
The rabbinic sources indicate that Sumkhos intellectual, scribal, linguis-

tic and halakhic skills were valued. At the same time, he remains a somewhat
lonely figure, as we do not hear of any students or relatives apart from his
father (Joseph). The sources indicate that he was active from the time of Rabbi
Meir (c. 165 CE ?) until the time Rab left Palestine (219 CE). This fits well with
the patristic data (Epiphanius, De mesuris et ponderibus 16) that Symmachus
produced a Greek Bible translation during the reign of emperor Severus
(193211 CE), which came in the possession of Origen when he was hiding from
a Christian persecution at the house of the Christian virgin Juliana in 215 CE
(Palladius, Hist. Laus. 64). His translation may have been instigated by the wish
of the Galilean Sanhedrin to establish its authority among Jewish communi-
ties in the diaspora while at the same time formulating Judaism as a religion
rather than an ethnical entity. The quietistic and depoliticized renderings in
Symmachus translation noticed by van der Kooij, myself, Stefan Mulder and
others,46 corresponds well with the absence of political institutions in the
Mishnah.
In terms of identifying the people behind ancient translations of the bibli-
cal books the identification of Symmachus with Sumkhos ben Joseph, pupil of
Rabbi Meir and rabbinic authority of the Tannaitic period in the close physi-
cal and intellectual environment of Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi, this is probably as
close as one can get. Of course much historical information has been lost in
the course of time or creatively transformed during the process of tradition
and transmission. Nevertheless, the data that have been preserved deserve an
integrative and interdisciplinary assessment rather than a one-way dismissal
back into obscurity. The development of digital tools, another project of the
honoree of this volume,47 remains an invaluable tool for this approach.
46 Van der Kooij, Die alten Textzeugen, 24042; Idem, The Teacher Messiah and Worldwide
Peace, 7582; Michal N. van der Meer, Entre Lontopolis et Byzance: La version de
Symmaque comme tape intermdiaire entre le Vieux Grec dIsae et linterprtation
dEusbe de Csare, Semitica et classica 3 (2010): 6783; Van der Meer, ;
Stefan Mulder, A Conquering of Animals: Symmachus Depoliticising Translation
Re-examined, in Die Septuaginta Orte und Intentionen (ed. Wolfgang Kraus and Martin
Meiser; WUNT; Tbingen: Mohr-Siebeck, forthcoming).
47 See, e.g., Johann Cook, ed., Bible and Computer: The Stellenbosch AiBi-6 Conference:
Proceedings of the Association Internationale Bible Et Informatique from Alpha to Byte
(Leiden: Brill, 2002).
Index of Modern Sources
Adam, James315n66, 316n68 Blau, Joshua128n61

Adams, Charles D.305n32 Blenkinsopp, Joseph193n13
Adams, Sean A.94, 94n30, 95n33 Block, Daniel I.271n42
Aejmelaeus, Anneli100n6 Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice282n9
Albertz, Rainer281n7 Bons, Eberhard68n11
Alexiadou, Artemis134n81 Borchardt, Francis149n19, 150n27
Allen, Thomas W.301n27 Borgen, Peder299n26
Amara, Dalia283n11, 284n18 Bosman, Tiana61n47, 62n48
Amusin, Joseph D.153n35 Boyd-Taylor, Cameron71n21, 77n33
Angel, Joseph L.191n9, 192n11 Brantschen, Johannes B.335n55
Aretz, Susanne23n38 Braun, Herbert324n4, 325n5, 330n30
Assmann, Aleida1n4 Bremer, Dieter329n25, 329n26
Astley, Jeff40n28 Bremmer, Jan N.2n7, 58n34
Atkinson, Kenneth152n34, 153n35 Brenton, Lancelot C. L.168n42
Auld, A. Graeme66, 66n2, 67, 67n7, 67n9, Brock, Sebastian P.173n5
68, 68n10, 68n12, 69, 69n13 Brown, David40n28
Ausloos, Hans169n45 Bruce, Frederick Fyvie284n15, 284n17,
Austin, Roland G.302, 302n29 285n20, 298n21, 298n22
Avigad, Nahman354n45 Brugmann, Karl119n40
Avi-Yonah, Michael341n13 Brutti, Maria199n41, 200n46, 204n70
Ayala, Francisco J.41n32 Bullard, Roger A.217n42, 218n44
Burkert, Walter1n3, 2n6
Babbitt, Frank C.314n62, 314n63 Burridge, Richard A.208n21
Bacher, Wilhelm343n19 Bury, Robert G.308n38, 315n66
Bakker, W. F.111n10 Busto Saiz, Jos R.343n20
Balz, Horst170n47 Butler, Samuel313n58
Barker, Henry211n26 Bywater, J.307n35
Bar-Kochva, Bezalel148n18, 150n28
Barthlemy, Dominique60n44, 342, 342n15, Calduch-Benages, Nria93n27, 96n34
343n18, 345, 345n26 Callaham, Scott N.57n33
Bartholomew, Craig G.261n14 Caas Reillo, Jos Manuel167n34
Basset, Louis127n59 Carr, David M.202n58
Bauks, Michaela2n9, 3n10, 13n26 Carroll, William F.38n20
Baumgarten, Albert I.157n42, 158n43 Chantraine, Pierre78n36
Beentjes, Pancratius C.91n22, 92n23, 190n3, Charles, Robert H.311n51
193n15 Chedid, Andre173n7
Begrich, Joachim152n34 Clarke, Ernest G.54n26
Bernard, John Henry171n48 Cohen, G.144n7
Berry, Lloyd E.207n10, 207n16, 207n18, Cohen, Naomi G.294n2
208n19 Cohn, Leopold119n40
Bertram, Georg329n25, 329n28 Collins, John J.92n25, 157n43, 281n6, 281n7,
Betteridge, Maurice S.207n13, 207n14 283n11, 283n13, 286n22, 287n28, 288n33,
Betz, Hans Dieter310n44, 310n47 289n37
Beyse, K. M.272, 272n44 Cook, Johann38n21, 45n2, 48n12, 66n5, 90,
Bickerman, Elias144n6, 203n62, 336n1 90n15, 100n5, 101n7, 101n8, 103n19,
Bjrndahlen, Anders Jrgen327n16 103n22, 107n34, 109n7, 110n8, 142n1,
358 Index Of Modern Sources
Cook, Johann (cont.) Drawnel, Henryk195n29

142n2, 149, 149n20, 149n22, 149n23, 155, Dryden, John309n43
155n39, 156, 156n40, 157, 158, 159n1, Duensing, Hugo346n31
159n2, 159n3, 160n4, 173n4, 174n9,
177n21, 178n28, 197n35, 203n63, 280n4, Edgecomb, Kevin P.279n1
295, 296, 296n5, 296n6, 296n7, 296n8, Edmonds, John M.312n53
296n9, 296n10, 296n11, 296n12, 296n13, Ehling, Kay144n8, 146n11
296n14, 296n15, 296n16, 296n17, 296n18, Eisenbaum, Pamela328n22
328n23, 337n2, 337n3, 355n47 Elliger, Karl260n11
Cope, Edward M.315n68, 316n70 Ellingworth, Paul298n22
Corley, Jeremy91n21, 93n29, 192n10 Ernst, Alexander60n42, 60n45
Cornelius, Izak56n29 Eshel, Hanan153n35
Cox, Claude E.166, 166n32, 167n33, 167n36, Even-Zohar, Itamar70, 70n18
174n9, 177n22
Coyne, Jerry A.36n14, 43, 43n39 Fabry, Heinz-Josef194n18
Craig, Hardin207n18 Ferguson, David43, 43n42
Crawford, Sidnie White203n59 Fernndez Marcos, Natalio166n30, 166n32,
Crenshaw, James L.121n47, 122n48, 122n49, 168, 168n40, 337n5, 343n21, 345n29
138, 268, 268n38 Field, Frederick169n44
Cuppi, Lorenzo100n5, 102n17, 103n20, Fischer, Alexander Achilles45n2
103n21, 104n27 Fischer, Thomas146n10
Flashar, Martin101n7
DHamonville, David-Marc101n9, 101n10, Fohrer, Georg121n48
104n28, 108n2 Fowler, Harold N.314n62, 317n72
Dbrowa, Edward142n3 Fox, Michael V.87, 87n9, 87n11, 88, 88n13,
Dafni, Evangelia G.5n19, 10n25, 14n28, 89n14, 297n19
15n32, 18n34, 28n46 Frankel, Zacharias337n2
Daiches, Salis340n12 Fraser, Peter M.353n38
Damasio, Antonio31, 32, 32n3, 32n5, 34n8, Freedman, H.340n12, 341n14
36n14, 42n37, 43, 43n41 Frey, P. Jean-Baptiste353n40
Danner, Dan G.207n17 Fuglseth, Kare299n26
Davila, James R.57n32
De Bud, G.305n31, 305n32 Gaarder, Joosten31n1
De Lagarde, Paul103n21, 174n10 Gammie, John G.192, 193n13
Dean, James E.345n25 Gard, Donald H.162n11
Delitzsch, Franz330n32 Garrett, Duane A.122n49
Demetriou, Kyriakos N.23n38 Garth, Samuel309n43
deSilva, David325, 325n8, 325n9, 326, Gehman, Henry S.162n11
326n13 Geiger, Abraham338, 338n7, 338n8, 338n9,
Deutsch, Celia M.97n35 338n10, 338n11, 340, 340n12, 341, 341n13,
Di Lella, Alexander A.91n20, 92n25, 92n26, 342, 346
193n13, 195n28, 196, 196n32, 199n40, Gentry, Peter J.99n5, 102n13, 167n35
201n50, 204n65, 204n67 Genzler, Edwin69n14, 69n16, 70n20
Dez Macho, Alejandro52n21, 54n26 Gericke, Jaco W.33n7, 39n25, 40n26
Diller, Hans310, 310n46 Gerleman, Gilles100n4, 162n11, 166n29
Dines, Jennifer289n38 Gesenius, Wilhelm337n2
Dogniez, Ccile66n4 Gilbert, Maurice193n15
Dorival, Gilles99n2 Glicksman, Andrew T.85n5
Index Of Modern Sources 359
Goldberg, Abraham352n37 Ilan, Tal346n34, 353n39

Goldenberg, Robert351n35
Goodblatt, David196, 197n33, 199n39, Jacobson, Howard173n7
199n42, 200n46, 204n69 Jger, Werner332n39
Goodman, Martin192n11 Jannaris, Antonios Nicholas119n40, 120n44,
Goodwin, William W.311n52, 317n74 134n81
Gorea, Maria174n9 Jeansonne, Sharon Pace284n16
Gould, Steven36n17 Jebb, Richard C.306n34
Gow, A. S. F.312n55 Jenner, Konrad205n2
Grabbe, Lester L.268n38 Jeremias, Joachim191n9, 202n54, 202n55
Grer, Erich324, 324n7, 327n15, 328n21, Johns, Alger F.150n29
329n27, 329n29, 330n31, 330n32, Jones, Horace L.308n40
330n33, 331n34, 331n37, 332n38, 333n49, Jones, Scott C.86n6
334n51 Joosten, Jan73n27, 104n26, 284n14, 287n29
Gray, G. Buchanan177n23
Green, Miranda Aldhouse1n2 Kaiser, Otto121n48
Gro, Walter3n10, 13n26, 14n27, 26n44, Karrer, Martin66n3, 331, 331n35, 331n37
46n4, 46n5, 47n10 Keown, Gerald261n16
Guggenheimer, Heinrich W.351n36 Kepper, Martina167n34, 167n36
Gulick, Charles B.308n41 Kilburn, K.308n37
Kilpatrick, George D.120n42
Hagedorn, Dieter176n18, 177n21 Kim, Yoo-Ki57n33
Hagedorn, Ursula176n18 Kingsley, Charles40n27
Hanhart, Robert50n18, 109n7, 337n2 Klausner, Joseph142n3
Harl, Marguerite54n24, 61n46, 66n4, 99n2 Klein, B. D.338n9
Harmon, Austin M.317n73 Klein, Jacob66n2, 66n6
Hartenstein, Friedhelm5n17 Klostermann, E.178n27
Hatch, Edwin170n46 Koch, Klaus282n8, 282n9, 283n13, 285n19,
Hatton, Howard A.217n42 286n26, 287n28, 288n30, 288n34,
Hendel, Ronald S.60n43 288n35, 289n36, 293n48
Hengel, Martin191n10 Kohlenberger, John R.211n26, 216n41
Henrichs, Albert193, 194n18, 196, 201n52 Kolarcik, Michael F.96n34
Henze, Matthias289n39 Konovitz, Israel351n35
Herzfeld, L.152n32 Kosovsky, Binyamin346n32, 346n33
Hiebert, Robert J. V.49n14, 49n15 Kottsieper, Ingo282n8, 283n13, 289n36
Hieke, Thomas161n9 Kraus, Wolfgang66n3, 323n2, 323n3, 324n6,
Himmelfarb, Martha193n17 326n14
Holmes, James S.69, 70n17 Kugler, Robert A.203n60
Holmstedt, Robert D.46n4 Khner, Raphael119n40
Holum, Kenneth G.353n41 Kutz, Karl174n9, 177n22, 179n30, 174n9,
Horner, Timothy J.350n35 177n22
Horsley, Richard A.192n10, 193n14, 194n19,
195n25, 195n26, 197n34, 199n39, 204n64, Lahey, Lawrence280n2, 283n12, 284n14
204n69 Lange, Armin L.196n30
Hose, Martin25n43 Larcher, Chrysostome134n77
Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar179n32 Latacz, Joachim15n31, 24n40
Hunger, Hermann146n11 Lauriola, Rosanna23n38
Hunter, Alastair43n40 Lehmann, Clayton Miles353n41
Lehtipuu, Outi166n28 Milgrom, Jacob71n25, 72n26, 74n30, 77n34,

Lesky, Albin24n41, 25n42 77n35, 80n39, 81n41
Levey, Samson H.264, 264n24, 265, 271, Miller, Kenneth R.40, 40n27
271n43, 275, 276, 277 Miller, Walter316n71
Lifshitz, Baruch354n44 Miller-Naud, Cynthia L.206n7, 206n8,
Lipschitz, Baruch353n40 208n23, 212n32, 224n60, 226n62
Loader, James Alfred122n48 Milligan, George134n79
Loader, William330n33 Moore, Carey A.282n8, 282n9, 285n21,
Lodes, Ann40n28 286n22, 287n29, 289n36
Lombaard, Christo3n12 Morgan, Donn F.260n12, 267n32
Luis, Jos Gonzles343n20 Morris, Simon Conway41n32
Lust, Johan60n44, 60n45, 61n46, 282n10 Moshavi, Adina47n9
Lyons, Sherrie42n36 Moulton, James Hope134n80
Moutsoula, Elia D.344n24
Mack, Burton L.192n13 Mozley, Francis Woodgate102n14
Maher, Michael52n21, 54n26 Mulder, Martin-Jan260n11
Malaty, T. Y.44n44 Mulder, Otto192n10
Mangin, Dominique161n8, 162n11, 162n12, Mulder, Stefan355n46
163n12, 164, 164n19, 164n20, 164n22, 165, Mller, Hermann Paul259n7, 260n9
168n37, 168n42, 169n44 Mller, Karlheinz160n5, 160n6, 161
Marbck, Johann193, 193n14, 194n18, Munnich, Olivier99n2, 102n13, 280n2,
195n26 281n7, 285n21, 290n40
Marcus, Ralph144n7 Muraoka, Takamitsu4n15, 7n23, 104n26
Martin, V.305n31, 305n32
Marxsen, Willi324n7 Nagy, Gregory3n11
Mateos, Juan78n36 Naud, Jacobus A.46n4, 205n3, 206n4,
Mathys, Hans-Peter173n3 206n5, 206n6, 206n6, 206n8, 208n22,
Matthews, Elaine353n38 208n23, 212n32, 214n36, 224n60, 226n62
Mazar, Benjamin354n45 Nel, Philip Johannes121n48
McCrystall, A.291n46 Neusner, Jacob339n10, 350, 350n35
McKane, William121n48, 261n17, 262, Newman, Judith H.288n32
266n29, 267n31, 268n38 Newsom, Carol A.85n3, 85n4, 86n7, 87n10,
McKinlay, Judith E.92n25 279n1, 281n6, 293n48
McLay, R. Timothy280n2, 284n16, Nickelsburg, George W. E.94n31
290n42 Niehr, Herbert56n29
McNamara, Martin54n26 Niese, Benedict145n9
Meade, John Daniel175n14, 184n2 Noth, Martin175n15
Meadowcroft, T. J.284n18
Mellert-Hoffmann, G.23n39 OConnor, Kathleen M.88n12
Mercati, Giovanni345n26 ODowd, Ryan P.261n14
Mettinger, Tryggve N. D.59n39 Olley, John W.264n25, 264n26, 265n27,
Michaelis, Johann David175n12 266n28, 273n47, 277n49, 277n51
Michel, Andreas2n9, 13n26 Olofsson, Staffan102n13
Michel, Otto333n44, 333n46 Olyan, Saul M.192n13
Michelakis, Pantelis23n39 Oppermann, H.312n53
Middendorp, Theophil193n14 Orlinsky, Harry M.156n41, 162n11, 162n12,
Middleton, Richard J.43, 44n43 164n19, 166n31, 168n38
Mies, Franoise164n18, 169n44 Oswalt, John N.272n45
Index Of Modern Sources 361
Pape, Wilhelm78n36 Sauer, Georg218n44

Paton, William R.308n36, 317n75 Sawyer, John F. A.163, 163n13, 163n14, 164,
Paul, Shalom M.269n40 165
Peacocke, Arthur41n31 Scalise, Pamela261n16
Pearce, Sarah J. K.202n56 Scarlata, Mark W.48n14
Perdue, Leo G.122n48 Schaller, Berndt173n7
Peters, Norbert174n11 Schams, Christine192n11, 195n26
Pfann, Stephen J.144n7 Schnabel, Eckhard J.192n13, 195n26
Pietersma, Albert71, 71n21, 71n22, 90n16, Schniedewind, William M.192n11
167n35 Schnocks, Johannes161n7, 161n8, 163n12
Plger, Otto327, 327n15, 328n20 Schoeps, Hans Joachim338n6
Prestel, Peter49n14, 49n15, 50n17, 51n19, Schoors, Antoon162n10
53n22, 54n25, 56n31, 61n46, 62n52 Schorch, Stefan49n14, 49n15, 50n17, 51n19,
Pucci, Miriam146n12 53n22, 54n25, 56n31, 61n46, 62n52
Schroer, Silvia84n2
Rabin, Chaim82n44 Schrger, Friedrich298n21, 329n28
Radice, Roberto37n16, 38n18 Schuchard, Bruce G.171n49
Rahlfs, Alfred50n18, 52n20, 109n7, 120n43 Schrer, Emil142n3, 144n6, 191n4, 193
Ramachandran, Vilayanur S.43n38 Schwabe, Moshe354n44
Ramage, Craufurd T.309n42, 315n65 Schwiderski, Dirk175n16, 176n20
Reber, Arthur S.34n9 Scott, Robert Balgarnie Young121n48
Redpath, Henry A.170n46 Seebass, Horst59n41, 60n42
Reed, Annette Yoshiko174n9, 174n11, 177n21, Seeligmann, Isaac L.337n2
177n23 Sellin, Ernst121n48
Regev, Eyal153n35 Sharpley, Hugo311n51
Rehkopf, Friedrich7n20 Shorey, Paul80n40, 315n67
Reider, Joseph85n5 Sievers, Joseph142n3, 143n3, 144n6
Reiterer, Friedrich V.193, 193n17, 203n61 Sinnott, Alice M.94n32
Richter, Wolfgang4n14, 14n27, 14n29 Skarsten, Roald299n26
Ro, Johannes Unsok195n29 Skehan, Patrick W.91n20, 92n25, 92n26,
Roberts, Jonathan42n34 193n13, 195n28, 196n32, 199n40, 201n50,
Rmer, Thomas C.13n26 204n65, 204n67
Roos, A. G.308n39 Slotki, Israel W.339n11
Rsel, Martin49n14, 49n15, 50n17, 61n46, Smallwood, E. Mary152n31
82n44, 280n3, 284n17, 291n44, 293n47 Smend, Rudolf92n24
Roths, Joseph178n28 Smothers, Thomas G.261n16
Rowland, Christopher42n34 Smyth, Herbert W.314n59
Rubenstein, Jeffrey L.352n37 Snaith, John G.218n44, 219n48
Rudolph, Wilhelm260n11 Sollamo, Raija58n35, 108/9n5, 111n11, 128n61
Russel, Bertrand31n2, 37n17 Speiser, Ephraim A.53n22
Sperber, Alexander52n21, 54n26, 260n11
Sabatier, Petrus174n10 Spieckermann, Hermann337n2
Sachs, Abraham146n11 Sprengling, Martin345n25
Sachs, Michael343n17 Stadelmann, Helge192n12, 199n39
Saeb, Magne259n5, 260n9 Stavrakopoulou, Francesca2n9
Salvesen, Alison67n7, 337n5, 343n20, Stemberger, Gnter352n37
345n29, 345n30, 346n33 Steyn, Gert J.298n20, 329n24, 331n37
Sarna, Nahum M.60n42 Stoeger, Bill W. R.41n31
Stone, Michael E.288n34 Walbank, Frank W.66n2

Strack, Hermann L.352n37 Ward, Keith41n30
Sweetman, Brendan41n31 Watts, John D. W.272n46
Weber, Robert52n21, 54n26, 260n11
Tcherikover, Victor191n9 Webster, Jane S.97n36
Thackeray, Henry St. John100n4, 120n45 Weiler, Gabriele2n7
Thoma, Clemens142n3 Weiss, Hans-Friedrich193n16
Tiller, Patrick192n10, 194n19, 197n34, Wenham, Gordon J.59n41
199n39, 204n64 Westbury, Joshua R.46n4, 47n6, 58n38
Toury, Gideon70, 70n18, 70n19, 71, 71n23 Westermann, Claus53n22, 59n41,
Tov, Emanuel45n2, 48n11, 49n14, 49n15, 335n56
49n16, 58n35, 99n3, 110n8, 111n15, Wevers, John W.50n18, 52n20, 55n28,
296n8 56n31, 58n36, 58n37, 59n40, 62n49,
Toy, Crawford H.121n48 75n31, 175n13
Trafton, Joseph L.152n34 Whybray, Roger Norman259n2, 260n9,
Tremblay, Herv162n11, 162/63n12 260n10, 261n15, 261n20, 267n30,
Tsedaka, Benyamin63n53 267n34
Wildberger, Hans260n13, 261n18, 266n29,
Urbach, Ephraim E.203n62 267n33
Williams, Tyler F.100n5, 103n19, 103n22
Vahrenhorst, Martin72n25, 74n28 Williamson, Hugh G. M.268n36, 268n37,
Van der Horst, Pieter W.56n29, 288n32 269n39
Van der Kooij, Arie45n2, 159n3, 162n12, Wills, Lawrence M.285n21
168n39, 193n15, 196n30, 197n35, 200n45, Wilson, Robert M.298n21
201n51, 201n53, 203n63, 337n2, 337n3, Winston, David85n5
343, 343n21, 344n22, 344n23, 345, Wirth, G.308n39
345n27, 345n28, 355n46 Wischmeyer, Oda194n18
Van der Louw, Theo A. W.108n2 Witte, Markus166n30, 166n32, 167n34,
Van der Meer, Michal N.337n2, 337n4, 167n36, 171n49, 172n2, 174n9, 176n19,
338n5, 343n18, 355n46 177n21, 178n25, 178n28
Van der Merwe, Christo H. J.47n9 Wolfson, Eliot39n22
Van der Stichele, Caroline43n40 Wrangham, Richard32n4
Van Huyssteen, J. Wentzel41n33, 42, 43n38 Wright, Benjamin G.49n14, 90n16, 166n32,
Van Peursen, Wido205n2 191n10, 193n13, 194n24
Van Rooyen, Marlie214n36 Wunn, Ina1n5
Van Wolde, Ellen38n19 Wrthwein, Ernst45n2
VanderKam, James C.143n3, 148n17
Venter, Riaan41n29 Yonge, Charles D.320n77
Vermeer, Hans69n15 Young, Douglas312
Von Gall, August Freiherr50n18
Von Rad, Gerhard60n41, 259n6, 260n8, Zahn, Theodor171n48, 338n6
261n19, 262n22, 268n35 Zenger, Erich179n32
Ziegler, Joseph91n19, 167, 167n36, 174n10,
Wacholder, Ben Zion144n7, 155n38 182n1, 260n11, 285n21
Wahl, Harald-Martin176n17 Zipor, Moshe75n31
Index of Ancient Sources
Hebrew Bible/LXX 20 9
20:7 25
Genesis 21:12 65
1 43, 288 21:1213 5152
1:1 37, 38 21:13 52, 53(LXX)
1:12 37 22 15, 22, 24, 25, 29
1:17 36, 43 22:1 4, 4n16, 5
1:3 37 22:2 2n8, 6, 7, 7n21, 16
1:4 37 22:3 7n21
1:5 38 22:36 8
1:7 38 22:5 9
1:23 72 22:6 7n21
1:2627 43 22:7 7n21
1:27 38n18 22:79 910
1:28 288 22:8 7n21
2 43 22:9 10, 10n24
2:14 147n13 22:10 10
2:1617 5758, 58n35 22:1113 11
2:17 57n33 22:11 4
3:12 58n37 22:12 5, 7
4:1 175 22:13 7n21, 26
4:4 6, 51n19 22:14 11, 12
4:17 175, 178 22:1518 12
4:22 58n37 22:16 7
4:26 6(LXX) 22:17ff. 26
6:21 51n19(LXX) 22:19 13
8:20 7n21 23:11 65n55
9:6 59, 60, 60n44, 61, 65 23:1620 56
9:20 308 24:3 56
9:24 170n46 24:7 55, 56
12:3 15 24:14 56n30
12:8 6 24:27 65n55
13 26 24:45 54n23
13:15 50, 56 25:10 56n30
13:18 6 25:23 55n27
14:19 38 26:15 60n44(LXX)
15:3 54 26:20 76
15:4 53, 55 26:23 13
15:18 53 26:33 13
17 176n19 28:13 51n19, 56
17:5 56n30 28:2122 58n37
17:6 55(LXX) 32:28 299
17:15 56n30 34:12 210
19:21 81 34:48 62
19:38 65n55 34:8 61
364 Index Of Ancient Sources
Genesis (cont.) 31:3 264

35:11 55 31:1217 143n5, 147n13
35:12 51n19 34:6 178n29
36 173n7(LXX), 175, 177 34:12 78
36:3135 174, 177
36:33 174, 179n31 Leviticus
36:38 175 4 185
36:3839 175 4:34 7n21
38:24 348 5:10 7n22
38:29 54n23 5:23 76
38:30 179n31 9 185
41:45 177 9:3 7n21
44:9 51n19 9:7 185
44:17 51n19 9:8 185
46:12 179n31 11:43 75
47:1819 63 14:21 82
47:2021 6263, 64 16:24 7n22
47:21 63 19 79
49:3 178n25 19:3 72, 147n13
49:19 51n19 19:11 72
50:4 82 19:12 75
50:5 58n37 19:13 73, 76
19:15 80
Exodus 19:18 156n41
4:16 28 19:29 75
7:1 28 20:9 77
10:7 19n35 22:21 210
12:9 76 22:22 210
13:2 308 23:3 147n13
15:20 19 25:117 143n5
15:25 4n16 25:2328 143n5
16:4 4n16 26:14 147n13
16:29 147n13 27:28f. 2n8
16:2930 147 29:29a 74
17:2 5n18
17:7 5n18 Numbers
20:7 74 7:3 342n16
20:911 147n13 12:7 185
20:20 4n16, 5(LXX) 12:8 185
21:17 77 14:22 5n18
22:28 77 15:3 7n22
22:29f. 2n8 15:3236 147
23:3 82 15:38 220, 242
23:6 82 16:2 198n36
23:7 74 26:13 179n31
23:33 78 26:20 179n31
25:1 308 31:2530 2n8
30:15 82 31:40f. 2n8
Index Of Ancient Sources 365
Deuteronomy 11:2930b 16
4 94 11:30f. 13, 17
4:34 4n16 11:3032 17
5:1215 147n13 11:3039 2n8
7:16 19n35 11:31 17
8:2 4n16 11:34 19
8:5 328, 332 11:35 20, 19n35
10:17 81, 82, 210 11:3536 18
11:2 332 11:36 20
12:31 2n8 11:37 22n36
13:4 5(LXX) 11:3738 18, 21
14:2815:18 143n5 11:38 22n36
15:21 210 11:39 22(LXX A)
17:9 202, 202n56 11:3940 22
18:912 2n8 16:14 170
19:17 202 16:16 7n22
21:15 314 16:20 170
21:17 178n25 3436 13
22:14 22n36, 22n37
22:15 22n36 1 Samuel
22:17 22n36, 22n37 1:28 103n24
23:3[2] 15(LXX) 2:6 163n17
28:37 277 6:14 7n21
28:50 81 16:12 21
30 94 16:14 27
32:39 163n17 16:1416 18
33:2 179n31 16:15 27
33:8 4n16 16:23 18
18:10 18
Joshua 19:9 18
3:4 68 25:31 79
6:34 147 28:6 221
6:21 2n8
2 Samuel
Judges 7:14 332
8:27 19, 19n35 10:14 176n20
9:23 18 11:2 210
10:18 14
11 3, 13, 15, 18, 22, 23, 24, 1 Kings
28, 29 2:20 120n43
11:1 14 3:15 170
11:12 14 7:23 210, 226, 240
11:14a 13 17:22 163n17
11:2 15, 15n33
11:23 15 2 Kings
11:3 16 3:27 2, 2n8
11:5 16 4:31 171n48
11:29 13, 17, 18, 25 11:420 148n15
2 Kings (cont.) 7 195

16:3 2n8 7:11 192
18:26 177n21 8:29 201n48, 202n54
23:3 198 10 198
10:9 198
1 Chronicles 10:14 201
1:44 174
1:4950 175 Nehemiah
2:7 19(LXX) 3:13 176n20
3:1 6 7:49 175n15
4:8 174 8:7 175n15
8:23 175n15 8:13 202n54
8:38 175n15 9:16 288
9:44 175n15 9:17 178n29
11:43 175n15 10:11 175n15
19:24 176n20 10:23 175n15
19:6 176n20 10:27 175n15
27:28 175n13 10:31 147n14
13:13 175n15
2 Chronicles 13:1522 147n14
4:9 198n38 13:30 176n20
6:29 114n27
7:20 277 Judith
19:7 81, 82 4:8 200
19:8 202, 202n56 10:17 210
19:17 210
23:121 148n15 Tobit
28:23 19n35 6:8 18
34:13 196n29 8:3 10n24
34:18 196n29
34:30 198 1 Maccabees
36:14 198, 200 1:4 212n32
1:11 149n21
1 Esdras 1:15 149n21
1:47 200 1:54 284
4:39 82 1:5657 149n22
5:8 134 1:57 149n21
9 198 1:63 149n21
9:4 201 2:20 149n21
9:6 198 2:27 148, 149n21
9:12 201 2:2938 148n18
2:4243 150n26
2 Esdras 2:50 149n20, 149n21, 149n22
2:1 134 2:54 149n21
2:56 149n21
Ezra 3:48 149n22
2:46 175n15 4:10 149n21
4:7 177n21 4:47 149n22
4:53 149n22 37(36):7 106

7:33 200n47 37(36):8 106
9:4353 150n26 37(36):21 103
11:9 149n21 37(36):23 105
12:6 199, 204, 204n68 43(44):24 170n46
12:9 149n22 46(45):5 102
12:35 200n47 49:16 163n17
14:20 199, 204 62(61):13 102
14:28 199n42 68(69):23 79
16:16 143n4 72(71):1 106
16:1824 142n3 72:16 163n17
72(73):20 170n46
2 Maccabees 73:24 163n17
1:2 149n21 76:2 114n27
1:10 204n68 77(78):31 10n24
5:2426 150n29 86:15 178n29
5:2526 148n18 88:5 160n6
6:4 15n33 88:11 163n17
6:11 148n18 101:26 186
6:1216 333 103:8 178n29
6:1416 333 111(110):1 198n36
7:33 333 111(110):10 102
7:36 149n21 112:46 179
7:37f 288 112(111):5 103
8:15 149n21 115:56 128n61
8:2129 148n18 117:18 331(LXX)
11:27 204n68 118(119):165 79
127(126):1 106
4 Maccabees 135:22 114n27
10:7 306 138(139):18 170n46
10:10 333 140:5 332
141:2 114n27
Psalms 144 288
1:5 163n17, 198n36 145:8 178n29
3:5 114n27 148 288
6:2 333
16(17):15 170n46 Proverbs
16:19 163n17 19 87, 89, 95, 121, 136, 138,
17(18):8 320 139, 141, 295
17:15 163n17 1 89, 90
17(18):39 10n24 1:1 106
18(17):49 101n9 1:17 138
19(18):11 102n15 1:2 261
19(20):8 10n24 1:7 102, 103, 104
21(20):4 102n15 1:8 115, 115n28, 138, 137n88
32:11 104 1:819 122n49, 138
33(32):11 104 1:9 123n51, 125n57, 137n90
37(36):1 106 1:12 118
Proverbs (cont.) 3:1112 297, 298

1:13 114n25, 127, 137n91, 140 3:12 327, 329, 331
1:14 124n54 3:1320 85, 88, 122n49, 138
1:15 113n22, 116, 116n31, 3:16 90, 116n31, 117n35,
137n87 137n89, 130
1:16 113n22 3:1618 88
1:19 133n72 3:1620 85
1:20 88 3:17 113n22, 137n86
1:2021 88, 90 (LXX) 3:18 89
1:2033 85, 88, 122n49, 138 3:1920 88
1:21 88 3:20 112n17
1:22 90 3:21 89, 123, 123n53
1:23 122n50, 124n54, 137n90 3:2135 122n49, 138
1:25 122n50, 124n54, 137n90 3:22 112n20, 113n24, 124n56,
1:26 124n55 125n57, 137n91
1:29 89 3:23 113n22, 137n86
1:30 122n50, 123n51, 137n90 3:26 116n32, 122n50, 137n91
1:31 89, 133n72, 137n92 3:27 113n22
2:1 122n50 3:29 125n57
2:12 87 3:31 113n22
2:122 122n49, 138 4:19 122n49, 138
2:2 112n20, 113n22, 113n23, 4:2 124n54
115n28, 137n89 4:3 130, 300, 301
2:3 115n28 4:4 124n54, 125, 125n58,
2:6 116n32 137n90
2:7 113n23 4:5 87, 112n17, 119n39, 261
2:10 124n55, 125n57, 137n90 4:7 87, 261
2:11 149 4:9 124n55
2:15 113n24, 114 4:10 115n30, 122n50, 137n91
2:17 149 4:1019 122n49, 138
2:18 113n22, 137n86 4:12 118n38
3 324, 329, 333 4:13 89, 117, 117n34, 123,
3:1 113n22, 122n50, 137n91 137n91
3:112 122n49 4:16 113n22
3:126 327 4:20 122n50, 123n51, 124n55,
3:3 125n57 137n90
3:4 299, 300 4:2027 122n49, 138
3:5 125n57, 129 4:21 113n24, 125n57, 137n91
3:6 113n22, 113n23, 117n34, 4:22 112n17, 130
137n89 4:23 122n50
3:7 334 4:25 113n22, 137n86
3:8 112n20, 113n24, 114, 4:26 113n22, 124n54, 137n91
137n88 4:27 113n23, 122n50, 137n91
3:9 125n57, 137n90 5:1 122n50, 123n51, 137n90
3:911 334 5:123 122n49, 138
3:10 113n22, 137n86, 334 5:2 122n50
3:11 326, 327, 328, 331, 332, 5:3 123n52
335 5:5 113n22
5:6 113n22 7:11 113n22

5:7 123n51 7:14 113n22
5:8 115n28, 122n50, 137n91 7:15 112n17, 124n54
5:9 115n28, 122n50 7:16 113n22
5:10 109n6, 122n50, 123, 7:17 113n22, 113n23, 137n87
137n91 7:19 114n25
5:11 112n17, 115n28 7:20 116n32, 117n33, 137n88
5:12 113n22 7:21 131
5:13 113n22 7:23 131
5:14 112n17 7:24 115n28
5:15 125n57, 137n90 7:25 112n17, 113n22, 116n31,
5:16 124n54, 125, 126, 137n87
137n90 7:27 113n22
5:18 113n22, 117n34, 135n83, 8 85, 88, 89, 90
137n87, 137n95 8:1 90
5:19 109n6, 113n23, 123n53, 8:136 85, 88, 122n49, 138
130, 135n84, 137n91 8:2 88
5:20 135n85 8:23 88
5:21 117n33, 137n93 8:3 88, 90
5:22 133n72 8:4 122n50, 137n90
5:23 133n72, 137n93 8:6 131
6:1 122n50, 123n51, 137n90 8:7 113n22
6:119 122n49, 138 8:8 113n22
6:2 135n84, 135n86, 137n94 8:14 105n31, 126, 140, 137n90
6:3 113n22, 125n58, 137n91 8:1516 90
6:4 123, 123n51, 137n90 8:18 109n6
6:6 113n22 8:19 102n15, 124n54
6:8 128, 129 8:21 90, 113n22
6:11 113n23 8:22 38, 115n28, 116, 117n34,
6:13 130, 131 137n88
6:15 113n22 8:2231 88
6:20 115n28, 137n88 8:27 133n73
6:2035 122n49, 138 8:30 116n32
6:21 125, 125n57, 137n90 8:31 91
6:25 116n31, 123n52, 137n91 8:32 89, 112n17
6:27 131 8:34 89, 94, 123n52, 124n56,
6:31 113n22, 131 125n57, 137n90
6:32 113n22 8:35 114n26, 137n93
6:33 105n31, 113n22 8:36 133n72, 137n93
6:34 115n29 9 89, 91, 92
7:1 109n6, 112n17, 122n50, 9:16 85, 88
124n54, 132n70, 137n90 9:118 122n49, 138
7:127 122n49, 138 9:2 133n72, 137n92
7:2 122n50, 124n54, 137n90 9:3 89, 133n72, 137n92
7:3 113n22, 123n51, 137n91 9:5 89, 124n55
7:4 122n50 9:10 261
7:6 117n33 9:11 115n30
7:8 115n28 9:12 129, 131, 133n73, 135n87
Proverbs (cont.) 15:8 109n6

9:14 133n72 15:20 115n28, 130n64
9:15 117n33 15:22 104n29, 105n31
9:18[a] 112n17, 124n56 15:29[b] 113n23
1030 295 15:32 115, 115n30
10:115:33 122n49 16:122:16 122n49
10:122:16 121, 122n49, 132, 136, 16:10 113n22
139, 141 16:11 113n22
10:4 298n23 16:16 261
10:8 131 16:17 115, 115n29, 133n72,
10:9 113n22 137n88, 137n92
10:10 131 16:23 130, 135n84
10:13 131 16:24 115n30
10:19 130 16:25 113n22
11:6 112n19, 113n24 16:26 133n72, 133n73, 137n92
11:17 113n22, 119, 119n39, 16:27 133n72, 137n92
137n87 16:30 112n19, 113n22, 115n28,
11:20 117, 117n36 137n87
11:24 135n88 16:32 131
11:29 133n72 16:33 131
12:4 113n22 17:6 115n28
12:10 115n28 17:13 116n31
12:11 133, 133n72, 133n73, 17:16[a] 133n73
137n92 17:18 133n72
12:13 131 17:21 115n29
12:14 115 17:23 131
12:16 115n28, 134, 134n74, 17:25 131
137n93,138 18:6 113n22
12:26 133 18:7 108, 108n4, 109n6,
13:3 130, 133, 133n72, 137n92 113n22, 137n86
13:8 135n84 18:9 116n31
13:9 103 18:11 114n25
13:11 103 18:17 131
13:13[a] 113n23 18:20 115n28, 117n34, 130,
13:16 134n74 137n88
13:24 113n22, 327 18:21 113n22, 137n87
13:25 113n22 19:3 112n19, 113n22, 137n86
14:1 112n19, 113n24 19:11 113n22
14:2 112n19, 113n22 19:12 113n22
14:4 299 19:13 15n33, 112n17, 131
14:8 113n22 19:14 131
14:10 108, 108n4, 115n28 19:16 133n72, 137n92
14:12 113n22 19:17 117, 117n33
14:14 117n35, 133n72, 137n93 19:18 112n19, 113n22, 115n28,
14:26 113n24 137n87, 327
14:32 116n32, 133n72, 137n93 19:19 113n23
14:35 133n72 19:20 115n29, 116n32, 137n88
15:5 130, 131 19:21 104, 104n27
19:24 117n36, 128, 129 23:8 113n22, 137n86

19:26 115n30, 130n64 23:9 113n22
20:2 133n72 23:10 112n17
20:7 113n22 23:11 113n22
20:8 116n32 23:12 113n22, 137n86
20:9 113n23, 128, 129 23:13 327
20:11 10n24, 113n22, 116n31, 23:14 113n22
137n87 23:15 118n38, 124n54, 137n91
20:13 113n22 23:16 124n54, 126, 137n90
20:24 105, 113n22 23:17 113n22
20:25 135, 135n89 23:18 113n22
20:28 113n22 23:19 122n50
21:1 102 23:22 130, 118n37, 118n38
21:8 113n22 23:24 113n23
21:12 131 23:26 109n6, 122n50, 137n90
21:13 127 23:31 113n23
21:19 101n9 23:33 113n22, 137n86
21:23 109n5, 113n22, 137n86 23:35 170n46
21:25 113n22 24:2 111n15, 113n22, 113n23,
21:29 113n22, 130 117n35, 137n86, 137n88
2231 121 24:12 102, 116n31
22:3 298n23 24:13 118n37, 119
22:5 133n72 24:14 114n25, 124, 124n55
22:7 135n90 24:17 113n22, 116, 137n87
22:8 115n28, 115n29, 137n88 24:18 113n22
22:9 133n72 24:19 106
22:11 131 24:2334 111n15, 121, 136
22:15 327 24:24 137n86, 137n91
22:17 122n50, 123n52, 124n54, 24:27 112n17, 113n22, 129,
137n90, 141 137n86
22:1724:22 121, 122n49, 136 24:28 123n51, 125n57, 137n90
22:1731:9 139, 141 24:31 113n22
22:18 116n31, 125n57, 137n91, 24:33 131
138 24:34 113n22
22:19 114n25, 118, 118n38 2529 111n15, 136
22:20 113n23 25:129:27 121
22:23 118n38, 123, 123n52, 25:1 106
137n91 25:5 113n22
22:24 101n9 25:7 113n22
22:25 113n22, 124n55, 137n91 25:8 124, 124n54
22:27 116 25:10 109n5, 109n6, 112n17,
22:28 113n22 113n22, 113n23, 137n87
22:29 116n31, 204n67 25:17 132, 138, 122n50, 133n72
23:2 114n25 25:18 113n24
23:3 113n24 25:21 114, 114n26
23:4 124n55 25:22 117n33
23:5 114n25, 124n54, 137n91 25:28 129
23:6 113n24 26:4 109n6
Proverbs (cont.) 29:26 105

26:5 116n31 30:114 111n15, 121, 136
26:6 134n74 30:1 124n54
26:10 113n23 30:4 109n6, 113n22, 130
26:11 112n17, 133n72, 133n73, 30:6 113n24
137n92 30:7 119
26:14 116n31, 128 30:11 128
26:15 116, 128, 129n63, 30:12 113n24
137n88 30:13 112n19, 113n22
26:19 133n72 30:14 114, 114n25
26:24 128, 130 30:1533 111n15, 121, 136
26:25 116n31 30:23 133n73
26:26 133n72 30:25 128
26:27 129 30:26 133n72
27:2 124n54, 137n90 30:28 131
27:8 135, 135n84, 137n94 30:32 114n25
27:10 113n22, 127, 137n91 31 141, 295
27:11 118n37, 118n38 31:19 111n15, 121, 136, 138, 139
27:13 113n22 31:1 113n22, 124n56, 131,
27:15 117, 117n35, 135n91, 137n91
137n95, 138 31:2 122n50, 137n90
27:17 140 31:3 122n50, 124n54, 137n90
27:18 113n22, 133n72 31:7 128
27:20 131 31:8 122n50
27:22 113n22 31:9 122n50
27:23 115n28, 123n51, 137n91 31:1031 111n15, 121, 136, 138, 139
27:27 117n35, 125n57, 137n91 31:11 113n22
28:4 142, 155, 156, 158 31:12 128, 129
28:7 131 31:13 112n19, 113n22
28:8 113n22 31:14 112n17
28:9 113n22, 137n86 31:15 128
28:13 133 31:16 115n28
28:17 124, 124n56 31:17 113n22, 137n86
28:19 133n72 31:18 113n22
28:26 105n31 31:19 113n22, 137n86
28:27 113n22 31:20 115n28
29:1 327 31:21 113n23, 117n35, 131,
29:3 115n28 137n88, 139
29:5 133n72, 137n92 31:22 113n24, 139
29:10 115n28 31:23 113n22
29:11 113n22 31:25 112n19, 113n23, 115n29,
29:14 113n22 137n88
29:15 115n28 31:26 131
29:17 113n24, 115n28, 137n88, 31:27 115n28
327 31:28 112n17, 113n22, 113n23,
29:22 101n9 129
29:24 133n72 31:31 113n23, 115n28, 137n88,
29:25 129 139
Qohelet/Ecclesiastes 8:5 176

5:34 338 9:15 176
8:1 114n27 9:16 179n30
9:19 114n27
Song of Songs/Canticles 10:1 179n30
2:7 170n46 10:2022 162n11
10:21 162n11, 166n29
Job 11:7 179n32
12 172 1214 165n24
1:12:13 180, 188 13:16 171n49
1:1 171n49 13:22 179n30
1:10 186 13:2814:12 165n26
1:12 183 14:2 162n11
1:1819 173 14:411 163
1:19 183 14:710 161, 162n11
1:2 187, 189 14:712 162n11
1:3 183, 186, 187, 189 14:10 162n11, 166n29
1:4 187 14:12 160, 162, 162n11, 162n12,
1:5 185 163, 164, 165, 165n24,
1:7 171n49, 187 165n26, 167, 168,
1:8 171n49, 185, 186 168n37, 169, 170, 171,
1:2122 171n49 171n48
1:22 185, 186, 188 14:13 165, 165n24, 165n26
2:2 187 14:1317 163n12
2:3 171n49, 183, 185, 189 14:14 162n11, 163n12, 165,
2:10 185, 188 168n39, 169
2:11 186, 187, 189 14:1516 165
2:13 188 14:2022 162n11
3:1213 162n11 14:22 162n11, 163n12
3:1314 161n8, 162n11 16:22 162n11, 166n29
3:1415 166n29 17:6 186
3:1819 162n11, 163n12 17:1315 161n8
3:21 162n11, 171n49 19:7 179n30
3:2122 162n11 19:16 176
3:22 162n11, 163n12 19:21 176
4:20 162n11, 163n12 19:25 162n11
5:11 162n11, 163n12 19:2527 162, 162n11, 163n12,
5:1213 171n49 163n17
5:1726 332 20:711 162n11
5:19 163n12 20:10 178n25
5:2527 163n12 21:26 162n11
6:10 162n11, 163n12, 175 23:1012 175
7:67 162n11 28 84, 85, 86, 94, 92,
7:9 162n11, 163n12 92n23, 95
7:910 162n11, 166n29 28:9 92
7:11 179n30 28:12 86
7:16 162n11 28:14 86
7:21 162n11, 166n29, 171n49 28:20 86
Job (cont.) 42:12 183, 187

28:22 86 42:1217 181
28:23 86 42:13 173, 187, 189
28:24 86 42:14 173, 185
28:2426a 92n23 42:15 185, 187, 188
28:25 86 42:16 176n19 (LXX), 188
28:27 86, 87, 92n23 42:17 162n11, 162n12, 166n31,
28:28 86, 87 172n2, 173, 174, 175, 177,
30:1 161n8 177n21, 179n30
30:14 114n27
30:20 179n30 Wisdom of Solomon
30:28 179n30 3:6 7n22
31:15 175 4:11 79
31:1617 179n32 4:17 114n27
31:2428 175 6:7 210
31:31 179n32 6:12 96
31:37 179n30 6:1225 86n5
3237 167n32 6:129:18 85
32:14 185 6:14 96
32:3 185 6:1516 97
32:4 185 6:16 96
33:18 160n6 6:21 85n5
33:2325 176 79 85
33:30 160n6 7:1 86n5
34:19 210 7:1722 96
37:15 171n49 7:24 96
38 168n42 7:2526 96
38:139:30 184 7:27 96
38:3 179n30 7:29 96
38:17 171n49 8:3 96
38:41 171n49 8:9 96
39 168n42 8:16 96
39:19 114n27 9:4 96
40:641:26 184 9:910 96
40:7 179n30 12:20ff 333
40:13 162n11, 163n12 16:10ff 333
40:17a 162n11
41:3 171n49, 188 Ben Sira/Sirach
42 180 1 85, 94
42:7 185, 188 1:1 91, 92, 209, 210, 231
42:711 181 1:110 85, 91, 92n23
42:716 184 1:23 92n23
42:717 173, 180, 182, 183 1:6 92n23
42:8 185, 186, 187, 189 1:7 211
42:9 185 1:8 92n23
42:10 186, 188 1:9 92n23
42:11 183, 185, 186, 187, 188, 1:10 91
189 1:13 224, 241
1:22 219n47, 241 8:11 216n40, 242

1:23 218n45, 231 8:14 223n55, 243
1:28 216n40, 241 8:21 97
2:2 221n51, 241 9:4 223n55, 243
2:11 178n29 9:5 79
2:13 220n49, 231 9:8 210
3:2 216n40, 241 9:10 97
3:9 218, 231 9:19 218n45, 231
3:13 219n47, 241 10:5 216n40, 243
3:28 221n51, 222, 241 10:19 219n47, 243
4:5 216n40, 241 10:21 214n35, 243
4:9 218n45, 231 11:1 216n40, 243
4:11 93 11:5 211n30, 212, 243
4:1119 85, 91 11:9 223n55, 243
4:12 91 11:10 219n47, 243
4:14 219, 219n47, 241 11:19 221n51, 243
4:15 94 11:22 221n51, 244
4:17 93 12:10 216n40, 244
4:18 93 12:14 216n40, 244
4:19 93 12:17 221n50, 244
4:23 211n30, 241 13:2 211n30, 244
4:26 221n51, 242 13:8 223, 244
4:31 216n40, 242 13:11 244, 223
5:10 221n50 13:19 225, 231
5:17 202 14:1 244
6:5 212, 216, 242 14:14 219n47, 220, 244
6:16 97 14:2015:8 85, 91
6:18 93 14:2025 93
6:1831 85, 91 14:22 93
6:20 216, 216n40, 242 14:2223 93
6:21 93 14:23 94
6:23 94 14:24 221n51, 244
6:24 93, 216n40, 242 14:2425 93
6:25 93 14:26 93
6:27 91, 93 14:2627 91
6:28ff. 94 15:1 93
6:30 219n47, 220, 242 15:2 91, 93
6:33 94 15:3 92
6:38 218n45, 231 15:9 219, 219n47, 221n50,
7:12 211n30, 242 245
7:14 221n51, 242 15:10 245
7:15 211n30, 212, 242 16:4 216n40, 245
7:26 214n35, 242 16:6 216n40, 245
7:2931 202 16:16 214n35, 245
7:32 218n45, 219n47, 16:27 223n55, 245
229n70, 231, 242 17:4 216, 216n40, 245
8:3 219n47, 242 17:5 211
8:8 194, 204 17:25 216n40, 217, 245
Ben Sira/Sirach (cont.) 24:812 92

17:26 221n51, 245 24:11 224, 248
18:29/30 205 24:12 92
19:8 223n55, 245 24:1317 91
19:9 219n47, 245 24:14 223n55, 224, 248
19:12 223, 245 24:15 93
19:14 221n51, 246 24:16 232
19:16 221n51, 246 24:18 216n40, 248
19:17 221n51, 246 24:19 94
19:18 221n50, 246 24:1921 92
19:25 221n51, 246 24:21 92
19:26 216n40, 246 24:23 91
20:1 219n47, 246 24:30 216n40, 248
20:13 219n47, 246 25:1 219n47, 248
20:14 211n30, 246 25:9 223, 249
20:19 224, 246 25:11 223n55, 249
20:21 211n30, 246 25:17 220n49, 223, 224,
20:26 221n51, 247 229n70, 232, 249
20:26/27 205 25:19 216n39, 224, 229n70,
20:29 216n40, 247 232
21:6 213, 247 25:20 221, 221n50, 249
21:11 220, 231 25:28 225, 232
21:12 219n47, 221n51, 247 26:12 216n40, 249
21:17 199n40 26:16 211n30, 221n50, 249
21:18 219n47, 247 26:17 221n51, 249
21:2324 93n28 26:18 223n55
22:4 218, 216n40, 247 26:22 221n50, 250
22:6 327 27:1 221n51, 250
22:9 224, 247 27:4 216n40, 250
22:13 216n40, 217n43, 247 27:23 219n47, 250
22:17 224, 247 28:2 227n68, 232
23:1 218n45, 232 28:13 227, 232
23:2 228, 232 28:15 216n40, 250
23:4 223n55, 247 28:20 92n23
23:6/7 205 28:23 92n23
23:8 79 29:1 227n67, 232
23:11 211n30, 248 29:6 216n40, 250
23:13 232 29:12 218n45, 232
23:22 224, 248 29:14 221n51, 222, 250
23:23 224 29:15 227n67, 233
23:24 216n40, 248 30:1 229, 250, 327
24 85, 92, 94 30:2 219n47, 224, 250
24:1 92, 205, 229, 248 30:9 216n40, 250
24:12 92 30:14 221n51, 227, 233, 251
24:122 85, 91, 92 30:19 221n51, 251
24:3 216n40, 248 30:22 221n51, 251
24:312 92 30:25 221n50, 251
24:56 92 31:1 227, 233
31:12 211n30, 227n64, 230, 37:9 216n39, 230, 234

233, 251 37:19 218n45, 229, 234
31:13 216n40, 251 37:20 224, 229, 253
31:19 221n50, 251 37:26 224, 254
31:23 227n64, 233 37:28 227n67, 234
32:1 227n64, 233 37:30 215n38, 223, 223n55,
32:24 216, 219n47, 230, 233, 234, 254
251 38 195n26, 198
33:1 227, 233 38:1 227n67, 235
33:3 221, 221n50, 228n69, 38:2 224, 254
251 38:3 204
33:5 211n30, 251 38:11 219n47, 227, 230, 235,
33:9 216n40, 251 254
33:12 221n51, 251 38:14 221n51, 254
33:16 219n47, 252 38:16 215n38, 227n67, 235
33:19 190, 200, 201, 203, 204 38:22 224, 254
33:20 211n30, 219n47, 252 38:24 195
33:21 216n40, 252 38:2439:11 190, 194, 195
33:24 229, 252 38:25 254
33:27 228, 233 38:30 221n50, 254
33:30 252 38:3233 190, 196, 197, 198, 200,
34:1 227n64, 229, 230, 233, 203, 204
252 38:33 194, 200, 201, 202
34:2 219n47, 252 38:34 195, 202n57
34:6 219n47, 252 3839 193, 195
34:14 227n64, 233 39 195
34:18 224, 252 39:1 227n67, 235
34:20 227n64, 233 39:111 196
35:1 227n64, 234 39:4 204n67
35:12 210, 221n50, 252 39:7 218n45, 235
35:18 223n55, 253 39:11 221n51, 254
35:20 211n30, 253 39:13 224, 254
35:25 213 39:14 222, 235
36:1 227n64 39:16 199n40
36:2 227n67, 234 39:30 219n47, 254
36:3 223n55, 253 40:1 227n64, 235
36:8 211n30, 253 40:4 221n50, 255
36:11 234 40:12 213n34, 227n64, 230,
36:14 216n40, 224, 253 235, 255
36:15 224 40:17 216n40, 255
36:17 224, 253 40:27 216n40, 255
36:23 221n51, 253 41:1 227n67, 235
36:24 219n47, 227n66, 230, 41:2 221n51, 255
234, 253 41:13 227n64, 236
37:1 227, 234 41:16 227n67, 236
37:5 223n55, 253 41:19 218n45, 236
37:7 227n67, 227n68, 234 41:20 15n33
37:8 223n55, 230, 253 42:1 227n68, 236
Ben Sira/Sirach (cont.) 48:1 227n65, 238

42:3 221n51, 223n55, 255 48:3 221n50, 257
42:5 221n50, 255 48:5 221n50, 257
42:7 219n47, 255 48:6 221n50, 257
42:8 216n40, 221n50, 255 48:8 228, 227n65, 238
42:9 216n39, 236 48:10 216n40, 217, 257
42:14 221n51, 255 48:11 223n55, 224, 230, 239,
42:1543:33 288 257
42:18 224, 256 48:12 227n65, 239
42:25 215n38, 236 48:13 219, 219n47, 257
43:1 227n64, 236 48:17 227n65, 239
43:2 223n55, 256 48:20 216n40, 257
43:5 213n33, 256 49:1 227n65, 239
43:13 114n27 49:2 221n50, 257
43:17 256 49:5 216n40, 218n45, 239,
43:19 219n47, 256 257
43:22 223n55, 256 49:6 216n39, 216n40,
43:23 114n27 222n52, 227n65,
43:33 205 229n70, 239, 258
44:1 205, 229, 256 49:8 227n65, 239
44:5 219n47, 256 49:9 179n33, 223, 258
44:12 224, 256 49:11 227n65, 239
44:16 227n65, 236 49:12 227n65, 239
44:17 227n65, 236 49:13 227n65, 240
44:19 227n65, 237 49:14 227n65, 240
44:23 216n39, 227n65, 237 49:15 227n65, 240
4450 227 49:16 227n65, 240
45:1 227, 227n65, 237 50:1 222n52, 227n65,
45:6 227, 227n65, 237 240
45:622 193 50:3 210, 226, 240
45:7 211n30, 213n34, 256 50:5 211n30, 258
45:8b9a 193 50:13 198
45:10 221, 228, 237 50:16 216n40, 258
45:17 203 50:20 198, 222n52, 222n54,
45:23 227, 227n65, 237 240
46:1 227n65, 237 50:27 190n2
46:6 220n49, 237 50:29 205
46:11 227n65, 238 51 97
46:13 227n65, 238 51:1 205
47:1 204n65, 227n65, 238 51:3 211n30, 258
47:2 227n65, 238 51:8 218n45, 240
47:6 216n39, 220n49, 238 51:13 216n40, 258
47:10 219n47, 257 51:1314 91
47:11 224, 225, 257 51:1330 91, 91n21
47:13 227n65, 238 51:20 219n47, 258
47:23 218n45, 223, 227n65, 51:21 97, 216n40, 258
238, 256 51:26 91, 93
Psalms of Solomon 19:11 267, 271

2:1 152 19:12 267, 271
3:2 327 24:3 277
13:9 327, 328 24:4 164n22
26:14 163n17
Hosea 26:19 162n10, 163n17,
4:12 18 170n46, 289
5:4 18 29:8 170n46
6:2 163n17 29:14 260, 261, 262,
11:3 10n24 267, 271
31 268
Amos 31:2 267
6:2 340 33:6 260, 261, 262
8:5 147n14 36:11 177n21
40:16 7n21
Joel 40:20 267, 269, 272
2:13 178n29 43:23 7n21
44:25 267, 271
Jonah 46:5 272, 273
4:2 178n29 47:10 260, 261, 263,
266
Habakkuk 53:7 10
2:7 170n46(Aq, Symm, Theod) 53:11 163n17
3:8 170n46(Theod) 57:14 19n35
3:17 299(LXX) 58:10 179n31, 179n32
58:1314 147n14
Zechariah 60:13 179n31
13:3 10n24 65:17 164n22
66:24 163n17
Malachi
3:20 179n31 Jeremiah
3:19 343
Isaiah 4:10ff. 5
3:3 266, 268, 271 4:22 267, 269
5:21 267, 270, 272 8:8 271
6:8 14 8:89 267
8:16 344 8:9 260, 261, 262, 271
9:6(5) 344 8:23 114n27
10:13 260, 261, 263 9:11(12) 267, 271
11:2 260, 261, 262 9:16(17) 267, 270
12:22 277 9:22 260, 262, 263,
13:13 164n22 267, 271
14:4 272, 277 10:7 267, 271
14:10 272, 273 10:9 267, 269
14:24 104n29 10:12 260, 261, 262
16:44 277 17:2127 147n14
19 259 18 259
Jeremiah (cont.) 18:3 272, 273, 274

18:18 268, 271, 272 20:6 343
19:4f. 2n8 20:15 343
20:8 114n27 20:49 272
20:30 332 21:5 272, 277
24:9 272, 273 24:3 272, 276
27:35 271 27:8 266, 268, 270, 271, 272
31(38):26 170n46 27:9 266, 268, 270, 271, 272
31:18 332 28 259
35:4 175n15 28:3 266, 268, 271, 272
49:7 260, 261, 263 28:4 260, 263, 264, 266
50:35 267, 271 28:5 260, 261, 264, 266
51:15 260, 261, 262 28:6 265
51:57 267, 271 28:7 260, 261, 265, 266
52:29 289 28:12 260, 265, 266
28:1219 261
Baruch 28:14 260
1:53:8 287 28:17 260, 265, 266
2:5 114n27 3648 283
3 95 37:10 163n17
3:12 95 44:19 198n38
3:14 95
3:15 95 Susanna
3:2425 95 Susanna 282
3:2930 95 5 285
3:38 94, 95 9 285
3:9 95 22 285
3:94:4 85, 94 44 285
4:1 94, 95 60 285
4:2 95
6:12 96 Daniel
6:14 96 16 285, 287, 292
8:2 96 17 284
8:9 96 1:2 286, 289
1:9 286
Lamentations 1:10 286n23
3:14 114n27 1:20 290
4:3 342 2:4 177n21, 286
4:15 343 2:19 286
2:23 286n24
Ezekiel 2:28 291
12:22 274 2:37 286
12:2223 272 2:44 286n25
12:23 272, 275 2:45 286n25
14:8 272, 273 2:47 286n26
16:44 272, 275 3 280, 282, 283, 287, 293
16:4445 276 3:1 289
17:2 272, 276 3:12 287
18:2 272, 273 3:16 287
3:17 287, 290 Other Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

3:18 287
3:20 10n24(LXX) 4 Ezra
3:21 10n24(LXX) 7:39ff 288
3:2223 10n24
3:23 282, 287 Ahiqar
3:24 287 1.1 195
3:32 287
3:38 287 Enoch (1 Enoch)
3:40 288 Enoch 283
3:86 288, 289n37 22 289,
46 281 289n37
4 293
4:1 289 Apocalypse of Baruch
4:19 289 78:5 333
4:34 289
5 289 Jubilees
56 290n40 12:12 292
5:4 290 45:16 203n59
5:6 290 50:613 148n17
6 282, 292 50:1213 148
6:4(5) 290
6:27 290 Letter of Aristeas
6:27(29) 289 139 156
6:28(27) 290
7:6 291 Odes
7:13 291 4:17 299
8:14 291
812 282, 284 Sibylline Oracles
9 282, 286, 287, 293 3:397 281n6
9:8 288
9:26 293
11:540 291 New Testament
11:30 291
11:31 284, 289 Matthew
11:34 291 5:18 164n22
11:35 291 5:28 210
11:4045 292 6:26 171n49
12 289 8:22 132
12:2 163n14, 163n17, 171n48 16:18 171n49
12:6 291 24:35 164n22
12:9 292
12:13 292 Mark
1314 280, 283 6:4 134
14 282
14:12a 282 Luke
12:24 171n49
Bel and the Dragon 16:24 306
Bel et Draco 282, 292 20:21 81
John Philemon
3:23 178 1:19 171n49
4:34 120
4:44 134 Hebrews
11:8 170 1:3 171n49
11:11 170, 171, 2:9 330
171n48 3:74:11 330
11:14 170 5:8f. 330
11:23 170 5:11f. 325n7
11:24 170 6:10 325n7
710 326
Acts 10:32ff. 325
1:18 171n49 10:3234 325n7
9:6 171n49 10:3239 323
10:34 210 10:3511:1 330
11 323
Romans 12:1 323, 324
2:11 210 12:13 330
9:33 20 12:23 331, 324
11:9 79 12:47 329
11:33 171n49 12:48 330
13:5 207n14 12:411 324, 330
12:5f. 323, 331, 334, 335
1 Corinthians 12:8 330
3:19 171n49 12:911 330
10:33 132 12:1213 324
11:32 332 13:7 325n7
16:18 121
James
2 Corinthians 1:1218 171n49
4:6 171n49 5:11 171n49, 179
6:9 332
1 Peter
Galatians 1:17 210
2:6 81, 82, 210 2:7 20
5:8 171n49
Ephesians
6:4 332 Revelation
6:9 210 3:19 331
21:1 164n22
Colossians
3:25 210
Hellenistic Jewish Sources
1 Thessalonians
5:22 171n49 Josephus
Antiquities
2 Timothy 1.25 150n25
3:16 332 1.29 150n25
3.311 333 1.86 150n29

4.218 202 1.149 152n30, 154
7.393 145 1.150 154
11.234 306 1.152153 154n37
12.46 150n29 1.153 155
12.142 193 5.2.13 317
12.145146 157n42
12.272274 148n18 Philo
12.277 149, 150n26 Abraham (Abr.)
13.64 151 112 313
13.66 152 228 311
13.203206 153n36 232234 316
13.228300 142n3 235 294n2, 315, 316
13.230235 143n4
13.234 143 Agriculture (Agr.)
13.236248 145n9 125 307,
13.239 144 153 318
13.241242 145 171 314n64
13.244 145
13.249253 146n10 Allegorical Interpretation (Leg.)
13.250252 146 1.45 309
13.253 147n14
13.282283 143 Confusion (Conf.)
13.299300 143 134 295
13.322323 143
13.337 150n29 De congressueru ditionis Gratia (Cong.)
13.408410 153n36 177 297, 331, 332
13.423 153n36
14.6364 151 Dreams (Somn.)
14.64 151 2.68 307
14.66 152 2.70 306, 307
14.69 154 2.119 301, 302, 312
14.70 154 2.120 302
14.73 155 2.144 299
14.7374 154n37
20.268 150n25 Drunkenness (Ebr.)
82 300
Life 83 300
79 150n25 84 294n2, 299, 300, 301
Jewish Wars Embassy (Legat.)

1.5469 142n3 22 301, 312
1.5760 143n4 2223 303
1.59 143 54 313
1.61 145n9 106 303
1.62 146n10 107108 303
1.6869 143 108 301, 312
1.69 143 109 303
Embassy (Legat.) (cont.) Sacrifices (Sacr.)

119125 320 38 304, 305
125 294n2, 319, 320 39 306
126 319, 320 40 306
170 313
196 332 Sobriety (Sobr.)
2024 314
Eternity (Aet.) 24 313, 315
3941 321
41 321 Special Laws (Spec.)
1.313 313
Flight (Fug.) 2.2 303
144 312 2.5 314n64
2.6 303
Heir (Her.) 4.194 304
113 308 4.201 304
114 308 4.202 304
116 307, 308
117 308 Unchangeable (Immut.)
133229 38n18 166 306
167 307
Moses (Mos.) 168 306
1.22 294n2, 316, 317
1.88 313 Virtues (Virt.)
1.156 294n2, 315, 316 3738 314n64
1.280 310, 311 162 311, 312
2.29 294n2
Worse (Det.)
On Husbandry 32 313
125 308 33 312, 313
144146 332
Planting (Plant.)
17 309
172 319 Rabbinic Jewish Sources
Posterity (Post.) Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud

146 305 b. B. Bat.
148 305 12a 350
149 305 63a 348
150 305 73a 339, 348
151 304, 305 164b 350
Rewards (Praem.) b. B. Me.

111 317, 318 2b3a 348
119 332 29b 340, 347
138 321 69a 348
143147 321 80a 347, 352
150 294n2, 320 98b 348
b. B. Qam. b. Nid.
17b 347 21b348
17b18a 347 8b 348
19a 349
35b 349, 350 b. Qidd.
37a 349 52b 341, 345, 348, 351, 353, 354
39b 349, 352
46a/b 347, 349, 350 b. abb.
75b 350 19a 148n16
112ab 348 26a 347
27b 349
b. Ber
5a 328n22 b. Sanh
13b 348 101a 328n22
b. Erub. b. Soah
13b 338, 349 49b 343
26b 347, 352
30b 347, 352 b. Taan.
17a 347
b. Gi.
54a 349 b. Yebam.
90a 349
b. Hor.
3b 350 b. Yoma
18a 349
b. Hul.
2a 338 y. B. Bat.
82a83a 347, 352 5:1 339
5:15b 339
b. Ker. 15b(5:1) 348
14b15a 347, 352
y. B. Me.
b. Ketub. 21b(5:6) 348
36ab 347 26b 347, 352
52a 349 27a 347, 352
81a 349, 352 30b31a 348
b. Men. y. B. Qam.
81a 338 2:2 347
4b 347
b. Nazir 8b 347
8b 339, 347 10:1 348
49b 341, 345, 349, 352, 353, 43a 348
354
y. Ber.
b. Ned. 2:1 348
9a 338 2:12b 348
y. Ketub. m. B. Qam.
5a 347 5:1 347
y. Naz. m. ul.
2b 339, 347 5:3 347, 352
56b 352
m. Naz.
y. Nid. 7:2 352
3a 348
m. Ned.
y. Qidd. 1:1 338
29a (63a) 351, 348,
354 m. abb.
2:2 347
y. abb.
1.7 148n16 m. Sukkah
4ab 148n16 3:6 348
44b 348
m. Taan.
y. Sukkah 2:2 347
3:6 348
15a 348 m. Erub.
53d 348 3:1 347, 352
y. Taan. Tosefta
11a 347
60 347 t. Erub. 3.56 148n16
65d 347
t. B. Bat.
y. Ter. 4:1 339, 348
31b 347 6:5 348
34 347
44a 347 t. B. Me.
2:8 347
y. Yebam. 5:4 348
11:1 348 7:6 347, 352
27a 348
60b(11b) 348 t. B. Qam.
1:5 347
y. Erub. 2:1 347
18a 347, 352 4:4 347, 352
19b 347, 352 5:14 347
6:3(12) 347
Mishnah
m. B. Me. t. ul.
2:8 347 3(4):25 348
6:5 347, 352 5:1 347, 352
t. Ketub. Pesiq. Rab Kah.

1:5(3) 347 15, line 2 342n16
t. Naz.
1:2 339, 347 Dead Sea Scrolls
t. Neg. 1QHa 8:24 178n29

1:3(5) 348 1QM 2 202
1QM 2:13 201, 202n56
t. Nid. 1QM 2:69 148n17
1:4(7) 348 1QS 5:22 201
4:1 348 1QS 6:89 199
4Q168 Frgs. 34,
t. abb. col. II, 8 155
2:4 347 4Q504506 287
4Q511 frg. 52,
t. Taan. 5455, 5759,1
1:9 347 [col. III,1] 178n29
4QGenb 57, 58
t. Ter. 4QGenb Frg. 1 Col ii,
7:7 347 34 57n32
4QpNah Frgs. 34 153n35
Targumim, Midrashim, 11QPsa 27:23 195
and Other Rabbinic 11QTa 39:45 198
Writings 11QTa 57:1114 201, 202n56
Targum Job CD 2:4 178n29
1:3 173n5 CD 912 155n38
28:7 177 CD 12:6 148n17
29:3 177
Genesis Rabah (Gen. R.) Classical and Greco-Roman Sources

42.1 328n22
Aeschines
Leviticus Rabah (Lev. R.) Ctes.
16:1 343 3.109 304
3.120 304
Sifre Deuteronomy 109 305
31:1 328n22 120 305
20:19 (sec. 203) 148n16
23:43, par. 343 343 Fals. Leg.
2.115 304
Mishneh Torah Hilchot Melachim 115 305
(Maimonides)
6.11 148n16 Aeschylus
Sept.
Mek. Bachodesh 680 314
10 328n22
Th. Off.
18 329 1.51 316
Anaxagoras Chrysippus
Frgm. 21a 310 Fragmenta logica et physica
Frgm. 57 310
Aristotle
Eth. Eud. Democritus
1237b 315 Testimonia Frgm.
1238a 315 112 311
Eth. Nic. Dio Chrysostom

9.11.1159b 315 Oratio
10.8.1168b 315 4:31 332
1098b.59 307
1098b.78 307 Diodorus Siculus
Bibl.
Pol. 10.34.10 310n45
II, 8, 23 197 3435.1.15 145n9
1263a 315 3435.155 146n10
Rhet. Diogenes Laertius

2d.7 315 Lives
8.10 315
Arrian
Tact. Vit. Phil.
17.2 308 2.136 304
10.32 310n45
Athenaeus
Deipn. Diotimus
5.207a 308 Testimonia Frg.
6.24 310n45 3 311
Athenagoras Epictetus
Leg Dissertationes
5.3 310 3:22 332
31.4 309 3:56 332
Cassius Dio Epiphanius of Salamis

Hist. rom. De mesuris et ponderibus
66.7.2 152n31 16 338, 344
Cicero Euripedes
Flac. Iph. aul.
28.67 155n37 59 26
79 26
Leg. 8993 27
1.9/26 309 104f. 26
107 27
128 28 Pindar
394a399 27 Pythionikai (Pyth)
411 27 11:22 24
433 27
489 26 Plato
500 26 Leges
955ff. 25 690 308
973f. 28 739a 301, 302, 312
1136f. 27 739c 315
1397 23, 28 820c 301, 312
Frgm Lysis
952 332 207c 315
Frontinus Phaedo
Strat. 58a 311
2.1.17 150n29 279c 315
Galen Republic
De placitis Hippocratis 4.424a 315
5.7.84 310n45 5.449c 315
342c.3 80
De simplicium medicament.
11 310n45 Sophist
218c222e 38n18
De venae sectione advers.
11 310n45 Theaetetus
183 D 316, 317
Homer
Iliad Pliny
2:9ff 24 Naturalis historia (Nat.)
6 303 2.47.125 145n9
15.193b1 309
Plutarch
Odyssey An seni
7.240258 313 1 314
7.91111 313
De soll.
Lucian 22 301, 302
Hermot.
3 308 Lib. Ed.
8F9A 332
Pi sc.
9 317 Is. Os.
10 314
Ovid
Met. Mor.
1.8486 309 184 EF. 145n9
Sera 332 Theophrastus

Historia Plantarum
Polybius 4.11.13 309
Histories
5.32.1 308 Thucydides
6.51.1 197 Peloponnesian Wars
2.43.2 314
Seneca 2.44.4 314
De Providentia
1:6 332 Quintilian
4:7.11f. 332 Institutio oratoria
1:3 332
Epistulae morales 1:1417 332
13:2 331
Zenon Papyri (P.Cair.Zen)
Sextus Empiricus 4.59608 78
Adversus mathematicos
7.140 310
Church Fathers
Simplicius
Comm. Epict. 306 1 Clement
56:4 298n24, 331
Sophocles
Ajax Eusebius of Caesarea
1229 306 Dem. ev.
7.1.33 338
Stesichorus
Fragm. 217:25ff. 24 Hist. eccl.
6.17 338
Strabo
Geogr. Praep. ev.
1.2.2.2 308 9.25 174n8
6.14.5.22 308
16.2.40 152n33 Palladius of Galatia
Hist. laus.
Theocritus 6 338
Idylls 64 355
6.1718 312
Subject Index
Alexandria44n44, 45n2, 58n34, 68, 82, 290, Ennon174n10, 175, 176, 177, 179
294, 320, 337 Egypt53, 63, 64, 99, 267, 284n16, 292, 318,
Antiochus III193, 203n62, 204n69 336
Antiochus IV Epiphanes148, 160, 161n7, 289 document(s)144, 203n62, 353
Antiochus VII Sidetes144, 145, 146, 147, 153, Egyptians63, 64, 314
154 wisdom84
Aquila102, 169, 170n46, 265, 342, 344 Evolution32, 34, 35, 36, 3942, 43
Aristobulus II151, 153, 154, 156, 157
Asterisk167, 168, 184, 228 Faith41, 166, 323, 324, 325, 326, 335
Babylon146n11, 261, 263, 267, 272, 277, 285, Genealogy13, 14, 172, 173, 174, 177
292, 340 God(s)1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17,
Biblical Hebrew47, 128n61 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30,
35, 38, 39n25, 40, 41, 44n44, 51, 52, 54,
Christ 58, 59, 73, 77, 78, 80n39, 81, 84, 85, 86,
Christian(s)44n44, 325, 347, 355 87, 90n18, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, 104n27,
Jesus81, 170, 171, 324, 326, 330, 331 129, 142, 143, 145, 162, 163, 164, 165, 175,
Christian 176, 178, 179, 183, 207, 218, 227, 231, 234,
audience68 235, 236, 237, 238, 243, 247, 248, 253,
communities161n6 259, 261, 266, 267, 271, 273, 285, 286,
compositions46n3 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 297, 300, 303,
history334 308, 309, 316, 320, 321, 323, 328, 330, 331,
persecution355 332, 333, 334, 335
reader68 commandment(s) of4, 6, 8, 14, 18, 27, 58,
sources281 94, 95, 231, 232, 243, 303
tradition42, 43 fear of5, 77, 80, 86, 103, 213, 227, 233, 237,
writings74 241, 243, 246, 247, 255, 287, 327
Christianity41, 169, 324 gift of91, 92, 95, 96, 225
Creation37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 87, 88, 90n18, 91, image of40, 41, 42, 4344, 59
95, 96, 164n21, 164n22, 288, 307, 309n43, love of5, 33n7, 249, 297, 326, 327, 328,
335 329, 330, 331, 332, 334
accounts85 name of4, 6, 25, 67, 73, 74, 75, 238, 257,
activities261 258, 286, 287, 303
cosmos38n18, 84, 85, 86, 87, 92, of heaven55, 56, 286, 287
96, 97 of Israel286, 288, 289, 290,
create37n16, 38, 39, 41, 59, 85, 92, 163, 328, 338
235, 240, 251, 321 people of15, 30, 95, 97, 238, 253, 261, 267,
creator40, 87, 88, 289, 293, 303, 307, 321 285, 293, 323, 333
myths31 See also Lord, YHWH
poem164 Goddess95, 313
process41
story31 Halakah338, 346, 351, 354, 355
Hapax legomena19, 168, 170, 179n30, 269,
Diaspora281, 285, 290, 343, 355 329
Dualism31, 32, 3335, 37, 38 Harmonisation49, 53n22, 54, 55, 56, 64, 73
392 Subject Index
Hasmonean(s)148n17, 157n43 Letter of Aristeas157, 196, 203, 206, 336

anti-Hasmonean ideology291, 292 Lord4, 11, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 55, 56, 58, 59, 67,
history143 73, 77, 81, 88, 92, 104, 105, 123, 129, 180,
period155, 285286 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 202, 207, 216,
rulers142 217, 219, 220, 222, 224, 225, 231, 232, 233,
state 147, 149 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 244,
Hebrew Bible32, 39, 44n44, 46, 48, 65, 81, 245, 247, 249, 251, 252, 253, 254, 256,
142, 160, 161n7, 198, 259, 280n2, 328n22, 257, 260, 261, 262, 267, 272, 273, 275, 279,
338, 342, 343, 345 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 291, 297, 300,
Hellenism295, 332 308, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 333
Hellenistic culture/environment/
world107, 158n, 322 Maccabees158n, 291, 292
Hellenistic era/period(s)/time(s)3, 30, crisis284, 292, 293
120, 134n80, 160, 161n8, 191, 195, 286n22, era / period148, 157, 158, 287, 288, 290
336 revolt148, 150, 292
Hellenistic Greek111, 134, 140, 141 Marginal note(s)205, 206209, 210, 211,
Hellenistic influence296 212n32, 213, 214, 216n41, 224, 226, 227,
Hellenistic literature142, 294, 306 229, 230, 231258, 337
Hellenistic royal parks58n34 Mattathias148150, 151, 154, 156, 157
Hellenistic rulers292 Metatexts205206, 207, 208, 209, 212, 214,
Hellenistic texts108n5, 109n5 215, 219, 226, 230
Hellenistic week152 Minus60, 64, 65, 166n31
Hexapla167, 184n2 Mishnah338, 343, 344, 346, 347, 350, 352,
High priest142143, 144n7, 147, 153n36, 155, 355
191, 192n10, 194, 197, 199, 202, 203,
204n66, 240, 316, 337, 349 Neologism49, 284
Hyrcanus II153n36, 154, 155, 156, 157
Hyrcanus, John142147, 148, 153, 154, 157 Old Greek45, 4648, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 61,
62, 63, 64, 65n, 109, 166, 167, 168, 169,
Intertextual connections99100, 170, 180, 171, 174, 180, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 279,
185 280, 281, 282, 283n11, 284, 285n19,
Israel, ancient2, 16, 22, 25, 27, 28, 54, 85, 92, 286n26, 287, 289n39, 290, 291, 292,
95, 97, 160, 195, 198, 200, 201, 202, 224, 293n48, 337
225, 237, 238, 257, 261, 266, 267, 268, Old Testament2, 3, 5, 24, 28, 29, 160, 163,
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 277, 285, 286, 164n22, 171, 178, 207, 209, 211n26, 221,
288, 289, 290, 300, 324, 328, 333, 338, 228, 323, 328
342, 343 Origen167, 182, 345n28, 355
Jerome68n11, 279, 280, 293 Paideia324, 330, 335

Jerusalem2, 6, 92, 97, 143, 144, 145, 150, 151, chastisement250, 324, 327, 328, 329, 330,
152, 153n35, 154, 157n42, 190, 194, 197, 331, 332, 333, 334
198, 199n44, 201, 202, 203, 204, 260, 267, discipline103, 298, 326, 327, 328, 329n29,
268, 289, 290, 336 333
Judaism99, 101, 157, 190, 195, 295, 325, 355 education82, 295, 322, 327, 328, 329, ,
Judea45n2, 158n, 170, 194, 197, 283n12 333, 334, 335
Paraclesis324, 331, 333
Left dislocation4648, 50, 51, 53, 54, 58, 59, Pentateuch67, 72, 77, 78, 79, 81, 99, 101, 107,
60n44, 64, 65 108n5, 109n5, 147, 185, 200n46, 336
Subject Index 393
See also Samaritan Pentateuch, Torah / Samaritan Pentateuch49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54,
Law (of Lord/Moses) 55, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62n50, 63, 64, 65
Personification 84, 85, 86, 88, 91, 92, 93, 94, Scribe(s)29, 45n2, 64n54, 190, 191, 192, 193,
285 194, 195, 196, 197, 201, 202n57, 203, 204,
Peshitta52, 54n26, 79, 262, 263, 264, 265, 243, 261, 340, 354
266, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, Sheol160, 161n8, 165n24, 327
276, 277, 278 Sophia84. 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93,
Pharisees153, 155, 156 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 294
Plus51n19, 56, 64, 113, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, Suffering40, 41, 43, 80, 160, 162, 163, 172,
126, 133, 135, 139, 140, 141, 166n31, 167, 171, 176, 180, 188, 274, 288, 330, 332, 333,
186, 189 334, 335
Polytheism1, 2, 4, 6, 17, 22 Sumkhos ben Joseph338, 339, 345350,
Pompey150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155n37 351353, 354, 355
Possessive Symmachus170n46, 265, 337345, 345350,
adjectives108, 109, 111n12, 119120, 121, 351, 353354, 354355
122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 129, 132, 136, 137, Syro-hexapla175, 285n21
138, 139, 140, 141
pronouns108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 116, 118, Talmud338, 350
120n44, 121, 122, 127, 128n61, 132, 136, 137, Babylonian346, 349, 351, 352, 354
138, 139, 140, 141 Jerusalem346, 348, 351, 352
Priest(s)148, 150n25, 152, 153, 154, 156, 185, Targum176n19, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 269,
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 197, 198, 199n44, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 268, 282, 288, Neofiti52, 54n26
292, 304 Onqelos52n21, 54n26, 73, 75
See also High priest Pseudo-Jonathan52n21, 54n26
Prophet(s)5, 14, 20, 25, 28, 44n44, 147, Temple92, 95, 96, 97, 143, 149, 151, 152, 153,
171n48, 228, 238, 259, 260, 261, 265, 268, 154, 155n37, 156, 157n42, 190, 193, 194,
272, 276, 277, 279, 287, 311, 316, 344 195, 198, 202, 203, 204n69, 240, 257, 286,
Proverb(s)121, 139, 141,272, 273, 274, 275, 289, 290, 291, 342, 351
276, 277, 294, 295, 298, 301318, 318321, Second Temple period143, 147, 148, 154,
322 155, 157, 197
Ptolemies58n34, 143, 150n29 Temple Mount151, 154
Theodotion167, 168, 169, 170n46, 171, 185,
Qumran50, 142, 148n17, 155, 157, 281n6, 283, 265, 279, 280, 283n11, 284, 285n19,
287 285n21, 286, 287, 288n30, 290, 344
Kaige-Theodotion102
Resurrection159165, 168, 169, 170, 171, 289, Pseudo-Theodotion279
338 Topos15, 332, 333
Torah / Law (of Lord/Moses)45n2, 46n4,
Sabbath142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 49, 91, 94, 95, 97, 101, 142, 145, 148, 149,
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 292 150n25, 151, 155, 156, 157, 158, 177, 191,
Sacrifice(s)2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 192, 202, 203, 216, 220, 221, 231, 233, 234,
22, 24, 26, 28, 148, 185, 188, 210, 233, 234, 235, 243, 246, 251, 262, 268, 286, 288,
252, 288, 304, 316, 348, 351 292, 297, 340, 341, 342
human1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, Tosefta338, 346, 347, 350, 352
21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29 Translation
temple145, 149 explicitising translation211, 214, 215, 216,
Sadducee(s)153, 154, 156 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 228, 230
394 Subject Index
Translation (cont.) as skill266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271

interpretive translation112, 211, 214, 215, of ancients235, 312
217, 218n44, 220, 221, 230 of Edom261
literal translation48, 49, 59, 67, 68, 99, of God / the Lord261, 262, 266, 267, 305,
105, 209, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 316
218, 219, 220, 221, 230, 269, 273, 274, 276, of king(s) / ruler(s)260, 261, 263, 264,
286, 295 265, 266, 268, 271, 278
translation equivalent7, 45n2, 49, 54, of nations259
58n34, 62, 65, 77, 80, 101, 106, 188, 263, of women270, 321
264, 265, 266, 271 personified84, 85, 86, 88, 90, 92, 93, 94,
translation technique 47, 48n14, 64, 68, 231, 248
99, 100, 109, 142, 166n32, 177 place of85, 8687, 92, 95, 96, 97
translation unit45n2, 99, 100, 101, 102, poem(s)84, 85, 94, 295
105, 106 quest for / obtaining84, 85, 86, 87, 95,
97, 98, 213, 254, 327
Vorlage47, 48, 49, 52, 54, 60, 63, 65, 71, 90, saying(s)205, 273, 274, 275, 276, 285, 294,
94n30, 100, 109, 110, 113, 115, 117, 118, 123, 295, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305,
124, 126, 129, 130, 133, 135, 139, 140, 141, 307, 310, 312, 317, 318, 321, 322
152n34, 160, 166, 168, 173, 175, 177, teacher87, 88, 97, 190
179n30, 263, 266, 280, 281, 282, 283, 293, theology332
299, 300 tradition(s)260, 294
Vulgate52, 54n26, 211, 262, 263, 264, 265, wise men / person(s)84, 96, 194, 195, 231,
266, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 234, 246, 247, 254, 260, 261, 262, 267,
276, 277, 278, 285n21 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 290, 344
Word order47, 51, 56, 58, 59, 64, 68, 71, 81,
Wisdom 105, 200, 264, 276, 284, 298
and beauty91n21, 96, 265
and fear of God / the Lord102, 246, 327 YHWH4, 6, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22,
and knowledge / understanding94, 260, 25, 32, 33n7, 39, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 175,
261, 262, 263, 264, 305, 327 298

(VTS 172) Gauthier, Kotzé, Steyn (Eds.) - Septuagint, Sages, and Scripture - Studies in Honour of Johann Cook PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(VTS 172) Gauthier, Kotzé, Steyn (Eds.) - Septuagint, Sages, and Scripture - Studies in Honour of Johann Cook PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Septuagint, Sages, and Scripture

H.M. Barstad - N. Calduch-Benages - D.M. Carr - R.P. Gordon - L.C. Jonker

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/vts

Names: Cook, Johann, honouree. | Gauthier, Randall X., editor.

Copyright 2016 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

On August 9, 2013, it was announced at the business meeting of the International

We herewith nominate PROF. JOHANN COOK of the Department of

The announcement in Munich crowned the illustrious career of Johann Cook,

1 Isaak, die Tochter Jephthas und Iphigenie, Menschenopfer im Alten

2 Descartes Error and the Growth of Consciousness: A Non-Dualistic

3 Greek Translations of Hebrew Left Dislocation Constructions in LXX

4 A Commentary on Septuagint Leviticus 19:111566

5 Where is Wisdom to be Found and How Do We Apprehend Her?84

6 The Relation of the Septuagint of Proverbs to the Septuagint of

7 Possessing Wisdom: A Study of the Possessive Pronouns and Adjectives

8 Septuagint Proverbs 28:4 and Shielding the Righteous: Implications for

10 Jobs Sohn Eine textgeschichtliche Notiz zu Job 42:17 (LXX)172

11 Old Greek Job 42 A Surprise at the End of the Road: Intertextual

12 Scholars and Officials in Early Judaism: The Sfer of Jesus

13 The Metatextual Marginal Notes of Ben Sira: Ideology and Theology in

14 Translating Wisdom in the Prophets: Ezekiel, Wisdom and

15 Enhanced and Revised: The Old Greek Edition of the Book of

16 Introductory Notes on Philo of Alexandrias Proverbs and Idiomatic

17 Whom the Lord Loveth He Chasteneth: About the Adoption of

18 Symmachus, the Septuagint and the Sages: An Examination of the

Index of Modern Sources357

HTR Harvard Theological Review

LXX.D Septuaginta Deutsch

SBL Society of Biblical Literature

Arie van der Kooij

Michal N. van der Meer

Harry F. van Rooy

Isaak, die Tochter Jephthas und Iphigenie,

Menschenopfer und die damit verbundenen, schmerzhaften und lebensver-

koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 6|doi .63/9789004325227_002

Pelops, ttete und sie Thyestes zum Verzehr vorsetzte.6 Menschenopfer

6 Burkert, Homo Necans, 108ff; 119ff.

2 Isaaks Opferung (Gen 22)

Die Erzhlung wurde frher dem sogenannten Elohisten zugeschrieben (etwa

13 Griechische und hebrische Bibelzitate sind aus www.bibelwissenschaft.de/online-

Subjekt hat. drckt eine Erprobung / Prfung / ein Auf-die-Probe-

Das Wort Gottes an Abraham lautet genau:

20 Vgl. Friedrich Rehkopf, Septuaginta-Vokabular (Gttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht,

Die LXX fgt wiederholt die Bestimmung (meinetwegen) hinzu, um

Der MT spricht einfach von Beerscheba, einem Ortsnamen, ohne auf

3 Die Opferung der Tochter Jephthas (Ri 11)

Die literarische und sachliche Abhngigkeit der Erzhlung von Jephthas

31 Joachim Latacz, Einfhrung in die griechische Tragdie (Uni-Taschenbcher 1745;

anderen an Joseph, den Sohn Jakobs, sowie an deren Vertreibung erinnern.

Whrend der MT von spricht, welches ins Deutsche mit Gelbde,

c)Die tragische Begegnung Jephthas und das Zwiegesprch mit seiner

34 Evangelia G. Dafni, (Hos 9,7): Zur Theologie der

die mit Tamburinen und Reigentnzen heraustretende und ihm entgegenge-

Whrend der MT unpersnlich vom seinem Gelbde redet, identifiziert die

Der MT wird fr ambivalent gehalten. Fr die LXX aber scheint eindeutig zu

36 Deut 22:14, 15, 17bis; Ri 11:37, 38.

4 Euripides Iphigenie in Aulis

40 Latacz, Einfhrung in die griechische Tragdie, 372.

Schrifttum ihre tiefe Abscheu gegen die Menschenopfer erkennen. Zugleich

42 Lesky, Die griechische Tragdie, 244.

auch Jephthas Portrait und Gelbde in der Auslegungsgeschichte beurteilt,44

Whrend in der Abraham-Opferung-Erzhlung die Versuchung und die

6 Burkert, Homo Necans, 108ff; 119ff.

13 Griechische und hebrische Bibelzitate sind aus www.bibelwissenschaft.de/online-

20 Vgl. Friedrich Rehkopf, Septuaginta-Vokabular (Gttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht,

31 Joachim Latacz, Einfhrung in die griechische Tragdie (Uni-Taschenbcher 1745;

34 Evangelia G. Dafni, (Hos 9,7): Zur Theologie der

36 Deut 22:14, 15, 17bis; Ri 11:37, 38.

40 Latacz, Einfhrung in die griechische Tragdie, 372.

42 Lesky, Die griechische Tragdie, 244.

44 Gro, Richter: 624ff.

26 Gericke, Beyond Reconciliation, 89.

17 Prestel and Schorch, Genesis, 146; Rosel, bersetzung, 248.

23 See also the translation of with at Gen 24:45 and 38:29.

27 At Gen 25:23, in the colon was translated faithfully by

29 Regarding God of heaven as a designation of a supreme deity in the religions of the

10 Auld, Joshua, 104.

13 Auld, Joshua, 147.