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.
of the Canticle 479
hnvwv
8,1-4, in the LXX translation of which krivnon reappears, is just
another later specification of Exod 25,31-40 (17).
The Egyptian elements in the OT (18) and in the Pentateuch are a
given fact and these links reflect some cultural traditions or religious
beliefs of ancient Egypt (19). Especially in the Book of Exodus the
parallels with Egyptian texts and traditions are numerous (20) and the
outcome of the biblical narrative is negative for the Pharaoh, Egypt
and its people (21). This ideological contestation of Egypt which is
profiled well on the redactional level of the Pentateuchal narrative,
finds the most compelling context of its origin in the Persian
period (22). I am not able to detect to what extent the late disappearance
of the term hnvwv might reflect that redactional tendency (23).
3. The proper names reflecting the root ˆvv
Before leaving the LXX and moving to the term hnvwv, it is
necessary to assess two other proper names Souvsa and Sousanna,
which indisputably resemble the root ˆvv. Mostly the LXX does not
translate the proper names but transliterates them according to the
phonetics. In the case of these two names there is an Hebrew original
only for the name of the city Susa but not for Susanna since this occurs
in the LXX Susanna narrative only.
(17) M. NOTH, Numbers. A Commentary (OTL; London – Philadelphia, PA
1968) 65-68.
(18) R. KESSLER, Die Ägyptenbilder der Hebräischen Bibel. Ein Beitrag zur
neueren Monotheismusdebatte (SBS 197; Stuttgart 2002).
(19) J.D. Currid shows that the Egyptian culture is not only being falsified by
the Biblical writers but rather representative in the Biblical text; Ancient Egypt
and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI 1997) 53-155.
(20) A. NICCACCI, “Sullo sfondo egiziano di Esodo 1–15â€, SBFLA 36 (1986)
7-43; ID., “Yahweh e il Faraone: Teologia biblica ed egiziana a confrontoâ€, BN 38
(1987) 85-102; KESSLER, Ägyptenbilder, 109-115.
(21) F.V. GREIFENHAGEN, Egypt on the Pentateuch’s Ideological Map.
Constructing Biblical Israel’s Identity (JSOTSS 361; Sheffield 2002) 256-271.
(22) GREIFENHAGEN, Egypt, 223-255.
(23) Lotus was a favourite shape for the design of both major architectural
features of the temples and the small bowls, lamps and the other similar items;
cf. “Lotos†in LÄ III, 1091-1094; R.H. WILKINSON, Reading Egyptian Art. A
Hieroglyphic Guide to Ancient Egyptian Painting and Sculpture. With 450
illustrations (London 1992) 121.