Trevor V. Evans, «Some Alleged Confusions in Translation from Hebrew to Greek», Vol. 83 (2002) 238-248
Two remarkable passages in the Greek translation of Numbers have recently been identified by Anssi Voitila. Both show a clear influence from Hebrew verbal forms on the translator’s choices of Greek verbal forms which overrides the semantic indicators of the broader context. Confused translations result. Are they isolated phenomena or representative of translators’ habits in general? Voitila argues for the latter interpretation. He seeks to demonstrate a number of additional instances in the Greek Pentateuch and sees here support for the theory of segmentation in translation technique, as developed by the Helsinki School. The present paper reassesses his examples and draws the opposite conclusion.
what might be suggested today we need to consider the Greek on its own terms. In my view, we must decide whether a particular translation makes sense within its particular Greek context before labelling it an example of confusion. In addition, Voitila’s interpretation of the demands even of the original Hebrew context does not always convince. And where more than one modern interpretation of a passage is possible, we will be on shaky ground if we insist on what the ancient Pentateuchal translators ought to have done.
Before turning to the debatable examples, let us consider the nature of the phenomenon manifested in Numbers 9 and 10. As is well-known, the indicative forms of the Greek and Hebrew verbal systems function in markedly different ways. There are essentially only two indicative forms in Biblical Hebrew. These, unlike the range of seven Greek indicative forms, do not in themselves convey temporal values3. The Hebrew perfect and its practical equivalent the consecutive imperfect usually occur within past time-frames, but may appear within present or future time-frames. Conversely, the Hebrew imperfect and its practical equivalent the consecutive perfect usually occur within future time-frames, but may appear within present or past frames4. For these two pairs of forms (and for most other forms of the Hebrew verb) the translators of the Greek Pentateuch developed regular renderings, according to the natural suitability of these renderings for the usual contexts in which the Hebrew forms occur. This was presumably a quite unconscious process, at least in its origins. The habit normally yields a sensible Greek rendering.
Thus, Hebrew imperfects and consecutive perfects, since they most frequently occur in future time-frames, regularly motivate Greek future indicatives in all the Pentateuchal books5. In Num 9,16-23 and 10,11-25, however, these Hebrew forms occur within past time-frames. The Numbers translator usually handles such contexts effectively, translating by means of a Greek past tense, such as the Greek imperfects in Num 11,5-96, the aorist ei]pen for rm)yw in Num 10,35 (MT 10,36), and the imperfect e!zh for yxw in Num 21,9. Thus we find in Num 9,15 h]n for hyhy (not mentioned by Voitila), in v. 16 e)gi/neto for hyhy and e)ka/lupten for wnsky, in v. 17 a)ph=ran for w(sy, e!sth for Nk#$y, and parene/balon for wnxy. In all these instances context would appear to have been a more potent influence than particular Hebrew forms.