[B-Greek] SATAN in LXX
Ken Penner
kpenner at stfx.ca
Mon Jan 10 14:42:08 EST 2011
That was my error of the eye; the reference should be Num 22.22 rather than Lev.
In the second apparatus we find
ἐνδιαβάλλειν (αὐτόν)] κατάγνωστον αὐτὸν ποιῆσαι 130-321′; τὸ ἑβρ' α' σαταν θ' ἀντικεῖσθαι Procop 864
Ken
Ken M. Penner, Ph.D.
Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic vocabulary memorization software:
http://purl.org/net/kmpenner/flash/
kpenner at stfx.ca
-----Original Message-----
From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Albert Pietersma
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 11:53 AM
To: Allen Rhoades
Cc: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] SATAN in LXX
As for Lev 19:19 the second critical apparatus of Göttingen contains
the following evidence:
ALLOS KWLUMA SATAN (SATANH M; ASATANH 416). The tradition is therefore
categorized as non-LXX.
In Lev 22:22 I see no evidence for SATAN in Göttingen or Rahlfs or
Brooke-McLean. Thus it is unclear to me where that "evidence" comes
from.
Moreover, what you cite about SATAN from CATTS is rather incomplete
and incorrect, if for no other reason than that it omits SATAN as a
verb. It also gives the false impression that SATAN as a noun is
uniformly translated by DIABOLOS. Furthermore, it fails to distinguish
between arthrous and anarthrous instances. Lastly, in neither of the
two Esther passages does DIABOLOS translate SATAN.
Al
On Jan 9, 2011, at 9:58 PM, Allen Rhoades wrote:
>
> When I look at the CCAT entire Septuagint I see "satan" used only
> twice, both in the 3 Reigns 11:14; the other twenty two times were
> "diabolos"
>
> I understand that the CCAT is not the apparatus of the Göttingen
> Septuagint but what are the two Leviticus references for Satan?
>
>
> *Sept* Reference Accented AccentedLatin Parsing1 Parsing2 Lemma
> 1/3Kgs 11:14 σαταν SATAN N ASM SATAN
> 1/3Kgs 11:14 σαταν SATAN N NSM SATAN
>
>
>
>
> *Sept* Reference Accented AccentedLatin Parsing1 Parsing2 Lemma
> 1Chr 21:1 διαβολος DIA/BOLOS N2 NSM DIA/BOLOS
> Esth 7:4 διαβολος DIA/BOLOS N2 NSM DIA/BOLOS
> Esth 8:1 διαβόλῳ DIABO/LW| N2 DSM DIA/BOLOS
> Job 1:6 διαβολος DIA/BOLOS N2 NSM DIA/BOLOS
> Job 1:7 διαβόλῳ DIABO/LW| N2 DSM DIA/BOLOS
> Job 1:7 διαβολος DIA/BOLOS N2 NSM DIA/BOLOS
> Job 1:9 διαβολος DIA/BOLOS N2 NSM DIA/BOLOS
> Job 1:12 διαβόλῳ DIABO/LW| N2 DSM DIA/BOLOS
> Job 1:12 διαβολος DIA/BOLOS N2 NSM DIA/BOLOS
> Job 2:1 διαβολος DIA/BOLOS N2 NSM DIA/BOLOS
> Job 2:2 διαβόλῳ DIABO/LW| N2 DSM DIA/BOLOS
> Job 2:2 διαβολος DIA/BOLOS N2 NSM DIA/BOLOS
> Job 2:3 διάβολον DIA/BOLON N2 ASM DIA/BOLOS
> Job 2:4 διαβολος DIA/BOLOS N2 NSM DIA/BOLOS
> Job 2:6 διαβόλῳ DIABO/LW| N2 DSM DIA/BOLOS
> Job 2:7 διαβολος DIA/BOLOS N2 NSM DIA/BOLOS
> Ps 108:6 διαβολος DIA/BOLOS N2 NSM DIA/BOLOS
> Zech 3:1 διαβολος DIA/BOLOS N2 NSM DIA/BOLOS
> Zech 3:2 διάβολον DIA/BOLON N2 ASM DIA/BOLOS
> Zech 3:2 διάβολε DIA/BOLE N2 VSM DIA/BOLOS
> 1Mac 1:36 διάβολον DIA/BOLON N2 ASM DIA/BOLOS
>
>
>
>
>
> On 1/8/2011 8:33 AM, Ken Penner wrote:
>> Other verses that may be of interest for this topic, from the
>> apparatus of the Göttingen Septuagint:
>>
>> Lev. 19.19 M has SATAN.
>> Lev. 22.22.
>> Zach. 3.1 in manuscript 86 has KAI hO SATAN, and SyH has SATAN.
>> Iob 1.6a Aquila has SATAN instead of DIABOLOS.
>> Iob 2.3 the SyH, Alexandrinus, group 1 of the Lucianic manuscripts,
>> and Chrysostom add PROS TON SATANAN.
>> Iob 40.16a SATAN in some patristic witnesses.
>>
>> As Al said, it is of interest that the translator transcribes his
>> text exactly. But I do think that SATAN in 3 Reigns is significant
>> precisely BECAUSE the translator "withholds his understanding of
>> the Hebrew word." The word would have stood out to a Greek reader
>> because it was foreign. How often does this translator transcribe
>> rather than translate?
>>
>> Ken
>>
>>
>> Ken M. Penner, Ph.D.
>> Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic vocabulary memorization software:
>> http://purl.org/net/kmpenner/flash/
>> kpenner at stfx.ca
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org
>> ] On Behalf Of Jeff Smelser
>> Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 8:24 PM
>> To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>> Subject: [B-Greek] SATAN in LXX
>>
>> In the LXX, why is it that "SATAN," merely a transliteration of the
>> Hebrew, is used in 3 Kings (=1 Kings) 11:14 (and also in vs. 23 in C.
>> Alexandrinus) where the context simply refers to enemies or
>> adversaries?
>> I think the same question can perhaps be asked of Sir. 21:27, where I
>> don't see a compelling reason to suppose the text has the devil in
>> view.
>> Why wasn't the Hebrew translated into Greek in these passages?
>>
>> 3 Ki. 11:14 Καὶ ἤγειρεν κύριος σαταν
>> τῷ Σαλωμων
>> KAI HGEIREN KURIOS SATAN TWi SALWMWN
>> And the Lord raised adversaries against Solomon
>>
>> καὶ ἦσαν σαταν τῷ Ισραηλ πάσας τὰς
>> ἡμέρας Σαλωμων
>> KAI HSAN SATAN TWi ISRAEL PASAS TAS hHMERAS SALWMWN
>> and they were adversaries against Israel all the days of Solomon
>>
>> Sir. 21:27
>> ἐν τῷ καταρᾶσθαι ἀσεβῆ τὸν
>> σατανᾶν αὐτὸς καταρᾶται τὴν
>> ἑαυτοῦ ψυχήν.
>> EN TWi KATARASQAI ASEBH TON SATANAN AUTOS KATARATAI THN hEAUTOU
>> YUCHN.
>> An ungodly man, in cursing the adversary, curses his own soul
>>
>> The fact that the word wasn't translated into Greek would seemingly
>> suggest the translators had the devil in view. But this seems strange
>> especially given that when the Devil is clearly in view, the Hebrew
>> for
>> adversary is translated by the Greek DIABOLOS.
>>
>> The only thing I can imagine is that the translators saw Solomon's
>> adversaries as acting at the behest of the devil, and that by that
>> time,
>> for them the Greek transliteration SATAN had come to be a name for
>> the
>> devil. But if that's the explanation, why is it only used in 1 Ki. 11
>> and Sir. 21? Why not in passages much more obviously referring to the
>> devil, e.g. Job 1, Zech 3? And furthermore, the context in 3 Ki.
>> 11:14
>> (LXX) requires that we understand indeclinable SATANto be plural in
>> both
>> instances. In the first part of the verse in the LXX, two adversaries
>> are mentioned, and in the last part of the verse, it says HSAN
>> SATAN. So
>> given that the LXX points to plural SATAN, it seems difficult to
>> argue
>> that the translators had the Devil (singular) in view.
>>
>> So then again, why was the word merely transliterated?
>>
>> Jeff Smelser
>> ---
>> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
>> B-Greek mailing list
>> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>> ---
>> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
>> B-Greek mailing list
>> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
—
Albert Pietersma PhD
21 Cross Street,
Weston ON Canada M9N 2B8
Email: albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca
Homepage: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~pietersm
---
B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
B-Greek mailing list
B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list