V. δαθή ηIN NON-BIBLICAL GREEK
IV. δ
αθή
η IN THE SEPTUAGINT
When the LXX translators came to the Hebrew berîth they almost invariably rendered it by δαθήη (277 times in all), and conversely berith is the only word which δαθήη translates with any frequency.171 Clearly the LXX translators regarded δαθήη as nearly equivalent in meaning to berîth.
αθήη (277 times in all), and conversely berith is the only word which δαθήη translates with any frequency.171 Clearly the LXX translators regarded δαθήη as nearly equivalent in meaning to berîth.An interesting point about this choice of rendering is that the translators passed over δαθήη, the usual word for covenant in the sense of‘compact’, or ‘agreement’. The word they chose instead is one which indicates a unilateral arrangement, and thus is well adapted to indicating an arrangement where one partner is dominant and dictates the terms, as in all the cases where God is one of the partners. It is true that the word is used also in the LXX of covenants between men. The translators were perhaps influenced by the fact that the important covenants in the Old Testament are all covenants which involve God. Having found a word which renders berîth in its typical Old Testament context, they were more or less bound to use it also for those other arrangements which were less typical.
αθήη, the usual word for covenant in the sense of‘compact’, or ‘agreement’. The word they chose instead is one which indicates a unilateral arrangement, and thus is well adapted to indicating an arrangement where one partner is dominant and dictates the terms, as in all the cases where God is one of the partners. It is true that the word is used also in the LXX of covenants between men. The translators were perhaps influenced by the fact that the important covenants in the Old Testament are all covenants which involve God. Having found a word which renders berîth in its typical Old Testament context, they were more or less bound to use it also for those other arrangements which were less typical.Etymologically δαθήη carries the notion of a laying-down, a disposition, the preposition with its indication of duality directing attention to a laying down with reference to another. Eventually it came to signify a disposition of property by testament, but before this stage was reached it is quite possible that it meant rather an authoritative disposition in general without regard to whether it took place in a testament or not. If this is so the usage of the LXX is explained, for as we have seen, this is the sort of idea which the Hebrew berîth conveys. In so far, then, as the underlying Hebrew gives us the meaning of δαθήη, it indicates that the word signified a transaction between two parties in which one party held the decisive position, laid down the conditions of the agreement, and in general imposed his will, the sole function of the other party being to accept or reject what was determined by the dominant partner.
αθήη carries the notion of a laying-down, a disposition, the preposition with its indication of duality directing attention to a laying down with reference to another. Eventually it came to signify a disposition of property by testament, but before this stage was reached it is quite possible that it meant rather an authoritative disposition in general without regard to whether it took place in a testament or not. If this is so the usage of the LXX is explained, for as we have seen, this is the sort of idea which the Hebrew berîth conveys. In so far, then, as the underlying Hebrew gives us the meaning of δαθήη, it indicates that the word signified a transaction between two parties in which one party held the decisive position, laid down the conditions of the agreement, and in general imposed his will, the sole function of the other party being to accept or reject what was determined by the dominant partner.This sense is supported by the words in the LXX which occur in parallel with δαθήη, such as ςόμoς, πρόσταγμα, ἐντoλαί, δαώματα, ρίματα.172 None of these terms accords with a compact or mutual agreement, but all rather indicate an ordering that is completely unilateral.
αθήη, such as ςόμoς, πρόσταγμα, ἐντoλαί, δαώματα, ρίματα.172 None of these terms accords with a compact or mutual agreement, but all rather indicate an ordering that is completely unilateral.