Fw: Psalm 129 LXX
Albert Pietersma
albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca
Fri Dec 27 13:39:03 EST 2002
To be sure the translator could have been thinking almost anything. All we have, however, is what he wrote.
Since he nearly always translates Hebrew KY by Greek hOTI, there is no indication that he did anything beyond
thinking "X = Y" . As a rule of thumb, when a translator simply sticks to his default Hebrew-Greek equation,
he is not likely exegeting his source text. In my view, in most of the translations within the Septuagint,
exegesis by the translator is quod demonstrandum est ("that which must be demonstradum"), rather than that
which can be assumed. Thus it is clear where the burden of proof lies.
Al
Pastor Mark Eddy wrote:
> Prof Wendland, et al,
>
> I sent this privately yesterday, but since others on the list have discussed this, here are my 2 cents
> worth.
> Originally I speculated on what the LXX translator may have been thinking, but I left it out of the
> message below. But since others have speculated, I wonder if the LXX translator may have thought that the
> hILASMOS was something God required from us, rather than as something that God has to offer us. If he were
> a budding Pharisee instead of a budding Christian, he may have thought that we have to provide the
> atonement. If he was a budding Clintonian, he may have though that "is" means "ought to be." Could he have
> been thinking: "because in Your sight there ought to be atonement"?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Ghilardi"
> Subject: [b-greek] Psalm 129 LXX
>
> > I have a couple of questions about this Psalm. Vs 1 reads like this:
> >
> > EK BAQEWN EKEKRAXA SOI KURIE
> >
> > 1) Was it common or usual for the genitive plural of third declension
> > neuter nouns to be uncontracted in Hellenistic times, BAQE/WN rather than
> > the Attic BAQW=N?
>
> I can't answer this based on extra-biblical sources. But in the LXX and Greek NT the epsilon is always
> present (unless, of course, the root letter upsilon is present instead). See, Sirach 22:9 & Luke 24:1.
>
> > Vss 3 and 4 read:
> >
> > EAN ANOMIAS PARATHRHSHiS KURIE, KURIE, TIS hUPOSTHSETAI;
> > hOTI PARA SOI hO hILASMOS ESTIN
> >
> > 2) Isn't it necessary to insert some such thought as the following before
> > hOTI?
> >
> > hUPOSTHSONTAI hO/MWS TINES
> >
> > Surely God's provision of atonement is NOT the ground for the negative
> > response expected by the question KURIE, TIS hUPOSTHSETAI? That doesn't
> > make sense to me. I know this is poetry. Perhaps an answer lies in that
> > direction?
>
> Don't forget that this is a translation from the Hebrew original. The LXX usually translates the Hebrew
> word KiY with the word hOTI. That's what it does here. KiY can mean "for" or "because," but it can also be
> adversative, meaning "but." That's how it is usually understood here.
> It's also possible that the LXX translator of this Psalm misunderstood it. The verses of the LXX don't
> match with the Hebrew verses from verses 4-7. The end of v. 4 in Hebrew has two more words than are
> translated in LXX verse 4. The extra words LMa'aN TiWaReA ("that You may be feared") are translated in the
> beginning of v. 5 in the LXX hENEKEN TOU NOMOU ("because of the law"). The translator obviously took the
> last work in Hebrew v. 4 as TORaH instead of TiWaReA (reading a heh at the end instead of an aleph).
>
> So I doubt if it is helpful to try to emend the LXX text.
>
> Peace in Christ,
>
> Mark Eddy
> Holy Cross & St. Paul's Lutheran Churches
> Golden & Bowen, IL
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca]
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu
--
Albert Pietersma
Dept of Near&Middle Eastern Civilizations
4 Bancroft Avenue
University of Toronto
Toronto M5S 1C1
albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca
homepage http://www.chass.utoronto.ca:8080/~pietersm/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list