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.
Yet in vv. 18-23 there is an odd switch to the characteristic future indicative rendering of Hebrew imperfects and consecutive perfects, before a change back to the aorist e)fula/canto for the perfect wrm#$ (another characteristic equivalency) in v. 23. Contextually inappropriate renderings result, shifting the temporal setting abruptly from past to future and then back again. The translator has surely been misled by the specific influence of the Hebrew tense forms, mechanically employing the regular translation equivalents. The case of Num 10,17-25 is similar. In that passage Voitila identifies a series of six consecutive perfects within a past time-frame translated by future indicatives, producing an abrupt temporal switch in the Greek after a series of aorist indicatives neatly rendering Hebrew perfects and consecutive imperfects7.
These instances, to which we shall return, are by no means the first to be isolated of influence from Hebrew verbs yielding Greek verbal renderings at odds with their contexts. A number of examples, mainly from Psalms, are discussed in Barr’s earlier investigation of the choice of Greek tenses in past and future referring contexts8. There it is argued that general content and context are far more important factors in determining Greek tense forms than the underlying Hebrew tenses and that confused renderings characteristically arise in contexts which are ‘semantically ambiguous’ with regard to the past/future contrast, especially poetic literature. The special significance of Voitila’s examples rests in the fact that they occur within historical narrative. Semantic ambiguity, in Barr’s terms, does not seem to be a factor.
II. A Reassessment of the Data
Voitila identifies confusions of the type described above in all the Pentateuchal books except Leviticus, and especially in the work of the Numbers translator. The examples are introduced below according to the order of his 1996 treatment9.
Gen 44,20: kai_ ei!pamen tw=| kuri/w| 1 Estin h(mi=n path_r presbu/teroj kai_ paidi/on gh/rwj new/teron au)tw=| kai_ o( a)delfo_j au)tou= a)pe/qanen, au)to_j de_ mo/noj u(pelei/fqh th=| mhtri_ au)tou= o( de_ path_r au)to_n h)ga/phsen
dlyw Nqz b) wnl-#$y ynd)-l) rm)nw
wyb)w wm)l wdbl )wh rtwyw tm wyx)w N+q Mynqz
wbh)