LXX Translation of the Hebrew רעע in Jonah

Posted on May 13, 2013 by

The Septuagint translator handles God’s repentance with great caution. Up until Jonah 3:8, he consistently renders רעע, “evil, disaster, calamity”, with κακός, “evil, bad, trouble”. This stereotypical rendering breaks down in chapter three and four. The chart below contains all instances of רעע in the Hebrew Vorlage and their Greek translations:

 

Greek Rendering

English Translation
1:2c ὅτι ἀνέβη ἡ κραυγὴ τῆς κακίας αὐτῆς πρός με because the cry of its evil went up to me
1:7c καὶ ἐπιγνῶμεν τίνος ἕνεκεν ἡ κακία αὕτη ἐστὶν ἐν ἡμῖν and let us know on whose account this evil/calamity is among us
1:8bc Ἀπάγγειλον ἡμῖν τίνος ἕνεκεν ἡ κακία αὕτη ἐστὶν ἐν ἡμῖν Tell us on whose account this evil/calamity is among us
3:8c καὶ ἀπέστρεψαν ἕκαστος ἀπὸ τῆς ὁδοῦ αὐτοῦ τῆς πονηρᾶς καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀδικίας τῆς ἐν χερσὶν αὐτῶν And each returned from his evil way and from the unrighteousness which was in their hands
3:10a καὶ εἶδεν ὁ θεὸς τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν, ὅτι ἀπέστρεψαν ἀπὸ τῶν ὁδῶν αὐτῶν τῶν πονηρῶν And God saw their deeds, that they returned from their evil ways
3:10b καὶ μετενόησεν ὁ θεὸς ἐπὶ τῇ κακίᾳ And God repented from the evil/calamity
4:1a καὶ ἐλυπήθη Ιωνας λύπην μεγάλην And Jonah grieved with a great grief
4:2e διότι ἔγνων ὅτι σὺ ἐλεήμων καὶ οἰκτίρμων, μακρόθυμος καὶ πολυέλεος καὶ μετανοῶν ἐπὶ ταῖς κακίαις. for I knew that you are merciful and compassionate, longsuffering and very merciful, and one who repents from calamities/evil things.
4:6 καὶ ἀνέβη ὑπὲρ κεφαλῆς τοῦ Ιωνα τοῦ εἶναι σκιὰν ὑπεράνω τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ τοῦ σκιάζειν αὐτῷ ἀπὸ τῶν κακῶν αὐτοῦ And it went up above the head of Jonah to be a shade above his head in order to shade him from his evil/calamity

 

The semantic range of the Hebrew word רעע is broad enough to incorporate both moral reprehensibility and a disaster or calamity.[1] This is no less true of the Greek word κακία.[2] Yet, the translator does not feel comfortable describing God’s actions or his prophet’s actions in the same way as he describes Nineveh’s evil. Instead, he uses πονηρός, a morally charged term unlike κακός, to describe Nineveh’s moral corruption. He then switches back to κακός when referring to the calamity God planned for Nineveh.[3] Such a shift ensures that the reader will not draw the wrong conclusion about the character of God. The Hebrew God is not corrupt. He is not evil. This concern for God’s dignity extends to his prophet. Jonah, in 4:1a, is exceedingly displeased/evil. Septuagint Jonah depicts Jonah as exceedingly grieved, “καὶ ἐλυπήθη Ιωνας λύπην μεγάλην”, by God’s grace. Both translations get God and Jonah off the hook for possible impropriety. The translator takes liberties to smooth out the narrative’s rough edges.

[1] F. Brown, S. Driver, and C. Briggs ed. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2006), 947-8.

[2] Frederick William Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, BDAG (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 500.

[3] Evidence that this is an intentional choice on the part of the translator is in Jonah 1:2c, where he uses κακός to describe the moral corruption of Nineveh. Perhaps he did not see the dilemma in chapter three, or he though that the chapters were sufficiently removed from one another that the connection would be weakened.

Posted in Jonah, LXX | Leave a comment

Art in the LXX Jonah Psalm

Posted on May 9, 2013 by

Two clauses caught my attention as I began my work in Jonah 2 today. Turn with me in your Hebrew and Greek texts.

Jonah 2:4 in the Hebrew text reads:

 וְנָהָ֖ר יְסֹבְבֵ֑נִי

and the river surrounded me

:Jonah 2:4 in the LXX version reads

καὶ ποταμοί με ἐκύκλωσαν

and the waters/rivers me surrounded

Jonah 2:6 in the Hebrew version reads:

תְּה֖וֹם יְסֹבְבֵ֑נִי

the deep surrounds me

:Jonah 2:6 in the Greek version reads

ἄβυσσος ἐκύκλωσέν με ἐσχάτη

the abyss surrounds me the last/deepest

Notice how the Greek translator takes the opportunity to use the flexible word order in Greek to surround the pronoun με, “me”.

In the first construction, we would expect to see με after the verb ἐκύκλωσαν as is the typical unmarked Greek word order (object after verb) and as is the case in the Hebrew text.

In the second construction, the translator adds the adjective ἐσχάτη. We would expect to see the adjective closer to the noun it modifies, ἄβυσσος. Yet, it occurs at the end of the construction. Once again, με is surrounded by the various grammatical constituents in the clause, just as με, Jonah, is surrounded by the waters and the abyss.

Posted in Greek, Jonah, LXX | 1 Comment

The Discourse Boundaries of Jonah 2

Posted on May 1, 2013 by

[Two days ago I posted on the discourse structure of Septuagint Jonah chapters 1 and three (they are parallel). This post continues my work through outlining the macrostructure of LXX Jonah by providing justification for Jonah 2:1-11 as a unit]

The beginning of Jonah chapter two is deceiving. The coordinating conjunction καὶ, “and,” seems to continue the preceding narrative without interruption. No overt elements are used by the author/translator to indicate a shift. Yet, a closer look reveals a shift in the narrative participants and geographic setting, the presence of poetry, and a chiastic structure that defines the unit as a whole.

The boat, which serves as a prop in chapter one, falls out of the narrative, or rather, Jonah has fallen out of it (1:15). As Jonah descends into the depths of the sea, the Lord appoints a fish to swallow his disobedient prophet (2:1). The general setting of the narrative remains the same: Jonah is still out at sea. The specific setting, though similar to the boat of chapter one, has changed. The great fish now houses Jonah for the duration of the chapter. The narrative participants in chapter two must also be noted. While two of the characters, Jonah and the Lord, remain unchanged, the sailors are absent. The narrator is now concerned with Jonah’s interaction with the Lord. Will Jonah survive in the great fish? Will the Lord deliver Jonah? What does the prophet have to say for himself?

The presence of poetry and a chiastic structure in chapter two also provide evidence that the text should be divided at this point. Jonah’s prayer to God is composed in the form of a psalm, or poetry. The shift from narrative to poetry is a significant one, as it is a shift from an unmarked surface structure to a marked structure.[1] The poetry of verses 3-10 provides a clear beginning and end to Jonah’s prayer to God. Although poetry, as a marked surface structure normally outranks prose as a structuring device, that is not true here. Jonah’s psalm is not independent of the surrounding narrative. The narrative found in 2:1-2 and 2:11 frames the psalm as a part of a  chiastic unit:

A   Καὶ προσέταξεν κύριος    κήτει μεγάλῳ καταπιεῖν     τὸν Ιωναν·

And appointed   the-Lord a-fish great     to-swallow   Jonah,

B   καὶ  ἦν   Ιωνας ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ τοῦ      κήτους τρεῖς ἡμέρας καὶ τρεῖς νύκτας.

and was Jonah in the belly   of-the  fish      three days     and three nights.

B’  καὶ προσηύξατο Ιωνας πρὸς κύριον    τὸν θεὸν αὐτοῦ   ἐκ     τῆς κοιλίας τοῦ   κήτους

And prayed        Jonah to      the-Lord the God  of-him  from the belly    of-the fish.

A’   καὶ   προσετάγη      τῷ κήτει, καὶ ἐξέβαλε     τὸν Ιωναν ἐπὶ    τὴν ξηράν.

And was-appointed the fish,   and it-vomited       Jonah upon the dry-land.

The Septuagint translator strengthens the chiastic structure of chapter two. Hebrew Jonah 2:11 reads, וַיֹּמֶר יְהוָה לַדָּג, “And the Lord spoke to the fish.” The shift from וַיֹּאמֶר, “And he spoke” to προσετάγη “it was appointed” makes the implicit connection between A and A’ explicit.

The dominate poetic section spanning from verse three to verse ten poses a difficulty in relation to this chiastic structure. The appearance of the psalm after B’ disrupts the symmetry of the chiasm. Phyllis Trible writes,

The psalm disrupts the narrative structure. Locked within the confines of an exquisite chiasm, it provides a glaring instance of symmetrophobia. The poetry occurs not in the center of the chiastic narrative (after B) but between two lines (B’ and A’) whose counterparts (A and B) are not so divided. Thus the psalm throws the episode off balance. [2]

Trible concedes the point that the psalm might not have been part of the original composition. Nevertheless, the psalm belongs in the final form of the book as it clearly functions to create dissonance and irony between the words and actions of Jonah. The unbalanced structure is intended to communicate discomfort and unease in the mind of the reader. Can Jonah’s confession and repentance be trusted?

[1] Robert E. Longacre,  and Shin Ja J. Hwang, “A Textlinguistic Approach to the Biblical Hebrew Narrative of Jonah” Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, ed. by Robert D. Bergen, (Dallas: SIL International, 1994), 342.

[2] Phyllis Trible, 162.

Posted in Biblical Studies, Discourse Analysis, Greek, Hebrew, LXX, Old Testament Studies | Tagged | Leave a comment

April Carnival

Posted on April 30, 2013 by

chicago09_1024x768

It’s time for another carnival. Though it is a meager one, I hope that you will get your fill of fun and revelry.

Hermeneutics

Matt Emerson has an excellent series on the various methods of biblical exegesis. Emerson provides a snapshot of his Method and follows that post up with a look at the constituent parts of the method in these posts: Christocentric Method, Pneumatological Method,  Canonical Method, and Narrative Method.

Biblical Studies

John Himes guess-posts over at Paroikos Bible Blog. He asks “What Shall We Do with Those Idioms?” What is an idiom? How should translators handle idioms? Four options are open to translators: 1) “literal” translation that creates the same idiom in the target language, 2) from idiom to nonidiom, 3) from idiom to idiom, and 4) from nonidiom to idiom.

Mark Goodacre has asked an excellent question about the role of blogs in the world of scholarship in his post: Peer-reviewed article responding to a blog post: what is the etiquette?

Old Testament

Andrew King, over at “The Blog of the Twelve,” writes about the The Literary Function of the Remnant Motif in Isaiah’s Royal Narrative as an “indicator of the monarchial climate in Judah.”

James Pate has posted an excellent overview of the problematic passage Deuteronomy 24:4: Why Was the Ex-Wife Defiled? In this article, Pate summarizes the solutions of 7 different commentators while offering his thoughts along the way.

Bob MacDonald continues his series on Bervard Childs’ The Struggle to understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture as well as his series Memorizing the Psalms.

An atheist explores text critical issues related to the David and Goliath narratives found in 1Sam 17; 2Sam 21:19; 1Chr 20:5 in his series “Who Killed Goliath?” This is part 4 of an ongoing series that chart the textual affinities shared between these passages in the Hebrew and Old Greek versions.

New Testament

Jordan Burt, a student of James McGrath provides the definitive explanation for the peculiar inclusion of “153 fish” in John 21 here. While you are over at Patheos, stay a spell. McGrath, in his post Is Historical Jesus Research Futile, entreats us to not throw out the baby with the bathwater; historical Jesus research is both helpful and necessary despite some of the eccentricities often characteristic of this field of study.

Though David Black’s New Testament Greek Portal is neither specific to the month of April nor a blog, per se, it is a regularly updated annotated bibliography of the all things pertaining to New Testament Greek online.

Dan Wallace shares an interview he had with Katherine Weber of the Christian Post concerning The Authenticity of the Gospel of Judas.

Theology

Consider yourself forewarned, Adam Parker connects Jonathan Edwards’ theory of original sin with the new movie Oblivion in his spoiler of a post Jonathan Edwards, Co-Writer of Oblivion.

Early Christianity

Larry Hurtado talks about his recent lectures in the States in these three posts: “Revelatory” Experiences and Religious Innovation, “Early Christian Monotheism”, and Jesus in Early Christian Prayer.

Art and the Bible

Victoria Jones’ post Homeless Jesus sculpture finds a home, over at “The Jesus Question,” interacts with Timothy P. Schmalz’s artistic interpretation of Matthew 25 as a resident of Cambridge Massachusetts. While we’re on the subject, Michele Stopera Freyhauf  asks “Why are We Troubled by a Homeless Jesus“.

Book Reviews

Next month’s Carnival will be hosted by Jeff Carter. Make sure to visit his blog That Jeff Carter Was Here, and send him whatever links you think should be in the May Carnival.

Posted in Biblical Studies | Tagged | 4 Comments

Septuagint Jonah 1:1-3 and 3:1-3 Compared

Posted on April 29, 2013 by

Here is another snippet from my paper on the information structure of Septuagint Jonah. This part belongs in my discussion of the book’s macrostructure. Enjoy! [As a side note: I apologize in advance for the formatting of the Greek text. If you thought formatting in Word was difficult, it is virtually impossible in WordPress]

The book of Jonah is built around two parallel halves. Each half is introduced with nearly identical background material: the word of the Lord, Jonah’s commissioning, and Jonah’s response. These similarities are illustrated below for comparison:

  • 1:1 Καὶ ἐγένετο λόγος    κυρίου        πρὸς Ιωναν τὸν τοῦ Αμαθι        λέγων
  • 1:1 And was      a-word  of-the-Lord  to Jonah    the son of-Amathi saying,
  • 3:1 Καὶ ἐγένετο λόγος    κυρίου         πρὸς Ιωναν ἐκ δευτέρου            λέγων
  • 3:1 And was      a-word of-the-Lord   to Jonah      for a-second-time  saying,
  • 1:2a Ανάστηθι καὶ   πορεύθητι   εἰς  Νινευη  τὴν πόλιν τὴν μεγάλην καὶ κήρυξον ἐν αὐτῇ,
  • 1:2a Arise        and  go               into Nineveh the city    the  great       and preach   in   it,
  • 1:2b ὅτι          ἀνέβη   ἡ   κραυγὴ τῆς      κακίας αὐτῆς πρός με.
  • 1:2b because  arose    the cry        of-the  evil      of-it   to      me
  • 3:2a Ανάστηθι καὶ   πορεύθητι   εἰς  Νινευη  τὴν πόλιν τὴν μεγάλην καὶ κήρυξον ἐν αὐτῇ,
  • 3:2a Arise        and  go               into Nineveh the city    the  great       and preach   in   it,
  • 3:2b κατὰ                 τὸ  κήρυγμα        τὸ ἔμπροσθεν, ὃ         ἐγὼ ἐλάλησα πρὸς σέ.
  • 3:2b according to     the proclamation the former,    which  I      spoke      to     you.
  • 1:3 καὶ   ἀνέστη Ιωνας   τοῦ φυγεῖν         εἰς Θαρσις ἐκ      προσώπου   κυρίου . . .
  • 1:3 And arose     Jonah   in-order-to-flee  to  Tharsis from  face             of-the-Lord
  • 3:3 καὶ ἀνέστη Ιωνας    καὶ ἐπορεύθη      εἰς Νινευη, καθὼς ἐλάλησεν κύριος
  • 3:3 And arose   Jonah   and he went       to Nineveh, just as the Lord said.

Jonah 3:1-3 is virtually identical to 1:1-3 with the exception of a few ancillary elements. A segment of verse two, though, ties these passages even closer together in a way that the Hebrew text does not. The addition of ἔμπροσθεν, “former,” and the translation of the periphrastic participial construction דֹּבֵר  אָנֹכִי, “I am saying,” with ἐγὼ ἐλάλησα, “I said,” leaves no doubt in the reader’s mind that the word of the Lord that came to Jonah in chapter one is identical to the word that Jonah receives in chapter three.[1] These minor alterations in the Septuagint text add a greater degree of cohesion between chapters one and three. The message Jonah must deliver has not changed. Has Jonah changed? Will he deliver God’s message?

[1] Larry Perkins, “The Septuagint of Jonah,” 44-5, writes, “in this context the LXX adds the expression (τὸ κήρυγμα) τὸ ἔμπροσθεν “the former proclamation” and uses the verb ἐλάλησα, “I spoke” making it quite clear that this oracle is not a new statement but the repetition of the original one given in 1:2. The content of that oracle has not changed nor, presumably, have any of the time constraints included in it. The MT suggests that Yahweh provides a new oracle to Jonah, not necessarily the exact duplicate of the original.”

Posted in Biblical Studies, Jonah, LXX, Old Testament Studies | Tagged | Leave a comment

Directionality in Jonah

Posted on April 27, 2013 by

The book of Jonah plays with the concept of directionality. God’s command to arise, “ἀνάστηθι,” is paired with Jonah’s initial complicity in 1:3a, “ἀνέστη,” “and he arose.” This is contrasted with Jonah’s downward movement. He goes down, “κατέβη,” into Joppa (1:3b), and then he makes a lateral move as he embarks, “ἐνέβη,”on a ship going to Tarshish (1:3e).

The translator’s sensitivity to the narrative’s geographical setting leads him to translate וַיֵּרֶד, “he went down,” with ἐνέβη, “he embarked.” The rendering τοῦ πλεῦσαι, “in order to sail,” for לָבוֹא, “in order to go,” reinforces this. Though the change weakens the original Hebrew connection between קוּם, “arise,” and the repetition of וַיֵּרֶד, “he went down,” it does not destroy it since both words, κατέβη and ἐνέβη, are built upon the same root, βαίνω. Though the connection between the two words is tenuous, the observant reader is able to make the connection.

This is not true in 1:5f, where the Hebrew וַיֵּרָדַם, “and he slept soundly,” is translated with ἔρρεγχε, “he snored.” The play on words between יָרַד, “he went down,” and רָדַם, “he slept soundly,” is not communicated in the Greek text. John Beck writes,

“The root קוּם is consistently represented by a form of ἀνιστήμι. But the descent of Jonah that is evident in the Hebrew narrative from the time he heads for the seaport is translated by three different roots: καταβαίνω, ἐνβαίνω, ἐρρέγχω. Again an important tool in the characterization of the Hebrew Jonah is lost”.[1]

Characterization is indeed lost. The original author of Jonah uses this Leitwort not only to communicate Jonah’s geographical distance from God, but also to emphasize Jonah’s deliberate disobedience with each move he makes. Jonah will go to whatever depths necessary to get away from God and not escape his commission to deliver God’s message to Nineveh.

Whether or not it was a conscious decision, the translator has developed the geographic setting of the narrative at the expense of a robust characterization of Jonah. This fact becomes more important as the narrative unwinds. Jonah’s request to be thrown overboard is not a selfless act of sacrifice (his life for the sailors). Instead, it is  another attempt, in a long sequence of events, to get away from Yahweh. He is prepared to die. In fact, he goes down to Sheol, where the Lord preserves him, hears his cry, and delivers him.

[1] Translators as Storytellers: A Study in Septuagint Translation Technique, Studies in Biblical Literature 25, (New York: Peter Lang, 2000), 119

Posted in Jonah, LXX | Leave a comment

Jonah and Nineveh or Nineveh and Sodom

Posted on April 24, 2013 by

Here is a footnote [and by footnote, I mean a full page that will probably get cut out but saved for a more relevant paper] from my forthcoming paper [and by forthcoming, I just mean my term paper] on the Septuagint version of the book of Jonah.

In the Hebrew text, Jonah’s act of flight מִלִּפְנֵ֖י יְהוָֽה,“from before the Lord” (1:3a,e), is linked to Nineveh’s evil, which comes up לְפָנָֽי, “before me” (1:2c). The Hebrew provides a clue for the reader to consider. Jonah’s act of flight will not escape the attention of his God in the same was that Nineveh’s evil has not escaped his sight. This subtle connection is broken in the Septuagint as Jonah is seen fleeing ἐκ προσώπου κυρίου, “from before the Lord,” and the cry of evil comes up πρός με, “to me.” Admittedly the difference in preposition is minor, but in a book that relies heavily on lexical repetition (not just repetition of words within the same semantic field) such an alteration is noticed.

This change, though, does not appear to be for varieties’ sake. The translator appears to have made an intentional intertextual link. The clause ὅτι ἀνέβη ἡ κραυγὴ τῆς κακίας αὐτῆς πρός με, “because the outcry of its evil has come up to me,” appears to be an interpretive translation that connects Nineveh to the Sodom and Gomorrah narrative found in Genesis 18. Sasson writes, “The Greek versions offer paraphrases (for example, LXX: ‘for the cry of its wickedness has come up to me’), some of which are obviously influenced by the Sodom narrative of Genesis” Jonah, The Anchor Yale Bible, (Yale University Press: New Haven, 1990), 76-7. The Septuagint version of Genesis 18:20-21 reads, “εἶπεν δὲ κύριος Κραυγὴ Σοδομων καὶ Γομορρας πεπλήθυνται, καὶ αἱ ἁμαρτίαι αὐτῶν μεγάλαι σφόδρα·  καταβὰς οὖν ὄψομαι εἰ κατὰ τὴν κραυγὴν αὐτῶν τὴν ἐρχομένην πρός με συντελοῦνται, εἰ δὲ μή, ἵνα γνῶ,” “And the Lord said, ‘The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah has multiplied, and their sins are exceedingly great. When I go down, then, I will see if they are acting according to the their outcry which is coming to me.”

If this connection can be made with any confidence, then the reader is meant to read the wickedness of Nineveh and God’s just condemnation of the city in concert with his former condemnation of Sodom. Furthermore, whether intentionally or unintentionally, the translator has also strengthened the condemnation of Jonah’s actions. He has taken a subtle point about the inability of Jonah and his rebellion to escape the eye of God made by the author’s repetition of לְפָנָֽי, and turned it into an implicit comparison between the actions of Jonah and Abraham. Abraham begs God to relent from the disaster he has planned for Sodom. Jonah refuses his calling because he knows God will be compassionate and will relent from the condemnation and destruction of Nineveh.

Posted in Greek, Jonah, LXX | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments