DOUBLE RENDERINGS IN GREEK PROVERBS 1–9
5Jan Joosten, "The Relation of the Septuagint of Proverbs to Psalms", Septuagint, Sages, and Scripture: Studies in Honor of Johann Cook, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 172, eds. Vir 'n bespreking van die verhouding tussen LXX en Peshitta in Spreuke, sien Cook, The Septuagint of Proverbs, 59 asook idem, "The Relationship Between the Peshitta and the Septuagint (Proverbs)", Textus.
Its use here is an indication that this line is original to the translator and a revision. However, lines 1:7cd are consistent with the translator's preference for parallelism and antithetical juxtaposition, as well as his marked tendency to moralize. For it, the translator "added a second colon apparently to further explain the figure 'a bag' by substituting 'common' for 'one.'
The addition of δέ serves to carry direct speech forward from the previous verses and is in keeping with the translator's general preference for conjunctions. It seems to allude to Deuteronomy 25:13, Οὐκ ἔσται ἐν τῷ µαρσίππῳ σου στάθµιον καὶ στάθµιον, µέγα ἢ µικρόν, all usage not present in the Hebrew and probably intentional on the part of the translator. These examples show the translator's fondness for this lexeme and his willingness to use it where he sees fit.
Greek πάντες is consistent with the implied subject of κτησώµεθα, and is an example of the translator's attention to the demands of the target language. The addition of δὲ can either be attributed to the translator's freedom and attention to the target language, or the Hebrew lost a ו at the beginning of 14b due to the preceding ו in ונלכל.
Regarding םירשׂ for םירעשׁ in 8:3, it is plausible that the Hebrew text was different, that the translator misread his text, or that he was influenced by a later passage. If the translator's text did read ירשׂ, it still does not explain παρεδρεύει (either here or in 1:21b). Superficially, it would appear as if the translator at least rendered Obm with ἐν εἰσόδοις (cf. ἐν ἐξόδοις in 1:20a), which would only account for םיחתפ for πύλαιπύλαια.
But later, in 8:34, the translator renders יחתפ as εἰσόδων, making it very likely that םיחתפ represents ἐν εἰσόδοις, and אובמ for πύλαις. I would be pleased that the translator was aware of the deep connection between Proverbs 1 and 8, and relied on Wisdom in translating both chapters, even more so in chapter 8. If this theory is correct, pace de Waard, et al., the translator's Vorlage did not read םירשׂ.
In Proverbs 9:13, Lady Folly is described as impetuous (הימה, cf. 1:21a), which the translator renders as θρασεῖα, from the same root as θαρροῦσα. Lady Wisdom and Lady Folly often preach their messages in the same rooms in Proverbs, so it makes sense that the translator, whether intentionally or unintentionally, uses a common vocabulary for their appearance.
There is one reading in the last verse that could be due to a deviant Hebrew text or a translator reading it differently. If the translator did not actually have ךָ ֶנ ְב ִל in his Vorlage, then the OG represents the translator's interpretation. The translator had sufficient contextual reasons to deliberately change the text, or was unduly influenced by the context to misread ךָ ְבּ ִל.
The translator likely failed to detect that שׁיא was used in the abstract for "men" and read the rest as an exclamatory address to new subjects. This figure will play a prominent role in later chapters, but the translator has omitted it entirely. The translator gave his own layer of interpretation to the entirety of chapter 2 and the changes leave only echoes of the Hebrew.
In Proverbs 1–9 הנובת occurs 8 times, and the translator shows a high degree of flexibility in his renderings. In the rest of the book, the translator shows a marked preference for φρόνησις/φρόνιµος, where φρήν occurs once in 18:2.
Without more detailed data, including the outside evidence and transmission history, any firm judgment here is a shot in the dark. Line 3a is rendered quite literally, in contrast to 2:2a, where the translator used a future for the Hebrew infinitive construction בישׁקהל, transforming the object of that infinitive into the subject. The Greek σύνεσις is much less common in Proverbs than αἴσθησις, and in every example but two it occurs where the text in question is.50 Αἴσθησις, on the other hand, is never used throughout the LXX, it can be established that 3c is original, this.
For this reason, Cook believes that it is possible that the two lines (2:3c and 2:4a) were translated. Although most line level additions in the book are contextual and not easily mapped onto the Hebrew text, I believe it is entirely possible that this line was intended by the. In other words, if Greek 2:3c is an addition and not a duplicate version, the likelihood is that 2:3b came from the translator and not a later reviser.
The end of line 3c, µεγάλῃ τῇ φωνῇ, seems to correspond to ךלוק in the Vorlage, but given the previous suggestion it may have been the translator's intention to simply use this as a bridge from the earlier material to the following. In the three occurrences of this expression in Greek proverbs, only one represents the Hebrew text.53.
The Greek βουλή is usually a translation for the word group ץעי, usually הצע, although still the translator shows variety. So instead of the young man's יתפ falling into a trap by entering into a foreign woman, here he is warned to be on the lookout for bad advice because it will set him on a bad path.55 The translation of οβ with πορεύοµαι it makes sense now that the translator has recast the strange woman as an undesirable path. In the latter, the translator rendered םיעשׁר with ὁδοὶ ἀσεβῶν, which indicates the new emphasis he gave to the chapter.
Just as the translator made a sharp distinction between βουλὴ κάλη and κακὴ βουλή, so he also added a stronger emphasis in the distinction between the "paths." However, it should be noted that the presence of εὐθεῖα in 2:19 is unusual for the translator. The phrase םייח תונשׁ occurs several times in Proverbs, all translated by ἔτη ζωῆς.62 If the translator was familiar with his source (or the Wisdom tradition more generally), this may have influenced the translator's approach to 19c.
Cook points out that the translator appears to have split Hebrew 19b into two lines, and acknowledges that both lines may be original.63 This is my favorite. Until such can be demonstrated, I consider both lines of 2:19 to be consistent with the translator's particular rendering character.
The Hebrew of 1:7a in Proverbs and of Psalm 110:10a is remarkably close, which makes sense of the assimilation. If this is correct, Proverbs 2:21 may further illustrate the influence of the Psalms on the translator. Most importantly, in Psalm 24:8, the text refers to the Lord as χρηστὸς καὶ εὐθής and also states that the offspring of the person who fears the Lord will do so.
In any case, there is no need to posit a direct dependence on the Psalm to explain the current state of the Greek Proverbs text. Even without an eye to the other text, the translator would almost certainly have been aware of the Psalm and many others that describe the way of the innocent before God and the rewards they find. This is not to say that 21ab are simply a product of the translator's linguistic awareness, or that Wolters' sense of insensitivity is even valid, but that there may be a correlation.
The Greek ὑπολείπω is a common translation for ρθη in Niphal, and the final expression, ὑπολειφθήσονται ἐν αὐτῇ, is a literal translation of the Hebrew. However, there is still justification for considering the originality of the line since the translator has shown a preference for this word already in chapter 2, even when he changed his Hebrew text (ie, verse 16).
One can read this as the potential source for 3:15a, or better as another example of the translator's linguistic tendency. In the three places that םינינפ77 occurs in Proverbs, all are translated by λίθων πολυτελῶν, making it a stereotypical rendering for the translator. The translator also captured the comparison with good Greek idiom by using the comparative τιµιωτέρα (from τίµιον) for the nm preposition.
He explains that the translator may have tried to "give the meaning of kətîbu םיינפ by taking it as a hyphilic participle of the verb הנפ."82 This is a very likely explanation, but unfortunately it is difficult to prove. Only once does ἐγγίζω appear for הנפ, in Ben Sira 37:30 in the Qal source.83 However, this is still the best explanation suggested outside of the translator's own creativity (which is still a valid explanation). Here is to be seen a snapshot of the wider wisdom tradition that influenced the translator of Proverbs.
My tentative proposal to reverse the text-critical difficulties here is that all lines be original to the translator. Also of interest here were two different interpretations of the consonants, either due to a difficulty in reading by the translator himself or due to interpretative differences in his community or Jewish schools more broadly.
First, ἵνα has been added at the head of the sentence, which is a much closer rendering of the Hebrew weyiqtol. This does not mean that ἵνα is a more literal translation than καί in 10b, but rather that it better reflects the correct vocalization of the text. This type of rendering is not widespread, but it occurs enough to designate it as a function of the translator.
D'Hamonville is right to note that 10c “est bien dans la manière du traducteur.”89 The additional line continues the theme of the “ways” of Wisdom that the translator brings out more forcefully in chapter 2. The same couplet can be seen also in 16:17ab, where neither is a direct translation of the Hebrew. Determining the authenticity of 10b, like any previous example, depends largely on determining whether or not the translator had a hand in any of the double interpretations.
Although 10c is consistent with the translator's concerns, this does not immediately mean that 10b is an impossible rendering for him. The line may be secondary, but in my opinion this is not as well established as the consensus suggests.
If this is the case, it lends credence to the view that 10b and 10c are originals. All three proofreaders emend 25a to read closer to the MT: µὴ ἐπιθυµήσῃς κάλλους αὐτῆς ἐν καρδίᾳ σου.94 This line is confused except by the translator. After adding another word component, the translator translated the main Hebrew verb with the noun ἐπιθυμία.
The missing suffix creates a disjunction between the current verse and the subject of the previous one, γυνὴ ὑπάνδρου. This is also the only instance of ὀφθαλµός = ףעפע in the Septuagint canon, and the eight other occurrences are all translated z. One wonders why a later reviewer would translate the last part of the verse more literally and not correct the verb, assuming that ך was present in his Vorlage.
The last part of the line is translated literally, although the rendering of the Hebrew ב with ἀπό only occurs elsewhere in Greek Proverbs in 7:6. The presence of αὐτῆς is odd in context when the other references to the γυνὴ ὑπάνδρου have been removed.
CONCLUSION
