Chapter 5. IMPLICITATION 5.1 Introduction The analysis of LXX Isaiah would be less complicated if we were able to outline a consistent and uniform translation method which was applied by its translator. But in fact, the opposite appears to be true. The Greek Isaiah is typified by contrasting translation tendencies. Just as chapter 2 and 3 have described two such contrary patterns, the present chapter will also discuss a feature that seems to be discrepant from the one analysed in the previous section. While chapter 4 has shown that many pluses in the Greek Isaiah can be explained by the translator s inclination towards making his text more explicit, the present chapter will deal with his penchant for implicitation. Implicitation is a term used in translation studies to indicate that an element which in the source text is stated explicitly, is made implicit in the translation. 1 This technique may have been employed by the translator because he considered some information provided by the Hebrew text as redundant, since it could also have been derived from the context, or was supposed to have been familiar to the readers. Besides, he may have used implicitation so as to strengthen the textual coherence. If, for instance, a proper name instead of being repeated, is replaced by a pronoun, this makes a stronger link to the clause in which the name itself is mentioned. 2 Implicitation often entails the replacement of one word or phrase by another, but in some cases it accounts for a minus. Such minuses, as found in LXX Isaiah, will be listed below. They will be grouped according to the following division: - Implicitation through the omission of an attribute. - Implicitation through the omission of the governing noun in a genitival construction..יחד and כל - Omission of - Implicitation of the subject. - Implicitation through the omission of an object. Sometimes the omission of details that may have seemed insignificant in the eyes of the translator, has led to the generalisation of the text (e.g. the palm of his hand becomes his hand ). As it is not always easy to draw a line between implicitation and generalisation, 1 Like explicitation, the term implicitation was first introduced by Vinay and Darbelnet (Vinay and Darbelnet, Stylistique comparée du francais, 10). They define this technique as: Procédé qui consiste à laisser au contexte ou à la situation le soin de préciser certains détails explicites dans LD [source language]. For the application of the term on the Septuagint, see van der Louw, Transformations, 71 72. Van der Louw defines implicitation as follows: An implicitation is a transformation whereby elements that are explicit in the source text are made implicit in the target text. This transformation is close to omission, the difference being that the information explicit in the source text is not deleted altogether, but recedes into the background while leaving traces in the target text, thus becoming implicit (op.cit. p.71). ואבוס עמים באפי 2 See van Peursen, Language and Interpretation, 393 395. An example can be found in Isa 63:6 / καὶ κατεπάτησα αὐτοὺς τῇ ὀργῇ µου; while in the MT v.6 repeats the people mentioned in v.3, in LXX Isa a pronoun replaces the noun, just as in the previous verses, which makes the internal connection between these verses stronger. For two cases in which the implicitation of the subject strengthens the cohesion of the text, see 33:24 and 49:23 in section 5.5.2 below.
CHAPTER FIVE these two phenomena will not be strictly differentiated, but will be treated alongside each other in the present chapter. 5.2 Implicitation through the omission of an attribute Attributes, which modify the noun to which they are syntactically subordinate, can often be omitted without significantly changing the content of the text. They may consist of: - an attributive pronoun, which in Hebrew is formed by a nominal suffix (i.e. a suffix joined to a substantive noun); - the governed noun in a genitival (construct state) construction; - an apposition. 5.2.1 The omission of a nominal suffix In Greek it is not necessary to use an attributive ( possessive ) pronoun in order to denote the possessor, object, subject, or the whole of something or someone when this entity or being is made obvious by the immediate context. Particularly when attached to body parts, the attributive pronoun is regularly omitted; see for instance 1:15, where ובפרשכם כפיכם becomes ὅταν τὰς χεῖρας ἐκτείνητε πρός µε (for more examples, see section 9.5). When in such situations the translation does not represent the Hebrew suffix, this has rather been motivated by the translator s concern for using stylistically correct Greek than by his deliberation to make information implicit. However, when the translator chose not to render a suffix because he wanted to remove or reduce the emphasis on the idea that something was in a genitive relationship to something else, or because he intended to generalise a notion by leaving out the specifying genitive pronoun, this might be considered as implicitation or generalisation. See the following examples: 13:21 בתיהםםםם אחים ומלאו καὶ ἐµπλησθήσονται αἱ οἰκίαι ἤχου 3 14:32 ובה יחסו עניי עממממו καὶ δι αὐτοῦ σωθήσονται οἱ ταπεινοὶ τοῦ λαοῦ. 24:23 כי מלך צבאות בהר ὅτι βασιλεύσει κύριος ἐν Σιων καὶ ἐν Ιερουσαληµ זקניוווו כבוד ציון ובירושלם ונגד καὶ ἐνώπιον τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ρων δοξασθήσεται. 26:19 מתיך יחיו ἀναστήσονται οἱ νεκροί, נבלתי יקומון καὶ ἐγερθήσονται οἱ ἱ ἐν ἐ τοῖς ς µνηµείοις 4 40:16 ולבנון אין די בער καῦσιν, ὁ δὲ Λίβανος οὐχ ἱκανὸς εἰς וחיתו אין די עולה καὶ πάντα τὰ τετράποδα οὐχ ἱκανὰ εἰς ὁλοκάρπωσιν 49:11 ושמתי כל הררררי לדרך καὶ θήσω πᾶν ὄρος εἰς ὁδὸν ומסלתי ירמון καὶ πᾶσαν τρίβον εἰς βόσκηµα αὐτοῖς. 5 3 In the Hebrew the suffix in בתיהם probably refers to the רעים of v.20. LXX Isa may with αἱ οἰκίαι refer to all houses of the city referred to in the text (i.e. Babylon). 4 The omission of the genitive pronoun may have been influenced by v.14 where מתים appears in a similar phrasing, but without a suffix: מתים בל יחיו / οἱ δὲ νεκροὶ ζωὴν οὐ µὴ ἴδωσιν. 5 Perhaps also under the influence of ובכל שפיים מרעיתם v.9 / καὶ ἐν πάσαις ταῖς τρίβοις ἡ νοµὴ αὐτῶν. 112
IMPLICITATION 5.2.2 The omission of the governed noun in a genitival relationship In a genitival relationship between words which in Hebrew is expressed in a construct state conjunction the second noun (the governed noun) qualifying the first one (the governing noun), has occasionally not been represented in LXX Isaiah. In most of these cases the qualifying noun is pleonastic. Perhaps the translator left it out because he thought it redundant: 10:13 עשיתי ידי בכחחחח 17:6 פריה בסעפיה 23:3 תבואתה יאור קציר 29:23 ידדדדי מעשה 30:29 לבב ושמחת 30:30 אשששש אוכלה ולהב 34:6 אילים כליות מחלבבבב 58:11 מי םים מ וכמוצא Τῇ ἰσχύι ποιήσω ἐπὶ τῶν κλάδων αὐτῶν α ὡς ἀµητο µητοῦ εἰσφεροµένου τὰ ἔργα µου καὶ ὡσεὶ εὐφραινοµένους καὶ φλογὸς κατεσθιούσης καὶ ἀπὸ στέατος τράγων καὶ κριῶν καὶ ὡς πηγὴ For the omission of the governed noun in a genitival relationship when this noun is synonymous to the governing noun, see section 3.2.2a. 5.2.3 The omission of an apposition Also appositions may primarily have been deleted in order to avoid redundancy. a. The omission of a divine name As we have seen in chapter 4, LXX Isaiah regularly offers κύριος ὁ θεός where the MT only has either אלהים or. However, the converse situation also occurs, appositionally used designations for God being absent in the Greek translation. Indeed, in nearly all cases where the Hebrew presents the combinations,,האדון or,יה LXX Isaiah displays merely one divine name. These compound Hebrew titles are mostly represented in the translation by: - κύριος: 7:7 כה אמר 10:16 צבאות האדון לכן ישלח 10:24 צבאות לכן כה אמר 12:2 כי עזי וזמרת יהההה 19:4 צבאות האדון נאם 22:5 צבאות בגיא חזיון ל 22:12 צבאות ויקרא 22:15 צבאות כה אמר 28:16 לכן כה אמר צבאות 28:22 שמעתי מאת τάδε λέγει κύριος σαβαωθ ἀλλὰ ἀποστελεῖ κύριος σαβαωθ 6 Διὰ τοῦτο τάδε λέγει κύριος σαβαωθ 7 διότι ἡ δόξα µου καὶ ἡ αἴνεσίς µου κύριος τάδε λέγει κύριος σαβαωθ. παρὰ κυρίου σαβαωθ ἐν φάραγγι Σιων καὶ ἐκάλεσε κύριος σαβαωθ Τάδε λέγει κύριος σαβαωθ διὰ τοῦτο οὕτως λέγει κύριος 8 ἤκουσα παρὰ κυρίου σαβαωθ equally is missing in some Hebrew manuscripts (but not in the Qumran documents of Isaiah). According האדון 6 to Wildberger (Jesaja, 1:405) it was originally absent. 7 Wildberger (Jesaja, 1:417) thinks that the LXX translator has not read in his Vorlage. אדוני 8 In 1QIsa a 12.3.1.2). (see section לכן כה אמר superscript: appears as אדוני 113
CHAPTER FIVE קדוש ישראל 30:15 כה אמר 40:10 בחזק יבוא הנה 48:16 שלחני ועתה 49:22 כה אמר 50:4 נתן לי לשון למודים 50:5 פתח לי אזן 50:7 יעזר לי ו 50:9 יעזר לי הן 52:4 כי כה אמר 56:8 נאם 61:1 עלי רוח 61:11 יצמיח צדקה כן 65:13 לכן כה אמר 65:15 והמיתך οὕτως λέγει κύριος ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ Ισραηλ 9 ἰδοὺ κύριος µετὰ ἰσχύος ἔρχεται καὶ νῦν κύριος ἀπέσταλκέ µε Οὕτως λέγει κύριος 10 Κύριος δίδωσί µοι γλῶσσαν παιδείας καὶ ἡ παιδεία κυρίου ἀνοίγει µου τὰ ὦτα καὶ κύριος βοηθός µου ἐγενήθη ἰδοὺ κύριος βοηθεῖ µοι οὕτως λέγει κύριος εἶπε κύριος Πνεῦµα κυρίου ἐπ ἐµέ οὕτως ἀνατελεῖ κύριος δικαιοσύνην Διὰ τοῦτο τάδε λέγει κύριος ὑµᾶς δὲ ἀνελεῖ κύριος. - ὁ θεός: 10:23 כי כלה ונחרצה ὅτι λόγον συντετµηµένον ποιήσει ὁ θεὸς צבאות עשה בקרב כל הארץ ὅλῃ. ἐν τῇ οἰκουµένῃ 25:8 דמעה ומחה καὶ πάλιν ἀφεῖλεν ὁ θεὸς πᾶν δάκρυον 26:4 צור עולמים כי ביהההה ὁ θεὸς ὁ µέγας ὁ αἰώνιος The translator probably did not translate because he was unable to think of an apt Greek counterpart. He could have rendered the word by δεσπότης, yet only uses that title three 11 :האדון times, where the Hebrew in all three places displays 1:24 צבאות האדון לכן נאם διὰ τοῦτο τάδε λέγει ὁ δεσπότης κύριος σαβαωθ 3:1 צבאות מסיר האדון Ἰδοὺ δὴ ὁ δεσπότης κύριος σαβαωθ ἀφελεῖ 10:33 צבאות מסעף האדון הנה ἰδοὺ γὰρ ὁ δεσπότης κύριος σαβαωθ συνταράσσει The combination אלהים (+ suffix) has mostly received a literal rendering as κύριος ὁ θεός. Still, in the following places אלהיך is represented by a mere ὁ θεός σου: 41:13 אלהיך כי אני ὅτι ἐγὼ ὁ θεός σου 48:17 אלהיך אני Ἐγώ εἰµι ὁ θεός σου 51:15 אלהיך ואנכי ὅτι ἐγὼ ὁ θεός σου למען אלהיך ולקדוש ישראל 55:5 ἕνεκεν τοῦ θεοῦ σου τοῦ ἁγίου Ισραηλ Also the noun צבאות ( hosts ), which can be joined as an apposition to the divine name, 12 has now and again no equivalent in LXX Isaiah. Often this can be attributed to the translator s aspiration to assimilate clauses to related ones in the surrounding text or to similar formulations elsewhere in Scripture: כי כה אמר 9 1QIsa a reads אדוני.(12.3.1.2 (see section קדוש ישראל 10 In 1QIsa a likewise is missing: כיא כוה אמר (see section 12.3.1.2). 11 In 10:16 and 19:4 the translator has omitted,האדון though (see above). 12 On צבאות being an apposition rather than the governed noun in a construct state conjunction, see Jouön 131o. 114
IMPLICITATION 8:13 אתו תקדישו צבאות את (13)9:12 לא דרשו צבאות ואת (19)9:18 צבאות בעברת עשה 10:23 צבאות כי כלה ונחרצה 10:26 שוט צבאות ועורר עליו 19:17 צבאות מפני עצת אשר הוא יועץ עליו 19:18 צבאות ל ונשבעות 19:20 צבאות ל והיה לאות ולעד 24:23 בהר ציון צבאות כי מלך 31:5 על ירושלם צבאות כן יגן κύριον αὐτὸν ἁγιάσατε 13 καὶ τὸν κύριον οὐκ ἐξεζήτησαν. 14 διὰ θυµὸν ὀργῆς κυρίου ὅτι λόγον συντετµηµένον ποιήσει ὁ θεὸς 15 καὶ ἐπεγερεῖ ὁ θεὸς ἐπ αὐτοὺς 16 διὰ τὴν βουλήν, ἣν βεβούλευται κύριος ἐπ αὐτήν. 17 καὶ ὀµνύουσαι τῷ ὀνόµατι κυρίου 18 καὶ ἔσται εἰς σηµεῖον εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα κυρίῳ 19 ὅτι βασιλεύσει κύριος ἐν Σιων 20 οὕτως ὑπερασπιεῖ κύριος ὑπὲρ Ιερουσαληµ b. The omission of other appositions Some other examples of appositions missing a counterpart: 8:2 את אוריה הכהן τὸν Ουρίαν 20:2 ישעיהו בן אמוץ Ησαίαν 24:23 בהר ציון ἐν Σιων 37:4 מלך אשור ו βασιλεὺς Ἀσσυρίων 37:5 עבדי המלך חזקיהו οἱ παῖδες τοῦ βασιλέως 37:37 סנחריב מלך אשור βασιλεὺς Ἀσσυρίων 5.3 The omission of the governing noun in a genitival relationship Also when the translator did not render the first (governing) noun in a genitival relationship, this was probably mostly because that noun was not vital to the message of the text and hence could be left out without significantly changing the content. may have been removed in assimilation to the phrase κύριος αὐτός / αὐτὸς κύριος, which occurs in צבאות 13 LXX Isa 3:14; 7:14; and 63:9, and elsewhere in the LXX e.g. in Deut 10:9; 18:2; and Ps 104:7,21; 151:3. 14 Possibly in harmonisation with ואת לא דרשו Jer 10:21 / καὶ τὸν κύριον οὐκ ἐξεζήτησαν; cf. section 8.4.3.3. 15 The omission of צבאות in 10:23 and 26 is likely connected to the translation of by ὁ θεός, which on its own is rarely followed by σαβαωθ in the LXX (see only Isa 44:6 and 1 Esd 9:46). The use of θεός instead of κύριος may be due to the appearance of the same title in v.20 (LXX) and v.21, or in assimilation to similar statements announcing what God will do in the future, which likewise use a mere ὁ θεός; see e.g. 7:17 ἀλλὰ ἐπάξει ὁ θεὸς ἐπὶ σὲ ἡµέρας, αἳ οὔπω ἥκασιν; 24:21 καὶ ἐπάξει ὁ θεὸς ἐπὶ τὸν κόσµον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τὴν χεῖρα (see further e.g. 3:17; 4:2; 6:12; 14:3; 23:17; 25:10; and 30:30). 16 See the previous footnote. According to Wildberger (Jesaja, 1:417) צבאות possibly has to be deleted. 17 Perhaps צבאות was omitted because in the ensuing section 19:17 22 κύριος without σαβαωθ appears no less then twelve times, usually at the end of the clause; see section 7.3.1.1c. 18 Maybe in harmonisation with הנשבעים בשם Isa 48:1 / οἱ ὀµνύοντες τῷ ὀνόµατι κυρίου θεοῦ Ισραηλ. Furthermore, parallel to κύριος in the preceding and following verses (cf. 19:17 and footnote above). 19 Parallel to κύριος in the preceding and following verses (cf. 19:17 and footnote above). 20 Possibly relying on Mic 4:7 καὶ βασιλεύσει κύριος ἐπ αὐτοὺς ἐν ὄρει Σιων. 115
CHAPTER FIVE 5.3.1 The omitted governing noun consists of the name for a body part The omitted governing noun relatively often is the name of a body part, which is used either in a literal sense (see e.g. 1:6; 25:11; 30:6; 34:16; 40:5; and 62:2 below) or in a metaphorical sense (see e.g. 11:15; 14:21; 24:18; 27:6; and 30:17 below). Concerning metaphorically used body parts, the translator may have opted not to represent them because he wanted to make his text more concrete. In the case of literally used ones the omission is probably largely the result of the translator s inclination to shorten or simplify his text. Perhaps he considered it unnecessary to be very specific. Furthermore, he may have avoided rendering parts of the body governing a (pro)noun in order not to produce Hebraistic language (in analogy to his frequent rendition of compound prepositional expressions containing the name of a body part by a simple preposition [e.g. מפני becomes ἀπό]) 21. Nevertheless, on the whole the nontranslation of body parts occurs only sporadically: Most commonly they did receive a rendering, both the ones used in a literal and those used in a metaphorical way. Some instances of the omission of body parts in a genitive construction are as follows: 1:6 ועד ראש מכףףףף רגל ἀπὸ ποδῶν ἕως κεφαλῆς 11:15 יםםםם מצרים לשון והחרים את καὶ ἐρηµώσει κύριος τὴν θάλασσαν Αἰγύπτου 24:18 הפחד הנס מקוווול ὁ φεύγων τὸν φόβον 22 25:11 ידיו ארבות עם ἐφ ἃ τὰς ς χεῖρας ἐπέβαλε 30:6 עירים על כתף ישאו οἳ ἔφερον ἐπ ὄνων גמלים ועל דבשת καὶ καµήλων ההר 30:17 על ראש עד אם נותרתם כתרן ἕως ἂν καταλειφθῆτε ὡς ἱστὸς ἐπ ὄρους 37:14 ויקח חזקיהו את הספרים καὶ ἔλαβεν Εζεκιας τὸ βιβλίον המלאכים מידדדד παρὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων Both times the phrase פני תבל occurs in Isaiah פני has no equivalent in the LXX, most probably so as to escape a Hebraistic translation: 14:21 ערים פני תבל ומלאו 27:6 תנובה פני תבל ומלאו καὶ ἐµπλήσωσι τὴν γῆν πολέµων καὶ ἐµπλησθήσεται ἡ οἰκουµένη τοῦ καρποῦ αὐτοῦ A comparable move is the rendering by a mere pronoun where the Hebrew offers a pronoun governed by a body part, see e.g.: 10:27 שכמך יסור סבלו מעל ἀφαιρεθήσεται ὁ φόβος αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ σοῦ שכמו 22:22 על שכמ ונתתי מפתח בית דוד καὶ δώσω τὴν δόξαν Δαυιδ αὐτῷ כי השלכת אחרי גווווך כל חטאי 38:17 καὶ ἀπέρριψας ὀπίσω µου πάσας τὰς ἁµαρτίας µου. Also the few examples of the omission of body parts belonging to God can be clarified in the light of what has been discussed above. These minuses are sometimes explained as an attempt by the translator to avoid anthropomorphism: 23 בהר הזה 25:10 ידדדד ὅτι ἀνάπαυσιν δώσει ὁ כי תנוח θεὸς ἐπὶ τὸ ὄρος τοῦτο 21 See section 9.7. 22 The contrary has happened in 38:5, where one finds a word for voice as a plus: שמעתי את תפלתך / Ἤκουσα τῆς φωνῆς τῆς προσευχῆς σου. 23 See section 10.3.2. 116
IMPLICITATION בראתו ילדיו מעשה ידדדדי בקרבו 29:23 ἀλλ ὅταν ἴδωσιν τὰ τέκνα αὐτῶν τὰ ἔργα µου 30:2 ופי לא שאלו ἐµὲ δὲ οὐκ ἐπηρώτησαν 34:16 הו אוא צוה ה כי פיייי κύριος ἐνετείλατο αὐτοῖς 37:29 אזני באזנ ושאננך עלה καὶ ἡ πικρία σου ἀνέβη πρός µε 40:5 דבר כי פיייי ὅτι κύριος ἐλάλησε. 62:2 יקבנו אשר פיייי ὃ ὁ κύριος ὀνοµάσει αὐτό. 5.3.2 The omitted governing noun consists of a word other than a body part When preceding geographical names, ארץ has in LXX Isaiah generally received a rendering as γῆ or χώρα. However, on several occasions a translation of ארץ is missing: 19:18 בארץ מצרים ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ 27:13 בארץ מצרים ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ 34:6 בארץ אדום ἐν τῇ Ιδουµαίᾳ 24 37:38 ארץ אררט εἰς Ἀρµενίαν Some additional examples of the omission of a governing noun: 2:17 תי האדם גבהות ושח 6:4 הספים אמות וינעו העליונה 7:3 הברכה תעלת אל קצה 10:12 לבב פרי גדל על פרי אפקד 10:20 תית יעקב בי ופליטת ב 14:14 עב על במתי אעלה 14:19 אבני בור אל אבני יורדי 14:30 דלים בכורי ורעו 17:14 והנה בלהה ערב לעתתתת 21:17 מספר קשת ושאר גבורי בני קדר 22:22 תית דוד בי ונתתי מפתח ב על שכמו 24:4 עםםםם הארץ אמללו מרום 30:2 פרעה במעוז לעוז מצרים ולחסות בצלללל 30:3 לכלמה בצלללל מצרים והחסות 30:6 וצוקה צרה בארץ 30:30 ברד ואבן נפץ וזרם 40:12 הארץ עפר וכל בשלש 40:14 משפט בארח וילמדהו 48:1 יצאו יהודה וממיייי 52:1 תפארתך בגדי לבשי καὶ ταπεινωθήσεται πᾶς ἄνθρωπος καὶ ἐπήρθη τὸ ὑπέρθυρον πρὸς τὴν κολυµβήθραν τῆς ἄνω ὁδοῦ ἐπάξει ἐπὶ τὸν νοῦν τὸν µέγαν καὶ οἱ σωθέντες τοῦ Ιακωβ ἀναβήσοµαι ἐπάνω τῶν νεφελῶν καταβαινόντων εἰς ᾅδου δου. 25 καὶ βοσκηθήσονται πτωχοὶ δι αὐτοῦ πρὸς ἑσπέραν ἔσται πένθος καὶ τὸ κατάλοιπον τῶν τοξευµάτων τῶν ἰσχυρῶν υἱῶν Κηδαρ καὶ δώσω τὴν δόξαν Δαυιδ αὐτῷ ἐπένθησαν οἱ ὑψηλοὶ τῆς ς γῆς. γ 26 τοῦ βοηθηθῆναι ὑπὸ Φαραω καὶ σκεπασθῆναι ὑπὸ Αἰγυπτίων γυπτίων. καὶ τοῖς πεποιθόσιν ἐπ Αἴγυπτον ὄνειδος. Ἐν τῇ θλίψει καὶ τῇ στενοχωρίᾳ καὶ ὡς ὕδωρ καὶ χάλαζα συγκαταφεροµένη βίᾳ. καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν γ δρακί; ἢ τίς ἔδειξεν αὐτῷ κρίσιν ιν; καὶ οἱ ἐξ Ιουδα ἐξελθόντες καὶ ἔνδυσαι τὴν δόξαν σου Βοσορ. may have been left out in parallelism to the preceding phrase ὅτι θυσία κυρίῳ ἐν ארץ 24 אבני 25 1QIsa a has אבני written supralinearly: יורדו א [ל] בור (see section 12.3.1.2). עמ 26 In 1QIsa a 12.3.1.2). (see section אמלל מרום הארצ hand: has been added by a later עמ 117
CHAPTER FIVE,כלללל 5.4 The omission of יחד רבבבב and The translator gives the impression of having been quite flexible in using or not using expressions in the sense of all and together. Whereas the previous chapter listed plenty of examples of his addition of such words, the next pages will demonstrate that he equally often has omitted Hebrew lexemes bearing these connotations. Representations of כל and יחד are absent in LXX Isaiah so regularly, that this cannot simply be attributed to a different Vorlage. Probably their frequent omission is due to the fact that in most cases the meaning of these words is logically inherent in the text in which they appear. For this reason the translator may have thought their lexical presence not absolutely necessary. כל 1:23 שריך סוררים וחברי גנבים κλεπτῶν, οἱ ἄρχοντές σου ἀπειθοῦσι, κοινωνοὶ כלו אהב שחד ἀγαπῶντες δῶρα כי הנה האדון צבאות מסיר 3:1 Ἰδοὺ δὴ ὁ δεσπότης κύριος σαβαωθ ἀφελεῖ מירושלם ומיהודה משען ומשענה ἀπὸ τῆς Ιουδαίας καὶ ἀπὸ Ιερουσαληµ ἰσχύοντα כל משען לחם וכל משען מים καὶ ἰσχύουσαν, ἰσχὺν ἄρτου καὶ ἰσχὺν ὕδατος 5:28 אשר חציו שנונים ὧν τὰ βέλη ὀξεῖά ἐστι וכל קשתתיו דרכות καὶ τὰ τόξα αὐτῶν ἐντεταµένα 8:7 את מלך אשור ואת כל כבודו τὸν βασιλέα τῶν Ἀσσυρίων καὶ τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ 8:9 והאזינו כל מרחקי ארץ ἐπακούσατε ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς 13:15 כל הנמצא ידקר ἡττηθήσεται, ὃς γὰρ ἂν ἁλῷ, וכל הנספה יפול בחרב πεσοῦνται καὶ οἵτινες συνηγµένοι εἰσί, µαχαίρᾳ כל מלכי גוים כלם שכבו בכבוד 14:18 πάντες οἱ βασιλεῖς τῶν ἐθνῶν ἐκοιµήθησαν ἐν τιµῇ 27 21:16 וכלה כל כבוד קדר ἐκλείψει ἡ δόξα τῶν υἱῶν Κηδαρ 28 22:3 כל נמצאיך אסרו יחדו καὶ οἱ ἁλόντες σκληρῶς δεδεµένοι εἰσί 24:10 סגר כל בית מבוא εἰσελθεῖν. 29 κλείσει οἰκίαν τοῦ µὴ 27:9 וזה כל פרי καὶ τοῦτό ἐστιν ἡ εὐλογία αὐτοῦ 29:20 ונכרתו כל שקדי און καὶ ἐξωλεθρεύθησαν οἱ ἀνοµοῦντες ἐπὶ κακίᾳ 30:18 אשרי כל חוכי לו αὐτῷ. µακάριοι οἱ ἐµµένοντες ἐν 33:20 וכל חבליו בל ינתקו διαρραγῶσιν. οὐδὲ τὰ σχοινία αὐτῆς οὐ µὴ 34:1 תבל וכל צאצאיה αὐτῇ. ἡ οἰκουµένη καὶ ὁ λαὸς ὁ ἐν 34:2 כי קצף ל על כל הגוים διότι θυµὸς κυρίου ἐπὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη וחמה על כל צבאם καὶ ὀργὴ ἐπὶ τὸν ἀριθµὸν αὐτῶν 34:12 וכל שריה οἱ γὰρ βασιλεῖς αὐτῆς καὶ οἱ ἄρχοντες αὐτῆς יהיו אפס ἀπώλειαν. καὶ οἱ µεγιστᾶνες αὐτῆς ἔσονται εἰς 36:1 עלה סנחריב מלך אשור ἀνέβη Σενναχηριµ βασιλεὺς Ἀσσυρίων על כל ערי יהודה הבצרות ἐπὶ τὰς πόλεις τῆς Ιουδαίας τὰς ὀχυρὰς 30 37:17 ושמע את כל דברי סנחריב καὶ ἰδὲ τοὺς λόγους, οὓς ἀπέστειλε Σενναχηριµ 31 27 In 1QIsa a כלם is missing correspondingly: מלכי גואים שכבו בכבוד.כול Probably it was left out for the sake of condensation (see section 12.3.1.2). 28 Cf. 1QIsa a כבוד קדר.יכלה The lack of representation of כל might be caused by an error of haplography (cf. sections 11.1 and 12.3.1.2). πόλις. / ἠρηµώθη πᾶσα נשברה קרית תהו clause: may have been transposed to the previous כל 29 In the parallel text 4 Kgdms 18:13 a Greek.(על כל ( haplography might have become lost on account of כל 30 equivalent for כל likewise is missing. 118
IMPLICITATION 38:13 כארי כן ישבר כל עצמותי οὕτως τὰ ὀστᾶ µου συνέτριψεν 40:2 כי לקחה מיד כפלים ὅτι ἐδέξατο ἐκ χειρὸς κυρίου διπλᾶ בכל חטאתיה αὐτῆς. τὰ ἁµαρτήµατα 45:22 פנו אלי והושעו σωθήσεσθε, ἐπιστράφητε πρός µε καὶ כל אפסי ארץ γῆς οἱ ἀπ ἐσχάτου τῆς 53:6 ו הפגיע בו את עון כלנו ἡµῶν. 32 καὶ κύριος παρέδωκεν αὐτὸν ταῖς ἁµαρτίαις 55:1 הוי כל צמא לכו למים Οἱ διψῶντες, πορεύεσθε ἐφ ὕδωρ 56:2 ושמר ידו מעשות כל רע ἀδίκηµα. καὶ διατηρῶν τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῦ µὴ ποιεῖν הנחמים באלים תחת כל עץ רענן 57:5 οἱ παρακαλοῦντες ἐπὶ τὰ εἴδωλα ὑπὸ δένδρα δασέα 59:8 נתיבותיהם עקשו להם διεστραµµέναι, αἱ γὰρ τρίβοι αὐτῶν כל דרך בה לא ידע שלום εἰρήνην. 33 ἃς διοδεύουσι, καὶ οὐκ οἴδασιν 59:11 נהמה כדבים כלנו ὡς ἄρκος וכיונים הגה נהגה πορεύσονται 34 καὶ ὡς περιστερὰ ἅµα 60:4 כלם נקבצו σου 35 συνηγµένα τὰ τέκνα 60:14 והלכו אליך שחוח בני מעניך καὶ πορεύσονται πρὸς σὲ δεδοικότες υἱοὶ והשתחוו על כפות רגליך כל מנאציך ταπεινωσάντων σε καὶ παροξυνάντων σε 62:2 וראו גוים צדקך καὶ ὄψονται ἔθνη τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου וכל מלכים כבודך καὶ βασιλεῖς τὴν δόξαν σου In a large proportion of these cases an extra motivation for the omission of כל may have been the amelioration of parallelism, given that in a parallel phrase or clause a word corresponding to כל is absent: see 1:23; 3:1; 5:28; 8:7; 21:16; 22:3; 29:20; 33:20; 34:1,12; 40:2; 53:6; 56:2; 57:5; 59:11; 60:14; and 62:2. יחדו / יחד 22:3 כל קציניך נדדו יחד πεφεύγασι, πάντες οἱ ἄρχοντές σου מקשת אסרו כל נמצאיך אסרו יחדו καὶ οἱ ἁλόντες σκληρῶς δεδεµένοι εἰσί 27:4 אציתנה יחד πάντα, ὅσα συνέταξε. κατακέκαυµαι 36 40:5 וראו כל בשר יחדו θεοῦ 37 καὶ ὄψεται πᾶσα σὰρξ τὸ σωτήριον τοῦ 41:19 אתן במדבר ארז שטה והדס θήσω εἰς τὴν ἄνυδρον γῆν κέδρον καὶ πύξον ועץ שמן אשים בערבה ברוש καὶ µυρσίνην תדהר ותאשור יחדו καὶ κυπάρισσον καὶ λεύκην 43:26 הזכירני נשפטה יחד κριθῶµεν σὺ δὲ µνήσθητι καὶ 45:16 בושו וגם נכלמו αἰσχυνθήσονται καὶ ἐντραπήσονται 31 Possibly in assimilation to v.4: τοὺς λόγους Ραψακου, οὓς ἀπέστειλε βασιλεὺς Ἀσσυρίων (see section 8.2.2.2). 32 Perhaps in parallelism to the first two lines of v.5: αὐτὸς δὲ ἐτραυµατίσθη διὰ τὰς ἀνοµίας ἡµῶν καὶ µεµαλάκισται διὰ τὰς ἁµαρτίας ἡµῶν. 33 LXX Isa has likely perceived דרך בה as a relative clause modifying כל ( all [roads] on which they walk ), whereas in the MT כל דרך בה forms the subject of the next clause: דרך בה לא ידע שלום no כל one who walks in them knows peace. ἅµα. could be represented by כל 34 35 Maybe כל has been moved to the next sentence: בניך מרחוק יבאו / ἰδοὺ ἥκασι πάντες οἱ υἱοί σου µακρόθεν. 36 Possibly יחד is rendered by πάντα. For an analysis of this translation, cf. section 2.7a. 37 According to Ziegler (Untersuchungen, 150) the Vorlage of the LXX read ישועת,את the more original form יחדו mistakenly having been copied as. It is also thinkable, however, that the translator himself has.יחדו for read 119
CHAPTER FIVE πάντες οἱ ἀντικείµενοι αὐτῷ 38 כלם יחדו In four of the seven cases in which a rendering of יחד or יחדו ( together ) is missing, in the same clause the synonymous כל appears (see 22:3[2x]; 40:5; and 45:16). Apparently, the combination of these two expressions was regarded as superfluous by the translator. רב The noun רב ( abundance ) lacks a Greek counterpart in the following two verses: 47:9 שכול ואלמן כתמם באו עליך χηρεία καὶ ἀτεκνία ἥξει ἐξαίφνης ἐπὶ σὲ ברב כשפיך ἐν τῇ φαρµακείᾳ σου 47:13 נלאית ברב עצתיך σου κεκοπίακας ἐν ταῖς βουλαῖς 5.5 Implicitation of the subject 5.5.1 The omission of a pronominal subject When in Hebrew an independent personal pronoun functions as a subject in a nominal clause, and is placed at the end of that clause (which means that it is not intended to give prominence to the subject), 39 LXX Isaiah generally reproduces this pronoun by a form of εἰµί. See e.g.: 41:9 אתה עבדי Παῖς µου εἶ 41:10 אל תירא כי עמך אני µὴ φοβοῦ, µετὰ σοῦ γάρ εἰµι µι 41:23 אתם ונדעה כי אלהים καὶ γνωσόµεθα ὅτι θεοί ἐστε στε 43:2 אני אתך µετὰ σοῦ εἰµι 43:5 אני אל תירא כי אתך µὴ φοβοῦ, ὅτι µετὰ σοῦ εἰµι µι 44:5 אני ל Τοῦ θεοῦ εἰµι 48:4 אתה מדעתי כי קשה γινώσκω ἐγὼ ὅτι σκληρὸς εἶ If the independent pronoun in nominal clauses does have an emphatic function, in which case it usually precedes the predicate, 40 LXX Isaiah often renders it in a double way : by means of a form of εἰµί in combination with a Greek independent pronoun. See e.g.: 8:13 הו אוא מוראכם וה καὶ αὐτὸς ἔσται σου φόβος. 37:20 לבדך אתה כי µόνος. ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ θεὸς 42:17 אלהינו אתם Ὑµε µεῖς ἐστε θεοὶ ἡµῶν. 43:1 אתה לי ἐµὸς εἶ σύ. 44:8 עדי ואתם µάρτυρες ὑµε µεῖς ἐστε 45:22 אל אני כי ἐγώ εἰµι ὁ θεός 46:9 אל אנכי כי ὅτι ἐγώ εἰµι ὁ θεός 48:12 ראשון אני ἐγώ εἰµι πρῶτος 48:17 אלהיך אני Ἐγώ εἰµι ὁ θεός σου 56:3 עץ יבש אני הן Ἐγώ εἰµιε ξύλον ξηρόν. כל הנחרים בך 41:11 (cf. and on those grounds translated as οἱ ἀντικείµενοι נחרים might have been linked to יחדו 38 / πάντες οἱ ἀντικείµενοί σοι). 39 Cf. Joüon 154fa. 40 Cf. Joüon 154fa. 120
IMPLICITATION ילדי פשע 57:4 אתם οὐχ ὑµε הלוא µεῖς ἐστε τέκνα ἀπωλείας In expressions in which the Hebrew employs the independent pronoun together with a predicative participle in order to indicate the person who forms the subject of this participle, 41 this construction is mostly reproduced into Greek by means a finite verb form without an independent pronoun. See e.g.: 5:5 עשה לכרמי אני את אשר τί ποιήσω τῷ ἀµπελῶνί µου 21:8 עמד תמיד יומם אנכי Ἔστην διὰ παντὸς ἡµέρας 29:11 הוא חתום כי ἐσφράγισται γάρ. 37:10 בוטח בו אתה אשר ἐφ ᾧ πεποιθὼς εἶ ἐπ αὐτῷ 48:13 אני אליהם קרא καλέσω αὐτούς Independent pronouns preceding finite verbal forms with the purpose of giving special prominence to the subject of these verbs, 42 are virtually always represented in LXX Isaiah. Only incidentally do they not have a match in the Greek, namely in the following cases: 10:14 וכאסף ביצים עזבות καὶ ὡς καταλελειµµένα ᾠὰ אספתי אני כל הארץ ἀρῶ 34:16 קבצן הו אוא ה ורוחו καὶ τὸ πνεῦµα αὐτοῦ συνήγαγεν αὐτάς τάς. 37:11 שמעת אתה הנה ἢ οὐκ ἤκουσας 37:25 ושתיתי מים קרתי אני καὶ ἔθηκα γέφυραν 38:17 נפשי חשקת ואתה εἵλου γάρ µου τὴν ψυχήν 38:19 יודך הו אוא ה חי חי οἱ ζῶντως εὐλογήσουσί σε 43:12 והושעתי הגדתי אנכי ἀνήγγειλα καὶ ἔσωσα In nearly all of the instances offered (10:14; 34:16; 37:25; 38:17; 43:12) the omission of the independent pronoun could be brought about by the translator s levelling the clause to a parallel one in which (in the Greek) an independent pronoun does not appear either. 5.5.2 The omission of a nominal subject Subjects have repeatedly been omitted in LXX Isaiah because in the translation their function is adopted by an identical or synonymous subject in a neighbouring clause ( distributive rendering, see section 3.6.2b). Under other circumstances, Hebrew nominal subjects are in LXX Isaiah only rarely transformed into subjects that are implied in the verb: וקרוב לבוא עתה וימיה לא ימשכו 13:22 χρονιεῖ. 43 ταχὺ ἔρχεται καὶ οὐ 16:10 יין ביקבים לא ידרך הדרך καὶ οὐ µὴ πατήσουσιν οἶνον εἰς τὰ ὑπολήνια 44 16:14 ועתה דבר לאמר καὶ νῦν λέγω 45 28:21 כי כהר פרצים יקום ὥσπερ ὄρος ἀσεβῶν ἀναστήσεται 46 33:24 ובל יאמר שכן καὶ οὐ µὴ εἴπῃ 41 Cf. Joüon 154fd. 42 Cf. Joüon 146a. 43 Cf. Hab 2:3 (see section 8.4.5.6). 44 Cf. sections 3.5 and 8.4.3.1. 45 LXX Isa has changed indirect speech into direct speech, probably because an introduction of direct speech has already occurred (Τοῦτο τὸ ῥῆµα, ὃ ἐλάλησε κύριος ἐπὶ Μωαβ, ὁπότε καὶ ἐλάλησε). following. and rendered by καὶ ἔσται at the beginning of the clause יהיה has probably been read as 46 121
CHAPTER FIVE 49:23 אשר לא יבשו קוי αἰσχυνθήσῃ. καὶ οὐκ 61:1 רוח עלי יען Πνεῦµα κυρίου ἐπ ἐµέ, οὗ εἵνεκεν משח אתי µε 47 ἔχρισέ In some of these examples, the omission entails that whereas the Hebrew starts with a new subject, the Greek continues with the subject of the preceding clause. Through this continuation the cohesion of the text is strengthened (see 16:10; 33:24; and 49:23). 48 5.6 Implicitation by the omission of an object Just as was the case with other sentence elements, objects 49 were probably also mostly omitted because their information was seen as redundant (see e.g. 9:3[4]; 25:10; 26:20,21; 28:4; 30:14,33; 31:7; 33:12; 36:21; 40:20; 44:5; and 54:1 below). Furthermore they may have been deleted in order to circumvent a certain suggestion in the text (e.g. 37:28 29 and 59:13), or to give a broader validity to the words (e.g. 8:11 and 40:17). Lastly, they may sometimes have been omitted for the sake of parallelism (e.g. 44:7; 46:11; and 48:15). 5.6.1 The omission of a pronominal object 8:11 כי כה אמר אלי Οὕτως λέγει κύριος 9:3(4) שבט הנגש בו τὴν γὰρ ῥάβδον τῶν ἀπαιτούντων החתת כיום מדין Μαδιαµ. διεσκέδασε κύριος ὡς τῇ ἡµέρᾳ τῇ ἐπὶ 25:10 ונדוש מואב תחתיו καὶ καταπατηθήσεται ἡ Μωαβῖτις 26:20 וסגר דלתיך בעדך ἀπόκλεισον τὴν θύραν σου 26:21 כי הנה יצא ממקומו ἰδοὺ γὰρ κύριος ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου ἐπάγει τὴν לפקד עון ישב הארץ עליו ὀργὴν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἐνοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς 30:33 נשמת כנחל גפרית בערה בה καιοµένη. ὁ θυµὸς κυρίου ὡς φάραγξ ὑπὸ θείου 31:7 אשר עשו לכם ידיכם חטא αὐτῶν. ἃ ἐποίησαν αἱ χεῖρες 36:7 וכי תאמר אלי אל אלהינו εἰ δὲ λέγετε Ἐπὶ κύριον τὸν θεὸν ἡµῶν בטחנו πεποίθαµεν 50 36:21 לא תענהו ἀποκριθῆναι. µηδένα ואת התרגזך אלי יען התרגזך אלי 37:28 29 ὁ δὲ θυµός σου, ὃν ἐθυµώθης 51 40:17 כל הגוים כאין נגדו καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ὡς οὐδέν εἰσι מאפס ותהו נחשבו לו ἐλογίσθησαν. καὶ εἰς οὐθὲν 40:20 חרש חכם יבקש לו להכין פסל καὶ σοφῶς ζητεῖ πῶς στήσει αὐτοῦ εἰκόνα לא ימוט σαλεύηται. καὶ ἵνα µὴ 44:7 יקרא ויגידה ויערכה לי στήτω καλεσάτω καὶ ἑτοιµασάτω µοι 46:11 אף דברתי אף אביאנה ἤγαγον, ἐλάλησα καὶ יצרתי אף אעשנה ἔκτισα καὶ ἐποίησα 48:15 אני אני דברתי אף קראתיו ἐγὼ ἐλάλησα, ἐγὼ ἐκάλεσα 52 47 Presumably omitted in order to avoid repetition. 48 See van Peursen, Language and Interpretation, 395. 49 The term object includes direct, indirect, and prepositional objects. 50 According to Goshen-Gottstein (HUB Isa, 151) אלי is omitted mistakenly, due to haplography אל).(אלי Yet, the translator may also have left it out deliberately, because he thought it superfluous. 51 Perhaps anger directed towards God was offensive in the eyes of the translator; cf. section 10.3.2. 122
IMPLICITATION Object suffixes are occasionally not represented when a reference to the object also occurs elsewhere in the same sentence (either in a different or in the same syntactical function): - As object to a another phrase: 53 27:11 על כן לא ירחמנוווו עשהוווו διὰ τοῦτο οὐ µὴ οἰκτιρήσῃ ὁ ποιήσας αὐτούς τούς, ויצרו לא יחננוווו οὐδὲ ὁ πλάσας αὐτο τοὺς οὐ µὴ ἐλεήσῃ. 37:11 אתה שמעת אשר עשו מלכי אשור ἢ οὐκ ἤκουσας ἃ ἐποίησαν βασιλεῖς Ἀσσυρίων להחרימם לכל הארצות πᾶσαν τὴν τ γῆν γ ὡς ἀπώλεσαν; 49:10 כי מרחמם ינהגם ἀλλὰ ὁ ἐλεῶν αὐτο τοὺς παρακαλέσει 55:6 בהמצאו קראהוווו ἐπικαλέσασθε 54 καὶ ἐν τῷ εὑρίσκειν αὐτὸν 56:2 מחללו שבת שמר καὶ φυλάσσων τὰ σάββατα µὴ βεβηλοῦν 56:6 שבת כל שמר καὶ πάντας τοὺς φυλασσοµένους τὰ σάββατά מחללו µου µὴ βεβηλοῦν 58:7 וכסיתו ערם כי תראה ἐὰν ἴδῃς γυµνόν, περίβαλε 62:9 כי מאספיוווו יאכלהוווו ἀλλ ἢ οἱ συνάγοντες φάγονται αὐτὰ 62:9 ומקבציוווו ישתהוווו καὶ οἱ συνάγοντες πίονται αὐτὰ - As an object in casus pendens, located at the beginning of the clause and later resumed by way of a retrospective pronoun: 55 13:17 לא יחפצו בוווו וזהב 14:27 ומי ישיבנהההה הנטויה וידו 42:3 לא יכבנהההה כהה ופששששתהההה 59:12 ידענום ועונתינו οὐδὲ χρυσίου χρείαν ἔχουσι. καὶ τὴν χεῖρα τὴν τ ὑψηλ ψηλὴν τίς ἀποστρέψει; καὶ λίνον καπνιζόµενον οὐ σβέσει 56 καὶ τὰ ἀδικήµατα ἀ ἡµῶν ἔγνωµεν - When the object is made explicit in an apposition at the end of the sentence (a figure called epergesis). In the Greek the words of the apposition are integrated within the sentence: 15:7 הערבים ופקדתם על נחל ἐπάξω γὰρ ἐπὶ τὴν φάραγγα Ἄραβας 23:9 לחלל צבאות יעצה κύριος σαβαωθ ἐβουλεύσατο παραλῦσαι כל צבי גאון πᾶσαν τὴν τ ὕβριν τῶν τ ἐνδόξων 41:12 תבקשם ולא תמצאם ζητήσεις αὐτοὺς καὶ οὐ µὴ εὕρῃς מצתך אנשי τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, οἳ ο παροινήσουσιν εἰς ε ς σέ 52 Cf 1QIsa a : אני אני דברתי אפ קראתי (see section 12.3.1.2). 53 Cf. also 8:16. דרשו בהמצאו קראהו בהיותו קרוב :קראהו and בהמצאו 54 In the MT the sentence division lies in between Seek the LORD while he may be found, call upon him while he is near. 55 Cf. Joüon 156. For an example in which such a construction has been maintained in LXX Isa, see e.g. 1:7 אתה / τὴν χώραν ὑµῶν ἐνώπιον ὑµῶν ἀλλότριοι κατεσθίουσιν αὐτήν אדמתכם לנגדכם זרים אכלים For an וחרבות e.g. 5:17 example in which both MT Isa and LXX Isa do not resume the object after a casus pendens, see φάγονται. / καὶ τὰς ἐρήµους τῶν ἀπειληµµένων ἄρνες מחים גרים יאכלו 56 1QIsa a displays ופשתה כהה לוא יכבה (see section 12.3.1.2). :הערבים as a pf. cons. 1 st sg., with a suffix in the 3 rd masc. pl. pointing to ופקדתם 57 LXX Isa seems to have read For I will bring them to the valley, namely the Arabs. In the MT, by contrast, הערבים is a genitive attribute to,נחל while ופקדתם is vocalised as a noun phrase meaning their possessions ק דּ ת ם).(וּפ The latter is the subject of a clause governed by the verb phrase על נחל הערבים ישאום :ישאום and ופקדתם their possessions they carry away over the Wadi of the Willows. The rendering of ישאום forms a separate clause in the LXX: καὶ λήµψονται αὐτήν and they will take her. 123
CHAPTER FIVE 63:11 רעי צאנו את איה המעלם מים ὁ ἀναβιβάσας ἐκ τῆς γῆς τὸν ποιµένα τῶν τ προβάτων 58 - In another syntactical function, for instance as a subject or as an object complement: 24:9 לשתיוווו שכר ימר πικρὸν ἐγένετο τὸ σικερα τοῖς πίνουσιν. 46:6 ויעשהוווו אלללל ἐποίησαν χειροποίητα 5.6.2 The omission of a nominal object 30:10 לא תחזו לנו נכחות Μὴ λαλεῖτε ἡµῖν 30:14 לחתות אש מיקוד ולחשף ἐν ᾧ πῦρ ἀρεῖς καὶ ἐν ᾧ ἀποσυριεῖς מים מגבא µικρόν. ὕδωρ 31:7 אשר עשו לכם ידיכם חטא αὐτῶν. ἃ ἐποίησαν αἱ χεῖρες 33:12 והיו עמים משרפות שיד קוצים καὶ ἔσονται ἔθνη κατακεκαυµένα ὡς ἄκανθα כסוחים באש יצתו κατακεκαυµένη. ἐν ἀγρῷ ἐρριµµένη καὶ 38:21 ישאו דבלת תאנים וימרחו Λαβὲ παλάθην ἐκ σύκων καὶ τρῖψον על השחין καὶ κατάπλασαι 44:5 וזה יכתב ידו ל καὶ ἕτερος ἐπιγράψει Τοῦ θεοῦ εἰµι 54:1 פצחי רנה וצהלי ῥῆξον καὶ βόησον 59:13 פשע וכחש ב ונסוג ἠσεβήσαµεν καὶ ἐψευσάµεθα καὶ ἀπέστηµεν מאחר אלהינו ἡµῶν 59 ἀπὸ ὄπισθεν τοῦ θεοῦ Elsewhere, the omission of objects bears on the application of distributive rendering. See for examples section 3.6.2a. 5.7 Implicitation without the occurrence of a minus Implicitation is only now and then achieved by way of an omission. In other places it is done through the substitution of words, in particular of a noun by a pronoun. Three examples to illustrate this are: 14:22 שם ושאר לבבל והכרתי ונין ונכד 52:9 גאל ירושלם עמו כי נחם 63:6 באפי עמים ואבוס καὶ ἀπολῶ αὐτῶν ὄνοµα καὶ κατάλειµµα καὶ σπέρµα ὅτι ἠλέησε κύριος αὐτὴν καὶ ἐρρύσατο Ιερουσαληµ. καὶ κατεπάτησα αὐτο τοὺς τῇ ὀργῇ µου 5.8 Conclusion Even though the Isaiah translator was particularly apt to make his text more explicit and to add interpretative glosses to it, some instances of implicitation can also be encountered in his כל translation. He has regularly left out words that are already implied by the context (such as and,(יחד or information he may have supposed to be familiar to his readers. Now and then he has omitted specifying details that do not really influence the message and content of the text ו 58 1QIsa a gives איה המעלה מים את רוע צ א(ו)נו (see section.(12.3.1.2 59 Possibly the translator regarded the idea of lying to God himself as too offensive. 124
IMPLICITATION (e.g. specifications of body parts). By removing such superfluous words, he may have wished to create a text that was more concise in character. 60 Nevertheless, the avoidance of redundancy on its own does not provide a sufficient explanation for many of the translator s omissions mentioned in this chapter. It does not answer the question of why in some cases he has made elements implicit, whereas in plenty of other cases he has rather made his text more explicit, sometimes even by adding the same words that in other verses he had discarded (such as words in the sense of all ). One solution for this paradox is that the translator was quite willing either to add or omit (seemingly) insignificant elements if this could serve other purposes, such as the amelioration of parallelism, the assimilation of an expression to a related one nearby, or the strengthening of the coherence of his discourse. The possibility also exists that he occasionaly deleted or inserted small words just because this favoured the rhythm of his text. Finally, he may sometimes have employed the implicitation of textual elements with the aim of extending or generalising a notion of the text, or in order to reduce the emphasis on or sometimes even to remove certain suggestions (see e.g. 37:29 and 59:13). This is were implicitation begins to touch on exegesis. In this twilight zone it could be used as a technique that on the one hand allowed the translator to remain close to the literal wording of Scripture, but which on the other hand gave him some room for a broader or slightly different interpretation of the source text. Without doubt this chapter has included some minuses that have not actually been caused by the application of implicitation, but by the fact that the translator had a source text in front of him that sometimes differed from the MT. Still, because the omission of redundant words closely accords with the translator s penchant for condensation, this favours the attribution of implicitating minuses to the translator himself. 60 Despite the translator s aim for conciseness, implicitation in LXX Isa hardly ever leads to ellipsis, i.e. the omission of syntactically required elements. See section 7.4a. 125
CHAPTER FIVE 126