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.
be seen as ‘confused’. They provide sensible enough renderings when assessed on their own terms. The Num 9 and 10 cases thus emerge as isolated slips in the work of (presumably) an individual translator. I suggest that they manifest temporary confusion rather than the effects of a regular habit of segmentation in translating. Indeed, it seems to me that intrusive thoughts of the broader context are likely to have caused the confusion, rather than that the translator has ‘forgotten’ that context. These passages are of course far from the only places where such switches between narrative and direct speech occur, but that should not weaken the case. We are simply observing at Num 9,16-23 and 10,11-25 a particular translator losing the thread of the context for relatively brief spaces. What the phenomenon suggests is a lack of revision within the translation process, at least in these instances. After going astray, the translator has not corrected the mistakes, and they have remained to perplex us today.
A point of broader significance is brought out by this study. Analysis of LXX language involves numerous delicate problems. Our responses to them will be dictated by the guiding assumptions with which we approach these enigmatic texts. In the matter of treating verbal renderings one’s particular approach to the volatile debate on both the Greek and Hebrew verbal systems allows considerable scope for divergent interpretations. The key difference, however, between Voitila’s response and my own to ‘confusions’ in translation of indicative tense-forms is our interpretation of Greek contexts. In judging probabilities Voitila places greater weight on the underlying Hebrew contexts, I rather less. This difference reflects contrasting concepts of the degree to which the Greek Pentateuch’s original function was dependent upon its Vorlage (cf. n. 28 above). How one views that function will establish which of our interpretations is most satisfying.