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.
may be translated: ‘...and my word is "I will bring you up out of the oppression of the Egyptians"’. The Exod 4,22-23 instance may be translated:
...and you will say to Pharaoh, ‘thus says the Lord, my first-born son is Israel, and my word to you is "send forth my people, that it might serve me"’.
I shall pass briefly over some instances of allegedly problematic future indicatives which are less persuasive than those of Num 9,18-23. Voitila identifies additional cases of futures rendering Hebrew imperfects against the sense of their contexts, namely Num 21,27 e)rou=sin for wrm)y, Deut 2,20 logisqh/setai for w)rqy, Deut 2,11 logisqh/sontai for wb#$xy, and Deut 3,13 logisqh/setai for )rqy. None of them can in my opinion be proved. He states, for instance, that the ‘correct translation’ of wrm)y in Num 21,27 would have been the present indicative, as in Num 21,14 le/getai for rm)y24. Yet the Greek translator’s choice of a future indicative can hardly be said to be nonsensical within its own context here or in the other examples. The future indicative has a jussive quality in such cases25.
Num 16,5: kai_ e)la/lhsen pro_j Ko/re kai_ pro_j pa=san au)tou= th_n sunagwgh_n le/gwn 'Epe/skeptai kai_ e!gnw o( qeo_j tou_j o!ntaj au)tou= kai_ tou_j a(gi/ouj kai_ proshga/geto pro_j e(auto/n, kai_ ou$j e)cele/cato e(autw=| proshga/geto pro_j e(auto/n
wtd(-lk-l)w xrq-l) rbdyw
wl-r#$)-t) hwhy (dyw rqb rm)l
byrqhw #$wdqh-t)w
wyl) byrqy wb-rxby r#$) t)w wyl)
Let us lastly consider Num 16,5, where the translation of tenses is complicated by the translator’s difficulties with the Hebrew text. The noun rqb is understood as a verb in the perfect and is rendered by the Greek perfect e)pe/skeptai. The jussive (dyw is rendered by the aorist indicative e!gnw. The following consecutive perfect byrqhw and imperfects rxby and byrqy are rendered by the aorist indicatives proshga/geto, e)cele/cato, and proshga/geto respectively.
Voitila’s argument that this sequence demonstrates the translator understood the sentence as narrative and did not know the future referring context of the next verses is unacceptable. The Greek perfect indicative is a primary tense — in my opinion essentially a stative present26 — so here e)pe/skeptai means ‘observes’. The aorist e!gnw means ‘has perceived’, i.e. ‘knows’27. In other words the time-frame is present. The following aorist indicatives are then chosen against the influence of the specific Hebrew verbal forms which they render and according to the translator’s interpretation of the context. The translator has taken God’s selection of particular individuals to be represented by Moses as a fait accompli. The ensuing punishment of Kore and his supporters merely demonstrates the truth of Moses’ statement in v. 5. A possible motivation for this interpretation may in