[B-Greek] SATAN in LXX

Allen Rhoades allen.rhoades at nycap.rr.com
Tue Jan 11 19:48:24 EST 2011


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
>
>




More information about the B-Greek mailing list