Re: Psalm 18 (17): 15 translation procedure

From: clayton stirling bartholomew (c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Thu Dec 16 1999 - 00:02:05 EST


I decided to try and research this question myself. As you will note in
my quoted question (see: THE REAL QUESTION) I am not trying to solve a
problem in Psalm 18 (17): 15 as much as I am trying to determine what
the evidential value of the LXX is in this particular case.

I was able to cull up a couple of relevant examples from the Psalms. One
example is from Psalm 148:6 where we see AUTA used to render the Hebrew
masculine plural pronominal suffix. The translator used AUTA as a
collective for the things created. The last item in the list of created
things is hUDWR a neuter noun. There is more than one antecedent for
AUTA but it would appear that the translator tried to make sense of the
Greek syntax and not just blindly follow the MT.

A second example is Psalm 74 (73): 17 where AUTA is used again to render
the Hebrew masculine plural pronominal suffix. This example is much
like the one in Psalm 148:6.

One issue I am a little fuzzy about is the use of the neuter plural AUTA
as a collective. I am guessing that this would be a normal thing to do.

This is not a lot of evidence but it does seem to indicate that the
translator(s) of Psalms 74 (73) and 148 was not just blindly following
the MT but translating according to sense. If this is the case then
perhaps the LXX rendering of Psalm 18 (17): 15 can be used as evidence
against Dahood's understanding of this passage.

I think this example illustrates one of the many problems which come up
when using the LXX in exegesis. One needs to study the translation style
of the particular portion of the LXX under consideration before any kind
of valid inferences can be drawn from the data. Inferences from the LXX
need to be made with caution because there are a host of variables to
consider, and the translation style is a particularly slippery one.

--
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

---------- >From: "clayton stirling bartholomew" <c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net>

> An intriguing question arises in Psalm 18 (17): 15 about the > translation procedure followed by the translator of the Psalms for the > LXX. This question has consequences for the understanding of this > verse. > > AUTOUS appears twice in verse 15 as a rendering of the masculine plural > pronominal suffix in the MT. There is some question about the > antecedents of these pronominal suffixs. Some OT scholars assume that > the enemies of David are in view, but M. Dahood (AB p. 109) argues that > the arrows and the flashes of lightening are the antecedents. > > M. Dahood's position is at least made possible by the concord in the MT > between the masculine plural pronominal suffixes and the masculine > plural nouns for arrows and lightening. However, in the LXX this concord > does not exist since BELH is neuter plural and ASTRAPAS is feminine > plural. > > NOW HERE IS THE QUESTION. > > What is the pattern in the LXX for dealing with a problem like this. It > would appear that the translator of this Psalm chose BELH and ASTRAPAS > because they were suitable semantically but without regard for gender. > However in rendering the verb pronominal suffixes as masculine plural > the translator just followed what he saw in the MT. In the process he > raised a problem for the reader of the LXX, if and only if, M. Dahood is > correct about the antecedents of these pronominal suffixes. > > THE REAL QUESTION > > Do we see examples in the LXX where the translator deviated from the MT > in rendering pronominal suffixes in order to preserve concord and/or > preserve the sense of the MT? > > Is this question perfectly clear? > > Clay

--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:49 EDT