ἐνθύμησις

I have found an encouraging thread throughout the tapestry of this book.  Interest in Septuagint scholarship is on the rise. 

If you go into Southeastern’s library, you might find half a book shelf to a full book shelf worth of books on the Septuagint.  There is only one commentary series, that I am aware of, on the LXX…and it isn’t even complete.  The most critical version of the LXX, the Göttingen Septuagint, hasn’t been completed.  There is no complete Theology of the Septuagint.  A handful of LXX grammars exist, most of which were written in the late 18oo’s-1900’s.

Yet, interest is on the rise.  Do you know what interest means?  It means a greater desire/demand for scholarship in this area.  It also means that there is a massive amount of work to be done and a great deal of room for those interested in playing.

Translation?  Even if you are the fat kid in gym class afraid of not being picked for dodge ball, you won’t be left out.  I’m sure you’re thinking, “It can’t be that easy.”  You’re right, even the fat kid needs to know English, Greek, Hebrew, Latin, German and maybe French.  I hope he’s been eating languages and not pies.

For those unfamiliar with the “Apocrypha,” the title Bel and the Dragon may sound like a child’s story.  Whatever you may think of the story, it is simply an addition to the book of Daniel and it has the topic of idolatry as its main interest.  Within this addition, Daniel confronts two foreign idols: Bel (an idol made of clay that supposedly eats and drinks the feast provided for him by supplicants) and the dragon (a live…well…dragon).  [spoiler alert]  They aren’t really gods.  Bel doesn’t eat and drink the meal provided him, instead the priests do.  The dragon can be and eventually is killed by Daniel’s ingenious plan to bake pitch, fat and hair into cakes and feed them to the dragon.  And now…to the article.

I must say that Claudia Bergmann’s article was one of the most pleasant and interesting reads in this book thus far.  Bergmann’s task is to compare idolatry in Second Temple Literature (~530BC-70AD).

Portrayal of Idols/Idolatry in the Hebrew Bible

1. Idols are made with human hands
2. Idols are inanimate (must be carried to and fro, picked up when they fall)
3. Idols are powerless (when the impotence of idols is mentioned in the Hebrew text, it is often bracketed by praise of the LORD)
4. Idols are perishable (they can be burned and destroyed, yet this is always done by God or as an agent of God).

Portrayal of Idols/Idolatry in 2nd Temple Lit

1. Idols are manmade, inanimate, and powerless.
2. Long lists of an idols inabilities virtually disappear
3. Examination of the human psych for why humans worship idols occurs.
1. It is an influence of cruel spirits
2. Grief of the death brings about the immortalization of an individual
3. Adoration of a ruler
4. Profit
5. A desire to have gods like the nations
4. Comparison with the Living God is diminished
1. Idol comparison is done with hesitancy and the material is no longer framed by praise of the LORD
2. No mention of God’s acts, law, or covenant
3. The text rarely ever refer to the creator/creation
4. Bergmann postulates that this is due to the fact that topics like law, covenant, land, Exodus, and creation differintiated the Hebrews from being perceived as enlightened Hellenists.
5. Destruction of Idols
1. Idols are still destroyed through the wear-and-tear of elements, an inability to save themselves
2.  Yet, idols are now destroyed by rational humans instead of by God or by humans acting as his agents

Bergmann now looks to Exodus 20:23; Jeremiah 10:6-8, 10 in order to compare the Greek and the Hebrew versions.  He observes that, while the Greek text generally is in agreement with its Hebrew parent text, when there are major differences between the texts the Greek text brought into harmony with the 2nd Temple ideology of idolatry.

Bergmann concludes the article with a look at Bel and the Dragon.  What is of most interest is the differences between the Old Greek version and Theodotion’s recension of Bel and the Dragon.  The OG version has leanings towards “wisdom literature.”  It suppresses elements about the LORD, softens the possible conversion of the Gentile king, and the destruction of the idols and priests is mitigated.  Theodotion’s  version has nationalistic leanings in that it recounts the utter destruction of the false priests, the destruction of the two idols, and the “possible” conversion of the king.

What is the main take away here?  Don’t eat baked tar, fat and hair.  Though it may smell tasty, if it can kill a dragon, it will most likely kill you!

It has been a while since I have provided you with some of my gleanings within the realm of LXX studies.  This is due in part because I took a break from posting about my reading and it is also because I took a break from reading.  Moving on, let’s make this summary quick and to the point.

Heinz-Josef Fabry takes up the task of analyzing the concept of messianism in the Septuagint.  It has been a longstanding assumption that the Septuagint brought with it a heightening of messianic themes.  Though there are a number of instances where previously non-messianic passages become messianic as well as a heightening of existing messianic passages takes place in the Septuagint, there also exists the tendency towards dismantling, reducing, and reinterpreting passages in the Hebrew Text that were messianic.  This is especially regarding passages that portray the coming messiah as prophet, priest and king.

What would have been the cause?  Fabry argues that the translators were attempting to loose messianism from its ancient constraints so that it might live anew in its current context.

I have two important words for you today: isomorphism and anacoluthon.

Isomorphism “equal/same form,” as it applies to our subject of interest (you’re right, my subject of interest), is the method of translation that seeks to render form for form.  That is to say, if there is an article in the Hebrew there will be an article in the Greek.  If there is a preposition in Hebrew, there will be one in the Greek, and on it goes.  As it happens, Wooden adopts Pietersma’s interlinear/isomorphic model as his approach to the text of 2 Esdras.

The concept of isomorphism naturally leads to our second word, anacoluthon.  Anacoluthon literally means, “does not follow” and when applied to the analysis of texts it has special reference to an “error” in syntax.  Here’s an example, “The boy hit the ball to I.”  Instead of using the accusative form “me,” the author of this sentence has incorrectly used the nominative form “I.”

R. Glenn Wooden begins his article by supporting his claim that the text of 2 Esdras is best understood by an appeal to Pietersma’s interlinear model.  He argues that the presence of transliterations in instances where the Hebrew meaning eludes the translator, an almost flawless adherence to word order (1 alteration out of 65 verses analyzed ), and the imprecise rendering of conjunctions (waw translated with καί 154/166 times) support the notion that this text was meant to be read in reference to the Hebrew original.

This conclusion assists in his interpretation of 2 Ezd 9:1, which reads, “The people…were not separated from the peoples of the lands…in reference to the Chanani. The Heththi, the Pherezi, the Iebousi, the Ammoni, the Moab, the Mosri, and the Amori.”  This literalistic rendering of the LXX displays the anacoluthon present in the Greek.  Chanani is a dative of reference “in reference to the Chanani.”  This is an accurate rendering of the Hebrew’s lamad preposition.  Yet, the rest of the nations are in the nominative case (the case that is most often used for the subject or predicate).  The translator could have rendered all of the nations in the list as datives and avoided the whole issue, a perfectly “literal” option since the lamad preposition spans the list in the Hebrew original.  Wooden argues that the translator avoids this option because it would not be in tune with his isomorphic tendencies (i.e. one dative for one preposition).  Wooden further supports this observation with three other examples of anacoluthon within the book of 2 Esdras.

The translator’s slavish adherence to the Hebrew Text, even to the point of departure from viable Greek syntax, leads Wooden to conclude that the English translator has legitimate recourse to the Hebrew Text.  After all, the translator of 2 Esdras intended his translation to be read beside the Hebrew original.