The article deals with the "theology of the Septuagint" as compared with other factors that caused the diference between the Hebrew and the Greek texts of the Old Testament. The author's position is that we should speak about theologically motivated exegesis only when other, simpler, explanations fail. Different factors that may have influenced the change of meaning between the Hebrew and the Greek Bible are classified into five groups: changes in the Hebrew text prior to the translation; changes in the Hebrew semantics/exegesis prior to the translation; changes of meaning in the process of translation;

The study was carried out with the financial support of the Russian State Scientific Foundation (RGNF)."Reinterpretation of religious concepts of the Hebrew Bible in the Greek translation (Septuagint)", project No. 14-01-00448). I am also grateful to the German Bishops ' Conference (Deutsche Bischofskonferenz) and the Septuagint Institute (Septuaginta-Unternehmen) for providing me with the opportunity to get acquainted with modern biblical literature in the libraries of Göttingen.

Seleznev M. In search of the "theology of the Septuagint": methodological aspects // State, Religion, Church in Russia and abroad. 2016. N 4. pp. 7-28.

Seleznev, Mikhail (2016) "In Search of the "Theology of the Septuagint": Methodological Aspects", Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov' v Rossii i za rubezhom 34(4): 7-28.

page 7
changes in the Greek text after the translation; changes in the Greek semantics/exegesis after the translation.

Key words: Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, Septuagint, Masoretic text, textual criticism, Bible translation, theology.

THE differences between the books of the Hebrew Bible and their Greek translations (collectively referred to as the Septuagint, hereinafter referred to as the LXX) were due, in particular, to the fact that the translators understood and reinterpreted the archaic Ancient Eastern text in accordance with their new cultural environment, with the world in which they lived - the world of Hellenized Judaism. Such reinterpretations are especially interesting when it comes to concepts and concepts related to religion. In such cases, one usually speaks of the" theology "of the LXX or of"theologically motivated editing".

However, the differences between the extant text of the Hebrew Bible (the Masoretic text, hereinafter referred to as MT) and the LXX may be due to a variety of reasons. Occam's Razor forces us to cut off the search for" theological " motives where simpler explanations can be offered to distinguish between the Hebrew and Greek texts.

The main task that we set for ourselves in this article is methodological. Therefore, unlike most works devoted to "LXX theology", our article will mainly deal not with those examples where the" theological motivation " of LXX translators is obvious, but with those examples where it is debatable. Therefore, our article will have a lot of questions - and not so many answers.

The illusion of conscious theological editing of the bible text by Septuagint translators may well arise where this editing did not actually take place. This can happen for a number of reasons (we will list them in order, depending on at what stage of the long journey from the archaic world of the Old Testament to the Christian reception of the Septuagint, the corresponding factor comes into play).

(1) The Hebrew text from which the translation was made may have been different from the extant Masoretic text.

(2) The understanding of Hebrew words and expressions at the time of translation may have been different from the "classical" Hebrew used for writing Bible texts centuries before.

page 8
(3) The semantic changes in the translation from Hebrew to Greek may have been due to translation techniques, rather than theological intent.

(4) The extant text of the Greek Bible may differ from the original Greek translation.

(5) We may be influenced by later interpretations of the Greek Bible that were not intended by the translators themselves.

It is easy to see that in this classification of factors that can create the illusion of "theological editing", section (4) mirrors section (1): in one case, we are talking about the fate of the Hebrew text before translation, in the other case, about the fate of the Greek text after translation. Similarly, section (5) mirrors section (2): in one case, we are talking about changes in the understanding of Hebrew words and images before translation, in the other case, we are talking about changes in the understanding of Greek words and images after translation. Section (3) turns out to be central to this classification: it deals with what might have (or might not have) place in the translation process.

Let's look at these factors in order.

1. "Theology of the Septuagint" and the Textology of the Hebrew Bible

1.1. What text was translated by the translator? Did the change occur during translation or in the previous manuscript tradition?

Consider the ratio of the Hebrew and Greek texts in Genesis 2: 2.

And God finished on the seventh day the work that he had done

και συνετελεσεν ο θεος εν τη ημερα τη εκτη τα εργα αυτου α εποιησεν

And God finished on the sixth day the work that he had done

Most of the LXX papers assume that the MT reflects the original text, while the LXX contains a theological revision 1. This is a very plausible assumption: when

1. See, for example, comments in Brayford, S. (2007) Genesis, p. 225. Leiden, Boston: Brill; Harl, M. (1986) La Bible d'Alexandrie: La Genese, pp. 98-99. Paris: Cerf; Bons, E.,

page 9
A religion reaches its mature phase, and it often turns out that its most fundamental texts (often the most ancient ones)are still very much in use. they no longer fully correspond to what is now considered orthodoxy. After reading the words that "God finished the work that he was doing on the seventh day," does anyone think that God worked on the Sabbath (even a little bit)? LXX does not allow this interpretation: God finishes His work "on the sixth day." (A similar revision, designed to make the Jewish time reckoning more logical, can be seen in LXX Gen. 8: 5.)

The tradition that the LXX translators corrected the Hebrew text here is already attested in Rabbinic texts.2
However, the words that God finished creation "on the sixth day" are also found in the Samaritan Pentateuch, in the Book of Jubilees (II, 16), in the Syriac and Old Latin manuscripts. The Syriac and Old Latin manuscripts undoubtedly depend on the LXX, but the same cannot be said for the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Jubilees. Perhaps the LXX, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Jubilees attest to the existence of a Jewish original other than Mt. Or is it not a question of a different Hebrew original, but of a common oral exegetical tradition?3

The suggestion of a" theological "change from the" seventh "day to the" sixth " day is very convincing. But is it possible to completely discount the probability that in (proto)in the Masoretic text a typo occurred under the influence of an expression that occurs in the Bible line below? Some Old Testament scholars, leaning towards MT, as lectio difcilior, sch-

Karrer, M., Kraus, W. (2011) Septuaginta Deutsch: Erlauterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament, Bd. I, s. 159. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

2. Tov, E. (1999) "The Rabbinic Tradition concerning the ‘Alterations' Inserted into the Greek Pentateuch and Their Relation to the Original Text of the LXX", in E. Tov The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint, pp. 1-20. Leiden: Brill; Veltri, G. (1994) Eine Tora f uir den Konig Talmai. Untersuchungen zum Ubersetzungsverstandnis in der jdisch-hellenistischen und rabbinischen Literatur. Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr.

3. For the fact that we are not able to decide whether the edit was made under the translator's pen or in his Vorlage, see, for example, Tov, E. (1987)" Die Septuaginta in ihrem theologischen und traditionsgeschichtlichen Verhaltnis zur hebraischen Bibel", in M. Klopfenstein et al. (eds.) Mitte der Schrift? Ein judisch-christliches Gesprach, ss. 260-261. Bern; Alexandre, M. (1988) Le commencement du livre Genese I-V: La version grecque de la Septante et sa reception, pp. 214-216. Paris: Beauchesne; Barr, J. (1979) The typology of literalism in ancient biblical translations, p. 285. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

page 10
However, they say that we cannot give a definite answer with complete certainty.4
The Qumran manuscripts clearly show how often the differences between the Masoretic text and the LXX are due to the fact that the translator had a different Hebrew text before him. Without taking into account that the original LXX might have been different from the MT, we run the risk of seeing a theologically motivated edit where the translator was actually just translating what was in front of his eyes.

G. Bertram 5 in his article" Praeparatio evangelica in der Septuaginta " drew attention to the fact that in the MT of Jeremiah Nebuchadnezzar is called "servant of God" three times (Jer 25:9, Jer 27 (LXX 34):6, Jer 43 (LXX 50): 10), while in LXX Jeremiah he is not given this title. Bertram suggested that for Jeremiah's Greek translator, the phrase "servant of God "was" an honorific title that was already understood almost in a Messianic sense " and therefore not befitting Nebuchadnezzar.

A. Emeleus, analyzing the assumption of Bertram 6, draws attention to the fact that, apparently, the Book of Jeremiah already existed in ancient times in two editions: short and complete. The short version formed the basis of LXX, the full version-the basis of MT.

If we look closely at Bertram's examples, we will see that in two cases out of three, Nebuchadnezzar's "disappearance" of the title "servant of God" is due to the fact that the LXX text in the corresponding verses is generally much shorter than MT 7. In Jer 25: 9, the Greek text, unlike the Hebrew, does not contain a whole introductory sentence ("the word of the Lord to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, my servant"). In Jer 43 (LXX 50): 10, we read in the Masoretic text:

"You shall say to them,' Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: I will send and take Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, my servant, and set up his throne on these stones...'

4. См., напр., Albrektson, B. (1975) "Textual Criticism and the Textual Basis of a Translation of the Old Testament", Bible Translator 26: 319.

5. Bertram, G. (1957) "Praeparatio evangelica in der Septuaginta", Vetus Testamentum 7: 232.

6. Aejmelaeus, A. (2006) "Von Sprache zur Theologie: methodologische Uberlegungen zur Theologie der Septuaginta", in M. Knibb (ed.) The Septuagint and Messianism, p.27. Leuven: Leuven University Press; Peeters.

7. In Jer 27 (LXX 34): 6, the difference between the Greek and Hebrew texts is due to a different reason:the words ("To Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, My servant, and also...") were obviously read as ("To Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and also...").

page 11
zhesh: Thus saith the LORD: I will send and take Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and set up his throne upon these stones."

In both verses of Jeremiah, we are talking about particular manifestations of the trend that is represented in hundreds of verses in this book: the LXX is based on a short version, and the MT is based on a full version. The translator, who was presented with a short version of Jeremiah, did not omit anything from his original, and, accordingly, there is no need to explain his "omissions" with any theological considerations.

It cannot be ruled out that both editions came from the same circle of Jeremiah's closest disciples, who wrote down and brought together his prophecies. In this case, the question of which version is "more authentic" is completely meaningless. Here are two equal versions of the Book of Jeremiah. The differences between them have nothing to do with the LXX translators, their ideology, or even their era.

One of the most cited examples of "LXX theology" is Exodus 24:10.

And Moses and Aaron and Nadab and Abihu and seventy of the elders of Israel went up and saw the God of Israel

και ανεβη Μωυσης και Ααρων και Ναδαβ και Αβιουδ και εβδομηκοντα της γερουσιας Ισραηλ και ειδον τον τοπον ου ειστηκει εκει ο θεος του Ισραηλ

And Moses, and Aaron, and Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, went up, and saw the place where the God of Israel stood there.

In the Judaism of the Hellenistic-Roman period, the idea that God is invisible is established; this tendency finds its logical conclusion in the targums, where Jewish expressions such as" to see God "are regularly replaced by the expressions"to see the glory of God". The Hellenic idea that the Deity is invisible and incomprehensible also made an undeniable contribution. It would seem that Exodus 24: 10 is a perfect example of how the LXX reinterprets an archaic text in accordance with the theology of Hellenistic times. But did this reinterpretation occur at the time of translation? Or was it already present in the Hebrew original from which the translation was made?

page 12
The construction τον τοπον oυ ειστηκει εκει is an unmistakable Hebraism, a word-by-word rendering of the Hebrew phrase (cf. Heb. text of Gen. 19: 27). Is it possible that this abnormal Hebraism for the Greek language was created by a translator without any prototype in the Hebrew original? Note that even in Genesis 19: 27, where the Hebrew text explicitly says this phrase is translated not literally, but quite naturally for the Greek language: τον τοπον oυ ειστηκει (without εκει). The blatant Hebraism in Exodus 24: 10 suggests that perhaps Vorlage LXX already stated that if this is the case, then the theological correction (the elimination of the claim that Moses and the elders saw God directly) occurred within the Jewish tradition, even before the Greek translation appeared.

In general, when we are faced with a sharp exegetically motivated change in meaning, which is not limited to incorrect reading of letters or differing vowels, there is a high chance that this change has already occurred in Vorlage LXX (especially if we are talking about books that are generally characterized by a literal translation).

1.2. Typos and "clean-ups". Variants and pseudo-variants

E. Tov, in his work on LXX textual theory, suggests distinguishing between " variants "and"pseudovariants. "8" Pseudovariants "are readings that never actually existed in the Hebrew manuscript tradition; they"existed only in the mind of the translator" 9 who misread the letters in the manuscript in front of him. Without access to Vorlage, we are not always able to tell when we are talking about a "variant" and when we are talking about a "pseudo - variant".

The same problem of" pseudo-variants", only seen from a different angle, is dealt with in another section of Tov's book, entitled " Tendentious paleographic exegesis on the part of the translator?"10. When reading a manuscript, where the letters are often difficult to distinguish in their outlines, the translator should always be engaged in "paleographic analysis" - which letter is in front of him:

8. Tov, E. (1997) The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. 2nd rev. edn., pp. 162-171. Jerusalem: Simor.

9. "The retroverted readings presumably were not found in the translator's Vorlage, but existed only in his mind" (Tov, E. The text-critical use, p. 162).

10. Ibid., pp. 100-103.

page 13
or has this "paleographic analysis" ever been influenced by any ideological, cultural, or theological preferences of the translator?

Of Tov's "pseudo-variants" and examples of "tendentious palaeographic exegesis", the question of "LXX theology" is interesting, for example, Esv 6:1-11.

That night sleep fled from the king

ο δε κυριος απεστησεν τον υπνον απο του βασιλεως την νυκτα εκεινην

That night the Lord drove sleep away from the king

According to Tov, this is a "pseudo-variant": the translator read Heb. "fled" as "drove G-d away" 12; the division into and arose "in the translator's mind".

Esther is the only book in the Jewish canon that never mentions God. Perhaps this is due to the doubts about its canonicity recorded in the Talmud (BT Megillah 7a), and the fact that it is the only book of the Jewish canon that is not presented in Qumran. However, in the Greek Bible, the book of Esther is supplemented by a number of texts that are not present in the Hebrew Bible, and these additions, in particular, correct the theological "poverty" of the Jewish original: they contain long prayers to God and talk about God's intervention in the fate of the Jewish people. The appearance of the "Lord" in Esv 6: 1 is quite consistent with this trend.13 Did Esther's translator accidentally read the text in front of him as he did? Was not this change that took place "in the translator's mind" inspired by the general tendency of the Greek Esther to "insert" the name of God in a book that was initially devoid of references to the Deity?

1.3. Vocalization of the Hebrew text

Habakkuk 3: 5a tells us how God, in His wrath, goes to judge the earth:

11. Ibid., pp. 167-168.

12. For the use of the abbreviation to convey the Name of God, see Tov, E. The text-critical use, pp. 147-148. On the fact that the Hebrew manuscripts of the translation period usually contain word divisions, see Ibid., pp. 117-119.

13. Cf. Tov, E. "Die Septuaginta", s. 255.

page 14

A plague is coming before Him

In LXX, the picture is completely different.

προ προσωπου αυτου πορευσεται λογος

Before His face comes the word (λογος)

The difference between MT and LXX is related to the vocalization: in MT, the letters are pronounced as deber (dāber) - "plague", in LXX they are read as dābār - "word" 14. At the same time, the word deber ("plague") was well known to the LXX translators: in most cases, where the Hebrew text contains deber, it is rendered in LXX as θανατος - "death" (29 examples 15). The same translation, according to Jerome, is offered by Symmachus for Abb 3: 5 (mors); Aquila, according to Jerome, gives a more accurate translation of pestis (probably λοιμος).16
The gods of the ancient Near East were accompanied by plague, pestilence, and death. But for the Hellenistic world, especially for those familiar with Greek philosophy, the association of God with the word ("logos") is natural. It is not necessary to speak in this case of a conscious theological revision of the text - but is there a new cultural context, a new network of associations to replace the previous one: Is God associated with the word, not the plague?17

The problems of "pseudo-variants" and vocalization are similar in that in both cases we are talking about such a reinterpretation of the Hebrew text that arises in the translator's mind. In both cases, we are in a kind of "gray area": we cannot be a priori sure that the reinterpretation is random.

14. The confusion of deber and dābār in Abb 3: 5 is not unprecedented. In Ps 90 (91): 3.6 in MT stands deber "plague", in LXX-λογος, πραγμα (= dābār). In Isa 9: 7 there is a confusion of the words deber and dābār, the opposite of what occurs in Abb 3: 5 and Ps 90 (91) - in MT God sends "word" (dābār) to Israel, and in LXX - "death" (αανατον = deber).

15. Exodus 5:3; 9:3; 9:15; Lev 26: 25; Numbers 14: 12; Deut 28: 21; 2 Sam 24: 13; 1 Kings 8: 37; 1 Par 21: 12,14; 2 Par 6: 28; 7: 13; 20:9; Ps 78: 50; Jer 14:12; 21:6-7; 24:10; 34:17; 44:13; Ezek 5:12, 17; 7:15; 12:16; 14:19; 14:21; 33:27; 38:22; Am 4: 10 a.m.

16. Field, F. (1875) Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt: sive veterum interpretum graecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum fragmenta, v. 2, p. 1008. Oxonii: e typographeo Clarendoniano.

17. Harl, M. et al. (1999) La Bible d'Alexandrie: Les douze prophetes: Joel, Abdiou, Jonas, Maoum, Ambakoum, Sophonie, pp. 289-290. Paris: Cerf.

page 15
2. "Theology of the Septuagint" and historical semantics of the Jewish language / History of Jewish exegesis. How was the Hebrew text understood in the age of translation?

Comparing the dictionary meaning of a Hebrew word with the dictionary meaning of its Greek translation, we often see that the meaning of the translation is different from the meaning of the original. But how and when did this difference arise? It may not have originated under the translator's pen, but long before that - as a result of the change in the meaning of Hebrew words and expressions over the centuries that separate the translator from the ancient author. This phenomenon is similar to the situation with the change in the Hebrew text in Vorlage LXX - in both cases, we run the risk of attributing to the translator those changes (textual or semantic) that actually occurred before he started translating.

One of the most notable trends of Judaism in the last centuries BC is the strengthening of the role of the " Law " in the life of the community. The will of God begins to be perceived first of all as the Law; righteousness as the observance of the Law; godless or simply bad behavior as iniquity. This trend is clearly expressed in LXX, where Heb. regularly transmitted Greek. The Hebrew words with the meaning "evil-doer"," criminal "are translated in one word - ανομος, and the words" wickedness"," unrighteousness " and the like, etc.) - by the word ανομια 18.

Rendering Hebrew to Greek vομος changes the original meaning of the word (the HALOT dictionary defines this original meaning as direction, instruction - "indication", "instruction"). This indicates a serious change in the general mood in the life of the Jewish community (which is sometimes defined as the statement of "legalism"). But is this change related to LXX and its Hellenic context? Probably unrelated. The change affected all trends in Judaism at that time-both Palestinian Judaism and the Diaspora. This can be confirmed by the fact that you have already

18. Flashar, M. (1912) "Exegetische Studien zum Septuagintapsalter", Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 32: 81-116, 161-189, 241-268; Tov, E. (1999) "Theologically Motivated Exegesis Embedded in the Septuagint", in E. Tov. The Greek and Hebrew Bible, p. 264. Leiden: Brill; Austermann, F. (2001) "Ανομια im Septuaginta-Psalter: Ein Beitrag zum Verhaltnis von Ubersetzungsweise und Theologie", in R. Sollamo, S. Sipila (eds) Helsinki Perspectives on the Translation Technique of the Septuagint : Proceedings of the IOSCS Congress in Helsinki 1999, pp. 99-137. Helsinki; Gottingen: Finnish Exegetical Society; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

page 16
in the Aramaic texts of the Bible, the Hebrew corresponds to the Aramaic meaning "decree, law", that is, semantically closer to the Greek vομος (Ezr 7:12,14,21,25,26; Dan 6: 6).

Changes in the understanding of the Bible that have taken place over the centuries that separate the writing of biblical texts from the Greek translation may relate not only to individual words, but also to theological concepts.

The expression "sons of God" in the Hebrew Bible (Gen 6: 1-4; Deut 32: 8-9; Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7; Ps 28(29):1, 81(82):6; 88(89):7; Dan 3: 25 (92)) goes back to the pre-monotheistic view of the world of the gods 19. But this concept in Jewish culture began to change dramatically long before the Bible was translated into Greek.

In Deuteronomy and the book of Job, the Septuagint translates the Hebrew expression " sons of God "by the word" angels "- αγγελοι (in Genesis and in the Psalms, the literal translation is" sons of God"; in the book of Daniel, different versions of the Greek text fluctuate between the translation" angel "and the translation"son of God"). Can this change be attributed to the" theology " of the LXX ? Or did the translator simply record in the Greek text the results of an exegetical development that had already taken place in the Jewish tradition? Be that as it may, the expression "sons of God", under any interpretation, still retained some memory of his pre-monotheistic past. Translation αγγελοι cut off this memory.

3. "Theology" or translation / editing techniques?

Even if we can confidently reconstruct what Hebrew text came before the translator and how the translator understood it (although this is not always the case - see sections 1 and 2 above); even if we can confidently reconstruct what Greek text came from the translator's pen and how it was understood by the first readers (although this is far from the case this is not always the case-see sections 4 and 5). What can we say when comparing these two texts? What happened during the transfer? What semantic shifts were caused by the conscious intention of the translator, and which ones were caused by the unconscious influence of his cultural environment? Which ones are made by translation techniques, and which ones are made by chance? No answer to these questions-

19. См. Van der Toorn, K. (ed.) (1999) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, 2nd rev. edn., pp. 794-800. Leiden; Boston; Koln; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brill; William B. Eerdmans.

page 17
However, we again run the risk of seeing a "theological correction" where completely different factors were at work. Let us focus, as an illustration, on some aspects of this problem.

3.1. Polysemy of Hebrew words. Intentional or random value selection?

Lexical and semantic shifts are unavoidable in translation: due to the fact that the Hebrew word has many meanings and the translator must choose between its meanings; due to the fact that translation into Greek makes it possible to differentiate different meanings of the Hebrew lexeme; due to the fact that the translator transfers different Hebrew lexemes to one Greek one and thereby eliminates the difference between them.

Is such changes always based on the translator's conscious choice? As with the" pseudo-variants " of consonant text and vocalizations, we are in a "gray area"here. The presence of a certain tendency can only be indicated when the translator repeatedly chooses the same meaning from a multi-valued word in similar contexts. The Hebrew word has the meanings "nose "and, metaphorically,"anger". Both values are known to the LXX translators. The word meaning " nose "is translated as pις, μυκτηρ, more often (under the influence of Aramaic - "face") - as προσωπον. But when applied to God, it is always understood as "wrath "(oργη, θυμος). Obviously, the expression "nose of God" seemed inappropriate to the LXX translators, even though they had no problem talking about "eyes of God, "" ears of God, "or"hands of God." This rule knows no exceptions and should therefore be considered a conscious choice of the translator.

Assumptions about the translator's conscious strategy also look plausible when he chooses non-trivial meanings for well-known and commonly used Hebrew words.

An example is Deut 32: 10.

He (God) found him (the Israelites) in a desolate land, in a desolate place, in a desolate place

αυταρκησεν αυτον εν γη ερημω εν διψει καυματος εν ανυδρω

He (God) provided them (the Israelites) with everything they needed in a desolate land, in the heat of thirst, in waterless places

page 18
The description of " the land of the desert "in the Greek text generally corresponds to the description of" the land of the desert " in the Hebrew text, and the difference in details is insignificant. But the difference between the Hebrew "found" and the Greek "provided with everything necessary" is significant. Verb ("find") it belongs to the basic vocabulary of the Hebrew language and, of course, was known to translators. But they chose a different meaning, known from post-biblical Hebrew (probably Aramaic): - "to furnish, provide with" 20.

Is this unexpected translation decision accidental? According to Josten 21, it is motivated by the fact that the Hebrew text Deut 32: 10 does not fit well with the traditional picture of the history of the chosen people: if God "found" his people in the wilderness, during the wanderings, that is, shortly before the arrival of the Jews in the Promised Land, then what about the history of the patriarchs, with the Exodus? But the words that God provided His people with everything they needed in the desert perfectly summarize the stories of the second half of the Book of Exodus and the Book of Numbers. The translator chose from the possible (in his opinion) meanings of the Hebrew verb not the most common, but the most (in his opinion) appropriate to the context.

Can LXX Deut 32:10 be considered the result of a"theological reinterpretation"? The translators themselves most likely did not think that they were "reinterpreting" anything, but were confident that they were conveying the true meaning of the Hebrew text (regardless of whether the 21st-century Biblical scholars agree with them or not).

3.2. Polysemy of Greek words. A conscious or unconscious shift in meaning?

Important semantic changes can occur due to the fact that the Greek word is polysemous and the translation takes on connotations that are not present in the original.

The dictionaries of biblical Greek emphasize the semantic difference between Heb. and its regular correspondence in LXX -υυχη ("soul"). Heb. It is connected with the root ("to breathe") and means first of all "breath", metonymically - "life force"," life","living being". This life force

20. Jastrow, M. (1950) A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, p. 825. New York, NY: Pardes Publishing House.

21. Joosten, J. (2000) "Une theologie de la septante: Refexions methodologiques sur l'interpretation de la version grecque", Revue de Theologie et de Philosophie 132(1): 45.

page 19
In the Hebrew Bible, it is hidden in the blood of a living being (Gen 9: 4, Lev 17: 11, Deut 12: 23). In a number of contexts, it acts as a receptacle of will and emotions (the" breath " of a person can "cling" to the beloved; the" breath "of a person who prays "longs" for God); sometimes it can denote a whole person, replace a personal pronoun related to a person. But in the Hebrew Bible, it does not exist separately from a person, it cannot separate from the body after death and remain in some kind of afterlife. This is the key difference between the Hebrew concept and the Greek душаυηη or Russian "soul". In the view of the ancient Greek ,the "soul" (υυχη) does not die with the body, but continues to exist and travel through other worlds.

The LXX translators had no choice: of all the words and concepts in Greek, ψυχη is indeed the best one to convey . However, "best of all" does not mean a complete coincidence of semantics, so the translation began to imply meanings that were not intended in the ancient Hebrew text.

The translation asυυηη changed the entire anthropology of the Old Testament. But can we say with certainty that this change occurred at the exact moment of translation? Perhaps the Hebrew language began to take on the same nuances as the Greek ψυηη, even before the appearance of the LXX (see section 2 above)? It seems that the use of the Dead Sea Scrolls does not support this hypothesis.

On the other hand, can we be sure that the first readers and listeners of the LXX already read and heard in the lines of the LXX all that is implied by the Greekυυηη? Or does the process of changing anthropology (the" spiritualization " of the Bible) already relate to the history of later biblical exegesis and have nothing to do with what happened at the time of the translator and his first readers (see section 6 below)?

3.3. "Theological revision" or the result of using standard translation equivalents? Greek words with Hebrew meanings

The non-isomorphic nature of the Greek and Hebrew dictionaries is especially noticeable when a standard Greek equivalent is assigned to a Hebrew word and this equivalent is used regardless of whether it fits the context or not. This technique of standard equivalents is quite typical for LXX. For example,

page 20
polysemous Hebrew word ("prosperity, well-being, good health, peace=no war") It is regularly transmitted by the Greek eiiρηνη ("peace =no war"). In Job 25: 2, God is referred to in the Hebrew text as "the creator"; in LXX, as "the creator of eiiρηνη". The Greek text of this verse does not speak (at least to a reader who uses standard Greek) of prosperity, health, or abundance of fruit, but only of the absence of war. However, it would be a gross mistake to assume that the translator deliberately narrows the meaning of the Hebrew text or deliberately reinterprets it. This is simply the standard equivalent of Hebrew

How can I understand and describe the results of using this translation technique? Either we must assume that there was a major change in the meaning of the bible text in passages such as Job 25:2, or we must accept that the standard equivalence technique resulted in Greek words (such as eιρηνη) being given Hebrew meanings for LXX readers/listeners. Perhaps both are true: Those who rarely encountered LXX read and understood it according to the rules of standard Greek, while regular readers changed the lexical semantics of Greek under the influence of LXX.

3.4. "Theological editing" or stylistic editing of the text?

Translators often took on the role of editors, that is, they tried to make the text clearer, clearer and more logical, to supplement the "left unsaid". An example is Ps 71/72: 17.

Let his name be for ever, and let his name stand before the sun...

εστω το ονομα αυτου ευλογημενον εις τους αιωνας προ του ηλιου διαμενει το ονομα αυτου

Blessed be his name forever, and his name will stand before the sun...

J. Schaaper, and after him Hossfeld and Zenger (in their monumental commentary on Psalms 22), believe that eυλογη μενον is inserted in the LXX in order to emphasize the parallel between

22. Hossfeld, F., Zenger, E. (2000) Psalmen 51-100, s. 329. Freiburg; Basel; Wien: Herder.

page 21
the king-messiah to whom this verse is dedicated, and God, who is called "the blessed one" in the next verse (71/72:18). But isn't it easier to assume that we are dealing with a purely editorial edit? Even in Russian, the phrase "Let his name be forever" seems incomplete, and the addition- "Blessed be his name forever" - suggests itself.

4. "Theology of the Septuagint" and the textology of the Greek Bible. What was the text that came out from the translator's pen?

When we talk about the "LXX theology", we must not lose sight of the fact that the LXX texts available to us may differ from the oldest translation. One of the most famous examples - EC 9:5(6), where, according to the vast majority of Greek manuscripts, the child is born (Messiah) name the names: "Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the Ruler, the Prince of peace, father of the future age" (θαυμαστος συμβουλος ισχυρος θεος πατηρ ειρηνης εξουσιαστης αρχων του αιωνος μελλοντος). However, the oldest LXX text does not contain these epithets. They appear only in hexagles; they are not yet in the Vatican Codex; in the Sinaitic Codex they are written in a later hand over the main text. In the Alexandrian Codex and later in the Byzantine tradition, these epithets become part of the text, but they got there thanks to Origen.

Obviously, if we had only the late LXX manuscripts at our disposal, the picture of the theology of the Greek Isaiah would be different. But can we identify a later revision everywhere in the Greek Bible?

5. "Theology of the Septuagint" and the subsequent exegesis of the Greek text. How did the translators themselves understand the text they created?

When it comes to the interpretation of the LXX text and the study of its vocabulary, two approaches are clearly distinguished: "retrospective" ("upstream") and "prospective" ("downstream"). The "retrospective approach" involves focusing on how the LXX text was understood at the time of creation; "prospective" refers to how it came to be understood in the subsequent history of the exegesis of the Greek Bible. Each of these approaches is important in its own way for the history of the biblical tradition. But if we want to understand those

page 22
We should limit ourselves to the "retrospective" approach to changes that occurred during the translation process and became its direct result.

Let's look at the example of Gen 2: 4-5 23.

This is the history of heaven and earth, after they were created. In the day that the Lord God created the earth and the heavens, and no green things of the field were yet on the earth, and no grass of the field grew yet, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the land...

4 αυτη η βιβλος γενεσεως ουρανου και γης οτε εγενετο η ημερα εποιησεν ο θεος τον ουρανον και την γην 5 και παν χλωρον αγρου προ του γενεσθαι επι της γης και παντα χορτον αγρου προ του ανατειλαι ου γαρ εβρεξεν ο θεος επι την γην και ανθρωπος ουκ ην εργαζεσθαι την γην

This is the book of the appearance of the heavens and the earth, when it was finished, on the day that God created the heavens and the earth, and all the green things of the field before they were on the earth, and all the grass of the field before it grew; for God did not send rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the...

It is obvious that the translator incorrectly conveyed the syntax of the Hebrew phrase: the expressions "green field "and" grass of the field", which in the Hebrew text are the subjects of two independent sentences, turned into objects of the verb"created". Note, however, that such a translation is completely natural if you translate it not in paragraphs, but in parts of a phrase: words look like a list of homogeneous objects. The problem with meaning occurs only when the translator reaches the particle - but by this time the phrase is already half translated!

23. Joosten, J. "Une theologie", p. 34; Harl, M. "La Genese", p. 100; Aejmelaeus, A. (2007) On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays, rev. and expanded edn., p.66. Leuven; Paris; Dudley, MA: Peeters; Rosel, M. (1994) Ubersetzung als Vollendung der Auslegung: Studien zur Genesis-Septuaginta. s. 59. Berlin: de Gruyter.

page 23
The particle has two meanings in Hebrew: "not yet" and "before"; in Genesis LXX, it is always understood in the second of these two meanings and is translated as προ του + infinitive (Gen 2: 4 bis, 19:4, 24:15, 45). At 19: 4, 24:15, 45 this understanding turns out to be correct, but here in 2: 4 it is not.

The original LXX in Gen 2: 4 clearly coincided with the Masoretic text: the translation is almost literal in the sense that each Hebrew word corresponds to a Greek one.

How did the translator understand the text that came out of his pen? Most likely, he believed that this text simply tells the reader two truths: first, that God created greenery and grass, and secondly, that before that there was no grass or greenery. The unusual, from the point of view of Greek syntax, form in which these two truths are clothed is justified by the fact that this is a word-by-word translation of the Hebrew original.

However, the words "the day when God created the heavens and the earth, and all the green things of the field before they appeared on the earth, and all the grass of the field before it grew" have the potential for an exegetical interpretation that the translator probably did not think of. This interpretation is explicitly offered by Philo (De opifcio mundi 129): "Summing up the creation of the world, (Moses) says, as a summary:' This is the book of the appearance of heaven and earth, when it was completed, on the day when God created the heavens and the earth, and all the green things of the field, before they were finished.' it appeared on the ground, and all the grass of the field before it grew." Does he not clearly point out the disembodied and intelligible ideas that serve as seals for sensible things-imprints? "Before the earth was covered with greenery, "he says," the very "greenery" was already in the nature of things. Before the grass grew on the earth, there was already invisible grass" (cf. also Legum allegoriarum I, 21-24; Quaestiones in Genesim I, 2).

Resel, as a representative of the "maximalist" approach to the study of LXX theology, believes that this is precisely the meaning that the translator himself put into these verses; moreover, he sees in the vocabulary of this text a direct influence of Plato's Timaeus.24
According to Emeleus and Josten, the Greek text states that God first created greenery "in His heavenly greenhouse"

24. Rosel, M. Ubersetzung als Vollendung, s. 59.

page 24
(in his heavenly greenhouse, dans sa serre celeste), to later transplant it to the ground. This understanding is halfway between the Hebrew text and Philo.

But does the Greek text really give the reader such a clear idea of the pre-existence of plants? Or does this idea appear only when the reader of Genesis LXX is already familiar with the idea of heavenly types of earthly things? Perhaps even Emeleus and Josten's interpretations (not to mention Resel's suggestion) only arise from a "forward-looking" approach.

The lack of distinction between retrospective and prospective approaches is one of the most important reasons why there are so many questionable (and sometimes fantastic) hypotheses in the "LXX theology".

Resume

It is more appropriate to understand the" meaning "of biblical texts not as a fixed quantity, but as a kind of" trajectory " that describes how the interpretation of the text changes over time.

One of the most serious methodological problems that we face when trying to reconstruct the "LXX theology" is that even when we can reconstruct the starting point of the trajectory (the meaning of the Hebrew text at the time of writing) and know its further movement (for example, the understanding of the LXX text by Philo or the Christian Fathers), we can still we can't always figure out where the LXX translators were located on the trajectory. We see a shift in the interpretation of the Bible text, but we can't always tell whether it happened before the translation (sections 1-2 of this article), after (sections 4-5), or actually at the time of translation. And if at the time of transfer - how conscious was he (section 3)?

Sometimes LXX researchers, notes A. Emeleus 25, seek to emphasize the differences between the Hebrew text and the LXX, taking the Hebrew text in the most archaic of its possible meanings, and the Greek text, on the contrary, in its most "advanced" meaning, that is, in the most remote from the Hebrew. When it comes to trying to understand exegesis and technique

25. Aejmelaeus, A. "Von Sprache zur Theologie", p. 47.

page 25
For LXX translators, it makes sense to do the opposite: take the Hebrew text in the most "advanced" of its possible meanings, and Greek - in the least "advanced", as close as possible to the Hebrew.

Examples such as those discussed in sections 1-2 raise the question: what exactly do we mean by "LXX theology"? Is it really so important to distinguish between the changes that occurred under the translator's pen , and the changes that occurred before (perhaps a few days before) under the pen of the scribe who copied the Hebrew manuscripts? The LXX reflects a change in understanding of the bible text from its original understanding - is this enough to speak of "LXX theology"? Or, in order to speak of "LXX theology", is it necessary that the text change occurs exactly at the moment of transition from one language to another?

Sometimes it is not easy to understand whether a particular change was accidental or not, whether it was conscious or not - for example, a different reading of the Hebrew text, a different vowel, or the choice of a particular meaning of a multi-valued lexeme. We are entering a "grey area". It is possible to speak of non-randomness here, first of all, in cases when we see in the Greek translation a number of homogeneous edits that reveal the same trend.

But in fact, the answer to the question about the randomness or intent of this kind of change can be more difficult than just "yes" or"no". The creation of text (as, indeed, any creative action of a person) is a process that is only partially controlled by the human ratio. To the extent that the author uses language, imagery, and the worldview of his time and environment as a tool, he himself becomes an instrument through which not his individual consciousness acts, but the language, culture, and collective consciousness of a given society in a given era. Thus, along with the answer "yes, this is the result of a conscious edit", another answer is also possible: "this edit is not conscious, but inspired by the language and environment of the translator." The "gray area" turns out to be doubly gray: it's not just that we can't ask the translator - even if we could, he probably wouldn't give us a clear answer.

page 26
Bibliography / References

Aejmelaeus, A. (2006) "Von Sprache zur Theologie: methodologische Uberlegungen zur Theologie der Septuaginta", in M. Knibb (ed.) The Septuagint and Messianism, pp. 21-48. Leuven: Leuven University Press; Peeters.

Aejmelaeus, A. (2007) On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays, rev. and expanded edn. Leuven; Paris; Dudley, MA: Peeters.

Albrektson, B. (1975) "Textual Criticism and the Textual Basis of a Translation of the Old Testament", Bible Translator 26: 314-24.

Alexandre, M. (1988) Le commencement du livre Genese I-V: La version grecque de la Septante et sa reception. Paris: Beauchesne.

Austermann, F. (2001) "Ανομια im Septuaginta-Psalter: Ein Beitrag zum Verhaltnis von Ubersetzungsweise und Theologie", in R. Sollamo, S. Sipila (eds) Helsinki perspectives on the translation technique of the Septuagint : Proceedings of the IOSCS Congress in Helsinki 1999, pp. 99-137. Helsinki; Gottingen: Finnish Exegetical Society; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Barr, J. (1979) The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Bertram, G. (1957) "Praeparatio evangelica in der Septuaginta", Vetus Testamentum 7: 225-249.

Bons, E., Karrer, M., Kraus, W. (2011) Septuaginta Deutsch: Erlauterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

Brayford, S. (2007) Genesis. Leiden, Boston: Brill.

Field, F. (1875) Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt: sive veterum interpretum graecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum fragmenta. Oxonii: e typographeo Clarendoniano.

Flashar, M. (1912) "Exegetische Studien zum Septuagintapsalter", Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 32: 81-116, 161-189, 241-268.

Harl, M. (1986) La Bible dAlexandrie: La Genese. Paris: Cerf.

Harl, M. et al. (1999) La Bible dAlexandrie: Les douze prophetes: Joel, Abdiou, Jonas, Maoum, Ambakoum, Sophonie. Paris: Cerf.

Hossfeld, F., Zenger E. (2000) Psalmen 51-100. Freiburg; Basel; Wien: Herder.

Jastrow, M. (1950) A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. New York, NY: Pardes Publishing House.

Joosten, J. (2000) "Une theologie de la septante: Refexions methodologiques sur l'interpretation de la version grecque", Revue de Theologie et de Philosophie 132(1): 31-46.

Rosel, M. (1994) Ubersetzung als Vollendung der Auslegung: Studien zur Genesis- Septuaginta. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Tov, E. (1987) "Die Septuaginta in ihrem theologischen und traditionsgeschichtlichen Verhaltnis zur hebraischen Bibel", in M. Klopfenstein et al. (eds.) Mitte der Schrift? Ein judisch-christliches Gesprach, ss. 237-268. Bern.

Tov, E. (1997) The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. 2nd rev. edn. Jerusalem: Simor.

Tov, E. (1999) "The Rabbinic Tradition Concerning the ‘Alterations' Inserted into the Greek Pentateuch and Their Relation to the Original Text of the LXX", in E. Tov The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint, pp. 1-20. Leiden: Brill.

page 27
Tov, E. (1999) "Theologically Motivated Exegesis Embedded in the Septuagint", in E. Tov The Greek and Hebrew Bible, pp. 257-269. Leiden: Brill.

Van der Toorn, K. (ed.) (1999) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, 2nd rev. edn. Leiden; Boston; Koln; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brill; William B. Eerdmans.

Veltri, G. (1994) Eine Tora fur den Konig Talmai. Untersuchungen zum Ubersetzungsverstandnis in der judisch-hellenistischen und rabbinischen Literatur. Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr.

page 28

Permanent link to this publication: