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.
Num 14,24: o( de_ pai=j mou Xale/b, o#ti e)genh/qh pneu=ma e#teron e)n au)tw=| kai_ e)phkolou/qhse/n moi kai_ ei)sa/cw au)to_n ei)j th_n gh=n, ei)j h$n ei)sh=lqen e)kei=, kai_ to_ spe/rma au)tou= klhronomh/sei au)th/n
trx) xwr htyh bq( blk ydb(w
wyt)ybhw yrx) )lmyw wm(
hn#$rwy w(rzw
The rendering of Myrcm w(m#$w by kai_ a/kou/setai Ai!guptoj in Num 14,13 raises two relevant questions. First, potential problems lurk in attempts to rationalize rhetoric. As Voitila observes, the Egyptians may be presumed at this point in the narrative to be well aware of the removal of the Israelites from Egypt16. Moses, however, has the present and future in mind. The central idea developed in vv.13-16 is that if God destroys his chosen people after bringing them by strength out of Egypt, other nations will assert that it is because he has lacked the power to deliver them into the promised land. Therefore, I take the future a)kou/setai to produce a clause illogical in strict terms of chronological sequence, but hardly out of keeping with Moses’ rhetorical point. This is not to suggest conscious nicety of style on the part of the translator, though such features can be identified in the Greek Pentateuch17, but rather a simple feeling for the perceived flow of Moses’ argument. It does not necessarily indicate blindness to the demands of the context. I translate the cited Greek passage of vv. 13-14 ‘and Moses said to the Lord "And Egypt will hear that you have brought up through your strength this people from among them, but also all those dwelling in this land have heard that you are lord among this people"’. In v. 15 we have the future indicatives e)ktri/yeij for htmhw and e)rou=sin for wrm)w. The form a)kou/setai is aligned with these.
Second, the Greek text manifests distortions which go well beyond renderings of particular verbal forms. It appears in part to misunderstand the syntax of the Hebrew construction, and in v. 14 to follow a Vorlage different from and inferior to the MT. The Masoretic punctuation indicates that hzh M(h-t) Kxkb tyl(h-yk Myrcm w(m#$w in v. 13 is to be taken ‘and the Egyptians will hear, for you have brought up in your strength this people’. The Numbers translator has rendered yk by o#ti and understood the following words as an indirect statement depending on a)kou/setai. So the chronological question raised by Voitila in relation to the Greek is not a factor in the Hebrew text. Then in v. 14 the initial expression Cr)h b#$wy-l) wrm)w ‘and they will tell the inhabitants of this land’ of the MT is unlikely to be identical to the Vorlage actually underlying a)lla_ kai_ pa/ntej oi( katoikou=ntej e)pi_ th=j gh=j tau/thj18. These matters complicate assessment of the translator’s alertness to form and context.
In the case of Num 14,24, the sense according to Voitila ‘is surely to describe the present state of Caleb’19. This conclusion seems particularly