Chapter Four
Chapter Four
The Septuagint Translation
It is very difficult to discern any unambiguous shift in the understanding of the sovereignty-responsibility tension when one moves from the Hebrew Bible to its translation in the LX . This is clear from at least two considerations.
the translation of the twelve old testament passages previously examined
Most of the twelve evince no significant change in meaning. Two betray a marked looseness of translation, but not such as affects the tension (Isa. 10:5ff.; Joel 2:32). One (Judg. 14:4a) presents us with a minor textual variation: a has antapodoma and b the harsher ekdikēsis; but again, the sovereignty-responsibility tension is unaffected. The two Jeremiah passages are most disturbed. Jeremiah 52:3 is not found in the LX . Jeremiah 29:10–14 (LX 36:10–14) is so truncated in translation that it is no longer clear that the prophet is talking about the restoration throughout the five verses, and as a result there is a blurring of the tension between Yahweh’s unconditional promise to restore the people and the required prayer of the people to that end. But the problems related to difference between M and LX , especially in Jeremiah, are so intricate that any observation purporting to uncover a relevant theological bias in the translator would be highly presumptuous.
The only passage requiring more substantial comment is Genesis 50:19f. Genesis 50:20 is pretty much the same in LX and M , the verb bouleuesthai translating ḥšb. But there is a clear difference between M and LX in 50:19. In M , Joseph tells the brothers not to fear, and then asks the question (‘for am I in the place of God?’). The LX , however, provides a statement: tou gar theou eimi ego (‘for I am God’s’). It would be wrong to suggest that the translator is straining to avoid any suggestion of a man standing in God’s place, for in 30:2, in a virtually identical construction, he translates accurately, Mē anti theou egō eimi … (‘Am I in the place of God.…?’). Whence, then, this strange ‘translation’ in 50:19?
Assuming an M -type text behind the LX at this point, the context suggests that the translator is attempting to smooth the flow. In the LX , the brothers say they are Joseph’s servants (50:18), and Joseph replies with one unified thought in 50:19f.; because he belongs to God (50:19) and God’s intentions in the event were good (50:20), therefore Joseph will follow God’s example, and the brothers need not fear. In the M , however, Joseph’s attempt to dissolve his brothers’ fears comes in two separate points: (1) Joseph will not thrust himself into God’s role as judge (50:19); and (2) in any case he will follow the divine pattern of behaviour, remembering that God’s intentions in the evil event were for good (50:20). The latter point, however, is left somewhat hanging in M : it is really only an implication of 50:20. The LX sacrifices the first point (M 50:19) to spell out the second (M 50:20), by linking its ‘translation’ of 50:19 with 50:20. But again it would be precarious to claim there is a shift in theological perspective.
relevant theological tendencies in the lx
This area of Septuagintal studies is still in its infancy; very little can be concluded with any marked degree of probability. However, studies which purport to prove that the LX translators sought to avoid anthropomorphism and anthropopathy impinge on this inquiry, because within the sovereignty-responsibility tension the personal categories of God are bound up with such phenomena. A. W. Argyle suggests the LX shies away from God’s ‘repenting’. D. H. Gard examines a host of theological tendencies in the book of Job, including an avoidance of human arrogance before God, an array of anti-anthropomorphisms, and a shunning or transformation of any description of God which appears to cast some aspersion on his character. C. T. Fritsch has carried out a similar study in the Pentateuch.
Yet these results are received with notable reserve by most scholars. Manson, Katz, Jellicoe and Wittstruck agree, with various degrees of insistence, that Fritsch’s conclusions must be received with some caution. Orlinsky goes farther, not only calling in question Fritsch’s thesis, which relates only to the Pentateuch, but refusing likewise to concede that anti-anthropomorphisms are a mark of the LX translators of Job, his most recent area of study. His conclusions may be something of an over-reaction. Some anti-anthropomorphisms must be admitted. It is difficult to see what else other than a growing aversion to anthropomorphism could call forth the LX rendering of Exodus 24:10, for example: the LX offers ‘and they saw the place where the God of Israel had stood’ for M ’s ‘and they saw the God of Israel’. Orlinsky’s principal objection is that the ‘anti-anthropomorphists’ (his term) too frequently indulge in a ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ argument: if the LX translator preserves an anthropomorphism it is to be interpreted symbolically, and if not, its displacement is taken as evidence of anti-anthropomorphism. That criticism is just; but in itself it surely says no more than that the analyses of the ‘anti-anthropomorphists’ are too black-and-white. If we speak more cautiously of ‘tendencies’ and ‘trends’, the evidence for the rise of anti-anthropomorphisms remains weakened, but not eliminated.
A few other trends are noteworthy. Both Gard and Gerleman agree that the LX of Job tries to avoid or soften the idea that God is the agent of human destruction; and this removal of God from some spheres of activity in his universe tends to diminish his sovereignty. In another connection, D. W. Gooding has drawn attention to the tendency of 3 Reigns to whitewash David. This is the beginning of a tendency to make heroes out of certain biblical characters; but it has the effect of minimising their sin, and, in principle, their accountability. God’s ‘frustration’ (for that is how the Hebrew noun should be translated) is frustrated by the LX in Numbers 14:34; but the LX is only one of many translations and paraphrases which adopt similar manoeuvres. Again, there is a demonstrable predilection for eklegesthai and cognates. Note, for example, the gratuitous addition of the term in Haggai 2:22 . In Psalm 88:4 (LX ), the reference to the people is imported. In some cases synagogue exegesis has apparently established that a particular reference is to the chosen people (e.g. Isa. 5:2 (v.1.); Ezek. 19:12, 14; Zech. 11:16; S. of S. 6:9f. Mistakes likewise confirm the growing liking for the term: Num. 11:28; 2 Reigns 21:6; Amos 5:11; Job 37:11; Prov. 12:24). Such diversity in the kinds of passages affected, however, suggests that it would be pressing the evidence much too far were we to infer that a self-conscious theological bent in favour of divine election lay behind every such example.
Perhaps the increasing inclination to emphasise the election of Israel was a measure of the extent to which election-consciousness was generating pride. If so it was part of the broader movement which, as we shall see, tended to view human merit and worth as the rationale for the divine choice, instead of understanding that choice to be in defiance of human demerit and unworthiness. Indeed, whenever election becomes the basis of religious conceit, the functions it exercises in the Old Testament are being left far behind. But such a development cannot be demonstrated conclusively in the LX , largely because the translators were hampered by the very nature of their work: theirs was to translate (however loosely), not to create.