Johann Cook, «Are the Additions in LXX Job 2,9a-e to be deemed as the Old Greek text?», Vol. 91 (2010) 275-284
The LXX version of Job is described as an abbreviated, shortened text. However, it does contain two prominent additions in Job 2,9a-e and 42,17b-e. As far as the first is concerned this article argues that it is not the result of a later hand, nor of a differing Hebrew parent text. Based on a contextual analysis combined with an analysis of lexical items found in the additions, it reaches the conclusion that the translator of the Old Greek in fact is the work of the original translator.
276 JOHANN COOK
revisors. In the case of Job one can fortunately differentiate between the
OG and the later Theodotionic text 6.
Another significant issue is the relationship between the Greek text
and its supposed parent text. In the past some scholars have proposed that
Greek Job is based upon an equally shorter Hebrew parent text 7. However,
according to Cox 8, “on the basis of what we can establish about the
translator’s technique, i.e. his rather free, even paraphrastic approach, it
seems likely that the shorter text is to be attributed to the time of the
translation â€. Fernández Marcos 9 shares the view by Cox. To be sure,
Orlinsky 10 is sceptical of ascribing all sorts of wilful changes to the
translator. To him stylistic changes were foremost in LXX Job. The
discovery of fragments of the Hebrew of Job in the Dead Sea Scrolls has
unfortunately not thrown light on this issue 11.
Finally, the description “shortened text†does not apply consistently
to the Greek version of Job. Even though the text as a whole witnesses to
conscious shortening, there are various prominent additions. The major
ones are: the diatribe of Job’s wife in 2,9a-e and 42,17a-e 12. This article
will deal with one passage from LXX Job, namely Chapter 2,9a-e in order
to demonstrate the complexity of the OG version of Job. However, when
such passages are approached contextually it is possible to provide
appropriate solutions as to their origin.
J. ZIEGLER, Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate
6
Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, Job, XI.4 (Göttingen 1982) 133. Cf. also
A. PIETERSMA, Review of Job. Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum,
11/4 (ed. J. Ziegler) JBL 104 (1985) 305-311.
COX, “Jobâ€, 667.
7
COX, “Jobâ€, 667.
8
N. FERNÃNDEZ MARCOS, “The Septuagint reading of the Book of Jobâ€,
9
The Book of Job, W.A.M. BEUKEN (ed.) (BETL 114; Leuven 1994) 255.
H.M. ORLINSKY, “The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Job 14.12â€, JQR 28
10
(1937) 64: “It is sufficient at this point to indicate that if our translator were
so horrified by passages that denied resurrection or that placed God in an
unfavourable light that he felt himself compelled to omit about one-sixth of
the Book, not only would he not have reproduced in his translation most of
the passages throughout the book that denied resurrection (7.7, 9 and 10; 10.21
and 22; 15.22 and 20.7 and 8 and 16.22), but he would most certainly have
either deleted or in some way distorted the first stichos in this verse itselfâ€.
There are only a few smaller fragments of Job available. See
11
4QpaleoJobc in P.W. SKEHAN et al., Qumran Cave 4. IV Palaeo-Hebrew and
Greek Biblical Manuscripts (Oxford 1992) 155-157. Cf. also M. ABEGG et al.,
The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First
Time into English (San Francisco, CA 1999) 590-593.
This list actually represents two additions. Cf. A.Y. REED, “Job as
12
Jobab : The Interpretation of Job in LXX Job 42 :17b-e â€, JBL 120 (2001) 31.
FOLLOW US