[B-Greek] SATAN in LXX
Albert Pietersma
albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca
Tue Jan 11 19:57:22 EST 2011
Fair enough but what you presented unfortunately created a rather
distorted picture of the issue under discussion, namely. the rendering
of Hebrew שטן into Greek.
Al
On Jan 11, 2011, at 7:48 PM, Allen Rhoades wrote:
> Thanks for the look up and the fuller details on its use.
>
> I meant to give no impression at all whether on the verbs, use of
> articles, etc. - merely a listing of all the verses from the CCAT
> Septuagint where the lemma DIA/BOLOS or SATAN appeared so as to
> question the two that didn't show.
>
>
> On 1/10/2011 10:53 AM, Albert Pietersma wrote:
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
—
Albert Pietersma PhD
21 Cross Street,
Weston ON Canada M9N 2B8
Email: albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca
Homepage: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~pietersm
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list