Blaz0ej S0trba, «hn#$w#$ of the Canticle», Vol. 85 (2004) 475-502
The term hn#$w#$ is revisited
primarily in the Canticle of Solomon. The most ancient translation –– "lily" ––
of this flower though questioned in recent decades is still widely used. The
LXX’s rendering kri/non is examined and found as the
best translation for the lexeme N#$w#$ –– meaning
"lotus" –– being an Egyptian loan word. This translation fits to the OT
references better than "lily". The textual employment of
hn#$w#$ in the poetry of the Canticle is a chief and commanding proof for
"lotus". The "lily" translation for both hn#$w#$
and kri/non for the majority of the OT cases is seen
as incorrect since it does not pay due attention to the literary and historical
context of the Canticle.
476 BlaΩej âˆtrba
I. Krivnon in the LXX translation
1. The understanding of krivnon as “lilyâ€
The ambience in which the first Church was born was strongly
linked to Graeco-Roman culture and to the Greek language (2).
Therefore, for the first Christians the flower which the Greek labelled
as krivnon –– well known in Asia Minor, as well as it is in the botanical
world today –– meant “lilyâ€, in its basic species of Lilium candidum.
The purpose of this paper is not to examine whether Jesus’ saying
refers to Lilium candidum or Anemone coronaria, or to another
species, since my aim is to explore the word hnvwv in its context of the
Hebrew Bible (3).
Even if the first Christians did not understand the word krivnon to
be some species of the lily flower, later generations certainly assumed
this, as the Vulgate and other translations show. The fact was that the
LXX was the Bible of the Early Church (4). Only in the context of the
LXX some lexical and theological concepts of the NT may be well
explained (5). Besides the NT writers there were Philo and Josephus
who often quoted the Greek text as the Greek and Latin fathers did (6).
It may be concluded with some certainty that when the writers and
readers of early Christianity encountered the word krinon in the LXX,
v
they thought of a lily. This understanding had an incisive impact on
(2) Cf. R. PENNA, L’ambiente storico-culturale delle origini cristiane. Una
documentazione ragionata (Bologna 31991) 97-173; G. SEGALLA, Panorama
storico del Nuovo Testamento (LoB 3,5; Brescia1984) 13-71; N. FERNÃNDEZ
MARCOS, La Bibbia dei Settanta. Introduzione alle versioni greche della Bibbia
(IsBS 6; Brescia 2000) 315-317, 322-325.
(3) For further discussion about the “lilies of the fieldâ€, see H.N. MOLDENKE
– A.L. MOLDENKE, Plants of the Bible (ChBo 28; New York 1952) 41-46, 116;
M. ZOHARY, Plants of the Bible. A complete handbook to all the plants with 200
full-color plates taken in the natural habitat (Cambridge 1982) 170.
(4) Cf. F.C. HOLMGREN, The Old Testament and the Significance of Jesus.
Embracing Change – Maintaining Christian Identity (Grand Rapids, MI –
Cambridge, UK 1999) 47-52.
(5) Cf. D.M. SMITH, “The use of the Old Testament in the Newâ€, The Use of the
Old Testament in the New and Other Essays. Studies in Honor of William Franklin
Stinespring (ed. J.M. EFIRD) (Durham, NC 1972) 3-65; ID., “The Pauline Litera-
tureâ€, It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honor of Barnabas Lin-
dars, SSF (eds. D.A. CARSON – H.G.M. WILLIAMSON) (Cambridge 1988) 265-291.
(6) Cf. M.K.H. PETERS, “Septuagintâ€, ABD V, 1093-1104; Y. ‘AMIR, “La
letteratura giudeo-ellenistica: la versione dei LXX, Filone e Giuseppe Flavioâ€, La
lettura ebraica delle Scritture (ed. S.J. SIERRA) (Bologna 1996) 31-58.