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.
unconvincing, imposing an unnecessary interpretation on the Hebrew text even before we come to the Greek. The RSV, for instance, translates the Hebrew ‘[b]ut my servant Caleb, because he has a different spirit and has followed me fully, I will bring into the land...’, and wm( trx) xwr htyh could as effectively be rendered in English as ‘a different spirit has been in him’, i.e. as demonstrated in the events immediately precipitating God’s threat to destroy the Israelites. So it is difficult for me to accept confusion as an explanation for the Numbers translator’s choices of e)genh/qh for htyh, e)phkolou/qhsen for )lmyw, and especially ei)sa/cw for wyt)ybhw. In the preceding verses we have been told that none of those who have in the past seen the glorious works of God will be permitted in the future to see the promised land. Caleb will receive different treatment in the future because in the past (albeit the immediate past) he has behaved differently. I translate the Greek ‘but my servant Caleb, because a different spirit has been in him and he has obeyed me (just now), I shall also bring into the land, into which he has (already) gone, and his descendants will inherit it’.
Exod 3,17: kai_ ei]pa a)nabiba/sw u(ma=j e)k th=j kakw/sewj tw=n Ai)gupti/wn
Myrcm yn(m Mkt) hl() rm)w
Exod 4,22-23: su_ de_ e)rei=j tw=| Faraw/ ta/de le/gei ku/rioj ui(o_j prwto/toko/j mou 'Israh/l: ei]pa de/ soi e)capo/steilon to_n lao/n mou i#na moi latreu/sh|
.l)r#&y yrkb ynb hwhy rm) hk h(rp-l) trm)w
yndb(yw ynb-t) xl#$ Kyl) rm)w
Voitila’s rationalizing objection to the aorist ei]pa for the consecutive imperfect rm)w in Exod 3,17 and 4,23 has obvious attraction. The present tense would be highly appropriate to both — very similar — contexts. We may also compare le/gei, which belongs to a developing translational formula20, for the perfect rm) in Exod 4,22. Past tense forms seem odd, arguably suggesting something mentioned earlier in the text21, and here again it is hard to doubt as a motivation the translator’s awareness of underlying consecutive imperfects.
Given the unequivocal examples of mistaken verbal renderings in Numbers 9 and 10, it would not surprise to find additional instances. Perhaps these two Exodus examples are such. They are certainly difficult cases. But are the Greek translations nonsensical? Here too a different explanation seems possible. As in the case of Num 14,13 a)kou/setai we should consider the issue of rhetorical style. Voitila has captured the crucial point in noting ‘God tells what he has just decided’22. God’s utterances in these Exodus examples represent his decisions for the future. Thus, ‘I have said’ in both cases approaches the meaning ‘I have decided’, indicating divine intention 23. I argue that we need to think in terms not of a previous utterance, but of a decision in the immediate past, which is itself focused on the future time-frame of the following direct speech. If this is correct, the Exod 3,17 instance