These two posts comprise a portion of a dissertation that never reached completion on a comparative analysis of the articular infinitive in the NT within the sphere of Koine literature. This portion comes from chapter three, noting peculiarities in LXX infinitives and if these were affected by the Hebrew source language.
Introduction
Most acknowledge the influence of the OT, particularly the LXX, on the NT. In addition to explicit quotations, the NT mirrors the LXX in terms of language, style, and themes. From a literary standpoint, the two are very close, and since the LXX is largely a translation of a Hebrew Vorlage, the question naturally becomes: How much of the Hebrew is reflected in the translated Greek? Did translators introduce forms or collocations that regular Koine usage did not allow?
The present work is limited to the study of articular infinitives and intends to answer two questions. First, are there differences between the LXX and other Koine literature in reference to their use of articular infinitives? Second, are the differences affected by the Hebrew source language? If sufficient examples are found where the Hebrew has affected the Greek translation to the point of introducing irregular forms, study of LXX (and probably NT) grammar can be exclusively limited to their own works. Otherwise, the LXX and NT documents can be grouped together with the remainder of Koine literature, benefitting from a survey of all the material.
Methodology and Limitations
E. G. W. Hewlett wrote two articles on the infinitive in Polybius, which was followed by Hamilton Allen’s comparison of Polybius with the LXX. Allen also defined and listed examples of uses parallel to Clyde Votaw’s work on infinitives in the LXX and NT. This allows for easy
comparison, which surfaces a few innovations of the LXX (mostly involving the genitive articular infinitive). Yet, simply comparing lists is not sufficient to notice influence of the source language. Therefore, this paper attempts to bring more precision to this discussion.
Following criteria proposed by Barr and Tov, Greek and Hebrew texts will be compared on two fronts: form and function. The easiest way to notice influence or alteration on meaning of a structure is to study those examples most formally equivalent to the original source. Barr echoes, “Freedom in translating will always be there as a contrast, for the modern reader it is literalism rather than freedom that requires explanation and understanding.” Each pair of verses will fall into one of six categories:
1.) Greek form not found in Hebrew text (MT);
2.) Greek text has different form and function;
3.) Both texts have similar form but different function;
4.) Greek text has different form but similar function;
5.) Both texts have similar form and function, but Greek syntax is still regular.
6.) Both texts have similar form and function, and Hebrew influence is possible.
The first four categories will be largely ignored in attempting to define Hebraistic influence. If the Greek employs a different form or function than the source language, one cannot conclude the Hebrew is responsible for the change. Therefore, one can only look at the final categories (i.e., similar form and function) to find possible examples of Greek forms used in atypical ways.
The texts employed in this study are the Göttingen edition of the LXX and the Hebrew text of BHS or BHQ (for those fascicles already completed). In addition, certain books of the LXX were chosen for comparison due to the frequency of the articular infinitive in the LXX. Not all can be studied here, but the selected books (see below) adequately represent the entire corpus in terms of genre, range of translation technique, and infinitival structures used.
Translation Technique and the LXX
Sometimes translations are able to transfer the meaning of the source language using the available words and syntactical options of the target language. At other times, the geographical location, cultural background, and social settings demand relevant translation changes. The LXX translators, then, were faced with a choice: translate the Hebrew text faithfully in a literal fashion (sometimes at the expense of becoming ambiguous or grammatically incorrect) or translate into a type of Greek meaningful to the populace.
Several studies of various books have been done, some with a general sense of the translation technique (e.g., Thackeray), some with a broad classification based on several criteria (e.g., Tov), and some with emphasis on a specific aspect of grammar (e.g., Sollamo). Only rarely are books drastically labeled differently. This paper focuses on the following books based on differences in date, genre, and translation technique: Exodus, Joshua, select Minor Prophets, various Psalms, and Isaiah 1–10. I chose prophetical books (i.e., Amos, Nah, Hab, Zeph, Mal) and Psalms based on a variety of infinitival structures and unclear uses of Greek infinitives. Over 250 articular infinitives were analyzed, providing an adequate base for initial conclusions.
Comparison of Infinitives
Most of the predominant forms and functions commonly found in the LXX are also in Polybius (whom Allen used as representative of extra-biblical Koine). Significant for this study, though, are those uses of the infinitive in the LXX (and possibly the NT) which are never found in Polybius. First, the LXX sometimes uses the genitive articular infinitive for either actual (e.g., Gen 16:2; Sir 44:8) or hypothetical result (e.g., Gen 19:20; Sir 42:1). Second, the same form can sometimes function for epexegetical result of a verb (e.g., Gen 3:22; Num 14:36; Deut 20:19). Votaw defines this category as an infinitive which “indicate[s] more specifically the content of the action or state of that verb or noun which it limits, or even to indicate some looser relation between the two.” Third, Allen claims Polybius would use ἐκ with the genitive articular infinitive for source or cause, whereas the LXX has ἀπό (4 Macc 6:7). Comparing lists in Allen, Hewlett, and Votaw also surfaces the peculiarity of the genitive articular infinitive as subject (e.g., 1 Kgs 8:18; 2 Chron 6:7; Ps 126:2; Eccl 3:12). These four functions of LXX infinitives present possible ways in which Hebrew caused Greek syntax to function unlike regular Koine writers. The following sections list and explain the articular infinitives found in the LXX books in relation to the Hebrew text which they reflect.
Category 1: LXX Form Not Represented in MT (Regular Greek)
Within the studied examples, sometimes the LXX cannot be representing a Hebrew source. The Greek simply adds information of which there is no equivalent in parallel Hebrew context (e.g., Exod 38:19; 39:11; Josh 19:48[1]). In other cases, the Greek cannot be based on the Hebrew equivalent, though the preceding and following verses are clearly a literal translation (e.g., Exod 1:16; Ps 31:4 [MT, 32:4]; Isa 8:16; 10:24; 51:14). In Habakkuk 3:19, the Greek translator even represented a musical notation with a purpose infinitive (cf. HALOT, 1:716). As in the following sections, Greek forms that are not similar to the Hebrew source in both form and function cannot be said definitively to contain Hebrew influence. It is possible that “irregular” usage of an infinitive elsewhere (where an equivalent Hebrew form is present) caused translators to consider those forms viable syntactical options in other texts, but further study of all parallel examples (including anarthrous infinitives) is necessary. This type of study is introduced in Category 6 (see below). The forms of these texts can tentatively be labeled as “regular Greek.”
Category 2: Different Form/Different Function (Regular Greek)
The second category contains texts with similar ideas (indicating intentional translation), but the form and function of the Greek does not represent the Hebrew. Grammatical differences occur when the LXX omits the verb (e.g., Exod 7:14; Ps 70:3 [MT, 71:3]; Isa 7:4), adds a verb (e.g., Exod 9:28; Isa 7:16), inserts a demonstrative pronoun (e.g., Josh 22:26), contains different lexemes for either the verb or infinitive (e.g., Josh 5:1; Amos 6:10), translates מִן with τοῦ μή (e.g., Exod 14:5), or changes other parts of speech (e.g., Hebrew noun to infinitive, Isa 59:15).
Sometimes, these grammatical changes are significant for this discussion.
Ps 88:23 οὐ προσθήσει τοῦ κακῶσαι αὐτόν
(Ps 89:23) וּבֶן־עַ֜וְלָ֗ה לֹ֣א יְעַנֶּֽנּוּ
The lexeme of the Greek infinitive has changed from “humbling” to “harming,” and the insertion of a verb (προσθήσει) changes the function of the word of action. Why would the translator, who usually translates rather literally, make such drastic changes? He has changed not only the sense of the sentence but also the form. Furthermore, לְ is usually seen as spawning a genitive articular form, but this infinitive is not equivalent to a form with לְ. This seems to indicate that τοῦ with an infinitive can function as a complement to certain verbs (at least προστίθημι).
Category 3: Same Form/Different Function (Regular Greek)
The next grouping includes Greek texts that represent the Hebrew text, yet the LXX uses its infinitive differently. The infinitival functions from both languages are clear but not equal. The reader will notice that all the Greek texts contain genitive articular infinitives.
Ps 35:3 ὅτι ἐδόλωσεν ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ τοῦ εὑρεῖν τὴν ἀνομίαν αὐτοῦ καὶ μισῆσαι
(Ps 36:3) הֶחֱלִ֣יק אֵלָ֣יו בְּעֵינָ֑יו לִמְצֹ֖א עֲוֹנ֣וֹ לִשְׂנֹֽא
The Greek verb typically takes an accusative object (e.g., 2 Cor 4:2), which indicates the first infinitive should not be a genitive direct object unless the Hebrew לְ is influencing it. The function, though, of both Greek infinitives seem to either be purpose or result. The Hebrew verb, on the other hand, has a slightly different lexical value (i.e., flattery vs. deceit/corruption), and the infinitives seem to function as either the subject of the verb (i.e., “finding iniquity flatters him”) or reference (i.e., “it flatters him concerning finding his iniquity”). This is a difficult pairing, because τοῦ does represent לְ, but the main verbs do not exactly match. Because of this, it is possible the Hebrew is affecting the Greek, but one could not state this dogmatically. More likely, the sense of the form has changed, resulting in a regular Greek construction (cf. Ps 61:10 [MT, 62:10]; 140:4 [MT, 141:4]; Isa 10:7 for similar examples).
In Hebrew, Zephaniah 3:8 has three infinitives with לְ, functioning as predicate nominatives of an elided verb.
כִּ֣י מִשְׁפָּטִי֩ לֶאֱסֹ֙ף גּוֹיִ֜ם לְקָבְצִ֣י ממְלָכ֗וֹת לִשְׁפֹּ֙ךְ עֲלֵיהֶ֤ם זַעְמִי֙ כֹּ֚ל חֲר֣וֹן אַפִּ֔י
In contrast, the Greek replaces the first infinitive with a prepositional phrase (εἰς), and genitive articular infinitives represent the final two infinitives.
διότι τὸ κρίμα μου εἰς συναγωγὰς ἐθνῶν τοῦ εἰσδέξασθαι βασιλεῖς τοῦ ἐκχέαι ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς πᾶσαν ὀργὴν θυμοῦ μου.
Though the genitive articles stand for לְ, the translation of the first Hebrew preposition with a prepositional phrase changes the function of the latter two Greek infinitives. Thus, the form is similar, but the function is different, indicating the syntax is most likely regular.
Category 4: Different Form/Same Function (Regular Greek)
This category is similar to Category 2, in that the Greek frequently alters the Hebrew form, either through having an infinitive instead of a noun (e.g., Exod 12:13; Hab 3:13; Ps 72:28 [MT, 73:28]; Isa 4:2), inserting an article where the Hebrew has none (e.g., Ps 132:1 [MT, 133:1], changing a verb to an infinitive (e.g., Exod 14:5; Ps 30:3 [MT, 31:3]) or a participle to an infinitive (e.g., Ps. 68:4 [MT, 69:4]; 126:2 [MT, 127:2]), translating מִן with τοῦ μή (e.g., Isa 5:6), or including a preposition distinct from the source text (e.g., Josh 5:12; Ps 118:9 [MT, 119:9]).
The following is a clear example of how a change in form indicates regular Greek syntax.
Hab 3:13 ἐξῆλθες εἰς σωτηρίαν λαοῦ σου τοῦ σῶσαι τοὺς χριστούς σου
יָצָ֙אתָ֙ לְיֵ֣שַׁע עַמֶּ֔ךָ לְיֵ֖שַׁע את־מְשִׁיחֶ֑ךָ
Despite the change of singular object to plural, the more significant change is the Greek infinitive for the Hebrew noun. The function is similar, and the τοῦ/ לְtranslation is regular, but the shift from noun to infinitive indicates the syntax is regular (cf. Isa 5:14; 10:3).
The following examples have a prepositional phrase in the Hebrew, which the LXX translator again changes to a genitive articular infinitive.
Ps 118:20 ἐπεπόθησεν ἡ ψυχή μου τοῦ ἐπιθυμῆσαι τὰ κρίματά σου
(Ps 119:20) גָּרְסָ֣ה נַפְשִׁ֣י לְתַאֲבָ֑ה אֶֽל־מִשְׁפָּטֶ֥יךָ
Isa 5:7 ἔμεινα τοῦ ποιῆσαι κρίσιν
וַיְקַ֤ו לְמִשְׁפָּט
The exact nuance of the Greek infinitives is difficult to ascertain, but because of the shift in main verb (Ps 118:20) or insertion of infinitive (Isa 5:7), the Greek infinitives are clearly not reflective of the Hebrew (i.e., objective or reference). Though לְ may be the reason for the genitive article, the insertion of the infinitive indicates a conscious choice by the translator. This can only be said to be regular Koine and becomes significant for later texts (cf. Isa 5:2, 4 [Category 6, p. 20]).
One of the most important main verbs that belong under this heading is προστίθημι (also seen in Category 2). In the following examples, the Greek verb takes a complementary infinitive with the article, yet the parallel Hebrew form does not insert לְ.
Amos 5:2 μὴ προσθῇ τοῦ ἀναστῆναι παρθένος
לֹֽא־תוֹסִ֣יף ק֔וּם בְּתוּלַ֖ת יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל
Amos 7:8 μὴ προσθῶ τοῦ παρελθεῖν αὐτόν
לֹֽא־אוֹסִ֥יף ע֖וֹד עֲב֥וֹר לֽוֹ
LSJ (1527–28) only lists options of an accusative or an infinitive as the object of this verb. Yet, without a לְ on the Hebrew verb, one cannot argue the Greek has moved outside the boundaries of proper syntax in these cases. Therefore, one cannot claim absolute correspondence between יָסַף with לְ and προστίθημι with τοῦ.
The next example is also quite significant.
Isa 58:13 ἐὰν ἀποστρέψῃς τὸν πόδα σου ἀπὸ τῶν σαββάτων τοῦ μὴ ποιεῖν τὰ θελήματά σου
אִם־תָּשִׁ֤יב מִשַּׁבָּת֙ רַגְלֶ֔ךָ עֲשׂ֥וֹת חפָצֶ֖יךָ
The infinitives in both texts give a result of some type, likely explaining what “turning one’s foot from the Sabbath” means. However, the Hebrew has no לְ, which causes the reader to wonder if the LXX translator inserted the genitive articular form because of its regular range of uses. Again, this is significant for the later section (see “Epexegetical Result/ Means,” pp. 22–25).
Category 5: Same Form/ Same Function (Regular Greek)
Genitive Articular Infinitives
Sometimes, genitive articular infinitives serve as the object or complement of the verb. Most grammars rightly divide these categories depending on the lexeme and transitivity of the verb, yet the two have been combined here for simplicity’s sake. Yet, only verbs which clearly take a genitive object have been included, reserving unclear Greek forms for the next section.
Ps 35:4 οὐκ ἐβουλήθη συνιέναι τοῦ ἀγαθῦναι
(Ps 36:4) חָדַ֖ל לְהַשְׂכִּ֣יל לְהֵיטִֽיב
The Hebrew contains two לְ-prefixed infinitives, but the Greek only precedes the latter with the genitive article. One could argue that the lexical values of the verbs are quite distinct, and this could result in forms that are not exact. Yet, the point here is that the translator did not blindly translate every לְ-prefixed infinitive with the genitive article. Rather, there must have been some method to his technique (cf. Hab 2:14).
Examples also occur where the genitive articular infinitive mirrors a Hebrew form with לְ functioning epexegetically (cf. Josh 22:27; Amos 8:11).
Josh 9:15 καὶ διέθετο πρὸς αὐτοὺς διαθήκην τοῦ διασῶσαι αὐτούς
וַיִּכְרֹ֥ת לָהֶ֛ם בְּרִ֖ית לְחַיּוֹתָ֑ם
Ps 118:126 καιρὸς τοῦ ποιῆσαι τῷ κυρίῳ
(Ps 119:126) עֵ֭ת לַעֲשׂ֣וֹת לַיהוָ֑ה
This example becomes significant in noticing the impact of the Hebrew on the style of the Greek but not the syntax. Both languages have the infinitive modifying the head noun, but in both cases, the Psalmist is calling for the Lord “to do.” In regular Greek, one would probably expect an accusative to function as the “subject” of the infinitive, yet the translator has maintained the Hebrew prepositional phrase, putting κυρίῳ in the dative case. This does not affect the syntax of the sentence, leaving such examples as reflective of typical Koine Greek.
The most common use of the genitive articular infinitive is to provide the purpose of the main action. Yet, sometimes this sense is lessened to give the result regardless of intention. The following examples of parallel Hebrew and Greek forms cover both functions. Sometimes the exact nuance of the Greek is not easily discernible, but since both forms occur in other passages and extra-biblical literature, making an absolute conclusion at this point is unnecessary.
Ps 33:17 πρόσωπον δὲ κυρίου ἐπὶ ποιοῦντας κακὰ τοῦ ἐξολεθρεῦσαι ἐκ γῆς τὸ μνημόσυνον αὐτῶν
(Ps 34:17) פְּנֵ֣י יְ֭הוָה בְּעֹ֣שֵׂי רָ֑ע לְהַכְרִ֖ית מֵאֶ֣רֶץ זִכְרָֽם
Amos 8:5 ἀνοίξομεν θησαυροὺς τοῦ ποιῆσαι μικρὸν μέτρον καὶ τοῦ μεγαλῦναι στάθμια καὶ ποιῆσαι ζυγὸν ἄδικον
וְנִפְתְּחָה־בָּ֑ר לְהַקְטִ֤ין אֵיפָה וּלְהַגְדִּ֣יל שֶׁ֔קֶל וּלְעַוֵּ֖ת מֹאזְנֵ֥י מִרְמָֽה
I have included this example to show the contrast between the first two infinitives and the third. The reader notices all three Hebrew infinitives are preceded by לְ. However, the Greek has τοῦ with only the first two infinitives. If the translator were focusing on a making as literal a translation as possible, the third Greek infinitive would also be articular. This seems to indicate the לְ did not have as much influence over the translation process as sometimes argued. In this case, the translator was not focused on exact segmentation and representation of the source text.
Isa 56:6 τοῖς ἀλλογενέσι τοῖς προσκειμένοις κυρίῳ δουλεύειν αὐτῷ καὶ ἀγαπᾶν τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου τοῦ εἶναι αὐτῷ εἰς δούλους
הַנֵּכָ֗ר הַנִּלְוִ֤ים עַל־יְהוָה֙ לְשָׁ֣רְת֔וֹ וּֽלְאַהֲבָה֙ אֶת־שֵׁ֣ם יְהוָ֔ה לִהְי֥וֹת ל֖וֹ לַעֲבָדִ֑ים
This example is also included because of the inconsistency in the Greek translation. Without noting the function of the first two infinitives, the reader clearly sees a לְ in the Hebrew forms, but no genitive article in the Greek. Only the third infinitive in each text is parallel in form, indicating the translator did not blindly reproduce the לְ with τοῦ.
Cf. Ps 36:14 [MT, 37:14]; Ps 39:15 (MT, 40:15); 58:1 (MT 59:1); 58:16 (MT 59:16); 59:6 (MT, 60:6); 60:9 (MT, 61:9); 72:28 (MT, 73:28); 75:10 (MT, 76:10); 77:5 (MT, 78:5); 84:10 (MT, 85:10); 90:11 (MT, 91:11); 91:16 (MT 92:16); 93:13 (MT 94:13); 100:6 (MT 101:6); 100:8 (MT, 101:8); 112:8 (MT, 113:8); 117:13 (MT, 118:13); 118:5 (MT, 119:5); 118:60 (MT, 119:60); 118:62 [MT, 119:62]; 118:76 (MT, 119:76); 118:95 (MT, 119:95); 118:112 (MT, 119:112); 118:148 (MT, 119:148); 118:173 (MT, 119:173); Amos 1:6; 2:10; 4:8; 4:12; 8:6; Nah 2:12; Hab 1:6; 1:12; 2:1; 2:9; 2:18; Zeph 3:9 (2x); Mal 2:4; 2:10; Isa 2:21; 50:4.
Infinitives with Prepositions
Similar comparisons occur with Greek infinitives preceded by prepositions, reflecting accurate translation of similar Hebrew forms. These are seen with both major prepositions (e.g., διὰ τό, Exod 16:8; εἰς τό, Exod 36:34; Ps 69:2 [MT, 70:2]; ἐν τῷ, Exod 16:7; 27:7; Ps 30:14 [MT, 31:14]; μετὰ τό, Exod 7:25) as well as less common prepositions (e.g., ἀπό, Isa 7:22; ἕνεκεν, Amos 1:6, 11; ἕως, Exod 33:8). The following allow the reader to see equivalence in translation.
Josh 22:19 καὶ μὴ ἀπόστητε ἀπὸ κυρίου διὰ τὸ οἰκοδομῆσαι ὑμᾶς βωμὸν
אֶל־תִּמְרֹ֔דוּ בִּבְנֹֽתְכֶ֤ם לָכֶם֙ מִזְבֵּ֔חַ
Waltke claims the Hebrew infinitive with בְּ can function either causally or temporally. In this case, the former is much more likely, though the nuance is lessened to an instrumental sense. Regardless, the causal use of the prepositions is reflected by διὰ τὸ οἰκοδομῆσαι, though the reader could interpret this as providing evidence, not the reason, for turning from the Lord.
Exod 28:4 καὶ ποιήσουσιν στολὰς ἁγίας Ααρων καὶ τοῖς υἱοῖς αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ ἱερατεύειν μοι
וְעָשׂ֙וּ בִגְדֵי־קֹ֜דֶשׁ לְאַהֲרֹ֥ן אָחִ֛יךָ וּלְבָנָ֖יו לְכַהֲנוֹ־לִֽי
Exod 30:15 ὁ πενόμενος οὐκ ἐλαττονήσει ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡμίσους τοῦ διδράχμου ἐν τῷ διδόναι τὴν εἰσφορὰν
וְהַדַּל֙ לֹ֣א יַמְעִ֔יט מִֽמַּחֲצִ֖ית הַשָּׁ֑קֶל לָתֵת֙ אֶת־תְּרוּמַ֣ת
This example is different, in that the Hebrew has לְ instead of בְּ, though לְ can also function temporally. Thus, the translator used a temporal preposition, rather than “blindly” inserting τοῦ.
Exod 10:26 οὐκ οἴδαμεν τί λατρεύσωμεν κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ ἡμῶν ἕως τοῦ ἐλθεῖν ἡμᾶς ἐκεῖ
לֹא־נֵדַ֗ע מַֽה־נַּעֲבֹד֙ אֶת־יְהוָ֔ה עַד־בֹּאֵ֖נוּ שָֽׁמָּה
Ps 126:2 ἐγείρεσθαι μετὰ τὸ καθῆσθαι
(Ps 127:2) ק֡וּם מְאַֽחֲרֵי־שֶׁ֗בֶת
In all these examples, the prepositions are adequate parallels for each other, and the functions of each are regular in their respective languages. Thus, no Hebrew influence can be claimed for these forms. This leaves the final category of LXX infinitives, in which the form and function is similar, but evidence may point to irregular Greek syntax because of Hebrew influence.
Bibliography
Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger, eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. 28th rev. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012.
Allen, Hamilton Ford. “The Infinitive in Polybius Compared with the Infinitive in Biblical Greek.” In Historical and Linguistic Studies in Literature Related to the New Testament. Linguistic and Exegetical Studies 1. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1907.
Barr, James. The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations. NAWG, I. Phil.-Hist. Kl. 1979 11. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1979.
Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated and edited by W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich. Edited by Frederick William Danker. 3d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Bickerman, Elias J. “The Septuagint as a Translation.” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 28 (1959): 1–39.
Brock, Sebastian. “Aspects of Translation Technique in Antiquity.” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 20 (1979): 69–87.
Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, eds. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament with an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic. Oxford: Clarendon, 1907.
Büchsel, D. Friedrich. “Die Griechische Sprache Der Juden in Der Zeit Der Septuaginta Und Des Neuen Testaments.” Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 60 (1944): 132–49.
Burk, Denny. Articular Infinitives in the Greek of the New Testament: On the Exegetical Benefit of Grammatical Precision. New Testament Monographs 14. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006.
Charles, Robert Henry, ed. The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Oxford: Clarendon, 1908. Reprint, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1960.
Cohn, L., et al., eds. Philonis Alexandrini Opera Quae Supersunt. 7 vols. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1962.
Colson, F. H., and G. H. Whitaker, trans. Philo. 10 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927.
Conybeare, F. C., and St. George Stock. Selections from the Septuagint: According to the Text of Swete. College Series of Greek Authors. Boston: Ginn and Company, 1905.
Elliger, K., and W. Rudolph, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. 5th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1977.
Epictetus. Epicteti Dissertationes Ab Arriano Digestae. Edited by Henricus Schenkl. Bibliotheca scriptorum graecorum et romanorum Teubneriana. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1894.
———. Epictetus: The Discourses as Reported by Arrian, the Manual, and Fragments. Translated by W. A. Oldfather. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. London: William Heinemann, 1925.
Flashar, Martin. “Exegetishce Studien Zum Septuagintapsalter I.” Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 32 (1912): 81–116.
von Gebhardt, Oscar, ed. Ψαλμοι Σολομωντος: Die Psalmen Salomo’s Zum Ersten Male Mit Benutzung Der Athoshandschriften Und Des Codex Casanatensis. Microfiche. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1895.
Gehman, Henry Snyder. “The Hebraic Character of the Septuagint Greek.” Vetus Testamentum 1 (1951): 81–90.
Gelston, Anthony, ed. The Twelve Minor Prophets. Biblia Hebraica Quinta 13. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2010.
Glenny, W. Edward. Finding Meaning in the Text: Translation Technique and Theology in the Septuagint of Amos. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 126. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Grenfell, B. P., A. S. Hunt, et al., eds. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. 77 vols. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1898.
Holmes, Michael W., ed. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. 3d ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007.
Hewlett, E. G. W. “On the Articular Infinitive in Polybius: I.” The American Journal of Philology 11, no. 3 (1890): 267–290.
———. “On the Articular Infinitive in Polybius: II.” The American Journal of Philology 11, no. 4 (1890): 440–470.
Josephus, Flavius. Antiquities of the Jews. Translated by H. Thackeray, et al. 10 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926.
———. Flavii Iosephi Opera Omnia. Edited by Immanuel Bekker and Samuel Arianus Naber. 6 vols. Bibliotheca scriptorum graecorum et romanorum Teubneriana. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1888.
Koehler, Lugwig, and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by Johann Jakob Stamm. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones, eds. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1940.
Marcos, Natalio F., ed. Judges. Biblia Hebraica Quinta 7. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011.
Martin, Raymond A. “Some Syntactical Criteria of Translation Greek.” Vetus Testamentum 10 (1960): 295–310.
———. Syntactical Evidence of Semitic Sources in Greek Documents. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 3. Cambridge, MA: Society of Biblical Literature, 1974.
McCarthy, Carmel, ed. Deuteronomy. Biblia Hebraica Quinta 5. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007.
McLay, Timothy R. The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
Muraoka, Takamitsu. “The Infinitive in the Septuagint.” In VIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Paris 1992, edited by Leonard Greenspoon and Olivier Munnich. Society of Biblical Literature: Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series 41. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995.
Nida, Eugene A. Toward a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: Brill, 1964.
Olofsson, Staffan. The LXX Version: A Guide to the Translation Technique of the Septuagint. Coniectanea Biblica: Old Testament Series 30. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell, 1990.
———. Translation Technique and Theological Exegesis: Collected Essays on the Septuagint Version. Coniectanea Biblica: Old Testament Series 57. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009.
Orlinsky, Harry Meyer. “The Septuagint as Holy Writ and the Philosophy of the Translators.” Hebrew Union College Annual 46 (1975): 89–114.
Ottley, Richard Rusden. A Handbook to the Septuagint. London: Methuen & Co., Ltd., 1920.
Palmer, James Karol. “‘Not Made With Tracing Paper’: Studies in the Septuagint of Zechariah.” PhD diss., Cambridge University, 2004.
Polybius. The Histories. Translated by W. R. Paton. 6 vols. Loeb Classical Library. London: William Heinemann, 1922.
———. The Histories: Books 1–8. Edited by F. W. Walbank and Christian Habicht. Translated by W. R. Paton. 3 vols. Loeb Classical Library 128, 137, 138. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010.
Philo. Philonis Alexandrini Opera Quae Supersunt. Edited by Leopold Cohn, et al. 6 vols. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1896.
———. The Works of Philo. Translated by C. D. Yonge. Rev. ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993.
Rabin, Chaim. “The Translation Process and the Character of the Septuagint.” Edited by S. Talmon. Textus 6 (1968): 1–26.
Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta: Id Est Vetus Testamentum Graece Iuxta LXX Interpretes. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006.
Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th ed. New York: Hodder and Stoughton, 1923.
Seeligmann, Isac L. The Septuagint Version of Isaiah and Cognate Studies. Edited by Robert Hanhart and Hermann Spieckermann. Tübingen: Mohr & Siebeck, 2004.
Siculus, Diodorus. Diodori Bibliotheca Historica. Edited by Ludwig August Dindorf. 2 vols. Leipzig: Sumptibus C.H.F. Hartmanni, 1829.
———. Diodorus of Sicily. Translated by C. H. Oldfather, et al. 12 vols. Loeb Classical Library. London: William Heinemann, 1933.
Sipilä, Seppo. Between Literalness and Freedom: Translation Technique in the Septuagint of Joshua and Judges Regarding the Clause Connections Introduced by ו and כי. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 75. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1999.
Soisalon-Soininen, Ilmari. Die Infinitive in Der Septuaginta. AASF B 132 1. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1965.
Sollamo, Raija. Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions in the Septuagint. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae: Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum 19. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1979.
Thackeray, H. St. J. A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek: According to the Septuagint. Cambridge: University Press, 1909.
———. “The Greek Translators of the Prophetical Books.” The Journal of Theological Studies 4 (1903): 578–85.
von Tischendorf, Constantinus, ed. “Apocalypsis Mosis.” In Apocalyspes Apocryphae: Mosis, Esdrae, Pauli, Iohannis, Item Mariae Dormitio, Additis Evangeliorum Et Actuum Apocryphorum Supplementis, 1–23. Leipzig: Mendelssohn, 1866.
Tov, Emanuel. The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 72. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
———. “The Impact of the LXX Translation of the Pentateuch on the Translation of the Other Books.” In Mélanges Dominique Barthélemy: Études Bibliques Offertes a L’occasion de Son 60e Anniversaire, edited by Pierre Casetti, Othmar Keel, and Adrian Schenker. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 38. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1981.
———. “The Nature and Study of the Translation Technique of the LXX in the Past and Present.” In VI Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Jerusalem 1986, edited by Claude E. Cox, 337–59. Society of Biblical Literature: Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series 23. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987.
———. The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. Jerusalem Biblical Studies. Jerusalem: Simor Ltd., 1981.
———. “Three Dimensions of LXX Words.” Revue Biblique 83, no. 4 (1976): 529–44.
Tov, Emanuel, and Benjamin G. Wright. “Computer Assisted Study of the Criteria for Assessing the Literalness of Translation Units in the LXX.” Textus 12 (1985): 149–87.
Turner, Nigel. Style. A Grammar of New Testament Greek 4. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1976.
———. Syntax. A Grammar of New Testament Greek 3. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1963.
Waltke, Bruce K., and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990.
Wevers, John Wm., and Joseph Ziegler, et al., eds. Vetus Testamentum Graecum: Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. 23 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1931–.
Wright, Benjamin G. No Small Difference: Sirach’s Relationship to Its Hebrew Parent Text. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 26. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989.
———. “The Quantitative Representation of Elements: Evaluating ‘Literalism’ in the LXX.” In VI Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Jerusalem 1986, edited by Claude E. Cox, 311–35. Society of Biblical Literature: Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series 23. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987.
Wyckoff, Eric John. “When Does Translation Become Exegesis? Exodus 24:9–11 in the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 74, no. 4 (2012): 675–93.
No comments:
Post a Comment