Unum et Unum Sunt Unum? The Characterisation of the Translation Technique and Theology of LXX Proverbs and Its Relation to LXX Job
In recent scholarly debate, attention has been paid to the characterisation of the individual translators of the different books of the Septuagint (LXX) and the translation techniques they applied to translate their Hebrew Vorlage. Indeed, it is commonly accepted that all books are translated respectively by different translators. However, there is one considerable exception with regard to the question whether LXX Job and Proverbs would also be translated by one and the same person or whether they do reveal two different ones? The scholarly views are divided. If they would have been translated by a single translator, it would have implications on the interpretation and appreciation of the development of the LXX.
Against that background, the present research focuses on the characterisation of the translation technique of LXX Proverbs from the perspective of the recently developed ‘content and context related approach’, and more particularly by studying the way in which the translator dealt with the rendering of Hebrew hapax legomena. Subsequently, the results of that analysis are compared to the results of previous and current studies on the translation technique of LXX Job concerning the Greek rendering of hapax legomena from the same criteriological perspective.
Moreover, next to the analysis of the Greek rendering of Hebrew hapax legomena, this study examines the additional attestations of ὁ θεός and ὁ κύριος in LXX Proverbs and LXX Job, in order to discern whether the LXX translation attests a different theology from its Hebrew counterpart. The results of this examination in both books are compared in order to determine whether both books have been translated by the same translator.
By doing so, and being the first study in its kind, this research presents an indicative but relevant answer to the question whether or not LXX Job and Proverbs are translated by a single translator. The results of this study point at two different translators (due to the difference in lexical choices for several shared Hebrew lexemes as well as different theological nuances), who nevertheless seem to have stemmed from the same group of translators or same milieu (due to the shared overall translation techniques).